David Tribe writing about the latest issue of the Australian Farm Policy Journal and quoting Executive Director Mick Keogh notes there has been little real growth in total annual agricultural research and development investment levels in Australia since the 1980s, and the level of government investment in agricultural research and development is falling.
"Given the extended lag times that are known to occur between agricultural R&D investment and subsequent farm productivity growth, this raises doubts about the ability of Australian farmers to maintain the high levels of productivity growth in the future that will be necessary to remain competitive in global markets," Mr Keogh said.
The focus on production research has been replaced to some extent with a greater emphasis being placed on environmental issues.
For Blair, Schiller and Thinksy:
The complete cure for deconstructive impulses
Sokal's antiPoMo cure
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/infocusprint.php?num=5&subject=Science%20Studies
Naturally I have the hard copy versions.
Pundit G.
If it was a male antechinus in rut then he's not long for this mortal coil anyway.
I used to have a great regard for biodiversity until even that was converted into an instrument of oppression. I still have the working drawings for a range of artificial tree hollows that the fuzzies actually prefer over natural ones. But I trashed and torched the prototypes and the major elements of uniqueness in the design will remain in my noggin until we get a government without sleaze or I succumb to alzheimers. There is also some good stuff on boosting animal density and maintenance of nutrition in drought. But that, too, is in the time capsule with stacks of observations by the old man and other forest dwelling specimens.
Its a pity really, but I guess the public gets the wildlife they deserve.
Motty can you kindly tell me whether I would be wrong to contend that you don't give an antechinus's arse about biodiversity, that you only care about property rights for your trees (& yr mates')? Tell me that would be grossly incorrect, then tell me why.
Dear Ian
I certainly sypathise with your view that one sector of the Australian community ie Qld graziers has been forced to bear an inequitable share of the burden of reducing carbon emissions via restictions on land clearing.
Ironically the original arguments in favour of restrictions had nothing to do with minimizing greenhouse gas emissions. It was all to do with preserving biodiversty!
But unfortunately that is how the political process works and unless you are prepared to agree with the establishment of some overarching non-elective body we are left with some second or third best solution.