When somebody is down on their luck they are fair game for getting a cheap swipe. Drought continues [in Australia] and so the rural community are in the gunsights. It is the farmer's environmentally unfriendly land management practices that are contributing to global warming, so it is said . It might never rain again! Repent and implement green-friendly practices (shoot the stock and plant native trees) and all will be well!
The drought is continuing despite the earlier predictions that a La Nina is with us and should have brought good winter rains. Obviously man-made global warming.
Unfortunately folklore highlights the 1982-83 El Nino when Malcolm Fraser called an early election during a drought, he lost the election to Bob Hawke and immediately the drought broke with good late autumn and winter rains. Bob Hawke was thenceforth recognised as having divine qualities.
The truth is rather more prosaic. El Nino droughts often break in autumn as they are followed by a rapidly developing La Nina, but not always. If the break does not come in autumn then the next likely period is late spring after the equinox. The current La Nina commenced as a rather weak event but is gathering strength. The Climate Prediction Center in Washington is backing its development. There has been a very active summer monsoon over Asia reflecting the benefits of the La Nina event. A late spring break for Australia after the equinox remains a good prospect.
Rather than further scaring the rural communities with fairy-tales about man-made global warming our communitiy leaders would do better to acquaint themselves with useful knowledge about climate and its prospects and reassure the farmers and their families that climate is only following a well-worn cycle. It would seem that government assistance is available as support and the prospects for rain are not hopeless. Life on the land is tough and survival depends on optimism grounded in fact, not pessimism enhanced by fairy stories.
Bill Kininmonth
Jennifer Marohasy took this photograph yesterday (September 26, 2007), it was one of many failed winter wheat crops that she saw north of Dubbo in central western New South Wales
I think we all agree its complex and it must not be forgotten farmers have rewarded society with cheap plentiful food for hundreds of years. I agree sadly there needs to be rationalisation and this is happening on mass. In saying that you would be hard pressed to meet a retired farmers who has regretted leaving the land. The regret may come when we try to find the human resource base to farm these old world cropping zones with new world food systems (perennial, legume based). You've generally got a 4-5 year lead in to production at a time when the world needs all the food feedstock it can get.
Deregulating the wheat market is the most logical first step to remove cross subsidization of efficient farmers with less efficient farmers. But that is another story ...
Food production may be essential but not everyone has to do it - it's still a business decision. Think of the Goyder line in South Australia - there comes a point where growing of crops (wheat) becomes increasingly unreliable as you go further north. Think of what you're saying - "corporate farms not willing to take a risk on wheat production". WTF !!
There is a point where propping up production doesn't pay. Yep I could go "cornies' instead of "wheaties" if I had to.
Remember all the Federal support does is put some food on the family farm table, keeps the lights on and gets the kids to school. It's subsistence stuff.
There is still a lot of non-wheat agricultural production that could be done in our north. And some of it is clever thinking - e.g. cotton in the Ord is now grown out of the peak insects summer season.
I'm not totally disagreeing with you Aaron but suggesting how long would you persist in a situation that delivered poor returns year after year.
You ask how do you do it? Hard call.
Any climate proof farm really needs off-farm non-agricultural-related diversified income, and the sector needs tax mechanisms that level out income and optimise decisions on better things than tax year boundaries. Tax reform?
For the farming/grazing/ranching itself you need to try to escape climate impacts spatially - geographically - operations in SW WA, the Ord and Argentina?? Probably needs partnerships to bring off - requires business skills.
How much you can use genetics, GM and agronomic technology is pretty difficult if it doesn't rain. It's simply a fundamental issue.
Quarantine for a "global Kidman" ? Well maybe you don't import the food products but you can still sell them on the world market.
Perhaps easier to start up a new panel beaters.
🙂
You can't grow wheat up north. You can grow corn. Once again, are you willing to give up your Wheaties?
With all due respect the local panel beater provides a dispensible service. Food production is essentia, you'll likely not do it yourself and importable surpluses may not even be available in the future. The first thing exporters do in tough times is turn the grain drain taps off eg Ukraine and Russia atm. Hence the recent rally in wheat prices to record highs ...
Corporate farms will not be willing to take the risk of wheat production. Why do you think the commodity is currently produced by close to a 100% private base? I certainly wouldn't invest in a wheat producing company at this stage of the global climate cycle. Safer ways to play the boom. Eg own fertilizer producing stocks like Incitec Pivot. In October 2007 it was $25 today it hit $88/share. Potash Corp in north America has been an amazing story also like all global fertilizer producers. The number one performing equities sector since October last year.
All the Feds have done is highlight to the sheeple they (John and Peter) are not to blame for food inflation just as people start to notice hyperinflation on their grocery bills (ie prior to an election)! I agree the money is misdirected but don't discount how perilously linked your well being is to the fact that farmers take risks.
My argument is simple. We need to grow different crops. Pour money into that fascilitation process and identify the individuals in the farming sector who have solutions to our food woes. One thing is for sure, the current course of debate is infantile and non productive! Tell me how the land base can produce a staple food into the future in a drought resiliant and a less fossil fuel dependent manner ... I'm all ears
Well some have a view that drought relief perpetuates bad management and land degradation. Encourages holding on to animals instead of selling. Holding on in bad droughts gets one deeper in debt, more personally stressed and flogs the landscape bare.
Rationalist would say "go north", "import it".
Should we prop up rust belt southern Australia? Why can't Australians form global operations that straddle continents - i.e. a global Sidney Kidman. Why not try to escape climate variation spatially in South America? Too risky?
And when the local panel beater falls on hard times nobody bails them out. Too many staff at the shopping centre dept stores - sack'em.
Just because you like farming means you should get special treatment - is it not just yet another business decision in the eyes of economic rationalists?
Would larger corporate farms be more efficient than family operations. Heresy I hear you say.
You need to be WELL AWARE of the other side of the debate. This is not necessarily my view but backslapping each other is delusionary.
See what the Feds may have done if not an election year?
And why to we have a tax year boundary that lies on the time when El Nino or La Nina may kick in. What a time to make a sell/buy decision.
That may be the case Luke but who will take the risk to produce food, the risk that society needs taken considering city folk are more inclined to want to eat bread, meat and milk than a diet rich in sandalwood nut components? Farmers are trying to meet the demands of the market after all. A pretty essential market at that. Commodities in fact you expect to be consumable on demand. So where's the food going to come from and at what point do consumers accept they need to stop eating the crops that are becoming harder to grow. Because at the end of the day, if Australia is short in this market, importable surpluses are also tight.
I bet you still had toast for breakfast ... comeon Luke! And you never thought about the drought or the plight of a producer when you enjoyed that jam laden piece of heaven.
So by all means criticise farm handouts but do not forget it is the hand that feeds you and the emotional anguish and personal cost that goes into you never having to think about a piece of toast being you last.
What landholders need is direction on new production systems and hence market signals that you folk demand these new foods, eg sandalwood nuts which have all the 3 major food components of oil, protein and carbs so you can supply all three market segments (in the food manufacturing sector). Also appreciate that the more sustainable cropping systems are perennial and have a large lead in time to production (at least 4-5 years). Its a tough gig to get through 4-5 years without income and many farmers should have been prompted to invest in these future cropping systems when they had surplus equity, not waiting until a brick wall had been hit as Govt always waits for.
Pirate Pete - I might agree but there are many in the current government that would take an entirely economic rationalist line and say "no subsidies". 100% self reliance. The current support is for 1 in 20 events beyond normal management. The problem is that since 1991 many places have had 200 years worth of support.
Also "drought prone" itself is a very incorrect assumption - any area has a range of climate. You can't wish a semi-arid zone into a high rainfall zone. You need to manage the variation and median rainfall set by the location.
And do we endlessly support southern Australian agriculture when perhaps we should move to northern Australia. You need to to know when to support, when to invest and when to retreat !
Sinking endless money is not a good solution. Interesting analysis on debt reduction but many producers drought feed and get into big trouble when droughts don't break and markets collapse.
Landholders need off farm income, income equalisation methods and a way of improving the decisions on flows of money on tax year boundaries.
It seem as if nobody contributing to this thread understand how Australian agriculture works in the drought prone areas of Australia.
During the drought in Queensland in the late 1990's, I was working with one cattle producer who ran up a debit of about 7 million dollars to the banks. In the year that the drought broke, they reduced their debt by about 2 million dollars. In one good year.
The dollars offered for relief by the government is very small in comparison, but it is crucial.
Food is a national strategic issue. There is a saying in defence that the country that controls the food supply controls the world. The corollary is that if a country gives up its capacity to feed its people, it lends itself to being vulnerable to a hostile takeover.
It is critical to national food security that the federal government maintains our food security, whatever it costs. There is no upper limit on cost in this case.
Furthermore, the contribution of agricultural exports to our balance of payments far exceeds the drought assistance on offer by the govt, in fact it is relatively peanuts. If our agricultural system fails, we will be in very serious economic trouble.
PP