Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Food bowl or food quarry ?

By Charles Nason - posted Monday, 22 April 2013


There is an old saying about not putting the cart before the horse. The global food forum is falling into that trap. Let's get our own house in order before we try to feed the world.

The editorial says "It would be counterproductive for governments to fall back on old-fashioned protectionism to bolster agriculture and food processing". Why then have most developed countries woken up long ago to the fact that supply and demand do not deliver true cost of production to food producers and thus “subsidise” and “ protect” them. It is very obvious that the overseas interests increasingly investing in Australia's farmland are not doing it for profit but food security. We need to wake up before we lose control of our agricultural means of production. Our slogan should be, export the food, not the profits. We may become the food quarry (but not bowl) but it will not be sustainable and we will be in danger of not being able of feeding our future generations

The statement that we feed 60M people is questioned by some but we still appear to be a net exporter of most food products. However a quick look along most supermarket shelves seems to put a few questions on this belief especially when even a transport input into an imported product can put the “made in Australia” tag on it

Advertisement

Australia may still be producing food but it may not be “aussie food for aussie people by aussie farmers on aussie owned farms".

The editorial refers to "Australia’s fertile north". There may be some fertile country in the north but there are also vast areas of very poor soils. This is a very dangerous assumption to make. The soil surveys that CSIRO made many years ago (a very strategic, valuable and long sighted investment) suggest that most of the soils are poor. Why has phosphorus supplementation generated such big fertility gains?

There appears to be huge amounts of water available but the history of northern development has shown it was not that simple or easy. Why did CSIRO pull out of Katherine over 20 years ago? Why did B.R.Davidson write his book The Northern Myth 40 years ago. Why is the Ord irrigation scheme now growing mostly sandalwood? Those who forget history are condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past! Do some research first.

Mr Pratt suggests Australia has a responsibility to feed a "hungry world ". Does Australia have a moral commitment to feed the world and particularly do it below the true long term costs of production? Land is not a depreciable asset, you build it up not run it down. If we are going to feed the world, we should do it at a real profit, otherwise if we go broke we will not be even feeding ourselves – especially if our population continues to grow.

The editorial goes onto to claim that “... farmers..will gain more from free trade...”. I do not see too many gains for farmers from free trade so far and I suggest if there is any further free trade, agriculture will become overseas dominated and Australia will not benefit. Free trade has failed for farmers as it has for secondary manufacturing, and when the quarry is empty, so will be our country.

Mr Pratt refers to rich natural resources yet many of our soils are old and poor. He refers to innovative research yet much of our once world renowned R&D sector has been gutted by both of the major political parties. And as for the risk taking farmers – well they have been worn out by taking on climatic, productive, marketing, legislative and government imposed risk. Their children has learnt to avoid such a mugs game, they gravitate to greener pastures or take off farm jobs to support their hobby. Any agricultural boom will not be built on these shaky foundations.

Advertisement

There seems to be general lack of big picture thinking which Julian Cribb partly addresses. We are very vulnerable to oil shocks and to add to this we are importing diesel and exporting gas. This does not seem very smart from either an efficiency or strategic point of view. What he did not stress enough was that modern industrialised agriculture is completely dependant on fossil fuels. If we run out of these or they get too expensive, agricultural production will be dramatically reduced – a "production cliff". Many of the existing biofuels are energy negative ie it takes more energy to produce them than you get from them. It is just like playing the pokies, the more times you go around, the more you lose.

I hope the other papers to be presented show a more balanced assessment of the fragile state of agriculture in Australia and lead to some urgent remedial action.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

17 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Charles Nason is a Queensland farmer.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 17 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy