Better Backyards with Gherkin Jarvis
Rob Roy your scottish granny would spin in her grave if she read your drivel.
Agribuzz with David Leyonhjelm
Time and again I have witnessed new ownership of properties in my district purchased by individuals and or companies, only to see them become degraded and run down because of either lack of understanding of the landscape or being driven by profit over sustainability.
The argument should not be focussed on saving farmers, it should be about saving good agricultural land for the benefit of the entire community. This is about long term productivity and sustainability (i hate that word), not retaining rural capitalists in their accustomed lifestyle.
The point that David misses here, is that unlike any of the other business comparisons that he makes, is that farmers are managers of a living breathing piece of dirt. A complex and continually changing landscvape that takes years to understand and longer to manage. What will be lost as these generational managers (and their Sons and Daughters) disappear may not be immediately evident, but will certainly become noticeable in the years to come. The land will still be there, my question is, what shape will it be in? To be continued......
Bushie, if you continue to read the dribble in these commentaries you will either go mad or end up as ignorant as those that infuriate you!!
Agree that local councils and other rates collectors need to take more responsibility for noxious weed and animal control, however, I for one am sick of upstream neighbours that perform no control over noxious weeds thus allowing them to infiltrate my property at will. I would welcome inspectors serving them with a notice. I especially detest the attitudes of people such as the author, this has nothing to do with an invasion of your rights, its all about ensuring you are being a responsible landholder and neighbour.
What a shame that Leyonhjelm doesnt seem to know a lot more than the poor girl he criticises for getting her facts so wrong in the Choice article. they could both have done the beef industry a huge favour by researching their subjects. then again, we have a journo and a consultant involved, the results are hardly surprising!!
Yes trigger and not a whinger amongst them!!
No Rob Moore, not recruiting membership for them, getting involved though may have been a big help to your cause? No reasonable person would expect that a you beaut idea from left field delivered in an envelope by an unknown would gain immediate response. The number of issues they are dealing with on a day by day basis allows little time to deal with blow in ideas however sound they may be. There is a proven process for injecting ideas into any organisation which is a little more involved and procedural than the track you have chosen. Time consuming and frustrating as it may appear to many?
rcg; not everything we do should be about benefits, sometimes you have to do things (join advocacy groups for one) to ensure your voice is heard. Until farmers learn there is power in numbers we will, as Sam rightfully points out, flounder in the wilderness of obscurity, or worse, other groups will grab the agenda which, as we are witnessing every day, is not neccessarily to our benefit.
Logic, I concur with your comments with a minor variation. These groups 'should' strongly encourage anyone on board and 'be' accepting of all ideas...
P.S. Sam, Jock may have been more help to Ludwig if he had been in the country at the time and not swanning around South America leading a farm tour
Actually Jen you are incorrect, a tap on the head in the right spot kills em stone dead!
This was actually the method used in abattoirs for a long time, one I have witnessed on many ocassions.
Obviously Barker you have no idea of this issue, other than the rubbish put forward daily by the Greens and a few animal libbers. Far from lowering animal standards, Australia has raised them well beyond International levels and continues to lead the world in animal welfare, none more so than in the live trade. If you had actually been to those countries and personally witnessed the so called brutal slaughter methods instead of just believing the propaganda and doctered film footage you might have a credible argument. Research your topic, don't just be a lemming!
and the properties while they are here. I don't believe we can sustain ag by pumping tax payers money into it, that isnt to say that in cases of extreme exception some support can't be offered. As hard as it seems, we always recover and some depart to be replaced by those in a position to do so, the choice is not easy, succession is hard and doesn't often please everyone, but I believe many have to get past the feeling of 'we have a right' to be farmers and if we go who will replace us? Farming nowadays has become a business and we need to adjust accordingly, that entails some tough decisions
personably I dont think assistance is the answer, the old rule of business is dont buy if you cannot sustain and I dont see that should be any different in ag. The americans have been buying land in Australia for a long time especially in the north, the Koreans have had a dabble as have many others and from what I have witnessed they have come and gone on the ability to make it work or not? I wouldnt be too concerned about foreign ownership, they are business people that will not hang around if the economics are not sound. They do however usually pump large amounts of $'s into the economy
wtf, where do I start? The issues you raise are very real and of great concern to many including myself. Unfortunately in this case I think market forces will determine what happens to land prices. I believe land has become over valued which has had two main affects, it has allowed people to increase borrowings that become unsustainable if the season or comm prices go againsts them, and secondly it has put acquisition for aspiring young (or older) people to get into or expand operations. If there is a generation missed as a result, who will be around when land becomes more affordable?
Crikey BB, sounds like someone else commenting on this page.
and I think banks have lost that fact in this new world of finances we find ourselves in. If a lending institution lends on values and cash flows they have accepted they should ride out the ups and downs with the farmer, not keep changing the terms to suit their latest managers inclinations. These days they take a very active interest in annual budgets when they should be more focussed on the 5, 10 and 20 year forcasts. The other thing I have never expected is support from others when things get tough, only fair play from those I do business with.......
Bushie I have no argument in most of what you are saying. The issue I am currently witnessing is that banks are altering the way they do business, when once they stuck to producers that displayed good business models. Nowadays a change of manager in the bank can mean a clients loans can be changed significantly to the original offer, this can take the business into a compltely different scenario, which in turn can place it under pressures it hasnt been set up to deal with. My case is that banks should be more accountable to the agreements they originally committed to, farming is long term
I dont think anyone is suggesting banks have forced farmers to borrow money, they have however, made lots of money readily available in good times and against property values they accepted. Then the minute things get tough they (banks) move you into a higher credit risk rating which in turn allows them to increase the interest they are charging. This then inevitably exacerbates the tough period for the producer and in many cases the interest on interest scenario develops and we all know how that ends up. Banks should be more accountable for lending and for accepting asset values etc.
The last thing the banks want (or need) is panic about the current debt crisis in ag. They cannot be taken seriously though if they continue to deny there is a crisis. The writing was on the wall long before the live ex ban which has become a convenient tool in the blame game. Over valuation of land and the willingness of banks to lend on over optomistic cash flow budgets coupled with bad seasons and increasing overheads have created a perfect recipe for the storm that is brewing. Time to face reality before it is too late, this problem does not just belong to northern Australia, it is endemic
The glorified atmosphere these people (economists) live in.
Simple just keep increasing production to stay in business as successive governments increase red tape, allow infrastructure to decline and input costs to increase to the highest in the world (our competitors).
So Barnaby, what are you going to do about the red and green tape other than continuing to state the obvious?
Guess what tonybolony, you like everyone else actually do eat GM food!
Suggest the three respondents to this article learn to read and having done that make more considered opinions based on said information!!
Fred if you want an industry restructure I suggest industry funds it, if you want the government to fund it they will own you, wouldn't want that I bet?!
Producer, might want to have a look at Lotfeeders as an another example of a united voice, in either case both cotton and feedlot ears are relatively small and as such much easier to garner united outcomes, I bet they still engage in very robust discussions?!!
Landholders are (or should be) responsible for not only activities conducted on their own patch, but also for ensuring the do not impact in any manner their neighbors. That includes contamination, spray drift, weeds etc. No excuses, no if or buts, full stop. If you cannot conduct your desired activities under these rules you had better revisit your operations.
Please don't write to the SMH and thus give credo to this clown, it's just what he and his masters want. It's bad enough NFF has already done it, let's concentrate on the positive and not encourage this sort of drivel.
MLA are adressing animal welfare in Indonesia, you Brad, like your organisation, lack credibility and substance
Dear Victor, we could lose another 300 from CSIRO and the only difference would be less people pretending to deliver worthwhile R&D.
As for the DPI & CMA jobs lost, I doubt my farm will even notice they have gone!
Ha ha, didnt you know that global warming causes cold as well, it also causes anything that propagandists want to peddle, ignore them all, they will fade away until the next time they can come up with something alarming!!
Another waste of time, why bother?
A shame Jock didnt win pre selection he would have been a good advocate for rural and regional folk. Adam will I am sure also be a good hard working candidate and I wish him well.
Only despised by the whinging illiterate merc, the progressive producers realise the need for representation and an effective R&D and marketing body. Those that continually knock without getting involved are not worth listening to. Which category do you fit into merc, I think the answer is pretty obvious?
Actually bill you are right, Low Stress Stock Handling schools have revolutionised the handling of cattle without the use of any aids including dogs, not sure about sheep but assume it should work the same for them, works well on humans too!
Yes and I will bet that 15 of those 18 so called farms were either hobby blocks or weekenders and of the other three, two of the accidents were not work related?
Whatever the statistics, care needs to be taken when making statements as to blame and circumstance in this no care no responsibility world we seem to have evolved into.
All vehicles are dangerous and as such should be treated with respect, quad bikes are outlawed on our farm as we have decided we don't need the added responsibility, however I have seen their integral part on others farms and that's their choice, as it should be.
Obviously wouldn't fatten much on the land pictured above!!!