Recent comments by: James
Agribuzz with David Leyonhjelm
Interesting take, I can only imagine if the Government stopped funding R&D bodies that industry co-payments would also cease.
Which would arguably allow Farm Businesses to choose their own preferred level of R&D investment, in their local area.
It has to be wondered given the vast body of research which shows positive returns to agricultural R&D, and the fact it is currently under-funded whether this is really any saving at all, and the impact on industry growth.
A matter of opinion
Unfortunately Matthew you identify the problem without fully grasping the consequences. The retail food market has pushed prices to rock bottom, and there is no suggestion that this accreditation will accompany any price premium.
Thus whether it is worth it to a producer to sign up will be based on whether the loss of available markets has a significant impact on their ability to sell.
Lots of downside risk, very little upside opportunity, seems like a no brainer to not be involved.
The real problem you are ignoring is that $420m in low interest loans is really only providing 4% (16m p/y) of that in benefit to the industry (8.5% - 4.5%) whilst some cost estimates for administration are over $2m p/y)per state/territory, so from a state government point of view spending 12m for 16m benefit is extremely inefficient.
Out of the shadow
Middleman, I guess that is the problem isn't it, whilst the white paper isn't brilliant, and really doesn't contain much in the way of money once you remove loans (which the government makes money on), It is still infinitely better than what we've had with the other incompetent lot in power.
Unfortunately Joel, this is all they have to do to better a job than your mob who took the decision to stop Live Exports crippling large numbers of farmers across the country and causing certain types of animals (dorpers/damaras etc) to become unsellable overnight.
The aftermath of that decision is still being felt.
Unfortunately it's a matter of which one is less bad for Ag rather than which is actually good. Labor's opposition to GM, live export and general pandering to the left has the potential to set the state back 30 years. Whilst the Lib/Nats double talk of the strong future for agriculture whilst simultaneously cutting and running as fast as they can out of Ag R&D, and massive cuts to DAFWA will also set Ag back greatly.
Damned with either choice.
Except if they were doing checkout chicking / self stacking at 2.30am they would be getting time and a half (ie 30-35/hr) for working those hours.
I agree there are unemployed people that shouldn't turn their noses up at it, but employers need to be realistic too, if you want people you need to be competitive with market rates.
The Farmer, that's fine if you have equity in the business, but for a young employee who can realistically get $20-25/hr working at a supermarket working normal hours.
Where is the incentive to do 3am starts for the same pay?
When I was much younger I was doing 80hr weeks on cotton and maize irrigation for around $20/hr, I'd imagine wage inflation would have that same position paying between 25 and 30 right now.
GFA 76% said they were doing better off or no worse, meaning dereg has obviously worked.
So is Hallett suggesting that the Department is slashing jobs by choice, and not as a result of the massive cuts in funding that his government have given them?
DAFWA is shrinking in the areas which are actually useful, on the ground staff located in regional areas, whilst maintaining large numbers of staff in Perth.
A much more interesting (and accurate) report is that by Ross Kingwell and co out of DAFWA/AEGIC. Which takes the real data from 259 farms in WA, not ABARE estimates. http://www.nccarf.edu.au/publicat ions/broadacre-farmers-adapting-c hanging-climate
BB when RBA official cash rate is 2.5% currently not sure its 2-3% higher than rest of world... closer to 1%, and likely to be dropping at Feb.
Top Ender and Jacky hitting the nail on the head, land values decreasing are a good thing for those looking to expand or buy in.
Might be a bit of an exaggeration there Dereg, all forecasts I've seen are looking around $5.70 a bushel as the lowest it will go, but even that is $200/t and would cause significant pain.
Allowing GM wont stop those farmers who wish to hang on to TT and the $40 premium in price from doing so, plenty of evidence segregation is possible. However it will allow those who realise profit is Yield*Price-Costs, and just talking about price differentials is meaningless to make profitable decisions for their farms.
To be fair, the GRDC also fund AHRI, which has a strong focus on non-chemical methods for controlling weeds, and if looking for the "best" people to conduct chemistry research into new modes of action, not sure any AU university would be a better choice than Bayer.
Whats the point of targeting 40 plants per square metre in low rainfall, how realistic is that to industry practice. We'd be closer to targetting 20ppm2.
Others have summed it up, Shifting out of Canberra will just make it harder to get to and increase travel costs all the major research partners, for no real gain...
Bob Phelps, once again talking about things he doesn't understand. The majority of broadacre farmers in WA don't currently use GM either, but this same majority also wants access to the technology should they wish to use it to address production challenges.
Actually NoGM, you are deliberately misrepresenting the facts.
GM has been consistently proven to be no more risky than conventional varieties, in fact there is not one serious scientific body which does not consider GM safe.
Please present this peer reviewed evidence that says GM is unsafe, as I'm sure the AMA, WHO, EC, FSANZ etc would be very interested in it as they all currently declare it no more a risk than non-gm.
Considering current tariffs on grain and flour are 60% going into China, any reduction will make our grains much more competitive
Deregul8, unfortunately the thing preventing noodle wheat having the price premium required is Japanese bureaucracy, their processors have to buy it from the Japanese govt's trading arm (who sells it to them for around $1700/t), who then use the difference between 300 and 1700 to subsidise the Udon noodle wheat growers in Japan who can't compete.
This is a situation where we need politcal pressure to actually make this an open market, and wont happen without bureaucratic intervention.
John Newton, it appears you are an example of that sad state of modern life. Choosing what you want to believe and overlooking the 20000+ rigorous scientific assessments which find GM safe.
Why are you ignoring the science?
Impossible to know what %, but given they were buying both GM and Non-GM at same price can be fairly sure it contains both.
Pretty obvious,its because the Kwinana Zone is actually over-serviced currently, it is where the bulk of the small sites are which are being subsidised by the Geraldton, Esperance and Albany port zones.
Easy win for competition was to focus on Albany zone to start with, as there was limited capacity at either GTN or ESP to ship due to mining, but with the mining downturn shipping slots are opening up, meaning may soon make sense to enter GTN and ESP.
Hi Katrina, could you please provide a source from an independent survey to support your claims of 70% opposition, and "majority opposition" to live export?
Sexton Market research in 2012 found 69% of Australians supported continuing live export, whilst Essential research, also in 2012 found only 25% of people were against live export.
Both these studies suggest Australian support for the industry so I am interested in where you are getting your statistics from?
Have to agree with Paul here, ARA's have tried to astroturf submissions on this bill. Unfortunately for them they don't seem to realise that "campaign submissions" are treated as a single submission, and are given no real value.
If the drone was to mysteriously crash due to being hit by another flying piece of metal, that would be a shame.
Actaully Libertarian, GR is a choice which your support of greenpeace is denying the very people it can help.
Noone is forcing those who suffer Vit A deficiency to eat golden rice, but we would like to give them the option.
Unfortunately certain activist groups don't think these peoples lives are worth anything and object to them having this choice.
Just showing what the Greens are, a party of protest not a party that could ever be trusted to make sensible practical decisions.
There is a difference between anti-cruelty and pro animal rights. Animal Justice Party fall squarely in the "Animal Rights" camp and are made up of people with no real world experience.
Anyone that says the animals could be killed in Australia should buy them and do it, surely if it can be done and there is money in it nothing is stopping them from investing in it if they are so concerned about current markets.
Until they do so their bleating regarding Australian processing being an option should be dismissed with the disdain it deserves.
Wilkie and the usual AR mob showing their lack of knowledge as usual.
Must say I agree with Consolidated on this one. There is nothing inherently cruel about live export, unless the "social license" accompanies a significant price premium then it is simply an added cost to the producer with no real benefit.
Infact it becomes a weak point as once you have put this red-tape inplace it becomes the target of fringe groups, just look at how they have transformed the RSPCA.
RSPCA opposition to sale yards has to be the tipping point, there can be little doubt they are shifting closer to Animal Rights than Animal Welfare.