Worst drought ever

[chops_a_must]

After Monday night's Today Tonight, my industry is looking for a handout. It's a national DISASTER!

 

[2020hindsight]

After Monday night's Today Tonight, my industry is looking for a handout. It's a national DISASTER!

tell me chops - what's the suicide rate in your profession ?
- and incidentally , if you're genuine, then sure - make your case !

 

[chops_a_must]

tell me chops - what's the suicide rate in your profession ?
- and incidentally , if you're genuine, then sure - make your case !

Oh boo hoo!

Maybe if they stopped voting for a political party that doesn't invest in the health system it wouldn't be an issue.

And if you are getting depressed in the outback, move. It's pretty simple.

 

[Julia]

Hi Julia

Sorry - I forgot Realist was away! I wasn't trying to kick the boot in while he was away.

A couple of points:

1. I agree that we should not be supporting primary producers that are operating businesses that are simply not sustainable. There is no question about that.

2. Like all walks of life there are primary producers who will never make money. Their land holdings are too small, they are poor operators/managers, they are poor decision makers. These people should not continually be given support because their businesses are failing.

3. Then there are those people who are good managers, have adequately sized land holdings and are very careful with their funds. Basically these primary producers need assistance due to financial tightness brought on by the drought. Accourding to Realist and others on the forum there is no difference between farmers in Paragraph 2 and those in Paragraph 3.

4. The problem with this debate is that it is so subjective. Who makes the call " You're sustainable - here's your exceptional circumstances payment"', "you're not - sorry, please leave". It all seems too hard for Realist so he lumps all primary producers in together.

5. The example you have provided Julia seems to indicate that you have missed the point of my argument. The person in your example does not have a viable business (drought or no drought). They should not be eligible for assistance - primary producer or not. You have just provided a scaled down version of the "pineapples in Alaska" argument. In your argument you knew that a turf farm should not be established where it was set up.

6. The reason primary producers are afforded different tax status and financial assistance is in part due to the lack of control they have over their business (read - income). Their income is heavily dependent upon climatic conditions. Yes - I know all industry groups are affected by the state of the economy. Builders, hairdressers, publicans and primary producers alike - but not all industry groups are reliant upon the weather. Other industry groups have much more control over their businesses.

7. You made a comment to Hindsight questioning the need to help those primary producers that own cheap dry land out west. I'd like to clear a couple of things up at this point. Throughout the course of this thread there have been a number of assumptions made about primary producers that are not correct. These being:

*All primary producers and land holders are rich
*All producers sell livestock o/seas for top dollar.
*All primary producers operate businesses that are not sustainable
*Primary producers in western areas don't make money
*All primary producers expect handouts and a lot of it.
*Primary producers don't pay tax.

These are simplistic generalisations and just not correct. Julia, there are some extremely successful primary producers near Burke, St George, Longreach and Dimboola. Per acre these places are very cheap compared to land on the Darling Downs. They make money becasue they are of a sustainable size, they are good managers who employ sensible farming practices. The farmers there don't expect 10 feet of rain per year - their country doesn't need it. But they do expect to get 1 foot - their country needs that. People seem to have this perception that it doesn't rain in inland Australia - therefore it is always in drought. You can have a drought at Bourke just as you can have a drought in Orange.

8. The people I sympathise with are those regional areas of Australia that rely on Primary Producers for their income. There is no assistance for them. The fencing contractors, tractor dealerships etc. They are the ones that are really feeling the pinch.

9. We heard a number given at the water summit "' a 1 in a 1000 year flood"''. Who knows if that is right? Could be rubbish - but it provides the point - primary producers can make an adequate living in average seasons - yes even at Barcaldine! The only reason they are not at the moment is due to exceptional drought circumstances.

10. Please don't throw the majority of worthy primary producers in with Rice and Cotton Growers. That is just a distraction. Water wasters. You would be very surprised to see the % of rice and cotton growers recieving EC payment. Overall it would be very low - yet seems to have taken up a large part of the debate here.

Regards

Duckman

Hi Duckman

Thank you for detailed reply. I think we are now at risk of getting bogged down with misunderstandings all round.

All I was trying to say was what you have clearly stated in your Point 1 above.

I've never suggested that I thought all those generalisations you have listed by asterisks were reasonable. It would never have occurred to me to make such blanket and thoughtless statements.

All I ever wanted to suggest was that we should not - out of some misplaced sense of sentimentality or tradition - continue throwing money into unsustainable situations, and by that I mean unsustainable for whatever reason.

If Australia (and its political masters) had unlimited funds to offer to everyone who could conceivably have a need, then I wouldn't care who received assistance and for what. But as long as I'm trying to find a bed for some mentally ill person who is living on the streets, or some woman and her children who are attempting to escape domestic violence, or finding funding for someone who needs urgent transport for cancer treatment, and there is no government money there to assist them , then I will continue to be concerned about money being spent in areas where it is not going to be effective.

This is not an attempt to subvert this thread, just an explanation of why I feel there is a need to justify how money is spent. No offence to farmers or any of the trades and businesses attached to farming communities.

Julia

 

[2020hindsight]

Maybe if they stopped voting for a political party that doesn't invest in the health system it wouldn't be an issue. .

and which party is that chops? state? federal? and conversely which party would you recommend Worse than boo hoo m8 - it's pathetic

 

[Bobby]

there is no government money there to assist them , then I will continue to be concerned about money being spent in areas where it is not going to be effective.


Julia

Julia I know iv'e taken the above out of your context, but Wow its so pertinent.
I want all our resourses spent here first .
When all is fixed in Aussz ( DREAM 0N ) then we could consider giving our wealth away , the joke is thats what we're doing Now !

Bob.

 

[Duckman#72]

All I ever wanted to suggest was that we should not - out of some misplaced sense of sentimentality or tradition - continue throwing money into unsustainable situations, and by that I mean unsustainable for whatever reason.

................ I will continue to be concerned about money being spent in areas where it is not going to be effective.

This is not an attempt to subvert this thread, just an explanation of why I feel there is a need to justify how money is spent. No offence to farmers or any of the trades and businesses attached to farming communities.

Julia

Hi Julia

We are back on the same train Julia. I know we agree , sometimes Realist just takes things to the extreme. People that see things in black and white all the time frustrate me. Sorry.

The key ......which you mentioned above is....."unsustainable for whatever situation". Many farmers wrongly blame everything on the drought.

The thing that annoys me are the primary producers who continually cry "broke", put the hand out and blame the drought - when in fact they will never make money. The are on properties that will never service the debt levels. The "drought" is just a cover for weaknesses in their business structure.

Many of these operators don't try to help themselves when they do have good seasons by putting money aside in Farm management Deposits, spending money on water conveyance expenditure or off-farm assets. Their first thoughts are - "I am entitled to $$$$". I won't even mention those people receiving handouts that have full time jobs.

But water and the drought are just distractions. The big issue is the future viability of rural Australia. Like urban properties, rural property prices have spiked over the past 3 years. People cannot get anywhere near a reasonable level of return based on current commodity prices. Over the generations, fathers have passed properties down to their sons. Giving one block to A and another parcel to B. And so on and so on. After a couple of generations we have a parcels of land that used to support one family - now trying to support three families. It's not going to work. There are properties around here that are worth approximately $2M - that would have trouble providing a profit of $40000. Why the hell wouldn't you get the hell out of there and invest the money at 5% minimum?

Regards

Duckman

 

[Duckman#72]

Maybe if they stopped voting for a political party that doesn't invest in the health system it wouldn't be an issue.

I think Choppy must be referring to Queensland, Hindsight.

The Beattie Government doesn't believe in spending on the health system.........hold on, wait a minute.......that's not fair.......they've spent a truckload of the health budget on the Dr Death fiasco.

 

[Bobby]

I think Choppy must be referring to Queensland, Hindsight.

The Beattie Government doesn't believe in spending on the health system.........hold on, wait a minute.......that's not fair.......they they've spent a truckload of the health budget on the Dr Death fiasco.

 

[chops_a_must]

and which party is that chops? state? federal? and conversely which party would you recommend Worse than boo hoo m8 - it's pathetic

The federal government controls the intake of Psychiatrists.

 

[Smurf1976]

9. We heard a number given at the water summit "' a 1 in a 1000 year flood"''. Who knows if that is right? Could be rubbish - but it provides the point - primary producers can make an adequate living in average seasons - yes even at Barcaldine! The only reason they are not at the moment is due to exceptional drought circumstances.

It is possible using synthetic data generation techniques to create 1000 years of "records" of rainfall. It's not 100% guaranteed but the results are more accurate than you would think.

This process is used on a fairly large scale for water management, at least in Tasmania. Basically the Hydro runs 1000 simulations of the entire system starting from the present storage position to see how many failures (running out of water) occur.

The accepted standard in Tas being no more than 20 failures out of 1000 simulation runs. If there are more than 20 failures then some action is required - in this case running thermal power generation, buying power from Victoria etc since the issue is electricity supply from hydro generaion rather than water per se.

Why 20 in 1000? It's purely an internal standard to manage financial risk to the business and to the state's economy (given that two thirds of Tas exports are potentially at risk). You could have any standard you like - the higher the accepted probability of failure, the more water you can take from the river on average. If you only accept 1 in 1000 failure rate then you get a lot less supply from the system and more water spilled from dams in wet years - hence 20 in 1000 is simply a point where the risk / reward meets acceptably.

So it is quite possible to make a valid claim that it's a 1 in 1000 year drought if there has been some proper research done which reaches that conclusion. It's not a fact, it's an estimate, but there's a proper way of doing it. Whether or not that has been done is another matter - I suspect it hasn't and it's purely a political claim.

I think that we need to get a lot more scientific about water management in Australia. Start doing proper analysis into the operation of major systems such as the Murray. Maybe we already are but nothing is ever said about it so I suspect it isn't happening. That we have the Snowy about one sixth full going into Summer and are only now starting to panic suggests that there was a bit too much optimism and not enough proper science.

As for what we would do when a simulation produced an unacceptable chance of failure (running out of water), the options are cut demand earlier for the lowest value uses (thus limiting broader economic impacts) and cloud seeding. Why there is such an outright refusal to even try the latter is a good question in itself...

Proper river system simulations and similar strategies for other areas would be a practical means of working out which land is worth farming in the first place. For example, if crop x needs a minimum of y rain each year then it is entirely possible to determine how often that crop will fail due to lack of water whether that is due to lack of rain or lack of water available for irrigation. At some annual probability of failure, say 5 or 10%, we just decide that it doesn't make sense to grow that crop on that land.

Get the failure rate low enough and it makes sense to accept the 1 in 20 or 1 in 10 annual risk of failure. Then manage the business accordingly and there's no need for government handouts unless something truly unforeseen happens.

One very major point in the above approach is that the larger the area of land, the higher the sustainable yield per area of land. That is, if you have 10 times as much land then you get more than 10 times the annual yield (assuming geographic diversity of that land and not simply one farm 10 times bigger). So we need to be managing farms as a whole and not individual properties.

The whole of a water or hydro system is far greater than the sum of its individual parts, hence the last thing you want in water is any form of competition. Competition by its very nature precludes a system-wide approach to water management and cuts yields - exactly what we don't need. What we do need is to apply the concept of an integrated system spanning multiple catchments and storages. That way the probability of failure is reduced and yield goes up.

It works perfectly well with hydro electricity in Tasmania and urban water supply in Melbourne. Both of those systems would fail miserably without it (a point that needs to be rammed into the heads of the competition advocates who don't understand that water is valuable but doesn't actually cost much - hence nothing to save and everything to lose). Whilst it's a bigger scale, in theory at least it should work in agriculture.

 

[billhill]

The whole of a water or hydro system is far greater than the sum of its individual parts, hence the last thing you want in water is any form of competition. Competition by its very nature precludes a system-wide approach to water management and cuts yields - exactly what we don't need. What we do need is to apply the concept of an integrated system spanning multiple catchments and storages. That way the probability of failure is reduced and yield goes up.

Couldn't agree more. I was shocked to hear that future minister for water Malcomn Turnbull said to solve the water crisis we needed to privatise it. I saw a documentry on SBS about water privatisation a few weeks ago. Basically it demonstrated exactly what you said above. Prices rose and efficiency declined leading to even more problems. We need a sensible and cooperative approach to the looming water crisis whether this is a 1 in 1000 year drought or the beginnings of a new climate.

 

[2020hindsight]

...The thing that annoys me are the primary producers who continually cry "broke", put the hand out and blame the drought - when in fact they will never make money. The are on properties that will never service the debt levels. The "drought" is just a cover for weaknesses in their business structure.

Many of these operators don't try to help themselves when they do have good seasons by putting money aside in Farm management Deposits, spending money on water conveyance expenditure or off-farm assets. Their first thoughts are - "I am entitled to $$$$". I won't even mention those people receiving handouts that have full time jobs.

Duckman, We have to start defining our terms lol. Or rather EMPHASISING that we are each only talking about one sector of the bush. You and Julia seem to want to talk about the rich ones . I want to talk about the poor ones.!! (and Julia I appreciate your comments about homeless - other funding commitments etc).

You'd agree I think that your statement would come across as unfair if applied to the poor amongst the country folk . Certainly the majority of those in severely drought-affected areas. I also am not not talking about continuous handouts ad infinitum - some decisions required on which farms are sustainable / viable etc - throw in the water crisis, and a few crystal balls to guess which will be viable in future. (btw, NEXT year the rain might fall on the "bad manager" instantly turning him in to a "good manager" - maybe he's been going to night school !! - with a distinction in rain dancing!!)

But the hard question of how to get these people off when they owe the bank "motzas" if not millions. Whilst I agree that there are plenty of farmers falling in between "filthy rich" and poor as well - where some scaling would be involved, the filthy rich don't need the help and shouldn't get it. Of course I'm not talking about them.

The ones I am talking about didnt go to the Melbourne cup m8 - - their wives wearing big expensive hats looking like $1 million, (though many bushies do and good luck to them - a bit of fun for chrissake). I'm talking about the ones whose wives wear hats with corks around the edges, and looking like TWO MILLION !!! lol.

I don't see these bushies down at the casino spending thousands after a bit of rain - although maybe they take their wife into town once every six months to buy a pair of sexy nickers lol.

And maybe the stats of the unemployment handouts in the cities could be put up for comparison.

This one from a previous post :- obesity is allegedly costing Australia $4billion per year - (how they work that out is anyone's guess, sounds like an inflated figure to me - Now Im willing to bet that there's only a small percentage of country folk contributing to that sum as well. For a start there arent (m)any doctors to go to in the first place, ill or otherwise.

And chops - these people are too damned stoic to go a pshychiatrist even if there was one around - and they'd get a guilt complex about the petrol they used to drive the 100km to town to get this alleged help. As this old bloke said to me the other day - "WHAT to talk to some bludy shrink!! - who do you think I am? Marilyn Monroe?" . They'd prefer to talk to their mate down the road - they've already loaded up the family scene with enough stress - a quiet chat over the fence chewing a stick of grass (if they can still find one).

Hell, I've been in business in the city - one day I sat down and realised that even if I won $500,000 in the lottery, I was still in trouble. If I won $1,000,000 I would've been ok. Fortunately with a mixture of
a) being approached for buy out
b) some awkward discussions with the bank manager, and
c) doubling my mortgage I got out of it .
You wanna know why I say I'm broke lol. That litle phase in this adventure called life! I didnt ask for handouts as you say. BUT this isnt about me. I'll be ok no question. (especially if I hang around this ASF - and read and learn - EVEN maybe win the $50 tipping competetion !!! - and then the world is my OYSTER lol)

Just hope the country folk can have the opportunity of similar
a) , b), c) , and probably
d) some consideration from city folk that Australia's countryside is sinking financially - just like the artesian water table.

But as you say chops, "boo hoo" - and as you say, your profession is also in a crisis / dimemna - who nose , maybe even a downturn!!! Or your bright (yellow) idea "just leave" - not that easy m8.

 

[2020hindsight]

Smurf, You'll agree Im sure that any projection into the future is an "extrapolation into the unknown". Always frought with inaccuraciies. Whether its a 1 in 1000 or 1 in 980, it's serious.
And I agree - Turnbull isn't the ideas man I was hoping to see in charge. Bludy ex-banker ! lol.

 

[Aussiejeff]

Smurf, You'll agree Im sure that any projection into the future is an "extrapolation into the unknown". Always frought with inaccuraciies. Whether its a 1 in 1000 or 1 in 980, it's serious.
And I agree - Turnbull isn't the ideas man I was hoping to see in charge. Bludy ex-banker ! lol.

Hmm... A lot of people seem to be of the mind that if this is a 1 in 1,000 year drought, then surely next year should see the dams overflowing. Well, if climate change is REALLY upon us, what are the chances of this "1 in 1,000 years drought" happening again next year and the year after etc ... IE becoming THE NORM???

So, here's some food for thought...

Figures from the Murray Water Authority from 6 Nov so actually a bit worse by now:

HUME DAM at 10% and falling by 1% a week. Less than 3 months till empty....

DARTMOUTH DAM (which feeds Hume Dam) at 43% and falling at 2% a week. Less than 5 months till empty...

BLOWERING DAM 31% and falling at 1% a week. Less than 8 months till empty.

Those are three of the largest water supplies in the system. All the other minor dams combined only make up a small fraction of those three.

Currently, the outflow from Dartmouth dam is at MAX. The Mitta River is running a banker to try and slow the rate of fall from Hume dam. But it is failing to top up Hume dam even at the current extreme outflow rate! Hume dam has reduced it's outflow but I believe is forced to maintain near the current rate to satisfy demand downstream as far as Adelaide... without the flow, Adelaide would be in serious trouble.

The much vaunted back-up of the Snowy system which is supposed to provide a minimum amount for town's drinking water needs along the Murray system in case of failure of the Dartmouth and Hume dam systems is shrinking daily...

Meanwhile, pollies both state and federal spout hot air about who gets what 'value' from water 'rights'. They will make some decisions around December? Well, Hume dam will run dry shortly after. And Dartmouth by around Feb/March - given the annual rainfall expected for now until April, the odds are VERY MUCH in favor of this scenario coming to pass.

Meanwhile, pollies both state and federal will continue to spout hot air about who gets what 'value' from water 'rights'. They'll be wringing their hands worrying about how all this is going to hurt their election chances... well STUFF 'EM! They've had years of advance warning and done bugger all to ease the situation. I suppose it will be too much to ask that they will have the collective will to sacrifice their egos and REALLY DO SOMETHING POSITIVE.

Sigh....

We shall all just have to grin and bare our asses in the meantime I s'pose...

Cheers? I think not..

'Parched' Aussie

 

[chops_a_must]

And chops - these people are too damned stoic to go a pshychiatrist even if there was one around - and they'd get a guilt complex about the petrol they used to drive the 100km to town to get this alleged help. As this old bloke said to me the other day - "WHAT to talk to some bludy shrink!! - who do you think I am? Marilyn Monroe?" . They'd prefer to talk to their mate down the road - they've already loaded up the family scene with enough stress - a quiet chat over the fence chewing a stick of grass (if they can still find one).

There's not much you can do if people do not want help.

 

[nioka]

Hmm...

HUME DAM at 10% and falling by 1% a week. Less than 3 months till empty....

DARTMOUTH DAM (which feeds Hume Dam) at 43% and falling at 2% a week. Less than 5 months till empty...

BLOWERING DAM 31% and falling at 1% a week. Less than 8 months till empty.

.

'Parched' Aussie

Look at it this way. If the dams weren't there the situation would be much worse.
THE ANSWER.. BUILD MORE DAMS It always rains at the end of adry spell.

 

[2020hindsight]

Look at it this way. .......It always rains at the end of adry spell.

And the darkest hour is just before dawn ? hope your rite N

 

[123enen]

"Citrus growers advise that frost and poor weather will cause the second lowest valencia orange crop in 20 years this season".

The first reaction for most would be "poor farmers". You guys fall for it all the time. What are the consequences of this reduced crop?
-----------------------------
The Australian Citrus Growers' director, Kevin ****, says world parity prices have nearly doubled.

"Compared with last year's $80 and now it's nearly up around $200, $180 at the moment, so that's worldwide, so we're just monitoring that, but it's one of these swings and roundabouts, growers didn't harvest fruit last year and we are now in an under-supply situation," he said.

They will make "compensatory" money .......subsidised by the consumer again.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200611/s1785273.htm

 

[123enen]

Vice-chairman Kevin **** said the 2005-06 Valencia crop used for fruit and juice would be just 207,000 tonnes, a 26 per cent reduction on last year.

Prices per tonne now range between $180 and $200 ”” a significant contrast to the $80 per tonne from previous seasons.
------------------------------------------
A 26% crop reduction BUT a whopping 150% cost increase.

"Poor farmers"



http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...zes-annual-crop/2006/11/08/1162661757229.html