I haven’t read it all yet but will do so when the silly season peak has passed.  I suggest anyone else interested in discussing vegetarianism (and veganism) chosen for moral reasons, also reads it.  Though written 35 years ago it remains relevant.

The content on The Conversation is written by acknowledged experts in academic and research fields – it’s straight from the horse’s mouth.  Articles are topical, often presenting a controversial point of view and argued in a philosophically logical manner - so lively discussion results.  Articles are edited by professional editors and any potential conflicts of interest are declared (although it must be said, everyone has personal bias to some degree, however objective they may believe they are).  Articles are evidence rather than opinion based.  The aim is obviously to encourage scientists and researchers to explain issues and points of view direct to the public, something that the scientific and academic communities have needed to improve.  Interesting, thought provoking and well argued articles generate good quality conversation involving people who really do know what they’re talking about, well practiced in arguing a solid case based up by scientific findings (yes there is the odd animal rights extremist obsessive present on the forums, but objective debate rules the day).  Launched in March 2011, the founding organisations involved in setting up ‘The Conversation’ are UTS, UWA, Melbourne and Monash universities and the CSIRO.  Current sources of content are eight Australian universities – ANU, Adelaide University, Monash and Melbourne universities, Sydney and NSW universities, the university of Qld and university of WA.

I would encourage everyone who eats food to read Mike Archer’s ‘Conversation’ article titled:  ‘Ordering the vegetarian meal:  there’s more blood on your hands’.  Mike’s written a very persuasive article backed up by scientific research – more effective than I’ve managed to do in the years spent blogging on about the same basic premise:  vegetarians have a great impact on the planet than omnivores, because vegetarians/vegans are concentrating their food sources into one field, plant production, and cropping actually has a far greater impact on the natural environment (direct affect on native animals & microorganisms, and indirect affect on these species via the obliteration of native habitat).  Basically, vegetarian smugness regarding their diet not having harmed animals, is delusional.

The resulting forum discussion is well worth reading also.

There are other very relevant and topical articles and subsequent forum discussions relating to agriculture on The Conversation, too.  For example, ‘To feed the world, emissions must rise’, ‘Could your diet save the planet’, ‘From pests to profit, making kangaroos valuable to farmers’, ‘Time to modify the GM debate’,    ‘What is the value of an animal’s life’ and a truckload of articles regarding Australia’s live export trade.

It is of course useful to participate in the many general public forums that exist, and discuss important issues which relate to agriculture and the environment.  However ‘The Conversation’ presents a brilliant opportunity for grassroots primary producers to connect directly with university staff and research scientists, who are at the coal face influencing government and media opinion.  The Conversation discussions are not to be missed.

The patient travel schemes run by state governments to provide financial rebates for travel to essential medical appointments by remote area residents, are a bad joke.  Last time I looked, the patient transit scheme reimbursement rate for an overnight stay was $35!  Remote area residents are out of pocket thousands of dollars on travel & accommodation-related expenses by the time their baby attends the standard 6 week checkup with a paediatrician, unless they’re lucky enough to be able to travel by road to a town where there’s relatives they can stay with.  Because these children and mothers are in a remote area the standard pregnancy and follow up appointments after the birth, are far more vital than is the case for mothers and children who live within an hour or less drive of a hospital (i.e. within a fairly short ambulance ride in the event of an emergency).  In fact it is usual for anyone living a long distance from a hospital to go and live in the town where it is intended for the baby to be born, at least 2 weeks beforehand, if not 4 (the latter being a common choice for first time mothers [who've never had a test run to make sure the landing gear more or less works as it should], if there are any potential issues that surface (eg low placenta, high blood pressure or blood sugar etc) or if the mother lives in an area where roads are likely to be impassable at the time of year that the baby is due.

In total there were 15 x 30 minute episodes in the Keeping up with the Joneses tv series, plus the one hour introductory episode.  Tonight’s episode 16 was the final episode.  It revolved around Christmas, the arrival of the wet season and the birth of the latest member of the Jones clan, Jack.

Judging by the amount of comments I’ve received regarding how much people are enjoying watching Keeping up with the Joneses, it would be nice to see more episodes or a follow up programme in future years (will the tribe of Cristina’s boys expand beyond two, to four?).   The last segment in the final episode was especially well done and will inspire many people of all ages to head bush to work on a cattle station, or aspire to raising their children in the bush.  Throughout series 1 and 2 of  ’Keeping up with the Joneses’ we’ve seen little Milton and Coolibah employees riding steers and  poddies (calves), campdrafting and mustering on horseback, catching crocodiles and raiding nests for croc eggs, helicopter mustering, motorbike riding, fishing for barra, jetski riding, toad racing, bullcatching and driving roadtrains and graders.   The stuff of dreams for active boys and girls, trapped in classrooms.

In the meantime, everyone who has enjoyed watching ‘Keeping up with the Joneses’ can do some armchair travel to many of Australia’s largest and most remote cattle stations, via the best-selling coffee table style books ‘A Million Acre Masterpiece’ and ‘Life as an Australian Horseman’.  These unique books contain more than 500 colour photos taken on cattle stations in the Northern Territory (including the Victoria River District, the region where Coolibah Station is located), Western Australia’s beautiful Kimberley Region and Queensland’s remote Cape York Peninsula and Gulf, and arid Channel Country.   These cattle stations are businesses and are not open to the general public – the only way to see what they are like is to work on them, or via photographs or film.  The books are ideal Christmas gifts for anyone who is interested in Australian outback life.  Orders for 2 or more books come with a free calico carrybag and a good discount, and books can be personally signed and mailed direct to anywhere in the world.  The books also come with a money-back guarantee of satisfaction.  For more information on these outback books, visit the Book Contents page, or visit the Testimonials page to read comments from other book purchasers.  Many book purchasers have taken the plunge and started living and working on one of the cattle stations included in the books, after being inspired by the photos.

It’s much harder to locate well-explained rural blogs written by people running fulltime agribusinesses, long-term - with information on the nitty-gritty facts of large scale farming and livestock raising, environmental and agribusiness issue discussions.  (Full time) farmers work long hours most or all days of the week and are generally exhausted when they knock off.  So naturally it’s hard to find any hands-on fulltime farmers dedicated enough to voluntarily spend some of their scant spare time, writing about what they do, for no other reason than to help people unfamiliar with the industry, understand how their food and fibre is grown and encourage thought on topical issues.

However there are a few.  Here’s a few excellent rural blogs that I’ve found via some concerted digging around the internet:

• Dairyfarming – Milk Maid Marian (Marian Macdonald, Gippsland, Victoria) Excellent info on dairyfarming and explanations of issues.
• Free Range Pig farming & heritage poultry and other rare livestock breeds – Mt Gnomon Farm (Guy Robertson & Eliza Wood, NW Tasmania) Loving descriptions of their livestock combined with the practical realities of raising livestock to be eaten – different to the average ‘organic, free range’ type farmers who are specialising in odd breeds because they’re ‘cute’ - this couple are the real deal.
• Cotton growing – Tales of a Cotton Wife (Bess, Mungindi, northern NSW) Excellent info on cotton growing.
• Chook farming – Our Free Range Farm  (Andy Peverill, Cookamidgera NSW) Good explanations of the trials of chook farming.  And no it’s not like having half a dozen chooks in the backyard, only bigger.
• Grain Cropping – Nerd Farmer (Jonathan Dyer, Wimmera district, Victoria)  Wondering what your supermarket pasta is made from?  Jonathan grows it, and he explains it.

I’m still looking for a well written, informative blog similar to the style of the above farming blogs, but written by someone making a living out of Merino sheep (as distinct from non-fine wool breeds).  Given the historical significance of Australia’s production of fine wool, and the continuing uniqueness of our fine wool industry, the lack of blogs written by people living on Merino sheep properties is surprising. 

Writing good quality blog posts, regularly and long-term, with no prospect of financial or other tangible gain, is truly an act of dedication.  The rural blogging landscape is constantly changing as new farm bloggers begin, full of enthusiasm, and longer term farm bloggers find their supply of time and/or energy has depleted past the point where continued blogging is possible.

I look forward to seeing additional farming blogs written by people involved in all aspects of Australian agriculture, from horticulture and fruit growing, to fishing and forestry, crop growing and livestock raising, in different parts of the continent.  And a good blog written by someone running Merinos.  The more variety there is, the faster 2-dimensional farming stereotypes will be broken down.

It would be great to have a comprehensive list of what the government requirements are on purchasing land in all countries.  For example what are the laws regarding foreign ownership of rural land in Britain, and Eastern and Western Europe?  In the Middle East?  In India, Indonesia, and all the Asian countries in-between?  These are all regions where private citizens, companies and governments have bought up tracts of Australian food producing land.  And presumably all if not most of these countries, at least keep detailed and current records of land owned by non-citizens.

I suspect a comprehensive list of foreign ownership laws in relation to rural land, in other countries, would show Australia is one of the least restricted on the planet.  Why do we give it away?

Lyn is the South Australian state finalist for Australian of the Year.  If you can bear it, read about the ‘courageous campaigner’ on the Australian of the Year website.  Curiously, for a rural publication, almost all the comments  regarding the Weekly Times article on the subject, sing Lyn White’s praises, and the poll is currently running heavily in favour of ‘for’.  Clearly, animal rights activists have far more time to spend on social media grapevines, than the rest of the population, who are probably too busy earning a crust (mostly in private enterprise).

Vote now  if you think Lyn White is not a suitable candidate for Australian of the Year, lest the Federal Government make yet another miscalculation regarding the real opinion of the general public.

Personally I do not believe that someone who has ignored the detrimental effects of their actions on thousands of people, domestic livestock and native flora and fauna, is a suitable candidate for Australian of the Year.

A quick summary:

- The beginnings of the Cargill company were in Iowa in 1865 and approximately 100 descendants of  William W. Cargill and John H. MacMillan own Cargill today.

- Cargill is the largest privately owned company in the U.S., with $119.5 billion (USD) in revenue for the most recent (US) financial year.  If publicly listed, Cargill would be ranked number 18 on this year’s Fortune 500 list of companies.

- There are 56,000 Cargill employees in North America, but also 32,000 listed in the South Pacific (which presumably includes Australia), 21,000 in South America and 17,000 in Europe.  There are also 4,000 Cargill employees in Africa and the Middle East.

- 60% of earnings come from outside the USA.

-Cargill is primarily a commodities trading company.  Cargill doesn’t actually own any farmland or produce any food themselves, other than a couple of large oil palm plantations in Indonesia.  “Their game is: extremely efficient, high volumes, low margins, and just being smarter and quicker than anybody else,” says the deputy director of the Stanford University Centre on Food Security & the Environment, Wally Falcon.

A classic quote:

‘Whatever you ate or drank today — a candy bar, pretzels, soup from a can, ice cream, yogurt, chewing gum, beer — chances are it included a little something from Cargill’s menu of food additives.’   I’m pleased to say none of those things are on my menu today – and most are rarely or never part of my daily diet.  Because here’s the next sentence:  ‘Its $50 billion “ingredients” business touches pretty much anything salted, sweetened, preserved, fortified, emulsified, or texturized, or anything whose raw taste or smell had to be masked in order to make it palatable.’  Enough to put you off processed food for life, I’m thankful I don’t EVER go to those imported hamburger places.  Bring on the fresh vegetables and grassfed beef and lamb!  And, as of the other day, we now produce our own Australian chocolate, produced by Daintree Estates.  (Daintree cocoa is a genuine farmer’s co-operative; and the chocolate is made from Australian sugar and dairy products, as well as home-grown cocoa beans.)

The article has a very interesting piece on Cargill’s involvement in Vietnamese farming, in particular, the burgeoning cocoa farming industry.

But of course the part of the Cargill article that is of most relevance to Australians, is a small paragraph down near the bottom of the article, concerning Cargill’s purchase of the Australian Wheat Board (AWB) for $1.3 billion.  Cargill CEO Greg Page is quoted as saying:  “We’re in Russia, we’re in the Ukraine, we’re in Canada, we’re in the U.S., we’re in Argentina, and we just didn’t have as vibrant a footprint there” (prior to the purchase of the AWB).

Great news for Australian wheat growers – NOT!

It’d break your heart to read this, and having been involved in the setting up of the AWB, all those decades ago, I’m just glad my grandfather has not been around to see the AWB so-called ‘wheat for arms’ scandal.  Which was so clearly instigated and stoked along by vested-interest overseas grain trading competitors who’d no doubt not think twice themselves about doing whatever it took, behind closed doors, to get the deal done.   That’s how business usually operates, both large and small, and anyone who believes otherwise is exceedingly naive.  And the AWB so-called ‘scandal’ is particularly galling, given that America is the world’s largest manufacturer of arms (i.e. not in a position to honestly jump up and down about an Australian business risking the safety of U.S. citizens and soldiers…when the U.S. has been managing  that themselves, unhindered, for many years).  Australia’s single desk wheat trading board was set up decades ago by Australian grain farmers to enable them to pool their produce and negotiate a better price from grain traders on the world market – who otherwise handed smaller producers crumbs in return for their grain (read Steele Rudd’s ’On our Selection’ for a reminder of how it used to be – heartbreaking, giving away the very best crops for a pittance).  Hmmm I don’t suppose any of the Cargill billions would have been acquired by buying grain for unconscionably low prices and selling for extortionately high, during times of drought and food shortage?

Well worth keeping an eye on.  And it pays to remember – to help ensure Australia continues to have a plentiful and good quality supply of food into the future, as much as possible, buy Australian grown produce, produced by Australian farmers and farming companies.

PS:  Cargill’s Australian website features an image of Uluru, which is an odd choice, given the Cargill Australia headquarters are in Melbourne,  and all their Australian operations are in farming areas south of a line drawn from Brisbane to St George then Perth.  And there’s absolutely no grain growing or farming in the red sandy country in the vicinity of Uluru.  Although Melbourne’s Flinders Street Railway Station does feature in a couple of images – it’s not far from Cargill’s Southbank headquarters.  The map of Cargill’s Australian operations is indeed a wild one, with the most obvious gaffes being locating Toowoomba considerably further west than St George, in fact Toowoomba is marked on the map right about where Charleville is; and Parkes has been located right about where Lake Mungo is.  Tip for companies who set up a business in another country - it helps foster an image that you care, and have some knowledge of what you’re talking about, if you’ve bothered to get your website maps approximately correct, and include relevant, local images.

As an island country, Australia is in the envious position of being able to police border crossings relatively easily.  Australia has to date been free of terrible diseases such as Foot and Mouth and Rabies, insects such as Screw Worm Fly, and plant disease such as Dutch Elm Disease.

But this is clearly largely due to luck, not good management.  Every year seems to greet the new arrival of at least one new plant disease or verminous  insect species; from fire ants to elm leaf beetles to exotic species of seaweed.  These introduced species cost millions of dollars and years of effort to eradicate, and often can’t be eradicated at all – causing permanent environmental harm, which cannot be quantified.

All it would take is for one person to successfully smuggle in an animal carrying Foot and Mouth disease or rabies, and our population of susceptible animals would be decimated.  And our economy.

A $6,000 fine?  Is this some sort of bizarre bad joke?   And who gives a rat’s toss as to whether the person responsible for risking the health of our native and domesticated animals, aspires to be a doctor!   As if that gives them some sort of brownie points towards being considered a better human being than someone who does not aspire to be a doctor.  Even if he is not studying to be a doctor due to prestige or a good income, someone who has deliberately smuggled in two animals is demonstrating a disregard for laws and disregard for the welfare of others.   And they deliberately lied on their signed customs statement, when entering Sydney.  Prime medical practitioner material?  I think not.

Any non-citizens should be immediately deported upon being found guilty of smuggling in live or dead animals, or plant material, and barred from ever returning.  And for Australian citizens – how about a mandatory jail term, set at a minimum of 6 months.

It is an absolute tragedy that the risk to all aspects of Australia (environment, economy, people) from illegal importations, is not taken more seriously.  Our pathetic quarantine breach punishments are embarrassing.

As for the person who tipped off the authorities regarding the illegally imported Peruvian monkey and tortoise, 3 weeks after the animals arrival in Townsville - they should be rewarded – we should all thank them.

There is virtually no objective analysis and in-depth discussion of the figures in our mainstream media.  Nor discussion of the fact that the figures appear to be approximations, at best.  Rural organisations have pointed out the figures are not detailed enough to be of any real use and there is no regular recording of property owner citizenship details, so foreign ownership trends cannot be accurately identified.  And that there is no analysis of the size of the agricultural businesses concerned, so it is utterly pointless and meaningless for the ABS to state:  ’99% of Australian businesses are entirely owned by Australians’.  Oh yes, and just how many tiny hobby farm-type properties were lumped in with the multi-million dollar company-owned businesses?

And how has ownership been calculated when the land owner is a company, with both overseas and Australian shareholders?  This issue applies to some of Australia’s largest pastoral companies – for example, the AACo and Terra Firma.  It appears about as much accuracy as we get is a statement saying a certain percentage have some degree of foreign ownership.  It could be 10% foreign owned/90% Australian owned, or vice versa.

Regarding objective analysis of the figures.  I am astonished that a number of journalists and others believe these figures are no reason for concern.

The major factor that seems to be overlooked by all and sundry is a) we have very little good quality agricultural land, and b) if someone has, for example, a 10% stake in something that is not homogeneous throughout, it is imperative to analyse whether that 10% is of the very best quality, the worst quality, or a mixture.  Just as is the case with urban residential land purchased by overseas owners, I suspect analysis would show the majority (if not all) overseas owners have bought up slices of our very best quality (most valuable, scarcest etc) land.  In other words, for example, foreign ownership may only be 10% of all our agricultural land, but it could well be 80% of the top 10% quality land.

In the case of agricultural land ownership, I suspect a thorough analysis would reveal that it’s a case of quality being more significant than overall quantity.  Classic examples of ‘cherrypicking’ the very best - the ownership by Argentinean John Kahlbetzer’s Twynham Pastoral Co, of numerous blue-ribbon historic wool/cropping properties throughout the Murray-Darling river system in New South Wales.  And 7th Day Adventist ownership of the exceedingly valuable Kooba Station, at Darlington Point (south of Griffith, NSW).   In land area terms, a relative small percentage.  But if New South Wales farmland was graded into categories according to the levels of productivity (quality), it would show that a disturbingly significant percentage of the very best agricultural land available in NSW, is owned by people who are not Australian citizens.

For this reason, this ABS survey is virtually useless, and one is left with the impression that those responsible for running the survey wouldn’t know an arid 6″ variable rainfall plot flat out running 1 flea per hectare even in a good year, from in incredibly productive and intensely farmed river flat on the outskirts of Sydney’s southern suburbs.  Because they’ve lumped the two in together.

The fact that this appears not to have been addressed by anyone writing on the subject, smacks of either lazy journalism or simply a lack of understanding of Australian agriculture – or both.

Two of the basic figures provided in the ABS survey are of utmost concern.  One is the fact that 91% of Australian agricultural water entitlements are 100% Australian owned.  This means that 9% of our agricultural water entitlements are owned/part owned by people who do not live here.  That’s almost 1 gigalitre out of every 10, doesn’t belong completely to Australian citizens.  In a continent that is often described as the driest on the planet, with undeniably the most unreliable rainfall (to the great detriment of our agricultural productivity and rural living standards), that figure should be of great concern.  I don’t believe anyone other than Australian citizens should own Australian water rights.  We take our food and water security for granted at our peril.

The second issue of major concern is the level of overseas ownership in the Northern Territory, which is given as 24% of NT agricultural land as having ‘some level’ of overseas ownership. 

The ABS, in their infinite wisdom, have lumped together ‘sheep beef cattle and grain farming’ into the one category.  It is this category that has the highest level of foreign ownership.  Given that our cattle stations are the largest in the world, generally can run only cattle (no grain cropping, ever, and no sheep these days), and that most Territory agricultural land – where there is the highest level of overseas ownership – is used for running beef cattle; and there are plenty of regions that successfully run sheep but could never grow grain crops, creating a category that combines cattle, sheep and grain growing, for the whole of Australia,  is next to useless for anything much.

About the ownership of Australian agricultural water entitlements, the ABS report says: ”The Northern Territory reported no agricultural water entitlements for agricultural purposes being owned by businesses with any level of foreign ownership. ” Yet the ‘Beef cattle sheep and grain growing’ category had the highest level of Australian ownership.

The fact that a $231 million and above purchase is the point at which the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) purchase approval is required, is a joke.  Are we stupid, or what?  As it stands today, buyers from other countries could at least in theory, buy up a whole state, piece by piece, and still not come under any scrutiny (let alone control) by government authorities.

Best of all, it appears the ABS report was based on a survey filled in by property managers or owners:

“The Australian Land and Water Ownership Survey (ALWOS) was a large survey, with a sample of 11,000 agricultural businesses which represented the Australian farming industry. The businesses reporting they were not fully Australian owned may have been either partially or entirely foreign owned and, as such the survey provides information about business, land and water entitlements by the extent of their foreign ownership.”

Well it must be completely accurate then, if the property owners/managers were the ones who provided the ownership details!  Surely we need a long term, Federal Government-run property ownership register?  So that the ABS doesn’t have to rely on self-filled out surveys filled out by people who may have a vested interest in answering in a particular way?