Loading Rice in Rverina

I don't think that little Fergy would even qualify as a garden tractor on rice farms today,

 

Rice is just about a thing of the past in Australia

A huge change from been the biggest rice producer in the world 25 years ago

Thank you green movement for all your wisdom

Paul

It would appear that Australian rice production is as strong or stronger than ever. It has always been a heavily fluctuating crop.

Fluctuations are heavily dependant on water allocations which is only proper. You can grow strawberries in the Sahara with enough water so if you are going to grow crops such as rice and cotton in areas not naturally self sustaining for those crops by taking ground or surface water, over and above rainfall, from natural sources it has to be controlled. Still they are doing OK on average.

This is from the Rice Board charts. The imports are for long-grain rice which we do not grow here and the exports are for our medium and short grain rice. Australia has the highest yield of rice per acre showing how efficient Australian ag scientists and farmers are. This only shows exports of Australian rice not the vast amount Australians scoffed on the domestic market from our Riverina farms on top of the export figures.

 

That chart is from 3 years ago but the latest figures from NSW Rice below (Where 90% of Australian rice is grown) says we produced so much last year along with everyone else that there was a mini-glut and prices fell.

 

Water politics are pretty complicated and plenty of people have made more money out of selling water rather than growing stuff with it.

Steve

Any allocation system be it taxi licences, fishing catch allocations or water allocations create a natural market. The best government can do is to see the allocated water/fish or whatever eventually reaches its intended purpose/destination.

Buying and selling allocation control is an administrative problem for regardless of what is going on with wheeling and dealing only the released amount can still be used. The purpose of sustainable control is still met. There must be the ability to on-sell at least some of your allocation because there are a hundred reasons why it may not be used eg different crop, heavier rain than normal, business problems. If you do not have that in place those who have the ability to use more will not get it and production will be lost.

The only other way is to have unused allocation returned and auction it off creating a market for giant agricultural organisations who can outbid any smaller landowners. At least the present system allows the little blokes top be compensated instead of the entire payment going straight into government coffers. Having said that, the little blokes must come up with verifiable crops over a period. If it becomes obvious they are producing little or nothing and just in the water selling business they should be cut off from allocation.

I saw a interesting TV show about water licenses in NSW. Years ago, the NSW govt, issued gratuitous water grants to some of the large private farms in Western NSW. Years later, with all the changing  environmental considerations , the same govt. Is buying the licenses/grants back at enormous cost . These landholders are, in effect, paid millions to just sit on their land and do nothing, they make a fortune selling their water back to the govt. 

Just a quick wake up for those opposed to restrictions on unfettered use of limited water by cotton and rice producers. The Soviets decided they were going to turn desert into an agricultural paradise and within 50 years they sucked an entire productive sea dry. The scale of this disaster is confirmation that there must be some controls. If they got their way the Southern Queensland and Northern NSW (largely foreign owned) cotton producers would suck the Murray Darling headwaters and Lake Eyre catchment dry.

Our river flows and groundwater reserves have become greatly healthier since strong allocation control, capping of thousands of wasteful free-flow bores and government buy-back of water rights. Little to do with Greenie pressure just common sense and a matter of survival.

The Aral Sea was 68,000 sq km and always full many times deeper than Lake Eyre which is 9,500 sq km and more often than not naturally dry.

 The Aral Sea dried up primarily because the Soviet Union diverted the rivers that fed it to irrigate farmland, mainly for cotton cultivation. This massive diversion project began in the 1960s and caused the water level to plummet as the rivers, the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya, virtually stopped flowing into the sea. Consequently, the sea began to shrink dramatically, leading to a catastrophic environmental disaster.

 


1858

 


1960

 


2020

 

Mike

When the government introduced water allocations the properties along the rivers or using bores already had full water access as part of their landholding. They were not "given" allocations of water but were regulated in the use of the water they already owned. Everybody big or small is regulated. A property with river frontage or comprehensive bore system is much more valuable than an adjoining dry block.

The introduction of allocations recognised traditional usage but regulated the flow to meet the current weather conditions. This had to happen as the out take of water had reached disaster levels eg the dying of Menindee Lakes and total cessation of Murray Darling water flow into excessively salty Lake Alexandrina and the sea (and contamination of  Adelaide's water.)

This was not some global warming scare campaign, the rivers and lakes were dying before our eyes and simple maths easily proved that the out take was unsustainable. Some things have to be protected from waste and greed. In about 1800 there were 60 million Bison in North America, how could humans possibly make a dent in such vast numbers? In 1895 there were 545 - yes, just 545 bison left when they were finally protected. There are now around 500,000 Bison the vast majority on domestic farms. It shows how we can recover a seemingly lost situation with a concerted effort.

By selling their water allocation to the government, owners are just selling an asset that came as a right to their land which they have traditionally already owned. Without that water, the property is worth far less and has less agricultural potential. Cattle and sheep can still drink from the river but they will not be left with enough water for mass-pumping to grow crops on land with insufficient natural rainfall. It is not a racket it is the government paying fair compensation (as per the Constitution) for taking something owned by a citizen.

Lang, with respect, unless you have been a irrigation farmer or are still irrigation farmer in the Murray Darling basin I'm not sure your really in a position to comment on just what you can Google

There is a whole lot more to the irrigation system and allocations than you can quickly Google up and class as fact

I still am a irrigation farmer in the Murray Darling basin and possibly, just possibly have a much better idea of what is going on than someone that isn't and relies on Google
Water markets and water trading are very complex and vary greatly across the different parts that make up the Murray Darling basin

Googling something we know nothing about and portraying it as fact is probably not the wisest of moves at times, especially when it involves so much more than you can ever imagine

Paul

Paul

I have no doubt your experience and knowledge far exceeds anything I can extract from the web.

The fact is there are billions of dollars involved and every person should have the ability to understand or question anything the government does big spends on. Of course nobody can understand the fine points of any subject unless they are actually part of that particular system but the big picture should be clear to all. Saying you don't understand may or may not be true. Everybody wants the country to be better and succeed so information from the horse's mouth instead of cold academic reports will only add to our understanding.

Please give us the man-on-the-ground story. I am sure I have errors in what I put up above and I am more than happy to be corrected, added to or deleted as you and I have done a few times over the years still staying mates without coming to blows.

Google is just a search platform and does not provide any information (until this AI crap came in at the start of every search which I would NEVER quote as fact), it just provides endless places to get information. Google is not bad, Google is good. The problem lies with what is selected from the information.

I try very hard not to use other forums, chat rooms or club discussions unless they have expert stuff such as the spark plug gap for a Model T. I definitely never use Facebook pages. I can read pretty fast and attempt to get info from "official"  sources such as government reports, university studies and industry. This allows fast information gathering as it is laid out in concise logical order without the waffle and opinion found on social media discussions. I don't think I have ever directly quoted a newspaper reporter no matter how much of an "expert" he is on a contentious subject.

This stuff is important physical decisions by government affecting all of us - no woke, green, politics, left or right. Are they managing it as well as they should?, I have no bone to pick.  I would love the entire country from Dubbo to Emerald to be a vast irrigation area beating all other countries in production but I also want the rivers to flow and underground water to survive. An impossible dream.  if you disagree bring us up to speed with your experience..I certainly will not argue with anything you say from your much deeper knowledge of the subject