Is anyone worried by the rash of destructive hay stack fires in the north?
The damage to valuable fodder supplies is now running into millions of dollars for the Goulburn Valley alone.
The CFA estimates there have been 67 fires in our region since October, an extraordinary figure compared to the usual number caused by spontaneous combustion.
This puts the phenomenon way above what farmers could expect to handle in the normal course of their business.
Experienced farmers who have stacked the hay under cover and taken every reasonable precaution have been caught out.
Obviously there are new factors at work, most likely due to the extraordinary season where an unusually large amount of cereal hay has been baled.
Numerous theories have been advanced but the simple fact is that no-one can satisfactorily explain the break-outs, so they cannot offer effective advice to prevent further blazes.
Some industry organisations may even be hoping that the problem will simply go away once summer advances and presuming normal conditions resume.
The Australian Fodder Industry Association has been the most active organisation, identifying the problem last year and warning its members about the potential dangers.They have now been joined by the CFA which is helping compile statistical information whcih may help identify the risks.
DPI officers have been assisting the AFIA but there is no evidence the department nor the government are launching any serious investigation into this phenomenon, months after it has developed.
The lack of action is a serious concern for drought stressed farmers who have a right to expect that their government should be directing more resources into finding out exactly what is happening to our hay supplies.

-Geoff Adams

The words profligate and wasteful have been used in descriptions of Australia''s rice growing industry.
With the enormous amount of interest in water efficiency due to the drought the rice industry has been copping some stiff criticism, to the point where Riverina farmers have joked that they don''t tell anyone what they grow when they''re attending urban parties.
They have become the bad guys in the water debate.
Usually the arguments go like this:
``Rice is a huge consumer of water. Australia is the driest continent. Why are `we'' growing rice?''''
Critics who spend more than a minute thinking the argument through also produce statisttics to support their case, usually revolving around the amount of water required to produce a kg of rice or the value of the end product compared to the water consumed.
Professor Derek Eamus from the Sydney University of Technology compares the dollar output with the amount of water required and asks: ``th.th.thwhy we persist in growing such crops in such silly placesth.th.th''''.
He suggests that rice growing go the same way as rushcutting and barrel making.
While arguments like this sound convincing they usually avoid some simple economic facts.
Australian rice growers (unlike many overseas) are not supported by subsidies. What they produce, by legitimately paying for water, earns Australian export dollars, supports thousands of Riverina families and feeds the world.
People want rice. They are paying for about a million tonnes in a normal year.
They don''t want one million tonnes of ``more efficient'''' grapes.
About 80 to 85 per cent of all rice grown in Australia is exported, so Australian growers are efficient enough to compete in corrupted world markets.
The amount of water used per kilogram of rice has actually dropped by about half in 15 years and is considerably less than that required in many other countries.
So one answer to the question, why grow rice in Australia? is, ``because we do it so well'''', on large holdings controlled by environmental restrictions.
As for the point about Australia being the driest continent, last time I looked we weren''t growing rice in the Simpson desert, so perhaps the question should be: ``Is the Murray Darling Basin the driest in the world?''''
I don''t think so.
And as for the figures?
It''s too simple and too easy to simply say rice growing uses too much water, without looking at the whole picture.
As an example we could easily advance the argument that no Melbourne commuter should be permitted to drive to work in a car with less than four people in it.
Here is the argument:
Oil is a non renewable and scarce resource. An empty Calais car might use about 12 litres/100 km, so if it carries one person that would be the per capita use.
Julian Edgar in AutoSpeed publication says that jet planes can achieve 3-5/litres/100 km/person.
Therefore driving to work on your own, when public transport is available, is a profligate waste of resources. Should be banned.
This argument is sounding better every time I repeat it.
Wait.  I''ll see if I can get a government grant to research it.

-Geoff Adams 

If last week’s public meetings over water are any indication the year ahead could be a long one for northern Victorian farmers.

The debate has become even more polarized after the protest rally in Shepparton, hard on the heels of the NVI meeting on Monday.

A particularly disturbing development last Thursday was the protestation by one farmer on the podium of “rats in the ranks” , a critical reference to other farmers who did not share their view.

Some people are already asking if this going to become a farmer against farmer debate.

The issue has now become a highly politicized one and the Foodbowl group have been caught by the speed with which their plan has been adopted by the Victorian Government. A lot of irrigators have rightly claimed they did not know about the project and felt ignored by the process.

They may have under estimated farmer sentiment after a long hard year coping with the drought.

In the time honored tradition of protest rallies there was a lot of emotion, with some rhetoric and spoonful of histrionics thrown in among the posters and banners.

But it was surprising to see the speakers list for last Thursday.

While there are plenty of farmers with something to say about the issue most of the speakers were politicians, who seemed more inclined to excite the crowd than offer any systematic explanation of why the federal plan was better.

And when most of the pollies were federal with electorates outside of the area where most of the money will be spent, it’s not hard to tell there’s an election in the air.

If last week’s public meetings over water are any indication the year ahead could be a long one for northern Vicitorian farmers.

The debate has become even more polarized after the protest rally in Shepparton, hard on the heels of the NVI meeting on Monday.

A particularly disturbing development last Thursday was the protestation by one farmer on the podium of “rats in the ranks” , a critical reference to other farmers who did not share their view.

Some people are already asking if this going to become a farmer against farmer debate.

The issue has now become a highly politicized one and the Foodbowl group have been caught by the speed with which their plan has been adopted by the Victorian Government. A lot of irrigators have rightly claimed they did not know about the project and felt ignored by the process.

They may have under estimated farmer sentiment after a long hard year coping with the drought.

In the time honored tradition of protest rallies there was a lot of emotion, with some rhetoric and spoonful of histrionics thrown in among the posters and banners.

But it was surprising to see the speakers list for last Thursday.

While there are plenty of farmers with something to say about the issue most of the speakers were politicians, who seemed more inclined to excite the crowd than offer any systematic explanation of why the federal plan was better.

And when most of the pollies were federal with electorates outside of the area where most of the money will be spent, it’s not hard to tell there’s an election in the air.