swapping cows for kangaroos

[newhue]

Just read the article in Bushwalking Australia Magazine Aug 2016, edition 8. And well yes, I agree. I think farming soft paw animals in this country should have been done many years ago instead of ignoring the possibilities and blindly following our english traditions.

I won't rehash the article, but the process/transition could be made all the easier if we followed the current tax examples on cigerettes and alcohol. Farmers interested in getting into the new dawn could be assisted by government with incentives paid for by the old die hards. This would encourage change in farming practices to soft paw, and die hard hard hoofed farmers still have a market if they wish to continue. Just a hefty tax will be placed on end sales of the meat. This also helps the consumer move on as well. It's kind of the typical democracy we have here.

The Australian Meat Industry could change its name to the Australian Native Meat Industry. And still market Asia and the world with a new leaner healthier product. Far better for the environment and even global warming. Yes folks the beef industry has it's eyes on northern Australia including the Kimberley. The Australian Government February 2016 Infrastructure Plan is an terrible read for the environment's future. Basically more trees down for more cows is the sustainable business plan. And if running 1 beast on 10 acres or more as we currently do makes sense to you, then we need to talk more.

[Pteropus]

I’m not against the idea, and in fact, I think it should be considered. But farming macropods is likely going to be a very difficult process. I am sure someone has come up with some good ideas on how to do this, but basically roos are difficult to keep in a paddock, and are difficult to control when attempting to move. Capturing them can lead to severe stress related myopathy (muscle stress) and death. Fencing costs would also be enormous. Assuming the kangaroo product industry began to become more mainstream, and graziers got on board to the idea, I think some sort of cooperative system would be required, where roos could range across many large properties and everyone share the profits, if there were any. Large scale harvesting of wild populations would need to be monitored with much greater scrutiny too. There are a lot of things to consider before this could work. And of course there are a wide range of other animal ethics issues that would need to be nutted out and likely to be fought over too, with great passion from animal rights groups against graziers who may not have the passion for joining a roo industry. Just some thoughts…

[north-north-west]

Emu's pretty good eating too. And they're easier to farm - just watch out for those feet when they're in a stroppy mood . . .

[newhue]

I wonder if some sort of buzz collar could an option. Accompanied with a single strand of peramiter wire with a small voltage running through it that triggers the the collar when they are x distance to it. A bit like fenceless yards people do with their pet dogs. Got to get them on the roos to start with however. But it sure would be a plus for wildlife not having the land crissed crossed with barbed wire. Perhaps the fences could be solar powered? Perhaps they could herd the same way via a fenced funnel type arangemnt. I imagine if people were interested new ways would evolve.

Given the damage hard hooved animals do to land around creeks and hill sides, plus the enormouse amounts of deforestation required for cows; the decision to look into kangaroos may be forced upon us. As global warming becomes more obvious, and the side effects start to eat into farmers bank books, governments and farmers may have to think of alternative food sources. Given a roo can have a joey on the hop, another in the pouch, and another on embrio or teet, the berading cycle is impressive if the season allowes.

[Xplora]

My partner's mother believes the Kangaroo meat in the supermarket now is from domesticated or farmed kangaroos which are herded then taken to the abattoir for slaughter just like cows and sheep. She got quite upset when I told her how they were harvested and refused to accept it. I like kangaroo meat but commercial farming of them in the way described (or any way) would be impossible or cost prohibitive. There is also a lot less usable meat on a kangaroo for the domestic market. It does have a strong flavour which many do not take to but as it became more popular the price began to rise to the point now that it compares with beef (lamb is still dearer). Some people also do not like their meat rare and kangaroo is tough when cooked too long. The early settlers ate kangaroo because it was free and it was easy to shoot. Those who were farming beef and sheep were having trouble selling their product which led to legislation controlling the use of firearms. I doubt there will be any more large scale deforestation for beef production in this country. We already have an excess of grain (and farmland cleared to produce it) and the feedlot industry is quite large. Taking away beef and sheep production would send the country broke very quickly. An interesting concept but nonetheless impractical.

[wayno]

intensive grazing of cows are causing massive problems in nz contaminating waterways and underground town water supplies. they produce prodigious of faeces and amounts of nitrates from urine,

[newhue]

I can't help but wonder the hard hooved industry is a product of invested interests who own large tracts of land, or their path is cleared from donations to ploitical patries. The Newman government allowed bulldozer and chain clearing in Nth Qld in the very recent past for cattle. The inbound labour gov supposedly made it all the harder but the laws didn't go through. Just outside Warick I have photos of 100yo trees up rooted for about 1 kilometer. There are no saplings, and now there are no older trees. Consider that in human children, parent, and granparent terms. The marketing or common word behind european hard hooved farming verse the difficulties of farming local soft paw, is liken to the current fossil fuel motor industry and alternative motors of the past. It's all too hard and expansive. But what is the cost of global warming. Seems the saying " you can't put a cost on a human life" doesn't ring true here.

We hear the oceans are on the brink of failure. From only 1 deg increase in temp, along with carbon saturation and polution mostly from plastic, they are really quite sick. So in reality that could mean in the very near future no fish at woolworths, no fish and chip shops, or fish on the menu at the restraunt. No jobs accociated with the trawling indistry, or the markets, or retail. A mate said to me but fish will move around and floroush in other areas. My responce is that if 20 of our common species have collapsed, then the 2 or 3 from flourishing Asia can't possibily sustain demand. On-land fish farms are a good step forward, and many will argue farmed Baramundi is not the same as wild, but it may be our only solution if we keep clearing land.

Weather I make my way through NZ or Aus I see miles and miles of cleared land for hard hooved animals. However I am not sure where all the animals are as the seen numbers don't seem to justify the clearing. Where as there are few trees comapred to what there was not so long ago. Kangaroos and other native animals can live in heavy wooded country, and that is good for us humans, the planet, and our shared interest. Just has me thinking we need to do things a bit differently.

[Giddy_up]

The inbound labour gov supposedly made it all the harder but the laws didn't go through. Just outside Warick I have photos of 100yo trees up rooted for about 1 kilometer. There are no saplings, and now there are no older trees.

Believe it or not, this is done to manage the land better. Scattered single tree like you mention make it harder for the farmer in a farming system. Those trees would have all been assessed by Dept Natural Resources for their importance in the ecosystem. They would have checked each individual tree for nesting hollows to see if they had been or where being used. Then the trees would have been assessed for cultural significance by a local Aboriginal tribal member. Any artifacts or carvings would have meant that those trees could not be removed.

Then and only then could they be removed. What's this means for the environment. Well a few things, because there are no obstacles in the paddock now, GPS can be used to manage all passes by tractor and implement. As big as they look, this all becomes a precision instrument that is guided within less than 1cm. Tractors will travel down the same wheel tracks and not compact the soil, stubble can be retained and provide valuable erosion control all the time. New plantings can be placed between the old crop plant lines, this builds soil health and adds significant organic matter to any farming system. On the back of these techniques comes greater yield for the farmer who needs this because the costs of set up for this type of farming is large, $2-300k. So it's not all as it seems as you drive along the road at 100k/ph newhue. There are significant checks and balances on all agricultural pursuits now, even though the farmer owns the land, paid stamp duty and taxes and its "freehold" land. Like all discussion, having a balanced view with a full understanding of what the other side is doing, their compliance with legislation and their long term view on sustainability is important. Perhaps drive back out to that farm and find the farmer, ask him why he removed those trees and what his long term goals are, you might be pleasantly surprised by his view, his wants and desires for the environment and the community at large. He lives in that community and he probably has a son or daughter that he would like see continue on, so the viability and integrity of the land and the landscape are very important for the future. Why would a farmer want to *&%$#! his own livelihood both now and for the future.

I am the first to agree that previous farming practice has been poor but our farmers are very smart and savvy now and do everything in their power to maintains a balance of what they do, profitability, environmental outcome and socioeconomic outcome, all within the constraints of the respective legislations.

Cheers
G_U


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[newhue]

GU I have no doubt things are better, but for whom? The methods you suggest do nothing for the environment, just look after yields and farmers invested money. I imagine just like my city folk that build houses that take up the block, and if there is room a few exocitcs may get planted. Its all about saving and maximising money today, for making money for tomorrow. People generally don't pay much attention to the environment. I don't see farmers planting out creek banks to stop erosion as I zoom past.

The methods you suggest seem to favour broad acre crop farming, and gps tracter placement is popular nowdays. I have seen it on landline. But why fell lone trees in a paddock when you run only hard hoved animals. The idea that the trees take the water and kill the grass is bollocks. Much harder to accept perhaps their farming the wrong thing in the wrong place, or the farm is crap to start with. But I might just stop at that blokes place and ask him whats the go. I expect I know the answer however when I ask why drop the trees. Just up the highway the same is apparent but much broader and advanced, so its not just a one off.
I hope the Dept of Natural Resources is better out with the country folk then what went on over the road from my house. A environmental study done by the developer, approved by government, but still managed to drop a tree with a possum in it. Then another tree with an ants nest that a kingfisher bread in, and then to cap it off dropped a rare tree for brisbane had to go for a driveway. Deemed sustainable because there are a few in northern NSW, however rare in Brisbane. It seeded every two years so its a bit unusual in the first place. But the owner of the property said no to access whilst in seed to those seed collecting greenies only 12 months before it was dropped. And there is no way the driveway can be moved 3 meters. All the plans are done and cost to much to alter. How about transplanting it? No, that will cost 3 to 4 hundred grand. Honestly there were 20 large earth moving machines there for two years, $300 grand is change in the 0's on the balance sheet. So those 3 events were just over the road from me, who knows what happened over the whole developent. I hope this can add balance to the checks and balances argument.

[Giddy_up]

Your views on our farmers a wide of the mark newhue.

As for trees planted it appears that Agriculture could be leading the charge according the Australian Bureau of Statistics, see the below figures for 1999-2000. Quite the snapshot of our farmers not planting trees isn't it!!!!

In 1997 the ABS asked agricultural landholders if they had changed their farming practices for conservation reasons and from whom they received the most support in implementing these changes. Responses indicated that a high proportion received support from family (17%). Relatively few farmers cited government agencies and land management groups as providing the most support (3% and 1% respectively).

Some 43 million trees were reported to have been planted on farms in 1999-2000 on around 150,000 hectares. Around one-third of the number of trees planted in 1999-2000 were for wood or pulp production, but accounted for only about 10% of the area planted. Around 28 million trees were planted on around 140,000 hectares for purposes including nature conservation, protection of land and water, fodder and oil plants and enhanced agricultural production (windbreaks, shade trees, etc.).

If your beef is with the process then I suggest you canvas your local member of parliament and if you don't like the answer you get there then move higher up the food chain. Experience has thought me that if "you" want to effect change on something then "you" have to make it happen and it's far better to play keyboard warrior writing to politicians than people on chat sites and trust me I write a lot of letters to ministers trying to effect change.

Cheers




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Xplora]

Many strong views are formed from anecdotal evidence or a narrow experience. While I do see some farmers clearing some trees I also see many planting. GU's information is valid and contains a broader look at the situation. Without farmers we would starve and the country would be in debt. Farming practise has improved and regulations force them to be more environmentally minded. Remember one environmental officer being killed because the farmer was illegally clearing. A good balance is important and we have to feed our growing population. I don't think kangaroos will cut it in the end. Everyone needs some sort of income even if it is a handout from the government so we cannot blame people for wanting to make a bit of cash the best way they can. Those who have big farming operations employ people and contribute to the economy when they buy machinery and the like. There is no way an old tree could be replanted anyway but to consider paying $300000 to even try would never happen. Much better to collect seed and then grow hundreds of them in a safe place. Newhue, your ideas are challenging and you certainly have passion for them but everything must be considered in perspective. I guess that is the role of those we elect and GU is right again. If you see something you feel is wrong then put it on paper to the authority concerned. A group of people with the same concern carries more weight so get some like minded people together and start your own action group.

[newhue]

I write letters I can assur you. The great gouging elected with the revolving clowns are to miserable to reply any more than an automated responce in this day of imediate and easy technology. And if my bro in law is typical of a federal poltician, than the environment is nothing more than from which to prosper from. Lots of cash in the bank is his kind of sustainability.
Anyone I have met that has cocern for the environment or global warming eventually comes to kangaroos over cows. The idea is quite old. However it seems I have not met enough people who know the good oil. Long live the holy farmer I must learn, you know the one who needs yearly hay donation runs to keep it all going.
I have seen cows on gibber plains, with grass so sparse blind Freedie can conclude why. And that was when water was on the eastern side of desert, but still the traditional farmer prevails. And if we eat sheep then why is a roo such a fool hardie concept, it is no bigger or smaller. Is it the roo just smarter or faster then the dumb sheep who follows the leader. Is it just to hard or predicted costly.
Joey over lamb, roo over cow or lamb; burn it and its all tuff. Its possible one can kill anything when cooking it. Perhaps it was why the pig industry ran the 2 and 1 or whatever it was on how to cook their meat advertisements. Eat more meat.......and pig I guess. Population growth, jobs and growth, clear more trees for yields, is all a common path. I can't help but wonder if more grain means more cows in feed lots like caged chickens and pigs now are. Controlled productivity, controlled growth from a hormonal steroid rich diet, faster turn around, more profit. Very human really, we need to feed more polulation, more jobs more growth. Bucks in the bank over fresh air and water any day.
Lets hope all those trees planted by farmers are good local species creating balanced eco systems, not just wind breaks like you say, potentially of just a single specie.

I write here to try and get people thinking. When have you ever heard a politician say think about your world, how its going, and ponder on traditional farming practices that have seen so much of our country cleared. Consider kangaroos over cows.

I'm just a hack concerned about his world. A world he hopes is worth living in for his kids sack. I look around and see our past, one that still mirrors the arrigant english that settled us. Humans are smart, but also very much like sheep.

[Giddy_up]

Newhue, you are spot on about the "sheeple". They don't want to know about this really, they don't care and the vast majority have no clue where their food comes from and how it's grown and to some degree you fall into this category as well. That gibber plain that you reference is one of many that intersect some of our dry vast interior and yes it appears on the surface to be very rugged country. That country when it's stocked at the right rates (and it generally is because the season dictates the stocking rate) grows the WORLDS BEST organic beef, yes the best. Why?, because of the climate and the spares stocking rate, plus that herbage that grows out there is just so nutritious. Coincidentally it appears that climate change may in fact be making that country wetter. There are some studies going on currently that indicate that the average rainfall in our driest parts is on the increase and significantly so. Who knows what this means in real terms but it a very interesting anomaly.

Back to our farmer at Warwick too, I forgot to mention that in any assessment that was done on the removal of those large single eucalypt there would have been conditions applied. Those conditions would have definitely contained a requirement for that farmer to replant trees of the same specie and sympathetic other specie in an area on his farm that would provide and enhance environmental outcomes. I will go out on a limb here (pun intended) and say that for every one tree you see removed the farmer in question would have had to plant 1000 trees minimum. So there are those checks and also the balances that I spoke of. I also think it's important to note that any farmer who attempts to clear without approval faces hefty fines and or gaol time. The only people that I know of who are above the law are State and Federal Ministers and Bankers. One cannot be held accountable for his or her decisions no matter how bad they are and the other makes bad decisions and gets bailed out by the "sheeple" with no penalties *rant over*.

We have to feed a world and Australian farmers are the best at growing beautiful clean produce and I for one am very grateful every evening when I sit at my table and see the food that was grown by our very own farmers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[north-north-west]

[aside]
'species' when referring to groups of living things is - like 'sheep' - both singular and plural. The only correct use of 'specie' is in reference to coins.
[/end English lesson]

You may now continue the discussion.

[newhue]

Back to our farmer at Warwick too, SNIP I will go out on a limb here (pun intended) and say that for every one tree you see removed the farmer in question would have had to plant 1000 trees minimum.

So you are saying for the 100 to 150 trees downed by the farmer, they then are made to put in 100 000 to 150 000 trees. I imagine in tube stock because they are cheaper at $1 per plant. Or at best, 60c wholesale price from the prisons. Does seem hard to believe or sight. Not saying its not true, but I do like to travel via as many back roads as possible, and at 90km/h have sighted very little regen work happening. I am not one for the staked greenish plastic protection tubes, but they do seem popular with many. Honestly I can say I have seen no more than 200 between Brisbane and the Blue Mountains recently. I suppose if they worked on natural regrowth I can see the numbers, but they would have to fence live stock out for 5 years or so until the sappling grew big enough, and not torch it either.
The contractors that cleared the trees over the road from me to widen the road for trucks must have mulched 100 large trees. They at best would have planted 300 replacements, of what I have not bothered to discover. However by their placement it certinally was not what they dropped.

I hope what you say is correct, I really do. Unfortunately I just don't see it. One would imagine if they can easily see clearing from the road they should easily see such earth rebuilding legislation being implemented in such volumes. Anyway, I accept I'm a squar peg in a world of round holes. Just food for thought, time will tell.

[whitefang]

Back to our farmer at Warwick too, SNIP I will go out on a limb here (pun intended) and say that for every one tree you see removed the farmer in question would have had to plant 1000 trees minimum.

So you are saying for the 100 to 150 trees downed by the farmer, they then are made to put in 100 000 to 150 000 trees. I imagine in tube stock because they are cheaper at $1 per plant. Or at best, 60c wholesale price from the prisons. Does seem hard to believe or sight. Not saying its not true, but I do like to travel via as many back roads as possible, and at 90km/h have sighted very little regen work happening. I am not one for the staked greenish plastic protection tubes, but they do seem popular with many. Honestly I can say I have seen no more than 200 between Brisbane and the Blue Mountains recently. I suppose if they worked on natural regrowth I can see the numbers, but they would have to fence live stock out for 5 years or so until the sappling grew big enough, and not torch it either.
The contractors that cleared the trees over the road from me to widen the road for trucks must have mulched 100 large trees. They at best would have planted 300 replacements, of what I have not bothered to discover. However by their placement it certinally was not what they dropped.

I hope what you say is correct, I really do. Unfortunately I just don't see it. One would imagine if they can easily see clearing from the road they should easily see such earth rebuilding legislation being implemented in such volumes. Anyway, I accept I'm a squar peg in a world of round holes. Just food for thought, time will tell.

There's plenty of revegetation that you probably wouldn't realise is revegetated plants. I have just finished up working on a major project here in SA that had more than 1 million tube stock planted over the last six years - most of that on land owned by farmers or wineries. In addition to that numerous sites were direct seeded which generally had better results, but less diversity of species.

[Xplora]

We have to feed a world and Australian farmers are the best at growing beautiful clean produce and I for one am very grateful every evening when I sit at my table and see the food that was grown by our very own farmers.

Second this. We will not eat imported seafood either. When we buy canned food we check the country of origin or packaging. Many will be packaged in Asia even if grown in Australia. I like to give full support to Australian farmers where possible.

and at 90km/h have sighted very little regen work happening

Perhaps driving slower would help or not as far. It would also use less fossil fuel. You have to walk the walk as well (pun intended). Regen work does not always happen on the roadside. Farms are big places. Get involved with Landcare or some regen organisation. My butcher, who also grows his own beef on his own farm, is a fanatical advocate and supporter of Landcare. He is heavily involved and the literature is on a table in his shop which he hands out to other farmers. Many years ago, in what seems another life, I was a stockman and worked on a number of large cattle/sheep properties. Yes they cleared some paddocks for pasture, hay or crops but they also had large sections of wooded areas and the cattle had no problem getting into them to feed. I had more trouble getting them out during muster. It is not in a farmer's interest to get rid of all his trees. Saline levels of soils is related to this and those lessons have been well learnt.

[newhue]

Explora, strangly enough I have been asked to sumit an article for the mag, but i'm thinking I won't bother. It weighs on me driving such distances, flying to NZ, or going the places bushwalkers like to travel to. Driving a 4cyl at 90 is a concious desion, and I'm looking forward to the day of a hybrid or something far more advanced than the turbo diesel I currently drive. I can safely say driving at 90 is quite stressless and relaxing, however does *&^%$#! off ALL other road users that I can tell. Still to sit at home and live in my box I will end up nuttier than I perhaps am.

Join in, walk the talk hey. I have asked my local council several times about regening the weed ridden, almost dead creek behind me where I live on a park. The regular poisoning of peramiters, bank erosion, allowing 0 regrowth to happen, and acceptance of only large trees is appauling. Its seen as a drain not a natural water course. My muched loved liberal christian councillor is another who cant reply to a letter. I guess if I wanted to build a housing estate it would all be different.
I joind a local bushcare group, led by a very knowledgable bloke who has been in the " green" industry for many years. He to has run out of motivation as every step is like pulling teeth. It seems the council green careing blurbs on the web site are not as it seems on the ground.

I took to phantom planting, up at 4am running around in the dark, managed to get on 160ish plants. All but perhaps a dozen gone due to vandalism or poisioning. Built 14 nest boxes, hired a cherry picker. Put them up when the council left the gate open after mowing. One request that was replied to, but I was told not to do it.

I clean up illegal rubbish from the tiny bush near me. Cover the old access roads from sewage building, power line placing, with branches so leaves gather, then sapling appear, so the old path becomes to hard for trail bikes or 4x4's. So the pathetic 20m wide nature strip can be sronger and just a tiny bit more intact. But low and behold its a humans wright to walk or drive where the want when they want. So they clear my hany work away or drive over it.

I rip every exotic plant from my garden, plant "local" natives, make the front yard a garden and half the rear. I'm the only dude in the street however. My neighbour did the opposite, he loves grass and hates trees.

Mate I try, but if its outside my fence all I get is negative responses.

[Xplora]

I am sure you try. I see your passion. I but heads with our council on a regular basis and they have a way of just wearing you down. Don't let it stop you though. Many people here think we are a bit weird as well. We walked to the community hall for a meeting the other day instead of driving. Took 80 minutes to get there. We walk to pick up the mail usually as well. For some that might seem nothing but it is about 7km return and not worth warming the car up for. We only go to the shops once a month mostly because it is over 2 hours away but since leaving the city we drive less. I would not say we live the greenest of all but we do our best. We make all of our own electricity and collect all our drinking water. Our carbon footprint is quite small compared to when we lived in the city. Your experience does not sound good and I would give my support if I lived near you. I have always had native gardens and we are very selective here about what we plant and which trees we need to take. Up the road VicForest's are raping the countryside and we are taking a stand against more logging in the area. Good luck to you. NH.

[Franco]

Before you start shooting roos, take a good look at this one :

She is Charlie, about 18 months old and has been around my place all of her life.
I like her a lot , so don't shoot her...

[newhue]

She sure is cute Franco, and so is a calf or lamb. For almost my whole life I have not liked the idea of eating our native wildlife. They were sacrid in my mind. But nowdays I am left wondering if we payed more attention to Aboriginals ways of sustainability over european, things would be different. I have seen a wonderful documentary called Faces in the Mob. It brings to attention the relationships roos have with each other and their family structure. In many ways it is like our human family and social structures. So there is a element of guilt suggesting roos over cows. I do love my roos too. I'd put money down though, and happy to be shot at again, that us humans have little in depth idea of the family and social structures of any of the animal we eat. One thing is clear though, they all have feelings, and can feel pain, and pine for their removed young.

[Franco]

I eat meat.
My grand parents were high country farmers and growing up we kept chooks and rabbits for meat.

Years ago I looked after some orphan roos when visiting friends that did that regularly , since coming to the place I am now I have observed that extended roo family activity a lot closer , in fact often just outside my windows.
I don't eat roo meat anymore yet I have no problem at all with people that do , however I have come to see our mob (about 12 roos) the same way I see my pets .

[Hallu]

Emus are already farmed in the US. Yet it's quite hard to find it in Australia. I could only find emu sausages in QV market in Melbourne, or other markets. No steaks or eggs, just sausages. The cattle is actually responsible for the amount of flies we get in Australia, it wasn't like that before the English came. Also the beef from those giant Aussie stations is not the good beef. The good beef comes from much smaller farms in Tassie or NSW. Also, I love kangaroo and wallaby meat. But is the Aussie market ready for it ? It's already quite difficult to find native meat at a restaurant. There is such a thing as "native Australian cuisine", but it's not widespread.

There was a nice TV show about Noma, Sydney, a couple of months ago, a new and temporary restaurant by Danish chef Rene Redzepi ( http://www.businessinsider.com.au/revie ... -do-2016-2 ). The series showed him looking for native ingredients, his goal was to only use native stuff. And he was amazed by the variety of stuff at his disposal. However it wasn't in large quantities: many native fruits, herbs and vegetable are tiny and hard to farm. Simply because the English didn't bother to grow it, do hybrids and ultimately make it marketable. Remember that originally tomatoes, strawberries or apples were tiny. It's after centuries of farming, cross-breeding, and selecting the best varieties and plants that we got to the point where we have bigger fruits and vegetables. The same goes for Aussie native ingredients, it needs to be farmed. Like the kangaroos and other native animals, they're adapted to harsh conditions, so don't need as much water. It's a no brainer, yet it's not being done. Demand needs to grow, people need to ask about it in restaurants and stuff. I don't think I've tried anything native (animal or plant) that wasn't delicious. Brazil is starting to connect with its native cuisine, with new ingredients from the jungle or the Amazon river. I hope Australia will follow.

[newhue]

Just some thoughts after Explora said the Vic gov is ripping into bushland. Maybe I read the wrong stuff.

Clearing native bushland reduces rainfall
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/opinion/sunday/deforestation-and-drought.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

Large private clearing still happens, its just who you know.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/may/05/queensland-bushland-being-destroyed-on-industrial-scale-says-green-group

Innervation is a dirty word Barnaby Joyce. Lets stick to those ol european ways.
http://theconversation.com/dams-are-not-the-smart-way-to-secure-water-for-agriculture-33193

Wrecking the earth doesn't seem to matter when humans extinction is at risk.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150714160923.htm

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/19/humans-creating-sixth-great-extinction-of-animal-species-say-scientists

And one for the animals......
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150702112040.htm

Nothing is sacrid, no matter how unique when it comes to jobs and growth.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jul/01/australias-largest-woodlands-will-not-be-protected-if-it-prevents-mining


Just some side points on our oceans and the health of them. They are the largest carbon sinks on earth and are already full. Oh and plastic too.
Seabirds and polution
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-01/scientists-warn-almost-all-seabirds-will-ingest-plastic-by-2050/6738862

Fish stocks
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/15/tuna-and-mackerel-populations-suffer-catastrophic-74-decline-research-shows

Coral
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-25/scientists-call-for-marine-reserves-to-protect-deep-sea-reefs/6571848

And now for the positives, yes we have the power, just need the motivation and belief....and probably some good polticians. The scientist are our earths doctors, surely must know a bit more than......

Making the oceans and fish stock healthier
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/27/planting-coral-could-save-great-barrier-reef-from-climate-change-say-scientists

And the Kixi's showing up us again. Australian Wildlife Convaency do bit of this in Aus. But it highlights if you can get ones head around changing, then build it, native animals will come. A whole different world of farming perhaps, good for us and the earth.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/radical-conservation/2015/apr/21/rotoroa-new-zealand-birds-wildlife-rewilding

[Giddy_up]

Back to kangaroos for cows.........

The reality is that the product isn't wanted for a whole host of reasons. See the attached as a little insight. The world doesn't want to eat our fluffy little macropods.

http://theconversation.com/australias-c ... where-9624


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[newhue]

Well what can I say. The arrogance of the english, the blindness to change, or fear of being wrong. Just so typical to class something they can't control or don't like as a pest. A celebrated and practiced concept by the hard hooved industry and pastoralist from day one. It stinks of corruption or favouritism Russia and adidas are not interested. I'm sure the beef industry has had a few issues over the years they have worked through. But if roos don't have support from government then they too are on the same side of the pastoralist.
It seems Gidy up I am wrong, all the scientist above are wrong. Given you have dismissed the above as not relating to farming cows and land clearing, the global effects of this on the oceans, the land, and its biodiversity. The survival of humans amd native species, and possible ways forward from existing practices leaves me gobsmacked. I can't help but wonder, if you are representing the farming industry, that it is as open to ideas or the realities of it as much as the US pro gun lobby is to reducing guns.

[Giddy_up]

I understand your passion but I think what you want is a bridge to far personally. What I find interesting is that this is the first time I have seen two green points of view in opposition to each other. On one hand we have the "remove cloven hoofed animals and eat macropods" then on the other hand we have the "cruelty to animals and kangaroos are endangered, don't touch". How do you tackle that, I don't know. One more thing that is problematic is how do you process them. Abbatoirs are very difficult things to get approval for because of their impacts on the environment so actually setting up processing plants, getting all the approvals that would be needed by Goverment and making it commercially viable is nigh on impossible I think.

Richard Branson always advocates that for any enterprise to be successful you need the market already established, kangaroo meat doesn't have this in place and there fore will always be up against it.

I wish you all the best in your efforts to get this off the ground and I look forward to updates on your success.

Cheers
G_U


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hallu]

It's ironic that some wanna raise kangaroos, now that their numbers are too high, to replace beef, while it's cattle stations that are directly responsible for the number increase of roos as they made access to water easier for them.

I'm in favor for variety in our diet, not swapping roos for cows. As a simple message, just eat native. Whether it's meat, fish, fruits or vegetables.

[Xplora]

Just some thoughts after Explora said the Vic gov is ripping into bushland. Maybe I read the wrong stuff.

Not what I said. VicForest is logging near us. They have gone through the process and the areas have been approved but we are trying to stop them logging close to a creek which supplies the town with water. Taking trees close to the creek will affect the flow of the creek as the new forest grows. Once the new trees get to around 10 years old they suck up a lot of water which will restrict water flow to the creek for a considerable time.
I started eating Australian native meat and produce many years ago. A place called Edna's table in Sydney made it taste fantastic. Not too fond of Emu. A bit tough for my liking. Don't blame the cattle farmer for all the flies either. I think the city produces it fair share from the rubbish tips.
If there was a way to make money out of farming kangaroos then it would have been done by now. Deer farming has all but gone belly up. Popular at first but just not economically viable in the long term. Emu and Ostrich farming went the same way. To farm anything you have to gain control of the animal and the market. Have you ever seen what happens to Kangaroos when they try to get through a fence because they are scared? They can be tamed if reared from a joey but otherwise their instinctive flight response leaves them a bit short of good judgement. Even those mobs who are accustomed to humans will flee if pressure is put on them. How would you plan to harvest them? Come up with something viable and practical and people will listen if there is money in it. Until then it is not much more than white noise.

[newhue]

Giddy up, and maybe others, it was not my intention to win or loose when I started this thread. It was as much for me to learn, as much to get some thought going on the possibilities of farming roos. I don’t have the answers, I don’t know much actually. And my apologies if I have made blood boil. I try and be emotionally removed, but its not always easy. And I’m not sure what passionate is as I have been like this for as long as I recall.

I am not suggesting farmers walk away from cows, go broke, and deserve what they get. Quite the opposite really. But be it themselves, politicians, politicians with family farming interest, private holdings dated back to the first fleet, or industry groups; to continue to portray what has been done in the last 228 years as all good and cup half full when the scientist, and not just one or two from the same camp, are saying cup half empty and the bottom is not long before falling out; we must accept this and look for change. Far better to do it on our terms than when the earth makes the change on our behalf leaving us regretful and far worse off.

If this is a bridge to far? It just a matter of accepting if there is a "reasonable possibility of…"
We did this for world war 1, and 2, and perhaps any other conflict we felt would threaten our existence. In war times, war time efforts are made, budgets are found, jobs are made then done. And in 2016 if both sides of politics can find 130 billion over the next 30 years in an attempt to shoo off an invader with nuclear weapons, or an army of 300 million then we are delusional of our success.
Perhaps we spend some of that money on something else, like the other great threat to us, global warming. Trouble is most humans are sitting around waiting for a BIG event to shock them into believing in it. The slow creep is not dramatic enough for most, so no need to change is popular.

However, if our politicians were to agree there is reasonable possibility of global warming. And if they were to agree on a new direction of moving to roos and other native soft paw meats, and happy to maintain cows for a couple decades, than its all possible. This helps farmers and consumers with learning about the change while people got their head around it. They are not sent to the wall because they are not on board. I think Australia being the inventive bunch we are, in no time we would be all over breading, fencing, herding, transportation, culling, and butchering. The cuisine industry would work on new tastes, and new dishes. And picture a native meats section as large as the cow, lamb, or pork section at woolworths. This is where a hard hoofed tax encourages consumers to try and then change to native. This tax goes up just like the tobacco tax has over time, so eventually all but the hardest want soft paw not hoofed. Recall smoking was cool up to the 90’s, but not so cool these days.

All the time the government and the new industry are marketing a greener sustainability Australia, a leaner healthier option for Australians, and doing our bit for global warming and biodiversity. The government is key to this but they must be true to Australia and its role in global warming. It may also cut us time to work out coal really is crap. However it's not inconceivable Australia’s unique native soft paw animals could be quite sort after globally if we get it right. Where as cows, sheep, goats and pigs are everywhere. And with due respect, when I was in Asia I realised they eat anything.

Of course one of the main benefits, for us all, and is a key part of leaving hard hoofed behind is massive regrowth of native vegetation across the country. Cleaner air, less erosion, less weeds, better biodiversity, healthier soil, cleaner water run off, better habitat for humans and animals. And maybe just a little tourism as well.

White noise, or has some merit? No one said it would be easy. But its your world, your country, and your life.