Letters to the Editor - May 2

LSA is almost exclusively funded by these levies following a formal application for funds and an annual review of its performance, as are all recipients of the funds.

LSA does not believe it should have to justify its use of grower levies, which is why it wants to have an internally appointed committee to replace the current boards, which have effectively managed the distribution of levies for 24 years.

If Livestock SA were to take over running it, it would be like giving a sleep deprived two-year-old a bag of lollies and expecting them to divide it fairly.

If LSA controls the fund, we will be settling for complacency, not as Mr Keynes states "opposing the new constitution means selling for a lower standard".

The current skills-based Cattle and Sheep Boards are appointed only after a rigorous application process. The LSA Board is currently elected only from LSA members by popular vote.

It is clear from the above that the boards would not necessarily attract the same personalities or skill set.

It is imperative that the current structure remains with the retention of the independent boards.

These boards recommend expenditure from the levies collected. They do not make policy which can sometimes be contentious and cause levy payer unrest. They must be kept at arms length from LSA.

If farmers are to trust Livestock SA then they need to be more transparent and inform producers of the whole picture rather than ramming their one sided agenda forward.

As a SA sheep producer, I am disappointed to see the proposed changes to the independence of the Sheep and Cattle Industry Fund Boards.

A new model costing $300,000, as described by Livestock SA CEO Travis Tobin (Funds' futures raise concerns, Stock Journal, 25/4/24), is not necessary.

A few alterations to the Terms of Reference of both Sheep and Cattle Industry Fund Boards will cover any legal concerns.

The current model gives appropriate due diligence to the administration of the grower transaction levy. It is a very successful process and should be kept at arms length from LSA.

At a time when livestock producers need clarity in leadership, this is an unnecessary distraction.

I am intrigued by your GM food article (Aussies already have a taste for GM foods, Stock Journal online, 8/4/24), with its unsubtle insinuation that Aussies seek out GM foods.

At no place and at no time have I ever met (or even heard of) anyone seeking out GM food. Quite the reverse.

Most people are unaware of the laxity of our food regulators with regard to labelling GM ingredients, and therefore are unaware of how many GM-sourced ingredients have surreptitiously crept into our food supply; the rationale usually given for that laxity is that GM food is "substantially equivalent" (1) to non-GM food - which it is not.

The article boldly asserts that "Australia and the world have embraced GM's magic". What utter tosh. Around the world, people have fought against having GM products rammed down their throats.

The closing comment is that GM food has undergone "pre-market safety assessment and approval" by FSANZ. Those reading that comment would get a totally erroneous sense of comfort; what if they knew that FSANZ and other regulatory authorities fail to obtain independent assessments of GM food; that all the tests were performed by the industry; that all the tests are short-term, thus long-term (more serious) effects are never notified?

We are well overdue for a thorough review of the present deplorable situation regarding GM foods (and GM technology in general) - a situation which favours big corporates at the expense of all others (not dissimilar to the retail food situation).

About two years ago we were told the belching from both ends of cattle was an environmental problem. Despite these animals being on earth since the beginning, the amount of carbon dioxide and methane they emitted was now seen as a problem.

The most appropriate solution was to include some seaweed in their diet. Reducing cattle numbers was recommended, in Ireland and Holland for starters.

At that stage we heard nothing about other animals being contributors to the problem. However, we now have been informed by the experts that sheep are also a problem. These great animals have produced wool to maintain warmth for millions of people across the world. After all it was popular because it earned the favourable category known as 'renewable'. Wonderful!

According to an expert, we will now need to curtail using wool because the whole sheep population are belching from both ends, just like to cattle. Plans are afoot where all wool will need to be guaranteed to come from farms which abide by numerous standards of husbandry regarding chemical and animal welfare.

The expert failed to mention the alternatives to wool are usually derived from that other 'nasty' commodity known as oil. Cotton production needs plenty of fuel, chemicals and fertiliser to be successful.

One wonders which species will be the next target in this madness to contain carbon and its relatives. Humans? We know the population is getting beyond management and consumerism is leading to all these people wanting to eat meat and keep warm etc. In addition, we belch from both ends too. Surely we will be in the sights of these experts before long. Perhaps we should be encouraging a taste for seaweed.

The destruction of our industry is before us. All of this is due to a false understanding of the valuable element, carbon. Carbon is needed in soils to enhance absorption of water. Carbon dioxide is essential to all plant life. Enteric Methane, which is produced from sheep and cattle, is no problem since it forms a complete cycle by reverting to water vapour and carbon dioxide for plant life, both of which are consumed by the sheep and cattle.

Carbon dioxide is like a trace element; so minute that it is 0.04 per cent of the atmosphere. We need every bit of it, so let us sit back with a clear mind before we blindly accept any more detrimental advice.

In response to the article re Eyre Peninsula basins (EP basins SA Water access review slated, Stock Journal, 18/4/24), I wish to note my complete disgust with the approach of SA water to the looming "crisis" in Uley and other southern basins. I really shouldn't be surprised, as the urgency to install a de-sal plant at Billy Lights Point becomes easier to push through.

I was on the group who drew up the initial water allocation plans for EP. We were not a board, just an appointed group with our own fields of knowledge, and a VERY good hydrogeologist to guide us through the process. We were perhaps over-conservative in our approach, but were backed by good science and long term records. SA water were problematic from day one, always wanting more water and not treated as any other "consumer"!

In more recent times, the (then)-NRM board was advised to change the way monitoring was done, change the baselines, and reduce monitoring of resources to a bare minimum. So, they did, and here we are, "running on empty! Purely scientific hydrogeology is long gone, replaced by consultants and climate "scientists".

However, the basins are not my biggest worry. The experiment involving feeding super-saline brine into Proper Bay/Boston Bay is scientifically moronic. For one thing, we have dodge tides quite regularly there, thus the discharge will simply spread on the seabed, under its own weight, remaining static for 24 to 48 hours. Or longer.

Cathedral Rocks is open ocean, with an electricity supply on site. No good? Elliston is open ocean, has power, and is near to a large pipeline at Polda, which has massive capacity to export water. The open ocean west of Streaky Bay is another place with direct access to pipelines and power. And there are many more suitable sites.

Streaky Bay got its pipeline from the main EP system when I was on the NRM board. They got it because they created a water crisis (and because the council blocks they had developed couldn't be sold without water). I was witness to that con, and now they're up to the same game. It's not what you know, it's who you know; and knowing how to fool the public!