As the drought continues its squeeze, is our new drought envoy Barnaby Joyce just chasing short term popularity by calling for “special emergency access” to water?
NSW Office of Environment and Heritage has said it will release 15,000 megalitres for irrigators. This is a relatively meager amount in light of what would be needed to really make a difference.
So how much water would Barnaby be going for, and is he simply creating unrealistic expectations?
Also, will the water serve to fuel the argument that already weighs against farmers that tax payer dollars are merely propping up businesses perceived by some as unsustainable? Or could it genuinely help keep afloat our beef herds until a break arrives?
It’s a tricky situation, but to get some context, let’s take a quick look at some numbers.
Firstly, how much hay can be produced if all 15,000ML went onto lucerne, as Mr Joyce suggests?
A back of the envelope calculation suggests the upper end would be 15,000 tonnes.
If we assume a dry 400kg cow that needs 6kg/day of hay for maintenance (NSW DPI figure), we could potentially support 100,000 cows for 25 days.
Of course, most cows are larger (often around 600kg), a lot of them are also currently lactating, and that volume of fodder is the very top-end of what could be produced, so it isn’t going to stretch very far.
Meanwhile, the city do-gooders are circling, already keen to see how much of this water might instead go to cotton.
The reality is that if it did, it would probably generate more dollars and more jobs, and produce some cotton seed as fodder.
So if there’s water going, the cotton option might add up okay, despite the opposition.
The flipside is those same cotton farmers are probably in a more comfortable position than the beef farmers.
However, both cotton and lucerne are going to take some time to grow. A lucerne stand especially is a long term commitment.
Annuals like maize or millet might be better options, but even then, we’re not talking big numbers of cattle that can be fed.
So while the emergency water call has its supporters, it also could tarnish ag’s reputation by shortchanging the environment in its first real test of the Basin Plan.
It also doesn’t consider the potential market distortion, so essentially this is interventionist behaviour and political point scoring, while also raising unrealistic expectations.
