5 ms·

There are so many more interesting Australian native food plants that make more sense to concentrate on growing than native grasses. Not the most productive use

There are so many more interesting Australian native food plants that make more sense to concentrate on growing than native grasses. Not the most productive use of time and land.

mega_dingus 6y ago
Such as, and how/why?
dunco 6y ago
Can you elaborate on this? One of the main benefits of growing these grasses/grains is that they can grow on land that is otherwise unproductive (we have a lot of this in Australia). Do you have knowledge that this is not the case?
- haihaibye 6y ago
  For commercial farming the question is: does it have a high enough yield to justify the harvesting cost? If it doesn't, it doesn't matter if the land is free.
  - dunco 6y ago
    You're right, but I think it is way too early to make a call on that. I would expect the cost to diminish dramatically over time with selective breeding and the knowledge gained through experience.
- danieltillett 6y ago
  Grains are not able to be productive without huge inputs of fertilisers and agrochemicals. These marginal lands would be better off left as grazing country. One thing we could do is improve the meat conversion of kangaroos and wallabies. Some serious selective breeding could provide a commercially viable way to use these lands without the environmental damage resulting from cattle and sheep.
  - tonyedgecombe 6y ago
    These marginal lands would be better off left as grazing country. From what I've read a lot of Australia seems to be over-grazed.
    - danieltillett 6y ago
      Yes because we graze imported ruminants - I am suggesting we try and make our native animals a viable grazing option. Kangaroo is very tasty and low in fat. Selective breeding like we have done with cattle and sheep could make them commercially viable rather than be seen as a pest.
  - yetihehe 6y ago
    But wouldn't that serious selective breeding coupled with some pressure to increase number of grazers per acre lead to the same damage as with cattle and sheep? Environmental damage is not about what eats up the grass but about scale and trying to extract as much profit as possible.
    - prawn 6y ago
      I'm no authority at all, but I suspect the hooves of cattle are much more destructive than kangaroo hind paws. I've seen rural land in a regional area revegetate after cows were removed and the changes were very noticeable. Often kangaroo tracks are less obvious and areas without new growth are the small areas they tend to lie down in habitually.
      - danieltillett 6y ago
        Yes the hooves of introduced ruminants are incredibly destructive to this sensitive lands. Kangaroos are much less damaging to the environment as they have soft feet. It seems we have a lot of people commenting here who have no idea about the realities of modern agriculture.
  - kjs3 6y ago
    Not productive now. Just like every other intensively farmed grain, you start with something that will actually grow, then modify genome until economically efficient. This seems like solid research, because finding crops with the genomes that allow them to grow in the outback is probably useful elsewhere. And I fail to see how some hypothetical bulked up kangaroo farm is going to be any solution. 'Selective breeding' kangaroos can't change "there's not many calories out here, and not much water" into a nice juicy steak that western palates will make economical. See: Masai cattle breeds.
- orwin 6y ago
  Not OP but i think it's because grain farming is not really efficient overall without load of fertilizer (or burning forests), especially if you cna't use cover crops (if you can i think the storage capacity of grain make it a better product overall).
shermozle 6y ago
If you RTFA you'll see that these grasses grow well on degraded land. Wheat, barley etc does not. We have a lot of degraded land. If you read Pascoe's book, you'll see that one of the reasons the indigenous agriculture disappeared so quickly is that stock sought out the delicious native grasses and destroyed them. Delicious means market opportunity.
- natch 6y ago
  stock = livestock for those who don’t know Australian.
- danieltillett 6y ago
  Yes but they are not productive. The yield of grain is not commercially viable. It is much better to use these lands for grazing stock - in an ideal world native stock. I have my doubts as to the existence of indigenous agricultural - this doesn’t mean that aboriginal people didn’t do things that had some similarities to farming, just that they never stepped over the line and became farmers.
  - prawn 6y ago
    I think I get Daniel's point. I'm inclined to favour seeing that outback land turned over to something other than grazing, but what? It's remote, dry, broad, etc. Those grazing animals are essentially autonomous bots harvesting disparate clumps of feed - like a hay that bales itself (as meat).
lostlogin 6y ago
Australian (and pretty much everyone else’s) grasslands are threatened and while mowing them isn’t idea, it’s a lot better than many of the alternative uses. Growing something that wants to grow versus some water intensive crop, or cattle is a straight win. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/08/endangered-grasslands-may-be-lifeline-in-face-of-climate-change https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment...

There are so many more interesting Australian native food plants that make more sense to concentrate on growing than native grasses. Not the most productive use of time and land.

mega_dingus 6y ago

Such as, and how/why?

dunco 6y ago

Can you elaborate on this? One of the main benefits of growing these grasses/grains is that they can grow on land that is otherwise unproductive (we have a lot of this in Australia). Do you have knowledge that this is not the case?

haihaibye 6y ago
For commercial farming the question is: does it have a high enough yield to justify the harvesting cost? If it doesn't, it doesn't matter if the land is free.
- dunco 6y ago
  You're right, but I think it is way too early to make a call on that. I would expect the cost to diminish dramatically over time with selective breeding and the knowledge gained through experience.
danieltillett 6y ago
Grains are not able to be productive without huge inputs of fertilisers and agrochemicals. These marginal lands would be better off left as grazing country. One thing we could do is improve the meat conversion of kangaroos and wallabies. Some serious selective breeding could provide a commercially viable way to use these lands without the environmental damage resulting from cattle and sheep.
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  These marginal lands would be better off left as grazing country. From what I've read a lot of Australia seems to be over-grazed.
  - danieltillett 6y ago
    Yes because we graze imported ruminants - I am suggesting we try and make our native animals a viable grazing option. Kangaroo is very tasty and low in fat. Selective breeding like we have done with cattle and sheep could make them commercially viable rather than be seen as a pest.
- yetihehe 6y ago
  But wouldn't that serious selective breeding coupled with some pressure to increase number of grazers per acre lead to the same damage as with cattle and sheep? Environmental damage is not about what eats up the grass but about scale and trying to extract as much profit as possible.
  - prawn 6y ago
    I'm no authority at all, but I suspect the hooves of cattle are much more destructive than kangaroo hind paws. I've seen rural land in a regional area revegetate after cows were removed and the changes were very noticeable. Often kangaroo tracks are less obvious and areas without new growth are the small areas they tend to lie down in habitually.
    - danieltillett 6y ago
      Yes the hooves of introduced ruminants are incredibly destructive to this sensitive lands. Kangaroos are much less damaging to the environment as they have soft feet. It seems we have a lot of people commenting here who have no idea about the realities of modern agriculture.
- kjs3 6y ago
  Not productive now. Just like every other intensively farmed grain, you start with something that will actually grow, then modify genome until economically efficient. This seems like solid research, because finding crops with the genomes that allow them to grow in the outback is probably useful elsewhere. And I fail to see how some hypothetical bulked up kangaroo farm is going to be any solution. 'Selective breeding' kangaroos can't change "there's not many calories out here, and not much water" into a nice juicy steak that western palates will make economical. See: Masai cattle breeds.
orwin 6y ago
Not OP but i think it's because grain farming is not really efficient overall without load of fertilizer (or burning forests), especially if you cna't use cover crops (if you can i think the storage capacity of grain make it a better product overall).

shermozle 6y ago

If you RTFA you'll see that these grasses grow well on degraded land. Wheat, barley etc does not. We have a lot of degraded land. If you read Pascoe's book, you'll see that one of the reasons the indigenous agriculture disappeared so quickly is that stock sought out the delicious native grasses and destroyed them. Delicious means market opportunity.

natch 6y ago
stock = livestock for those who don’t know Australian.
danieltillett 6y ago
Yes but they are not productive. The yield of grain is not commercially viable. It is much better to use these lands for grazing stock - in an ideal world native stock. I have my doubts as to the existence of indigenous agricultural - this doesn’t mean that aboriginal people didn’t do things that had some similarities to farming, just that they never stepped over the line and became farmers.
- prawn 6y ago
  I think I get Daniel's point. I'm inclined to favour seeing that outback land turned over to something other than grazing, but what? It's remote, dry, broad, etc. Those grazing animals are essentially autonomous bots harvesting disparate clumps of feed - like a hay that bales itself (as meat).

lostlogin 6y ago

Australian (and pretty much everyone else’s) grasslands are threatened and while mowing them isn’t idea, it’s a lot better than many of the alternative uses. Growing something that wants to grow versus some water intensive crop, or cattle is a straight win. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/08/endangered-grasslands-may-be-lifeline-in-face-of-climate-change https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment...