Q: Should farmers who have a "salt problem", get financial assistance and who should pay if they do?

A: This is a question I will not answer here because it is a political one, but it has to do with an issue that I wish to look at in a different light.

Before we attempt to "read" an environment closer to home, let us go back to Rome. We are finally seated with our cold beer and the first meal arrives. It is too salty! SO IS THE NEXT ONE! In fact we notice that people at other tables are gesticulating madly and addressing the waitress, but she does not appear to be flattered.

HAPPY PEOPLE ----- ? ------ NO...
STORE ROOM ------- ? ------ FINE
KITCHEN ------------- ? ------ SOMETHING HAS CHANGED...
BATHROOMS ------- ? ------ FINE

We hardly need to trace happenings back as far as the store-room to where the salt is kept.

At a first glance, we feel there is more than one problem. We have unhappy customers, spoilt food, people are beginning to argue and there is a business that will fold if the present trend continues.

Whether it is the waitress, the kitchen hand, the chef or the new recipe, 9 times out of 10 the root cause of such a situation will be human failings of some sort.

If we were the owners of the restaurant, we have two obvious areas to tackle:

Pacify the irate customers and get the business back on track.

Here we do not need Einstein to tell us: one is a cause and the other a symptom.We may choose a band-aid (perhaps another cold beer) for the customer,but it is not going to solve the "problem", is it?.

Talking to the plumber, the store-man or our supplier will not solve it either.

We clearly have a "kitchen" issue that is related to management, and the "salt" is a distraction, it may just as easily have been"chilli".

The Salt we see here is not only a "kitchen" issue. It is more than a "kitchen" issue. One that did not start over night, but one that is definitely related to human management. - Let us take it through the environmental 4-way test:

COMMUNITY DYNAMICS:
ENERGY FLOW:
MINERAL CYCLE:
WATER CYCLE:
IS IT FAIR TO ALL ORGANISMS CONCERNED?
HOW BENEFICIAL IS THE SUN LIGHT TO THE FOOD CHAIN?
IS IT GOOD OR GETTING BETTER?
IS IT TRULY EFFECTIVE?

Farmer, politician, child or scientist should be able to see:

• NOT MANY ORGANISMS ARE THRIVING...
• NOT THAT MUCH SUNLIGHT IS ENTERING THE FOOD CHAIN...
• MOST OF THE MINERALS ARE JUST LYING THERE...
• AND THE WATERCYCLE IS HARDLY IDEAL ...

In fact all organisms that used to be out there (from little beasties in the soil to the larger animals at the higher end of the food chain) were probably trying to tell us that anyway.... ...if only we had asked them...

This would be a great one to look at interactivley, unfortunately time will not permit it here. Basic Environmental literacy can tell us all of the above. It also tells us for a healthy productive farm, management should be directed towards a different balance:

"UTOPIA FARM"

• COMMUNITY DYNAMICS: BIO-DIVERSE STABLE COMMUNITIES INCLUDING HEALTHY AND CONTENTED PEOPLE.
• ENERGY FLOW: OPTIMUM AMOUNT OF SUNLIGHT TRAPPING LEAF SURFACE AS A REQUIREMENT FOR A HEALTHY FOOD CHAIN...
• MINERAL CYCLE: AVAILABLE MINERALS SHOULD BE CYCLING AS EVENLY AND AS EFFECTIVELY AS POSSIBLE. IF WE ARE A NET EXPORTER OF SOMETHING WE NEED TO KEEP AN EYE ON THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE ACTION.
• WATER CYCLE: NEEDS TO BE AS EFFECTIVE AS POSSIBLE AND IMPROVING...

To knowingly head in this direction will require more than basic Environmental Literacy. It will also require a working knowledge of some basic principles. Nothing, that cannot be learnt. In fact, once we begin asking the right questions, the teacher is out there waiting for us. Nature did all these things quite well until we humans decided to play "God".

Blaming today's farmer is like blaming the waitress for the salty meal. Blaming government policy (past or present) is like blaming the people who printed therecipe-books.

Wecould go on looking for scape-goats only to find that everybody has a part toplay...

Ultimatelythe chef is responsible for what comes out of the kitchen and although we need to have some idea of what went wrong, we need to know: what it is that we want, before we can work out what we can do about it.

Thejury is still out with regard to exactly how and whathappened. As far as I'm concerned it can stay out. The fact is: something didhappen, and all we really need to know is where the change occurred.

ARRIVALOF THE FIRST NEW AUSTRALIANS

COMMUNITYDYNAMICS: many thousands of years ago, shortly after the arrival of the firsthumans on this continent, we may have lost up to 94% of our large animalspecies. We do not even know how many more species we lost in the resultant "ripple effect".

("Rippleeffect" is something related to redundancy only without the hand-shake. Achain reaction in the supply [food-]chain when demand drops off.)

Forwhatever reason, the "Store-room" ended up close to empty with manyingredients missing. (loss of Biodiversity; species as well as biomass)

AUSTRALIA (FROM A HUMAN PERSPECTIVE) ONE THOUSAND YEARS AGO:

• COMMUNITY DYNAMICS was greatly simplified.
• ENERGYFLOW and MINERAL CYCLE were accordingly reduced.
• This in turn reduced the effectiveness of the WATER CYCLE.
• The net result over time was a vastly modified environment.

The chef had no choice, but to come to terms with a new situation of limited supplies in the "store-room". It was no longer a-la-carte, but he did an admirable job and taught his apprentices well.

However the environment, was basically unhealthy and could at best supposedly support three million humans who all knew what they had to do, to keep things going.

Then"over" the blue, along came a new range of clientele bringing with them their own kitchen crew and all sorts of new recipes and exotic spices.

Initially there were some complaints about the venue, but as the party got into full swing, and while it lasted, these could be ignored, because the majority "knew" that there was "plenty" for everybody, even for "take-aways" that could be sent to friends and relatives who didn't come.

In the historical context or in plain English this means. Australia 200 years ago, could by all accounts, barely sustain it’s population of humans. We are now attempting to feed close to eighteen million on our own shores and in the vicinity of 70 million with our intentional exports.

Meanwhile by far our biggest export remains soil (through wind and water erosion).

I have no details on the carbon and pollutant gasses that our annual fires pump into the atmosphere, but I suggest that they constitute a significant percentage of the energy that our deteriorating environments are still able to trap each year.

At a good party people can put up with some problems in the bath-room. If we are not going to stay, who really cares about checking out the bedrooms. However with every-body "collaborating", by the time there is an obvious "kitchen problem" we may well also have a "store-room problem". Also the toilets may be blocked and perhaps there are not enough beds.

Our level of technology and the unsurpassed pressure caused by the demands of our human population has rendered obsolete the saying:

“We are all in the same boat.” (This no longer reflects reality.)

More appropriate would be: “We are all aboard the same 747.”

But there are some points worth noting:

• Our captain is playing computer games with the crew and we are lost.
• We are losing fuel and the sound of the engines is changing.
• There will be a change of crew before too long, but we are the ones responsible to pick the next shift.