freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2012 at 5:47pm:



Freeliar, much of the the stone country may not be the best-suited land for cattle farming. However, if you look elsewhere in Australia, cattle farmers have made a go of it in similar areas.


How much of Arnhem Land is made up of rugged inaccessible stone country?

Based on CSIRO mapping on the cattle-grazing prospects of the NT, I would estimate about a quarter of Arnhem Land is in this category.


But according to Freeliar, because one quarter of the region is rugged and inaccessible, then Europeans wouldn't want the rest of it!

What if we applied the same theory to Tasmania? Tasmania is roughly the same size as Arnhem Land. About a quarter of Tasmania is uninhabited due its rugged inaccessibility. Did Europeans give up on the rest of Tasmania?


According to CSIRO research, most of Arnhem Land would support up to 4 or 5 head of cattle per square mile. Not the highest yielding land used for cattle; but not the lowest yielding land used for cattle in the NT either.

We can find lands with far lower yield being used for grazing in the NT.


Have a look at this CSIRO map. I know that you will mention that the soil qualities in Arnhem Land are not considered great. But we should bear in mind that cattle stations are maintained on less productive land.

omg mate are you still going on about this

shut up, you are a deluded reigious fanatic and this only makes sense to only you, you only go on about it over and over and cling to it religiously because this narrative portrays islam in a positive light (despite the fact that you going on about it and clinging to it religiously is actually depicting your religion in a negative light)

Quote:


Does that mean you will reduce your estimate from 20 down to 15 viable farms in Arnhem land?

Quote:


No Falah, you are the only one leaping to absurd conclusions, like describing the stone country as a fertile plateau.

Quote:


Tasmania is far more suited to European agricultural methods. The reason I have asked you about the stone country 20 times is because you ignored it 19 times, after initially describing it as a fertile plateau.

Quote:


Did they actually say this, or is this you reading from map colours?

Do you think this implies productivity or farmability? The example given in this wikipedia article is of a stocking rate 100 times higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock_grazing_comparison

This is just the beginning when it comes to assessing the ability of European immigrants in the 1800s to establish a viable farm - which is why your own examples list climate as the primary cause of farm failure. The farms further south on the marginal territory do not have to deal with such severe monsoonal rains and have the advantage of huge tracts of flat land that require relatively low effort to turn into a viable farm.

Quote:


How much lower? Would it be fair to say that the only places in the NT where viable cattle farms have lower stocking rates is on land that looks like desert and is very easy to get around on and is not crocodile infested? That is, Arnhem has the stocking capacity of a desert in one of the most difficult to manage areas in Australia.

Quote:


LOL. I haven't even started on that.

Quote:


You literally have no clue at all.

Quote:


Falah, this is only slightly more than the cattle farm you used as an example earlier in this thread. That is a single farm with nearly the same number of cattle as the total stockability of the entire Arnhem land (not just the little Yolngu corner you tried to paint as an agrticultural paradise). Previously you said you could fit at least 20 such farms into Arnhem land. Would you care to revise your estimate down?

As the CSIRO has determined that cattle grazing is viable in most of Arnhem Land, and there is a map on this thread which we can all see that this is so, I see little point in arguing this any further.

I, personally do not think myself more knowledgeable on the issue than the CSIRO, perhaps Freeliar does.

Quote:




Freeliar obviously knows little of the northern Australia pastoral industry.



There is about 560 thousand square miles of land in northern Australia used for cattle grazing.

There are about 7.5 million cattle in northern Australian cattle stations.

That works out to an average of 13 per square mile.

This average is inflated by the use of feedlot enterprises



So if we take the feedlots out of the equation. The CSIRO estimate for Arnhem Land is fairly close to average for northern Australia.





Food for thought (and Freeliar seems anorexic):

The largest cattle station in Australia, Anna Creek Station, at 9,400 square miles is about a third of the size of the potential cattle grazing land in Arnhem Land.

It has 10,000 head of cattle.

Eastern and northern Arnhem Land should be able to sustain well in excess of 100,000 head of cattle - and much more if the region was agriculturally developed according to the CSIRO.

Most of Arnhem Land rated by the CSIRO at capable of sustaining 4 head of cattle per sq mi - and more if the region was developed for agriculture.


Anna Creek holds about 1 cow for every square mile!

That is 1 cow for every 1.6 km by 1.6 km piece of land.




Australia's largest cattle station has only a quarter of the productivity that the CSIRO has estimated Arnhem Land to have.





Keep exposing your ignorance Freeliar, maybe if you keep showing us how stupid you are, Australia will elect your political party. What is it that your party stands for? Saving Dutch sheep from rape or something isn't it? ;

Falah, you previously claimed that Arnhem land could support at least 20 viable farms like Coolibah, the one from that TV show.

Would you care to revise your claim?

In the map of northern grazing areas you posted, can you explain where there are almost no farms at all along the monsoonal coast of the NT and northern WA?

freediver wrote on Jul 7^th, 2012 at 8:08am:


Why didn't the Muslims bring piglets to Australia? Good question Freediver. Maybe someone could do some research into why halal pigs weren't brought into Australia by Muslims.



The Yolngu areas are rich with fish, turtles, shellfish, etc, doubt that it was though necessary to bring exotic meat supplies to the area. Large shellfish mounds have been found in proximity to Macassan trading sites.



The Macassans did introduce fruit and rice to Australia.


Doubt the idea of bringing animals on a small perahu on a voyage that could last weeks was very appealing.

Indonesian perahu:



Macasans intorduced metal axes, nails, flour, tea, canoes and other items to Australia in their trade with Indigenous Australians.

Water jug brought to Australia by Macassan traders:





Pot brought to Australia by Macassan traders, used by Aborigines:




Tamarind fruit trees introduced to Australia by Macassan traders:
http://www.territorystories.nt.gov.au/bitstream/handle/10070/29106/PH0049-0755.tif.preview.jpgsequence=10

freediver wrote on Jul 7^th, 2012 at 6:19pm:




They walked.


The map shows the probable extent of land and water at the time of the last glacial maximum and when the sea level was probably more than 150m lower than today; it illustrates the formidable sea obstacle that migrants would have faced.




The shoreline of Tasmania and Victoria about 14,000 years ago, as sea levels were rising, showing some of the human archaeological sites




freediver wrote on Jul 7^th, 2012 at 6:19pm:


I don't find any evidence of traders coming from non-Muslim areas to Arnhem Land or the Kimberley region prior to European settlement of Australia.

The earliest evidence for Macassan trading in Australia is dated at 400 years old. The areas that the traders came from, like South Sulawesi were already converted to Islam by about 1600.

As for Aborigines, it would seem likely that those accompanying Macassan ships were Muslim. The fact that many of them were allowed to marry Macassan women supports this. Even if some of the Aborigines were not Muslim, they were usually only employees on the Macassan ships, and would not have had much say on what the ships' cargoes contained.

freediver wrote on Jul 7^th, 2012 at 6:19pm:


The Macassans usually camped close to the sea shore, Their huts and camp site are all located within close proximity to the sea.







freediver wrote on Jul 7^th, 2012 at 6:19pm:


The Macassans only spent about four or five months per year in Australia.Doesn't make sense to bring domesticated animals that you couldn't look after most of the year.

i have lived in Indonesia, and I can tell you that their main protein source is fish. People from the islands of Indonesia would be happy to live off fish, turtles, dugongs, shellfish and turtles eggs for a few a months.

The Macassans brought firearms with them to Australia, and it is likely that they could shoot the odd kangaroo or bird if they so desired land meat.