A few sharp eyes among our readers were a tad confused by a letter from Xavier Martin in last week’s&nbsp;The Land&nbsp;(“Appetite for feed bank”, p26) about the need to expand the farm management deposit concept to create&nbsp;a feed bank. The drought context&nbsp;was relevant,&nbsp;but the numbers were about 15 years old.&nbsp; So why run it?&nbsp; Mr Martin&nbsp;dug this letter out&nbsp;in a frustrated attempt to demonstrate that since&nbsp;published in&nbsp;The Land&nbsp;in 2003, little has changed in terms of drought strategy. Even over a decade ago, farm management deposits contained $2.5 billion and grain cost $300/t.&nbsp;In 2018, there is&nbsp;about $6b in FMDs and most producers are&nbsp;now paying $500/t or more for grain. The situation on the whole&nbsp;is similarly dry, but&nbsp;fodder is now&nbsp;much scarcer. With reference to our&nbsp;previous editorial,&nbsp;“Fodder reprieve, or interventionist policy” (The Land, August 30, p26), better co-ordination of stockpiled&nbsp;feed&nbsp;would help&nbsp;minimise&nbsp;the need to divert water during drought,&nbsp;would potentially&nbsp;be more cost effective, and could provide better&nbsp;transparency around&nbsp;remaining feed stocks. This would allow&nbsp;producers to make better&nbsp;informed decisions about trigger points for when to sell stock,&nbsp;&nbsp;those stock would likely be&nbsp;in better condition, and the fodder wouldn’t be as expensive. In 2003, Mr Martin also&nbsp;referred to the large amounts of tax payers’&nbsp;cash being poured into the first home buyers’ initiative.&nbsp; Many billions have continued to flow into this in the years since&nbsp;–&nbsp;likewise into bailing out car manufacturing and the big banks.&nbsp; So if that amount of tax payers’&nbsp;money can be poured into propping up those industries,&nbsp;wouldn’t it make sense to put some money into a system that sets farmers up to better help themselves in the long term&nbsp;–&nbsp; like FMDs do? A feed bank would help&nbsp;demonstrate longevity and pro-activeness both by the government, and the livestock industry. If farmers paid the cost of the feed and storage once the system was set-up, the demand would represent their willingness and ability&nbsp;to pay, and their actual need for fodder beyond what their own facilities might hold for risk management. This would therefore be a reflection of actual demand for fodder, and further reduce&nbsp;the need for government intervention in&nbsp;drought, which we have returned to because of a lack of suitable alternatives.