Perennial Pastures in Australia Shown to Sequester Carbon

The potential role for carbon sequestration in perennial pasture plants has received a boost with the release of some important research data that has put some quantified information into the public arena. The data is broadly supported by other information beginning to emerge from other parts of Australia.

Does this begin to really show that deep rooted perennial grass pastures can be effective in raising soil carbon levels? Is there a role for other grasses eg the very deep rooted Vetiver Grass used in mining reclamation for example. It does not address the issue of burning but there is some data about grazing.

Read the material below -----

Drought-tolerant perennial pastures could make a big dent in Australia's greenhouse emissions by helping soils to soak up carbon, says one researcher. But not everyone is convinced this approach really locks away as much carbon in the soil as claimed.

Tim Wiley, a pastures agronomist from Western Australia's Department of Agriculture and Food, says early findings from a trial of perennial pastures are "exciting". "They appear to have an exceptional ability to build up carbon in the soil," he says of the naturally drought-tolerant pastures. "If this preliminary data is right and you start extrapolating it over crop and pasture land in Australia, we could make a very big dent on Australia's emissions."

Soil carbon has decreased to between a half and a third its original levels since European agriculture was introduced. Today, 16% of Australia's annual greenhouse gases come from agriculture.

Wiley says trials of deep-rooted perennial sub-tropical grasses, such as Rhodes grass, on poor sandy soils in Western Australia show they can sequester much more carbon than traditional annual pastures.
He says results from a trial, which ran for more than three years on a farm in Lancelin, show Rhodes grass can capture and sequester nearly 7 tonnes per hectare of CO2 equivalents per year more than traditional pasture. CO2 equivalents are the units the Kyoto Protocol uses to measure greenhouse gases. The methane produced from the extra animals grazing on the perennial pastures only reduces this sequestration bonus by 10-20%, says Wiley.

Wiley says if these early findings are confirmed and the perennial pastures are grown on all suitable farmland in Western Australia, they could offset the state's entire annual greenhouse emissions.
He says the results are supported by data from farmers elsewhere in the area and trials across the country in Queensland. This suggests the perennial pastures could have a similar effect in areas with very different rainfall and soils.

'Doesn't add up'

Dr Jeffrey Baldock, an expert in soil carbon sequestration from CSIRO Land and Water in Adelaide, agrees perennial pasture holds the best potential for increasing soil carbon and no one has ever tried to quantify its impact. But Baldock thinks the level of sequestration that Wiley reports doesn't add up. He says an increase of 7 tonnes of CO2 equivalents sequestered per hectare per year would require a massive increase in plant growth, measured as the amount of dried plant material. "For [Wiley's] carbon numbers to be correct he would have to be producing about 8 tonnes of extra dried Rhodes grass compared to the annual pasture," he says. "I'm not going to say it's impossible but it's a big ask."

Mycorrhiza

Wiley says he has yet to complete a full measurement of dried plant material. But he says data gathered so far suggests the increase in dried material is not enough to explain the increase in carbon. He says the conventional assumptions that Baldock uses about how much carbon can be sequestered from plants into the soil could be wrong. He suspects the deep-rooted perennials are supporting a healthy crop of mycorrhiza, fungi living symbiotically on plant roots. Wiley says there is evidence that mycorrhiza are more effective than other soil microbes at producing humus and other stable carbon compounds in the soil, which Baldock disputes. But Baldock says more research of the kind that Wiley is involved in should be carried out.

Carbon trading

Wiley says he would not normally publicise such preliminary research but for discussions on whether to include soil carbon in Australia's greenhouse emissions trading scheme. He says soil carbon is already being traded in some parts of the world and while there are many uncertainties around how to measure soil carbon, findings such as his call for it to be included in a trading system.

Meanwhile, Baldock questions the economics of soil carbon trading, arguing that soil carbon should be increased simply because of the benefits it can bring productivity. "It increases water holding capacity, soil nutrition, provides carbon substrates for the soil microbial population to live on and enhances soil structural stability," he says.

[partially sourced from the ABC website]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of the above about what carbon in the soil does is true. But we still need to get it there, and keep it there. For horticulture, the role of annual green manure crops is important, as a sensible means of building soil carbon and which has a direct and fairly immediate benefit to following horticulture crops. Can we both build and then keep adding to the soil carbon stores in other ways - with applied compost for example.

Both of these concepts are definitely NOT new. There is recent research data that indicates organic production can add to the soil carbon store. But that is really in most part, about the use of organic amendments, not necessarily the other factors in organic production.

legumes can be used as a green manure crop

Recycling organic waste, sequestering carbon, green manure crops, maintaining soil cover..........does one get a sense of deja vu? After all these were considered wise, prudent and profitable soil management considerations for most of the history of agriculture, especially since the Middle Ages, and most certainly taught in most agricultural science university courses world wide in the 19th and 20th centuries!

incorporating green manure crops on a large farm

Some more reading:

http://images.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.vegedge.umn.edu/MNFruit%26VegNews/Vol4/601usda_clip_image006.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.vegedge.umn.edu/MNFruit%26VegNews/Vol4/608gm.htm&h=260&w=350&sz=25&hl=en&start=3&tbnid=sw520Ot7mca2YM:&tbnh=89&tbnw=120&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgreen%2Bmanure%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

http://www.echotech.org/mambo/images/DocMan/GreenMan.pdf

Are Food Users Expectations Unrealistic in Terms of Prices Being Paid?

The following article is based on material collected at the recent 2020 Summit in Canberra, Australia.

It highlights the often unrealistic expectations that consumers are placing on food production, while demanding lower prices for food, something the world in the developed areas has expected and enjoyed for around 100 years. But meeting what are probalby unreal expectations in overall food safety, quality and availability does remove significant food from the consumer........and at what cost? It is all very well to say "lets all eat fresh natural food" but often that may not be possible except at impossibly high prices, or even technically impossible in some areas of the world.

Sure.......food needs to be safe; it mostly was 40 or 50 years ago, yet many consumers demand still higher yardsticks. Is that always necessary? Simple things such as washing fresh foods before use in clean water [where available, as it is mostly in developed countries] can do a lot to remove problems just before consumption.

Recent comments this week by the UN and related agencies, specifically related to food production and availability also add to this conundrum.

The article prompted a lot of comment. What do you think?


Consumer expectations on how food is produced have become unrealistic, according to the chief executive of the Australian Food and Grocery Council, and there will need to be a trade off if food prices are to be affordable in the future.

Dick Wells was a rural delegate at the 2020 summit in Canberra on the weekend, and said while consumers rule, there's been "a disconnect" between them and the people trying to produce food and fibre under safe, clean, profitable conditions. Mr Wells said experience shows, in other industries as well, that to underestimate the capacity of the community and community outrage, even though it may not be based on sound science and evidence, can make the operating capacity of an industry very difficult. "The most recent example is of course the mulesing issue, with PETA and so on. I think people underestimated how they could marshal consumer outrage to create a backlash against industries," Mr Wells said.

"The frustration for us all in these sorts of things is when you understand the industry and the science behind these things, there's sound reasons for doing them.

"But there's a disconnect, and as a scientist that's one of the things I learnt – I used to think there was a logical process of evaluation and acquisition of data and decision making and that was the right answer. But science is only one part of the equation."

Mr Wells said increasingly consumers are "ruling the world". "They're increasingly expressing their wishes through big retailers who are seeking to supply them with the goods they want," Mr Wells said. "So in terms of quality assurance, its gone well beyond safety and gone right back up stream to how food is produced. "And it includes all these soft issues which are really quite challenging for us in agriculture, but at the end of the day consumers are still not prepared to pay any more for better upstream performance and this is the frustration for industry."

He said if you were to poll consumers, most would say they are most concerned about issues like environment and welfare. "But give them an opportunity to pay more for better upstream practice and they won't do it. "So the evolution has got to come with better communication and understanding to consumers about how our food is produced to reassure them that we produce food in a way that deals with a whole range of certain standards. "It's a trade-off. People are worried about grocery prices but you can't keep putting costs and expectations on upstream producers like farmers and others and then expect to absorb the cost."

But Mr Wells was cautious about labelling consumer expectations too high "because they rule".
"I think some of them are unrealistic…because they become ideological or philosophical.

"Take for example GM canola oil – we can show that there canola oil is no different from a GM plant, and the DNA in them has identical chemicals. "But the ideological argument has been 'I don't want oil from a GM crop irrespective'."

Mr Wells said the farm sector had always been product-focussed rather than service-focussed, but those sorts of ideological views had nothing to do with the product. "It's really about providing food service which encompasses all those other values and that's really challenging for an industry that's been supply-chain oriented.

"I think the challenge for us is to actually have responsible processes to try and understand consumer trends, even if they're irrational, and put in place processes about reassurance and quality control, even if it goes back to things that aren't making us any more dollars. "It's going to become a licence to operate rather if we do it in those ways rather than potentially an advantage in the market."

partially sourced from : Rural Press National News Service, Parliament House Bureau, Canberra.

Gamba Grass to be Declared a Weed

The Queensland government has succumbed to pressure from the greenies to declare gamba grass a Class 2 weed in Queensland. This is despite its role as an extremely valuable pasture species in the far north of Queensland.

The text of the Minister's statement is below:

Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries -The Honourable Tim Mulherin
Thursday, April 03, 2008

Gamba grass to be declared a Class 2 weed

Gamba grass is to be declared a Class 2 weed in Queensland. The decision announced today by Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries Tim Mulherin ends an extensive consultation process. “This is a sensible, balanced position that takes into account concerns from environmental and industry groups,” Mr Mulherin, said. “The reality is that gamba grass has the potential to become a major weed if not controlled but it also provides valuable cattle fodder, particularly in drought conditions. “Gamba grass is native to tropical Africa and can grow up to 4m tall. It exists in scattered areas, primarily across the Cape York and Gulf regions.’’

“It is estimated that it has been planted on around 18,000 hectares, based on the quantity of seed sold. “The decision will stop the sale of gamba grass seeds, require landholders to control it and require local governments to include it in their pest management plans for all areas.’’

Mr Mulherin said the decision did not force landowners, who had already planted the seed to provide fodder for their cattle, to immediately eradicate it from managed pastures. “But it does mean they will have to carefully control any potential spread,” he said. “This decision is to ensure that gamba grass does not get out of hand. “It is a serious offence to introduce, keep or supply a Class 2 pest without a permit issued by the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Penalties of up to $30,000 apply.’’

DPI&F will produce guidelines and an enforcement policy for landowners, information on management and if necessary, research on control practices. Mr Mulherin said the decision had not been made lightly. “It was important that the economic, environmental and social impacts of the plant were carefully weighed against its benefits,” he said.

While the regulatory steps necessary to enact the Class 2 declaration are carried out, an emergency pest notice preventing the further sale of gamba grass seed will be in place from mid-April.
[from the Ministers media statement]
------------------

This decision follows a similar ban in WA, introduced a month or so back.

Gamba grass is a very valuable pasture species, a major contributor to fodder sources in Africa [ its origin], South America, Asia and Australia. The latter three are areas where it has been introduced , mostly around the 1960s and 1970s, and where the plant has made extremely valuable contributions to fodder, both for direct grazing, and as cut and carry feed.

A decision is pending in the NT.

The issue has been driven by the green movement, with a lot of emotional material, and the media has played to that. As is common, the response from agriculture has been more muted, but the media is not listening.

A lot of misinformation on the plant has been used by the green movement to achieve their aims.

Unmanaged gamba will grow tall, and is a fire issue in the dry season. Absolutely true! But managed by grazing, mowing or similar measures to be kept short, dramatically reduces seed production and seed quality as seed production is forced into the dry period of the year, at least in seasonally wet/dry regions where it has been most useful. While not eliminated, a reduction of well over 90% in seed yield can be achieved. The fodder consumed if grazed also is very major contributer to animal production, especially in the dry season or early wet season as the plant responds very quickly to moisture, including heavy dew and short quick showers. Part of the reason for this has been elucidated over recent years, and is related to nitrogen accumulation in the root system - that also helps with the excellent biomass yields too.

It is also interesting to speculate on the role of gamba grass as a high yielding perennial cellulosic source in these regions. Afterall, the US is forging ahead with plans to develop switchgrass, a similar "weedy" grass found on the edge of many US mid west crop fields, as a cellulosic feedstock for new generation ethanol production.

There is no doubt that biomass production from gamba grass in areas receiving over 1000mm annual rainnfall in the wet / dry tropics is excellent. Could it have a future as a biomass crop?

It is an interesting option worth pursuing............and remember that one of the definitions for a weed "is a plant for which a use has not yet been found". Gamba grass already has a role as a fodder plant, and maybe there are more options too.

Update on Compadre Zoysia - great turf!

The following photos show a domestic lawn sown by Compadre seed in the Darwin region in late May 2007. The Dry Season had cool to very cool nights although days were around 30C, but with about 11 hours of sunlight.

The lawn developed well, and the following photos show the area in early April 2008, 10 months after establishment.

There have been no insect or disease problems, mowing is about every 3 weeks. The area has recently been cut very low to remove any thatch build up, in the absence of the availability of a verti cutter [or scarifier]. This is a precautionary management option as modest fertiliser levels were used in the establishment year, and may not be needed as fertiliser use is moderated in future.

It is a great lawn…………enjoyable to use, and for kids to play on. It is not itchy, if rolling on the lawn without a shirt, as often is the case if there are kids playing football!

Not only is it a great lawn, it cost less than one quarter the cost of using any turf sod!

For earlier photos see the post on this blog - http://abovecapricorn.blogspot.com/search/label/Compadre%20zoysia

Soil Carbon Sequestration Benefits for Land Managers - a Possible Way Forward

Graziers practising best management principles may be missing-out financially under current arrangements, as they store additional carbon in their soil, according to NSW Central-West Catchment Management Authority soil carbon expert John Lawrie.

A recent Sustainable Grazing Forum speaker at Broken Hill, New South Wales, Mr Lawrie explained the potential of soil carbon credits for landholders.

He outlined five major best management principles to benefit soil carbon increases, which included increasing groundcover, increasing perennial plants, increasing biodiversity and decreasing soil disturbance and compaction.
"These principals will also help the CMAs to achieve one of its major goals, which is to improve the health of their soils," he said.

Management practices that might qualify included stock exclusion areas, conservative stocking rates, better distribution of water supplies, time control grazing strategies, rabbit ripping and baiting, goat trapping, contour furrowing, water spreading or ponding, and tyne pitting. These are well established practices used for improved land management.

Mr Lawrie said graziers should be rewarded for adopting best-management practices by accrediting them as carbon positive farmers and provide them with the opportunity to receive funding for storing additional carbon in their soil. "By providing accreditation to suitable graziers, this would be an ideal way to improve soil health across the catchment, meet catchment targets, and provide graziers with an opportunity to access external sources of incentive funding for soil health improvement," he said.

Farmers willing to participate would need to provide a farm plan, soil tests and evidence of adoption of the best management principles.

"The scheme would allow CMAs to be favourably positioned when any international greenhouse gas abatement scheme is proposed," Mr Lawrie said. "This program could provide the opportunity to charge brokers a fee for being an experienced and independent accreditation organisation."

Mr Lawrie was one of many experts on-hand during the three-day forum, attended by about 45 participants from NSW's Far West Division, and hosted by the Western CMA, with support from the Lower-Murray Darling CMA.

The system proposed does offer a way forward for pastoralists to be able to gain some benefit from any proposed carbon credit scheme, by developing and implementing carbon accumulation schems on land they manage. It would have application across much of the pastoral zone of Australia. Fire management was not mentioned, but that factor is critical.......reducing fire will definitely improve, or reduce emitted carbon. The current West Arnhem project has demonstrated a very successful management plan, which works --http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/nt_report/ntreport07/chapter12.html

BUT.....currently agriculture [as broadly defined] is excluded from the concepts around carbon management, as it seems to be unfolding in Australia. It would be critical to have agriculture involved as soil accumulation of carbon has enormous potential for carbon capture while improving soil. There is a range of scientific and technical literature supporting soil carbon capture, and this concept as outlined does seem to offer a sensible range of tasks and issues that could work.

[partially sourced from media reports on the conference]

Going Green is Simple..........Really

Going "green" is not that difficult. The old adage of think globally, act locally really can summarise the issue.

Going green is about making conscious decisions to reduce your impacts - and quite often SAVING $$, not spending more money.

Going green is about community and personal action and doing your bit, even if that is thought to be a small step.

The following article offers some simple thoughts about how we can all do our bit. It is not that hard. And it is not necessarily about big noting oneself, with a lavish spending plan to be carbon or energy neutral. If we all take some simple steps, improvements...........and big improvements are possible. A simple step is to replace an incandescent bulb, next time one blows, with a low wattage energy efficient globe......not even now, but when one does not work!

That said, sovereign commitments - such as the US signing the Kyoto Treaty - can set the tone, and show example to the citizens. And it ain't happening there it seems, anytime soon.

A Simplistic Look at What "Going Green" Really Means

We hear it all the time - Green this, Green that. So let’s face it, green is the newest black and everybody loves to feel like they’re taking part. It’s the latest trend. It’s marketable. And it’s not slowing down. Trust me, if Corporate America can make money on “green efforts,” you can count on them digging in. So what does “going green” really mean?

Too often people feel like they have to make drastic changes in their lives to go green. When usually, the opposite is true. You don’t have to become a liberal-hippy-vegan-bikerider to make an impact. The whole green movement is based on the idea of making conscious decisions.

Also, going green shouldn’t cost a grip of money. You don’t have to go buy a new car (or sell the one your driving now). You don’t have to restock your frig with organic foods and you certainly don’t have to ride your bike wherever you go (although, the KGG crew does recommend pulling out the bike and taking a spin from time to time”riding bikes is a pretty tight thing to do). The idea is to think before you act.

When you consider what’s being said, it really is a simple idea. Do you need to turn that light on? Do you really need to print? Do you have to take another shower? By asking questions BEFORE you make decisions, you’re already going green. It’s not about going out and replacing your floors with bamboo wood. It shouldn’t be about that - spending more money”, it should be about spending less! Doesn’t it seem ironic that the more our society gets involved with going green, the more man-made products we make, market and try to sell by the masses? Something about that just seems wrong.

There’s no secret formula and no hidden rituals. Going green is simply thinking about your life. It’s taking the time to consider what you’re doing, whom you’re buying from and how you’re impacting the future of this planet. It’s not meant to sound daunting- it’s meant to be thought provoking. The idea of going green starts with small steps.

It means changing a few everyday habits (yes, the ones you’ve had for the past 20 years) to something a little different. It’s a 3-minute shower instead of 7. It’s a walk to the store instead of a drive. The beauty of it all is it starts right now. Take one thing (come on, we know you can think of just one) and change that habit. Think it over and start today. No excuses, no complex theories. Just start today and consider yourself a part of the green movement” because when it’s all said and done, going green is a very simplistic idea.

Stay conscious and stay green - Think!

[article reprinted from Keep Going Green, March 21 2008. by Bryan McCarty]

Organic? Is it Really Organic - Maybe Not!!

Be careful is the real mantra..........there is organic, natural and then those that claim to be..... but are not.

The organic thrust in the US in particular seems to be getting imbroiled with the garbage speak of just another advertising campaign, designed to part the consumer and their $$, without really delivering on the hype. Organic usually may cost more and at times offer the seller better margins.

That said, those that are CERTIFIED as organic certainly seem to be living up to the claims, while others may not. Going the full certified route as organic requires a great deal of work and ongoing commitment by producers of food as well as manufacturers. And that applies equally in Australia. It is not a cheap option to move that way, but most believe it will pay off over time, or some have a philosophy about being organic.

Recent US data does show that not all is as clean as is claimed though, as you can read here:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/bodycare/DioxaneRelease08.cfm with this press release from the US Organic Consumers Association showing many brands of cleaners to be not all they may seem.

It is likely that this issue is reflected in other regions. So take care if you really want organic ANYTHING. And watch the Australian press too...........I am sure there will be more.

Regional Climate Influenced by Radiation Dimming - from Aerosol Plumes

This article is worth reading if you are interested in regional scale climate issues, especially in the Australian and SE Asian context.

http://www.graceresearch.com/KeithPotts.pdf

and the abstract appears below:

Apparitions of seasonal and random anthropogenic, continental scale, aerosol plumes
now occur across the globe. Seasonal plumes usually exist for several months and vary
significantly in extent and optical depth inter annually. I show that: the aerosol optical
depth of the South East Asian Plume correlates with four characteristics of drought in
south eastern Australia; the aerosol index of the Middle East Plume correlates negatively
with rainfall in Darfur; and the volume of tephra ejected by volcanoes in south east Asia
correlates: negatively with rainfall in Australia and water inflows into the Murray River;
and positively with ENSO events. I conclude that south eastern Asian aerosol plumes are
the cause of drought in south eastern Australia and El Niño/ENSO events and propose a
new component of surface aerosol radiative forcing, Regional Dimming, which forces the
Inter Tropical Convergence Zone, Hadley and Walker Cells into abnormal seasonal
positions causing climate change.



The article is well researched and appears to offer some plausible options on the thinking about climate, drought and related issues in both north and southern Australia. Lets not toss out ENSO and similar issues, but this does seem to explain a few issues at the regional scale. [photo of Mt Pinatubo erupting - copyright NASA]

It also offers some critical thought about the developing situation in eastern Asia as it industrialises. Beijing and eastern China already is "dim" in a radiation sense - just visit the place to realise how much the sun is obscured by smog. How much worse can it get, especially as the forecasts for the growth and number of mega cities include many in that region, over the next 20 years?

Fate of New Biodiesel Manufacturing Plants

Oilseed prices have rocketed up in price and availability has plateaued. Soybean oil prices have increased about 300% over the past 2-4 years, as have palm oil prices.

These two feedstocks have been seen as the cornerstone of the supplies for the biodiesel plant constructed in Darwin at the Darwin Business Park. It cost around A$75 million, but will it be a silver elephant?

These radical increases in feedstock prices for what has been imported materials, along with rapidly escalating logistics and transport charges might mean the local refinery will fail, at least in the current structure.

At present the system is apparently refining glycerin to meet high quality demands in the food and pharmecutical industries, and not biodiesel, but really............it needs to be producing biodiesel. While local NT and even Australian demand is fair, under current government arrangements over tariffs, excise and other issues, the big hiccup is feedstock.

The plant owners are keeping very quiet, very quiet and it is rumoured they are struggling financially.

How many other production plants are in the same predicament?

There is no local production of agricultural produced vegetable oil materials, although some research has been running on a oil soybean industry. While this development is occurring independent of the biodiesel plant, it is likely to be some years away from, if ever, efficient production of economic crops of oil based soybeans, on a large enough scale to contribute significantly to a feedstock source.

Some other species are also being investigated.

The NT does not have a good track record on cropping on the scale required, and anyway the local NT environmental lobby would not want land cleared and used for this purpose.....almost under any set of circumstances. And they are well organised.

And even if enough was produced, would it be cheap enough to use as a feedstock anyway given world prices for the soybean oil?

An interesting conundrum.

Are there other biodiesel plants where feedstock prices are cruelling biodiesel production, even at current mineral oil prices of around US$100 + ?

Arsenic Bioremediation Cure Might be Near

A recent serendipitious breakthrough by the Australian CRC for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment might just be the start of a seriously useful method for curing arsenic contamination.

They have isolated a microbe that can use arsenite - a common and the most poisonous form of arsenic and transform it to arsenate, a chemical form that can be fixed in soil into immobile forms.

More details are available here: http://www.crccare.com/view/index.aspx?id=14980

Arsenic presents in the enviroment in sites used for animal dipping, leather tanning, old mine workings, timber treatment and similar areas as well as in many shallow drinking water wells in Asia, particularly in Bangladesh. Old mine workings are often especially arsenic contaminated, and this often poisons down stream water sources, in conjunction with acid mine drainage. Arsenic, as an element of the periodic table can not be made to "go away" in the conventional sense but there are many forms of the element that are highly insoluble, resistant to leaching and could be contained within the existing sites in a relatively non toxic low solubility form, including forms that are relatively resistant even to acid leaching. Getting it into that chemical format has always been tricky.

In warmer regions, use of plants such as vetiver grass have been used to grow on contaminated soils, slowly accumulating arsenic and other heavy metals into the plant roots, and tolerating the poor soil environment, and actually growing moderately well on the site, a place where many other plants could not grow. But a multi faceted approach combining microbial remediation with use of these plants offers long term solutions in many places, as even getting a soil cover was difficult and this cover will ease issues of erosion of further arsenic from the soil into the environment too, with the organic cover from the plants assisting.

This new microbial solution seems to offer a real option, assuming that formulations of the microbes can be produced on a scale required for industrial use. Bioremediation on actual sites is a bit more difficult than a simple lab trial, and adequate microbes will be required to "saturate" the site environment, grow and proliferate and do the business of conversion.

BUT.........it is VERY promising.

Jatropha - a Better Biofuel Option?

While many write of doom and gloom about biofuel crops, and that they are actually negative in terms of carbon balance [ see post below], interest is growing [pardon the pun] in jatropha, as a oil source and biofuel.

Jatropha is NOT a food crop, so it is somewhat different to many other options. In fact more of a weed and potential medicinal species in many tropical countries.

The Indian government has been pushing to increase the area of this species, with a focus on small, village level developments, and local processing using modest presssing or extraction equipment. That is probably a great thing, eliminating the need for cash outlays to purchase expensive imported diesel. The jatropha oil, often with minimum further processing can be used in small diesel engines, for lighting, electricity, small workshop and industrial power and machinery operation.

Others are pushing the use on better land, mainly in Africa, and to a lesser extent in India. Sometimes this land is currently idle or damaged in some way eg landmines and in these cases a larger agro-industrial approach is being developed. In Africa, in Mali, a project has been in various phases since around 1993, with generally good results. And the Indian scientists have been developing superior genetic materials with superior establishment and performance.

In Australia jatropha has a stigma as a weed, and development will be, and is, quite muted. Are we missing out on this apparent growth and development? Maybe not, as the Australian owned biofuels plant in Singapore has signed up to buy jatropha oil as a biofuel feedstock.

Will we see weed fueled buses in Darwin?

There are some excellent online resources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatropha_oil - a bit dated but ok for a start point

http://www.jatrophabiodiesel.org/aboutJatrophaPlant.php

http://cals.arizona.edu/OALS/ALN/aln40/jatropha.html

http://www.jatrophaworld.org/

Like all energy crop projects over the past 25 - 30 years there is a lot of hype with some substance. But with oil now hovering around $100 US per barrel, has the time come to seriously push harder for use of biofuel options, especially those capable of being grown in marginal areas where food crops are not possible?

BUT....jatropha seems to have a significant drawback that is rarely discussed. Seed harvest currently seems to rely on cheap highly intensive labour. Hardly a good option for the industrialised countries. However, one item in abundance in many developing regions IS the supply of labour. Maybe, just maybe, it will be hand harvested while superior semi- mechanised options are developed. They will be needed if it is to expand.

Biofuels Worsen the Carbon Balance and Do Nothing for Climate Change

Growing crops to make biofuels results in vast amounts of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere and does nothing to stop climate change or global warming, according to the first thorough scientific audit of a biofuel's carbon budget.

Scientists have produced damning evidence to suggest that biofuels could be one of the biggest environmental con-tricks because they actually make global warming worse by adding to the man-made emissions of carbon dioxide that they are supposed to curb.

Two separate studies published in the journal Science show that a range of biofuel crops now being grown to produce "green" alternatives to oil-based fossil fuels release far more carbon dioxide into the air than can be absorbed by the growing plants. The scientists found that, in the case of some crops, it would take several centuries of growing them to pay off the "carbon debt" caused by their initial cultivation. Those environmental costs do not take into account any extra destruction to the environment, for instance the loss of biodiversity caused by clearing tracts of pristine rainforest.

"All the biofuels we use now cause habitat destruction, either directly or indirectly. Global agriculture is already producing food for six billion people. Producing food-based biofuel, too, will require that still more land be converted to agriculture," said Joe Fargioine of the US Nature Conservancy who was the lead scientist in one of the studies.

The scientists carried out the sort of analysis that has been missing in the rush to grow biofuels, encouraged by policies in the United States and Europe where proponents have been keen to extol biofuels' virtues as a green alternative to the fossil fuels used for transport.

Both studies looked at how much carbon dioxide is released when a piece of land is converted into a biofuel crop. They found that when peat lands in Indonesia are converted into palm-oil plantations, for instance, it would take 423 years to pay off the carbon debt.

The next worse case was when forested land in the Amazon is cut down to convert into soybean fields. The scientists found that it would take 319 years of making biodiesel from the soybeans to pay of the carbon debt caused by chopping down the trees in the first place.

Such conversions of land to grow corn (maize) and sugarcane for biodiesel, or palm oil and soybean for bioethanol, release between 17 and 420 times more carbon than the annual savings from replacing fossil fuels, the scientists calculated.

"This research examines the conversion of land for biofuels and asks the question 'is it worth it?' Does the carbon you lose by converting forests, grasslands and peat lands outweigh the carbon you 'save' by using biofuels instead of fossil fuels?" Dr Fargione said. "And surprisingly the answer is 'no'. These natural areas store a lot of carbon, so converting them to croplands results in tons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere," he said.

The demand for biofuels is destroying the environment in other ways. American farmers for instance used to rotate between soybean and corn crops but the demand for biofuel has meant that they are growing corn only. As a result, Brazilian farmers are cutting down forests to grow soybean to meet the shortfall in production.

"In finding solutions to climate change, we must ensure that the cure is not worse than the disease," said Jimmie Powell, a member of the scientific team at the Nature Conservancy. "We cannot afford to ignore the consequences of converting land for biofuels. Doing so means we might unintentionally promote fuel alternatives that are worse than the fossil fuels they are designed to replace. These findings should be incorporated into carbon emission policy going forward," Dr Powell said.

The European Union is already having second thoughts about its policy aimed at stimulating the production of biofuel. Stavros Dimas, the EU environment commissioner, admitted last month that the EU did not foresee the scale of the environmental problems raised by Europe's target of deriving 10 per cent of its transport fuel from plant material.

Professor John Pickett, chair of the recent study on biofuels commissioned by the Royal Society, said that although biofuels may play an important role in cutting greenhouse gases from transport, it is important to remember that one biofuel is not the same as another."The greenhouse gas savings that a biofuel can provide are dependent on how crops are grown and converted and how the fuel is used," Professor Pickett said. "Given that biofuels are already entering global markets, it will be vital to apply carbon certification and sustainability criteria to the assessment of biofuels to promote those that are good for people and the environment. This must happen at an international level so that we do not just transfer any potentially negative effects of these fuels from one place to another."

Professor Stephen Polasky of the University of Minnesota, an author of one of the studies published in Science, said that the incentives currently employed to encourage farmers to grow crops for biofuels do not take into account the carbon budget of the crop. "We don't have the proper incentives in place because landowners are rewarded for producing palm oil and other products but not rewarded for carbon management. This creates incentives for excessive land clearing and can result in large increases in carbon emissions," Professor Polasky said.
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/destroying-native-ecosystems-biofuel-crops-worsens-global-warming-15441.html is the link to one Polasky article, and he has an excellent presentation on biofuel economics on line as well.

These studies apparently point to a very different dynamic in the use of biofuels. We do not seem to be able to have it both ways it seems with current systems. But the next generation of biofuel production systems that mostly use lignocellulosic products [commonly waste biomass] which are converted microbiologically are generally a very different proposition with the economics apparently positive. But whether the carbon balance is positive or negative is currently still being debated. At least the initial products used are not being diverted from primarily food production.

In Australia the rush to use biofuels has not been as great as elsewhere, mainly due to supply constraints, and the paucity of production plants.

[partially sourced from original sources, http://www.independent.co.uk/ and others]

Crisis in the Drylands

[ partially sourced from Scientific American Magazine - January 17, 2008, original text written by Jeffrey Sachs, Columbia University, and added to by the author of the blog]

Sound economic solutions, not military ones, offer the most reliable route to peace for undeveloped nations.

The vast region of deserts, grasslands and sparse wood­lands that stretches across the Sahel, the Horn of Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia is by far the most crisis-ridden part of the planet.

With the exception of a few highly affluent states in the Persian Gulf, these dryland countries face severe and intensifying challenges, including frequent and deadly droughts, encroaching deserts, burgeoning populations and extreme poverty. The region scores at the very bottom of the United Nations’s Index of Human Development, which ranks countries according to their incomes, life expectancy and educational attainments.

As a result of these desperate conditions, the dryland countries are host to a disproportionate number of the world’s violent conflicts. Look closely at the violence in Afghanistan, Chad, Ethiopia, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia and Sudan—one finds tribal and often pastoralist communities struggling to survive deepening ecological crises. Water scarcity, in particular, has been a source of territorial conflict when traditional systems of land management fail in the face of rising populations and temperatures and declining rainfall.

Washington looks at many of these clashes and erroneously sees Islamist ideology at the core.

US political leaders fail to realize that other Islamic populations are far more stable economically, politically and socially—and that the root of the crisis in the dryland countries is not Islam but extreme poverty and environmental stress.

The Washington mind-set also prefers military approaches to developmental ones. The U.S. has supported the Ethiopian army in a military incursion into Somalia. It has pushed for military forces to stop the violence in Darfur. It has armed the clans in the deserts of western Iraq and now proposes to arm pastoralist clans in Pakistan along the Afghan border.

The trouble with the military approach is that it is extremely expensive and yet addresses none of the underlying problems. Indeed, the U.S. weapons provided to local clans often end up getting turned on the U.S. itself at a later date. Tellingly, one of the greatest obstacles to posting the proposed peacekeeping troops to Darfur is the lack of a water supply for them. Given the difficulty of finding water for those 26,000 soldiers, it becomes easier to understand the severity of the ongoing and unsolved water crisis facing the five million to seven million residents of Darfur.

Fortunately, much better solutions exist once the focus is put squarely on nurturing sustainable development. Today many proven techniques for “rainwater harvesting” can collect and store rain for later use by people, livestock and crops. In some areas, boreholes that tap underground aquifers can augment water availability; in others, rivers and seasonal surface runoff can be used for irrigation.

Such solutions may cost hundreds of dollars per household, spread out over a few years. This outlay is far too much for the impoverished households to afford but far less than the costs to societies of conflicts and military interventions. The same is true for other low-cost interventions to fight diseases, provide schooling for children and ensure basic nutrition.

To end the poverty trap, pastoralists can increase the productivity of livestock through improved breeds, veterinary care and scientific management of fodder. Often pastoralists can multiply their incomes by selling whole animals, meat products, processed goods (such as leather) and dairy products. The wealthy states of the Middle East are a potentially lucrative nearby market for the livestock industries of Africa and Central Asia.

To build this export market, pastoralist economies will need help with all-weather roads, storage facilities, cell phone coverage [skipping fixed lines usually], power, veterinary care and technical advice, to mention just a few of the key investments. With crucial support and active engagement of the private sector, however, impoverished dryland communities will be able to take advantage of transformative communications technologies and even gain access to capital from abroad. New trends in microfinancing are enhancing this capital transfer even NOW!

Today’s dryland crises in Africa and Central Asia affect the entire world. The U.S. should rethink its overemphasis on military approaches, and Europe should honor its unmet commitments of aid to this region, but other nations—including the wealthy countries of the Middle East and new donors such as India and China—can also help turn the tide.

The only reliable way to peace in the vast and troubled drylands will be through sustainable development.

Australia has a significant contribution to assist this process, based on the knowledge, skills and attitudes developed by our farmers, graziers and scientists in coping with the vicissitudes of the Australian climate, information often directly transferable to others. And no, we will not do ourselves out of trade or options. In fact increased options are lilkely to develop.

Several commentators on this original article in Scientific American were critical - very critical, but a few, probably those with direct experience in running development programs, responded quite positively.

These thoughts are worth contemplating.....deeply.

One has to ask, who thinks of Norman Borlaug as a great scientist? Who you ask? Yes, Norman Borlaug, credited with the first Green Revolution, improving rice, wheat and barley, and bringing adequate food to many developing countries. Yet development is painful and slow still, with the issues identified by Sachs as crucial. Indian farmers, large and small are enthusiastically embracing GM [GE] cotton, with fantastic results [see this blog too]. Combine new yield aspects and safe living environments and we can make things better.

Scientists Call For Urgent Research Into 'Real' Impacts Of Invasive Species

As well as drawing attention to the rising cost of invasive species on a global scale —estimated at US$1.4 trillion in damage — GISP stresses that too much emphasis has been placed on the problems faced by the agricultural sector in developed countries rather than in developing countries and on the “full range of environmental, social and economic costs.” The report also emphasises that due to the lack of knowledge and research available on the severity of individual pests and the options for best controlling them, policy makers are being left in the dark.

Dennis Rangi, Chair of GISP says: “With the increase in global trade, invasive species are gaining more and more prominence around the world. However the level of awareness amongst decision-makers, and in particular those in developing countries is still relatively low.“

He goes on to say that to enable informed policy making on the prevention, eradication and control of invasive species, it is critical that studies are expanded to show the extent of the problem and in particular the impact that these weeds, pests and diseases have on people’s lives. He says “numbers are not enough; decision makers need to know the tangible effects invasive species are having on the individual farmers and their crops.”

To help address the issues, GISP and one of its lead organisations, CABI, has undertaken a number of case studies of problem invasive species in Africa — a country with a current lack of analysis. As well as highlighting the overall economic damage to the affected countries, the studies show the estimated monetary loss to farmers, the cost of prevention and control and the potential consequences if action is not taken.

CABI is world-renowned for its extensive work in working with countries to help prevent and control invasive species. As well as advising on how to control invasive weeds and pests using a complementary array of pest management approaches, CABI specialises in natural control methods. This focuses on finding and developing natural enemies from the species’ country of origin and introducing them to the environment where it has invaded. One example is the Rastrococcus mealybug which devastated mangoes in West Africa. CABI introduced a highly specific wasp from Asia, which proved extremely effective in controlling the mealybug. Natural control methods for other weed species such as Mikania micrantha and Water Hyacinth have also been successfully used.
Among GISP’s case studies is the Triffid weed (Chromolaena odorata), a plant native to the Americas which has severely impacted natural areas in Africa and reduces crop productivity in agriculture and grazing. In Ghana the study showed that the weed occupies 59% of all arable lands, and in Ubombo, South Africa it greatly reduces the grazing capacity of animals. Effective control would see an increase in production by 34% and a gain of US$25.6 per hectare for each farmer.

Another example is the Larger Grain Borer which has been recorded in over 18 African countries. The Borer is a major pest of staple food in Africa, especially farm-stored maize and cassava. By studying the Borer, GISP reported that “its impact is greatest in rural, small-holder farming systems where yield losses range from 23-60%.”

Sarah Simons, Global Director of Invasives Species at CABI concludes: “By concentrating on a number of specific problem weeds in Africa, we are able to identify the effects they have on a country’s overall economy and also on the farmers and their families. This sort of information is essential if governments are to understand the extent of the problem and develop effective strategies to tackle them.
The report ”Economic Impacts of Invasive Alien Species: A Global Problem with Local Consequences" is authored by the Global Invasives Species Programme. To read the report in full please go to http://www.cabi.org/files/EZines/E%20Shots/gispeconomicstudies071607.pdf

CABI works with other GISP partners (IUCN and TNC) to extend this research from impacts on agricultural systems to invasions of natural and wild ecosystems and the effects they have on conservation and peoples’ livelihoods – especially in developing countries.

Australia has its share of invasive species - insects, weeds, fish and so on. But at least we have the resources and mostly the finances to attack the problems.

[partially sourced from CABI media report]

"Take all" Turf Disease Strikes in the Northern Territory

The turf disease known as take all is a serious problem in many areas of the southern, south-west and gulf states of the USA. It appears as a problem dead area in the turf in summer, the wetter months, after damage was done in the spring and sometimes the autumn.

While known from the east coast of Australia, the first case of this devastating turf disease has recently been confirmed in the Northern Territory of Australia.

The area was recently sown to Buffalo turf, as sod, in several tranches, in October and November 2007. Conditions were dry [late dry season] and hot to very hot [day temperatures 33- 36C], but adequate irrigation was available and the sod established quite well, and vigorous growth commenced. Adequate slow release fertiliser had been placed under the sod, and the turf area was developing, with roots pegging the sod to the basal soil.

Typical late dry season conditions continued with intermittent storms and dry periods through to late December, with monsoonal conditions from December 27, 2007. Irrigation was used through to late December.

An urgent call in early January from the client – “my lawn is dying” and investigations began.

The lawn has been devastated, with large dead patches across almost all the site. Typical insect damage from army and sod web worm was ruled out as no active caterpillars were found, although superficially damage was similar. At this stage plant disease was suspected and investigations soon lead to the possibility of take all.

Samples were sent for analysis at the local Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries labs at Berrimah, with the disease being confirmed as Take All. Thanks to the staff there for help with confirming the diagnosis.

This is a new plant disease record for the Northern Territory.

The disease does occur on almost all turf grasses including those in the tropics, where the disease seems to be more aggressive. Buffalo grasses [ St Augustine in the USA] seems particularly susceptible.

Control is difficult, with agronomic management as important as any use of spray fungicides. In the USA, best results have come from a combination of soil and turf stolon [that material close to the soil especially] pH management, raised cutting heights, modest fertiliser rates and reduced nitrate rates [ammonium forms preferred]. All have a part to play, with the pH management most important. In essence, preventative measures rather than true control through any spray program. Early signs of yellowing were not noted, although that is a frequent early warning of the disease.

There is a lot of US material on the web worth a look. Search for “take all”, with a few university extension agencies having excellent brief technical information suitable for commercial contractors and home gardeners. More photos at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/13624018@N03/2209481592/in/set-72157603767945773/

Further work is continuing to aid the recovery of the turf. Dry, generally sunny weather from around the second week of January seems to have helped with development of new stolons, which have recolonised some areas. A spray with a fungicide known to have had some effect in slowing the disease also seems to have helped.

We can offer professional consulting services if your area is affected with this disease.

Plastic Shopping Bags Can Make Steel

While many parts of the world – including China – either have, or are planning, to ban plastic bags, and often plastic packaging, there is now a new patented option to truly reuse and recycle that plastic. Plastic waste now has a new life!

Six years of research at the University of NSW has developed an improved, more efficient steelmaking process using plastic packaging that would otherwise finish up in landfill. Currently many of the major supermarket chains in Australia have plastic bag recycling drop off points……but many consumers have been sceptical of what happens to them. Now you know that there is a real second life for them.

Veena Sahajwalla, a professor in the school of materials science and engineering, has invented a methodology for extracting carbon from plastic packaging, and in the process to use it to replace 30 per cent of the coke and coal used to make steel. The process could save millions of dollars and reduce greenhouse gases.

But it's the prospect of diverting large amounts of plastic packaging from landfills that excites Professor Sahajwalla most about the technology. "It's a win-win situation, better for the environment and the company," she says. "In making steel there's essentially no difference between the polyethylene plastic in shopping bags, soft packaging and some drink containers, and a natural resource like coal."

A deal signed between NewSouth Innovations (UNSW's commercialisation arm) and OneSteel, a major steel producer in Australia, will allow for millions of tonnes of plastic packaging to be recycled to produce steel. Professor Sahajwalla hopes this is only the beginning and is working on technologies that will make use of other materials to replace coke and coal. "This is about sustainability as well as protecting the environment, this is definitely ongoing research."

OneSteel has been sponsoring Sahajwalla's work and has also acquired the rights to sub-license the new technology. Professor Sahajwalla is highly regarded in the field of materials engineering, and has received several awards for her research as well as sponsorship from national and international institutions.

Is Plastic Making People Fat?

Never a day goes by that some new issue appears that seems to cause more potential for concern about most items considered safe to use. The latest concerns development of obesity in adults.

Being fat has long been seen as a personal problem, fixed only by struggling against the proliferation of fast food restaurants, unlucky genes, and a sedentary life.

But could something in the environment also be making many westernised people fat in epidemic numbers?

Animal studies in recent years raise the possibility that prenatal exposure to minuscule amounts of common chemicals - found in everything from baby bottles to toys - could predispose a body to a life of weight gain. The chemicals, known as endocrine disrupters, mimic natural hormones that help regulate, for example, how many fat cells a body makes and how much fat to store in them. Some of these chemicals are even now found in drinking water.

These findings have led some scientists to put forth a provocative argument: They say diet and too little exercise clearly are key reasons for the worldwide rise in obesity in the past 20 years, but they may not be the only ones.

Food intake and exercise just haven't changed that much in that period, they argue. And while genetics obviously play a role - just think of someone you know who can eat three Big Macs a day and never gain an ounce - these researchers say it would be impossible to see such widespread genetic change in just two decades, giving them more reason to suspect the environment. "This is a really new area . . . but from multiple labs on multiple levels we are getting preliminary data that all say the same thing: Chemicals can play a role," said Jerry Heindel, a program administrator for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

"We know that nutrition and exercise are very, very important, but underlying that could be environmental exposures during development that alter your physiology, including how you respond to food and exercise."

Thousands of chemicals have come on the market in the past 30 years, and some of them are showing up in people's bodies in low levels. Scientists studying obesity are focusing on endocrine disrupters - which have already been linked to reproductive problems in animals and humans - because they have become so common in the environment and are known to affect fat cells. Many endocrine disrupter chemicals including break down products from contraception pills are now found in the water supply of many cities, particularly where drinking water is sourced directly from rivers, often the sewer pit from upstream.

One key researcher in the field, Bruce Blumberg of the University of California, Irvine, has even coined a new word for chemicals that can make you fat: Obesogens.

A recent US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study found that about 93 percent of the US population had bisphenol A, a chemical that can be found in canned goods and in hard, clear plastic items such as baby bottles and hiking containers [predominanatly made from polycarbonate], in their body. As a resultof this and related work, a number of outdoor supply companies have removed polycarbonate bottles from sale and further manufacture.

A study at the University of Missouri-Columbia showed that mice fed bisphenol A during early development - at lower amounts than what would have resulted in the levels found in most people in the CDC study - become markedly more obese as adults than those that weren't fed the chemical. Tufts University scientists observed similar phenomenon in rats.

Well.......I suppose if we all switch to aluminium water bottles, a spike in the incidence of alzheimers disease can be expected in a few years too.

Sourced partially from: http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2008/01/14/is_plastic_making_us_fat/

Climate Change, Tipping Points, Feedback and the North

This has been amended slightly from another blog - Triple Pundit, as linked to ENN News. Definitely worth a read, as are the embeded links.
--------------------------------


Andrew Burger posted two excellent articles on 3P here and here regarding the general state of research, science, and the modeling of climate change. I refer you to those article for a good foundation. There are also a variety of excellent resources on the web, some of which Andrew cites in his posts, and other worthwhile sources such as RealClimate, The National Academy of Sciences, USCap (an alliance of business and environmental research and advocacy groups), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

One of the best sources for getting a grasp on science in general and climate change in particular is the video series from “WonderingMind42”. If you are at all concerned or interested in climate change, even if (especially if) you harbour scepticism regarding the efficacy of the science and are bothered by words like “consensus” - see these great videos. Look especially for the “Nature of Science” videos to get a great overview of the process of science and a guideline to assessing the credibility of sources.

Of course, not everyone agrees with the peer-reviewed science represented in the aforementioned sources and so aptly explained in Andrew’s posts. James Inhofe has released his report from 400 “prominent” scientists refuting the reality of anthropologic climate change. Many disagree with the “James Gang” — but you should make up your own mind.

Good scientific theories are continually challenged as a means of making them stronger.

I’d like to follow up in this post regarding tipping points, a look at 2007, and why I expect to be very cold next month as I try to learn more about climate change.

Positive Feedback Loops that Can’t Just be “Turned Down”

In the WonderingMind videos there is a detailed discussion of positive feedback loops and tipping points. His method of demonstration does a great job showing the nature of thresholds and positive feedback, and relates directly to my own practical experience as well.

We’ve all seen the bit in TV shows and movies where some nervous (or guilty) individual steps tentatively up to a microphone, taps it (something you should never do incidentally), and causes the sound system to emit an ear-piercing screech. We all know about “feedback” in live sound systems, but did we ever relate that phenomenon to climate change?

Despite the fact that the typical scene I just described demonstrates an unrealistically low feedback threshold in most cases (unless you’re inexperienced setting up sound systems), it is an excellent example of a system reaching a threshold or “tipping point”, after which the system enters an accelerating and largely uncontrollable positive feedback loop — Screech!

Two salient points here are 1) that the exact location in the system dynamics of a tipping point or threshold, after which the system becomes unstable, is unknown until that threshold has already been crossed and 2) once crossed things get crazy and happen fast.

Even running a sound system you are very familiar with, in a room worked in for years, with sound sources that, more or less, remain the same, you can never be fully confident that they will not unexpectedly run the system into feedback.

Certainly with modern tools and experience, it is possible to have a good estimate of where that tipping points is, and thus keep the system from reaching that point most of the time. But not always. Every so often a “mic will ring” and — oops — I’ve crossed a threshold and the system is out of my control until I turn the offending sound source down.

Sound systems, acoustics, and the physics of sound can be complex subjects, but they are obviously child’s play in relation to understanding the nature of our climate. I can just turn down a sound system, but once a system in our climate has reached its tipping point, something we won’t know until it is passed, the “steady-state” of the system is replaced with accelerating positive feedback loops of increasing instability that cannot simply be “turned down” and the effects of which are highly unpredictable.

And it is not always apparent that the tipping point has been reached even if we’ve reached it. In terms of global averages, last year was the second warmest year on record (behind 2005). However, in northern latitudes temperatures are increasing much more rapidly than the global average and there are indications that 2007 represents a tipping point in the far north, with arctic ice and permafrost melt.

Permafrost and peatland are an area of concern for scientists studying the climate. Alaskans are increasingly confronted with shifting land and damaged housing and infrastructure from melting permafrost. Of even more significant concern is the vast stores of methane and carbon in the permafrost of the subarctic and arctic regions and what happens when it melts, releasing that carbon and methane into the atmosphere, further warming the climate, accelerating the melting ice and permafrost, releasing more carbon and methane, warming the atmosphere even more”¦ Screech!

Dr. Peter Kershaw studies the subarctic region known as the “continental treeline”, a region where permafrost underlies the landscape, and has established several study plots throughout the Hudson Bay region near Churchill, Manitoba. Kershaw’s goal is to quantify the environmental conditions present in this region of permafrost and peatland landforms and monitor the changes in order to best asses the effects climate change has on these landforms, and how those changes in turn effect ongoing climate change.

Many see 2007 as a tipping point. It is something, in one way or another, everybody that contributes is talking about — how to create a sustainable and prosperous world. In terms of climate change, potential environmental tipping points possibly are already crossed as climate models for arctic sea ice are proven wrong — and conservative. But also where public, corporate, and even government awareness has reached it’s own tipping point — where positive feedback is good thing.

And thus, 2007 may be the point where the reasonable and responsible debate moves forward.

Climate change is here. Human activity is a major contributing factor. At some point, we need to respectfully choose to ignore those that refuse to act reasonably in the face of the evidence. They may think and act as they choose, of course, but we do not need to give it much credence until there is real, falsifiable evidence to warrant it.

Therefore, the debate must be: What do we do about it?

Readers of this information are among the smart innovators, visionary business leaders and solution-minded individuals that can help answer that fundamental question.

And so I say to you, to me, to all of us — let’s get after it.

'White Gold" Raises Rural Fortunes in India

India overtook the United States in 2007 as the second largest producer of cotton in the world, thanks to a bumper 2007/2008 harvest.

According to general manager of India's Vardhman Group, IJ Duhria, the sub-continent is on the cusp of a "white gold revolution", with 70 million people there engaged in cotton production.

"Slowly but continuously a quiet revolution is taking place," Mr Duhria said. "In India, cotton is sown over 9.5 million hectares, which is significantly larger than any other country - accounting around 27pc of the total world cotton area. "Production has grown significantly since mid 1980s due to improvement in both area and yield, but major impetus in cotton cultivation has come in after the introduction of Bt Cotton in India in 2002-03. "Since 2003-04 the area under Biotech Cotton has increased from mere 86,000ha to 5.5m ha in 2007-08 and production of cotton in country has increased by more than 72pc from 17.9 million bales in 2003-04 to projected 31 million bales in 2007-08, which makes India the second largest producer of Cotton in the world after China.

"The productivity of cotton in the country has rallied to a higher level despite the fact that the major area is still grown under rain-fed conditions, making the farmer dependent on monsoons."

The dramatic turn-around of the country's cotton fortunes means that from being an importer of about 2.5 million bales, India is now the second-largest exporter of cotton, with around six to seven million bales. This in itself is very interesting in that most areas are NOT irrigated. True, India has some great vertisol soils, typically used for cotton as well as other crops. And most cotton is grown by smaller producers.

Once again the role of biotechnology in improving cotton prospects offers a stark contrast and reminder of the situation in north Australia where opposition by vocal environmental groups has effectively prevented development of a northern Australia cotton industry.

Agricultural research has taken place, environmental work has shown biotech cotton will not be a weed, other work has also shown that pesticide use will be low........but POLITICS is stopping the developmental progress to a potential cotton growing industry in the north.

Phytoliths in Grass - Adding Long Term Soil Carbon

Agriculture might save the world again, if more grass is grown, and in the process help save the world from climate change.

New research is showing that the world's forests are absorbing less man-made carbon dioxide each year, yet some Australian scientists said some plants could store CO2 for thousands of years.

Grasses such as wheat and sorghum can store large amounts of carbon in microscopic balls of silica, called phytoliths, that form around a plant's cells as they draw the mineral from the soil, a report in the latest issue of New Scientist says. Earlier work also indicates that both tropical pasture grasses including Brachiaria spp and tropical wetland plants such as rice and other grasses and the Cyperaceae family store even greater amounts. And the Brachiaria spp group is a major pasture species widely used in many regions of the tropics.



When a plant dies, the phytoliths, or plantstones, enter the soil and lock in the carbon for potentially thousands of years, said the Southern Cross University agricultural scientists, Leigh Sullivan and Jeff Parr.

The next step would be to see if plants that best store carbon in plantstones have higher or lower crop yields and quality. "So far our studies of wheat and sorghum suggest that there is no trade-off between yield and carbon sequestration," Professor Sullivan said.

Strains could be bred to better produce plantstones and farmers could potentially claim carbon credits under the Kyoto Protocol, the report said.

The forestry industry is already heavily involved in carbon storage but storing carbon in plantstones could become more widespread because farmers could also still earn income by selling the crops for food, the report said.

This report has focussed on the role of annual grass crops, but potential annual biomass yields of tropical pasture grasses usually exceeds that of crop species, and with potentially higher phytolith % in these species, is there now a key measurable item that can be used to correlate the long term addition of carbon to soil, that can be a key to pasture growers being part of the carbon storage industry?

Also see the blog post here on terra preta soils.

[partially sourced from Sydney Morning Herald, a Fairfax Media publication]