A soil constituent known as glomalin provides a secure vault for the world's soil carbon. That’s according to Kristine Nichols, a microbiologist at the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory in North Dakota, USA.
Glomalin is a sticky substance secreted by threadlike fungal structures called hyphae that funnel nutrients and water to plant roots. Glomalin acts like little globs of chewing gum on strings or strands of plant roots and the fungal hyphae. Into this sticky “string bag” fall the sand, silt and clay particles that make up soil, along with plant debris and other carbon-containing organic matter. The sand, silt and clay stick to the glomalin, starting aggregate formation, a major step in soil creation.
On the surface of soil aggregates, glomalin forms a lattice-like waxy coating to keep water from flowing rapidly into the aggregate and washing away everything, including the carbon. As the builder of the formation “bag” for soil, glomalin is vital globally to soil building, productivity and sustainability, as well as to carbon storage.
Nichols uses glomalin measurements to gauge which farming or rangeland practices work best for storing carbon. Since glomalin levels can reflect how much carbon each practice is storing, they could be used in conjunction with carbon credit trading programs.
In studies on cropland, Nichols has found that both tilling and leaving land idle--as is common in arid regions--lower glomalin levels by destroying living hyphal fungal networks. The networks need live roots and do better in undisturbed soil.
When glomalin binds with iron or other heavy metals, it can keep carbon from decomposing for up to 100 years.
Even without heavy metals, glomalin stores carbon in the inner recesses of soil particles where only slow-acting microbes live.
This carbon in organic matter is also saved, like a slow-release fertilizer, for later use by plants and hyphae.
Glomalin is one of the factors that help build soil carbon stores. Othes include biochar or agrichar, another form of macro carbon materials, said to be the underlying factor aiding high productivity of terra preta soils in Brazil.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Voluntary Carbon Trading in Australia
It does not look too positive for the early adopters who have been trying to do the right thing with carbon reduction.
It seems according to recent publicity that carbon credit and voluntary carbon trading schemes - NSW excepted - may not get a gig inside the new Carbon Reduction Scheme of the Federal government. It is still open to further discussion, and no doubt there will be some serious argy-bargy, but rumour hath it that they will be excluded.
That may be detrimental for agriculture and soil carbon storage, at least in the short term, outside the "to be developed" Australian Government scheme, as it would be very definitely excluded. It seems that voluntary schemes will not co-exist with the new government scheme.
Whether that will mean you cannot trade via other mechanisms eg overseas on instruments such as the Chicago Climate Exchange is unclear now. It also means that existing offset programs may not have the carbon reduction counted either. That last one would be a serious issue in the Northern Territory if the West Arnhem Savannah Burning Reduction Program that is funded to aim to offset the carbon emissions of a local LNG producer. Further similar schemes are planned, and with 40% of the NT carbon diooxide emissions coming from uncontrolled savannah fires, these finded offset programs are a subtle link in reducing CO2 and offering land management jobs for the local indigenous people. See: http://www.hreoc.gov.au/Social_Justice/nt_report/ntreport07/chapter12.html for a more detailed description.
Others, small and large, with accumulating soil carbon credits coming from farm management practices such as conservation tillage are also likely not to be accepted. Essentially what is done before the scheme starts does not count! That is a bit wacky if the object of the exercise is to reduce carbon and put a value on carbon saved. Moreover, with Australian agriculture working mostly with poor soils of low organic carbon levels, there are significant benefits operational as well investor interest in the accumulated soil carbon.
They intimidate that soil carbon is hard to measure accurately - I disagree, especially if you are measuring differences between years or over multiple year spans. You measure get what is there. You can get tied up with forms of carbon, labile and non labile carbon pools, and so on. Organic carbon has been measured in soils for many years. What is so hard? Plenty of others also concur with this approach.
It seems according to recent publicity that carbon credit and voluntary carbon trading schemes - NSW excepted - may not get a gig inside the new Carbon Reduction Scheme of the Federal government. It is still open to further discussion, and no doubt there will be some serious argy-bargy, but rumour hath it that they will be excluded.
That may be detrimental for agriculture and soil carbon storage, at least in the short term, outside the "to be developed" Australian Government scheme, as it would be very definitely excluded. It seems that voluntary schemes will not co-exist with the new government scheme.
Whether that will mean you cannot trade via other mechanisms eg overseas on instruments such as the Chicago Climate Exchange is unclear now. It also means that existing offset programs may not have the carbon reduction counted either. That last one would be a serious issue in the Northern Territory if the West Arnhem Savannah Burning Reduction Program that is funded to aim to offset the carbon emissions of a local LNG producer. Further similar schemes are planned, and with 40% of the NT carbon diooxide emissions coming from uncontrolled savannah fires, these finded offset programs are a subtle link in reducing CO2 and offering land management jobs for the local indigenous people. See: http://www.hreoc.gov.au/Social_Justice/nt_report/ntreport07/chapter12.html for a more detailed description.
Others, small and large, with accumulating soil carbon credits coming from farm management practices such as conservation tillage are also likely not to be accepted. Essentially what is done before the scheme starts does not count! That is a bit wacky if the object of the exercise is to reduce carbon and put a value on carbon saved. Moreover, with Australian agriculture working mostly with poor soils of low organic carbon levels, there are significant benefits operational as well investor interest in the accumulated soil carbon.
They intimidate that soil carbon is hard to measure accurately - I disagree, especially if you are measuring differences between years or over multiple year spans. You measure get what is there. You can get tied up with forms of carbon, labile and non labile carbon pools, and so on. Organic carbon has been measured in soils for many years. What is so hard? Plenty of others also concur with this approach.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Farm Kangaroos - Reduce the Methane
While it is known that ruminants do produce methane, the corollorary of that is that simple gutted animals do not. Enter the kangaroo. The dearly loved emblem on the coat of arms of Australia that is hunted, shot, eats grain crops, makes great leather shoes, is an excellent meat for dog food and so on. And does not produce methane. And is not farmed.
So the scenario for Australia goes something like this.........we will replace all cows with farmed kangaroos, reduce the methane emissions and all live happily everafter. NOT!!!
Read the following, especially the comments.
http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/article.aspx?id=1238718&page=1
An academic exercise, with little practical application. So sad. But I bet the author is being paid a lot of money for totally impractical applications.
So the scenario for Australia goes something like this.........we will replace all cows with farmed kangaroos, reduce the methane emissions and all live happily everafter. NOT!!!
Read the following, especially the comments.
http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/article.aspx?id=1238718&page=1
An academic exercise, with little practical application. So sad. But I bet the author is being paid a lot of money for totally impractical applications.
[photo courtesy www.longgrasssystems.com.au]
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Cow Manure for Energy
The concept is not new, with several systems already operating in California.
But it seems some serious R and D effort has gone into actually quantifying the concept. But wait..........lets not get too carried away. The manure has to be collected and transported, so if you are raising livestock on pasture, forget it! However, with dairy cows, some pig production and in feedlots, this is a serious business.
Alas, in Australia with most stock on pasture, it will be a difficult issue, except for those more intensive systems.
But it is worth a read...............
--------------------------------------------
Converting livestock manure into a domestic renewable fuel source could generate enough electricity to meet up to 3pc of North America's entire consumption needs and lead to a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), according to research published July 24 in the Institute of Physics' Environmental Research Letters.
The journal paper, Cow Power: The Energy & Emissions Benefits of Converting Manure to Biogas, has implications for all countries with livestock as it is the first attempt to outline a procedure for quantifying the national amount of renewable energy that herds of cattle and other livestock can generate and the concomitant GHG emission reductions. Livestock manure, left to decompose naturally, emits two particularly potent GHGs - nitrous oxide and methane.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, nitrous oxide warms the atmosphere 310 times more than carbon dioxide; methane does so 21 times more.
Through anaerobic digestion, similar to the process by which compost is created, manure can be turned into energy-rich biogas, which standard microturbines can use to produce electricity.
The hundreds of millions of livestock inhabiting the US could produce approximately 100 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, enough to power millions of homes and offices, according to the paper. Since manure left to decompose naturally can have a damaging effect on the environment, this new waste management system has a net potential GHG emissions reduction of 99 million metric tons, wiping out approximately 4pc of the USA GHG emissions from electricity production.
Authors of the paper, Dr Michael E Webber and Amanda D Cuellar from the University of Texas, noted that the "logistics of widespread biogas production, including feedstock and digestates transportation, must be determined at the local level to produce the most environmentally advantageous, economical, and energy efficient system".
from Feedstuffs, USA
http://www.feedstuffs.com
But it seems some serious R and D effort has gone into actually quantifying the concept. But wait..........lets not get too carried away. The manure has to be collected and transported, so if you are raising livestock on pasture, forget it! However, with dairy cows, some pig production and in feedlots, this is a serious business.
Alas, in Australia with most stock on pasture, it will be a difficult issue, except for those more intensive systems.
But it is worth a read...............
--------------------------------------------
Converting livestock manure into a domestic renewable fuel source could generate enough electricity to meet up to 3pc of North America's entire consumption needs and lead to a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), according to research published July 24 in the Institute of Physics' Environmental Research Letters.
The journal paper, Cow Power: The Energy & Emissions Benefits of Converting Manure to Biogas, has implications for all countries with livestock as it is the first attempt to outline a procedure for quantifying the national amount of renewable energy that herds of cattle and other livestock can generate and the concomitant GHG emission reductions. Livestock manure, left to decompose naturally, emits two particularly potent GHGs - nitrous oxide and methane.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, nitrous oxide warms the atmosphere 310 times more than carbon dioxide; methane does so 21 times more.
Through anaerobic digestion, similar to the process by which compost is created, manure can be turned into energy-rich biogas, which standard microturbines can use to produce electricity.
The hundreds of millions of livestock inhabiting the US could produce approximately 100 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, enough to power millions of homes and offices, according to the paper. Since manure left to decompose naturally can have a damaging effect on the environment, this new waste management system has a net potential GHG emissions reduction of 99 million metric tons, wiping out approximately 4pc of the USA GHG emissions from electricity production.
Authors of the paper, Dr Michael E Webber and Amanda D Cuellar from the University of Texas, noted that the "logistics of widespread biogas production, including feedstock and digestates transportation, must be determined at the local level to produce the most environmentally advantageous, economical, and energy efficient system".
from Feedstuffs, USA
http://www.feedstuffs.com
Friday, July 25, 2008
Carbon Trading in Australian Agriculture - the NEW Landcare?
There is going to be an Emissions Trading Scheme in Australia, from 2010, and agriculture is to be excluded, at least for the first 3 years. This is a now a fact in Australia. The Federal Government has released a Green Paper on its policy options for the Scheme, and is doing the rounds of major cities now – with Darwin on the roadshow agenda for Monday July 28. Maybe all will be clearer after that.
This link takes you to the Green Paper documents:
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/greenpaper/report/index.html
This is a weighty tome, but at least read the Executive Summary.
However, opinions on carbon issues in agriculture are definitely getting a bit steamed up.
It seems to be that soil sequestration is sensible and eminently doable, with benefits to agriculture and the environment. Soil biology is improved, as is soil moisture storage along with improved structure. All these contribute to positives for plant growth and performance……..and nett soil carbon is enhanced.
Measuring soil carbon is not that difficult, although interpreting what is in the soil carbon pool and how labile that is, can get a bit trickier. But if nett soil carbon is increasing surely then, carbon is being sequestered??
The following article appeared on 25 July in one of the major rural newspapers, and evoked a few quite sharp replies. It is worth a read.
-------------------------------------------------
Trading in carbon could be a real winner for farmers, if common sense prevails.
The politics of carbon trading are unfortunately well ahead of the science right now, particularly agricultural science.
With most of the nation paranoid about what fuel, electricity and food will do under a carbon trading scheme, few have even thought of where the carbon offsets will come from to "save us all".
Trading in carbon could be a real winner for farmers, if common sense prevails.
Any secondary school student will tell you, the role of agriculture in the carbon cycle is to take carbon from the atmosphere and place it in living things - plants, animals and soil microbes. Wow, that sounds like a great way to reduce atmospheric carbon!
Yes, cows and sheep belch and fart but common sense will tell you that agriculture’s net effect has to be positive if farmers are doing their job properly and profitably.
The more efficiently carbon is fixed into living things, the better it should be for the environment.
Inefficient use of fertiliser, fuel, feed or even fire, constitute losses of carbon. Farmers are in the business of growing a natural resource, not losing it and this fits in perfectly with carbon trading.
The advent of the Landcare movement in Victoria over 20 years ago, led to the recognition of farmers as good land managers, before the movement was sadly hijacked by bureaucracy and died.
The carbon debate should again prove that good farmers build things from carbon - it's how they have made a living since the first seed was planted by man.
Could carbon trading be the next Landcare?
The financial opportunities stemming from carbon trading could be enormous and systems in the United States are already rewarding farmers for their soil carbon management. You don’t have to plant trees and leave them there forever to help save the planet. Stubble retention, minimum tillage and building up fertility in soil may well be a great way to make money as well as practise good agriculture. All we need to wait for is some good science, good policies and hopefully some good seasons.
Stock & Land, Vic
http://www.stockandland.com,au
Comments
Responses were pretty sharp and immediate.......
When lamb or beef is exported, the recipient is the user of the carbon absorbed and should be recognised as the user of that carbon, I agree with the above article, New Zealand has got it wrong with regard to the suggested carbon emmisions from farming.
Posted by teanau8 on 25/07/2008
Soil carbon will likely prove to be the eventual winner in the race for supremacy within the carbon sequestration race. Forest sinks are susceptible to environmental events such as drought (any forest becomes an emitter if it does not receive its required allotment of moisture), fire, insect attack, fungal and bacterial disease, all of which reduce or reverse the carbon fixing or sequestering cycle.
Where as sequestered carbon into soils will stay and build at a predictable rate. Yes all of the required science is not in yet to determine the best way to assess consistency of accumulation, but there has been an old and proven method of determining soil carbon as part of business as usual on any soil test done over at least the last at least ten years. The labile or active carbon is where the relative unknown factor is, but soil carbon loss will only occur if a farmer changes practice from sustainable no or minimal till and minimisation or elimination of synthetic fertilisers that has allowed for sequestration cycle of the soil carbon to accumulate.
Drought will have some effect but on the whole soil sequestration is far more secure a method to travel down than forest sinks, and on top of that, the amount of abatement that can be calculated through less fuel use and not losing the fixed carbon that is included as part of the soil integrity as shown by simple Albrecht soil testing procedures is of a phenomenal rate and to determine the exact amount of carbon that has not been released to atmosphere is determinable by pure mathematical calculation (old science) and so as the Commonwealth Government has not seen fit to include soil carbon sequestration as part of the climate change action plan possibly until 2015 science research pending, shows that there is still a lot of unexplained action taking place.
In the mean time reduction or abatement actions that can be verified will be the most easily accessible plan for farmers to become involved in the sustainable agriculture industry drive.
Anthony Foo Managing Director Skyfarms Australia P/L
Posted by Anthony Foo on 25/07/2008 9:16:17 AM
The carbon trade will attract all the shonks, wide boys, white shoe brigade, fedora fat men & junk bond floggers. Markets are about fear & greed there is nothing noble in a market. The people trading carbon will never see it or understand it, they will just flog it. We already have laws about pollution & waste. Make them tougher & expand them. Make it a licence & permit scheme. A trade run by bankers & commodity traders will be just as damaging as one run by the bob browns.
Posted by THE FARMER on 25/07/2008 [ I love this one - soooooooo true!]
The debate between soil carbon and trees as the best sequesterer of carbon needs to be stopped. Both have a critical role to play in mitigating climate change and dealing with current, historical and future emissions. The issues with soil carbon are well documented and I do not know anyone who does not think soil carbon should play a role but not until the risks and legislation is in place to deal with many of the issues, in particular measuring, monitoring and landholder rights. Let us remember that trees grow in soil as well and they do increase the soil carbon content over time.
The big issues are the long term maintenance of soil and tree carbon and that must be addressed. Carbon in farming is going to change so much in the farming context that farmers really need to be aware of all the complexities. I have been involved in carbon and agriculture for over five years and it iwas very difficult to engage farmers and farmer bodies until it became apparent that there may be some cost or benefit involved. Farmers need to see carbon as part of the farming cycle and farming business, beware of the long term commitments and of the administrative burden, be careful what you wish for. Make no mistake those promoting soil carbon are aiming to make money out of it and if landholders are not aware of the long term implications they could enter into a 100 year management nightmare. I would advise any landholder to move cautiously and get expert advice.
Posted by the lorax on 25/07/2008
This link takes you to the Green Paper documents:
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/greenpaper/report/index.html
This is a weighty tome, but at least read the Executive Summary.
However, opinions on carbon issues in agriculture are definitely getting a bit steamed up.
It seems to be that soil sequestration is sensible and eminently doable, with benefits to agriculture and the environment. Soil biology is improved, as is soil moisture storage along with improved structure. All these contribute to positives for plant growth and performance……..and nett soil carbon is enhanced.
Measuring soil carbon is not that difficult, although interpreting what is in the soil carbon pool and how labile that is, can get a bit trickier. But if nett soil carbon is increasing surely then, carbon is being sequestered??
The following article appeared on 25 July in one of the major rural newspapers, and evoked a few quite sharp replies. It is worth a read.
-------------------------------------------------
Trading in carbon could be a real winner for farmers, if common sense prevails.
The politics of carbon trading are unfortunately well ahead of the science right now, particularly agricultural science.
With most of the nation paranoid about what fuel, electricity and food will do under a carbon trading scheme, few have even thought of where the carbon offsets will come from to "save us all".
Trading in carbon could be a real winner for farmers, if common sense prevails.
Any secondary school student will tell you, the role of agriculture in the carbon cycle is to take carbon from the atmosphere and place it in living things - plants, animals and soil microbes. Wow, that sounds like a great way to reduce atmospheric carbon!
Yes, cows and sheep belch and fart but common sense will tell you that agriculture’s net effect has to be positive if farmers are doing their job properly and profitably.
The more efficiently carbon is fixed into living things, the better it should be for the environment.
Inefficient use of fertiliser, fuel, feed or even fire, constitute losses of carbon. Farmers are in the business of growing a natural resource, not losing it and this fits in perfectly with carbon trading.
The advent of the Landcare movement in Victoria over 20 years ago, led to the recognition of farmers as good land managers, before the movement was sadly hijacked by bureaucracy and died.
The carbon debate should again prove that good farmers build things from carbon - it's how they have made a living since the first seed was planted by man.
Could carbon trading be the next Landcare?
The financial opportunities stemming from carbon trading could be enormous and systems in the United States are already rewarding farmers for their soil carbon management. You don’t have to plant trees and leave them there forever to help save the planet. Stubble retention, minimum tillage and building up fertility in soil may well be a great way to make money as well as practise good agriculture. All we need to wait for is some good science, good policies and hopefully some good seasons.
Stock & Land, Vic
http://www.stockandland.com,au
Comments
Responses were pretty sharp and immediate.......
When lamb or beef is exported, the recipient is the user of the carbon absorbed and should be recognised as the user of that carbon, I agree with the above article, New Zealand has got it wrong with regard to the suggested carbon emmisions from farming.
Posted by teanau8 on 25/07/2008
Soil carbon will likely prove to be the eventual winner in the race for supremacy within the carbon sequestration race. Forest sinks are susceptible to environmental events such as drought (any forest becomes an emitter if it does not receive its required allotment of moisture), fire, insect attack, fungal and bacterial disease, all of which reduce or reverse the carbon fixing or sequestering cycle.
Where as sequestered carbon into soils will stay and build at a predictable rate. Yes all of the required science is not in yet to determine the best way to assess consistency of accumulation, but there has been an old and proven method of determining soil carbon as part of business as usual on any soil test done over at least the last at least ten years. The labile or active carbon is where the relative unknown factor is, but soil carbon loss will only occur if a farmer changes practice from sustainable no or minimal till and minimisation or elimination of synthetic fertilisers that has allowed for sequestration cycle of the soil carbon to accumulate.
Drought will have some effect but on the whole soil sequestration is far more secure a method to travel down than forest sinks, and on top of that, the amount of abatement that can be calculated through less fuel use and not losing the fixed carbon that is included as part of the soil integrity as shown by simple Albrecht soil testing procedures is of a phenomenal rate and to determine the exact amount of carbon that has not been released to atmosphere is determinable by pure mathematical calculation (old science) and so as the Commonwealth Government has not seen fit to include soil carbon sequestration as part of the climate change action plan possibly until 2015 science research pending, shows that there is still a lot of unexplained action taking place.
In the mean time reduction or abatement actions that can be verified will be the most easily accessible plan for farmers to become involved in the sustainable agriculture industry drive.
Anthony Foo Managing Director Skyfarms Australia P/L
Posted by Anthony Foo on 25/07/2008 9:16:17 AM
The carbon trade will attract all the shonks, wide boys, white shoe brigade, fedora fat men & junk bond floggers. Markets are about fear & greed there is nothing noble in a market. The people trading carbon will never see it or understand it, they will just flog it. We already have laws about pollution & waste. Make them tougher & expand them. Make it a licence & permit scheme. A trade run by bankers & commodity traders will be just as damaging as one run by the bob browns.
Posted by THE FARMER on 25/07/2008 [ I love this one - soooooooo true!]
The debate between soil carbon and trees as the best sequesterer of carbon needs to be stopped. Both have a critical role to play in mitigating climate change and dealing with current, historical and future emissions. The issues with soil carbon are well documented and I do not know anyone who does not think soil carbon should play a role but not until the risks and legislation is in place to deal with many of the issues, in particular measuring, monitoring and landholder rights. Let us remember that trees grow in soil as well and they do increase the soil carbon content over time.
The big issues are the long term maintenance of soil and tree carbon and that must be addressed. Carbon in farming is going to change so much in the farming context that farmers really need to be aware of all the complexities. I have been involved in carbon and agriculture for over five years and it iwas very difficult to engage farmers and farmer bodies until it became apparent that there may be some cost or benefit involved. Farmers need to see carbon as part of the farming cycle and farming business, beware of the long term commitments and of the administrative burden, be careful what you wish for. Make no mistake those promoting soil carbon are aiming to make money out of it and if landholders are not aware of the long term implications they could enter into a 100 year management nightmare. I would advise any landholder to move cautiously and get expert advice.
Posted by the lorax on 25/07/2008
Monday, July 07, 2008
Oxygation Improves Sub-surface Drip Irrigation Efficiency
Glasshouse results have been repeated in field trials with oxygation.
We are very pro the concept of subsurface drip irrigation, as there are potential increases in watering efficiency, avoidance of wind which can influence irrigation distribution, opportunities to use recycled effluent - away from contact with people, and opportunities to arrange irrigation scheduling at your most convenient time - baesd on water availabiity and site usage. It has a lot going for it! It can also significantly reduce vandalism on sprinkler systems, often a scourge for operators.
We favour the system developed in Australia [see http://www.kisss.net.au/], which offers improved and more even distribution, especially for open space and or turf areas. We even have a few posts about the system [see posts list]. And there are other supplier systems too, but not as efficient as KISSS.
While we were aware of the potential for using air injection with subsurface irrigation, and there have been some detailed research papers published, the media release [amended slightly] below has confirmed the very real potential for the air injection option in real world situations. Yes......it was on heavy soils, something that is not that common for horticulture and definitely not an ideal soil for well used turf eg ovals, sporting fields. However, extension of the thinking may even allow further reductions in water use on predominantly urban turf areas, if similar results are obtained for lighter soils.
Air injection is not overly expensive, and can be easily installed on existing irrigation systems.
[media release partially sourced from Qld Rural News]
Irrigators may not be familiar with the term "oxygation", but for cotton water use efficiency researcher, Lance Pendergast, it is a sub-surface drip irrigation system that has delivered 12–23pc yield increases.
Mr Pendergast is a Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries rural water use efficiency development extension officer based at Emerald, and is finalising his PhD research examining the potential for SDI oxygation technology.
The 5.2 hectare sub-surface drip irrigation trial site on Tony Ronnfeldt's Emerald Irrigation Area farm, Nyang, was established seven years ago by the Department of Natural Resources and Water. This project was to evaluate water use efficiency and levels of herbicide, pesticide and fertiliser chemicals in irrigation runoff of SDI compared with conventional furrow irrigation. The site has 12 individually irrigated experimental blocks with SDI lines buried 300mm under the soil surface which are scheduled to deliver the precise volume of water to maintain optimum soil moisture in the crop root zone.
With a question mark over the below-expectation yield performance of cotton crops irrigated by SDI, Mr Pendergast's PhD project was to see if promising glasshouse experimental results using oxygation translated to the field. The trials were overseen by Central Queensland University's Professor David Midmore and have examined the potential benefits of oxygation – a technique that involves entraining air into irrigation water delivered via sub-surface drip lines. "Because of the high moisture holding capacity of the heavy soil, it was determined that the cotton plants were being subjected to episodic water logging events after each irrigation," Mr Pedergast said. "Although each event was short term, the cumulated effect incurred a final yield penalty preventing SDI irrigated cotton from achieving its full potential."
Mr Pendergast began field trialling oxygation technology three years ago using Mazzi injectors that were adjusted to deliver a 12pc air by volume mix into the water lines to alleviate the root zone water-logging. When comparing the crop performance of sub-surface drip between oxygated and non-oxygated blocks, there was a significant yield increase achieved through oxygation for the 2004-05 and 2005-06 trial crops (27pc and 16pc respectively). "The oxygation trials show that we can achieve significant increases in both yield and water use efficiency using this technique," Mr Pendergast said. "When we add up the water saving advantages and improved yield of oxygated sub-surface drip, growers who are prepared to adopt and manage the technology are in a better position to justify the high SDI capital cost of around $3500 to $4500/ha."
Friday, June 27, 2008
Weed Management the BIG Cost to Farmers in Australia
The management of weeds was the major natural resource management activity for Australian farmers, according to figures released yesterday by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
During the 2006-07 financial year, farmers spent $1.57 billion controlling weeds, which is more than pests ($768 million) and land and soil problems ($649 million) combined, with the total cost of managing these problems $2.99B , or an average of $21,094 per business, ABS reports.
Nationally, nearly two-thirds of farmers reported that they had improved their natural resource management practices. Of these, 89pc reported doing so to increase productivity, 88pc for farm sustainability, and 75pc to improve environmental protection.
Other findings from the ABS include:
* farmers in Australia managed 425 million hectares of land, or just over half (55pc) of Australia's land mass;
* of all expenditure on weed management, nearly two-thirds ($982m) was spent on herbicides;
* of all expenditure on pest management, over half ($430m) was spent on pesticides; and
* erosion was the most common land and soil problem, reported by 48pc of the farmers, followed by soil compaction (43pc) and soil acidity (42pc).
The findings are based on the second Natural Resource Management survey conducted by the ABS.
These findings are an important snapshot of resource management issues in a practical sense. What is not indicated is why the weeds had so much expenditure and does not separate weed control for directly improving production of the land, eg weed control in crops, or is it expenditure on environmental weed control. It does reinforce however, the critical issue of weeds in Australian land management. This is a very significant change in comparison to the older view that insects were the big issue in "land management", including agriculture and natural resource management. It also reinforces the dominant role of herbicides.......but they can also be part of any integrated management system too.
During the 2006-07 financial year, farmers spent $1.57 billion controlling weeds, which is more than pests ($768 million) and land and soil problems ($649 million) combined, with the total cost of managing these problems $2.99B , or an average of $21,094 per business, ABS reports.
Nationally, nearly two-thirds of farmers reported that they had improved their natural resource management practices. Of these, 89pc reported doing so to increase productivity, 88pc for farm sustainability, and 75pc to improve environmental protection.
Other findings from the ABS include:
* farmers in Australia managed 425 million hectares of land, or just over half (55pc) of Australia's land mass;
* of all expenditure on weed management, nearly two-thirds ($982m) was spent on herbicides;
* of all expenditure on pest management, over half ($430m) was spent on pesticides; and
* erosion was the most common land and soil problem, reported by 48pc of the farmers, followed by soil compaction (43pc) and soil acidity (42pc).
The findings are based on the second Natural Resource Management survey conducted by the ABS.
These findings are an important snapshot of resource management issues in a practical sense. What is not indicated is why the weeds had so much expenditure and does not separate weed control for directly improving production of the land, eg weed control in crops, or is it expenditure on environmental weed control. It does reinforce however, the critical issue of weeds in Australian land management. This is a very significant change in comparison to the older view that insects were the big issue in "land management", including agriculture and natural resource management. It also reinforces the dominant role of herbicides.......but they can also be part of any integrated management system too.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Compadre Zoysia Chosen as Grass for Iconic Darwin Project
Compadre zoysia has been selected as the grass of choice for the prestigious Darwin Waterfront Project. This is an iconic project which incorporates a new Convention Centre, along with hotels, apartment blocks, a wave pool and safe swimming beach along with extensive parklands. See the following for more details - www.waterfront.nt.gov.au
We have worked closely with the landscape architects to research and compare a range of options that meet criteria of aesthetic appeal, reduced maintenance, an ability to tolerate significant shade [especially over time as the landscape matures], hard wearing / resilient and capable of achieving good growth in a near marine environment with considerable salt exposure. While Compadre is slower to establish, that translates into less mowing over time, so the long term view is that this will be effective as a turf cover.
The first areas will be hydroseeded in the next week or two, and there are more modest sized areas to be developed progressively over the next few months. Major open space areas are not expected to be planted however for several months more.
We have worked closely with the landscape architects to research and compare a range of options that meet criteria of aesthetic appeal, reduced maintenance, an ability to tolerate significant shade [especially over time as the landscape matures], hard wearing / resilient and capable of achieving good growth in a near marine environment with considerable salt exposure. While Compadre is slower to establish, that translates into less mowing over time, so the long term view is that this will be effective as a turf cover.
The first areas will be hydroseeded in the next week or two, and there are more modest sized areas to be developed progressively over the next few months. Major open space areas are not expected to be planted however for several months more.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Restoring Mined Land
Vermont visionary wins first Fuller Award with green plan for Appalachia.
In the quest for coal, over a million and a half acres of Appalachia have been strip-mined, whole mountains removed, trillions of gallons of toxic slurry left behind, and communities devastated.
Not exactly a promising place for a new green economy to arise.
Or maybe it is.
For his startling and bold proposal to clean-up this disaster, Comprehensive Design for a Carbon Neutral World: The Challenge of Appalachia, John Todd, a research professor in the Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources at the University of Vermont, won the first annual Buckminster Fuller Challenge.
The $100,000 prize from the Buckminster Fuller Institute was awarded in a ceremony in New York City on June 23, 2008 at the Center for Architecture.
"Dr. Todd's proposal sets forth a profound vision to heal the environmental and economic scars of the Appalachian region and a detailed strategy to build a dynamic sustainable economic basis for lasting renewal," wrote the award jury in picking his submission out of entries from around the world.
The jurors, including Vandana Shiva and William McDonough, were impressed with how Todd proposed to "use biological processes to restore degraded coal lands in Appalachia, and use the process to return atmospheric carbon to the soil," they wrote. To develop his proposal, Todd—who was named a "Hero of the Earth," by Time Magazine in 1999—drew on the concept of ecological succession. Over time, damaged land can rebuild soils, support pioneer plants and grasses, then shrubs, fast-growing trees, and finally, a mature forest. Todd has taken this classic idea of ecology and applied to the human economy.
"Deep in Nature's operating instructions is a model of future economic development," he said, "and these instructions can guide us as we seek new ways of living," in the mountainous coal-laced region that extends from Pennsylvania to Alabama.
Todd's proposal outlines four stages of recovery and development. In the first, healing is the primary focus. Drawing on his extensive experience with "living machines"—biological technologies that echo natural systems to produce clean water and environmental clean-up—Todd foresees plant-based systems that will detoxify the vast lagoons of coal slurry in the region, build new healthy soils, and yield raw products for economic purposes. "Coal miners and some of their machinery could be employed in the process," he notes.
In the second stage, reforestation begins. Some reclaimed land will be dedicated to short-rotation fast-growing woody crops to be harvested for biomass. Other long-standing forests will capture carbon from the atmosphere, slowing global warming.
In the third stage, the economic benefits of the biomass emerge. "Already suitable Appalachian wind sites have been discovered that can provide competitive sources of energy," Todd writes, "paired with another renewable energy source like woody biomass from willows and poplars, a viable energy system can be developed."
And this biomass can be used not just for electricity but for "refining fuels, and manufacturing a wide range of products ranging from plastics to polymers and adhesives," he says.
In the fourth stage, succession is at work not just in the land but in human communities and management of the land. Initially, philanthropic organizations would purchase damaged sites and shepherd their recovery. These restored lands would be passed along to new capitalized corporations that would develop forestry and other businesses there.
Then, following their mandates, these companies would divest the land to employees and qualified land stewards, restoring an ownership culture to impoverished communities. Finally, the process would begin again on other newly acquired lands.
And this replication process could extend far beyond Appalachia, presenting a method for increasing carbon storage in soils around the world and a model for reclaiming "coal-fields from Afghanistan to areas of Poland and Eastern Europe where coal has been extracted in devastating ways," the jury wrote. Because of its sweeping scope, the jury felt that Todd's proposal embodied the vision of social transformation sought by Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983), an architect, author and futurist best known for designing the geodesic dome.
"My father identified himself as a Comprehensive Anticipatory Design Scientist," said Allegra Fuller Snyder, Fuller's daughter, in a release. "My father, who knew, and admired, Dr. Todd's work in the 1970s, would certainly agree" that Todd too embodied this broad label. "Nature has had 3 billion years to experiment," Todd said. "So why shouldn't we learn from that about how to go about our business now?" "This is a struggle of mythic proportions. Big Coal is very powerful, but what will eventually stop them is a carbon tax on producers," he said.
Then, he believes, begins a carbon-neutral post-coal future for Appalachia that could have a working economy with a decade. As this struggle proceeds, John Todd believes that his proposal can "inject into the process a sense of alternative hope," he said.
This article appeared in ENN News on 24 June 2008. However, the concept regarding the early regenerative processes is similar to the soil rebuilding processes in desert soils and subsequently has been researched by the CRC for Mine Reclamation in WA, Australia in relation to mines in the low rainfall regions of Western Australia......currently the worlds quarry for iron ore!
It is the classic sequence of using organic matter - potentially coming form organic waste - to rebuild the biology of soils. Along the path, soil physical conditions are also rebuild, often due to biological activity of larger creatures such as insects, worms and similar organisms.
In tropical regions this process is relatively quick........with warmth and rainfall aiding the processes. Even gardeners commencing with a bare, soil damaged house block can see these processes transform their land in a few short years.
In the quest for coal, over a million and a half acres of Appalachia have been strip-mined, whole mountains removed, trillions of gallons of toxic slurry left behind, and communities devastated.
Not exactly a promising place for a new green economy to arise.
Or maybe it is.
For his startling and bold proposal to clean-up this disaster, Comprehensive Design for a Carbon Neutral World: The Challenge of Appalachia, John Todd, a research professor in the Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources at the University of Vermont, won the first annual Buckminster Fuller Challenge.
The $100,000 prize from the Buckminster Fuller Institute was awarded in a ceremony in New York City on June 23, 2008 at the Center for Architecture.
"Dr. Todd's proposal sets forth a profound vision to heal the environmental and economic scars of the Appalachian region and a detailed strategy to build a dynamic sustainable economic basis for lasting renewal," wrote the award jury in picking his submission out of entries from around the world.
The jurors, including Vandana Shiva and William McDonough, were impressed with how Todd proposed to "use biological processes to restore degraded coal lands in Appalachia, and use the process to return atmospheric carbon to the soil," they wrote. To develop his proposal, Todd—who was named a "Hero of the Earth," by Time Magazine in 1999—drew on the concept of ecological succession. Over time, damaged land can rebuild soils, support pioneer plants and grasses, then shrubs, fast-growing trees, and finally, a mature forest. Todd has taken this classic idea of ecology and applied to the human economy.
"Deep in Nature's operating instructions is a model of future economic development," he said, "and these instructions can guide us as we seek new ways of living," in the mountainous coal-laced region that extends from Pennsylvania to Alabama.
Todd's proposal outlines four stages of recovery and development. In the first, healing is the primary focus. Drawing on his extensive experience with "living machines"—biological technologies that echo natural systems to produce clean water and environmental clean-up—Todd foresees plant-based systems that will detoxify the vast lagoons of coal slurry in the region, build new healthy soils, and yield raw products for economic purposes. "Coal miners and some of their machinery could be employed in the process," he notes.
In the second stage, reforestation begins. Some reclaimed land will be dedicated to short-rotation fast-growing woody crops to be harvested for biomass. Other long-standing forests will capture carbon from the atmosphere, slowing global warming.
In the third stage, the economic benefits of the biomass emerge. "Already suitable Appalachian wind sites have been discovered that can provide competitive sources of energy," Todd writes, "paired with another renewable energy source like woody biomass from willows and poplars, a viable energy system can be developed."
And this biomass can be used not just for electricity but for "refining fuels, and manufacturing a wide range of products ranging from plastics to polymers and adhesives," he says.
In the fourth stage, succession is at work not just in the land but in human communities and management of the land. Initially, philanthropic organizations would purchase damaged sites and shepherd their recovery. These restored lands would be passed along to new capitalized corporations that would develop forestry and other businesses there.
Then, following their mandates, these companies would divest the land to employees and qualified land stewards, restoring an ownership culture to impoverished communities. Finally, the process would begin again on other newly acquired lands.
And this replication process could extend far beyond Appalachia, presenting a method for increasing carbon storage in soils around the world and a model for reclaiming "coal-fields from Afghanistan to areas of Poland and Eastern Europe where coal has been extracted in devastating ways," the jury wrote. Because of its sweeping scope, the jury felt that Todd's proposal embodied the vision of social transformation sought by Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983), an architect, author and futurist best known for designing the geodesic dome.
"My father identified himself as a Comprehensive Anticipatory Design Scientist," said Allegra Fuller Snyder, Fuller's daughter, in a release. "My father, who knew, and admired, Dr. Todd's work in the 1970s, would certainly agree" that Todd too embodied this broad label. "Nature has had 3 billion years to experiment," Todd said. "So why shouldn't we learn from that about how to go about our business now?" "This is a struggle of mythic proportions. Big Coal is very powerful, but what will eventually stop them is a carbon tax on producers," he said.
Then, he believes, begins a carbon-neutral post-coal future for Appalachia that could have a working economy with a decade. As this struggle proceeds, John Todd believes that his proposal can "inject into the process a sense of alternative hope," he said.
This article appeared in ENN News on 24 June 2008. However, the concept regarding the early regenerative processes is similar to the soil rebuilding processes in desert soils and subsequently has been researched by the CRC for Mine Reclamation in WA, Australia in relation to mines in the low rainfall regions of Western Australia......currently the worlds quarry for iron ore!
It is the classic sequence of using organic matter - potentially coming form organic waste - to rebuild the biology of soils. Along the path, soil physical conditions are also rebuild, often due to biological activity of larger creatures such as insects, worms and similar organisms.
In tropical regions this process is relatively quick........with warmth and rainfall aiding the processes. Even gardeners commencing with a bare, soil damaged house block can see these processes transform their land in a few short years.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Tender steak - EVERY time
A US university says it is close to commercialising technology to predict meat tenderness, potentially bridging the gap on one of the Australian beef industry's big marketing advantages in the form of Meat Standards Australia (MSA). Yes.....Australia does have meat standards although consumers might not realise it, something not operating in the US.
There has been a lot of research on animal management and handling which does show very positive effects on carcase and meat performance after slaughter, if animals are handled and managed properly in the period before and after slaughter. Most producers are aware of this need to manage the animals properly. This approach is critical in subsequent meat performance. The approach in the US tries to actually measure outcomes of the whole process, by directly checking the carcase /meat.
University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) scientists have developed a way to predict steak tenderness, saying the technology could be a boon to the beef industry as it would allow retailers to charge a premium for a "guaranteed tender" label. "Beef tenderness is a primary factor in consumer satisfaction," said Jeyamkondan Subbiah, the UNL food engineer who heads the research. "However, a sufficiently accurate, non-destructive method of on-line evaluation of tenderness continues to elude the beef industry."
Current US Department of Agriculture grading standards classify beef carcasses into quality and yield grades but do not assess tenderness. As carcasses are not priced on the basis of tenderness, producers do not have a financial incentive to supply a tender product. Consumers think they should!
The beef industry has long sought technology that could scan fresh meat at two to three days post mortem and predict its tenderness when the consumer cooks it about two weeks later.
"There is a growing recognition that beef tenderness must be incorporated into the USDA quality grading process if true, value-based marketing is to be developed," Subbiah and other authors wrote for a recent presentation on the issue.
UNL is developing that technology. Its approach uses hyperspectral imaging, a novel technology that combines video image analysis and spectroscopy. The system consists of a digital video camera and spectrograph to capture the two key qualities that affect beef tenderness: muscle structure and biochemical properties. In the research, two-day aged, 1 in. thick rib-eyes were placed on a plate and scanned by the system, which captures multiple images at hundreds of wavelengths with regular intervals.
The combination of the video images and spectroscopy is key, Subbiah said.
The video technology captures the muscle profile. Tender beef has fine muscle fibers, while tough beef has visibly coarser muscle fibers. The spectroscopy measures biochemical properties that indicate how much the steak will become tender during aging.
After scanning, the steaks were cooked and tested.
Results so far are promising. The system predicted three tenderness categories - tender, intermediate and tough -- with about 77pc accuracy and two tenderness categories - acceptable and tough - with 93.7pc accuracy.
"Beef is expensive. Consumers expect it to be tender. One bad experience can make them not buy beef for awhile," Subbiah said. "We think consumers are willing to pay a premium for a guaranteed-tender product."
Subbiah said that premium could be $1-2/lb.
Hyperspectral imaging is not new. Previously, it has been used to determine nutrient deficiency in plants, fecal contamination in chicken and fungal/bacterial contamination in fruit.
Researchers will continue to hone this process.
Meanwhile, UNL is patenting the technology and hopes to identify a business interested in partnering on commercialization. Critical to commercializing the technology will be finding a way "to take it from the lab to the plant," Subbiah said.
The industry must be able to use it to evaluate a carcass, not individual steaks, and do it in about 10 seconds per carcass. "It has to be done in the current mode of operation," without any additional time-consuming steps, Subbiah added. Such commercialisation is likely two to three years away, he added.
* A related video of the imaging process is available at http://www.feedstuffsfoodlink.com/.
partially sourced from Feedstuffs, USA
http://www.feedstuffs.com
There has been a lot of research on animal management and handling which does show very positive effects on carcase and meat performance after slaughter, if animals are handled and managed properly in the period before and after slaughter. Most producers are aware of this need to manage the animals properly. This approach is critical in subsequent meat performance. The approach in the US tries to actually measure outcomes of the whole process, by directly checking the carcase /meat.
University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) scientists have developed a way to predict steak tenderness, saying the technology could be a boon to the beef industry as it would allow retailers to charge a premium for a "guaranteed tender" label. "Beef tenderness is a primary factor in consumer satisfaction," said Jeyamkondan Subbiah, the UNL food engineer who heads the research. "However, a sufficiently accurate, non-destructive method of on-line evaluation of tenderness continues to elude the beef industry."
Current US Department of Agriculture grading standards classify beef carcasses into quality and yield grades but do not assess tenderness. As carcasses are not priced on the basis of tenderness, producers do not have a financial incentive to supply a tender product. Consumers think they should!
The beef industry has long sought technology that could scan fresh meat at two to three days post mortem and predict its tenderness when the consumer cooks it about two weeks later.
"There is a growing recognition that beef tenderness must be incorporated into the USDA quality grading process if true, value-based marketing is to be developed," Subbiah and other authors wrote for a recent presentation on the issue.
UNL is developing that technology. Its approach uses hyperspectral imaging, a novel technology that combines video image analysis and spectroscopy. The system consists of a digital video camera and spectrograph to capture the two key qualities that affect beef tenderness: muscle structure and biochemical properties. In the research, two-day aged, 1 in. thick rib-eyes were placed on a plate and scanned by the system, which captures multiple images at hundreds of wavelengths with regular intervals.
The combination of the video images and spectroscopy is key, Subbiah said.
The video technology captures the muscle profile. Tender beef has fine muscle fibers, while tough beef has visibly coarser muscle fibers. The spectroscopy measures biochemical properties that indicate how much the steak will become tender during aging.
After scanning, the steaks were cooked and tested.
Results so far are promising. The system predicted three tenderness categories - tender, intermediate and tough -- with about 77pc accuracy and two tenderness categories - acceptable and tough - with 93.7pc accuracy.
"Beef is expensive. Consumers expect it to be tender. One bad experience can make them not buy beef for awhile," Subbiah said. "We think consumers are willing to pay a premium for a guaranteed-tender product."
Subbiah said that premium could be $1-2/lb.
Hyperspectral imaging is not new. Previously, it has been used to determine nutrient deficiency in plants, fecal contamination in chicken and fungal/bacterial contamination in fruit.
Researchers will continue to hone this process.
Meanwhile, UNL is patenting the technology and hopes to identify a business interested in partnering on commercialization. Critical to commercializing the technology will be finding a way "to take it from the lab to the plant," Subbiah said.
The industry must be able to use it to evaluate a carcass, not individual steaks, and do it in about 10 seconds per carcass. "It has to be done in the current mode of operation," without any additional time-consuming steps, Subbiah added. Such commercialisation is likely two to three years away, he added.
* A related video of the imaging process is available at http://www.feedstuffsfoodlink.com/.
partially sourced from Feedstuffs, USA
http://www.feedstuffs.com
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Microbes Can Rapidly Degrade Plastic
An ordinary Canadian school boy has managed to identify a microbial population that others have not been able to do.........microbes that rapidly degrade plastic bags.
Getting ordinary plastic bags to rot away like banana peels would be an environmental dream come true. After all, we produce 500 billion a year worldwide and they take up to 1,000 years to decompose. They take up space in landfills, litter our streets and parks, pollute the oceans and kill the animals that eat them.ow a Waterloo Canada teenager has found a way to make plastic bags degrade faster -- in three months, he figures.
Daniel Burd's project won the top prize at the Canada-Wide Science Fair in Ottawa. He came back with a long list of awards, including a $10,000 prize, a $20,000 scholarship, and recognition that he has found a practical way to help the environment. Daniel, a 16-year-old Grade 11 student at Waterloo Collegiate Institute, got the idea for his project from everyday life.
"Almost every week I have to do chores and when I open the closet door, I have this avalanche of plastic bags falling on top of me," he said. "One day, I got tired of it and I wanted to know what other people are doing with these plastic bags." The answer: not much. So he decided to do something himself. He knew plastic does eventually degrade, and figured microorganisms must be behind it. His goal was to isolate the microorganisms that can break down plastic -- not an easy task because they don't exist in high numbers in nature.
First, he ground plastic bags into a powder. Next, he used ordinary household chemicals, yeast and tap water to create a solution that would encourage microbe growth. To that, he added the plastic powder and dirt. Then the solution sat in a shaker at 30 degrees.
After three months of upping the concentration of plastic-eating microbes, Burd filtered out the remaining plastic powder and put his bacterial culture into three flasks with strips of plastic cut from grocery bags. As a control, he also added plastic to flasks containing boiled and therefore dead bacterial culture. Six weeks later, he weighed the strips of plastic. The control strips were the same. But the ones that had been in the live bacterial culture weighed an average of 17 per cent less.
That wasn't good enough for Burd. To identify the bacteria in his culture, he let them grow on agar plates and found he had four types of microbes. He tested those on more plastic strips and found only the second was capable of significant plastic degradation. Next, Burd tried mixing his most effective strain with the others. He found strains one and two together produced a 32 per cent weight loss in his plastic strips. His theory is strain one helps strain two reproduce.
Tests to identify the strains found strain two was Sphingomonas bacteria and the helper was Pseudomonas. A researcher in Ireland has found Pseudomonas is capable of degrading polystyrene, but as far as Burd and his teacher Mark Menhennet know -- and they've looked -- Burd's research on polyethelene plastic bags is a first.
Next, Burd tested his strains' effectiveness at different temperatures, concentrations and with the addition of sodium acetate as a ready source of carbon to help bacteria grow. At 37 degrees and optimal bacterial concentration, with a bit of sodium acetate thrown in, Burd achieved 43 per cent degradation within six weeks. The plastic he fished out then was visibly clearer and more brittle, and Burd guesses after six more weeks, it would be gone. He hasn't tried that yet.
To see if his process would work on a larger scale, he tried it with five or six whole bags in a bucket with the bacterial culture. That worked too. Industrial application should be easy, said Burd. "All you need is a fermenter . . . your growth medium, your microbes and your plastic bags."
The inputs are cheap, maintaining the required temperature takes little energy because microbes produce heat as they work, and the only outputs are water and tiny levels of carbon dioxide -- each microbe produces only 0.01 per cent of its own infinitesimal weight in carbon dioxide, said Burd. "This is a huge, huge step forward . . . We're using nature to solve a man-made problem."
[partially sourced from "The Record", Waterloo, Canada]
Getting ordinary plastic bags to rot away like banana peels would be an environmental dream come true. After all, we produce 500 billion a year worldwide and they take up to 1,000 years to decompose. They take up space in landfills, litter our streets and parks, pollute the oceans and kill the animals that eat them.ow a Waterloo Canada teenager has found a way to make plastic bags degrade faster -- in three months, he figures.
Daniel Burd's project won the top prize at the Canada-Wide Science Fair in Ottawa. He came back with a long list of awards, including a $10,000 prize, a $20,000 scholarship, and recognition that he has found a practical way to help the environment. Daniel, a 16-year-old Grade 11 student at Waterloo Collegiate Institute, got the idea for his project from everyday life.
"Almost every week I have to do chores and when I open the closet door, I have this avalanche of plastic bags falling on top of me," he said. "One day, I got tired of it and I wanted to know what other people are doing with these plastic bags." The answer: not much. So he decided to do something himself. He knew plastic does eventually degrade, and figured microorganisms must be behind it. His goal was to isolate the microorganisms that can break down plastic -- not an easy task because they don't exist in high numbers in nature.
First, he ground plastic bags into a powder. Next, he used ordinary household chemicals, yeast and tap water to create a solution that would encourage microbe growth. To that, he added the plastic powder and dirt. Then the solution sat in a shaker at 30 degrees.
After three months of upping the concentration of plastic-eating microbes, Burd filtered out the remaining plastic powder and put his bacterial culture into three flasks with strips of plastic cut from grocery bags. As a control, he also added plastic to flasks containing boiled and therefore dead bacterial culture. Six weeks later, he weighed the strips of plastic. The control strips were the same. But the ones that had been in the live bacterial culture weighed an average of 17 per cent less.
That wasn't good enough for Burd. To identify the bacteria in his culture, he let them grow on agar plates and found he had four types of microbes. He tested those on more plastic strips and found only the second was capable of significant plastic degradation. Next, Burd tried mixing his most effective strain with the others. He found strains one and two together produced a 32 per cent weight loss in his plastic strips. His theory is strain one helps strain two reproduce.
Tests to identify the strains found strain two was Sphingomonas bacteria and the helper was Pseudomonas. A researcher in Ireland has found Pseudomonas is capable of degrading polystyrene, but as far as Burd and his teacher Mark Menhennet know -- and they've looked -- Burd's research on polyethelene plastic bags is a first.
Next, Burd tested his strains' effectiveness at different temperatures, concentrations and with the addition of sodium acetate as a ready source of carbon to help bacteria grow. At 37 degrees and optimal bacterial concentration, with a bit of sodium acetate thrown in, Burd achieved 43 per cent degradation within six weeks. The plastic he fished out then was visibly clearer and more brittle, and Burd guesses after six more weeks, it would be gone. He hasn't tried that yet.
To see if his process would work on a larger scale, he tried it with five or six whole bags in a bucket with the bacterial culture. That worked too. Industrial application should be easy, said Burd. "All you need is a fermenter . . . your growth medium, your microbes and your plastic bags."
The inputs are cheap, maintaining the required temperature takes little energy because microbes produce heat as they work, and the only outputs are water and tiny levels of carbon dioxide -- each microbe produces only 0.01 per cent of its own infinitesimal weight in carbon dioxide, said Burd. "This is a huge, huge step forward . . . We're using nature to solve a man-made problem."
[partially sourced from "The Record", Waterloo, Canada]
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Floren Bluegrass Comes of Age
Floren bluegrass was registered as a cultiver in 1995 in Australia through Plant Breeders Rights, and the IP in the variety is owned by Progressive Seeds.
This year it really seems to have made the big time with reports of the variety outyielding a number of species and varieties on the alkaline black clay soils around central Queensland. Reported yields of 25 large round hay
This year it really seems to have made the big time with reports of the variety outyielding a number of species and varieties on the alkaline black clay soils around central Queensland. Reported yields of 25 large round hay
bales per hectare, outyielding a number of other species.
The exceptional performance of Floren bluegrass on Queensland's Isaac River frontage country inundated by the damaging January 2008 floods, has impressed a gathering of the Marlborough region's cattle producers.
The exceptional performance of Floren bluegrass on Queensland's Isaac River frontage country inundated by the damaging January 2008 floods, has impressed a gathering of the Marlborough region's cattle producers.
Large tracts of highly productive river country throughout Central Queensland were impacted by the 2008 floods, resulting in prolonged inundation and water-logging that effectively killed off productive grasses.
Experience with Floren bluegrass, a Dicanthium aristatum cultivar first planted in April 2007 as a 25pc component of a shotgun mix of pasture seed sown under a centre pivot encouraged the opportunity for a field day and the 25 neighbouring landholders from along the Isaac and Mackenzie River systems were invited to inspect the resultant Floren bluegrass stand that has dominated and out-competed the post-flood flush of parthenium weed, a very serious weed in the region.
Floren bluegrass is now the dominant pasture species ahead of buffel and bambatsi panic, and despite some obvious denitrification of the grass following the flooding, the owner cut 200 round bales/ha from an 8ha stand in early April. A 24ha stand of forage sorghum baled at the same time after the flood inundation also cut 200 bales, an indication of the superior yield of the bluegrass. There is a bit of perennial v annual yield arguments in that equation too!
DPI&F principal experimentalist Maurie Conway said landholders who were considering introducing Floren bluegrass into non-irrigated river country should be looking at planting rates of 0.5kg/ha.
"The secret of good pasture establishment is to eliminate or reduce the competition and spraying is often the best option," Mr Conway said. "If the job is done right, then half as much seed will do the job but if it is not done properly, twice as much seed will not be enough. "Be sure to use good quality seed, plant when soil moisture is good and ensure good soil to seed contact by using a roller. Because it is highly palatable, stocking rates should be managed to allow the plants to flower and seed in autumn.
"Even with limited plant numbers, once this grass is established, it will seed prolifically and make a valuable contribution to livestock productivity," Mr Conway said.
Have a look at a few additional on line resources as listed below. It might be suitable for some areas in the NT and the NW as well.
http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/pastures/18121.html
http://www.progressiveseeds.com.au/floren.html
http://www.tropicalgrasslands.asn.au/Newsletter_archive/TGS%20NL%20june01no%20pix%20.pdf
Experience with Floren bluegrass, a Dicanthium aristatum cultivar first planted in April 2007 as a 25pc component of a shotgun mix of pasture seed sown under a centre pivot encouraged the opportunity for a field day and the 25 neighbouring landholders from along the Isaac and Mackenzie River systems were invited to inspect the resultant Floren bluegrass stand that has dominated and out-competed the post-flood flush of parthenium weed, a very serious weed in the region.
Floren bluegrass is now the dominant pasture species ahead of buffel and bambatsi panic, and despite some obvious denitrification of the grass following the flooding, the owner cut 200 round bales/ha from an 8ha stand in early April. A 24ha stand of forage sorghum baled at the same time after the flood inundation also cut 200 bales, an indication of the superior yield of the bluegrass. There is a bit of perennial v annual yield arguments in that equation too!
DPI&F principal experimentalist Maurie Conway said landholders who were considering introducing Floren bluegrass into non-irrigated river country should be looking at planting rates of 0.5kg/ha.
"The secret of good pasture establishment is to eliminate or reduce the competition and spraying is often the best option," Mr Conway said. "If the job is done right, then half as much seed will do the job but if it is not done properly, twice as much seed will not be enough. "Be sure to use good quality seed, plant when soil moisture is good and ensure good soil to seed contact by using a roller. Because it is highly palatable, stocking rates should be managed to allow the plants to flower and seed in autumn.
"Even with limited plant numbers, once this grass is established, it will seed prolifically and make a valuable contribution to livestock productivity," Mr Conway said.
Have a look at a few additional on line resources as listed below. It might be suitable for some areas in the NT and the NW as well.
http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/pastures/18121.html
http://www.progressiveseeds.com.au/floren.html
http://www.tropicalgrasslands.asn.au/Newsletter_archive/TGS%20NL%20june01no%20pix%20.pdf
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Aluminium Recycling Benefits the Community
Why Recycling Is Worth It
Pepsi Cans to Promote Recycling
Study Shows Airline Industry Could Save Thousands of Dollars by Recycling
8 Ways to Green Your Recycling
8 Ways to Practice Product Stewardship
Still wondering why you should bother recycling your aluminium cans? Just ask Greg Wittbecker. He's the director of Corporate Metal Recycling for Alcoa and a big proponent of boosting the paltry amount the U.S. recycles (52% of cans) to 75%.
What's the big deal? Greg says it's all about energy and waste disposal. "If we could recover and recycle 75% of the aluminium cans being currently tossed into landfills — 600,000 metric tons of aluminium — we could save 1286 megawatts of generated electricity. That’s the amount produced by two coal fired power plants, and consumed by two aluminium plants," says Greg. "Replacing this production with recycling would keep 11.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from being generated and released into the atmosphere." It would also reduce the amount of mercury going into the environment, since power plants emit polluting mercury when they burn coal.
Why is recycling so efficient? According to Alcoa, recycling a ton of aluminium uses just 5% of the energy required to make virgin metal. Every tonne of recycled aluminium that Alcoa uses saves about 14,000 kilowatt hours of electricity. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that the average American household consumes 920 kilowatts of electricity per month. Consequently, using 1 ton of recycled aluminium as opposed to 1 ton of virgin aluminium would make enough conserved energy available to power an American household for over 15 months.
Despite the compelling energy savings that accrue from recycling aluminuum, Americans are not recycling as much as other countries [how unusual!]. Compared to the 52% in the USA, consider how well the nations below are doing:” - Brazil 94.4%, Japan 90.9 % Germany 89 % and the Global Average is 63% and Western Europe 57.7%
Why the diff? On top of the "throw it away" mentality common among American households, many communities don't make it easy for citizens to do the right thing. More towns and cities need to offer curbside recycling programs or convenient recycling centres. Retailers that sell canned beverages could help, too, by setting up recycling centres on their premises. Eleven US states already put deposits on canned beverages to ensure that the cans are returned to the manufacturer. A number of Australian jurisdictions also offer container deposit schemes.
In Australia the packaging industry has vehemently opposed container deposit systems.
[partially sourced from www.enn.com ]
Pepsi Cans to Promote Recycling
Study Shows Airline Industry Could Save Thousands of Dollars by Recycling
8 Ways to Green Your Recycling
8 Ways to Practice Product Stewardship
Still wondering why you should bother recycling your aluminium cans? Just ask Greg Wittbecker. He's the director of Corporate Metal Recycling for Alcoa and a big proponent of boosting the paltry amount the U.S. recycles (52% of cans) to 75%.
What's the big deal? Greg says it's all about energy and waste disposal. "If we could recover and recycle 75% of the aluminium cans being currently tossed into landfills — 600,000 metric tons of aluminium — we could save 1286 megawatts of generated electricity. That’s the amount produced by two coal fired power plants, and consumed by two aluminium plants," says Greg. "Replacing this production with recycling would keep 11.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from being generated and released into the atmosphere." It would also reduce the amount of mercury going into the environment, since power plants emit polluting mercury when they burn coal.
Why is recycling so efficient? According to Alcoa, recycling a ton of aluminium uses just 5% of the energy required to make virgin metal. Every tonne of recycled aluminium that Alcoa uses saves about 14,000 kilowatt hours of electricity. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that the average American household consumes 920 kilowatts of electricity per month. Consequently, using 1 ton of recycled aluminium as opposed to 1 ton of virgin aluminium would make enough conserved energy available to power an American household for over 15 months.
Despite the compelling energy savings that accrue from recycling aluminuum, Americans are not recycling as much as other countries [how unusual!]. Compared to the 52% in the USA, consider how well the nations below are doing:” - Brazil 94.4%, Japan 90.9 % Germany 89 % and the Global Average is 63% and Western Europe 57.7%
Why the diff? On top of the "throw it away" mentality common among American households, many communities don't make it easy for citizens to do the right thing. More towns and cities need to offer curbside recycling programs or convenient recycling centres. Retailers that sell canned beverages could help, too, by setting up recycling centres on their premises. Eleven US states already put deposits on canned beverages to ensure that the cans are returned to the manufacturer. A number of Australian jurisdictions also offer container deposit schemes.
In Australia the packaging industry has vehemently opposed container deposit systems.
[partially sourced from www.enn.com ]
Friday, May 09, 2008
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 cropRecycling 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 farmSome 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
http://www.echotech.org/mambo/images/DocMan/GreenMan.pdf
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Friday, April 04, 2008
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.’’
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.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
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!
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
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
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]
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]
Friday, March 28, 2008
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]
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]
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
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 $$, without really delivering on the hype. Organic usually may cost more and at times offer the seller better margins.
That said, those that are CERTIFIED as organic certainly seem to be living up to the claims, while others may not. Going the full certified route as organic requires a great deal of work and ongoing commitment by producers of food as well as manufacturers. And that applies equally in Australia. It is not a cheap option to move that way, but most believe it will pay off over time, or some have a philosophy about being organic.
Recent US data does show that not all is as clean as is claimed though, as you can read here:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/bodycare/DioxaneRelease08.cfm with this press release from the US Organic Consumers Association showing many brands of cleaners to be not all they may seem.
It is likely that this issue is reflected in other regions. So take care if you really want organic ANYTHING. And watch the Australian press too...........I am sure there will be more.
The organic thrust in the US in particular seems to be getting imbroiled with the garbage speak of just another advertising campaign, designed to part the consumer and their $$, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)