There have been some applications of microwaves in agriculture with insect control in grain storage, hard seed breakdown [and that was an area we did R and D on as well], product drying and similar issues having been areas of some success.
Recently some funded research by RIRDC has been targeted at weed control, through desiccation as well as aiming to control and kill seeds in the shallow surface layers of soil.
A recent press release has indicated this might be delivering some promising results at least at a modest scale. Getting it upsized to field use will be an issue, as the "device" will need to allow modest travel speeds while delivering adequate rates of energy to kill weeds and soil borne seeds.
But.........it does provide a new option in thinking. While steam is used as a non herbicide option, it is slow to use. And there is some pressure to develop new options because of developing concern over glyphosate resistant annual summer weeds in many cereal growing regions.
Read more here -
http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/grains-and-cropping/general/giving-weeds-a-nuke/2431010.aspx?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
US Cattle Identification Systems Seen to Be Poor
While the Australian NLIS system is not perfect, it is in place and generally works ok, and is now part of a solution for export of live cattle to Indonesia.
But cattle identification in the US [a serious meat competitor to Australia] has recently been of some concern to researchers.
And the following brief report sums this up nicely -
Economists at Kansas State University have released a study that examined cattle identification (ID) and traceability systems around the world and found that the US lags behind both major beef exporting nations and beef importers in the development and implementation of cattle ID systems, according to Glynn Tonsor, a Kansas State economist involved in the study.
The implications "are particularly troubling," he said.
US cattle prices last year were record high, in large part due to beef exports, but the comparative disadvantage regarding U.S. cattle ID "puts these and future US beef export gains at risk," he said.
Furthermore, U.S. consumers have largely trusted US beef producers and have not pushed the industry to adopt cattle ID, he said, but this may soon change as consumers become increasingly interested in traceability.
The US beef industry would be well served to give implementations in this study "serious thought," Tonsor said, before a lack of ID and traceability costs business at home and abroad.
Source: http://www.feedstuffs.com
There are a few novels that paint a grim picture of the US animal abattoir system and offer some dubious views of the security and integrity of the system. And there have been a few serious issues in relation to meat quality at consumer outlets, especially fast food venues, in recent years in the USA. And remember, the US had meat exports banned to a number of Asian countries for some years over mad cow disease.
As said, NLIS is not absolute, but it generally now works. It seems that all is not well in the US however!!
But cattle identification in the US [a serious meat competitor to Australia] has recently been of some concern to researchers.
And the following brief report sums this up nicely -
Economists at Kansas State University have released a study that examined cattle identification (ID) and traceability systems around the world and found that the US lags behind both major beef exporting nations and beef importers in the development and implementation of cattle ID systems, according to Glynn Tonsor, a Kansas State economist involved in the study.
The implications "are particularly troubling," he said.
US cattle prices last year were record high, in large part due to beef exports, but the comparative disadvantage regarding U.S. cattle ID "puts these and future US beef export gains at risk," he said.
Furthermore, U.S. consumers have largely trusted US beef producers and have not pushed the industry to adopt cattle ID, he said, but this may soon change as consumers become increasingly interested in traceability.
The US beef industry would be well served to give implementations in this study "serious thought," Tonsor said, before a lack of ID and traceability costs business at home and abroad.
Source: http://www.feedstuffs.com
There are a few novels that paint a grim picture of the US animal abattoir system and offer some dubious views of the security and integrity of the system. And there have been a few serious issues in relation to meat quality at consumer outlets, especially fast food venues, in recent years in the USA. And remember, the US had meat exports banned to a number of Asian countries for some years over mad cow disease.
As said, NLIS is not absolute, but it generally now works. It seems that all is not well in the US however!!
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
Indonesia - Australia Cattle Issues - Should Australia Say "Sorry"?
The tension between the two countries over the cattle trade is still simmering along.
It is stupid to believe that the recent cut to import quotas by Indonesia is not in someway related to the earlier Australian ban on export of cattle, at least if you have much knowledge of dealing with Indonesia. Yes, they want to be self sufficient in meat production......but will they be there so soon? Most do not think so.
A recent article reproduced here does think Australia should be a little apologetic. I also think that Australia has behaved somewhat naively over the whole issue, maybe driven by home politics and 'niceties". What cannot be denied, is that if you produce cattle for meat, then they WILL be slaughtered, somewhere. Doing that well is important though for both animal welfare and better meat quality.
Read the article and wonder.
Australia should say sorry for Indonesia stunt
CLIVE PHILLIPS, PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF ANIMAL WELFARE AND ETHICS, UOQ
03 Jan, 2012 04:00 AM
INDONESIA's decision to cut live cattle imports from Australia is the clearest example yet of the significant and long-lasting damage that June's export ban did to relations with our nearest neighbour.
Rarely in history has there been an example of two neighbouring countries being so diametrically opposed in so many ways culture, geography, socioeconomic status, religion and population density. We may therefore expect some difficulties when dealing with trade between the two countries in such a sensitive commodity as live cattle.
However, the affront to Indonesian pride by Australia's ban on the trade, apparently without consultation with Indonesian authorities (let alone Australian cattle producers), has set back the trust between the two countries a long way. To act in this way with our closest neighbour, one of the world's major trading nations since the seventh century, was disrespectful.
It provided the perfect incentive for Indonesian authorities to reaffirm their intention to become self-sufficient in beef production, an aspiration they have held for at least 30 years.
The only way in which this can happen is by cutting down native forest in less populated islands, such as Sumatra, Irian Jaya and Kalimantan in Borneo, thereby providing jobs to the rural poor, stemming the migration to cities and reducing reliance on imports to maintain food security.
Indonesian authorities have been settling people from highly populated Java to Sumatra for more than four decades, and with United Nations assistance, provided them with cattle from which to make a living. The transition from forest fringe, small-scale agriculture to cattle farming has met many difficulties: disease outbreaks in the cattle, poor productivity, unsuitable ecosystems for livestock farming, soil erosion and lack of forage for the animals.
I was in Borneo recently and listened with concern and dismay as a Malaysian Government minister announced his country's intention to cut down forest and introduce widespread livestock production units throughout its section of the island within 20 years.
The Indonesian Government knows that this is their right, too and not just in Kalimantan, Indonesia's section of Borneo.
They are planning to do the same on the lesser populated outer islands.
After all, western countries cut down most of their forests centuries ago. But there are so many reasons why this should not happen in the current era.
The Indonesian rainforest has major benefit as a carbon dioxide sink, counteracting the damaging effects of global warming.
It is a massive reserve of biodiversity, including endangered species of great value, such as the Sumatran tiger, orang-utans, leopards and pigmy elephants, and it is a potential focus of ecotourism.
Eliminate these for cattle farms and you have demonstrated a major breakdown in modern society's ability to manage the planet's most valuable resources.
Australia can far more efficiently produce the beef that Indonesians desire in the vast savannahs of the north of our country.
There are still concerns about the sustainability of the farming method, the output of pollutants from the cattle and the welfare of the cattle. But if beef has to be produced, let it be produced in the region better suited to the farming system.
If the Australian people insist, and they should, meat can be sent over as carcases rather than live animals. With the development of refrigeration capacity in Indonesia, this will pose few difficulties.
The cattle farmers of northern Australia have had a clear signal to accelerate the reinstatement of abattoirs in their region.
We might also advise Indonesia on the wisdom or otherwise of moving to a Western-style diet, with increased meat consumption per head and the associated health problems. This would require tact and diplomacy when a significant proportion of the population was malnourished.
The Federal Government should approach the Indonesian Government with great humility and respect in negotiating the conditions for the cattle trade between the two countries. Indonesia's rain forests are a treasure that Australia knows the world can ill afford to sacrifice. It also has a long history of confrontation with western colonial powers that Australia has to overcome.
The mishandling of the live export ban should be publicly acknowledged by the Federal Government, and an apology presented to the Indonesian Government.
This, together with a major initiative to place the trading and cultural exchange activities between the two countries on a strong growth trajectory over the next decade, may yet restore relations. "Coveting thy neighbour's ox" is no longer a sin; it may yet prove to be a means of establishing an "entente cordiale" between the two countries.
Clive Phillips sits on the Live Exports Standards Accreditation Group, a federal government subsidiary. Since 2000 he has received funding from: University Federation for Animal Welfare, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Meat and Livestock Australia Livecorp, the Australian Veterinary Association, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, the Wombat Recovery Program, the RSPCA, ARC Linkage, Morris Animal Foundation. "
from Queensland Country Life online.
Do not forget the recent news in the Australian media about rabies on Bali and potential spread to the east, including Irian Jaya [ West Papua]. We need to be on good terms with Indonesia for our benefit too!
It is stupid to believe that the recent cut to import quotas by Indonesia is not in someway related to the earlier Australian ban on export of cattle, at least if you have much knowledge of dealing with Indonesia. Yes, they want to be self sufficient in meat production......but will they be there so soon? Most do not think so.
A recent article reproduced here does think Australia should be a little apologetic. I also think that Australia has behaved somewhat naively over the whole issue, maybe driven by home politics and 'niceties". What cannot be denied, is that if you produce cattle for meat, then they WILL be slaughtered, somewhere. Doing that well is important though for both animal welfare and better meat quality.
Read the article and wonder.
Australia should say sorry for Indonesia stunt
CLIVE PHILLIPS, PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF ANIMAL WELFARE AND ETHICS, UOQ
03 Jan, 2012 04:00 AM
INDONESIA's decision to cut live cattle imports from Australia is the clearest example yet of the significant and long-lasting damage that June's export ban did to relations with our nearest neighbour.
Rarely in history has there been an example of two neighbouring countries being so diametrically opposed in so many ways culture, geography, socioeconomic status, religion and population density. We may therefore expect some difficulties when dealing with trade between the two countries in such a sensitive commodity as live cattle.
However, the affront to Indonesian pride by Australia's ban on the trade, apparently without consultation with Indonesian authorities (let alone Australian cattle producers), has set back the trust between the two countries a long way. To act in this way with our closest neighbour, one of the world's major trading nations since the seventh century, was disrespectful.
It provided the perfect incentive for Indonesian authorities to reaffirm their intention to become self-sufficient in beef production, an aspiration they have held for at least 30 years.
The only way in which this can happen is by cutting down native forest in less populated islands, such as Sumatra, Irian Jaya and Kalimantan in Borneo, thereby providing jobs to the rural poor, stemming the migration to cities and reducing reliance on imports to maintain food security.
Indonesian authorities have been settling people from highly populated Java to Sumatra for more than four decades, and with United Nations assistance, provided them with cattle from which to make a living. The transition from forest fringe, small-scale agriculture to cattle farming has met many difficulties: disease outbreaks in the cattle, poor productivity, unsuitable ecosystems for livestock farming, soil erosion and lack of forage for the animals.
I was in Borneo recently and listened with concern and dismay as a Malaysian Government minister announced his country's intention to cut down forest and introduce widespread livestock production units throughout its section of the island within 20 years.
The Indonesian Government knows that this is their right, too and not just in Kalimantan, Indonesia's section of Borneo.
They are planning to do the same on the lesser populated outer islands.
After all, western countries cut down most of their forests centuries ago. But there are so many reasons why this should not happen in the current era.
The Indonesian rainforest has major benefit as a carbon dioxide sink, counteracting the damaging effects of global warming.
It is a massive reserve of biodiversity, including endangered species of great value, such as the Sumatran tiger, orang-utans, leopards and pigmy elephants, and it is a potential focus of ecotourism.
Eliminate these for cattle farms and you have demonstrated a major breakdown in modern society's ability to manage the planet's most valuable resources.
Australia can far more efficiently produce the beef that Indonesians desire in the vast savannahs of the north of our country.
There are still concerns about the sustainability of the farming method, the output of pollutants from the cattle and the welfare of the cattle. But if beef has to be produced, let it be produced in the region better suited to the farming system.
If the Australian people insist, and they should, meat can be sent over as carcases rather than live animals. With the development of refrigeration capacity in Indonesia, this will pose few difficulties.
The cattle farmers of northern Australia have had a clear signal to accelerate the reinstatement of abattoirs in their region.
We might also advise Indonesia on the wisdom or otherwise of moving to a Western-style diet, with increased meat consumption per head and the associated health problems. This would require tact and diplomacy when a significant proportion of the population was malnourished.
The Federal Government should approach the Indonesian Government with great humility and respect in negotiating the conditions for the cattle trade between the two countries. Indonesia's rain forests are a treasure that Australia knows the world can ill afford to sacrifice. It also has a long history of confrontation with western colonial powers that Australia has to overcome.
The mishandling of the live export ban should be publicly acknowledged by the Federal Government, and an apology presented to the Indonesian Government.
This, together with a major initiative to place the trading and cultural exchange activities between the two countries on a strong growth trajectory over the next decade, may yet restore relations. "Coveting thy neighbour's ox" is no longer a sin; it may yet prove to be a means of establishing an "entente cordiale" between the two countries.
Clive Phillips sits on the Live Exports Standards Accreditation Group, a federal government subsidiary. Since 2000 he has received funding from: University Federation for Animal Welfare, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Meat and Livestock Australia Livecorp, the Australian Veterinary Association, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, the Wombat Recovery Program, the RSPCA, ARC Linkage, Morris Animal Foundation. "
from Queensland Country Life online.
Do not forget the recent news in the Australian media about rabies on Bali and potential spread to the east, including Irian Jaya [ West Papua]. We need to be on good terms with Indonesia for our benefit too!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)