The lush vegetation wrapping the center of the globe is one of the most important features for regulating a stable climate in the world.
Much excess CO2 emissions from industrialized regions find their way to the equator to be absorbed by abundant CO2-consuming plant life. However, as large tracts of tropical rainforest are cut down in the Amazon, Congo, and Southeast Asia, worries have grown that this vital region may turn from a carbon sink to a carbon source. Those worries can be put at ease somewhat thanks to a recent study from the Woods Hole Research Center (WHRC).
Their report suggests that carbon storage of forests, shrublands, and savannas in the tropics are 21 percent higher than previously believed.
Larger carbon storage equates to a larger capacity to absorb and retain greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere. The loss of carbon storage due to deforestation is still a concern, but has been overestimated. In fact, the net flux of carbon into the atmosphere from tropical vegetation loss is overestimated by up to 12 percent.
Data used excludes any information from Australia, so estimates may be somewhat inaccurate. Even so, it does conclude that the tropical forests are a very major carbon sink.
The full published article is here
http://eorder.sheridan.com/3_0/display/index.php?flashprint=1608
Showing posts with label agroforestry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label agroforestry. Show all posts
Friday, February 03, 2012
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Plant Power - Build Better Plants for More Carbon Capture or Bioenergy
WOW!!! Scientific American seems to have woken up to a fact probably well understood by many in the agriculture research area, and also by many farmers.
Better plants for carbon capture, biofuels, or for that matter almost anything else requires an investment in R and D, specifically some decent plant breeding and genetics. Along with some public policy work to see that the plants get used.
The article below appeared in http://www.sciam.com/ in mid October 2010, and at least the review does build a case for a decent and ongoing investment in plant research, something that seems to have been over looked in the rush to develop geosequestration of carbon. Algae also probably has a place, especially for coal power stations, as does agrichar.
The comments about a price for carbon are very US-centric, and reflect what I would consider as "head in the sand" thinking by many US policy gurus, as another study, on mainstream media reports today, has indicated that many countries already have an explicit or implicit carbon price, including China and the EC countries, and that the US is probably out of line in its current thinking.
The article really says little that is new, but getting this approach into the mainstream thinking is very necessary to ensure the $$$$ do flow into a very useful avenue of development, in a time when agriculture seems to be less endowed with investment for long term progress.
Review article below.
-----------------------------
Flower Power: Genetic Modification Could Amply Boost Plants' Carbon-Capture and Bioenergy Capacity
A new review sums up options for increasing global carbon-sequestration by flora, and speculates that genetically engineering crops and trees could enhance the process, trapping gigatons of the greenhouse gas as well as increasing bioenergy production.
Human activities currently add about nine gigatons of carbon to the atmosphere yearly.
Photosynthetic organisms on land and in the ocean absorb about five of those gigatons through the natural uptake of CO2, leaving to humans the task of dealing with the rest. But no matter how much carbon there is, capturing it and preventing it from reentering the atmosphere is an immense engineering challenge; even today's best technology is orders of magnitude less effective than photosynthesis at trapping atmospheric carbon.
A new analysis published in the October issue of Bioscience suggests that by 2050 humans could offset between five and eight gigatons of the carbon emitted annually by growing plants and trees optimized via genetic engineering both for fuel production and carbon sequestration.
Bioenergy crops represent an opportunity to mitigate atmospheric carbon dioxide in two separate ways, says lead author Christer Jansson, a senior staff scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's Earth Sciences Division. First, they are a carbon-neutral energy source that could offset the burning of fossil fuels. Second, "if they are the right kind of plants, they have a chance to transfer a lot of carbon underground for long-term sequestration," he says.
Plants take up CO2 and store carbon in their biomasses. Carbon can stay for decades or centuries in leaves, stems, branches, seeds and flowers aboveground, whereas carbon allocated to underground root systems is more apt to be transferred into the soil, where it can stay sequestered for millennia. Therefore, an ideal bioenergy plant would produce lots of aboveground biomass for fuel as well as have an extensive root system. Preliminary research indicates that genetic engineering approaches could be employed to enhance both these traits.
Using genetic modification to enhance photosynthesis and thus biomass yield is a realistic approach, says Stephen P. Long, a professor of crop sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign who was not part of the study. Long notes that transgenic tobacco plants, with simple modifications applicable to other plants as well, have already been shown to be more productive. "We are in a position now where we certainly know enough to where we could engineer quite a few of these changes," he says.
Meanwhile, regarding the problem of coaxing plants to allocate more carbon to their root systems, Jansson says an important difference between perennial and annual plants is a good place to start. "Perennials are more efficient than annuals at hiding carbon underground," he says. That's because annuals, which make up most of the world's food crops, spend much more energy producing seeds, stems and leaves than for building their root systems. On the other hand, perennials like switchgrass and Miscanthus have more extensive root systems—necessary because they remain dormant for part of the year and then must grow up again from their roots.
Whereas it may be exciting to imagine a bioenergy or food crop that produces lots of aboveground biomass and has large, carbon-sequestering root systems, research into whether this goal is realistic is still in its early stages. "Perenniality is a complex trait," Jansson says. He suggests it may end up being easier to modify perennials so they possess desirable annual-like features, as opposed to the other way around—but it's too early to tell. For the short term Jansson is confident that science can modify plants so they are more drought resistant and salt tolerant. Crops that could be maintained with brine or brackish water, such as industrial wastewater or seawater, would help preserve freshwater supplies. "These are important traits that need to be introduced into food and bioenergy crops," Jansson says, adding that "we will see this sooner" than enhanced photosynthesis or perennials with annual traits and/or vice versa.
The authors stress that genetic engineering should not be viewed as a cure-all, but rather part of a larger breeding effort. Further, Jansson says, "One problem is that the different aspects we mention—increasing photosynthesis, improving bioenergy crop yield, and putting more carbon into the root systems—are highly interlinked, and thus not necessarily additive." It could be, for example, that a modifying a plant to grow more roots takes away aboveground biomass production. Again, research in this area is too preliminary to tell.
Allison Thomson, who studies climate change and land use at the Joint Global Change Research Institute in College Park, Md., also expressed the need for caution when interpreting the study's projections. They are valuable in principle, she says, but also based on many assumptions regarding future economic conditions, land availability, and the size of bioenergy's role in a larger future energy strategy. For example, she says, "you can't really say how much bioenergy we are going use if you're not also considering other available energy sources and how much they emit." Furthermore, she points out, whether or not there is a price for carbon, which is hard to account for at this point, will figure heavily into future energy scenarios.
Also important to consider are potential land-use issues related to increasing demand for food. "When we do modeling, that's the one demand you can't ignore," Thomson says. "People want to eat before they want bioenergy."Besides all the unknowns, there is also existing regulatory policy regarding genetically modified organisms, which imposes high costs of compliance, thereby making it difficult to assess whether the ideas discussed in the paper are all doable.
Long says: "The bottleneck and damper on all this is really, 'How do you get transgenics out there, and meet all the regulatory requirements and costs?'"
Better plants for carbon capture, biofuels, or for that matter almost anything else requires an investment in R and D, specifically some decent plant breeding and genetics. Along with some public policy work to see that the plants get used.
The article below appeared in http://www.sciam.com/ in mid October 2010, and at least the review does build a case for a decent and ongoing investment in plant research, something that seems to have been over looked in the rush to develop geosequestration of carbon. Algae also probably has a place, especially for coal power stations, as does agrichar.
The comments about a price for carbon are very US-centric, and reflect what I would consider as "head in the sand" thinking by many US policy gurus, as another study, on mainstream media reports today, has indicated that many countries already have an explicit or implicit carbon price, including China and the EC countries, and that the US is probably out of line in its current thinking.
The article really says little that is new, but getting this approach into the mainstream thinking is very necessary to ensure the $$$$ do flow into a very useful avenue of development, in a time when agriculture seems to be less endowed with investment for long term progress.
Review article below.
-----------------------------
Flower Power: Genetic Modification Could Amply Boost Plants' Carbon-Capture and Bioenergy Capacity
A new review sums up options for increasing global carbon-sequestration by flora, and speculates that genetically engineering crops and trees could enhance the process, trapping gigatons of the greenhouse gas as well as increasing bioenergy production.
Human activities currently add about nine gigatons of carbon to the atmosphere yearly.
Photosynthetic organisms on land and in the ocean absorb about five of those gigatons through the natural uptake of CO2, leaving to humans the task of dealing with the rest. But no matter how much carbon there is, capturing it and preventing it from reentering the atmosphere is an immense engineering challenge; even today's best technology is orders of magnitude less effective than photosynthesis at trapping atmospheric carbon.
A new analysis published in the October issue of Bioscience suggests that by 2050 humans could offset between five and eight gigatons of the carbon emitted annually by growing plants and trees optimized via genetic engineering both for fuel production and carbon sequestration.
Bioenergy crops represent an opportunity to mitigate atmospheric carbon dioxide in two separate ways, says lead author Christer Jansson, a senior staff scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's Earth Sciences Division. First, they are a carbon-neutral energy source that could offset the burning of fossil fuels. Second, "if they are the right kind of plants, they have a chance to transfer a lot of carbon underground for long-term sequestration," he says.
Plants take up CO2 and store carbon in their biomasses. Carbon can stay for decades or centuries in leaves, stems, branches, seeds and flowers aboveground, whereas carbon allocated to underground root systems is more apt to be transferred into the soil, where it can stay sequestered for millennia. Therefore, an ideal bioenergy plant would produce lots of aboveground biomass for fuel as well as have an extensive root system. Preliminary research indicates that genetic engineering approaches could be employed to enhance both these traits.
Using genetic modification to enhance photosynthesis and thus biomass yield is a realistic approach, says Stephen P. Long, a professor of crop sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign who was not part of the study. Long notes that transgenic tobacco plants, with simple modifications applicable to other plants as well, have already been shown to be more productive. "We are in a position now where we certainly know enough to where we could engineer quite a few of these changes," he says.
Meanwhile, regarding the problem of coaxing plants to allocate more carbon to their root systems, Jansson says an important difference between perennial and annual plants is a good place to start. "Perennials are more efficient than annuals at hiding carbon underground," he says. That's because annuals, which make up most of the world's food crops, spend much more energy producing seeds, stems and leaves than for building their root systems. On the other hand, perennials like switchgrass and Miscanthus have more extensive root systems—necessary because they remain dormant for part of the year and then must grow up again from their roots.
Whereas it may be exciting to imagine a bioenergy or food crop that produces lots of aboveground biomass and has large, carbon-sequestering root systems, research into whether this goal is realistic is still in its early stages. "Perenniality is a complex trait," Jansson says. He suggests it may end up being easier to modify perennials so they possess desirable annual-like features, as opposed to the other way around—but it's too early to tell. For the short term Jansson is confident that science can modify plants so they are more drought resistant and salt tolerant. Crops that could be maintained with brine or brackish water, such as industrial wastewater or seawater, would help preserve freshwater supplies. "These are important traits that need to be introduced into food and bioenergy crops," Jansson says, adding that "we will see this sooner" than enhanced photosynthesis or perennials with annual traits and/or vice versa.
The authors stress that genetic engineering should not be viewed as a cure-all, but rather part of a larger breeding effort. Further, Jansson says, "One problem is that the different aspects we mention—increasing photosynthesis, improving bioenergy crop yield, and putting more carbon into the root systems—are highly interlinked, and thus not necessarily additive." It could be, for example, that a modifying a plant to grow more roots takes away aboveground biomass production. Again, research in this area is too preliminary to tell.
Allison Thomson, who studies climate change and land use at the Joint Global Change Research Institute in College Park, Md., also expressed the need for caution when interpreting the study's projections. They are valuable in principle, she says, but also based on many assumptions regarding future economic conditions, land availability, and the size of bioenergy's role in a larger future energy strategy. For example, she says, "you can't really say how much bioenergy we are going use if you're not also considering other available energy sources and how much they emit." Furthermore, she points out, whether or not there is a price for carbon, which is hard to account for at this point, will figure heavily into future energy scenarios.
Also important to consider are potential land-use issues related to increasing demand for food. "When we do modeling, that's the one demand you can't ignore," Thomson says. "People want to eat before they want bioenergy."Besides all the unknowns, there is also existing regulatory policy regarding genetically modified organisms, which imposes high costs of compliance, thereby making it difficult to assess whether the ideas discussed in the paper are all doable.
Long says: "The bottleneck and damper on all this is really, 'How do you get transgenics out there, and meet all the regulatory requirements and costs?'"
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Feeding the World - Agricultural Development BACK on the Agenda
Addressing the world's food problems should be the Obama administration's topmost aid priority, according to Catherine Bertini and Dan Glickman. Both are co-chairs of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs' Global Agricultural Development Project. Bertini was executive director of the World Food Program from 1992 to 2002, while Glickman was the U.S. agriculture secretary from 1995 to 2001.
This article puts agricultural aid firmly back on the high priority list in the US foreign policy agenda, previously dominated by defence - spending and military activity. They argue that in simple terms, people with full bellies do not want military activity nearby, and that the US could do a lot to redress the view of them that the rest of the world has, by forging a new agricultural revolution in the areas most desperate for agricultural productivity. Real agricultural productivity gains. Sadly, not a lot said about the agricultural trade issues though - maybe that might get back on the agenda too.
The media coverage has been extensive, but getting the full article is a bit tricky as Foreign Affairs magazine, where it appeared in the May / June 2009 edition, pp93-105, restricts access.
However, some excerpts have been published in various formats. It was a full article in The Australian Financial Review last Friday, July 17, 2009 and excerpts are available if you search around on line.
This link takes you to the extensive executive summary [23 pp] of the main report that formed the basis of the article in Foreign Affairs Magazine.
http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/globalagdevelopment/pdf/GADP_Final_Exec_Summary.pdf
The activity in this area has big implications for the foreign aid operations of not only the USA but Australia too. Like them, 20 -25 years ago Australia and Australians were very active and prominent in agricultural research and development world wide, in major R and D organisations and in real, on the ground rural development activities. Much of that has been degraded.......but it might be about to get a new lease of life.
A strongly commended article to read for all those interested in real agricultural development. It links well with a previous post on using GM technology in rural development areas too. There is technology around, useful technology [ salt tolerance in cereals too] but it needs harnessing for those really needing a boost in food production.
This article puts agricultural aid firmly back on the high priority list in the US foreign policy agenda, previously dominated by defence - spending and military activity. They argue that in simple terms, people with full bellies do not want military activity nearby, and that the US could do a lot to redress the view of them that the rest of the world has, by forging a new agricultural revolution in the areas most desperate for agricultural productivity. Real agricultural productivity gains. Sadly, not a lot said about the agricultural trade issues though - maybe that might get back on the agenda too.
The media coverage has been extensive, but getting the full article is a bit tricky as Foreign Affairs magazine, where it appeared in the May / June 2009 edition, pp93-105, restricts access.
However, some excerpts have been published in various formats. It was a full article in The Australian Financial Review last Friday, July 17, 2009 and excerpts are available if you search around on line.
This link takes you to the extensive executive summary [23 pp] of the main report that formed the basis of the article in Foreign Affairs Magazine.
http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/globalagdevelopment/pdf/GADP_Final_Exec_Summary.pdf
The activity in this area has big implications for the foreign aid operations of not only the USA but Australia too. Like them, 20 -25 years ago Australia and Australians were very active and prominent in agricultural research and development world wide, in major R and D organisations and in real, on the ground rural development activities. Much of that has been degraded.......but it might be about to get a new lease of life.
A strongly commended article to read for all those interested in real agricultural development. It links well with a previous post on using GM technology in rural development areas too. There is technology around, useful technology [ salt tolerance in cereals too] but it needs harnessing for those really needing a boost in food production.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Tipperary Station on the Market - STILL
It has all been a bit of a major shambles..........the proposed sale of the Tipperary Station aggregation to AACo. It finally got knocked on the head after a major board rejig amid all sorts of toing and froing among the major players. The final outcome being that Tipperary was not bundled into AAco, although Futuris did manage to sell down its holding in AACo to overseas interests.
A search on the financial pages will document the sordid details.
But Tipperary Station may have new suitors, if the current financial press is to be believed.
--------------------
Brockstar eyes Tipperary Station acquisition
22/06/2009 10:54:00 AM
United States-based portfolio manager Brockstar is in due diligence to acquire the famous Tipperary aggregation of cattle stations in the Northern Territory owned by prominent barrister Allan Myers.
Brockstar director of Australian operations Peter Smith told The Australian Financial Review that he could "not confirm nor deny" that Brockstar had made an offer of up to $140 million for all bar one of the aggregated stations. "We are running the ruler over it at this stage," Mr Smith said.
The US-based Brockstar manages private portfolio investment opportunities and looks at submissions concerning project financing and credit facilities between $US1 million and $US500 million. The group of properties Brockstar is looking at includes the 205,500 hectare Elizabeth Downs, the 194,600ha Douglas Station and the 209,800ha Tipperary, as well as Litchfield.
---------------------
There is no doubt that good quality agricultural and pastoral land is valuable, with a lot of overseas operators looking at Australia. Sovereign risk is acceptable, and there are opportunities in northern areas of Australia, especially in comparison to South America or Africa. So watch this space!!
A search on the financial pages will document the sordid details.
But Tipperary Station may have new suitors, if the current financial press is to be believed.
--------------------
Brockstar eyes Tipperary Station acquisition
22/06/2009 10:54:00 AM
United States-based portfolio manager Brockstar is in due diligence to acquire the famous Tipperary aggregation of cattle stations in the Northern Territory owned by prominent barrister Allan Myers.
Brockstar director of Australian operations Peter Smith told The Australian Financial Review that he could "not confirm nor deny" that Brockstar had made an offer of up to $140 million for all bar one of the aggregated stations. "We are running the ruler over it at this stage," Mr Smith said.
The US-based Brockstar manages private portfolio investment opportunities and looks at submissions concerning project financing and credit facilities between $US1 million and $US500 million. The group of properties Brockstar is looking at includes the 205,500 hectare Elizabeth Downs, the 194,600ha Douglas Station and the 209,800ha Tipperary, as well as Litchfield.
---------------------
There is no doubt that good quality agricultural and pastoral land is valuable, with a lot of overseas operators looking at Australia. Sovereign risk is acceptable, and there are opportunities in northern areas of Australia, especially in comparison to South America or Africa. So watch this space!!
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Beef is Better from Pastures and Climate Friendly Too
Grass and other perennial plants may be just what the doctor ordered for farmers facing the uncertainties of climate change. And beef and dairy products from free-ranging, grass-fed cattle--along with legumes and grains grown in addition to grass--may be just what the doctor ordered for consumers.
That's the "post-oil agriculture" vision portrayed by Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists and other participants at the Farming with Grass Conference held in Oklahoma in 2008. In 2009, the Soil and Water Conservation Society published the proceedings from that conference in an online book titled "Farming with Grass."
ARS scientists Jean L. Steiner and Alan J. Franzluebbers co-wrote the foreword to the book and the closing chapter, "Expanding Horizons of Farming with Grass." Steiner is at the ARS Grazinglands Research Laboratory in El Reno, Okla. Franzluebbers is at the ARS J. Phil Campbell Sr. Natural Resource Conservation Center in Watkinsville, Ga.
The closing chapter was written with Constance L. Neely, vice president of Heifer International in Little Rock, Ark. Steiner, Franzluebbers and Neely explain that perennial plants, in diverse agricultural systems, have great potential to enhance resilience against uncertain climate and market conditions.
Steiner's ARS colleagues Bill Phillips and Brian Northup--who co-wrote their own chapter on forage-based beef production--are in the second year of a 5-year study to develop a system to produce grass-fed beef for the southern Great Plains. Phillips and Northup are at the ARS lab in El Reno. ARS scientists in Booneville, Ark.; Mandan, N.D.; and Watkinsville, Ga., are also looking for innovative ways to include grazing cattle in economically diverse farming systems.
In summarizing stories from the conference, participants envisioned mixed livestock, perennial plants, and other crops, instead of large stands of a single-row crop monoculture. The goal is to sustain farms and rural communities both economically and environmentally, while offering local, healthy foods and other new products.
ARS News Service
Agricultural Research Service, USDA
Don Comis, (301) 504-1625, donald.comis@ars.usda.gov June 9, 2009 --View this report online, plus photos and related stories, at www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr
------------------
This was a recent media piece from the ARS in the US - considered the senior agriculturally focussed r and d group in the US Federal bureaucracy.
Funny about the livestock production systems, though. Sounds much like most of Australia's open grazing on pastures systems of producing cattle - right NOW and especially true of northern Australia.
It is true that finishing cattle on pasture is a bit more tricky - you do need quality pastures, with both good protein quality and higher digestibility of the forages, and often that may need [at least in Australia] some irrigation, or using high quality leguminous feed - even leucaena can assist in this task[ a tree perennial legume]. And there is a focus here in Australia also, to move more production back to pastures, rather than lot finishing.
I remember being lectured as an undergraduate in agronomy about the need for rotations, looking after soil health and quality, soil carbon issues and organic matter, and some of these principles were part of [ and still are] themes I espouse as an agricultural consultant.
It looks a lot like back to the future..........
That's the "post-oil agriculture" vision portrayed by Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists and other participants at the Farming with Grass Conference held in Oklahoma in 2008. In 2009, the Soil and Water Conservation Society published the proceedings from that conference in an online book titled "Farming with Grass."
ARS scientists Jean L. Steiner and Alan J. Franzluebbers co-wrote the foreword to the book and the closing chapter, "Expanding Horizons of Farming with Grass." Steiner is at the ARS Grazinglands Research Laboratory in El Reno, Okla. Franzluebbers is at the ARS J. Phil Campbell Sr. Natural Resource Conservation Center in Watkinsville, Ga.
The closing chapter was written with Constance L. Neely, vice president of Heifer International in Little Rock, Ark. Steiner, Franzluebbers and Neely explain that perennial plants, in diverse agricultural systems, have great potential to enhance resilience against uncertain climate and market conditions.
Steiner's ARS colleagues Bill Phillips and Brian Northup--who co-wrote their own chapter on forage-based beef production--are in the second year of a 5-year study to develop a system to produce grass-fed beef for the southern Great Plains. Phillips and Northup are at the ARS lab in El Reno. ARS scientists in Booneville, Ark.; Mandan, N.D.; and Watkinsville, Ga., are also looking for innovative ways to include grazing cattle in economically diverse farming systems.
In summarizing stories from the conference, participants envisioned mixed livestock, perennial plants, and other crops, instead of large stands of a single-row crop monoculture. The goal is to sustain farms and rural communities both economically and environmentally, while offering local, healthy foods and other new products.
ARS News Service
Agricultural Research Service, USDA
Don Comis, (301) 504-1625, donald.comis@ars.usda.gov June 9, 2009 --View this report online, plus photos and related stories, at www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr
------------------
This was a recent media piece from the ARS in the US - considered the senior agriculturally focussed r and d group in the US Federal bureaucracy.
Funny about the livestock production systems, though. Sounds much like most of Australia's open grazing on pastures systems of producing cattle - right NOW and especially true of northern Australia.
It is true that finishing cattle on pasture is a bit more tricky - you do need quality pastures, with both good protein quality and higher digestibility of the forages, and often that may need [at least in Australia] some irrigation, or using high quality leguminous feed - even leucaena can assist in this task[ a tree perennial legume]. And there is a focus here in Australia also, to move more production back to pastures, rather than lot finishing.
I remember being lectured as an undergraduate in agronomy about the need for rotations, looking after soil health and quality, soil carbon issues and organic matter, and some of these principles were part of [ and still are] themes I espouse as an agricultural consultant.
It looks a lot like back to the future..........
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Tipperary Station Has New Owners
Tipperary Station is one of the iconic large pastoral properties in the Northern Territory, and along with adjacent sister properties Elizabeth Downs and Litchfield [ all operated essentially as a single entity] is well developed and capable of running around 80ooo head of cattle.
The property is about 150km south of Darwin in a seasonally wet dry monsoon area with rainfall of about 1200 - 1500mm across the property, with more near the western coastline. It also has virtually all year round access to the main developed areas closer to the Stuart Highway.
Tieerary was the first of the large properties to be cleared in the late 1960s with over 30oooha cleared for cultivation. Sorghum and other crops have been grown over the years but it is true to say that overall, grain production was not successful on that scale. Some smaller areas have been used for grain and other cultivation since then, and some areas have enormous potential for continued use including irrigation of higher value crops, for example peanuts. Maybe even cotton too.
The buyer is Australia's largest cattle operation......Australian Agricultural Company or AACo, and the seller is Melbourne barrister Alan Myers.
The $105 million purchase of the famed Tipperary Station and Litchfield, as well as 60,000 cattle, will be funded by the sale of three of AACo's properties in Queensland - Clonagh, Kalmeta and Gregory Downs, which together cover 481,000 hectares and come with 62,000 cattle, ands are being sold for $152m.
The complex deal also includes the purchase of 19.9pc of AACo for $90m by Mr Myers, as part of Futuris Corporation’s sale of its 43pc stake in AACo. Futuris, parent company of Elders, will offer its remaining 23pc to the market.
"We have been looking at a number of options for disposal of our stake in AACo as we move Futuris away from passive investments to be fully focussed on being an owner/operator of core businesses in which we have demonstrable skill and market advantage and which match our cash operating earnings objectives," Futuris chief executive Malcolm Jackman said. "In that regard, the sale of a substantial part of our holding in AACo to a committed pastoral investor is an excellent fit with all stakeholders' interests." Futuris also is the principal owner of Elders, the major Australian pastoral supply business.
AACo CEO Stephen Toms said the company, by purchasing Tipperary and Litchfield, was acquiring a valuable and unique aggregation in the Northern Territory with unlimited tenure, excellent access to the Port of Darwin, reliable high rainfall patterns and a substantial infrastructure base.
"We have been conducting due diligence on the aggregation, off and on, over the past two years," Mr Toms said. "The likely trend, over the short to medium term, in consumer sentiment to beef will be toward lower cost products. "AACo needs to respond to that and stratify its sales and production programs for the changing market. "Accordingly the business will adapt its flexible pathway system to be weighted toward less costly grass fed production."
The property is about 150km south of Darwin in a seasonally wet dry monsoon area with rainfall of about 1200 - 1500mm across the property, with more near the western coastline. It also has virtually all year round access to the main developed areas closer to the Stuart Highway.
Tieerary was the first of the large properties to be cleared in the late 1960s with over 30oooha cleared for cultivation. Sorghum and other crops have been grown over the years but it is true to say that overall, grain production was not successful on that scale. Some smaller areas have been used for grain and other cultivation since then, and some areas have enormous potential for continued use including irrigation of higher value crops, for example peanuts. Maybe even cotton too.
The buyer is Australia's largest cattle operation......Australian Agricultural Company or AACo, and the seller is Melbourne barrister Alan Myers.
The $105 million purchase of the famed Tipperary Station and Litchfield, as well as 60,000 cattle, will be funded by the sale of three of AACo's properties in Queensland - Clonagh, Kalmeta and Gregory Downs, which together cover 481,000 hectares and come with 62,000 cattle, ands are being sold for $152m.
The complex deal also includes the purchase of 19.9pc of AACo for $90m by Mr Myers, as part of Futuris Corporation’s sale of its 43pc stake in AACo. Futuris, parent company of Elders, will offer its remaining 23pc to the market.
"We have been looking at a number of options for disposal of our stake in AACo as we move Futuris away from passive investments to be fully focussed on being an owner/operator of core businesses in which we have demonstrable skill and market advantage and which match our cash operating earnings objectives," Futuris chief executive Malcolm Jackman said. "In that regard, the sale of a substantial part of our holding in AACo to a committed pastoral investor is an excellent fit with all stakeholders' interests." Futuris also is the principal owner of Elders, the major Australian pastoral supply business.
AACo CEO Stephen Toms said the company, by purchasing Tipperary and Litchfield, was acquiring a valuable and unique aggregation in the Northern Territory with unlimited tenure, excellent access to the Port of Darwin, reliable high rainfall patterns and a substantial infrastructure base.
"We have been conducting due diligence on the aggregation, off and on, over the past two years," Mr Toms said. "The likely trend, over the short to medium term, in consumer sentiment to beef will be toward lower cost products. "AACo needs to respond to that and stratify its sales and production programs for the changing market. "Accordingly the business will adapt its flexible pathway system to be weighted toward less costly grass fed production."
This is an interesting development with an obvious trend seen by a very large operator back towards grass grown and presumably grass finished cattle. The export livestock business is thriving in nortern Australia, with expected numbers exported likely to increase from 600000 head a year in 2008 to over 1.2 million by 2012, according to industry projections. Most go to Indonesia, a short 7-10 day journey, with very very little in the way of transport problems.
It also opens speculation about future development on Tipperary, particularly in relation to cropping and related enterprises including hay production and even expansion of better quality pastures. Other adjacent properties have also been sold to agroforestry companies, so that enterprise would also be an option. And interestingly, the NT government is moving to allow some tenative further clearing in the Daly Basin for agriculture and property development.
The other significant isuse is - if AACo are expanding and want grass fed cattle, presumably for the domestic market too, what will be the situation in relation to an abbattoir locally or will they ship cattle out for slaughter to southern states?
Monday, January 19, 2009
Africa Saved by Organic Food - Really??
In the 1970s and 80s, two well renowned CGIAR Centres - IITA and ICRISAT had major programs originally in India and then in Africa to examine crop production. A focus of much of the work was plant establishment and performance in the heavy but erratic rains of the monsoonal and similar tropical areas. Crucial issues to improved performance and crop yield were the use of soil mulches [often legumes] to reduce erosion and lower soil temperatures to mangeable ranges in which seeds could germinate and establish. Mulch also enabled soil moisture to be retained and thus allowed better establishment. Without satisfactory establishment and early growth, crops would fail to perform.
This system was very successful, and similar modified large scale systems have been developed for the tropics in Australia and Brazil, for example. Part of the Australian system involved a ley farming phase in which tropical pastures were used for animal grazing with the leguminous residuals aiding the next crop establishment, in the manner above.
This is not organic farming, although undoubtedly, using organic residuals over time will build soil carbon and enhance soil quality. In Africa, the tropical soils are often nutrient deficient, and yields are restricted by poor plant nutrition. Finding and adding those plant nutrients at low cost is near impossible, except for very small restricted areas - for example home gardens. Yes, it is undoubtedly true that soil mycorhiza can allow release of nutrients from otherwise non available sources, but the amounts are unlikely to be adequate to completely supply enough to grow good crops.
A new media release by the organic lobby in Australia uses a recent UNEP article that espouses the view that organic agriculture will radically improve African agriculture. Organic agriculture to be the saviour of Africa!
I am not so sure, except for those smaller areas. Yes, some of the soil carbon principles are important. BUT........this is not new for the tropics; it is nearly 40 years of old news, written up and published in eminent journals and as layman's reading, and acted on around the world in the tropics.
Read the media release and the link to the UNEP article.
It's Official: Organic farming provides answers to feeding Africa
A major study by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) concludes organic farming offers Africa the best chance of breaking the long inherent cycle of poverty and malnutrition. (1)
Research conducted by UNEP suggests that organic, small-scale farming can deliver the increased yields which were thought to be the preserve of industrial high-tech farming, in addition to reversing environmental and social damages, leading to greater food security.
The head of the UN's Environment Programme, Achim Steiner, says the report "indicates that the potential contribution of organic farming to feeding the world may be far higher than many had supposed."(1)
Dr. Kristen Lyons is a senior lecturer at the School of Biomolecular and Physical Sciences at Griffith University (QLD) and the director of Mukwano Australia, a non-for-profit group supporting the development of health care services in African organic farming communities.
"Organic agriculture offers an alternative - and sustainable - future for African farmers," says Dr. Lyons. She says the report provides a clear direction for reducing the current crisis in agriculture and food systems in developing countries - organic, all the way. "It demystifies the assumption that genetic engineering and other high-tech approaches to farming are required to feed the world.
"In contrast, it is organic farming systems that have demonstrated the greatest potential to feed the world's one billion starving people, and to ensure the long term sustainability of global food production," she says
The UNEP report proposes that African communities need to look to alternative methods of farming as genetic engineering is prohibitively expensive and therefore out of reach for most African farmers. (1)
Organic farming in Africa has lead to benefits to the natural environment, with the UNEP report showing a 93 per cent of case studies reporting benefits to soil fertility, water supply, flood control and biodiversity. (1)
Also, when sustainable agricultural practices, which covered a variety of systems and crops, were adopted, average crop yields increased by 79 per cent. (1)
Overall, the report found an increase in organic farming in Africa could lead to savings on production costs (due to no expenditure on synthetic inputs), promote economic viability and encourage food self-reliance. (1)
Data: (1) United Nations Conference on Trade and Development United Nations Environment Programme, Report: UNEP-UNCTAD Capacity-building Task Force on Trade, Environment and Development, Organic agriculture and food security in Africa, Unite Nations, New York and Geneva, 2008
[media release by BFA Australia]
-----------------------
Of course this report is in contrast to recent publications about the need to boost food production, and fast in these areas.
The truth probably is somewhere in the middle. But I doubt, given the wide range of problems that interfere with accumulation of quality organic residuals in Africa, that enough can be accumulated to go totally organic. Embracing the work of the 70s and 80s to enhance establishment and reduce erosion is a vital start to improvement. The technology has been around for some time; getting it adopted widely is more difficult, and often social and machinery issues can interfere with adoption of promising technolgies.
BUT....it is not organic farming, as most people would define it.
This system was very successful, and similar modified large scale systems have been developed for the tropics in Australia and Brazil, for example. Part of the Australian system involved a ley farming phase in which tropical pastures were used for animal grazing with the leguminous residuals aiding the next crop establishment, in the manner above.
This is not organic farming, although undoubtedly, using organic residuals over time will build soil carbon and enhance soil quality. In Africa, the tropical soils are often nutrient deficient, and yields are restricted by poor plant nutrition. Finding and adding those plant nutrients at low cost is near impossible, except for very small restricted areas - for example home gardens. Yes, it is undoubtedly true that soil mycorhiza can allow release of nutrients from otherwise non available sources, but the amounts are unlikely to be adequate to completely supply enough to grow good crops.
A new media release by the organic lobby in Australia uses a recent UNEP article that espouses the view that organic agriculture will radically improve African agriculture. Organic agriculture to be the saviour of Africa!
I am not so sure, except for those smaller areas. Yes, some of the soil carbon principles are important. BUT........this is not new for the tropics; it is nearly 40 years of old news, written up and published in eminent journals and as layman's reading, and acted on around the world in the tropics.
Read the media release and the link to the UNEP article.
It's Official: Organic farming provides answers to feeding Africa
A major study by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) concludes organic farming offers Africa the best chance of breaking the long inherent cycle of poverty and malnutrition. (1)
Research conducted by UNEP suggests that organic, small-scale farming can deliver the increased yields which were thought to be the preserve of industrial high-tech farming, in addition to reversing environmental and social damages, leading to greater food security.
The head of the UN's Environment Programme, Achim Steiner, says the report "indicates that the potential contribution of organic farming to feeding the world may be far higher than many had supposed."(1)
Dr. Kristen Lyons is a senior lecturer at the School of Biomolecular and Physical Sciences at Griffith University (QLD) and the director of Mukwano Australia, a non-for-profit group supporting the development of health care services in African organic farming communities.
"Organic agriculture offers an alternative - and sustainable - future for African farmers," says Dr. Lyons. She says the report provides a clear direction for reducing the current crisis in agriculture and food systems in developing countries - organic, all the way. "It demystifies the assumption that genetic engineering and other high-tech approaches to farming are required to feed the world.
"In contrast, it is organic farming systems that have demonstrated the greatest potential to feed the world's one billion starving people, and to ensure the long term sustainability of global food production," she says
The UNEP report proposes that African communities need to look to alternative methods of farming as genetic engineering is prohibitively expensive and therefore out of reach for most African farmers. (1)
Organic farming in Africa has lead to benefits to the natural environment, with the UNEP report showing a 93 per cent of case studies reporting benefits to soil fertility, water supply, flood control and biodiversity. (1)
Also, when sustainable agricultural practices, which covered a variety of systems and crops, were adopted, average crop yields increased by 79 per cent. (1)
Overall, the report found an increase in organic farming in Africa could lead to savings on production costs (due to no expenditure on synthetic inputs), promote economic viability and encourage food self-reliance. (1)
Data: (1) United Nations Conference on Trade and Development United Nations Environment Programme, Report: UNEP-UNCTAD Capacity-building Task Force on Trade, Environment and Development, Organic agriculture and food security in Africa, Unite Nations, New York and Geneva, 2008
[media release by BFA Australia]
-----------------------
Of course this report is in contrast to recent publications about the need to boost food production, and fast in these areas.
The truth probably is somewhere in the middle. But I doubt, given the wide range of problems that interfere with accumulation of quality organic residuals in Africa, that enough can be accumulated to go totally organic. Embracing the work of the 70s and 80s to enhance establishment and reduce erosion is a vital start to improvement. The technology has been around for some time; getting it adopted widely is more difficult, and often social and machinery issues can interfere with adoption of promising technolgies.
BUT....it is not organic farming, as most people would define it.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Soil Erosion a Threat to Food Production in China
Soil erosion in Australia is a serious issue. The environmental brigade will tell you how dire it is, any where and every where. That is an gross over the top attention grabber, for erosion is a natural process closely associated with geological processes over countless millenia. What we need is a system to minimise that soil loss particularly in the most productive land around Australia, or anywhere else in the world too.
Many will argue that the National Landcare program and the myriad action programs at all levels, now operational for about 25 years, has made significant gains in managing the Australian landscape processes, and reducing erosion. At least we like to think so, but it is probably fair to say some good progress continues to be made. The program has been copied and developed in other countries too - notably The Phillipines and South Africa.
While we in Australia might feel good, it is a timely reminder to consider recent information emerging from China. Things are pretty grim in relation to erosion. Picture the giant erosional gullies of the loess plateau......most people have seen those. But it gets worse.
Over a third of China's land is being scoured by serious erosion that is putting its crops and water supply at risk, a three-year nationwide survey has found.
Soil is being washed and blown away not only in remote rural areas, but near mines, factories and even in cities, the official Xinhua agency cited the country's bio-environment security research team saying.
Each year some 4.5 billion tonnes of soil are lost, threatening the country's ability to feed itself.
If the loss continues at this rate, harvests in China's northeastern breadbasket could fall 40 percent in 50 years, adding to erosion costs estimated at 200 billion yuan ($29 billion) in this decade alone.
"China has a more dire situation than India, Japan, the United States, Australia and many other countries suffering from soil erosion," Xinhua quoted the research team saying.
Beijing has long been worried about the desertification of its northern grasslands, and scaled back logging after rain rushing down denuded mountainsides caused massive flooding along the Yangtze in the late 1990s. But around 1.6 million square km of land are still being degraded by water erosion, with almost every river basin affected. The photo shows erosion and bare soils on the loess plateau in China's North East.
Another 2.0 million square km are under attack from wind, the report said.
The survey was the largest on soil conservation since the Communist Party took control of China in 1949.
If you have been to Beijing, you will certainly have experienced the yellow skies from the soil blowing from the west, that irritates the eyes, common in the late winter and early spring periods. Or the steady soil clouds lifted from bare soils in Outer Mongolia, not even that far from Beijing itself. We most certainly could not get farmers to change their thinking and even consider conservation tillage in projects we worked on in China during the late 1990s.
The following two photos show some of the awesome erosion seen on the loess plateau of China. It can be staggering!
A China with food production problems is worth pondering. Also adds some pondering to be considered along with the analysis on "The Politics of Hunger" in a recent post.
[lower two photos used with permission. Thanks. Copyright- Cathy Dowd]
Many will argue that the National Landcare program and the myriad action programs at all levels, now operational for about 25 years, has made significant gains in managing the Australian landscape processes, and reducing erosion. At least we like to think so, but it is probably fair to say some good progress continues to be made. The program has been copied and developed in other countries too - notably The Phillipines and South Africa.
While we in Australia might feel good, it is a timely reminder to consider recent information emerging from China. Things are pretty grim in relation to erosion. Picture the giant erosional gullies of the loess plateau......most people have seen those. But it gets worse.
Over a third of China's land is being scoured by serious erosion that is putting its crops and water supply at risk, a three-year nationwide survey has found.
Soil is being washed and blown away not only in remote rural areas, but near mines, factories and even in cities, the official Xinhua agency cited the country's bio-environment security research team saying.
Each year some 4.5 billion tonnes of soil are lost, threatening the country's ability to feed itself.
If the loss continues at this rate, harvests in China's northeastern breadbasket could fall 40 percent in 50 years, adding to erosion costs estimated at 200 billion yuan ($29 billion) in this decade alone.
"China has a more dire situation than India, Japan, the United States, Australia and many other countries suffering from soil erosion," Xinhua quoted the research team saying.
Beijing has long been worried about the desertification of its northern grasslands, and scaled back logging after rain rushing down denuded mountainsides caused massive flooding along the Yangtze in the late 1990s. But around 1.6 million square km of land are still being degraded by water erosion, with almost every river basin affected. The photo shows erosion and bare soils on the loess plateau in China's North East.
Another 2.0 million square km are under attack from wind, the report said.
The survey was the largest on soil conservation since the Communist Party took control of China in 1949.
If you have been to Beijing, you will certainly have experienced the yellow skies from the soil blowing from the west, that irritates the eyes, common in the late winter and early spring periods. Or the steady soil clouds lifted from bare soils in Outer Mongolia, not even that far from Beijing itself. We most certainly could not get farmers to change their thinking and even consider conservation tillage in projects we worked on in China during the late 1990s.
The following two photos show some of the awesome erosion seen on the loess plateau of China. It can be staggering!
A China with food production problems is worth pondering. Also adds some pondering to be considered along with the analysis on "The Politics of Hunger" in a recent post.
[lower two photos used with permission. Thanks. Copyright- Cathy Dowd]
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
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.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Terra Preta soils - can the NT reach this level of improved soil carbon
Terra Preta: Black is the New Green
Carbon sequestration faces some major hurdles. Technical geosequestration methods could pump large amounts of CO2 deep underground but are still under development. On the other hand, natural methods that store carbon in living ecosystems, such as trees, may be possible in the short term but require huge swathes of land and are only as stable the ecosystems themselves. An ideal solution, however, would combine the quick fix of biological methods with the absolute potential of technical ones. Terra preta [sometimes seen as terra petra] may do just that, as a recent article in the journal Nature reveals. Soil sequestration of carbon has many proponents, incluidng a number of very experienced and knowledgeable scientists, in numerous countries. Australia has been slow to solidly examine this option, yet our soils - some of the oldest and most depleted on planet earth, could really get a kick start with higher soil carbon levels.
Amazonian Dark Earth, or "terra preta do indio", has mystified science for the last hundred years. Three times richer in nitrogen and phosphorous, and twenty times the carbon of normal soils, terra preta is the legacy of ancient Amazonians who predate Western civilization. Scientists who long debated the capacity of 'savages' to transform the virgin rainforest now generally agree that indigenous people transformed large regions of the Amazon into amazingly fertile black earth. The Amazonians' techniques remain an enigma but are believed to have used slash-and-smoulder to lock half of the carbon in burnt vegetation into a stable form of biochar instead of releasing the bulk of it into the atmosphere like typical slash-and-burn practices.
The difference between terra preta and ordinary soils is immense. A hectare of metre deep terra preta can contain 250 tonnes of carbon, as opposed to 100 tonnes in unimproved soils from similar parent material, according to Bruno Glaser, of the University of Bayreuth, Germany. To understand what this means, the difference in the carbon between these soils matches all of the vegetation on top of them. Furthermore, there is no clear limit to just how much biochar can be added to the soil.
Claims for biochar's capacity to capture carbon sound almost audacious. Johannes Lehmann, soil scientist and author of Amazonian Dark Earths: Origin, Properties, Management, believes that a strategy combining biochar with biofuels could ultimately offset 9.5 billion tons of carbon per year-an amount equal to the total current fossil fuel emissions!
Indeed, there is profit to be made in this black earth, for if green is the new black, then black could be the new green. Biofuels are touted as 'carbon neutral', but biofuels combined with biochar [ now generally referred to as agrichar] together promise to be 'carbon negative'. There are a number of competing technologies and some have fuel oil as a potential product, with agrichar the byproduct.
One technology - the Eprida technology uses agricultural waste biomass to produce hydrogen-rich bio-fuels and a new restorative high-carbon fertilizer (ECOSS) . Trials in tropical or depleted soils with ECOSS fertilizer sustainably improves soil fertility, water holding and plant yield far beyond what is possible with nitrogen fertilizers alone. The hydrogen produced from biomass can be used to make ethanol, or a Fischer-Troupsch gas-to-liquids diesel (BTL diesel), as well as the ammonia used to enrich the carbon to make ECOSS fertilizer. Ecocarbons from Australia have another system, with Dynamotive Energy Systems of Canada also in the mix.
Terra preta's full beauty appears in this closed loop. Unlike traditional sequestration rates that follow diminishing marginal returns-aquifers fill up, forests mature-practices based on terra preta see increasing returns. Terra preta doubles or even triples crop yields. More growth means more terra preta, begetting a virtuous cycle. While a global rollout of terra preta is still a long way off, it heralds yet another transformation of waste into resources.
Carbon sequestration faces some major hurdles. Technical geosequestration methods could pump large amounts of CO2 deep underground but are still under development. On the other hand, natural methods that store carbon in living ecosystems, such as trees, may be possible in the short term but require huge swathes of land and are only as stable the ecosystems themselves. An ideal solution, however, would combine the quick fix of biological methods with the absolute potential of technical ones. Terra preta [sometimes seen as terra petra] may do just that, as a recent article in the journal Nature reveals. Soil sequestration of carbon has many proponents, incluidng a number of very experienced and knowledgeable scientists, in numerous countries. Australia has been slow to solidly examine this option, yet our soils - some of the oldest and most depleted on planet earth, could really get a kick start with higher soil carbon levels.
Amazonian Dark Earth, or "terra preta do indio", has mystified science for the last hundred years. Three times richer in nitrogen and phosphorous, and twenty times the carbon of normal soils, terra preta is the legacy of ancient Amazonians who predate Western civilization. Scientists who long debated the capacity of 'savages' to transform the virgin rainforest now generally agree that indigenous people transformed large regions of the Amazon into amazingly fertile black earth. The Amazonians' techniques remain an enigma but are believed to have used slash-and-smoulder to lock half of the carbon in burnt vegetation into a stable form of biochar instead of releasing the bulk of it into the atmosphere like typical slash-and-burn practices.
The difference between terra preta and ordinary soils is immense. A hectare of metre deep terra preta can contain 250 tonnes of carbon, as opposed to 100 tonnes in unimproved soils from similar parent material, according to Bruno Glaser, of the University of Bayreuth, Germany. To understand what this means, the difference in the carbon between these soils matches all of the vegetation on top of them. Furthermore, there is no clear limit to just how much biochar can be added to the soil.
Claims for biochar's capacity to capture carbon sound almost audacious. Johannes Lehmann, soil scientist and author of Amazonian Dark Earths: Origin, Properties, Management, believes that a strategy combining biochar with biofuels could ultimately offset 9.5 billion tons of carbon per year-an amount equal to the total current fossil fuel emissions!
Indeed, there is profit to be made in this black earth, for if green is the new black, then black could be the new green. Biofuels are touted as 'carbon neutral', but biofuels combined with biochar [ now generally referred to as agrichar] together promise to be 'carbon negative'. There are a number of competing technologies and some have fuel oil as a potential product, with agrichar the byproduct.
One technology - the Eprida technology uses agricultural waste biomass to produce hydrogen-rich bio-fuels and a new restorative high-carbon fertilizer (ECOSS) . Trials in tropical or depleted soils with ECOSS fertilizer sustainably improves soil fertility, water holding and plant yield far beyond what is possible with nitrogen fertilizers alone. The hydrogen produced from biomass can be used to make ethanol, or a Fischer-Troupsch gas-to-liquids diesel (BTL diesel), as well as the ammonia used to enrich the carbon to make ECOSS fertilizer. Ecocarbons from Australia have another system, with Dynamotive Energy Systems of Canada also in the mix.
Terra preta's full beauty appears in this closed loop. Unlike traditional sequestration rates that follow diminishing marginal returns-aquifers fill up, forests mature-practices based on terra preta see increasing returns. Terra preta doubles or even triples crop yields. More growth means more terra preta, begetting a virtuous cycle. While a global rollout of terra preta is still a long way off, it heralds yet another transformation of waste into resources.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Sequestering Carbon in YOUR Soil - Are There $$ In It For Me?
Sequestering carbon in soil is not a new concept. It happens naturally, but can it be enhanced on farm and can it actually make some dollars for me, on my farm?
The NSW experience is worth examining in some detail, as a similar system could be useful in the tropics as well. There are a number of links with details on the scheme
http://abc.net.au/science/features/soilcarbon/ provides access, as well as several additional links, with more information.
Tropical regions also lose carbon, with fire the major problem. That may not be a significant issue on many horticulture, pasture and cropping areas, but it can be in native pasture areas where irregular burning occurs.
Annual horticulture will normally benefit from the additional carbon stored in soil, with superior moisture storage in the soil, plus improved nutrient retention, better soil tilth and a higher soil microbiological regime. And those characters may even add to yield and direct economic returns. The carbon can come from compost, mulch, green manure crops, plant residuals such as leaf drop and plant roots, but management must be directed to gain benefit from the carbon.
Benefits need to measured and a value attributed, but it does appear to show some promise. A note of caution though as one of the carbon trading schemes in NSW has appeared shaky.......and may cease.
We are interested in developing this system further and would welcome interaction with rural users in the tropics.
The NSW experience is worth examining in some detail, as a similar system could be useful in the tropics as well. There are a number of links with details on the scheme
http://abc.net.au/science/features/soilcarbon/ provides access, as well as several additional links, with more information.
Tropical regions also lose carbon, with fire the major problem. That may not be a significant issue on many horticulture, pasture and cropping areas, but it can be in native pasture areas where irregular burning occurs.
Annual horticulture will normally benefit from the additional carbon stored in soil, with superior moisture storage in the soil, plus improved nutrient retention, better soil tilth and a higher soil microbiological regime. And those characters may even add to yield and direct economic returns. The carbon can come from compost, mulch, green manure crops, plant residuals such as leaf drop and plant roots, but management must be directed to gain benefit from the carbon.
Benefits need to measured and a value attributed, but it does appear to show some promise. A note of caution though as one of the carbon trading schemes in NSW has appeared shaky.......and may cease.
We are interested in developing this system further and would welcome interaction with rural users in the tropics.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Agroforestry Research Findings Vindicate Earlier Work on New Crops for the NT
African mahogany - high-value timber option for northern dry tropics
African mahogany could be a prime candidate for farm forestry in Australia's northern dry tropics, with dried and dressed timber potentially fetching prices around $3000 to $5500 per cubic metre, new research shows.
The findings result from a new study, African Mahogany Grown in Australia – wood quality and potential uses was launched on July 23, 2007 in Kununurra, WA, by RIRDC chairperson, Mary Boydell. Ms Boydell is visiting the Kununurra area as part of a series of field visits by the RIRDC Board to research projects in northern Australia.
"This project is an example of the contribution that we can make to Northern Australia through industry-focused R&D," Ms Boydell said. "The research will assist all those involved in growing African mahogany to maximise the value of the timber."
The research was funded by the Joint Venture Agroforestry Program, a collaborative initiative managed by the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, with partners Land and Water Australia and the Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation. The research was conducted in the Northern Territory by researchers from the Department of Primary Industry Fisheries and Mining, in collaboration with researchers from Queensland's Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, at two research sites near Darwin; and its findings are relevant across the dry tropics.
African mahogany is a high quality, medium-weight hardwood that has been used for furniture, boat building, joinery, veneers, and a range of other purposes. "In Australia, the estimated gross value of production for the forestry sector is over $1600 million per annum, including around $800 million from hardwood species before processing," Ms Boydell said. "Farm forests and joint ventures currently make up 11pc of plantations, with a significant increase in farm planting since 1995. "However, new industries, like farm forestry, are risky. "They have basic information needs, like the potential impacts of disease, processing requirements, market information, and profitability. "High establishment costs and long times for a return on investment make tree crops especially risky. "This why R&D to meet these information needs is important to underpin investment and industry development."
This finding supports some of the very early work conducted by myself as part of a range of work on new economic crops for northern Australia, conducted in the early 1990s. Even then, demand for high quality timber for high value uses in furniture and cabinet making indicated a strong potential for a timber crop that filled the gap, as high quality timbers from overseas sources were both increasing in prices and declining in availability. Since then, R and D has added to the knowledge of this species. BUT......ask any local resident in Darwin or even Katherine or Kununurra, they already know how good the timber is, using product from trees planted 2o- 30 years ago.
For further reading see - Economic Plants for the Northern Territory by PG Harrison published by the NT Department of Primary Industry Fisheries and Mines in 1993
partially sourced from the RIRDC media release.
African mahogany could be a prime candidate for farm forestry in Australia's northern dry tropics, with dried and dressed timber potentially fetching prices around $3000 to $5500 per cubic metre, new research shows.
The findings result from a new study, African Mahogany Grown in Australia – wood quality and potential uses was launched on July 23, 2007 in Kununurra, WA, by RIRDC chairperson, Mary Boydell. Ms Boydell is visiting the Kununurra area as part of a series of field visits by the RIRDC Board to research projects in northern Australia.
"This project is an example of the contribution that we can make to Northern Australia through industry-focused R&D," Ms Boydell said. "The research will assist all those involved in growing African mahogany to maximise the value of the timber."
The research was funded by the Joint Venture Agroforestry Program, a collaborative initiative managed by the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, with partners Land and Water Australia and the Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation. The research was conducted in the Northern Territory by researchers from the Department of Primary Industry Fisheries and Mining, in collaboration with researchers from Queensland's Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, at two research sites near Darwin; and its findings are relevant across the dry tropics.
African mahogany is a high quality, medium-weight hardwood that has been used for furniture, boat building, joinery, veneers, and a range of other purposes. "In Australia, the estimated gross value of production for the forestry sector is over $1600 million per annum, including around $800 million from hardwood species before processing," Ms Boydell said. "Farm forests and joint ventures currently make up 11pc of plantations, with a significant increase in farm planting since 1995. "However, new industries, like farm forestry, are risky. "They have basic information needs, like the potential impacts of disease, processing requirements, market information, and profitability. "High establishment costs and long times for a return on investment make tree crops especially risky. "This why R&D to meet these information needs is important to underpin investment and industry development."
This finding supports some of the very early work conducted by myself as part of a range of work on new economic crops for northern Australia, conducted in the early 1990s. Even then, demand for high quality timber for high value uses in furniture and cabinet making indicated a strong potential for a timber crop that filled the gap, as high quality timbers from overseas sources were both increasing in prices and declining in availability. Since then, R and D has added to the knowledge of this species. BUT......ask any local resident in Darwin or even Katherine or Kununurra, they already know how good the timber is, using product from trees planted 2o- 30 years ago.
For further reading see - Economic Plants for the Northern Territory by PG Harrison published by the NT Department of Primary Industry Fisheries and Mines in 1993
partially sourced from the RIRDC media release.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)