Agricultural Science in Australia – Under Resuscitation?

A big day for Australian agricultural training, research, development, and education – today:  March 6, 2013. 

Maybe,  one of the more important for many years.

Yes, I am an agricultural scientist, suffering from the ignorance of the role we play in agriculture in Australia. Commonly ag scientists have been seen as an easy target for governments over the past 20 years – after all, no votes in the bush.  So, various governments have been radically reducing effort in agriculture with commonly the staff agricultural scientists some of the first to go.  NSW and Queensland have been vivid examples, but SA and Victoria are not far behind.

Yet today, around Australia we see some changes that are coming.  And there are increasingly more jobs available in agriculture.

Prof Mark Adams has been lauding the opening of new facilities, operated in conjunction with several Chinese agricultural science institutions, at Cobbity as part of facilities for Sydney University.  The University of Sydney's $20 million Centre for Carbon, Water and Food, funded by the federal government and the University, will answer this call to develop more scientists, helping to ensure Australia's future sustainability, as well as its potential to act as a regional leader in food production and land management.

http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newscategoryid=4&newsstoryid=11116

http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newscategoryid=4&newsstoryid=11115

In South Australia, probably the largest injection of $$ into agricultural training, staff and new facilities due to $50 million – yes $50 million -  in a total bequest from several donors to boost development at the Waite Institute and related campuses at Roseworthy.   This has been announced on the centenary of the Waite Institute.

https://waiteresearchinstitute.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/historic-expansion-of-animal-crop-research-on-waite-centenary/

Yet, still there is not much happening in north Australia.  Staff have been radically chopped from various facilities and government organisations in Queensland and the NT connected with agriculture and related activities.  Research and Development are suffering most.  Berrimah Farm in the NT, the premier research facility near Darwin is under threat to become a housing estate, as is the AZRI south of Alice Springs, and quite a few facilities in Queensland have been closed as well, including some of particular note with significant facilities and equipment and well reputed staff.  CSIRO agricultural activities continue to retreat to the SE corner of Australia, and staff are leaving.

It is a bit hard to develop much in the north without people to do it, who understand the particular issues based on living and working there.

Yes, Ord Stage 2 in WA is underway, with a Chinese sovereign related company doing the development.  While Australia does need the money to go into agricultural development, do we need to sell off our land to achieve it?  And will there be Australian agricultural scientists working there or Chinese?

Will there be a re-emergence of Agricultural Science in Australia over the next 10 years?............Hopefully.

 

 

China - Friend or Foe?

For Australia this is a very pertinent question.  We sell a lot of resources to China and import considerable amounts of finished goods.  There has been somewhat of a question mark about Chinese companies involved in electronics and communication equipment with one recently being excluded on security grounds from the new NBN network in Australia.  And there is a lot of chatter about the illicit cyber activities of China.

A recent US publication seems to state in no uncertain terms that China's territorial ambitions are somewhat worrying.

See below where part of the material is reproduced.

----------
The US trade publication Defense News last week posted a video on its blog from a US Naval Institute conference featuring an extraordinarily blunt assessment of China's maritime strategy and ambitions from US Navy Captain James Fanell, Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence and Information Operations for US Pacific Fleet. The moderator describes Fanell as the 'top intelligence officer' in the Pacific Fleet, which means he is advising some of the US military's senior decision-makers on China's military strategy and capability.

Fanell's language is, well, bracing. He calls China 'hegemonic' and says it displays 'aggression'; he claims China 'bullies adversaries' and that it has become a 'mistrusted principal threat'. Watch Captain Fanell's presentation from about 21 minutes into the above video, or read below for some more select quotes:

• '(China's) expansion into the blue waters are largely about countering the US Pacific fleet.'
• 'The PLA Navy is going to sea to learn how to do naval warfare...Make no mistake: the PRC navy is focused on war at sea, and sinking an opposing fleet.'
• On China Marine Surveillance, which supervises and patrols China's claimed maritime territory: 'If you map out their harassments you will see that they form a curved front that has over time expanded out against the coast of China's neighbours, becoming the infamous nine-dashed line, plus the entire East China Sea...China is negotiating for control of other nations' resources off their coasts; what's mine is mine, and we'll negotiate what's yours.'
• 'China Marine Surveillance cutters have no other mission but to harass other nations into submitting to China's expansive claims...China Marine Surveillance is a full-time maritime sovereignty harassment organisation'.

'In my opinion, China is knowingly, operationally and incrementally seizing maritime rights of its neighbours under the rubric of a maritime history that is not only contested in the international community but has largely been fabricated by Chinese government propaganda bureaus in order to "educate" the populous about China's rich maritime history, clearly as a tool to sustain the Party's control.'
-----------------

Northern and Western Australia has embraced Chinese businesses [mostly state owned enterprises] to invest in resource development, including land development.  Are we adequately assessing the longer term risks versus the shorter term gains, especially in light of assessments such as that above?

Many say it is the same as Japanese investment in the period 1960 - 1980.  But in those times, it was private capital, not government capital that was taking the risk. 

The issue of Chinese investment is something to consider, especially in light of security assessments and I have no doubt that the debate will continue. 

With Chinese New Year rapidly approaching, and a strong Chinese influence in the development of the NT over the past 150 years, we have definitely benefitted from the people of Chinese ethnicity in the NT as well as in cities like Darwin, and there is a strong Chinese influence locally......for the better. 

BUT......private citizens are not the same as a government, in most people's view.  

Chinese Win Right to Develop Ord Stage 2

One of the worst kept secrets is now public knowledge - The Chinese company has been the winning bidder for Ord Stage 2 to develop the irrigation extension, and will develop a sugar mill and sugar farming.

It is a 50 year lease, not a sale.

It is expected that further development of the Wyndham port will occur, as the obvious export point for the sugar.  There are other complementary issues - co-generation of electricity, probable bioethanol production, along with the farming and general developent of the area.

AND......it begs the question.......will the NT side of the border be the next to be developed??  That is still probably 5-7 years away, maybe even 10 years, but it is a logical step to take.

The ABC has quite an article on the web site - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-20/chinese-company-wins-ord-stage-2-tender/4381920

But I expect there might be a lot more detail to be available later today.

A big development issue for the north to get a tick.  It has been a long time coming!

UPDATE - As expected, more information is becoming available on this story, with this link providing more details from the ABC WA country hour web site: http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201211/s3636837.htm


 

 

 

 

 

 

Bahia Grass - Best Turf for Water Efficiency

In the rush to use new turf species and new varieties sometimes this old stalwart is overlooked.

Bahia grass - Paspalum notatum is one of the very best grasses for water efficiency in the monsoonal tropics.  In areas with an extended dry period, it will stay green for the longest, and quickly rebound after extended dry weather - even as long as 7 or 8 months - to continue to thrive.

In the NT, it is best to avoid using the more readily available variety - Pensacola - as it is not as tough as others, tends to be more clumping, often appearing to have bare areas betwen plants and most importantly, it produces abundant seed heads year round so you are always needing to mow.

The older areas of Darwin often have a locally adapted ecotype, of unknown origin.  It produces seeds, but is usually sown by runners [ the other varieties can be too].  It was the predominant lawn in Darwin from the 1950s to about the 1980s, but less used today.  This line is ok as a turf species, and is very tough, and water efficient, but does tend to have a lot of spicules on the leaves - silica spurs that can irritate skin, especially where kids are rolling around on the lawn.  Argentine has less of these spicules, and so does Pensacola.  Its disadvantage is planting by runners, a time consumimg job.

The preferred seed sown line is Argentine.  We originally organised testing of this variety in the early 1970s in the Top End, importing seed from the USA, and first seeds were sown at Berrimah Farm.  It is still there, looking great. 

From the original evaluation, Argentine was selected and used in a lot of the early development around Palmerston in grassed waterways, and in park and landscape development after Cyclone Tracy in the reconstruction of Darwin.  Seed sowing is relatively low cost and a lawn can be developed in 10 -12 weeks.  No Australian production of seed has occurred and all Bahia grass seed is imported from the USA [ so is all couch, zoysia seed etc too].

The advantages of the Argentine variety of Bahia grass include:

• almost no seed head production, except a small amount around January in the north of Australia
• excellent spread and forming a dense surface cover
• very tough, reasonably resistant to wear
• low water needs
• excellent drought resistance and quick recovery when water is applied
• easily mown at around 30 - 45mm high, although it does grow moderately quickly in warm, wet weather - weekly mowing needed in the wet season for domestic lawns; maybe every three weeks in the dry season
• very little thatch development
• mostly free of pests and diseases

All of the Bahia grass types tend to become invaded by the awful weed grass "red seedy grass" or "Mackey's pest", which is botanically Chrysopogon acicularis.  This spreads by very insidious runners and produces huge numbers of seed heads.  There are herbicide solutions available for the control of this weed in Bahia grass, but products are not easily available for domestic use because of commercial packaging sizes - we can do this work if needed.  Efforts to eradicate it will pay big dividends.  Often seed is carried on legs, clothes, equipment and similar items so a biosecurity approach is needed to keep it out in the first place.

For a large lawn or open space area and especially where there is a need to be prudent with water use in the dry season.......Argentine Bahia grass is a good option.  It is also widely used as a water efficient turf in Florida [which is where the photo was taken].  Do not over water, as this induces ingress by other water loving species, including broad leaved carpet grass in our environment.

Strategic Agricultural Land to be Protected from Gas Mining

Stunning new protection for strategic agricultural land has been announced for Queensland.

It is aimed very squarely at coal seam gas mining, and the potential for damaging land - land of high value for agriculture.

Believed to be a first in the world situation, the Queenslnd Minister for the Environment made the announcement today. Ironically, probably in the shadow of the Indonesian live export cattle slaughter saga, which has been major media news in Australia today, so media may not have picked up on the issue quickly. it is big news!

Anyhow.........read more here.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/cropping-land-protected-from-mining/story-fn3dxity-1226066560517

There will be a lot more written over the next few weeks and months.

This is an amazing win for rural areas, in terms of land protection.

It is early days, but judging on views expressed at meetings I have been to on the Darling Downs, there will be a lot of very pleased rural landholders.

Mangroves - Worth Loving for Carbon Storage

Mangroves have been under threat as mankind increasingly lives near the water's edge - especially the saltwater edge!

Maybe recent events such as earthquakes and tsumanis might encourage a rethink living on the edge of the sea, but for now, many areas of mangroves are torn out for development - of various kinds.

One school of thought even suggests that their prsence along coastlines mitigates cyclonic storm surges and related events, preventing considerable damage, even some distance inland. I recall comments about several major storms in Asia where more damage occurred than might be expected due to the removal of protection from mangroves, torn out for aquaculture development.

Land developers commonly remove mangroves to develop canal estates too.

Some recent scientific research on tropical mangrove trees show they are better at storing carbon dioxide than most other forests, and cutting them down unleashes more greenhouse gas than deforestation elsewhere. Mangroves are so efficient at keeping carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere that when they are destroyed, they release as much as 10 per cent of all emissions worldwide attributable to deforestation - even though mangroves account for just 0.7 per cent of the tropical forest area, according to some new research.

Daniel Donato, of the US Agriculture Department's Forest Service and lead author of a study published in the journal Nature Geoscience, says mangroves store two to four times the carbon that tropical rainforests do. "Mangroves store a lot of carbon, much more so than most forests on Earth, on a per hectare basis," says Donato. "Since they store so much carbon, there's probably a lot being released from all the mangrove deforestation that's going on."

Yes, if you live near the coast you tend to dislike the mangroves - the source of mosquitoes and sand flies, midges and related biting insects.

Maybe it is better you protect yourself, and leave the mangroves to store carbon and protect us from natural disasters.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/04/04/3181798.htm?site=science&topic=enviro provides more details.

Erosion and Sediment Control with Recycled Organic Waste - Berms

The following is very pertinent to the Top End of the NT today, as we experience a major 100mm per hour storm across the Dariwn region.

Where is your soil going today??

Erosion and sediment control, particularly on civil construction sites often seems to start and end with using a silt fence.

While silt fences can be effective, to be so, they require correct installation, and ongoing maintenance. While there are machines to install silt fencing [yes, they do exist!] rarely have I seen one in Australia, and especially on smaller civil works sites, they are, as they say, as rare as hen’s teeth!

Installing a silt fence is a tedious job, particularly the preparation of the footings, in which a lower area is buried, as well as refilling the trench. Mostly, and somewhat sadly, it is often done poorly, and the silt fence is often relatively ineffective.

In Australia with high summer storm rains, and especially so in the tropics, it is quite common to see a silt fence struggle with high rainfall intensity, and they sometimes breach. There are other options that can be simple and easy to install, and repair if necessary.

Top among the options is using a mulch or compost berm or contour bank. Many regions have mulched green waste available, and creating a berm is relatively simple using readily available on site equipment such as a bobcat or small backhoe. Accessing the greenwaste is often through the local council, or sometimes even using on site available cleared green materials can be useful too.
Ideally, pasteurised mulch is the preferred material, with coarse materials suitable. Ground woody waste, even small woody branches are usable. However, where pasteurised mulch is NOT available, unpasteurised mulch can do, although there will be a need to spray and kill any weeds that emerge within the berm – glyphosate is the normal option. Plants developing from the pasteurised mulch are very slow to almost none, although a few plants might be expected from blown in seeds, after a while.

There are some excellent resources on line, but the simple plan is to develop several berms across a slope, on the contour. They should be lightly keyed into the ground, often by building on a ripped base area or similar simple disturbance. Unlike an earth bank, they are supposed to be porous........just that all the water does not flow through at once, and sediment is collected and deposited along the way.

More information here:
http://www.caes.uga.edu/Publications/displayHTML.cfm?pk_id=6296 from Georgia in the US; a sub tropical region of the US

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/stormwater/docs/nwr/ephcompost04.pdf

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm?action=factsheet_results&view=specific&bmp=119 - a very comprehensive overview of berm use and construction

http://www.creativeearth.net/stormwater.html - shows how to build a system


When the project is completed, the berm can then be used as part of the organic materials often used on site as part of the landscaping, or often left in place in small drainage lines to continue to function until there is improved cover on the nearby soil areas.

They work extremely well, are cheap to construct and maintain, and VERY environmentally friendly!

Urban Agriculture - Concepts for 2050

While 2050 might be 40 years in the future, planning and development thinking has already been evolving about what agriculture might be like.

There have been options mulled over including : -

• agriculture and horticulture as part of green roofs on multi story buildings
• use of the vertical surfaces of building to have plants growing on the facades
• use of warehouses to convert to hydroponic production [ currently being done in some rundown city areas in the USA]
• local community gardens
• locally reprocessed and used organic wastes and water

and the most recent scenario is even more ambitious.

It is the integration of production, processing and sale of fresh produce including fish farming and potentially some animal production such as chickens and other poultry in an integrated manner in a single facility.

It also potentially offers urban recycling as presumably a facility might also require composts and recycled water.

The link is: -http://www.justmeans.com/Agropolis-Future-of-Urban-Agriculture/30772.html

It is an intriguing concept and it would have many advantages for many cool regions of the world.

It is reproduced below. Read and think........

Last week at the Nordic Exceptional Trendshop 2010, held in Denmark, one presentation took urban agriculture to the next level. A collaboration with NASA, you might even say it launched urban agriculture out of this world, and into the future.

The idea is called Agropolis, a combination grocery store, restaurant, and farm all in one building, employing the most advanced technologies in hydroponic, aeroponic, and aquaponic farming. As it stands, Agropolis is still just a mere idea, with little more than some cool graphics to back it up.

But regardless, Agropolis ushers forth a new wave of thinking about urban food systems.

The team behind the Agropolis concept proposes that this new generation of store would be an ecosystem unto itself, a finely tuned orchestra of parts in balance, that would not only be totally envrionmentally sustainably and friendly, but also just plain producing the freshest food around.

But what would all these innovative, NASA-inspired state of the art hydroponics and other high-tech solutions look like in practice? ............According to the vision of Agropolis, a customer would walk into a store that is covered in green. Vegetables growing on the walls as far as the eye can see. And below the floors one would see tilapia swimming, working in tandem with vegetables in an aquaponic system. You would buy a tomato that was literally just picked, from a plant that you can see in front of you. The store would bring a whole new meaning to local, and one-up the notion of hyper local, since all the food available to eat or buy would have traveled zero miles from the farm to the store. At most, just a few steps.

It all sounds grand, and more than a little space-age. But the challenge given to the team that came up with Agropolis wasn't entirely outside reality: Create a farm without relying on arable lad. As the Earth's healthy soil and other resources dwindle, it may not be out of the realm of possibility that a system like Agropolis be needed, particularly in urban areas.

And while urban agriculture has come a long way, incorporating all kinds of creative and innovative ideas and technologies, in order to make it work on a large and global scale it may be time for something as futuristic and high-tech as Agropolis. But imagine if, in fifty years, or some other future point, our grocery stores did include built in farms, how our relationship to food would change. For one thing, the variety of food we eat might change--are there some vegetables and fruits that can't be grown using these artificial systems? Would we only eat tilapia, and no other meat?

Other vertical and urban farm project proposals include a variety of "staple" crops and animals that all work seamlessly together. But is biting into a fresh, hydroponic, LED light feeding tomato really as good as getting one from your local organic farmer who's tomatoes ripen in the sun?

What will the foodies of this imagined future look like?

In this brave new world of urban agriculture, one this is certain: While Agropolis insists that the store/restaurant/farm will be a sort of ultimate consumer experience, it'll be a much different experience than what we have access to now.

An Environmental Duty of Care?

Australian landholders are possibly going to have imposed on them an environmental duty of care, in relation to land. It is not spelt out in any real detail, nor does it imply which groups will be affected- all or some landholders, nor whether the Crown itself would be bound by such a duty of care.

The Henry Tax review seems to have strayed a little in delving into this subject. Maybe landholders can claim significantly more as a deduction for doing this work?

Given that the Crown in almost any jurisdiction cannot adequately manage NOW the land it controls this could soon descend into serious farce. If you look at weeds, feral animals, and similar problems it is usually the Crown that has the worst records of adequate management of the land it controls. Most if not all other landholders do take some measures to use suitable environmental management practices.

Would this new approach mandate using conservation tillage? Doing do would mean more soil carbon stored, but that may also interfere with adequate soil disease control and / or in some cases aid disease control. Who gets to decide on the appropriate action? And if you used the most cost effective herbicide to control weeds but which only offered 90% control versus some new patented product at 10 times the price which gave 95% control [ rarely get 100% in real conditions] are you carrying out your environmental duty of care?

This could be a lawyers picnic!

Almost all landholders exercise a fair and reasonable approach to the management of the land and imposing these extra conditions seem silly. Who will pay?

Why not use a similar approach with urban land holders? Should they be forced to compost all their organic waste and use on site to minimise use of landfill or other disposal methods? Is that part of their environmental duty of care?

As I said..............a lawyers picnic is coming if this proceeds! Yes.....it sounds good, but could be fraught with bureaucratic nonsense especially over any competing choices - cuddly animals or weed control might be choices that would be needed. Who wins? Who decides?

Other commentators seem to have similar issues.

See - http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/landholders-face-environmental-duty-of-care/1821135.aspx?page=2

Australian Red Meat is Carbon Efficient - near Carbon Neutral

This story has been reported in various forms recently, but actually finding the source material has been elusive.

But it will now soon be published in a peer reviewed credible journal.......so there is a bit of cred behind it.

There are many ways to skin a cat goes the old adage............reporting carbon figures is a lot like that! Depends on what is and is not counted, and where and how, and what might be excluded or where 'general" data is used as a substitue in the absence of any real world trial data.

However, this recent quite rigorous examination of pastoral land production of red meat shows that it is a carbon efficient means of production. Most of Australia's red meat is produced in this style, with smaller amounts on slightly higher productivity pastures that receive fertiliser.

It will not stop the counter arguments about cattle and sheep being land vandals, gross methane producers, etc etc. But is clearly shows the production is carbon efficient, and can be made even better......with considerable opportunities for being carbon positive, ie sequestering carbon. Further R and D is also being conducted into improving nett methane emissions from livestock through a range of advanced technologies. But lets not forget, that higher plant digestibility generally means lower methane emissions too. This can be a serious issue with lower inherent digestibility in many tropical forage plants, although most legumes are better.......yet tropical legumes seem a bit out of favour with grasses the now preferred plant type commonly.

Solid evidence and worth applause from all those in the pastoral industry.

And please note.........the pastoral industry has actually reduced greenhouse emisions since 1990. Hmmm......haven't sheep and cattle numbers also fallen since then too??


----------
Red meat proved to be carbon efficient

AUSTRALIAN red meat production is much more carbon-efficient than often reported in the media, says an important study by the University of NSW.

The three-year Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) study of production systems in Victoria, NSW and WA showed carbon emissions from sheep and cattle meat production were among the lowest in the world.
It showed sheepmeat produced 7-8kg of CO2-equivalent per kg of meat (carcase weight) while for beef, values ranged from 8-11kg.

Based on figures from the research, eating red meat three times weekly results in 164kg to 258kg of CO2 emissions a year - vastly different to claims of emissions up to 1.5 tonnes.

The research will be published soon in the Environmental Science and Technology Journal.

Meat and Livestock Australia managing director, David Palmer said the "credible and reliable data" gave an accurate reflection of carbon emissions for Australia's meat production systems. "Most Australian cattle and sheep are raised in a natural environment feeding on pastures with little or no use of fertilisers and it is unfortunate that until now inaccurate and exaggerated figures have been used," he said.

LCA quantifies the important environmental impacts of all processes in a production system, but does not take into consideration the ability of soil and trees on farms to absorb carbon.

A recent Queensland Government report on total carbon balance on grazing lands in the state with 47pc of Australia's cattle production, found they were close to carbon-neutral and in the near future might be a net carbon sink. "Importantly the new figures give us a baseline from which to continue to improve the industry's performance in regards to emissions. However they do not paint a complete picture and should never be looked at in isolation from other environmental factors such as water and biodiversity," Mr Palmer said.

Most people were not aware that the livestock sector was the only production industry in Australia to have reduced greenhouse emissions since 1990. The Australian Greenhouse office said it had reduced emissions by 7.5pc, compared with increases in other industries such as transport and electricity, up 26.9pc and 54.1pc respectively, he said. "We now have a better basis to track improvement in the future."

The UNSW study shows that when assessed across the supply chain from paddock to processing, more than 80pc of carbon emissions come from the natural process of digestion of feed by the animal.

It was for this reason that MLA had co-invested with the Federal government and other partners in a $28 million program covering 18 research projects looking at how to reduce emissions from livestock.

The Australian Lot Feeders Association noted the UNSW report addressed the popular misconception that beef feedlots were energy intensive and worse for the environment than other forms of beef production. "The report concluded that beef from lotfed cattle had 50pc and 38pc lower methane emissions than organic and grassfed beef production respectively," ALFA president Jim Cudmore said.

This was because of superior nutrition and digestibility of feedlot rations and meant that cattle slaughter weights could be achieved at a younger age.

By improving the efficiency of beef production (through increasing the proportion of feed energy that is converted to beef) lower methane emissions per unit of product were obtained, he said. "Notably, this goal can be achieved by both grain and grassfed production systems. In addition, given that grainfed cattle spend the majority of their lives in a grassfed environment prior to feedlot entry, and consumers rarely differentiate between the two, the issue of improving the beef industry's overall emissions profile is something that the sector as a whole is looking to address."

[partially sourced Qld Country life]

Large Scale Northern Rural Development to Be Damned - Not Dammed

Early media reports [ see below] seem to have really put the kybosh on large scale northern agricultural development.

No, the greenies did not win........it seems the resources are just not adequate.

There will be many views about the report, and whether it will seriously curtail even limited development and the expenditure of further R and D funds in the region. Will the region be limited to few people and an extraction mentality forever? A place to visit and never live and work even? More fly in fly out operations in almost everything?

Unfortunately the report is not yet available..........we need to rely on advance media speculation and comments from inside players. Many who do have a vested interest in Australian temperate agriculture.

But see the tenor of the early media materials...........

---------------------------------------------------------

NORTHERN Australia will never become an important food bowl to replace the drought-stricken Murray-Darling, despite massive irrigation plans and a billion litres of rain a year, a Rudd government taskforce has concluded.

The expert panel, comprising the Northern Australian Land and Water Taskforce, will today release a landmark report into economic opportunities for the northern parts of Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia that places new and strict limits on the region's potential for agricultural production.

There is some good news amid the gloomy outlook for Top End food production, with the report predicting that northern Australia's billion-dollar beef industry - in which cattle live on native grasses - will more than double production by 2030.

Committee member Stuart Blanch said yesterday: "Northern Australia can never be a food bowl for Southeast Asia or anywhere else because we just don't have enough water. But we can be world's best-practice environment managers and beef producers; there are thousands of indigenous jobs to be created."

Referring to a water study by the CSIRO, the taskforce concludes the growth of agricultural production in the north will be limited, despite rainfall of up to 2m a year in some areas. By 2030, there will be less water available in the north than there was in 2000, the taskforce predicts.

Though the north receives about a billion litres of rain a year, equivalent to eight-and-a-half times the annual runoff in the Murray-Darling Basin or 2000 times the capacity of Sydney Harbour, about 20 per cent of it enters the rivers and streams and about 15 per cent recharges groundwater resources. The remaining 65 per cent enters the soil and is absorbed by plants.
"Despite these huge volumes of water, the north can be described as being water-limited," the report states. The taskforce says this paradox arises because there is almost no rain for the remaining six months."Evaporation and plant transpiration is so high throughout the year that, on average, for 10 months of the year, there is very little water to be seen," it states.
"Most rainfall occurs near the coasts and on floodplains, so much of it runs quickly to the sea, making it hard to capture."

The CSIRO water study, presented to the taskforce last year, found there was not enough water to irrigate large swaths of land in the north without doing major damage to the rivers and the surrounding environment. The report rules out more dams on environmental grounds and finds the maximum area that can be irrigated from groundwater in the north is 60,000ha, about three times the area currently irrigated from groundwater.

It also estimates the portion of the population employed by the government in northern Australia will drop to 25 per cent in that time, compared with 40 per cent in 2000, as new oil and gas ventures emerge in the Kimberley and bauxite developments in Cape York contribute to export income.

Two out of three people in the north of Australia will be employed in either the oil and gas sector, mining, conservation, fisheries, agriculture, tourism and recreation or in the management of the land and sea within 20 years, the taskforce predicts.

This will reduce indigenous disadvantage through education, training and employment in regions where up to 50 per cent of the population will be Aboriginal.

Reaction to the taskforce's predictions about food production are likely to be watched closely in Western Australia, where the second stage of the Ord River irrigation scheme is under way near the Kimberley town of Kununurra. The Rudd government has promised $195 million towards the project to irrigate about 8000ha of land for agriculture, and the Barnett government will contribute $220m. There are 14,000ha of land from the first stage of the Ord River scheme producing fruits, vegetables, seeds and sugarcane.

Despite reporting considerable constraints, the taskforce predicts food production could still grow by 40 per cent within 20 years in northern Australia.

The taskforce suggests expanding agricultural production by developing small-scale mosaic agriculture. It also recommends intensifying production in the beef industry through the irrigated production of fodder crops across the north. An expanded beef industry also provides the potential for sustainable wealth creation in indigenous communities," the taskforce found.

[lower section partially sourced from several media reports early on 8 february 2010]

Donkeys to China - Worth Millions??

The media has driven this issue as a plus for Queensland, but the real winners may be the NT and WA, and in the medium term, the local environment.

Donkeys cause significant environmental damage in north Australia. Most are in the NT and the NW of WA. Despite campaigns to eradicate them, or to significantly reduce their numbers, they are still around. Like camels, the numbers just seem to go up, and up. Finding a use and ascribing a value might be the sensible way to go.

Most land owners will take the option that pays, and this time it might - might - be China.
-------------------------

Donkey deal with China could reap millions

22/06/2009 2:06:00 PM

The State Government says Queensland could reap millions from a "donkey deal" with China, that would see the joke of the animal kingdom exported for food and traditional medicine.

Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries Minister Tim Mulherin said China had signed a trade protocol with Queensland authorities allowing the export of wild donkey meat and edible skins for the first time. As well as allowing Queensland producers to get their mojo back in tough economic times, Mr Mulherin said the deal was likely to put romance in the air in China, where donkey skin is used to boost libido in traditional medicine. "This is a great diversification opportunity for the macropod industry because its possible to process the donkeys at existing kangaroo abattoirs," Mr Mulherin said. "Ultimately, this emerging donkey trade could mean dozens of new jobs for harvesters and processors and more than $20 million into our economy."

However, Mr Mulherin warned there was more work to be done before Queensland could claim the title as the ass end of Australia.

Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries emerging industries development officer Nicholas Swadling said most of Australia's wild donkey populations were found in the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia. "The exporter we have been working with is based in Brisbane and will process and export the donkey meat and skins from Queensland, but most of the donkeys will have to be sourced from inter-state," Mr Swadling said. "While the signing of the protocol with China has given stakeholders confidence, the next step is to commence trials to ensure the industry can be commercially viable. "Transport and refrigeration costs will be heavy and harvesting donkeys from out of the way places is going to present challenges. "We also need to investigate how many processors are interested in coming on board and if enough donkeys can be sustainably sourced from the wild herd to meet the huge Chinese demand."

RSPCA spokesman Michael Beatty said the animal welfare charity would not oppose the donkey trade, as long as the animals were not subject to cruelty. "There's no doubt there are people out there who really don't approve of horses or donkeys being used for food, but our stance is - as long as the slaughtering is carried out humanely - it's okay," he said.

sourced partially from Qld Country Life