Rabies is a horrible, horrible disease.
It has now established a toehold on Bali, as well as a decent footprint in Flores. Especially from Flores and the myriad islands offshore, it is but a short hop to Timor along already existing local trade routes and then to Papua.............and across the Torres Strait to Australia.
If nothing is done to push these infections back, it will be when, NOT if according to Helen Scott-Orr, a very reputable vet, formerly working in a senior position in the NSW government.
This should be enough to develop a very major response from the people of Australia to our Government to offer significant assistance. With death and mayhem in these two islands already, we should be seriously considering how to help.
It might be impossible to eradicate rabies if it ever got to Australia.
See more here -
http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/rabies-on-our-doorstep/1829017.aspx?src=enews
Monday, May 17, 2010
Saturday, May 15, 2010
GM Crops Part of the System But NOT the Only Part
Using GM crops is a decision, just like any other farming decision. What to plant and how and when, what to use in a rotation.
Farmers are now advised to mix use of glyphosate and other products especially diquat / paraquat to ensure complete annual grass controls and minimise development of glyphosate resistance. Tillage might be part of the equation too.
GM crops are not a panacea..............with decisions about use considered in relation to many factors.
The recent article in an online version of the Queensland rural press covers these issues well. It is worth reading by both pro and anti GM camps to highlight decision making processes. Most are not so blind, that they cannot see................
http://sj.farmonline.com.au/news/state/grains-and-cropping/general/seeds-of-gm-discontent/1827512.aspx?storypage=0
Farmers are now advised to mix use of glyphosate and other products especially diquat / paraquat to ensure complete annual grass controls and minimise development of glyphosate resistance. Tillage might be part of the equation too.
GM crops are not a panacea..............with decisions about use considered in relation to many factors.
The recent article in an online version of the Queensland rural press covers these issues well. It is worth reading by both pro and anti GM camps to highlight decision making processes. Most are not so blind, that they cannot see................
http://sj.farmonline.com.au/news/state/grains-and-cropping/general/seeds-of-gm-discontent/1827512.aspx?storypage=0
Friday, May 14, 2010
Energy Saving Superior Lighting is Coming - VERY SOON
Philips has announced a consumer suitable LED replacement for the 60W incandescent bulb, probably the most common type used in domestic buildings.
It is not likely to be cheap, at least initiallly,...............but it is expected to last about 20 years plus and will save an enormous amount of energy if widely used.
It is also dimmable and can be coloured so a range of lighting effects are possible.
Not available for several months still, but is the first of what could be more options in this area.
Details available here:
http://www.newsinfusion.com/philips/
A day later Osram Sylvania also fessed up with a similar product. With other manufacturers also now likely to have similar products, expect the price to fall to a seriously better price......soon.
See here:http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20004887-54.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1
Update on 15 May 2010
And a day later Lemnis also offered an LED bulb that was cheaper and brighter.........read more here:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20004760-54.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1
This might be a 'hot" space with multiple options now available. Prices will definitely fall!
When might we see similar products here in Australia I wonder???
It is not likely to be cheap, at least initiallly,...............but it is expected to last about 20 years plus and will save an enormous amount of energy if widely used.
It is also dimmable and can be coloured so a range of lighting effects are possible.
Not available for several months still, but is the first of what could be more options in this area.
Details available here:
http://www.newsinfusion.com/philips/
A day later Osram Sylvania also fessed up with a similar product. With other manufacturers also now likely to have similar products, expect the price to fall to a seriously better price......soon.
See here:http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20004887-54.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1
Update on 15 May 2010
And a day later Lemnis also offered an LED bulb that was cheaper and brighter.........read more here:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20004760-54.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1
This might be a 'hot" space with multiple options now available. Prices will definitely fall!
When might we see similar products here in Australia I wonder???
Saturday, May 08, 2010
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
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
Friday, May 07, 2010
Salth Tolerant Durum Wheat for Australia
While some research teams have gone all high tech eg Mark Tester and team in Adelaide at the Plant Genomics Centre on the same general problem of salt tolerance in cereals, this CSIRO group has used conventional breeding approaches, with success.
Salt land is a serious problem in many lower rainfall cereal growing areas, and with durum wheat commanding higher values, getting a better yield on these areas is important.
And it does go to show that there is still a lot of life left in conventional breeding approaches to crop development!
Read more here:
http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/state/grains-and-cropping/general/salt-tolerant-wheat-breakthrough/1815278.aspx?src=enews
Salt land is a serious problem in many lower rainfall cereal growing areas, and with durum wheat commanding higher values, getting a better yield on these areas is important.
And it does go to show that there is still a lot of life left in conventional breeding approaches to crop development!
Read more here:
http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/state/grains-and-cropping/general/salt-tolerant-wheat-breakthrough/1815278.aspx?src=enews
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Cane Toads Confirmed as Established in Sydney
They have been moving south slowly for many years, but now seem confirmed as established in Sydney, NSW.
Recent news reports seem to have shown a small colony at a factory in south metropolitan Sydney, apparently from hitchhiker toads on containers.
It would seem to me they have not even tried to get rid of them, at least in a serious ongoing campaign. Suburban Darwin has curtailed and even removed many of the pests in suburban areas through an ongoing 'search and destroy" campaign, and it seems to have worked.
If they are restricted to a small area.............surely they can be trapped and removed. But it must be ongoing.
Read the news story here:
http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/state/agribusiness-and-general/general/hopalong-catastrophe-sydney-surrenders-to-northern-invaders/1820844.aspx?src=enews
They are a real pest, and it is worth the effort to contain them.
Recent news reports seem to have shown a small colony at a factory in south metropolitan Sydney, apparently from hitchhiker toads on containers.
It would seem to me they have not even tried to get rid of them, at least in a serious ongoing campaign. Suburban Darwin has curtailed and even removed many of the pests in suburban areas through an ongoing 'search and destroy" campaign, and it seems to have worked.
If they are restricted to a small area.............surely they can be trapped and removed. But it must be ongoing.
Read the news story here:
http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/state/agribusiness-and-general/general/hopalong-catastrophe-sydney-surrenders-to-northern-invaders/1820844.aspx?src=enews
They are a real pest, and it is worth the effort to contain them.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Pharmecuticals from Papaya
This is a good follow up to the previous article and covers horticulture and pharmecuticals. No, the concept is not new........far from it in fact as most older remedies were derived from plants, but mostly by collection in situ as needed from the relevant plant.
In recent times, a major development has been the production of artemesin for malaria control, based on the plant Artemesia spp. And of course, quinine, that older remedy is also plant derived. There are many other examples.
There is a common quip that Australia's only commercially successful horticultural plant is the macadamia nut, which is actually a native plant from Australia. However, there has been a long time Australian remedy that stands alongside the commonly used Australian tea tree and eucalyptus oils.
Often more well known in the tropics, and being Brisbane based that is not surprising. So do not forget the well known pawpaw ointment / cream.
The following article offers a good overview of pawpaw ointment. And yes, it is used in our household too!
---------------------------------
Fortune grows on pawpaw trees
IT'S the cure-all product that is a favourite of stars and celebrities across the globe.
Cate Blanchett, Miranda Kerr and Rose Byrne are never caught short without the distinctive $5 red tube.
An ever-growing legion of fans claim it heals all kinds of ailments, including boils, burns, mosquito bites, sunburn, cuts, chapped lips and cracked skin.
Little do they know the century-old tropical remedy, Lucas' Papaw Ointment, is the product of a Brisbane family. Its secret formula has been passed from generation to generation in the Lucas and Talbot clans.
Kevin Talbot, a 74-year-old fourth-generation producer, now heads the operation.
He is fiercely proud of his family business and just as protective.
As he stood in the Acacia Ridge factory on Beaudesert Road, where his daughter Lynette, son-in-law David and son Graham also work, tears welled in his eyes when he spoke of the family firm.
"We're so proud. It's amazing," he said.
"Lucas Papaw has more than a cult following now. Everyone wants it."
The grandfather-of-three laughed at suggestions the small red tube, synonymous with the ointment, has become a fashion statement for celebrities and women in Australia and across the world.
The reason for its popularity, he said, is the natural virtues of the pawpaw.
"It just works," he said. Mr Talbot's great-grandfather, English surgeon and botanist Thomas Pennington Lucas, discovered the healing capabilities of the pawpaw upon migrating to Australia in 1876. "He thought they were doing too many operations in England and he wanted to find an alternative," Mr Talbot said.
It was in the Sunshine State where he perfected the formula for the fermented papayate ointment.
The Queenslander-style house pictured on the red packaging is in fact Dr Lucas' Vera Papaw Hospital, built on the corner of Moray and Sydney Streets in New Farm. "Here patients were treated only with Dr Lucas' pawpaw remedies, which at the time included throat lozenges," Mr Talbot said.
It became impossible for the family to continue Dr Lucas' work in the special hospital once he passed away. "But it was possible to make it available for public benefit," Mr Talbot said.
Bickfords Australia was the first company to distribute the ointment, before it gained worldwide attention.
Although not all tradition has been lost.
"We still peel the pawpaws by hand," Mr Talbot said.
The factory, steeped in history, stands on land near Dr Lucas' first Acacia Ridge pawpaw plantation.
The enamelled cast iron bowl used to mix the ointment by hand when Mr Talbot's mother ran the business from a wooden hut, since replaced by the factory, still sits in the warehouse.
"I hope to pass this business to my grandchildren," Mr Talbot said.
Meanwhile he is content mixing papayate just as generations before him have.
[partially sourced fro the online edition Qld Country Life]
In recent times, a major development has been the production of artemesin for malaria control, based on the plant Artemesia spp. And of course, quinine, that older remedy is also plant derived. There are many other examples.
There is a common quip that Australia's only commercially successful horticultural plant is the macadamia nut, which is actually a native plant from Australia. However, there has been a long time Australian remedy that stands alongside the commonly used Australian tea tree and eucalyptus oils.
Often more well known in the tropics, and being Brisbane based that is not surprising. So do not forget the well known pawpaw ointment / cream.
The following article offers a good overview of pawpaw ointment. And yes, it is used in our household too!
---------------------------------
Fortune grows on pawpaw trees
IT'S the cure-all product that is a favourite of stars and celebrities across the globe.
Cate Blanchett, Miranda Kerr and Rose Byrne are never caught short without the distinctive $5 red tube.
An ever-growing legion of fans claim it heals all kinds of ailments, including boils, burns, mosquito bites, sunburn, cuts, chapped lips and cracked skin.
Little do they know the century-old tropical remedy, Lucas' Papaw Ointment, is the product of a Brisbane family. Its secret formula has been passed from generation to generation in the Lucas and Talbot clans.
Kevin Talbot, a 74-year-old fourth-generation producer, now heads the operation.
He is fiercely proud of his family business and just as protective.
As he stood in the Acacia Ridge factory on Beaudesert Road, where his daughter Lynette, son-in-law David and son Graham also work, tears welled in his eyes when he spoke of the family firm.
"We're so proud. It's amazing," he said.
"Lucas Papaw has more than a cult following now. Everyone wants it."
The grandfather-of-three laughed at suggestions the small red tube, synonymous with the ointment, has become a fashion statement for celebrities and women in Australia and across the world.
The reason for its popularity, he said, is the natural virtues of the pawpaw.
"It just works," he said. Mr Talbot's great-grandfather, English surgeon and botanist Thomas Pennington Lucas, discovered the healing capabilities of the pawpaw upon migrating to Australia in 1876. "He thought they were doing too many operations in England and he wanted to find an alternative," Mr Talbot said.
It was in the Sunshine State where he perfected the formula for the fermented papayate ointment.
The Queenslander-style house pictured on the red packaging is in fact Dr Lucas' Vera Papaw Hospital, built on the corner of Moray and Sydney Streets in New Farm. "Here patients were treated only with Dr Lucas' pawpaw remedies, which at the time included throat lozenges," Mr Talbot said.
It became impossible for the family to continue Dr Lucas' work in the special hospital once he passed away. "But it was possible to make it available for public benefit," Mr Talbot said.
Bickfords Australia was the first company to distribute the ointment, before it gained worldwide attention.
Although not all tradition has been lost.
"We still peel the pawpaws by hand," Mr Talbot said.
The factory, steeped in history, stands on land near Dr Lucas' first Acacia Ridge pawpaw plantation.
The enamelled cast iron bowl used to mix the ointment by hand when Mr Talbot's mother ran the business from a wooden hut, since replaced by the factory, still sits in the warehouse.
"I hope to pass this business to my grandchildren," Mr Talbot said.
Meanwhile he is content mixing papayate just as generations before him have.
[partially sourced fro the online edition Qld Country Life]
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Queen Garnet Plum Variety has Extra Nutrition
This post follows on quite well from the previous one, and does provide some answers as to why, and what can be the fantastic outcomes from agricultural research and development.
There is no doubt that for urbanised populations, the role of the nutracetical is a rising issue. Eat well and combat all sorts of issues from vitamin depletion to avoiding cancer to increased libido......nutraceticals offer hope, at a price.
Why shouldn't agriculture also join this group? There is already at least one publicly listed company here in Australia in a quest for market development with a strong nutracetical product, based on agricultural wastes. Doesn't a new fresh plum offer something a bit special? Eat fresh fruit and become extra healthy too?
This current new fruit tree has some serious potential. And yes, as someone has already observed, it will be grown overseas too. Just that this needs to be better managed to gain maximise potential for Australia. But in reality, barriers to entry sometimes make growing food nearer the market desirable, not to mention the seasonality of production for the fresh market, and that particular niche is very, and increasingly, important in some regions........that bogy of "food miles" can suface, and derail marketing. So why not develop production close to the market??
This is a VERY interesting new fruit variety, and the push to rapidly develop adequate fruit supplies will be vital in reaching a critical mass for marketing purposes. An area that often can be the failure point for new varieties, especially for slower developing tree fruits.
-----------------------------
Partner for queen of plums given thumbs up
A commercial agreement has just been signed for a plum bred by Queensland scientists that could help fight the effects of aging and lifestyle diseases.
The Bligh Government has partnered with Nutrafruit Pty Ltd to see the Queen Garnet plum produced as a high-antioxidant fresh fruit variety and as a nutraceutical ingredient.
Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Rural and Regional Queensland Tim Mulherin said the plum’s major drawcard was its high levels of anthocyanin-the antioxidant responsible for giving the fruit its rich, garnet-red colour. “Researchers have determined that one glass of Queen Garnet plum juice contains as much antioxidants as drinking two small glasses of red wine, six cups of tea or 12 glasses of orange juice,” Mr Mulherin said. “Research suggests that high levels of antioxidants, especially anthocyanins, can help reduce the inflammation that is an underlying cause of certain cancers, heart disease and neurological degenerative disorders.
“The compounds have been shown to inhibit cancer cell growth in several studies overseas."
“Anthocyanin levels are two to five times higher in Queen Garnet than other red-flesh plums, and between 10 and 30 times higher than in yellow plums.”
Nutrafruit director Hugh Macintosh said apart from investing in research into the health benefits of the plum, the company had other big plans for the fruit. “We are looking at processing the plum as a high-antioxidant ingredient for health drinks and related products, and as other nutraceuticals, such as vitamin tablets,” Mr Macintosh said. “Because the fresh plum is currently only available for about one month on the market, processing it into a range of health products would allow a year-round supply. “It also opens up export options to markets, which currently have trade restrictions on stone fruit, but not on processed products." “We’re currently conducting a small trial on ready-to-drink Queen Garnet juice products and our ultimate plan is to get the juice products into large chain and health-food stores."
Department of Environment Economic Development and Innovation (DEEDI) principal experimentalist Dougal Russell said researchers were continuing work on other healthy plum breeding lines, as the commercial agreement with Nutrafruit extended to include collaborations through future research.
“Our breeding program here in Queensland is in a selection phase where we are identifying other new high-anthocyanin plums,” Mr Russell said. “The aim is to increase the harvest window by developing a suite of high-antioxidant fresh-market and processing plum varieties that ripen from December through to March. “Queen Garnet is a plum that can be multiplied and grown in an orchard easily rather than hiking around a mountain in the Andes picking berries. “Growing Queen Garnet fruit for processing also has many advantages for primary producers." “There are no grading or sorting issues and little waste – 95 per cent or more of the crop will be used, against 60 to 70 per cent when growing for first-grade quality." “Fruit can also be frozen and processed when more convenient.”
There are currently 13,000 to 14,000 Queen Garnet plum trees dedicated for juice production planted around Australia and the same amount is expected to be planted in June/July this year, with a further 60,000 trees to be planted in 2011.
The fruit will also be grown offshore, with growers in Spain negotiating to produce process-quality fruit.
In addition to its high-antioxidant levels, Queen Garnet is known to have a delicious taste, with excellent size, colour and flavour, and it stores extremely well.
Some limited volumes of fresh fruit will be available in markets in 2011.
Nutrafruit is currently in negotiations with companies in New Zealand, South Africa, France and the United States interested in establishing fresh market production of Queen Garnet.
For more information on DEEDI’s fruit and vegetable breeding programs, visit www.deedi.qld.gov. au and click on ‘Agriculture, Fisheries and Food’ in the ‘Innovation’ box.
[ partially sourced from on-line resources of Qld Country Life and QDEEDI]
There is no doubt that for urbanised populations, the role of the nutracetical is a rising issue. Eat well and combat all sorts of issues from vitamin depletion to avoiding cancer to increased libido......nutraceticals offer hope, at a price.
Why shouldn't agriculture also join this group? There is already at least one publicly listed company here in Australia in a quest for market development with a strong nutracetical product, based on agricultural wastes. Doesn't a new fresh plum offer something a bit special? Eat fresh fruit and become extra healthy too?
This current new fruit tree has some serious potential. And yes, as someone has already observed, it will be grown overseas too. Just that this needs to be better managed to gain maximise potential for Australia. But in reality, barriers to entry sometimes make growing food nearer the market desirable, not to mention the seasonality of production for the fresh market, and that particular niche is very, and increasingly, important in some regions........that bogy of "food miles" can suface, and derail marketing. So why not develop production close to the market??
This is a VERY interesting new fruit variety, and the push to rapidly develop adequate fruit supplies will be vital in reaching a critical mass for marketing purposes. An area that often can be the failure point for new varieties, especially for slower developing tree fruits.
-----------------------------
Partner for queen of plums given thumbs up
A commercial agreement has just been signed for a plum bred by Queensland scientists that could help fight the effects of aging and lifestyle diseases.
The Bligh Government has partnered with Nutrafruit Pty Ltd to see the Queen Garnet plum produced as a high-antioxidant fresh fruit variety and as a nutraceutical ingredient.
Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Rural and Regional Queensland Tim Mulherin said the plum’s major drawcard was its high levels of anthocyanin-the antioxidant responsible for giving the fruit its rich, garnet-red colour. “Researchers have determined that one glass of Queen Garnet plum juice contains as much antioxidants as drinking two small glasses of red wine, six cups of tea or 12 glasses of orange juice,” Mr Mulherin said. “Research suggests that high levels of antioxidants, especially anthocyanins, can help reduce the inflammation that is an underlying cause of certain cancers, heart disease and neurological degenerative disorders.
“The compounds have been shown to inhibit cancer cell growth in several studies overseas."
“Anthocyanin levels are two to five times higher in Queen Garnet than other red-flesh plums, and between 10 and 30 times higher than in yellow plums.”
Nutrafruit director Hugh Macintosh said apart from investing in research into the health benefits of the plum, the company had other big plans for the fruit. “We are looking at processing the plum as a high-antioxidant ingredient for health drinks and related products, and as other nutraceuticals, such as vitamin tablets,” Mr Macintosh said. “Because the fresh plum is currently only available for about one month on the market, processing it into a range of health products would allow a year-round supply. “It also opens up export options to markets, which currently have trade restrictions on stone fruit, but not on processed products." “We’re currently conducting a small trial on ready-to-drink Queen Garnet juice products and our ultimate plan is to get the juice products into large chain and health-food stores."
Department of Environment Economic Development and Innovation (DEEDI) principal experimentalist Dougal Russell said researchers were continuing work on other healthy plum breeding lines, as the commercial agreement with Nutrafruit extended to include collaborations through future research.
“Our breeding program here in Queensland is in a selection phase where we are identifying other new high-anthocyanin plums,” Mr Russell said. “The aim is to increase the harvest window by developing a suite of high-antioxidant fresh-market and processing plum varieties that ripen from December through to March. “Queen Garnet is a plum that can be multiplied and grown in an orchard easily rather than hiking around a mountain in the Andes picking berries. “Growing Queen Garnet fruit for processing also has many advantages for primary producers." “There are no grading or sorting issues and little waste – 95 per cent or more of the crop will be used, against 60 to 70 per cent when growing for first-grade quality." “Fruit can also be frozen and processed when more convenient.”
There are currently 13,000 to 14,000 Queen Garnet plum trees dedicated for juice production planted around Australia and the same amount is expected to be planted in June/July this year, with a further 60,000 trees to be planted in 2011.
The fruit will also be grown offshore, with growers in Spain negotiating to produce process-quality fruit.
In addition to its high-antioxidant levels, Queen Garnet is known to have a delicious taste, with excellent size, colour and flavour, and it stores extremely well.
Some limited volumes of fresh fruit will be available in markets in 2011.
Nutrafruit is currently in negotiations with companies in New Zealand, South Africa, France and the United States interested in establishing fresh market production of Queen Garnet.
For more information on DEEDI’s fruit and vegetable breeding programs, visit www.deedi.qld.gov. au and click on ‘Agriculture, Fisheries and Food’ in the ‘Innovation’ box.
[ partially sourced from on-line resources of Qld Country Life and QDEEDI]
Monday, March 15, 2010
Why We Should Invest in Agricultural R and D - in Australia
This is the full text of a recent speech on investing in Australian R and D.
Interestingly, no specific mention of tropical agriculture, yet this will the climate region where big gains must occur, given likely water and climate constraints in temperate Australia.
[partially sourced from Qld country Life online edition]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The case for investing in agricultural research and development
NATIONAL Farmers' Federation chief executive officer Ben Fargher has challenged the government to expand its probe into rural R&D. Here is his address to the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology national conference.
At face value, investing in R&D is a no-brainer, or should be.
You would expect the National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) to support the Rural Research Development Cooperation system, and we do.
We’re sick of it being reviewed and governments - state and federal - need to stop the cuts and spend more money on agricultural R&D. Simple as that!
Or is it?
The rationale for this position? I dare say you would well expect me to outline today the recent rural RDC evaluation report showing the outstanding return on investment – an $11 return on every research dollar spent.
I could cite a list of examples of new tools that farmers have taken up on the back of R&D, and rattle off the average 2.8% per year productivity growth farmers have achieved over the past 30 years.
I could also tie this in with projections for Australia having 36 million people by 2050 – with world population growth tipped at 9 billion… not to mention a growing global food crisis that has many of our trading partners in, well, crisis mode.
I think these things are important but I suspect you already know about them.
The problem is many people in the broader community don’t.
And when we are trying to get governments to put policy and funding in place against a list of other priorities it’s the community’s view that matters not necessarily ours!
So today I want to probe deeper into this issue and try to make sense of the whole research system.
These are important and complex questions that we, as agricultural industries, need to think about much more than we have in the past. That goes for NFF as well.
Before being able to make a case for investing in agricultural R&D I think we, as people involved in the farm sector, need to look at this issue in the context of a vision for the future of Australian agriculture and the individual commodities within it - and then look at where R&D is required in relation to that vision.
R&D for R&Ds sake is hard to explain, even harder to sell and what’s the point anyway.
As a colleague Dennis Hussey would remind me, R&D is a means to an end not an end in itself!
A whole-of-industry and government strategy is required to address this vision for Australian agriculture.
NFF has been talking about the need for an overarching strategic vision for some time. The Corish Report “Creating our Future” in 2006 laid a foundation for it, we have attempted to paint a picture in our own NFF Strategic Plan and other groups, such as the Australian Food and Grocery Council, have been talking a lot recently about the need for a food industry policy in Australia.
So are we all clear on our vision and is it a collective one?
I must say that it’s not only the Government’s responsibility to provide this vision; it’s ours to create and articulate. But let’s not let the government off the hook either.
In an election year it is an opportunity to ask all sides of politics… what is their vision for our agricultural industries and communities? Have they even thought about it?
We need a clear vision, with clearly defined responsibility for research endeavours because we have serious challenges to face.All too often when we are under immense pressure, be it personally, in business or industry wide, we look inward for survival.
Well, we have been under pressure. It is testament to our farmers’ resilience given the pressure they have been under during this prolonged drought.
But we need to look outwards.
We need to look outwards at and consider the consequences of the petering out of the benefits of the “green revolution” in the 1960s and 70s and the declining trend in productivity growth in many parts of our agricultural industries.
We often cite the fact that Australian farms have consistently achieved average productivity growth of 2.8%-a-year for 30 years, but as John Kerin reminded us in an articulate speech at the Outlook conference last week, ABARE has revised downwards its estimate of long term productivity growth since 1953 to about 2% per year.
This decline in productivity growth has come at a time when Australia is seeing declines in rural R&D funding, as well as a redirection of funding away from productivity-related research.
Government will argue that R&D funding on the whole has gone up, but if we consider research intensity, or spending as a proportion of our output; it has fallen by over one-third since the mid-1980s.
The loss of Land and Water Australia (LWA) and reduced funding to the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) from the 2008-09 budget were felt by the agricultural industries, and the impact of this decision will remain with the industries for years to come. While domestic funding is being cut, international agricultural R&D contribution is being massively boosted.
The international rationale is sound.
The United Nations has issued a call-to-arms for agricultural production to increase 70% by 2050 to meet world population needs in the face of global food security. But Australia is a key part of the solution. We need to invest more here and have our farmers adapt and nuance the technology – then it can be exported and adapted to contribute to the development challenge.
While domestic funding declines, the calls on the research dollar continue to grow.
For example, the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Plan for the Primary Industries, which is currently under development, sets out an ambitious agenda additional to the research currently underway, with the assumption that it will be funded from existing sources!!
Government has also been calling on the private sector to step up to the mark and increase its contribution to rural R&D, and fill the gap left by decreased funding of extension services and declining public spending.
It’s an easy fob-off for the government. If industry won’t invest in its own future, why should the government?
But it ignores some key issues. The reality is that Australian agriculture represents a relatively small market for international agribusiness, and challenges such as regulatory hurdles and differences in state legislation increase uncertainty for these large investors.
Industry structural change, income variability as a consequence of drought and the free-rider challenge diversification of farm industries present a challenge for local companies to invest in R&D.
It is important to note that these challenges and uncertainties not only affect farmers, but they have an impact on the research community who work in partnership with the Australian agricultural industries.
The uncertainty makes it difficult for the researchers who have built a career working with Australian farmers, and a disincentive for graduates searching for a place to start their career. Again, John Kerin talked about this issue last week. Fifty per cent of our agricultural scientists and academics will retire over the next five years.
We need more than double the crop of agricultural graduates to meet those needs. That means around 2,000 graduates per year; we are currently producing 800 and that number is falling.
Finally, rural R&D is a long-term issue.
Indeed, it is good to keep timeframes like 2050 in mind when we discuss it. Evidence and experience with minimum till practices show that it takes 30 to 40 years to bring embryonic research ideas to a point where 95% of the country has put research into practice.
Let’s then assume we have a clear vision and understand well these challenges. What is the way forward?
At the NFF, we believe that a National Rural R&D Strategy needs to address:
• The complexity of the system;
• The various roles of Government;
• The innovation chain;
• Government funding;
• Industry links and the role of the rural RDCs;
• The role of the private sector and international partnerships in R&D; and
• The resources and human capital required to achieve our aims.
First, we need to recognize that the Rural R&D System is a complex one – it includes farmers; the Federal Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; State Departments of Primary Industries; the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research; CSIRO; the Cooperative Research Centers; the Universities; the National Climate Change Research Facility; Agribusiness (from small to multi-national firms); and the Rural Research and Development Corporations – of which there are 15.
The delivery of innovation is complex, and is not the responsibility of a single agency. The various organisations need to work together and coordinate their activities and resources for the whole system to work, let alone be effective or efficient.
This includes those responsible for prioritising and setting policy on rural R&D investment; those responsible for undertaking R&D; as well as groups and organisations that disseminate and use the outputs of the research.
Put simply Governments and other agencies need to get their house in order.
What are the roles of CSIRO, CRCs, RDCs, Universities and ACIAR? Where do they overlap and how can we get everyone working together?
We are optimistic that the Rural R&D Council and their role in the development of a National Investment Plan will bring some real clarity to this very convoluted area.
A National Rural R&D Strategy is needed to demystify the labyrinth of research bodies, their funding streams and ensure we – farmers, taxpayers and industry – are getting bang for bucks.
We need clarity over how these issues are to be addressed and, rather than take the ‘traditional piece-meal approach’, a truly national effort is required that clearly recognises all the contributors and ensures that they each pull their weight.
This strategy needs to address the whole R&D ‘innovation chain’, from strategic basic research, applied research, experimental development to commercialisation.
All of these elements are important and need to be jointly considered if innovations at the lab bench are to be meaningful in the farm paddock.
The Rural Research and Development Corporations need to be maintained, and recognised for the valuable role they play within the broader rural R&D system, particularly in applied research and experimental development.
The number one strength of Australia’s rural R&D system is the partnership it has built between industry and researchers, and the benefits this has brought giving scientists feedback on farmer needs. This has delivered advantages to Australian agriculture through the development of practical technologies for farmers and needs to be maintained.
I must say that backing the system does not mean we are not willing to look to improve it.
In fact, at the NFF we see the Productivity Commission (PC) review as an opportunity, not a threat.
We will put a strong case to the PC and Government and engage constructively and frankly about what works well, what doesn’t and where the system needs to be improved.
Hand-in-hand with an improvement in government coordination and program delivery is the need for a National Agribusiness Strategy to address the opportunities, barriers and incentives to promote private investment by agribusiness in Australian rural R&D.
The government needs to consult with domestic and international agribusiness to understand the prospects and obstacles to private investment in rural R&D (including incentives and regulation – for example, chemical regulation, intellectual property and GMO regulation), and policies that encourage greater private participation in rural R&D.
Engagement with agribusiness can smooth the path to Australian farmers having access to innovations developed internationally, it can ensure there is a level playing field to allow agribusiness to service the needs of Australian farmers.
It should also encourage Australian agribusiness to grow, expand and maximise the investment in rural R&D.
This strategy must attract global agribusiness to develop operations and R&D partnerships here in Australia. It must be part of our national approach to ensure Australia maintains its role as an international leader in agricultural adaptation to climate change and productivity research.
Indeed, the vision should be to establish Australia as the international hub for agricultural research.
This will have benefits including leveraging funding, spill-over benefits for life-science industries, access to world-class expertise, improved profile for agricultural careers (including improved wage prospects for science graduates), and international leadership.
Australian agriculture can benefit from access to international research in a number of ways, including access to germplasm and animal genetics through private companies, as well as through the various Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) research centres.
Significant research efforts are now being funded in sub-tropical regions by various international governments and philanthropic groups, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which could complement work being done by Australian agricultural industries.
Australia must seize and capitalize on the advantages it has in the development of sustainable agriculture and low carbon emission agricultural systems to attract the world’s ‘best minds’ to work on these issues. Benefits would flow to Australian agriculture and internationally to agriculture in developed and developing nations.
A real vision for Australian agriculture must consider and make the most of the human capital required to undertake R&D and deliver innovations for our farm sector.
Agriculture is an information intensive industry, and the role of agribusiness and international R&D programs in providing career paths, as well as access to talented scientist who can assist Australian farmers to meet the productivity challenges must be recognised. At the very least, we need to maintain our resourcing in order to retain our current crop of scientists and to attract new talent from overseas. We cannot afford to lose the IP that currently exists in this country.
For all the reasons I alluded to earlier – sound investment returns, population explosions here and overseas, a world food crisis that is ever-deepening and Australian farmers’ track record in productivity and innovation success – we should be positioning Australia as a leader to meet these challenges.
So in summary:
Australia and its agricultural research arms need a shared vision for food and fibre production.
Australia must have a national strategy for R&D investment to underpin this vision.
Through R&D, Australia can and should establish itself as world leader in efficient agricultural production and climate change adaptation.
Australia should strive to be the ‘silicon valley’ of low carbon food production, low input food production.
We need to attract the world’s ‘best minds’ to work on these issues and develop world-class teams here.
Governments do, indeed, need to invest more money in productivity-based agricultural R&D. And it needs to be brought into line with R&D in natural resource management.
We need to push through media and political apathy to explain our vision. The challenge is framing these issues and goals in terms digestible by the community… that is, language they understand, not the acronyms and jargon we like to use.
This is the challenge the NFF has set itself.
Online Comments [ as at 15 March 2010]
Not a bad speech, at bit unrealistic at times but overall ok
Posted by Bill, 13/03/2010 6:42:48 AM, on Stock Journal
I agree with the sentiments expressed by Ben but would add that not one more cent be wasted on GMO research. For all the money wasted on GMO development in Australia, what have they got to show? A toxic pea!
Posted by ggwagga, 15/03/2010 6:35:24 AM, on Stock Journal
An implicit part of this issue is that farmers have to drop their common attitudes - "pay me more", "poor me", and "I subsidise city people" and "people in Sydney don't know what it's like out here in the real world". Ben's references to R&D would have more force if farmers had adopted technology more readily and not played their attitude cards so readily. For example, why spend money on new R&D when farmers have failed to change their operations to take advantage of innovations that were available 20 years ago? There's a stockpile of technology that's rotting in the databases unused.
Posted by Long Xuyen, 15/03/2010 10:08:00 AM, on Stock Journal
Interestingly, no specific mention of tropical agriculture, yet this will the climate region where big gains must occur, given likely water and climate constraints in temperate Australia.
[partially sourced from Qld country Life online edition]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The case for investing in agricultural research and development
NATIONAL Farmers' Federation chief executive officer Ben Fargher has challenged the government to expand its probe into rural R&D. Here is his address to the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology national conference.
At face value, investing in R&D is a no-brainer, or should be.
You would expect the National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) to support the Rural Research Development Cooperation system, and we do.
We’re sick of it being reviewed and governments - state and federal - need to stop the cuts and spend more money on agricultural R&D. Simple as that!
Or is it?
The rationale for this position? I dare say you would well expect me to outline today the recent rural RDC evaluation report showing the outstanding return on investment – an $11 return on every research dollar spent.
I could cite a list of examples of new tools that farmers have taken up on the back of R&D, and rattle off the average 2.8% per year productivity growth farmers have achieved over the past 30 years.
I could also tie this in with projections for Australia having 36 million people by 2050 – with world population growth tipped at 9 billion… not to mention a growing global food crisis that has many of our trading partners in, well, crisis mode.
I think these things are important but I suspect you already know about them.
The problem is many people in the broader community don’t.
And when we are trying to get governments to put policy and funding in place against a list of other priorities it’s the community’s view that matters not necessarily ours!
So today I want to probe deeper into this issue and try to make sense of the whole research system.
These are important and complex questions that we, as agricultural industries, need to think about much more than we have in the past. That goes for NFF as well.
Before being able to make a case for investing in agricultural R&D I think we, as people involved in the farm sector, need to look at this issue in the context of a vision for the future of Australian agriculture and the individual commodities within it - and then look at where R&D is required in relation to that vision.
R&D for R&Ds sake is hard to explain, even harder to sell and what’s the point anyway.
As a colleague Dennis Hussey would remind me, R&D is a means to an end not an end in itself!
A whole-of-industry and government strategy is required to address this vision for Australian agriculture.
NFF has been talking about the need for an overarching strategic vision for some time. The Corish Report “Creating our Future” in 2006 laid a foundation for it, we have attempted to paint a picture in our own NFF Strategic Plan and other groups, such as the Australian Food and Grocery Council, have been talking a lot recently about the need for a food industry policy in Australia.
So are we all clear on our vision and is it a collective one?
I must say that it’s not only the Government’s responsibility to provide this vision; it’s ours to create and articulate. But let’s not let the government off the hook either.
In an election year it is an opportunity to ask all sides of politics… what is their vision for our agricultural industries and communities? Have they even thought about it?
We need a clear vision, with clearly defined responsibility for research endeavours because we have serious challenges to face.All too often when we are under immense pressure, be it personally, in business or industry wide, we look inward for survival.
Well, we have been under pressure. It is testament to our farmers’ resilience given the pressure they have been under during this prolonged drought.
But we need to look outwards.
We need to look outwards at and consider the consequences of the petering out of the benefits of the “green revolution” in the 1960s and 70s and the declining trend in productivity growth in many parts of our agricultural industries.
We often cite the fact that Australian farms have consistently achieved average productivity growth of 2.8%-a-year for 30 years, but as John Kerin reminded us in an articulate speech at the Outlook conference last week, ABARE has revised downwards its estimate of long term productivity growth since 1953 to about 2% per year.
This decline in productivity growth has come at a time when Australia is seeing declines in rural R&D funding, as well as a redirection of funding away from productivity-related research.
Government will argue that R&D funding on the whole has gone up, but if we consider research intensity, or spending as a proportion of our output; it has fallen by over one-third since the mid-1980s.
The loss of Land and Water Australia (LWA) and reduced funding to the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) from the 2008-09 budget were felt by the agricultural industries, and the impact of this decision will remain with the industries for years to come. While domestic funding is being cut, international agricultural R&D contribution is being massively boosted.
The international rationale is sound.
The United Nations has issued a call-to-arms for agricultural production to increase 70% by 2050 to meet world population needs in the face of global food security. But Australia is a key part of the solution. We need to invest more here and have our farmers adapt and nuance the technology – then it can be exported and adapted to contribute to the development challenge.
While domestic funding declines, the calls on the research dollar continue to grow.
For example, the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Plan for the Primary Industries, which is currently under development, sets out an ambitious agenda additional to the research currently underway, with the assumption that it will be funded from existing sources!!
Government has also been calling on the private sector to step up to the mark and increase its contribution to rural R&D, and fill the gap left by decreased funding of extension services and declining public spending.
It’s an easy fob-off for the government. If industry won’t invest in its own future, why should the government?
But it ignores some key issues. The reality is that Australian agriculture represents a relatively small market for international agribusiness, and challenges such as regulatory hurdles and differences in state legislation increase uncertainty for these large investors.
Industry structural change, income variability as a consequence of drought and the free-rider challenge diversification of farm industries present a challenge for local companies to invest in R&D.
It is important to note that these challenges and uncertainties not only affect farmers, but they have an impact on the research community who work in partnership with the Australian agricultural industries.
The uncertainty makes it difficult for the researchers who have built a career working with Australian farmers, and a disincentive for graduates searching for a place to start their career. Again, John Kerin talked about this issue last week. Fifty per cent of our agricultural scientists and academics will retire over the next five years.
We need more than double the crop of agricultural graduates to meet those needs. That means around 2,000 graduates per year; we are currently producing 800 and that number is falling.
Finally, rural R&D is a long-term issue.
Indeed, it is good to keep timeframes like 2050 in mind when we discuss it. Evidence and experience with minimum till practices show that it takes 30 to 40 years to bring embryonic research ideas to a point where 95% of the country has put research into practice.
Let’s then assume we have a clear vision and understand well these challenges. What is the way forward?
At the NFF, we believe that a National Rural R&D Strategy needs to address:
• The complexity of the system;
• The various roles of Government;
• The innovation chain;
• Government funding;
• Industry links and the role of the rural RDCs;
• The role of the private sector and international partnerships in R&D; and
• The resources and human capital required to achieve our aims.
First, we need to recognize that the Rural R&D System is a complex one – it includes farmers; the Federal Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; State Departments of Primary Industries; the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research; CSIRO; the Cooperative Research Centers; the Universities; the National Climate Change Research Facility; Agribusiness (from small to multi-national firms); and the Rural Research and Development Corporations – of which there are 15.
The delivery of innovation is complex, and is not the responsibility of a single agency. The various organisations need to work together and coordinate their activities and resources for the whole system to work, let alone be effective or efficient.
This includes those responsible for prioritising and setting policy on rural R&D investment; those responsible for undertaking R&D; as well as groups and organisations that disseminate and use the outputs of the research.
Put simply Governments and other agencies need to get their house in order.
What are the roles of CSIRO, CRCs, RDCs, Universities and ACIAR? Where do they overlap and how can we get everyone working together?
We are optimistic that the Rural R&D Council and their role in the development of a National Investment Plan will bring some real clarity to this very convoluted area.
A National Rural R&D Strategy is needed to demystify the labyrinth of research bodies, their funding streams and ensure we – farmers, taxpayers and industry – are getting bang for bucks.
We need clarity over how these issues are to be addressed and, rather than take the ‘traditional piece-meal approach’, a truly national effort is required that clearly recognises all the contributors and ensures that they each pull their weight.
This strategy needs to address the whole R&D ‘innovation chain’, from strategic basic research, applied research, experimental development to commercialisation.
All of these elements are important and need to be jointly considered if innovations at the lab bench are to be meaningful in the farm paddock.
The Rural Research and Development Corporations need to be maintained, and recognised for the valuable role they play within the broader rural R&D system, particularly in applied research and experimental development.
The number one strength of Australia’s rural R&D system is the partnership it has built between industry and researchers, and the benefits this has brought giving scientists feedback on farmer needs. This has delivered advantages to Australian agriculture through the development of practical technologies for farmers and needs to be maintained.
I must say that backing the system does not mean we are not willing to look to improve it.
In fact, at the NFF we see the Productivity Commission (PC) review as an opportunity, not a threat.
We will put a strong case to the PC and Government and engage constructively and frankly about what works well, what doesn’t and where the system needs to be improved.
Hand-in-hand with an improvement in government coordination and program delivery is the need for a National Agribusiness Strategy to address the opportunities, barriers and incentives to promote private investment by agribusiness in Australian rural R&D.
The government needs to consult with domestic and international agribusiness to understand the prospects and obstacles to private investment in rural R&D (including incentives and regulation – for example, chemical regulation, intellectual property and GMO regulation), and policies that encourage greater private participation in rural R&D.
Engagement with agribusiness can smooth the path to Australian farmers having access to innovations developed internationally, it can ensure there is a level playing field to allow agribusiness to service the needs of Australian farmers.
It should also encourage Australian agribusiness to grow, expand and maximise the investment in rural R&D.
This strategy must attract global agribusiness to develop operations and R&D partnerships here in Australia. It must be part of our national approach to ensure Australia maintains its role as an international leader in agricultural adaptation to climate change and productivity research.
Indeed, the vision should be to establish Australia as the international hub for agricultural research.
This will have benefits including leveraging funding, spill-over benefits for life-science industries, access to world-class expertise, improved profile for agricultural careers (including improved wage prospects for science graduates), and international leadership.
Australian agriculture can benefit from access to international research in a number of ways, including access to germplasm and animal genetics through private companies, as well as through the various Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) research centres.
Significant research efforts are now being funded in sub-tropical regions by various international governments and philanthropic groups, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which could complement work being done by Australian agricultural industries.
Australia must seize and capitalize on the advantages it has in the development of sustainable agriculture and low carbon emission agricultural systems to attract the world’s ‘best minds’ to work on these issues. Benefits would flow to Australian agriculture and internationally to agriculture in developed and developing nations.
A real vision for Australian agriculture must consider and make the most of the human capital required to undertake R&D and deliver innovations for our farm sector.
Agriculture is an information intensive industry, and the role of agribusiness and international R&D programs in providing career paths, as well as access to talented scientist who can assist Australian farmers to meet the productivity challenges must be recognised. At the very least, we need to maintain our resourcing in order to retain our current crop of scientists and to attract new talent from overseas. We cannot afford to lose the IP that currently exists in this country.
For all the reasons I alluded to earlier – sound investment returns, population explosions here and overseas, a world food crisis that is ever-deepening and Australian farmers’ track record in productivity and innovation success – we should be positioning Australia as a leader to meet these challenges.
So in summary:
Australia and its agricultural research arms need a shared vision for food and fibre production.
Australia must have a national strategy for R&D investment to underpin this vision.
Through R&D, Australia can and should establish itself as world leader in efficient agricultural production and climate change adaptation.
Australia should strive to be the ‘silicon valley’ of low carbon food production, low input food production.
We need to attract the world’s ‘best minds’ to work on these issues and develop world-class teams here.
Governments do, indeed, need to invest more money in productivity-based agricultural R&D. And it needs to be brought into line with R&D in natural resource management.
We need to push through media and political apathy to explain our vision. The challenge is framing these issues and goals in terms digestible by the community… that is, language they understand, not the acronyms and jargon we like to use.
This is the challenge the NFF has set itself.
Online Comments [ as at 15 March 2010]
Not a bad speech, at bit unrealistic at times but overall ok
Posted by Bill, 13/03/2010 6:42:48 AM, on Stock Journal
I agree with the sentiments expressed by Ben but would add that not one more cent be wasted on GMO research. For all the money wasted on GMO development in Australia, what have they got to show? A toxic pea!
Posted by ggwagga, 15/03/2010 6:35:24 AM, on Stock Journal
An implicit part of this issue is that farmers have to drop their common attitudes - "pay me more", "poor me", and "I subsidise city people" and "people in Sydney don't know what it's like out here in the real world". Ben's references to R&D would have more force if farmers had adopted technology more readily and not played their attitude cards so readily. For example, why spend money on new R&D when farmers have failed to change their operations to take advantage of innovations that were available 20 years ago? There's a stockpile of technology that's rotting in the databases unused.
Posted by Long Xuyen, 15/03/2010 10:08:00 AM, on Stock Journal
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Separation Toilet for Liquids and Solids - Practical or Not?
Europeans rally behind the 'NoMix-tech' toilet
by Elizabeth Armstrong Moore
The NoMix toilet, which rather appropriately collects urine in the front and faeces in the back, has gained wide support by consumers throughout seven countries in Europe as a means of reducing pollution and conserving water, according to a new paper by scientists in Switzerland.
"NoMix" toilets, collect urine and faeces separately.
The just-publicized article, which calls on authorities to push for early adoption of the high-tech toilet, appears in the semi-monthly journal Environmental Science & Technology by ACS Publications.
Of the 2,700 people surveyed in Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark, 80 percent say they support the idea behind the technology, and between 75 and 85 percent report that the design, hygiene, smell, and seat comfort of the NoMix toilets equal that of conventional ones.
Moreover, roughly 85 percent say they are open to the idea of using stored urine as fertilizer.
Researchers Judit Lienert and Tove Larsen write that the toilet collects urine separately, with the main advantage being that urine contains 80 percent of the nitrogen and 50 percent of the phosphorus that arrives at wastewater treatment plants. Those two elements trigger such things as algae blooms that can enter waterways and threaten fish.
Apparently, a full decade into the 21st century, the rather simple NoMix model is a relatively novel technology whose acceptance (beyond the NoMix-loving Swiss) had not been scientifically measured until now.
partially sourced from www.news.com
--------------------------------------------
This all sounds wonderful, except that in countries like Australia where low flow units are common, it is already an issue that total liquid flows down the sewer pipes can be too low for effective effluent transfer. That is, liquid is needed to get the waste from your place to the treatment location.
Maybe in hilly Switzerland it all goes downhill..........
These systems sound wonderful, but practical issues like that above need to be considered too.
There are systems that use on site composting with liquids separation........that would be a suitable option too, that avoids waste transfer. There are many other options, and most are practical and fit in with existing technology.
One of these is the Gough Hybrid Toilet. A low flow unit originally designed for small island communities with poor water supply, it has also been extensively used in toilet facilities designed for roadside and resort use in remote areas, as well as holiday homes or in areas with low water supplies. On site treatment is used, the output is predominantly liquid and can be reused for irrigation. See www.gough.com.au
The concept of better toilets is not new, but is a separation model the best option? Not always the ideal would be my view, and there are many options.
The current Australian concept of a dual option, low volume flush [ commonly 6L/3L with a suitable pan design] would seem a simple solution when combined with low health risk effluent treatment and recycling.
by Elizabeth Armstrong Moore
The NoMix toilet, which rather appropriately collects urine in the front and faeces in the back, has gained wide support by consumers throughout seven countries in Europe as a means of reducing pollution and conserving water, according to a new paper by scientists in Switzerland.
"NoMix" toilets, collect urine and faeces separately.
The just-publicized article, which calls on authorities to push for early adoption of the high-tech toilet, appears in the semi-monthly journal Environmental Science & Technology by ACS Publications.
Of the 2,700 people surveyed in Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark, 80 percent say they support the idea behind the technology, and between 75 and 85 percent report that the design, hygiene, smell, and seat comfort of the NoMix toilets equal that of conventional ones.
Moreover, roughly 85 percent say they are open to the idea of using stored urine as fertilizer.
Researchers Judit Lienert and Tove Larsen write that the toilet collects urine separately, with the main advantage being that urine contains 80 percent of the nitrogen and 50 percent of the phosphorus that arrives at wastewater treatment plants. Those two elements trigger such things as algae blooms that can enter waterways and threaten fish.
Apparently, a full decade into the 21st century, the rather simple NoMix model is a relatively novel technology whose acceptance (beyond the NoMix-loving Swiss) had not been scientifically measured until now.
partially sourced from www.news.com
--------------------------------------------
This all sounds wonderful, except that in countries like Australia where low flow units are common, it is already an issue that total liquid flows down the sewer pipes can be too low for effective effluent transfer. That is, liquid is needed to get the waste from your place to the treatment location.
Maybe in hilly Switzerland it all goes downhill..........
These systems sound wonderful, but practical issues like that above need to be considered too.
There are systems that use on site composting with liquids separation........that would be a suitable option too, that avoids waste transfer. There are many other options, and most are practical and fit in with existing technology.
One of these is the Gough Hybrid Toilet. A low flow unit originally designed for small island communities with poor water supply, it has also been extensively used in toilet facilities designed for roadside and resort use in remote areas, as well as holiday homes or in areas with low water supplies. On site treatment is used, the output is predominantly liquid and can be reused for irrigation. See www.gough.com.au
The concept of better toilets is not new, but is a separation model the best option? Not always the ideal would be my view, and there are many options.
The current Australian concept of a dual option, low volume flush [ commonly 6L/3L with a suitable pan design] would seem a simple solution when combined with low health risk effluent treatment and recycling.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Soil Carbon Primer or Soil Carbon Economics 101
The following article is worth a read, as are the attached comments.
A touch of reality.
But it does not say do not build up soil carbon. More soil carbon is in the interests of the land owner, the farmer, the pastoralist as well as everyone. BUT......in reality, do not expect to make anything from it in a trading sense, but look to improved soil performance and agricultural performance as the payoff.
That is very real, and there is much evidence to show it to be so. Across states, countries, horticulture and agriculture. South Australia has a very active core of producers into this right now. And carbon sources are scarce in the state, with demand for compost materials outstripping supply. Other states are tending that way.
The article highlights a few overarching problems, although a significant impediment is not mentioned - the logistical costs of getting carbon into soil. Products such as biochar / agrichar offer some hope, as does the develoment of high density organic fertilisers, based on organic residuals that will lower transport costs. As would locally based sources of these types of products.
There is progress.
-----------------------------------------------
When soil carbon is not in the national interest
In sporting parlance, the Coalition plan has soil carbon peaking too early.
By making soil carbon a foundation stone of its policy, and a commodity that all Australian taxpayers will be investing in whether they like it or not, the Coalition has invited rigorous scrutiny of the issue.
I’m not sure that soil carbon is ready for that scrutiny.
Taxpayer-funded soil carbon trading is a concept that needs some massaging and makeup before it is shoved into the glare of prime-time TV, and the demolition job that will now result.
That’s regrettable, because the ideal of tradeable soil carbon is something worth working on.
As a big picture concept, soil carbon is brilliant: improve farm soil and save the world.
Such crusty organisations as the United Nations agree that soil carbon is a possible panacea for many of the world’s ills, from climate change to food and water scarcity.
Dedicated individuals have shown that it is real; that soil carbon levels can be lifted, sometimes substantially, in many soils under many farming enterprises.
The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has demonstrated that the market will pay for soil carbon credits—albeit not much under the CCX model.
But while many can see the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, the route to it remains hazy.
It’s one thing for a farmer to build soil carbon: it’s another to have all the nation’s farmers building soil carbon and have them each interface with an accounting system that will give them credit for their efforts.
As has been tirelessly pointed out, soil carbon levels differ from soil to soil, farm to farm, paddock to paddock, season to season. Seen as a whole, the nation’s soil carbon is a complex and ever-changing picture.
What do you measure, and when, and how? And what happens when the carbon disappears in drought or fire? These are questions that tax intelligence and science, but there is a process that will help work through them.
A carbon market
Given a framework to operate in, a market will decide how much risk it is prepared to take on, the level of accountability it needs to support that risk, and pay accordingly.
A market also provides a learn-as-you-go environment. Initially, like most free enterprise, a soil carbon market is likely to have its share of shonks and cowboys on both sides of the fence. But the more money poured into the market, the more rigour will be demanded of it. Farmers, traders and buyers have the ability to adapt to each incremental tightening of the trading framework.
The Coalition has now plunked soil carbon blinking into the spotlight, and there’s not a free market in sight.
In fact, there is very little in sight in the two lines that the Coalition dedicated to soil carbon in its press release, except for this statement: “The Coalition will use the Emissions Reduction Fund to deliver about 85 million tonnes per annum of CO2 abatement through soil carbons by 2020 with an initial purchase of 10 million tonnes of abatement through soil carbons by 2012-13”.
(The Emissions Reduction Fund is a government body, kick-started with government/taxpayer funds. Businesses that push their emissions above a “business-as-usual” level pay the Fund a penalty; businesses that go below business-as-usual emissions get rewarded from the same fund.)
Which suggests that the plan is for you and me, the taxpayer, to pay you, the farmer, for sequestering carbon.
There is no provision for a market to provide a learn-as-we-go environment: instead, we will have government laying down legislation and a bureacracy attempting to govern an unreliable and messy commodity.
Government dabbling in areas that are the natural realm of private enterprise has always ended in tears.
Soil carbon promises tears for anyone who tries to harness it, public or private, but the private sector doesn’t mind a few knocks. Especially if they are being delivered to someone else.
In the meantime, the Coalition’s plan for us all to share in the ownership of the nation’s rebuilding of soil carbon will see a long queue of critics lining up to point out flaws in the soil carbon concept.
Yes, we are shy of a few answers, but that doesn’t mean that the idea of tradeable soil carbon is wrong. It’s all in the execution. Better that we hand it over to the free market cowboys who will tinker with it, soup it up, prang it—and in the end, make it work, if it’s workable.
Only then should the Coalition consider making it part of the national interest; but by then it won’t matter.
[Posted By: MATT CAWOOD on 8/02/2010 4:00:00 AM
Source: http://www.theland.com.au]
Comments
Market-based schemes are certainly neat in theory. In practice, organised crime has made $7.4 billion in the last 18 months on the European ETS, selling bogus credits.
Posted by morrgo, 9/02/2010 12:30:34 PM, on Farm Weekly
Inviting halfwits to trade with buckets full of mud does have a certain attraction.
Posted by Mud pie, 9/02/2010 1:34:04 PM, on The Land
There are a lot of points raised here but the basic factors that agriculture is subsidized in many countries and not in ours begs the question how do our farmers do it well a lot of them are not? People are constantly telling me how expensive food is here but really it is not it is just what it costs. We the taxpayer may have to pay for it as the consumer cannot confront the added cost. Adding carbon through improved soil management, whatever the incentive, will improve the nations' health through increased micro nutrients provided through increased microbe activity that the presence of increased carbon,which goes hand in hand indicates. Of course there are accounting issues... when are there not. Some will benefit and some will not as much but we will all benefit by better health. I have 3 books being launched today on soil carbon issues for children and lay people at the Trinity Grammar school in Kew Victoria. You are welcome to attend. Please visit my website to see the books online www.infinart.com.au
Posted by jewel, 10/02/2010 6:56:17 AM, on The Land
Imagine what Australia would be like if all the farms and land holdings had been managed as carbon farms for the past 10 years. Carbon rich soil, good ground cover, well-established vegetation, moisture retained in the landscape for far longer, less erosion, heathier soil microbes hard at work manufacturing more carbon and making more nutrients available for plants to grow. The cooling influence of vegetation sees microclimates joining microclimates and expanding to include districts and regions, forging feedback loops that cascade through mineral and energy cycles, unleashing processes long hidden that have unanticipated impact on production and productivity. And all the while this same vegetation and soil are extracting vast amounts of 'the airborne fraction' - the Legacy Load, the CO2 and other greenhouse gases that are the real cause of the climate chaos battering our planet. Imagine your own version of that. Then think what the place will be like if we have to wait another 10 years for carbon farming to become widespread. If the doubters and delayers get their way. If it's 'too hard' to try. If the cynics and the deniers win. Then we lose hope. And we are left with despair.
Posted by Michael Kiely, 10/02/2010 10:24:24 AM, on The Land
A touch of reality.
But it does not say do not build up soil carbon. More soil carbon is in the interests of the land owner, the farmer, the pastoralist as well as everyone. BUT......in reality, do not expect to make anything from it in a trading sense, but look to improved soil performance and agricultural performance as the payoff.
That is very real, and there is much evidence to show it to be so. Across states, countries, horticulture and agriculture. South Australia has a very active core of producers into this right now. And carbon sources are scarce in the state, with demand for compost materials outstripping supply. Other states are tending that way.
The article highlights a few overarching problems, although a significant impediment is not mentioned - the logistical costs of getting carbon into soil. Products such as biochar / agrichar offer some hope, as does the develoment of high density organic fertilisers, based on organic residuals that will lower transport costs. As would locally based sources of these types of products.
There is progress.
-----------------------------------------------
When soil carbon is not in the national interest
In sporting parlance, the Coalition plan has soil carbon peaking too early.
By making soil carbon a foundation stone of its policy, and a commodity that all Australian taxpayers will be investing in whether they like it or not, the Coalition has invited rigorous scrutiny of the issue.
I’m not sure that soil carbon is ready for that scrutiny.
Taxpayer-funded soil carbon trading is a concept that needs some massaging and makeup before it is shoved into the glare of prime-time TV, and the demolition job that will now result.
That’s regrettable, because the ideal of tradeable soil carbon is something worth working on.
As a big picture concept, soil carbon is brilliant: improve farm soil and save the world.
Such crusty organisations as the United Nations agree that soil carbon is a possible panacea for many of the world’s ills, from climate change to food and water scarcity.
Dedicated individuals have shown that it is real; that soil carbon levels can be lifted, sometimes substantially, in many soils under many farming enterprises.
The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has demonstrated that the market will pay for soil carbon credits—albeit not much under the CCX model.
But while many can see the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, the route to it remains hazy.
It’s one thing for a farmer to build soil carbon: it’s another to have all the nation’s farmers building soil carbon and have them each interface with an accounting system that will give them credit for their efforts.
As has been tirelessly pointed out, soil carbon levels differ from soil to soil, farm to farm, paddock to paddock, season to season. Seen as a whole, the nation’s soil carbon is a complex and ever-changing picture.
What do you measure, and when, and how? And what happens when the carbon disappears in drought or fire? These are questions that tax intelligence and science, but there is a process that will help work through them.
A carbon market
Given a framework to operate in, a market will decide how much risk it is prepared to take on, the level of accountability it needs to support that risk, and pay accordingly.
A market also provides a learn-as-you-go environment. Initially, like most free enterprise, a soil carbon market is likely to have its share of shonks and cowboys on both sides of the fence. But the more money poured into the market, the more rigour will be demanded of it. Farmers, traders and buyers have the ability to adapt to each incremental tightening of the trading framework.
The Coalition has now plunked soil carbon blinking into the spotlight, and there’s not a free market in sight.
In fact, there is very little in sight in the two lines that the Coalition dedicated to soil carbon in its press release, except for this statement: “The Coalition will use the Emissions Reduction Fund to deliver about 85 million tonnes per annum of CO2 abatement through soil carbons by 2020 with an initial purchase of 10 million tonnes of abatement through soil carbons by 2012-13”.
(The Emissions Reduction Fund is a government body, kick-started with government/taxpayer funds. Businesses that push their emissions above a “business-as-usual” level pay the Fund a penalty; businesses that go below business-as-usual emissions get rewarded from the same fund.)
Which suggests that the plan is for you and me, the taxpayer, to pay you, the farmer, for sequestering carbon.
There is no provision for a market to provide a learn-as-we-go environment: instead, we will have government laying down legislation and a bureacracy attempting to govern an unreliable and messy commodity.
Government dabbling in areas that are the natural realm of private enterprise has always ended in tears.
Soil carbon promises tears for anyone who tries to harness it, public or private, but the private sector doesn’t mind a few knocks. Especially if they are being delivered to someone else.
In the meantime, the Coalition’s plan for us all to share in the ownership of the nation’s rebuilding of soil carbon will see a long queue of critics lining up to point out flaws in the soil carbon concept.
Yes, we are shy of a few answers, but that doesn’t mean that the idea of tradeable soil carbon is wrong. It’s all in the execution. Better that we hand it over to the free market cowboys who will tinker with it, soup it up, prang it—and in the end, make it work, if it’s workable.
Only then should the Coalition consider making it part of the national interest; but by then it won’t matter.
[Posted By: MATT CAWOOD on 8/02/2010 4:00:00 AM
Source: http://www.theland.com.au]
Comments
Market-based schemes are certainly neat in theory. In practice, organised crime has made $7.4 billion in the last 18 months on the European ETS, selling bogus credits.
Posted by morrgo, 9/02/2010 12:30:34 PM, on Farm Weekly
Inviting halfwits to trade with buckets full of mud does have a certain attraction.
Posted by Mud pie, 9/02/2010 1:34:04 PM, on The Land
There are a lot of points raised here but the basic factors that agriculture is subsidized in many countries and not in ours begs the question how do our farmers do it well a lot of them are not? People are constantly telling me how expensive food is here but really it is not it is just what it costs. We the taxpayer may have to pay for it as the consumer cannot confront the added cost. Adding carbon through improved soil management, whatever the incentive, will improve the nations' health through increased micro nutrients provided through increased microbe activity that the presence of increased carbon,which goes hand in hand indicates. Of course there are accounting issues... when are there not. Some will benefit and some will not as much but we will all benefit by better health. I have 3 books being launched today on soil carbon issues for children and lay people at the Trinity Grammar school in Kew Victoria. You are welcome to attend. Please visit my website to see the books online www.infinart.com.au
Posted by jewel, 10/02/2010 6:56:17 AM, on The Land
Imagine what Australia would be like if all the farms and land holdings had been managed as carbon farms for the past 10 years. Carbon rich soil, good ground cover, well-established vegetation, moisture retained in the landscape for far longer, less erosion, heathier soil microbes hard at work manufacturing more carbon and making more nutrients available for plants to grow. The cooling influence of vegetation sees microclimates joining microclimates and expanding to include districts and regions, forging feedback loops that cascade through mineral and energy cycles, unleashing processes long hidden that have unanticipated impact on production and productivity. And all the while this same vegetation and soil are extracting vast amounts of 'the airborne fraction' - the Legacy Load, the CO2 and other greenhouse gases that are the real cause of the climate chaos battering our planet. Imagine your own version of that. Then think what the place will be like if we have to wait another 10 years for carbon farming to become widespread. If the doubters and delayers get their way. If it's 'too hard' to try. If the cynics and the deniers win. Then we lose hope. And we are left with despair.
Posted by Michael Kiely, 10/02/2010 10:24:24 AM, on The Land
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
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]
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]
Monday, February 08, 2010
North Australia Land and Water Taskforce Reports
Now available here -http://www.nalwt.gov.au/files/337281_NLAW.pdf
There are additional reports on the main web site see - http://www.nalwt.gov.au/
It is not as gloomy as early media reports were indicating.
Mosaic development and some modest expansion are likely, but a more detailed examination of the report is still to come. Local commentators in the NT are mostly positive, especially those closely connected to industry. A few politicians are not positive, but I would suggest they are not being realists.
As a player in north Australia for 30+ years, I among many, realised a long time ago that broad sweep development was highly improbable. There would never be the broad expanse of a US or Canadian prairie type development for agriculture. Tyranny of distance will nearly always influence issues - smaller, dense, high priced commodities would drive agriculture, or the opposite - large areas of ultra low cost production - typically livestock production, were seen many years ago as the likely options. This report seems to confirm that, with a lot of options in between or influencing the structure of the business model. In this scenario, then may be little that may have changed.
However, indigenous participation will increase significantly in coming years, across a range of different models of involvement. That will be a positive thing. Yet the north will remain mostly lightly inhabited, and no doubt those open spaces may be inviting to outsiders.
There is more R and D to do if the vision is to realised.
No doubt the report will be debated across north Australia, at least in the near term.
BUT...........action to capitalise on the outcomes and actually implement development is still urgently needed. Not necessarily today.........but soon.
There are additional reports on the main web site see - http://www.nalwt.gov.au/
It is not as gloomy as early media reports were indicating.
Mosaic development and some modest expansion are likely, but a more detailed examination of the report is still to come. Local commentators in the NT are mostly positive, especially those closely connected to industry. A few politicians are not positive, but I would suggest they are not being realists.
As a player in north Australia for 30+ years, I among many, realised a long time ago that broad sweep development was highly improbable. There would never be the broad expanse of a US or Canadian prairie type development for agriculture. Tyranny of distance will nearly always influence issues - smaller, dense, high priced commodities would drive agriculture, or the opposite - large areas of ultra low cost production - typically livestock production, were seen many years ago as the likely options. This report seems to confirm that, with a lot of options in between or influencing the structure of the business model. In this scenario, then may be little that may have changed.
However, indigenous participation will increase significantly in coming years, across a range of different models of involvement. That will be a positive thing. Yet the north will remain mostly lightly inhabited, and no doubt those open spaces may be inviting to outsiders.
There is more R and D to do if the vision is to realised.
No doubt the report will be debated across north Australia, at least in the near term.
BUT...........action to capitalise on the outcomes and actually implement development is still urgently needed. Not necessarily today.........but soon.
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]
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]
Thursday, January 21, 2010
It is Time to Recycle the Organics
Organic recycling will be vital to recover the vast amounts of nutrients that come to the city in food.
I posted some material from Singapore in 2009, a place where organic recycling is a joke, and where incineration is the norm. YET.........some commentators wax lyrical about using organic food, and how wonderful it is, in a city that imports over 95% of its food, and then burns the residuals. One needs to be a little bit real about the issue.
So many nutrients, so much carbon is in the food we eat, and in the city, most is wasted.........wasted.
I posted some material from Singapore in 2009, a place where organic recycling is a joke, and where incineration is the norm. YET.........some commentators wax lyrical about using organic food, and how wonderful it is, in a city that imports over 95% of its food, and then burns the residuals. One needs to be a little bit real about the issue.
So many nutrients, so much carbon is in the food we eat, and in the city, most is wasted.........wasted.
In Australia, particularly in southern cities this issue is slowly being addressed. It fits with the emerging potential technologies of vertical wall and roof top gardens as well, potential city sites for food and green production, currently being developed and enthused over by for example, Prof Julian Cribb of Sydney.
the following article has been lifted from "Inside Waste" and was written by Gerry Gillespie, an ardent advocate for carbon and nutrient recycling and recovery.
Unfortunately, I think it will be a considerable time before it happens in the Northern Territory in any modest fashion, even. But it should, as local soils scream out for better soil carbon levels to both hold water and nutrients, as well as needing a great boost in soil nutrients to aid production in both agriculture and horticulture.
It is a important story...........
The organic base
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
As Australia’s waste industry gears up for 2010, the president of Revolve - Canberra, Gerry Gillespie, urges people to focus on the root issues of organic waste management. He argues valuable organic materials must be returned to soils, and experience shows this can be done very effectively when communities are empowered to become part of local solutions.
Every individual, regardless of their social standing, produces organic waste as long as they continue to eat.The true value of this product, both in terms of its nutrient value and its value as a catalyst for the soil to generate more food, has never truly been capitalised on in western society.
It is only in Asian communities that the true value of returning organic materials to soils has been appreciated and developed.
Yet even in western societies, where the public (with the exception of gardeners) has long been seen as ignorant of the value of this material, a substantial shift has begun to take place with the advent of new programs focussed on food.For the first time in its modern history, western society has begun to truly look at its waste organic outputs.
In the first instances this was mainly from the western perspective of wasted food as a waste of money, but now also and more importantly, for its value to the food chain.This in turn has lead to a consideration of the value of clean, quality organic products as a catalyst in the production of quality food from quality soil.The Groundswell project in NSW has clearly demonstrated that, given the right tools and information to act, the public will respond with enthusiasm to the collection of food waste for reuse in agriculture.
This project, using the City to Soil collection system, has demonstrated that at our very animal base we fully grasp the importance of soil as our mother, in the sense that it feeds and clothes us.As individuals, parents and grandparents, we see that the security of future generations is firmly based in the soil. The response to this project has seen the collections of organic waste with extremely low contamination rates of less than 0.5%.
This project has clearly demonstrated the public wants to be involved. Indeed it has demonstrated the collection of organic waste, once it is embraced by the community, will not only empower them to become part of the solution but will also provide the basis for a link into a much bigger picture of behavioural change.
Compost and carbon
In developing the City to Soil process, the project managers needed to reduce the cost of compost manufacture and so designed a new system where the organic waste requires no shredding and very little turning. This process importantly also produces no odour.
Material is sprayed with water and a two part biological inoculant, covered with tarpaulins and left for six weeks without turning. The material can achieve temperatures in excess of 70 degrees in the first week. It then settles back to around 55 degrees for the remainder of the process.
The material produced in this compost process, returned to the soil, provides the basis for supported land management change which dramatically reduces fertiliser use, improves moisture retention water in soils, increases yield and increases soil carbon.
If the legacy emissions currently in the atmosphere are to be addressed, improving our soils worldwide is the only way of doing it. While climate change may be the largest threat we have brought upon humanity, the generation of carbon in agricultural soils and the opportunities for change that it brings could be one of the greatest benefits humanity has ever given to the world. We have at our fingertips the means to end poverty, we have at our fingertips the means to feed the world, we have at our fingertips the means for a new world economy.This new direction, this new hope, is based on the simplest and most disregarded of the products of humanity – our organic waste.
Source-separated organic waste provides the tools to link the community back to its food supply, it provides the tools for us to rebuild our relationship with out soils, it provides the means to support local regional economies. The only thing we need to do to be part of this great revolution is to maintain ownership of our own organic waste.
Conclusion
The greed of the global economy has forgotten that you can’t have a labourer in China make cheap clothes for the world market without food. And you can’t feed that labourer without soil.
The global economy has forgotten that it is nothing without soil. Every cheap shirt, every cheap car, every cheap tool, represents some part of a nation’s soil. We are nothing without soil. We don’t exist without soil.
Peak phosphorus spells the death of chemical agriculture. There is a new way. There is a better way – for humanity and for the planet.
Owning your organic wastes in your home and in your community provides you with the power to help local farmers produce food and to generate local wealth in the emerging carbon market.
No economy, rich or poor, exists without food – because no economy rich or poor exists without soil. The soil is your mother – you are nothing without your mother.
The issues of ‘peak oil’, of ‘peak phosphorus’ and other matters of assumed criticality are all indicators of our humble human need to replace one problem with another by addressing only the symptoms of our disease. In the same way that ‘peak oil’ tells us that we have been too reliant on an unsustainable supply of oil, ‘peak phosphorus’ tells us that we have relied for too long on industrial chemical farming.
Good quality soil and soil carbon can provide humanity with the direct link back to its very basic roots. It can be part of our individual responsibility to ensure that the farmers are given the right tools and the capacity to utilise their soil based on the experiential management skills of themselves and past generations. In linking personal behaviour with soil carbon we will be weaving the tapestry of soil quality into the reality of our daily existence. To achieve this we need to have a community understanding and response to the ability to grow our soils. The only place this can be achieved is on the farm.
It is that same place that grows our food and is the home and heart of our repeatable economic base.
In the world voluntary carbon market we have been presented with the first opportunity in human history to include our environment in our economy. We as humans have finally reached that same point that every monkey, bird and bee awoke to as it was born new into its circumstance, its natural economy. Every species lives within its economy because to do otherwise is to perish.
We can now join the evolution of economy by including the obvious in our accounts. Everything we now do and make can be predicated on its carbon value. You as an individual in this place are at this exciting starting point.
We must begin.
[partially sourced from Inside Waste]
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Furlough is Over
Time to recommence blogging..........after a medically related furlough period while a family member was rehabilitating from major surgery.
More posts on notable issues in agriculture, environment and related areas coming in 2010.
Watch this space!
More posts on notable issues in agriculture, environment and related areas coming in 2010.
Watch this space!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)