The management of weeds was the major natural resource management activity for Australian farmers, according to figures released yesterday by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
During the 2006-07 financial year, farmers spent $1.57 billion controlling weeds, which is more than pests ($768 million) and land and soil problems ($649 million) combined, with the total cost of managing these problems $2.99B , or an average of $21,094 per business, ABS reports.
Nationally, nearly two-thirds of farmers reported that they had improved their natural resource management practices. Of these, 89pc reported doing so to increase productivity, 88pc for farm sustainability, and 75pc to improve environmental protection.
Other findings from the ABS include:
* farmers in Australia managed 425 million hectares of land, or just over half (55pc) of Australia's land mass;
* of all expenditure on weed management, nearly two-thirds ($982m) was spent on herbicides;
* of all expenditure on pest management, over half ($430m) was spent on pesticides; and
* erosion was the most common land and soil problem, reported by 48pc of the farmers, followed by soil compaction (43pc) and soil acidity (42pc).
The findings are based on the second Natural Resource Management survey conducted by the ABS.
These findings are an important snapshot of resource management issues in a practical sense. What is not indicated is why the weeds had so much expenditure and does not separate weed control for directly improving production of the land, eg weed control in crops, or is it expenditure on environmental weed control. It does reinforce however, the critical issue of weeds in Australian land management. This is a very significant change in comparison to the older view that insects were the big issue in "land management", including agriculture and natural resource management. It also reinforces the dominant role of herbicides.......but they can also be part of any integrated management system too.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Compadre Zoysia Chosen as Grass for Iconic Darwin Project
Compadre zoysia has been selected as the grass of choice for the prestigious Darwin Waterfront Project. This is an iconic project which incorporates a new Convention Centre, along with hotels, apartment blocks, a wave pool and safe swimming beach along with extensive parklands. See the following for more details - www.waterfront.nt.gov.au
We have worked closely with the landscape architects to research and compare a range of options that meet criteria of aesthetic appeal, reduced maintenance, an ability to tolerate significant shade [especially over time as the landscape matures], hard wearing / resilient and capable of achieving good growth in a near marine environment with considerable salt exposure. While Compadre is slower to establish, that translates into less mowing over time, so the long term view is that this will be effective as a turf cover.
The first areas will be hydroseeded in the next week or two, and there are more modest sized areas to be developed progressively over the next few months. Major open space areas are not expected to be planted however for several months more.
We have worked closely with the landscape architects to research and compare a range of options that meet criteria of aesthetic appeal, reduced maintenance, an ability to tolerate significant shade [especially over time as the landscape matures], hard wearing / resilient and capable of achieving good growth in a near marine environment with considerable salt exposure. While Compadre is slower to establish, that translates into less mowing over time, so the long term view is that this will be effective as a turf cover.
The first areas will be hydroseeded in the next week or two, and there are more modest sized areas to be developed progressively over the next few months. Major open space areas are not expected to be planted however for several months more.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Restoring Mined Land
Vermont visionary wins first Fuller Award with green plan for Appalachia.
In the quest for coal, over a million and a half acres of Appalachia have been strip-mined, whole mountains removed, trillions of gallons of toxic slurry left behind, and communities devastated.
Not exactly a promising place for a new green economy to arise.
Or maybe it is.
For his startling and bold proposal to clean-up this disaster, Comprehensive Design for a Carbon Neutral World: The Challenge of Appalachia, John Todd, a research professor in the Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources at the University of Vermont, won the first annual Buckminster Fuller Challenge.
The $100,000 prize from the Buckminster Fuller Institute was awarded in a ceremony in New York City on June 23, 2008 at the Center for Architecture.
"Dr. Todd's proposal sets forth a profound vision to heal the environmental and economic scars of the Appalachian region and a detailed strategy to build a dynamic sustainable economic basis for lasting renewal," wrote the award jury in picking his submission out of entries from around the world.
The jurors, including Vandana Shiva and William McDonough, were impressed with how Todd proposed to "use biological processes to restore degraded coal lands in Appalachia, and use the process to return atmospheric carbon to the soil," they wrote. To develop his proposal, Todd—who was named a "Hero of the Earth," by Time Magazine in 1999—drew on the concept of ecological succession. Over time, damaged land can rebuild soils, support pioneer plants and grasses, then shrubs, fast-growing trees, and finally, a mature forest. Todd has taken this classic idea of ecology and applied to the human economy.
"Deep in Nature's operating instructions is a model of future economic development," he said, "and these instructions can guide us as we seek new ways of living," in the mountainous coal-laced region that extends from Pennsylvania to Alabama.
Todd's proposal outlines four stages of recovery and development. In the first, healing is the primary focus. Drawing on his extensive experience with "living machines"—biological technologies that echo natural systems to produce clean water and environmental clean-up—Todd foresees plant-based systems that will detoxify the vast lagoons of coal slurry in the region, build new healthy soils, and yield raw products for economic purposes. "Coal miners and some of their machinery could be employed in the process," he notes.
In the second stage, reforestation begins. Some reclaimed land will be dedicated to short-rotation fast-growing woody crops to be harvested for biomass. Other long-standing forests will capture carbon from the atmosphere, slowing global warming.
In the third stage, the economic benefits of the biomass emerge. "Already suitable Appalachian wind sites have been discovered that can provide competitive sources of energy," Todd writes, "paired with another renewable energy source like woody biomass from willows and poplars, a viable energy system can be developed."
And this biomass can be used not just for electricity but for "refining fuels, and manufacturing a wide range of products ranging from plastics to polymers and adhesives," he says.
In the fourth stage, succession is at work not just in the land but in human communities and management of the land. Initially, philanthropic organizations would purchase damaged sites and shepherd their recovery. These restored lands would be passed along to new capitalized corporations that would develop forestry and other businesses there.
Then, following their mandates, these companies would divest the land to employees and qualified land stewards, restoring an ownership culture to impoverished communities. Finally, the process would begin again on other newly acquired lands.
And this replication process could extend far beyond Appalachia, presenting a method for increasing carbon storage in soils around the world and a model for reclaiming "coal-fields from Afghanistan to areas of Poland and Eastern Europe where coal has been extracted in devastating ways," the jury wrote. Because of its sweeping scope, the jury felt that Todd's proposal embodied the vision of social transformation sought by Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983), an architect, author and futurist best known for designing the geodesic dome.
"My father identified himself as a Comprehensive Anticipatory Design Scientist," said Allegra Fuller Snyder, Fuller's daughter, in a release. "My father, who knew, and admired, Dr. Todd's work in the 1970s, would certainly agree" that Todd too embodied this broad label. "Nature has had 3 billion years to experiment," Todd said. "So why shouldn't we learn from that about how to go about our business now?" "This is a struggle of mythic proportions. Big Coal is very powerful, but what will eventually stop them is a carbon tax on producers," he said.
Then, he believes, begins a carbon-neutral post-coal future for Appalachia that could have a working economy with a decade. As this struggle proceeds, John Todd believes that his proposal can "inject into the process a sense of alternative hope," he said.
This article appeared in ENN News on 24 June 2008. However, the concept regarding the early regenerative processes is similar to the soil rebuilding processes in desert soils and subsequently has been researched by the CRC for Mine Reclamation in WA, Australia in relation to mines in the low rainfall regions of Western Australia......currently the worlds quarry for iron ore!
It is the classic sequence of using organic matter - potentially coming form organic waste - to rebuild the biology of soils. Along the path, soil physical conditions are also rebuild, often due to biological activity of larger creatures such as insects, worms and similar organisms.
In tropical regions this process is relatively quick........with warmth and rainfall aiding the processes. Even gardeners commencing with a bare, soil damaged house block can see these processes transform their land in a few short years.
In the quest for coal, over a million and a half acres of Appalachia have been strip-mined, whole mountains removed, trillions of gallons of toxic slurry left behind, and communities devastated.
Not exactly a promising place for a new green economy to arise.
Or maybe it is.
For his startling and bold proposal to clean-up this disaster, Comprehensive Design for a Carbon Neutral World: The Challenge of Appalachia, John Todd, a research professor in the Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources at the University of Vermont, won the first annual Buckminster Fuller Challenge.
The $100,000 prize from the Buckminster Fuller Institute was awarded in a ceremony in New York City on June 23, 2008 at the Center for Architecture.
"Dr. Todd's proposal sets forth a profound vision to heal the environmental and economic scars of the Appalachian region and a detailed strategy to build a dynamic sustainable economic basis for lasting renewal," wrote the award jury in picking his submission out of entries from around the world.
The jurors, including Vandana Shiva and William McDonough, were impressed with how Todd proposed to "use biological processes to restore degraded coal lands in Appalachia, and use the process to return atmospheric carbon to the soil," they wrote. To develop his proposal, Todd—who was named a "Hero of the Earth," by Time Magazine in 1999—drew on the concept of ecological succession. Over time, damaged land can rebuild soils, support pioneer plants and grasses, then shrubs, fast-growing trees, and finally, a mature forest. Todd has taken this classic idea of ecology and applied to the human economy.
"Deep in Nature's operating instructions is a model of future economic development," he said, "and these instructions can guide us as we seek new ways of living," in the mountainous coal-laced region that extends from Pennsylvania to Alabama.
Todd's proposal outlines four stages of recovery and development. In the first, healing is the primary focus. Drawing on his extensive experience with "living machines"—biological technologies that echo natural systems to produce clean water and environmental clean-up—Todd foresees plant-based systems that will detoxify the vast lagoons of coal slurry in the region, build new healthy soils, and yield raw products for economic purposes. "Coal miners and some of their machinery could be employed in the process," he notes.
In the second stage, reforestation begins. Some reclaimed land will be dedicated to short-rotation fast-growing woody crops to be harvested for biomass. Other long-standing forests will capture carbon from the atmosphere, slowing global warming.
In the third stage, the economic benefits of the biomass emerge. "Already suitable Appalachian wind sites have been discovered that can provide competitive sources of energy," Todd writes, "paired with another renewable energy source like woody biomass from willows and poplars, a viable energy system can be developed."
And this biomass can be used not just for electricity but for "refining fuels, and manufacturing a wide range of products ranging from plastics to polymers and adhesives," he says.
In the fourth stage, succession is at work not just in the land but in human communities and management of the land. Initially, philanthropic organizations would purchase damaged sites and shepherd their recovery. These restored lands would be passed along to new capitalized corporations that would develop forestry and other businesses there.
Then, following their mandates, these companies would divest the land to employees and qualified land stewards, restoring an ownership culture to impoverished communities. Finally, the process would begin again on other newly acquired lands.
And this replication process could extend far beyond Appalachia, presenting a method for increasing carbon storage in soils around the world and a model for reclaiming "coal-fields from Afghanistan to areas of Poland and Eastern Europe where coal has been extracted in devastating ways," the jury wrote. Because of its sweeping scope, the jury felt that Todd's proposal embodied the vision of social transformation sought by Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983), an architect, author and futurist best known for designing the geodesic dome.
"My father identified himself as a Comprehensive Anticipatory Design Scientist," said Allegra Fuller Snyder, Fuller's daughter, in a release. "My father, who knew, and admired, Dr. Todd's work in the 1970s, would certainly agree" that Todd too embodied this broad label. "Nature has had 3 billion years to experiment," Todd said. "So why shouldn't we learn from that about how to go about our business now?" "This is a struggle of mythic proportions. Big Coal is very powerful, but what will eventually stop them is a carbon tax on producers," he said.
Then, he believes, begins a carbon-neutral post-coal future for Appalachia that could have a working economy with a decade. As this struggle proceeds, John Todd believes that his proposal can "inject into the process a sense of alternative hope," he said.
This article appeared in ENN News on 24 June 2008. However, the concept regarding the early regenerative processes is similar to the soil rebuilding processes in desert soils and subsequently has been researched by the CRC for Mine Reclamation in WA, Australia in relation to mines in the low rainfall regions of Western Australia......currently the worlds quarry for iron ore!
It is the classic sequence of using organic matter - potentially coming form organic waste - to rebuild the biology of soils. Along the path, soil physical conditions are also rebuild, often due to biological activity of larger creatures such as insects, worms and similar organisms.
In tropical regions this process is relatively quick........with warmth and rainfall aiding the processes. Even gardeners commencing with a bare, soil damaged house block can see these processes transform their land in a few short years.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Tender steak - EVERY time
A US university says it is close to commercialising technology to predict meat tenderness, potentially bridging the gap on one of the Australian beef industry's big marketing advantages in the form of Meat Standards Australia (MSA). Yes.....Australia does have meat standards although consumers might not realise it, something not operating in the US.
There has been a lot of research on animal management and handling which does show very positive effects on carcase and meat performance after slaughter, if animals are handled and managed properly in the period before and after slaughter. Most producers are aware of this need to manage the animals properly. This approach is critical in subsequent meat performance. The approach in the US tries to actually measure outcomes of the whole process, by directly checking the carcase /meat.
University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) scientists have developed a way to predict steak tenderness, saying the technology could be a boon to the beef industry as it would allow retailers to charge a premium for a "guaranteed tender" label. "Beef tenderness is a primary factor in consumer satisfaction," said Jeyamkondan Subbiah, the UNL food engineer who heads the research. "However, a sufficiently accurate, non-destructive method of on-line evaluation of tenderness continues to elude the beef industry."
Current US Department of Agriculture grading standards classify beef carcasses into quality and yield grades but do not assess tenderness. As carcasses are not priced on the basis of tenderness, producers do not have a financial incentive to supply a tender product. Consumers think they should!
The beef industry has long sought technology that could scan fresh meat at two to three days post mortem and predict its tenderness when the consumer cooks it about two weeks later.
"There is a growing recognition that beef tenderness must be incorporated into the USDA quality grading process if true, value-based marketing is to be developed," Subbiah and other authors wrote for a recent presentation on the issue.
UNL is developing that technology. Its approach uses hyperspectral imaging, a novel technology that combines video image analysis and spectroscopy. The system consists of a digital video camera and spectrograph to capture the two key qualities that affect beef tenderness: muscle structure and biochemical properties. In the research, two-day aged, 1 in. thick rib-eyes were placed on a plate and scanned by the system, which captures multiple images at hundreds of wavelengths with regular intervals.
The combination of the video images and spectroscopy is key, Subbiah said.
The video technology captures the muscle profile. Tender beef has fine muscle fibers, while tough beef has visibly coarser muscle fibers. The spectroscopy measures biochemical properties that indicate how much the steak will become tender during aging.
After scanning, the steaks were cooked and tested.
Results so far are promising. The system predicted three tenderness categories - tender, intermediate and tough -- with about 77pc accuracy and two tenderness categories - acceptable and tough - with 93.7pc accuracy.
"Beef is expensive. Consumers expect it to be tender. One bad experience can make them not buy beef for awhile," Subbiah said. "We think consumers are willing to pay a premium for a guaranteed-tender product."
Subbiah said that premium could be $1-2/lb.
Hyperspectral imaging is not new. Previously, it has been used to determine nutrient deficiency in plants, fecal contamination in chicken and fungal/bacterial contamination in fruit.
Researchers will continue to hone this process.
Meanwhile, UNL is patenting the technology and hopes to identify a business interested in partnering on commercialization. Critical to commercializing the technology will be finding a way "to take it from the lab to the plant," Subbiah said.
The industry must be able to use it to evaluate a carcass, not individual steaks, and do it in about 10 seconds per carcass. "It has to be done in the current mode of operation," without any additional time-consuming steps, Subbiah added. Such commercialisation is likely two to three years away, he added.
* A related video of the imaging process is available at http://www.feedstuffsfoodlink.com/.
partially sourced from Feedstuffs, USA
http://www.feedstuffs.com
There has been a lot of research on animal management and handling which does show very positive effects on carcase and meat performance after slaughter, if animals are handled and managed properly in the period before and after slaughter. Most producers are aware of this need to manage the animals properly. This approach is critical in subsequent meat performance. The approach in the US tries to actually measure outcomes of the whole process, by directly checking the carcase /meat.
University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) scientists have developed a way to predict steak tenderness, saying the technology could be a boon to the beef industry as it would allow retailers to charge a premium for a "guaranteed tender" label. "Beef tenderness is a primary factor in consumer satisfaction," said Jeyamkondan Subbiah, the UNL food engineer who heads the research. "However, a sufficiently accurate, non-destructive method of on-line evaluation of tenderness continues to elude the beef industry."
Current US Department of Agriculture grading standards classify beef carcasses into quality and yield grades but do not assess tenderness. As carcasses are not priced on the basis of tenderness, producers do not have a financial incentive to supply a tender product. Consumers think they should!
The beef industry has long sought technology that could scan fresh meat at two to three days post mortem and predict its tenderness when the consumer cooks it about two weeks later.
"There is a growing recognition that beef tenderness must be incorporated into the USDA quality grading process if true, value-based marketing is to be developed," Subbiah and other authors wrote for a recent presentation on the issue.
UNL is developing that technology. Its approach uses hyperspectral imaging, a novel technology that combines video image analysis and spectroscopy. The system consists of a digital video camera and spectrograph to capture the two key qualities that affect beef tenderness: muscle structure and biochemical properties. In the research, two-day aged, 1 in. thick rib-eyes were placed on a plate and scanned by the system, which captures multiple images at hundreds of wavelengths with regular intervals.
The combination of the video images and spectroscopy is key, Subbiah said.
The video technology captures the muscle profile. Tender beef has fine muscle fibers, while tough beef has visibly coarser muscle fibers. The spectroscopy measures biochemical properties that indicate how much the steak will become tender during aging.
After scanning, the steaks were cooked and tested.
Results so far are promising. The system predicted three tenderness categories - tender, intermediate and tough -- with about 77pc accuracy and two tenderness categories - acceptable and tough - with 93.7pc accuracy.
"Beef is expensive. Consumers expect it to be tender. One bad experience can make them not buy beef for awhile," Subbiah said. "We think consumers are willing to pay a premium for a guaranteed-tender product."
Subbiah said that premium could be $1-2/lb.
Hyperspectral imaging is not new. Previously, it has been used to determine nutrient deficiency in plants, fecal contamination in chicken and fungal/bacterial contamination in fruit.
Researchers will continue to hone this process.
Meanwhile, UNL is patenting the technology and hopes to identify a business interested in partnering on commercialization. Critical to commercializing the technology will be finding a way "to take it from the lab to the plant," Subbiah said.
The industry must be able to use it to evaluate a carcass, not individual steaks, and do it in about 10 seconds per carcass. "It has to be done in the current mode of operation," without any additional time-consuming steps, Subbiah added. Such commercialisation is likely two to three years away, he added.
* A related video of the imaging process is available at http://www.feedstuffsfoodlink.com/.
partially sourced from Feedstuffs, USA
http://www.feedstuffs.com
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Microbes Can Rapidly Degrade Plastic
An ordinary Canadian school boy has managed to identify a microbial population that others have not been able to do.........microbes that rapidly degrade plastic bags.
Getting ordinary plastic bags to rot away like banana peels would be an environmental dream come true. After all, we produce 500 billion a year worldwide and they take up to 1,000 years to decompose. They take up space in landfills, litter our streets and parks, pollute the oceans and kill the animals that eat them.ow a Waterloo Canada teenager has found a way to make plastic bags degrade faster -- in three months, he figures.
Daniel Burd's project won the top prize at the Canada-Wide Science Fair in Ottawa. He came back with a long list of awards, including a $10,000 prize, a $20,000 scholarship, and recognition that he has found a practical way to help the environment. Daniel, a 16-year-old Grade 11 student at Waterloo Collegiate Institute, got the idea for his project from everyday life.
"Almost every week I have to do chores and when I open the closet door, I have this avalanche of plastic bags falling on top of me," he said. "One day, I got tired of it and I wanted to know what other people are doing with these plastic bags." The answer: not much. So he decided to do something himself. He knew plastic does eventually degrade, and figured microorganisms must be behind it. His goal was to isolate the microorganisms that can break down plastic -- not an easy task because they don't exist in high numbers in nature.
First, he ground plastic bags into a powder. Next, he used ordinary household chemicals, yeast and tap water to create a solution that would encourage microbe growth. To that, he added the plastic powder and dirt. Then the solution sat in a shaker at 30 degrees.
After three months of upping the concentration of plastic-eating microbes, Burd filtered out the remaining plastic powder and put his bacterial culture into three flasks with strips of plastic cut from grocery bags. As a control, he also added plastic to flasks containing boiled and therefore dead bacterial culture. Six weeks later, he weighed the strips of plastic. The control strips were the same. But the ones that had been in the live bacterial culture weighed an average of 17 per cent less.
That wasn't good enough for Burd. To identify the bacteria in his culture, he let them grow on agar plates and found he had four types of microbes. He tested those on more plastic strips and found only the second was capable of significant plastic degradation. Next, Burd tried mixing his most effective strain with the others. He found strains one and two together produced a 32 per cent weight loss in his plastic strips. His theory is strain one helps strain two reproduce.
Tests to identify the strains found strain two was Sphingomonas bacteria and the helper was Pseudomonas. A researcher in Ireland has found Pseudomonas is capable of degrading polystyrene, but as far as Burd and his teacher Mark Menhennet know -- and they've looked -- Burd's research on polyethelene plastic bags is a first.
Next, Burd tested his strains' effectiveness at different temperatures, concentrations and with the addition of sodium acetate as a ready source of carbon to help bacteria grow. At 37 degrees and optimal bacterial concentration, with a bit of sodium acetate thrown in, Burd achieved 43 per cent degradation within six weeks. The plastic he fished out then was visibly clearer and more brittle, and Burd guesses after six more weeks, it would be gone. He hasn't tried that yet.
To see if his process would work on a larger scale, he tried it with five or six whole bags in a bucket with the bacterial culture. That worked too. Industrial application should be easy, said Burd. "All you need is a fermenter . . . your growth medium, your microbes and your plastic bags."
The inputs are cheap, maintaining the required temperature takes little energy because microbes produce heat as they work, and the only outputs are water and tiny levels of carbon dioxide -- each microbe produces only 0.01 per cent of its own infinitesimal weight in carbon dioxide, said Burd. "This is a huge, huge step forward . . . We're using nature to solve a man-made problem."
[partially sourced from "The Record", Waterloo, Canada]
Getting ordinary plastic bags to rot away like banana peels would be an environmental dream come true. After all, we produce 500 billion a year worldwide and they take up to 1,000 years to decompose. They take up space in landfills, litter our streets and parks, pollute the oceans and kill the animals that eat them.ow a Waterloo Canada teenager has found a way to make plastic bags degrade faster -- in three months, he figures.
Daniel Burd's project won the top prize at the Canada-Wide Science Fair in Ottawa. He came back with a long list of awards, including a $10,000 prize, a $20,000 scholarship, and recognition that he has found a practical way to help the environment. Daniel, a 16-year-old Grade 11 student at Waterloo Collegiate Institute, got the idea for his project from everyday life.
"Almost every week I have to do chores and when I open the closet door, I have this avalanche of plastic bags falling on top of me," he said. "One day, I got tired of it and I wanted to know what other people are doing with these plastic bags." The answer: not much. So he decided to do something himself. He knew plastic does eventually degrade, and figured microorganisms must be behind it. His goal was to isolate the microorganisms that can break down plastic -- not an easy task because they don't exist in high numbers in nature.
First, he ground plastic bags into a powder. Next, he used ordinary household chemicals, yeast and tap water to create a solution that would encourage microbe growth. To that, he added the plastic powder and dirt. Then the solution sat in a shaker at 30 degrees.
After three months of upping the concentration of plastic-eating microbes, Burd filtered out the remaining plastic powder and put his bacterial culture into three flasks with strips of plastic cut from grocery bags. As a control, he also added plastic to flasks containing boiled and therefore dead bacterial culture. Six weeks later, he weighed the strips of plastic. The control strips were the same. But the ones that had been in the live bacterial culture weighed an average of 17 per cent less.
That wasn't good enough for Burd. To identify the bacteria in his culture, he let them grow on agar plates and found he had four types of microbes. He tested those on more plastic strips and found only the second was capable of significant plastic degradation. Next, Burd tried mixing his most effective strain with the others. He found strains one and two together produced a 32 per cent weight loss in his plastic strips. His theory is strain one helps strain two reproduce.
Tests to identify the strains found strain two was Sphingomonas bacteria and the helper was Pseudomonas. A researcher in Ireland has found Pseudomonas is capable of degrading polystyrene, but as far as Burd and his teacher Mark Menhennet know -- and they've looked -- Burd's research on polyethelene plastic bags is a first.
Next, Burd tested his strains' effectiveness at different temperatures, concentrations and with the addition of sodium acetate as a ready source of carbon to help bacteria grow. At 37 degrees and optimal bacterial concentration, with a bit of sodium acetate thrown in, Burd achieved 43 per cent degradation within six weeks. The plastic he fished out then was visibly clearer and more brittle, and Burd guesses after six more weeks, it would be gone. He hasn't tried that yet.
To see if his process would work on a larger scale, he tried it with five or six whole bags in a bucket with the bacterial culture. That worked too. Industrial application should be easy, said Burd. "All you need is a fermenter . . . your growth medium, your microbes and your plastic bags."
The inputs are cheap, maintaining the required temperature takes little energy because microbes produce heat as they work, and the only outputs are water and tiny levels of carbon dioxide -- each microbe produces only 0.01 per cent of its own infinitesimal weight in carbon dioxide, said Burd. "This is a huge, huge step forward . . . We're using nature to solve a man-made problem."
[partially sourced from "The Record", Waterloo, Canada]
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Floren Bluegrass Comes of Age
Floren bluegrass was registered as a cultiver in 1995 in Australia through Plant Breeders Rights, and the IP in the variety is owned by Progressive Seeds.
This year it really seems to have made the big time with reports of the variety outyielding a number of species and varieties on the alkaline black clay soils around central Queensland. Reported yields of 25 large round hay
This year it really seems to have made the big time with reports of the variety outyielding a number of species and varieties on the alkaline black clay soils around central Queensland. Reported yields of 25 large round hay
bales per hectare, outyielding a number of other species.
The exceptional performance of Floren bluegrass on Queensland's Isaac River frontage country inundated by the damaging January 2008 floods, has impressed a gathering of the Marlborough region's cattle producers.
The exceptional performance of Floren bluegrass on Queensland's Isaac River frontage country inundated by the damaging January 2008 floods, has impressed a gathering of the Marlborough region's cattle producers.
Large tracts of highly productive river country throughout Central Queensland were impacted by the 2008 floods, resulting in prolonged inundation and water-logging that effectively killed off productive grasses.
Experience with Floren bluegrass, a Dicanthium aristatum cultivar first planted in April 2007 as a 25pc component of a shotgun mix of pasture seed sown under a centre pivot encouraged the opportunity for a field day and the 25 neighbouring landholders from along the Isaac and Mackenzie River systems were invited to inspect the resultant Floren bluegrass stand that has dominated and out-competed the post-flood flush of parthenium weed, a very serious weed in the region.
Floren bluegrass is now the dominant pasture species ahead of buffel and bambatsi panic, and despite some obvious denitrification of the grass following the flooding, the owner cut 200 round bales/ha from an 8ha stand in early April. A 24ha stand of forage sorghum baled at the same time after the flood inundation also cut 200 bales, an indication of the superior yield of the bluegrass. There is a bit of perennial v annual yield arguments in that equation too!
DPI&F principal experimentalist Maurie Conway said landholders who were considering introducing Floren bluegrass into non-irrigated river country should be looking at planting rates of 0.5kg/ha.
"The secret of good pasture establishment is to eliminate or reduce the competition and spraying is often the best option," Mr Conway said. "If the job is done right, then half as much seed will do the job but if it is not done properly, twice as much seed will not be enough. "Be sure to use good quality seed, plant when soil moisture is good and ensure good soil to seed contact by using a roller. Because it is highly palatable, stocking rates should be managed to allow the plants to flower and seed in autumn.
"Even with limited plant numbers, once this grass is established, it will seed prolifically and make a valuable contribution to livestock productivity," Mr Conway said.
Have a look at a few additional on line resources as listed below. It might be suitable for some areas in the NT and the NW as well.
http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/pastures/18121.html
http://www.progressiveseeds.com.au/floren.html
http://www.tropicalgrasslands.asn.au/Newsletter_archive/TGS%20NL%20june01no%20pix%20.pdf
Experience with Floren bluegrass, a Dicanthium aristatum cultivar first planted in April 2007 as a 25pc component of a shotgun mix of pasture seed sown under a centre pivot encouraged the opportunity for a field day and the 25 neighbouring landholders from along the Isaac and Mackenzie River systems were invited to inspect the resultant Floren bluegrass stand that has dominated and out-competed the post-flood flush of parthenium weed, a very serious weed in the region.
Floren bluegrass is now the dominant pasture species ahead of buffel and bambatsi panic, and despite some obvious denitrification of the grass following the flooding, the owner cut 200 round bales/ha from an 8ha stand in early April. A 24ha stand of forage sorghum baled at the same time after the flood inundation also cut 200 bales, an indication of the superior yield of the bluegrass. There is a bit of perennial v annual yield arguments in that equation too!
DPI&F principal experimentalist Maurie Conway said landholders who were considering introducing Floren bluegrass into non-irrigated river country should be looking at planting rates of 0.5kg/ha.
"The secret of good pasture establishment is to eliminate or reduce the competition and spraying is often the best option," Mr Conway said. "If the job is done right, then half as much seed will do the job but if it is not done properly, twice as much seed will not be enough. "Be sure to use good quality seed, plant when soil moisture is good and ensure good soil to seed contact by using a roller. Because it is highly palatable, stocking rates should be managed to allow the plants to flower and seed in autumn.
"Even with limited plant numbers, once this grass is established, it will seed prolifically and make a valuable contribution to livestock productivity," Mr Conway said.
Have a look at a few additional on line resources as listed below. It might be suitable for some areas in the NT and the NW as well.
http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/pastures/18121.html
http://www.progressiveseeds.com.au/floren.html
http://www.tropicalgrasslands.asn.au/Newsletter_archive/TGS%20NL%20june01no%20pix%20.pdf
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Aluminium Recycling Benefits the Community
Why Recycling Is Worth It
Pepsi Cans to Promote Recycling
Study Shows Airline Industry Could Save Thousands of Dollars by Recycling
8 Ways to Green Your Recycling
8 Ways to Practice Product Stewardship
Still wondering why you should bother recycling your aluminium cans? Just ask Greg Wittbecker. He's the director of Corporate Metal Recycling for Alcoa and a big proponent of boosting the paltry amount the U.S. recycles (52% of cans) to 75%.
What's the big deal? Greg says it's all about energy and waste disposal. "If we could recover and recycle 75% of the aluminium cans being currently tossed into landfills — 600,000 metric tons of aluminium — we could save 1286 megawatts of generated electricity. That’s the amount produced by two coal fired power plants, and consumed by two aluminium plants," says Greg. "Replacing this production with recycling would keep 11.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from being generated and released into the atmosphere." It would also reduce the amount of mercury going into the environment, since power plants emit polluting mercury when they burn coal.
Why is recycling so efficient? According to Alcoa, recycling a ton of aluminium uses just 5% of the energy required to make virgin metal. Every tonne of recycled aluminium that Alcoa uses saves about 14,000 kilowatt hours of electricity. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that the average American household consumes 920 kilowatts of electricity per month. Consequently, using 1 ton of recycled aluminium as opposed to 1 ton of virgin aluminium would make enough conserved energy available to power an American household for over 15 months.
Despite the compelling energy savings that accrue from recycling aluminuum, Americans are not recycling as much as other countries [how unusual!]. Compared to the 52% in the USA, consider how well the nations below are doing:” - Brazil 94.4%, Japan 90.9 % Germany 89 % and the Global Average is 63% and Western Europe 57.7%
Why the diff? On top of the "throw it away" mentality common among American households, many communities don't make it easy for citizens to do the right thing. More towns and cities need to offer curbside recycling programs or convenient recycling centres. Retailers that sell canned beverages could help, too, by setting up recycling centres on their premises. Eleven US states already put deposits on canned beverages to ensure that the cans are returned to the manufacturer. A number of Australian jurisdictions also offer container deposit schemes.
In Australia the packaging industry has vehemently opposed container deposit systems.
[partially sourced from www.enn.com ]
Pepsi Cans to Promote Recycling
Study Shows Airline Industry Could Save Thousands of Dollars by Recycling
8 Ways to Green Your Recycling
8 Ways to Practice Product Stewardship
Still wondering why you should bother recycling your aluminium cans? Just ask Greg Wittbecker. He's the director of Corporate Metal Recycling for Alcoa and a big proponent of boosting the paltry amount the U.S. recycles (52% of cans) to 75%.
What's the big deal? Greg says it's all about energy and waste disposal. "If we could recover and recycle 75% of the aluminium cans being currently tossed into landfills — 600,000 metric tons of aluminium — we could save 1286 megawatts of generated electricity. That’s the amount produced by two coal fired power plants, and consumed by two aluminium plants," says Greg. "Replacing this production with recycling would keep 11.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from being generated and released into the atmosphere." It would also reduce the amount of mercury going into the environment, since power plants emit polluting mercury when they burn coal.
Why is recycling so efficient? According to Alcoa, recycling a ton of aluminium uses just 5% of the energy required to make virgin metal. Every tonne of recycled aluminium that Alcoa uses saves about 14,000 kilowatt hours of electricity. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that the average American household consumes 920 kilowatts of electricity per month. Consequently, using 1 ton of recycled aluminium as opposed to 1 ton of virgin aluminium would make enough conserved energy available to power an American household for over 15 months.
Despite the compelling energy savings that accrue from recycling aluminuum, Americans are not recycling as much as other countries [how unusual!]. Compared to the 52% in the USA, consider how well the nations below are doing:” - Brazil 94.4%, Japan 90.9 % Germany 89 % and the Global Average is 63% and Western Europe 57.7%
Why the diff? On top of the "throw it away" mentality common among American households, many communities don't make it easy for citizens to do the right thing. More towns and cities need to offer curbside recycling programs or convenient recycling centres. Retailers that sell canned beverages could help, too, by setting up recycling centres on their premises. Eleven US states already put deposits on canned beverages to ensure that the cans are returned to the manufacturer. A number of Australian jurisdictions also offer container deposit schemes.
In Australia the packaging industry has vehemently opposed container deposit systems.
[partially sourced from www.enn.com ]
Friday, May 09, 2008
Perennial Pastures in Australia Shown to Sequester Carbon
The potential role for carbon sequestration in perennial pasture plants has received a boost with the release of some important research data that has put some quantified information into the public arena. The data is broadly supported by other information beginning to emerge from other parts of Australia.
Does this begin to really show that deep rooted perennial grass pastures can be effective in raising soil carbon levels? Is there a role for other grasses eg the very deep rooted Vetiver Grass used in mining reclamation for example. It does not address the issue of burning but there is some data about grazing.
Read the material below -----
Drought-tolerant perennial pastures could make a big dent in Australia's greenhouse emissions by helping soils to soak up carbon, says one researcher. But not everyone is convinced this approach really locks away as much carbon in the soil as claimed.
Tim Wiley, a pastures agronomist from Western Australia's Department of Agriculture and Food, says early findings from a trial of perennial pastures are "exciting". "They appear to have an exceptional ability to build up carbon in the soil," he says of the naturally drought-tolerant pastures. "If this preliminary data is right and you start extrapolating it over crop and pasture land in Australia, we could make a very big dent on Australia's emissions."
Soil carbon has decreased to between a half and a third its original levels since European agriculture was introduced. Today, 16% of Australia's annual greenhouse gases come from agriculture.
Wiley says trials of deep-rooted perennial sub-tropical grasses, such as Rhodes grass, on poor sandy soils in Western Australia show they can sequester much more carbon than traditional annual pastures.
He says results from a trial, which ran for more than three years on a farm in Lancelin, show Rhodes grass can capture and sequester nearly 7 tonnes per hectare of CO2 equivalents per year more than traditional pasture. CO2 equivalents are the units the Kyoto Protocol uses to measure greenhouse gases. The methane produced from the extra animals grazing on the perennial pastures only reduces this sequestration bonus by 10-20%, says Wiley.
Wiley says if these early findings are confirmed and the perennial pastures are grown on all suitable farmland in Western Australia, they could offset the state's entire annual greenhouse emissions.
He says the results are supported by data from farmers elsewhere in the area and trials across the country in Queensland. This suggests the perennial pastures could have a similar effect in areas with very different rainfall and soils.
'Doesn't add up'
Dr Jeffrey Baldock, an expert in soil carbon sequestration from CSIRO Land and Water in Adelaide, agrees perennial pasture holds the best potential for increasing soil carbon and no one has ever tried to quantify its impact. But Baldock thinks the level of sequestration that Wiley reports doesn't add up. He says an increase of 7 tonnes of CO2 equivalents sequestered per hectare per year would require a massive increase in plant growth, measured as the amount of dried plant material. "For [Wiley's] carbon numbers to be correct he would have to be producing about 8 tonnes of extra dried Rhodes grass compared to the annual pasture," he says. "I'm not going to say it's impossible but it's a big ask."
Mycorrhiza
Wiley says he has yet to complete a full measurement of dried plant material. But he says data gathered so far suggests the increase in dried material is not enough to explain the increase in carbon. He says the conventional assumptions that Baldock uses about how much carbon can be sequestered from plants into the soil could be wrong. He suspects the deep-rooted perennials are supporting a healthy crop of mycorrhiza, fungi living symbiotically on plant roots. Wiley says there is evidence that mycorrhiza are more effective than other soil microbes at producing humus and other stable carbon compounds in the soil, which Baldock disputes. But Baldock says more research of the kind that Wiley is involved in should be carried out.
Carbon trading
Wiley says he would not normally publicise such preliminary research but for discussions on whether to include soil carbon in Australia's greenhouse emissions trading scheme. He says soil carbon is already being traded in some parts of the world and while there are many uncertainties around how to measure soil carbon, findings such as his call for it to be included in a trading system.
Meanwhile, Baldock questions the economics of soil carbon trading, arguing that soil carbon should be increased simply because of the benefits it can bring productivity. "It increases water holding capacity, soil nutrition, provides carbon substrates for the soil microbial population to live on and enhances soil structural stability," he says.
[partially sourced from the ABC website]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does this begin to really show that deep rooted perennial grass pastures can be effective in raising soil carbon levels? Is there a role for other grasses eg the very deep rooted Vetiver Grass used in mining reclamation for example. It does not address the issue of burning but there is some data about grazing.
Read the material below -----
Drought-tolerant perennial pastures could make a big dent in Australia's greenhouse emissions by helping soils to soak up carbon, says one researcher. But not everyone is convinced this approach really locks away as much carbon in the soil as claimed.
Tim Wiley, a pastures agronomist from Western Australia's Department of Agriculture and Food, says early findings from a trial of perennial pastures are "exciting". "They appear to have an exceptional ability to build up carbon in the soil," he says of the naturally drought-tolerant pastures. "If this preliminary data is right and you start extrapolating it over crop and pasture land in Australia, we could make a very big dent on Australia's emissions."
Soil carbon has decreased to between a half and a third its original levels since European agriculture was introduced. Today, 16% of Australia's annual greenhouse gases come from agriculture.
Wiley says trials of deep-rooted perennial sub-tropical grasses, such as Rhodes grass, on poor sandy soils in Western Australia show they can sequester much more carbon than traditional annual pastures.
He says results from a trial, which ran for more than three years on a farm in Lancelin, show Rhodes grass can capture and sequester nearly 7 tonnes per hectare of CO2 equivalents per year more than traditional pasture. CO2 equivalents are the units the Kyoto Protocol uses to measure greenhouse gases. The methane produced from the extra animals grazing on the perennial pastures only reduces this sequestration bonus by 10-20%, says Wiley.
Wiley says if these early findings are confirmed and the perennial pastures are grown on all suitable farmland in Western Australia, they could offset the state's entire annual greenhouse emissions.
He says the results are supported by data from farmers elsewhere in the area and trials across the country in Queensland. This suggests the perennial pastures could have a similar effect in areas with very different rainfall and soils.
'Doesn't add up'
Dr Jeffrey Baldock, an expert in soil carbon sequestration from CSIRO Land and Water in Adelaide, agrees perennial pasture holds the best potential for increasing soil carbon and no one has ever tried to quantify its impact. But Baldock thinks the level of sequestration that Wiley reports doesn't add up. He says an increase of 7 tonnes of CO2 equivalents sequestered per hectare per year would require a massive increase in plant growth, measured as the amount of dried plant material. "For [Wiley's] carbon numbers to be correct he would have to be producing about 8 tonnes of extra dried Rhodes grass compared to the annual pasture," he says. "I'm not going to say it's impossible but it's a big ask."
Mycorrhiza
Wiley says he has yet to complete a full measurement of dried plant material. But he says data gathered so far suggests the increase in dried material is not enough to explain the increase in carbon. He says the conventional assumptions that Baldock uses about how much carbon can be sequestered from plants into the soil could be wrong. He suspects the deep-rooted perennials are supporting a healthy crop of mycorrhiza, fungi living symbiotically on plant roots. Wiley says there is evidence that mycorrhiza are more effective than other soil microbes at producing humus and other stable carbon compounds in the soil, which Baldock disputes. But Baldock says more research of the kind that Wiley is involved in should be carried out.
Carbon trading
Wiley says he would not normally publicise such preliminary research but for discussions on whether to include soil carbon in Australia's greenhouse emissions trading scheme. He says soil carbon is already being traded in some parts of the world and while there are many uncertainties around how to measure soil carbon, findings such as his call for it to be included in a trading system.
Meanwhile, Baldock questions the economics of soil carbon trading, arguing that soil carbon should be increased simply because of the benefits it can bring productivity. "It increases water holding capacity, soil nutrition, provides carbon substrates for the soil microbial population to live on and enhances soil structural stability," he says.
[partially sourced from the ABC website]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the above about what carbon in the soil does is true. But we still need to get it there, and keep it there. For horticulture, the role of annual green manure crops is important, as a sensible means of building soil carbon and which has a direct and fairly immediate benefit to following horticulture crops. Can we both build and then keep adding to the soil carbon stores in other ways - with applied compost for example.
Both of these concepts are definitely NOT new. There is recent research data that indicates organic production can add to the soil carbon store. But that is really in most part, about the use of organic amendments, not necessarily the other factors in organic production.
legumes can be used as a green manure cropRecycling organic waste, sequestering carbon, green manure crops, maintaining soil cover..........does one get a sense of deja vu? After all these were considered wise, prudent and profitable soil management considerations for most of the history of agriculture, especially since the Middle Ages, and most certainly taught in most agricultural science university courses world wide in the 19th and 20th centuries!
incorporating green manure crops on a large farmSome more reading:
http://images.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.vegedge.umn.edu/MNFruit%26VegNews/Vol4/601usda_clip_image006.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.vegedge.umn.edu/MNFruit%26VegNews/Vol4/608gm.htm&h=260&w=350&sz=25&hl=en&start=3&tbnid=sw520Ot7mca2YM:&tbnh=89&tbnw=120&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgreen%2Bmanure%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG
http://www.echotech.org/mambo/images/DocMan/GreenMan.pdf
http://www.echotech.org/mambo/images/DocMan/GreenMan.pdf
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Are Food Users Expectations Unrealistic in Terms of Prices Being Paid?
The following article is based on material collected at the recent 2020 Summit in Canberra, Australia.
It highlights the often unrealistic expectations that consumers are placing on food production, while demanding lower prices for food, something the world in the developed areas has expected and enjoyed for around 100 years. But meeting what are probalby unreal expectations in overall food safety, quality and availability does remove significant food from the consumer........and at what cost? It is all very well to say "lets all eat fresh natural food" but often that may not be possible except at impossibly high prices, or even technically impossible in some areas of the world.
Sure.......food needs to be safe; it mostly was 40 or 50 years ago, yet many consumers demand still higher yardsticks. Is that always necessary? Simple things such as washing fresh foods before use in clean water [where available, as it is mostly in developed countries] can do a lot to remove problems just before consumption.
Consumer expectations on how food is produced have become unrealistic, according to the chief executive of the Australian Food and Grocery Council, and there will need to be a trade off if food prices are to be affordable in the future.
Dick Wells was a rural delegate at the 2020 summit in Canberra on the weekend, and said while consumers rule, there's been "a disconnect" between them and the people trying to produce food and fibre under safe, clean, profitable conditions. Mr Wells said experience shows, in other industries as well, that to underestimate the capacity of the community and community outrage, even though it may not be based on sound science and evidence, can make the operating capacity of an industry very difficult. "The most recent example is of course the mulesing issue, with PETA and so on. I think people underestimated how they could marshal consumer outrage to create a backlash against industries," Mr Wells said.
"The frustration for us all in these sorts of things is when you understand the industry and the science behind these things, there's sound reasons for doing them.
"But there's a disconnect, and as a scientist that's one of the things I learnt – I used to think there was a logical process of evaluation and acquisition of data and decision making and that was the right answer. But science is only one part of the equation."
Mr Wells said increasingly consumers are "ruling the world". "They're increasingly expressing their wishes through big retailers who are seeking to supply them with the goods they want," Mr Wells said. "So in terms of quality assurance, its gone well beyond safety and gone right back up stream to how food is produced. "And it includes all these soft issues which are really quite challenging for us in agriculture, but at the end of the day consumers are still not prepared to pay any more for better upstream performance and this is the frustration for industry."
He said if you were to poll consumers, most would say they are most concerned about issues like environment and welfare. "But give them an opportunity to pay more for better upstream practice and they won't do it. "So the evolution has got to come with better communication and understanding to consumers about how our food is produced to reassure them that we produce food in a way that deals with a whole range of certain standards. "It's a trade-off. People are worried about grocery prices but you can't keep putting costs and expectations on upstream producers like farmers and others and then expect to absorb the cost."
But Mr Wells was cautious about labelling consumer expectations too high "because they rule".
"I think some of them are unrealistic…because they become ideological or philosophical.
"Take for example GM canola oil – we can show that there canola oil is no different from a GM plant, and the DNA in them has identical chemicals. "But the ideological argument has been 'I don't want oil from a GM crop irrespective'."
Mr Wells said the farm sector had always been product-focussed rather than service-focussed, but those sorts of ideological views had nothing to do with the product. "It's really about providing food service which encompasses all those other values and that's really challenging for an industry that's been supply-chain oriented.
"I think the challenge for us is to actually have responsible processes to try and understand consumer trends, even if they're irrational, and put in place processes about reassurance and quality control, even if it goes back to things that aren't making us any more dollars. "It's going to become a licence to operate rather if we do it in those ways rather than potentially an advantage in the market."
partially sourced from : Rural Press National News Service, Parliament House Bureau, Canberra.
It highlights the often unrealistic expectations that consumers are placing on food production, while demanding lower prices for food, something the world in the developed areas has expected and enjoyed for around 100 years. But meeting what are probalby unreal expectations in overall food safety, quality and availability does remove significant food from the consumer........and at what cost? It is all very well to say "lets all eat fresh natural food" but often that may not be possible except at impossibly high prices, or even technically impossible in some areas of the world.
Sure.......food needs to be safe; it mostly was 40 or 50 years ago, yet many consumers demand still higher yardsticks. Is that always necessary? Simple things such as washing fresh foods before use in clean water [where available, as it is mostly in developed countries] can do a lot to remove problems just before consumption.
Recent comments this week by the UN and related agencies, specifically related to food production and availability also add to this conundrum.
The article prompted a lot of comment. What do you think?Consumer expectations on how food is produced have become unrealistic, according to the chief executive of the Australian Food and Grocery Council, and there will need to be a trade off if food prices are to be affordable in the future.
Dick Wells was a rural delegate at the 2020 summit in Canberra on the weekend, and said while consumers rule, there's been "a disconnect" between them and the people trying to produce food and fibre under safe, clean, profitable conditions. Mr Wells said experience shows, in other industries as well, that to underestimate the capacity of the community and community outrage, even though it may not be based on sound science and evidence, can make the operating capacity of an industry very difficult. "The most recent example is of course the mulesing issue, with PETA and so on. I think people underestimated how they could marshal consumer outrage to create a backlash against industries," Mr Wells said.
"The frustration for us all in these sorts of things is when you understand the industry and the science behind these things, there's sound reasons for doing them.
"But there's a disconnect, and as a scientist that's one of the things I learnt – I used to think there was a logical process of evaluation and acquisition of data and decision making and that was the right answer. But science is only one part of the equation."
Mr Wells said increasingly consumers are "ruling the world". "They're increasingly expressing their wishes through big retailers who are seeking to supply them with the goods they want," Mr Wells said. "So in terms of quality assurance, its gone well beyond safety and gone right back up stream to how food is produced. "And it includes all these soft issues which are really quite challenging for us in agriculture, but at the end of the day consumers are still not prepared to pay any more for better upstream performance and this is the frustration for industry."
He said if you were to poll consumers, most would say they are most concerned about issues like environment and welfare. "But give them an opportunity to pay more for better upstream practice and they won't do it. "So the evolution has got to come with better communication and understanding to consumers about how our food is produced to reassure them that we produce food in a way that deals with a whole range of certain standards. "It's a trade-off. People are worried about grocery prices but you can't keep putting costs and expectations on upstream producers like farmers and others and then expect to absorb the cost."
But Mr Wells was cautious about labelling consumer expectations too high "because they rule".
"I think some of them are unrealistic…because they become ideological or philosophical.
"Take for example GM canola oil – we can show that there canola oil is no different from a GM plant, and the DNA in them has identical chemicals. "But the ideological argument has been 'I don't want oil from a GM crop irrespective'."
Mr Wells said the farm sector had always been product-focussed rather than service-focussed, but those sorts of ideological views had nothing to do with the product. "It's really about providing food service which encompasses all those other values and that's really challenging for an industry that's been supply-chain oriented.
"I think the challenge for us is to actually have responsible processes to try and understand consumer trends, even if they're irrational, and put in place processes about reassurance and quality control, even if it goes back to things that aren't making us any more dollars. "It's going to become a licence to operate rather if we do it in those ways rather than potentially an advantage in the market."
partially sourced from : Rural Press National News Service, Parliament House Bureau, Canberra.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Gamba Grass to be Declared a Weed
The Queensland government has succumbed to pressure from the greenies to declare gamba grass a Class 2 weed in Queensland. This is despite its role as an extremely valuable pasture species in the far north of Queensland.
The text of the Minister's statement is below:
Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries -The Honourable Tim Mulherin
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Gamba grass to be declared a Class 2 weed
Gamba grass is to be declared a Class 2 weed in Queensland. The decision announced today by Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries Tim Mulherin ends an extensive consultation process. “This is a sensible, balanced position that takes into account concerns from environmental and industry groups,” Mr Mulherin, said. “The reality is that gamba grass has the potential to become a major weed if not controlled but it also provides valuable cattle fodder, particularly in drought conditions. “Gamba grass is native to tropical Africa and can grow up to 4m tall. It exists in scattered areas, primarily across the Cape York and Gulf regions.’’
“It is estimated that it has been planted on around 18,000 hectares, based on the quantity of seed sold. “The decision will stop the sale of gamba grass seeds, require landholders to control it and require local governments to include it in their pest management plans for all areas.’’
Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries -The Honourable Tim Mulherin
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Gamba grass to be declared a Class 2 weed
Gamba grass is to be declared a Class 2 weed in Queensland. The decision announced today by Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries Tim Mulherin ends an extensive consultation process. “This is a sensible, balanced position that takes into account concerns from environmental and industry groups,” Mr Mulherin, said. “The reality is that gamba grass has the potential to become a major weed if not controlled but it also provides valuable cattle fodder, particularly in drought conditions. “Gamba grass is native to tropical Africa and can grow up to 4m tall. It exists in scattered areas, primarily across the Cape York and Gulf regions.’’
“It is estimated that it has been planted on around 18,000 hectares, based on the quantity of seed sold. “The decision will stop the sale of gamba grass seeds, require landholders to control it and require local governments to include it in their pest management plans for all areas.’’
Mr Mulherin said the decision did not force landowners, who had already planted the seed to provide fodder for their cattle, to immediately eradicate it from managed pastures. “But it does mean they will have to carefully control any potential spread,” he said. “This decision is to ensure that gamba grass does not get out of hand. “It is a serious offence to introduce, keep or supply a Class 2 pest without a permit issued by the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Penalties of up to $30,000 apply.’’
DPI&F will produce guidelines and an enforcement policy for landowners, information on management and if necessary, research on control practices. Mr Mulherin said the decision had not been made lightly. “It was important that the economic, environmental and social impacts of the plant were carefully weighed against its benefits,” he said.
While the regulatory steps necessary to enact the Class 2 declaration are carried out, an emergency pest notice preventing the further sale of gamba grass seed will be in place from mid-April.
[from the Ministers media statement]
------------------
This decision follows a similar ban in WA, introduced a month or so back.
Gamba grass is a very valuable pasture species, a major contributor to fodder sources in Africa [ its origin], South America, Asia and Australia. The latter three are areas where it has been introduced , mostly around the 1960s and 1970s, and where the plant has made extremely valuable contributions to fodder, both for direct grazing, and as cut and carry feed.
A decision is pending in the NT.
The issue has been driven by the green movement, with a lot of emotional material, and the media has played to that. As is common, the response from agriculture has been more muted, but the media is not listening.
A lot of misinformation on the plant has been used by the green movement to achieve their aims.
Unmanaged gamba will grow tall, and is a fire issue in the dry season. Absolutely true! But managed by grazing, mowing or similar measures to be kept short, dramatically reduces seed production and seed quality as seed production is forced into the dry period of the year, at least in seasonally wet/dry regions where it has been most useful. While not eliminated, a reduction of well over 90% in seed yield can be achieved. The fodder consumed if grazed also is very major contributer to animal production, especially in the dry season or early wet season as the plant responds very quickly to moisture, including heavy dew and short quick showers. Part of the reason for this has been elucidated over recent years, and is related to nitrogen accumulation in the root system - that also helps with the excellent biomass yields too.
It is also interesting to speculate on the role of gamba grass as a high yielding perennial cellulosic source in these regions. Afterall, the US is forging ahead with plans to develop switchgrass, a similar "weedy" grass found on the edge of many US mid west crop fields, as a cellulosic feedstock for new generation ethanol production.
There is no doubt that biomass production from gamba grass in areas receiving over 1000mm annual rainnfall in the wet / dry tropics is excellent. Could it have a future as a biomass crop?
It is an interesting option worth pursuing............and remember that one of the definitions for a weed "is a plant for which a use has not yet been found". Gamba grass already has a role as a fodder plant, and maybe there are more options too.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Update on Compadre Zoysia - great turf!
The following photos show a domestic lawn sown by Compadre seed in the Darwin region in late May 2007. The Dry Season had cool to very cool nights although days were around 30C, but with about 11 hours of sunlight.
The lawn developed well, and the following photos show the area in early April 2008, 10 months after establishment.
There have been no insect or disease problems, mowing is about every 3 weeks. The area has recently been cut very low to remove any thatch build up, in the absence of the availability of a verti cutter [or scarifier]. This is a precautionary management option as modest fertiliser levels were used in the establishment year, and may not be needed as fertiliser use is moderated in future.
It is a great lawn…………enjoyable to use, and for kids to play on. It is not itchy, if rolling on the lawn without a shirt, as often is the case if there are kids playing football!
Not only is it a great lawn, it cost less than one quarter the cost of using any turf sod!
The lawn developed well, and the following photos show the area in early April 2008, 10 months after establishment.
There have been no insect or disease problems, mowing is about every 3 weeks. The area has recently been cut very low to remove any thatch build up, in the absence of the availability of a verti cutter [or scarifier]. This is a precautionary management option as modest fertiliser levels were used in the establishment year, and may not be needed as fertiliser use is moderated in future.
It is a great lawn…………enjoyable to use, and for kids to play on. It is not itchy, if rolling on the lawn without a shirt, as often is the case if there are kids playing football!
Not only is it a great lawn, it cost less than one quarter the cost of using any turf sod!
For earlier photos see the post on this blog - http://abovecapricorn.blogspot.com/search/label/Compadre%20zoysia
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Soil Carbon Sequestration Benefits for Land Managers - a Possible Way Forward
Graziers practising best management principles may be missing-out financially under current arrangements, as they store additional carbon in their soil, according to NSW Central-West Catchment Management Authority soil carbon expert John Lawrie.
A recent Sustainable Grazing Forum speaker at Broken Hill, New South Wales, Mr Lawrie explained the potential of soil carbon credits for landholders.
He outlined five major best management principles to benefit soil carbon increases, which included increasing groundcover, increasing perennial plants, increasing biodiversity and decreasing soil disturbance and compaction.
"These principals will also help the CMAs to achieve one of its major goals, which is to improve the health of their soils," he said.
Management practices that might qualify included stock exclusion areas, conservative stocking rates, better distribution of water supplies, time control grazing strategies, rabbit ripping and baiting, goat trapping, contour furrowing, water spreading or ponding, and tyne pitting. These are well established practices used for improved land management.
Mr Lawrie said graziers should be rewarded for adopting best-management practices by accrediting them as carbon positive farmers and provide them with the opportunity to receive funding for storing additional carbon in their soil. "By providing accreditation to suitable graziers, this would be an ideal way to improve soil health across the catchment, meet catchment targets, and provide graziers with an opportunity to access external sources of incentive funding for soil health improvement," he said.
Farmers willing to participate would need to provide a farm plan, soil tests and evidence of adoption of the best management principles.
"The scheme would allow CMAs to be favourably positioned when any international greenhouse gas abatement scheme is proposed," Mr Lawrie said. "This program could provide the opportunity to charge brokers a fee for being an experienced and independent accreditation organisation."
Mr Lawrie was one of many experts on-hand during the three-day forum, attended by about 45 participants from NSW's Far West Division, and hosted by the Western CMA, with support from the Lower-Murray Darling CMA.
The system proposed does offer a way forward for pastoralists to be able to gain some benefit from any proposed carbon credit scheme, by developing and implementing carbon accumulation schems on land they manage. It would have application across much of the pastoral zone of Australia. Fire management was not mentioned, but that factor is critical.......reducing fire will definitely improve, or reduce emitted carbon. The current West Arnhem project has demonstrated a very successful management plan, which works --http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/nt_report/ntreport07/chapter12.html
BUT.....currently agriculture [as broadly defined] is excluded from the concepts around carbon management, as it seems to be unfolding in Australia. It would be critical to have agriculture involved as soil accumulation of carbon has enormous potential for carbon capture while improving soil. There is a range of scientific and technical literature supporting soil carbon capture, and this concept as outlined does seem to offer a sensible range of tasks and issues that could work.
[partially sourced from media reports on the conference]
A recent Sustainable Grazing Forum speaker at Broken Hill, New South Wales, Mr Lawrie explained the potential of soil carbon credits for landholders.
He outlined five major best management principles to benefit soil carbon increases, which included increasing groundcover, increasing perennial plants, increasing biodiversity and decreasing soil disturbance and compaction.
"These principals will also help the CMAs to achieve one of its major goals, which is to improve the health of their soils," he said.
Management practices that might qualify included stock exclusion areas, conservative stocking rates, better distribution of water supplies, time control grazing strategies, rabbit ripping and baiting, goat trapping, contour furrowing, water spreading or ponding, and tyne pitting. These are well established practices used for improved land management.
Mr Lawrie said graziers should be rewarded for adopting best-management practices by accrediting them as carbon positive farmers and provide them with the opportunity to receive funding for storing additional carbon in their soil. "By providing accreditation to suitable graziers, this would be an ideal way to improve soil health across the catchment, meet catchment targets, and provide graziers with an opportunity to access external sources of incentive funding for soil health improvement," he said.
Farmers willing to participate would need to provide a farm plan, soil tests and evidence of adoption of the best management principles.
"The scheme would allow CMAs to be favourably positioned when any international greenhouse gas abatement scheme is proposed," Mr Lawrie said. "This program could provide the opportunity to charge brokers a fee for being an experienced and independent accreditation organisation."
Mr Lawrie was one of many experts on-hand during the three-day forum, attended by about 45 participants from NSW's Far West Division, and hosted by the Western CMA, with support from the Lower-Murray Darling CMA.
The system proposed does offer a way forward for pastoralists to be able to gain some benefit from any proposed carbon credit scheme, by developing and implementing carbon accumulation schems on land they manage. It would have application across much of the pastoral zone of Australia. Fire management was not mentioned, but that factor is critical.......reducing fire will definitely improve, or reduce emitted carbon. The current West Arnhem project has demonstrated a very successful management plan, which works --http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/nt_report/ntreport07/chapter12.html
BUT.....currently agriculture [as broadly defined] is excluded from the concepts around carbon management, as it seems to be unfolding in Australia. It would be critical to have agriculture involved as soil accumulation of carbon has enormous potential for carbon capture while improving soil. There is a range of scientific and technical literature supporting soil carbon capture, and this concept as outlined does seem to offer a sensible range of tasks and issues that could work.
[partially sourced from media reports on the conference]
Friday, March 28, 2008
Going Green is Simple..........Really
Going "green" is not that difficult. The old adage of think globally, act locally really can summarise the issue.
Going green is about making conscious decisions to reduce your impacts - and quite often SAVING $$, not spending more money.
Going green is about community and personal action and doing your bit, even if that is thought to be a small step.
The following article offers some simple thoughts about how we can all do our bit. It is not that hard. And it is not necessarily about big noting oneself, with a lavish spending plan to be carbon or energy neutral. If we all take some simple steps, improvements...........and big improvements are possible. A simple step is to replace an incandescent bulb, next time one blows, with a low wattage energy efficient globe......not even now, but when one does not work!
That said, sovereign commitments - such as the US signing the Kyoto Treaty - can set the tone, and show example to the citizens. And it ain't happening there it seems, anytime soon.
A Simplistic Look at What "Going Green" Really Means
We hear it all the time - Green this, Green that. So let’s face it, green is the newest black and everybody loves to feel like they’re taking part. It’s the latest trend. It’s marketable. And it’s not slowing down. Trust me, if Corporate America can make money on “green efforts,” you can count on them digging in. So what does “going green” really mean?
Too often people feel like they have to make drastic changes in their lives to go green. When usually, the opposite is true. You don’t have to become a liberal-hippy-vegan-bikerider to make an impact. The whole green movement is based on the idea of making conscious decisions.
Also, going green shouldn’t cost a grip of money. You don’t have to go buy a new car (or sell the one your driving now). You don’t have to restock your frig with organic foods and you certainly don’t have to ride your bike wherever you go (although, the KGG crew does recommend pulling out the bike and taking a spin from time to time”riding bikes is a pretty tight thing to do). The idea is to think before you act.
When you consider what’s being said, it really is a simple idea. Do you need to turn that light on? Do you really need to print? Do you have to take another shower? By asking questions BEFORE you make decisions, you’re already going green. It’s not about going out and replacing your floors with bamboo wood. It shouldn’t be about that - spending more money”, it should be about spending less! Doesn’t it seem ironic that the more our society gets involved with going green, the more man-made products we make, market and try to sell by the masses? Something about that just seems wrong.
There’s no secret formula and no hidden rituals. Going green is simply thinking about your life. It’s taking the time to consider what you’re doing, whom you’re buying from and how you’re impacting the future of this planet. It’s not meant to sound daunting- it’s meant to be thought provoking. The idea of going green starts with small steps.
It means changing a few everyday habits (yes, the ones you’ve had for the past 20 years) to something a little different. It’s a 3-minute shower instead of 7. It’s a walk to the store instead of a drive. The beauty of it all is it starts right now. Take one thing (come on, we know you can think of just one) and change that habit. Think it over and start today. No excuses, no complex theories. Just start today and consider yourself a part of the green movement” because when it’s all said and done, going green is a very simplistic idea.
Stay conscious and stay green - Think!
[article reprinted from Keep Going Green, March 21 2008. by Bryan McCarty]
Going green is about making conscious decisions to reduce your impacts - and quite often SAVING $$, not spending more money.
Going green is about community and personal action and doing your bit, even if that is thought to be a small step.
The following article offers some simple thoughts about how we can all do our bit. It is not that hard. And it is not necessarily about big noting oneself, with a lavish spending plan to be carbon or energy neutral. If we all take some simple steps, improvements...........and big improvements are possible. A simple step is to replace an incandescent bulb, next time one blows, with a low wattage energy efficient globe......not even now, but when one does not work!
That said, sovereign commitments - such as the US signing the Kyoto Treaty - can set the tone, and show example to the citizens. And it ain't happening there it seems, anytime soon.
A Simplistic Look at What "Going Green" Really Means
We hear it all the time - Green this, Green that. So let’s face it, green is the newest black and everybody loves to feel like they’re taking part. It’s the latest trend. It’s marketable. And it’s not slowing down. Trust me, if Corporate America can make money on “green efforts,” you can count on them digging in. So what does “going green” really mean?
Too often people feel like they have to make drastic changes in their lives to go green. When usually, the opposite is true. You don’t have to become a liberal-hippy-vegan-bikerider to make an impact. The whole green movement is based on the idea of making conscious decisions.
Also, going green shouldn’t cost a grip of money. You don’t have to go buy a new car (or sell the one your driving now). You don’t have to restock your frig with organic foods and you certainly don’t have to ride your bike wherever you go (although, the KGG crew does recommend pulling out the bike and taking a spin from time to time”riding bikes is a pretty tight thing to do). The idea is to think before you act.
When you consider what’s being said, it really is a simple idea. Do you need to turn that light on? Do you really need to print? Do you have to take another shower? By asking questions BEFORE you make decisions, you’re already going green. It’s not about going out and replacing your floors with bamboo wood. It shouldn’t be about that - spending more money”, it should be about spending less! Doesn’t it seem ironic that the more our society gets involved with going green, the more man-made products we make, market and try to sell by the masses? Something about that just seems wrong.
There’s no secret formula and no hidden rituals. Going green is simply thinking about your life. It’s taking the time to consider what you’re doing, whom you’re buying from and how you’re impacting the future of this planet. It’s not meant to sound daunting- it’s meant to be thought provoking. The idea of going green starts with small steps.
It means changing a few everyday habits (yes, the ones you’ve had for the past 20 years) to something a little different. It’s a 3-minute shower instead of 7. It’s a walk to the store instead of a drive. The beauty of it all is it starts right now. Take one thing (come on, we know you can think of just one) and change that habit. Think it over and start today. No excuses, no complex theories. Just start today and consider yourself a part of the green movement” because when it’s all said and done, going green is a very simplistic idea.
Stay conscious and stay green - Think!
[article reprinted from Keep Going Green, March 21 2008. by Bryan McCarty]
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Organic? Is it Really Organic - Maybe Not!!
Be careful is the real mantra..........there is organic, natural and then those that claim to be..... but are not.
The organic thrust in the US in particular seems to be getting imbroiled with the garbage speak of just another advertising campaign, designed to part the consumer and their $$, without really delivering on the hype. Organic usually may cost more and at times offer the seller better margins.
That said, those that are CERTIFIED as organic certainly seem to be living up to the claims, while others may not. Going the full certified route as organic requires a great deal of work and ongoing commitment by producers of food as well as manufacturers. And that applies equally in Australia. It is not a cheap option to move that way, but most believe it will pay off over time, or some have a philosophy about being organic.
Recent US data does show that not all is as clean as is claimed though, as you can read here:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/bodycare/DioxaneRelease08.cfm with this press release from the US Organic Consumers Association showing many brands of cleaners to be not all they may seem.
It is likely that this issue is reflected in other regions. So take care if you really want organic ANYTHING. And watch the Australian press too...........I am sure there will be more.
The organic thrust in the US in particular seems to be getting imbroiled with the garbage speak of just another advertising campaign, designed to part the consumer and their $$, without really delivering on the hype. Organic usually may cost more and at times offer the seller better margins.
That said, those that are CERTIFIED as organic certainly seem to be living up to the claims, while others may not. Going the full certified route as organic requires a great deal of work and ongoing commitment by producers of food as well as manufacturers. And that applies equally in Australia. It is not a cheap option to move that way, but most believe it will pay off over time, or some have a philosophy about being organic.
Recent US data does show that not all is as clean as is claimed though, as you can read here:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/bodycare/DioxaneRelease08.cfm with this press release from the US Organic Consumers Association showing many brands of cleaners to be not all they may seem.
It is likely that this issue is reflected in other regions. So take care if you really want organic ANYTHING. And watch the Australian press too...........I am sure there will be more.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Regional Climate Influenced by Radiation Dimming - from Aerosol Plumes
This article is worth reading if you are interested in regional scale climate issues, especially in the Australian and SE Asian context.
http://www.graceresearch.com/KeithPotts.pdf
and the abstract appears below:
Apparitions of seasonal and random anthropogenic, continental scale, aerosol plumes
now occur across the globe. Seasonal plumes usually exist for several months and vary
significantly in extent and optical depth inter annually. I show that: the aerosol optical
depth of the South East Asian Plume correlates with four characteristics of drought in
south eastern Australia; the aerosol index of the Middle East Plume correlates negatively
with rainfall in Darfur; and the volume of tephra ejected by volcanoes in south east Asia
correlates: negatively with rainfall in Australia and water inflows into the Murray River;
and positively with ENSO events. I conclude that south eastern Asian aerosol plumes are
the cause of drought in south eastern Australia and El Niño/ENSO events and propose a
new component of surface aerosol radiative forcing, Regional Dimming, which forces the
Inter Tropical Convergence Zone, Hadley and Walker Cells into abnormal seasonal
positions causing climate change.
The article is well researched and appears to offer some plausible options on the thinking about climate, drought and related issues in both north and southern Australia. Lets not toss out ENSO and similar issues, but this does seem to explain a few issues at the regional scale. [photo of Mt Pinatubo erupting - copyright NASA]
It also offers some critical thought about the developing situation in eastern Asia as it industrialises. Beijing and eastern China already is "dim" in a radiation sense - just visit the place to realise how much the sun is obscured by smog. How much worse can it get, especially as the forecasts for the growth and number of mega cities include many in that region, over the next 20 years?
http://www.graceresearch.com/KeithPotts.pdf
and the abstract appears below:
Apparitions of seasonal and random anthropogenic, continental scale, aerosol plumes
now occur across the globe. Seasonal plumes usually exist for several months and vary
significantly in extent and optical depth inter annually. I show that: the aerosol optical
depth of the South East Asian Plume correlates with four characteristics of drought in
south eastern Australia; the aerosol index of the Middle East Plume correlates negatively
with rainfall in Darfur; and the volume of tephra ejected by volcanoes in south east Asia
correlates: negatively with rainfall in Australia and water inflows into the Murray River;
and positively with ENSO events. I conclude that south eastern Asian aerosol plumes are
the cause of drought in south eastern Australia and El Niño/ENSO events and propose a
new component of surface aerosol radiative forcing, Regional Dimming, which forces the
Inter Tropical Convergence Zone, Hadley and Walker Cells into abnormal seasonal
positions causing climate change.
The article is well researched and appears to offer some plausible options on the thinking about climate, drought and related issues in both north and southern Australia. Lets not toss out ENSO and similar issues, but this does seem to explain a few issues at the regional scale. [photo of Mt Pinatubo erupting - copyright NASA]
It also offers some critical thought about the developing situation in eastern Asia as it industrialises. Beijing and eastern China already is "dim" in a radiation sense - just visit the place to realise how much the sun is obscured by smog. How much worse can it get, especially as the forecasts for the growth and number of mega cities include many in that region, over the next 20 years?
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Fate of New Biodiesel Manufacturing Plants
Oilseed prices have rocketed up in price and availability has plateaued. Soybean oil prices have increased about 300% over the past 2-4 years, as have palm oil prices.
These two feedstocks have been seen as the cornerstone of the supplies for the biodiesel plant constructed in Darwin at the Darwin Business Park. It cost around A$75 million, but will it be a silver elephant?
These radical increases in feedstock prices for what has been imported materials, along with rapidly escalating logistics and transport charges might mean the local refinery will fail, at least in the current structure.
At present the system is apparently refining glycerin to meet high quality demands in the food and pharmecutical industries, and not biodiesel, but really............it needs to be producing biodiesel. While local NT and even Australian demand is fair, under current government arrangements over tariffs, excise and other issues, the big hiccup is feedstock.
The plant owners are keeping very quiet, very quiet and it is rumoured they are struggling financially.
How many other production plants are in the same predicament?
There is no local production of agricultural produced vegetable oil materials, although some research has been running on a oil soybean industry. While this development is occurring independent of the biodiesel plant, it is likely to be some years away from, if ever, efficient production of economic crops of oil based soybeans, on a large enough scale to contribute significantly to a feedstock source.
Some other species are also being investigated.
The NT does not have a good track record on cropping on the scale required, and anyway the local NT environmental lobby would not want land cleared and used for this purpose.....almost under any set of circumstances. And they are well organised.
And even if enough was produced, would it be cheap enough to use as a feedstock anyway given world prices for the soybean oil?
An interesting conundrum.
Are there other biodiesel plants where feedstock prices are cruelling biodiesel production, even at current mineral oil prices of around US$100 + ?
These two feedstocks have been seen as the cornerstone of the supplies for the biodiesel plant constructed in Darwin at the Darwin Business Park. It cost around A$75 million, but will it be a silver elephant?
These radical increases in feedstock prices for what has been imported materials, along with rapidly escalating logistics and transport charges might mean the local refinery will fail, at least in the current structure.
At present the system is apparently refining glycerin to meet high quality demands in the food and pharmecutical industries, and not biodiesel, but really............it needs to be producing biodiesel. While local NT and even Australian demand is fair, under current government arrangements over tariffs, excise and other issues, the big hiccup is feedstock.
The plant owners are keeping very quiet, very quiet and it is rumoured they are struggling financially.
How many other production plants are in the same predicament?
There is no local production of agricultural produced vegetable oil materials, although some research has been running on a oil soybean industry. While this development is occurring independent of the biodiesel plant, it is likely to be some years away from, if ever, efficient production of economic crops of oil based soybeans, on a large enough scale to contribute significantly to a feedstock source.
Some other species are also being investigated.
The NT does not have a good track record on cropping on the scale required, and anyway the local NT environmental lobby would not want land cleared and used for this purpose.....almost under any set of circumstances. And they are well organised.
And even if enough was produced, would it be cheap enough to use as a feedstock anyway given world prices for the soybean oil?
An interesting conundrum.
Are there other biodiesel plants where feedstock prices are cruelling biodiesel production, even at current mineral oil prices of around US$100 + ?
Monday, March 03, 2008
Arsenic Bioremediation Cure Might be Near
A recent serendipitious breakthrough by the Australian CRC for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment might just be the start of a seriously useful method for curing arsenic contamination.
They have isolated a microbe that can use arsenite - a common and the most poisonous form of arsenic and transform it to arsenate, a chemical form that can be fixed in soil into immobile forms.
More details are available here: http://www.crccare.com/view/index.aspx?id=14980
Arsenic presents in the enviroment in sites used for animal dipping, leather tanning, old mine workings, timber treatment and similar areas as well as in many shallow drinking water wells in Asia, particularly in Bangladesh. Old mine workings are often especially arsenic contaminated, and this often poisons down stream water sources, in conjunction with acid mine drainage. Arsenic, as an element of the periodic table can not be made to "go away" in the conventional sense but there are many forms of the element that are highly insoluble, resistant to leaching and could be contained within the existing sites in a relatively non toxic low solubility form, including forms that are relatively resistant even to acid leaching. Getting it into that chemical format has always been tricky.
In warmer regions, use of plants such as vetiver grass have been used to grow on contaminated soils, slowly accumulating arsenic and other heavy metals into the plant roots, and tolerating the poor soil environment, and actually growing moderately well on the site, a place where many other plants could not grow. But a multi faceted approach combining microbial remediation with use of these plants offers long term solutions in many places, as even getting a soil cover was difficult and this cover will ease issues of erosion of further arsenic from the soil into the environment too, with the organic cover from the plants assisting.
This new microbial solution seems to offer a real option, assuming that formulations of the microbes can be produced on a scale required for industrial use. Bioremediation on actual sites is a bit more difficult than a simple lab trial, and adequate microbes will be required to "saturate" the site environment, grow and proliferate and do the business of conversion.
BUT.........it is VERY promising.
They have isolated a microbe that can use arsenite - a common and the most poisonous form of arsenic and transform it to arsenate, a chemical form that can be fixed in soil into immobile forms.
More details are available here: http://www.crccare.com/view/index.aspx?id=14980
Arsenic presents in the enviroment in sites used for animal dipping, leather tanning, old mine workings, timber treatment and similar areas as well as in many shallow drinking water wells in Asia, particularly in Bangladesh. Old mine workings are often especially arsenic contaminated, and this often poisons down stream water sources, in conjunction with acid mine drainage. Arsenic, as an element of the periodic table can not be made to "go away" in the conventional sense but there are many forms of the element that are highly insoluble, resistant to leaching and could be contained within the existing sites in a relatively non toxic low solubility form, including forms that are relatively resistant even to acid leaching. Getting it into that chemical format has always been tricky.
In warmer regions, use of plants such as vetiver grass have been used to grow on contaminated soils, slowly accumulating arsenic and other heavy metals into the plant roots, and tolerating the poor soil environment, and actually growing moderately well on the site, a place where many other plants could not grow. But a multi faceted approach combining microbial remediation with use of these plants offers long term solutions in many places, as even getting a soil cover was difficult and this cover will ease issues of erosion of further arsenic from the soil into the environment too, with the organic cover from the plants assisting.
This new microbial solution seems to offer a real option, assuming that formulations of the microbes can be produced on a scale required for industrial use. Bioremediation on actual sites is a bit more difficult than a simple lab trial, and adequate microbes will be required to "saturate" the site environment, grow and proliferate and do the business of conversion.
BUT.........it is VERY promising.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Jatropha - a Better Biofuel Option?
While many write of doom and gloom about biofuel crops, and that they are actually negative in terms of carbon balance [ see post below], interest is growing [pardon the pun] in jatropha, as a oil source and biofuel.
Jatropha is NOT a food crop, so it is somewhat different to many other options. In fact more of a weed and potential medicinal species in many tropical countries.
The Indian government has been pushing to increase the area of this species, with a focus on small, village level developments, and local processing using modest presssing or extraction equipment. That is probably a great thing, eliminating the need for cash outlays to purchase expensive imported diesel. The jatropha oil, often with minimum further processing can be used in small diesel engines, for lighting, electricity, small workshop and industrial power and machinery operation.
Others are pushing the use on better land, mainly in Africa, and to a lesser extent in India. Sometimes this land is currently idle or damaged in some way eg landmines and in these cases a larger agro-industrial approach is being developed. In Africa, in Mali, a project has been in various phases since around 1993, with generally good results. And the Indian scientists have been developing superior genetic materials with superior establishment and performance.
In Australia jatropha has a stigma as a weed, and development will be, and is, quite muted. Are we missing out on this apparent growth and development? Maybe not, as the Australian owned biofuels plant in Singapore has signed up to buy jatropha oil as a biofuel feedstock.
Will we see weed fueled buses in Darwin?
There are some excellent online resources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatropha_oil - a bit dated but ok for a start point
http://www.jatrophabiodiesel.org/aboutJatrophaPlant.php
http://cals.arizona.edu/OALS/ALN/aln40/jatropha.html
http://www.jatrophaworld.org/
Like all energy crop projects over the past 25 - 30 years there is a lot of hype with some substance. But with oil now hovering around $100 US per barrel, has the time come to seriously push harder for use of biofuel options, especially those capable of being grown in marginal areas where food crops are not possible?
BUT....jatropha seems to have a significant drawback that is rarely discussed. Seed harvest currently seems to rely on cheap highly intensive labour. Hardly a good option for the industrialised countries. However, one item in abundance in many developing regions IS the supply of labour. Maybe, just maybe, it will be hand harvested while superior semi- mechanised options are developed. They will be needed if it is to expand.
Jatropha is NOT a food crop, so it is somewhat different to many other options. In fact more of a weed and potential medicinal species in many tropical countries.
The Indian government has been pushing to increase the area of this species, with a focus on small, village level developments, and local processing using modest presssing or extraction equipment. That is probably a great thing, eliminating the need for cash outlays to purchase expensive imported diesel. The jatropha oil, often with minimum further processing can be used in small diesel engines, for lighting, electricity, small workshop and industrial power and machinery operation.
Others are pushing the use on better land, mainly in Africa, and to a lesser extent in India. Sometimes this land is currently idle or damaged in some way eg landmines and in these cases a larger agro-industrial approach is being developed. In Africa, in Mali, a project has been in various phases since around 1993, with generally good results. And the Indian scientists have been developing superior genetic materials with superior establishment and performance.
In Australia jatropha has a stigma as a weed, and development will be, and is, quite muted. Are we missing out on this apparent growth and development? Maybe not, as the Australian owned biofuels plant in Singapore has signed up to buy jatropha oil as a biofuel feedstock.
Will we see weed fueled buses in Darwin?
There are some excellent online resources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatropha_oil - a bit dated but ok for a start point
http://www.jatrophabiodiesel.org/aboutJatrophaPlant.php
http://cals.arizona.edu/OALS/ALN/aln40/jatropha.html
http://www.jatrophaworld.org/
Like all energy crop projects over the past 25 - 30 years there is a lot of hype with some substance. But with oil now hovering around $100 US per barrel, has the time come to seriously push harder for use of biofuel options, especially those capable of being grown in marginal areas where food crops are not possible?
BUT....jatropha seems to have a significant drawback that is rarely discussed. Seed harvest currently seems to rely on cheap highly intensive labour. Hardly a good option for the industrialised countries. However, one item in abundance in many developing regions IS the supply of labour. Maybe, just maybe, it will be hand harvested while superior semi- mechanised options are developed. They will be needed if it is to expand.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Biofuels Worsen the Carbon Balance and Do Nothing for Climate Change
Growing crops to make biofuels results in vast amounts of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere and does nothing to stop climate change or global warming, according to the first thorough scientific audit of a biofuel's carbon budget.
Scientists have produced damning evidence to suggest that biofuels could be one of the biggest environmental con-tricks because they actually make global warming worse by adding to the man-made emissions of carbon dioxide that they are supposed to curb.
Two separate studies published in the journal Science show that a range of biofuel crops now being grown to produce "green" alternatives to oil-based fossil fuels release far more carbon dioxide into the air than can be absorbed by the growing plants. The scientists found that, in the case of some crops, it would take several centuries of growing them to pay off the "carbon debt" caused by their initial cultivation. Those environmental costs do not take into account any extra destruction to the environment, for instance the loss of biodiversity caused by clearing tracts of pristine rainforest.
"All the biofuels we use now cause habitat destruction, either directly or indirectly. Global agriculture is already producing food for six billion people. Producing food-based biofuel, too, will require that still more land be converted to agriculture," said Joe Fargioine of the US Nature Conservancy who was the lead scientist in one of the studies.
The scientists carried out the sort of analysis that has been missing in the rush to grow biofuels, encouraged by policies in the United States and Europe where proponents have been keen to extol biofuels' virtues as a green alternative to the fossil fuels used for transport.
Both studies looked at how much carbon dioxide is released when a piece of land is converted into a biofuel crop. They found that when peat lands in Indonesia are converted into palm-oil plantations, for instance, it would take 423 years to pay off the carbon debt.
The next worse case was when forested land in the Amazon is cut down to convert into soybean fields. The scientists found that it would take 319 years of making biodiesel from the soybeans to pay of the carbon debt caused by chopping down the trees in the first place.
Such conversions of land to grow corn (maize) and sugarcane for biodiesel, or palm oil and soybean for bioethanol, release between 17 and 420 times more carbon than the annual savings from replacing fossil fuels, the scientists calculated.
"This research examines the conversion of land for biofuels and asks the question 'is it worth it?' Does the carbon you lose by converting forests, grasslands and peat lands outweigh the carbon you 'save' by using biofuels instead of fossil fuels?" Dr Fargione said. "And surprisingly the answer is 'no'. These natural areas store a lot of carbon, so converting them to croplands results in tons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere," he said.
The demand for biofuels is destroying the environment in other ways. American farmers for instance used to rotate between soybean and corn crops but the demand for biofuel has meant that they are growing corn only. As a result, Brazilian farmers are cutting down forests to grow soybean to meet the shortfall in production.
"In finding solutions to climate change, we must ensure that the cure is not worse than the disease," said Jimmie Powell, a member of the scientific team at the Nature Conservancy. "We cannot afford to ignore the consequences of converting land for biofuels. Doing so means we might unintentionally promote fuel alternatives that are worse than the fossil fuels they are designed to replace. These findings should be incorporated into carbon emission policy going forward," Dr Powell said.
The European Union is already having second thoughts about its policy aimed at stimulating the production of biofuel. Stavros Dimas, the EU environment commissioner, admitted last month that the EU did not foresee the scale of the environmental problems raised by Europe's target of deriving 10 per cent of its transport fuel from plant material.
Professor John Pickett, chair of the recent study on biofuels commissioned by the Royal Society, said that although biofuels may play an important role in cutting greenhouse gases from transport, it is important to remember that one biofuel is not the same as another."The greenhouse gas savings that a biofuel can provide are dependent on how crops are grown and converted and how the fuel is used," Professor Pickett said. "Given that biofuels are already entering global markets, it will be vital to apply carbon certification and sustainability criteria to the assessment of biofuels to promote those that are good for people and the environment. This must happen at an international level so that we do not just transfer any potentially negative effects of these fuels from one place to another."
Professor Stephen Polasky of the University of Minnesota, an author of one of the studies published in Science, said that the incentives currently employed to encourage farmers to grow crops for biofuels do not take into account the carbon budget of the crop. "We don't have the proper incentives in place because landowners are rewarded for producing palm oil and other products but not rewarded for carbon management. This creates incentives for excessive land clearing and can result in large increases in carbon emissions," Professor Polasky said.
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/destroying-native-ecosystems-biofuel-crops-worsens-global-warming-15441.html is the link to one Polasky article, and he has an excellent presentation on biofuel economics on line as well.
These studies apparently point to a very different dynamic in the use of biofuels. We do not seem to be able to have it both ways it seems with current systems. But the next generation of biofuel production systems that mostly use lignocellulosic products [commonly waste biomass] which are converted microbiologically are generally a very different proposition with the economics apparently positive. But whether the carbon balance is positive or negative is currently still being debated. At least the initial products used are not being diverted from primarily food production.
Scientists have produced damning evidence to suggest that biofuels could be one of the biggest environmental con-tricks because they actually make global warming worse by adding to the man-made emissions of carbon dioxide that they are supposed to curb.
Two separate studies published in the journal Science show that a range of biofuel crops now being grown to produce "green" alternatives to oil-based fossil fuels release far more carbon dioxide into the air than can be absorbed by the growing plants. The scientists found that, in the case of some crops, it would take several centuries of growing them to pay off the "carbon debt" caused by their initial cultivation. Those environmental costs do not take into account any extra destruction to the environment, for instance the loss of biodiversity caused by clearing tracts of pristine rainforest.
"All the biofuels we use now cause habitat destruction, either directly or indirectly. Global agriculture is already producing food for six billion people. Producing food-based biofuel, too, will require that still more land be converted to agriculture," said Joe Fargioine of the US Nature Conservancy who was the lead scientist in one of the studies.
The scientists carried out the sort of analysis that has been missing in the rush to grow biofuels, encouraged by policies in the United States and Europe where proponents have been keen to extol biofuels' virtues as a green alternative to the fossil fuels used for transport.
Both studies looked at how much carbon dioxide is released when a piece of land is converted into a biofuel crop. They found that when peat lands in Indonesia are converted into palm-oil plantations, for instance, it would take 423 years to pay off the carbon debt.
The next worse case was when forested land in the Amazon is cut down to convert into soybean fields. The scientists found that it would take 319 years of making biodiesel from the soybeans to pay of the carbon debt caused by chopping down the trees in the first place.
Such conversions of land to grow corn (maize) and sugarcane for biodiesel, or palm oil and soybean for bioethanol, release between 17 and 420 times more carbon than the annual savings from replacing fossil fuels, the scientists calculated.
"This research examines the conversion of land for biofuels and asks the question 'is it worth it?' Does the carbon you lose by converting forests, grasslands and peat lands outweigh the carbon you 'save' by using biofuels instead of fossil fuels?" Dr Fargione said. "And surprisingly the answer is 'no'. These natural areas store a lot of carbon, so converting them to croplands results in tons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere," he said.
The demand for biofuels is destroying the environment in other ways. American farmers for instance used to rotate between soybean and corn crops but the demand for biofuel has meant that they are growing corn only. As a result, Brazilian farmers are cutting down forests to grow soybean to meet the shortfall in production.
"In finding solutions to climate change, we must ensure that the cure is not worse than the disease," said Jimmie Powell, a member of the scientific team at the Nature Conservancy. "We cannot afford to ignore the consequences of converting land for biofuels. Doing so means we might unintentionally promote fuel alternatives that are worse than the fossil fuels they are designed to replace. These findings should be incorporated into carbon emission policy going forward," Dr Powell said.
The European Union is already having second thoughts about its policy aimed at stimulating the production of biofuel. Stavros Dimas, the EU environment commissioner, admitted last month that the EU did not foresee the scale of the environmental problems raised by Europe's target of deriving 10 per cent of its transport fuel from plant material.
Professor John Pickett, chair of the recent study on biofuels commissioned by the Royal Society, said that although biofuels may play an important role in cutting greenhouse gases from transport, it is important to remember that one biofuel is not the same as another."The greenhouse gas savings that a biofuel can provide are dependent on how crops are grown and converted and how the fuel is used," Professor Pickett said. "Given that biofuels are already entering global markets, it will be vital to apply carbon certification and sustainability criteria to the assessment of biofuels to promote those that are good for people and the environment. This must happen at an international level so that we do not just transfer any potentially negative effects of these fuels from one place to another."
Professor Stephen Polasky of the University of Minnesota, an author of one of the studies published in Science, said that the incentives currently employed to encourage farmers to grow crops for biofuels do not take into account the carbon budget of the crop. "We don't have the proper incentives in place because landowners are rewarded for producing palm oil and other products but not rewarded for carbon management. This creates incentives for excessive land clearing and can result in large increases in carbon emissions," Professor Polasky said.
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/destroying-native-ecosystems-biofuel-crops-worsens-global-warming-15441.html is the link to one Polasky article, and he has an excellent presentation on biofuel economics on line as well.
These studies apparently point to a very different dynamic in the use of biofuels. We do not seem to be able to have it both ways it seems with current systems. But the next generation of biofuel production systems that mostly use lignocellulosic products [commonly waste biomass] which are converted microbiologically are generally a very different proposition with the economics apparently positive. But whether the carbon balance is positive or negative is currently still being debated. At least the initial products used are not being diverted from primarily food production.
In Australia the rush to use biofuels has not been as great as elsewhere, mainly due to supply constraints, and the paucity of production plants.
[partially sourced from original sources, http://www.independent.co.uk/ and others]
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Crisis in the Drylands
[ partially sourced from Scientific American Magazine - January 17, 2008, original text written by Jeffrey Sachs, Columbia University, and added to by the author of the blog]
Sound economic solutions, not military ones, offer the most reliable route to peace for undeveloped nations.
The vast region of deserts, grasslands and sparse woodlands that stretches across the Sahel, the Horn of Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia is by far the most crisis-ridden part of the planet.
With the exception of a few highly affluent states in the Persian Gulf, these dryland countries face severe and intensifying challenges, including frequent and deadly droughts, encroaching deserts, burgeoning populations and extreme poverty. The region scores at the very bottom of the United Nations’s Index of Human Development, which ranks countries according to their incomes, life expectancy and educational attainments.
As a result of these desperate conditions, the dryland countries are host to a disproportionate number of the world’s violent conflicts. Look closely at the violence in Afghanistan, Chad, Ethiopia, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia and Sudan—one finds tribal and often pastoralist communities struggling to survive deepening ecological crises. Water scarcity, in particular, has been a source of territorial conflict when traditional systems of land management fail in the face of rising populations and temperatures and declining rainfall.
Washington looks at many of these clashes and erroneously sees Islamist ideology at the core.
US political leaders fail to realize that other Islamic populations are far more stable economically, politically and socially—and that the root of the crisis in the dryland countries is not Islam but extreme poverty and environmental stress.
The Washington mind-set also prefers military approaches to developmental ones. The U.S. has supported the Ethiopian army in a military incursion into Somalia. It has pushed for military forces to stop the violence in Darfur. It has armed the clans in the deserts of western Iraq and now proposes to arm pastoralist clans in Pakistan along the Afghan border.
The trouble with the military approach is that it is extremely expensive and yet addresses none of the underlying problems. Indeed, the U.S. weapons provided to local clans often end up getting turned on the U.S. itself at a later date. Tellingly, one of the greatest obstacles to posting the proposed peacekeeping troops to Darfur is the lack of a water supply for them. Given the difficulty of finding water for those 26,000 soldiers, it becomes easier to understand the severity of the ongoing and unsolved water crisis facing the five million to seven million residents of Darfur.
Fortunately, much better solutions exist once the focus is put squarely on nurturing sustainable development. Today many proven techniques for “rainwater harvesting” can collect and store rain for later use by people, livestock and crops. In some areas, boreholes that tap underground aquifers can augment water availability; in others, rivers and seasonal surface runoff can be used for irrigation.
Such solutions may cost hundreds of dollars per household, spread out over a few years. This outlay is far too much for the impoverished households to afford but far less than the costs to societies of conflicts and military interventions. The same is true for other low-cost interventions to fight diseases, provide schooling for children and ensure basic nutrition.
To end the poverty trap, pastoralists can increase the productivity of livestock through improved breeds, veterinary care and scientific management of fodder. Often pastoralists can multiply their incomes by selling whole animals, meat products, processed goods (such as leather) and dairy products. The wealthy states of the Middle East are a potentially lucrative nearby market for the livestock industries of Africa and Central Asia.
To build this export market, pastoralist economies will need help with all-weather roads, storage facilities, cell phone coverage [skipping fixed lines usually], power, veterinary care and technical advice, to mention just a few of the key investments. With crucial support and active engagement of the private sector, however, impoverished dryland communities will be able to take advantage of transformative communications technologies and even gain access to capital from abroad. New trends in microfinancing are enhancing this capital transfer even NOW!
Today’s dryland crises in Africa and Central Asia affect the entire world. The U.S. should rethink its overemphasis on military approaches, and Europe should honor its unmet commitments of aid to this region, but other nations—including the wealthy countries of the Middle East and new donors such as India and China—can also help turn the tide.
The only reliable way to peace in the vast and troubled drylands will be through sustainable development.
Australia has a significant contribution to assist this process, based on the knowledge, skills and attitudes developed by our farmers, graziers and scientists in coping with the vicissitudes of the Australian climate, information often directly transferable to others. And no, we will not do ourselves out of trade or options. In fact increased options are lilkely to develop.
Several commentators on this original article in Scientific American were critical - very critical, but a few, probably those with direct experience in running development programs, responded quite positively.
These thoughts are worth contemplating.....deeply.
One has to ask, who thinks of Norman Borlaug as a great scientist? Who you ask? Yes, Norman Borlaug, credited with the first Green Revolution, improving rice, wheat and barley, and bringing adequate food to many developing countries. Yet development is painful and slow still, with the issues identified by Sachs as crucial. Indian farmers, large and small are enthusiastically embracing GM [GE] cotton, with fantastic results [see this blog too]. Combine new yield aspects and safe living environments and we can make things better.
Sound economic solutions, not military ones, offer the most reliable route to peace for undeveloped nations.
The vast region of deserts, grasslands and sparse woodlands that stretches across the Sahel, the Horn of Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia is by far the most crisis-ridden part of the planet.
With the exception of a few highly affluent states in the Persian Gulf, these dryland countries face severe and intensifying challenges, including frequent and deadly droughts, encroaching deserts, burgeoning populations and extreme poverty. The region scores at the very bottom of the United Nations’s Index of Human Development, which ranks countries according to their incomes, life expectancy and educational attainments.
As a result of these desperate conditions, the dryland countries are host to a disproportionate number of the world’s violent conflicts. Look closely at the violence in Afghanistan, Chad, Ethiopia, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia and Sudan—one finds tribal and often pastoralist communities struggling to survive deepening ecological crises. Water scarcity, in particular, has been a source of territorial conflict when traditional systems of land management fail in the face of rising populations and temperatures and declining rainfall.
Washington looks at many of these clashes and erroneously sees Islamist ideology at the core.
US political leaders fail to realize that other Islamic populations are far more stable economically, politically and socially—and that the root of the crisis in the dryland countries is not Islam but extreme poverty and environmental stress.
The Washington mind-set also prefers military approaches to developmental ones. The U.S. has supported the Ethiopian army in a military incursion into Somalia. It has pushed for military forces to stop the violence in Darfur. It has armed the clans in the deserts of western Iraq and now proposes to arm pastoralist clans in Pakistan along the Afghan border.
The trouble with the military approach is that it is extremely expensive and yet addresses none of the underlying problems. Indeed, the U.S. weapons provided to local clans often end up getting turned on the U.S. itself at a later date. Tellingly, one of the greatest obstacles to posting the proposed peacekeeping troops to Darfur is the lack of a water supply for them. Given the difficulty of finding water for those 26,000 soldiers, it becomes easier to understand the severity of the ongoing and unsolved water crisis facing the five million to seven million residents of Darfur.
Fortunately, much better solutions exist once the focus is put squarely on nurturing sustainable development. Today many proven techniques for “rainwater harvesting” can collect and store rain for later use by people, livestock and crops. In some areas, boreholes that tap underground aquifers can augment water availability; in others, rivers and seasonal surface runoff can be used for irrigation.
Such solutions may cost hundreds of dollars per household, spread out over a few years. This outlay is far too much for the impoverished households to afford but far less than the costs to societies of conflicts and military interventions. The same is true for other low-cost interventions to fight diseases, provide schooling for children and ensure basic nutrition.
To end the poverty trap, pastoralists can increase the productivity of livestock through improved breeds, veterinary care and scientific management of fodder. Often pastoralists can multiply their incomes by selling whole animals, meat products, processed goods (such as leather) and dairy products. The wealthy states of the Middle East are a potentially lucrative nearby market for the livestock industries of Africa and Central Asia.
To build this export market, pastoralist economies will need help with all-weather roads, storage facilities, cell phone coverage [skipping fixed lines usually], power, veterinary care and technical advice, to mention just a few of the key investments. With crucial support and active engagement of the private sector, however, impoverished dryland communities will be able to take advantage of transformative communications technologies and even gain access to capital from abroad. New trends in microfinancing are enhancing this capital transfer even NOW!
Today’s dryland crises in Africa and Central Asia affect the entire world. The U.S. should rethink its overemphasis on military approaches, and Europe should honor its unmet commitments of aid to this region, but other nations—including the wealthy countries of the Middle East and new donors such as India and China—can also help turn the tide.
The only reliable way to peace in the vast and troubled drylands will be through sustainable development.
Australia has a significant contribution to assist this process, based on the knowledge, skills and attitudes developed by our farmers, graziers and scientists in coping with the vicissitudes of the Australian climate, information often directly transferable to others. And no, we will not do ourselves out of trade or options. In fact increased options are lilkely to develop.
Several commentators on this original article in Scientific American were critical - very critical, but a few, probably those with direct experience in running development programs, responded quite positively.
These thoughts are worth contemplating.....deeply.
One has to ask, who thinks of Norman Borlaug as a great scientist? Who you ask? Yes, Norman Borlaug, credited with the first Green Revolution, improving rice, wheat and barley, and bringing adequate food to many developing countries. Yet development is painful and slow still, with the issues identified by Sachs as crucial. Indian farmers, large and small are enthusiastically embracing GM [GE] cotton, with fantastic results [see this blog too]. Combine new yield aspects and safe living environments and we can make things better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)