Soil science is being overlooked in the rush to save Australia’s dwindling water reserves, says a leading group of researchers.
Some of the most promising ways to boost water use efficiency lie at our feet, claims Professor Emeritus Robert E White, former chair of the Australian Society of Soil Science Inc (ASSSI). “Soil science offers technologies for more efficient irrigation. Australian researchers are uniquely placed to optimise understandings into the soil-water link,” he said.“For example, irrigation efficiency is greatly improved if it is designed to take account of a soil’s capacity to store available water for plants, and its ability to drain excess water.“Efficiency is also improved if water application is matched to crop demand, which changes with the weather and a crop’s growth stage.”
Agriculture is Australia’s biggest consumer of water, accounting for about 65% of the total water use. Most of this water is used for irrigation. Prof White explained: “More efficient irrigation enables profitable agriculture to be maintained while making more water available for the environment, and soil science offers useful water-saving boosters.”Using techniques and tools such as Global Positioning Systems, in-ground soil sensors and computer-based Geographic Information Systems, irrigators can make precise maps of changes in soil properties as they occur in a single paddock, orchard block, or over a whole farm.“Soil surveys and high-resolution soil sensing underpin precision agriculture in Australia’s irrigation areas, which account for more than 40% of agricultural production.”
Sensors are also being developed to detect when a water front has reached the end of a flood irrigation bay. “A wireless signal sent to a computer-controlled operating system triggers the opening or closing a gate that controls water flow into the bay,” said Prof White. In this way, water application is timed to more closely match crop demand than is possible manually.“To ensure that essential supplies for irrigation are maintained and the rivers regain their health, water must be managed more efficiently”, he said. “Soil science is a fundamental tool to achieve this.”
The Australian Society of Soil Science Inc works toward the advancement of soil science in the professional, academic and technical fields.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
GM Crops Deserve a More Reasoned Debate
Debates around the potential benefits of GM crops for developing countries, as well as developed countires, must be reasoned and evidence-based, says Albert Weale.
The World Bank recently estimated that a doubling of food prices over the last three years could push 100 million people in low-income countries deeper into poverty. And the future does not look brighter. Food prices, although likely to fall from their current peaks, are predicted to remain high over the next decade.
As the world considers how to respond, the debate about genetically modified (GM) crops has inevitably reared its ugly head. 'Ugly' because the public exchange about this technology has usually seen extreme viewpoints gaining the most airtime. For example, in the United Kingdom, Prince Charles' spirited but ill-informed attack on GM crops this summer led to a flurry of opinionated responses. We could have been back in the polarised debates of the earlier part of this decade.
Since 1999, the UK-based Nuffield Council on Bioethics, has twice examined the ethical issues raised by GM crops. In a 2003 report, the Council specifically focused on developing countries. Two of the conclusions are still particularly relevant today.
Ethical obligation
First, the council concluded that there is an ethical obligation to explore whether GM crops could reduce poverty, and improve food security and profitable agriculture in developing countries. In coming to this conclusion, the council considered differing perceptions of risk. When people have enough food, as in developed countries, consumers and producers will feel free to avoid risk — even if that risk is theoretical rather than real. But developing nations, struggling with widespread poverty, poor health,limited pest control and poor agricultural sustainability, have a different risk-benefit calculation.This is perhaps why the acreage of GM crops has tripled in developing countries over the past five years, compared to just doubling worldwide.
Consumers in prosperous countries are being asked to suppress their doubts about GM crops so that research relevant to the developing world continues. In effect, they are being asked to concede that any potential losses to them are outweighed by potential gains to poor countries, where yields are declining and conventional agriculture is increasingly unsustainable.
This does not belittle other factors needed for poverty reduction and food security — such as stable political environments, appropriate infrastructures, fair international and national agricultural policies, and access to land and water. GM crops are just one part of a large and complex picture. But we will not know how important a part until we explore their potential.
Case by case consideration
The Nuffield Council's second key conclusion was that the wide range of GM crops and situations must be considered individually. Those who oppose or support GM crops per se make an unhelpful generalisation.
Each time, the gene or combination of genes being inserted, and the nature of the target crop, must be assessed. It is also important to compare a GM crop with local alternatives. For example, Golden Rice — enhanced for b-carotene to help fight vitamin A deficiency — is not needed where people have sufficient vitamin A from leafy greens, or ready access to vitamin supplements. But where this is not the case, the crop may significantly improve nutrition.
Similarly, herbicide-resistant soybeans can reduce demands for local labour. This may be devastating if a community relies on wages from manual weeding. But it may help communities struggling with a labour shortage due to high prevalence of diseases such as HIV/AIDS.
The role of research
Scientific and other evidence must be central in the debate, and over the past few years evidence about GM crops has grown. For example, according to a recent news report in Science, soon-to-be-published research will clarify the amount of Golden Rice a child would need to eat each day to prevent vitamin A deficiency. This kind of research is vital if governments and farmers are to make informed decisions about GM crops. Indeed, before new research is funded, national and regional bodies in developing countries should be consulted about their priorities for crops and desirable GM traits.
In the United Kingdom, the government has committed £150 million (US$263 million) over the next five years to research aimed at making agriculture more resilient to the pests and diseases affecting poor farmers, and increasing smallholders' agricultural productivity.
Research efforts are also growing in the developing world, with South African scientists developing and working to commercialise virus-resistant maize, and countries like Kenya and Nigeria hosting projects to develop virus-resistant varieties of key African crops (see 'Agri-biotech in sub-Saharan Africa: Facts and figures').
Striking a balance
Many people worry about possible environmental risks from GM crops, such as gene flow to other plants, and this is something that scientific research must clarify. But alarm-raising without evidence is as helpful as calling 'fire' in a crowded theatre. Similarly, demanding evidence of zero risk before allowing a new technology is fundamentally at odds with any practical strategy for investigating new technologies. Mobile phones or aeroplanes might never have seen the light of day if such stringent demands had been placed on them. In the case of GM technology it is clearly crucial to ask what the risks of adopting GM crops are. But it is also important to ask what the risks of not doing so are. Realistic cost-benefit analyses that consider local social and environmental conditions and development goals are needed on a country-by-country basis.
Heated debate about the food crisis must not detract from an evidence-based assessment of biotechnology's potential for improving agricultural productivity in developing countries. The benefits of GM crops must not be overstated. But neither can poor arguments be allowed to obscure strong arguments for a good cause.
Professor Albert Weale is chair of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and professor of government at the University of Essex, United Kingdom, and he has made a sound case.
In northern Australia, one of the big questions is over the use of GM cotton. Extensive studies in both the NT and WA have shown no gene movement into the wild cotton relatives nor have there been any movement into weedy plants. Yields have been higher, and costs lower.
Yet the NT government in particular is pandering to urban voters over its non acceptance of GM cotton, or GM anything! This region is in essence a developing region where GM crops could be very useful.
The issue of individual consideration of a crop or usage is most relevant for this region.
The World Bank recently estimated that a doubling of food prices over the last three years could push 100 million people in low-income countries deeper into poverty. And the future does not look brighter. Food prices, although likely to fall from their current peaks, are predicted to remain high over the next decade.
As the world considers how to respond, the debate about genetically modified (GM) crops has inevitably reared its ugly head. 'Ugly' because the public exchange about this technology has usually seen extreme viewpoints gaining the most airtime. For example, in the United Kingdom, Prince Charles' spirited but ill-informed attack on GM crops this summer led to a flurry of opinionated responses. We could have been back in the polarised debates of the earlier part of this decade.
Since 1999, the UK-based Nuffield Council on Bioethics, has twice examined the ethical issues raised by GM crops. In a 2003 report, the Council specifically focused on developing countries. Two of the conclusions are still particularly relevant today.
Ethical obligation
First, the council concluded that there is an ethical obligation to explore whether GM crops could reduce poverty, and improve food security and profitable agriculture in developing countries. In coming to this conclusion, the council considered differing perceptions of risk. When people have enough food, as in developed countries, consumers and producers will feel free to avoid risk — even if that risk is theoretical rather than real. But developing nations, struggling with widespread poverty, poor health,limited pest control and poor agricultural sustainability, have a different risk-benefit calculation.This is perhaps why the acreage of GM crops has tripled in developing countries over the past five years, compared to just doubling worldwide.
Consumers in prosperous countries are being asked to suppress their doubts about GM crops so that research relevant to the developing world continues. In effect, they are being asked to concede that any potential losses to them are outweighed by potential gains to poor countries, where yields are declining and conventional agriculture is increasingly unsustainable.
This does not belittle other factors needed for poverty reduction and food security — such as stable political environments, appropriate infrastructures, fair international and national agricultural policies, and access to land and water. GM crops are just one part of a large and complex picture. But we will not know how important a part until we explore their potential.
Case by case consideration
The Nuffield Council's second key conclusion was that the wide range of GM crops and situations must be considered individually. Those who oppose or support GM crops per se make an unhelpful generalisation.
Each time, the gene or combination of genes being inserted, and the nature of the target crop, must be assessed. It is also important to compare a GM crop with local alternatives. For example, Golden Rice — enhanced for b-carotene to help fight vitamin A deficiency — is not needed where people have sufficient vitamin A from leafy greens, or ready access to vitamin supplements. But where this is not the case, the crop may significantly improve nutrition.
Similarly, herbicide-resistant soybeans can reduce demands for local labour. This may be devastating if a community relies on wages from manual weeding. But it may help communities struggling with a labour shortage due to high prevalence of diseases such as HIV/AIDS.
The role of research
Scientific and other evidence must be central in the debate, and over the past few years evidence about GM crops has grown. For example, according to a recent news report in Science, soon-to-be-published research will clarify the amount of Golden Rice a child would need to eat each day to prevent vitamin A deficiency. This kind of research is vital if governments and farmers are to make informed decisions about GM crops. Indeed, before new research is funded, national and regional bodies in developing countries should be consulted about their priorities for crops and desirable GM traits.
In the United Kingdom, the government has committed £150 million (US$263 million) over the next five years to research aimed at making agriculture more resilient to the pests and diseases affecting poor farmers, and increasing smallholders' agricultural productivity.
Research efforts are also growing in the developing world, with South African scientists developing and working to commercialise virus-resistant maize, and countries like Kenya and Nigeria hosting projects to develop virus-resistant varieties of key African crops (see 'Agri-biotech in sub-Saharan Africa: Facts and figures').
Striking a balance
Many people worry about possible environmental risks from GM crops, such as gene flow to other plants, and this is something that scientific research must clarify. But alarm-raising without evidence is as helpful as calling 'fire' in a crowded theatre. Similarly, demanding evidence of zero risk before allowing a new technology is fundamentally at odds with any practical strategy for investigating new technologies. Mobile phones or aeroplanes might never have seen the light of day if such stringent demands had been placed on them. In the case of GM technology it is clearly crucial to ask what the risks of adopting GM crops are. But it is also important to ask what the risks of not doing so are. Realistic cost-benefit analyses that consider local social and environmental conditions and development goals are needed on a country-by-country basis.
Heated debate about the food crisis must not detract from an evidence-based assessment of biotechnology's potential for improving agricultural productivity in developing countries. The benefits of GM crops must not be overstated. But neither can poor arguments be allowed to obscure strong arguments for a good cause.
Professor Albert Weale is chair of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and professor of government at the University of Essex, United Kingdom, and he has made a sound case.
In northern Australia, one of the big questions is over the use of GM cotton. Extensive studies in both the NT and WA have shown no gene movement into the wild cotton relatives nor have there been any movement into weedy plants. Yields have been higher, and costs lower.
Yet the NT government in particular is pandering to urban voters over its non acceptance of GM cotton, or GM anything! This region is in essence a developing region where GM crops could be very useful.
The issue of individual consideration of a crop or usage is most relevant for this region.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Green Roofs and Food Production
After posting a note on using roofs as green roofs mainly for environmnetal benefits, there may be an even greater requirement that combines both environment benefit and the simple need to grow food, within the large world cities that are now developing.
In Asia especially, large urban conglomerations are rampant......cities with many millions of residents, dependent on outside areas for food, and the logistical chains that are needed to bring the food into the area.
I think the classic case is Singapore. Not only are they dependent on non Singaporean sources for food, the residents are now also almost totally divorced from the food production process especially of fresh foods, and people have little knowledge or understanding of horticulture or agriculture.
To add to the comments, Professor Julian Cribb, author of "The Coming Famine", said that Australian cities also needed to be aware of the issues, and the global food crisis was a forewarning of what could be expected as civilisation ran low on water, arable land and nutrients, and experienced soaring energy costs. He said the urban farmers of the future - who would primarily grow vegetables - would play a much larger role in the global diet. "We need new skills in designing this diet and developing the intensive vegetable culture needed to support it," he said. "This intensive urban veggie culture is an entirely new industry and will need a new professional - the urban farmer who can grow food on the roofs and sides of buildings, in intensive biocultures and by other novel methods to feed the megacities of 30 million-plus inhabitants. "If we don't, by 2050 we will have more than three-quarters of the human population - almost 8 billion people - living in places where they are totally without the means or the knowledge of how to feed themselves. "Our giant cities will be gigantic death traps, at the mercy of even quite minor glitches in regional or global food supplies."
In Australia ,The City of Sydney council has commissioned a report to look at ways to encourage the greening of rooftops. A report is expected before Christmas, 2008, which will examine the option of fitting green roofs on older buildings. The council already supports gardens in the city.
"Green roofs would create more open space and enhance bio-diversity," Ms Hoff the Deputy Mayor said. "They will also reduce energy consumption by insulating buildings, reduce stormwater run-off, reduce greenhouse gases and could be practical, too, by growing fruit and vegetables."
Green Roofs Australia executive Jim Osborne, a landscape architect, said councils and governments needed to provide incentives such as greater planning and monetary support for rooftop gardens. The benefits of these gardens had been established overseas but more scientific research examining Australian conditions was needed.
This last issue is critical, especially for tropical Australia. In this region, temperate class plants are usually just wrong to use, and a new group might be needed. Watch this roof space!
In Asia especially, large urban conglomerations are rampant......cities with many millions of residents, dependent on outside areas for food, and the logistical chains that are needed to bring the food into the area.
I think the classic case is Singapore. Not only are they dependent on non Singaporean sources for food, the residents are now also almost totally divorced from the food production process especially of fresh foods, and people have little knowledge or understanding of horticulture or agriculture.
To add to the comments, Professor Julian Cribb, author of "The Coming Famine", said that Australian cities also needed to be aware of the issues, and the global food crisis was a forewarning of what could be expected as civilisation ran low on water, arable land and nutrients, and experienced soaring energy costs. He said the urban farmers of the future - who would primarily grow vegetables - would play a much larger role in the global diet. "We need new skills in designing this diet and developing the intensive vegetable culture needed to support it," he said. "This intensive urban veggie culture is an entirely new industry and will need a new professional - the urban farmer who can grow food on the roofs and sides of buildings, in intensive biocultures and by other novel methods to feed the megacities of 30 million-plus inhabitants. "If we don't, by 2050 we will have more than three-quarters of the human population - almost 8 billion people - living in places where they are totally without the means or the knowledge of how to feed themselves. "Our giant cities will be gigantic death traps, at the mercy of even quite minor glitches in regional or global food supplies."
In Australia ,The City of Sydney council has commissioned a report to look at ways to encourage the greening of rooftops. A report is expected before Christmas, 2008, which will examine the option of fitting green roofs on older buildings. The council already supports gardens in the city.
"Green roofs would create more open space and enhance bio-diversity," Ms Hoff the Deputy Mayor said. "They will also reduce energy consumption by insulating buildings, reduce stormwater run-off, reduce greenhouse gases and could be practical, too, by growing fruit and vegetables."
Green Roofs Australia executive Jim Osborne, a landscape architect, said councils and governments needed to provide incentives such as greater planning and monetary support for rooftop gardens. The benefits of these gardens had been established overseas but more scientific research examining Australian conditions was needed.
This last issue is critical, especially for tropical Australia. In this region, temperate class plants are usually just wrong to use, and a new group might be needed. Watch this roof space!
Friday, October 10, 2008
KISSS for Green Roof Applications
There is a new product by the KISSS group that is well suited to green roof applications. It is called Ebb and Flow mat
The KISSS Ebb and Flow Mat represents a giant leap forward in green roof technology. The mat is an integrated extensive green roof system that provides not only irrigation, but drainage and root protection. The Ebb and Flow Mat has several advantages over other systems, Most importantly, it is an "active" drainage system that intelligently manages the moisture level of your green roof soils. Additionally, this system is the most cost effective system on the market today.
The KISSS Ebb and Flow System is simple to install and saves a tremendous amount of labour. Additionally, it is easy to work with in the event that a roof leak should occur.
Simply roll out the Ebb and Flow mat onto the roof and overlap the mats as shown below. Finally, install your drainage system. Then you have an active drainage system, irrigation system, and root barrier all in the one system.
The KISSS Ebb and Flow System is simple to install and saves a tremendous amount of labour. Additionally, it is easy to work with in the event that a roof leak should occur.
Simply roll out the Ebb and Flow mat onto the roof and overlap the mats as shown below. Finally, install your drainage system. Then you have an active drainage system, irrigation system, and root barrier all in the one system.
The KISSS Ebb and Flow Advantage
The perfect solution for an extensive green roof on structures that are sensitive to water loading. This system provides an active drainage layer while elimination water holding on structure.
Integrated design and roll out installation reduces labour and eliminates the need for many of the standard components within other green roof systems, making it the lightest and most economical system in the market today.
The system can be manufactured to be compatible with conventional green roof systems and add supplementary drainage, as well as effective irrigation.
Light weight, flexibility, and low cost make it a prefect fit for any retro-fit with a restrictive weight allowance or budget.
Green Roof Frequently Asked Questions
Green Roof Frequently Asked Questions
How does it work?
The KISSS Green Roof product irrigates the soil media above it, and assists in the drainage of the soil to keep it at optimum moisture content. It does this without the soil being saturated, as saturated soil forces out air. Air in the soil media is just as important as water to plants, and especially on a roof where the minimum amount of soil media should be used to minimize the loading on the roof, and maximize the run-off in heavy rainfall. The difference between the KISSS system and other green roof irrigation systems is that it can drain the soil media at a gentle rate, and if the media is drier than the irrigation system, the system will provide more water to the media via capillary action. This keeps the top few centimetres reasonably dry which reduces evaporation and weeds germinating, but keeps the lower layers moist which encourages deeper root growth.
What soil/media can be used?
Plants of any kind can be grown on a green roof and the only limiting factors are enough soil media for support, moisture, air and nutrients. We suggest a light weight media product and there are a few in the market eg CocoEarth media mixed with sands of a particular grade to give stability and hold water and nutrients that are required. These can be provided by the installer.
How durable is the material?
The materials in the KISSS product are not biodegradable. They are synthetics that are made from polyester and polyethylene and do not break down in soil and do not compress easily. The materials are made in such a manner so that the water and nutrients runs along the fibres but do not fill the fibres and only the pore spaces in between the fibres hold the water, soil and nutrients.
What about roots damaging the materials?
The KISSS Green Roof product irrigates the soil media above it, and assists in the drainage of the soil to keep it at optimum moisture content. It does this without the soil being saturated, as saturated soil forces out air. Air in the soil media is just as important as water to plants, and especially on a roof where the minimum amount of soil media should be used to minimize the loading on the roof, and maximize the run-off in heavy rainfall. The difference between the KISSS system and other green roof irrigation systems is that it can drain the soil media at a gentle rate, and if the media is drier than the irrigation system, the system will provide more water to the media via capillary action. This keeps the top few centimetres reasonably dry which reduces evaporation and weeds germinating, but keeps the lower layers moist which encourages deeper root growth.
What soil/media can be used?
Plants of any kind can be grown on a green roof and the only limiting factors are enough soil media for support, moisture, air and nutrients. We suggest a light weight media product and there are a few in the market eg CocoEarth media mixed with sands of a particular grade to give stability and hold water and nutrients that are required. These can be provided by the installer.
How durable is the material?
The materials in the KISSS product are not biodegradable. They are synthetics that are made from polyester and polyethylene and do not break down in soil and do not compress easily. The materials are made in such a manner so that the water and nutrients runs along the fibres but do not fill the fibres and only the pore spaces in between the fibres hold the water, soil and nutrients.
What about roots damaging the materials?
Roots can invade the materials and run between the fibres, but will not penetrate the fibres themselves therefore the fibres still maintain their functions. The drip line that is in the system to supply the water to the geotextiles is encased in the geotextile for protection and also to make sure the water flows uninhibited across the fibres. The system is made to encourage the roots to invade the system to provide a source of water and nutrients and not to just rely on the soil above the system.
Can the system provide nutrients to the soil/media?
Can the system provide nutrients to the soil/media?
Liquid injection can be used with the KISSS system to add nutrients at any time. The benefit of the KISSS system is that the roots are in direct contact with the fibres in the system so that if nutrients are supplied through the water then the roots get access to these in solution immediately, thereby reducing the amount of fertiliser required. Controlled release fertilisers can be used on top of the plant material or soil media and the rainfall and moisture in the atmosphere will make these available over time, but 30% less fertiliser will be required than the rate for potted plants.
What can I grow on the green roof?
What can I grow on the green roof?
You can grow just about anything from lawn to shrubs to small trees to cactus to ferns to veggies for the family and it all depends on what you want and the aspect and climate of your roof. The simplest solution is to just turf your roof and have a veggie patch or flower garden. Small areas can be grown with a simple UV stabilised corflute structure that can be laid out on the mat and filled with media and planted out with whatever you desire.
What if I don’t want a green roof but want to grow my veggies or herbs?
What if I don’t want a green roof but want to grow my veggies or herbs?
KISSS has an answer with the combination of their ebb and flow mat and the veggie box on the mat. This can be planted out with flowers, herbs or veggies. The unit is 4.5m long by 1.2m wide and 200mm high. It can produce a wide range of veggies and herbs for all the family and can sit in the backyard on the ground and be connected to the tap and only requires two irrigation cycles of one hour each per week in summer and once a week in winter. It uses drip technology inside the ebb and flow mat to spread the water to the soil. The Cocoearth media is optional and can also be sent in the mail and you will require 12 blocks for a 4.5m long unit costing $80 plus postage and handling. Nutrients can be added by liquid form or organic fertiliser mixed in by shovel or chemical fertiliser as slow release. The corflute box is UV stabilised and light weight, and the system will last for 7 years under normal sunlight if the materials are not damaged by mechanical means or animals.
For more details see - http://www.kisss.com.au/kisss_ebb_flow_mat/green_roof_applications
For more details see - http://www.kisss.com.au/kisss_ebb_flow_mat/green_roof_applications
Monday, October 06, 2008
Free Range Eggs are Probably Not
It seems that only about one in three of those labelled as free range eggs actually are free range. At least in Australia.
That has a bit to do with the semantics of how free range is actually defined, but evidence shows about one million free range chooks EXCEPT that the markets indicate over 2.5 million seem to be around, based on the number of free range eggs that are labelled that way. And sold at much higher prices, too.
That has a bit to do with the semantics of how free range is actually defined, but evidence shows about one million free range chooks EXCEPT that the markets indicate over 2.5 million seem to be around, based on the number of free range eggs that are labelled that way. And sold at much higher prices, too.
Each day, hundreds of thousands of barn-laid eggs are passed off as free range in an egg-substitution racket that costs Australian consumers billions of dollars each year, Ivy Inwood, the president of the Free Range Egg & Poultry Association of Australia, told The Sunday Age.
Two years ago, egg substitution was estimated to have cost consumers $13 million annually but the problem has become worse as the sale of free-range-branded eggs continues to soar, she said.
The true cost of the scam might never be known because proper records are not kept, and governments have left themselves effectively powerless to police the egg-substitution issue. "The ACCC has its hands tied because there are no agreed standards, they can't do anything," Mrs Inwood said. "You can call anything free range and get away with it."
Mrs Inwood has called on all Australian governments to urgently develop a nationwide, legally binding definition of free-range eggs, including how they should be produced.
Any new laws should require that laying hens be allowed out of sheds at first light, have adequate space for foraging and that all hens should be reared as free rangers from hatchlings.
Two years ago, egg substitution was estimated to have cost consumers $13 million annually but the problem has become worse as the sale of free-range-branded eggs continues to soar, she said.
The true cost of the scam might never be known because proper records are not kept, and governments have left themselves effectively powerless to police the egg-substitution issue. "The ACCC has its hands tied because there are no agreed standards, they can't do anything," Mrs Inwood said. "You can call anything free range and get away with it."
Mrs Inwood has called on all Australian governments to urgently develop a nationwide, legally binding definition of free-range eggs, including how they should be produced.
Any new laws should require that laying hens be allowed out of sheds at first light, have adequate space for foraging and that all hens should be reared as free rangers from hatchlings.
"Over half the free-range eggs are falsely labelled because they're not coming from genuine free-range farms," Mrs Inwood said. "The public is paying big bikkies for these things, so we need to get genuine free-range eggs."
And this is following the recent news that really, free range eggs are no different to caged egg production in quality. Did they actually test free range eggs?
I cannot note any differences, except the outlandish high prices for free range eggs.
So should we be throwing mud at China?
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Carbon Emissions Reduction in Australia - Here We Come - Maybe: The Garnaut Report
The Garnaut Report - the final report is published today on 30 September 2008.
It is a gargantuan report, and is best digested in small bites.......a bit like a termite munching through wood! There is a significant chapter now on agriculture, and the report does join agriculture and forestry together as land users with potential for doing good, carbon wise.
Much will be made of the view espoused in the report that we need to reduce cattle and sheep and farm kangaroos, principally to reduce methane emissions. Maybe modification of the gut bacteria using modified bacteria is feasible as recently suggested at a conference I was at which looked at carbon issues in agriculture. A "big science" approach might be needed to achieve an outcome, but the payoff would be huge...and exportable. However, in the report, a 5-6% increase in costs at retail level for beef would occur at a carbon price around $20 per tonne. So that is modest, although cattle producers would have to purchase permits.
However, the potential for soil carbon sequestration is recognised......and about time, even in tropical savannah woodland, as the photo.
Savannah burning contributions to the carbon emissions, including the West Arnhem Savannah Burning Project gets a mention, but for Australia, the carbon contributed by this source is very small, even if large for northern Australia. In this project fire reduction by wet season buring at low intensity, funded by a large emitter, offsets their emissions from another source.
Carbon sequestration in soils has enormous potential for Australia, and the report does make some serious comment on that issue, with some detailed references on soil carbon management by Dr Rattan Lal among the citations. It is not just carbon sequestration........it is as much about higher soil productivity in Australia.
The chapter on agriculture and land use can be accessed at:
http://www.garnautreport.org.au/reports/Garnaut%20Climate%20Change%20Review%20-%20Final%20Report%20-%20Chapter%2022.pdf
It is too detailed a topic to easily cover here and should be required reading by those in Australian agriculture.
More detail and individual chapters are available at www.garnautreport.org.au .
It is a gargantuan report, and is best digested in small bites.......a bit like a termite munching through wood! There is a significant chapter now on agriculture, and the report does join agriculture and forestry together as land users with potential for doing good, carbon wise.
Much will be made of the view espoused in the report that we need to reduce cattle and sheep and farm kangaroos, principally to reduce methane emissions. Maybe modification of the gut bacteria using modified bacteria is feasible as recently suggested at a conference I was at which looked at carbon issues in agriculture. A "big science" approach might be needed to achieve an outcome, but the payoff would be huge...and exportable. However, in the report, a 5-6% increase in costs at retail level for beef would occur at a carbon price around $20 per tonne. So that is modest, although cattle producers would have to purchase permits.
However, the potential for soil carbon sequestration is recognised......and about time, even in tropical savannah woodland, as the photo.
Savannah burning contributions to the carbon emissions, including the West Arnhem Savannah Burning Project gets a mention, but for Australia, the carbon contributed by this source is very small, even if large for northern Australia. In this project fire reduction by wet season buring at low intensity, funded by a large emitter, offsets their emissions from another source.
Carbon sequestration in soils has enormous potential for Australia, and the report does make some serious comment on that issue, with some detailed references on soil carbon management by Dr Rattan Lal among the citations. It is not just carbon sequestration........it is as much about higher soil productivity in Australia.
The chapter on agriculture and land use can be accessed at:
http://www.garnautreport.org.au/reports/Garnaut%20Climate%20Change%20Review%20-%20Final%20Report%20-%20Chapter%2022.pdf
It is too detailed a topic to easily cover here and should be required reading by those in Australian agriculture.
More detail and individual chapters are available at www.garnautreport.org.au .
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Free Range Eggs are not What They're Cracked Up to Be
Almost a quarter of all eggs sold now are laid by free-range hens — even though they cost up to four times as much as cage eggs and their claims to superior taste and nutritional benefits are debatable.
Consumers are paying up to $9.50 a dozen for free-range eggs — about $6 more than the retail price of a dozen cage eggs, according to the Australian Egg Corporation. Despite the cost, consumption has steadily risen over the past decade and now 22pc — or nearly 45 million dozen — of all egg sales are free range. The corporation — which represents all egg producers — said some people opted for free-range eggs because of animal welfare concerns, but customer feedback showed most were prepared to pay extra for the eggs because they believed they were more nutritious, better for health and better tasting.
However, corporation spokeswoman Jacqueline Baptista said research had shown free-range eggs were no different from those laid by caged hens. "Our extensive research has shown there is no significant difference in nutrition or taste between both types of eggs," she said. "Consumer feedback is that some people buy them for the welfare aspect of hens but we believe that it is animal husbandry practice that determines welfare, rather than the actual production methods farmers use for their eggs."
Ms Baptista said caged hens often had better disease controls and protection from predators.
But the RSPCA argues that battery hens suffer from confinement in cages which do not allow them space to exercise or to carry out behaviours such as wing flapping, dust bathing and foraging.
Free-range farmers say consumers believe it is worth paying more to know the eggs have come from "contented hens that range freely during daylight hours over natural sunny pastures" and return to sheds at night for roosting and laying.
But the research is now in.......there is no difference in quality. Why pay more, especially when the middle man or retailer is really the one that profits, not the farmers.
[partially sourced from Australian Egg Corporation media release]
Consumers are paying up to $9.50 a dozen for free-range eggs — about $6 more than the retail price of a dozen cage eggs, according to the Australian Egg Corporation. Despite the cost, consumption has steadily risen over the past decade and now 22pc — or nearly 45 million dozen — of all egg sales are free range. The corporation — which represents all egg producers — said some people opted for free-range eggs because of animal welfare concerns, but customer feedback showed most were prepared to pay extra for the eggs because they believed they were more nutritious, better for health and better tasting.
However, corporation spokeswoman Jacqueline Baptista said research had shown free-range eggs were no different from those laid by caged hens. "Our extensive research has shown there is no significant difference in nutrition or taste between both types of eggs," she said. "Consumer feedback is that some people buy them for the welfare aspect of hens but we believe that it is animal husbandry practice that determines welfare, rather than the actual production methods farmers use for their eggs."
Ms Baptista said caged hens often had better disease controls and protection from predators.
But the RSPCA argues that battery hens suffer from confinement in cages which do not allow them space to exercise or to carry out behaviours such as wing flapping, dust bathing and foraging.
Free-range farmers say consumers believe it is worth paying more to know the eggs have come from "contented hens that range freely during daylight hours over natural sunny pastures" and return to sheds at night for roosting and laying.
But the research is now in.......there is no difference in quality. Why pay more, especially when the middle man or retailer is really the one that profits, not the farmers.
[partially sourced from Australian Egg Corporation media release]
Friday, September 26, 2008
Unmanned Aircraft Coming to a Farm Near You.....Soon!
In an ultra-modern take on a St Bernard bringing brandy to stranded skiers, pilotless aircraft have this week been dropping water to someone ‘lost’ in the outback. The outback is near Kingaroy airport in Queensland, and the person is a mannequin, but the unmanned airborne vehicles (UAV) are real.
It's all part of this week's 2008 UAV Challenge – Outback Rescue, which CSIRO's experts in autonomous robots are helping judge.
Going beyond remote control, UAV’s rely on computers, sensors and the global positioning system (GPS) to figure out how to perform tasks given to them by a human operator.
One of the richest UAV competitions in the world, the UAV Challenge is an initiative of the Australian Research Centre for Aerospace Automation (ARCAA, a partnership between CSIRO and Queensland University of Technology), the Queensland Government and Boeing Australia Limited.
Participants in the open competition have an hour to fly up to five nautical miles (approximately nine kilometres), search four square nautical miles (over ten square kilometres) for ‘Outback Joe’, drop a 500 millilitre bottle of 'life saving' water close by him then return to the airport.
"The UAV Challenge helps promote the significance of UAV’s to Australia," said CSIRO's Dr Michael Bruenig, Deputy CEO of ARCAA. "Here we're showing how UAVs could save lives by quickly and cost effectively delivering medical supplies to critically ill patients in remote areas, but UAV's could also inspect powerlines and other infrastructure, monitor stock, keep an eye on water use or traffic flow and then there are defence applications in border security and surveillance."
CSIRO's research focuses on the civilian applications for autonomous vehicles such as our submarine, helicopter, ground vehicles and robots for mining. "Since last year's competition, we’ve already seen increased participation of regional Australia in high-tech industry," Dr Bruenig said. "We particularly value having a category for high school students because it exposes them to potential career opportunities in this area in Australia."
It's all part of this week's 2008 UAV Challenge – Outback Rescue, which CSIRO's experts in autonomous robots are helping judge.
Going beyond remote control, UAV’s rely on computers, sensors and the global positioning system (GPS) to figure out how to perform tasks given to them by a human operator.
One of the richest UAV competitions in the world, the UAV Challenge is an initiative of the Australian Research Centre for Aerospace Automation (ARCAA, a partnership between CSIRO and Queensland University of Technology), the Queensland Government and Boeing Australia Limited.
Participants in the open competition have an hour to fly up to five nautical miles (approximately nine kilometres), search four square nautical miles (over ten square kilometres) for ‘Outback Joe’, drop a 500 millilitre bottle of 'life saving' water close by him then return to the airport.
"The UAV Challenge helps promote the significance of UAV’s to Australia," said CSIRO's Dr Michael Bruenig, Deputy CEO of ARCAA. "Here we're showing how UAVs could save lives by quickly and cost effectively delivering medical supplies to critically ill patients in remote areas, but UAV's could also inspect powerlines and other infrastructure, monitor stock, keep an eye on water use or traffic flow and then there are defence applications in border security and surveillance."
CSIRO's research focuses on the civilian applications for autonomous vehicles such as our submarine, helicopter, ground vehicles and robots for mining. "Since last year's competition, we’ve already seen increased participation of regional Australia in high-tech industry," Dr Bruenig said. "We particularly value having a category for high school students because it exposes them to potential career opportunities in this area in Australia."
Real opportunities are already being considered in the large scale pastoral industry in northern Australia, including monitoring of bores, erosion, pastures, cattle herds, fences and gates. Opportunities also exist for road and pastoral condition monitoring. Some of these last areas are already satellite checked, but using unmanned aircraft provides real time opportunities to check, rather than the delayed evidence available from satellites. With light aricraft and even ultralights used already, this is a modest step forward, but with very real benefits. Biosecurity border survelliance already has moved to investigate use of these aircraft across northern Australia.
Yes.....there are opportunities for news making with saving lost people, but the real ongoing benefits will be to industry.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Would YOU Buy Milk from China? Or Any Food from China?
Credibility comes and so easily goes. It can be destroyed so easily, and even by others.
Business dealings with the Chinse always tend to have overtones of someone on the make. The old “whats in it for me” concept. Or often, how can I make something out of the transaction....even a bit more than the normal. The usual middle man syndrome.
This week the news all over Asia is the story of contaminated Chinese milk products. Not just a bit contaminated with a few E.coli or as sometimes happens, a small piece of glass or metal that came off equipment. No, this time it is a full blown deliberate addition of nothing less than the toxic chemical, melamine.
And the reason? A deliberate attempt it seems to obfuscate the system by boosting milk protein levels with the addition of the melamine. Just to make a lot more money, as milk is sold on protein content.
After all, even China bans melamine in food products, including milk. Companies it seems may not have been testing for the melamine.........but then, did they really expect the middlemen, those who consolidate milk supply from small producers and deliver to the milk processors, would be ADDING a toxic product to help boost protein levels and hence their profits?
This seems to be the story. No doubt there is more to emerge over the next few days and weeks.
Sure, the factories have been caught out big time. And senior people appear to have been suspended or resigned from the factories already.
Consumers are being screwed again over poor products. This time they are killing children, or making them very unwell. Emotive material and there are widely shown images on Asian TV channels.
Westerners might be crowing a little with the range of regulatory checks and balances, and may seem to show the western style checking schemes of both self regulation and an overarching regulatory system of the government in a good light.
There are already some trends towards increased regulation of previously self regulated areas in western societies. Will this trend accelerate?
Experiences in China reinforce a view that while laws may exist, the regulatory framework and an attitude in business / society seem to thumb their noses at their existence, or use corrupt practices to circumvent them. Has this been the case here?
There is a lot at stake...........including the credibility of much of food production and regulation in China. And do not forget, a lot of fresh Chinese products are exported......quite a few shipments get refused entry to countries over food safety already, without much publicity, eg toxic residues in food, high residual agrochemicals. Not to mention the past problems with lead paint on children's toys.
The stakes are high. Not to mention Chinese government credibility. Will the Australian government impose generally tighter regulations for Chinese food imports to Australia for example?
Business dealings with the Chinse always tend to have overtones of someone on the make. The old “whats in it for me” concept. Or often, how can I make something out of the transaction....even a bit more than the normal. The usual middle man syndrome.
This week the news all over Asia is the story of contaminated Chinese milk products. Not just a bit contaminated with a few E.coli or as sometimes happens, a small piece of glass or metal that came off equipment. No, this time it is a full blown deliberate addition of nothing less than the toxic chemical, melamine.
And the reason? A deliberate attempt it seems to obfuscate the system by boosting milk protein levels with the addition of the melamine. Just to make a lot more money, as milk is sold on protein content.
After all, even China bans melamine in food products, including milk. Companies it seems may not have been testing for the melamine.........but then, did they really expect the middlemen, those who consolidate milk supply from small producers and deliver to the milk processors, would be ADDING a toxic product to help boost protein levels and hence their profits?
This seems to be the story. No doubt there is more to emerge over the next few days and weeks.
Sure, the factories have been caught out big time. And senior people appear to have been suspended or resigned from the factories already.
Consumers are being screwed again over poor products. This time they are killing children, or making them very unwell. Emotive material and there are widely shown images on Asian TV channels.
Westerners might be crowing a little with the range of regulatory checks and balances, and may seem to show the western style checking schemes of both self regulation and an overarching regulatory system of the government in a good light.
There are already some trends towards increased regulation of previously self regulated areas in western societies. Will this trend accelerate?
Experiences in China reinforce a view that while laws may exist, the regulatory framework and an attitude in business / society seem to thumb their noses at their existence, or use corrupt practices to circumvent them. Has this been the case here?
There is a lot at stake...........including the credibility of much of food production and regulation in China. And do not forget, a lot of fresh Chinese products are exported......quite a few shipments get refused entry to countries over food safety already, without much publicity, eg toxic residues in food, high residual agrochemicals. Not to mention the past problems with lead paint on children's toys.
The stakes are high. Not to mention Chinese government credibility. Will the Australian government impose generally tighter regulations for Chinese food imports to Australia for example?
Friday, August 29, 2008
Improve Soil Carbon for Higher Yields
Benefits of building soil organic matter go beyond sequestering carbon.
Increasing plant-available water capacity, maintaining better soil structure and improving yields were important benefits from building soil organic matter according to a key speaker at the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) Update at Manangatang on August 19.
Dr Peter Fisher of the Victorian Department of Primary Industries told more than 100 growers attending that while soil organic carbon levels could be boosted by increasing soil organic matter, the benefits went beyond measures to reduce climate impacts. Dr Fisher said trials at irrigated sites in northern Victoria and southern New South Wales found that increasing soil organic matter throughput – the rate at which it is added to the soil to be broken down and recycled – over several years would boost soil carbon levels. “At the paired sites studied, every tonne per hectare per year of extra above- and below-ground organic matter – maintained for 10 years – resulted in approximately 0.2 per cent higher soil carbon,” he said. “This increase is greater than most carbon modelling suggests.” Dr Fisher said the experiment had demonstrated a clear relationship between higher levels of organic soil matter and higher yields.
“Yield benefits from higher soil carbon values are very hard to measure and there is little reported data,” he said. “This is because soil carbon changes occur slowly, and thus the impacts are difficult to separate from other factors. “These trials compared long-term yields from paired paddocks with low and high soil organic matter levels.
At sites where wheat and canola have been grown for the past 10 years, the average yields for each paddock with high organic matter levels were equal to or higher than yields from paddocks with low organic matter. “The results are quite startling, and although it’s not scientific proof, the data does constitute convincing evidence for growers.”
While this data covers only the typical temperate grain farming areas, it is indicative of the facts.......improving the soil carbon can lead to higher yields. Other work also investigated issues surrounding fertiliser usage, availability and soil retention of nutrients. More benefits.
Can you afford NOT to consider using management practices that build soil carbon?
[partially sourced from GRDC media reports]
Increasing plant-available water capacity, maintaining better soil structure and improving yields were important benefits from building soil organic matter according to a key speaker at the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) Update at Manangatang on August 19.
Dr Peter Fisher of the Victorian Department of Primary Industries told more than 100 growers attending that while soil organic carbon levels could be boosted by increasing soil organic matter, the benefits went beyond measures to reduce climate impacts. Dr Fisher said trials at irrigated sites in northern Victoria and southern New South Wales found that increasing soil organic matter throughput – the rate at which it is added to the soil to be broken down and recycled – over several years would boost soil carbon levels. “At the paired sites studied, every tonne per hectare per year of extra above- and below-ground organic matter – maintained for 10 years – resulted in approximately 0.2 per cent higher soil carbon,” he said. “This increase is greater than most carbon modelling suggests.” Dr Fisher said the experiment had demonstrated a clear relationship between higher levels of organic soil matter and higher yields.
“Yield benefits from higher soil carbon values are very hard to measure and there is little reported data,” he said. “This is because soil carbon changes occur slowly, and thus the impacts are difficult to separate from other factors. “These trials compared long-term yields from paired paddocks with low and high soil organic matter levels.
At sites where wheat and canola have been grown for the past 10 years, the average yields for each paddock with high organic matter levels were equal to or higher than yields from paddocks with low organic matter. “The results are quite startling, and although it’s not scientific proof, the data does constitute convincing evidence for growers.”
While this data covers only the typical temperate grain farming areas, it is indicative of the facts.......improving the soil carbon can lead to higher yields. Other work also investigated issues surrounding fertiliser usage, availability and soil retention of nutrients. More benefits.
Can you afford NOT to consider using management practices that build soil carbon?
[partially sourced from GRDC media reports]
Friday, August 22, 2008
Glomalin - Not Heard of it Then Take Note - THE Soil Carbon Fixer
A soil constituent known as glomalin provides a secure vault for the world's soil carbon. That’s according to Kristine Nichols, a microbiologist at the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory in North Dakota, USA.
Glomalin is a sticky substance secreted by threadlike fungal structures called hyphae that funnel nutrients and water to plant roots. Glomalin acts like little globs of chewing gum on strings or strands of plant roots and the fungal hyphae. Into this sticky “string bag” fall the sand, silt and clay particles that make up soil, along with plant debris and other carbon-containing organic matter. The sand, silt and clay stick to the glomalin, starting aggregate formation, a major step in soil creation.
On the surface of soil aggregates, glomalin forms a lattice-like waxy coating to keep water from flowing rapidly into the aggregate and washing away everything, including the carbon. As the builder of the formation “bag” for soil, glomalin is vital globally to soil building, productivity and sustainability, as well as to carbon storage.
Nichols uses glomalin measurements to gauge which farming or rangeland practices work best for storing carbon. Since glomalin levels can reflect how much carbon each practice is storing, they could be used in conjunction with carbon credit trading programs.
In studies on cropland, Nichols has found that both tilling and leaving land idle--as is common in arid regions--lower glomalin levels by destroying living hyphal fungal networks. The networks need live roots and do better in undisturbed soil.
When glomalin binds with iron or other heavy metals, it can keep carbon from decomposing for up to 100 years.
Even without heavy metals, glomalin stores carbon in the inner recesses of soil particles where only slow-acting microbes live.
This carbon in organic matter is also saved, like a slow-release fertilizer, for later use by plants and hyphae.
Glomalin is one of the factors that help build soil carbon stores. Othes include biochar or agrichar, another form of macro carbon materials, said to be the underlying factor aiding high productivity of terra preta soils in Brazil.
Glomalin is a sticky substance secreted by threadlike fungal structures called hyphae that funnel nutrients and water to plant roots. Glomalin acts like little globs of chewing gum on strings or strands of plant roots and the fungal hyphae. Into this sticky “string bag” fall the sand, silt and clay particles that make up soil, along with plant debris and other carbon-containing organic matter. The sand, silt and clay stick to the glomalin, starting aggregate formation, a major step in soil creation.
On the surface of soil aggregates, glomalin forms a lattice-like waxy coating to keep water from flowing rapidly into the aggregate and washing away everything, including the carbon. As the builder of the formation “bag” for soil, glomalin is vital globally to soil building, productivity and sustainability, as well as to carbon storage.
Nichols uses glomalin measurements to gauge which farming or rangeland practices work best for storing carbon. Since glomalin levels can reflect how much carbon each practice is storing, they could be used in conjunction with carbon credit trading programs.
In studies on cropland, Nichols has found that both tilling and leaving land idle--as is common in arid regions--lower glomalin levels by destroying living hyphal fungal networks. The networks need live roots and do better in undisturbed soil.
When glomalin binds with iron or other heavy metals, it can keep carbon from decomposing for up to 100 years.
Even without heavy metals, glomalin stores carbon in the inner recesses of soil particles where only slow-acting microbes live.
This carbon in organic matter is also saved, like a slow-release fertilizer, for later use by plants and hyphae.
Glomalin is one of the factors that help build soil carbon stores. Othes include biochar or agrichar, another form of macro carbon materials, said to be the underlying factor aiding high productivity of terra preta soils in Brazil.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Voluntary Carbon Trading in Australia
It does not look too positive for the early adopters who have been trying to do the right thing with carbon reduction.
It seems according to recent publicity that carbon credit and voluntary carbon trading schemes - NSW excepted - may not get a gig inside the new Carbon Reduction Scheme of the Federal government. It is still open to further discussion, and no doubt there will be some serious argy-bargy, but rumour hath it that they will be excluded.
That may be detrimental for agriculture and soil carbon storage, at least in the short term, outside the "to be developed" Australian Government scheme, as it would be very definitely excluded. It seems that voluntary schemes will not co-exist with the new government scheme.
Whether that will mean you cannot trade via other mechanisms eg overseas on instruments such as the Chicago Climate Exchange is unclear now. It also means that existing offset programs may not have the carbon reduction counted either. That last one would be a serious issue in the Northern Territory if the West Arnhem Savannah Burning Reduction Program that is funded to aim to offset the carbon emissions of a local LNG producer. Further similar schemes are planned, and with 40% of the NT carbon diooxide emissions coming from uncontrolled savannah fires, these finded offset programs are a subtle link in reducing CO2 and offering land management jobs for the local indigenous people. See: http://www.hreoc.gov.au/Social_Justice/nt_report/ntreport07/chapter12.html for a more detailed description.
Others, small and large, with accumulating soil carbon credits coming from farm management practices such as conservation tillage are also likely not to be accepted. Essentially what is done before the scheme starts does not count! That is a bit wacky if the object of the exercise is to reduce carbon and put a value on carbon saved. Moreover, with Australian agriculture working mostly with poor soils of low organic carbon levels, there are significant benefits operational as well investor interest in the accumulated soil carbon.
They intimidate that soil carbon is hard to measure accurately - I disagree, especially if you are measuring differences between years or over multiple year spans. You measure get what is there. You can get tied up with forms of carbon, labile and non labile carbon pools, and so on. Organic carbon has been measured in soils for many years. What is so hard? Plenty of others also concur with this approach.
It seems according to recent publicity that carbon credit and voluntary carbon trading schemes - NSW excepted - may not get a gig inside the new Carbon Reduction Scheme of the Federal government. It is still open to further discussion, and no doubt there will be some serious argy-bargy, but rumour hath it that they will be excluded.
That may be detrimental for agriculture and soil carbon storage, at least in the short term, outside the "to be developed" Australian Government scheme, as it would be very definitely excluded. It seems that voluntary schemes will not co-exist with the new government scheme.
Whether that will mean you cannot trade via other mechanisms eg overseas on instruments such as the Chicago Climate Exchange is unclear now. It also means that existing offset programs may not have the carbon reduction counted either. That last one would be a serious issue in the Northern Territory if the West Arnhem Savannah Burning Reduction Program that is funded to aim to offset the carbon emissions of a local LNG producer. Further similar schemes are planned, and with 40% of the NT carbon diooxide emissions coming from uncontrolled savannah fires, these finded offset programs are a subtle link in reducing CO2 and offering land management jobs for the local indigenous people. See: http://www.hreoc.gov.au/Social_Justice/nt_report/ntreport07/chapter12.html for a more detailed description.
Others, small and large, with accumulating soil carbon credits coming from farm management practices such as conservation tillage are also likely not to be accepted. Essentially what is done before the scheme starts does not count! That is a bit wacky if the object of the exercise is to reduce carbon and put a value on carbon saved. Moreover, with Australian agriculture working mostly with poor soils of low organic carbon levels, there are significant benefits operational as well investor interest in the accumulated soil carbon.
They intimidate that soil carbon is hard to measure accurately - I disagree, especially if you are measuring differences between years or over multiple year spans. You measure get what is there. You can get tied up with forms of carbon, labile and non labile carbon pools, and so on. Organic carbon has been measured in soils for many years. What is so hard? Plenty of others also concur with this approach.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Farm Kangaroos - Reduce the Methane
While it is known that ruminants do produce methane, the corollorary of that is that simple gutted animals do not. Enter the kangaroo. The dearly loved emblem on the coat of arms of Australia that is hunted, shot, eats grain crops, makes great leather shoes, is an excellent meat for dog food and so on. And does not produce methane. And is not farmed.
So the scenario for Australia goes something like this.........we will replace all cows with farmed kangaroos, reduce the methane emissions and all live happily everafter. NOT!!!
Read the following, especially the comments.
http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/article.aspx?id=1238718&page=1
An academic exercise, with little practical application. So sad. But I bet the author is being paid a lot of money for totally impractical applications.
So the scenario for Australia goes something like this.........we will replace all cows with farmed kangaroos, reduce the methane emissions and all live happily everafter. NOT!!!
Read the following, especially the comments.
http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/article.aspx?id=1238718&page=1
An academic exercise, with little practical application. So sad. But I bet the author is being paid a lot of money for totally impractical applications.
[photo courtesy www.longgrasssystems.com.au]
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Cow Manure for Energy
The concept is not new, with several systems already operating in California.
But it seems some serious R and D effort has gone into actually quantifying the concept. But wait..........lets not get too carried away. The manure has to be collected and transported, so if you are raising livestock on pasture, forget it! However, with dairy cows, some pig production and in feedlots, this is a serious business.
Alas, in Australia with most stock on pasture, it will be a difficult issue, except for those more intensive systems.
But it is worth a read...............
--------------------------------------------
Converting livestock manure into a domestic renewable fuel source could generate enough electricity to meet up to 3pc of North America's entire consumption needs and lead to a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), according to research published July 24 in the Institute of Physics' Environmental Research Letters.
The journal paper, Cow Power: The Energy & Emissions Benefits of Converting Manure to Biogas, has implications for all countries with livestock as it is the first attempt to outline a procedure for quantifying the national amount of renewable energy that herds of cattle and other livestock can generate and the concomitant GHG emission reductions. Livestock manure, left to decompose naturally, emits two particularly potent GHGs - nitrous oxide and methane.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, nitrous oxide warms the atmosphere 310 times more than carbon dioxide; methane does so 21 times more.
Through anaerobic digestion, similar to the process by which compost is created, manure can be turned into energy-rich biogas, which standard microturbines can use to produce electricity.
The hundreds of millions of livestock inhabiting the US could produce approximately 100 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, enough to power millions of homes and offices, according to the paper. Since manure left to decompose naturally can have a damaging effect on the environment, this new waste management system has a net potential GHG emissions reduction of 99 million metric tons, wiping out approximately 4pc of the USA GHG emissions from electricity production.
Authors of the paper, Dr Michael E Webber and Amanda D Cuellar from the University of Texas, noted that the "logistics of widespread biogas production, including feedstock and digestates transportation, must be determined at the local level to produce the most environmentally advantageous, economical, and energy efficient system".
from Feedstuffs, USA
http://www.feedstuffs.com
But it seems some serious R and D effort has gone into actually quantifying the concept. But wait..........lets not get too carried away. The manure has to be collected and transported, so if you are raising livestock on pasture, forget it! However, with dairy cows, some pig production and in feedlots, this is a serious business.
Alas, in Australia with most stock on pasture, it will be a difficult issue, except for those more intensive systems.
But it is worth a read...............
--------------------------------------------
Converting livestock manure into a domestic renewable fuel source could generate enough electricity to meet up to 3pc of North America's entire consumption needs and lead to a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), according to research published July 24 in the Institute of Physics' Environmental Research Letters.
The journal paper, Cow Power: The Energy & Emissions Benefits of Converting Manure to Biogas, has implications for all countries with livestock as it is the first attempt to outline a procedure for quantifying the national amount of renewable energy that herds of cattle and other livestock can generate and the concomitant GHG emission reductions. Livestock manure, left to decompose naturally, emits two particularly potent GHGs - nitrous oxide and methane.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, nitrous oxide warms the atmosphere 310 times more than carbon dioxide; methane does so 21 times more.
Through anaerobic digestion, similar to the process by which compost is created, manure can be turned into energy-rich biogas, which standard microturbines can use to produce electricity.
The hundreds of millions of livestock inhabiting the US could produce approximately 100 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, enough to power millions of homes and offices, according to the paper. Since manure left to decompose naturally can have a damaging effect on the environment, this new waste management system has a net potential GHG emissions reduction of 99 million metric tons, wiping out approximately 4pc of the USA GHG emissions from electricity production.
Authors of the paper, Dr Michael E Webber and Amanda D Cuellar from the University of Texas, noted that the "logistics of widespread biogas production, including feedstock and digestates transportation, must be determined at the local level to produce the most environmentally advantageous, economical, and energy efficient system".
from Feedstuffs, USA
http://www.feedstuffs.com
Friday, July 25, 2008
Carbon Trading in Australian Agriculture - the NEW Landcare?
There is going to be an Emissions Trading Scheme in Australia, from 2010, and agriculture is to be excluded, at least for the first 3 years. This is a now a fact in Australia. The Federal Government has released a Green Paper on its policy options for the Scheme, and is doing the rounds of major cities now – with Darwin on the roadshow agenda for Monday July 28. Maybe all will be clearer after that.
This link takes you to the Green Paper documents:
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/greenpaper/report/index.html
This is a weighty tome, but at least read the Executive Summary.
However, opinions on carbon issues in agriculture are definitely getting a bit steamed up.
It seems to be that soil sequestration is sensible and eminently doable, with benefits to agriculture and the environment. Soil biology is improved, as is soil moisture storage along with improved structure. All these contribute to positives for plant growth and performance……..and nett soil carbon is enhanced.
Measuring soil carbon is not that difficult, although interpreting what is in the soil carbon pool and how labile that is, can get a bit trickier. But if nett soil carbon is increasing surely then, carbon is being sequestered??
The following article appeared on 25 July in one of the major rural newspapers, and evoked a few quite sharp replies. It is worth a read.
-------------------------------------------------
Trading in carbon could be a real winner for farmers, if common sense prevails.
The politics of carbon trading are unfortunately well ahead of the science right now, particularly agricultural science.
With most of the nation paranoid about what fuel, electricity and food will do under a carbon trading scheme, few have even thought of where the carbon offsets will come from to "save us all".
Trading in carbon could be a real winner for farmers, if common sense prevails.
Any secondary school student will tell you, the role of agriculture in the carbon cycle is to take carbon from the atmosphere and place it in living things - plants, animals and soil microbes. Wow, that sounds like a great way to reduce atmospheric carbon!
Yes, cows and sheep belch and fart but common sense will tell you that agriculture’s net effect has to be positive if farmers are doing their job properly and profitably.
The more efficiently carbon is fixed into living things, the better it should be for the environment.
Inefficient use of fertiliser, fuel, feed or even fire, constitute losses of carbon. Farmers are in the business of growing a natural resource, not losing it and this fits in perfectly with carbon trading.
The advent of the Landcare movement in Victoria over 20 years ago, led to the recognition of farmers as good land managers, before the movement was sadly hijacked by bureaucracy and died.
The carbon debate should again prove that good farmers build things from carbon - it's how they have made a living since the first seed was planted by man.
Could carbon trading be the next Landcare?
The financial opportunities stemming from carbon trading could be enormous and systems in the United States are already rewarding farmers for their soil carbon management. You don’t have to plant trees and leave them there forever to help save the planet. Stubble retention, minimum tillage and building up fertility in soil may well be a great way to make money as well as practise good agriculture. All we need to wait for is some good science, good policies and hopefully some good seasons.
Stock & Land, Vic
http://www.stockandland.com,au
Comments
Responses were pretty sharp and immediate.......
When lamb or beef is exported, the recipient is the user of the carbon absorbed and should be recognised as the user of that carbon, I agree with the above article, New Zealand has got it wrong with regard to the suggested carbon emmisions from farming.
Posted by teanau8 on 25/07/2008
Soil carbon will likely prove to be the eventual winner in the race for supremacy within the carbon sequestration race. Forest sinks are susceptible to environmental events such as drought (any forest becomes an emitter if it does not receive its required allotment of moisture), fire, insect attack, fungal and bacterial disease, all of which reduce or reverse the carbon fixing or sequestering cycle.
Where as sequestered carbon into soils will stay and build at a predictable rate. Yes all of the required science is not in yet to determine the best way to assess consistency of accumulation, but there has been an old and proven method of determining soil carbon as part of business as usual on any soil test done over at least the last at least ten years. The labile or active carbon is where the relative unknown factor is, but soil carbon loss will only occur if a farmer changes practice from sustainable no or minimal till and minimisation or elimination of synthetic fertilisers that has allowed for sequestration cycle of the soil carbon to accumulate.
Drought will have some effect but on the whole soil sequestration is far more secure a method to travel down than forest sinks, and on top of that, the amount of abatement that can be calculated through less fuel use and not losing the fixed carbon that is included as part of the soil integrity as shown by simple Albrecht soil testing procedures is of a phenomenal rate and to determine the exact amount of carbon that has not been released to atmosphere is determinable by pure mathematical calculation (old science) and so as the Commonwealth Government has not seen fit to include soil carbon sequestration as part of the climate change action plan possibly until 2015 science research pending, shows that there is still a lot of unexplained action taking place.
In the mean time reduction or abatement actions that can be verified will be the most easily accessible plan for farmers to become involved in the sustainable agriculture industry drive.
Anthony Foo Managing Director Skyfarms Australia P/L
Posted by Anthony Foo on 25/07/2008 9:16:17 AM
The carbon trade will attract all the shonks, wide boys, white shoe brigade, fedora fat men & junk bond floggers. Markets are about fear & greed there is nothing noble in a market. The people trading carbon will never see it or understand it, they will just flog it. We already have laws about pollution & waste. Make them tougher & expand them. Make it a licence & permit scheme. A trade run by bankers & commodity traders will be just as damaging as one run by the bob browns.
Posted by THE FARMER on 25/07/2008 [ I love this one - soooooooo true!]
The debate between soil carbon and trees as the best sequesterer of carbon needs to be stopped. Both have a critical role to play in mitigating climate change and dealing with current, historical and future emissions. The issues with soil carbon are well documented and I do not know anyone who does not think soil carbon should play a role but not until the risks and legislation is in place to deal with many of the issues, in particular measuring, monitoring and landholder rights. Let us remember that trees grow in soil as well and they do increase the soil carbon content over time.
The big issues are the long term maintenance of soil and tree carbon and that must be addressed. Carbon in farming is going to change so much in the farming context that farmers really need to be aware of all the complexities. I have been involved in carbon and agriculture for over five years and it iwas very difficult to engage farmers and farmer bodies until it became apparent that there may be some cost or benefit involved. Farmers need to see carbon as part of the farming cycle and farming business, beware of the long term commitments and of the administrative burden, be careful what you wish for. Make no mistake those promoting soil carbon are aiming to make money out of it and if landholders are not aware of the long term implications they could enter into a 100 year management nightmare. I would advise any landholder to move cautiously and get expert advice.
Posted by the lorax on 25/07/2008
This link takes you to the Green Paper documents:
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/greenpaper/report/index.html
This is a weighty tome, but at least read the Executive Summary.
However, opinions on carbon issues in agriculture are definitely getting a bit steamed up.
It seems to be that soil sequestration is sensible and eminently doable, with benefits to agriculture and the environment. Soil biology is improved, as is soil moisture storage along with improved structure. All these contribute to positives for plant growth and performance……..and nett soil carbon is enhanced.
Measuring soil carbon is not that difficult, although interpreting what is in the soil carbon pool and how labile that is, can get a bit trickier. But if nett soil carbon is increasing surely then, carbon is being sequestered??
The following article appeared on 25 July in one of the major rural newspapers, and evoked a few quite sharp replies. It is worth a read.
-------------------------------------------------
Trading in carbon could be a real winner for farmers, if common sense prevails.
The politics of carbon trading are unfortunately well ahead of the science right now, particularly agricultural science.
With most of the nation paranoid about what fuel, electricity and food will do under a carbon trading scheme, few have even thought of where the carbon offsets will come from to "save us all".
Trading in carbon could be a real winner for farmers, if common sense prevails.
Any secondary school student will tell you, the role of agriculture in the carbon cycle is to take carbon from the atmosphere and place it in living things - plants, animals and soil microbes. Wow, that sounds like a great way to reduce atmospheric carbon!
Yes, cows and sheep belch and fart but common sense will tell you that agriculture’s net effect has to be positive if farmers are doing their job properly and profitably.
The more efficiently carbon is fixed into living things, the better it should be for the environment.
Inefficient use of fertiliser, fuel, feed or even fire, constitute losses of carbon. Farmers are in the business of growing a natural resource, not losing it and this fits in perfectly with carbon trading.
The advent of the Landcare movement in Victoria over 20 years ago, led to the recognition of farmers as good land managers, before the movement was sadly hijacked by bureaucracy and died.
The carbon debate should again prove that good farmers build things from carbon - it's how they have made a living since the first seed was planted by man.
Could carbon trading be the next Landcare?
The financial opportunities stemming from carbon trading could be enormous and systems in the United States are already rewarding farmers for their soil carbon management. You don’t have to plant trees and leave them there forever to help save the planet. Stubble retention, minimum tillage and building up fertility in soil may well be a great way to make money as well as practise good agriculture. All we need to wait for is some good science, good policies and hopefully some good seasons.
Stock & Land, Vic
http://www.stockandland.com,au
Comments
Responses were pretty sharp and immediate.......
When lamb or beef is exported, the recipient is the user of the carbon absorbed and should be recognised as the user of that carbon, I agree with the above article, New Zealand has got it wrong with regard to the suggested carbon emmisions from farming.
Posted by teanau8 on 25/07/2008
Soil carbon will likely prove to be the eventual winner in the race for supremacy within the carbon sequestration race. Forest sinks are susceptible to environmental events such as drought (any forest becomes an emitter if it does not receive its required allotment of moisture), fire, insect attack, fungal and bacterial disease, all of which reduce or reverse the carbon fixing or sequestering cycle.
Where as sequestered carbon into soils will stay and build at a predictable rate. Yes all of the required science is not in yet to determine the best way to assess consistency of accumulation, but there has been an old and proven method of determining soil carbon as part of business as usual on any soil test done over at least the last at least ten years. The labile or active carbon is where the relative unknown factor is, but soil carbon loss will only occur if a farmer changes practice from sustainable no or minimal till and minimisation or elimination of synthetic fertilisers that has allowed for sequestration cycle of the soil carbon to accumulate.
Drought will have some effect but on the whole soil sequestration is far more secure a method to travel down than forest sinks, and on top of that, the amount of abatement that can be calculated through less fuel use and not losing the fixed carbon that is included as part of the soil integrity as shown by simple Albrecht soil testing procedures is of a phenomenal rate and to determine the exact amount of carbon that has not been released to atmosphere is determinable by pure mathematical calculation (old science) and so as the Commonwealth Government has not seen fit to include soil carbon sequestration as part of the climate change action plan possibly until 2015 science research pending, shows that there is still a lot of unexplained action taking place.
In the mean time reduction or abatement actions that can be verified will be the most easily accessible plan for farmers to become involved in the sustainable agriculture industry drive.
Anthony Foo Managing Director Skyfarms Australia P/L
Posted by Anthony Foo on 25/07/2008 9:16:17 AM
The carbon trade will attract all the shonks, wide boys, white shoe brigade, fedora fat men & junk bond floggers. Markets are about fear & greed there is nothing noble in a market. The people trading carbon will never see it or understand it, they will just flog it. We already have laws about pollution & waste. Make them tougher & expand them. Make it a licence & permit scheme. A trade run by bankers & commodity traders will be just as damaging as one run by the bob browns.
Posted by THE FARMER on 25/07/2008 [ I love this one - soooooooo true!]
The debate between soil carbon and trees as the best sequesterer of carbon needs to be stopped. Both have a critical role to play in mitigating climate change and dealing with current, historical and future emissions. The issues with soil carbon are well documented and I do not know anyone who does not think soil carbon should play a role but not until the risks and legislation is in place to deal with many of the issues, in particular measuring, monitoring and landholder rights. Let us remember that trees grow in soil as well and they do increase the soil carbon content over time.
The big issues are the long term maintenance of soil and tree carbon and that must be addressed. Carbon in farming is going to change so much in the farming context that farmers really need to be aware of all the complexities. I have been involved in carbon and agriculture for over five years and it iwas very difficult to engage farmers and farmer bodies until it became apparent that there may be some cost or benefit involved. Farmers need to see carbon as part of the farming cycle and farming business, beware of the long term commitments and of the administrative burden, be careful what you wish for. Make no mistake those promoting soil carbon are aiming to make money out of it and if landholders are not aware of the long term implications they could enter into a 100 year management nightmare. I would advise any landholder to move cautiously and get expert advice.
Posted by the lorax on 25/07/2008
Monday, July 07, 2008
Oxygation Improves Sub-surface Drip Irrigation Efficiency
Glasshouse results have been repeated in field trials with oxygation.
We are very pro the concept of subsurface drip irrigation, as there are potential increases in watering efficiency, avoidance of wind which can influence irrigation distribution, opportunities to use recycled effluent - away from contact with people, and opportunities to arrange irrigation scheduling at your most convenient time - baesd on water availabiity and site usage. It has a lot going for it! It can also significantly reduce vandalism on sprinkler systems, often a scourge for operators.
We favour the system developed in Australia [see http://www.kisss.net.au/], which offers improved and more even distribution, especially for open space and or turf areas. We even have a few posts about the system [see posts list]. And there are other supplier systems too, but not as efficient as KISSS.
While we were aware of the potential for using air injection with subsurface irrigation, and there have been some detailed research papers published, the media release [amended slightly] below has confirmed the very real potential for the air injection option in real world situations. Yes......it was on heavy soils, something that is not that common for horticulture and definitely not an ideal soil for well used turf eg ovals, sporting fields. However, extension of the thinking may even allow further reductions in water use on predominantly urban turf areas, if similar results are obtained for lighter soils.
Air injection is not overly expensive, and can be easily installed on existing irrigation systems.
[media release partially sourced from Qld Rural News]
Irrigators may not be familiar with the term "oxygation", but for cotton water use efficiency researcher, Lance Pendergast, it is a sub-surface drip irrigation system that has delivered 12–23pc yield increases.
Mr Pendergast is a Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries rural water use efficiency development extension officer based at Emerald, and is finalising his PhD research examining the potential for SDI oxygation technology.
The 5.2 hectare sub-surface drip irrigation trial site on Tony Ronnfeldt's Emerald Irrigation Area farm, Nyang, was established seven years ago by the Department of Natural Resources and Water. This project was to evaluate water use efficiency and levels of herbicide, pesticide and fertiliser chemicals in irrigation runoff of SDI compared with conventional furrow irrigation. The site has 12 individually irrigated experimental blocks with SDI lines buried 300mm under the soil surface which are scheduled to deliver the precise volume of water to maintain optimum soil moisture in the crop root zone.
With a question mark over the below-expectation yield performance of cotton crops irrigated by SDI, Mr Pendergast's PhD project was to see if promising glasshouse experimental results using oxygation translated to the field. The trials were overseen by Central Queensland University's Professor David Midmore and have examined the potential benefits of oxygation – a technique that involves entraining air into irrigation water delivered via sub-surface drip lines. "Because of the high moisture holding capacity of the heavy soil, it was determined that the cotton plants were being subjected to episodic water logging events after each irrigation," Mr Pedergast said. "Although each event was short term, the cumulated effect incurred a final yield penalty preventing SDI irrigated cotton from achieving its full potential."
Mr Pendergast began field trialling oxygation technology three years ago using Mazzi injectors that were adjusted to deliver a 12pc air by volume mix into the water lines to alleviate the root zone water-logging. When comparing the crop performance of sub-surface drip between oxygated and non-oxygated blocks, there was a significant yield increase achieved through oxygation for the 2004-05 and 2005-06 trial crops (27pc and 16pc respectively). "The oxygation trials show that we can achieve significant increases in both yield and water use efficiency using this technique," Mr Pendergast said. "When we add up the water saving advantages and improved yield of oxygated sub-surface drip, growers who are prepared to adopt and manage the technology are in a better position to justify the high SDI capital cost of around $3500 to $4500/ha."
Friday, June 27, 2008
Weed Management the BIG Cost to Farmers in Australia
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)