Urban Agriculture - Concepts for 2050

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

There have been options mulled over including : -

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

and the most recent scenario is even more ambitious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What will the foodies of this imagined future look like?

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

Bottled Water - Reverse Marketing

In developed countries, there has been a surge in the use of bottled water over the past decade.

Sure, drinking water is a good idea...........but the bottled water marketing gurus have turned drinking water into an an art form with their "messages". But good ole tap water is kicking back!

In an unlikely area............New York City. They have a program to kick the bottle so to speak, and use conventional ready to go tap water. There are many, many dubious claims made by users and bottlers within the bottled water industry. They play on fear and paranoia - mostly, as there is little evidence that bottled water delivers anything but extra cost to users, and it is disease free.

Can this be a welcome change and be a campaign that could be developed in Australia too with various partners?

see: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/news/outreach.shtml


The New York campaign uses the following slogans:

NYC Water doesn't just taste great:

• It’s Healthy: NYC Water helps you maintain a healthy weight because water contains zero calories, zero sugar and zero fat. A typical 12-ounce can of soda contains about 150 calo­ries and the equivalent of 10 tea­spoons of sugar. Sports drinks, which are marketed as healthy alternatives, have as many calories as sugary beverages and usually contain high levels of sodium.

• It’s Affordable: NYC Water is a great deal. At approximately one penny per gallon, it is about 1,000 times less expensive than bottled water.
  


• It’s Green: Plastic water bottles produced for the U.S. use 1.5 million barrels of oil a year—enough to power 250,000 homes or 100,000 cars all year. And it takes more than 3 liters of water to produce each bottled liter of water.
  


• It’s Convenient: NYC tap water is available right from your tap. DEP’s Water-On-the-Go fountains will make tap water easy to get in public places in each of the five boroughs all summer.

All are true..........absolutely!!

It could be a marketers dream.

[ top image x BBC; lower cartoon x Greenberg, Ventura Star]

Sustainability - What Is It?

Sustainability may be a desirable objective.................but what is it and how does it influence decisions?

There have been well accepted definitions including the more commonly used one by Bruntland.

see more here...............
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2010/07/scientific-alliance-ponders.html#more

BUT there is a lot of conjecture, still..............and we cannot predict the future.

This article does ruminate over that issue and offers a few more thoughts. Worth reading, and it is short.

Global Warming "Undeniable"

Melting glaciers, more humid air and eight other key indicators show that global warming is undeniable, scientists said on Wednesday, citing a new comprehensive review of the last decade of climate data.

Without addressing why this is happening, the researchers said there was no doubt that every decade on Earth since the 1980s has been hotter than the previous one, and that the planet has been warming for the last half-century.

This confirms the findings of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which reported in 2007 with 90 percent certainty that climate change is occurring. The IPCC also said that human activities contribute to this phenomenon.

The new report was released after U.S. Senate Democrats delayed any possible legislation to curb climate change until September at the earliest. Prospects for U.S. climate change legislation this year are considered slim. That is even wishful thinking, as there are too many vested interests operating to conspire against the legislation. Yet, the US is doing a lot more than Australia and investments in both wind and solar energy are increasing quickly, and are impressive, almost in spite of political apathy at legislator level, but probably not at President level.

Released by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as "The 2009 State of the Climate Report," the new report draws on the work of 303 scientists from 48 countries, including data from last year. NOAA is the US premier government agency invloved with weather and climate.

The 10 key planet-wide indicators of a warming climate identified by the report are:
-- Higher temperatures over land
-- Higher temperatures over oceans
-- Higher ocean heat content
-- Higher near-surface air temperatures (temperatures in the troposphere, where Earth's weather occurs)
-- Higher humidity
-- Higher sea surface temperatures
-- Higher sea levels
-- Less sea ice
-- Less snow cover
-- Shrinking glaciers

The seven indicators expected to rise in a warming world rose over the last decade, the report said; the three indicators expected to decline did so over that same period.


Article continues: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66S0GK20100729

Yet, despite this the world political leaders - including Australia continue to fluff about, making lots of additional hot air and doing really very little.

Change to both mitigate and cope will be painful..............but the sooner we start, the easier it will be!!

Compadre Zoysia for Roadsides and Median Strips

We have long advocated zoysia, especially seed sown versions such as Compadre, for use in transport corridors.

One of Australia's largest road organisations, the NSW RTA is now using zoysia for road corridor use, median strips and similar road applications.

They find the slower growth is a big advantage ........less mowing, maybe only one third as much mowing, as well as reduced intrusion into plants used in association with the grass. Previously, intrusion by faster growing species such as couch and kikuyu meant large maintenance budgets and regular spraying to eliminate ingress by the grass into adjacent plant communities such as Dianella spp, and similar lower growing species.

The use of seed sown Compadre zoysia offers significant cost advantages over turf sod in similar circumstances, and will achieve the same effect. There will be some added maintenance and management during the establishment phase of about 12 weeks, but by using hydroseeding on a weed free seed bed a first class result can be achieved. Zoysia's require less fertiliser in comparison to most other grasses, while still achieving adequate to good quality. Sometimes that fertiliser can be nil!!

It has been done in Darwin........and I am sure it can be done in your area too, if warm and wet in the summer.

One of the transport corridors done in Darwin was the nature strip around the bottom roundabout in McMinn street, near the Waterfront. And the roundabout was also done with another zoysia - Zoysia tenuifolia - also known as petting grass, which needs almost never being cut.

Contact us for more details. Compadre zoysia seed is also available.

Lawns in the US Get Bad Press - But Zoysia Grows

It is almost certain that the lawn and turf industry in Australia is not the same as the US. Most lawns in urban areas of Australia are of modest condition, and there are plenty of gardens and even vegetable patches on suburban lots. Some areas of the US have caveats that insist that the whole front area must be lawn, for appearances only, and with that understood it is conceivable that turf areas in the US can generate bad press coverage, from a range of groups. Think Wisteria Lane from the TV show 'Desperate Housewives" for manicured lawns.

It is absolutely true that US lawns are typically over watered, overfertilised, over mowed and under used. But not all are like that.

And there are trends emerging that has seen wider use of good turf species that require much less fertiliser, manicuring and mowing, especially some of the zoysia species in warmer areas as well as a few other species that require less inputs, although some are also less aesthetically pleasing. Zoysias are generally similar in appearance to existing turf areas, and thrive on substantially reduced inputs.

Even high class golf facilities in warm temperate and sub tropical parts of the US are changing to zoysia grass fairways, and much of Asia already has. Zoysia grass costs less to maintain than couch [Bermuda grass] a common golf course grass!

However, good turf still beats bare dirt for many sports, and I do not see any Football World Cup games on dirt! Turf will be around for a while yet.

Read the article.............http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=51805

But adequate turf does not require massive inputs, nor huge amounts of time if you get the species right...........try zoysia.
-------------------------------

U.S. Lawns Getting an Eco-Makeover
By Adrianne Appel*

Homeowners, corporations and schools are catching on to the idea of creating a wild space where nature can thrive. Credit:Adrianne Appel/IPS

BOSTON, Jun 13, 2010 (IPS/IFEJ) - A radical, underground movement is growing in the suburbs of the United States.

From coast to coast, eco-concerned homeowners are ripping out their manicured, chemically-treated lawns and replacing them with organic food gardens, native flowers and sometimes, just rocks. "It's a growing endeavour. It gets bigger and bigger every year," said Steven Saffier, coordinator of the Audubon Society's At Home programme, which encourages people to let their lawns go wild to support birds and other wildlife.

The lawn, the one-third acre or more of trimmed grass outside the front door of so many U.S. homes, is getting an eco-makeover as people learn about the lawn's impact on the larger environment. Groups as diverse as urban garden clubs, environmental groups and wildlife protection groups are spreading the word that a big, lush lawn harms biodiversity and is an eco- disaster. "Lawns contribute to climate change," Saffier told IPS. "The fossil fuels used in fertiliser and pesticide production add CO2 to the environment."

Lawns in the U.S. are grown mostly from non-native grasses that require large amounts of water, pesticides and fertilisers. Many homeowners aim for perfection, considered a dark green mat of closely-mown grass without weeds, a look promoted by chemical and fertiliser manufacturers here.

But homeowners, corporations and schools are starting to catch on to the idea of creating a wild space where nature can thrive.

Last week, Saffier helped dig a garden with a native spice bush plant at a Pennsylvania school.

The group had barely covered the roots of the plant with dirt when a swallowtail butterfly landed on a leaf and laid her eggs. "That's the kind of thing we are going for, on a larger scale," Saffier said. What happens on individual lawns is multiplied many times over, because more U.S. surface area is devoted to lawns than any other irrigated crop, according to an analysis by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

The Lawn Institute, which represents the 35-billion-dollar per year turf industry, estimates that 25 million acres of lawn are growing in the U.S. This land previously hosted native trees, shrubs and grasses and entire ecosystems, but not anymore.

"The nutrient, hydrology and nitrogen cycles that happen naturally in biodiverse ecosystems are completely absent in lawns," Saffier said. These acres of contiguous lawn have contributed to the severe decline in the U.S. bird population, Saffier said. "The lawn is a landscape that offers nothing to the bird," he said. Ninety-six percent of birds eat mainly insects, like caterpillars and bugs, and these insects are highly specialised and eat just one, two or three types of native plants. "The birds won't find insects on the lawn," Saffier said. Fewer caterpillars mean birds do not have enough food to feed their young. Of the 800 major bird species in the U.S., 200 are in dangerous decline, Audubon says. Populations of meadow larks and other grassland species in the mid-western U.S. have plummeted 60 percent, while interior forest birds, like scarlet tanagers, have also seen a precipitous decline. Shrub land bird species, like the Brown Thrasher and Eastern Towhee, have decreased 75 percent since 1966, according to the North American Breeding Bird Survey, of the U.S. Geological Survey and Environment Canada.

Bird populations are doubly harmed when lawns are sprayed with pesticides and herbicides. "It only takes a trace amount of chemicals on insects or plants to impact birds. Birds have very sensitive nervous systems," Saffier said.

Of the 30 most common pesticides used on lawns, more than half are toxic to birds and fish, and linked to cancer and birth defects in humans, according to the environmental group, Beyond Pesticides. Eleven of the 30 are endocrine disrupters, chemicals that interfere with reproductive and other hormones in humans and animals.

Lawns and gardens are sprayed with more pesticides per acre than farmland, with weed killer the most used yard chemical, at 90 million pounds per year. About 78 million U.S. households spray pesticides on their yards each year, according to Beyond Pesticides. Lawn grasses tend to shed rainwater, so the chemicals run off into surface and groundwater after a downpour, increasing the chance that animals as well as humans will be exposed to them, John Kepner, project director of Beyond Pesticides, told IPS. "Children are the most vulnerable," he said.

Lawns were originally a flagrant display of European wealth, a sign that a household was rich enough to devote land to grass rather than food. They remain a status symbol today, says Julian Agyeman, chair of Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning at Tufts University. "The paradigm is that you should have a lawn at any cost, even if you can't afford it," Agyeman told IPS.

Millions of U.S. poor can't afford homes and lawns - and sometimes not even enough food - and are hired, often at low wages, to mow and spray chemicals on the lawns of the wealthy. "Adding insult to injury, the poor can't afford a lawn and then end up caring for the lawns of those that can," Agyeman said.

Food Not Lawns, a group with chapters in many U.S. communities, works with people who are ready to completely let go of the lawn as status symbol. "We call it lawn eradification," Steve Mann, co-founder of Food Not Lawns Kansas City, Missouri, told IPS.

Instead of turf, people are encouraged to grow fruit and nut trees, like pecans, walnuts and almonds, as well as vegetables. Since 2007, 250 people have consulted with the group. The group is seeking zoning changes from the city so neighbours can sell their extra garden produce, and hire others to help them.

They've encountered surprising opposition from local realtors. "Just think, you could pick up some fresh lettuce and tomatoes for your dinner right down the street. What's wrong with that?" Mann said. The opportunity for gardens in Kansas City is endless, given the amount of lawn space. "My god, people here have acres of it," Mann said.

Penny Lewis, executive director of the Ecological Landscaping Association, a group of professionals and homeowners, told IPS the lawn paradigm must change. "Rather than the status symbol being the picture-perfect lawn, it becomes the eco-friendly lawn," she said.

*This story is part of a series of features on biodiversity by Inter Press Service (IPS), CGIAR/Biodiversity International, International Federation of Environmental Journalists (IFEJ), and the United Nations Environment Programme/Convention on Biological Diversity (UNEP/CBD) -- all members of the Alliance of Communicators for Sustainable Development (www.complusalliance.org).

Restoration of the Loess Plateau in China

Things tend to be done on a large scale in China..............new cities, new roads and now landscape restoration.

The loess plateau in China has traditionally been a key part of productive agriculture, but it has suffered some terrible erosion in achieving some of the production and many many areas are now totally lost to agriculture. There are many images on the net of this damage, and I have previously blogged about it. But all may not be lost.

The article below is reproduced in its entirety...........and worth reading.

The concept was, to my best knowledge, originally espoused by CSIRO scientists in the early 1980s.......as landscape ecology. Especially relevant to arid zones, and at that time after a long drought, but also for any disturbed landscape in which the key is to get basic biology re-established in the soil. Often low forms of plants establish first, lichens, worts etc along with microbes......and things go from there as organic matter starts to accumulate.

Needless to say, add organic matter and you get a big boost, and this naturally happens in minor soil depressions where organic residuals accumlate, but a liberal dose of added mulch is just fine!!!

We used similar technology to deal with erosion and soil restoration on a major mine development in Indonesia in the late 1990s, by adding significant organic matter to help kickstart plant re-establishment in a monsoonal environment where erosion control was also a key factor in its success.
As the article says:
"It starts as a physical intervention, but it becomes a biophysical intervention once the biology stops gravity being such a destructive force,” Mr Liu said.
“The principle is to start the accumulation of organic matter and total vegetation coverage, and at a higher level understanding the role of biodiversity.”
“It’s an advance over the concept of simply tree planting, which is simplistic and doesn’t talk about other factors like soil condition or other forms of vegetation.”

This is the key issue............absolutely!


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


Restoring China's lost Loess Plateau
MATT CAWOOD 11 Jun, 2010 10:18 AM

ABANDONED 1000 years ago by one of the first civilisations because of land degradation, China’s Loess Plateau has become the focus of a modern land restoration effort that has transformed agriculture and the local environment.

Key to restoration of 35,000 square kilometres of the 640,000 sq km plateau was the surrendering of farmland to purely ecological plantings.

According to a film made by soil scientist John Liu, in Australia last week to talk to the National Business Leaders Forum, local farmers strongly resisted the idea of giving over farmland to trees, but were persuaded by compensation payments on land taken permanently out of production.

As reported in Mr Liu’s film, Hope in a Changing Climate, available on the internet here , engineering landscapes and re-planting vegetation across key ecological recharge areas has changed the environment in ways that have lifted farm incomes threefold.

The Loess Plateau, which takes its name from the mineral-rich wind-borne sediments that make up much of its soil, was for several thousand years the base of China’s Han people.
It is thought the plateau was the second place on Earth to have a settled agriculture based on cultivation of the soil, after Mesopotamia.

Mr Liu said that China’s extensive written records show that over thousands of years, the plateau progressively lost its ability to sustain the Han. Their primitive agriculture degraded the landscape and destroyed the ecology, until about 1000 years ago the Han power base shifted east to what is now Bejing.

The plateau has since earned the distinction of being the most eroded place on Earth. Eroded loess provides the “yellow” in China’s Yellow River.

In 1995, when Mr Liu was invited to record the initial stage of the landscape restoration project, the plateau was being farmed at a subsistence level by desperately poor farmers who unwittingly compounded their own ecological troubles.

According to Mr Liu, Chinese scientists calculated the cost of sediment loss against the cost of restoring the landscape, and decided that restoration would be a quarter of the cost of allowing degradation to continue.

Less wealthy in 1995 than now, the Chinese borrowed US$500 million from the World Bank and set about rebuilding the landscape - mostly by hand. In typically picturesque Chinese terms, the project aimed to give the eroded hills “a hat, a belt and shoes at their feet”. That translates to tree cover on the upper slopes, farming terraces on the lower slopes, and dams in the valleys.

Massive landscape engineering was involved in the transformation - an approach unlikely to get much traction in Australia - “but the results are stunning”, Mr Liu said.

At one level, the project is an endorsement of the “front of pipe” approach to water management floated earlier this year by Australian landscape campaigner Major-General Michael Jeffery of Outcomes Australia.

On the Loess Plateau, more porous vegetation-covered soils and the flat terraces now catch and rainfall that once ran off the plateau during the rainy season, leaving it in drought during the dry season.

Water captured by the soil instead filters down through the terraces, fuelling crops. Waterways run clear, and farm productivity has soared.

Better productivity on the slopes, and the dams below, have allowed greenhouse agriculture to flourish in the valleys, extending the income-making opportunities for the local communities.
“It starts as a physical intervention, but it becomes a biophysical intervention once the biology stops gravity being such a destructive force,” Mr Liu said. “The principle is to start the accumulation of organic matter and total vegetation coverage, and at a higher level understanding the role of biodiversity.” “It’s an advance over the concept of simply tree planting, which is simplistic and doesn’t talk about other factors like soil condition or other forms of vegetation.”

Since 1995, Mr Liu has travelled to 60 countries looking at landscape regeneration techniques. He is a founder of the Environmental Education Media Project, which numbers the World Bank, Rockerfeller Foundation and Syngenta among its sponsors.

Although only briefly in Australia, Mr Liu was introduced to the environmental benefits of time-controlled livestock grazing practices in use here.

Also see here with more photos -

http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/restoring-chinas-lost-loess-plateau/1854215.aspx?storypage=0

[article reproduced from the Land online]

Soil Stability Enhanced by Using No-Till Agriculture

Nothing new in that statement, you say.

For users and advocates of the conservation farming approach, it would seem to be old knowledge. But similar outcomes might also be expected for areas where similar practices are now also being used. For example, use of recycled organics in transport corridors, rehabilitating mining sites with similar products and similar off farm uses.

A recently concluded 19 year study across a wide region of the US has delivered some quite definitive results. Using plant residues on the soil surface, along with no till farming delivers significant improvements in soil stability and resistance to erosion.

The "cover" term in the universal loss loss equation has been so modified as to bring modifications to soil loss. And as said above, the same should apply to other areas where surface cover with organic materials is practised.

read more here - http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/cm/news/2010/SoilStability/

The critical part is this - "No-till stores more soil carbon, which helps bind or glue soil particles together, making the first inch of topsoil two to seven times less vulnerable to the destructive force of raindrops than ploughed soil.

The structure of these aggregates in the first inch of topsoil is the first line of defense against soil erosion by water or wind. Understanding the resistance of these aggregates to the erosive forces of wind and rain is critical to evaluating soil erodibility. "

Get your soil cover in place.

Especially so in the tropics where erosion impacts from high intensity storms can create erosion problems very quickly. And it is a wise practice for many civil engineering developments as well.

Better Energy Efficiency in Buildings Mean BIG Energy Savings

Building energy management is one of the big issues in Australia's drive to improve carbon management.

A recent report by the Carbon Trust Australia is reported here
http://www.environmentalmanagementnews.net/storyview.asp?storyid=1035664&sectionsource=s0

and can be downloaded via a link in the news item. The report shows enormous potential for energy savings through building retrofits.

Another highly relevant report is also available at:
http://www.climateworksaustralia.com/low_carbon_growth_plan.html as either a summary or full report.

Both offer strong pathways to achieve large carbon savings. Efficiently and cost effectively!

Downtown Agriculture - Can it Succeed

While increasing agriculture and horticulture in urban areas has been mulled over for some time, and is thought to be necessary if food production is to increase, most ideas have revolved around vertical farming.

A recent serious development has involved using urban wastelands or abandoned factory sites, with Detroit in the US seen as a model.

Property values have fallen dramatically, where leasing old sites may just be a profitable way to develop high value crops, especially for horticulture, using modern approaches.

Read the article below..............some interesting options to ponder.

May not be relevant for Australia, as our land and property values are rising, but it would certainly have potential for many areas around the world.


http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/downtown-detroit-looks-to-factory-farming/1845591.aspx?storypage=0

Reinvigorating the Rural Economy

The material below has a familiar ring for many Australian food producers.........would this country also benefit from some similar facilities closer to production sites?

North Australia is a classic example with absolute minimal cattle slaughter occuring in the region, yet with significant cities as food consumers. One major retailer used to ship mangoes from Katherine to NSW, then bring them back for the supermarket, even though grown locally!

I know some interest is occurring in the NW of WA in slaughter house development, and more needs to happen in or near Darwin and Cairns, the larger cities. It might allow some local producers to develop a finishing system for local stock. Pasture systems such as leucaena / grass can finish stock very well, equal to feed lot performance, and that has been known for over 30 years.

While north australia cannot grow many temperate vegetables, some do perform very well in the dry season.

Can we do better with more local food for the mainstream consumer?
----------------------------------------------------------------

US re-envisions its rural economy
SALLY SCHUFF
01 Jun, 2010 01:58 PM

THE Obama Administration has a vision to rebuild the country's rural economy that includes creating a parallel universe of local and regional markets and "food hub" distribution centers that will help small - maybe even all - farmers market their production closer to home.

Earlier this month, the US Department of Agriculture released a "gap analysis" that maps the locations of small livestock producers by county and compares production to the availability of small slaughter processing facilities as well as rendering plants. The study was conducted as part of USDA's Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food initiative.

US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said local food marketing is one of the ways USDA hopes to rebuild the rural economy, which he noted has been on the decline for many years.

The Administration also supports initiatives aimed at deploying more broadband telecommunications technology in rural areas as well as renewable energy projects.

On a recent press call, Vilsack reported that the chief executive officer of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. "was in our office recently trying to figure out how to expand the connection between farmers and their local store."

Vilsack predicted that if a major retailer such as Walmart is looking at local suppliers, other big chains probably will not be far behind.

USDA Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan suggested that more information will be forthcoming on USDA's initiative to help local areas establish livestock slaughter facilities or mobile slaughter - perhaps this month.

Meanwhile, maps showing where current small livestock operations are located in reference to local slaughter plants - by animal species as well as a consolidated map - are available from USDA's Food Safety & Inspection Service.

USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service is surveying the locations of regional food hubs as part of the Know Your Farmer initiative.

Food hubs are aggregation points - similar, in some ways, to co-operatives - where farmers can bring goods that are inspected and graded for resale to wholesalers.

The food hubs provide storage and logistics services for buyers and sellers and have been "hugely successful" in some areas of the country, a USDA official reported.

The food hubs often are "hybrids" that combine a traditional wholesale market with a retail farmers market, the official added.

In yet another aspect of the initiative, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has developed a pilot project for farmers who wish to extend their growing season using "hoop houses."

NRCS chief Dave White explained that the hoop houses, which shelter plants under plastic, not only extend the growing season but provide some soil and water conservation benefits for landowners.
Interest in the hoop houses "has been astounding", he reported: More than 1000 growers have contracts under the three-year pilot project.

The hoop house pilot project, which is expected to be offered again this year, is funded with $10 million from the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, which is "less than 1 per cent" of the program's total funding, White reported.

As part of its rural development strategy, USDA will host the "The National Summit of Rural America: A Dialogue for Renewing Promise" on June 3 at Jefferson College in Hillsboro, Mo.

Farm Biosecurity - Have YOU Got a Plan?

Producers are advised to follow good on-farm biosecurity measures to protect their livestock and crops from the constant threat of pests and diseases.

Being aware of biosecurity means keeping animals safe from disease and ensuring continued market access for produce.

Straightforward measures built into everyday practice will go a long way toward protecting your farm and your future, and animal owners should assess the risks to their animals and act to reduce the risks as much as possible.

Five main risks identified for livestock are:
1. Purchased livestock brought onto the property

The movement of new animals onto your property represents the highest risk of introducing disease into your herd or flock. Inspect the animals carefully for disease before buying them.

Always request the history and supporting paperwork, such as the vendor declaration or national health statement, before you buy the animals. Isolate new animals to make sure they are disease and weed free before mixing with your stock.

2. Stray animals
Poor fencing can allow stray livestock, and wild or feral animals to mix with your stock and introduce disease. Keep all gates shut and check fences regularly.

3. People
People can carry animal pests and diseases. Ask all visitors where they have been previously; whether they've had contact with other animals, or been abroad and possibly brought diseases home. Keep a register of all visitors.

Restrict visitor access to your property and make sure they don't go near animals unless they have clean clothes and have disinfected hands and footwear.

4. Vehicles and equipment
Vehicles and equipment can carry pests and diseases. Control the entry of vehicles onto the property and ensure they stay in a designated vehicle area. Use your own vehicles to transport visitors or material around the farm. Clean and thoroughly disinfect any second hand equipment purchased and brought onto the farm.

Maintain clean and disinfected equipment and do not share with other animal owners.

5. Feed and water
Feed and water can contain pests and diseases. Always request some form of commodity vendor declaration with purchased feed. Keep feed in a clean dry storage area and ensure it does not become mouldy. Make sure that water sources are not contaminated by wild or feral animals or birds.

Major outcomes of having farm biosecurity plans in place include:

improved profitability through the reduction of diseases,
less need for expensive chemical treatments or vaccinations and
improved animal production.

Farm biosecurity plans can reduce the risk of introducing pests and diseases onto a property that are already present on your neighbours farm or elsewhere

Good planning now will also reduce the impact of the next disease emergency.

There is absolutely no doubt that the rapid and wide geographical spread of emergency diseases can be controlled more easily if all livestock owners or farmers begin to practice farm biosecurity.........NOW.

Most of the practices are simple and easily implemented on any farm, and are applicable to both livestock and plant based operations.

Livestock and Soil Compaction Quantified for Tropical Regions

Most agronomists would have been aware of earlier NZ studies on the influence of livestock on soil compaction and subsequent reductions in pasture or crop yields. New Zealand conditions are wet, and soils are quite different to northern Australia.

Yet, there is this perception that livestock cause severe soil compaction. More recent Australian studies would appear to refute these earlier claims, at least for our own conditions.

The following material was in the GRDC Magazine Ground Cover, no 86 in May 2010, and reproduced with permission.
----------------------
Livestock compaction quantified

The compaction effects livestock have on soil may not be as problematic as previously thought, a Queensland-based research project is finding Livestock compaction may be less of a problem than many producers think, research by CSIRO’s Dr Lindsay Bell, who leads a GRDC-supported Southern Queensland Farming Systems (SQFS) project*, has found.

By examining numerous existing studies Dr Bell found:
• stock apply similar pressures on the soil to unloaded vehicles;
• treading by livestock can reduce soil porosity and infiltration rate, and increase soil bulk density and soil strength, although these consequences are mainly in the soil surface (the top five to 10 centimetres);
• despite these effects, reductions in crop performance have rarely been measured, possibly because effects are too small in magnitude or depth to influence plant growth significantly;
• crop simulations with reduced root growth and surface conductivity suggest that even in the most severe case a 10 to 15 per cent reduction in yield on average could occur;
• the risk of compaction can be reduced by removing stock during wet conditions and maintaining soil organic matter; and
• because compaction from livestock is shallow it is not long-lasting and is rectified by natural processes or tillage.

For example, one study Dr Bell looked at was Bruce Radford’s (Department of Environment and Resource Management, Biloela) two-year study on grey vertosol soils in Central Queensland.

It found that when cattle grazed sorghum stubble when the soil surface was dry there was no impact on subsequent crop growth or grain yield. But grain yield was reduced by 15 per cent when cattle grazed stubble when the soil was wet.

Similarly, a Western Australian study found there was no effect on grain yield from grazing a pasture the previous year. However, reduced wheat plant density did occur when sown no-till into areas that were continuously grazed the previous year.

As well as examining numerous studies, Dr Bell also undertook a modelling study using APSIM (Agricultural Production Systems Simulator) to investigate how sensitive simulated wheat yield is to livestock’s surface compaction effects. The study was modelled over a 50-year period (1956 to 2006) and explored the two main effects – reduced root growth and reduced surface water conductivity – independently and when combined. The model did not account for the possible effects of diseases or waterlogging.

Averaged over half a century, the results showed that mild surface soil compaction from livestock would result in reductions in grain yield of less than 10 per cent. These mild compaction effects are similar to most documented changes in soil conditions after treading by livestock, implying that in most cases the effects of compaction by livestock on crop performance are small. This is supported by the few studies that have investigated this experimentally, Dr Bell says.

Crop losses could be higher if more severe soil compaction occurred, especially if surface infiltration was greatly reduced and ground cover levels were low. Yield losses in the severe scenarios averaged 10 to 15 per cent, but might be as high as 30 per cent compared to the control paddock. However, these severe reductions in root growth and surface infiltration that were modelled are far more severe than most observed effects in the field.

The modelling also found that reductions in crop growth and yield were more affected by lower surface conductivity and rainfall infiltration rate rather than by reduced root growth in the surface layers. Hence, maintaining surface conditions such as stubble cover, which improves infiltration, decreased these effects.

Although this study used computer models to explore livestock compaction effects, there is a need for more experimental data to investigate how crops respond to changes in soil surface condition from livestock grazing.

* Dr Lindsay Bell leads the SQFS project ‘Short-term pastures in grain systems’.

Common sense says avoid too many stock on areas that are very wet and boggy.........but that effects are generally modest, and may not last too long. Interestingly, adequate soil organic matter mitigated compaction problems.

Agriculture WILL be Part of Biofuels Future

While there have been many naysayers about the role of crops in biofuel production, recent developments do show a somewhat different pattern emerging as new generation production facilities are coming on line.

In 2007, the US Department of Agriculture estimated cellulosic ethanol production costs at $2.65/gal., compared to $1.65 for corn-based ethanol.

POET recently reported that it lowered production costs for cellulosic ethanol - including capital expenses - from $4.13 to $2.35/gal. in one year, as of November 2009, at its South Dakota pilot plant and hopes to lower it further.

Novozymes, the leading producer of enzymes in the world, recently estimated that the cost of enzymes for cellulosic ethanol production [ in the USA] has been reduced significantly in the last two years to about 50 cents/gal., reducing total production costs in the near term to about $2/gal.

Algae has great yield potential, but production cost estimates (net of capital costs) for growing and converting algae to fuel are significantly higher, ranging from $9 to $35/gal. depending on the production technology, the report notes. "Developing the capacity to use multiple feedstocks and to produce bio-based fuels that are equivalent to fossil fuels that can be used in current vehicles without limit and distributed seamlessly in the existing transportation sector may become the least-risky business model to pursue," the report concludes.

Read the full report at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/BIO%200101/BIO0101.pdf

Some new plants are producing biodiesel from waste fats, rather than new farm based oils or similar eg palm oils.

Work continues in a range of countries, with biodiesel small scale plants making some inroads in developing countries.

Australia still seems to be locked into ethanol from sugarcane and grains..........yet the new cellulosic ethanol option would seem to be of increasing importance.

Will we see Australian grassy weeds - with lots of biomass for example gamba grass - be seen as valuable for cellulosic ethanol production. Many sure do produce a lot of biomass!!

There is also a good article here:
http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/role-for-ag-in-advanced-biofuels/1837573.aspx?storypage=0

Could Roundup Ready GM Crops Induce Nutrient Deficiency?

The answer appears to be yes, but only due to the mode of action of the glyphosate. Longer term, overuse of glyphosate or continual regular use without other products use, may lead to mineral tie up in soils...........and nutrient deficiency. No doubt, this can be adjusted, with additional fertilisers.

But the real issue is, as Monsanto has proclaimd loud and strong for almost forever..............do not continually use glyphosate. There are issues of weed resistance, as well as potential nutritition issues. Trouble is.........some, possibly many, users are either not listening, or ignorant of the potential problems.

This does not necessarily imply using GM crops is bad. One needs to make informed choices, as already stated in a previous post.

Glyphosate is a very good and very useful chemical, probably the most successful product in this group - ever. Its ongoing efficacy requires users to use it properly.

The following article cover this issue in more depth.

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

Glyphosate is to weed control what penicillin was to disease control in humans when it was first introduced. But as over-reliance on penicillin led (inevitably, as we now know) to resistance in disease organisms, so over-reliance on glyphosate has led not only to resistance in several weed species, but also to the gradual lessening of nutrient availability to plants.

Both trends have worrying implications for crop production worldwide.

Glyphosate resistance in weeds

Professor Stephen Powles, of the University of Western Australia, has identified glyphosate resistance in nearly a dozen species of weeds in North and South America (Powles 2008). Where only 14 years ago farmers began growing Roundup Ready crops, including maize, soybeans, cotton and Canola, which survive the direct application of glyphosate while everything else succumbs, the continued use of glyphosate alone – in direct contravention of Monsanto’s advice to rotate herbicides – has seen the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds that mean crop failure. Powles attributes this sudden rise in weed resistance to the sole use of glyphosate on every crop by farmers eager to maximise their profits. This short-term gain comes at the cost of long-term viability.

Unlike in the USA, farmers in Canada regularly rotate their herbicides with their crops. The result is that glyphosate resistance is unknown in Canada (Holmes 2010). Powles emphasises that rotation is the only way to secure the continued viability of glyphosate.

Hidden nutrient deficiencies

A more insidious trend, although just as worrying, is the emergence of evidence that continued use of glyphosate can reduce the availability of nutrients in the soil, and that regular use on Roundup Ready crops can interfere with nutrient use by plants. Dr Don Huber, professor emeritus at Purdue University, USA, reports (Huber 2010b) that because glyphosate acts by chelating (tying up) certain metal ions, which are essential in plant enzymes, not only does it kill susceptible plants (by stopping the enzymes from working), but it also ties them up in soil.

He states that contrary to popular belief, glyphosate does not break down in soil (nevertheless, see the references in an earlier article that describe the breakdown of glyphosate by microorganisms), and that it can continue to tie up metal ions (some of which, such as Mn, Cu, Fe, Mg and Zn, are essential plant nutrients) in the soil, preventing plant uptake. (Certainly glyphosate bound to soil minerals is free to tie up metal ions.) He points to evidence of a long-term decline in crop growth in trials in Germany (Huber 2000a) as a result of glyphosate build-up in soil.

In addition to its effects in soil and susceptible weeds, glyphosate ties up metal ions within Roundup Ready plants as well. The resistance gene in Roundup Ready crops does not degrade the glyphosate in the plant; it simply bypasses its effects. So every time a Roundup Ready plant is sprayed with glyphosate, the plant takes up that glyphosate, which then adds to the store of locked-up nutrients in the plant. This effect explains the brief yellowing of resistant plants after an application.

The net result is a reduction in crop yields, both within the growing season and over several years. (Research cited by Wikipedia showed that crop yields were reduced by 6.7%.)

What you can do

If you suspect the emergence of resistant weeds, your best course of action is to switch herbicides for a year. Speak to your local district agronomist or district horticulturist for advice on suitable chemicals. Or use "double knock" techniques. There is additional material available from the web site of the GRDC - www.grdc.com.au

If you are worried about the locking up of nutrients, have your soil and plants tested. There are tests for the presence of glyphosate residues in both. If nutrient availability is low, we can advise you of how much of which nutrients to apply.

Further reading

Holmes R. 2010. Weed resistance could mean herbicide is futile. New Scientist 2760 (15 May): 12.
Huber DM. 2010a. What’s new in ag chemical and crop nutrient interactions. Fluid Journal 18(3).
Huber DM. 2010b. Ag chemical and crop nutrient interactions – current update. Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, Indiana, USA.
Powles SB. 2008. Evolved glyphosate-resistant weeds around the world: lessons to be learnt. Pest Management Science 64(4): 360–365.
SESL. 2009. The Loam Ranger – Glyphosate.
Wikipedia: Roundup.

[latter information modified from other sources]

Bees ARE Dying - BUT is it Really Colony Collapse Disorder ?

No one disputes that bees die overwinter, especially in tough winter conditions. The real argument is whether the so called CCD - syndrome is really a disease or just the sum of many issues occurring.

An Australian has now added a more realistic tone to the debate. It is worth reading.


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

[reproduced off Qld Country Life on line]


A new unexplained disease is supposedly laying waste to honeybees in the United States, but one of the world’s leading bee pathologists, CSIRO’s Dr Denis Anderson, is yet to be convinced that it’s actually happening.

Dr Anderson is a leading expert on a tangible bee threat, the varroa mite, but the well-travelled scientist can’t buy into the story of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), the malaise that is supposedly behind the death of up to a third of US honeybee hives last winter. “CCD is a recently invented term for an old disorder: winter losses,” Dr Anderson suggested. "And we all know that losses over winter are due to a range of factors, from varroa to nutrition and management.”


Commercial beekeepers in the US have always accepted winter losses of 10-20 per cent, Dr Anderson said. Bees die in times of hardship, like everything else. The difference is that since the alarm was raised about bee deaths in 2006-07, and CCD was employed as a cover-all term for the issue, detailed statistics have been recorded on losses.

Dr Anderson has some issues with this.

One is that deaths from hives maintained by amateur beekeepers are being lumped in with hives kept by professionals. Amateurs tend to have higher losses because their hives are less closely managed.
Another is the question of baseline. For the last few years bee death statistics have been used as evidence for the presence of CCD—but Dr Anderson points out that prior to 2007, statistics on honeybees were less rigorously maintained, so there is no firm basis for comparison.

He is also wary of the fact that the CCD surveys in the US are being conducted by the same research agencies that are receiving funding to investigate CCD. “It’s a bit like putting a politician in charge of their own popularity polling,” he said.

His own view is that CCD is being inappropriately being applied as a single symptom to hive failures that are in reality caused by a range of different challenges. “We need to get rid of the term ‘CCD’ and deal with each event as a separate issue,” Dr Anderson said. “There are enough problems out there for bees—no need to invent another one.”

In this, Dr Anderson is in accord with bee researchers, pro-CCD or not.

US researchers investigating the CCD phenomenon acknowledge that it doesn’t appear to have a single cause, and no single cause has emerged as being more likely than another.

The United Kingdom’s National Bee Unit has investigated winter bee deaths, and concluded that the UK doesn’t have CCD but is losing bees for a range of other reasons.

Pesticides are a frequently-cited potential culprit in CCD. In Dr Anderson’s view pesticide exposure was possibly behind the intial CCD alarm raised in 2006 by a Pennsylvania apiarist.

He has met the apiarist, who again made the news in reports of 2010 bee losses, and notes that he hasn’t moved his hives from the area where the initial losses were incurred.

A US study published last month found that American bees carry a high load of pesticide and metabolite traces: 121 different chemicals were found in 900 hive samples. But the authors still warned against jumping to conclusions. “While exposure to many of these neurotoxicants elicits acute and sublethal reductions in honey bee fitness, the effects of these materials in combinations and their direct association with CCD or declining bee health remains to be determined,” they wrote.

[Source: http://www.theland.com.au]


Comments

I think the title is misleading. As the Dr Anderson says: "There are enough problems out there for bees—no need to invent another one." A better title would be: Bee "Colony Collapse a myth"? Also I doubt very much that amateurs are affecting the losses. For one thing many amateurs tend not to report losses. Most of the ones I know are doing OK and often know the reasons for losses. But bad summer/winter = high loss anywhere. Surely in question (and not really mentioned in this article) should be some of the high density, commercial migratory practices which put a massive artificial strain on bees. We take their honey and feed them corn syrup, lock them up in warehouses over winter, ship them thousands of miles, and treat them with chemicals and acids. With nature you get what you put in my view.
Posted by jon, 17/05/2010 7:36:03 PM

This is indeed a very well written article which I tend to agree with. Having spoken to a number of beekeepers myself, all of whom appear to be in agreement that this CCD is tantamount to scaremongering! None of the beekeepers are put off continuing with their hobby as all agree that to incur losses amongst their hives is to be expected. It just makes for better beekeepers the following season. However, let us not forget that our honey bees are vital for our very way of life and we do all need to be aware of this. Lets hope its the CCD theory that dies out and not them or us. Too many theories without real foundation is not what we need, more help for beekeepers who should seek it is the only real answer in my opinion. Janette from: http://www.health-benefits-of-hon ey.com
Posted by Janette Marshall, 18/05/2010 12:55:23 AM

Dr. Anderson is arguing semantics. He is also lumping pesticide loss, nutrition, genetics and what not... into the term "winter losses". I.e., he is commenting as if this is something "normal." It's not normal. And it is not just an issue in the USA. Pesticide usage is at an all time high. All pollinators are in steep decline, and there are serious issues with genetic diversity and other factors with honey bees. CCD is just a grouping of similar symptoms that were simply not something that was common in the past. Not this common. I have met and know some of the researchers looking into the problem. They are not being disingenuous. Sure, they may or may not be on the right trail, but they, at least the ones I know, are not being unethical. Call it "winter losses" but "winter losses" are significantly higher now. Help us, Dr. Anderson. Conclusively determine *why* winter losses are truly higher (and they are), Dr. Anderson. That would helpful. And then let's try to solve it together. Call it "MPD"? Massive Pollinator Decline? Semantics. -tawster, beekeeper
Posted by tawster, 18/05/2010 4:04:32 AM

Or just like everything else, we are shipping them out of the country. We are sending most of ours to USA.
Posted by pm in waiting, 18/05/2010 7:35:03 AM.

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

Loss of pollinators IS a big issue for many in agriculture. The article does raise a few notable issues for pondering though.

Rabies on the Doorstep - Indonesians Need Help

Rabies is a horrible, horrible disease.

It has now established a toehold on Bali, as well as a decent footprint in Flores. Especially from Flores and the myriad islands offshore, it is but a short hop to Timor along already existing local trade routes and then to Papua.............and across the Torres Strait to Australia.

If nothing is done to push these infections back, it will be when, NOT if according to Helen Scott-Orr, a very reputable vet, formerly working in a senior position in the NSW government.

This should be enough to develop a very major response from the people of Australia to our Government to offer significant assistance. With death and mayhem in these two islands already, we should be seriously considering how to help.

It might be impossible to eradicate rabies if it ever got to Australia.

See more here -
http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/rabies-on-our-doorstep/1829017.aspx?src=enews

GM Crops Part of the System But NOT the Only Part

Using GM crops is a decision, just like any other farming decision. What to plant and how and when, what to use in a rotation.

Farmers are now advised to mix use of glyphosate and other products especially diquat / paraquat to ensure complete annual grass controls and minimise development of glyphosate resistance. Tillage might be part of the equation too.

GM crops are not a panacea..............with decisions about use considered in relation to many factors.

The recent article in an online version of the Queensland rural press covers these issues well. It is worth reading by both pro and anti GM camps to highlight decision making processes. Most are not so blind, that they cannot see................

http://sj.farmonline.com.au/news/state/grains-and-cropping/general/seeds-of-gm-discontent/1827512.aspx?storypage=0

Energy Saving Superior Lighting is Coming - VERY SOON

Philips has announced a consumer suitable LED replacement for the 60W incandescent bulb, probably the most common type used in domestic buildings.

It is not likely to be cheap, at least initiallly,...............but it is expected to last about 20 years plus and will save an enormous amount of energy if widely used.

It is also dimmable and can be coloured so a range of lighting effects are possible.

Not available for several months still, but is the first of what could be more options in this area.

Details available here:
http://www.newsinfusion.com/philips/

A day later Osram Sylvania also fessed up with a similar product. With other manufacturers also now likely to have similar products, expect the price to fall to a seriously better price......soon.

See here:http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20004887-54.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1

Update on 15 May 2010
And a day later Lemnis also offered an LED bulb that was cheaper and brighter.........read more here:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20004760-54.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1

This might be a 'hot" space with multiple options now available. Prices will definitely fall!
When might we see similar products here in Australia I wonder???

An Environmental Duty of Care?

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

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

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

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

This could be a lawyers picnic!

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

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

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

Other commentators seem to have similar issues.

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