Olive Oil - From New World Sources WILL Increase

Sources of olive oil traditionally have been mediterranean countries with Spain [over 30% of production the biggest], Italy, Greece, and Portugal. Our household has commonly used 4L cans from Spain, for example.


But this is changing. California has rapidly been improving oil quality as well as volumes, as has Australia and so too has Chile and to a lesser extent, Argentina. Think those countries where new world wine production has also both been inceasing and being of much better quality. While volumes may not exceed European figures, production will be closer to consumers and as consumers raise their own sophistication, local and smaller volume high quality producers - boutique or somewhat larger - should snare a modest to increasing market share.


In Australia, there are many locally grown and produced olive oil brands now marketed through major retail chains, and quite frankly: - they are very good. Especially for modest volume uses in salads and similar food uses, where flavour and aroma are important. Cheaper imported olive oil still is acceptable for bulk use eg cooking.


A recent article highlights some of the developments in California particularly, but a similar issue has also occurred in Australia with rapidly increasing olive oil quality. There are even speciality shops selling nothing BUT olive oil in many larger cities around Australia.


Think about the wine market............olive oil markets are expected to emulate that development at least in variety, and with better quality, and a wider range of countires of production.


It will be good for ordinary consumers. If you have not tried some of the wider range of specialty olive oils, they are worth consideration. Usually available in bottle sizes of 500ml - 1L, in Australia.


The article highlighting Californian developments is here: -

http://ucanr.org/repository/CAO/landingpage.cfm?article=ca.v065n01p8&fulltext=yes


with similar development in Australia.

Dioxin Contamination in Food Scare - Germany

China is often accused of lax process and poor management of industrial food processes. The contaminated milk powder scandal is but part of that.

This time it is Germany......and dioxin.

Same sort of issue, a company in this case it seems, opting for cheap ingredients for formulated animal feeds, with the material not suitable for animal use, but only for industrial use. The animal feeds were then used and the dioxin showed up in eggs, pork, etc.

The contamination is nominally small, really miniscule. But modern analytical techniques can detect very very small levels of some of these toxic products, and dioxin is certainly toxic. German authorities are playing it down, stating that levels are extremely low, and NOT a human health threat.......which is most probably true. But perception is EVERYTHING, and the public is very unhappy over the whole issue.

Food safety is a big issue, and Germany is a big organic market, so there are many consumers if not buying organic foods exclusively, do so at times. This will further inflame emotions over the "factory food" catchcry.

In reality............a shoddy, tawdry manufacturer, who it seems is under big pressure and may become insolvent over the issue.

There are many news items with this one a reasonable overview:

http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=564818&vId=

This will reopen questions about regulation or reregulation of food quality. Yet, in reality the problem WAS detected, and quickly dealt with. There will be recriminations, absolutely no doubt.

Waste Recycling from a Single Stream

Sometimes when you are close to an industry you do not see what others see. The commonplace seems ordinary, regular and well, very familiar.

One of my first encounters with a mechanised single stream waste system was about ten years ago, and that system was quite effective, although the operators were sure improvement was possible. But it was very reliably sorting and separating some of the major waste streams, even then, with paper and cardboard, ferrous metals, aluminium, and plastics as standout items easily separated. Although some plastics required hand separation to separate the different classes, if that was a need......and that has not changed.

Although single stream recycling has been around for quite a while, a recent encounter of such a system by a journalist offers a very different insight.............one that the general public probably does not even know, or maybe even care, about. Seen by a journalist's eyes - read about it here, and see the pictures:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20029218-54.html?tag=nl.e703

The marvels of electro-mechanical engineering and process control come together to create a series of belts, magnets, colour sorters and air blast separators, swirling discs and a whole lot more, to effectively separate recycling material, from a single stream. Sure, it is NOT totally infallible and there are some materials still requiring hand sorting, but that is relatively modest.

Most systems using a feed source from a single stream are highly manual.......lots of individuals hand sorting the waste stream. Not so with this system.

While in low labour cost countries this will not displace labour, it is an option worth considering when volumes increase, and recycling can be profitable.

Australian University Bans Bottled Water

The University of Canberra (UC) is introducing a total ban on the sale of bottled water on its campus.

It is believed to be the largest ban of its kind in Australia and the first across a university.

Read more here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/20/3117523.htm

While at least one Australian town, Bundanoon, has also banned bottled water, this is a very significant acceleration of the trend into a young demographic group.

Yes, some other places are doing similar things, but this one is with the support of the retailers on campus.

Afterall, what is wrong with being self reliant and bringing water from home?

Floods Caused by Mining - Says Brown, Greens Party Leader

What a giant blooper from a Federal politician who should really have more common sense........simple common sense. It is a time when if you have nothing important to say, then keep quiet.

Bob Brown the Leader of the Greens political party in Australia has blamed the recent floods on the mining industry.......duh!!!!!

The media piece below [reproduced from an online version of Australian Mining News today] says it very well, with the local member for Kennedy in north Queensland dropping some giant brickbats on his head.

What crass, ignorant, stupid statements from a politician who really should know better. Mr Brown, you owe many people an apology over this blooper!

The Bureau of Metereology had already predicted very heavy rains and possible floods for north Australia some months ago, and the actual events affecting Brisbane were related to very unusual circumstances, possibly out of line with normal forecast outcomes, and maybe unpredictable other than with almost direct immediacy as weather events happened.

Comments on the original article are very pertinent and Bob Brown should read and learn something from them.

Is Bob Brown really so stupid??

--------------------------------------------------------
Katter slams “inconsistent”, “hypocritical” Greens
By Jessica Burke on 20 January 2011

Greens Senator Bob Brown continues to draw widespread criticism for accusing the mining industry of having a hand in the devastating floods across the country.

Bob Katter, member for the Queensland seat of Kennedy, is the latest to voice his objection to Brown’s comments, saying they are ridiculous and hypocritical.

Earlier in the week the Greens leader suggested the mining industry should foot the bill for the flood clean-up, because the industry is a major contributor to global warming.

http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/news/brown-s-comments-insensitive--unions

But Katter says the argument shows inconsistency.

"There is a problem that will arise in the oceans that we should be cognisant of," he said.
"But Mr Brown, with all due respects, [has] the hide to say to the Australian people that it's causing massive flooding, when not a year ago and for the last 10 years, they've been telling us that it's been causing the drought on the Murray Darling."

He’s also accused Brown of being insensitive to the devastation people across the flooded areas are suffering. "I react with great anger," he said.

"You can't let people get away with that sort of hypocrisy and misrepresentations to the public of Australia."

Queensland’s Natural Resource Minister Stephen Robertson has also reacted against the comments, saying such comments from the Greens are not helping the situation. "We need to take a sober look as to what occurred, particularly in terms of what the Bureau of Meteorology is telling us," he said. "But to go out there at this point in time and point the finger in particular directions is not good science and I don't think the debate about climate change is particularly well served by those more emotional outbursts that we've been seeing by some individuals."

Unions and politicians have called for Brown to retract or apologise for his comments.

Christmas Break and RAIN

Yes, one has to have a short break or holiday sometimes. Brisbane was the destination, and it rained a lot, although not as much as right now. Massive floods in the SE Queensland region, with serious implications for agricultural and horticultural production and supply across Australia.

More on that over the next few days........back to the grindstone tomorrow.

Bee Colony Collapse Disorder - An Answer ??

While this area is not my forte, the bee colony collapse disease / disorder [CCD] may have an answer. If the results are true, and treatment is possible.......it will be a major breakthrough in a syndrome that has really flummoxed researchers as well as causing major problems in horticulture production over the past few years.

This text below came from Wikipedia, but I have also seen other data that supports the prognosis, and alludes to relatively simple treatment regimes.

Applying proteomics-based pathogen screening tools in 2010, researchers announced they had identified a co-infection of invertebrate iridescent virus type 6 (IIV-6) and Nosema ceranae in all CCD colonies sampled. These results, if confirmed, may finally offer an explanation for genuine cases of CCD. On the basis of this research, The New York Times reported the colony collapse mystery solved, quoting researcher Dr. Bromenshenk, a co-author of the study, "[The virus and fungus] are both present in all these collapsed colonies.”

More details on Wikipedia.

Strategic Alliance to Build Carbon Management Reforms - Origin and Australian Carbon Trust

Origin Energy & Australian Carbon to work together on energy efficiency

Australian Carbon Trust and Origin Energy today signed an agreement to develop a strategic alliance for dedicated and more accessible financing, designed to accelerate the uptake of energy efficiency technologies and practices by Australian businesses.

To read the following release click here
-----------------------------------------------------

This is an interesting follow up to the previous post.

Origin and its senior executives have long been strong advocates for a realistic carbon management system in australia, becoming increasingly but quietly vocal in most of the right places - where policy change happens. There are many statements on record to support that position.

This is an interesting development that should offer strong support to smaller businesses to also move to better carbon managment practices.

Bring it on!!

Clean Technology Is Still Thriving - BUT a Carbon Price Would Help

A recent report indicates that the US clean tech industries are still developing, despite a complete failure of policies to develop a carbon price or any real progress on climate change type in the US at national level.

Australia is not much better, given the current policy imbroglio here, after the failure of the prevous government attempts through an ETS - a cap and trade scheme.

But the US industry personnel are still pushing ahead, and many are very positive.

It is not if, but when, in their view, and they want to be around and active. Or they will operate elsewhere - Asia, Europe or maybe China.

This recent article offers some interesting views.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/green_technology_sector_advances_despite_failure_of_us_climate_bill/2341/

Composting in Australia - More Action Needed

Breaking down the benefits of composting
Tuesday, 16 November 2010

A press release worth reading.......

Increasing the use of organic compost to intensive agriculture industries such as citrus could save 30% of irrigation water and deliver millions of dollars of extra income through increased crop yields to regions such as the Riverina as well as providing significant carbon abatement and sequestration opportunities for the nation, according to the Waste Management Association of Australia (WMAA).

CEO of the WMAA, Val Southam. believes greater investment in the utilisation of organic materials in agriculture may be part of the solution to restoring health to the Murray-Darling Basin without jeopardising the livelihoods of farmers and regional communities.“The economic and environmental benefits of composting are enormous. In addition to improving water use efficiency, there are significant environmental benefits accrued through carbon abatement and sequestration.

Organic material diverted from landfill could abate 2 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent every year- approximately 461,893 cars off the road annually.

“Around 420,000 tonnes of compost is used in our intensive agricultural industries per year. Compost improves soil condition by adding organic matter, and a 5% increase in soil organic material will result in the quadrupling of a soil’s water holding capacity. It also suppresses weed growth thus reducing the need for chemicals.” Southam said composting also prevents the loss of valuable top soil and reduces the damaging effects of erosion - savings of between 2.3 and 17 tonnes per hectare of soil loss due to erosion can be achieved. “Our industry is calling on all levels of government to provide R&D funding to fully evaluate the economic and environmental benefits of composting and fund programs which promote awareness of the benefits of compost use in our agricultural industries and wider community,” she said.

Chair of Compost Australia (a division of WMAA), Peter Wadewitz believes there’s much more government, industry and the community can do to increase the use of compost. “At least 20 million tonnes of organic material is available for recycling through composting. Composting organic material such as cardboard and food scraps can reduce the amount of waste going to landfill by as much as 50%. “The Recycled Organics Industry is already processing over 5 million tonnes of organic material annually but the benefits to our environment and economy from increasing this amount are significant,” Wadewitz said. “In addition to increased R&D funding and raising awareness of the benefits of composting, one option may be to establish tax incentives for producers of recycled organic products in more sustainable agricultural production systems,” he added.

Compost for Soils reported that SARDI (South Australian Research and Development Institute) citrus trials (composted green organics, grape marc, animal manure) showed a positive return on the initial investment.An application of 40 m3ha-1 of composted green organics in Loxton North produced the highest benefit at 5.38 – that is, for every dollar invested around $5 is returned to the grower.

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

While this information is not new, in our current debate about carbon, and improved productivity in Australian agriculture, this is a very timely press release and should be heeded around the country.

There is so much wasted food and recyclable organics available. There is technology available to do a lot more, from very simple systmes to quite complex operations. Other countries see this as a valuable resource for agriculture, yet we in australia with relatively poor soils and low moisture holding capacity in soils, really do need this material to improve productivity of the land.

And that applies especially so in the tropics, with higher temperatures driving a faster turnover of the soil carbon as well as a faster soil moisture cycle........and even poorer soils in general.

There are structural issues, with local government [or their contractors] often the handler of organic wastes, yet it must have better leadership at State or National level to achieve serious change.

Yes, there are skilled people that could achieve more.........let there be some action along the lines proposed in terms of R and D!!

Erosion and Sediment Control with Recycled Organic Waste - Berms

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

Where is your soil going today??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Compadre zoysia in Palmerston, NT

Compadre zoysia a success in Palmerston

The Palmerston City Council needed an attractive low maintenance grass to complement the new landscaping and pathway connecting the main office buildings to the public bus facilities.

The grass of choice was Compadre zoysia sown by seed. Seed was chosen as the large area to be grassed meant that use of turf sod was too great a cost, and that the 12 week development period was acceptable given that this was landscaping expected to remain in place for a number of years.

The use of seed sown Compadre also enabled the Council to better assess the performance of the grass being seed sown, in a fairly prominent location and subject to considerable traffic and use by the public.

The area was sown in the latter part of the dry season and as expected, initial development was slow, although as soon as warmer weather came it soon grew faster and rapidly filled in.

It now has high coverage, is being regularly mown with conventional rotary landscape turf mowers, and is already a great asset along the footpath to the buses.

It is short, does not require much maintenance and mowing intervals could be expected to be longer, yet aesthetic appearance should not decline. In practice, irrigation frequency and water use has also been lower, once the area was well established. It is very dense – one of the variety’s great attributes, and there are few weeds.

It will be expected to further develop over the next month or so with a few minor enhancements including a modest fertiliser application. One or two light fertiliser applications each year of slow release turf fertiliser [ March and August] will be adequate, using rates about 20% of normal couch recommended fertiliser rates.........yes, only 20% of the rates recommended for couch.

Look out for this turf, if in Palmerston, Northern Territory. A very cost effective means of achieving a great high quality turf.

At the time of the photo, it had not been irrigated for about 10 days and had just been mown, hence looking a bit stressed.

Tropical Agriculture Food Production is NOT Efficient

A recent report indicates the poor efficiency of crop production in the tropics. The conclusion seems to be why bother with food production in this region.

An alternate conclusion may be that the region has not received the same inputs into research and development for food production that has occurred in temperate regions. Another alternate view may also be that inhabitants of the tropics may have been able to obtain a far greater percent of requirements from existing vegetation through more "hunter / gatherer" activities.

If you have lived in some curent societies in rural aras of the tropics that is still very common, with local sourced food very important over and above any crop production.

Yet, modern rice production in some regions of the tropics does have very high grain yields. And it is true the grain yield/ stover ratio in some other tropical crops eg sorghum, millet, tef etc is lower than the temperate zones. Again, is this inherent or just an outcome of less R and D?

Biogeographical studies also tend to conclude that high rainfall tropical regions should concentrate on efficient biomass production [think sugarcane, tree crop horticulture, cocoa,trees for wood] with tropical crop production [annual crop production is inferred] moved to the medium rainfall regions. Those regions also tend to have greater seasonal variability too! Their definition of the tropics is too broad.

The issue of grains for meat production is also not especially relevant for beef and goat production in the tropics, as most is grown on grass........or food residuals, and rarely is grain used for finishing, let alone growing animals!

Read this article linked below............draw your own conclusions.
-------------------------------------------------
http://news.mongabay.com/2010/1102-hance_tropical_agriculture.html

Tropical agriculture "double-whammy": high emissions, low yields

Food produced in the tropics comes with high carbon emissions and low crop yields, according to a new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

In the most comprehensive and detailed study to date looking at carbon emissions versus crop yields, researchers found that food produced in the tropics releases almost double the amount of carbon while producing half the yield as food produced in temperate regions. In other words, temperate food production is three times more efficient in terms of yield and carbon emissions.

"Tropical forests store a tremendous amount of carbon, and when a forest is cleared, not only do you lose more carbon, but crop yields are not nearly as high as they are in temperate areas," explains lead author Paul C. West, a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, in a press release. The researchers found that one ton of food emitted approximately over 75 tons of carbon in the tropics, whereas a ton of food grown in temperate regions released just less than 27 tons of carbon.

The tradeoffs between the release of carbon to the atmosphere and agricultural production are markedly different between the world's temperate and tropical regions. In this representation, for each hectare of land cleared for agriculture, each rail car is equivalent to 68 tons of carbon released to the atmosphere and each bushel represents 3.9 tons of maize produced. "This creates a kind of 'double whammy' for a lot of tropical agriculture: we have to clear carbon-rich ecosystems to create tropical croplands, and unfortunately they often have lower yields than temperate systems," says co-author Jonathan Foley, director of the University of Minnesota's Institute on the Environment. "In terms of balancing the needs of food production and slowing carbon dioxide emissions, this is a tough tradeoff."

Rising human population, increasing consumption of meat (which requires more grain per area), the demand for biofuels, high commodity prices, and economic development plans have pushed many tropical nations to pursue large-scale agriculture over forest protection. However, the authors say the realities of carbon loss in the tropics makes a strong argument for intensifying agriculture on already cleared land, rather than more deforestation. "Our results corroborate recommendations to concentrate reforestation and avoid deforestation in the tropics to have the greatest worldwide impact," the authors write.

But, West admits, "the realty is there will be some of both [agriculture intensification and deforestation]." The authors explain in the paper that "despite the clear benefits of concentrating reforestation and forest conservation efforts in the tropics, several local and regional factors influence implementation. […] Choices are made locally and are influenced by local and regional food security, transportation costs, labor, poverty, and technology rather than global atmospheric carbon. Thus, local and global outcomes must be coupled to manage ecosystem services and assess their tradeoffs."

The study also highlight that agriculture comes with additional tradeoffs on top of carbon including impacting ecosystem services such as "soil and groundwater recharge, runoff, and nutrient regulation as well as ecosystems, species, and genome diversity of landscapes." The broad study looked at 175 different crops worldwide using government data and satellite imagery. "We have a very fine resolution of both what the carbon stocks and the yields are globally," says West. "Spatially, it is much more explicit than anything that has been produced before."

Approximately 20% of the temperate region is used for crops, as opposed to 10.5% of the tropics. In all, deforestation contributes more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than global transportation: 12-20% of the total greenhouse gas emissions are due to the loss of forests. Scientists say that such emissions are driving global climate change.

CITATION: Paul C. West, Holly K. Gibbs, Chad Monfreda, John Wagner, Carol C. Barford, Stephen R. Carpenter, and Jonathan A. Foley. Trading carbon for food: Global comparison of carbon stocks vs. crop yields on agricultural land. PNAS. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1011078107.

Can Energy be Less Black in Australia?

Australia's energy markets, their regulation and development might be in for some serious challenges it seems, right at the nub of change - policy intervention.

Australia has much of our energy production from coal, including some from particularly dirty brown coal. These are all on one side. Shall we say the brown, or maybe black corner.

Then there are the new energy producers, with renewable energy in various forms, but commonly wind in the majority at present, but more alternatives coming, or at worst, gas as the primary energy source. The green corner, you might think.

Lobbying from the black corner has so far been quite successful, with their success relatively undiminished. Even a few more recent successes. There has been a focus on preservation of the policy status quo. BUT.......the green corner is pushing hard, and might be on the cusp of some decent gains.

Read the article here and look at the links. An interesting time is upon us.

http://www.environmentalmanagementnews.net/storyview.asp?storyid=1564856&sectionsource=s0

Can the politicians yet be convinced that it is within their power to actually do something??

Phytoremediation with Napier grass

Napier grass for Phytoremediation

Phytoremediation often seems a simple but slow and unobtrusive process. Not visually obtrusive, no flash pumps nor any drill rigs, but a simple plant, just growing and doing its thing to improve soil quality.

Recent research by a group that involves the Australian CRC, CARE – based in Adelaide – has shown that a commonly used tropical pasture grass – Napier grass , Pennisetum purpureum may offer some simple options for phytoremediation of soil in the tropics.

The specific details are detailed in a generic way in the following link on the ABC web site :
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/29/3052165.htm?section=justin

although more details are on this link, direct to the CRC CARE:

http://www.crccare.com/view/index.aspx?id=51669
but the potential seems to operate through metal uptake from soils as well as degradation of some hydrocarbon materials.

Napier grass is a fairly common perennial pasture species used in the tropics, particularly in those regions with rain most of the year. Napier grass which is perennial, has a few relatives in the grass genera that are very deep rooted and do grow on poor, dry soils for example – pearl millet, an annual species. It would be interesting to see how these species perform in the tropics.

There are not many plants considered suitable for phytoremediation use in the tropics so another candidate species is very welcome.

Cannot understand why it is being imported into Australia though, unless these characters are very specific to a new cultivar as would have thought the generic plant was readily available in northern Australia. Bana grass [ same species ] is used commonly as a windbreak grass in north Australia, and there is at least one Australian derived cultivar. See the following for more information:
http://www.tropicalforages.info/key/Forages/Media/Html/Pennisetum_purpureum.htm
and there is plenty more online.

Vetiver grass [ Chrysopogon zizanoides] also has a reputation as a species with metal accumulation properties, as well as being a great erosion control species and one that will colonise on tough soil conditions. Plenty of information on the web site www.vetiver.org

Endosulfan Registration Cancelled in Australia

Registration of Endosulfan Cancelled in Australia

The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) on Tuesday advised that it had cancelled the registration of the insecticide endosulfan.

This decision followed a recent assessment of new information by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPC) that the prolonged use of endosulfan is likely to lead to adverse environmental effects via spray drift and run-off.
A full risk assessment conducted by DSEWPC concluded that these long term risks could not be mitigated through restrictions on use or variations to label instructions.

From 12 October 2010, agricultural products containing endosulfan are no longer registered in Australia. The three current approvals for endosulfan have also been cancelled, and the five products containing the chemical will be phased out over the next two years.

Read the Full Report here.

Plant Power - Build Better Plants for More Carbon Capture or Bioenergy

WOW!!! Scientific American seems to have woken up to a fact probably well understood by many in the agriculture research area, and also by many farmers.

Better plants for carbon capture, biofuels, or for that matter almost anything else requires an investment in R and D, specifically some decent plant breeding and genetics. Along with some public policy work to see that the plants get used.

The article below appeared in http://www.sciam.com/ in mid October 2010, and at least the review does build a case for a decent and ongoing investment in plant research, something that seems to have been over looked in the rush to develop geosequestration of carbon. Algae also probably has a place, especially for coal power stations, as does agrichar.

The comments about a price for carbon are very US-centric, and reflect what I would consider as "head in the sand" thinking by many US policy gurus, as another study, on mainstream media reports today, has indicated that many countries already have an explicit or implicit carbon price, including China and the EC countries, and that the US is probably out of line in its current thinking.

The article really says little that is new, but getting this approach into the mainstream thinking is very necessary to ensure the $$$$ do flow into a very useful avenue of development, in a time when agriculture seems to be less endowed with investment for long term progress.

Review article below.

-----------------------------
Flower Power: Genetic Modification Could Amply Boost Plants' Carbon-Capture and Bioenergy Capacity
A new review sums up options for increasing global carbon-sequestration by flora, and speculates that genetically engineering crops and trees could enhance the process, trapping gigatons of the greenhouse gas as well as increasing bioenergy production.

Human activities currently add about nine gigatons of carbon to the atmosphere yearly.
Photosynthetic organisms on land and in the ocean absorb about five of those gigatons through the natural uptake of CO2, leaving to humans the task of dealing with the rest. But no matter how much carbon there is, capturing it and preventing it from reentering the atmosphere is an immense engineering challenge; even today's best technology is orders of magnitude less effective than photosynthesis at trapping atmospheric carbon.

A new analysis published in the October issue of Bioscience suggests that by 2050 humans could offset between five and eight gigatons of the carbon emitted annually by growing plants and trees optimized via genetic engineering both for fuel production and carbon sequestration.

Bioenergy crops represent an opportunity to mitigate atmospheric carbon dioxide in two separate ways, says lead author Christer Jansson, a senior staff scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's Earth Sciences Division. First, they are a carbon-neutral energy source that could offset the burning of fossil fuels. Second, "if they are the right kind of plants, they have a chance to transfer a lot of carbon underground for long-term sequestration," he says.

Plants take up CO2 and store carbon in their biomasses. Carbon can stay for decades or centuries in leaves, stems, branches, seeds and flowers aboveground, whereas carbon allocated to underground root systems is more apt to be transferred into the soil, where it can stay sequestered for millennia. Therefore, an ideal bioenergy plant would produce lots of aboveground biomass for fuel as well as have an extensive root system. Preliminary research indicates that genetic engineering approaches could be employed to enhance both these traits.

Using genetic modification to enhance photosynthesis and thus biomass yield is a realistic approach, says Stephen P. Long, a professor of crop sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign who was not part of the study. Long notes that transgenic tobacco plants, with simple modifications applicable to other plants as well, have already been shown to be more productive. "We are in a position now where we certainly know enough to where we could engineer quite a few of these changes," he says.

Meanwhile, regarding the problem of coaxing plants to allocate more carbon to their root systems, Jansson says an important difference between perennial and annual plants is a good place to start. "Perennials are more efficient than annuals at hiding carbon underground," he says. That's because annuals, which make up most of the world's food crops, spend much more energy producing seeds, stems and leaves than for building their root systems. On the other hand, perennials like switchgrass and Miscanthus have more extensive root systems—necessary because they remain dormant for part of the year and then must grow up again from their roots.

Whereas it may be exciting to imagine a bioenergy or food crop that produces lots of aboveground biomass and has large, carbon-sequestering root systems, research into whether this goal is realistic is still in its early stages. "Perenniality is a complex trait," Jansson says. He suggests it may end up being easier to modify perennials so they possess desirable annual-like features, as opposed to the other way around—but it's too early to tell. For the short term Jansson is confident that science can modify plants so they are more drought resistant and salt tolerant. Crops that could be maintained with brine or brackish water, such as industrial wastewater or seawater, would help preserve freshwater supplies. "These are important traits that need to be introduced into food and bioenergy crops," Jansson says, adding that "we will see this sooner" than enhanced photosynthesis or perennials with annual traits and/or vice versa.

The authors stress that genetic engineering should not be viewed as a cure-all, but rather part of a larger breeding effort. Further, Jansson says, "One problem is that the different aspects we mention—increasing photosynthesis, improving bioenergy crop yield, and putting more carbon into the root systems—are highly interlinked, and thus not necessarily additive." It could be, for example, that a modifying a plant to grow more roots takes away aboveground biomass production. Again, research in this area is too preliminary to tell.

Allison Thomson, who studies climate change and land use at the Joint Global Change Research Institute in College Park, Md., also expressed the need for caution when interpreting the study's projections. They are valuable in principle, she says, but also based on many assumptions regarding future economic conditions, land availability, and the size of bioenergy's role in a larger future energy strategy. For example, she says, "you can't really say how much bioenergy we are going use if you're not also considering other available energy sources and how much they emit." Furthermore, she points out, whether or not there is a price for carbon, which is hard to account for at this point, will figure heavily into future energy scenarios.

Also important to consider are potential land-use issues related to increasing demand for food. "When we do modeling, that's the one demand you can't ignore," Thomson says. "People want to eat before they want bioenergy."Besides all the unknowns, there is also existing regulatory policy regarding genetically modified organisms, which imposes high costs of compliance, thereby making it difficult to assess whether the ideas discussed in the paper are all doable.

Long says: "The bottleneck and damper on all this is really, 'How do you get transgenics out there, and meet all the regulatory requirements and costs?'"

Rainwater Harvesting in the Tropics

Rainwater Harvesting in the Tropical north

In north Australia where rainfall is mostly very seasonal, with relatively well defined wet and then drier periods of the year it is possible to collect significant amounts of rainfall – rainfall harvesting. The hardest issue to contend with is the need to store relatively larger percentages due to the seasonally dry conditions.
This is particularly so in the north west of Australia – Darwin and areas west around the Kimberley coast where 4 – 8 months may have zero rain, and rainfall declines as you move away from the coastal areas.
However..............look at the data. Columns 2 and 3 show the amount potentially falling on the roof, in Kilolitres [KL] under a range of roof areas , for two different annual rainfall amounts

Roof area [sq metres] Rainfall – 1000mm/yr Rainfall - 1500mm /yr
200 200KL 300KL
250 250KL 375KL
400 400KL 600KL

If you assume a capture rate of 80%, the amounts potentially available are shown in the tables below. A capture rate of 80% could be considered in the low range area, as in the tropics much of the rain falls in significant storms, and in this situation a smaller proportion is wasted in first flush diversion or similar systems that divert the first smaller volumes of rain to ensure clean water is captured and goes into storage.

Roof area – sq m 80% capture of 1000mm/yr -KL 80% capture of 1500mm/yr-KL
200 160 240
250 200 300
400 320 480

The roof areas selected have been used as examples of small, medium and medium/large areas under roof with gutters and collection systems, and include the additive potential from a house roof, garage and sheds. They apply equally to urban and semi-rural locations.

For straight “in house” domestic use, with sensible management, a family of four could use less than 100KL. And there are a lot of options and management ideas to be considered.

For use outside the household areas, a modest lawn and garden could be developed with usage in the 100 – 200KL/year, especially if sensible grey water and effluent use was practised, using systems that allow subsurface disposal of these products.

One option is the use of KISSS subsurface irrigation systems [see www.iwtech.com.au] along with a range of approved alternative wastewater treatment systems – that is, a system somewhat superior to the older style septic tank, which treats effluent at least to secondary standard or better.

There are a wide range of these, and in Australia each State or local government region has approval systems for various brands and types, so you need to check what is legally available and approved.

The really tricky part is to work out how much you need stored around the end of the rainy season.

Some sort of monthly water balance is required, to calculate input and usage, but as a very broad guide, somewhere between 100 and 150KL would be needed at around the end of the rainy season.

More storage allows more extensive outside greenery development, naturally. Also remember that this stored water is a valuable resource for any fire fighting, and bushfires can be a threat in the drier months.

Tank Management

A few short comments.......
· Many users of tank water do not worry about water treatment, but there are some simple treatments if needed. Use in line or in tank UV treatment – this seems to be now seen as the most efficient way to kill any nasties in the water
· Clean water in – means clean water in the tank, so keep gutters clean and use pre treatments such as first flush diversion, leaf guards and similar systems.
· Keep mosquito larvae out of the tank.......screening has usually been seen as a simple solution, and of course this also keeps some particles out of the tank. The screen must be cleaned regularly to allow easy flow of the water into the tank, and two stage mesh systems do work well. In parts of Asia some areas use copepods [small animals that eat mosquito larvae] in tanks to prevent development of larvae.

Mosquito and mosquito larvae management is vital in those areas known to have the dengue mosquito present.

This is not a complete guide to using rainwater and tanks, but to show it is very definitely possible in this region, based on rainfall, and usage patterns and known areas of roof cover.

Even if there is no need to provide all of a households water needs, there are opportunities to collect and store rainwater for outside use – filling swimming pools, washing cars, garden watering to reduce using expensive treated potable water.

If planning a new house..........a suitable place for a tank may be under the driveway or under the lawn areas, rather than an above ground object in the yard! Many designs allow for traffic across the top of the tank.

It is not always difficult and can be an option where groundwater supplies are poor, or there are other issues around groundwater usage.

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]