July 08, 2008
Climate Change Dogmatists Don't Know When to Stop
The price of meat, milk and other British farm products will have to rise to reflect the environmental cost of producing them, a government study has concluded.
A Cabinet Office review of food policy suggests that farmers and consumers should pay extra for farm goods that generate large amounts of greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide.
The proposal, the latest in a string of "green" plans that threaten to increase the cost of living, drew accusations that ministers were imposing taxes and regulations in the name of environmental policy.
....The Department for Business and Enterprise's new renewable energy strategy warned last month that household electricity bills could rise by 13 per cent and gas by 37 per cent to subsidise green energy sources, and
ministers remain under pressure to raise road taxes in an effort to cut emissions.
Telegraph.co.uk: 'Meat and milk prices will rise to reflect environmental costs'
Posted by Paul at 05:46 PM | Comments (63) | TrackBack
June 30, 2008
Farm Lobbies Abandon Farmers: Media Release from Viv Forbes
"The Carbon Sense Coalition today accused the big farming lobby groups, government departments, politicians and Ministers representing agriculture of ignoring science and abandoning farmers to unjustified carbon taxation.
The chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, claimed that there was no justification whatsoever for including emissions from farm animals in any carbon emissions tax scheme.
“Every intelligent farmer can understand the carbon food cycle whereby every bit of carbon dioxide released by farm animals or plants into the atmosphere has previously been removed from the same atmosphere.”
“This simple process is surely not beyond the understanding of all the lobbyists, bureaucrats, researchers and media living off farmers?”
“In the farm sector carbon balance, apart from any fossil fuel used, it is a zero sum game, and all farm animals have zero net carbon emissions.”
“Grazing animals have not yet learned to live on coal or diesel fuel, and they cannot create carbon out of rocks, soil or water. Therefore they must extract it, via grasses and grains, from that marvellous gas of life in our atmosphere, carbon dioxide. All foods and organic matter represent carbon that has been sequestered by life processes into living matter. The carbon is simply recycled at zero cost.”
“Farm plants and animals are every bit as green as forests. Both farms and forests extract carbon from the air and store it in organic life forms until that organic matter is burnt or decays in the open air, thus returning their borrowed carbon to the atmospheric storehouse.”
“Why then do those who grow forests attract a carbon credit and but those who grow cattle and sheep cop a carbon tax?”
“Australia and New Zealand lead the world in harvesting solar energy and carbon dioxide to produce an abundance of clean green food. Why then are both the New Zealand and the Australian governments proposing to force farm animals into their emissions trading quagmire? And why are they subsidising the conversion of farmland producing food into forests producing nothing but carbon credits or crops producing ethanol motor fuel? What are future generations going to eat?”
Forbes claimed that farmers need to start agitating now or they risk being the only bunnies still paying carbon taxes.
“Motorists who vote and use petrol will escape the carbon tax by sleight of hand – petrol excise will in future be called “carbon tax”. Exporters will get an exemption to enable them to compete with more sensible regimes with no carbon taxes. Other protected species like working families in marginal electorates will get subsidies to cover carbon taxes on electricity bills. Truckies will blockade the roads if politicians add carbon tax to diesel prices. That leaves farmers as the only big group with so few votes and such incompetent leadership that they will pay the carbon tax.”
“Farmers have been abandoned by Ag Force, the Meat and Livestock Authority, CSIRO, the National Party, our “working families” Government and most of the similar organisations in New Zealand. It is not clear whether this is because of a lack of scientific logic or cowardice in the face of electoral hysteria on global warming.”
“But the politicians representing the treasured “working families” in the battling suburbs had better start taking notice of rising food prices or a more soundly based hysteria about the growing shortage of food will sweep emissions trading nonsense from the political landscape.”
Viv Forbes, BScApp, FAusIMM, FSIA
Chairman, The Carbon Sense Coalition
www.carbon-sense.com
Posted by jennifer at 09:45 AM | Comments (37) | TrackBack
June 24, 2008
Real Food Shortage Will Require Real Science and Technology?
The British government is preparing to open the way for genetically modified crops on the grounds they could help combat the global food crisis.
At least that's according to Andrew Grice, Policitical Editor with The Independent, reporting on a meeting between Britian's Environment minister, Phil Woolas, and the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, amidst claims that "rocketing food prices and food shortages in the world's poorest countries mean the time is right to relax Britain's policy on use of GM crops."
As Graham Young, Chief Editor of e-journal On Line Opinion, recently emailed me, "With food shortages becoming the new Greenhouse type issue, I think that all is set to change. Governments will be throwing money at scientists who say they can feed the world, and it will become a new glamour industry... it is perhaps ironic that hard science, rather than computer modeling, might come back into vogue now that we have a real, rather than potential, problem."
Posted by jennifer at 02:47 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBack
June 20, 2008
Food Crisis Consequence of Bad Government Policy
The current global food “crisis” is not so much a consequence of natural resource constraints as it is a consequence of poor food policy decisions by government. That’s the headline in an article by Mick Keogh, Executive Director of the Australian Farm Institute, published on Monday by On Line Opinion.
I tend to agree with Mick.
The bottom line is that governments in Europe and North America, as Mick explains, have very actively discouraged agricultural production over recent decades by converting arable land into conservation areas. According to Mick, the USA has 16 million hectares of crop land (almost two thirds of Australia’s total crop area) in Conservation Reserve.
In Australia, the bans on tree clearing, but in particular the purchase of water allocation from irrigators in the Murray Darling Basin, is going to significantly impact on our potential to produce food in the longer term. Indeed while the Murray Darling Basin has historically received only 6 percent of Australia’s annual rainfall, it has produced 40 percent of Australia’s food. This is where we have concentrated the national investment in water infrastructure.
Mick suggests that the imminent introduction of greenhouse emission mitigation policies in Australia and New Zealand also has the potential to adversely impact global agricultural capacity by converting agricultural land to permanent carbon sink forests.
I thought this had already occurred to some existent in Australia, with the bans on broad scale tree clearing in our rangelands? But Mick is perhaps referring to new Blue Gum and pine plantations. Does anyone have any figures on areas likely to be converted from agriculture to this type of forestry?
Mick also mentions the lack of investment in agricultural research and development, government policies mandating the use of food crops for fuel production and policies that restrict trade.
Posted by jennifer at 06:28 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack
June 09, 2008
Changing Attitudes to GM Foods: Craig Cormick on ABC Radio
“We have long known that concerns about a new and unknown technology diminish over time, and in regard to gene technology and biotechnology we're now seeing that played out in the public's minds...
"The second factor was a perception that genetically modified crops could be of benefit in helping to address a range of new concerns in people's minds, which included drought, climate change, rising salinity levels and fuel shortages…
"Now this is going to present a challenge for many environmental groups who will be overjoyed to know that the public are increasingly concerned about the environment, but will be less overjoyed to know that the public strongly support gene technology as a possible solution to environmental problems, when many environmental groups are not particularly supportive of gene technology.
"I suspect that many of these groups might need to reconsider, or update, their positions and at least consider that the mantra of 'all gene technology is bad' should be re-examined carefully and modified to a more realistic statement of 'some gene technology is bad, but some gene technology is good.' ...
Read more here: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2008/2259355.htm#transcript
Of course there is already an environmental group that recognises the benefits of technology: The Australian Environment Foundation.
Posted by jennifer at 03:45 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
June 06, 2008
More Good News on Rising Food and Fertiliser Prices: Ian Mott
Further to my recent article on how rising food prices will be good news for rural communities all over the world, The Land newspaper has carried an interesting report on how rising energy and fertiliser costs (Nitrogen is now $1000/tonne) have restored and reinforced the economics of growing nitrogen fixing cover crops in fallow rotation.
Cotton farmers routinely add 200kg of nitrogen/ hectare but the growing and ploughing-in of Vetch in rotation has been found to add 140kg in a more balanced application that is safer for the following cotton crop in dry times. It substantially reduces cash outflows, leaving the synthetic form of this fertiliser as an 'opportunity outlay' to boost production in a good year. It seems the humble Fava Bean is almost as good for this purpose, with the advantage of producing a cash crop as well.
The implications of this, not just for farmers in less developed nations, is that they have the means to boost production in response to higher world food prices without placing additional demands on world oil/fertiliser supplies. In poorer countries the input cost is no more than the price of seeds and the farm family's own labour.
Regards
Ian Mott
Posted by jennifer at 10:09 AM | Comments (12) | TrackBack
May 27, 2008
The Future of Farming - GM Organics?
At the Genetically Modified Crops Summit in Melbourne last week Dr TJ Higgins from CSIRO Plant Industries suggested there was a place for both organic and GM food crops including by using organic methods to cultivate superior varieties breed through the application of biotechnology. He made particular reference to subsistence farming systems in Africa. It was a thought provoking presentation, but unfortunately I don't have a copy of it or link to it.
Science writer Katie Bird writing in 'Food USA' has suggested something very similar. She has written: "The war between the GM and organic movements has been bitterly fought. However in the midst of a global food crisis the time has come for these old enemies to bury their differences and concentrate on the benefits an alliance may bring. With increasing food prices and an estimated 854 million undernourished people worldwide (FAO 2006 estimates), debate is raging over how to feed the world's growing population. The debate is, however, unhealthily polarised."
Read more here: http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?n=85348-gm-organic-food-security
The issue of rising input costs in conventional farming systems, particularly the cost of fertilizer, was reported by Financial Post reporter Sean Silcoff in a recent article entitled 'The hungry planet: Is fertilizer the 'most important business on Earth?'.
Read more here: http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=537032&p=1
There is much for food for thought in both articles - particularly if you consider the value of combining a superior plant variety with an organic method of production in parts of the world where farmers can't afford much in the way of inputs.
Posted by jennifer at 07:55 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack
May 11, 2008
Good News on High Fuel and Food Prices - A Note from Ian Mott
The moralising on the supposed evils of converting grain to biofuel and pushing food prices to record levels in a soon to be hungry world has only just begun. It has been described as nothing less than a "crime against humanity" by UN expert, Jean Ziegler and these sentiments were also echoed by the IMF. The only thing missing were the "four horsemen of the apocalypse", but give them time, they are only just warming up yet.
Just be sure to take it all with a grain of salt because that is a narrow minority urban view. Afterall, the majority of the world's population are still farmers and fisher folk. And under the principles of universal sufferage and one vote one value, it is the farmers perspective of high food prices that should, but rarely does, prevail over the bleatings of minority urban panic merchants.
It should not be forgotten that in the entire sweep of human history prior to 90 years ago, almost all non-railway transport fuel was grown on farms and the trade-off between the use of grain for food or transport was a central element of all human commerce. A part of every farm was set aside as the "horse paddock" and part of every oat or corn crop was set aside for both family consumption and horse transport and traction purposes. The family's ride into town was fueled by a stomach full of grass but it was the bag of oats, that was contentedly munched on while the shopping was done, that fueled the ride back home. Every farmer also knew that if they wanted the ploughing done on schedule then they would need a few more bags of supplemental grain to maintain the effort. And all the products the family had bought had been transported by animals whose sole source of fuel was grain that had been bought in the same market where the same grains (of slightly different quality) were sold as food for humans.
In fact, the traditional Amish communities are still doing it to this very day. And somehow, lumping them in with the likes of Pol Pot, Adolf and uncle Jo Stalin seems just a wee bit over the top, don't you think? Especially when you look at their CO2 emissions per capita. And if the Amish are committing crimes against humanity for diverting human food for transport purposes then what does that say about Hindu farmers who, for religious reasons, allow perfectly good cows to die of old age, un-eaten by anyone?
More to the point, there is not the slightest doubt that the presence of this competing demand for agricultural output played a major role in maintaining food prices at levels much higher than these recent "record levels" that have been attributed to rising oil prices. And it was these very same high prices for agricultural produce that ensured that small scale family farming remained as a profitable occupation. It is what maintained most of the population, and the jobs, in rural and regional settlements where their ecological footprint was incapable of producing excess CO2. It took cheap oil, cheap food and the urban megopolis to pull off that stunt.
It was also these higher food and transport prices that played a major role in curbing mankinds propensity for the kind of conspicuous consumption that is having a major impact on the ecology of the planet. These higher prices ensured that houses remained at sensible sizes, used less resources, were easier to heat, cheaper to maintain and were built closer together. People could afford to buy them with just one income. This produced denser housing in more compact towns and cities where walking, bicycling and public transport were more viable. They formed stable, safe neighbourhoods where kids could walk to school and be monitored by a careing community. And despite the past lack of medical advances, people were fit, active and rarely obese.
The drift of population to the cities was much slower under high food prices and this slower pace of development was at a rate that planners could cope with. These smaller cities enjoyed greater utilisation of infrastructure, lower maintenance costs and fewer diseconomies of scale. It was, dare I say it, a much more ecologically sustainable pace of change.
So we need to be cautious about the underlying perspectives of those predicting catastrophic outcomes from high food prices. For it may well be the case that the simple lifestyle and market induced responses of ordinary folk to higher food and transport costs will do more to cut CO2 emissions than all the climate wallies combined.
Yet, many would agree that it is not good sense to be starving poor people all over the world for the sake of a target set by uncertain science and rampant green whimsy. But it must also be remembered that most of the worlds poor are rural poor, not urban poor. And it is only the minority urban poor who will be in serious trouble from higher prices.
For the rural poor this doubling and trebling of food prices is the good economic news that well informed development economists have been calling for for decades. The major cause of their poverty was the low cost of energy and the resulting artificially low break even price of industrially farmed commodities. These low priced industrial food stocks undermined the prices of third world farming produce to the point where the results of a days labour were insufficient to feed the farmers family for that day. This was further exacerbated by the dumping of subsidised food as "aid" to the expanding urbanised populations that needed to be placated to maintain any semblance of order.
In contrast, the major increase in energy costs has produced a major increase in the price of fertiliser which is obviously not good for those users. But in the third world this also means that the nitrogen in a cows turd has also undergone a major increase in value to a point where the effort expended in collecting that turd will be properly rewarded by the additional food it will grow and the major increase in price that food will command.
And while the increase in energy costs has raised the price of weedicide for the developed world, for most of the worlds farmers it has re-created the circumstances in which a day spent chipping weeds with a hoe will be rewarded with more than enough food to make it worth his while. The improved weed control improves the water use efficiency of their limited rainfall supplies. It can have the same effect on farm output as a 30% increase in rainfall.
The problem in third world agriculture was never one of lack of underlying capacity. Cheap commodities from cheap oil simply undermined the structure of their local economy to a point where the effort required to produce a surplus of food over their own needs was more than the extra food was worth and the people who might have bought that surplus were all in the city, too far away.
Those days are now gone. These farmers have been sent a very powerful price signal from the market place that their efforts are now valued more highly and are prepared to pay a much fairer price for what they produce. The additional spring in their step that this will produce will be akin to giving them an extra acre of land each and an extra 100mm of rain.
And those members of the starving, rioting urban poor who still retain their links to the rural community will soon discover that there are new, secure jobs back home providing services to those who, some for the first time in their lives, are enjoying an investable surplus and economic security based on their own effort, under their own control.
And after all they have endured under the tyranny of cheap oil and cheap food, who of us would not wish them all the very best in their endeavours. As Candide said to Pangloss after a lifetime of catastrophe, "that is all very well, but there is work to be done in the garden".
Ian Mott
Posted by jennifer at 10:35 PM | Comments (40) | TrackBack
March 31, 2008
Report: GM Crops Will Benefit Economy
Genetically-modified oilseed and wheat crops could provide significant benefits to the economy, a new report says.
The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) estimates an uptake of GM crops could add $912 million to the economy by 2018.
The Sydney Morning Herald: 'GM crops will benefit economy: ABARE'
The ABARE report summary is here.
Posted by Paul at 04:25 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
March 05, 2008
'Plantstones' Could Allow Farmers to Claim Carbon Credits
Grasses such as wheat and sorghum can store large amounts of carbon in microscopic balls of silica, called phytoliths. Phytoliths, also known as plantstones or plant opals, are formed in and around the cell wall of many plant species replicating the cell wall shape and encapsulating the inner organic content. These silica bodies are deposited into the soil when a plant dies and are highly resistant to decomposition.
Southern Cross University researchers recently completed field trials that reveal cane can retain three-quarters of a tonne of carbon dioxide equivalents per hectare in the soil each year, and will continue to do so for thousands of years. Cane farmers may therefore be able to cash in on carbon credits because of their crop's new-found ability to lock away large amounts of carbon.
"This could be worth millions to the sugar industry and all grass-growing industries," said researcher Jeff Parr of Southern Cross University.
Draft rules for a national emissions trading scheme are being discussed with a view to being implemented by 2010, but the rules regarding global emissions trading don't yet fully factor in agriculture, or any role it may have in carbon sequestration.
Read more:
Cairns.com.au:Carbon credit option for cane farmers
Sydney Morning Herald: Grass could help save the world
Thanks to Gavin for his note about plantstones.
Posted by Paul at 05:42 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
February 25, 2008
Carbon Trading Blocked until Farmers get Credits: Steve Truman
"It had been the previous [Australian] coalition governments intention and by default the Rudd governments plan to meet it’s commitments to limit the nation’s Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2008-2012 to the Kyoto Target of an 8% increase above the levels achieved in 1990, by using these accumulated credits [from bans on landclearing] without paying farmers for them.
"The Federal Court in Sydney in December last year agreed that farmers have an arguable case against the Commonwealth over ownership of the 80 million Tonnes of carbon created from land clearing bans...
"Now the court has given Mr Spencer the Green light to file a “notice of motion” which is an injunction to stop the Commonwealth from entering into any carbon trading scheme, until the case is decided.
Read more here: http://www.agmates.com/blog/2008/02/24/108-billion-payment-to-farmers-to-meet-kyoto-commitment/
Posted by jennifer at 08:28 AM | Comments (16) | TrackBack
December 28, 2007
Monaro Farmer Seeks Compensation for Carbon Sink
In the Federal Court of Australia in Sydney on Thursday 20th December 2007, the Court rejected the Commonwealth's application to strike out a Statement of Claim entered into the Court by Monaro District farmer Mr Peter Spencer.
Mr Spencer has claimed that Intergovernmental Agreements between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories, along with the International Treaty the Kyoto Protocol that was signed in April 1998 that set Greenhouse Emissions Targets that Australia have to meet by 2012, bind both the Commonwealth and State together.
The Carbon Sink developed on his property by the State banning Land Clearing has expropriated Mr Spencers property and prohibited the lawful use of his land for Agricultural purpose and no payments for sequestration and storing Carbon has been negotiated, this acquisition was not on "Just Terms" as the Commonwealth Constitution provides for just compensation for the acquisition of property.
Counsel representing Mr Spencer in proceedings, Mr Peter E King said after the hearing, "This is the first occasion in Australia's legal history that it has been found there was an "arguable case" against the Commonwealth on behalf of farming interests that the Kyoto Protocol may give rise to Property Rights".
Mr Spencer said "I am delighted that my case will be heard and it vindicates my beliefs, farmers have as much right as coal - miners to recognition under the Climate Change Convention".
-----------------------
** This is the text of a media release from The Commonwealth Property Protection Association made on the 21 December 2007.
Posted by jennifer at 06:51 PM | Comments (16) | TrackBack
October 23, 2007
UK Government's Chief Scientist Urges Badger Cull
The UK government's chief scientist has advised ministers that badgers should be killed to prevent the spread of TB among cattle.
Sir David King says culling could be effective in areas that are contained, for example, by the sea or motorways.
His report follows a previous study that said culling badgers would be ineffective.
Read the rest of the article on the BBC website:
Science chief urges badger cull
Posted by Paul at 05:24 PM | Comments (18) | TrackBack
October 18, 2007
Forest Saved from Sugar Plantations in Uganda?
Is this a case of biodiversity before biofuels?
"Uganda's cabinet suspended the proposal by President Yoweri Museveni to give 7,100 hectares or nearly a third of Mabira Forest to Mehta's sugar estate in May, following a public outcry...
"Critics said razing part of Mabira would have threatened rare species, dried up a watershed for streams that feed Lake Victoria and removed a crucial buffer against pollution of the lake from two industrial towns."
from Reuters via Planet Ark via Glen Barry
Posted by jennifer at 07:22 PM | TrackBack
October 12, 2007
Coalition of NGOs Busts Myths on Agriculture and Poverty: A Note from Caroline Boin
On October 16 the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization celebrates World Food Day – and this year’s theme is “The Right to Food”. As well meaning as this campaign may be, it ignores the real reasons why the majority of farmers in developing countries are poor. In order to set out a better way for agriculture and development, The Sustainable Development Network is releasing a list of the worst myths which afflict the debate, two of which are below:
1. Myth: A country must produce its own food in order to feed itself in times of difficulty.
Reality: Markets and the freedom to trade are the best ways to improve food security and to reduce the cost of food. Trade means that resources are used more efficiently in each place – countries like Hong Kong, who cannot grow food, use their labour, capital, and knowledge to produce other goods and trade. On the other hand, many Sub-Saharan countries are nearing self-sufficiency – but hunger and poverty remain high.
The World Bank estimates that global free trade would add $287 billion to world income each year, half of that accruing in poor countries. Much of this would come from agriculture. Access to markets would allow poor farmers to generate income for themselves and their families, making it more likely for them to escape subsistence farming and poverty.
2. Myth: Wealthy countries should eliminate subsidies and trade barriers, but developing countries should not
Reality: Agricultural subsidies and regulations hurt the poorest farmers and consumers, while benefiting the elite – in rich and poor countries alike. As subsidized farmers in wealthy countries overproduce commodity crops like sugar and dump the surplus on world markets, prices are driven down – to the ultimate detriment of farmers in poor countries.
Moreover, around 70% of tariffs paid by developing countries are actually paid to other developing countries. This makes food difficult to obtain and artificially expensive.
Douglas Southgate, an agricultural economist at Ohio State University, commented:
“Governments need to get out of the way, cut restrictive tariffs, and remove state marketing boards, to allow businesses to work — because people are perfectly capable of feeding themselves, if only they were allowed to.”
For more myths and realities about agriculture, read:
“Agriculture and Poverty- Myths and Realities”, by the Sustainable Development Network– available for download at http://www.sdnetwork.net/files/pdf/Agriculture_and_Poverty.pdf
Posted by jennifer at 08:03 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
August 31, 2007
Poor African Farmers Evicted to Make Way for Carbon Offset Forests - A Note from Marc Morano
Note: Never mind that trees plantings to offset emissions actually makes the environment worse according to one study. (See: Carbon offsets 'harm environment' – BBC. The poor farmers are bearing the brunt of misguided and scientifically unfounded global warming fears and “solutions.”
CNNMONEY.com
The other side of carbon trading
Planting trees in Uganda to offset greenhouse-gas emissions in Europe seemed like a good idea - until farmers were evicted from their land to make room for a forest. Fortune's Stephan Faris reports.
(Fortune Magazine) -- Planting trees in Mount Elgon National Park in eastern Uganda seemed like a project that would benefit everyone. The Face Foundation, a nonprofit group established by Dutch power companies, would receive carbon credits for reforesting the park's perimeter. It would then sell the credits to airline passengers wanting to offset their emissions, reinvesting the revenues in further tree planting. The air would be cleaner, travelers would feel less guilty and Ugandans would get a larger park.
But to the farmers who once lived just inside the park, the project has been anything but a boon. They have been fighting to get their land back since being evicted in the early 1990s and have pressed their case with lawsuits.
Last year, when the courts granted three border communities an injunction against the evictions, the farmers took it as permission to clear the land they consider theirs. Now a stubble of stumps - all that's left of the trees meant to absorb carbon dioxide - dots the rows of newly planted maize and budding green beans.
The project in Uganda is part of a growing trade in voluntary carbon offsets, in which environmentally concerned consumers pay to have others remove an amount of carbon equal to what they emit. Vendors earn carbon credits by planting trees, which capture carbon from the atmosphere, or by modifying existing factories to consume fewer fossil fuels.
Posted by Paul at 05:50 AM | Comments (13) | TrackBack
August 14, 2007
New Report Backs GM Crops: Media Release from Peter McGauran
Australian farmers and consumers can find the information they need to make informed decisions about GM canola in a new report released today by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Peter McGauran.
Mr McGauran said that GM Canola – an information package, commissioned by the Australian Government,brought together a wide range of current information.
“Covering everything from regulation, supply chain management and market acceptance of GM crops to agronomic, economic and legal liability issues at farm level, this package is intended to make a well-informed contribution to the current debate about the GM crops,” Mr McGauran said.
“With reviews of the moratoriums under way in four states, Australian farmers will potentially start growing GM canola from 2008.”
Mr McGauran said today the report found that Australian farmers stood to gain significantly from the introduction of GM technology.
“The study concludes that Australia’s main competitor, Canada, has been growing GM canola for 10 years without any appreciable loss of market share or prices, while enjoying significant agronomic benefits,” Mr McGauran said.
“It also found that GM canola offers some solutions to the problems facing conventional canola in Australia and is likely to make a valuable contribution to farming systems once farmers are able to access the technology and adopt it to their individual circumstances.”
Key points in the report are:
● Canola is an important crop in Australian winter crop rotations;
● Canola has benefits for farming enterprises beyond the direct returns the crop generates. Other crops in the rotation benefit from the weed control and disease management options canola provides;
● Weed resistance to conventional canola chemicals and disease pressures are threatening canola’s contribution to farming systems in Australia.
The report was produced by the consultancy firm ACIL Tasman.
“This report adds further weight to the argument that State Governments should immediately lift their moratoriums on GM crops so that Australian farmers can have access to the benefits of this technology,” Mr McGauran said.
“Australian farmers are extremely efficient and innovative producers, but to remain internationally competitive, need to be able to compete.”
The report is available at http://www.daff.gov.au/agriculture-food/biotechnology
End media release.
Posted by jennifer at 09:18 AM | Comments (16) | TrackBack
July 05, 2007
Tree Chop Campaign
Frustrated with the many laws and regulations in Australia that now make it difficult for farmers to manage trees, including woody weed regrowth, on their land a TREE CHOP CAMPAIGN kicked off on 1st July.
The NSW Farmers Association has failed to condemn the campaign that encourages farmers to cut down trees. The Australian Beef Association is actively supporting it.
Jeff Angel, Director of Total Environment Centre, said farmers were misled if they believed these actions would affect politicians in their favour. According to the Wilderness Society website: “Environment groups are calling for a criminal investigation into the activities of all individuals and groups who have publicly incited illegal land clearing, and for action to be taken against the ringleaders."
Not so many years ago environmental activists rather than farmers would have been more inclined to break the law. Now it is once law abiding farmers who feel so aggrieved they have resorted to civil disobedience.
Posted by jennifer at 12:19 PM | Comments (64) | TrackBack
June 21, 2007
Low World Grain Supplies: US National Farmers Union
"The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) released its first projections of world grain supply and demand for the coming crop year: 2007/08. USDA predicts supplies will plunge to a 53-day equivalent-their lowest level in the 47-year period for which data exists.
"The USDA projects global grain supplies will drop to their lowest levels on record. Further, it is likely that, outside of wartime, global grain supplies have not been this low in a century, perhaps longer," said National Farmers Union Director of Research Darrin Qualman .
from http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_5660.cfm
Most important, 2007/08 will mark the seventh year out of the past eight in which global grain production has fallen short of demand. This consistent shortfall has cut supplies in half-down from a 115-day supply in 1999/00 to the current level of 53 days. "The world is consistently failing to produce as much grain as it uses," said Qualman. He continued: "The current low supply levels are not the result of a transient weather event or an isolated production problem: low supplies are the result of a persistent drawdown trend."
In addition to falling grain supplies, global fisheries are faltering. Reports in respected journals Science and Nature state that 1/3 of ocean fisheries are in collapse, 2/3 will be in collapse by 2025, and our ocean fisheries may be virtually gone by 2048. "Aquatic food systems are collapsing, and terrestrial food systems are under tremendous stress," said Qualman.
Demand for food is rising rapidly. There is a worldwide push to proliferate a North American-style meat-based diet based on intensive livestock production-turning feedgrains into meat in this way means exchanging 3 to 7 kilos of grain protein for one kilo of meat protein. Population is rising-2.5 billion people will join the global population in the coming decades.
"Every six years, we're adding to the world the equivalent of a North American population. We're trying to feed those extra people, feed a growing livestock herd, and now, feed our cars, all from a static farmland base. No one should be surprised that food production can't keep up," said Qualman.
Qualman said that the converging problems of natural gas and fertilizer constraints, intensifying water shortages, climate change, farmland loss and degradation, population increases, the proliferation of livestock feeding, and an increasing push to divert food supplies into biofuels means that we are in the opening phase of an intensifying food shortage.
End of media release.
Thanks to Aaron Edmonds for this link.
Posted by jennifer at 10:39 AM | Comments (19) | TrackBack
May 22, 2007
Gwydir Wetlands Land Clearing Investigation
Hi Jennifer,
750 hectares of the nation's most significant waterbird breeding habitats has allegedly been cleared by a Moree farmer.
News sources, including ABC Online, are suggesting that the case may turn out to be one of the worst since legislation was introduced in 2003 to protect native vegetation
Aerial shots of the clearing have been broadcast on national television with both state and Federal Ministers weighing in. NSW Environment Minister Phil Koperberg said his department is investigating and that potentially big fines may be involved if the case is proven. Malcolm Turnbull has his Federal department also investigating to see if any Commonwealth legislation has been breached.
If the reports of land clearing are confirmed then the Gwydir case will be the first big test of the State Government's resolve to halt broadscale clearing since it handed native vegetation management to the Department of Environment and Climate Change. Thus far, the landholder has declined to comment.
A river and waterbird expert at the University of NSW, Richard Kingsford, said that in the mid-1990s more than 100,000 birds had bred at the property. These included egrets, several species of ibis and a variety of native ducks.
Professor Kingsford was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald explaining that:
"It's the death knell of this colony. Firstly there hasn't been enough water allocated to allow them to breed and now their essential nesting habitat has been destroyed.
"These birds faithfully return to the same place to breed but when the next flood comes they will have nowhere to lay their eggs and keep their nests out of the water.
"I am shocked at the scale of the clearing and the fact that it had occurred on one of the most important waterbird breeding sites in Australia."
Kingsford speculated on television that it would take decades or longer for the system to recover if ever.
There have been previous prosecutions over clearing of Gwydir Ramsar wetlands: http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/compliance/judgements/index.html
Cheers,
Luke Walker
Posted by jennifer at 09:04 AM | Comments (46) | TrackBack
May 15, 2007
Government Ban on GM to 'Expire' in Victoria
"Victorian farmers have welcomed reports that the Victorian Government will give farmers the choice to grow genetically modified crops, effectively breaking ranks with other Labor states that have imposed moratoria on GM production.
"According to The Age, sources close to Premier Steve Bracks say the government is satisfied there is almost zero risk associated with GM crops and the ban "will be allowed to expire next year".
Read the complete article at Farm Online: http://www.farmonline.com.au/news_daily.asp?ag_id=42448
Posted by jennifer at 01:17 PM | Comments (24) | TrackBack
April 10, 2007
Despite Climate Crisis, Surge in World Cereal Production
For a long time now its been predicted that the world will run out of food. According to Jared Diamond and other doomsayers, we are mining our soils, depleting our water reserves and now, according to Al Gore, we also have a climate crisis.
The latest United Nation’s report on climate change** was, however, surprisingly upbeat for agriculture stating that:
“Crop productivity is projected to increase slightly at mid to high latitudes for local mean temperature increases of up to 1-3°C depending on the crop, and then decrease beyond that in some regions.
"At lower latitudes, especially seasonally dry and tropical regions, crop productivity is projected to decrease for even small local temperature increases (1-2°C), which would increase risk of hunger.
"Globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase with increases in local average
temperature over a range of 1-3°C, but above this it is projected to decrease.
"Adaptations such as altered cultivars and planting times allow low and mid- to high latitude cereal yields to be maintained at or above baseline yields for modest warming.
"Increases in the frequency of droughts and floods are projected to affect local production negatively, especially in subsistence sectors at low latitudes.”
Then yesterday I read at ABC Online that the United Nations predicts a surge in world cereal production:
“A United Nations food body is predicting world cereal production will increase by nearly 4.5 per cent this year, to a record 2 billion tonnes.
"The Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates the bulk of the increase will be in maize, with a bumper crop already being gathered in South America and US plantings up sharply.
"It is also forecasting wheat production will rise 5 per cent to 626 million tonnes.”
Even in Australia, with this terrible drought, I've been told the prediction is for a record, or near record, wheat harvest this season.
----------------------------------------
** Working Group II Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report
Climate Change 2007: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Summary for Policymakers
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf
Posted by jennifer at 04:20 PM | Comments (139)
February 23, 2007
Less Carbon, Less Kenyan Produce for Tesco
Flying airplanes generates a lot of greenhouse gas emissions. So, according to the global warming doomsayers we should endeavor to fly less. Indeed according to a recent article at Grist.org the Bishop of London has proclaimed that it is a sin to fly on holidays.
British supermarket chain Tesco has extended the logic to food. That is it's going to restrict the importation of air freighted goods by half and introduce a system of carbon counting labeling.
Al Gore should approve.
But farmers in Kenya who have developed produce to meet Tesco's previous environmental requirements are not so sure.
"What is global warming?", asks Samuel Mauthike, a small scale vegetable farmer in Kenya.
"Is it something caused by us in Africa?"
According to same story at BBC News, Kenyan Jane Ngige has commented, "One minute we are talking about fair trade and market compliance, the next this is less of an issue and the issue is lessening the carbon footprint of the developed world possibly by cutting markets in Africa".
Ah, the fickle nature of modern environmentalism!
Posted by jennifer at 09:07 AM | Comments (64) | TrackBack
December 19, 2006
Running on Wine
Earlier this year I read that the European Commission had given the green light to farmers in France and Italy to once again convert their surplus wine into bioethanol.
The farmers get a subsidy for distillation of the surplus wine. I guess they also got a subsidy for growing it?
Meanwhile there has been some recent discussion at this blog about world grain stocks being dangerously low because of increasing convertion of grain to biofuels. There has also been discussion about the Queensland government building a dam so farmers can grow grapes.
There seems no limit to human ingenuity and folly when it comes to farming?
Posted by jennifer at 04:11 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
December 15, 2006
The Great Grain Drain: A Note from Aaron Edmonds
Hi Jennifer,
Globally grain stocks have shrunk to levels not seen since the early 1970s. Now to most this may seem like a seemingly unimportant fact. But this reality needs to be put into perspective.
In 1970 when the world was feeding itself out of the same sized grain inventories there were 3.7 billion people. Today there are over 6.5 billion people meaning the world is carrying near an extra 3 billion hungry mouths to 1970. We also now have a significant portion of the global crop being turned into biofuels - cereals and sugars for ethanol and oilseeds and tallows for biodiesel.
Once these biofuel plants are built they generally do not stop consuming feedstock. Shareholders do not make money from plants sitting idle. Other end users that have emerged are combustible stoves and water heaters in grain producing areas where low prices have encouraged feedstock substitution away from fossil fuels.
There are over 2 million corn stoves in North America alone that consume close to 25kg each per day in the cooler months - a total loss of 50,000 tonnes a day. What this serves to highlight is that grain prices have been too slow to appreciate to discourage waste in non food sectors. Once end using infrastructure is in place and consuming it generally will take significant grain price inflation to stop this consumption. Grain values in effect need to reach and in fact surplus energy parity values to prevent loss to biofuel end uses.
On the other end of the grain chain are the producers who are facing severe limitations in their ability to actually increase let alone maintain production. Depleting water aquifers, drought affected irrigation sources, competition for water and reduced rainfall are issues that are real and impacting on production output today.
And with an anticipated 'grain boom' there are also some such as myself who are predicting capacity constraints. For example, an inability for the fertilizer supply chain to be able to cope with demand from an agricultural sector keen to capitalise on rising prices. Potash fertilizer may be especially short moving forward. Hyperinflation in such inputs in itself is damaging to the output potential of third world cropping systems. Competition for land resources by staple food crops will be fierce and 'illogical' crop choices of the past (eg fruit crops) will be swept aside for fields of wheat, rice, corn and soybeans.
Output driven technologies such as transgenics will need to be embraced worldwide and embraced with fervour. Most would argue it is better to be fed than dead and anyone disagreeing with this is likely unwilling to be the first to go without as shortages unfold.
Environmentalism has failed for there is not one so called green group with a truly sustainable model of food production to promote today.
2007 will be a critical year for the world's staple food supply. Because a willingness to try and produce our way out of an approaching deficiency in grain supplies may be overriden by constraints out of everyones hands - weather and water. There are already early signs that China's 06-07 winter wheat areas are showing the effects of drought and areas within the Midwestern wheatbelt of the US have inadequate soil moisture levels. Here in Australia our summer crop plantings are well down from previous years. This developing crisis should concern everyone who eats food.
Regards,
Aaron Edmonds
2002 Nuffield Scholar
President Australian Sandalwood Network
www.australianuts.com
Posted by jennifer at 07:55 PM | Comments (54)
November 29, 2006
Fishers Snagged: Not Farmed, Then Not Organic
According to an article in yesterday's New York Times the market for organic foods continues to grow with sales reaching US$13.8 billion in 2005 compared with US$3.6 billion in 1997.
But there's not much 'organic seafood' about because of problems with definitions and also what fish eat.
Now I would have thought a wild Atlantic salmon would automatically qualify as organic. But according to the US Agriculture Department to be organic you need to be farmed: read the full story here including that: "Environmentalists rightly argue that many farm-raised fish live in cramped nets in conditions that can pollute the water, and that calling them organic is a perversion of the label. Those who catch and sell wild fish say that their products should be called organic and worry that if they are not, fish farmers will gain a huge leg up."
Posted by jennifer at 08:17 AM | Comments (31) | TrackBack
November 28, 2006
Farming in Nigeria: A Note from Russell
In the following note from Russell, which was originally posted as a comment on a thread about how biotechnology benefits American farmers, he tells us something about farming in Nigeria and how white farmers from Zimbabwe are being invited to settle in Nigeria:
"Several comments refer to the link between agricultural subsidies and the impoverishment of African farmers.Here in Nigeria (which has 20 percent of sub-Saharan Africa’s population) the two biggest causes of most farmers impoverishment in my opinion are a lack of access to capital, and a reluctance to embrace new technologies. These are two sides of the same coin as farmers have to be risk averse if they have no capital to risk on new approaches.
The cost of a bad yield here is starvation.
Much of the area farmed lies in the Guinea savannah and Sahel zones and rainfall varies in onset, duration and yield from year to year. Each year many farming communities go through a very lean period at the end of the dry season when last years stored crops run out. Off farm income is critical during this period.
Examination of farming practices demonstrates a risk minimisation strategy based upon a long history of subsistence farming within an unpredictable environment. A nice summary is given in Kathleen Bakers book "Indigenous Land Management in West Africa".
Here in Nigeria the Banks are typically not interested in farmers as a market for loans as they perceive them (rightly) as high risk, and so it is virtually impossible for a farmer to get credit from a bank, and would farmers want credit, with interest rates ranging from 23-28 percednt?
A recent program instigated by the Kwara Sate governor which has invited Zimbabwean farmers to take up land in Kwara State has seen a small cohort of technologically saavy, capital rich white farmers take up the option of farming here.
Even these guys have not been able to get credit locally, but the most interesting aspect of their arrival has been the comments from local farmers over the high cropping densities and the monoculture plantings.
Local farmers consider the approach to be crazy, and from their capital poor perspective it is. However, it is also clear that many of the local farming practices are so deeply inculculated in the local culture that many potential forms of innovation are frowned upon. This may actually be a worthwhile risk minimisation strategy because if a farmer fails it is the other members of the family/clan/village who will have to help.
While there are wealthy landowners here who have the means to farm intensively on a much larger scale, the opportunity from cessation of EU and other subsidies might not have an immediate, or large impact on the greater mass of subsistence farmers without access to the capital required for them to enter the cotton market for example.
In fact the immediate effect of a rise in the price of cotton in this country where the wealthy have the power and influence and the poor have access to land which is not adequately protected by the land tenure system might be to push many subsistence farmers off the land and to lower the amount of land used for local food production.
Of course the economists would say this will create new opportunities, but a look at where the wealthy and powerful Nigerians invest their mostly stolen wealth (oil) reveals it goes overseas.Against this background, which I suggest is a common feature of subsistence farmers everywhere in the savannah zones of the developing world, I am not sure I can agree with the sentiment that it is EU and US subsidies which keep the African farmer impoverished. Similarly, while I consider that GM foods can (and should) have a useful role in an African context, I am not sure that global acceptance of GM foods would also necessarily lead to a better world for African farmers."
Posted by jennifer at 07:35 AM | Comments (62)
November 04, 2006
Best Hamburgers, Have Best New Oils
In the overall scheme of things, the most significant event for Australian agriculture this week was probably not the newest drought aid installment or the drought-breaking rains in south western Queensland. It was probably the decision by hamburger giant McDonald to change the cooking oil it uses in Australian outlets away from standard Australian canola, to healthier new oil blends with much less trans fat.
One way of creating a low trans fat crop variety is through biotechnology. But our farmers have rejected GM food crops. Indeed while Greenpeace championed the bans on new GM food crops in Australia, the NSW Farmers Association supported the legislation in that state. In Victoria it was the milk processors who came to the support of that state govenment as it gave in to the luddites.
Australian farmers, once trail blazers when it came to innovation and new technologies, are now dealing themselves out of the future. Indeed they still arguing about GM canola, a crop grown in Canada for 10 years now, while farmers in the US look forward to the next generation of GM crop varieties that will not only give superior yields and better weed control but also improved nutrition.
Indeed, and quoting Roger Kalla:
"In USA the labelling of the trans fat content in foods is already mandated by law. The low trans fat oils used in North America are derived from Duponts NUTRIUM™ Low Lin Soybean Oil , Monsantos VISTIVE Soybean oil and Dow Agrosciences Natreon Canola oil. We will see where McDonald's will be sourcing their low transfat oils from in the future.The Australian canola crop this year is predicted to be barley enough for domestic use of vegetable oil and the fraction of the crop that is of a suitable quality like Monola , marketed by Nutrihealth, will probably not be enough to meet the new demand. Australian farmers seem to be doubly disadvantaged this year with a major drought affecting yields and not having access to the quality oil seed that large end users of canola oil such as McDonald's increasingly requires."
I will be talking about Robert Malthus and banning food crops in my next Counterpoint column. If you live in Australia you will be able to hear it by tunning into ABC Radio National at 4pm on Monday, repeated 9pm on Tuesdays.
Posted by jennifer at 01:09 PM | Comments (22) | TrackBack
October 19, 2006
Growing Biodiesel In Northern Australia: Roger Kalla
Outspoken liberal senator Bill Heffernan has suggested that Australia's farmers move North to the tropical parts of Australia where there is more water.
In two recent blog posts at the GMO Pundit Website Roger Kalla asks: What would farmers grow in northern Australia?
In the first post he considers soybeans for biodiesel and animal feed: http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/10/go-north-young-man-go-north-cropping.html .
And in the second cotton for biodiesel: http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/10/another-biodiesel-crop-for-northern.html .
Posted by jennifer at 01:33 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
October 15, 2006
Biochar (Part 1)
Hello Jennifer,
I recently did a google search on 'biochar', this would be a useful way to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and at the same time improve soils.
It could be used on woody weeds, crop residue or any other organic waste that was available.
Regards Bruce
Posted by jennifer at 10:59 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
October 13, 2006
What Will Limit Food Supplies?
The ability of farmers to feed the world is being eroded by three different factors: meat, heat and biofuels. At least that's according to Gwynne Dyer in an interesting piece entitled 'How long can the world feed itself?'.
He may be right on meat and biofuels, but I don't see 'heat' as a big a problem. Indeed its my understanding that as the world warms northern hemisphere farms will gain both the advantage of a longer growing seasons and a C02 fertilization effect. As regards Australia, well it might make sense for farmers to move north where there is more water. Indeed I think I would nominate 'water' rather than 'heat', as the third factor that may limit the ability of farmers to keep up with the growing world population.
---------------
Thanks to Aaron Edmonds for sending in the link to Gwynne's piece.
Posted by jennifer at 06:08 PM | Comments (19) | TrackBack
October 04, 2006
What will Australian Farmers Be Growing in 10 Years Time?
What will Australian farmers be growing in 5- 10 years time?
I watched Part 3 of Two Men in a Tinnie * on ABC TV last night. It’s about environmentalist Tim Flannery and TV personality John Doyle motoring down the Darling and Murray Rivers in a small aluminum boat.
They have met lots of people along the river but haven’t yet interviewed a rice or cotton farmer while often complaining about these crops. In Parts 1 and 2 they reminisced about the days when farmers grew sheep rather than cotton.
A couple of years ago I wrote that:
"It is [Peter] Cullen’s contention that we can save water in the Murray–Darling Basin by growing higher value crops, in particular wine grapes. And there are those who insist that rice growing should be banned altogether. While concerned greens may be keen to sip champagne for breakfast, rather than crunch rice bubbles—all in the name of doing the right thing by the environment— is this really a sustainable approach?"
I went on to explain in that article that...
"One of the most defining characteristics of water in the Australian landscape is flow variability. In the poem ‘My Country’, Dorothea McKellar appropriately describes Australia as a land ‘of drought and flooding rains’. Reflecting this variability, water allocation can be severely restricted in drought years like the present, even though water storage capacity in the Murray Darling Basin is approximately 25 per cent of annual average runoff.Paradoxically, rice growers easily cope with this by simply not planting a crop. In contrast, South Australian wine grape growers bleat loudly because their perennial crop needs water every year."
Just yesterday I read Rabobank bank boss, Bert Heemskerk, stating that northern hemisphere farm subsidies ‘have to go’ and that this would lead to lead to an inevitable shift in global agricultural production from the northern hemisphere to the south.
The Pharmland website also suggests that Europe, in particular that Denmark, should lessen its dependence on massive EU agricultural subsidies and fostered a freer global market, allowing Third World countries to enter the market and begin self-sustaining economies. The site goes on to suggest that Denmark farmers begin to cultivate high value GM crops including vaccine-laden tomatoes.
At the opposite end of the spectrum is the potential increased production of low value GM crops for ethanol.
David Tribe wrote in the IPA Review last year that:
"Already, Brazilian fuel ethanol has become a substantial part of international trade, and currently competes commercially on US fuel markets, even with the penalty of a 51 per cent US excise tax. This dominant global trade position in ethanol liquid-fuel capitalises on 30 years of previous technological improvement, including earlier introduction of higher yielding cane varieties and numerous integrated changes to ethanol factories.
The recent wave of ethanol fuel ventures in Australia cannot afford to ignore the reality of markets dominated by very cheap Brazilian ethanol and the prospects of even lower priced Brazilian and US ethanol in the near future.Cereal straw and sugar cane bagasse are not the only cellulosic starting materials which can be converted to sugar using enzyme catalysts: wood and many other non-food crops can also be used, and forest industries in Canada and Scandinavia have particular interests in this area.
…Ethanol biofuel doesn’t make economic or environmental sense without the tools and discoveries of modern biotechnology.
Without this, Australia would be better off importing its fuel ethanol from South America.
Setbacks to farm profitability and investment caused by GM crop bans show that technological leadership entails much more than just science and the costing of economic returns and agronomic benefits. They represent destruction of basic economic freedoms and threats to the medium term financial viability of several rural industries. Resolution of this damage might come from a frank assessment of the misjudgements of industry, farming groups, and politicians that caused them, as well as an action plan to change stakeholder strategies.
If it is indeed true that they were driven by political calculations about urban votes rather than government attention to the interests of the rural sector, stronger activism by farming organizations, such as the National Farmers Federation and other networks such as the recently established Producers Forum (which is a loose national network of concerned growers), are a very welcome sign."
But not everyone is so optimistic. Last week I received an email from Aaron Edmonds with a link to a piece in The Daily Star that began:
"The Furnace Australia sailed into Chennai recently carrying a load of wheat and, some warned, ill tidings. India's first wheat imports in six years marked a reversal in the march toward "food independence" that the country began in the 1970s.
In the piece Jason Overdorf goes on to suggest that Indian agriculture is in trouble, too reliant on technology and running out of water:
"Swaminathan urges leaders to focus on what he calls an 'evergreen revolution'. The goal would be to correct the damage wrought by the first Green Revolution: adopting new methods like the use of natural predators instead of chemicals to eliminate pests, and switching to organic fertilizers and more efficient drip irrigation. He also says Singh should promote crops that require less water, including native Indian grains such as finger millet (ragi), pearl millet (bajra) and sorghum (jowar).That's a tough sell for two reasons: these coarse grains, once a staple of regional Indian cuisines, have fallen out of style since the first Green Revolution made wheat cheap and plentiful. So restoring their popularity will take a major marketing push, of the kind governments rarely do well. Second, Singh sees India very differently from the critics, as a nation fighting to attain middle-class comfort, not one at risk of sliding into mass hunger. Watch the future voyages of the Furnace Australia, and whether it is carrying grain to India, for one strong sign of which view is right.
But i'ts hard for me to reconcile the claim that Indian agriculture is in trouble with reports that cotton yields are up?
Indeed world cotton production is projected at 25 million tons in 2006/07 with China (Mainland), India and Pakistan combined expected to produce 13 million tons in 2006/07, or over half of world production for the first time in history.
Again, according to David Tribe in that piece from last year’s IPA Review:
"Modern plant breeding is playing decisive role in this economically disruptive but beneficial-to-the consumer transition. The continuing global progress with this revolution, which started in Australia and the US in 1996, is illustrated by recent comments made by Zhang Rui, a member of a research team in the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences. In September this year, he announced that China has approved commercialization of a new hybrid variety of insect-resistant Bt cotton—which contains a protein that kills bollworms—that should yield 26 per cent more cotton. The last two seasons have also witnessed truly dramatic improvements in the Indian cotton industry productivity.Widespread use of genetically modified cotton seeds has helped assure India of a bumper 2005 cotton harvest, with national output estimated at 25 million bales, up seven per cent from 2004."
Back to that original question: What will Australian farmers be growing in 5- 10 years time?
Will the demand for ethanol (in Australia and overseas), lifting of the bans on GM food crops, lifting of agricultural subsidies in Europe, relative competitiveness of Asian farmers, or the availablility and price of water, be the most significant drivers of change?
---------------------------------
* I've noted Luke's request that I comment on this series. I'm working up to a long blog post pointing out the difference between the rhetoric and the imagery.
Posted by jennifer at 11:39 AM | Comments (32) | TrackBack
September 05, 2006
Possibilities & Challenges for Biotechnology
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently released a report focused on the opportunities and challenges for biotechnology in the next decade:
"WASHINGTON, Aug. 30, 2006— Deputy Agriculture Secretary Chuck Conner announced today that a report about the future of biotechnology is available to the public. Prepared by USDA's Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21), "Opportunities and Challenges in Agricultural Biotechnology: The Decade Ahead" describes the advances in agricultural biotechnology's first decade and discusses a range of topics related to agricultural biotechnology that may be addressed by the secretary over the next decade."We are pleased to get this report and thank those involved for their interest and efforts. This consensus report, from a diverse group of stakeholders who express different perspectives, will be important in helping us understand the evolving landscape for agricultural biotechnology," said Conner.
The AC21 was established in 2003 to examine how biotechnology is likely to change agriculture and USDA's work over the long term. The 20-member committee represents a wide spectrum of views and interests and is composed of farmers, technology providers, academics, representatives from the food manufacturing and shipping industries, and representatives from consumer and environmental organizations. The committee meets in public session three to four times per year. The web site for the AC21, which contains all the committee's reports and information about its meetings, can be accessed through USDA's biotechnology portal at http://www.usda.gov.
Possibilities
According to the report, some of the ag biotech possibilities over the next ten years could include:
1. Genetically engineered plant varieties that provide improved human nutrition (e.g.,soybeans enriched in omega-3 fatty acids);
2. Products designed for use in improved animal feeds (providing better nutritional balance by increasing the concentration of essential amino acids often deficient in some feed components, increased nutrient density, or more efficient utilization of nutrients such as phosphate that could provide environmental benefits);
3. Crops resistant to drought and other environmental stresses such as salinity;
4. Crops resistant to pests and diseases (e.g., fusarium- resistant wheat; chestnut-blight resistant chestnut; plum pox resistance in stone fruit; various insect resistant crops);
5. Additional crops containing a number of transgenic traits incorporated in the same plant (stacked traits);
6. Crops engineered to produce pharmaceuticals, such as vaccines and antibodies;
7. Crops engineered for particular industrial uses (e.g., crops having improved processing attributes such as increased starch content, producing useful enzymes that can be extracted for downstream industrial processes, or modified to have higher content of an energy-rich starting material such as oil for improved utilization as biofuel); and
8. Transgenic animals for food, or for production of pharmaceuticals or industrial products (e.g., transgenic salmon engineered for increased growth rate to maturity, transgenic goats producing human serum factors in their milk, and pigs producing the enzyme phytase in their saliva for improved nutrient utilization and manure with reduced phosphorus content).Challenges
AC21 members have diverse views about the appropriate role of plant and animal products derived from modern biotechnology in the food and agricultural marketplace. Members recognize that new products will be entering a world that is very different from the one that existed a decade ago when the first agricultural products of modern biotechnology were
introduced:
1. Many of the “first-generation” transgenic organisms developed in the United States have now been adopted by farmers in other nations, including developing nations;
2. Some of the transgenic plant varieties intended for food use developed over the next few years will likely emerge from the developing world. For example, if transgenic rice varieties (probably insect-resistant
varieties) that have been developed in the developing world (e.g., in China or India) are commercialized, this could have a significant impact on the global genetic engineering debate because large populations of humans will be consuming a staple transgenic whole food;
3. Some of the “next generation” of transgenic varieties and products may need to be produced under identity preservation conditions or require strict segregation from food or feed product streams;
4. Media coverage and public debate have made consumers more aware of genetically engineered products than when the first crops were adopted.
5. Increased awareness along the food and feed chain will continue to influence the acceptance of new products derived from modern biotechnology;
6. Genomic information is being used to enable the development of improved crops and animals through both transgenic and non-transgenic approaches;
7. National regulatory systems for evaluating the safety of new transgenic products are being developed and implemented in many countries around the world, eliminating some uncertainties but, in some cases, complicating the path to market;
8. Many countries now require mandatory labeling for food products derived from modern biotechnology, and some require traceability of those products throughout the food and feed chain. Food manufacturers who do not want to label their products as containing transgenics are sourcing non-transgenic crops, further segmenting the marketplace;
9. U.S. regulations are evolving slowly and many governing statutes were written before modern agricultural biotechnology was developed. That system may not be optimal to meet the needs of producers and consumers.
10.The commercialization of a transgenic plant or animal product is affected by considerations beyond the safety of the product. Technical challenges may arise when turning a beneficial trait into a marketable food. New products must gain acceptance by consumers and trading partners;
11. Sometimes social and ethical concerns may influence decisions about commercialization. For example, the development of transgenic animals may generate, for some people, higher levels of concern than those for plant breeding;
12. Some international agreements specific to modern biotechnology, e.g., the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, and standards related to modern biotechnology under Codex Alimentarius, now exist. Additional efforts under these bodies are continuing, but their future outcomes are uncertain;
13. There is an ongoing trade dispute over modern biotechnology-derived products between the EU and a number of complainants, including the United States, nearing a final report from the World Trade Organization;
14. Technology producers, food producers and processors increasingly recognize the global interdependence of markets and the importance of resolving genetic engineering- related issues;
15. With the increased use of genetically engineered organisms, other issues such as testing, liability, coexistence, and intellectual property rights, have emerged."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks to Larissa Mullot, Agrifood Awareness Australia Limited for alerting me to the report.
Posted by jennifer at 05:41 PM | TrackBack
September 01, 2006
Latest NSW Farmers Campaign: Get Off Our Backs
I have some sympathy for the farmers of Nyngan and Cobar in New South Wales and the newly formed Regional Community Survival Group in their struggle to manage invasive woody weeds. I have posted some information from this group, including a note on the recent blockade.
I have less sympathy for NSW Farmers Association and their new campaign "Get Off Our Backs". The NSW Farmers Association never stood up to the Wentworth Group and they went along with the Greenpeace anti-GM canola campaign.
I detail my thoughts on the issue in my latest column in The Land:
"I hope NSW Farmers Association’s new campaign intended to improve the image of farmers with the slogan “Get off our backs” resonates in Sydney. But I doubt it.The association’s website explains that the community “has been misled on green issues for too long. It’s time for the truth.”
So what is the truth?
The way a lot of people see it, just a year ago NSW Farmers was asking for drought aid.
Remember the 2000-strong drought rally in Parkes? It generated lots of interest in Sydney with stories about desperate farmers, dust and hungry animals.
Unfortunately, through the years these stories have reinforced a perception that many Australian farmers are environmental vandals flogging a dry landscape.
If farmers want governments off their back, they must realise Australia is a land of drought and flooding rains and not keeping claiming exceptional circumstances.
There is some concern at the moment about the Wilderness Society and its “Can't find a billabong 'cos they've bulldozed the Coolabah trees” campaign.
But in terms of long-term damage to the reputation of Australian farmers this campaign pales into insignificance next to the National Farmers Federation (NFF) campaign of 2000-2001. Back then NFF executive director, Wendy Craik, pleaded for a massive $65 billion to stop the spread of dryland salinity and repair 200 years of damage from claimed unsustainable European farming practices.
Not a month goes by now without a newspaper headline telling how bad it is in the bush.
On federal budget night, Federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, announced another $500 million for the Murray River to reduce salinity levels -- the centre-piece of the Government’s commitment to saving the Australian environment.
I was hoping some farm leader might have seized the initiative and issued a media releasing explaining that salt levels in the Murray are at historic lows and they don’t need to be artificially pushed any lower, but instead there was silence.
Last week I read how water levels in the Murray River are the lowest since records began more than 100 years ago.
But the article was confusing low water inflows with low water levels, the journalist apparently unaware that the Murray River ran dry in 1914.
In this drought, South Australian irrigators are receiving 80 percent of their water entitlements thanks to the dams and weirs upstream in NSW and Victoria, and the river is full of water all the way to South Australia.
The latest false claims about the Murray’s record low water levels also gave the ABC another opportunity to suggest agriculture is in trouble and lament yet another catastrophe in rural Australia.
If NSW farmers are going to have long-term success with their campaign, “Get off our backs”, then farm leaders need to try harder to correct such misinformation.
City dwellers would be surprised at how much they’ve been misled by the environment lobby (not to mention how many more trees there are now than at the time of European settlement), but more farmers will need to take more responsibility for their own businesses come drought or flood.
It’s no good telling people to leave you alone if they honestly believe, or have been hoodwinked into believing, you are wrecking the environment."
Posted by jennifer at 02:57 PM | Comments (50) | TrackBack
August 11, 2006
Energy from Sandalwood: Aaron Edmonds
I recieved the following note from Aaron Edmonds, 2002 Nuffield Scholar and Farmer:
"Agriculture has evolved to the assumption that oil and gas will always be cheap. Large amounts of energy are used in food production making agriculture the third largest energy consuming sector globally. Most people would be aware of the diesel fuel requirement to power the machinery used in crop production. What they would not be aware o