Australian Greens, a disaster for the worlds climate.

[topcropper]

I think that the prospect of mass starvation puts the use of man made chemicals into perspective, again TC is correct in that life spans have been lengthened because of modern farming methods.

bye

I probably don't even think todays farming methods have extended lifespans.

Ruby is more correct here. Medicine has extended lifespans the most.

I really don't know if farm chemicals are bad for anyone, but if lifespans are still increasing, then that's got to be a good sign that they aren't so bad.

The green revolution that produced so much food, led to massive population increase, so now we are stuck with oil based agriculture, whether it turns out it is bad for health or not.



I don't think we are headed for famine when oil runs out. Technology will find a way to provide 6, or even 9 billion people to eat. We need a cheap source of energy and a new method to convert the atmospheres nitrogen into a usable fertilizer. We have a long time yet to find an answer, but I guarentee that the answer won't be organic farming because it is simply impossible.

Probably Genetic modification will provide the answer with nitrogen fixing grasses. I know a scientist who thinks it could be possible, but while GM banns were in place there was no research funding.



Massive famine will happen in Africa in most of our lifetimes. It will make what happened in Ethiopia 20 years ago look mild.

See ya's.

 

[Norwester]

TC,

So what exactly are the issues with GM crops?

Haven't we been geneticlly modifying things for years through natural selection and cross breeding............or is this not the same?

Why would Goodman - Fielder come out and say that lifting the GM ban will be bad..........or is that just because they are worried about public perception issues?

ciao

Nor

 

[Bill.L]

Hi all,

Of course modern medicine has improved lifespans greatly, so also has refrigeration, and I think I was a little obtuse in the modern farming comment.

What I meant was that without modern farming methods there would be much greater suffering during famines, even here in Australia. Also the famines when they occur are much more likely to lead to wars etc. All of this would lead to a lower life expectancy. It is really impossible to say what would have happened without modern farming methods.

On a different note,
One of the more bizarre organic practices that I have seen (and was allowed with organic standards), was 'flame weeding'. This is the practice where a tractor with a carryall containing 3 or 4 large LPG cylinders, goes up and down row crops burning the weeds in between the crop. With precision, could be done within inches of the crop, but only kills what is above ground.

The waste of energy, the polluting emissions and the potential for unburnt residues out of the gas bottles never ceased to amaze me.
Yet this was a "good" practice compared to the "bad" unorganic practice of using a little bit of roundup.

The term organic sounds wonderful, but the reality is different. Maybe though the financial freedom that good investment brings, allows those who want to feel good, buy organic foods.

bye

 

[topcropper]

Norwester,

GM crops...???

The wikipedia definition seems fairly accurate,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food

......."Genetically modified (GM) foods are foodstuffs produced from genetically modified organisms (GMO) that have had their genome altered through genetic engineering".....

So this is very different to natural breeding, and hybrids and stuff. GM is scientists mucking around with DNA.

Natural breeding started with agriculture at the end of the last ice age, as farmers kept the best grain for planting, kept the best milking cow for breeding and ate the slacko cow, etc.



I was very anti GM 10 years ago and so was nearly all farmers. Ten years ago there was massive food mountains of grain, butter, cotton and just about everything. GM was here to increase yields and production even more, so why would I want that? Plus we were told that by staying GM free, we would get premium prices. The premium just never happened, and all our competitors except the kiwis and Euros are growing these insect proof crops that can be sprayed with roundup. Yields have increased without the constant insect pressure, and costs are much less.

Aussie farmers now are pro GM, for those obvious reasons. If there is no premium, then stuff staying GM free.

GM material would be in any imported food containing corn, or soy. We have been importing canola from Canada since last year because of our drought, and I know for a fact that aussie made margerine is full of GM cottonseed oil. I don't know why it's not labled? I've never seen a label saying 'this food contains GM material'.



Untill yesterday, cotton was the only GM crop grown in Oz. Anyone visiting a cotton town like Wee Waa, or Dalby would be amazed at the difference today. Cotton used to be sprayed up to 15 times with insecticides, by cropdusters. It was a potentially a bad environment to live in, if these chemicals do effect health, but today these towns are as nice a place to live as anywhere else.




As of yesterday, GM canola will be allowed in NSW and Vic. I think the floodgates will open now, for other crops too, and it is all good for the environment. Organic cotton and canola just didn't even exist, as it was pretty much impossible to grow chemical free.

The greens would be jumping up and down about all this. Peter Garrett must have choked on his coffee yesterday when he read his paper, or saw it on the news. I don't think Kevin 07 had anything to do with it, but who knows?.

See ya's.

 

[quoll]

1. Maybe the matrix power system could work for us and harvest power from human beings.

If they had of been able to provide me with a viable solution to our power needs i might have been more inclined to vote that way not that i agree with any of their other policies either

People Power
Just take out a loan for $15k - $30k and put solar power cells on your roof with batteries and connected to the grid. People power, your call, you do something and don't wait for a gov to decide.

There is very little stopping the average Aussie from voting with their feet .. or in this case wallet.

Cheers
quoll

 

[Sunfish]

Just take out a loan for $15k - $30k and put solar power cells on your roof with batteries and connected to the grid.

I'm sorry but this is another example of stinkin' thinkin'.

I am surprised that anyone seriously thinks that, using current technology, you get more power out of solar cells than you burn making them. And making electronic grade silicon uses a lot of water too.

Please, for the good of the planet, don't do this.

 

[quoll]

I'm sorry but this is another example of stinkin' thinkin'.

I am surprised that anyone seriously thinks that, using current technology, you get more power out of solar cells than you burn making them. And making electronic grade silicon uses a lot of water too.

Please, for the good of the planet, don't do this.

Please post some evidence to support this argument?

I'll start, taken from Wikipedia

Solar cells and energy payback

In the 1990s, when silicon cells were twice as thick, efficiencies 30% lower than today and lifetimes shorter, it may well have cost more energy to make a cell than it could generate in a lifetime. The energy payback time of a modern photovoltaic module is anywhere from 1 to 20 years (usually under five)[9] depending on the type and where it is used (see net energy gain). This means solar cells can be net energy producers, meaning they generate more energy over their lifetime than the energy expended in producing them.[10][9][11]

We have to start somewhere. What is the energy payback of a Nuclear plant?

cheers
quoll

 

[Sunfish]

What is the energy payback of a Nuclear plant?

If you are talking Barrels of Oil Equivalent to construct Vs BOE output a coal or nuclear station would be similar, I imagine. I do know that in the USA they have not built any new nuclear plants for decades. The ones they did build are still churning away though, well past their design life and their duty cycle is getting better. I can only assume that modern control and instrumentation has improved in much the same way as your PC. Taking this logic one step further, a new plant would be better still.

Using Oil Equivalent measures of input/output I think wind turbines would be awful too because they are not made out of scrap iron but we are not given this data which makes me suspicious.

And in spite of your Wikipedia reference, I will not accept domestic solar arrays have any real value beyond the "feel good" factor. Following the Tim Flannery model and doing something, anything, is probably counterproductive. Even recycling is (mostly) a joke in the far flung regions of the Commonwealth. Carrying the cardboard etc thousands of ks on trucks is unlikely to be energy positive.

Things are not always what they seem.

 

[quoll]

If you are talking Barrels of Oil Equivalent to construct Vs BOE output a coal or nuclear station would be similar, I imagine. I do know that in the USA they have not built any new nuclear plants for decades. The ones they did build are still churning away though, well past their design life and their duty cycle is getting better. I can only assume that modern control and instrumentation has improved in much the same way as your PC. Taking this logic one step further, a new plant would be better still.

Agree, my gut feel is a nuclear plant would be positive in it's energy payback, with relatively low waste output.

Using Oil Equivalent measures of input/output I think wind turbines would be awful too because they are not made out of scrap iron but we are not given this data which makes me suspicious.

Maybe, as you have said difficult to find data.

And in spite of your Wikipedia reference, I will not accept domestic solar arrays have any real value beyond the "feel good" factor.

Happy to agree to disagree. Generating my own household power is on the to do list. I actually read some of the reference material as well.

Following the Tim Flannery model and doing something, anything, is probably counterproductive. Even recycling is (mostly) a joke in the far flung regions of the Commonwealth. Carrying the cardboard etc thousands of ks on trucks is unlikely to be energy positive.

Things are not always what they seem.

Agree that things are not always as they seem and sometimes doing nothing is the best option.

I'm going to do some searching on wind turbines and see what I can find.

Cheers
quoll

 

[Sunfish]

I'm going to do some searching on wind turbines and see what I can find.

Cheers
quoll

Seems there is much we agree on, and reading further is one of these things. If you do find out something about wind turbines, please share.

Regards.

 

[Peter 14.7]

Ok, where do I start.

Firstly, on a positive note this passionate debate shown many of us have an opinion on green issues. That is a good thing. Debate brings answers.

I can see both sides of the story.

I work in commercial building management and lot of the green movement is moving in here. Sadly some of it is "green for green sake" and the latest craze and money making. Simple, cost effective solutions are left by the way side in favour of sexy options like roof top solar and wind turbines where if staff lowered thier use of air con by 1 degree then the savings would offset the solar power at not cost to build cells and lower maintenance.

Water is the same. Everyone is save water , dont waste water!!! but everyone buys bottled water at massive cost to the environment. I read only recently each bottle takes 200ml of oil to make. Think about that.

In summary the way of life on this planet is unsustainable at present systems. Maybe in 100 years time we will neutral to earth. In nature when there is less then the animals die back, when more they bred. Humans just bred.

I sympathise with Top Cropper. Farmers do it tough 80% of the time. No control over the weather and then city slickers come along and demand they don't crutch sheep, etc.. but cry poor when Lamb prices go up 20% when alternative are applied.

I buy organic where i can and it costs a lot more. That my choice. I dont like GM but provided they label and control it I can see the need. What I fear if they will not label and control GM and it will seep into our bodies.

The question is , is it better to have GM food than no food at all?

Until Humans stop be greedy and want it all, we have little real hope of change. Al Gore is great man but he lives in a massive house and flys everwhere in jets. No-one is perfect.

Peter 14.7

 

[Norwester]

TC,

Thanks for the reply re my question on GM crops.....


Sunfish / Quoll,

You may wish to read this

ciao

Nor

 

[adam31]

Sunfish and TC thank you for your replies they came across much less aggressive and way more informative which is why i was throwing stuff at ya's. Boy did you bite hard when i argued organic

I have had a vegie patch for 4 months(you have a touch more experience), I started this because I wanted nice fresh fruit and Veg for me and my kids(they now know food doesn't grow on shelves at woolies). I use basic permaculture methods to control bugs and I use green manure & compost for fertilizer. The idea is that everything has a predator, for instance lady bugs and praying mantis eat most pests for me the rest i get with Neem oil.
I have nothing but respect for our farmers.

I don't agree that we should wait for a techno-fix at all though i think this will get us across the line. I think Australia really needs to decentralize big time!
Energy will get much more expensive before it gets cheaper especially oil. As a massive net importer of oil we are no better off than the USA. What is your opinion on Food crops for Ethanol TC
I personally think Oil will be the resource that broke the camel's back , have a look around and find me something that is not produced or transported using it. Why do we sell our gas to China for a few cents a litre when I have a feeling we will need every last drop of it.

 

[topcropper]

Water is the same. Everyone is save water , dont waste water!!! but everyone buys bottled water at massive cost to the environment. I read only recently each bottle takes 200ml of oil to make. Think about that.

Peter 14.7

Everyone has their little quirks. Me, I've still never ever bought a bottle of water. It is so stupid, bottled water. And pretty much a total insult to farmers when water sells for what it does, and until 12 months ago diary farmers were getting 30 cents per litre for milk, although, thankfully, milk prices are on the rise now.

See ya's.

 

[topcropper]

What is your opinion on Food crops for Ethanol TC
.

Yeah, it's pretty dumb.

Ethanol production right now is doing it pretty tough, as grain prices have risen so much. Grain was always going to go up with oil, but oil took off first, and grain didn't, and suddenly ethanol production had massive profit margins, and every man and his dog in the US built an ethanol plant. Now, since grain has doubled, there's not much money to be made. Apparently ethanol is only profitable due to subsidies too, but I don't really understand that.

One good thing about ethanol, if it's possible, is that if a hundred million tonnes of grain are going to biofuel production, then that is a reserve that humanity could use in the event of a grain production disaster. Grain for food would always come before fuel you would think, but then maybe not.



Integrated pest management is commonly used by farmers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_pest_management

Sounds a bit like what you do in your vege patch. Killing every bug is generally not a good idea. Chemicals cost a lot of money, so farmers try not to use them if possible. My cropping system, I don't use pesticides, ever. It's the broadleaf plants that cop insect attack the most, and I mainly grow grass type crops. [ie, wheat, sorghum].

Good on you for your vege patch.

 

[topcropper]

and I use green manure .

Green manure?
....................So this is where you let something grow, like weeds, or anything, then mulch it into the soil? Yes?
I can't see how this can be classed as fertilizer. It might be increasing organic matter, but it's not a net addition in nutrients.

All thats happened is the nutrients in the soil grew a green manure crop, then the green manure is mulched, turning it back into nutrients. I must be missing something.

See ya's.

 

[Sunfish]

I must be missing something.

See ya's.

There can be a small plus with legumes. But you know that. Fallow cropping under another name?

 

[Sunfish]

Distasteful as it is, converting sewerage to fertilizer must happen one day.

In the meantime there could be a "Pee on a tree" campaign to save water and add nitrogen to your fruit tree.

 

[topcropper]

There can be a small plus with legumes. But you know that. Fallow cropping under another name?

Yes, of course, legumes. Natures little wonder. Just too bad that in a cropping system, a legumes phase to build nitrogen will halve production due simply to the time it takes.




Hey Adam,

my vege garden mate,....

I didn't mean it to be a green garden, as I'm anti-green, but when I think about it, it's as green as they come.

The straw is lucerne, and comes from out of the guinea pig winter enclosure and is full of guinea pig nuggets. It was fertilized with dynamic lifter, which is organic, and comprises mainly composted manure, but also blood and bone, see weed and fish meal. The weeds are cut with a hoe and left where they are, so is that green manureing?

There are some ducks and a pond in an enclosure behind.

It's a green garden by accident.



Pretty green garden hu?

Of course, the dynamic lifter, being mainly manure, the nutrients originally came from a grain growers paddock, via grain being fed to animals, that was fertilized by chemical fertilizer.

The dynamic lifter is 3% nitrogen. Not bad, better than straight manure though which has very little.

If I had to use straight manure on the sorghum country I just planted, at say 1% nitrogen, I would need 10 tonnes per hectare, as the sorghum will remove 100 kilos of nitrogen per hectare in the grain if it goes 6 tonne per hectare.


10 tonnes/hectare cattle manure times .01 N equals 100 kg N.

or, I could use urea, at 46% N, made from natural gas,...

220 kg/hectare urea times .46, equals 100 kg N.



So, to provide the nitrogen requirements for the crop I just planted, I could use 10 tonnes per hectare of cattle manure, or 220 kilos of urea. If I used poultry manure instead, which has twice as much N as cattle, I would be back to 5 tonnes per hectare of chook manure.

I've just about planted 800 hectares of sorghum. I could have used 8000 tonnes of cattle manure, or 4000 tonnes of chook manure, or less than 200 tonnes of urea.

You blokes in the city, chucking on some organic fertilizer to a garden, it all appears so easy, but you are really puting on incredible amounts if you convert it to tonnes per hectare

Can you see things from a farmers view now? There is not enough manure in Australia to grow hardly anything.

Every tonne of sorghum grain I remove from my paddock, the nutrients have to be replaced. So every tonne of grain,

16 kilos of nitrogen,
1.3 kilos of phosphorus,
3 kilos of potasium,
1.1 kilos of sulphur,
traces of zinc and other stuff.

leaves my paddock.


But, to grow the crop needs a lot more, the rest of the nutrients are left behind though as stubble, that turns into mulch, and I get those nutrients back. But lets not make things too complicated, forget that last bit.

If you have a think about these things, and the nutrients involved, and the nutrients that grain growers provide to the organic industry, you will soon realise that organic agriculture is NOT as sustainable as conventional, and never can be. A lot of organic farms are mining the soil. I'm not, as I know how much fertilizer I'm puting on, I know how much nutrients are leaving, and I know my soil is healthy, and covered in mulch, protected from erosion and I can keep growing food like this forever, or until fossil fuels run out anyway.

When fossil fuel runs out, that will be someone elses problem. There is enough to see me out.

Is it clear now why organic can't solve the problem?



Raining here today. Slept in till 7.30 am. Thats a nice thing about my job I suppose, but I want hot weather now and no rain for a month so I can get on with things.

See ya's.

 

[Bill.L]

Hi all,

Good numbers TC. I have a few more to add to give a bit more perspective.

From the RIRDC here...

http://www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/CME/07-035.pdf

comes the following figures.

1. There are about 2-2.5 cubic metres of chook litter per tonne.

2. There are about 1,660,400 cubic metres of chook litter available per annum across the country.

This transfers to about 738,000 tonnes.

A large "walking floor" semi-trailer can move about 90 m3, a B-double up to about 160 m3 (though weight would be an issue).

To fertilize TC's 800 ha of sorghum with 4000 tonnes, requires 100 walking floor semi loads.

The whole Australian availability of chook litter could only provide fertilizer for 185 crops the size of TC's, or in other words 148,000 hectares of grain. That is but a drop in the ocean.

bye