Food, grain, oil, drought, and other stuff,...

[HiEquity]

I hate these environmentalists with a passion. They say absolute total crap about farmers and agriculture. My rantings and photos are just one small way of setting things straight.

See ya's.

I have to agree - it reminds me of the greenies who just "hate" clearfell logging in WA. They would rather combined marri and jarrah forests get logged for just their jarrah, which of course turns a combined forest into a monoculture of marri because juvenile jarrah can't compete with mature marri so you've changed things forever.

This is despite all the evidence that if you clearfell you (eventually) get back a reasonable reflection of what was there in the first place! They just prefer the "look" of a selectively felled forest so bugger the evidence, that's what they'll get! Grrrrr...

Mind you TC you could always ask them what they had to eat last night - chances are you grew it on your farm you environmentally vandal you! Could also tell 'em to stop eating hamburgers and start on the 'roo and then watch them squirm to find "green" reasons to explain why they don't want to eat skippy! Pretty hard to find 'em compared to sheep and beef IMO!

 

[Sunfish]

The house I'm sitting in was built with "Maryborough hardwood". It withstood Cyclone Althea.

The timber milled in Maryborough was actually felled on Fraser Is which has since been locked away, never to be logged again. Why? Some, with mischief in their hearts, decided that "virgin" forest should remain so, ad infinitum. Somehow the thought that a Japanese tourist should ever see a tree stump was unacceptable to them.

Like most "warm 'n cuddly" stories it has it's flaws. The "virgin" forest they pictured had already been logged . If it was that good, did logging damage it?

I have always been pro selective logging so will have to think about the defence of clear felling in the previous post. I detest and abhor pine forests and think of them 100% pollution. Too often clear felling becomes pine plantations which, illogically, greenies approve of.

 

[topcropper]

The US floods continue.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/18/2277906.htm?section=business

........."World food prices are expected to remain at historically high levels as a result of crop losses from serious flooding in the US midwest.

The floods have devastated at least 10 per cent of the corn crop in the US state of Iowa and have had an equally devastating effect on this year's soybean harvest.

World corn prices have risen to record highs and are 90 per cent higher than they were a year ago'...........



When grain supplies were in surplus, an event like this that wipes out 30 million tonnes of grain would be of little importance. The loss could just come from the surplus. Now, there is little surplus, so prices take off.

The official figures quoting a dollar loss are just adding up the grain that's gone, and multiplying by the dollars per tonne. So the figures say a few billion dollars. But grain prices right around the world are on the increase due to this flood event. The increasing grain prices will increase the price of just about every other food. This flood event is highly leveraged. The true cost will be in the tens of billions but probably much, much higher once the effect of this flood ripples right around the world.

See ya's.

 

[Aaron Sice]

well TC, after being a fencesitter and a a bit of a greenie with agriculture, i am now 100% on your side of the fence after reading this and trying to come up with better alternatives.

and a picture speaks a thousand words - and you have 2 of them. why was planting in stubble not possible 25 years ago? just no one was willing to do it?

 

[Sunfish]

True! I think he has given us a great view of what it's like on his side of the fence. But I don't think I'm allowed any more kudos.

 

[ethereal]

I have to agree - it reminds me of the greenies who just "hate" clearfell logging in WA. They would rather combined marri and jarrah forests get logged for just their jarrah, which of course turns a combined forest into a monoculture of marri because juvenile jarrah can't compete with mature marri so you've changed things forever.

This is despite all the evidence that if you clearfell you (eventually) get back a reasonable reflection of what was there in the first place! They just prefer the "look" of a selectively felled forest so bugger the evidence, that's what they'll get! Grrrrr...

Mind you TC you could always ask them what they had to eat last night - chances are you grew it on your farm you environmentally vandal you! Could also tell 'em to stop eating hamburgers and start on the 'roo and then watch them squirm to find "green" reasons to explain why they don't want to eat skippy! Pretty hard to find 'em compared to sheep and beef IMO!

It is what happens after the clear felling that is the greatest concern. If replanted witht he species that were removed, and managed properly, go for it.
However, pine forests are just far too often the result. From my recent building experience, our builder has been notified that there is a shortage of Australian grown pine and in the short term he will have to make do with a different sized imported structural pine. I requested Aussie hardwood for an outdoor verandah and he claimed that it was impossible to source. I managed to get spotted gum and grey iron bark form a local sawmill. Looks like there is a shortage of all timber products.

I'll eat just about anything, but I would prefer to eat animals selectively and sustainably harvested from their natural habitiat. I eat roo, roasted, mince and sausages. I just don't tell the family what they are eating and hear no objections. I also eat lots of fish, crab and cray that I get myself. I'd happily eat rabbit, goat and wild pig regularly if it were easy to get (Woolworths?), do my bit to eradicate pests. I do understand that their is a certain demand that need to be met and that what I've suggested would not be able to meet that demand.

BTW, Topcropper, great to see what you are doing and to hear your well considered views.

Louise

 

[topcropper]

Why was planting in stubble not possible 25 years ago? just no one was willing to do it?

Before roundup, the stubble would have had to be ploughed numerous times to get the conventional planter to go through all the trash. There just wasn't enough time to do that, and you lost all the soil moisture in the process of ploughing the soil.

Special no-till planters have been developed that will pass heaps of trash. These are a lot more expensive though, but they pay for themselves due to the higher yields, and the fact that farmers don't need ploughs anymore.

Roundup was invented by monsanto in 1973. Took a long time to catch on, and the chemical was very expensive back them. Diesel was also very cheap, so farmers could burn tens of thousands of litres of diesel at not much cost.

Roundup steadily dropped in price, especially in 2000, when it came off patent. Plus diesel got more expensive until most farmers changed over simply due to the cost savings. The higher yields and less soil erosion are a bonus.



Roundup is a one in a trillion chemical. No one has ever invented another like it, and it was a fluke. Everyone is trying to find another roundup, but I don't think it will happen.

I think roundup has been a great thing for the environment. Mainly due to the savings in diesel, the increased yields, [as in less land needed for the same tonnes produced], and also much reduced soil erosion. You won't be able to convince a greeny of that though.

See ya's.

 

[demoman]

I think roundup has been a great thing for the environment. Mainly due to the savings in diesel, the increased yields, [as in less land needed for the same tonnes produced], and also much reduced soil erosion. You won't be able to convince a greeny of that though.

See ya's.

Hi TC,

I consider myself a bit of a greeny and I need no convincing. That's a narrow band you have placed us greenies in.

I work as a bush regenerator once a week in the rainforest west of Byron. This area is a weeds paradise ( Camphor, Privet, Lantana, Madeira vine and on it goes. In the warmer months the growth we can get here is unbelievable........R'up gives us dreamers a chance to re establish land that was once cleared, grazed and then infested with weeds. It is frightening to think how expensive bush regeneration would be without it or if it would even be possible.

So I'm all for it actually.......

Disclaimer - I do like to grow my own vegies R'up free though

cheers

jared

 

[topcropper]

Hi TC,

I consider myself a bit of a greeny and I need no convincing. That's a narrow band you have placed us greenies in.

jared

You live in a beautifull part of the world demoman.


I've got in trouble on these forums before, for calling certain people greenies. You sound like a nice one.

The greenies I don't like are the ones who WILL NOT COMPROMISE.
Not one little bit. You know the ones?

You've already compromised. You've admitted that some weeds can only be killed by chemical. I deal with lots of weeds that can only be killed by chemicals. Including Johnsons grass, and St Johns Wart. Chip or plough out these weeds and they will just spread.

Some greenies think problems will be solved by just locking up land and throwing away the key. Land can't be locked up. Feral animals and weeds are here and it's all different now to 220 years ago. Lock up land and it will just burn to a cinder in a bush fire. [I'm a rural bush fire captain].


Some greenies have an idealistic utopia view. Humans living 100% with nature. All pure natural. Nature determined the earths human carrying capacity pre agriculture at a couple of million hunter gatherers. So why do they think we can live in harmony with nature at 6 billion and soon 9 billion inhabitants?

See ya's.

 

[demoman]

You live in a beautifull part of the world demoman.


I've got in trouble on these forums before, for calling certain people greenies. You sound like a nice one.

See ya's.

Thanks TC, yes I confess I love this area very much and the small contribution I make to it's remaining rainforest gives me great pleasure and satisfaction. I don't enjoy applying chemicals particularly but realise it is the only option at this point in time. I'm sure you wouldn't apply them either if you didn't have to.

I do know many greenies who will not compromise and funnily enough most of them live in urban environments and rarely leave the comforts of that environment. These are the most argumentative in my opinion and perhaps the greenie type you have encounted most.

Happy farming.

jared

 

[Bill.L]

Hi TC,

I'm a rural bush fire captain

,

I'm a Lieutenant in the CFA here, been in the local brigade for just on 20 years now. Good to hear you're involved.

bye

 

[pursefattener]

Corporate raiders

I see in the paper that the top end of town are looking to throw some rather large sums at agricultural land ...

Queensland based Prime-Ag and Macquarie Pastural fund are leading the charge . Prime Ag have bought 225M of property since December and Macquarie has 1 billion to invest in grazing propertys .

The splurge it seems is driven by strong commodity prices for grain and dairy products and soaring global demand for food . This demand is pushing up the price of land around the country . I reckon that will continue for a while and as farms get bigger they will get out of reach for most family farmers . Corporate agriculture will play a much bigger part in the future , obviously .

Family farms will have to have reasonable scale and be run more professionaly . It also will help a wee bit if they have built up another wheel of investments

One thing that interested me was a quote from Barnaby Joyce about Australians may loose their connection with the land if the corporate takeover continues .

"If farms are taken over , don't expect the same fervour that comes to the defence of the nation because the people are not as connected to the land____ Caesar knew it and Benjamin Franklin knew it ,"

 

[topcropper]

An article in the latest 'THE LAND' about Australia's biggest wheat grower, Ron Greentree.

http://theland.farmonline.com.au/ne.../machinery/the-monster-sowing-rig/798026.aspx

....WHEN you're the biggest individual wheat grower in Australia on a mission to plant 81,000 hectares of wheat this season, you have to think big when it comes to sowing gear.
Planting rigs don't come any bigger than the 36-metre-wide machines North-West NSW grain grower, Ron Greentree, has introduced this year on his vast, dryland cropping spreads in the Narrabri and Mungindi areas".....


I read either in this article or elsewhere, that Ron hopes to grow 200,000 tonnes. That could be possible, as his soil would have a full soil water profile, and the season has started well.




A couple of interesting charts I stubbled across. The first one, A 5 year chart of US based Deere and company, the worlds leading farm machinery manufacturer

The second chart, US car manufacturer, General motors over 5 years.

So Deere and company's market capitalisation is now 30.7 billion.
To General Motors market capitalisation of 6.5 billion.
And GM is a dow 30 component.

I know what I would invest in.

See ya's.

 

[topcropper]

It's not just platueing productivity growth and oil prices that is the cause of higher food prices via nitrogen fertilizer, chemicals, and transport. Phosphorus is also a factor.

There has been some talk lately of peak phosphorus. Phosphorus is an important nutrient in agriculture, and has always been difficult to source.

This article about phosphorus,...
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/33164

This has sort of snuck up on me, and I've always known what oil prices would do to food prices. I have been scratching my head as to why phosphorus based fertilizer has risen even higher and faster than oil/nitrogen fertilizer.

Nitrogen is by far the most important agricultural nutrient. Then comes potasium and phosphorus. Most fertilizers are catagorised by these three nutrients, N,P,K. Potasium is also getting scarse.



With all the doom and gloom on the forums, I'm just adding a bit more. Food prices will never ever be cheap again like a few years ago.

See ya's.

 

[handyandy]

Hi TC

Not directly related but you just reminded me of it

Previously I have read somewhere that the problem that faces our economy is peak something. It will be an resource that can not be substituted (not just readily).

So maybe Phosphorous is one of these resources or there may be others.

Cheers

 

[willair]

With all the doom and gloom on the forums, I'm just adding a bit more. Food prices will never ever be cheap again like a few years ago.
[/quote]
For anyone interested this just listed on the ASX..POZ..
http://www.phosphateaustralia.com.au/

 

[topcropper]

Now all the talk in the bush is carbon trading emisions.

From this article,.....
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/2100-a-climatic-odyssey/2008/07/04/1214951042632.html

Mr Garnaut says,..

......"The Murray-Darling is the heartland of old Australia," Professor Garnaut, the Federal Government's climate change adviser, declared yesterday. The loss of the basin, he said, "would be mourned".

But loss, he says, is no overstatement of what might happen within this century if immediate and tough action is not taken. In a frightening glimpse of what Australia's landscape might look like in 2100, his team has predicted the virtual collapse of the Murray-Darling region with serious consequences for the people who live there and depend on its survival.

"The increased frequency of drought, combined with decreased median rainfall and a nearly complete absence of run-off in the Murray-Darling Basin, is likely to have ended irrigated agriculture for this region, and depopulation will be under way," the report says".......



Oh dear.!!
What a load of crap.!

Certainly lack of rainfall is a big reason why the rivers don't run anymore, but I reckon just as big a reason is the increased productivity of agriculture. It's no secret that most of Australia's old soils are very infertile in their natural state. Farmers have added super phosphate, and included legumes that pump N into the soil, and deep rooted grasses. The land now sucks much more water. Grain growing is now done without tillage, so there is less runoff, and more infiltration.

The creeks around here don't run water like they used to 30 years ago, and why would they? And rainfall is not decreasing here.



I don't really understand this carbon trading stuff. I must look into it.

Agriculture is to be excluded in the first round. And I know why. Any carbon trading scheme will decrease production.

If I want to pump a lot of carbon into my soil, I can do it very easily. I just stop growing grain and plant lucerne pasture. Carbon is directly related to the store of nutrients I have available for the next crop

I will spend 300 thousand dollars on nitrogen fertilizer this season as urea hits one thousand dollars a tonne. In theory, just by planting lucerne for 3 years, and doing not much else, I can pump 900 K worth of N into my farm land. I would have no production though. I figure once carbon trading comes in though I could pocket a handy bit of spending money. But once carbon trading comes in I will be up for a big expense from using nitrogen fertilizer, as nitrogen fertilizer is a big contributer to global warming. It will cost me a lot more than 300 K a year once carbon trading comes in because nitrogen fertilizer will rise ever further in price.

I think I will go for the easy option.



The experts know what is going to happen if agriculture is included. Agricultural production is certain to be slashed, and they know it.
Bring it on is all I can say. Decreased production is good for farmers. Bad for consumers. Deadly for the worlds poor and starving.

See ya's.

 

[HiEquity]

The creeks around here don't run water like they used to 30 years ago, and why would they? And rainfall is not decreasing here.

Hi TC

The region I know is the south west of WA where rainfall has been decreasing (except for this year) for the last 10-20 years. This timeframe is too small to prove anything... But runoff has decreased much more, especially in water catchments. This is mainly because they have been revegetated and the trees are getting bigger! Smart thinking...

But dryland salinity is a big problem in the wider Wheat Belt. Rule of thumb is we will eventually have to choose between 30% salinity or 30% tree cover (<10% trees at the moment). This is because there is bugger all grade in the landscape - pretty much billiard table flat between the Darling Scarp and Kalgoorlie so water doesn't run off - it goes past the roots of crops into the water table, which rises bringing salinity with it. Paradoxically most of the lakes have also dried up because the salinity has damaged the integrity of the clay lining that held the water in them! Between that and lower surface run-off....

Seeing that production is dropping anyway from salinity encroachment, a carbon trading scheme here could help give farmers some return for planting trees on good land to intercept the water before it expands the saline areas. But only if it's managed correctly - too many trees or trees only planted in one area doesn't help either!

Agriculture is to be excluded in the first round. And I know why. Any carbon trading scheme will decrease production.

I agree. Agriculture is the ultimate "trade exposed, emission intensive" industry in Australia and Garnaut makes this point. The other reason is how very difficult it is to quantify the amount of carbon sequestered in each instance... between the fertiliser, diesel, no-till vs ploughing, different crops, soil types, livestock, rainfall, production, etc etc it would just be an administrative nightmare trying to work out how many credits for each farmer.

I can see a system develop where you might get paid for planting trees in some areas up to a certain coverage ratio but to go beyond that is just insane. Otherwise a large portion of the WA Wheatbelt will be covered in trees when the carbon price gets over $20/tonne (which won't take long...)and I don't think that's a good outcome for anybody! Even when China / India come on board with ETS schemes IMHO agriculture should still be exempted - otherwise food prices will just chase the carbon price up and up... it would actually be a back door tax on food and that idea always goes down well in the electorate!

But if I were you I'd be barracking for an ETS that includes agriculture... Then you could put your feet up! It's funny how some farming groups seem to think an ETS is the worst thing that could happen to them - just who are they representing??

 

[topcropper]

But if I were you I'd be barracking for an ETS that includes agriculture... Then you could put your feet up! It's funny how some farming groups seem to think an ETS is the worst thing that could happen to them - just who are they representing??

Nice post.

As I said, I don't know a hell of a lot about carbon trading. It is all very complicated when it comes to agriculture. I need to look into it. As I said though, if agricultural production will be slashed, then I can't see it happening. I would much prefer to sequester carbon though. Easier and less risk, but what do people eat?

See ya's.

 

[units4me]

Hey TC, i thought this article from "The Australian" might interest you.




$2bn plan to 'fuel petroleum needs'Font Size: Decrease Increase Print Page: Print Rick Wallace, Victorian political reporter | June 03, 2008
A $2 BILLION coal project will be unveiled today in Victoria's Latrobe Valley as its backer suggests Australia could replace all petroleum imports by turning the nation's vast reserves of brown coal to oil.

Victorian Premier John Brumby will launch the Australian Energy Company's project to turn brown coal into enough urea, a nitrogen-rich fertiliser, to supply Australia's needs.

The plant uses coal gasification and condensing technology. Its backers say all the CO2 produced will be stored beneath the sea, making it a "clean coal" project.

The entrepreneur behind the project, Allan Blood, said Victoria's reserves of brown coal had enormous potential for fertiliser and oil production. The plant would generate 1.2million tonnes a year of urea and all the CO2 produced would be stored in reservoirs that once contained natural gas in Bass Strait.

The plant, expected to be operational by 2012, has the backing of several London-based equity funds. Joint-venture discussions with several major chemical companies have begun.

The project will require 1000 workers to produce urea through a gasification process similar to the one used in the first stage of producing oil from coal.

Mr Blood was the brains behind a $5 billion coal-to-oil project in the Latrobe Valley that was bought by Shell and Anglo American. It is designed to produce 70,000 barrels of oil a day.

The Australian Energy Corporation chairman said the tremendous amount of energy trapped in brown coal - coupled with gasification and geosequestration technology - provided a clean source of a range of hydrocarbons.

"There's no reason why Australia could not be totally self sustainable in petroleum products, or any other chemical product such as urea, from coal," he said. "We have got all the coal in the world here for goodness sake. It becomes the highest-quality fuel or diesel imaginable. Sasol in South Africa have been doing it since 1968, making 150,000 barrels a day."

Turning coal into diesel goes back to World War II, when besieged Germany used it to supplement its dwindling oil supplies. South Africa is by far the biggest user of the technology in what is a hangover from apartheid days when the country was concerned it would be locked out of world oil markets.

However, it hasn't been widely taken up despite the wide geographic spread of coal reserves, largely because it is expensive.

It also produces significantly more carbon than traditional petrol-diesel production and has been described as one of the most environmentally unfriendly means of producing oil.

Australia imports 550,000 barrels a day of oil and 1.3 million tonnes, or $300 million worth, of urea for fertiliser each year. The urea comes from the Middle East.

Gasification works by treating coal at very high temperature with a controlled amount of oxygen to produce a gas that can be converted to diesel. Nitrogen is added towards the end of the process to make urea. Mr Blood said once the reaction was established, it was self-propelling and the CO2 generated was easy to trap and then store.

Additional reporting: Andrew Trounson