Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Uncategorized

Peak Oil & Agriculture: Comments & Links

By

Jennifer,

Following are two disturbing reports on “peak oil” you may not have seen.

They could have a big impact on intensive agriculture regarding costs. May be some opportunities for communities to grow and supply a lot more of their own produce, using permaculture or more sustainable/regenerative farming practices.

Certainly glad that I don’t rely on big tractors and high inputs. Also highlights the futility on the current debate over ethanol/biofuels etc. We need a better answer than that.

http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S9515.pdf
http://www.spinninglobe.net/iraq&oil.htm”>http://www.spinninglobe.net/iraq&oil.htm”>http://www.spinninglobe.net/iraq&oil.htm

Cheers, Graham F.

And another reader, also called Graham, sent me this note:
Some important concepts in here, without endorsing all of it:
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=21263 .

And John Quiggin had something on peak oil yesterday:
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2006/08/23/is-peak-oil-here-already/#more-3146.

Note On Herbicide Resistance: Chris Preston

By

Thirty-three different species of weeds are now reported to have developed resistance to herbicides commonly used in Australian farming systems, says Dr Chris Preston, programme leader for the Weeds CRC.

The worst offenders are annual ryegrass, wild radish and wild oats.

And of the thirteen ‘families’ of chemicals used to control weeds, resistance to ten has now been found in various agricultural weeds, Dr Preston says.

“Those ten groups of herbicides, as you’d expect, are the ones that are most commonly used in our cropping systems,” he adds.

In a few areas of Australia the herbicide resistance problem has become so acute that there are no longer any herbicides available to control particular weeds – such as annual ryegrass – in some crops.

You can read more here.

Much Money & More Models Won’t Necessarily Save The Macquarie Marshes

By

Malcolm Turnbull, the Federal Parliamentary Secretary for water, recently announced a $13.4 million grant to revive the Macquarie Marshes and other important wetlands.

But it is unclear how the money will be spent. Reference has been made to ‘plans’, ‘models’, ‘competing interests’, ‘drought’, ‘market mechanisms to recover water’, and ‘noxious weeds’.

But more money, more plans, more water won’t necessarily save the marshes.

There has been much discussion at his blog about the relative impact of drought, levies, grazing and cotton since I first visited the marshes in October last year.*

I have come to the conclusion that the marsh environment would benefit most from the following actions which were detailed in a blog post entitled ‘Three Pressing Issues for the Macquarie Marshes’:

1. Bulldoze the levy banks which are channeling water away from the two nature reserves and onto private land,

2. Protect key bird nesting sites from trampling by cattle.

3. Reduce the risk of overgrazing perhaps through some agreement about stocking rates and grazing regimes.

These actions would not be popular locally or easily understood in Sydney, but they would make a difference on the ground and they wouldn’t cost a lot of money.

Chris Hogendyk, an irrigator and chairman of Macquarie River Food and Fibre (MRFF), sent me a note following the $14.3 million announcement. He recommends that more land be purchased and converted to nature reserve:

“Both the Macquarie Marshes and Gwydir Wetlands are iconic wetlands valued internationally and by the local community.

… It is overly simplistic during a drought of record proportions to simply call for more water to solve the problems that face these important wetlands.

… 90% of the Marshes are in private hands which means 90% of any purchased water will be used for little more than grazing.

As a taxpayer I do not think that funding the purchase of water under these conditions will achieve a good environmental outcome.

In fact, more water delivered simply means more cattle and that in turn leads to further degradation of the environment.

MRFF has no problem in principle with the Government purchasing water from willing sellers to be used for the benefit of the environment, but we do object the Government purchasing water from one stakeholder group and delivering it to another stakeholder group free of charge.

MRFF proposes that a much better solution would be to purchase key land area within the marshes to protect this environment from grazing and hence get much better environmental value from the water there today.”

————————
* Blog posts on Macquarie Marsh issues:

1. Cattle killing the Macquarie Marshes, 21October 2005
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/000949.html

2. Marsh Graziers Don’t Pay for Water, 25 October 2005
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/000958.html

3. More Water Won’t Save the Macquarie Marshes, 28 March 2006
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/001282.html

4. But Reed Beds Need Water!, 12 April 2006
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/001309.html

5. Three Pressing Issues for the Macquarie Marshes, 13 July 2006
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/001481.html

6. Banking in the Macquarie Marshes: More Photographs & A Map, 17 July 2006
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/001486.html

7. Fewer Trees Means More Water for Macquarie Marshes: Ian Mott, 23 July 2006
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/001497.html

Worst Drought in 100 Years – or Not? (Updated August 22, 2006)

By

We are in the middle of an election in Queensland, Australia.

My local member has just sent me a glossy brochure stating that:

“Queensland is experiencing the worst drought in 100 years …no other government in our history has faced a challenge of this enormity.”

The Premier Peter Beattie has being repeating the same message for some time.

So how bad is it – really?

The catchment with Brisbane’s dams is reportly the most severely affected.
Warwick Hughes has constructed the following graph from the rainfall record for the Wivenhoe catchment — that’s the catchment with the dams:

brisbrainver2.GIF

So there is really nothing unprecedented about the current dry spell? Could the Bureau of Meteorology please correct the graph, or correct the Premier?

Update 22 August

Simon commented (see following thread) that the above graph looks different to the graph posted by Warwick at his site. Following is the graph posted by Warwick:

brisbrainver4blog.GIF

I made the error of assuming the graph Warwick sent me on the weekend was the same as the one he had posted at his blog. There are slightly differences after 1990, because as Warwick explains in the note at his website, “rainfall data is less than perfect, many stations close and an alternative has to be opened at another site, recordings can start then stop, there can be gaps in the data”.

In the graph I posted, Warwick had used values from neighbouring stations to see what a more complete record for the catchment looked like.

He has sent me the following comment tonight:

“If I can obtain a more complete catchment dataset I might spend a long day trying to correct these.

The Bureau of Meteorology and water utility have had years to publish a graph of catchment rain history if they wished to do so.

Clearly, it must not be perceived to be in their interests or they would have done so.

Likewise, I have never seen catchment rain history charts made by a water utility or the BoM for Perth, Sydney or Melbourne but maybe there are some I have not spotted.

Why is this when water supply issues are controversial in all our cities and all our dam water originates as rain.

I see the issue of the 2002 drought being raised and I show from the Australia wide Bureau of Meteorology high quality rain data that in 2002 there was a Great West Queensland drought but nothing nationwide to match the Federation drought.

…With respect to the claims of “worst drought in a whatever”, the criterion I was talking about was the definitions of serious and severe drought as on the Bureau of Meteorology website and as expressed in their maps with shades of pink to red. I have a small area of their latest 3 year map shown on my Brisbane page. Now I do not know what result you would get if that Bureau of Meteorology 36 month drought map series could be rolled back through 2000.

But do we expect policymakers to be making such definitive statements about data that is far from black and white and when the result is probably so line ball?“

When I look at the second graph I see regular wet periods with yearly averages around 1200mm (once as high as 1400mm) and there have also been regular dry periods with yearly averages around the 600mm (once as low as perhaps 450mm). We are currently in one of the dry periods with yearly averages in the 700-800mm range.

200 Farmers Block Government Officials From Entering Cobar Property

By

I have just received the following note:

“Over 200 farmers in western NSW today blockaded state government officials from entering the Cobar property of Kevin and Gwen Mitchell, who are the latest victims of a radical green campaign that will force farmers off their land.

“Farmers trying to rehabilitate land degraded by woody weeds are the innocent victims of a political game being played in Macquarie Street to gain green preference votes in Sydney,” said a spokesperson for the NSW Regional Community Survival Group, Doug Menzies.

“The farming communities of Cobar and Nyngan are no longer prepared to stand by and let decent, hard-working families be sacrificed on the altar of green politics. Today we are preventing bureaucrats from entering a farm as a protest against a government that constantly appeases the demands of radical greens.”

Last Monday, the Mitchell’s farm was “buzzed” by a low flying plane registered to a Sydney pilot who farmers suspect was ferrying an activist from the radical green group The Wilderness Society.

Two farm workmen, who were legally clearing 250 hectares of land degraded by woody weed infestations, witnessed the plane circle and cross the area at least five times at low altitude.

Woody weeds (also called invasive scrub) are native plants that have spread beyond their natural range and density, invading formerly open woodlands and grasslands of western NSW.

Mr Menzies said that the Mitchell family reported the pilot’s reckless behavior to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

“Immediately after the incident, a prized bull went missing from the paddock and was found five days later over five kilometres away, while three pregnant cows died during calving. Cows are extremely sensitive to stress in the latter stages of pregnancy and can’t handle being spooked by low flying planes.

“Things are pretty rotten in the state of NSW when farmers can’t go about their daily chores without being harassed in the paddock from the air,” Mr Menzies said.

“To rub salt into the wound, the next day a bureaucrat from the Department of Natural Resources rang Kevin Mitchell to report a complaint of illegal land clearing and wanting an inspection of the farm.

“The NSW Government is too quick to take the word of radical greens as gospel. What has happened to the Mitchell family is nothing short of government-sanctioned harassment,” said Mr Menzies.

On 22 July 1998, Kevin and Gwen Mitchell were granted consent by the Western Lands Commissioner for a term of 10 years to cultivate the 250 hectares of woody-weed infested land.

The Regional Community Survival Group is made up of farmers and business people from western NSW who have had a gutful of the NSW Government pandering to the wishes of radical greens in a bid to win preference votes in marginal inner-Sydney seats.”

Journalist Ross Coulthart detailed some of the problems with the Wilderness Society Campaign and environmental impact of native invasive scrub encroachment, in the cover story for the Sunday Program of the 6th August entitled ‘The great land-clearing myth’.