You know there’s an election around the corner in Queensland when politicians get emotional and angry about the Great Barrier Reef. The Labor Government has been in power in Queensland for the past 10 years and the previous Premier, Peter Beattie, told us if it hadn’t been for his policies we wouldn’t have a reef. But on Premier Bligh’s watch things must have slipped as she is intent on saving it all over again.
There’s nothing wrong with expecting farmers to use ‘best practice’ in the management of their county, to minimise erosion and nutrient loss, that’s simply good farming and you’d be hard pressed to find a farmer who didn’t agree with that. However to promote the notion that there are significant numbers of farmers who aren’t concerned about the environment and are doing the wrong thing is handling the truth recklessly, even if it wasn’t a fact that they can’t afford to waste fertiliser, chemicals or soil.
According to Townsville’s Dr Walter Starck (a coral reef specialist with more than 40 years of self funded Great Barrier Reef research behind him) there is no evidence the reef is in danger of anything. He told the North Queensland Register that in the 1990s the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority commissioned the “Williams Report” that reviewed all the research on water quality and it concluded the reef was in ‘pristine condition’ and since then farming practices have improved. “The Great Barrier Reef is under water, remote and mostly inaccessible, so politicians can claim anything they like, but they’ve never been able to produce any evidence of agriculture damaging the reef, it’s all theoretical,” he said. The precautionary theory reigns – ‘there may not be a problem at the moment but if we don’t do something the reef will die,’ its called ‘political cheap shots’ the greatest publicity for the least cost.
Dr Starck points out the nutrient and sediment levels in water coming out of rainforests contain much higher levels of soil and nitrates than from farming land, so farmers should be being paid for their water purification activities.
That was shown last year when water from the Proserpine Dam used to irrigate sugarcane in the Kelsey Creek area contained more nutrients than the water leaving the cane blocks. The cane and its trash blanket were acting as a filter.
Dr Starck said the time of the year the readings are taken can markedly skew the figures. For instance, water sampled from streams at the end of the dry season, when they are not flowing, can contain quite high nutrient levels, however once the wet season breaks the dilution rate is so great that at the river mouth they are barely detectable.
One of the reasons the scare campaign about the reef needing to be saved is able to be promulgated is because of the technological advances in detecting things like nitrates or herbicides. Traces down to parts per billion can now be found but to kill a weed with diuron for instance, you need to spray 1.8kg of active ingredient over each hectare. By the time any of it got into a creek it would be at such a low concentration it wouldn’t be able to kill a fern, let alone by the time it got into the ocean.
On October 8, Premier Anna Bligh released the 2007 Water Quality Report for the Great Barrier Reef. She pointed out the Reef area covers 348,000 square kilometres (34.8 million hectares) and said: “Over the last 150 years the catchments of the Great Barrier Reef have been extensively developed for agriculture, grazing, tourism, mining and urban settlement, which has led to a significant increase in the quantity of sediments, nutrients and pesticides being pumped into the Reef.” Maybe a better choice of words would have been – finding their way into the GBR lagoon, rather than ‘pumped into the reef.” But her speech writers obviously wanted her to get the greatest bang for her buck and considered “pumped” would shock people into supporting her with votes so she could be there to SAVE the REEF.
Premier Bligh said the 2007 Water Quality Report for the Great Barrier Reef clearly showed the situation was still not good enough and river monitoring in priority catchments show an estimated:
* 6.6 million tonnes of sediment discharged in the reef lagoon – four times higher than estimated pre-European settlement levels;
* 16,600 tonnes of nitrogen – five times higher than estimated pre-European settlement levels; and
* 4180 tonnes of phosphorous – four times higher than estimated pre-European settlement levels.
We’ll assume those figures apply to the amount reaching the ocean each year and provided they are not exaggerated, they are alarming – until you work out what that means on a per hectare basis:
* 6.6 million tonnes of sediment over 34.8 million hectares equals 19kg of soil/ha – you could carry more than that with a bucket in each hand.
* 16,600 tonnes of nitrogen is 460 grams/N/hectare; and
* 4180 tonnes of phosphate is 120 grams/P/ha or 19 handfuls of 12pc phosphate fertiliser over each 10,000 square metres of water surface area – imagine how diluted that would be within the water column.
According to Professor Starck if it wasn’t for the sediment and nutrients being washed into the reef lagoon each wet season, the sea grass and marine plants would be a lot less healthy than they are.
Obviously the Premier has either been duped by the Green movement, is scrambling for their preferences or she didn’t bother to do her sums, as she immediately discussed the matter with the Prime Minister and met with Environment Minister Peter Garrett and said: “We have agreed to update the Plan and give it more grunt.”
That resulted in last weeks joint Commonwealth/State Reef Water Quality Summit at Parliament House where she brought together “the best minds from environmental and scientific fields to study the latest data and discuss what urgent action we need to take to prevent the demise of the Reef, which will help determine funding priorities and action areas for our Government.”
Unusually for a Labor Government, primary producer organisations were invited to the talk fest but they came away disappointed.
Canegrowers reaction being: “Today’s reef summit bought to the fore a State Government which was out of step with the Federal Government, industry, research agencies and stakeholder groups involved in managing the health of the iconic Great Barrier Reef. The State Government has promised another high level committee and the imposition of a regulatory framework, but did not make any commitment to resources,” said CEO Ian Ballantyne. “The farming community has worn the Government’s wrath for the failure of the 10 year Reef Plan – a plan that did not include industry from its inception and one that provided good intentions but no resources or implementation.
The Queensland Farmers Federation: “Premier Anna Bligh’s plan to impose new laws on farmers in the State’s Reef catchments threatens to undermine the Federal Government’s $200 million Reef Rescue Plan to accelerate uptake of best farming practice and will likely result in worse water quality outcomes on the Reef,” said chief executive John Cherry. “The Premier’s plan to outlaw so-called ‘bad’ practice would create an environment of acrimony and uncertainty which will make it very difficult to get farmers to engage with the voluntary best practice programs set to be ramped up with Reef Rescue Plan.
Growcom was in two minds: the organisation welcomed the “funding to tackle Reef issues” particularly the Federal Government announcement of an initial allocation of $23 million to natural resource management (NRM) and industry groups under the Reef Rescue Plan. However Growcom chief advocate Mark Panitz added “The Premier has largely singled out farmers as responsible for damage to the Great Barrier Reef in what we believe is a smokescreen for the Queensland Government’s own lack of action and commitment to funding real solutions under the Reef water quality plan launched in 2003.
“The government is now calling for regulation despite there being no scientific justification for such a position. Even in the Government’s own recently released scientific consensus statement, a close reading reveals an emphasis on improving information for growers and incentives to change practice rather than regulation.'”
So where from here? Premier Bligh is obviously wanting to create an image of herself as the Captain at the Helm, in total control of the ship, to appeal to unthinking and uninformed voters.
Meanwhile to achieve positive outcomes, primary industry organisations have linked with the Federal Government and regional natural resource management (NRM) groups to develop a new Reef Rescue program.
It will have clear actions and targets to increase the use of good practice activities in reef catchments. Like the Rural Water Use Efficiency program which was delivered under contractual arrangements with the Department of Natural Resources and Water that achieved significant advances over recent years.
Mr Panitz saying “A partnership with the Queensland Government on reef and water quality could significantly add to the Reef Rescue program and would be much more productive than divisive statements in the media and a sledge hammer regulatory approach without consultation.”
It is now up to the Premier to decide whether to use the whip or the carrot to achieve her aims. Either way there will be more taxpayers’ money available to primary producers to fund a proportion of the cost of on-farm improvement.
Ian Morgan
Mackay, North Queensland
This post is a longer version of an article first published in The North Queensland Register and is republished here with permission.
Enjoyingthe blue waters of the Great Barrier Reef off Cairns in April 2006. Photograph taken by Jennifer Marohasy.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Labor politicians spin so much It’s a wonder they’re not permanently giddy.
Filing this here.
Government takes action on reef hot spots
Thursday, 23 October 2008 15:34
The Tropical North will receive over $6.8 million from the Rudd Government to improve water quality in the Great Barrier Reef.
Member for Leichhardt Jim Turnour welcomed today’s announcement that would see funding go to local organsiation Terrain Natural Resource Management.
He said, “This funding is part of the Rudd Government’s $200 million Reef Rescue commitment.”
“From the highest level, the government is serious about tackling climate change and serious about improving the quality of our reef, preserving it for future generations.”
“Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Minister for Climate Change Penny Wong experienced the Reef first hand when they visited the Tropical North recently. They were resolute in their commitment to help protect the Reef and I am pleased significant funds have been made available so quickly,” Mr Turnour said.
The funding, which comes from the Federal Government’s Caring for our Country initiative, will be directed at reducing the amount of fertilisers, chemicals and sediments entering waterways that drain to the Great Barrier Reef.
Mr Turnour said, “There is some great work already underway by farmers and land managers in the Tropical North. The funds announced by the government today will be used by Terrain NRM for continue to build upon this effort.”
Terrain Natural Resource Management will work with industry organisations, land managers and landholders to give the Reef a better chance to survive climate change impacts.
Mr Turnour said local sugar cane farmers and horticultural growers will be a key focus of this funding package.
Trials for innovative practices such as nitrogen fixation and nitrogen replacement systems in sugarcane will be funded.
Demonstrating a widespread commitment to protecting the Reef, the Rudd Government also allocated just over $5.8 million to reef catchments in the Mackay and Whitsunday region.
The money will roll out in the next few weeks throughout Queensland coastal catchment groups and to industry.
“Through Caring for our Country, we have clear objective of reducing nutrient and chemical discharge from land to the Reef by 25 per cent by 2010,” Mr Turnour said.
Platypus seem to be alive and well in these canefarm streams that flow into the “GBR lagoon” too.
But it’s a bit like AGW. When you can’t prove anything, the alarmist factor is 10:10, it’s public money and it’ll win votes, well, what the heck!
The same scam was used by local governments to gain new powers over existing rural septic tanks. They monitored water quality in stagnant dry season pools and “discovered” extremely high levels of faecal coliform. They didn’t bother taking samples even 1 hour after the first seasonal downpour because they had all the “evidence” they needed.
What they did not say was that these “extreme” levels of faecal coliform were of a secondary or “regrowth” nature. The warm stagnant pools produced ideal conditions for them and they multiplied exponentially, as they have been doing for millions of years during dry seasons.
The ACT government spent millions of dollars trying to identify the sources of high faecal counts in Lake Burley Griffin, and rounded up all the usual suspects for demonisation in the process. But they too, eventually discovered that it was all just natural “regrowth” microbial activity. The only problem with this is that the initial demonising of suspects got a great deal more publicity than the almost nonexistent admission that they were wrong and had wasted another bucket load of taxpayers money.
The increasingly “Bimbofied” electorate is still blaming the demonised suspects.
But as for the GBR, lets not beat around the bush here. Bligh and her cronies are engaged in fraudulent conspiracy. They are low life, criminal scum.
As usual, the biggest lies come with funding attached and by accepting the funding the grower organisations also accept and condone the lies. Turnour is nothing more than the “bag man”. If these guys who claim to represent the farmers had the slightest trace of tactical nous they would reject the funding altogether on the basis that the science does not justify the outlay. And they should then demand that the money be spent on improving the delivery of health services in their region. A cause for which the evidence is overwhelming.
Come on, guys, lift your f@#$%& game.
I first came to Australia in May, 1967. It did not take long for me to be aware that the GBR was “dying”, the cause then was the Crown of Thorns starfish. The research of course came out of a University (Dr R Endean, as I recall). It made scary news headlines regularly and much money was granted to investigate this menace. Of course, it went away in due course. In every one of the 41 years since then, I have been told that the GBR is dying. The popular causes have tended to move towards blaming (and consequently restricting) economic activity (i.e. blame the poor farmers). Now we have the additional cause celebre of AGW. To the best of my knowledge there is absolutely no sign that the GBR, which has an area in excess of the country that I left, is any less healthy than it ever was. There is an old Aesop Fable about the boy who cried wolf. Unfortunately, this old wisdom does not appear to work any more. Greens have been crying “wolf” for decades now and yet it continues to work for them. I have no solution to this nonsense…….sigh.
Pommy Bastard: spot on! also relevant is the follwoing exchange between me and Chris McGrath. First is his attack on me at Real Climate, then my response (“awaiting moderation”), and then my comments on his paper “Will the GBR survive…?”:
Chris McGrath Says [at Real Climate]:
29 October 2008 at 7:12 PM
I found this a useful and timely post and have used it today to respond to a man writing to me with the argument that CO2 is not a pollutant but a fertilizer. As a classic indicator of the modern climate skeptic, he cited the IPCC’s conclusions as authority for the points that he believed supported his arguments, but dismissed the IPCC’s conclusions for points that did not support his arguments.
It is hard to hold a rational discussion with people who:
(a) do not listen to what you say; and
(b) only consider evidence credible if it supports the conclusion they have already reached.
TC to Real Climate c1300 30 Oct 08
Re 6. Chris McGrath
Well, that really takes the biscuit. I am the one referred to as arguing, “CO2 is not a pollutant but a fertilizer”.
Readers should know that McGrath refused to respond to any of my detailed notes on his paper “Will we leave the Great Barrier Reef for our children?” or to my accompanying Seminar paper delivered on Tuesday at the Australian National University (covered by WIN TV News), but then pillories me here.
1. I can cite hundreds of papers demonstrating the CO2 fertilizer effect, including most recently Lloyd & Farquhar (Royal Society, 2008)*. All McGrath does is display his ignorance. It is not necessary for him or me to agree with everything the IPCC says, or disagree. I cited the IPCC favourably when it showed evidence, not when it made false assumptions. Is that a crime against humanity?
2. I had read his paper very carefully and made very specific comments. He simply rejects out of hand the well-established CO2 fertilizer effect without evidence. He certainly exemplified his own final comment, but offered no evidence to reject mine, that CO2 uptakes are important and should be recognized.
3. Ironically, Australia’s Garnaut Report does accept there is a CO2 biospheric Uptake and that reforestation etc would absorb CO2, but in his modelling abstracts from this effect, which last year accounted for 5.78 GtC of the 10 GtC of global emissions. The Report admits upfront that CO2 emissions need only be reduced to the level of these natural uptakes of CO2, but in practice the Wigley MAGICC model that the Report (and IPCC AR4, WG1, Chapter 8) rely on, ignores them, and thereby produces much more stringent emission reduction targets than are needed. That exaggeration materially reduces the likelihood of acceptance of any targets at Copenhagen next year. McGrath should be grateful for my work which is actually intended to be constructive, by showing that natural uptakes are important and should be allowed to continue, not curtailed, as would result from the 80% reduction of emissions from the 2000 level enacted by the UK Parliament yesterday, to about 2GTC, instead of the 5.78 GtC observed in 2007. My Seminar paper (ppt slides) is at my website (www.timcurtin.com).
Finally it is questionable ethically that McGrath’s paper did not once mention that the 1998 bleaching of corals was due to an El Nino, not CO2 event – but that was not of course to his purpose. In my comments to him I had noted merely that AR4 WG1 admits there is no evidence that atmospheric CO2 levels are directly responsible for the frequency and intensity of the ENSO.
*Lloyd, J. and G.D Farquhar 2008. Effects of rising temperatures and [CO2] on the physiology of forest trees. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B.
TC to McGrath 29/10/08
“Dear Chris
I already had your rather fine paper. I disagree with much of it but it is well argued. Sad that you have such a gloomy prognosis to live with. I am prepared to wager you $1000 that by 2020 none of your gloom will have materialized. If you are on we can discuss the banking arrangements.
Briefly, I have the following comments on your paper and response to me.
1. Your Fig 2 rightly uses the word “best guess” for the IPCC’s wholly fanciful projections. Their MAGICC model which is the source for your Table ignores Uptakes by the biosphere.
2. p 6, last of para. 1 – what is relevant is not the growth of emissions but of the atmospheric concentration, and that is not faster than “even the IPCC’s ‘worst case’ projections”.
3. [p.6] last of para 2 – this displays complete ignorance of inventory analysis by the IPCC authors you cite. In effect at least 55% of emissions are removed every year by the biosphere, but there is also the huge annual flux or overturning of about 15% of the total atmospheric CO2. Even if some of the CO2 molecules up there have been there “many thousands of years”, so what, all that matters is the current, around 384 ppmv.
4. Your Table 3. Again [those] IPCC scenarios omit Uptakes. Are they the same for each of the concentration and emission scenarios? They cannot be, and this omission is actually scientific malfeasance.
5. Your GBR account relies uncritically on the self-serving, biassed, and economic with truth work of the authorities you cite. As with the IPCC on Uptakes, they omit time series data on observed temperatures in world reef areas. The 1998 event was an El Nino, though one would never know that from your paper. It was a big El Nino, but there is no evidence that it was caused by CO2 emissions or concentration.
6. Your photos on p.9 end at 2004. Why? The truth is that as at least the 2004 pic shows, reefs can and do regenerate from a heat bleaching event. There is no evidence that sea temperatures on the GBR are rising continuously, and there is more evidence of ongoing damage from tourism and from agricultural effluent than there is from temperature. One would also never guess from your paper that without atmospheric CO2 there never would have been a Great Barrier Reef, or that CO2 helps its recovery. Suppressio veri!
7. The pic in Fig.6 is also misleading, why not show 2008?
8. p.14, para. 2 Again no mention that 1998 and 2004 were El Nino years. Why not? Another material omission. The IPCC (WG1) admits it has no evidence for any relationship between atmospheric CO2 and the incidence or severity of El Ninos.
I know lawyers like above all to be both prosecutor and judge, but there is a defence to your case, and it would be nice to have an independent judge and jury. The defence would include the beneficial effects of atmospheric CO2 on cereal yields worldwide and in Australia as even the Garnaut Review’s Crimp et al (CSIRO) admit (their rainfall and temperature projections notwithstanding). In your own life I imagine you weigh costs and benefits of alternative strategies, eg for your super. Why not in your paper? Which does more to feed India, CO2 or the GBR? When you take your case to the World Court you will be asked about that.
You cite Wigley. His MAGICC model does not address Uptakes, a material omission in my view, especially as they are an independent variable, not a residual (unlike the atmospheric concentration). A material omission is one which gives a misleading impression of a company’s profits outlook, eg by leaving out costs. In this case, leaving out Uptakes of CO2 gives a falsely pessimistic view of feasible targets and emission reduction trajectories, making them less not more likely to be adopted in Beijing and New Delhi.
Responding to your point below about CO2 and oceanic uptakes, the “acidification” you mention is hugely exaggerated, the IPCC says there is no evidence for that worldwide, there are large regional variations and reductions in some areas. In general the IPCC predicts more precipitation not less, especially in the NH, and that is more likely than CO2 as such to reduce salinity whilst being as beneficial as CO2 to NH food production. But I forgot, you don’t care about that!
BTW, I suggest using “best” or “better” for describing targets, as 350 is not the “highest” as you state.
Finally, it is evident that the people of this planet have never been better off than they are now, at 384ppm, and no evidence for this being sustained at 350ppm given the reduction in food production that would be inevitable at that level”.
Pommy B – you are right, people like McGrath will shout wolf till the end of time, but the wolf will be different every decade or so, or renamed, as by McGrath blaming the 1998 El Nino on CO2.
I fished, cray dived, pearl dived, netted and trawled the GBR and Torres Straits for twenty seven years….. The only decline of anything I saw, was fishermen. The only reason was bureaucracy. Nothing to do with declining fish or prawn stocks… Just as many prawns and fish when I started, as when I left.
An Observation when it comes to farming and land run off…. As I see it, there are less sugar cane farms and less area under cultivation now then there was thirty, forty or fifty years ago…. I assume one would have seen an increase of “healthiness” in the reef…. Not a decline?
In my years as a fisherman I can honestly say that fishermen have less problems with the truth, than do scientists…. We also seem to be able to catch fish, where they say there are none…. Strange that.
I don’t know what are you Guys talking about? The GBR was eaten by the Crown of Thorns years ago as Pommy B said? So we are discussing something that does not exist! Ask your neighbourhood greeny! I thought Bob Carter wrote an excellent article on the expected demise of the GBR a couple of years back.
That $1000 wager. The idea is fraught withe problems. How do you know who one. Would you wager on the existence of God or Bertrand Russell’s teapot? If a GCM says it is hotter or cooler does one side pay up?
Gee Timmy Curtin – do bung it on – such high and mighty notions. You’d be going to get published anywhere other than E&E. So we have wheat yields vs CO2 and food production vs CO2 – are you joking mate – this is grade school stuff. Don’t think agronomy or varieties may have improved in that time? ROTFL !
Do you reckon you’d detect the current level of CO2 fertilisation within the bounds of current field experimental error.
And no mention of interesting complex effects in FACE experiments. C3 woody plants being preferred over C4 grasses by CO2 effects. Acacias over eucalypts. C/N ratios. No mention of extra CO2 making plants more frost sensitive.
Just more sceptic nonsense for the bin.
Gosh Luke you are real clever. I thought AGW meant no more frosts ever again. Do check out Ainsworth et al 2008 (if you are up to finding them which I doubt).
Well Timmy you must be really dumb – depends what environment you’re in doesn’t it (on frost issue). But thanks for mentioning it – yes there is a long term trend in frost frequency in the inland summer cropping zone. Excellent AGW example.
Your wheat stuff is totally sus – typical sceptic material. If that’s the level of your science – it doesn’t even pass the giggle test. I’m not saying that there is no effect of CO2 at all – just that you’re not showing it.
Indeed the effects of CO2 on plant communities are likely to be complex.
OF course CO2 isn’t a pollutant in the classic sense of a poisonous substance like carbon monoxide or mercury. But salt isn’t either – however too much is a problem. If you’re convinced CO2 is the most wonderful of substances – try living in a room full of it and report back any noted beneficial effects.
As for Ainsworth et al 2008 well you wouldn’t have found it either if you’re weren’t looking for paff at the Idso’s repository of sophistry would you?
Tim raises a very important issue that has gone right over Luke’s head. (par for the course for a bottom feeder) If it is accepted by even the the goons at the IPCC that the biosphere absorbs 50% of all human emissions then why would there be any need to reduce emissions below 50% of present levels? The oceans can already deal with the other half.
In fact, as most absorption is by the ocean surface layer, and that surface layer is completely replaced by deep water every 20 years as part of a 400 year oceanic cycle, then we have about 400 years to develop alternatives to the carbon economy. There will be no cumulative impact on ocean absorption capacity until the entire cycle has been completed.
I used to run tourist boats, in the Whitsunday Islands, & nearby reef. That was after 6 years of cruising, & working around the Pacific islands, in my yacht.
I installed an outer reef facility, catering to up to 300 touristsa day, a little over a year before the area was gazetted a marine park. It included staff accommmodation, tourist facilities, an imitation submarine coral viewing vessel, & cyclone proof “?” moorings for everything. It was a lot of fun.
No one, state, commonwealth, or park authority would accept responsibility of authorising the instillation, so I wrote to all of them, advising them of the plan, & progress, as it went in. They all must have thought someone had aproved the thing, as no one had queried me, in the next 5 years.
As the gazetting approached, I was inundated with requests for trips to the thing by the park people, AIMS, & James Cook. I averaged just over 6 “guests” a day, for about 6 months.
I was amazed at the lack of expertise in these people. The chair of the park authority was a quite nice history professer. She knew less about the reef than the average Broken Hill miner but this was much more than many of the marine biologists who attended her. Some of these, I’m sure, had only ever seen the ocean, from an office window.
On one occasion we had to fly one of these researches back to the mainland by sea plane. She was pregnant, & so sea sick, we feared for her, & her babys safety if she went back by boat. While waiting for the plane she told me she had only been to sea 6 times, due to this problem.
We assisted a number of PHd candidates with transport, some accommodation & some small boat [rubber ducky’s] usage, as they did their research for their thesis. These were smart young graduates, who loved talking to the old reef fisherman, who often tied up to our pontoon at night. A couple told me thay learned more from these fisherman than their lecturers. I often wondered how these smart kids turned into the dead heads inhabiting the halls of academia.
From all this comes my fear, that these same deadheads aid & abet Bligh, with all this nonsense.
If you ever have a look at the thousands of reefs on lightly populated, fertaliser free islands in the tropics, you could not fail to see that its the fresh water, from a big wet, that damages the coral. Anything that may be in that water can do very little damage. Just how does it damage dying & dead coral.
I wonder if any of them have ever wondered why there is an opening in the reef at every river, even in pristine environments. Probably not, it would spoil the greenie theory.
Along the inner reef there is a cycle of coral being smothered by weed, after it is weakened, & killed in a big wet. Given a few lesser wets, the coral re-establishes, only to loose in the next big wet. Of course, you must spend some time near the ocean to learn this, or talk to some one who does. These are the two things, most of our researches are not good at.
Even though super acid phosphate is soluble in water, it is not washed through the soil, but precipitated close to the surface (Doak B W, 1942).
However, if super is applied to coastal soils (i.e. sandy soil with little clay), serious leaching can occur.
The rate of application is important.
Sugar Cane requires high soil fertility, so application rates of super and urea are high..
So, there is a problem.
People who think enriched agricultural ecosystems are problem-free… mustn’t have gone to primary school.
What do you really think raising the levels of nutrients is going to do to native ecosystems adapted to low levels?
Um? I wonder? :/
What shower did you come down in Amused? It could not have been in any of the last ones. If you had, you could not have got so far out of date.
The days of a cane farmer going out with an old fertiliser spreader, & spinning a bit of granulated stuff about the place, are so long gone, many would not know how to connect one to a tractor.
Today most is applied under ground. The stuff is far too valuable to be allowed to evaporate off the surface, or wash off, for that matter. There is more of it injected into irrigation water too, with a little & often the practice. Yes, rate is important, to avoid waste.
& yes there is a problem, with too many idiots who know so little, but refuse to recognise this fact. Still you are in good company, Ms Bligh for one.
Then there was that arrogant twit Sorley. Remember when he started the same sort of anti farmer rant, about cleaning up the Brisbane river. What he was going to do to make the farmers fix their practices, was worse than death.
He did not even have the decency to apologise, when the upper river was found to be very good, but the urban area was so full of nutrients, it could have been used to fertilise the farms. His sewerage treatment plants were the problem.
I think a bit too much of your info is comming from WWf press releases. Get out of that office, & catch up a bit, some time.
Simplistic propaganda Hasbo – doesn’t explain why Bremer gets an “F” – and that much of the sediment in Moreton Bay comes from Marburg and Walloon sediments. Mid-Brisbane catchment scores well but upper Brisbane catchment gets a D minus. Try quoting properly next time eh?
Yes Lukey baby, I expect there is qiute a bit of sediment from the market gardens. I suppose we could close them down, but even greenies want to eat something, & that type of farming will be the same, whever it goes. Not too many cane farms out there causing the problem, though.
You’ll have to have words with all those pesky kangaroos, up round the pristine Jimna catchment area, causing all that trouble in the upper area, lucky there are farmers lower down to clean things up, a bit.
“What shower did you come down in Amused? It could not have been in any of the last ones. If you had, you could not have got so far out of date.”
What do you mean? “Science is not thrown away, it is built upon” – Bob Carter
“The days of a cane farmer going out with an old fertiliser spreader, & spinning a bit of granulated stuff about the place, are so long gone, many would not know how to connect one to a tractor.”
=So how do you apply nitrogen at growth stage -30?, (don’t wanna run around with the seed drill again do we, too much crop damage).
“Today most is applied under ground. The stuff is far too valuable to be allowed to evaporate off the surface, or wash off, for that matter. There is more of it injected into irrigation water too, with a little & often the practice. Yes, rate is important, to avoid waste.”
=Rate is important for yield. On sandy soil, we need the highest rates to get a good crop.
“& yes there is a problem, with too many idiots who know so little, but refuse to recognise this fact”
=You said it!
It all went right over theoir heads, Hasbeen. They can’t possibly concede that fresh water kills coral because that would switch blame from farmers to urban development which produces MAJOR localised increases in runoff into parts of the reef that have never been exposed to those levels of fresh water for centuries.
And of course, by far the most effective means ever developed by mankind for reducing the volume of fresh water flowing onto a coral reef is, wait for it, a Dam. They more than pay for themselves in food production for a hungry world and they reduce both the volume and velocity of flood surges. Consequently, they also reduce total sediment flows, a fact not disputed by the greens who continually claim (contrary to actual evidence) that dams are being filled up by sediment.
It follows, that one of the next best ways to reduce sediment flows, and coral killing fresh water flows, is to encourage farmers in the flood plains to install “turkey nest” water storage facilities so they can pump as much sediment laden flood water into storage for later use.
But this was never about practical solutions that actually improve ecological outcomes or benefit local comunities. Heavens above. An extra dam or two in the north would allow for the kind of water abundant lifestyle that the SEQ elite can no longer compete with nor deliver to their increasingly congested serfdom. It would shift economic growth into areas outside SEQ, reduce the unsustainable growth rate in SEQ and reduce the infrastructure demands as well. But these neanderthals are blind, barking mad, centralists who understand that highly urbanised, centralised populations are more likely to vote for them. So they will maintain policies that are seriously detrimental to their own voters for the sake of ensuring that they continue to vote for them. Sicko’s all.
By the way, Hasbeen, something has come up that you may be interested in hearing about. Could you drop me a line to sceptic1@live.com.au please?