Preliminary results from biological farming study promising
The Rotorua Lakes and Land Trust (RLLT) - a joint venture between Te Arawa Federation of Maori Authorities and Rotorua/Taupo Province of Federated Farmers - has been studying nitrate leaching under biological farming systems since August 2010 in Reporoa with the research support coming from crown research institute Scion. The preliminary results are promising.
"We don't want to draw any conclusions from these preliminary results as this is in the early days of research but results are definitely encouraging," said Gifford McFadden, a Trustee of RLLT and the Project Leader for Vallance Project.
At this stage, we are monitoring only two farms (one conventional and one biological) in Reporoa. Following these promising results, we have now set up similar research in two farms in Edgecumbe. We will be monitoring Edgecumbe farms from April. Ideally we need, and would like to monitor, a number of study sites to draw proper conclusions.
Please note that these results are only from the tail-end of the drainage season when nitrate concentrations are expected to be low in the drainage water.
"Even in this situation, there is a significant difference between nitrate concentrations between these two farms," said Gifford McFadden.
We look forward to the results during the main drainage season (from late autumn to early spring) when most of the nitrogen leaching occurs.
"Since the amounts of drainage could differ between years due to amount and timing of rainfall), it will be ideal to monitor leaching losses at least for 3 years," he added.
In recent years, water quality has become an important issue in many countries including New Zealand. Farmers are under sustained public pressure to reduce nutrient leaching from their farms to streams, rivers and lakes.
New Zealand farming needs solutions that are simple to implement and easy to monitor.
Vallance Project (biological farming research project) explores how biological farming can play a role in reducing nitrate leaching from farms. This research is being carried out for the benefits of New Zealand farming community.
Total estimated cost for the project is $400,000 over 3 years. We have approached various funding agencies requesting support this research, and we will meet them again with these preliminary results. Already AGMARDT has committed $138,000, Bay of Plenty Regional Council $20,000 and a private company has put up $20,000.
"We hope these results may help some funding agencies to come forward to support this research at least for one or two drainage seasons," said Mr McFadden.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Sweden Reforms Democracy.
Stronger rights of electors to govern their own affairs now anchored in constitution
For the around 300 local authorities and 26 regions the Swedes introduced from the beginning of 2011
1. Citizens' law-proposal (initiative)
2. Right (improved) to demand a plebiscite (decision by the electorate, "referendum").
These changes strengthen the role of citizens in regional and local government. Before this reform there was a citizens' right to demand a referendum but this could be refused by the governing authority.
Swedish attention to detail for good governance is illustrated by some accompanying innovations. They propose to build a "comprehensive direct-democratic infrastructure" (Kaufmann), with local advice centres for voters who wish to contribute to governance and exploit their new democratic rights. Also planned is a national institution for political participation, which will inform citizens and support and encourage the newly introduced "direct" democracy.
The rules for citizens' initiative and referendum were laid down by revision of the constitution of state which came into force in January 2011.
--------------
Summarised from: Bruno Kaufmann, "A more democratic Sweden": Demokratischeres Schweden md magazin Nr.88, 1/2011 published by mehr-demokratie.de
For the around 300 local authorities and 26 regions the Swedes introduced from the beginning of 2011
1. Citizens' law-proposal (initiative)
2. Right (improved) to demand a plebiscite (decision by the electorate, "referendum").
These changes strengthen the role of citizens in regional and local government. Before this reform there was a citizens' right to demand a referendum but this could be refused by the governing authority.
Swedish attention to detail for good governance is illustrated by some accompanying innovations. They propose to build a "comprehensive direct-democratic infrastructure" (Kaufmann), with local advice centres for voters who wish to contribute to governance and exploit their new democratic rights. Also planned is a national institution for political participation, which will inform citizens and support and encourage the newly introduced "direct" democracy.
The rules for citizens' initiative and referendum were laid down by revision of the constitution of state which came into force in January 2011.
--------------
Summarised from: Bruno Kaufmann, "A more democratic Sweden": Demokratischeres Schweden md magazin Nr.88, 1/2011 published by mehr-demokratie.de
It's all in the fertiliser.
Tests done by Far North Envirolab Ltd.
Lower Phosphate Leaching.
Studies showed phosphate leaching through soil samples of farms or orchards using natural fertilisers, compared with neighbouring conventional farms using artificial chemical fertilisers.Showed leaching of phosphate in soil depths of 400 mm on farms that used artificial chemical fertilisers were between 31.6% to 168.3% higher than with natural rok fertilisers. It also found Farms and orhards using natural fertilisers leaching was reduced and the waterways less polluted.
In a sediment soil the results showed a 31.6 % less phosphate leaching when natural fertilisers had been used.
In a sandy soil with little top soil it was 74 % less phosphate leaching.
In a day soil with a small layer of top soil it was 168 % less phosphate leaching.
In a mixture of sandy and clay it was 35 % less phosphate leaching.
In very rich, nearly compost soil it was 75 % less.
Lower Phosphate Leaching.
Studies showed phosphate leaching through soil samples of farms or orchards using natural fertilisers, compared with neighbouring conventional farms using artificial chemical fertilisers.Showed leaching of phosphate in soil depths of 400 mm on farms that used artificial chemical fertilisers were between 31.6% to 168.3% higher than with natural rok fertilisers. It also found Farms and orhards using natural fertilisers leaching was reduced and the waterways less polluted.
In a sediment soil the results showed a 31.6 % less phosphate leaching when natural fertilisers had been used.
In a sandy soil with little top soil it was 74 % less phosphate leaching.
In a day soil with a small layer of top soil it was 168 % less phosphate leaching.
In a mixture of sandy and clay it was 35 % less phosphate leaching.
In very rich, nearly compost soil it was 75 % less.
Organic cows less nitrogen leaching.
College of Sciences Massey University.
Lower nitrogen Leaching.
Interest in organic dairy production systems is increasing in New Zealand. This interest is piqiued in part, by what is seen as a relentless trend of intensification on conventional dairy farms and the widely acknowledged detrimental effect of this intensification on the environment. Cows urine and chemical fertiliser use are the two main sources of nitrogen leaching into waterways from farm run off. Studies have shown differences in nirogen losses from conventional farms differs from that of organic farms. Differences in nitrogen ingested by cows and nitrogen excreted in urine.Studies showed that there is reduced excretion of urinary nitrogen from the organic cows and less nitrate-N is leached in waterways from organic farms.
Lower nitrogen Leaching.
Interest in organic dairy production systems is increasing in New Zealand. This interest is piqiued in part, by what is seen as a relentless trend of intensification on conventional dairy farms and the widely acknowledged detrimental effect of this intensification on the environment. Cows urine and chemical fertiliser use are the two main sources of nitrogen leaching into waterways from farm run off. Studies have shown differences in nirogen losses from conventional farms differs from that of organic farms. Differences in nitrogen ingested by cows and nitrogen excreted in urine.Studies showed that there is reduced excretion of urinary nitrogen from the organic cows and less nitrate-N is leached in waterways from organic farms.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
The Scots Govt have seen the light.
Action plan to add support for Organic Farmers.
Increased support for organic farming was announced yesterday by the Scottish Government's cabinet secretary for rural affairs, Richard Lochhead.
Organic farming is to be given greater priority as part of an action plan agreed with stakeholders in the industry, including the extension of land managers' options to cover organic maintenance payments.
The organic sector is currently making a slow recovery from reduced premiums - essential to cover higher production costs - resulting from the economic downturn and recent publicity questioning the health benefits of organic produce.
Announcing the action plan during a visit to Tio Organics, Forres, Lochhead said organic produce was making an important contribution to Scotland's food and drink sector which was enjoying increased demand and greater consumer recognition as a result of the government's national food and drink policy to boost sales to £12.5 billion.
By Eddie Gillanders.
Increased support for organic farming was announced yesterday by the Scottish Government's cabinet secretary for rural affairs, Richard Lochhead.
Organic farming is to be given greater priority as part of an action plan agreed with stakeholders in the industry, including the extension of land managers' options to cover organic maintenance payments.
The organic sector is currently making a slow recovery from reduced premiums - essential to cover higher production costs - resulting from the economic downturn and recent publicity questioning the health benefits of organic produce.
Announcing the action plan during a visit to Tio Organics, Forres, Lochhead said organic produce was making an important contribution to Scotland's food and drink sector which was enjoying increased demand and greater consumer recognition as a result of the government's national food and drink policy to boost sales to £12.5 billion.
By Eddie Gillanders.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Press Release
Press Release.
The People's Choice Party.
With their cheaper fertiliser and animal health costs, combined with Fonterra's premium of NZ$1.05 per kilogramme of milk solids. Shows that organic dairy production profits are better for both farmers and the environment, according to Rusty Kane Leader of The People's Choice Party.
Combined with good farm management practices organic farming methods are not only sustainable, they are as productive and profitable as conventional farming.
Proving that being environmentally friendly and sustainable will give organic farmers higher export returns.
World markets are keen to buy as much as possible, global trends show growing demand from consumers for foods that are demonstrably the product of sustainable, environmentally friendly farming practices.
Organic dairy is only 1% of Fonterra's production . Because of preconceived misconceptions around organic farming and it's greenee cogitations. New Zealand dairy farmers have until now been slow to embrace this huge profitable organic opportunity, in which the consumers are increasingly more sophisticated informed and educated on their own health needs their environment and the world around them, having access to online information and sources.
With increasing demand for organically produced products Fonterra is pressing farmers to switch from conventional milk production to organic milk production to meet demand.
Because of this high demand for organic dairy products, and Fonterra's milk solid premium incentives to help grow it's organic dairy sector, there has never been a better time for farmers to convert to organic dairy.
Fonterra is totally committed to supporting the growth of the New Zealand organic dairy sector and is looking to increase the number of organic farms in New Zealand. It was actively recruiting farmers to switch to organic methods, to meet growth it expects within its own organic business of 140% over the next five years.
Fonterra has already more than doubled its organic milk supplies over the past year, luring farmers with a premium of NZ$1.05 per kilogramme of milk solids.
This is to help it's organic dairy sector to gain the production required to reach and supply the mainstream New Zealand consumer and export markets. A predicted increase from 1% to 14% of it's overall production within the next 5 years. Making dairy the fastest-growing category in the organic foods sector.
For a conventional dairy farmer to convert over too and become a fully organic operation in the past may have taken the farmer five to seven years to establish a highly productive organic dairy unit. Today there is so much knowledge available to farmers to turn organic, the process can take as little as two to three years to become fully certified organic without loosing production.” Rusty said ”.
Leader of The People's Choice Party NZ
POBox 5111 Westown
New Plymouth
The People's Choice Party.
With their cheaper fertiliser and animal health costs, combined with Fonterra's premium of NZ$1.05 per kilogramme of milk solids. Shows that organic dairy production profits are better for both farmers and the environment, according to Rusty Kane Leader of The People's Choice Party.
Combined with good farm management practices organic farming methods are not only sustainable, they are as productive and profitable as conventional farming.
Proving that being environmentally friendly and sustainable will give organic farmers higher export returns.
World markets are keen to buy as much as possible, global trends show growing demand from consumers for foods that are demonstrably the product of sustainable, environmentally friendly farming practices.
Organic dairy is only 1% of Fonterra's production . Because of preconceived misconceptions around organic farming and it's greenee cogitations. New Zealand dairy farmers have until now been slow to embrace this huge profitable organic opportunity, in which the consumers are increasingly more sophisticated informed and educated on their own health needs their environment and the world around them, having access to online information and sources.
With increasing demand for organically produced products Fonterra is pressing farmers to switch from conventional milk production to organic milk production to meet demand.
Because of this high demand for organic dairy products, and Fonterra's milk solid premium incentives to help grow it's organic dairy sector, there has never been a better time for farmers to convert to organic dairy.
Fonterra is totally committed to supporting the growth of the New Zealand organic dairy sector and is looking to increase the number of organic farms in New Zealand. It was actively recruiting farmers to switch to organic methods, to meet growth it expects within its own organic business of 140% over the next five years.
Fonterra has already more than doubled its organic milk supplies over the past year, luring farmers with a premium of NZ$1.05 per kilogramme of milk solids.
This is to help it's organic dairy sector to gain the production required to reach and supply the mainstream New Zealand consumer and export markets. A predicted increase from 1% to 14% of it's overall production within the next 5 years. Making dairy the fastest-growing category in the organic foods sector.
For a conventional dairy farmer to convert over too and become a fully organic operation in the past may have taken the farmer five to seven years to establish a highly productive organic dairy unit. Today there is so much knowledge available to farmers to turn organic, the process can take as little as two to three years to become fully certified organic without loosing production.” Rusty said ”.
Leader of The People's Choice Party NZ
POBox 5111 Westown
New Plymouth
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Inexcusable Nonsense
It doesn't even surprise me to hear the utter, inexcusable nonsense pasted all over Monsanto's website anymore. It seems the entire endeavor is nothing short of pandering propaganda aimed to the uninformed, the naive, or those looking to justify their own affiliations with such debauchery. In defending their right to not label GMO foods, Monsanto had the following to say:
"Individuals who make a personal decision not to consume food containing GM ingredients can easily avoid such products. In the U.S., they can purchase products that are certified as organic under the National Organic Program. They can also buy products which companies have voluntarily labeled as not containing GM ingredients. The law allows for voluntary labeling so long as the information is accurate, truthful and avoids misleading consumers about the food. Monsanto supports both options."
First, this doesn't say anything about how other countries can avoid GMOs. As practices of industrial farming toil the backs of third-world farmers, one can only assume that other countries don't matter.
And secondly, Monsanto has avoided their corporate responsibility by laying the sole responsibility of consumer "choice" to be knowledgeable enough to purchasing organic "to be sure" that it is not infected with GMO technology. It's like having to prove innocence: It's totally un-American.
Or is it?
As the line between GMOs and organics blend; rather, when Monsanto finally dominates the global food market by owning, literally, all the staple crops, it won't matter. The only way we'll be able to avoid it is by growing our own, and even then you'll risk "stealing" intellectual property by pollen drift.
They further pose the question: "What would be the benefits of labeling products containing GM ingredients?"
Well, the benefits would be numerous.
The consumer could be more informed about what they are supporting when purchasing a product.
The consumer can decide if the organic option is worth the extra cost if on a tight budget (because unaccountability long-distance farms, even organic ones, can lead to profiteering either through the farm or the grocer).
The consumer could make the choice as to whether or not he wants to be a testing subject for genetically modified food that haven't been sufficiently tested in human consumption.
It is simply the responsibility of any producer to label what unnatural things exist in their products. That's why we have labels in the first place.
To shift the responsibility to the consumer and assume the cost of organic certification onto the farm is unfair and bullish. Why should a farm be forced to certify organic just to prove it is not part of the genetically modified game? Many small farms are not certified organic because the cost in certification is prohibitive. Now their perfectly reasonable practices go by the wayside of certified organic farms.
In essence, by not labeling GMO products, the small farms might as well have been sprayed with RoundUp: it kills them.
This mindset is indicative of Goliath sized companies calling the shots and all the Davids of the world having to play ball. It's outlandish. If we learn anything from this experience at all, it should be that we all need to save and store heirloom seed whenever we can find it. The real green revolution is not in a petri dish; it's in our backyards, our front yards and our neighbors' farms.
by Keri Marion
"Individuals who make a personal decision not to consume food containing GM ingredients can easily avoid such products. In the U.S., they can purchase products that are certified as organic under the National Organic Program. They can also buy products which companies have voluntarily labeled as not containing GM ingredients. The law allows for voluntary labeling so long as the information is accurate, truthful and avoids misleading consumers about the food. Monsanto supports both options."
First, this doesn't say anything about how other countries can avoid GMOs. As practices of industrial farming toil the backs of third-world farmers, one can only assume that other countries don't matter.
And secondly, Monsanto has avoided their corporate responsibility by laying the sole responsibility of consumer "choice" to be knowledgeable enough to purchasing organic "to be sure" that it is not infected with GMO technology. It's like having to prove innocence: It's totally un-American.
Or is it?
As the line between GMOs and organics blend; rather, when Monsanto finally dominates the global food market by owning, literally, all the staple crops, it won't matter. The only way we'll be able to avoid it is by growing our own, and even then you'll risk "stealing" intellectual property by pollen drift.
They further pose the question: "What would be the benefits of labeling products containing GM ingredients?"
Well, the benefits would be numerous.
The consumer could be more informed about what they are supporting when purchasing a product.
The consumer can decide if the organic option is worth the extra cost if on a tight budget (because unaccountability long-distance farms, even organic ones, can lead to profiteering either through the farm or the grocer).
The consumer could make the choice as to whether or not he wants to be a testing subject for genetically modified food that haven't been sufficiently tested in human consumption.
It is simply the responsibility of any producer to label what unnatural things exist in their products. That's why we have labels in the first place.
To shift the responsibility to the consumer and assume the cost of organic certification onto the farm is unfair and bullish. Why should a farm be forced to certify organic just to prove it is not part of the genetically modified game? Many small farms are not certified organic because the cost in certification is prohibitive. Now their perfectly reasonable practices go by the wayside of certified organic farms.
In essence, by not labeling GMO products, the small farms might as well have been sprayed with RoundUp: it kills them.
This mindset is indicative of Goliath sized companies calling the shots and all the Davids of the world having to play ball. It's outlandish. If we learn anything from this experience at all, it should be that we all need to save and store heirloom seed whenever we can find it. The real green revolution is not in a petri dish; it's in our backyards, our front yards and our neighbors' farms.
by Keri Marion
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)