Govt sell-off of water rights:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-20/murray-darling-water-licences-to-be-sold-back-to-farmers/5207632
Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the Murray Darling, environmentally speaking?
Dinetta said:
Govt sell-off of water rights:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-20/murray-darling-water-licences-to-be-sold-back-to-farmers/5207632Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the Murray Darling, environmentally speaking?
Arrrgh!
all about money for the Gov. i suppose, good for the irrigators, bad for the river system, tree loss, salt rise, rivers dying, but probably cheaper prices to make more savings at the fresh food people, who goes into a supermarket to save money? put it in a tin or the bank, most spend at the stupidmarkets.
too much of this irrigation and for that matter grazing seems to happen in far too a marginal landscape (marginal meaning say soil type and rainfall), had the previous governments had foresight ie. Howard/Costello and started a mining tax way back then and saved the dosh up (they reckon they are good at creating a stockpile of cash and saving it, but really they just sell off assets, so probably losing wealth in the long run), we would have tremendous amounts of dosh to offer changes to some land holders for income to do long term environmental repair and concentrate growing food in less marginal area’s including community gardens and backyards, turning river systems into flourishing healthy ecosystems probably attracting the tourist dollar instead. We have the ability to turn Australia into the green country but sadly lapse in apathy with tunnel vision toward the almighty $ missing the vast opportunities in the peripheral.
broad and not concise but a step in the right direction i believe, can we breed some very creative economic and environmental planners for the future?
I heard on the radio that the govt. reckons they have more than is needed, however I don’t trust the current govt.‘s understanding of environmental needs.
99% of Australia doesn’t matter. That’s the message the government is giving. The silly part of it all is, that they were voted in at all.
according to the news report, water in one area that is not needed for now is being sold back to farmers and the money will then be used to buy water in another area in the Murray-Darling System. Apparently the environmentalists are on board.
bluegreen said:
according to the news report, water in one area that is not needed for now is being sold back to farmers and the money will then be used to buy water in another area in the Murray-Darling System. Apparently the environmentalists are on board.
It is still rubbish thinking. The environmentalists aren’t on board.
roughbarked said:
bluegreen said:
according to the news report, water in one area that is not needed for now is being sold back to farmers and the money will then be used to buy water in another area in the Murray-Darling System. Apparently the environmentalists are on board.
It is still rubbish thinking. The environmentalists aren’t on board.
It is similar thinking that says it is a good idea that after you have buggered the grazing possibilities on your own property by overstocking, you can stick your cows out on the roadsides to eat the last remnants of the bushland or into the National Parks for the same.
roughbarked said:
roughbarked said:
bluegreen said:
according to the news report, water in one area that is not needed for now is being sold back to farmers and the money will then be used to buy water in another area in the Murray-Darling System. Apparently the environmentalists are on board.
It is still rubbish thinking. The environmentalists aren’t on board.
It is similar thinking that says it is a good idea that after you have buggered the grazing possibilities on your own property by overstocking, you can stick your cows out on the roadsides to eat the last remnants of the bushland or into the National Parks for the same.
Hear, hear…
This is purely about economics and winding back environmental policy to appease big water users while the rest of the country starves for water.
roughbarked said:
This is purely about economics and winding back environmental policy to appease big water users while the rest of the country starves for water.
We only have to look around the world to see how river systems get buggered up by over utilisation and pollution of the water. Science is what led the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Big Business, Agribusiness, mining business, manufacturing industries, all push governments to make policy to allow them to ignore the science.
Anyone members over here?
There is also discussion here.
as I said before I don’t trust the current govt to make sound environmental choices. I was just saying what I heard on the news.
We have a saying here that the channel water gets in your blood. Being born and bred in an irrigation area does that.
It is difficult not to be in touch with the comings and goings of the politics of water.
Country life is full of farm talk. Being where one can spend a lifetime observing irrigation and the pros and cons from the grass roots up or down.
I’m often appalled at the general concept of what the land is for, what the water is for.
bluegreen said:
as I said before I don’t trust the current govt to make sound environmental choices. I was just saying what I heard on the news.
Yep.. propaganda.
It is about appeasing those who see the land and water as theirs to take and make money off. “Can’t make a living out of dust.. Can get as rich as a pig, in mud”.Doesn’t anyone remember how the farmers in a meeting at Griffith used violent and abusive language and actions towards the MDB proposal? “Give us our water back.. We’‘l starve if you take it away!” No. THe banks will take their speedboats and numerous vehicles and farms away because they are overgrazing over stocking on the sure thing that water will flow across their land.
I’m dependent upon irrigation water. My town wouldn’t be here without it. I wouldn’t have been able to spend my whole life in the one spot. No one would be here. That was John Oxley’s assessment when he came and surveyed the place. He said it was the most inhospitable place he had ever seen and that nobody would ever be able to live here. Words to that effect can be found in his journal.
However, we can balance that and allow the wetlands to exist rather than drain them dry to feed the farms. When the rivers are so stressed that the mighty redgums that have been there since before we arrived all die, then the farmers should be pulling their belts in and waiting for the good seasons to return rather than flogging the dead horse after it is dead.
roughbarked said:
I’m dependent upon irrigation water. My town wouldn’t be here without it. I wouldn’t have been able to spend my whole life in the one spot. No one would be here. That was John Oxley’s assessment when he came and surveyed the place. He said it was the most inhospitable place he had ever seen and that nobody would ever be able to live here. Words to that effect can be found in his journal.However, we can balance that and allow the wetlands to exist rather than drain them dry to feed the farms. When the rivers are so stressed that the mighty redgums that have been there since before we arrived all die, then the farmers should be pulling their belts in and waiting for the good seasons to return rather than flogging the dead horse after it is dead.
The thing is that more land is being cleared now than has been cleared overt our entire history. More of the last remnants are being subjected to the fiercest of fires. The bush is all going to end up destroyed just so each farmer’s son can have his own place to rape so that Woolworths shareholders can be fed
Better management of water resources is to waste not want not. More efficient water usage doesn’t mean we should create more farmland simply because we have more to go around. Savings shouldn’t be spent just because they are there.
The MDB isn’t only about surface water. Huge farms that grow cornflakes and Uncle Toby’s museli bars suck the aquifers dry. All this adds up to the fact the only places there are water, are the farms and now the environmental wetlands that have been rejuvenated and are continuing to be rejuvenated by the MDB plan. The concept of selling back water from environmental allocations goes against the grain of the plan in that the plan allows for more water when it is there but not at the expense of the wetlands.
Moving large bodies of water about doesn’t make a lot of sense.roughbarked said:
The thing is that more land is being cleared now than has been cleared overt our entire history.
I believe they indiscriminately finished the job here in Qld, before Beattie’s Labour Govt brought in the “no clearing” rules…well limited clearing and they have to jump through the hoops for permission…this is regarded as Government Interference by the way…
As my P points out, the clearing by farmers / graziers has a bigger footprint than the clearing by mining companies…
Great informative posts, RoughBarked, and what I was hoping for (information)…
It is arrogance on the part of human beings that they change the environment to suit their ambitions, rather than learn to live within the natural flow of nature. Something has to give eventually and when it does it will be catastrophic to human beings, and many other lifeforms as well.
bluegreen said:
It is arrogance on the part of human beings that they change the environment to suit their ambitions, rather than learn to live within the natural flow of nature. Something has to give eventually and when it does it will be catastrophic to human beings, and many other lifeforms as well.
It doesn’t have to be though.
We simply need to learn to maintain a balance.
Not want to have it all now. Save some for our children’s children’s children.
roughbarked said:
bluegreen said:
It is arrogance on the part of human beings that they change the environment to suit their ambitions, rather than learn to live within the natural flow of nature. Something has to give eventually and when it does it will be catastrophic to human beings, and many other lifeforms as well.
It doesn’t have to be though.
We simply need to learn to maintain a balance.
Not want to have it all now. Save some for our children’s children’s children.
I agree. It is not too late to change our ways, but the powers that be must believe that it is necessary and those that want more need to be content with less.
bluegreen said:
I agree. It is not too late to change our ways, but the powers that be must believe that it is necessary and those that want more need to be content with less.
Totally agree there, i wish more people would consider this :)
Govt is about to hit the welfare system now, particularly Newstart and Disability.
bluegreen said:
Govt is about to hit the welfare system now, particularly Newstart and Disability.
Before this government gets sacked they will have systematically stripped away all reforms since Bob Menzies’ day.
roughbarked said:
bluegreen said:
Govt is about to hit the welfare system now, particularly Newstart and Disability.
Before this government gets sacked they will have systematically stripped away all reforms since Bob Menzies’ day.
and leave an almost impossible task for the next govt. to restore it all without spending lots of money. All in the name of a +ve bank account!
bluegreen said:
roughbarked said:
bluegreen said:
Govt is about to hit the welfare system now, particularly Newstart and Disability.
Before this government gets sacked they will have systematically stripped away all reforms since Bob Menzies’ day.
and leave an almost impossible task for the next govt. to restore it all without spending lots of money. All in the name of a +ve bank account!
Which is all entirely unnecessary, given Australia’s current deposits of minerals ready for exploiting.
roughbarked said:
bluegreen said:
roughbarked said:Before this government gets sacked they will have systematically stripped away all reforms since Bob Menzies’ day.
and leave an almost impossible task for the next govt. to restore it all without spending lots of money. All in the name of a +ve bank account!
Which is all entirely unnecessary, given Australia’s current deposits of minerals ready for exploiting.
Which leads to an entirely different and equally controversial subject!
bluegreen said:
roughbarked said:
bluegreen said:and leave an almost impossible task for the next govt. to restore it all without spending lots of money. All in the name of a +ve bank account!
Which is all entirely unnecessary, given Australia’s current deposits of minerals ready for exploiting.
Which leads to an entirely different and equally controversial subject!
roughbarked said:
bluegreen said:
roughbarked said:Which is all entirely unnecessary, given Australia’s current deposits of minerals ready for exploiting.
Which leads to an entirely different and equally controversial subject!
of great depth.
why is it that humanoids think they need to dig up, use and, exploit all resources right now, for financial gain, as if there will be no future for the planet?
trichome said:
roughbarked said:
bluegreen said:Which leads to an entirely different and equally controversial subject!
of great depth.why is it that humanoids think they need to dig up, use and, exploit all resources right now, for financial gain, as if there will be no future for the planet?
may they think there is no future for the planet? Or don’t care if there is or not.
I think, myself, the day will come when something very simple and small will give us all the power we need, without the killing consequences as you get with uranium…
Dinetta said:
I think, myself, the day will come when something very simple and small will give us all the power we need, without the killing consequences as you get with uranium…
Dare I say it, we probably have all the power we need overhead, every day.
bluegreen said:
Dinetta said:
I think, myself, the day will come when something very simple and small will give us all the power we need, without the killing consequences as you get with uranium…Dare I say it, we probably have all the power we need overhead, every day.
yep, over head and all around us
bluegreen said:
Dinetta said:
I think, myself, the day will come when something very simple and small will give us all the power we need, without the killing consequences as you get with uranium…Dare I say it, we probably have all the power we need overhead, every day.
OH I should imagine there’s lots, more than lots if you get my drift, who would agree with you, entirely…
trichome said:
roughbarked said:
bluegreen said:Which leads to an entirely different and equally controversial subject!
of great depth.why is it that humanoids think they need to dig up, use and, exploit all resources right now, for financial gain, as if there will be no future for the planet?
Because it says in the bible that everything is here for us to take.
Apparently it is a god given right.
roughbarked said:
trichome said:
roughbarked said:of great depth.
why is it that humanoids think they need to dig up, use and, exploit all resources right now, for financial gain, as if there will be no future for the planet?
Because it says in the bible that everything is here for us to take.
Apparently it is a god given right.
Actually, the Bible doesn’t say that. But once that attitude did exist and perhaps is still thought in some circles. But I think the main problem is greed and the worship of the almighty $$$$$$.
bluegreen said:
roughbarked said:
trichome said:why is it that humanoids think they need to dig up, use and, exploit all resources right now, for financial gain, as if there will be no future for the planet?
Because it says in the bible that everything is here for us to take.
Apparently it is a god given right.
Actually, the Bible doesn’t say that. But once that attitude did exist and perhaps is still thought in some circles. But I think the main problem is greed and the worship of the almighty $$$$$$.
The attitude exists. Saying it doesn’t is not an escape. That it doesn’t exist in me is only how I see it.
Today Tonight is being axed in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne…
hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Dinetta said:
Today Tonight is being axed in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne…hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
I never watch those sort of shows anyway, so I won’t miss it. I watch the ABC news and that’s about it.
They’ve found a ute buried in a back yard at a Gold Coast semi-rural area…only in Queensland…I mean, would you think of doing that?
Dinetta said:
They’ve found a ute buried in a back yard at a Gold Coast semi-rural area…only in Queensland…I mean, would you think of doing that?
Maybe it is like acid washed jeans.. Pre-rotted bodywork?
A shame really, waste of a good ute…
Pre-rotted body work , ho ho ho!
used as landfill?
bluegreen said:
used as landfill?
…a novel idea…
Vale Wendy Hughes…
They should hang their heads in shame…
Dinetta said:
They should hang their heads in shame…
They try to tell us that it is all safe, then something like this happens.
Sonny Jim was saying the other day, that Round-up has issues only recently discovered…mostly to do with spraying I think…
Dinetta said:
Sonny Jim was saying the other day, that Round-up has issues only recently discovered…mostly to do with spraying I think…
The original booklet that comes tied to the lid of all roundup, tells you straight that it shouldn’t be sprayed.
bluegreen said:
Almost 700 native birds killed by pesticide exposure:(
‘
‘
‘
Farmers have done this sort of thing lots of times in the past.. Deliberately.
roughbarked said:
Dinetta said:
Sonny Jim was saying the other day, that Round-up has issues only recently discovered…mostly to do with spraying I think…
The original booklet that comes tied to the lid of all roundup, tells you straight that it shouldn’t be sprayed.
I don’t like the idea of spraying it, never have. Have always painted it. SJ did suggest that I spray the “fire break” rather than whipper snip it but the idea does not appeal…
Dinetta said:
roughbarked said:
Dinetta said:
Sonny Jim was saying the other day, that Round-up has issues only recently discovered…mostly to do with spraying I think…
The original booklet that comes tied to the lid of all roundup, tells you straight that it shouldn’t be sprayed.
I don’t like the idea of spraying it, never have. Have always painted it. SJ did suggest that I spray the “fire break” rather than whipper snip it but the idea does not appeal…
I always was going to build a wick wiper that fitted onto whipper snipper so that as one swung the cut, the wick wiped following. I had the same idea for a lawnmower slasher.. ie; cut and wipe in the same pass.
Spraying glyphosate not only gets it into the air-stream, it also gets it on the soil. Now glyphosate on the soil is NOT biodegradable. The chemical is systemically biodegraded when applied to leaf and stem surfaces or directly into the sap flow via the cambium layer. However, roundup sprayed onto the soil or the mulch does not pass through the system of a plant and hence does not biodegrade. What actually occurs is that it becomes concentrated as a residual chemical which by the nature of happening more than once, becomes a very toxic residue.
The citrus orchardists of California tried to sue Monsanto over this problem causing their trees to be affected and the Monsanto lawyers walked into the courtroom, said “read the label” and walked out.
So, I’m not aware of other issues from spraying roundup but the manufacturer always specified that this was not the intended application method. Though by the way, none of their TV advertisements look anything like the manual.
roughbarked said:
The citrus orchardists of California tried to sue Monsanto over this problem causing their trees to be affected and the Monsanto lawyers walked into the courtroom, said “read the label” and walked out.
I see what you mean now. I didn’t before.
I killed almost every leucana tree that I applied Round-up to…a good slathering on the cut bit and then up and down the trunk. Very few of the treated trees survived this.
Dinetta said:
I killed almost every leucana tree that I applied Round-up to…a good slathering on the cut bit and then up and down the trunk. Very few of the treated trees survived this.
It is the most efficient method. Get the chemical into the sap flow. Either allow the plant to do it by painting the leaves or shortcut that by cutting into the cambium layer.
Never put the chemical on the mulch or the soil because it is a residual buildup that can become quite toxic to surface feeders such as citrus. Water can move this residue so the canaries of the plant world such as tomatoes will pick up this from at least one metre away.
roughbarked said:
Water can move this residue so the canaries of the plant world such as tomatoes will pick up this from at least one metre away.
That’s scarey…are you saying that the area spray poisoned 2 years ago should not be used for vegetables? It was very thick grass and I think only the top was sprayed…(hope, hope)
Dinetta said:
roughbarked said:
Water can move this residue so the canaries of the plant world such as tomatoes will pick up this from at least one metre away.
That’s scarey…are you saying that the area spray poisoned 2 years ago should not be used for vegetables? It was very thick grass and I think only the top was sprayed…(hope, hope)
if only sprayed the once, two years ago it shouldn’t be that big of a worry.
roughbarked said:
Dinetta said:
roughbarked said:
Water can move this residue so the canaries of the plant world such as tomatoes will pick up this from at least one metre away.
That’s scarey…are you saying that the area spray poisoned 2 years ago should not be used for vegetables? It was very thick grass and I think only the top was sprayed…(hope, hope)
if only sprayed the once, two years ago it shouldn’t be that big of a worry.
Whew thanks for that, RoughBarked…
Guilty.
I don’t understand this bit about not spraying glyphosate. It’s a spray herbicide. Here is the MSDS. It is ‘disabled’ as soon as it hits soil.
http://agspray.net.au/msds/glyphosate360.pdf
roughbarked said:
Dinetta said:
Sonny Jim was saying the other day, that Round-up has issues only recently discovered…mostly to do with spraying I think…
The original booklet that comes tied to the lid of all roundup, tells you straight that it shouldn’t be sprayed.
No. This is wrong.
We use Gladiator (which is the Crop Care Australasia Pty Ltd version of glyphosate) and because I thought your comment was wrong, I went out to the shed and got the book off the drum. It is quite clear that methods of application include aerial, boom, knapsack and handgun. In the general instructions it says “Crop Care Gladiator herbicide is a non volatile liquid that mixes readily with water. Just mix with the required volume of water, add a non-ionic wetting agent, and spray”
It can’t get a lot more explicit than that.
…but is the Gladiator stuff the same as Round-up? Isn’t that like saying that Combantrim ® worm treatment is the same as AmCal worm treatment, when they aren’t because the “active ingredient” is not the same…and anyway Combantrim is a far better and longer-lasting treatment, trust me…Gladiator and Round-up might have glycophosphate (F7) in them both, but there’d be other differences which would affect how they work with regards to soil poisoning etc…?
Not explaining myself very well but hope you get the gist…
There is glyphosate, and there is RoundUp which contains glyohosate plus a number of other undisclosed ingredients. They get away with not disclosing them because they are not considered the active ingredient, but enhancers. However they are pretty potent in their own right. This is my understanding anyway.
I still don’t trust glyphosate much either. Even though it is supposed to break down in the soil it needs a certain type of bacteria to do so and if that is missing the glyphosate persists.
It’s the same as generic drugs. The active ingredient is mixed with different substrates. But the active ingredient is glyphosate regardless. The rest will be water and possibly some detergent to make it stick to the leaves.
Regardless, my point was that the formulations are for spraying.
And Monsanto’s book has a section on spraying stuff:
http://www.monsanto.com/sitecollectiondocuments/ito/2009%20herbicide%20handbook%20%282%29.pdf
buffy said:
It’s the same as generic drugs. The active ingredient is mixed with different substrates. But the active ingredient is glyphosate regardless. The rest will be water and possibly some detergent to make it stick to the leaves.
Regardless, my point was that the formulations are for spraying.
More modern formulations may be. However my drum of glyphosate is more than 30 years old now. What it does add is that if mixed as a spray then it should all be used and the container washed out as gas buildup can explode.
Despite whatever. There is still no way, going on the history of glyphosate, I will ever spray it on my soil.
I should hope not. It’s not for spraying on soil. It is not a soil active chemical. You have to spray it on green, growing foliage for an effect.
And we’ve been using it for 30 odd years too…..it’s always been a foliant spray.
And if your drum is that old, it has probably been degraded years ago and should have been disposed of and the drum gone to the drum roundup at the local tip.
buffy said:
And we’ve been using it for 30 odd years too…..it’s always been a foliant spray.
And if your drum is that old, it has probably been degraded years ago and should have been disposed of and the drum gone to the drum roundup at the local tip.
I take good care of my chemical containers. I have very few of them. Mostly they are some type of fertiliser.
buffy said:
I don’t understand this bit about not spraying glyphosate. It’s a spray herbicide. Here is the MSDS. It is ‘disabled’ as soon as it hits soil.
http://agspray.net.au/msds/glyphosate360.pdf
Then why do all the newer formulations of roundup need to have the words “with no soil residual activity”?
It is perhaps because they needed to be reformulated so that they didn’t?It just means that the stuff does not sterilize the soil like some other herbicides. It’s always been a no residual soil activity chemical. It is neutralized by soil contact. You surely remember how to clean out containers by putting dirt in there and swishing it around to neutralize the glyphosate.
buffy said:
It just means that the stuff does not sterilize the soil like some other herbicides. It’s always been a no residual soil activity chemical. It is neutralized by soil contact. You surely remember how to clean out containers by putting dirt in there and swishing it around to neutralize the glyphosate.
It isn’t neutralised by contacting mulch though. There is no data about whether the ‘neutralised’ activty, isn’t a residue.
Also, they go as far to say that it is illegal to use the chemicals other than as directed.
From my experience with people who have done (because they have to) all the HazChem courses and then forget everything, then the only way that Monsanto could guarantee that the chemical is used as directed, would be for them to do all the applications and make it illegal for anyone to use other than themselves.
roughbarked said:
Also, they go as far to say that it is illegal to use the chemicals other than as directed.From my experience with people who have done (because they have to) all the HazChem courses and then forget everything, then the only way that Monsanto could guarantee that the chemical is used as directed, would be for them to do all the applications and make it illegal for anyone to use other than themselves.
Which ‘they’ is this?
It is the responsibility of the end user to read the instructions and then use the chemical as directed. If they do not, it is not the responsibility of the supplier.
buffy said:
roughbarked said:
Also, they go as far to say that it is illegal to use the chemicals other than as directed.From my experience with people who have done (because they have to) all the HazChem courses and then forget everything, then the only way that Monsanto could guarantee that the chemical is used as directed, would be for them to do all the applications and make it illegal for anyone to use other than themselves.
Which ‘they’ is this?
It is the responsibility of the end user to read the instructions and then use the chemical as directed. If they do not, it is not the responsibility of the supplier.
yeah, thanks for that buffy.