If you want to to apply dermabrasion to the festering sore of the Murray Darling Basin Plan and drift into every perceived slight in a catchment plan anywhere in Oz.
I am of two minds whether that would merely expose entrenched positions and misunderstandings resulting in heated but nonconstructive exchange or if we could get past that and educate each other. In some ways the topic is like the matters bringing the national parliament to the headlines right now, rather too religious to have rational talk. Important nonetheless.
Speaking to a local farmer who has grown hemp, it is very challenging to harvest and handle due to it fibrous nature. They have tried two varieties (tall and short) but given up as they found they found it isnāt worth growing commercially. To maximise production, it also requires irrigation in itās early growth and significant fertiliser and chemical inputs as well.
At this stage hemp may be more of a niche product than one for mass production and consumption.
There is a lot of dryland cotton grown which is only rainfed and not irrigated. Unfortunately the media tends to indicate it is all irrigated through a few big producers.
Do you have evidence this would be the case (I understand Monsanto is now Bayer)?
If this was the case they would be lobbying to have organic cotton banned. Farmers arenāt forced to use chemicals or seed from these companies nor contract grow cotton for them.
Do they need to talk to NSW DPI about frosts and cold and wet feet? No need for a definitive answer. We are drifting further away from almond milk.
I agree there are alternatives to the use of Aussie land to provide for almond milk production, almond flour, almond kernels, cotton, hemp seed, hemp oil, hemp chemical fibre extraction, ā¦
Itās still all about the value of the investment required, and the cost of production vs the market price. Thatās not to say this is how it should be, just how it is.
No, NSW DPI need to speak to Tassie DPIPWE and ask how to grow hemp to achieve the high yields possible in Tasmania. As indicated above, Tasmaniaās climate is ideally suited for industrial hemp production which is evidenced by it growing currently 80% of Australiaās total production.
It is even more complex when using alternative may have different and potentially significant impacts. An example is natural fibres (cotton, wool, hemp etc) require significant inputs including water in the production (from farm to weaver) and one might think it is best to then move to synthetic fibres.
Synthetic fibres are known to release millions of microplastic per wash polluting the environment as they pass through waste water treatment systems. There are also fugitive losses when the fabric is worn/used.
One should be very careful in pointing the finger at a particular industry/process using one criteria, as this criteria need to be assessed in light of all impacts associated with itās use/production. When one had all the information and knows the impacts, one can then assess which one in balance is the preferred choice based on their own views and values.
Just in relation to āthirsty cropsā, while these crops may use significant amounts of water, much of the water is rainfed rather than irrigation (in some countries it is only rainfed production). Using figures or claims about water use, one needs to also know where the water is sourced from. In relation to rainfed crops, the amount of water used may be less than the preclearing vegetation which existed on the same lands. So it could be argued by some that water use has declined through changing land use through to agricultural production. This is where assessing one criteria when making decisions or discussing impacts can be disingenuous.
Quite so. We also need to know where the water goes to.
There is a problem with any kind of table that shows water āuseā. What do we mean by āuseā exactly? If we use petrol, for example, the result is no longer petrol. Fuel consumption has a fairly clear meaning even if it is hard to agree on how to measure it. If you use water the great majority is not rendered into something else - it remains water. Whether it is then useful water depends on the situation and what the next use of it may be.
I collect rainwater to use to wash, cook, shower etc, it then goes into a treatment plant and then waters a stand of trees. When was it used?
I pump water from my dam to water an orchard. Some is used by the trees to grow tissue, some goes to evapotranspiration and some goes into the top soil and joins the run off from rain. Of that runoff some goes back into the dam and some into the river. I also pump from that river. How much water do I use? When?
For landholders there is a concept called harvestable right. It is the amount of water I am allowed to impound, it limits the size of my dam. It is not the amount of water that falls on my property at a particular time $$$ nor the amount that I use by any meaning of the word. There are other rules to do with the limits of pumping from natural bodies of water. The cost, if there is one, depends on the purpose, the catchment and the amount. The rules that apply to me are not the same as the MDB. None of this is simple.
Some of the ratings for products and crops are obtained by summing the water āuseā by the various components required to get the end result. This level of complexity makes it even harder to compare figures from one thing to the next. So when somebody tells you each kilo of steak takes x litres, each almond takes y litres or each kilo of cotton takes z to produce you have to ask what exactly does your informant mean and do the given values of x, y and z help you understand what is going on in any way at all.
Using only one criterion for assessing impact is not only disingenuous but can be somewhere between wrong and meaningless.
$$$ It is a fraction of the estimate of the precipitation that is likely to fall on the property per year over the long term.
This often happens as it is difficult to determine individual inputs. The total water consumption (rain, soil, irrigation, reticulated etc) is from assessment of representative production. They also donāt consider water management and efficiencies adopted by some producers. They are all bundled together and tainted with the same representative brush.
I find some of the information concerning and misleading as it is published to possibly to drive a single issue political agenda rather than a broad discussion of the relevant advantages, disadvantages and impacts (environmental, social, economic) of each product.
It is somewhat scary how everyday items we see as necessary or needful these days consume a large amount of water to produce them. Obviously some of this water used is recovered or re-purposed in other processes or released back to the environment but still the potable water supply/resource seems to be raided a lot.
An example from one of the linked lists showed that 2 litres of softdrink required the use of nearly 1,300 litres in itās production. Again this would be spread over a variety of processes, however has that use ever been properly paid for? or perhaps mindfully accounted for? How many are willing to adjust their lifestyle patterns to reduce their usage by reducing the amount of high water usage products or more carefully/wisely choosing when to use them?
Yes, that is an interesting figure and it is a lot easier to measure manufacturing water use than agricultureā¦as the inputs are more fixed (usually mains water or other high quality sourcesā¦and can be easily metered).
Butā¦many beverage manufacturers reclaim and reuse water (this is for a beer and for a softdrink), so I wonder if the figure is a total or includes only that lost from the system. I believe from a quick search that it is the total water use and not water lost through production, where there is no recovery or reuse. The water lost through production is the relevant number as it is that which needs to be supplemented by some source and is removed from other use opportunities.
Maybe there is opportunity for Australian businesses and producers (inc. agriculture) to share their water efficiency measures with others through out the world.
From production of colours, food acids, sugar or sweeteners, the actual water and the process of cleansing it, the production of plastics, transport use of water, and Iām sure many other processes account for the high figure. I would think the closer you get to unprocessed the less water is actually used. The CC figure is probably the actual water used in only the water product that goes into the bottle, not the whole gamut of water needed.
It appears to be the water they use to manufacture a product, not embodied water from the supply of other products and services they use (bottles, electricity, flavour, sugar etc).
Almonds in the form of whole nuts, slivers, crushed nuts, flour, meal, and liquid extracted from almonds ā¦ appears in a lot of processed foods. Despite its low humidity and high irrigation footprint, almonds are cheaper than many other nuts and thus seem to be the āgo toā ingredient for a lot of things. I know this because almonds make me ill and I have to scan ingredient lists carefully; and ask in cafes & restaurants which seem to love adding almond garnishes to all sorts of dishes (no Iām not allergic to peanuts, hazel nuts, pecans, walnuts, cashews, etc and macadamias are my favourite nut).
Possibly due to the low or subsidised cost of the water used?
I prefer peanuts.
They have around 5-10% of the water requirement of almond production.
Being a legume they add nitrogen to the soil (and carbon?) and can be useful in plant rotation.
Macadamias are great too, when grown in areas similar to their natural rainfall environment. Otherwise water use can be up to 5Ml/hectare, (one source). Agricultural sprays (mist/fog) are also commonly used to protect crops. Other than when bees are introduced to assist pollination.
Peanuts (while technically not a nut) are substantially cheaper - about 1/4 that of almonds. I suspect that peanuts are not used due to the fear of having to label the product as containing such and what it means for product marketing.
Looking at the (forecast) prices for exported commodities, the prices are as follow:
It appears that without shell, walnuts are likely to be similar price to almonds, with chestnuts being slightly more.
The use of almonds is possibly about supply rather than price. The supply would be more regular and certain on a year on year basis, while other tree nuts the seasonal factors could significantly affect supply.
has there been a study on fast growing shrubs and vegetation that could be processed into hardboard or plywood ,we are going to need some solution soon ,We complain about the Amazon but its nothing compared with the trees in Eastern Russia that Putin and his mates have flogged to China ,no wonder he owns 5 palacesā¦Those trees grew slowly over many years and will never be replaced
