Introducing new animals and insects to NZ's environment is not without its risks as history has taught us with rabbits, gorse, and opposums.
But the plan to release an insect that burys animal dung 30cm underground in which to lay its eggs seems interesting.
The basis of NZ's low cost pasture based systems revolve around recyling the nutrients back into the soil to allow pasture to enhance its growth.
Our clovers put organic nitrogen back into our soils and our fencing systems allow animal waste to fertilise pastures more evenly over our paddocks.
If this insect can help reduce our dependence on chemical fertilisers and improve the stores of carbon in the soil as well, it should be looked at.
The humble dung beetle, which spends its life rolling and burying balls of poo, could become a weapon against global warming. Environmental regulators are seeking permission to release in NZ up to 11 foreign species of the beetle, which hoover up animal dung for food. The Dung Beetle Release Strategy Group - made up of farmers and other interest groups - says the introduction will lead to a reduction in the greenhouse gas byproduct of dung, nitrous oxide.
Adult dung beetles bury animal dung and lay their eggs in it, and the grubs feed on the dung - effectively spreading the manure under the soil reports The NZ Herald. Group spokesman Andrew Barber said the introduction of the beetles from Australia, the south of France, Spain and South Africa, would bring several benefits for farmers. Among these were the beetles' ability to improve pastures and soil profile by tunnelling 30cm to 60cm to bury manure, aerating the soil and enabling better water penetration, reducing the need for fertilisers. Mr Barber said they would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions from dung.
The beetles aid carbon sequestration by storing the carbon contained in the organic matter deep in the soil. "These will have a big impact potentially reducing nitrous oxide emissions as well as lower fertiliser costs, which would be a big benefit for all of NZ. Mr Barber said that if the idea were approved it could take 15 to 20 years for the beetles to become fully established and for their labours to become obvious.
33 Comments
"combat global warming"
Oh please, are we STILL on that lie !
CLIMATEGATES, the definitive list? 94 and counting
http://neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/3394
Zealots and alarmists need not apply :)
If it is good for FARMING, then fine, but please don't dress it up as lies about "global warming".
Actually, you made me go back and go through the lot, from first principles.
For which I thank you.
I spent one night just making sure I understood Hadley Cells, and Adiabatic Lapse Rates.
And when I'd finished?
On the balance of probabilities, you are wrong.
As it pertains to society, the only valid course of action is precautionary, due to the immense lag-times involved.
I then did a comparative of time-lines, and figured that Peak Oil is an earlier cab off the rank, in terms of social upheaval. We have simply run into the Limits to Growth (long heralded but much ridiculed) and the manifestation of that may well be a collapse of the fiscal system.
If they keep cobbling it together, expect a long bumpy Recession/Depression.
Which may slow down tha rate of carbon emissions, but not the cumulative effect.
Personally not even "balance of" the case is so far weighted to AGW being true and real for me, convicted and hanged...........
And yes when you look at risk and impact no one in their right mind can ignore it...pre-cautionary action is sensible....indeed even the costs are fractional as there are considerable financial benefits let alone the environmental ones.
Peak oil, I am hopeful that this would curb emissions but with companies eyeing the lignite down south for fertilizer which will mean huge CO2 emmission and Bumbling Brownlee eyeing the frozen hydrates so methane emissions with half witted glee I really think it will end badly....
But you know the earth will continue around the sun....we've had carbon laying down periods before...
regards
94 lies on the deniers side v tens of thousands of peer reviewed, calucalated and well written articles in worthy publications on the Pro side....
Really the case is closed, apart from the tiny minority of whinning denial from the extreme Lefties and the rabid righties, now the Q is just how bad...
regards
There are the deniers and then those in denial(Like yourself Steven and all those who thought that they were "smarter than the average(polar)bear".
The "weight "of evidence may be on your ship(side) but unfortunately it is only going to help you reach the bottom faster as it sinks.
Whch is it "Global warrming" or Global cooling(more exterme weather)?
Can you really have BOTH?
Most of us who work outside for a living could actually handle a bit of global warming this time of year!
If you classify anything from the IPCC as a "worthy Publication" then maybe you should change authors and read some of Lee Childs novels..
cheers
The Deniers - I detest that terminology. They have WMD's, then became, regime change. Global warming then became climate change.
No doubt we should stop polluting the world, but the NZ ETS will not help that. Personally I sick of hearing about it, and having to pay for it. I'm sure like many kiwi's who do their bit are too.
Also sick of those who feel that they are always in the right. Get off your high horse and until you are a published expert, then why would anyone take your opinion seriously. If the so called economic, and scientific experts continually get it wrong, what makes the arm chair critic think they know what’s going on...
Note what I replied to Kate.
Ditto to you.
I've done my research since 1975 on this, clashed with, and beaten in debate with, Profs. The academic kind.
I guess that's being 'expert', although I never think in those terms.
And the answer to you last Q? - funnily enough, folk in my circles (energy studies) haven't gotten it wrong - yet!
You'd almost think that physics and maths were pretty much irrefutable, but hey, what would I know?
for instance, before your think nuclear=Iran, check out, say, No1 well, Baba Gurger, Kirkuk, 1927.
Congratulations, you've just done more research than any western scribe in the last five years. Did the ownership/history tell you anything?
I abhor armchair critics too, but informed folk are few and far between. You can only pick the diffo by being informed yourself.
cheers
Very good. And fantastic that you are learned enough to be engaged is such a way.
I think the issue for the average person is that they can smell another rort coming a mile away, and feel powerless to do anything about the further raping their pockets are going to get. Sick of hearing abotu war, terroism, war on drugs, war on terror, combating climate change. All these fear enducing words are meaningless to most people now, because it's all a load of BS which has and is being used to control the masses and enrich the few further.
Off topic I know, so i will leave it at that. Until there are some genuine efforts to make change, not just penalising the peasants further, then I will start listening again. Until then its just a nonsene.
Well said, Lloyd.
pdk, the folks who have profited most on the AGW gravy train so far are the academics whom you seem to normally discredit - yet you "fuel" their case - for more research, more "proving", more "words" on a journal page - more funding - more conferences - more energy use to fight the "good" fight to "combat" the climate .... and so on it goes.
Um, you miss my point.
I argue for an equillibrium, a non-forcing on our part. We can't do diddly-squat about earthquakes (our relative energies are orders of magnitude different) but we can strive for a balance.
Because creating an exponentially increasing imbalance, is a guarantee for disaster. For our and other species.
True, fear is the usual persuader of the masses by the winners - pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die vs eternal damnation being a classic example.
You have to separate that from chemistry, physics and fact, though.
Note that the money folk, and the pollies (particularly note that the further 'right' you go, the more in denial they are) seem to be the one in denial. I don't see fiscal winners in the 350.org outfit.
It's a fun debate, good to think, but energy is the elephant in the matchbox. It's interesting to note much the same sub-set denying a problem in that regard, too.
Academics have a more fundamental problem (which I've mentioned here) that of 'interdisciplinary genuflection. It's worse than that, too. They get so specialised, they (unless they are privately enthused) lose relativity. Gravy train? No, the bigger academic gravy train, by far, is geology, economics, business and even physics folk, advocating the likes of exploiting the 'Great Southern Basin'. There's more, always more, gravy in the corporate sector.
They'd like you to think it wasn't so, and the best spin is to accuse the oppo of whatever you are guilty of yourself. The only way to know the truth, is to research it yourself.
pdk - a non-forcing of what on our part?
Do you mean humans should strive to have less environmental impact - like we should not overfish the seas, like we should not pollute the waterways, like we should not package foodstuffs in plastics and other non-biodegradable substances, etc., etc.,
Well, most AGW "deniers" would be happy to support you in that! But AGW is a very specific issue of cause and effect. And one which the "supporters" suggest can be reversed.
One can support the use of alternative energy and the lowering of one's energy consumption at large - and one can argue for a more even and socially responsible distribution of wealth/energy/food etc. without needing to "believe" in the "science" of AGW.
Agree except for " most AGW deniers would be happy to"......
No. Look at the Philbests and the HughP's - they start with what they want, and argue from there. What they want, can be generally described as "no limits".
Most of those folk stand to lose, in terms of an ETS: only foresters stand to win. Oh, and lobbyist corporates who manouevre for 'credit relief'.
The big question really, is whether trying to educate is the right way to go, or whether the whole system has to be allowed to collapse, before we put it back together sustainably.
Again, look at the folk who think in terms of 'cheaper housing/land. Sure, they'll get it. It's a no-brainer. What they have no clue about, is that the energy curtailment will restrict cumulative incomes, so in relative terms, they won't be any better off.
I'm off to shift the goat (he turns blackberry into fertiliser, without the use of fossil fuels, a very satisfactory arrangement.
Methane? Hard to tell.........................
That's denial, Kate.
Just quietly, think about why you feel that way. Really.
A growing number of the middle class are moving that way cognitively, and it's not hard to see why.
It's also not hard to see that it won't be very long before TSHTF.
I suspect the Romans and the Maya (et al) never understood what hit them either - or they'd have done something about it.
They didn't, or they'd still be around. What is interesting, is that even with our amazing access to history, we are choosing to be ignorant.
Sad indictment - and perhaps epitaph - on a species.
Here lies (sorry about the double meaning) Homo Sapiens, died of arrogance, ignorance, denial, and/or a combination thereof.
pdk - we can no more "combat" changes in our atmoshere than we can "combat" earthquakes, hurricanes etc. Natural disasters are just that, natural. Do you think that if man were around at the time of the ice age - that he might have been able to prevent it? Much of the present catastrophic flooding has to do with too many people, which results in deforestation/disturbing of natural landform, massive runoff, lack of permeable surfaces etc etc.
The only thing I think we could "combat" that might have any chance of extending the future of the human species on this planet is population. Bar controls on that, then perhaps the next best thing would be to ban meat production - forced vegetarianism would, I understand, give us a better chance of feeding the burgeoning population for a bit longer. Even then distribution will always be unequal - it seems to be the nature of human nature.
I agree that diminishing cheap/affordable energy will likely provide the natural dimunition in population numbers before such time as the human race gets around to making any decisions for itself about self-preservation.
The thing is - species extinction and evolution of new life forms seems to me to be a natural course of events.
We stand to benefit from the AGW "combat" scam as we own a pine forest - so I'm talking my way out of between $6K and $10K pa if these worldwide ponzi schemes ever take off. But I doubt they will becuase the people who are apparently supposed to pay me won't have any money/means because the availability to mass produce using energy just won't continue - as you so rightly point out. Therefore, regardless of whether AGW is or isn't - carbon pricing to "combat" it is a joke.
OK, I'm with you there.
We've got a forest too - planted '89-90.
It was done because of the rainforest depletion, not for money.
We will opt out of the ETS - it's, if not a scam or a rort, at least something that cannot work.
There isn't the sink on the planet.
It would have been nice if a species could have acknowledged the limits, and been intelligent enough to look ahead, apply the brakes, and sort out a regimen whicn allowed for the coutinuance of other flora/fauna, and in a sustainable manner. It's a challenge, but it's worth the heave.
I get somewhat frustrated with the fact that most folk won'r even engage.
Have a good weekend :)
Of course it will make a difference - I'm not an air pollution "denier", nor any any kind of pollution "denier", nor any kind of depletion "denier".
But then neither do I think we humans are bigger than what lies beneath (geology), the sun, and all those other forcings (as pdk would say) that influence earth's atmosphere/climate. We cannot prevent earthquakes, which means we cannot prevent volcanic eruptions, we could not have prevented the Azolla event, nor the Ice Age, nor a comet strike and so on and so forth... which means we cannot compete with Mother Nature - what will be will be.
What matters is how humanely we respond to the unequal utilisation/distribution of limited resources - and whether we are bold enough to consider population control - which includes serious consideration of the manner in which we unevenly distribute use of limited resources to an aging population in the West.
pdk - we can no more "combat" changes in our atmoshere (sic) than we can "combat" earthquakes, hurricanes etc.
Kate, that is a silly, indeed an ignorant statement simply because we humans already have sucessfully combatted man made changes in our atmposphere. How about the London smog and reduction of the Ozone hole? And one could cynically write providing our plants with a lot more atmospheric carbon dioxide.
There is also a considerable body of evidence that indicates that something as tiny as a small freshwater fern was able to change hothouse earth to the current (but rapidly changing) colder earth. Google The Azolla Event.
It is also self evident that if we humans have enough power to damage our atmosphere, we very probably have the power to repair that damage. Subject as always to empirical testing. Although obviously it is best not to damage our environment in the first place.
As to climate change issues if you have only relied on the media for your information on a topic that is of such crucial importance again you are being silly. The internet is to the modern world what the printing press was to the middle ages. There are many resources out there. Read the reports of those working in fields that provide background information. The journal nature is a great start.
Read about the changes that have already occurred in our world's climate. A frequent and very worrying refrain from expert scientists is. "We did not think it could happen so fast."
As to the ETS scheme. Will it work? I certainly dont know if it will but just as certainly dont know that it wont..
And of course banning all meat production is no answer. It reduces food inputs from enormous world acreages that are too poor for agriculture. Australia for example has enormous areas of such lands. Banning most meat production on agricultural lands may have some merit.
However, I do agree that human over population is our world's worst problem.
1st..this is not a new idea, it has been proposed researched several times in my lifetime before.
Like copper/brass instead of stainless in hospital to prevent cross infection has over the last 100 yrs or so.
Yep our elite original thinkers keep reinventing/ sucking research funds to the same old things over and over.
NZ is a land of no mammals (except a little bat)... and has evolved that way.
Sheep cattle etc are mammals from a different eco system that have bugs and stuff that break up dung ..we dont have them...the only big question is...will it be a bubble bee or a possum effect long term.
For those who dont know about the bubble bee...clover was introduced for N in our soils cause they lacked it.
Farmers sowed the clover great crops , then in a couple yrs had disappeared....our birds and bees could not fertilizes the clover flower...so the introduction of the humble bubble bees
Cloverand bubble bees are addition to the way of life in NZ now...even tothe extent of helping with several native species that their natural metods of reprodurion are extinct or not in enough numbers to have any effect
The big question is not will the dung beetles enhance our environment, which in the past research (repeated again..and again ..and again) but if or will they have a detrimental effect like rabbit and possum that may far out weigh any balance ?
Don't forget the tax aspect steps...expect councils to insist on being given munny to carry out scientific studies on your...ooops sorry...their dung beetles....and additional rates because your farmland will be 'improved' and of more value.
For sure the govt will establish a dung beetle working group...the DBWG...to establish what new animal...bugger...insect rights are needed!
"expect councils to insist on being given munny to carry out scientific studies on your..."
Oh yoiu mean they need to study iit all over AGAIN? for the Nth time
But that good isnt it, keeps the top educated ppl in NZ busy reading old studies and quoting them all over again....I really do wonder if there is any orginal thinking left in NZ.
Non farmers here making a reasonable length thread talking about ............ sh.t - must be a slow day in the office!
Steps I have the same concern as you, re what the negatives of introducing it could be. Often it takes many years for the negative effects to be made known.
Then again when farming comes in to the ETS carbon tax scenario in a few years we will be liable - on current ETS calculators - for $28,000 a year. We made the (stupid?) mistake of restoring native areas and planting native shelter - should have planted pines and then we would have been financially better off under an ETS carbon tax.
However if we can get $1 carbon credit for 1 dung beetle perhaps I could minimise my liability somewhat! :-)
"Steps I have the same concern as you, re what the negatives of introducing it could be."
Well I dont have too much concern at all....going on the previous studies I really dont know why it wasnt done a decade or so ago...or even a decade before that on the previous studies...
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.