So the core of Peter's ideas are embedded in existing and well established ideas about biological farming and about water harvesting. They are not controversial to me. It will work as long as you have low salinity soils, low salinity input water and a relatively flat landscape and you are close to a water source. It also will work better in grazing systems as the nutrient loss can be managed better. Wheat and other cropping systems would really have to think hard about rotations and carbon balances.
All the rest of the ideas from Peter are only layering around this core and some of it I really cannot see any use for, or I find a bit silly.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
What's so special about NSF?
I found an interesting blog entry by Willem Vervoort, Associate Professor Hydrology and Catchment Management at the Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources at the University of Sydney, he concludes:
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Fun with numbers!
I was having some fun over at The Land the other week with one of the denizens claiming undersea volcanoes are responsible for the melting of the Arctic ice cap. While he wanted to rant about conspiracies and all that he does raise an interesting point which has made me think, just how much heat (and of course energy) do volcanoes need to add to the oceans to actually make any difference? So I figured I might do some calculations, there are a number of assumptions I will make and I’ll be quite open about them, I will however be generally erring on the conservative side.
It’s going to get a little complex but none of the calculations are all that difficult, grab a bit of paper and a pen.
We’ll assume a rise in average ocean temperature of 1 degree over 100years, assuming that this is constant throughout the water column (if it were due to volcanic activity the difference would be higher the lower you go as that’s where the heat source is but to make it easy I’ll stick with a one degree warming throughout the column), so how much energy does this take?
From basic physics we know that it takes 4.2 Joules of energy to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius (I’m assuming fresh water, I do know it’s salt water but the difference in the end will only be minor), from a quick Google search (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/SyedQadri.shtml) we find that the worlds ocean volume is around 1.3-1.4 billion cubic kilometres.
Assuming one gram of water equals one millilitre (yes, I do know the density will be a little different with salt water but in the end it really won’t make much difference), one cubic metre will equal one million millilitres (1 x 106 ml) , one cubic kilometre will equal one million billion millilitres (1x 1015 ml) and will require 4.2 x 1015 Joules to warm it by one degree, so the whole ocean will require 4.2 x 1015 x 1.3 x 109 or 5.46 x 1024 Joules of energy to raise it by one degree (this does make a very, very big assumption that there’s no energy lost from the system, counting in energy loss this figure would be much higher).
That’s a lot of joules, so what does this equate to? Another Google search on “world energy consumption” tells us the average annual energy consumption is roughly 5 x 1020 Joules (my search said 4.74 x 1020 but I rounded it up just for ease of calculation) so dividing or 5.46 x 1024 by 5 x 1020 gives us 10920 years of the worlds energy use would raise our oceans by 1 degree Celsius.
So what? I hear you quite rightly say, “the energy comes from cooling magma not from burning coal” so what we need to know are the melting point of magma and the specific heat capacity (specific heat capacity is how much energy it takes to raise one gram of a substance by one degree Celsius).
Another Google search on “magma melting temperature” gives an answer of between 700 and 1300 degrees to melt it depending on the makeup of the magma, in this case for ease of calculation we’ll pick a mid point of 1000 degrees. As for specific heat capacity, granite has a specific heat capacity of 790J/kg/degree or 0.79J/g/degree (we’ll round it up to 0.8J/g/degree for easier calculations, don’t worry this works out as more heat released for less weight which helps out the conservative nature of the calculations).
Time for a breather? Just to reiterate, we’ve figured out how much energy it would take to warm the world’s oceans by one degree Celsius, what we’re doing now is figuring out how much volcanic magma we would need to heat it by that much, as I’ve said, I’ve made a number of assumptions but they should result in a fairly conservative answer.
Ok, the amount of energy going into melting something should be the same as that released when it solidifies and cools so to raise 1 gram of granite to melting point of around 1000 degrees from a starting temperature of 50 degrees (it’s a lot hotter at the bottom of the oceanic crust than it is at the top so I figured 50 degrees would be a reasonable average), would require 950 (the temperature difference) multiplied by 0.8 (the specific heat capacity) or 760 Joules, that would also be released as it cools and solidifies.
So, what does that mean? Fair question, how many tonnes of magma would need to cool from 1000 degrees to 50 degrees to release that sort of energy?
Taking our 5.46 x 1024 Joules of energy needed divided by 760 gives us 7.2 x 1021 grams or 7.2 x 1015 Tonnes. Granite has a density of around 2.7T/m3 and basalt around 3T/m3, for ease of calculations I’ll go with the basalt density which gives 2.4 x 1015 cubic metres or 2.4 million cubic kilometres of magma needing to be produced by the worlds mid ocean ridges, volcanoes etc over 100 years to raise the oceans temperatures by 1 degree celcius (remember I’m assuming no loss, the actual number would be much higher).
As this mostly happens in the oceans and the oceanic crust is between 7 and 10km thick, we’ll assume a thickness of 10km giving 240 000 square kilometres of oceanic crust formed in 100 years.
Actually, it isn’t, that assumes all the action happens at the mid ocean ridges where the crust is formed and nothing at the subduction zones so I’ll halve it assuming (quite reasonably I think) that there’s as much energy released at the subduction zone as at the mid ocean ridges, so we’re looking for 120 000 square kilometres of new ocean crust formed in 100 years (remember, this is a conservative estimate, the actual number would be much more). Again using Google there’s around 80 000km of mid ocean ridge which means they’d have to widen by 1.5km in a century, or again being nice 750 metres either side meaning the continents would have to move at least 7.5 metres a year this is around 150 times faster than they are currently moving and to move 150 times faster you’d need 22 500 times the energy (remembering basic physics F=MV2).
These figures are very much in the lower end of the ballpark so if there is an influence from oceanic volcanoes on sea temperature and climate change we can see that it is very, very little.
It’s going to get a little complex but none of the calculations are all that difficult, grab a bit of paper and a pen.
We’ll assume a rise in average ocean temperature of 1 degree over 100years, assuming that this is constant throughout the water column (if it were due to volcanic activity the difference would be higher the lower you go as that’s where the heat source is but to make it easy I’ll stick with a one degree warming throughout the column), so how much energy does this take?
From basic physics we know that it takes 4.2 Joules of energy to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius (I’m assuming fresh water, I do know it’s salt water but the difference in the end will only be minor), from a quick Google search (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/SyedQadri.shtml) we find that the worlds ocean volume is around 1.3-1.4 billion cubic kilometres.
Assuming one gram of water equals one millilitre (yes, I do know the density will be a little different with salt water but in the end it really won’t make much difference), one cubic metre will equal one million millilitres (1 x 106 ml) , one cubic kilometre will equal one million billion millilitres (1x 1015 ml) and will require 4.2 x 1015 Joules to warm it by one degree, so the whole ocean will require 4.2 x 1015 x 1.3 x 109 or 5.46 x 1024 Joules of energy to raise it by one degree (this does make a very, very big assumption that there’s no energy lost from the system, counting in energy loss this figure would be much higher).
That’s a lot of joules, so what does this equate to? Another Google search on “world energy consumption” tells us the average annual energy consumption is roughly 5 x 1020 Joules (my search said 4.74 x 1020 but I rounded it up just for ease of calculation) so dividing or 5.46 x 1024 by 5 x 1020 gives us 10920 years of the worlds energy use would raise our oceans by 1 degree Celsius.
So what? I hear you quite rightly say, “the energy comes from cooling magma not from burning coal” so what we need to know are the melting point of magma and the specific heat capacity (specific heat capacity is how much energy it takes to raise one gram of a substance by one degree Celsius).
Another Google search on “magma melting temperature” gives an answer of between 700 and 1300 degrees to melt it depending on the makeup of the magma, in this case for ease of calculation we’ll pick a mid point of 1000 degrees. As for specific heat capacity, granite has a specific heat capacity of 790J/kg/degree or 0.79J/g/degree (we’ll round it up to 0.8J/g/degree for easier calculations, don’t worry this works out as more heat released for less weight which helps out the conservative nature of the calculations).
Time for a breather? Just to reiterate, we’ve figured out how much energy it would take to warm the world’s oceans by one degree Celsius, what we’re doing now is figuring out how much volcanic magma we would need to heat it by that much, as I’ve said, I’ve made a number of assumptions but they should result in a fairly conservative answer.
Ok, the amount of energy going into melting something should be the same as that released when it solidifies and cools so to raise 1 gram of granite to melting point of around 1000 degrees from a starting temperature of 50 degrees (it’s a lot hotter at the bottom of the oceanic crust than it is at the top so I figured 50 degrees would be a reasonable average), would require 950 (the temperature difference) multiplied by 0.8 (the specific heat capacity) or 760 Joules, that would also be released as it cools and solidifies.
So, what does that mean? Fair question, how many tonnes of magma would need to cool from 1000 degrees to 50 degrees to release that sort of energy?
Taking our 5.46 x 1024 Joules of energy needed divided by 760 gives us 7.2 x 1021 grams or 7.2 x 1015 Tonnes. Granite has a density of around 2.7T/m3 and basalt around 3T/m3, for ease of calculations I’ll go with the basalt density which gives 2.4 x 1015 cubic metres or 2.4 million cubic kilometres of magma needing to be produced by the worlds mid ocean ridges, volcanoes etc over 100 years to raise the oceans temperatures by 1 degree celcius (remember I’m assuming no loss, the actual number would be much higher).
As this mostly happens in the oceans and the oceanic crust is between 7 and 10km thick, we’ll assume a thickness of 10km giving 240 000 square kilometres of oceanic crust formed in 100 years.
Actually, it isn’t, that assumes all the action happens at the mid ocean ridges where the crust is formed and nothing at the subduction zones so I’ll halve it assuming (quite reasonably I think) that there’s as much energy released at the subduction zone as at the mid ocean ridges, so we’re looking for 120 000 square kilometres of new ocean crust formed in 100 years (remember, this is a conservative estimate, the actual number would be much more). Again using Google there’s around 80 000km of mid ocean ridge which means they’d have to widen by 1.5km in a century, or again being nice 750 metres either side meaning the continents would have to move at least 7.5 metres a year this is around 150 times faster than they are currently moving and to move 150 times faster you’d need 22 500 times the energy (remembering basic physics F=MV2).
These figures are very much in the lower end of the ballpark so if there is an influence from oceanic volcanoes on sea temperature and climate change we can see that it is very, very little.
Mr Toad will not be happy.
Willow species (Salix spp) with the exception of Weeping Willow, Pussy Willow and Sterile Pussy Willow (Salix babylonica, S.calodendron and S.x. reichardtiji) have been listed as one of twenty one Weeds of National Significance, these weeds have been listed due to:
and are regarded as being a major threat to the Australian environment. In the cae of the Willow it has been listed because
Tasfish has quite a good article on it. So you'd think that given the threat to the ecosystem that people wouldn't be promoting it's use? You'd think so but Natural Sequence Farming has been and is continuing to promote the planting of willows, even claiming they are the worlds number one riparian plant (whatever that means)!
Given that the results of the ARC Barramul Project were released last year and accoding to their website
Well, nothing at all really, it gives a great wrap to Casuarinas and very little on willows. Mind you this all could be quite academic in a couple of years anyway as this year has been a fantastic year for the spread of the Willow Saw Fly, which now appears to be in a significant number of rivers and creeks in the Hunter Valley and in some areas causing significant damage (sorry, my camera batteries were flat but I'll get back out and get a few shots). And see my previous post on weeds.
the invasiveness of a weed species
a weed's impacts
the potential for spread of a weed
socio-economic and environmental values.
and are regarded as being a major threat to the Australian environment. In the cae of the Willow it has been listed because
Most species of Willow are Weeds of National Significance. They are among the worst weeds in Australia because of their invasiveness, potential for spread, and economic and environmental impacts. They have invaded riverbanks and wetlands in temperate Australia, occupying thousands of kilometres of streams and numerous wetland areas (CRC 2003).
Willows spread their roots into the bed of a watercourse, slowing the flow of water and reducing aeration. They form thickets which divert water outside the main watercourse or channel, causing flooding and erosion where the creek banks are vulnerable. Willow leaves create a flush of organic matter when they drop in autumn, reducing water quality and available oxygen, and directly threatening aquatic plants and animals. This, together with the amount of water willows use, damages stream health (CRC 2003).
The replacement of native vegetation (e.g. river red gums) by willows reduces habitat (e.g. nesting hollows, snags) for both land and aquatic animals (CRC 2003).
Willows have only invaded about 5% of their potential geographic range in temperate Australia (CRC 2003).
Tasfish has quite a good article on it. So you'd think that given the threat to the ecosystem that people wouldn't be promoting it's use? You'd think so but Natural Sequence Farming has been and is continuing to promote the planting of willows, even claiming they are the worlds number one riparian plant (whatever that means)!
Given that the results of the ARC Barramul Project were released last year and accoding to their website
proved Peter's NSF processes are what he has been saying all these yearsyou'd think the report would back them up. Well what does the report have to say?
* Casuarina cunninghamiana accelerates bench development and plays a synergistic role in channel contraction (P7)
* Clonal grasses, reeds and tree C. cunninghamiana assisted geomorpic processes.
* River training works were effective after 1981 because they coincided with the main period of natural channel contraction.
* Baramul NSF stream works assisted vegetation recovery but occurred after the main period of channel contraction. (P21)
* Significant positive feedback between C. cunninghamiana recruitment and the rate of channel contraction after extensive channel widening. (P23)
* The recolonisation of native vegetation such as Casuarina cunninghamiana (given appropriate seed source) plays an important and synergistic role in channel contraction, negating the use of such weeds as Salix spp in NSF (P44)
Native plants such as river oak (Casuarina spp) have proven extremely effective at stabilising stream beds and banks. Stock exclusion and limited grazing enhanced the establishment of native seedlings. The use of natives for this purpose is preferred over exotic weeds. (P48)
Well, nothing at all really, it gives a great wrap to Casuarinas and very little on willows. Mind you this all could be quite academic in a couple of years anyway as this year has been a fantastic year for the spread of the Willow Saw Fly, which now appears to be in a significant number of rivers and creeks in the Hunter Valley and in some areas causing significant damage (sorry, my camera batteries were flat but I'll get back out and get a few shots). And see my previous post on weeds.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
"Natural"? Probably not.
I first heard of Natural Sequence Farming over a decade ago even being shown around Tarwin Park in around 2000 or 2001, it didn't really impress me that much at the time but I figured I'd keep an eye on it and wait for some actual scientific results.
So far there's been two studies on it and neither give the ringing endorsement that NSF proponents claim, firstly there was the CSIRO expert panel report, which, while it does have some good things to say about the concept:
(note: at the time the report was written the practice was know as "The Natural Farming Sequence" it was later changed to Natural Sequence Farming")
isn't exactly unequivocal in it's support. Let's see what else they have to say:
Not exactly a ringing endorsement is it? In short it does work on Tarwin Park however applicability to other landscapes is limited and the property shows low biodiversity.
Since this report there has been research undertaken on Barramul Stud by a range of researchers which makes for interesting reading, but that's for next time.
So far there's been two studies on it and neither give the ringing endorsement that NSF proponents claim, firstly there was the CSIRO expert panel report, which, while it does have some good things to say about the concept:
(note: at the time the report was written the practice was know as "The Natural Farming Sequence" it was later changed to Natural Sequence Farming")
The panel believes that NFS is a successful and sustainable farming system for the current enterprise at Tarwyn Park, where it has led to substantial agronomic and environmental improvements on the property.
Central to the implementation of NFS at Tarwyn Park is the manipulation of the hydrologic regime, that has increased aquifer water storage providing effective sub-surface pasture irrigation. This has substantially increased pasture productivity, and avoids the evaporative water losses that occur with surface irrigation.(page 1)
isn't exactly unequivocal in it's support. Let's see what else they have to say:
P1.
The panel made its assessment on the basis of professional interpretations of verbal and written descriptions of NFS, and an inspection of Tarwyn Park on 23 May 2002. The lack of quantitative data and the limited resources for the study precluded quantitative assessment.
The panel only assessed NFS as implemented as Tarwyn Park, and comments on the applicability of the particular practices used at Tarwyn Park in other landscape settings. The practices required for the application of NFS in other settings have not been demonstrated or documented, and so cannot be assessed.
P2
NFS has done little to address issues of native biodiversity and landscape ecology at Tarwyn Park. There is low species diversity in the riparian and stream plant communities, and a near absence of remnant native trees on the farmed hillslopes. These plant communities are therefore expected to provide little habitat for birds and other terrestrial fauna.
The suite of practices implemented for NFS at Tarwyn Park are only appropriate for local groundwater systems (recharge and discharge areas within a few kilometres of each other) dominated by fresh groundwater in porous floodplain sediments.
P3
As the panel only visited Tarwyn Park, the assessment of NFS is limited to its implementation at Tarwyn Park. In the panel’s opinion, most of the reports of prior scientific studies are of poor quality. Because of this, and the resource restraints placed on the panel, the assessments are qualitative, based on professional interpretation of observations made at Tarwyn Park. Furthermore, it should be noted that very little data to describe conditions at Tarwyn Park before the implementation of NFS exist, and the panel did not have the opportunity to view comparable properties in the region–with or without NFS.
P6
There is little data to describe the current water, salt, and nutrient balances of Tarwyn Park, and no data to describe levels of productivity. Furthermore, there are no data to describe conditions at Tarwyn Park before the implementation of NFS. Our assessments of the changes that have occurred at Tarwyn Park are therefore qualitative, based on observation and our interpretation of the verbal and written descriptions of changes due to NFS with which we were provided. These changes are summarised below in terms of material balances (water, salt, sediment, and nutrients), productivity, landscape biodiversity, and farm economics.
P8
While the implementation of NFS at Tarwyn Park has increased the functional diversity of plant species within the pasture, biodiversity has not been increased on the property. The number of native plant species on the property is low, with all plant communities – floodplains, hillslopes, stream channel, and riparian zone– characterised by moderate to low species diversity. The pasture communities are the most diverse, although native species diversity and abundance in the pasture is very low. Because of the dominance of broad-leaf annuals in the pasture mix at certain times, it is likely that there is a significant export of the seeds of these species (for example, Paterson’s curse (Echium plantagineum) and thistles (Centaurea spp.)) to downstream properties. To downstream landholders pursuing more conventional agriculture, this is undesirable.
The riparian vegetation is dominated by a canopy of exotic willows (Salix spp.) and native river oak (Casuarina cunninghamania), very little understorey, and a mix of native and exotic grasses as ground cover. There is an absence of trees on the hillslopes adjacent to the floodplain, although native eucalypts dominate the forest up the steeper slopes towards the escarpments. The lack of trees implies poor habitat on the property for birds and other terrestrial fauna.
P9
It is the opinion of the panel that suite of Tarwyn Park practices can only work for local groundwater flow systems where the water balance is dominated by fresh groundwater held in highly transmissive floodplain sediments. Local groundwater systems are those which have recharge and discharge areas within a few kilometres of each other……..The sediments must also be sufficiently deep to allow substantial subsurface water storage. The valley and floodplain topography must be such that it is possible to move the majority of the stream flow out onto the floodplain. The salinity of the groundwater in the floodplain sediments must also be low. Furthermore, the salt sources must be discrete such that those areas of highest salt mass can be effectively quarantined from the water cycle that is operating on the floodplains.
In addition to the hydrogeologic setting, the suite of Tarwyn Park management measures are only suitable in fluvially confined floodplain systems that prior to disturbance were characterised by a “chain of ponds” stream system. In systems that previously had incised channels, stream energies would be sufficiently high to preclude the stability and effectiveness of low-cost grade control structures.
P10
Tarwyn Park benefits from the increased volumes of water and loads of sediment and nutrients, and provides an environmental service by acting as at least a medium-term store for a proportion of the salt load it receives from upstream. It is the panel’s view that implementation of NFS higher up the Bylong River catchment would reduce these inputs to Tarwyn Park. With reduced flow and nutrient inputs from upstream, sustainable productivity on Tarwyn Park would be lower. In addition, with less incoming water, the ability to store salt would most probably be reduced. Thus if the properties upstream implemented NFS, there would be a negative impact on Tarwyn Park. Similarly, implementing NFS on Tarwyn Park has reduced sediment and nutrient loads downstream of the property. These changes are believed to be towards the pre-European condition, nonetheless from a downstream agricultural perspective they could be viewed as detrimental.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement is it? In short it does work on Tarwin Park however applicability to other landscapes is limited and the property shows low biodiversity.
Since this report there has been research undertaken on Barramul Stud by a range of researchers which makes for interesting reading, but that's for next time.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Farewell 2010, G'day 2011
It's been a very quiet year for me as far as blogging is concerned, I've been busy with the house renovations (and fucking lawn mowing, maybe it's time to get a sheep) and have been nursing quite a shitty, unreliable laptop. I'm still renovating but I've had enough of the old lappy and deemed it not worth the expense of fixing so now have a new one which does all sorts of shit so with any luck I'll find the time and inclination to keep this blog updated regularly.
Next year I'm planning a look at the pseudosciences that seem to permeate the environmental movement/industry. I'll probably upset a few people but having spnt far too much time this year trying to get them to answer simple questions I think it was time they were outed.
Farewell 2010 and wishing all the best for 2011, and as always if you have any comments or questions feel free to comment, it's quite rare that I censor/moderate posts (pretty rare that I get them but some people do read this blog).
Ok, back to the beers, good night and best wishes.
the Quoll.
Next year I'm planning a look at the pseudosciences that seem to permeate the environmental movement/industry. I'll probably upset a few people but having spnt far too much time this year trying to get them to answer simple questions I think it was time they were outed.
Farewell 2010 and wishing all the best for 2011, and as always if you have any comments or questions feel free to comment, it's quite rare that I censor/moderate posts (pretty rare that I get them but some people do read this blog).
Ok, back to the beers, good night and best wishes.
the Quoll.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Rumours.
I heard a couple of interesting rumours this week, yet to be fully confirmed but could do with some follow up.
Firstly, apparently the NSW Department of Planning is trying to fast track the Bylong coal development, even going so far as do be doing its preliminary environmental assesment.
And secondly there's been a lot more sightings of deer in the Upper Hunter, including, it is claimed, Elk.
From Wikipedia:
I've also heard that some landholders are rumoured to be charging $2500 to shoot one, a great incentive not to get rid of them I suppose.
Firstly, apparently the NSW Department of Planning is trying to fast track the Bylong coal development, even going so far as do be doing its preliminary environmental assesment.
And secondly there's been a lot more sightings of deer in the Upper Hunter, including, it is claimed, Elk.
From Wikipedia:
The elk or wapiti (Cervus canadensis) is one of the largest species of deer in the world and one of the largest land mammals in North America and eastern Asia. In the deer family (Cervidae), only the larger moose (Alces alces), which is called an "elk" in Europe, and the sambar (Rusa unicolor) rival the elk in size. Elk are similar to the Red Deer (Cervus elaphus) found in Europe, of which they were long believed to be a subspecies. However, evidence from a 2004 study of the mitochondrial DNA indicates they are a distinct species.Yeah, great, it's bad enough running into kangaroos on the road, how long before someone gets taken out by a feral elk? Maybe Santa would like to grab a few spares when he gets here.
Elk range in forest and forest-edge habitat, feeding on grasses, plants, leaves, and bark. Although native to North America and Eastern Asia, they have adapted well to countries where they have been introduced, including Argentina, Australia, and New Zealand. Their great adaptability may threaten endemic species and ecosystems into which they have been introduced.
I've also heard that some landholders are rumoured to be charging $2500 to shoot one, a great incentive not to get rid of them I suppose.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Save the Bylong Valley!
This just in...
MEDIA RELEASEFor Immediate Release
Sunday, 13th November, 2010
Mining v. agriculture battle arrives in Bylong Valley
The battle for the protection of farming land from mining activity has opened a new
front today, with the announcement of the formation of the Bylong Valley Protection
Alliance.The new group, established at a community meeting at Bylong over the weekend, has
appointed an interim executive and committee, pending full registration with the
Office of Fair Trading, which is expected to be completed in the coming weeks.
Around 40 people attended the meeting, which was addressed by local eco-tourism
operator Julia Imrie and Cathy Pattullo, a former resident of the Cumbo Valley, which was badly affected by noise from the nearby Wilpinjong mine.
Interim President, local Jodie Nancarrow, said that the name “pretty much says it all.
It’s about protecting the Bylong Valley - and everything that’s so special and unique
about it. And the biggest threat at the moment is mining.” Earlier this year, Anglo
American Coal announced the sale of its proposed Bylong mine to Kepco of Korea
for $403M.
The Bylong Valley – with its celebrated annual charity ‘Mouse Races’ - has become
even better known in recent years with the sealing of the Bylong Valley Way, and is
now a significant tourist gateway from the Upper Hunter to the Central West.
Also under threat from the proposed mining activity is ‘Tarwyn Park’, home of Peter
Andrews’ revolutionary method of landscape restoration and water management,
‘Natural Sequence Farming’, and familiar to many through the ABC’s ‘Australian
Story’.
[Notes: Bylong is located approximately 90km north-east of Mudgee and 120km west of Muswellbrook. While technically ‘Upper Hunter’ in terms of geography it comes under Mid-Western Regional Council.]Media Contacts:Jodie Nancarrow – Interim President – 02 63798252
(bylonggeneralstore@harboursat.com.au)
Craig Shaw – Interim Secretary – 0411 101988 (craig@craigshaw.com.au
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)