Replies: 4
Views: 305
Last Post By: smith1234 ON: November 24th, 2008, 3:16 pm
Topic By: smith1234 ON: November 24th, 2008, 3:16 pm
Molta gente inoltre sceglie di andare con le vigilanze Rolex replica replica appena per il semplice fatto che ci sono più stili da scegliere da. Quando avete più di un'azienda che sta facendo la stessa vigilanza di stile, siete limitato per fornire alcune variazioni differenti. Ciò gli rende facile eccellente trovare uno che misura il vostro gusto.

Replies: 4
Views: 305
Last Post By: smith1234 ON: November 24th, 2008, 3:16 pm
Topic By: smith1234 ON: November 24th, 2008, 3:14 pm
Naturalmente, questo incita appena più gente a volere andare con le vigilanze di Rolex della replica. Non solo sono alte nella qualità, ma sono inoltre più basse nel prezzo. Anche se alcune delle vigilanze fake watches replica del padrone dell'yacht possono ancora costare un penny grazioso, sono ancora mólto più poco costose di che cosa state andando ottenere lo stile originale per.

Replies: 4
Views: 305
Last Post By: smith1234 ON: November 24th, 2008, 3:16 pm
Topic By: smith1234 ON: November 24th, 2008, 3:13 pm
Con il crescente successo della vigilanza Rolex replica padrone dell'yacht, l'aumento delle vigilanze di Rolex della replica del padrone dell'yacht è venuto circa pure. La cosa fredda circa le vigilanze della replica è il fatto che quello che hanno appena circa tutte stesse caratteristiche di quelle originali che siano state fatte. La maggior parte della gente non può neppure dire la differenza fra le due vigilanze.

Replies: 4
Views: 305
Last Post By: smith1234 ON: November 24th, 2008, 3:16 pm
Topic By: smith1234 ON: November 23rd, 2008, 6:02 pm
The new <a href ="http://www.THEFINESTTIMEPIECES.COM">replica rolex daytona</a> é maior e mais à moda demasiado. Apenas porque sua versão anterior este rolex tem uma válvula de escape do hélio que seja prática se você faz muito mergulho.

Replies: 0
Views: 189
Last Post By: Harley Mellifont ON: October 29th, 2008, 4:12 pm
Topic By: Harley Mellifont ON: October 29th, 2008, 4:12 pm


MINISTERIAL PRESS RELEASE ON IMPORTATION OF BUMBLEBEES

“No Minister, this was not a good decision”

INDUSTRY SEEKS GOVERNMENT INQUIRY

The press release below was issued by the Minister for the Environment, Hon Peter Garrett, on Sunday 26 October 2008. The proponent of the application to import live bumblebees to Australia, the Australian Hydroponics and Greenhouse Association (AHGA), is still awaiting official notification of the decision and its justification as of p.m. Tuesday 29 October.

Since 1997, the protected cropping industry in Australia, represented by the AHGA, has diligently followed due process in its attempt to obtain bumblebees for the purpose of tomato crop pollination on mainland Australia. At stake is $40 million annually in lost production and the hamstringing of future development and modernisation of greenhouse industry development in Australia. At stake also is a much smaller environmental footprint because of water use efficiency and crop efficiencies, and the long overdue adoption of biocontrol to replace pesticide use. Australia lags far behind the rest of the developed world in both regards. The AHGA has been undermined every step of the way by a small but vociferous group of ‘concerned environmentalists’, which has successfully lobbied to have bumblebees painted as a flying cane toad and banned. This has led to a completely distorted view of bumblebees among the Australian public (ask any New Zealander whether bumblebees concern them!), and a suspension of critical review of the science behind the allegations. These claims are not supported by credible scientific fact, and show little understanding of, or willingness to embrace, the complexities of bumblebee ecology and behaviour. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that in the court of public opinion and research funding opportunities, governments and some scientists are not willing to be objective beyond self interest.

The AHGA has spent considerable time and money on this application, and deserves a fair go. It was asked to provide full scientific references for all its arguments, which it did. For the Minister to ignore the whole report and fall back on unsupported allegations in defence of his decision is not a fair go. We believe there should be a commission of enquiry into the decision-making process in this case.

To view the final report submitted to DEWHA and the responses to public and government comments, please refer to the AHGA website (http://www.ahga.org.au) Issues, Bumblebee technology.

Garrett rejects application to import bumblebees

Environment Minister, Peter Garrett has rejected a request to allow the live import of large earth bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) into Australia.

Mr Garrett said a plan by representatives of the hydroponics industry to allow the bees to be brought into Australia for crop pollination in greenhouses could have posed a serious risk to the Australian environment, native bee populations and native bird species.

Response All these allegations of serious risk were extensively dealt with in the AHGA submission and clearly demonstrated that no such risk existed. Four species of bumblebees have been present in New Zealand for over 130 years [Chapter 4, 4.2], and no harm has been demonstrated. Nor has harm been demonstrated in Tasmania [Chapter 5].

"As we've seen with animals like the cane toad, originally brought to Australia to deal with pests in sugar cane crops, the introduction of alien species into Australia can have serious environmental consequences," Mr Garrett said.

Response Yes it can, but bumblebees cannot be compared with cane toads. We bring alien species into Australia every day. We grow alien crops, eat alien animals, and spray alien chemicals, all of which negatively impact on Australian flora and fauna. Australia does not have a pristine environment. We weigh the cost and benefit of these decisions, usually in our own favour. Bumblebees are beneficial insects across the whole Northern Hemisphere and in New Zealand. To compare cane toads and bumblebees is emotive nonsense.

"While I appreciate the potential benefits of improved pollination for the hydroponic industry, the national environmental legislation requires me to adopt a precautionary approach to any proposal to introduce a new species into Australia.

Response A precautionary approach was also strongly advocated by the AHGA in all its recommendations for controlled use of bumblebees [Chapter 10, 11]. This is not to be confused with precautionary principle, which at its extreme suggests we sit on our hands and never act. However, overwhelming evidence was supplied sufficient to satisfy the Minister, ‘with reasonable certainty’ (legislative decision-making criterion), that B. terrestris would not present a risk to the mainland environment. Nor is Bombus terrestris a new species in Australia, as it is well established in Tasmania.

"The scientific evidence and advice I have received suggests that the environmental and economic risks of a large earth bumblebee population spreading throughout mainland Australia are significant.

Response The scientific evidence does not support a significant risk of spread throughout mainland Australia at all. This is clearly quite impossible, given the temperature and moisture limitations of the species. The distribution, particularly of the Tasmanian/NewZealand subspecies, is unlikely to spread beyond the coastal margins of southern and south eastern Australia [Chapter 6]. The only ‘evidence and advice’ that appears to have been considered is that of opponents of the application. We strongly queried the science behind this advice in the submission. Why was this ignored? Expert advice was apparently not sought from New Zealand, which has had bumblebees for many years, and considers them an asset and not a problem.

"No matter how hard we try to contain them to greenhouses the risk of their escape into the environment are too great."

Response The AHGA acknowledged that there was a small risk of an escape, but provided considerable evidence and discussion that the area of establishment would be restricted, areas of any density even more restricted, and that no credible scientific evidence had been presented that negative impacts would eventuate [Chapters 6, 7, 10]. There is an implication that ‘establishment’ is synonymous with ‘harm’. In the case of cane toads this is so. In the case of bumblebees, and Canadian leafcutter bee, which has been introduced into SA several times without hysteria, this is not the case.

Mr Garrett cited the escape of bumblebees from greenhouses in a number of countries, including Japan and Israel, despite strategies to contain them.

Response This statement is incorrect. The submission clearly outlines that in the case of Japan, bumblebees were used for many years in open greenhouse structures, with no attempt to contain them until very recently [Chapter 4, 4.3]. Greenhouses are now required to be screened, which has greatly reduced escapes. Nevertheless, importation of many thousands of colonies of B. terrestris annually is still legally permitted. In the case of Israel, a natural population exists only in the cooler Mt Carmel area. In the southern area, where there is field and greenhouse use, the commercial colonies must be replaced every year. There is no evidence of feral establishment there. There are also no strategies to contain bumblebees in Israel [Chapter 4, 4.3].

"The illegal introduction of the bees into Tasmania in the 1990s saw their rapid and widespread establishment – something that could easily happen again throughout southern Australia," he said.

Response Bumblebees were not introduced illegally to Tasmania. The submission discusses this incursion in the light of scientific evidence pointing to a founding number of less than five, possible a single individual [Chapter 5]. Similar incursions and also introductions have previously been made onto the mainland, with no establishment. Tasmania has a more temperate climate than most of southern Australia, without the extremes, so similar establishment is not a given. They may be widespread in Tasmania, but this is not the same as numerous. They are only numerous where resources are plentiful and climatic conditions ideal. There has also been no credible scientific evidence presented for any negative impact in Tasmania, despite claims to the contrary.

"Because these bees are such effective pollinators they have the potential to contribute to the rapid spread of weeds, including exotic species that have not yet become established.

Response Bumblebees are buzz pollinators, and thus more effective pollinators of solanaceous plants. Australia has several native buzz pollinating bee species already. Bumblebees have preferences for flowers offering high rewards and easy access, which are generally non-native. There is no evidence that bumblebees will contribute to general weed spread over and above pollination services already provided by the ubiquitous honeybee, which is far more numerous and widespread than bumblebees will ever be. The submission considered all weed species presented by the Weeds CRC as at risk of increased spread. Allegations were found to be insupportable [Chapter 7, 7.1].

"And because of their resilience to temperatures and adaptability, these bees would compete with native species for food."

Response This contention has no realistic basis, but is fully discussed in the submission [Chapter 6, 7]. Bumblebees are adapted to temperate climates. They do not survive high temperatures and low rainfall, except Mediterranean subspecies which are dormant during the summer. Native bees are adapted to Australian conditions, and thus are very competitive. Bumblebees are also far less adaptable than honeybees, and active only in spring and summer months. Their colonies die out completely every year, except for hibernating queens.

A similar proposal to import live large earth bumblebees was put up for public comment in 2006 and was rejected by all states and territories.

Response This information is incorrect. The proposal put up was a draft proposal, as per the Department’s own due process. The final comprehensive submission, which has been with the DEWHA since March 2008, appears not to have been considered by the Minister or his senior advisers. All public and government comment was addressed in this submission, which found that serious misconceptions by both had strongly influenced their response. It is regrettable that no attempt has been made to redress this considerable level of misinformation.

The large earth bumblebee is listed as a potentially threatening process in Victoria as a key threatening process in New South Wales and an invasive alien species in Japan.

Response As discussed in the submission, the listings in Victoria and NSW were made on the basis of extensive lobbying by opponents of the submission, and were not based on factual information [Chapter 9]. Attempts to correct information presented to and by the NSW Scientific Committee have been met with silence.

Bombus terrestris is included in the Invasive Alien Species Act in Japan because of concerns about competition and pathogen spread to its native bumblebee species, some of which are closely related. It has not stopped importation of colonies, because the economic value to greenhouse tomato production is too high. This issue is not relevant to Australia because it has no native bumblebee species. Establishment in the wild in Japan is virtually confined to the temperate island of Hokkaido, similar in climate to Tasmania [Chapter 4, 4.2].


Graeme Smith
AHGA President
29th October 2008
MB: 0427 339 009

Australian Hydroponic & Greenhouse Association
PO Box 538 NARRABEEN NSW 2101 Phone/Fax +61 (02) 9939 5993 Mobile 0414 333 996
http://www.ahga.org.au
administrator@ahga.org.au

The original document can be found here:
http://www.ahga.org.au/pdf/Industry_Seeks_Inquiry.pdf

Replies: 0
Views: 109
Last Post By: Harley Mellifont ON: October 29th, 2008, 3:41 pm
Topic By: Harley Mellifont ON: October 29th, 2008, 3:41 pm

PRESS RELEASE
28th October 2008

The Australian Hydroponic & Greenhouse Association (AHGA) questions the
Australian Federal Government support of Australian farmers and consumers
following a decision by the Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, to reject an
application to allow the import of bumblebees onto mainland Australia.

This decision costs Australian greenhouse farmers at least $40 million annually
that must be passed on to consumers and seriously restricts investment into an
industry that delivers a minimum 80% saving of water (compared to traditional
farming activities).

Australia is one of the few countries in the world without access, and this puts us
at an increasingly severe disadvantage in a free market economy. It has delayed
the expansion of the industry in Australia by several years, and inhibited foreign
and local investment. This technology is sophisticated and proven, and is used by
all of Australia‟s major competitors, including New Zealand. This is a major
concern to the Australian greenhouse industry.

Where is the incentive Minister, to encourage the modern face of horticulture in a
country that increasingly views water as a precious commodity, yet penalises
greenhouse growers that deliver water use efficiencies and small environmental
footprints compared with other food producing industries with considerable
higher yield per unit area?

The bumblebee has been used safely in over 40 countries since the late 80’s to
pollinate greenhouse crops with negligible affects on their flora or fauna. In
Europe alone last year, there was over 2 million hives produced for this purpose.
Bumblebees provide a strong incentive for reduced pesticide use through the
adoption of bio-control, a feature in on-farm food safety programs worldwide.’

New Zealand has been successfully rearing and using bumblebees for many years,
with no negative effects identified. These facts are entirely at odds with claims by
Australian opposition groups that “all hell will break loose” if bumblebees are
allowed to leave Tasmania for the mainland, and that their impact has been
“devastating” in Tasmania. There is no evidence to substantiate this doom and
gloom scenario. Bumblebees will not change their benign character when they
reach the mainland.

If they are so bad and disruptive, why has there been no concerted attempt to
control bumblebees that have been in Tasmania since the early 90’s?

12 years of intense research provides for sound scientific rebuttals for the
reasons given by the Minister, therefore we can only assume that this is a political
decision and has the capacity to be Labor’s “orange-bellied parrot” episode.

The many factual errors contained in the Minister’s Press Release suggests that
the considerable scientific documentation provided in the AHGA submission was
ignored. Why?’

We seriously question government’s capacity to deal with climate change and the
interests of Australian farmers and consumers if they dismiss scientific evidence
in making decision’s.

The AHGA calls on Minister Garrett to reconsider this devastating decision and
show support to an industry that is environmentally sound and responsible and
accounts for around 30% of all Australian vegetable farmers.

(p.s. Since when has Tasmania not been considered part of Australia?)

Graeme Smith
AHGA President

Australian Hydroponic & Greenhouse Association
PO Box 538 NARRABEEN NSW 2101 Phone/Fax +61 (02) 9939 5993 Mobile 0414 333 996
http://www.ahga.org.au
administrator@ahga.org.au

The original document can be found at:
http://www.ahga.org.au/pdf/Bumblebee_Press_Release_281008.pdf

Replies: 0
Views: 223
Last Post By: Harley Mellifont ON: September 25th, 2008, 7:30 pm
Topic By: Harley Mellifont ON: September 25th, 2008, 7:30 pm
Hydroponic Farmers Federation Inc
ABN 91 573 752 496
A0033906W
Membership Secretary - John Elford
273 Harbors Rd, Yendon Victoria 3352
Phone: 03 5341 7691 Fax: 03 5341 7842
Web Address: http://www.hff.org.au

GROWER MEETING
TUESDAY 7TH OCTOBER 2008
Boomaroo Nurseries, 105 Andrews Drive LARA . http://www.boomaroo.com

9.30AM—3.45PM
COST $20 FOR HFF MEMBER $30 NON MEMBER gst incl

9.30 AM REGISTER/TEA & COFFEE

10 .00 AM Introduction to Boomaroo Nurseries, History and followed by Farm Tour

12:30PM LUNCH, Lara Sporting Club, Mill Road LARA.

1.30 PM . Bianca Keys, Assistant Horticulture Mediation Adviser.
The Horticulture Mediation Adviser (HMA) administers the dispute resolution section of the Horticulture Code. The Office of the HMA is a neutral and confidential service that aims to assist growers and wholesalers in negotiating and resolving matters that arise in their commercial dealings with one another. On the 7th October the HMA will be visiting and would value the opportunity to meet with growers and answer any questions regarding mediation under the Code. We will be making a presentation that will include the following,

* The Role of the HMA
* The Process for Initiating Mediation under the Code
* Current Statistics Relating to Enquiries and Mediation Applications
* The Nature of Disputes Raised with the HMA
* The Mediation Process and How it Can Assist in Resolving Horticulture Disputes

2.30PM, Phillip McLaughlin, Moraitis Grower Liaison
Future cropping alternatives and Wholesalers perspective of market Sales.

3pm Graeme Smith President of the AHGA, will give a quick over view and update of what is happening from the AHGA prospective.

3:30pm Grower forum Continuation from previous meeting— Please bring your thoughts on promotion of hydroponic produce.

FOR CATERING PURPOSES PLEASE RSVP BY Thursday 2nd October

FAX OR EMAIL RSVP TO John Elford Fax 5341 7842 Phone 53417691

Replies: 4
Views: 305
Last Post By: smith1234 ON: November 24th, 2008, 3:16 pm
Topic By: Fred Kemps ON: September 13th, 2008, 12:32 am
I am a grower from WA and grow just South of Perth. Since having the Priva fertigation unit installed I have had the light sensor malfunction twice which requires replacement. After speaking to other growers close by I have found that they also have had to have their light sensors replaced ( within two years ). Have other growers throughout Australia had a similar problem with Priva light sensors? I wish to know if it only is occuring in WA or is it an Australia wide occurence.

Replies: 1
Views: 834
Last Post By: Saskia Blanch ON: August 18th, 2008, 10:32 am
Topic By: Anonymous ON: August 18th, 2008, 10:32 am
Thanks for that Harley.
Now I understand that because I have hit the orange icon in the top right corner above, I can subscribe, and get regular updates to the AHGA website.
Excellent. Thanks for expaining it so well.
Saskia
AHGA Administrator

Replies: 1
Views: 834
Last Post By: Saskia Blanch ON: August 18th, 2008, 10:32 am
Topic By: Harley Mellifont ON: August 18th, 2008, 4:21 am
If you've ever seen this icon around the internet, or heard talk of "RSS feeds" and "RSS aggregators" and wondered what they are and what all the fuss is about, well you've come to the right place.

RSS stands for Really Simple Syndication. It's a way of keeping up to date with the latest updates on websites. If you use podcasts, or vodcasts, then you already use a form of RSS. If a website offers an RSS feed, you can use RSS software to subscribe to that feed, and the software will automatically check the website at regular intervals for updates. When there is an update to a feed, you will be notified and you can view a summary text of the update, and follow a link to view the full page. You can subscribe to as many RSS feeds as you like, and the result is somewhat like a personalised newspaper.

The latest versions of Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, and Opera all offer RSS support, and there are many free standalone products available (e.g. http://www.google.com/reader/, http://www.feedreader.com/, http://www.newsgator.com/). To subscribe to a feed, click the feed icon and then click subscribe. You will now be notified when there are any updates published in the feed.

I hope that helps clear things up a bit. RSS is widespread on the internet now, most of your favourite websites probably offer some sort of RSS support as it's a very handy way to have all the latest news and updates from your favourite websites delivered straight to your desktop!

More info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregator
http://www.whatisrss.com/