Dynamic network
than anything. We share information, share stories, talk about converting to biodynamic (BD) practices away from chemicals.
“This is a slow process - you convert your farm bit by bit. You don’t get an instant reaction from your crops as you are converting to BD practices.
“You don’t see an end result for many seasons. So in talking together and getting together for workshops and field days, we have the chance to re-confirm we are heading in the right direction,” Mr Gugger said.
“At the field days there is no pressure, no experts, and they are not just exclusively for BD growers. People come to ask questions. They might be at the beginning of the BD conversion process or they may be more advanced. But they each have a story and are happy to listen and share information and advice.
“Knowing about BD practices and implementing BD practices are entirely different stories and unique to each farm. You can save money on using inputs instead of chemical fertilisers, and using field broadcasters, and you can do it right, but it takes time,” Mr Gugger said.
“Biodynamics is not a static approach and new understandings and practices are developing.”
The Guggers and their children, Lexi, 17, and Mitchell, 13, bought the stonefruit and persimmon farm eight years ago after working in the exporting industry in the United States for 15 years.
The family had originally emigrated from Switzerland and did not have a farming background.
The farm grew mainly sweet, seedless persimmons and nectarines using conventional farming methods such as chemical sprays.
Initially, the family organised soil tests from Sunshine Coast-based biological agriculture company, NutriTech Solutions (NTS). The soils were low in a number of elements so some NTS products were introduced in to the farm.
Heinz Gugger also undertook NTS’ Certificate III in Sustainable Agriculture course to increase his knowledge (and is now a guest speaker at these courses).
Three years ago, the Guggers starting introducing BD practices into their farming applications after meeting with biodynamic consultant, Hugh Lovel.
In 2007, Mary Valley Orchards received the prestigious Small Business and Regional Exporter of the Year Awards, Wide Bay Burnett Region for their innovative procedures and marketing strategies which secured important market shares for their persimmons in these Asian markets.
To contact Mary Valley Orchards and join the information-sharing network email info@maryvalleyorchards.com.au
VINEYARDS use approximately fifty per cent of all agricultural posts in Australia with the majority of pine posts used in agriculture being treated with copper-chromium-arsenic (CCA) timber preservative.
For many years CCA was treated as relatively benign and its use was widespread. Most people knew that it should not be burnt, and if it was the ash should not be applied to gardens or farmland.
In the new era of environmental and chemical awareness, with much better detection systems and the inevitable affect of time and gradual decay, or careless disposal, CCA materials are attracting much more attention.
All three of the constituents of CCA are toxic. Arsenic raises toxicity and social responsibility concerns at the source mines in China. Concerns continue about its use in public parks and backyards, where it appears in fences, decks and outdoor furniture, and in trellis and fences on farms.
Perhaps the most current and pressing issue is the final disposal of CCA in landfill. Chromium is not much less of a concern for human health, animals or plants, although copper is generally only a serious problem for aquatic life.
Health and environmental concerns have influenced the banning of CCA from organic farms and playgrounds, and regulators are placing more restrictions on storage and disposal of CCA timber. Over time we have introduced a huge volume of CCA material, primarily posts, into the environment, and as they age they are becoming a much greater component of the waste stream.
Incineration of CCA treated timber is prohibited in Australia due to the high concentration of toxic metals in the ash. Therefore the main method for disposal of CCA is on site burying or removal to a landfill site, with some potential for environmental harm from leaching of chemical from the timber into soil, streams or groundwater. As a result, many landfill operators no longer accept industrial quantities of treated timber posts.
Australian regulators are concerned about potential for CCA contamination of soil and have observed the restriction, and in some cases banning of the product in Germany, Japan, Scandinavia and some US States.
The US Environmental Protection Agency has encouraged a reduction in exposure to arsenic and CCA-treated timber products are being phased out for domestic use. In SA for instance, the Environmental protection authority prohibits burning or burying of posts, and takes an active interest in storage of large quantities. If sufficient numbers of posts are held, they recommend bunding and covering or wrapping heaps.
How many posts are there? As vineyards posts age they become brittle and more susceptible to breakage from machinery impact.
Annual replacement rate of posts in a vineyard may be as high as five per cent in new vineyards, rising to over 10 per cent as posts age. Within five years, six million broken posts will require disposal annually, equivalent to over 100,000 cubic metres, approximately the annual amount of waste deposited in a landfill catering for a population of 120,000 people.
Assuming that a vineyard has a span of 25 to 30 years, there will be a replanting peak around 2024 at which time somewhere between eight and 16 million obsolete CCA-treated posts will require disposal each year, in addition to the six million posts requiring disposal as a result of annual breakages.
Based on conservative estimates, that equates to the landfill volume required to dispose of a year’s waste from a population of 140,000 people.
While most critical attention is currently applied to disposal, a full consideration of the sustainability of agricultural materials should include a whole life cycle evaluation. From this perspective, CCA and Creosote are both poor performers, due to production of the source materials for the active substances, manufacture and formulation of the preservatives, application (wood treatment) the service life of the product and waste disposal.