Premier and Minister for the Arts
The Honourable Anna Bligh
Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development
The Honourable Andrew Fraser
Dear Premier Bligh & Treasurer Fraser,
What will it take for you to make the connection between coal & catastrophic climate change?
regards,
Rowan Barber
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Joint Statement:
Premier and Minister for the Arts
The Honourable Anna Bligh
Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development
The Honourable Andrew Fraser
01/11/2009
Premier drops in on new developments set to unlock Galilee Basin's potential
More than 100 million extra tonnes of coal could be exported every year from Queensland with $25 billion of new projects in the Galilee Basin under consideration by the State Government.
Premier Anna Bligh and Treasurer Andrew Fraser visited the area to the North of Alpha today with Waratah Coal officials on their way to the Premier's 19th Community Cabinet as leader of the state in Barcaldine and Longreach.
"The Coordinator-General is currently conducting whole-of-government environmental assessments into three significant projects that have the potential to create up to 13,000 new construction jobs and around 4,400 operational jobs," said the Premier.
"There are three new mines proposed near the town of Alpha with the potential to add another 100 million tonnes of coal to the state's leading export industry.
"Waratah Coal proposes to spend $7 billion to kick-start this region with the establishment of a 40 million tonne per annum coal mining operation.
"Waratah's proposals alone could create 7000 construction jobs and more than 1500 ongoing jobs."
The Premier said the massive level of investment was exactly what the region needs to be a success.
"We're talking about potential economic and social benefits in this region and also far beyond the towns in the west. Taxes and royalties from projects like these support new jobs and services around the state," said the Premier.
Treasurer Andrew Fraser said that Hancock Prospecting is the other major player in the region and plans to spend $16.5 billion on development of its Alpha and Kevin's Corner mines.
"Coal would be transported more than 400 km by rail to a new Abbot Port terminal for export and the mines could begin shipping their product by 2013," he said.
"Although these projects must still satisfy all approvals and receive company sign-off there is reason to be excited about this largely untapped region. "
As well as the mines, the project proponents are also planning to provide new rail lines, port infrastructure, water supplies and airport facilities worth billions of dollars.
The Premier said that to help the region's development the State Government has established a group to examine how proponents could align their plans, particularly for infrastructure.
Ms Bligh said the Galilee Basin Common Issues Forum (GCIF) was already identifying common goals among stakeholders and opportunities for cooperation, including on a common rail corridor and port facilities.
"The first meeting, chaired by the Department of Infrastructure and Planning, was held in September with representatives from Hancock, Waratah, Vale, AMCI, Bandana Energy, Queensland Coal Corporation, QER and Linc Energy," she said.
"Officers from several state agencies attended, along with Barcaldine Regional Council, Whitsunday Regional Council and the Queensland Resources Council.
"They discussed the planning and infrastructure task including power, water, roads, air transport, service industries, worker accommodation and regional housing implications, skills and training, regional benefits/impacts and community liaison.
"We will continue to work with these companies and do everything we can to facilitate them to get these projects off the ground."
Contacts 07 32244500
Waratah Coal
Galilee Coal Project (northern export facility)
Production up to 40 million tonnes of coal per annum with capacity for expansion
Expected capital cost in the order of $7 billion
Proponent is preparing its EIS
Involves construction of an open-cut coal mine and attendant infrastructure to the northwest of Alpha, approximately 450 kilometres west of Rockhampton
A new rail line is proposed to link the mine to the Abbot Point State Development Area (APSDA) near Bowen and the proposed port of Abbot Point for export
Total employment 6000 people during construction and 760 permanent positions
Initial exports are targeted for the second half of 2013
Hancock Prospecting
Alpha Coal Project
The proposed open-cut mine is expected to be developed in stages and have an initial export capacity of 30 million tonnes per annum
Expected capital cost of $7.5 billion
Proponent is preparing its EIS
Proposal includes a mine and construction of a railway to an expanded facility at Abbot Point or new export terminal to be established at Dudgeon Point
New major water and power supply infrastructure would be necessary to service the mine and port
Initial exports are targeted for 2013
Project could create employment for 2500 people during construction and 1600 permanent positions during operations
Hancock Prospecting
Kevin's Corner
Forecast export capacity of 30 million tonnes per annum
Expected capital cost of $9 billion
Draft Terms of Reference for the project now released by the Coordinator-General for public feedback
Proposal includes an open-cut and underground coal mine at Kevin's Corner, 56km north of Alpha in the Galilee Basin
Mine could create more than 2500 construction jobs and 2000 ongoing jobs
First coal could be exported in 2013
11 November, 2009
Here's Sara Svensson's speech from the press conference in Barcelona:
My name is Sara Svensson, and I'm from Sweden. Tomorrow is my 25th birthday,
but I won't be eating birthday cake this year.
I’ve been involved in different kinds of climate activism for most of my
life. I studied International Project Management for Social Movements and
NGOs, combined with environmental science. *
*
I have committed to participate in Climate Justice Fast, an international
hunger strike for climate justice. From today and until we meet again in
Copenhagen, I will be eating nothing and drinking only water.
The end date of the fast is still open. When I break the fast depends on
what happens in the climate negotiations and in the world. The only thing I
can guarantee is that I will end the fast if our demands are met.
Climate change is the defining issue for my generation. Previous generations
did not understand the problem, and for future generations it will be too
late to do something about it. It is up to us.
I'm undertaking this fast out of love. Love for life, for our beautiful
planet with all its species and future generations. There's nothing more
important I can do in my life than to contribute in the strongest possible
way, with full devotion, to set an end to climate change and injustice and
be part of the movement that will lead us to a sustainable future.
I'm showing how much I care. How much I'm willing to risk, how much I'm
prepared to offer. How deeply devoted I am to this cause. I hope that it
will inspire others and help the necessary shift to happen.
I love life and health, but I'm willing to risk it to secure the survival of
others. Food is good, chewing is fun and I will miss jumping around full of
energy. It will not be easy to abstain from something as essential as food.
Still, my personal sacrifice is nothing compared to the suffering of the
hundreds of thousands of people who already die from climate change each
year, and the many millions of people who would be suffering in the years to
come if we would fail to solve climate change. Voluntarily abstaining from
food is not easy, but it's possible. Solving climate change is also not an
easy task, but it's possible, and we will.
This is the right thing to do at the right time. Turn to essentials, turn to
emotions. The pure, the true, the real. Touch hearts. Push the limits, move
on to the next level.
I will enjoy this peaceful time to reflect while others are busy. We will
focus on the big picture while COP15 gets lost and stuck in a thousand
details.
Now is the time to mobilise the movement for change.
We call on all people to get involved in the climate movement. We know the
science. Educate yourself. Think about what's most important? Change your
mindset. Your goal in life can't be a comfortable life where you consume
everything you want. Widen your perspective. Think of the invisible
consequences behind your actions. Challenge yourself.
No specific person is to blame. There's no single enemy responsible for
causing the problem. Yet climate change is happening, and it’s deeply unjust
and immoral. With knowledge comes responsibility. We ask every single person
on this planet to seek for solutions within themselves, and find the courage
to act with global consciousness.
Hunger striking is a positive act of humble nonviolence that we are
undertaking as extremely concerned citizens. Judging from the support we are
getting, a lot of people feel the same way.
We're not only in a climate crisis, but also a democracy crisis. We must
highlight the failure of our democracies to reflect the best interests and
opinions of their population.
Many species throughout history have polluted, consumed or overpopulated
themselves into extinction. But if we as humanity fail to solve the climate
crisis, we may well become the first species who has done so in full
knowledge and awareness of its own actions. I believe in humanity, we can't
be that stupid.
Climate change is an opportunity to redefine our common values, and to
create the just and sustainable world that most people everywhere want. The
world is ready for change. This is the start of the sustainability era.
To move into that era, we have to do all what we can, right now, when
there's still the smallest amount of time left. We must be able to look back
and know that we did all what we could do. Maybe I’ll have children one day,
and I must be able to look them in the eye.
Sara Svensson
but I won't be eating birthday cake this year.
I’ve been involved in different kinds of climate activism for most of my
life. I studied International Project Management for Social Movements and
NGOs, combined with environmental science. *
*
I have committed to participate in Climate Justice Fast, an international
hunger strike for climate justice. From today and until we meet again in
Copenhagen, I will be eating nothing and drinking only water.
The end date of the fast is still open. When I break the fast depends on
what happens in the climate negotiations and in the world. The only thing I
can guarantee is that I will end the fast if our demands are met.
Climate change is the defining issue for my generation. Previous generations
did not understand the problem, and for future generations it will be too
late to do something about it. It is up to us.
I'm undertaking this fast out of love. Love for life, for our beautiful
planet with all its species and future generations. There's nothing more
important I can do in my life than to contribute in the strongest possible
way, with full devotion, to set an end to climate change and injustice and
be part of the movement that will lead us to a sustainable future.
I'm showing how much I care. How much I'm willing to risk, how much I'm
prepared to offer. How deeply devoted I am to this cause. I hope that it
will inspire others and help the necessary shift to happen.
I love life and health, but I'm willing to risk it to secure the survival of
others. Food is good, chewing is fun and I will miss jumping around full of
energy. It will not be easy to abstain from something as essential as food.
Still, my personal sacrifice is nothing compared to the suffering of the
hundreds of thousands of people who already die from climate change each
year, and the many millions of people who would be suffering in the years to
come if we would fail to solve climate change. Voluntarily abstaining from
food is not easy, but it's possible. Solving climate change is also not an
easy task, but it's possible, and we will.
This is the right thing to do at the right time. Turn to essentials, turn to
emotions. The pure, the true, the real. Touch hearts. Push the limits, move
on to the next level.
I will enjoy this peaceful time to reflect while others are busy. We will
focus on the big picture while COP15 gets lost and stuck in a thousand
details.
Now is the time to mobilise the movement for change.
We call on all people to get involved in the climate movement. We know the
science. Educate yourself. Think about what's most important? Change your
mindset. Your goal in life can't be a comfortable life where you consume
everything you want. Widen your perspective. Think of the invisible
consequences behind your actions. Challenge yourself.
No specific person is to blame. There's no single enemy responsible for
causing the problem. Yet climate change is happening, and it’s deeply unjust
and immoral. With knowledge comes responsibility. We ask every single person
on this planet to seek for solutions within themselves, and find the courage
to act with global consciousness.
Hunger striking is a positive act of humble nonviolence that we are
undertaking as extremely concerned citizens. Judging from the support we are
getting, a lot of people feel the same way.
We're not only in a climate crisis, but also a democracy crisis. We must
highlight the failure of our democracies to reflect the best interests and
opinions of their population.
Many species throughout history have polluted, consumed or overpopulated
themselves into extinction. But if we as humanity fail to solve the climate
crisis, we may well become the first species who has done so in full
knowledge and awareness of its own actions. I believe in humanity, we can't
be that stupid.
Climate change is an opportunity to redefine our common values, and to
create the just and sustainable world that most people everywhere want. The
world is ready for change. This is the start of the sustainability era.
To move into that era, we have to do all what we can, right now, when
there's still the smallest amount of time left. We must be able to look back
and know that we did all what we could do. Maybe I’ll have children one day,
and I must be able to look them in the eye.
Sara Svensson
19 July, 2009
Marketing: the final frontier
I actually think that “marketing” is the frontier for sustainability.
Activism, campaigning and political lobbying are all necessary. However “sustainability” and its features and benefits needs to be sold to the masses.
When one looks at the history of the consumerist society. One can observe the connections between a huge number of environmental and social issues. (www.storyofstuff.com) “Consumerism” probably started in earnest post World war II, to keep the manufacturing industries churning when the demands of war were quenched by a couple of atomic bombs.
In order to create a more sustainable and just world, I believe we need to counter and reverse the messages of “consumerism” and actually educate consumers of the benefits of sustainability and the consequences of rampant consumption.
Concurrently, we need to sell the message to retailers, suppliers & manufacturers to consider the market advantages of selling, supplying and producing products & services that meet the needs of the current generation witout COMPROMISING the ability of future generations (or developing communities) to meet their needs.
Activism, campaigning and political lobbying are all necessary. However “sustainability” and its features and benefits needs to be sold to the masses.
When one looks at the history of the consumerist society. One can observe the connections between a huge number of environmental and social issues. (www.storyofstuff.com) “Consumerism” probably started in earnest post World war II, to keep the manufacturing industries churning when the demands of war were quenched by a couple of atomic bombs.
In order to create a more sustainable and just world, I believe we need to counter and reverse the messages of “consumerism” and actually educate consumers of the benefits of sustainability and the consequences of rampant consumption.
Concurrently, we need to sell the message to retailers, suppliers & manufacturers to consider the market advantages of selling, supplying and producing products & services that meet the needs of the current generation witout COMPROMISING the ability of future generations (or developing communities) to meet their needs.
24 May, 2009
paradigms
Every day I am confronted by the way other people see the world.
Yesterday, a bloke came up to me on the street & started yelling at me for towing away his car.
At the time I was wearing a Brisbane City Council high Visibility vest (I was emptying rubbish bins). To him, I symbolised "the Council". The poor bloke was a disabilities pensioner. I was not without empathy. I called the Council Customer Service telephone line for him. They were at least able to tell him where his car had been taken and how he might go about retrieving it.
This morning another friend claimed that she needs a new car! In fact, what she wants and what she needs may be different things.
* Perhaps she need a new way of transporting her & her equipment around??
* Perhaps we need a new way of projecting her holographically on to a stage, such that she does not need to lug her equipment to a gig???
* perhaps she just needs more portable equipment????
Democracy appears to be a very cumbersome system. Politicians make assumptions about things we may want or need. Newspapers and opinion polls offer feedback on whether they think the politicians have it right.
How do I obtain the things that I need, in a way that does not compromise the ability of others (who currently share the planet or those who are yet to be born) to meet their needs?
Yesterday, a bloke came up to me on the street & started yelling at me for towing away his car.
At the time I was wearing a Brisbane City Council high Visibility vest (I was emptying rubbish bins). To him, I symbolised "the Council". The poor bloke was a disabilities pensioner. I was not without empathy. I called the Council Customer Service telephone line for him. They were at least able to tell him where his car had been taken and how he might go about retrieving it.
This morning another friend claimed that she needs a new car! In fact, what she wants and what she needs may be different things.
* Perhaps she need a new way of transporting her & her equipment around??
* Perhaps we need a new way of projecting her holographically on to a stage, such that she does not need to lug her equipment to a gig???
* perhaps she just needs more portable equipment????
Democracy appears to be a very cumbersome system. Politicians make assumptions about things we may want or need. Newspapers and opinion polls offer feedback on whether they think the politicians have it right.
How do I obtain the things that I need, in a way that does not compromise the ability of others (who currently share the planet or those who are yet to be born) to meet their needs?
Challenge Number One - understanding the problem: car use vs traffic congestion
Barry Broe,
Divisional Manager,
Brisbane Infrastructure,
Brisbane City Council.
Dear Mr Broe,
I recently attended a forum organised by the Society of Sustainability & Environmental Engineering called: “South East Queensland’s Transport System in the Peak Oil and Climate Change Era”. I particularly enjoyed your opening remarks about understanding the problem of “car use” vs the problem of “traffic congestion”.
The remainder of your speech was contrary to your opening remarks, with a focus on so-called “congestion busting” by duplication and augmentation of roads for private motor vehicles. I took exception to your comment “when the Northern Link goes in & it will go in”. I shall be working very hard to lobby my political representatives (cc:d) to make sure the Northern Link does not “go in” if it is going to be a four lane motor way for motor vehicles. I am celebrating the fact that the Northern Link has not attracted any federal funding.
My expertise is in water & sanitation. I see a lot of parallels in the mistakes we make with sewage and the way we deal with traffic. I am convinced we need to separate our Number ones from our Number twos at source rather than mix them, pump them vast distances and then try to separate them out again. The same applies to Public Transport and private motor vehicles. Until we separate the streams, we cannot efficiently treat the associated issues appropriately.
The distinction between sewers and roads is when one duplicates a sewer main, it does not encourage more people to poo.
Regards,
Rowan Barber
Climate Campaigner
http://www.climatejusticefast.com/
Divisional Manager,
Brisbane Infrastructure,
Brisbane City Council.
Dear Mr Broe,
I recently attended a forum organised by the Society of Sustainability & Environmental Engineering called: “South East Queensland’s Transport System in the Peak Oil and Climate Change Era”. I particularly enjoyed your opening remarks about understanding the problem of “car use” vs the problem of “traffic congestion”.
The remainder of your speech was contrary to your opening remarks, with a focus on so-called “congestion busting” by duplication and augmentation of roads for private motor vehicles. I took exception to your comment “when the Northern Link goes in & it will go in”. I shall be working very hard to lobby my political representatives (cc:d) to make sure the Northern Link does not “go in” if it is going to be a four lane motor way for motor vehicles. I am celebrating the fact that the Northern Link has not attracted any federal funding.
My expertise is in water & sanitation. I see a lot of parallels in the mistakes we make with sewage and the way we deal with traffic. I am convinced we need to separate our Number ones from our Number twos at source rather than mix them, pump them vast distances and then try to separate them out again. The same applies to Public Transport and private motor vehicles. Until we separate the streams, we cannot efficiently treat the associated issues appropriately.
The distinction between sewers and roads is when one duplicates a sewer main, it does not encourage more people to poo.
Regards,
Rowan Barber
Climate Campaigner
http://www.climatejusticefast.com/
12 May, 2009
Another Letter to Campbell Newman
Campbell Newman
Lord Mayor
Brisbane City Council
Dear Lord Mayor,
I am frustrated by both the State and Brisbane City Council using reductions in GHG emissions as an excuse to build more politically popular infrastructure for motor vehicles (such as the Northern Link Tunnel).
The more roads one builds, the more lanes one adds, the more congestion one busts, the more it encourages people to drive.
From BBC's annual report:
In partnership with the Queensland Government, Council is developing a common,
intelligent, integrated road network management system to improve the coordination of the city’s 7000 kilometre road network. A pilot of the traffic signals component of the project was conducted at Indooroopilly in 2008 and demonstrated how traffic can be streamlined by synchronising traffic signals on both Council and Queensland Government-owned roads. The Indooroopilly pilot demonstrated a saving of approximately 3800 tonnes in carbon emissions per year through the reduction of travel time.
Did one take into account all the additional trips that will be made when traffic flows more freely? Does one take into account the return of congestion once equilibrium is established at a higher traffic volume?
My expertise is in water, sanitation and carbon accounting not traffic engineering. However I see a lot of parallels between the problems we are encountering on SEQ roads and the problems I have encountered in sewers. The congestion of sewers is often caused by consumer behaviour. People put things down the sewer that do not belong there (like dead pets and sump oil). The distinction between sewage and traffic is when one builds a new sewer it does not encourage people to poo more.
Is there a more robust means of GHG emissions accounting to counter the circular arguments presented to justify more "congestion busting" roads?
regards,
Rowan Barber
Lord Mayor
Brisbane City Council
Dear Lord Mayor,
I am frustrated by both the State and Brisbane City Council using reductions in GHG emissions as an excuse to build more politically popular infrastructure for motor vehicles (such as the Northern Link Tunnel).
The more roads one builds, the more lanes one adds, the more congestion one busts, the more it encourages people to drive.
From BBC's annual report:
In partnership with the Queensland Government, Council is developing a common,
intelligent, integrated road network management system to improve the coordination of the city’s 7000 kilometre road network. A pilot of the traffic signals component of the project was conducted at Indooroopilly in 2008 and demonstrated how traffic can be streamlined by synchronising traffic signals on both Council and Queensland Government-owned roads. The Indooroopilly pilot demonstrated a saving of approximately 3800 tonnes in carbon emissions per year through the reduction of travel time.
Did one take into account all the additional trips that will be made when traffic flows more freely? Does one take into account the return of congestion once equilibrium is established at a higher traffic volume?
My expertise is in water, sanitation and carbon accounting not traffic engineering. However I see a lot of parallels between the problems we are encountering on SEQ roads and the problems I have encountered in sewers. The congestion of sewers is often caused by consumer behaviour. People put things down the sewer that do not belong there (like dead pets and sump oil). The distinction between sewage and traffic is when one builds a new sewer it does not encourage people to poo more.
Is there a more robust means of GHG emissions accounting to counter the circular arguments presented to justify more "congestion busting" roads?
regards,
Rowan Barber
03 May, 2009
Clean Cows (Clean Coal, Clean Cars) & other fairy tales
Dear Minister Mulherin,
I read with interest the results of research into genetic manipulation of beef cattle. Based on Hansard, this technology may have some useful applications for Members of Parliament.
Why is the Queensland State Government (and the oppostion for that matter) so intent on sustaining the Beef industry when clearly Beef is not ecologically sustainable? The CSIRO (Australia's National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 2003) reports that beef generates over 50 kilograms of CO2 equivalent per kilogram of Beef meat from paddock to plate. A disproportionate amount of water is used in raising cattle. 20 000 liters of water is used to produce a kilogram of steak. 40 000 litres for grain fed Beef.
Why aren't we supporting our Beef producers to transition to alternative forms of protein?
Hard hooved, water and carbon intensive beasts have no place in a Queensland landscape. Apart from coal mining, nothing contributes more to land degradation and loss of native habitat and species, than cattle grazing.
When will the Smart State make the leap of logic and move Agriculture away from intensive, hydrocarbon dependent practices?
The Queensland State Government appears to pay lip service to "Ecological Sustainable Development" without any reference to Ecology.
regards,
Rowan Barber
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Rural and Regional Queensland
The Honourable Tim Mulherin
03/05/2009
"Temperamental" humans and cows may share same genes
Some of the genes thought to cause behavioural problems in humans may also cause temperamental behaviour in cattle.
A new $1.35M Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries research project will look at how to switch that gene off in a bid to boost the beef industry.
Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Rural and Regional Queensland Tim Mulherin announced the project ahead of attending the Beef Australia 2009 Expo in Rockhampton.
Mr Mulherin said: "This is exciting, ground-breaking research by our scientists which could literally change the character and quality of our beef herd.
"It would provide a huge boost to Queensland's beef industry which is worth $3.7 billion a year.
"Even though cattle and humans are separated by 60 million years of evolution we share many of the same genes.
"The genes thought to cause behavioural problems in humans are also found in cattle.
"We already know there is an association between the temperament of cattle and the tenderness of the meat - the more temperamental, the less tender.
"So if our scientists can learn how to switch off the gene that causes irritability in cattle then we can produce more tender meat which has a higher value to industry.
"We're not just looking at tenderness. We're also investigating a whole range of other factors that could boost profitability.
"For instance we may be able to influence cattle to have calves earlier in the season.
"Calves born earlier are typically heavier than calves born later in the season and because the cows have calved earlier they can produce a calf once a year (instead of skipping a year) and without increasing cow mortalities.
"This is one of the most significant aspects of this research as reproduction rate is the number one driver of profitability in Northern Australian beef enterprises," Mr Mulherin said.
Leading this five-year investment in cutting edge research is Dr Brian Burns, a Rockhampton-based QPIF principal research scientist specialising in genetics and animal breeding.
Dr Burns said his research project centres around the new field of 'epigenetics' - the study of modifications to genes other than changes in the DNA sequence itself.
Dr Burns said: "We're working closely with national and international partners on expanding our knowledge of 'epigenetics'.
"Our aim is to breed cattle with the most desirable genetic characteristics for domestic and international markets.
"That will mean cattle with improved reproduction, growth, carcase, adaptation and behavioural traits and better end-product quality.
"This is new territory we are entering and we still don't fully understand the various epigenetic interactions influencing some genes that can turn these genes on or off and cause deviations from traditional inheritance patterns in cattle," he said.
"What we do know is that this project will greatly improve our knowledge of epigenetics and help achieve more consistent production traits and better end product beef quality."
The beef epigenetics project is focusing on four main outcomes for Brahman x British crossbred and tropical composite breed cattle in Queensland:
·greater reproductive efficiency
·more consistent growth
·better carcase traits
·improved temperament
·better environmental adaptation.
Dr Burns said what made this research even more important to the Queensland agricultural economy was that tropically adapted Bos indicus beef cattle breeds (which include Brahman) and their crosses with non-tropically adapted British and large European breeds, and tropically adapted Bos taurus breeds and crosses were critical for survival and production in Queensland's harsh tropical production systems.
"Brahmans and their crosses are predominant in Queensland and northern Australia," he said.
"The Bos indicus content of northern Australian beef herds rose from 5% in 1970 to approximately 85% during the 1990s.
"Therefore, the Brahman and their crosses are central to the future development and productivity of the Queensland beef cattle herd."
Dr Burns said by identifying epigenetic influences that affect reproduction, growth, carcase, environmental adaptation and behavioural traits, breeders could expect increased efficiency and profitability in their operations.
"We believe we can also ensure that Brahman crossbred heifers and cows will be more fertile throughout their production lives, with improved maternal ability and temperament, and produce beef that is even more tender," he said.
"More consistent growth would mean better and more predictable final target market liveweights and slaughter weights, which could be tailored for specific markets.
"With a better understanding of the genetic potential of individual cattle, we will be able to develop strategies for producers to harness epigenetic influences within their own cattle breeding programs."
Dr Burns said the QPIF research team would be working closely with Professor Stefan Hiendleder, Head of the University of Adelaide/Roseworthy Campus-based JS Davies Epigenetics and Genetics Group.
The research group has the molecular genetics specialists to evaluate novel aspects of growth. This JS Davies group also has a collection of embryos and foetuses that are either purebred Bos indicus or Bos taurus or their reciprocal crosses which they will use to identify imprinted genes for a broad trait spectrum in beef cattle.
Another component of the project will be led by Associate Professor Andy Herring, Texas A&M University (TAMU), who will be supporting the project using almost 50 years of post-natal growth and development, reproduction and carcass data in addition to 20 years of DNA information collected from the TAMU McGregor Genomics Project resource herds.
The epigentics data extracted from these reciprocal cross herds in Texas will help validate parent of origin effects on foetal growth, calf birth weight and life time performance in both QPI&F owned Brahman and collaborating Droughtmaster producer herds throughout Queensland.
This project will be profiled at the Beef Australia 2009 expo in Rockhampton, as part of the 5 May "FutureBeef: Smart Science, New Technologies, Profitable Beef Businesses" Seminar. The seminar will showcase the innovative work of scientists and extension officers in the field of molecular and genetic technologies and beef business management, and how this can boost the beef industry.
What: "Smart science, New technologies, Profitable beef businesses" Seminar
When: 10.30am-1pm. Tuesday, 5 May 2009
Where: Room 1, James Lawrence Pavilion, Beef Australia expo, Rockhampton Showgrounds.
Media: Mark Symons 32396530
I read with interest the results of research into genetic manipulation of beef cattle. Based on Hansard, this technology may have some useful applications for Members of Parliament.
Why is the Queensland State Government (and the oppostion for that matter) so intent on sustaining the Beef industry when clearly Beef is not ecologically sustainable? The CSIRO (Australia's National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 2003) reports that beef generates over 50 kilograms of CO2 equivalent per kilogram of Beef meat from paddock to plate. A disproportionate amount of water is used in raising cattle. 20 000 liters of water is used to produce a kilogram of steak. 40 000 litres for grain fed Beef.
Why aren't we supporting our Beef producers to transition to alternative forms of protein?
Hard hooved, water and carbon intensive beasts have no place in a Queensland landscape. Apart from coal mining, nothing contributes more to land degradation and loss of native habitat and species, than cattle grazing.
When will the Smart State make the leap of logic and move Agriculture away from intensive, hydrocarbon dependent practices?
The Queensland State Government appears to pay lip service to "Ecological Sustainable Development" without any reference to Ecology.
regards,
Rowan Barber
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Rural and Regional Queensland
The Honourable Tim Mulherin
03/05/2009
"Temperamental" humans and cows may share same genes
Some of the genes thought to cause behavioural problems in humans may also cause temperamental behaviour in cattle.
A new $1.35M Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries research project will look at how to switch that gene off in a bid to boost the beef industry.
Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Rural and Regional Queensland Tim Mulherin announced the project ahead of attending the Beef Australia 2009 Expo in Rockhampton.
Mr Mulherin said: "This is exciting, ground-breaking research by our scientists which could literally change the character and quality of our beef herd.
"It would provide a huge boost to Queensland's beef industry which is worth $3.7 billion a year.
"Even though cattle and humans are separated by 60 million years of evolution we share many of the same genes.
"The genes thought to cause behavioural problems in humans are also found in cattle.
"We already know there is an association between the temperament of cattle and the tenderness of the meat - the more temperamental, the less tender.
"So if our scientists can learn how to switch off the gene that causes irritability in cattle then we can produce more tender meat which has a higher value to industry.
"We're not just looking at tenderness. We're also investigating a whole range of other factors that could boost profitability.
"For instance we may be able to influence cattle to have calves earlier in the season.
"Calves born earlier are typically heavier than calves born later in the season and because the cows have calved earlier they can produce a calf once a year (instead of skipping a year) and without increasing cow mortalities.
"This is one of the most significant aspects of this research as reproduction rate is the number one driver of profitability in Northern Australian beef enterprises," Mr Mulherin said.
Leading this five-year investment in cutting edge research is Dr Brian Burns, a Rockhampton-based QPIF principal research scientist specialising in genetics and animal breeding.
Dr Burns said his research project centres around the new field of 'epigenetics' - the study of modifications to genes other than changes in the DNA sequence itself.
Dr Burns said: "We're working closely with national and international partners on expanding our knowledge of 'epigenetics'.
"Our aim is to breed cattle with the most desirable genetic characteristics for domestic and international markets.
"That will mean cattle with improved reproduction, growth, carcase, adaptation and behavioural traits and better end-product quality.
"This is new territory we are entering and we still don't fully understand the various epigenetic interactions influencing some genes that can turn these genes on or off and cause deviations from traditional inheritance patterns in cattle," he said.
"What we do know is that this project will greatly improve our knowledge of epigenetics and help achieve more consistent production traits and better end product beef quality."
The beef epigenetics project is focusing on four main outcomes for Brahman x British crossbred and tropical composite breed cattle in Queensland:
·greater reproductive efficiency
·more consistent growth
·better carcase traits
·improved temperament
·better environmental adaptation.
Dr Burns said what made this research even more important to the Queensland agricultural economy was that tropically adapted Bos indicus beef cattle breeds (which include Brahman) and their crosses with non-tropically adapted British and large European breeds, and tropically adapted Bos taurus breeds and crosses were critical for survival and production in Queensland's harsh tropical production systems.
"Brahmans and their crosses are predominant in Queensland and northern Australia," he said.
"The Bos indicus content of northern Australian beef herds rose from 5% in 1970 to approximately 85% during the 1990s.
"Therefore, the Brahman and their crosses are central to the future development and productivity of the Queensland beef cattle herd."
Dr Burns said by identifying epigenetic influences that affect reproduction, growth, carcase, environmental adaptation and behavioural traits, breeders could expect increased efficiency and profitability in their operations.
"We believe we can also ensure that Brahman crossbred heifers and cows will be more fertile throughout their production lives, with improved maternal ability and temperament, and produce beef that is even more tender," he said.
"More consistent growth would mean better and more predictable final target market liveweights and slaughter weights, which could be tailored for specific markets.
"With a better understanding of the genetic potential of individual cattle, we will be able to develop strategies for producers to harness epigenetic influences within their own cattle breeding programs."
Dr Burns said the QPIF research team would be working closely with Professor Stefan Hiendleder, Head of the University of Adelaide/Roseworthy Campus-based JS Davies Epigenetics and Genetics Group.
The research group has the molecular genetics specialists to evaluate novel aspects of growth. This JS Davies group also has a collection of embryos and foetuses that are either purebred Bos indicus or Bos taurus or their reciprocal crosses which they will use to identify imprinted genes for a broad trait spectrum in beef cattle.
Another component of the project will be led by Associate Professor Andy Herring, Texas A&M University (TAMU), who will be supporting the project using almost 50 years of post-natal growth and development, reproduction and carcass data in addition to 20 years of DNA information collected from the TAMU McGregor Genomics Project resource herds.
The epigentics data extracted from these reciprocal cross herds in Texas will help validate parent of origin effects on foetal growth, calf birth weight and life time performance in both QPI&F owned Brahman and collaborating Droughtmaster producer herds throughout Queensland.
This project will be profiled at the Beef Australia 2009 expo in Rockhampton, as part of the 5 May "FutureBeef: Smart Science, New Technologies, Profitable Beef Businesses" Seminar. The seminar will showcase the innovative work of scientists and extension officers in the field of molecular and genetic technologies and beef business management, and how this can boost the beef industry.
What: "Smart science, New technologies, Profitable beef businesses" Seminar
When: 10.30am-1pm. Tuesday, 5 May 2009
Where: Room 1, James Lawrence Pavilion, Beef Australia expo, Rockhampton Showgrounds.
Media: Mark Symons 32396530
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
