2002 integrated biosystems for sustainable development

197
i Integrated biosystems for sustainable development Proceedings of the InFoRM 2000 National Workshop on Integrated Food Production and Resource Management Edited by Kev Warburton Usha Pillai-McGarry Deborah Ramage February 2002 RIRDC Publication No 01/174 RIRDC Project No MS001-14

Upload: alejandro

Post on 21-Oct-2015

100 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

i

Integratedbiosystems forsustainabledevelopmentProceedings of the InFoRM 2000National Workshop on IntegratedFood Production and ResourceManagement

Edited byKev Warburton Usha Pillai-McGarryDeborah Ramage

February 2002

RIRDC Publication No 01/174RIRDC Project No MS001-14

Page 2: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

ii

© 2002 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. All rights reserved.

ISBN 0 642 58393 5ISSN 1440-6845

Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable DevelopmentPublication No. 01/174Project No. MS001-14

The views expressed and the conclusions reached in this publication are those of the author and notnecessarily those of persons consulted. RIRDC shall not be responsible in any way whatsoever to any personwho relies in whole or in part on the contents of this report.

This publication is copyright. However, RIRDC encourages wide dissemination of its research, providing theCorporation is clearly acknowledged. For any other enquiries concerning reproduction, contact thePublications Manager on phone 02 6272 3186.

Researcher Contact DetailsDr. Kev WarburtonSchool of Life Sciences, University of Queensland

Phone: (07) 3365 2979Fax: (07) 3365 1655 Email: [email protected]

RIRDC Contact DetailsRural Industries Research and Development CorporationLevel 1, AMA House42 Macquarie StreetBARTON ACT 2600PO Box 4776KINGSTON ACT 2604

Phone: 02 6272 4539Fax: 02 6272 5877Email: [email protected]:http://www.rirdc.gov.au

Published in February 2002 Printed on environmentally friendly paper by Canprint

Page 3: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

iii

ForewordIntegrated biosystems, where connections are made between different food production activities, cantake a wide variety of forms. Such integrated systems offer many opportunities for increasing theefficiency of water and nutrient use, productivity and profit, and represent practical, creative solutionsto problems of waste management and pollution.

Environmental pressures and economic drivers such as the rising costs of water, fuel and other inputsare stimulating growing interest in eco-efficient production options that minimise resourceconsumption and pollution. Integrated biosystems satisfy these requirements. Because they conservesoil and water, increase crop diversity and can produce feed, fuel or fertilizer on-site, integratedbiosystems are relatively sustainable and resilient and can do much to support local economies. Theycan help farmers diversify or combine forces with other complementary operations. Integration can beachieved over a range of scales and can assist in community, catchment and regional planning.Biosystem integration therefore helps to achieve the economic, environmental and social aims ofsustainable development.

Many examples of integrated design now exist worldwide and appropriate technologies for ecologicalengineering have been developed. Given these advances, how can we apply such ideas to constructcost-effective, ecologically sensible solutions for Australia? What is our vision for the future? Thisbook shows how integrated biosystems can contribute to sustainable development and includes a widearray of current examples drawn from different production sectors.

This publication was funded from RIRDC Core Funds which are provided by the Federal Government.The InFoRM 2000 workshop was co-sponsored by the University of Queensland, RIRDC,Queensland Department of Primary Industries and the Queensland Environmental Protection Agency.

This book, a new addition to RIRDC’s diverse range of over 700 research publications, forms part ofour Resilient Agriculture Systems R&D sub-program, which aims to foster agri-industry systems thathave sufficient diversity, flexibility and robustness to be resilient and respond to challenges andopportunities.

Most of our publications are available for viewing, downloading or purchasing online through ourwebsite:

! downloads at www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/Index.htm

! purchases at www.rirdc.gov.au/eshop

Peter CoreManaging DirectorRural Industries Research and Development Corporation

Page 4: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

iv

Acknowledgements

The editors would like to extend special thanks to:

! The University of Queensland, Queensland Department of Primary Industries and QueenslandEnvironmental Protection Agency, for workshop sponsorship

! RIRDC, for workshop and publication support

! Peter Peterson, for invaluable help with workshop planning

! Eddie Chan, for extensive administrative assistance

! Andrew Gaines, for excellent workshop facilitation

! Roger Swift and Joe Baker, for their perceptive opening and closing comments

! George Wilson, for thought -provoking ideas

! Joe Baker, Bob Pagan, John Mott, Jacky Foo and Peter Peterson, for chairing workshop sessions

! The Bardon Centre, for providing an ideal workshop environment

Page 5: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

v

Contents(* indicates summary contribution)

PREFACE VII

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF INFORM 2000 IX

Integrated biosystems and sustainable development, Kev Warburton and Usha Pillai-McGarry ix

1. INTRODUCTION 1

What is an integrated biosystem? The InFoRM 2000 workshop 2

Opening InFoRM 2000 address by Professor Roger Swift 3

2. FUTURE TRENDS, OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS 4

Catchment issues: land and water use, planning and regulatory frameworks, Scott Spencer 4

Waste Management and Environmental Engineering, Paul Greenfield 9

Sustainable Economics and Business, Mark Diesendorf 12

The Natural Step and Natural Capitalism, Andrew Gaines 15

Sustainability and integration: a farmer's perspective, Paul Ziebarth 17

Integrated systems and rural community development: possibilities for partnership.Ingrid Burkett 19

Integrated Bio-Systems: A Global Perspective, Jacky Foo 37

Integrated Farming for Sustainable Primary Industry: Water and Nutrient Recyclingthrough Integrated Aquaculture, Martin S Kumar 54

Israel Multiple Water Use and Aquaculture - Ten Lessons, Peter Peterson 68

Integrated Agri-Aquaculture in Australia: virtual industry or commercial reality? Gooley, G. J.* and Gavine, F. M. 75

Integrating food production with urban consumption: some issuesRebecca Lines-Kelly 86

3. THE TECHNOLOGY OF INTEGRATION 91

Processing of Biomass and Control of Pathogens - Concept of a Bio-RefineryHorst W. Doelle 91

Biofuel Generation, Horst W.Doelle 101

Cleaner Production and Integrated Biosystems, Robert Pagan and Marguerite Lake 106

Adopting Vermiculture Technology to Manage and Utilize Organic WasteSteve Capeness 114

Page 6: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

vi

Processing of organic materials by the soldier fly, Hermetia illucensKev Warburton1 and Vivienne Hallman2 118

Organic Production – a part of the Sustainable Future of Farming, Andrew Monk 130

Mobile Biodigester – a Platform Mounted Biogdigester for On-farm Demonstration David Tay and Phil Matthews 131

Biological Remediation of Aquaculture Waste, Dirk Erler 132

Biofilm Substrates in Integrated Biofiltration, Doug Pearson 133

Wetlands for production and purification, Vivienne Hallman 134

4. FURTHER EXAMPLES OF INTEGRATED SYSTEMS 136

Integrated Biosystems in Southern Australia, Paul Harris1 & Phil Glatz2 136

Integrating Multiple Water Use in Cotton and Grain Production, Paul McVeigh 142

Beef Feed Lot Integration, Ian Iker 144

Convergence is the Key, Geoff Wilson 146

Permaculture Approaches, Janet Millington 151

Eco-Efficient Settlements, Vivienne Hallman 156

Multi-use water systems –Environmentally sustainable aqua-agricultural farming system. 162David Tay 162

A Community Development Model for Mixed Enterprise Land Development 163Beth Mitchell and Michael Rooney 163

5. FUTURE VISION AND ACTION FOR CHANGE 164

Future vision 164

Action for change: promoting integrated biosystem development in Australia 165

6. CONCLUDING COMMENTS 169

Address to InFoRM 2000 by Dr. Joe Baker, Chief Scientist, Queensland Department of PrimaryIndustries 169

APPENDIX 1. 174

A “wish list” for Australia’s future: comments from workshop participants 174

APPENDIX 2. 179

WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS 179

Page 7: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

vii

PrefaceThis publication collates, summarises and reviews information relating to integrated biosystemspresented at the InFoRM 2000 National Workshop on Integrated Food Production and ResourceManagement held in Brisbane on 9-10 November, 2000. The workshop was attended by more than 50delegates representing government agencies, researchers, social scientists, planners, industrystakeholders and producers. A list of workshop participants and their contact details is provided inAppendix 2.

The desired outcomes from InFoRM 2000 were:

! Documentation of current examples of integration in Australia and overseas

! Development of action plans, models and options for Australia

! A clearer framework for planning, research and demonstration

! Collaboration between stakeholders

Papers were presented on future trends and opportunities for integrated biosystems, constraints on thedevelopment of these production systems, the technologies involved, and local and overseas examplesof integrated biosystems.

Workshop sessions addressed issues relating to integrated systems such as resource use efficiency,economic viability, accreditation and quality control, and community development. Participants alsodiscussed prerequisites for the future development of integrated systems in Australia.

Priorities and recommendations

The key themes identified in this book are:

RESPONSIBLE RESOURCE USE

! Multiple use of water and nutrients, especially in agri-aquaculture systems

! Environmental protection, especially with respect to water quantity and quality

COORDINATION

! More emphasis on systems-level thinking and interdisciplinary cooperation

! Development of policy, legislation and planning frameworks

RESEARCH

! Increased funding for research and development

! National and international research collaboration

INFORMATION

! Dissemination of research findings and information to stakeholders

! Development of communication, demonstration and education strategies

Page 8: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

viii

! Benefit-cost analyses that place value on the social and environmental benefits of integration

This information builds on the RIRDC Research and Development Plan for Integrated Agri-Aquaculture Systems and describes many alternative and interchangable integrated options thatpromise to increase the diversity, flexibility and resilience of Australian production systems.

Page 9: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

ix

Executive Summary of InFoRM 2000 Integrated biosystems and sustainable development

Kev Warburton and Usha Pillai-McGarryThe University of Queensland

Abstract

Integrated biosystems make functional connections between agriculture, aquaculture, food processing,waste management, water use, and fuel generation. They encourage the dynamic flows of materialand energy by treating wastes and by-products of one operation as inputs for another. In this wayfood, fertiliser, animal feed and fuel can be produced with the minimum input of nutrients, water andother resources.

Biosystem integration can help achieve sustainability objectives by:

! treating the management of wastes and residues as a central design feature rather than assomething external to the main production function;

! specifying clear performance indicators and measures of efficiency;

! encouraging holistic, systems-level thinking in which the dynamics of interconnection andinterdependence are as important as the components that are connected;

! providing a framework for flexible closed-loop applications over a wide range of contexts andspatial scales – e.g., in both rural and urban situations, and at single property, sub-catchment andcatchment levels;

! allowing different specialist producers and neighbouring landholders to combine complementaryexpertise, equipment and other infrastructure to mutual advantage;

! increasing options for land use planning by placing the emphasis on the functional integration ofcomplementary activities (e.g., by using vermiculture to process wastes from dairy/pig/fishfarming, or by combining cane/grain growing with fuel generation), rather than just coexistence.

Sustainability objectives will be best served by the progressive introduction of carefully plannedintegrated systems capable of satisfying food production, fuel and fertiliser needs with near-zeroenvironmental impacts. To this end, operational initiatives by individual producers and others willneed to be complemented by legislative and government-led incentives, coordinated research anddevelopment, and the incorporation of integrated biosystem principles in land use planning.

In this paper we consider how integrated biosystems (IB) can advance the sustainability agenda, andforeshadow some of the themes developed later in this volume. The names of contributors are cited inbold font.

Over recent decades, growing problems of resource scarcity and environmental degradation have putpressure on conventional systems of food production and resource management. Responses haveincluded a shift in community concern and a re-evaluation of natural capital and its relationship to ourquality of life. In consequence, there is now widespread agreement as to the need for a long-termvision, increased community participation in resource management and a search for viable approachesto ecologically sustainable development.

Page 10: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

x

At the same time, there have been increases in the costs of environmental non-compliance, advancesin renewable and other environmentally benign technology, and growing consumer demand forproduct quality assurance. These are fast making efficient, ”green” approaches to production andresource management economically viable. The pace of change makes it imperative that theassessment of appropriate systems is based on careful analyses of future trends using principles of truecost accounting.

We tend to compartmentalize our thinking and assume that problems of resource use, environmentalquality and community self-reliance require independent solutions. But what if a single targetedapproach can help to satisfy economic, ecological and social sustainability objectives simultaneously?This is the possibility offered by biosystem integration.

Integrated biosystems make explicit connections between agriculture, aquaculture, food processing,waste management, water use and fuel generation. They are life-support systems based on thedynamic flow of material and energy, where wastes and by-products of one operation become inputsfor another. In this way food, fertiliser, animal feed and fuel can be produced with the minimum inputof nutrients, water and other resources.

In biosystem integration, the management of wastes and residues is treated as a central design feature.Thus, in contrast to other production systems where waste disposal and remediation are essentiallytreated as externalities, sustainable design features are intrinsic to integrated biosystems. Such designfeatures include the following:

! minimise resource inputs by redirecting "waste" outputs within the system;

! contain material flows within the system;

! treat production and consumption as a continuous cyclical process, rather than a linear one;

! tighten production-consumption loops to minimise losses, transport costs etc;

! maximise efficiency of natural conversion processes (e.g., microbial decomposition and trophiclinks) and of nutrient / water retention.

These design features make for increased system efficiency. Further, integrated biosystems takeadvantage of natural ecological processes, and as a result some components of such systems can below technology, requiring less management, less maintenance and less capital expense (Harris andGlatz). Integrated biosystems are scalable both in size and in technical complexity and can bedeveloped in stages, possibly through joint enterprise arrangements. These features help in the take-upof local farm-based systems. At the same time, the range of integrated options is very broad, andDoelle's designs for biorefineries for processing biomass are good examples of how genetic,biochemical and other forms of biotechnology can be applied to produce a rich diversity of products.A single integrated biosystem may produce biogas, microbial protein, mushrooms, compost, animalfeed, biogas, ethanol, antibiotics, vitamins and acids.

With its emphasis on holistic, multi-component design, permaculture can contribute valuable insightsrelevant to biosystem development. The overall design philosophy of permaculture, plus particulardesign principles such as sector/zonal planning, closed systems and species complementarity(Millington) can be applied when setting up many forms of integrated biosystem. The overall aim ofpermaculture is to construct a balanced production system that mirrors a real ecosystem. The aim is tominimise the amount of land under cultivation while maximising ecosystem services from thesurrounding landscape, and in this respect permaculture systems represent good models of sustainableland use.

Because no designs are perfect there should be an openness to change, experimentation andimprovement. The relative advantages and efficiencies of different alternatives should be evaluated.In line with this, Pagan and Greenfield propose that life cycle analyses and cleaner production

Page 11: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

xi

strategies for assessing and minimising the environmental impacts from production and consumptionbe used. This would allow a review of the opportunities in an integrated biosystem in order to optimisethe interplay of the components and ensure that full use is being made of different parts of the system.

Several authors stress the increases in efficiency that can be achieved by biosystem integration whencompared to conventional monocultures. A major concern in contemporary Australia is waterconservation, and the multiple use of water is a theme taken up by Peterson, Kumar, McVeigh, Tayand Gooley and Gavine, who illustrate how aquaculture, hydroponics and modern plastic-housetechnology can be effectively integrated with irrigated agriculture. Models of optimal water usedeveloped in Israel and other countries where water has always been a scarce and expensive resourcecan be used as reference points for Australian systems (Peterson). Although still in the developmentalstage, McVeigh's integrated farm provides encouragement for other producers keen to explore optionsfor low-cost diversification and the production of high-quality fish in an environment where pesticidesare conventionally used on crops such as cotton and grain. Tay notes that such integrated, water-efficient solutions can help to solve important environmental problems such as soil and water salinity,ground water contamination, reduced river flows and ecological pollution.

A parallel concern to water management is waste management. Capeness indicates how large-scalevermiculture can be used to process a wide variety of organic wastes, and that new system designsgreatly increase the intensity of production while minimising the land area required. Additionally, thevermicompost produced by these systems is almost pure humus. It acts as a rich carbon energy sourceand contains high densities of beneficial bacteria and useful quantities of non-leachable macro-nutrients, trace elements and rock minerals. Iker and Monk similarly highlight the role of manures andgreen matter in conditioning and protecting the soil and reducing disease and pest problems. Ikerstresses the advantages of integrating animal husbandry with cropping, so that organic soil quality canbe maintained by manuring in areas where all above ground plant matter is removed for silage.Warburton and Hallman note the high efficiency with which insect larvae can reduce a wide variety oforganic materials and convert them to a high-protein food source for livestock or fish. Despite thedevelopment of successful insect-based systems overseas, there has been little recognition of theirpotential in Australia.

In the aquatic environment, the papers by Pearson and Erler describe new developments inbiofiltration media and their ability to improve the quality of wastewaters and reduce sludgeaccumulation. Nutrients are recovered from the water through the provision of substrates for thegrowth of bacterial and algal films, which are then grazed by finfish, crustaceans or molluscs.Constructed wetlands are alternative, cheap and highly efficient systems for simultaneously purifyingwater and capturing nutrients. So far, the opportunities for such systems to generate products with aneconomic value (such as food, fertiliser and animal feed) have not been seized in Australia (Hallman),but this is likely to change as integrated biosystems become more widespread.

In a global overview of biosystem integration, Foo notes that while traditional IBs tend to be labour-intensive, low-input, micro-level systems, the new millenium will bring challenges that will makeintegrated biosystems relevant solutions at larger dimensions. Global challenges will include thesustainable use of natural resources and biodegradable wastes from cities and farms in the interests offood security and poverty reduction. Integrated biosystems can contribute to solutions throughdiversification, intensification and urban agriculture. In a similar vein, Ziebarth contends thatreliability and intensity of production must complement sustainability. To these ends, Wilsonidentifies a trend towards the convergence of different technologies - such as aquaculture,agroforestry, hydroponics, probiotics and aeroponics - to create new opportunities in both foodproduction and waste management. Gooley and Gavine contend that, while relevant to subsistencescale enterprise, an integrated systems approach in a developed country like Australia will see thegreatest flow of benefits to rural and regional communities through the adoption of industrial scaleenterprise.

Page 12: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

xii

Biodigesters commonly feature in integrated system designs, and play an important role in convertingorganic wastes to biofuel, reclaimed water and relatively pathogen-free fertiliser. Tay and Mathewnote that in Australia biodigester technology has a long history, but is currently used only in large-scale operations. However, with the advent of new environmental protection legislation, farmautomation and diversification into on-farm value adding of farm produce, there is likely to beincreasing demand for smaller units to service average-sized piggery, feedlot, dairy and poultryoperations.

The fact that the Australian electricity supply industry is becoming increasingly disaggregated andprivatised, leading to questions regarding its commitment to power security and upgrading of the gridmay encourage this trend. Under these circumstances, higher standards of local self-sufficiency maybe in order (Zimmerman 2000; Harris and Glatz). Integrated biosystems can enhance local economiesin a range of ways - for example, by minimising the need to import chemical fertilisers (Capeness;Iker) or foreign oil (Doelle); by allowing farmers to diversify into additional value-added areas(McVeigh); by helping to meet potential new markets for tradeable emissions such as salt andnutrients (Gooley and Gavine); and by creating jobs in new sectors (McKinnon et al. 2000; Harris andGlatz; Wilson). Doelle makes the point that Australia could reap significant economic and socialbenefits by investing in IB-compatible technologies such as ethanol production, that are already thebasis of important industries in other countries. An important consideration is the fact that the costs ofessential resources like fuel and water are projected to rise very significantly in coming years, and theAustralian economy is already shifting in response to such pressures (Diesendorf). There is a need formore strategic support (e.g., in the form of tax concessions) to encourage practitioners to take up moresustainable practices in cases when the capital outlay is excessive relative to current levels of return(Iker).

Harris and Glatz and Kumar note that there can be no one "ideal" integrated biosystem, as eachapplication will have different constraints, abilities and aims. At the same time, model or examplesystems can be used as starting points for site-specific applications so that each system suits localconditions, resource availability, the enterprise mix and the individuals concerned. This will avoidpushing up input costs by excessive demand and depressing the value of outputs by oversupply.

Hallman describes how IB principles can be applied, at different spatial scales, to the design of humansettlements. Activities at the macro scale include the planning of sustainable communities (e.g., asnodal developments around cities), while those at the micro level include the design of eco-efficienthouses. At both levels the guiding principles are the same - circular flow and closed loop ecosystems.Biosystem principles lie at the heart of designs for self-contained communities where recycling of greywater and domestic wastes is coupled with renewable energy use in order to grow food and increaseresource economy - these technologies are already crucial in ecologically sensitive locations such asbarrier reef islands.

In terms of social development, Burkett echoes the need to meld macro and micro approaches. Themacro level Integrated Rural Development (IRD) approach to the sustainable development of ruralcommunities emphasises the connections between sectors such as agriculture, forestry, local industry,waste management, social services, education and tourism, such that the interconnections between thepressures facing rural communities can be explored and addressed. At the same time, micro principlesof system integration can be applied to enhance the macro approaches of IRD - these principles can beapplied not only within individual farms but also in making links between agricultural, ecological,social, communal, political and economic systems within and between communities.

In the context of integrated catchment management, a biosystem approach can increase options forland use planning by placing the emphasis more on the functional integration of complementaryactivities (e.g., by using vermiculture to process wastes from dairy/pig/fish farming, or by combiningcane/grain growing with fuel generation), rather than merely on the balanced coexistence of existingpractices. Biosystem integration offers a context within which producers and other practitioners withdifferent skills can combine complementary expertise, equipment and other infrastructure to their

Page 13: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

xiii

mutual advantage. Such developments also stimulate a search for the scale at which systemefficiencies and economic returns can be optimised. Integration can be facilitated by the formation oflocal cooperatives and clusters, which help to unite communities in a common purpose. Initiativessuch as these help to build community by encouraging communication, social exchange and sharing(Hallman). It has been argued that prerequisites of sustainability include a strongly democratic civilsociety as well as the development of economic and ecological alternatives such as green cities, cleanproduction and biologically diversified forms of agriculture (O'Connor 1994).

In more general terms, integration also encourages a better awareness of relationships between thebiophysical and socioeconomic environments and factors that constrain or enhance the viability ofsustainable options. Such awareness is crucial to the development of informed policy with respect tothe integrated sector, and is best be fostered through multidisciplinary programs involving specialistswho share an holistic perspective. Ultimately, the selection of the correct technology for an integratedbiosystem requires a careful study of economic viability, government policy, regulatory direction andmarket opportunity (Spencer 2000).

Spencer's paper indicates that IB developments have to be integrated into a broader framework ofnatural resource management. Both regulation and planning are available as instruments to facilitatethese processes by alleviating constraints and maximising opportunities, but regardless of the type ofmechanism, decision-making has to be underpinned by community acceptance. The most effectivemoves towards sustainability will be those that recognise that resource use, environmental protectionand quality of life are interconnected issues that demand to be considered within a common, holisticframework. Several aspects of biosystem integration are consistent with the achievement of keysustainability objectives such as ecological integrity, liveability and equity.

In the interests of intergenerational equity, new legislation that places a greater emphasis onpreventative action means that (a) waste streams will have to be treated as resources to be recycled orreused, and (b) waste production will have to be reduced or prevented through the efficient design ofentire industrial processes (Wright and Clague 2000). Similarly, with respect to the liveability of thephysical environment, integrated planning legislation (e.g., the Integrated Planning Act, Queensland1997) requires the specification both of desired environmental outcomes and quantitative performanceindicators with respect to measures of carrying capacity (Wright and Clague 2000). To date, land useplanners have not complied well with this requirement (Wright and Clague 2000).

Through its accent on sustainable design, biosystem integration lends itself to the definition of clearperformance indicators and measures of efficiency. Some indicators of the sustainability of integratedbiosystems include species diversity, bioresource recycling, natural resource systems capacity andeconomic efficiency (Lightfoot et al. 1996).

In terms of achieving the objective of ecological integrity, the similarities between integratedbiosystems and natural ecosystems help to define a common framework within which appropriateapproaches to production and natural resource management can be developed. Indeed, large-scalenatural ecosystems (e.g., lakes, forests, and grasslands) as well as smaller-scale mesocosms (e.g.,soils, digesters, and ponds) can form vital components of integrated biosystems. There is a growingawareness of the cost-effective services provided by properly functioning natural ecosystems (e.g.,water purification, nutrient cycling, soil enhancement, pollination, carbon sequestration, nitrogen-fixing), and of the need for improved awareness of ecosystem processes and their potential economicbenefits (Daily 1997; Cork and Shelton 2000).

Unlike conventional production systems, integrated biosystems are intrinsically diverse and emphasisepolyculture and mixed farming rather than monoculture. In this respect they more closely emulatenatural ecosystems. Natural ecosystems can be highly diverse (i.e., contain many species) andcomplex (i.e., exhibit many connections between species in the food web). However, in such systemsthe component species and sub-systems are not connected at random, and the stability of the system asa whole (i.e., its capacity to resist environmental stress) depends on the sub-systems being loosely

Page 14: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

xiv

coupled (Kikkawa 1986). The same is true of integrated biosystems, where high overall diversity andstrategic links between component activities help to maintain relatively stable yields from the systemas a whole and thus minimise economic risk.

Natural ecosystems have inspired a wide range of models for balanced and diverse production systems(e.g., permaculture designs). The integrated biosystem approach increases the usefulness ofcomponent species - e.g., by using legumes and water ferns to fix atmospheric nitrogen for use in thesystem as a whole, and by utilising duckweed and other floating aquatic plants to convert dissolvednutrients to protein-rich feed for fish, livestock and humans. It is worth noting that while some suchspecies (e.g., water hyacinth and Salvinia) are normally regarded as "pest" organisms in naturalwaterways, their aggressive growth can make them a positive asset in an integrated biosystem context.More imaginative use could be made of native Australian species (Ziebarth), and this is an arearequiring further research.

A planned approach to IB development will ensure that the potential of IB is maximised in a contextof appropriate land use (Ziebarth) and the optimal use of locally produced materials. For example, theestablishment of biorefineries requires knowledge of land and biomass availability, crop biodiversity,maintenance of soil fertility crop yields, local population growth and demand, and the production oflivestock and animal manures (Doelle). Intelligent planning will also help to bring producers andconsumers closer together so as to improve resource use efficiency, protect valuable agricultural landand reduce storage, preservation, packaging and transport costs - thereby aiding local self-sufficiencyand food security (Lines-Kelly). Community models that satisfy the requirements of both land andcommunity development already exist - for example, in the form of mixed enterprise farms that blendactivities such as market gardening, nursery operations, livestock farming, flower and bush tuckerproduction, farm tourism and art and craft production (Mitchell and Rooney). In ways such as these, the integrated biosystem approach can provide sustainable methodologies tohelp realise the vision articulated in regional plans. By way of example, the SE Queensland planenvisages discrete human scale urban areas framed by green open space; the clustering of mutuallysupportive economic activity; urban form that is well defined, integrated and efficient in its use of landand energy; protection of natural assets such as air, water, forests, landscapes and biodiversity; a focuson waste minimisation and environmentally responsible technologies; and ongoing participation andcommitment by all sectors of the community (QDLGP 1998).

Australian agriculture is currently struggling with problems of declining terms of trade, environmentaldeterioration, declining rural populations and ageing workforces. Solutions to these problems that arebased solely on expanding the output of conventional production systems will be ultimately limited bycompetition for natural resources, declining soil fertility and rising fuel prices. However, there issignificant scope for alternative integrated solutions and by increasing the unit value of enterprises.This can be done by producing high quality speciality items and satisfying niche markets (e.g., organicproducts; sheep cheeses; free range eggs; fine wool; locally branded cheeses, wines, olives; emus,deer, alpacas).

Tourism is often associated with successful boutique industries such as those listed above, and isAustralia's fourth largest earner of foreign exchange dollars. Niche tourists want to see agriculturalproduction, National Parks, wildlife and endangered species, Aboriginal culture, homesteads andoutback towns. There is a huge potential for rural-based eco-tours and homestead visits. Most wildplaces are on private property (National parks and reserves only cover 5% of the landmass). Nichetourism can therefore play an integrating role by providing benefits for enhancing the landscape,addressing resource degradation and supporting production activities. These benefits can be tappedwith minimal changes to current practice and with the multiple use of resources (George Wilson,pers.comm.)

Biosystem integration encourages holistic, systems-level thinking in which the dynamics ofinterconnection and interdependence are as important as the components that are connected. Thus, it

Page 15: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

xv

helps to raise awareness of flows and transfer processes and develop a conceptual framework foreffective resource management. It also promotes flexibility, adaptability and openness to newpossibilities and experimentation. These are essential if innovative design solutions are to be found.

Harris and Glatz suggest that the current mindset of separate enterprises and single use / discarding ofresources needs to change, and Pagan appeals for holistic approaches to the twin challenges ofminimising environmental impacts and maximising utility. Greenfield notes that there has been aprogressive move away from neglectful or "end-of-pipe" approaches to waste management, andtowards newer approaches based on whole-system analysis and an appreciation of environmentalassets. He observes that improved understanding based on the modelling of complex processes canonly be achieved through collaborative multidisciplinary research programs. Ziebarth contends thatmore integrated, less reductionist research programs would greatly improve the quality of extensionservices aimed at the farming community. As indicated by Roberts (1995), a lack of systems researchhas been identified as the key obstacle to adopting alternative farming practices, and as the major stepnecessary to develop sustainable agriculture.

As a basis for more holistic approaches, Diesendorf notes that conceptual frameworks for sustainablebusinesses are evolving in the form of ecological economics, "natural capitalism", sustainabledevelopment studies and related transdisciplinary fields. Such frameworks are most powerful whenthey integrate environmental, economic and social aspects (the "triple bottom line"). Diesendorf alsosignals the need to develop (among other things) new organisational structures and operations inspheres ranging from the business to nation to international agreements.

If integrated biosystems can indeed help to achieve sustainability objectives, what can be done todevelop and promote the uptake of viable models and options? Gooley and Peterson contend thatmoves toward biosystem integration will require institutional change and a fundamental paradigm shiftby stakeholder agencies and individuals. They will also require coordination between industries andsectors, supported by Government/industry partnership-based investments in infrastructure, training,marketing, policy development, R&D and extension. Kumar stresses the importance of developing anational strategy for promoting and establishing biosystem integration and providing clear guidance tothe stakeholders concerned. In some cases, a degree of diversification of operations, and an increasein overall profit, can be achieved without great cost because existing infrastructure can be used withlittle modification and without disrupting other activities. Such possibilities have driven recentdevelopments in the integration of aquaculture and irrigated farming in Australia (Gooley 2000;McKinnon et al. 2000). However, if the full potential of biosystem integration to achievesustainability objectives is to be exploited, it will be important to move towards the progressiveintroduction of “purpose-built” integrated multi-component systems capable of satisfying foodproduction, fuel and fertiliser needs with near-zero environmental impact. To this end, operationalinitiatives by individual producers and other practitioners will need to be supported by:

! coordinated, regional, multidisciplinary research and development programs, including feasibilitystudies, foresighting and sustainable economic trend analyses;

! the inclusion of integrated biosystem principles as key elements in land use planning andintegrated catchment management; and

! legislative and government-led incentives to encourage the development, adoption and publicawareness of integrated biosystem designs.

Page 16: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

xvi

References

Cork, S.J. and Shelton, D. 2000. The nature and value of Australia's ecosystem services: a framework forsustainable environmental solutions. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Queensland Environment Conference.Environmental Engineering Society: Brisbane. 447 pp.

Dailey, G.E. 1997. Nature's services - societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press: Washington.

Gooley, G. 2000. R&D plan for integrated agri-aquaculture systems 1999-2004. Rural Industries Researchand Development Corporation Publication No. 99/153. 29 pp.

Kikkawa, J. 1996. Complexity, diversity and stability. In: Kikkawa, J. and Anderson, D.J. (eds.). Communityecology: pattern and process. Blackwell: Melbourne. 432 pp.

Lightfoot, C., Prein, M. and Ofori, J.K. 1996. The potential impact of integrated agriculture-aquaculturesystems on sustainable farming. In: Prein, M., Ofori, J.K. and Lightfoot, C. (eds.). Research for thefuture development of aquaculture in Ghana. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 42. 94 pp.

McKinnon, L., Gooley, G., Ingram, B., De Silva, S. and Gasior, R. 2000. Directions for integrated aquaculturein Victoria. In: Kumar, M.S. (ed.) Proceedings of National Workshop on Wastewater Treatment andIntegrated Aquaculture Production, 17-19 Sept. 1999. SARDI: Henley Beach. 191 pp.

O'Connor, J. 1994. Is sustainable capitalism possible? In: O'Connor, M. (ed.) Is capitalism sustainable?

Political economy and the politics of ecology. Guilford Press: New York.. 283 pp.

Queensland Department of Local Government and Planning. 1998. South East Queensland RegionalFramework for Growth Management (SEQ2001). QDLGP. 125 pp.

Roberts, B. 1995. The quest for sustainable agriculture and land use. University of New South Wales Press,Sydney. 245 pp.

Spencer, P. 2000. The wastewater treatment industry - technologies and policies for integrated biosystems. In:Kumar, M.S. (ed.) Proceedings of National Workshop on Wastewater Treatment and IntegratedAquaculture Production, 17-19 Sept. 1999. SARDI: Henley Beach. 191 pp.

Wright, I and Clague, S. 2000. Sustainability - the 21st century agenda: future directions in environmental lawand policy. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Queensland Environment Conference. Environmental EngineeringSociety: Brisbane. 447 pp.

Zimmerman, L. 2000. The role of the biomass to energy industry in economic and ecological sustainability. In:Kumar, M. (ed.) Proceedings of the National Workshop on Wastewater Treatment and IntegratedAquaculture. SARDI, Henley Beach, Australia. 191 pp.

Page 17: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

1

1. IntroductionWhat is an integrated biosystem?

Integrated biosystems connect different food production activities with other operations such aswaste treatment and fuel generation. Integrated biosystems treat production and consumption as acontinuous closed loop system where outputs of one operation become inputs into another, thusreusing resources and minimising environmental impact. They can vary enormously in type andcomplexity, as illustrated by the examples below.

1. Simple connections: e.g., livestock manure is used as a fertiliser for plant crops.

2. Intermediate connections: e.g., organic waste - compost or vermiculture - plant crops

3. Closed loops: e.g., livestock - manure - fodder crop - feed - livestock.

4. Fuel generation: e.g., organic waste - biodigester - biogas

5. Remediation and nutrient recovery: e.g., effluent from sewage treatment is pumped into storagelagoons and used to grow floating aquatic plants (e.g., duckweed). Duckweed growth reduces theoriginally high nutrient load to a level where the water is suitable for irrigation (e.g., for fibrecrops). The duckweed is also harvested as feed for livestock and fish.

6. Multiple water use: e.g., recycling dams allow the same water to be used for growing severalcrops (e.g., fish, crustaceans, rice, and hardwood).

7. Use of industrial by-products: e.g., fermentation of grain (for beer, spirits, motor fuel)produces organic residues, heat and carbon dioxide. The heat and organics are directed toaquaculture where they increase the growth rates of cultured fish, the carbon dioxide is used insoft-drink production, and both heat and carbon dioxide improve growing conditions inhydroponic greenhouses.

8. Settlement design: integration of on-site biological systems (e.g., for food production and wastetreatment) with individual dwellings and local communities.

In the above system combinations, integration allows resources to be converted, recycled or re-used.Such integrated systems offer many opportunities for increased efficiency, productivity and profit andrepresent practical, creative solutions to problems of waste management and pollution.

Integrated biosystem websites:

http://www.roseworthy.adelaide.edu.au/~pharris/biosys/welcome.html

http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/ibs/ibsnet/index.htm

Page 18: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

2

The InFoRM 2000 workshop

The Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation has played an important role infacilitating the move toward integrated systems by defining a national strategy and a framework forR&D on integrated agri-aquaculture systems1. This framework includes networking, system-by-system research and the development of regional demonstration sites. A complementary theme ofaquaculture-wastewater integration was taken up in a 1999 workshop organised by the SouthAustralian Research and Development Institute2. The InFoRM 2000 workshop on Integrated Food Production and Resource Management (Brisbane, 9-10 November 2000) built on this background. Its main rationale was the need to take a broad systemsapproach and consider how Australia can benefit from the whole field of biosystem integration - inparticular, through the capacity of integrated designs to satisfy the requirements of economic,environmental and social sustainability. The workshop was an exciting occasion enlivened by ashared awareness of an emerging paradigm shift towards more holistic, systems-level approaches tofood production and natural resource management. The outcomes of the workshop are covered indetail later in this volume, but for many participants the workshop confirmed the general relevanceand feasibility of the integrated biosystem approach for Australia. The focus is now on methods ofimplementation. This will have far-reaching implications for the restructuring of a wide range ofAustralian industries and local communities.

The key themes of InFoRM 2000 were resource utilisation efficiency, economic viability, bestpractice, quality control and the strengthening of local economies. Its specific aims were to:

! bring stakeholders together (especially farmers, industry leaders, technologists, resourcemanagers and planners)

! explore integrated options for food production, waste recycling, water conservation and fuelgeneration

! identify potential gains (in efficiency, value-adding, environmental quality and communitystability)

! highlight gaps in knowledge and identify priorities for planning, research and development.

1 Gooley, G. 2000. R&D Plan for Integrated Agri-Aquaculture Systems 1999-2004; RIRDC publication 99/153.29 pp.

2 Kumar, M.S. (ed.) 2000. Proceedings of the National Workshop on Wastewater Treatment and IntegratedAquaculture; South Australian Aquatic Sciences Centre; 191 pp.

Page 19: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

3

Opening InFoRM 2000 address by Professor Roger Swift

(Executive Dean, Faculty of Natural Resources and Veterinary Sciences,University of Queensland).

It is my great pleasure to welcome you to the InFoRM 2000 Workshop. It is particularly pleasing tosee so many young people here: they are especially welcome because they will be carrying thescientific baton into the future. As a result of being at this meeting, I hope that they will generatemany new ideas. Thanks are due particularly to the University of Queensland, QDPI and RIRDC fortheir support for this Workshop and to the organisers for their efforts both in developing the idea andpromoting it. Meetings such as this need a considerable amount of organisation to ensure smooth andefficient operation.

When I read the background to this Workshop, it was clearly focussed on looking at the integration ofproduction and waste management systems. The concept of integrated production systems alone hasbeen around for some time. Such approaches have brought together all aspects of crop and animalproduction with an integrated farm management system. Linking the system of production at the farmlevel with the demands of the processor and consumer is more recent. It has taken us quite a long timeto realise that there are consumers at the end of this chain who want food products in a particular form,and food processors who need products with particular properties in order that they could workeffectively. Consequently, these components were added to the overall system. In this way thesystem was extended to post-farmgate to link the on-farm production with processing and particularlywith marketing and sales. However, what was still missing from the system was a proper consideringof the waste management system. Consequently, we kept asking “what do we do with all the wastematerial that comes out at the end?” Traditionally, waste materials have not been used effectively orproductively and have been seen as a problem rather than a resource and more often than not havebeen disposed of by dumping them in someone else’s backyard (or the equivalent). The importantissue that we should be considering here is the extension of the management system into the area ofwaste management. In this way we could make more effective and efficient use of all the materialsthat are generated in the production system in a whole number of ways. This would be particularlybeneficial for the environment and possibly for the economy. Therefore, I commend the extension ofthe whole of system approach and I hope that the meeting comes up with some new ideas on this issue.This type of approach is increasingly important in the face of scarce resources and environmentalconsiderations.

However, not all of our resources are scarce and some are, some aren’t, but where they are scarce weneed to be looking quite carefully at issues of re-use and recycling. There is no point in wastingvaluable resources as has been done so often in the past. In your deliberations, I would offer a word ofcaution. Although the underpinning ‘science’ is important and is often our main concern, in the endeconomics will determine whether or not a process is taken up. So do think very carefully about notonly whether a practice is scientifically feasible, but whether it is economically viable. I have seenmany excellent ideas for recycling materials which founder on simple economic grounds. I alsoremember an event from early on in my scientific career when a wordly-wise man from ICI said inresponse to an idea that I had for making a slow-release fertiliser ‘never build an industry on anyoneelse’s waste materials’. The reason is because the waste creators might well find a use for itthemselves. You might suddenly find yourself without any raw material. The moral is that there are anumber of other factors which need to be taken into account when pursuing an idea.

The University of Queensland is a large, research intensive University with considerable range anddepth of skills which could be brought together to look at this whole production and disposal system.This also means collaborating with outside organisations where complimentary skills exist. UQ hastaken a number of initiatives, particularly a recent one in the Recycled Organics Consortium (ROC)funded by my Faculty. We look to ROC as one of the facilitating bodies that could help to bringpeople together and establish linkages and contacts and help to develop projects

Page 20: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

4

2. Future trends, opportunities andconstraints

Catchment issues: land and water use, planning and regulatoryframeworks

Scott SpencerDepartment of Natural Resources

In recent years the political focus of the nation has been firmly fixed on economic issues. Virtuallyevery survey conducted of public perceptions of the important issues of the day has seenenvironmental issues slip in priority. Yet most practitioners in the natural resource management willtell you that all the evidence suggests that the situation, if anything, is getting worse, despite theconsiderable efforts of government, industry and the general community in recent years.

Perhaps of more concern is that the current debate is an “ us versus them” situation. The “us” tend tobe rural communities. They believe that the rest of the community is unfairly blaming the rural sectorfor the problems that are besetting our natural resources. There is also a strong view that we are askingthe farm community to carry an unreasonable share of the costs of addressing the issues. You need gono further than the debate over tree clearing in Queensland to demonstrate this situation.

The debate has become one about “rights” rather than “what is the right thing to do?”

In Queensland we have long been accused of being years behind our southern cousins. In terms ofresource management this is probably a great blessing as, in general, the natural resource problemshave not yet reached the point of no return in this State as they are in other areas. However, this is noreason for complacency because we could be close to the brink in some areas.

I would prefer to see this as indicating that we have a chance of avoiding the disaster. It should not betaken as a sign that the potential (and in some cases existing) problems do not need to be confronted.

In recognition of the situation, the Queensland Government has embarked on a major program ofreform of the management of our natural resource. In the last two years there have been significantchanges to the management regimes of our native forests, vegetation and water resources. To saythese reforms have not been uniformly embraced is a massive understatement!

Interestingly, our southern colleagues and many respected scientists think that we have not gone farenough. Why then has there been such opposition to the reforms that many think are most desperatelyneeded?

A superficial consideration of this question will lead to the rights and compensation debate. Often it issuggested that the response by the rural sector has been characterised as “denial” but it is my view thatthe issue runs much deeper.

As a person who has worked with rural communities for well over twenty years I think statements ofthis nature sell the rural community short. At present we have to ask the question "have we got thebalance right in terms of our approach to natural resource management?"

If one looks at our current practices in the management of our land, water, vegetation and marineresources, most of the regimes we have in place are strongly regulatory. They are designed to stopresources users doing things. Unfortunately, they also directly attack the values of those resourceusers, basically saying to them that everything they do (much of which they have learnt from their

Page 21: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

5

parents), is wrong. By trampling on their values we are creating fertile ground for those who wish tocreate conflict for their own ends. We are also greatly reducing the likelihood of a shared and positiveoutcome.

In saying this I should make it clear that a sound regulatory base is essential for good natural resourceoutcomes. The question to be considered is what level and shape of regulation is necessary to achievethe desired outcome.

If regulation alone is not the answer then what is required?

While voluntary action has its supporters it would be naive to think that, in a situation where many ofthe benefits are externalised, all or most individuals will act out of altruism. Obviously there is a mixof mechanisms and regulation must play its part. But it is not the only mechanism. The catch cry andtheme of this workshop is “integration”. To achieve the holy grail of integration I believe you mustget the planning right. This does not necessarily mean a single plan but is more likely to requiremultiple planning processes where, through each step of the process, there are appropriate laterallinkages to other activities.

A simple enough statement, but in reality a very difficult thing to achieve.

To have good planning you need shared knowledge or at least acceptance of the majority of the factsas we know them, shared vision or outcomes and most importantly from my point of view, a sharedperspective on scale and timeframes.

At present I do not believe these parameters exist and it is a central role of government to provide theleadership to achieve such an environment.

While it is easy to focus on the biophysical because we can in most instances measure it, if we are totake a total landscape approach to resource management, we must get on top of the human issues. It ishuman intervention that causes degradation therefore we need to be able to influence the decisions ofthose who manage the land.

The reality is that private interests manage the vast majority of land. This means for instance that,even though leasehold land accounts for about 72 percent of Queensland’s 1.8 million squarekilometres, the day to day decisions are not made by the government. They are made by the individuallandholders who are basically trying to maximise their income. It is those decisions we need toinfluence to improve resource management outcomes.

It is this type of situation that leads me to conclude that planning is the key.

As I said, this sounds simple enough. But recently within my Resource Management group of DNR Iasked the question “how many planning processes do we have?”. I was not surprised when the answercame back – 28! Add to this the planning that is undertaken by other agencies, local government andcommunity groups and its no wonder both agency staff and the community are perplexed and those ofus who want to see progress, to put it politely, frustrated.

To address this potential gridlock my department and many other natural resource managementagencies such as the Murray Darling Basin Commission are attempting to focus more and more on thehuman dimension.

To achieve truly integrated outcomes we need to:

! ensure that good science about the biophysical is available and understood by all potentialparticipants – this will be a challenge for our scientists because it may require them to commit

Page 22: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

6

themselves without perfect knowledge – a situation which their training does not always promote

! ensure that the social and economic issues are a vital part of the information base

! provide a non-threatening venue for all participants to share views

! provide the participants with sufficient authority to see that they can actually influence the finaldecision

! allow sufficient time – not always an easy thing to do given the drivers from the electoral cycle. Acritical part of this process is to allow the stakeholders to be involved well before the processactually starts so that the common understanding of the issue and approach is agreed upon. Byway of example, the current fascination in this country with salinity still does not register inQueensland because the problem is yet to emerge in terms of any real impact. If you talk aboutweeds, which people can see, then you are going to get engagement, but salinity does not rate. Yetour science is ringing alarm bells. We therefore have to allow the time for the community toaccept that salinity is a potential problem

! ensure that the land management decision makers share the common vision

! allow, as much as is practicable, for the community to determine the mix of policy instrumentsthat are to be used to implement the plan

! ensure that the Government (as distinct from the public service), as the ultimate representative ofthe community, clearly articulates the boundaries within which plans are conceived

I have a personal belief that this can only be achieved if authority for natural resource managementdecision making is shared between government and the local community.

Some might say that this is unlikely as it represents a release of power and that politicians areunwilling to do this. Certainly there are examples recently where it might be argued that this clearlythe case.

On the other hand, I can offer to you the South East Queensland Forest Agreement as an example of aprocess where the stakeholders delivered the outcome. While the process was incredibly painful forthose involved it was not until the government said to the stakeholders “you solve it” that we actuallylooked like getting a reasonable outcome. All the public service did was facilitate the outcome. Thegovernment set a very broad outcome (and in this case defined a timeframe – reasonable but not open-ended). The community representatives cut the deal. The government then used its final authority toimplement the agreed agenda. A clear case of shared as distinct from delegated decision making.

This process gives me great heart for our water and vegetation planning processes. Although they arecurrently very contentious, with plenty of claims and accusations, if all the participants genuinelyshare a desire for long-term sustainability then an acceptable outcome is achievable.

Those of you involved in this debate might ask "how?" In my view it comes back to community basednatural resource management. For sometime now DNR has been working with a range of communitygroups to develop arrangements for the community to have greater and more meaningful input intoresource management policy. The matter is yet to be considered by the government but suffice to sayit recognises the need to clarify the role of government and the broader community in the naturalresource management process. It acknowledges the need to better coordinate the multiple planningprocesses and ensure community greater shared ownership of both the process and the outcomes.

Critically in a state as large and diverse as Queensland, it recognises that the nature of the issues variesand therefore the responses will have to be different.

Page 23: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

7

In this context the institutional arrangements will need to vary from region to region – a fundamentaldifference to some of the view coming from southern Australia where its seems that a "one size fitsall" approach is often advocated.

While I have emphasised the sharing approach, in reality it would seem for this process to be trulysuccessful governments at all levels are going to have to accept that at least some of their power willneed to be released. It may be the twenty something years as public servant that has increased mycynicism, but in the end, this is going to very difficult achieve.

There are a number of reasons for this. In the era of new accountability you cannot expect a person tobe accountable but not actually be responsible for the decision! There also is the simple matter thatmost people enter politics to get the power (its certainly not for the money!). Therefore they areunlikely to easily let it go.

In these circumstances, apart from the actions I have talked about to this point, I believe we need oneother vital ingredient if we are to get whole of property, whole of catchment & whole of statesustainability. That ingredient is the assigning of a value to the environmental attributes in the handsof private individuals.

While I am just about de-skilled these days there is enough of the economist left in me to believe thatthe market can provide a very large part of the solution.

By developing values for the environmental attributes, most commonly referred to as theenvironmental services such as carbon, salinity, biodiversity and nutrient credits, we not onlydramatically increase the incentives to not degrade, but in the one action define the type of regulationwe need for effective markets and allow us focus on better resource use planning.

This is why those of us involved in the original COAG Water Reform Agenda pushed so hard for thebetter definition of water rights. It was not because we wanted to stop farmers from development – itwas in fact the opposite.

If producers receive the right signals about their assets they will manage them better. Lifestyle issuesaside, landholders in Australia are in the game for profit and I will go to my grave believing that thelast thing producers want to do is run down their natural assets.

The problem for the environment is that there is a lag in the appearance of the signals of resourcestress. We therefore need to replace the physical signs with economic signals.

The Queensland Government, like every other jurisdiction, is working on this issue right now.Creating markets in intangibles is not easy and perhaps the most difficult things is to create theexclusivity that is necessary for a market to work. Put simply, this requires some type of limit on theavailability of natural assets. While some landholders react with hostility to this concept, markets cannot operate effectively without it.

If one of the questions to be answered is how much regulation is required I would ultimately answer itby saying that it is sufficient to do three things:

! ensure that the fundamental components of the ecosystem are protected

! ensure that a user's property rights are defined and protected, and

! ensure that effective markets can develop in the environmental attributes so that there real value istaken into account in the decision making process

Page 24: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

8

The unfortunate thing in the current debate is that those who are opposing much of the naturalresource management reform agenda are doing so on the basis that their property rights are at risk.What they are failing to recognise is that that their rights often only exist on some type of moral basis.These perceived rights are not necessarily well enough defined to be recognised in law and until thereform agenda goes forward, that risk will continue to exist.

Interestingly, perhaps the most fundamental environmental unit – land – is bound by a very strict bodyof law which defines boundaries beyond doubt. The same body of law does not exist for otherattributes. Perhaps our efforts should be directed more to this issue. I have a feeling that the problemsassociated with planning and regulating our resources would decline dramatically and that thecommon outcome of sustainability would be more likely to be achieved more quickly.

Page 25: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

9

Waste Management and Environmental Engineering

Paul GreenfieldThe University of Queensland

This paper presents a historical perspective on waste management and environmental engineering,describes the evolution of waste and environmental management philosophies and considers thechanging role of environmental engineering in waste management.

There are valid public health concerns surrounding waste management (e.g., concerning potable reuse)and these concerns must be addressed comprehensively. Traditional approaches to waste managementhave tended to be design rich and operationally poor.

Typically these approaches have:

! Been microscale operations

! Had an end-of-pipe focus (e.g., removal of pollutants)

! Demonstrated limited understanding of ecosystem or social context issues

! Been successful from the public health perspective within the prevailing paradigm and given thedefined constraints

However, there has been an evolution of environmental management philosophies, as indicated below:

First generation: deny there is a problem.Examples of this philosophy include:

! Denying the strong likelihood of a significant anthropogenic influence on global warming, orglobal warming itself.

! Denying evidence that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is showing strong signs of nutrientdistress.

A consequence of this attitude in the past is the need to remediate degraded (e.g., salt-affected) land.

Second generation: focus on discharge issues to reduce the severity of the problem.Examples of this philosophy include:

! Controlling the quality of receiving waters or ambient air by setting permittable dischargeconcentrations.

! Requiring 100% compliance with such regulations.

! Best Available Technology or Best Practical Technology approaches (these may require the samelevels of technology in very different environments and hence lack flexibility).

An inevitable result of this approach (which is widespread at present) is the introduction ofincreasingly stringent discharge regulations.

Third generation: take a systems approach to environmental management.Examples of this philosophy include:

! Waste minimisation

! Load-based licensing; tradeable permits.

Page 26: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

10

Requirements of this approach are more sophisticated monitoring and acceptance of a range ofmanagement mechanisms. This approach also requires that the concept of a threshold effect bediscarded, since in practice a threshold simply means that a given effect cannot be detected over thetime frame of measurement.

Fourth generation: include environmental assets in the accounting frameworkExamples of this philosophy include:

! The development of cleaner production practices (these could be seen as representing both thirdand fourth generation approaches).

! Life cycle analysis.

! Appropriate pricing of environmental benefits and costs.

! Green accounting practices.

! A focus on sustainable development and the "Triple Bottom Line".

We are at an interesting stage in the evolution of environmental engineering strategies. We know wehave to reject traditional approaches - for example, conventional benefit-cost analysis has littlecredibility for environmental management because the political process has never enforced therequirement that some of the benefits should flow to the losers. On the other hand, we are at a veryearly stage in our quest for sustainable development, and it could be argued that we don't yet knowhow it can be achieved. Nevertheless we can be encouraged by real signs of a paradigm shift, as thefollowing examples serve to indicate.

Example 1: Cotton! First generation: "If it moves, spray it; when it flows, pump it".

! Second generation: Integrated Pest Management. Reduced water usage as a result of pricecontrols.

! Third generation: Biological control (e.g., baculovirus, GMOs). Reduced water usage throughbetter controls.

! Fourth generation: Change the whole approach to irrigation - don't grow cotton in certain regions.

Example 2: Starch processing! First generation: Discharge to trade waste sewer. ("It's not my problem").

! Second generation: Pretreat prior to discharge in order to reduce charges.

! Third generation: Recover waste starch and/or energy from starch, so that the starch processingplant is now a key step in energy generation. (This is a monumental shift in approach becauseintegration of the waste treatment process with production makes it more central - there is nowmore urgency to avoid going "off-spec").

! Fourth generation: Redesign the starch extraction process to minimise the use of water. (This stagehas not yet been reached with starch but it has in the paper industry).

A typical example of these changes in approach is provided by a starch processing company inMelbourne, which originally discharged its waste to Melbourne's treatment plant. However, afterMelbourne Water began to recover the costs of treatment by charging the company in question (at arate $1.5 million per year), it responded by introducing an on-site anaerobic digester to process waste.Later, the methane produced by the digester was used as an energy source for the plant's operations.The driver in this case was clearly a price signal.

Page 27: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

11

With respect to the changing role of environmental engineering in waste management, there are threekey technology drivers. These are:

! Biotechnology, which uses an understanding of the genetic and metabolic bases of life processesto develop better process management.

! Materials technology - especially of membranes, which have reduced in cost and increased inquality over the last decade, and of nannostructured materials, which can be used to createefficient catalysts and absorbents.

! Information technology, which includes new instrumentation, remote monitoring and datamining. These developments have the ability to revolutionise environmental science, which atpresent is data-rich and information-poor.

Examples of applications of these new technologies include:

! The design of industrial bioreactors based on improved understanding and modelling of themicrobial processes involved (e.g., links between different functional groups of bacteria).

! Improved hydrodynamic modelling involving computational fluid dynamics and high performancecomputing. This approach has allowed us to use directional aerators to control zones ofnitrification and denitrification in wastewater treatment ponds, and so achieve high rates (60-70%)of nitrogen removal. This in turn means that the pond effluent can be discharged to land at areasonable cost.

! Large-scale modelling to linking pollutant hydrography to the biological impacts of water qualitydecline. Current investigations of water quality impacts in Moreton Bay involve a large team ofscientists and 18 local councils in an integrated multidisciplinary program. Among the results ofthe program are those that suggest that extensive Lyngbya (cyanobacterial) blooms can betriggered in part by high iron levels in local waterways, and that humic acids in organic runofffrom coastal forests act as chelating agents to make iron more bio-available.

ConclusionsSome trends in waste management seem clear:

! Prevention is better than cure, and prevention is best achieved by adopting a systems approachinvolving interdisciplinary, high quality science.

! Increasing standards put increasing pressure on costs, but clever technologies can help to reducethose costs.

! Increasing community expectations must be matched by good communication systems and fullcommunity involvement.

In Australia, environmental engineering challenges for the immediate future include:

! Water re-use

! Stormwater impacts and treatment

! Land developmentand land use impacts

! Catchment management

! Airshed management

! Greenhouse gas reduction.

Page 28: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

12

Sustainable Economics and Business

Mark DiesendorfUniversity of Technology, Sydney

Introduction

A starting point for this paper is the growing evidence that it possible to improve economicperformance substantially while at the same time reducing environmental impacts. Our work at theInstitute for Sustainable Futures has indicated that in Australia this assertion can be supported across awide range of sectors, including water, energy and urban transport. However, the widespreaddevelopment of such win-win situations will require changes to social and institutional processes andstructures as well as new ‘hardware’. If present thinking persists, we will continue to find ourselvesmaking trade-offs between the economy and the environment. The good news is that the economy ischanging in the direction of sustainability (e.g., in Australia it has shifted from primarily resources toservices and light manufacturing) and should be allowed to change further.

Sustainability and sustainable development

Sustainability is a contestable concept, like democracy or justice, and in fact contesting it is importantin its implementation. It is can be defined as the goal or end-point of a process known as sustainabledevelopment (or ecologically sustainable development, ESD). Sustainable development comprisesthose types of economic and social development that protect and enhance the natural environment andsocial equity. Here, ‘development’ means the unfolding of human potential and the enhancement ofhuman wellbeing in a broad sense, and ‘social equity’ means equal opportunity. Althoughsustainability is commonly accepted as involving environmental, economic and social dimensions, itshould be recognised that the environment must be the dominant concept, since both society and theeconomy depend upon it.

Economic approaches to sustainability

Economic approaches to sustainability can be illustrated by the following historical figures:

1. Charles Dickens (in the words of Mr Micawber in David Copperfield). “Annual income twentypounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen shillings and sixpence, result happiness.Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds and sixpence, result misery”.It should be noted that there are no savings in this ‘sudden death’ concept of sustainability.

2. John Hicks (classical economist). Hicks maintained that it was important to live off income, notoff capital, and that we should aim to design an economy that generated a sustainable income.However, Hicks was not an environmentalist and his defined priorities did not include long-termecological sustainability for the planet as a whole. Nevertheless, his concept of ‘sustainableincome’ could become the basis for a useful approach to sustainability. Unfortunately, neo-classical economics has taken a different direction.

3. J.M. Hartwick (neo-classical economist). Hartwick stressed the importance of sustainingconsumption (i.e., household expenditure) over a long time period. He believed that this could beachieved by continual linear substitution (e.g., by using profits from one activity to invest inanother). This assumption is questionable, given the severe damage to global ecosystems (e.g.,soil loss, greenhouse effects) that is caused by many human activities.

Page 29: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

13

There are in fact a number of limitations to neo-classical, environmental economics, notably thefollowing:

! A neglect of biophysical laws and ecological insights: e.g., conservation of mass and energy;Second Law of Thermodynamics; the fact that humans are totally dependent upon the integrity ofpre-human ecological processes and systems).

! Treatment of the environment as a set of goods and services that are bought and sold incompetitive markets, both real and hypothetical. (It is hard to fit essential open-access resourcessuch as the atmosphere into such a scheme).

! A neglect of social institutions other than firms and households.

! An anthropocentric, instrumentalist ethical viewpoint that works against ecological sustainabilityand social equity and ignores the fact that humans can cooperate.

One can question the underlying assumptions about competition - an analogous, though logicaloutcome of this assumption would be that the four chambers of the heart should independently tenderfor the job of pumping blood around the body, because competition would improve efficiency! It isalso important to recognise that we have no ready substitute for natural systems. For example, in thecase of the ‘Biosphere 2’ experiment to recreate a sustainable environment within large, sealed domesin the Arizona desert, humans had to leave because it proved impossible to maintain a stableatmosphere. Furthermore, we have little understanding of the extent to which we can interfere withnatural systems before their capacity for self-regulation is significantly impaired. Theseconsiderations have led to attempts to formally recognise the value of ecosystem services (e.g.,Costanza et al., 1997). Other commentators contend that, because of their necessity, it is moreappropriate to assign an infinite value to such services, rather than partial monetary values. Embarking on a quest for sustainability puts us at the boundaries of a huge new area. What tools do wehave at our disposal to help us on our way? In particular, what conceptual frameworks and case studiesare available to help us integrate our economic, environmental and social priorities? The followingoffer the potential to construct transdisciplinary theoretical frameworks: ! Natural Capitalism (Hawken et al. 1999).

This approach embodies the belief that large increases in resource use efficiency can be achievedthrough redesign. It recommends that we invest in natural capital (i.e., our physical environment)and emulate nature by shifting from linear to cyclic flows of materials. In natural systems nothingis wasted -- all is re-used. Natural Capitalism also urges a shift in emphasis from ‘goods’ (e.g.,coal power) to ‘services’ (e.g., a hot shower).

! Integrated Least-Cost Planning (= integrated resource planning; e.g., Mackenzie 1996). In its focus on what people actually want, this approach is highly compatible with NaturalCapitalism. It proceeds by defining the service requirement (e.g., cold food, removal of wastes,transport needs) and identifying the associated environmental health, social and economic costs andbenefits. The aim is then to find the mix of supply-side and demand-side technologies to providethe service at the least cost to society, and then to plan to remove barriers to this optimal mix. Thisapproach helps to provide an appropriately broad perspective for decision-making and overcomingbarriers. For example, it turns out that it is generally cheaper (in cents per passenger per kilometretravelled) to travel by heavy rail than by car. However, normally motorists tend not to recognisethis, because they neglect the hidden costs of car transport, such as the land that is taken up by carroads and parks.

Page 30: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

14

Other potentially useful approaches include:

! Systems Theory (e.g., Bossel 1998);

! Soft Systems Theory (e.g., Checkland and Scholes 1990);

! Multicriteria Analysis (e.g., Bogetoft and Pruzan 1997);

! Participatory Action Research (e.g., Whyte 1991);

! Grounded Theory (e.g., Glaser 1993);

! Ecological Footprint (not the original approach of Wackernagel & Rees 1995, but the improvedapproach by Lenzen and Murray 2001).

Moving decisively down the path to sustainability will require a broad approach and a wide range ofresponse measures - including pricing, taxes, institutional and organisational change, education andregulation. There is little doubt that a major driver will be future resource scarcity and that this willlead to dramatically higher prices as the global demand for essentials such as fuel increases relative toglobal supply. Local operations will become more important than global ones as costs of transport goup. Consumer demand will also become more discerning - as indicated by the fact that in at leastsome countries, the major supermarket chains have greatly expanded their range of organic foodoptions, and this expansion has been accompanied by a significant reduction in the cost of such foods.

References

Bogetoft, P. and Pruzan, P. 1997. Planning with multiple criteria: investigation, communication andchoice. Copenhagen Business School Press. 368 pp.

Bossel, H. 1998. Earth at a crossroads: paths to a sustainable future. Cambridge U.K.: CambridgeUniversity Press. 338 pp.

Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. 1990. Soft systems methodology in action. Chichester U.K.: JohnWiley. 329 pp.

Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., deGroot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S.,O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton. P. and van den Belt, M. 1997. The value of theworld's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253-260.

Glaser, B.G. 1993. Examples of grounded theory: a reader. Mill Valley, California: Sociology Press.521 pp.

Hawken, P., Lovins, A., and Lovins, L.H. 1999. Natural capitalism: creating the next industrialrevolution. Boston: Little, Brown and Co. 396 pp.

Lenzen, M. and Murray, S. 2001. A modified ecological footprint method and its application toAustralia. Ecological Economics 37: 229-255.

Mackenzie, S.H. 1996. Integrated resource planning and management: the ecosystem approach inthe Great Lakes basin. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 243 pp.

Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W. 1995. Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth.Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.

Whyte, W.F. (ed.). 1991. Participatory action research. Newbury Park, California: Sage. 247 pp.

Page 31: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

15

The Natural Step and Natural Capitalism

Andrew GainesECOSTEPS Sustainability Training

Integrated design in agriculture is vitally significant: it is another step to becoming sustainable. Thereare many definitions of sustainability. I like this salty one: sustainability is a way of living that won’tself-destruct.

There are, of course, many ways of living, representing many different values and aspirations. Howcan we tell if something is sustainable or not? One useful way is to apply The Natural Step’s FourSystem Conditions for Sustainability.

The Natural Step was developed by Swedish cancer researcher Karl Henrik Robèrt. He saw too manychildren with cancer coming through his clinic. Their problems weren’t genetic – they wereresponding to poisons in their environment. It wasn’t enough to try and cure them. If we are seriousabout children’s health and well-being, we must protect them from being hurt in the first place. Weshould emphasise prevention. But on what basis? Well, the same conditions that are necessary for thewell-being of the cells in children’s bodies are necessary for the well-being of the rest of life. Thinkingalong these lines led him to a viewpoint that is obvious. If we are going to be sustainable we mustredesign our entire global civilisation so that it operates sustainably.

Robèrt, in conjunction with his scientific colleagues, achieved a succinct expression of the conditionswe must adhere to if we are to be sustainable. These are known as The Four System Conditions forSustainability.

In the sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically increasing…

1. …concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth’s crust

2. …concentrations of substances produced by society

3. …degradation by physical means

and, in that society

4. …human needs are met worldwide.

System Conditions 1 and 2 relate to the build-up of toxins. Ecosystems can handle flows of commonsubstances like iron or aluminium that they have already adapted to, but they can’t handle excessiveflows of uncommon substances like mercury. Similarly there are many man-made compounds thatliving systems can’t handle at all. If we are to be sustainable we will not allow these to build up in theenvironment. Condition 3 points out that if we are to be sustainable we must not destroy nature’sability to renew itself. In other words, if we over-fish to the point where fish can no longer breed, or ifwe drain marshes and swamps so they can no longer work as oxygenators, water cleansers andbreeding grounds, at some point we will have destroyed so much that the ecology will collapse.

The fourth System Condition, linking environmental health to the fair use of resources around theworld, makes sense when we consider, for example, the connection between the North-Southeconomic imbalance and the cutting of rainforests in the Amazon, or the potential for countries to goto war when water or other resources become dangerously limited.

Take together these Four System Conditions form the core of The Natural Step, a framework forredesigning for sustainability.

Page 32: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

16

Considering environmental issues in this way enables us to avoid quantitative arguments such as “howmuch lead is tolerable?”. If some people are highly responsive to lead and others show few symptomsof heavy metal poisoning, what is the acceptable level of lead? Scientists disagree, so some politicallyacceptable number is finally agreed upon, which means that to a degree we settle for living with theproblem. In general, this is not a solution. The people who are highly responsive to environmentaltoxins still get sick, the rest of us get by with lowered vitality, and the damage to other forms of lifecontinues.

We can never resolve the question what is an acceptable level of toxins? But we can resolve a relatedquestion: if we allow toxins to continuously build up in the environment, will they ever reach a pointwhere they are harmful? Of course the answer is yes, not because of logic, but because accumulatingpoisons will indeed eventually have an effect. Once we are clear about this with a given substance wecan stop debating and begin the creative task of eliminating the toxin from our industrial processes andfood supply.

Understanding the Four System Conditions is very valuable. We can look at any object or activitythrough the lens of the Four System Conditions and notice whether it violates one or more of theconditions. If it does, it is not sustainable in the long run.

Protecting the environment – and therefore ourselves – does not mean going back to the Stone Age. Ithink the real key to becoming sustainable is integrated design. An understanding of integrateddesign can be expanded by reading Natural Capitalism.

Natural Capitalism is a truly great book about integrated design. It may be the most important book ofthe 20th century. Why? Because the authors show, through hundreds of qualified examples, in everyfield from agriculture to architecture, and from automobiles to pharmaceutical production, how astuteredesign can reduce energy and water requirements dramatically while increasing productivity, qualityand profits. Yes, profits. It is always important to mention profits because many people are terrifiedthat if they seriously attempt to adjust to care for the environment they will go broke. But this is notthe case – unless you are in the oil business.

How is it that business can expect to profit by adjusting to care for the environment? The key isreducing waste. Both agriculture and industry, in ways that often have not been recognised untilrecently, have been incredibly wasteful. For example, if a farmer uses furrow-and-flood irrigation towater a crop on a fixed schedule, he will inevitable apply water when it is not actually needed and inlocations where it can’t be used. This excess water is wasted – it can be as much as two-thirds of thetotal water use. Monitoring the dampness of soil (and thus only watering when necessary) combinedwith piping that delivers water directly to the roots, saves all of that. And we get follow-on benefitssuch as reduced salination, preventing water wars, and leaving more water for healthy river systems.

Combining The Natural Step principles with ideas about integrated design stimulates creativity. Youidentify both problems and productive opportunities that you never saw before. The Natural Step helpsus get clear about where we want to go. Natural Capitalism helps us devise strategies to get there.

References

Hawken, P., Lovins, A. & Lovins, L.H. (1999). Natural Capitalism: creating the next industrialrevolution. Little, Brown & Co., New York, USA.

Natrass, B., Altomare, M. & Naijrass, B. (1999). The Natural Step for Business: wealth, ecology andthe evolutionary corporation. New Society Publishers, Canada.

Page 33: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

17

Sustainability and integration: a farmer's perspective

Paul ZiebarthChairman, Queensland Fruit and Vegetable Growers

I would like to offer some thoughts on sustainability as a farmer and farm leader whose key job it is tomanage change in agriculture. I'm a specialist vegetable farmer from the Lockyer Valley and myfamily has been there for five generations. We now consider ourselves eco-farmers and our challengeis to develop an ecologically sustainable farming system that will produce and market credible highlyvalued products. We are currently wrestling with the challenges of developing a multi-use watersystem and are asking questions such as: "How can we take waste water and integrate that with a trulyorganic nutrient source, and what are the implications for soil health and water use efficiency?”

From a conventional environmentalist perspective, we horticulturalists are viewed as the ultimateenvironmental vandals because we have totally destroyed the national landscape – we’ve bulldozedalmost every single tree, ripped up the soil and introduced monocultures. However, from a farmer’sperspective we are magnificent. We think we are the ultimate custodians of the land – we look after it,care for it, improve it, and hand it on to the next generation. I think we need to consider carefullywhere we really sit. We need an objective view of sustainability and how to measure it.

The topic of sustainability is receiving a lot of attention, but I would like to add a different dimension.I think we need to look at sustainability as part of a trilogy. In terms of food production, we need toconsider sustainability, reliability and intensity simultaneously. To take an extreme example, hunter-gather systems are the most sustainable. Here, there are no inputs - you go into the forest with a sharpstick, you take what you need, and you don’t leave your footprints. But the problem for Australia isthat our land could only support 500,000 people as hunter-gathers: our population of about 19 millionwould be clearly unsustainable. From a production perspective, the nearest thing to a sustainableproduction system is cattle hunting in the northern territory. Here, you hunt cattle once a year, takewhat you want and let the rest go. There are very few inputs and the animals look after themselves.It’s a very low intensity system. However, this system is not very reliable. Because there are noinputs, there is no control. If it doesn’t rain, the cattle die. Reliable food production systems capableof feeding large populations require that you add inputs and raise intensity, which can create all sortsof challenges for sustainability.

So in the future we shall need to create types of sustainable systems other than low input, lowintensity, low productivity farming. One can argue about numbers and time-frames, but the essentialpoint is that by the year 2040 our population is going to peak at about 8.5 billion people. In order tofeed those people we are going to have to treble the amount of food that the world produces from itscurrent agricultural land. Given that we have got as much as we can from out of improvementtechniques such as conventional plant breeding, high yield fertilisers and plant protection, we have amajor challenge on our hands.

Science has been honoured with preventing massive third world famine, but its role in protecting theenvironment hasn’t been recognised at all. If agriculture had not trebled yields in the last forty years,we would have ploughed down 10-12 million square miles of wilderness to support low yieldingagricultural production systems, with disastrous results in terms of salinisation, erosion etc. Toreiterate, sustainability, reliability and intensity must be considered together.The horticultural industry in Queensland includes 3,500 enterprises that turn over a billion dollars.We grow 140 different commodities. Nationally horticulture is worth 5.5 billion dollars. In this Statewe have 25,000 jobs directly on farms plus a flow-on factor of 5 to 1 in the wider community. Andwe do all of this in Queensland on 3% of the main irrigated agricultural land. All of the horticulturalland in Australia would fit quite comfortably fit into the Australian Capital Territory. So the footprintthat horticulture leaves on Australia is very small.

Page 34: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

18

There is a common perception that agriculturists are still in the Dark Ages and not sympathetic tosustainable development. As I noted above, we are often perceived as environmental vandals.However, I think we’re a lot better than that. For example, two years ago fruit and vegetable growersdeveloped a Farm Care Code of Practice, which has been recognised as the best code of environmentalpractice in the country and has even gained some credibility internationally. And more recently wehave established a strategic link with the Environment Protection Authority so as to integrate soundfarming practices with sound environmental practices. Several of our farmers now carry outenvironmental life cycle assessments and the fruit and vegetable industry is a partner in theGreenhouse Challenge. Approximately 140 farmers are moving to develop environmentalmanagement systems and several of them are working towards ISO 14000 accreditation.

The challenge for industry is that we really have to drive the agenda in terms of our relationship withthe environment. If we don’t, then somebody will do it for us because society in general is becomingvery environmentally aware. For example, at present there are big environmental debates over issuesuch as tree clearing, water management, the National Heritage Trust and use of the Great BarrierReef. Our problem is that farmers are responsible for about 86% of the land mass but represent onlyabout 3% of the voting population. That creates a real dilemma because non-rural people, who have anoverwhelming influence on policy formation, have largely lost contact with the country. Several yearsago most people had at least one relative that lived in rural Australia. We don’t have that any more.And because we are a very affluent country, we can afford to be fussy. Consumers are sending mixedmessages about what they really want: while they are often fussy about the environment they are alsomotivated by self-interest. They want a clean environment but may not be prepared to pay much for it.

Part of the challenge for agriculture is to develop new technologies to replace some of the old onesthat we don’t want. As we proceed we have to be environmentally aware and serious aboutmaintaining environmental standards. For example, while I have the utmost respect for organicgrowers, motivated as they often are by very high ideals and values, there are some that still do littlefor the environmental cause - while they focus on the non-use of certain chemicals they may mine thesoil, burn carbon fuel, and ignore biodiversity and water use efficiency.

A lot of our sustainability problems derive from the fact that we have totally inappropriate land uses.We are growing and raising organisms that are unsuited to the Australian environment. Why don’t welook more closely at animals that evolved here, and farm them? I realise that Australians have aproblem with eating their national emblem - we'd rather eat a cow than a kangaroo. But cowsoriginally had to be domesticated, so why don't we domesticate our native animals? Instead of tryingto use unsustainable systems to grow cattle and sheep, why don't we redefine our approach tofarming? Why can’t a farmer make a living selling black cockatoos raised in a 2,500 hectare aviary?

Finally, we talk about integrated farming systems but we don’t do integrated research. Research iscurrently based on reductionist science. We reduce a problem or situation into its basic parts. Weresearch that and do good work, develop good technology, but the mistake we make is that we don’tput it back together again. We don’t build the system. And we have a really dysfunctional extensionsystem that sprays 40 bits of unintegrated technology and knowledge at a new farmer who is trying todevelop an environmentally friendly production system.

We expend a lot of money, effort and skill on making scientific advances, but the application andadoption of those findings is dreadful. So the researchers wonder why farmers aren't using their workand the farmers don't realise what has been done. How do we capture the good science and the rightresearch, but build them into systems that people can actually use and adopt? If we don't solve thisproblem, in another ten years we may still be focussing on isolated opportunities for sustainabledevelopment and as an industry we won't have advanced very far at all.

Page 35: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

19

Integrated systems and rural community development:possibilities for partnership.

Ingrid BurkettUniversity of Queensland

Introduction

This paper examines how concepts embedded in the practice and theory of integrated biosystems canbe effectively aligned with the principles and practices of community development. It is argued thatthere is great potential for strengthening links between biophysical sciences and social sciences inrelation to system integration, such that innovative approaches to building sustainable ruralcommunities can be developed. The development of linkages between integrated biosystems andcommunity development could contribute to addressing future problems and potentials of ruralcommunities in ways which “make…islands of success more widespread” (Pretty et al., 1995).

Both locally and internationally rural communities currently exist in an environment that ischaracterised by economic, social, ecological and political pressures. In Australia questions arerepeatedly and increasingly frequently being asked about how we address the challenges of ‘the bush’and create viable rural landscapes. Globalisation, trade liberalisation, rural-urban migration, regionalunemployment and environmental degradation are signaling the need for integrated approaches toaddress the increasingly difficult development challenges faced by rural communities. This papersuggests that ‘system integration’ could provide a macro framework for developing such approaches.

In development practice and social science theory, frameworks of rural development which emphasisesystemic or integrative methods of analysis and action are not new, although they are being revived in‘new’ forms. Historically, notions of Integrated Rural Development (IRD) emerged in the 1970s,when development policies (mostly in what was then known as the ‘third world’) sought to integratean increase in agricultural production with improved health, education, sanitation and other socialservices in rural areas. These approaches were heavily critiqued – not because they were deemed to befounded on incorrect principles, but because the practices which were used to implement them were‘top-down’, economically unsustainable, and did not take account of differences between localcommunity's needs and contexts. In short what was missing from these approaches was recognition ofwhat Robert Chambers (1997) refers to as the “LCDDU” principle of rural development – that it is“Local, Complex, Diverse, Dynamic and Unpredictable”. Recently, IRD has once again emerged asrepresenting a framework for exploring approaches to sustainable development of rural communities,often with a focus of “stimulating economic regeneration within peripheral rural regions” through“bringing together interrelated problems and resources” (Day, 1998). These approaches haveemphasised the connections between such sectors as agriculture, forestry, local industry, wastemanagement, social services, education and tourism, such that the interconnections between thepressures facing rural communities can be explored and addressed. What is recognised incommentaries about this ‘new’ IRD is the need for further exploration of how connections betweenthese different sectors can contribute in real ways to sustainability and increased self-sufficiency ofrural communities.

After drawing links between the underlying principles of integrated biosystems (IBS) and communitydevelopment (CD), this paper examines three case studies which demonstrate how IBS and CD caneffectively be aligned in practice, and together, contribute to an IRD approach which is not onlyconsistent with Chamber’s (1997) “LCDDU” principles, but which could effectively contribute tobuilding environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable rural communities.

Page 36: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

20

A principled linkage: connecting integrated biosystems with community development

At the level of principles, there are a number of interesting links between integrated biosystems andcommunity development.

! Both focus on how reliance on high inputs of external resources – whether that be biologicalresources or social resources – can make systems inefficient, ineffective, dependent andultimately, unsustainable.

! Like integrated biosystem approaches which seek to focus on “site specific management systemsfor whole farms” (Pretty, 1998), community development seeks to focus on the unique localcontexts in which communities exist, and to develop the “total human condition of rural places”(Keane, in Day, 1998);

! Both can take time to bring about improved ‘yields’ – whether these be crop yields or ‘socialyields’ such as increased social capital or ‘healthy’ local social institutions;

! Both challenge current dominant models – in the case of integrated biosystems the challenges arerelated to dominant models of industrial agriculture which focus on high-input systems; and in thecase of community development, the challenges are related to dominant models of developmentwhich focus on external solutions for local community issues;

! Integrated agriculture has been falsely accused of advocating a return to “low technology,‘backward’ or ‘traditional’ agricultural practices” (Pretty, 1995), which would not generateenough food to feed to world’s growing population; community development has been falselyaccused of seeking a return to a nostalgic vision of village life that never was, and of therebyadvocating a stance to development which is anti-growth and anti-technology (Burkett, 2000).

Just as the use of integrated biosystem approaches to food production and waste management cancontribute to more sustainable agricultural systems, I would contend that the use of communitydevelopment approaches to rural development could underpin the development of more sustainableand stronger local economies and communities. Table One illustrates the alignment of communitydevelopment with integrated, sustainable agriculture at the level of principles.

In order to demonstrate, through the use of case studies, how community development can be linkedwith integrated biosystems to foster practices of integrated rural development, it is necessary toexplore a little further what CD actually is, and how CD workers approach rural development.

Page 37: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

21

Table One. Comparing the principles of integrated, sustainable agriculture and community development

Principles of Integrated, Sustainable Agriculture (source, Shepherd, 1998;43-46)

Principles of Sustainable Community Development

1. Search for effective, productive andeconomic low external input systems,characterised by internal recycling of energyand nutrients and a high degree of self-sufficiency by comparison with industrialfarming.

2. Greater involvement of farmers in design andimplementation of integrated farmingsystems and the valuing of indigenousknowledge about agriculture and naturalresource management. Rejection ofcompartmentalised scientific research andpreference for holistically derivedknowledge, linking academics andpractitioners, scientists and farmers. Aprocess of social learning rather thanapplying prescribed practices.

3. Conservation of resources and enhancementof bio-diversity is an integral component offarming systems, rather than being atechnically driven bolt-on activity.

1. Focus on creation of effective and productive, lowexternal input social systems and institutions.Emphasis on cooperation, re-use and re-cycling ofhuman energy, efficient use of human resourcesthrough creation of effective social structures tosupport development of high level of self-sufficiency,whether that relates to financial sustainability (eg.development of community-based banking), foodproduction (eg. development of regionally-reliantfood systems), or social support structures (eg.structures which sustain individual and communitywell-being).

2. Community members become planners, implementorsand evaluators of development processes. Emphasison partnerships and co-development, and valuing oflocal, indigenous knowledge systems and indigenoussocial sytems/institutions. Emphasis on integrated,holistic knowledge systems – the local people are thedevelopment experts. A process of social learningrather than applying prescribed practices.

3. Efforts at enhancement of social and cultural diversitywithin social structures and institutions – enhancingparticipation of women, marginalised people andgroups, and ensuring that a broad range of peopleparticipate in and support the systems. Ensuring thathuman resources are also conserved – such that thework and effort is evenly spread amongst communitymembers rather than located with a limited number ofindividuals – makes the system more effective andsustainable.

Community Development and Endogenous Development

Community development (CD) is based on the principles of ‘endogenous development’, that is, the:“priority is to look, first, at what natural and social resources are available in rural areas – agriculture,

people, natural resources and wildlife – and then to ask: can anything be done differently that results inthe more productive use of these available resources without causing damage to natural and socialcapital?” (Pretty, 1998)

Or, in other words, that: “the well-being of a local economy (at any sub-national scale, from a region down to a village and its

hinterland) can best be animated by basing development action on the resources – physical, human andintangible that are indigenous to that locality” (Ray, 1999)

The dominant models used to address rural development are not based on endogenous developmentprinciples or practices. Rather, they are based on exogenous development approaches – approachespremised on the notion that the key to enhancing rural development is to maximise external inputssuch as government funding, mobile capital (ie. attracting business and industry), and human capital(ie. attracting tourists and ‘migrants’ to regional areas). Such approaches see the role of agriculture inrural economic development as decreasing, and therefore suggest that there is an increasing need to

Page 38: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

22

invest in alternatives to agriculture in rural sectors. The result is that local authorities offer incentivesfor industries and businesses to relocate; encourage the development of tourism in regional areas; andlobby national governments for increased funding for large infrastructure projects. Certainly, this hasresulted in short-term gains for many rural communities in Australia and elsewhere, but as Table Twohighlights, this has not been without its problems. The two major issues are: it is usually already more‘prosperous’ communities who gain most benefits from exogenous development; and that reliance onhigh levels of external input (especially in terms of finances and attraction of industry) results independency, instability, and ultimately, lack of sustainability. The corollary of these difficulties is thatexogenous development is most problematic for marginalised communities (those communities whichare non-coastal, remote, inaccessible, in more difficult environments and with sparse populations)which are already most disadvantaged in terms of service provision and ‘attractiveness’ for businessdevelopment.

Compounding this problematic feature of exogenous development is the fact that in such models,‘experts’ from outside the actual communities are often the drivers of the processes that are imposedon communities to ‘improve’ their economic and social well being. This leads to two negativeconsequences; first, that often the unique characteristics of particular localities (in terms ofenvironments, demographics, cultures, and existing social infrastructures) are not taken intoconsideration and what occurs is a mono-solution to what is interpreted as ‘the rural problem’.Secondly, such processes can actually exacerbate the disadvantages of more peripheral rural areas,increasing the likelihood that they become (or remain) “poor, depopulated, disorganised, dependent,marginal and apathetic” (Bassand, in Day, 1998).

Page 39: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

23

Table Two. Exogenous and Endogenous Development Approaches – A Comparison

Exogenous Development Endogenous Development

Aim: “attract external capital, technologies orinstitutions into rural areas in order to promotechange” (Pretty, 1998)

Development processes centred on maximisingexternal investments and capital. Local areasshould focus on attracting external investments inthe form of capital investment and governmentfunding.

Development processes seek to modernise regionssuch that they can attract maximum externalcapital investment. Emphasis on external fundingto improve infrastructure and provision ofservices in rural communities. Seeking externalsolutions to internal problems: “..we are waitingfor the government to solve our problems; weneed a change in exchange or interest rates to giveus more money” (Pretty, 1998).

Advantages: may result in higher social ‘yields’in the short term – eg. sudden rises inemployment levels when a new industry movesinto town;Have brought advantages to infrastructure ofmany rural communities.

Problems: Hidden costs of the advantages areoften not readily acknowledged;Reliant on external, specialist and expertinterpretation of local issues, which are oftendifferent from internal interpretation of issues –ie. negation of local knowledge;High external inputs are generally capitalintensive – expensive to initiate and maintain andoften remain dependent on ongoing externalcapital support;First movers benefit, ie. already ‘prosperous’ ruralcommunities are likely to reap further benefits,marginal, poorer communities are less likely tobenefit;competition between localities often createsparochial divisions; businesses gain benefits oftenat the cost of local communities;Dependency of local communities on externalforces and institutions – now particularly evidentin terms of globalisation; Decreased capacity oflocal communities to cope with environmentaland economic changesDecline of social capital and local institutions forsocial capacity building. Encourage mono-solutions: one solution fits allrural communities – denies the diversity withinsystems.

Aim: “…to look, first, at what natural and socialresources are available in rural areas…and then to ask:can anything be done differently that results in themore productive use of these available resourceswithout causing damage to natural and social capital”(Pretty, 1998)

Development processes should maximise creative useof existing internal community resources and minimisereliance on external resources. Focus on building self-reliance.

Development processes centred on local resources:physical, human and intangible – creation ofemployment opportunities ‘from within’, using locallyowned / managed resources.Participation of local people in development processesis key to success. Other key elements – cooperation,education and awareness raising.

Advantages: Development of higher social ‘yields’can be highly effective, efficient and sustainable;Encourage diverse, locally developed solutions toissues and problems;Builds on existing local social organisations andsystems;Linkages between different systems within thecommunity are emphasised;Reduction of external resource inputs: more efficient inthe long term.

Problems: advances in development can remainlocalised and small-scale;Higher ‘social yields’ may take a long time;Can be co-opted and become a justification forwithdrawal of external resources; “In a time ofeconomic crisis for many rural communities it is easyto…see the talk of ‘empowerment’, ‘community-basedapproaches’ and ‘bottom-up’ as hollow, a clever meansfor the state to shift responsibility for land degradationto a community level without allocating commensurateresources” (Campbell, 1996).Requires more complex locally specific analysis ofissues – but this has also been shown to generate moreeffective, locally owned and sustainable solutions toproblems and issues.

Page 40: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

24

Integrated, endogenous development

As explored above, endogenous development represents an approach to development that emphasisesthe importance of localised, participatory analyses and actions. What is also important in endogenousapproaches to development is that such development is integrated – that is, that approaches todevelopment seek to integrate all elements of rural communities rather than focussing only orsingularly on one dimension – as is illustrated in the figure below.

Figure One. Integrated rural development methodologies are complex and cross-disciplinaryboundaries.

Addressing the complexity of rural development demands methods of development practice whichseek to be multidisciplinary and cross-disciplinary and which emphasise a complex and integratedapproach to rural development. This, in itself, is somewhat countercultural – as Chambers (1983;41)highlighted almost two decades ago (though he also reiterated this in a more recent book – Chambers,1993):

“Disciplinary academics and practicing professionals meet, listen to and argue with those of similarbackgrounds. A soils scientist finds his (sic) fellows among other soils scientists, or physical or perhapsbiological scientists, but scarcely among sociologists; a political scientist meets and discusses withother political scientists, or other social scientists, but scarcely with research agronomists. It is notstrange that there should be little overlap in their views of the problems of rural development. All havebeen conditioned to focus on a few aspects to the implicit exclusion of others; and members of eachspecialised group reinforce each others’ narrow vision”

Though there have, since this time, been efforts at incorporating more complex analyses intoapproaches to rural development (through, for example, stakeholder analyses, Farming SystemsDevelopment (FSD) and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) (see Shepherd, 1998; Chambers, 1995)),such efforts still tend to be rather limited in terms of actual cross-disciplinary interest, andconsequently, there “is still plenty of scope for further holistic methodological development”(Shepherd, 1998).

CulturalEnvironment

NaturalResources

Agriculture

Business andIndustry

Politicalinfrastructure

Socialinfrastructure

Page 41: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

25

Further, genuinely interdisciplinary analyses and approaches are still not orthodox practice. Thereremains a tendency to ‘bolt on’ perspectives of other disciplines rather than engage in genuinelymultidisciplinary work in rural development. As a social scientist interested in inter-disciplinary ruraldevelopment practice, I have encountered difficulties from without and with-in my disciplinary area.From outside my discipline area I have encountered some interactions which demonstrate that it isoften (though not always) still the case, as Chambers (1993) argues, that “the ‘harder’ professions setthe style and the main agenda”, and that “the professions concerned with people tend to come later”,and their ‘value’ is questioned –

“they are rather a nuisance. Their contributions often appear negative. They often explain why thingsshould not be done, or should be done more slowly. They raise objections and slow downdisbursements and implementation”.

From within social science, if it is accepted that interest in rural development practice is a validacademic pursuit (which is not always the case – see Lawrence, 1996;xiii) then there is an implicitexpectation that the interest will centre on the social dimensions of rural development, rather thanbeing focussed on the pursuit of integrated, interdisciplinary analyses and action. In other words, it isthe case in social science too that “normal is narrow” and that “professions are inbred and lookinwards” (Chambers, 1993). It is probably not surprising then that, as Röling (1996) argues:

“…despite the urgency of the problem, the development of an operational social science to complementtechnical disciplines is comparatively slow. Complex problems require multiple perspectives…Currentapproaches are dominated by technical and economic perspectives but lack an effective complementarysocial perspective”.

Despite the barriers to engaging in multi- and inter- disciplinary work on integrated approaches torural development, there is a growing body of literature which is seeking to do just this – both inAustralia and internationally. This is emerging from both a sociological perspective (see for example,Vanclay and Lawrence, 1995; Campbell, 1996; Lawrence, Vanclay and Furze, 1992), and from anagricultural/bioscience perspective. Indeed there have recently been some very fine attempts tointegrate dimensions of sustainability in rural areas – such as Pretty’s (1998) integration of sustainableagriculture, localised food systems and rural community development (see also, Rodriguez et al.,1998). It is clear from these analyses that the development of ‘sustainable agriculture’ is not enoughin itself to create stronger local rural economies and communities. What is required is not only theintegration of agriculture, aquaculture, food processing, water use and fuel generation, but anintegrative and wholistic approach to rural development which links sustainable agriculturaldevelopment, with economic development and social development. As Rosset (2000) argues:

“…sustainable land use should be an opportunity to improve the quality of the environment, including itsphysical (increased soil fertility, better quality air and water), biological (healthier and more diverseanimal, plant, and human populations), and social, economic and institutional (greater social equity,cohesion, peace/stability, well-being) components”.

In effect, what is required is the development of integrated bio-social-systems approaches to ruraldevelopment – the linking of sustainable agriculture with sustainable economic and communitydevelopment.

In the second part of this paper then, I examine three case studies in which such integrated approacheshave been adopted. They all centre on the use of integrated approaches to food production or wastemanagement, but my focus will not be on the technical aspects of these systems. Rather, I willillustrate how principles of integrated, endogenous development have been utilised to link suchapproaches to broader community development processes – in effect, how integrated biosystems canbe become part of the development of stronger local communities. Each of the case studies focuses ona particular aspect of developing a more wholistic, integrated approach to rural development. I havehad some direct involvement either with the work or the NGOs involved in two of these case studies(cases one and three), and learnt of the third one through my involvement with the NGO who

Page 42: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

26

coordinated the work. I present them, not as definitive case studies which demonstrate ‘answers’, butas examples of how integrated food production and waste systems can become part of endogenousdevelopment processes which aim to build sustainable local communities.

How technical capacity building can contribute to building social capacity: using a communitydevelopment approach in the construction of an integrated waste-management system.

All around the world it is currently very fashionable to speak of encouraging ‘local participation’ ofpeople in rural development, whether that be in terms of technical projects or social developmentprograms (see for example, Burkey, 1993; Haverkort et al., 1991; Oakley et al., 1991). Yet in manyrural development projects “participation has remained at a very idealistic and ideological level”(Shepherd, 1998), and as a consequence, actual participation of stakeholders – particularlymarginalised members of communities – has often remained a feature of report rhetoric rather thanbeing a lived reality. Ensuring actual participation of people in development processes is difficult yetimportant – as Campbell (1996) highlights:

“Involving the community can be time-consuming and frustrating, and it is scary for people, who are notnaturally disposed to dealing with people and/or have not had relevant training. … Seen through theprism of technocratic institutional cultures, involving a range of stakeholders in an ill-defined, open-ended facilitation process is tedious, its outcomes are often intangible and its cost/benefits debatable.But the complexities of developing new ways of using the land which meet environmental, social andeconomic objectives mean that genuine stakeholder participation in generating, using and exchangingknowledge, in decision-making, and in resource use negotiation, simply cannot be side-stepped orfudged” (Campbell, 1996).

Further, it is clear that interactive participation, where people participate in all stages of thedevelopment process, from planning to action and reflection (Pretty, 1998) actually results in greatereffectiveness and higher levels of sustainability (see particularly Narayan, 1993). The first case studythat I wish to present takes the inclusion of participation to a new level. The participation of people ina water-supply and integrated waste management project in this example actually constituted aprimary goal of the project. Projected outcomes for the whole community go a long way beyondparticipation in the technical aspects of designing and building the water supply and sanitation system.

Case Study I: Water-supply and integrated waste management project in East Timor

This situation involves an indigenous East Timorese NGO working with a remote hamlet inmountainous country whose residents had identified problems accessing safe water supplies anddisposing safely of their waste, with the result that the health of villagers was low and infant mortalitymuch higher than surrounding areas. Furthermore, the poor soils in the area meant that foodproduction was limited – particularly given the unavailability of fertilizers due to cost and politicalbarriers. Long-term consultation with the community has resulted in plans to build locallymaintainable water supply infrastructure and composting toilets which will eventually provide somecompost material for use in agriculture. The NGO has been working with the community for a periodof three years, and the project is continuing.

What was particularly interesting in this project was the way in which the technical dimensions ofbuilding the water supply and waste-management system was integrated with social capacity buildingdimensions of rural community development. Although the project received external funding for thecost of non-locally available materials such as concrete, pipes and sand, most other materials werelocally produced. All labour required for the development of the systems was locally supplied fromresidents of the hamlet – both men and women were involved, and children and young people attendedand participated in training and maintenance workshops. The system was designed, implemented andmaintained by the local people in conjunction with the community worker from the NGO.

Page 43: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

27

Interestingly, for the first 18months of the project no technical work was begun. It was the policy ofthe NGO that no technical works begin until the social foundations had been laid which would ensurethe sustainability of any infrastructure that was eventually built. A worker was based permanently inthe hamlet during this period, and his work focused on building the social capacity and socialinstitutions necessary for the villagers to be involved in designing, implementing and maintaining awater supply and waste-management system.

This involved a number of stages of work. First, it involved an analysis of the existing local socialsystems and local institutions of village management. Secondly, it involved linking with thesesystems and institutions in such a way that the social fabric of the community would not be radicallyaltered – ie. that the project would enhance rather than replace existing social infrastructure – whilst atthe same time identifying and integrating groups marginalised within this traditional fabric (eg.women, poorest people). Thirdly, it involved working with the villagers to build upon these systemsand institutions in such a way that they could engage in the design, implementation and maintenanceof the physical infrastructure. This involved particularly residents organising management structureswhich could support the physical infrastructure – such as user groups, maintenance rosters, traininggroups, working bees and so on.

Finally, it involved working with the villagers to identify local sources of materials for the building ofthe systems, local knowledge which would enhance the design of the system, and local wisdom aboutthe nature of natural systems (such as conditions in the wet season) which could enhance thesustainability of the system over time.

Due to the impact of the crisis which engulfed East Timor after the vote for independence, this processwas severely interrupted and is only now beginning to be re-established. It is too early to evaluateexactly how effective the process has been, but there are a number of elements which have alreadybeen identified by members of the community and NGO workers as representing important‘achievements’ or ‘outcomes’:

1. Villagers have participated in and managed initial phases of the technical work, including buildingcontaining structures to channel water from the source to piping infrastructure; identifying andagreeing upon sites for building water access tanks and composting toilets; and sourcing localrenewable materials for the building of water cleansing systems.

2. Villagers have used the enhanced social institutions developed over the course of the socialcapacity building phase of the project to initiate other projects and programs concerning theirvillage, thus indicating the transferability of social capacity to other dimensions of ruraldevelopment within contexts;

3. Village leaders have shared their learnings from the project with networks beyond the one hamletinvolved in the particular project – creating possibilities for broader sharing of ‘results’.

This case study illustrates how the integration of technical and social capacity building can strengthennot only the results obtained within a defined project, or within one dimension of rural development,but can enhance rural development in a whole village system.

Integrating realms of development: an integrated rural development project in Thailand

A number of commentators have recently highlighted the indirect social and economic benefits whichcan be gained from sustainable land use and agriculture – for example, Campbell (1996) argues thatthough Landcare began with a focus on land degradation issues:

“Landcare groups tend to broaden their concerns, initially from a sole land degradation issue (say salinity)to a range of degradation issues, then to a more positive focus on developing a more sustainable

Page 44: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

28

farming system, which then leads to the integration of social and economic concerns into groupactivities”.

Pretty (1995) also highlights how sustainable, integrated agriculture can have broader benefits:

“There is less need for expansion into non-agricultural area, so ensuring that valuable wild plant andanimal species are not lost. There is reduced contamination and pollution of the environment, soreducing the costs incurred by farming households, consumers of food and national economies as awhole. There is less likelihood of the breakdown of rural culture. There is local regeneration, oftenwith the reversal of migration patterns as the demand for labour grows within communities. And,psychologically, there is a greater sense of hopefulness towards the future”.

The second case study demonstrates how an integrated agriculture-aquaculture system not onlycontributed benefits to social, economic and environmental development in a particular group ofvillages in rural Thailand, but actually resulted from a complex, integrated analysis by the villagers ofwhat factors were influencing the environmental, social and economic issues they were confronting.What is illustrated in this case study is, in effect, how an integrated biosystem can be one part of amuch larger, integrated rural development process.

Case Study II: Integrated Agriculture-Aquaculture Project in rural Thailand

This project was implemented through a partnership between a community-based organisation inNorthern Thailand, and an Australian development NGO. The project centred on a number of villagesin a catchment area surrounded by forest that was being illegally logged by both villagers and externalcorporations, resulting in deforestation, increased erosion and exacerbation of drought conditions inthe area. There was also a range of social issues effecting the villages – including high rates of rural-urban migration amongst the younger population, increasing income disparities amongst villagers andresultant breakdowns in community cohesion. The project began when some of the villagersassociated with a small community-based organisation involved in sustainable agriculture, identifiedthe relationship between their decreasing agricultural yields and the degradation of the land caused bythe illegal logging operations in the forests around the villages. And then continued to map theinterconnections between various factors influencing the life of their villages. Figure One illustratesthe mapped out interconnections between the issues facing the villages.

Page 45: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

29

Figure One. Complex of Issues and Problems in villages in Northern Thailand

Extra income for villagersparticipating in logging

Extensive logging- primarily illegal

Silting and watercontamination

Deforestation

Severe droughtand erosion

Decreased yieldsDecreased income

Increasedmalnutrition

Increased borrowingIncreased debt

Employed people send home large amounts money

Increased rural-urbanmigration - particularly

of youth

Increased exposureto AIDS

Increasing economicinequalities

Increased social division& decreased community

cohesion

Page 46: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

30

Figure Two illustrates how action concerning this dimension of the problems surrounding the villagesled not only to the development of an integrated agriculture-aquaculture project, but also to a varietyof initiatives aimed at addressing the complex environmental, social and economic concerns of thevillages.

Figure Two. Complex Intervention: Toward endogenous integrated rural development

Development ofalternative

employment forvillagers in illegal

logging Link with other forestgroups in province –lobbying governmentfor increased forest

protection

Establishment of COto address conservationissues – forest andagriculture

Farmers realiserelationship between

deforestation,drought, erosion and

decreased yield

Establishment of integratedagriculture-acquaculture

system – villager designed anddeveloped (rice-fish)

Participatoryaction researchto establish extentof damage

Reforestation project

Increasedincome,Increasedavailability offood.

Establishment ofsavings group

and microcreditinitiatives

Increased localopportunities for

young peopleInvestment in

socialdevelopmentprojects – eg.AIDS support

centre;employment

initiatives

? Possibility ofreducing rural-

urban migration

? Possibilityof reducing

rates ofAIDS

contraction

Page 47: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

31

Integrating Rural and Urban Development: Integrated Farming and Community SupportedAgriculture

A concerning aspect of rural development in Australia is the increasing tensions between ‘bush’ and‘city’ – a divide which led one government minister to comment recently that Australia is nowcomprised of two separate societies, one urban, the other, rural. Media portrayals of the situation inrural Australia often fuels this divide, with environmental degradation increasingly ‘blamed’ on ruralareas, and the depiction of rural social problems as draining government funds. What is often missedin analyses about the problems of rural communities, is the interconnections between rural and urbandevelopment. Indeed, one could go so far as to say that people in urban communities actually need toengage in a great deal of learning about how their consumption habits and unsustainable resource useis integrally linked to pressures on rural environments and communities. This is particularly the casegiven what Falvey (1998) sees as the:

“increasing separation of urban population from food production which worldwide has reducedknowledge of food production while increasing concern for environmental care”.

Integrated approaches to sustainable rural development thus need not only to integrate processes at thelocal rural level, but also to integrate analysis and practice across urban and rural contexts. In terms ofagricultural sustainability, this implies that:

“Sustainability ought to mean…more than just agricultural activities that are environmentally neutralor positive; it implies the capacity for activities to spread beyond the project in both space and time”(Rodriguez et al., 1998)

The final case study I wish to present centres on an attempt to integrate an urban-rural analysis of theenvironmental, economic and social impacts of modern industrial food production which is, accordingto some commentators now a “truly global food system” focussing on “distance and durability” as keyfeatures of food products (Lezberg and Kloppenburg, 1996). It illustrates a model of cooperationbetween farmers and consumers which originated in Japan and Europe, and which is now increasinglypopular in the United States, and is emerging (though in different forms) in parts of Australia.“Community Supported Agriculture” is the generic name given to a diversity of such initiatives whichprovide a forum for enacting the belief that “in the arena of food production and processing, farmersand consumers need to collectively determine appropriate production techniques” that areenvironmentally and economically sustainable, and which enhance social relationships both betweenfarmers and consumers, and amongst consumers (Lezberg and Kloppenburg, 1996). The practiceswhich have emerged from such forums are varied, ranging from direct farmer-consumer marketingand farmers markets; subscription farming; development of farming cooperatives or collective farmmanagement (such as those initiated by David Brunckhorst around the New England region of NSW);and farmer-consumer cooperatives which aim to link consumers in various ways directly with farmers(such as the example provided below) (for examples see, Pretty, 1998; Greer, 1999). There is plentyof scope for the development of such initiatives in Australia, though they must evolve out of theparticular conditions facing rural communities and farmers in Australia, rather than be developed as acopy of overseas examples where more densely populated rural areas and smaller distances are thenorm.

Page 48: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

32

Case Study III: An Urban Initiative to Support Integrated Food Production

This action learning project grew out of a learning circle initiated by an urban-based developmenteducation NGO in Brisbane. The learning circle focussed on developing understandings of howsustainability, poverty and technology were linked – it was a program focussed on a collection ofreadings, videos and sets of suggested discussion questions. The group involved twelve people whopreviously did not know each other, and who met over a period of ten weeks to engage in thediscussions and learnings. After the completion of the set program, the members of the learning circledecided to keep meeting to discuss the possibilities of engaging in actions concerning what had beenlearnt during the course of the ten weeks. One of the major modules of the readings had focussed onfood production, and this was chosen as the area around which the group would focus it’s first action.The group members were predominantly low-income people (a high number of students andunemployed people); ranged in age from 22 to 58; lived in inner suburbs of Brisbane; and the grouphad a fairly even gender balance. They identified the following concerns about food production andconsumption within their own lives:

! A disconnection from the food they bought, and an increasing concern regarding its safety andnutritional value;

! An interest in purchasing organic food, but difficulties enacting this because of the extra expenseof organic food purchased at specified organic produce stores, or in supermarkets;

! A concern regarding the dominance of major supermarket chains in the sale of food, and a desireto initiate community-based food distribution operations which de-commodified food andenhanced social relationships between people.

As a result of these concerns, the group formed a food cooperative, and initially purchased organicfood (fruit and vegetables, eggs, nuts, grains, dried products and organic cleaners) in bulk from adistributor. The group then met once a week to distribute the food and products amongst themselves(following a communal meal). Although the group increased in size during the period when this wasthe model which the group adopted (to a group of twenty people), a number of difficulties aroseconcerning this chosen model:

! There was a growing recognition of the fact that much of the organic produce was grown at largedistances from Brisbane, and a concern by group members that sustainable food production shouldalso mean ‘local’ food production;

! That distributors were still making large profits from the produce sold, and that group memberswere concerned at what was considered an unfair distribution of income between distributors andactual growers;

! There was also a concern that the members of the group still did not really have a ‘connection’ tothe food, as the growers and producers were still anonymous in the process and therefore, themembers were still not convinced that they were supporting sustainable, organic and integratedproduction.

Because of these concerns, the group decided to initiate a direct relationship with an organic groweron the outskirts of Brisbane, who agreed to provide a range of organic vegetables and fruits to thegroup in exchange for a guarantee that the members would pay the same rate as was being paid for theproduce at the market (ie. the farmer would benefit from an increased income because there were nodistributors involved). The group negotiated with the farmer as to what could be grown in differentseasons, and what crops could be effectively companion planted to enhance yields and reduce inputs.The group also developed a roster through which each member of the group would collect the produceat least once every six months, spending the day with the farmer to harvest the produce.

Page 49: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

33

Although the group disbanded after six months of this relationship beginning (due to the urban-ruralmigration of five of the most prominent members(!!); and financial hardships experienced by thegrower involved), there were many learnings from the process. Most importantly, the members of thegroup have maintained an interest in the links between urban living and rural development, and theinterconnectedness of urban and rural sustainability. A number of the members have gone on to formother food cooperatives based on the principles of community supported agriculture and permaculture,and continue to be involved in exploring possibilities for sustainable and socially integrated foodproduction and consumption.

Conclusion:Two core ideas lie at the heart of what I have presented in this paper:

1. That, at the level of principles, there are commonalities of approach between integrated systemsmethodologies and community development methodologies;

2. That these principles could form the basis of ‘new’ integrated rural development methodologiesthat see sustainability as having biological, social, economic and political dimensions.

Three case studies illustrated different dimensions of how the two methods (IBS and CD) could beused in such integrated rural development processes.

In conclusion I wish to draw attention to a number of broad learnings from the three case studies andthe preceding discussions concerning endogenous development processes, and link them withliterature concerning both IBS and rural CD. In addition, I would like to signal some areas whichrequire both further attention, and further exploration such that effective, integrated bio-social systemscan be developed.

Each of the case studies illustrated the social context of an implemented integrated biosystem, anddemonstrated the interconnections between such systems and their broader social and economicfunctions in communities. A number of conclusions can be drawn from these illustrations:

! Focus on integrating the social and technical dimensions of sustainability can improve not only thesustainability and long-term viability of individual projects, but can actually contribute to thecreation of “enhanced social mechanisms for building resilience” (Folke et al., in Coop andBrunckhorst, 1999) thereby developing stronger local economies and communities.

! There is a need to further explore how certain kinds of social relationships are embedded in oursystems of resource use and management, and thereby recognise that: “when people change theway they use their resources – land, water, plants, and animals – they are liable to alter their socialrelationships as well” (Gabriel, 1991). Thus, a change in resource use which emphasises theimportance of integrated systems changes not only the relationship between farmer and resources,but has the potential to impact on the nature of social relationships also – generating social capitalin addition to natural capital (Pretty, 1998).

! Integration of methods such as CD (which focus on mobilisation of communities to define andaddress their needs) could assist in addressing concerns such as that raised by Rose (1999) whenhe recommended that in order to progress the uptake of integrated waste-management systems:“research should be directed toward the development of methods to mobilise local communitygroups in self-help sanitation schemes centred on key technologies”. This further indicates thatsustainability is multidimensional, requiring multidimensional and multidisciplinary approachesand methods, and that addressing sustainability requires greater degrees of cooperation and arecognition of the interconnected nature of rural social development, agricultural sustainabilityand ecological sustainability (Vanclay and Lawrence, 1995). Further, if sustainable agriculture isto succeed, what is needed is “the full participation and collective action of rural people and land

Page 50: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

34

managers” (Pretty, 1995). Mobilising communities to engage in collective action to enhancesustainable resource management, production and consumption is a most challenging, complextask - one which needs integrated approaches which recognise that sustainability is a North-Southissue, one which involves rural and urban interactions, one which is the responsibility of bothproducer and consumer, and one which is increasingly important not just for individual farmersand landholders, but to whole communities, locally and globally.

! In an age in which things ‘global’ seem to be emphasised, integrated rural development needs tofocus on the potentials and benefits of encouraging local approaches to creating ecologically,economically, and socially sustainable systems:

- “there is increasing evidence that local-level institutions learn and develop the capability torespond to environmental feedbacks faster than do centralised agencies” (Coop andBrunckhorst, 1999);

- “What is also required (for the success of sustainable agriculture) will be increased attentionto community-based action through local institutions (Pretty, 1995);

- What is needed is “an alternative conceptualisation of food security that is based onsustainable, self-reliant, local/regional food production…founded on the regional reinvestmentof capital and local job creation, the strength of community institutions, and direct democraticparticipation in the local food economy” (Lezberg and Kloppenburg, 1996).

! Care needs to be taken to ensure that integrated rural development practice recognises thatsustainability is a contextually based social learning process rather than a set of techniques to beapplied universally. This is a learning which is key both in terms of the diffusion of technologiesand of methods of social organisation –as Pretty (1995) highlights:

“If …resource conserving technologies and social organisations…are forced on rural people, then theytoo will go the way of ‘modern’ agricultural technologies. The emerging danger is that agriculturalprofessionals, in promoting new technologies that are low cost, sustainable and productive, will forgetthe diverse conditions and needs of rural people”.

! Finally, there is a need for more opportunities to dialogue across disciplines about notions ofsustainability, such that genuine integrated approaches can emerge at the levels of analysis andpractice, and such that Chambers (1993) assertion that “disciplines, professions and departmentsare so organised and interlocked that gaps between them have low priority and low status”, canbegin to be reversed.

Integrated rural development that emphasises ecological, economic and social sustainability is acomplex business. It should not be idealised nor based on nostalgic, unrealistic notions that reflectneither the difficulties nor the complexities of change – whether that be technological change or socialchange. Perhaps it may be apt to conclude with a passage from Bertrolt Brecht – a piece whichtranslates as ‘common understanding’ – which could gives a clue as to how to further develop apartnership between integrated systems and community development:

“…it takes a lot of things to change the world: Anger and tenacity. Science and indignation. The quickinitiative, the long reflection. The cold patience and the infinite perseverance. The understanding ofthe particular case and the understanding of the ensemble: Only the lessons of reality can teach us totransform reality”

Page 51: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

35

References

Burkett, I. (2000). The Challenges of Building ‘real’ and ‘virtual’ human communities in the 21st Century, TheEncyclopedia of Life Support Systems, UNESCO, forthcoming.

Burkey, S. (1993). People First: A Guide to Self-Reliant, Participatory Rural Development, Zed Books, London.

Campbell, C. (1996). Land Literacy in Australia: Landcare and other New Approaches to Inquiry and Learningfor Sustainability, in A. Budelman (ed), Agricultural R&D at the Crossroads: Merging Systems Researchand Social Actor Approaches, Royal Tropical Institute, The Netherlands, pp. 169-184

Chambers, R. (1983). Rural Development: Putting the Last First, Longman, Harlow, Essex, England.

Chambers, R. (1997). Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last, Intermediate Technology Publications,London.

Coop, P. and Brunckhorst, D. (1999). Triumph of the commons: age-old participatory practices provide lessonsfor institutional reform in the rural sector. Australian Journal of Environmental Management 6: 69-77.

Day, G. (1998). Working with the Grain? Towards Sustainable Rural and Community Development. Journal ofRural Studies 14:89-105.

Falvey, L. (1998). Food Production and Natural Resource Management. Australian Journal of EnvironmentalManagement 5: 9-15.

Gabriel, T. (1991). The Human Factor in Rural Development. Belhaven Press, London

Greer, L. (1999). Community Supported Agriculture, Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas,available at: http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/csa.html#origins

Haverkort, B., van der Kamp, J., and Waters-Bayer, A. (eds) (1991). Joining Farmers’ Experiments:Experiences in Participatory Technology Development. Intermediate Technology Publications, London.

Lawrence, G., Vanclay, F., and Furze, B. (eds) (1992). Agriculture, Environment and Society: ContemporaryIssues for Australia. Macmillan Press, South Melbourne.

Lezberg, S. and Kloppenburg, J. (1996). That We All Might Eat: Regionally-Reliant Food Systems for the 21st

Century. Development (Society for International Development) 4: 28-33

Narayan, D. (1993). Focus on Participation: Evidence from 121 Rural Water Supply Projects, UNDP-WorldBank Water Supply and Sanitation Program, World Bank, Washington DC

Oakley, P. et al. (1991). Projects with People: The Practice of Participation in Rural Development, InternationalLabour Office, Geneva.

Pretty, J. (1995). Regenerating Agriculture: Politics and Practice for Sustainability and Self-Reliance, EarthscanPublications, London.

Pretty, J. (1998). The Living Land: Agriculture, Food and Community Regeneration in Rural Europe, EarthscanPublications, London.

Pretty, J., Guijt, I., Scoones, I., and Thompson, J. (1995). Regenerating Agriculture: The Agroecology of Low-External Input and Community-Based Development, in Kirkby, J., O’Keefe, P., and Timberlake, L., TheEarthscan Reader in Sustainable Development, Earthscan Publications, London, pp125-145.

Ray, C. (1999). Endogenous Development in the Era of Reflexive Modernity, Journal of Rural Studies 15: 257-267.

Rodriguez, L., Tohomas, J.,, Preston, R., and Van Lai, N. (1998). Integrated Farming Systems for Efficient useof Local Resources, in E. Foo, and R. Senta, (eds) Integrated Bio-Systems in Zero Emissions

Page 52: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

36

Applications: Proceedings of the Internet Conference on Integrated Bio-systems, available at:http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs

Röling, N. (1996). Creating Human Platforms to Manage Natural Resources: First Results of a ResearchProgramme, in A. Budelman, (ed) Agricultural R&D at the Crossroads: Merging Systems Research andSocial Actor Approaches, Royal Tropical Institute, The Netherlands, pp. 149-158

Rose, G. (1999). Community-Based Technologies for Domestic Wastewater Treatment and Reuse: Options forUrban Agriculture, IDRC Research Programs: Cities Feeding People: Report 27, available at:http://www.idrc.ca/cfp/rep27_e.html

Rossett, P. (2000). The Multiple Functions and Benefits of Small Farm Agriculture in the Context of GlobalTrade Negotiations, Development (Society for International Development) 43: 77-82.

Shepherd, A. (1998). Sustainable Rural Development, Macmillan Press, London.

Vanclay, F. and Lawrence, G. (1995). The Environmental Imperative: Eco-Social Concerns for AustralianAgriculture, CQU Press, Rockhampton.

Page 53: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

37

Integrated Bio-Systems: A Global Perspective

Jacky FooIntegrated Bio-Systems Network

Introduction

The holistic approach to utilise a resource fully is not a new concept or a new practice. It is commonsense. In the ancient Egyptian painting of about 2000 BC that was found from the Tomb of Thebaine,it seems to present an integrated bio-system for pond aquaculture and where nutrients in pond waterwere used for cultivation of flowers, vegetables and fruits. Other early civilisations such as those inMexico and China have also developed integrated farming systems that are unique to their regions.The Chinampa system (Foo, 2000) at one time provided food and flowers to Mexico city. Integratedbio-systems are still widely practised in China where there exists numerous types of systems ofdifferent sizes for the production of food, fuel, biofertiliser and fibre (Ruddle et al. 1983, Ruddle &Zhong 1988, Li, 1993, Wang, 1998). What is new with the approach in today;s application is theincorporation of new technologies and a better understand especially on the material and nutrientflows of such integrated bio-systems.

"Integrare" is the latin verb that means to make whole and to complete by adding parts or to combineparts into a whole. To the biologists, an integrated biosystem would contain at least two biologicalactivities or subsystems and a generic focus is balancing the flow of materials and how nutrients fromone sub-system can be used for food production in another.

Figure 1: A schematicdiagram on the material flowin an integrated biosystem

Page 54: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

38

In Nature, there are many integrated biological systems that are often complexly interlinked with oneanother. Examples of such systems, like those on the food chains for different animals, are commonlypresented to primary school students. Natural food production systems are limited by their lowproductivity per unit land or water space. These systems are now less attractive as there is anincreasing demand to produce more food or resources from a unit space. The failure to control humanpopulation has already led to disastrous consequences in many countries. In India, as an example, thehuman population between 1940 to 2000 increased from 400 million to more than 1200 million.Correspondingly, food grain production rose 4 times from 50 million tons to 200 million tonnesbetween 1950 and 2000. However, consumption on a per capita basis increased only slightly to 435gm cereals per day from 400 gm in 1950 (Khosla, 2000). By 2025, 50 % of the world's population arepredicted to be living in cities and this will further aggravate the food and resource situation as themajor portion of the world's population will be consumers rather than producers. Many countriesalready know that they need to produce or import 2 or 3 times more food in order to cope with theirlocal needs in the future.

To an industrialist and a farmer, integrated biosystems make it possible to generate new products byusing by-products produced from a factory or a farm. Agro-food processing industries and marketingof crop produce often use only a small fraction of the primary biomass generated. A major part is cropresidue or industrial by-products or wastes that need to be disposed of. As environmental pressuresand costs in incineration or landfilling increases, there is a need to change from the linear model forproduction and waste management to a more integrated approach that can generate income or makesavings. At the same time it should also contribute to sustainable development in a moreenvironmentally sound manner. This challenge is now paving the way to the revival of traditionalpractices and new opportunities to apply the integrated bio-systems approach for household,commercial and large scale bio-systems. The Integrated Bio-Systems Approach

The Integrated Bio-Systems (IBS) approach follows three basic principles. The first principle is to useall biological organic materials and wastes instead of throwing them away. The second principle is toobtain at least two products from a waste. The third principle is to close the loop for the material andnutrient flows to achieve total use of a resource and zero waste disposal. The IBS approach has manybenefits and potentials but it also has limitations.

IBS principles were originally developed from situations where natural resources were limited andwhen the full use of resources is crucially interlinked with human survival. So low-input andsubsistence farming systems often used the IBS approach with livestock-crop integration or inlivestock-aquaculture integration. These practices may just involve recycling of nutrients by direct useof wastes as animal feed or application of manure on crop fields or in fish ponds. Today, IBSprinciples are also used to solve problems related to waste management and to inprove inductrialproductivity.

Integrated bio-systems currently use a rather limited number of biological technologies for convertingwastes into biofertilisers, energy, food and animal feed. The commonly used ones are composting, vermiculture, and anaerobic digestion and they are crucial processes that make nutrients readilyavailable to plants or to stablise wastes. There is a need to improve the efficiency of thesetechnologies, and in some cases even to simplify them further. One such improvement is the use ofpolyethylene to construct biogas digesters. The cultivation of insect larvae, ensilaging and microbialprotein enrichment of plant material or agro-industrial wastes are a few potential technologies that canbe rapidly incorporated into some integrated bio-systems.

The IBS approach has only been applied recently by industry for utilisation and management of agro-industrial wastes. One such application is by breweries, e.g. in Fiji, (Foo, 1995), Samoa (Foo &Dalhammar, 2000) and Namibia (Foo, 1998) where brewery spent grainis also used for mushroomcultivation, yeast in feeds and treated waste water for aquaculture. Detailed information from other

Page 55: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

39

types of industries that use the IBS approach is however still lacking. The IBS approach can enhancesustainability of industries through savings by reducing the cost for disposal of wastes and via incomegeneration from new value-added products from wastes. The use of agro-industrial by-products hasbecome an interesting area for future business opportunities as the price of raw materials and productsderived from petroleum. At the national level, policy makers are attracted to the IBS approach becauseit provides employment and reduces pollution at the same time.

There are many case studies using the IBS approach in agriculture and aquaculture with a lessernumber in industry, forestry and human habitat. This paper provides a global perspective of someinteresting integrated bio-systems for small and large scale operations. They are:

1. the pig-biogas-duckweed-cassava IBS in Vietnam

2. brewery wastes-duck-insect larvae-aquatic plants-earthworm IBS in Samoa

3. compost toilet and graywater garden system in Fiji

4. the St. Petersburg Eco-house, Russia

5. Pozo Verde Farm in Colombia

6. Sewage-duckweed-fish-banana IBS in Bangladesh

7. Rice-Flower-fish IBS in China

Example 1: Pig-Biogas-Duckweed-Cassava IBS in Vietnam

Figure 2: Livestock-biogas-duckweed-cassava IBS in Vietnam

This example is unique because it requires only 108 m2 of land and achieves zero waste disposal. Theschematic chart (Figure 2) shows an integrated livestock-biodigester-duckweed-cassava biosystem(Rodríguez, Preston & Nguyen, 1998). The pig sub-system can raise 4 Mong Cai sows. Each sow isfed with basal feed (400 g/day boiled whole soya bean seed with added lime and salt and 500 g/day

Page 56: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

40

water spinach) with sugar palm juice and any other vegetation or root crop that is available. Manure isfed to a 3m3 plastic biogas digester to produce biogas (used for boiling soya bean) and the effluentgoes into eight duckweed ponds of 7m2 each (total 56 m2). Duckweed yield (fresh weight) is 100g/m2/day with about 6% of dry matter and 35% crude protein or about 5.6 Kg of wet weight ofduckweed is available daily. Live weight gains of pigs ranged from 350-450 g/day. The cassava treesare heavily fertilised with sludge from the duckweed ponds and can produce about 1 kg ofleaves/m² every 2 months. This amounts to an annual yield of up to 60 tonnes leaves/ha(Preston et al., 1998). The dry matter content is around 25% and the protein content of the dry matteris 25% (Nguyen & Rodriguez. 1998). Cassava leaf can contain a high content of HCN and is ensiledanaerobically with 5% of molasses using a plastic bag (Nguyen et al 1998) for 6 weeks and then feddirectly to the pigs.

The system has been demonstrated to be more profitable and provides better nutrition to the familythan a sugar production system for sugar palm. This crop system often leads to deforestation becausefirewood is needed to concentrate the juice. In the IBS system, except for the plastic and PVC pipesfor the digester, all other construction materials (bamboo, roofing materials) needed are locallyavailable at the site.

Photo 1: Livestock-plastic biodigester- Duckweed system in UTA-Vietnam. Picture by Lylian Rodriguez

Photo 2: Biogas-Duckweed-Cassava in UTA-Vietnam. Picture by Lylian Rodriguez

Photo 3 : A mixture of Duckweed-Rice Bran feed to laying hens in UTA-Vietnam. Picture by Lylian Rodriguez

Photo 4: Farmer taking the sap from the sugar palm. Picture by Khieu Borin

Page 57: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

41

Example 2 : Use of Agro-Industrial wastes at a household level in Samoa

Breweries and vegetable oil industries generate high-protein residues and pressed cakes that can beused directly as animal feed rations. Yet in some locations such as in Apia, Samoa, these residues arenot fully used and are dumped. Brewery spent grains is given away free of charge while coconut mealis sold at US$ 2.00 per bag (using recycled 40kg-flour bag) at the factory sites. This exampledemonstrates that fresh and stale brewery spent grains and yeast can be used as duck feed and to growinsect larvae. Duck manure is washed into ponds to grow aquatic plants (Salvinia and duckweed(Leng, 1999)) and mosquito fish. Feed residues are buried into the ground to grow earthworms whichare dug out periodically to feed the ducks.

Figure 3: Schematic diagram of IBS for raising ducks using agro-industrial wastes.

The project started in July 2000 and so data on the material flow are not available yet. There is thepotential to produce 3-5 kg (fresh weight) of aquatic plants per day from about 100 m2 pond area. Theproject will provide information for its economical operation at a household level for 20 ducks. Plansto develop a large scale operation have been made.

Photo 5 : Picture of ducks of integrated bio-system in Samoa.Copyright: IBSnet, 2000

Photo 6 : Picture showing play-pond in front with duckweed pond on the back right and Salvinia- mosquito fish pond on the left background.Copyright: IBSnet, 2000

Page 58: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

42

Example 3 : Compost Toilet and Graywater Garden System in Fiji

The compost toilet and washgarden system is used by the Lalati eco-resort on the island of Beqa inFiji. It is an example of an on-site zero sewage discharge system with a strategy in creating beautifulgardens while preventing pollution with ecological integrity. The system has a micro-flush toilet andthe flushwater is led into a modified rollaway trash container serving as the composter. The composteris fitted with a hanging net to catch solids and allows flushwater to flow into a concrete trench filled tostones with a top soil. Different varieties of broad-leaved gingers and canna lilies are used in this caseto absorb and transpire the water into the air. Lalati Eco-Resort has won an award for this system fromthe WHO for best eco-tourism practices. The system below is designed for warm countries and offeran appropriate solution with ecological integration to provide a better sanitation where central sewagetreatment plants are lacking.

Photo 7 : General view showingwashwater garden and bungalow atLalati eco-resort. Below the verticalvent/exhaust chimney is thecomposter for the compost toilet. Photo: Sustainable Strategies and Affiliates

Photo 8 : Composter of toilet systemwith a hanging net to hold andseparate solids from liquid. Liquidflows through pipe on right intowastwater garden.Photo: Sustainable Strategies and Affiliates

Photo 9 : Washgarden protected bytransparent Lexan roof from rain andwith different varieties of broad-leaved gingers and canna lilies toabsorb and transpire water fromconcrete 1 m deep and 1.5. m widetrench.Photo: Sustainable Strategies and Affiliates

Page 59: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

43

Example 4 : The St Petersburg's EcoHouse

The Eco-house in St. Petersburg is an example of sustainable urban community development (Yemelin& Mehlmann, 2000). Among the massive standard apartment blocks in the Moskovsky district of St.Petersburg, Russia, an average nine-stories building was chosen as the site. It has 267 apartments with500 residents (60% senior citizens) in cramped apartments built in 1966. It had 1700 m2 of flat roofand 600 m2 unusable wet basement that was infested with rats and breeding mosquitoes. After 3 years,50 people from 25 apartments are now involved in the project to (a) separate inorganic garbage,including selling some for recycling (b) process in-house organic waste into compost, using wormculture in the basement (c) produce organic food, flowers, tuff grass and plantlets on the roof-top.Monthly the vermiculture sub-system processes 200 kg of food garbage in winter and 300 kg insummer. The roof-top garden is 25 m above ground and has better air quality. As access to the rooftopis controlled, theft is nil. Two greenhouses are constructed between chimney stacks to use the heat toextend growing period in spring and autumn. Food grown on the roof-top represents a significantsavings especially for the elderly. Products for sale are: currant berry bushes grown from cuttings,flowers, tuff grass and biohumus product of worm composting. There are many positive socio-psychological effects of the project, such as empowerment of residents, bettering of psychologicalclimate especially with the senior citizens.

Photo 11 : Vermi-composting in the basement Photo: Valentin Yemelin

Photo 12 : Harvesting Tomatoes from the roof-top greenhouse Photo: Valentin Yemelin

Page 60: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

44

Photo 13 : Watering roof-top lawn/nursery with plantlets Photo: Valentin Yemelin

Photo 14 : Inside view of roof-top greenhouse Photo: Valentin Yemelin

Page 61: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

45

Example 5 : Pozo Verde Farm in Colombia

This is an example of a large IBS farm. Pozo Verde Farm is a livestock farm of 50 ha in size, of which2 ha is used for building space and the rest for forage (42 ha of sugar cane, taro, grass, forage trees,aquatic plants) with an additional 5 ha of wetlands. It buys ingredients and formulated feed for thesows, growing and fattening pigs and broilers. All manure (920 tons/yr) is used in the farm (Figure 4,Table 1) to produce energy (19,200 m3 biogas), vermi-compost (160 tons), feed additives (52.6 tons aschicken manure) and forage (6,323 tons) for cattle and pigs.

Page 62: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

46

Page 63: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

47

Figure 4: Integrated Bio-System at Pozo Verde Farm, Colombia.(Chara, J.D. et. al. 2000).

Page 64: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

48

Table 1 : Material flow at the Pozo Verde Farm, Colombia (modified after Chara, J.D. et al. 2000)

SUBSYSTEM INPUTS(purchased or produced in

Farm)

PRODUCTS(To the market)

BYPRODUCTS(To other subsystems)

Pigs73 breeding sows

595 growing & fattening

Formulated feed: 384 tonAquatic plants:109 ton

Giant taro: 5.6 ton

Pork meat: 107.4 ton Wastewater: 10,477m3

Pig manure: 48.1 ton

166 Dual Purpose Cattle Milk: 159,200 litres.Weaned calves: 6.25 ton

Manure: 230 tonWastewater: 2,883 m3

52 Buffaloes

Chicken litter: 52.6 tonPizamo foliage: 46 tonStar grass: 5,920 ton

Sugarcane tops:340 tonMolasses : 23.2 tonVinaza : 15.5 tonsRice bran: 6.9 tons

Calcium Carbonate: 0.7

Milk: 13,600Cheese: 2.2 ton

"Kumis": 4,160 litersSix trained draught

buffaloes

Manure: 37 tonAnimal draught:

657 Kwh

Poultry (29,000 broilers keptin 41 day cycles)

Formulated feed: 579 ton

Broilers: 303 ton Chicken litter: 600 ton

Forage production(42 hectares and 1 ha pond)

Biodigester effluent: 15,000 m3

Chicken litter:450 tonEarthworm compost:

80 ton

Foliage biomass: 6,323 ton

Earthworms(300 m2 area)

Cattle dung: 230 tonBuffalo dung: 37 ton

Worm compost: 80 ton

Worm compost: 80 ton

WastewaterDecontamination

systems(4 digesters with total

178 m3 digester volume, 1 hapond)

Wastewater:13,360 m3

Pig manure: 48.1 tondigester effluent:

15,000 m3

Biogás: 19,200 m3

aquatic plants: 109 tons

Example 6 : Sewage-Duckweed-Fish-Banana IBS in Bangladesh

The Mirzapur Farm Complex (Iqbal, 1999) is more than 11 hectares in size and uses chemicalfertiliser to grow duckweed to raise fish. The sewage-duckweed-fish-banana integrated biosystem is aspecial unit (2.5 ha) that uses nutrients from sewage to grow duckweed instead of commercialfertilisers. Community waste water of 2000-3000 inhabitants from a school, residences and a hospital(125-270 m3 / day) flows into a 0.2 ha duckweed covered sedimentation pond (retention time=16-7days). Wastewater is then pumped into a 500 m plug-flow lagoon (width=12.6 -13 m, depth=0.4 m atinflow point, 0.9 m at outflow point, retention time=about 20 days). Duckweed is manually harvestedto feed fish that is raised on 3 ponds of 0.2 ha each. Duckweed harvest average 650 kg ww/ha/day(Feb93-Mar94) while in the wet season it is 1000-1200 kg/ha/day. This is extrapolated to about 17tons (dw)/ha/yr. Stocking of carps (18,000-20,000 fish/ha) is done in July and harvested after 10-12months. The feed is duckweed (60% dw), and mustard oil cake (40% dw). Fish yield in 1994 was10.58 t/ha/yr (FCR=2.8) and in 1995 - 12.62 t/ha/yr (FCR=3.3). 60 % harvest is sold to the hospitalwhile the remainder is sold at local market. Bananas is grown on the dikes and yield about 100 tonsper year.

Page 65: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

49

Figure 5 : Diagram showing overview of Sewage-duckweed-fish-banana integrated bio-system. (Sascha Iqbal. 1999)

Photo 15 : Plug-flow lagoon for cultivation of duckweed. Photo: Gregory Rose (1999)

Photo 16 : Harvesting duckweed. Photo: Gregory Rose (1999)

Photo 17 : Harvesting Fish Photo: Gregory Rose (1999)

Table 2 : Typical wastewater parameters of a duckweed-covered plug flow lagoonduring dry/winter season in Bangladesh. (Sascha Iqbal, 1999)

Parameter Loading rate(kg/ha/day)

Influent(mg/l)

Effluent(mg/l)

Reduction inconcen-

tration (%)

BOD5 48-60 125(80-160)

5(8)

96(90-95)

Kjeldahl-N 4.2 10.5 2.7 74Total P 0.8 1.95 0.4 77

o-PO43- --- 0.95

(0.5-2.5)0.05

(0.05-1)95

(90-95)

NH4+ --- 8

(3-20)0.03

(0.1-1)99

(90-99)

NO3- --- 0.03

(0.05-1)0.05

(0.05-1) ---

Page 66: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

50

The values in paratheses are based on a 4-year monitoring (from 1990). Influent data was corrected fordilution effect caused by groundwater supply. Concentration of NH4

+ and NO3- are expressed in mg

N/l. The concentration of o-PO43- is given in mg P/l. Values were corrected for a leakage-free lagoon.

Faecal coliforms in the influent occur at 45,700 cfu/ml while the effluent contains less than 100cfu/ml. This is within the maximum WHO standard for wastewater discharge. Kabir 1995, Islam et al1996 and Edwards et al 1987 considered the water quality as safe. Krishnan & Smith (1987) reportedacceptable levels of heavy metals and pesticides but as duckweed can tolerate and accumulate highconcentrations of heavy metals and organic compounds, monitoring of heavy metal content in theinfluent is advised.

Example 7 : Rice-Flower-fish IBS in China

The application of surface aquaponics has developed in China since 1989 (Song et al 1991, Song et al1996) because of decreasing area of arable land and to fully use inland water surface. In 1996 the areaof pond culture alone was 1.96 million ha in China with the fish production of 8.11 million tons(Chinese Agricultural Almanac 1997). Eutrophication in fishponds and deterioration of the waterquality of fishponds is resulting in increased occurrence of fish diseases and fish mortality. Dischargeof nutrient rich pond water further accelerates eutrophication in rivers or lakes. The strategy with theapplication of surface aquaponics is to clean the pond water by absorbing the nutrients and at the sametime generate products of economic value. Rice and flower cultivation have proved to beeconomically useful crops. The integration of crop-aquaculture using less than 25 % coverage of thewater surface is beneficial. Rice yield reached 7.92 t/ha and to the fish yield of 5,638 kg/ha and at thesame time a higher water quality of pond water can be obtained.

Photo 18 : Cultivation of rice on floating bed in lake in a rice-fish integrated bio-system Photo: Kangmin Li (2000)

Photo 19 : Flowers and sedge grass on floating beds Photo: Kangmin Li (2000)

Photo 20 : Canna and money plant on floating beds Photo: Kangmin Li (2000)

Photo 21 : Comparison of the water from outside and inside the test area Photo: Kangmin Li (2000)

Page 67: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

51

Conclusion

The 21st century has inherited many major and global concerns related to increasing population anddiminishing fossil energy, water and land resources, and pollution. All these have multiple effects onsustainable development and maintaining the quality of life in the future. The integrated biosystemsapproach holds the promise to alleviate the problems in many ways, as shown in the examplesprovided above.

The IBS approach can reduce the need for fossil fuel (Mansson & Foo, 1998; Kranert & Hillebrecht,2000). Biogas technology will play a unique role as it provides energy, nutrients and better sanitation.Where large amounts of biogas are generated, it can provide electricity to the grid or to localcommunities and industries. The increase in fossil oil prices will favour the application of biogastechnology.

Another major concern is how to increase food production with less land, water, energy and chemicalfertilizers. The integrated bio-systems on small farms are still traditional but are crucial in sustaininglivelihoods using low-inputs intensive farming systems. There is therefore the potential for research toimprove productivity by understanding nutrient flows, and for the adoption of tested models byfarmers. A few large farms, industries and municipalities have used the IBS approach successfully butlittle notice has been given by others who could also adopt and use them. So there is a need to increasepublic awareness on economic and environmental aspects in their use.

A major concern of the 21st century will be environmental pollution from solid wastes andwastewaters from mega-cities, intensive animal farms and industries. Again, the integrated bio-systems approach will have a multipurpose role in sustainable environmental protection as it cleans theenvironment and can generate products of economic value at the same time.

References

Bakker, N. et al . 2000. Growing Cities, Growing Food - Urban agriculture on the policy agenda. DeutscheStiftung fur internationale Entwicklung (DSE), Zentralstelle fur Ernährung und Landwirtschaft, Feldfing.Germany. Email: [email protected]

Chara, Julián David; Pulido, Elkin Dario; & Cuellar, Piedad. 2000. Material Flow in "Pozo Verde" IntegratedFarm in Cauca Valley Province, Colombia. http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/ic-mfa/chara . In: Foo, E.L. Della Senta, T. and Sakamoto, K. (Eds).2000. Material Flow Analysis of Integrated Bio-Systems. Proceedings of the Internet Conference on MaterialFlow Analysis of Integrated Bio-Systems, March-Oct 2000. http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/ic-mfa

Chinese Agricultural Almanac, 1997.

Edwards, P. C. Polprasert & K.L. Wee. 1987. Resource recovery and health aspects of sanitation. AIT ResearchReport no. 205, pp 324.

Foo, E.L. 1995. UNU/IAS Integrated Bio-system Project at Montfort Boys Town, Suva, Fiji.http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/ibs/info/fiji

Foo, E.L. 1998. IBS at Tunweni Brewery, Tsumeb, Namibia.http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/ibs/info/namibia

Foo, E.L. (1999). Proceedings of the Electronic Seminar on "Community-Based Technologies for DomesticWastewater Treatment and Reuse: options for urban agriculture" presented by Mr. Gregory D. Rose, (4-29 Oct.1999). http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/ibs/ibsnet/e-sem-rose.html

Foo, E.L. 2000. Chinampa Integrated Bio-System in Mexico.http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/ibs/info/mexico

Page 68: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

52

Foo, E.L. and Dalhammar, 2000. Biotechnological approach in the utilisation and treatment of wastes from abrewery via an integrated bio-system. http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/ibs/info/samoa/sida-kth

Foo, E.L. & Della Senta, T. (eds). 1998.Integrated Bio-Systems in Zero Emissions Applications. Proceedings ofthe Internet Conference on Integrated Bio-Systems. http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs

ICLARM and GTZ. 1991. The context of small-scale integrated agriculture-aquaculture systems in Africa: acase study of Malawi. ICLARM Stud. Rev. 18. 302 p. ISBN 971-1022-65-6.

Iqbal, Sascha. 1999. Duckweed Aquaculture: Potentials, possibilities and limitations for combined wastewatertreatment and aniumal feed production in developing countries. SANDEC Report No.6/99. Document contact:EAWAG/SANDEC, Ueberlandstrasse 133, CH-8600 Duebendorf, Switzerland. email: [email protected]

Islam, M.S., et al. 1996. Faecal contamination of a fish culture farm where duckweed, grown in hospitalwastewater are used as fish feed. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Sci Conf. ASCON V. Dhaka, Bangladesh. pp.49.

Kabir, M.S. 1995. The duckweed-based sewage treatment and fish culture with special reference to Vibriocholerae 0139. M.Sc. thesis. Dept fo Microbiology, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh. pp. 1-84.

Khosla, Ashok. 2000. Lecture presented at the Seminar on "The Value of Facts in the World of Change".Organized by the Biofocus Foundation, Stockholm.

Kranert M. & Hillebrecht Kai. 2000. Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Wastes - Process Parameters and Balancesin Practice. In: Foo E.L., Della Senta T., Sakamota K. 2000. Material Flow Analysis of Integrated Bio-Systems.http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/ic-mfa/

Krishnan, S.B. & J.E: Smith. 1987. Public health issues of aquatic systems used for wastewater treatment. In:Aquatic plants for water treatment and resource recovery. Eds: Reddy K.R: & W.H. Smith. Magnolia, Orlando,FL. pp. 855-878.

Leng, R.A. 1999. Duckweed - A tiny aquatic plant with enormous potential for agriculture and environment.FAO-UTA Publication.

Li, Wenhua. 1993. Integrated farming systems in China. Veröffentlichungen des Geobotanischen Institutes derETH, Zurich. 88 pages.

Mansson T. & Foo, E.L. 1998. Swedish efforts in integrating bio-fuels as alternative fuels for transportation inbuses, lorries and cars. In: Eds: Eng-Leong Foo & Tarcisio Della Senta. Integrated Bio-Systems in ZeroEmissions Applications. Proceedings of the Internet Conference on Integrated Biosystems.http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/mansson

Mehlmann, M. & Yemelin, V. 2000. The St Petersburg EcoHouse – an example of sustainable urban communitydevelopment. Status report, April 2000. http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/ibs/info/russiasee also http://spb.ecology.net.ru/ecohouse/ or http://geocities.com/RainForest/Andes/2803/

Nguyen, Van Lai and Rodriguez, Lylian. 1998 Digestion and N metabolism in Mong Cai and Large White pigshaving free access to sugar cane juice or ensiled cassava root supplemented with duckweed or ensiled cassavaleaves Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 10, Number 2

Preston, T R, Rodríguez L , Nguyen Van Lai and Le Ha Chau 1998 El follaje de la yuca (Manihot esculentaCranz) como fuente de proteína para la producción animal en sistemas agroforestales., Articulo presentado en Laconferencia electrónica de FAO "Agroforestería Para La Producción Animal En Latinoamérica" April to Sept .InSpanish.

Rodríguez J. L., Thomas R Preston and Nguyen Van Lai. 1998. Integrated farming systems for efficient use oflocal resources. http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/rodriguez/ In: Editors: Eng-Leong Foo & TarcisioDella Senta. Integrated Bio-Systems in Zero Emissions Applications. Proceedings of the Internet Conference onIntegrated Bio-Systems. http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/

Page 69: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

53

Ruddle K., Furtado J.I., Zhong G.F., and Deng H.Z.. 1983. The mulberry dike carp pond resource system of theZhujiang (Pearl River) Delta, P.R. of China. 1. Environmental context and system overview. AppliedGeography. 3,45-62.

Ruddle, K. & Zhong G.F. 1988. Integrated agriculture-aquaculture in South China. Cambridge Univ Press. 3-68.

Song Xiangfu, et al. 2000. Study of Agriculture-Aquaculture Ecological Economic System With Nutrient FlowAnalysis. In: Foo, E.L. Della Senta, T. and Sakamoto, K. (Eds). 2000. Material Flow Analysis of Integrated Bio-Systems. Proceedings of the Internet Conference on Material Flow Analysis of Integrated Bio-Systems.http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/ic-mfa/song

Song Xiangfu, et al. 1991. Study on rice cultivation on floating-beds in natural waters. Scientia AgriculturaSinica, 1991,24 (4): 8-13

Sustainable Strategies and Affiliates, 50 Beharrell Street, Concord, Massachusetts USA 01742-2973E-mail: David Del Porto <[email protected] http://www.ecological-engineering.com

Wang Rusong, Yan Jingsong, Lu Bingyou and Hu Dan. 1998. The Practice of Integrated Bio-Systems in China.http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/wang Eds: Eng-Leong Foo & Tarcisio Della Senta. Integrated Bio-Systems in Zero Emissions Applications. Proceedings of the Internet Conference on Integrated Bio-Systems.http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/

Page 70: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

54

Integrated Farming for Sustainable Primary Industry: Water andNutrient Recycling through Integrated Aquaculture

Martin S KumarSARDI Aquatic Sciences Centre

Abstract

Integrated farming has significantly enhanced agricultural production and sustainability in many partsof the world. An underlying process in integrated farming is recovering resources such as nutrientsand water for reuse. This improves the sustainability of the system and minimises environmentalpollution. The incentive to reclaim nutrients from wastewater, releasing clean effluent andsimultaneously producing fish has proved successful in many parts of the world.

The South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) is actively involved in projectspromoting sustainable farming practices and the integration of aquaculture with more traditional landbased farming. Consequently SARDI hosted a national workshop, “Integrated waste water treatmentand aquaculture” on the 17-19th September 1999, which proved a landmark national event, to progressthe development of sustainable farming practices into the next millennium. This national workshopbrought together international speakers from Australia, India, Vietnam, USA, Samoa and Malaysia.The event also brought out some excellent papers on integrated farming all over the world.

When an industry must comply with environmental standards that require treatment of effluent, itoften constitutes an added operational cost. However, if the treatment itself produces income,minimises pollution and complies with environmental standards, it not only increases the profitability,but also enhances the sustainability of the industry. The ‘waste’ which provides income by producinga valuable product in effect becomes a ‘resource’. While treating the organic waste produced bylivestock, a number of by-products such as bio-energy (gas and heat), aquaculture products (fish) andaquatic plant and agricultural products can be produced.

Currently, Australian research focussed on three important areas:

1. Enhance productivity, water use efficiency and water conservation by introducing aquacultureinto existing agricultural farm practices.

2. Water and nutrient recycling through integrated aquaculture for resource management andprevent organic pollution.

3. Nutrient stripping and effluent treatment from intensive aquaculture systems or from organicwaste.

Research is being planned to undertake a number of models and the projects are under various stagesof development. Aquaculture is a key element in all these models, which include:

a) organic waste treatment through integrated bio-systems;

b) aquaculture system management for sustainable development: health management andbiological regulation of aquaculture environment; and

c) integrated sub-system models which could be tailored to suit various industrial needs tomanage waste resources:

I Comprehensive bio-system model (livestock – bio-energy – agriculture/horticulture –aquaculture)

Page 71: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

55

II Horticulture/agriculture-aquaculture (including winery and aquaculture)

III Livestock – aquaculture

IV Bio-energy and aquaculture

There are successful operations of integrated wastewater treatment in Germany, England, China,Thailand and India. However, the suitability of these operational models is highly dependent uponlocal circumstances. To install a system in a new location, the successful model in one country or aparticular area cannot simply be copied. Site-specific adaptations must be made to meet localrequirements and constraints. There are a number of models that can be designed to suit individualfarming situations. The type of model will be highly dependent on the local conditions and resourceavailability. There is a need to develop a national strategy for promoting and establishing integratedfarming practices to provide a clear guidance to the industry representatives, policy makers,researchers and extension authorities for developing a health and vibrant primary industry.

Introduction

The integration of livestock, agriculture and aquaculture as "integrated farming" is an ancient traditionin China and India. However, it is a relatively new practice in Australia with most projects in aresearch and development phase. The basic principle of integrated farming is the minimisation ofwaste to enhance the profitability of farming. Waste minimization is achieved through complementaryuse of resources where one sub-system's waste product is used as a resource for another. As thewastage is minimized, the coincident prevention of pollution and efficient resource utilizationincreases the sustainability of the farming system. The major aim of such a practice is to complementindividual farming systems and to use scarce resources such as water and nutrients more effectively.

SARDI conducted a national workshop on integrated wastewater treatment aquaculture production(Kumar 2000 a). This workshop brought together international participants including speakers fromIndia, Vietnam, USA, Samoa and Malaysia. Integrated farming and wastewater treatment embraces adiverse set of technologies, which link fish culture to terrestrial farming activities such as agricultureand livestock. This concept was unanimously accepted during this workshop. Researchers fromVietnam and India presented papers on sewage treatment aquaculture production within theirrespective countries. However, in a developed country like Australia, there were concerns with respectto the environmental impact and health issues in the development of integrated farming practices andits produce. These issues were raised in the workshop.

It is increasingly being recognised that organic waste including sewage is not necessarily a pollutantbut a nutrient resource that can be recycled through integrating farming practices. Traditional practicesof recycling sewage through agriculture, horticulture and aquaculture, being basically biologicalprocesses, have been in vogue in several countries. The sewage-fed fish culture of Munich Germanyand the “bheries” in Calcutta, India are world famous. The emphasis in these practices has been on therecovery of nutrients from the wastewaters. Taking a cue from these practices and derivinginformation from the new databases in different disciplines of wastewater management, aquaculture isbeing recognised as an important tool in many developing countries and adapted as a standardisedtechnology for treatment of domestic sewage.

Presently, waste fed aquaculture is a proven nutrient recycling technology that is practicedsuccessfully in many countries. A wealth of technical, economical and social data were presented inthe Proceedings of International Seminar on Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse for Aquaculture,edited by Edwards and Pullin (1990), organised by the UNDP-World Bank Water and SanitationProgram, the Government of India and assisted by Environmental Sanitation Information Centre,Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand in 1988. Several countries including China, Germany,Hungary, India, Israel, Peru and Thailand contributed research and development information at this

Page 72: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

56

seminar. . The proceedings included a consensus statement based on the discussion and on researchand development experience. It was made clear that excellent potential exists to expand sewage fedaquaculture. Properly designed and managed sewage-fed fishponds may offer a viable low costwastewater treatment cum usage opportunity. Scientific papers published in the proceedings clearlydemonstrated that 5-7 tonnes/ha/year fish production is achievable in tropical climates where year-round growth is possible.

Principle of integrated farming

An underlying process in integrated waste treatment is the recovery of resources such as nutrients andwater for reuse. The objective is to make the system sustainable and prevent environmental pollution.By incorporating aquaculture into waste treatment, the incentive to reclaim nutrients from wastewater,release clean effluent and simultaneously produce fish has proved successful in many parts of theworld. Purification levels have reached those attained by the best alternative treatment methods.There are successful operations in Germany, England, China, Thailand and India (Ryther 1990;Edwards 1990).

“Waste or Resources”: Usually any kind of wastewater treatment involves additional cost. However,if the treatment itself produces income, prevents pollution and complies with environmental standards,it not only increases the profitability but also enhances the sustainability of the industry. The ‘waste’which provides income through producing a valuable product in effect becomes a ‘resource’ (Kumar2000 b). While treating the organic waste in the sewage, aquaculture products (fish), and aquaticplants and agricultural products can be produced. There are a number of models that can be adapted tosuit individual situations. The type of model will be highly dependent on the local conditions andresource availability.

Aquaculture and wastewater treatment

The quantity of wastewater generated has grown with increasing population. Apart from the domesticsewage, a number of industrial effluents and solid wastes are also generated in such huge quantitiesthat their treatment has become almost an impossible task. Several processes of treatments areavailable, which include conventional activated sludge and trickling filter methods, oxidation/wastestabilization ponding, aerated lagoons and variations of anaerobic treatment system, the latest beingthe Up-flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) process etc. (Pearson et al., 1987; Sarikaya andSaatci, 1987; Curtis et al., 1992; Mill et al., 1992; Schlegel, 1993; Oron, 1994; Hammad, 1996;Pearson et al., 1996). However, while most of these are energy-based treatment processes, only a fewof them lead to any resource recovery viz., root zone treatment, wetland system, aquatic macrophyteand aquaculture. Studies and field monitoring indicate that duckweeds grow relatively well on sewagewater (Culley and Epps, 1973; Ozimek, 1983; Oron, 1994) and effectively help in reduction of BOD5,suspended solids and algae (Oron, 1994). Taking advantage of the knowledge that macrophytes can beused as an effective agent for trapping nutrients and the traditional use of wastewater in fish farming,the concept of treatment of domestic sewage through aquaculture was conceived.

Waste-fed aquaculture: international examples

Europe - Germany

Waste fed aquaculture dates back more than a century in Germany. According to Prein (1990) twogroups of systems can be distinguished:

! polishing and

! wastewater-fed fish ponds.

Page 73: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

57

The former receive well-treated effluent from wastewater purification systems and are subdivided into:

(i) ponds that receive drainage effluents from sewage fields and

(ii) ponds that receive effluents from other biological treatment systems.

The latter are designed to purify raw wastewaters that have been only mechanically pre-treated. Netfreshwater fish production from waste fed aquaculture average 500 kg/ha/7months (860kg/ha/year)with loading rates equivalent to 2000 persons/ha/year. Perin (1990) recorded over ninety installationsacross the country ranging from small single ponds, receiving wastewater amounts equivalent to thetreatment of only few dozen people, up to large systems e.g. Munich with 233ha designed to treat thewastewater from 500,000 people and to produce a gross fish yield of 100-150 tonnes per year. Themain fish species used are common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and tench (Tinca tinca). The Germansystem was designed to operate in temperate latitudes with low stocking densities. Thus the fishyields are low compared to tropical waste-fed aquaculture systems where year round optimum growthis possible due to tropical temperature conditions.

Europe - Hungary

In Hungary the first experimental trial sewage-fed fish culture was carried out in the city of Fonyod ona total water surface area of 211 ha (Ponyi et al. 1973, 1974). A five-year research program followedby a commercial operation along with a monitoring program was implemented for the next five years(1979-1983). Hungarian technical guidelines for domestic sewage-fed fishponds were elaborated andapproved by the government in 1982 (Olah 1990). The technological package developed in Hungarywas the culmination of the five-year research project plus the five years of monitoring of a commercialoperation system. The sewage fed fishpond technology in Hungary can receive, process, utilise andpurify domestic sewage and produce 12 to 20Kg/ha/day. It applies basic principles of completegrazing pressure on both planktonic and benthic communities by implementing polyculture methodsusing silver carp and common carp, which are able to utilise completely both the planktonic andbenthic fish food resources. The results from the Hungarian farm indicate that the nutrients such asammonia have been reduced from 48-50mg/l to just 0.3-0.5 mg/l, Total Nitrogen from 50-55mg/l to 2-3mg/l, Total Phosphorus from 10-12mg/l to 0.70-1mg/l. At the same time the oxygen level has beenincreased significantly up to 8.3mg/l.

Asia - China

According to Zhang (1990) the use of municipal wastewater has developed rapidly since the 1950’s. In1985 the total area of wastewater-fed aquaculture in China involving more than 30 sites was 8000 ha,with a total fish production of 30,000t. In the 1970's people in China, especially environmentalists,started to review the positive and negative sides of waste-fed aquaculture. After the review,government continued its development of waste-fed aquaculture. Most of the waste-fed aquaculture inChina is located near the cities and they contribute a large part of commercial fish products to citymarkets.

According to Chen et al. (1982) maximum production of phytoplankton and zooplankton standingcrops maintaining 6-8mg/l of Total Nitrogen or equivalent of 3.5-4.8mg/l of ammonia_N inwastewater for fishponds may be permissible. Siver carp and bighead carp are the main speciesstocked along with common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and crucian carp (Carassius auratus). Thestocking density is usually 15000/ha of 20-30g fingerlings

In general, fish yields from waste water-fed ponds were 2-4 times higher than those from ordinary fishfarms. The production ranged from 1.5-11t/ha/year. In China mostly polyculture practice, usingChinese major carp species along with common carp, is used in the system. The efficient usage of

Page 74: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

58

food resources coupled with year round growing condition (temperature) allows the systems to obtainhigh production rates. The big problem in waste fed aquaculture in China is that some of the industrialtoxic waste is mixed with municipal sewage. Many efforts have been made to separate industrialpollutant from wastewater.

Asia - Vietnam

The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1, the Fisheries University and Hanoi University havecarried out a research program on the characteristics of wastewater, and its reclamation and reuse forfish culture. Wastewater has been used in aquaculture and agriculture in areas near Hanoi for manydecades. Tuan (1990) described the three systems involving fish culture that are used:

! fish culture

! fish-rice rotation, and

! fish-rice-vegetable rotation.

Average net yield from fish culture is about 2.1tonnes/ha/year. Also increased gross yield has beenachieved (4-7t/ha/yr) by controlling the sewage flow and thereby adjusting the nitrogen: phosphorusratio along with the organic load. Tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus and O.niloticus), silver carp andcommon carp are the main species utilised in the waste-fed culture system in Hanoi.

Luu and Kumar (2000) described the national status of sewage fed aquaculture systems in Vietnam. Inmedium size towns and cities, where the sewage output is relatively high and the catchment area isdesigned suitably for aquaculture, fish culture is a common practice. In larger cities, where the sewageis available around the year, the intermediate catchment areas are always used for aquaculture.Aquaculture is also widely practiced in most of the sewage lakes. In Hanoi, there is daily discharge of320,000m3 of sewage that flows by gravity to the flood plains of Thanh Tri district where it is usedand treated by agricultural-aquacultural systems. While other lakes like Truc Bach and West Lake,Bay Mau Lake are simple catchment areas for domestic sewage and are utilized for aquaculture.

The sewage lakes or ponds are usually stocked with fingerlings of Chinese (silver carp, grass carp),Indian major carps (rohu and mrigal), tilapia (O. niloticus) and common carp. In the intermediatecatchment lakes, where the water level is manageable, and less exchangeable, algal blooms developquickly sometimes resulting in sudden planktonic collapse and dissolved oxygen depletion to criticallylow limits. Experience shows that in such lakes, the ratio of species like silver carp and tilapia thatfeed on phytoplankton, algae and detritus can be increased to 50-60%. On the other hand in sewagelakes and ponds where water is periodically pumped to balance the nitrogen content, the fish speciesthriving predominantly on detritus, zooplankton and zoobenthos, can be stocked at a higher ratio.

Stocking density depends on the quality of sewage. However, the commonly followed stockingdensity is up to 4 fingerlings/m2 within the size range of 30 to70 g. With a rational stocking density,fish productivity of these ponds/lakes reaches to 5-7 t /ha/year without other inputs like feed, fertilisersand chemicals.

Asia - India

The concept of using aquaculture as a tool for wastewater treatment has been evaluated through asystematic research program carried out over a period of five years by the Central Institute ofFreshwater Aquaculture, Bhubaneswar, India. In the context of increasing production of sewage overthe years, the recycling of organic wastes through aquaculture assumes a great significance, not onlyfor fish production, but also as an ecological sound practice for handling wastes.

Page 75: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

59

An Aquaculture Sewage Treatment Plant (ASTP) comprising duckweed and fish culture was designedand its field facility developed by the Central Institute of Freshwater Aquaculture, Bhubaneswar, Indiain collaboration with the Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Orissa, India under aproject called “Aquaculture as a tool for utilisation and treatment of domestic sewage". The ASTPcomprises a set of duckweed ponds where algae and duckweeds are utilised in the removal of thenutrients and the reduction of BOD and COD levels, complemented by fish ponds and marketing(holding) ponds (CIFA, 1998). The system can receive primary-treated sewage after the removal ofsolids. The intake BOD levels for the ASTP are in the range of 100-150 mg/l. Consequently it maybe necessary to incorporate an anaerobic unit where the organic load and BOD levels are very high.Duckweed culture, before the fishponds, aids in the removal of excessive nutrient concentration andresidues. The waste contains BOD5 levels of about 100 mg/l after treatment. In the system with a totalretention period of five days, the final effluent BOD5 is brought down to 18 - 22 mg/l, meeting therequired Indian standards for discharge into natural waters.

Fish ponds are stocked with five carp species viz., catla (Catla catla), rohu (Labeo rohita), mrigal(Cirrhinus migrila), silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) and common carp (Cyrpinus carpio).The treated effluent from the duckweed culture is released into the fishponds through control valves.Taking advantage of the high productivity and carrying capacity in the sewage-fed system, fishes areharvested when they attain the marketable sizes 8-12 after months of stocking. Harvesting is done byrepeated netting and finally draining the water through the outlet. The reported results of the meanindividual weights of carp species in fish ponds during the culture period of one year were catla 600 g,rohu 700 g, mrigal 700 g, silver carp 800 g and common carp 650 g. The production levels recordedfrom the fishponds are in the ranges of 3-4 t/ha/year.

Health issues and waste-fed aquaculture

One of the major issue raised during the national held at SARDI (Kumar 2000 a) was health concernsrelated to waste fed/integrated aquaculture. Fishponds serve as facultative ponds for sewage treatmentand the system also provides for oxygen input from the photosynthesising algae and macrophytes(CIFA1998). The macrophytes also serve as nutrient pumps, reducing the eutrophication effects thatthe sewage is likely to cause in the natural waters. It has been demonstrated that ponding reduces thebacterial loads by 2-3 log units and bacteriophage loads by 3-4 log units even at a sewage loading of100 kg COD/ha/d. With no evidence of a build-up in the concentration of excreted micro organisms inpond water with either an increase in organic loading or time, it has been shown that the faecalcoliform concentrations reduced by 4 log units within 24 hours of retention in the ponds.

Studies in the Indian system has shown that about 1 million litres per day of domestic sewage could betreated over an area of one hectare through water hyacinth, reducing the BOD and COD by 89 and71% respectively, along with removal of nitrogen and phosphorus to the extents of 89 and 50%respectively. Public health concerns are raised with regard to the suitability for consumption offish/shellfish from such systems. This pertains to the microbial load of the produce, possibilities ofharbouring human pathogens, accumulation of pesticide residues and heavy metals, etc. Accordingly,the sewage-fed aquaculture models are being modified with the incorporation of plant cultivation priorto application of wastewaters to the fish ponds, followed by necessary depuration measures.

Vietnam uses domestic sewage for fish culture and livestock waste for pond fertilisation in aquacultureproduction (Luu and Kumar 2000). Edwards (1990) explained an alternative sewage reuse strategy foraquaculture for the production of high-protein animal feed. Aquaculture has been used for as fishresource-recovery systems in China and Taiwan.

In Munich, the waste-fed aquacultured fish are regularly monitored by the government laboratories.The published information indicates that all values are below critical levels required by the GermanFederal Bureau of Health. Human pathogens have never been found in fish flesh. Values of heavymetals and aromatic hydrocarbons in fish are said to comply with government standards (Prein 1990).

Page 76: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

60

Counts of bacteria, including coliforms reveal that properly functioning wastewater and fish cultureinstallations have high reduction values of over 99%. Demoll (1926) described that: “the fish do notdiffer from any fish which are grown in well-kept fish ponds. Since a number of pathogenous germsstay alive over longer periods of time in the guts of fish, apparently without affecting the fish itself,strong attention should be paid to cleanliness when eviscerating the fish freshly removed from theponds".

A survey conducted in the fish farming area of Wuxi, Jiansu Province, China on animal manure, themanured pond water and fish body surface mucus of Chinese carps indicated that no human intestinalpathogenic bacteria were found. When the fish from the manured pond were descaled and rinsed, thecounts of coliform bacteria were reduced by 100-1000 times to almost the same level in the fish fromthe non-manured pond. Studies also indicated that after proper washing, fish cultured in the manuredpond is hygienic as human food, and it is not harmful to human health (Jieyi et al. 1994).

In a full scale demonstration study in Suez, Egypt, about 400M3/day of raw sewage was treated using amulti-compartment stabilisation pond system. The effluent was used for rearing two types of local fish(tilapia and grey mullet). The produced fish were subjected to an extensive monitoring program.Bacteriological examination revealed that in all samples the fish muscles were free of bacterialcontaminants. The study concluded that fish reared in the treated effluent at Suez experimental stationare suitable for human consumption (Easa et al. 1995)

Key issues and challenges

Successful integrated systems can not be copied without adaptive research

Integrated farming systems with aquaculture as a component differ greatly from traditional extensiveand intensive farming systems. In the process aquaculture is used as a tool for recycling wastewaterand recovering nutrients. Nutrient recovery is facilitated by combining dissolved nutrients in the waterwith energy from sunlight to promote primary and secondary production as useable organic materialfor consumption by aquatic organisms (eg fish). As explained earlier there are successful operations inGermany, England, China, Thailand and India (Ryther 1990; Edwards 1990). However, integratedwaste treatment operations are highly dependent upon local circumstances. To install a system in anew location, the successful model in one country or a particular area cannot simply be copied. Site-specific adaptations must be made to meet local requirements and constraints.

Oxidation ponds have been used for many years for the treatment of domestic wastewater. Nutrientsand carbon dioxide produced by decomposing organic wastes enhance the growth of unicellular algae,which in turn provide oxygen for bacterial decomposition. However when such ponds release effluent,the algae themselves represent a loading of particular organic matter that would fail to meet mostdischarge standards. As such algae must be removed from the water. Conventional harvestingtechniques could be used, but they are often uneconomical unless the algae produced are of highcommercial value. A viable alternative is to allow the algae to be consumed by filter-feeding orgrazing invertebrates or fish in aquaculture situations. Polyculture systems involving fish that feed lowin the food chain in ponds enriched with a variety of organic wastes have been used in many Asiancountries. Alternatively, carnivorous fish can be used which utilise the algal consuming invertebratesor herbivorous fish.

Different models are necessary to suit various climatic situations.

Species diversification and climatic condition vary significantly across Australia. There is a need todevelop models for both temperate and tropical and subtropical climate

Page 77: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

61

Current Australian research focus

Enhance productivity, water use efficiency and water conservation by introducing aquaculture intoexisting agriculture farm practices.

According to McKinnon, et al. (2000) integrated aquaculture research and development in Victoriahas been underway since 1994. Several stand-alone projects have been commissioned, but all projectsconsist of a common agri-aquaculture systems integration thread. Integrated aquaculture projectsinclude the integration of semi-intensive cage culture of silver perch into existing irrigation farmingsystems, including irrigation supply channels, an on-farm storage and in tanks where groundwater isused for irrigation. Other projects include examining the potential for semi-intensive cage culture ofsilver perch, rainbow trout and Atlantic salmon in public lakes and reservoirs and the production of awide variety of euryhaline fish, mollusc and crustacean species in saline groundwater evaporationbasins. The trial production of finfish in industrial wastewater treatment ponds has also being studied.

Water and nutrient recycling through integrated aquaculture for resource management and pollutioncontrol.

The South Australian Research Institute (SARDI) in its work to build a technology base for integratedfarming and waste recycling systems has developed twin projects in this area. These projects arefocussed to increase sustainable production through integrated farming and to enhance the efficiencyof waste treatment systems through aquaculture production. As such, both projects were built aroundthe same principle. A production-oriented project was created for Vietnam and a waste treatmentprogram was developed for the Australian domestic project. The approach involves interdisciplinaryresearch with the targeted resource systems.

Currently the South Australian and Commonwealth Governments are funding a $19 millionrefurbishment of facilities at Urrbrae Agricultural High School to accommodate a TAFE College ofEducation. The aim is to provide a base for integrating horticultural and agricultural training on theUrrbrae site. The Urrbrae Integrated Wastewater Treatment and Aquaculture production system(UIWTA) is part of this development. The joint development will create a premier centre foreducation, training and research into these disciplines in Australia. The UIWTA initiative has resultedin collaboration between Urrbrae Agricultural School, the Environmental Health section of FlindersUniversity S.A. and the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI).

The system comprises an aerobic reactor, two algal ponds, two fish ponds and constructed wetlands.Animal waste is collected in a reception pit from the piggery and dairy and then fed semi-continuouslyinto an aerobic reactor. Following aerobic treatment the slurry is separated into solid and liquidphases. The solid phase can be composted. The liquid phase is diluted using water from on-sitewetlands and passed into two algal ponds. These are shallow ponds mixed slowly using apaddlewheel. Prolific algal growth occurs in these ponds which is accompanied by nutrient removalvia biotic and abiotic processes. Furthermore, conditions within the ponds are antagonistic to potentialpathogens residing in the aerobically pre-treated waste. Treated effluent from the high rate algal pondsis fed into two aquaculture ponds for the production of fish using the algae as a source of nutrients andenergy. Fishponds are an integral part of the waste water treatment system and can also be used forcommercial fish production. The final effluent from the fishponds can then be returned to theconstructed wetlands and also used for irrigation.

RIRDC has funded a pilot project, SAR-16A, that produced excellent results in the micro (aquarium)and mesocosm (tanks) levels. The results include: optimum concentration for biological treatment ofwastewater treatment; optimum water retention time; optimum nutrient concentration for fish culture;suitable species composition and winter summer influence (temperature) on biological waste watertreatment

Page 78: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

62

Nutrient stripping and effluent treatment from intensive aquaculture systems or organic waste

The Aquaculture Development Unit of the Fremantle Maritime Centre is currently undertaking a two-year investigation into the potential use of the marine macro-alga, Ulva rigida, in aquaculturedischarge water management. The aim of the project is to demonstrate the suitability of Ulva forstripping nutrients from effluent waters typically discharged from land-based, marine aquaculturefarms. A pilot tank system has been constructed at the Fremantle facility for demonstration purposes.In addition, the development of suitable uses for the Ulva by-product, (eg as abalone feed), is seen as akey component of this investigation, as adoption of this technology is seen to be dependent upondisplaying a commercial advantage to the aquaculture industry (Jenkins 2000).

Bribie Island Aquaculture Research Centre is involved in nutrient removal from prawn farm effluentthat is rich in nutrients and can contribute to the eutrophication of coastal waters. The objective of thisstudy is to determine the effectiveness of a combined finfish, artificial substrate system for thereduction of the total nutrients released from prawn farms (Erler 2000)

Future research and development plan and approach

There is a need to develop a national strategy for promoting and establishing integrated farmingpractices to provide a clear guidance to the industry representatives, policy makers, researchers andextension authorities for developing a health and vibrant primary industry. Research is being plannedto undertake a number of models and the projects are under various stages of development. Theultimate aim is the establishment of demonstration biosystems that will serve as the Australian modelsfor pig and other intensive industries and give farmers' best practice sytems to establish a commercialbiosystem. Information will also be disseminated as appropriate to Australian farmers throughnetworks and publications and the demonstration of the commercial model to encourage industryuptake. Also, the recommendations of the studies will be made available to the policy makers inAustralia in the renewable energy resource sector. Aquaculture is a key element in all these models,which include:

(a) organic waste treatment through integrated bio-systems;

Livestock

Organic Waste

Algal Pond

Macro & MicroAlgae

Fish Pond

Fish & AquaticPlants

WetlandHorticulture/Agriculture

Project ModelWastewater Treatment and Integrated

Biosystems, South Australia

Digester

Bio-energy

Page 79: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

63

(b) aquaculture system management for sustainable development: health management and biologicalregulation of aquaculture environment; and

(c) integrated sub-system models which could be tailored to suit various industrial needs to managewaste resources:

I Comprehensive bio-systems (livestock – bio-energy – agriculture/horticulture – aquaculture)

II Horticulture/agriculture-aquaculture III Livestock – aquaculture

IV Bio-energy and aquaculture

Regional models need to be developed to suit tropical and subtropical areas of the country. Key issuesfor the research is provided in the flow chart. It is important to develop a team comprisingmultidisciplinary experts to undertake a coordinated work to achieve desired results.

Outline of research strategy

Aquarium Small Tank

Pond level (Commercial scaletrial and implementation)

RIRDC SRA 16 Regional demonstration site for temperate

Project proposed

Page 80: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

64

Organicwaste

Livestock

• Poultry

• Diary

AquacultureBioenergy

Agriculture

Water Recovery/Recycle System

eg wet land

HorticultureIntegrated farming (Biosystem)(Sustainable farming practice and Environmental Protection)

Key research issues• Health and hygiene• Nutrition• Feed quality control

Research focusMaximise economicreturn by optimising the digestion andenergy harvestprocess Research focus

Maximise nutrientrecovery;wastewater utilisation;prevent aquatic pollution andmaximising the production

Research Focus• Water storage• quality control• recycling

Page 81: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

65

Conclusion

Use of wastewater is an issue gaining importance through out the world, as water sources becomescarcer and competition for them increases. The degradation of aquatic environments is of currentconcern in Australia. Recently, in South Australia, the Environmental Protection Authority hasintroduced guidelines for the controlled disposal of animal waste from milking sheds with the specificobjective of protecting surface and groundwater quality.

The concept of integrated wastewater treatment and aquaculture is attempting to deal with twoimportant issues faced by intensive farming industries. They are:

! Prevent Organic Pollution: issues such as disposal of organic waste and ground watereutrophication/contamination are some of the problems associated with the intensive industries.One of the major objectives of this project is to recover organic nutrients from organic waste andwater and use the same for other primary production activities such as aquaculture oragriculture/horticulture.

! Enhance farm income and sustainability: agro-industrial growth, a vital factor for economicimprovement including employment generation, is highly dependent on the sustained growth ofprimary industries such as pig, chicken meat and egg production. Availability/accessibility ofwater is another critical limiting factor. Sustainability of industries also depends on the efficiencyin managing the scarce, fragile and expensive water resource in farming situations. There is a needto develop technology thatminimises usage of domestic, ground or surface water and allows waterrecycle/reuse. This project is attempting to develop a viable technology for recycling water.

National demonstration units: The most important element of this program is to provide farmers atechnology demonstration facility with range of various options to adapt best and sustainable farmingpractice.

In summary the direct benefits include:

! technology demonstration and provide options to farmers for best farming practice.

! contribution to environmental protection.

! economic improvement through sustainable farming and industrial growth.

! contribution to freshwater aquaculture.

! employment creation.

! improved understanding of basic ecological principles..

! provision of sustainable integrated farming models.

Page 82: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

66

References

Chen, Q.Y., Y.L. Liang and T.H. Wu. 1982. Physical and chemical characteristics of two highly productivesmall lakes in the suburbs of Wu Han Shi wit reference to the analysis of their biological phase. J. Fisheries ofChina 6(4): 331-343. (In Chinese, English abstract).CIFA, 1998. Sewage Treatment Through Aquaculture. Central Institute of Freshwater Aquaculture,Bhubaneswar, India, 8 pp.

Culley, D. D. Jr. and E.A. Epps, 1973. Use of duck weed for waste treatment and animal feed. J.Wat. Pollut.Control Fed., 45: 337-347.

Curtis, T.P., D.D. Mara, and S.A. Silva, 1992. The effect of sunlight on faecal coliforms in ponds: Implicationsfor research and design. Water Science and Technology, 26(78): 1729-1738.

Demoll, R. 1920. Das Abwasserfischteichverfahren. Frickhinger, H.W. (ed) Einzeldarstellungen aus dem Gebietder angewandten Naturwissenschaften, No. 1, Verlag Natur und Kultur Franz Josef Voeller, Munich, Germany48 p. (In German).

Easa.M.El.S., Shereif.M.M., Shaaban.A.I and Mancy.K.H., 1995. Public health implications of wastewater reusefor fish production. Wat.Sci.Tech. Vol.32.N0 11pp 145-152

Edwards,P., 1990. General dicussion on wastewater-fed aquaculture, p.281-291. In P.Edwards and R.S.V.Pullin(eds) Wastefed aquaculture, Proceedings of the International Seminar on Watewater Reclamation andReuse for Aquaculture, Calcutta, India,6-9 December 1988 xxix+296

Edwards, P., Pullin, R.S.V., 1990. Wastewater-fed Aquaculture. Proceedings of the International Seminar onWastewater Reclamation and Reuse for Aquaculture, Calcutta, India, 6-9 December, 1988.

Haines, T.A. 1973. Effects of nutrient enrichment and a rough fish population (carp) on a game fish population(smallmouth bass). Transactions of the American Fish Society 102:346-354.

Hammad, S. M., 1996. Performance of a full-scale UASB domestic wastewater treatment plant. J. Inst. PublicHealth Engineers, India, 1: 11-19.

Jenkins.G., Boarder.I., Patridge.G., Shipigel. M. 2000. Preliminary results for the project ‘Demonstration ofseasweed nutrient-stripping for aquaculture waste-water’p 137-141. In Kumar.M.S.(ed) National workshop onWastewater treatment and Integrated Aquaculture Production, 17-19th September 1999, SARDI Aquatic Sciences,SARDI Aquatic Sciences, ISBN 073085253 9

Jieyi.D., Xianzhen. G., Xiuzhen.F., Meizhen.L., and Wenyou.Z. 1994. Preliminary studies on the effects ofanimal manure application upon fish bacterial diseases and fish food hygiene. Research papers. Published byFreshwater research centre of Chinese Academy of Fisheries Sciences.pp 257-268

Kumar. M., 2000. (Edited). Proceedings of the National Workshop on Wastewater Treatment and IntegratedAquaculture, p191 Edited, Kumar M.S. SARDI Aquatic Sciences 17-19th September 1999. ISBN 073085253 9.

Kumar. M., 2000 b. Linkage Between Wastewater Treatment and Aquaculture; Initiatives by the South AustralianResearch Development Institute (SARDI) In Kumar. M.S.(ed) National workshop on Wastewater treatment andIntegrated Aquaculture Production, 17-19th September 1999, SARDI Aquatic Sciences, ISBN 073085253 9

Luu.L and Kumar.D.2000. Aquaculture- An effective biological approach for recycling of organic waste intohigh quality protein food, p49-53. In Kumar. M.S.(ed) National workshop on Wastewater treatment andIntegrated Aquaculture Production, 17-19th September 1999, SARDI Aquatic Sciences, ISBN 073085253 9.

McKinnon.L., Ingram.G., De Silva.S., Gasior.R., 2000. Directions for Integrated Aquaculture in Victoria, P 142-148.In Kumar.M.S.(ed) National workshop on Wastewater treatment and Integrated Aquaculture Production, 17-19th

September 1999, SARDI Aquatic Sciences, SARDI Aquatic Sciences, ISBN 073085253 9.

Mills, S. W., G. P. Alabaster, D. D. Mara, H. W. Thitai, 1992. Efficiency of faecal bacterial removal in wastestabilization ponds in Kenya. Wat. Sci. Tech., 26: 1739-1748.

Page 83: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

67

Olah,J. 1990.Wastewater-fed fishculture in Hungary, p. 79-89. In P. Edwards and R.S.V. Pullin (eds.)Wastewater-fed aquaculture, Proceedings of the International Seminar on Wastewater Reclamation and Reusefor Aquaculture, Calcutta, India, 6-9 December 1988,xxix+296 p. Environmental Sanitation Information Center,Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand.

Pearson, H. W., D. D. Mara, S. W. Mills and D. J. Smallman, 1987. Phsico-chemical parameters influencingfaecal bacterial survival in waste stabilization ponds. Wat. Sci. Techn., 11(12): 145-152.

Pearson, H. W., D. D. Mara, L. R. Cawley, H. M. Arridge and S. A. Silva, 1996. The performance of aninnovative tropical experimental waste stabilization pond system operating at high organic leadings. Wat. Sci.Techn., 33(7) : 63-73.

Ponyi J., Biro.P., Olah.J., Zankai.N.P., Tamas.G., Csekei.T., Kiss.G., Morvai.T and Banesi.I., 1973.Limnological investigations of a fish pond supplied with sewage water in the vicinity of LakeBalaton.I.Annal.Biol.Tihany 40:227-284

Ponyi J., Biro.P., Olah.J., Zankai.N.P., Tamas.G., Csekei.T., Kiss.G., Morvai.T and Banesi.II., 1974.Limnological investigations of a fish pond supplied with sewage water in the vicinity of LakeBalaton.I.Annal.Biol.Tihany 41:235-288

Prein, M. 1990. Wastewater-fed culture in Germany, p. 13-47. In P. Edwards and R.S.V. Pullin (eds.)Wastewater-fed Aquaculture, Proceedings of the International Seminar on Wastewater Reclamation and Reusefor Aquaculture, Calcutta, India, 6-9 December 1988, xxix+296 p. Environmental Sanitation Information Center,Asian Institute of Technology, Bankok, Thailand.

Ryther.J.H., 1990. Wastewater treatment through aquaculture: A review of experimentation undertaken in theUnited States, with discussion of its wider implications, p.201-208. In P.Edwards and R.S.V. Pullin(eds)Wastefed aquaculture, Proceedings of the International Seminar on Watewater Reclamation and Reuse forAquaculture, Calcutta, India,6-9 December 1988 xxix+296.

Sarikaya, H. J. and A. M. Saatci, 1987. Bacterial die off in waste stabilization ponds. J. Environ. Engg., 113(2) :366-382.

Schlegel, H. G., 1993. General Microbiology (7th Ed.). Cambridge University press, 655 pp.

Tuan.P.A and Trac.V.V. 1990. Reuse of wastewater for fish culture in Hanoi, Vietnam, p 69-71. In P.edwards(eds) Wastewater-fd aquaculture, Proceedings of the International seminar on Wastewater reclamation and Reusefor aquaculture, Clacutta, India, 6-9 Decemebr 1988, xxx+296, Environmental Sanitation Information Centre,Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand.

Oron, G., 1994. Duckweed culture for wastewater renovation and biomass production Agriculture WaterManagement, 26 : 27-40.

Ozimek, T. 1983. The role of duckweeds in cycling of heavy metals in ponds supplied with post-sewage waters.Proceedings of international Symposium on Aquatic Michrophytes, Nijimegon, pp. 172-176.

Zhang, Z.S. 1990. Wastewater-fed fish culture in China, p. 3-12. In P. Edwards and R.S.V. Pullin (eds.)Wastewater-fed aquaculture, Proceedings of the International Seminar on Wastewater reclamation and Reusefor Aquaculture, Calcutta, India, 6-9 December 1988, xxix+296 p. Environmental Sanitation Information Centre,Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand

Page 84: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

68

Israel Multiple Water Use and Aquaculture - Ten Lessons

Peter PetersonDepartment of Primary Industries

This paper is about opportunities and lessons. Lessons those who went to Israel in 1999 on a studytour learnt and lessons I hope we can bring back to our colleagues in rural Australia.

When does thinking change?

I believe there are two reasons for change. The first is when you can see a personal advantage in thechange. The second, and most important reason, is changing because you have to - this necessity reallymakes you understand your real needs. In Israel there are nine million people in a total land areasimilar to Tasmania, but a tiny fraction of the water and natural resources of Tasmania. Tasmaniasupports three to four hundred thousand people and is often reported to be in a perilous economicstate.

So why isn't Tasmania producing so much more than Israel? Perhaps it's because it doesn't have to.Australia has no real threat of war, and community and personal economic and social viability are notunder threat, so there is little incentive to optimise the use of our resources or conserve thoseresources.

It's really about what you can do and what you are driven to do with scarce resources.

Not so long ago I supported an Israeli scientist cum developer cum soldier in looking at Queensland'snatural resources. This stern faced man with a reputation of having a key role in developing the UScatfish industry and facilitating industry development around the world, said to me at the conclusion ofhis visit:

YOU KNOW, PETER, YOU (MEANING AUSTRALIA) HAVE SO MUCH AND DO SO LITTLEWITH IT.

(Lesson 1)

Let's think about how we use our bucket of water. With respect to irrigation, the practice has been toapply water to crops with no pre use, allowing any surplus to evaporate or drain away - carryingresidues of various sorts and leading to pollution. To our credit we are now thinking about the need toconserve water and optimising application (costs) but not addressing the optimisation of production(income).

In Israel this not an option as all resources and threats are at a high level. Hence the need to gainreturns from resources at the highest level to finance other sustenance activities on a sustainable basis

The diagram below illustrates one of the best examples of multiple water use currently practised inIsrael.

Page 85: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

69

Through the clever use of recirculation systems and multiple water use Israeli inland fish productionfar exceeds Australia's.

WE NEED TO WORK TOGETHER.

(lesson 2)

There are three main farming systems in Israel:

! Kibbutz- essentially a socialist concept limited to a particular farming area. All people work forthe kibbutz and all returns are ploughed back into the kibbutz. This concept was born of scarceeconomic resources and the wish to survive. The benefits of this extended to the free sharing ofknowledge and skills. This led to the other two types of operations and provides a sound buildingblock in Israeli society.

! Moshav- a cooperative of families who share natural resources and the costs of managing them.They also plan the overall operation cooperatively and achieve economies of scale in buying inresources. However they are responsible for their own component of the farm and families retainindividual profits in proportion to their operations.

! Individual Business- as per the usual Australian farmer

Tourist Spa

GROUNDWATER

41oC

HeatGreenhouse

Eels

Tilapia

Catfish

HydroponicTomatoes

(Murray Cod)

100% Feed

50% isWaste = Feed

(Silver Perch)

100% isWaste = Feed

50% Feed

(Catfish Australia)

HydroponicHerbs

Broadacreto Dates,Melons, etc

RecycleBalance

Source P. Peterson. Based on the work of Sam Applebaum, Israel.

Page 86: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

70

Incubators

Let me describe to you the challenge for Israel in 1991. Communism in the old USSR was at an end.Close to 900,000 Jews arrived at Israel's doorstep. Remember Israel had only around 6 million peoplethen so a potentially great social problem was looming.

This was not seen as a problem but rather an opportunity and challenge. A winning solution wasfound. First, the fact that the immigrants were heavily academically biased and had minimalcommercial skills was recognised.

A system of incubators was established in which academic cells were established. These weresupported by business managers from the existing Israeli population, and by just enough operatingfunds.

The key was incentive - the incentive to gain personally and as a society. These two elements are ofnecessity linked.

PARADIGMS WILL CHANGE WHEN THE INCENTIVE IS STRONG ENOUGH.

(Lesson 3)

Funding for anyone selected for participation in an incubator was for one year only. So there was astrong incentive to succeed.

Direct profit from research was prescribed. A return to the incubator, a return to the prospector and areturn to the researcher were all considered essential and necessary.

RISK PROVIDES RETURNS AND NEEDS TO BE MANAGED POSITIVELY.

(Lesson 4)

This experiment was astoundingly successful with 60% of projects achieving commercial reality. Thiselevated Israel's standing in the world's R&D community significantly, particularly in InformationTechnology. But of course a lot of the focus was in Israel's base primary industries, includingaquaculture.

But what about those that did not succeed? The only penalty was that they could not use this schemeagain. They moved to another learning situation and were able to contribute to other projects. Theyalso provided lessons about what not to do.

In fact nothing was lost!

Kibbutzes and moshavs have continued to prosper and the economic status of Israel is sound despiteits ongoing challenges.

In Australia we have a relatively high degree of separatism in our research, our administrativestructures, our management and our administration. Australia remains prosperous but perhaps notoptimally efficient in using its resources.

Page 87: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

71

Perhaps this is the most important lesson of all.

THERE IS NO SUCH WORD AS WASTE IN THE ISRAELI LANGUAGE. IN FACT WHEN YOUTHINK RIGHT, NOTHING SHOULD BE LOST.

(Lesson 5)

We all know this - we read about it, talk about it and perhaps think we do something about it. "It" iswasted resources that are taken out of functional systems. The most costly of these to Australia in thelong term will be water.

Through our study tour in Israel we saw that we could and should do so much more and we gained abelief in change.

But for me personally the visit by Sam Applebaum of the Blaustein Desert Aquaculture Institute tooutback Queensland provided me with a real change to my existing paradigms.

We were in outback Queensland visiting a small aquaculture site operating an open bore. A strong andsteady flow of hot water was evident. The aquaculture facility was small, the balance of water wasemployed for pastures and only a fraction of the amount discharged was employed.

Our Israeli visitor's reaction was one of distress. He suggested that this was a 'criminal waste' worthyof severe punishment. Our experience in Israel suggested there was a point in what he was saying.This situation is not unusual and the farmer concerned agreed. He saw the flow as a waste but saidthat he could not cap it because the natural resource managers would not reconcile the real farm needswith the water cap. He felt this would be resolved in time but it was impracticable to act proactively.

In essence if he capped he would then have an inadequate water supply, while if he didn't cap therewas a major net water loss.

Aquaculture as component of traditional agriculture

My own vocational focus is fish and most particularly aquaculture.

It seems to me that if the multiple use of water is to work then aquaculture has got to be a keyconsideration.

Why?

RURAL ECONOMICS OF THE FUTURE WILL BE ABOUT WATER, IN PARTICULAR THERETURN IN DOLLARS PER MEGALITRE OF WATER.

(Lesson 6)

In Israel we learned that the most serious offence in farming was the misuse of water. The punishmentwas not a dollar fine but deprivation of future water access. In fact it was frequently said in Israel thatthe next world war will be fought over access to water.

To this end we were amazed to find a moshav in total desert country. In an area of approximately 80hectares of sheds it was growing a major capsicum crop which supported sixty families and producedenough to meet the entire capsicum needs of a major European city throughout the winter months. Useof water was limited to sixty cubic metres per family per week and this enabled the community toenjoy a high standard of living in the desert.

Page 88: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

72

We are beginning to see water prices rise here but they rarely exceed $50 per megalitre. In Israel thefollowing rates applied when we visited:

! Town water $1,000/meg +

! Ground water $250-500 per meg

! Sewage reuse water $175+

! Other water $200 per meg +

What is the best return on a megalitre of water, current and future? I would like to say aquaculture,but I'd only be partly right.

In reality it's about holistic planning of rural production enterprises. Life style farming is fine inAustralia now and for some time in the future but I do not believe that will last.

To get the best out of each megalitre of water it must be used more than once. Fish do use water, butthey don't drink it, they live in it. Some lost by evaporation but by and large it's there for use in someform of irrigation (hydroponics, drip, flood etc). So if you can obtain a supplementary net income youcan succeed.

But to do that:

IN AQUACULTURE YOU HAVE TO FIND A MARKET, PLAN YOUR BUSINESS AND HAVEA SOUND RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY, AS IN AGRICULTURE.

(Lesson 7)

So what's the world scene for aquaculture?

Since 1980, global production from marine and freshwater aquaculture has grown dramatically, and isnow greater than 40 millions tons and worth about A$100 billion per annum (Figure 1)3.

World wide, aquaculture is increasing invalue by 10% per year, making it one of thefastest growing food industries in the world4.While there is an uneven contribution fromdifferent countries to the global aquaculturevolumes – Asia is dominant - mostaquaculture producers are experiencingsignificant production increases, includingoutput in Queensland (which is 6% ofnational, and 0.04% of global output)

In Australia, can we replace imports with fresh Australian farm quality fish? Remember that 20,000tonnes of cheap fish are imported into Australia every year. A better product at the same price wouldbe a sound proposition if it could be economically produced.

Global Aquaculture Production:1984-1996 Fishery Information, Data and Statistics Service (FIDI)http://www.fao.org/fi/trends/aqtrends/aqtrend.asp

Figure 1. Global Fisheries Production

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Tonn

es (m

illio

n)

Total

Capture

Page 89: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

73

I believe there is a major opportunity for Queensland primary industries to optimise the value of theirwater supplies by building in aquaculture following the rules below:

! Firstly, consider potential markets

- Look at existing markets domestic and overseas

- But also consider developing markets (eg the US catfish industry)

! Secondly, consider the realistic production capacity

- As an individual

- As an industry sector and

- Perhaps as a co-operative

Remember lesson 2 from Israel because lesson 8 is:

CONTINUITY OF SUPPLY IS THE GREATEST WEAKNESS OF FISHERIES MARKETING.DON'T BECOME PART OF THAT PROBLEM!!!

(Lesson 8)

So what are the opportunities for agriculturists?

Our cotton representative to Israel, Paul McVeigh, has already started growing fish in his cotton ringtanks and the prospects appear good at this early stage. Paul Ziebarth our horticulturist is also movinginto holistic farming systems with Commonwealth government support.

But other industries also hold prospects. For example the sugar industry has provided the basis for thedevelopment of the farmed prawn industry.

Aquaculture is not an instant panacea and there will be lags to profitability as set-up costs areamortised. The agriculture sector does have a major advantage. If existing infrastructure is available(as it is for most farmers, particularly irrigators), then the lag to profitability is greatly reduced. Onecan also see that aquaculture is not the way to 'get rich quick'.

Figure 4. Queensland Vs neighbours

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

(000

' mt p

.a.)

OceaniaAustraliaN.Z.Q.L.D

Page 90: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

74

Aquaculture investment will to some extent be governed by the nature of aquaculture pond operations.These can be classified as follows:

1. Extensive- simply placing fish in pond, allowing them to feed from natural production, followedby cropping. This is a very low cost, very low return and low risk system. However it must benoted that there is a return and there will be a net gain to the overall integrated agri-aquaculturefarming enterprise.

2. Semi intensive- this is the same as the above except that the fish are fed their needs. This is lowcost and low return but carries the risk of eutrophication - and hence requires monitoring and feedmanagement regimes.

3. Intensive/extensive- this is as per 2., but aeration is added so this is a moderate cost optiondependent upon the level of stocking. It has a good return and risk is higher as humanmanagement of the entire system is essential on a continuing basis.

4. Intensive cages- under this regime fish are held in cages to optimise production in ponds andwaste management is carried out using biofilters, an external crop of fish or another methodology.Returns are high, costs are becoming high, and a high level of farm management and systemsmonitoring is essential.

5. Recirculation systems- These are usually contained in sheds. Maximising profitability is relativelycostly and inbuilt monitoring should be in place as the failure of any factor can lead to major stocklosses in a relatively short period of time.

THE SYSTEMS ADOPTED SHOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO THE EXISTING AGRICULTURALSYSTEM, THE OBJECTIVES OF THE FARMER AND THE NATURE OF AVAILABLE

NATURAL RESOURCES.

(Lesson 9)

I believe that through the promotion of multiple water use through integrated agri-aquaculture systems and similar holistic systems, we can create:

! A good return per megalitre of water

! A common water use and conservation ethic for primary producers throughout Australia

! Rural growth and new jobs

! A strengthening of existing agricultural enterprises

! A fascinating and enjoyable new industry or diversification (remember it's only fun if it'sprofitable)

So the last lesson is:

WELL MANAGED MULTIPLE WATER USE IS GOOD FOR REGIONAL GROWTH.

(Lesson 10)

Page 91: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

75

Integrated Agri-Aquaculture in Australia: virtual industry orcommercial reality?

Gooley, G. J.* and Gavine, F. M.Marine and Freshwater Resources Institute

Abstract

Globalisation and environmental sustainability imperatives now dictate that the Australian irrigatedagriculture sector move towards Best Practice production systems which optimise the use of water andnutrient resources, and place a greater emphasis on higher value products for both domestic and exportmarkets. To accomplish this farmers need access to new technologies that allow them to realise theopportunities presented by the increasing separation of property and water rights within establishedirrigation areas. Possible future developments in this area, such as the creation of economic marketsfor tradeable emissions (eg. salt and nutrients), are also likely to facilitate the transition to moresustainable Best Practice systems.

In this context an Integrated Agri-Aquaculture Systems (IAAS) approach to agribusiness developmentoffers many advantages to the irrigation industry in Australia. However new entrants should becognisant of a range of key IAA investment criteria, including:

! the need to achieve appropriate economies of scale through the establishment of relevant businessnetworks, and

! the need to ensure that the integration of the aquaculture enterprise within the existing farmoperation be based on thorough business planning and market research.

An IAA systems approach within a developed country such as Australia will see the greatest flow ofbenefits to rural communities through adoption of industrial scale enterprise. This will require acoordinated effort between the agriculture and aquaculture sectors at an organisational level, supportedby Government/industry partnership-based investments in infrastructure, training, marketing, policydevelopment, R&D and extension. Accordingly, from this point, and with an eye to the next decade,the question remains as to whether IAA in Australia will achieve commercial reality, or simply remaina “virtual” industry, forever qualified by theory and definitions.

Introduction

The concept of integrated aquaculture has been variously defined to accommodate a range of systemdesigns and applications. In general terms these definitions seek to link aquaculture with humanactivity systems to capitalise on the use of by-products (Edwards 1998). Such systems typicallyincorporate the integrated use of natural resources, including land, water and nutrients, and capitalinfrastructure (including ponds, canals, pipes and pumps etc). Various models of integratedaquaculture systems have been developed and/or mooted for application within Australia, based onmultiple use of:

! surface and artesian irrigation waters:

! saline groundwaters;

! industrial, domestic and agricultural wastewaters; and

! public waters (lakes, reservoirs).

Page 92: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

76

It is suggested in this paper, however, that the most significant opportunity for use of this technologyin Australia lies in the development of integrated agri-aquaculture systems (IAAS) whichcommercially link aquaculture and irrigated farming enterprises as integral components under acommon business management objective. Accordingly, and within this context, the followingdefinition of IAAS is proposed:

“…Integration of aquaculture and irrigated farming systems to optimise the economic andenvironmentally sustainable use of existing energy, resources and infrastructure…”.

Integrated agri-aquaculture in Australia

The irrigated agriculture sector in Australia accounts for about 25% of total agricultural productionworth AUD $5-6 billion annually. There is existing irrigation infrastructure in every state, with morethan 2 million ha of irrigated land utilising an estimated 13,000 GL of water per year. However it isbecoming increasingly apparent that water is presently under- utilised in Australian irrigated farmingsystems as a result of routine single-use only, typically with a net loss of nutrients (and thereforeenergy) to the environment (Gooley, 2000).

The integration of aquaculture and agriculture has been happening informally and on an ad hoc basisin Australia for many years, as farmers have continually sought new and innovative ways to diversifyand consolidate their respective agri-business enterprises. The advantages of integrated agri-aquaculture systems over conventional farming systems include their ability to:

! increase farm productivity without any net increase in water consumption enable farmdiversification into higher value crops, including aquatic species;

! enable re-use of otherwise wasted on-farm resources (capture and re-use of nutrients/energy);

! reduce net environmental impacts of semi-intensive farming practices;

! achieve net economic benefits by offsetting existing farm capital and operating expenses.

IAAS were first formally recognised as a potential agribusiness sector in Australia in 1998, with theestablishment of a comprehensive, five year Research and Development plan by the Rural IndustriesResearch and Development Corporation (RIRDC) (Gooley, 2000). The purpose of the R&D Plan wasprimarily to identify and prioritise relevant industry R&D needs, and to facilitate a coordinated, morestructured and orderly approach to industry development. This plan followed the completion of aprevious RIRDC funded R&D project investigating various aspects of agri-aquaculture integration toenhance farm productivity and water use efficiency within the Goulburn-Murray Irrigation District ofVictoria (Gooley et al. 2000). A suite of other related R&D projects were also completed or initiatedduring the same period, broadly based around the central theme of integrated bio-systemsincorporating aquaculture as a key component (eg. Ingram et al. 2000; McKinnon et al. 2000; Kumaret al 2000a, b; Blackwell et al. 2000; Gooley et al. 2000a,b).

These projects, and the individual efforts of many farmers, have investigated various aspects andapplications of integrated aquaculture including:

! use of irrigation and nutrient-rich wastewater, first for aquaculture production and secondly forconventional irrigation use on land-based crops and pasture;

! concurrent/simultaneous use of water for aquaculture and crops;

! aquaculture use of water subsequently used for hydroponics, also referred to as “aquaponics”;

Page 93: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

77

! aquaculture use of shallow saline groundwater, increasingly associated with irrigation areas, whichis pumped and stored for evaporation or other forms of disposal (Figure 1).

Case studies on many of these and other initiatives, which in fact have a viable commercial outcome,will be the focus of a RIRDC-funded IAAS Resource Handbook which is presently in preparation andis intended for use as an industry extension tool.

Figure 1: Integrated Aquaculture in Saline Groundwater as part of a Serial BiologicalConcentration System (Heuperman et al. 1999)

The systems approach

In many developing nations in Asia, food security for resource-poor rural communities is a key driverfor integrated aquaculture. The key driver in Australia, however, is more simply in terms of economicprosperity that is pursued predominantly through industrial scale production. The emphasis in thesesystems is on profit-driven access to premium domestic and export markets. The one notable Asianexception to this rule perhaps is China, which has developed a comprehensive suite of economicallyviable, commercial enterprises based around quite sophisticated integrated aquaculture models (Wang,1997).

Another relevant large-scale application of the IAAS definition upon which Australian industry maybe able to observe some limited precedence occurs in Israel (Cohen 1997). The combination oflimited surface water resources within the largely arid Israeli landscape has necessitated thedevelopment of sophisticated farming systems that integrate industrial scale aquaculture and irrigationpractices to achieve multiple fresh and saline, surface and groundwater use.

Although recognising the fundamental differences between the subsistence needs of many resourcepoor Asian nations, and the agro-industrial scale approach to farming of developed countries, Edwards(1998) rightly points out many of the commonalities which apply to development of integratedaquaculture, independent almost of geo-political circumstances. The systems approach to integratedaquaculture development described by Edwards (1998) advocates the need to holistically address theinterrelated aspects of:

! production technology

! socio-economics, and

! environmental issues.

Evaporation basins

Basin 1 Basin 2

Groundwaterpump

Trees

Saltbush

Decreasing water volume

Increasing salt concentration

Tile Drainage

Saltharvest

Page 94: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

78

This approach, based on these three key “system drivers” is therefore directly relevant to theAustralian situation. Indeed using this approach much can be learned about the principles andpractices of integration of aquaculture and agriculture from the long-standing Asian experience. Whatwill vary in Australia however is the actual relative significance between the three system drivers andto a varying degree the actual mechanisms used to address them.

Production technology

Technical considerations for IAAS need to ensure that an effective balance can be achieved betweeninternal and external energy and associated natural resource inputs. The innovative use and re-use ofsuch inputs, and the optimal management of outputs to maximise quantity, quality and value ofproducts, and to minimise wastes and associated impacts, will be essential to achieve Best Practice.

Either fresh or saline water could theoretically be used in most integrated systems. However, the useof saline groundwater would dictate the need to store and ultimately dispose of effluent in anappropriate evaporation basin. Conversely, re-use of freshwater aquaculture effluent potentially hasmany irrigated agriculture applications.

Production system design for any one integrated farming model is likely to fit into one or more of thefollowing categories:

Intensive systemsThese systems are typically based on tank culture using either a flow through or recirculated watersupply. They could be located on farms within a structure such as an existing or purpose built shed orgreenhouse, which will allow the environment to be controlled to varying degrees to optimiseproduction. Intensive recirculating aquaculture systems typically operate at relatively high stockingdensities (>25kg/m3), utilise smaller volumes of fresh water (<10% make-up/day), and dischargesmaller volumes of more concentrated effluent. As the degree of water recirculation decreases, theamount of freshwater required and effluent discharged increases proportionately. Relatively high-energy inputs are required through use of artificial pelleted feeds, and for the operation of plant andequipment such as pumps, aeration and heaters. The attendant high operating costs therefore typicallynecessitate the production of higher value aquaculture species in order to be cost effective, with thefinal choice also based on market demand and preferred husbandry attributes (see following).

Semi-intensive systemsThese systems are typically based on the use of ponds and/or floating cages, the latter located withinlarger existing or purpose built water bodies, including farm ponds, evaporation basins, and irrigationstorages and channels. Fresh and saline waters are suitable, depending on species choice andavailability. Energy inputs are primarily related to the reliance on artificial feeds and/or artificialfertilisation regimes, and to a lesser extent energy for pumps, aerators etc.

The use of cages and pens often enables otherwise unsuitable waters to be retrofitted for aquacultureproduction, and facilitates the application of a range of routine aquaculture practices such as inventorycontrol, grading, fish health management, artificial feeding and harvesting; all at a relatively low costcompared with intensive systems. Stocking densities tend to be in the order of 5-25 kg/m3 and thespecies selected will be primarily determined by ambient climatic conditions. A combination ofambient climatic conditions and, where appropriate, some supplementary control such as aerationand/or water exchange also influence production.

Extensive systemsExtensive systems are typically pond-based or located in open waters in which the culture species areable to free-range. External energy inputs for aquaculture are relatively low or non-existent with feedbeing typically supplied by natural or low level artificial fertilisation regimes and associated primary

Page 95: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

79

production. Stocking densities (< 5kg/m3) and associated yields are relatively low, but external energyinputs and associated costs of production are likewise relatively low. Production control is limited andlargely influenced by ambient conditions, although supplementary controls such as mechanicalaeration and water exchange may still apply in pond-based systems as for many semi-intensivesystems. Harvesting may be problematic and labour intensive, where the culture waters cannot bedrained or easily netted/trapped to remove fish, and bird predation may also impact significantly onfinal yield. This is often the case for aquaculture in waters which have not been purpose built.

Agri-aqua species/crop selection

Some of the aquaculture species which have been successfully produced within integrated systems todate, at least technically if not commercially, include:

! barramundi (Lates calcarifer) in cages and tanks (fresh and saline)

! silver perch (Bidyanus bidyanus) in ponds and cages (fresh and saline)

! yabbies (Cherax destructor) in ponds (fresh only)

! snapper (Pagrus auratus) in salt evaporation basins (saline only)

! carp (Cyprinus carpio) and goldfish (Carassius auratus) in cages and ponds (fresh and saline)

! rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), brown trout (Salmo trutta) and Atlantic salmon (Salmosalar) in cages (fresh and saline)

The criteria for selecting commercially viable aquaculture species for integrated production will differlittle from the process used in conventional, stand-alone aquaculture systems, and will be dictated by:

! biological/husbandry attributes

! system design and cost of production

! geographic area and ambient climate

! availability of water and land resources

! value/demand of intended market

! availability of seed

! level of proposed capital investment and projected revenue/income

! quality and quantity of effluent and associated disposal/re-use options.

Specifically, some species will perform more efficiently under high density and others at lowerdensity. Also, non-endemic species may need to be maintained in a bio-secure tank-based system ifthe level of risk with less secure systems such as ponds or cages is deemed to be unacceptable. Whereproduction is to be carried out under ambient conditions, the growth rates of target aquaculture specieswill be a major factor in determining economic viability. Where seasonal variability, characteristic oftemperate climates at more southerly latitudes in Australia, limits optimal growth over a sufficientlylong enough period of time to reach market size for some cold or warmwater species, it may simplynot be viable to attempt aquaculture production. Alternatively producers may have to utilise advanced“stockers” to shorten the production cycle, or simply rely on agisting fish for short periods before on-selling to other producers to finish off to market size.

Other relevant criteria include matters to do with legislative and regulatory constraints, includingnational and state translocation policies, which will impose certain restrictions on species usageoutside of the natural range.

Page 96: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

80

Options for final disposal and/or re-use of aquaculture wastewater within an integrated farming systemwill largely be dictated by normal irrigated agriculture limitations. More specifically, nutrient-rich,freshwater effluent could be readily used for irrigation of a range of traditional land-based pasture andcrops, the latter including rice, wheat and cotton, and various horticulture (eg. stone fruits, citrus,vegetables and grapes), as well as various agroforestry and aquaponics crops (eg. lettuces, tomatoes,strawberries, cut flowers, and Asian herbs such as wasabi). Saline aquaculture effluent is less usefulfor irrigation purposes. Despite the likely need to store and evaporate much of this resource, it mayalso be possible to re-use some for irrigation of other increasingly salt tolerant crops (with or withoutadditional freshwater dilution) before final evaporative disposal.

Social and economic considerations

Socio-economic considerations are likely to play a critical role in the large-scale adoption of IAAS inAustralia, where profitability is likely to be one of the dominant system drivers. The effectivemarketing of aquaculture produce from small-scale IAAS operators will be an important factor in thelong-term economic sustainability of the industry and will demand innovative ideas, and strategic,cooperative and sustained action on behalf of the industry.

Where an existing aquaculture industry sector is already catering for the market demand for a certainspecies, significant constraints to market access for small-scale operators may impact on the economicfeasibility of the integrated operation. Existing market pricing structure, contractual agreements(between producers and buyers) and quality assurance/food safety standards may again eliminatecertain species from consideration, or may force small-scale IAAS operators to strategically alignthemselves with existing aquaculture industry producers.

Certainly, it is suggested that IAAS investors need to ensure that they meet minimum productionlevels and Quality Assurance/food safety standards to realistically access seafood markets in a cost-effective manner. The primary means by which this can be achieved is through business networking,including pooling of produce, sharing of infrastructure (eg. purging, processing, packaging, storage,and freight facilities), and collaborative and/or coordinated marketing. This approach would alsoallow small-scale producers to achieve the economies of scale that they could not otherwise realise byworking more autonomously.

Environmental issues – water industry reform

In a relatively dry country like Australia, pertinent environmental issues relate to the sustainableutilisation and protection of water resources. Threats to water resources in irrigation areas occurthrough over abstraction, salinisation of surface and groundwaters and catchment-scale nutrientenrichment (eutrophication). The traditional single use of irrigation water is intrinsically inefficientand the increasing cost of irrigation water and fertilisers for agriculture highlights the benefits of IAASto the traditional farmer. In addition, farmers with lands already degraded through salinisation have anopportunity to recover some productivity and perhaps rehabilitate existing salinised land throughintegration into the farming system of inland saline aquaculture practices.

In the long term, globalisation and environmental sustainability imperatives dictate that the Australianirrigated agriculture sector must move towards Best Practice production systems which conform withthe principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) (ESDSC 1992). Industry must alsomove towards achieving full cost recovery of water-use externalities (HLSGOW 1999), at the sametime as placing more emphasis on higher value products for a combination of both domestic andexport markets.

Recent outcomes from Australian water industry reform have seen the establishment of commercialmarkets for trading of water entitlements, and the progressive separation of water and property rightswithin the agricultural sector. In the future it is anticipated that the development of tradeable

Page 97: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

81

emissions policy at a state and/or national level will see the commercial trading also in nutrient andsalinity “quotas” for primary producers. This will occur as part of a more equitable, economicallydriven resource allocation process designed to encourage more efficient and effective use of water andrecovery of external costs. In this context it is suggested that the integration of aquaculture withinirrigation farming systems will be able to meet all reasonable financial and environmental targets setby farmers/investors, environmental regulators, and the community in general.

An example of the potential enviro-economic benefits of integrated aquaculture compared withexisting irrigated agribusiness sectors in the Goulburn-Broken catchment of Victoria is provided byGooley et al. 2000 (Table 1). In this example, integrated aquaculture was trialed within an opensystem through the use of cage culture in public irrigation storages. In such a system, nutrientdischarge to the environment can be readily assessed and monitored, and therefore the attendantenvironmental costs can equally be readily identified and quantified for regulatory purposes.

In a hypothetical cost-benefit scenario, economic returns from the cage farm enterprise are shown toreasonably accommodate these costs and still remain profitable. In this comparison (Gooley et al.2000), for the purpose of estimating Gross Margin for different hypothetical aquaculture enterprises,the full cost of phosphorus (P) discharge to the environment is included as an environmental levy setat commercial rates. The actual Gross Margins quoted for the other established agribusiness sectors inthis comparison include no such cost recovery for the impacts of P discharged to the environment.

Table 1. Comparison of Gross Margins per ha of surface area occupied and per ML of waterconsumed/utilised by the enterprise for existing major irrigated agribusiness sectors in theGoulburn-Broken catchment of Victoria, and a hypothetical lake or reservoir-based finfishcage culture operation with one, five or ten tonne annual production (all other key parametersset to achieve average profitability). From Gooley et al. (2000)

Industry Sectors Gross MarginAUD$/ha

Gross MarginAUD$/ML

Viticulture (Wine grapes) 14,010 2,802

Viticulture (Table grapes) 6,296 1,049

Dairy 801 133

Horticulture (Stonefruit) 13,237 1,927

Cage aquaculture @ 1 tonne pa 1335 273

Cage aquaculture @ 5 tonne pa 12,696 2,539

Cage aquaculture @ 10 tonne pa 26,863 5,372

The primary economic benefit from aquaculture integration is clearly from producing marketableaquatic products without any net increase in water consumption. However, the subsequent use of thenutrient-rich aquaculture effluent for traditional irrigation, where in fact this water can be retained andredirected, can result in enhanced productivity of the soil, further resulting in reduced need forfertiliser application and an associated reduction in farm operating costs.

From another perspective, the aquaculture use of low-value saline groundwater pumped intoevaporation basins offers the potential to generate increased farm revenue to offset otherwiseprohibitive groundwater management costs. The same can be said for aquaculture use of nutrient-richwastewater trialed in Victoria where final disposal is limited to on-site options only. Indeedaquaculture in saline and/or nutrient rich wastewater, which in a stand-alone system may be at besteconomically marginal, can become viable as part of an integrated system once the broader synergiesare recognised and the associated economic benefits are quantified eg. the value of returning salinised

Page 98: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

82

land to a productive state through groundwater pumping, the value of stripping of excess nutrientsfrom industrial and domestic wastewater before final disposal via pasture irrigation etc.

IAAS - the reality

Despite the compelling long term environmental imperatives dictating the need to make moreefficient, multiple use of our valuable inland water resources, in all probability the final businessdecision by individual farmers as to whether they should invest in agri-aquaculture integration will beprimarily financial:

! Can the proposed diversification enhance the financial bottom line for the farm?

! Can the farmer produce a marketable product that can be sold at an acceptable profit?

! Is this an investment which, over a short to medium term timeframe, will provide a financial resultat least as good as the alternative options (including doing nothing)?

On the other hand, governments, resource managers and the general community are more likely toconsider the regional or catchment scale flow of benefits and attendant environmental risks beforecommitting themselves to supporting IAAS development.

! What are the environmental risks and associated costs?

! How are the full external costs of water use recovered?

! What are the potential resource use conflicts?

! What is the likely return on investment for the community in relation to exploiting common poolnatural resources (land, water etc)?

! What is the most equitable, cost-effective and efficient resource allocation process to underpindevelopment?

! Is an investment in IAAS compatible with the principles of ESD?

Investment criteria

In the present circumstances, an IAA systems approach to agribusiness development seems to offermany advantages to the irrigation industry in Australia. IAAS is an elegantly simple concept that verymuch relies on proponents having an appropriate mix of common sense and imagination. HoweverIAAS is not a panacea for rural sector woes. The lead-time for implementation is relatively short, butfinancial success is a somewhat longer process and new entrants need to be cognisant of key IAASinvestment criteria before proceeding. These criteria include:

Technical

! identification of optimal system design/capacity and associated production levels.

! system design should optimise the use of readily available/existing resources and infrastructure ina way to minimise start-up and recurrent costs and external energy inputs, without compromisingfundamental system requirements and profitability.

! the need to ensure that the choice of culture species, system and scale of investment is based oncommercial opportunities which are cognisant of “whole-of-production” chain needs of theexisting seafood industry.

Page 99: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

83

! the need to ensure that the integration of the aquaculture enterprise within the existing farmoperation is based on thorough “whole-of-farm” business planning.

! integrated aquaculture produce by any definition needs to conform to the premium standards setby the Australian seafood industry for quality control and food safety.

! relevant technical training and support services need to be accessed as a matter of routine.

Social and Economic

! the need to achieve appropriate economies of scale through establishment of relevant businessnetworks.

! the need to fully assess economic viability of the proposed development prior to implementationbased on an objective and comprehensive analysis of cost-benefit which includes setting a priorirealistic/reasonable profitability targets for the enterprise.

! cost-benefit analysis to factor in the economic value of linked environmental benefits associatedwith integration, particularly in relation to land rehabilitation, reduced nutrient and/or saltemission and multiple water use.

! the need to focus aquaculture production on high value markets where possible for both export anddomestic consumption

Environment

! where possible, natural resource utilisation should not result in any net increase in environmentalemissions or associated external environmental costs, or any net increase in water consumption.

In addition to the above criteria, there is a need to objectively assess economic and environmental riskas part of the investment analysis, preferably as part of an independent audit of the final proposalbefore proceeding to implementation. There is also a need to conform with all existingregulatory/legislative constraints particularly in relation to translocation of species, fish health/diseasemanagement and environmental impacts, without compromising economic viability of the enterprise.

Industry development – conclusions and future directions

Farmers need access to new integrated aquaculture technologies that allow them to effectively realiseopportunities presented by the increasing separation of property and water rights within establishedirrigation areas, and also in anticipation of possible future developments such as the creation ofeconomic markets for tradeable emissions (eg. salt and nutrients). Once the full cost of water-useexternalities for the irrigation industry are factored in to catchment-scale socio-economic analyses inwhich nutrient budgets have been established, the commercial competitiveness and investmentpotential of integrated aquaculture is considerably enhanced against traditional land-based agriculturalalternatives. The added bonus of course is that the water is simply “borrowed” by aquaculture and notconsumed.

Certainly it is suggested that the development of an effective IAAS capacity within Australia will seethe greatest flow of benefits to rural and regional communities through adoption of industrial scaleenterprise. This will require institutional change and a fundamental paradigm shift within stakeholderagencies and individual farmers. It will also require coordinated effort between the agriculture andaquaculture sectors at an organisational level, supported by Government/industry partnership-basedinvestments in infrastructure, training, marketing, policy development, R&D and extension.

Page 100: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

84

The RIRDC R&D Plan for IAAS (Gooley, 2000) provides the necessary strategic direction anddescribes some of the actual mechanisms for consolidating, coordinating and facilitating thedevelopment of a viable IAAS sector within Australia. The Plan offers the following vision:

“A diverse and innovative Australian primary industries sector which on a routine basis effectivelyand efficiently integrates aquaculture and agriculture practices into farming systems which are bothprofitable and ecologically sustainable”.

The extent to which this is both an enlightened and pragmatic view, or just enlightened, remains to beseen. The IAAS concept is intrinsically sound, and the resources, expertise and opportunity existwithin Australia; the makings of a virtual industry perhaps. What is now needed is for government,industry and the community at large to adopt and apply an entirely new approach to water resourceutilisation and management for IAAS to become a commercial reality.

References

Blackwell, J., Biswas, T.K., Jayawardanel, N.S. and Townsend, J.T. (2000). A novel method for treatingeffluent from rural industries for use in integrated aquaculture systems. In ‘Proceedings of the NationalWorkshop on Wastewater Treatment and Integrated Aquaculture’, SARDI, West Beach, SouthAustralia, 17-18 September 1999. (Ed M.S. Kumar) pp. 80-92 (South Australian Research andDevelopment Institute, West Beach, South Australia).

Cohen, D. (1997). Integration of Aquaculture and Irrigation: rationale, principles and its practice in Israel.International Water and Irrigation Review. 17:1-16.

Edwards, P. (1998). A systems approach for the promotion of integrated aquaculture. Aquaculture andEconomics Management. 2, No. 1, pp1-12.

ESDSC (1992). Draft National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development. A discussionpaper.Ecologically Sustainable Development Steering Committee. Australian Government PublishingService, Canberra, ACT. 148pp.

Gooley, G. J. (2000). R & D Plan for Integrated Agri-Aquaculture Systems, 1999-2004. RIRDC PublicationNo.99/153. Rural Industries Research and Development Coproation, Barton, ACT.

Gooley, G. J., Mc Kinnon, L.J., Ingram, B. A. and Gasior, R. (2000a). Agriculture / Aquaculture SystemsIntegration to Enhance Farm Productivity and Water Use Efficiency. Final Report for the RuralIndustries Research and Development Corporation, RIRDC Project No DCM1-A. (In press).

Gooley, G. J., De Silva, S. S., Ingram, B. A., McKinnon, L. J., Gavine, F. M. and Dalton, W. (2000b). Cageculture of finfish in Australian lakes and reservoirs: a pilot scale case study of biological, environmentaland economic viability. In ‘Proceedings of Reservoir and Culture-Based Fisheries: Biology andManagement. An International Workshop’, Bangkok, Thailand, 15-18 February, 2000. (In press).

Heuperman, A., Mann, L., Heath, J., Gooley, G., Ingram, B. and McKinnon, L. (1999). Value adding to serialbiological concentration for improved environmental management. Final Report to Murray-DarlingBasin Commission, Project No. I6061. Institute of Sustainable Irrigated Agriculture, Tatura Centre.

HLSGOW (1999). Progress in implementation of the COAG water reform framework. Report to the Council ofAustralian Governments by the High Level Steering Group on Water. Occasional Paper No. 1,Canberra, Australia. 113 p.

Ingram, B. A., Gooley, G. J., McKinnon, L. J. and De Silva, S. S. (2000). Aquaculture-agriculture systemsintegration: an Australian prospective. Fisheries Management and Ecology. 6: 1-11.

Kumar, M., Ingerson, T. and Lewis, R. (2000a). Wastewater treatment and integrated aquaculture: SouthAustralian initiatives and international collaboration. In ‘Proceedings of the National Workshop on

Page 101: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

85

Wastewater Treatment and Integrated Aquaculture’, SARDI, West Beach, South Australia, 17-18September 1999. (Ed M.S. Kumar) pp. 14-18 (South Australian Research and Development Institute,West Beach, South Australia).

Kumar, M., Clarke, S. and Sierp, M. (2000b). Linkage between wastewater treatment and aquaculture;initiatives by the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI). In ‘Proceedings of theNational Workshop on Wastewater Treatment and Integrated Aquaculture’, SARDI, West Beach, SouthAustralia, 17-18 September 1999. (Ed M.S. Kumar) pp. 153-159 (South Australian Research andDevelopment Institute, West Beach, South Australia).

McKinnon, L., Gooley, G., Ingram, B., De Silva, S. and Gasior R. (2000). Directions for integrated aquaculturein Victoria. In ‘Proceedings of the National Workshop on Wastewater Treatment and IntegratedAquaculture’, SARDI, West Beach, South Australia, 17-18 September 1999. (Ed M.S. Kumar) pp. 142-148 (South Australian Research and Development Institute, West Beach, South Australia).

Wang, H. X. 1997. Current status and prospects of integrated fish farming in China. In: Mathias, J. A.,Charles, A. T. and Baotong, H. 1997. Integrated Fish Farming. Proceedings of a

Workshop on Integrated Fish Farming. held in Wuxi, Jiangsu Province, People’s Republic of China, 11-15October 1994. CRC Press.

Acknowledgements

Much of the content of this paper is based on experience drawn from various recent R&D projectsundertaken by the Aquaculture Program, Marine and Freshwater Resources Institute, VictorianDepartment of Natural Resources and Environment, and funded by the following agencies:

! Victorian Department of Natural Resources and Environment (Fisheries Victoria)

! Rural Industries R&D Corporation

! Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research

! Murray-Darling Basin Commission

The support of these agencies is gratefully acknowledged. Comments and advice on the manuscriptfrom Wayne Fulton, Lachlan McKinnon and Brett Ingram (Marine and Freshwater ResourcesInstitute) and Anthony Forster (Fisheries Victoria) are also much appreciated.

Page 102: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

86

Integrating food production with urban consumption: some issues

Rebecca Lines-KellyNSW Agriculture

In Australia 1.6% of Australian’s population is employed in agriculture and some 86% of thepopulation live in urban areas. This means that just under 300,000 people feed Australia’s 18 millionpeople, most of whom live in urban areas. Australian farmers also export a large percentage of theirproducts, so they are extremely efficient food producers. However, the imbalance in numbers betweenproduction and consumption has important implications for the integration or lack of integration offood production and resource management.

Energy use

Because most Australians live in urban areas, their food often has to be transported long distancesfrom where it is grown. Food that is not consumed immediately, or near its point of production,requires storage, often refrigerated; transport, often refrigerated; and storage at the retail level, usuallyair-conditioned. All this requires large amounts of energy, an increasing cost given the recent rises infuel prices, and increasing numbers of freight trucks on the road. Consumers also use fuel driving tofood shops, particularly when they are in shopping centres situated out of main shopping areas. It isclearly more energy-efficient to consume food near to where it is grown. The less distance food has totravel between harvest and consumption, the less energy is required to store it and transport it, thefresher it is, and the more nutrients it contains. This issue is attracting some attention in sustainabilitydiscussions. In the UK, Sustain, the alliance for better food and farming, has conducted a food milescampaign to reduce unnecessary food mileage and make fresh, local foods more widely available.Sustain quotes statistics that show the amount of food transported on UK roads has increased by 20%between 1978 and 1998 but the average distance travelled has increased by 50%. A tonne of food inthe UK now travels an average distance of 123km compared with 82 km in 1978. Food accounts forthe largest amount of freight of any single commodity, and the largest increase in road freight over thelast two decades.

"…foodstuffs are being hauled over longer distances and the main beneficiaries are theintermediaries such as the freight companies, the major food manufacturers and retailers. Thefood filling the roads is more processed than ever before. The costs to society are rarelyaccounted for. (Sustain, 1999)"

Lack of understanding

The tiny number of farmers and the declining rural population mean that few links are maintainedbetween agriculture and the city. Without country relatives to visit, city people lose their links with thecountry and become unaware of the intricacies of food production. Unless they grow their own fruitand vegetables, or run a few chickens, their relationship with food is confined to purchase andconsumption. This leads to a ‘fetishisation’ of food, where food becomes an object of desire ratherthan a recognised element of the natural cycle of growth, decay and regrowth. As consumers wecannot usually taste food before they we it, or find out how it was grown, so we have to rely on whatwe can see. As a result we want food that is perfectly shaped and unblemished. The power ofconsumer demand has led food producers to breed species for appearance, and to use pesticides todeter insects and organisms that blemish the product. Supermarkets demand food that will last a longtime on the shelves, with a minimum of wastage. As a result we buy tomatoes that can look perfect forweeks yet taste of nothing at all, and buy apples on the basis of their colour but eat them with theirpeel removed because of our concerns about chemicals. We want food that looks good, so farmers arecatering to the demands of what is in effect, an ill-informed, market.

Page 103: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

87

Loss of agricultural land

Market gardening has always been a periurban land use around urban centres, particularly on alluvialland, providing fresh food to nearby consumers. However, as land values increase, market gardensgive way to houses and food production is pushed further away, often on to less productive soils. Ifconsumers do not understand the importance of retaining productive agricultural soils, particularlynear the point of consumption, they have no interest in protecting them. This issue is receiving someattention in NSW where NSW Agriculture has been working with the Western Sydney community topromote the community values of agriculture in the Sydney Basin. These include fresh foodproduction close to the point of consumption, green space and a sense of being close to nature. Thereis also a food security issue. If large urban communities are reliant on food brought from longdistances, and there is a fuel strike, where will they obtain food? ‘Every human being has to eat threetimes a day, so to call a system efficient that separates people further and further from their source offood is nothing short of madness.’ (Helena Norberg-Hodge, quoted in Maddocks, 2000)

The farmland protection issue is high on the agenda in US cities, where farmers are often paid not todevelop their land for residential purposes. It does not seem to rate the same level of attention inAustralia, perhaps due to the separation of urban decision makers from agricultural concerns.

Sewage

No one likes talking about sewage, so we tend to treat it as an engineering problem rather than a foodissue. Sewage is essentially a food product, containing materials the body does not need or want afterfood intake. We tend to say it is an end product when it is actually a valuable source of nutrientsobtained from food production. Cities produce massive amounts of sewage from food, and agricultureneeds to look at ways of integrating this resource into its production cycle, rather than allowing it to bepiped out to sea as happens in most coastal urban areas. The logistics of integration are formidable,and require close working together of urban and agricultural organisations. Already in NSW, NSWAgriculture has worked with Sydney Water to use ‘biosolids’ as fertiliser on agricultural land. Someissues that need to be considered are, again, the cost of transport of the biosolids to rural areas, and thelong term environmental impacts of biosolids application. The nutrient value of sewage is encouragingmany organisations to look at ways of integrating it into agriculture. As InFoRM 2000 showed,Vermitech is producing a soil conditioner from human sewage at Redlands Bay, but still has to find acommercially viable use for the product. Jackie Foo’s research shows that many developing countrieshave long used human and animal sewage as fertiliser for a range of food products. The potential ofsewage pathogens to transfer to food products grown this way requires development of techniques toensure human health is not jeopardised.

How do we improve links?

If we are to improve consumers’ knowledge and understanding of food production, and help themmake intelligent choices about their food needs we need to overturn traditional notions of agricultureas a rural enterprise. We need to bring agriculture to the city, where most consumers live and wherepolitical power is based. Agricultural shows have a successful history of showcasing agriculturalindustries and enterprises but the emphasis is on spectacle rather than direct involvement of consumersin learning about the role they play in food production. There are also a number of school programsthat educate students about the importance of food and agriculture in their lives. Victoria’s Food andAgriculture in the Classroom program provides resource books and curriculum materials to schools,professional development for teachers, and school excursions to farms to promote food, agricultureand links between rural and urban communities (FAITC, no date) Queensland’s AgAware program iswriting curriculum materials for several subjects using agricultural examples, and offers schoolexcursions, and an urban-rural schools link to promote knowledge and understanding of agricultureand food issues. (AgAware 2000)

Page 104: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

88

These are excellent programs and certainly provide strong production-consumption linkages at theschools level, but we also need to look at innovative ways of linking adult consumers and producers.

Market mechanisms

Farmers’ markets are a small but increasingly popular way to build real and strong connectionsbetween producers and consumers. They have a long history in most communities but their usedeclined with the rise in supermarkets. In the US the number of markets doubled from 1200 in 1980 to2400 in 1996, and the US Dept of Agriculture has found they play a vital role in enabling small tomedium-sized growers gain access to consumers (Festing, 1998). In Britain the National Farmers’Union is supporting the revival of farmers’ markets to allow farmers to take advantage of the huge gapbetween farmgate and retail prices. Farmers like to be involved to talk to consumers personally abouttheir food production methods. (Economist 1999) Other consumer benefits include freshness, andcommunity building.

Communities benefit from Certified Farmers Markets in many ways. Certified Farmers Markets arenon-profit community organisation which contribute to the social and economic welfare of the town orcity they operate in. The markets produce a strong sense of community identity, bringing people fromdiverse ethnic and other backgrounds together. They also serve to unite the urban and rural segmentsof the population. This rare meeting of farmers and consumers serves as an educational experiencewhereby customers learn about their food sources have access to nutritional information, engage in amulti-cultural experience and become aware of agricultural issues. CFMs truly have become the faceand spirit of the communities they serve. (California Federation of Certified Farmers Markets, no date)

In Australia farmers’ markets have yet to take off in a big way, but fresh farm produce is appearing atlocal mixed markets in many areas and many cities and regions now host annual or seasonal foodfestivals to promote locally grown produce. The expanding trend of product labelling to identifygrowing regions and production techniques such as vine ripening is also helping to link consumersmore closely to producers.

In Sydney, NSW Agriculture has been closely involved with the establishment of the HawkesburyFood Program which has identified agriculture as one of the five major industries in the Hawkesbury.The program aims to improve access by consumers to nutritious foods, promote nutritious and safefoods, encourage establishments to serve nutritious foods, ensure food security, encourage communityparticipation and promote and sustain local agriculture. As part of the program a Hawkesbury Harvestproject has been developed to provide consumers with direct access to producers through farm gatesales.

Another market mechanism that closely links producers and consumers is Community SupportedAgriculture through which consumers subscribe to a local farmer who provides them with food.

It is a mutual commitment between the farmer and the consumers. The consumers pay for theirvegetables in advance and thus share with the farmer both the risks and the benefits associated withfood production. Consumers receive a box of fresh vegetables each week during the growing seasonand have the advantage of knowing where the food comes from. They have input into what is grown,while the farmers have working capital, financial security and better prices for their crops. Farmersalso avoid the burden of marketing. (Maddocks, 2000)

CSA originated in Japan when housewives became concerned about the demise of local food, and hassince spread to Europe and the USA. The Japanese Group for Producing and Consuming Safe Foodhas 1235 Tokyo householders supplied each week by 30 farmers from a village an hour outside thecity. Another Japanese scheme, Radish Boya, supplies 25,000 members with produce from 1100independent farmers. In the UK there are more than 50 CSA’s and vegetable box schemes supplyingaround 20,000 consumers with a total turnover of around five million pounds. (Festing, 1997)

Page 105: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

89

Community supported agriculture and vegetable box schemes operate in a small way in Australia, butrely on both producers’ and consumers’ energy and commitment to initiate and maintain the process.One enthusiast, Peter Kenyon, is attempting to start a CSA scheme in Sydney and finds that the energyrequired to find interested farmers and link them with consumers, coupled with the lack ofinstitutional interest and support, makes the process daunting. (pers.comm.)

Urban agriculture

Urban agriculture is attracting interest internationally. It is becoming particularly important indeveloping countries as more and more people move from rural areas into cities, but it is also agrowth area in developed world cities as people try to regain some connection with their food. Itstheoretical advantages are better nutrition, less loss of food from transport and storage, povertyreduction through home food production and income opportunities, and an improved ecologicalenvironment. The ecological benefits include greening of the city, potential for recycling and reuse ofurban organic wastes and waste water, reduction of energy use by provision of food close toconsumers, and the resultant reduction of the city’s ecological footprint. (Deelstra and Girardet 2000).However, there are health issues surrounding the use of possibly contaminated soils and water, andstrong linkages need to be made between producers, consumers and planning authorities.

An international workshop on urban agriculture held in Cuba in October 1999, ‘Growing Cities,Growing Food –Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda’, (Bakker 1999) found that three mainpurposes of urban agriculture are to achieve food security of urban poor (a big issue in developingcountries), improve the economic efficiency of commercially oriented urban agriculture (alsoimportant in developing countries) and improve the urban environment , of relevance to developingand developed countries such as Australia. Important policy issues for this environmental aspect arethe decentralised recycling of organic solid wastes and waste water, integration of urban agriculture inurban zoning and city development plans, and enhancement of direct producer-consumer linkagessuch as the market mechanisms described earlier in this paper. (de Zeeuw et al., 1999).

Achieving the linkages

The market mechanisms described above are developing out of the needs of both farmers who want tobypass the traditional marketing channels, and consumers who want a closer connection with andknowledge about the food they eat. Currently these mechanisms involve only small numbers of peoplein Australia, but their power lies in their initiation by consumers and farmers in response to aperceived need. Urban agriculture is also a small player when it comes to Australian food production,but it is an important mechanism for encouraging consumers to be directly involved in production, andfor improving urban environments, both ecologically and socially. It is currently very difficult foranyone interested in urban agriculture or alternative food market mechanisms to find information andtechnical assistance. As the Cuba workshop found, historically urban agriculture does not have aninstitutional home. Organisations like a Ministry of Agriculture usually lack a political mandate forurban agriculture. Urban agriculture projects are rarely integrated in overall urban planning. Generallythere is little coordination between NGOs and municipal agencies, and urban farmers are often notorganised. Hence, stakeholders in urban agriculture lack channels to voice their needs and lack thepower to participate in policy preparation and city planning processes (de Zeeuw, 1999)

The US Department of Agriculture has taken a step forward in providing an institutional ‘home’through its Community Food Security Initiative (CFSI), established in 1998. The basis of this initiativeis to help reduce hunger, improve nutrition, and strengthen local food systems. One of its goals is toimprove the livability of communities by preserving farmland and open spaces, increasing localgardening and food production, reducing the distances families need to travel to obtain food, helpingcommunity gardens create safe places that reduce neighbourhood crime, and promoting farmers’markets that improve nutrition while aiding community development (USDA 2000)

Page 106: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

90

If Australia’s largely urbanised society is to link more intelligently to food production, we need todevelop mechanisms for linking production and consumption in ways that have environmental, socialand health benefits for both consumers and food producers. Whether this should be achieved throughextension of current agricultural services or through new planning mechanisms is up for debate. Whatis important is that we develop the mechanisms so that consumers, the majority of our population,understand food production so that they can make intelligent consumption choices that contribute toour bottom line economic, environmental and social sustainability.

References

AgAware (2000) Agaware News No 2, Summer 2000, Department of Primary Industries, Toowoomba

Anon (1999), ‘Rus in urbe – Farmers’ Markets’, The Economist, 4 September 1999.

Bakker, N., Dubbeling, M., Guendel, S., Sabel-Koschella, U. and de Zeeuw, H. (1999), Growing Cities,Growing Food : Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda, A Reader on Urban Agriculture,http://www.ruaf.org/

California Federation of Certified Farmers Markets (no date), http://farmersmarket.ucdavis.edu/docs/about.html)

de Zeeuw, H. Guendel, S. and Waibel, H. (1999), ‘The integration of agriculture in urban policies’ inProceedings from the International Workshop on Urban Agriculture, ‘Growing Cities, Growing Food – UrbanAgriculture on the Policy Agenda’, Havana, Cuba, October 1999, websitehttp://www.ruaf.org/Reader/Papers/Theme7.pdf

Deelstra, T and Girardet, H. (2000), ‘Urban agriculture and sustainable cities’ in Bakker et al., Growing Cities,Growing Food : Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda, A Reader on Urban Agriculture, websitehttp://www.ruaf.org/

Festing, H. (1997) ‘Veg box schemes and community supported agriculture’, websitehttp://www.wye.ac.uk/FoodLink/commag.html) ‘

Festing, H. (1998) ’Farmers’ markets’, website http://www.wye.ac.uk/FooLink/farmark.html.

Maddocks, C. (2000) ‘Growing together’, Good Weekend Magazine, Sydney Morning Herald, 15 July 2000.

FAITC (no date), Food and Agriculture in the Classroom, Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne.

Sustain (1999) Food Miles, still on the road to ruin? London

USDA (2000), Year 2000 progress report on the USDA Community Food Security Initiative, websitehttp://www.reeusda.gov/food_security/fsreports.htm

Page 107: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

91

3. The technology of integrationProcessing of Biomass and Control of Pathogens - Concept of aBio-Refinery

Horst W. DoelleMIRCEN-Biotechnology Brisbane and Pacific Regional NetworkInternational Organisation for Biotechnology & Bioengineering

The processing of biomass and control of pathogens in waste management depends entirely on theparticular socio-economy adopted for rural and urban sustainability. In order to sustain life andimprove the standard of living, the general advancement of scientific knowledge should be used forthe application of clean technology strategies, which support the natural cycles of matter. Thesestrategies should drive towards a pollution-free environment, resulting in the prevention of diseasesand an improvement of our natural cycles of matter to increase our renewable resource production. Atthe same time they need to be flexible to guarantee the rural farmer and the urban workforce asustainable per capita income.

Sustainability refers therefore to the ability of a society, ecosystem or any such ongoing system tocontinue functioning into the indefinite future without being forced into decline owing to exhaustionof key resources, weather conditions or world market price forces. A sustainable community effortconsists of a long-term integrated system approach to developing and achieving a healthy communityby jointly addressing economic, environmental, and social issues. Fostering a strong sense ofcommunity and building partnerships and consensus amongst key stakeholders are important elementsof such efforts. The focus and scale of sustainability efforts depend therefore on local conditions,including resources, politics, individual actions, and the unique features of the community. Socio-economic strategies have therefore to be designed in a way that individual choices are shaped byvalues, emotions, social bands and judgements rather than a precise calculation of self-interest.

Such a strategy requires a sound knowledge of the natural cycles of matter as well as consumerdemand and gives domestic markets a much higher priority over foreign or export markets.Furthermore, it is highest time that we make everybody, including many scientists and the majority ofexpert advisers, aware of the fact that microorganisms are the most powerful creatures in existence asthey play an integral part in determining life and death on this planet. As we know, some can killmercilessly (=pathogens), but the vast majority can be harnessed to sustain life. We have also torealise and to admit that over the past decades we have managed to foster the killer-type pathogensthrough population growth and density, overuse of antibiotics, use of raw waste onto farms, andreduce and/or eliminate the beneficial type (eg soil microflora) through overuse of chemical fertilisers,pesticides and farm management resulting in ever-increasing areas of soil infertility. I only have toremind you of the salt problem of our agricultural land here in Australia. In addition, our present wastemanagement approach destroys immense natural resources for energy and value-added productformation. Here I draw your attention to the flares over our sewerage plants, use of anaerobic ponds,reduction of biochemical oxygen demand through aeration etc etc.

In order to reverse this trend, it should be a first priority of any region, eg sugarcane area, grain area,vegetable area, urban area etc to establish so-called Bio-Refineries, where agriculturists [responsiblefor maximal biomass production], microbiologists [responsible for encouraging beneficialmicroorganisms and controlling pathogens] and chemical engineers [responsible for plant design andconstruction] together with other advisers work together to fully exploit our natural renewableresources using clean technologies with no useable waste accumulation. Such a bio-refinery would betotally based on biomass and human and animal wastes as raw materials.

Page 108: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

92

Biomass in the form of plants and trees captures solar energy through photosynthesis and stores it aschemical energy in the bonds between the carbon, hydrogen,nitrogen and oxygen atoms that formlignocellulosic plant material together with starchy, sugary, fatty and proteinaceous crops. Biomass issolar energy stored in a chemical form, which is available for bioenergy, biofuel, food, feed, fertiliserand the formation of many other products.

It should be the aim of each bio-refinery management to assure self-efficiency in food, feed, fuel,fertiliser and energy production. It should also market products depending on the surplus encounteredafter the first priority, which must also include improved health standards, has been satisfied.

In order to establish such bio-refineries, a sound knowledge of the following is required:

a) land availability

b) biomass availability

c) biodiversity of crop production

d) maintenance of high soil fertility

e) maintenance of high crop yields

f) population growth and demand

g) type of animal production (sheep, chicken, pigs, beef etc)

h) type and amount of any waste accumulation from the production unit and from human and animalpopulations.

Figure 1 exhibits what I regard as a general outline for the functioning of a bio-refinery. Each regionconsists of biomass, people and animals. Let s concentrate first on the biomass itself.The lignocellulosic material can be used very efficiently for energy, food, feed and fertiliserproduction. While ‘energy production’ will be dealt with later under the topic ‘biofuel generation’,mushroom production, composting and silage are very important industries. Of these, mushroomproduction is a multimillion dollar industry because of its nutritive value, particularly in our region ofSEAsia and Asia itself. It is an evergrowing industry, because of the protein and medicinal value ofthese fungi. Australia could easily expand in this field of food production. A new development in themushroom industry is the production of nutriceuticals and you may be surprised to learn that theleading world authority and expert in mushroom is an Australian, Prof. S.T.Chang of Canberra. Theresiduals from a mushroom cultivation are excellent fertilisers, or can be additives for compostingand/or anaerobic digestion.

Composting is a controlled microbial bio-oxidation process involving biodegradable organic matter,conducted under controlled environmental conditions. The oxidation produces a transientthermophilic stage which is followed by a period of cooling of the now degrading organic matter. Thematerial is held at ambient temperatures for maturation purposes, which results in a stable, volume-reduced, hygienic, humus-like material, that has retained the mineral elements beneficial to soil andplants. Emphasising a ‘controlled’ process distinguishes composting from uncontrolled rotting orputrefaction of organic matter. This oxidative metabolism of beneficial microorganisms is exothermicand the heat produced is sufficient to increase the temperature of organic matter to between 60 and 75C, thus offering a self-sanitising mechanism by which pathogens, seeds and heat-labile microbial andplant toxins will be destroyed. The final humus-like material, the compost, is a dark, crumbly, earthymaterial usually containing less than 2% (w/w) each of nitrogen, potassium and phosphorous. Apartfrom their availability to plants, the compost offers improved soil structuring characteristics.

The related process of vermicomposting (ie. composting which involves the use of earthworms inconjunction with aerobic microorganisms to bring about the bio-oxidation and subsequent stabilisationof biodegradable organic matter) requires the addition of anaerobic digester sludge and increases the

Page 109: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

93

valuable humic acid content of the compost. Vermicomposting is becoming increasingly popular inSEAsia and the USA on small to large scale. Earthworms can also be used as a supplement to animalfeed.

Silage is forage, crop residues or agricultural and industrial by-products preserved by acids, eitheradded or produced by natural fermentation. Fresh forage is harvested, or crop residues and by-productsare collected. The material may be chopped or conditioned, additives may be added, and it is thenstored in the absence of air so that facultative anaerobic bacteria, present in the forage, or added asinoculants, can rapidly convert soluble carbohydrates into acids. The resulting pH of a well-ensiledproduct becomes so low that all life processes come to a halt and the material will be preserved solong as it remains in airtight storage. Silage making is practised widely in intensive animal productionsystems in temperate regions, mainly to bridge periods of the year when there is no high quality feedavailable in the fields and to supplement feed to improve milk production in the dairy industry.Bioenergy production, composting, silaging and mushroom production ensure that no lignocellulosicbiomass is wasted, but fully exploited.

Depending on the crop cultivated in the region, it will consist of either the polymer starch, sucrose,protein or oil. Although all of these polymers are useable as food for people, any excess can betransformed enzymatically into monomers, which are the preferable raw materials for microbialconversion into hundreds of different products. Nature has also provided us with starchy crops whichare not very popular for food consumption in certain communities ( e.g. sagopalm), which could beexploited for product formation as they would not compete with natural food. The higher the cropyields, the more products can be produced.

In order to obtain these monomers economically, each bio-refinery should have its own enzymemanufacturing facility to produce the starchy enzymes alpha- and glucoamylase, proteinases as well asesterases. The microorganisms to be used for these enzyme production units should be selected notonly for their production rate, but also for non-pathogenicity and non-toxin producing capability whichmakes them available for feed supplementation after the production process. It is often forgotten thatmicrobial biomass can also be a serious cause of environmental pollution. As an example, I maymention amylase production, which at present uses the strain Aspergillus niger, a fungus with strongcapabilities for the production of the toxin ‘aflatoxin’ . A simple change to Aspergillus oryzae orRhizopus oligosporus would solve the problem.

The monomers can now be converted into products of demand, ranging from antibiotics, biopolymersand surfactants to enzymes, alcohols, amino acids, organic acids and new products depending upon thechoice of microorganism and the needs of humans and animals. All these technologies outlined inFigure 1 are readily available and are proven technologies. It is, however, important to realise that bio-refineries must work on a multi-product system in order to be sustainable. Past agricultural practiceshave clearly shown that monocultures are far too vulnerable to pests and adverse weather and soilconditions. Turning to the right hand side of the figure, the management of human and animal waste for such abio-refinery is outlined. Household wastes can either be used for electricity generation with thelignocellulosic material and/or mixed with the human and animal manure waste and transferred intothe anaerobic digestion reactor for biogas production, the details of which are dealt with under biofuelgeneration. It is important to stress, however, that anaerobic digestion, similar to composting, is a self-sanitising system and very important for the good health of both people and animals. Under nocircumstances should any of the raw waste be used directly for whatever purpose. We have to realisethat the days of our grandparents are gone and we cannot use the techniques used in those days. Ourgrandparents and parents had no antibiotic-resistant strains of pathogens and none of the virulentmutants. The incredible death toll in developing countries amongst children and the re-occurrence ofrare infectious diseases in developed countries has always been traced back to inadequate self-sanitation systems.

Page 110: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

94

The solids and liquid effluents from the anaerobic digester can safely be used directly as fertiliser, butwould be much more effective in the soil after vermicomposting. Furthermore, the liquid effluent has agreat potential for food production and should not be wasted on the fields. The liquid effluent is anexcellent nutrient source for aquaculture, in particular for algae. These plants are phosphate andnitrogen scavengers, cleaning up our water resources. They are an excellent feed source for culturedfish and are also rich in proteins, vitamins and carotene, which enjoys an excellent market in healthfood stores. ,. In particular Spirulina can have a protein content of up to 72%, a remarkable resourcefor feed supplementation and vegetarians. Some countries, eg Chad, use algae as their main proteinsource in the place of fish, beef, pigs or other meat.

Here again it is very important to realise that a proper selection of microorganisms is vital, since somealgae are also producing toxins, as we have experienced all over the world with algal bloomsoccurring due to the waters being rich on phosphates from the leaching of phosphate fertilised soils.We must pay respect to the microorganisms to be used in any process, whether natural orbiotechnological, as they are a part of the waste stream and have to be re-used or destroyed.

The implementation of clean and healthy sustainable technologies means therefore

a) that the selected microbial catalyst has to be a non-pathogenic, non-toxic, natural (not geneticengineered) strain, if it is being recycled as a protein supplement [MBP = microbial biomassprotein]

b) that the use of genetically engineered microorganisms in processes requires special precautions, asthey cannot be used as protein supplements or fertiliser and must be incinerated.

It is very distressing to realise that culture collections with expertise in microbiology are receivingalmost zero support in Australia. Other developed and developing countries give much more supportto these collections and have realised the most important part microorganisms play in our environmentand the application of clean technologies.

I have attached two additional figures [Fig. 2 and 3], which outline the concepts of a bio-refinery forour sugar industry and our grain industry. In Thailand we are now helping to establish a bio-refinery inone of the most important agro-industries of that country, the palm oil industry. Figure 4 shows theconcept my Thai colleagues are trying to implement. It is my firm opinion that such regional biorefineries would not only stabilise but also enhancesignificantly our rural economy and sustainability, but their establishment depends on the initiativesand involvement of local communities and support from some government agencies. In the future wein Australia will not be able to afford our current extremely high levels of renewable resource wastage.

As noted in my paper on biofuel generation, if the 250 million litre ethanol plant approved by theBjelke-Peterson Government with the strong support of the Cane Growers Association had eventuated,we would not be paying today's high prices for transportation fuel. Further, if we used all ourpresently flared biogas, properly produced biogas from animal farms and feedlots plus all our bagassefor electricity etc, we would have a much healthier State of Queensland.

Page 111: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

95

Figure 1: General outline of bio-refinery

ENVIRONMENT [FARMS]

Biomass People Animals

ligno- simple wastes cellulose polymers

[starch,sugar,oil] MBP feed

energy silage enzymes anaerobic digestion

mushroom biogas effluent solids compost feed

monomers humus fertiliser[glucose etc]

Waste utilisation[Anabaena, Dunaliella, Spirulina]

catabolic regulatory MBP endproduct mutation

feed effluent extractionautotrophic genemutation technology

ethanol biosyn- aquaculture vitamins etc thetic new

endproducts products [antibiotics]

food MBP

biosynthetic catabolic enzymes intermediates

[amino [citric acids etc] acid etc]

Processing of Biomass and control of pathogenswithin the concept of a Biorefinery

Page 112: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

96

Figure 2: Sugarcane bio-refinery

Sugarcane Biorefinery

FIELDS PEOPLE ANIMALS

Sugarcane

WasteHarvesting

Tops TopsTrash Trash

Energy Compost

Mill

Bagasse Bagasse Biofertiliser

MushroomCane Juice MBP

Clarifier Anaerobic Digestion

Filter cake Filter cake

Evaporator methane eff luent solids

syrup sugar

A-molasses pond[Anabaena, Dunaliella, Spirulina, Nostoc]

Fermentation

Fructose Feed eff luent extraction

residue residueMBP CO2 Dry Ice aquacult ure vitamins

MBP Feed eff luent

Ethanol FoodO2 MBP

Biofuel

Page 113: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

97

Figure 3: Grain bio-refinery

GRAIN BIOREFINERY

FIELDS PEOPLE ANIMALS

Grain

straw seeds waste

energy dry mill wet mill

biofertiliser MBP residue MBP

DDG amylase compost

flour Anaerobicdigestion

glucose glucose

fructose methane effluent solids

DDG + MBPeffluent ponds

[Anabaena, Dunaliella,CO2 Spirulina]

ethanol dry ice

feed effluent extractionbiofuel

aquaculture

vitaminsfood effluent

O2 MBP

Page 114: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

98

Figure 4: Oilpalm bio-refinery

OIL PALM

Fresh Fruit Bunches

Solids OIL Liquid

gasification residuesdiesel

MUSHROOM

ENERGY AnaerobicDigester

COMPOST

solids liquid BIOGAS

FERTILISER ALGAE

FISH

M A R K E T

Page 115: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

99

References

Articles

Charters,W.W.S. and Lu Aye 1998 - Renewable energy market potential in APECSongklanakarin J.Sci.Technol. 30: 107-113.

DaSilva,E.J. and Doelle,H.W. 1980 - Microbial technology and its potential for developing countriesProc. Biochem. 15(3) :2-6.

Doelle,H.W. 1989 - Socio-ecological biotechnology concepts for developing countries.MIRCEN J. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 5: 391-410.

Doelle,H.W. 1994 - Microbial Process Development. World Scientific Publ., Singapore

Doelle,H.W., Doelle,M.B. and Prasertsan,P. 1998 - Biotechnological process strategies for a sustainable development using environmentally clean technologies.Songklanakarin J.Sci.Technol. 30: 121-128.

Doelle,H.W. and Foo,E.-L 2000 - Socio-Ecological strategies for future sustainabiliyt. A review ofan internet conference. Acta Biotechnol. 20: 203-218.

Ehrenfeld,J., Gettler,N. 1997 - Industrial ecology in practice - The evolution of interdependence atKalundborg. J. Industr. Ecology 1: 67-79.

Preston,T.R. 1995 - Research, extension and training for sustainable farming systems in the TropicsLivestock Research for Rural Development 7(2): http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrdhome.html

Wibulswa,P. 1998 - Sustainable energy development for Thailand. Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol.30: 87-96.

Wohlmeyer,H. 1987 - Biotechnology as an opportunity for the future. Nat. Resource Devel. 26::95-105

Webpage Information

Agricultural Biotechnology - http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology

Bioenergy Australia - http://www.users.bigpond.com/Steve.Schuck/ABT/index.htm

Bioenergy Information Network - http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/

Biofuels Program - Office of Fuels Department - http://www.biofuels.nrel.gov/economics.html

Biogas Forum - http://www.biogas.ch/

CADDET renewable energy - http://www.caddet-re.org/

City Farmers Urban Agriculture - http://www.cityfarmer.org/

Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Network [EREN] - http://www.eren.doe.gov/repis/

European Foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions - http://susdev.eurofound.ie

FAO - Biomass Energy Technology - http://www.rwedp.org/

Greening Industry : New roles for communities, markets and governments -http://www.worldbank.org/nipr/greening/index.htm

Page 116: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

100

ISAT [Information and Advisory Service on Appropriate Technology] - http://gate.gtz.de/isat

Living Technologies - http://www.livingmachines.com/htm/home.htm

M.S.Swaminathan Research Foundation - http://www.mssrf.org/index.html

National Renewable Energy Laboratory - http://www.nrel.gov/

Renewable Raw Materials - Survey - http://www.carmen-er.de/english/info/nachwach.html#0

The Australian Renewable Energy Site - http://renewable.greenhouse.gov.au/

The Tropical Ecological Farm - http://www.hcm.fpt.vn/inet/~ecofarm/eHome.htm

University Tropical Agric. Foundation [UTA] - http://www.uta.edu.kh/index.html

Page 117: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

101

Biofuel Generation

Horst W.DoelleMIRCEN-Biotechnology Brisbane and Pacific Regional NetworkInternational Organisation of Biotechnology and Bioengineering

Biofuels are alcohols, ethers, esters, and other chemicals made from lignocellulosic biomass such asherbaceous and woody plants, agricultural and forestry residues, polymers [eg starch, sugar and plantoils], and a large variety of municipal solid and industrial wastes. Biofuels can be in the form of solids,gas and liquids [Fig. 1]. Biofuels offer many benefits, since they are good for the environment andhealth because they add fewer emissions to the atmosphere than petroleum and coal fuels and usewastes that have currently no use. Biofuels, in contrast to petroleum and coal fuels, are a renewable,inexhaustible source of fuel, reducing dependency on foreign oil as their use grows domestically - thushelping local communities to become self-sufficient in energy supply.

Biofuels

solid gas liquid

co-generation anaerobic pyrolysis& gasification digestion fermentation

electricity electricity transport& heat & heat

Figure 1. Forms of biofuels, processes and their uses

Modern applications of biofuel generation cover not only heat and power generation from biomass,but also include domestic applications such as improved cooking and heating stoves. Besides directcombustion of solid fuels, the application of gaseous fuels [gasification and biogas] and liquid fuelsfor transportation [ethanol, biodiesel] made from biomass are also considered as modern.

Direct combustion deals mainly with primary fuels in the form in which it is available in nature orafter some form of processing [briquetting, pelleting, heat, charcoal]. Briquetting and pelleting aredensification processes of loose organic materials such as rice husks, saw dust, coffee husks,municipal wastes etc, aiming to improve handling and combusiton characteristics for stoves,fireplaces, kiln etc. Biomass-fired power plants have been installed in a number of countries in Asiaand Europe. These plants have the option to deliver electricity to the grid, so-called dendropower,utilise the electricity to satisfy the power demand of a stand-alone production process, or acombination of both. Combined heat and power (cogeneration) plants [CHP plants] are oftenintegrated with a pellet-manufacturing process. They have been installed in Scandinavia and arebecoming increasingly popular in Asia.

At a cost of SEK 216 million [approx. A$ 41 million], a Swedish company uses unprocessed biomassresidues producing 120 GWh electricity and 210 GWh heat or in an integrated operation 170 GWh

Page 118: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

102

electricity, 230 GWh heat with 130,000 tonnes of pellets. The electricity consumption in the pelletplant is around 100 kWh/tonne. While the heat is connected to a district housing system for heatinghouses and schools, the surplus electricity goes into the grid and the pellets are transported to themarket place.

The world’s first straw-fired CHP plant was constructed in 1989 in Denmark. The plant uses about26,000 tonnes of straw annually and has a nominal production capacity of 5 MWe and 13 MJ/s heat.The annual electricity production is around 17 GWh, corresponding to the consumption of around3,000 households. Heating output in 1998 was around 228 TJ. Around DKK 102 million [approx A$22 million] has been invested in the plant itself and around DKK 12 million in transmission pipes.Co-generation of both heat and power is increasingly applied in various wood and agroprocessingindustries such as sugar, palm oil and rice mills in Asia, in particular in the Philippines.

It is encouraging to learn that the Australian Government is at last introducing programmes which willrequire the electricity industry to achieve a significant increase in the contribution of renewable energygenerators. Currently the dominant fuel in the Australian biomass industry is sugarcane bagasse.About 60 years ago, mills started to generate electricity mainly for their own needs. Bagasse currentlyfires 14% of Australia's cogeneration capacity with 302.8 MWe installed. Estimates made by theSugar Research Institute suggest that there is enough waste bagasse currently produced in Australia toprovide fuel for an additional 3,000 MW.

The questions we have to ask ourselves are “What about the available bagasse and what about thestraw in our grain growing areas and other residues?”.”Why is not more done with this biomass inAustralia ?”

It looks even worse in Australia when we consider gaseous fuel. The most profitable use of gaseousfuel is biogas, a mixture of methane and carbon dioxide. Biogas production using anaerobic digestionis a commercially proven technology. Whereas our sewage plants burn the gas in flares, biogas usageis growing at a dramatic pace in Asia and Europe. Anaerobic reactors are generally used for theproduction of biogas from manure and crop residues. In general, a mesophilic digester produces 1 m3

biogas from every m3 digester volume. Biogas can be used for electricity generation as well as cookingand heating. Biogas has a very similar heat value to natural gas and LPG, but is a renewable resource.Depending on availability of raw material, digesters range from 6-2,000 m3 in size and cost from US$50 [polyethylene tube reactor] upwards. If the daily amount of available dung is known, gasproduction will approximately correspond to:

1 kg cattle dung: 40 l biogas

1 kg pig dung: 60 l biogas

1 kg chicken droppings: 70 l biogas

A 100 l refrigerator requires 30-75 l/h and the generation of 1 kWh of electricity 700 l/h biogas or 1m3 biogas is sufficient to generate 1.5 kWh. In summary, one can substitute 1 m3 biogas with 1 lb ofLPG, 0.52 l of diesel oil or 0.54 l of petrol.

By the end of 1998, Finland had established 24 biogas plants. This biogas produced 112 GWh ofenergy from sewage sludge, 19 GWh from industrial wastes and about 45 GWh from landfill. Thetotal fuel oil equivalent of the Finnish biogas reactors and landfill installations in 1998 was 33,600tonnes. The amount of bioenergy lost due to flare corresponded to 3,700 t. The amount burned to flareat landfill installations corresponded to 11,400 t of light fuel oil. Why this enormous biofuel energysource is not being used in rural and urban areas of Australia remains a mystery. I would like to see acalculation made of the flare if sewerage plants in Australia and the amount of bioenergy simply beingwasted !

Page 119: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

103

In 1998, the Peoples Republic of China reported 7 million family size and 600 large size biogas units,India approx. 3 million family size and 1,231 large size biogas units, Nepal 50,000 family size units,and Thailand 2,000 family size units.

Finally we arrive at the liquid fuels, such as ethanol and bio-diesel. Biodiesel can be manufactured byadding transesterification equipment to existing oil seed crushing and refining facilities. Its use as afuel is very comparable to its conventional counterpart. The power generated by an engine usingbiodiesel is about the same as conventional diesel (128,000 vs 130,500 BTUs, respectively). The resultof this is that the engine torque and effective horsepower do not change, despite a change in fuel.Furthermore, this means that the fuel consumption of the average diesel engine running on biodieselwill remain unchanged.The final method of biodiesel manufacture is the transesterification of plant oil with methanol orethanol in the presence of a catalyst. Essentially, the triglyceride is split so that the fatty acids are cutfrom the glycerol backbone. These fatty acids are simultaneously converted to their methylestersduring this process, which are compounds that have chemical characteristics similar to those ofconventional diesel fuel in terms of combustion. Such oils include soybean, canola, rapeseed, tallowand other vegetable oil. In addition, glycerol, a valuable byproduct of the process, can easily beisolated and sold, off-setting some of the production costs. Glycerol is being used in over 1500applications such as drugs, polymers, paints, cosmetics and many others. The world produced andused almost 700,000 tonnes 0of glycerol in 1995, and Europe alone produces currently about 45,000tonnes of glycerol per year from the biodiesel process. At the present time, a biodiesel productioncapability of about 10 million gallons per year [ 1 gallon approx. 4.5 l] exists in Austria alone.

Whereas Europe uses rapeseed oil, the US produces biodiesel mainly from soybean oil, whereapproximately 7 lb of soybean oil are needed to make 1 gallon [about 3.8 l] of biofuel together with ½lb of crude glycerin. At present, Procter & Gamble, the sole US producer, has the capacity to supplyup to 25 million gallons [ approx. 95 million litres] per year. The price of 100% biofuel ranged fromUS$ 2.20 to US$ 2.90 per gallon [ US$ 0.58-0.76 per litre], but in general, a 20/80 blend of biofueland diesel is recommended. No engine modification is required.

Bioethanol has been talked about in Australia over the past 3 decades. During the last few months inoffice, the then Premier of Queensland, J.Bjelke-Peterson, saw its potential and was about to legislatean approx. 250 million litre ethanol production facility in North Queensland, a recommendation turneddown by the successive government despite the full support of the Cane Growers Association forethanol production at the time. The cane growers were strongly in favour of a stable domestic marketto offset the enormously fluctuating world market price of sugar. There is no doubt that bioethanolwould not only consolidate our sugar industry, but also our rural grain industry. Fermented grain, egsorghum or barley or wheat, has a much higher digestability for cattle than the seed itself. In the US ithas been established that fermented grain increases digestibility 6-fold and reduces the odourdeveloping in the feedlots.

Sugarcane is the top raw material with an ethanol yield of 5,150 l/ha, followed closely by artichokes(5,000 l/ha), sugar beet (4,755 l/ha), cassava (4,450 l/ha), sweet sorghum (2,500 l/ha) and grain (2-3,000 l/ha).

The world bioethanol production volume is about 33 x 109 litre/year and is estimated to grow to 36-37x 109 litre/year by the year 2005. The largest market for fuel ethanol can be found in Brazil (14 x 109

l/year) followed by the USA. It is often forgotten that the first cars ever built by Daimler-Benz run onethanol, that Brazil has used ethanol from sugarcane since 1903 by adding 5% to petrol, and reached aproduction volume of 650 million litres in 1941. Petrol blended with 30-50% ethanol and named Latolhad been used in cars in Latvia before World War II.

The price of petrol in the USA varies between US$ 0.11-0.17/l and for ethanol between US$ 0.26 and0.40, whereas in France the cost of ethanol production from sugar beet varies between US$ 0.56 and

Page 120: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

104

0.64 /ltr and from wheat is around US$ 0.50/l. Two decades ago it was estimated that the costs ofethanol production in Australia would be around A$ 0.50/ltr.

As with electricity generation from solid fuels, bioethanol would have an enormous impact on theAustralian rural economy. It has to be realised, however, that it is much more economic to produceethanol from A- and/or B-molasses instead of C-molasses. High ethanol yields can only be achievedfrom high sugar or starch/glucose raw material. On the other hand, in contrast to sugar or grainproduction, biofuel production can still proceed profitably in times of bad weather and low sugarcontent in both sugarcane juice and grain grades. It is totally wrong to compare prices of first gradesugar or grain with ethanol prices, since lower grade standards are excellent raw materials forbioethanol. In a bioenergy production unit, no grain or sugarcane comes to waste. Furthermore, theresiduals of the biodiesel and bioethanol production are excellent by-products for the pharmaceuticaland cattle industries respectively.

In view of all these biofuel generation technologies readily available and proven in the US, Europe,south-east Asia and South America, as well as in some countries of Africa (e.g. Malawi, Zimbabwe) itis very hard to comprehend why our rural industry and governments failed so far to see the benefitscoming from these available technologies. Their use would relieve the external world price pressure infavour of a stable domestic market and thus improve and settle the rural economy. As mentionedearlier, all these technologies are still applicable during bad weather seasons, as straw, bagasse andlow sugar material would still provide the industry with a good income. The establishment of a biofuelindustry would furthermore create thousands of jobs and thus benefit our whole economy as well asmaking us less dependent on overseas oil imports.

The US Department of Energy has reported that the bioethanol industry alone is responsible forapproximately 200,000 jobs in the USA and from 1996 to 2001 will add US $ 51 billion to the USeconomy. It has also helped the rural corn industry to recover and to stop migration from the countryto the cities. Based on this success, the President of the USA announced a tripling of the use ofbiomass technologies by the year 2010 in order to produce fuels and materials, increase farm incomes,lessen oil imports and reduce the impacts of global warming. Biofuel is therefore going into directcompetition with the petrochemical products. What is Australia going to do with its enormouspotential for biofuel generation?

References

Bekers,M. and A.Vigants 2001 - Production of alcohol for fuel and organic acids. EOLSS-Unesco BG6.58.3.4,Paris (in press)

Lowrier,A. 2001 - Biodiesel. EOLSS-Unesco BG6.58.7.4, Paris (in press)

Karki,A.B. 2001 - Renewable energy from organic wastes. EOLSS-Unesco BG6.58.6.10, Paris (in press)

FAO-RWEDP - Biomass Energy Technology. http://www.rwedp.org

Leinonen,S. and V.Knittinen 1999 - Biogas in Finland 1998. Dept. of Ecology, Univ.of Joensuu, Joensuu,Finland

van Zanten,W. 1999 - Energy from waste and biomass. CADDET Newsletter, October 1999

CADDET 1999 - Straw-fired CHP plant in Rudkobing. Technical Broschure No. 95

CADDET 1999 - The world’s first straw-fired CHP plant offers environmental benefits. Technical BroschureNo. 96

CADDET 1999 - Biomass offers integrated solutions in Australia. Newsletter, October 1999

Page 121: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

105

FAO 1998 - Options for Dendro Power in Asia. FAO Report on the Expert Consultation. RWEDP in Asia, FieldDocument 57, Manila 1998

USAID 1997 - Enhancing Biomass Energy Productoin opportunities in the Philippines.USAID/Nat.Renewable Energy LabProject DE-AC36-99-GO10337

UIC Energy Resources Center - Economics of biodiesel http://h008.erc.uic.edu/bmfd_economics.htm

Kwant,K. and W.van Zanten 1998 - Green electricity from waste wood. CADDET Newsletter 4

Maramba,F.D. 1978 - Biogas and Waste recycling. Regal Printing Comp., Manila Information and AdvisoryService on Appropriate Technology: http://gate.gtz.de/isat/at_info/biogas/AT_biogas.html

CADDET International Information on Renewable Energy :http://www.caddet-re.org European Foundation forSustainable Development: http://susdev.eurofound.ie

Bioenergy Information Network: http://bioenergy.ornl.gov.

Page 122: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

106

Cleaner Production and Integrated Biosystems

Robert Pagan and Marguerite LakeUNEP Working Group for Cleaner Production in the Food IndustryUniversity of Queensland.

Cleaner Production is a relatively recent strategy to assess and minimise the environmental impactsfrom production and consumption. It has been recognised that it is not sensible to limit impactminimisation to the production process alone. To achieve the kinds of reductions in throughputsneeded for the Factor X (4 or 10 or even 20 fold) reduction in materials use, then there must besignificant attention paid to the consumption process as well as production.

The use of Cleaner Production implies an awareness of many aspects of environmental managementand operations, including knowledge of the production process, awareness of alternatives andsubstitute materials and a holistic approach to minimising impacts and maximising utility of resourceuse. A Cleaner Production approach offers considerable advantages to companies and to individualsthat adopt such a strategy by increasing profitability from decreasing waste and focussing onefficiency gains. It involves a whole-of-life or life-cycle approach to minimising impacts and by itsfocus on strategic development can optimise resource use and company financial performance.

Integrated biosystems are one aspect of the production/consumption chain which have not received alot of attention in the past, but which can claim to be a true Cleaner Production opportunity. In such anapproach, nutrients and energy cascade through a trophic system, with optimal use ideally being madeof all aspects of the biota and with beneficial use at every step.

Apart from the range of food crops and their synergistic opportunities with other life forms, there is awhole raft of opportunities for integrated biosystems using non-food crops. For example using cropswhich produce fibre, or fuel and energy, and for products such as pharmaceuticals. Cleaner Productionis a strategy which can consider the opportunities in an integrated biosystem to optimise the interplayof the components and ensure that full use is being made of the different parts of the system. In thispaper we will examine how Cleaner Production through a life-cycle concept can be applied to the agri-food chain and how it can assist in optimising environmental outcomes, including the adoption of anintegrated biosystem approach.

Introduction

Different areas of the world and different parts of different countries have different environmental andsustainability needs. These differences are most obvious when comparing less developed countries(LDCs) and more developed countries (MDCs), where needs, wants and priorities are quite different.

For less developed countries, the ability to provide growing populations with the most basic of foodneeds is the number one priority. Therefore, food needs focus on intrinsic requirements of production,such as access to a plot of fertile land and a good water supply with which to grow the food and theability to distribute products to consumers. The intensity of production required to meet the needs ofever-growing populations means that upstream production processes can have adverse impacts on theenvironment. In these regions therefore, concerns about environmental sustainability focus onpreventing the degradation of arable land, preventing loss of water resources and finding sources ofenergy (Table 1).

Page 123: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

107

Table 1.Imperatives for food security for LDCs from an environmental perspective

More calories Prevent starvation

More basic foodstuffs Conserve water quality and health

Land protection Conserve land values

Fuel provision Prevent land destruction

Water protection Conserve water quality and health

In contrast, MDCs are not generally faced with food security issues and many problems are related toover-consumption rather than deficiencies. Due to higher levels of affluence, food is available inabundance and consumers needs are focused on maintaining their particular life styles. Consequently,food is expected to be safe, of high quality, available in abundant variety and prepared and packagedin a convenient form. The downstream production processes required to meet these expectations placeadditional burdens on the environment as well as those generated by upstream food production. Inthese regions, sustainability issues are concerned with minimising the resource intensity ofdownstream processing and packaging activities.

Table 2. Priorities for MDCs in linking food needs and the environment

Fewer calories Avoid health problems

Special foodstuffs Encourage healthy life

Safe and high quality foods More quality and processing

Highly prepared foods Convenience

Water protection Nutrient, pesticide run-off

Land protection Soil degradation and loss

Air, noise and nuisance protection Amenity values

Despite these different imperatives, the factors that ultimately govern the environmental sustainabilityof food production are shared in common, and most nations face challenges in all these areas:

! the conservation of soils and nutrient status;

! the wise use of fertilisers;

! the selection and preservation of productive genetic stock;

! the careful use of agents for controlling disease and insect blight;

! the efficient use of resources, in particular water and energy;

! the protection of water quality though the careful disposal of wastes; and

! the minimisation of wastes and productive use of by-products.

Sustainability issues cut across the entire food production and supply chain, from agriculturalproduction to processing through to packing, distribution and final consumption (see Figure 1). Thispaper explores how an integrated approach can influence environmental sustainability throughout thefood production and consumption chain.

Page 124: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

108

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the food production & supply chain, showing inputs &outputs.

Resource efficiency and sustainability

Resource efficiency means using less to produce more and is relevant to all aspects of foodproduction; agriculture, intensive animal husbandry, processing, packaging and distribution. As thecornerstone of concepts such as Cleaner Production and Eco-Efficiency, it is probably one of the morewidely recognised drivers for more sustainable food production, particularly in the food processingsector of developed countries. Especially throughout the fast growing regions of Asia, CleanerProduction (CP) is seen as a sensible way of addressing the need for improved resource efficiency andhigher productivity. The CP approach has not yet been widely applied in agriculture, but there areobvious possibilities. In agriculture, resource inefficiencies can occur in water and irrigationmanagement, nutrient and soil management and pest and disease control, as well as energymanagement. Environmental problems, which are a symptom of these inefficiencies, include erosionof soil, runoff contaminated with nutrients and pesticides, harm to non-target pest species and anincreased emission of greenhouse gases.A study undertaken by the German Bureau of Sustainable Agriculture studied nitrogen inputs into

German agriculture to determineproduction efficiencies (Isermann,1998). They found that nitrogen inputwas 2-3 times too high and resulted ina net biomass production that was only25% efficient. This inefficiency causesemissions of reactive nitrogen into thehydrosphere and atmosphere that were2-8 times too high.

A number of techniques under thegeneral heading of Integrated CropManagement (ICM) are slowlyevolving to help address some of theseinefficiencies. Precision Agriculture(Figure 2) for example, usesmonitoring and mapping techniques tosupply exactly the right amount offertiliser, water or chemical controlagents to crops at exactly the right timeand place.

Figure 2: Precision Agriculture

• Increased yield

• Just enough & just in time application

• Reduced loss of nutrient, pesticide and water• Lower environment impact

Farm System

Inputs

Products

Waste

More precise system

Farm System

• Yield / quality losses

• Excess nutrient (N), pesticide and water

• runoff• groundwater• volatilisation

• High level of inputs. Managing risk without considering the full cost of waste.

Inputs

Products

Waste

Traditional system

Greenhouse gasemissions

NutrientAgriculture

Livestockproduction

Processing Packaging Distribution Consumption

SoilWaterPesticides /

herbicidesFertilisersEnergy

Feed / grazing landWaterAntibiotics etc.Energy

WaterCleaners/

sanitisersEnergy

Paper /cardboard

PlasticGlassMetalsEnergy

Transport fuels

Soil lossContaminated

runoffHarm to non-

target species

Greenhouse gasemissions

Manure managementproblems

EffluentFood residues

Solid waste Greenhouse gasemissions

Other transportemissions

Solid waste

Page 125: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

109

The processing of many food products generates high levels of waste (Table 3). For example, 50-60%of some vegetables can finish up as “waste”, while foodstuffs such as seafood and meat, also producehigh levels of waste. Since food wastes are organic they have been traditionally viewed as benign(“it’s only food”), however, due to increasing production intensity and often production in urbanizedareas they can create significant environmental impacts if waste streams are not managed carefully.

Many of the wastes generated by food processingdo have some value and in many instances they canbe reused, recycled, or modified to produce otherby-products. Each sector, dairy, beverages, fruitand vegetable, starch and snack food, bakery, meatand seafood processing etc. has its own specificwastes that are produced at different stages of theproduction process. Often wastes can beminimised by the application of goodhousekeeping practices and best practicestechniques. Some examples of resource efficiencyopportunities for a selection of food processingsectors are provided in Table 4.

A huge concern for the food processing sector overall is the use of water and the subsequentgeneration of effluent. Especially in some less developed countries the discharge of food wastes withhigh biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) into open drains can cause considerable nuisance problems.

Table 4: Resource efficiency opportunities for food processors

Meat & poultry plants

For most meat and poultry plants,large quantities of water are usedfor washing carcasses and forcleaning plant and equipment at theend of each shift. In poultryprocessing, water is also used forhot water scalding, in water flumesfor transporting animal wastes andfor chilling birds.

Adopting dry cleaning practices,using spray nozzles on hoses andemploying more efficient offalwashing processes are key areas forwater savings.

For poultry processing, more waterefficient processes and equipmentinclude pneumatic waste handlinginstead of water fluming and theuse of modern scalding systems.There are also opportunities forreusing wastewaters, for example,by using scald water overflow forplucking flumes and by recyclingchiller water.

Fruit & vegetableprocessingIn this sector, considerableamount of raw material may belost to the waste stream – up to50-60% for some products.

Grading and sorting on farmminimises the quantities ofreject material and dirt that istransported to the processingoperation and allows for moreefficient recycling back to thefarm.

Greater integration along thesupply chain and controlling thetemperature of the product fromharvest to market using systemssuch as modified atmospherepackaging are becomingimportant for maximisingquality and therefore reducingwastage.

Sourcing markets for lowergrade products can also helpreduce wastage in someinstances.

Breweries

Consumption of hot water isan important area of resourceefficiency for breweries. Hotwater is produced fromcooling the wort and is usuallyused for mashing. Howeverthere is generally an excess ofhot water, and if not utilised,represents a valuable loss ofenergy.

Breweries also have theopportunity to reduce energyconsumption and energyrelated emissions byimproving the efficiency oftheir boilers.

Wastewater generated frombreweries is also particularlyamenable to treatment byanaerobic digestion. This notonly reduces the pollutant loadof the wastewater but alsogenerates methane-rich biogasthat can be used to supplementfuel in the boiler.

Table 3: Losses in food processing

Food Sector Indicative processlosses (% wt)

Oils and fats 1Dairy 1.5Brewing 2Biscuits and starch 5Confectionary 15Fish 40Fruit and vegetable 50Meat 76

Source: (Niranjan & Shilton, 1994)

Page 126: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

110

The list of “wastes” both upstream in agriculture, during processing and downstream in distributionand consumption is long. It is also questionable. When we say “waste” in food processing there willalmost certainly be someone to comment and criticise, because too many food “wastes” reallyrepresent a most valuable resource, if only we can harness the energy, the nutrient and the functioninherent in the resource. The Cleaner Production strategy can be applied to this concept to minimiselosses and to recover value through various processes including integrated biosystems. Theintegrated biosystems approach is inherently Cleaner Production in practice – it considers all aspectsof a food/bioproduction chain and says “How can we maximise the value of this food chain?. How canwe use all the streams to maximum advantage?”. This is an industrial ecology approach where weidentify how industry can mimic nature. In a natural system there is no waste - everything is recycled,recovered or reused - and similarly, we want to do this with integrated biosystems. Not just forfoodstuffs, but numerous biocrops have been proposed to promote more sustainable use of resourceson the planet. For example:

CROP USES

Sugar cane FoodFuel (as ethanol)Fuel (tops and bagasse)Antibiotic (ferment to penicillin etc)Solvent (ferment to acetone/butanol)Biopackaging (ferment to biodegradable materials)

Kenaf FibreFuel

Aloe Vera PharmaceuticalFoodDrink

Timber ConstructionFuelFood (as litter for chickens)

Source: (Benjamin and van Weenen, 2000)

There are numerous other examples of integrated bioprocessing where food/feed materials cascadethrough the feed chain and value is extracted at every step. Figure 3, which has been adapted fromShober (1988), shows that ideally we usually want to extract maximum value from food wastes ashuman food. Successive uses bring less successful outcomes.

Figure 3. The waste value hierarchy for food wastes Source: (Shober, 1988)

Hierarchy of Value for Wastes

Human food

By-products

Animal feed

Land application

Landfill

Higher value

from Shober,1988

Page 127: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

111

Where do integrated biosystems fit into this picture? It is our contention that having an integratedsystem allows us to take the “residual” or waste components from one process and cascade it throughseveral other processes, retrieving value at every step. It is important of course to ensure that theapproach does not start a self-seeking goal of creating more residuals to cascade to lower value andhence lower efficiency products. This is one of the big arguments from many who are opposed to a“market” in waste. This school of thought contends that because you can make use of a waste, there isa driver to create more waste, instead of using true Cleaner Production principles.

Technology and sustainability

The “Green Revolution” in the agricultural sector is an example of the significant role that technologyplays in food production. It includes a whole suite of technologies, which has dramatically improvedthe yields from staple crops such as wheat, rice and maize, including seed varieties, mono-culture,mechanisation, petrochemical fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides and irrigation. Such technologieshave provided the ability for LDCs to better feed growing populations and for MDCs to furtherenhance quality of life. However the technologies have not been without their problems, for example,the reliance on agrochemical-based pest and weed control, water management problems arising fromthe expansion of irrigation areas and the possible genetic erosion due to the introduction of high yieldcrop varieties.

One technology that is evolving rapidly is biotechnology and in particular, the genetic modification offoods has leapt into prominence recently. The question of whether biotechnology is compatible withsustainable food production is highly contentious. Proponents stress the potential of biotechnology toreduce the need for chemicals and for improving quality, safety, cost and convenience of foodproducts. Opponents raise a variety of food safety, ecological, social and ethical issues. A healthymix of both perspectives, as well as application of the precautionary principle will be required toensure this technology remains a productive force.

Other traditional forms of biotechnology, which involve the use of microorganisms for digestion andfermentation etc., will continue to play an increasingly important role in the area of food processing.This form of biotechnology has been used for centuries for making cheese, yogurt, bread and wine, butits role has expanded considerably to include by-product recovery, value-adding of wastes andbiological wastewater treatment. An example is the production of methane-rich biogas from theanaerobic digestion of organic waste streams, which can supplement fuel supplies. Other applicationsinclude the production of lactic and propionic acids from whey, production of bioflavours fromvegetable residues and the recovery of alcohol and other chemicals from starch wastes. Biotechnologycould play a very useful role as part of an integrated biosystem, for example recovering alcohol fromsugar waste, then methane from those residuals and possibly other products from growing algae onsubsequent streams.

Membrane separation technology is another area that has significant potential for resource recovery inthe food processing sector and uses are growing rapidly. Examples include the recovery of wheyprotein concentrate and lactose from dairy processing wastes and the recovery of protein from bloodwastes using ultra- and microfiltration. Other physical separation techniques can be used to recoverproteins and fats from meat and poultry processing effluents, fish oil from fish processing wastes andcitrus oil from waste citrus peels, to cite a few examples. Examples of chemical recovery techniqueshave also been reported, such as the recovery of chitin and chitosan from shellfish processing wastes.A summary of some resource recovery applications is provided in Table 5.

While many of these techniques are still in developmental stages, greater application of thesetechnologies can be expected in the future. They will enable useful and potentially valuablecommodities to be recovered from food and beverage processing waste streams. This may provideadditional revenue streams for food processors but will also minimise the disposal of waste streams.

Page 128: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

112

This has obvious implications for the concept of integrated systems where the viability of downstreamprocesses may depend on the ready availability of no, low or negative cost streams. According toShober’s hierarchy we should always seek to eliminate or minimise waste at source first beforeseeking lower value alternatives.

Figure 5: Resource recovery from food processing wastes

Biotechnology

! Lactic and propionic acidrecovery from fermentation ofmilk whey

! Bioflavour recovery from thefermentation of vegetableresidues

! Biogas recovery from theanaerobic digestion of food andbeverage processing effluents

! Fuel alcohol recovery fromstarch

Separation technologies

! Whey protein concentrateand lactose recovery usingultrafiltration andnanofiltration

! Protein recovery fromblood using membranefiltration

! Protein and fat recoveryfrom meat and poultryprocessing effluent usingdissolved air concentrationsystems

! Fish oil recovery from fishprocessing wastes

! Citrus oil recovery fromcitrus peel pressingwastewater using vacuumdistillation

Chemical processes

! Recovery of phenolicfood lipids from redgrape marc using solventextraction

! Chitin and chitosanrecovery from theexoskeleton ofcrustaceans

! Collagen recovery fromanimal pelt

Trends in Food Consumption

For less developed countries, the most significant dietary related trend is the increase in demand forfood of animal origin, which has been referred to as the “Livestock Revolution”. Unlike the “GreenRevolution”, this has been a demand-driven trend fuelled by population growth, urbanisation andincome growth. People in LDCs currently obtain an average of 11% of their calories from animalsources, compared with 27% for people in MDCs (Delgado, 1999). This difference gives anindication of the dramatic changes in store for global food production. It is projected that by 2020LDCs will consume 100 million metric tons more meat and 223 million metric tons more milk thanthey did in 1993, dwarfing the increases in more developed countries of 18 million metric tons forboth meat and milk. The trend towards higher consumption of animal-derived food in developingregions has been identified by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) as an importantenvironmental issue (Delgado, 1999). The IFPRI believe that livestock can contribute toenvironmental sustainability in mixed farming systems that strike a proper balance between crop andlivestock intensification. However the higher numbers and higher concentrations of animals needed tomeet the growing demands can lead to degradation of grazing areas, emission of greenhouse gases andexcess levels of nutrients, issues which are rarely reflected in the costs of animal-derived products.This trend may alter the availability of suitable streams for an integrated bio-systems approach. Asmore people turn to such products it is possible that more streams and more concentrated streams ofbiologically valuable “wastes” will become accessible. It is important to harness these streams andconvert them into value added products.

Similarly the trends mentioned earlier for MDCs to convert to more processed products might alsomake more concentrated streams available for bioprocessing. The problem to be faced is that these

Page 129: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

113

streams will be in urban areas and with little access to spare land for less intensive processes and thefact that odour generation must be addressed.

The Australian Food and Grocery Council recently undertook a survey of the environmentalmanagement practices of its member companies. Compared with a similar survey undertaken sixyears ago, there has been an increase in environmental consciousness and a higher number ofexecutive staff dedicated to environmental issues. It has also been observed that in some instances, themanaging director has become the driver of environmental change and not the environmental officer.This implies a change from a more compliance-focused approach to a more longer-term and strategicone. Formalised reform of the industry has only just begun. This is a good time to be concentratingon waste minimisation, waste utilisation and the benefits offered by adopting the precepts of the wasteminimisation hierarchy and Cleaner Production.

Conclusions

The world is changing and with it, food habits and patterns of consumption. Demographics arechanging rapidly and food production is one of the most obvious areas where the world has becomeglobalised. Cleaner Production concepts can be applied at all stages of the food production and supplychain, at the farm level, during processing, packaging and delivery and even at the consumption stage.To achieve a sustainable food industry we need to, and we can, influence each process within the foodchain; through greater resource efficiency, through the use of technology, by educating the consumerand by having a better appreciation of emerging trends. The use of an integrated bio-systemsapproach to make full use of the present long list of discards from the sector will bring about a morerational use of resources and a more efficient society. This approach is still in its infancy, but isdestined to play an important role in developing the full potential of the food sector resource chain. Alife-cycle approach, to discover the inputs, the outputs and the quantitative resources used anddiscarded at every step of the chain is required to analyse the production process and point out areasfor maximum value conservation.

References

Benjamin, Y and van Weenen, H. 2000. Crops for Sustainable Enterprise - Design for Sustainable Development.European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Dublin, Ireland.http://www.eurofound.ie/publications/sustainability.htm (accessed 14/3/01).

Delgado C. et al. 1999. Livestock to 2020: The Next Food Revolution. 2020 Vision Discussion Paper 28.International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).http://www.cgiar.org/ifpri/2020/briefs/2br61.htm. (accessed 14/3/01).

Isermann, K., and Isermann, R. 1998. Food production and consumption in Germany: N flows and N emissions.Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems Vol 52, pp 289-301.

Niranjan and Shilton 1994. AIChemE Symposium #90.

Pimentel, D. and Pimentel M. 1996. Food, Energy and Society. Revised Edition. University Press of Colorado.Colorado.

Shober, R T. 1988. Water conservation / waste load reduction in food processing facilities. Food ProcessingWaste Conference, Georgia Tech. Research Institute, USA.

Page 130: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

114

Adopting Vermiculture Technology to Manage and Utilize OrganicWaste

Steve Capeness Vermitech Pty. Ltd.

Introduction

Two factors dominate the direction of biosolids disposal - economics and the environment. There is aglobal need for a range of cost-effective environmentally sustainable solutions for the management ofthe millions of tonnes of sludge produced daily. Solutions must be capable of being scaled toaccommodate variations in volume, climate, urbanisation and industrialisation while meeting strictpublic health and environmental guidelines. Recovery of resources and safe beneficial reuse areincreasingly important criteria.

Very large scale vermiculture provides a flexible solution that is cost competitive, producing a highlystabilised, odourless end product (vermicast), which has proven agricultural applicationcomplementing and reducing chemical fertiliser requirements.

The development of industrial scale, fully commercial vermiculture as a waste management solutionhas taken extensive research and development of mechanical equipment, systems and processes; wasteblend regimes; and the value of the end product.

Mechanical Equipment, Systems and Processes

The major design considerations were the natural behaviour and requirements of worms, the need toseparate worms from the vermicast once it had been processed, the need to eliminate pollutionincluding odour and leachate; the requirement for large volume processing in limited space in urbanand animal production environments and the critical factors of minimising capital and operating costs.

The solution was the development of a metal framed raised cage. The cage is open at the top. Waste isfed onto the top surface. Worms process the waste leaving their castings. Castings are removed fromthe base of the bed.

This design is a continuous process. Feeding and harvesting occur daily. The beds are 3.6 metres wideand 70 metres long. Each bed can process 6 tonnes per day. Three systems of this design (the V-tech1) are now operating, processing 700 tonne per week of biosolids, piggery sludge, green waste, paperand mixed food wastes. The largest V-tech 1 facility was installed at Cleveland. It processes 20,000tonnes per year of Redlands Shire biosolids and 2,000 tonnes of green waste. It is built in anenvironmentally sensitive area adjacent to a protected marine environment, koala habitat and 400metres to residences.

The site generates no odour or leachate. The processing surfaces are sealed with bitumen to provide astable work environment. Odour is controlled through waste blending and management practices.

Before waste can be fed to the worms, it must be mixed. Mixing is carried out in batches using amodified mobile animal feed mixer. The mixer is tractor powered. After mixing the feed is dischargedto the surface of the bed via a modified conveyor while the mixer is driven alongside each row. Thefeed is then mechanically raked across the surface of the bed.

The beds are kept at optimal moisture using a computer controlled watering system.

Page 131: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

115

The castings are removed from the base of the bed using a rotating cutting head attached to a skid steerloader.

Land Area

The area required for vermiculture has been a limiting factor. The table below sets out the arearequired for the processing of 20,000 tonnes per year.

Windrow V-tech 1 V-tech 2 V-tech 3Processing Arearequired (m2)

22,000 9,800 4,300 1,400

The on-ground windrow is the traditional process used for vermiculture in India and Cuba. The V-tech1 system is the current operating system. The V-tech 2 and 3 and new systems are under development.The V-tech 2 will be installed for Sydney Water in 2001.

The small footprint of the V-tech 3 system has been developed to allow the system to be housed in aweather-proof building for cold climates. The design will also be used in cities where land is at apremium.

Apart from being more space-efficient the new systems will use 60% less labour.

Waste Types

All organic wastes can be fed to worms provided the waste is presented to the worm in an appropriatecondition. Most vermiculture practitioners pre-compost material before feeding. Our research hasfocused on developing formulae and processes which eliminate this costly and resource-destructivestep.

Research and extensive operational practice has established that biosolids, regardless of process origin,can be fed to worms. Even totally undigested sludge can be processed. Sludge age, nutrient content,polymer type and degree of dewatering influence the choice of blend formula and processingtechnique. The V-Tech systems are ideal for processing seasonal organic waste streams such asdiscarded fruit and vegetables from processing and packing plants.

Worms are tolerant of chemical and metal contamination. The degree to which they bioremediateand/or bioaccumulate is being researched. To date we have not noted any significant drop in heavymetal concentrations.

Mass Balance, Emissions and Energy Use

Vermiculture is energy- and resource-efficient. End-product yield is greater than 50%. The V-techsystem is “dry”. No leachate is lost from the base of the beds. Moisture is lost through evaporation.Inwards moisture average 82%. Outwards moisture averages 25%.

Gas emissions have not yet been quantified. Worms are intolerant of volatiles, methane and highlevels of CO2. Ambient bed temperatures are below 35oC. The high yield, coupled with the forgoingsuggests that vermiculture produces very low greenhouse and other gases. An “in vessel” assessmentis being carried out this year in conjunction with the Queensland University of Technology. Ananalysis of the energy and green house saving will include the net substitution effect for the fertilisercontent of the casting.

Page 132: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

116

The V-tech system is energy-efficient. Because the system can be located on site, the pollution andenergy associated with transport are eliminated. All process energy is via diesel engines. Diesel use is2.2 litres per tonne of waste. This will be reduced with the next generation of systems to under 2 litresper tonne.

Pathogen Reduction

The V-tech 1 system consistently (100% to date on 15,000 tonnes) achieves Grade A stabilisation.Trials using on-ground techniques failed to achieve stabilisation.

Mean Pathogen Level of Casts from Vermitech Process

Standard Biosolids Base of Bed Final Cast

Fecal Coliform (cfu/g) >310,000 270 180E coli (cfu/g) >110,000 18 4Salmonella Not detectable, masked by fecal

coliforms and E. coliNot detected Not detected

Enteric Viruses (PFU/g) Not tested <1 <1Helminth OvaAscarisTaenia

Not testedTrial seeded to 23/gm Not detected

<1Not detected

<1Stabilisation Grade NA A A

Contamination

Worms are tolerant to the levels of contaminants received from sewage plants. End productcontamination levels are dependent on input contaminants. Some reduction in concentration isachieved through blending of non-contaminated waste but the major difference between vermicastand other biosolids reuse programs is the low application rate of 5 tonne per hectare.

Vermicast is applied at less than 5 tonne per hectare. A report by the Queensland Department ofNatural Resources and Mines concluded that the "impact of metals on soils (from the use ofvermicast) is not detectable using standard analytic techniques".

Castings – BioVerm* – the End Product

One tonne of sludge produces 500 litres of vermicast. The value of BioVerm* is undergoingextensive research to establish the long term commercial value in agriculture, particularlyhorticulture and forestry, land rehabilitation, parks and gardens, golf courses and racetracks.

BioVerm* is not a fertiliser, having modest nutrient content. It has a wide range of minerals andmicro-nutrients, organic carbon and most importantly is biologically very active. Testing has failed toidentify any plant or human pathogens and the material is nematode-free.

Currently our field research is focused on understanding the benefits of BioVerm* as a soilconditioner / activator and the interaction between BioVerm*, soils and crops. One of the firstobservations has been that BioVerm* has an optimum rate of application that could be related togeneral soil health, including factors such as balanced nutritional management, soil organic carbon

Page 133: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

117

levels and soil biomass. The old manuring mentality of, “twice as much is twice as good” may applyonly if the grower is prepared to take the wholistic approach to soil health and crop nutrition.

We already know that soil biomass can influence the performance of specific crops and that certaincrops can change soil biomass during their growth cycle. Using soil biomass analysis, it is possible todecide what a soil is missing in the biological spectrum and then add compatible compost for aspecific use. Annual row crops such as vegetables, soybeans, cotton, turf and flowers like bacterialdominance in soil while tree crops, permanent pasture and strawberries prefer fungal domination.Plants don’t leave this to chance in nature - instead their roots secrete products of photosynthesis thatattract the right groups of bacteria or fungi into the rhizosphere. Applying compost with the correctmicrobial balance for the crop will enhance growth and plant health because the plant is being servedby a dominant population of preferred soil microflora. Applying a compost with an incorrect biomassfor the crop is not a disaster but it means that the plant loses growing potential while the soil biomassadjusts to a more desirable balance.

Most research is conducted on a scientific basis with proper controls and replicates by accreditedinstitutions. During our field extension phase, controlled grower trials are being evaluated byindependent consultants. Australian research results to date include:

! Suppression of plant pathogens (club root, white root rot in apple, white rot in onion)

! Increased yield and quality in grapes, cherries, citrus, carrots, tomatoes, capsicum, zucchini,brassicas, radish, pastures and grasses

! Earlier development, flowering and fruiting of tomatoes, capsicum and ornamentals

! Increased yield in cotton

! More effective establishment of vegetation on mine site rehabilitation

Conclusions

Very large scale vermiculture offers an ecologically and commercially sustainable alternative tocurrent technologies. The major advantages are:

! a pollution free process: no odour or leachate;

! minimal green house emissions;

! low energy use;

! competitive capital and operating costs;

! capable of being installed within the grounds of a treatment plant, eliminating transport of rawsludge;

! could be used to process other organic wastes generated in the region;

! 100% recycling producing a high value end product that reduces fertiliser requirement andimproves the soil biodiversity

Page 134: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

118

Processing of organic materials by the soldier fly, Hermetiaillucens

Kev Warburton1 and Vivienne Hallman2

1 Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Queensland2 The Green Food Company

Abstract

Soldier fly larvae have attracted attention for their ability to process a wide range of organic materials,including green waste, animal manures and food scraps. This paper describes a successful techniquefor the culture of soldier fly larvae and studies of their waste processing efficiency. This involved thecompletion of the soldier fly life-cycle in captivity, and a method for manipulating the life cycle usingtemperature and food. We found that soldier fly larvae convert food waste more rapidly thanearthworms and as such can play a useful role in integrated biosystems. Soldier fly larvae cope withhigh temperatures (at or above 30oC) better than earthworms and are suitable for applications intropical Australia, where the processing rate is faster and populations can be maintained throughcontinual egg-laying by wild adults. When sewage sludge was allowed to dry out at 30oC, soldier flylarvae and earthworms showed similar levels of dry matter reduction (>30%) over a two week period.

Background

Several studies have demonstrated the viability of insect-based systems for processing organic waste.As with earthworms, efficient and reliable insect-based treatment systems can be built and maintainedat extremely low cost. Recent studies (Sheppard et al. 1994; Nuov et al. 1995) have shown thatcertain dipteran (fly) larvae are able to reduce chicken and pig waste to a non-polluting residue in amatter of days under ideal conditions. One of the most useful species in this regard is the soldier fly,Hermetia illucens, a black fly 13-20 mm in length that resembles a wasp in appearance. This fly isfound worldwide, often around buildings, but is not a pest species. The larval stage is maggot-like andusually found in piles of rotting vegetable material. Our studies at the University of Queensland hasdemonstrated that H. illucens is common in southeast Queensland (having been introduced fromoverseas) and freely utilises a wide range of domestic and other organic waste.

Potential advantages of soldier fly-based waste management systems include the following (Sheppardet al. 1994):

! Dewatering and reduction of waste (e.g., by c. 50% in the case of chicken manure, more withwaste having a higher water content). In the case of putrescible waste, this can significantlyrelieve pressure on landfill sites.

! Waste is aerated by large burrowing larvae.

! Larvae tolerate a wide range of pH and moisture levels.

! Larvae will self-harvest (migrate) just before pupation.

! Simple, reliable, low-technology systems.

! Minimal maintenance requirements.

! Hygienic (soldier flies eliminate housefly breeding).

! High insect yield (c. 8% by dry weight - i.e., similar to earthworm systems).

! High protein larvae; can be incorporated into livestock and fish feeds.

Page 135: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

119

Despite the attractive features of the above systems, there is still a general lack of detailed quantitativeinformation on their capacity and efficiency.

Both earthworms and soldier flies have attracted attention through their ability to break down organicwastes. However, they have completely different life cycles. While earthworms may spend theirentire life in the top 15 cm of moist composting material, the soldier fly life cycle has four distinctphases (May 1961), as follows:

! eggs are laid on a dry surface but in a high humidity environment close to a potential food source;

! larvae live and feed in an actively rotting food source, which is usually of plant origin;

! pupae move from this moist environment to a drier area of damp soil;

! adult flies emerge from the soil and deposit egg masses near food sources for young larvae.

These differences in life cycles have important implications for the design of any waste managementsystem involving earthworms or soldier flies.

Methods and Results

The present research program concentrated on (a) the soldier fly life cycle (with the aim of definingconditions necessary for completing the life cycle in captivity) and (b) the processing of organicmaterials. Previous workers have documented the ability of soldier fly larvae (usually recruitednaturally from the wild) to reduce materials such as manures and green waste (e.g., Fatchurochim etal. 1989; Sheppard et al. 1994; Newton et al. 1995; Newby 1997). We observed soldier fly larvae ona range of substrates but focussed mainly on sewage sludge, as part of an investigation into ways ofreducing landfill and stockpiling and improving the value of municipal sludge. We compared thesludge reduction performance and growth rates of soldier fly larvae and earthworms sincevermicomposting has been successfully used to convert sewage sludge to a value-added product(Outwater 1994).

Soldier fly life cycle

In the present study it was necessary to first establish whether stocks of larvae could be cultured asrequired. This involved demonstrating that the soldier fly life cycle could be completed in captivity,and determining the most suitable conditions for the rearing of eggs and young larvae. The experiencegained in this part of the research program allowed us to rear the large numbers of larvae required forthe high-density experimental trials.

Egg laying (oviposition) by adults.

A good egg-laying site was discovered at Mt. Nebo, north-west of Brisbane, and eggs were collectedonce or twice weekly from this location. The numbers of eggs laid in standard composting bins, andthe occurrence of adult flies near the oviposition site, were monitored and related to weatherconditions. The rate of adult activity, egg deposition and hatching in May-August (mean temperatures12-15oC) was only 25-50% that observed during the remainder of the year. During a few weeks ofextremely cold weather (in July; mean temperature 12oC) no new egg masses appeared. Adult flieswere very active around oviposition sites during September-March (mean temperatures 15.5 - 21.5oC).When egg collection commenced in June 1998, microscopic identification indicated a single species.However, as summer approached and temperatures increased, young larvae of a second species of flywere observed. Eggs collected during the cooler months (May-August) were mainly those of a nativespecies Exaireta spiniger, while those collected in the warmer months (September-April) were mainlythose of the introduced species Hermetia illucens.

Page 136: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

120

Based on observations made at Caboolture Sewage Treatment Plant, soldier fly adults do not lay theireggs in sewage sludge piles. Insect larvae were found but these proved to be representatives of otherfly species. Under experimental conditions indoors (described below), adults did not lay in opencontainers of sewage sludge.

Hatching of eggs and growth of young larvae

After collection, eggs were maintained in containers with different levels of humidity to determine themoisture level necessary for larval hatching. As the eggs have a very soft, fragile exterior coating,desiccation was initially a problem. After experimentation with a number of different media in avariety of containers a system was developed that ensured high rates of larval production (thousandsof larvae per week). This system involved keeping eggs in small transparent plastic containers (100mm diameter x 60 mm height) with sealable lids, together with a tissue saturated with water tomaintain high levels of humidity. While eggs did better on a dry surface, larvae needed a moistmedium on which to feed.

Experiments on larval growth were conducted. Test substrates included chopped fruit and vegetablematter, media for raising house flies (these media contained yeast, milk powder, guar gum and water)and moistened chicken pellets. Of these substrates, chicken pellets (moistened but not saturated) werefound to be the most effective feed for larvae, from hatching through to pupation.

Completion of the life cycle in captivity

Experiments were carried out to determine if the soldier fly life cycle could be completed in a closedenvironment. Pupae and larvae close to pupation were placed in black plastic trays (600 x 300 x 100mm) containing food in the form of moist processed chicken pellets. The trays were placed in a small(2.4 x 1.5 x 2.4 m) room with windows that admitted natural light. The closed room was maintainedat ambient temperature (15-22 oC in July). Adult flies emerged after c. two weeks, at which pointwhite polystyrene boxes (each 580 x 300 x 300 mm and containing a 50 mm layer of homogenisedfresh fruit and vegetable waste) were placed in the room. The boxes had lids that were offset slightlyto provide dark conditions but easy access for adult flies.

The substrate was not renewed since adult flies are most strongly attracted to decomposing material.After 2-3 weeks, groups of eggs appeared on the undersurface of the lids, and one week later smalllarvae could be seen in the vegetable waste substrate. Thus, the life cycle could be completed underlaboratory conditions.

Life cycle manipulation

Larval activity and growth slowed considerably as the mean daytime temperature dropped below 25oC (April-September). Observations indicated that larvae seldom pupated at such temperatures.However, after transfer to 30 oC , some of the larvae used in the sludge processing experiments (seebelow) then pupated and adults later emerged. These findings showed that the length of time in thelarval stage could be increased by reducing the temperature and/or the amount of available food.

Processing of organic materials

General observations

The feeding behaviour and activity of soldier fly larvae on a wide range of other organic substrateswere recorded. The substrates were divided into two broad groups, namely high-carbohydrate foods(moist ground corn, moist brown and white bread , moist brewer’s grain, moist chicken pellets andfruit processing waste) and high-protein foods (sliced cold beef and fresh fish [silver perch]). At very

Page 137: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

121

high larval densities and temperatures around 23 oC , all the above substrates were fully reducedwithin 30 minutes. At this ambient temperature the processing of feed (especially carbohydrate-basedmaterial) generated high temperatures (up to 42 oC ) within containers having high densities of larvae.

In a direct-comparison trial at an air temperature of 25 oC, 350 g of soldier fly larvae were providedwith the same weight of feed in the form of (a) moist white bread, (b) fresh sewage sludge, or (c) 175g moist bread plus 175 g sewage sludge. After two hours, the bread had been reduced to 90 g, i.e.,approximately a quarter of its original weight. In contrast, there was little noticeable change in thevolume of the sludge, which appeared moist, and the larvae were less active and became coated withsludge. In the mixed treatment, the bread showed some reduction (c. 30%). After four hours, thebread had almost disappeared but there was little reduction in sludge volume.

In experimental trials (see below), soldier fly larvae in containers of sewage sludge were found mainlyat or near the bottom of the containers, moved very little, and the consistency of the sludge remainedwet and sticky. For the first two days at 30 oC, the larvae were very active and consumed the sludge,but their activity then declined. In contrast, worm activity was high in containers of sewage sludgeand worm densities were high just under the surface. After a few days (3-5 days at 23 and 30 oC) thesludge became friable and well aerated. Experiments

The growth and processing characteristics of soldier fly larvae and earthworms were compared in twoexperiments. The first experiment was conducted with closed containers in an attempt to maintainconditions of high humidity. A second experiment was carried out with animals and sewage sludge inopen containers. Both experiments were carried out at two environmental temperatures: 23 oC (closeto the reported optimum for the growth of earthworms) and 30 oC (close to the reported optimum forthe growth of soldier fly larvae) in controlled-temperature rooms.

Earthworms were a mixture of species: reds (Lumbricus rubellus; 95%), blues (Perionyx excavatus;4%) and tigers (Eisenia foetida; 1%). A system using corrugated, perforated aluminium sheet wasused to separate half grown larvae (up to 5mm) from mixed age cultures and substrates for use inexperiments. Larvae crawled through the holes into a collecting tray below.

Experiment 1.The aim of this experiment was to compare the performance of soldier fly larvae and worms underconditions of excess food and continuous high-humidity. This was achieved by keeping the densitiesof animals low and containing the sludge and experimental animals in sealable plastic containers (150x 120 x 80 mm) to reduce evaporative water loss. Each container was opened for five minutes per dayto refresh the air supply. Fresh sewage sludge (250 g) was placed into each of eighteen containers onday one. The containers were deployed in a two-factor design as follows: two temperatures (23, 30oC) x three treatments (larvae, worms, and sludge-only control). Each temperature x treatmentcombination was replicated three times. An additional 12 containers were filled with 250 g of freshgreen waste (mixed fruit and leaf vegetables) and deployed in a similar way: two temperatures x twotreatments (larvae, worms) x three replicates. Larvae or worms (5.5 g in each case) were placed in therelevant containers. Individual larvae and worms averaged 0.15 and 0.32 g wet weight respectively.

After one week the animals were extracted from the containers and re-weighed. After two weeks theanimals were again sorted and the wet weight of both animals and substrate recorded. For eachtemperature-treatment group, equal amounts of sludge or green waste were taken from the threereplicates and mixed thoroughly. These samples were used to estimate dry weights (after drying in anoven at 65 oC ) and subjected to carbon and nitrogen analysis in the School of Land and Food,University of Queensland. Dry weights, %C and %N were also estimated from fresh samples ofsludge and green waste. Replicated reduction and growth data were compared using analysis ofvariance.

Page 138: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

122

At both temperatures, mean wet sludge weights for the three treatments (control, larvae, worms)differed significantly after two weeks (F2,6 = 355.1, p<0.001 at 23oC; F2,6 = 75.9, p<0.001 at 30oC; Fig.1). Weights for both animal treatments were significantly lower than the controls (p<0.013 at 23oC;p<0.001 at 30oC) and those with worms were lower than those with larvae (p<0.001 at 23oC; p<0.01 at30oC). With larvae, the rate of reduction was significantly greater at 30oC (F1 = 22.7, p<0.01), butwith worms it was significantly greater at 23oC (F1 =129.3, p<0.001) (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Reduction of wet weight of sludge (means ± s.e.) over two weeks (Experiment 1).

The reduction in total solids was proportionally greater than the loss of water (Table 1). However,only in the case of the lower temperature worm treatment did the rate of solids loss substantiallyexceed that of the controls. At both temperatures, water loss was greatest in the worm treatments.

Page 139: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

123

Table 1. Changes in total solids and moisture content of sludge over two weeks (Experiment 1).

Temperature Treatment % totalinitial

solidsfinal

% change inwater content

% change intotal solids

23oC control 14.6 13.0 - 0.3 - 12.1

larvae 14.6 13.8 - 1.6 - 8.1

worms 14.6 12.5 - 6.7 - 22.4

30oC control 14.6 12.2 + 1.3 - 17.8

larvae 14.6 12.4 - 2.0 - 19.1

worms 14.6 12.8 - 4.3 - 18.0

Relative to the controls, the carbon content of sludge was reduced only marginally by the larvae, butconsiderably more in the presence of worms. Temperature had no apparent impact on this effect. Asimilar pattern was evident in the %N results; however, at 23 oC, the nitrogen content was higher (notlower) with larvae than in the controls (Fig. 2). This paralleled the trend in dry weight change notedabove. The reason for this is not clear, but is suggests that at the lower temperature the larvae wereunable to take advantage of microbial production and utilise the carbon and nitrogen available in thesludge, whereas worms are able to make use of both of these resources.

Over the two week period the earthworms maintained on sludge increased in weight by 4.2 times at23oC . However, at 30 oC their growth slowed in the second week, the eventual factor of increasebeing 2.8 times (Fig. 3). Growth of soldier fly larvae on sludge was much slower at bothtemperatures, larvae increasing in weight by a factor of 1.3 times at 30 oC but not growing in thewetter conditions at 23 oC (Fig. 3).

In contrast, on green waste larval weight showed a relatively strong increase (1.7 times) at bothexperimental temperatures (Fig. 4). Data were not collected from the worm-green waste treatmentbecause the worms drowned in the wet decomposing material inside the closed containers after twodays.

Statistical analysis showed that at both temperatures worm growth significantly exceeded larvalgrowth (F1 = 4431.4, p<0.001 at 23oC; F1 = 95.0, p<0.001 at 30oC) and larvae grew better on greenwaste than on sludge (F1 = 11.8, p<0.05 at 23oC; F1 = 10.2, p<0.05 at 30oC).

Page 140: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

124

Figure 2. Changes in nitrogen and carbon content over two weeks (Experiment 1). N and C are expressedas a percentage of sludge dry weight. Each determination was made on an homogenised mixture of threesamples.

Page 141: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

125

Figure 3. Growth of larvae and worms (total wet weights ± s.e.) on sludge over two weeks (Experiment1).

Page 142: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

126

Figure 4. Growth of larvae (total wet weights ± s.e.) on green waste over two weeks (Experiment 1).

Experiment 2

Experiment 2 examined the performance of soldier fly larvae and worms at high densities in largervolumes of aerated sludge. The animals and sludge were kept in open containers to maintain goodaeration and to allow the release of ammonia. Sludge was added in daily batches of 100 g to avoidcompaction problems. Treatments were larvae or worms (100 g) added on day one. Sludge controls(no animals) were also monitored. The containers were wire baskets (20 cm diameter x 15 cm high)lined with weed mat that allowed free movement of air and moisture. Trials were carried out at 23oCand 30oC and lasted for two weeks.

At 23oC, sludge wet weights for the three treatments (controls, larvae and worms) were significantlydifferent after two weeks (F2,33 = 35.05, p<0.001); the two animal treatments were significantly lowerthan the controls (p<0.001) and the mean for the worm treatment was less than that for larvae(p<0.001) (Table 2). However, at this temperature neither larvae or worms significantly reduced thedry matter content (changes of + 8.1% and - 0.1% respectively). At 30oC, sludge mean wet weightswere marginally different (F2,33 = 3.03, p=0.062), being lower for the larval treatment than the controls(p=0.052) or worm treatment (p=0.033). At this temperature, both larvae and worms reduced drymatter considerably, by 30.7% and 31.7% respectively (c.f. 2.6% for controls). Drying out increased

Page 143: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

127

the solids content of the sludge from 10.3% to 43, 28 and 24.5% in the control, larval and wormtreatments - in contrast, at the lower temperature, dry matter content remained below 15%.

The carbon and nitrogen trends closely paralleled those in Experiment 1, except that the disparity in%N for the larval treatments was reversed (N = 4.73% at 23oC and 5.43% at 30oC).

Table 2. Wet weight of sludge (mean ± s.e.) after two weeks (Experiment 2). In each case the originalweight was 1400g. Numbers of replicates = 6 (controls) and 12 (animal treatments).

Temperature Control treatment (g) Larval treatment (g) Worm treatment (g)

23oC 1117 ± 16 979 ± 35 866 ± 6

30oC 413 ± 46 346 ± 13 420 ± 22

In Experiment 2 the mean wet weight of larvae increased by a factor of 1.2 at 23oC and 1.1 at 30oC.The mean weight of worms increased by a factor of 1.5 at 23oC and 1.2 at 30oC. Worm growthsignificantly exceeded larval growth (F1=11.04, p=0.003 at 23oC; F1=6.19, p=0.021 at 30oC).

Conclusions

In the above experiments, dry matter reduction of sewage sludge by soldier fly larvae was negligiblein wet conditions (i.e., moisture contents > 85 % in Experiment 1 and at 23oC in Experiment 2).However, substantial dry matter reduction occurred in exposed conditions at 30oC in Experiment 2,where moisture contents declined from 90 to 72%. Fatchurochim et al. (1989) found that developmentrates of H. illucens were highest in poultry manure having 70% moisture. In the present 30oC trial, drymatter reduction was similar for larvae and worms. Given that the optimal moisture level forearthworm (E. foetida) cocoon formation is 81-88% (Neuhauser et al. 1988), it appears that throughdrying, conditions changed from favouring earthworms to favouring soldier fly larvae as the trialprogressed. However, in Experiment 1, soldier fly larvae grew well on green waste having a similarmoisture content (85.5%) as sewage sludge (85.4%). Soldier fly larvae are often associated with wetor semi-liquified conditions and there is a need for more work to determine optimal moisture levels fortheir development in different substrates (Fatchurochim et al. 1989).

Reduction rates observed in these experiments should be regarded as minimum levels. In Experiment1 animal densities were low and the enclosed conditions may have restricted oxygen exchange andrelease of ammonia. In Experiment 2 conditions were not consistently optimal for either larvae orworms and the generally lower growth rates in this experiment may be an indication of above-optimalstocking levels.

This work showed that both earthworms and soldier fly larvae are capable of reducing sewage sludge.Neuhauser et al. (1988) showed that the presence of worms increased the rate of stabilisation ofvolatile sludge solids. Outwater (1994) reported a method of vermicomposting pioneered in Californiawhereby sludge is pretreated by static pile composting to control pathogens, dried to 82-85% moisturecontent, and mixed with straw for transfer to vermicompost beds inhabited by E. foetida and L.rubellus. The quality and marketability of the final product are superior to traditional compostedsludge.

Neuhauser et al. (1988) recorded cocoon production by earthworms in sewage sludge. In contrast,self-sustaining soldier fly populations cannot be maintained on sewage sludge since this substrate isnot attractive to egg-laying adults. This factor is likely to affect the economic viability of soldier flysewage sludge reduction systems. Larvae would have to be reared from eggs laid on more attractivesubstrates under highly controlled conditions, and then transferred in batches to the sludge beds.

Page 144: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

128

When processed by earthworms in an ambient temperature range of 15-27 oC, sewage sludge providesa light, moist, crumbly product which is free of odour. As part of this study, preliminaryinvestigations indicated that the casts from worms grown on sewage sludge are suitable for use as asoil improver (however, in the absence of pre-treatment to control pathogens this should be limited toapplications such as forestry and mine site rehabilitation). In contrast, after processing by soldier flylarvae, the sludge is very sticky, and larvae become covered with a layer of the material. Thismaterial would be less easily incorporated as a soil amendment, but its quality could probably beimproved by mixing sludge with other organic matter in composting beds. Soldier fly larvae showed high processing activity on a range of high-carbohydrate and high-proteinsubstrates and strong growth on fruit and vegetable waste. Research carried out for local councils inthe Rockhampton area has demonstrated that soldier fly larvae can be employed successfully to reducegreen waste rapidly in domestic composting situations (Newby 1997). The present results suggest thatsoldier fly larvae would be more effective than earthworms in the rapid processing of food waste fromdomestic and institutional sources, shops and restaurants. Given that food residues and scrapsrepresents a large fraction of municipal waste, such an approach could significantly reduce the amountof waste contributing to land-fill.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Caboolture Shire Council and the Queensland Department of Communication andInformation, Local Government, Planning and Sport for research funding provided through theAdvanced Wastewater Treatment Technology scheme. We thank Frank Fornasier and Senthi Nathanof Caboolture Shire Council for project and logistical support, and Greg Daniels (Curator, UQ InsectCollection) for insect species identification.

References

Buckerfield, J. and Applehof, M. 1996. Vermicomposting in Australia. Biocycle, June 1996.

Cameron, D. 1994. Compost filtration: a new approach to on-site resource management. Proceedings ofConference on Localised Treatment and Recycling of Domestic Wastewater, pp. 46-51. MurdochUniversity, Perth, W.A., 30 November 1994.

Fatchurochim, S., Geden, C.J. and Axtell, R.C. 1988. Filth fly (Diptera) oviposition and larval development inpoultry manure of various moisture levels. J. Entomol. Sci. 24(2): 224-231.

Loehr, R.C., Martin, J.H. and Neuhauser, E.F. 1988. Stabilisation of liquid municipal sludge using earthworms.In: Earthworms in Waste and Environmental Management (eds. Edwards, C.A. and Neuhauser, E.F.)SPB Academic Publishing, Netherlands.

May, B.M. 1961. The occurrence in New Zealand and the life-history of the soldier fly Hermetia illucens (L.)(Diptera: Stratiomyiidae). New Zealand Journal of Science 4: 55-65.

Neuhauser, E.F., Loehr, R.C. and Malecki, M.R. 1988. The potential of earthworms for managing sewagesludge. In: Earthworms in Waste and Environmental Management (eds. Edwards, C.A. andNeuhauser, E.F.) SPB Academic Publishing, Netherlands.

Newby, R. 1997. Use of soldier fly larvae in organic waste management. Proceedings of "Compost 97"conference, Griffith University / Brisbane Hilton, 14-15 July 1997.

Newton, G.L., Sheppard, D.C., Thompson, S.A. and Savage, S.I. 1995. Soldier fly benefits: house fly control,manure volume reduction, and manure nutrient recycling. Animal and Dairy Science Department /CAES / UGA. http://www.ads.uga.edu/annrpt/1995/s311newt.htm

Page 145: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

129

Nuov, S., Little, D.C. and Yakupitiyage, A. 1995. Nutrient flows in an integrated pig, maggot and fishproduction system. Aquaculture Research, 26: 601-606.

Sheppard, D.C., Newton, G.L., Thompson, S.A. and Savage, S. 1994. A value-added manure managementsystem using the black soldier fly. Bioresource Technology, 50: 275-279.

Page 146: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

130

Organic Production – a part of the Sustainable Future of Farming

Andrew MonkBiological Farmers of Australia

Organic production aims at optimal yields and often multiple rather than single yield outcomes.Recycling of nutrients on and off farm are key principles. There is an aim to utilise biological cycles,with plants being fed through the ecosystem of the soil, rather than via soluble salts. Mostsynthetically derived pesticides and highly soluble fertilisers are prohibited. Other practices includespecies selection, crop and livestock rotations, integration of cropping and livestock, green manuringof crops, the use of natural mineral supplements and (non sewerage) bio waste recycling.

Farm Practices emphasise fertility based on the use of (composted) , fish and other wastes, recyclingof on farm nutrients and the re-use of (non sewerage) biowastes.

Environmental management involves assessment of whole of farm and off-farm impacts and the wiseuse of resources. The quality of water leaving the farm is as good or better than that arriving.

Outcomes for farm business include enhanced and resilient crops, soil protection via complex soilsand cover, and often a reduced disease and pest load. Multiple harvests are possible anddiversification enhances risk management. There are also social and physical environmental benefits,and premiums for high quality.

Organic farming creates a demand for “green” wastes which have been effectively composted and aredeemed non-polluting. These include manure sources and green matter from the food and agricultureindustries. Organic specifications limit the use of certain sources – eg. multi-source sewerage.

A lack of research in this promising sector raises a challenge to invest in scientific research andtechnical development.

Organic farming is on a continuum – not in discord – with biologically oriented agriculture. It offerspotential for value adding – both domestically as well as for export. It delivers more than merely asingle commodity return.

Page 147: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

131

Mobile Biodigester – a Platform Mounted Biogdigester for On-farmDemonstration

David Tay and Phil MatthewsSchool of Agriculture and Horticulture, University of Queensland, Gatton

Worldwide, continuous biodigesters are in common use and biodigester design is a mature technology.Examples include large scale operational units such as that at Berrybank Farm, Windermere, Victoria(with the capacity to process 275,000 litres of sewage effluent of 2% organic solid content from15,000 pigs) and small units as those commonly used in individual households in the Indian sub-continent and China. In Australia, experiments on biogas production from farm manure and wastehave at least a 25 year history, but to date applications have been largely limited to large-scaleoperations (e.g., Berrybank Farm; Spearwood Wastewater Treatment Plant in Perth, WesternAustralia). Several papers in 'Enviro 2000 Towards Sustainability', 9-13 April 2000 covering fourenvironmental conferences suggested the use of biodigester for farm waste management. Both theBerrybank Farm and the Spearwood projects have shown the economic benefit of converting farmwastes into electricity, reclaimed water and organic fertilisers.

The use of smaller units to handle the effluent of average-size piggeries, feedlots, dairies and poultryfarms has not been exploited to date. The slow adoption of this relatively matured technology can beattributed to the following reasons:

! Lack of stringent environmental protection law in the past (Stock Act 1915). A recent change wasthe Environmental Protection Act (1994) and its complementary specific guidelines at Statelevel.Electricity is cheap and there is no economic incentive to generate power on farm. However,with increasing automation in running a modern farm and with diversification into on-farm value-adding, options for on-farm power generation become more and more attractive.

! There is a lack of available technical knowledge in the construction of small-scale units that aresuitable for average size farms. As the result there is a lack of technology transfer programs in thisfield.

! Personal preference of the farmers.

The project will design a low cost modular anaerobic biodigester with the capacity to consume wasteproduced by medium -sized animal farms in south east Queensland. The digester will be tested at theUniversity of Queensland (Gatton campus) piggery using different configurations of modularcomponents. The most appropriate configuration will then be mounted onto trailers to create a mobilebiogas plant that can be taken to different sites for demonstration. The basic unit consists of thefollowing components: homogenisation and grit removal, thickener and slurry feeder, primarydigester, secondary digester, biogas purification, storage system and cogeneration plant.

Page 148: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

132

Biological Remediation of Aquaculture Waste

Dirk ErlerBribie Island Aquaculture Research Centre & University of the Sunshine Coast

Prawn farm waste is rich in nutrients and can contribute to the eutrophication of receiving waters. Thecurrent treatment technology for prawn farm waste-water relies on the use of sedimentation ponds forremoval of particulate organic waste. Rapid accumulation of organic sludge however results in therelease of soluble nutrients into the waste-water which negates the benefit of nitrogen removalachieved via settlement of organic matter. Growth of algae to remove dissolved nitrogen (principallyammonia) and use of bivalves to assimilate particulate material have also been trialed to treat prawnfarm effluent. Successful implementation of algal remediation systems is hindered by the need forconstant cropping to prevent self-shading, death and decomposition. The low tolerance of bivalves tosediment loads and their limited value detracts from their use as an isolated biological nutrientremoval technique.

An opportunity exists to exploit the natural feeding behaviour of finfish, principally the grey mulletMugil cephalus (Linnaeus) and the rabbitfish Siganus canaliculatus (Linnaeus) to improve on theparticulate nutrient removal attainable with conventional sedimentation ponds. Grey mullet consumewaste detritus and assimilate a portion of the nutrients as flesh, in doing so organic sludgeaccumulation in sedimentation ponds is greatly reduced. Siganids are efficient grazers and canremove and assimilate benthic biomass growing on waste nutrients. Fish excretion howevercontributes to soluble nutrient loads and there is therefore still a need to incorporate a dissolvednutrient removal process into a finfish particulate removal system.

An effective means of stripping soluble nutrients from waste-water is to encourage the growth ofbiofilms within the treatment system. Biofilms and the associated microbial conglomerate areinvolved in a series of re-mineralisation processes that eventually convert organic materials intosimpler forms. With regards to nitrogen, microbially mediated processes breakdown organic nitrogento ammonia then to nitrate and finally to inert nitrogen gas. Facilitating the growth and operation ofbeneficial biofilms is enhanced by the provision of artificial substrates.

The treatment system currently under investigation incorporates finfish and microbial biofilms in asingle module. Finfish enhance microbial biofilm operation through the provision of desirablesubstrate (eg. ammonia and dissolved organic nitrogen) and through grazing, which keeps biofilmthickness, and therefore operation, optimal. Additional nutrients, from the biofilm itself, are alsoincorporated into fish flesh via grazing. The physical substrates used for biofilm formation alsoimprove settling of particulate material and therefore quantity of detritus available for fishconsumption.

Page 149: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

133

Biofilm Substrates in Integrated Biofiltration

Doug PearsonPROAQUA

Biofilm substrates (e.g., AquaMats® (www.aquamats.com) are new and innovative hydrophilicbiofiltration support media with a wide range of uses for water quality management. Resemblingseagrass, AquaMats® come in two different formats (BDF or Bottom Deployed Format and SDF orSurface Deployed Format). The BDF fronds are highly buoyant and float upright in the water column;contact is maintained with the bottom via an integrated ballast system. The SDF substrates arenegatively buoyant and hang from a PVC pipe float. The SDF is designed for use in water containinghigh sediment loads. Wave action on the surface float gently shakes any accumulated sediment fromthe fronds below.

AquaMats® have two distinct surfaces of chemically modified polyolefin fibrils to produce a complexhighly porous substrate for biofilm to anchor. One side of the composite fabric is compacted toproduce an anoxic transition zone. The surface area of the fibril mat is 2.0m²/g or 285m²/m of fabric.During exponential growth and assuming nutrients are not limiting, biomass production on this side ofthe AquaMats® ranges from 7.3 to 10g/m²/day. Nutrient levels in the recovered biomass averaged4.9%N and 1.7%P.

On the other side of the AquaMat®, the fibril composite is much less compacted, producing astructure with much better mass transfer characteristics. The entire depth of the mat structure on thisside is aerobic, with a surface area of O.65m²/g or 92m²/meter of fabric. The periphyton community onthis side of the mat is predominantly algal. During exponential growth and assuming nutrients are notlimiting, biomass production on the aerobic side of the mat ranges from 2.1 to 4.0g/m²/day.

In an integrated biofiltration system, fish, crustaceans and/or molluscs are introduced to maintain agrazing pressure on the mats to keep them in a state of exponential growth. Herbivorous grazers suchas Silver Perch, Mullets, shrimp, aquatic snails, etc will feed directly from the surface of the mat,while zooplankton feeding on the periphyton provide a food resource for other planktivorous species(calanoid copepod production has been shown to increase by 700 to 2000%). These are then harvestedto recover a percentage of the nutrients being discharged. If a commercial species is grown and theeffluent water quality is acceptable it can be sold for human consumption. Otherwise the biomass canbe used in animal feeds or processed into fertiliser. Alternatively the mats can be periodically removedand cleaned, recovering the biofilm where nutrients have been bioaccumulated for use as fertiliser.

Currently AquaMats® are being used in aquaculture in Europe, Asia, Central and South America aswell as the US to provide a continuous organic food supply, for effluent control and to provide aquatichabitat. In the US, AquaMats® are being used in to remove excess nutrients from ornamental ponds,golf course and municipal lakes. They are also being used to retrofit non-compliant wastewatertreatment systems in commercial areas like animal production, dairy, pulp, and cheese facilities.

Page 150: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

134

Wetlands for production and purification

Vivienne HallmanThe Green Food Company

The important role of wetlands in the ecosystem as water-purifying agents is welldocumented. They can be used in integrated systems to remove nutrients from wastewaterand incorporate these nutrients into useful vegetation.

Increasingly, constructed wetlands have been developed to treat a variety of wastewater sources,particularly from agricultural activities (Hammer, 1989, Reaves et al. 1995). A number of authors(DuBowy, 1997; Cronk, 1995; Chen et al. 1995) have investigated constructed wetlands for thetreatment of wastewater from dairy enterprises. Their use on dairy farms offers many opportunities.

However, the effectiveness of wetlands is dependent on the uptake of nutrients by microbes andplants. The capacity of the system is finite and plant growth is encouraged by periodic harvesting.Currently, the reeds being used in most constructed wetlands have little or no economic value toagricultural enterprises. It is important to consider plants that do have an economic value, such as foranimal feed, to maintain nutrient recycling on the farm.

Using plants to remove nutrients from wastewater offers great potential to convert “waste nutrients”into “useful resources”. Following are some systems that make best use of the nutrients available andproduce products that have an economic value.

! Lemna (duckweed) is a small, floating aquatic plant that readily takes up nitrogen and phosphorusfrom wastewater streams. It is easily harvested, can be solar dried, and doubles its mass in 4-7days in temperatures above 23oC (Leng, et al. 1995; Skillicorn, et al. 1993). The nutrient value ofLemna increases with the nutrient level in the wastewater up to approx. 35% protein. Lemna andother duckweed genera contain essential amino acids for livestock and aquaculture production andcan be incorporated into animal diets as either fresh, dried or composted material (Leng et al.1995; Fletcher and Warburton 1997; Nolan et al. 1998; Bio-Tech Waste Management 1998).

! Azolla is another small, floating aquatic plant that grows well on wastewater (Lumpkin andPlucknett, 1980). It can be used in many of the same applications as duckweed, but it has anadded advantage. Azolla has a symbiotic relationship with an alga that allows it to fix atmosphericnitrogen to increase its protein content. Azolla is used extensively in rice cultivation in Asia.When the paddies are flooded Azolla covers the paddy surface and inhibits weed growth. Whenthe paddies are drained ready for harvesting, Azolla becomes incorporated into the soil as a richfertilizer.

! Water chestnuts (Eleocharis dulcis) are an ideal crop for a constructed wetland system (Maddoxand Kingsley, 1989), producing an edible corm in about 9 months. Currently there is a highdemand for fresh water chestnuts as most of the chestnuts used in Australia are imported tinnedfrom Asia.

! Water spinach (Ipomoea aquatica) is another Asian vegetable, which grows prolifically in aconstructed wetland environment.

! Water cress (Nasturtium officinale) makes good use of nutrient-laden flowing water.

Page 151: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

135

There are many possibilities to integrate plant production and wastewater purification, to produceeconomic crops from waste nutrients, and to supply lower nutrient wastewater for reuse. Thedevelopment of innovative systems for food production is of prime importance in areas where rainfallis low and/or unreliable. Water is a resource which has been wasted far too long.

References

Bio-Tech Waste Management. 1998. Duckweed - a potential high-protein feed resource for domestic animalsand fish. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. Pub. No. 98/148. 40 pp.

Chen, J., Rahman, M., Chabreck, R.H., Jenny, B.F. and Malone, R.F. 1995. Constructed wetlands using blackwillow, duckweed and water hyacinth for upgrading dairy lagoon effluent. In: Versatility of Wetlands in theAgricultural Landscape, ed. Campbell, K.L. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan.

Cronk, J. 1995. Wetlands as a best management practice on a dairy farm. In: Versatility of Wetlands in theAgricultural Landscape, ed. Campbell, K.L. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan..

DuBowy, P.J. 1997. “Constructed Wetlands”. http://wfscnet.tamu.edu/faculty/dubowy/construc.htm

Fletcher, A. and Warburton, K. 1997. Consumption of fresh and decomposed duckweed Spirodela sp. byredclaw crayfish, Cherax quadricarinatus (von Martens). Aquaculture Research 28: 379-382.

Hammer, D.A. 1989. Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment – Municipal, Industrial and Agricultural.Lewis Publishers, Michigan.

Leng, R.A., Stambolie, J.H. and Bell, R. 1995. Duckweed – a potential high-protein feed resource for domesticanimals and fish. Live.Res.Rur.Dev. 7(1):3-13.

Lumpkin, T.A. and Plucknett, D.L. 1980. Azolla: botany, physiology, and use as a green manure. Econ. Bot.34(2):111-153.

Maddox, J.J. and Kingsley, J.B. 1989. Waste treatment for confined swine with anintegrated artificial wetlandand aquaculture system. In: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment, ed. Hammer, D.A. LewisPublishers, Michigan.

Nolan, J.V., Bell, R. and Thomson, E. 1998. Use of dried duckweed in diets for brown egg layers. Aust. Poult.Sci. Sym. 9.

Reaves, R.P., DuBowy, P.J., Jones, D.D. and Sutton, A.L. 1995. First year performance of an experimentalconstructed wetland for swine waste treatment in Indiana. In: Versatility of Wetlands in the AgriculturalLandscape, ed. Campbell, K.L. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan.

Skillicorn, P., Spira, W. and Journey, W. 1993. Duckweed Aquaculture – A New Aquatic Farming System forDeveloping Countries. The World Bank, Washington, DC.

Page 152: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

136

4. Further examples of integrated systems

Integrated Biosystems in Southern Australia

Paul Harris1 & Phil Glatz2

1 Department of Agronomy and Farming Systems, University of Adelaide2 Pig and Poultry Production Institute, University of Adelaide

Introduction

As more people begin to realise the implications of the environmental and energy problems thatsociety is creating there has been an associated increase in enquires received about anaerobicdigestion, the "Beginners Tour of Biogas" website (Harris 1998) has had 16500 visits and 300enquires in 2 years. Anaerobic digestion (AD), however is only part of the solution. While ADprovides energy from waste and reduces the pollution load, the liquid and solid by-products containingnutrients, commonly regarded as wastes, still have to be considered for further treatment. It is moresensible to use AD as part of a system taking the byproducts of agricultural and related enterprises andusing them for value adding, ideally by reusing all the resources so that there is no waste left todispose of. Such systems have become known as "integrated biosystems" and have largely beenimplemented in the tropics, although work is currently being carried out in other areas. (Foo andSenta, 1998)

A biosystems group including people from the South Australian Research and Development Institute,The University of Adelaide and private enterprise has formed over the last 18 months to promote theconcept of integrated biosystems for agriculture and related industries. One aim of this group is toestablish an integrated biosystem demonstration/research facility at Roseworthy Campus, using ADand aquaculture to treat agricultural and other wastes, generating income from associated enterprisesand facilitating recycling of water and nutrients in the process. However, the integrated biosystemapproach has, as yet, received little investment support in Southern Australia. Specific industries oftenfocus on their immediate problems (eg. disposal of animal waste, food waste and processing waste)and fail to see how waste disposal problems may be solved using an integrated approach involvingAD, waste water treatment and agriculture.

Challenges

There are a number of challenges in developing integrated biosystems, some of which will be noted inthe examples following this section.

1. The prevailing mindset of separate enterprises and single use/discarding of resources needs tochange. Of course there are people who have already established holistic systems and we need toutilise their expertise. The community acceptance of source separation of garbage and recyclingshows that change is occurring - we just need to encourage faster adoption of the next steps in theprogression.

2. People considering a commercial scale integrated biosystem need to realise that the end result canbe achieved in stages and also that they do not necessarily have to run the whole systemthemselves. To set up an entire integrated biosystem in one go is a large task, particularly for asmall family business. If the major challenges can be tackled first, possibly starting on a smallscale to establish techniques and markets, the other pieces can be fitted in later, funded by theprofits of the earlier steps. Some parts of the system may need to be out sourced in some way ifthey do not fit into the existing framework easily.

Page 153: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

137

3. As an industrialised and scientific society we tend to focus on intensive, high technology methodsfor dealing with issues. When a problem develops the immediate reaction is "add another piece ofequipment and make sure it is electronically controlled". Some components of successfulintegrated systems will be "low" or "appropriate-technology", requiring less management, lessmaintenance and less capital expense. Other components, such as cogenerator units, may need tobe high technology and electronics may well provide a convenient and reliable means ofmonitoring systems to warn of malfunction. Nature looks after herself quite well until humansinterfere and a return to more "natural" systems may reduce the need for high levels of expensiveinputs and management. An example of this is the common use of wetlands rather than filters forwater treatment.

4. There should be no "ideal" integrated biosystem, as each application will have differentconstraints, abilities and interests. What we need to encourage is adaptation of example systems todifferent situations so that each system suits the enterprise mix and the individuals. This will avoidpushing up input costs by creating excessive demand and depressing the value of outputs byoversupply. A database of information about possible enterprises, listing input requirements,management information and possible market opportunities, could possibly be developed into an"expert system" to assist design of appropriate integrated biosystems.

5. Selling the social and environmental advantages of the integrated biosystem approach can beachieved by emphasising rural employment generation, income diversification and opportunitiesfor decentralised services such as electricity production. As the possibilities of integratedbiosystems are demonstrated benefits will be seen for individuals, communities and government.

Examples

Four examples will illustrate the range of technologies and scales that are possible in integratedbiosystems.

Small Scale System

It is possible to set up a simple system with a few hens or ducks, an anaerobic digester, a pond andsome garden beds in a small suburban backyard. While such a small system would not provide self-sufficiency it would provide some food and energy without adding to the waste stream. A studentproject, carried out by Luke Jenangi (2000) from PNG, showed that a simple 200 litre plug flowdigester (see Fig 1) treating piggery effluent at ambient winter temperatures could produce enoughbiogas to boil a cup of water each day (see Fig 2). The other components of an integrated biosystemcould be sized to suit the digester throughput of 5 litres of effluent per day. This digester was stillproducing approximately 10 L of biogas per day without any feeding for 3 months (Fig 3).

Page 154: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

138

Figure 1. 200 litre polythene Plug Flow Digester with floating drum gas receiver

Figure 2. Biogas Production from 200 litre Plug Flow Digester (Jenangi, 2000)

Plug Flow Digester

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

27-May-00 06-Jun-00 16-Jun-00 26-Jun-00 06-Jul-00 16-Jul-00 26-Jul-00 05-Aug-00

Date Time

Volu

me

Bio

gas

(litr

es)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Tem

pera

ture

(o C)

VolumeFeed7dayAvgTemp.

Problems with gas leaks -added 40 l/day

Page 155: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

Figure 3. Gas production without feeding

Commercial Scale

Berrybank Farm, near Ballarat in Victoria, has developed a loosely integrated system to treat piggerywaste as well as waste from processing industries. Grit is taken away by a worm farmer, cogeneratorsare grid connected, and water is reused in the piggery and solids are sold as fertiliser or utilised on theassociated cropping land.

Figure 4. The

Biogas Production

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

14/08/20000:00

19/08/20000:00

24/08/20000:00

29/08/20000:00

3/09/20000:00

8/09/20000:00

13/09/20000:00

18/09/20000:00

Date/Time

Volu

me

(litr

es)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Tem

pera

ture

(o C)

L/dayTemperature

139

Berrybank Farm anaerobic digester

Page 156: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

140

"The capital cost of the Berrybank Farm project was approximately $2 million, over a two year period.Berrybank Farm estimates that the economic payback on its investment will take about six years, butconsiders the immediate environmental benefits to be enormous. As a result of cleaner production,Berrybank Farm has also achieved:

! 70% reduction in water usage

! improved stock conditions

! improved working conditions for staff

! elimination of odour" (Anon)

Innovative approaches to waste management in specific industries are published monthly in the Asia-Pacific magazine of environmental business and technology “Waste Management and Environment.”published by the Custom Media Group, Balmain, NSW.

Regional Scale

On a larger scale again, sewage from Adelaide and northern suburbs is treated at Bolivar (UnitedWater 1999). The Biosolids from anaerobic digestion are used as fertiliser on agricultural land andtreated water is supplied to the Virginia/Angle Vale horticultural area that produces fruit, vegetablesand flowers for local, interstate and overseas markets, so the loop is loosely closed.

Figure 5. Bolivar Waste Water Treatment Plant

World Scale

The ultimate "integrated biosystem" is planet earth - ignoring the minuscule amounts of matter sentinto space everything remains within the system, with only dust and solar energy being added. Inintegrated biosystems we are trying to minimise the transfer of "waste" material offsite, realising thatif nutrients can be retained and recycled then less energy will be expended moving nutrients.

Page 157: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

141

Figure 6. A large Integrated Biosystem

Conclusion

Integrated biosystems provide solutions to some of the problems facing society today, in both thedeveloped and emerging nations. The ideas are also very scalable, both in size and technologicalcomplexity.

References

Anon, http://www.environment.gov.au/epg/environet/eecp/case_studies/berrybank.html

Foo, Eng-Leong & Tarcisio Della Senta, Editors "Integrated Bio-Systems in Zero Emissions Applications"Proceedings of the Internet Conference on Integrated Bio-Systemshttp://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs, 1998

Harris, Paul L. "Beginners Tour of Biogas"http://www.roseworthy.adelaide.edu.au/~pharris/biogas/beginners.html, 1998

Jenangi, Luke "Producing Methane Gas from Effluent",http://www.roseworthy.adelaide.edu.au/~pharris/biogas/project.pdf, 2000

United Water, http://www.uwi.com.au/general/bolivar_wwtp.html, 1999

Page 158: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

142

Integrating Multiple Water Use in Cotton and Grain Production

Paul McVeighQueensland Cotton Growers’ Association

There is no doubt that, as we enter the twenty-first century, the value of water will escalate rapidly.As an irrigation farmer I am very reliant on the security of water for my livelihood.

Competition from four areas will pressure the value and reliability of water supplies. These areas areenvironmental, urban, industrial and agricultural. Of these four, irrigated agriculture, while placingthe highest demand for water, has the least ability to pay. No one disagrees that we need to find thebalance between the use of water for urban, industry and agriculture, and an allocation for theenvironment. To this end, Government bodies are promoting to water users that we need to be lookingat efficiencies in our use and application of this finite resource.

An area that is not receiving enough research is the efficiency of production from a quantity of water.What can we produce from one megalitre of water? The concept of multiple use of water will be thevehicle that will give us the greatest increase in returns and allow agriculture to be somewhat morecompetitive in the water market. Australians can no longer continue to use water once. The volumeof water being dumped from our cities into the oceans is a tragedy. Schemes like the Bolivar Schemein South Australia are reversing this trend. This Bolivar Scheme has the potential to deliver 40 000megalitres per annum of treated effluent from the treatment plant outside Adelaide for irrigation in theVirginia Park area. It solves the region’s groundwater management problems of the serious pollutionof the marine environment from the continued discharge of effluent into the Gulf of St. Vincent.

For irrigation farming in Australia, the norm is to store water on farm - both underground or on-farm,and use this water “once” to irrigate crop or pasture. To me as an irrigated cotton and grain producer,the challenge, while striving to produce high yielding quality crops from my “bucket” of water, is toincrease the value in dollars returned per megalitre of water. To a water user, the obvious answer tothis challenge is aquaculture. Fish do not consume water, have a high return per megalitre, and canmake use of existing infrastructure with some small modifications (eg. use of cage culture in on-farmstorages).

Fish cages in cotton ring tanks

Page 159: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

143

As we move into this new millennium the other encouraging issue with aquaculture is that finfish andother aquatic products are in decreasing supply on the global scene, and the demand for both highvalue and low value species is increasing due to rising population, more disposable income and adesire to eat more healthy diets.

The challenge of bring agriculture and aquaculture together does present us with some real issues,especially in my region, where the use of pesticides on both grain and fibre crops is quite common.

On our property we are implementing aquaculture in conjunction with our present farming operations(cotton and grain production). We are looking at the next 12 months to two years to prove theviability and opportunities that will exist in bringing together these two industries, and in doing so,enhancing the returns per megalitre of water available to us.

Page 160: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

144

Beef Feed Lot Integration

Ian IkerAustralian Agricultural Company

This presentation concerns the operation at Goonoo Station at Comet in Central Queensland. Goonoois a 16000ha property running an integrated farming, feedlot and effluent management programthrough a contained irrigated system. This irrigation system provides quality controlled feed productsback through the feedlot, to add value to our beef cattle production. By integrating our farming andwaste production systems, we are trying to improve farm output as well as giving value to the wastebyproducts produced by the feedlot.

The feedlot has a capacity of 17500 head and a general rule of thumb is that one tonne of manure isproduced per year, per head capacity. i.e. 17500 tonnes of manure annually. Manure as everyoneknows is a very good source of nutrients; mainly phosphorus and potassium but also of most traceelements required for crop production. In recent years farmers have realised that the other majorbenefit of feedlot manure is the high levels of organic matter it contains.

Many of the soils in Australia are old and in the intense farming areas, very low in organic matter.Manure is beginning to be used extensively as a means to inject organic matter back into the soilstructure. Improvements to soil structure from manure application can be measured through increasedlevels of bacterial activity, better water infiltration and a better soil water storage capacity, all of whichare essential for good root development which then leads to optimum plant production.

Goonoo is fortunate that the country farmed is newly cultivated and naturally fertile with high levelsof phosphorus, nitrogen and reasonable levels of organic matter. Manure is spread on a regular basisto maintain these levels and improve the general soil structure. This practice has minimised therequirements of phosphorus, potassium, zinc, sulphur and other trace elements and thereforesignificantly reduced the company’s outlay for artificial fertiliser. Nitrogen is still applied insignificant amounts using anhydrous ammonia (Big N). As soil organic levels increase and soilstructure and health improves we expect the level of crop inputs to reduce.

Liquid effluent collected from run off from the feedlot area is also used and mixed with clean water ata dilution rate of 3 : 1 and applied to irrigated crops. All water used for irrigation and feedlot drinkingwater is fresh water harvested from the Comet River. Salt and heavy metal levels, which are aproblem with many systems using underground water, is not a problem at Goonoo.

Crops produced on the land fertilised by manure and effluent are used back through the feedlotcompleting the integrated system.

The main crops grown are maize and lucerne with pulse crops such as mungbeans and soybeans beingused as rotational legumes. Irrigated wheat is also used in rotation, mainly as a soil conditioningcereal crop.

Page 161: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

145

Maize is harvested as silage as well as for grain. Silage production is very demanding on soil structureand soil nutrient levels. Obviously when harvesting silage, all above ground plant matter is removedunlike grain producing crops where the majority of plant matter is left to break down into the soil.Silage harvesting tends to compact soil structure from having a lot of heavy traffic on paddocks.Good organic matter levels in the soil tends to hasten soil recovery from these compaction events.

Major benefits of this integrated system are:

! Cost reductions from reduced use of artificial fertilisers

! Increased yields from improved soil structure

! Quality control of feedlot inputs by increasing the amount of product produced on-farm.

! Safe and cost effective management of feedlot by product.

Constraints:

! Monitoring and managing phosphorus and salinity levels to ensure that a build-up of these doesnot cause nutritional tie-ups or have a negative effect on soil health.

! High costs associated with transporting and spreading manure onto paddocks.

! Temporary tie-ups during initial breakdown of the manure after application.

! Manure is essentially a slow-release product so in an intensive cropping program it always requiressome top up from artificial fertiliser products.

Other biosystems have been investigated for inclusion in this system, the main one being vermiculture.This is one way of breaking down the huge mass of by products, which is costly and time consumingto deliver onto paddocks, into a concentrated form of nutrient via earth worm metabolism. The benefitof this product is in the ease and cost of application. The constraint lies in the capital set up costrelative to the low commodity value currently in Australia.

Another system of interest is aquaculture - using the water in a pond system prior to irrigation. Thecollection of biogas to provide power for feedlot milling operations is another proposal, but as withvermiculture, the capital outlay for setup is excessive for current levels of return.

Without financial assistance or substantial tax concessions, investment into these biosystems is beyondthe reach of most rural operations. Return on capital invested is too low and in a profit-drivenfinancial sector funds to support products like these will be difficult to find.

Manurespreading

Page 162: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

146

Convergence is the Key

Geoff WilsonFreelance journalist in agribusiness

Important technologies are converging in agribusiness -- or the agricultural business that includes thefarm input sector, the farm sector, the farm output sector and the farm service sector.

These convergences are creating new opportunities in food and fibre production -- where one or moreenterprises use the same basic infrastructure.

Yet they are not always new -- and come to us from food culture techniques that “modern”agribusiness has chosen to ignore in the main.

Some of the important “old” examples are in:

! Agroforestry -- the convergence of tree growing for all reasons, with traditional farmingmonocultures in sheep, beef, dairying or cropping. The benefits beyond adding timber to livestockand cropping products can lie in improved soil conservation, water harvesting, and shade andshelter.

! Aquaforestry -- which is still a convergence developing slowly in so-called advanced agriculturalcountries, but is an age-old practice in Asia and central America. The chinampa system isaquaforestry of the Incas and Aztecs, the Chinese have tree cropping for timber, fuelwood, fishfood and honey well integrated with fish farming of up to 13 species in one pond.

More recent, thanks to the gallop of agricultural technology in the last 30 or so years are theconvergences in:

! Aquaponics - the convergence of aquaculture with hydroponics, in which fish are farmedintensively and produce plant food from their wastes. It is proving to be a double-barrelledenterprise in which the United Nations slogan rings very true: "The wastes from one enterpriseshould become the raw materials of the next".

! Aeroponics and rooftop farming - in which the convergence is between horticulture andarchitecture. The once fanciful idea of “sky farms” suspended between buildings has almostbecome reality. What is now very real is the rooftop farming in Singapore, where rooftophydroponics has converged with improved microclimate control, patient care and the economics ofrunning an 800-bed hospital.

! Organic hydroponics -- in which the three-way convergence is between the hydroponictechnology, urban organic waste management and vermiculture.

! Rooftop farming - in which convergence is again with built environment technology so thatrooftop farming can gather pace. It is practised already in Singapore, Canada and Israel.

As a freelance journalist I have been writing about these convergences for many years. Yet to mostpeople in traditional disciplines they are “new” and often startling.

I can also report that there now appears to be an acceleration of some convergences, the reason,perhaps, being the vastly improved flow of information and ideas that has resulted from the expandinguniverse of the Internet. Another factor is, undoubtedly, the reporting of more science and technologyby the broad spectrum of news media.

Page 163: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

147

However, there are problems with convergences.

The most common one is human nature, or the inability for some people to move out of theirintellectual comfort zones.

An example of what I mean lies in my personal experience in changing my career path from livestockindustry journalism to farm-trees-for-all-reasons journalism in the l970s. I quickly found that therewas a very clear demarcation -- as bad as with any belligerent Australian union -- between forestry andagriculture.

On the one hand professional foresters wanted to retain their territorial ascendancy over growing trees.They did not welcome (at least for 10 years or so) the convergence of livestock and croppingenterprises with professional tree-growing for a profit.

For their part the traditional agriculturalists were less territorial. Their main trait was apathy. Theyhad blinkers on because planting farm trees for all reasons was not perceived to be part of farmingpractice. I observed this problem of convergence in agroforestry and farm trees in Australia, New Zealand andthe United States.

It has now faded as both farmers and foresters have realised that the convergence of innovative tree-growing can sometimes double farm revenues by using shared infrastructure. It can also meansustainable land use, particularly in a country like Australia which has very fragile duplex soils thatwere actually mostly created by trees and woody understoreys..

I have observed similar territorial problems in the convergence of technologies in aquaponics andurban agriculture generally.

Urban agriculture and microfarming is my current journalistic focus -- a way I have chosen to go afterlooking at the totality of our food production future around the globe, and seeing quite clearly thatthese two new and often inter-related technologies will be important in coping with global foodsecurity.

An estimated 800 million of the six billion people on this planet practice urban agriculture andmicrofarming. Mostly they are in the undeveloped countries, and mostly it is because they are forcedto in the hard-scrabble of finding enough food for survival.

But, more and more, I see and report on higher technology urban agriculture and microfarming inwhich production of some foods close to where it is needed makes great economic and environmentalsense.

I use the example of the humble lettuce. In Australia it has been estimated that up to 40% of the costof a lettuce lies in transport costs between farm and supermarket. Yet this use of diesel truck energycould be well replaced by simple, and most profitable, urban agriculture in the heart of cities -- andusing the nutrients in organic wastes that currently go to landfill to create methane emissions over along period.

Unfortunately I have personally seen support of this convergence blocked by government in the nameof a strange policy named “competitive neutrality”. It is another dispute over territory, something thatis perhaps ingrained in our psyche, because the protection of territory once meant protection of a foodsupply and a better chance of survival.

Today those survival skills can best be seen in the territorial battles some bureaucrats conduct indefence of their budgets, their professions or their salaries.

Page 164: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

148

We must recognise this ingrained territorial trait when we see convergences of food productiontechnologies that make great sense. Otherwise we will have slower progress than is desirable on newways to assure our global food supply.

This applies particularly at one of the important starting points of change and convergence - ourtertiary educational institutions.

There’s a hoary old story about the Chinese symbol for change. I cannot vouch for its truth, but themessage in it is clear. The symbol has two parts, each representing two other words. One is “threat”.The other is “opportunity”.

Every canny business person well knows this truism. It must be kept well in mind when we judgeconvergences like those I have outlined.

Agroforestry convergence in which farm trees enhance farm revenues, and greatly improve livestockand cropping enterprises. Chinese agroforestry measured by forestry scientists, led to microclimatechanges on the flood plains that caused a 30% increase in total food production.

Page 165: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

149

A most successful Australian aquaponics convergence at Taylor Made Fish Farms Pty Ltd in NSW.The company sells 600 kg of barramundi fish a week from 10 tanks in a polyhouse. The fish excretaand waste food is the nutrient used for organic hydroponic growing of about 20,000 heads of lettuce amonth for local supermarkets.

The urban agriculture of the huge Archer Daniels Midland Company. At its massive corn and soyprocessing facility it has waste food, waste heat and waste carbon dioxide. It uses these resources forraising about 10,000 lettuce a day, and for its stock of 2 million tilapia fish. It is now combining itsaquaculture and hydroponics in organic growing of chives for supermarket sale (7).

Page 166: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

150

Convergence of built environment and aquaculture. This shed producing barramundi could be locatedanywhere in the world -- in urban or periurban locations.

This is urban rooftop farming at Changi General Hospital in Singapore. It is used to amelioratesunlight reflected from concrete into some of its wards. But it also is producing food for patients,recreation for staff, and savings in energy. It is a convergence of technologies that can be expected toincrease.

Page 167: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

151

Permaculture Approaches

Janet MillingtonEumundi, Queensland

What is Permaculture?

There is some confusion, even amongst permaculturalists, about what exactly permaculture is. Thisconfusion is explained by the wholistic nature of the concept and its growth and development since itsbeginnings in the mid 1970’s, with the publishing of “Permaculture One”.

I will use the words of the co-founders of permaculture, Bill Mollison and David Holmgren, to mostaccurately describe permaculture.

Bill Mollison is probably the most colourful and best known globally of the two. In his design manualhe briefly describes permaculture (permanent agriculture) as:

“…the conscious design and maintenance of agriculturally productive ecosystems which have thediversity, stability, and resilience of natural ecosystems. It is the harmonious integration of landscapeand people, providing their food, energy, shelter, and other material and non-material needs in asustainable way. Without permanent agriculture there is no possibility of a stable social order.”(Mollison, 1988.)

He insists that permaculture is a design system, which functions to benefit life in all its forms. It is asystem that imitates natural processes and works with natural forces rather than against them. David Holmgren states that:

“the conception of permaculture…was one of an agricultural system based on perennial plants,modeled on natural ecosystems and developed through the application of design. The aim was apermanent agriculture which could sustain the needs of current and future generations.” (Holmgren,1991)

He finds the “sustainability” concepts that have developed over the past 25 years, “closely related tothe central notion of permanence, which is the heart of Permaculture.” (Holmgren, 1991).

The Advantages of the Permaculture Approach to Designed Systems

1. It is Cross Cultural.

Permaculture embodies three simple ethical principles, that cross barriers of religion and can beapplied to all cultures:

! Care of the Earth

! Care of people

! Return of surplus to the above two.

2. It has a set of easily understood principles:

! Everything works at least two ways

! See solutions not problems

Page 168: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

152

! Work with nature not against it

! Co-operation not competition in work, communication and economics

! Make things pay

! Work where it counts

! Use everything to its highest capacity

! Bring food production back to the cities

! Help to make people more self-reliant

! Minimize maintenance and energy inputs to achieve maximum yields

! Waste is just an unused resource and should never leave the system

3. There are clear strategies to use when designing.

These deal with the energies inside and outside of the system and the maximization of all natural andhuman resources. They are:

! Sector planning

! Zonal planning

! Use of pattern in design

! The edge effect

! Maintaining stability through diversity

! Using succession to do the work.

4. There are practical strategies.

Most of these have been successful techniques, taken from past practices of other cultures. (A few arefrom more recent thinking as in the Keyline Plan by P.A. Yeomans or the use of stacking a system intime as suggested in “The One Straw Revolution” by Masanobu Fukuoka.)These strategies are easily set in place and are quickly accepted by divergent cultures. They apply toall climates and soil types. Their success stimulates hope and confidence in permaculture as a solutionto many problems.

5. Permaculture takes into account the cost to the environment of much of human activity.

Creating a sense of responsibility for all inputs and outputs of the individual is central to the conceptof permanence. Sustainability can only begin when all people understand the real cost of foodproduction, transport and human settlement. Permaculture teaches home and settlement designs thatreduce the impact of humanity on the environment. This reduction allows less land to be set aside forcultivation and more land available for the natural systems that sustain/enrich the environment thatsupports us all.

Page 169: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

153

6. Invisible structures are as important as the visible ones if there is to be sustainability orpermanence for mankind.

These structures move from the political to the economic, from the intrapersonal to the interpersonaland from the local to the global. If we cannot get on with one another or if we cannot distribute theresources of the earth with equity then it will not matter how “sustainable” agricultural practices are,we will fight over resources until we are no more.

7. Permaculture is accessible to all.

There are currently 250,000 graduates of Permaculture Design Certificate Courses in 120 countries.This Certificate is a two-week full-time course presented by Permaculture Certificate graduates.Language or literacy barriers are reduced, as many courses are run in villages by local people. Most ofthese courses are based on practical experiences that are easily replicated and enhanced.

Permaculture spreads most quickly where the needs are highest. In western countries it is thoseindividuals who have moved out of their comfort zones who seek Permaculture solutions. More andmore people are becoming concerned about their health, their finances, the future for their children,political stability, wide environmental fluctuations, the loss of species or simply feel a generaluneasiness or anxiety.

Throughout the world there are 4,000 permaculture projects run by non-government organizations.

International projects headed by the Permaculture Research Institute in Northern N.S.W. have beenestablished in Macedonia, Jordan, Hariana- India, Louisiana, Bangladesh and Vietnam.

In Australia, where it began, permaculture techniques are being applied to urban lots, city farms, smallproperties, wheat, pig and sugar cane farms, farm forestry, fruit and vegetable growers as well as thegrowing aquaculture industry.

The Possibilities for Integrated Systems in Aquaculture Using Permaculture DesignStrategies.

Tropical rainforest and shallow water aquatic systems have the greatest potential for natural yields.This potential has been exploited for thousands of years by Island cultures, South American groups,Asian peoples and the Romans. Permaculture has studied these systems to analyse inputs andproduction, taking the best strategies and practices to incorporate into a strong knowledge base.

Using aquatic systems with more conventional western farming practices has been shown to improveyield. Incorporating ponds into a farm design can stretch the wet season and shorten dry periods.Aquaculture ponds can be used to create firebreaks and for climate control as well as to create waterstorage for other farm operations. The use of aquaculture ponds to assist in drainage in wet climatesand as a water resource in dry climates has been explored. Water modifies climate and is used as asafety feature in permaculture designing.

Permaculture Design Principles Used in Aquaculture at the Millington property atEumundi, Queensland

! Harvesting water using dam and swale systems.

! Creating a microclimate with forestry on hills.

Page 170: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

154

! Gravity feeding water to ponds and then to settling ponds.

! Using windbreaks to slow dam evaporation.

! The settling pond is designed to use native water plants as nutrient collectors. Water is filteredthrough reed beds or pumped to bamboo crop.

! The pond bottoms are designed after observation of natural systems, so that they are rock lined,with habitat. This allows the algal flora of the pond to grow on the rocks for the opportunisticfeeding of the crayfish. This in turn means that supplementary feeding of the crayfish is reducedto around 1:1.

! With reduced need for supplementary feed, then it may be possible to supplement feeding fromthe products from other parts of the property. A clean known food source is desirable, andnecessary to gain “organic” certification.

! The waste of the fish is the fertilizer for the bamboo and other feed crops.

! Bamboo tips may be bundled and put into the pond. The redclaw crayfish will eat the fresh leavesfor 3 –4 days. At that time most of the bundles should be removed and used as mulch, while theremaining bundles break down and ferment. After 30-40 days the bacteria in the bamboo leaveswill produce a very nutritious food for the crayfish.

! No effluent or nutrient leaves the property except in the case of severe flooding.

! The sides of the ponds are planted with food plants that are eaten by the fish or with the fish whencooked. These plants are also used to stop erosion.

! The fish produce 10 - 100 times the amount of protein per ha compared with the original cattlepasture.

! The fish farm will produce surplus for the town population, close to that population.

! The water in the ponds has increased the birdlife on the property and increased the moisture levelin the valley.

! No chemicals are used in the production of the fish or the maintenance of the property.

! The property demonstrates

- Care of earth – repair of degraded grazing country, moving water effectively around theproperty, increasing bio-diversity.

- Care of people – providing clean food in abundance, work for people and lifestyle for fouradults.

- Return of surplus – all profit is returned to the property to develop other parts of the systemand for further development of more permaculture principles.

To be truly sustainable, the issue of energy inputs must be addressed. Solar power would be anobvious choice, but the nocturnal demand for energy makes aquaculture systems battery dependent.The power and resource inputs used in making the batteries to store solar energy for a commercialaquaculture system do not, at this time, outlive their power output.

Page 171: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

155

A solution could be that solar panels, utilizing the open areas of an aquaculture farm and the reflectedlight from the pond surfaces, could produce electricity during the day and feed it into the grid. Then atnight, when the oxygen needs are highest, power can be taken from the grid for aeration.

Uplift aeration systems, used in most crayfish farms in Queensland, may be designed so that oneblower can aerate 30 ponds with less power than is used to run a household for two people. If allaquaculture farms were feeding into the electricity grid during the day and taking at night, there wouldbe a net gain of clean solar power for the wider community.

Establishment costs of the solar panels are proving prohibitive for farmers at this time. The potentialis there to create solar power from aquaculture farms and hopefully industry and/or government willfind the resources to investigate the benefits for farmers, electricity consumers and the environment.

With careful thought and planning, aquaculture can be integrated into other farming practices to theadvantage of the farm enterprises and the environment. It is essential that all benefits and problems bethoroughly investigated while the industry is in its early formative stage. Integration has the potentialto reduce the inputs to farms and eliminate the waste (unused resources) from farms. Aquacultureneed not become another polluting monoculture - it can become part of the solution.

References

Abel, Baxter, Campbell et al. (1997). Design Principles for Farm Forestry, Rural Industries Research andDevelopment Corporation.

Asher, D.C., Curtis, M.C. (2000). Redclaw Crayfish Farming, Masa Services Qld, Pty Ltd, Pomona Queensland.

Dart, D. (1998). The Bamboo Handbook, A Farmers, Growers, and Project Developers Guide,BambooAustralia.

Holmgren, D. (1991). Development of the Permaculture Concept. A paper for the Orange Agricultural College,Hepburn Victoria, December 1991.

Holmgren, D. (1984). Prospects for Rural Development; A Permaculture Perspective. A paper for the OrangeAgricultural College and the University of Sydney.

Mollison, B. (1988). Permaculture, A Designers’ Manual, Tagari Publications, Maryborough, Vic.

Mollison, B.C. and Holmgren, D. (1978). Permaculture One, A Perennial Agriculture for Human Settlements.Transworld Publishers Ltd, Melbourne.

Mollison,B. and Slay, R. (1991). Introduction to Permaculture, Tagari Publications, Tyalgum Australia.

Pilarski, M.(Editor) (1994). Restoration Forestry, An International Guide to Sustainable Forestry Practices,Kivaki Press, Colorado.

Sainty and Jacobs, (1988). Water Plants in Australia, A Field Guide. CSIRO, South China Printing Co.

Romanowski, N. (1994). Farming in Ponds and Dams,Thomas C. Lothian Pty Ltd, Port Melbourne.

RIRDC (1997). Bamboo For Shoots and Timber, Proceedings of Workshop at Hamilton, Brisbane, October1997.

Yeomans, K. (1993). Water for Every Farm, Griffin Press Pty Ltd, Australia.

Page 172: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

156

Eco-Efficient Settlements

Vivienne HallmanThe Green Food Company

It is time to look more closely at designs found in nature for sustainable city planning solutions. Totake a closer look at the mechanisms used by ecosystems for the assimilation and recycling ofresources (waste and water), to integrate people into the fabric of the environment and to reduce thefootprint left by development.

The current system of urban sprawl demands huge inputs of energy, escalating transport costs and highcapital infrastructure to service low-density housing. I am proposing an alternative strategy forresidential development around large cities.

Nancy and John Todd in their book “From Eco-cities to Living Machines “ (Todd, N.J. & Todd, J1994) explore new paradigms of integrated living and suggest that:

“The blending of architecture, solar, wind, biological and electronic technologies with housing, foodproduction, and waste utilization within an ecological and cultural context will be the basis ofcreating a new design science.”

And give us a necessary reminder that:

“Design should follow, not oppose, the Laws of Life.”

Author Richard Rogers, in his fascinating book “Cities for a Small Planet” (Rogers, R. &Gumuchdjian, P. 1997) concludes:

“There will be no environmentally sustainable cities until urban ecology, economics and sociology arefactored into city planning.”

The need to integrate structure and function is paramount if we are to move towards sustainable livingeco-systems, where current “wastes” are seen as “resources” with an economic value.

It is important to view eco-efficient living on two different levels:

• Macro scale – where natural eco-systems are used as templates for development ofcommunities; and

• Micro scale – where individual houses are designed as integrated eco-systems.

But we live in a world that subscribes to the “straight line philosophy” of:• resources in and waste out;• a society that is non-renewable and energy dependent; and• a lifestyle which is highly polluting.

So let's start thinking in circles where there is continuous flow and all the outputs become the inputsfor the next process. How can we design communities that incorporate circles and closed loopsystems? The inspiration and innovation for the design and the component parts is found in naturaleco-systems.

Page 173: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

157

Macro scale

If we look at eco-efficient settlements on the macro scale this means reviewing the current planning(or lack thereof), for city growth. I am proposing an alternative strategy for residential developmentaround large cities.

I have called this strategy “nodal” development (Hallman, 2000), where each node may consist of200-250 houses and operate almost like a small village supplying both the physical and social needs ofthe inhabitants.

Water

Water would be collected, processed and reused within the node. Rainwater would be collected fromroofs for household use and storm water would be encouraged to percolate the landscaping where itfalls. Excess storm water runoff would be stored in ponds for later use on food crops. The integrationof on-site biological systems with individual dwellings would minimise wastewater generation andcreate effective ecosystems within a continuum of wildlife habitat.

The result would be a much more effective use of water and the elimination of the high capital cost ofinfrastructure, which is currently needed to either convey clean water from treatment plants orwastewater from houses to treatment plants. Coupled with the high cost of moving water aroundcities, are the increasing difficulties associated with the siting and construction of dams for waterstorage. It is not economically viable to build more dams around many existing cities. Water is a finiteresource; we must value it accordingly and use it with great care.

Waste / Food production

Much of the organic solid waste, such as food scraps, could be processed either on-site, or within asmall community system. These wastes are ideally suited for systems where invertebrates such asearthworms and insect larvae form part of the chain to generate food from waste. Alternately, organicwaste can first pass through an anaerobic digester for the generation of biogas. The resulting slurrycan then be fed to earthworms or insect larvae, or be used as a soil amendment.

The ponds, which are designed for stormwater collection, would be used for fish production, withexcess nutrient-rich water irrigating fruit and vegetable production.

An integral part of the node would be an area designated for super fresh food production. Ideally, thenode would be surrounded by land to supply up to 75% of the food requirements of the community.

Larger household items, many of which currently find their way to landfill, could be reused within thecommunity. Only as a last resort would material go to landfill. In this way the reduction in landfillsite size could be 50-75%, and greenhouse gas emissions from landfill could be almost eliminated.

Work

Each node would have its own business and commercial centre, so that the reduction in transport costsand pollution could be dramatic. There is an opportunity to overlap business and private activities andto integrate commercial and residential accommodation - this trend is currently taking place in theinner suburbs of Brisbane.

Many people would take the opportunity to work from home or walk to work. With increased activityfrom walking or cycling there are positive implications for the overall health of the community.

Page 174: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

158

Social

But more importantly, people would communicate more with one another and share their resources;the social implications are great. A node system offers sustainable community jobs, particularly forthose at each end of life, the retired as mentors and the young as learners. Overall, there would be theevolution of a new paradigm of interaction and integration, and a more effective use of the finiteresources available to us.

The following diagram shows how the individual parts of a macro-scale system can fit together toproduce a fully integrated node.

Micro scale

The development of nodes encourages us to look at “the big picture” and a highly integrated future.But the “big picture” is always made up of many pieces and many small steps. One of these pieces isthe increasing number of householders and councils taking an active role in designing dwellings thataddress the needs of both people and the environment.

One such initiative is the construction of the “Smart House” by Tweed Shire Council. This house, ofwhich I was a co-designer, operates as a display home in a new housing development. Its purpose isto educate the community by displaying a range of energy-efficient and environmentally appropriatedesign principles.

In designing this house we sought to create a house which on the outside looked similar to itsneighbours, but on the inside worked very differently. The Smart House exemplifies smart design, ischeaper to run, more comfortable to live in and benefits the environment.

NODE

Reduced energy needs

Roof water

Storm water

Glass, paper, metal, recycling

Solar energypower & heating

Local work

Large household itemsSocial exchange

Organic waste

Fish

Food

Page 175: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

159

At the beginning of the design process we identified a number of desired outcomes, as follows:• Zero artificial heating;• Zero artificial cooling;• Zero artificial lighting during daylight hours;• Food-producing landscape;• Non-toxic building materials;• Net exporter of electricity;• Roof water collection;• Create a mini eco-system on a 600m2 block of land.

So how did we achieve these desired outcomes?

Energy Efficiency

The most important factor when designing a house is to arrange the living areas with a northorientation coupled with eave widths, which are appropriate for the latitude. The ideal eave widthallows winter sun to penetrate and warm the living area, but stops summer sun from heating livingareas.

Some of the internal walls were constructed of mud brick to introduce thermal mass and thus stabiliseinternal temperatures. An opening roof system over the courtyard area maintains a comfortableenvironment within the courtyard and also the surrounding rooms.

Particular attention was paid to cross ventilation throughout the whole house; all rooms have regulatedairflow.

Internally, the house can be divided into zones by closing doors, this is important to maintain warmthin small areas in winter. Complete roof and wall insulation also aids in thermal stabilisation.

Building Materials

Extensive research was carried out on a large range of building materials, before choosing those thatwere most appropriate for the environment and the health of the inhabitants. The following wereincluded:

! A physical termite barrier;

! All benchtops and shelving were made from plantation hoop pine;

! Low odour paints were used throughout;

! 250 old car tyres were used in the concrete slab (ecoraft slab). These tyres are laid whole underthe slab and take the place of conventional void formers such as styrene blocks (waffle pods).

Carpets and curtains have been avoided in the Smart House as they contain toxic fumes when they arenew, and harbour dust as they age. Another desired outcome of the house was to make it as healthy aspossible for the inhabitants living in it.

Resource Maximisation

The original design included underground storage for 10,000L of water collected from the roof but thiswas not included in the construction. Instead, guttering with a storage capacity of 3,000L was used to

Page 176: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

160

retain some roof water. This water is used to flush the toilets and water the gardens. During periodsof low rainfall the gutters are topped up with mains water supply.

A heat pump hot water system supplies hot water over a wide range of temperatures as it does not relyon direct heating from the sun.

Low flow taps and showerheads have been used in all wet areas to conserve water.

A bank of 12 photovoltaic solar cells is mounted on the north-facing roof as part of a grid interactiveelectricity generating system. These cells are connected via an inverter into the grid system, whichmeans that the house exports electricity during the day and earns credit. At night the house useselectricity from the grid, i.e. a debit. Over a period of time the nett consumption of electricity is eitherreduced or eliminated.

Grass-crete pavers create a permeable driveway to reduce stormwater runoff, and the grass drivewayreduces heat buildup in concrete surfaces surrounding the house.

Louvered garage doors were installed to promote ventilation and dissipate vehicle fumes.

A completely integrated food production system was incorporated into the original design but was notincluded in the project. However it is useful to comment on some of the original design features.

A rotational chicken and vegetable system used a lightweight coup to move chickens into areas wherevegetables had just finished. The chickens eat waste food and vegetables and prepare the soil forplanting the next crop.

A small (1000L) tank was included to raise edible fish. Integrated with the fish was a smallhydroponic system to filter water and produce vegetables.

The plant species planned for the landscaping were either small trees that produced an edible fruit orwere bird attracting flowering native species. It was anticipated that approximately 50% of thehousehold food needs would be produced on-site.

For those who question the ability of cities and communities to change, I suggest they read the accountof the transformation of Curitiba, a southern Brazilian city, in Amory Lovins book “NaturalCapitalism”. In the chapter on Human Capitalism the authors review extensively the evolution of acity with “scant resources plus explosive population growth” into a city with “measurably better levelsof education, health, human welfare, public safety, democratic participation, political integrity,environmental protection, and community spirit than its neighbours, and some would say than mostcities in the United States.” The transformation of Curitiba, over a relatively short period of time,offers a promising reference for those who believe that the cities and settlements we inhabit mustembrace a more sustainable future.

In conclusion, eco-efficient settlements at both the macro and micro levels allow us to move a littlecloser towards integrated bio-systems for human habitation. And it is appropriate to finish with thefollowing quotation from the World Commission on Environment (1987):

“Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable - to ensure that it meets the needsof the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their ownneeds…”

Page 177: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

161

References.

Hallman, V.L. 1999. Integrating ecosystems and city planning. Urban Briefs, 5:7.

Hawken, P., Lovins, A. and Hunter Lovins, L. 1999. Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next IndustrialRevolution. Little, Brown and Co., Boston.

Rogers, R. and Gumuchdjian, P. 1997. Cities for a Small Planet. Faber and Faber Ltd, London.

Todd, N.J. and Todd J. 1994. From Eco-Cities to Living Machines. North Atlantic Books, California.

World Commission on Environment. 1987. Brundtland Report.

Page 178: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

162

Multi-use water systems –Environmentally sustainable aqua-agricultural farming system.

David TaySchool of Agriculture & Horticulture, University of Queensland Gatton

Water is one of Australia most valuable natural resources. A significant part of rainfall in the countryoccurs in areas where there is limited agricultural and urban development. For example, in Queensland76% of the 159 million megalitres (ML) river discharge occurs in sparsely populated catchments thatdrain directly to the Gulf of Capentaria and the Coral Sea. Drought frequently occurs in agriculturalregions. Urban development, industry, mining and agriculture are increasingly competing for thelimited available good water. In Queensland, of the estimated 3.2 ML annual water consumption, 65%is used in irrigation, 14 % in stock and rural domestic, 17% in town supply and only 4% in industry.Our traditional irrigation practices are water inefficient and creating serious land salinity problems,ground water contamination, reduced river flows and ecological pollution. In future our agriculturewill not be limited by weather, land, technology, economics or markets but rather by the availability ofhigh quality water. Some of the issues facing water availability in Queensland agriculture aresummarised.

A multi-use water concept aims to redefine the way we currently think about and use water inagriculture and farming, and the ways we will use the reclaimed sewage and farm water. The researchstrategy is to integrate well-developed disciplines and technologies, namely, aquaculture, hydroponics,modern plastic-house technology and drip-irrigation into an intensive water-based farming systemwhere the productivity per unit volume water is the key performance. The Queensland Fruit andVegetable Growers (QFVG) has identified this concept as a strategy to achieve water security in thehorticultural industry.

The strategic alliance between QFVG, Queensland Department of Primary Industries and theUniversity of Queensland Gatton at the heart of the Lockyer Valley is most appropriate as annuallyabout $90 million of vegetables are generated for local and export market. The cooperation willinvolve integration across disciplines and utilise expertise from across organisations. It will movetowards a water-focused system approach for rural industries, create opportunities for internationalcollaboration, develop pilot systems leading to industrial applications, and solve environmentalproblems of immediate relevance, such as soil and water salinity, ground water contamination andriver flow. In an increasingly water-deprived agricultural environment the resultant systems willprovide an undoubted advantage for direct rural development.

Page 179: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

163

A Community Development Model for Mixed Enterprise LandDevelopment

Beth Mitchell and Michael RooneyFOCUS Pty Ltd.

FOCUS Pty Ltd is a broad based planning consultancy that has been working with an indigenousclient base over a number of years. Around five years ago we were involved in preparing a feasibilitystudy and business plan for a community farm at Scrub Hill, located on the outskirts of Hervey Bayand owned by Korrawinga Aboriginal Corporation. We have had intermittent involvement inproviding support for the development of the farm, and are currently providing mentoring services onan ongoing basis to Dhugamin CDEP, which is a subsidiary organisation formed to organise the farmworkforce.

Scrub Hill is seen within the broader indigenous community as a highly successful communityenterprise, though it has followed a model which challenges some of the preconceptions of potentialfunding agencies. It employs a CDEP workforce of 75 people engaged in market gardening, nurseryoperations, a poultry farm, production of cut flowers for export, tea tree production, bushtuckercultivation, farm tourism, and art and craft production on site. A video is being put together whichexplains how the farm has developed, and the difference it has made to people’s lives.

FOCUS is currently assisting Yugambeh Land Enterprises in developing a business plan for a mixedenterprise community farm on land called Minjelha Dhagun adjacent to Mount Barney in the BorderRanges National Park. The land is quite different to that at Scrub Hill (larger area, more fertile,further from town), but many of the community objectives for land development are similar. Thereare close social and cultural ties between some people living at Scrub Hill and Yugambeh people inthe Beaudesert, so that the two projects are seen as having much in common.

The experience gained at Scrub Hill and Minjelha Dhagun may seem to reflect particular indigenousperspective on land development. These perspectives are not readily embraced by mainstream orindigenous agencies, and this has led to considerable difficulties in gaining agency support. Howeverit is worth considering whether the problems experienced do have a cultural foundation, or whetherthere are broader lessons to be learnt about the relation between community development and landdevelopment.

Page 180: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

164

5. Future vision and action for change Introduction

The spread of integrated biosystems will ultimately depend on a wide array of social, economic andenvironmental factors that describe the willingness of Australians to move toward a more sustainableway of life. It is therefore worth locating system integration within a broader philosophical context.The material in this section is a synthesis of ideas generated during workshopping sessions byInFoRM 2000 participants, who were asked to paint a picture of a preferred Australia in 15-20 yearstime, and then to describe how integrated biosystem development might be encouraged as we move inthat direction. All the original "Future vision" comments made by participants have been assembledand categorised in the Appendix 1. Although agri-aquaculture is not the only type of biosystemintegration covered in this book, the priorities outlined in the RIRDC Research and Development Planfor Integrated Agri-aquaculture (Gooley 2000) provide a good general frame of reference for thepresent recommendations.

Future vision

Some common themes in visions of a more sustainable Australia include the following:

! a widespread recognition of the role of natural processes and the value of ecosystem services

! careful stewardship of water and other resources; restoration of environmental flows

! sustainable land use practices; improved soil quality and biodiversity

! increased use of biomass fuels and other renewable sources of energy

! greater reliance on recycling and re-use

! allocation of adequate funds for environmental protection and sustainable development projects

! reduced consumption of scarce resources; increased emphasis on planning based on to essentialneeds rather than projections of traditional demand

! strong markets for accredited "eco-safe" products

! better education of city dwellers with regard to rural issues; direct trade relationships betweenconsumers and producers

! true cost accounting of production systems that quantifies social and environmental values

! more self-sufficient, decentralised communities

! convergence of interests and more effective networking between producers, consumers,researchers, environmental lobbyists, regulators, local authorities and state and federal governmentagencies

! a more holistic approach to planning, involving integration at the community, catchment andregional levels

Page 181: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

165

Action for change: promoting integrated biosystem developmentin Australia

Coordination

Because integrated biosystems are interdisciplinary in nature, effective networking is essential if theirpotential is to be fully realised. Ideally, there should be a continual, multidirectional flow ofinformation around the stakeholder network. In this way all members of the network can benefit fromaccess to specialised expertise and the experiences of others. Communication between those withcomplementary expertise can lead to a convergence of interests and enhanced awareness of integrationopportunities.

Community ownership and visibility are key priorities in the process of encouraging integratedbiosystem development. Local stakeholders, with the assistance of researchers and other specialists,should identify and assess the feasibility of different integration options. This process can befacilitated and coordinated by community-based steering committees. Where possible, it is worthexploring possibilities for biosystem integration within the framework of integrated land use planningat the community, catchment or regional level. The judicious siting of complementary activities so asto minimise transport costs and utilise by-products (e.g., nutrient-rich effluent from intensive animalindustries; waste heat from power generation and other industries) can enhance profits and protectenvironmental quality. Local "innovation workshops", including a range of stakeholders representingcatchment groups, producers and local authorities, are one way in which such possibilities can beexplored.

Feasibility studies should include an agreed and clearly defined process for developing objectivesand strategies and moving through the implementation and evaluation phases. Local steeringcommittees should be encouraged to share results and evaluated outcomes with members of thebroader network. Feasibility studies can be carried out by setting and assessing targets at differentstages.

There is a need for overall coordination of integration initiatives at the regional level. Whilepractitioners (e.g., farmers) are often willing to cooperate in research trials and for demonstrationsystems to be established on their property, they usually have limited time to devote to broaderorganisational activities. These activities should be coordinated by a project leader or committee (e.g.,based in a government department or university) who can play a lead role in receiving anddisseminating information, developing demonstration sites and setting up consultative processes todetermine research priorities. They can also act as "innovations brokers" and assist in sourcingresearch funds.

There is a growing realisation that traditional discipline-based approaches to natural resource andenvironmental management must be replaced by systems-level, interdisciplinary approaches. These will require something of a paradigm shift in thinking, and the development of processes thatallow pooling of diverse kinds of knowledge and expertise. Management structures should beconsistent with this approach - so that, for example, state government departments dealing withprimary industries, environmental protection, resource management and state development all share acommon integrated perspective.

An awareness of integration principles and current case studies provides a powerful basis for action.Specialists with a holistic perspective and access to such information have an important role to playin disseminating ideas to colleagues, forging collaborative connections across disciplines, helping tostreamline regulatory processes, and developing incentive schemes to convert innovative ideas tointegrated applications.

Page 182: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

166

Demonstration & Research

Perhaps the most influential factor affecting the adoption of integrated biosystems is the presence ofdemonstration sites that permit the evaluation of novel designs. Demonstrations help to attractinterest in the industries concerned and can be used as prototypes or templates for similardevelopments elsewhere. Demonstration sites may be run by producers or by the research communityand can provide important information on economic costs and benefits, environmental impacts, andsocial benefits. Access to a range of fully commercial sites (e.g., integrated farms and other productionunits) for purposes of demonstration is crucial for the development of the integrated sector.

Agricultural campuses, such as those at Gatton (University of Queensland) and Roseworthy(University of Adelaide) are ideal sites for integrated biosystem demonstration, training and research.Advantages of such locations include the availability of space for development, connections withestablished institutions with research and teaching infrastructure, and the close proximity ofcommercial parties. Such sites provide exciting opportunities to demonstrate how links between awide variety of activities (e.g., conventional food and fibre production, permaculture, hydroponics,urban agriculture, water purification, renewable energy use, settlement design) can be achievedwithout compromising environmental quality. Site designers should ensure that the size of thesystems concerned is large enough to be representative of realistic commercial operations.Demonstration sites are important focal points of contact and dialogue between diverse stakeholders,and their design and development is an important part of the process of moving from disciplinary tointerdisciplinary ways of thinking. Funding investment by government agencies, educationalinstitutions and industry should be sufficient to allow demonstration sites to fulfill their potentialas key centres of technological innovation.

In applying the results of research, it is essential to transmit information in simple language thateveryone can understand. Similarly, all stakeholders need to communicate their research requirementsto research providers. Where possible, innovative producers conducting independent trials should besupported by established groups in the research community.

Research and development of integrated biosystems would be greatly assisted by targettedinnovations funding. At present, most of the government-run Research and DevelopmentCorrporations (RDCs) in Australia are strongly discipline-based. It is recommended that a greaterpercentage of funds be allocated to “umbrella” bodies like the Rural Industries RDC (RIRDC), theLand and Water RDC (LWRRDC) and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry -Australia (AFFA) for the purposes of system-level research and development. RIRDC's ability tocoordinate integrated projects involving other RDCs should be strengthened.

While integrated biosystems should be developed to meet site-specific requirements, there is much tobe gained from the transfer of general design principles and technologies from other locations.National and international research collaboration, supported by connections between integratedbiosystem networks, should be encouraged whereever possible.

Information

Internet websites are an efficient way of raising awareness of integrated biosystems. Websites cancarry information on research and development programs and existing integrated systems in Australiaand overseas. They can be used as repositories for key literature (e.g., strategic plans, governmentreports and research papers) and can include directories of human and material resources. Video linksand interactive technologies can permit "virtual tours" of particular biosystems. Because of the utilityof websites in facilitating the development of integrated biosystems, it is recommended that fundsfor their establishment and maintenance be made available by relevant institutions (e.g.,government agencies, universities) and industry bodies as a matter of priority. Once websites areestablished, site managers can recoup some revenue by selling commercial space.

Page 183: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

167

Training in aspects of biosystem integration can be carried out through TAFE, higher education andcontinuing education courses. These can utilise fact sheets and other printed material, websites,video and CD technologies, and demonstration sites. Films and TV documentaries (perhaps funded bygovernment agencies) can be used for both training and publicity. Video recordings of workshops andconferences featuring integrated systems represent a useful educational resource. Integratedbiosystems design can be used to introduce concepts of sustainable development. There is also scopeto include visits to demonstration sites in ecotourism programs. School competitions, where studentsare challenged to design fully integrated systems in rural or urban settings, can be excellent ways ofapplying concepts from different subject areas and have the potential to attract attention from thebroader community, especially if publicised through the news media. One attraction of school-basedprojects is that they can elicit fresh and imaginative ideas uninhibited by traditional constraints.

Reference

Gooley, G. 2000. R&D plan for integrated agri-aquaculture systems 1999-2004. Rural Industries Researchand Development Corporation Publication No. 99/153. 29 pp.

Page 184: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

168

KN

OW

LED

GE/

PASS

ION

Scie

ntifi

c• g

over

nmen

t• p

rivat

e• u

nive

rsiti

es

Cas

e St

udie

s

Oth

er G

over

nmen

t&

Indu

strie

s

Indi

vidu

als

Com

mun

ities

Scho

ols

Inte

rnet

& M

edia

Ove

rsea

s

INTE

GR

ATE

DB

IOSY

STE

MS

NET

WO

RK

Net

wor

k C

oord

inat

ion

Wor

ksho

psD

iscus

sion

grou

psIn

tern

et /

Med

iaFi

eld

days

Dem

onst

ratio

n si

tes

Exte

nsio

n of

ficer

sJo

int v

entu

res

Com

mun

ity p

artn

ersh

ips

Scho

ols

CO

NV

ERG

ENCE

commun

icatio

nint

erpret

ation

LOC

AL

STA

KEH

OLD

ERS

OBJ

ECTI

VES

STRA

TEG

IES

IMPL

EMEN

TATI

ON

feed

back

& su

ppor

t

EX

PER

TIS

E

Dev

elop

men

t of i

nteg

rate

d bi

osys

tem

s: in

form

atio

n flo

w a

nd a

ctio

n

Page 185: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

169

6. Concluding comments

Address to InFoRM 2000 by Dr. Joe Baker, Chief Scientist, QueenslandDepartment of Primary Industrie

When the organisers approached me to chair a session at this Workshop I thought that it would be agreat opportunity because I am really interested in this challenge of Integrated Food Production and inensuring that we protect our natural resources so that future generations have equal opportunity to usethem in a sustainable way, as we had them when our forefathers handed them to us.

That does not mean that we would expect exactly the same uses as we have today. We have to be ableto adapt to changing needs, demands, and other situations, but still be able to ensure that in thatadaptation we do not prejudice the habitat or food chains of species other than human.

When Kevin and Usha asked me if I would sum up on what I saw as critical issues arising fromInFoRM 2000 again I readily accepted but as I have listened to the vital discussions that you havehad in the last hour or so, it is almost an intrusion by me to come and try to put a single persons'perspective on the enormous range of issues that have been raised in these two days.

So what I am going to do is concentrate on some lessons you have taught me and on some points oractions we may consider with respect to Integrated Food Production and Resource Management forthe future. I will use "agriculture" to embrace horticulture, pastoralism and aquaculture, andaquaculture will include mariculture and I will use the word "food" to cover fibre, flowers and aquaticspecies, such as fish and crabs and I will use the word "value" to include all steps in the value chain.

In the material which encouraged us to attend this workshop we were told that "integrated biosystemscan take a wide variety of forms and that such integrated systems offer many opportunities forincreased efficiency, productivity and product profit and represent practical creative solutions toproblems of waste management and pollution".

Further we were told that "by conserving soil and water, increasing crop diversity and producing feed,fuel or fertiliser on site, integrated biosystems are relatively sustainable and resilient, and can do muchto support local economies and communities".

There was a final sentence to that section in the literature, that said "economic and environmentalpressures are generating growing interest in integrated options". There is no doubt an intended pun onthe word "growing" by Kev and his colleagues.

If we place these challenging statements alongside the numerous new technologies and new fields ofendeavour such as ecological engineering and environmental accounting, do we have the tools toconstruct cost effective ecologically sensitive solutions for sustainable food production in Australia?

If we had those tools do we have them organised in such a way that we can use them effectively andefficiently? My short answer is “I doubt it”, but the slightly longer answer is “with the combination ofpeople that you have attracted to this workshop, -theoreticians, technologists, practitioners,environmentalists, administrators - there is a chance that ‘integrated human systems’, (that is uscontinuing to work together), can do much to make integrated biosystems a reality.

As people have spoken throughout the two days I have been impressed by a question which I alwaysask because it makes direction-seeking more easy - What is our vision? Do we have a shared vision?Or even after our intensive discussions today and through the last two days do we still have differentimpressions of what we would want to see from integrated biosystems, in say, twenty years time?

Page 186: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

170

What integrated food production systems would you as an individual like to have in place by the year2020? Will food security – covering both quality and quantity - be the key issue?

It is unusual in a summing-up situation to use a slide that has not been used in any of the presentations.However, I hope you will see it as both relevant and challenging. When we were asked to discuss thesignificant aspects of sustainable agriculture, we were told that “the agricultural age was past”. Wewere told that there were five Ages which could be readily accepted. The first of these was theAgricultural Age followed by the Industrial Age, and then the Information and Communication Ageand the Technology and Biotechnology Age which is with us at the moment. Many people arepointing towards a Care of Planet Age where we are at last able to use our combined knowledge totake into account the needs of species, other than human, for sustainable development.

Your papers have provoked my thoughts on the integrated biosystems which take place in nature, theneed for us to practice biomimicry and to ask ourselves how we can best use the different informationsources we have to maximise the opportunity of developing integrated biosystems for humansustainability, while still allowing all other species a comparable opportunity for sustainable existence.

The figure below illustrates my belief that the Agricultural Age is not past, nor is the Industrial Age,and one can look almost everyday for examples of where new industries are being developed based onagricultural practices and where new technology is being applied to improve both productivity andnutrient value of agricultural crops and to strengthen new or exiting industries. To be really effectivein that we have to integrate the known and new technologies including the biotechnologies, we have toensure that all people have equal opportunity to access the information and communicationinfrastructure (which currently favours the big cities) and if we can achieve all that type of integrationI believe we have an opportunity to also achieve Care of Planet. So I leave that diagram with you as athought, looking backward to the extent of seeing what has been done and certainly using the mostmodern of technologies and biotechnologies and the most modern of information and communicationtechnologies to develop new industries to make the use of our land more sustainable and to ensure thatone of the outcomes is in fact Care of Planet.

Care of Planet

Technology/Biotechnology

Information andCommunication

Agriculture

Industry

Page 187: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

171

There are two or three other aspects which really make the type of debate that you have had in the twodays highly relevant to your local needs, yet equally important to the development of regionalpractices and to Australia becoming part of the Global Village. Additionally, we have to recognise theunique advantages we have in Australia by the comparative political stability in our tropical andsubtropical regions compared with those of the developing countries of many parts of the world.

We have had some wonderful presentations by people who are leaders of academic communities inAustralia, such as Paul Greenfield and Mark Diesendorf - and yet I look at the universities of todayand wonder whether they have they broken down the disciplinary boundaries to produce the graduateswho will be skilled in a multi-disciplinary way to best practice integrated biosystems and to managethem accordingly.

In a paper that he wrote for the Canada Foundation for Innovation, David Strangway noted that "werealise today that important advances know no disciplinary boundaries and call for multi-disciplinaryapproaches. It is increasingly obvious that knowledge in no longer the purview of any one country orof any one institution. Widespread access to the internet has brought this home to us in so many ways.It is not possible any more to be a passive recipient in a world in which information moves around theworld at the speed of light".

I have taken David Strangway's words into account in the construction of the diagram that I show onthe interaction of the different ages and is really quite a modern concept to rejoin what people mayregard as past ages into very present and significant practices. But I do ask the question “have ouruniversities adapted in a suitable way to produce the graduates of the future who can best participate inintegrated biosystem development and management.?”

Coming back specifically to my task, I believe that the papers for the conference were very wellstructured in both sequence and content, to draw together the necessary information, to attack thechallenges of the workshop of "addressing the issues and establishing priorities for planning researchand development".

Throughout the two days we have had both direct and indirect reference to the need for practices to beestablished which are economically sound, socially acceptable and ecologically considerate.

We used to talk about research and development but I now see more and more, that we need anintegration of research and development, extension, innovation and commercialisation.Commercialisation is not the only outcome of innovation. Another outcome is better organisationalpractices, the saving of energy, the saving of material. Innovation is for everybody but a lot ofinnovation does lead to commercial benefit. I would like you to think holistically in any practices thatyou want to establish - from the type of research that is needed to fully understand them, to thedevelopment of those research ideas into a systematic band of knowledge, to the development ofefficient extension methods to communicate that knowledge to user groups, using a combination ofpeople to cooperate to ensure that -wherever practicable - we take the knowledge based on researchthrough the technologies to innovation and, wherever possible, sustainable commercialisation. Allthese steps are consistent in my mind with the concept and principles of ecologically sustainabledevelopment which again has been mentioned frequently in the talks and in discussion in these pasttwo days.

Given that everything that we have discussed is essentially based on the fundamental natural resourcesof air, water, soil, vegetation and exploitable animals and plants, we are dealing with ecologicallysustainable development of natural resources. The political necessity to separate portfolios should notimpede our ability to work together, to cross those interdepartmental boundaries in the same way thatwe ask the universities to cross its disciplinary boundaries and to achieve biomimicry in ourdevelopment processes. One of the simplest aspects of biomimicry is that the waste of one process is

Page 188: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

172

the resource of another. Biomimicry is essentially working together for mutual benefits in the sameway that nature has achieved it.

In the papers Peter Peterson was to give the leading case studies analysis but there were technicaldifficulties, which he successfully side-stepped, and he left us a very clear message that theagricultural and aquacultural practices of Israel are those essentially of a type that generate no waste.Similarly in our practices by integrating these sorts of activities we also should be able to achievemultiple use of water and land and a sustainable waste-free set of practices.

Scott Spencer highlighted the Queensland Government's priorities to work towards ecologicallysustainable development. Their attempts are not always met with public, media or even departmentalcooperation or understanding. We are left with different departments designating different regions ofQueensland and very little agreement (at least to the public view) on river catchment orbioregionalisation as a preferred method of defining natural resource areas.

Paul Greenfield really challenged us on the very fundamental waste management and environmentalengineering issues, stressing the human characteristics of first pretending something undesirable is notthere, rather than try to understand how a particular situation arose and working out the components ofthe system that had caused, or were affected by, the occurrence.

Mark Diesendorf revealed why his Institute for Sustainable Futures is such a highly regardedinstitution, with its ability to offer practical integrated solutions to the challenges of achievingsustainable development. His, like Paul’s, was a good sense approach, shifting from linear to cyclicflows of matters and this concept was reinforced in many of the subsequent papers. He alsointroduced to us the term “natural capitalism” and the importance of a shifted emphasis from one ongoods to one on services and to the importance of investing in natural capital. He did propose thatAustralia would have the opportunity to carve out an economic niche that is clever, clean and green.Many of you in the business sense have already carved out your own niche but the question is: can youmake it stronger and more successful by interaction with the colleagues you have met and discussedproblems with in these part two days?

Many of the subsequent papers show how diverse are the opportunities to be "clever, clean and green".What appealed to me was the variety of ways that people have achieved those three objectives but stillmanaged to be different in their approaches - to value-add, to communicate with the otherwise remoteurban settlers and to expand the experience of native biodiversity.

Ingrid Burkett related the way in which the principles and practices of secure sustainable communitydevelopment are themselves so closely related to those of sustainable integrated biosystems because ineffect that is what they are.

I have drawn strength from each of the examples from different presentations. There is a tendency togive greater emphasis to the Day 1 papers which in many ways were scene-setting but there was not asingle paper that did not attract questions and a lot of debate after the actual presentation.

I was impressed with the thought-provoking nature of many of the talks and I do believe we wereconditioned to be inquiring of presentations by the format of Day 1 and in particular, by the emphasison future trends, opportunities and constraints.

Topics on biomass processing, the control of pathogens, biofuel generation, the use of vermicultureare but a few examples of new technologies which are offering enormous opportunities for newindustries, and for minimising waste.

Some of the talks built bridges between the technological opportunities and the commercial realitiesand the talks such as that by Paul McVeigh on integrated multiple water use in cotton and grainproduction were very important to allow us to think ahead of how we can responsibly contain any

Page 189: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

173

adverse impacts of practices on our own land and not transfer them to another piece of land or toanother body of water.

Several people spoke of multiple water use and everywhere I turn throughout the world, water use andreuse is a major topic and one that is going to demand the smartest use of the technologies includingthe biotechnologies.

We have had presentations which have challenged our thinking from such diverse areas as:

! consideration from the regional to the global perspective of integrated biosystems;

! to the theory and practice of integrated agri and aquaculture; and

! to the challenges and rewards of the avoidance of waste, whether through water and nutrientrecycling, through permaculture, through urban agriculture, through the value of biofuels, throughcleaner production, through cogeneration, through the redesign of community settlements andthrough convergence.

Perhaps the most important evidence of waste is that of inadequate interaction between people of likeinterest and the loss of benefits of interdisciplinary interactions. Can we maintain the stimulationwhich we have enjoyed in these past two days? Can we in some manner avoid that aspect ofintellectual waste by resolving to maintain contact and to share ideas in our individual fields,recognising the skills and experiences of the people who have spoken and contributed to discussion inthese past two days? Sometimes we use the internet unwisely, even communicating electronicallywith the person next door, but if we were in Brisbane and Paul McVeigh is somewhere out beyondDalby we can still communicate with him electronically, share ideas and ask questions.

Can we sensibly use the technologies accessible to us?

You have shown remarkable enthusiasm for debate.

Undoubtedly there will be another InFoRM conference planned because Kev, Usha and theirorganising team have seen the advantages of your interaction.

You can identify the types of topics you would like to see in a future workshop. But I can assure youthat the concept of integrated biosystems, which to me must be very close to biomimicry, will becomean increasing interest of governments as the challenges of sustainable food production become evenmore important to the world - where quality will be as important as quantity and where resourcemanagement will not be something separated by those concerned with the natural environment andthose concerned with the economic returns of the commercial crops, but a closely integrated system ofprotection of native habitat and native species interwoven with commercial production, whether on theland or in the sea.

I hope that the enthusiasm that you have shown in the last two days will be maintained. I hope that theinteractions will grow and I do believe that we in Australia have the benefit of comparatively lowpopulation densities. We have the challenge of managing our fragile soils and what is the driest of theinhabited continents of the world. We have the advantage of comparative political stability. We havethe advantage that our air, our waters and our lands are not irreversibly polluted.

Because of the combination of "good things" and "bad things”, Australia is in fact a very good positionto record the outcomes of its research and commercial and practical applications of integratedbiosystems and share those outcomes with the world, notably the developing countries of the world,noting that most of those are in tropical or subtropical regions.

I wish you well and thank you for the opportunity to be part of a very invigorating process.

Page 190: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

174

Appendix 1.A “wish list” for Australia’s future: comments fromworkshop participants

Integrated Biosystems

! Increase in mixed/integrated land development and promotion of these systems by government(including incentives to diversify and incorporate new systems).

! Integration of integrated system research and development and implementation activity.

! Encourage integration of industries and strengthen networks.

! Movement away from the “technology can fix all” mentality. Technology had its place but caneasily take valuable jobs and social belonging away from a community. Sharing of concepts to thelay person is more valuable than removing them from the processes of integrated biosystems.

! Zero organic waste disposal to landfills – all must be processed and used for agriculturalproduction in either rural or urban systems.

! Find a way to recover, recycle and reuse organic wastes from industries.

! Agricultural practices based on sustainability principles and ecosystems.

! We need to use new technology of agri- and aqua-biosystems – learning from the past is notenough.

! Agroforestry solutions for rangelands.

! Production systems focussed on “end user” needs, not just production.

! Food production integrated with all urban effluent treatment systems.

! Individuals taking responsibility for their own food production.

! Communities working together with the aim of being self-sufficient and sustainable.

! All non-farmers producing some of their own food, no matter how little.

! Self-sufficient local communities.

! De-urbanised communities.

! Farmers providing community services eg. on-farm composting.

! Integrated biosystems regional programme in the south Pacific.

! Maximum recycling of nitrogen and phosphorus inputs in food production.

! Sustainable farming and environmental systems producing products required by the marketsutilising proven research & development methodologies.

! Natural ecosystems the model for agricultural production.

! Strong lasting linkages between production and consumption (circular connection).

! Improving efficiency of resource use.

Page 191: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

175

! Development of economically and environmentally sustainable farming systems throughintegration and multiple use of resources.

! Multiple land and water use, resource reuse.

! Maximising utilisation of water, energy and nutrients within farming systems.

! Eco-farming joint ventures between farm business and input suppliers – share the risk and sharethe income.

! More recycling of water by all local authorities before further extraction permits are issued.

! Diversity of biological species in agricultural production (flora and fauna).

! Sustainable farming systems across Australian farm land: farm like nature, optimum soilmanagement (no degradation), production limited by environment (eg. rain), positive economics,minimum off-farm impacts, individual/community viability and services.

! Commercial integrated biosystems linked with ecosystem services eg. through the landscapeconstruction industry which lead to the education of clients in the process.

! A landscape model to underpin traditional commercial and private design that enables ourcityscapes to absorb nutrients and pollutants in water released by engineered treatment units.

Information / Communication / Publicity / Education

! Dissemination of information on sustainable development (such as concepts/systems addressed inthis conference) in a readily accessible format – plain English, not scientific.

! Strategic development using demonstration and education networks.

! We need a book of possible technologies linking “cans” and can’ts” for each to make the selectionof a system easier. This should be available on the web as widely as possible.

! Communication and education strategy on holistic farming.

! Process for multidisciplinary planning.

! Publicity is important – what we can do and why we must do it.

! Emphasis on developing visible models to improve mainstream perception of knowledge andsustainable development, and its place in their lives.

! Promote awareness of new production techniques – particularly in aquaculture.

! Highly organised “brand” distribution and marketing of Australian food products to global anddomestic markets, which provides better returns and a stable future for farmers

! market mechanisms for biosystems.

! Promote regional planning across farm, catchment, shire and regional levels.

! International exchange on holistic farming systems.

! Venture capital prospectus for holistic farming.

! The University of Queensland should initiate a postgraduate diploma in urban agriculture. Itwould draw students from Oceania, Asia, and around the world and would fit in well with currentcourses and resources.

Page 192: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

176

! The opinions and presentations of this workshop should be available to a wider audience.

! The ideas from this workshop should become accepted as popular opinion.

! Broader community knowledge and understanding of urban agriculture and the use of integratedsystems.

! A clever country.

! Development of cooperation between the international integrated biosystems and Australianintegrated biosystems networks. IBSnet international will provide internet facilities (eg. mailinglists), and aim to develop joint internet activities to focus on work in Australia via e-seminars ande-conferences.

! Consumers forming direct trade relationships with food producers.

! The understanding of urban populations about food and fibre production.

! Urban populations understanding the impacts of their food choices on the environment.

! Urban understanding of agricultural practices.

! Values of agriculture regarded highly by non-agricultural population.

! Consumers achieve a greater understanding of production systems, costs and constraints in ruralAustralia so they can tailor their purchases and consumption in a way that will be beneficial toproducers.

! Improved understanding of urban society about agriculture and resource management.

! Increased school-based awareness programmes and educational units highlighting the importantrole of agriculture and advances made in sustainability.

! A solid connection between academic knowledge and layperson action, without the distortingeffect of political presentation and its current lack of credibility with the layperson.

! Pilot scale demonstration sites in urban regions showing selected self-contained and self-sustaining biosystems.

! Publication of existing biodiversity stories eg. Lake Eyre Basin.

! Involvement of the next generation in the integrated systems debate (high school and undergraduate forums).

! Filmed presentation developed into education material, project stimulation, material for schoolsand universities.

Research / Extension / Support

! A truly integrated research and extension system.

! Greater field support for individuals and community groups implementing sustainabledevelopment projects.

! More cooperative research between biologists, engineers, industry and the community to identifyopportunities and systems for sustainable integration.

! Practical/economical alternative to anaerobic ponds.

! The integration of research organisation with political agendas and with the people on the ground.

Page 193: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

177

! Flexible funding opportunities for research and venture capital.

! Regional centres of biomass utilisation and bio-refinery concept. Biomass produces electricity,biogas, and biofuels (eg. ethanol, diesel).

! Ethanol production from local sugarcane to supplement fuel requirements.

! Studies on the flow of nutrients from the country to the city and the sea, to find out where nutrientrecycling can occur and reduce environmental pollution (eg. methane output from urban-generatedorganic wastes).

! National and international research and development collaboration that is site specific.

! Application of feasibility studies to commercial situations eg. biogas production, freshwater fishmarketing.

! An exposé of organic foods.

! Stability and continuity in funding/support incentives for people willing to take the “risk” oftaking on new sustainable ideas.

! A reallocation of funding and people towards sustainable research and development.

! A RIRDC program or project (possibly including other RDCs eg. LWRRDC) on integrated agri-aquaculture systems and holistic farming.

Aquaculture / Fish

! Increased integration of intensive animal production systems with aquaculture through waterand/or nutrient recycling.

! Reduce/eliminate the need to import fish into Australia by increasing aquaculture production.

! Minimise imports of food that can be produced in Australia.

! Broad application of integrated agri-aquaculture systems.

! Eat more fish.

! Cooperative approach to diversification into aquaculture.

! Integrated farming systems involving aquaculture, hydroponics, and agriculture and processing.

! More vigorous promotion of aquaculture production and products.

Environmental Issues

! Awareness of environmental problems currently and in the future. Australia is not anenvironmentally “lucky” country forever.

! Stable or increasing biodiversity, distribution and abundances of species.

! Targeting environmental research for 2010-2020 and not 2002.

! Optimum use of our valuable water resource whilst maintaining flow to coastal estuaries.

! Acceptance by the community that the environment is theirs and therefore they need to pay.

! Halt depletion of critical, limiting resources eg. water, especially aquifers.

Page 194: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

178

! Environmental stream flows.

! Resolve resource use conflict eg. water allocation, vegetation management.

! Healthy balanced soils.

! “Green” cotton.

Policy / Legislation / Planning

! Government and industry policy on holistic farming systems.

! Streamlining of the regulatory system to make farm diversification simpler.

! Integrated systems considered in regional and community planning agendas.

! Legislation and policy frameworks that work and are equitable.

! State government and local authority incentives for sustainable farming.

! Fewer policy makers, more people doing.

Native Species

! Farming of native animals and birds.

! Greater use of native species in agriculture.

Economics

! More information on the transport costs of fresh and other produce (in terms of % retail cost and% diesel energy used) so people can better judge their food choices in terms of energyconsumption.

! True cost accounting of food/fibre supply incorporating economic/social/environmental issues.

! True cost-benefit analyses of integrated systems that recognise and quantify the value of socialand environmental parameters of such systems.

! Consumers paying the “real” price for food.

! Develop mechanisms that allow farmers to put costs for “caring for the environment” on theirsales prices.

Page 195: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

179

Appendix 2.Workshop participants

Name Affiliation and Address Telephone/Fax E-mail

Baker Dr. Joe Chief Scientist, QDPI, GPO Box 46,Brisbane 4001.

t. 07-3239 6927f. 07-3221 4302

[email protected]

Biala Mr. Johannes The Organic Force, 12 Pine Street,Wynnum, Qld. 4178

t. 07-3396 2511f. 07-3396 2511

[email protected]

Bowyer Ms. Jocelyn Dept. of Microbiology & Parasitology,University of Queensland.

t: 07-3365 1101 [email protected]

Buchanan Mr Jim Chairman, Mary River CatchmentCoordinating Committee. 19 Johnstone Rd.,Gympie, Qld. 4570

t. 07-5482 6383f. 07-5486 5288

[email protected]

Burkett Dr. Ingrid School of Social Work & Social Policy,University of Queensland, St Lucia 4072

t. 07-3365 2316f. 07-3365 1788

[email protected]

Capeness Mr. Steve Territory Representative, Vermitech PtyLtd. P.O. Box 1804, Cleveland MC, Qld.4163. Qld. 4011

t. 07-3630 0102 f. 07-3314 8015

[email protected]

Chan Mr. Eddie Smallholder Agricultural DevelopmentConsultant, 47 Kaboora Crescent,Westlake, Qld. 4074.

t. 07-3279 5824 f. 07-3279 5824

[email protected]

Collins Dr. Adrian QDPI Fisheries, P.O. Box 2066, Woorim,Bribie Island, QLD. 4507

t. 07-3400 2024 [email protected]. 07-3408 3535

Crocetti Mr. Greg Dept. of Microbiology & Parasitology,University of Queensland.

t. 07-3365 1101 [email protected]

Diesendorf Prof. Mark Professor of Environmental Science, andDirector, Institute for Sustainable Futures,University of Technology, P.O. Box 123,Broadway, NSW 2007

t. 02-9209 4353f. 02-9209 4351

[email protected]

Doelle Dr. Horst W Director, MIRCEN-Biotechnology,Chairman, Int. Org. for Biotechology andBioengineering,21 Belsize St, Kenmore,Qld. 4069

t. 07-3378 3180f. 07 3878 3230

[email protected]

Erler Mr. Dirk QDPI/University of Sunshine Coast, P.O.Box 2066, Bribie Island, Qld. 4507

t. 07-3400 2009f. 07-3408 3535

[email protected]

Fairlie Ms. Lin

Foo Mr. Jacky Coordinator, Intergrated Bio-systemsNetwork, Intern. Organization onBiotechnology, Arvikagatan 26, S 123 43Farsta, Sweden

t. 46-8-945959 f. 46-8-5982 229

[email protected]

Frost Ms. MeganAnne

QDPI (Futureprofit), P.O. Box 96, Ipswich,Qld. 4305

t. 07-3280 1905f. 07-3812 1715

[email protected]

Gaines Mr. Andrew ECOSTEPS Sustainability TrainingEducation Practices & Strategies, 9/96Milson road, Mosman, NSW 2090.

t. 02-9689 1480 [email protected]

Gavine Ms. Fiona M Aquaculture Program, Marine & FreshwaterResources Institute, Private Bag 20,Alexandra, Vic. 3714

t. 03- 5774 2208f. 03- 57742659

[email protected]

Goopy Mr John P.O. Box 975, Ipswich, Qld.

Greenfield Prof. Paul Deputy Vice Chancellor (Research),University of Queensland, St Lucia 4072.

t. 07-3365 3917f. 07-3365 8521

[email protected]

Page 196: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

180

Name Affiliation and Address Telephone/Fax E-mail

Hallman Ms. Vivienne Director, The Green Food Company, 789Fig Tree Pocket Road, Fig Tree Pocket,Qld. 4069

t. 07-3378 6963f. 07-3878 8493

[email protected]

Harris Mr. Paul Lecturer, Dept. of Agronomy and FarmingSystems, Adelaide University RoseworthyCampus, Roseworthy, SA 5371

t. 08-8303 7880f. 08-8303 7979

[email protected]

Haug Mr. Noel Manager, Administrative & EconomicServices, Australian Agricultural Co. Ltd.,GPO Box 587, Brisbane 4001

t. 07-3840 5516f. 07-3844 1974

[email protected]

Iker Mr. Ian General Manager, Farming &Backgrounding Operations, AustralianAgriculture Co. Pty. Ltd. Goonoo Station,Comet, Qld. 4702

t. 07-4984 5188f. 07-4984 5102

[email protected]

Jin Dr Bo Advanced Wastewater Management Centre,University of Queensland, St Lucia, Qld.4072.

t. 07- 3365 4479f. 07-3365 4726

[email protected]

Kumar Dr. Martin Freshwater Aquaculture Sub-ProgramLeader, SARDI Aquatic Sciences, P.O. Box120, Henley Beach, SA 5022.

t. 08-8200 2400f. 08-8200 2481

[email protected]

Lee Mr. Warwick Senior Marketing Officer, Fishing IndustryDevelopment Services, QDPI, GPO Box3129, Brisbane 4001.

t. 07-3239 3225f. 07-3239 0439

[email protected]

Lines-Kelly

Ms. Rebecca Wollongbar Agricultural Institute, BruxnerHighway, Wollongbar, NSW 2477.

t. 02-6626 1319f. 02-6628 3264

[email protected]

Matthew Mr. Phil School of Agriculture & Horticulture,University of Queensland, Gatton.

t. 07-3365 0360f. 07-3365 1177

[email protected]

Mathews Mr. Maurice EPA Queensland. t. 07-3225 1906f. 07-3227 8341 [email protected].

auMcPhee Mr. John Team Leader, (Sustainable & Profitable

Industries), Vegetable Branch, DPI, Waterand Environment, P.O. Box 303,Devonport, Tas. 7310.

t. 03-6421 7674f. 03-6424 5142

[email protected]

McVeigh Mr. Paul Cotton/Grain Grower, Member of Qld.Food & Fibre Scientific Innovation Counciland Cotton Industry Development Council,"Loch Eaton", MS 35, Dalby, Qld. 4405.

t. 07-4663 3547f. 07-4463 3573

[email protected]

Millington Mrs. Janet Lot 1 Finley Road, Eumundi, Qld. 4562 t. 07-5442 7200f. 07-5442 7300

[email protected]

Mitchell Miss Beth FOCUS Pty Ltd. 128 Swensons Road, MtCrosby, Qld 4306

t. 07-3201 2218f. 07-3201 2012

[email protected]

Mott Prof. John Director, Consortium for IntegratedResource Management, c/- University ofQueensland, St Lucia 4702.

t. 07- 3365 6938f. 07- 3365 2965

[email protected]

Mulligan Mr. Stefan 67 Boundary St. P.O. Box 834, Moree,NSW 2400.

t. 02-6754 3461f. 02-6754 3462

[email protected]

O'Sullivan Mr. Mark Acting General Manager, Business StrategyUnit, QDPI, GPO Box 46, Brisbane 4001

t. 07-3239 3964f. 07-3239 3685

[email protected]

Pagan Mr. Bob Technical Management Centre, Universityof Queensland, St Lucia 4702.

t. 07-3365 1594 [email protected]

Pearson Mr. Doug PROAQUA, P.O. Box 929, Hamilton, Qld.4007

t. 07-3268 2727f. 07-3289 2999

[email protected]

Peterson Mr. Peter Sr. Industry Development Officer, QDPI,GPO Box 46, Brisbane 4001

t. 07-3224 2692f. 07-3239 0439

[email protected]

Pillai-McGarry

Dr. Usha School of Agriculture & Horticulture,University of Queensland, Gatton.

t. 07-3365 2251 07-5460 1319 [email protected].

au

Page 197: 2002 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development

181

Name Affiliation and Address Telephone/Fax E-mail

Pollock Mr. Don Resource Officer (Food & Fibre), CentralHighlands Development Corp., P.O. Box1425, Emerald, Qld. 4720.

t. 07-4982 4386f. 07-4982 4068

[email protected]

Ramage Dr. Deborah Dept. of Zoology & Entomology,University of Queensland, St Lucia, Qld.4072

t. 07-3201 0950 [email protected]

Rooney Mr. Michael FOCUS Pty Ltd. 128 Swensons Road, MtCrosby, Qld 4306

t. 07-3201 2218f. 07-3201 2012

[email protected]

Spencer Mr. Scott Acting Deputy Director-General, DNR, 7thFloor Mineral House, 41 George St.Brisbane 4001

t. 07-3224 8164f. 07-3224 2072

[email protected]

Stephens Mr. Alan QDPI, P.O. Box 5165 SCMC, Nambour,Qld. 4560

t. 07-5430 4947f. 07-5430 4994

[email protected]

Streeten Mr. Tim Industry Manager (EnvironmentManagement), P.O. Box 102, Toowoomba,Qld. 4074 DPI, P.O. Box 102 (203 TorStreet), Toowoomba, Qld. 4350

t. 07-4688 1404f. 07-4881 1192

[email protected]

Swift Prof. Roger Executive Dean, Faculty of NaturalResources, Agriculture and VeterinarySciences, University of Queensland, St.Lucia, Qld. 4072.

t. 07-5460-1201 [email protected]. 07-5460-1170

Totterdell Mr. Paul Sustainable Organic Solutions, 57 BlackettSt. Downer, ACT 2602.

t. 02-62489330 [email protected]

Warburton Dr. Kevin Dept. of Zoology & Entomology,University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Qld4072.

t. 0703365 2979f. 07-3365 1655

[email protected]

Wilson Mr. Geoff Exec. Officer (hon.), The Urban AgricultureNetwork- Western Pacific. P.O. Box 2223,Mansfield, Qld. 4122.

t. 07-3349 1422f. 07-3343 8279

[email protected]

Wilson Dr. George Programs Manager, RIRDC, P.O. Box4776, Kingston, ACT 2604. 51 StonehavenCres., Deakin 2600.

t. 02-6281 2160f. 02-6285 1196

[email protected]

Ziebarth Mr. Paul Chairman, Queensland Fruit and VegetableGrowers' Association.

t. 07-3213 2444f. 07-3213 2454

[email protected]