SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WARNING for DESTRUCTIVE WIND and LARGE HAILSTONES

Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology
New South Wales

TOP PRIORITY FOR IMMEDIATE BROADCAST
SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WARNING
for DESTRUCTIVE WIND and LARGE HAILSTONES

This warning cancelled by BOM at 8.25pm

Costello's new pastime

Have poor book sales forced Peter Costello, the former Australian treasurer, to take up a new pastime?

Just one week after the launch of The Costello Memoirs an announcement has been made of Costello's appointment to the World Bank's Independent Advisory Board, which will provide advice on anti-corruption matters. (Please, readers, stop that guffawing!)

Sales of the book have been so poor that it has already been binned by many stores.

The Age reports that the book, which carries a recommended retail price tag of $54.99, has been marked down significantly.

Borders chain stores slashed its price by almost a third and other stores are also discounting it heavily. Big W, which is having trouble getting rid of its stocks, cut its price to $32.93.

One does not have to be an Einstein to see that Costello's book is a gigantic flop and any hopes he had of flogging more literary efforts have gone out the window.

So, with prospects of living off his royalties completely dashed, Costello has had to look elsewhere for another activity to fill his hours. Hence, Costello's appointment to the World Bank's position is indeed very timely.

But, hang on!

The World Bank launched its global search for members for its advisory board on July 8 and interested individuals had to forward their names to the bank by July 20. That means Costello lodged his 'expression of interest' with the Bank two months ago.

Perhaps his publishers knew then where the Memoirs was heading and let Costello know that they would not be requiring his services again.

Costello's appointment by the Bank is for a three-year term, with the possibility of a one-time renewal. Well, that gives him something to do for three or perhaps six years.

A biography of Costello that the Bank has published looks very much like it was written by the man himself. Then again, maybe his father-in-law penned it.
I

Clarence Valley Council: Dinham did what?

The Clarence Valley local government area elected its 9 shire councillors on the 13th September 2008.

Like many areas before it, the Valley voted almost blind when it came to most of the candidates found on the ballot paper.

Take newly-elected Clarence Valley shire councillor, Ian H. Dinham, for instance.

A relatively small number of voters knew that, before mandatory local government amalgamation, he had been a staff member at Maclean Shire Council and later headed the Clarence River County Council (CRCC), an entity which operated across all the then existing Clarence Valley local government areas.

Some voters also knew that while wearing the CRCC General Manager hat Ian Dinham was also elected a Maclean Shire councillor, which saw him in the ridiculous position as a councillor of voting to write to himself as a general manager and chronically late to almost every council meeting.

However, that is not all that Cr. Dinham now is.
Apparently when he stood for election to Clarence Valley Council (CVC) this month, he was and is a consultant engineer employed by Tweed Shire Council and has a current email address idinham@tweed.nsw.gov.au

But wait, there's more.
When Cr. Dinham was CRCC General Manager he got wind that the Valley-wide local government restructuring was coming, which would see the CRCC dissolved and a new agency created and, his alleged actions after that have been the subject of persistent and consistent rumour ever since.

Rumour has it that Cr. Dinham drew up his own redundancy agreement (with attached confidentiality agreement/clause) which allowed for him to receive a lump sum equal to two years full pay in the event his employment was terminated for any reason.
He supposedly then presented this to certain members of the CRCC board and had the agreement endorsed.

This rather unusual agreement would have seen Cr. Dinham pocket a sum coming closer to half a million dollars than the more modest standard 26-30 weeks pay other managers in similar situations usually received.

It is no wonder then that in the CRCC Annual Report 2003-04 as former general manager, he wrote: I wish to extend my very best wishes to the new Clarence Valley Council as we enter a new era of serving our community...

With all those coins allegedly jingling in his pocket Dinham then went on to become the Executive Manager of Clarence Valley Floodplain Service which effectively replaced the CRCC. Leaving one to wonder just how many days he actually spent redundant and unemployed.

He held this new position until around mid-2007.

It is my understanding that the local media recently approached Dinham concerning the circumstances of his redundancy pay-out and that he has flatly refused to comment. Safe in the knowledge that (whatever the actual circumstances of his redundancy package) former council and county council personnel records are sealed for the next 50 to 100 years.

Now another rumour is doing the rounds; that Ian Dinham wants to be Deputy-Mayor of Clarence Valley Council at the end of the month when the mayoral election is held.

Five questions spring to mind:

• if Cr. Dinham's redundancy package is not as described by rumour, why doesn't he deny the rumour when asked?
• how many employers does Cr. Dinham actually have?
• can Clarence Valley ratepayers afford this man?
• which council will now have his loyalty - Clarence Valley or Tweed?
• given the distance between the two local government areas, will he even bother to turn up to CVC monthly meetings?

If it's Moday it must be Monsanto time

Last April The Independent in the UK published an article on yield declines in Roundup Ready resistant soya bean crops.

The main premise appeared to be supported by entries such as this at Potash Corp in 2007:

Manganese Response of Conventional and Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean

Project Leader: Dr. Nathan Nelson, Kansas State University, Agonomy, 2708 Throckmorton Plant Sciences Center, Manhattan, KS 66506-5501.
Telephone: (785) 532-5115. Fax: (785) 532-6094.

Weed control benefits of glyphosate resistant (GR) soybeans have resulted in nearly complete adoption of GR soybean varieties by U.S. producers, despite an apparent yield decrease that accompanies this decision. Although the reasons for the yield decrease are not known, there is some evidence that GR soybeans have reduced manganese (Mn) uptake compared to conventional soybeans. Therefore, Mn additions may help overcome the apparent yield disadvantage of GR soybeans. The objectives of this study are to: i) evaluate nutrient uptake, distribution, and biomass accumulation in a GR soybean cultivar compared to a non-GR sister line, and ii) determine the response of a GR and non-GR soybean cultivar to soil and foliar Mn applications. Field plots were established at five locations (Scandia, Manhattan, Ashland Bottoms, Rossville, and Ottawa) in North Central and Eastern Kansas in 2006 and 2007 to compare conventional and GR soybean response to three rates of soil applied and two rates of foliar Mn. Response variables include yield, biomass, plant height, Mn uptake, and leaf, and grain Mn concentrations.

Application of Mn increased GR soybean yields between 6 and 14 bu/A at the Scandia site, but results were inconsistent at the other sites. Conventional soybeans were not responsive to Mn at any of the locations in 2006, but were responsive at the Scandia site in 2007. Over all, soybean yields were greater at the Scandia location compared to the other locations for both years, suggesting that the yield increase from Mn application to GR soybeans may only occur in high yielding environments (>60 bu/A). Trends indicated a yield response to both soil-applied and foliar-applied Mn, but the results were inconsistent across locations. Preliminary plant analyses show that there was no significant difference in Mn uptake between the GR and non-GR varieties. There were some differences in nutrient partitioning, where the non-GR soybeans had more K remaining in the leaves at R6 growth stage. Further analysis of 2007 data will be conducted to confirm these observations.

The premise appeared to also be supported by one of the other studies cited in The Independent article which concluded:

This research provides evidence that the GR soybean variety used in this study did not accumulate Mn in the same manner as the conventional variety, and did respond to application of Mn in this high-yield environment.

However, its author Dr. W.B. Barney Gordon objected to The Independent's summary of his findings and backed away from any statement that GMO soya bean may lead to lower crop yields (scroll through to Page 3).

According to Elmore et al in the Agronomy Journal:

Yields were suppressed with GR soybean cultivars. Our other work showed that there was no effect of glyphosate on GR cultivars (Elmore et al., 2001). The work reported here demonstrates that a 5% yield suppression was related to the gene or its insertion process and another 5% suppression was due to cultivar genetic differential. Producers should consider the potential for 5 to 10% yield differentials between GR and non-GR cultivars as they evaluate the overall profitability of producing soybean. Cultivar choices are best based on (i) previous weed pressure and success of control measures in specific fields, (ii) the availability and cost of herbicides, (iii) availability and cost of herbicide-resistant cultivars, and (iv) yield, and not solely on whether cultivars are herbicide resistant. Based on our results from this study and those of Elmore et al., 2001, the yield suppression appears associated with the GR gene or its insertion process rather than glyphosate itself.

What is becoming obvious in all this, is the fact that Australian farmers who plant GMO soya bean may initially save on pesticide application rates, but will inevitably face extra targeted fertiliser costs and the possibility exists that the genetic modification process itself may be responsible for some percentage of lower yield results anyway.

Not exactly the win-win situation that Monsanto and friends are presenting as the 'truth' and something NSW North Coast cane farmers should be aware of as they frequently alternate cane with soya bean.

Extra reading if you are interested in global agriculture here.

U.K. Soil Association 2008 press release here.

* This post is part of the North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.