carbon credits vs food : no brainer 4 food, page-11

Shelterbelt trials are from HIGH rainfall zones. The shelterbelt theory doesn't hold up in low rainfall zones as lateral root exploitation of fertilizer and water from cropland is significant. Up to 30m out roots exploit into the cropping zone. That makes the shelterbelt a cost ...

The fact of the matter is if you plant on cleared land then it has historically been used for either wheat or sheep and although not always annually productive the fact of the matter is that when it is productive (ie this year with the subsoil moisture reserves across the low rainfall zones) it is VERY productive. It is LOW cost production - few weeds and very fertile soils. So this land is to be viewed as opportunistic for cropping. You crop when the subsoil moisture levels are at levels that make the need for winter rain negligable (eg this year).

With only 40 days of grain left in global stocks ... every tonne counts particularly from these marginal zones. If there is an average year in Australia this year we could well turn in a 35mmt wheat crop. That's a lot of food and it would be because the marginal areas this year return to the production ranks.

Oil mallees are not the only trees suited to these zones. That's uninformed dribble! The Australian sandalwood (Santalum spicatum) tree is endemic to these zones and also produces an oil rich (60%) nut. It can be though of as the oil palm of arid Australia. It is simple to establish though more costly but you create a carbon sink and also enable commodity production. Win Win ... I have established over 200 acres on my own farm. Its a breeze ... noone offering me carbon credits

www.sandalwood.org.au