Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - [permaculture] Need large scale sustainable rice grower

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Cory Brennan <cory8570@yahoo.com>
  • To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org, scpg@arashi.com, Open Permaculture <permaculture@openpermaculture.org>, Darren Doherty <darren@permaculture.biz>
  • Subject: [permaculture] Need large scale sustainable rice grower
  • Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 10:48:54 -0700 (PDT)

I have a contact who is looking to purchase a very large volume of rice over
a period of months, in Africa. Do any of you know anybody who is growing and
selling very large quantities of rice, sustainably? 
We need 100,000 tons, (one ton is 1000 kilos) of rice over six months, 12,500
tons per shipment of ideally, in 50 kilo bag increments. Long grain white
rice (we can propose other types) 10-15 % broken rice is ok (lower quality).
We need a price that would include shipping to Africa.
>From permaculture.biz@gmail.com Sun Jul 17 05:26:09 2011
Return-Path: <permaculture.biz@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
Received: by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix, from userid 20217)
id 657FDE8B24; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 05:26:09 -0400 (EDT)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on
mailman1.ibiblio.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VERIFIED, HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.2.5
Received: from mail-qy0-f177.google.com (mail-qy0-f177.google.com
[209.85.216.177])
by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71F92E8ACA
for <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>;
Sun, 17 Jul 2011 05:26:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by qyk7 with SMTP id 7so1364456qyk.15
for <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>;
Sun, 17 Jul 2011 02:26:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.118.69 with SMTP id u5mr3934503qcq.122.1310894765628; Sun,
17 Jul 2011 02:26:05 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: permaculture.biz@gmail.com
Received: by 10.229.222.199 with HTTP; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 02:26:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <634465264623312376_113280_11655_7184713@carboncoalition.com.au>
References: <634465264623312376_113280_11655_7184713@carboncoalition.com.au>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 19:26:05 +1000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: QkOpryXDpiSKgSjIxUSwMPl8XBw
Message-ID:
<CAP1k32vydaQ1HTz9yWDnxcDGP0hqz5AHcT2Pvaebw+VRLp6HWQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Darren Doherty <darren@permaculture.biz>
To: Permaculture List <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Subject: [permaculture] Fwd: Carbon Farmers July Newsletter
X-BeenThere: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Id: permaculture <permaculture.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture>,
<mailto:permaculture-request@lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture>
List-Post: <mailto:permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa@lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture>,
<mailto:permaculture-request@lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 09:26:09 -0000

G'day,

For those of you who are interested read below to get an excellent overview
of how the Australia Government's Carbon Tax will impact the Natural
Resource Management (especially Agriculture) sector with unbiased
comparisons between the government and coalitions policies.


**
View in your
browser<http://carbonfarmingconference.com.au/CampaignProcess.aspx?A=View&VID=7184713&KID=11655>
Carbon Farming & Trading Association
July 2011 | www.carbonfarmersofaustralia.com.au
CFTA Offset Update
Dear Darren,

CONTENTS

- An Insiders View Of Carbon Tax Funding For Farmers, page 1
- Deal or No Deal? Tony's Soil Carbons Plan, page 5
- The Hidden Tonnes of Soil Carbon, page 6
- Nature Article Defies Logic, page 7
- What The Senators Told The Minister, page 8
- Conference: Preparing To Trade, page 10


AN INSIDER'S VIEW OF CARBON TAX FUNDING FOR FARMERS


Farmers have many opportunities in what will be the biggest investment ever
made in restoring agriculture's resource base.
The headline number is $1.5 billion to be spent over 6 years on "Land Use".
In summary, this is how the money is divided up:

- $201 million for research into "new ways of storing carbon and reducing
pollution in the land sectors."
- $20 million to "convert research into practical methodologies which are
recognised under the Carbon Farming Initiative"
- $99 million "for landholders to take action on the ground, including
testing new ways to increase soil carbon and reduce pollution."
- $250 million for the Carbon Farming Initiative non_Kyoto Carbon Fund
will be used by the Government to purchase carbon credits that will create
"incentives to undertake land-based action such as the storing of soil
carbon, revegetation and forest conservation."
- $946 million from the Biodiversity Fund "for landholders to undertake
projects that establish, restore, protect or manage biodiverse carbon
stores."
- $44 million will provide "a refundable tax offset to encourage the
uptake of conservation tillage farming techniques and participation in soil
carbon sequestration research".
- $44 million "for natural resource management regions to plan for
climate change impacts."

A total of $1.5 billion for land sector activities. Stupendous. Let's look a
little more closely at the numbers. First, divide it all by 6 to get the
annual figure as all amounts are to cover 6 years (except the conservation
tillage 15% tax offset - it is for 3 years - and the natural resource
management planning, which covers 5 years).
RESEARCH: The $201 million for research amounts to $33 million per year. By
comparison, the Soil Carbon Research Program (SCRP) had a total of $25.5
million over three years. But this new funding is not solely for soil
carbon. It has to be shared between projects "to improve soil carbon, reduce
pollution from livestock and crops, and enhance sustainable agricultural
practices. Novel approaches, including biochar, biofuels and new crop and
grazing species, will be targeted". If the SCRP achieved 20% of it's task
with $25.5 million, it would need an additional $100 million to complete it.
(The Commonwealth contributed $8 million to the initial SCRP budget, the
balance coming from partners such as GRDC. The Commonwealth contribution
would therefore be $32 million.) Will soil carbon get the funds? Not without
a fight. Is it the research we want? Good question. Populating models with
"mono-practice" data* on the grounds that it will help guide farmers'
decisions about whether to 'invest' in soil carbon activities does not
translate into a trading regime. However it could be the basis for a
scientifically-respectable CCX-style estimation system; ie. assigning a
fixed rate of sequestration to a certain practice in a certain climate zone.
The resulting data is the best a scientist can do, not the best a farmer can
do. Carbon farmers are "poly-practitioners"; ie. they apply a suite of soil
management practices to enrich their soil. Simply adding the results for the
separate practices together does not add up, because the mechanism is
ecological; the dynamic is geometrical, not arithmetic. Ie., it grows by
multiplication, not addition.

METHODOLOGIES FOR TRADING: $20 million will be available to convert research
into practical methodologies which are recognised under the Carbon Farming
Initiative. This will speed up the development of methodologies because
right now there is no incentive to produce meths other than good
citizenship.

FARMER RESEARCH: $99 million will be provided "for landholders to take
action on the ground, including testing new ways to increase soil carbon and
reduce pollution." This could mean there is money for farmers to hire
scientists and do the research that is being neglected. ie, demonstrating
true potential for sequestration.

TRADING: The $250 million to be spent buying voluntary market offsets
(Non-Kyoto) for "the storing of soil carbon, revegetation and forest
conservation" implies that a soil carbon methodology is passed by the
Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee (DOIC). Yet the document says soil
carbon will emerge 'over time', which betrays a belief that only science can
provide a solution. (A reference to 'engaging more scientists and
independent experts' to do research could indicate that the Government is
willing to broaden the skillsets and perspectives applied to the wicked
problem of soil carbon.) It may look like a straight copy of Abbott's
Direct Action plan, but it is only a faint echo. The $40 million per year
the Government intends to spend can purchase 4 million units at $10
(although the Government has not indicated a price). The Opposition's Direct
Action soil carbon solution, whereby the Government is the only buyer and
farmers compete to offer the lowest price, expects to purchase 10 million
units in 2012-3, rising to 85 million units per year in 2020. This "market
mechanism" does not fit the Association's idea of an ideal system because it
operates to restrict returns to farmers and reduce the contribution that the
soil carbon solution can make to addressing climate change and landscape
restoration, both of which rely on widespread change of land management
practice.

NRM AGENCIES: $44 million over 5 years for natural resource management
regions to plan for climate change impacts. This is another likely farmer
response depressant: the intrusion of Government bureaucracy into the
marketplace. Seeking to use a market to attract conservative farmers who
would run a mile from anything that looked like government environmental
program, the Association was shocked to read the following: "Natural
resource management organisations will develop plans in each region to guide
where carbon farming projects should be located in the landscape. These can
be used by landholders to identify and develop activities to reduce carbon
pollution." This creates another level of decision-making to slow down the
process and add costs. 'The Land Sector Carbon and Biodiversity Advisory
Board will be established in legislation and will review and oversee land
sector initiatives, providing advice to Government and ensuring the
effectiveness of assistance.'

BIODIVERSITY BLUES: The Big ticket item was the billion dollars for
'BIODIVERSITY". "The Biodiversity Fund will support:

- Reforestation and revegetation in areas of high conservation value
including wildlife corridors, rivers, streams and wetlands
- Management and protection of biodiverse ecosystems, including publicly
owned native forests and land under conservation covenants or subject to
land clearing restrictions
- Action to prevent the spread of invasive species across connected
landscapes."


Trees and native vegetation can make a major contribution to landscape
resilience and farm production, but this is a very narrow definition of
Biodiversity. In farmland, Biodiversity can be found in the species density
in pasture grasses, in the species density in soil microbial communities, in
grassy woodlands, and in the edge effect of ribbon planting of crops.
Biodiversity naturally increases with soil carbon. The two are
interdependent. We will need to broaden this definition to gain funds for on
farm biodiversity projects. The amount to be spent from the Biodiversity
funds on mainly reforestation or forestation is gobsmacking when considered
alongside the budget for soil carbon. The Government says the money is to be
used "for landholders to undertake projects", but there is a danger that the
lion's share of it will be absorbed by salaries with precious little left
over for farmer incentives. The "extension/ education/encouragement" model
is very effective at changing behaviour in those open to the message. But
this Conversion Model can be slow-acting and even ineffective with the
conservative majority - failing to gain even consideration from minds made
up after a lifetime immersed in a culture of traditional ways. The prospect
of additional income from growing a new commodity in parallel with their
existing enterprises is proven to gain attention long enough for
consideration of the proposition. In doing so, this commercial return
incentive would work faster because it offers the means to balance risk of
experimenting with new business practices. The market model would add
potency to the extension model, providing the agencies with access to groups
of farmers formerly unavailable to them.

FEEDING FRENZY: Given the amounts of money on offer and the broad terms of
reference, there is likely to be a feeding frenzy by stakeholders who
traditionally work in this space and who naturally feel entitled, and
newcomers like ourselves (though 6 years is a lifetime in carbon issues) who
are pursuing a paradigm shift and need resources to prove our contention.
Soil Carbon will have to compete vigorously to not only get a fair share of
the resources that we helped to make available, but also to avoid losing
control of our destiny by having the agenda fall into unsympathetic hands.

MAKING THINGS HAPPEN: There is a lot of hard work to be done and someone has
got to do it - all day every day. This is the reason we formed the Carbon
Farming & Trading Association. To give you the opportunity to play an active
part in the effort, to build the resource base we need to field a team -
because if we don't turn up, you can be sure the others will, and 85% of
success is simply in turning up. Call 02 6374 0329
http://www.carbonfarmersofaustralia.com.au/CarbonFarmers/Representation/Association.html

DEAL OR NO DEAL? TONY'S SOIL CARBONS PLAN


The Opposition's Direct Action plan aims to achieve 'lowest cost' abatement
by inviting farmers to tender their best price for soil carbon offsets in a
market with only one buyer - the Government. But Australian farmers won't
line up to sell any government soil carbon at bargain basement prices.
Farmers are gun shy after a protracted scare campaign about soil carbon
sequestration convinced many that trading soil carbon is dangerous. And, as
with any market, the higher the perceived risk, the better the money has to
be to compensate. The price of $8 to $10 a tonne has been floated by the
Coalition. The responsibilities of a Carbon Farmer are high. Will they be
required to hold the carbon in the soils for 100 years? What method of
measurement will be needed? Will the Kyoto Protocols apply? There's too much
uncertainty with this program. It can be cut off at any time at the whim of
a minister. With only one buyer, farmers can 'take it or leave it'. But
those who think they are doing the farmer a favour don't understand the
critical role soil carbon sequestration can play. It can draw down the
equivalent of 50ppm over 50 years, effectively stalling Global Warming below
a 2°C increase and buying the world time to make the shift to low emissions
technologies. There is no alternative solution that can be mobilised in the
time and at the scale that soils provide. Take it or leave it.

THE HIDDEN TONNES OF SOIL CARBON

*The Potential of Australian Farmers to Earn Income from Soil Carbon
Sequestration has been estimated at unrealisticially low levels. The
peer-reviewed science fails to replicate what farmers can achieve because it
studies only mono-practice (single practice change), it does not study
poly-practice (multiple practice changes) which is the real-world behaviour
of farmers seeking to enrich their soils and increase their soil carbon
levels.
The highest level of increase recorded by scientists studying monopractices
is 0.5 tonnes of carbon. Experienced carbon farmers using multiple land
management changes have recorded 30 tonnes and more per year for 10 years.

These tonnages are not recognised by government scientists because they have
not studied it. Officially they don't exist. The studies, when they take
place, can take up to 5 years. Years can pass before funding is available,
then three year field trials, followed by a year getting the results
published in an academic journal before it can be considered 'sound
science'.

The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists have declared that there is no
peer-reviewed science that reveals the potential of carbon farming for soil
carbon sequestration. They are right. Public policy has not been informed by
knowledge of the existence of the Hidden Tonnes of Soil Carbon.



NATURE DEFIES LOGIC


The journal Nature has made the headlines with a story about emissions from
soils that was misunderstood by journalists reporting on it. The study
concluded that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere cause certain soil
microbes to release methane and nitrous oxide. The scientists and
journalists all assumed that this was bad news for soil carbon
sequestration. Logically, however, it is the opposite. It is not the CO2 in
soils that causes the additional emissions of methane and nitrous oxide, but
the CO2 in the atmosphere. If there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, soils
will release more Greenhouse Gases. Soils can take CO2 out of the
atmosphere. Therefore we need to get soils working hard as soon as possible.
If we don't, soils will be 20% less effective at taking CO2 out of the
atmosphere.

There are 2 other flaws in the reports of this research:

1. The emissions are caused by excess moisture in soils, not a condition
usually associated with Australian agricultural soils. "The higher CO2
concentrations reduce plant water use, making soils wetter, in turn
reducing
the availability of oxygen in soil, favoring these microorganisms,"
according to Jan van Groenigen, Research Fellow at the Botany department at
the School of Natural Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, and lead author of
the study.
2. Methane is absorbed by soils as part of the carbon cycle. Sydney
University research on native grasslands has found healthy soil bacteria
absorb more methane per day than a cow produces in an entire year.

Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere makes plants grow faster. This extra plant
growth is one of the main ways ecosystems could slow climate change. With
more CO2, plants grow more, soaking up carbon dioxide through photosynthesis
and depositing carbon in wood and soil. But some of that extra carbon also
provides fuel to microorganisms whose byproducts, nitrous oxide and methane,
end up I n the atmosphere and counteract the cooling effects of more plant
growth. "It's an ecological point and counterpoint: the more the plants soak
up CO2, the more microbes release these more potent greenhouse gases," said
Bruce Hungate, Professor at Northern Arizona University and co-author on the
study. "The microbial counterpoint is only partial, reducing the cooling
effect of plants by about 20%."

Professor Alex McBratney of Sydney University - who estimated that soil
carbon sequestration could absorb between 10% and 30% of Australia's
emissions prior to the study - now estimates CO2 absorption could remove
between 8% and 30%.

The quality of science and environmental journalism is sadly lacking. Two
who stand out for their commitment and understanding are Patrick Francis
(Australian Farm Journal) and Matthew Cawood (The Land) and Michael Conlon
(ABC Country Hours) and ABC Rural Radio generally. It is easy to fill space;
it is harder to fill it with reliable content.



WHAT THE SENATORS TOLD THE MINISTER


The Senate is debating the Carbon Farming Initiative legislation. Three
senators quoted our evidence before the Senate Inquiry during the debate so
far, so the voices of carbon farmers were heard:
Senator Richard Colbeck (Liberal, Tasmania) 5 July 2011: I want to move on
to the issue of permanence. It is a complex issue and one that needs
modification as part of this legislative process. It is interesting that
some farmers who came in to talk to us, who are all about storing carbon in
their landscape, brought in to us presentations demonstrating how they were
changing their farming methodologies to store carbon in their landscape.
They talked about the improvements in productivity. They discussed with us
the carrying capacity of their land as a result of their different
management practices. And yet Mr Kiely, who came before the committee to
give us evidence, says that permanence is 'the deal killer'. He said: "No
farmer would be silly enough to agree to 100 years for soil carbon or 100
years for anything. A finance lender would want to know seriously the impact
on the value of the property of agreeing to such a thing. We did some
research into the 100 years thing and discovered it was a policy decision,
not a scientific measure..." These are people who are committed to carbon
storage, who are practising the sorts of things the government wants to
encourage, and they are saying that the government processes are a 'deal
killer'. And these are the sorts of people who the government should
legitimately be listening to as part of this process. It is only common
sense that practitioners, who have spent time and effort in trying to
develop their farms and who actually practice these things, and have some
expertise, should be listened to by the government.

Senator Nick Xenophon, (Independent, South Australia): 'Permanence' is
defined in the Act as '100 years'. On the face of it, that gives a great
deal of confidence. But it is not realistic in the context of farming
practices and it is not realistic in getting a good outcome. Let me quote
from page 35 of the Senate committee report. The Chairman of the Carbon
Farming and Trading Association, Michael Kiely, said: "No farmer would be
silly enough to agree to 100 years for soil carbon or 100 years for
anything. A finance lender would want to know seriously the impact on the
value of the property of agreeing to such a thing. We did some research into
the 100 years thing and discovered it was a policy decision, not a
scientific measure..." That is a real concern. We need to listen to key
stakeholders such as the CFTA. It would be foolish not to listen to those
who have that firsthand practical knowledge. This was a recommendation about
the issue of permanence in the inquiry into these bills. It is important
that the DOIC continue to update, amend and improve the scheme into the
future.

Senator Simon Birmingham, (Liberal, South Australia): The CFTA appeared
before the inquiry and described the provision as the 'deal killer'. I will
read an extract of the evidence that is highlighted in the inquiry. Mr
Michael Kiely, Chairman of the CFTA, stated: "We believe that 100 years is a
perverse outcome. The result is said to be necessary so buyers can be
confident they are getting value-that is, genuine abatement-so they get
nothing. There is nothing available for them. We have found examples where
the IPCC and the Verified Carbon Standard have allowed other periods of time
recently-20, 25, 30-odd years. We believe we could work within that sort of
time frame."

Senator Simon Birmingham, (Liberal, South Australia): I wan t to again
highlight some of the evidence that the committee heard and the committee's
recommendations, and then seek the minister's response. We heard from Carbon
Farmers of Australia and the Carbon Farming and Trading Association who
claimed:... "the •business as usual' rule, which penalizes Landcare farmers
and other progressive landholders who have taken up carbon farming
techniques early and-potentially-rewards laggards who continue to degrade
their soils." The association described this treatment of progressive
farmers as 'the ultimate perverse outcome'. They stated: "The impact of that
is that there will be property not under contract for carbon farming. By
that I mean that these progressive farmers will eventually sell out or pass
the farm on and there is no guarantee that that regime will continue. We
believe that people would not desecrate a carbon rich environment because of
the obvious value of such a thing, but it is not guaranteed."

SENATE sits from 15 August, 2011 when we expect the Carbon Credits (Carbon
Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 will have its third reading and so become not
a bill but and Act of Parliament.

CONFERENCE: PREPARING For TRADING
<http://carbonfarmingconference.com.au/CampaignProcess.aspx?A=Link&VID=7184713&KID=11655&LID=55044&O=http%3a%2f%2fwww.carbonfarmingconference.com.au>
The Carbon Farming Conference & Expo, Dubbo NSW, 28-29 September, 2011:
expert speakers reveal opportunities in the Carbon Farming Initiative. "The
Carbon Farming Initiative will allow land managers to earn credits-which can
then generate income-for actions including:

- reforestation and revegetation
- reduced methane emissions from livestock digestion
- reduced fertiliser pollution
- manure management
- reduced pollution or increased carbon storage in agricultural soils
(soil carbon)
- savanna fire management
- native forest protection
- forest management
- reduced pollution from burning of stubble and crop residue
- reduced pollution from rice cultivation
- reduced pollution from legacy landfill waste."

"Credits generated under the Carbon Farming Initiative that are recognised
for Australia's obligations under the Kyoto Protocol on climate change can
be sold to companies with liabilities under the Carbon Pricing Mechanism.
This includes credits earned from activities such as reforestation, savanna
fire management and reductions in pollution from livestock and fertiliser.
The ongoing Carbon Farming Initiative non-Kyoto Carbon Fund ($250 million
over the first six years of the program) will provide incentives for other
activities, including revegetation and soil carbon projects."

Carbon Farming Conference & Expo,
28-29 September, 2011
Registration or Sponsorship: (02) 6374 0329

www.carbonfarmingconference.com.au<http://carbonfarmingconference.com.au/CampaignProcess.aspx?A=Link&VID=7184713&KID=11655&LID=55044&O=http%3a%2f%2fwww.carbonfarmingconference.com.au>


Unsubscribe<http://carbonfarmingconference.com.au/CampaignProcess.aspx?A=Unsubscribe&VID=7184713&KID=11655>



--
Hooroo,
Darren J. Doherty
UPCOMING EVENTS

2011 RegenAG <http://goog_1946592595>® <http://www.regenag.com/> Workshop
Series Australia & Aotearoa/New Zealand
Autumn 2011 EU RegenAG® Tour with Darren Doherty - Spain, UK, Germany, EU
_________________________________________
AUSTRALIA FELIX PERMACULTURE
Broadacre Permaculture Design & Development
International Permaculture Education

Patron Fundacion + Arboles <http://www.masarboles.org/>, España
Head of RegenAG®, Ecosystem Investment Management Australia Pty.
Ltd.<http://www.eima.com.au/>
Vice President New Soil Security Inc. (US)
Originator: RegenAG® <http://www.regenag.com/> Workshop Series

Web <http://www.permaculture.biz/>
<http://picasaweb.google.com/permaculture.biz>
PhotoLog <http://picasaweb.google.com/permaculture.biz>
Australia Felix Permaculture
Blog<http://www.australiafelixpermaculture.blogspot.com/>
RegenAG® Blog <http://regenag.blogspot.com/>

skype: permaculture.biz
phone: +61 431 444 836
___________________

Note: If you do not wish to be on this mailing list then please advice me
and you will be removed from future dispatches.....

RegenAG® is a Registered Trademark of Darren J. Doherty

This message is only for the use of the addressee. The contents of this
email (including attachments) may be privileged and confidential. Any legal
privilege is not waived by mistaken delivery. If you are not the intended
recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email or attachments
to the intended recipient please notify the sender by return email or by
telephone on +61 (0) 431 444 836 and purge the message stored in any
electronic medium.



  • [permaculture] Need large scale sustainable rice grower, Cory Brennan, 07/16/2011

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page