Many industries and working sites are plagued by dust pollution.  Besides polluting the ecological environment, the airborne dust particles encourage a hazardous, unproductive and wasteful working environment.

Airborne dust particles are a cause of poor visibility. Poor visibility is known to be an indirect cause of accidents, injury to people and damage to equipment.

More importantly, staff can inhale airborne dust particles that are 1 to 10 microns in size. This inhalation of dust could cause staff to develop lung related medical problems.

Further can dust pollution impair the most sophisticated equipment and technology.

The Department of Trade and Industry in South Africa has recently set stringent standards with the aim to control dust emission in the working environment. Organisations that do not comply with these standards will be held liable for disabilities caused to workers. These standards present industrial organisations with a challenging move to comply.

Dust Control and Suppression is an crucial factor in meeting environmental, health and safety requirements, helping and protecting employees and reducing site emissions.

Our Road Dust Control and Suppression product  is an innovative formulation blended emulsified co-polymers, ionic modifiers, and the unique properties of the patented ionic surfactant Marine 3 Technologies (M3T).
Small quantities of the product is added to water. After being sprayed unto the road surface, the product will form a durable crossed linked matrix. The matrix bind the fine soil particles into larger, heavier particles, which are less prone to become airborne.
The product  is biodegradable and environmentally friendly. It is not phototoxic and can be safely applied to vegetation.

Advantages of Dust Control & Suppression Products.
Save water: Use between 40 - 80% less water.
Fewer spraying trips, thus: Using less fuel.
Reduce carbon footprint.
Reduce vehicle maintenance.
Reduce man-hours.
Increase safety.
Reduce water run-off, therefore reducing road degradation due to less run-off furrows - thus less road maintenance.

For more information, visit  the Dust Control & Suppression website...(click on this link).

This is a summary of a new study done by;
Natalia Lukomskaa, Martin F. Quaasb and Stefan Baumgartnerc ,
Institute of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, University of Zurich, Switzerland
Department of Economics, University of Kiel, Germany,
Department of Sustainability Sciences and Department of Economics,
Leuphana University of Luneburg, Germany
December 13, 2010
View their online page...
Download the full study

By: Bob Kandetu
The Namibian.... Still telling it as it is.

COMMUNAL grazing in the Omaheke Region is under siege from a tree called Omusaona in Otjiherero and Mongana in Setswana.
A number of other trees and shrubs also appear, such as Omutjete, Otjimbuku and others. But Omusaona is dominant in all constituencies.
Travel through Okamapingo near Okondjatu, Okahungu, Otjinene. Go through Ozombuzovindimba to Eiseb and Gam. From there access Epukiro via Otjimanangombe, Ovinjuru, Omauouozonjanda. Go to Otjombinde via Otjomisaona. Then move to Omongua via Aruams, Orevia, Onderombapa, Omutumbondundu, Otjiungukua, Okomungondo, Okonjoka, Otjeue, Okumu, and Okungasa. Travel the Korridor line, number one through twenty two.
The character of grazing remains the same.  Omusaona has taken over half of the grazing land. Where Omusaona grows all grass dies and this explains why there is drought in most communal constituencies in Omaheke every year. What is even more frustrating to the farmers who at least want to do something is the fact that this is open area for all to use and clean up campaigns get bogged down on who will do what for whom.
Consequently, the farmers take it as it comes and they move from area to area in the hope of getting open and better spaces. They apply for resettlement on the farms that the government has bought and they wait forever. Or, they just keep on farming in anticipation for better rains next time around.
There is much that the farmers and Omaheke dwellers can do to ameliorate their plight. They can team up and declare war on the trees and shrubs that threaten better grazing and they can team up and source the chemicals that commercial farmers are effectively using to control the same threats of bush encroachment. The chemicals for debushing have been available at shops like Agra for years and as of late, the Meat Board of Namibia sells some chemicals that seem to be relatively affordable. But communal farmers seem threatened by a mixed blessing of defiance and ignorance, bordering on complacency. While some very successful farmers have done it in the same Omaheke, some farmers cannot take that they have to continue farming there and must clear the bush for others who do not want to participate. They hold that the land belongs to the government and why can the government not deploy prisoners to clear the areas, or get resettled like others, in better farming places called farms.
In 1991 Prime Minister Hage Geingob convened a land conference, which then proved to be the right thing to do for purposes of brainstorming as government contemplated policies for state governance; after all it was only one year after independence.
During that exercise, Member of Parliament Katuutire Kaura decried the land ownership conundrum and said in defense of communal farmers, that even though they have limited farming space to themselves, they remained the best farmers in the land because they are the main supplies of live stock for export and meat consumption in the country. This assertion holds true today as it was in 1991. While the land question remains a thorny issue that must be resolved, all available farming land, not only commercial farms, must be protected against predators and parasites that encroach on effective farming and to this end, all sectors in agriculture must not be found wanting. Individual Farmers in Omaheke must employ all strategies to curb bush encroachment and so must all farmers unions, the regional and the central governments. Bush encroachment threatens to close down farming in Omaheke’s communal constituencies and no one must escape this challenge.

Below is a  very interesting and relevant enquiry we received for the control of bush encroachment, together with Dix's reply.

Enquiry:
I have a problem with invader bush such as Soetdoring,Baster haak-en-steek, Swarthaak,Vals haak-en-steek, Driedoring, Kameeldoringboom, Gababos ,Mopanie, Sekelbos, Haak-en-steek.
I see you have 2 products , namely Bundu 500 SC (Active Ingredients: Tebuthiuron (250 g/l), Bromacil (250 g/l)) & Bushwacker (Active Ingredient: Bromacil (200g/kg)
Which of the 2 products would be the best for my use. I want to apply some by hand and some parts where bush is to thick, I want to use a airplane?
Could you please also send me the price of the 2 products and more information on how to apply and the quantity to apply to a bush.

Dix's Reply:
I discussed your situation with a few of our other very experienced guys and we summarize as follows: 
The control of bush with the products you mentioned are quite complex. Although Bundu SC (two active ingredients, to Bushwhacker's clean bromacil) would normally be our first choice, based on invasive plant variety, we would rather recommend more of a granular formulation for your situation.
The liquid herbicide we only recommend if someone have time to properly supervise and to manage the bush control extensively.
Spraying equipment constantly required carefull attention, while grains can be applied with the hand and eventually do the same work as a liquid spray.
The grains also have a 2-year shelf life, as the law requires, but is stable as long as the container stored away from moisture. So, instead Bushwhacker 200 GG, I'll rather recommend Limpopo 200 GG (tebuthiuron 200g/kg), BUT NOT FOR AERIAL APPLICATION!

Because of the many specialised complexity and severity of most situations, bush encroachment and the products involved are not just a blind easy recommendation to give. The risk factor for permanent and serious irreparable damage is great. I never recommend just a bunch of products that someone should purchase and hope it goes well. A telephonic, or in this case an electronic recommendation is almost a guaranteed future complaint. We never recommend that a new client start on a large scale with bush management - he'll have to start out small and take a look at how it works. One must look at things like bush density, species composition, soil clay content, etc. The client's history with regard to bush management is important and I will need to know how much experience you have had with management of bush encroachment?

The summer and the ideal time for bush management, is now almost over. The soil applied drugs should rather be applied early in the season, from September until end Feb / early March, - maybe it doesn't rain again and then the granules just lay on the ground where a wildfire can easily destroy it.

April McAlister wrote a very interesting and exciting article on the mediaclubsouthafrica.com site.
The South African National Energy Research Institute (Saneri) and the Department of Energy (DoE) have launched a pilot project aimed at turning Robben Island into a self-sufficient community that runs on green energy.
The project is expected to produce about 600KW from its various energy sources, which will replace the two diesel generators that currently power the island, resulting in an expected monthly saving of around R450 000 (US$64 500).
Click here to read the article....

The following are some excerpts from the article " Current range condition in southern Ethiopia in relation to traditional management strategies: The perceptions of Borana pastoralists." by AYANA ANGASSA AND FEKADU BEYENE, Department of Animal Production and Rangeland Management, Awassa College of Agriculture, Debub University, Awassa, Ethiopia
Visit this link to read the full article on the studies done.

Bush Encroachment, together with drought and overgrazing, has severe implications for the survival of the Borana pastoral system from Southern Ethiopia.

A survey was conducted in Dubluk, Medecho, Did-Hara, Did-Yabello, Web and Melbana grazing areas of Borana to analyse the pastoralists’ traditional practices and strategies for sustainable resource use.

The Borana pastoral system of southern Ethiopia, traditionally based on cattle husbandry for survival and income generation, has been effective over generations in producing animal products while maintaining rangeland resources. Borana pastoralists maintained genetically diverse stock and varied the composition of their herds to match local environmental characteristics. Herders moved livestock between the wara and fora herdmanagement systems depending upon the condition of the grazing lands and family milk needs. Large numbers of animals were sent to the fora herd during the dry season when forage resources became scarce in the wara herd’s grazing lands. Recent increases in human and livestock populations and decreases in the availability of grazing lands are putting the rangeland resource under increased pressure. In the last few decades, the development of water ponds has added further to grazing pressure on the rangelands. In the mid-1980s, about 19% of the area was affected by erosion, and about 40% of the grazing lands were covered by bush encroachment. Significant areas of the communal grazing lands have been converted to cultivation with even larger areas allocated to ranching. This has both restricted area available for communal grazing and increased grazing pressure on these areas.

Pastoralists indicated that bush encroachment became rampant more than 40 years ago, with most of the herbaceous vegetation composed of unpalatable species and valuable grasses are in a downward trend. The Borana pastoralists believed that, if this change continued unabated, the impact on sustainable resource use would be critical.
Currently, range condition has deteriorated with increasing bush encroachment by species such as Acacia drepanolobium and A. brevispica associated with unpalatable grass, mostly Pennisetum mezianum and P. stramineum.

The current situation has severe implications for the survival of the Borana pastoral system. In 1990, the total numbers of cattle and camels per household were 43 and 2, respectively, and in 1994, after the 1991–92 drought, corresponding numbers were 14 and 2 (Alemayehu 1998). The Borana pastoral system has been subsistenceoriented, based on milk production, not only to form the main stay of human nutrition, but also to rear the calves, which would ensure the long-term continuity of the system. With the current deteriorated condition of the rangeland, this system is under serious threat.

Read the full article.

Author: Sean Ranger (This is a summarized version of Sean Ranger's article. Visit http://myfundi.co.za/ for the full article.)

Summary
In Africa, soil degradation accelerated after colonisation by European nations, but was exacerbated by several factors, including the mechanisation and commercialisation of agriculture, social systems such as overgrazing by cattle and the use of fertile land for non-agricultural purposes. The consequences are appalling: in South Africa, for instance,  an estimated ten percent of the 1,2 million hectares under irrigation has already been lost as a result of salinisation alone.

Bush encroachment in South Africa, as elsewhere, is a good indicator of soil degradation. Research has shown that the rate of degradation has been less severe in developing areas than in white-owned commercial areas. In these rural areas the veld was regularly burned and stocked with a high population of goats, which kept the bush in check.

Rates
Commercialisation replaced wild ungulates with cattle and sheep. Their preference for grazing gave the bush a free hand and it encroached on grassland. Sheep in particular are responsible as they are short grazers, meaning that they crop the grass down very close to the ground.
After 1950 scientific agricultural planning caused bush encroachment in the rural areas. This was accomplished through injudicious cultivation of non-arable land, which later had to be abandoned, with resultant bush encroachment. Interestingly, however, it has subsequently been discovered that bush encroachment has improved the fertility status of some soils to near-pristine levels.
It is generally agreed that soil degradation has accelerated on a global scale since World War II, even though there are no acceptable hard facts available to quantify it. Even so, these guesstimates are telling: The UN's FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation) estimates that between five and seven million hectares go out of production each year in Sub-Saharan Africa as a result of human-induced soil degradation.
The severity of this short summation of human-induced soil degradation is self-explanatory and obviously unsustainable and unacceptable. The large discrepancy between Burundi and the other countries is a result of the fact that this country's maize is produced on very steep slopes of 40 percent gradient, giving a clear indication of the effect slope has on accelerating the rate of topsoil loss from an area. The situation in South Africa is no different, with erosion rates twenty times as high as the world average. Estimates are that South Africa is losing 300 Mt or 2,5 t/ha/annum.

Consequences One of the first consequences of degraded soil is that the yield potential/carrying capacity of the soil is lowered, with a concomitant lowering in its capacity to produce aboveground biomass. Loss of aboveground biomass can have effects such as reduced harvests, diminished supplies of fuel wood and a reduced capacity to support stock.
Research indicates that a loss of 20-40 tons of topsoil per hectare can half crop yields on certain Alfisols that are a common soil type in much of Sub-Saharan Africa.
Consider, then, the extent of lost production against the loss of topsoil summarised in Table 1. This highlights the fact that yield losses are not only a symptom of nutrient loss in the soil. Nutrient losses, however, are astronomical.
In an FAO study conducted in Zimbabwe it was found that this country could be losing 1,6 million tons of nitrogen and 0,24 million tons of phosphorus per year through erosion. Replacement of nitrogen and phosphorus to these soils translates into US$1,5-billion at the 1985 price!
An inexpensive solution to this form of degradation is the application of agricultural fertilisers. This, however, should be weighed against the fact that these resources, too, are finite and that their incorrect application has caused, and is causing, environmental pollution on a global scale through the eutrification of fresh and saltwater resources.

Exposure of the surface soil to the elements has as its major effect a reduction in the capacity of the soil to store water. Four effects predominate with the removal of the vegetative cover:
Ø     Exposure of the soil to the beating action of rain, causing the physical dispersion of the surface soil layer, resulting in crusting and splash erosion.
Ø     Organic matter in the surface layer of topsoil is reduced to very low levels. This reduces cementing and stability of the soil structure. Reduced soil organic matter leaves the soil more prone to crusting and erosion.
Ø     Crusting causes poor water infiltration, with the effect of reduced replenishment to groundwater and increased run-off. Crusting reduces the germination of seedlings and thus revegetation of bare patches.
Ø     Degradation of vegetation on steep, rocky slopes leads to greatly increased run-off, flash floods and accelerated erosion on lower slopes.
Quite apparent from this is the fact that each of the above-mentioned results is mutually reinforcing in that the presence of one is an aggravating factor for the other.

Water erosion has the following effects on hydrology:
Ø     Water erosion reduces the amount of soil that remains in situ and as such reduces its water storage capacity. Reduced storage of water within the soil profile dramatically reduces plants' capability to survive spells of drought between rain events.
Ø     Erosion gullies act as canals that are efficient at draining water away from a catchment area, achieving the same end of reduced water storage. Watersheds are like large sponges that slowly release water and as such regulate stream flow. With gully erosion comes a change in the dynamics of the hydrology of a catchment area: once steadily-flowing perennial rivers become characterised by frequent periodic flooding and/or periodic abnormally low flow. In its worst form, once perennial rivers become seasonal.
Ø     With the increased velocity of water flowing out of a watershed comes an increase in the sediment load carried by the river, which results in silting up of dams - to the detriment of all those dependent on water. The Welbedacht Dam is a good example. This dam was conducted in 1973 to serve as the main water reservoir for Bloemfontein. By 1993, however, it had silted up to such an extent that its storage capacity had shrunk from 114 million cubic metres to seventeen million cubic metres.
Alteration in the hydrology of an entire watershed such as this one has the effect of making the area prone to the effects of drought.
The building of the Aswan Dam in the Nile River valley is a particularly good example of chemical degradation that can be expected when a river's flow is interrupted by the construction of a dam such as this. The Nile valley is the only significant area of deep, fertile, level soil available in Africa. The construction of the Aswan Dam has drastically changed the hydrology of this river system, resulting in increased salinity and barren soil.
Here the changes in hydrology have reduced flooding that has interrupted the deposition of fertile soil and the flushing of salts from the system. The bulk of salts flushed from the Sudanese irrigation schemes now end up in the Aswan Dam, accelerating salinisation. The Nile delta is severely degraded, while the area below the dam is moderately so. Above the dam, in the Sudanese irrigation schemes such as Gezira, all is well.

In South Africa there are 1,2 million hectares under irrigation and an estimated ten percent of this area has been lost as a result of salinisation.

Below are a few main points from a presentation Dix presented to Komatiland (Wilgeboom Field Day) in October 2010. The presentation was about why Weed Control and Weed Control Programmes sometimes fail to produce the desired results.

Why do spraying, or other weed control methods, sometimes have poor results?
-  Weather conditions: Rain – Watch for rainfastness on the label.
                                    Low temperatures
                                    Wind drift
-  Inactive Weed growth. Weeds under stress.
-  Stage of Weed Growth: Insufficient foliage
                                          Weeds to large
                                          Insufficient germination
-  Wrong Product: Does not control specie
                             Resistance
-  Product not used correctly: Failure to read the label
                                                Failure to follow recommendations /instructions
-  Incorrect Application Rates: Wrong Mixtures
                                                Incorrect Calibration
                                                Incorrect water volumes
-  Incorrect application method
-  Incorrect application equipment

Why do weed control programmes sometimes fail to produce the desired results?
-  Inadequate planning
-  Herbicide: Incorrect choice
                    Incorrect usage due to
                                 a. failure to read the label
                                 b. failure to follow recommendations
                                 c. insufficient product knowledge
-  Poor Timing
-  Poor Budgeting
-  Lack of Follow-up
-  Inadequate resources: Incorrect Equipment
                                         Equipment faulty or in poor condition
                                         Insufficient labour, equipment & transport
-  Incorrect Application
-  Poor selection of operators or contractor.
-  Untrained supervisors and operators.
-  Inadequate supervision
-  No Report back: On Results
                              On progress
                              On costs
                              On problems being experienced
-  NO FOLLOW-UP
-  Lack of commitment and/or lack of interest

Avoid weed resistance by following the label recommendations. Do not try “Cost Savings” by reducing product and/or water rates

Leave a comment.
Contact us if you are interested in more information.