❓ A parliamentary question regarding locust control measures in WA, specifically concerning the Department of Agriculture and Food's actions and support for farmers. The Minister acknowledges challenges but asserts the overall success of the program.
AnsweredQoN 1038Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
LOCUSTS - CONTROL MEASURES
Given that locusts in plague numbers have now reached York and that farmers near Kulin have suffered severe crop losses - (1) Is the minister confident that all steps to control locust numbers this year were taken by the Department of Agriculture and Food? (2) Did all monitoring and follow-up spraying take place within the required time frame to prevent the locusts reaching the winged stage of development? (3) Did the Department of Agriculture and Food provide farmers with chemicals for spraying when they were aware that they would be unable to meet that critical time frame? Hon KIM CHANCE
Given that locusts in plague numbers have now reached York and that farmers near Kulin have suffered severe crop losses - (1) Is the minister confident that all steps to control locust numbers this year were taken by the Department of Agriculture and Food? (2) Did all monitoring and follow-up spraying take place within the required time frame to prevent the locusts reaching the winged stage of development? (3) Did the Department of Agriculture and Food provide farmers with chemicals for spraying when they were aware that they would be unable to meet that critical time frame? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) Yes. (3) I will have to seek that information. Generally, the locust program has been very successful. It set out to control about 70 per cent of the total locust biomass. However, without counting the numbers, because that is always fairly subjective, the objective aim of the locust campaign is to prevent the formation of large, damaging swarms of locusts on the wing. The information I have, which I believe has been publicly released today, is that, despite the fact that the 2006 locust plague has occurred in ideal climatic conditions for locusts - they enjoy these conditions - we have not seen the formation of large, flying swarms. That suggests to me, although I do not have precise information from the department, that perhaps the spraying campaign has created a more effective kill than we had first thought. Although the 2000 campaign was considered to be very successful, the formation of some large high-intensity swarms still occurred; whereas this year we have not seen the formation of those big swarms. I am looking forward to getting more information on that. I concede that we were caught somewhat by surprise by the issues around Lake Grace, and that complicated the situation somewhat. A larger number of aquaculture operations exist in that area than we had first thought, and that required spraying not by air but by ground rig. Although the same chemical is used by aerial spraying and ground rig, different formulations are used. In the air the straight aerial formulation of Fenitrothion is used, whereas ground rigs use an EC formulation, which I think is the amount of surfactant that goes in with the mix. The conversion to ground rig spraying because of the presence of those aquaculture operations meant that spraying was held up by a day or two. However, generally speaking, I believe the campaign has been extremely successful. It has certainly been a challenging one. I thank the honourable member for asking the question, because it gives me the opportunity to recognise the tremendous job that the Department of Agriculture and Food and farmers, working together, have been able to carry out. Up to 200 employees of the Department of Agriculture and Food have been working on this campaign. They have worked massive hours each day. The contractors who have been a part of the campaign - I think there were some 15 ground contractors and nine aerial contractors - have done a tremendous job. Although it is a challenge, and locusts are awful things that everyone gets upset about, I think we can take our hats off to those people in the field who did such a great job.
(1) Is the minister confident that all steps to control locust numbers this year were taken by the Department of Agriculture and Food? (2) Did all monitoring and follow-up spraying take place within the required time frame to prevent the locusts reaching the winged stage of development? (3) Did the Department of Agriculture and Food provide farmers with chemicals for spraying when they were aware that they would be unable to meet that critical time frame? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) Yes. (3) I will have to seek that information. Generally, the locust program has been very successful. It set out to control about 70 per cent of the total locust biomass. However, without counting the numbers, because that is always fairly subjective, the objective aim of the locust campaign is to prevent the formation of large, damaging swarms of locusts on the wing. The information I have, which I believe has been publicly released today, is that, despite the fact that the 2006 locust plague has occurred in ideal climatic conditions for locusts - they enjoy these conditions - we have not seen the formation of large, flying swarms. That suggests to me, although I do not have precise information from the department, that perhaps the spraying campaign has created a more effective kill than we had first thought. Although the 2000 campaign was considered to be very successful, the formation of some large high-intensity swarms still occurred; whereas this year we have not seen the formation of those big swarms. I am looking forward to getting more information on that. I concede that we were caught somewhat by surprise by the issues around Lake Grace, and that complicated the situation somewhat. A larger number of aquaculture operations exist in that area than we had first thought, and that required spraying not by air but by ground rig. Although the same chemical is used by aerial spraying and ground rig, different formulations are used. In the air the straight aerial formulation of Fenitrothion is used, whereas ground rigs use an EC formulation, which I think is the amount of surfactant that goes in with the mix. The conversion to ground rig spraying because of the presence of those aquaculture operations meant that spraying was held up by a day or two. However, generally speaking, I believe the campaign has been extremely successful. It has certainly been a challenging one. I thank the honourable member for asking the question, because it gives me the opportunity to recognise the tremendous job that the Department of Agriculture and Food and farmers, working together, have been able to carry out. Up to 200 employees of the Department of Agriculture and Food have been working on this campaign. They have worked massive hours each day. The contractors who have been a part of the campaign - I think there were some 15 ground contractors and nine aerial contractors - have done a tremendous job. Although it is a challenge, and locusts are awful things that everyone gets upset about, I think we can take our hats off to those people in the field who did such a great job.
(2) Did all monitoring and follow-up spraying take place within the required time frame to prevent the locusts reaching the winged stage of development? (3) Did the Department of Agriculture and Food provide farmers with chemicals for spraying when they were aware that they would be unable to meet that critical time frame? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) Yes. (3) I will have to seek that information. Generally, the locust program has been very successful. It set out to control about 70 per cent of the total locust biomass. However, without counting the numbers, because that is always fairly subjective, the objective aim of the locust campaign is to prevent the formation of large, damaging swarms of locusts on the wing. The information I have, which I believe has been publicly released today, is that, despite the fact that the 2006 locust plague has occurred in ideal climatic conditions for locusts - they enjoy these conditions - we have not seen the formation of large, flying swarms. That suggests to me, although I do not have precise information from the department, that perhaps the spraying campaign has created a more effective kill than we had first thought. Although the 2000 campaign was considered to be very successful, the formation of some large high-intensity swarms still occurred; whereas this year we have not seen the formation of those big swarms. I am looking forward to getting more information on that. I concede that we were caught somewhat by surprise by the issues around Lake Grace, and that complicated the situation somewhat. A larger number of aquaculture operations exist in that area than we had first thought, and that required spraying not by air but by ground rig. Although the same chemical is used by aerial spraying and ground rig, different formulations are used. In the air the straight aerial formulation of Fenitrothion is used, whereas ground rigs use an EC formulation, which I think is the amount of surfactant that goes in with the mix. The conversion to ground rig spraying because of the presence of those aquaculture operations meant that spraying was held up by a day or two. However, generally speaking, I believe the campaign has been extremely successful. It has certainly been a challenging one. I thank the honourable member for asking the question, because it gives me the opportunity to recognise the tremendous job that the Department of Agriculture and Food and farmers, working together, have been able to carry out. Up to 200 employees of the Department of Agriculture and Food have been working on this campaign. They have worked massive hours each day. The contractors who have been a part of the campaign - I think there were some 15 ground contractors and nine aerial contractors - have done a tremendous job. Although it is a challenge, and locusts are awful things that everyone gets upset about, I think we can take our hats off to those people in the field who did such a great job.
(3) Did the Department of Agriculture and Food provide farmers with chemicals for spraying when they were aware that they would be unable to meet that critical time frame? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) Yes. (3) I will have to seek that information. Generally, the locust program has been very successful. It set out to control about 70 per cent of the total locust biomass. However, without counting the numbers, because that is always fairly subjective, the objective aim of the locust campaign is to prevent the formation of large, damaging swarms of locusts on the wing. The information I have, which I believe has been publicly released today, is that, despite the fact that the 2006 locust plague has occurred in ideal climatic conditions for locusts - they enjoy these conditions - we have not seen the formation of large, flying swarms. That suggests to me, although I do not have precise information from the department, that perhaps the spraying campaign has created a more effective kill than we had first thought. Although the 2000 campaign was considered to be very successful, the formation of some large high-intensity swarms still occurred; whereas this year we have not seen the formation of those big swarms. I am looking forward to getting more information on that. I concede that we were caught somewhat by surprise by the issues around Lake Grace, and that complicated the situation somewhat. A larger number of aquaculture operations exist in that area than we had first thought, and that required spraying not by air but by ground rig. Although the same chemical is used by aerial spraying and ground rig, different formulations are used. In the air the straight aerial formulation of Fenitrothion is used, whereas ground rigs use an EC formulation, which I think is the amount of surfactant that goes in with the mix. The conversion to ground rig spraying because of the presence of those aquaculture operations meant that spraying was held up by a day or two. However, generally speaking, I believe the campaign has been extremely successful. It has certainly been a challenging one. I thank the honourable member for asking the question, because it gives me the opportunity to recognise the tremendous job that the Department of Agriculture and Food and farmers, working together, have been able to carry out. Up to 200 employees of the Department of Agriculture and Food have been working on this campaign. They have worked massive hours each day. The contractors who have been a part of the campaign - I think there were some 15 ground contractors and nine aerial contractors - have done a tremendous job. Although it is a challenge, and locusts are awful things that everyone gets upset about, I think we can take our hats off to those people in the field who did such a great job.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) Yes. (3) I will have to seek that information. Generally, the locust program has been very successful. It set out to control about 70 per cent of the total locust biomass. However, without counting the numbers, because that is always fairly subjective, the objective aim of the locust campaign is to prevent the formation of large, damaging swarms of locusts on the wing. The information I have, which I believe has been publicly released today, is that, despite the fact that the 2006 locust plague has occurred in ideal climatic conditions for locusts - they enjoy these conditions - we have not seen the formation of large, flying swarms. That suggests to me, although I do not have precise information from the department, that perhaps the spraying campaign has created a more effective kill than we had first thought. Although the 2000 campaign was considered to be very successful, the formation of some large high-intensity swarms still occurred; whereas this year we have not seen the formation of those big swarms. I am looking forward to getting more information on that. I concede that we were caught somewhat by surprise by the issues around Lake Grace, and that complicated the situation somewhat. A larger number of aquaculture operations exist in that area than we had first thought, and that required spraying not by air but by ground rig. Although the same chemical is used by aerial spraying and ground rig, different formulations are used. In the air the straight aerial formulation of Fenitrothion is used, whereas ground rigs use an EC formulation, which I think is the amount of surfactant that goes in with the mix. The conversion to ground rig spraying because of the presence of those aquaculture operations meant that spraying was held up by a day or two. However, generally speaking, I believe the campaign has been extremely successful. It has certainly been a challenging one. I thank the honourable member for asking the question, because it gives me the opportunity to recognise the tremendous job that the Department of Agriculture and Food and farmers, working together, have been able to carry out. Up to 200 employees of the Department of Agriculture and Food have been working on this campaign. They have worked massive hours each day. The contractors who have been a part of the campaign - I think there were some 15 ground contractors and nine aerial contractors - have done a tremendous job. Although it is a challenge, and locusts are awful things that everyone gets upset about, I think we can take our hats off to those people in the field who did such a great job.
(1)-(2) Yes. (3) I will have to seek that information. Generally, the locust program has been very successful. It set out to control about 70 per cent of the total locust biomass. However, without counting the numbers, because that is always fairly subjective, the objective aim of the locust campaign is to prevent the formation of large, damaging swarms of locusts on the wing. The information I have, which I believe has been publicly released today, is that, despite the fact that the 2006 locust plague has occurred in ideal climatic conditions for locusts - they enjoy these conditions - we have not seen the formation of large, flying swarms. That suggests to me, although I do not have precise information from the department, that perhaps the spraying campaign has created a more effective kill than we had first thought. Although the 2000 campaign was considered to be very successful, the formation of some large high-intensity swarms still occurred; whereas this year we have not seen the formation of those big swarms. I am looking forward to getting more information on that. I concede that we were caught somewhat by surprise by the issues around Lake Grace, and that complicated the situation somewhat. A larger number of aquaculture operations exist in that area than we had first thought, and that required spraying not by air but by ground rig. Although the same chemical is used by aerial spraying and ground rig, different formulations are used. In the air the straight aerial formulation of Fenitrothion is used, whereas ground rigs use an EC formulation, which I think is the amount of surfactant that goes in with the mix. The conversion to ground rig spraying because of the presence of those aquaculture operations meant that spraying was held up by a day or two. However, generally speaking, I believe the campaign has been extremely successful. It has certainly been a challenging one. I thank the honourable member for asking the question, because it gives me the opportunity to recognise the tremendous job that the Department of Agriculture and Food and farmers, working together, have been able to carry out. Up to 200 employees of the Department of Agriculture and Food have been working on this campaign. They have worked massive hours each day. The contractors who have been a part of the campaign - I think there were some 15 ground contractors and nine aerial contractors - have done a tremendous job. Although it is a challenge, and locusts are awful things that everyone gets upset about, I think we can take our hats off to those people in the field who did such a great job.
(3) I will have to seek that information. Generally, the locust program has been very successful. It set out to control about 70 per cent of the total locust biomass. However, without counting the numbers, because that is always fairly subjective, the objective aim of the locust campaign is to prevent the formation of large, damaging swarms of locusts on the wing. The information I have, which I believe has been publicly released today, is that, despite the fact that the 2006 locust plague has occurred in ideal climatic conditions for locusts - they enjoy these conditions - we have not seen the formation of large, flying swarms. That suggests to me, although I do not have precise information from the department, that perhaps the spraying campaign has created a more effective kill than we had first thought. Although the 2000 campaign was considered to be very successful, the formation of some large high-intensity swarms still occurred; whereas this year we have not seen the formation of those big swarms. I am looking forward to getting more information on that. I concede that we were caught somewhat by surprise by the issues around Lake Grace, and that complicated the situation somewhat. A larger number of aquaculture operations exist in that area than we had first thought, and that required spraying not by air but by ground rig. Although the same chemical is used by aerial spraying and ground rig, different formulations are used. In the air the straight aerial formulation of Fenitrothion is used, whereas ground rigs use an EC formulation, which I think is the amount of surfactant that goes in with the mix. The conversion to ground rig spraying because of the presence of those aquaculture operations meant that spraying was held up by a day or two. However, generally speaking, I believe the campaign has been extremely successful. It has certainly been a challenging one. I thank the honourable member for asking the question, because it gives me the opportunity to recognise the tremendous job that the Department of Agriculture and Food and farmers, working together, have been able to carry out. Up to 200 employees of the Department of Agriculture and Food have been working on this campaign. They have worked massive hours each day. The contractors who have been a part of the campaign - I think there were some 15 ground contractors and nine aerial contractors - have done a tremendous job. Although it is a challenge, and locusts are awful things that everyone gets upset about, I think we can take our hats off to those people in the field who did such a great job.
Generally, the locust program has been very successful. It set out to control about 70 per cent of the total locust biomass. However, without counting the numbers, because that is always fairly subjective, the objective aim of the locust campaign is to prevent the formation of large, damaging swarms of locusts on the wing. The information I have, which I believe has been publicly released today, is that, despite the fact that the 2006 locust plague has occurred in ideal climatic conditions for locusts - they enjoy these conditions - we have not seen the formation of large, flying swarms. That suggests to me, although I do not have precise information from the department, that perhaps the spraying campaign has created a more effective kill than we had first thought. Although the 2000 campaign was considered to be very successful, the formation of some large high-intensity swarms still occurred; whereas this year we have not seen the formation of those big swarms. I am looking forward to getting more information on that. I concede that we were caught somewhat by surprise by the issues around Lake Grace, and that complicated the situation somewhat. A larger number of aquaculture operations exist in that area than we had first thought, and that required spraying not by air but by ground rig. Although the same chemical is used by aerial spraying and ground rig, different formulations are used. In the air the straight aerial formulation of Fenitrothion is used, whereas ground rigs use an EC formulation, which I think is the amount of surfactant that goes in with the mix. The conversion to ground rig spraying because of the presence of those aquaculture operations meant that spraying was held up by a day or two. However, generally speaking, I believe the campaign has been extremely successful. It has certainly been a challenging one. I thank the honourable member for asking the question, because it gives me the opportunity to recognise the tremendous job that the Department of Agriculture and Food and farmers, working together, have been able to carry out. Up to 200 employees of the Department of Agriculture and Food have been working on this campaign. They have worked massive hours each day. The contractors who have been a part of the campaign - I think there were some 15 ground contractors and nine aerial contractors - have done a tremendous job. Although it is a challenge, and locusts are awful things that everyone gets upset about, I think we can take our hats off to those people in the field who did such a great job.
I concede that we were caught somewhat by surprise by the issues around Lake Grace, and that complicated the situation somewhat. A larger number of aquaculture operations exist in that area than we had first thought, and that required spraying not by air but by ground rig. Although the same chemical is used by aerial spraying and ground rig, different formulations are used. In the air the straight aerial formulation of Fenitrothion is used, whereas ground rigs use an EC formulation, which I think is the amount of surfactant that goes in with the mix. The conversion to ground rig spraying because of the presence of those aquaculture operations meant that spraying was held up by a day or two. However, generally speaking, I believe the campaign has been extremely successful. It has certainly been a challenging one. I thank the honourable member for asking the question, because it gives me the opportunity to recognise the tremendous job that the Department of Agriculture and Food and farmers, working together, have been able to carry out. Up to 200 employees of the Department of Agriculture and Food have been working on this campaign. They have worked massive hours each day. The contractors who have been a part of the campaign - I think there were some 15 ground contractors and nine aerial contractors - have done a tremendous job. Although it is a challenge, and locusts are awful things that everyone gets upset about, I think we can take our hats off to those people in the field who did such a great job.
I thank the honourable member for asking the question, because it gives me the opportunity to recognise the tremendous job that the Department of Agriculture and Food and farmers, working together, have been able to carry out. Up to 200 employees of the Department of Agriculture and Food have been working on this campaign. They have worked massive hours each day. The contractors who have been a part of the campaign - I think there were some 15 ground contractors and nine aerial contractors - have done a tremendous job. Although it is a challenge, and locusts are awful things that everyone gets upset about, I think we can take our hats off to those people in the field who did such a great job.
(1) Is the minister confident that all steps to control locust numbers this year were taken by the Department of Agriculture and Food? (2) Did all monitoring and follow-up spraying take place within the required time frame to prevent the locusts reaching the winged stage of development? (3) Did the Department of Agriculture and Food provide farmers with chemicals for spraying when they were aware that they would be unable to meet that critical time frame? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) Yes. (3) I will have to seek that information. Generally, the locust program has been very successful. It set out to control about 70 per cent of the total locust biomass. However, without counting the numbers, because that is always fairly subjective, the objective aim of the locust campaign is to prevent the formation of large, damaging swarms of locusts on the wing. The information I have, which I believe has been publicly released today, is that, despite the fact that the 2006 locust plague has occurred in ideal climatic conditions for locusts - they enjoy these conditions - we have not seen the formation of large, flying swarms. That suggests to me, although I do not have precise information from the department, that perhaps the spraying campaign has created a more effective kill than we had first thought. Although the 2000 campaign was considered to be very successful, the formation of some large high-intensity swarms still occurred; whereas this year we have not seen the formation of those big swarms. I am looking forward to getting more information on that. I concede that we were caught somewhat by surprise by the issues around Lake Grace, and that complicated the situation somewhat. A larger number of aquaculture operations exist in that area than we had first thought, and that required spraying not by air but by ground rig. Although the same chemical is used by aerial spraying and ground rig, different formulations are used. In the air the straight aerial formulation of Fenitrothion is used, whereas ground rigs use an EC formulation, which I think is the amount of surfactant that goes in with the mix. The conversion to ground rig spraying because of the presence of those aquaculture operations meant that spraying was held up by a day or two. However, generally speaking, I believe the campaign has been extremely successful. It has certainly been a challenging one. I thank the honourable member for asking the question, because it gives me the opportunity to recognise the tremendous job that the Department of Agriculture and Food and farmers, working together, have been able to carry out. Up to 200 employees of the Department of Agriculture and Food have been working on this campaign. They have worked massive hours each day. The contractors who have been a part of the campaign - I think there were some 15 ground contractors and nine aerial contractors - have done a tremendous job. Although it is a challenge, and locusts are awful things that everyone gets upset about, I think we can take our hats off to those people in the field who did such a great job.
(2) Did all monitoring and follow-up spraying take place within the required time frame to prevent the locusts reaching the winged stage of development? (3) Did the Department of Agriculture and Food provide farmers with chemicals for spraying when they were aware that they would be unable to meet that critical time frame? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) Yes. (3) I will have to seek that information. Generally, the locust program has been very successful. It set out to control about 70 per cent of the total locust biomass. However, without counting the numbers, because that is always fairly subjective, the objective aim of the locust campaign is to prevent the formation of large, damaging swarms of locusts on the wing. The information I have, which I believe has been publicly released today, is that, despite the fact that the 2006 locust plague has occurred in ideal climatic conditions for locusts - they enjoy these conditions - we have not seen the formation of large, flying swarms. That suggests to me, although I do not have precise information from the department, that perhaps the spraying campaign has created a more effective kill than we had first thought. Although the 2000 campaign was considered to be very successful, the formation of some large high-intensity swarms still occurred; whereas this year we have not seen the formation of those big swarms. I am looking forward to getting more information on that. I concede that we were caught somewhat by surprise by the issues around Lake Grace, and that complicated the situation somewhat. A larger number of aquaculture operations exist in that area than we had first thought, and that required spraying not by air but by ground rig. Although the same chemical is used by aerial spraying and ground rig, different formulations are used. In the air the straight aerial formulation of Fenitrothion is used, whereas ground rigs use an EC formulation, which I think is the amount of surfactant that goes in with the mix. The conversion to ground rig spraying because of the presence of those aquaculture operations meant that spraying was held up by a day or two. However, generally speaking, I believe the campaign has been extremely successful. It has certainly been a challenging one. I thank the honourable member for asking the question, because it gives me the opportunity to recognise the tremendous job that the Department of Agriculture and Food and farmers, working together, have been able to carry out. Up to 200 employees of the Department of Agriculture and Food have been working on this campaign. They have worked massive hours each day. The contractors who have been a part of the campaign - I think there were some 15 ground contractors and nine aerial contractors - have done a tremendous job. Although it is a challenge, and locusts are awful things that everyone gets upset about, I think we can take our hats off to those people in the field who did such a great job.
(3) Did the Department of Agriculture and Food provide farmers with chemicals for spraying when they were aware that they would be unable to meet that critical time frame? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) Yes. (3) I will have to seek that information. Generally, the locust program has been very successful. It set out to control about 70 per cent of the total locust biomass. However, without counting the numbers, because that is always fairly subjective, the objective aim of the locust campaign is to prevent the formation of large, damaging swarms of locusts on the wing. The information I have, which I believe has been publicly released today, is that, despite the fact that the 2006 locust plague has occurred in ideal climatic conditions for locusts - they enjoy these conditions - we have not seen the formation of large, flying swarms. That suggests to me, although I do not have precise information from the department, that perhaps the spraying campaign has created a more effective kill than we had first thought. Although the 2000 campaign was considered to be very successful, the formation of some large high-intensity swarms still occurred; whereas this year we have not seen the formation of those big swarms. I am looking forward to getting more information on that. I concede that we were caught somewhat by surprise by the issues around Lake Grace, and that complicated the situation somewhat. A larger number of aquaculture operations exist in that area than we had first thought, and that required spraying not by air but by ground rig. Although the same chemical is used by aerial spraying and ground rig, different formulations are used. In the air the straight aerial formulation of Fenitrothion is used, whereas ground rigs use an EC formulation, which I think is the amount of surfactant that goes in with the mix. The conversion to ground rig spraying because of the presence of those aquaculture operations meant that spraying was held up by a day or two. However, generally speaking, I believe the campaign has been extremely successful. It has certainly been a challenging one. I thank the honourable member for asking the question, because it gives me the opportunity to recognise the tremendous job that the Department of Agriculture and Food and farmers, working together, have been able to carry out. Up to 200 employees of the Department of Agriculture and Food have been working on this campaign. They have worked massive hours each day. The contractors who have been a part of the campaign - I think there were some 15 ground contractors and nine aerial contractors - have done a tremendous job. Although it is a challenge, and locusts are awful things that everyone gets upset about, I think we can take our hats off to those people in the field who did such a great job.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) Yes. (3) I will have to seek that information. Generally, the locust program has been very successful. It set out to control about 70 per cent of the total locust biomass. However, without counting the numbers, because that is always fairly subjective, the objective aim of the locust campaign is to prevent the formation of large, damaging swarms of locusts on the wing. The information I have, which I believe has been publicly released today, is that, despite the fact that the 2006 locust plague has occurred in ideal climatic conditions for locusts - they enjoy these conditions - we have not seen the formation of large, flying swarms. That suggests to me, although I do not have precise information from the department, that perhaps the spraying campaign has created a more effective kill than we had first thought. Although the 2000 campaign was considered to be very successful, the formation of some large high-intensity swarms still occurred; whereas this year we have not seen the formation of those big swarms. I am looking forward to getting more information on that. I concede that we were caught somewhat by surprise by the issues around Lake Grace, and that complicated the situation somewhat. A larger number of aquaculture operations exist in that area than we had first thought, and that required spraying not by air but by ground rig. Although the same chemical is used by aerial spraying and ground rig, different formulations are used. In the air the straight aerial formulation of Fenitrothion is used, whereas ground rigs use an EC formulation, which I think is the amount of surfactant that goes in with the mix. The conversion to ground rig spraying because of the presence of those aquaculture operations meant that spraying was held up by a day or two. However, generally speaking, I believe the campaign has been extremely successful. It has certainly been a challenging one. I thank the honourable member for asking the question, because it gives me the opportunity to recognise the tremendous job that the Department of Agriculture and Food and farmers, working together, have been able to carry out. Up to 200 employees of the Department of Agriculture and Food have been working on this campaign. They have worked massive hours each day. The contractors who have been a part of the campaign - I think there were some 15 ground contractors and nine aerial contractors - have done a tremendous job. Although it is a challenge, and locusts are awful things that everyone gets upset about, I think we can take our hats off to those people in the field who did such a great job.
(1)-(2) Yes. (3) I will have to seek that information. Generally, the locust program has been very successful. It set out to control about 70 per cent of the total locust biomass. However, without counting the numbers, because that is always fairly subjective, the objective aim of the locust campaign is to prevent the formation of large, damaging swarms of locusts on the wing. The information I have, which I believe has been publicly released today, is that, despite the fact that the 2006 locust plague has occurred in ideal climatic conditions for locusts - they enjoy these conditions - we have not seen the formation of large, flying swarms. That suggests to me, although I do not have precise information from the department, that perhaps the spraying campaign has created a more effective kill than we had first thought. Although the 2000 campaign was considered to be very successful, the formation of some large high-intensity swarms still occurred; whereas this year we have not seen the formation of those big swarms. I am looking forward to getting more information on that. I concede that we were caught somewhat by surprise by the issues around Lake Grace, and that complicated the situation somewhat. A larger number of aquaculture operations exist in that area than we had first thought, and that required spraying not by air but by ground rig. Although the same chemical is used by aerial spraying and ground rig, different formulations are used. In the air the straight aerial formulation of Fenitrothion is used, whereas ground rigs use an EC formulation, which I think is the amount of surfactant that goes in with the mix. The conversion to ground rig spraying because of the presence of those aquaculture operations meant that spraying was held up by a day or two. However, generally speaking, I believe the campaign has been extremely successful. It has certainly been a challenging one. I thank the honourable member for asking the question, because it gives me the opportunity to recognise the tremendous job that the Department of Agriculture and Food and farmers, working together, have been able to carry out. Up to 200 employees of the Department of Agriculture and Food have been working on this campaign. They have worked massive hours each day. The contractors who have been a part of the campaign - I think there were some 15 ground contractors and nine aerial contractors - have done a tremendous job. Although it is a challenge, and locusts are awful things that everyone gets upset about, I think we can take our hats off to those people in the field who did such a great job.
(3) I will have to seek that information. Generally, the locust program has been very successful. It set out to control about 70 per cent of the total locust biomass. However, without counting the numbers, because that is always fairly subjective, the objective aim of the locust campaign is to prevent the formation of large, damaging swarms of locusts on the wing. The information I have, which I believe has been publicly released today, is that, despite the fact that the 2006 locust plague has occurred in ideal climatic conditions for locusts - they enjoy these conditions - we have not seen the formation of large, flying swarms. That suggests to me, although I do not have precise information from the department, that perhaps the spraying campaign has created a more effective kill than we had first thought. Although the 2000 campaign was considered to be very successful, the formation of some large high-intensity swarms still occurred; whereas this year we have not seen the formation of those big swarms. I am looking forward to getting more information on that. I concede that we were caught somewhat by surprise by the issues around Lake Grace, and that complicated the situation somewhat. A larger number of aquaculture operations exist in that area than we had first thought, and that required spraying not by air but by ground rig. Although the same chemical is used by aerial spraying and ground rig, different formulations are used. In the air the straight aerial formulation of Fenitrothion is used, whereas ground rigs use an EC formulation, which I think is the amount of surfactant that goes in with the mix. The conversion to ground rig spraying because of the presence of those aquaculture operations meant that spraying was held up by a day or two. However, generally speaking, I believe the campaign has been extremely successful. It has certainly been a challenging one. I thank the honourable member for asking the question, because it gives me the opportunity to recognise the tremendous job that the Department of Agriculture and Food and farmers, working together, have been able to carry out. Up to 200 employees of the Department of Agriculture and Food have been working on this campaign. They have worked massive hours each day. The contractors who have been a part of the campaign - I think there were some 15 ground contractors and nine aerial contractors - have done a tremendous job. Although it is a challenge, and locusts are awful things that everyone gets upset about, I think we can take our hats off to those people in the field who did such a great job.
Generally, the locust program has been very successful. It set out to control about 70 per cent of the total locust biomass. However, without counting the numbers, because that is always fairly subjective, the objective aim of the locust campaign is to prevent the formation of large, damaging swarms of locusts on the wing. The information I have, which I believe has been publicly released today, is that, despite the fact that the 2006 locust plague has occurred in ideal climatic conditions for locusts - they enjoy these conditions - we have not seen the formation of large, flying swarms. That suggests to me, although I do not have precise information from the department, that perhaps the spraying campaign has created a more effective kill than we had first thought. Although the 2000 campaign was considered to be very successful, the formation of some large high-intensity swarms still occurred; whereas this year we have not seen the formation of those big swarms. I am looking forward to getting more information on that. I concede that we were caught somewhat by surprise by the issues around Lake Grace, and that complicated the situation somewhat. A larger number of aquaculture operations exist in that area than we had first thought, and that required spraying not by air but by ground rig. Although the same chemical is used by aerial spraying and ground rig, different formulations are used. In the air the straight aerial formulation of Fenitrothion is used, whereas ground rigs use an EC formulation, which I think is the amount of surfactant that goes in with the mix. The conversion to ground rig spraying because of the presence of those aquaculture operations meant that spraying was held up by a day or two. However, generally speaking, I believe the campaign has been extremely successful. It has certainly been a challenging one. I thank the honourable member for asking the question, because it gives me the opportunity to recognise the tremendous job that the Department of Agriculture and Food and farmers, working together, have been able to carry out. Up to 200 employees of the Department of Agriculture and Food have been working on this campaign. They have worked massive hours each day. The contractors who have been a part of the campaign - I think there were some 15 ground contractors and nine aerial contractors - have done a tremendous job. Although it is a challenge, and locusts are awful things that everyone gets upset about, I think we can take our hats off to those people in the field who did such a great job.
I concede that we were caught somewhat by surprise by the issues around Lake Grace, and that complicated the situation somewhat. A larger number of aquaculture operations exist in that area than we had first thought, and that required spraying not by air but by ground rig. Although the same chemical is used by aerial spraying and ground rig, different formulations are used. In the air the straight aerial formulation of Fenitrothion is used, whereas ground rigs use an EC formulation, which I think is the amount of surfactant that goes in with the mix. The conversion to ground rig spraying because of the presence of those aquaculture operations meant that spraying was held up by a day or two. However, generally speaking, I believe the campaign has been extremely successful. It has certainly been a challenging one. I thank the honourable member for asking the question, because it gives me the opportunity to recognise the tremendous job that the Department of Agriculture and Food and farmers, working together, have been able to carry out. Up to 200 employees of the Department of Agriculture and Food have been working on this campaign. They have worked massive hours each day. The contractors who have been a part of the campaign - I think there were some 15 ground contractors and nine aerial contractors - have done a tremendous job. Although it is a challenge, and locusts are awful things that everyone gets upset about, I think we can take our hats off to those people in the field who did such a great job.
I thank the honourable member for asking the question, because it gives me the opportunity to recognise the tremendous job that the Department of Agriculture and Food and farmers, working together, have been able to carry out. Up to 200 employees of the Department of Agriculture and Food have been working on this campaign. They have worked massive hours each day. The contractors who have been a part of the campaign - I think there were some 15 ground contractors and nine aerial contractors - have done a tremendous job. Although it is a challenge, and locusts are awful things that everyone gets upset about, I think we can take our hats off to those people in the field who did such a great job.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.