Commercial Kitchen Ecology | شركة حلول مولدن | Molden Technical Solutions

English Description:

Commercial kitchen exhaust systems must manage grease particles, odors, and airborne contaminants.

Ecology units can support exhaust air treatment through suitable filtration and treatment technologies.

Why it matters:
Proper exhaust air treatment contributes to effective kitchen ventilation and environmental management.

Engineering solutions:
• Evaluate kitchen exhaust airflow.
• Inspect ecology unit components.
• Measure pressure drop and operating conditions.
• Assess filtration and treatment requirements.
• Identify deficiencies and recommend corrective actions.

الشرح بالعربية:

تنتج المطابخ التجارية جسيمات دهنية وروائح وملوثات تتطلب معالجة مناسبة لهواء العادم.

الأهمية:
تساعد وحدات الإيكولوجي على دعم معالجة الهواء وتحسين أداء أنظمة سحب المطابخ.

الحلول الهندسية:
• تقييم تدفق هواء العادم.
• فحص مكونات وحدات المعالجة.
• قياس فرق الضغط وظروف التشغيل.
• تقييم متطلبات الترشيح والمعالجة.
• تحديد الملاحظات واقتراح الحلول.

Company Information | معلومات الشركة

شركة حلول مولدن الفنية للاستشارات ذ.م.م
Molden Technical Solutions for Consulting Co. W.L.L. (MTSC)

Address: Al-Murqab, Omar Bin Al-Khattab Street, Kuwait City, Kuwait
Phone: +965 2228 6582
Mobile: +965 9751 7450
Fax: +965 2228 6583
Website: www.mtscco.com
Email: [info@mtscco.com](mailto:info@mtscco.com)

ENGINEERING PERFORMANCE. VERIFIED.

#MTSC #EcologyUnits #CommercialKitchens #KitchenVentilation #AirTreatment

Hey all! I’m pretty sure this is the right sub?

I have a creek in my backyard in New Jersey that is spring fed and I‘m really interested in possible restoration if possible. I do NOT know what I’m doing (16 year old who hasn’t researched anything like this before).

It‘s a small creek that runs through my family’s property, into my one neighbors property, and then into the main stem of a river. Behind our property, my family does not mow even remotely close to the stream, and it’s a nice habitat from what I can tell. None of us know what we’re doing and I’m the one mostly involved right now with some help from my dad.

Recently, this past year, I’ve been getting more and more interested in it. I trout fish a lot and one day I decided to measure the water temperature for fishing the main river but I crossed the creek and decided I’d measure the temperature out of curiosity. That day it was high 80’s air temperature and the water temperature was between 55-56 degrees! I also found a state-threatened salamander species known as the long-tailed salamander by the creek (I’m pretty sure). I thought maybe I’d mention that. I’m pretty sure it’s a good water quality indicator no?

Though here’s why I’m interested in restoring it. I remember my dad telling me the creek was flowing more, much less weed-choke, much less sediment/muck, and overall filled with more fish life. That was a little bit more than a decade ago. He doesn’t remember much but mostly that. My mom is going to try and see if she can dig out some pictures of what it used to look like.

Clearly it seems like it’s not supposed to be the way it is (but I could be mistaken and that’s why I came here). I‘m not going to get ahead of myself and alter the stream “my way”. I want what’s best for it.

I have come up with some possible ideas with the little knowledge I have as to why the stream is the way it currently is.

1. Invasive waterwort: I‘m pretty sure this species of plant is the main plant that has choked this stream. It seems like that it has covered the stream all the way to the middle in most areas unlike the natives (that I could identify) which were much closer to the banks. I also have seen that the plant caused “clogging” in the stream and has stacked muck, silt, and organic matter. With this, I think the sandy/rocky bottom has mostly disappeared under the silt almost acting like a dam.
2. Maybe a leaking cess pool? This was an idea from my dad. If there’s an old sewage system, maybe I leaking nitrogen and phosphates into the creek causing things to bloom more, choking the stream? Again, just an idea. Also, there are no roads nearby or pesticides used.
3. My neighbors lawn? My dad recently remembered that there were more plants and trees by the stream by our neighbors lawn over a decade ago (he’s really not sure exactly how long ago, but it could be around the same time the stream started having plants choking it)? Maybe him making it a fully cut and unshaded lawn across the stream has had a decent toll on it?

I realize it could be several of these factors all at once too. If possible, I would hope that the stream could be restored to a rockier more sandy bottom I remember hearing talked about. It definitely had decent current and depth at one point… I believe from what my parents have said, especially my mom who went down to the creek a lot. I remember walking in it very recently and the bottom went to 3.5 under feet under water below the sediment I‘m pretty sure.

It seems like it MIGHT even be possible native brook trout habitat if there can be some sort of restoration done to where there’s aquatic insects, current, structure, depth, etc., which would be really neat and I wonder if it was a brook trout stream at one point in time. Though I do NOT plan on doing anything to the stream to alter it until I find out what is right for it. It may very well be the way it’s supposed to be right now, but I’m not sure. I’m also not trying to do anything illegal.

I apologize for my lack of knowledge. Information on this stream before it was like this is sparse unless I get to talk to my neighbor who’s lived by the stream for his entire life.

I attached some photos. The first good few pictures showcase the stream and vegetation itself, then the last few show the surrounding habitat (if that helps).

Thanks in advance.

we hope yall find this as cool as it was for us to work on!

When Susan Downes bought an old farmhouse in York, Western Australia, she had imagined a quiet life in the countryside, with a small garden to look after. Instead, she found herself the owner of a 200-hectare property, including a hill where old native trees had survived more than a century of grazing but much of the vegetation beneath them had disappeared.

Nearly two decades later, the 76-year-old retired general practitioner has turned a substantial part of the land into a conservation project. About 120 hectares have been restored, around 45,000 native seedlings have been planted, and 45 plant species have returned naturally from seeds already present in the soil. As reported by The Guardian, Downes is now working to ensure that the work continues long after she is gone.

Downes was in her 60s, widowed and with her children grown up, when she began looking for a home in the countryside. The farmhouse in York appealed to her, but the size of the property initially seemed impractical. A second visit changed her mind. At the back of the farm, she discovered Mount Mackie, a 295-metre hill where ancient York gums and wandoos had survived about 150 years of grazing. Much of the understorey had vanished, leaving the old trees as some of the most visible remnants of the original landscape.

“I felt a great connection to the land,” Downes told The Guardian.

She decided to buy the property and began looking for ways to restore it. Her first step was to obtain a small local grant to control foxes and feral cats. She then secured funding for 24,000 trees over three years, giving her the means to begin planting on a larger scale. Downes had started her professional career as a botanist, but restoring a large property required more than an interest in plants.

The work involved managing invasive animals, removing weeds, planting seedlings and organising the practical details of a long-term conservation effort. Today, the restoration covers 120 hectares of her working farm. The return of 45 plant species through the soil's natural seed bank has also contributed to the recovery of the landscape.

For Downes, restoring the land is only part of the task. She also wants to ensure that the area cannot be cleared again in the future. She is working to place the restored land under a conservation covenant, a legal arrangement that can protect land from certain forms of development or clearing. The project is supported by Friends of Mt Mackie, a local volunteer group with a core team of about eight people and more than 80 others who take part in organised planting and seed-collection days. Downes has also been thinking about who will look after the property in the future.

The deaths and dementia diagnoses of friends have made her more conscious of how uncertain the time available to complete a long-term project can be.

She told The Guardian that she wants the arrangements for the land's future responsibility to be firmly established. Her hope is that her children and grandchildren will be inspired by the work, while the wider community will continue to have access to the place. The project also has a cultural dimension.

Ballardong women from York visit Mount Mackie several times a year for cultural healing sessions. Downes is working with Ballardong elders to find an Aboriginal name for the hill. Planning is also under way for a reconciliation event in 2030, marking 200 years since European arrival in the region.

A decade after Madhya Pradesh forest department began reintroducing hard-ground barasingha in Satpura tiger reserve, the endangered deer has returned in strength, with its population growing to around 303 and three population units established across the landscape.

The next phase of the conservation programme will focus on linking at least six grasslands through dedicated corridors to allow the animals to move between feeding and breeding habitats.

The recovery marks a major step in efforts to secure the future of the hard-ground barasingha (Rucervus duvaucelii branderi), which had disappeared from the Satpura landscape because of habitat loss and hunting. Kanha tiger reserve remained its principal natural stronghold, making the creation of a second population important for reducing the risks of depending on a single landscape.

Satpura tiger reserve field director Rakhi Nanda said the recovery reflected the combined efforts of frontline forest personnel, senior officers, scientific collaborators and communities that voluntarily left their ancestral homes for wildlife conservation.

“The establishment of a breeding population of more than 300 barasingha and three meta populations is one of the most encouraging examples of successful wildlife reintroduction in the country,” Nanda said.

She said the next priority was to strengthen habitat connectivity and develop grassland corridors to secure the species’ long-term future.

The Satpura programme demonstrates how wildlife reintroduction can move beyond the transfer of animals to the establishment of a naturally breeding population. The challenge now is to ensure that habitat availability, connectivity and protection keep pace with the growing herd, she added.

The forest department launched the reintroduction programme in 2015, bringing animals from Kanha to Satpura. Between 2015 and 2026, approximately 135 barasingha were translocated to the reserve. Initially, the animals were kept in a predator-protected enclosure in the Bori landscape to help them acclimatise, breed and adapt before being released into the wild.

The programme’s success is now reflected in natural breeding and the growth of successive generations born in Satpura, say officials. The population has expanded to around 303, demonstrating that the reintroduced animals have adapted to local ecological conditions.

The three population units are associated with the Bori enclosure, Bori grasslands and Malini grasslands in the Churna range. Establishing multiple populations reduces dependence on a single location and creates opportunities for the species to expand across suitable habitats, officials say.

With the population crossing 300, forest managers are turning their attention to habitat connectivity. The proposed corridor network will link at least six grasslands, allowing barasingha to move between habitat patches in search of seasonal forage, water and breeding grounds.

The initiative is intended to reduce pressure on individual grasslands as the population grows. Better connectivity could also facilitate dispersal between population units and support demographic and genetic exchange, provided animals move safely between the habitats.

Developing the corridors will require identification of suitable movement routes, management of intervening habitats and regular monitoring of animal movement. Ensuring adequate forage, water and protection from disturbance throughout the year will be crucial to their success.

The recovery has also been supported by grassland restoration, including areas made available after villages were voluntarily relocated from the reserve’s core area.

These landscapes have provided opportunities to restore wildlife habitats and reduce pressures associated with grazing and human activity.

Management measures include promoting palatable native grasses, removing invasive weeds, maintaining open grasslands and improving water availability. Forest managers are also focusing on breeding and fawning areas, where adequate cover and protection are essential for the survival of young animals. As the population expands, the availability of connected grasslands and the carrying capacity of the habitat will become increasingly important.

The population of New Zealand’s endemic wētāpunga – believed to be the world’s heaviest insect – is officially “increasing” thanks to a groundbreaking breeding programme that has overseen the release of 11,000 insects into the wild.

“The future of wētāpunga is looking bright,” said Dr Chris Green, an honorary researcher at the department of conservation, who documented the success of the project for the New Zealand Journal of Zoology. Green co-authored a report released on 2 October that outlines the success of the breeding programme.

“Eleven thousand individuals for release is extraordinary and outstanding.”

A female wētāpunga can weigh as much as a mouse. Its body can grow up to 10cm long (nearly 4in) and its leg span can be as wide as 20cm.

It is the largest of 70 wētā species and was once found across parts of the North Island before predation from introduced species and habitat loss contributed to their decline. By the 1990s, they were considered “endangered” and are now presumed extinct in the wild on New Zealand’s mainland. The insects reside primarily on a smattering of predator-free islands in Auckland’s Hauraki Gulf and off the coast of Northland.

But their fortune is starting to change. Over the past 15 years, tens of thousands of wētāpunga have been bred at Butterfly Creek, a wildlife facility, and Auckland zoo, enabling the release of wētāpunga across new predator-free islands and some mainland reserves north of Auckland.

Butterfly Creek and Auckland zoo established husbandry techniques that, over time, have been scaled up to rear large numbers of wētāpunga in communal creches. The young wētāpunga – or nymphs – are fed a three-part diet of fresh foliage, fish flake protein and leaf litter. The protein is “critical” to the survival of the youngest nymphs, Green said.

Once big enough to protect themselves, the insects are transferred to their new habitat. The efforts have led to 45 separate translocations to wild habitats, which is “a very high number in any recovery of a species”, Green said.

In eastern Germany, enormous pits carved into the landscape by decades of lignite mining are being transformed into a vast network of lakes, wetlands and restored land. The Lusatian Lakeland, spread across Brandenburg and Saxony between Berlin and Dresden, is being created by flooding former open-cast mines and reshaping their surroundings.

The tourist destination now comprises 23 post-mining lakes covering about 14,000 hectares of water. The transformation began with Lake Senftenberg in 1967 and has continued for decades, turning one of Germany's major coal-producing regions into a new water landscape. The project combines environmental restoration with tourism, recreation and long-term rehabilitation of land heavily altered by mining.

Lusatia was one of Germany's major lignite-mining regions, and open-cast extraction left huge excavated areas after the coal was removed.

The first major step towards their transformation began in 1967, when the former Niemtsch open-cast mine started filling to create Lake Senftenberg. Flooding was completed in 1972, and the lake opened for public use the following year. Since then, numerous other mine pits have been flooded, creating what regional authorities describe as Europe's largest artificial water landscape. The process has involved both groundwater and water brought in from rivers and other sources.

The Lusatian Lakeland is not a single giant lake but a collection of former mining sites that are gradually being integrated into a connected water landscape. LMBV identifies 23 post-mining lakes within the tourist destination, with a combined water surface of around 14,000 hectares.

Five of the most prominent are Senftenberger See, Geierswalder See, Partwitzer See, Sedlitzer See and Großräschener See. Their transformation has taken place over different periods, with Senftenberger See being the oldest of the group and Sedlitzer See among the most recent to reach its target level. In 2025, Sedlitzer See reached its planned water level, marking a major stage in the creation of the lake network. At about 1,400 hectares, it has become the largest recreational lake in the Lusatian region.

The transformation is extending beyond the creation of individual lakes. Canals are being constructed to connect several of the former mining pits, allowing boats to move between lakes that were once separated by mining infrastructure and spoil heaps. On June 29, 2026, five major lakes were officially connected through navigable waterways, creating a continuous water area of roughly 5,100 hectares.

The creation of lakes is only one part of the region's environmental transformation. Mining rehabilitation has also involved stabilising former mine slopes, restoring land and allowing new vegetation to establish across areas that were previously heavily disturbed. Young forests are growing on former spoil heaps, while grasslands, wetlands and other habitats are emerging around the newly created water bodies.

The changing landscape is therefore not simply an exercise in filling holes with water, but a long-term effort to establish a functioning post-mining environment. The scale of the intervention is considerable: LMBV says about 15,000 hectares of water surface has already emerged in the Lusatian Lakeland, while additional post-mining lakes continue to be developed elsewhere in Germany's former mining regions.

The result is a new regional identity built around water, recreation and nature while retaining links to the industrial past. Regional authorities describe the Lusatian Lakeland as Germany's fourth-largest lake district and Europe's largest artificial water landscape. What began with the flooding of a single former mine in 1967 has consequently grown into a decades-long landscape transformation involving two dozen lakes, interconnected waterways and thousands of hectares of reclaimed land.

I’m sharing my research published in 2025 on wildlife crime in western Serengeti, Tanzania.

The study, titled “Wildlife crimes and the demographic characteristics of offenders in western Serengeti, Tanzania: A review of court cases 2012–2022,” examines wildlife-related court cases over a 10-year period and looks at the demographic characteristics of offenders and patterns of wildlife crimes.

The research highlights how court records can provide valuable information for understanding wildlife crime and supporting conservation law enforcement.

I’d be interested to hear from researchers, conservationists, rangers, and others working on wildlife crime: what patterns have you observed in your own areas?

I’m sharing my research published in 2025 on wildlife crime in western Serengeti, Tanzania.

The study, titled “Wildlife crimes and the demographic characteristics of offenders in western Serengeti, Tanzania: A review of court cases 2012–2022,” examines wildlife-related court cases over a 10-year period and looks at the demographic characteristics of offenders and patterns of wildlife crimes.

The research highlights how court records can provide valuable information for understanding wildlife crime and supporting conservation law enforcement.

I’d be interested to hear from researchers, conservationists, rangers, and others working on wildlife crime: what patterns have you observed in your own areas?

What are your favorite channels on restoration? Do you know of channels where you can watch the property change over time? I'm currently house-bound so I have to vicariously watch other people's projects.

Big or small projects, doesn't matter.

I particularly like restoration of gulleys, streams, rivers, wetlands, deserts.

Channels where they do rainwater earthworks are my favorite, but not all of them are restoration-focused. Let me know your favorites!

What do you see as the biggest questions or controversies in restoration ecology right now? if you could ideally have one question answered by research, what would that question be?

I've always wanted to play a rewilding game, but none of them ever met what I was looking for. With how good Opus 5.5 is, I wanted to try building it and I am blown away with what I was able to do in a day. I know some people don't like AI, but I wouldn't have been able to do this otherwise.

I am going to keep messing with it, but I would love for people to try it if they've been looking for the same game. It's linked here for free and you can play it in your browser: Second Growth

Some features:

• Five places to restore: a Pacific Northwest farm, a cattle ranch in the Brazilian Amazon, an overgrazed range on the Serengeti, a lawn-covered Atlanta suburb, and a cattle finca on a volcano in Nicaragua (which you can also play in Spanish).
• 134 native plant species across the maps, each with its own moisture, light and soil ranges. They grow where conditions suit them and die back where they don't.
• Succession happens on its own. Pioneers rebuild the soil, then slower trees move in under the canopy. Deep roots break up compacted fields and crusted hardpan over a few years. Dead trees turn into snags, then logs, then soil.
• Over 120 wildlife species that rate every tile for habitat. Predators need prey, woodpeckers need snags, bears need berries. Animals breed, move in or leave based on what's actually there. You never buy animals.
• Seasons and migration. Plants bloom and fruit by season, and migratory animals leave and come back if their habitat is still there.
• Wildfires and floods. Dry-season fires spread through dry grass and brush. Floods drown seedlings but bring in silt and new seed. You can cut firebreaks and send fire crews. Controlled burns are cheap, but in dry weather they can get away from you.
• A campaign on four of the maps that teaches each part of restoration one chapter at a time, or free play with every tool from the start.
• Trails and visitors on some maps. Build trails, boardwalks, viewing blinds and a visitor center. Visitors pay to come, but they also scare off shy species.
• Working land: on the Nicaragua finca, shade trees and living fences mean healthier cattle and more milk, and bringing the mangroves back means more fish.

We have a stocked fishing lake on our horse farm. That is about 6 acres. I would like to expand it to about 10 to 12 acres but I don’t want to lose all of the existing fishery.

My current plan is to determine where the new shoreline would be on the raised dam, and then I would do excavation of the second area next to the existing Lake but not cut through until after I had it fully excavated. The current pond/lake is Fed by a small stream and has never gone dry even in drought.

Has anyone ever done something similar to this? Any thing that I need to be aware of or problems that you think I might encounter.

The dam overflow is a siphon dam overflow. We are only looking to raise the water level to the current top of the existing dam, which is about 2 feet. I’m assuming I need to hire a surveyor to mark where the new boundary of the expanded Lake would be after we raise the siphon and from there I should be able to bring in excavation equipment to dig it out.

I recently learned about Torrey Pines that are facing extinction. They grow ONLY in San Diego County and Santa Rosa Island in California. They recently experienced a fire and are now at risk for destruction from erosion while they're still recovering.

My questions: can we "make" and transplant soil for them? Can we take soil from a neighboring county (Riverside County, for example), sterilize it, and add "starter" soil from Santa Rosa Island/San Diego to "grow" "new" soil specific to their ecological system, then transplant/terraform it to mitigate risk of erosion and assist in healing from the fire?

If so, is this a process that can be done in time?

If this is infeasible (I imagine due to sterilization), what can we do or are we doing to help?

I’ve got a 15-acre patch of oak woodlands that sit among 65 acres of walnut-dominated, central mixed-hardwoods forest. It is some of the oldest woodlands on our land with some 50-100 year old oaks plus many other large tree species. However, it has been unmanaged for at least 30 years and is currently being overrun with bush honeysuckle, buckthorn, walnut, cedar and other less desirable species for an oak woodland restoration. We are in SW Wisconsin in the driftless region.

We are about to mow out a 3-acre stand with the help of an EQIP grant. Our forestry mower says he can mow down trees up to 10” in diameter.

Our original plan was to keep all oaks and shagbark hickories but mow down anything else that was 10” or less (which is mostly young walnuts). There are plenty of large trees over 10” that aren’t oaks (elm, basswood, walnut, honey locust, etc.) and we were going to let them be, but focus on paving the way for oaks as the next generation of trees. Start running fire through it every couple of years once the fuel load will carry it, do the necessary herbicidal follow-up to get the invasives under control and then manage for oaks moving forward. 

But here’s the problem - we aren’t finding ANY young oaks in the stand. We’re going to go out one last time on Friday for a final search, but what should we do if we don’t have any? Is 10” too aggressive? Will we wipe out an entire generation of forest if we take out all trees in the stand under 10”?

The other concerning thing is that the older oaks that are there aren’t in great shape - lots of dead branches. 

Here are some photos of the stand from when we flagged the perimeter last weekend. (Note that the orange flags mark the mowing perimeter - not flagging for removal.)

I’ve also got a 4-minute video about it on my YouTube channel if that’s helpful for context - you can skip to 1:50 for the start of the section that shows video of the stand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laJuH2e5FbA