Standardising bull breeding soundness evaluations and reporting in Australia

There is substantial variation in bull breeding soundness evaluation procedures and reports in Australia; the situation is compounded by difficulties in interpretation and the validity of many reports. In an effort to overcome this, the scientific literature was reviewed [Fordyce G. In: Fordyce G, editor. Bull fertility: selection and management in Australia. Eight Mile Plains, Australia: Australian Cattle Vets; 2002] and the needs of stakeholders were considered in preparing a manual, Evaluating and Reporting Bull Fertility [Entwistle KW, Fordyce G. Evaluating and reporting bull fertility. Eight Mile Plains, Australia: Australian Cattle Vets; 2003.] that outlined standards for assessing and reporting bull breeding soundness. A new recording and reporting system, called Bull Reporter, is based on standards from this manual and groups bull fertility traits into five summary categories: Scrotum, Physical, Crush-side Semen, Sperm Morphology, and Serving. The client will generally select which categories they wish to have included in the evaluation to suit their specific purposes. While there is adequate room for comments, the veterinarian is not required to make an overall judgment of whether the bull has normal capacity to sire calves under natural mating management, but ensures the standards for each selected category are met. Professional, standardised, easy-to-read reports are produced either electronically [Entwistle KW, Fordyce G. Evaluating and reporting bull fertility. Eight Mile Plains, Australia: Australian Cattle Vets; 2003.] or manually. A bull owner or their agent signs the certificate to affirm that bulls have not undergone procedures to rectify faults which may have otherwise caused them to fail the standards. An accreditation system for assessing sperm morphology was established because of its demonstrated relationship with pregnancy rates and because of the difficulties in achieving consistent and accurate assessments among laboratories. It is considered that Bull Reporter is applicable to beef and dairy bulls across all levels of management, genotypes and environments throughout Australia, with substantial potential for application elsewhere in the world.

Internet based spatial data delivery and reporting system for cotton industry

Development of an internet based spatial data delivery and reporting system for the Australian Cotton Industry.

Multijurisdictional fisheries performance reporting: How Australia’s nationally standardised approach to assessing stock status compares

Australian marine wild-capture fisheries are managed by eight separate jurisdictions. Traditionally, fishery status reports have been produced separately by most of these jurisdictions, assessing the fish stocks they manage, and reporting on the effectiveness of their fisheries management. However, the format, the type of stock status assessments, the thresholds and terminology used to describe stock status and the classification frameworks have varied over time and among jurisdictions. These differences complicate efforts to understand stock status on a national scale. They also create potential misunderstanding among the wider community about how to interpret information on the status of fish stocks, and the fisheries management and science processes more generally. This is especially true when considering stocks that are shared across two or more jurisdictional boundaries. A standardised approach was developed in 2011 leading to production of the first national Status of key Australian fish stocks reports in 2012, followed by a second edition in 2014 (www.fish.gov.au). Production of these reports was the first step towards a broader national approach to reporting on the performance of Australian fisheries for target species and for wider ecosystem and socioeconomic consequences. This paper outlines the challenges associated with moving towards national performance reporting for target fish stocks and Australia’s successes so far. It also outlines the challenges ahead, in particular those relating to reporting more broadly on the status of entire fisheries. Comparisons are drawn between Australia and New Zealand and more broadly between Australia and other countries.