Promoting kangaroo as a sustainable option for meat production on the rangelands of Australia

Implications •As kangaroo meat is sourced from native wildlife, conservation of the species is important in developing sustainable meat harvesting. Landholders, conservationists, and commercial meat producers need to work together to achieve this goal. •The production of high quality meat products from field-harvested carcasses can be augmented through a better understanding of the impact that field conditions and carcass handling have on final meat eating quality. •Food safety is also paramount, with measures taken to minimize the impacts of parasitism and microbial contamination. Any breaches of inspection protocols can only serve to undermine consumer confidence and viability of the industry.

Strategies to limit the impact of nematode pressure on sugarcane productivity in the Isis

Two trials were done in this project. One was a continuation of work started under a previous GRDC/SRDC-funded activity, 'Strategies to improve the integration of legumes into cane based farming systems'. This trial aimed to assess the impact of trash and tillage management options and nematicide application on nematodes and crop performance. Methods and results are contained in the following publication: Halpin NV, Stirling GR, Rehbein WE, Quinn B, Jakins A, Ginns SP. The impact of trash and tillage management options and nematicide application on crop performance and plant-parasitic nematode populations in a sugarcane/peanut farming system. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 37, 192-203. Nematicide application in the plant crop significantly reduced total numbers of plant parasitic nematodes (PPN) but there was no impact on yield. Application of nematicide to the ratoon crop significantly reduced sugar yield. The study confirmed other work demonstrating that implementation of strategies like reduced tillage reduced populations of total PPN, suggesting that the soil was more suppressive to PPN in those treatments. The second trial, a variety trial, demonstrated the limited value of nematicide application in sugarcane farming systems. This study has highlighted that growers shouldn’t view nematicides as a ‘cure all’ for paddocks that have historically had high PPN numbers. Nematicides have high mammalian toxicity, have the potential to contaminate ground water (Kookana et al. 1995) and are costly. The cost of nematicide used in R1 was approx. $320 - $350/ha, adding $3.50/t of cane in a 100 t/ha crop. Also, our study demonstrated that a single nematicide treatment at the application rate registered for sugarcane is not very effective in reducing populations of nematode pests. There appears to be some levels of resistance to nematodes within the current suite of varieties available to the southern canelands. For example the soil in plots that were growing Q183 had 560% more root knot nematodes / 200mL soil compared to plots that grew Q245. The authors see great value in investment into a nematode screening program that could rate varieties into groups of susceptibility to both major sugarcane nematode pests. Such a rating could then be built into a decision support ‘tree’ or tool to better enable producers to select varieties on a paddock by paddock basis.