Weeds of Australian rangelands

Despite recognition that non-native plant species represent a substantial risk to natural systems, there is currently no compilation of weeds that impact on the biodiversity of the rangelands within Australia. Using published and expert knowledge, this paper presents a list of 622 non-native naturalised species known to occur within the rangelands. Of these, 160 species (26%) are considered a current threat to rangeland biodiversity. Most of these plant species have been deliberately introduced for forage or other commercial use (e.g. nursery trade). Among growth forms, shrubs and perennial grasses comprise over 50% of species that pose the greatest risk to rangeland biodiversity. We identify regions within the rangelands containing both high biodiversity values and a high proportion of weeds and recommend these areas as priorities for weed management. Finally, we examine the resources available for weed detection and identification since detecting weeds in the early stages of invasion is the most cost effective method of reducing further impact.

Wastewater remediation options for prawn farms - Aquaculture Industry Development Initiative 2002-04.

There are many potential bioremediation approaches that may be suitable for prawn farms in Queensland. Although most share generally accepted bioremediation principles, advocacy for different methods tends to vary widely. This diversity of approach is particularly driven by the availability and knowledge of functional species at different localities around the world. In Australia, little is known about the abilities of many native species in this regard, and translocation and biosecurity issues prevent the use of exotic species that have shown potential in other countries. Species selected must be tolerant of eutrophic conditions and ecological shifts, because prawn pond nutrient levels and pathways can vary with different assemblages of autotrophic and heterotrophic organisms. Generally, they would be included in a constructed ecosystem because of their functional contributions to nutrient cycling and uptake, and to create nutrient sinks in forms of harvestable biomass. Wide salinity, temperature and water quality tolerances are also valuable attributes for selected species due to the sometimes-pronounced effects of environmental extremes, and to provide over-wintering options and adequate safety margins in avoiding mass mortalities. To practically achieve these bioremediation polycultures on a large scale, and in concert with the operations of a prawn farm, methods involving seed production, stock management, and a range of other farm engineering and product handling systems need to be reliably achievable and economically viable. Research funding provided by the Queensland Government through the Aquaculture Industry Development Initiative (AIDI) 2002-04 has enabled a number of technical studies into biological systems to treat prawn farm effluent for recirculation and improved environmental sustainability. AIDI bioremediation research in southern Queensland was based at the Bribie Island Aquaculture Research Centre (BIARC), and was conducted in conjunction with AIDI genetics and selection research, and a Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) funded program (Coast and Clean Seas Project No.717757). This report compilation provides a summary of some of the work conducted within these programs.

Weaning management of beef calves - practical guidelines for northern Australian

The ‘Weaning management of beef calves – practical guidelines for northern Australian beef producers‘ book or simply ‘the weaner book’ is a compilation of all the research, demonstration and practical knowledge available on weaning and weaner management in northern Australia. Most of this information has been available for some years, but it has not been collated in a single document that is practical and easy to understand. It has been difficult for property owners, managers and their staff to access. The end result of this project is an easy to read guide that has all the available information in one publication. Compiling this information has also highlighted areas where information is limited or non existent or where available information is not being implemented across the whole industry. This has been evaluated and included in recommendations for further research and or demonstration work.

Good science for improving policy: greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural manures

Australia’s and New Zealand’s major agricultural manure management emission sources are reported to be, in descending order of magnitude: (1) methane (CH4) from dairy farms in both countries; (2) CH4 from pig farms in Australia; and nitrous oxide (N2O) from (3) beef feedlots and (4) poultry sheds in Australia. We used literature to critically review these inventory estimates. Alarmingly for dairy farm CH4 (1), our review revealed assumptions and omissions that when addressed could dramatically increase this emission estimate. The estimate of CH4 from Australian pig farms (2) appears to be accurate, according to industry data and field measurements. The N2O emission estimates for beef feedlots (3) and poultry sheds (4) are based on northern hemisphere default factors whose appropriateness for Australia is questionable and unverified. Therefore, most of Australasia’s key livestock manure management greenhouse gas (GHG) emission profiles are either questionable or are unsubstantiated by region-specific research. Encouragingly, GHG from dairy shed manure are relatively easy to mitigate because they are a point source which can be managed by several ‘close-to-market’ abatement solutions. Reducing these manure emissions therefore constitutes an opportunity for meaningful action sooner compared with the more difficult-to-implement and long-term strategies that currently dominate agricultural GHG mitigation research. At an international level, our review highlights the critical need to carefully reassess GHG emission profiles, particularly if such assessments have not been made since the compilation of original inventories. Failure to act in this regard presents the very real risk of missing the ‘low hanging fruit’ in the rush towards a meaningful response to climate change