Measurement of genetic and environmental variation in barley (Hordeum vulgare) grain hardness

In this study, we assessed a broad range of barley breeding lines and commercial varieties by three hardness methods (two particle size methods and one crush resistance method (SKCS—Single-Kernel Characterization System), grown at multiple sites to see if there was variation in barley hardness and if that variation was genetic or environmentally controlled. We also developed near-infrared reflectance (NIR) calibrations for these three hardness methods to ascertain if NIR technology was suitable for rapid screening of breeding lines or specific populations. In addition, we used this data to identify genetic regions that may be associated with hardness. There were significant (p<0.05) genetic effects for the three hardness methods. There were also environmental effects, possibly linked to the effect of protein on hardness, i.e. increasing protein resulted in harder grain. Heritability values were calculated at >85% for all methods. The NIR calibrations, with R2 values of >90%, had Standard Error of Prediction values of 0.90, 72 and 4.0, respectively, for the three hardness methods. These equations were used to predict hardness values of a mapping population which resulted in genetic markers being identified on all chromosomes but chromosomes 2H, 3H, 5H, 6H and 7H had markers with significant LOD scores. The two regions on 5H were on the distal end of both the long and short arms. The region that showed significant LOD score was on the long arm. However, the region on the short arm associated with the hardness (hordoindoline) genes did not have significant LOD scores. The results indicate that barley hardness is influenced by both genotype and environment and that the trait is heritable, which would allow breeders to develop very hard or soft varieties if required. In addition, NIR was shown to be a reliable tool for screening for hardness. While the data set used in this study has a relatively low variation in hardness, the tools developed could be applied to breeding populations that have large variation in barley grain hardness.

Adoption of environmental assurance in pastoral industry supply chains - Market failure and beyond

This paper describes adoption rates of environmental assurance within meat and wool supply chains, and discusses this in terms of market interest and demand for certified 'environmentally friendly' products, based on phone surveys and personal interviews with pastoral producers, meat and wool processors, wholesalers and retailers, and domestic consumers. Members of meat and wool supply chains, particularly pastoral producers, are both aware of and interested in implementing various forms of environmental assurance, but significant costs combined with few private benefits have resulted in low adoption rates. The main reason for the lack of benefits is that the end user (the consumer) does not value environmental assurance and is not willing to pay for it. For this reason, global food and fibre supply chains, which compete to supply consumers with safe and quality food at the lowest price, resist public pressure to implement environmental assurance. This market failure is further exacerbated by highly variable environmental and social production standards required of primary producers in different countries, and the disparate levels of government support provided to them. Given that it is the Australian general public and not markets that demand environmental benefits from agriculture, the Australian government has a mandate to use public funds to counter this market failure. A national farm environmental policy should utilise a range of financial incentives to reward farmers for delivering general public good environmental outcomes, with these specified and verified through a national environmental assurance scheme.

Stakeholder expectations for environmental assurance in agriculture: Lessons from the pastoral industry

This paper outlines the expectations of a wide range of stakeholders for environmental assurance in the pastoral industries and agriculture generally. Stakeholders consulted were domestic consumers, rangeland graziers, members of environmental groups, companies within meat and wool supply chains, and agricultural industry, environmental and consumer groups. Most stakeholders were in favour of the application of environmental assurance to agriculture, although supply chains and consumers had less enthusiasm for this than environmental and consumer groups. General public good benefits were more important to environmental and consumer groups, while private benefits were more important to consumers and supply chains. The 'ideal' form of environmental assurance appears to be a management system that provides for continuous improvement in environmental, quality and food safety outcomes, combined with elements of ISO 14024 eco-labelling such as life-cycle assessment, environmental performance criteria, third-party certification, labelling and multi-stakeholder involvement. However, market failure prevents this from being implemented and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. In the short term, members of supply chains (the people that must implement and fund environmental assurance) want this to be kept simple and low cost, to be built into their existing industry standards and to add value to their businesses. As a starting point, several agricultural industry organisations favour the use of a basic management system, combining continuous improvement, risk assessment and industry best management practice programs, which can be built on over time to meet regulator, market and community expectations.

Environmental regulation in the pork producing industry - bring on the research!

Over the last 20 years, environmental management in Queensland has moved from the policy backwaters of government to the front line of operations by way of regulatory enforcement, industry programs and incentives. When the new Queensland Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EPA) came into effect, the business of environmental management has become a central feature of urban and rural development activity. The concept of environmentally sustainable development (ESD), has given life to the precautionary principle as a way for planners and regulators to place relevant controls on development. The planning, development and operation of pig farming systems has been effected by the new regulatory framework. Ever more definitive standards and approval permits have emerged which endeavour to achieve ESD. With these modern planning instruments in place, rural industry sectors have become, quite legitimately, concerned about future opportunities for research and innovation. This paper asserts that the capacity to engage in research and to achieve innovation in the pork producing industry is not hindered by Queensland environmental regulation frameworks. However, in order for research and innovation to prosper within these frameworks, some protocols need to be followed by the industry. What is at stake is community confidence.

Linking the populations of barramundi and king threadfin to environmental flows in four rivers of tropical Australia

Linking the populations of barramundi and king threadfin to environmental flows in four rivers of tropical Australia