Stakeholders' assessment of welfare indicators for sheep and cattle exported by sea from Australia

An adaptive conjoint analysis was use to evaluate stakeholders' opinion of welfare indicators for ship-transported sheep and cattle, both onboard and in pre-export depots. In consultations with two nominees of each identified stakeholder group (government officials, animal welfare representatives, animal scientists, stockpersons, producers/pre-export depot operators, exporters/ship owners and veterinarians), 18 potential indicators were identified Three levels were assigned to each using industry statistics and expert opinion, representing those observed on the best and worst 5% of voyages and an intermediate value. A computer-based questionnaire was completed by 135 stakeholders (48% of those invited). All indicators were ranked by respondents in the assigned order, except fodder intake, in which case providing the amount necessary to maintain bodyweight was rated better than over or underfeeding, and time in the pre-export assembly depot, in which case 5 days was rated better than 0 or 10 days. The respective Importance Values (a relative rating given by the respondent) for each indicator were, in order of declining importance: mortality (8.6%), clinical disease incidence (8.2%), respiration rate (6.8%), space allowance (6.2%), ammonia levels (6.1%), weight change (6.0%), wet bulb temperature (6.0%), time in assembly depot (5.4%), percentage of animals in hospital pen (5.4%), fodder intake (5.2%), stress-related metabolites (5.0%), percentage of feeding trough utilised (5.0%), injuries (4.8%), percentage of animals able to access food troughs at any one time (4.8%), percentage of animals lying down (4.7%), cortisol concentration (4.5Y.), noise (3.9y.), and photoperiod (3.4%). The different stakeholder groups were relatively consistent in their ranking of the indicators, with all groups nominating the some top two and at least five of the top seven indicators. Some of the top indicators, in particular mortality, disease incidence and temperature, are already recorded in the Australian industry, but the study identified potential new welfare indicators for exported livestock, such as space allowance and ammonia concentration, which could be used to improve welfare standards if validated by scientific data. The top indicators would also be useful worldwide for countries engaging in long distance sea transport of livestock.

WHIPPET: a novel tool for prioritizing invasive plant populations for regional eradication

Large geographic areas can have numerous incipient invasive plant populations that necessitate eradication. However, resources are often deficient to address every infestation. Within the United States, weed lists (either state-level or smaller unit) generally guide the prioritization of eradication of each listed species uniformly across the focus region. This strategy has several limitations that can compromise overall effectiveness, which include spending limited resources on 1) low impact populations, 2) difficult to access populations, or 3) missing high impact populations of low priority species. Therefore, we developed a novel science-based, transparent, analytical ranking tool to prioritize weed populations, instead of species, for eradication and tested it on a group of noxious weeds in California. For outreach purposes, we named the tool WHIPPET (Weed Heuristics: Invasive Population Prioritization for Eradication Tool). Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process that included expert opinion, we developed three major criteria, four sub-criteria, and four sub-sub-criteria, taking into account both species and population characteristics. Subject matter experts weighted and scored these criteria to assess the relative impact, potential spread, and feasibility of eradication (major criteria) for 100 total populations of 19 species. Species-wide population scores indicated that conspecific populations do not necessarily group together in the final ranked output. Thus, priority lists based solely on species-level characteristics are less effective compared to a blended prioritization based on both species attributes and individual population and site parameters. WHIPPET should facilitate a more efficacious decision-making process allocating limited resources to target invasive plant infestations with the greatest predicted impacts to the region under consideration.

Are high-impact species predictable? An analysis of naturalised grasses in northern Australia

Predicting which species are likely to cause serious impacts in the future is crucial for targeting management efforts, but the characteristics of such species remain largely unconfirmed. We use data and expert opinion on tropical and subtropical grasses naturalised in Australia since European settlement to identify naturalised and high-impact species and subsequently to test whether high-impact species are predictable. High-impact species for the three main affected sectors (environment, pastoral and agriculture) were determined by assessing evidence against pre-defined criteria. Twenty-one of the 155 naturalised species (14%) were classified as high-impact, including four that affected more than one sector. High-impact species were more likely to have faster spread rates (regions invaded per decade) and to be semi-aquatic. Spread rate was best explained by whether species had been actively spread (as pasture), and time since naturalisation, but may not be explanatory as it was tightly correlated with range size and incidence rate. Giving more weight to minimising the chance of overlooking high-impact species, a priority for biosecurity, meant a wider range of predictors was required to identify high-impact species, and the predictive power of the models was reduced. By-sector analysis of predictors of high impact species was limited by their relative rarity, but showed sector differences, including to the universal predictors (spread rate and habitat) and life history. Furthermore, species causing high impact to agriculture have changed in the past 10 years with changes in farming practice, highlighting the importance of context in determining impact. A rationale for invasion ecology is to improve the prediction and response to future threats. Although our study identifies some universal predictors, it suggests improved prediction will require a far greater emphasis on impact rather than invasiveness, and will need to account for the individual circumstances of affected sectors and the relative rarity of high-impact species.

Fertilising for yield and quality in sown grass pastures and forage crops

Sown pasture rundown and declining soil fertility for forage crops are too serious to ignore with losses in beef production of up to 50% across Queensland. The feasibility of using strategic applications of nitrogen (N) fertiliser to address these losses was assessed by analysing a series of scenarios using data drawn from published studies, local fertiliser trials and expert opinion. While N fertilser can dramatically increase productivity (growth, feed quality and beef production gains of over 200% in some scenarios), the estimated economic benefits, derived from paddock level enterprise budgets for a fattening operation, were much more modest. In the best-performing sown grass scenarios, average gross margins were doubled or tripled at the assumed fertiliser response rates, and internal rates of return of up to 11% were achieved. Using fertiliser on forage sorghum or oats was a much less attractive option and, under the paddock level analysis and assumptions used, forages struggled to be profitable even on fertile sites with no fertiliser input. The economics of nitrogen fertilising on grass pasture were sensitive to the assumed response rates in both pasture growth and liveweight gain. Consequently, targeted research is proposed to re-assess the responses used in this analysis, which are largely based on research 25-40 years ago when soils were generally more fertile and pastures less rundown.