Quality of handling and holding yard environment, and beef cattle temperament: 1. Relationships with flight speed and fear of humans.

Numerous tests have been used to measure beef cattle temperament, but limited research has addressed the relationship between such tests and whether temperament can be modified. One-hundred-and-forty-four steers were given one of three human handling and yarding experiences on six occasions during a 12-month grazing period post-weaning (backgrounding): Good handling/yarding, Poor handling/yarding and Minimal handling/yarding. At the end of this phase the cattle were lot-fed for 78 days, with no handling/yarding treatments imposed, before being transported for commercial slaughter. Temperament was assessed at the start of the experiment, during backgrounding and lot-feeding by flight speed (FS) and a fear of humans test, which measured the proximity to a stimulus person (zone average; ZA), the closest approach to the person (CA) and the amount the cattle moved around the test arena (total transitions; TT). During backgrounding, FS decreased for all treatments and at the end of backgrounding there was no difference between them. The rate of decline, however, was greatest in the Good group, smallest in the Minimal group with the Poor intermediate. In contrast, ZA was affected by treatment, with a greater reduction for the Good group than the others (P = 0.012). During lot-feeding, treatment did not affect FS, but all groups showed a decrease in ZA, with the greatest change in the Poor group, the least in the Good and the Minimal intermediate (P = 0.052). CA was positively correlated with ZA (r = 0.18 to 0.66) and negatively with TT (r = -0.180 to -0.659). FS was consistently correlated with TT only (r = 0.17 to 0.49). These findings suggest that FS and TT measure a similar characteristic, as do ZA and CA, but that these characteristics are different from one another, indicating that temperament is not a unitary trait, but has different facets. FS and TT measure one facet that we suggest is general agitation, whilst ZA and CA measure fear of people. Thus, the cattle became less agitated during backgrounding, but the effect was not permanently influenced by the quantity and quality of handling/yarding. However, Good handling/yarding reduced fearfulness of people. Fear of people was also reduced during lot-feeding, probably as a consequence of frequent exposure to humans in a situation that was neutral or positive for the cattle.

Row spacing and planting density effects on the growth and yield of sugarcane. 2. Strategies for the adoption of controlled traffic.

Controlled traffic (matching wheel and row spacing) is being promoted as a means to manage soil compaction in the Australian sugar industry. However, machinery limitations dictate that wider row spacings than the standard 1.5-m single row will need to be adopted to incorporate controlled traffic and many growers are reluctant to widen row spacing for fear of yield penalties. To address these concerns, contrasting row configuration and planting density combinations were investigated for their effect on cane and sugar yield in large-scale experiments in the Gordonvale, Tully, Ingham, Mackay, and Bingera (near Bundaberg) sugarcane-growing regions of Queensland, Australia. The results showed that sugarcane possesses a capacity to compensate for different row configurations and planting densities through variation in stalk number and individual stalk weight. Row configurations ranging from 1.5-m single rows (the current industry standard) to 1.8-m dual rows (50 cm between duals), 2.1-m dual (80 cm between duals) and triple ( 65 cm between triples) rows, and 2.3-m triple rows (65 cm between triples) produced similar yields. Four rows (50 cm apart) on a 2.1-m configuration (quad rows) produced lower yields largely due to crop lodging, while a 1.8-m single row configuration produced lower yields in the plant crop, probably due to inadequate resource availability (water stress/limited radiation interception). The results suggest that controlled traffic can be adopted in the Australian sugar industry by changing from a 1.5-m single row to 1.8-m dual row configuration without yield penalty. Further, the similar yields obtained with wider row configurations (2 m or greater with multiple rows) in these experiments emphasise the physiological and environmental plasticity that exists in sugarcane. Controlled traffic can be implemented with these wider row configurations (>2 m), although it will be necessary to carry out expensive modifications to the current harvester and haul-out equipment. There were indications from this research that not all cultivars were suited to configurations involving multiple rows. The results suggest that consideration be given to assessing clones with different growth habits under a range of row configurations to find the most suitable plant types for controlled traffic cropping systems.