Differences between the in vitro digestibility of extrusa collected from oesophageal fistulated steers and the forage consumed.

In a study that included C-4 tropical grasses, C-3 temperate grasses and C-3 pasture legumes, in vitro dry matter digestibility of extrusa, measured as in vitro dry matter loss (IVDML) during incubation, compared with that of the forage consumed, was greater for grass extrusa but not for legume extrusa. The increase in digestibility was not caused by mastication or by the freezing of extrusa samples during storage but by the action of saliva. Comparable increases in IVDML were achieved merely by mixing bovine saliva with ground forage samples. Differences were greater than could be explained by increases due to completely digestible salivary DM. There was no significant difference between animals in relation to the saliva effect on IVDML and, except for some minor differences, similar saliva effects on IVDML were measured using either the pepsin-cellulase or rumen fluid-pepsin in vitro techniques. For both C-4 and C-3 grasses the magnitude of the differences were inversely related to IVDML of the feed and there was little or no difference between extrusa and feed at high digestibilities (>70%) whereas differences of more than 10 percentage units were measured on low quality grass forages. The data did not suggest that the extrusa or saliva effect on digestibility was different for C-3 grasses than for C-4 grasses but data on C-3 grasses were limited to few species and to high digestibility samples. For legume forages there was no saliva effect when the pepsin-cellulase method was used but there was a small but significant positive effect using the rumen fluid-pepsin method. It was concluded that when samples of extrusa are analysed using in vitro techniques, predicted in vivo digestibility of the feed consumed will often be overestimated, especially for low quality grass diets. The implications of overestimating in vivo digestibility and suggestions for overcoming such errors are discussed.

Premature fruit softening, a major physiological problem of persimmon in subtropical Australia.

Premature or abnormal softening of persimmon fruit within 3-7 days after harvest is a major physiological problem of non-astringent persimmon cultivars grown in subtropical regions of Australia. Up to 30% of consignments may soften rapidly frequently overnight, often resulting in the flesh becoming very soft, completely translucent, and impossible to handle. Incidence of premature soft fruit can vary with season and production location. To study the incidence of this problem, we conducted surveys of fruit harvested from five environmentally-diverse regions of Australia over a two-year period. We found wide variation in the rate of both premature softening and normal softening with differences of up 37 days between orchards in percentage of fruit reaching 50% soft. We found that the rate of fruit softening was exacerbated by lower calcium concentrations at fruit set, shorter fruit development periods and heavier rainfall during the fruit development period. The implications of our findings, in terms of orchard management, export and domestic marketing strategies are discussed.

Social objectives of fisheries management: What are managers' priorities?

Increasingly, social considerations are having an influence on fisheries policy as well as day-to-day management decision making. Social objectives, unlike economic or conservation objectives, are often poorly defined in fisheries policy, providing substantial leeway for managers to develop management plans in response to the perceived importance of different social outcomes, and potential inconsistencies between different fisheries and jurisdictions. In this paper, through a literature review and workshop with managers across different Australian jurisdictions, we develop a set of social objectives that may be applicable in Australian fisheries. We assess the importance of these different objectives using the Analytic Hierarchy Process, and find considerable diversity in opinion as to which social objectives fisheries management should prioritise to achieve. This diversity of opinion is not directly related to jurisdiction, but does seem related to the context and social environment in which fisheries managers are operating.