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.

Effects of Low Dose Irradiation on the K-Value and Hypoxanthine Concentration of Fish Fillets

Fillets of five fish species were irradiated at 0, 1 and 3kGy to investigate whether the K-value test of freshness can be applied to irradiated fish. Following irradiation, the fillets were stored on ice and sampled regularly for K-value analysis. Hypoxanthine (Hx) and total nucleotide content were also determined on fillets of two species. K-values of irradiated fillets were generally lower than those of unirradiated controls. Hypoxanthine levels paralleled the K-value changes. These results indicated that quality standards based on K-values or Hx levels that have been set for unirradiated species cannot be directly applied to fish that has been irradiated. Total nucleotide content did not appear to be affected by irradiation.

Large-chamber methane and nitrous oxide measurements are comparable to the backward Lagrangian stochastic method

Measurement of individual emission sources (e.g., animals or pen manure) within intensive livestock enterprises is necessary to test emission calculation protocols and to identify targets for decreased emissions. In this study, a vented, fabric-covered large chamber (4.5 × 4.5 m, 1.5 m high; encompassing greater spatial variability than a smaller chamber) in combination with on-line analysis (nitrous oxide [N2O] and methane [CH4] via Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy; 1 analysis min-1) was tested as a means to isolate and measure emissions from beef feedlot pen manure sources. An exponential model relating chamber concentrations to ambient gas concentrations, air exchange (e.g., due to poor sealing with the surface; model linear when ≈ 0 m3 s-1), and chamber dimensions allowed data to be fitted with high confidence. Alternating manure source emission measurements using the large-chamber and the backward Lagrangian stochastic (bLS) technique (5-mo period; bLS validated via tracer gas release, recovery 94-104%) produced comparable N2O and CH4 emission values (no significant difference at P < 0.05). Greater precision of individual measurements was achieved via the large chamber than for the bLS (mean ± standard error of variance components: bLS half-hour measurements, 99.5 ± 325 mg CH4 s-1 and 9.26 ± 20.6 mg N2O s-1; large-chamber measurements, 99.6 ± 64.2 mg CH4 s-1 and 8.18 ± 0.3 mg N2O s-1). The large-chamber design is suitable for measurement of emissions from manure on pen surfaces, isolating these emissions from surrounding emission sources, including enteric emissions. © © American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.

Field measurement of beef pen manure methane and nitrous oxide reveals a surprise for inventory calculations

Few data exist on direct greenhouse gas emissions from pen manure at beef feedlots. However, emission inventories attempt to account for these emissions. This study used a large chamber to isolate N2O and CH4 emissions from pen manure at two Australian commercial beef feedlots (stocking densities, 13-27 m(2) head) and related these emissions to a range of potential emission control factors, including masses and concentrations of volatile solids, NO3-, total N, NH4+, and organic C (OC), and additional factors such as total manure mass, cattle numbers, manure pack depth and density, temperature, and moisture content. Mean measured pen N2O emissions were 0.428 kg ha(-1) d(-1) (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.252-0.691) and 0.00405 kg ha(-1) d(-1) (95% CI, 0.00114-0.0110) for the northern and southern feedlots, respectively. Mean measured CH4 emission was 0.236 kg ha(-1) d(-1) (95% CI, 0.163-0.332) for the northern feedlot and 3.93 kg ha(-1) d(-1) (95% CI, 2.58-5.81) for the southern feedlot. Nitrous oxide emission increased with density, pH, temperature, and manure mass, whereas negative relationships were evident with moisture and OC. Strong relationships were not evident between N2O emission and masses or concentrations of NO3- or total N in the manure. This is significant because many standard inventory calculation protocols predict N2O emissions using the mass of N excreted by the animal.

Assessing for genetic and environmental effects on ruminant feed quality in barley ( Hordeum vulgare )

Grain samples from a combined intermediate and advanced stage barley breeding trial series, grown at two sites in two consecutive years were assessed for detailed grain quality and ruminant feed quality. The results indicated that there were significant genetic and environmental effects for “feed” traits as measured using grain hardness, acid detergent fibre (ADF), starch and in-sacco dry matter digestibility (ISDMD) assays. In addition, there was strong genotypic discrimination for the regressed feed performance traits, namely Net Energy (NE) and Average Daily Gain (ADG). There was considerable variation in genetic correlations for all traits based on variance from the cultivars used, sites or laboratory processing effects. There was a high level of heritability ranging from 89% to 88% for retention, 60% to 80% for protein and 56% to 68% for ADF. However, there were only low to moderate levels of heritability for the feed traits, with starch 30–39%, ISDMD 55–63%, ADF 56–68%, particle size 47–73%, 31–48% NE and ADG 44–51%. These results suggest that there were real differences in the feed performance of barleys and that selection for cattle feed quality is potentially a viable option for breeding programs.

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.