Predicting the cost of eradication for 41 Class 1 declared weeds in Queensland

The feasibility of state-wide eradication of 41 invasive plant taxa currently listed as ‘Class 1 declared pests’ under the Queensland Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002 was assessed using the predictive model ‘WeedSearch’. Results indicated that all but one species (Alternanthera philoxeroides) could be eradicated, provided sufficient funding and labour were available. Slightly less than one quarter (24.4%) (n = 10) of Class 1 weed taxa could be eradicated for less than $100 000 per taxon. An additional 43.9% (n = 18) could be eradicated for between $100 000 and $1M per taxon. Hence, 68.3% of Class 1 weed taxa (n = 28) could be eradicated for less than $1M per taxon. Eradication of 29.3% (n = 12) is predicted to cost more than $1M per taxon. Comparison of these WeedSearch outputs with either empirical analysis or results from a previous application of the model suggests that these costs may, in fact, be underestimates. Considering the likelihood that each weed will cost the state many millions of dollars in long-term losses (e.g. losses to primary production, environmental impacts and control costs), eradication seems a wise investment. Even where predicted costs are over $1M, eradication can still offer highly favourable benefit:cost ratios. The total (cumulative) cost of eradication of all 41 weed taxa is substantial; for all taxa, the estimated cost of eradication in the first year alone is $8 618 000. This study provides important information for policy makers, who must decide where to invest public funding.

Construction timbers in Queensland. Book 1 and Book 2: Properties and specifications for satisfactory performance of construction timbers in Queensland. Class 1 and Class 10 buildings (houses, carports, garages, greenhouses and sheds). 2013 edition.

This publication lists the more important wood properties of commercial timbers used for construction in Queensland. It also provides requirements and conditions of use for these timbers to provide appropriate design service life in various construction applications. The correct specification of timber considers a range of timber properties including, but not limited to, stress grade; durability class; moisture content and insect resistance. For the specification of timber sizes and spans, relevant Australian Standards and design manuals should be consulted—e.g. Australian Standard AS 1684 series Residential timber—framed construction parts 2 and 3 (Standards Australia 2006a;b.) Book 1 explains the terms used; with reference to nomenclature; origin and timber properties presented under specific column headings in the schedules (Book 2). It also explains target design life; applications and decay hazard zones; presented in the Book 2 Schedules. Book 2 consists of reference tables; presented as schedules A; B and C: • Schedule A contains commercial mixtures of unidentified timbers and of some Australian and imported softwoods. Index numbers 1–10 • Schedule B contains Australian-grown timber species; including both natural forests and plantations. Index numbers 11–493 • Schedule C contains timbers imported into Australia from overseas. Index numbers 494–606 Each schedule has two parts presenting data in tables. • Part 1: Nomenclature, origin and properties of imported timber species • Part 2: Approved uses for commercial mixtures of imported timber species The recommendations made in this publication assume that good building practice will be carried out.

Does manure management affect the latent greenhouse gas emitting potential of livestock manures?

With livestock manures being increasingly sought as alternatives to costly synthetic fertilisers, it is imperative that we understand and manage their associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Here we provide the first dedicated assessment into how the GHG emitting potential of various manures responds to the different stages of the manure management continuum (e.g., from feed pen surface vs stockpiled). The research is important from the perspective of manure application to agricultural soils. Manures studied included: manure from beef feedpen surfaces and stockpiles; poultry broiler litter (8-week batch); fresh and composted egg layer litter; and fresh and composted piggery litter. Gases assessed were methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), the two principal agricultural GHGs. We employed proven protocols to determine the manures’ ultimate CH4 producing potential. We also devised a novel incubation experiment to elucidate their N2O emitting potential; a measure for which no established methods exist. We found lower CH4 potentials in manures from later stages in their management sequence compared with earlier stages, but only by a factor of 0.65×. Moreover, for the beef manures this decrease was not significant (P < 0.05). Nitrous oxide emission potential was significantly positively (P < 0.05) correlated with C/N ratios yet showed no obvious relationship with manure management stage. Indeed, N2O emissions from the composted egg manure were considerably (13×) and significantly (P < 0.05) higher than that of the fresh egg manure. Our study demonstrates that manures from all stages of the manure management continuum potentially entail significant GHG risk when applied to arable landscapes. Efforts to harness manure resources need to account for this.