Quantitative methods to measure pigmentation variation in farmed Giant Tiger Prawns, Penaeus monodon, and the effects of different harvest methods on cooked colour

Cooked prawn colour is known to be a driver of market price and a visual indicator of product quality for the consumer. Although there is a general understanding that colour variation exists in farmed prawns, there has been no attempt to quantify this variation or identify where this variation is most prevalent. The objectives of this study were threefold: firstly to compare three different quantitative methods to measure prawn colour or pigmentation, two different colorimeters and colour quantification from digital images. Secondly, to quantify the amount of pigmentation variation that exists in farmed prawns within ponds, across ponds and across farms. Lastly, to assess the effects of ice storage or freeze-thawing of raw product prior to cooking. Each method was able to detect quantitative differences in prawn colour, although conversion of image based quantification of prawn colour from RGB to Lab was unreliable. Considerable colour variation was observed between prawns from different ponds and different farms, and this variation potentially affects product value. Different post-harvest methods prior to cooking were also shown to have a profound detrimental effect on prawn colour. Both long periods of ice storage and freeze thawing of raw product were detrimental to prawn colour. However, ice storage immediately after cooking was shown to be beneficial to prawn colour. Results demonstrated that darker prawn colour was preserved by holding harvested prawns alive in chilled seawater, limiting the time between harvesting and cooking, and avoiding long periods of ice storage or freeze thawing of uncooked product.

Survival and Growth of Damara, Dorper, Dorset, Rambouillet, South African Meat Merino First Cross Lambs in Semi Arid Queensland

The recent introduction to Australia of superior sheep meat breeds from South Africa provides a basis for improving the quality and amount of sheep meat grown in Queensland’s semi arid area. Alternatively suitable breeds from existing Australian stocks of dual purpose and traditional terminal meat sheep may bring the desired attributes required by the market place. There has been no critical assessment of sheep meat breeds suitably adapted to the rangeland environment of western Queensland. Animal production for a consuming world : proceedings of 9th Congress of the Asian-Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies [AAAP] and 23rd Biennial Conference of the Australian Society of Animal Production [ASAP] and 17th Annual Symposium of the University of Sydney, Dairy Research Foundation, [DRF]. 2-7 July 2000, Sydney, Australia.

Impacts of pesticides and fertilisers on soil

The effects of inorganic amendments (fertilisers and pesticides) on soil biota that are reported in the scientific literature are, to say the least, variable. Though there is clear evidence that certain products can have significant impacts, the effects can be positive or negative. This is not surprising when you consider the number of organisms and amount of different functional groups, the number of products and various rates at which they could be applied, the methods of application and the environmental differences that occur in soil at a micro scale (within centimetres) in a paddock, let alone between paddocks, farms, catchments, regions etc. It therefore becomes extremely difficult to draw definitive conclusions from the reported results in order to summarise the impacts of these inputs. Several research trials and review papers have been published on this subject and most similarly conclude that the implications of many of the effects are still uncertain.

Climate Clever Beef: options to improve business performance and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in northern Australia

The Rangeland Journal – Climate Clever Beef special issue examines options for the beef industry in northern Australia to contribute to the reduction in global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to engage in the carbon economy. Relative to its gross value (A$5 billion), the northern beef industry is responsible for a sizable proportion of national reportable GHG emissions (8–10%) through enteric methane, savanna burning, vegetation clearing and land degradation. The industry occupies large areas of land and has the potential to impact the carbon cycle by sequestering carbon or reducing carbon loss. Furthermore, much of the industry is currently not achieving its productivity potential, which suggests that there are opportunities to improve the emissions intensity of beef production. Improving the industry’s GHG emissions performance is important for its environmental reputation and may benefit individual businesses through improved production efficiency and revenue from the carbon economy. The Climate Clever Beef initiative collaborated with beef businesses in six regions across northern Australia to better understand the links between GHG emissions and carbon stocks, land condition, herd productivity and profitability. The current performance of businesses was measured and alternate management options were identified and evaluated. Opportunities to participate in the carbon economy through the Australian Government’s Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) were also assessed. The initiative achieved significant producer engagement and collaboration resulting in practice change by 78 people from 35 businesses, managing more than 1 272 000 ha and 132 000 cattle. Carbon farming opportunities were identified that could improve both business performance and emissions intensity. However, these opportunities were not without significant risks, trade-offs and limitations particularly in relation to business scale, and uncertainty in carbon price and the response of soil and vegetation carbon sequestration to management. This paper discusses opportunities for reducing emissions, improving emission intensity and carbon sequestration, and outlines the approach taken to achieve beef business engagement and practice change. The paper concludes with some considerations for policy makers.

Driving better vegetable irrigation through profitable practice change

The availability and quality of irrigation water has become an issue limiting productivity in many Australian vegetable regions. Production is also under competitive pressure from supply chain forces. Producers look to new technologies, including changing irrigation infrastructure, exploring new water sources, and more complex irrigation management, to survive these stresses. Often there is little objective information investigating which improvements could improve outcomes for vegetable producers, and external communities (e.g. meeting NRM targets). This has led to investment in inappropriate technologies, and costly repetition of errors, as business independently discover the worth of technologies by personal experience. In our project, we investigated technology improvements for vegetable irrigation. Through engagement with industry and other researchers, we identified technologies most applicable to growers, particularly those that addressed priority issues. We developed analytical tools for ‘what if’ scenario testing of technologies. We conducted nine detailed experiments in the Lockyer Valley and Riverina vegetable growing districts, as well as case studies on grower properties in southern Queensland. We investigated root zone monitoring tools (FullStop™ wetting front detectors and Soil Solution Extraction Tubes - SSET), drip system layout, fertigation equipment, and altering planting arrangements. Our project team developed and validated models for broccoli, sweet corn, green beans and lettuce, and spreadsheets for evaluating economic risks associated with new technologies. We presented project outcomes at over 100 extension events, including irrigation showcases, conferences, field days, farm walks and workshops. The FullStops™ were excellent for monitoring root zone conditions (EC, nitrate levels), and managing irrigation with poor quality water. They were easier to interpret than the SSET. The SSET were simpler to install, but required wet soil to be reliable. SSET were an option for monitoring deeper soil zones, unsuitable for FullStop™ installations. Because these root zone tools require expertise, and are labour intensive, we recommend they be used to address specific problems, or as a periodic auditing strategy, not for routine monitoring. In our research, we routinely found high residual N in horticultural soils, with subsequently little crop yield response to additional nitrogen fertiliser. With improved irrigation efficiency (and less leaching), it may be timely to re-examine nitrogen budgets and recommendations for vegetable crops. Where the drip irrigation tube was located close to the crop row (i.e. within 5-8 cm), management of irrigation was easier. It improved nitrogen uptake, water use efficiency, and reduced the risk of poor crop performance through moisture stress, particularly in the early crop establishment phases. Close proximity of the drip tube to the crop row gives the producer more options for managing salty water, and more flexibility in taking risks with forecast rain. In many vegetable crops, proximate drip systems may not be cost-effective. The next best alternative is to push crop rows closer to the drip tube (leading to an asymmetric row structure). The vegetable crop models are good at predicting crop phenology (development stages, time to harvest), input use (water, fertiliser), environmental impacts (nutrient, salt movement) and total yields. The two immediate applications for the models are understanding/predicting/manipulating harvest dates and nitrogen movements in vegetable cropping systems. From the economic tools, the major influences on accumulated profit are price and yield. In doing ‘what if’ analyses, it is very important to be as accurate as possible in ascertaining what the assumed yield and price ranges are. In most vegetable production systems, lowering the required inputs (e.g. irrigation requirement, fertiliser requirement) is unlikely to have a major influence on accumulated profit. However, if a resource is constraining (e.g. available irrigation water), it is usually most profitable to maximise return per unit of that resource.