Poor adoption of ley-pastures in south-west Queensland: biophysical, economic and social constraints.

The present review identifies various constraints relating to poor adoption of ley-pastures in south-west Queensland, and suggests changes in research, development and extension efforts for improved adoption. The constraints include biophysical, economic and social constraints. In terms of biophysical constraints, first, shallower soil profiles with subsoil constraints (salt and sodicity), unpredictable rainfall, drier conditions with higher soil temperature and evaporative demand in summer, and frost and subzero temperature in winter, frequently result in a failure of established, or establishing, pastures. Second, there are limited options for legumes in a ley-pasture, with the legumes currently being mostly winter-active legumes such as lucerne and medics. Winter-active legumes are ineffective in improving soil conditions in a region with summer-dominant rainfall. Third, most grain growers are reluctant to include grasses in their ley-pasture mix, which can be uneconomical for various reasons, including nitrogen immobilisation, carryover of cereal diseases and depressed yields of the following cereal crops. Fourth, a severe depletion of soil water following perennial ley-pastures (grass + legumes or lucerne) can reduce the yields of subsequent crops for several seasons, and the practice of longer fallows to increase soil water storage may be uneconomical and damaging to the environment. Economic assessments of integrating medium- to long-term ley-pastures into cropping regions are generally less attractive because of reduced capital flow, increased capital investment, economic loss associated with establishment and termination phases of ley-pastures, and lost opportunities for cropping in a favourable season. Income from livestock on ley-pastures and soil productivity gains to subsequent crops in rotation may not be comparable to cropping when grain prices are high. However, the economic benefits of ley-pastures may be underestimated, because of unaccounted environmental benefits such as enhanced water use, and reduced soil erosion from summer-dominant rainfall, and therefore, this requires further investigation. In terms of social constraints, the risk of poor and unreliable establishment and persistence, uncertainties in economic and environmental benefits, the complicated process of changing from crop to ley-pastures and vice versa, and the additional labour and management requirements of livestock, present growers socially unattractive and complex decision-making processes for considering adoption of an existing medium- to long-term ley-pasture technology. It is essential that research, development and extension efforts should consider that new ley-pasture options, such as incorporation of a short-term summer forage legume, need to be less risky in establishment, productive in a region with prevailing biophysical constraints, economically viable, less complex and highly flexible in the change-over processes, and socially attractive to growers for adoption in south-west Queensland.

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.