MDPI - Publisher of Open Access Journals

16 pages, 290 KiB

Open AccessArticle

A Cross-Sectional Study of Commercial Ewe Management Practices for Different Sheep Breeds across Southern Australia

by Amy L. Bates, Shawn R. McGrath, Maxwell B. Allworth, Susan M. Robertson and Gordon Refshauge

Animals 2023, 13(3), 388; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13030388 - 23 Jan 2023

Cited by 7 | Viewed by 3002

The management of ewes across southern Australia may vary with breed and can change over time and, as such, a greater understanding of producer management practices and the motivations that influence these practices is required. A cross-sectional study was performed by telephone interview with sheep producers managing Composite, Maternal, Merino or shedding ewe breeds mated in either spring, summer, or autumn. The surveyed producers were a unique subset of southern Australian producers. A large proportion of the surveyed producers followed current best practice guidelines for ewe mating and lambing nutritional management; however, some producers did not align with these targets. Further, some producers did not see the value in attaining the current recommendations. Pregnancy scanning was widely practiced, likely an artefact of the recruitment process; however, a few producers did not utilize this information for nutritional management at lambing time. Finally, most producers were active in their search for new information, seeking information regularly from a wide range of sources and reported making management changes within the last five years. Further work is required to understand why some producers are not adopting best practice where possible and to understand current barriers for adoption. Management guidelines for all sheep breeds are required to best manage sheep across southern Australia. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Meat Goats vs. Hair Sheep vs. Wool Sheep: Which One Do You Want to Raise)

17 pages, 696 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Mating Conditions and Management Practices Influence Pregnancy Scanning Outcomes Differently between Ewe Breeds

by Amy L. Bates, Shawn R. McGrath, Susan M. Robertson and Gordon Refshauge

Animals 2022, 12(21), 2908; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12212908 - 24 Oct 2022

Cited by 4 | Viewed by 2371

Abstract

Sheep production in southern Australia may vary by breed, time of year, production output (wool, meat, or both), region and seasonal influence. Sheep producers with flocks of approximately 300–500 ewes (n = 58) were recruited across southern Australia to take part in a survey and mating variables were collected from over 30,000 ewes between October 2020 and August 2021. A Bayesian Network (BN) was developed to identify the interrelatedness and most influential variable on pregnancy and fetal number (of pregnant ewes) outcomes under different scenarios. The BN analysis indicated a low association between the variables explored, however, were breed dependent. In wool-based breeds a mating liveweight of 60–69.5 kg predicted the lowest non-pregnant and greatest number of fetuses, and in shedding ewes 70–79.5 kg predicted the lowest non-pregnant rate and 90–99.5 kg the greatest number of fetuses. Pregnancy rate and fetuses per ewe were optimized at ram percentages of 1.5% for Composite and Merino ewes and 2% for Maternal ewes. A mating BCS 4 resulted in greatest pregnancy rate and number of fetuses across all breeds. Curvilinear relationships between mating liveweight, BCS and ram percentage were observed with pregnancy rate and fetal number. Practically, reproductive potential is best managed on a breed basis and with consideration of all variables explored. Full article

(This article belongs to the Section Animal Reproduction)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

20 pages, 561 KiB

Open AccessFeature PaperReview

Recycling of Aseptic Beverage Cartons: A Review

by Gordon L. Robertson

Recycling 2021, 6(1), 20; https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling6010020 - 11 Mar 2021

Cited by 47 | Viewed by 16358

Abstract

Aseptic beverage cartons are multilayer polymer-coated paperboards with a layer of aluminum foil. Due to their multilayer structure it is commonly assumed that they cannot be recycled. This is not the case and this review details the multifarious processes that are used to recycle aseptic beverage cartons. Hydrapulping to recover the paper fibers that constitute 75% of the carton is the most widespread process, followed by the manufacture of construction materials such as boards and tiles which utilize the complete carton. A range of mechanical, chemical and thermal processes are used to separate the PolyAl (polyethylene and aluminum) residual that remains after the paper fibers have been recovered. The simplest process involves agglutination followed by extrusion to obtain pellets that can then be used in industrial and consumer products or combined with other materials such as lignocellulosic wastes. Chemical approaches involve the solubilization of polyethylene and the removal of aluminum. Various thermal processes have also been investigated and a novel microwave-induced pyrolysis process appears the most commercially viable. It is concluded that the focus in future years is likely to be on recycling cartons into construction materials where there is a theoretical yield of 100% compared with 75% for hydrapulping. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Feature Papers in Recycling 2021)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Search Results (3)

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI

Saved Queries

Search Filter Reset All

Years

Feature Papers

Subjects

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (3)

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI