Risk-taking is a complex form of decision-making that involves calculated assessments of potential costs and rewards that may be immediate or delayed. Thus, making predictions about inter-individual variation in risk-taking due to personality traits, decision styles or other attributes can be difficult. The association of risk-taking with gender is well-supported; males report higher propensity for risk-taking and show higher risk-taking on tasks measuring actual risk-taking behavior. Risk-taking also appears to be associated with circadian phenotypes (chronotypes), with evening-types reporting higher levels of risk-taking—but this association may be confounded by the fact that, in certain age groups, males are more likely to be evening-types. Here, we test for gender by chronotype effects on risk-taking in young adults (n = 610) using a self-reported risk propensity questionnaire, the health domain of the DOSPERT, and a behavioral task measuring risk-taking, the Balloon Analog Risk Task (BART). Our results show that males report and take significantly more risks than females in this population. In addition, evening-type individuals have significantly higher self-reported risk propensity and tend to take more risks on the BART. Interestingly, there is no significant difference in risk propensity or risk-taking behavior across male circadian phenotypes, but evening-type females significantly report and take more risk than female intermediate and morning types. In regression analyses, we found both gender and chronotype predict risk propensity and risk-taking. Path analysis confirms that chronotype has an indirect effect on gender differences in both risk propensity and risk-taking. Furthermore, we found that trait anxiety (STAI) and sleep disturbance (PROMIS), significantly correlate with chronotype and gender in the complete dataset, but do not independently predict differences in female risk-taking. These results suggest that chronotype mediates gender effects on risk-taking and that these effects are driven primarily by morning-type females, but are not related to gender-specific differences in trait anxiety or sleep quality.

Steer liveweight gains were measured in an extensive grazing study conducted in a Heteropogon contortus (black speargrass) pasture in central Queensland between 1988 and 2001. Treatments included a range of stocking rates in native pastures, legume-oversown native pasture and animal diet supplement/spring‐burning pastures. Seasonal rainfall throughout this study was below the long-term mean. Mean annual pasture utilisation ranged from 13 to 61%. Annual liveweight gains per head in native pasture were highly variable among years and ranged from a low of 43 kg/steer at 2 ha/steer to a high of 182 kg/steer at 8 ha/steer. Annual liveweight gains were consistently highest at light stocking and decreased with increasing stocking rate. Annual liveweight gain per hectare increased linearly with stocking rate. These stocking rate trends were also evident in legume-oversown pastures although both the intercept and slope of the regressions for legume-oversown pastures were higher than that for native pasture. The highest annual liveweight gain for legume-oversown pasture was 221 kg/steer at 4 ha/steer. After 13 years, annual liveweight gain per unit area occurred at the heaviest stocking rate despite deleterious changes in the pasture. Across all years, the annual liveweight advantage for legume-oversown pastures was 37 kg/steer. Compared with native pasture, changes in annual liveweight gain with burning were variable. It was concluded that cattle productivity is sustainable when stocking rates are maintained at 4 ha/steer or lighter (equivalent to a utilisation rate around 30%). Although steer liveweight gain occurred at all stocking rates and economic returns were highest at heaviest stocking rates, stocking rates heavier than 4 ha/steer are unsustainable because of their long-term impact on pasture productivity.

Although agriculture generates 16% of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, it also has the potential to sequester large quantities of emissions through land use management options such as agroforestry. Whilst there is an extensive amount of agroforestry literature, little has been written on the economic consequences of adopting silvopastoral systems in northern Australia. This paper reports the financial viability of adopting complementary agroforestry systems in the low rainfall region of northern Australia. The analysis incorporates the dynamic tradeoffs between tree and pasture growth, likely forest product yields, carbon sequestration and livestock methane emissions in a bioeconomic model. The results suggest there are financial benefits for landholders who integrate complementary agroforestry activities into existing grazing operations at even modest carbon prices.

Agricultural land has been identified as a potential source of greenhouse gas emissions offsets through biosequestration in vegetation and soil. In the extensive grazing land of Australia, landholders may participate in the Australian Government’s Emissions Reduction Fund and create offsets by reducing woody vegetation clearing and allowing native woody plant regrowth to grow. This study used bioeconomic modelling to evaluate the trade-offs between an existing central Queensland grazing operation, which has been using repeated tree clearing to maintain pasture growth, and an alternative carbon and grazing enterprise in which tree clearing is reduced and the additional carbon sequestered in trees is sold. The results showed that ceasing clearing in favour of producing offsets produces a higher net present value over 20 years than the existing cattle enterprise at carbon prices, which are close to current (2015) market levels (~$13 t–1 CO2-e). However, by modifying key variables, relative profitability did change. Sensitivity analysis evaluated key variables, which determine the relative profitability of carbon and cattle. In order of importance these were: the carbon price, the gross margin of cattle production, the severity of the tree–grass relationship, the area of regrowth retained, the age of regrowth at the start of the project, and to a lesser extent the cost of carbon project administration, compliance and monitoring. Based on the analysis, retaining regrowth to generate carbon income may be worthwhile for cattle producers in Australia, but careful consideration needs to be given to the opportunity cost of reduced cattle income.

No abstract