Dairy Australia is partnering with the cotton, sugar, grain and rice industries in a project to deliver the benefits of new efficient water use technologies to Australian farmers.
Over half of dairy farmers nationally use irrigation and farms in some regions rely totally on irrigated water. ‘Smart irrigation’ can provide big efficiency benefits – the project aims to increase average farmer profits by $20,000-$40,000 annually.
As part of its contribution to the Smarter Irrigation for Profit phase II project (SIP2), the dairy industry has established 17 research and learning sites in dairy regions in Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania and NSW, including the subtropical border area with Queensland.
Dairy Australia is helping to manage many of these sites.
Dairy Australia managing director, David Nation, said the collaboration of five rural research and development corporations, five universities and four governmental organisations underlined the importance of the project for Australian agriculture.
“Smarter Irrigation for Profit is one of Australian agriculture’s major collaborative investments – it will be a game changer for many dairy farmers who rely on irrigation. Efficient water use is vital to sustain dairy farming in one of the most variable climates on earth,” Dr Nation said.
Smarter Irrigation for Profit Project Phase II is supported by the Australian government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment as part of its Rural R & D for Profit program.
Dairy Australia is investing $1.7 million in the project, part of an overall dairy investment worth $7.7 million made possible by the support of Agriculture Victoria, the Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture and University of Southern Queensland.
The total investment by all partners in the Smarter Irrigation for Profit project is $22 million, maximising the combined funding of levy paying farmers.
Group manager of Farm Profit and Capability, Peter Johnson, said Dairy Australia’s participation in the project’s first phase had shown big opportunities for dairy farmers to reduce costs by producing more feed from the same amount of water or less through better timing and scheduling of irrigation.
“The technologies we are trialling through our investment in Smarter Irrigation for Profit can really help farmers bottom lines, by improving water and energy use efficiency, maximising pasture growth, reducing labour intensity through automation and through improved utilisation of data,” Mr Johnson said.
“The SIP2 optimisation sites involve local farms and the project aims to increase farm profit for 500 dairy farmers through adoption of technologies and practices that improve water productivity and irrigation performance.
“This knowledge can then be made available to farmers across the country.”
Coraki Irrigation Optimisation site Sub Tropical Dairy
Milking herd: 400-470 Jersey cows (year-round calving)
Annual ryegrass/kikuyu mixed pasture system.
Water Supply
Surface Water Entitlement: 565 ML pump (66 kW, 90 HP, 50Hz)
Flow-meter fitted at the mainline near the pump house.
Optimisation site irrigation system
Solid set sprinkler
Technologies being trialled
Three 40 centimetre EnviroPro® capacitance probes with Wildeye® logger/telemetry have been installed at the foot, middle and tail of the rectangular site.
Multi soil moisture monitors will provide improved insight into the true uniformity and rate of application of a solid set system over time.
Probe sensor readings are taken at 10cm increments every hour and this data can be accessed via a smartphone.
IrriPasture and Pasture.io have been adopted as decision support tools.
Yield measurements are taken using a rising plate meter before and after grazing.
We feel that we can maximise efficiency and growth potential of our pastures by knowing where our soil moisture is at.– Brian Chappelle
Brian Chappelle, Fairdale Farm
When Brian Chappelle took over the family farm in 2018, the young farmer was enthusiastic to learn from those more experienced in the region but he also knew he and wife Lizzy wanted to explore new strategies.
“Our new fixed irrigation system has given us the capacity to apply irrigation to meet plant requirements. What we now need to know is how energy efficient our system is to make sure that we are getting a good return for our investment,” Mr Chappelle said.
“We feel that we can maximise efficiency and growth potential of our pastures by knowing where our soil moisture is at.
“The SIP2 project is providing an opportunity for us to learn more about what data is critical to schedule irrigation more effectively and how to maximise our yield during the winter ryegrass period into early summer.
“This is the window of growth opportunity for us.”
The farm’s irrigation measurement period is from July to December.
Current rainfall in the region and wet conditions have meant irrigation has yet to play a part in the season.
Coraki Site Coordinator, Peter Hutton, said Brian had proven how quickly farmers can adapt to new technology, as he was regularly checking data from soil moisture probes on his smartphone to inform decision-making.
Mr Hutton said the project was important to not only understand what’s happening on the ground and to optimise practices but also assess the value dairy farmers derive from the high-cost investment in irrigation.
At the site, the project will address how scheduling irrigation in response to soil moisture and water balance information might improve water and power efficiency compared to the current approach and how it might enable annual ryegrass to reach its yield potential.
Smarter Irrigation for Profit phase II is supported by funding from the Australian government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment as part of its Rural R&D for Profit program. It is led by the Cotton Research and Development Corporation in partnership Dairy Australia, Grains Research and Development Corporation, AgriFutures Australia, Sugar Research Australia and nine research organisations. It builds on the project’s successful first phase launched in 2015.
Lawyer Tom Marland, who is acting on behalf of 2,500 claimants, said the State Government was aware of potential structural issues at the dam not long after it was built in 2005.
“We’ve been trying to work with the State Government since September last year to try and get common sense in relation to the management and future management of Paradise Dam,” he said.
“The political process has failed the Bundaberg region and all of those hardworking farmers that rely on the water from Paradise Dam.”
The legal action follows the judicial review that was filed to the Supreme Court earlier this year in a bid to stop work going ahead on the wall.
“The class action is for the damages and losses which are going to occur as a result of the loss of that water,” Mr Marland said.
Mr Marland said the class action was also against alleged mismanagement.
“There have been millions of dollars of investment poured into this region directly because of the water reliability of Paradise, and there is going to be billions of dollars of lost productivity as a result of the lost water,” he said.
‘Thousands of jobs on the line’
Bundaberg region macadamia and avocado grower Craig Van Rooyen said thousands of jobs were at risk if work continued at the dam.
“We have tried on many occasions to bring sense to this matter but we’ve now unfortunately had to go to class action,” Mr Van Rooyen said.
“As growers and as a community we want this dam remediated to full capacity so that it is safe for the community and also water to supply and grow the region because, at the moment, there are hundreds of millions of dollars on hold waiting to see what happens and that’s thousands of jobs on hold.
“If that wall keeps coming down we are going to lose thousands of jobs not just in agriculture.”
The class action is due to be filed in coming weeks.
The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (DAF) has confirmed fall armyworm, which feed on up to 350 plant species, were found in a pheromone trap in a sorghum crop in the area last month.
DAF principal scientist in Crop and Food Science, Richard Sequeira, said it is not yet known how the pest made it to Longreach.
“There’s only been one detection of fall armyworm and that was two males caught in a trap in early June,” Dr Sequeira said.
“How they got there and where they’ve come from is still a bit of a mystery.
“We don’t know whether those two moths that were found in Longreach have come from the immediate area or if they’ve come from somewhere else … and we haven’t found anything since.”
Pheromone traps have detected the armyworm in Longreach.(Supplied: Queensland Department Of Agriculture And Fisheries)
The fall armyworm is known to prefer feeding on crops such as maize and sorghum, but is known to also eat buffel grass and other grass and pasture species.
Dr Sequeira said despite not being much known about the pest at this stage, he was not concerned about the future of pastures in western Queensland.
“It’s so new it hasn’t really had time to tell us what it’s going to do,” Dr Sequira said.
“I’m not really concerned that, in the short term anyway, fall armyworm will just explode and annihilate everything around it … so in grassland I really don’t have reason to believe at this point in time that it will be a huge problem.”
Hungry Caterpillar: Fall armyworm hits Australian shores(Halina Baczkowski)
‘Here to stay’
Peak industry body AgForce Queensland is far more concerned about the arrival of fall armyworm in the west.
AgForce policy officer Marie Vitelli said the insect is nearly impossible to contain or eradicate.
“I think we have to expect in Australia fall armyworm is here to stay,” she said.
“It won’t be eradicated, it is beyond that.
“We will see the insect persist right across northern Australia all year round, so it will be here with us for a long time.”
Ms Vitelli said it was concerning the insect made its way so far west.
“Within one year it’s caused quite severe damage,” she said.
“It’s very concerning … this is just another invasive pest that’s come in from overseas.”
Ms Vitelli said the industry has to develop management measures for pasture hay and fodder.
IT WAS a question from one of the more than 400 visitors to Agriwebb’s ‘The Future of Farming series: Regenerative Agriculture’ that exposed an unresolved quandary.
How do you create a brand consumers can relate to, and retailers can use as a stamp of assured quality, so regenerative farmers can fetch premium prices?
Speaking at Thursday’s webinar were AgriWebb founder John Fargher, National Farmers Federation chief executive Tony Mahar, Regenerative Agriculture Alliance founder Lorraine Gordon, grass-fed Wagyu breeder Sam Trethewey, Deloraine, Tasmania, and regenerative farmer Charlie Arnott, Boorowa.
The notion of regenerative agriculture and the preferred “triple bottom line” outcomes seems something difficult to brand.
Mr Mahar said consumer purchasing behaviour was very complex, analysing it was more art than science.
“As an industry we have to work towards certification of regenerative ag and the metrics that support it,” he said.
Mr Trethewey said some sort of quantification was needed to apply to regen ag to protect its integrity.
Ebor beef cattle trader and founder of the Regenerative Agriculture Alliance, Lorraine Gordon.
“From a commercial point of view retailers want a label that can be quantified,” he said. But, while organics had established rigid protocols, he said that might not be the way regen ag should go.
This was backed up by Ms Gordon, who said organics had “shot themselves in the foot” because the definition was so prescriptive.
“If we pigeon hole producers we will miss opportunities,” she said.
Mr Arnott said certification needed to be distilled to something that was tangible.
“We are producing food, so why not manage nutrient density and residual chemicals in the food? They’re quite easy to measure.”
Ms Gordon said an holistic approach to management was first needed, then agtech could play a role in defining the benefits of regen ag. “Tech is just a tool, once you have your system running then tech has its place,” she said.
Mr Trethewey said regen ag did need to create the “proof in the pudding”, with benchmarks and measurements. AgriWebb’s Mr Fargher said tech definitiely had a place in helping to measure and quanitify.
Ms Gordon said one thing Covid-19 had shown society is that we cannot afford to look at things in isolation.
She said study she was undertaking right now suggested practising regen ag was making families more resilient. Mr Trethewey said past the farm gate there was a lot of excitement about regen ag practices.
The quest for a label that can define the notion of regenerative agriculture so consumers can understand – and be willing to pay more for products – is a work in progress.
The Queensland agriculture sector, its farmers and rural communities are no stranger to significant and continuing challenges, from a protracted drought to rising input costs, burdensome government regulations and, most recently, a global pandemic. Despite these difficulties, the state’s 24,000 farm businesses have continued to feed, clothe, and provide amenity to Queenslanders, Australians and many others around the world. As the state now turns to economic recovery, the sustainable growth of agriculture within Queensland provides various opportunities for rural and regional areas and their communities to benefit from investment. However, to achieve such benefits, barriers to productivity and profitability must be overcome.
The disparity between Queensland’s farmland values and the associated local government rates is one such example. The Valuer General’s 2020 Property Market Movement Report noted increased sales activity in Queensland’s rural markets. As a result, farming valuations this year saw an uplift of around 30 to 80 per cent. However, rate increases in many local governments areas have eclipsed these valuations for farming businesses.
While some local governments, such as Ingham and Mackay, have managed these changes in land valuations well, the 2020-21 budget handed down by the Bundaberg Regional Council will result in a net increase in general rates for all but 16 of the 1796 agricultural properties. Moreover, some properties face increases of over 200pc on their previous bills. Agricultural properties thereby contribute over 12pc of the BRC’s general rates, clearly a cross subsidisation of other rate payers.
The financial sustainability of local governments across Queensland continues to be a challenge with increasing community demand for services, population growth and rising costs associated with maintenance and renewal of ageing infrastructure. In February 2020, the Queensland Audit Office reported to parliament that over half of Queensland councils spend more than they earn.
Rates charges and other council budget processes must be transparent. Land valuation increases do not correlate to a need for more funds to administer the region. We encourage the Local Government Association of Queensland to ensure a level of predictability in the rates levied on parcels of land and businesses, and compliance with the principles set out in the state government’s Guideline on Equity and Fairness in Rating for Queensland Local Governments.
Around 400 people joined a one-and-a-half-hour webinar yesterday, seemingly with three main questions in mind: what is it, what are the practical things any farmer can do to be “regenerative”, and how can it be profitable?
Hosted by AgriWebb cofounder John Fargher, The Future of Farming Series: Regenerative Agriculture webinar featured Sam Trethewey, who is building a new large-scale regenerative agriculture farm in Tasmania; founder of the Regenerative Agriculture Alliance Lorraine Gordon; biodynamic farmer Charlie Arnott; and National Farmers Federation chief executive Tony Mahar.
What emerged was that regenerative agriculture is a broad school, far less prescriptive than organic farming.
Ms Gordon gave a long list of practices that included planting trees, fencing off waterways, time controlled planned grazing management and a reduction in – not necessarily the elimination of – chemical fertiliser usage.
“Whenever I list these practices, people go, ‘Oh my god, I’m actually doing some of those things already, maybe I am a regenerative farmer’,” she said.
But another panellist, Charlie Arnott, who sells beef and lamb and pork from his farm at Boorowa, NSW, practices a form of regenerative agriculture that is further from the conventional path and even eschews vaccinations.
“We don’t use any chemicals,” Mr Arnott said.
“We’re not introducing manmade materials into an environment which we believe has all the resources in it already, used in a particular way or various ways, to help drive the production system and drive the economics of the business.”
Making that work also involved a big focus on planned rotational grazing and diversity in the pastures.
“Animals are healthier if you take out some of the inputs … nature and animals are pretty much self-organising creatures and if we can let them build up immunity to things, let them eat diversely in the pasture and medicate themselves, very simply, those things make a big difference,” Mr Arnott said.
All that, Mr Arnott and Ms Gordon said, meant there was a low cost of production and many consumers were prepared to pay a premium for the result. It added up to farms that were consistently profitable, they said.
“We’re becoming price makers and there’s a demand for your product, because it’s clean, it’s ethically grown, there’s a story behind it,” Mr Arnott said.
But he stressed that simply being clean and ethical was not enough, producers needed to build relationships with retailers and consumers.
“We say we’re not certified biodynamic or or organic – I’m not saying that people shouldn’t be – but we say we’re certified by community because we have a relationship with them,” Mr Arnott said.
But because the definition of regenerative agriculture was so broad, Mr Mahar said it was important there was some form of certification consumers and farmers alike could understand and trust.
“We definitely as an industry should have a system,” Mr Mahar said.
“To use Charlie’s words, I think he said ‘consumers or community certified’, I mean, that’s great but I don’t think it’s going to work for everyone though.
“It might work for for buyers or suppliers in particular regions, but for the broader community … we have to work towards some sort of scheme or system or certification that says, ‘this is regenerative agriculture’.”
Sam Trethewey said it would take time for regenerative agriculture to become more mainstream.
“More broadly, from a conventional mindset, it’s going to be met with a lot of scepticism,” he said.
“After a while, we’ll start to see those innovators and early adopters pick up certain practices and then there’s a kind of looking over the boundary fence, and we’ll start to see those improvements take place and see some mass adoption.”
