How effective are broad-scale nutrient mass balances for determining the sustainability of lot-feed manure application?

Nutrient mass balances have been used to assess a variety of land resource scenarios, at various scales. They are widely used as a simple basis for policy, planning, and regulatory decisions but it is not clear how accurately they reflect reality. This study provides a critique of broad-scale nutrient mass balances, with particular application to the fertiliser use of beef lot-feeding manure in Queensland. Mass balances completed at the district and farm scale were found to misrepresent actual manure management behaviour and potentially the risk of nutrient contamination of water resources. The difficulties of handling stockpile manure and concerns about soil compaction mean that manure is spread thickly over a few paddocks at a time and not evenly across a whole farm. Consequently, higher nutrient loads were applied to a single paddock less frequently than annually. This resulted in years with excess nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium remaining in the soil profile. This conclusion was supported by evidence of significant nutrient movement in several of the soil profiles studied. Spreading manure is profitable, but maximum returns can be associated with increased risk of nutrient leaching relative to conventional inorganic fertiliser practices. Bio-economic simulations found this increased risk where manure was applied to supply crop nitrogen requirements (the practice of the case study farms, 200-5000 head lot-feeders). Thus, the use of broad-scale mass balances can be misleading because paddock management is spatially heterogeneous and this leads to increased local potential for nutrient loss. In response to the effect of spatial heterogeneity policy makers who intend to use mass balance techniques to estimate potential for nutrient contamination should apply these techniques conservatively.

An overview of integrated pest management (IPM) in north-eastern Australian grain farming systems: Past, present and future prospects

The authors overview integrated pest management (IPM) in grain crops in north-eastern Australia, which is defined as the area north of latitude 32°S. Major grain crops in this region include the coarse grains (winter and summer cereals), oilseeds and pulses. IPM in these systems is complicated by the diversity of crops, pests, market requirements and cropping environments. In general, the pulse crops are at greatest risk, followed by oilseeds and then by cereal grains. Insecticides remain a key grain pest management tool in north-eastern Australia. IPM in grain crops has benefited considerably through the increased adoption of new, more selective insecticides and biopesticides for many caterpillar pests, in particular Helicoverpa spp. and loopers, and the identification of pest-crop scenarios where spraying is unnecessary (e.g. for most Creontiades spp. populations in soybeans). This has favoured the conservation of natural enemies in north-eastern Australia grain crops, and has arguably assisted in the management of silverleaf whitefly in soybeans in coastal Queensland. However, control of sucking pests and podborers such as Maruca vitrata remains a major challenge for IPM in summer pulses. Because these crops have very low pest-damage tolerances and thresholds, intervention with disruptive insecticides is frequently required, particularly during podfill. The threat posed by silverleaf whitefly demands ongoing multi-pest IPM research, development and extension as this pest can flare under favourable seasonal conditions, especially where disruptive insecticides are used injudiciously. The strong links between researchers and industry have facilitated the adoption of IPM practices in north-eastern Australia and augers well for future pest challenges and for the development and promotion of new and improved IPM tactics.

Growth and physiological response of six Australian rainforest tree species to a light gradient

An understanding of growth and photosynthetic potential of subtropical rainforest species to variations in light environment can be useful for determining the sequence of species introductions in rainforest restoration projects and mixed species plantations. We examined the growth and physiology of six Australian subtropical rainforest tree species in a greenhouse consisting of three artificial light environments (10%, 30%, and 60% full sunlight). Morphological responses followed the typical sun-shade dichotomy, with early and late secondary species (Elaeocarpus grandis, Flindersia brayleyana, Flindersia schottiana, and Gmelina leichhardtii) displaying higher relative growth rate (RGR) compared to mature stage species (Cryptocarya erythroxyion and Heritiera trifoliolatum). Growth and photosynthetic performance of most species reached a maximum in 30-60% full sunlight. Physiological responses provided limited evidence of a distinct dichotomy between early and late successional species. E. grandis and F brayleyana, provided a clear representation of early successional species, with marked increase in Am in high light and an ability to down regulate photosynthetic machinery in low light conditions. The remaining species (F. schottiana, G. leichhardtii, and H. trifoliolatum) were better represented as failing along a shade-tolerant continuum, with limited ability to adjust physiologically to an increase or decrease in light, maintaining similar A(max) across all light environments. Results show that most species belong to a shade-tolerant constituency, with an ability to grow and persist across a wide range of light environments. The species offer a wide range of potential planting scenarios and silvicultural options, with ample potential to achieve rapid canopy closure and rainforest restoration goals.

The intrinsic plasticity of farm businesses and their resilience to change. An Australian example.

This paper examines the idea that plasticity in farm management introduces resilience to change and allows farm businesses to perform when operating in highly variable environments. We also argue for the need to develop and apply more integrative assessments of farm performance that combine the use of modelling tools with deliberative processes involving farmers and researchers in a co-learning process, to more effectively identify and implement more productive and resilient farm businesses. In a plastic farming system, farm management is highly contingent on environmental conditions. In plastic farming systems farm managers constantly vary crops and inputs based on the availability of limited and variable resources (e.g. land, water, finances, labour, machinery, etc.), and signals from its operating environment (e.g. climate, markets), with the objective of maximising a number of, often competing, objectives (e.g. maximise profits, minimise risks, etc.). In contrast in more rigid farming systems farm management is more calendar driven and relatively fixed sequences of crops are regularly followed over time and across the farm. Here we describe the application of a whole farm simulation model to (i) compare, in silico, the sensitivity of two farming systems designs of contrasting levels of plasticity, operating in two contrasting environments, when exposed to a stressor in the form of climate change scenarios;(ii) investigate the presence of interactions and feedbacks at the field and farm levels capable of modifying the intensity and direction of the responses to climate signals; and (iii) discuss the need for the development and application of more integrative assessments in the analysis of impacts and adaptation options to climate change. In both environments, the more plastic farm management strategy had higher median profits and was less risky for the baseline and less intensive climate change scenarios (2030). However, for the more severe climate change scenarios (2070), the benefit of plastic strategies tended to disappear. These results suggest that, to a point, farming systems having higher levels of plasticity would enable farmers to more effectively respond to climate shifts, thus ensuring the economic viability of the farm business. Though, as the intensity of the stress increases (e.g. 2070 climate change scenario) more significant changes in the farming system might be required to adapt. We also found that in the case studies analysed here, most of the impacts from the climate change scenarios on farm profit and economic risk originated from important reductions in cropping intensity and changes in crop mix rather than from changes in the yields of individual crops. Changes in cropping intensity and crop mix were explained by the combination of reductions in the number of sowing opportunities around critical times in the cropping calendar, and to operational constraints at the whole farm level i.e. limited work capacity in an environment having fewer and more concentrated sowing opportunities. This indicates that indirect impacts from shifts in climate on farm operations can be more important than direct impacts from climate on the yield of individual crops. The results suggest that due to the complexity of farm businesses, impact assessments and opportunities for adaptation to climate change might also need to be pursued at higher integration levels than the crop or the field. We conclude that plasticity can be a desirable characteristic in farming systems operating in highly variable environments, and that integrated whole farm systems analyses of impacts and adaptation to climate change are required to identify important interactions between farm management decision rules, availability of resources, and farmer's preference.