Relocation of Intensive Agriculture to Northern Australia: The Case of the Rice Industry

Development of new agricultural industries in northern Australia is seen as a way to provide food security in the face of reduced water availability in existing regions in the south. This report aims to identify some of the possible economic consequences of developing a rice industry in the Burdekin region, while there is a reduction of output in the Riverina. Annual rice production in the Riverina peaked at 1.7 M tonnes, but the long-term outlook, given climate change impacts on that region and government water buy-backs, is more likely to be less than 800,000 tonnes. Growers are highly efficient water users by international standards, but the ability to offset an anticipated reduction in water availability through further efficiency gains is limited. In recent years growers in the Riverina have diversified their farms to a greater extent and secondary production systems include beef, sheep and wheat. Production in north Queensland is in its infancy, but a potentially suitable farming system has been developed by including rice within the sugarcane system without competition and in fact contributing to the production of sugar by increasing yields and controlling weeds. The economic outcomes are estimated a large scale, dynamic, computable general equilibrium (CGE) model of the world economy (Tasman Global), scaled down to regional level. CGE models mimic the workings of the economy through a system of interdependent behavioural and accounting equations which are linked to an input-output database. When an economic shock or change is applied to a model, each of the markets adjusts according to the set of behavioural parameters which are underpinned by economic theory. In this study the model is driven by reducing production in the Riverina in accordance with relationships found between water availability and the production of rice and replacement by other crops and by increasing ride production in the Burdekin. Three scenarios were considered: • Scenario 1: Rice is grown using the fallow period between the last ratoon crop of sugarcane and the new planting. In this scenario there is no competition between rice and sugarcane • Scenario 2: Rice displaces sugarcane production • Scenario 3: Rice is grown on additional land and does not compete with sugarcane. Two time periods were used, 2030 and 2070, which are the conventional time points to consider climate change impacts. Under scenario 1, real economic output declines in the Riverina by $45 million in 2030 and by $139 million in 2070. This is only partially offset by the increased real economic output in the Burdekin of $35 million and $131 million respectively.

Net radiation dynamics: performance of 20 daily net radiation models as related to model structure and intricacy in two climates.

We compared daily net radiation (Rn) estimates from 19 methods with the ASCE-EWRI Rn estimates in two climates: Clay Center, Nebraska (sub-humid) and Davis, California (semi-arid) for the calendar year. The performances of all 20 methods, including the ASCE-EWRI Rn method, were then evaluated against Rn data measured over a non-stressed maize canopy during two growing seasons in 2005 and 2006 at Clay Center. Methods differ in terms of inputs, structure, and equation intricacy. Most methods differ in estimating the cloudiness factor, emissivity (e), and calculating net longwave radiation (Rnl). All methods use albedo (a) of 0.23 for a reference grass/alfalfa surface. When comparing the performance of all 20 Rn methods with measured Rn, we hypothesized that the a values for grass/alfalfa and non-stressed maize canopy were similar enough to only cause minor differences in Rn and grass- and alfalfa-reference evapotranspiration (ETo and ETr) estimates. The measured seasonal average a for the maize canopy was 0.19 in both years. Using a = 0.19 instead of a = 0.23 resulted in 6% overestimation of Rn. Using a = 0.19 instead of a = 0.23 for ETo and ETr estimations, the 6% difference in Rn translated to only 4% and 3% differences in ETo and ETr, respectively, supporting the validity of our hypothesis. Most methods had good correlations with the ASCE-EWRI Rn (r2 > 0.95). The root mean square difference (RMSD) was less than 2 MJ m-2 d-1 between 12 methods and the ASCE-EWRI Rn at Clay Center and between 14 methods and the ASCE-EWRI Rn at Davis. The performance of some methods showed variations between the two climates. In general, r2 values were higher for the semi-arid climate than for the sub-humid climate. Methods that use dynamic e as a function of mean air temperature performed better in both climates than those that calculate e using actual vapor pressure. The ASCE-EWRI-estimated Rn values had one of the best agreements with the measured Rn (r2 = 0.93, RMSD = 1.44 MJ m-2 d-1), and estimates were within 7% of the measured Rn. The Rn estimates from six methods, including the ASCE-EWRI, were not significantly different from measured Rn. Most methods underestimated measured Rn by 6% to 23%. Some of the differences between measured and estimated Rn were attributed to the poor estimation of Rnl. We conducted sensitivity analyses to evaluate the effect of Rnl on Rn, ETo, and ETr. The Rnl effect on Rn was linear and strong, but its effect on ETo and ETr was subsidiary. Results suggest that the Rn data measured over green vegetation (e.g., irrigated maize canopy) can be an alternative Rn data source for ET estimations when measured Rn data over the reference surface are not available. In the absence of measured Rn, another alternative would be using one of the Rn models that we analyzed when all the input variables are not available to solve the ASCE-EWRI Rn equation. Our results can be used to provide practical information on which method to select based on data availability for reliable estimates of daily Rn in climates similar to Clay Center and Davis.

Simple software processes and tests improve the reliability and usefulness of a model.

Models are abstractions of reality that have predetermined limits (often not consciously thought through) on what problem domains the models can be used to explore. These limits are determined by the range of observed data used to construct and validate the model. However, it is important to remember that operating the model beyond these limits, one of the reasons for building the model in the first place, potentially brings unwanted behaviour and thus reduces the usefulness of the model. Our experience with the Agricultural Production Systems Simulator (APSIM), a farming systems model, has led us to adapt techniques from the disciplines of modelling and software development to create a model development process. This process is simple, easy to follow, and brings a much higher level of stability to the development effort, which then delivers a much more useful model. A major part of the process relies on having a range of detailed model tests (unit, simulation, sensibility, validation) that exercise a model at various levels (sub-model, model and simulation). To underline the usefulness of testing, we examine several case studies where simulated output can be compared with simple relationships. For example, output is compared with crop water use efficiency relationships gleaned from the literature to check that the model reproduces the expected function. Similarly, another case study attempts to reproduce generalised hydrological relationships found in the literature. This paper then describes a simple model development process (using version control, automated testing and differencing tools), that will enhance the reliability and usefulness of a model.