Best management practices for sustainable and safe playing surface of Australian Football League sports fields

In 2002, AFL Queensland and the Brisbane Lions Football Club approached the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (Queensland) for advice on improving their Premier League sports fields. They were concerned about player safety and dissatisfaction with playing surfaces, particularly uneven turf cover and variable under-foot conditions. They wanted to get the best from new investments in ground maintenance equipment and irrigation infrastructure. Their sports fields were representative of community-standard, multi-use venues throughout Australia; generally ‘natural’ soil fields, with low maintenance budgets, managed by volunteers. Improvements such as reconstruction, drainage, or regular re-turfing are generally not affordable. Our project aimed to: (a) Review current world practice and performance benchmarks; (b) Demonstrate best-practice management for community-standard fields; (c) Adapt relevant methods for surface performance testing; (d) Assess current soils, and investigate useful amendments; (e) Improve irrigation system performance; and (e) Build industry capacity and encourage patterns for ongoing learning. Most global sports field research focuses on elite, sand-based fields. We adjusted elite standards for surface performance (hardness, traction, soil moisture, evenness, sward cover/height) and maintenance programs, to suit community-standard fields with lesser input resources. In regularly auditing ground conditions across 12 AFLQ fields in SE QLD, we discovered surface hardness (measured by Clegg Hammer) was the No. 1 factor affecting player safety and surface performance. Other important indices were turf coverage and surface compaction (measured by penetrometer). AFLQ now runs regularly audits affiliated fields, and closes grounds with hardness readings greater than 190 Gmax. Aerating every two months was the primary mechanical practice improving surface condition and reducing hardness levels to < 110 Gmax on the renovated project fields. With irrigation installation, these fields now record surface conditions comparable to elite fields. These improvements encouraged many other sporting organisations to seek advice / assistance from the project team. AFLQ have since substantially invested in an expanded ground improvement program, to cater for this substantially increased demand. In auditing irrigation systems across project fields, we identified low maintenance (with < 65% of sprinklers operating optimally) as a major problem. Retrofitting better nozzles and adjusting sprinklers improved irrigation distribution uniformity to 75-80%. Research showed that reducing irrigation frequency to weekly, and preparedness to withhold irrigation longer after rain, reduced irrigation requirement by 30-50%, compared to industry benchmarks of 5-6 ML/ha/annum. Project team consultation with regulatory authorities enhanced irrigation efficiency under imposed regional water restrictions. Laboratory studies showed incorporated biosolids / composts, or topdressed crumb rubber, improved compaction resistance of soils. Field evaluations confirmed compost incorporation significantly reduced surface hardness of high wear areas in dry conditions, whilst crumb rubber assisted turf persistence into early winter. Neither amendment was a panacea for poor agronomic practices. Under the auspices of the project Trade Mark Sureplay®, we published > 80 articles, and held > 100 extension activities involving > 2,000 participants. Sureplay® has developed a multi-level curator training structure and resource materials, subject to commercial implementation. The partnerships with industry bodies (particularly AFLQ), frequent extension activities, and engagement with government/regulatory sectors have been very successful, and are encouraged for any future work. Specific aspects of sports field management for further research include: (a) Understanding of factors affecting turf wear resistance and recovery, to improve turf persistence under wear; (b) Simple tests for pinpointing areas of fields with high hardness risk; and (c) Evaluation of new irrigation infrastructure, ‘water-saving’ devices, and irrigation protocols, in improving water use and turf cover outcomes.

Objective `Safe' Grazing Capacities for South-West Queensland Australia: Model Application and Evaluation

This paper describes the employment of two experienced graziers as consultants to apply and evaluate a model for calculating 'safe' long-term grazing capacities of individual properties. The model was based on ecological principles and entailed estimates of average annual forage grown (kglha) on the different land systems on each property and the calculation of the number of livestock (dry sheep equivalents, DSE) required to 'safely' utilise this forage. The grazier consultants applied and evaluated the 'safe' grazing capacity model on 20 properties of their choosing. For evaluation, model results were compared with; (a) the Department of Lands rated carrying capacities for those properties and (b) the grazing capacity assessed independently by the owners of those properties. For the 20 properties, the average 'safe' grazing capacity calculated by the model (21.0 DSE/kmZ) was 8% lighter than the average of the owner assessed capacities (22.7 DSE/kmZ), which in tum was 37% lighter than the average of the pre-1989 Department of Lands rated carrying capacity (31.0 DSE/kmZ). The grazing land management and administrative implications of these results and the role graziers played as consultants are discussed.

Objective `Safe' Grazing Capacities for South-West Queensland Australia: Development of a Model for Individual Properties

Few tools are available to assist graziers, land administrators and financiers in making objective grazing capacity decisions on Australian rangelands, despite existing knowledge regarding stocking rate theory and the impact of stocking rates on land condition. To address this issue a model for objectively estimating 'safe' grazing capacities on individual grazing properties in south-west Queensland was developed. The method is based on 'safe' levels of utilisation (15%-20%) by domestic livestock of average annual forage grown for each land system on a property. Average annual forage grown (kglha) was calculated as the product of the rainfall use efficiency (kglhdmm) and average annual rainfall (mm) for a land system. This estimate included the impact of tree and shrub cover on forage production. The 'safe' levels of forage utilisation for south- west Queensland pastures were derived from the combined experience of (1) re-analysis of the results of grazing trials, (2) reaching a consensus on local knowledge and (3) examination of existing grazing practice on 'benchmark' grazing properties. We recognise the problems in defining, determining and using grazing capacity values, but consider that the model offers decision makers a tool that can be used to assess the grazing capacity of individual properties.

Estimating Resource Requirements to Staff a Response to a Medium to Large Outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease in Australia

A recent report to the Australian Government identified concerns relating to Australia's capacity to respond to a medium to large outbreak of FMD. To assess the resources required, the AusSpread disease simulation model was used to develop a plausible outbreak scenario that included 62 infected premises in five different states at the time of detection, 28 days after the disease entered the first property in Victoria. Movements of infected animals and/or contaminated product/equipment led to smaller outbreaks in NSW, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania. With unlimited staff resources, the outbreak was eradicated in 63 days with 54 infected premises and a 98% chance of eradication within 3 months. This unconstrained response was estimated to involve 2724 personnel. Unlimited personnel was considered unrealistic, and therefore, the course of the outbreak was modelled using three levels of staffing and the probability of achieving eradication within 3 or 6 months of introduction determined. Under the baseline staffing level, there was only a 16% probability that the outbreak would be eradicated within 3 months, and a 60% probability of eradication in 6 months. Deployment of an additional 60 personnel in the first 3 weeks of the response increased the likelihood of eradication in 3 months to 68%, and 100% in 6 months. Deployment of further personnel incrementally increased the likelihood of timely eradication and decreased the duration and size of the outbreak. Targeted use of vaccination in high-risk areas coupled with the baseline personnel resources increased the probability of eradication in 3 months to 74% and to 100% in 6 months. This required 25 vaccination teams commencing 12 days into the control program increasing to 50 vaccination teams 3 weeks later. Deploying an equal number of additional personnel to surveillance and infected premises operations was equally effective in reducing the outbreak size and duration.