Tools to manage climate risk in cropping (Australia).

Because of the variable and changing environment, advisors and farmers are seeking systems that provide risk management support at a number of time scales. The Agricultural Production Systems Research Unit, Toowoomba, Australia has developed a suite of tools to assist advisors and farmers to better manage risk in cropping. These tools range from simple rainfall analysis tools (Rainman, HowWet, HowOften) through crop simulation tools (WhopperCropper and YieldProphet) to the most complex, APSFarm, a whole-farm analysis tool. Most are derivatives of the APSIM crop model. These tools encompass a range of complexity and potential benefit to both the farming community and for government policy. This paper describes, the development and usage of two specific products; WhopperCropper and APSFarm. WhopperCropper facilitates simulation-aided discussion of growers' exposure to risk when comparing alternative crop input options. The user can readily generate 'what-if' scenarios that separate the major influences whilst holding other factors constant. Interactions of the major inputs can also be tested. A manager can examine the effects of input levels (and Southern Oscillation Index phase) to broadly determine input levels that match their attitude to risk. APSFarm has been used to demonstrate that management changes can have different effects in short and long time periods. It can be used to test local advisors and farmers' knowledge and experience of their desired rotation system. This study has shown that crop type has a larger influence than more conservative minimum soil water triggers in the long term. However, in short term dry periods, minimum soil water triggers and maximum area of the various crops can give significant financial gains.

Development of profitable milk production systems for northern Australia: a field assessment of the productivity of five potential farming systems using farmlets.

Farmlets, each of 20 cows, were established to field test five milk production systems and provide a learning platform for farmers and researchers in a subtropical environment. The systems were developed through desktop modelling and industry consultation in response to the need for substantial increases in farm milk production following deregulation of the industry. Four of the systems were based on grazing and the continued use of existing farmland resource bases, whereas the fifth comprised a feedlot and associated forage base developed as a greenfield site. The field evaluation was conducted over 4 years under more adverse environmental conditions than anticipated with below average rainfall and restrictions on irrigation. For the grazed systems, mean annual milk yield per cow ranged from 6330 kg/year (1.9 cows/ha) for a herd based on rain-grown tropical pastures to 7617 kg/year (3.0 cows/ha) where animals were based on temperate and tropical irrigated forages. For the feedlot herd, production of 9460 kg/cow.year (4.3 cows/ha of forage base) was achieved. For all herds, the level of production achieved required annual inputs of concentrates of similar to 3 t DM/animal and purchased conserved fodder from 0.3 to 1.5 t DM/animal. This level of supplementary feeding made a major contribution to total farm nutrient inputs, contributing 50% or more of the nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium entering the farming system, and presents challenges to the management of manure and urine that results from the higher stocking rates enabled. Mean annual milk production for the five systems ranged from 88 to 105% of that predicted by the desktop modelling. This level of agreement for the grazed systems was achieved with minimal overall change in predicted feed inputs; however, the feedlot system required a substantial increase in inputs over those predicted. Reproductive performance for all systems was poorer than anticipated, particularly over the summer mating period. We conclude that the desktop model, developed as a rapid response to assist farmers modify their current farming systems, provided a reasonable prediction of inputs required and milk production. Further model development would need to consider more closely climate variability, the limitations summer temperatures place on reproductive success and the feed requirements of feedlot herds.

Impacts of improved grazing land management on sediment yields, Part 1: Hillslope processes.

Summary Poor land condition resulting from unsustainable grazing practices can reduce enterprise profitability and increase water, sediment and associated nutrient runoff from properties and catchments. This paper presents the results of a 6 year field study that used a series of hillslope flume experiments to evaluate the impact of improved grazing land management (GLM) on hillslope runoff and sediment yields. The study was carried out on a commercial grazing property in a catchment draining to the Burdekin River in northern Australia. During this study average ground cover on hillslopes increased from ~35% to ~75%, although average biomass and litter levels are still relatively low for this landscape type (~60 increasing to 1100 kg of dry matter per hectare). Pasture recovery was greatest on the upper and middle parts of hillslopes. Areas that did not respond to the improved grazing management had <10% cover and were on the lower slopes associated with the location of sodic soil and the initiation of gullies. Comparison of ground cover changes and soil conditions with adjacent properties suggest that grazing management, and not just improved rainfall conditions, were responsible for the improvements in ground cover in this study. The ground cover improvements resulted in progressively lower runoff coefficients for the first event in each wet season, however, runoff coefficients were not reduced at the annual time scale. The hillslope annual sediment yields declined by ~70% on two out of three hillslopes, although where bare patches (with <10% cover) were connected to gullies and streams, annual sediment yields increased in response to higher rainfall in latter years of the study. It appears that bare patches are the primary source areas for both runoff and erosion on these hillslopes. Achieving further reductions in runoff and erosion in these landscapes may require management practices that improve ground cover and biomass in bare areas, particularly when they are located adjacent to concentrated drainage lines.