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.

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.

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.

A multi-field bio-economic model of irrigated grain-cotton farming systems.

We present a participatory modelling framework that integrates information from interviews and discussions with farmers and consultants, with dynamic bio-economic models to answer complex questions on the allocation of limited resources at the farm business level. Interviews and discussions with farmers were used to: describe the farm business; identify relevant research questions; identify potential solutions; and discuss and learn from the whole-farm simulations. The simulations are done using a whole-farm, multi-field configuration of APSIM (APSFarm). APSFarm results were validated against farmers' experience. Once the model was accepted by the participating farmers as a fair representation of their farm business, the model was used to explore changes in the tactical or strategic management of the farm and results were then discussed to identify feasible options for improvement. Here we describe the modelling framework and present an example of the application of integrative whole farm system tools to answer relevant questions from an irrigated farm business case study near Dalby (151.27E - 27.17S), Queensland, Australia. Results indicated that even though cotton crops generates more farm income per hectare a more diversified rotation with less cotton would be relatively more profitable, with no increase in risk, as a more cotton dominated traditional rotation. Results are discussed in terms of the benefits and constraints from developing and applying more integrative approaches to represent farm businesses and their management in participatory research projects with the aim of designing more profitable and sustainable irrigated farming systems.

The Ethics of a Co-regulatory Model for Farm Animal Welfare Research

Standards for farm animal welfare are variously managed at a national level by government-led regulatory control, by consumer-led welfare economics and co-regulated control in a partnership between industry and government. In the latter case the control of research to support animal welfare standards by the relevant industry body may lead to a conflict of interest on the part of researchers, who are dependent on industry for continued research funding. We examine this dilemma by reviewing two case studies of research published under an Australian co-regulated control system. Evidence of unsupported conclusions that are favourable to industry is provided, suggesting that researchers do experience a conflict of interest that may influence the integrity of the research. Alternative models for the management of research are discussed, including the establishment of an independent research management body for animal welfare because of its public good status and the use of public money derived from taxation, with representation from government, industry, consumers, and advocacy groups.