Australians and Natural Resource Management
National Land and Water Resources Audit, Commonwealth of Australia
March 2002
ISBN 0 642 37123 7
Building regional capacity for change
Lessons from case studies
Benefits of group action
Most of Australia’s land resources are ultimately controlled and managed by individual farmers or land managers. Their actions have a major bearing on the state of the natural resources on their properties as well as those off farm such as the health of rivers and streams, wetlands, estuaries, biodiversity, native vegetation and other natural resources. If improvements are to be made to the state of our natural resources, changes will need to be made, at the individual farm level, to the way resources are managed.
A key element of change by individual land managers is recognition of the nature and extent of the problems, knowledge and understanding of the underlying causes and an acceptance that there are practical options which if adopted will address the problems. Land managers acting individually with different time frames and levels of understanding of key regional problems are much less effective than regional communities addressing key issues in a coordinated manner though regional strategic planning and management processes. The case studies have demonstrated the benefits of forming partnerships and coordinated approaches through regional strategic planning processes and in the case of the dairy industry, how commodity-based approaches can be part of the delivery of improved natural resources management.
Setting realistic goals
Regional strategic planning and management processes need to set realistic goals that are achievable yet challenge the resources and processes of the region. Objectives and targets need to be specific and easily understood (e.g. setting specific targets for reductions in nutrients or sediment levels in rivers may be useful for scientists or experts but could be better translated into practical measures that landowners can understand such as length of riparian areas revegetated or proportion of farmers adopting effective means of limiting run-off into streams).
Central to any regional planning and management that addresses key natural resource degradation issues are information on the extent, condition, trend and nature of natural resources; an understanding of the causes of any impacts; and information on the effectiveness, benefits and costs of options to address the degradation.
Regional planning processes must have accurate, scientifically based information to report progress and changes as management activities take effect. The planning process should include efforts to get all stakeholders to fully understand the regional natural resource issues and their consequences. This is akin to getting wide understanding of the problem definition and ‘baseline’ for the future or what will happen under a ‘business as usual’ scenario (see Chapter 2, Figure 2.5). The datasets and information compiled by the Audit can be highly informative. They need to be ‘translated’ to provide regional perspectives and to be supplemented with regional studies.
Gains beyond ‘no regrets’ options
The severity of many regional natural resource degradation issues will often require measures that go well beyond the adoption of relatively simple and inexpensive ‘best management practices’. Such ‘no regrets’ options can be useful and should in most cases be implemented at an early stage as a demonstration of actions being taken and to boost community confidence. But such actions will not always be sufficient to address the extent of problems being faced. At a certain point, trade-offs will need to be made in a community context. Trade-offs may be at several levels. On individual farms, beyond the adoption of best management practices, farmers may need to make trade-offs between pursuing particular beneficial environmental outcomes, and striving for greater profitability. At a community level, trade-offs may be needed between spending community funds on certain engineering options to address environmental problems, for example, and spending those funds on other community projects. Such trade-offs need careful assessment as to their economic and social consequences and should be evaluated in a benefit–cost framework as outlined under Steps 2, 3 and 4 in Figure 2.5 of Chapter 2. Frequently, these trade-offs require hard decisions.
Assessment framework context
In many cases, damage to natural resources has occurred out of ignorance of degradation processes and a failure to adequately assess change in degradation, plan for the amelioration or prevention of the degradation, implement plans and monitor changing resource conditions. Such changes in the physical condition of natural resources are often taking place very gradually, over extended periods until an ‘over the cliff’ state is reached where damage becomes readily apparent and serious.
Australia-wide data sets collated by the Audit provide a wealth of information that can be accessed by regional planners in developing strategies and action plans to manage natural resources sustainability while providing for regional, economic and social development.
The case studies described in this chapter illustrate how regions and, in one case, a regionally focused but national industry—the dairy industry—can develop strategic and action plans for sustainable development based on regional and Audit information.
- Case Study 1 focuses on Gippsland in Victoria where a particular problem is nutrient run off into the Gippsland Lakes.
- Case Study 2 is the Fitzroy Basin in Central Queensland. Here the key issue is the reduction in the amount of sediment and nutrients exported off farm and impacting on rivers and estuaries and near-shore coastal waters of the Great Barrier Reef.
- Case Study 3 focuses on the dairy industry, which faces a range of environmental issues, of varying importance in differing regions. The dairy industry through the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation is taking a proactive industry-led approach to natural resource management, gaining understanding of the key issues and developing strategies and action plans to deliver continuous improvement in on-farm practice.
Case Studies 1 and 2 were known and referred to as the Signposts project.
Information supporting regional planning and development
The Audit’s Signposts for Australian Agriculture project together with its earlier ‘Implementation’ project were designed to integrate Audit data with regional information as the basis for identifying regional profiles and problems, strategic opportunities and devising regional action plans (Figure 7.1).
Figure 7.1 The Audit’s Signposts project.
  |
‘Gippsland model’ case study
The Gippsland region of Victoria (Figure 7.3) faces a number of environmental problems including deteriorating water quality (turbidity, nutrients, salinity, colour and bacterial contamination) and degrading aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. A particular community concern is the high concentrations of nutrients in rivers and streams that run off into the Gippsland Lakes. In 1988 and 1999, severe problems of algal bloom developed in these lake systems with subsequent environmental and tourism implications.
The Gippsland community generally considers the regional dairy industry, rightly or wrongly, to be a major contributor to the deteriorating water quality. High levels of phosphorus and nitrogen in waterways are thought by the community to result from high fertiliser use and effluent run-off on dairy farms. The dairy industry is also a major employer in the region.
Between 1998 and 2000, the Audit, in partnership with the Victorian Department of Natural Resources and Environment, developed a regional implementation project of the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority region.
Figure 7.2 The Gippsland model.
 |
Initial work included preparation of a regional profile and collation of key environmental indicators for monitoring the condition of natural resources. It resulted in several partnerships formed between Commonwealth, State and local governments; and industry organisations. The resulting strategic planning approach has become known as the ‘Gippsland model’.
The Gippsland model uses a range of data sets and information from different sources to develop regional understanding of biophysical, social and economic conditions (Figure 7.2). Assessment and interpretation is done by experts.
Challenges
- To correctly identify the sources of the high nutrient loads in the Gippsland Lakes. The Audit’s report Australian Agriculture Assessment 2001 (NLWRA 2001e) identifies the relative contributions of nutrients from a range of sources (see Appendix 1). Certainly the dairy industry is likely to be a contributor with the total diffuse sources estimated at contributing 60% of the phosphorus from East Gippsland, 53% from the Thomson River and 47% from South Gippsland. Phosphorus attached to fine sediments from riverbank erosion is also a major contributor to the remaining portion.
- To determine the fate of nutrients once within the Gippsland Lakes and what are the particular limnological conditions that result in a high propensity for algal blooms. CSIRO is studying the Gippsland system in detail to determine the key processes driving algal blooms in the area.
- To move towards best practice for all land uses, controlling enrichments at source. This particular project has concentrated on the dairy industry and reflects this industry’s willingness to move towards improved practice and performance.
Following the pressure – state – response model (ANZECC 1998) a set of 26 environmental indicators was developed to form a baseline for Gippsland’s regional natural resources and for monitoring and evaluation. The indicators were grouped into five issues:
- inland waters;
- land, vegetation and biodiversity;
- estuaries;
- atmosphere; and
- regional economic and social issues.
Shire of Wellington, Gippsland: a profile of the region and its challenges
The West Gippsland catchment management region covers an area of just over 2 million hectares and is situated in the south east of Victoria (Figure 7.3). It is divided into three river basins—the Latrobe, Thomson and South Gippsland. The region has a population of about 172 000 people and it is the most densely settled rural area in Victoria. Half the area is public land, most of which is forested. The other half is primarily private farm holdings with dairying the most important enterprise. Over 50% of the agricultural income of the region is derived from milk sales, with livestock and livestock products accounting for 85% of agricultural income. Horticultural enterprises account for about 9% of agricultural income.
Figure 7.3 Location of Gippsland study area (Victoria).
 |
Wellington Shire forms about half the area of the West Gippsland region and contains most of the Macalister Irrigation District that represents the powerhouse of the dairying industry in the region.
- Average taxable income of $27 295 is below that of Gippsland ($28 463), Victoria ($32 730) and Australia ($32 902).
- 76.6% of the residents in the Shire of Wellington are taxpayers compared to 78.3% in Gippsland, 84.6% in Victoria and 84.2% in Australia (Table 7.1).
- Unemployment in the Shire of Wellington is highly variable over time. Workforce participation rates have worsened but remain above 50%.
- Age of farmers has increased over time to approximately 46–53 years across the Shire of Wellington (Table 7.2).
- Milk production for the whole of East and West Gippsland was valued at $414.5 million in 1998/99 (ABS Ag Survey), with $108.5 million worth of production from the Shire of Wellington. In the Shire of Wellington this accounted for more than half of all agricultural production ($193 million).
- Consolidation of the dairy industry is ongoing, although the Shire of Wellington now has an increased proportion of the number of farms when compared with the rest of Gippsland (Table 7.3).
Table 7.1 Employment in the Shire of Wellington.
| 1986 | 1991 | 1996 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total employed persons | 16 010 | 9 624 | 15 546 |
| Total unemployed persons | 1 343 | 1 355 | 1 883 |
| Labour force | 17 353 | 10 979 | 17 429 |
| Participation rate (%) | 56.9 | 54.5 | 52.7 |
| Unemployment rate (%) | 7.7 | 12.3 | 10.8 |
Source: CData96, ABS (1998)
Table 7.2 Median age of farmers by statistical local area in the Shire of Wellington.
| Statistical local area | 1986 | 1991 | 1996 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Median age (years) | |||
| Alberton | 45 | 47 | 49 |
| Avon | 45 | 47 | 49 |
| Maffra | 46 | 45 | 46 |
| Rosedale | 44 | 45 | 46 |
| Sale | 57 | 61 | 53 |
- Management practices are mainly geared to intensive pasture production for dairy and beef cattle grazing. This means substantial use of fertilisers on pastures to boost pasture yields and livestock productivity. As a result of the introduction of various technologies in pasture and herd management practices, milk yield per cow has more than doubled in the past 25 years. Only about 5% of the land in the Shire is irrigated—mainly the Macalister Irrigation District.
- Costs of milk production vary greatly. In Gippsland the variable cost per litre of milk is 15.1 cents placing the region on par with most other regions in Victoria. The Macalister Irrigation District is a high input irrigation area within the region and returns the lowest margins on investment per hectare and per cow in the region. Profitability (gross margin) for the irrigation district is $412 per cow and $775 per hectare as compared with regional measures of $412–$518 per cow and $775–$936 per hectare.
Table 7.3 Number of dairy farms in the Shire of Wellington 1996 and 1999.
| 1996 | 1999 | Change (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wellington | 701 | 680 | -3 |
| Gippsland (GippsDairy Licences) | 2 709 | 2 603 | -4 |
| Share of Gippsland (%) |
25 | 26 | +4 |
Source: Victorian Dairy Industry Association 1999
Resource condition
An estimated 60% of West Gippsland’s waterways are considered to be in a poor to very poor environmental condition. High nutrient levels occur in the lower reaches of several rivers that flow into Lake Wellington and the other Gippsland Lakes.
High turbidity levels as well as nutrients are recorded frequently in the lower reaches on the Macalister and Thomson rivers. The Thomson has been dammed to contribute to Melbourne’s water supply and this has resulted in severely reduced flows downstream and into the lakes.
A ‘nutrient reduction plan’ that aims to reduce nutrient levels by 40% within five years has been developed locally. Implementation is being overseen by the Wellington Salinity Group formed by the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority.
Community capacity building in Gippsland
Following the Audit’s implementation project in West Gippsland, further work focused on capacity building, forming alliances of key stakeholder groups and strategic planning for the subset region of the Shire of Wellington and particularly the Macalister Irrigation District (Figure 7.4).
The goal is to conserve and enhance the state of natural resources while improving the economic prosperity of the region, particularly the farming community. As a result one of the objectives was to reduce nutrient concentration in rivers and improve water quality while enhancing productivity and economic prosperity of farmers in the region.
Through access to Audit data outputs and the exchange of local information, strategic planning of natural resources has been facilitated in the Gippsland region. In several cases formal memoranda of understanding have been signed between groups. Each of the organisations will take the priorities agreed to and develop action plans according to their role in regional and local natural resource management.
Under the regional strategic framework, the steering group is setting priorities for initiatives that are most urgently required to achieve key objectives.
A recent priority-setting process with a round table group of specialists in agriculture and natural resources management suggest that the following sets of initiatives were most relevant for sustainable development in Gippsland.
- Soil conservation measures
- Education initiatives
- Water use and irrigation efficiencies
- Regional benchmarks (environmental accreditation, etc.)
- Effluent management
Some initiatives are already occurring in Gippsland (Figure 7.4). The priority list will help to provide a better focus for targeted and coordinated regional investment in the dairy industry.
Figure 7.4 The coordination of strategy and investment in Gippsland.
 |
Fitzroy River Basin case study
The region and the challenges it faces
The Fitzroy River Basin in central Queensland covers about 14.3 million hectares. It is the largest river basin draining to the east coast of Australia and drains to the southern end of the Great Barrier Reef. It has a subtropical semi-arid climate with high rainfall variability. Frequent heavy downpours, often after dry periods, provide particular challenges to land mangers to maintain sufficient ground cover to prevent soil erosion leading to sedimentation in rivers and transport of sediment and nutrients to the Great Barrier Reef lagoon.
- Most of the Basin is devoted to cattle grazing (82% of land) with other land uses including irrigated cotton and dryland cropping (7%), forests and parks (9%) and mining (1%).
- Over the past few decades there have been significant land use changes. Extensive clearing of brigalow scrub has provided large tracts of new land for grazing and cropping but the loss of native vegetation cover has made the land vulnerable to soil erosion. New dams in the basin have expanded the areas under irrigation and have trapped some of the bedload of sediment that would otherwise be transported downstream.
- The Fitzroy region including the Fitzroy Basin and Central Highlands (Figure 7.5) has a population of about 185 000 people. In 1996 there were an estimated 1980 beef producers, 216 grain growers, 101 cotton farmers and 512 mixed beef/grains farmers. For 1998/99 the gross value of rural production was $836 million with 60% being accounted for by returns from beef cattle grazing.
Figure 7.5 Location of Fitzroy Basin study area (Queensland).
 |
- Surface soil erosion is a major problem in the basin (Table 7.4) and is caused by a combination of overgrazing and cropping activities with the summer-dominant rainfall often occurring in intense, sometimes cyclonic events. An estimated 2–4 million tonnes of suspended sediment leaves the basin annually and enters the marine environment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Erosion from cropped land is higher than from pastures, but regional land use is dominated by grazing. River sediment loads in the Fitzroy Basin are predicted to have increased by 15 times the natural rate that prevailed prior to European settlement. Hillslope erosion is a particular problem. An estimated 3100 tonnes of nitrogen and 1300 tonnes of phosphorus per year are transported in the basin’s waterways to the marine environment.
- The sediment export from the Fitzroy to the Great Barrier Reef lagoon is estimated at 21 times natural loads with phosphorus 6.9 times estimates of natural loads and nitrogen 3.3 times.
Table 7.4 Soil erosion in the Fitzroy Basin.
| Attribute | Fitzroy Basin | Fitzroy as a proportion of national total (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Area (mha) | 14.3 | 8.5 |
| Stream length (‘000 km) | 15.5 | 8.5 |
| Sediment sources | ||
| • bank erosion (Mt/yr) | 2.0 | 6.0 |
| • gully erosion (Mt/yr) | 4.0 | 9.0 |
| • hillslope erosion (Mt/yr) | 10.0 | 20.0 |
| Total (Mt/yr) | 16.0 | 12.5 |
| Sediment delivered to marine environment (Mt/yr) | 2–4 | 12.0 |
| Stream length with degraded riparian vegetation (’000 km) | 7.8 | 6.5 |
| • percent of total stream length (%) | 50.0 |
Source: Australian Agriculture Assessment 2001 (NLWRA 2001e)
Implementing the Fitzroy project
Stakeholders were identified and informal partnership groups formed (Figure 7.6). These included CSIRO, Central Queensland University and Queensland government agency representatives on the Signposts team, Agforce Central Queensland, the Central Highlands Regional Resource Use Planning Project pastoral and grains group and the Integrated Catchment Management Committee of the Fitzroy Basin Association. Each group had a slightly different perspective and set of goals, but substantial areas of overlap enabled the groups to work together towards common goals of sustainability, reducing soil erosion and increasing the viability of beef producers in the region.
Substantial amounts of regional biophysical, social and economic information were supplemented with Audit data sourced from national data sets.
Figure 7.6 Developing strategic directions for the Fitzroy region.
 |
Data were collected and summarised into a regional beef industry profile that documented resource condition, and social and economic information on beef producers. This provided the contextual information for a workshop to identify key industry challenges and opportunities and to develop strategic responses. Out of this process four key ‘briefing papers’ or industry strategic response papers were prepared which will form the blueprint for implementation plans. The briefing papers reproduced in Appendix C cover:
- human capital development: pastoral industry
- marketing sustainability
- environmental compatibility; and.
- soil erosion risk in the Fitzroy Basin.
Implementation will be driven by each group using the strategic plans to augment existing plans. Strategic plans will include works, extension activities, monitoring and reporting on progress. Further partnerships are likely to be formed to implement plans under major programs such as the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality.
Key findings* on capacity for change and management practices
- The bulk of central Queensland beef operations have property values of between $800 000 and $2 million with an estimated equity of about 80% (Reeve pers. comm. 2000). In the late 1990s there were considerable adjustment pressures with net returns generally low or negative. On average, a herd size of 1000 head appears to be the minimum for financial viability. Two thirds of beef producers have herd sizes less than this. With the recent increases in beef prices, adjustment pressures may have eased slightly.
- The average beef producer in the Basin had 23–25 years of farming experience, was third generation in farming and was 50 years of age.
- Between 1996 and 1999, approximately 20% to 25% of beef producers had undertaken post-secondary school education and around half of the region’s beef producers had been involved in Landcare or catchment field days with slightly more having participated in short courses. A third of beef producers participated in some form of property management planning, ‘Future Profit’ or ‘Grass Check’, or other similar activities.
- Beef producers, in general, place most importance on ‘other producers’ and ‘field days’ for sources of information on land management.
- Beef producers reported high levels of adoption of sustainable management practices—over 80% of producers for some practices. But this may, in part, be due to a broader interpretation by producers of what a particular sustainable practice, such as drought management planning or pasture monitoring, actually entailed. It may also reflect a belief that best practices are widely in use and therefore efforts to move towards an industry code of practice or greater adoption of sustainable practices are not warranted. This perception, however, appears inconsistent with the levels of soil erosion occurring and the low levels of recorded profits from beef production. The levels and pattern of soil erosion in the Fitzroy Basin suggest that practices aimed at reducing soil movement off-property are not as widely used as perceived by industry members.
- Management practices that focus on reduced stocking rates but increased quality of production, especially under quality assurance programs, are generally more profitable. Also, producers who participate in land management or productivity-focused training and who access a broad range of sources of management information are more likely to use best practice management.
* Taylor, B., Lockie, S., Dale, A., Bischof, R., Lawrence, G., Fenton, M. and Coakes, S. (2000) Capacity of farmers and other land managers to implement change: Technical Report—Theme 6 Fitzroy Implementation Project, National Land and Water Resources Audit.
Industry strategic responses
- Agreement by industry on sustainable carrying capacities for different land types as part of industry guidelines.
- Promotion of pasture management practices that achieve healthy pastures and adequate ground cover especially on ‘texture contrast’ soils that are highly susceptible to erosion. Promotion to be based on local case studies or demonstrations and peer-based learning.
- Promotion of awareness of the net benefits of management practices that reduce risks of soil erosion and associated water quality problems. Exploration and promotion of market-driven incentives for ‘clean and green’ production.
- Identification of opportunities for funding works that control soil erosion, especially for hillslope erosion and gully erosion in key areas; works would include combined landholder riparian fencing programs, devolved grants for off-river water supply and rehabilitation of filter systems such as wetlands and riparian vegetation.
- Promotion by peak industry bodies to encourage participation in management relevant training while supporting existing business, Landcare and social networks as important information networks.
- Improvement of existing training programs to better meet the needs and learning styles of producers.
- Creation of regional partnerships or alliances between regional groups to enhance regional capacity building.
- Industry adoption of key human capacity and resource condition indicators to monitor progress towards objectives of sustainable and viable management.
Dairy industry—case study of planning for improved natural resources management
The dairy industry is Australia’s largest processed food export industry generating employment for over 60 000 people and export income of over $2 billion per year. The industry has undergone significant structural change, with the number of dairy farms having halved to under 15 000 in the past 20 years. Recent deregulation is likely to continue that structural change.
Methods of production have intensified, with increased use of inputs particularly fertiliser on pastures and increased use of irrigated pastures. Intensified dairying activities may have negative impacts on water quality in adjacent rivers through elevated nutrient levels. In some regions, increased irrigation is adding to salinity problems. At the same time, external environmental issues such as water salinity are adversely impacting on irrigated dairying enterprises.
In recognising environmental and sustainability issues on the one hand, and dairy enterprise profitability and viability issues on the other, the dairy industry formed a partnership with the Audit to undertake an initiative called Sustaining Our Natural Resources — Dairying for Tomorrow. The project’s aims were to:
- assess the sustainability and best practice management issues in Australia’s eight major dairying regions;
- survey current practices, production methods and opportunities and attitudes among dairy farmers; and
- develop programs to promote adoption of best practice sustainable management.
Regional profiles for the eight major dairying regions (Figure 7.7) were prepared, using Audit and other data. A national telephone survey of 1800 dairy farmers was also conducted. The survey covered personal and financial information relating to capacity and motivation to change as well property management issues relating to water and land use efficiencies, nutrient and effluent management, soil conservation, biodiversity and waterway management.
Figure 7.7 Major dairying regions in Australia in 1996/97.
 |
Each region, on the basis of the information collected, has prepared a regional action plan to promote continual improvement within the industry. These have been used to develop the National Strategic Natural Resource Management Plan for the dairy industry providing a coordinated and visionary framework for action at national and regional levels.
Plans and strategies being developed are designed to ensure that:
- natural resources used in dairy production will be used sustainably, efficiently and productively with minimal off-site impact;
- research needs are identified;
- the industry will be in a sound position to feed information into and influence relevant policy and regulation; and
- the information will contribute to the Audit’s assessment of the health of Australia’s natural resources, providing an example of industry leadership to address natural resource management issues.
Nutrient pollution
Nutrient pollution of waterways, associated mainly with diffuse as well as point source movement of soil, phosphorus and nitrogen is an environmental challenge common to all dairying regions and an issue for many agricultural industries. The severity of pollution is greater in the more closely settled dryland and irrigated districts. In these districts dairying is part of a mosaic of intensive agriculture. The combined result of this intensity of all land uses means that many rivers and streams are now classed as significantly degraded, with eutrophication and algal blooms occurring. Pollution of aquifers is also a problem in some intensive agriculture regions such as the south-east region of South Australia.
The dairy industry recognises that it is a contributor to water pollution through excessive nutrient movement in flood irrigation and other run-off from dairy farms and is seeking to improve practices and minimise the risk of water pollution. Sources of nutrients on dairy farms, as with any intensive livestock enterprise, include effluent, high rates of fertiliser use and soil erosion. Diffuse movement of nutrients from paddocks may be significant particularly in steep, high rainfall areas. High bacterial and faecal coliform counts indicative of pollution by warm blooded animals have occurred in South Australian waterways where dairy exists with other rural industries and urban and industrial land uses.
Water salinity and soil health
Surface water salinity and irrigation-induced soil salinity is mainly confined to intensive flood irrigation agriculture and, along with a range of other rural land uses, includes farms in the Western Dairy, Dairy SA, Murray Dairy and GippsDairy regions. Groundwater salinity is a growing problem in the South East district of South Australia, again covering an area of varied rural uses.
The impacts of upper catchment change in water balance have led to dryland salinity in many intensive agriculture areas and are most threatening in the dairy industry in Western Dairy, the South East district of Dairy SA and GippsDairy.
In most of the irrigated and high rainfall dairy districts, especially those with medium to heavy textured soils, water logging and deteriorating soil structure are common problems. These can be exacerbated by excessive irrigation, poor drainage, salinity, high stocking rates or grazing of wet pastures (pugging). Soil acidification, while predominantly an issue for broadscale agriculture, occurs in several dairy regions. Acidity can be exacerbated by excessive nitrogen fertiliser applications, pasture legumes and poor stock management.
Environmental problems and best practice management
The industry overall has a good ‘report card’ with respect to investment in sustainable management practices (Table 7. 5).
Some key issues for public policy need to be addressed—particularly in terms of partitioning public and private benefit and costs. Approximately half the number of dairy farmers surveyed believes that the adoption of environmentally friendly farming practices will not necessarily reduce farm profitability (Table 7.6). Older dairy farmers are inclined to believe that there is a trade-off between increased profitability and adoption of environmentally friendly practices. Those with little training or without a written farm plan are also inclined to this view.
Regional profiles show that a high proportion of farmers are using sustainable practices. So why do environmental problems persist and for that matter, what proportion of the problem is confined to the dairy versus other industries?
Issues
- A key element of capacity to change is awareness of the full extent of environmental challenges, detailed knowledge and understanding of the issues and a conviction that certain management practices will satisfactorily address the problems. Many environmental problems are insidious and develop over long periods of time so that changes are hard to notice. This underscores the need for accurate and convincing scientific data on the extent of environmental problems at a regional and local level.
- ‘Best practice’, even if fully implemented on farms, cannot be guaranteed to produce outcomes that are acceptable in regards to both profit and the environment and may not be good enough to meet some of the environmental objectives of the community.
- Best practice might not meet the challenges of Australia’s variable climate. Major flood and storm events are often periods of failure for practice in all industries—be it urban sewage treatment or agriculture.
These issues have been recognised by the dairy industry and are being factored into the planning processes.
Modern dairying requires increased efficiency of production and this requires increased stocking rates fuelled by supplementary feeds and establishment of highly productive pasture through use of fertilisers and irrigation. But these intensive systems require sound management to ensure that the inputs are fully used and do not ‘leak’ into the adjacent environment. A comprehensive list of best management principles has been devised and their adoption is part of the regional action plans (Appendix 4).
Table 7.5 Use of sustainable management practices by Australian dairy farmers.
| Management practice | Proportion of dairy farmers using the practice (%) |
|---|---|
| Reuse of effluent for irrigating and fertilising pastures | 81 |
| Regular soil testing to match fertiliser application to soil and plant needs | 80 |
| Effluent management system | 80 |
| Flood irrigators who reuse tail water | 80 |
| Flood irrigators using laser grading | 95 |
| Farmers who recognise soil erosion problem who are dealing whith it | 99 |
| Farmers addressing soil crusting or compaction problem | 91 |
| Farmers with salinity problems who are controlling or ameliorating it | 98 |
| Farmers involved in property revegetation | 56 |
| Farmers with waterways who have fenced off all or part | 57 |
Source: Pomfret (2000)
Table 7.6 Dairy survey results—responses to statement: ‘Adoption of environmentally friendly farming practices will reduce profitability’.
| Disagree | Neither | Agree | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dairy region | |||
| West Victoria | 52 | 15 | 33 |
| Gippsland | 54 | 19 | 27 |
| Murray | 46 | 17 | 37 |
| DIDCO | 49 | 15 | 37 |
| Sub Tropica | 43 | 17 | 40 |
| Tasmania | 48 | 18 | 34 |
| West Australia | 47 | 21 | 32 |
| South Australia | 49 | 17 | 34 |
| Australia | 49 | 17 | 34 |
| Age of operator | |||
| Less than 35 years | 54 | 18 | 28 |
| 36–50 years | 51 | 18 | 31 |
| 51–65 years | 45 | 16 | 39 |
| 66+ years | 44 | 16 | 41 |
| Member of Landcare/environmental group | |||
| Yes | 52 | 14 | 34 |
| No | 47 | 18 | 35 |
| Written farm plan | |||
| Yes | 55 | 16 | 29 |
| No | 46 | 17 | 37 |
| Training activities | |||
| None | 42 | 19 | 40 |
| 1–2 | 44 | 19 | 38 |
| 3–4 | 55 | 13 | 32 |
| 5+ | 52 | 18 | 30 |
Source: Pomfret (2000)
Some characteristics of dairy farms and farmers and capacity to change
Farm characteristics
The ‘average’ dairy farm, from the telephone survey, was 186 ha with a herd size of 191 milking cows. The median herd size was 156 milking cows. About 29% of farms milked more than 200 cows. Stocking rates varied from between 1 and 2 cows per hectare to three or more cows per hectare on 11% of intensively stocked farms.
Some 70% of farmers indicated that their entire property was valued at less than $1 million. Over 7% of farms were valued at $2 million or more. There was much regional variability so the ‘average’ farm value is at most indicative (e.g. 40% of farms in Western Australia were valued above $2 million).
Forty-one percent of farmers indicated they earned less than $10 000, where net income is defined as ‘returns after payment of all farm costs including wages you may pay yourself’. Only 15% indicated that they earned more than $50 000. On the other hand, farm debt tends to be high in comparison with the ability of farmers to service debts from farm income. Two-thirds of all dairy farmers had farm debts of $100 000 or more and 43% had debts in excess of $250 000. Overall, this could indicate limited capacity on the part of most dairy farmers to finance sizeable investments on environmental projects. Another view is that dairy farmers recognise the value of intensifying their development and are borrowing with a view to the high profitability that will follow from development. Certainly, many of the larger farmers would appear to be also those with high levels of investment in environmental management activities.
Farm operator characteristics
The average age of a dairy farmer in Australia was reported to be 49 years and, on average, they had 29 years of farming experience. These statistics were broadly uniform across all dairying regions.
Involvement in groups or programs such as Landcare appears to be associated with more environmentally beneficial management practices. On average:
- 31% of farmers belong to Landcare;
- 40% attend discussion groups;
- 30% have and use a written farm plan; and
- 86% have attended some form of training in the last five years (e.g. courses on quality assurance, farm chemicals and pasture management).
Age of farmer or years of experience appear to have little influence on whether a farmer belongs to Landcare, but there is a positive association between having a farm plan and belonging to a Landcare group (Table 7.7).
Table 7.7 Association between farmers having a farm plan and belonging to Landcare.
| Member | Non-member | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (%) | (%) | (%) | |
| Farmers with a farm plan |
37 | 26 | 30 |
| Farmers without a farm plan |
63 | 74 | 70 |
| Total | 100 | 100 | 100 |
The adoption of several ‘best management’ practices was found to be stronger among farmers who were members of a Landcare or environmental group. The strongest correlations were found to exist between farming practices and where farmers had a written farm plan (Table 7.8). Existence of a farm plan was also generally associated with larger farms with more intensive production methods and younger farmers (Table 7.9). Most farm plans are focused on productivity and farm management with environmental management part of ‘doing business’.
Money and finance was by far the most common constraint limiting adoption of environmental practices and farm productivity (Table 7.10), reflecting public rather than private benefits of these practices.
Table 7.8 Characteristics of farmers by existence of farm plans (average).
| Farm plan | No farmplan | |
|---|---|---|
| Age of farmer (yrs) | 47 | 50 |
| Years of experience (yrs) | 26 | 30 |
| Milking area (ha) | 135 | 117 |
| Herd size (number) | 224 | 176 |
| Stocking rate (cows/ha) | 2.0 | 1.8 |
| Production rate (L/cow) | 4800 | 4500 |
Source: Pomfret (2000)
This dairy industry case study demonstrates how a major rural industry through continuous improvement in practice will address the natural resource management challenges it faces. Several other leading industries are also recognising the importance of a proactive and industry-led approach and are following the example set by the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation in developing their Natural Resources Management Strategy.
Table 7.9 Farming practices by existence of farm plans (% with issue undertaking activity).
| Practice | Farm plan | No farm plan |
|---|---|---|
| Soil acidity | ||
| Plant deep-rooted pastures | 59 | 47 |
| Dryland salinity | ||
| Regional group revegetation strategy |
36 | 15 |
| Fencing areas | 56 | 36 |
| Rising water tables | ||
| Revegetation | 69 | 45 |
| Salinity survey | 51 | 30 |
| Soil erosion | ||
| Fencing | 73 | 59 |
| Conservation tillage | 79 | 65 |
| Wet soils and pugging | ||
| Loafing pads | 54 | 38 |
| Soil testing | ||
| Soil test nutrient levels every year |
42 | 25 |
| Soil test to determine fertiliser requirements |
88 | 76 |
| Soil crusting | ||
| Conservation tillage | 82 | 69 |
| Apply gypsum | 48 | 31 |
Source: Pomfret (2000)
Table 7.10 Constraints faced by farmers in improving environmental management and farm productivity.
| Constraints facing farmers | Improving environmental management |
Constraints facing farmers | Improving productivity |
|---|---|---|---|
| (% of farmers) | (% of farmers) | ||
| Money/finance | 47 | Money/finances | 44 |
| Time | 13 | Low return/milk prices | 16 |
| Low returns/milk prices | 9 | Availability of water | 14 |
| Availability of water | 5 | Size of farm | 12 |
| Size of farm | 4 | Time | 8 |
| Climate | 4 | Climate | 6 |
| Government | 3 | Labour/manpower | 5 |
| Labour/manpower | 2 | Deregulation | 3 |
| Better irrigation practices | 2 | Farmer’s age | 3 |
| Topography/terrain | 2 | Government | 2 |
| Lack of energy/desire | 1 | Pasture quality | 2 |
| Deregulation | 1 | Topography/terrain | 2 |
| Weeds | 1 | Lack of energy/desire | 1 |
| Farmer’s age | 1 | Market uncertainty | 1 |
| Herd management | 1 |
Source: Pomfret (2000)
PDF files
Some documents on this website are available as PDF files. Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files.
Key
Links to an another web site
Opens a pop-up window