GRAIN & GRAZEFinal Report

for

Avon Region

Western Australia

Final Report (24/05/2023) 3

Executive Summary The Grain and Graze Project was an innovative multi-source funded project, resulting in collaboration from Australian Wool Innovation (AWI), Grains Research & Development Corporation (GRDC), Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) and Land and Water Australia (LWA) to run over 5 years (2003-2008).This experimental project, directed at mixed farming across Australia, wanted to get across key productivity messages, whilst addressing social and environmental outcomes at the same time. This triple bottom line approach brought a new dimension to those involved, who often had to extend themselves beyond their normal comfort zone.Across the mixed farming zones of Australia, there were nine Regional projects set up to contribute to the Grain and Graze goal of a 10% increase in livestock profitability and a 5% increase in grain profitability. The Avon Region, based on the Avon River catchment in WA and administered by Department of Agriculture and Food WA (DAFWA), aimed to improve the profitability as above while maintaining or improving the resource condition of mixed farming enterprises. This was to be done through creating an improved understanding of pastures and their management to allow an increase in stocking rate, by maintaining existing sheep numbers on a smaller area.The Avon project started some 18 months later than the others, in February 2005. A range of activities, examined in more detail in this report and appendices, set out to make joint gains in the livestock and grain enterprises principally through increasing the stocking rate on more productive pastures, managed more effectively, allowing an increase of land available for cropping.This was achieved through providing farmers with an improved understanding of where to make the greatest gains in their system, increasing their awareness of innovative sheep management tools to save time and effort in a usually labour-intensive enterprise and demonstration of improved pasture management options.Many activities in 2005 were directed towards achieving a better understanding of the situation to help assess where future investment would be most effective. These efforts were able to highlight that some of the planned activities (e.g. lucerne/perennials) would not result in the adoption and changes that would be required to deliver the outcomes. This helped to shape the project to more streamlined, focused activities in 2006 and 2007.Unfortunately, both 2006 and 2007 turned out to be very dry seasons (approx. 50% of average growing season rainfall) over a majority of the catchment and this has meant that evaluation against the original goals is not possible in a meaningful way. These seasons and a major shift in the relative profitability between sheep and cropping have reduced the enthusiasm of growers towards their livestock enterprises and a major sell-off of sheep from the area was experienced in the first half of 2008.

Final Report (24/05/2023) 4

Regional DescriptionPhysical/EnvironmentalThe Avon River catchment extends east from the coastal plain to Dalwallinu in the north, to the east almost to Coolgardie, and to the south beyond Pingrup and Lake King. The Avon River catchment has an area of 120,713 square kilometres, almost twice as large as the State of Tasmania and half the size of the State of Victoria.The map on the following page depicts the Avon River catchment; showing the catchment boundary and the major tributaries to the Avon River. The catchment has mostly been cleared for agriculture (73,870 km2 or 62%) except for the eastern half of the Yilgarn catchment.Geographically, the Avon River is unusual, in that it arises in its extremities from broad, flat, geologically ancient valleys, and for most of its length has a very low gradient. Long chains of naturally saline lakes are prominent along the watercourses through this ancient landscape. During extremely wet seasons, the salt lakes can link up and discharge into the Avon River. As it proceeds to the north and west, the water exits the areas of ancient drainage and flows through areas of mature, then rejuvenated landscape and the river valley becomes steeper, narrower and more rugged as it exits through the Darling escarpment onto the Swan Coastal Plain.The climate has principally been of Mediterranean type, characterised by dry summers and winter rainfall, although the eastern parts can often be affected by “tails” of cyclones during the summer period. Average annual rainfall across the region increases from 275mm in eastern parts to above 700mm towards the western parts and catchment outflow.

Economic Grains (wheat, barley, canola) & mixed farming. Industry (flour mill, feedlots, export hay) (Stats from ABS)

SocialMain towns (Stats from ABS)

Final Report (24/05/2023) 7

1. PROJECT RATIONALE: WHY DID WE DO IT? Project SummaryThe Grain and Graze project activities in the Avon Region attempted to identify change management triggers. The aim was to provide mixed farming systems with new, whole farm knowledge, tools and capacity to adopt management changes that would increase production of crops, pastures and animals while maintaining, or enhancing biodiversity and catchment resources.Overall the project considered the issues concerned with the drivers that influence change and build confidence levels of landholders so that they would make changes to the management of their system and/or adopt specific technologies.For the business aspects of the system, management refers to options like;

more time on business management, specialise in one area of the enterprise (and leasing or sharing others), make more effective use of management time or have enterprise mangers who specialise in certain aspects.

For the production aspects of the systems, management refers to options such as; intensify the enterprise by growing more per hectare, change the relationship between phases of rotations or increase inputs.

For the environmental aspects of the system, management refers to options such as;

manage biodiversity rather than just let it exist, work towards clearly defined environmental goals or work with and encourage biological diversity as management options (e.g.

insects and bird as predators or crop pests).Three focus sites within the project were to be case studies of options to address the question “what are the drivers of social, environmental, economic profit (SEE Profit) in mixed systems?”This vital question was to be addressed using 3 approaches focused on 1. perennial systems,2. extended pasture phases, and3. the transition from operational to strategic managementThe project aimed to answer the following questions: Do perennial-based pasture systems have a higher SEE-profitability? How can cropping best be incorporated with perennial pastures? Do extended pasture-livestock phases produce a higher SEE-profitability? Will adoption of cutting-edge technology increase SEE-profitability? Will a higher level of inputs (physical and human) increase SEE-

profitability? Can an integrated biodiversity number be used as a single indicator of

robust systems? How can we best measure SEE-profitability of mixed farming systems?The Avon Grain and Graze project intended to build on and utilise existing research and development activities. The project sought to integrate component research into mixed systems. It also attempted to identify important gaps in knowledge that could be filled either by the project or future R&D activities.Approach 1: Perennial approachResearchable question: Is it possible to maintain crop profitability in a crop/grazing rotation based on perennials?The spread of dry-land salinity is one of the most important environmental problems currently affecting the sustainability and profitability of Western Australian farming

systems, particularly in the Avon. The problem is caused by an increase in the level of the underground watertable (recharge) as a result of replacing deep-rooted native vegetation with shallow-rooted annual crop and pasture rotations. As the watertable rises, it dissolves stored salt deposits at depth until saline water enters the root zone of plants. Decline and loss of productivity of agricultural land and also of remnant native vegetation are the two main issues associated with this increase in salinity.It was proposed to set up a study, in collaboration with farmers, to produce knowledge on practices that form the basis of new, profitable broad-acre crop/pasture systems with reduced groundwater recharge than existing systems. The study’s participative R&D activities rested on two fundamental technical assumptions that managing recharge would have an impact on the spread of salinity and that perennial pastures use more water than annual pastures. The opportunity to minimise the impact of salinity in the current farming system was to increase the introduction of perennial pastures, like lucerne, to increase water useExamples were provided (Appendix 1) to show that the introduction of lucerne to reduce groundwater recharge of annual crop/pasture systems had the potential to improve sheep production. The biological benefits of this modification to the traditional farming system required further evaluation under different environments, also the economic benefits needed to be evaluated in the context of the whole farming system. Grain and Graze was going to concentrate on the integration, farm management, economics and environmental issues to ensure that the new systems might fulfil their potential.

Approach 2: Extended Pastures Phases approachResearchable question: Can a longer pasture phase in an annual pasture/crop system increase profitability and can we lift animal production without cutting crop gross margin? Many Avon farmers were not ready to embrace wide scale planting of perennial pastures. At the commencement of the project there was great interest in new profitable grazing systems in response to improved opportunities for sheep meat production and weaker grain prices. The project set up to concentrate on an integrated whole farm approach at boosting pasture production and animal production while maintaining or improving crop profitability and the environmental situation. The project examined lengthening of both the pasture and cropping phases, as pasture densities suffer in short rotations. The study was set up in collaboration with farmers, from the Facey Group, to expand current thinking about rotational practices. 70 - 80% of farmers in the Facey Group practice year in year out rotations. Rotations were set up to enhance crop yields on the assumption that wheat is the most profitable enterprise in the farming system. Awareness existed to the fact that in order to continue to increase profits, stocking rate would be the key profit driver for productivity. Farmer’s interested in increasing flock numbers, sheep live weight and wool know that dry matter is essential for production and performance but needed to examine how to lift animal production without cutting crop gross margin..The Lifetimewool project developed guidelines for the optimal feeding of ewe flocks. The guidelines use suggested annual live-weight (LW) and condition score (CS) profiles that can be managed by tactical measurement of a sub-sample of the flock used in combination with “feed on offer” (FOO) feed-budgeting.The “Pastures from space” program estimates pasture growth rate (PGR; kg/ha/d) of established annual pastures at the paddock scale using satellite images with a pixel size of 6 ha. It calculates a greenness index and uses historical ground-truthing to develop estimates of PGR and FOO for individual paddocks. ‘Pasture Watch’ – is commercially available to deliver current and forecast estimates of weekly PGR

Final Report (24/05/2023) 9

allowing cumulative PGR estimates to be used to estimate total biomass production and hence, estimate potential carrying capacity. Pastures from space looked at being able to deliver FOO fortnightly. At the commencement of the Grain & Graze project it could measure FOO available within ±10%, worked best with established pastures, and stubble and/or pasture residues interfered with ratings in year of establishment. The system required more ground-truthing to better develop the algorithms and a decision was made that this would be a useful area for co-investment with G&G.

Approach 3: Operational to Strategic Management approachResearchable question: Can we use time, labour and management more efficiently to meet profit and quality of life goals?Many Avon region farmers moved away from livestock production, some totally, due to poor returns, a desire not to be on the farm 365 days a year, and the difficulty of finding labour in a highly competitive market. Farmers continually seek ways of streamlining operations so that they and their families can enjoy a reasonable lifestyle. Fly in/fly out farming has become more common. Landholders were concerned with long-term sustainability of their environment and community as well as the individual enterprise. They realise that short-term profit should not be the driver. Farm businesses had to develop with the real future in mind so that following generations have options to make career choices.Farmers should have an understanding of the technologies available to objectively assess crop and livestock production and have systems in place that effectively cope with large quantities of information to enable good decision-making. A systems approach was required for better information transfer and to aid in effective delegation of responsibility thus enabling better outcomes with limited down time.This project sat at the ‘high risk, high value’ end of the research spectrum and was probably an Australian first, required careful thought and planning. It was envisaged that this project sat at the very heart of Grain and Graze aims. The Grain and Graze Project would help set up methodologies that benefit other regions and other research corporation activities.

Final Report (24/05/2023) 10

2. GOAL: WHAT DID WE INTEND TO ACHIEVE?The goals for Grain & Graze - Avon were to:

1. Increase the productivity of sheep by 10% by improving grazing management systems, and

2. Increase cropping by 5% by improving pasture management systemsExpected Outcome and OutputsExpected outcomesApproach 1 Producers are able to determine the “value” of perennials to their farming

system. Identification of characteristics of what perennials could look like fitted into

farming systems in the AvonApproach 2 Increased profit from the pasture component of mixed farming systems from

1. Improved management skills, and2. Management effort

Approach 3 Non specialist producers able to effectively evaluate new technology with which

they have had relatively little or no exposure to previously Ability to repeat positive outcomes and minimise mistakes Effectively identify best practice systems Allow better population of resource, finance and social budgets Systematic approach to perform the operational tasks of the farming enterprise

OutputsOutput 1Description

1. Adjustable variable decision aid allowing producers to both determine the value and perennial and understand the relationships between key drivers

2. Review of the barriers to adoptionDelivery Date 30/06/08Details

Undertake KASA to look at potential benefits (Awareness), understand where it fits ( knowledge), what attitudes are (Aspirations) and how to do it (skills)

Define the target audience Link to PPS Feedback annual data to enable modelling scenarios to be tested Establish satellite sites and /or groups – identify and establish participation Ensure mixed farmers in Avon equipped and aware of best fit of perennials in

the system Take measurements of management inputs Ensure iterative process between integration, communication and observation Measure biodiversity as determined by Mason et. al.

Target Audience Landholders who currently grow lucerne. Landholders who have grown lucerne but no longer grow lucerne. Landholders interested in perennials in the system

Delivery mechanism Farmer Field days Farmer field walks Organised field day events – Dowerin field day Newsletters

Annual Grain and Graze Avon bulletin

Output 2Description

1. Management systems that show livestock and crop having same gross margins - $246.ha (8-10 DSE /ha)

2. Situation statement of current rotational practices3. Demonstration of viability of more intensive pastures – field walks, models4. Demonstration of treatments in place – field days, confidence

Delivery Date 30/06/08Details

Investigate the gap between current practices and best practice Measure management inputs of each system Measure biodiversity as determined by Mason et. al.

For YIYO practices Compile a stocktake of what is currently being done Undertake an analysis of which farmers in the Facey Group actually practice

YIYO, what are the input costs and determine what the average low input package looks like and off-set this with a high production system

Design optimum production processes Measure biomass rather than composition

For 2:2 rotation Develop situation statements on current practices Determine rotation by inputs Trial to look at current practices vs optimum practice (Fertiliser input,

composition of pasture)For 4:4 Rotation

Explore how we manage a 4 year pasture phase Determine optimum biomass production 60% grass; 40% legume Decide what composition would be of greatest benefit

Target Audience Landholders in Facey group who are mixed farmers. Landholders who are interested in longer phase pastures. Landholders interested mixed farming systems.

Delivery mechanism Farmer Field days Farmer field walks Pastures Forum 2006 Organised field day events – Dowerin field day Newsletters Annual Grain and Graze Avon bulletin

Output 3Description1. System to assess management time and evaluate new technology2. Guidelines to assess the impact of changes on profitability and lifestyle outcomesDelivery Date 30/06/08Details

Identify timing and decisions for various components of the farming enterprise Develop idea for the system Assess against diary of decisions Iterative development and assessment loop to improve prototype system Test usefulness of system for evaluating technology

Final Report (24/05/2023) 12

Detail of methodology for output 3.2 to be determined following National research forum, review of literature and consultation with stakeholders

Target Audience Mixed farmers in the Avon region

Delivery mechanism Media releases Organised field day events – Dowerin field day Newsletters Annual Grain and Graze Avon bulletin

Output 4Description1. Integration/extension plan2. Communication planDelivery Date 30/06/08Details

Promote Grain and Graze project in Avon Document processes used Review change on farm strategy, practice change model and implement

extension plan for AvonTarget Audience

Mixed farmers in the Avon regionDelivery mechanism

Focus groups KASA survey Case studies Newsletters Annual Grain and Graze Avon bulletin

Final Report (24/05/2023) 13

3. ACTIVITIES & RESULTS: WHAT DID WE DO AND WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?

Strategic Farm Management - Social survey (Appendix 2)IntroductionProducers in the Avon region are concerned for the medium to long-term viability of their businesses and their communities. Trends of larger farm sizes, negative impacts of current practices on the resource base and a continued cost-price squeeze threaten the triple-bottom line sustainability of farming practices. Scenario examination highlighted the outcome of the extrapolation of these trends to give a region with less farmers and overall population supporting a productive agricultural sector representing a smaller part of the overall economy and based on a smaller area of productive land (O’Connor et al, 2005). The Avon is not alone in facing these challenges (ABARE 2006). Often, innovation and the adoption of new technology are seen as the ways to address these issues. However, this does not take account of the significant time investment required to understand and to implement most new technologies. This raises the issue as to whether gains in productivity and lifestyle that can be made through ‘efficiencies’ in time, whether it relates to improved management, the evaluation of new ‘technology’ prior to its adoption or rejection, or ensuring repeatability of good practices throughout farming operations.This sub-project of Grain & Graze Avon examined “if ‘smarter’ farm management can improve farmer confidence and quality of life”. Specifically, the work examined the proposition that increased efficiency of management will lead to improved profitability and social outcomes. The focus of this work came from two groups of farmers, the 2050 Group based around Highbury and the Freebairn Group based around Kulin, who independently identified management issues as being crucial to the future of mixed-farming systems; with the key issue being time.The project tried to achieve several outcomes.

1. To provide useful, personal insights to participants about their own time management, the distribution of work and non-work time and decision-making.

2. To provide important information about decision-making and how to make repeatable, good decisions, particularly regarding aspects of mixed farming.

3. To provide important information, both quantitative and qualitative, about the work-life balance in farm businesses.

The Groups had identified time as a crucial issue to improving the economic and social outcomes for mixed-farmers and as a key area for work in Grain & Graze Avon. This involved the broad issue of needing an increased ability to manage the time demands of the farm business, family and community. The impact of time management and decisions on social outcomes is an essential part of this. At a meeting on 4th March 2005 this was refined to the broad question that; ‘increased efficiency of management means improved profits and lifestyle’.This was a huge area to examine in its entirety and recognised to be beyond the time and resources available within one region of Grain & Graze. Additional input further refined the question and identified an approach to use in addressing it involving;

a scoping team of 6 to act as a sounding board for ideas; promotion (8 field day talks and 20 newspaper articles) to broaden the

discussion and to get people involved in discussion groups, and; 6 discussion groups explored the question “can we use time, labour and

management more efficiently to meet profit and quality of like goals?” further in a social environment.

Discussion group participants resolved to break it down to lower order questions.

• Was there any evidence to support the assumptions that management efficacy would lead to increased profit?• “Even if we knew what our management effort was, would it be possible to improve it?”• “What is meant by management effort?” This question lead to a long discussion concluding in the following definition: the amount of thinking time put into work-based decisions.• There was some discussion as to the relationship between profit and quality of life as indicators. It was felt that increased management efficiency was more likely to deliver on quality of life goals than it was to have a direct impact on profit. No agreement on this issue could be achieved, but most agreed that separate indicators were needed for each.

The main proposition was therefore refined:that if the efficiency of management time is increased then improved profitability and social outcomes will result., Key sub-propositions are;

• that there are efficiencies of management time to be made;• that profitability and social outcomes can be improved simultaneously;• that profitability can be improved through management efficiency;• that the time available for family and community activities will be increased through management efficiency.

Validating the first sub-proposition was identified by the discussion groups as being the highest priority. The first step in exploring this was to examine how farmers use their time, what proportion is used for management and when does thinking and decision-making occur?Qualitative and quantitative data were recorded using three types of media; hand-held “personal digital assistants” (PDAs), pen and a note-book or on a dictaphoneResultsThirty-six farmers participated in the time study, 23 men and 13 women. Thirty of these used the PDA method. The time diaries were recorded between October 2005 and April 2006. During the time recording, the time spent by the six participants on farm work ranged from 37 to 95% (average 67%). The major activities were cropping (average 44%), office and driving (average 39%), and livestock (average 11%). From the open data method the majority of the activities were planned (range 55 to 86%) and proactive (range 68 to 98%). Over all participants the proportion of time recorded that was classified as family time, home, break or rest & recreation ranged from 1 to 30% (average 14%).For the open recording method, the majority of the management time was in the categories of human resources (mainly directing staff) or production. Research and development also featured, but this was due to the project related interactions/activities being coded as such! For the PDA method, production related issues occupied a large proportion of the thinking time for all participants (average 50%). All other categories averaged from 2 to 9% of the thinking time across all participants. However, there were areas that occupied a large proportion of thinking time (15% or greater) for some individuals. These were finance, purchasing, research & development and work-home interface.Thinking time was associated particularly with driving or working on production tasks (particularly cropping). It also occurred frequently in the office and during periods of no work activity or when at home (Appendix 2 Table 1). Virtually no thinking occurred during time recorded as ‘off-farm’ or as ‘rest & recreation’.Qualitative data add a ‘richness’ to the quantitative information and provide important and useful insights into the perceptions of mixed farmers and into their decision-making.

Final Report (24/05/2023) 15

All of the participants in the study consider that mixed farming is essential for the management of risk and for a sustainable farm business. The statement by one participant that s/he does not consider that “there is a future in anything but mixed farming”, but that it “makes more work and increases the requirement for staff” is indicative of the overall responses.When asked if the topic was relevant one of the attendees responded; “I’ve been wondering about my own efficiency in this area for a while, but just assumed that there was nothing I could do about it. Now, at least I’m confident that there is a range of options. I’ve just got to work out which ones apply to me.” Although, this did not apply to everyone as another responded, “I’m actually quite concerned now! I’ve never considered how much effort I put into making management decisions. I don’t care about what anyone else is doing, but I’d like to get a handle on my own situation.”The study has brought out some interesting observations about thinking, planning and decision-making. The participants were surprised that the amount of planning and thinking time was more than they had previously thought. The amount of time actually put into management was more than three times the amount that many of the participants considered it to be prior to commencing. Most decisions were made over a long period.The lack of separation of the farm and home was particularly evident. “It has shown how ‘all invasive’ the farm is.” It also highlighted the many different ‘levels of operation’ that are required of a farmer operating as a small business. Some participants thought that the increasing complexity and magnitude of operations means that there is a need for farmers to ‘take the next step’ and move from ‘doing’ to managing or overseeing more aspects on their farms.DiscussionThe underestimate, by most participants prior to the study, of the amount of time and effort put into management could be related to the variety of locations in which thinking and planning occurs. Much of the management time is perceived as a personal issue and occurs in ‘space’ that is personal (e.g. driving, working on production tasks or in the office). This has important implications for the provision of information to assist or influence decision-making and potentially for the range of sources that are consulted prior to making a decision. With much of the thinking and planning occurring while away from any means of checking or clarifying thoughts against objective information does this mean that decisions are made in isolation? Alternatively, is it that this is reflection time and, as decisions-are made over a long period, this is part of a process of thinking and reflection prior to decision? At least one of the observations during this study would indicate that the latter is occurring. In that case an idea was generated while driving and then was reviewed in consultation with the spouse and having checked some information in the office. This may be occurring generally and the variety of locations in which thinking and planning occurring is likely to be related to the on-going nature of decision-making and the fact that most decisions are not made rapidly.The separation of thinking and activity highlights the wide variety of positions of the farmer within the business. For example, during grain harvest there were examples of farmers driving the header, driving the truck or in more of an overseeing position to act as a trouble-shooter and only work ‘hands-on’ when the situation allowed. While the position in the operation is somewhat dependent on the size of the business, this also highlights the individual nature of work and the structure of businesses.If farmers were able to ‘step-back’ and to operate as more of a business manager would this change the perspective and the way the business is run? Is there enough ‘fat’ in the business to allow them to step out of an operational role and, if so, do they want to? Is there a cultural resistance to making this move? Producers are aspiring to

Final Report (24/05/2023) 16

improve management effort, but, unlike other industries, there is little documented data to encourage the average producer to want to go beyond their current level of management.The data represents a snapshot of the activities of a selected group of farmers over a short period. That said, this study has provide some important observations and insights and has contributed to the three areas that this project is trying to achieve; providing useful, personal insights to participants; providing important information about decision-making; providing important information about the work-life balance in farm businesses. The wide interest in this work shows the relevance of what has been done in this study.Future directionsThis study identified that the focus of the Grain & Graze Avon project needed to be the balance between crop and livestock in the farm business; the “grain and graze decision”. The sustainable profitability of the whole enterprise is the key, not just the crop or the livestock. The different ways in which farmers manage the grain and graze decision means that an increase in overall profitability can be achieved in a number of ways. This individuality of farm businesses is a strength of the industry and is likely to provide an amount of ‘buffering’ against risk. In many cases improvement in the livestock component provides the greatest scope for increased profitability in mixed-farmsA co-operator noted “this project would gain from a closer association with other related activities that are looking at decision-making” (e.g. with regard to seasonal risk or major changes to farming system such as the inclusion of perennials).More practically, this study identifies times and locations where opportunities exist for influencing farmers decision making. Creating materials to mesh with this opportunity should be a priority of extension providers.

Lucerne survey (Appendix 3)Entitled “Awareness and adoption of lucerne in the Central Wheatbelt” 15 interviews were conducted by Colin Holt (ARID) and Jeff Russell (DAFWA)

BackgroundAbout every ten years there is a push, often from the Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia (DAFWA) encouraging producers to include lucerne in their farming systems. The WA Lucerne Growers group (WALG) are focused on increasing lucerne in drier regions (the Wheatbelt of WA), but with limited effect.

The Grain and Graze Avon project tried to determine if lucerne fits into the mixed farming systems of the Avon region.

The Pastures Group in DAWA looked at how Lucerne fits in to the farming system in the region to determine profitability to both crop and livestock enterprises, water usage and other more general benefits.

The Grain and Graze Feedbase team modelled longer term risks and benefits to the system, in particular, the environment. Additional study focused on the areas (land management units in the landscape) suited to lucerne and what proportion of years favour lucerne with sufficient summer rainfall events.

However, these projects did not address the social issues of why producers do or do not include lucerne in their farming systems. This short, targeted pilot survey was to determine:

What value producers see lucerne could provide to their system, What barriers (real and perceived) are there to adopting lucerne, What factors encourage producers to include lucerne in their system,

Final Report (24/05/2023) 17

The survey intended to bring together qualitative information to provide a snap shot of the 2006 situation with lucerne.

MethodologyFace to face interviews ranged three different producer types:

those who currently grow lucerne, those who had grown lucerne in the past but no longer grow it; and those who had never grown lucerne.

The guiding questions for the interviews appear in Appendix 2

ResultsThe Everett Rogers ’Diffusion of Innovations’ model was used as the foundation for the study. Rogers defines diffusion as the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system. The work of Rogers and others identified five categories of farmers in the adoption process.• Innovators - enthusiasts (2.5%)• Early Adopters - visionaries (13.5%)• Early Majority - pragmatists (34%)• Late Majority - conservatives (34%)• Laggards - sceptics (16%)The farmers interviewed sit somewhere along this continuum for the adoption of lucerne. Those who have grown lucerne may be considered as innovators or early adopters in Roger’s model. Those who have never grown lucerne would fit into the early majority, late majority or laggard. The model is only a part of the story. There are other factors that lead to adoption or non adoption. Economic, environmental and social factors influence the rate of adoption.The targeted interviews were aimed at learning more about why the adoption of lucerne has not spread past the innovators and early adopters.Those interviewed identified a variety of benefits in growing lucerne.• Increased feed, especially in summer when green feed is not available.• Increased soil nitrogen that can be utilized by the next crop.• Increased water use in the landscape, lowering the water table and increasing production on waterlogged and discharge sites• Utilisation of out of season rainfall• A deep rooted perennial that provides a natural deep ripping effect• Provides weed control options in a cropping system for winter weeds• A pasture option included into the rotation that can be grazed heavily to help control rye grass (assists with resistance issues)One farmer interviewed (a non-grower) remarked that there were no identifiable benefits except for a ‘feel good factor’.While the benefits of lucerne are widely known by most farmers, there must be other factors that helped the innovators or early adopters actually move from contemplation to growing lucerne. Certainly some of the characteristics documented by Rogers for innovators and early adopters can be identified in the farmers interviewed. These attributes have certainly influenced the rate of adoption of lucerne. These being: Innovators - are venturesome, control substantial financial resources to absorb possible loss from an unprofitable innovation,have ability to understand and apply complex technical knowledge, and ability to cope with a high degree of uncertainty about an innovation.Early Adopters – are in integrated the local social system, successful.The interview process also identified other factors that help convince them to at least trial lucerne on their farms. These other factors are:

Final Report (24/05/2023) 18

• Often part of an organised, financially assisted trial reducing risk of new innovation. Trials initiated by DAFWA, SGSL and CDI provided catalytic investment to help the early adopters trial lucerne for themselves.• Information and technical assistance provided by WALG and DAFWA, involved site visits for establishment and follow up visits for management that new growers valued.• First-hand experience seeing it growing in nearby trial sites helped new growers• Previous history – knowing it would grow on their farm because previous generations had successfully grown it in the past.Although the innovators and the early adopters have tried lucerne, many have not persisted with it. The lucerne ‘movement’ has not successfully gained enough momentum for it to become part of many of the early adopter’s farming system or in being taken up by more conservative farmers in the early majority and beyond.The interviews revealed some reasons for not persisting beyond a trial as:• Poor establishment in the trial phase. Causes were identified as:

1. Rainfall of 300 – 330 mm is not enough for a dense, healthy stand of lucerne. Summer rainfall is intermittent and unreliable.

2. Acidic soils• Grazing pressure resulted in a rapid deterioration of the stand, leading to the loss of cover and increased wind erosion risk. Lucerne was considered a marginal performing pasture species when ‘normal’ grazing practices were used.• Concern of lucerne being a ‘green bridge’ for diseases and pests• Does not fit into a crop orientated system, where a green feed source in summer is less important. Under-sown in a crop creates moisture competition for the crop at the end of the season when moisture availability is important.• Establishment and management of lucerne is not flexible enough. In the years which are wet enough for lucerne to flourish (late finishes or extensive summer rain) there is plenty of other green feed available. Options like sorghum or feed wheat establish more easily and provide quick benefits.• High establishment cost for unreliable economic return. What barriers to adoption exist for those who have never tried lucerne? Some characteristics of these groups provide part of the story.The Early Majority - deliberate before adopting a new idea.The Late Majority – need economic necessity, are sceptical, and cautious.The Laggards – are suspicious of innovations, the innovation-decision process is lengthy, and resources are often limited.Reasons identified from the interviews, for non adoption by this group are:• Witnessed trials with poor success so not convinced of the merits of lucerne.• High establishment costs with low apparent benefit (poor trial results)• Unsure about establishment so continued with other pastures (like balansa) where they had experience.• Does not fit a specific area.

1. Many saw lucerne as an option for low, waterlogged or salt affected land. No varieties available that can grow effectively in this niche.

2. Those with no waterlogging or salt affected land were not motivated to grow lucerne.

3. Resistance to growing lucerne on good cropping country where they make their money and so lucerne does not give the necessary returns.

4. Resistance to changing what they are already doing. Over many years these farmers have developed a system they believe works best. Lucerne does not provide the motivation to change this.

Barriers were also identified or reaffirmed when the farmers were asked “what would have to change for them to adopt lucerne?”• Need better acid and salt tolerant varieties

Final Report (24/05/2023) 19

• Need a variety that performs under normal grazing. No varieties suitable• Need to see it working locally in a whole system• Want to see 80% cover to be a useful pasture. No broad scale, long term success stories that clearly show economic and environmental benefits• Livestock would need to become more valuable. Lucerne does not provide the economic returns when compared to current cropping dominated systems• A change to a regular summer rainfall pattern• My farm would need to develop waterlogged areas. The environment is too dry for lucerne to persist and provide an economic benefit.• Reduced seed cost or ability to grow own seed to cut establishment cost.• My farm advisor would have to tell me that I need to grow lucerne. It is not yet broadly accepted as a beneficial part of the farming system.

DiscussionThe majority of farmers identified the benefits of growing lucerne. This is perhaps an indication that previous work done by DAFWA (and WALG) and other extension agents has been successful in getting this message out to growers. It was also generally agreed that there is access to enough technical knowledge and information to adopt lucerne. The lack of information was not seen as a limiting factor to adoption. The natural diversity within the farmers, in terms of adoption of innovations (Roger’s model), the assistance with implementing local trials and the availability of technical assistance with establishment, has meant that some of the innovators and early adopters have tried lucerne. However, show casing of trial sites has had a double edge effect. It showed to early adopters what could be possible and so encouraged them to try growing lucerne, but the more conservative farmer considered the sites to have poor establishment and helped to develop a perception that lucerne was not worth the risk.The study revealed that the adoption of lucerne has not gathered enough momentum to become an accepted part of the farming system or been adopted by the majority of growers. In fact, it appears that many of the innovators and early adopters interviewed are themselves still in a trialling phase, trying to find the best fit for lucerne into their specific farming system. The barriers to this adoption could be best described as:

The adoption of lucerne is not ‘needs’ driven. Many see lucerne as a perennial to help use water use, lowering the water table and providing a stock feed benefit. Those farmers who need the water use benefit the most, are generally those lower in the catchment and it is perceived that lucerne, as a plant, has some limitations in these areas (such as not salt tolerant). Even some farmers interviewed who need the water use benefit, do not consider growing lucerne on their good cropping country. This is the land where they need to maximise production and return. It is perceived that lucerne cannot compete economically on the more productive land.

The farmers in the area of this study generally operate a cropping dominated system. Lucerne is not really needed as a feed option.

No economic benefits. Lucerne is seen as a ‘Landcare’ solution with unproven economic benefits. There has not been enough work done on the economics of lucerne especially when grown in those parts of the landscape where lucerne could compete economically with traditional farming practices.

Establishment costs need to be reduced to offset any potential risk of poor establishment. Farmers are experiencing a ‘squeeze’ to their profitable margins, further increasing the risks of any trial work and making adoption of any new enterprise less attractive.

Agronomic limitations Lucerne, as a plant, is not well suited to the drier areas of the Wheatbelt. In normal years there is very little rain falling outside the normal growing season (a perception by most interviewed that this was the

Final Report (24/05/2023) 20

case). Lucerne dies out after a few normal long dry summers, giving very little grazing benefit and needs to be resown if a suitable year occurs. (Perhaps the perceptions is that because it is a perennial it should persist from year to year) In the years when there is suitable moisture towards the end of the growing season, and supplemented by summer rain, there is an abundance of traditional green feed. Even this normal annual feed cannot be utilised fully, so lucerne is not needed as an alternative green feed source. Lucerne is not the only cultivated ‘green feed’ option when wetter years occur. Sorghum and other grasses compete as an option in these circumstances. Lucerne in drier areas is not a robust pasture. It cannot be grazed as in normal farming practices, requiring different management. This is seen as an impediment.

Requires new management. Learning to grow lucerne has often resulted in poor establishment or poor trial results, leading farmers to reassess the risk. The costs associated with poor establishment have outweighed the benefits. However other new crops adopted by framers have also needed new skills (eg canola.). Canola is broadly grown today because even during the early years of growing canola there was enough success, enough economic return to encourage the continual refining of growing canola in the system. Lucerne has not provided this economic encouragement. However some of the farmers interviewed are now using, or working towards using lucerne in their system in a particular location and for a particular purpose.

Example:The use of no-till cropping techniques has seen increased waterlogging of heavy grey soils located on the flats. Lucerne is established on these sites in spring, but only during a year when there has been very good July and August rainfall. These wetter soils assist the lucerne to survive the normal summers. Summer rain helps the lucerne establishment immensely. On establishment the aim is for 80% cover which is considered to be a useful pasture. The lucerne dries out the soil profile with the stand reducing in density and usefulness if dry years continue to occur after establishment. The aim is have a useful lucerne pasture that lasts 5 years. The area is then cropped to take advantage of the drier soil profile and to utilise the released nitrogen. Lucerne is re-established once the soil profile becomes waterlogged and good seasonal conditions occur.

Sheep Stocking Rate Analysis (Avon) (Appendix 4)The Department of Agriculture and Food WA proposed that “improving pasture management will deliver the greatest gains on mixed farms in the Avon Region”. In advancing the idea, the Grain and Graze project intended to focus on processes which increase production levels by increasing the numbers and density of sheep.Before committing significant resources to this focus, the Department commissioned Jack in the Box (Peter Walmsley) to investigate barriers and drivers of change to increasing stocking rates in the Avon.Specific areas of investigation were to:

Understand the reasons why stocking rate are at their current level. Determine the barriers to increasing stocking rate? Identify the order of importance of the reasons. Discover what would enable farmers to increase stocking rate?

Focus groups and personal interviews were conducted across the Avon region acknowledging the different rainfall and seasonal conditions.Feed and the price received for sheep products were clearly highlighted to be key barriers to increasing stocking rate. The perceived amount of work required to run sheep and the associated current labour issues were also of concern.

Final Report (24/05/2023) 21

Importantly, stocking rate appears to be strongly related to the degree of risk that farmers are willing to bare. An example of this was that farmers consistently expressed that they did not like to see sheep suffer and acknowledged that they were understocked in previous seasons. However, those that had considered risk management strategies were more willing to optimise their stocking rate.A number of recommendations were provided:

Develop more information and events focused on optimising sheep enterprises. The existence of these extension initiatives will act to reinforce the opportunities from sheep and also highlight the intricacies of sheep management. However, in the design it was important to acknowledge that individual farmer’s issues vary. Hence, rather than developing initiatives which focus on a variety of topics it would be more effective to concentrate on discrete topic area (i.e. labour, risk management, pasture management). This would also allow for shorter extension events/days which would in turn attract more farmers in these busy times.

Consideration to developing a partnership with the “On the Sheep’s Back” initiative to fast-track its adoption and delivery.

Investigate current technology available to assist in managing sheep and promote the options to farmers in acknowledgment of perceptions regarding sheep being ‘hard work’.

Package sheep benchmarking materials and financial data and develop a communications delivery mechanism to maximise farmers’ exposure. Importantly, this information should be developed from current farm situations as opposed to financial models to maximise its credibility, reflecting which farmers are actually achieving in various districts.

Examine the realities regarding the potential for a shortage of shearers in the medium to long term. If found to be significant, identify key stakeholders and develop a plan to address this issue. Key strategies may include sourcing and training people from overseas and strategies to foster the attractiveness of this occupation.

Examine cost effective feed options in acknowledgement of the current emphasis on tight cropping rotations and the reluctance to introduce ley pastures. This needs to be more than simply promoting new pasture varieties, due to their high entry costs. Options utilising common pasture/crop varieties should be the priority.

This survey was used to help develop the focus Look 2 Grow workshops and the Sheep Innovation Forums. An association was developed with the “Sheep’s Back” organisers who provided delivery to promote the program at many events in 2006/7 but this partnership had to be abandoned due to funding cutbacks in a modification of the Grain & Graze project during 2007.

Biodiversity studies (Appendix 5)The Avon Biodiversity sites were set up on six farms across the Avon. A range of different farms were selected to fit the criteria set by the project; high proportion of crop, low proportion of crop, high proportion of remnant vegetation and a low proportion of remnant vegetation.Sites were located at Meckering, Kellerberrin, Quairading, Corrigin, Kulin and Wickepin.Four paddocks were chosen on each participating farm to represent a crop, a pasture in a crop/pasture rotation, a perennial pasture and an area of remnant vegetation. GPS co-ordinates of the monitoring sites were recorded so that the same site was used each time. Data sampling times covered autumn (March - April) and spring (September – October) in 2006 and 2007.

Final Report (24/05/2023) 22

Vegetation cover was assessed in 10, 1 x 1 m quadrats, randomly placed along two parallel transects. These transects were located in the middle of the paddock and were 50m in length and 10m apart. The quadrat was used to estimate percentage cover and height of each species plus bare ground, litter (standing and detached), moss, lichen and rocks. The dominant habitat in each paddock was recorded using the Birds Australia Habitat assessment sheets. The Habitat Hectares remnant vegetation condition assessment scoring was not completed for the Avon farms as there are no benchmark scores for WA vegetation associations.Pitfall trapping was used for collecting ground dwelling invertebrates (Bridle et al. 2006). 10 pitfall traps, 75mm in diameter and 100mm in depth, filled with ethylene glycol, were placed at the centre of the 1 x 1 m vegetation quadrats. Traps were established and allowed to settle for seven days before the ethylene glycol was added. Samples were collected 7 days later and were sent to University of Tasmania for sorting into broader functional groups of beetles, ants, spiders and ‘other’.Chemical soil fertility was assessed from 10 soil cores randomly taken from the vicinity of the parallel transects in autumn 2006. Soil samples were bulked for each paddock and a complete nutrient and particle size analysis was conducted by CSBP Laboratories in W.A.Soil microbial activity was assessed using cotton strip assays, by vertically inserting pieces of cotton fabric into the soil and leaving them to degrade over time (King and Pankhurst 1996). Twenty-four cotton strips were inserted into the soil in each paddock, eight at three points between the two transects. The 10 cm long and 2 cm wide strips were folded in half and buried in the top five cm of soil for two weeks (Bridle et al. 2006). On retrieval, strips were transported in a cool box, placed in a freezer within 6 hours of sampling and then transported frozen to the University of Tasmania. A tensiometer was used to measure the force (Newtons/m2) required to tear the cotton strip apart. The force is taken to be inversely correlated with the degree of decomposition of the material. A mean value was calculated from all samples from each paddock. The bird surveys were undertaken by Brendan Metcalf from Bamford Consulting Ecologists who is a registered Birds Australia atlasser. The 2 ha, 20 min standard survey was used in each paddock measuring bird diversity. Surveys were conducted in autumn, winter, spring, summer for 2006 and autumn, winter, spring for 2007. After the surveys were completed Brendan was interviewed for his interpretation of the data collected. Each participating farmer was surveyed on his/her knowledge of and attitude to biodiversity on the second farm visit in Autumn 2006 except for Lewis’s and Roses who were interviewed by Kristy in Autumn 2007. This survey was also used to collect some broader information on the livestock and cropping systems on each property plus property history and maps of vegetation and land-use.

Preliminary Results and Discussion from the AvonThe Avon farmers were interviewed to find out what their drivers were for retaining and maintaining biodiversity. The six farmers interpreted the word biodiversity to have a number of different meanings but most interpreted biodiversity to mean all fauna and flora and some farmers described the interactions between the living organisms and their habitat as part of biodiversity. The main reason for retaining vegetation on the farm centred on the beauty and value of the bush to past generations. Others had retained areas of remnant vegetation to protect the farm from salinity, wind and water erosion. Management actions were already occurring on farm in the remnant vegetation. As a result farmers observed that there had been no fires, regeneration had increased since fencing and increases in kangaroo numbers had occurred. When asked what were the costs for supporting biodiversity the most notable costs was the cost of fencing followed by loss of grazing land. The

Final Report (24/05/2023) 23

benefits of supporting biodiversity to the farm were much harder for the farmers to quantify with natural resource management benefits being the main focus. The results of the survey indicated that all six farmers manage their land according to their own triple bottom line.There were 56 different bird species found on the Avon farms all being native to the region. Priority species were recorded from all 6 farms. The greatest diversity of birds was observed in the remnant vegetation followed by the pasture then perennial pasture paddock with the crop paddocks being the least diverse. Those birds seen in the crop paddocks were usually granivorous or omnivorous, commonly birds like Parrots, Ravens, Galahs and Magpies were observed. The priority birds like the Brown Honey Eater and Red Capped Robin were seen in the remnant with the Regent Parrot also observed in the perennial pasture paddock. The insectivorous birds (Richard's Pipit, White-fronted Chat and Willie Wagtail) were predominately found in the perennial pasture and rotation paddocks. White-fronted Chats appeared to decline over successive surveys, while Richard’s Pipit became more abundant during the summer surveys. The data suggests that there is a relationship between habitat and food availability and bird and insect diversity. In autumn 2006, all paddock treatments had more diverse vegetation with many summer weeds present. This meant that the vegetation supported a greater diversity of birds, beetles and spiders than shown in the 2007 data. In 2007 no summer rainfall was received and many paddocks were extremely bare. The autumn 2007 season had the lowest bird, beetle and spider diversity in the annual pasture (rotation) sites, after stock had over grazed the pastures (B. Metcalf pers. comm. February 12, 2008). In this study, bird species richness was well correlated with remnant vegetation condition, the highest bird species richness were in the larger more complex and better condition remnants, with the smaller poorer condition remnants demonstrating low species richness. In general remnant condition could be determined by direct methods such as habitat assessment sheets or vegetation surveys, but the other data also provided an indication of condition. For example, bird species richness was lowest in the smallest remnant which had the lowest condition score and the highest soil phosphorus measurement of all 6 farms. Invertebrate data can also indicate the relative condition of remnants. Better quality remnants are usually more diverse in habitat and in the species that depend on that habitat as shown in the ant data. Ant species richness was highest in the remnant vegetation while beetle species richness was highest in the pastures. Pastures provided the most suitable habitat for beetles, with the highest numbers being recorded in the annual and perennial pastures. Most of the remnants did not have a well-developed perennial grass understorey, due to vegetation type, drought or recent grazing events. Spider species richness was low across all paddock types. Very little degradation of cotton strips was found in autumn and spring 2006 due to lack of soil moisture at sampling. For the 2007 measurements the cotton strips were soaked in water before burial. This did not seem to have a significant impact on the results. Over the four sampling times, the results varied from farm to farm, with the highest amount of soil biological activity in these soils generally in the crop and then the rotation paddocks. The remnants recorded the least amount of activity on all farms. There is strong relationship between nutrient content, moisture content and microbial activity. Remnants recorded the lowest soil nutrient values, and the study was undertaken over two years of low rainfall and resulted in little activity. Fungi cultured from cotton strip samples showed no relationship between microbial activity and fungal diversity. Further work needs to be undertaken on the relationship between soil microbial activity and diversity and land use type.

Final Report (24/05/2023) 24

ConclusionsPreliminary results indicate that the different biodiversity indicators sampled respond differently to land use. The focus on species richness as a measure of biodiversity is the simplest method of quickly determining differences between different land uses and regions across the country. It’s important to note that while there may be little difference in the total number of species found in the four land use types, the function of those species may vary, as discussed for birds. Further analyses will help determine the functional role of species and their roles in particular paddock types. By increasing the awareness of the presence of biodiversity and the ecosystem services provided on farms we can demonstrate that biodiversity is not just in the remnant and that small changes can be made to current management practices to enhance biodiversity on farms.Extension Invited presentations to groups as requested – Avon Catchment Council, National

G&G committee Avon BiGG Newsletter circulated to NRM networks Autumn 2007. Abstract accepted and presented to the Ecological Society of Australia November

2007. Paper accepted into the State NRM conference for the tech talk lounge session

March 2008. Abstract submitted into the NRM divisional conference poster created for

conference May 2008 Draft case studies prepared for BiGG farms given to contracted journalist Field day opportunities – now that all the data collection is completed results

could be presented where opportunities exist or can be made No identification leaflet produced although each farmer has been given a box of

beetles collected from their farm at the Hobart workshop Unable to get any information back from the entomology branch from the

collection completed for the APL monitoring. Although Peter Mangano is interested to see the list of insects collected for some Integrated Pest Management work that they are now doing.

Managing climate risk (Appendix 6)BackgroundSeasonal variability has a major impact on farming operations. A number of climate risk management tools have been developed in an effort to enable farm managers to minimise this risk. Yield forecasting models aim to assist farmers to ‘play the season’ with respect to variable inputs such as fertilisers and fungicides. These yield forecasting tools were investigated in the Northern Agricultural Region of Western Australia by the Mingenew Irwin Group (Weeks, Robertson, Oliver, Fairbanks, Agribusiness Crop Update 2007) but they had not been analysed in the Central and Southern Agricultural Regions.The AcCLIMATise project aimed to conduct further analysis of yield forecasting models on farms in the Central and Southern Wheatbelt. This wider analysis encompassed a variety of soil types and rainfall zones throughout the entire WA cropping area, from Geraldton to Esperance including a number of farms in the Avon Catchment.

MethodologyA number of yield potential models were assessed such as Yield Prophet, PYCAL and STIN XL in the following areas;

Ease of use Accuracy of crop yield prediction through the season i.e. ground-truthing

Final Report (24/05/2023) 25

Usefulness and place in assisting decision making on farmThe assessment took place over two consecutive seasons, 2006 and 2007, where the models were tracked against wheat and barley crops. Sites were monitored on a number of different farms and associated soils types in the Northern Agricultural Region, the Central Agricultural Region (Avon Catchment) and the Southern Agricultural Region.The attitudes and thoughts of the farmers participating in the trial work were also documented, with respect to dealing with seasonal variability and the use of yield forecasting models when making tactical decisions for the farm.The models were run throughout the season and the predicted yields documented.Extension of resultsThe results of the analysis were extended through;

AcCLIMATise Bulletins - regional bulletins containing information on regional climate outlooks and trial site specific data such as rainfall to date, crop management information and yield forecasts from the various tools. These bulletins were sent out throughout the season to 6,000 producers in the Central Agricultural Region.

Articles in the Regional Ag memo – this publication goes out to 6,000 producers in the Central Agricultural Region seven times a year. Climate management articles commented on climate and weather information to date and were posted throughout the growing season (April to October).

Climate Risk Management Workshops – held each year to present and discuss the latest climate risk management information available. Discussions centred around how best to use this information when making farm management decisions, with specific reference to yield forecasting models and seasonal forecasts.

Field days at trial sites – in the Central Agricultural Region there were five trial sites selected for 2006 and 2007. Field days were held at some of those sites. The total number of farmers attending these field days in 2006/2007 in the Central Ag Region was ???

The results were presented to 300 consultants and agribusiness representatives at the Agribusiness Crop Updates in 2008. (Please note that 65% of producers in the Avon Catchment use a consultant).

ResultsIn 2006, PYCAL, Yield Prophet and STIN XL had 67%, 61% and 71% of predictions within 0.5 t/ha of actual yield with PYCAL and Yield Prophet tending to over-estimate yields and STIN XL tending to underestimate yields. In 2007 PYCAL, Yield Prophet and STIN XL had 63%, 71% and 100% of predictions within 0.5t/ha. All three models tended to overestimate yields in this season.Post planting Nitrogen applicationsYield forecasts were intended to assist farmers and advisors in making tactical decisions on variable inputs such as nitrogen and fungicides. Season 2006 was one of the driest seasons on record for many shires in the Central Agricultural Region, so many farmers did not add further nitrogen following seeding. In 2007, wheatbelt farmers endured another dry start to the year, but timely rains in the Central Agricultural Region in July made for a much brighter picture for farmers in these regions, where many applied additional nitrogen. Any additional yield resulting was rewarded handsomely due to the exceptional grain prices.Conclusions – Impacts and implications for how we manage mixed farms

Final Report (24/05/2023) 26

In the Central Agricultural Region (including the Avon catchment) the yield prediction models performed reasonably well over the two year trial period, particularly given the exceptional seasons. For greater accuracy, farm managers can further refine the models for particular soil types in a paddock. However, if the models are performing generally within 0.5 t/ha, this should be accurate enough to use for making tactical decisions. In future it is envisaged that the crop models will integrate seasonal forecasts into their calculations so that a yield prediction based on either an average rainfall or expected “outlook rainfall” will be produced.During the trial period, some farmers, whilst finding the information generated by the trial interesting, lacked confidence in the models. Others believed that the information was useful in that it “reinforced the farmers’ current thinking”. Experienced farmers often found their own estimates from walking through the paddock were as good. It is important to recognise seasonal forecasts and yield forecasts are only tools that provide information on part of the story – they need to be combined with further information on stored soil moisture prior to planting and time of break to complete the picture. The fact that these models worked well in the Avon means farmers can be pretty confident that they can predict their yields to within 0.5 t/ha and can refine them if necessary for greater accuracy. With tools to back up their yield predictions, farmers can now be more confident in their decision-making regarding almost every aspect of grain production and marketing. This includes the purchase and application of all inputs (fertilisers, fungicides, pesticides and herbicides etc) and forward selling of grain, buying futures and hedging. In a climate of declining terms of trade and changing weather patterns, these yield prediction models can provide peace of mind for decision-makers.At a time where property sizes are increasing in the Avon, these models are particularly useful for experienced farmers that have purchased a new property, particularly in a different environment, and for less experienced managers who can use them to go through “what if” scenarios.

Look 2 Grow Workshops (Appendix 7)In early and mid 2007, Grain and Graze provided the support for two key look 2 Grow workshops in the Lake Grace Advisory District. They concentrated on 1) animal nutrition, pasture assessment (FOO), condition scoring (CS), feed budgeting and benchmarking;and 2) pasture and seedbank dynamics, grazing management, FOOing, CSing and feed budgeting.As a result of the two Look 2 Grow workshops and the Innovation Day at Lake Grace, approximately 120 people were exposed to innovations and principles of sheep nutrition and management, and practical hands on skills in CS, FOO and the use of feed budgets. A direct consequence of Grain and Graze’s activities, 7 producers signed up to a pilot of the Lifetime Ewe Management program, an extension of the Lifetime Wool practices they were exposed to during Look 2 Grow. Lifetime Ewe Management has been supported by Grain and Graze in the Avon. Two of the farmers have used grazing cereals, although one of them actually completely grazed his crop, due to poor pasture growth during spring 2007.One of the fundamental outcomes of their involvement thus far, is their understanding of sheep performance in stubbles. The two groups feed tested the leaf component of cereal stubbles across the district (in their paddocks), and followed the changes in condition score, which were actually maintained in approximately CS 2.8 across all monitored mobs, as predicted from the feed tests and budgeting exercises.

Final Report (24/05/2023) 27

Most have taken on pregnancy scanning to manage their ewes more efficiently due to the differential in energy requirements of twin and single bearing ewes. They now understand the need to keep twins in better CS than their twins in late pregnancy, and the production implications associated with not hitting CS targets.Comments include “I now know how much to feed my sheep and when – I was over feeding at inappropriate times previously, and underfeeding when I should have been feeding more” and “I feel more in control now” as well as it “has quantified my guesses of supplementary feeding I have done in the past” and “I feel I can have holidays now, because I have done the feed budgets and I know that my sheep will reach their targets even when I am not there”. One of the participants said of his involvement in Grain and Graze activities, “Grain and Graze linked the sheep and cropping enterprises” and I “find that LTEM discusses sheep and how they fit into my cropping system.”Grain and Graze displayed the Wagin Woolorama in 2008, and were represented by a mob of five condition score sheep as explained below in an article that ran in DAFWA’s AgBrief.“The Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia’s site at Woolorama was this year visited by a mob of colourful, albeit very narrow bodied sheep from the Lifetime Ewe Management program and Grain and Graze.The mob of sheep was demonstrating the ease of Condition Score monitoring to a range of farmers, consultants and general interest visitors alike.Sheep were representing condition scores from 2 to 4, and had messages relating to the reproductive performance of each individual clearly outlined.They were accompanied by a TEST SHEEP of unknown condition, which punters were invited to assess. Entrants came from as far as Perth, Koorda, Newdegate and Albany, with a large representation of entrants from the areas surrounding Wagin and Narrogin.

In April there was a Look 2 Grow workshop held at the Narrogin Ag College, with 10 participants that included information on grazing cereals, a range of Lifetime Ewe principles, practical Condition Scoring in sheep yards and FOO assessments in the paddock, using the high low and medium and 15 stops method. Staff at the Narrogin

Final Report (24/05/2023) 28

Ag College who are involved in the Lifetime Ewe Management pilot, found the experience particularly valuable, particularly as an opportunity to get “onto the same page”.

Sheep Innovation Forums (Appendix XX)

Three forums were held on farmers properties selected accordingly so that no producer in the Avon would need to travel more than 200km to attend. Almost 500 commercial sheep producers attended the forums from August 15-17, 2007 at Lake Grace, Brookton and Wyalkatchem respectively.The objective of the forums were to act as an inspiration/motivation for farmers in the Avon Region to uptake new technologies that would help lift productivity, by utilizing a form of extension that optimised engagement through active participation and relaxed learning.A site layout where all stations are ‘within sight” of each other optimised crowd flow and attendance at each station. This was achieved with optimum effect at Wyalkatchem.A list of the stations and presenters follows:1 Three way drafting Trutest and AllflexThe E-Sheep project story continues as we incorporate electronic identification with a three-way draft – and manage and sort sheep like never seen before. 2 Hecton Sheep Handling Richard Rowe Richard from Dandaragan Mechanical Services demonstrates the Hecton Sheep Handler and the Hecton Weigh/Work/Draft plant3 E-Sheep on the boards Steve SempleSteve from E-Sheep project tracked data, genetics and dollar implications from the shearing board (champion shearer Brendon Boyle shearing), to the fleece weighing scales and the on-farm wool testing incorporating OFDA technology (which now predicts staple strength too) – all interfacing with automatic ID systems.4 BioClip Ed and Mike NaisbittLake Grace Bioclip contractors Ed and Mike Naisbitt demonstrated the Bioclip process – so growers could understand the benefits and appreciate the what this technology offers.5 Low Stress Stock Handling Grahame ReesWell known for his workshops on low stress stock handling, Grahame Rees gave a snapshot about strategies for optimising stock handling – as well as live demonstrations of his techniques.6 SkinTraction Peter WelshA mulesing alternative that involves the needleless intra-dermal injection of a patented active. Peter Welsh of Cobbett Technologies demonstrated this easy mulesing alternative destined for commercialisation within 18 months.7 Commercial sheep gene markers Jason StrongJason Strong from Catapult Genetics (now Pfizer) showed how high-tech DNA tests can provide simple solutions for commercial sheep breeding. Growers saw some practical examples of how to use these DNA tests for improved selection decisions.8 Breeding Values and Visual trait EBVs Sheep Genetics AustraliaGrowers could compare breeding values on sheep that have been evaluated by Sheep Genetics Australia, make the assessment and consider the outcomes. Bronwyn Clarke (DAFWA Sheep Genetics) also presented the latest in breeding values for visually assessed traits.9 Automatic Autodrafter Atlex

Final Report (24/05/2023) 29

Atlex demonstrates their AAA Atlex Automatic Autodrafter which weighs, records and drafts all automatically with the ability to mouth, drench, vaccinate and dag. Developed using the latest remote technology and provides accurate information prior to feeding or animal health doses to maximize efficiency.10 Walk over Weighing E-SheepThe E-Sheep project’s Walk over Weighing technology and applications were put into practise. Growers used individual auto identification name tag to visit this station and the team from Allflex and Trutest demonstrated how to apply this technology and data capture to their systems. Pushed as an absolute must-do for every participant!11 The Temperament Box Dominique BlacheThe temperament theme was continued and explored howTemperament can impact on lamb survival. Looking at howtemperament matters. Dominique Blache from UWAshowcases his work on measuring temperament.12 Atlex Stockyards Ian CrafterAtlex – On Property Sheepyard Design Service (OPSDS) specialises in custom designing of sheepyards. Ian Crafter provided examples of surveying a site to millimetre accuracy, transferring the data into a computer and creating a design to improve sheep flow for a one-person-and-one-good-sheep-dog operation.13 Feedlots in sheep farming systems Ian McFarlandIan introduces bringing feedlots into sheep farming systems. Imparting knowledge of when to do it and how to make money from it14 Wormboss Rob Woodgate The Department of Food and Agriculture’s Rob Woodgate explained the Wormboss program for internal parasite control.

Breech strike Johan Greeff & John Karlsson Breeding for breech strike resistance in Merino sheep. An update was given on the bare breech project exploring the realistic opportunity posed as an alternative to mulesing.15 Interfacing Paddock Action Management software with Pastures from Space Richard Stovold & Stephen JasperA demonstration by Richard Stovold from Landgate’s, Pastures from Space team and Stephen Jasper of Booth Technologies.16 Lifetime Wool Sam CluneGet the best from ewe flocks using condition scoring and feed budgeting.17 Travel and Yard Bevan AddisonElders agronomists Bevan Addison and Jolene Hodges showcased the innovative Travel and Yard product that calms sheep and reduces stress – ultimately reducing instances of wastage and dark cutting incurred through stressful transport.18 Breeders Best Pierre SybenBreeders Best is a sheep breeding system that draws together virtually every piece of technology available today, including strategies to manage multiple births utilising preg-scanning information. The benefits of composite genetics, how they can be the catalyst for rapid increases in lambing percentages and how the Breeders Best program adopts the latest technology of DNA testing and electronic tagging for improved genetic selection and total supply chain traceability.A complete list of the best things is in the appendices, but delegates said they loved:

The freedom to choose and the fact that there was concentrated sheep handling/innovation in the one convenient and local venue

They appreciated the structure/layout/style – where a presentation could be followed by one-on-one; and the friendliness/informal nature of the event

Final Report (24/05/2023) 30

They felt “seeing was believing” – and clearly loved the participatory nature of the program

They regularly mentioned the calibre of presenters (including Verity James the MC) and the quality of the information

The event clearly struck a chord with delegates and presenters alike. People regularly commented on the appeal of the interactive format and the flexibility to cover the program at their own pace without being “locked into a seat and a powerpoint presentation”. The promoters, Esther Price Promotions, caution about the ability to repeat such a program in the same regions until such time as there is a new suite of innovation and technology ready to roll out, however were confident of delivering a similar program in other regions that were outside the travel reach of the three venues used in 2007. Clearly the events were well supported by local communities and the style of bringing information to them was certainly appreciated.

Extended Pasture Phase Trials (Appendix XX)Aim:The object of this project was to increase farm profit through improvement in the pasture component of a mixed farming system, without compromising grain production. Renovating pastures aimed to improve the stocking rate, quality of wool and meat and wheat yield in the rotation.Comparison of a conventional to an extended pasture rotation was investigated in trial work on three farms in the Wickepin area. On each farm; two similar paddocks, side by side, were examined.

Method:A four year rotation was set up on three farms, each consisting of two paddocks.

Table 1. Four year rotation.

Rotation 2005 - 2008Farm Control Paddock EPP Paddock86 Gate Farm PWPW PPPPNgaree PWPW PPWWToorarvee WPWP PPPPP: Pasture. W: Wheat.

The Control Paddocks had a conventional rotation of pasture followed by wheat. The (control) pasture paddocks have a volunteer composition of sub-clover (50 – 75%), mixed with capeweed and ryegrass. The Extended Pasture Phase (EPP) had a sown mix of gland clover, biserrula, ryegrass, sub clover and yellow serradella.The Pasture Phase:Individually tagged sheep, were weighed and condition scored before being introduced to the pasture. Measurements included; food on offer, worm egg counts, individualised sheep weight and condition score over time.The Crop Phase:Wheat was cropped as per farmer practice. Wheat yield, protein and screenings were measured.Soil nutrients, pH and pasture seed bank measurements were taken.

Final Report (24/05/2023) 31

Results:

1. 86 Gate Farm

Table 2 shows the inputs and results from the third year (2007) of the Grain and Graze demonstration on Eighty Six Gate Farm in the Wickepin shire. The control site was in pasture and the treatment site was in high performance pasture.

Table 2: Demonstration inputs of control and treatment sites Control Treatment

Paddock size (ha) 34 26Year in rotation Year 3 - pasture Year 3 – pastureFarm rotation P W P W P P P WPasture composition 75% sub-clover

10% cape weed10% barley grass 5% ryegrass

Gland clover (Prima)Biserrula (Mauro)Yellow Serredella (Santorini)Tetraploid Ryegrass (Rocket) Sub clover (Dalsa)Ryegrass (Tetila Gold)

Chemicals Simazine @ 300 g/ha +MCPA Lve @ 300 ml/ha + QPE (Targa) @ 350ml + Dimethoate @ 100 ml/ha

QPE (Targa) @ 350ml + Lemat @ 150 ml/ha

FOO results were very similar when comparing the conventional pasture paddock with the legume mix of the extended pasture phase, see charts 1 and 2. Both paddocks had a similar grazing regime of 3.75 DSE / ha.

58 pregnant ewes were weighed and added to the EPP paddock on December 20th, see chart 1, and another 58 pregnant ewes were added to the control paddock on the February 21st, see chart 2. Both mobs condition score decreased slightly. The EPP was removed on March 21st and the control was removed on April 2nd. 60 mated purple tag ewes were added to the EPP paddock on the 27th April. Another 60 mated purple tag ewes were added to the control paddock May 18th. The ewes on the control plot were removed on November 6th and the EPP ewes were removed on December 4th. Condition score increased in both mobs by between 0.5 and 0.7.

Final Report (24/05/2023) 32

Chart 1.

2007 EPPLewis FOO and Condition Score

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Jan

Feb Mar AprMay Ju

n Jul

Aug Sep Oct NovDec

FOO

(Kg/

ha)

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

Con

ditio

n S

core

FOO CS

Chart 2.

2007 ControlLewis FOO and Condition Score

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Jan

Feb Mar AprMay Ju

n Jul

Aug Sep Oct NovDec

FOO

(Kg/

ha)

2.0

2.22.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.23.4

3.6

Con

ditio

n S

core

FOO CS

Final Report (24/05/2023) 33

2. Ngaree

The following table shows the inputs and results from the second year (2006) of the Grain and Graze demonstration on Ngaree farm in the Wickepin shire. The control site was in pasture and the treatment site was in wheat, see table 3.

Table 3: Demonstration inputs of control and treatment sites Control Treatment

Paddock size (ha) 20 20Year in rotation Year 3 - pasture Year 3 – wheatFarm rotation P W P W P P W WPasture composition 75% sub-clover (Nungarin/Geraldton)

15% cape weed10% ryegrass and barley grass

Wheat 60kg/ha Wyalkatchem direct drilledFertiliser 62kg/ha DAPSZ, 40kg/ha ureaChemicals Roundup, 2,4-D ester, cypermethrin,

Monza.P: pasture, W: wheat

In 2007, the EPP paddock was being seeded for wheat after two years of pasture. Sheep were added to the EPP paddock on December 7th, see chart 3. They were then removed on June 1st after gaining 5.1 Kg. 60 blue tag ewes were added on December 20th, by January 21st 2008, they had increased in weight by 1.4 Kg. 60 kg of wheat was planted in June, this yielded 2.87 t/ha.

Chart 3.

EPP (Wheat) Average of Condition Score and Weight

2.02.22.42.62.83.03.23.43.6

Dec Mar Apr Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Dec Jan

Date

Cond

ition

Sco

re

34353637383940414243

Wgt

(Kg)

EPP (Wheat): Average CS EPP (Wheat): Avg Liveweight (kg)

Final Report (24/05/2023) 34

The Control paddock was in pasture for 2007; with 60 red tag ewes being added on Jun 1st. see chart 4. The ewes were removed from the paddock on October 10th and average live weight had increased by 16.4 Kg per head.

Chart 4.

Control (Pasture) Average of Condition Score and Weight

2.02.22.42.62.83.03.23.43.63.8

Dec Mar Apr Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Dec

Date

Con

ditio

n S

core

34

39

44

49

54

59

64

Wgt

(Kg)

Control (Pasture): Avg CS Control (Pasture): Avg Liveweight (kg)

As can be seen from chart 5, weight gain followed the FOO after 300 Kg were recorded in May. This increased to 4156 kg in September, then reducing to 1517 Kg in November.

Chart 5. FOO and Weight gain in the control pasture paddock.

2007 FOO and Wgt Gain

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Date

Kg/h

a Dr

y M

atte

r

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Wgt

(Kg)

FOO Control (Pasture): Avg Liveweight (kg)

Final Report (24/05/2023) 35

3. Tooarvee

A four year rotation was set up in two paddocks. Paddock 1, or the control paddock, is 22 hectares and has a rotation of wheat, pasture, wheat, pasture; with the pasture rotation being volunteer pasture. Paddock 2 is 23 hectares and has a rotation of pasture, pasture, pasture, pasture. The pasture species are a mix of several legume species that have performed well in the region. 2007 is the third year of the rotation. See table 4.

Table 4.

Control (Paddock 1) Treatment (paddock 2)

Paddock size (ha) 22 23

Year in Rotation Year 3 - Wheat Year 3 - Pasture

Farm Rotation 2005 - Wheat2006 - Pasture2007 - Wheat2008 - Pasture

2005 - Pasture2006 - Pasture2007 - Pasture2008 - Pasture

2007 Composition Wheat Gland Clover (Prima)Yellow Serradella (Santorini)Tetraploid Ryegrass (Rocket)Subterranean Clover (Dalkeith)Ryegrass (Tetila Gold)

Before cropping the 22 hectare control paddock; a mob of 58 wethers that were weighed and introduced into the paddock from the 9th January to the 7th March. The paddock had also been grazed in the previous months. The wethers were not able to maintain weight and they lost an average of 2.6 kg during the 58 days they were grazing the paddock. (See chart 1). Blue tag wethers were introduced onto the wheat stubble on November 13th. The wethers gained 1.2 kg before being removed in January. The control paddock was seeded Carnamah wheat on June 1st and yielded 2.82 t/ha.

Chart 1: Average sheep weights for the control and the treatment (EPP) paddocks.

Condition Score and Liveweight of Sheep Grazing the Control

2.6

2.7

2.7

2.8

2.8

2.9

2.9

3.0

Jan-07

Feb-07

Mar-07

May-07

Jul-07 Aug-07

Sep-07

Oct-07

Nov-07

Nov-07

Nov-07

Dec-07

date

C/S

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Wgt

(Kg)

Condition Score Avg Liveweight

Final Report (24/05/2023) 36

Three mobs of sheep were put onto Paddock 2 at various dates through the year and weighed at approximately monthly intervals, see chart 1.

The stocking regime for paddock 2 was as follows:

09-Jan-07 wethers weighed on

07-May-07 wethers weighed off

03-Jul-07 ewe hoggets weighed on

13-Nov-07 ewe hoggets weighed off

13-Nov-07 wethers weighed on

12-Dec-07 wethers weighed off

A summer / autumn mob of wethers were put in on the 9th of January for 65 days. A winter / spring (core) mob of ewe hoggets was put in on the 3rd of July for 129 days; followed straight after by a mob of wethers for 48 days. This gave paddock 2 a total of 821 grazing days / ha.

Condition Score and Liveweight of Sheep Grazing the Extended Pasture Phase Treatment

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Jun-06 Aug-06 Oct-06 Dec-06 Feb-07 Apr-07 Jun-07 Aug-07 Oct-07 Dec-07

date

C/S

404550556065707580

Wgt

(Kg)

wethers condition score ewe hoggets condition score

wethers Avg Liveweight ewe hoggets Avg Liveweight

A summer mob of 57 wethers was put in the extended pasture phase on July 7th 2006 These were allowed to graze through until March 7th 2007. The paddock had been grazed the previous summer, and average weight decreased slightly from 70.4 to 68.7 kg.

A winter mob of 56 ewe hogget’s was put in on July 7th and was later removed on the November 13th. The hogget’s increased in weight by an average of 19.6kg.

Final Report (24/05/2023) 37

Tooarvee Paddock 2 (Pasture) FOO and Sheep Weights

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Date

FOO

Kg/

ha

20

30

40

50

60

70

She

ep W

gt K

g

kg/ha/foo sheep wgt

wethers

ewe hoggets

wethers

In summary the treatment site was planted to high performance pasture in 2005. In its second year (2006) it resulted in a total of 1,447 grazing days per hectare. The control site was regeneration of volunteer pasture and resulted in at total of 946 grazing days per hectare.

Grazing Wheat Research (Appendix XX)IntroductionThe Avon Region conducted trials in 2007 to determine if dual purpose wheat can be grown and grazed in low to medium rainfall regions. The study was also used to identify if normal commercial wheat can be grown and grazed with little effect on yield and the economic effect being outweighed by the increase in livestock weight gain.

Aims & Objectives:The trials aim;

To determine if dual purpose premium wheat is suitable for low and medium rainfall, shorter season areas

To determine if a commercial wheat can be grazed to help close the autumn/winter feed gap

To determine the effects of grazing on grain yield and quality of the wheat varieties Yitpi and Wedgetail

To determine if the cost of the yield loss compared to the gain in animal production from grazing the wheat is beneficial

To determine the effects of length or intensity of grazing on dual use of wheat.

Experimental Design:Two trials were conducted in 2007, a length of grazing trial at Hines Hill and a grazing intensity trial at Southern Brook. The length of grazing trial consisted of 4 treatment groups (0, 10, 20 and 30 day grazing) whilst the grazing intensity trial had only three treatments (0, 20 and 40 DSE). Each treatment, in both trials, had three replicates of half hectare plots all electrically fenced with turbo braid wire. Young, dry, newly shorn Merino sheep were used to graze the plots.

Final Report (24/05/2023) 38

ResultsA late start to the season delayed seeding beyond the desired time for both trials and subsequent low rainfall, particularly at Hines Hill, meant that biomass production was low. This caused grazing to be delayed and the total grazing to be decreased.

Trial 1: The effects of length of grazing wheat during the growing season on grain yield and qualitySheep Weights and condition scoreSheep were weighed onto the plots on the 20 August 2007. Initially the condition and live weight of the sheep increased quickly, but the rate of gain declined the longer the animals were left to graze.

Biomass productionThe late break-of-season, delaying seeding, followed by below average rainfall (M-O 154mm = 68% of Av), slowed biomass production. After emergence, the crops remained dormant for almost two months with plants being weak and showing signs of stress due to lack of moisture. However, by mid-August, biomass had increased to a level suitable to be grazed. Good growth rates at this time allowed the plants to maintain biomass whilst the sheep were grazing the plots. High plant growth rate during late-August allowed Yitpi to increase biomass beyond the demand of the sheep. Wedgetail was not as productive.

Flowering datesWedgetail flowered nine to ten days later than Yitpi, consistently, throughout all treatments. With increasing grazing time, flowering was delayed by up to nine days for both varieties. The effect of the delay is to diminish the risk of frost, but grain filling may then occur under drier conditions. Further study is required to determine the effect of grazing on flowering date in other seasons.

Effects on Grain yield and qualityOverall the effects of grazing on the quality and yield of the grain were minimal. There was more effect due to variety than grazing regime but mostly the longer the grazing period the more detrimental its effect on crop production. Yitpi produced significantly (P<0.001) more grain than Wedgetail.

Trial 2: The effects of grazing intensity, during the growing season, on wheat grain yield and qualityAnimal growthThere was no difference in the average live weight of the groups of animals when originally allocated to the grazed treatments. At the low grazing intensity, there was no difference in growth rate overall between Yitpi and Wedgetail. For both of the high grazing intensity treatments, live weights were less than those of animals on the low grazing intensity treatments. Animals grazing Yitpi had a significantly (P = 0.006) higher growth rate overall than Wedgetail, which is consistent with the available biomass produced.

BiomassYitpi continually produced more biomass (kg DM/ha) than Wedgetail. This difference was significant (p <0.05) at three points during grazing, just prior to the sheep being introduced to the plots and then for the two observations the week before the sheep were weighed off the plots. For Yitpi at the low grazing intensity, the biomass available to animals was always sufficient to meet demand. However, both grazed Wedgetail treatments and the high Yitpi did not satisfy demand once the sheep had grazed the plots for two weeks.

Final Report (24/05/2023) 39

The growth rates for both varieties remained very similar throughout the period of observation. The first half of the season was characterized by low rainfall (May-Jul = 55% of Av) and a period where crops did not grow at all (last week of July).

Flowering dateWedgetail consistently flowered seven to eight days later than Yitpi. Grazing affected both varieties by delaying flowering for up to 17 days. This delay diminishes the risk of frost, but increases the likelihood of moisture stress during grain filling. Further study is required to determine the effects of grazing on flowering date in other seasons.

Effects on Grain yield and qualityIn this trial, Yitpi also outperformed Wedgetail yielding significantly (P = 0.006) higher, had a better 1000 grain weight, finished with more plants per square metre and was taller at harvest. Un-grazed, Yitpi appeared to be able to compete well with ryegrass, but once grazing was introduced the Wedgetail variety was significantly (P = 0.004) more competitive.

Fostering Relationships with Agribusiness & Consultants

In order to help deliver some of the key messages and to ensure longevity after Grain & Graze is completed, many approaches have been tried to form linkages with Agribusiness and Consultants. The linkages that have been developed have proven useful in event organisation and support with this approach clearly providing advantages to all.

Showcasing Champions (Appendix XX)Case studies and LTEM groups

Final Report (24/05/2023) 40

4. IMPACTS & IMPLICATIONS: WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN FOR HOW WE MANAGE MIXED FARMS? (~3-4 pages) This section describes and synthesises the impacts and implications of

results and findings for mixed farming systems. By now regions have written the ‘insights’ section for at least three milestone reports and so should be dab hands at tying the implications of connected and/or disparate activities together.

Reports should include a differentiation of:

i. what practices or impacts are we confident about, and that are supported by research data and farmer experience?

ii. which are hunches supported primarily by farmer experience?

iii. which are inklings that require further research?

While it is acknowledged that there is no one perfect mixed-farming system for any region or even any one farm, an important part of synthesising the findings is consideration of:

o trade offs in adopting a new practice or set of new practices, o the synergies between new practices and between new and

existing practices, o the pros & cons of new practices.

It is likely that in order to address these issues, the region will need to call upon what it has learnt not from one project, but from a combination of projects and the experience of farmers and researchers. The “Integrated Products” report provides examples of trade-offs, synergies and pros and cons that could be drawn upon.

Discussion should be tied back to the project objectives and success factors where appropriate and

o include results from national projects where it is relevant o describe any unintended findings/outcomeso reason why change occurred or didn’t occur.

Climate Risk– Impacts and implications for how we manage mixed farmsIn the Central Agricultural Region (including the Avon catchment) the yield prediction models performed reasonably well over the two year trial period, particularly given the exceptional seasons. For greater accuracy, farm managers can further refine the models for particular soil types in a paddock. However, if the models are performing generally within 0.5 t/ha, this should be accurate enough to use for making tactical decisions. In future it is envisaged that the crop models will integrate seasonal forecasts into their calculations so that a yield prediction based on either an average rainfall or expected “outlook rainfall” will be produced.During the trial period, some farmers, whilst finding the information generated by the trial interesting, lacked confidence in the models. Others believed that the information was useful in that it “reinforced the farmers’ current thinking”. Experienced farmers often found their own estimates from walking through the paddock were as good. It is important to recognise seasonal forecasts and yield forecasts are only tools that provide information on part of the story – they need to be combined with further

Final Report (24/05/2023) 41

information on stored soil moisture prior to planting and time of break to complete the picture. The fact that these models worked well in the Avon means farmers can be pretty confident that they can predict their yields to within 0.5 t/ha and can refine them if necessary for greater accuracy. With tools to back up their yield predictions, farmers can now be more confident in their decision-making regarding almost every aspect of grain production and marketing. This includes the purchase and application of all inputs (fertilisers, fungicides, pesticides and herbicides etc) and forward selling of grain, buying futures and hedging. In a climate of declining terms of trade and changing weather patterns, these yield prediction models can provide peace of mind for decision-makers.At a time where property sizes are increasing in the Avon, these models are particularly useful for experienced farmers that have purchased a new property, particularly in a different environment, and for less experienced managers who can use them to go through “what if” scenarios.

Final Report (24/05/2023) 42

5. EVALUATION: TO WHAT EXTENT DID WE ACHIEVE WHAT WE INTENDED TO? (~3 PAGES) This section summarises findings related to the accountability aspects of

regional monitoring and evaluation activities, including an assessment of the extent to which each project objective, target and success factor was achieved. As a minimum it should include quantification of awareness, participation and adoption of activities and results, supported by case studies where appropriate.

Feed On OfferCondition Scoring SheepDeferred Grazing of PastureSheep Innovation DaysFostering Agribusiness RelationshipsShowcasing ChampionsExtended Pasture Phase DemonstrationGrazing Wheat TrialsBiodiversity Studies

Final Report (24/05/2023) 43

6. LEARNINGS: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNT AS PARTICIPANTS IN A HIGHLY COMPLEX PROJECT/PROGRAM? (~2 PAGES) This section summarises findings related to the process and

organisational aspects of participating in Grain & Graze. It should include discussion on the participants’ reflections taking into account both regional and national (program) level relationships. Include in the discussion factors such as:

management co-ordination institutional structures, partnerships and collaboration integrating R D & E disciplines inter-regional cooperation and interaction national project interaction (integration, impact and

relevance) recommendations for future.

Management under DAFWA structure makes it appear safer and more accountable for funders to get involved as there

is good prior history and mechanisms for dealing with financial matters in theory, a selection of experienced individuals should easily be able to

be tapped into to contribute to the project and activities, but in practice this is not always the case as often the best people are already fully occupied on other tasks

too easy for individuals to abandon the project partway through (moving onto other jobs) creating delays that are hard to overcome under this structure (replacement can take ……months)

Co-ordination

Comments from Michael Robertson?

Final Report (24/05/2023) 44

7. APPENDICES

1.4. Analysis of Sheep Stocking Rates in the Avon Region – Report by Jack in the

Box (113p)

Final Report (24/05/2023) 45