Thetes y Trirremes: servicio naval y derechos políticos

Such a network would enable support, training, information exchange and consensus.

Organisations that should be involved: A working group similar to the expert group but with representation from a soil testing organization and DPI – those who deal with nutrient budgets.

10.5 Time frame for investment

fA national and regional network of simple test demonstration activities.

fA nationally agreed framework for the delivery of regional nutrient management extension.

fDevelopment of national nutrient management principles.

fDevelopment and delivery of formal education on new nutrient management principles and practice.

fCommence within 2 years

10.6. Qualitative Ranking of impact and likelihood of success

Figure 8. Example of a likelihood of success vs industry impact graph (size of the bubble indicates scale of investment needed within that activity area)* Industr y impac t Likelihood of success 1 4 5 2 3

* Estimations of impact, likelihood and scale of project are qualitative only and reflect the opinion of the Dairy Moving Forward expert working group

Impact vs Success

Legend

1: Test demonstrations/ validation activities

2: Delivery of regional nutrient management extension 3: Nutrient management principles

4: Formal education on new nutrient management principles and practice 5: Nutrient management RD&E innovators network

131 ■

Natur

al r

esour

ce management and climat

e change

10.8. RD & E priority activities

currently underway

Investment in priority area 1 is planned and underway in two of the eight dairy regions.

10.7. Capability available and required

Question Assessment Comment

Is there a clear group of relevant organisations and people available to collaborate around this space?

There is sufficient capability but the outputs need to be specific and detailed.

Do these people and organisations represent the majority of prior learning in this area?

Yes, the issue maybe harnessing all the stakeholders. Ensuring the fertiliser industry is engaged will be critical to achieving the outcomes.

Is it clear that an investment in this area will provide benefits and outcomes for the co investors?

These activities will be well regarded by farmers. It will take a paradigm shift from all parties (those historically involved and who may need to operate differently and those who have not operated in this space before) to achieve successful outcomes.

Would the collaborators be able to provide diverse avenues for change?

Yes, but it will require support and lead coordination. There is a need to broaden the range so that it is not just demonstration sites; it is local extension programs at a farm level.

Is the capability present (funds, people and infrastructure) in the collaboration to deliver the specified outcome?

Some regions with a lack of good expertise may struggle to get this together. Resources will need to be re-allocated to this area. Some institutions whilst they have very capable personnel are not focused on extension and are unwilling to find resources for it. It will take a lot of nurturing to get a sustained shift. Not at all Completed

Not at all Completed

Not at all Completed

Not at all Completed

11. Priority Outcome 6: Increased profit per unit of water use on irrigated dairy farms

11.1. Background context

Major reductions in access to water have occurred in the past 10 years, especially in the lower Murray Darling Basin a significant focus for irrigated dairying. Some of these reductions have been due to prolonged drought, some possibly due to long term climate change and some due to ongoing government policy changes. In other dairy regions (e.g. Tasmania), there has been an increase in access to irrigation.

› Decreasing availability of water: Irrigated dairy farms differ considerably in the degree to which they are reliant on irrigation for fodder production. Irrigated dairy farms can range from those totally reliant on irrigation for fodder production to those using supplementary, targeted irrigation for fodder production. Historically, those farmers in the regulated irrigation districts (such as the southern Murray Darling Basin and Macalister irrigation districts) have been most reliant, generally producing the bulk of their feed from irrigation.

Most irrigation dairy farmers have made changes in fodder crop/pasture types or to the sourcing of fodder requirements off farm in response to changes in water availability. These changes are likely to continue in response to planned policy instruments such as the Murray Darling Basin Plan.

› Irrigation is now mostly supplementary. The dry spell of the last 10 years has been has been characterised by historically low irrigation allocations in the MDB and in this region farmers have had to adapt to become more like other irrigated dairy farms in Queensland, SW Victoria, Gippsland and Tasmania, using irrigation to supplement rainfall rather than as a production system in its own right.

› Delivery systems need to be integrated with agronomic requirements. For precision agriculture irrigation delivery systems must be able to deliver the amount of water needed, when it is needed. Knowing the agronomic requirements, combined with a more flexible delivery system allows farmers obtain the best use of their water.

› Increased interest in alternative irrigation storage and delivery systems. Reductions in access to water have increased attention on alternatives to traditional flood/ border check irrigation systems, including centre pivot or lateral move overhead sprays, and sub surface drip systems. The overall economic (farm profit) and water use impacts of changes in irrigation methods and changes in irrigation infrastructure for delivery and storage of irrigation water, have been analysed and reported, but are not able to be generalised, being dependent on a range of site specific factors including pre-existing farm, infrastructure and irrigation layout and standard, soil types, crops grown, farmer expertise and ability, reliability of water supply.

› Increased reliance on utilisation of market

instruments. Reduced access to water has coincided with, or contributed to, increased reliance on

utilisation of market instruments such as water trading and carry over—all designed to spread or better manage the risks associated with variable allocations but ‘fixed’ herd demand for forage. Farm planning decisions are now highly complex and ongoing in response to changing conditions, involving trade- offs between growing or buying fodder, buying, selling or storing water, and expanding or reducing milk production.

› Use of irrigation scheduling varies widely. Nationally, irrigation scheduling ranges from calendar based scheduling, to “rule of thumb” scheduling based on experience, to those who utilise objective measures of soil moisture and knowledge of crop growth stage specific water requirement to schedule irrigation. It is estimated that less than 5% of irrigated dairy farms in northern Victoria and southern NSW, where water ordering has historically required 4 days notice, use objective measures of soil moisture and crop growth stage specific water requirement knowledge to schedule irrigation. With system modernization and the promise of water deliveries at short notice, this situation may change rapidly. Use of objective, data based scheduling systems is much higher in areas such as SE South Australia and QLD.

1. This section is the least well developed and requires more cross industry consultation as the potential impact of the MDB plan is clarified.

133 ■

Natur

al r

esour

ce management and climat

e change

11.2. Industry needs to enable