A scoping study to determine knowledge gaps in the current understanding of where dairy

nutrients end up in off farm sinks and how these

metrics change with changes in on-farm practices, from a sub-catchment, catchment and regional perspective. The scoping study should also articulate the likelihood of industry led research being able to successfully quantify off farm nutrient flows and sinks and identify areas for investment (if appropriate). It could also be used as a case for federal funding and/or participation by other industry sectors.

Organisations that should be involved: Expertise should include farm nutrient cycling and influence of management actions on this cycling and losses, those with expertise in stream and estuary nutrient dynamics. Organisations include DPI V, I&I NSW, CSIRO, TIAR, UWA

9.5. Timeframe for activities

fAnalysis of nutrient transformations, in particular N . fMicrobial approaches for manipulating N and P.

fQuantify the risks to the dairy industry from likely catchment, state, national and international regulatory requirements targeting off farm nutrient loss.

fA review to determine the knowledge gaps in the current understanding of where dairy nutrients end up in off farm sinks.

fCommence within 1–2 years fCommence in 2–4 years fCommence in 4 or more years

127 ■

Natur

al r

esour

ce management and climat

e change

9.6. Qualitative Ranking of impact and likelihood of success

Figure 7. 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 Legend 1: Analysis of nutrient transformations, in particular N

2: Microbial approaches for manipulating N&P 3: Regulatory risk 4: Catchments scoping study 1 4 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

9.7. RD&E Capability (gaps and resources)

Question Assessment Comment

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

There are a number of organisations with sufficient capability for key investment areas

1 & 4. Capability is being built in areas 2 & 3. Do these people and

organisations represent the majority of prior learning in this area?

Yes, for key investment areas 1, 3 & 4. The microbial work may involve working with other agricultural industries. The critical mass needed to undertake these activities is not located in any one agency. Activities should also be integrated into feedbase work. Is it clear that an investment in

this area will provide benefits and outcomes for the co investors?

For area 1 previous knowledge and investment together with reasonable capability ensures a good opportunities for successful outcomes. Area 2 is less certain, being more ‘blue sky’.

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

Provided this priority is strongly linked in with Priority E: On farm nutrient management, as well as feedbase extension programs and industry NRM programs and DSS.

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

Expertise exists across a number of agencies areas but resources are less available. There is a lack of personnel with skills needed to undertake field-based and farming systems work. Skills limitations exist in soil microbial ecology of agricultural systems and technical guidance may need to be sourced from non-agricultural research sectors. There is little expertise within the industry in the area of regulatory risk.

Not at all Completed

Not at all Completed

Not at all Completed

Not at all Completed

Not at all Completed

9.8. RD & E priority activities currently underway

A scoping workshop for priority area 1 is planned for late 2010/ early 2011. There is a limited amount of investment priority area 2.

10. Priority outcome: Improved extension of nutrient management

principles and practices to achieve a more rigorous objective

approach to nutrient management at farm level

10.1. Background context

For the dairy industry (and the individuals within it) to have confidence in the currently promoted soil nutrient targets and management principles there must be confidence around:

› The reliability of soil, tissue and feed testing and the associated ‘best practice’ nutrient recommendations being provided by researchers, fertiliser companies, farm consultants and other relevant service providers

› Industry ‘best practice’ application and management of nutrients being compatible with the long term sustainability of soil health

› When advised to apply fewer nutrients (in the appropriate situation) it does not mean less dry matter production.

Soil testing is an important tool for advisers and farmers but there are issues to address, including:

› A lack of a simple framework for soil mapping on farms. It is either “too complex” and hence not adopted or too simple and hence haphazard and incorrect

› The quality of current soil testing methodologies resulting in high levels of variation between duplicate tests

› Poor understanding by end users of laboratory testing accreditation schemes.

In addition to concerns around soil testing there is a lack of confidence in the Better Fertilizer Decision soil nutrient targets among some advisers, in particular their relevance at a regional level. This lack of confidence is compounded by the plethora of different nutrient advisory, diagnostic and decision support tools developed by consultants, DPI/State Departments of Agriculture and milk

companies-including paddock scale nutrient mapping, nutrient budgeting tools, nutrient loss calculators and fertilizer rate calculators. The array of tools is a potential source of confusion for end users and most tools need to be supported by individual, professional advice at a farm level. There is a role for ‘generic’ tools but they need to be able to be modified to account for regional and sub- regional variables.

Farmers want to put fertiliser out, often regardless of soil test information or advice, because they see fertiliser as intrinsically linked to farm productivity and high soil fertility levels as an asset. There has been a limited utilisation of the win:win message by industry programs,

that when soil test levels are high reducing fertiliser will save them money and won’t cut DM production. Proven nutrient management best practices should be linked with profit outcomes as well as environmental outcomes.

10.2. Strategies to address the outcome

Given the background issues listed above three key strategies underpin the activities needed to achieve the outcome. These are:

An agreed whole of industry consensus on nutrient management principles

The industry needs to reach a broadly based consensus on some simple key principles of good nutrient management practices based on credible science (e.g. on issues such as peak nutrient response curves; soil testing and interpretation of soil test results and nutrient budgets; definition of a healthy soil). To ensure whole of industry engagement with these principles this broad industry consensus must involve the farmers, fertilizer re- sellers, fertilizer companies, farm advisers/consultants and state extension agencies.

In response to the growing interest in biological fertilisers and the assumptions underlying the use of these products nutrient management principles should also include a clear definition of biologically healthy soils and if possible a full scientific evaluation of alternative “biological” and nontraditional fertilizers.

An additional area the dairy industry needs to agree on, and promote, is the fact that a high performing, profitable dairy farm that applies and manages nutrients as per agreed best practice, is not necessarily at odds with long term sustainability.

Increased industry confidence in nutrient management principles

Confidence must be built with farmers, that adoption of these new key principles in fertilizer and nutrient management will lead to financial and environmental benefits and will not result in a loss of pasture production, a major driver of profit. The key message will be that pasture production need not be compromised through a more tactical approach to nutrient management that takes account of environmental protection.

There needs to be industry acceptance that building industry confidence in best management principles requires a regional and district approach as

129 ■

Natur

al r

esour

ce management and climat

e change

demonstrations in one region won’t be seen as relevant in another region. The most appropriate activities to build confidence will be regionally relevant demonstrations and case studies involving credible producer and adviser advocates. Regional confidence building activities must include fertilizer sellers and operators.

Investment in training, professional development and support for information sharing

Regionally tailored investment in training and professional development for advisers, consultants, fertilizer sellers and spreaders is essential. Without broad based industry understanding and support for industry best management principles, uptake of nutrient management best practice will continue to be impacted by lack of confidence in its applicability to local and regional conditions. To help build confidence in the training provided, delivery should foster connections between soil scientists, service providers and fertilizer sellers.

10.3. Key past and existing

investments in this area

There is a strong history of industry investment to address nutrient management issues. Examples include

Better Fertiliser Decisions, Accounting for Nutrients and numerous regional National Landcare, Natural Heritage Trust and Caring for Our Country funded programs

targeting on farm change. The experiences from these programs suggest there are still some gaps to be addressed that could be met through the strategies and investments listed below.

10.4. Priorities for future investments

(RD&E) activities to deliver the

outcome (including organisations

that should be involved)

The expert group suggested there were potentially five key investment areas required to deliver against the strategies to achieve the outcome ‘Improved extension of nutrient management principles and practices to achieve a more rigorous objective approach to nutrient management at farm level’.

E.1 A national and regional network of simple test