As part of the GRDC-funded RiskWi$e Project, the West Midlands Group and Mingenew Irwin Group have launched a focused investigation into how machinery investment decisions are made by growers across the Northern Agricultural Region. In the project’s early stages, a detailed survey has captured initial insights into machinery ownership structures, decision-making processes, and the relationship between capacity and timeliness—offering a valuable window into the practical and financial factors shaping equipment choices on farm.

What Have We Learned So Far?

Initial responses reveal a diverse range of machinery strategies tailored to enterprise size, soil conditions, and seasonal demands. Farms represented in the data vary in scale from 2,000 to 14,000 hectares, with many managing mixed soil types—particularly sandy and gravelly profiles—with even more variable clay content. These differences have a direct impact on machinery requirements and seeding operations.

Timeliness remains a central concern, with most growers aiming to complete seeding between April and early June. However, season break variability, rainfall timing, machinery breakdowns, and staffing pressures regularly complicate this goal. Many operations rely on multiple seeding rigs running extended shifts to cover the ground efficiently, with daily targets often ranging between 100 to 300 hectares.

Machinery ownership models differ widely, reflecting both financial and operational considerations. While some growers maintain fully owned fleets, others combine older backup machinery with newer frontline equipment to manage risk and ensure continuity. Shared ownership is occasionally used for specialised equipment such as deep rippers, especially where capital costs are high but frequency of use is low.

When it comes to purchasing decisions, growers are divided between investing in new machinery for reliability and warranty protection versus sourcing second-hand equipment to reduce upfront costs. Hybrid strategies are common—buying new for high-use items like sprayers and tractors, and sourcing quality used machines for seasonal operations such as harvesting. Replacement timelines also vary, with headers typically retained longer than other equipment due to cost constraints.

Financial management plays a major role in guiding decisions. Most growers rely on budgeting tools and their own experience, with minimal input from external consultants. Instead, they often benchmark informally with peers and base decisions on known service reliability, machine hours, and dealer support.

The survey has also captured information about harvest operations and fertiliser strategies. While harvest timing generally aligns with historical windows (late October through December), interruptions from wet weather and staffing shortages have impacted efficiency in some cases. Nitrogen application rates vary by crop, with canola receiving the highest inputs. This has implications for matching machinery capacity—particularly spreaders—to agronomic goals within tight seasonal windows.

Key Takeaways

• Timeliness is critical: Growers are focused on machinery capacity and redundancy to ensure operations align with seasonal windows—especially for seeding and harvest.
• Diverse investment strategies: There is no one-size-fits-all model; growers balance capital costs, reliability, and future readiness based on their individual contexts.
• Machinery and productivity are closely linked: While cost is always a factor, growers are clearly mindful of the need to maintain or improve timeliness to maximise profitability.
• Local context matters: Soil types, staffing availability, and seasonal risk all shape machinery choices and ownership structures in meaningful ways.