Changing the crop sequence mix – what risk?
Ag Innovation & Research, Eyre Peninsula
Key contact: Naomi Scholz
Summary:
Enterprise Mix has been identified as a key risk in farm enterprise decision making in the EP. Recently the downturn in sheep prices, difficulties in sourcing labour and improved crop agronomy and soil amelioration practices have increased the potential of high value pulse crops such as lentils to be adopted across a wide range of environments on EP, from acidic sandier soils, in the medium rainfall zone through to a wide range of soil types in the low rainfall zone. However, the decision to move towards pulse intensive crop rotations across the farming system often relies on a complex series of smaller decisions that encompass changes in labour requirements, changes to machinery requirements, changes to marketing strategies, as well as potential logistical issues, upskilling in pulse specific agronomy and uncertainty of production.
Project Partners:
EPAG Research, Primary Industries and Resources South Australia, Ag Consulting Co , Coutts JR, Pinion Advisory, Ed Hunt Consulting, Hollitt Consulting, Bates Ag Consulting, George Pedler Ag, James Cant, Regional Connections Pty Ltd
Modelling change: decision making through the eyes of the grower.
Key contact: Yolanda Plowman
Summary:
Increasing grain productivity relies heavily on farmer skill and risk management (Carberry et al. 2011). There is no shortage of risks in farming across many facets of the farm (Olita et al. 2023), a sentiment that has been echoed in discussions with ARG grower-advisors through the participatory action research (PAR) process. In order to create effective tools to support decision making, a thorough understanding of the decision-making process is required, and it is important that this process is observed across a range of farmers representing diversity across key aspects, including risk profile. Data relating to key farm attributes, such as soil and yield, provide important insight into the operational resilience of a farm when facing of risky decisions, however it is not enough to take a quantitative approach. Model simulation tools such as APSIM provide powerful insight of how physical parameters affect farm outcomes, however these data and models only provide part of the narrative. What is often missing in decision analysis is the human mindset that underpins the process of decision making, and the habits and biases that influence it.
Project Partners:
Mallee Sustainable Farming
Balancing early sowing rewards against frost risk
Key contact: Tina Astbury
Summary:
Growers located in the central wheatbelt of WA, regularly experience frost events which can have a significant negative impact on grain yield. The incidence of frost and its effect on grain yield is highly variable but severe events can cause heavy financial losses and have an emotional impact on growers. While growers in frost prone areas understand that there is risk associated with early sowing, there is also substantial upside reward to be gained by utilising more of the growing season to maximise the yield potential of grain crops.
The risk of early sowing is the increased exposure to frost events during flowering, particularly for short and mid-season varieties. There is no way of predicting the timing or severity of frost events, so decision making is based largely on the previous experience of the grower or agronomist. An additional risk is the potential for late season heat stress during flowering which can preclude the use of longer season varieties. This project will compare the upside reward of early sowing with the downside risk of frost and examine the impact that sowing time also has on exposure to late season heat stress.
More info here
Project Partners:
Corrigin Farm Improvement Group
Rotational Decisions in Northern Cropping Systems
Key contact: Skye Traill
Summary:
Grower and advisor feedback identified both strategic and tactical cropping system decisions as a priority in Northern NSW. For tactical decisions, the key challenge is quantifying the range of probably outcomes and the likely legacy effect for an individual crop when considering soil water, seasonal forecast and commodity prices. More broadly, difficult strategic decisions include balancing summer and winter cropping programs as well as including legumes or additional crop diversity in a cropping system. While there has been a substantial investment in understanding farming systems in the northern region, being able to bring together all the information required to objectively assess rotation options remains a challenge for growers and advisors. This project will identify key information gaps and uncertainties related to decisions associated with cropping system decisions.
Managing Phosphorus in the Farming System
Key Contact: Rachael Whitworth
Summary:
After Nitrogen fertilisers, phosphorus is the next largest, unavoidable expense for growers. In the target region (Griffith district), many of the soils have Colwell P values > 40 mg P/kg soil. Hence, in circumstances (seasons or prices) where budget forecasts are marginal, growers are looking at ways to reduce their cost of production risk, particularly on soils which are likely to be fairly unresponsive to extra P. However, they are concerned that reducing P inputs may limit their upside potential or have impacts on subsequent crop production and profit. This project will test P application methodologies to establish (i) if short term input cost savings can be applied with little or no risk to profit outcomes and (ii) if more flexible P input arrangements produce similar results to the set input arrangements. The latter methodology better matches cash flow cycles and is suggested as an additional measure of managing financial risk exposure.
More info here
Disease management decisions: complexity to simplicity – a decision tree approach
Key Contact: Ben Morris
Summary:
Because some decisions are made well in advance of the presence of disease (e.g., variety choice, fertiliser treatment and seed treatment) large uncertainty exists around the value of this management intervention. Furthermore, early decisions have knock-on effects that can often change the timing or necessity of later disease management interventions. Consequently, a probability approach is required so on balance an improved decision is made. By combining a decision tree with assigned probabilities at each decision point the process takes complex decision making with high levels of associated uncertainty and transforms the decision-making process into a simplified decision with a higher level of certainty. The outcome is to maximize the number of best bet decisions made over the course of time.
Project Partners: BCG
Season decision making – a review of uncertainty
Key Contact: Rebekah Allen
Summary:
A significant source of farm business risk is climate variability. Enterprise agronomic risk could be minimised through climate risk management which involves assessing climate variability and forecasting, in addition to strategic (i.e., crop rotation diversity, intensity and selection, sequence, crop end use) and tactical enterprise decisions (i.e., time of sowing, crop protection strategies). Risky decision-making within enterprise agronomic management is frequently linked to climate responsiveness and encompasses a range of timely agronomic decisions for farm businesses with the key drivers being 1) understanding the risk-reward outcomes of climate impacts, and 2) making key production decisions at the right time. This project aims to assist growers through a decision-making process of downside risk and up-side reward ($/ha), through analysis of several key drivers influencing crop production risk.
Project Partners: PIRSA-SARDI, Trengove Consulting, Pinion Advisory, Agrilink Agricultural Consultants, Ag Communicators