Reef Rescue Impact Report 2008 - 2013 Summary

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013 2008–2013 Summary D. Bass, N. Sing, D.A. Harrison and F. Barron

ISBN: 978-0-9807715-7-2 This report may be cited as: Bass, D., Sing, N., Harrison, D.A., Barron, F. (2016). Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013, Terrain NRM, Innisfail, 108pp.

While this document is protected by copyright, Terrain NRM accepts and encourages its copying and distribution or parts thereof, provided Terrain is recognized as the source.

This report is available for download from Terrain NRM website: www.terrain.org.au Report compiled 2014 Published by Terrain NRM 2016

i Contents Preface

iii

Glossary

iv

Executive Summary

1

Chapter 1: Introduction to Round 5 of Reef Rescue 1.1 The Terrain region 1.2 Reef Rescue overview 1.3 Five-year investment 1.4 Landholders 1.5 Grant delivery improvements

3

Chapter 2: Round 5 grants summary 2.1 Uptake of grants Applications Funded projects Mill areas 2.2 Landholders receiving grants 2.3 Water quality targets Cane Banana Dairy Grazing Multi-crop Papaw 2.4 Priority practice investments Cane Bananas Grazing 2.5 Training – cane farmers Chapter 3: Round 5 farm management practice change 3.1 Bananas 3.1.1 Adoption of fertigation 3.1.2 Irrigation 3.1.3 Changes in nutrient rates 3.1.4 Soil management 3.1.5 Record keeping 3.2 Cane 3.2.1 Practice changes in cane 3.2.2 Placement of fertilisers sub-surface (priority practice investment 1) 3.2.3 Use of improved spray technology (priority practice investment 2) 3.2.4 Adoption of controlled traffic (whole farming systems) (priority practice investment 3) 3.3 Multi-crops 3.3.1 Adoption of priority practice 1 – sediment management 3.3.2 Contouring 3.3.3 Tillage Chapter 4: Pollutant load reduction 4.1 Nutrients 4.2 Sediments 4.3 Pesticides

3 5 5 6 7 8 8 8 9 13 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 18

13 15

16

18 19 20

20 20 21 22 22

22

23 23 24 25

26

26 26 26 27 27 29 30

ii

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013 Chapter 5: Round 5 conclusions Banana Cane Dairy Grazing Multi-crops

33 33 33 33 33

32

Chapter 6: Uptake of water quality improvement grants 6.1 Uptake of grants 6.2 Multiple farm grants 6.3 Industry summary 6.4 Catchment summary 6.5 Systems repair projects 6.6 Landholder engagement

34 37 38 41 42 44

34

Chapter 7: Training Cane Grazing Horticulture Lessons learned Chapter 8: Five-year practice change 8.1 Priority practice investments 8.2 Practice change as a result of grants 8.2.1 Bananas 8.2.2 Cane 8.3 Nutrient, pesticide and sediment practices in cane 8.4 Catchment summary of cane practices 8.5 Voluntary adoption of practice change 8.6 Cane farm size and influence on practice change

46 46 47 47 47 48 48 52 52 54

Chapter 9: Five-year pollutant load reduction 9.1 Nutrients 9.2 Sediments 9.3 Pesticides 9.4 Five-year trends

56 57 58 60 63 64 65 66 67

Chapter 10: Conclusions

68

Chapter 11: References

70

Appendices Appendix 1: The value and type of each grant available in Round 5 Appendix 2: Priority practice investments Appendix 3: Benchmarking data for Round 5 BANANA CANE MULTICROP Appendix 4: Five year practice change data Banana Cane Appendix 5: Farm size distribution by catchment based on five years of Reef Rescue data

72

Maps

72 73 77 77 79 80

82

82 83 85 86

iii

Preface Reef Rescue is supported by Terrain NRM, through funding from the Australian Government’s Caring for our Country. The delivery of Reef Rescue in the Wet Tropics is through a partnership of Terrain and industry bodies. The delivery of grants to landholders in the region could not have been possible without the support and collaboration of our industry partner organisations.

And of course thanks to the many farmers in the region who have helped to improve water quality on the Great Barrier Reef by participating in Reef Rescue. These farmers have contributed more than the total value of the grants in their time and in-kind cash to improve their farming practices.

The data presented in this report may not necessarily reflect figures reported in previous reports. Terrain staff have continued to improve the accuracy of data collected from Reef Rescue grant applications. The application process and data fields collected have been refined over the course of the Program to ensure consistency and accuracy of information recorded about each project. Property and productive areas have also been refined as more accurate information has become available using GIS mapping. .

iv

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013

Glossary ABCD framework The ABCD framework for management practices for nutrients, sediments and pesticides underpins the Water Quality Improvement Grants. The program delivers on-ground funding incentives to landholders in the Wet Tropics to improve farm practices from D and C level to B and A levels. D and C level practices are considered to be outdated and meet the minimum code of practice, respectively. The grants aim to encourage farmers to upgrade these old practices to best management (B) and innovative (A) practices to improve impacts on water quality.

Class

Category

Description of practice

A

Aspirational/ Innovative

Practice expected to exceed Best Management Practice standards, but may not be validated economically or experimentally.

B

Best Practice

Practice meets agreed industry and community Best Management Practice standards.

C

Compliant

Practice meets minimum industry and community standard and regulatory obligations. Also meets legislative requirement, code of practice or locally agreed duty of care.

D

Degrading/Old

Practice unacceptable by industry and community standards. They are generally unsustainable in the long term.

Applicant This is the person who submits the project application (primary landholder). An application may have more than one landholder (subsidiary landholders) involved in multi-farm projects.

Baseline practice data The farm management practices being applied at the beginning of the Reef Rescue program (2008-09) for a particular industry.

Benchmark practice data This is defined as those industry level practices at the start of any particular year, prior to any intended practices being implemented.

Farms • A farm is defined as a single entity where practice change is implemented (whether owned or leased).

It may have with several ABNs but is considered to be one management unit. A farmer may own or lease

v more than one property (separate lot/plan numbers) that is not necessarily contiguous.

• A multi-farm is a collaboration of farmers who intend to implement practice change on a number of farms managed by different individuals. Each farm is run by separate management units.

Farmscape Refers to the general rural landscape; it may include some public state or crown land, roads, rivers, creeks and waterways.

Industry Practice Tables • Practice change tables A set of agricultural practices that can potentially impact on water quality were identified for each industry. Each practice has been allocated to an activity group i.e. irrigation, nutrient management. In general, four practices are listed for each activity and are rated as either A, B,C or D using the definitions for the ABCD framework and their potential impact on water quality. Applicants record their current practice and their intended practice in the industry practice change tables as part of the application process.

• Current practices Or practice benchmark are farming practices that are currently undertaken by an individual farmer, prior to the project being funded; as recorded in the application industry practice change tables.

• Intended practices Farming practices that will be implemented during a specific period of time; as recorded in the application industry practice change tables.

Improved practices Those farming practices undertaken by the farmer as a result of a Reef Rescue funded project.

Impact The difference between the intended practices and current practices, where the current practice is the industry benchmark when taken as a whole industry.

Impact area Area of land that is impacted by a change in farming practice. Impact area may differ from project area and productive area.

IWM

Integrated Weed Management

Landholder Can also be the management unit.

Management unit A management unit can be an individual farmer and his partner, or a family who own (or lease) a farm and apply consistent management across all the properties (blocks) they own.

Mill area Refers to the supply area of an individual sugar cane mill. The boundaries of a mill area generally do not change, or if so, only marginally.

Multicrop Refers to those farmers who grow a range of crops including maize, peanuts, potatoes, hay, grass seed and various other cereal crops.

New farmers Those farmers with funded projects in Round 3, who have not previously received any Reef Rescue funding. This includes those funded by Reef Rescue for training courses (e.g. Six Easy Steps or Weed management courses) but excludes those who do the training as a requirement of their grant funding, subsequent to receiving a water quality grant. The complexities of the farming businesses with shared ownership and shared decision making on the farm, make it extremely difficult to classify applicants as either a ‘new’ or an ‘repeat’ farmer for the purposes of Commonwealth reporting.

NRM

Natural Resource Management

Nutrients Refer to the three primary macronutrients required for plant growth: nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Plants require 16 essential nutrients. Carbon and oxygen are absorbed from the air, while other nutrients including water are obtained from the soil. Fertilisers contain high levels of these macronutrients and smaller amounts of other micronutrients to promote plant growth. These applied nutrients, especially nitrogen and phosphorous can be washed off the crop in the soil or in runoff water and end up in waterways, resulting in higher than naturally occurring levels.

P2R

Paddock to Reef Monitoring and Modelling Program

vi

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013 Pesticide Pesticides for the purpose of this report refer collectively to herbicides and fungicides. A pesticide defined by FAO is “any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying or controlling any pest, including vectors of human or animal disease, unwanted species of plants or animals causing harm during or otherwise interfering with the production, processing, storage, transport or marketing of food, agricultural commodities, wood and wood products or animal feedstuffs, or substances which may be administered to animals for the control of insects, arachnids or other pests in or on their bodies�. The term includes substances intended for use as a plant growth regulator, defoliant, desiccants or agents for thinning fruit or preventing the premature fall of fruit, and substances applied to crops either before or after harvest to protect the commodity from deterioration during storage and transport.

Priority areas Areas on a catchment that are designated as high risk for erosion, or are severely degraded and therefore are of highest priority for repair work.

Priority practice investments Refers to a list in the guidelines for applicants that outlines a series of potential farming practice investments for each industry in order of priority, based on their likely relative impact on water quality leaving a farm (Appendix 2).

Productive area Area of land involved in a specific agricultural activity. This excludes land that is not cultivated, e.g. headlands, forested areas, steep slopes, roads and waterways.

Project A set of activities with an overall objective/aim. The project should have discrete funding and may involve activities at one or several sites (farms).

Project area The area of land that the project applies to; which may be less than the productive area.

Round 1 First year of Reef Rescue incentive grants; 2008-09.

Round 2 Second year of Reef Rescue incentive grants; 2009-10.

Round 3 Third year of Reef Rescue incentive grants; 2010-11.

Round 4 Fourth year of Reef Rescue incentive grants; 2011-12.

6ES Six Easy Steps Successful applicants Those applicants who applied for and received Reef Rescue grants.

WQI grant Water Quality Improvement grant WQIP Water Quality Improvement Plan

1

Executive Summary In 2008, the Australian Government initiated Reef Rescue, a five-year program aimed at reducing the loss of nutrients, sediments and pesticides from agricultural land and entering the Great Barrier Reef lagoon. This program delivered by Terrain NRM in the Wet Tropics, provided agricultural industries with a unique opportunity to improve their farming practices with the assistance of a Water Quality Improvement grant. This report presents a detailed summary of Reef Rescue’s impact on farming practices from 2008-2013, including data on the uptake of Water Quality Improvement grants to facilitate practice change within the region’s main agricultural industries – sugarcane, banana, grazing, multi-crops, papaw and dairy – over that period.

Other smaller agricultural industries, such as tree crops, forestry and vegetables, received funding assistance for one or two-year periods. The delivery and collection of data evolved during the Reef Rescue program, in response to updated industry knowledge and the changing requirements of the funding body over this period.

Part 1 of this report presents data on funding activities and achievements in 201213, the fifth and final round of the Reef Rescue program’s Water Quality Improvement grant scheme.

Terrain received 427 applications in Round 5 and funded 279 projects. The overall success rate for applications in this round was 65%. This represents the highest number of grants funded in a single round in five years. It reflects the heightened interest of farmers in accessing these grants, as well as the increase in funding provided by the Australian Government that year. A total of $4.9 million in grants

was funded in 2012-13, bringing the total regional investment facilitated by Reef Rescue to $12.1 million over that period. Three hundred and twenty-five landholders, responsible for approximately 22% of agricultural and grazing land, received Water Quality Improvement grants through Reef Rescue.

More than half of the landholders who obtained grants in 2012-13 were first-time recipients, while 19 % had received grants in two prior rounds. Only one landholder received a grant in every year of the five-year program.

Water Quality Improvement grants funded changes to farming practices over a productive area spanning 169,022 ha of cropping and grazing land in 2012-13. Terrain estimates that Reef Rescue Water Quality Improvement projects and farmer training resulted in a 2.7% reduction in dissolved inorganic nutrients, a 2.6% reduction in pesticides and a 2.2% reduction in sediment reaching the end of the catchment over that year.

Part 2 of this report presents a summary of accumulated data/comprehensive overview of the entire, five-year Reef Rescue program.

Australian Government funding, totaling $33.3 million over the five-year period, enabled Terrain NRM to process a total of 1,582 applications, and issue 909 grants contracts worth a total value of $18.9 million. This funding leveraged a total regionwide investment of $44 million, including farmer co-contributions. That is, for every $1 invested by Reef Rescue, farmers contributed $1.31. Grants were offered for single (up to $30,000) and multifarms projects (up to $150,000). Cane farm projects accounted for 64% of the total grants. Thirteen

2

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013 percent of all grants were issued to multi-farm operations (involving, on average, three farmers).

The average grant size was $20,689.

Over the course of the Reef Rescue program, a total of 1,787 landholders applied for grants (equivalent to 743 individual landholders -only counted once) and 1,086 landholders received grants. Almost 40% of cane and banana growers received grants during this time, and half the dairy farmers in the region.

Terrain established partnership agreements with the main primary industry agencies and groups active in the region to work with landholders to help with grant applications and training in nutrient and weed management. Partnerships were formed with the Queensland Dairy Organisation (QDO), Growcom, the Queensland Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (QDAFF), and a number of local cane organisations: Mossman Agricultural Services, Cairns Canegrowers, Innisfail Canegrowers, Tully Canegrowers, Bureau of Sugar Experimental Stations (BSES Ltd) in Tully and Ingham, and Herbert Cane Productivity Services Ltd (HCPSL). BSES Ltd and HCPSL were also engaged to deliver extension and training services in nutrient and weed management training to cane farmers. More than 100 training workshops were delivered to 1,207 farmers in the region – 60% of whom also received grants.

Repairs to waterways and erosion ‘hot spots’ were funded on 54 sites, resulting in 2,158 ha of revegetation and 138 km of stream bank repair.

The impact of Reef Rescue-generated farming initiatives has been estimated based on assumed nutrient, pesticide and sediment load reductions associated with the introduction of particular farm practices. The results are a crude estimate of practice change, although not too dissimilar to the modelled results for the Paddock to Reef Program, contained in the 2012-13 Reef Report Card.

Terrain estimates the decrease in end-ofcatchment loads resulting from Reef Rescue’s fiveyear investment in reducing dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) levels was 964 tonnes or 16% of total anthropogenic (human-caused) loads. Total end-ofcatchment loads of sediment from agricultural land were estimated to have reduced by 1 megatonne or 14.3%; and total end-of-catchment loads of PSII chemicals (pesticides) were estimated to have reduced by 36 tonnes or 10.5%.

The Water Quality Improvement grant scheme facilitated positive change to farming practices on 296,725 ha of farming land in the Wet Tropics region from 2008-2013. According to the ABCD Practice Management Table (ranked from “A” for exceeding Best Management Practice standards, down to “D” for unacceptable practice by industry and community standards), improvements in farming practices from D and C to A and B levels were made in the following priority practice areas: Bananas • Manual fertigation (injection of fertilisers, soil amendments, and other water-soluble products into irrigation systems) operating on 2,839 ha or 25% of crop area • Grassed inter-rows on 1,578 ha or 14% of crop area • Automated fertigation with scheduling equipment on 1,139 ha or 10% of crop area Cane • Sub-surface application of fertiliser on 61,409 ha or 45% of cane land • Pesticide application equipment on 64,719 or 47% of cane land • Whole farming systems on 77,788 ha or 57% of cane land Multi-crop • Sediment loss management on 3,990 ha or 41% of cropping land • Reduced tillage on 1,446 ha or 15% of cropping land Dairy • Effluent distribution systems for re-allocation of nutrients across 310 ha • Repair of sediment hotspots on 21 sites Grazing • Fencing and off-stream watering points on 609 ha • Reduction of erosion losses near streams on 1,811 ha • Installation of 196 watering points A further 2,158 ha of re-vegetated area resulted from Reef Rescue projects.

This report is the final in the series of annual Impact Reports and summarises results from the Reef Rescue investment in the Wet Tropics from 2008-2013.

1

3

Chapter 1: Introduction to Round 5 of Reef Rescue 1.1

The Terrain region

The Terrain NRM Wet Tropics region extends from Bloomfield in the north, down to the north side of Crystal Creek, south of Ingham; and from the coast to Mount Garnet in the west, including the Atherton and Evelyn Tablelands. Seven major river catchments drain into the Great Barrier Reef lagoon from the Wet Tropics: Daintree-Mossman-Bloomfield, Barron, Mulgrave, Russell, Johnstone, Tully-Murray and Herbert. The Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area occupies almost 40% of the region, with agriculture accounting for 58% of land not in the World Heritage Area, an estimated area of 803,853 ha (ABS 2009).

The region spans all or part of seven local government areas: Cassowary Coast, Cairns, Yarrabah and Wujal Wujal Aboriginal Shires, Mareeba, Tablelands and Hinchinbrook; and supports a population of approximately 251,494 people, 65 % of which reside in the Cairns area (ABS 2011).

Owing to its location and assets, as well as increasing land use pressures, the improvement of water quality entering the Great Barrier Reef lagoon has been a major focus for NRM planning and management activity in the Wet Tropics region since Terrain’s formation in 2003.

Agricultural activity, triggering nutrient run-off and an increase in sediment and pesticide deposits, has been identified as one of the key threats to water quality in the Wet Tropics, along with climate

change and urban expansion. In 2009, an ABS survey found that about 175,373 ha of the region was under some form of cropping. Approximately 39,000 ha of this area was subject to horticulture. Improved pasture for grazing (wet grazing) accounted for about 125,446 ha and grazing on other lands (dry grazing) amounted to 498,293 ha of the region. Forestry plantations occupied 3,895 ha (Table 1.1).

The main agricultural industries (by area) in the Wet Tropics are sugarcane, bananas, multi-cropping, grazing and dairy. There are also small areas of papaw (250 ha) and other tropical tree fruit plantations, the extent of which was reduced by Tropical Cyclones Larry (2006) and Yasi (2011). Areas of tree crops are difficult to assess, because they are often recorded by tree numbers and each orchard may have a different planting density.

In coastal areas, the main crop is sugarcane, followed by intensively-grown bananas, with small areas of tree crops. There is also considerable wet grazing in coastal areas, but usually on land unsuitable for cropping. Grazing in the western dryland country represents the greatest land use (by area) of any industry, although it accounts for only minor land use in the wet, coastal lowlands and Atherton Tablelands. The other main agricultural land use on the Tablelands is multi-cropping, which consists largely of potatoes, maize and peanuts.

Nutrient run-off, particularly nitrogen, which is highly used on cane and banana crops, and pesticide

4

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013 runoff, primarily used on cane crops, are identified as key issues in the region. Phosphorus, used at high levels on papaw crops, represents an additional risk, although the total crop area is relatively small. In the past, papaws had even higher levels of Phosphate applications (up to 1000 kg/ha), however this rate is no longer commonplace.

Mapping Program 2014) and reflect crop areas grown, (sourced from sugar mills and banana levy data). Multicropping areas include: potatoes, maize, grass seed, hay, peanuts, and other winter-grown crops such as oats, lupins and triticale. The number of farmers and size of crop areas vary from year to year, driven by price changes in the respective commodities.

Sediment run-off is an issue for grazing country where ground cover is low. It is also an issue for multicrops, particularly just before the onset of the wet season, when the ground is cultivated in readiness for planting. Sediment problems in wet grazing areas and on dairy farms are generally restricted to ‘hot spot’ erosion sources, such as creek crossings, laneways and stream bank slumping. Nutrient run-off from effluent disposal on dairy farms is also a concern.

TABLE 1.2. Area under cane at catchment level (ABS 2011)

The potential run-off of nutrients and pesticides from over 136,000 ha of cane is considered the priority issue across the industries in the region. The risk to the Great Barrier Reef from agriculture run-off is amplified in the Wet Tropics, due to the coastal proximity of vulnerable coral reef ecosystems, the frequency and intensity of rainfall events, and the significant use of fertilisers and pesticides in intensive agriculture on the narrow coastal floodplain. Work done to establish priorities for the Water Quality Improvement Plan (WQIP) has shown that 39% of dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN), 68% of PSII herbicides and 12% of sediment entering the entire Great Barrier Reef come from the Wet Tropics (Terrain NRM 2015). Studies indicate that over 90% of nutrients, sediments and pesticides emanate from diffuse sources in the region (Terrain NRM 2015).

TABLE 1.1 Area (hectares) and number of main agricultural industries in the Wet Tropics Area of industry (ha)

Number of management units

11,000

206*

Cane

134,600*

1337*

Dairy

17,940*

63*

Grazing

582,000

800*

9,800

60*

250

65

3,895

N/A

759,485 ha

2531

Industry Banana

Multi-crop Papaw Forestry & tree crops Total

*These figures have changed since the 2012 Impact Report. The area figures in Table 1.1 are less than those recorded in land use data (Queensland Land Use

Catchment

Area (ha)

Daintree

1,837

Mossman

5,018

Barron

6,677

Mulgrave-Russell

20,240

Johnstone

19,023

Tully

17,694

Murray

6,774

Herbert

60,674

Total

137,938

Since these cane figures were collected, cane cropping has expanded by an estimated 10,000 ha, including land formerly used for forestry, cattle and bananas, as well as prior cane land returning to cane cropping as a result of better sugar prices.

Data sources for agricultural areas There are various data sources for areas under crop, including the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), sugar mills, the Queensland Land Use Mapping Program (QLUMP) and Reef Rescue data from Water Quality Improvement grant applications. As the ABS data and the mill-sourced data are very similar in magnitude, (unlike the QLUMP data), the ABS data have been used as the best indicator of the area under cane in each catchment. Mill area data are not available at catchment level, so its use is limited. Although Terrain grant application data cover a very high proportion of land farmed, it does not cover all farms in the Terrain area. Mill data cover harvested areas only (excluding fallow), whereas Terrain Water Quality Improvement grant data include the total “productive area”, including fallow. Fallow areas are estimated to comprise between 0% and 17% of productive area, depending on the extent of plough-out replant on a farm.

5 Terrain NRM worked in partnership with agricultural industry groups in the Wet Tropics to co-ordinate and deliver the Reef Rescue program to farmers in the region. For more detailed information on how these partnerships functioned, refer to Vella et al. 2009 and Bass et al. 2012b.

1.2 Reef Rescue overview Reef Rescue was a five-year initiative and key component of the Australian Government’s Caring for our Country program. Funds were allocated to regional natural resource management (NRM) groups and industry bodies along the Queensland coast to influence the uptake of best management practices on agricultural land, by providing incentives for reducing the impact of agricultural run-off on the quality of water entering the Great Barrier Reef lagoon.

The main component of the Reef Rescue program was the Water Quality Improvement (WQI) grant scheme. The grants promoted the uptake of best land management practices to increase the economic and environmental sustainability of farming, thereby reducing sediment, nutrient and pesticide losses from paddocks and improving the quality of water flowing into Reef waters.

The WQI grant scheme used the ABCD framework for agricultural management practices to benchmark the progress of grant recipients. The scheme aimed to assist farmers to upgrade their farming practices from levels D and C (practices considered outdated and/ or non-compliant with code of practice standards) to B (best management) and A (cutting edge) levels (Vella et al. 2009). Levels A and B farm management practices are correlated with better management of nutrients, sediments and pesticides in each industry.

Landholders recorded their current and intended practices for each grant application period, which enabled Terrain to assemble an historical data set detailing changes over the course of the five-year Reef Rescue program. Repeat applicants comprised 60% of applicants in Round 5 of the grants scheme, and many of those had applied more than twice.

1.3 Five-year investment The Wet Tropics region-wide targets for farmer engagement in the Reef Rescue program are outlined in Bass et al. (2012a), according to contract deliverables to the Australian Government for 2010-2013. Over a five-year period, the program invested $33.3 million

across the Wet Tropics region, with almost $19 million provided directly to farmers through the Water Quality Improvement grant scheme.

During the five-year program (2008-2013) Terrain received funds which were allocated as follows: 1. The first year of Reef Rescue (2008-09, transitional year), provided $6.8 million to the Wet Tropics region for WQI grants to sugar, horticulture, grazing and dairy farmers; the establishment of industry partnerships; and cross-regional catchment repair of wetlands and riparian lands (Vella et al. 2009).

2. The second year of the program (2009-10, Round 2) provided $4.94 million to the region for WQI grants and industry partnerships in the sugar, horticulture, grazing, and dairy industries; and strategic riparian rehabilitation and integrated feral pig control. (Bass et al. 2012a).

3. The third year of Reef Rescue (2010-11, Round 3) provided $6.3 million to the region for WQI grants and industry partnerships in the sugar, horticulture, grazing, and dairy industries; and strategic riparian rehabilitation and integrated feral pig control (Bass et al. 2012b).

4. For the fourth year of the program (2011-12, Round 4), Terrain had budgeted $5.4 million for WQI grants and industry partnerships in the sugar, horticulture, grazing, and dairy industries; waterways and erosion ‘hot spot’ repair; and integrated feral pig control in the region. Following negotiations with the Australian Government, an additional $896,982 was committed to the region to assist recovery efforts following Tropical Cyclone Yasi, bringing the total value of investment that year to $6.3 million (Bass et al. 2013).

5. The fifth and final year of Reef Rescue (2012-13, Round 5) provided almost $8.9 million to the region for WQI grants and industry partnerships in the sugar, horticulture, grazing, and dairy industries; and strategic riparian rehabilitation.

Approximately 68% of the funds (over five years) was allocated to cane projects, followed by banana, grazing, multi-crop and dairy projects. A small percentage was also allocated separately to waterways systems repair in Rounds 1-3, but in Rounds 4 and 5 systems repair was included in ‘on-paddock’ projects and reported against each associated industry.

6

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013 The industries funded each year varied, depending on the funds available and the success of the annual Regional NRM bid to the Australian Government.

Water Quality Improvement grants were available to the cane, horticulture and dry grazing industries over all five years of Reef Rescue (Table 1.3). Forestry and tree crops were added in 2012, due to concern at the time about the impacts of land being used for forestry, and also to support diversification initiatives following the damage caused to crops by Tropical Cyclone Yasi in 2011. Tree crops and forestry are considered low risk for nutrient, pesticide and sediment losses. They are self-controlling in regard to nitrogen (N) applications, (N levels that are too high result in vegetative growth and low-yielding fruit trees); virtually no cultivation is involved; and fungicide use is extremely limited, therefore rarely resulting in environmental issues for these industries.

1.4 Landholders In this report, the terms ‘farmer’ and ‘landholder’ refer to a management unit where the management of that land is common across all parcels of land. This land may be owned by different family members or groups of members. A management unit may have multiple ABN numbers and multiple businesses attached to that aggregation of land. Family arrangements can be extremely complex, but it is the management practices used on the land, not the business trading arrangement, that is relevant to the adoption of improved farming practices. The result of this complexity is that ‘farmer’ numbers obtained from different sources can vary. One government department estimates that there are about 4,000 cane farmers in the Wet Tropics, while the Canegrowers organization lists 1,343 growers. Each

TABLE 1.3. Industries funded by Water Quality Improvement grants each year Industry

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Cane

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

Banana

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

Dairy

✔

✔

✔

✔

Multi-crop

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

Grazing –Dry

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

Grazing – Wet Papaw

✔

✔

Tree crops

✔

✔

✔

✔

Forestry

✔

Terrain also offered a range of grants to foster innovative proposals and encourage farmers to share equipment and work together on projects. Multiple farm, mill area, systems repair and innovation grants offered landholders the opportunity to apply for larger grant amounts (up to $150,000), in collaboration with neighbouring farms, to address landscape-wide nutrient, pesticide or sediment issues (Table 1.4).

cane-growing district defines ‘grower’ differently, so it is unlikely that Terrain management unit numbers and Canegrowers figures will be consistent. For the purpose of this report, the number of growers in the cane industry used for calculations was 1,343.

Terrain data collected from grant applications indicated there were 648 cane farmers managing

TABLE 1.4. Type of Water Quality Improvement grants offered each year Grant type

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Single farm

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

Multiple farm

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

Small grants

NLP#

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔ (cane)

✔(cane)

✔

✔

✔

✔

*

*

Mill area Innovation Systems repair

✔

* System repair projects came under industry grants in years 4 and 5. # National Landcare Program

7 86% of the cane land. After five years of data collection, (the duration of the Reef Rescue program), management unit ownership and business arrangements are now better understood, and the individual management of farms can be more readily identified. The ongoing refinement in data compilation means that the five-year summary data presented in this report may not exactly match data included in previous Impact Reports.

1.5 Grant delivery improvements A review of the grant delivery process by Terrain and industry groups was positive and only minor changes were made to the application process to improve data entry efficiency in the final round of funding (2012-13). The grant categories remained the same, although catchment grants (systems repair) were incorporated in industry grant categories (Table 1.5) in Rounds 4 and 5.

Part 1 of this report summarises outcomes for the fifth year (2012-13) of the Reef Rescue program in the Wet Tropics region. Part 2 summarises key outcomes and trends across the five years of the program.

Pollutant loads are calculated based on investment in practice change and training, and compared with the results of the 2012 and 2013 Reef Report Card (The State of Queensland, 2014).

Data are presented as of the final year of Reef Rescue (2013), so some figures may differ from those reported in previous Impact Reports, due to data refinement, project withdrawals in previous years after the time of reporting, and funding re-allocation to other projects.

TABLE 1.5. Value and type of each grant available in Round 5 Grant type

Grant amount

Small grants

$2,000 up to $5,000 for cane, grazing, multi-cropping, tree crops, forestry and dairy.

Single farm grants

$5,000 to $30,000 for cane, grazing, bananas, multi-cropping, tree crops and forestry; up to $15,000 for dairy; up to $20,000 for papaws; and up to $150,000 for waterway projects.

Multiple farm and large scale catchment projects grants

Collaborative projects where groups of landowners and managers implement improved land management practices. Fifty percent support, from $5,000 up to $150,000, for cane, grazing, fruit trees, forestry, multi-cropping and waterways.

Mill area grants for larger scale sugarcane projects

$5,000 up to $150,000 for cane. Total allocation of $300,000 for the Wet Tropics cane industry. For other industries, the amount allocated to district projects was based on merit.

Innovation grants

$5,000 to $30,000 for cane.

8

2

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013

Chapter 2: Round 5 grants summary 2.1 Uptake of grants Applications Nine industries (excluding forestry, which was only eligible in Round 4) submitted a total of 427 applications to Terrain for Water Quality Improvement grants in Round 5 (Map 1). As in previous years, the greatest proportion of the applications 304 (68%) were from the cane industry (Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1), and as would be expected, the majority of these were from the two catchments containing the most cane farms: Herbert (42%) and Johnstone (25%) (Figure 2.3).

Application numbers for cane and grazing again increased from the previous year, while applications from industries with smaller numbers of growers

(dry grazing and papaw) continued to remain fairly constant. Multi-crop and wet grazing applications increased, recording their highest figures in the history of the program.

This round of Water Quality Improvement grants was initially over-subscribed, with grant applications totalling just over $8.2 million. Fifty-six multi-farm applications were received, including 52 from the cane industry, and two each from the banana and grazing industries. Thirty-seven applications for waterways grants were received from across five industry groups. Of these, 25 (14 from cane) were funded for wetland construction, riparian planting, and to generally address sediment issues. These funded waterway projects are included in the totals column in Table 2.2 as either single or multi-farm grants.

TABLE 2.1. Project funding success for each industry for Round 5 Industry

Applications

Funded

Success rate

Funds granted

Banana

21

18

86%

$453,921

Cane

304

190

63%

$3,400,277

Dairy

18

14

78%

$157,397

Grazing Dry

9

6

67%

$98,415

Grazing Wet

44

30

68%

$350,637

Multi-crop

21

13

62%

$287,938

Papaw

5

4

80%

$39,715

Tree Crops

5

4

80%

$122,520

427

279

65%

$4,910,821

Total

9 304

300 250

190

200 150

Funded

100 9 6

Applications 21 13

Da iry Gr az in g Dr y Gr az in g W et M ul ticr op

Ca ne

Ba na na

0

44 30

5 4

5 4

s

18 14

Cr op

21 18

Tr ee

50

Pa pa w

Number of projects

350

Industry FIGURE 2.1. Comparison of applications and funded projects for each industry

Funded projects In Round 5, a total of 279 projects across nine industry groups received grant funding (Maps 2 and 5-13); 207 (74%) of these grants were for single-farm projects. During the year, 17 projects were withdrawn and the funds re-allocated to other projects (included in totals column in Table 2.2). No grants were allocated to innovation projects in this round.

The overall, average success rate for projects funded in Round 5 was 65% (Table 2.1). The average grant allocated was $17,491, lower than in Round 4 ($24,606). There were 45 grants – including 15 for multi-farm projects and one for a mill area project – which were funded for $30,000 or more (single farm grants are eligible for a maximum of $30,000).

Of these larger grants, 13 were issued to cane multi-farms, one to a cane mill area and two were

allocated to banana multi-farms. Forty eight (17%) of all projects received grants of $5,000 or less. The maximum grant funded was $118,888 for a cane multi-farm project.

The Johnstone and Herbert catchments received the highest number of Water Quality Improvement grants: 178 in total, or almost 64% of all grants (Table 2.3 and Figure 2.3). These were mainly cane projects (Herbert 88% and Johnstone 62%); these catchments accounted for almost 70% of all funded cane projects across the Wet Tropics. Combined, they also received the highest proportion of allocated funds (Table 2.3).

Figure 2.4 shows the relative grant allocation to each industry in Round 5. As would be expected, with 68% of projects occurring in the cane industry, a similar proportion of funding (69%) was delivered to this industry.

TABLE 2.2. Grant categories of funded projects Mill area grants

Multiple farm grants

Single farm grants

Small grants

Withdrawn projects

Total projects funded

Banana

2

16

1

18

Cane

2

31

129

28

12

190

Dairy

14

14

Grazing Dry

6

2

6

Grazing Wet

1

23

6

2

30

Multi-crop

1

12

13

Papaw

3

1

4

Tree crops

4

4

Totals

2

35

207

35

17

279

Industry

10

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013

Number of grants

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

0-4,999

5,000-14,999

15,000-30,000

>30,000

Value of grants FIGURE 2.2. Range of grant sizes

TABLE 2.3. Funding allocation by catchment

Catchment

Number of funded projects

Grant approved

Landowner Landowner Cash In-kind

% cash/ in-kind granted

% total grant allocation

Daintree Mossman

14

$211,595

$97,000

$156,765

55%

4.3

Barron

34

$643,414

$840,354

$213,750

62%

13.1

Mulgrave

9

$141,399

$175,294

$80,040

64%

2.9

Russell

10

$179,414

$173,000

$66,360

57%

3.7

Johnstone

86

$1,333,272

$1,401,239

$630,737

60%

27.1

Tully Murray

34

$713,800

$903,502

$288,247

63%

14.5

Herbert

92

$1,687,928

$1,861,491

$351,270

57%

34.4

Total

279

$4,910,821

$5,451,880

$1,787,169

60%

100%

11 Daintree Mossman Barron Catchments

Mulgrave Funded

Russell

Applications

Johnstone Tully Murray Herbert 0

20

40

60

80

100

Number of projects funded

FIGURE 2.3. Proportion of projects funded by catchment

1% 3% 7%

2%

6%

Tree Crops

9%

Papaw

3%

Multicrop Grazing Wet Grazing Dry Dairy

69%

Cane Banana

FIGURE 2.4. Proportion of grant funding allocated to each industry TABLE 2.4. Summary of grants and funding across industries Industry

No. of Projects

Mill area grant

Multiple Single farm grant farm grant

Total Landholder Landholder grants cash In-kind approved

Small grants

Banana

18

$149,879

$304,043

$453,921

$506,385

$109,087

Cane

190

$109,500

$896,916

$2,307,652

$86,209

$3,400,278

$4,041,792

$1,112,622

Dairy

14

$157,397

$157,397

$166,244

$42,080

Grazing Dry

6

$98,415

$98,415

$23,495

$88,820

Grazing Wet

30

$9,639

$320,785

$20,213

$350,637

$109,342

$301,380

Multicrop

13

$16,173

$271,765

$287,938

$404,860

$5,120

Papaw

4

$38,672

$1,043

$39,715

$54,632

$5,320

Tree Crops

4

$122,520

$122,520

$145,130

$122,740

Total

279

$109,500 $1,072,607 $3,621,249

$107,465 $4,910,821 $5,451,880 $1,787,169

12

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013 In 2012-13, a total of $4,910,821 in grants for improving land management practices was delivered to 279 projects across the Wet Tropics. These projects leveraged $5.4 million in cash co-contributions, together with an estimated $1.8 million in in-kind contributions (Table 2.4). The majority ($3.4 million) of grants went to cane projects (Fig. 2.4). The next highest allocation was to the banana industry, which accounted for 6% of all projects and received 9% of the total funds, followed by the wet grazing industry (11% of all projects and 7% of total grant funds).

Almost 100 additional farmers received grants in Round 5, with about 12% of farmers in the Wet Tropics region receiving Water Quality Improvement grants during this round. These landholders manage approximately 22% of the agricultural and grazing lands in the region (excluding tree crops) (Table 2.5).

Round 5 funded projects were estimated to include a productive area of farming land totalling 169,022 ha. Cane farms made up some 32% of the total productive area funded in Round 5, and this area represented approximately 40% of the total cane area in the region. The banana farming area funded in Round 5 was slightly larger than in Round 4, with about 25% (2,833 ha) of the banana production area funded for practice change. The six dry grazing properties funded in this round accounted for about 20% of the extensive grazing area in the region. The 30 funded wet grazing projects incorporated less than 4% of wet grazing lands, which highlights the extensive size of dry grazing properties, compared with wet grazing properties in the region.

TABLE 2.5. Incentive grants as a proportion of industry area Productive area of projects (ha)

Area of industry (ha)

% of industry area funded (%) *

Banana

2,833

11,000

20.3

Cane

54,309

137,938

39.4

Dairy

2,469

16,660

14.8

Grazing Dry

104,942

498,000

21.1

Grazing Wet

2,863

82,000

3.5

Multi-crop

2,018

9,800

20.6

Papaw

51

250

20.4

Tree crops

142

*

*

169,022

755,648

22.4%

Principal industry

Total

*Tree crops are not included, as the industry area is not available.

13 2.2 Landholders receiving grantsÂ

Mill areas Table 2.6 shows a breakdown of cane project applications and funded cane projects for each mill area for 2012-13. South Johnstone/Mourilyan had the highest proportion of project applications funded (80%) per mill area, which covered 77% of the area’s cane lands. The Tully mill area is half the size of the Herbert mill area and the funded projects incorporated 31% of Tully cane land. The Herbert mill area, being the largest cane-growing district, had the greatest number of applications (135) and number of projects funded (42% of all cane projects).

These Herbert area projects represented 32% of the local mill area of cane land funded by Reef Rescue in Round 5. Across the Wet Tropics, a total of 34% of all cane land in the region received WQI grants in Round 5.

Three hundred and twenty-five of the 478 landholders who applied for grants were funded either as the primary proponent or as part of a multi-farm project in Round 5 (Table 2.7). These 325 landholders were involved in 279 projects, and 207 of these were for single farm grants. As in previous years, the number of projects was less than the number of landholders, due to multi-farm projects that involve two or more subsidiary applicants (landholders) and some landholders being involved in more than one project (in different industries).

The number of applications from the dry grazing industry doubled in Round 5, with approximately 23% of dry land graziers applying for grants. Wet grazing also saw a 20% increase in application

TABLE 2.6. Summary of cane projects by mill area Mossman

Tablelands

Cairns

South Johnstone/ Mourilyan

Tully

Herbert

Total

No. applications

15

5

29

60

60

135

304

No. projects funded

10

2

17

48

33

80

190

% applications funded

67%

40%

59%

80%

55%

59%

63%

% of total funded projects

5%

1%

9%

25%

17%

42%

100%

Area of funded cane projects (ha)

3,027

320

3,996

8,934

9,399

20,272

45,948

Area of cane in mill district (ha)

6,954

2,314

21,900

11,576

30,765

62,945

136,454

% of cane land funded in Round 5

44%

14%

18%

77%

31%

32%

34%

Mill district area data same as in previous Impact Reports The two smallest cane-growing districts, the Mossman and Tablelands mill areas, had 10 and two (respectively) grants funded. For Mossman, this represented 44% of their cane area. However, only 14% of land under cane in the Tablelands district was funded in Round 5. The greatest portion of Tablelands cane land lies in the Northern Gulf NRM region.

numbers, although successful grants only amounted to about 4% of the landholders in that industry.

Funding was granted to 174 (52%) of landholders who had not previously received a grant and were new to the grants program in this round. More than half of these landholders (108), were in the cane industry, representing 47% of the total number of cane growers funded in Round 5 (Table 2.7, Figure 2.5).

14

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013 Overall, 19% of landholders receiving grants in Round 5 had been funded in three previous rounds, with a further 5% successful in obtaining a grant for the fourth time (Table 2.7). One landholder, from the cane industry, received a WQI grant for five years in a row (the length of the Reef Rescue program).

TABLE 2.7. Landholder application and funding history No. No. No. New New % new Funded Funded Funded Landholders Landholders Projects Landholder Landholder landholders 3 years 4 years 5 years applied funded funded applied funded funded Banana

27

24

18

12

15

63%

2

0

0

Cane

347

230

190

108

108

47%

52

13

1

Dairy

18

14

14

4

5

36%

3

1

0

Grazing Dry

8

5

6

2

1

20%

2

0

0

Grazing Wet

45

30

30

31

27

90%

0

0

0

Multicrop

23

14

13

8

7

50%

1

1

0

Papaw

5

4

4

4

3

75%

1

0

0

Tree crops

5

4

4

5

4

100%

0

0

0

Total

478

325

279

174

170

52%

61

15

0

304

300 250

190

200 150

Funded

100

s

5 4

Cr op

Pa p

aw

5 4

Tr ee

M

ul

ti-

cr op

W et

y

Gr az

in

g

Dr

ir y Da

e Ca n

a na n

21 13

9 6

0

Ba

Applications

44 30

18 14

g

21 18

in

50

Gr az

Number of projects

350

Industry FIGURE 2.5. Numbers of new and repeat landowners funded

15 2.3 Water quality targets

Banana

As in previous rounds, project applications had to demonstrate a reduction of nutrients, sediments, pesticides, or a combination of these water quality targets, in order to be eligible for funding. To summarise, the following targets were addressed in each industry.

• 50% of funds were used to improve irrigation/ fertigation capacity, with 71% of project areas now under automated fertigation • 91% of project areas now irrigated according to crop stage and soil type, (previously only done by crop stage), and another 10% of irrigation managed by subjective methods.

250

Tree crops

Number of sites

200

Papaw Multicrop

150

Grazing - Wet Grazing - Dry

100

Dairy Cane

50

Banana 0

Nutrient

Pesticide

Sediment

FIGURE 2.6. Proportion of industry practices addressing nutrients, pesticides and sediments

Cane • 20% of projects used A or B-level agricultural management practices to assess nutrient requirements over areas equating to 85% of the project land.

• 96% of project areas addressed sub-surface nutrient application, which potentially significantly reduces nutrient losses.

• 29% of projects addressed pesticides; total areas using improved spray technology increased by 23,600 ha.

• 78% of project areas applied B-level practices, transitioning from the use of both residual and knockdown herbicides on all crop classes, to the use of only residuals on plant cane, and only knockdown on ratoons.

• 20% of grant funds were used to improve pesticide practices.

• 58% of projects addressed sediment losses, with the transition of 3,644 ha to wider row spacing.

• 74% of project areas area now using A and B-level practices for nutrient rates.

• 60% of grant-funded growers now using A-level practices for inter-row grass management/ improved sediment management.

Dairy • 62% of projects focussed on managing sediment loss by addressing ‘hot spots’, such as heavily trafficked laneways and watering points.

Grazing • Projects focussed on sediment management; 12,000 ha of frontage country and riparian areas were protected by construction of fencing and/or off-stream watering points to increase groundcover on dry land.

Multi-crop • 853 ha of crop land in project areas shifted from B to A-level practices for managing soil compaction.

• 68% of crop land in project areas addressed

16

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013 controlled traffic farming systems.

• An additional 1500 ha of crop land in project areas transferred to minimum or no tillage.

• An additional 229 ha of crop land receiving fertiliser through fertigation.

Papaw • Projects focussed almost equally on nutrient and sediment management; improved fertigation systems and grassed inter-rows were the main initiatives.

2.4 Priority practice investments Priority practice investments were developed to assess a project’s ability to deliver the highest positive impact on water quality leaving the farm (classified according to nutrient, sediment or pesticide targets).

Priority practice investments were updated and waterways projects re-classified for each industry in Round 5 (Appendix 2), and were ranked in order of the greatest benefit to water quality.

The application form required growers to list priority practice investments for their project and the area over which the nominated practice/s would be

applied. A nutrient, pesticide or sediment project in cane generally related to the total productive area on the farm, however, for projects involving drainage and sediment traps, the area recorded in Table 2.8 represents the drainage areas above the project sites.

It is important to note that a landholder could choose to implement more than one priority practice for a single project, so the number of sites listed is not necessarily indicative of the number of projects (Table 2.9).

Cane In the cane industry, the second ranked priority practice (improved pesticide application equipment) was the most common project focus in Round 5, with 23,603 ha (44% of all cane land) undergoing project work funded for this practice. Priority practices for sediments, (whole farming systems), and nutrients (sub-surface fertiliser application), ranked a close second (35%) and third (25%) respectively, in terms of cane area. The financial investment was similar for each of these three priority practices.

Bananas About 30% of banana projects (and 35% of the funds,) covering 33% of the area funded, focused

Cane

Banana

TABLE 2.8. Priority practice investments for each industry in Round 5 Target

Priority practice investment

Sites

Area (ha)

% of area funded/ industry

Grant ($)

Nutrient

Manual fertigation system and/or scheduling equipment

10

735

29%

$154,696

Sediment Grassed inter-rows, including equipment to implement this practice

6

820

32%

$71,432

Nutrient

Overhead to micro sprinklers

3

34

1%

$56,701

Nutrient

Banded fertiliser

2

305

12%

$28,770

Sediment Sediment traps

1

110

4%

$6,875

Sediment Riparian rehabilitation

8

547

21%

$145,844

Nutrient

Sub-surface application of fertiliser using a stool splitter or sub-surface beside the stool, using Six Easy Steps principles as a guide to fertiliser use

76

13488

21%

$958,956

Pesticide

Improved pesticide application equipment, including directed spray equipment modifications or hooded sprayers/new application technology, and rate controllers

124

23603

36%

$1,039,638

Sediment New Farm System

81

18798

29%

$1,092,856

Nutrient

11

4274

7%

$38,026

Variable rate application equipment that enables existing sub-surface equipment to easily change rates between blocks

17

Tree Crops

Papaw

Multi-crop

Grazing Wet

Grazing Dry

Dairy

Cane

Target

Priority practice investment

Sites

Area (ha)

% of area funded/ industry

Grant ($)

Sediment Conventional Best Practice Farming System

14

2406

4%

$119,280

Sediment Box drains converted to spoon drains or battered, if deep

9

2571

4%

$38,500

Sediment Sediment traps

8

398

1%

$76,920

Sediment Riparian planting/stream bank repair

7

79

0%

$106,692

Sediment Wetland construction

3

30

0%

$21,515

Nutrient

4

63

11%

$59,412

Sediment Sediment loss “hot spot” sites on or near streams, caused by factors such as water movement, frequent cattle access (in laneways), or a stream crossing, soil type and slope that may require major repair, renovation or water diversion

7

364

62%

$81,325

Nutrient

Fertigation/Improved Nutrient Management / Precision Agriculture practices

1

96

16%

$4,693

Nutrient

Use of machinery, such as mulch or minimum till equipment, to minimize potential sediment loss

1

32

6%

$10,467

Nutrient

Introduction of legumes into grass pastures

1

31

5%

$1,500

Sediment Construction of fencing and/or off-stream watering points to increase ground cover on dry land frontage and in riparian areas

5

12117

100%

$81,315

Sediment Construction of fencing to enable heavily grazed areas to be managed more effectively to maintain ground cover

1

5.68

0%

$9,300

Sediment Construction of stable creek crossings and nonerodible tracks

1

28

0%

$9,350

Sediment Riparian planting

1

2

0%

$7,800

Sediment Erosion “hot spot” sites on or near stream banks, caused by factors such as water movement, cattle access, or a stream crossing, soil type and slope that require major repair or renovation

7

185

8%

$11,760

Sediment Off-stream watering points

17

1036

47%

$75,695

Sediment Fencing of riparian areas in wet areas with largely permanent de-stocking (“largely”??), which may include off-stream watering points.

18

931

42%

$116,400

Sediment Riparian vegetation rehabilitation and extension

6

55

2%

$83,460

Sediment Sediment Loss Management: minimum/reduced tillage, contour banks, controlled traffic, headland management and improvement, gully erosion control

14

2245

95%

$253,788

Sediment Herbicide use management

1

14

1%

$7,500

Nutrient

Fertigation/irrigation scheduling

3

114

5%

$26,650

Nutrient

Automated or manual fertigation system and/or scheduling equipment

4

51

54%

$22,158

Sediment Grassed inter-rows, including equipment that enables this to be more readily implemented

2

44

46%

$20,455

Nutrient

1

2.4

2%

$73,475

3

137

96%

$36,645

1

2.6

2%

$14,400

Effluent distribution systems that allow even reallocation of nutrients across the farm

Drainage

Sediment Automated or manual fertigation system and/or scheduling Wetland construction

18

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013 on fertigation systems to manage nutrients, while grassed inter-rows to manage sediment losses included 20% of projects on almost 37% of the funded area and attracted 16% of the grant funding.

Grazing Measuring changes to grazing practices on the basis of the size of the project area is not a good indicator of water quality improvements, as a practice or project applied in one area does not necessarily reflect a change of management to the whole farm.

However, the area for grazing and dairy listed in Table 2.8 gives an estimate of the practice change.

Dry land grazing projects addressed practices to manage sediment, and included the construction of riparian fencing and/or off-stream watering points, and fencing to manage pasture for improved ground cover and for creek crossings. Wet grazing projects continued to focus on preventing and/or repairing stream bank erosion caused by cattle access or water movement.

Round 5 Reef Rescue projects funded the installation of 73 watering points and 64 km of riparian fencing, thereby increasing riparian revegetation on more than 2,600ha of grazing land.

2.5 Training – cane farmers To help growers improve their management practices, grant recipients were required to participate in training workshops to learn how to better manage pesticides, sediment and nutrients, and address the loss of these potential pollutants into waterways on their properties. Between 2008 and early 2012, Terrain NRM contracted BSES Ltd to deliver nutrient and herbicide management training to cane farmers across the Wet Tropics. Following the folding of BSES Ltd, the herbicide management courses were run by Herbert Cane Productivity Services Ltd (HCPSL) in

2012-13. Reef Rescue grants were mainly directed at funding equipment, however these training courses helped to ensure that the use of this equipment was optimised to achieve best possible water quality benefits.

During 2012-13, three nutrient management courses (Six Easy Steps – 6ES) and seven pesticide (Integrated Weed Management – IWM) courses were held.

6ES teaches nutrient management, based on soil-specific guidelines, and is recognised as industry standard, best management practice for cane production. During 2012-13, 51 growers were trained in nutrient management.

Integrated Weed Management workshops provide training in the application of herbicides; how to reduce chemical loss and minimise adverse impacts downstream, without losing crop productivity. In 2012-13, 88 growers attended these courses, including 43 farmers who received funding for incentive projects this year (Table 2.9). After five years of scheduled workshops, there was still demand for the 2012-13 workshop series, generated by cane farmers who had never received a Water Quality Improvement grant; 24 growers attended 6ES and 45 enrolled in IWM courses.

TABLE 2.9. Training courses conducted in 2012-13 Nutrient Pesticide management management Courses held

3

7

Participants

51

88

Others attending

5

17

Trained grant recipients

27

43

Trained non-grant recipients

24

45

3

Chapter 3: Round 5 farm management practice change Changes in the adoption of farm practices that affect water quality are used as a way to measure the potential change in water quality. In order to identify practices that would have measurable water quality impacts, the ABCD framework for agricultural practices was developed. As a Water Quality Improvement grant requirement, applicants completed practice change tables for their projects, showing what level of practice they implemented for a suite of farming practices. The practice change tables, which include categories for nutrient, soil, pesticide and irrigation, were used to record management practices. Each level of practice was rated using an ABCD classification. Applicants rated their current level of farm management practice, then specified the level of practice that they intended to achieve by implementing their proposed project (i.e. intended level of practice). For example: if a project aimed to transition from applying fertiliser at one rate on all cane blocks and one rate on all ratoons (C-level practice) to a variable rate between cane blocks (B-level practice), then the practice change would be recorded as moving from C to B level. As Reef Rescue grants aimed to facilitate a move to best practice farming, only projects that initiated shifts to B or A-level practices were supported.

Data recording current level of practice (regardless of proposed changes), were collected from all grant application practice tables, and are detailed on an industry basis in Appendix 1. It reveals the level of farming practices that all grant applicants (both

unfunded and funded) were operating at in 201213, and forms a benchmark of farming practices for that year.

Some practice changes were a direct result of WQI grant funding, as they required the purchase of equipment to implement. Other practices were influenced by training or simply adopted by farmers as part of their overall farm management plans.

Examples of cane practices that do not rely solely on equipment and were not directly funded by a grant include: rate of fertiliser use, plough out replant, calibration and record keeping.

The number of dry grazing and dairy projects was small and therefore may not have been representative of these industries as a whole, so benchmark data was not included on them in this report.

The number of farmers studied to analyse practice change in this chapter of the report may not match the figures in Chapter 2. This is because only one set of farm practice data were used for an individual landholder per industry, and some landholders were involved in multiple projects. A farmer may have been involved in more than one industry and/ or more than one project in a grant round, so farm practice areas would then differ to the total areas reported in Chapter 2. Practice areas reported in this section are a more accurate way of describing actual farm management change, rather than project totals.

19

20

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013

3.1 Bananas The number of applications received from the banana industry in Round 5 was similar to Round 4, but the area of farming land funded by grants increased from 2,268 ha in Round 4 to 2,833 ha in Round 5. The latter figure represents about 25% of banana farm land in the region.

The average size of farms owned by applicants in Round 5 was 90.7 hectares, which was higher than the industry average of 55 hectares. The size of the farms (management units) owned by applicants ranged from 11 ha to almost 1200 ha. Of the total 95 farms, 31 of these (33%) were greater than 100 ha in size, with 17 greater than 200 ha.

As in the previous two years, benchmark data from 2012-13 recorded no landholders shown to be operating at a D level. However, there was room for improvement in record keeping; only 36% of growers kept a diary of records (a C-level practice). And there was still considerable scope for improvement in irrigation timing and management, with more than 50 % of the area performing at C level in both practices. A large proportion of applicants in this round (63%) also reported C-level nutrient rates.

Two priority practice investments are used to measure the impact of investment in bananas.

These are: (i) the move from broadcast or banded fertiliser application to automated fertigation systems that enable small amounts of nutrients to be applied at each application and thereby increase plant uptake, which in turn reduces excess fertiliser and subsequent loss to the environment; and

(ii) the change from over-head irrigation to undertree irrigation.

These practices are discussed in detail in the following sections.

3.1.1 Adoption of fertigation The majority of grant funding (61%) to the banana industry in Round 5 was directed towards financing irrigation and fertigation capacity. Change to automated fertigation was estimated to cost $175/ ha over 1,207 ha. The total area under automated fertigation increased by 307 ha in Round 5, reducing the area of land reliant on fertiliser broadcast to 40 ha (Table 3.1). Broadcasting fertiliser (C-level practice) dropped from 37% to only 3% of the area managed by grant recipients. This transition corresponded to a reduction in farm area operating at C level in nutrient rates, i.e. shifting to regular application using fertigation, instead of banded surface application (Table 3.2).

3.1.2 Irrigation These grants had a direct impact on all aspects of irrigation; changing the method, management, timing, and distribution uniformity. No additional voluntary changes in adoption of irrigation practices were apparent for farmers who were funded.

Scheduling equipment, which is required to install automated fertigation, would have increased the ability of farmers to use more sophisticated methods of scheduling. This adaptation is reflected in the banana practice tables collected as part of the grant application process. Before funding, 54% of irrigation was done using subjective methods (C-level practice). It has been shown that subjective methods tend to result in less than optimum water

TABLE 3.1. Annual changes in method of fertiliser application (funded farmers only) Before funding Practice Practice description level

After funding

Number of farmers

Area (ha)

Number of farmers

Area (ha)

A

Automated fertigation system used to apply fertiliser with each irrigation

3

252

9

559

B

Fertigate and banded surface applications, when fertigation unsuitable due to rainfall

7

502

9

608

C

Applied using a broadcast type spreader every 4-6 weeks

9

453

1

40

D

Applied using a broadcasting fertiliser spreader on a calendar basis, with no accounting for high risk periods

0

0

0

Â

19

1,207

19

Total

1,207

21 applications, leading to potential nutrient losses, due to the plant having insufficient capacity to absorb nutrients. The use of subjective methods decreased to 10%, as a result of grants provided in Round 5.

There was also a subsequent increase, from 19% to 56%, in scheduling based on monitoring of soil moisture (A-level practice).

Irrigation distribution uniformity improved marginally, probably as a result of new equipment and the installation of this equipment by irrigation professionals who were more aware of the importance of this issue.

There was a 240 ha transition from the use of overhead sprinklers to under-tree micro irrigation (Table 3.2), as well as a large shift to automated fertigation (567 ha increase).

There was a large shift from C-level practices in nutrient rates to A and B-level practices. The area funded by WQI grants at A and B levels (fortnightly application) increased from 453 ha to 892 ha – a shift to 97% of area funded in Round 5. This shift was significant, as it means that the amount of fertiliser applied each time had reduced, so the risk of losses due to run-off of excess nutrients had almost halved.

While this reduction can be achieved without fertigation capacity, it is unlikely to occur using banded surface application methods. This change reflected the high adoption of fertigation systems funded in this grant round.

However, the grants made little change to the use of soil and leaf testing, based on this sample of 1,207 ha of crops, of which 52% were using C-level practices.

3.1.3 Changes in nutrient rates Nutrient rates are not directly affected by grants for bananas, so results reflect voluntary change.

However, the availability of fertigation does add flexibility to nutrient management options.

TABLE 3.2. Annual changes in the method of irrigation for bananas (funded farmers only) Before funding Practice Practice description level

After funding

Number of farmers

Area (ha)

Number of farmers

Area (ha)

A

Automated drip or micro irrigation systems with fertigation capacity

4

292

11

859

B

Manually operated irrigation system, under canopy irrigation with fertigation capacity

11

675

8

348

C

Overhead sprinklers

4

240

0

0

19

1207

19

1207

Total

Â

TABLE 3.3. Annual change in nutrient rate management in bananas (funded farmers only) Before funding Practice Practice description level

After funding

Number of farmers

Area (ha)

Number of farmers

Area (ha)

A

Use recommended rates of N & P applied fortnightly by block; each application relates to growth rate and stage of plant growth

6

373

8

693

B

Use recommended rates of N, applied fortnightly by block; use recommended rate of P, applied on a regular basis

1

80

4

199

C

Use estimated rates of N and applied every 4-6 weeks by block; use recommended rate of P, applied on a regular basis

12

754

7

315

D

One N,P,K (rate for farm based on historical rates, that take no account of recommended rates)

0

0

0

0

19

1,207

19

1,207

Total

Â

22

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013 3.1.4 Soil management

3.2 Cane

Most of the changes in soil management were voluntary changes not influenced by grants. Some of the larger farmers obtained funding to purchase a GPS, in order to enable them to establish permanent beds using GPS technology, but these growers were few in number.

The benchmark data from cane farmers for Round 5 represents 33% of the land under cane or 43,367 hectares, a slightly higher proportion than Round 4.

The average farm size of applicants was 188 hectares, considerably higher than the industry average of 102 hectares. As with banana growers in this round, it was the larger cane farmers that tended to adopt the higher-level practices. With only a few exceptions, those farmers who were funded and adopted A-level practices tended to have bigger farms than those applying B or C-level practices.

The adoption of the use of pre-formed beds with zonal tillage (A-level practice) rose from 27% to 64% of the area in Round 5 projects. The area of bananas using full cultivation (C-level practice), which increases the risk of sediment loss and the impact of compaction on the soil, correspondingly dropped from 33% to 6% during the round. The area under combined A and B-level practices for cultivation in 2009 was 3264 ha or 44% of the total. By June 2013, this area had increased to 4,937 ha or 66% of the area.

The area under C-level practices reduced from 56% to 34% in that same period.

While there was quite a high adoption rate for the use of spoon drains and riparian plantings, the biggest change to sediment management in Round 5 was the increased area with GPS-positioned permanent beds and permanently grassed interrows, which increased by 572 ha (47%). Sediment loss risks are high during crop establishment, and are significantly reduced with permanent beds that are laser-levelled and contoured.

The area of bananas managed with ground cover maintained in the fallow and inter-row all the time, increased by 744 ha, from 41% of the project land under bananas to 51%, over four years.

Funding for projects that address this issue has not been common, as it generally requires side throwing slashers and most farmers already own this equipment. This shift was indicative of a voluntary change, as the decision not to spray out the inter-row is more important than the availability of equipment.

3.1.5 Record keeping There was a large improvement in record keeping by landholders in Round 5, largely due to voluntary implementation. The adoption of computerised record keeping (A-level practice) increased from 8% to 19% of the area managed by grant recipients in Round 5.

The percentage of land managed by funded applicants who do soil tests increased slightly over the year, as it did in Round 4, and the percentage of farmers using either A or B-level practices was similar to the previous year.

The impact of the Six Easy Steps (6ES) training workshops was reflected in the Round 5 data collected on nutrient rate assessment. By June 2013, 66% of the managed land was employing either A or B-level methods to assess nutrient requirements.

Sub-surface placement of fertiliser has risen dramatically, due to Reef Rescue funding. The steady increase documented in the Round 4 Impact Report (Bass et al. 2013) continued in Round 5, with 77 % of the 43,367 ha managed by grant recipients now employing sub-surface methods. At the start of the round, 67 of the 230 individual-funded landholders were placing fertiliser on the surface. By the end of the round, only seven were maintaining this practice.

While the Scientific Consensus Statement (Brodie et al. 2013) presents differing opinions about the benefits of sub-surface placement, the practice is accepted as a better way of applying fertiliser, with the potential to reduce nutrient losses and possibly also reduce weed control requirements.

Row spacing changes in Round 5 were larger (3644 ha) than in Round 4 (1488 ha). Therefore benchmark figures for Round 5 started with C-level practices at a higher level than in Round 4, reflecting the intentions of growers to change practice. There remains considerable scope for further changes in row spacing, particularly moving north from the Herbert to Tully and the Cairns region. Some of the recorded change represented growers who moved to 1.8 m row spacing without a GPS – and were subsequently funded to obtain one.

23 3.2.1 Practice changes in cane This section documents changes to three major practices (listed below) on cane farms in 2012-13.

Approximately 88% of cane project funding was allocated to promote these three priority practices in Round 5. Terrain developed such investment priorities (Appendix 2) to identify and fund practices which would have maximum impact on water quality, and also provide guidance to applicants on selecting their projects. The allocation of priority practice investments (PP) has resulted in high uptake of the following practices: 1. Placement of fertilisers sub-surface (priority practice investment 1) – affecting nutrients.

2. Use of improved spray technology (priority practice investment 2) – affecting pesticides.

3. Adoption of whole farming systems (priority practice investment 3) – affecting sediment, nutrients and pesticides.

Figure 3.1 documents changes to the proportion of projects addressing the top three priority practice investments in cane, over the five-year Reef Rescue program. The level of interest in sub-surface fertiliser placement (PP1) was high for the first three years, then declined. The level of interest in improved spray technology (PP2) increased over time, while interest in whole farming systems (PP3) remained fairly consistent over the whole five years.

3.2.2 Placement of fertilisers subsurface (priority practice investment 1) Sub-surface fertiliser application is generally an accepted best practice (B-level practice), but in the Wet Tropics region, we classify using a stool splitter as an A-level practice. The reason for the higher classification is due to the extent of surface fertiliser application in the Wet Tropics, which – prior to the Reef Rescue program – was already believed to be much higher than in other regions (consequently, the use of a stool splitter within this region was deemed a higher level practice in comparison). However, to enable better comparability across all the Reef regions, use of a stool splitter was subsequently converted to a B-level practice for reporting purposes in the Paddock to Reef (P2R) modelling.

In 2012-13, due to the provision of Water Quality Improvement grants, the area of land using subsurface application of nutrients (as recorded in grant application data), increased by 8,612 hectares – almost double the previous year’s figure. Table 3.4 presents the results for applicants funded to change their fertiliser application method in 2012-13. These data represent 28% of the total 190 cane projects funded. Of the group of farmers that received grants in Round 5, the percentage that were applying surface fertiliser dropped from 23% to 2% by the end of the round.

Based on priority practice investment figures, it is estimated that 4,876 ha transitioned to the use of more efficient mill mud spreaders. This increase was mostly due to funding contractors or service provider

60%

Percent of investment

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

R1

R2

R3

R4

Funding round PP1

PP2

PP3

FIGURE 3.1. Proportion of priority practice investment over time

R5

24

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013 contractors servicing larger areas of the region.

The priority practice investment data also records that improved nutrient placement, through the use of sub-surface fertiliser applicators or efficient mill mud applicators, occurred on 13,488 ha in Round 5, costing an average of $71 per ha.

rates’ and ‘general herbicide issues’ – specifically, ‘knockdown herbicides used with shielded sprayers to replace residual herbicides in ratoons’.

In 2012-13, the area using improved spray technology increased by 23,603 ha, (compared with an increase of only 10,633 ha in 2011-12). This is a significantly higher increase than in any other

TABLE 3.4. Annual changes in fertiliser placement in Round 5 (funded farmers only) Before funding Practice Practice description level

After funding

Number of farmers

Area (ha)

Number of farmers

Area (ha)

A

Applies fertiliser sub-surface within the stool using a stool splitter, where topography and soil type allow, and taking into account the types and form of fertiliser

106

24,852

169

34118

B

Applies fertiliser sub-surface beside the stool (or banded where soil type and slope prevent sub-surface application)

55

6,788

52

6134

C

Surface applied, including liquids using banding methods

64

9,517

5

950

D

Always surface applied, using broadcasting methods

3

545

2

500

228

41,702

228

41,702

Total

3.2.3 Use of improved spray technology (priority practice investment 2) Funding of improved spray technology enables farmers to use a greater proportion of knockdown chemicals, thereby reducing the amount of residual chemicals used. More than one measure is used to describe the changes in weed management practices. There are six individual practice tables in the ABCD framework for agricultural management practices that refer to weed management. The practices that best measure change are, ‘herbicide

year of the five-year program. The practice change was achieved at a cost of $44/ha and comprised 31% of the grant expenditure for cane in 2012-13.

This proportion of funding represented a higher percentage than in any other year and reflects that Round 5 received more applications for improved spray technology than in any previous rounds. The large shift from C to B-level practice in this round resulted in 14,557 ha no longer having residual herbicides applied to ratoon crops (Table 3.5).

TABLE 3.5. Annual changes in herbicide rates and use (funded farmers only) Before funding Practice Practice description level

After funding

Number of farmers

Area (ha)

Number of farmers

Area (ha)

A

Use residuals at correct timing and label rates in plant cane and fallow crops, but not on trash blanket (knockdowns replace residuals in ratoons)

87

18,095

161

32,652

B

Uses residual and/or knockdowns at rates appropriate to weed type according to label specifications, but on all crop classes

129

22,072

60

8,327

C

Often used at maximum label rates for residual and knockdown products, irrespective of weed type and pressure

12

1535

7

723

228

41,702

228

41,702

Total

25 3.2.4 Adoption of controlled traffic (whole farming systems) (priority practice investment 3) Row spacing is the critical factor in farm management systems and change in this priority practice investment is measured by the area funded to change row spacing. The scope of this priority practice investment includes all the changes that can occur under this farming system, including: changing row spacing, zonal tillage, direct drill legume planters, changing spray set up, mulching equipment, planting equipment, laser levelling and using GPS equipment for controlled traffic. However, if the farmer has not changed the row spacing, then all of these practices are classified as a Conventional Best Practice Farming System (priority practice investment 5). Change in row spacing is the lynchpin for farming system change, therefore, if the practices are categorised under priority practice investment 3, it indicates that the farmer has either been funded to change row spacing previously, or else had already implemented this change prior to the Reef Rescue program.

was 9,886 ha, but research shows that wide rows without use of a GPS (B-level practice) eventually result in complete compaction by the end of the crop cycle, and therefore don’t provide the full potential of environmental benefits. However, this change would still provide an economic benefit to farmers adopting it.

The priority practice investment data show 17,371 ha adopted controlled traffic-related activities, with 32% of the grant money spent on this set of practices, at a cost of $61.24/ha. This figure equates to 38% of the grants for whole farming systems being spent on changing the row spacing, and the balance of 62% ($671,803) spent on supporting other associated practices, as listed above.

Many farmers cannot afford to make the complete transition to a whole farming system in one move, so change may happen over a few years, commencing with the alteration in row spacing. Consequently, the more accurate figures documenting transition to a whole farming system are reflected in area of changes to row spacing. The sum of the funds allocated to this priority practice investment represent the total cost of the change to whole farming systems.

Farming system changes made up 27% of practice change in cane during Round 5. Based on the area of change in row spacing for funded farmers (Table 3.6), the annual change in row width, using a GPS for guidance, was 6,645 ha, costing $164/ha. The actual increase in area under wide rows (A-level practice)

TABLE 3.6. Annual changes in area under controlled traffic (funded farmers only) Before funding Practice Practice description level

After funding

Number of farmers

Area (ha)

Number of farmers

Area (ha)

A

Controlled traffic, with row widths determined by harvester wheel measurements, with GPS guidance

37

7,485

78

17,371

B

Controlled traffic with no GPS (at > 1.8m)

20

5,984

17

2,743

C

Conventional (<1.8m) row spacing

171

28,233

133

21,588

228

41,702

228

41,702

Total

Â

26

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013

3.3 Multi-crops The uptake of Reef Rescue grants by Tablelands farmers was good compared with other industries, but the lack of reliable data on the actual farmer numbers limited a detailed analysis. Among the farmers classified as multi-crop farmers, there were approximately 65 potato farmers, 45 peanut and maize farmers, and 55 farmers who grew hay.

However, many of these farmers produced three or more different crops, making it difficult to label them as a grower of one particular crop.

Ravenshoe farmers grow potatoes, rather than peanuts, and Mareeba farmers grow peanuts, but not potatoes, so the actual number of farmers who grow rotational crops is not known nor collected by ABS. It is estimated that there may be as many as 80-90 farmers growing multi-crops on as much as 9,800 hectares on the Atherton and Evelyn Tablelands.

Based on this estimate of growers, Terrainâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s practice adoption data represented 65% of farmers, who managed 76% of the cropping land.

The average farm size of applicants was 123 ha, with the larger farmers being more likely to adopt a higher level of practice. In Round 5, 2,246 ha were funded for practices aimed at reducing sediment loss, at a cost of $113/ha.

3.3.1 Adoption of priority practice 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; sediment management The multi-crop farming system on the Tablelands is regarded by many as a high-risk system, with bare ground at the start of the wet season being normal practice. Typical investments made to reduce sediment loss include the construction of contour banks and the use of strip till machines to reduce tillage area. There is no one table in the multi-crop ABCD framework that reflects this investment, so the data from the two practices that influence this priority practice investment are provided.

Sediment management comprises a number of different components, including the use of minimum tillage equipment, contour banks, and controlled traffic farming equipment.

3.3.2 Contouring Most of the contour banks were installed during the 1980s, and there has been only limited funding for contouring since then, however, controlled traffic farming systems and strip till machines are only

just starting to gain uptake. This level of existing practice was reflected in the Round 5 annual change figures, with only a 70 ha increase in area where contour banks were well maintained and formed part of a farm plan to control water flows.

The accumulated four-year change in new land area with contour banks was 454 ha. Of the farms included in grant data, (83% of the area managed), farmers intentionally used contour banks to control water flows (average farm size >120ha). Approximately 6% of farmers did not have contour banks: these were usually the smaller farms (average size 61 ha).

3.3.3 Tillage There was quite a significant shift (853 ha) in this round, from highly trafficked areas being restricted to laneways (B-level practice), to implementing permanent beds using GPS (A-level practice). Tillage frequency was the practice where the most change on an annual basis occurred. In Round 5, there was an increase of 1467 ha moving from C-level practice (reduced tillage operations of 4-6 passes) to B-level practice (minimal tillage/conservation tillage or no tillage practices including direct drill). This change represented a decrease; from 93% of area at C-level prior to funding, to 19% at C-level after funding, with a subsequent increase in area at B-level to 73%. During the course of the five-year Reef Rescue program, there was a shift of 3,285 ha to the A-level practice of using permanent beds.

Chapter 4: Pollutant load reduction Reef Rescue WQI grants facilitated farmers to implement best management practices and undertake training aimed at reducing the pollutant loads leaving agricultural land and flowing downstream or leaching underground and finally ending up in Reef waters. These loads were calculated from monitoring and modelling data for nutrients, sediments and pesticides entering the waterways, and reported in Kroon et al. (2010) and Lewis et al. (2011).

Pollutant load reduction can be estimated by determining the likely amount of fertilisers and chemicals saved or soil loss prevented from reaching waterways, through the implementation of best management practices. These calculations should be regarded as estimates only, and do not have the level of sophistication of modelling used by the Paddock to Reef (P2R) program, which used this management practice data, together with observations and monitoring results (P2R Methods 2014).

Estimated load reduction data in this report will not necessarily align with earlier Impact Reports, as new and improved data becomes available from additional sources and research is used to update the assumptions upon which the calculations are based.

4.1 Nutrients The reduction in nutrient loads leaving farming land as a result of Reef Rescue projects was largely attributable to:

4

• Equipment that allowed sub-surface application of nutrients • Equipment that facilitated adoption of whole farming systems • Equipment that enabled variable rate application of nutrients • Training in nutrient management and subsequent adoption of nutrient management plans • Planting riparian revegetation, and restoring banks and gullies to reduce nitrogen loads entering streams • Adoption of fertigation by banana farmers.

More than 50% of Water Quality Improvement grants used for nutrient management practices in the cane industry were allocated to the first three priority practices. Consequently, nutrient loads were calculated based on the investment in sub-surface fertiliser applicators, whole farming systems, and variable rate application equipment. For banana growers, the biggest investment was in fertigation, which allows reduced applications of Nitrogen per hectare.

Several assumptions were made to calculate the reduced nutrient loads leaving agricultural land, including the following: (i) Placing nutrients below the surface in close proximity to the plant roots can save as much as 20 kg of nitrogen per ha. (Prove et al. 1994; Prasertasak et al., 2002; and Reghenzani, (pers

27

28

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013 com.). There is some scientific uncertainty about the potential benefit of sub-surface fertiliser application, as the data Terrain uses is unpublished, but it is agreed that volatilisation losses are reduced using this method, leading, theoretically, to less nutrient being applied.

According to Prasertsak et al. (2002), sub-surface application resulted in a saving of 13.5% of applied N, the equivalent to 19.3 kg/ha, based on average rates applied, according to fertiliser sales records. (ii) Whole farming systems (controlled traffic) assume the use of a legume rotation which can provide a saving of up to 320 kg/ha of nitrogen.

The amount of nutrients saved by transitioning to whole farming systems is the focus of effort in the P2R Program. A conservative estimate of 5kg/ha of available N is used for these calculations, until data from the P2R Program is available. Some earlier P2R trial results in Mackay are showing an 18% reduction in N losses for 1.8 m rows, compared to 1.5 m rows. This finding needs further validation before being more widely applied. N in runoff is reduced under controlled traffic, but other pathways of loss may still occur. (iii) The amount of nutrients saved by variable rate fertiliser boxes is not known precisely. However, an estimate of 15kg/ha N was used for these calculations. This amount is based on the potential differences between blocks, where the recommended rate based on Six Easy Steps may vary anywhere from 130 kg /ha up to 160 kg/ha N, i.e. a difference of 15 kg/ha above or below the average. Farmers fertilising multiple blocks, across several headlands in a single run, are able to change at each headland when using variable rate boxes, unlike farmers whose rate cogs are welded in place and are therefore unable to change the fertiliser rate. (iv) In 2006, 66% of cane growers in the Herbert mill area were applying, on average, 16 kg/ha in excess of the recommended rates. This rate was higher than other mill areas, so across the whole region, an estimate of 10 kg/ha reduction in nitrogen has been used to calculate the benefit of Six Easy Steps training. (v) The average area of a farm owned by a farmer who has done Six Easy Steps training is 150 ha (compared with the average cane farm size of 102 ha).

(vi) The highest priority practice investment in bananas is the installation of fertigation. It is estimated that fertigation will reduce nitrogen application by 50 kg/ha, but as no published data is available to support this calculation, information is therefore based on anecdotal data from some farmers who had data available from changes they had already implemented. The average fertiliser rate applied across the whole industry is 292 kg/ha. (vii) Delivery to the end of a catchment assumes that, due to mobility of the nitrogen sourced from cane and bananas (nitrate form), one third of the potential reductions in the DIN load of surface waters will be seen in the short term. In the longer term, a reduction in ground water loads would also be reflected in further reduced surface water loads (Reghanzani, pers com.). (viii) Dissolved Organic Nitrogen (DON) and Particulate Nitrogen (PN) are not expected to change greatly, so these reductions are estimated at 1% and 2% respectively. (ix) While potential reductions in the levels of nitrogen and phosphorous applied by individual papaw farms are large, due to small numbers and area these farms only contribute a small proportion of the total pollutants. Losses from multi-crops and grazing are also small, but the methods of estimation are not precise enough for the inclusion of these industries to have any impact on the nitrogen calculations. ABCD framework adoption data for mixed cropping show a high number of growers at A and B-level for nutrient practices, so it is unlikely that a significant impact on nutrient losses can be attributed to these industries.

Based on these assumptions, it was calculated that during 2012-13, Reef Rescue funding resulted in a reduction of 477 tonnes of nutrients leaving paddocks and entering the waterways (Table 4.1).

Calculations for the reduction of other forms of nitrogen over that period are shown in Figure 4.1.

This estimation equates to 2.7% reduction of DIN at the end of catchment (212t).

Estimation is derived on the following basis: Particulate nitrogen loads (PN =total N 477.2t/yr x 1/3 x 2%) = 3.2 t/yr Dissolved Organic Nitrogen loads (DON = total N t/ yr x 1/3 x 1%) = 1 t/yr

29 Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen loads (DIN = total N t/ yr x 1/3 %) = 159 t/yr

crop cycle of a plant, four ratoons and a fallow, make up one sixth or 17% of the area under cane. Consequently, in any one year, only 17% of cane crops are affected by sediment losses.

Baseline DIN loads (Kroon et al. 2010) = 5,972 t/yr Total reductions at end of catchment as % of baseline DIN loads = 2.7%

(iii) Losses from bare inter-rows in bananas are estimated at 5 t/ha. Recent P2R results show

TABLE 4.1. Estimated anticipated reduction in nutrient run-off of nitrogen, based on improved farming practices for 2012-13 Nutrient saving (kg/ha)

Area (ha)

Total N

Sub-surface nutrient application

20

13488

269.7

Whole farming systems

5

20378

101.9

Variable rate application of fertiliser

15

4274

64.1

Six Easy Steps training

10

474

4.7

Banana fertigation/micro sprinkler

50

735

36.7

Practice/activity

(t)

Cane

Total

4.2 Sediments Funded practices that are thought to have the largest impact on reducing sediment loads include: • Whole farming systems equipment, such as GPS guidance systems, direct drill planters, and bed formers for cane • Drainage structure improvements • Equipment that assists in maintaining grassed inter-rows in bananas • Risk management techniques, such as sediment traps, riparian plantings and stream bank repair • Conventional Best Practice Farming Systems.

Forty-nine percent of funding grants addressing sediment in 2012-13 focused on reducing sediment through farming systems and drainage, therefore load calculations were based on these practice changes in the cane, papaw, multi-cropping and banana industries.

Several assumptions were made to calculate the reduction in sediment runoff: (i) Moving to controlled traffic (whole farming systems) in cane assumes a 10 t/ha reduction of sediment loss (excluding paddocks with slopes exceeding 5% – landscape studies have shown losses as high as 505 t/ha on such slopes). (ii) For cane, most plant crops are established by the end of October in the Wet Tropics, and a

477.2 t losses of 10 t/ha from bare inter-rows, however losses from grassed inter-rows can also be quite high across the year, as the maturing crop closes in and reduces sunlight to ground cover, which leads to bare ground. Consequently, the reduction in losses is kept to 5 t/ha. (iv) Sediment run-off is affected by both slope and crop stage. (v) Losses saved from improved drainage structures are estimated at 1 t/ha of the area affected by the drains. (vi) The average project area of wet grazing projects in Round 5 was 220 ha. Potential sediment losses were conservatively assumed to be at a rate of 20 t per property for wet grazing, because of the nature of the projects funded, including improved creek crossings and riparian fencing.

The potential for sediment loss in grazing projects varies enormously, with losses as low as 0.1t/ha typical in wet grazing, where there is adequate ground cover, but up to 22 t/ha, where ground cover is poor and exposed bare ground can be common. For loss estimation purposes, fencing can only improve ground cover over time, therefore the benefits have been assumed to be at the bottom of this range, i.e. 0.1 t/ha. (vii) A study on multi-cropping by Cogle et al. (2011) estimated that sediment losses on Tablelands multi-cropping properties ranged from 6 t/ha with ground cover, up to 30t/ha with no cover

30

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013 – a difference of 24 t/ha. For the purposes of estimating benefits, a conservative figure of 10 t/ha has been used.

reduced use of herbicides; when less ground is disturbed, weed germination is minimised and run-off of PSII chemicals reduced

The greatest influence on sediment reduction in the Wet Tropics region from agricultural land (excluding grazing) will be the adoption of whole farming systems. Based on this premise and other assumptions, it was calculated that during 201213, Reef Rescue funding resulted in a reduction of 234,405 tonnes of sediment leaving paddocks and entering the waterways (Table 4.2). Assuming that 90% of sediment is naturally trapped by the environment, it is estimated that sediment loads leaving the paddock will be reduced by 2,344 t/yr.

Compared to the estimated baseline total suspended solids per year for the Wet Tropics region (1,058 kt/ yr) (Hateley et al., 2006), this figure represents 2.2% of the baseline load. Increased ground cover in dry land grazing areas would also have a significant impact on sediment loads, but providing grants for reduced stocking is neither feasible, nor is it auditable.

• Riparian repair projects that facilitate increased absorption of chemicals in the system.

Hooded sprayers, weed management training and reduced losses from whole farming systems have a direct impact on the type of pesticide used and the amount of pesticide run-off, so calculations were based on these three practices for cane.

Allocation of benefits between better equipment and training is arbitrary, because they cannot really be separated. Data used to calculate the pesticide loads include: • Confidential data from a Wet Tropic’s catchment indicated the average amount of PSII chemicals applied to crops across the whole of that catchment was 1.23 kg/ ha (data is based on chemical sales). More recent data, from a weed management survey across Tully, Johnstone,

TABLE 4.2. Estimated anticipated reduction in sediment run-off from improved farming practices for 20012-13 Area (ha)

Total sediment (t)

10 1

20,378 2,328

203,780 2,328

Bananas

Grassed inter-rows

5

820

4,100

Grazing Wet Dry

20 t per property (30 farms) 0.1 t per ha dry land

3865

600 386.5

Multi-cropping

10t/ha

2,246

22,460

Stream bank repair

15 projects @ 50 tonne

Practice/activity

Sediment saving (t/ha)

Cane

Whole farming systems Drainage

Total reduction

4.3 Pesticides Calculations for the impact of Reef Rescue on reducing pesticide loads reaching the end of catchment are based on: • Hooded sprayers, which allow cane growers to move from residual Photosynthesis two (PSII) chemicals to knockdown chemicals such as Glyphosate • Training in Integrated Weed Management • Funding of whole farming systems that lead to

750 234,405 t

Russell/Mulgrave, Barron and Mossman catchments, puts the amount of active ingredient of PSII chemicals used per ha at 1.07 kg. The range is 0.89 kg /ha up to 1.81 kg/ha.

• End-of-system (river mouth) baseline loads were calculated to be 2.94% of the amount of sales of the active ingredient in any one year, in the same catchment. When PSII loads are compared to application amounts by catchment, loads are 5-6% of application amounts. Note, these load figures do not include all PSII herbicides used. If only Diuron is used for calculations, then loads

31 are closer to 2.9%, which is almost identical to the sales versus loads for this catchment.

• The average rate at which a product like Diuron is applied, contributes to 35% of total PSII herbicides used. This amount seems to be about 0.72 kg/ ha (Velpar k4) in plant crops and 0.69 kg/ha in ratoons, (not significantly different amounts).

Several assumptions are used to calculate pesticide loads: (i) The Integrated Weed Management training course recommends limiting the use of PSII herbicides to the plant crop and using knockdowns for ratoon crops. Depending on the practice applied, this approach could amount to a 60% reduction in PSII herbicides. The range of weed control programs are described as using: • only knockdowns (nil PSII chemicals per ha per crop cycle) – A-level practice • only using PSII in plant crops and not in ratoons (0.57 kg/ha PSII per year) – B-level practice • a mix of residuals and knockdowns (1.07 kg/ ha PSII per year) – C-level practice. (ii) Using a hooded sprayer and knockdowns in ratoons enables the reduction in the use of PSII chemicals by 0.50 kg/ha. (iii) If a farmer adopts one better practice, they are also likely to adopt a suite of new practices. The adoption of a new farming system can mean a 40% reduction in run-off (Masters et al., 2012).

Consequently, while the amount of chemical applied may not be reduced on plant crops, if applied in conjunction with controlled traffic, the practice may result in losses being reduced by 0.23 kg/ha.

up to 76% of farmers do not use residuals on ratoons. While a similar change is yet to be shown in other areas, the availability of the right equipment does enable the practice to happen. If 25% of farmers in other areas shift to this practice, then the reduction in use of residuals will equate to 0.125 kg/ha across the region, and would lead to a significant reduction in total amounts being lost to the Reef. (v) Applied learnings from Integrated Weed Management courses will lead to reduced amounts used on ratoons, and also improve the timing of application on plant crops. This change would achieve a 60% reduction in PSII herbicides, but is yet to be implemented throughout the industry. There is an overlap between the area of funded hooded sprayers and those attending training, so only 25% of the training figures are used to calculate reductions.

These assumptions were used to calculate a total reduction of 8.9 tonnes of pesticides leaving agricultural land over the 2012-13 year, as a result of changed practices attributable to Reef Rescue incentive grants (Table 4.3). This change equates to a total reduction at the end of catchment of 262.4 kilogram of pesticides, based on the assumption that 2.94% of active ingredient reaches end of system in any year. Compared to the estimated baseline PSII loads per year for the Wet Tropics region (10,054 kg/ yr) (Lewis et al., 2011), this represents 2.6% of the baseline load reaching the Great Barrier Reef lagoon.

(iv) For ratoons, hooded/shielded sprayers or directed sprayers allow knockdown to be used more readily. In Mossman and the Herbert,

TABLE 4.3. Estimated anticipated reduction in pesticide run-off resulting from improved farming practices in all industries funded in 2012-13 Pesticide saving (kg)

Area (ha)

Total PSII herbicides (kg)

0.125

23,603

2950

Whole farming systems

0.23

20,378

4687

IWM training

0.125

10,304

1288

Practice/activity Hooded/shielded or directed sprayers

Total reduction

8,925 kg

32

5

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013

Chapter 5: Round 5 conclusions Despite some areas still recovering from the production impacts of Tropical Cyclone Yasi the previous year (2011), application numbers were the highest of all rounds; 427 applications were received â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 114 more applications than Round 4.

Eight industries received a total of 279 Water Quality Improvement grants during Round 5. The overall success rate (65%) was higher than Round 4 (60%), although Round 3 recorded the greatest success rate for applicants. Round 5 also had the highest number of grants funded in any one year. This not only reflects the interest shown by farmers, but also the higher amount of funding received from the Australian Government in that year.

A total of $4.9 million in grants was funded, bringing the total investment facilitated by Reef Rescue in the region during 2012-13 to $12.1 million.

Grant recipients contributed $1.47 for every dollar invested by the Australian Government in WQI grants.

Cane, being the largest crop by area grown in the Wet Tropics, comprised the majority of grant applications in this round. The Johnstone and Herbert catchments made up over half the cane applications and grants for the region, and received 64% of the total funds. These two cane-growing areas were also responsible for almost 70% of the cane grants in this round. The area of cane grown in the Johnstone region is about one fifth of that in the Herbert, and the Tully region has about half the area of the Herbert. Both the Tully and Johnstone areas received funding for similar total areas (almost 9,000

ha). This accounted for 77% of the Johnstone cane area and just over 30% of the Tully cane area.

Only six percent of grants were allocated to multiple farm projects valued at over $30,000 in this round. The median grant size for multiple farm projects was $42,527. The median grant for all projects was $15,000, which was considerably less than in Round 4 ($22,500), but similar to Round 3 ($15,802). The average grant size for Round 5 was $17, 491. This was the lowest average grant size of all rounds to date. The lower average grant size may have been influenced by the fact that 10% of the grants were for $5,000 or less.

Grants were allocated to 325 landholders, (or 12% of farmers in the region), who managed approximately 22% of agricultural and grazing land during that period. Over half of these landholders were funded for the first time. Nineteen percent of landholders receiving a grant in this round had also received grants in two previous rounds. Only one landholder received a grant in every round of the five-year Reef Rescue program.

Water Quality Improvement grants funded changes to farming practices over a productive area of 169,022 ha of cropping and grazing land. Grants facilitated changes from C and D-level practices to A and B level in the following practices:

33 Banana • Area under automated fertigation increased 307 ha • Further 106 ha fertigated • Conversion of over-head to under-tree micro sprinklers for irrigation on 240 ha • Growers match N & P rates to plant growth on an additional 439 ha.

Cane • An increase of 8,612 ha using sub-surface fertiliser application • Improved spray technology for weeds on 23,603 ha • 14,557 ha no longer using residuals on ratoon • Change to row spacing of 1.8 m on 9,886 ha (6,645 ha of this area using GPS technology).

Dairy • The installation of effluent distribution systems on 96 ha

• The installation of mulching or minimum till to minimise sediment loss on 32 ha.

Grazing • 73 off-stream watering points installed • 64 km of riparian fencing constructed to protect waterways.

Multi-crops • Introduction of practices that reduced sediment loss on 2,245 ha • 853 ha transitioned to sediment management practices, including permanent beds • Minimum tillage operating on further 1,467 ha.

Based on assumptions on the adoption of improved practices over 2012-13, Terrain estimates that Reef Rescue projects and training resulted in a 2.7% reduction in dissolved inorganic nutrients, a 2.6% reduction in pesticides, and a 2.2% reduction in sediment reaching the end of catchment and entering the Great Barrier Reef lagoon.

6

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013

Chapter 6: Uptake of water quality improvement grants 6.1 Uptake of grants Over a five-year period, Terrain received and processed 1,582 applications, and funded 909 projects (Table 6.1). This represents a 57% success rate, with an average grant value of $20,689. A total

of $33 million was sought in grants, and $18.9 million was granted across nine industries. Maps 3 and 4 show the location of applications and grants funded over the five-year program.

TABLE 6.1. Summary of Water Quality Improvement grant applications and project funding success over five years Round Applications

1

2

3

4

5

Total

264

299

279

313

427

1582

Grants

109

130

206

185

279

909

Success rate

41%

44%

74%

60%

65%

57%

23,300

21,377

19,604

24,634

17,491

20,689

Average grant $ 450 400 350 300 250

Count

34

200

Applications

150

Funded projects

100 50 0

1

2

3

4

5

Funding round FIGURE 6.1. Comparison of applications received and grants funded over five funding rounds

35 Number of funded projects

120 100 80

Yr 1 Yr 2

60

Yr 3 40

Yr 4 Yr 5

20

$1

$5

5,

,0

00

$3

0-

0,

29

00

,9

0+

99

9 01

$0

-1

-5

4,

,0

99

00

0

Range of grant $

FIGURE 6.2. Range of Water Quality Improvement grant funding for each year The number of applications showed an upward trend (Figure. 6.1) with the exception of Round 4 (2011-12), when grant uptake was impacted by Tropical Cyclone Yasi, which caused widespread destruction to crops in 2011. The range of Water Quality Improvement grant amounts changed each year (Figure. 6.2). The maximum grant available for each industry varied, and in some cases changed over the years (Appendix 1).

Over the five years, there was an increasing trend to funding projects in the lower and middle-grant range. The exception was in Round 4, when there were fewer grants in this range than in Round 3, but a greater proportion in the higher range (>$30,000).

This change was attributable to the additional Cyclone Yasi contribution, which effectively lowered the required landowner cash contribution. The average grant size was also highest in Round 4 ($24,634).

TABLE 6.2. Summary of total value of Water Quality Improvement grants Round Â

2

3

4

Total approved grants $

$2,539,725

$2,795,752

$4,035,529

$4,542,715

$4,910,821 $18,824,543

Total LH cash $

$2,561,693

$2,885,262

$3,812,134

$2,962,901

$5,451,880 $17,673,870

$860,795

$669,717

$1,668,534

$1,915,758

$1,787,169

Cash + in-kind $

$3,422,488

$3,554,979

$5,480,668

$4,878,659

$7,239,049 $24,575,843

Total cost of project

$5,962,213

$6,350,732

$9,516,197

$9,421,374 $12,149,870 $43,400,385

57%

56%

58%

Total LH in-kind $

% Cash & in-kind

52%

5

Five Year Total

1

60%

$6,901,973

57%

36

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013 $14 $12

Millions

$10 $8

LH inkind

$6

LH cash

$4

Approved Grants

$2 $0

1

2

3

4

5

Funding round FIGURE 6.3. Comparison of total investment over five years The total investment in the region as a result of Reef Rescue was almost $44 million. For every dollar invested by the Australian Government through Reef Rescue grants, farmers contributed $1.31. The Government investment in Water Quality Improvement grants increased over time (Figure. 6.3) and continued to be matched by investment from farmers through cash and in-kind contributions.

The average cash/in-kind contribution from growers over the five years was 57% (Table 6.2). It was a similar proportion in most years, except Round 4, when the special funding allocations for farming areas impacted by T. C. Yasi effectively lowered the landholder contribution to as low as 25% for some landholders. Even with this reduction in cash/in-

kind contributions from some locations, the overall grower cash/in-kind contribution for the year still exceeded 50%.

During Round 4, 187 projects were offered the opportunity to increase their grant amount, due to the significant crop damage inflicted by Cyclone Yasi. In total, an additional $639,318 was allocated to these projects.

Terrain offered grants to single and multi-farm projects from 2008 (Table 6.3). Innovation grants were available in Rounds 4 and 5, and although offered in Round 5, no applications were suitable for funding. Small grants were introduced in 2010 to encourage grant uptake and were well- received, so continued through to 2012-13.

TABLE 6.3. Type of Water Quality Improvements grants funded each round (not including systems repair projects) Round 1

2

3

4

5

Five Year Total

Innovation

-

-

-

2

-

2

Mill area

-

-

4

1

2

7

Multiple farm

12

26

23

19

35

115

Single farm

97

104

158

147

207

713

Small grants

-

-

12

16

35

63

Â

37 6.2 Multiple farm grants

and confidence in investing in farm practice change.

During Reef Rescue, a total of 122 multiple-farm grants were funded (multi-farm and mill area), which represented 13% of all grants (Table 6.3). The vast majority (98%) of multiple-farm grants were in the cane industry. These grants included seven mill area grants and 115 multi-farm grants, and involved 372 landholders (a farmer may be counted more than once in five years). On average, each multiple- farm grant (including mill area and multi-farm) involved 3.2 landholders. Mill area grants had a much higher average, with 10 landholders being involved.

The main area of focus for multi-farm grants was pesticide application, sub-surface fertiliser equipment and whole farming systems (shifting to wider row spaces). Drainage projects were also popular and included sediment traps, spoon drains and changing farm drainage layout. Drainage projects can affect a large area, impact on more than one farm, and require expensive engineering works, which is why they were commonly done as a multi-farm project.

Number of grants funded

The average grant size over five years for multifarm projects was $37,219, which is quite remarkable, since the maximum amount available for multi-farm grants was $150,000. Twenty-nine grants were for more than $50,000, but of these, only three were for more than $100,000. The total investment in multifarm grants is shown in Figure 6.4. The number of grants steadily increased over the five-year period, with the exception of Round 4, which was most likely due to cyclone damage limiting landholder capacity

40

$1,400

35

$1,200

30

$1,000

25

$800

20

$600

15

$400

10

$200

5 0

R1

R2

R3

R4

R5

Round No. of grants

Grant $

FIGURE 6.4. Number of multi-farm grants and cost over five years

$0

$ value of grant - thousands

On average, multi-farm grants equated to a cost of $14,330/landholder per year, or $12,239/landholder spent over five years. The total area managed by these 372 farmers was approximately 67,744 ha (keeping in mind the duplication over the five-year period). This calculation gives a very coarse estimate of $35/ha investment, as compared to $37/ha for single grants.

Service providers were also eligible to apply for WQI grants, as long as they could provide practice tables from a sample of farming clients. Sixteen service providers were contracted to deliver multifarm projects (out of the 122 multi-farm grants) and conducted work on 97 sites. These projects totaled $681,287 in grants and covered a productive cane area of 17,043 ha. The majority of projects involved buying equipment to apply fertiliser subsurface, spread mill mud and ash more effectively, and undertake drainage works with GPS laser levelling. The project coverage area reported in the applications was arbitrary, as these service providers would potentially use this equipment over a much greater area. An initial investment in machinery of $39/ha, could have long-term and widespread benefits, particularly on smaller properties which contract out their fertiliser applications.

38

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013 TABLE 6.4. Key priority practices addressed at sites for multi-farm projects. Figures are total number of sites, not projects  Industry

R1

R2

R3

R4

R5

Total

8

8

Banana

Riparian rehabilitation

Cane

Drainage

2

8

48

11

6

75

Improved pesticide application equipment

6

29

27

18

37

117

New farm system

6

32

46

34

47

165

Sub-surface application of fertiliser

4

47

48

8

37

144

2

15

Riparian planting/stream bank repair Tillage practices

17

4

4

Multi-crop Sediment loss management

3

6.3 Industry summary The industries funded each year varied, depending on the funds available and the demand from industry groups. Industries funded in the Wet Tropics over five years included: sugarcane, bananas, papaw, dairy, grazing, multi-crops and, in Round 4, tree crops and forestry (Table 1.3, Appendix 1). The pineapple industry was offered the opportunity to participate in Round 4, but the sole application was not successful in gaining funding.

The success rate varied considerably between industries (Table 6.5, Figure 6.5). The proportion of projects funded per industry was lower for the more competitive industries, such as cane (58% success rate), due to the higher number of applications.

In five years, despite a severe cyclone hitting the region, the withdrawal rate was relatively low (on average 7% of the final number of projects funded). The money from withdrawn projects was re-allocated to other projects in the same industry

3

and the final figures are presented in this report (Figure 6.5). The majority of funded projects were from the cane industry, which represented 64% of all projects funded.

A comparison of grants by industry over the five-year period is shown in Figure 6.5. Cane grants peaked in Round 5, with more than three times the number of grants funded, compared to the first year of Reef Rescue. There was an obvious dip in grants for cane in Round 4, due to Cyclone Yasi, although this drop did not manifest as much in other industries.

The number of grants for bananas, papaws and dairy was fairly consistent over the five-year period.

A comparison of the total investment in grants by industry is shown in Figure 6.6 and Table 6.6. Cane accounted for 67% of the total funding as expected, with 64% of the grants being allocated to cane over five years. Bananas received the next highest allocation, with 11% of funding (but to only 9.5% of proposed projects).

TABLE 6.5. Five-year summary of Water Quality Improvement grant applications and projects funded in each industry Status

No. grants

No. applications

No. projects withdrawn

% success rate

Banana

87

148

4

59%

Cane

587

1,061

50

55%

Dairy

52

68

4

76%

Forestry

1

1

0

100%

Grazing Dry

27

36

3

75%

Grazing Wet

83

145

4

57%

Multi-crop

49

94

3

52%

Papaw

15

18

1

83%

Pineapple

0

1

0

0%

Tree crops

8

10

0

80%

909

1,582

69

57%

Five Year Total

39 300

Tree crops

Grants

250

Papaw

200

Multicrop

150

Grazing Wet

100

Grazing Dry Forestry

50

Dairy

0 1

2

3

4

Cane

5

Banana

Round

FIGURE 6.5. Proportion of number of grants funded by industry by round

1%

1% Tree crops

6%

8%

Papaw

12%

2% 0%

Multicrop

3%

Grazing Wet Grazing Dry Forestry Dairy

67%

Cane Banana FIGURE 6.6. Proportion of ($) funding allocated to each industry over five years

TABLE 6.6. Summary of total Water Quality Improvement grants value by industry and by round 1

2

3

4

5

$481,898

$285,055

$418,848

$540,921

$453,921

Cane

$1,576,730

$2,202,073

$2,581,600

$2,812,676

$3,400,278

Dairy

$100,000

$128,128

$145,497

$157,397

Banana

Forestry

$63,500

Grazing Dry

$63,223

Grazing Wet

$152,940

Multi-crop

$114,000 $50,935

Papaw

$163,088

$106,982

$44,750

$98,415

$527,550

$456,840

$350,637

$110,500

$243,836

$381,145

$287,938

$35,036

$28,585

$44,757

$39,715

$52,629

$122,520

$4,542,715

$4,910,821

Tree crops $2,539,725

$2,795,752

$4,035,529

40

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013 The average grant size for bananas was higher than for any other industry, excluding forestry, which cannot be compared, as only one project was funded (Table 6.7). Dairy projects had the lowest average grant size of $10,212, followed by papaw at $13,269.

After Round 3, most multi-farm and systems repair projects (potentially up to $150,000) were in the cane and banana industries, skewing the average grant size for these two industries.

in more than one project in a particular year (in different industries or as part of a multi-farm project).

The five-year total productive area (including repeat farmers) of all funded projects was 592,291 ha. In the grazing industry, the actual project area may have been only a small proportion of the productive area on the property, whereas in cane, the project area and the productive area were very similar. Therefore, using productive areas to compare practice change between industries can be misleading. Area of practice change sourced from the ABCD practice table data is a more accurate measure of practice

Table 6.8 summarises the productive areas for funded projects for each round of Reef Rescue.

These values are total areas for all projects, so there is some duplication, as some landholders participated

change.

TABLE 6.7. Total Water Quality Improvement grants ($) and average grant size for each industry No. of grants

5-year total grants

Average grant size

Av cost/ha

Banana

87

$2,180,642

$25,065

$237.72

Cane

587

$12,573,356

$21,420

$68.26

Dairy

52

$531,022

$10,212

$74.19

Forestry

1

$63,500

$63,500

$6.90

Grazing Dry

27

$476,458

$17,647

$1.30

Grazing Wet

83

$1,487,967

$17,927

$184.89

Multi-crop

49

$1,137,419

$23,213

$151.53

Papaw

15

$199,029

$13,269

$904.68

Tree crops

8

$175,149

$21,894

$838.03

909

$18,824,543

Industry

Five Year Total

TABLE 6.8. Productive area (ha) funded by Water Quality Improvement grants for each industry by round Industry

Round

Total (ha)

1

2

3

4

5

Banana

2,501

1,006

1,170

2,268

2,228

9,173

Cane

30,007

28,849

38,919

32,111

54,309

184,195

Dairy

0

0

2,687

2,002

2,469

7,158

Forestry

0

0

0

9,205

0

9,205

Grazing

0

151,875

109,561

5,384

107,805

374,625

Multi-crop

985

1,042

2,138

1,323

2,018

7,506

Papaw

62

35

14

58

51

220

Tree crops

0

0

0

67

142

209

33,555

182,807

154,489

52,418

169,022

592,291

Total

$1,000 $900 $800 $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $0

$60 $50 $40 $30 $20 $10

Ca ne

Da ir Fo y Gr res t az in ry g Gr -D az in ry g -W e M ul t tic ro p Pa pa Tr ee w cr op s

$0

Average cost/ha

$70

Ba na na

Average grant $ Thousands

41

Average grant size

Av cost/ha

FIGURE 6.7. Comparison of average grant size and cost/ha for each industry

6.4 Catchment summary A comparison of grant distribution by catchment shows, as expected, that the Herbert district, with the highest number of cane farms in the region, also accounted for the greatest proportion of total grants and dollars invested (Figure 6.8). The Johnstone catchment had the next highest investment level; although it is the fourth largest cane area, it has the second highest number of cane farmers of any region in the Wet Tropics. The number of grants allocated in the fifth year was the highest for both these catchment areas (Figure 6.9).

The smaller cane-growing districts had a relatively consistent uptake of grants for each year (Figure 6.9). The Mulgrave-Russell area had approximately 335 cane farmers, who grew cane on an area almost double that of the Johnstone. Johnstone had a slightly higher number of cane farmers (477), although the average farm size was smaller than the Mulgrave-Russell (79 ha compared to 91 ha) (Table 6.9). The reason for the lower interest in the MulgraveRussell catchment is not known; social and economic reasons may be factors.

TABLE 6.9. Funded projects for each catchment Catchment

Number of cane farms

Mean area of cane farm (ha)

Daintree

59

114

Mossman

70

118

Barron

58

122

Mulgrave/Russell

335

91

Johnstone

477

79

Tully

157

225

Murray

71

412

Herbert

566

156

42

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013

5%

Daintree Mossman

13%

Barron

4%

35%

Mulgrave

5%

Russell

0%

Trinity Inlet

22%

16%

Johnstone Tully Murray Herbert

FIGURE 6.8. Proportion of dollars invested in each catchment

Daintree Mossman Barron Mulgrave

1

Russell

2

Johnstone

3

Tully Murray

4

Herbert

5 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total funded projects FIGURE 6.9. Cane farm size and distribution by catchment [source ArcGIS, DEHP 2015]

6.5 Systems repair projects The priorities for systems repair work changed over the five years of Reef Rescue. In the first two years, waterways projects were referred to as ‘catchment repair’ projects and generally involved stream bank repair and riparian re-vegetation.

Sediment traps were part of ‘on-paddock’ work and not classified as systems repair work. Consequently, areas of re-vegetation work and stream bank repair were not recorded accurately during this period.

Catchment repair work was expanded in Round 4 and re-classified as ‘waterways and erosion hot spot repair’ projects, to enable inclusion of on-farm erosion sites. In Rounds 4 and 5, systems repair work included riparian plantings, stream bank repair, sediment traps and wetland construction.

Waterways projects were assessed against industry-based projects in Round 4, and to ensure that these projects were competitive, the priority

practices were revised. Waterways projects were classified as ‘off-paddock’, as opposed to industrybased farming practices that were considered to be ‘on-paddock’. The location of systems repair sites are shown in maps 5-13.

On and off-paddock practices were given separate priorities within each industry to enable a fairer assessment. Off-paddock practices could then be assessed as a priority one or two practice, rather than be ranked as the lowest priority practice, as occurred in Round 3 (Appendix 2).

The actual practices did not change from Round 3, just the priority accorded to each practice. Practices still included sediment traps, stream bank repair/ riparian revegetation and wetland construction.

43 TABLE 6.10. Systems repair five-year summary Type of activity

Measure of achievement

Riparian area re-vegetated

2,158 ha

Gully erosion control (number of sites)

25

Off-stream watering points (number)

196

Sediment traps (number)

39

Stream bank repair

138 km

There were 54 systems repair projects funded from Round 3 to Round 5, and they are included as part of the industry grants totals (Table 6.11). In Rounds 1 and 2, there were 68 catchment repair sites funded, via seven Water Quality Improvement grants, (separate to the other grant types), which reinstated 26 ha of stream bank (Harrison & Kay, 2010). In total, 61 systems repair projects were funded over the course of Reef Rescue (seven in 2008/10, nine in 2010/11, 20 in 2011/12 and 25 in 2012/13).

The highest proportion of projects funded was in the Johnstone catchment. Although application

numbers were high in the Herbert, the success rate was lower (Figure 6.10).

Daintree Mossman

Catchments

Barron Mulgrave Funded

Russell

Applications

Johnstone Tully Murray Herbert 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Count FIGURE 6.10. Five-year totals of systems repair projects in each catchment

TABLE 6.11. Systems repair projects funded in each industry Total system repair projects

R3

Banana Cane

5

Dairy

R4

R5

4

3

6

14

2

Grazing Dry

1

Grazing Wet

3

4

Multi-crops

1

3

Tree crops TOTAL

6 1

9

20

25

44

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013

6.6 Landholder engagement

landholder numbers. The repeat landholders who were funded more than twice in the same industry were generally moving towards whole farming systems, with each subsequent round funding the next phase in the overall farming system change.

Over the five-year Reef Rescue program, a total of 1,787 individual landholders applied for incentive grants and 1,086 landholders received grants. Of these, 521 applicants received funding more than once (Table 6.12). The total of 1,086 landholders, listed in Table 6.12, is the sum of individual landholders funded in each year, i.e. they were only counted once per round (this is exclusive of industry â&#x20AC;&#x201C; if a landholder was involved in projects in two or more industries, they were still only counted once). However, if they were funded in subsequent rounds, they would be counted again in the total.

The total number of individual (new) landholders funded over five years was 743 (i.e. only counted once in all five rounds).

As expected, the number of new landholders applying for grants decreased over the five years, and concluded at about 38% in Round 5 (Figure 6.11). Inversely, Terrain saw a similar increase in repeat landholders applying, which reached just over 60%.

The number of landholders applying for grants (new and repeat) levelled out in Round 3 and 4, but then spiked in Round 5 (Figure 6.12). The number of funded applicants followed a similar trajectory, with a sharp decrease in Round 4, possibly as a result of T.C. Yasi.

TABLE 6.12. Summary of landholder (LH) funding history for each round Round 1

2

3

4

5

Total number of landholders

Number of LH applied in each round

294

347

341

339

466

1,787

Number of LH funded in each round (new + repeat)

112

171

265

220

318

1,086

Number of LH receiving funding for the first time (new)

112

154

190

121

166

743

Number of LH who applied for the first time and received funding

112

112

130

93

118

565

0

42

60

28

48

178

% of first-time applicants/all firsttime funded applicants

100%

73%

68%

77%

71%

% of repeat applicants receiving funding for first time

0%

27%

32%

23%

29%

% of LH receiving funding for the first time of all funded LH

100%

90%

72%

55%

52%

% of applicants funded each round

38%

Landholder funding history

Repeat applicants receiving funding for first time

49%

There were 502 landholders funded once (i.e. only in one round), 157 received grants in two rounds, 67 received grants in three rounds, 16 in four rounds, and one landholder received a grant in every round.

These figures did not take into account the number of times a landholder was funded within a year, as the number of repeat landholders would have been much higher, if Terrain had included grants for all the different industries or multi-farm projects in which one landholder may have been involved.

These results illustrate the complexity of counting

78%

65%

68%

Overall, more than one third of cane growers in the region received WQI grants and almost half the dairy industry (Table 6.13). The number of tree crop growers is unknown, so industry figures could not be estimated. In recent years, tropical cyclones have severely impacted the number of tree crops grown in the region, so relevant crop area data have not been available for this report.

45 Percentage applicants funded

120 100 80 60

New

40

Repeat

20 0 1

2

3

4

5

Round

Number of landholders

FIGURE 6.11. Proportion of new farmers (first time applicants) over five years

500 400 300 200

Applied

100

Funded

0 1

2

3

4

5

Round FIGURE 6.12. Number of landholders vs rounds

TABLE 6.13. Total number and proportion of primary landholders (LH) for each industry funded over five years * Note landholders were not repeated in two or more industries No. LH applied

No. LH funded

No. in industry

% industry funded-estimate

Banana

111

82

206

39%

Cane

665

509

1,337

38%

Dairy

38

34

63

49%

Forestry

1

1

unknown

Grazing Dry

27

21

35

60%

Grazing Wet

126

83

800 (estimate)

10%

Multi-crop

60

39

60

25%

Papaw

16

15

65

23%

Tree Crops

10

8

unknown

1,055

792

2,722

Industry

Total

46

7

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013

Chapter 7: Training Terrain established partnership agreements with Mossman Agricultural Services, Cairns Canegrowers, Innisfail Canegrowers, Tully Canegrowers, BSES Ltd (Tully and Ingham) and HCPSL to deliver grants and training services to cane farmers. Partnerships were also formed to deliver Reef Rescue grants via the Queensland Dairy Farmersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Organisation (QDO) for dairy, Growcom for horticulture, and the Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (QDAFF) for grazing.

Training complemented the grants to help ensure that the equipment was used to its maximum potential for water quality benefits.

Cane Terrain NRM contracted BSES Ltd and HPCSL to deliver nutrient and herbicide management training to cane farmers across the Wet Tropics. If a grant recipientâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s project addressed nutrients and/or pesticides, they had to complete the relevant (one or both) courses as part of their contract deliverables, unless they had previously undertaken training.

BSES Ltd conducted 52 6ES and HCPSL conducted 50 IWM workshops from 2008-13. (HCPSL ran both workshops in 2013).

Terrain specified that recipients of a WQI grant were required to participate in training workshops aimed to improve the management of pesticides, sediment and nutrient losses on their farms. Terrain provided funding for training workshops for cane, bananas and grazing, and also supported extension work with the grazing and dairy industries. Grants mainly funded equipment and infrastructure.

Between 2008 and 2013, 741 individual cane farmers undertook training in weed and/or nutrient management. Of these, 375 had received funding

TABLE 7.1. Total number of landholders trained in nutrient, pesticide or sediment management, showing those that were also funded for a Water Quality Improvement grant. Numbers include all industries Nutrient Round

Funded

Pesticide

Not funded

Funded

Sediment

Not funded

Total

Not funded

Funded

Funded

Not funded

R1

99

68

41

25

140

93

R2

70

63

104

67

174

130

R3

53

49

43

39

96

88

R4

59

58

70

31

142

90

R5

27

24

43

45

70

69

Total

308

262 570

301

207 508

13

1

13

1 14

622

470 1,092

47 through Reef Rescue for a project, while 366 were trained, but had not received a grant (they may have applied, but were not successful). A further 295 cane farmers were trained, but didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t apply for a grant.

One hundred and ninety-nine growers attended both nutrient and pesticide management courses.

During the five-year Reef Rescue program, 570 farmers were trained in nutrient management, and 508 farmers were trained in IWM. These figures represent the total count of participants who received training and does not differentiate between those that may have attended either course more than once over the five years. These 570 growers managed 84,023 ha of cane land, or approximately 62.4% of cane land in the region.

It became apparent in 2013 that the majority of farmers prepared to attend 6ES had already done so, as places for the final workshop could not be filled.

The number of farmers attending 6ES workshops declined after 2010, to a point where they were discontinued in 2013, as there was not sufficient interest (Figure 7.1). These figures did not include 69 farmers (representing 11,000 ha) who were trained before Reef Rescue started, but the increase in numbers still indicates how significant the impact of Reef Rescue was on the training of farmers.

Integrated Weed Management workshops provided training in the application of herbicides, and how to reduce chemical loss and minimise adverse impacts downstream, without losing crop productivity. During the Reef Rescue program, 508 growers attended IWM courses, including 301 growers who also received funding for Water Quality Improvement projects over this period (Table 7.1).

These 508 growers managed 83,136 ha of cane land,

or 61.7% of cane land in the region.

A Precision Agriculture workshop was held in Ingham in 2013 to train cane farmers in minimum tillage practices, using a GPS to reduce soil compaction. This course was attended by 24 cane farmers from the district.

Grazing Training in grazing land management, aimed at ensuring year-round ground cover, was conducted

by QDAFF over the five years. Most of the graziers in the dry grazing country of the Wet Tropics (14 landholders) were supported by Reef Rescue to undertake training in Grazing Land Management (GLM) Savannah.

Horticulture Growcom conducted training courses in fertigation for banana and papaw growers. A total of eight fertigation courses were held from 2009 to 2013. During this time, 94 growers attended the training. At least 79 of these growers received a Water Quality Improvement grant. Data for fertigation (nutrient management training) were not included in the totals in Table 7.1.

Lessons learned

3

-1

12

20

2

-1

11

20

1

-1

10

20

0

-1

09

20

20

08

-0

9

Number of farmers

The nutrient and weed management courses were intensive, full-day workshops and many growers would benefit from attending a second time. In Round 5, an evaluation of the courses was done to determine if the training was effective.

Results of these surveys were positive in showing satisfaction with the course (average 9/10), however it was not evident whether the information learned at the workshops led to 200 changes in nutrient or 180 weed management on 160 farms, i.e. whether the 140 information translated 120 into practice. Over 98% Nutrient 100 found the course useful, 80 Pesticide although 20% found it 60 to be difficult. It is these 40 20% of farmers that 20 would greatly benefit 0 from follow-up extension or attending a refresher course.

FIGURE 7.1. Number of farmers attending 6ES and Weed Management courses over five-year period

48

8

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013

Chapter 8: Five-year practice change 8.1 Priority practice investments

form the priority practices that their project would implement and the area to which the practices would be applied. These priority practices were used in the assessment process to rank projects in order of the greatest benefit to water quality leaving the farm for each industry (Appendix 2). Priorities were also weighted and used to calculate the value for money in the assessment process.

Priority practice investments for cane were defined in Round 2 of Reef Rescue, in consultation with technical and scientific experts. The definitions were then retro-fitted into the Round 1 results for cane. These priorities were given a ranking on the basis of the practice delivering the greatest beneficial impact on water quality leaving the farm. Priority practice investments were subsequently defined for the banana, papaw, multi-crop, and grazing industries in Round 2, and also for dairy in Round 3.

Applicants were required to list on the application

The priority practice area, rather than productive area, gives a more accurate picture of practice change over the region, as it applies to the area or site where the practice actually occurs. The priority practice area for cane is generally the same as the

TABLE 8.1. Total priority practice investment areas (ha) for all industries for each year Industry Banana Cane

Round

Total (ha)

1

2

3

4

5

1,305

1,042

1,144

979

2,250

6,720

134

48,732

87,467

36,569

65,648

238,550

132

374

587

1,093

Dairy Forestry

18,410

18,410

Grazing Dry

3,920

1,820

12,152

17,892

Grazing Wet

1,981

1,504

2,206

5,691

Multi-crop

890

778

2,641

1,230

2,374

7,913

Papaw

87

38

24

24

95

268

48

142

190

60,958

85,454

296,725

Tree crops Annual totals

2,415

50,590

97,308

49 productive area for the first four priority practices, but this relationship does not apply for any of the other industries. Priority practice areas for each industry are summarised for all five years in Table 8.1. This compilation shows that the greatest area of practice change occurred in the cane industry, which was to be expected, given the higher investment for projects in cane. The productive area of dry grazing properties in the region was much higher than in any other industry, but the area of actual practice change was relatively small, since most grazing projects only impacted one site on the property. Overall, incentive grants resulted in a total practice change on 296,725 ha of agricultural land, or approximately 39% of area

utilized by major industries in the region.

These priorities were developed to ensure that the investment would not only have the greatest impact on water quality, but would also provide guidance to farmers in relation to selecting their projects. As the application process was based on a priority ranking for investment, the major areas of investment were in the top three priority practices for each industry. These key practices were plotted to compare investment trends across industries. A comparison of cost/hectare is also shown in Table 8.2 (only data from Rounds 3, 4 and 5 were used for these calculations).

TABLE 8.2. Three-year (2010-2013) investment in Priority Practices 1, 2 and 3 for each industry

Papaw

Dry Grazing

Dairy

Multi-crop

Banana

Cane

Industry

PP

Priority Practices

No. of sites

Total area

Average cost/ha

1

Sub-surface application of fertiliser using a stool splitter, or sub-surface beside the stool

687

32,749

$92.38

2

Improved pesticide application equipment

710

47807

$61.54

3

New farm system

719

51663

$91.57

1

Manual fertigation system and/or scheduling equipment

76

1,060

$136.94

2

Grassed inter-rows, including equipment that enable this to be implemented

77

1,206

$110.94

3

Automated fertigation system, including scheduling equipment

47

1,050

$385.44

1

Sediment loss management: minimum tillage, contour banks, controlled traffic, headlands and gully erosion control

52

3,278

$146.89

2

Reduced tillage (only in R2, 3)

17

974

$150.41

3

Irrigation scheduling

35

432

$238.31

1

Effluent distribution systems that allow even reallocation of nutrients across the farm

34

3278

$41.38

2

Sediment loss â&#x20AC;&#x153;hot spotâ&#x20AC;? sites on or near streams that require major repair, renovation or water diversion

42

1069

$167.60

3

Off stream watering points

6

432

$5.79

1

Construction of fencing and/or off stream watering points

20

17807

$9.55

2

Reduction of erosion losses using contours, earthworks or fencing to restrict water and cattle access

4

40

$293.75

3

Construction of fencing to enable better management to maintain ground cover

9

15

$252.00

1

Automated or manual fertigation system and/or scheduling equipment

15

81

$477.74

2

Grassed inter-rows, including equipment that enable this to be more readily implemented

10

56

$463.13

50

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013 Priority Practice $600

Dry grazing

Cost/ha

$500

Wet grazing

$400 $300

Papaw

$200

Dairy

$100

Multicrop

$0 1

2

3

Priority Practice

Banana Cane

FIGURE 8.1. Comparison of industry priority practice investment (average cost/ha) Priority Practice 1 (PP1) was generally the least expensive investment for industries, with the exception of wet grazing, bananas and papaw. The grazing industry showed a much greater cost per hectare than other industries (Figure 8.1), however these costs were not a true reflection of the area of impact. These figures were based on the area of the project, rather than the area of impact. For example, a watering point only occupies a small area, although the area of impact in terms of reduction in cattle access to stream banks is much greater.

Similarly, repairs to stream banks and gully erosion involve only small areas, but the long-term impacts of these repairs may be great, (although not easy to measure). The investment in cane was the best value for money, in terms of area covered by practice change, as the change generally applied to the total productive area. This type of comparison was used to show where the investments were made, however such figures should be used with caution, when comparing water quality impacts. Comparing paddock-scale changes in cropping methods to fencing or stream bank repair on large grazing properties, or intensive dairying practices, should be done with caution, as the scale of the impacts of these industries are quite different.

Papaws and bananas face a relatively high cost per hectare, due to the small area utilised by these trees in comparison to other crops. Priority 1 for both these crops was automated fertigation, which is quite costly to implement.

For cane, Figure 8.2 shows that fertiliser spreaders (cane PP1) were initially the most popular practice change, but pesticide equipment and whole farming systems steadily increased in popularity over the five years to eventually dominate in Round 5. Sub-surface

fertiliser application equipment had a slightly higher cost per hectare for practice change in cane (Table 8.2). Practices requiring engineering works, such as sediment traps and stream bank repair, were the most costly activity per hectare, due to the small area of work – costing in the order of $460/ha.

In bananas, the adoption of automated fertigation (banana PP1) grew over the first three years.

Interestingly, manual fertigation declined until Round 5, when there was a high uptake of this practice, but no automated fertigation installed (Figure 8.3).

The priority practices for multi-crops changed throughout the five-year period, so although Figure 8.4 shows a comparison of investment in three priorities, these were not representative of the same practices in each round. Multi-crop Priority Practice 2 was ‘reduced tillage’ in Rounds 2 and 3, but Priority Practice 2 changed to ‘herbicide management’ in Rounds 4 and 5, so it is not shown. There was also a change in Priority 3 to include fertigation with irrigation scheduling in Rounds 4 and 5, which was previously a Priority 4. (Appendix 2). There was a strong trend in uptake of Priority 1 (sediment management), which encompassed a range of drainage and controlled traffic practices.

51 Cane

Area (hectares)

25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 R2

R3

R4 P1

P2

R5

P3

FIGURE 8.2. Area of investment in top three priority practices in cane

Banana

Area (hectares)

1000 800 600 400 200 0 R2

R3

R4 P1

P2

R5

P3

FIGURE 8.3. Area of investment in top three priority practices in banana

Multi-crops Area (hectares)

2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 R2

R3

R4 P1

P2

R5

P3

FIGURE 8.4. Area of investment in top three priority practices in multi-crops

52

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013

8.2 Practice change as a result of grants 8.2.1 Bananas By the end of Round 5, a total of 82 banana farmers, or 39% of the total number of banana farmers in the region, had applied for funding for projects covering 7,441 ha. This area represented about 67% of the land under bananas. Summary data for practice change over five years are presented in Appendix 4.

The total area under bananas is not a precise figure; farmers move in and out of the industry as the economics of growing bananas waxes and wanes, due to cyclones and the economics of the cane industry. It is apparent that some farmers have left the industry, and those that remain have increased the size of their farms. Data from 39% of banana farmers showed that the average farm size of grant applicants reflected their level of (farming) practice, i.e. the larger the farm, the higher the practice level.

The correlation between farm size and practice level was not affected by success or failure to access Reef Rescue funding, as it included all applicants, not just funded projects. This correlation implies that the adoption of better practices in bananas is positively related to the likelihood of having a larger farm and

therefore the chance of being more economically sustainable. There was little change in industry record-keeping practices over the life of Reef Rescue.

Perhaps the most noticeable feature of this practice was that those farmers who kept computerized records managed much larger farms than other farmers (147 ha, or almost three times the size of an average banana farm).

Adoption of fertigation

By Round 5, a total of 5,240 ha from all applicants in the banana industry had been reported as shifting from over-head sprinklers to micro sprinklers (with either manual or automated fertigation). Sixty percent of land managed by banana farmers had fertigation (A and B-level practices) before Reef Rescue funding, however, from 2009 onwards that number began rising and reached 93% of area with fertigation, as a result of the grants. Data was not collected in Round 1, so this calculation was based on 82 farmers, with potentially about another 10 who applied in Round 1, but were not included in the data analysis. The crop area with fertiliser being applied by broadcast spreader (C-level practice) also reduced significantly after 2009, from 40% of land to only about 8% (Figure 8.5).

70%

60%

60%

50%

50%

40%

40%

30%

30%

20%

20%

Area of land

Landholders

Fertiliser application

10%

10%

0%

0% A % LH Start

B % LH End

C % area Start

% area End

FIGURE 8.5. Accumulated changes in fertiliser application in bananas from 2009-2013

53 Irrigation Between 2009 and 2013, there was a large shift to using automated irrigation systems that also facilitate fertigation (4,327 ha increase). Based on the information obtained from grant applications (67% of the industry), there was still the potential for a further 25% of banana land to adopt this system. By the end of the Reef Rescue investment program, only 3% of farmers were still using over-head sprinklers (C-level practice) (Figure 8.6).

There was also a marked shift towards using more quantitative methods to determine the timing of the application of irrigation water. While the percentage of people using B-level practices remained virtually unchanged, the percentage using A and C-level practices actually reversed. In 2009, 59% of the land managed (4,388 ha) used subjective methods to assess their timing for irrigation and only 24% used quantitative methods. In 2013, the data shows only 27% using subjective methods, such as the feel of the soil, compared to 58% (4332 ha) using quantitative methods, such as tensiometers (used to measure soil water tension), to determine irrigation timing.

40% of the whole industry) was farmed using C-level practices for nutrient rates. By 2013, only 11% (843 ha) employed C-level practices. Farm area using A-level practices increased from 1,140 ha (15%) to 5,295 ha (71%), an area equal to 48% of the whole industry (compared with only 10%, prior to Reef Rescue).

The impact of farm size on this practice was different to other practices. In 2009, the average farm size of those using B-level practices was 174 ha, compared with only 71 ha for those using A-level practices. By the end of 2013, the average farm size distribution for Reef Rescue banana projects had changed, with the farm size of those using A-level practices increasing to 126 ha, and those using B-level practices decreasing to 56 ha.

Seventy-one percent of banana farms recorded in grant data were applying N and P at rates suited to the plant growth (A-level practice). Only a very small proportion of farms were still not using recommended rates.

The accumulated change in the way farmers applied fertiliser on their farms was also significant.

Prior to Reef Rescue, 59% of farmers used some

Landholders

70%

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% A % LH Start

B % LH End

Area of land

Method of Irrigation

C % area Start

% area End

FIGURE 8.6. Accumulated changes in the method of irrigation in bananas from 2009-2013

Changes in nutrient rates Figure 8.7 records the accumulated voluntary change in nutrient application rates in bananas from 2009-13, based on 67% of banana land in the region.

The accumulated changes in practices relating to nutrient rates were one of the most dramatic of all transitions, in terms of impact on water quality.

Before Reef Rescue, 58% of the land (4355 ha or

sort of fertigation system, with the remainder using banded or broadcast surface application. By June 2013, the area of land using fertigation methods to apply nutrients had increased by 2,422 ha â&#x20AC;&#x201C; comprising 92% of the land then under bananas. In summary, the area of land using smaller quantities of nutrient at each application had increased significantly, potentially leading to fewer losses of nutrients to the environment.

54

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013

70%

80%

60%

70%

50%

60% 50%

40%

40%

30%

30%

20%

20%

10%

Area of land

Landholders

Nutrient rates

10%

0%

0% A % LH Start

B % LH End

C

D

% area Start

% area End

FIGURE 8.7. Accumulated changes in nutrient rates management in bananas from 2009-2013

8.2.2 Cane By the conclusion of Round 5 of Reef Rescue in 2013, Terrain possessed five years of farming practice adoption data sourced from 116,037 hectares of land under cane. This extent was 86% of the total area known to be under cane within the region at that time (Round 4 previously reported on 75.4% of cane area). This information was provided by 648 individual (counted only once) cane farming grant applicants, who represented 48% of all cane farmers (1,343) in the region (Appendix 4). In addition, many of these farmers carried out key jobs for their smaller neighbours (10% of cane farmers had farms under 20 ha and managed only 2% of land under cane) using Reef Rescue-funded equipment, therefore the full extent of the impact of Water Quality Improvement grants has most likely been under-estimated. Not all of these 648 individual farmers were funded, but most received a grant during the five years of Reef Rescue.

Of the 22 different practice tables in the ABCD framework (non-irrigated farms only), only six allow

a farmer to move from D or C-level to A or B-level through the provision of capital in the form of a grant. The majority of the changes from C or D to A or B-level in the other 16 practices are based on management decisions requiring little or no financial investment, e.g. changing the nutrient rate, frequency of equipment calibration, and weed management planning. This section looks only at the changes that are enabled by the provision of a grant and the next section looks at the voluntary changes that occurred over the five years. lacement of fertilisers sub-surface P (Priority practice investment 1) Before Reef Rescue grants were available, there was a total of 60,138 ha of cane (52% of total area under cane), where fertiliser was placed underground (A and B-level practices). By the end of 2013, this figure had risen to 103,104 ha (77% of total cane area), an increase of 42,966 ha. Figure 8.8 shows the impact Reef Rescue had on the provision of equipment to apply fertiliser sub-surface.

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

80% 60% 40% 20%

Area of land

Landholders

Fertiliser placement

0% A % LH Start

B % LH End

C % area Start

D % area End

FIGURE 8.8. Changes in fertiliser placement in cane from 2008-2013

55 Use of improved spray technology (Priority practice investment 2) Between 2009 and the conclusion of the Reef Rescue program, there was an increase of 24,452 ha in land no longer using residuals on ratoons. The ABCD framework was modified for this practice from Round 2 onwards, thereby making the Round 1 data non-comparable with data from subsequent rounds.

The percentage of growers using D-level practice was low, (calculated to be less than 1%) (Figure 8.9).

The number of farmers who tended to use only knockdown herbicides on ratoons increased from 256 to 390. It was estimated that while there were 1,343 known cane management units, many of those were small farms, with approximately 643 growers managing about 15-20,000 ha and possibly 700 managing the remaining (majority) of land under cane. Based on an estimate of 700 farm units, the figures above indicate that about half of the farm managers could still move on to using less residuals on ratoons. Previous survey work and anecdotal regional information indicated that much of the

transition to B-level practices had already occurred in the Mossman and Herbert districts (prior to Reef Rescue), therefore priority for improvements in pesticide practices should focus on other cane districts in the future.

Adoption of controlled traffic (whole farming systems) (Priority practice investment 3) In 2009, the area using wide rows and controlled traffic was 17,924 ha or 13% of the total area under cane (Figure 8.10). By the end of Round 5, this figure had climbed to 53,109 ha or 39% of the area under cane (based on information from 85% of the land managed by cane farmers) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; an increase of 35,185 ha that can be directly attributed to Reef Rescue funding. The area of cane land with controlled traffic, but no GPS guidance (B-level practice), remained relatively unchanged after five years. The main change was the shift from conventional row spacing (C-level practice) to controlled traffic with GPS and row spacing >1.75m (A-level practice).

Herbicide rates 80%

Landholders

60%

60%

50% 40%

40%

30% 20%

20%

10% 0%

Area of cane land

70%

0% B % LH Start

C % LH End

D % area Start

% area End

FIGURE 8.9. Changes in herbicide rates in cane from 2008-2013

100%

100%

80%

80%

60%

60%

40%

40%

20%

20%

0%

0% A

% LH Start

Area of cane land

Landholders

Row width

B % LH End

C % area Start

% area End

FIGURE 8.10. Accumulated changes in row width in cane from 2008-2013

56

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013 Based on the priority practice investments data, $4.35 million was invested directly in changing to wider rows and practices associated with wide rows across 77,788 ha of cane land. Implementing changes to row spacing equated to a cost of $123 /ha, when averaged over the whole five years of the Reef Rescue program. While 46% of the cane land was under a controlled traffic system, only 36% of farmers had implemented this change, indicating there was considerable scope remaining for change. This change will need to occur mainly in the north of the Wet Tropics, in the Johnstone, Babinda, and Cairns cane regions. The Mossman cane district moved to 1.65 metre row widths (with a few farmers excepted), but unfortunately this row spacing does not supply the environmental benefits demonstrated by research on the wider rows. To date, controlled traffic farming systems have not shown an increase in production, but the economic benefits are well accepted by many farmers. Evidence is emerging to show that increased yields are occurring on blocks using controlled traffic farming methods, when the wet seasons are more severe.

8.3 Nutrient, pesticide and sediment practices in cane All applicants recorded their current level of practice and intended practice change in their grant application. From these data, Terrain was able to identify the most recent practice levels of all applicants. Having an extensive dataset on the cane industry enabled an analysis of cane practices to be undertaken. The practices investigated included those directly funded by Reef Rescue grants (Table 8.3), which were also the most indicative of farming practice change. These trends are illustrated in Figures 8.11-13.

The majority of cane farmers that applied for grants in the period 2008-2013 were employing B-level practices for nutrients (Figure 8.11) with between 70-80% of applicants remaining at B level at the end of the Reef Rescue program. Sediment practices were mostly at C level, except for record keeping, which had a higher proportion at B level (Figure 8.12). Pesticide practices also showed most cane farmers to be operating at a B level by the end of Reef Rescue (Figure 8.13).

TABLE 8.3. List of cane practices analysed

SEDIMENT

PESTICIDE

NUTRIENT

Practice code

Practice

CN1

Soil testing

CN2

Nutrient rate assessment

CN3

Rate of fertiliser use

CN4

Timing of fertiliser applications

CN5

Placement of fertiliser (furrow irrigation or rain-fed)

CN6

Calibration of fertiliser applicator

CP12

Herbicide application timing

CP14

Calibration

CS16

Row spacing

CS17

Cultivation prior to planting

CS20

Plough out replant policy

CR24

Record keeping

100%

Percentage of farmers

Percentage of area

57 50% 0% A

B

C

D

Level of practice CN1

CN2

CN3

CN4

CN5

CN6

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% A CS16

B

C

CS17

A

CS20

B

C

D

NI

Level of practice CN1

CN2

CN3

CN4

CN5

CN6

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% A CS16

CR24

B

C

CS17

D

CS20

CR24

FIGURE 8.12B. Proportion of growers at each practice level for sediments in cane in 2013

100%

100%

Percent of farmers

Percent of area

0%

D

FIGURE 8.12A. Proportion of land at each practice level for sediments in cane in 2013

80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

50%

FIGURE 8.11B. Proportion of growers at each practice level for nutrients in cane in 2013

Percentage of farmers

Percentage of area

FIGURE 8.11A. Proportion of land at each practice level for nutrients in cane in 2013

100%

A CP12

B

C CP14

D CR24

FIGURE 8.13A. Proportion of land at each practice level for pesticides in cane in 2013

8.4 Catchment summary of cane practices By grouping together the practices for nutrient, pesticide and sediment management (listed in Table 8.3), and then separating these by catchment, Terrain began to gain an understanding of how farming practices varied across the different catchments.

This understanding was important for linking to priority catchment activities identified by the Water

80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

A CP12

B CP14

C

D CR24

FIGURE 8.13B. Proportion of growers at each practice level for pesticides in cane in 2013 Quality Improvement Plan. Figures 8.14-16 show the percentage of cane farmers in each catchment at each practice level, collectively, for nutrients, pesticides and sediments. Refer to Table 1.2 for areas of cane in each catchment for a comparison.

A comparison of nutrient practices between catchments showed a higher proportion of growers at B level in the Tully-Murray and Herbert (23%), with the lowest proportion in the Johnstone (9%). A-level

58

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013

20% 15% % LH A

10%

%LH B %LH C

5%

%LH D

Tu l

Jo

ly

hn

M

He r

ur

be

rt

ra y

e st on

n

Ru s

Da in tre

se

e

ll/

M

M

ul

os

Ba rro

gr av e

0%

sm an

Proportion of cane farmers in catchment

25%

FIGURE 8.14. Proportion of farmers at each practice for nutrients by catchment at the end of 2013 practices were noticeably higher in the RussellMulgrave, than in any other catchment. D-level practices were evident in all catchments, except the Daintree-Mossman (Figure 8.14).

Figure 8.15 shows that the extent of C-level practices for pesticides was highest in the TullyMurray; with B-level practices highest in the RussellMulgrave and Herbert catchments (Figure 8.15).

No farmers were employing an A-level practice for pesticides.

Sediment practices were quite variable across the catchments, with generally a high proportion of farmers at C-level practice in all catchments, particularly the Tully/Murray (Figure 8.16). D-level practices were also evident in all catchments, although involving less than 5% of farmers in each catchment.

8.5 Voluntary adoption of practice change Several practices recorded by all applicants, such as improved record keeping or timing of herbicide applications, did not change as a result of grant funding, because they require a change in thinking or procedure. However, over the course of five years, Terrain collected multiple tables of practice data from repeat applicants, so a measure of voluntary practice change could be detected, i.e. where practices had improved, but not as a result of a previous grant.

These changed practices included most of the cane practices, with the exception of fertiliser placement, calibration of herbicide equipment, row spacing and cultivation prior to planting, all of which required a grant to buy equipment (Table 8.4). The amount of change in these practices was around one third of the cane area for which Terrain possessed data (85%

Proportion of cane farmers in catchment

35% 30% 25% 20% %LH A

15%

%LH B

10%

%LH C

5%

%LH D

t er rb He

ur ra y

Tu lly

M

e

n

st on hn Jo

rro Ba

ul gr av e

l/M

ss el Ru

Da

in tre

e

M

os sm

an

0%

FIGURE 8.15. Proportion of farmers at each practice for pesticides by catchment at the end of 2013

59 of total cane area in region). Other practices that had improved indirectly since 2008 as a result of Reef Rescue, included nutrient rate assessment, soil testing, rate of fertiliser use, and weed management planning. These changes in practice may have been attributable to attendance of training courses funded by Reef Rescue, but this correlation was not evaluated.

the area), and leaving residue of fallow legume crop on the surface (10% of area). Largely as a result of Reef Rescue grants, there was also a 13% increase in area where zero tillage on legume crops occurred.

There were also changes to fallow management and use of legume crops for fallow. Voluntary improvements included adequate nutrition of legume crops based on soil testing (11% increase in Proportion of cane farmers in catchment

25% 20% 15% %LH A

10%

%LH B %LH C

5%

%LH D

t er rb He

M

ur

ra y

e ly Tu l

n

st on hn Jo

rro Ba

el ss Ru

Da

in tre

e

M

l/M

ul

os

sm

an

gr av e

0%

FIGURE 8.16. Proportion of farmers at each practice for sediment by catchment at the end of 2013 TABLE 8.4. Area of change in practices for cane from 2009-2013. Practices that are a direct result of Reef Rescue grants due to the purchase of equipment are shaded in the table Area of change (ha)

% of total cane area

Soil testing

31154

23%

Nutrient rate assessment

51340

38%

Rate of fertiliser use

37007

27%

Timing of fertiliser applications

3736

3%

Placement of fertiliser

42866

31%

Calibration of fertiliser applicator

21357

16%

Herbicide strategies

12858

9%

Weed management planning

43757

32%

Herbicide rates

24452

18%

Calibration

49924

37%

Herbicide application timing

4670

3%

Practices NUTRIENT

PESTICIDE

60

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013 Area of change (ha)

% of total cane area

Row spacing

35185

26%

Cultivation prior to planting

38816

28%

0

0%

Spray out fallow (without legumes )

15994

12%

Fully-cultivated legume fallow

8416

6%

Grassy fallow

1824

1%

Cultivated bare fallow

1228

1%

Nil fallow

551

0%

Zero till legume fallow cover crop (using direct drill planter)

9716

7%

Zonal tillage legume cover crop

18354

13%

Plough out replant policy

3994

3%

Record keeping

20191

15%

Riparian planting

9373

7%

Practices SEDIMENT

Tillage in ratoons

8.6 Cane farm size and influence on practice change Table 8.5 shows the average farm size for each level of practice for cane across the whole region, based on Reef Rescue grants data. The averages of these practices, where data were available, are plotted in Figure 8.17 to show a positive correlation between farm size and level of farm practice. That is, it shows that the larger farms were the ones that were adopting higher level of practices.

As well as larger farms being more likely to adopt better practices, they were also more likely to be funded for the projects for which they applied. Fiveyear data showed that successful farmers had an average farm size of 183 ha and unsuccessful farmers a farm size of 160 ha. This outcome was not unexpected, since the size of productive area was used to calculate â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;value for moneyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, a criteria which made up 15% of the weighting for assessment of applications.

The average cane farm size (from Reef Rescue data) across the whole region was 177 ha and the median was 122 ha, indicating a skewed distribution.

Average farm size derived from ArcGIS (DEHP 2015) gives a region-wide average farm size of 164 ha for the Wet Tropics. This size indicates that Reef Rescue grants generally tended to attract applicants who managed the larger cane farms. Figure 8.18 shows the range of cane farm sizes across the catchments in the Wet Tropics based on ArcGIS data (DEHP 2015).

The uptake of grants was high in the Johnstone catchment, where the average farm size was 79 ha, (Figure 8.20). Twenty-eight percent of all grants were for the Johnstone catchment, second only to Herbert (the catchment with the largest number of cane farms), which obtained 31% of the grants.

Looking at the distribution of farm sizes in the cane industry across catchments, based on grant recipients (Figure 8.19) it shows, as expected in the Tully-Murray catchment (where the average cane farm in the Murray was 412 ha and 225 ha in the Tully), there was a high proportion (50%) of land with farm sizes greater than 400 ha. This catchment also had the highest proportion of farmers in the farm-size range >400 ha. Generally, the greatest proportion of farmers (40-50%) applying for grants were ones with farms smaller than 101 ha.

61 300

Average farm size (ha)

250 200 150 100 50 0

A

B

C

D

Number of cane farmers

600

450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

500 400 300 200 100

t er rb He

ra y M

ur

ly Tu l

e

Ru

ss

el

Jo

hn

st on

gr av e

n

l/M

ul

Ba

rro

an sm os

M

Da

in tre

e

0

Mean area of cane farm (ha)

Practice level FIGURE 8.17. Average cane farm size versus average practice level

Number of cane farms

Mean area of cane farm (ha)

FIGURE 8.18. Range and distribution of cane farms across Wet Tropics catchments

Area 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Daintree-Mossman Barron Russell-Mulgrave Johnstone Tully-Murray Herbert <101ha

100-200

201-400

>400

FIGURE 8.19. Proportion of cane farms by size range across catchments, based on WQI grant data (Sing and Barron 2014)

62

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013

Cane Farmers 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

201-400

>400

100%

120%

Daintree-Mossman Barron Russell-Mulgrave Johnstone Tully-Murray Herbert <101ha

100-200

FIGURE 8.20. Proportion of cane farmers with farms in each size range by catchment, based on WQI grant data (Sing and Barron 2014)

TABLE 8.5. Influence of average farm size (ha) on the likely adoption of better practices in cane (correlation of farm size and management practice level), based on WQI grant data (Sing and Barron 2014) Industry

PRACTICE LEVEL

PRACTICE

A

B

C

D

Soil testing

181

196

138

70

Nutrient rate assessment

246

191

135

dd*

Rate of fertiliser use

280

172

164

109

Timing of fertiliser operations

287

174

141

107

Placement of fertiliser

207

124

154

103

Calibration of fertiliser application

n/a

193

136

53

Herbicide strategies

201

174

149

dd*

Weed management planning

302

196

148

117

Herbicide application timing

n/a

180

151

n/a

Herbicide rates

n/a

199

149

92

Calibration

205

195

156

77

Row spacing

240

189

152

n/a

Cultivation prior to planting

271

219

159

127

Tillage in ratoons

n/a

n/a

179

90

Plough out replant

n/a

171

193

121

Riparian management

174

196

180

dd*

Record keeping

282

175

145

78

AVERAGE AREA

240

184

155

95

(* dd â&#x20AC;&#x201C; number of farmers in sample less than 1%)

9

Chapter 9: Five-year pollutant load reduction Pollutant load reductions were estimated by determining the likely amount of fertilisers and chemicals saved or soil loss prevented from reaching waterways by the introduction of best farming management practices. To calculate the load reduction in nutrients, sediments and pesticides, as a result of particular practices implemented, Terrain made several assumptions based on research results and anecdotal information (refer to Chapter 4 for description).

In the years following the publication of the first Impact Report (Vella et al. 2009), Terrain refined the assumptions, based on new information from trials used to calculate pollutant loads. The figures presented in this section may not match the figures presented in earlier Impact Reports, but have been re-calculated to enable comparability across the five-year period.

63

64

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013

9.1 Nutrients The Reef Report Card (The State of Queensland, 2013a) estimated that a reduction of 63 t in DIN occurred in the Wet Tropics, whereas Terrainâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own estimate, published in Terrainâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Impact Report (Bass et al. 2012a) was 54 t/yr. These figures, while not the same, are of the same magnitude. Similarly, Report Card 2011 (The State of Queensland, 2013b) reported a reduction in DIN of 172 t, while Terrain estimated a reduction of 212 t.

More detailed analyses were carried out as better data was available to estimate load reductions, and these calculations have been revised and presented in this report (Table 9.1). The method of estimation used by Terrain was peer reviewed in 2012, and reported satisfactory results.

The first three years of Reef Rescue resulted in similar reductions in DIN loads, but this reduction decreased over the remaining two years of the program. This change can be explained by the reduced area moving

to stool splitters and the area of property managed by farmers newly-trained in 6ES declining, which means the number of available, untrained farmers fell to a point where 6ES training ceased.

The accumulated reduction in DIN loads over five years was calculated to be 964 tonnes. Based on an anthropogenic load of 5,972 tonnes per year, this represented a total reduction of 16%. This figure is a comparable result with modelled results in the 2012-13 Report Card (The State of Queensland, 2014) of 14.5%.

Sales of N fertiliser over the period indicated that the use of N did not drop between 2008 and 2011 (2011 being the latest figures available). Sales were more affected by the cane price and the weather, but averaged 130 kg N/ha during this period. This rate was close to or below recommended rates as per 6ES for cane.

TABLE 9.1. Estimated nutrient savings from cane and banana paddocks Year Subsurface Nutrient savings nutrient application 1

2

3

4

5

Total N (t)

Total DIN (t/yr)

Variable Six Easy Fertigation/ rate N Steps micro application reduction training sprinkler of fertiliser

DIN reduction

Cane

Nutrient (kg/ha)

Whole farming systems

Banana

20

5

15

10

50

Area (ha)

9,236

14,212

3,914

28,000

2,246

Total N (t)

185

71

59

280

112.3

Nutrient (kg/ha)

20

5

15

10

50

Area (ha)

19539

13255

4854

17994

936

Total N (t)

390.8

66.3

72.8

179.9

46.8

20

5

15

10

50

Area (ha)

14,483

16,034

4,133

14,762

1,170

Total N (t)

289.7

80.2

62

147.6

58.5

20

5

15

10

50

Area (ha)

4663

16671

2159

6506

828

Total N (t)

93

83

32

65

42

Nutrient (kg/ha)

20

5

15

10

50

Area (ha)

13,488

20,378

4,274

474

735

Total N (t)

269.76

101.89

64.11

4.74

Total N (t)

1228.26

402.39

289.91

677.24

Nutrient (kg/ha)

Nutrient (kg/ha)

707.3

235.7

756.6

252.2

638

212.7

315

105

36.75

477.25

159.1

296.35

2894.15

964.7

65 9.2 Sediments Sediment is one of the hardest pollutants to estimate in relation to actual amounts of decreased loads. Over the five years of Reef Rescue, Terrain estimated that farming practices had resulted in a total reduction of 1 megatonne from agricultural land (Table 9.2). This figure represented an annual load reduction of 30 kt/yr of sediments, or 14.3% reduction to end-of-catchment loads.

The difficulty was that Terrain funded individual systems repair, grazing and dairy projects which had small, site-specific sediment benefits, so impact

(load) estimates were rudimentary. In some cases of stream bank repair, a project may have involved only 2-3 hectares, but this could save thousands of tonnes of soil being lost. Terrain did not fund any gully repair in the dry grazing catchments, and evidence now suggests that these areas could be the source of 80% of sediment loss in some regions (Olley et al. 2013).

An attempt by DAFF to identify specific sources of gully erosion in the Upper Herbert catchment by satellite imagery and ground-truthing in 2012 was unsuccessful.

TABLE 9.2. Estimated sediment savings leaving the paddock Year

Cane

2

3

4

5

Stream Total bank sediment repair (t)

Whole farming systems

Drainage

Grassed interrows

10

1

5

0.1

10

7

Area (ha)

14,212

1,889

249

2,614

626

50

Total sediment (t)

142,120

1,889

1245

261.4

6260

350

Sediment (t/ha)

10

1

1.2

20

10

50

Area (ha)

13,255

1,100

730

5,500

699

20

Total sediment (t)

132,550

1,100

876

110,000

6,990

1,000

Sediment (t/ha)

10

1

5

20

0.1

10

50

Area (ha)

16,034

2,563

372

16

4,263

2,163

9

Total sediment (t)

160,340

2563

1,860

320

426

21,630

450

Sediment (t/ha)

10

1

5

20

0.1

10

50

Area (ha)

16,671

693

50

19

1,820

1,031

41

Total sediment (t)

166,710

693

250

380

182

10,310

2,050

Sediment (t/ha)

10

1

5

20

0.1

10

50

20378

2328

820

31

3865

2246

15

Total sediment (t)

203,780

2,328

4,100

620

386.5

22,460

750

234,425

Total sediment (t)

805,500

8,573

8,331

1,320

111,256

67,650

4,600

1,007,230

Sediment saving 1

Multicropping

Bananas Grazing

Sediment (t/ha)

Area (ha)

Wet

0

Dry

152,125

252,516

187,589

180,575

66

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013

9.3 Pesticides The estimated reduction in pesticides over the five years of Reef Rescue was 36 t of PSII chemicals (Table 9.3). Taking anthropogenic loads into account, this amount equated to a reduction of 1.05t of PSII herbicides at the end of the catchment â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a 10.5% reduction attributable to Reef Rescue investment over that period.

The quantification of changes using ABCD practices, or the adoption of improved weed management practices, were some of the most difficult changes to assess. The previous ABCD framework allowed easy identification of what the farmer was going to do, but fared poorly in measuring

what practices they were previously implementing.

Much of the funding went to improved spray technology, which would have improved the efficacy of the spray treatments and possibly reduced the use of all types of chemicals, but it is difficult to say with any confidence that it necessarily reduced the use of PSIIs. This gap highlights the need to amend the ABCD practices, so that it is easy to assess actual changes to farming practices.

Terrain initiated a weed management survey, as part of an industry-wide voluntary adoption survey which significantly helped to assess what potential changes could have occurred and the likely impact of those changes.

TABLE 9.3. Pesticide savings from cane paddocks Hooded/ shielded or directed sprayers

Whole farming systems

IWM training

Pesticide saving (kg)

0.125

0.23

0.125

Area (ha)

7,209

14,212

11,172

901

3,269

1,397

Pesticide saving (kg)

0.125

0.23

0.125

Area (ha)

9,708

13,255

37,247

Total PSII herbicides (kg)

1,214

3,049

4,656

Pesticide saving (kg)

0.125

0.23

0.125

Area (ha)

13,206

16,034

11,209

Total PSII herbicides (kg)

1,651

3,868

350

Pesticide saving (kg)

0.125

0.23

0.125

Area (ha)

10,993

16,671

13,986

Total PSII herbicides (kg)

1,374

3,834

1,748

Pesticide saving (kg)

0.125

0.23

0.125

Area (ha)

23,603

20,378

10,304

Total PSII herbicides (kg)

2,950

4,687

1,288

8.93

Total Pesticide (t)

8.09

18.7

9.4

36.23

Year 1

Total PSII herbicides (kg) 2

3

4

5

Total (t)

5.56

8.92

5.87

6.96

67 9.4 Five-year trends The accumulated reduction in loads over the five-year period showed a general increasing trend, although amounts didn’t meet the anticipated Reef Plan targets (Australian and Queensland Governments, 2013). The Reef Plan 2013 target for nutrients and pesticides was a reduction of 50% for each. Sediments had a 2020 target of 20%. By the end of the Reef Rescue program, we were more than half way to meeting the sediment targets, and a projection of Terrain’s five-year data showed that sediment targets would be met by 2015. However, nutrient targets would not be met – at the current rate of reductions – until 2024, and pesticides targets not until 2031.

The estimated reduction in DIN loads per year showed a gradual increase from 4% in the first round

to 16% in 2013 (Figure 9.1). It was not expected that such a reduction would be immediately reflected in the end-of-catchment monitoring of DIN loads. The 2013 Reef Report Card (The State of Queensland, 2014) reported a 13% reduction in DIN for the Wet Tropics. Terrain’s results for sediment loads are comparable to those modelled for the Report Card, with Terrain reporting a reduction of 14% of sediments, compared to 13% in the Report Card. Terrain’s estimates for pesticides were much lower than Report Card results for pesticides. Terrain estimated a reduction of 10.5% in PSII since 2008, compared to 26% reported in the Report Card.

This variation was most likely due to Terrain underestimating the impact on sediment loss from erosion control and system repair sites, as there was no measure of the impact area of these repairs.

18.0%

Percent reduction

16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0%

N

8.0%

P

6.0%

S

4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

1

2

3

4

5

Year of Reef Rescue FIGURE 9.1. Accumulative reductions in nutrients, pesticides and sediments estimated resulting from Reef Rescue investment in the Wet Tropics

68

10

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013

Chapter 10: Conclusions

During the five years of Reef Rescue, the priorities for investment shifted, and as a result, the detail of data collected evolved as systems improved. Data was refined throughout this program, as more information became available on landholders and their management units, which enabled more accurate identification of practice change on land units. The identification of individual management units and associated area of different crops was initially difficult, but became clearer with repeat applications. The business arrangements and management of properties was quite complex and was not foreseen at the onset of the program in 2008.

As a result of the refinement of these details, along with improved understanding, the data presented in this final report summarising the five years of the Reef Rescue program provide the most accurate information (and update information previously reported in earlier Impact Reports).

During the Reef Rescue program, 1,787 farmers applied for WQI grants, and 61% of those applicants received grants. However, this total included farmers who were funded more than once. There were actually 743 individual farmers (only counted once); the number of repeat applicants indicates the level of interest in the grants program. While the number of individual farmers who received grants was low, as a proportion of landholders in main industries) in the region, (approximately 30% based on bestknown figures), the land managed by these people was estimated to be about 311,000 ha. By industry, the total number of grant recipients (2008-13) were estimated to represent: • 39% of banana farmers in the region, managing about 75% of the land under bananas

• 38% of cane farmers, managing 72% of the total cane area • 49% of dairy farmers, managing 32% of dairy land

• 60% of dry grazing farmers and 10% of wet grazing farmers managing about 31% of grazing area; and • 25% of multi-crop farmers managing 63% of the Tablelands cropping area; • 23% farmers managing 50% of papaw crops Overall, there was a positive relationship between the size of a farm (in cane and bananas) and the success rate in receiving a grant, (although it must also be noted that a farmer managing a larger property was more likely to apply for a grant). This correlation means that, after five years, the larger farms were more likely to have improved their farming practices to A or B level. The distribution of grants across catchments may have been influenced by farm size, particularly in cane.

Catchments like the Johnstone and Mulgrave-Russell, that had the smallest average farm size, but high numbers of farms compared to other catchments, had a high proportion of farmers with properties less than 101 ha receiving grants, although in the Johnstone, the proportion of area funded was dominated by farms larger than 400 ha. This correlation would be expected in the Tully-Murray catchment, which had the highest average farm size in the region, but not in the Johnstone, where the average cane farm size was 79 ha. The Johnstone catchment also had two to three times more grants funded than any other catchment, excluding the Herbert (which has three times the area of the Johnstone).

This outcome was a very positive and unexpected result, since 2010-2011 load monitoring data (Turner et

69 al. 2013) showed the Johnstone and South Johnstone catchments had one of the highest total nitrogen (DIN) total suspended solids and phosphorus loads in the GBR region. This catchment was listed as a priority catchment in the Wet Tropics WQIP (Terrain NRM 2015), so it was a positive step to see such a high level of engagement of farmers with Reef Rescue. Future investment in water quality projects needs to build on this momentum and continue to work with farmers in this catchment to improve farming practices and environmental outcomes.

The partnership with industry organisations was key to the successful delivery of grants and training in the region. Water Quality Improvement grant targets were met, although an evaluation of the on-ground resulting practice change was never part of this program. It became apparent through feedback from industry and grants officers that some practices were not fully implemented due to lack of knowledge (e.g.

GPS for precision agriculture) or discontinued due to unsuitability on that farm. An extension program working alongside the grants program would have helped to identify these obstacles to long-term practice change.

The lag between training and implementation was also evident for training in nutrient and weed management. It was assumed that farmers undertaking training would lead to a change of practice across the region, although this outcome was never measured and evaluated. However, although training was well received by farmers and undoubtedly contributed to some voluntary practice change, completing training did not necessarily translate into on-ground practice change.

Load estimates were based on a degree of change resulting from training, but this assumption could not be supported by evidence of change.

The evaluation of practice change due to training or investment through grants was not factored into Reef Rescue in 2008, so there was no capacity to conduct a thorough evaluation of the investment across the region. This evaluation should be a priority for any future investment in farm management practice change. There is still a need for further training in nutrient and weed management to help all farmers adopt farm management plans, but we also recommend a revision of the courses to allow for follow-up, and one-on-one support for individuals.

The area of impact of investment from grants was also not known. While the impact of a piece

of equipment or infrastructure could be measured and therefore modelled, based on productive area for a single farm, the impact of multiple farm grants was not as easily measured. Reef Rescue funded 16 service providers, who contracted out to cane farmers to provide services such as fertiliser application and laser levelling for better drainage. The ongoing and long-term benefits of the area of change affected by these contractors remains unknown and most likely under-estimated. The contractors may be working for farmers that never applied for a grant, so Terrain has no practice data on their activities. Terrain plans to conduct audits on projects to evaluate the extent of practice change and also to check on the use of particular equipment to ensure it is being used to achieve maximum water quality benefits.

Pollutant loads calculated in this Impact Report are comparable to those modelled in the 2012-13 Reef Report Card (The State of Queensland, 2014).

The Report Card reported a 13% reduction in nitrogen loads leaving the catchment, slightly lower than Terrainâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s estimate of 16%. PSII chemicals were estimated to have been reduced by 10.5%, compared to 26% from the modelled data. Sediment loads were estimated by Terrain to have reduced by 14%, while the Report Card modelled load reduction was 13%.

Although there has been significant progress in engaging landholders, and building capacity in farm management and equipment to effect practice change, there is still a way to go to meet the water quality targets of the Reef Plan. After five years of investment in WQI grants and training, there is still significant investment needed to achieve the required practice change for environmental outcomes. Reef Rescue has shown that there are numerous other factors that may influence a farmerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s willingness to participate in an incentive grants program. After five years of co-investment in equipment required for long-term practice change, only 38% of cane farmers and 39% of banana farmers have received a grant to improve their farming practices. Economics does play a large role in participation, and this is also reflected in the relationship between the size of the farm and the receipt of an incentive grant. There are likely to have been numerous reasons why farmers did not participate in Reef Rescue, and future investment in farm management practice change will need to consider these reasons to ensure that D-class farmers are engaged and supported to make practice changes in the future.

70

11

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013

Chapter 11: References Australian Bureau of Statistics (2009). Land in the Great Barrier Reef catchments. Available at http:// www.abs.gov.au/ updated 30 April 2010.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011). Population Estimates by Local Government Area, 2001 to 2011.

Available at http://www.abs.gov.au/ updated 30 July 2012.

Australian and Queensland Governments 2013. Reef Water Quality Protection Plan 2013.

Bass, D., Sing, N., Harrison, D.A. and Blakeney, S. (2012a). Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2010, Terrain NRM, Innisfail, 77 pp.

Bass, D., Sing, N., Harrison, D.A. and Blakeney, S. (2012b) Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2011, Terrain NRM, Innisfail, 55 pp.

Bass, D., Sing, N., Harrison, D.A. and Blakeney, S. (2013).

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2012, Terrain NRM, Innisfail, 46 pp.

Brodie, J., Waterhouse, J., Schaffelke, B., Kroon, F., Thorburn, P., Rolfe, J., Johnson, J., Fabricius, K., Lewis, S., Devlin, M., Warne, M. and L. McKenzie. (2013). 2013 Scientific Consensus Statement Land use impacts on Great Barrier Reef water quality and ecosystem condition The State of Queensland 2013. Published by the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan Secretariat.

Cogle, A.L., Keating, M.A., Langford, P.A., Gunton, J. and Webb, I.S. (2011). Runoff, soil loss, and nutrient transport from cropping systems on Red Ferrosols in tropical northern Australia. Soil Research (49), 87-97.

CSIRO Publishing.

DEHP 2015, ArcGIS cane farm data http://www.arcgis. com/home/webmap/viewer.html. Esri.

Harrison, D. and Kay, G. (2010). Reef Rescue 2008 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2009, Systems Repair Report. Internal report, Terrain NRM. Hateley, L., Armour, J., Pitt, G., Sherman, B., Read, A., Chen, Y., Brodie, J. and Cogle, A.L. (2006). Sediment and nutrient modelling in the Far North Queensland NRM region. Volume 2. In: The use of SedNet and ANNEX models to guide GBR catchment sediment and nutrient target setting Ed A.L. Cogle, C., Carroll and B.S. Sherman. Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water.

Kroon, F., Kuhnert, K., Henderson, B., Henderson, A., Turner, R., Huggins, R., Wilkinson, S., Abbott, B, Brodie, J. and Joo, M. (2010). Baseline pollutant loads to the Great Barrier Reef. CSIRO: Water for a Healthy Country Flagship Report series ISSN: 1835-095X. 41 pp.

Lewis, S.E., Smith, R. Brodie, J.E., Bainbridge, Z.T., Davis, A.M. and Turner, R. (2011). Using monitoring data to model herbicides exported to the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. In 19th International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, Perth, Australia.

Masters, B., Rohde, K., Gurner, N. and Reid, D. (2012).

Reducing the risk of herbicide runoff in sugarcane farming through controlled traffic and earlybanded application. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. Elsevier.

71 Olley, J., Brooks, A., Spencer, J., Pietsch, T. and Borombovits, D. (2013). Subsoil erosion dominates the supply of fine sediment to rivers draining into Princess Charlotte Bay, Australia Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. Volume 124, October 2013, Pages 121â&#x20AC;&#x201C;129.

P2R Methods 2014. Australian and Queensland Governments. Great Barrier Reef Report Card 2014. http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/measuring-success/ report-cards/2014/assets/gbr-2014report-carddetailed-methods.pdf Prasertsak, P., Freney, J.R., Denmead, O.T., Saffigna, P.G., Prove, B.G., Reghenzani, J.R. (2002). Effect of fertiliser placement on nitrogen loss from sugarcane in tropical Queensland. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems vol. 62 issue 3 March 2002. p.

229 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 239.

Prove, B.G., Moody, P., Reghenzani, J. (1995). Nutrient balances and transport from agricultural and rainforest lands; a case study in the Johnstone River catchment. Final project report to DNR. Queensland Government, 2014. Queensland Land Use Mapping Program (QLUMP) https://www.qld. gov.au/environment/land/vegetation/mapping/ qlump/ Updated Feb. 2014.

Sing, N. and Barron, F. (2014). Management Practice Synthesis. A report prepared as part of the Water Quality Improvement Plan. Terrain NRM. Terrain NRM. (2015). Wet Tropics Water Quality Improvement Plan 2015-2020. Terrain NRM, Innisfail. http://www.terrain.org.au/Projects/Water-QualityImprovement-Plan The State of Queensland. (2013a). Great Barrier Reef Report Card 2010. Reef Water Quality Protection Plan.

Published by the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan Secretariat, April 2013. http/www.reefplan.qld.gov.au The State of Queensland. (2013b). Great Barrier Reef Report Card 2011. Reef Water Quality Protection Plan.

Published by the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan Secretariat, July 2013. http/www.reefplan.qld.gov.au The State of Queensland. (2014). Great Barrier Reef Report Card 2012 and 2013. Reef Water Quality Protection Plan. Published by the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan Secretariat, June 2014. http/www. reefplan.qld.gov.au

Turner, R., Huggins, R., Wallace, R., Smith, R. and Warne, M. (2013). Total suspended solids, nutrient and pesticide loads (2010-2011) for rivers that discharge to the Great Barrier Reef. Great Barrier Reef Loads Monitoring 2010-2011. Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts, Brisbane.

Vella, K., Sing, N., Bass, D. and Reghenzani, J. (2009).

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2009, Terrain NRM, Innisfail, 74pp.

72

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013

Appendices Appendix 1: The value and type of each grant available in Round 5 Grant type

Grant amount

Small grants

$2,000 up to $5,000 for cane, grazing, multicropping, fruit trees, forestry and dairy.

Single farm grants

$5,000 to $30,000 for cane, grazing, bananas, multi-cropping, fruit trees, forestry, up to $15,000 for dairy, up to $20,000 for papaws, and up to $150,000 for waterway projects.

Multiple farm and large scale catchment projects grants

Collaborative projects where groups of landowners and managers implement improved land management practices. 50% support from $5,000 up to $150,000 for cane, grazing, fruit trees, forestry, multi-cropping and waterways.

Mill area grants for larger scale sugarcane projects

$5,000 up to $150,000 for cane. Total allocation of $300,000 for the Wet Tropics sugarcane industry. For other industries the amount allocated to district projects will be based on merit.

Innovation grants

$5,000 to $30,000 for cane

73 Appendix 2: Priority practice investments Table shows the order of priority for each practice for Rounds 2 to 5 of Reef Rescue.

PP Code Priority Practice

Classification

R2

R3

R4

R5

BANANA BNPP1

Automated fertigation system

Nutrient

1

n/a

n/a

n/a

BNPP1

Automated fertigation system including scheduling equipment

Nutrient

n/a

3

3

3

BNPP2

Manual fertigation system

Nutrient

2

1

n/a

n/a

BNPP2

Manual fertigation system and/or scheduling equipment

Nutrient

n/a

1

1

1

BNPP3

Grassed inter rows including equipment that enable this to be implemented

Sediment

3

2

2

2

BNPP4

Overhead to micro sprinklers

Nutrient

4

4

4

4

BNPP5

Banded fertiliser

Nutrient

5

5

5

5

BNPP6

Sediment risk management practices (inc sediment traps, riparian rehab, road improvement, contours, drainage)

Sediment

6

6, 7, 8, 9

BNPP7

Wetland construction

Sediment

n/a

10

7

7

CPP1

Subsurface application of fertiliser using a stool splitter or subsurface beside the stool for use in application at the correct Six Easy Steps rate

Nutrient

1

1

1

1

CPP1

Overhead or trickle irrigation systems using irrigation scheduling equipment to optimise use

Irrigation

n/a

1

n/a

n/a

CPP2

Improved pesticide application equipment inc. directed spray equipment modifications or hooded sprayers/new application technology, and rate controllers

Pesticide

2

2

2

2

CPP2

Irrigation water recycle pits

Pesticide

n/a

2

n/a

n/a

CPP3

New Farm System (inc Direct drill legumes, zonal tillage, permanent beds, min till, GPS in R2)

Sediment

3

3

3

3

CPP3

Irrigation scheduling equipment

Irrigation

n/a

3

n/a

n/a

CPP3

Irrigation scheduling equipment and water quantity metering equipment

Irrigation

n/a

n/a

2

2

CPP4

Subsurface fertiliser box with ability to easily change rates between blocks

Nutrient

4

4

n/a

n/a

CPP4

Variable rate application equipment that provides the ability for existing subsurface equipment to easily change rates between blocks

Nutrient

n/a

4

4

4

CPP5

Conventional Best Practice Farming System (inc Direct drill legumes, zonal tillage, laser levelling, drainage)

Sediment

5

5

5

5

CPP6

Box drains converted to spoon drains or battered if deep (other drainage R3, or headlands in R2)

Sediment

6

6

6

6

CPP7

Sediment trap/s

Sediment

7

7

7

7

CPP8

Riparian planting

Sediment

8

8

8

8

CPP9

Wetland construction

Sediment

9

9

9

9

6, 7 6, 7, OP1, 2 OP1, 2

CANE

74

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013 PP Code Priority Practice

Classification

R2

R3

R4

R5

CPP10

Improved irrigation capacity and distribution uniformity

Irrigation

n/a

n/a

1

1

CPP11

Fertigation

Nutrient

n/a

n/a

3

3

CPP12

Expenditure on deep EM mapping, satellite imager, yield mapping and intensive soil testing for ground truthing to provide sufficient data to enable variable rate application within blocks

Nutrient

n/a

n/a

4

4

D1

Effluent distribution systems that allow even reallocation of nutrients across the farm

Nutrient

n/a

1

1

1

D2

Sediment loss hot spot sites on or near streams caused by factors such as water movement, frequent cattle access (in laneways) or a stream crossing, soil type and slope that require major repair, renovation or water diversion

Sediment

n/a

2

2

2

D3

Off stream watering points

Watering Points

n/a

3

3

3

D4

Use of machinery such as mulch or minimum till equipment to minimize potential sediment loss

Nutrient

n/a

4

4

4

D5

Fencing of riparian areas with managed grazing or destocking which may imply off stream watering points as well.

Riparian

n/a

5

5

5

D6

Introduction of legumes into grass pastures

Nutrient

n/a

6

6

6

D7

Riparian vegetation rehabilitation and extension

Sediment

n/a

7

7

7

D8

Wetland construction

Sediment

n/a

8

8

8

D9

Fertigation/Improved Nutrient Management /Presision Agriculture practices

Nutrient

n/a

n/a

n/a

3

D10

Low pressure irrigation systems to minimise runoff

Sediment

n/a

n/a

n/a

8

GPP1

Construction of fencing and/or off stream watering points to increase groundcover on dry land frontage and riparian areas

Groundcover

1

1

1

1

GPP2

Construction of strategically placed contours/ earthworks or fencing to restrict water and cattle access to eroding gullies and scalds and catchments at or above these sites

Groundcover

2

2

n/a

n/a

GPP3

Construction of stable creek crossings and non erodible tracks

Groundcover

3

3

4

4

GPP5

Wetland Construction

Sediment

n/a

5

OP2

OP3

GPP11

Reduction of erosion losses, by construction of strategically placed contours, earthworks or fencing to restrict water and cattle access to eroding gullies, sodic soils, scalds and catchments, at or above these sites

Groundcover

n/a

n/a

2

2

GPP12

Construction of fencing to enable heavily grazed areas to be managed more effectively to maintain ground cover

Sediment

n/a

n/a

3

3

GPP13

Riparian planting

Sediment

n/a

n/a

OP1

OP4

GPP14

Wetland Construction

Sediment

n/a

n/a

OP2

OP3

DAIRY

GRAZING

75 PP Code Priority Practice

Classification

R2

R3

R4

R5

Sediment

n/a

5

OP1

OP1

Groundcover

n/a

3

3

3

WET GRAZING GPP4

Riparian vegetation rehabilitation and extension

GPP6

Fencing of riparian areas in wet areas with largely permanent destocking which may include off stream watering points.

GPP7

Off stream watering points

Watering Points

n/a

2

2

2

GPP9

Introduction of legumes into grass pastures

Nutrient

n/a

4

4

4

Sediment

n/a

6

OP2

OP3

Groundcover

n/a

1

1

1

GPP5.0b Wetland Construction GPP10

Erosion hot spot sites on or near stream banks caused by factors such as water movement, cattle access, stream crossings, soil type and slope that require major repair or renovation

MUTLICROP MPP1

Water Management e.g. Contour banks, gully erosion control

Sediment

1

1

n/a

n/a

MPP2

Reduced tillage

Sediment

2

2

n/a

n/a

MPP3

Irrigation scheduling (fertigation inc in R4,5)

Irrigation

3

3

3

3

MPP4

Fertigation

Nutrient

4

4

n/a

n/a

MPP5

Semi controlled traffic using GPS units with zonal tillage over a number of years

Sediment

5

5

n/a

n/a

MPP6

Drainage

Sediment

6

7

4

4

MPP7

Outside the paddock grassed headlands & Riparian plantings

Sediment

7

n/a

n/a

n/a

MPP8

Grassed headlands

Sediment

n/a

8

n/a

n/a

MPP9

Riparian Planting

Sediment

7

9

OP1

OP2

MPP10

Wetland construction

Sediment

n/a

10

OP2

OP3

MPP11

Improved pesticide application equipment including hooded sprayers/new application technology

Pesticide

n/a

6

2

2

MPP12

Sediment Loss Management: Minimum/ reduced tillage, Contour banks, Controlled traffic, headland management and improvement, gully erosion control

Sediment

n/a

n/a

1

1

MPP13

Herbicide use management

Pesticide

n/a

n/a

2

2

MPP14

Fertigation/Irrigation scheduling

Irrigation

4

4

3

3

PPP1

Automated fertigation system

Nutrient

1

n/a

n/a

n/a

PPP1

Automated or manual fertigation system and/or scheduling equipment

Sediment

n/a

1

1

1

PPP2

Manual fertigation system

Nutrient

2

n/a

n/a

n/a

PPP3

Grassed inter rows including equipment that enable this to be implemented

Sediment

3

2

2

23

PPP4

Overhead to micro sprinklers

Sediment

4

n/a

n/a

n/a

PPP5

Banded fertiliser

Nutrient

5

5

3

3

PPP6

Sediment risk management practices inc. sediment traps, ripair work, roads, contours, drainage

Sediment

6

4&7

6

6

PPP8

Wetland Construction

Sediment

n/a

8

8

8

PAPAW

76

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013 PP Code Priority Practice

Classification

R2

R3

R4

R5

TREE CROPS TPP1

Drainage

Sediment

n/a

n/a

1

1

TPP2

Sediment management

Sediment

n/a

n/a

2

2

TPP3

Road Improvements

Sediment

n/a

n/a

3

3

TPP4

Automated or manual fertigation system and/or scheduling

Nutrient

n/a

n/a

4

4

TPP5

Riparian planting/stream bank repair

Sediment

n/a

n/a

5

5

TPP6

Wetland construction

Sediment

n/a

n/a

6

6

77 Appendix 3: Benchmarking data for Round 5 Benchmarking data presented for bananas, cane and multicrops showing level of practice for all applicants in Round 5, as of 2013.

BANANA Soil Management Practices Cultivation Practice Number Level

Fallow Practice

Planting areas

Area (ha)

% by area

Number

Area (ha)

% by area

Number

Area (ha)

% by area

D

6 9 4 0

333 477 397 0

27.6% 39.5% 32.9% 0.0%

5 10 4 0

213 580 414 0

17.6% 48.1% 34.3% 0.0%

17 2 0 0

1093 114 0 0

Total

19

1207

100%

19

1207

100%

19

1207

90.6% 9.4% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

Number

Area (ha)

% by area

A B C

Soil Management Practices Practice Practice Description Level A

Permanent beds located using GPS with permanently grassed inter rows

2

46

3.8%

B

Permanent beds (non GPS) with occasional light cultivation of the inter rows for renovation

11

642

53.2%

A

Managed headlands to prevent erosion

18

1189

98.5%

A

Riparian plantings and windbreaks rehabilitated and enhanced

8

606

50.2%

B

Existing riparian areas maintained along waterways

B

Spoon or grassed in-field drains

17 18

1159 1184

96.0% 98.1%

B

Deep drains stable, battered, vegetated & suitable for soil types, & water flow

0

0

0.0%

B

Sediment traps used with appropriate professional advice

B

Water from packaging sheds filtered before disposal

4 15

259 1038

21.5% 86.0%

A

Recycle ponds on downstream drainage lines as supplementary water supply and drainage retention technique

2

300

24.9%

B

Laser levelling used where suitable

B

Renovation of inter row carried out at low risk times

16 16

939 642

77.8% 53.2%

Nutrient Management Practices Soil & leaf testing Practice Number Level

Nutrient rates

Fertiliser application

Area (ha)

% by area

Number

Area (ha)

% by area

Number

Area (ha)

% by area

A

9

360

29.8%

6

373

30.9%

3

252

20.9%

B

4

224

18.6%

1

80

6.6%

7

502

41.6%

C

6

623

51.6%

12

754

62.5%

9

453

37.5%

D

0

0

0.0%

0

0

0.0%

0

0

0.0%

For Mulching 95% of the area was at the B level or “Leaf mulch kept largely on the beds”. With “Product Selection” 90% of the land is managed at the A level with “product used for weed control selected according to climatic conditions and consideration of the risk of movement”.

78

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013 General nutrient management practices Practice Level

Practice Description

Number

Area (ha)

% by area

A

Yield mapping used with other data to apply fertiliser according to soil variations

0

0

0.0%

A

Using innovative/alternative sources of fertiliser

14

967

80.1%

B

Site specific soil ameliorants used to improve soil health

16

1004

83.2%

B

Returning banana waste from shed to paddock

16

1081

89.6%

Weed Management Practices Calibration Practice Number Level

Application

Management techniques

Area (ha)

% by area

Number

Area (ha)

% by area

Number

Area (ha)

% by area

C

0 17 2

0 1104 103

0.0% 91.5% 8.5%

7 12 0

367 840 0

30.4% 69.6% 0.0%

8 11 0

418 789 0

34.6% 65.4% 0.0%

D

0

0

0.0%

0

0

0.0%

0

0

0.0%

Total

19

1207

100%

19

1207

100%

19

1207

100%

A B

Irrigation Method

Management

Practice Number Area (ha) % by area Number Level

Timing

Area (ha)

% by area Number Area (ha)

C

4 11 4

292 675 240

24.2% 55.9% 19.9%

4 8 7

292 327 588

24.2% 27.1% 48.7%

D

0

0

0.0%

0

0

Total

19

1207

100%

19

1207

A B

Application % by area

Number

Area % by area (ha)

454 37.6% 539 44.7% 214 17.7%

2

227

18.8%

3

325

26.9%

14

655

54.3%

6 10 3

0.0%

0

0

0.0%

0

0

0.0%

100%

19

1207

100%

19

1207

100%

General record keeping practices Practice Level

Practice Description

Number

Area (ha)

% by area

A

Computerized record keeping using programs such as Banana Man & Nanaman to record nutrient applications and trends

1

98

8.1%

B

Paper based records sufficient to allow implementation of B level pesticide and nutrient management, including monitoring records

10

677

56.1%

C

Records of fertiliser and spray applications kept in personal diary

8

432

35.8%

D

No records kept

0 19

0.0% 1207

100%

79 Specialized record keeping Practice Level

Practice Description

Number

Area (ha)

% by area

A

Nutrient targets reviewed based on yield, diagnostic testing and application data

9

721

59.7%

A

Record keeping of sufficient standard to allow biological control method

1

100

8.3%

A

Record of all block activities kept

13

942

78.0%

CANE Nutrient Management Practices Soil testing Practice Number Level

Nutrient rate assessment

Rate of fertiliser use

Area (ha)

% by area

Number

Area (ha)

% by area

Number

Area (ha)

% by area

D

10 142 76 0

2203 29099 10400 0

5.1% 67.1% 24.0% 0.0%

2 121 104 1

430 26812 14367 93

1.0% 61.8% 33.1% 0.2%

9 129 88 2

2895 27198 11461 148

Total

228

41702

96.2%

228

41702

96.2%

228

41702

6.7% 62.7% 26.4% 0.3% 96.2%

A B C

Nutrient Management Practices Timing of fertiliser use Practice Number Level

Placement of fertiliser

Area (ha)

% by area

Number

Area (ha)

% by area

D

4 219 4 1

2078 39183 316 125

4.8% 90.4% 0.7% 0.3%

106 55 64 3

24852 6788 9517 545

Total

228

41702

96.2%

228

41702

A B C

Calibration of fertiliser use Number

Area (ha)

% by area

59.6% 16.3% 22.8% 1.3%

170 58 0

33370 8332 0

100.0%

228

41702

76.9% 19.2% 0.0% 96.2%

Pesticide Management Practices Herbicide rates Practice Level

Number

A

Area (ha)

Calibration % by area

Not applicable

Number

Area (ha)

% by area

12

2555

5.9%

49.1% 38.2% 2.9% 96.2%

D

87 129 12

18095 22072 1535

43.4% 52.9% 3.7%

94 107 15

21310 16566 1271

Total

228

41702

100.0%

228

41702

B C

80

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013 Pesticide Management Practices Weed management planning

Herbicide strategies Practice Number Level

Area (ha)

% by area

D

52 133 40 3

10538 25120 5910 134

24.3% 57.9% 13.6% 0.3%

111 109 8

24504 16205 993

56.5% 37.4% 2.3%

Total

228

41702

96.2%

228

41702

96.2%

A B C

Number

Area (ha)

Herbicide application timing

% by area

Number

Area (ha)

% by area

Not applicable

Not applicable

Soil Management practices Cultivation prior to planting

Row spacing Practice Number Level

Number

Area (ha)

% by area

2

239

0.6%

Not applicable

13149 26565 1749

30.3% 61.3% 4.0%

Not applicable

Not applicable

54 163 9

41702

228

41702

96.2%

37 20 171

A B C D Total

Area (ha)

% by area

7485 5984 28233

17.9% 14.3% 67.7%

Tillage in ratoons

228

100.0%

Number

Area (ha)

% by area

General sediment risk management tools Plough out replant Practice Number Level

Area (ha)

% by area

Number

Area (ha)

% by area

Not applicable

141

25494

61.1%

11

2639

6.1%

79 4 4

14743 853 612

79 4 4

14743 853 612

35.4% 2.0%

191

34753

80.1%

24

4136

9.5%

D

34 160 34

2

174

0.4%

Total

228

228

41702

228

41702

100.0%

228

41702

96.2%

B C

% by area

Record keeping

Number

A

Area (ha)

Riparian

MULTICROP Nutrient requirements

Application method

Practice Level

Number of farmers

area before

% area before

Number of farmers

area before

% area before

A

5

565

28.4%

3

482

24.2%

B D

8 1 0

1,314 112 0

66.0% 5.6% 0.0%

11 0 0

1,509 0 0

Total

14

1,991

100.0%

14

1,991

75.8% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

C

81 Compaction Practice Level

Number area of before farmers

Tillage frequency

% area before

Number area of before farmers

A

5

866

43.5%

B D

9 0 0

1,125 0 0

56.5% 0.0% 0.0%

1 13 0

142 1,849 0

Total

14

1,991

100.0%

14

1,991

C

Contour banks Practice Level

Number area of before farmers

% area before

% area before

Soil mapping Number area of before farmers

% area before

0

0

0.0%

7.1% 92.9% 0.0%

13

1,839

92.4%

1

152

7.6%

0

0

0.0%

100.0%

14

1991

100.0%

Sediment management Number area of before farmers

% area before

Ground cover Number area of before farmers

% area before

A

7

1,196

60.1%

2

292

14.7%

13

1,831

92.0%

B

695 0 100

34.9% 0.0% 5.0%

12 0 0

1,699 0 0

85.3% 0.0% 0.0%

1

160

8.0%

0

0

0.0%

D

5 0 2

0

0

0.0%

Total

14

1,991

100.0%

14

1,991

100.0%

14

1991

100.0%

C

Irrigation management Practice Level

Number area of before farmers

% area before

Irrigation timing Number area of before farmers

% area before

Irrigation application Number area of before farmers

% area before

A

0

0

0.0%

0

0

0.0%

4

435

21.8%

B

1991 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0%

3 11 0

582 1,409 0

29.2% 70.8% 0.0%

10

1556

78.2%

0

0

0.0%

D

14 0 0

0

0

0.0%

Total

14

1991

100.0%

14

1,991

100.0%

14

1,991

100.0%

C

Application requirements Practice Level

Number area of before farmers

% area before

Calibration Number area of before farmers

Application equipment % area before

Number area of before farmers

% area before

A

6

893

44.9%

4

734

36.9%

1

152

7.6%

B

1,098 0 0

55.1% 0.0% 0.0%

10 0 0

1,257 0 0

63.1% 0.0% 0.0%

13

1,839

92.4%

0

0

0.0%

D

8 0 0

0

0

0.0%

Total

14

1,991

100.0%

14

1,991

100.0%

14

1,991

100.0%

C

Drainage Number Practice area of Level before farmers

Riparian Number % area area of before before farmers

Crop management Number % area area of before before farmers

% area before

A

1

70

3.5%

9

1,181

59.3%

6

916

46.0%

B

1,921 0 0

96.5% 0.0% 0.0%

3 1 1

448 132 230

22.5% 6.6% 11.6%

7

915

46.0%

1

160

8.0%

D

13 0 0

0

0

0.0%

Total

14

1,991

100.0%

14

1,991

100.0%

14

1,991

100.0%

C

82

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013

Appendix 4: Five year practice change data Banana TABLE 1 Changes in fertiliser application in bananas as a result of grants from 2009-2013 At the start of 2009/10 Practice Level

Practice description

At the end of 2012/13

Area (ha)

Percent of area under bananas

Area (ha)

Percent of area under bananas

790

10.6%

3,175

42.7%

A

Automated fertigation system used to apply fertiliser with each irrigation

B

Fertigate and banded surface applications when fertigation unsuitable due to rainfall

3,658

49.2%

3,695

49.7%

C

Applied using a broadcast type spreader every 4-6 weeks

2,969

39.9%

571

7.7%

D

Applied using a broadcasting fertiliser spreader on a calendar basis with no accounting for high risk periods

24

0.3%

0

0%

7,441

100%

7,441

100%

Total

TABLE 2 Changes in the method of irrigation in bananas as a result of grants from 2009-2013 At the start of 2009/10 Practice Level

Practice description

At the end of 2012/13

Area (ha)

Percent of area under bananas

Area (ha)

Percent of area under bananas

A

Automated drip or micro irrigation systems with fertigation capacity

1,261

16.9%

5,588

75.1%

B

Manually operated irrigation system under canopy irrigation with fertigation capacity

4,935

66.3%

1,619

21.8%

C

Overhead sprinklers

1,245

16.7%

234

3.1%

7,441

100%

7,441

100%

Total

83 TABLE 3 Changes in nutrient rates management in bananas as a result of grants from 2009-2013 At the start of 2009/10 Practice Level

Practice description

At the end of 2012/13

Area (ha)

Percent of area under bananas

Area (ha)

Percent of area under bananas

A

Use recommended rates of N & P applied fortnightly by block; each application relates to growth rate and stage of growth of plants

1140

15.3%

5,295

71.2%

B

Use recommended rates of N applied fortnightly by block; use recommended rate of P and applied on a regular basis

1,918

25.8%

1,289

17.3%

C

Use estimated rates of N and applied every 4-6 weeks by block; use recommended rate of P applied on a regular basis

4,345

58.4%

843

11.3%

D

One NPK rate for farm based on historical rates, that take no account of recommended rates

38

0.5%

14

0.2%

7,441

100%

7,441

100%

Total

Cane TABLE 4 Changes in fertiliser placement in cane as a result of grants from 2008-2013 At the start of 2009/10

At the end of 2012/13

Practice Level

Practice description

No. farmers

Area (ha)

% area

No. farmers

Area (ha)

% area

A

Applies fertiliser subsurface within the stool using a stool splitter where topography and soil type allow, taking into account the types and form of fertiliser

151

34,141

29.4%

405

83,656

72.1%

B

Applies fertiliser subsurface beside the stool (or banded where soil type (stony) and slope prevent subsurface application)

175

25,997

22.4%

156

19,348

16.7%

C

Surface applied including liquids using banding methods

292

51,809

44.6%

77

11,888

10.2%

D

Always surface applied using broadcasting methods

23

2,923

2.5%

6

620

0.5%

no response

7

1,167

1%

4

525

0%

Total

648

116,037

100

648

116,037

100

84

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013 TABLE 5 Changes in herbicide rates in cane as a result of grants from 2008-2013 At the start of 2009/10 Practice Level

At the end of 2012/13

Percent of area No of under farmers cane

Area (ha)

Percent of area under cane

390

77494

66.8%

53.0%

246

36709

31.6%

472

0.4%

9

830

0.7%

3

1004

0.9%

3

1004

0.9%

648

116,037

100

648

116,037

100

Practice description

No of farmers

Area (ha)

B

Use residuals at correct timing and label rates in plant cane and fallow crops but not on trash blanket (knock downs replace residuals in ratoons)

256

53042

45.7%

C

Uses residual and/or knockdowns at rates appropriate to weed type according to label specifications but on all crop classes

380

61519

D

Often used at maximum label rates for residual and knockdown products irrespective of weed type and pressure

9

no response Total

TABLE 6 Accumulated changes in row width in cane as a result of grants from 2008-2013 At the start of 2009/10 Practice Level

Percent of area No of under farmers cane

Area (ha)

Percent of area under cane

176

42,316

36.5%

8.0%

57

10,793

9.3%

98,113

84.5%

415

62,928

54.2%

116,037

100%

648

116,037

100%

No of farmers

Area (ha)

A

Controlled traffic with row widths determined by harvester wheel measurements with GPS guidance

42

8,610

7.4%

B

Controlled traffic with no GPS (at > 1.8m)

34

9,314

C

Conventional (<1.8m) row spacing

572 648

Total

Practice description

At the end of 2012/13

100.0%

23.5%

43.8%

TOTAL

% of area in farms <101ha

% of area in farms >200ha

>751

19%

46%

100%

4%

66.8%

17.5%

132%

13.3%

14.6%

17.7%

501<751

4%

12%

21.9%

26.1%

21.2%

201<251

12%

23%

12.4%

16.9%

151<201

10.9%

401<501

13.6%

101<151

42%

6.6%

7.9%

19.1%

51<101

4%

301<401

22.2%

<51 ha

Percent of area at each farm size

6.7%

1.3%

Cane Farm size

Percent of farmers

23%

40%

100%

3%

6%

3%

3%

9%

14%

23%

17%

23%

Percent of farmers

Daintree-Mossman

251<301

Percent of area at each farm size

Barron

59.3%

12.9%

100%

12.4%

10.5%

8.9%

7.8%

9.9%

9.8%

14.5%

13.3%

10.8%

2.1%

Percent of area at each farm size

28%

38%

100%

2%

3%

4%

4%

7%

8%

15%

20%

27%

11%

Percent of farmers

Herbert

48.4%

26.4%

100%

14.1%

11.4%

6.1%

4.4%

6.8%

5.6%

14.3%

11.0%

19.5%

6.9%

15%

62%

100%

2%

3%

2%

2%

3%

3%

11%

12%

34%

28%

Percent of farmers

Johnstone Percent of area at each farm size

CATCHMENT

48.8%

17.7%

100%

3.3%

23.6%

7.0%

15.0%

20.6%

12.9%

12.5%

5.2%

Percent of area at each farm size

23%

46%

100%

1%

9%

3%

9%

16%

15%

24%

22%

Percent of farmers

Russell-Mulgrave

Appendix 5: Farm size distribution by catchment based on five years of Reef Rescue data

76.9%

8.0%

100%

19.7%

18.5%

12.6%

11.0%

7.3%

7.8%

11.3%

3.8%

5.9%

2.1%

Percent of area at each farm size

41%

36%

100%

5%

7%

7%

7%

7%

8%

16%

7%

21%

15%

Percent of farmers

Tully-Murray

85

86

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013

Maps MAP 1: Location of applications received in 2012-2013

87

MAP 2: Location of funded projects in 2012-2013

88

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013

MAP 3: Location of all applications received from 2008-2013

89 MAP 4: Location of all funded projects from 2008-2013

90

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013 MAP 5: Daintree Catchment Maps 5-13 show the location of funded projects (2008-2013) for all industries in each catchment within the Terrain region. Areas are not necessarily indicative of the project area, particularly in grazing.

91 MAP 6: Mossman Catchment

92

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013

MAP 7: Barron Catchment

93 MAP 8: Mulgrave Catchment

94

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013 MAP 9: Russell Catchment

MAP 10: Johnstone Catchment

95 MAP 11: Tully Catchment

96

Wet Tropics Reef Rescue Impact Report 2013

MAP 12: Murray Catchment

97 MAP 13: Herbert Catchment

Contact us: Terrain NRM 2 Stitt St, Innisfail PO Box 1756, Innisfail QLD 4860 Email: info@terrain.org.au Phone: +61 7 4043 8000 Fax: +61 7 4061 4677 Web: www.terrain.org.au