Search

The dairy industry can be considered a contributor to biodiversity loss in Australia. To address this, many forms of governance can be enlisted, including traditional legislation and regulations, persuasive techniques such as publicly funded subsidy programs or education, and participation in voluntary stewardship programs. This paper explores the benefits of collaborative governance programs, which have international applications to reduce the impact of the dairy industry on biodiversity loss. However, as the Australian sector is unique, the specific opportunities and present challenges are discussed. This paper reports three important objectives that could underpin industry-led initiatives by supporting improved biodiversity conservation on dairy farms: (1) Increase the personal and financial capacities of individual farmers to operate profitable, biodiverse farms; (2) Facilitate market rewards to incentivise pro-conservation behaviours; and (3) Improve the effectiveness of the implementation of biodiversity protection laws and regulatory objectives via collaborative governance arrangements. Existing environmental programs that have been developed by the dairy industry could be suitable for incorporation into more formal co-governance structures sympathetic to biodiversity conservation. However, to be successful in addressing sustainability issues, including biodiversity loss, strengthening the integrity mechanisms around farmers' self-reporting of performance is required to ensure that the industry can credibly refute claims of greenwashing and defend their environmental credentials in the global marketplace. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Land and water are two major inputs for crop production. Simulation modelling was used to determine crop sequences that maximise farm return. Crop yield was determined for different irrigation scheduling scenarios based on the fraction of available soil water (FASW). Farm returns ($ ML−1 and $ ha−1) were evaluated for seven crop sequences. Three irrigation water price scenarios (dry, median, wet) were considered. The yield of summer crops increased with irrigation. For winter crops, despite increase in irrigation, the yield would not increase. The optimum irrigation (ML ha−1) was: soybean 8.2, maize 10.4, wheat 2.5, barley 3.1, fababean 2.5, and canola 2.7. The water productivity curve of summer crops has a parabolic shape, increasing with FASW, reaching a maximum value at FASW 0.4–0.6, and then decreasing. The water productivity of winter crops decreases as FASW increases following a power function. Gross margins are positive when water is cheap ($60 ML−1) and when water has a median price ($124 ML−1). When water is expensive ($440 ML−1), positive gross margin would be obtained only for the continuous wheat scenario. Deficit irrigation of summer crops leads to significant yield loss. Supplemental irrigation of winter crops results in the highest gross margin per unit of water. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]