for regions of South Australiafor regions of South AustraliaAGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORSAGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS

Deborah Duncombe-WallPaul MoranChristopher HeysenDarrell Kraehenbuehl

FOREWORD

DURING the 1990’s therehas been increasing

public interest in ecologicallysustainable development andthe accountability and use ofthe state’s soil, water, floraand fauna.

In late 1995, PrimaryIndustries and Resources SAbegan the development ofsustainability indicators ofagriculture for South Australia. This coincided with aprogram of the Standing Committee on Agricultureand Resources Management, which was developing anational set of indicators to monitor the sustainabilityof agriculture in Australia.

This report is the first comprehensive picture of howwe can measure South Australia’s agriculturalindustry’s sustainability in economic, social andenvironmental terms. The indicators that have beenchosen are those that measure the policy frameworkput in place by government to improve thesustainability of the land.

Overall, there have been significant improvements inthe adoption of sustainable land managementpractices, even against the background of fallingcommodity prices and higher production costs.

One of the policies of the State and CommonwealthGovernments has been to develop the skills offarmers in managing the land. The indicators includean analysis of the ability of landholders to bettermanage the land and improve financial viability.

Further work will continue on making theseindicators more useful and accessible to a wide crosssection of land managers. Also there will be ongoingrefinement and new indicators developed tosupplement the current set of indicators.

The State Government will continue to work with thecommunity to develop programs and policies whichwill ensure the long term sustainability of our valuablefarming land for future generations.

ROB KERINDeputy PremierMinister for Primary Industries,Natural Resources and Regional Development

AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORSfor regions of South Australia

AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORSfor regions of South Australia

Deborah Duncombe-WallPaul Moran

Christopher HeysenDarrell Kraehenbuehl

PREFACE

AGRICULTURAL Sustainability Indicators forRegions of South Australia has been published as

the first attempt to develop sustainability indicators ata regional and state level within South Australia.

Much of the work under pinning this report has beendevelopmental and while it does highlight sometrends in agricultural sustainability within SouthAustralia some caution needs to be taken with theinterpretation of the indicators. For example theattribute, adoption of sustainable managementpractices does not really measure ‘best practice’, as weknow that ‘best practice’ changes over time and fromone region to another. It does however indicate thatthere is a trend within the farming community toimprove their farming enterprise through bettermanagement strategies. It also provides trendinformation on management practices within a regioneven if they aren’t really ‘best practice’.

While each attribute and indicator have been reportedindividually in some places within this report, theywere designed as a suite and are complementary toeach other. Neither the indicators nor their attributesshould be viewed in isolation as this might lead tomisinterpretation.

While this report is not a definitive measure of thesustainability of agriculture in South Australia, it is astarting point for discussion and further developmentof agricultural sustainability indicators, withmanagers, planners and community groups.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Sustainability Indicators project team would liketo acknowledge and thank the projects TechnicalReference, and Steering Committees for their supportand time. We would also like to thank Russell Flavel,Greg Cock, Richard Payne and Bill Davies for theircontributions to the direction of sustainabilityindicators project.

©Published by Primary Industries and ResourcesSouth Australia, February 1999

Designed by PIRSA GraphicsPrepress by The BureauPrinted by Custom Press

ISBN 0 7308 4398 X

PAGE 2

CONTENTS

1. Introduction ......................................................................... 4The sustainability of agriculture in South Australia 4Background 4Agri-ecological systems of South Australia 5

2. Sustainability indicators ....................................................... 6Indicator definition 6Indicator criteria 6Attribute definition 6Attribute criteria 6

3. State overview ..................................................................... 7Long-term real net farm income 7Managerial skills 7Land and water quality to sustain production 7Offsite environmental impacts 7

4. Regional highlights ............................................................... 8Rangelands agri-ecological system 8Hilly cropping agri-ecological system 8High rainfall agri-ecological system 10Low rainfall agri-ecological system 11

5. Sustainability indicators and attributes in focus .................... 12Indicator: Long-term real net farm income 12Attribute: Net farm income 12Attribute: Terms of trade 13Attribute: Productivity 14Attribute: Debit servicing capability 15Attribute: Number of farms 15Indicator: Managerial skills 16Attribute: Participation 16Attribute: Farmer education 17Attribute: Implementation of sustainable management practices 18Indicator: Land and water quality to sustain production 19Attribute: Rangeland condition 19Attribute: Water use efficiency 20Attribute: Nutrient balance 21Indicator: Offsite environmental impacts 22Attribute: Impact on conservation areas 22Attribute: Accelerated wind erosion 23

6. Future directions ................................................................ 24

7. References ......................................................................... 25

PAGE 3

1. INTRODUCTION

Australia project, which utilised the methodologiesthat were developed for the NCPISA project. Unlikethe NCPISA project, the State project has a regionalfocus. This project created indicators for the Agri-Ecological Systems for South Australia and in somecases the indicators were able to be developed rightdown to Statistical Local Areas (similar to LocalGovernment Areas).

Sustainable agricultureSustainable agriculture is the use of farming systemsand practices, which maintain or enhance:

• the economic viability of agricultural production;

• the natural resource base; and

• other ecosystems which are influenced byagricultural activities.

Its basic goals are that:

• farm production is sustained or enhanced over thelong term;

• adverse impacts on the natural resource base ofagriculture and associated ecosystems areameliorated, minimised or avoided;

• residues resulting from the use of chemicals inagriculture are minimised;

• the net social benefit (in both $ and non-$ terms)derived from agriculture is maximised; and

• farming systems are sufficiently flexible to managerisks associated with the vagaries of climate andmarkets.

(Source: Standing Committee of Agriculture 1991. TechnicalReports Series No. 36, pp. 4-5.)

The Sustainability of agriculture inSouth AustraliaAgriculture is a key primary industry in SouthAustralia and makes a significant contribution to thewealth and quality of life for urban and ruralcommunities within the state. This is the first reporton the indicators of the sustainability of agriculture forSouth Australia. The indicators have been establishedto monitor and evaluate the progress of the state’sagricultural industries towards achieving the goals ofsustainable agriculture. These indicators are forgovernment, industry bodies, community leaders andprimary producers to better target their policies,programs and activities to pursue the economicsustainable development of agriculture forgenerations to come.

BackgroundIn 1993 the Standing Committee for Agriculture andResource Management (SCARM) proposed a set ofindicators to monitor the sustainability of agricultureat a regional and state level. These were to be basedon relatively simple data sets, many of which werealready available for extensive areas of the country.During 1994 and 1995 a pilot feasibility study on theproposed indicators and their attributes wasconducted by scientists from Commonwealth andState agencies.

In July 1995 SCARM established the NationalCollaborative Project on Indicators for SustainableAgriculture (NCPISA). This project attempted tofinalise the technical development of the agreedindicators and attributes from the pilot study. It alsoassembled relevant data to provide the first nationalreport on the sustainability of Australian agriculture,including trend analysis within the past decade.

In late 1995 South Australia begun the AgriculturalSustainability Indicators for Regions of South

PAGE 4

Agri-ecological systems of South AustraliaTo assist in reporting on the sustainability of agriculture at a local level, South Australia has been divided intoAgri-Ecological Systems. These are regions where there are similar agricultural production systems andenvironmental conditions, climate and soils.

High rainfall

This system has a winter growingseason and a rainfall exceeding500-550 mm per annum. Pasturesystems are based on legumesand perennial grasses. A widerange of land uses is associatedwith the opportunity to harvestwater, the extent of groundwateravailable and the long growingseason.

Hilly cropping

This system has an undulating tohilly landscape and a rainfallgenerally in excess of 375 mm perannum. It provides a safe andreliable climate for mixed farmingsystems, with a growing seasongenerally exceeding six months.The altitude varies from sea levelto 700 m above sea level resultingin significant temperaturevariability and the relatively smallaverage farm size allows for moreintensive management of the land.

Low rainfall

This system has a rainfall of 350mm and below, it is vulnerable toclimatic variability and is likely toexhibit adjustments in the scaleand nature of farming. The maincommodities produced in thissystem are wool, cereals anddairy.

Rangelands

This system is based on the use ofnatural pasture and rangelandspecies for grazing withoutcropping. The main industriesoperating in this system are wool,meat and hides from sheep, cattleand kangaroos, and feral animalharvest such as goats, rabbits andhorses.

PAGE 5

MountGambier

Port Lincoln

Ceduna

Keith

Adelaide

200 km

High rainfall

Hilly cropping

Rangeland

Low rainfall (broadacre)

Agri-ecological systems in South Australia

2. SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS

• Validity - satisfy valid sampling, statistical andconsistency methodologies.

• Comprehendible - allow for unambiguousinterpretation of issues, trends and comparativestates.

Attribute definitionAttributes are numerical descriptions of individualparameters or responses.

Attribute criteria• Validity - the soundness of the attribute to actually

represent the physical/socio-economic object thatthe attribute was designed to measure.

• Utility - the ability to apply the attribute with easeand effectiveness.

• Specificity - the applicability of the attribute to allindustries/regions and at a national scale.

• Data availability - the availability of a data source toquantify the attribute, ie. data are collected on aregular basis and at a frequency appropriate forreporting.

IN general, agricultural industries in SA have beencontinually changing to be more productive and

competitive on the international market. This hasoccurred whilst limiting the detrimental effects on thesoil, water, flora and fauna it relies upon.Unfortunately it is not realistic or possible to give asingle rating of sustainability for agriculture in SA asthe indicators and attributes are so diverse. Howeverit is possible to form a general picture on how well thestate is performing by considering all the indicatorsand their attributes collectively.

Indicator definitionIndicators are a composite set of attributes ormeasures that embody a particular aspect ofagriculture.

Indicator criteria• Utility - meeting the needs of decision-makers at

regional and national levels.

• Applicability - at both the national level and capableof differentiation at regional levels.

• Assisting decisions - they help to make to betterdecisions.

PAGE 6

3. STATE OVERVIEW

Farmer’s participation in informal training variesacross the state but significantly fewer farmers in thelivestock industries attend informal training or have afarm plan. There needs to be more work done topromote the financial and sustainability benefits ofboth training and farm planning to these farmers.

Surveys have shown that the sources of resourcemanagement information of most value to farmers arefriends and relations, the media, technical journals(except for the Rangelands) and field days, reach alarge number of farmers.

Land and water quality to sustainproductionDue to improved land management practices therehas been a significant improvement in the water useefficiency for wheat and barley from 1965 to 1994.

From 1986/87 to 1994/95 potassium and phosphorousfertiliser usage in South Australia has dramaticallyincreased. The soils in S.A. are naturally poor inphosphorous and without annual application offertiliser the soil would eventually loose its capacity tosustain the productivity of current farming systems.

In 1996/97 perennial vegetation in the SouthAustralian Rangelands was in a reasonable to goodcondition relative to the previous five years.

Data on soil acidity and sodicity was not available intime for inclusion in this report but will be available infuture reports.

Offsite environmental impactsImproved land use practices such as improved tillagemethods and stubble retention from 1986 to 1996 haveresulted in a considerable reduction in the level ofwind erosion in the past 20 years. Continuedimprovements in land use practices that retain surfacecover are necessary to ensure this trend ismaintained.

In 1993 the potential impact of agriculture uponconservation reserves varied across the state inintensity and form. Potential impact was minimal inthe Rangelands due to the large size of reserves andlow intensity of agriculture. The highest potentialimpact is in the Hilly Cropping region due to the largearea of agriculture compared to conservation reservesand the greater intensity of agriculture in this region.

Data on chemical residues and salinity levels instreams is available at the national level but cannot bereported at state or lower levels.

The following provides a summary of the findings inrelation to each indicator and its attributes.

Long-term real net farm incomeFrom 1979 to 1995 there has been a decline in netfarm income within the broadacre and dairy sectors ofagriculture within South Australia, though net farmincome is still above the Australian average.

However, the efficiency of broadacre and dairyproduction has increased considerably from 1978/79to 1994/95 (above the Australian average), throughthe steady growth in productivity. During this time,outputs virtually doubled while inputs rose slightly.

There has been a downward trend in the Terms ofTrade Index for the state from 1952/53 to 1994/95,which is in line with the general trends of major worldeconomies. In real terms a continuing narrowing ofthe margin between input and output prices meansfarmers must improve productivity to maintain netfarm incomes and remain profitable.

Overall, the debt servicing capability of the ruralsector in South Australia is in a good position and thetwo rural debt surveys of 1994 and 1996 showed adeclining trend in the proportion of farmsexperiencing debt servicing difficulties.

From 1983 to 1996 there has been little change in thenumber of farms with an estimated value ofagricultural operation in excess of $22,500.

Unfortunately state wide data on net farm income andproductivity is only available for broadacre farmingand dairying industries and terms of trade data islimited to broadacre farming only. No net farm incomedata is available for the horticultural industry.

Managerial skillsFrom 1986 to 1991, the levels of education in thefarming community has increased with the number offarmers with higher level qualifications from tradecertificates to higher degrees rising significantly.More farmers are now undertaking higher studiesthat will lead to better resource management andtherefore more effective and sustainable prospects foragriculture. However comparisons with other sectorsshows that the rural community still lags significantlybehind that of the general population in terms offormal education.

There has been a relatively widespread adoption ofpractices that protect or improve soil condition.

PAGE 7

4. REGIONAL HIGHLIGHTS

Long term real net farm incomeFrom 1979 to 1995, broadacre net farm income hasbeen variable due to the variability of the wool andsheep prices, and seasonal conditions. This region hasexperienced low input growth over time in productioninputs, resulting in low productivity though still abovethe Australian average.

Managerial skillsFarmer education levels have increased within all agegroups during 1986 to 1991. This region has moremanagers who have completed secondary schoolingthan any other region. However less than 25% of thepastoralists from this region attended any form ofinformal training and still more pastoralists havehigher qualifications (above secondary schooleducation) that are not related to improving theirfarming management.

There has been a 95% adoption rate in the use of pipedbore water supplies for stock, to spread the effects ofgrazing pressure around watering points. Thelegislative requirements of the Pastoral LandManagement and Conservation Act 1989, leaseconditions, maximum stock numbers, and regularinspections of land condition have also improved thestability of agriculture within this region.

Technical journals are valued less as a source of farmmanagement information in this region compared tothe other systems in the State.

Land and water quality to sustainproductionPerennial vegetation was seen to be in reasonablecondition relative to the previous five years. This islargely due to the monsoonal weather influences inearly 1997, which brought significant rainfall to muchof the pastoral area. Severe wind erosion in this regionhas occurred in the Northeast areas.

Offsite environmental impactsThe potential impact of agriculture upon conservationareas within this region is low due to the low ratio ofboundary length per area of conservation reserve,and the significant area conservation reserves withlow disturbance.

Rangelandsagri-ecological system

PAGE 8

Long term real net farm incomeWhile this region has had a very slight downwardtrend in the net farm income for broadacre and dairyfarming, it has had the greatest growth in productivityof agri-ecological system in S.A. The downward trendin net farm income is now generally stable, as a resultof good seasons, a move away from sheep intocontinuous cropping, and a diversification of croppinghas spread income risk across a range of enterprises.

Managerial skillsA large number of farmers within this region havebeen involved in a number of different forms ofinformal training. Also a large number of farmers havemid range qualifications (certificates and vocationaleducation). Census data collected in 1986 and 1991show that there has been an increase in the number offarmers with qualifications that focus on farmmanagement.

The adoption of sustainable management practiceshas been high with 91% of farmers using practiceswhich manage soil structure decline and soil erosion,88% of farmers using crop management to build upsoil nutrients and 93% of farmers using stock

exclusion from agricultural areas. From 1965 to 1994this region performed best in the state in terms ofwater use efficiency.

Land and water quality to sustainproductionFrom 1986 to 1996 there has been an increasingamount of potassium being applied to pastures andhorticultural crops within this region. The region hasa negative potassium balance with more potassiumbeing taken off farm then is being applied, with mostof the potassium being removed through cropping.There is a positive phosphorous balance in this regionbut a decreasing positive balance for the pastures.

Offsite environmental impactsThere is a high ratio of total area of agricultural landper total area of conservation reserves within thisregion.

Hilly croppingagri-ecological system

PAGE 9

Long term real net farm incomeIn terms of broadacre agriculture and the dairyindustry, this region on average has had the lowestproductivity levels (though still above the Australianaverage) than any other region. This region is lowestin net farm income than any other region in SouthAustralia and there is a strong downward trend in netfarm income in this region.

Managerial skillsThe 1986 and 1991 Population Census revealededucation levels within this region are increasing witha larger number of farmers having higherqualifications than any other region. However, lessthan 25% of farmers within this region have attendedinformal training, such as property managementplanning workshops/activities, landcare groupworkshops/field days, industry grower groups orcrop/pasture checking group’s etc.

There have been high adoption rates by farmers of anumber of sustainable management practices withinthis region such as soil nutrient testing (89%) and theuse of improved deep rooted perennial pasturespecies (70%).

Land and water quality to sustainproductionDespite an increase in potassium use from 1986/87 to1994/95, much of region has levels of potassium,which are barely adequate to marginal for pastures,and marginal to low for potatoes and other vegetablecrops. The negative potassium balance has been aresult of more potassium being removed throughpasture production than has been applied. This regionhowever was seen to have a highly positivephosphorous balance with most of the phosphorousbeing applied to and being removed by grazing.

Offsite environmental impactsThe combination of intensive agriculture and thesmall area of conservation reserves means that thereis a high level of contact between agricultural andconservation areas.

High rainfallagri-ecological system

PAGE 10

Long term real net farm incomeLow input growth levels from 1979 to 1995 forbroadacre and dairy farming, has resulted inmoderate productivity gains which may be at theexpense of the natural resource base. There is astrong downward trend in net farm income within thisregion.

Managerial skillsThere are a large number of farmers with mid rangequalifications (certificates and vocational education)within this region and also the largest number offarmers with only lower secondary education than anyother region. The proportion of farmers that haveprogressed beyond secondary level education is lowbut a large number of farmers have attended differentforms of informal training.

Land and water quality to sustainproductionMarginal areas within this region have improved theleast in terms of water use efficiency for wheat andbarley. This may be due to a combination of factorsrelated to climate, low profitability and the limitedflexibility these regions have in their farmingpractices in general, and cropping rotations inparticular.

There has been an increase from 1986/87 to 1994/95in the amount of potassium being applied in thisregion with most of it being applied to pastures andhorticultural crops. However there is a strongnegative balance for potassium with most of it beingremoved in crop production. There is a strong positivephosphorous balance in this region, but thecontinuing trend of slightly decreasing phosphorousfertiliser applications and almost steady state ofphosphorous removal through broadacre productionis resulting in a decreasing positive trend for pastures.

Offsite environmental impactsThis region has experienced low to moderate levels ofwind erosion. Practices to control soil erosion havebeen adopted by 71% percent of farmers within thisregion.

The combination of intensive agriculture and the highratio of boundary length per area of conservationreserve means that there is a high level of contactbetween agricultural and conservation areas, which isdue to the small size of the conservation areas.

Low rainfallagri-ecological system

PAGE 11

5. SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS ANDATTRIBUTES IN FOCUS

Indicator: Long-term real net farm income

PROFITABILITY is one of the primary indicatorsof agricultural sustainability over the long term.

It reflects the economic viability of the agriculturalsector. This study assumes that this indicator willreflect changes (improvement or decline) in landquality and degradation over the long term.

Attribute: Net farm incomeLong term real net farm income is defined as thechange in the long-term net farm output, real value ofagricultural production minus real value of farm costs.

(Source: ABARE, Farm Survey Report)

Average broadacre and dairy net farm income for South Australia.

Farm incomes from broadacre and dairy agricultureacross South Australia have fluctuated widely from1979 to 1995. There is an underlying decline inincome, broadly in line with the fall in the terms oftrade during the period. However in recent yearsthere is an apparent upturn in trend in both terms oftrade and average net farm incomes but it is too earlyto tell if this is a short term reversal or the start of anew longer term improvement in rural incomes. Notethe effect of drought years from 1982.

PAGE 12

0

20 000

40 000

60 000

80 000

100 000

120 000

1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995

Ave

rage

inco

me

per

farm

(19

95/9

6 $)

Attribute: Terms of tradeTerms of trade measures the change in market pricesof farm commodities relative to farm inputs across theindustry as a whole and has a direct influence on RealNet Farm Income. Each index is derived fromchanges in the prices of a fixed ‘basket’ of goods andservices that farmers purchase and sell.

Index of prices receivedIndex of prices paid

Input prices for the goods that farmers use has risengradually up until 1972/73 and then sharply from thenon. There are a few years in the early 1990’s where thecurve is almost flat. The index of output prices hasalso risen, although generally at a slower rate and withsteeper increases and decreases in the early seventiesand late eighties.

The calculated terms of trade from the two indicesshows a declining trend to 1994/95. This trend in thenarrowing of the margins between inputs and outputsreflects the need for farmers to continually improveproductivity to maintain net incomes and to remainprofitable.

Terms of trade for broadacre farms in SA – 1952/53 to 1995/96.

Farmers’ terms oftrade is the ratio:

(Source: ABARE)

PAGE 13

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Pric

e in

dex

(198

7/88

$)

Index of output prices

Index of input prices

Terms of trade

1952

-53

1954

-55

1956

-57

1958

-59

1960

-61

1962

-63

1964

-65

1966

-67

1968

-69

1970

-71

1972

-73

1974

-75

1976

-77

1978

-79

1980

-81

1982

-83

1984

-85

1986

-87

1988

-89

1990

-91

1992

-93

1994

-95

Attribute: ProductivityProductivity is expressed as a ratio of an index of thetotal value of agricultural production to the total valueof farm resources used, at constant prices.

There has been a relatively steady growth in theproductivity of broadacre agriculture from 1978/79 to1994/95. The dip in productivity in the early 1980soccurred during a period of relatively high commodityprices as a result of drought years, when outputs fell.

It is notable that while outputs virtually doubledduring 1978/79 to 1994/95, inputs rose by slightly lessthan 10%. The efficiency of production has thereforeincreased considerably and reflects improvedtechnology.

This increase in productivity has occurred while farmincomes have actually fallen by some 15% during1978/79 to 1994/95. This demonstrates the negativeeffect on farm incomes of the terms of trade, whichhave fallen by about 30% since 1979.

Productivity index for South Australian broadacre farms and dairying 1978/79 to 1994/95.

(Source:ABARE)

PAGE 14

Pro

duct

ivity

inde

x

Broadacre

Dairy

1978

-79

1979

-80

1980

-81

1981

-82

1982

-83

1983

-84

1984

-85

1985

-86

1986

-87

1987

-88

1988

-89

1989

-90

1990

-91

1991

-92

1992

-93

1993

-94

1994

-95

1995

-96

1996

-97

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Attribute: Debt servicing capabilityMonitoring debt provides an early warning ofproblems with farm business sustainability.

Overall the debt servicing capability of the ruralsector in South Australia is in a good position. Whiledetailed analysis has not been possible for subsequentyears, low interest rates and a series of good seasonssince then would have contributed to furthersignificant improvements.

The two rural debt surveys of 1994 and 1996 (Durham& Kidman 1994, 1996) showed a declining trend in theproportion of farms experiencing debt-servicingdifficulties. In 1994, 18% of all farmers faceddeteriorating debt positions and 5% were consideredbeyond redemption. By 1996 these figures had fallento 6 % and 2% respectively.

Regionally, the High Rainfall Agri-Ecological Systemholds 43% of the total rural debt.

Total debt in South Australia – 1994 and 1996.

Change in the number of agricultural establishments inSA – 1983 to 1996.

Attribute: Numbers of farmsFrom 1983 to 1996 there was little to nochange in the number of agriculturalestablishments across South Australia, withan estimated value of agricultural operation(EVAO) of greater than $22 500. Over thistime there was an increase of 128agricultural establishments (0.07% change).However, a sharp increase in the number ofagricultural establishments occurredaround the mid 1980’s, with a peak in 1985of 14 476 farmers.

(Source: Durham & Kidman 1994, 1996)

(Source: ABS)

PAGE 15

Deb

t ($

Mill

ion)

Amount ($) 1994

Amount ($) 19961600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

High rainfall Low rainfall Hilly cropping Rangeland Total

200

0

Region

12 500

13 000

13 500

14 000

14 500

15 000

1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996Num

ber

of e

stab

lishm

ents

with

an

estim

ate

valu

e of

agr

icul

tura

l ope

ratio

n >

$22

500

Indicator: Managerial skills

THIS indicator is a measure of human resilienceand the ability to respond to change and recover

after stress. It is based on the idea that farmers shouldbe encouraged to use information, planning and self-management as methods for withstanding normaleconomic and climatic fluctuations and droughts.Therefore sustainable agriculture can be measuredthrough the changes in the level of managerial skillsof farmers, landholders and land managers in finance,farming practice and environmental stewardship.

Attribute: ParticipationThis attribute aims to quantify the level of activecommitment and involvement in activities to promotesustainable agriculture. It is designed to capturefarmer participation in a range of informal trainingactivities and participation in community groups suchas Agricultural Bureau’s and Landcare.

Percentage of farmers within each agri-ecological system attending training courses1995-96.

The value of various sources of farmmanagement information used in the last threeyears, within South Australia – 1995-96.

Across South Australia as a whole, more than half(approx. 55%) of all farmers had undertaken one ormore informal training activity such as propertymanagement planning workshops/activities, landcaregroup workshops/field days, industry grower groupsor crop/pasture checking groups. Most people hadundertaken non-accredited short courses with asmaller percentage in accredited TAFE or distanceeducation courses.

The sources of farm management information whichwere of most value to farmers from 1993/94 to 1995/96, were friends and relations, the various forms ofmedia, field days and technical journals. Governmentagencies were of high or moderate value to a littleover 50% of farmers while Landcare groups andaccountants were of value too less than 40%. PropertyManagement Planning or Farm Management coursesand consultants were of moderate to high value foraround 20% of farmers.

PAGE 16

% o

f far

mer

s

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0High

rainfallLow

rainfallHilly

cropping

Agri-ecological system

RangelandsAll

No trainingInformalAccredited

Non-accreditedLittle Not used

ModerateHigh

0 10020 40 60 80

Source of farmmanagementinformation

Percentage of farmers

Farm mgt coursesConsultants

Accountants

Relations–friendsPMP courses

OtherMedia

Landcare groupsGovt agencies

Field days

Tech journals

(Source:ABARE) (Source: ABARE)

Attribute: Farmer educationThis attribute is based on the premise thatimproved educational standards leads tobetter management and therefore moreeffective and sustainable land use.Therefore this aims to measure changes ineducation levels as a surrogate measure ofchanges in managerial skills of farmersand farm managers in the fields of finance,farming practice and environmentalstewardship.

The results from the 1986 and 1991Population Census show that generally thefarming community of South Australia hasbecome better educated through time.

In 1986, over 68% of farmers in theyoungest age group of 15-29 years hadcompleted secondary schooling, including16% that had gone on to further study (ofwhich about half was relevant to farming).This compares with the oldest age groupof farmers, ie. 60 years and over, who weregenerally educated 40-50 years earlier,where only 25% had completed secondaryor higher education.

This trend continues in the 1991 censusdata with nearly 71% in the youngest agegroup of farmers completing secondaryschool or higher. In addition, the numberof farmers with higher level qualifications,from trade certificates to higher degrees,has risen significantly.

In the 1986 census, 9.5% of farmers aged60 years and over had higher levelqualifications (beyond high school) and ofthese, less than a third were relevant tofarming. Of the youngest cohort offarmers in 1991 (those aged 15-29 years)over 17% had higher level qualifications, ofwhich two thirds were relevant to theirfarming enterprise. Data from these twocensus show the proportion of farmersundertaking relevant higher studies hasincreased by four times from 2.6% to 10.5%.

Percentage of farmers in each age group and education level.

(Source: ABS Population Census)

PAGE 17

Age

1986

90

100P

erce

nt w

ithin

eac

h ag

e gr

oup

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

15–29 30–44 45–59 60+ Total

10

0

Qualifications not stated

Quals inadequately stated

Age left school not stated

Lower secondary

Upper secondary

Certificate - other level

Certificate - Trade level

Diploma

Bachelor degree

Graduate diploma

Higher degree

Age

1991

90

100

Per

cent

with

in e

ach

age

grou

p

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

15–29 30–44 45–59 60+ Total

10

0

Qualifications not stated

Quals inadequately stated

Age left school not stated

Lower secondary

Upper secondary

Basic vocational

Skilled vocational

Associate diploma

Undergraduate diploma

Bachelor degree

Post graduate diploma

Higher degree

Attribute:Implementation ofsustainable managementpracticesThis attribute measures the level atwhich farming practices are actuallybeing used by landholders;irrespective of education orparticipation in landcare.

Although these results are from aone-off survey, knowledge of pastfarming practices enables ajudgement that in recent years therehas been relatively widespreadadoption of practices that protect thesoil or improve its fertility andstructure. This is especially so in theHilly Cropping region whereminimum tillage and stubble retentiontechniques are now being used by asignificant majority of farmers. In theLow Rainfall region, cropping is moreopportunistic with a high degree ofrisk and the expenditure required tochange equipment may be beyond thecapacity of many farmers.

In the Rangelands, the majority ofproperties have reduced theconcentration of grazing intensityaround major waterpoints through theinstallation of a large number ofreticulated and controlled wateringpoints using piped water from boresand dams. This enables bettermanagement through spreadinggrazing pressure over a larger areaand reducing the dust bowl effectspreviously evident in the vicinity ofsparse bores, tanks and dams. Theestablishment of a detailed leaseassessment in 1989 under the PastoralLand Management and ConservationAct means that assessments of thecondition of the land and estimates onits capacity to carry stock, have alsohelp to improve the sustainability ofagriculture within the Rangelands.

The percentage of farmers who have adopted various applicablemanagement strategies for pasture establishment andmaintenance 1995/96.

The percentage of farmers who have adopted various applicablemanagement strategies for cropping management 1995/96.

PAGE 18

Sus

tain

able

man

agem

ent p

ract

ice

Percentage (%)

Stubble retentionor mulching tominimise landdegredation

Incorporate crop orpasture legumesinto croppingrotation

Strip cropping

Dryland croppingusing contourbanks

Low rainfall

Hilly cropping

High rainfall

Rangelands

South Australia

0 10020 40 60 80

Sus

tain

able

man

agem

ent p

ract

ice

Laser gradedirrigation layout

Use deep rootedperennial pasturespecies

Formal monitoringof pasture/vegetat-ion condition

Exclude stock fromagricultural areasaffected by landdegredation

Low rainfall

Hilly cropping

High rainfall

Rangelands

South Australia

0 10020 40 60 80

Percentage (%)

(Source: ABARE)

(Source: ABARE)

Indicator: Land and water quality to sustainproduction

These results indicate that in 1996/97 the SouthAustralian Rangelands were in a reasonable to goodcondition relative to the previous five years. This islargely due to heavy monsoonal rainfall in early 1997,which brought significant rainfall to much of thepastoral area.

In contrast to the other states only a small portion ofthe South Australian Rangeland was in the yellow toorange spectrum. For example those pixels for whichthe 1996/97 values were in the middle to bottom thirdof the observed values for this time series. Most of thepixels in this category were in the region of theSimpson Desert, to the north and north east of LakeEyre. This is an area for which the NDVI analysis is oflimited value due to the nature of the desert itselfwhich is mostly clay pans with naturally very lowlevels of perennial vegetation.

Photographic monitoring sites installed on pastoralleases indicate a general improvement in conditionsince the 1970’s. Over time these sites together withremote sensing technology, should provide morequantitative indications of those trends.

IF land becomes toxic, nutritionally impoverished,physically constraining or biologically diseased sothat crops, pastures and animals cannot grow to

at least part of the level set by their genetic potentialand the climate, then agriculture will collapse. Thisindicator aims to show the trends in land and water interms of “quality” which affect the long termproduction of vegetation and animals at levels set byclimate and land capability. It therefore focuses on themaintenance and enhancement to the naturalresource base for agricultural production.

Attribute: Rangeland conditionThe Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI)is used as a surrogate measure for Rangelandcondition. It measures the greenness of vegetationcover as an indication of the condition of theRangelands. It is interpreting short to medium termchanges in the amount of green material bymeasuring the change in baseline NDVI. Thismeasure is useful to indicate areas that show anabnormal response relative to a baseline. It largelyindicates the response to recent rainfall.

(Source: NCPISA, 1998)

PAGE 19

Rangeland condition index map – 1996/97.

Key to pixel colours

Green Equal to or higher than thepreviously observed highestgreenness value.

Khaki In the top third of previouslyobserved range of greennessvalues.

Yellow in the middle third of thepreviously observed range ofgreenness values.

Orange In the bottom third of thepreviously observed range ofgreenness values.

Red Equal to or lower than thepreviously observed lowestgreenness value.

Attribute: Water use efficiencyWater use efficiency is defined as the proportion of allwater inputs used by the total plant cover. Increases inrun-off, percolation below root zones and soilevaporation, result from or are the result of reducedwater efficiency which means inefficient water usewhich can have off site effects.

The French-Schultz model enables the calculation oftheoretical wheat and barley crop yields based onrainfall during the growing season from April toOctober (French and Schultz, 1984). Substantialvariation from the predicted yield can be due to otherlimiting factors such as lack of adequate plantnutrition, weeds, diseases and poor timeliness ofcultural practices. It is used as a benchmark againstwhich to gauge management practice, with 80% wateruse efficiency being judged a good result.

The water use efficiency of wheat and barley for threeseparate decades from 1965 through 1994 show thatgenerally there has been a significant improvement inwater use efficiency in South Australia. In all LocalGovernment areas but Quorn water use efficiency hasimproved by between 2% and 40%. This is generallyindicative of improved cropping and soil managementduring this time. The better utilisation of rainfall alsomeans that less water is being lost to runoff and topercolation below the root zone from where it couldcause rising water table problems. These are goodsigns for sustainability. However, there are some areasin the Low Rainfall region where the water useefficiency results indicate some problems.

Water use efficiency of wheat and barley.

Note: Water use efficiency information has been displayed in thesemaps for each whole statistical local area, these areas do includeareas which are not used for wheat and barley production.

PAGE 20

1985-941975-84

1965-74

Attribute: Nutrient balanceThe issue of long-term nutrient balance is crucial forsustainable farming, which maintains or enhances theresource base. This attribute measures the nutrientbalance in the soil by comparing the level of inputthrough fertiliser application and the level of outputthrough nutrients being exported in farm produce, at aregional scale for broadacre agriculture.

From 1986/87 to 1994/95 potassium and phosphorousfertiliser usage in South Australia has dramaticallyincreased.

From 1986/87 to 1994/95 very little phosphorousfertiliser has been applied to horticulture in SouthAustralia while the amount applied to pastures hasremained relatively constant and the amount beingapplied to crops has increased dramatically. The soils inthis state are naturally poor in phosphorous and withoutthe constant application of fertiliser the soil would looseits capacity to sustain the productivity of currentfarming systems.

Potassium fertiliser use in South Australia has increasedover time from 1986/87 to 1994/95 with most of thepotassium fertiliser being applied to pastures. Both theHigh Rainfall region and the combined Hilly Croppingand Low Rainfall region have extremely negativepotassium balances. In the Hilly Cropping Low Rainfallregion significantly more potassium is being removedthrough crop production then is being applied throughfertiliser application. However soil test data for 1995-97reveals that the Low Rainfall and Hilly CroppingRegions of South Australia generally have a moderate tohigh level of potassium in the soil. On the other handmuch of the higher rainfall regions in the FleurieuPeninsula, Mt Lofty Ranges, Lower Eyre Peninsula andthe Southeast regions have low levels of potassium.

Above: (a) and (b) Phosphorousbalance for broadacre agriculture.

Above: (c) and (d) Potassium balancefor broadacre agriculture .

Left: Soil test data forPotassium Levels in SouthAustralia.

PAGE 21

(a) High rainfall

(b) Hilly cropping and low rainfall

(c) High rainfall

(d) Hilly cropping and low rainfall

Tonn

es (

’000

)

Crop

Pasture

1986

-87

1987

-88

1988

-89

1989

-90

1990

-91

1991

-92

1992

-93

1993

-94

1994

-95-40

-20

-30

-10

0

20

10

40

30

Tonn

es (

’000

)

Crop

Pasture

1986

-87

1987

-88

1988

-89

1989

-90

1990

-91

1991

-92

1992

-93

1993

-94

1994

-95

-30

-20

-10

0

10

Crop

Pasture

1986

-87

1987

-88

1988

-89

1989

-90

1990

-91

1991

-92

1992

-93

1993

-94

1994

-95-4

-2

-2

-1

1000

0

Tonn

es (

’000

)To

nnes

(’0

00)

Crop

Pasture

1986

-87

1987

-88

1988

-89

1989

-90

1990

-91

1991

-92

1992

-93

1993

-94

1994

-95-30

-10

-20

0

20

10

30

40

50

Indicator: Offsite environmental impacts

SUSTAINABLE agriculture requires that the off-site or external effects of agriculture on other

ecosystems be kept within acceptable bounds so thatother ecosystems can be maintained. This off-siteenvironmental indicator provides an opportunity todescribe off-site problems in terms of their potentialon-site causes. It also provides information on howagriculturists have taken appropriate actions tomitigate undesired consequences, and it providesfeedback on the success of these actions.

Attribute: Impact on conservationareasAgricultural activities may affect the ability ofconservation reserves to maintain ecologicalprocesses and conserve biodiversity. The degree ofimpacts depend upon:

1. Boundary length per area of conservation reserve:Conservation areas adjacent to agriculture may beimpacted by weeds, feral animals, nutrients,agricultural chemicals and altered microclimateand hydrology.

2. Extent of natural habitat in relation to agriculture:Low ratio of conservation to agricultural areaswithin a region increases the potential for problemssuch as salinity and waterlogging to affect thehealth of the conservation areas.

3. Intensity of agricultural land use: High impactagricultural practices tend to be associated withintensive agriculture.

The potential impact of agriculture on conservationareas is lowest in the Rangelands, which is the resultof large conservation areas and low intensityagriculture within this region. Although the HighRainfall, Hilly Cropping and Low Rainfall regions havethe highest impact in separate categories they arerelatively close in impact in the measures of boundaryeffects and intensity. The Hilly Cropping region standsout as the prominent Agri-Ecological Systempotentially at risk as it has the highest ratio of totalarea of agricultural land per total area of conservationreserves. The Low Rainfall region had the highestratio of boundary length per area of conservationreserve and the High Rainfall region had the highestrating in agriculture intensity compared to any otherregion.

PAGE 22

% In

tens

ity

100

80

60

40

20

0High

rainfallLow

rainfallHilly

croppingRangeland

Intensity of agriculture

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Area of agricultural land/area ofconservation land

Bou

ndar

y le

ngth

(km

/sq

km)

Highrainfall

Lowrainfall

Hillycropping

Rangeland

Bou

ndar

y le

ngth

(km

/sq

km)

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

Highrainfall

Lowrainfall

Hillycropping

Rangeland

0

Boundary length per area ofconservation reserve

Attribute: Accelerated wind erosionSoil loss, due to wind erosion, has both an on-siteeffect, caused by the loss of valuable soil andnutrients, and an off-site effect, caused by the negativeinfluences of dust storms and atmospheric pollution.Dust storms are natural processes and their frequencyand intensity may have been accelerated byagriculture and other land use activities. However,climatic conditions and in particular the occurrence ofdrought have an overriding influence on dust stormoccurrence. This attribute aims to identifyagriculture’s contribution to wind borne dust.

The methodology, data manipulation, and analysis forthis attribute were done for the whole of Australia,under the auspices of the National CollaborativeProject for Indicators of Sustainable Agriculture(NCPISA).

There are three components to this attribute.

• Dust Storm Index (DSI): Is a measure of actualwind erosion rates which were calculated fromBureau of Meteorology observation data weightedaccording to severity of the dust event.

• Effective Moisture (Em) Model (after Burgess etal., 1989) which estimates wind erosion rate undernatural conditions.

• The Accelerated Erosion Index (AEI) in which theimpact of agriculture is isolated by comparing theactual rates of wind erosion (as measured by theDSI) with the rates predicted by the Em Model.

The major agricultural areas in the south of the Statehave low levels of wind erosion. The rates for theWestern Eyre Peninsula are in the low to moderaterange whilst severe erosion occurs in the north east ofthe State in areas which are largely semi-dry salt lakesand unutilised desert.

The study showed that from 1986 to 1996 very little ofthe erosion that occurred was directly attributable toagriculture. Relatively low levels of acceleratederosion rates above what is normally expected,occurred only in the far north east of the State.

The erosion status of the northern pastoral areasimproved from the late 1960s to the late 1970s while inthe agricultural areas, especially Eyre Peninsula, itdeclined slightly. These trends were reversed again inthe period from 1975-80 to 1986-96 where there was amarked improvement in the agricultural areas.

(Source: NCPISA, 1998)

PAGE 23

0.00 - 0.600.60 - 1.001.00 - 1.501.50 - 2.002.00 - 3.003.00 - 4.004.00 - 5.005.00 - 7.007.00 - 9.009.00 - 12.0012.00 - 15.0015.00 - 20.00

1965-70 1975-80

1986-96

Low

Medium

High

Accelerated wind erosion index.

6. FUTURE DIRECTIONS

PROGRESS is already under way on a newsustainability indicators project which will greatly

enhance the work contained within this report. Thenew project titled Sustainability Indicators forRegional Natural Resource Management, focuses onincreasing the effectiveness of natural resourcemanagement polices and programs at the regionallevel through:

• The incorporation and use of environmental,economic, managerial, and social sustainabilityindicators for natural resource management intopolicy and program planning, monitoring andevaluation.

• Improved access to key information on the impactof resource use for policy advisers, naturalresource managers and planners.

• Natural resource managers, planners andcommunity groups skilled in the interpretation anduse of sustainability indicators.

The new indicators project will continue to link withother projects of a similar nature such as:

• The State of the Environment Report,

• Natural Heritage Trust Performance Indicators,

• National Land and Water Resources Audit, and

• Regional Monitoring and Evaluation Strategies.

• Land Condition Monitoring

This report and each full indicator report are availableon our website at:

www.pir.sa.gov.au

PAGE 24

7. REFERENCES

Burgess, R.C., McTainsh, G.H. and Pitblado, J.R.(1989). An Index of Wind Erosion in Australia.Australian Geographical Studies, 27(1), 98-110.

Cridland, S., Burnside, D. & Smith, R. (1996) TheNDVI - Use in Rangeland Management,Rangelands in a sustainable biosphere.Proceedings of the Fifth International RangelandsCongress. (ed. N.E. West) pp. 105-106. Society forRange Management, Colorado, U.S.A.

Durham, L.J. & Kidman, R.C. (April 1994) Rural Debtin South Australia.

Report to the Minister for Primary Industries.Government of South Australia.

Durham, L.J. & Kidman, R.C. (April 1996). Rural Debtin South Australia.

Report to the Minister for Primary Industries.Government of South Australia.

French, R.J. and Schultz, J. E. (1984) Water UseEfficiency of Wheat in a Mediterranean-typeEnvironment. I The Relation between Yield, WaterUse and Climate. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 35, pp. 743-764.

French, R.J. and Schultz, J. E. (1984) Water UseEfficiency of Wheat in a Mediterranean-typeEnvironment. II Some Limitations to Efficiency.Aust. J. Agric. Res. 35, pp. 765-775.

Gratez, R.D., Wilson, M.A., and Campbell, S.K (1995),Landcover Disturbance over the AustralianContinent: A Contemporary Assessment,Biodiversity Series Paper No. 7, Biodiversity Unit,Commonwealth Department of the Environment,Sport and Territories, Canberra.

McTainsh, G.H. and Pitblado, J.R. (1987). DustStorms and related phenomena measured frommeteorological records in Australia, Earth SurfaceProcesses and Landforms, Vol 12(4), pp 415-424.

Mues, C., Roper, H. and Ockerby, J. (1994) Survey ofLandcare and Land Management Practices: 1992 –93, ABARE Research Report 94.6. Canberra.Australia.

Nelson, R.A. and Mues, C. (1993) Survey of Landcareand Drought Management Practices 1991 - 92.Land and Forestry Economics Section, ABARE.Canberra. Australia

Standing Committee on Agriculture and ResourceManagement (1993) Sustainable AgricultureTracking the Indicators for Australia and NewZealand, Report No.51, CSIRO Melbourne.

Standing Committee on Agriculture and ResourceManagement (1998) Sustainable Agriculture:Assessing Australia’s Recent Performance, AReport to SCARM of the National CollaborativeProject on Indicators for Sustainable Agriculture,SCARM Technical Report 70, CISRO PublishingMelbourne Australia.

PAGE 25