Improved production through improved land management
Kevin & Alice Knight, Pittong Victoria
Alice and I are fourth generation farmers at Pittong, 30 km west of Ballarat. We farm 1,700
hectares, with the property spanning the headwaters of both the Woady Yaloak and Mt
Emu Creek catchments. The area was originally heavily timbered.
We produce wool, prime lambs, cereal and oilseed crops, hay and timber in a 600 mm/yr
rainfall zone. Our stocking rate has steadily increased from 5 DSE/ha in the early 1960's to
more than 12 DSE/ha today, an improvement of about 3% per year. Our crops, which are a
newer enterprise yield equal to more traditional cropping areas.
The improvement in farm productivity has been an ongoing process, with most of the farm
sown to deep rooted perennial species and minimum tillage cropping practices adopted.
Pest problems such as rabbits, foxes and weeds such as spiny rush are treated in a coordinated way.
We have planted more than 350 ha or 20% of the farm to trees in the past twenty years,
using a mixture of indigenous trees (4%), multiple purpose plantings for salinity control, to
preventing wind erosion and timber (5%) and a further 220 ha to woodlots.
Many patches of remnant vegetation have been fenced, each approximately seven hectares
in area, waterways protected from stock access and three major wetlands created.
Over this time we have done a lot of experimenting in our time, including the refinement of
direct seeding and 'plug' propagation (speedlings) with the Department of Natural
Resources and Environment.
We are proud of what we have achieved over the past five decades but, as Minister Burke
and others made clear at the National Landcare conference in Adelaide last month, we
realise we need to continue to improve our productivity in a sustainable way.
The global food challenge, climate change and inevitable increase in major input cost of fuel
and fertiliser means we WILL have to continue to re-design our farming system.
Is this possible? I think so, and I think we can make rapid changes if we get the support
system right.
For example in 2001 the Woady Yaloak group undertook a 10 year benchmarking study.
From this study we found in 1990 gross farm income was 20% below the South West
Monitor Farm Project average but by 2001 it was 10% above.
This was largely achieved through productivity improvements
 A 33% increase in perennial pastures
 Better use of practices such as soil testing and minimum tillage
 51% increase in fertiliser use
 Improved fencing to allow rotational grazing
So how do we do this and who can help us? At this point I would like to hand over to Alice
to talk briefly about how we see this re-design occurring.
We can’t imagine what farming system will double our current production in future
decades, while sustaining and enhancing our natural resources, all in the face of climate
change.
However we have very strong beliefs on how we need to encourage this change - and it is
landcare.
Why landcare? Because landcare has some unique features that, if nurtured and invested
in, can drive this change. These include:
1. Innovation. People in landcare are innovative, because they are willing to share ideas,
encourage each other and try new approaches. Landcarers are not secretive. We need
to encourage this innovation rather than get too restrictive in what can and cannot be
supported otherwise we will stifle innovation and potential to find those big
breakthroughs that will advance our position.
2. Integration. The future will require better integration of the production and natural
resource systems at the local level. Landcare already knows this. It is no surprise that
Woady Yaloak’s catchphrase, created in 1993, was productive catchment management
because it captures this thinking and reflects what most landcarers feel. Sadly single
issue programs dealing with salinity, or biodiversity or waterways or wetlands fail to
make this connection, so we battle with a piecemeal approach. This has to change.
3. A brand the country believes in. The ‘care’ part of landcare is our common ground. If
we are smart, we can use landcare as the vehicle to bring farming production groups,
private enterprise, individuals and traditional landcare together for the common good.
More people pulling in the same direction will accelerate change. Landcare has to redefine what it stands for so we don’t have this divide between ‘brown’ and ‘green’
landcare.
4. Volunteers. Landcare is made up of volunteers who brings a capacity to deliver huge
public benefit by making changes on their land. This is beyond what government can
achieve alone or through regionally based and administered programs. It also brings a
significant cash and in kind investment. We must design programs that continue to
harvest this volunteer investment. This means having paid people (co-ordinators) to
support volunteers and to facilitate innovation and integration.
5. Finally a movement that does things. Landcare prides itself on doing (and why there is
some much frustration when landcarers cannot get out and do things).
What a
wonderful asset. We must make sure we capitalise on ‘the desire to do’ and not
frustrate the life out of it by too highly targeted investment and a lack of support.
I hope in future decades we don’t look back at this point in time and rue the lost
opportunities landcare could have provided because we were not prepare to do what was
needed.