Agricultural Land Management Practice Adoption Results · agricultural commodities (land uses) found in the Great Barrier Reef catchments. The results discussed in this report card

Agricultural Land

Management Practice

Adoption Results

Reef Water Quality Report Card 2017 and 2018

Reef 2050 Water Quality Improvement Plan

2

CONTENTS

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 3

Agricultural management practice adoption results ......................................................................... 3

Drivers of reported adoption .................................................................................................................... 4

Reef 2050 Water Quality Improvement Plan adoption benchmarks and frameworks ................ 5

How progress is reported .......................................................................................................................... 5

Factors affecting agricultural industries in 2016-2018 .......................................................................... 6

Grazing .............................................................................................................................................. 6

Sugarcane ........................................................................................................................................ 7

Horticulture ........................................................................................................................................ 7

Grains ................................................................................................................................................. 8

Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 9

Great Barrier Reef-wide ................................................................................................................... 9

Cape York ....................................................................................................................................... 16

Wet Tropics ...................................................................................................................................... 18

Burdekin ........................................................................................................................................... 26

Mackay Whitsunday ...................................................................................................................... 35

Fitzroy ............................................................................................................................................... 39

Burnett Mary .................................................................................................................................... 45

Appendices .............................................................................................................................................. 53

Cape York ....................................................................................................................................... 53

Wet Tropics ...................................................................................................................................... 55

Burdekin ........................................................................................................................................... 78

Mackay Whitsunday ...................................................................................................................... 91

Fitzroy ............................................................................................................................................. 102

Burnett Mary .................................................................................................................................. 110

3

Executive Summary

The Reef Water Quality Report Card 2017 and 2018 - Agricultural management practice

adoption results, provides a snapshot in time of the percentage of area managed using best

management practice systems. These systems are defined in the Paddock to Reef Integrated

Monitoring, Modelling and Reporting (Paddock to Reef) program water quality risk frameworks.

The results presented in this report card are compared to the 2016 best management practice

adoption benchmark. In this way progress can be measured from year to year to demonstrate

progress towards the Reef 2050 Water Quality Improvement Plan (Reef 2050 WQIP) land

management target for agricultural best management practice.

The results are presented at an aggregated Great Barrier Reef scale, natural resource

management regional scale and at a catchment (basin) scale for each of the major

agricultural commodities (land uses) found in the Great Barrier Reef catchments.

The results discussed in this report card contain the combined results from the reported

management practice adoption areas across 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.

Highlights include:

A 7% increase in the area managed under best practice for pasture management in

the Cape York region, taking the total area managed using best practice for pasture

management to 27%. The Australian Government’s Reef Trust program and the

purchase of Springvale Station by the Queensland Government were the main projects

active in this region.

A 2.3% increase in the area managed using best practice for pasture management in

the Mackay Whitsunday region, taking the total area to 41.5%. The Queensland

Government’s Queensland Regional Natural Resource Management Investment

Program and Department of Agriculture and Fisheries Grazing Extension Program were

active in this region.

A 3.2% increase in the area managed using best practice nutrient management was

observed in the sugarcane sector in the Burdekin region, taking the total area to 19.6%.

The Queensland Government’s RP161 program and the Australian Government Reef

Trust Reverse Tender and Reef Alliance programs were active in this area.

Observed results for the increase in best practice other commodities in other regions were

modest.

Agricultural management practice adoption results

The Reef 2050 WQIP 2025 land management target for agricultural best management practice

is:

90% of land in priority areas under grazing, horticulture, bananas, sugarcane and other

broadacre cropping are managed using best management practice systems for water

quality outcomes (soil, nutrient and pesticides).

Landholders manage complex farming systems made up of many diverse individual

management practices. The target acknowledges that the largest water quality benefits will

be realised through use of management systems that include adoption and integration of a

number of critical management practices.

4

Best management practice systems in this context are defined in the Reef 2050 WQIP water

quality risk frameworks for each major agricultural industry. These frameworks identify the

management practices with greatest potential to influence off-farm water quality and

articulate a reasonable best management practice level which can be expected to result in a

moderate-to-low water quality risk. The risk levels described for each practice, where relevant,

are:

High risk (superseded or outdated practices)

Moderate risk (a minimum standard)

Moderate-low risk (best practice)

Lowest risk (where innovative practices are expected to result in further water quality

benefits, but commercial feasibility is not well understood).

The Reef Water Quality Report Card 2017 and 2018 estimates the area of land managed using

best management practice systems as at June 2018.

Drivers of reported adoption

It is important to acknowledge how challenging the achievement of a best management

practice system is for many landholders. To varying degrees, each component practice

requires new knowledge and skills, and in some cases considerable direct investment in farm

equipment and infrastructure.

For those management improvements that are relatively simple to implement and present little

perceived production risk, adoption can be fostered through awareness activities and modest

extension efforts. The provision of financial incentives can greatly assist landholders to

implement these changes rapidly. For example, incentives provided over the previous ten

years have enabled more rapid adoption of:

Fencing and additional watering points to manage cattle access to streambanks and

riparian areas in the grazing industry.

Nutrient management plans, improved fallow management practices, more targeted

herbicide application practices, and improved levels of irrigation scheduling in the

sugarcane industry.

Installation of erosion control structures like contour banks in the grains industry.

The installation of automated fertigation systems and banded fertiliser spreaders in

bananas and other horticultural crops.

These types of incentives have been a feature of Reef 2050 WQIP investments to date.

However since 2013 the investment mix has been changing to reflect more challenging

adoption issues; those that require new knowledge and skills, and sometimes trialling new

practices, before landholders have sufficient confidence to invest in implementing the change

across the farm.

Both Australian and Queensland government investments have increased the emphasis upon

capacity building extension to landholders through:

Industry best management practice programs, which support individual landholders in

assessing their own management and comparing it with commonly accepted industry

standards. This clarifies where there is scope for beneficial management improvements.

https://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/tracking-progress/paddock-to-reef/management-practices

https://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/tracking-progress/paddock-to-reef/management-practices

5

Technical extension services to support the industry best management practice

programs. Where landholders identify potential improvements, accessing professional

opinion and advice is often necessary to act on opportunities for improvement.

Delivering programmed learning (training) for certain technical issues.

In-field demonstrations of improved practices in practical situations.

Working with facilitated landholder groups to develop a local understanding of how

new practices best fit into their farming system.

Providing support for on-farm research by farmers, trialling practices that are new for

them and working out if the risks associated with adoption are acceptable.

This Report Card describes adoption progress based on the degree of management

improvement reported through various Australian and Queensland government projects and

programs. These are mainly management changes that have been more rapidly implemented

due to a level of fiscal subsidy and technical support.

There are many other ongoing programs that are engaging with landholders, and some of

these are occurring on a much larger scale. This process of engagement, and follow-up

interactions to enhance knowledge and skills, is generally not included in Report Card

estimates of best management system adoption, or in modelling conducted to estimate

pollutant load reductions. These are the outcomes expected from these programs, but

learning new knowledge and skills takes time, and implementing new practices in farming

systems with long production cycles (such as sugarcane and beef cattle) is not immediate.

Reef 2050 Water Quality Improvement Plan adoption benchmarks

and frameworks

For reporting towards Reef 2050 WQIP targets, the management practice adoption

benchmarks have been revised for each industry practice. The 2016 year is set as the

benchmark year from which to show improvements. The Paddock to Reef program

management practice and management system benchmarks have been developed and

updated for each agricultural industry sector, and in each major river catchment within each

region. These are reviewed and revised every five years and annual change is based on

reported data each year. Annual progress towards the Reef 2050 WQIP target for adoption is

measured from these benchmarks. For more information regarding the levels of uncertainty or

confidence associated with the datasets used to develop these benchmarks please refer to

Table 2 in the Stewardship – Agricultural management practice adoption methods report.

How progress is reported

The metrics used to describe progress toward best management practice systems refer to the

degree of adoption of practices relating to major pollutant categories. For the cropping

industries, metrics refer to the adoption of practices that minimise the loss of soil, nutrients and

pesticides off-farm. For the grazing industry, metrics refer to the adoption of practices that

minimise soil loss through surface (hillslope), streambank and gully erosion processes.

Farm land estimated to be in the two lowest risk categories (lowest risk and moderate-low risk)

is included in the area reported under best management practice systems. The proportions of

total areas estimated to be managed under best management practice systems are rounded

to the nearest whole number. In instances where the reported areas of management

improvement are small, this can result in no apparent change to the (single decimal) value.

https://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/tracking-progress/reef-report-card/methods-to-create-report-card

6

For each sector in each region, the estimated proportion of farm land managed under each

category of management system (from lowest risk to high risk) is also reported. This indicates

where management improvements have occurred in the progression toward best

management practice systems. Estimates of adoption for key constituent practices are also

reported, and summarised in a bar graph displaying the proportion of area estimated to be

managed at each risk state (lowest to high). Paddock to Reef modelling of estimated mean

annual pollutant load reductions is based on estimated changes to these farm management

practice systems, with off-farm water quality impacts decreasing as management systems

progress from high risk towards lowest risk.

Table 1: Colour-coded scoring system used to indicate progress

Adoption progress – scoring system

0–22% E – Red Very poor

23–45% D – Orange Poor

46–67% C – Yellow Moderate

68–89% B – Light green Good

90–100 % A – Dark green Very good

Factors affecting agricultural industries in 2016-2018

Changing management practice can be a long and complex process that requires new or

expanded knowledge and skills, and sometimes significant capital investment. An agricultural

business’s capacity to afford such an investment is typically closely related to climatic and

market forces beyond the landholder’s control. Recent challenges for landholders are briefly

summarised below.

Grazing

Drought conditions due to continued prolonged periods of average to below average rainfall

throughout much of Queensland limited the ability of graziers to afford and implement farm

management improvements. Cyclone Debbie brought some relief from the dry conditions in

March 2017 with heavy rainfall experienced in coastal areas from Bowen south to the New

South Wales (NSW) border. Large areas of Queensland continued to be drought declared by

June 2017 with large portions of central and southern Great Barrier Reef catchments receiving

average rainfall between 2016 and 2017. As of June 2018, just over 50% of the state was still

drought declared. Areas in the Wet Tropics and coastal catchments in the Burnett Mary had

drought status revoked. However, continued below average rainfall conditions continue to

impact most of central Queensland (Figure 2) causing landholders to destock.

7

Figure 1. Rainfall percentiles between July 2016

and June 2017.

Figure 2. Rainfall percentiles between July 2017

and June 2018.

Sugarcane

The 2016 harvest was a good one yielding 34.4 million tonnes of sugar off 352,000ha in

Queensland. Approximately 500,000 tonnes of cane was left to standover, mostly in the

Mackay region due to a late end to the crushing season. Growers using irrigation in drought

affected areas were able to access rebates for electricity supply charges to ease the burden.

The 2017 harvest yielded 31.4 million tonnes of cane off 360,000ha. In most areas the

production levels were normal or slightly higher. Due to the impact of Cyclone Debbie during

the growing season, production was significantly reduced in the Proserpine district, to around

80% of the longer term average. Relatively low yields were also recorded in the Mackay, Plane

Creek and Maryborough districts.

Horticulture

Cyclone Debbie impacted the horticulture growing regions around Bowen and areas further

south around Mackay in early 2017 causing damage to various horticulture crops, in particular

small crops such as tomatoes grown locally around Bowen. In this region alone greater than 60

growers were affected. The flip side to this disaster was additional rain for growing regions

further south producing a bumper crop late in 2017.

By October 2017 horticulture growers in the reef catchments were suffering from ‘glut’

associated with a bumper crop following the warmer than usual winter temperatures and rain

that followed Cyclone Debbie earlier in the year. The market was flooded with high quality

produce earlier than usual and as a result farmers were seeing very low returns for produce.

However, weather events that affected growing regions around the Wide Bay and Burnett

growing regions later in the year left some vegetable crops in short supply pushing up prices.

8

Biosecurity is still an ongoing concern for the entire industry, particular for bananas with

Panama Tropical Race 4 (TR4). This plant disease is still confined to one farm and hasn’t

impacted the rest of the local banana industry in the Tully growing region.

Similar to the sugarcane industry the horticulture industry is also suffering from rising electricity

prices. According to Growcom, growers have invested in more efficient and sustainable

sources of electricity but are still suffering from unsustainable prices pushing up production

costs.

Grains

The area planted to wheat was low in 2016 due to dry autumn conditions and very high

chickpea prices. Growers able to plant chickpea enjoyed good yields and high prices.

Ongoing below-average rainfall in early 2017 significantly lowered sorghum area and yield

expectations. In March of 2017 Cyclone Debbie impacted some of the cotton grown in

Central Queensland due to flooding and damage caused to irrigation equipment, some of

which was completely destroyed.

In winter of 2017 chickpea prices remained high, although yields were lower due to lack of

rainfall and frost damage. The combination of prevailing conditions and high prices resulted in

some double-cropping of chickpea. Due to continued extended dry periods and overall low

and patchy rainfall in winter and spring of 2017 the 2017-2018 spring/summer planting

opportunities were reduced for sorghum, maize and mung beans. The smaller area sown

coupled with lower yields reduced overall production from the central Queensland grains

area.

Coping with some problem weed species has meant the extent and frequency of tillage in

grain farming systems has increased in recent years. The spectrum of residual herbicides being

employed in grain farming systems is also changing.

9

Results

Great Barrier Reef-wide

Grazing

2025 land management target: 90% of land in priority areas under grazing are managed using

best management practice systems for water quality outcomes (pastures, streambanks and

gullies).

D

35.8%

Table 2. Great Barrier Reef grazing area managed under best management practice systems

Area managed under best practice (ha or km streambank)

2016 Benchmark Report Card 2017 and 2018 (%) Report Card 2017 and

2018

Pastures 29.8% 31.1% 11,227,695ha

Streambanks 51.6% 51.7% 650,798km

Gullies 24.6% 24.7% 8,908,132ha

By June 2018, approximately 31.1% of grazing land was being managed under best

management practice systems for practices related to erosion from pastures (11,227,695ha),

51.7% for practices relating to streambank erosion (650,798km of streambanks) and 24.7% for

practices relating to gully erosion (8,906,859ha). Approximately 8,540 graziers manage 36.1

million hectares of land and over 1.2 million kilometres of streambanks across the Reef

catchment.

Figure 3. Great Barrier Reef-wide proportional area of grazing water quality risk by management systems.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Pastures Streambanks Gullies

Great Barrier Reef Grazing

Lowest risk Moderate – Low risk Moderate risk High risk

10

Over 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 there was a 1.3% increase in the area managed using best

practice for pasture management across the Great Barrier Reef catchments. A 0.1% increase

in the length of streambanks managed using best practice and 0.1% increase in the area of

gullies managed using best practice.

Table 3. Great Barrier Reef-wide grazing water quality risk since 2016, by management systems.

Pastures 2016 Benchmark Report Card 2017 and 2018

Lowest risk 4.1% 4.4%

Moderate-low risk 25.7% 26.6%

Moderate risk 51.8% 51.2%

High risk 18.4% 17.7%

Streambank




High risk 27.0% 27.0%

Gully




High risk 20.8% 19.3%

Sugarcane

2025 land management target: 90% of land in priority areas under sugarcane are managed

using best management practice systems for water quality outcomes (soil, nutrient and

pesticides).

E

9.8%

Table 4. Great Barrier Reef-wide sugarcane area managed under best management practice systems.

Area managed under best practice (ha)


2018

Soil 1.6% 1.9% 9,732 ha

Nutrients 15.6% 16.4% 92,859 ha

Pesticides 10.8% 11.2% 58,338 ha

By June 2018, best management practice systems were used on approximately of sugarcane

land for 16.4% for nutrients (92,859ha), 11.2% of sugarcane land for pesticides (58,338ha), and

1.9% for soil (9,732ha). On average, this represents a total of 9.8% of sugarcane managed

under best practice systems in the Great Barrier Reef catchment. Approximately 3,777 growers

are managing 520,000ha of land (growing 360,000ha of sugarcane) across the Reef

catchments.

11

Figure 4. Great Barrier Reef-wide proportional area of sugarcane water quality risk by management

system.

Over 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 there was an increase in the area managed using best practice

across all three management systems for the Great Barrier Reef catchments. Soil management

increased by 0.2%, nutrient management increased by 0.9% and pesticide management

increased by 0.5%.

Table 5: GBR wide sugarcane water quality risk since 2016, by management system

Soil 2016 Benchmark Report Card 2017 and 2018




High risk 18.4% 18.1%

Nutrient




High risk 59.9% 59.2%

Pesticide




High risk 7.0% 6.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Soil Nutrient Pesticide

Great Barrier Reef Sugarcane


12

Table 6. Great Barrier Reef-wide adoption of sugarcane key management practices since 2016.

Key practices 2016 Benchmark Report Card 2017 and 2018

Trash blanket 79.9% 80.0%

Machinery traffic 12.9% 13.1%

Fallow management 25.2% 25.5%

Planting 8.8% 9.2%

Nitrogen surplus 20.3% 21.1%

Phosphorus surplus 17.6% 17.6%

Mud rate 53.0% 53.0%

Pesticide application in plant cane 7.9% 8.3%

Pesticide application in ratoons 29.2% 29.2%

Use of residuals 40.6% 40.9%

Pesticide selection 16.2% 16.2%

Cane grub pesticides 26.6% 26.6%

Horticulture

2025 land management target: 90% of land in priority areas under horticulture are managed


pesticides).

D

28.6%

Table 7. Great Barrier Reef-wide horticulture area managed under best management practice systems.



2018

Soil 25.5% 25.5% 12,948 ha

Nutrients 17.6% 17.9% 9,062 ha

Pesticides 42.5% 42.5% 21,585 ha

By June 2018, best management practice systems were used on approximately 42.5% of

horticultural land for pesticides (21,585ha), 17.9% for nutrients (9,062ha) and 25.5% for soil

(12,948ha). Approximately 970 horticulture producers are farming approximately 50,700ha of

land in the Great Barrier Reef catchment.

13

Figure 5. Great Barrier Reef-wide proportional area of horticulture water quality risk by management

systems.

Over 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 123ha and 24ha of nutrient management practice change was

reported in the Burdekin and Wet Tropics natural resource management regions resulting in a

0.3% increase in the area managed using best practice. This practice change was reported by

Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries extension staff who worked with

landholders to improve nutrient management in the horticulture industry.

Table 8. Great Barrier Reef-wide horticulture water quality risk since 2016, by pollutant.





High risk 1.6% 1.6%

Nutrient




High risk 4.9% 4.9%

Pesticide




High risk 0.1% 0.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Great Barier Reef Horticulture


14

Grains

2025 land management target: 90% of land in priority areas under grain farming are managed


pesticides).

D

38%

Table 9. Great Barrier Reef-wide grains area managed under best management practice systems.



2018

Soil 34.6% 34.6% 287,610 ha

Nutrient 72.2% 72.2% 600,804 ha

Pesticide 7.3% 7.3% 60,515 ha

By June 2018, best management practice systems were used on approximately 7.3% of grain

farming land for pesticides (60,515ha), 72.2% for nutrients (600,804ha) and 34.6% for soil

(287,610ha). Approximately 600 grain growers are managing about 627,000ha of land in the

Fitzroy region, and 280 growers are managing 80,000ha in the Burnett river catchment. The

amount of land under grain production in both areas can vary considerably over time due to

some land alternating between grain production and pastures for beef cattle. Approximately

44 growers are managing 123,000ha under grain crops in the Burdekin region.

Figure 6. Great Barrier Reef-wide proportional area of grains water quality risk by management systems

Over 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 306ha of nutrient management practice and 65ha of pesticide

management practice change was reported in the Burnett Mary. This practice change was

reported by the Australian Government’s National Landcare Program (Better Catchments).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Great Barier Reef Grains


15

Table 10. Great Barrier Reef-wide grains water quality risk since 2016, by pollutant.





High risk 6.8% 6.8%

Nutrient




High risk 6.0% 6.0%

Pesticide




High risk 36.8% 36.8%

Table 11: GBR wide grains water quality risk since 2016, by management systems


Use of tillage 68.7% 68.7%

Crop selection 78.3% 78.3%

Wheel traffic 11.6% 11.6%

Erosion control 61.4% 61.4%


Monitoring soil water 87.7% 87.8%

Application timing 32.2% 32.2%

Targeting herbicide application 25.0% 25.0%

Use of residual herbicides 50.0% 50.0%

Efficient herbicide application 9.0% 9.0%


16

Cape York

Grazing

Target: 90% of land in priority areas under grazing are managed using best management

practice systems for water quality outcomes (pastures, streambanks and gullies).

D

30.1%

Table 12. Cape York grazing area managed under best management practice systems.



2018

Pastures 20.4% 27.4% 459,235 ha

Streambanks 27.8% 27.8% 42,159 km

Gullies 34.2% 35.1% 587,896 ha

As at June 2018, approximately 27.4% of grazing land was being managed using best

management for practices relating to pasture (hillslope) erosion (459,235ha), 27.8% for

practices related to streambank erosion (42,159km of streambank), and 35.1% for practices

related to gully erosion (587,896ha). Approximately 48 graziers are managing 1.67 million

hectares of grazing land and 151,620km of streambanks in the Cape York region. Over 2016-

2017 and 2017-2018 there was a 7.0% increase (72,860ha) in the area managed using best

practice for pasture management, no increase in the length of streambanks managed using

best practice and a 0.9% increase in the area of gullies managed using best practice in the

Normanby region.

Figure 7. Cape York proportional area of grazing water quality risk by management systems.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Cape York Grazing


17

In the Cape York natural resource management region the following programs reported

practice change over 2016-2017 and 2017-2018:

The Australian Government Reef Trust Gully Erosion Programme project undertaken on

Kings Plains Station improved pasture and gully management on 44,235ha. This project

involved the complete destocking of more than 40,000ha between 2016 and 2018 in

seven paddocks.

The Australian Government Reef Trust III Reef Alliance program undertook a large scale

gully remediation and stabilisation project, installed a lengthy exclusion fence to

reduce the grazing pressure of feral animals to improve ground cover, and undertook a

wet season spelling project to assist pasture recovery over the wet season. These

projects reported improved pasture and gully management practices across 14,466ha.

The Queensland Government acquired Springvale Station in the Normanby River

catchment and undertook a complete destocking exercise of the property which

included the removal of all cattle and other feral animals. This project improved pasture

management across 59,256ha.

Table 13. Cape York grazing water quality risk since 2016, by erosion type.





High risk 33.3% 29.8%

Streambank




High risk 30.2% 30.2%

Gully




High risk 18.9% 16.2%

18

Wet Tropics

Grazing



D

35.7%

Table 14. Wet Tropics grazing area managed under best management practice systems.



2018

Pastures 20.8% 20.8% 161,889 ha

Streambanks 82.9% 82.9% 70,523 km

Gullies 3.2% 3.2% 25,105 ha

As at June 2018, approximately 20.8% of grazing land was under best management practice

systems relating to pasture (hillslope) erosion (161,889ha), 82.9% for practices related to

streambank erosion (70,523km of streambank) and 3.2% for practices related to gully erosion

(25,105ha). Approximately 935 graziers are managing 0.77 million hectares of land and

85,000km of streambanks in the Wet Tropics region.

A large proportion of this grazing land is rangelands in the upper catchment of the Herbert

River, where a relatively small number of larger holdings strongly influence the management

adoption benchmarks. There was no reported management practice change investments

targeting water quality improvements in the grazing industry in the Wet Tropics region during

2016-2017 and 2017-2018.

Figure 8. Wet Tropics proportional area of grazing water quality risk by management systems.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Wet Tropics Grazing


19

Table 15. Wet Tropics grazing water quality risk since 2016, by erosion type.





High risk 2.1% 2.13%

Streambank





Gully




High risk 20.7% 20.73%

Sugarcane

Target: 90% of land in priority areas under sugarcane are managed using best management

practice systems for water quality outcomes (soil, nutrient and pesticides).

E

15.5%

Table 16. Wet Tropics sugarcane area managed under best management practice systems.



2018

Soil 1.6% 2.1% 3,853 ha

Nutrients 26.3% 26.7% 48,489 ha

Pesticides 17.7% 17.8% 32,235 ha

As at June 2018, best management practice systems were used on approximately of

sugarcane growing land for 26.7% for nutrients (48,489ha), 17.8% of sugarcane growing land for

pesticides (32,235ha), and 2.1% for soil (3,853ha). Approximately 1,340 growers are managing

181,300ha of farm land (138,000ha under sugarcane) in the Wet Tropics region.

20

Figure 9. Wet Tropics proportional area of sugarcane water quality risk by management system.

Five programs reported management practice change over 2016-2017 and 2017-2018:

The Australian Government Reef Trust IV Repeated Tender program

The Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries sugarcane extension

program,

The Queensland Department of Environment and Science undertook the Reef

Regulations compliance program

The Queensland Department of Environment and Science through the Office of the

Great Barrier Reef funded two programs; Protecting our Chemicals and Cane to Creek,

both were delivered by Sugar Research Australia

These programs resulted in a 0.5% increase in the proportion of the area managed under best

practice for soil. This was driven by an increase in adoption of best practice for fallow

management particularly in the Johnstone (748ha) and Mulgrave-Russell (252ha) catchments.

There was also a reduction in tillage before planting, with the Johnstone achieving an increase

of 1,352ha and 352ha in the Mulgrave-Russell.

There was a 0.5% increase of the area managed under best management practices for

nutrient. This was driven by practices that reduced nitrogen surplus with an increase of 360ha in

the Mulgrave-Russell, 254ha in the Barron River, 110ha in the Johnstone, 279ha in the Murray

and 301ha in the Herbert.

The area under best practice for pesticide management increased by 0.1%. This was driven by

improved management of residuals in ratoon cane with an increase of 237ha in the Mulgrave-

Russell and 116ha in the Johnstone. There was also 107ha in the Tully catchment for practices

associated with only applying residual pesticides to the rows and treating the inter-row with

knock down pesticides.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Wet Tropics Sugarcane


21

Table 17. Wet Tropics sugarcane water quality risk since 2016, by management system





High risk 0.4% 0.4%

Nutrient




High risk 51.3% 50.7%

Pesticide




High risk 5.4% 5.1%

Table 18. Wet Tropics adoption of key management practices since 2016.

Key practices 2016 Benchmark

Report Card 2017

and 2018




Planting 10.0% 11.0%



Mud rate 51.7% 51.7%






22

Horticulture

Target: 90% of land in priority areas under horticulture are managed using best management


D

39.6%

Table 19. Wet Tropics horticulture area managed under best management practice systems.



2018

Soil 26.4% 26.4% 1,676 ha

Nutrients 16.1% 16.5% 1,051 ha

Pesticides 76.1% 76.1% 4,834 ha

As at June 2018, best management practice systems were used on approximately 76.1% of

horticulture growing land for pesticides (4,834ha), 16.5% for nutrients (1,051ha) and 26.4% for soil

(1,676ha). There is approximately 6,300ha of horticulture in the Wet Tropics region.

Over 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 there was no reported increase in the area managed using best

practice for soil management, there was a 0.4% increase in area managed using best practice

for nutrients and no reported increase in the area managed using best practice for pesticides

in the Wet Tropics natural resource management region.

Figure 10. Wet Tropics proportional area of horticulture water quality risk by management systems.

In the Wet Tropics natural resource management region the following program reported


Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries extension staff worked with

landholders to improve nutrient management across 24ha.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Wet Tropics Horticulture


23

Table 20. Wet Tropics horticulture water quality risk since 2016, by management systems.





High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Nutrient




High risk 0.3% 0.3%

Pesticide




High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Bananas

Target: 90% of land in priority areas under bananas are managed using best management


C

64.7%

Table 21. Wet Tropics Bananas area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 55.7% 55.7% 7,736 ha

Nutrients 75.0% 76.2% 10,576 ha

Pesticides 62.3% 62.3% 8,642 ha

By June 2018, approximately 55.7% of banana farming land was being managed under best

practice systems for soil (7,736ha), 76.2% for nutrients (10,576ha) and 62.3% for pesticides

(8,642ha). Approximately 250 growers are managing 13,800ha of bananas in the Wet Tropics

region.

Over 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 there was no increase in the area managed using best practice

for soil management, there was a 1.2% increase in area managed using best practice for

nutrients and no increase in the area managed using best practice for pesticides in the Wet

Tropics natural resource management region.

24

Figure 11. Wet Tropics proportional area of bananas water quality risk by management systems.

In the Wet Tropics natural resource management region the following program reported


The Australian Government Reef Trust: Reef Alliance Growing a Great Barrier Reef

project resulted in improved nutrient management across 165ha of bananas

plantations.

Table 22. Wet Tropics banana water quality risk since 2016, by management systems.





High risk 2.4% 2.4%

Nutrient





Pesticide




High risk 4.9% 4.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Wet Tropics Bananas


25

Table 23. Wet Tropics adoption of key Banana management practices since 2016


Fallow cover 95.0% 95.0%

Plant crop tillage 15.0% 15.1%

Inter-row ground cover 70.0% 70.0%

Controlling run-off 72.0% 72.0%

Managing inter-rows 40.0% 40.0%

Sediment traps 70.0% 70.0%


Nutrient application frequency 90.0% 91.1%

Managing foliar diseases 30.0% 30.0%

Managing Nematodes 90.0% 90.0%

Managing Weevil Borer 75.0% 75.0%

26

Burdekin

Grazing



D

44.6%

Table 24. Burdekin grazing area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Pastures 32.9% 34.6% 4,935,061 ha

Streambanks 72.2% 72.2% 255,945 km

Gullies 27.0% 27.0% 3,841,422 ha

By June 2018, approximately 34.6% of grazing land was under best management practices

relating to pasture (hillslope) erosion (4,935,061ha), 72.2% for practices related to streambank

erosion (255,945km of streambank) and 27.0% for practices related to gully erosion

(3,841,422ha). Approximately 983 graziers are managing 14.2 million hectares of land and

~354,000km of streambanks in the Burdekin region.


practice for pasture management, a 0.05% increase in the length of streambanks managed

using best practice and no increase in the area of gullies managed using best practice in the

Burdekin natural resource management region.

Figure 12. Burdekin proportional area of grazing water quality risk by management systems.

In the Burdekin natural resource management region the following programs reported


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Burdekin Grazing


27

The Australian Government Greening Australia project that funded gully remediation

works in the Don catchment reported improved management for pasture and gully

practices on 262ha.


project resulted in 92,882ha of improved pasture management, 75,008ha of improved

gully management and 148km of streamlines were fenced through projects aimed at

fencing off riparian and gullied areas, additional watering points to reduce grazing

pressure and spelling pastures to increase ground cover.

The Queensland Government Innovative Gully Remediation Project focussed on

innovative gully remediation techniques on Strathalbyn reported improved

management for pasture and gully practices on 58ha.

The Australian Government in partnership with the Queensland Government delivered

the ‘Promotion of A-class grazing management practice’ (Reef Trust) program, which

resulted in 7,870ha of pasture and 12,162ha of gully practice change through projects

that offered grazing land management focussed training to landholders, installation of

fences and watering points to promote pasture spelling and improved ground cover.

The Australian Government Reef Trust gully erosion project program resulted in 52ha of

improved pasture and 64ha of improved gully management through projects that

promoted exclusion fences, porous check dams, whoa-boys and additional watering

points.

The Australian Government Reef Trust Project Pioneer, delivered by Resource Consulting

Services, achieved improved pasture management on 133,650ha and improved gully

management on 17,871ha.

Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries staff worked with landholders to

improve pasture management practices on 179,805ha and gully management on

182,368ha.

The Queensland Government’s Natural Resource Management Investment program

resulted in 12ha of gully management practice change through projects that excluded

stock from riparian and gullied areas through fencing and additional watering points.

28

Table 25. Burdekin grazing water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 11.7% 10.3%

Streambank




High risk 11.7% 11.6%

Gully




High risk 18.0% 16.0%

Sugarcane



E

10.6%

Table 26. Burdekin sugarcane area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 0.0% 0.3% 347 ha

Nutrient 16.4% 19.6% 19,955 ha

Pesticide 11.5% 11.8% 11,941 ha

Irrigation 0.0% 3.2% 3,204 ha

By June 2018, 19.6% of land was managed using best management practice systems for

nutrients (19,955ha), 11.8% for pesticides (11,941ha) and 3.2% for irrigation (3,204ha). Currently

only 0.3% of land is managed under best practice systems for soil (347ha). On average, 10.6%

of sugarcane is managed under best practice systems (for soil, nutrient and pesticides) in this

region. Approximately 550 growers are managing 101,500ha farmland (growing 70,000ha of

sugarcane) in the Burdekin region.

29

Figure 13. Burdekin proportional area of sugarcane water quality risk by management systems

Four programs reported data by June 2018:

The Australia Government Reef Trust II Reverse Tender project

The Australia Government Reef Trust III Reef Alliance project

The Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries sugarcane extension program

The Queensland Department of Environment and Science through the Office of the

Great Barrier Reef funded RP161 Complete Nutrient Management Planning for Cane

Farming program.

Across all management systems there was an increase in the area managed using best

practice for soil management. There was a 0.3% increase in the Haughton catchment through

the adoption of green cane trash blanketing, 48ha and 34ha in the Haughton and Burdekin

catchments respectively adopted controlled traffic practices, 1,800ha in the Haughton

catchment moved anyway from bare fallow practices and 35ha adopted zonal tillage

practices.

The area managed using best practice nutrient management increased by 3.2%. This was

driven by 4,863ha and 2,779ha in the Haughton and Burdekin catchments respectively

adopting practices that resulted in the better matching of nitrogen rate to crop requirement

thus reducing the surplus of nitrogen in the system. Of these areas, 2,940ha in the Haughton

catchment and 345ha in the Burdekin catchment moved to best practice management for

nitrogen surplus.

The area managed using best practice for pesticide management increased by 0.3%. This was

a result of 233ha in the Haughton catchment and 34ha in the Burdekin catchment adopting

improved band spraying residual pesticide practices. 314ha in the Haughton catchment and

136ha in the Burdekin catchment reduced their use of residuals in ratoon crops.

The area managed using best practice for irrigation increased by 3.1%. This was a result of

2,145ha in the Haughton catchment and 1,292ha in the Burdekin catchment using in-field

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Soil Nutrient Pesticide Irrigation

Burdekin Sugarcane


30

indicators such as moisture probes to better schedule irrigation events. There is also 681ha in

the Haughton catchment which utilise recycle pits and 272ha which manage using best

practice for recycle pit management.

Table 27. Burdekin sugarcane water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 91.4% 90.3%

Nutrient




High risk 60.9% 58.4%

Pesticide




High risk 7.1% 6.7%

Irrigation




High risk 56.3% 55.9%

Table 28. Burdekin adoption of sugarcane key management practices since 2016

Key practices 2016 Benchmark Report Card 2017

and 2018




Planting 3.4% 3.4%



Mud rate 65.9% 65.9%






Irrigation scheduling 3.4% 3.7%

Irrigation volume 5.0% 5.0%

Irrigation run-off 4.7% 5.0%

31

Horticulture



D

36.0%

Table 29. Burdekin horticulture area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 42.6% 42.6% 7,959 ha

Nutrient 4.6% 5.2% 980 ha

Pesticide 60.1% 60.1% 11,259 ha

Approximately 200 horticulture producers are farming 18,723ha of land in the Burdekin region.

By June 2018, best management practice systems were used on approximately 60.1% of

horticultural land for pesticides (11,259ha), 5.2% for nutrients (980ha) and 42.6% for soil

(7,959ha).

Over 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 there was no reported increase in the area managed using best

practice for soil management, there was a 0.6% increase in area managed using best practice

for nutrients and no reported increase in the area managed using best practice for pesticides

in the Burdekin natural resource management region.

Figure 14. Burdekin proportional area of horticulture water quality risk by management systems

In the Burdekin natural resource management region the following program reported practice

change by June 2018:

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Burdekin Horticulture


32

Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries extension staff worked with

landholders to improve nutrient management across 123ha.

Table 30. Burdekin horticulture water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 0.3% 0.3%

Nutrient




High risk 5.3% 5.3%

Pesticide




High risk 0.0% 0.0%

33

Grains

Target: 90% of land in priority areas under grain farming are managed using best management


D

35%

Table 31. Burdekin grains area managed under best management practice systems

Best Practice Adoption


2018

Soil 38.0% 38.0% 46,746 ha

Nutrient 59.0% 59.0% 72,656 ha

Pesticide 7.8% 7.8% 9,635 ha

The amount of land under grain production can vary considerably over time due to some land

alternating between grain production and pastures for beef cattle. By June 2018, best

management systems were being used on approximately 7.8% of grain farming land for

pesticides (9,635ha), 59.0% for nutrients (72,656ha) and 38.0% for soil (46,746ha). There were no

grains projects reported in the Burdekin during this reporting period (2016-2017 and 2017-2018).

Approximately 44 growers are managing 123,102ha under grain crops in the Burdekin region.

Figure 15. Burdekin proportional area of grains water quality risk by management systems

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Burdekin Grains


34

Table 32. Burdekin grains water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 2.9% 2.9%

Nutrient




High risk 10.7% 10.7%

Pesticide




High risk 36.4% 36.4%

35

Mackay Whitsunday

Grazing



D

32.5%

Table 33. Mackay Whitsunday grazing area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Pastures 39.2% 41.5% 143,806 ha

Streambanks 18.2% 18.3% 7,004 km

Gullies 37.6% 37.6% 130,210 ha

By June 2018, approximately 41.5% of grazing land was being managed using best

management practice systems for practices related to pasture (hillslope) erosion (143,806ha),

18.3% for practices relating to streambank erosion (7,004km of streambank) and 37.6% for

practices relating to gully erosion (128,937ha). Approximately 410 graziers are managing 0.35

million hectares of land and ~38,000km of streambanks in the Mackay Whitsunday region.



using best practice and no increase in the area of gullies managed using best practice in the

Mackay Whitsundays natural resource management region.

Figure 16. Mackay Whitsunday proportional area of grazing water quality risk by management systems

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Mackay Grazing


36

In the Mackay Whitsunday natural resource management region the following programmes

reported practice change by June 2018:

The Queensland Government’s Regional Natural Resource Management Investment

Program resulted in 1,120ha of gully management practice change and 28km of

streambank management practice change through projects that excluded stock from

riparian and gullied areas through fencing and additional watering points. Additionally

there were projects that also incorporated engineering works to remediate actively

eroding gullies.


improve pasture management practices on 8,017ha and gully management on

8,017ha. This was accomplished through one-on-one extension provided by extension

staff, and achieved a 3% increase in the area under best practice for pasture

management in this catchment.

Table 34. Mackay Whitsunday grazing water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 36.6% 36.6%

Streambank




High risk 35.9% 35.8%

Gully




High risk 23.7% 21.0%

Sugarcane



E

5.1%

Table 35. Mackay Whitsunday sugarcane area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 2.3% 2.3% 3,551 ha

Nutrients 7.0% 7.1% 10,874 ha

Pesticides 5.1% 6.0% 9,091 ha

37

As at June 2018, approximately 7.1% (10,874ha) of sugarcane farming land was being

managed using best practice management for practices relating to nutrients, 6.0% for

pesticides (9,091ha), and 2.3% for soil (3,551ha). In the Mackay Whitsunday region, 1380

sugarcane growers are managing 152,200ha of farm land (growing 106,000ha of sugarcane).

Figure 17. Mackay Whitsunday proportional area of sugarcane water quality risk by management systems

Two programs reported data by June 2018:

The Australian Government funded Reef Trust Mackay Whitsunday Isaac Sustainable

Agriculture - sugarcane project resulted in 10,497ha of improved nutrient and pesticide

management in sugarcane lands

The Queensland Government funded the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries

sugarcane extension program.

There was an increase in the area managed using best management practices for nutrient

management by 0.1%. This was driven by an increase of 178ha under best management

practice for nitrogen surplus in the Pioneer catchment. Additionally, 711ha in the Plane

catchment, 292ha in the Pioneer catchment and 729ha in the O’Connell catchment improved

their management of nitrogen surplus.

There was an increase of 0.9% in area managed using best management practices for

pesticide management. This was a result of 643ha in the Plane catchment adopting improved

band spraying of residual pesticides practices and 390ha in the Plane catchment reducing

application of residual pesticides in ratoon cane.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Mackay Whitsundays Sugarcane


38

Table 36. Mackay Whitsunday sugarcane water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 0.9% 0.7%

Nutrient




High risk 66.1% 66.0%

Pesticide




High risk 8.3% 7.1%

Table 37. Mackay Whitsunday adoption of sugarcane key management practices since 2016


and 2018




Planting 6.9% 7.0%



Mud rate 39.0% 39.0%






39

Fitzroy

Grazing



D

28.3%

Table 38. Fitzroy grazing area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Pastures 23.2% 23.7% 3,463,878 ha

Streambanks 40.6% 40.6% 160,421 km

Gullies 20.4% 20.4% 2,985,427 ha

Approximately 3,666 graziers are managing 14.5 million hectares of land and ~395,000km of

streambanks in the Fitzroy catchment. By June 2018, approximately 23.7% of grazing land

(3,463,878ha) was under best management practice for practices relating to surface (hillslope)

erosion from pastures, 40.6% (160,421km of streambank) for practices relating to streambank

erosion and 20.4% (2,985,427ha) for practices relating to gully erosion.



using best practice and a 0.01% increase in the area of gullies managed using best practice in

the Fitzroy natural resource management region.

Figure 18. Fitzroy proportional area of grazing water quality risk by management systems

In the Fitzroy natural resource management region the following program reported practice


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Fitzroy Grazing


40

The Australian Government Reef Trust gully erosion project program worked with

landholders to improve pasture management practices across 785ha and gully

management practices on 7,038ha. This was achieved through porous check dams,

stock exclusion fences, whoa boys and earthworks.

The Australian Government’s System Repair projects worked with landholders to

improve pasture and gully management practices on 353ha and 2km of improved

streambank management. Practice change was achieved through the

implementation and construction of wetland and riparian fences with off-stream

watering points to reduce grazing pressure on these vulnerable areas and associated

improved stock management practices.


improve pasture management practices across 67,863ha, and improved gully

management practices across 135,820ha. This was accomplished through one-on-one

extension provided by extension staff.

The Australian Government in partnership with the Queensland Government delivered

the ‘Promotion of A-class grazing management practice’ (Reef Trust) program which

resulted in 13,942ha of pasture management practice change, 31,923ha of gully

management practice change and improved management of 2km of streambanks.

These changes were achieved through intensive one-on-one extension and

engagement with landholders, landholder upskilling and capacity building as well as

on-ground funding which included land type fencing and additional watering points to

spell paddocks and reduce grazing pressure.


program resulted in 83,921ha of pasture, 6,224 gully management practice change

and 18km of streambank improvement. These changes were achieved primarily

through the construction of riparian and land type fences and additional watering

points to exclude stock from vulnerable areas of the property and riparian areas.

Table 39. Fitzroy grazing water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 29.4% 29.4%

Streambank




High risk 40.4% 40.4%

Gully




High risk 25.1% 23.9%

41

Horticulture



E

6.7%

Table 40. Fitzroy horticulture area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 7.1% 7.1% 467 ha


Pesticide 11.9% 11.9% 787 ha

By June 2018, best management practice systems were being used by approximately 11.9%

(787ha) of horticulture growers for pesticides, 1.1% (75ha) for nutrients and 7.1% (467ha) for soil.

There were no horticulture projects reported for 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 in the Fitzroy region.

Horticulture is not a major contributor to water quality risk in this region. Approximately 100

horticulture producers are farming 6,626ha of land in the Fitzroy catchment.

Over 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 there was no increase in the area managed using best practice

for soil, nutrient or pesticide management in the Fitzroy natural resource management region.

Figure 19. Fitzroy proportional area of horticulture water quality risk by pollutant

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Fitzroy Horticulture


42

Table 41. Fitzroy horticulture water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 0.3% 0.3%

Nutrient




High risk 7.0% 7.0%

Pesticide




High risk 0.1% 0.1%

Grains

Target: 90% of land in priority areas under grain farming are managed using best management


D

38.1%

Table 42. Fitzroy grains area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 33.8% 33.8% 211,599 ha

Nutrient 73.3% 73.3% 460,430 ha

Pesticide 7.2% 7.2% 45,433 ha

Approximately 600 grain growers are managing about 627,692ha of land in the Fitzroy

catchment. The amount of land under grain production can vary considerably over time due

to some land alternating between grain production and pastures for beef cattle. By June 2018,

best management practice systems were being used on approximately 33.8% (211,599ha) of

grain-growing land for soil, 73.3% (460,430ha) for nutrients and 7.2% (45,433ha) for pesticide

management. There were no grains projects reported in the Fitzroy between 2016-2017 and

2017-2018.

43

Figure 20. Fitzroy proportional area of grains water quality risk by management systems

Table 43. Fitzroy grains water quality risk since 2016, by pollutant





High risk 7.7% 7.7%

Nutrient




High risk 5.8% 5.8%

Pesticide




High risk 36.8% 36.8%

Table 44: Fitzroy River grains water quality risk since 2016, by management systems









0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Fitzroy Grains


44





45

Burnett Mary

Grazing



D

41.5%

Table 45. Burnett Mary grazing area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Pastures 45.9% 46.0% 2,063,815 ha

Streambanks 48.7% 48.7% 114,747 km

Gullies 29.8% 29.8% 1,338,072 ha

By June 2018, approximately 46.0% (2,063,815ha) of grazing land was under best management

practice systems for practices relating to pasture management, 48.7% (114,747km of

streambank) for practices relating to streambank erosion and 29.8% (1,338,072ha) for practices

relating to gully erosion. Approximately 2,490 graziers are managing 4.4 million hectares of land

in the Burnett Mary region and about 235,500km of mapped streambanks.


practice for pasture management, no increase in the length of streambanks managed using

best practice and a 0.01% increase in the area of gullies managed using best practice in the

Burnett Mary natural resource management region.

Figure 21. Burnett Mary proportional area of grazing water quality risk by management systems

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Burnett Mary Grazing


46

In the Burnett Mary natural resource region the following programmes reported practice


The Australian Governments National Landcare Program (Better Catchments)

improved pasture management across 260ha and gully management across 380ha.

This was achieved through projects that targeted pasture, soil and land condition

improvements.


project in the Burnett Mary improved pasture management on 1,591ha and gully

management across 1,221ha. These changes were achieved through one-on-one

extension and technical advice coupled with on-ground incentives to fund exclusion

fences and off-stream watering points. A total of 8km of streambanks were also

improved through this project.


program resulted in 3ha of improved pasture and 14ha of improved gully management

through exclusion fences and soil conservations projects.

The Australian Governments Reef Trust Project Pioneer, delivered by Resource

Consulting Services, achieved improved pasture management across 3,118ha and

gully management across 27ha.

The Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines Sustainable Agriculture

Project resulted in 220ha of improve pasture management and 408ha of improved gully

management. These improvements were due to soil conservation projects.

Table 46. Burnett Mary grazing water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Streambank




High risk 30.7% 30.7%

Gully




High risk 16.0% 16.0%

47

Sugarcane



E

6.6%

Table 47. Burnett Mary sugarcane area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 1.7% 1.7% 1,440 ha

Nutrients 15.7% 15.8% 13,401 ha


As at June 2018, approximately 15.8% (13,401ha) of sugarcane land was being managed using

best management practice systems for nutrients, 1.7% (1,440ha) for soil, and 2.2%

(1,895ha) for pesticides. Approximately 490 growers are managing 84,900ha of farmland

(growing 46,000ha of sugarcane) in the Burnett Mary region.

Figure 22. Burnett Mary proportional area of sugarcane water quality risk by management system

One program reported change by June 2018, the Australian Government Reef Trust: Reef

Alliance Growing a Great Barrier Reef project. Over 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 there was an

increase in the area managed using best practice nutrient management of 0.1%. This was the

result of 45ha in the Burnett catchment adopting best practice for nitrogen surplus.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Burnett Mary Sugarcane


48

Table 48. Burnett Mary sugarcane water quality risk since 2016, by management system





High risk 6.1% 6.1%

Nutrient




High risk 52.8% 52.8%

Pesticide




High risk 20.8% 20.8%

Table 49. Burnett Mary adoption of sugarcane key management practices since 2016


and 2018







Mud rate 65.2% 65.2%






49

Horticulture



D

25.4%

Table 50. Burnett Mary horticulture area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 14.9% 14.9% 2,845 ha

Nutrient 36.6% 36.6% 6,956 ha

Pesticide 24.7% 24.7% 4,706 ha

The area under horticulture in this region can vary considerably on an annual basis due to

rotations between sugarcane and annual vegetable crops. As at June 2018, best

management practice systems for pesticides were in place on approximately 24.7% (4,706ha)

of horticulture land, 36.6% (6,956ha) for nutrients and 14.9% (2,845ha) for soil. Approximately 280

horticulture producers are farming around 19,069ha of land in the Burnett Mary region.

There were no horticulture projects reported during 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 in the Burnett

Mary region.

Figure 23. Burnett Mary proportional area of horticulture water quality risk by management systems

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Burnett Mary Horticulture


50

Table 51. Burnett Mary horticulture water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 3.8% 3.8%

Nutrient




High risk 5.3% 5.3%

Pesticide




High risk 0.1% 0.1%

Grains

Target: 90% of land in priority areas under grain farming are managed using best

management practice systems for water quality outcomes (soil, nutrient and pesticides).

D

42.2%

Table 52. Burnett Mary grains area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 36.2% 36.2% 29,265 ha

Nutrient 83.3% 83.7% 67,718 ha

Pesticide 6.7% 6.7% 5,447 ha

Approximately 280 grain growers are managing about 80,923ha of land in the Burnett Mary

region. The amount of land under grain production can vary considerably over time due to

some land alternating between grain production and pastures for beef cattle. By June 2018,

best management systems for pesticides were being used on approximately 6.7% (5,447ha) of

grain-growing land, 83.7% for nutrients (67,718ha) and 36.2% for soil (29,265ha).

Over 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 there was no increase in the area managed using best

practice for soil management, a 0.4% increase in the area managed using best practice for

nutrients and no increase in the area managed using best practice for pesticides in the Burnett

Mary natural resource management region.

51

Figure 24. Burnett Mary proportional area of grains water quality risk by management systems

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Burnett Mary Grains


52

In the Burnett Mary natural resource management region the following program reported

practice change by June 2018:

The Australian Governments National Landcare Program (Better Catchments) reported

306ha of nutrient management practice change (0.4% increase in area under best

practice) and 65ha of pesticide practice change.

Table 53. Burnett Mary grains water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 6.0% 6.0%

Nutrient




High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Pesticide




High risk 37.5% 37.4%

53

Appendices

Cape York

Grazing

Normanby River

Table 54. Normanby grazing area managed under best management practice systems

Best Practice Adoption (area or km streambank)

2016 Benchmark Report Card 2017 and 2018 (%)

Report Card 2017 and

2018

Pastures 20.4% 27.4% 400,614 ha

Streambanks 27.8% 27.8% 21,090 km

Gullies 34.2% 35.1% 492,647 ha

Figure 25. Normanby proportional area of grazing water quality risk by erosion type

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Normanby Grazing


54

Table 55. Normanby grazing water quality risk since 2016, by erosion type





High risk 33.3% 29.8%

Streambank




High risk 30.2% 30.2%

Gully




High risk 16.2% 16.2%

55

Wet Tropics

Grazing

Herbert River

Table 56. Herbert grazing area managed under best management practice systems




2018

Pastures 20.8% 20.8% 122,346 ha

Streambanks 82.9% 82.9% 27,769 km

Gullies 3.2% 3.2% 18,973 ha

Figure 26. Herbert proportional area of grazing water quality risk by management systems

Table 57. Herbert grazing water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 2.1% 2.1%

Streambank





Gully




High risk 20.7% 20.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Herbert Grazing


56

Sugarcane

Daintree River

Table 58. Daintree River sugarcane area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 2.4% 2.4% 98 ha

Nutrients 20.2% 20.2% 815 ha

Pesticides 17.6% 17.6% 712 ha

Figure 27. Daintree River proportional area of sugarcane water quality risk by management system

Table 59. Daintree River sugarcane water quality risk since 2016, by management system





High risk 0.3% 0.3%

Nutrient




High risk 48.2% 48.2%

Pesticide




High risk 5.1% 5.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Daintree River Sugarcane


57

Table 60. Daintree River adoption of sugarcane key management practices since 2016


and 2018







Mud rate 21.0% 21.0%






Mossman River

Table 61. Mossman River sugarcane area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 0.5% 0.5% 23 ha

Nutrients 29.0% 29.0% 1,333 ha


Figure 28. Mossman River proportional area of sugarcane water quality risk by management system

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Mossman River Sugarcane


58

Table 62. Mossman River sugarcane water quality risk since 2016, by management system





High risk 0.1% 0.1%

Nutrient




High risk 29.4% 29.4%

Pesticide




High risk 6.9% 6.9%

Table 63. Mossman River adoption of sugarcane key management practices since 2016


and 2018







Mud rate 6.0% 6.0%






Barron River

Table 64. Barron River sugarcane area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 0.4% 0.4% 38 ha

Nutrients 27.0% 29.8% 2,707 ha

Pesticides 13.7% 13.7% 1,241 ha

59

Figure 29. Barron River proportional area of sugarcane water quality risk by management system

Table 65. Barron River sugarcane water quality risk since 2016, by management system





High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Nutrient




High risk 42.8% 42.0%

Pesticide




High risk 6.9% 6.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Barron River Sugarcane


60

Table 66. Barron River adoption of sugarcane key management practices since 2016


and 2018







Mud rate 100.0% 100.0%






Mulgrave-Russell River

Table 67. Mulgrave-Russell River sugarcane area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 1.2% 1.6% 382 ha

Nutrients 12.6% 14.0% 3,421 ha


Figure 30. Mulgrave-Russell River proportional area of sugarcane water quality risk by management

system

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Mulgrave-Russell River Sugarcane


61

Table 68. Mulgrave-Russell River sugarcane water quality risk since 2016, by management system





High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Nutrient




High risk 66.4% 64.9%

Pesticide




High risk 12.7% 12.5%

Table 69. Mulgrave-Russell River adoption of sugarcane key management practices since 2016


and 2018







Mud rate 30.0% 30.0%






Johnstone River

Table 70. Johnstone River sugarcane area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 1.0% 3.1% 784 ha

Nutrients 17.3% 17.3% 4,354 ha


62

Figure 31. Johnstone River proportional area of sugarcane water quality risk by management system

Table 71. Johnstone River sugarcane water quality risk since 2016, by management system





High risk 1.7% 1.7%

Nutrient




High risk 45.8% 45.4%

Pesticide




High risk 4.7% 4.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Johnstone River Sugarcane


63

Table 72. Johnstone River adoption of sugarcane key management practices since 2016


and 2018







Mud rate 48.0% 48.0%






Tully River

Table 73. Tully River sugarcane area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 1.2% 1.2% 241 ha

Nutrients 26.0% 26.0% 5,221 ha


Figure 32. Tully River proportional area of sugarcane water quality risk by management system

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Tully River Sugarcane


64

Table 74. Tully River sugarcane water quality risk since 2016, by management system





High risk 1.7% 1.7%

Nutrient




High risk 46.2% 46.2%

Pesticide




High risk 8.0% 7.5%

Table 75. Tully River adoption of sugarcane key management practices since 2016


and 2018




Planting 5.0% 5.0%



Mud rate 9.0% 9.0%






Murray River

Table 76. Tully River sugarcane area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 3.4% 3.4% 622 ha

Nutrients 21.0% 22.6% 4,068 ha


65

Figure 33. Murray River proportional area of sugarcane water quality risk by management system

Table 77. Murray River sugarcane water quality risk since 2016, by management system





High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Nutrient




High risk 52.0% 50.4%

Pesticide




High risk 8.7% 7.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Murray River Sugarcane


66

Table 78. Murray River adoption of sugarcane key management practices since 2016


and 2018







Mud rate 17.0% 17.0%






Herbert River

Table 79. Herbert River sugarcane area managed under best management practice systems



2018 (ha)

Soil 1.8% 2.2% 1,664

Nutrients 35.0% 35.0% 26,570

Pesticides 35.3% 35.3% 26,801

Figure 34. Herbert River proportional area of sugarcane water quality risk by management system

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Herbert River Sugarcane


67

Table 80. Herbert River sugarcane water quality risk since 2016, by management system





High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Nutrient




High risk 52.0% 51.6%

Pesticide




High risk 1.5% 1.5%

Table 81. Herbert River adoption of sugarcane key management practices since 2016


and 2018

Trash Blanket 100.0% 100.0%

Machinery Traffic 20.0% 20.0%

Fallow Management 15.0% 15.5%

Planting 4.0% 4.4%

Nitrogen Surplus 38.0% 38.4%

Phosphorus Surplus 0.0% 0.0%

Mud Rate 78.0% 78.0%

Pesticide Application in Plant Cane 2.0% 2.0%

Pesticide Application in Ratoons 76.0% 76.0%

Use of Residuals 89.0% 89.0%

Pesticide Selection 5.0% 5.0%

Cane Grub Pesticides 20.0% 20.0%

Horticulture

Barron River

Table 82. Barron River horticulture area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 21.9% 21.9% 1,069 ha

Nutrient 10.1% 10.6% 519 ha

Pesticide 73.1% 73.1% 3,569 ha

68

Figure 35. Barron River proportional area of horticulture water quality risk by management systems

Table 83. Barron River horticulture water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Nutrient




High risk 0.3% 0.3%

Pesticide




High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Herbert River

Table 84. Herbert River horticulture area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 33.4% 33.4% 158 ha

Nutrient 11.0% 11.0% 52 ha

Pesticide 98.3% 98.3% 464 ha

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Barron River Horticulture


69

Figure 36. Herbert River proportional area of horticulture water quality risk by management systems

Table 85. Herbert River horticulture water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Nutrient




High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Pesticide




High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Johnstone River

Table 86. Johnstone River horticulture area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 15.7% 15.7% 101 ha

Nutrient 48.0% 48.0% 308 ha

Pesticide 74.7% 74.7% 480 ha

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Herbert River Horticulture


70

Figure 37. Johnstone River proportional area of horticulture water quality risk by management systems

Table 87. Johnstone River horticulture water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Nutrient




High risk 1.2% 1.2%

Pesticide




High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Mulgrave-Russell River

Table 88. Mulgrave-Russell River horticulture area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 95.7% 95.7% 348 ha

Nutrient 47.1% 47.1% 171 ha

Pesticide 88.3% 88.3% 321 ha

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Johnstone River Horticulture


71

Figure 38. Mulgrave-Russell River proportional area of horticulture water quality risk by management

systems

Table 89. Mulgrave-Russell River horticulture water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Nutrient




High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Pesticide




High risk 0.0% 0.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Mulgrave-Russell River Horticulture


72

Bananas

Barron River

Table 90. Barron River Bananas area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 55.7% 55.7% 7,736 ha

Nutrients 75.0% 77.0% 10,576 ha

Pesticides 62.3% 62.3% 8,642 ha

Figure 39. Barron proportional area of bananas water quality risk by management systems

Table 91. Barron bananas water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 2.4% 2.4%

Nutrient





Pesticide




High risk 4.9% 4.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Barron River Bananas


73

Table 92. Barron adoption of key Banana management practices since 2016









Application frequency 90.0% 92.0%




Johnstone River

Table 93. Johnstone River Bananas area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 55.7% 55.7% 2,992 ha

Nutrients 75.0% 77.1% 4,139 ha

Pesticides 62.3% 62.3% 3,342 ha

Figure 40. Johnstone River proportional area of bananas water quality risk by management systems

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Johnstone River Bananas


74

Table 94. Johnstone River bananas water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 2.4% 2.4%

Nutrient




High risk 10.0% 10.0%

Pesticide




High risk 4.9% 4.9%

Table 95. Johnstone adoption of key Banana management practices since 2016













Mulgrave Russell River

Table 96. Mulgrave Russell Bananas area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 55.7% 55.7% 570 ha

Nutrients 75.0% 75.4% 771 ha


75

Figure 41. Mulgrave Russell proportional area of bananas water quality risk by management systems

Table 97. Mulgrave Russell bananas water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 2.4% 2.4%

Nutrient




High risk 10.0% 10.0%

Pesticide




High risk 4.9% 4.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Mulgrave Russell River Bananas


76

Table 98. Mulgrave Russell adoption of key Banana management practices since 2016













Tully River

Table 99. Tully River bananas area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 55.7% 55.7% 2,936 ha

Nutrients 75.0% 75.1% 3,955 ha

Pesticides 62.3% 62.3% 3,279 ha

Figure 42. Tully River proportional area of bananas water quality risk by management systems

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Tully River Bananas


77

Table 100. Tully River bananas water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 2.4% 2.4%

Nutrient




High risk 10.0% 10.0%

Pesticide




High risk 4.9% 4.9%

Table 101. Tully adoption of key Banana management practices since 2016













78

Burdekin

Grazing

Haughton River

Table 102. Haughton grazing area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Pastures 30.8% 32.4% 82,862 ha

Streambanks 72.2% 72.5% 10,295 km

Gullies 26.1% 26.2% 66,873 ha

Figure 43. Haughton proportional area of grazing water quality risk by management systems

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Haughton Grazing


79

Table 103. Haughton grazing water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 11.8% 11.4%

Streambank




High risk 11.7% 11.4%

Gully





Burdekin River

Table 104. Burdekin River grazing area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Pastures 33.0% 34.7% 4,694,793 ha

Streambanks 72.2% 72.2% 223,535 km

Gullies 27.0% 27.0% 3,648,643 ha

Figure 44. Burdekin River proportional area of grazing water quality risk by management systems

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Burdekin River Grazing


80

Table 105. Burdekin River grazing water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 11.7% 10.3%

Streambank




High risk 11.7% 11.6%

Gully




High risk 18.0% 16.1%

Don River

Table 106. Don River grazing area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Pastures 33.1% 34.2% 115,551 ha

Streambanks 72.2% 72.2% 13,529 km

Gullies 26.1% 26.2% 88,660 ha

Figure 45. Don River proportional area of grazing water quality risk by management systems

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Don River Grazing


81

Table 107. Don River grazing water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 11.8% 11.5%

Streambank




High risk 11.7% 11.6%

Gully




High risk 18.0% 16.9%

Sugarcane

Haughton River

Table 108. Haughton River sugarcane area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 0.0% 0.6% 347 ha

Nutrient 17.3% 22.2% 13,290 ha

Pesticide 14.5% 14.9% 8,955 ha


Figure 46. Haughton River proportional area of sugarcane water quality risk by management system

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Haughton RiverSugarcane


82

Table 109. Haughton River sugarcane water quality risk since 2016, by management system





High risk 88.4% 86.7%

Nutrient




High risk 56.7% 53.9%

Pesticide




High risk 5.5% 5.0%

Irrigation




High risk 59.3% 58.7%

Table 110. Haughton River adoption of sugarcane key management practices since 2016


Report Card 2017

and 2018




Planting 5.0% 5.1%



Mud rate 70.0% 70.0%








Irrigation run-off 8.0% 8.5%

83

Burdekin River

Table 111. Burdekin River sugarcane area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 0.0% 0.0% -

Nutrient 15.2% 16.0% 6,665 ha

Pesticide 7.1% 7.2% 2,986 ha


Figure 47. Burdekin River proportional area of sugarcane water quality risk by management system

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Burdekin RiverSugarcane


84

Table 112. Burdekin River sugarcane water quality risk since 2016, by management system





High risk 95.7% 95.5%

Nutrient




High risk 67.0% 64.9%

Pesticide




High risk 9.4% 9.2%

Irrigation




High risk 52.0% 51.8%

Table 113. Burdekin River adoption of sugarcane key management practices since 2016


Report Card 2017

and 2018




Planting 1.0% 1.0%



Mud rate 60.0% 60.0%








Irrigation runoff 0.0% 0.0%

85

Horticulture

Don River

Table 114. Don River horticulture area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 41.2% 41.2% 5,305 ha


Pesticide 61.3% 61.3% 7,896 ha

Figure 48. Don River proportional area of horticulture water quality risk by management systems

Table 115. Don River horticulture water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Nutrient




High risk 2.1% 2.1%

Pesticide




High risk 0.0% 0.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Don River Horticulture


86

Haughton River

Table 116. Haughton River horticulture area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 49.8% 49.8% 2,191 ha


Pesticide 50.4% 50.4% 2,218 ha

Figure 49. Haughton River proportional area of horticulture water quality risk by management systems

Table 117. Haughton River horticulture water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Nutrient




High risk 15.0% 15.0%

Pesticide




High risk 0.0% 0.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Haughton River Horticulture


87

Black River

Table 118. Black River horticulture area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 1.3% 1.3% 12 ha

Nutrient 13.1% 13.1% 118 ha

Pesticide 78.4% 78.4% 709 ha

Figure 50. Black River proportional area of horticulture water quality risk by management systems

Table 119. Black River horticulture water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 6.4% 6.4%

Nutrient




High risk 7.1% 7.1%

Pesticide




High risk 0.0% 0.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Black River Horticulture


88

Burdekin River

Table 120. Burdekin River horticulture area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 84.3% 84.3% 451 ha

Nutrient 37.0% 37.0% 198 ha

Pesticide 81.5% 81.5% 437 ha

Figure 51. Burdekin River proportional area of horticulture water quality risk by management systems

Table 121. Burdekin River horticulture water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Nutrient




High risk 1.4% 1.4%

Pesticide




High risk 0.0% 0.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Burdekin River Horticulture


89

Grains

Suttor River

Table 122. Suttor River grains area managed under best management practice systems




2018

Soil 38.0% 38.0% 46,746 ha

Nutrient 59.0% 59.0% 72,656 ha

Pesticide 7.8% 7.8% 9,635 ha

Figure 52. Burdekin proportional area of grains water quality risk by management systems

Table 123. Burdekin grains water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 2.9% 2.9%

Nutrient




High risk 10.7% 10.7%

Pesticide




High risk 36.4% 36.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Suttor River Grains


90

Table 124. Suttor River adoption of grains key management practices since 2016













91

Mackay Whitsunday

Grazing

O’Connell River

Table 125. O’Connell River grazing area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Pastures 39.0% 39.8% 44,537 ha


Gullies 37.6% 37.6% 42,121 ha

Figure 53. O’Connell River proportional area of grazing water quality risk by management systems

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


O'Connell River Grazing


92

Table 126. O’Connell River grazing water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 36.1% 36.1%

Streambank




High risk 35.9% 35.9%

Gully




High risk 24.2% 22.7%

Pioneer River

Table 127. Pioneer River grazing area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Pastures 38.4% 55.4% 23,533 ha


Gullies 37.6% 37.6% 15,976 ha

Figure 54. Pioneer River proportional area of grazing water quality risk by management systems

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Pioneer River Grazing


93

Table 128. Pioneer River grazing water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 36.9% 36.9%

Streambank




High risk 36.0% 35.7%

Gully





Plane Creek

Table 129. Plane Creek grazing area managed under best management practice systems




2018

Pastures 40.7% 40.7% 26,499 ha


Gullies 37.4% 37.4% 24,328 ha

Figure 55. Plane Creek proportional area of grazing water quality risk by management systems

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Plane Creek Grazing


94

Table 130. Plane Creek grazing water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 36.9% 36.9%

Streambank




High risk 35.9% 35.9%

Gully




High risk 21.8% 21.6%

Proserpine River

Table 131. Proserpine River grazing area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Pastures 38.6% 38.6% 48,876 ha


Gullies 37.4% 37.4% 47,423 ha

Figure 56. Proserpine River proportional area of grazing water quality risk by management systems

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Proserpine River Grazing


95

Table 132. Proserpine River grazing water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 36.9% 36.9%

Streambank




High risk 35.9% 35.9%

Gully




High risk 24.2% 24.2%

Sugarcane

Proserpine River

Table 133. Proserpine sugarcane area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 0.9% 0.9% 232 ha

Nutrient 7.9% 7.9% 1,939 ha

Pesticide 0.8% 0.8% 201 ha

Figure 57. Proserpine River proportional area of sugarcane water quality risk by management system

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Proserpine River Sugarcane


96

Table 134. Proserpine River sugarcane water quality risk since 2016, by management system





High risk 0.1% 0.1%

Nutrient




High risk 65.0% 65.0%

Pesticide




High risk 12.6% 12.6%

Table 135. Proserpine River adoption of sugarcane key management practices since 2016


Report Card 2017

and 2018







Mud rate 30.0% 30.0%






O’Connell River

Table 136. O’Connell River sugarcane area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 1.4% 1.4% 426 ha

Nutrient 9.8% 9.8% 2,986 ha

Pesticide 5.0% 7.1% 2,183 ha

97

Figure 58. O’Connell River proportional area of sugarcane water quality risk by management system

Table 137. O’Connell River sugarcane water quality risk since 2016, by management system





High risk 0.1% 0.1%

Nutrient




High risk 53.8% 53.8%

Pesticide




High risk 5.7% 2.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


O'Connell River Sugarcane


98

Table 138. O’Connell River adoption of sugarcane key management practices since 2016


and 2018




Planting 5.0% 5.0%



Mud rate 42.0% 42.0%






Pioneer River

Table 139. Pioneer River sugarcane area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 1.3% 1.3% 403 ha

Nutrient 5.5% 6.0% 2,074 ha

Pesticide 4.2% 4.2% 1,364 ha

Figure 59. Pioneer River proportional area of sugarcane water quality risk by management system

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Pioneer River Sugarcane


99

Table 140. Pioneer River sugarcane water quality risk since 2016, by management system





High risk 0.1% 0.1%

Nutrient




High risk 71.8% 71.2%

Pesticide




High risk 8.8% 8.0%

Table 141. Pioneer River adoption of sugarcane key management practices since 2016


Report Card 2017

and 2018







Mud rate 35.0% 35.0%






Plane Creek

Table 142. Plane Creek sugarcane area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 3.8% 3.8% 2,490 ha

Nutrient 6.2% 6.2% 4,015 ha

Pesticide 7.3% 8.2% 5,343 ha

100

Figure 60. Plane Creek proportional area of sugarcane water quality risk by management system

Table 143. Plane Creek sugarcane water quality risk since 2016, by management system





High risk 1.9% 1.6%

Nutrient




High risk 69.6% 69.6%

Pesticide




High risk 7.5% 7.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Plane CreekSugarcane


101

Table 144. Plane Creek adoption of sugarcane key management practices since 2016


and 2018




Planting 5.0% 5.3%



Mud rate 43.0% 43.0%






102

Fitzroy

Grazing

Boyne River

Table 145. Boyne River grazing area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Pastures 22.2% 22.2% 49,366 ha


Gullies 20.2% 20.2% 44,895 ha

Figure 61. Boyne River proportional area of grazing water quality risk by management systems

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Boyne River Grazing


103

Table 146. Boyne River grazing water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 29.6% 29.6%

Streambank




High risk 40.6% 40.6%

Gully




High risk 25.2% 25.2%

Calliope River

Table 147. Calliope River grazing area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Pastures 21.2% 21.3% 46,821 ha


Gullies 20.2% 20.2% 44,314 ha

Figure 62. Calliope River proportional area of grazing water quality risk by management systems

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Calliope River Grazing


104

Table 148. Calliope River grazing water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 29.6% 29.6%

Streambank




High risk 40.6% 40.6%

Gully




High risk 25.2% 25.2%

Fitzroy River

Table 149. Fitzroy River grazing area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Pastures 23.1% 23.7% 3,235,616 ha

Streambanks 40.6% 40.6% 136,857 km

Gullies 20.4% 20.5% 2,795,950 ha

Figure 63. Fitzroy River proportional area of grazing water quality risk by management systems

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Fitzroy River Grazing


105

Table 150. Fitzroy River grazing water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 29.4% 29.4%

Streambank




High risk 40.4% 40.4%

Gully




High risk 25.1% 23.8%

Styx River

Table 151. Styx River grazing area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Pastures 26.7% 26.7% 75,829 ha


Gullies 20.7% 20.7% 58,835 ha

Figure 64. Styx River proportional area of grazing water quality risk by management systems

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Styx River Grazing


106

Table 152. Styx River grazing water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 29.5% 29.5%

Streambank




High risk 40.4% 40.4%

Gully




High risk 24.5% 23.2%

Horticulture

Fitzroy River

Table 153. Fitzroy River horticulture area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 8.2% 8.2% 467 ha


Pesticide 13.9% 13.9% 787 ha

Figure 65. Fitzroy River proportional area of horticulture water quality risk by management systems

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Fitzroy River Horticulture


107

Table 154. Fitzroy River horticulture water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 0.3% 0.3%

Nutrient




High risk 3.9% 3.9%

Pesticide




High risk 0.1% 0.1%

Waterpark Creek

Table 155. Waterpark Creek horticulture area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 0.0% 0.0% -

Nutrient 0.0% 0.0% -

Pesticide 0.0% 0.0% -

Figure 66. Waterpark Creek proportional area of horticulture water quality risk by management systems

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Waterpark Creek Horticulture


108

Table 156. Waterpark Creek horticulture water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Nutrient




High risk 25.2% 25.2%

Pesticide




High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Grains

Fitzroy River

Table 157. Fitzroy River grains area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 33.8% 33.8% 211,599

Nutrient 73.3% 73.3% 460,430

Pesticide 7.2% 7.2% 45,433

Figure 67. Fitzroy River proportional area of grains water quality risk by management systems

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Fitzroy River Grains


109

Table 158. Fitzroy River grains water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 7.7% 7.7%

Nutrient




High risk 5.8% 5.8%

Pesticide




High risk 36.8% 36.8%

Table 159. Fitzroy River adoption of grains key management practices since 2016













110

Burnett Mary

Grazing

Baffle Creek

Table 160, Baffle Creek grazing area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Pastures 47.5% 48.5% 160,027 ha

Streambanks 48.7% 48.7% 10,003 km

Gullies 29.8% 29.8% 98,308 ha

Figure 68. Baffle Creek proportional area of grazing water quality risk by management systems

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Baffle Creek Grazing


111

Table 161. Baffle Creek grazing water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Streambank




High risk 30.7% 30.7%

Gully




High risk 16.1% 16.1%

Burnett River

Table 162. Burnett River grazing area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Pastures 45.7% 45.8% 1,445,726 ha

Streambanks 48.7% 48.7% 67,845 km

Gullies 29.8% 29.8% 941,136 ha

Figure 69. Burnett River proportional area of grazing water quality risk by management systems

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Burnett River Grazing


112

Table 163. Burnett River grazing water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Streambank




High risk 30.8% 30.8%

Gully




High risk 16.1% 16.1%

Burrum River

Table 164. Burrum River grazing area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Pastures 45.8% 45.8% 70,672 ha


Gullies 29.8% 29.8% 46,013 ha

Figure 70. Burrum River proportional area of grazing water quality risk by management systems

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Burrum River Grazing


113

Table 165. Burrum River grazing water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Streambank




High risk 30.7% 30.7%

Gully




High risk 16.1% 16.1%

Kolan River

Table 166. Kolan River grazing area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Pastures 45.8% 45.8% 113,405 ha


Gullies 29.7% 29.7% 73,622 ha

Figure 71. Kolan River proportional area of grazing water quality risk by management systems

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Kolan River Grazing


114

Table 167. Kolan River grazing water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Streambank




High risk 30.7% 30.7%

Gully




High risk 16.1% 16.1%

Mary River

Table 168. Mary River grazing area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Pastures 46.2% 46.3% 273,985 ha

Streambanks 48.8% 48.8% 24,024 km

Gullies 30.2% 30.2% 178,736 ha

Figure 72. Mary River proportional area of grazing water quality risk by management systems

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Mary River Grazing


115

Table 169. Mary River grazing water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Streambank




High risk 30.7% 30.7%

Gully




High risk 15.8% 15.7%

Sugarcane

Kolan River

Table 170. Kolan River sugarcane area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 0.0% 0.0% 2 ha

Nutrient 10.5% 10.5% 1,455 ha


116

Figure 73. Kolan River proportional area of sugarcane water quality risk by management system

Table 171. Kolan River sugarcane water quality risk since 2016, by management system





High risk 6.4% 6.4%

Nutrient




High risk 48.6% 48.6%

Pesticide




High risk 22.0% 22.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Kolan River Sugarcane


117

Table 172. Kolan River adoption of sugarcane key management practices since 2016


and 2018




Planting 7.0% 7.0%



Mud rate 70.0% 70.0%






Burnett River

Table 173. Burnett River sugarcane area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 0.0% 0.0% 8 ha

Nutrient 18.7% 18.9% 4,120 ha


Figure 74. Burnett River proportional area of sugarcane water quality risk by management system

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Burnett River Sugarcane


118

Table 174. Burnett River sugarcane water quality risk since 2016, by management system





High risk 7.8% 7.8%

Nutrient




High risk 52.9% 52.7%

Pesticide




High risk 16.1% 16.1%

Table 175. Burnett River adoption of sugarcane key management practices since 2016


Report Card 2017

and 2018




Planting 7.0% 7.0%



Mud rate 64.0% 64.0%






Burrum River

Table 176. Burrum River sugarcane area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 0.0% 0.0% 11 ha

Nutrient 18.7% 18.7% 5,626 ha


119

Figure 75. Burrum River proportional area of sugarcane water quality risk by management system

Table 177. Burrum River sugarcane water quality risk since 2016, by management system





High risk 7.8% 7.8%

Nutrient




High risk 52.9% 52.9%

Pesticide




High risk 16.1% 16.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Burrum River Sugarcane


120

Table 178. Burrum River adoption of sugarcane key management practices since 2016


and 2018




Planting 7.0% 7.0%



Mud rate 64.0% 64.0%






Mary River

Table 179. Mary River sugarcane area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 7.4% 7.4% 1,420 ha

Nutrient 11.5% 11.5% 2,200 ha


Figure 76. Mary River proportional area of sugarcane water quality risk by management system

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Mary River Sugarcane


121

Table 180. Mary River sugarcane water quality risk since 2016, by management system





High risk 1.2% 1.2%

Nutrient




High risk 55.8% 55.8%

Pesticide




High risk 32.8% 32.8%

Table 181. Mary River adoption of sugarcane key management practices since 2016


Report Card 2017

and 2018







Mud rate 65.0% 65.0%






Horticulture

Baffle Creek

Table 182. Baffle Creek horticulture area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 14.6% 14.6% 157 ha



122

Figure 77. Baffle Creek proportional area of horticulture water quality risk by management systems

Table 183. Baffle Creek horticulture water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 0.1% 0.1%

Nutrient




High risk 5.5% 5.5%

Pesticide




High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Burnett River

Table 184. Burnett River horticulture area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 17.9% 17.9% 1,170 ha

Nutrient 97.3% 97.3% 6,358 ha

Pesticide 38.1% 38.1% 2,491 ha

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Baffle Creek Horticulture


123

Figure 78. Burnett River proportional area of horticulture water quality risk by management systems

Table 185. Burnett River horticulture water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 0.2% 0.2%

Nutrient




High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Pesticide




High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Burrum River

Table 186. Burrum River horticulture area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 30.3% 30.3% 618 ha

Nutrient 12.1% 12.1% 247 ha

Pesticide 37.4% 37.4% 763 ha

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Burnett River Horticulture


124

Figure 79. Burrum River proportional area of horticulture water quality risk by management systems

Table 187. Burrum River horticulture water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Nutrient




High risk 0.3% 0.3%

Pesticide




High risk 0.1% 0.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Burrum River Horticulture


125

Kolan River

Table 188. Kolan River horticulture area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 26.0% 26.0% 285 ha


Pesticide 29.5% 29.5% 324 ha

Figure 80. Kolan River proportional area of horticulture water quality risk by management systems

Table 189. Kolan River horticulture water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Nutrient




High risk 1.3% 1.3%

Pesticide




High risk 0.0% 0.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Kolan River Horticulture


126

Mary River

Table 190. Mary River horticulture area managed under best management practice systems



2018

Soil 7.4% 7.4% 614 ha


Pesticide 13.0% 13.0% 1,080 ha

Figure 81. Mary River proportional area of horticulture water quality risk by management systems

Table 191. Mary River horticulture water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 8.6% 8.6%

Nutrient




High risk 11.2% 11.2%

Pesticide




High risk 0.3% 0.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Mary River Horticulture


127

Grains

Burnett River

Table 192. Burnett River grains area managed under best management practice systems

Best Practice Adoption


2018

Soil 36.2% 36.1% 29,265 ha

Nutrient 83.3% 83.7% 67,718 ha

Pesticide 6.7% 6.7% 5,447 ha

Figure 82. Burnett River proportional area of grains water quality risk by management systems

Table 193. Burnett River grains water quality risk since 2016, by management systems





High risk 6.0% 6.0%

Nutrient




High risk 0.0% 0.0%

Pesticide




High risk 37.5% 37.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Burnett River Grains


128

Table 194. Burnett River adoption of grains key management practices since 2016













Documents

Agricultural Land Management Practice Adoption Results · agricultural commodities (land uses) found in the Great Barrier Reef catchments. The results discussed in this report card