South East Queensland Irrigation Futures Phase 2 (2009-2013)€¦ · South East Queensland Irrigation Futures – Phase 2, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016 9 . Chart

South East Queensland Irrigation Futures Phase 2 (2009-2013) Report & Evaluation April 2016

This publication has been compiled by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines © State of Queensland, 2015 The Queensland Government supports and encourages the dissemination and exchange of its information. The copyright in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia (CC BY) licence. Under this licence you are free, without having to seek our permission, to use this publication in accordance with the licence terms.

You must keep intact the copyright notice and attribute the State of Queensland as the source of the publication. Note: Some content in this publication may have different licence terms as indicated. For more information on this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en The information contained herein is subject to change without notice. The Queensland Government shall not be liable for technical or other errors or omissions contained herein. The reader/user accepts all risks and responsibility for losses, damages, costs and other consequences resulting directly or indirectly from using this information.

Summary South East Queensland Irrigation Futures (SEQ-IF) is a Queensland Government program, implemented to improve the efficiency of rural water use in the South East Queensland regional plan area.

Phase 1 of SEQ-IF commenced in 2006 against the backdrop of a deepening drought, with low to no water allocations for the first two years in some areas. Phase 2 (SEQ-IF2) commenced in July 2009 and was completed in June 2013.

Participants in SEQ-IF2 were the five rural commodity groups operating in South East Queensland:

• Dairy (QDO) • Flowers • Growcom • Nursery • Turf

They were supported by Irrigation Australia Ltd and the National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture in providing technical expertise and research and development activities.

The program focussed on improved water use efficiency through targeting irrigation system assessments. On farm services were mostly delivered in conjunction with industry Farm Management Systems (FMS) and significantly also delivered energy gains in many areas.

Targets negotiated and agreed upon with the industry groups included WUE gains ranging from 8% for QDO and Growcom to 25% for Flower irrigators.

The evaluation was conducted using information contained in milestone and final reports submitted via industry bodies. The report also contains valuable data and insights from reports on specific projects funded by the program and the methodology adopted by Coutts (2005) in the first phase of the Rural Water Use Efficency (RWUE) Initiative. Whilst there was no clear ‘starting point’ with respect to water use, there was enough robust data available to have confidence in the achievements generated.

SEQ-IF2 was a successful intervention program with most industry groups exceeding targets. WUE gains measured as high as 60% in individual enterprises, however, across the program it is estimated that approximately 8,100 megalitres (ML) per year were gained. This is an average of a range between 5900 ML and 10370 ML. This average equates to approximately 5.4% of the estimated total irrigation water use in the region.

Summary of achievements against targets

T = Agreed target; R = Result

The average estimated water saving came at a cost to the Queensland Government of some $645 per ML.

Industry System assessment

Workshop attendance

WUE gains %

Communication Financial incentives

T R T R T R T R T R QDO - 56 - 131 8 10.1 228 240 - 30 Growcom - 157 200 112 8 2.8 900 900 - - NGIQ 165 201 250 10 7.65 550 550 - - Turf 44 55 49 55 12 - 92 92 - - Flowers 48 46 42 63 25 22 60 60 - -

South East Queensland Irrigation Futures – Phase 2, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016 3

Participation by irrigators in the program were ranked high, medium and low depending on their level of engagement. Up to 47% of irrigators participated in activities where the level of engagement was determined to be medium to high. These figures exceeded initial expectations of industry groups at the beginning of the program.

Limited financial incentives were provided to irrigators to support change in equipment and practices. Whilst these account for a certain percentage of irrigators making a change clearly there were other drivers, the most significant of which is security of water supply linked to productivity.

The program and its unique framework have produced valuable outcomes, including lessons to improve the outcomes and benefits for any subsequent WUE programs. Greater engagement with the retail sector and financial incentives to assist irrigators make change should also be considered.


Table of contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 7

Irrigation statistics ................................................................................................................................. 8

Number of irrigators ............................................................................................................................ 10

Queensland Dairyfarmers’ Organisation (QDO) .................................................................................. 10

Program Overview ............................................................................................................................. 10

Delivery methodology ........................................................................................................................ 11

Key achievements and highlights ...................................................................................................... 11

Targets ............................................................................................................................................... 12

Growcom .............................................................................................................................................. 13

Program overview .............................................................................................................................. 13



Targets ............................................................................................................................................... 15

Achievements against targets ............................................................................................................ 15

Nursery & Garden Industry Queensland (NGIQ) ................................................................................. 15




Targets ............................................................................................................................................... 17


Turf Queensland (TQ) .......................................................................................................................... 17




Targets ............................................................................................................................................... 18


Flower Association Queensland Inc (FAQI) ......................................................................................... 19




Targets ............................................................................................................................................... 20


Evaluation of SEQ-IF2.......................................................................................................................... 21

Measures of success ........................................................................................................................... 21

Evaluation logic .................................................................................................................................... 22

Irrigators engaged in SEQ-IF2: ............................................................................................................ 22


Types of engagement .......................................................................................................................... 23

Types of activity by industry ................................................................................................................. 23

Achievements against agreed targets.................................................................................................. 24

Water use efficiency gains ................................................................................................................... 25

Level of engagement data ................................................................................................................... 26

Water savings by industry .................................................................................................................... 27

Improved Productivity and Sustainability ............................................................................................. 28

System evaluation statistics ................................................................................................................. 28

Supporting Projects .............................................................................................................................. 30

NCEA ................................................................................................................................................. 30

Project 1- RADS ............................................................................................................................... 30

Project 2- KMSI ................................................................................................................................ 32

The KMSI in South East Queensland completed a third phase of work which focused on the implementation, integration and refinement of existing tools. Specifically there were three key focus areas / milestones within KMSI including: .............................................................................. 32

IAL ...................................................................................................................................................... 33

Project 1- Provide training, assistance and mentoring to industry representatives delivering the SEQ-IF2 program ............................................................................................................................. 33

Project 2- Value adding to SEQ-IF2 ................................................................................................ 34

Whole of region aspects .................................................................................................................... 35

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 35


Introduction A key principle of the South East Queensland Regional Plan was ensuring that rural water needs were met in an efficient and sustainable way. SEQ-IF was a strategy to improve the efficiency of rural water use, particularly irrigation.

The second iteration of the program SEQ-IF2, operated from the Sunshine Coast Regional Council area in the north, Toowoomba in the west and the Queensland New South Wales border in the south. Any landholder who irrigated in this area was eligible to join the program.

Five industry groups participated in SEQ-IF2 for four years from 2009, through to the completion of the program in June 2013. Training and support was provided through SEQ-IF2, engaging the expertise of Irrigation Australia Ltd (IAL) and the National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture (NCEA) to ensure the industry development officers (IDO) were able to deliver creditable services.

NCEA provided both technical support and specific project development assistance. Additionally, NCEA provided refinement and housing of a number of irrigation decision support ‘tools’ developed in the previous iteration of SEQ-IF. IAL also provided technical support to IDOs and provided cross industry coordination.

Extension services provided by each rural industry were underpinned by the purchase of equipment needed to assist IDOs deliver these services. Specific research and development projects were undertaken to assist IDOs in determining more innovative approaches to achieving water efficiency gains on-farm.

Overall, direction to the program was provided through a management committee, chaired by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM). This committee met on a needs basis to provide both direction and, to consider the funding of proposed additional projects. A smaller working group provided technical recommendations in relation to procurement of equipment and to assist with the consideration of proposed additional projects. A steering committee met bi-annually to discuss the progress of each participant’s delivery of the program and their achievement of milestones and targets.

An energy efficiency component was built into this program for the first time. Energy costs are now a concern for many irrigators and as rural industries looked for ways to engage with irrigators, energy efficiency proved to be an inducement for engagement. Anecdotal information suggested that there were large gains to be made in this area and this was evidenced in the findings of a number of industry groups.

Funding under this program was provided to rural industry groups to enable them to deliver services to their growers to achieve certain targets in WUE and energy gains.

Figure 1: SEQ-IF2 area

Irrigation statistics It is evident that irrigation water use statistics published by the ABS are not a suitable means of measuring the success or otherwise of a water use efficiency program. The tables below show water use across the commodity groups at the beginning of SEQ-IF2 (2008-09 ABS data) and the most recent data available (2011-12 ABS data). Whilst the total volume used has decreased the application rate has not moved. Climatic conditions and commodity prices weigh more heavily on water use at this scale as is evidenced by the shift to irrigated cotton away from pastures/grain.

As a general rule any water saved is likely to be used to increase productivity so that farm water use overall does not necessarily decrease.


Queensland 2008/9 2 058 471 ML @ 3.8 ML/ha

Queensland MDB 665 290 ML @ 3.9 ML/ha

SEQ 178 000 ML @ 3.9 ML/ha

Commodity Area irrigated (ha) Volume used (ML) Rate (ML/ha)

Cane 191 865 761 086 4.0

Pastures/grain 184 970 558 124 3.0

Cotton 71 595 414 170 5.8

Fruit & veg 64 332 212 500 3.3

Lifestyle hort 3906 15 808 4.0

Table 1: Irrigation statistics (ABS 2008/09)



Queensland MDB 756 919 ML @ 4.5 ML/ha

SEQ 158 900 ML @ 4.15 ML/ha

Commodity Area irrigated (ha) Volume used (ML) Rate (ML/ha)

Dairy 8350 46 100 5.5

Fruit & veg 26 600 80 000 3.0

Nursery 1400 15 000 10.7

Turf 1860 7400 4

Flowers 56 400 7.1

Table 2: Irrigation statistics SEQ (Source: Industry milestone reports & ABS statistics)


Chart 1 Queensland water use & area irrigated

The volume of water use for South East Queensland was difficult to gauge and according to a number of sources ranges from 30 000 ML to in excess of 300 000 ML per annum. Using data from industry milestone reports and ABS reports, a conservative estimate of irrigation water use was 159 000 ML per annum; however, the amount used in any one year will depend on climatic conditions.

Number of irrigators At the commencement of the program there were approximately 8800 businesses irrigating in Queensland (ABS 2009-10). Of these, there were about 2000 irrigating in South East Queensland.

Industry Programs

The following section describes each industry program as reported by the industry group. The findings are supported by a description of the methodology adopted in delivering the program. The assessment of targets met, is the industry groups account of their program’s performance.

Queensland Dairyfarmers’ Organisation (QDO) Program Overview A contract service agreement between the QDO and the Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) was executed in 2009 for Agri-Science Queensland, a division of DAFF, to deliver part of the extension and adoption section of the Program. The program was delivered under the Dairy & Fodder Water for Profit (DFWP) banner.

The DFWP program was guided by a steering committee made up of representatives of stakeholder organisations, including DNRM, DAFF, IAL, QDO, and a farmer representative.

Ha

ML

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Ha &

ML

Water use 2005/6 - 2011/12


The DFWP steering committee provided strategic direction to the design and management of the program. The committee approved the design, format and operational policy of the program. Throughout the program, the committee continuously sought ways to improve the program and service delivery, achieving further efficiencies and returns on the investment from the Queensland Government and other key stakeholders.

A management committee was also formed to manage, assess, review and approve Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) applications.

Delivery methodology The program included a range of initiatives and activities to assist producers to improve on-farm systems including:

• water use efficiency and reuse workshops and field days

• demonstration sites and case studies

• on-farm system assessments

• assistance to engage professional services, including irrigation/reuse management systems

• technical advisory services

• specific system advice for on-farm irrigation or effluent projects

• FAS

• research and development

• monitoring and evaluation

• direct linkage to industry natural resource management programs.

Key achievements and highlights QDO reported that the DFWP program led to significant cost and water savings, improved WUE, increased water reuse, and gains in productivity for farmers. The vast majority of dairy farmers had a keen awareness SEQ-IF, and over half of South East Queensland’s dairy farmer irrigators were directly involved in SEQ-IF2.

Despite the program facing challenges, including unfavourable climatic and economic conditions, the financial assistance provided to farmers to support system improvements resulted in significant leverage. Personal investment from the farming sector was 5:1 for every dollar received through the FAS.

The main highlights of the SEQ-IF2 DFWP program included:

• mailing DFWP information packages to all dairy farmers and fodder producers on the database to obtain applications from producers to attend DFWP workshops, to apply for an on-farm system assessments, or to apply for the FAS

• publishing 15 articles, alongside regular advertisements to impart knowledge, increase awareness and encourage producers to participate in the program via the mediums of industry publications and newspapers


• the delivery of 44 workshops and field days (9 through the DFWP program and 35 through Dairying Better ‘n Better programs) with a combined attendance of 532 producers

• establishing on-farm trial and demonstration sites on four sites across the region at Dayboro, Harrisville, Thornton and Beaudesert

• conducting 33 on-farm system assessments (OFSA) on irrigation or water reuse systems;

• supporting on-farm systems work through FAS, on 30 farm enterprises across the region, with 10 being for water reuse and 20 for WUE

• undertaking on-farm evaluations of 23 systems commissioned through the FAS to collect, analyse and verify accurate WUE data and to ensure operational performance of systems

• partnering with the Dairying Better ‘n Better for Tomorrow program to deliver the Soil and Nutrient Management Planning module and Climate Change Adaptation projects to accelerate improved resource use efficiency

• providing one-on-one advice through the technical advisory service to a range of farmers in relation to planned on-farm projects and ways to improve water use efficiency and effluent management

• instigating an ‘Irrigation Specialist Group; to optimise the management skills of 12 SEQ producers to fully utilise the capability of their recently installed low pressure irrigation systems

• developing a ‘Commissioning Package’ to accompany the OFSA report and/or FAS application

• responding to the floods of early 2011 and 2013 by immediately deploying technical advisory services to flood affected producers. Subsequently, Flood Damage Irrigiation Repair Grants were dispersed to enable farmers to return to their productive capacity, whilst maintaining the objectives of SEQ-IF2.

Targets • Over 95% of producers to receive information about the program, about improving WUE and

effluent management.

• 30% of dairy producers to be involved in extension, training or adoption of WUE or effluent management.

• 20% of dairy producers and 20 fodder producers to implement changes resulting from program engagement.

• An additional 8% water savings or productivity gain for SEQ dairy farmers and fodder producers.

• Greater than 8% on-farm adoption of better management practices for effluent management for SEQ dairy producers who use irrigation.

• 12 dairy producers adopting the Soil and Nutrient Management Module of the Dairying Better ‘n Better program.

• 35% of individual dairy farmers within the region involved in FMS.


Achievements against targets

• 100% of dairy producers within the region received information about the program, about improving WUE and effluent management.

• 59% of the region’s industry base was directly involved in DFWP workshops or field days.

• 39% of the regions dairy producers and 20 fodder producers implemented changes as a result of program engagement.

• WUE gain of approximately 10.13% of the SEQ dairy industry’s existing water use.

• 14% of SEQ dairy producers who use irrigation adopting improved on-farm effluent management and reuse practices.

• 12 dairy producers adopting the Soil and Nutrient Management Module of the Dairying Better ‘n Better program.

• 13 Dairying Better ‘n Better groups established throughout the SEQ-IF region, engaging 130 dairy enterprises (69%).

Growcom Program overview Growcom’s Water for Profit program was focussed on improving WUE in primary production, including on-farm water management such as water storage, irrigation, drainage and reuse. The program also extended to management of other related aspects of production or post-harvest activities. Water for Profit considered other alternative non-urban water use practices and utilisation of municipal wastewater. The program also incorporated activities that facilitated uptake of FMS by primary producers.

Within the horticultural program, there were three major growing areas which could be divided into distinct regions within the SEQ-IF boundaries. The major horticultural operations in each of these areas could be identified as Sunshine Coast, Logan, Albert Catchments & Gold Coast Hinterland. There were also small groups of growers around the region which did not readily fit into these categories.

Delivery methodology With the development of Growcom FMS, primarily the water use module, the direction of the program was better targeted to suit individual grower risk assessment outcomes. Regionalised collective data enabled the program to tailor activities in areas that have indicated a knowledge gap.

The delivery methodology used throughout the course of the program enabled better delivery, addressed key farm issues and made full use of the IDOs’ on-farm time. Various engagement methods were adopted including:

• promotion of the program at young grower meetings

• commodity specific group meetings, field days and newsletters

• Growcom workshops, field days and training events

• Growcom F & V News articles and Growcom’s fortnightly eNewsletter, Horticulture Now


• continuation from previous projects

• cold calling.

Activities conducted on-farm typically commenced with the WUE FMS module. The module captured information about the grower’s enterprise including farmed area, soil types, crops grown, water source, water quality, irrigation systems and record keeping. The grower then answered 25 multiple choice questions regarding WUE, broken down into 6 management areas, including:

• water supply

• irrigation infrastructure

• in field application

• irrigation management

• irrigation sustainability

• water reuse.

Key achievements and highlights The revised structure and baseline data captured by the Growcom FMS water use module was effective in engaging growers and providing direction to the delivery program.

Grower’s reactions to IDO on-farm visits were positive, with IDOs generating requests from growers for ongoing work utilising the Growcom FMS risk assessment.

The on-farm assistance from IAL’s Merv Jessen was of great benefit. Merv assisted Growcom IDOs with a variety of irrigation assessments.

Assistance from NCEA staff with EM38 surveys was of benefit to a number of growers in the Lockyer and Bremer catchments, and also indicated the possible need for a dam seepage assessment.

One of the EM38 surveys was followed up with a sample of soil cores being taken and analysed. Results helped in determining the most suitable irrigation application system for a new orchard.

Establishing networking opportunities and commodity based linkages with DEEDI Nambour staff and the Strawberry IDO were important in gaining grower confidence and led to a number of on-farm activities with various growers. In conjunction with the crop specific IDOs and DEEDI staff, there were a number of irrigation crop consultants, mainly servicing strawberry growers which Growcom IDOs were in contact with to gain a better understanding of industry needs.

Two dams treated with polymers as part of the dam seepage research and development project were re-assessed to determine the change in seepage rates. One product produced a 61% water saving and the other product a 34% water saving.

The use of soil moisture monitoring tools contributed to some significant yield gains and labour savings. With the use of these tools, the grower was able to accurately apply water to the crop at critical stages of growth. This contributed to a 75% yield increase. With a more consistent crop, the harvesting time was halved, saving the grower $54 630 in labour costs.


Targets • 90% of industry aware of program

• 240 growers directly participating

• 30% improved practice changes

• 8% water saved

• Maps generated for 100 growers

• 10% enhanced maps completed

• 80 assessments entered into IPART & IPERT

• 30 water storages assessed

• 200 growers attending training and/or workshops

Achievements against targets • 90% of industry aware of program

• 120 growers directly participating

• 39% improved practice changes

• 2.77% (2216 ML) water saved

• Maps generated for 74 growers

• 88 assessments entered into IPART

• 69 assessments entered into IPERT

• 17 water storages assessed

• 112 growers attending training and/or workshops

Nursery & Garden Industry Queensland (NGIQ) Program overview The SEQ-IF2 Nursery Production program focused on engaging with the 561 production nurseries operating within the SEQ-IF2 project area bounded by Noosa in the north, the NSW border to the south and Toowoomba to the west. The SEQ-IF2 Nursery Production program was designed to assist businesses manage water within the framework of enhanced business profitability and sustainability. The program delivered substantial water savings, productivity increases and environmental benefits to industry and to Queensland.

Delivery methodology Over 1300 on-farm visits to businesses were conducted during the four years of the SEQ-IF2 Nursery Production project supporting and encouraging growers to enact change to improve WUE, productivity and profitability. System assessments, evaluations and audits were conducted on


application systems, nursery water use, recycling, water storage and energy use to identify opportunities for improvement.

Business audits were conducted under the Nursery Production FMS to drive continual improvement in production and environmental management. 480 action plans were developed and documented to guide growers in the process of continual improvement and change management.

Production nurseries improved on-farm WUE, operated to best management practice (BMP) and improved natural resource management throughout the four years of the project.

The Nursery Industry Accreditation Scheme Australia was the cornerstone of the FMS and sought to encourage production nurseries to adopt BMP. Additionally, the Nursery Industry Environmental Management System (EcoHort) provided a risk assessment based pathway for businesses to oversee their sound environmental stewardship and natural resource management. The SEQ-IF2 Nursery Production project utilised the extensive resources of the Nursery Production FMS program to underpin the project objectives and maintain and further the outcomes at farm level. Through the support tools of the FMS, the SEQ-IF2 Nursery Production project made significant on-farm progress and growers were able to demonstrate that through action planning they can continue to adopt, adapt and change to improve their WUE.

Key achievements and highlights iPLANT was developed to provide growers with plant water use information to allow containerized crops to be grouped in irrigation zones according to their water use requirements, and to support improved irrigation scheduling practices. iPLANT was developed by NGIQ and the NCEA at the University of Southern Queensland with data gathered from previous SEQ-IF project activities.

The NGIQ Water Savings Gains Table was further developed, maintained and populated to record and analyse information on grower engagement with the SEQ-IF2 Nursery Production program. The table provided project management data and information to define and focus project activities to achieve WUE and NRM goals.

Sixteen level two energy audits were conducted on businesses during the four years of the SEQ-IF2 Nursery Production project with the assistance of the NCEA. Nursery production is a highly intensive and diverse horticulture system producing a broad range of crops within a variety of production systems (e.g. open, shade, protected structures). Very little information was available on energy use across production nurseries and within the different cropping sectors (protected/unprotected/field etc). The energy audits undertaken during the project provided growers with a snapshot of energy use across each business, providing opportunities for energy saving and giving direction in change management and capital investment. This information was utilised in supporting growers via workshops and field events.

The project undertook to produce a number of videos to present growers with visually specific information on a range of WUE related subjects in a format that could be accessed, as required, via the SEQ-IF Knowledge Management System for Irrigation (KMSI), NGIQ website and YouTube.

Grower interest and engagement in SEQ-IF2 Nursery Production project steadily increased throughout the four years of the project. Growers harnessed the information, tools and resources available under the project and welcomed the on-farm support and assistance available in adopting and implementing WUE measures. The SEQ-IF2 Nursery Production Project delivered a platform from which industry can continue to address WUE change at farm level.


The project gains exceeded $24.5 million, broken into the three categories of water saving, productivity increase and cost savings. These can be reported on as an average return per grower, as outlined below.

Water saving Productivity increase Cost saving

Saving per grower ($/grower)

$32,720 Area per grower (ha)

2.51 Area per grower (ha) 2.51

Saving per ha (ML/ha

1.72 $ increase per grower

$8,827 Saving per grower ($/grower)

$2,226

Saving per ha ($/ha)

$13,012 $ increase per ha $3,510 Saving per ha ($/ha) $885

Total gain per grower Average gain per grower ($/grower)

$43,773

Average gain per ha ($/ha)

$17,407

Table 3: Water and productivity gains

Targets • 45% of producers & relevant commercial operators directly involved in SEQ-IF activities

• 20% of producers to receive a pump efficiency assessment

• 30% of producers to receive an irrigation system assessment

• 10% improvement in WUE

Achievements against targets • Engaged with 100% of known production nurseries in South East Queensland

• Over 1300 on-farm extension activities completed

• Over 250 growers attended various workshops and field days

• 201 irrigation assessments completed

• 480 Action Plans developed and supplied to growers

• 7.65% Water saving achieved

• $24.5 million in water savings, productivity and cost savings realised

• Benefit/cost returning a 38:1 on the four year investment

Turf Queensland (TQ) Program overview The program commenced in 2009 with the following objectives:


• Uptake the Turf Accreditation Process (TAP) under the ‘FMS’ guidelines

• Develop an understanding of the ‘IPERT’ program benefits

• Develop an understanding of the ‘IPART’ program benefits

• Target continued water use and energy efficiency on-farm

• Develop on-farm mapping for turf producers’ benefit

• Development and printing of the Turf Irrigation Guide

• Regularly visit turf producers on-farm across South East Queensland to develop appropriate relationships and negotiate farm assessments

• Develop and present a number of field days and face-to-face training workshops and one-on-one awareness programs

Delivery methodology The program targeted two on-farm assessments per farm. The first assessment was to develop the baseline on irrigation and energy use. This provided improvement recommendations to the turf producers. The second assessment was to provide measurement and benchmarks for improvement levels. This technical work was undertaken by an independent consultant.

The assessments were then documented and presented at field days, on-farm workshops, via fact sheets and case studies, on-line information via website, videos and newsletters which went out to all Queensland turf producers. This extension methodology was highly successful, with the delivery of bi-annual workshops covering areas from just south of Gympie to the Gold Coast and out to Toowoomba. These workshops were delivered, managed and coordinated by Turf Queensland.

The TAP was developed and delivered by Turf Queensland.

Key achievements and highlights • As an outcome from the evaluations, one grower invested in a lateral move irrigator and another

in a centre pivot. A number of new pumps and/or upgrades were acquired.

• Two growers utilised the new Scheduling Irrigation Diary (SID). This technology was developed due to a need to reduce pumping cost across the industry and will pave the way for future projects.

• A number of fact sheets were distributed on system design requirements, commissioning of new equipment, fertigation calculations and scheduling tools, including CliMate App.

Targets • 10% improvement in WUE

• 17% of producers addressing NRM issues

• 41% of producers involved in training and on-farm demonstrations or trials

• 50% of producers attending dedicated Turf Industry Field Days, seminars of workshops


• 35% of producers involved in FMS (TAP)

• 21 irrigation system evaluations entered into both IPART & IPERT

Achievements against targets • 35 IPERT evaluations

• 29 IPART evaluations

• 15 turf producers taking up farm mapping & addressing NRM issues

• 66% of producers involved with training on-farm demonstrations or trials

• 55 producers attending field days seminars and workshops

• 42 % producers involved in FMS

Flower Association Queensland Inc (FAQI) Program overview The aim of Flower’s SEQ-IF program was to assist irrigators in reducing water consumption. This was implemented through an on-going program of grower engagement targeting better irrigation and water management practices, with an overall aim of achieving WUE gains.

Adoption of FMS aimed at improving farm business and risk management, as well as irrigator involvement in priority natural management resource issues was also promoted throughout the program.

After a review of SEQ flower growers, it was determined that 47 out of the 60 listed flower growers were actively growing flowers and/or foliage at a commercial production level, though all 60 received information about the program.

Delivery methodology The activities promoted through the program focused on adoption and extension, on-farm trials and demonstrations, as well as irrigation and pumping system assessments. The target activities within the program for FAQI were:

• field demonstrations on better irrigation management

• irrigation system efficiency assessments

• field trials and workshops

• extension services

• the development of information packages.

The program utilised soil moisture monitoring equipment to improve scheduling on farms across the region and produced a number of fact sheets for growers.


Key achievements and highlights During the program, 82 site visits were conducted on 33 properties in the SEQ region. Of these 33 properties 25 had an IPERT assessment and 21 of those had an IPART assessment.

Four workshops were conducted under the SEQ-IF2 program. Items addressed in presentations and informal discussions at shed meetings pertaining to water and energy use efficiency were:

• pump and irrigation efficiency, and the importance of system assessments

• pipe sizes and friction losses, and the importance of good planning

• sources of inefficiencies observed through pump and irrigation assessments

• low cost solutions to the problems observed during pump and irrigation assessments

• new technologies in irrigation supplies to maximise water efficiency

• using mulch to improve soil water retention

• solar energy

• greenhouse lighting for maximum energy efficiency

• soil moisture monitoring including the use of gypsum blocks

• irrigation scheduling using soil moisture monitoring and reference crop evapotranspiration.

The IDOs with FAQI engaged with all cut flower or foliage growers in South East Queensland and reported having achieved excellent water savings. The average water use in the flower industry reduced from approximately 4.7 to 3.7 ML per hectare per year with total water consumption dropping from approximately 338 to 264 ML per year. This equated to a 22% saving in water use by the industry.

Targets • 18 growers to have IPART assessments

• 22 growers to have IPERT assessments

• 40 growers involved in training and workshops

• Engagement with 55-60 growers

• 20% energy efficiency achieved

• 10% WUE achieved

Achievements against targets • 21 properties had IPART assessments

• 25 properties had IPERT assessments

• 59% of growers made changes to irrigation systems or management practices

• 34 growers were involved with improving WUE

• 23 growers attended workshops


• 25% WUE gains

Evaluation of SEQ-IF2 The effectiveness of SEQ-IF2 could be measured in terms of whether the targets each of the proponents were set were achieved. These related to how each industry performed and delivered on their contracted responsibilities. On another level, effectiveness of the program could be determined on a number of criteria such as the uptake of technologies, improved productivity, system changes and more. However, the availability of suitable data in these cases restricted the evaluation to a measure of improvements made to hardware performance and what this translates to.

At an individual level, intervention by an industry WUE officer may have resulted in more water being applied rather than less, or an outcome may well be reduced costs to the irrigator. This would likely be in response to improving productivity. Measuring the outcome from those activities that irrigators have engaged in may have provided a better basis for extrapolating results across an industry. However, even if it were possible to measure water saved from a particular action, it may have been extrapolated across commodity groups as an indicative efficiency gain, but may not have been reflected in overall water use statistics.

SEQ-IF2 offered a variety of services and incentives to irrigators to generate a range of outcomes, from water saving measures to a management change. Any change/s made could be immediate or may well occur sometime in the future following engagement in the program. There will be those where the response could be measured in terms of water saved.

Measures of success Indicators that may be used to measure success include:

• water savings

• improved productivity (not generally available)

• energy savings

• changed practices

• engagement in program

• adopting particular practices

• irrigation system evaluated

• input cost reduction.

Those measures for which data are readily available limit an evaluation to:

• Number engaged and level of engagement

• Individual measured water savings

• Irrigation system efficiency.

This evaluation was based on:


• Level of engagement in the program

• Estimated water savings

• Irrigation system efficiency.

On another level account was taken of:

• industry proponents meeting agreed targets

• what difference the program made in terms of improved productivity.

To determine what difference the program has made to the sector a number of outcomes were examined. Evaluation recognised that other influences including other government funded programs contributed to the results. In addition some statistical data was not entirely reliable.

Evaluation logic The processes that an irrigator may go through towards possibly making a change include:

1. awareness

2. need or relevance

3. interest & may seek further information

4. evaluation in terms of effect on business/environment

5. trial to gauge benefits and costs

6. adoption or rejection (Chamala 1987).

Extension officers or those who deliver services needed to have credibility with irrigators and were required to have technical competence in order for irrigators to have confidence or even interest in making a change (Guerin & Guerin 1994). Participation in the program, the types of services provided and preferred by irrigators and level of engagement were used to evaluate outcomes.

The economic situation and other factors within a commodity group and/or the economic position an irrigator is in may have also determined whether or not that irrigator would make a change.

Similarly, where an irrigation asset has not reached the end of its productive period, an irrigator would have had an incentive to delay making a new investment (Abares 2014).

This evaluation considered the engagement by irrigators in the program, evaluation of irrigation hardware and measured outcomes on individual farms.

Irrigators engaged in SEQ-IF2: The total number of irrigators estimated to be engaged in the program was 1253. This accounted for 53% of the estimated 2000 irrigators in South East Queensland.


Flowers

Growcom

NGIQ

QDO

Turf

Not engaged

Chart 2 Percentage of irrigators engaged in SEQ-IF2 by industry

Based on these figures, all the industry groups either met or exceeded the agreed targets in providing services to growers. As anticipated, the smaller industry groups had a high level of engagement with all of their growers. QDO provided services to both the dairy industry as well as fodder growers. The number of fodder growers was difficult to delineate as the industry group did not have a database of growers, therefore numbers and locations were not readily available. Therefore, whilst statistics about the dairy industry are well known, the number and location of fodder growers irrigating was not. Irrigation of fodder also tends to be seasonal depending on commodity prices and water availability.

Types of engagement SEQ-IF2 incorporated a range of services and promotional activities. They have been categorised under 4 main groupings including:

• extension activity – information about particular topics (eg scheduling, water quality, soils etc) provided to irrigator/s. These activities generally were not property or system specific.

• technical advice – on-farm advice about a specific issue.

• system evaluation – detailed assessment of operations, identifying shortfalls and providing recommendations

• financial incentive – impetus provided to irrigator/s to implement change and provide measurable outcomes

Types of activity by industry Industry Irrigators

engaged % of growers

Types of engagement Total

Flowers 47 100 Extension activity 12

47 Technical advice System evaluation 35

Growcom 345 35 Extension activity 50

345 Technical advice 179 System evaluation 116

NGIQ 561 100 Extension activity 81 561 Technical advice 279


System evaluation 201 QDO 200 100(dairy)

Extension activity 131

238

Technical advice 21 System evaluation 56 Financial incentives 30

Turf 62 100 Extension activity 20

62 Technical advice 8 System evaluation 34

Total 1253

Table 4: Engagement activities by industry. These figures have been estimated from industry group milestone reports and ABS data.

Chart 3 : Service provided by industry

Achievements against agreed targets The following table is a summary of data taken from industry group milestone reports showing the achievements against targets.

Table 5: Achievemen

ts against targets

T = Agreed target; R= Result The above figures from industry reports use a number of methods to determine WUE and energy gains.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Flowers Growcom NGIQ QDO Turf

Extension activity

Technical advice

System evaluation

Financial incentives

Industry System assessment

Workshop attendance

WUE gains % Communication Financial incentives

T R T R T R T R T R

QDO - 56 - 131 8 10.1 228 240 - 30

Growcom - 157 200 112 8 2.8 900 900 - -

NGIQ 165 201 250 10 7.65 550 550 - -

Turf 44 55 49 55 12 - 92 92 - -

Flowers 48 46 42 63 25 22 60 60 - -


Water use efficiency gains Water use efficiency gains generated through the program wer best presented as a range, as the ‘true value’ was not definitive. Several of the improvements that yielded gains were measured, however, they accounted for a small percentage of the overall gains achieved.

The majority of efficiency gains have been accounted for as a ‘one-off’ saving at the end of the program. Gains made at the commencement of the program usually accumulated over the life of the program making the total savings greater than those simply calculated at the end. Therefore, these savings made in year one would carry through each year of the program. However, in this situation these savings would be discounted as a result of poor to nil maintenance being undertaken.

In the dairy industry where comparisons were made between past irrigation system efficiencies and current systems operations, there was actually a turnaround in performance to less efficient operations (personal communication). This was attributed to little attention being paid to irrigation system maintenance – an observation that should be taken into consideration for future water efficiency efforts by government or industry.

Data and information provided in industry group milestone reports was integrated with data on the number of irrigators engaged and the level of engagement. These figures enabled the measurement of an average saving per grower, which was then applied to other growers engaged in the program.

The types of engagement were evaluated as follows:

• Financial incentive: a measureable change was made.

• System assessment: a high probability that a change was made.

• Technical advice: where this related to one on one advice there is an expectation that a change would be the outcome.

• Extension activity: some of the attendees would be expected to make a change.

The types of engagement by irrigators in the program have been used to evaluate the likely gains that have been made. They have been further dissected into categories relating to the likely impact and resulting outcome:

• Financial incentive – a change was made that is measurable (QDO) 30 financial incentives.

• System assessment – a high probability that a change was made. (Ratio of gains made or growers engaged as measured in 1) All 407.

• Technical advice – where this related to one on one advice there is an expectation that a change would be the outcome. (Ratio of gains made or growers engaged as measured in 1).

• Extension activity (Workshop/field day/information) – Some of the attendees would be expected to make a change. (Ratio of gains made or growers engaged as measured in 1).


In terms of water savings likely to have been made the engagement types translate to:

• Direct: An outcome in terms of gains or savings has been measured.

• High level of engagement: 75% to 90% of these irrigators would make changes that resulted in water savings of 50% to 90% of that achieved by those measured savings.

• Medium level of engagement: 30% to 50% would make changes that result in water savings of 50% to 90% of that achieved by measured savings.

• Low level of engagement: 10% to 20% of those engaged in the program made changes that resulted in 50% to 90% of that achieved by measured savings.

Level of engagement data Industry Direct High Medium Low Dairy 66 21 20 131 Growcom 4 112 179 50 Nursery 11 190 55 305 Turf 4 30 8 20 Flowers 16 19 1 11 Total 96 372 374 494

Table 6: Engagement categories by industry group

Information from milestone reports and final reports was used to populate this table and entered into the Gains Table (below) to evaluate the savings likely to have been made.

Some services provided to irrigators led to an immediate change, where the resulting savings could be measured. However, there were many services provided which may or may not have led to a change. The evidence was that a high proportion of those receiving a service will do something that result in savings being made. These savings are not measured and the Gains Table is an attempt to quantify those savings.

The Gains Table is essentially a spreadsheet that uses actual measured water savings as the basis for estimating the savings that may have been made by other irrigators engaged in the program where the results of changes made were not measured. The assumptions are that a percentage of irrigators will have made a change and that change will have resulted in some water savings. The level of engagement described above underpins the calculations.

Each type of service provided to irrigators was ranked direct contact through to low contact to describe how engaged the recipient might have been. Each level of engagement is assigned a percentage that gave us a range for the number of irrigators who may have made a change, eg for low the range is 10% - 20% and for high it is 75% - 90%. The saving that each of these irrigators could have made was then estimated, depending on the service, to be in the range of 50% - 90% of the average measured savings.


WATER SAVING, ML Saved - Total Growers Engaged

Calculated using the Number of Growers for each contact level.

Contact Regional Data * Error Level

Saving, by Number for Region

level # Number Savings ML /

grower

ML

of Growers +/- % Low Nominal High

a b c d e f g

refer # below from your records refer # bottom

f - d b x c f + d

Direct 4 11.1 2 44 44 45

% Making Savings Savings % of direct

High 157 75 90 50 90 654 1033 1412

Medium 17 30 50 50 90 28 57 85

Low 62 10 20 50 90 34 79 124

Total 240 760 1213 1666

Dollar Equivalent @ per ML& 0 0 0

Sample of Gains Table output Water savings by industry The nominal value of water savings from the Gains Table was been used for the lower range and this value divided by 4 to give an annual saving by industry. To determine the upper end of savings this value was multiplied by 7 to estimate the volume of efficiency gains over the 4 year period of the program. This multiple assumes that little or no savings were made in the first year and savings made after this were carried forward from year to year. Therefore, year 2 savings would be made up of savings from year 1 plus some from year 2 (assume 1/3) and so on. This accounting methodology gives a lower overall value which could be adopted to account for loss of savings that could be attributed to low maintenance or other factors.

Industry Water savings ML % water saving Dairy 1900 -3300 4.1 – 7.2 Growcom 1440-2520 1.7 – 3 Nursery 2200-3900 14.7 - 26 Turf 240-420 4 - 7 Flowers 100-140 25 – 35

Table 7: Water saving by industry


Improved Productivity and Sustainability Most irrigators made a change because it would improve their bottom line or improve their environmental performance. Data was not available to evaluate the effect of the program on their productivity or sustainability, however, a rough measure of the potential improvement of productivity was the value of water in terms of the overall value of the commodity. This of course attributed the value of the commodity to water used without accounting for other inputs.

Table 8: Productivity improvement

System evaluation statistics As an irrigation system was evaluated for performance, data are entered into 1 of 2 databases, ie Irrigation Performance Audit Report Tool (IPART) or Irrigation Pump Evaluation and Reporting Tool (IPERT). The former contains statistics relating to how well or otherwise the system applies water uniformly across a field whilst the latter contains statistics relating to hydraulic and energy performance.

These tools were a product of the SEQ-IF program with IPART being the more mature. The database contained sufficient data to draw conclusions about the performance of the various systems in South East Queensland. At a program level an attempt was made to determine progress in improving irrigation system performance during the course of SEQ-IF2.

The graphs below show median values for coefficient of uniformity by catchment for all system types (Chart 4) and by time (Chart 5).

0102030405060708090

100 CU by catchment

2009 - 2013

Prior 2009

Industry Estimated ML used

Gross value $m of commodity

$/ML ML saved Gross value $ improvement

Dairy 46 100 97.75 2120 1900 4.03m Growcom 80 000 1 101.67 13770 1441 19.84m Nursery 15 000 64.1 4267 2500 10.67m Turf 7 400 9.27 1545 240 370,800 Flowers 400 11 27500 100 2.75m


Chart 4: Coefficient of uniformity – Comparison of performance by catchments

Chart 5 : Distribution uniformity – comparison by irrigation types

From the data contained in IPART prior to the start of SEQ-IF, the median value of the coefficient of uniformity of all irrigation systems combined was 78.7%. Over the course of the program this value had risen to 83.7% indicating that the overall performance of irrigation systems tested during this period improved. However, it would be hasty to credit the program on its own for this result as there would be other drivers that would have contributed to these outcomes.

Hydraulic/energy efficiency

Data on the hydraulic and energy performance of irrigation systems has become available through the IPERT. A measure of the performance of an irrigation system is the energy required to pump a ML of water against a metre head. A value of 5kWh/ML/m or less is considered ‘efficient’.

The charts below show pumping efficiency statistics derived from the IPERT tool over the duration of the SEQ-IF2 Program. The trend over the program is not definitive but does indicate that more improvements are possible.

7879808182838485868788

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Distribution uniformity (%) of all system types

Coefficient of uniformity %

Linear trendline

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Pumping efficiency (kWh/ML/m)

Median

Average

Linear (Median)


Chart 6: Pumping Efficiency

The chart below shows median and average kWh/ML/m used in each of the participating industry groups.

Chart 7: Pumping efficiency by industry

Supporting Projects In addition to the industry programs, two organisations were engaged to support the delivery of SEQ-IF2, namely the NCEA and IAL.

NCEA The NCEA were engaged to deliver two projects, the Research and Development Support project (RADS) and the KMSI.

Project 1- RADS A component of the SEQ-IF2 program was RADS which had been provided since 2006 by the NCEA, a research centre within the USQ. Extension of the RADS project was provided primarily to irrigators through their industry development officers (IDOs).

Key objectives of the RADS was to:

• provide collaborative research and development outcomes that would underpin a 10% improvement in WUE

• provide the basis for changes in on-farm water management practices and/or uptake of more water efficient equipment and operations

• assist in improved irrigation practice through better definition of BMP and efficiency targets

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

FAQI Growcom QDO QTPA

Median

Average


• provide up to date research for SEQ-IF2 stakeholders by conducting research at a local level, while having access to broader national research developments. This objective was supported through engagement in the CRC for Irrigation Futures research programs.

The overarching goal was to support improvement in irrigation efficiency in South East Queensland through a move toward precision irrigation.

The RADS program was delivered in close collaboration with industry representatives. Priority focus areas, objectives and activities were negotiated on an annual basis with each industry representative. Key aspects in project delivery included:

• supporting establishment and maintenance of irrigation trial sites in SEQ

• providing technical development, local testing and intensive application of tools and technologies as well as decision support technologies to improve irrigation management

• providing technical support and mentoring to IDOs and assisting in the delivery of research findings among farmer groups.

A number of priority research areas were identified with the industry groups during the RADS program. These included:

• irrigation management practice and system performance improvements

• irrigation scheduling and crop water use

• monitoring and measurement for improved WUE

• water storage and delivery systems

• irrigation and nutrient management

• optimising performance and managing infield variability

• measuring and improving energy utilisation

• industry support though extension support and adoption of BMP.

The research has supported the industry groups in monitoring irrigation and crop production performance, benchmarking, development of BMP and adoption of technologies to improve irrigation efficiency in South East Queensland. Training, technical support, promotion and communication of research outputs were important components of the program.

An overriding theme of the RADS program in South East Queensland was the research toward improving irrigation efficiency through precision irrigation. The project developed and evaluated a wide range of monitoring tools, management approaches and control processes that can be applied to precision irrigation. Most of this work was compiled into a knowledge harvest document with the title, ‘Increasing Irrigation Efficiency through Precision Irrigation in South East Queensland’.

The knowledge harvest document collated many examples of components of the precision irrigation concept under the following frameworks:

• Measuring irrigation system performance

• Measuring crop water demand


• Managing soils and media

• Assessing the effects of infield spatial variability

• Managing Infield spatial variability

• Measuring energy utilisation.

Project 2- KMSI

The KMSI in South East Queensland completed a third phase of work which focused on the implementation, integration and refinement of existing tools. Specifically there were three key focus areas / milestones within KMSI including:

• management and facilitation of KMSI

• implementation, refinement and integration of existing tools

• maintenance and Hosting of KMSI.

KMSI required ongoing management of the KMSI initiative with industry. Opportunities to enhance KMSI through data integration and cosmetic changes were addressed to enhance the useability of the software tools. Key tasks associated with this element included:

• continued development of plan for KMSI implementation

• facilitation and leading KMSI development with technical and management committees

• coordination activities relating to KMSI elements

• identification of opportunities to commercialise tools and co-investment.

The scope of KMSI incorporated making necessary functional changes to existing tools, improved presentation and reporting, as well as data integration across the suite. This was overlaid with cosmetic changes to provide a consistent look and feel throughout all the tools in the suite. Appendix 1 lists the decision support tools available to irrigators and extension staff. The list below is a series of tasks that ensured that the tools were developed in accordance with industry requirements. This process was intended to make sure the final release of each tool was user-friendly and had sufficient support mechanisms in place (training, manuals, and case studies) to be a widely used and useful resource. The process involved:

• prioritising tools of interest for each industry and identify target farms for case studies

• applying tools and collect data from target farms using priority tools

• developing case studies for selected farms and tools

• implementing changes to tools and integrate data

• hosting workshops for broader group of IDOs to provide training based on field examples Continue application of tools for further data collation

• hosting industry workshop to present case studies to a broader group of irrigators.


IAL IAL were engaged to deliver two projects; one focused on training, assistance and mentoring, and the second on engaging with the irrigation private sector.

Project 1- Provide training, assistance and mentoring to industry representatives delivering the SEQ-IF2 program The overall project objective was to promote the objectives of SEQ-IF2. In order to achieve this objective, the work performed by the irrigation industry project officer focussed on the following activity areas.

Training and mentoring for the IDOs

Training of IDOs was carried out on a regular basis, with a total of 23 training events completed. This was comprised of 7 major training events and 16 informal training sessions. Training topics delivered under this program were heavily focused on irrigation system and management issues and included:

• practical Hydraulics

• evapotranspiration and irrigation scheduling

• VFD pumps and pump performance

• filtration and general system issues

• flow measurement issues

• performing bore pump evaluations

• basic energy issues and energy calculations

• hands on practical skills sessions

• hydrogeology, bore construction and bore testing.

Co-ordinating industry IDO meetings and activities

Throughout the duration of the project there were 15 IDO meetings held at various venues in the SEQ-IF2 regional area. A significant number of these were held at the premises of large irrigation suppliers as a means of fostering greater involvement and information sharing between the private supply sector and project personnel.

Technical and field support for IDOs

Technical and field support for IDOs continued on a regular basis, usually at the request of the field staff and IDOs involved in on-farm activities. This was particularly useful for the recently employed industry IDOs who had not participated in the extensive training initiatives previously delivered. At least 15 mentoring and support sessions were conducted over the duration of the project, as well as general support via the phone and email whenever required.

Researching and developing new technologies & practices


A major activity in this area was the upgrade to the online software programs that were used to assist with pump and irrigation system evaluation activities. A number of issues were identified by the project officer and other users, and significant improvements were made in order to improve the usability and reliability of these programs. The ability to access historical performance data was extremely useful in evaluating the effectiveness of the program over recent years.

Writing and assistance with the production of irrigation resources, articles and case studies

A number of articles and resources were produced throughout the reporting period. These include the production of an 18 minute DVD which demonstrated the procedures involved in installing a centre pivot irrigator. Other resources included flyers and training documents aimed at supporting the training activities carried out under the program.

Further development of irrigation and industry networks and contacts throughout the state

Throughout the duration of the project, the networking and industry involvement activities were extremely valuable in assisting to achieve project outcomes. In total, 173 industry related events and meetings were attended, with a total of 1534 participants. Key contacts over this period included:

• irrigation supply personnel - 252

• government departments - 170

• industry personnel – 235.

Project 2- Value adding to SEQ-IF2

The purpose of this project was to begin to develop a cooperative approach to service delivery to irrigators and industry partners participating in SEQ-IF2.

A database was developed and maintained listing actual and likely program participants. A total of 181 private sector providers were contacted, with a resulting total of 88 people participating in program activities at varying levels. Many of those 88 indicated that they would like to be part of future activities such as on-farm field days if the program was to be ongoing.

The project compiled a checklist for designing an irrigation system that was an appropriate guide to both the retailer and the end user. The checklist was the result of experience and consultation with IDOs, growers and retailers. The checklist was an integral part of developing the standards and codes of practice and underpinned the commissioning of new systems for the RWUE initiative.

The project identified the knowledge each sector of the industry held, the information that was important to each sector and how it could impact on the grower's production and use of resources. A particular emphasis on design system capacity was emphasised as a consideration and will underpin future activities.


Whole of region aspects The funding framework of the first phase of SEQ-IF consisted of a budget for cross industry initiatives including research and development projects, subsequently, the purchase of equipment continued in SEQ-IF2.

Industry IDOs needed various pieces of equipment to deliver services to irrigators in field. The first phase of the program purchased the majority of equipment required, however approximately $60 000 was spent on equipment over the four year SEQ-IF2 program, mostly replacing flow meters and soil moisture monitoring equipment.

NGIQ conducted a field trial of irrigation automation. The trial determined how well loadcell devices could automate irrigation in comparison to the existing irrigation scheduling techniques.

Growcom conducted three trials quantifying the efficacy of polymers in reducing dam seepage; comparison and evaluation of micro-sprinkler against drip in avocado orchards; and a fertigation trial in passionfruit.

QDO commenced a project to measure the dry matter production of maize when improving the application uniformity of irrigation. Due to adverse weather conditions the trial did not eventuate and funding was returned to the department.

Conclusion SEQ-IF2 was a successful intervention program. Participation in the program was high, and in some cases all known irrigators were contacted about taking part in the program. Whilst the data for this program was not exhaustive, there was sufficient evidence to draw the conclusion that the industry made ground in achieving more efficient irrigation systems and practices.

The achievement of water saving targets was sporadic across the industry groups. Dairy and Nursery achieved the highest gains, however, the Flower industry as a percentage of their industry’s water consumption indicated that savings of up to 68% were achieved. Energy savings were not quantified; however, gains in excess of 20% were reported. Irrigation system assessments conducted generally exceeded targets.

Data available from IPART and IPERT indicated that the industry as a whole made gains in terms of energy efficiency and irrigation distribution uniformity. Chart 5, which shows distribution uniformity by catchment, is evidence of an improving trend.

The program continued with the theme of precision irrigation underpinned by the projects delivered by the NCEA and IAL. A key feature of these projects was the promotion and implementation of web based decision support tools. These tools introduced irrigators to modern technologies in precision irrigation and better on-farm water management and record keeping. In addition they assisted IDOs in recording and analysing field data relating to the assessment of irrigation systems.

Selling the water efficiency message has become increasingly difficult, with IDOs needing to find new ways to engage with irrigators. Irrigation and pumping system assessments were well received as these are tangible on-farm assets that can be evaluated. These assessments show how irrigation and energy management can be improved, as opposed to other aspects of irrigation which relate to changing habits or technology adoption. Improved productivity and profitability are the mantra for an irrigator and any service that delivers on this without challenging existing practices or large investment will be well received.


I = Financial incentive; A = Extension advice; S = System assessment; W = Workshop/field day

Figure 2 SEQ-IF2 activities in ABS statistical areas

Toowoomba SA Commodity No. Water

use ML Activity

Pasture 117 4037 S(24), I(12) W(31)

Grain 29 1449 Cotton 2 436 Fruit & veg 101 17762 S(19)

W(23) Nurseries 20 496 S(16)

W(33)

Ipswich SA Commodity No. Water

use ML Activity

Pastures 392

10045 S(7), I(4) W(129)

Grain 98 2021 Nurseries 32 1304 S(13)

W(26) Fruit & veg 25

2 14532 S(21)

Logan SA Commodity No. Water

use ML

Activity

Pastures 149 7053 S(15), I(8) W(39)

Grain 17 718 Nurseries 23 1485 S(51)

W(102) Fruit & veg 43 322 S(2)

Gold Coast SA Commodity No. Water

use ML

Activity

Nurseries 41 651 S(12 W(51))

Fruit & veg 47 357 S(7) W(16)

Pastures 21 247

Brisbane SA Commodity No. Water

use ML Activity

Fruit & veg 39 879 S(15) Pastures 2 108 S(5), I(3) Nurseries 51 970 S(13)

W(83)

Moreton Bay SA Commodity No. Water

use ML Activity

Pastures 53 936 S(1), I(1) W(29)

Nurseries 62 1403 S(15) W(35)

Fruit & veg 106 1771 W(30) Grain 12 126

Sunshine Coast SA Commodity No. Water

use ML Activity

Pastures 72 1548 S(4), A(10), I(2), W(56)

Nurseries 114 790 S(100) W(181),

Fruit & veg 190 1329 S(36) W(46)


Figure 3 IPART catchments


Industry funding SEQ-IF2

Industry $ 2009-10 $ 2010-11 $ 2011-12 $ 2012-13 $ Totals

Dairy 257,000 257,000 257,000 257,000 1,028,000

Growcom 257,000 257,000 257,000 257,000 1,028,000

Nursery 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 640,000

Turf 113,000 113,000 113,000 113,000 452,000

Flowers 113,000 113,000 113,000 113,000 452,000

USQ 96,000 344,000 340,000 310,000 1,090,000

IAL 62,500 80,000 115,455 164,236 422,191

Whole of Region 190,000 48,795 123,000 250,000 611,795

Total 1,248,500 1,372,795 1,478,455 1,624,236 5,723,986


KMSI is the Knowledge Management System for Irrigation, developed by the National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture with funds provided by the Queensland Government as part of the South East Queensland Irrigation Futures project.

CP and LM System Capacity Advisor [ Free Access ] This system capacity advisor for Centre Pivot and Lateral Move machines (CP&LMs) has been developed for growers in the Queensland Murray Darling Basin seeking preliminary advice regarding the system capacity for the design of their centre pivot or lateral move irrigation machines.

EconCalc [ Free Access ] EconCalc is a decision support tool used to economically evaluate the costs and benefits associated with a new irrigation system. EconCalc calculates a number of economic performance indicators such as i) Nett Present Value (NPV); ii) annualised costs / benefits (annuity); iii) the internal rate of return (IRR) and the Benefit Cost Ratio.

EnergyCalc EnergyCalc assesses direct on-farm energy use, costs and the greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) associated with diesel, petrol, LPG and Electricity consumption. EnergyCalc examines energy use across key processes within a production system and can be used to evaluate farming practices such as tillage, spraying, irrigation etc.

GMap GMap is a map request and repository tool for irrigators in SEQ. The web portal provides a graphical interface that allows users to identify their particular farm based on a Google Maps environment. GMap facilitates the generation of farm resource maps with the appropriate organisation.

IPART The Irrigation Performance Audit and Reporting Tool (IPART) is designed to assist in the evaluation and collation of infield irrigation application system performance data.IPART provides a range of functions including standardisation of infield data record acquisition, calculation and presentation of infield irrigation performance evaluation indices, automated generation of grower recommendations and grower report generation.

IPART Public Access [ Free Access ] IPART Public Access is part of IPART and is used to view the Application Uniformity of Irrigation Systems. The performance of infield application systems is normally reported both in terms of the efficiency of application and the uniformity of application. The efficiency of the application system is calculated as the ratio of the water used by the plant relative to the water applied. The efficiency is primarily affected by the management of the irrigation and may vary significantly between irrigation events. However, the uniformity of application is primarily a function of the irrigation system design and maintenance. Low levels of uniformity limit the maximum efficiency achievable.

South East Queensland Irrigation Futures – Phase 2, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016

IPERT The Irrigation Pump Evaluation and Reporting Tool (IPERT) is designed to assist in the evaluation and collation of on-farm irrigation pumping system performance data. IPERT provides a range of functions including standardisation of on-farm data record acquisition, calculation and presentation of on-farm irrigation pumping system evaluation indices, automated generation of grower recommendations and grower report generation.

IRUSTIC [ Free Access ] IRUSTIC is a database reference tool used to identify the seasonal irrigation demand for crops in South East Queensland (SEQ). The IRUSTIC database contains simulated seasonal irrigation demands for various crop averaged over a period from 1970 to 2007.

ISID The Irrimate Surface Irrigation Database, known by the acronym ISID is designed to collate field measurements and simulation results to facilitate benchmarking of surface irrigation performance at the farm, catchment and industry levels. ISID is fully compatible with the Irrimate™ system. It provides the ability to record and store all data necessary to conduct simulation runs, system evaluation and optimisation using Irrimate™ procedures. However, the system is generic and may be applied to a range of field measurement and evaluation techniques.

Nutrient Balance and Reporting Tool Nutrient Balance and Reporting Tool is an online nutrient management calculator designed with an interactive data record management system and tiered reporting capability. It will help with the interpretation of soil test values, and record nutrient requirements, actual fertiliser inputs and subsequent productivity data. The data captured by Nutrient Balance and Reporting Tool can also be used to assist broader-scale interpretation (e.g. district, regional or industry scales) and trend analyses.

ReadyReckoner [ Free Access ] The ‘Ready Reckoner’ performs a simple, site-specific economic assessment of the viability of evaporation mitigation systems. The user enters appropriate data to customise the ‘Ready Reckoner’ to their site.

RESSTAT RESSTAT is an on line irrigation survey questionnaire that can be used to report regional irrigation statistics and benchmark performance. The questionnaire covers details of property ownership and location, irrigated land, water availability and cost, annual irrigated production and area, water use and irrigation management. Questions on demographics, drivers for change and knowledge of rural water use efficiency programs are also included.


Scheduling Irrigation Diary The Scheduling Irrigation Diary is tactical decision support tool with simple irrigation recording and scheduling features based on evapotranspiration (ET). The Scheduling Irrigation Diary allows irrigators to record irrigation and rainfall while also calculating daily crop water use. The Scheduling Irrigation Diary assesses crop water needs (i.e. supply vs. demand) based on the actual irrigation amount, irrigation frequency, rainfall

and crop water use.

Water Manager Tool The Water Manager Tool is a strategic decision support tool used to assess current irrigation management practices and the interactions between crop and irrigation system. The Water Manager tool also develops a personalised irrigation schedule and water budget for the grower based on the characteristics of the enterprise.

Water Resource Info Tool [ Free Access ] The Water Resource Info Tool consolidates information used by irrigators such as rainfall, ET, commercial storage levels, surface water and ground water information in a single location. Information publically available via the web and from a range of

organisations is presented to irrigators by the Water Resource Info Tool.


References Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics and Sciences, Irrigation technology and water use on-farms in the Murray-Darling Basin 2006-07 to 2011-12, 2014.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, Water use on Australian farms, various

Chamala,S (1987), ‘Adoption processes and extension strategies for conservation-farming’. In P.S. Cornish & J.E. Pratley (Eds), Tillage: New directions in Australian agriculture (pp400-419).

Guerin L.J. & Guerin T.F. (1994) ‘Constraints to the adoption of innovation in agricultural research and environmental management; a review. In Agricultural Journal of experimental agriculture, 1994.

Knowledge Management System for Irrigation, http://kmsi.nceaprd.usq.edu.au/

Dairy and Fodder, “Water for Profit” Milestone 8 Draft Final Report, January 2014

Flower Association of Queensland Inc, Final report, South East Queensland Irrigation Futures, May 2013

South East Queensland – Irrigation Futures Phase 2, Growcom SEQ-IF Report Milestone 8, May 2013

South East Queensland - Irrigation Futures 2, Nursery Production, 2009 - 2013 Nursery & Garden Industry Queensland, Final Report, 2013.

Turf Queensland (QTPA) Ltd, Milestone Report, SEQIF (2)/Tur/Ado/08/Final Report

Knowledge Management System for Irrigation (KMSI) in South East Queensland, (Phase 3) Final Report, NCEA, June 2013.

Final Report, June 30th 2013, Irrigation Industry Project Officer, Merv Jessen (Irrigation Australia Ltd)

South-East Queensland Irrigation Futures, Research and Development Support, Annual Report , National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture, 15 June 2013.

SEQ Water Use Efficiency, Funding and delivery framework, 15 December 2005.


http://kmsi.nceaprd.usq.edu.au/

Documents

South East Queensland Irrigation Futures Phase 2 (2009-2013)€¦ · South East Queensland Irrigation Futures – Phase 2, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016 9 . Chart