Technical Information
Trend in the adoption of practices that lead to improved management of natural resources
This document describes the sources of information, advice, methods, indicators and data processing procedures used to develop the reports. Reliability of data, as well as metadata attributes, are also described.
State NRM Plan Guiding Target:
Maintain the productive capacity of our natural resources.
State NRM Plan Representative Measure:
Trends in the adoption of practices that lead to improved management of natural resources.
Data collection period:
2000–13.
Expected frequency of reporting:
Annual.
Data sources:
1. Data relating to the adoption of land management practices, presented in the ‘Where we are at’ section has been sourced through the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, who summarised drivers of practice change in land management using a national farm survey undertaken in 2010-11 (Ecker et al. 2012 – available online).
2. Information about the percentage of crop area sown using no-till methods (in trend section) was sourced through the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Conservation and Land Management Branch. Data were collected by DEWNR through regular phone surveys of land managers.
3. Information relating to conservation of wetland, rivers and creeks in the trend section was sourced from a series of reports by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Barson, 2013), which presented data co llected by ABS.
Indicators used:
1. Aggregated percentage of landholders using up to date land management practices including:
a. Crop management – no till methods, stubble retention.
b. Native Vegetation Management – encouragement of native pastures, native vegetation maintenance and fencing.
c. Grazing Management – Cell or rotational grazing, minimum groundcover targets, deep rooted perennial.
d. Weed Management – Weeds of National Significance management.
2. Adoption of no-tillage cropping methods (percentage of farmers over time) 3. Native veg protection of farm land (percentage of farmers over time)
Methods of data collection and processing:
Data were collected using a number of published reports by DAFF and DEWNR.
Data were presented as they appeared in original reports, and have not been processed or analysed for use in this report card .
Methods to assess trends and where we are at
Trends should be calculated using the annual rate of change in the last 5 year, however, this report used a number of different survey datasets that could not be combined to calculate trend.
Trend was scored as variable because the annual rate of change was different depending on the land management practice.
Where we are at was not scored because there are no baselines to address whether this level of adoption is good, fair or poor.
Future reporting measures:
The following government agencies contributed to this report:
Australian Government, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, (Conservation and Land Management Branch), the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resources and Sciences, Department of Primary Industries and Regions SA.
The following non-government agencies contributed to this report:
None.
Key stakeholders:
Land managers
Australian Government, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry DEWNR, Conservation and Land Management Branch
Department of Primary Industries and Regions SA Local Action Planning groups
Local farming community groups Information reliability scoring:
Information is scored for reliability based on average scores given for information currency and applicability, and its level of spatial representation (Tables 1–3).
Table 1. Information currency Reliability Criteria
5 Information up to 3 years old 4 Information up to 5 years old 3 Information up to 7 years old 2 Information up to 10 years old 1 Information >10 years old
Table 2. Applicability of the information Reliability Criteria
5 All data based on direct indicators of the measure 4 Most data based on direct indicators of the measure 3 Most data based on indirect indicators of the measure 2 All data based on indirect indicators of the measure 1 Data are based on expert opinion of the measure
Table 3. Spatial representation of information (sampling design) Reliability Criteria
5 Information is collected from across the whole region/state (or whole distribution of asset within the region/state) using a stratified sampling design
4 Information is collected from across the whole region/state (or whole distribution of asset within the region/state) using a sampling design that is not stratified
3 Information is collected from an area that represents less than half the spatial distribution of the asset within the region/state
2 Information is collected from an area that represents less than 25% the spatial distribution of the asset within the region/state
1 Information is collected from an area that represents less than 5% the spatial distribution of the asset within the region/state or spatial representation unknown
Based on tables 1, 2 & 3 above, respectively, the information relating to the adoption of no-till practices (DEWNR) presented in this report has a reliability score of (5+4+5)/3 = 5 (Excellent).
Based on tables 1, 2 & 3 above, respectively, the information relating the conservation of wetlands, rivers and creeks (ABS) presented in this report has a reliability score of (4+2+4)/3 = 3 (Good).
Based on tables 1, 2 & 3 above, respectively, the information relating the land management practices collected by ABARES, presented in this report has a reliability score of (5+4+4)/3 = 4 (Very Good).
On average the reliability score is (5+3+4)/3 = 4 (Very good)
This report is linked to the following report cards/snapshots:
1. Is water-use efficiency improving in our agricultural areas?
2. Is irrigation efficiency improving in agricultural areas?
3. Is the productivity of our primary industries improving?
4. How many people are involved in NRM training activities?
Metadata description:
Project/Dataset name: Adoption of No-Till cropping Practices
Abstract/description Dataset comes from a series of telephone interviews, where land managers are asked about soil conservation on their land.
Data types
Organisation/ DEWNR business area that sponsors/holds/manages the data
DEWNR Conservation and Land Management Branch
Date range 2000-2013
Study area Cropping regions in South Australia
Data format Excel tables
Data distribution rules Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Is the dataset source data (raw),
value-add data
(analysed/summarised) or final indicator/score data?
Raw data
Project/Dataset name: DAFF reports on land management practices
Abstract/description Data collected by ABS and analysed by Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in a series of reports:
- Trends in on farm biodiversity management in South Australia’s agricultural industries - Land management practice trends in South Australia’s broadarce cropping industries - Land management practice trends in South Australia’s dairy industry
- Land management practice trends in South Australia’s grazing (beef cattle/sheep) industries
- Land management practice trends in South Australia’s horticultural industry
Data types Percentage Organisation/ DEWNR business area
that sponsors/holds/manages the data
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resources and Sciences and the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Date range 1995–2010
Study area Cropping and grazing regions in South Australia
Data format Excel tables
Data distribution rules Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Is the dataset source data (raw),
value-add data
(analysed/summarised) or final indicator/score data?
Summarised data
Project/Dataset name: ‘Drivers of practice change in land management in Australian agriculture’
ABARES report for DAFF
Abstract/description Results of a national farm survey in 2010-11 on land management practices and drivers.
ABARES surveyed 1329 farmers in national broadacre, dairy and horticultural industries to better understand to what degree the adoption of specific soil and mand management practices were influenced by a range of motivations. Survey results have been put into 4 categories of management: Cropping, Grazing, Native Vegetation and Weeds (specifically Weeds of National Significance). Motivations asked about included financial,
environmental, personal and availability of support.
Data types Percentage
Organisation/ DEWNR business area that sponsors/holds/manages the data
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resources and Sciences
Date range 2010-11
Study area Cropping and grazing regions in Australia.
Data format Excel tables
Data distribution rules Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Is the dataset source data (raw),
value-add data
(analysed/summarised) or final indicator/score data?
Summarised data
Photo credit details:
Owner: DEWNR
Scientific literature referred to in the report:
Ecker, S., Thompson, L., Kancans, R., Stenekes, N. & Mallawaarachchi, T. 2012, Drivers of practice change in land management in Australian agriculture, ABARES report to client prepared for Sustainable Resource Management Division, Department of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra, December http://www.daff.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/forestry/domestic- forestry/prep-for-future/drivers-practice-change.pdf.
Forward, G. 2008, Key results of DWLBC Land Managers Surveys 2000-2008: Forum Paper Waite 26 November 2008. Department of Environment,Water and Natural Resources, Adelaide, November. http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/files/b458221d-b307- 4f04-80e3-9f0a00edaef6/kb-landmanagersurvey2000-08keyresults.pdf.
Barson, M. 2013, Trend in on farm biodiversity management in South Australia’s agricultural industries, Caring for our Country Sustainable Practice fact sheet 30, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.
http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/natural-resources/soils/trends-factsheets/sa-practices-biodiversity.pdf.
Barson, M. 2013, Land management practice trends in South Australia’s broadacre cropping industries, Caring for our Country Sustainable Practices fact sheet 28, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.
http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/natural-resources/soils/trends-factsheets/sa-practices-broadacre.pdf.
Barson, M. 2013, Land management practice trends in South Australia’s dairy industry, Caring for our Country Sustainable Practices fact sheet 26, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.
http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/natural-resources/soils/trends-factsheets/sa-practices-dairy.pdf.
Barson, M. 2013, Land management practice trends in South Australia’s grazing (beef cattle/sheep) industries, Caring for our Country Sustainable Practices fact sheet 27, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.
http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/natural-resources/soils/trends-factsheets/sa-practices-grazing.pdf.
Barson, M. 2013, Land management practice trends in South Australia’s horticulture industry, Caring for our Country Sustainable Practices fact sheet 29, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.
http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/natural-resources/soils/trends-factsheets/sa-practices-horticulture.pdf.
