An economic survey of irrigation farms in the Murray–Darling …data.daff.gov.au/.../RR12.02_IrrigOverviewMDB.pdf · 2012. 1. 17. · An economic survey of irrigation farms in the

An economic survey of irrigation farms in the Murray–Darling Basin: industry overview and region profiles, 2009–10Dale Ashton and Mark Oliver Research by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural

and Resource Economics and Sciences

RESEARCH REPORT 12.2

© Commonwealth of Australia 2012

Ownership of intellectual property rights Unless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights, if any) in this publication is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia (referred to as the Commonwealth).

Creative Commons licence All material in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence, save for content supplied by third parties, logos and the Commonwealth Coat of Arms.

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence is a standard form licence agreement that allows you to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt this publication provided you attribute the work. A summary of the licence terms is available from creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en. The full licence terms are available from creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode.

This publication (and any material sourced from it) should be attributed as: ABARES 2012, An economic survey of irrigation farms in the Murray–Darling Basin: industry overview and region profiles, 2009–10. CC BY 3.0.

Cataloguing data Ashton, D and Oliver, M 2012, An economic survey of irrigation farms in the Murray–Darling Basin: industry overview and region profiles, 2009–10, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Research Report 12.2, Canberra, January.

ISSN 1447-8358 ISBN 978-1-74323-012-1 (online) ABARES project 43149

Contact Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES)

Postal address GPO Box 1563 Canberra ACT 2601 Switchboard +61 2 6272 2010 Facsimile +61 2 6272 2001 Email [email protected] Web daff.gov.au/abares

Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of this document should be sent to: [email protected].

The Australian Government acting through the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has exercised due care and skill in the preparation and compilation of the information and data in this publication. Notwithstanding, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, its employees and advisers disclaim all liability, including liability for negligence, for any loss, damage, injury, expense or cost incurred by any person as a result of accessing, using or relying upon any of the information or data in this publication to the maximum extent permitted by law.

Acknowledgments This report uses data collected in an ABARES survey of Murray–Darling Basin irrigation farms. This survey was voluntary. Its success depended on the cooperation of farmers and their accountants in providing information on farm operations. The survey would not have been possible without their full cooperation and assistance.

The 2009–10 survey was co-funded by the National Water Commission and the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.

iiiABARESDepartment of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

ForewordAustralia’s Murray–Darling Basin supports a large and important irrigation sector. For much of the past decade, many regions within the Basin have experienced prolonged drought with consequent reductions in water availability for agriculture, the environment and other consumptive uses. The stresses on the Murray–Darling Basin’s water resources have focused attention on the need to adapt to a future with less water. Recent water policy reforms aim to provide for a long-term, sustainable and efficient use of water.

Measuring progress toward water policy and program objectives depends on appropriate and reliable data. In 2007, ABARES commenced a large-scale survey of irrigators throughout the Murray–Darling Basin to better understand and monitor the effects of poor seasonal conditions on irrigators and how the irrigation sector was adjusting to these effects.

This report presents an overview of results from the latest irrigation survey, covering 2009–10, as well as some preliminary estimates for 2010–11.

As well as providing a baseline that allows change to be monitored, ABARES has used the irrigation survey data for a range of research projects covering farm adaptation and structural adjustment, water trading, and changes in technology and productivity.

The latest survey has been co-funded by the National Water Commission and the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.

Phillip Glyde Executive Director ABARES

January 2012

iv

Contents1 Introduction 1

2 Overview of farm performance 2

Seasonal conditions and water availability 2Water use 2Commodity prices 4Farm performance 6

3 Region profiles 12

Condamine–Balonne 12Border Rivers 16Namoi 19Macquarie–Castlereagh 21Lachlan 23Murrumbidgee 26Murray 29Goulburn–Broken 32Loddon–Avoca 35Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges 38

AppendixesA Farm profiles 40

B Survey methodology and definitions 64

References 73

Tables1 Level of water held in selected storages 4

2 Selected financial performance estimates, Murray–Darling Basin, by industry 6

3 Selected farm performance estimates, Condamine–Balonne region 15

4 Selected farm performance estimates, Border Rivers region 17

5 Selected farm performance estimates, Namoi region 20

6 Selected farm performance estimates, Macquarie–Castlereagh region 22

7 Selected farm performance estimates, Lachlan region 24

8 Selected farm performance estimates, Murrumbidgee region 27

9 Selected farm performance estimates, Murray region 30

10 Selected farm performance estimates, Goulburn–Broken region 33

11 Selected farm performance estimates, Loddon–Avoca region 36

12 Selected farm performance estimates, Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges region 39

13 Physical and financial characteristics, Condamine–Balonne region 40

14 Irrigation characteristics, Condamine–Balonne region 42

An economic survey of irrigation farms in the Murray–Darling BasinResearch report 12.2

v

15 Physical and financial characteristics, Border Rivers region 43

16 Irrigation characteristics, Border Rivers region 44

17 Physical and financial characteristics, Namoi region 45

18 Irrigation characteristics, Namoi region 46

19 Physical and financial characteristics, Macquarie–Castlereagh region 47

20 Irrigation characteristics, Macquarie–Castlereagh region 48

21 Physical and financial characteristics, Lachlan region 49

22 Irrigation characteristics, Lachlan region 50

23 Physical and financial characteristics, Murrumbidgee region 51

24 Irrigation characteristics, Murrumbidgee region 52

25 Physical and financial characteristics, Murray region 53

26 Irrigation characteristics, Murray region 55

27 Physical and financial characteristics, Goulburn–Broken region 56

28 Irrigation characteristics, Goulburn–Broken region 58

29 Physical and financial characteristics, Loddon–Avoca region 59

30 Irrigation characteristics, Loddon–Avoca region 61

31 Physical and financial characteristics, Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges region 62

32 Irrigation characteristics, Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges region 63

Figures1 Index of prices for selected commodities 5

2 Farm cash income, by industry, 2006–07 to 2010–11 6

3 Rate of return, irrigated horticulture farms, by region, 2006–07 to 2010–11 8

4 Rate of return, irrigated broadacre farms, by region, 2006–07 to 2010–11 10

5 Rate of return, irrigated dairy farms, by region, 2006–07 to 2010–11 11

Maps1 Rainfall deciles for the Murray–Darling Basin, 2009–10 and 2010–11 3

2 Condamine–Balonne region 12

3 Border Rivers region 16

4 Namoi region 19

5 Macquarie–Castlereagh region 21

6 Lachlan region 23

7 Murrumbidgee region 26

8 Murray region 29

9 Goulburn–Broken region 32

10 Loddon–Avoca region 35

11 Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges region 38

12 Reporting regions 65

1

1 ABARESDepartment of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

Irrigated agriculture in the Murray–Darling Basin makes an important contribution to both the Australian and regional economies. In 2009–10, the Murray–Darling Basin accounted for just over half of Australia’s total irrigated area and about 37 per cent of Australia’s irrigating agricultural businesses (ABS 2011). These businesses undertake a variety of irrigated agricultural enterprises, including vegetable crops, perennial tree and vine crops, pastures for grazing, hay, rice, cotton, cereal and oilseed crops. Many of these enterprises rely on adequate irrigation water. Other enterprises, such as cereal crops and pastures for grazing/fodder production, use irrigation water when available but can also be grown under dryland conditions.

Severe reductions in water availability in recent years have affected irrigators’ incomes and regional economies. With irrigators facing ongoing changes in their business and operating environment, it is important to be able to monitor changes in the physical and financial characteristics of irrigation farms over time.

Since 2007, ABARES has conducted annual surveys of irrigation farms throughout the Murray–Darling Basin to provide industry stakeholders and governments with comprehensive economic profiles for major irrigation industries. The surveys collect a wide range of financial and physical data from irrigation farms in selected regions and industries within the Murray–Darling Basin.

The most recent survey, covering 2009–10, was funded by the National Water Commission and the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.

As well as providing a ‘point in time’ reference, the 2009–10 survey results extend the time series for monitoring trends in physical and financial performance for irrigation farms. The results also provide an integrated dataset that is used to research various issues affecting irrigation industries.

This report presents a summary of results by industry and region from the latest irrigation survey, covering 2009–10, and preliminary estimates for 2010–11. Results from the previous three surveys are reported in Ashton and Oliver (2011).

Introduction

2ABARESDepartment of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

2Seasonal conditions and water availabilityPrevailing seasonal conditions and availability of water are important determinants of irrigators’ farm performance. Seasonal conditions and rainfall typically vary across the Murray–Darling Basin, both within and between years. While rainfall is an important part of the availability of water for irrigation, the use of water storages also allows temporal shifts between the incidence of a rainfall event and the use of water.

Following several years of well below average rainfall, seasonal conditions generally improved across the Murray–Darling Basin in 2009–10, particularly during the second half of the financial year in the southern parts of the Basin (map 1). Despite the improvement in seasonal conditions, dam levels (table 1) and irrigation water allocations remained low in most regions at the beginning of the financial year and resulted in only modest increases in irrigation water use in 2009–10. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) estimated that the total volume of irrigation water applied in the Murray–Darling Basin during 2009–10 was just 2 per cent higher than the previous year (ABS 2011).

Seasonal conditions continued improving in 2010–11, particularly in the first six months of the year when the entire Basin experienced rainfall that ranged from very much above average to the highest on record. South-western parts of the Basin continued to experience above average rainfall in the second half of 2010–11.

Water useAt the basin scale, the average water application rate of 3 ML per hectare in 2009–10 and 2010–11 was similar to the rates in the previous two years. However, at the region and industry scales, water application rates exhibited much more variation. These year-to-year changes in per hectare application rates are variously influenced by type of crop grown, amount of rainfall received and changes in irrigation management practices and technologies.

Overview of farm performance

An economic survey of irrigation farms in the Murray–Darling Basin Research report 12.2


map Rainfall deciles for the Murray–Darling Basin, 2009–10 and 2010–111

rainfall decile ranges

very much above average

highest on record

lowest on record

very much below average

above average

below average

average

rainfall decile ranges

very much above average

highest on record

lowest on record

very much below average

above average

below average

average

Source: Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

2009–10

2010–11



Commodity pricesOverall, prices received by Australian farmers for agricultural commodities were weaker in 2009–10 before rising in 2010–11. Although prices received for individual commodities were mixed, annual unit export returns for agricultural commodities fell by around 12 per cent in 2009–10 before recovering most of this fall in 2010–11 (ABARES 2011).

Irrigators produce a variety of irrigated agricultural products and the prices received for these products can vary widely from year to year. For irrigated broadacre farms, prices for wheat declined in 2009–10, but are estimated to have increased in 2010–11. In comparison, cotton and grain sorghum prices are estimated to have risen in both 2009–10 and 2010–11 (figure 1).

For irrigated dairy farms, farmgate milk prices fell in 2009–10 but are estimated to have improved in 2010–11. For irrigated horticulture farms, overall price movements for fruit and vegetables also fell in 2009–10 before improving in 2010–11.

1 Level of water held in selected storages percentage of storage full at 30 June

storage capacity 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 GL % % % % %

RegionCondamine–Balonne Leslie dam 106 12 8 15 14 9Condamine–Balonne Beardmore dam 82 34 9 42 53 85Border Rivers Glenlyon dam 254 28 13 35 24 22Border Rivers Pindari dam 312 66 22 31 43 25Namoi Split Rock dam 397 20 3 6 5 3Namoi Keepit dam 423 18 6 23 37 28Macquarie–Castlereagh Burrendong dam 1 678 21 8 14 15 12Macquarie–Castlereagh Windamere dam 368 30 22 24 22 18Lachlan Wyangala dam 1 220 21 10 10 6 7Murrumbidgee Burrinjuck dam 1 028 34 31 41 37 41Murrumbidgee Blowering dam 1 631 53 24 37 33 45Murray Hume dam 3 038 21 13 16 11 26Murray Dartmouth dam 3 906 65 13 18 21 32Murray Lake Victoria 677 61 42 45 35 52Goulburn–Broken Lake Eildon 3 390 22 10 14 13 28Loddon–Avoca Cairn Curran 148 5 2 5 2 5

Sources: Murray–Darling Basin Authority (2011; 2010; 2009); Murray–Darling Basin Commission (2008; 2007).



box 1 Key financial performance measures

Farm cash income

Total cash receipts (revenues received by the business during the financial year) less total cash costs (payments made by the farm business for materials and services and for permanent and casual hired labour, excluding owner manager, partner and family labour). Farm cash income is the surplus farm-based income available after paying for cash operating costs.

Farm business profit

Refines farm cash income by adding changes in trading stocks and deducting depreciation and imputed value of family labour. Farm business losses do not necessarily mean negative cash flows. In practice, positive cash flows can be maintained by reducing expenditure on capital asset replacement and forgoing wages for family labour.

Rate of return

Farm business profit with interest, lease and rent payments added (adjusted to full equity basis), expressed as a percentage of total farm capital. It represents the ability of the farm business to generate a return to all capital used by the business, including that which is borrowed or leased.

0 2006–07

2007–08

2008–09

2009–10

2010–112006–07

2007–08

2008–09

2009–10

2010–112006–07

2007–08

2008–09

2009–10

2010–112006–07

2007–08

2008–09

2009–10

2010–112006–07

2007–08

2008–09

2009–10

2010–112006–07

2007–08

2008–09

2009–10

2010–112006–07

2007–08

2008–09

2009–10

2010–112006–07

2007–08

2008–09

2009–10

2010–11

wheat ($/t)

50

100

150

200

250

grainsorghum ($/t) cotton (c/kg) wine grapes ($/t) milk (c/L) fruit ($/t)

Note: Reference year 2006–07 = 100.Source: ABARES estimates.

vegetables ($/t) rice ($/t)

Index of prices for selected commodities1



Farm performanceAt a basin scale, farm financial performance (based on the key financial performance measures in box 1), for irrigated broadacre and dairy farms is estimated to have improved between 2009–10 and 2010–11. However, irrigated horticulture farms recorded a decline in financial performance. In terms of farm cash income, irrigated broadacre farms recorded the largest increase in both absolute and percentage terms (figure 2 and table 2).

Farm cash income, by industry, 2006–07 to 2010–11average per farm

2

broadacredairyhorticulture

Note: Estimates for 2009–10 and 2010–11 are preliminary estimates and projected estimates, respectively.Source: ABARES survey of irrigation farms in the Murray–Darling Basin.

2011–12$‘000

40

80

120

160

200

2010–11

2009–10

2008–09

2007–08

2006–07

2 Selected financial performance estimates, Murray–Darling Basin, by industry average per farm

2008–09 2009–10 p 2010–11 zHorticulture Farm cash income $ 58 168 44 602 31 171Farm business profit $ 1 247 –20 885 –36 348Rate of return % 1.6 0.3 –0.2

Broadacre Farm cash income $ 86 276 55 406 176 275Farm business profit $ –13 584 –44 659 74 532Rate of return % 1.3 0.6 3.2

Dairy Farm cash income $ 9 275 42 044 66 500Farm business profit $ –72 127 –37 215 –15 006Rate of return % –1.7 –0.1 1.1

Murray–Darling Basin Farm cash income $ 56 560 50 594 121 377Farm business profit $ –16 551 –37 137 31 792Rate of return % 0.9 0.5 2.5

p Preliminary estimate. z Projection. Note: Caution should be used when comparing estimates. Relative standard errors are provided in appendix A and a guide to comparing estimates across groups is given in appendix B.



Horticulture farmsIn 2009–10, total cash receipts for irrigated horticulture farms in the Murray–Darling Basin rose by around 3 per cent, with increased receipts for tree and vine crops, livestock and off-farm contracts. Total cash costs rose by around 10 per cent in 2009–10, with increases in expenditure on hired labour, packing materials, crop and pasture chemicals, fuel, and interest payments being partly offset by reduced expenditure on temporary water allocations, fertiliser and freight.

Average farm cash income therefore fell by around 23 per cent to average $44 602 a farm in 2009–10 (table 2). Irrigated horticulture farms recorded an average farm business loss of $20 885 a farm in 2009–10.

In 2010–11, total cash receipts are estimated to have declined by around 5 per cent, with lower receipts for tree and vine crops. Total cash costs are estimated to have risen by less than 1 per cent in 2010–11, with increases in expenditure on hired labour, crop and pasture chemicals, freight and interest payments being offset by reduced expenditure on temporary water allocations, and repairs and maintenance.

Average farm cash income for irrigated horticulture farms is estimated to have fallen to $31 171 a farm in 2010–11, with an average farm business loss of $36 348 a farm.

In line with the recorded declines in farm cash income and farm business profit, the average rate of return (excluding capital appreciation) for irrigated horticulture farms in the Murray–Darling Basin was estimated to have declined to –0.2 per cent in 2010–11, compared with an average of 0.3 per cent in 2009–10. The best performing regions for irrigated horticulture farms in 2010–11, by rate of return, were the Condamine–Balonne and Murray regions (figure 3). The remaining regions—Border Rivers, Macquarie–Castlereagh, Lachlan, Murrumbidgee, Goulburn–Broken, Loddon–Avoca and Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges—are estimated to have recorded negative rates of return in 2010–11.

While the above results suggest relatively weak financial performance for irrigated horticulture farms as a whole in 2009–10 and 2010–11, there was wide variation in financial performance across farms in all regions. An estimated 35 per cent of irrigated horticulture farms recorded a positive rate of return (excluding capital appreciation) in 2009–10.



2006–072007–08

2008–092009–102010–112006–072007–08

2008–092009–102010–112006–072007–082008–09

2009–102010–112006–07

2007–082008–09

2009–102010–112006–072007–08

2008–092009–102010–11

2006–07

2007–082008–09

2009–102010–112006–07

2007–082008–092009–102010–112006–072007–082008–09

2009–102010–112006–07

2007–082008–092009–102010–11

Cond

amin

e–B

alon

neBo

rder

Rive

rsM

acqu

arie

–Cas

tlere

agh

% –8–6–4–2246810La

chla

nM

urru

mbi

dgee

Mur

ray

Gou

lbur

n–B

roke

nLo

ddon

–Avo

caEa

ster

n M

ount

Lo

fty

Rang

es

Rate

of r

etur

n, ir

rigat

ed h

ortic

ultu

re fa

rms,

by re

gion

, 200

6–07

to 2

010–

11av

erag

e pe

r far

m3

Not

e: E

stim

ates

for 2

009–

10 a

nd 2

010–

11 a

re p

relim

inar

y es

timat

es a

nd p

roje

cted

est

imat

es, r

espe

ctiv

ely.

Sour

ce: A

BARE

S su

rvey

of i

rrig

atio

n fa

rms

in th

e M

urra

y–D

arlin

g Ba

sin.



Broadacre farmsIn 2009–10, total cash receipts for irrigated broadacre farms in the Murray–Darling Basin declined by around 6 per cent, with lower receipts from broadacre crops, particularly cotton, being partly offset by increased receipts for livestock, wool and sales of temporary water allocations. Total cash costs fell by less than 1 per cent in 2009–10.

Farm cash income for irrigated broadacre farms in the Murray–Darling Basin therefore fell to average $55 406 a farm in 2009–10. Irrigated broadacre farms recorded an average farm business loss of $44 659 a farm in 2009–10.

In 2010–11, total cash receipts are estimated to have increased by around 33 per cent, with higher receipts for cotton and grain sorghum. Reflecting an increase in the area cropped, total cash costs rose by an estimated 10 per cent in 2010–11, with increases in expenditure on fertiliser, crop and pasture chemicals, fuel, freight, cropping contracts and interest payments.

Average farm cash income for irrigated broadacre farms is therefore estimated to have risen sharply to average around $176 275 a farm, with an average farm business profit of around $74 532.

Reflecting the changes recorded in farm cash income and farm business profit, the average rate of return (excluding capital appreciation) for irrigated broadacre farms in the Murray–Darling Basin rose to average 3.2 per cent in 2010–11, compared with an average of 0.6 per cent in 2009–10. All regions recorded positive rates of return in 2010–11 (figure 4).

Nevertheless, there was wide variation in financial performance across farms in all regions in 2009–10 and 2010–11. An estimated 40 per cent of irrigated broadacre farms recorded a positive rate of return (excluding capital appreciation) in 2009–10.



Rate

of r

etur

n, ir

rigat

ed b

road

acre

farm

s, by

regi

on, 2

006–

07 to

201

0–11

aver

age

per f

arm

Not

e: E

stim

ates

for 2

009–

10 a

nd 2

010–

11 a

re p

relim

inar

y es

timat

es a

nd p

roje

cted

est

imat

es, r

espe

ctiv

ely.

Sour

ce: A

BARE

S su

rvey

of i

rrig

atio

n fa

rms

in th

e M

urra

y–D

arlin

g Ba

sin.

4Co

ndam

ine

–Bal

onne

Bord

erRi

vers

Nam

oi

% –8–6–4–2246810

Mac

quar

ie–C

astle

reag

hLa

chla

nM

urru

mbi

dgee

Mur

ray

Gou

lbur

n–B

roke

nLo

ddon

–Avo

ca

2006–072007–08

2008–092009–10

2010–112006–072007–082008–09

2009–102010–112006–07

2007–082008–09

2009–102010–112006–07

2007–082008–092009–10

2010–112006–072007–082008–09

2009–102010–112006–07

2007–082008–09

2009–102010–112006–072007–08

2008–092009–102010–112006–072007–082008–09

2009–102010–112006–07

2007–082008–092009–10

2010–11



Dairy farmsIn 2009–10, total cash receipts for irrigated dairy farms in the Murray–Darling Basin declined by around 9 per cent, with lower milk receipts reflecting a decline in farmgate milk prices and lower milk production per farm. Total cash costs fell even further (by around 18 per cent) in 2009–10, as dairy farmers reduced expenditure on fodder and, to a lesser extent, hired labour.

Farm cash income for irrigated dairy farms in the Murray–Darling Basin therefore improved substantially to average around $42 044 a farm in 2009–10. Irrigated dairy farms recorded an average farm business loss of $37 215 a farm in 2009–10.

In 2010–11, total cash receipts are estimated to have increased by around 13 per cent, mainly because of higher farmgate milk prices. Total cash costs are estimated to have risen by 4 per cent in 2010–11, with increases in expenditure on hired labour, freight and interest payments being partly offset by reduced expenditure on fodder and temporary water purchases.

Average farm cash income for irrigated dairy farms is estimated to have increased, to $66 500 in 2010–11, with an average farm business loss of around $15 000.

In line with the recorded changes in farm cash income and farm business profit, the average rate of return (excluding capital appreciation) for irrigated dairy farms in the Murray–Darling Basin is estimated to have increased to 1.1 per cent in 2010–11, compared with an average of –0.1 per cent in 2009–10. The best performing regions in 2010–11, by rate of return, were the Condamine–Balonne, Murray and Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges regions (figure 5). The remaining regions with irrigated dairy farms—Goulburn–Broken and Loddon–Avoca—are estimated to have recorded negative rates of return in 2010–11.

There was wide variation in financial performance across farms in all regions. An estimated 35 per cent of irrigated dairy farms recorded a positive rate of return (excluding capital appreciation) in 2009–10.

2006–07

2008–09

2010–11

Condamine–Balonne

2006–07

2008–09

2010–11

Murray

2006–07

2008–09

2010–11

Goulburn–Broken

2006–07

2008–09

2010–11

Loddon–Avoca

2006–07

2008–09

2010–11

Eastern MountLofty Ranges

Rate of return, irrigated dairy farms, by region, 2006–07 to 2010–11average per farm5

–6

–4

–2

%

2

4

6

Note: Estimates for 2009–10 and 2010–11 are preliminary estimates and projected estimates, respectively.Source: ABARES survey of irrigation farms in the Murray–Darling Basin.


3Condamine–BalonneThe Condamine–Balonne region is located in south-eastern Queensland and extends slightly into north-western New South Wales (map 2). The main waterways are the Condamine and Balonne rivers, and major water storages include the Beardmore and Leslie dams. Groundwater and harvested overland flow water are also important sources of irrigation water within the region.

There are two main irrigation areas within the region. One of these areas is situated along the upper Condamine River, approximately between Warwick and Chinchilla. The main irrigation activity along the upper Condamine is cotton. Melon growing is an important irrigation activity around Chinchilla. Other activities throughout the area include irrigated dairy farming, broadacre grazing, fruit growing and mixed cropping.

The other main irrigation area is situated around St George and downstream to Dirranbandi, with irrigators utilising regulated flows from water stored in Beardmore dam and/or harvesting water from overland flows. Irrigators in this area are predominantly cotton growers, although vegetable and fruit production and mixed cropping activities are also undertaken.

The irrigation survey in the Condamine–Balonne region targeted dairy, broadacre and horticulture industry farms.

Region profilesm

ap Condamine–Balonne region2

Dam

Irrigated area

Outside Murray–Darling Basin



Horticulture farmsThe average area operated by irrigated horticulture farms in the Condamine–Balonne region in 2009–10 was estimated to have been around 327 hectares, with 50 per cent of farms operating an area of between 40 and 250 hectares. On average, around 82 hectares of crops were irrigated in 2009–10, 16 per cent higher than the average area irrigated in 2008–09. The average area of crops irrigated in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 66 hectares (table 3).

Irrigated horticulture farms in the Condamine–Balonne region used an average of 87 megalitres of irrigation water in 2009–10, at an estimated rate of 1.1 megalitres a hectare. The volume of water used in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 79 megalitres, at a rate of 1.2 megalitres a hectare.

Average farm cash income was estimated to have been $79 791 a farm in 2009–10, with an average farm business loss of $13 237 a farm. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) for these farms was estimated to have been around 1.9 per cent in 2009–10, compared with an average of 1.1 per cent in 2008–09. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) is estimated to have been 5.6 per cent in 2010–11.

Broadacre farmsThe average area operated by irrigated broadacre farms in the Condamine–Balonne region in 2009–10 was estimated to have been around 2322 hectares, with 50 per cent of farms operating an area between 290 and 1700 hectares. On average, around 120 hectares of crops were irrigated in 2009–10, 37 per cent lower than the average area irrigated in 2008–09. The average area of crops irrigated in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 126 hectares (table 3).

Irrigated broadacre farms in the Condamine–Balonne region used an average of 341 megalitres of irrigation water in 2009–10, at an estimated rate of 2.8 megalitres a hectare. The volume of water used in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 346 megalitres, at a rate of 2.7 megalitres a hectare.

Average farm cash income was estimated to have been $117 939 a farm in 2009–10, with an average farm business profit of $17 428 a farm. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) for these farms was estimated to have been around 2.0 per cent in 2009–10, compared with an average of 2.7 per cent in 2008–09. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) is estimated to have been 4.3 per cent in 2010–11.

Dairy farmsThe average area operated by irrigated dairy farms in the Condamine–Balonne region in 2009–10 was estimated to have been around 592 hectares, with 50 per cent of farms operating an area between 330 and 720 hectares. On average, around 33 hectares of crops and 3 hectares of pasture were irrigated in 2009–10, slightly less than the average area irrigated in 2008–09. The average area irrigated in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 20 hectares of crops and 4 hectares of pasture (table 3).



Irrigated dairy farms in the Condamine–Balonne region used an average of 35 megalitres of irrigation water in 2009–10, at an estimated rate of 1.0 megalitres a hectare. The volume of water used in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 19 megalitres, at a rate of 0.8 megalitres a hectare.

Average farm cash income was estimated to have been $158 852 a farm in 2009–10, with an average farm business profit of $78 948 a farm. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) for these farms was estimated to have been around 3.4 per cent in 2009–10, compared with an average of 1.7 per cent in 2008–09. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) is estimated to have been 6.0 per cent in 2010–11.



3 Se

lect

ed fa

rm p

erfo

rman

ce e

stim

ates

, Con

dam

ine–

Balo

nne

regi

on

aver

age

per

farm

hort

icul

ture

br

oada

cre

dairy

2008

–09

2009

–10

p 20

10–1

1 z

2008

–09

2009

–10

p 20

10–1

1 z

2008

–09

2009

–10

p 20

10–1

1 z

Are

a op

erat

ed

ha

394

327

na

1 15

0 2

322

na

246

592

naSh

eep

no

. 0

0 na

29

21

9 na

1

0 na

Beef

cat

tle

no.

96

50

na

71

150

na

6 49

na

Dai

ry c

attl

e no

. 0

0 na

0

0 na

15

9 27

3 na

Are

a se

t up

for

irri

gat

ion

ha

95

117

na

312

256

na

65

71

naA

rea

crop

s ir

rig

ated

ha

71

82

66

19

1 12

0 12

6 38

33

20

Are

a no

n-ir

rig

ated

cro

ps

ha

36

71

54

389

588

686

83

277

320

Are

a p

astu

re ir

rig

ated

ha

0

0 0

0 0

0 2

3 4

Wat

er a

pp

lied

to

crop

s/p

astu

re

ML

128

87

79

431

341

346

46

35

19W

ater

ap

plic

atio

n ra

te

ML/

ha

1.8

1.1

1.2

2.3

2.8

2.7

1.2

1.0

0.8

Tota

l cas

h re

ceip

ts

$ 68

7 31

9 58

6 72

9 65

9 34

9 78

0 68

0 69

1 57

3 85

2 90

8 33

9 35

2 78

0 97

1 91

8 06

3To

tal c

ash

cost

s $

618

259

506

938

495

609

567

439

573

634

610

384

271

337

622

119

661

051

Farm

cas

h in

com

e $

69 0

59

79 7

91

163

741

213

242

117

939

242

524

68 0

15

158

852

257

012

Farm

bus

ines

s p

rofit

$

–18

287

–13

237

68 4

68

77 9

92

17 4

28

144

700

11 5

83

78 9

48

179

661

Rate

of r

etur

n %

1.

1 1.

9 5.

6 2.

7 2.

0 4.

3 1.

7 3.

4 6.

0

p Pr

elim

inar

y es

timat

e. z

Pro

ject

ion.

na

Not

ava

ilab

le.

Not

e: C

autio

n sh

ould

be

used

whe

n co

mp

arin

g es

timat

es. R

elat

ive

stan

dard

err

ors

are

pro

vid

ed in

ap

pen

dix

A a

nd a

gui

de

to c

omp

arin

g es

timat

es a

cros

s gr

oup

s is

giv

en in

ap

pen

dix

B.So

urce

: ABA

RES

surv

ey o

f irr

igat

ion

farm

s in

the

Mur

ray–

Dar

ling

Basi

n.



Border RiversThe Border Rivers region spans the border regions of south-east Queensland and north-east New South Wales (map 3). The main waterways are Macintyre Brook and the Macintyre and Dumaresq rivers. Major water storages include Pindari and Glenlyon dams. Groundwater and overland flow harvested water are also used for irrigation purposes in the region.

There are two main irrigation areas within the Border Rivers region. One of these districts is based along the regulated parts of the Macintyre and Dumaresq rivers and Macintyre Brook. Irrigation activity is centred on Goondiwindi and areas downstream to Mungindi, with cotton traditionally being the most important crop. In addition, a number of broadacre farms in the region undertake a mix of irrigated and dryland cropping and livestock production on predominantly dryland pastures.

The other irrigation area is situated around Stanthorpe and relies predominantly on unregulated water supplies. Fruit production and vegetable production are important irrigation activities in this area.

The irrigation survey in the Border Rivers region targeted broadacre and horticulture industry farms.

map Border Rivers region3

Dam

Irrigated area




Horticulture farmsThe average area operated by irrigated horticulture farms in the Border Rivers region in 2009–10 was estimated to have been around 194 hectares, with 50 per cent of farms operating an area between 25 and 130 hectares. On average, around 18 hectares of crops were irrigated in 2009–10, similar to the average area of 21 hectares irrigated in 2008–09. The average area of crops irrigated in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 23 hectares (table 4).

Irrigated horticulture farms in the Border Rivers region used an average of 38 megalitres of irrigation water in 2009–10, at an estimated rate of 2.2 megalitres a hectare. The volume of water used in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 37 megalitres, at a rate of 1.7 megalitres a hectare. Average farm cash income was estimated to have been $92 093 a farm in 2009–10, with an average farm business loss of $387 a farm. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) for these farms was estimated to have been around 1.4 per cent in 2009–10, compared with an average of 4.1 per cent in 2008–09. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) is estimated to have been –2.8 per cent in 2010–11.

4 Selected farm performance estimates, Border Rivers region average per farm

horticulture broadacre

2008–09 2009–10 p 2010–11 z 2008–09 2009–10 p 2010–11 z

Area operated ha 260 194 na 3 499 3 744 naSheep no. 129 39 na 146 154 naBeef cattle no. 40 25 na 238 313 naDairy cattle no. 0 0 na 0 0 naArea set up for irrigation ha 30 21 na 686 599 naArea crops irrigated ha 21 18 23 353 305 529Area non-irrigated crops ha 3 2 3 1 409 1 098 768Area pasture irrigated ha 0 0 0 0 0 0Water applied to crops/pasture ML 70 38 37 1 266 1 086 2 259Water application rate ML/ha 3.3 2.2 1.7 3.6 3.6 4.3Total cash receipts $ 398 905 442 954 380 247 1 847 702 1 487 885 2 050 909Total cash costs $ 279 322 350 860 343 609 1 563 783 1 504 070 1 784 756Farm cash income $ 119 583 92 093 36 638 283 919 –16 185 266 153Farm business profit $ 44 144 –387 –59 302 148 422 –193 026 81 645Rate of return % 4.1 1.4 –2.8 2.8 0.5 2.5

p Preliminary estimate. z Projection. na Not available. Note: Caution should be used when comparing estimates. Relative standard errors are provided in appendix A and a guide to comparing estimates across groups is given in appendix B.Source: ABARES survey of irrigation farms in the Murray–Darling Basin.



Broadacre farmsThe average area operated by irrigated broadacre farms in the Border Rivers region in 2009–10 was estimated to have been around 3744 hectares, with 50 per cent of farms operating an area between 1200 and 3990 hectares. On average, around 305 hectares of crops were irrigated in 2009–10, 14 per cent less than the average area irrigated in 2008–09. The average area of crops irrigated in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 529 hectares (table 4).

Irrigated broadacre farms in the Border Rivers region used an average of 1086 megalitres of irrigation water in 2009–10, at an estimated rate of 3.6 megalitres a hectare. The volume of water used in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 2259 megalitres, at a rate of 4.3 megalitres a hectare.

Average farm cash income was estimated to have been –$16 185 a farm in 2009–10, with an average farm business loss of $193 026 a farm. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) for these farms was estimated to have been around 0.5 per cent in 2009–10, compared with an average of 2.8 per cent in 2008–09. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) is estimated to have been 2.5 per cent in 2010–11.



NamoiThe Namoi region is situated in north-western New South Wales (map 4). The main waterways are the Namoi, Manilla and Peel rivers, and major water storages include Chaffey, Keepit and Split Rock dams. Groundwater is also an important source of irrigation water in the region.

Irrigation activity occurs mainly along the Namoi River below Keepit Dam. In most years, cotton is the major irrigation crop, with cereal crops, pasture and hay also produced under irrigation.

Broadacre farmsThe average area operated by irrigated broadacre farms in the Namoi region in 2009–10 was estimated to have been around 1482 hectares, with 50 per cent of farms operating an area between 430 and 1350 hectares. On average, around 158 hectares of crops were irrigated in 2009–10, about one-quarter less than the average area irrigated in 2008–09. The average area of crops irrigated in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 135 hectares (table 5).

Irrigated broadacre farms in the Namoi region used an average of 493 megalitres of irrigation water in 2009–10, at an estimated rate of 3.1 megalitres a hectare. The volume of water used in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 524 megalitres, at a rate of 3.9 megalitres a hectare.


map Namoi region4

Dam

Irrigated area




5 Selected farm performance estimates, Namoi region average per farm

broadacre

2008–09 2009–10 p 2010–11 zArea operated ha 1 882 1 482 naSheep no. 389 323 naBeef cattle no. 259 150 naDairy cattle no. 0 0 naArea set up for irrigation ha 368 236 naArea crops irrigated ha 211 158 135Area non-irrigated crops ha 696 487 495Area pasture irrigated ha 0 1 1Water applied to crops/pasture ML 558 493 524Water application rate ML/ha 2.6 3.1 3.9Total cash receipts $ 1 061 478 782 458 1 066 853Total cash costs $ 848 945 650 190 714 411Farm cash income $ 212 533 132 269 352 443Farm business profit $ 123 400 –42 453 165 980Rate of return % 3.5 0.7 4.4




Macquarie–CastlereaghThe Macquarie–Castlereagh region is located in central-west New South Wales (map 5). The main waterways are the Macquarie and Castlereagh rivers and the major water storages are Burrendong and Windamere dams.

Most irrigation water is sourced from surface water diversions, although groundwater is also used. The region’s irrigation activity mostly occurs around riverways downstream of Narromine and Warren. The main irrigation crop has traditionally been cotton, with cereal crops and pasture and hay production also important. Some irrigated horticulture activity also occurs around Mudgee and Orange.

Horticulture farmsThe average area operated by irrigated horticulture farms in the Macquarie–Castlereagh region in 2009–10 was estimated to have been around 140 hectares, with 50 per cent of farms operating an area between 50 and 310 hectares. On average, around 38 hectares of crops were irrigated in 2009–10, higher than the average of 23 hectares irrigated in 2008–09. The average area of crops irrigated in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 21 hectares (table 6).

Irrigated horticulture farms in the Macquarie–Castlereagh region used an average of 69 megalitres of irrigation water in 2009–10, at an estimated rate of 1.8 megalitres a hectare. The volume of water used in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 39 megalitres, also at a rate of around 1.8 megalitres a hectare.

map Macquarie–Castlereagh region5

Dam

Irrigated area




Average farm cash income was estimated to have been –$19 615 a farm in 2009–10, with an average farm business loss of $109 304 a farm. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) for these farms was estimated to have been around –2.0 per cent in 2009–10, compared with an average of 0 per cent in 2008–09. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) is estimated to have been –4.1 per cent in 2010–11.

Broadacre farmsThe average area operated by irrigated broadacre farms in the Macquarie–Castlereagh region in 2009–10 was estimated to have been around 1760 hectares, with 50 per cent of farms operating an area between 370 and 2640 hectares. On average, around 79 hectares of crops were irrigated in 2009–10, 50 per cent less than the average area irrigated in 2008–09. The average area of crops irrigated in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 55 hectares (table 6).

Irrigated broadacre farms in the Macquarie–Castlereagh region used an average of 232 megalitres of irrigation water in 2009–10, at an estimated rate of 2.9 megalitres a hectare in 2009–10. The volume of water used in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 219 megalitres, at a rate of 4.0 megalitres a hectare.


6 Selected farm performance estimates, Macquarie–Castlereagh region average per farm


2008–09 2009–10 p 2010–11 z 2008–09 2009–10 p 2010–11 z

Area operated ha 86 140 na 2 869 1 760 naSheep no. 157 272 na 1 154 842 naBeef cattle no. 23 33 na 228 166 naDairy cattle no. 0 0 na 0 0 naArea set up for irrigation ha 35 55 na 699 281 naArea crops irrigated ha 23 38 21 163 79 55Area non-irrigated crops ha 1 32 31 1 119 777 721Area pasture irrigated ha 0 1 1 0 0 0Water applied to crops/pasture ML 41 69 39 423 232 219Water application rate ML/ha 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.6 2.9 4.0Total cash receipts $ 211 272 269 612 188 972 951 277 599 617 753 349Total cash costs $ 168 246 289 228 267 077 835 077 535 263 582 519Farm cash income $ 43 026 –19 615 –78 105 116 200 64 354 170 831Farm business profit $ –19 827 –109 304 –171 857 –9 915 –35 673 70 737Rate of return % 0.0 –2.0 –4.1 2.1 1.0 3.3




LachlanThe Lachlan region is located in central New South Wales (map 6). The main waterway is the Lachlan River and the major water storage is Wyangala Dam. Most irrigation in the Lachlan region depends on water from the regulated section of the Lachlan River below Wyangala Dam, or from groundwater.

Irrigation areas are mostly in close proximity to the Lachlan River, particularly in the Jemalong and Wyldes Plains irrigation districts to the west of Forbes. Irrigation is also undertaken around Cowra, as well as on the lower Lachlan around Hillston. The most important irrigation activities in the region have been cereal crop and pasture and hay production. Some irrigated cotton and horticulture crops are also produced in the region. In addition, a number of broadacre farms in the region undertake a mix of irrigated and dryland cropping and livestock production on predominately dryland pastures.

The irrigation survey in the Lachlan region targeted irrigated broadacre and horticulture farms.

Horticulture farmsThe average area operated by irrigated horticulture farms in the Lachlan region in 2009–10 was estimated to have been around 489 hectares, with 50 per cent of farms operating an area between 140 and 450 hectares. On average, around 83 hectares of crops were irrigated in 2009–10, higher than the 46 hectares irrigated in 2008–09. The average area of crops irrigated in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 60 hectares (table 7).

map Lachlan region6

Dam

Irrigated area




Irrigated horticulture farms in the Lachlan region used an average of 284 megalitres of irrigation water in 2009–10, at an estimated rate of 3.4 megalitres a hectare. The volume of water used in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 124 megalitres, at a rate of 2.1 megalitres a hectare.

Average farm cash income was estimated to have been $54 426 a farm in 2009–10, with an average farm business loss of $26 502 a farm. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) for these farms was estimated to have been around 1.0 per cent in 2009–10, compared with an average of 4.5 per cent in 2008–09. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) is estimated to have been –0.7 per cent in 2010–11.

Broadacre farmsThe average area operated by irrigated broadacre farms in the Lachlan region in 2009–10 was estimated to have been around 2001 hectares, with 50 per cent of farms operating an area between 265 and 2500 hectares. On average, around 31 hectares of crops were irrigated in 2009–10, about a third less than the average area irrigated in 2008–09. The average area of crops irrigated in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 25 hectares (table 7).

7 Selected farm performance estimates, Lachlan region average per farm


2008–09 2009–10 p 2010–11 z 2008–09 2009–10 p 2010–11 z

Area operated ha 173 489 na 2 190 2 001 naSheep no 106 178 na 1 803 1 864 naBeef cattle no 38 180 na 124 154 naDairy cattle no 0 0 na 0 0 naArea set up for irrigation ha 75 127 na 288 267 naArea crops irrigated ha 46 83 60 47 31 25Area non-irrigated crops ha 14 53 87 607 606 528Area pasture irrigated ha 0 0 0 1 0 1Water applied to crops/pasture ML 203 284 124 159 155 98Water application rate ML/ha 4.4 3.4 2.1 3.3 5.0 3.9Total cash receipts $ 450 936 619 379 558 671 396 931 357 892 533 575Total cash costs $ 318 080 564 953 580 834 379 965 360 256 404 184Farm cash income $ 132 855 54 426 –22 163 16 966 –2 364 129 391Farm business profit $ 58 549 –26 502 –105 959 –73 978 –114 616 9 905Rate of return % 4.5 1.0 –0.7 0.2 –1.1 2.3




Irrigated broadacre farms in the Lachlan region used an average of 155 megalitres of irrigation water in 2009–10, at an estimated rate of 5.0 megalitres a hectare. The volume of water used in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 98 megalitres, at a rate of 3.9 megalitres a hectare.

Average farm cash income was estimated to have been –$2364 a farm in 2009–10, with an average farm business loss of $114 616 a farm. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) for these farms was estimated to have been around –1.1 per cent in 2009–10, compared with an average of 0.2 per cent in 2008–09. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) is estimated to have been 2.3 per cent in 2010–11.



MurrumbidgeeThe Murrumbidgee region is located in southern New South Wales (map 7). The main waterway is the Murrumbidgee River and the major storages are the Burrinjuck and Blowering dams. Groundwater is also an important source of irrigation water in some parts of the region.

There are two main irrigation areas within the region: the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area and the Coleambally Irrigation Area. The Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area is located around Leeton and Griffith, while the Coleambally Irrigation Area is located around Coleambally. These areas traditionally support a broad range of irrigation activities, with the more important being rice, other cereal crops, grapes, citrus, vegetables, and pasture and hay production. Some irrigation activity also occurs in eastern parts of the region, including around Wagga Wagga and Batlow.

The irrigation survey in the Murrumbidgee region targeted irrigators in the broadacre and horticulture industries.

Horticulture farmsThe average area operated by irrigated horticulture farms in the Murrumbidgee region in 2009–10 was estimated to have been around 159 hectares, with 50 per cent of farms operating an area between 15 and 60 hectares. On average, around 31 hectares of crops were irrigated in 2009–10, similar to the average area irrigated in 2008–09. The average area of crops irrigated in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 35 hectares (table 8).

map Murrumbidgee region7

Dam

Irrigated area




8 Selected farm performance estimates, Murrumbidgee region average per farm


2008–09 2009–10 p 2010–11 z 2008–09 2009–10 p 2010–11 z

Area operated ha 134 159 na 867 1 351 naSheep no. 14 49 na 824 1 035 naBeef cattle no. 13 6 na 37 83 naDairy cattle no. 0 0 na 0 0 naArea set up for irrigation ha 51 58 na 339 401 naArea crops irrigated ha 32 31 35 76 125 139Area non-irrigated crops ha 7 19 21 205 261 235Area pasture irrigated ha 0 0 0 10 11 0Water applied to crops/pasture ML 132 146 153 188 397 532Water application rate ML/ha 4.1 4.7 4.4 2.2 2.9 3.8Total cash receipts $ 250 104 243 721 129 223 273 137 415 312 487 556Total cash costs $ 197 409 206 012 205 533 232 856 339 466 346 518Farm cash income $ 52 694 37 709 –76 310 40 281 75 845 141 038Farm business profit $ –2 157 –28 309 –144 039 –44 158 –2 325 63 480Rate of return % 1.0 –0.4 –7.9 –0.1 1.2 3.0


Irrigated horticulture farms in the Murrumbidgee region used an average of 146 megalitres of irrigation water in 2009–10, at an estimated rate of 4.7 megalitres a hectare. The volume of water used in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 153 megalitres, at a rate of 4.4 megalitres a hectare.

Average farm cash income was estimated to have been $37 709 a farm in 2009–10, with an average farm business loss of $28 309 a farm. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) for these farms was estimated to have been around –0.4 per cent in 2009–10, compared with an average of 1.0 per cent in 2008–09. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) is estimated to have been –7.9 per cent in 2010–11.

Broadacre farmsThe average area operated by irrigated broadacre farms in the Murrumbidgee region in 2009–10 was estimated to have been around 1351 hectares, with 50 per cent of farms operating an area between 245 and 1050 hectares. On average, around 125 hectares of crops were irrigated in 2009–10, almost two-thirds higher than the average area irrigated in 2008–09. The average area of crops irrigated in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 139 hectares (table 8).



Irrigated broadacre farms in the Murrumbidgee region used an average of 397 megalitres of irrigation water in 2009–10, at an estimated rate of 2.9 megalitres a hectare. The volume of water used in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 532 megalitres, at a rate of 3.8 megalitres a hectare.

Average farm cash income was estimated to have been $75 845 a farm in 2009–10, with an average farm business profit of $2325 a farm. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) for these farms was estimated to have been around 1.2 per cent in 2009–10, compared with an average of –0.1 per cent in 2008–09. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) is estimated to have been 3.0 per cent in 2010–11.



MurrayThe Murray region spans the length of the Murray River and includes farms in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia (map 8). The region also encompasses the lower Darling River system. The main waterways are the Murray and Darling rivers, with the main water storages being the Hume and Dartmouth dams, Lake Victoria and the Menindee Lakes.

Irrigation activity occurs along most of the Murray River and along some parts of the Darling River, particularly around Menindee. The most important irrigation activities in this region include wine grapes and citrus production, as well as cereal crops and pastures.

The irrigation survey in the Murray region targeted irrigators in the dairy, broadacre and horticulture industries.

Horticulture farmsThe average area operated by irrigated horticulture farms in the Murray region in 2009–10 was estimated to have been around 159 hectares, with 50 per cent of farms operating an area between 10 and 45 hectares. On average, around 28 hectares of crops were irrigated in 2009–10, over 20 per cent higher than the average irrigated in 2008–09. The average area of crops irrigated in 2010–11 is estimated to have also been around 28 hectares (table 9).

Irrigated horticulture farms in the Murray region used an average of 188 megalitres of irrigation water in 2009–10, at an estimated rate of 6.7 megalitres a hectare. The volume of water used in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 152 megalitres, at a rate of 5.4 megalitres a hectare.

map Murray region8

Dam

Irrigated area




9 Se

lect

ed fa

rm p

erfo

rman

ce e

stim

ates

, Mur

ray

regi

on

aver

age

per

farm

hort

icul

ture

br

oada

cre

dairy

2008

–09

2009

–10

p 20

10–1

1 z

2008

–09

2009

–10

p 20

10–1

1 z

2008

–09

2009

–10

p 20

10–1

1 z

Are

a op

erat

ed

ha

75

159

na

1 38

2 2

662

na

307

392

naSh

eep

no

. 2

12

na

380

1 11

0 na

8

0 na

Beef

cat

tle

no.

2 4

na

60

33

na

51

23

naD

airy

cat

tle

no.

0 0

na

0 0

na

151

208

naA

rea

set

up fo

r ir

rig

atio

n ha

31

37

na

32

1 39

7 na

20

0 21

2 na

Are

a cr

ops

irri

gat

ed

ha

23

28

28

27

20

45

24

35

43A

rea

non-

irri

gat

ed c

rop

s ha

4

56

58

519

1 09

5 85

2 67

97

13

2A

rea

pas

ture

irri

gat

ed

ha

0 0

0 4

4 5

18

28

37W

ater

ap

plie

d t

o

cr

ops/

pas

ture

M

L 16

5 18

8 15

2 58

32

13

5 11

1 14

2 15

6W

ater

ap

plic

atio

n ra

te

ML/

ha

7.0

6.7

5.4

1.8

1.4

2.7

2.6

2.3

1.9

Tota

l cas

h re

ceip

ts

$ 26

7 08

6 26

9 75

6 30

2 51

4 26

4 82

5 22

5 18

4 36

3 42

0 36

2 36

6 39

2 32

5 42

7 37

1To

tal c

ash

cost

s $

218

040

216

693

220

874

241

474

212

390

229

291

327

045

348

237

342

111

Farm

cas

h in

com

e $

49 0

46

53 0

64

81 6

40

23 3

51

12 7

94

134

129

35 3

21

44 0

88

85 2

59Fa

rm b

usin

ess

pro

fit

$ –9

49

–4 3

32

22 4

35

–70

458

–60

476

61 9

42

–60

699

–39

332

–993

Rate

of r

etur

n %

1.

7 0.

9 2.

9 –1

.2

–0.7

2.

5 –1

.5

0.0

1.8

p Pr

elim

inar

y es

timat

e. z

Pro

ject

ion.

na

Not

ava

ilab

le.

Not

e: C

autio

n sh

ould

be

used

whe

n co

mp

arin

g es

timat

es. R

elat

ive

stan

dard

err

ors

are

pro

vid

ed in

ap

pen

dix

A a

nd a

gui

de

to c

omp

arin

g es

timat

es a

cros

s gr

oup

s is

giv

en in

ap

pen

dix

B.So

urce

: ABA

RES

surv

ey o

f irr

igat

ion

farm

s in

the

Mur

ray–

Dar

ling

Basi

n.



Average farm cash income was estimated to have been $53 064 a farm in 2009–10, with an average farm business loss of $4332 a farm. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) for these farms was estimated to have been 0.9 per cent in 2009–10, compared with an average of 1.7 per cent in 2008–09. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) is estimated to have been 2.9 per cent in 2010–11.

Broadacre farmsThe average area operated by irrigated broadacre farms in the Murray region in 2009–10 was estimated to have been around 2662 hectares, with 50 per cent of farms operating an area between 370 and 2220 hectares. On average, around 20 hectares of crops and 4 hectares of pasture were irrigated in 2009–10, slightly less than the average areas irrigated in 2008–09. The average area of crops and pasture irrigated in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 45 hectares and 5 hectares for crops and pasture, respectively (table 9).

Irrigated broadacre farms in the Murray region used an average of 32 megalitres of irrigation water in 2009–10, at an estimated rate of 1.4 megalitres a hectare. The volume of water used in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 135 megalitres, at a rate of 2.7 megalitres a hectare.

Average farm cash income was estimated to have been $12 794 a farm in 2009–10, with an average farm business loss of $60 476 a farm. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) for these farms was estimated to have been around –0.7 per cent in 2009–10, compared with an average of –1.2 per cent in 2008–09. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) is estimated to have been 2.5 per cent in 2010–11.

Dairy farmsThe average area operated by irrigated dairy farms in the Murray region in 2009–10 was estimated to have been around 392 hectares, with 50 per cent of farms operating an area between 80 and 395 hectares. On average, around 35 hectares of crops and 28 hectares of pasture were irrigated in 2009–10, collectively 50 per cent higher than the average area irrigated in 2008–09. The average area irrigated in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 43 hectares of crops and 37 hectares of pasture (table 9).

Irrigated dairy farms in the Murray region used an average of 142 megalitres of irrigation water in 2009–10, at an estimated rate of 2.3 megalitres a hectare. The volume of water used in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 156 megalitres, at a rate of 1.9 megalitres a hectare.

Average farm cash income was estimated to have been $44 088 a farm in 2009–10, with an average farm business loss of $39 332 a farm. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) for these farms was estimated to have been around 0 per cent in 2009–10, compared with an average of –1.5 per cent in 2008–09. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) is estimated to have been 1.8 per cent in 2010–11.



Goulburn–BrokenThe Goulburn–Broken region is located in north-eastern Victoria (map 9). The main waterways are the Goulburn and Broken rivers, and the major water storage is Lake Eildon. The Broken River flows into the Goulburn River at Shepparton and the Goulburn River flows into the Murray River near Echuca. Groundwater is also an important source of irrigation water within the region.

The main irrigation districts within the Goulburn–Broken region are the Central Goulburn Irrigation Area, centred on Kyabram, and the Shepparton Irrigation Area. The principal irrigation industries in the region include dairy, horticulture, mixed grazing and broadacre cropping. Also, a number of broadacre farms in the region undertake a mix of irrigated and dryland cropping and livestock production on predominantly dryland pastures.

The irrigation survey in the Goulburn–Broken region targeted irrigators in the dairy, broadacre and horticulture industries.

Horticulture farmsThe average area operated by irrigated horticulture farms in the Goulburn–Broken region in 2009–10 was estimated to have been around 152 hectares, with 50 per cent of farms operating an area between 15 and 255 hectares. On average, around 39 hectares of crops were irrigated in 2009–10, more than 50 per cent higher than the average area irrigated in 2008–09. The average area of crops irrigated in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 37 hectares (table 10).

map Goulburn–Broken region9

Dam

Irrigated area




10

Sele

cted

farm

per

form

ance

est

imat

es, G

oulb

urn–

Brok

en re

gion

av

erag

e p

er fa

rm

hort

icul

ture

br

oada

cre

dairy

2008

–09

2009

–10

p 20

10–1

1 z

2008

–09

2009

–10

p 20

10–1

1 z

2008

–09

2009

–10

p 20

10–1

1 z

Are

a op

erat

ed

ha

84

152

na

546

767

na

191

176

naSh

eep

no

12

15

2 na

47

9 87

1 na

27

43

na

Beef

cat

tle

no

12

18

na

17

71

na

26

31

naD

airy

cat

tle

no

0 0

na

0 0

na

190

132

naA

rea

set

up fo

r ir

rig

atio

n ha

57

61

na

17

0 13

1 na

13

4 13

8 na

Are

a cr

ops

irri

gat

ed

ha

25

39

37

43

69

50

27

19

14A

rea

non-

irri

gat

ed c

rop

s ha

15

29

25

25

8 36

8 33

9 34

46

40

Are

a p

astu

re ir

rig

ated

ha

0

0 0

0 1

1 33

28

25

Wat

er a

pp

lied

to

crop

s/p

astu

re

ML

90

129

114

38

48

71

137

109

75W

ater

ap

plic

atio

n ra

te

ML/

ha

3.6

3.3

3.1

0.9

0.7

1.4

2.3

2.3

1.9

Tota

l cas

h re

ceip

ts

$ 37

1 63

7 49

7 64

7 47

6 63

7 29

0 39

3 31

5 61

0 38

0 53

4 37

6 34

3 25

5 53

8 24

8 98

4To

tal c

ash

cost

s $

329

132

485

055

475

128

240

118

260

652

264

965

391

773

233

658

227

791

Farm

cas

h in

com

e $

42 5

04

12 5

92

1 50

9 50

275

54

958

11

5 56

9 –1

5 42

9 21

881

21

193

Farm

bus

ines

s p

rofit

$

–17

065

–59

074

–72

409

–40

318

–29

343

29 6

30

–88

790

–66

686

–72

095

Rate

of r

etur

n %

0.

4 –0

.3

–0.5

–0

.3

–0.1

1.

8 –2

.5

–2.2

–2

.2

p Pr

elim

inar

y es

timat

e. z

Pro

ject

ion.

na

Not

ava

ilab

le.

Not

e: C

autio

n sh

ould

be

used

whe

n co

mp

arin

g es

timat

es. R

elat

ive

stan

dard

err

ors

are

pro

vid

ed in

ap

pen

dix

A a

nd a

gui

de

to c

omp

arin

g es

timat

es a

cros

s gr

oup

s is

giv

en in

ap

pen

dix

B.So

urce

: ABA

RES

surv

ey o

f irr

igat

ion

farm

s in

the

Mur

ray–

Dar

ling

Basi

n.



Irrigated horticulture farms in the Goulburn–Broken region used an average of 129 megalitres of irrigation water in 2009–10, at an estimated rate of 3.3 megalitres a hectare. The volume of water used in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 114 megalitres, at a rate of 3.1 megalitres a hectare.

Average farm cash income was estimated to have been $12 592 a farm in 2009–10, with an average farm business loss of $59 074 a farm. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) for these farms was estimated to have been around –0.3 per cent in 2009–10, compared with an average of 0.4 per cent in 2008–09. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) is estimated to have been –0.5 per cent in 2010–11.

Broadacre farmsThe average area operated by irrigated broadacre farms in the Goulburn–Broken region in 2009–10 was estimated to have been around 767 hectares, with 50 per cent of farms operating an area between 255 and 1000 hectares. On average, around 69 hectares of crops were irrigated in 2009–10, 60 per cent more than the average area irrigated in 2008–09. The average area of crops irrigated in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 50 hectares (table 10).

Irrigated broadacre farms in the Goulburn–Broken region used an average of 48 megalitres of irrigation water in 2009–10, at an estimated rate of 0.7 megalitres a hectare. The volume of water used in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 71 megalitres, at a rate of 1.4 megalitres a hectare.

Average farm cash income was estimated to have been $54 958 a farm in 2009–10, with an average farm business loss of $29 343 a farm. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) for these farms was estimated to have been around –0.1 per cent in 2009–10, compared with –0.3 per cent in the previous year. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) is estimated to have been 1.8 per cent in 2010–11.

Dairy farmsThe average area operated by irrigated dairy farms in the Goulburn–Broken region in 2009–10 was estimated to have been around 174 hectares, with 50 per cent of farms operating an area between 85 and 215 hectares. On average, around 19 hectares of crops and 28 hectares of pasture were irrigated in 2009–10, 22 per cent lower than the average area irrigated in 2008–09. The average area irrigated in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 14 hectares of crops and 25 hectares of pasture (table 10).

Irrigated dairy farms in the Goulburn–Broken region used an average of 109 megalitres of irrigation water in 2009–10, at an estimated rate of 2.3 megalitres a hectare. The volume of water used in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 75 megalitres, at a rate of 1.9 megalitres a hectare.

Average farm cash income was estimated to have been $21 881 a farm in 2009–10, with an average farm business loss of $66 686 a farm. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) for these farms was estimated to have been around –2.2 per cent in 2009–10, compared with an average of –2.5 per cent in 2008–09. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) is estimated to have been –2.2 per cent in 2010–11.



Loddon–AvocaThe Loddon–Avoca region is located in north-central Victoria (map 10). The main waterways are the Loddon and Avoca rivers, and the major water storage is Cairn Curran Reservoir. The Loddon River flows into the Murray River near Swan Hill, while the Avoca River flows into a series of lakes and wetlands.

Irrigators in the Loddon–Avoca region draw heavily on supplies of surface water from the Murray and Goulburn systems via the Murray River and the Waranga Western Channel, respectively. Groundwater is also an important source of irrigation water in the south of the region. Most irrigation activity takes place in the north of the region, particularly around Boort and Pyramid Hill. The main irrigation industries in the region include dairy, horticulture and mixed cropping/grazing.

The irrigation survey in the Loddon–Avoca region targeted irrigators in the dairy, broadacre and horticulture industries.

Horticulture farmsThe average area operated by irrigated horticulture farms in the Loddon–Avoca region in 2009–10 was estimated to have been around 186 hectares, with 50 per cent of farms operating an area between 70 and 170 hectares. On average, around 13 hectares of crops were irrigated in 2009–10, almost 30 per cent less than the average area irrigated in 2008–09. The average area of crops irrigated in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 5 hectares (table 11).

map Loddon–Avoca region10

Dam

Irrigated area




11

Sele

cted

farm

per

form

ance

est

imat

es, L

oddo

n–Av

oca

regi

on

aver

age

per

farm

hort

icul

ture

br

oada

cre

dairy

2008

–09

2009

–10

p 20

10–1

1 z

2008

–09

2009

–10

p 20

10–1

1 z

2008

–09

2009

–10

p 20

10–1

1 z

Are

a op

erat

ed

ha

249

186

na

950

1 46

0 na

24

3 22

8 na

Shee

p

no.

165

191

na

1 24

3 1

571

na

14

13

naBe

ef c

attl

e no

. 75

57

na

20

10

na

19

24

na

Dai

ry c

attl

e no

. 0

0 na

0

0 na

15

4 16

3 na

Are

a se

t up

for

irri

gat

ion

ha

81

39

na

206

294

na

167

142

naA

rea

crop

s ir

rig

ated

ha

18

13

5

33

53

50

41

33

36A

rea

non-

irri

gat

ed c

rop

s ha

72

42

39

54

7 67

5 54

7 33

22

26

Are

a p

astu

re ir

rig

ated

ha

0

0 0

12

34

16

33

34

44W

ater

ap

plie

d t

o

cr

ops/

pas

ture

M

L 83

62

13

72

11

1 67

18

7 14

1 19

1W

ater

ap

plic

atio

n ra

te

ML/

ha

4.7

4.7

2.6

1.6

1.3

1.0

2.5

2.1

2.4

Tota

l cas

h re

ceip

ts

$ 37

5 43

9 28

8 63

2 23

3 58

4 27

2 65

5 44

7 45

6 54

8 12

7 34

0 11

5 28

3 21

6 26

4 85

6To

tal c

ash

cost

s $

245

315

212

306

216

161

218

407

356

301

346

860

349

677

261

828

241

977

Farm

cas

h in

com

e $

130

125

76 3

26

17 4

23

54 2

48

91 1

55

201

268

–9 5

62

21 3

89

22 8

80Fa

rm b

usin

ess

pro

fit

$ 38

727

6

530

–52

760

–53

004

–10

403

99 7

75

–92

330

–41

588

–40

541

Rate

of r

etur

n %

1.

9 0.

9 –0

.9

–0.4

1.

4 4.

4 –2

.4

–0.8

–0

.6

p Pr

elim

inar

y es

timat

e. z

Pro

ject

ion.

na

Not

ava

ilab

le.

Not

e: C

autio

n sh

ould

be

used

whe

n co

mp

arin

g es

timat

es. R

elat

ive

stan

dard

err

ors

are

pro

vid

ed in

ap

pen

dix

A a

nd a

gui

de

to c

omp

arin

g es

timat

es a

cros

s gr

oup

s is

giv

en in

ap

pen

dix

B.So

urce

: ABA

RES

surv

ey o

f irr

igat

ion

farm

s in

the

Mur

ray–

Dar

ling

Basi

n.



Irrigated horticulture farms in the Loddon–Avoca region used an average of 62 megalitres of irrigation water in 2009–10, at an estimated rate of 4.7 megalitres a hectare. The volume of water used in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 13 megalitres, at a rate of 2.6 megalitres a hectare.

Average farm cash income was estimated to have been $76 326 a farm in 2009–10, with an average farm business profit of $6530 a farm. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) for these farms was estimated to have been around 0.9 per cent in 2009–10, compared with an average of 1.9 per cent in 2008–09. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) is estimated to have been –0.9 per cent in 2010–11.

Broadacre farmsThe average area operated by irrigated broadacre farms in the Loddon–Avoca region in 2009–10 was estimated to have been around 1460 hectares, with 50 per cent of farms operating an area between 350 and 1720 hectares. On average, around 53 hectares of crops and 34 hectares of pasture were irrigated in 2009–10, almost double the average area irrigated in 2008–09. The average area of crops and pasture irrigated in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 50 hectares and 16 hectares for crops and pasture, respectively (table 11).

Irrigated broadacre farms in the Loddon–Avoca region used an average of 111 megalitres of irrigation water in 2009–10, at an estimated rate of 1.3 megalitres a hectare. The volume of water used in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 67 megalitres, at a rate of 1.0 megalitres a hectare.

Average farm cash income was estimated to have been $91 155 a farm in 2009–10, with an average farm business loss of $10 403 a farm. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) for these farms was estimated to have been around 1.4 per cent in 2009–10, compared with an average of –0.4 per cent in 2008–09. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) is estimated to have been 4.4 per cent in 2010–11.

Dairy farmsThe average area operated by irrigated dairy farms in the Loddon–Avoca region in 2009–10 was estimated to have been around 228 hectares, with 50 per cent of farms operating an area between 105 and 310 hectares. On average, around 33 hectares of crops and 34 hectares of pasture were irrigated in 2009–10, 9 per cent less than the average area irrigated in 2008–09. The average area irrigated in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 36 hectares of crops and 44 hectares of pasture (table 11).

Irrigated dairy farms in the Loddon–Avoca region used an average of 141 megalitres of irrigation water in 2009–10, at an estimated rate of 2.1 megalitres a hectare. The volume of water used in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 191 megalitres, at a rate of 2.4 megalitres a hectare.

Average farm cash income was estimated to have been $21 389 a farm in 2009–10, with an average farm business loss of $41 588 a farm. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) for these farms was estimated to have been around –0.8 per cent in 2009–10, compared with an average of –2.4 per cent in 2008–09. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) is estimated to have been –0.6 per cent in 2010–11.



Eastern Mount Lofty RangesThe Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges is a small region located at the lower western edge of the Basin in South Australia (map 11). The main waterways within the region are the Marne, Angus and Bremer rivers, while the Murray River forms the western boundary.

The majority of irrigation water is sourced from the Murray River and Lake Alexandrina, with some water sourced from groundwater and on-farm dams. Horticulture, particularly vine fruits, and pasture and hay production are the main irrigation activities.

The irrigation survey in the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges targeted irrigators in the dairy and horticulture industries.

Horticulture farmsThe average area operated by irrigated horticulture farms in the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges region in 2009–10 was estimated to have been around 131 hectares, with 50 per cent of farms operating an area between 25 and 145 hectares. On average, around 35 hectares of crops were irrigated in 2009–10, only slightly lower than the average area irrigated in 2008–09. The average area of crops irrigated in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 34 hectares (table 12).

Irrigated horticulture farms in the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges region used an average of 94 megalitres of irrigation water in 2009–10, at an estimated rate of 2.7 megalitres a hectare. The volume of water used in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 81 megalitres, at a rate of 2.4 megalitres a hectare.

map Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges region11

Dam

Irrigated area




Average farm cash income was estimated to have been $26 737 a farm in 2009–10, with an average farm business loss of $28 813 a farm. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) for these farms was estimated to have been around 0.2 per cent in 2009–10, compared with an average of 0.4 per cent in 2008–09. The average rate of return to capital (excluding capital appreciation) is estimated to have been –0.2 per cent in 2010–11.

Dairy farmsThe average area operated by irrigated dairy farms in the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges region in 2009–10 was estimated to have been around 477 hectares, with 50 per cent of farms operating an area between 85 and 700 hectares. On average, around 4 hectares of crops and 19 hectares of pasture were irrigated in 2009–10, about 40 per cent less than the average area irrigated in 2008–09. The average area irrigated in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 2 hectares of crops and 14 hectares of pasture (table 12).

Irrigated dairy farms in the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges region used an average of 100 megalitres of irrigation water in 2009–10, at an estimated rate of 4.4 megalitres a hectare. The volume of water used in 2010–11 is estimated to have been around 61 megalitres, at a rate of 3.9 megalitres a hectare.


12 Selected farm performance estimates, Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges region average per farm

horticulture dairy

2008–09 2009–10 p 2010–11 z 2008–09 2009–10 p 2010–11 z

Area operated ha 104 131 na 381 477 naSheep no. 61 83 na 21 0 naBeef cattle no. 7 7 na 40 40 naDairy cattle no. 0 0 na 282 332 naArea set up for irrigation ha 39 41 na 75 45 naArea crops irrigated ha 36 35 34 17 4 2Area non-irrigated crops ha 24 33 29 90 77 72Area pasture irrigated ha 0 0 0 23 19 14Water applied to crops/pasture ML 93 94 81 158 100 61Water application rate ML/ha 2.6 2.7 2.4 3.9 4.4 3.9Total cash receipts $ 350 977 326 018 303 689 586 324 477 363 505 067Total cash costs $ 323 325 299 281 292 394 489 305 427 308 409 482Farm cash income $ 27 652 26 737 11 296 97 018 50 055 95 585Farm business profit $ –30 587 –28 813 –45 594 24 715 –45 722 –4 185Rate of return % 0.4 0.2 –0.2 2.0 0.2 1.5


40ABARESDepartment of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry40

Aappendix

Farm profiles

13

Phys

ical

and

fina

ncia

l cha

ract

eris

tics,

Con

dam

ine–

Balo

nne

regi

on

aver

age

per

farm

hort

icul

ture

br

oada

cre

dairy

20

08–0

9 20

09–1

0 p

2010

–11

z 20

08–0

9 20

09–1

0 p

2010

–11

z 20

08–0

9 20

09–1

0 p

2010

–11

z

Phys

ical

est

imat

es

A

rea

oper

ated

ha

3

94

(29)

3

27

(76)

na

1 15

0 (2

1)

2 3

22

(32)

na

246

(17)

5

92

(19)

na

Sh

eep

on

hand

no

. 0

0

na

29

(8

3)

219

(6

7)

na

1

(8

9)

0

na

Be

ef c

attl

e on

han

d

no.

96

(43)

5

0 (9

9)

na

7

1 (2

7)

150

(4

2)

na

6

(6

5)

49

(78)

na

D

airy

cat

tle

on h

and

no

. 0

0

na

0

0

na

159

(23)

2

73

(24)

na

M

ilk p

rod

uced

L

0

0

na

0

0

na

51

1 68

7 (2

7)

1 08

4 70

7 (2

2)

na

Are

a cr

opp

ed

ha

106

(1

4)

153

(3

2)

119

(2

9)

580

(1

1)

708

(1

4)

853

(1

3)

121

(2

0)

310

(2

9)

341

(2

8)A

rea

crop

s ir

rig

ated

ha

7

1 (2

1)

82

(44)

6

6 (2

8)

191

(1

5)

120

(2

1)

126

(1

9)

38

(28)

3

3 (4

4)

20

(60)

Are

a no

n-ir

rig

ated

crop

s ha

3

6 (4

4)

71

(26)

5

4 (3

7)

389

(1

5)

588

(1

7)

686

(1

8)

83

(29)

2

77

(33)

3

20

(27)

Are

a p

astu

re

ir

rig

ated

ha

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

(7

7)

3

(85)

4

(8

9)W

ater

ap

plie

d t

o

cr

ops/

pas

ture

M

L 1

28

(49)

8

7 (2

5)

79

(84)

4

31

(17)

3

41

(37)

3

46

(28)

4

6 (2

9)

35

(37)

1

9 (5

8)

Rece

ipts

Beef

cat

tle

$ 4

4 24

7 (7

1)

27

155

(99)

2

8 26

9 (9

9)

29

953

(30)

3

3 88

0 (2

7)

44

611

(36)

7

617

(4

8)

10

310

(86)

1

5 39

4 (6

8)D

airy

cat

tle

$ 0

0

0

0

0

0

20

418

(3

9)

41

450

(29)

3

8 75

2 (3

4)Sh

eep

$

0

0

0

37

7 (8

2)

7 7

80

(65)

8

628

(6

9)

52

(89)

0

0

Woo

l $

0

0

0

0

2 11

8 (9

7)

2 22

4 (9

7)

0

0

0 M

ilk

$ 0

0

0

0

0

0

28

4 79

0 (2

6)

607

683

(2

2)

669

970

(2

2)O

ff-f

arm

con

trac

ts

$ 5

528

(59)

5

460

(80)

2

227

(79)

23

623

(6

0)

15 4

96

(52)

10

584

(7

3)

106

(99)

3

839

(98)

2

099

(99)

Tota

l cro

ps

$ 59

2 08

0 (2

8)

558

421

(42)

62

3 60

7 (4

4)

673

554

(11)

51

5 07

1 (2

1)

782

536

(14)

11

647

(5

9)

96 9

26

(69)

19

1 84

9 (5

4)O

ff-f

arm

shar

efar

min

g

$ 0

4 65

8 (9

9)

4 7

98

(99)

2

513

(8

4)

115

(9

9)

119

(9

9)

0

0

0

Tem

por

ary

wat

er

$ 0

0

0

1 5

75

(69)

2

706

(69)

0

0

0

0

Tota

l cas

h re

ceip

ts

$ 6

87 3

19

(30)

5

86 7

29

(47)

6

59 3

49

(51)

7

80 6

80

(10)

6

91 5

73

(17)

8

52 9

08

(13)

3

39 3

52

(25)

7

80 9

71

(21)

9

18 0

63

(19)

cont

inue

d...



13

Phys

ical

and

fina

ncia

l cha

ract

eris

tics,

Con

dam

ine–

Balo

nne

regi

on

cont

inue

d

av

erag

e p

er fa

rm

hort

icul

ture

br

oada

cre

dairy

20

08–0

9 20

09–1

0 p

2010

–11

z 20

08–0

9 20

09–1

0 p

2010

–11

z 20

08–0

9 20

09–1

0 p

2010

–11

z

Cost

s

Hire

d la

bou

r $

162

447

(7

6)

80

088

(60)

8

6 83

8 (6

2)

27

500

(25)

3

8 37

1 (2

6)

51

638

(22)

1

2 35

0 (5

5)

40

068

(26)

6

1 87

7 (2

4)Fe

rtili

ser

$ 4

5 75

5 (2

7)

35

311

(27)

3

6 51

2 (3

1)

58

382

(17)

3

6 05

3 (1

7)

45

853

(17)

1

9 56

7 (4

3)

35

345

(49)

5

5 82

5 (5

0)Fo

dd

er

$ 1

598

(7

8)

7 6

80

(75)

1

109

(9

9)

5 3

25

(81)

1

3 94

4 (9

9)

15

336

(99)

8

2 36

1 (3

7)

200

372

(2

2)

155

028

(3

2)Se

ed

$ 2

3 48

6 (1

4)

31

078

(37)

3

5 05

0 (3

8)

26

775

(15)

1

9 68

9 (2

5)

24

279

(23)

5

867

(2

5)

10

893

(36)

1

9 23

1 (3

9)C

rop

and

pas

ture

chem

ical

s $

31

411

(39)

2

3 78

2 (6

1)

23

666

(44)

7

6 15

0 (1

3)

55

645

(18)

6

0 58

8 (1

8)

5 1

17

(27)

1

9 26

9 (3

3)

22

775

(37)

Fuel

, oil

and

gre

ase

$ 2

5 17

7 (2

6)

18

869

(26)

2

0 13

1 (2

8)

58

685

(11)

6

2 86

3 (1

6)

71

023

(16)

1

3 51

1 (2

2)

25

875

(21)

4

6 44

9 (3

5)El

ectr

icit

y $

10

582

(49)

1

2 17

3 (4

5)

13

814

(45)

9

448

(1

7)

9 4

35

(17)

1

0 47

0 (1

8)

7 3

42

(23)

1

5 86

1 (2

4)

13

371

(17)

Rep

airs

and

mai

nten

ance

$

42

305

(46)

3

9 85

5 (2

7)

35

349

(31)

5

9 67

4 (1

5)

55

197

(11)

5

5 57

9 (1

1)

23

913

(20)

6

7 10

0 (2

7)

58

931

(23)

Frei

ght

$

33

093

(47)

3

7 07

2 (5

7)

44

189

(61)

1

9 41

6 (1

7)

12

897

(23)

1

5 89

8 (2

1)

6 3

93

(42)

9

712

(3

6)

13

523

(43)

Con

trac

ts

$ 3

4 56

0 (4

6)

38

832

(73)

4

1 50

7 (6

7)

36

295

(18)

2

2 73

5 (2

1)

27

815

(22)

8

069

(4

3)

20

523

(47)

4

3 74

6 (2

4)Le

ase

pay

men

ts

$ 8

315

(9

5)

13

560

(46)

1

3 56

0 (4

6)

4 2

00

(80)

3

806

(5

5)

3 8

06

(55)

2

818

(9

3)

11

024

(64)

1

1 02

4 (6

4)W

ater

a

$ 4

146

(8

6)

1 0

12

(65)

6

95

(58)

3

319

(6

7)

3 7

59

(34)

2

043

(3

6)

287

(7

0)

80

(99)

0

In

tere

st

$ 3

6 14

5 (2

7)

46

456

(48)

5

4 81

8 (4

8)

67

144

(16)

1

05 7

12

(24)

1

24 7

41

(24)

1

9 87

3 (3

7)

49

582

(33)

5

8 50

6 (3

3)To

tal c

ash

cost

s $

618

259

(4

3)

506

938

(4

5)

495

609

(4

5)

567

439

(1

1)

573

634

(1

3)

610

384

(1

2)

271

337

(2

9)

622

119

(2

1)

661

051

(2

3)

Fina

ncia

l per

form

ance

Farm

cas

h in

com

e $

69

059

(99)

7

9 79

1 (7

0)

163

741

(7

0)

213

242

(2

2)

117

939

(5

5)

242

524

(3

4)

68

015

(36)

1

58 8

52

(38)

2

57 0

12

(17)

Farm

bus

ines

s p

rofit

$

–18

287

(99)

–1

3 23

7 (9

9)

68

468

(99)

7

7 99

2 (6

2)

17

428

(99)

1

44 7

00

(59)

1

1 58

3 (9

9)

78

948

(52)

1

79 6

61

(16)

Tota

l far

m d

ebt

at 1

Jul

y $

415

667

(2

4)

534

273

(4

8)

na

93

9 91

5 (1

5) 1

438

601

(2

3)

na

25

0 52

3 (3

5)

677

141

(3

0)

na

Tota

l far

m d

ebt

at 3

0 Ju

ne

$ 4

84 0

44

(29)

5

40 3

88

(46)

na

974

227

(16)

1 5

29 3

31

(24)

na

299

404

(34)

7

42 9

52

(32)

na

To

tal c

apit

al

at

30

June

$

3 76

9 49

8 (3

0) 2

655

443

(2

0)

na

5 6

38 9

94

(9) 6

626

992

(1

2)

na

2 1

67 3

54

(17)

4

324

312

(12)

na

Ra

te o

f ret

urn

%

1.1

(99)

1.

9 (9

9)

5.6

(81)

2.

7 (3

1)

2.0

(49)

4.

3 (2

9)

1.7

(51)

3.

4 (3

1)

6.0

(12)

a In

clud

es th

e co

st o

f tem

por

ary

wat

er p

urch

ases

. p P

relim

inar

y es

timat

e. z

Pro

ject

ion.

na

Not

ava

ilab

le.

Not

e: T

he fi

gure

s in

par

enth

eses

are

sta

ndar

d er

rors

exp

ress

ed a

s a

per

cent

age

of th

e es

timat

e.


14 Irrigation characteristics, Condamine–Balonne region average per farm or percentage of farms

horticulture broadacre dairy

2008–09 2009–10 p 2008–09 2009–10 p 2008–09 2009–10 pOn-farm irrigation water storage Water storage capacity Farm dams ML 145 (72) 74 (71) 744 (23) 1 665 (37) 12 (82) 61 (71)Channels ML 0 0 5 (99) 20 (86) 0 0 Tile drains ML 0 0 1 (91) 1 (99) 0 0 Other re-use systems ML 0 0 3 (83) 1 (76) 1 (75) 4 (79)

Percentage of farms with Farm dams % 47 (36) 48 (17) 59 (11) 63 (16) 13 (46) 16 (51)Channels % 0 0 2 (99) 7 (86) 0 0 Tile drains % 0 0 2 (91) 1 (99) 0 0 Other re-use systems % 0 0 3 (76) 4 (78) 5 (76) 8 (79)

Water trading Permanent entitlements Buying % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Selling % 0 0 0 0 0 0

Entitlements sold to an environmental water purchasing program % 0 0 0 0 0 0

Temporary irrigation water Buying % 5 (84) 0 2 (87) 2 (58) 8 (68) 0 Selling % 0 0 6 (72) 4 (72) 0 0

Irrigation management practices Measuring soil moisture using Neutron probe % 0 1 (76) 35 (23) 32 (36) 19 (73) 0 Capacitance probe % 20 (34) 25 (75) 8 (59) 9 (51) 0 0 Tensiometers % 20 (63) 45 (35) 1 (91) 1 (75) 3 (99) 0 Soil auger/probe % 15 (70) 26 (71) 21 (38) 12 (57) 8 (81) 17 (92)Heat probe % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Own observations % 89 (10) 86 (18) 74 (8) 73 (12) 75 (20) 100 Other % 3 (99) 5 (99) 8 (56) 9 (49) 3 (99) 0

Farmers’ intentions Plans for permanent entitlements Sell some permanent entitlements % 0 8 (99) 4 (62) 15 (50) 0 0 Sell all permanent entitlements % 0 0 0 0 0 0 No change % 94 (4) 92 (11) 94 (3) 86 (8) 84 (16) 92 (8)Other % 6 (67) 1 (76) 0 0 14 (93) 0

Intended changes in next three years Expand area irrigated % 10 (88) 18 (83) 8 (62) 21 (34) 7 (58) 26 (68)Reduce area irrigated % 4 (99) 0 5 (71) 1 (99) 3 (99) 0 Buy more temporary water % 0 1 (76) 5 (61) 0 0 0 Sell more temporary water % 0 5 (99) 2 (75) 0 0 0 Increase on-farm water storage % 6 (67) 0 3 (99) 2 (90) 0 0 Install water re-use system % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Change water application method % 0 0 16 (39) 3 (88) 0 0 Other % 43 (99) 0 35 (88) 6 (99) 30 (99) 0 No change % 64 (22) 73 (20) 47 (18) 72 (10) 61 (24) 66 (28)

Plans over next three years Change into dryland agriculture % 0 0 12 (55) 12 (41) 0 1 (99)Spend more time generating non-agricultural income % 0 0 1 (99) 1 (99) 8 (81) 0 Scale down agricultural activities % 0 7 (99) 10 (48) 30 (41) 16 (89) 1 (99)Retire/sell farm % 19 (62) 0 7 (83) 2 (99) 20 (69) 20 (99)No change % 67 (21) 93 (8) 48 (21) 50 (25) 43 (33) 79 (81)

p Preliminary estimate. na Not available. Note: The figures in parentheses are standard errors expressed as a percentage of the estimate.



15 Physical and financial characteristics, Border Rivers region average per farm


2008–09 2009–10 p 2010–11 z 2008–09 2009–10 p 2010–11 zPhysical estimates Area operated ha 260 (40) 194 (36) na 3 499 (27) 3 744 (23) na Sheep on hand no. 129 (64) 39 (80) na 146 (77) 154 (99) na Beef cattle on hand no. 40 (49) 25 (43) na 238 (44) 313 (28) na Dairy cattle on hand no. 0 0 na 0 0 na Milk produced L 0 0 na 0 0 na Area cropped ha 24 (15) 19 (8) 21 (12) 1 763 (22) 1 403 (22) 1 143 (14)Area crops irrigated ha 21 (16) 18 (12) 23 (17) 353 (16) 305 (16) 529 (13)Area non-irrigated crops ha 3 (36) 2 (67) 3 (48) 1 409 (26) 1 098 (27) 768 (21)Area pasture irrigated ha 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water applied to crops/pasture ML 70 (28) 38 (12) 37 (16) 1 266 (31) 1 086 (18) 2 259 (22)

Receipts Beef cattle $ 7 850 (40) 6 205 (42) 5 675 (43) 81 440 (51) 126 518 (40) 69 036 (37)Dairy cattle $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheep $ 3 601 (61) 2 536 (87) 61 (99) 6 197 (51) 10 239 (99) 4 966 (99)Wool $ 4 683 (82) 2 530 (87) 2 657 (87) 2 642 (55) 1 480 (99) 1 554 (99)Milk $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Off-farm contracts $ 3 193 (58) 255 (78) 0 9 521 (41) 13 251 (34) 5 593 (58)Total crops $ 368 844 (18) 423 049 (11) 371 855 (35) 1 632 920 (27) 1 225 443 (11) 1 956 284 (15)Off-farm sharefarming $ 0 0 0 0 11 077 (99) 11 409 (99)Temporary water $ 8 035 (52) 0 0 25 080 (90) 7 616 (47) 1 509 (99)Total cash receipts $ 398 905 (11) 442 954 (11) 380 247 (14) 1 847 702 (27) 1 487 885 (12) 2 050 909 (15)

Costs Hired labour $ 88 474 (13) 117 791 (12) 117 546 (12) 119 494 (27) 114 947 (15) 140 050 (14)Fertiliser $ 17 228 (11) 17 897 (12) 18 800 (12) 99 095 (19) 108 312 (16) 148 361 (22)Fodder $ 744 (53) 928 (43) 574 (44) 3 027 (54) 4 768 (60) 2 259 (56)Seed $ 3 665 (28) 12 469 (14) 12 407 (15) 42 581 (18) 43 599 (20) 55 979 (16)Crop and pasture chemicals $ 19 894 (15) 25 758 (13) 27 929 (13) 136 123 (13) 186 378 (20) 267 175 (19)Fuel, oil and grease $ 12 105 (7) 14 501 (11) 16 251 (10) 162 452 (19) 129 774 (13) 158 607 (14)Electricity $ 5 515 (17) 6 960 (15) 7 100 (12) 13 662 (23) 21 434 (20) 23 698 (19)Repairs and maintenance $ 23 476 (8) 34 015 (12) 31 005 (9) 136 141 (20) 144 325 (12) 158 086 (12)Freight $ 11 998 (16) 16 324 (17) 17 089 (18) 54 339 (22) 40 678 (15) 61 951 (22)Contracts $ 6 055 (29) 1 287 (36) 1 390 (34) 166 975 (28) 155 218 (30) 185 593 (30)Lease payments $ 4 193 (42) 3 677 (38) 3 677 (38) 4 567 (65) 4 239 (50) 4 239 (50)Water a $ 1 693 (31) 72 (78) 70 (78) 42 047 (41) 33 294 (24) 24 064 (34)Interest $ 15 695 (31) 15 877 (23) 18 735 (23) 291 820 (30) 251 886 (27) 297 225 (27)Total cash costs $ 279 322 (9) 350 860 (9) 343 609 (9) 1 563 783 (16) 1 504 070 (13) 1 784 756 (13)

Financial performance Farm cash income $ 119 583 (26) 92 093 (27) 36 638 (91) 283 919 (99) –16 185 (99) 266 153 (55)Farm business profit $ 44 144 (67) –387 (99) –59 302 (59) 148 422 (99) –193 026 (53) 81 645 (99)Total farm debt at 1 July $ 155 089 (38) 146 187 (22) na 2 336 259 (38) 3 323 759 (33) na Total farm debt at 30 June $ 199 202 (31) 186 976 (18) na 2 448 144 (37) 3 270 250 (34) na Total capital at 30 June $ 1 590 700 (13) 1 305 773 (8) na 16 889 283 (24) 16 378 416 (16) na Rate of return % 4.1 (36) 1.4 (99) –2.8 (96) 2.8 (61) 0.5 (99) 2.5 (46)

a Includes the cost of temporary water purchases. p Preliminary estimate. z Projection. na Not available. Note: The figures in parentheses are standard errors expressed as a percentage of the estimate.


16 Irrigation characteristics, Border Rivers region average per farm or percentage of farms


2008–09 2009–10 p 2008–09 2009–10 pOn-farm irrigation water storage Water storage capacity Farm dams ML 48 (21) 79 (14) 2 981 (31) 1 898 (20)Channels ML 0 0 32 (74) 0 Tile drains ML 0 0 0 0 Other re-use systems ML 0 0 5 (78) 0

Percentage of farms with Farm dams % 78 (13) 100 68 (16) 74 (16)Channels % 0 0 6 (73) 0 Tile drains % 0 0 0 0 Other re-use systems % 0 0 8 (77) 2 (99)

Water trading Permanent entitlements Buying % 1 (50) 0 3 (99) 0 Selling % 0 0 11 (66) 17 (61)

Entitlements sold to an environmental water purchasing program % 0 0 0 0

Temporary irrigation water Buying % 2 (53) 0 17 (43) 9 (48)Selling % 1 (52) 0 11 (66) 19 (56)

Irrigation management practices Measuring soil moisture using Neutron probe % 0 0 2 (99) 14 (47)Capacitance probe % 1 (30) 3 (99) 8 (45) 11 (37)Tensiometers % 16 (60) 21 (54) 6 (79) 5 (87)Soil auger/probe % 5 (99) 8 (96) 23 (36) 22 (46)Heat probe % 0 0 9 (63) 7 (69)Own observations % 76 (14) 67 (18) 66 (21) 61 (19)Other % 5 (40) 4 (28) 31 (50) 10 (52)

Farmers’ intentions Plans for permanent entitlements Sell some permanent entitlements % 1 (30) 0 8 (76) 14 (69)Sell all permanent entitlements % 0 0 4 (99) 9 (50)No change % 97 (1) 92 (8) 77 (15) 77 (14)Other % 0 0 11 (68) 0

Intended changes in next three years Expand area irrigated % 6 (99) 26 (43) 5 (75) 26 (47)Reduce area irrigated % 11 (65) 3 (99) 2 (93) 0 Buy more temporary water % 0 0 2 (98) 12 (52)Sell more temporary water % 0 0 5 (99) 11 (82)Increase on-farm water storage % 12 (73) 4 (99) 0 0 Install water re-use system % 0 0 0 0 Change water application method % 8 (93) 0 18 (57) 2 (98) Other % 16 (59) 24 (99) 79 (57) 12 (99) No change % 47 (25) 47 (26) 25 (61) 42 (29)

Plans over next three years Change into dryland agriculture % 27 (41) 10 (73) 11 (66) 0 Spend more time generating non-agricultural income % 10 (85) 0 4 (99) 0 Scale down agricultural activities % 26 (43) 23 (49) 0 0 Retire/sell farm % 15 (60) 18 (58) 31 (49) 12 (60) No change % 43 (29) 44 (23) 25 (44) 83 (9)




17 Physical and financial characteristics, Namoi region average per farm

broadacre

2008–09 2009–10 p 2010–11 zPhysical estimates Area operated ha 1 882 (14) 1 482 (20) na Sheep on hand no. 389 (46) 323 (51) na Beef cattle on hand no. 259 (14) 150 (30) na Dairy cattle on hand no. 0 0 na Milk produced L 0 0 na Area cropped ha 907 (8) 645 (10) 630 (11)Area crops irrigated ha 211 (16) 158 (15) 135 (13)Area non-irrigated crops ha 696 (10) 487 (14) 495 (14)Area pasture irrigated ha 0 1 (99) 1 (99)Water applied to crops/pasture ML 558 (14) 493 (12) 524 (11)

Receipts Beef cattle $ 106 402 (16) 62 849 (28) 58 759 (42)Dairy cattle $ 0 0 0 Sheep $ 16 232 (51) 19 766 (41) 21 147 (43)Wool $ 6 002 (56) 5 644 (77) 5 927 (77)Milk $ 0 0 0 Off-farm contracts $ 16 084 (48) 10 265 (79) 605 (88)Total crops $ 801 776 (12) 578 630 (9) 966 850 (9)Off-farm sharefarming $ 32 490 (50) 13 126 (75) 13 520 (75)Temporary water $ 0 0 0 Total cash receipts $ 1 061 478 (10) 782 458 (9) 1 066 853 (8)

Costs Hired labour $ 53 049 (13) 39 746 (12) 47 310 (15)Fertiliser $ 85 167 (15) 58 302 (15) 65 075 (13)Fodder $ 3 303 (44) 3 358 (50) 2 406 (48)Seed $ 15 784 (26) 16 463 (20) 18 076 (20)Crop and pasture chemicals $ 99 850 (15) 83 591 (11) 99 994 (10)Fuel, oil and grease $ 89 286 (10) 73 757 (10) 79 858 (9)Electricity $ 8 745 (18) 12 606 (24) 13 153 (23)Repairs and maintenance $ 86 686 (13) 70 158 (12) 78 234 (12)Freight $ 23 590 (14) 17 166 (16) 19 206 (15)Contracts $ 60 830 (20) 60 250 (20) 73 287 (19)Lease payments $ 7 354 (48) 3 387 (51) 3 387 (51)Water a $ 10 350 (34) 8 461 (23) 6 942 (23)Interest $ 124 730 (14) 81 942 (15) 96 692 (15)Total cash costs $ 848 945 (9) 650 190 (7) 714 411 (7)

Financial performance Farm cash income $ 212 533 (34) 132 269 (28) 352 443 (16)Farm business profit $ 123 400 (53) –42 453 (99) 165 980 (44)Total farm debt at 1 July $ 1 530 427 (12) 1 059 471 (14) na Total farm debt at 30 June $ 1 590 880 (13) 1 097 917 (14) na Total capital at 30 June $ 7 644 264 (8) 6 169 660 (7) na Rate of return % 3.5 (20) 0.7 (99) 4.4 (28)



18 Irrigation characteristics, Namoi region average per farm or percentage of farms

broadacre

2008–09 2009–10 pOn-farm irrigation water storage Water storage capacity Farm dams ML 437 (27) 342 (22)Channels ML 0 1 (99)Tile drains ML 0 0 Other re-use systems ML 0 0

Percentage of farms with Farm dams % 38 (19) 42 (29)Channels % 0 2 (99)Tile drains % 0 0 Other re-use systems % 0 0

Water trading Permanent entitlements Buying % 0 0 Selling % 1 (97) 0

Entitlements sold to an environmental water purchasing program % 0 0

Temporary irrigation water Buying % 9 (42) 5 (65)Selling % 0 0

Irrigation management practices Measuring soil moisture using Neutron probe % 20 (29) 12 (55)Capacitance probe % 16 (29) 12 (24)Tensiometers % 2 (96) 1 (99)Soil auger/probe % 13 (47) 10 (57)Heat probe % 0 0 Own observations % 71 (7) 81 (6)Other % 0 0

Farmers’ intentions Plans for permanent entitlements Sell some permanent entitlements % 1 (97) 4 (59)Sell all permanent entitlements % 3 (82) 0 No change % 83 (11) 95 (3)Other % 12 (71) 0

Intended changes in next three years Expand area irrigated % 4 (66) 0 Reduce area irrigated % 3 (85) 7 (99)Buy more temporary water % 2 (99) 3 (67)Sell more temporary water % 12 (66) 6 (93)Increase on-farm water storage % 7 (47) 10 (99)Install water re-use system % 0 0 Change water application method % 7 (56) 1 (96)Other % 31 (98) 2 (77)No change % 41 (18) 72 (17)

Plans over next three years Change into dryland agriculture % 10 (41) 2 (98)Spend more time generating non-agricultural income % 1 (98) 0 Scale down agricultural activities % 12 (53) 0 Retire/sell farm % 14 (63) 12 (90)No change % 58 (17) 86 (13)




19 Physical and financial characteristics, Macquarie–Castlereagh region average per farm


2008–09 2009–10 p 2010–11 z 2008–09 2009–10 p 2010–11 zPhysical estimates Area operated ha 86 (23) 140 (19) na 2 869 (13) 1 760 (14) na Sheep on hand no. 157 (50) 272 (53) na 1 154 (25) 842 (29) na Beef cattle on hand no. 23 (42) 33 (33) na 228 (22) 166 (27) na Dairy cattle on hand no. 0 0 na 0 0 na Milk produced L 0 0 na 0 0 na Area cropped ha 23 (15) 70 (30) 52 (20) 1 282 (14) 857 (12) 776 (11)Area crops irrigated ha 23 (15) 38 (23) 21 (58) 163 (21) 79 (33) 55 (28)Area non-irrigated crops ha 1 (53) 32 (76) 31 (57) 1 119 (16) 777 (12) 721 (11)Area pasture irrigated ha 0 1 (93) 1 (93) 0 0 0 Water applied to crops/pasture ML 41 (15) 69 (46) 39 (52) 423 (23) 232 (29) 219 (31)

Receipts Beef cattle $ 4 087 (47) 24 610 (41) 9 924 (53) 51 812 (20) 50 526 (29) 49 239 (27)Dairy cattle $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheep $ 9 121 (52) 11 798 (48) 12 209 (51) 63 906 (28) 60 748 (32) 65 203 (32)Wool $ 2 410 (58) 3 924 (67) 4 120 (67) 19 678 (34) 13 679 (33) 14 363 (33)Milk $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Off-farm contracts $ 1 930 (68) 28 186 (59) 17 561 (82) 25 034 (37) 27 881 (48) 14 862 (75)Total crops $ 182 735 (24) 169 198 (39) 136 476 (66) 660 894 (13) 371 460 (14) 605 331 (20)Off-farm sharefarming $ 152 (76) 8 430 (72) 8 683 (72) 1 751 (90) 4 225 (87) 4 351 (87)Temporary water $ 0 0 0 35 270 (83) 11 323 (41) 0 Total cash receipts $ 211 272 (13) 269 612 (22) 188 972 (34) 951 277 (14) 599 617 (12) 753 349 (16)

Costs Hired labour $ 31 804 (20) 46 982 (47) 39 554 (60) 47 083 (24) 25 579 (27) 25 555 (30)Fertiliser $ 6 159 (24) 11 185 (14) 11 192 (15) 77 598 (14) 50 326 (18) 58 521 (18)Fodder $ 958 (50) 1 968 (43) 875 (54) 821 (69) 881 (52) 832 (53)Seed $ 4 812 (35) 4 413 (99) 4 569 (97) 6 921 (26) 10 779 (21) 13 870 (21)Crop and pasture chemicals $ 8 163 (24) 10 654 (51) 12 106 (51) 103 545 (12) 58 939 (13) 65 571 (14)Fuel, oil and grease $ 11 048 (16) 27 624 (31) 20 720 (16) 86 551 (12) 55 871 (14) 62 521 (13)Electricity $ 4 649 (21) 7 409 (60) 5 961 (36) 10 603 (22) 8 002 (22) 8 733 (22)Repairs and maintenance $ 16 934 (10) 21 830 (18) 15 258 (26) 67 894 (13) 51 046 (12) 55 899 (11)Freight $ 7 186 (29) 5 255 (63) 5 393 (63) 25 327 (24) 15 177 (24) 15 883 (24)Contracts $ 15 342 (34) 23 284 (74) 20 436 (76) 65 122 (23) 49 780 (22) 57 230 (22)Lease payments $ 218 (77) 376 (98) 376 (98) 5 574 (40) 483 (79) 483 (79)Water a $ 731 (27) 1 440 (95) 1 110 (68) 28 298 (23) 15 503 (21) 13 946 (29)Interest $ 19 131 (36) 49 308 (42) 58 183 (42) 173 551 (17) 85 099 (18) 100 416 (18)Total cash costs $ 168 246 (14) 289 228 (25) 267 077 (27) 835 077 (14) 535 263 (12) 582 519 (12)

Financial performance Farm cash income $ 43 026 (28) –19 615 (99) –78 105 (58) 116 200 (43) 64 354 (51) 170 831 (58)Farm business profit $ –19 827 (68) –109 304 (31) –171 857 (25) –9 915 (99) –35 673 (82) 70 737 (99)Total farm debt at 1 July $ 253 660 (35) 545 200 (55) na 2 067 027 (19) 1 188 822 (20) na Total farm debt at 30 June $ 258 424 (35) 514 523 (60) na 2 167 951 (17) 1 204 877 (20) na Total capital at 30 June $ 1 686 131 (12) 2 580 111 (32) na 8 255 234 (9) 5 289 483 (9) na Rate of return % 0.0 (99) –2.0 (41) –4.1 (47) 2.1 (30) 1.0 (54) 3.3 (55)



20 Irrigation characteristics, Macquarie–Castlereagh region average per farm or percentage of farms


2008–09 2009–10 p 2008–09 2009–10 pOn-farm irrigation water storage Water storage capacity Farm dams ML 25 (37) 30 (88) 625 (24) 173 (27)Channels ML 0 0 16 (57) 4 (69)Tile drains ML 0 0 0 (61) 0 (97)Other re-use systems ML 5 (71) 0 5 (97) 6 (68)

Percentage of farms with Farm dams % 44 (37) 59 (23) 63 (14) 63 (22)Channels % 0 0 10 (42) 10 (70)Tile drains % 0 0 12 (64) 3 (97)Other re-use systems % 3 (76) 0 5 (97) 7 (66)

Water trading Permanent entitlements Buying % 0 0 0 0 Selling % 0 0 4 (76) 2 (52)

Entitlements sold to an environmental water purchasing program % 0 0 0 2 (56)

Temporary irrigation water Buying % 5 (99) 5 (99) 9 (47) 18 (66)Selling % 0 0 21 (37) 19 (36)

Irrigation management practices Measuring soil moisture using Neutron probe % 5 (74) 2 (99) 22 (31) 10 (50)Capacitance probe % 5 (87) 5 (99) 16 (33) 11 (43)Tensiometers % 9 (79) 13 (57) 6 (82) 15 (77)Soil auger/probe % 10 (81) 6 (99) 39 (25) 18 (45)Heat probe % 0 0 0 0 Own observations % 83 (8) 86 (9) 51 (20) 52 (24)Other % 8 (80) 13 (62) 2 (99) 2 (91)

Farmers’ intentions Plans for permanent entitlements Sell some permanent entitlements % 0 2 (99) 35 (28) 17 (47)Sell all permanent entitlements % 1 (83) 0 19 (45) 1 (78)No change % 69 (25) 98 (5) 49 (18) 82 (10)Other % 0 2 (99) 0 0

Intended changes in next three years Expand area irrigated % 6 (83) 5 (99) 0 30 (40)Reduce area irrigated % 4 (71) 8 (86) 28 (29) 10 (59)Buy more temporary water % 0 1 (99) 0 10 (62)Sell more temporary water % 0 0 14 (52) 2 (99)Increase on-farm water storage % 2 (72) 0 12 (49) 0 Install water re-use system % 0 0 0 0 Change water application method % 1 (80) 8 (76) 12 (47) 14 (78)Other % 3 (39) 7 (99) 20 (99) 11 (93)No change % 83 (7) 73 (20) 26 (30) 36 (38)

Plans over next three years Change into dryland agriculture % 4 (99) 3 (99) 34 (28) 24 (50)Spend more time generating non-agricultural income % 6 (66) 7 (76) 13 (49) 3 (73)Scale down agricultural activities % 28 (15) 47 (42) 7 (67) 2 (99)Retire/sell farm % 9 (99) 5 (94) 7 (58) 8 (62)No change % 55 (20) 41 (47) 49 (20) 53 (26)




21 Physical and financial characteristics, Lachlan region average per farm


2008–09 2009–10 p 2010–11 z 2008–09 2009–10 p 2010–11 zPhysical estimates Area operated ha 173 (20) 489 (43) na 2 190 (16) 2 001 (14) na Sheep on hand no. 106 (40) 178 (57) na 1 803 (14) 1 864 (21) na Beef cattle on hand no. 38 (60) 180 (54) na 124 (24) 154 (25) na Dairy cattle on hand no. 0 0 na 0 0 na Milk produced L 0 0 na 0 0 na Area cropped ha 60 (22) 136 (99) 146 (99) 654 (11) 637 (16) 582 (18)Area crops irrigated ha 46 (24) 83 (74) 60 (99) 47 (27) 31 (39) 25 (38)Area non-irrigated crops ha 14 (55) 53 (99) 87 (99) 607 (12) 606 (17) 528 (19)Area pasture irrigated ha 0 0 0 1 (69) 0 1 (99)Water applied to crops/pasture ML 203 (30) 284 (71) 124 (99) 159 (33) 155 (49) 98 (51)

Receipts Beef cattle $ 14 641 (61) 74 088 (55) 56 766 (46) 35 543 (20) 49 082 (25) 36 218 (37)Dairy cattle $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheep $ 7 042 (53) 24 595 (65) 27 511 (69) 66 253 (18) 71 880 (22) 81 799 (22)Wool $ 1 317 (63) 2 686 (70) 2 820 (70) 41 245 (16) 45 748 (20) 48 036 (20)Milk $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Off-farm contracts $ 13 135 (64) 9 576 (99) 5 696 (89) 10 513 (34) 11 227 (70) 2 904 (56)Total crops $ 376 189 (63) 402 813 (99) 458 238 (98) 180 500 (21) 120 880 (32) 352 661 (25)Off-farm sharefarming $ 2 674 (82) 0 0 1 629 (95) 622 (99) 641 (99)Temporary water $ 7 775 (60) 7 149 (67) 0 10 768 (64) 3 744 (53) 0 Total cash receipts $ 450 936 (30) 619 379 (99) 558 671 (99) 396 931 (11) 357 892 (15) 533 575 (20)

Costs Hired labour $ 58 431 (40) 112 698 (99) 118 268 (99) 17 303 (24) 24 356 (29) 17 545 (33)Fertiliser $ 27 425 (41) 46 900 (99) 46 939 (99) 34 665 (19) 26 136 (54) 40 901 (41)Fodder $ 99 (71) 160 (99) 156 (99) 6 389 (42) 2 243 (42) 1 611 (32)Seed $ 6 521 (77) 9 557 (99) 9 701 (99) 4 877 (24) 3 576 (47) 5 306 (46)Crop and pasture chemicals $ 14 850 (29) 22 078 (56) 28 560 (48) 22 884 (21) 28 023 (26) 32 106 (25)Fuel, oil and grease $ 19 519 (38) 40 869 (99) 43 221 (99) 39 898 (15) 37 018 (24) 43 070 (25)Electricity $ 12 653 (27) 23 051 (77) 24 798 (74) 4 529 (15) 9 884 (31) 11 541 (30)Repairs and maintenance $ 22 034 (40) 44 472 (99) 44 232 (99) 36 385 (14) 29 389 (20) 32 576 (20)Freight $ 17 051 (33) 20 374 (99) 20 722 (99) 12 218 (31) 8 510 (42) 14 581 (33)Contracts $ 41 644 (37) 58 098 (99) 50 325 (99) 22 282 (25) 25 656 (46) 36 599 (41)Lease payments $ 910 (57) 2 530 (60) 2 530 (60) 1 625 (75) 1 917 (58) 1 917 (58)Water a $ 13 278 (47) 7 950 (88) 4 112 (99) 10 867 (25) 6 653 (31) 7 994 (25)Interest $ 27 205 (29) 62 429 (64) 73 666 (64) 70 673 (16) 63 646 (22) 75 102 (22)Total cash costs $ 318 080 (29) 564 953 (99) 580 834 (99) 379 965 (11) 360 256 (21) 404 184 (21)

Financial performance Farm cash income $ 132 855 (42) 54 426 (99) –22 163 (99) 16 966 (99) –2 364 (99) 129 391 (50)Farm business profit $ 58 549 (99) –26 502 (99) –105 959 (99) –73 978 (35) –114 616 (49) 9 905 (99)Total farm debt at 1 July $ 330 198 (29) 821 400 (68) na 767 339 (16) 857 412 (23) na Total farm debt at 30 June $ 337 813 (28) 865 423 (65) na 796 111 (16) 846 914 (23) na Total capital at 30 June $ 2 032 345 (14) 3 868 641 (33) na 4 041 619 (9) 3 971 989 (11) na Rate of return % 4.5 (63) 1.0 (99) –0.7 (99) 0.2 (99) –1.1 (99) 2.3 (79)



22 Irrigation characteristics, Lachlan region average per farm or percentage of farms


2008–09 2009–10 p 2008–09 2009–10 pOn-farm irrigation water storage Water storage capacity Farm dams ML 22 (53) 56 (55) 53 (65) 11 (49)Channels ML 2 (99) 2 (99) 3 (98) 4 (55)Tile drains ML 0 0 0 0 Other re-use systems ML 0 0 1 (67) 1 (99)

Percentage of farms with Farm dams % 60 (25) 45 (32) 27 (36) 23 (41)Channels % 3 (74) 2 (99) 3 (68) 14 (55)Tile drains % 0 0 0 0 Other re-use systems % 0 0 9 (51) 2 (99)

Water trading Permanent entitlements Buying % 0 0 1 (82) 0 Selling % 5 (99) 0 10 (60) 2 (79)


Temporary irrigation water Buying % 12 (67) 11 (96) 4 (50) 7 (69)Selling % 8 (62) 10 (63) 16 (36) 14 (48)

Irrigation management practices Measuring soil moisture using Neutron probe % 8 (64) 13 (53) 0 0 Capacitance probe % 22 (41) 45 (52) 4 (56) 5 (54)Tensiometers % 14 (78) 8 (99) 0 0 Soil auger/probe % 9 (88) 54 (14) 28 (37) 28 (40)Heat probe % 0 31 (82) 0 0 Own observations % 92 (5) 86 (8) 82 (7) 98 (2)Other % 14 (66) 17 (50) 10 (79) 2 (89)

Farmers’ intentions Plans for permanent entitlements Sell some permanent entitlements % 4 (87) 13 (61) 20 (27) 24 (45)Sell all permanent entitlements % 2 (99) 0 8 (53) 0 No change % 85 (11) 85 (9) 66 (10) 75 (14)Other % 10 (81) 2 (75) 4 (73) 1 (99)

Intended changes in next three years Expand area irrigated % 2 (99) 1 (99) 4 (71) 15 (72)Reduce area irrigated % 14 (76) 5 (99) 7 (79) 11 (57)Buy more temporary water % 10 (76) 0 0 2 (88)Sell more temporary water % 3 (99) 0 6 (65) 1 (99)Increase on-farm water storage % 2 (99) 0 12 (48) 5 (71)Install water re-use system % 0 1 (99) 0 12 (71)Change water application method % 4 (74) 10 (99) 8 (45) 4 (68)Other % 7 (99) 18 (99) 14 (99) 31 (40)No change % 56 (26) 76 (23) 55 (15) 50 (30)

Plans over next three years Change into dryland agriculture % 17 (66) 6 (72) 21 (33) 4 (92)Spend more time generating non-agricultural income % 25 (55) 20 (70) 8 (68) 18 (86)Scale down agricultural activities % 15 (60) 7 (75) 5 (54) 1 (99)Retire/sell farm % 5 (99) 2 (99) 0 2 (87)No change % 39 (37) 55 (22) 62 (17) 44 (32)




23 Physical and financial characteristics, Murrumbidgee region average per farm


2008–09 2009–10 p 2010–11 z 2008–09 2009–10 p 2010–11 zPhysical estimates Area operated ha 134 (40) 159 (69) na 867 (14) 1 351 (21) na Sheep on hand no. 14 (62) 49 (67) na 824 (19) 1 035 (16) na Beef cattle on hand no. 13 (85) 6 (99) na 37 (29) 83 (56) na Dairy cattle on hand no. 0 0 na 0 0 na Milk produced L 0 0 na 0 0 na Area cropped ha 39 (22) 50 (46) 67 (36) 281 (14) 386 (14) 374 (14)Area crops irrigated ha 32 (21) 31 (34) 35 (32) 76 (18) 125 (30) 139 (28)Area non-irrigated crops ha 7 (80) 19 (77) 21 (77) 205 (17) 261 (16) 235 (18)Area pasture irrigated ha 0 0 0 10 (47) 11 (40) 0 Water applied to crops/pasture ML 132 (24) 146 (37) 153 (50) 188 (19) 397 (27) 532 (21)

Receipts Beef cattle $ 4 006 (89) 2 286 (99) 2 520 (98) 19 717 (25) 33 655 (67) 33 611 (71)Dairy cattle $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheep $ 239 (65) 1 382 (66) 2 098 (70) 44 686 (18) 60 349 (18) 60 164 (16)Wool $ 382 (81) 693 (72) 727 (72) 13 941 (23) 21 916 (22) 23 012 (22)Milk $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Off-farm contracts $ 4 434 (56) 5 852 (34) 4 965 (37) 10 326 (32) 11 481 (37) 11 765 (39)Total crops $ 197 717 (45) 204 481 (58) 117 103 (33) 94 953 (18) 155 034 (29) 350 279 (13)Off-farm sharefarming $ 0 53 (85) 54 (85) 274 (99) 0 0 Temporary water $ 27 356 (27) 5 951 (40) 129 (99) 48 935 (17) 37 153 (42) 4 747 (89)Total cash receipts $ 250 104 (16) 243 721 (33) 129 223 (33) 273 137 (11) 415 312 (24) 487 556 (12)

Costs Hired labour $ 23 877 (19) 26 295 (41) 37 570 (56) 9 621 (25) 18 862 (36) 19 112 (39)Fertiliser $ 12 109 (28) 8 265 (63) 8 803 (61) 20 279 (15) 25 645 (19) 27 997 (17)Fodder $ 108 (73) 101 (71) 101 (70) 3 757 (39) 8 276 (70) 7 061 (73)Seed $ 1 558 (51) 1 594 (78) 1 379 (83) 2 318 (20) 4 175 (39) 3 788 (29)Crop and pasture chemicals $ 9 359 (18) 11 038 (29) 13 364 (24) 10 535 (16) 18 363 (14) 22 134 (16)Fuel, oil and grease $ 10 525 (22) 10 826 (30) 11 107 (28) 27 001 (16) 34 983 (12) 37 297 (12)Electricity $ 5 356 (22) 5 790 (40) 6 318 (39) 3 703 (15) 9 562 (54) 13 756 (67)Repairs and maintenance $ 21 665 (23) 16 540 (27) 14 952 (25) 22 883 (13) 32 011 (13) 28 650 (13)Freight $ 11 043 (28) 10 227 (57) 10 041 (59) 6 034 (17) 5 066 (29) 5 379 (28)Contracts $ 23 768 (23) 26 580 (36) 25 004 (36) 10 108 (17) 17 964 (31) 17 917 (35)Lease payments $ 1 833 (50) 382 (99) 382 (99) 566 (75) 431 (99) 431 (99)Water a $ 12 641 (28) 9 334 (29) 8 629 (30) 19 816 (13) 29 962 (11) 24 341 (12)Interest $ 15 702 (26) 20 856 (32) 24 610 (32) 39 515 (15) 51 499 (15) 60 769 (15)Total cash costs $ 197 409 (18) 206 012 (32) 205 533 (33) 232 856 (11) 339 466 (16) 346 518 (16)

Financial performance Farm cash income $ 52 694 (27) 37 709 (60) –76 310 (60) 40 281 (30) 75 845 (63) 141 038 (32)Farm business profit $ –2 157 (99) –28 309 (72) –144 039 (33) –44 158 (26) –2 325 (99) 63 480 (67)Total farm debt at 1 July $ 218 464 (26) 291 499 (30) na 458 622 (15) 655 445 (15) na Total farm debt at 30 June $ 236 845 (26) 267 715 (33) na 471 090 (16) 684 439 (15) na Total capital at 30 June $ 1 679 089 (11) 1 485 559 (21) na 3 044 803 (9) 4 319 117 (16) na Rate of return % 1.0 (74) –0.4 (99) –7.9 (31) –0.1 (99) 1.2 (97) 3.0 (38)



24 Irrigation characteristics, Murrumbidgee region average per farm or percentage of farms


2008–09 2009–10 p 2008–09 2009–10 pOn-farm irrigation water storage Water storage capacity Farm dams ML 6 (49) 8 (34) 49 (30) 59 (46)Channels ML 1 (93) 1 (99) 6 (31) 8 (44)Tile drains ML 0 0 0 0 Other re-use systems ML 0 (57) 2 (77) 9 (30) 12 (31)

Percentage of farms with Farm dams % 27 (27) 31 (24) 39 (19) 30 (25)Channels % 1 (88) 2 (99) 17 (37) 20 (30)Tile drains % 0 0 0 0 Other re-use systems % 5 (57) 3 (85) 45 (18) 44 (19)

Water trading Permanent entitlements Buying % 1 (80) 0 4 (75) 2 (78)Selling % 1 (80) 1 (78) 9 (69) 6 (54)



Irrigation management practices Measuring soil moisture using Neutron probe % 6 (41) 4 (76) 5 (56) 4 (52)Capacitance probe % 2 (71) 3 (60) 1 (85) 2 (64)Tensiometers % 5 (89) 10 (67) 2 (78) 0 (99)Soil auger/probe % 16 (52) 18 (53) 11 (45) 19 (33)Heat probe % 0 0 0 (83) 1 (98)Own observations % 92 (5) 92 (5) 85 (7) 91 (5)Other % 7 (67) 7 (50) 3 (75) 7 (61)

Farmers’ intentions Plans for permanent entitlements Sell some permanent entitlements % 7 (75) 11 (81) 6 (48) 7 (62)Sell all permanent entitlements % 0 0 0 0 (99)No change % 86 (9) 86 (11) 81 (8) 89 (6)Other % 2 (93) 0 10 (49) 4 (81)

Intended changes in next three years Expand area irrigated % 2 (44) 2 (99) 4 (64) 6 (46)Reduce area irrigated % 2 (75) 4 (84) 7 (81) 6 (81)Buy more temporary water % 5 (74) 0 8 (47) 6 (59)Sell more temporary water % 8 (77) 0 3 (78) 6 (63)Increase on-farm water storage % 1 (99) 1 (99) 0 0 Install water re-use system % 0 2 (99) 3 (90) 0 Change water application method % 11 (66) 9 (89) 1 (87) 1 (99)Other % 16 (99) 16 (58) 27 (72) 29 (85)No change % 62 (18) 71 (15) 64 (13) 58 (15)

Plans over next three years Change into dryland agriculture % 3 (65) 3 (99) 5 (49) 2 (70)Spend more time generating non-agricultural income % 11 (67) 3 (64) 15 (46) 1 (99)Scale down agricultural activities % 5 (53) 7 (63) 26 (31) 11 (51)Retire/sell farm % 9 (65) 19 (51) 6 (92) 10 (58)No change % 69 (14) 70 (16) 37 (21) 66 (13)




25

Phys

ical

and

fina

ncia

l cha

ract

eris

tics,

Mur

ray

regi

on

aver

age

per

farm

hort

icul

ture

br

oada

cre

dairy

20

08–0

9 20

09–1

0 p

2010

–11

z 20

08–0

9 20

09–1

0 p

2010

–11

z 20

08–0

9 20

09–1

0 p

2010

–11

z

Phys

ical

est

imat

es

A

rea

oper

ated

ha

7

5 (1

9)

159

(4

1)

na

1

382

(2

2)

2 6

62

(37)

na

307

(2

0)

392

(2

2)

na

Shee

p o

n ha

nd

no.

2

(96)

1

2 (9

1)

na

3

80

(26)

1

110

(2

5)

na

8

(9

9)

0

na

Be

ef c

attl

e on

han

d

no.

2

(59)

4

(6

0)

na

6

0 (2

3)

33

(99)

na

51

(35)

2

3 (7

9)

na

Dai

ry c

attl

e on

han

d n

o.

0

0

na

0

0

na

151

(2

7)

208

(2

4)

na

Milk

pro

duc

ed

L 0

0

na

0

0

na

6

09 2

73

(27)

8

25 3

01

(22)

na

A

rea

crop

ped

ha

2

8 (1

0)

84

(55)

8

6 (5

4)

547

(1

1)

1 1

15

(38)

8

97

(33)

9

1 (2

6)

132

(2

2)

175

(2

5)A

rea

crop

s ir

rig

ated

ha

2

3 (7

) 2

8 (9

) 2

8 (9

) 2

7 (3

9)

20

(85)

4

5 (5

9)

24

(30)

3

5 (2

2)

43

(48)

Are

a no

n-ir

rig

ated

crop

s ha

4

(4

7)

56

(84)

5

8 (8

0)

519

(1

2)

1 0

95

(40)

8

52

(37)

6

7 (3

4)

97

(31)

1

32

(33)

Are

a p

astu

re

ir

rig

ated

ha

0

0

0

4

(80)

4

(6

6)

5

(89)

1

8 (3

3)

28

(35)

3

7 (3

0)W

ater

ap

plie

d t

o

cr

ops/

pas

ture

M

L 1

65

(9)

188

(9

) 1

52

(10)

5

8 (3

4)

32

(88)

1

35

(84)

1

11

(29)

1

42

(27)

1

56

(38)

Rece

ipts

Be

ef c

attl

e $

595

(5

2)

1 3

35

(58)

1

620

(5

1)

35

118

(20)

1

9 85

8 (9

9)

12

695

(69)

2

0 67

6 (4

5)

12

594

(93)

1

5 34

7 (8

6)D

airy

cat

tle

$ 0

0

0

0

0

0

4

6 16

8 (5

4)

28

488

(32)

2

6 51

7 (3

1)Sh

eep

$

82

(96)

3

90

(91)

7

48

(91)

2

7 03

2 (2

6)

35

540

(37)

5

1 07

9 (2

7)

573

(9

0)

0

0

W

ool

$ 0

38

5 (9

1)

405

(91)

7

440

(32)

21

680

(3

0)

22 7

64

(30)

12

6 (9

9)

0

0 M

ilk

$ 0

0

0

0

0

0

25

9 45

9 (2

7)

286

538

(22)

31

5 90

8 (2

2)O

ff-f

arm

con

trac

ts

$ 2

507

(37)

5

995

(37)

5

164

(39)

4

954

(43)

7

198

(99)

6

327

(99)

4

741

(99)

2

955

(65)

4

489

(46)

Tota

l cro

ps

$ 23

9 30

6 (5

7)

246

380

(33)

29

1 80

9 (1

4)

122

785

(13)

98

080

(5

7)

259

956

(87)

8

606

(97)

25

726

(4

0)

58 2

50

(35)

Off

-far

m s

hare

farm

ing

$

0

5

54

(77)

5

71

(77)

4

578

(7

9)

1 4

61

(71)

1

505

(7

1)

0

6

72

(91)

6

92

(91)

Tem

por

ary

wat

er

1

848

(46)

89

0 (4

3)

92

(80)

21

885

(2

0)

5 35

8 (3

4)

315

(98)

6

646

(46)

6

247

(67)

2

611

(84)

Tota

l cas

h re

ceip

ts

$ 2

67 0

86

(9)

269

756

(1

1)

302

514

(1

0)

264

825

(8

) 2

25 1

84

(54)

3

63 4

20

(65)

3

62 3

66

(23)

3

92 3

25

(16)

4

27 3

71

(17)

cont

inue

d...



25

Phys

ical

and

fina

ncia

l cha

ract

eris

tics,

Mur

ray

regi

on

cont

inue

d

av

erag

e p

er fa

rm

hort

icul

ture

br

oada

cre

dairy

20

08–0

9 20

09–1

0 p

2010

–11

z 20

08–0

9 20

09–1

0 p

2010

–11

z 20

08–0

9 20

09–1

0 p

2010

–11

z

Cost

s

H

ired

lab

our

$ 3

5 54

1 (1

3)

40

271

(12)

4

2 39

4 (1

1)

9 4

80

(25)

7

679

(8

8)

5 5

90

(99)

1

1 46

0 (3

2)

13

038

(35)

2

1 49

8 (1

9)Fe

rtili

ser

$ 1

2 86

5 (1

4)

15

359

(17)

1

6 23

4 (1

7)

27

609

(14)

1

8 35

4 (9

9)

23

742

(89)

1

3 82

4 (2

8)

18

056

(14)

2

1 27

5 (1

3)Fo

dd

er

$ 5

6 (8

1)

596

(9

9)

591

(9

9)

8 8

59

(46)

3

290

(9

9)

2 7

54

(99)

1

22 5

31

(28)

9

9 86

6 (3

2)

74

886

(30)

Seed

$

1 1

20

(47)

1

716

(6

4)

1 9

24

(64)

2

128

(1

9)

2 1

89

(75)

2

467

(7

9)

4 8

92

(28)

5

023

(2

7)

5 4

12

(26)

Cro

p a

nd p

astu

re

che

mic

als

$ 9

419

(1

0)

12

480

(12)

2

0 05

4 (2

0)

21

684

(16)

1

8 99

1 (9

9)

20

657

(99)

4

446

(3

3)

11

392

(30)

1

4 09

0 (3

8)Fu

el, o

il an

d g

reas

e $

8 8

63

(12)

9

734

(1

3)

10

842

(13)

1

7 41

2 (9

) 1

5 89

1 (7

2)

17

824

(67)

1

2 10

1 (1

2)

16

371

(12)

1

8 37

4 (1

0)El

ectr

icit

y $

7 1

13

(12)

7

684

(1

1)

8 3

13

(11)

4

800

(1

9)

3 4

88

(15)

3

914

(1

7)

6 0

37

(22)

8

859

(2

6)

9 1

11

(21)

Rep

airs

and

mai

nten

ance

$

14

969

(9)

17

405

(9)

15

681

(8)

20

153

(11)

1

6 31

3 (6

4)

16

720

(62)

2

3 16

1 (1

2)

24

278

(18)

2

4 50

4 (1

9)Fr

eig

ht

$ 8

986

(1

6)

9 4

82

(14)

9

883

(1

4)

5 7

94

(19)

4

687

(9

9)

6 5

00

(90)

1

4 09

6 (2

8)

13

092

(35)

1

1 16

1 (4

2)C

ontr

acts

$

23

710

(13)

2

4 47

6 (1

4)

25

131

(14)

1

3 50

3 (1

5)

10

667

(19)

1

2 19

5 (3

2)

6 8

63

(31)

1

3 40

9 (2

8)

13

966

(28)

Leas

e p

aym

ents

$

913

(5

0)

267

(6

1)

267

(6

1)

1 2

73

(58)

9

99

(83)

9

99

(83)

2

31

(99)

1

043

(9

9)

1 0

43

(99)

Wat

er a

$

25

770

(11)

1

7 99

4 (1

5)

9 2

20

(14)

1

5 10

7 (2

3)

11

348

(74)

1

0 26

3 (6

2)

18

572

(29)

2

3 09

5 (1

7)

17

510

(8)

Inte

rest

$

21

317

(13)

1

6 50

2 (1

5)

19

472

(15)

3

4 39

6 (1

3)

27

732

(99)

3

2 72

4 (9

9)

26

929

(27)

3

7 28

7 (2

0)

43

999

(20)

Tota

l cas

h co

sts

$ 2

18 0

40

(10)

2

16 6

93

(8)

220

874

(8

) 2

41 4

74

(8)

212

390

(8

3)

229

291

(8

2)

327

045

(2

1)

348

237

(2

0)

342

111

(1

8)

Fina

ncia

l per

form

ance

Fa

rm c

ash

inco

me

$ 4

9 04

6 (1

7)

53

064

(31)

8

1 64

0 (3

2)

23

351

(45)

1

2 79

4 (9

9)

134

129

(4

7)

35

321

(70)

4

4 08

8 (3

2)

85

259

(27)

Farm

bus

ines

s p

rofit

$

– 94

9 (9

9)

–4 3

32

(99)

2

2 43

5 (9

9)

–70

458

(16)

–6

0 47

6 (9

9)

61

942

(77)

–6

0 69

9 (3

2)

–39

332

(42)

–

993

(99)

Tota

l far

m d

ebt

at 1

Jul

y $

254

055

(1

4)

217

175

(1

6)

na

4

11 9

15

(12)

3

63 9

63

(99)

na

365

636

(2

0)

453

431

(2

0)

na

Tota

l far

m d

ebt

at 3

0 Ju

ne

$ 2

62 7

70

(14)

2

15 6

06

(16)

na

412

562

(1

2)

387

304

(9

9)

na

3

13 7

65

(27)

4

56 7

55

(21)

na

To

tal c

apit

al

at

30

June

$

1 26

6 82

8 (8

) 1

473

598

(9)

na

2 8

34 4

53

(7) 4

051

266

(9

) na

2

036

768

(1

2)

2 50

9 70

2 (6

) na

Ra

te o

f ret

urn

%

1.7

(35)

0.

9 (9

9)

2.9

(58)

–1

.2

(31)

–0

.7

(49)

2.

5 (9

9)

–1.5

(7

4)

0.0

(99)

1.

8 (6

5)

a In

clud

es th

e co

st o

f tem

por

ary

wat

er p

urch

ases

. p P

relim

inar

y es

timat

e. z

Pro

ject

ion.

na

Not

ava

ilab

le.

Not

e: T

he fi

gure

s in

par

enth

eses

are

sta

ndar

d er

rors

exp

ress

ed a

s a

per

cent

age

of th

e es

timat

e.


26 Irrigation characteristics, Murray region average per farm or percentage of farms


2008–09 2009–10 p 2008–09 2009–10 p 2008–09 2009–10 pOn-farm irrigation water storage Water storage capacity Farm dams ML 1 (43) 2 (54) 25 (35) 12 (84) 5 (23) 6 (26)Channels ML 0 0 1 (94) 2 (61) 0 0 Tile drains ML 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other re-use systems ML 0 0 9 (53) 4 (52) 16 (93) 2 (49)

Percentage of farms with Farm dams % 4 (50) 3 (43) 52 (17) 44 (28) 65 (20) 69 (26)Channels % 0 0 5 (85) 8 (53) 0 0 Tile drains % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other re-use systems % 0 0 19 (33) 16 (36) 16 (42) 17 (41)

Water trading Permanent entitlements Buying % 1 (85) 1 (77) 3 (61) 2 (76) 1 (99) 0 Selling % 2 (57) 8 (52) 3 (61) 9 (47) 9 (83) 6 (57)

Entitlements sold to an environmental water purchasing program % 0 7 (58) 0 7 (57) 0 5 (64)

Temporary irrigation water Buying % 56 (13) 38 (19) 4 (48) 7 (76) 20 (44) 9 (61)Selling % 11 (36) 4 (50) 51 (18) 30 (31) 38 (43) 32 (71)

Irrigation management practices Measuring soil moisture using Neutron probe % 6 (42) 8 (61) 3 (93) 0 1 (87) 0 Capacitance probe % 15 (24) 25 (26) 2 (56) 0 1 (99) 2 (98)Tensiometers % 26 (25) 23 (27) 1 (94) 0 8 (71) 8 (69)Soil auger/probe % 12 (27) 10 (31) 12 (43) 14 (38) 1 (89) 1 (99)Heat probe % 2 (99) 0 0 0 0 1 (99)Own observations % 76 (8) 83 (7) 84 (8) 78 (17) 88 (5) 99 (1)Other % 19 (27) 15 (32) 9 (58) 17 (70) 0 0

Farmers’ intentions Plans for permanent entitlements Sell some permanent entitlements % 14 (30) 13 (44) 14 (53) 15 (58) 9 (76) 7 (41)Sell all permanent entitlements % 7 (63) 3 (62) 2 (72) 2 (79) 21 (71) 29 (77)No change % 70 (9) 70 (11) 81 (10) 82 (11) 68 (18) 64 (35)Other % 6 (59) 1 (77) 4 (84) 1 (99) 4 (68) 0

Intended changes in next three years Expand area irrigated % 13 (30) 2 (43) 0 4 (99) 1 (99) 5 (43)Reduce area irrigated % 2 (61) 5 (96) 8 (63) 1 (99) 12 (66) 0 Buy more temporary water % 0 (75) 2 (62) 5 (60) 1 (99) 6 (50) 3 (86)Sell more temporary water % 10 (35) 5 (45) 13 (57) 1 (99) 21 (69) 1 (99)Increase on-farm water storage % 0 (93) 0 0 0 0 0 Install water re-use system % 0 0 4 (105) 0 0 0 Change water application method % 7 (43) 0 3 (98) 7 (61) 1 (99) 1 (99)Other % 36 (61) 8 (99) 13 (104) 23 (99) 12 (99) 31 (99)No change % 48 (14) 78 (8) 59 (16) 80 (13) 50 (19) 61 (37)

Plans over next three years Change into dryland agriculture % 1 (99) 0 6 (66) 2 (79) 5 (70) 0 Spend more time generating non-agricultural income % 5 (53) 0 4 (73) 1 (99) 0 0 Scale down agricultural activities % 11 (33) 5 (96) 24 (36) 5 (76) 22 (48) 9 (99)Retire/sell farm % 8 (45) 24 (32) 7 (74) 7 (66) 20 (68) 33 (68)No change % 60 (11) 66 (13) 57 (15) 72 (18) 50 (24) 58 (30)




27

Phys

ical

and

fina

ncia

l cha

ract

eris

tics,

Gou

lbur

n–Br

oken

regi

on

av

erag

e p

er fa

rm

hort

icul

ture

br

oada

cre

dairy

20

08–0

9 20

09–1

0 p

2010

–11

z 20

08–0

9 20

09–1

0 p

2010

–11

z 20

08–0

9 20

09–1

0 p

2010

–11

z

Phys

ical

est

imat

es

A

rea

oper

ated

ha

8

4 (7

2)

152

(4

5)

na

5

46

(13)

7

67

(13)

na

191

(1

1)

176

(1

6)

na

Shee

p o

n ha

nd

no.

12

(99)

1

52

(99)

na

479

(3

3)

871

(2

4)

na

2

7 (8

4)

43

(82)

na

Be

ef c

attl

e on

han

d

no.

12

(87)

1

8 (5

4)

na

1

7 (6

1)

71

(36)

na

26

(54)

3

1 (3

3)

na

Dai

ry c

attl

e on

han

d n

o.

0

0

na

0

0

na

190

(1

8)

132

(2

2)

na

Milk

pro

duc

ed

L 0

0

na

0

0

na

7

20 1

56

(18)

5

10 9

97

(20)

na

A

rea

crop

ped

ha

4

0 (6

7)

68

(42)

5

7 (3

5)

302

(1

3)

437

(1

2)

389

(1

4)

61

(17)

6

5 (1

9)

54

(20)

Are

a cr

ops

irri

gat

ed

ha

25

(42)

3

9 (2

2)

37

(18)

4

3 (4

1)

69

(42)

5

0 (5

6)

27

(24)

1

9 (3

2)

14

(35)

Are

a no

n-ir

rig

ated

c

rop

s ha

1

5 (9

9)

29

(74)

2

5 (6

1)

258

(1

4)

368

(1

5)

339

(1

5)

34

(25)

4

6 (2

2)

40

(26)

Are

a p

astu

re

ir

rig

ated

ha

0

0

0

0

1

(9

7)

1

(97)

3

3 (2

0)

28

(27)

2

5 (3

1)W

ater

ap

plie

d t

o

cr

ops/

pas

ture

M

L 9

0 (5

4)

129

(2

0)

114

(1

9)

38

(38)

4

8 (2

8)

71

(55)

1

37

(24)

1

09

(22)

7

5 (2

6)

Rece

ipts

Be

ef c

attl

e $

4 4

55

(83)

6

183

(5

2)

6 8

74

(54)

8

999

(4

7)

35

157

(36)

2

7 18

8 (3

4)

11

936

(67)

8

469

(2

6)

11

926

(34)

Dai

ry c

attl

e $

0

0

0

0

0

0

24

969

(24)

3

2 81

6 (3

7)

16

399

(26)

Shee

p

$ 1

644

(9

9)

6 3

42

(96)

7

840

(9

7)

34

385

(19)

4

9 81

1 (2

2)

64

325

(20)

2

060

(9

5)

2 1

67

(84)

2

818

(8

4)W

ool

$ 20

5 (9

9)

3 00

0 (9

8)

3 15

0 (9

8)

11 4

45

(30)

14

687

(3

8)

15 4

21

(38)

51

8 (9

7)

466

(72)

49

0

(72)

Milk

$

0

0

0

0

0

0

298

708

(16)

17

5 35

0 (2

0)

193

324

(2

0)O

ff-f

arm

con

trac

ts

$ 69

6 (5

7)

11 8

52

(55)

4

887

(58)

11

117

(3

7)

10 4

33

(40)

9

949

(41)

6

342

(61)

8

542

(34)

8

862

(36)

Tota

l cro

ps

$ 33

7 32

2 (9

9)

432

258

(48)

44

1 70

8 (3

7)

168

108

(24)

16

8 21

1 (1

6)

249

369

(15)

7

302

(59)

11

052

(3

8)

12 8

49

(40)

Off

-far

m s

hare

farm

ing

$

0

0

0

1

3 11

8 (4

6)

7 1

00

(51)

7

313

(5

1)

0

0

0

Tem

por

ary

wat

er

$ 1

899

(68)

11

8 (9

9)

0

9 75

1 (3

2)

2 97

8 (3

7)

1 60

3 (5

3)

3 70

3 (4

5)

2 97

3 (8

4)

597

(99)

Tota

l cas

h re

ceip

ts

$ 3

71 6

37

(99)

4

97 6

47

(25)

4

76 6

37

(28)

2

90 3

93

(17)

3

15 6

10

(11)

3

80 5

34

(12)

3

76 3

43

(15)

2

55 5

38

(16)

2

48 9

84

(16)

cont

inue

d...



27

Phys

ical

and

fina

ncia

l cha

ract

eris

tics,

Gou

lbur

n–Br

oken

regi

on

cont

inue

d

aver

age

per

farm

hort

icul

ture

br

oada

cre

dairy

20

08–0

9 20

09–1

0 p

2010

–11

z 20

08–0

9 20

09–1

0 p

2010

–11

z 20

08–0

9 20

09–1

0 p

2010

–11

z

Cost

s

H

ired

lab

our

$ 5

6 11

0 (9

1)

105

571

(2

7)

100

112

(2

5)

9 6

84

(40)

1

2 09

5 (2

8)

14

722

(30)

1

9 13

1 (1

5)

10

543

(20)

1

1 51

1 (2

2)Fe

rtili

ser

$ 1

1 29

4 (9

8)

24

046

(40)

2

6 06

2 (3

8)

34

566

(26)

4

0 94

8 (1

8)

39

014

(18)

1

1 51

4 (1

6)

9 7

43

(20)

1

0 31

7 (1

8)Fo

dd

er

$ 4

017

(8

3)

528

(8

6)

410

(7

0)

9 0

60

(67)

4

487

(5

8)

3 9

03

(60)

1

58 1

99

(18)

6

2 05

3 (2

0)

52

953

(21)

Seed

$

9 1

19

(99)

8

690

(4

7)

9 1

20

(46)

3

682

(4

2)

2 5

00

(31)

3

841

(2

7)

5 6

17

(23)

4

068

(1

9)

4 7

21

(18)

Cro

p a

nd p

astu

re

ch

emic

als

$ 1

6 19

6 (9

3)

31

337

(34)

3

4 40

9 (3

5)

25

982

(23)

2

5 93

6 (1

4)

27

455

(15)

3

047

(2

8)

3 7

80

(14)

4

254

(1

3)Fu

el, o

il an

d g

reas

e $

14

982

(55)

2

1 69

4 (2

9)

23

049

(29)

2

2 26

2 (1

6)

20

724

(13)

2

3 84

6 (1

4)

12

337

(18)

9

150

(1

6)

9 9

13

(17)

Elec

tric

ity

$ 5

244

(4

2)

9 1

60

(28)

9

569

(2

6)

2 2

60

(15)

2

283

(1

9)

2 2

92

(18)

5

554

(1

3)

5 8

16

(16)

6

412

(1

4)Re

pai

rs a

nd

m

aint

enan

ce

$ 2

3 15

5 (6

2)

29

024

(23)

2

6 60

3 (2

8)

24

836

(17)

2

6 37

1 (1

2)

23

369

(14)

2

2 67

0 (2

0)

17

661

(18)

1

7 29

7 (1

8)Fr

eig

ht

$ 1

3 17

2 (9

9)

12

278

(26)

1

2 70

6 (2

3)

4 4

39

(25)

6

220

(2

3)

9 6

19

(24)

1

4 35

9 (2

2)

13

357

(17)

1

3 07

4 (1

7)C

ontr

acts

$

67

001

(71)

6

8 98

4 (3

2)

72

029

(32)

9

642

(2

7)

7 2

78

(26)

8

941

(2

7)

11

747

(32)

8

664

(2

3)

8 2

20

(23)

Leas

e p

aym

ents

$

620

(9

9)

904

(7

2)

904

(7

2)

1 7

03

(64)

1

072

(7

6)

1 0

72

(76)

1

827

(4

9)

781

(3

9)

781

(3

9)W

ater

a

$ 1

8 84

3 (5

8)

20

346

(24)

1

4 46

6 (2

9)

5 7

23

(43)

1

2 92

6 (3

0)

8 3

19

(27)

2

3 36

3 (1

8)

16

867

(17)

1

4 36

1 (1

4)In

tere

st

$ 2

2 68

6 (9

0)

48

254

(39)

5

6 94

0 (3

9)

27

014

(23)

2

1 28

8 (2

6)

25

120

(26)

3

1 75

2 (1

4)

22

393

(23)

2

6 42

3 (2

3)To

tal c

ash

cost

s $

329

132

(7

5)

485

055

(2

4)

475

128

(2

4)

240

118

(1

4)

260

652

(1

0)

264

965

(1

0)

391

773

(1

5)

233

658

(1

7)

227

791

(1

7)

Fina

ncia

l per

form

ance

Fa

rm c

ash

inco

me

$ 4

2 50

4 (9

9)

12

592

(99)

1

509

(9

9)

50

275

(36)

5

4 95

8 (3

3)

115

569

(2

6)

–15

429

(76)

2

1 88

1 (3

5)

21

193

(44)

Farm

bus

ines

s p

rofit

$

–17

065

(99)

–5

9 07

4 (6

4)

–72

409

(99)

–4

0 31

8 (3

4)

–29

343

(43)

2

9 63

0 (9

6)

–88

790

(15)

–6

6 68

6 (1

9)

–72

095

(23)

Tota

l far

m d

ebt

at 1

Jul

y $

283

443

(9

9)

652

426

(3

7)

na

3

20 7

73

(18)

3

27 8

16

(22)

na

395

644

(1

6)

309

790

(2

2)

na

Tota

l far

m d

ebt

at 3

0 Ju

ne

$ 3

38 6

43

(76)

6

79 3

73

(39)

na

295

152

(2

0)

393

141

(2

8)

na

4

16 5

24

(16)

2

72 8

28

(24)

na

To

tal c

apit

al

at

30

June

$

1 74

9 56

5 (4

9) 2

081

389

(2

3)

na

3 1

09 4

85

(14)

3 4

43 7

39

(8)

na

2 0

88 5

79

(7)

1 81

2 55

0 (9

) na

Ra

te o

f ret

urn

%

0.4

(99)

–0

.3

(99)

–0

.5

(99)

–0

.3

(99)

–0

.1

(99)

1.

8 (4

7)

–2.5

(2

7)

–2.2

(2

7)

–2.2

(3

5)

a In

clud

es th

e co

st o

f tem

por

ary

wat

er p

urch

ases

. p P

relim

inar

y es

timat

e. z

Pro

ject

ion.

na

Not

ava

ilab

le.

Not

e: T

he fi

gure

s in

par

enth

eses

are

sta

ndar

d er

rors

exp

ress

ed a

s a

per

cent

age

of th

e es

timat

e.


28 Irrigation characteristics, Goulburn–Broken region average per farm or percentage of farms


2008–09 2009–10 p 2008–09 2009–10 p 2008–09 2009–10 pOn-farm irrigation water storage Water storage capacity Farm dams ML 4 (58) 16 (68) 11 (90) 10 (95) 5 (70) 3 (49)Channels ML 4 (86) 3 (82) 11 (59) 0 4 (81) 2 (99)Tile drains ML 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other re-use systems ML 1 (99) 5 (99) 2 (53) 2 (49) 10 (27) 8 (25)

Percentage of farms with Farm dams % 28 (50) 36 (33) 19 (59) 23 (50) 36 (32) 40 (37)Channels % 7 (77) 10 (77) 4 (59) 0 5 (89) 5 (99)Tile drains % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other re-use systems % 8 (85) 15 (47) 33 (42) 35 (38) 72 (15) 85 (9)

Water trading Permanent entitlements Buying % 0 0 2 (91) 0 9 (69) 0 Selling % 0 0 2 (91) 7 (59) 4 (99) 16 (63)

Entitlements sold to an environmental water purchasing program % 0 0 0 7 (59) 0 16 (63)

Temporary irrigation water Buying % 25 (72) 29 (36) 3 (61) 20 (55) 22 (26) 12 (30)Selling % 28 (71) 1 (99) 47 (30) 17 (35) 33 (41) 18 (60)

Irrigation management practices Measuring soil moisture using Neutron probe % 1 (99) 5 (99) 0 0 0 0 Capacitance probe % 7 (70) 6 (50) 9 (98) 11 (97) 0 0 Tensiometers % 4 (96) 11 (65) 0 0 1 (95) 1 (86)Soil auger/probe % 6 (99) 5 (48) 13 (70) 11 (97) 4 (62) 3 (89)Heat probe % 0 0 3 (86) 3 (97) 8 (83) 10 (90)Own observations % 94 (7) 96 (3) 91 (4) 97 (3) 92 (7) 100 Other % 1 (66) 4 (71) 6 (61) 3 (99) 0 0

Farmers’ intentions Plans for permanent entitlements Sell some permanent entitlements % 3 (68) 8 (80) 11 (38) 18 (66) 13 (55) 18 (59)Sell all permanent entitlements % 24 (49) 0 10 (80) 0 5 (73) 11 (80)No change % 69 (17) 89 (7) 79 (11) 73 (17) 82 (9) 70 (18)Other % 5 (99) 3 (56) 1 (99) 6 (69) 0 1 (54)

Intended changes in next three years Expand area irrigated % 4 (99) 3 (62) 16 (79) 16 (67) 1 (91) 0 Reduce area irrigated % 2 (99) 3 (99) 12 (57) 19 (64) 2 (70) 0 Buy more temporary water % 17 (56) 8 (97) 13 (75) 4 (97) 5 (99) 1 (60)Sell more temporary water % 8 (76) 0 14 (61) 0 7 (61) 4 (99)Increase on-farm water storage % 0 0 0 0 5 (99) 0 Install water re-use system % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Change water application method % 1 (99) 0 0 2 (99) 2 (66) 0 Other % 11 (99) 39 (99) 0 8 (99) 8 (99) 34 (99)No change % 59 (20) 62 (18) 45 (31) 57 (25) 76 (13) 67 (18)

Plans over next three years Change into dryland agriculture % 2 (99) 1 (99) 8 (48) 6 (67) 2 (70) 0 (80)Spend more time generating non-agricultural income % 0 0 6 (99) 0 0 0 Scale down agricultural activities % 1 (82) 14 (70) 27 (53) 27 (50) 23 (33) 0 Retire/sell farm % 36 (27) 19 (49) 17 (66) 10 (98) 20 (67) 28 (40)No change % 60 (19) 51 (30) 43 (30) 55 (26) 50 (22) 66 (17)




29

Phys

ical

and

fina

ncia

l cha

ract

eris

tics,

Lod

don–

Avoc

a re

gion

av

erag

e p

er fa

rm

hort

icul

ture

br

oada

cre

dairy

20

08–0

9 20

09–1

0 p

2010

–11

z 20

08–0

9 20

09–1

0 p

2010

–11

z 20

08–0

9 20

09–1

0 p

2010

–11

z

Phys

ical

est

imat

es

A

rea

oper

ated

ha

2

49

(16)

1

86

(11)

na

950

(1

6)

1 4

60

(18)

na

243

(1

2)

228

(1

4)

na

Shee

p o

n ha

nd

no.

165

(3

2)

191

(3

0)

na

1

243

(1

8)

1 5

71

(16)

na

14

(66)

1

3 (7

5)

na

Beef

cat

tle

on h

and

no

. 7

5 (3

5)

57

(22)

na

20

(62)

1

0 (7

5)

na

1

9 (2

9)

24

(32)

na

D

airy

cat

tle

on h

and

no.

0

0

na

0

0

na

1

54

(22)

1

63

(18)

na

M

ilk p

rod

uced

L

0

0

na

0

0

na

607

855

(2

5)

561

125

(1

8)

na

Are

a cr

opp

ed

ha

90

(19)

5

6 (1

5)

58

(16)

5

80

(15)

7

28

(16)

6

10

(19)

7

4 (2

1)

55

(17)

6

2 (1

7)A

rea

crop

s ir

rig

ated

ha

1

8 (1

5)

13

(13)

5

(2

7)

33

(38)

5

3 (2

8)

50

(40)

4

1 (1

9)

33

(27)

3

6 (2

6)A

rea

non-

irri

gat

ed

cr

ops

ha

72

(23)

4

2 (1

9)

39

(19)

5

47

(16)

6

75

(17)

5

47

(20)

3

3 (4

1)

22

(27)

2

6 (2

9)A

rea

pas

ture

irri

gat

ed

ha

0

0

0

1

2 (5

6)

34

(42)

1

6 (5

9)

33

(22)

3

4 (3

1)

44

(30)

Wat

er a

pp

lied

to

crop

s/p

astu

re

ML

83

(15)

6

2 (1

5)

13

(16)

7

2 (3

0)

111

(2

3)

67

(30)

1

87

(17)

1

41

(27)

1

91

(15)

Rece

ipts

Be

ef c

attl

e $

27

139

(35)

2

3 56

1 (2

0)

26

254

(25)

7

280

(4

1)

2 8

57

(64)

4

064

(7

3)

10

514

(33)

6

089

(4

6)

10

430

(39)

Dai

ry c

attl

e $

0

0

0

0

0

0

31

837

(32)

2

0 47

2 (2

0)

16

733

(25)

Shee

p

$ 2

5 18

6 (2

4)

36

199

(25)

5

1 47

6 (2

8)

74

141

(20)

9

7 84

4 (1

7)

101

992

(1

7)

1 6

51

(80)

1

81

(73)

8

58

(72)

Woo

l $

1 29

5 (3

8)

1 61

0 (2

2)

1 69

1 (2

2)

19 8

71

(24)

35

947

(1

8)

37 7

45

(18)

0

10

0 (7

9)

105

(79)

Milk

$

0

0

0

0

0

0

242

805

(2

5)

196

329

(1

8)

216

453

(1

8)O

ff-f

arm

con

trac

ts

$ 9

537

(47)

6

591

(75)

6

434

(79)

17

204

(5

4)

19 8

46

(44)

17

518

(4

6)

6 08

0 (3

0)

6 11

2 (5

7)

4 62

1 (6

7)To

tal c

rop

s $

289

191

(12)

20

2 64

0 (1

3)

141

377

(26)

11

6 79

7 (2

2)

244

702

(19)

36

0 81

2 (2

5)

7325

(3

9)

1 12

4 (7

6)

9 42

6 (6

0)O

ff-f

arm

sha

refa

rmin

g $

0

0

0

3

918

(32)

9

071

(57)

9

344

(57)

0

0

0

Tem

por

ary

wat

er

$ 5

263

(78)

3

259

(52)

73

3 (7

7)

15 7

46

(40)

5

763

(40)

2

364

(62)

11

480

(3

2)

17 5

02

(56)

0

Tota

l cas

h re

ceip

ts

$ 3

75 4

39

(9)

288

632

(9

) 2

33 5

84

(12)

2

72 6

55

(14)

4

47 4

56

(13)

5

48 1

27

(19)

3

40 1

15

(18)

2

83 2

16

(12)

26

4 85

6 (1

4)

cont

inue

d...



29

Phys

ical

and

fina

ncia

l cha

ract

eris

tics,

Lod

don–

Avoc

a re

gion

co

ntin

ued

av

erag

e p

er fa

rm

hort

icul

ture

br

oada

cre

dairy

20

08–0

9 20

09–1

0 p

2010

–11

z 20

08–0

9 20

09–1

0 p

2010

–11

z 20

08–0

9 20

09–1

0 p

2010

–11

z

Cost

s

H

ired

lab

our

$ 2

2 72

5 (2

5)

14

401

(29)

1

5 59

6 (2

8)

11

582

(29)

1

8 90

3 (2

6)

11

321

(31)

1

3 16

8 (3

5)

9 0

54

(24)

1

2 32

8 (1

5)Fe

rtili

ser

$ 3

0 46

4 (1

1)

19

439

(15)

2

0 83

5 (1

5)

23

114

(16)

3

5 59

3 (1

8)

37

798

(17)

6

880

(2

4)

6 5

11

(27)

7

982

(2

2)Fo

dd

er

$ 2

199

(5

3)

89

(72)

5

55

(99)

4

117

(4

1)

4 2

31

(69)

2

828

(5

0)

143

370

(2

2)

81

293

(18)

6

4 76

9 (1

9)Se

ed

$ 1

3 18

8 (2

0)

14

389

(16)

1

3 16

5 (1

6)

2 5

27

(29)

7

036

(1

9)

6 9

44

(17)

3

168

(2

0)

4 9

35

(18)

5

222

(1

8)C

rop

and

pas

ture

chem

ical

s $

12

980

(18)

1

2 32

8 (1

6)

13

174

(17)

1

6 98

3 (1

7)

27

660

(22)

3

0 49

1 (2

0)

1 7

02

(35)

2

037

(2

4)

2 6

97

(23)

Fuel

, oil

and

gre

ase

$ 2

4 36

7 (1

3)

18

994

(9)

19

260

(9)

22

918

(13)

3

0 22

5 (1

3)

31

829

(12)

1

2 79

7 (1

6)

9 6

45

(11)

1

0 52

9 (1

0)El

ectr

icit

y $

5 1

99

(21)

4

206

(1

6)

4 0

42

(15)

2

345

(2

9)

2 4

19

(18)

3

263

(2

4)

6 2

19

(14)

6

505

(1

3)

7 2

22

(13)

Rep

airs

and

mai

nten

ance

$

26

339

(15)

1

7 67

9 (1

4)

14

216

(13)

2

9 06

9 (1

3)

32

526

(13)

3

1 38

1 (1

2)

29

560

(18)

2

1 60

0 (1

7)

19

257

(18)

Frei

ght

$

4 7

80

(24)

5

654

(3

1)

5 8

24

(32)

2

579

(2

5)

13

153

(26)

1

4 00

4 (2

5)

18

087

(23)

1

1 41

4 (2

3)

11

717

(23)

Con

trac

ts

$ 1

2 76

5 (2

1)

13

655

(24)

1

0 27

8 (2

2)

8 1

42

(23)

2

1 83

0 (2

5)

21

731

(25)

1

1 13

0 (3

5)

7 4

26

(23)

8

288

(2

7)Le

ase

pay

men

ts

$ 3

569

(7

3)

248

(8

2)

248

(8

2)

918

(9

9)

0

0

501

(9

4)

748

(9

9)

748

(9

9)W

ater

a

$ 6

011

(6

6)

6 3

57

(29)

3

565

(3

1)

4 5

27

(20)

1

3 50

1 (1

9)

11

915

(19)

1

8 60

8 (2

5)

21

916

(9)

18

510

(10)

Inte

rest

$

20

214

(30)

1

7 38

1 (2

3)

20

510

(23)

2

8 65

8 (1

8)

47

745

(23)

5

6 33

9 (2

3)

26

473

(21)

2

2 61

3 (1

6)

26

684

(16)

Tota

l cas

h co

sts

$ 2

45 3

15

(11)

2

12 3

06

(11)

2

16 1

61

(11)

2

18 4

07

(12)

3

56 3

01

(15)

3

46 8

60

(14)

3

49 6

77

(16)

2

61 8

28

(13)

2

41 9

77

(12)

Fina

ncia

l per

form

ance

Fa

rm c

ash

inco

me

$ 1

30 1

25

(17)

7

6 32

6 (1

6)

17

423

(95)

5

4 24

8 (3

1)

91

155

(25)

2

01 2

68

(31)

–9

562

(9

9)

21

389

(99)

2

2 88

0 (6

8)Fa

rm b

usin

ess

pro

fit

$ 3

8 72

7 (4

9)

6 5

30

(99)

–5

2 76

0 (3

2)

–53

004

(34)

–1

0 40

3 (9

9)

99

775

(67)

–9

2 33

0 (1

6)

–41

588

(63)

–4

0 54

1 (4

2)To

tal f

arm

deb

t

at

1 J

uly

$ 3

25 9

38

(38)

2

52 0

80

(25)

na

369

819

(1

7)

608

544

(2

4)

na

3

84 1

63

(14)

3

12 2

70

(14)

na

To

tal f

arm

deb

t

at

30

June

$

336

842

(3

7)

245

129

(2

6)

na

4

18 2

42

(18)

6

59 5

42

(22)

na

339

792

(2

4)

310

739

(1

5)

na

Tota

l cap

ital

at 3

0 Ju

ne

$ 3

442

376

(11)

2 9

86 1

73

(8)

na

3 2

91 7

01

(12)

3 9

60 3

97

(11)

na

2

557

274

(9

) 1

930

361

(6)

na

Rate

of r

etur

n %

1.

9 (2

6)

0.9

(43)

–0

.9

(63)

–0

.4

(99)

1.

4 (4

4)

4.4

(41)

–2

.4

(28)

–0

.8

(99)

–0

.6

(99)

a In

clud

es th

e co

st o

f tem

por

ary

wat

er p

urch

ases

. p P

relim

inar

y es

timat

e. z

Pro

ject

ion.

na

Not

ava

ilab

le.

Not

e: T

he fi

gure

s in

par

enth

eses

are

sta

ndar

d er

rors

exp

ress

ed a

s a

per

cent

age

of th

e es

timat

e.


30 Irrigation characteristics, Loddon–Avoca region average per farm or percentage of farms


2008–09 2009–10 p 2008–09 2009–10 p 2008–09 2009–10 pOn-farm irrigation water storage Water storage capacity Farm dams ML 32 (24) 33 (29) 4 (38) 5 (29) 3 (21) 3 (19)Channels ML 0 0 0 0 1 (99) 0 (38)Tile drains ML 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other re-use systems ML 0 0 0 0 1 (99) 2 (40)

Percentage of farms with Farm dams % 88 (9) 84 (14) 65 (16) 67 (11) 93 (5) 82 (9)Channels % 0 0 15 (62) 8 (68) 10 (58) 7 (34)Tile drains % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other re-use systems % 0 0 14 (46) 15 (40) 3 (87) 15 (43)

Water trading Permanent entitlements Buying % 0 0 0 0 6 (71) 1 (99)Selling % 0 2 (64) 0 9 (56) 9 (52) 21 (74)

Entitlements sold to an environmental water purchasing program % 0 1 (77) 0 9 (56) 0 18 (81)

Temporary irrigation water Buying % 7 (52) 14 (75) 0 3 (86) 21 (41) 9 (44)Selling % 21 (53) 4 (45) 46 (26) 26 (33) 48 (26) 40 (54)

Irrigation management practices Measuring soil moisture using Neutron probe % 2 (82) 3 (63) 0 2 (99) 0 0 Capacitance probe % 3 (69) 5 (50) 0 0 0 0 Tensiometers % 16 (53) 26 (52) 0 0 0 0 Soil auger/probe % 6 (50) 5 (44) 49 (24) 22 (38) 40 (23) 20 (64)Heat probe % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Own observations % 90 (4) 90 (4) 84 (13) 91 (6) 100 99 (1)Other % 3 (89) 2 (82) 15 (42) 7 (49) 0 0

Farmers’ intentions Plans for permanent entitlements Sell some permanent entitlements % 25 (66) 0 20 (52) 14 (50) 13 (46) 14 (45)Sell all permanent entitlements % 0 0 0 0 4 (99) 0 No change % 73 (22) 100 80 (13) 77 (11) 83 (9) 85 (8)Other % 3 (89) 0 0 4 (60) 0 1 (99)

Intended changes in next three years Expand area irrigated % 22 (75) 13 (79) 1 (99) 0 0 6 (62)Reduce area irrigated % 9 (97) 13 (62) 0 4 (94) 2 (98) 3 (99)Buy more temporary water % 0 3 (65) 6 (68) 0 1 (99) 1 (99)Sell more temporary water % 1 (97) 0 18 (57) 4 (99) 17 (46) 13 (57)Increase on-farm water storage % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Install water re-use system % 0 0 0 0 0 2 (99)Change water application method % 5 (69) 1 (76) 0 0 2 (99) 0 Other % 15 (99) 2 (93) 6 (65) 46 (67) 0 11 (93)No change % 51 (33) 71 (17) 69 (16) 67 (13) 79 (10) 67 (14)

Plans over next three years Change into dryland agriculture % 2 (99) 5 (50) 3 (99) 4 (56) 1 (99) 8 (69)Spend more time generating non-agricultural income % 26 (62) 1 (94) 0 0 2 (98) 3 (82)Scale down agricultural activities % 7 (99) 4 (87) 12 (47) 0 21 (68) 43 (35)Retire/sell farm % 8 (97) 11 (99) 1 (99) 6 (96) 0 2 (80)No change % 63 (26) 78 (15) 83 (8) 72 (12) 76 (19) 39 (41)




31 Physical and financial characteristics, Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges region average per farm

horticulture dairy

2008–09 2009–10 p 2010–11 z 2008–09 2009–10 p 2010–11 zPhysical estimates Area operated ha 104 (21) 131 (19) na 381 (17) 477 (23) na Sheep on hand no. 61 (51) 83 (43) na 21 (99) 0 na Beef cattle on hand no. 7 (74) 7 (68) na 40 (39) 40 (37) na Dairy cattle on hand no. 0 0 na 282 (12) 332 (13) na Milk produced L 0 0 na 993 718 (13) 999 746 (18) na Area cropped ha 60 (18) 68 (18) 63 (19) 107 (22) 81 (32) 74 (35)Area crops irrigated ha 36 (14) 35 (13) 34 (13) 17 (40) 4 (54) 2 (84)Area non-irrigated crops ha 24 (38) 33 (33) 29 (37) 90 (23) 77 (34) 72 (36)Area pasture irrigated ha 0 0 0 23 (26) 19 (25) 14 (34)Water applied to crops/pasture ML 93 (11) 94 (15) 81 (21) 158 (32) 100 (23) 61 (39)

Receipts Beef cattle $ 2 041 (57) 1 418 (68) 1 768 (69) 11 422 (41) 14 326 (41) 13 189 (39)Dairy cattle $ 0 0 0 40 086 (18) 45 418 (24) 55 592 (34)Sheep $ 3 130 (50) 3 595 (41) 3 677 (49) 414 (99) 0 0 Wool $ 737 (65) 1 473 (72) 1 547 (72) 308 (99) 0 0 Milk $ 0 0 0 473 494 (13) 384 464 (18) 423 872 (18)Off-farm contracts $ 5 861 (51) 19 413 (39) 19 621 (38) 10 292 (46) 9 684 (85) 9 916 (85)Total crops $ 326 430 (27) 268 881 (20) 272 148 (21) 9 144 (64) 0 1 290 (94)Off-farm sharefarming $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Temporary water $ 2 465 (98) 4 618 (63) 3 112 (98) 23 954 (59) 720 (99) 0 Total cash receipts $ 350 977 (12) 326 018 (11) 303 689 (13) 586 324 (13) 477 363 (19) 505 067 (18)

Costs Hired labour $ 58 983 (19) 51 354 (14) 52 053 (14) 36 946 (25) 32 845 (29) 41 579 (28)Fertiliser $ 15 011 (13) 12 562 (16) 12 926 (16) 32 223 (25) 17 997 (26) 18 026 (25)Fodder $ 0 383 (94) 341 (94) 165 560 (14) 144 639 (16) 123 374 (19)Seed $ 7 950 (31) 8 368 (25) 8 651 (25) 5 787 (24) 3 653 (42) 3 088 (39)Crop and pasture chemicals $ 16 795 (12) 10 444 (15) 11 159 (15) 6 239 (26) 4 214 (39) 5 195 (38)Fuel, oil and grease $ 13 533 (10) 11 449 (9) 12 071 (9) 18 947 (21) 13 904 (17) 14 798 (18)Electricity $ 9 924 (11) 6 804 (13) 6 963 (14) 18 657 (16) 14 959 (25) 15 550 (26)Repairs and maintenance $ 22 071 (11) 24 985 (11) 21 755 (11) 33 856 (14) 25 787 (23) 23 187 (22)Freight $ 11 673 (21) 8 899 (14) 9 288 (14) 13 182 (24) 14 403 (42) 11 437 (34)Contracts $ 50 310 (16) 69 167 (21) 67 182 (21) 11 291 (36) 11 053 (36) 9 217 (34)Lease payments $ 1 802 (51) 1 356 (82) 1 356 (82) 492 (64) 624 (77) 624 (77)Water a $ 14 083 (28) 9 757 (30) 5 003 (24) 5 415 (34) 2 228 (46) 189 (99)Interest $ 33 562 (22) 31 765 (24) 37 483 (24) 41 838 (21) 42 734 (25) 50 426 (25)Total cash costs $ 323 325 (12) 299 281 (12) 292 394 (12) 489 305 (14) 427 308 (19) 409 482 (20)

Financial performance Farm cash income $ 27 652 (92) 26 737 (64) 11 296 (99) 97 018 (34) 50 055 (49) 95 585 (36)Farm business profit $ –30 587 (80) –28 813 (62) –45 594 (55) 24 715 (99) –45 722 (69) –4 185 (99)Total farm debt at 1 July $ 419 632 (22) 451 723 (23) na 527 061 (23) 557 383 (25) na Total farm debt at 30 June $ 423 277 (23) 457 324 (23) na 528 352 (22) 589 813 (26) na Total capital at 30 June $ 2 537 429 (10) 2 393 827 (8) na 3 472 648 (13) 3 739 692 (13) na Rate of return % 0.4 (99) 0.2 (99) –0.2 (99) 2.0 (34) 0.2 (99) 1.5 (66)



32 Irrigation characteristics, Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges region average per farm or percentage of farms

horticulture dairy

2008–09 2009–10 p 2008–09 2009–10 pOn-farm irrigation water storage Water storage capacity Farm dams ML 7 (33) 7 (24) 7 (36) 8 (37)Channels ML 0 0 0 0 Tile drains ML 0 0 0 0 Other re-use systems ML 0 0 1 (36) 1 (40)

Percentage of farms with Farm dams % 21 (25) 28 (26) 41 (27) 53 (27)Channels % 0 0 0 0 Tile drains % 0 0 0 0 Other re-use systems % 0 0 25 (34) 16 (43)

Water trading Permanent entitlements Buying % 2 (99) 1 (47) 0 0 Selling % 2 (99) 1 (95) 3 (62) 0

Entitlements sold to an environmental water purchasing program % 0 0 0 0


Irrigation management practices Measuring soil moisture using Neutron probe % 16 (28) 18 (33) 0 0 Capacitance probe % 49 (23) 36 (27) 3 (99) 3 (99)Tensiometers % 7 (64) 8 (51) 0 0 Soil auger/probe % 14 (43) 13 (38) 0 0 Heat probe % 5 (65) 4 (59) 0 0 Own observations % 99 (1) 97 (2) 97 (2) 100 Other % 9 (70) 14 (53) 12 (18) 6 (46)

Farmers’ intentions Plans for permanent entitlements Sell some permanent entitlements % 21 (56) 6 (69) 16 (50) 10 (77)Sell all permanent entitlements % 5 (83) 2 (99) 0 0 No change % 74 (17) 78 (12) 73 (12) 78 (14)Other % 0 0 11 (42) 5 (99)

Intended changes in next three years Expand area irrigated % 2 (99) 1 (56) 5 (99) 6 (92)Reduce area irrigated % 5 (83) 6 (79) 3 (62) 0 Buy more temporary water % 1 (75) 1 (47) 0 0 Sell more temporary water % 0 2 (99) 3 (99) 9 (81)Increase on-farm water storage % 0 0 0 0 Install water re-use system % 0 0 0 0 Change water application method % 0 0 0 0 Other % 1 (99) 5 (85) 27 (99) 11 (76)No change % 92 (5) 78 (12) 74 (12) 75 (15)

Plans over next three years Change into dryland agriculture % 1 (99) 2 (99) 3 (62) 0 Spend more time generating non-agricultural income % 0 0 0 13 (99)Scale down agricultural activities % 22 (46) 0 22 (59) 6 (51)Retire/sell farm % 21 (45) 18 (37) 5 (77) 5 (99)No change % 56 (21) 81 (8) 60 (22) 77 (19)



appendix

64

BThe ABARES survey was designed to collect information from broadacre (including rice and cotton), dairy and horticulture irrigation farms within 10 regions throughout the Murray–Darling Basin (map 12). These survey regions cover the major irrigation regions in the basin and are based on those defined by the CSIRO in its Sustainable Yields Project (CSIRO 2007).

The regions are: Condamine–Balonne, Border Rivers, Namoi, Macquarie–Castlereagh, Lachlan, Murrumbidgee, Murray, Goulburn–Broken, Loddon–Avoca, and Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges. The Murray region includes parts of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. Not all CSIRO regions were covered by the survey because of relatively small numbers of irrigation farms in those regions.

ABARES field officers conducted the irrigation surveys using face-to-face interviews between February and May 2011. The farm financial and physical information collected included land area and value; crop and livestock production and sales; irrigation water use by crop type and pasture; irrigation water application methods, farm receipts and costs; labour use; debts and assets; and market values of farm capital.

The survey also included questions on types of water licences held, participation in water trading, types of irrigation infrastructure, basis for irrigation scheduling decisions, and future intentions.

While every effort was made to interview the same farms in most years, this was not possible in all regions and industries. In some cases, changes in the composition of the sample have resulted in relatively large differences in estimates between years. Relative standard errors (RSEs) can be used to provide an indication of whether changes in the estimates are statistically significant or not (refer to following sections for further information on RSEs).

Target populationsABARES surveys are designed and samples selected from a frame (population list) drawn from the Australian Business Register, which is maintained by the ABS. This framework includes agricultural establishments (that is, farms) classified by size of operation and industry in each statistical local area.

To be eligible for this survey, farms had to have engaged in irrigated agricultural activities during 2009–10, had to have an estimated value of agricultural operations of $40 000 or more, and had to be defined as broadacre, dairy or horticulture industry farms.

Survey methodology and definitions



Condamine–Balonne

Border Rivers

Namoi

Macquarie–Castlereagh

Lachlan

Murrumbidgee

Goulburn–Broken

Loddon–Avoca

Murray

Eastern Mt Lofty Ranges

map Reporting regions12



The industry definitions used in this report are based on the 2006 Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification (ANZSIC). This classification is consistent with an international standard and permits comparisons between industries, both within Australia and internationally. Farms assigned to a particular ANZSIC class have a high proportion of their total output characterised by that class (for more information, refer to ABS & Statistics New Zealand 2006).

The ANZSIC industry classes and codes associated with the broadacre, dairy and horticulture categories used for this study were as follows:

Survey designThe farm population to be surveyed was stratified by operation size using the estimated value of agricultural operation (EVAO). The size of each stratum was determined using the Dalenius–Hodges method (Lehtonen & Pahkinen 2004). The sample allocation to each stratum was done using a mixture of the Neyman allocation, which takes into account variability within strata of the auxiliary variable, in this case EVAO, and proportional allocation, which only considers the population number in each stratum. The Neyman allocation allocates large proportions of sample to strata with large variability—in the case of this survey, strata of larger farms (Lehtonen & Pahkinen 2004).

Sample weightingFarm-level estimates published by ABARES are calculated by appropriately weighting the data collected from each sample farm and then using the weighted data to calculate population estimates. Sample weights are calculated so that population estimates from the sample for numbers of farms, areas of crops and numbers of livestock correspond as closely as possible to the most recently available ABS estimates from Agricultural Census and Surveys data. The weighting methodology uses a model-based approach, with a linear regression model linking the survey variables and the estimation benchmark variables. The details of this method are described in Bardsley & Chambers (1984).

Broadacre Sheep farming ANZSIC code 0141 Beef cattle farming ANZSIC code 0142 Sheep–beef cattle farming ANZSIC code 0144 Grain–sheep and grain–beef cattle farming ANZSIC code 0145 Rice growing ANZSIC code 0146 Other grain growing ANZSIC code 0149 Cotton growing ANZSIC code 0152

Dairy Dairy cattle farming ANZSIC code 0160

Horticulture Vegetable growing (under cover) ANZSIC code 0122 Vegetable growing (outdoors) ANZSIC code 0123 Grape growing ANZSIC code 0131 Apple and pear growing ANZSIC code 0134 Stone fruit growing ANZSIC code 0135 Citrus fruit growing ANZSIC code 0136 Other fruit and tree nut growing ANZSIC code 0139



Generally, larger farms have smaller weights and smaller farms have larger weights, reflecting both the strategy of sampling a higher fraction of large farms than small farms (the former having a wider range of variability of key characteristics and accounting for a much larger proportion of total output) and the relatively lower numbers of large farms.

Preliminary estimates and projectionsPreliminary and projection estimates of farm financial performance are produced within a few weeks of the completion of survey collections. However, these may be updated several times at later dates. These subsequent versions will be more accurate, as they will be based on upgraded information and slightly more accurate input datasets.

The 2009–10 estimates are preliminary, based on full production and accounting information from farmers. However, these estimates are likely to change as further editing of sample farms is undertaken.

The 2010–11 estimates are projections based on data collected at the time of interview over the period February to May 2011. Projected estimates include crop and livestock production, receipts and expenditure up to the date of interview together with expected production, receipts and expenditure for the remainder of the projection year. Projection estimates are subject to greater uncertainty than preliminary and final estimates.

Reliability of estimatesThe reliability of the estimates of population characteristics presented in this report depends on the design of the sample and the accuracy of the measurement of characteristics for the individual sample farms.

Sampling errorsOnly a subset of farms out of the total number of farms in a particular industry and region is surveyed. The data collected from each sample farm are weighted to calculate population estimates. Estimates derived from these farms are likely to be different from those that would have been obtained if information had been collected from a census of all farms. Any such differences are called sampling errors.

The size of the sampling error is most influenced by the survey design and the estimation procedures, as well as the sample size and the variability of farms in the population. The larger the sample size, the lower the sampling error is likely to be. Hence, national estimates are likely to have lower sampling errors than industry and regional estimates.

To give a guide to the reliability of the survey estimates, sampling errors have been calculated for all estimates in this report. These estimated errors, expressed as percentages of the survey estimates and termed relative standard errors (RSEs) are given next to each estimate in parentheses.



Calculating confidence intervals using relative standard errorsRSEs can be used to calculate confidence intervals that give an indication of how close the actual population value is likely to be to the survey estimate.

The standard error is obtained by multiplying the RSE by the survey estimate and dividing by 100. For example, if average total cash receipts are estimated to be $100 000, with a RSE of 6 per cent, the standard error for this estimate is $6000. One standard error = $6000 and two standard errors = $12 000.

For a 66 per cent confidence interval, there is roughly a two in three chance that the census value (the value that would have been obtained if all farms in the target population had been surveyed) is within one standard error of the survey estimate. This range of one standard error is described as the 66 per cent confidence interval. In this example, there is an approximately two in three chance that the census value is between $94 000 and $106 000 ($100 000 + or – $6000).

For a 95 per cent confidence interval, there is roughly a 19 in 20 chance that the census value is within two standard errors of the survey estimate (the 95 per cent confidence interval). In this example, there is an approximately 19 in 20 chance that the census value lies between $88 000 and $112 000 ($100 000 + or – $12 000).

Comparing estimatesWhen comparing estimates between two groups, it is important to recognise that the differences are also subject to sampling error. As a rule of thumb, a conservative estimate (an overestimate) of the standard error of the difference can be constructed by adding the squares of the estimated standard errors of the component estimates and taking the square root of the result.

For example, suppose the estimates of farm cash income are $139 210 for farms in New South Wales and $162 020 for farms in Queensland, with the RSEs being 33 per cent and 26 per cent, respectively. The difference between these two estimates is $22 810. The standard error of the difference can be estimated as:

(33 x $139 210 / 100)2 + (26 x $162 020 / 100)2 = $62 330

A 95 per cent confidence interval for the difference is:

$22 810 ± 1.96 x $62 330 = (–$99 357, $144 977)

Hence, if 100 different samples are taken, in 95 of them the difference between these two estimates is between –$99 357 and $144 977.



Definitions of itemsOwner manager: The primary decision-maker for the farm business. This person is usually responsible for the day-to-day operation of the farm and may own or have a share in the farm business. Termed ‘operator’ or ‘co-operator’ in previous ABARES publications.

Total area operated: Includes all land operated by the farm business, whether owned or rented by the business, but excludes land sharefarmed on another farm.

Labour: Measured in work-weeks, as estimated by the owner manager or manager. It includes all work on the farm by the owner manager, partners, family, hired permanent and casual workers, and sharefarmers but excludes work by contractors.

Hired labour: Excludes the farm business manager, partners and family labour, and work by contractors. Expenditure on contract services appears as a cash cost.

Beef cattle: Cattle kept primarily for the production of meat, irrespective of breed.

Dairy cattle: Cattle kept or intended mainly for the production of milk or cream, irrespective of breed.

Capital: The value of farm capital is the value of all the assets used on a farm, including the value of leased items but excluding machinery and equipment either hired or used by contractors. The value of ‘owned’ capital is the value of farm capital excluding the value of leased machinery and equipment.

ABARES uses the owner manager’s valuation of the farm property. The valuation includes the value of land and fixed improvements used by each farm business in the survey, excluding land sharefarmed off the sample farm. Residences on the farm are included in the valuations.

Livestock are valued at estimated market prices for the land use zones within each state. These values are based on recorded sales and purchases by sample farms.

Before 2001–02, ABARES maintained an inventory of plant and machinery for each sample farm. Individual items were valued at replacement cost, depreciated for age. Each year, the replacement cost was indexed to allow for changes in that cost.

Since 2001–02, total value of plant and machinery has been based on market valuations provided by the owner manager for broad categories of capital such as tractors, vehicles, irrigation plant, etc.

The total value of items purchased or sold during the survey year was added to or subtracted from farm capital at 31 December of the relevant financial year, irrespective of the actual date of purchase or sale.



Farm business debt: Estimated as all debts attributable to the farm business, but excluding personal debt, lease financed debt and underwritten loans including harvest loans.

Change in debt: Estimated as the difference between debt at 1 July and the following 30 June within the survey year, rather than between debt at 30 June in consecutive years. It is an estimate of the change in indebtedness of a given population of farms during the financial year and is thus unaffected by changes in sample or population between years.

Farm liquid assets: Assets owned by the farm business that can be readily converted to cash. They include bank deposits, interest bearing deposits, debentures and shares. Excluded are items such as real estate, life assurance policies and other farms or businesses.

Receipts and costs: Receipts for livestock and livestock products sold are determined at the point of sale. Selling charges and charges for transport to the point of sale are included in the costs of sample farms.

Receipts for crops sold during the survey year are gross of deductions made by marketing authorities for freight and selling charges. These deductions are included in farm costs. Receipts for other farm products are determined on a ‘farm-gate’ basis. All cash receipt items are the revenue received in the financial year.

Farm receipts and costs relate to the whole area operated, including areas operated by on-farm sharefarmers. Thus, cash receipts include receipts from the sale of products produced by sharefarmers. If possible, on-farm sharefarmers’ costs are amalgamated with those of the sample farm. Otherwise, the total sum paid to sharefarmers is treated as a cash cost.

Some sample farm businesses engage in off-farm contracting or sharefarming, employing labour and capital equipment also used in normal on-farm activities. Since it is not possible to accurately allocate costs between off-farm and on-farm operations, the income and expenditure attributable to such off-farm operations are included in the receipts and costs of the sample farm business.

Total cash receipts: Total of revenues received by the farm business during the financial year, including revenues from the sale of livestock, livestock products and crops, plus the value of livestock transfers off a property. It includes revenue received from agistment, royalties, rebates, refunds, plant hire, contracts, sharefarming, insurance claims and compensation, and government assistance payments to the farm business.

Total cash costs: Payments made by the farm business for materials and services and for permanent and casual hired labour (excluding owner manager, partner and other family labour). It includes the value of livestock transfers onto the property as well as any lease payments on capital, produce purchased for resale, rent, interest, livestock purchases and payments to sharefarmers. Capital and household expenditures are excluded from total cash costs.

Handling and marketing expenses include commission, yard dues and levies for farm produce sold.



Administration costs include accountancy fees, banking and legal expenses, postage, stationery, subscriptions and telephone.

Contracts paid refer to expenditure on contracts such as harvesting. Capital and land development contracts are not included.

Other cash costs include stores and rations, seed purchased, electricity, artificial insemination and herd testing fees, advisory services, motor vehicle expenses, travelling expenses and insurance. While ‘other cash costs’ may comprise a relatively large proportion of total cash costs, individually the components are relatively small overall, and as such, have not been listed.

Farm cash income: The difference between total cash receipts and total cash costs.

Build-up in trading stocks: The closing value of all changes in the inventories of trading stocks during the financial year. It includes the value of any change in herd or flock size or in stocks of wool, fruit and grains held on the farm. It is negative if inventories are run down.

Depreciation of farm improvements, plant and equipment: Estimated by the diminishing value method, based on the replacement cost and age of each item. The rates applied are the standard rates allowed by the Commissioner of Taxation. For items purchased or sold during the financial year, depreciation is assessed as if the transaction had taken place at the midpoint of the year. Calculation of farm business profit does not account for depreciation on items subject to a finance lease because cash costs already include finance lease payments.

Imputed labour cost: Payments for owner manager and family labour may bear little relationship to the actual work input. An estimate of the labour input of the owner manager, partners and their families is calculated in work-weeks and a value is imputed at the relevant Federal Pastoral Industry Award rates.

Farm business profit: Farm cash income plus build-up in trading stocks, less depreciation and the imputed value of the owner manager, partners and family labour.

Profit at full equity: Farm business profit, plus rent, interest and finance lease payments, less depreciation on leased items. It is the return produced by all the resources used in the farm business.

Rates of return: Calculated by expressing profit at full equity as a percentage of total opening capital. Rate of return represents the ability of the business to generate a return to all capital used by the business, including that which is borrowed or leased. The following rates of return are estimated:

• rate of return excluding capital appreciation• rate of return including capital appreciation.



Farm business equity: The value of owned capital, less farm business debt at 30 June. The estimate is based on those sample farms for which complete data on farm debt are available.

Farm equity ratio: Calculated as farm business equity as a percentage of owned capital at 30 June.

Off-farm income: Collected for the owner manager and spouse only, including income from wages, other businesses, investment, government assistance to the farm household and social welfare payments.


References

ABARES (Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences) 2011, Australian commodities, vol. 18, no. 2, Canberra, June quarter.

Ashton, D & Oliver, M 2011, An economic survey of irrigation farms in the Murray–Darling Basin: industry overview and region profiles, 2008–09, ABARES research report 11.02, Canberra, April.

ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2011, Water use on Australian farms 2009–10, cat. no. 4618.0, Canberra, May.

—— & Statistics New Zealand 2006, Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification 2006—ANZSIC, cat. no. 1292.0, Canberra.

Bardsley, P & Chambers, R 1984, ‘Multipurpose estimation from unbalanced samples’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, series C (applied statistics), vol. 33, pp. 290–99.

CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) 2007, Overview of project methods: a report to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Murray–Darling Basin sustainable yields project, Canberra, September.

Lehtonen, R & Pahkinen, E 2004, Practical methods for design and analysis of complex surveys, 2nd edn, John Wiley and Sons Finland.

MDBA (Murray–Darling Basin Authority) 2011, Water audit monitoring report 2009–10, Canberra, April.

—— 2010, Water audit monitoring report 2008–09, Canberra, April.

—— 2009, Water audit monitoring report 2007–08, Canberra, June.

MDBC (Murray–Darling Basin Commission) 2008, Water audit monitoring report 2006–07, Canberra, June.

—— 2007, Water audit monitoring report 2005–06, Canberra, June.


ReseaRch funding ABARES relies on financial support from external organ isations to complete its research program. As at the date of this publication, the following organisations had provided financial support for Bureau research in 2009–10 and 2010–11. We gratefully acknowledge this assistance.

AusAID

Australia Indonesia Governance Research Partnership (ANU)

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission

Australian Fisheries Management Authority

Australian Government Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research

Australian Government Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency

Australian Government Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism

Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population & Communities

Australian Government Department of the Treasury

Australian National University

Cooperative Research Centre for National Plant Biosecurity

CSIRO

Dairy Australia

Department of Primary Industries, parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania

Ensis (joint venture between the CSIRO (Aust) and Scion (NZ))

Environment ACT

Environmental Hydrology Associates

Fisheries Research & Development Corporation

Food Standards Australia New Zealand

Forest & Wood Products Australia

Goulburn-Murray Water

Grains Research & Development Corporation

Grape & Wine Research & Development Corporation

Horticulture Australia Limited

Industry & Investment NSW

Inovact Consulting Pty Ltd

Korea Rural Economics Institute

Meat & Livestock Australia

Murray–Darling Basin Authority

National Water Commission

New Zealand Institute of Veterinary, Animal & Biomedical Sciences

Peel Harvey Catchment Council

Plant Health Australia

Queensland Competition Authority

Queensland Department of Employment, Economic Development & Innovation

Rural Industries Research & Development Corporation

Sinclair Knight Mertz

South Australian Research & Development Institute

Southern Cross University

University of Melbourne

Documents

An economic survey of irrigation farms in the Murray–Darling …data.daff.gov.au/.../RR12.02_IrrigOverviewMDB.pdf · 2012. 1. 17. · An economic survey of irrigation farms in the