healthy soils, healthy landscapes -...

C O N S E R VAT I O N A C T I O N U N I T

Healthy Soils, Healthy Landscapes Year 3 – End of project report Murrumbidgee CMA Project BG_22_04

Brett Upjohn

Project Manager Healthy Soils, Healthy Landscapes Queanbeyan Susan Orgill

Project Officer Healthy Soils, Healthy Landscapes Queanbeyan

Title: Healthy Soils, Healthy Landscapes: year 3 – End of project report

Authors: Brett Upjohn, Senior Manager, NRM Projects, Queanbeyan

Susan Orgill, Project Officer, HSHL, Queanbeyan

Published by NSW Department of Primary Industries © State of New South Wales

This publication is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in an unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal use or for non-commercial use within your organisation. To copy, adapt, publish, distribute or commercialise any of this publication you will need to seek permission from the Manager Publishing, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Orange, NSW.

For updates to this publication, check http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/

First Published July 2008

Disclaimer The information contained in this publication is based on knowledge and understanding at the time of writing (June 2008). However, because of advances in knowledge, users are reminded of the need to ensure that information on which they rely is up to date and to check the currency of the information with the appropriate officer of New South Wales Department of Primary Industries or the user’s independent advisor.

TRIM reference:

HEALTHY SOILS, HEALTHY LANDSCAPES YEAR 3 3

CONTENTS

Executive summary _______________________________________________________ 4

Introduction _____________________________________________________________ 5

Area of coverage _________________________________________________________ 5

Landholder participation and demographics __________________________________ 7

Healthy Soils, Healthy Landscapes Project workshops __________________________ 11

Soil testing and mapping___________________________________________________ 13

Monitoring and evaluation _________________________________________________ 15

Evaluation of project activity 16

Measuring learning outcomes 17

Measuring knowledge change 19

Measuring participant reaction to the project 21

Improvements undertaken _________________________________________________ 25

Comprehensive soil data ___________________________________________________ 27

Recommendations from Healthy Soils, Healthy Landscapes Project_______________ 35

Evaluating the effectiveness of communication ________________________________ 37

Project management committee_____________________________________________ 39

Conclusion ______________________________________________________________ 40

Future directions _________________________________________________________ 42


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Healthy Soils, Healthy Landscapes Project (Murrumbidgee CMA Project BG_22_04) has met its contracted milestones on time, effectively and on budget for the three years of operation. NSW DPI has delivered the project to over 1200 landholders from the Lachlan, Murray, ACT and Murrumbidgee catchments. The project has achieved all agreed outputs and outcomes to improve the skills and knowledge of landholder participants.

The project has presented four half-day workshops to 86 groups, involving 1240 landholders. The project has recorded and mapped soil data for over 5190 paddocks sampled through the Project. These records have been added to the NSW SALIS (Soil and Land Information System) database and will contribute to the information used by land managers and policy makers to improve natural resource management outcomes in future years.

The Healthy Soils, Healthy Landscapes Project was positively received by landholders, with expressions of interest to participate oversubscribed throughout the course of the Project. Landholders regularly conveyed their enthusiasm for the workshop content and mode of delivery and confidence in the Project Officers responsible for workshop presentation. The Project benefited from effective partnerships between CMA officers and the Project team. The Project utilised NSW DPI technical and extension expertise to increase learning outcomes, specifically through partnerships with extension (District Agronomists and Extension Specialists), technical (Soil Scientists, Soil Chemists) and clerical staff. Working relationships were established with other agencies and organisations including CSIRO, LWA, DECC, Victorian DPI, Ag N Vet and Landmark. Project Officers researched issues and used their expertise to assist other NSW DPI staff in problem-solving, examining and utilising data and joint training initiatives.

Through a comprehensive evaluation process, the Project demonstrated success in the major goal of achieving high level learning outcomes for landholders in a range of soil health topics. The Project exceeded agreed landholder learning goals (workshop learning outcomes) for all workshops, with landholders meeting between 77% and 93% of all learning outcomes over three years of operation. Similarly, evaluation of landholder knowledge change over the workshop period has indicated that understanding of specific soil health issues has improved from an average of 43% pre-workshop to an average of 85% post-workshop over the three years.

The Project Manager presents this End of Project Report with the confidence that the Healthy Soils, Healthy Landscapes Project has successfully met all of its contractual obligations for the three years of operation.

Senior Manager, NRM Projects, Project Manager, Healthy Soils, Healthy Landscapes Project

NSW DPI, Queanbeyan


INTRODUCTION

The Healthy Soils, Healthy Landscapes (HSHL) Project (Murrumbidgee CMA Project BG22_04) began on the 1st of April 2005. The project was jointly funded by the Australian and NSW State Governments through the National Heritage Trust, and was awarded to the Murrumbidgee Catchment Management Authority to deliver. The contract for delivery of the project was advertised by open tender by the Murrumbidgee CMA and was awarded to NSW Department of Primary Industries.

This document reports on the final year of the Project in which; Karl Andersson, David Waters, Colin McMaster and Susan Orgill delivered workshops across the Project area and achieved the final objectives of the Healthy Soils, Healthy Landscapes Project.. Soil records were submitted to NSW DNR SALIS database. This document also presents an overview of the data that was collected throughout the course of the Project, summarises the major outcomes of the Project and identifies possible directions for future funding.

AREA OF COVERAGE

The HSHL Project operated in an area that included the whole of the Murray catchment (NSW), the upper and mid Lachlan catchment, the ACT and the lower Murrumbidgee catchment. The project area and workshop locations are shown in Map 1. There is a wide diversity of agricultural landuse across the project area, including grazing (the predominant activity), dryland and irrigated cropping (including cereal and oilseed production and haymaking) and a number of horticultural activities (such as viticulture, fruit orchards, olives and vegetables). Importantly, there is also a huge variation in landscape, with differences in soil type, altitude, rainfall and the physical and chemical characteristics of soil. The variation between landscapes and soils has been addressed through the provision of regionally-based workshop material, relating directly to the specific farming area in which each workshop is delivered.

Plate 1: Workshop participant assessing soil structure on his property in the Murrumbidgee Catchment, 2007.


Map 1: HSHL Project area and workshop locations


LANDHOLDER PARTICIPATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS

The method of engaging landholders with the Project is outlined in the communication strategy. Initially, landholders were approached either through existing groups that were already identified and cohesive as a result of prior group activity such as Prograze or Landcare; or through the ‘expression of interest’ process initiated through publicity and Project Officer activity. Community Support Officers, District Agronomists and Agribusiness played an important role in advertising the Project to clients and their support is acknowledged.

Group details from the Projects operational three years are presented in Table 1:

a) Lachlan CMA

b) ACT- Upper Murrumbidgee CMA

c) Lower Murrumbidgee CMA

d) Murray CMA

“A good course helping me to understand soil tests and remedies needed.” HSHL participant after the final workshop.

Plate 2: Workshop participants in the Murrumbidgee Catchment discuss soil profiles in session 1.


Table 1a. HSHL landholder groups- Lachlan CMA

Lachlan CMA

Group Name

Landholders participated

Paddocks sampled

Back Yamma 20 90 Bedgerabong 11 59 Bigga 1 11 38 Bigga 2 9 35 Bimbi 18 73 Blayney 8 16 Bogan gate 12 93 Boorowa 12 69 Breadalbane Landcare 12 37 Bumbaldry 5 16 Canowindra 21 89 Condo 1 7 26 Condo Landcare 7 21 Condo south 10 64 Cookamidgera 13 51 Cudal 22 113 Dairy group 18 87 Forbes/Wirrinya 20 63 Fullerton 25 91 Goologong 22 92 Grenfell top crop 18 81 Hovel’s creek 9 57 Jerrawa 21 89 Murringo 13 66 Luck Now Landscan 7 59 Reedy Ck 12 82 Tumbleton 15 76 West Wyalong 15 77

Lachlan CMA Participant Total 393 1810

Table 1b. HSHL landholder groups- Upper Murrumbidgee CMA: ACT

Murrumbidgee CMA

Group Name


Paddocks sampled

ACT1 21 80 ACT2 12 2 Mugga 2 12 2 Upper Murrumbidgee CMA: ACT Total 45 84


Table 1c. HSHL landholder groups- Mid and Lower Murrumbidgee CMA

Murrumbidgee CMA

Group Name


Paddocks sampled

Alma Park 16 83 Ardlethan 11 29 Ariah Park 1 19 72 Ariah Park 2 14 64 Ariah Park 3 13 50 Burkes Ck 22 76 Coolamon 17 58 Coree 10 40 Euroley-Gill LC 8 38 Galore 15 56 Gogeldrie 19 81 Grong Grong 18 58 Hay 1 12 36 Henty 1 12 62 Henty- Yerong Ck 14 56 Mangoplah 14 48 Methul 13 44 Morundah 22 78 Old Junee 17 54 Pleasant Hills 14 50 Rand 1 11 42 Rankin Springs 16 70 Rannock 9 30 Wethalle 17 71 Winchendon Vale 17 54

Murrumbidgee CMA Total 370 1400

Table 1d. HSHL landholder groups- Murray CMA

Murray CMA Group Name

Landholders Finished

workshops

Paddocks sampled

Boomanoomana 11 64 Bowna-Wymah 15 50 Brocklesby 10 50 Bullateel 12 48 Bunnaloo 1 16 60 Bunnaloo 2 16 85 Deniliquin 15 72 Deniliquin 2 26 100 Finley 2 10 52 Finley1 16 79 Glen Mannus 10 46 Hay 1 12 36 Holbrook 1 13 55 Holbrook 2 9 40 Holbrook 3 10 44 Holbrook4 18 75 Jindera 18 84 Khancoban 24 100


Lockhart 11 69 Mathura 16 94 Mayrung 22 102 Milbrulong 11 49 Mullengandra 12 37 Sandigo 15 53 Savernake 8 62 Speewa 13 37 Table Top 15 43 Tumbarumba 1 21 130 Wakool 1 12 41 Walla Walla 15 47

Murray Total Participants 432 1904

Table 2. Participant milestone at the completion of the Project

From the project survey database, for the 3rd year of the Project participant’s gender is recorded as: male 83% (1st yr 77% and 2nd yr 82%) and female: 17% (1st yr 23% and 2nd yr 18%). The proportions of age groupings are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. HSHL landholder age split

Age grouping Year 1 % Year 2 % Year 3 %

<30 5 14 16

31-40 32 19 20

41-50 35 25 26

51-60 15 25 23

>61 13 17 15

Total 100 100 100

Milestone Participants Paddock Tests 3 year project target 1200 4500 Last annual report (end of 2nd year)

952 4058

3rd year (end of Project) 288 1140 Total 1240 5198


HEALTHY SOILS, HEALTHY LANDSCAPES PROJECT WORKSHOPS

This project was developed with the aim of delivering a four-part workshop series. The workshops were based on existing Landscan and previously-used Acid Soils Action Program course material. This material, originally developed primarily to suit grazing enterprises, was modified to meet the needs of extensive dryland and irrigated cropping farmers. Workshops were delivered using a combination of structured presentations, practical tasks and paddock walks. They were designed to appeal to a range of learning styles, thereby encouraging participation and engagement. Each workshop built on the previous one, developing a comprehensive set of skills and tools for landholders to use in the future sustainable management of soils on their farms.

The workshops were structured so that at the completion of the series, participants are able to:

Understand and recognise the limitations of landscapes and suitability of soils in relation to enterprises and farming activity;

Take representative soil samples and record locations using GPS; Recognise soil structure and different textures; Interpret soil test results; Determine and understand appropriate management practices relating to soils on their

farms; and Minimise the possibility of adverse environmental outcomes by understanding

appropriate best management practices relating to soil health and utilising them on farm.

The workshop manual provides hard copy notes that form the basis of the best management practices (BMPs) appropriate to the group members farms. A significant feature of Workshop 4 was the opportunity for landholders to work through their soil test results and paddock records with a NSW DPI District Agronomist, in order to develop individual programs for improving soil health. Participants were given significant written material outlining BMPs for soil management, including specially-prepared material relating to soil test interpretation, Agfacts and booklets. In the Lachlan catchment, Soil Pak manuals were also given to landholders.

The project team recognised that workshops are also an important social activity for participants, who often live and work in isolated locations. Project Officers provided morning/afternoon tea, as well as breakfast, lunch or dinner for most workshops. Workshop times and locations were chosen by the group members to ensure convenience. Depending on participants needs, workshops were occasionally held at night and sometimes on weekends.

Throughout the Project, workshops and training materials were modified to reflect Project Officers’ improved understanding of local soil characteristics, farming conditions and client needs. This was gained from data collected in the soils database, the monitoring and evaluation program and from interaction with District Agronomists, CMA staff and landholders.

This constant revision resulted in significant differences between training materials for the cropping and grazing farming systems. Materials for the Lachlan catchment and the Murray and Murrumbidgee cropping areas accounted for differences in farming practices, crops, landscapes and soils. Soil pits were also introduced to soil workshop groups, with


the aim of improving understanding of soil horizons and profiles. Soil pits were enthusiastically embraced by participants as being an extremely worthwhile learning tool.

The measurement of skill and knowledge improvement on the part of landholders through participation in the workshop series is discussed in the monitoring and evaluation section of this report.

“The soil pits in particular give a better insight into plant root penetration and compaction and direction of roots.” HSHL participant after workshop 2 Year 3.

Plate 3: Project Officer Karl Andersson discussing soil profiles with a Healthy Soils, Healthy Landscape group in the Murray Catchment.

“Soil pit was extremely interesting. Made a lot of shed explanations much clearer.” HSHL participant after workshop 2 Year 3.


SOIL TESTING AND MAPPING

Soil tests were taken from 5198 paddocks throughout the course of the Project (see Map 2). Due to the dry conditions, soil corers were redesigned several times to improve their tolerance of the hard ground and the force required to sample down to 20 cm.

The soil test data collected from the project has been made available for loading into SALIS. By entering the project data into SALIS, landholders and the Murrumbidgee CMA will be able to access data points using SPADE (Soil Profile Attribute Data Environment). Currently, over 8000 soil data sets have been delivered to SALIS.

Several additional soil test parameters were added to the initial suite of standard tests, in response to Project Officer requests for more comprehensive and targeted testing.

“Very useful in increasing my understanding of our soil types.” HSHL participant after soil sampling and soil test interpretation.

Plate 4: Workshop participants soil sampling their property near Junee 2007.


Map2: HSHL Project area and sample locations


MONITORING AND EVALUATION

The monitoring and evaluation strategy used for this project included two aspects:

1. Monitoring and reporting on the level of project activity and 2. Evaluating the effectiveness of project activity in terms of improved knowledge of

participants and implementation of BMPs.

The overall aim of the strategy was to present meaningful and accessible information to stakeholders, regarding the success (or failure) of the Project in terms of measurable increases in participant knowledge and suggest ways in which the Project might be improved to benefit any similar future activity undertaken in the catchment. Major objectives of the monitoring strategy included:

1) Ensuring that participants and stakeholders were informed of progress and activities

2) Keeping funding bodies aware of progress (through quarterly and final reports)

3) Informing the Project Management Committee and Project staff of participant progress and milestone activity and

4) Providing information to improve project planning and resource allocation.

The methodology utilised for monitoring project activity can be summarised as follows:

Workshop locations were recorded and mapped (see Map 1). Workshop participant numbers were recorded (see Table 1). Pre-workshop surveys were used to collect basic demographic data, property size and

proportion of cropping and/or grazing. Workshop resource use was recorded, including an estimate of effective full-time

equivalents (EFTEs), to determine in-kind support provided by NSW DPI staff in delivering workshops and providing technical advice (see Table 4).

Soil test data from workshop activities was recorded in a soils database (see Map 2).

Plate 5: Project Officer David Waters discussing soil structure with a Healthy Soils, Healthy Landscape group in Murray Catchment.


Table 4: In-kind support provided by NSW DPI staff in delivering workshops and providing technical advice.

EVALUATION OF PROJECT ACTIVITY

A major function of the workshop series was to provide landholders with the skills and knowledge to ensure that their soils would be better managed. This included aiding landholders in recognising and understanding the appropriate BMPs for their soils and agricultural activity, as well as giving them the skills to use soil test data to make better decisions in the future. Evaluation of the workshops success in these terms proved to be very complex and involved the use of four surveys. The surveys went through several improvements (Version 6 the latest), to extract more meaningful data and reduce complexity.

Position Activity Time (EFT)

Project Manager Project administration Attendance at workshops Organise training Staff supervision Meetings with CMA staff Meetings with agribusiness Management Committee meetings Liaison with DPI senior management re project Review of workshop materials

0.3 EFT

Manager, Pasture Advisory Services DPI

Meeting with CMA staff Supervision of PL Admin tasks

0.05 EFT

Project Leader Clerical support

Invoices Payments Purchasing

0.2 EFT

District Agronomists As (there were 15 DAs involved with groups)

Attend workshops Review soil test data Recommend appropriate BMPs Organise groups for POs Advise re workshop notes

1.5 EFT

DPI Administration Payroll, SAP, Q Fleet, TAPS, P Card, phone, accounts etc. 0.3 EFT

Graphical Information Systems support

Mapping 0.05 EFT

TOTAL 2.4 EFT


MEASURING LEARNING OUTCOMES

The Project Manager and the Murrumbidgee CMA negotiated a range of proposals to assess landholder improvements in knowledge. The agreed set of learning outcomes relating to workshop activity is listed in Table 5. To reach the agreed project learning outcome milestone, 65% of landholders must have achieved all these learning outcomes. Table 6 shows the percentage of achieved learning outcomes, averaged across participants in the Project over the three years of operation.

Table 5: Workshop outcomes to be achieved by HSHL Project participants

Workshop 1 learning outcomes Workshop 2 learning outcomes

Understand the influence of landscape on soils – geology of soils. Understand indicators of land capability and limitations on activity. Understand representative sampling techniques and selection of core sites. Understand how to use corer, aggregate samples and label sample bags. Recognise land capability and landscape impacts: aspect, topography, geology and soils, vegetation and human influences. Recognise best places in paddock to take soil samples and use corer for sampling. Understand how to use GPS reader to record location of paddock.

Recognise soil profiles and horizons and understand characteristics of common soil types. Understand soil particle size and its relation to texture. Understand common texture assessment method and practice. Understand the effect of texture on water holding ability. Understand effect of poor soil structure on water holding capacity, infiltration and drainage and root growth. Understand how to undertake simple soil structure test and recognise well-structured soils and dispersive soils.

Workshop 3 learning outcomes Workshop 4 learning outcomes

Understand the significance of the ‘law of the minimum’. Understand common soil test parameters. Understand the effects of soil chemistry on nutrient availability. Raise awareness of biological activity in the soil.

Understand the water cycle. Recognise and understand the causes of soil acidity, salinity and nutrient leaching. Understand the role of lime as an ameliorant used to rectify top-soil acidity. Understand the effect on soil structure of tillage practices and the advantages of minimum tillage and direct drilling. Understand the role of gypsum and organic matter in maintaining and improving soil structure. Understand the benchmarks for major nutrients such as phosphorous and sulphur for plant growth. Understand how to develop nutrient programs to match product removal. Understand the effect of timing on nutrient application and minimising the risk of leaching or nutrient transfer through run-off. Have tools, skills and knowledge to develop and implement amelioration and fertility programs to maximise sustainability.

18


Table 6. Percentage of HSHL workshop learning outcomes achieved

Workshop 1 Outcomes Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr3 Workshop 3 Outcomes Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr3

Understand the influence of landscape on soils- geology of soils

89 90 89 Understand the significance of the ‘law of the minimum’ 85 83 85

Understand indicators of land capability and limitations on activity

80 81 80 Raise awareness of biological activity in the soil 77 77 80

Understand representative sampling techniques and selection of core sites

88 90 89 Understand common soil test parameters. 79 80 79

Understand how to use corer, aggregate samples and label sample bags

90 88 91 Understand the effects of soil chemistry on nutrient availability 81 81 83

Recognise land capability and landscape impacts: aspect, topography, geology and soils, vegetation human influences

82 81 81 Workshop 4 Outcomes

Landholders able to recognise best places in paddock to take soil samples and use corer for sampling.

88 87 89 Understand the water cycle and recognise and understand the causes of soil acidity, salinity and nutrient leaching.

90 89 91

Understand how to use GPS reader to record location of paddock

93 91 90 Demonstrate ability to develop amelioration and fertility plans to maximise sustainability. 90 87 89

Workshop 2 Outcomes Understand the role of lime as an ameliorant. 93 93 93

Recognise soil profiles and horizons and understand characteristics of common soil types

78 77 83 Understand tillage practices and the advantages of minimum tillage and direct drilling. 88 90 90

Understand soil particle size and its’ relation to texture. 82 84 82 Understand the role of gypsum and organic matter in relation to maintaining and improving soil structure.

84 86 87

Understand common texture assessment method and practice.

86 85 87 Understand the benchmarks for major nutrients such as Phosphorous and Sulphur for plant growth.

88 87 87

Understand effect of poor soil structure on water holding capacity, infiltration and drainage and root growth.

85 83 85 Understand how to develop nutrient programs to match product removal. 91 88 90

Understand the effect of texture on water holding ability. 86 88 88 Understand the effect of timing on nutrient application and minimising the risk of leaching or nutrient transfer through run-off.

88 90 90

Understand how to undertake simple soil structure test and recognise well-structured soils and dispersive soils.

82 84 86 Understand BMPs relating to soil management. 91 89 89

Understand the BMPs related to managing soil water including increasing perenniality, reducing leaching and managing ground cover

88 86 90


MEASURING KNOWLEDGE CHANGE

Baseline data was collected in survey 1 to enable monitoring of change over the four-workshop series. Care was taken to minimise participant unease regarding the survey design. The first survey was administered immediately after Project Officer and group introductions, when participants were not familiar with the processes involved, or each other. There were a few instances of participants demonstrating unhappiness with the survey process and very few (<5%) chose not to fill surveys out at all. The Project Officers were aware of the need to assist participants who have poor literacy or numeracy skills; although very few participants have indicated this and surveys were filled out individually.

Plate 6: Project Officer Karl Andersson discussing the chemistry of soil dispersion with a

Healthy Soils, Healthy Landscape group in the Murray Catchment 2007.

Table 7 outlines some major changes in participants knowledge between the first survey (administered prior to the first workshop) and the end of the final workshop. The columns have been aligned to demonstrate the change between the initial degree of understanding and the degree of understanding at the end of Workshop 4. The surveys included questions designed to ensure that respondent self-assessment about several key areas was accurate. These questions exposed respondents who had answered that they had knowledge of particular topics but, when questioned further on technical aspects, sometimes revealed shortcomings. Pre-workshop knowledge estimates were adjusted where these questions revealed overoptimistic responses. It is interesting to note that there is very little difference between the three years of the Project’s operation in pre-workshop knowledge.

The project recognises increases in knowledge are only part of the project goal, the other being the adoption of knowledge resulting in on-ground change.


Pre-workshop Year 1

Pre-workshop Year 2

Pre-workshop Year 3

Post-workshop Year 1

Post-workshop Year 2

Post workshop Year 3

Workshop topic used to determine knowledge level changes

No Yes No Yes No Yes No/ Unsure

Yes No/ Unsure

Yes No/ Unsure

Yes

Able to use GPS 63 37 65 35 63 37 7 93 8 92 7 92

Understand soil test results 60 40 59 41 58 40 19 81 20 80 18 82

Understand soil sampling BMPs 36 64 40 60 38 62 12 88 9 91 10 90

Understand pH tests 34 66 31 69 35 64 9 91 11 89 10 90

Confident to work out lime rates 89 11 70 30 90 9 7 93 9 91 7 92

Confident to work out fertiliser rates from soil tests 76 24 65 35 75 24 10 90 11 89 10 90

Understand soil acidity processes 44 56 45 55 46 53 20 80 18 82 20 80

Understand land capability 74 22 78 22 75 23 17 83 13 87 15 85

Recognise and name soil horizons 91 9 85 15 88 12 25 75 22 78 23 76

Identify soil texture 50 50 55 45 52 47 18 82 15 85 18 82

Understand influence of texture 42 58 46 54 43 56 15 85 15 85 14 86

Recognize soil structure 28 72 38 62 31 68 19 81 19 81 18 82

Understand compaction 23 77 35 65 32 66 15 85 13 87 15 84

Determine if gypsum is required 52 48 48 52 50 49 16 84 19 81 16 84

Understand role of organic matter 9 81 16 84 19 80 11 89 9 91 9 91

Understand causes of nutrient leaching 70 30 69 30 70 30 12 88 11 89 89 10

Confident to develop nutrient program for farm 80 20 83 17 81 18 9 91 11 89 9 91

Understand water cycle 63 37 68 32 64 35 10 90 8 92 8 92

Understand importance of timeliness in fertiliser and ameliorant appl’n 65 35 62 38 62 37 7 93 9 91 7 93

Understand benchmarks for nutrient levels appropriate to farming activity 71 29 76 24 74 26 12 88 12 88 11 89

Average scores 56 44 57 43 57 42 14 86 13 87 17 83

Table 7: Healthy Soils, Healthy Landscapes Project changes in knowledge between pre- and post- workshop surveys.


MEASURING PARTICIPANT REACTION TO THE PROJECT

A final measure of achievement for the project comes from comments made by the participants themselves, regarding their reaction to the workshops and the material presented.

The following comments were written in response to the final question in each survey, which prompts participants to respond to the workshop they have just finished, or offer suggestions for improvement.

Comments made by participants in year 3 included:

General

“Soil health is important.”

“The more we understand about soils, the better.”

“The field trip was valuable. I learned by doing!!”

“Good overview for a rank amateur such as me - very happy.”

“Excellent refresher course.

“Very informative with practical experience.”

“Full compliment for running the whole workshop programme - an important learning

exercise for all "uses" of our soils.”

“Should have done this workshop years ago.”

“I realised that there is a lot to learn. That's why I came. Really informative.”

“Good to know more about my soil.”

“Very well presented. Thank you. You are never too old to learn something new.”

“Found the whole course very inspiring and worthwhile attending.”

“This has been one of the best courses I have done.”

“20 years too late!!”

Plate 7: Project Officer Colin McMaster discussing soil structure with a Healthy Soils, Healthy Landscape group in Lachlan Catchment.


Soil physical properties

“The soil analysis in soil pits was very helpful. Also good to conduct "in the field" pH tests -

visual feedback good.”

“Really well executed and a good chance to see the soil profiles for real. Very enjoyable and

informative.”

“Workshop 2 was excellent. Soil pits/profiles were great to see what's happening under the

ground and to recognise the importance of looking under the ground (i.e. to 1.5 metres and

beyond).”

“Valuable - interesting to see soil pits and discuss various aspects and relate test work with

structural aspects.”

“Very interesting especially the soil pits. Realized that throwing inputs at soil not always the

best approach.”

“Soil pit was extremely interesting. Made a lot of shed explanations much clearer.”

“Found ground pit very interesting. Helping understand soil structure at different levels.

Learnt how to do simple soil test. Helped understand soil on my farm - dispersion.”

“Found the pits extremely interesting.”

“Pit examination and explanation very good and useful.”

“Extremely interesting workshop- would have liked to have seen more pits- they were very

informative.”

“Soil pits are a great tool for looking at your soils.”

“Good to see how farming practices have effects on soil profiles.”

“Interesting to see pits and change in soil at various depths.”

“Good to see the different types of soil perform in dispersion test. Also the texturing test on the

soils.”

“Interesting and helped in increasing understanding of soil texture in particular.”

“The soil pits in particular give a better insight into plant root penetration and compaction and

direction of roots.”

“The soil pit was useful to examine soil structure & layers, etc. The dispersion and soil

texturing were useful.”

“When I started I didn't know the first thing about soil structure. This course has given me a

glimmer of what I need to know. Excellent.”

“The soil pits were very useful in explaining soil structure, plant root development etc”

“Was good to see the soil pit / profile and see how the soils changed and the properties of the

different layers changed.”

Plate 8: Various workshop participants texturing and examining soil physical properties.


Soil chemical properties

“The workshops have allowed more focus back on soil fertility which is the 'engine room' for

profitability and also understanding land capability.”

“Helps me identify different soil types and to see what type of fertilizer I need to apply.”

“Helped me to interpret and make sense of soil tests.”

“A good course helping me to understand soil tests and remedies needed.”

“Very helpful in interpreting soil results.”

“A good mixture of input and relating it to our own soil test results. A well constructed and

delivered course. Thank you.”

“Very useful in calculating fertiliser rates for this year's crop.”

Plate 9: Farmers interpreting their soil tests (Workshop 3), Murrumbidgee Catchment 2007.

Farm management

“Yes, the more we learn, the better the result of property management and productivity.”

“Informative talks on soils; very helpful ideas and knowledge; interesting workshops which

benefit me greatly.”

“A huge influence on future production decisions. Well worth the time and effort of

instructors.”

“It was a very informative course and a lot was gained by attending it. Thank you.”

“The workshops were extremely beneficial to our enterprise. Great experience.”

“It all was very good and hope it makes me a better farmer.”

“Very informative and very handy knowledge to have learned.”

“It's been interesting and informative with a local focus which makes it useful for us.”

“Very informative, interesting and practically oriented. I'm keen to follow-up on farm”.


Workshop content, format and presenters

“Very helpful addressing individual questions.”

“Very useful. Clear explanations, willingness to explain further if necessary.”

“It assisted with re-establishing some of the knowledge gained from studies about 9years ago.”

“Illustrations with terms etc very good. Loves soils and inspires me.”

“Well taught and thorough, thanks.”

“Everything I wanted learn seems to be covered in the workshops.”

“Props made for good visual aids to understanding soil structure and physical properties.”

“Practical examples, modelling of structure/texture: very good to maintain attention.”

“Clear directions on how to conduct the tests backed up by the practical procedure.”

“Again well presented in an easy to understand manner & at a pace allowing for questions to

be answered. All round - excellent presentation.”

“Very well presented in understandable form.”

Plate 10: Assessing soil health through smell- this Healthy Soil, Healthy Landscapes participant uses the “earthy” smell to indicate the presence of Actinomycetes in the

Murrumbidgee Catchment.

Overall, landholders have responded well to the project and the information provided to them has proven to be useful. Assessment of adoption at a later time would add additional value to this project and will be required to measure the long-term benefit of the investment made in the Project by participants, NSW DPI and the CMA partners.


IMPROVEMENTS UNDERTAKEN

The workshop surveys also provided landholders with the opportunity to give feedback to the Project team about aspects that might be improved, or areas where they felt that the Project could or should have gone. This feedback was almost exclusively restricted to comments relating to extra learning, rather than offering advice on the need for improvements to the current material.

Soil pits

In the second and third years of the Project, soil pits have been included as a learning tool for all groups, in response to requests from first year participants and the Project Officers. The soil pits have proven to be exceptionally well-received by participants and are now an integral part of the workshops.

Plate 11: Workshop participants examining a soil profile, Murrumbidgee Catchment 2008.

Nitrogen

Cropping landholders were interested in more work on soil nitrogen. The project purchased nitrate (N) testing meters specifically to address this issue and Project Officers received training in their use. Project Officers used these meters in conjunction with soil pits to assess N movement down the soil profile. Additionally in response to this need, a half day nitrogen management workshop has been developed and presented to over 80 landholders in the Murrumbidgee Catchment.


Soil biology

As already highlighted, a major area in which participants were looking for more information throughout the Project was soil biology. There were several comments made about the need to help landholders improve their understanding of the effects of farming practices on soil organisms. Following is a selection of participant comments from surveys demonstrating these interests:

“Improving soil biological health.”

“Would like your assessment of 'new' soil treatment products.”

“Yes - biota? Broadacre alternatives to conventional fertilizers?”

“More knowledge on how to gauge biological health of a soil.”

“Effect of OC%, increase OC%, residue management, soil biology and micro fauna

management.”

“Want to know more about soil microbes. Chemical - response, general soil health.”

“Soil health would be a good extra workshop – good.”

“Soil carbon. Organic matter.”

“Composting.”

“Soil microbes.”

“More on soil organisms.”

“Soil biology element too small. In 'other schools' this is being increasingly recognised as

important. DPI needs to keep up. Also thought not enough recognition given to competing

theories on some areas. Thank you, it has been very useful.”

“Didn't cover soil organisms adequately. “

“Bio Ag debate!”

“Study soil biota now.”

“Perhaps a bit more time spent on soil organisms and biota.”

“Information on soil organisms was lacking. More information needed. Information

presented was only from a point of view from a chemical company or fertilizer company.”

The project team acknowledged this need and has developed a one-day soil biology workshop, which has been delivered to over 80 landholders in the Murrumbidgee Catchment.

Plate 12: Landholders investigating the life in their soils at the “Soil Life: An Introduction to Soil Biology Workshop” in Queanbeyan (left) and Yass (right) 2008.


COMPREHENSIVE SOIL DATA

A significant contribution of the Healthy Soils, Healthy Landscapes Project is the comprehensive soil data collected on-farm across the Murray, Lachlan, ACT and Murrumbidgee catchments. Interesting relationships can be seen between the soil landscape unit, rainfall and landuse. Following is a selection of maps from the Project database to provide a snap shot of the data captured. The maps detail all data for the soil characteristic stated and a brief interpretation of their results is presented.

pH (CaCl2)

The pH (CaCl2) of soil affects the availability of nutrients, microbial populations and dynamics and availability of the potentially toxic aluminium and manganese. Therefore, soil acidity influences the persistence of plant species depending on their pH tolerance and indirectly the amount of groundcover present.

Low soil pH (CaCl2) trends are dominant throughout the Project area. Moving across the Project area from east to west illustrates an increase in soil pH (see Map 3a and 3b). Acid soils generally correspond with geology (metasediments and granites) and higher rainfall zones (>600mm) where leaching has been a prevailing soil landscape process.

The main objective for sampling the 10-20cm section was to detect subsoil acidity. Lime movement into the subsoil is limited by soil structure, texture, pH, rainfall and lime quality. Incorporating lime to depth is an expensive option and therefore uneconomical in most grazing enterprises, although cropping can increase the return on this expense. This data set highlights three main generalisations:

1) Soil data in the tablelands and upper to mid slopes (>600mm rainfall zone) indicates acidity in both the top and subsoil. Management options in this area are limited in regards to increasing subsoil pH and therefore lime movement into the subsoil should be a long term initiative. Land managers in this situation should choose species tolerant of the pH conditions and reduce acidifying processes.

2) Soil data in the lower slopes and plains country (400-600mm rainfall zone, south west of Narrandera to Deniliquin) indicates acidity is mainly restricted to the topsoil. The potential exists to prevent acidity moving into the subsoil and causing permanent damage if pH management commences early. Land managers have the opportunity to topdress or incorporate lime and manage to reduce acidifying processes.

3) Soil data >6 pH (CaCl2) west of the 600mm isohyet more than likely corresponds to Calcarosols, saline soils, or areas of more intensive agriculture where liming is a regular management practice.

Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC)

The CEC indicates the soils potential to hold onto and exchange nutrients. It is calculated by the sum of the exchangeable cations: calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium and aluminium. The CEC reflects the amount of clay and organic carbon in the soil and influences the “buffering capacity” of the soil. That is, the higher the CEC the higher the


soils ability to withstand changes in soil pH, phosphorus, aluminium, sodium and magnesium levels. The buffering affect of the CEC data corresponds with the incidence of soil acidity. Soils with a lower CEC are more vulnerable to soil acidification.

CEC soil data correlates with the geology and rainfall zones of the Project area (see Map 5a and 5b). There is a general increase in CEC moving across the Project area from east to west. In the tablelands and upper and mid slopes (600-800mm rainfall zone) where grazing is the predominant enterprise topsoils are light (sandy) in texture with a probable A2 soil horizon present in the subsoil indicated by the lower trends in CEC (low clay and OC consistent with a bleached A2 horizon). The majority of soil profiles in this area are duplex, therefore it is expected that the CEC would increase substantially in the B2 horizon. A similar trend occurs across the lower slopes (500-600mm rainfall zone), however topsoil CEC’s are generally higher than those in the tablelands. With the increase in CEC dryland cropping becomes more significant. The CEC across the plains (400-500mm rainfall zone) is generally high in the top and subsoil indicating gradational or possibly uniform soil profiles.

Aluminium as a percentage of Cation Exchange Capacity (Al% CEC)

A relationship exists between soil acidity and the solubility of aluminium. In soils with a pH (CaCl2) <4.6 aluminium becomes available to plants and can affect seed germination, growth of root hairs and legume nodulation. Aluminium has to be in the soil to become available in solution and the effect on plants can be buffered by the Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) of the soil.

Plants can be negatively affected when aluminium is >5%, although plant species vary in their sensitivities. High Al% in both the top and subsoil (see Map 4a and 4b) corresponds with low pH and is mainly confined to the tablelands and upper and mid slopes (600-800mm rainfall zone). In these areas it is not uncommon for Al% to be >15. These areas are mainly grazing properties where management can be focused on either managing to reduce acidity (liming is one of these options) or utilizing tolerant species.

Organic Carbon (OC%)

Organic carbon influences the physical, chemical and biological properties of the soil. Organic carbon improves soil structure and water holding capacity, increases CEC (buffering capacity), supplies nutrients and is the energy source and habitat for soil organisms. The global benefits of increasing soil organic carbon and reducing the amount of carbon dioxide (and other Green House Gasses) in the atmosphere is widely accepted.

The amount of organic matter (and hence organic carbon) returned to the soil is determined through biomass production. Biomass production is largely influenced by rainfall, soil type, species choice and management. The amount of carbon a soil can store is influenced by the amount and possibly type of clay and the quality and quantity of net biomass returned to the soil. Land management practices greatly influence the proportion of labile carbon (the “active” fraction) stored in a soil. In particular, tillage and burning practices accelerate the loss of labile carbon to the atmosphere. Excluding the variations in soil type, grazing paddocks with perennial pastures east of the 600mm rainfall isohyet generally have higher organic carbon levels.

The Walkley-Black acid digestion method does not discriminate between the different types of carbon, however is the common method used to investigate soil organic carbon


levels. The topsoil OC% data across the Project area illustrates the expected trend of decreasing value from east to west (see Map 6a and 6b). This corresponds with a decrease in rainfall, elevation and land management with cropping practices more pertinent in the western division of the Project area. The tablelands and upper and mid slopes record the highest topsoil OC%, regularly above 1.2. In contrast, the lower slopes and plains which receive significantly less rainfall limiting biomass production have consistently lower averages of OC%. Interestingly, subsoil OC levels were more evenly distributed across the Project area.

This data highlights the need for OC% targets based on location within the catchment and for reference points of perennial pasture and unmanaged or native sites to be established to understand the soils “potential” to store carbon under those climatic conditions. Introducing perennials and tactically managing grazing may provide a significant improvement in soil carbon storage in areas where OC % is less than 1.2 or in phase farming systems where rainfall is non-seasonal.

Phosphorous (P) Colwell

Across the Project area phosphorous is generally thought to be one of the major nutrients limiting production. The availability of phosphorous is influenced by the Phosphorous Buffering Index (PBI), an index which is measured at the laboratory and influenced by the soil texture, CEC, OC, pH, Fe meq and Al meq. The PBI allows land managers to better target their P level in agricultural soils. For improved pastures the minimum requirement for P (Colwell) is 15. Increasing PBI results in an increasing P Colwell target. Attaining a level above that stated for a particular PBI category does not necessarily result in an increase in production.

Phosphorus data for the Project area indicates the division in landuse and management between grazing, phase farming and cropping (see Map 7). In the tablelands and upper slopes where grazing is the dominant enterprise, P (Colwell) is generally low (<20mg/kg). Across the mid to lower slopes, average P (Colwell) levels increase as does the incidence of phase farming systems. The cropping zone west of the 600mm isohyet demonstrates higher P (Colwell) levels most likely due to soils under an actively managed phosphorus budget.


Map 3a: Topsoil pH (CaCl) HSHL Project Area

Map 3b: Subsoil pH (CaCl) HSHL Project Area


Map 4a: Topsoil Al% (of CEC) HSHL Project Area

Map 4b: Subsoil Al% (of CEC) HSHL Project Area


Map 5a: Topsoil CEC (Cation Exchange Capacity) HSHL Project Area

Map 5b: Subsoil CEC (Cation Exchange Capacity) HSHL Project Area


Map 6a: Topsoil Organic Carbon % (OC: Walkley Black) HSHL Project Area

Map 6b: Subsoil Organic Carbon % (OC: Walkley Black) HSHL Project Area


Map 7: Topsoil Phosphorus (Colwell) HSHL Project Area


RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE HEALTHY SOILS, HEALTHY LANDSCAPES PROJECT

The following comments have been taken from surveys to indicate the general trend of suggestions for future directions.

Revision workshops

Survey responses have indicated a strong desire to have follow-up workshops to revise information extended through the HSHL Project. Following is a selection of participant comments extracted from surveys in support of a revision workshop.

“It would be nice to know the relationship and what changes happen when we add certain

products to the soil.”

‘Much of the information is practical but difficult to retain. I will need a follow up

discussion to organise certain recipes.”

“More workshops needed.”

“Quite educational - should be mandatory for all farmers to attend a similar course every

year.”

“Follow up workshops so that we can have refresher workshops.”

“Need regular revisions to remember all this stuff.”

“Perhaps a revision course in 18 months. Excellent course.”

“Maybe a follow up shorter workshop to help after 12 months of practice.”

“Good job well done. A refresher course would be good.”

“More funding to do again some time.”

“Keep these courses coming!”

“No - very good - should be more of them - invaluable tool thank you.”

Plate 13: Workshop participants on their property in the Murrumbidgee Catchment 2008.


Interpretation and extension of local soil data for all stakeholders including landholders, DPI, CMA and agribusiness

The Healthy Soils, Healthy Landscapes database represents a significant resource to land management stakeholders in the Murray, Lachlan, ACT and Murrumbidgee CMA areas. Interpretation of the soil data that has been captured will provide information on local soil health baseline and benchmarks, relationships between different soil characteristics and could assist future project directions. It is anticipated that the information will be collated into land management and soil type units, interpreted and extended to the relevant advisory staff.

Project Officers reflection on the success of the Project and suggestions for possible improvements

The following comments have been summarised from Project Officers reports on their reflections of the Project.

Strengths

• Participants increased their knowledge of local soil types and capabilities, confidence interpreting soil test data, appreciation of the importance of soil organic carbon, awareness of the expression, management and amelioration of soil acidity, sodicity and salinity and the value in regular soil testing.

• Participants appreciated the independence of NSW DPI presenting the workshops and access to NSW DPI District Agronomists and relevant specialists. The workshops provided land managers with the basic tools, including questions to ask to logically assess alternative practices or interpretations.

• Multiple workshops assisted in building relationships and trust with the landholders to promote a relaxed forum to learn and discuss issues.

• Subsidised soil tests and fully subsidised workshops were a strong incentive to attract farmers to the course.

• Access to CMA and NSW DPI networks to advertise and inform the Project.

• Interactive workshops encouraged a local approach to soil management at a level applicable for the group.

• Course material evolved over time and presented the latest information to growers.

• Data collected will strengthen the reliability of future advice given to farmers.

• Working relationships with local agribusiness which helped greatly to advertise the Project.

Possible improvements

• Flexibility in the communication strategy to approve Project Officers communicating with the media regarding the Healthy Soils, Healthy Landscapes Project.

• Consistent incentives (soil testing) across all participating CMA’s.

• Access to the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area (MIA). Landholders in the MIA expressed frustration at not being included in the Project.


• Soil testing: option to include Sulphur, Phosphorous and PBI in the subsoil sample suite of analyses and report on Munsell colour code. It may have been beneficial to have collected landuse data from the outset of the Project.

• Structure milestones so that they are smaller in the first few months of the Project to allow for capacity building and collection of material.

Future initiatives

• Database analysis.

• Provision of a refresher course. Landholders who participated in Acid Soil Action gained a lot through the Healthy Soils, Healthy Landscapes workshops as a revision tool and other participants expressed the same attitude.

• Targeted workshops, such as soil organic carbon, soil biology, nitrogen management, stubble management and conservation farming.

• On-farm local trials supporting the BMPs promoted.

• Nutrient distribution mapping and monitoring to identify patterns, increase the potential of precision agriculture and enable the adjustment of benchmarks.

The Project Officers also expressed gratitude for the continuous opportunities for professional development and the encouragement to increases their awareness of current soil knowledge. Throughout the course of the Project, Projects Officers attended the Grasslands Conference, International Landcare Conference, ASSSI Australian and New Zealand Conference, Healthy Soils Symposium, Carbon Farming Conference, Soil Foodweb Course, Conservation Farming Field Days, as well as training days internal and external to DPI. Much of this knowledge was incorporated into workshop material.

EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION

The monitoring and evaluation strategy was not utilised to evaluate the effectiveness of communication, as the project was never short of participants and was consistently ahead of milestones for gathering expressions of interest throughout the Project. Other than take-up, there is no mechanism in place for assessing the effectiveness of communication, although if expressions of interest did fall, a campaign to assess the current strategy would have been undertaken.

COMMUNICATION STRATEGY

The overall aim of the communication strategy was to provide meaningful and accessible information, in order to attract participants and inform stakeholders.

The objectives of the strategy were to:

Promote project achievements to the wider community Give recognition to funding partners Provide opportunities for elected representatives to promote the project Promote project activity to attract participants Keep participants and stakeholders informed of progress and activity Keep funding bodies aware of progress


Meet reporting deadlines/milestones Inform Project Management Committee and project staff.

The project team recognised that communication needed to target two different groups. For landholders, communication tools included some radio and newspaper media, as well as a large focus on liaising with existing groups to make use of their networks. To this end, CMA Community Support Officers, Implementation Officers and NSW DPI District Agronomists contributed significantly through the use of newsletters and by addressing landholders at meetings and field days. Linkages between other group activities (such as Prograze and Top Crop) and with other Murrumbidgee CMA project initiatives also attracted participants to this project.

The second targeted group were the CMAs and NSW DPI. The major communication tool utilised for this purpose was the quarterly milestone reports, which outlined project activity and future plans. On several occasions, the Project Manager addressed CMA and NSW DPI staff to ensure that the extension and facilitation staff working in the project area were well informed and engaged. These people were an important link between landholders and Project Officers and contributed significantly to the project meeting its milestones. Milestone reports were also circulated to key NSW DPI staff to ensure that they were aware of project progress.

COMMUNICATIONS TOOLS USED:

Newsletters: CMA Officers used local newsletters to publicise the project. Websites: The Murrumbidgee CMA published project details and contacts on its

website, as has NSW DPI. Media: Project advertisements were placed in local newspapers and on local radio

stations. Print: The colour brochure was reprinted several times and distributed regularly. Presentations: Several conference presentation papers and poster-papers were

delivered, including to the International Landcare Conference, NSW Grasslands Society Annual Conference and the Australian Society of Soil Science Incorporated Australia-New Zealand National Conference.

The Project Manager wishes to acknowledge the strong support given by CSOs, IOs and Catchment Officers from the partner CMAs and ACT Territory and Municipal services, as well as NSW DPI District Agronomists, in relation to project communication. The Project Manager would particularly like to acknowledge the support of the Murrumbidgee CMA and its staff.


PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

A Project Management Committee was nominated by the Project Manager to advise the project. The membership of this committee was selected under the contract guidelines and consisted of the following members:

Dr Jason Condon (Chair, CSU)

Mr Peter Allen (landholder)

Mr Bryan Ward (landholder)

Mr Phillip Boufler (landholder)

Mr Ken Sanderson (Agribusiness)

Mr Peter Sparkes (Lachlan CMA)

Mr Jack Chubb (Murray CMA)

Mr Peter Beal (Murrumbidgee CMA)

Mr Kerrin Styles (Env. ACT)

Dr Brian Murphy (NSWDNR)

Mr Brett Upjohn (Project Manager, NSW DPI)

The Project Management Committee initially met every quarter, then every six months. The Committee offered sound advice to the Project Manager on a range of issues. The committee identified landholder interest in the project, offered stakeholder response to workshop content and format and provided advice on participation and farmer requests. The Project Manager would like to acknowledge the support, ideas and enthusiasm given by members of the Project Management Committee, which contributed greatly to the success of this project.


CONCLUSION

“The workshops have allowed more focus back on soil fertility which is the 'engine room' for profitability and also understanding land capability.” HSHL participant 2007.

Plate 14: Soil texturing in Workshop 2 in the Murrumbidgee Catchment 2008.

The Healthy Soils, Healthy Landscapes Project has met its contracted milestones on time, effectively and on budget for the three years of operation. The project has achieved all agreed outputs and outcomes to improve the skills and knowledge of landholder participants. The project has engaged and worked with all stakeholders effectively. In this respect, over 1200 landholders from the Lachlan, Murray, ACT and Murrumbidgee catchments participated in workshops and all CMA and NSW DPI staff involved worked effectively together to organise and deliver the Healthy Soils, Healthy Landscapes workshop series.

The Project was met with continued enthusiasm from landholders, with group numbers being oversubscribed quickly. Response from participants was overwhelmingly positive, both to the workshop content and the training ability of the Project Officers involved. To this end, I would like to formally thank the Project Officers: Karl Andersson, Colin McMaster, David Waters and Susan Orgill; and also David Daley, the project Clerical Officer. Jennifer Hardwicke has assisted Susan Orgill in many of the workshops and her presentation expertise and soils knowledge is also appreciated.


The project has significantly contributed to the data file of soil information available to the three catchment communities, which will have benefits for future planning and increased understanding of the management of regional biophysical resources. The project has also captured and recorded important information on the degree of understanding held by landholders on a range of soil health topics. This information has not been captured before and will be useful for the future development of natural resource management planning initiatives and programs. The monitoring and evaluation strategy has been extremely rigorous and is unique in its depth compared with evaluations used for other extension projects that the Project Manager has previously observed.

Landholders have been extremely proactive in suggesting future directions for targeting them as catchment stakeholders. Throughout the Project soil biology has been identified as an area requiring detailed attention. The effect of management practices on biological activity is regarded by many as being the next step in the management matrix that they need to understand. A one-day soil biology workshop has been developed and delivered to over 80 landholders in the upper and mid Murrumbidgee Catchment. Landholder response to this workshop has been extremely positive, with workshop surveys indicating a significant shift in knowledge and landholders indicating they would change land management as a consequence of attending the workshop.

Nitrogen management has also been an area of interest for many cropping landholders in the Project area. A half-day workshop has been developed by Colin McMaster and DPI agronomists and has been presented to over 80 landholders in the Murrumbidgee Catchment.

Overall, the Healthy Soils, Healthy Landscapes Project has completed the milestones and objectives within the contracted time. More importantly it has successfully achieved the stated objective: “Through technical guidance, training and field analysis empower land managers with the knowledge, skills and confidence to diagnose and address soil health problems at a farm scale”. The workshops evolved into a product that addressed local soil health issues, stimulated landholder interest in the dual aims of increasing or sustaining productivity and soil health and provided landholders with the ‘tools’ to make more informed on-farm management decisions. Project Officers developed the workshops and were proud to present them.


FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The continued development and delivery of soil health programs is recognised in CMA Catchment Action Plans as extremely important for the long-term improvement of natural resource management. The data presented in Table 7 clearly indicates that prior to participating many landholders had a limited understanding of the issues relating to the management of soil health problems. This project has demonstrated that a workshop approach combined with incentives (e.g. subsidised soil tests) can produce significant knowledge improvement and likely long-term practice change.

As with any learning process, revision provides a significant learning tool. Both the Project Officers and workshop participants have highlighted the importance of providing revision workshops to support best management practices and address any issues encountered through the implementation of the management recommended.

There is a unique opportunity to build on the knowledge, interest and relationships gained through the Healthy Soils, Healthy Landscapes Project. Subsequent ‘targeted’ workshops such as soil biology, soil organic carbon, nitrogen management, conservation farming or other local issues that have arisen through group meetings or highlighted through the data are strongly recommended.

The Healthy Soils, Healthy Landscapes Project has compiled a comprehensive soil database and a landholder knowledge database, both of which present a significant resource for both NSW DPI and the CMAs involved. The soil dataset can potentially improve the understanding of current soil health, land management priorities, relationships between soil landscapes and limitations to production, in addition to contributing towards unravelling the local soil complexities within the Project area. The landholder knowledge dataset highlights improvements and the current status of the awareness and understanding of the soil health information extended. This information could guide future Project objectives and the process can be used as a model for future landholder knowledge change assessments.

Brett Upjohn, Senior Manager, NRM Projects NSW DPI, Queanbeyan 17 July 2008

healthy soils, healthy landscapes -...

Documents