Working with Nature to Improve the Environment and Profitability Of

doi: 10.1111/emr.12321 FEATURE Working with nature to improve the environment and proﬁtability of irrigated cotton production at ‘Kilmarnock’, Namoi Valley, New South Wales By Rhiannon Smith and Andrew Watson

Several environmentally positive farming innovations at ‘Kilmarnock’ near Boggabri, New South Wales, have been monitored over time and have revealed a positive impact upon this irrigated cotton farming enterprise’s ﬁnancial sustainability and environmental footprint. This study demonstrates economic beneﬁts from environmental approaches to farm management.

Key words: birds, natural pest control, nitrogen, revegetation, water-use efﬁciency.

Rhiannon Smith is a Research Fellow and Lecturer in Environmental Management at the University of New England (Ecosystem Manage- ment, School of Environmental and Rural Science, Figure 1. Environmental and agroforestry plantings alongside cotton crops at Kilmarnock pro- University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, vide habitat for natural pest control agents, including insectivorous birds, microbats and predatory Australia; Email: [email protected]). Andrew and parasitoid invertebrates (photograph by R. Smith). Watson is Co-owner and Manager of ‘Kilmarnock’ and adjacent farms on the Namoi River at Boggabri (Kilmarnock FarmingPty Ltd, Boggabri, NSW 2382, landscapes. Services such as nutrient homogenisation of landscapes and a Australia; Email: [email protected]). and water cycling, pollination, pest reliance on chemical insecticides to and disease regulation, and carbon control pests may reduce natural assimilation are vital to support agri- predator numbers, decreasing the Introduction cultural production (Daily 1997; MA capacity of natural control agents to ustainable agricultural production 2005). However, some agricultural regulate pests (Naylor & Ehrlich Srelies on a variety of ecosystem ser- practices may decrease ecosystem 1997; Wilson & Tisdell 2001; Wilby vices provided by biodiverse service provision. For example, & Thomas 2002; Bianchi et al. 2006;

ª 2018 Ecological Society of Australia and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 0 NO 0 JUNE 2018 1 FEATURE

Chaplin-Kramer et al. 2011; Gagic 80% of the farm’s income currently vegetation with remnant floodplain et al. 2017). Farmers who understand comes from cotton production, and vegetation (Fig. 1). As the trees grew, the ecosystem they operate in, min- this component of the operation is their role in connecting the riparian imise off-target impacts of their man- the focus of this study. Specifically, corridor with significant floodplain agement and restore habitat to we address: (i) the natural pest con- remnants and in facilitating fauna improve their farm’s environmental trol benefit associated with revegeta- movement was realised, and the Wat- service provision, can capitalise on tion and reduced pesticide spray use; sons’ understanding of and interest in ecosystem processes to support sus- (ii) increased water-use efficiency; ecosystem services grew. Where pre- tainable agricultural production. (iii) alternative fertiliser strategies; viously they had viewed the natural Much research has illustrated the and (iv) the resulting economic bene- and agricultural parts of their prop- benefits of organic production in fits of these management strategies. erty separately, the Watsons began terms of minimising impacts on natu- to approach their management in an ral pest control agents, thereby integrated way. ‘Kilmarnock’ – background increasing natural pest control ser- The current owners of Kilmarnock, vices (Crowder et al. 2010). How- Kilmarnock is a mixed cropping and Andrew and Heike Watson (Fig. 2), ever, the effect of reduced cattle grazing operation on the Namoi are fifth-generation farmers and took insecticide use in conventional crop- River on the north-west plains of New over from John and Robyn ping systems is less well understood South Wales, Australia. When John (Andrew’s parents) in 2007. Andrew (although see Lichtenberg et al. and Robyn Watson first arrived at Kil- and Heike are highly motivated by 2017). Adoption of innovations by marnock over 50 years ago, the scene their vision to create a sustainable landholders depends on a range of was typical of many farms at the time. and profitable operation producing personal, social, cultural, economic Much of the property was overgrazed, food and fibre, while minimising their and environmental factors (Pannell and livestock were allowed access to environmental impact. Three main et al. 2006). Innovations are more the river for water, creating bare aspects of conventional cotton pro- likely to be adopted when they have ground and significant soil and river duction that the Watsons have sought a high ‘relative advantage’ (i.e. per- bank erosion (Watson 2009). The to address in their approach to crop ceived superiority compared with Watsons undertook an ambitious pro- management are the use of: (i) insecti- the prevailing idea or practice) and gramme of revegetating and stabilis- cide sprays, (ii) water and (iii) nitro- are readily transferable (i.e. easy to ing the riverbank, after removing gen. All three have significant test and learn about before adoption). invasive Willows (Salix spp.). The ini- associated economic costs and envir- Without detailed, credible informa- tial focus of their riparian projects onmental impacts. The Australian cot- tion about the benefits of practice was on reinforcing their farm bound- ton industry has reduced the change, growers are hesitant to move aries to contain cattle and stabilise environmental footprint of crop pro- away from conventional practices, the river bank as floods in the 1970s duction through the introduction of particularly when a significant lag- had excavated large volumes of genetically modified cotton varieties time before any return on investment soil. This left the water turbid, the that have reduced insecticide use to is likely. river banks prone to further erosion control lepidopteran pests, and new This study details the management and slumping, and infrastructure at varieties that have increased water- strategies, yield and profitability of risk of further damage. However, the use efficiency (Cotton Australia & an irrigated cotton farm business near restored riparian vegetation has CRDC 2014). The Watsons have taken Boggabri, New South Wales, on the become important as a breeding advantage of these technologies and banks of the Namoi River, incorporat- site for waterbirds such as Little used them as a starting point to ing a range of practices to improve Pied Cormorant (Phalacrocorax me- improve production at Kilmarnock. profitability and reduce the farm’s lanoleucos) and Darter (Anhinga me- However, given the location of the environmental footprint. The scien- lanogaster) (Norton & Reid 2013), farm (adjacent to the town of Bog- tific literature contains many studies fish such as the Murray Cod gabri), there was greater pressure to of specific farming innovations, but (Maccullochella peelii) and the Koala minimise chemical use (to control rarely are examples of sustainable (Phascolarctos cinereus). non-lepidopteran pests) in order to practices and their economic implica- To complement their riparian maintain the family’s social licence tions documented at a whole-farm works, the Watsons established vege- to farm. scale, as in this study. A key innova- tated corridors to both act as spray The Watsons’ farm operations tion has been to embrace natural pro- drift barriers to restrict agricultural based at Kilmarnock currently occupy cesses to take advantage of a range of chemical movement to and from adja- 7000 ha, of which irrigated and dry ecosystem services. Approximately cent farms and to connect the riparian land cropping (and associated

2 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 0 NO 0 JUNE 2018 ª 2018 Ecological Society of Australia and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd FEATURE

Figure 2. Andrew, Heike, Xanthia and Doug Watson on-farm at Kilmarnock. The mixed Eucalyptus species planting in the background was planted by John and Robyn Watson in the early 1990s. (photograph by A. Watson). infrastructure) occupies 5055 ha; hundreds of grass plants, including a Natural pest control at grazing land (beef cattle on native pas- native vetiver species that grows natu- Kilmarnock tures) occupies 1000 ha; 500 ha is rally on the property, along the Namoi dedicated to tree plantings, a conserva- River banks (Watson 2009). They Between the 1970s and mid-1990s, tion area and ungrazed riparian lands, have installed 17 nest boxes and cotton industries around the world and the remaining land consists of retain hollow-bearing trees where were heavily reliant on insecticides houses, gardens, sheds, machinery possible to provide habitat for insec- and in some years, the amount of yards and other infrastructure tivorous microbats. The floodplain chemical required to control insect (445 ha). The breakdown of different occupied by Kilmarnock is valuable pests (and the yield loss to insects) land uses on Kilmarnock is compara- real estate due to high productivity, was so high that cotton growing was ble to industry averages (Roth Rural and setting aside land for conserva- arguably unviable on economic, envi- 2013). The focus at Kilmarnock for tion is not common practice in this ronmental and social grounds (Bot- the past 50 years has been growing landscape. However, the Watsons trell & Adkisson 1977; Fitt 1994). cotton and wheat, with a number of justified the cost of these restoration Flora and fauna were known to be other crops including canola, sorghum works from a commercial viewpoint adversely affected in some areas, and and barley used as rotation crops to by potential benefits they hoped to long-term human health effects includ- make use of the land between cotton receive from provision of habitat for ing fatalities were connected to insecti- seasons and to control the build-up of natural pest control agents (i.e. a cide exposure (Wilson & Tisdell 2001). pests and pathogens. reduction in pesticide and fuel costs) The introduction of the first geneti- The Watsons have established and strengthening their social licence cally modified (GM) cotton varieties 20,000 trees at Kilmarnock from tube- to farm, thus investing in their busi- in the 1990s made cotton plants toxic stock, as well as planting many ness and their future. to lepidopteran pests, including

ª 2018 Ecological Society of Australia and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 0 NO 0 JUNE 2018 3 FEATURE

Cotton Bollworm (Helicoverpa habitat (tree plantings and riparian application for mirid nymphs is three armigera), the major insect pest of restoration) encouraged the Watsons individuals per beat sheet (Williams cotton (Fitt 2003). In addition, the to think about the potential for natu- 2017). In the example in Figure 3, Australian cotton industry also ral pest control agents to regulate sec- the number of mirid nymphs invested heavily in research, develop- ondary pest populations in their recorded in weeks 10 and 11 was ment and extension (RDE) to minimise crops. They began recording weekly above this threshold. Cotton pro- the environmental impacts of produc- measurements of pest and beneficial duces more fruit than it can carry by tion. A key focus of cotton RDE has invertebrate abundance throughout the end of the season, so some insect been on pesticide use: what to spray the growing season (12 weeks) using damage has negligible impact on final and when, integrated pest manage- the beat-sheet method in their cotton yields. In fact, damage at early stages ment, resistance management and min- crops, where a metre of crop row is in the season may encourage more imising environmental harm (Fitt et al. beaten with a wooden stick to knock fruit development (Wilson et al. 2004). invertebrates onto a 1.5 9 1.5-m yel- 2013). While Cotton Bollworm is no longer low plastic sheet for counting To assure himself and others that a major problem in cotton production, (Deutscher et al. 2003). Three beat- his approach to natural pest control most growers employ insecticides to sheet measurements were taken in works, Andrew conducted a trial in manage secondary pests, including each cotton field at varying locations 2010 to investigate the impact of aphids (Aphidoidea), mirids (Creonti- to allow calculation of mean inverte- ‘spraying’ against ‘not spraying’ at a ades spp.), Silverleaf Whitefly brate numbers for each field. time when mirid numbers increased (Bemisia tabaci), thrips (Franklin- On various occasions when pest to the threshold that would normally iella spp. and Thrips spp.), spider numbers got to potentially damaging trigger a spray. The chemical ‘Shield’ mites (Tetranychus spp.), Green Veg- levels that would have previously led (Sumitomo Chemical Australia, con- etable Bug (Nezara viridula) and them to spray insecticides, Andrew taining 200 g/L clothianidin as the Rutherglen Bug (Nysius vinitor), with deliberately took a hands-off approach active ingredient) was applied at the number of sprays and chemicals to see what would happen. Interest- 150 mL/ha on 11 February 2010 over determined by seasonal conditions ingly, the invertebrate counts and three fields (totalling 90 ha) and com- and the insect in question. Beneficial plant growth data showed that as pest pared with three unsprayed fields. (predatory and parasitoid) inverte- numbers increased, the number of Invertebrate numbers were measured brates are impacted by some pesti- beneficial predatory and parasitoid using three beat sheets in each field cides, and this exacerbates pest invertebrates also increased. Pest (nine beat sheets in three fields in invertebrate issues because pest popu- numbers then dropped while ‘benefi- the sprayed treatment and 24 beat lations increase rapidly in the absence cials’ continued to increase, so sheets across eight fields in the of predators (Ripper 1956; Bottrell & Andrew avoided the cost of spraying unsprayed treatment). The trial Adkisson 1977). Common predators (Fig. 3). Note that the threshold rec- showed that beneficial invertebrates of cotton pests include (Williams et al. ommended trigger for insecticide were regulating pest numbers, with 2011): ants (Formicidae), lacewings (Micromus tasmaniae, Mallada sig- 9 natus), ladybeetles (Coccinellinae), Beetle (B) 8 spiders (Araneae), predatory bugs Spider (B) 7 (Deraeocoris signatus, Cermatulus Mirid N (P) 6 nasalis, Geocoris lubra, Oechalia 5 schellenbergii, Orius spp.), predatory 4 beetles (Dicranolaius bellulus, Calo- 3 soma, schayei, Chauliognathus pul- 2

chellus), various parasitoid wasps per beat sheet) recorded 1 (Aphidius colemani, Heteropelma Abundance (mean no. individuals 0 scaposum, Lysiphlebus testaceipes, 12345678910111213 Lyssopimpla excelsa, Microplitis de- Week into coon season molitor, Netelia producta) and flies Figure 3. Relationship between the most abundant beneficial (‘B’, spiders and predatory bee- (tachinid spp.). tles) and pest (‘P’, mirid nymphs) invertebrates at Kilmarnock during the 2010/2011 cotton season Increasing on-farm biodiversity in (n = 33 beat sheets sampled across 11 fields each week during the 2010/2011 season). Note: as response to reduced insecticide use mirid numbers increased in weeks 8, 9 and 10, the number of beneficials increased in response, with (following the introduction of GM cot- a subsequent reduction in pest numbers, presumably as the beneficials performed their natural pest ton varieties) and improved natural control service. This pattern has been seen on numerous occasions. Error bars are Æ 1 s.e.m.

4 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 0 NO 0 JUNE 2018 ª 2018 Ecological Society of Australia and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd FEATURE the unsprayed plot showing a similar contrast to an average of 2–6 sprays decrease in pest numbers as the each season in cotton and 1–2 sprays sprayed plot (Fig. 4), except that it in grain crops each year on conven- took a week longer for mirid numbers tionally managed properties in the dis- to decline in the unsprayed plot. trict. Andrew and his agronomist have Andrew also compared yield data in observed natural pest control in the sprayed and unsprayed plots and action in cotton fields on Kilmarnock found no difference. This trial reas- (e.g. Fig. 5) and are satisfied that sured Andrew that the beneficial predatory and parasitoid invertebrates invertebrates were providing natural have the capacity to control pest num- pest control services in his crops. bers or respond to pest outbreaks Andrew acknowledges that there when they occur. were sleepless nights in the early days Much of the research conducted in as pest numbers rose to levels that cotton industries around the world would normally trigger the applica- has focused on beneficial inverte- Figure 5. Predatory Shield Bug (Oechailia tion of insecticides. Early results con- brates (predatory or parasitoid inver- schellenbergii) feeding on a Helicoverpa firmed his hunch, however, and for tebrates) as natural pest control caterpillar at Kilmarnock (photo by the past 11 years, insecticide spraying agents in an integrated pest manage- A. Watson). in cotton at Kilmarnock has been ment framework (Fitt 2003; Deguine reduced to zero applications, and et al. 2008). However, a 2003 review grain crops have only been sprayed of biodiversity research in the Aus- insectivorous birds and microbats once in the last 11 years. This is in tralian cotton industry noted that could play an important role in con- trolling invertebrate pests in cotton and recommended further research 12 Mirid A (a) to clarify the role of vertebrates in nat- Mirid N 10 ural pest control on cotton farms Pbeetle (Reid et al. 2003). Consequently, 8 Spider research projects were funded by the Cotton Catchment Communities 6 No spray Cooperative Research Centre and Cot- 4 ton Research and Development Cor- per beat sheet) per beat poration to investigate bird (Smith 2 2005, 2010, 2015; Cleland 2008; Jacobs 2012) and microbat (Dillon Abundance (mean no. of individuals 0 et al. 2004; MacKinnon 2007) species 12 richness and abundance on cotton (b) Spray application farms. 10 Insectivorous birds and microbats 8 are recognised by the Watsons as important natural pest control agents, 6 and research projects are currently being conducted at Kilmarnock to 4 beat sheet) beat investigate the impact of birds and 2 microbats on crop pests, as well as bird and microbat abundance in differ- 0 ent habitats. Several species of conser- Abundance (mean no. individuals per vation concern have been recorded during bird and microbat surveys at Kilmarnock (Smith 2005, 2010, Figure 4. Invertebrate numbers at Kilmarnock in paired plots (sprayed vs unsprayed) during the 2015; Jacobs 2012; Ms Heidi Kolkert, 2009/10 season, illustrating an increase in the number of mirid nymphs (N). (a) The natural reduction in mirid adults (A) and nymphs as a result of natural pest control (n = 24 beat sheets sampled unpub. data, 2017), including the Yel- across eight unsprayed fields each week) and (b) the reduction in mirid numbers as a result of a trial low-bellied Sheath-tailed Bat (Sacco- spray application (n = 9 beat sheets sampled across three fields each week). Note: the industry laimus flaviventris), Painted threshold that would normally trigger an application of insecticide to control mirid nymphs is three Honeyeater (Grantiella picta), Red- individuals per beat sheet. ‘Pbeetle’ = predatory beetle. Error bars are Æ1 s.e.m. capped Robin (Petroica goodenovii),

ª 2018 Ecological Society of Australia and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 0 NO 0 JUNE 2018 5 FEATURE

Black Falcon (Falco subniger), Bark- benefits to biodiversity while helping consideration in cotton production ing Owl (Ninox connivens), Grey- growers design farm layouts that pro- and management at Kilmarnock. crowned Babbler (Pomatosto- mote natural pest control. Water demands are dictated by soil mus temporalis) and Little Eagle type and organic matter content (Hieraaetus morphnoides) (Fig. 6). (moisture-holding capacity), seasonal Water-use efficiency at Much of the research conducted to weather conditions (rainfall distribu- Kilmarnock date on cotton farms has concen- tion and evaporative demand) and trated on recording the species pre- Water is a highly variable and major plant physiology (breeding). Water- sent and the potential for natural expense associated with cotton pro- use efficiency has improved at Kil- pest control, without quantifying the duction, averaging approximately marnock through the installation of natural pest control service itself. Cur- A$300/ha over the past 10 years overhead irrigation systems, the use rent research into birds, bats and ben- (Boyce Chartered Accountants 2016) of capacitance probes to better pre- eficial invertebrates on cotton farms with a significant environmental dict crop water needs and overall such as Kilmarnock, including dietary footprint (Kingsford 2000). Water- farm management to reduce evapora- analysis, will more clearly identify use efficiency has been a key tion and seepage from dams and chan- nels. Water-use efficiency (measured as the number of bales produced per (a) (c) megalitre of irrigation water) has almost doubled at Kilmarnock over the past 14 years, while cotton average yields have improved from 8.5 bales/ha to 12 bales/ha in line with district averages (Fig. 7). Increased yields per hectare of land and efficient use of water when it is available result in a more sustainable operation on economic, environmental and social (b) grounds.

Nitrogen use and soil improvement at Kilmarnock Another signiﬁcant input in cotton production, at an average cost of (d) $460/ha over the past 10 years, is fertiliser (Boyce Chartered Accountants 2016). The average rate of nitrogen application to irrigated cotton in Aus- tralia in 2016 was 275 kg/ha (Roth Rural 2016). The Watsons use only 60% of this, after a small experiment with different sources and application rates to reduce input costs and N losses to the environment and atmosphere. In addition to the normal farm fertiliser programme, Andrew trialled three different manures (chicken, cattle and seagull) compared with min- eral fertilisers, mono-ammonium phosphate (MAP) and sulphate of potash and Twin N (Mapleton Agri Figure 6. Bird species of conservation concern recorded during surveys at Kilmarnock: (a) Grey-crowned Babbler (photo by Tom Tarrant), (b) Barking Owl (photograph by Georgie Sharp), Biotech Pty Ltd), a freeze-dried (c) Painted Honeyeater (photo by Tony Morris) and (d) Red-capped Robin (photograph by bird- microbe which encourages plant saspoetry). uptake of nitrogen. The cost of

6 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 0 NO 0 JUNE 2018 ª 2018 Ecological Society of Australia and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd FEATURE

of that. There was no further positive 1000 response to MAP. However, despite 500 the high costs of purchasing and applying chicken manure, it produced 12.0 0 a significant economic advantage in Area grown (ha) grown Area 10.0 the second year ($51.61/ha). This is a common observation amongst those 8.0 who use manure amendments: there is initially a lag between application 6.0 and impacts on yields. The field was rotated out of production in 2015, 4.0 and no amendment was applied in 2.0 2016, but a positive economic advantage was observed in 2016 for the plot 0.0 treated with cattle manure, again indi- Yield (bales/ha) and water use (ML/ha) (bales/ha) and water Yield cating the delay between application and effect on yields. Andrew’s study 2004/05 2008/09 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 convinced him that yearly chicken Average yield (bales) Average wateruse (ML) manure application is the most cost- Bales/ML Area grown effective amendment for Kilmarnock Linear (average yield (bales)) Linear (average wateruse (ML)) and is a more sustainable product Linear (bales/ML) than synthetically produced fertilis- Figure 7. Mean cotton yield data (bales/ha: y = 0.22x + 8.259, r2 = 0.481), water use (ML/ha: ers. Reducing N use at Kilmarnock y = –0.02x + 6.02, r2 = 0.003) and yield per megalitre of water applied (bales/ML: lowers greenhouse gas emissions to y = 0.04x + 1.47, r2 = 0.149) for the seven farms making up Kilmarnock Pty Ltd’s operations dur- the atmosphere. ing the period 2001/2002 to 2015/2016 (n ≥ 3 farms with area grown each season varying from 412 ha to 1024 ha, depending on water availability). Note variability in yield per ha is largely dri- ven by weather (number of cloudy days, hail, flooding, etc.). Error bars are Æ1 s.e.m. Cotton yields and economics purchase and application of the vari- margin of $28.63/ha. All other appli- In order to be confident that the man- ous fertilisers was compared over a cations, including the three manures, agement techniques and investment 4-year period, along with yield in a cost more to apply than they returned at Kilmarnock are beneficial, the Wat- replicated trial. In the first year, appli- in the first year, even if they showed a sons benchmark their cotton yields cation of an extra 100 kg of MAP yield increase over the control. In the and economic data each season resulted in a positive $77.13/ha second year of the trial, the decision against local, similar-sized farming impact on the gross margin (Table 1). was made to treat the entire trial with operations in the region (Fig. 8). In The application of Twin N also the extra 100 kg of MAP and add the the past two seasons (2014/2015 resulted in a positive impact on gross remaining various fertilisers on top and 2015/2016), there has been little difference in yields between members of the benchmarking group, indicat- Table 1. Value proposition for a range of manure and fertiliser applications at Kilmarnock. ing that the alternative management Figures in bold represent a positive impact on profit strategies used for cotton production Fertiliser/ Application Value proposition ($/ha) at Kilmarnock have not resulted in manure rate Fertiliser Fertiliser Final yield losses. (rate/ha) applied not proposition While cotton yields (income) are applied one side of the profit story, costs are 2013 2014 2016 the other. Decreases in the amount Chicken manure 6 m3 À51.4 51.6 À13.1 À12.9 of chemical used to produce cotton Sulphate of 100 kg À181.3 À20.4 À23.5 À225.3 crops and investment in their own potash spray equipment at Kilmarnock have Guano 10 m3 À182.9 À184.0 À29.8 À396.6 MAP 100 kg 77.1 À89.0 À87.1 À99.0 resulted in a decrease in contractors’ Cattle manure 10 m3 À998.4 À223.2 32.7 À1188.9 fees (Fig. 9). However, part of these Twin N Recomm. rate 28.6 À20.8 À50.7 À42.9 savings has been counteracted by an MAP, Mono-ammonium phosphate; ‘Recomm. Rate’, manufacturer’s recommended rate, which increase in on-farm wages to apply varies by product. chemicals such as herbicides.

ª 2018 Ecological Society of Australia and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 0 NO 0 JUNE 2018 7 FEATURE

Kilmarnock, the average operating cost of cotton production in 2015/ 2016 was approximately $3600/ha. The Watsons attribute their low operating cost to economies of scale and near-zero costs for insecticides and their application.

Environmental accolades for Kilmarnock Members of the Watson family have been awarded several production and environmental awards over the years, including the 2001 National Gold Land- care Award (Robyn), 2002 Australian Figure 8. Yield data for five farms in the Boggabri benchmarking region for the 2015/2016 growing season illustrating minimal difference in cotton yields between farms. Despite differences Large Cotton Grower of the Year, in management, the several farms managed by Andrew contributing to the Kilmarnock result did 2004 NSW Farmers Young Farmer of not differ substantially in yield to other farms in the region. the Year (Andrew), a 2006 Nuffield Farming scholarship (Andrew), 2008 Australian Cotton Grower of the Year, 2014 Brownhill Cup Conservation Award and 2016 NSW State Winner and Australian Finalist in the Landcare Sustainable Farming Award. At the core of the Watsons’ success has been a proactive approach to seeking out, tri- alling and adopting new technologies that support their farming and environmental philosophies. Their properties have been the focus of numerous research projects over the years, including many student projects, government and non-government-sup- ported trials, as well as their own research carried out on different aspects of the operation. Adaptive management in response to research findings and a culture of innovation at Kilmarnock have resulted in changes Figure 9. Selected variable costs associated with cotton production at Kilmarnock for the per- in the Watsons’ farming practices and iod 2007–2016. Fertiliser refers to the raw product only and does not include application. ‘Chem- approaches to natural resource man- icals’ also refers to raw product only and consist of the range of different herbicides used in weed agement over the years. Central to the control in cotton. journey has been their vision for improved sustainability and profitabil- A significant cost saving relating to The 5-year average operating cost ity, and their willingness to trial and fuel through improved herbicide for cotton production in Australia in adopt more sustainable technologies application efficiency has been offset 2016 was $4038/ha (Boyce Chartered and practices, acquire more farmland by increasing fuel prices. Fertiliser Accountants 2016). For the top 20% and absorb occasional losses. prices have fluctuated considerably of producers, the 5-year average oper- through time due to changes in global ating cost for cotton production was Future plans at Kilmarnock and domestic factors affecting supply, $3729/ha. In 2015/2016, the average demand and the cost of production operating cost across the industry The Watsons recently purchased a (Incitect Pivot Ltd 2009; Cotton Aus- was $4500/ha and for the top 20% farm to the east of their current opera- tralia 2017). of producers, $3923/ha. At tions and have begun works there to

8 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 0 NO 0 JUNE 2018 ª 2018 Ecological Society of Australia and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd FEATURE restore and protect the riverbank as and minimise greenhouse gas Cotton Australia (2017) Australian cotton produc- they have done at Kilmarnock. They emissions to the atmosphere. They tion statistics. [Accessed 10 Oct 2017.] Avail- able from URL: http://cottonaustralia. hope to use what they have learned at hope that their success and communi- com.au/cotton-library/statistics. Kilmarnock to improve the environ- cation of their story will inspire others Cotton Australia and CRDC (Cotton Research ment of the new farm and implement to appreciate the interrelationship and Development Corporation) (2014) Aus- tralian grown cotton sustainability report similar management practices there. between agricultural production and 2014. [Accessed 10 Oct 2017.] Available The new farm has approximately the health of the surrounding environ- from URL: http://www.crdc.com.au/publica 10 km of river and creek frontage and ment in which it is situated. Greater tions/australian-grown-cotton-sustainability- report. a noxious weed control, and tree plant- awareness and restoration of natural Crowder D. W., Northfield T. D., Strand M. R. and ing programme is underway to stabilise ecosystems are integral to the long- Snyder W. E. (2010) Organic agriculture pro- banks and create habitat for birds, term sustainability of agricultural pro- motes evenness and natural pest control. Nature 466, 109–112. microbats and beneficial invertebrates. duction by supporting ecosystem ser- Daily G. (1997) Nature’s Services: Societal The Watsons’ neighbours at the new vice provision. Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island property are keeping a keen eye on Press, Washington, DC. Deguine J.-P., Ferron P. and Russell D. (2008) the works being undertaken and have Acknowledgements Sustainable pest management for cotton pro- already sought advice from the Wat- duction. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable – sons on how they may initiate similar This study is based on an invited key- Development 28, 113 137. Deutscher S., Dillon M., McKinnon C. et al. projects on their own properties. note presentation to the Restore, (2003) Giving insects a good beating. Aus- A concern for the Watsons moving Regenerate, Revegetate Conference, tralian Cottongrower 24,24–27. forward is the increase in mining in 5–9 February 2017, University of Dillon M., Staines T., Halloway P., Long R. and Richards G. (2004) Bat sonar disrupts moth the district, potential degradation of New England, Armidale, NSW, Aus- behaviour over cotton crops. The Australasian ground and surface water sources and tralia. The authors would like to Bat Society Newsletter 22, 19. the impacts of these on-farm opera- acknowledge the assistance of John Fitt G. (1994) Cotton pest management: Part 3 The Australian perspective. Annual Review tions and water-dependent flora and and Robyn Watson, Nick Reid, David of Entomology 39, 543–562. fauna in the region. The use of native Norton, Manu Saunders, James Abell, Fitt G. P. (2003) Deployment and impact of trans- vegetation by feral animals, particu- Karrar Al-Hajiya and Heidi Kolkert in genic Bt cotton in Australia. In: The Economic and Environmental Impacts of Agbiotech (ed larly feral Pigs (Sus scrofa), is also a the preparation of this manuscript. N. Kalaitzandonakes), pp. 141–164. Springer, concern, and the Watsons are investi- Research funding was provided by Boston, MA. gating control methods to minimise the Cotton Catchment Communities Fitt G., Wilson L., Mensah R. and Daly J. (2004) Advances with integrated pest management damage to crops and native vegetation. Cooperative Research Centre, Cotton as a component of sustainable agriculture: Research and Development Corpora- the case of the Australian cotton industry. In: tion and North West Local Land New Directions for a Diverse Planet. Proceed- Conclusions ings of the 4th International Crop Science Con- Services. gress, 26 Sept–1 Oct 2004, Brisbane, By providing habitat for natural pest Australia. (eds. T. Fischer, N. Turner, J. Angus control agents and eliminating insecti- et al.) published on CDROM [Accessed 10 References Oct 2017.] Available from URL: http:// cide use, increasing water-use effi- www.cropscience.org.au/icsc2004/sym ciency and minimising fertiliser Bianchi F. J. J., Booji C. J. H. and Tscharntke T. posia/2/5/1330_fittg.htm. inputs by switching to more natural (2006) Sustainable pest regulation in agricul- Gagic V., Kleijn D., Baldi A. et al. (2017) Com- tural landscapes: a review on landscape com- bined effects of agrochemicals and ecosys- alternatives, the Watsons have been position, biodiversity and natural pest control. tem services on crop yield across Europe. able to minimise their environmental Proceedings of the Royal Society B 273, Ecology Letters 20, 1427–1436. footprint and the economic costs 1715–1727. Incitect Pivot Ltd. (2009) Submission to the Sen- Bottrell D. G. and Adkisson P. L. (1977) Cotton ate Select Committee on Agricultural and associated with cotton production. insect pest management. Annual Review of Related Industries. Inquiry into pricing and Their efforts to restore habitat for nat- Entomology 22, 451–481. supply arrangements in the Australian and ural pest control agents have paid off Boyce Chartered Accountants (2016) Australian global fertilizer market, Canberra. [Accessed Cotton Comparative Analysis: 2016 Crop. 20 Oct 2017.] Available from URL: https:// in the form of environmental benefits Cotton Research and Development Corpora- www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/ due to the presence of a number of tion, Narrabri. Committees/Senate/Former_Commit threatened species, economic bene- Chaplin-Kramer R., O’Rourke M. E., Blitzer E. J. tees/agric/completed_inquiries/2008-10/ferti and Kremen C. (2011) A meta-analysis of liser/submissions/sublist. fits through reduced chemical costs crop pest and natural enemy response to Jacobs C. (2012) Development of a rapid biodi- and social benefits by minimising landscape complexity. Ecology Letters 14, versity assessment methodology for cotton human and environmental impacts 922–932. landscapes. Final Report to the Cotton Cleland E. (2008) Identifying habitat requirements Catchment Communities Cooperative due to insecticide use. Increased for birds on cotton farms in the Lower Namoi. Research Centre, Narrabri. [Accessed 22 water- and nitrogen-use efficiency is Final Report to the Cotton Catchment Oct 2017.] Available from URL: http:// improving the sustainability of the Communities Cooperative Research Centre, www.insidecotton.com/jspui/bitstream/1/ Narrabri. [Accessed 10 Oct 2017.] Avail- 410/1/5100334_Final_Report_Jacobs.pdf. operation by allowing the Watsons able from URL: http://www.insidecotton. Kingsford R. T. (2000) Ecological impacts of dams, to ‘grow more crop for every drop’ com/jspui/handle/1/295. water diversions and river management on

ª 2018 Ecological Society of Australia and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 0 NO 0 JUNE 2018 9 FEATURE

floodplain wetlands in Australia. Austral Australian cotton industry: Final report to Vegetation in an Agricultural Floodplain Ecology 25, 109–127. the Cotton Research and Development Cor- Landscape. Doctor of Philosophy thesis, Lichtenberg E. M., Kennedy C. M., Kremen C. poration. University of New England, Armi- University of New England, Armidale. et al. (2017) A global synthesis of the effects dale [Accessed 22 Oct 2017.] Available from Smith R. (2015) Positioning growers to take of diversified farming systems on arthropod URL: http://www.insidecotton.com/xmlui/ advantage of future ecosystem service mar- diversity within fields and across agricultural handle/1/2503. kets. Final report to the Cotton Research landscapes. Global Change Biology 23, Ripper W. E. (1956) Effect of pesticides on bal- and Development Corporation, Narrabri. 4946–4957. ance of arthropod populations. Annual Watson R. (2009) Restoring the banks of the MacKinnon L. (2007) Microbats in changing cot- Review of Entomology 1, 403–438. Namoi on ‘Kilmarnock’: success arising from ton production landscapes: A case study from Roth Rural (2013) Cotton growing practices sur- persistence. Ecological Management & the Namoi River. Master of Philosophy thesis, vey report 2013: Findings of the Cotton Restoration 10,10–19. University of Sydney, Sydney. Research and Development Corporation’s Wilby A. and Thomas M. B. (2002) Natural enemy Millennium Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and survey of cotton growers. Cotton Research diversity and pest control: patterns of pest Human Wellbeing. Synthesis. Millennium and Development Corporation, Narrabri. emergence with agricultural intensification. Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Wash- [Accessed 22 Oct 2017.] Available from Ecology Letters 5, 353–360. ington, DC. URL: http://www.insidecotton.com/xmlui/ Williams S. (2017) Cotton Pest Management Naylor R. L. and Ehrlich P. R. (1997) Natural pest handle/1/1008. Guide 2017–18. Cotton Research and control services and agriculture. In: Nature’s Roth Rural (2016) Cotton growing practices sur- Development Corporation and CottonInfo, Services: Societal Dependence on Natural vey report 2016: Findings of the Cotton Narrabri. Ecosystems (ed G. C. Daily), pp. 151–174. Research and Development Corporation’s Williams S., Wilson L. and Vogel S. (2011) Pests & Island Press, Washington, DC. survey of cotton growers. Cotton Research Beneficials in Australian Cotton Landscapes. Norton D. and Reid N. (2013) Nature and Farm- and Development Corporation, Narrabri. The Australian Cotton Industry Development ing, Sustaining Biodiversity in Agricultural [Accessed 22 Oct 2017.] Available from and Delivery Team, Narrabri. Landscapes. CSIRO Publishing, Colling- URL: http://www.insidecotton.com/xmlui/ Wilson C. and Tisdell C. (2001) Why farmers con- wood. handle/1/4429. tinue to use pesticides despite environmental, Pannell D. J., Marshall G. R., Barr N. et al. (2006) Smith R. (2005) Biodiversity of Tree Plantings in health and sustainability costs. Ecological Understanding and promoting adoption of Cotton Growing Areas of the Namoi Valley. Economics 39, 449–462. conservation practices by rural landholders. Bachelor of Natural Resources Honours the- Wilson L., Downes S., Khan M. et al. (2013) IPM Australian Journal of Experimental Agricul- sis. Ecosystem Management, University of in the transgenic era: a review of the chal- ture 46, 1407–1424. New England, Armidale. lenges from emerging pests in Australian cot- Reid N., O’Shea G. and Silberbauer L. (2003). A Smith R. (2010) Biodiversity and Ecosystem ton systems. Crop and Pasture Science 64, review of biodiversity research in the Services Associated with Remnant Native 737–749.

10 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 0 NO 0 JUNE 2018 ª 2018 Ecological Society of Australia and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd