The concept of Water Use Efficiency is not easily visualised, as illustrated by the industry virtually ignoring it for the last thirty years. So, in an attempt to demonstrate how it can help in a real way, I presented a paper to the 2015 Crop Updates -
http://www.giwa.org.au/pdfs/CR_2015/SORT/W16_Rees_David_Water_Use_Efficiency_to_improve_farm_budgeting_Paper_CU15W16_.pdf
This is case study of only one farm, but at least is a starting point to show how Water Use Efficiency calculations can help a farm business.
Saturday, 12 September 2015
Water use efficiency - a research triumph?
Recent (May 2015) publicity from AEGIC - the Australian Export Grains Innovation Centre claims farmers have doubled water use efficiency (WUE) over a thirty year period -
http://www.grdc.com.au/Media-Centre/Ground-Cover/Ground-Cover-Issue-116-May-June-2015/WUE-data-measures-an-industry-triumph
and this is considered a "triumph".
But the "glass half empty" view is that the graph in the report shows that WUE has stalled since about 1995, though it did improve from 1980. This plateau is now recognised at least by farm economists.
Even more alarming should be the a likely delay between an idea for innovation to improve productivity, and implementation.
A positive should be that consulting agronomists now number some 2,300 across Australia, according to Mick Keogh and the Australian Farm Institute. This effort should be assisted by digital communications that we now have and that could not have imagined three decades ago.
Yet despite these positives, the plateau in productivity improvement remains. A good start to fixing a problem like this would to confront it, with the right interpretation.
http://www.grdc.com.au/Media-Centre/Ground-Cover/Ground-Cover-Issue-116-May-June-2015/WUE-data-measures-an-industry-triumph
and this is considered a "triumph".
But the "glass half empty" view is that the graph in the report shows that WUE has stalled since about 1995, though it did improve from 1980. This plateau is now recognised at least by farm economists.
Even more alarming should be the a likely delay between an idea for innovation to improve productivity, and implementation.
A positive should be that consulting agronomists now number some 2,300 across Australia, according to Mick Keogh and the Australian Farm Institute. This effort should be assisted by digital communications that we now have and that could not have imagined three decades ago.
Yet despite these positives, the plateau in productivity improvement remains. A good start to fixing a problem like this would to confront it, with the right interpretation.
Soil and big data
A recent conference in Canberra was titled "Soil and Big, Data and the Future of Agriculture", and was summarised in the Land -
http://soilbigdata.org/blog/blog/the-dirt-on-soil-data
In some ways, the idea is on the right track, and Barnaby Joyce is throwing $1.5 million at the project through CSIRO.
But somehow we have been missing something with this sort of approach. How could our productivity have been improved so successfully until about 25 years ago, then stalled since?
My most recent example has been research into liming. Questions are being asked about why the W.A. wheatbelt has not adopted what was advised decades ago, to hold soil pH at 5.5 (CaCl2 measurement). Yet during this time, there is no credible economic case that it would pay for farmers to adopt this suggestion. The assumption seems apparent that researchers say it should happen, so it will.
The liming example may be an isolated exception, and of course, such contentions would naturally be strongly contested by administrators of our R&D systems. However over the past few years, I have collected enough evidence to support my argument. The debate now should be whether to present and debate such arguments, or instead to implement a way to do the job better.
So good luck to Barnaby with his system, but I will need more than just luck to gizump Barnaby's $1.5 million.
http://soilbigdata.org/blog/blog/the-dirt-on-soil-data
In some ways, the idea is on the right track, and Barnaby Joyce is throwing $1.5 million at the project through CSIRO.
But somehow we have been missing something with this sort of approach. How could our productivity have been improved so successfully until about 25 years ago, then stalled since?
My most recent example has been research into liming. Questions are being asked about why the W.A. wheatbelt has not adopted what was advised decades ago, to hold soil pH at 5.5 (CaCl2 measurement). Yet during this time, there is no credible economic case that it would pay for farmers to adopt this suggestion. The assumption seems apparent that researchers say it should happen, so it will.
The liming example may be an isolated exception, and of course, such contentions would naturally be strongly contested by administrators of our R&D systems. However over the past few years, I have collected enough evidence to support my argument. The debate now should be whether to present and debate such arguments, or instead to implement a way to do the job better.
So good luck to Barnaby with his system, but I will need more than just luck to gizump Barnaby's $1.5 million.
Wednesday, 9 September 2015
The family business
An article in the Harvard Business Review describes how family businesses can make better decisions. The idea suggested is that the business should be considered like a family home, with different rooms for different purposes. The business should therefore have rooms for -
- the owner room
- the board room
- the management room, and
- the family room.
" Discrete decisions are made in each room: management directs operations; the board monitors the performance of the business and hires/fires the CEO; owners set the high-level ownership goals for the business and elect the board; and families build unity and develop family talent – to name just a few of the most basic decisions made in each room."
The full article can be accessed by signing up for the Harvard Business Review, with a free subscription.
- the owner room
- the board room
- the management room, and
- the family room.
" Discrete decisions are made in each room: management directs operations; the board monitors the performance of the business and hires/fires the CEO; owners set the high-level ownership goals for the business and elect the board; and families build unity and develop family talent – to name just a few of the most basic decisions made in each room."
The full article can be accessed by signing up for the Harvard Business Review, with a free subscription.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)