Irrigated cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) growers in the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) of Australia, are challenged by limited water availability. This modelling-study aimed to determine if deficit irrigation (DI) practices can potentially improve water use efficiency (WUE) for furrow irrigation (FI), overhead sprinkler irrigation (OSI) and subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) systems. We validated the Agricultural Production System sIMulator (APSIM) against observed cotton lint yield and crop biomass accumulation for different management practices. The model achieved concordance correlation coefficients of 0.93 and 0.82 against observed cotton crop biomass accumulation and lint yields, respectively. The model was then applied to evaluate the impacts of different levels of DI on lint yield, WUE across cotton growing locations in the MDB (Goondiwindi, Moree, Narrabri, and Warren), during the period from 1977 to 2017. The different levels of DI for the FI system were no irrigation, full irrigation (TF) and irrigated one out of four, one out of three, one out of two, two out of three and two out of four TF events. For the OSI and SDI systems, DI levels were no irrigation, TF, 20% of TF, 40% of TF, 60% of TF and 80% of TF. Lint yield was maximised under the OSI and SDI systems for most locations by applying 80% of TF. However; modelling identified that WUE was maximised at 60% of full irrigation for OSI and SDI systems. These results suggest there are significant gains in agronomic performance to be gained through the application of DI practices with these systems. For FI, DI had no benefit in terms of increasing yield, while DI showed marginal gains in terms of WUE in some situations. This result is due to the greater exposure to periodic water deficit stress that occurred when DI practices were applied by an FI system. The results suggest that in the northern MDB, water savings could be realised for cotton production under both OSI and SDI systems if DI were adopted to a limited extent, depending on location and irrigation system.

Many farmers in Australia and in other countries have a choice of crop or livestock production, and many choose a mixture of both, based on risk preference, personal interests, markets, land resources and local climate. Mixed farming can be a risk-spreading strategy, especially in highly variable climates, but the right scales of each enterprise within the mix may be critical to farm profitability. To investigate expected farm profits, the probability of breaking even, as well as the worst and best case scenarios, we used farm data and APSIM (Agricultural Production Systems Simulator) to simulate the production of a typical, semi-arid, mixed-farm in southern Queensland. Three farming system scenarios were investigated: I, livestock and more intensive cropping; II, current production system of livestock and minimal cropping; and III, livestock only. We found that the expected profits were in the order system I > system III > system II. The key reason for the lower profits of system II was the high overhead cost of capital to continue some cropping, with low annual cropping income. Under the worst case scenario, in years with low rainfall, system I had the greatest downside risk with far greater financial losses. Systems I and III had similar probabilities of breaking even, and higher than system II, which incurs cropping overheads and limited cropping returns. Therefore, system II was less desirable than either system I or III. This case study helps farmers and advisors of semi-arid mixed farming enterprises to be better informed when making decisions at the paddock and whole-farm level, in both the short and long term, with respect to profit and risk. The method used in this paper can be applied to other mixed farms, in Australia and elsewhere.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract