A framework for the assessment of farm diversification options in broadacre agriculture

Abstract

CONTEXTThe economic and environmental sustainability of farming systems is under increased pressure from extreme climate variability and market volatility. The diversification of large-scale farms can increase profits, resilience, and deliver sustainability outputs. OBJECTIVETo (a) propose a farm diversification framework specifically designed for large-scale commercial farms; and (b) demonstrate its application to assess the benefits and trade-offs associated with alternative diversification options for a case-study farm in Northern Queensland, Australia. METHODSA literature review and discussions with large-scale commercial farmers, a Natural Resource Management NGO, and a regional council were used to co-design our framework. The framework was then used to guide discussions with a case-study farmer and conduct a participatory modelling exercise on alternative cropping-based diversification scenarios. We used a simulation model to produce quantitative information on the present and co-designed alternative scenarios, to iteratively inform discussions with the participating case-study farmer. The simulated scenarios included (i) the current system of dryland (non-irrigated) monocropping of cotton, (ii) a dryland cotton-maize rotation, (iii) an irrigated cotton-maize rotation, and (iv) an irrigated maize-mungbean-cotton rotation. The benefits and trade-offs of each scenario were assessed across five performance measures: downside risk, profit, water-use efficiency, ground cover and, from the discussion with the participating farmer, the skills needed to de-risk the diversification process. RESULTSResults from the co-designed scenarios showed that adding dryland maize as a rotation crop can reduce downside risks by 12.5% and increase fractional ground cover by more than two-fold, i.e., from 20% to >40%, compared to the current system. The use of irrigation in the cropping system increased the median gross margin by $2000 ha−1 and reduced downside risks to zero. The water-use efficiencies of the proposed irrigated scenarios were similar. Farmers reported that developing skills in irrigated cropping could increase their capacity to dynamically chose more profitable crops to sow with certainty of higher returns, but it would require up-front investments in terms of money and time. SIGNIFICANCEOur proposed framework can be used to assess benefits and trade-offs of alternative farm diversification options across a range of performance dimensions (risk; profit; resource-use efficiency; skills). These assessments will ensure that the co-designed options are evaluated across multiple dimensions, all within the local context of the study and farmers' preference(s) and circumstances. The use of a co-design approach can be expected to increase learnings for all those involved and increase the chances of practice change and adoption.