This study, funded by Natural Heritage Trust Funding grant “Water Quality in Gwydir Valley Watercourses (Moree)”, investigated use by waterbirds of on-farm wetlands (mainly irrigation storages, but also other artificial wetlands) on irrigated cotton farms in the Lower Gwydir Valley. 

On-farm storages now cover c.120 km2, about 1.13% of the landscape, and constitute 45% of the total area of natural and artificial wetlands in the Lower Gwydir Valley.

Between September 1999 and July 2001, 23 surveys were undertaken of 19 on-farm wetlands on 9 cotton farms. During the surveys, we recorded numbers of birds present on each wetland and any signs of breeding. Wetland characteristics that were recorded included the species-richness and seedling production of their seed bank.

In all 23 surveys, a grand total was counted of 42,495 birds, of over 45 species. No species was detected that has not been recorded on the natural wetlands of the Lower Gwydir Valley, and several of the rarer species known from those natural wetlands (e.g. brolga, black-necked stork, comb-crested jacana) were not seen on the on-farm wetlands. Four of the 8 waterbird species listed on Schedule 2 of the NSW Threatened Species Act (magpie goose, blue-billed duck, one freckled duck and one Australasian bittern) were detected on on-farm wetlands, but only magpie goose regularly, in low numbers and breeding.

The recorded waterbird community on the on-farm wetlands was dominated by ducks, geese and swans (anatids), which constituted 59% of the birds recorded. Those were followed by: pelican, darter and cormorants (pelecaniforms: 18%); herons, egrets, spoonbills and ibises (ciconiiforms: 12%); and coot, moorhen and swamphen (rallids: 6.5%). The four most abundantly counted individual species were all ducks.The wetlands supported no or only few waders, snipe and cryptic crake and rail species. 

Total numbers of counted waterbirds varied from count to count and year to year, without obvious seasonal regularity. Numbers of some waterbird species on on-farm wetlands fluctuated rapidly and profoundly; others were more stable in numbers. Variations in numbers suggest that the waterbirds were highly mobile, using on-farm wetlands as part of the dispersed system of wetlands in the Lower Gwydir Valley. 

We found consistent and significant differences between the sampled on-farm wetlands (even within a farm) in the numbers, densities and composition of the waterbird communities they carried. The 5 most bird-rich on-farm wetlands carried 10-30 times as many birds as the 5 most bird-poor wetlands. 

On-farm wetlands differed in the predictability with which species-groups of waterbirds could be found on them (called their fidelity). Nine of the 19 wetlands had a predictability of 1-in-4 or better of finding any species-group, whereas 5 of the wetlands had average fidelities of less than 1-in-8. 

Average waterbird species-group fidelity increased with waterbird density on on-farm wetlands. However, individual waterbird species differed strongly in their fidelity scores. Some, such as whistle-ducks, were very numerous but occurred only irregularly; thus they had low fidelities. Others, such as black duck, were persistently present and showed high fidelity.

Our data showed that waterbirds in general, and anatids and rallids in particular, were significantly more numerous and predictably present on those on-farm wetlands:

• featuring trees in the water, beds of aquatic vegetation, and shallow areas that formed mud islands as water level fell; and
• whose sampled seed banks were most productive of seedlings and most species-rich.

Cormorants, darters and pelicans occurred predictably only on on-farm wetlands with numerous trees, usually dead ones, in the water.

Very few waterbirds bred on the on-farm wetlands. Some colonial, tree-platform-nesting waterbirds (such as darter, cormorants, spoonbills, and a few herons and ibises) nested on some wetlands with standing trees in the water, in each year of the study. However, numbers of nests per wetland were always low (<60). Some nesting terminated when water level was drawn down. Even fewer waterbirds nesting on the ground or on aquatic vegetation or in tree hollows (e.g. ducks) produced detected clutches of young.

Extrapolating from our survey results to the whole system of on-farm wetlands in the Lower Gwydir Valley suggests that, although the on-farm wetlands constitute 45% of the Lower Gwydir Valley’s mapped wetland area (excluding those wetland areas flooding naturally but briefly), they support on average 24,000 waterbird individuals, probably only 1-5% of the Valley’s waterbird community and less than 0.5% of waterbird nesting numbers.

However, if characteristics of at least some on-farm wetlands could be modified, without unacceptably reducing their usefulness for irrigation, to produce wetlands that are more diverse, more shallowly sloping, and with more aquatic vegetation and trees, then the widely dispersed system of on-farm wetlands could contribute substantially more than they do now to the conservation of a diverse waterbird community in the Lower Gwydir Valley.

This project found that infield thermal cameras could accurately measure canopy temperature for irrigation management for earlier growth stages than previous single point canopy temperature sensing technology. Further to this, this project demonstrated the commercial scale deployment of a machine vision tool for crop management. Two media releases were developed during this project to promote the outcomes for industry.

This gap analysis was based on information gathered directly from a wide range of stakeholders across the cotton industry and its value chain. Insights from growers, advisers, banks, brands and government were combined with targeted desktop analysis to ensure findings reflect both on-farm experience and emerging market and regulatory expectations.

This report represents the latest iteration in an ongoing effort to understand community trust, attitudes, and expectations toward Australia’s cotton industry. Since the program first began in 2020, this research has engaged with diverse groups across Australia, 
collecting robust and representative data to capture evolving public sentiment from more than ten thousand participants. 
The Community Trust in Australian Cotton Industry remains committed to fostering open dialogue between industry, stakeholders and the broader community. Through this research, key trends and challenges have been identified, offering valuable insights into 
critical areas that drive the industry’s social licence to operate, including environmental management, industry responsiveness, benefit sharing and regulation. This year, the community have indicated a large level of uncertainty around these themes, 
underscoring the need for the cotton industry to understand the nuance of community understanding and expectations of the industry. This year's survey explores both longstanding and emerging issues, providing stakeholders with actionable insights to navigate an increasingly complex social landscape. By leveraging longitudinal data and introducing new questions to address contemporary 
concerns, the report offers a comprehensive view of the cotton industry in the context of changing societal expectations. As we delve into the findings, this report aims to serve as a resource for industry leaders, policymakers, and the community, providing a roadmap for building stronger relationships and addressing key challenges collaboratively. Through thoughtful engagement and continued adaptation, Australia’s cotton industry can ensure its practices align with community values and foster enduring trust and acceptance

The Autumn 2026 edition of Spotlight puts practical progress front and centre, showcasing how Australia’s cotton industry is building capability, reducing risk and preparing for what comes next.

This edition highlights the next phase of on‑farm action through Cotton Low Emissions Intensity Farming Systems (Cotton LEIFS), with grower‑led trials now underway across Qld and NSW. From enhanced efficiency fertilisers and smarter nitrogen use to cover crops like sunn hemp, these projects are testing real-world solutions to cut emissions while maintaining productivity.

People power is also in focus. A record intake to the Australian Future Cotton Leaders Program reflects the strength of industry talent, while initiatives such as the SHIFT on‑farm coaching program are helping growers and team leaders build stronger, more sustainable workplaces.

Across the edition, readers will find updates on CRDC’s Innovation Call, new digital and data tools, integrated weed and pest management, biodiversity and revegetation research, and preparations for the 2026 Australian Cotton Conference. Together, these stories reflect an industry focused on practical outcomes, collaboration and staying future fit.

The Summer 2025–26 edition of Spotlight captures a season of innovation, leadership and forward-thinking collaboration. This edition opens with CRDC’s 2025 Innovation Call, offering up to $50,000 to innovations and solutions for cotton’s most pressing challenges, from pest management and riparian weed control to optimising nitrogen use. Twenty-nine bold ideas have been shortlisted, with an announcement of the successful applicants to come in early 2026. 

Education and capacity-building are also front and centre, with the launch of the new CRDC Cotton Course — a suite of microcredentialled learning opportunities designed to equip growers, consultants, researchers and the wider industry with targeted skills. Complemented by the ACSA Cotton Fundamentals program, these courses ensure that knowledge and best practice flow from the field to the supply chain. 

This edition of Spotlight also highlights the industry’s commitment to sustainability, with the release of the annual sustainability report and the launch of a dedicated website built around the PLANET. PEOPLE. PADDOCK. Sustainability Framework. The report showcases progress in water use efficiency, soil health and biodiversity, with new tools and indicators to help growers measure and manage their impact.

Readers will also find stories on circular economy research, advances in AI and agronomy, practical advice on module wrap and water use, and inspiring profiles of industry leaders, scholars and award winners in this edition.

CottonInfo is the Australian cotton industry’s extension program that connects growers and consultants with the latest research and supports them to adopt new technologies and best practice. The CottonInfo Irrigation Technical Lead supports the Regional Extension Officers to build industry capability to make informed decisions about irrigation and water management. A recent CRDC commissioned study identified improved irrigation management as having the greatest scope for industry productivity improvement.
The Irrigation technical lead is the industry’s main contact point for irrigation and water management providing support to the CottonInfo team, growers and the wider cotton industry with irrigation specific information, guidance and advice. Through partnering with irrigation research and innovative irrigation growers, the CottonInfo Irrigation technical lead draws on learning from other sectors and supports demonstrations of irrigation research and development across multiple regions.

To better understand the success of its engagement and work with its stakeholders, CRDC engaged Intuitive Solutions to design and implement a program of research to capture and collate the experiences of CRDC’s stakeholders in their dealings with the organisation. This feedback process covered topics including: o stakeholder organisational details, to enable profiling and reporting of results for key stakeholder segments; o fundamentals of the partnership with CRDC; o outcomes and dividends from the partnership with CRDC; o empathy and alignment between stakeholders; o how CRDC does things; o comparison of CRDC to other partners that engage with their organisation; o RD&E and sustainability initiatives; o CRDC’s performance in terms of their 5 year strategic plan; and o overall satisfaction with the partnership, engagement and trust in the CRDC. To reflect the nature of the nature of the different partnerships across the stakeholder audience, a mixed mode was implemented, as follows: o one on one telephone interviews (approximately 25 to 30 minutes) with CRDC’s key stakeholders; and o an online (10 minute) survey of other important stakeholders

Regenerative Agriculture includes farming practices that improve soil health and the resulting ability of soil to indefinitely support profitable crop production. This guide is designed to convey the basic practices and benefits of Regenerative Agriculture to a
broad audience working in the cotton industry. There are many benefits to farmers and the community. Farmers benefit from: enhanced water and nutrient uptake by roots; reduced fuel, chemical and labor cost; and avoiding soil loss from tillage. For the
surrounding community, soil health improves air and water quality by reducing dust and downstream flooding, siltation, and eutrophication. Both farmers and the community benefit from the ability of soil health to improve the profitability of farming, to sequester
carbon, and to make our food, feed, and fiber supply more resilient to adverse weather. The cotton industry has a history of connecting farmers to the textile industry and textile consumers. Many of the Regenerative Agriculture practices have been widely adopted by cotton farmers due to their cost savings and pest management benefits. This is especially true in industrialized farming communities but lagging where resources are sparse. Adoption can be further stimulated with educational and financial support from
governments, NGOs, and textile consumers. Cotton farmers are ideally suited because of their commitment to continual improvement in both fiber quality and farming practices (a key tenant of Regenerative Agriculture). As climate change increases in severity,
Regenerative Agriculture will play an expanding role in protecting crop yields and sequestering carbon. Many future innovations will facilitate further adoption by both well-resourced and limited resource cotton farmers.

Stark warnings concerning the current and predicted impacts of the climate crisis have driven an industry-wide discussion on the distribution of environmental responsibility within the apparel sector.

Identifying, addressing, and phasing out the impacts associated with the production of apparel hold great potential to mitigate the effects of climate change. Despite general agreement on the apparel sector’s obligations to address environmental impacts, the distribution of this responsibility between focal firms and suppliers has caused uncertainty within the industry and disagreement within academic literature. While focal firms have come to be regarded as a main actor responsible for addressing environmental impacts within supply networks, little is known about the suitability of this approach.

This study investigates focal firms’, suppliers’, and stakeholders’ scopes of perceived and expected responsibility. Frameworks are then developed to map out focal firms’ and suppliers’ areas of responsibility, whilst the factors motivating, enabling or hindering industry participants in addressing these areas are presented. By applying a constructivist grounded theory approach and conducting interviews with industry actors, the diverse landscape of focal firms and suppliers is revealed, ultimately showing that no one actor has the ability or capacity to address environmental responsibility by themselves. Despite this, it is found that focal firms do have the potential to improve their responsibility performance by increasing supply network transparency, acquiring internal knowledge on environmental impacts arising upstream, and moving away from business models primarily geared towards increasing profitability. Suppliers, in contrast, were shown to face obstacles of a systemic nature, including power asymmetries with focal firms. Further barriers to focal firms and suppliers operating responsibly were associated with the capitalist economic system.

Amid the complexity of distributing environmental responsibility, a collaborative approach to responsibility was ultimately found to be a necessary component in any attempt to improve sectoral management of environmental responsibility.