Current nutrient management strategies are based primarily on the concept of cost effective nutrient management (i.e. deriving an economic return from fertilizer investment), unless managers have consciously embarked on a nutrient replacement approach to balance crop nutrient removal. The consequence of cost effective strategies is that soil fertility reserves of (originally) non-limiting nutrients will decline until fertilizer applications become warranted. Soil testing has shown that reserves of P, K and S have been gradually declining but there is little definitive evidence of the threshold soil test values which indicate when fertilizer application becomes warranted. This is particularly so for the alkaline cracking clay soils that support the Australian cotton industry. In addition to the lack of clear guidelines to identify fertilizer responsive field sites, there is also uncertainty surrounding the most effective fertilizer application strategies (rates, placement and timing) to allow efficient crop recovery and use. These issues are particularly important for immobile nutrients which don’t redistribute down the soil profile as moisture profiles refill.

This project undertook an extensive field research program to improve the soil testing guidelines for defining P and K responsiveness in irrigated and dryland cotton systems and to evaluate fertilizer application strategies (soil or foliar applications, fertilizer banding or incorporation) in terms of crop recovery and crop response. Both these nutrients already figure prominently in cotton fertilizer programs.

The key research findings have been that the efficiency of use of applied P and K fertilizers in most cotton farms is extremely poor, due to a combination of a crop root system that exploits fertilizer bands poorly and a phenomenon observed in flood irrigated systems where root activity in the fertilized hill declines rapidly once irrigation commences. If P and K are dispersed through a soil volume where adequate cotton roots are active during peak uptake periods (from first flower to first open boll), the crop can accumulate substantial quantities of both nutrients – even to the extent of clear luxury uptake. However the predominance of banded applications in dryland systems (to facilitate rainfall capture and storage) and the phenomenon of poor utilization of nutrients from the bed after flowering under flood irrigation are combining to seriously restrict nutrient use efficiency. Foliar applications of P and K were not an effective strategy to address these constraints.

The implications for productivity in the broader industry are uncertain, as the lack of recovery of applied fertilizer in most field trials has prevented meaningful interpretations of the degree of P or K constraint evident at each site. We have derived indices (kg nutrient uptake/100 kg lint yield) from long term experiments where P and K responses are substantial to attempt to benchmark crop nutrient status in the regions where research was undertaken. While preliminary, these indices suggest relatively widespread evidence of low-marginal crop P status in NNSW and southern Queensland, but less frequent occurrence of low crop K. While these benchmarks may not easy to adopt more broadly, we have also explored seed nutrient concentration as a possible indicator of crop P and K status. Considerable variation in seed P concentration is evident, but little for seed K. While important for nutrient budgeting calculations, seed P analyses may ultimately offer a more practical way of benchmarking crop P status.

While an improved understanding of the apparent impaired shallow root activity in flood systems is being developed, the irrigated industry should clearly move from banded to dispersed (broadcast and incorporated with tillage) P and K applications, with the depth and thoroughness of the incorporation a key to improving nutrient recovery. In dryland situations the solutions are less clear, but it is apparent that greater efficiencies of P and K recovery can be achieved by the grains crops grown in rotation with cotton than by cotton itself. The most effective interim strategy may be to allow the cotton crop to exploit residual (and potentially more dispersed) fertilizer residues and utilize the post-cotton pupae busting tillage operations as the opportunity to apply most P and K fertilizer in the crop rotation.

The Burdekin region of coastal north Queensland and other areas of tropical Australia provide a significant opportunity for Australian cotton industry stabilisation and contribution to drought proofing. This proposal will continue and extend upon research work conducted in predecessor projects The development of sustainable cotton farming systems for coastal north Queensland" and "Completion of Burdekin cotton feasibility study". This R&D has demonstrated potential to grow good yields of quality cotton in the Burdekin with the potential for management strategies to minimise the impact of late wet season cloud cover that reduces radiation needed for growth that can occur in 30% of years. The wet season in the monsoon tropics is a unique environment for cotton production in Australia. Hence, to reliably achieve this potential requires an agronomic production package tailored to and validated under local conditions rather than the accepted norms of southern production. The research that has preceded this proposal has made significant progress toward the development of a production package for the wet season that incorporates strategies for managing seasonal variability.

A changed political landscape now permits commercial cotton production in the Gulf region of North Queensland(NQ), the Kimberley and Pilbara of Western Australia(WA) and the top end of the Northern Territory(NT). A key objective this project was to provide expert knowledge to assist cotton investment decisions, validate the Burdekin production package for new wet season growing areas, extend past research to dry season cotton growing areas and support implementation of sustainable and economic production practices for those regions. The knowledge gained from this and predecessor projects was also relevant to cotton regions with climates not typical of the older industry (e.g. Central Queensland(CQ) and southern NSW) hence this project also supported relevant research and delivery activities in these regions.

The RD&E proposed in this project has four objectives: 1) Undertake research for the development of crop husbandry packages for the Burdekin region to manage the heavy clay soils and complete research aimed at reducing risks associated with seasonal variability, 2) Undertake research to investigate means to better integrate cotton into crop rotation systems unique to the Burdekin; that is to measure the impact on cotton in a sugar / grain rotations and to continue evaluation of cotton / grain annual rotation. The cotton rotation with sugar rotation research will be linked with a new GRDC, SRDC, QDEEDI and BSES systems project. 3) Provide specialist knowledge to growers on cotton production in the Burdekin and other tropical growing areas and subtropical central Queensland. There will be a significant capacity building component to this project as new growers will need to gain expertise quickly to avoid costly mistakes. 4) To publish Burdekin research in peer reviewed scientific journals and make the outcomes available to industry.

Research in this unique environment has and will also continue to add valuable knowledge in crop physiology and management that is benefiting the whole industry. Some recent examples include the impact and recovery of cotton growth in cloudy and humid conditions following flooding in CQ.

Water consumption in the irrigation sector has a perception of being a high water consumer, these perceptions are not wrong. Currently it represents 53% of total water consumption in Victoria (ABS, 2010). This body of work continues on what many others have achieved in understanding the efficiency of the practice of fast-flow irrigation (Gillies et al., 2010; Smith et al., 2009). Through few trials were conducted during the two month trial period due to a wetter-than-average summer, application efficiencies of over 99% were obtained for all trials. Comparatively such efficiencies for slow-flow irrigation have been shown to range between 46- 86% (Smith et al., 2009). It is universally acknowledged by many in the irrigation industry that fast-flow irrigation has the ability to reduce water consumption in the sector at a modest cost. It is this cost that is usually in the form of increased labor and technology requirements, thus a balanced approach to aiming to reduce water consumption and management of the associated costs is important to the success of any productivity improvement program.

The Australian Cotton Sustainability Report 2019 is the Australian cotton industry's second five-year sustainability report, co-published by Cotton Australia and CRDC. It provides a succinct and balanced summary of our industry's sustainability performance against eight environmental, economic and social sustainability topics from July 2014 to June 2019, and meets an industry commitment to report on sustainability every five years.

The report shows the industry can be proud of a long-term trend of improvement in many areas, and highlights some areas in which we can do better.

The report is part of the industry's wider PLANET. PEOPLE. PADDOCK sustainability framework.

The framework recognises sustainability is integral to the industry’s future and provides a path for the entire industry to stay in business. PLANET. PEOPLE. PADDOCK. guides our industry’s work to: set ambitious industry-wide Australian cotton sustainability targets; coordinate existing work and new investments to achieve these targets; engage effectively with stakeholders on actions and progress, and provide a united vision for further positive change.

The Cotton export market is highly competitive and when it comes to quality Australia needs to be the world's best. To realise this goal, the whole of the Australian Cotton supply chain must continuously improve its supply of premium upland cotton. Cotton spinning mills already recognise that Australian cotton has desirable fibre characteristics and low contamination. These attributes increase efficiency for spinners and they actively seek Australian cotton and are sometimes prepared to pay a premium. To maintain this reputation continuous improvement across the whole supply chain is essential. The Australian cotton industry and CSIRO have expanded investment in post-harvest cotton processing research. The aim is to discover ways of maintaining and enhancing the quality of cotton produced by Australian growers. In July 2008 Rene van der SIuijs and the CSIRO team in Geelong opened the doors of their facility and hosted the 9th 'Cotton Field to Fabric Course'. This was the 7th course run in Geelong and it has been attended by participants from the length and breadth of the supply chain. They have included Agronomists, Growers, Researchers, Ginners and even students studying design. The course provided participants with an opportunity to see firsthand how cotton is processed from a bale into fabric. At Geelong they have both full scale and miniature versions of the equipment used in cotton processing factories used overseas including drawing and carding machines, spinning frame, weaving machines, and dyeing facilities. Understanding how these processes occur helps participants understand the importance quality standards and how our actions impact on the chain. The Australian cotton industry will benefit from a focus on its customer's needs and a desire to exceed their expectations. The' field to fabric 'course is one activity that the industry is undertaking to increase knowledge of cotton quality. It comes highly recommended by all who have participated.

This report outlines the R&D outcomes achieved under CRDC's 2003-08 Strategic R&D Plan.

The Australian cotton industry is a world leader in the production of quality cotton with high levels of water efficiency. Australian cotton yields have increased steadily over the past 20 years, and are now two and a halftimes the global average with higher levels of water use efficiency than other key production regions in the world. In recent years, the industry has proactiveIy improved the management of its water resources. It has invested substantial resources in research and extension programs to improve the cotton produced per unit of water input. However, the industry has never investigated water use using a supply chain assessment methodology such as life cycle assessment or water footprinting. These methods have grown in popularity and importance as tools to investigate and communicate the impacts of producing a product such as cotton throughout the supply chain. IdealIy, such analyses provide results for a retail product and the use of that product by consumers, Recently, such studies have been commissioned for iconic cotton product manufacturers such as Levi Strauss.

A review of supply chain water use assessment methods identified two main methodological approaches; water footprinting or WF (which supersedes the term 'virtual water' or VW) and life cycle assessment (LCA). A third method, water balancing, is not strictly a supply chain assessment tool, though it could be applied that way. However, because it is the most commonly used way to quantify water use for cotton production at the farm level it is reviewed in detail here also. Results from water balance studies (at the farm level, for example) can be readily used as inventory data for either a WF or LCA study.

Differences between the LCA and WF methods are numerous. Water footprinting/virtual water was developed as a method of assisting countries to reduce water use by importing products that require a high amount of irrigation water to grow locally. Hence, water stressed regions such as the Middle East could reduce production of wheat and livestock that was grown locally using irrigation, and import these products from other countries. This would amount to water savings forthe importing country. The key feature of the method was that it is based on the theoretical water requirement for production regardless of the source of that water. Initial WFNF studies reported, for example, that Australian wheat 'used' 1588 L I kg of wheat produced, without identifying the fraction of water sourced from 'soil stored

moisture derived from rainfall' (or green water) compared to the fraction sourced from irrigation. For a nation such as Australia that grows much of our cereal product from dryland areas, this approach was easily misinterpreted and equated to the volume of Irrigatibn water required. Later studies clarified that only 25% of the water used for Australian wheat was derived from irrigation (still thought to be an overestimate compared to other Australian research). Even for a predominantly irrigated crop such as cotton, inclusion of green water in the assessment would lead to a considerably higher level of reported water use. The WF method also includes 'grey water' or dilution water, which is the estimated volume of water required to assimilate pollutants released from a production system to ensure these are below threshold levels. Hence, releases of chemicals and nutrients would require an estimated volume of 'dilution' water to ensure these were below environmental and health thresholds, and this water 'use' would be attributed to the production system. This could also be quite significant for cotton production in some situations.

In the field of LCA there have been a number of advances aimed at accurately quantifying and interpreting water use data. Most of this work has been done in the pastthree years, and studies done prior (or even during) this time are quite variable in quality and rigour. LCA research is divided into two important stages relevant to this discussion; the inventory stage (data collection) and the impact assessment stage, when the inventory results are interrogated and interpreted. Different methods apply to each stage. At the inventory stage, an LCA study may use data collected for other purposes (i. e. irrigation water balance research or WF research), but at the impact assessment stage, these data are used to

provide insight into the impacts of using water on competitive users or the environment using a number of methods. It is this impact assessment method that is more advanced than a simple 'inventory' of water use (which could be done with a series of water balances) or a WF study, which doesn't extend beyond the inventory stage either. This helps address the problem that we can understand intuitively, that the impact of water use will differ greatly depending on where it is used and particularly, if it is being drawn from a depleted, oven allocated (or stressed) source. InterestingIy, while Australia may deem some catchments (notably the Murray Darling) as being over allocated or stressed, on a global scale the stress weighting is not compareble to severely stressed regions such as North Africa or India.

State-of-the-art LCA methods for water use specify the use of detailed inventory methods such as water balancing, specification of water quality inputs and outputs, and methods to quantify the impact of using water. However, WF methods provide no insight to these differences. Recent LCA methods have proposed ways to define water use in terms of the stress created on a catchment by using the water. 'Water stress has been defined globalIy in order to allow comparisons with different production regions of the world. These methods are operational and have been applied to Australian beef production (by CSIRO and the authors) and for pork production (by the authors). To date, no study of an irrigated crop has been made to the Author's knowledge.

The major differences between WF and LCA can be summarised as follows:

i) The inclusion I exclusion of green water. This is included in the WF method and

generally excluded from LCA methods at the impact assessment level.

ii) The inclusion I exclusion of grey water. This is included in the WF method and

excluded from LCA methods at the impact assessment level.

iii) Inclusion of methods to assess the impact of using water(on competitive users

and the environment) rather than simply the total volume used. This is excluded from the WF method and included in LCA methods.

On review and comparison of these methods, the authors felt LCA to be the most robust and useful method for conducting supply chain water use assessments in the Australian cotton industry. The reasons for this were:

i)

ii)

iii) iv)

v)

State-of-the-art LCA research specifies the use of a detailed water balance to identify flows of water at each stage in the supply chain. This is a robust approach for quantitying water use in cotton production. Data are readily available and results can be communicated easily with the industry and the consumer.

LCA has a robust methodology and framework for handling water 'uses such as green water and grey water. This may be done excluding these from the impact assessment and including additional impact assessment methods that deal directly with the issue of concern (such as contaminant release). This results in a more readily understandable and meaningful result.

Taking point ii) into account, LCA is able to include green and grey water use at the inventory level in order to provide a compareble result with a WF method if this is desired.

Impact assessment methods are available in LCA that can quantify not only the total water used, but also the impact of using this water on either the environment or on other competitive users, This is an important advance on the water footprint method.

LCA is able to incorporate additional impact assessment areas such as energy use and GHG emissions to provide a broader assessment.

Considering most of the advances in LCA water methodology have been made recently, the cotton industry is in a good position to provide a robust study based on well-grounded methods that can be used as a benchmark for future research in the cotton supply chain and

in the textiles industry more broadly. A number of recommendations are provided for future research in this area.

The weather station was installed September 2012 close to Walgett in an place that is central to the majority of Walgett cotton growers. It is working well recording rainfall, wind, temperature etc. All these measurements can be combined to calculate evapotranspiration rates. These rates can then be used with the IrriSat program to measure water use efficiency and will also help to predict irrigation scheduling. This is another tool to supplement moisture probes to schedule irrigations and

therefore improve water use efficiency.

The Walgett Cotton Growers Association applied for the funding for the weather station as evapotranspiration rates can vary between areas and the next closest weather station that provides all the data required to record evapotranspiration rates is located at the Myall Vale research station, Narrabri. The Walgett Group felt that the weather conditions out at Walgett and therefore evapotranspiration rates would be higher than around Narrabri and therefore to get an true indication of evapotranspiration rates it would be worthwhile installing a weather station in the Walgett area. This would then provide us with more accurate data to then predict irrigation scheduling via the Irrisat program.

The group spent time with John Hornbuckle to go through our individual yield data and the workshop was extremely worthwhile. It enabled us to compare each fields water use efficiency and to benchmark this versus other growers in the Namoi Valley as well as growers in other river valleys such as the Gwydir. With the Murray Darling Basin Plan yet to be finalized and the possibility of there being less water available to irrigate in the future, benchmarking water use efficiency between irrigators serves as an invaluable tool to assess if an irrigators operation is using water efficiently and therefore getting the maximum "bang for bucks". If the irrigation farm is not functioning efficiently in terms of water use then the owner/manager can look at ways of improving their water use efficiency.

The Walgett Cotton Growers Association felt that this was a great way to supplement moisture probe data for those that have them installed and it gives another option for others who don't have moisture probes to gauge their water use efficiency and to schedule timely irrigations. Therefore we believed that this was a wise choice in terms of usefulness of funding that we as a group are able to apply for.

Each year, Crop Consultants Australia - with support from CRDC - conduct a qualitative survey of cotton consultants regarding their practices and attitudes, as well as those of their cotton grower clients. The resulting report provides valuable information to the Australian cotton industry regarding on-farm practices , helping to benchmark the industry's performance in a range of key areas over time. This report looks at the 2012-13 cotton growing season.

This report outlines the R&D outcomes achieved under CRDC's 1998-2003 Strategic R&D Plan.