CSIRO and the Cotton Research and Development Corporation (CRDC) commissioned the Centre for International Economics (CIE) to undertake a benefit cost analysis of the research work done by the CSIRO Cotton Research Unit which was established in 1972. This work included the Unit’s cotton breeding program, as well as its development of several management tools for cotton farmers and their advisers. These tools include SIRATAC which was used from 1984 to 1989, entomoLOGIC which was released in 1994, and more recently, CottonLOGIC. Separate analyses were undertaken for the cotton breeding programs, SIRATAC and entomoLOGIC/CottonLOGIC.

The results show that CSIRO’s cotton research has provided significant economic benefits to the Australian community. Taking CSIRO’s cotton breeding and decision support research as a whole, and assuming a 5 per cent discount rate, the research has returned a present value net benefit of over $5 billion since 1973, with a benefit:cost ratio of 51 and internal rate of return of 31 per cent.

Most of the benefit has come from the cotton breeding programs which have returned net benefits of $4.9 billion in present value, with a benefit:cost ratio of 86 and internal rate of return of 34.

The present value of net benefits from entomoLOGIC/CottonLOGIC were estimated at just over $200 million with a benefit:cost ratio of 18.5. The earlier SIRATAC had a present value of net benefits of $36 million with a benefit:cost ratio of 2.1.

The environmental consequences have not been taken into account. Much of the CSIRO cotton breeding research has been focussed on producing better adapted varieties with better resistance to pest and diseases. The research on management tools has also had a strong focus on this aspect. The result has been a significant reduction in the number of insecticide sprays and use of chemicals on established areas, providing an environmental benefit compared with what would have happened if the original varieties had continued to be used. The new varieties are also at least 11 per cent more water-use efficient. But the CSIRO research has also stimulated the expansion of both irrigated and dryland cotton, which may have meant increased use of insecticides and irrigation water depending on what alternative crops might have been grown in the absence of the research.

In the 2001/02 season Australian cotton growers achieved what is believed to be a world record. They harvested more cotton per hectare than any other major cotton producing nation. This achievement comes with continuing improvement in environmental management. While a favourable season was part of the picture, these improved yields are also an outcome of a comprehensive research program. During the last 30 years the lint yield in Australia has increased by an average of 23 kilograms per hectare per year, one bale per hectare every 10 years or so. The increase is due in part to better plant varieties and in part to improved crop management. The yield improvement is a clear case where a coordinated approach to research delivered the greatest benefits. Dr Greg Constable from CSIRO Plant Industry estimates that plant breeding contributed about 45 per cent of the yield gains, with the other 55 per cent from improved insect control, disease management, plant nutrition and irrigation strategies. Individually these items can have only a limited impact. Packaged together and the Australian industry achieves world records. The move to farming systems approaches means farmers are increasingly examining the interactions between the elements of the production system and the effect they have on cropping outputs. Greater interest in planting trees and establishing wetlands on farms are improving environmental values by providing for greater biodiversity. Other strategies, particularly the Best Management Practices Program, aim to limit negative environmental impacts from cotton production. Each improvement is but a piece in a much larger picture, a picture of a modern agricultural industry maintaining its productivity but not at the cost of its resource base or the environment.

CRDC's Annual Operating Plan for 2011–02 (AOP): the fourth annual operating plan under the CRDC's Strategic R&D Plan 2008–2013.

CRDC's Annual Operating Plan for 2009–10 (AOP): the second annual operating plan under the CRDC's Strategic R&D Plan 2008–2013.

CRDC's Annual Operating Plan for 2008–09 (AOP): the first annual operating plan under the CRDC's Strategic R&D Plan 2008–2013.

CRDC's Annual Operating Plan for 2004–06 (AOP): the second annual operating plan under the CRDC's Strategic R&D Plan 2003–2008.

Not available

Not available

Heliothis armigera has been a growing problem for many years, While the cotton producers have borne the brunt of it, reports of increasing damage to crops such as pulses, sorghum an maize have become more frequent. The subtropical climate of the Darling Downs, Burnett and Dawson Callide regions along with the number of host crops grown in the region have created a paradise for Heliothis and devastation for field crop growers. The cotton industry has had avoluntary chemical usage strategy for many years, however, due to many of the same chemicals being used on other crops, chemicals are failing because of the continuous exposure of Henothis to the same chemical in different crops e. g. Carbamates on chickpeas, cotton and mung beans. The last 2 summer seasons have seen many chemicals on the verge of failure as the leve of resistance rose with spray failures occurring when application rates and timing were not 100%. There has been little or no margin for error. In December 1997, Downs growers were warned that cotton may become unviable with years If Heliothis armigera was not managed. In some Downs areas in 1996-97 and again in 1997-98 Heliothis egg lays reached up to 800 per meter with very small and small larvae at to 7 per meter during periods of the season. This pressure meant that many grain crops were also at serious risk i.e all pulse crops and unacceptable damage to sorghum, maize, sunflowers and millets. Added to this list of woes was the poor performance of Ingard cotton. This along with very limited new technology available at a prohibitive price, indicated that a cropping Armageddon was fast approaching

Determining the level of insect infestation which causes economic damage (yield loss or significant crop maturity delays), is no simple task. The more we learn about plant responses to damage and those factors which effect plant and insect growth or survival, the more it is apparent that insect thresholds need to be dynamic rather than set on any one predetermined value