In the majority of cases, growers do not have a problem with excessive vegetative growth in their cotton crops. It is more likely that a field is not growing to potential. Factors which have a big bearing on early season vegetative growth include:Soil structure/texture. Temperature. Irrigation management. Nutrition management.

Nitrogen management has to be good for best yields, but factors such as soil condition, irrigation and pest management may have greater effects on cotton yield than N rate. We have had much improved cotton yields in the past few years. We believe that is due more to improved utilization of N by plants than to increased application of N. In other words, improved soil management, irrigation scheduling and pest management have allowed the cotton plants to use N more efficiently. One point of importance is that high yields deplete the soil of nutrients rapidly. For example, there is the equivalent of 11 kg N in each bale, so 10 bales/ha will remove 110 kg N/ha from a field each year. The practice of burning stubble will also encourage loss of nutrients.

Cotton production has grown to become one of Australia’s most important agricultural

industries, with several regional economies supported by its development. Growing

cotton is an intensive land use, requiring cultivation of the soil, inputs in the form of

fertiliser and pesticides, and a reliable supply of water. Cotton is a significant user of

arable land and irrigation water in several catchments in New South Wales and

Queensland. In recent times, the industry has been proactive in developing production

systems that are both profitable and sustainable. For example, it has developed systems

of integrated pest management with reduced use of pesticides for dryland and irrigated

production, as well as improving water use efficiency for irrigated cotton systems.

This guide is a resource for improving riparian land management on cotton farms.

Riparian land is important because it is economically and environmentally productive.

Intensive agricultural production systems like cotton growing can affect waterways,

downstream water users, neighbours and communities. Careful management of

riparian land on cotton farms can help minimise these effects, and result in

environmental and aesthetic benefits for cotton growers and their families.

Riparian land is any land which adjoins, directly

influences, or is influenced by, a body of water.

This guide provides information on how best to manage riparian land. Different

management options are provided, with the science underpinning these options

described so that on-farm decisions can be made based on the best available information.

It is intended that the guide be used to complement existing information on sustainable

cotton production, as well as to assist the development of other products and materials.

For example, material in the guide could be used by the cotton industry, government

agencies and other groups to develop:

■ projects and activities to restore and improve riparian land;

■ best management practices, codes or plans;

■ workshops to increase awareness and skills;

■ fact sheets on specific issues of riparian management; and

■ presentations to landcare, farming and community groups.

Provided that the original source of the material is acknowledged, reproduction of parts

of the guide in other products is encouraged.

The guide has been developed by the Cotton Research & Development Corporation,

Australian Cotton Cooperative Research Centre, Land & Water Australia, the New South

Wales Department of Sustainable Natural Resources and the Queensland Department

of Natural Resources and Mines. It is recognised that today’s best practice may not be

tomorrow’s. As such, it is expected that this guide will be reviewed and further improved

from time to time, based on grower experience and new scientific knowledge.

In order to determine where soil and water salinisation may arise, information which is

related to each biophysical or causal factor (i.e. agronomy, geology, etc.) needs to be

mapped. For example, geological and hydrological components can be represented,

respectively, by estimates of salt storage and deep drainage across a given irrigated area.

When these independent causal factors are stored in Geographic Information Systems (GIS), the interaction between factors can be related to where salinisation occurs, and therefore determine if and where these conditions may be met elsewhere. This is essentially the basis of Salinity Hazard mapping, where a Salinity Hazard is defined as the extent to which natural

physical characteristics, excluding land cover, predispose a landscape to salinisation.

However, consistent and repeatable methods of generating biophysical or causal factors is time consuming and expensive. This often makes extrapolation and comparison from area to area difficult. The underlying aim of this project is to use similar methods to generate independent maps of these causal factors, store the information in GIS format and generate Salinity Hazard maps at the district level.

The Cottonscope technology has been successfully transferred to BSC Electronics and into

their company Cottonscope P/L. Comparison of Cottonscope test results with reference

cross-section test data show good, clear relationships. To date Cottonscope instruments are

located at CMSE Belmont, CPI Narrabri, the USDA ARS SRRC New Orleans LA, Texas

Tech University Lubbock TX and Dai Chinig Textiles Ltd. , Guangdong (owned by Central

Textiles Hong Kong)

The next two years will be important in terms of extending and marketing the instrument, and

testing iterations expected in the software, sample preparation procedures and linkages with

other test instruments, e. g. HVl, and quality prediction systems, eg. Cottonspec

In September 2011 agents of BSC Electronics will exhibit Cottonscope at the Barcelona

ITMA. In February 2012, the instrument will be displayed by CSIRO at the Australian

Cotton Seminar in Chongqing, China. To this end, CSIRO have submitted a PRP to the

CRDC for funding to support Cottonscope in 20/2/13.

Farmers in Australia apply between 80 and 200 kg N ba-1 to cotton, but only part of this nitrogen is taken up and used by the crop, and the remainder is lost :from the plantsoil system. Our work at Narrabri with 15N labelled fertilizer has shown that the lost nitrogen is emitted to the atmosphere as a result of biological denitrification, and that the losses can be considerable (up to 92% of the amount applied). In this paper we have been asked to address the following: (i) occurrence of denitrifieation (ii) the risks of denitrification, (iii) practices to reduce denitrification, and (iv) current research on this topic. Before discussing these issues we briefly describe the denitrification process so that the reader fully understands the nature of the problem and the discussion that follows.

The health status of male farmers in Australia, especially injury related is worse than their urban peers. Non-intentional injury on Australian farms results in around 150 deaths, 6,500 hospital admissions, and 6,000 workers compensation claim each year. In addition, there are between 20 and 70 presentations to hospital emergency departments for farm injury per 100 farms. The current cost of farm injury in Australia is thought to be between $0.5 and $1.29 billion per annum. A contributing factor to farms, as a workplace and a home, is that injury is attributed to all ages. inparticular, children and older adults are at risk of injury on farms.

Injury Prevention 2001 offers a wonderful opportunity for researchers, policy makers, practitioners, industry, and farmers with a particular interest in rural injury to come together. Injury Prevention 2001 provides an opportunity for RIRDC, as a major stakeholder in injury prevention in the agriculture, the opportunity to strengthen and develop its identity in the rural workplace health and safety sector.

In the arid and semi-arid regions of the world, irrigation has enabled previously unarable tracts of land to be used for a wide variety of agricultural activities. Unfortunately many of these areas have associated with them stores of soluble salts which, with time and rising water tables, accumulate in the surface of soil profiles causing widespread, crop-damaging salinisation and waterlogging. In such areas where irrigation is considered appropriate, baseline data is required to monitor the changes in the water balance and salt status of the soil profiles. In this note the current methods available for salinity investigations are discussed as well as geostatistical methods which can assist in the collection and interpretation of the data collected. Using these techniques the results of recent exploratory investigations of salinity in the lower Namoi valley are presented.

The silver leaf white fly (Bemisia tabaci B type) is a world-wide pest on many crops, with a particular appetite for cotton.

Although the SLW has reached pest status in the horticultural industries of the Northern Territory and Queensland, the cotton industry in Australia is not affected by the silverleaf whitefly. However, the presence of this pest in Australia's cotton growing areas and the current worldwide problems associated with SLW management, has presented the industry with a potential disaster.

Is it a matter of time as for other countries? Is Australia's climate suitable? Is cotton

a good host? Are competition and predation our saving grace? These and more detailed questions need to be addressed. Australian cotton growers and researchers may then play a role in either; keeping the present situation as it is (if the SLW has simply not been able to establish). Or, by not providing the pest with a chance of a foothold ifthe opportunity still awaits.

Outbreaks of SLW in other countries have been studied, and theories have been presented as to the development of its major pest status. Major theories include the effect of climate, reduction in beneficials, poor insecticide management, and changes in fanning practices including the increase in suitable hosts.

Most of these factors we can examine to enable us to identify the risks that would elevate the SLW to a major pest in Australian cotton.

This project aim was to achieve a more resilient and competitive cotton farming system through increasing the understanding and awareness of the benefits and disadvantages which may be associated with different row configurations, and the practices that help to optimise siphon irrigation systems. Gwydir Valley Irrigators Association (GVIA) co-ordinated part 2 of the Grower Led Research into Irrigation Efficiency; Optimised Furrow Irrigation Row Configuration Trial during the 2014-2015 season. The trial was established at two locations in the Gwydir Valley, Keytah and Auscott Watervale.

This part of the GVIA1302 project was designed to investigate water-use efficiency optimisation techniques of the siphon or furrow irrigation system which is the standard industry practice. The trial investigated the relative yield potential of different row configurations under optimal irrigation conditions. The information from the trials will enhance the understanding of the potential of each of these row configurations to produce under optimal water, which will be beneficial in times of limited water.

The objectives were to investigate water-use efficiency optimisation techniques of siphon irrigation under different row configurations. The row configurations assessed in the trials included the standard 40inch (1m), as well as areas of 30inch (75cm), 60inch (150cm) and 80inch (200cm). The project evaluated the trial in terms of yield and applied irrigation water relative to the standard 40inch row configuration.

Through the project the GVIA was able to collect data which increased the level of understanding of the benefits and possible disadvantages associated with different row configurations under siphon irrigation. The trial suggested that the yield reduction from a fully watered 60inch spacing would be around 20 percent, but would use between six and 18 percent less water. While the 80inch cotton would be expected to yield 35 to 37 percent less than the 40inch spacing, and use 15 to 22 percent less water. The results from the 30inch spacing are encouraging. They suggest that three percent less water would be used and that there may be possible yield advantages over 40inch.