Is precision management of grazing crop stubbles possible and worthwhile? Dean Thomas, Gonzalo Mata, Andrew Toovey, Noboru Ota, Kirrin Lund, Trevor Thomas, Ross Hansen CSIRO Agriculture

Reasons given to improve monitoring practices

Barriers to improved stock/stubble monitoring

The feed value of stubbles is variable, complex and expensive to measure Type and variety of crop Harvesting efficiency Weeds, non-arable land and perennial plants Growing season conditions and summer rain Class of stock, and their background Quality of and access to water and shade Paddock size

Information to support decision making Energy intake and weight gain on stubble Grain and green plant quantity and quality Animal’s energy needs for growth, maintenance, walking and acceptable conception rates Animal health e.g. acidosis, vitamin E, flies, predation and other metabolic illness or infection Ground cover and soil erosion risk

Expected value from GPS tracking sheep

Research hypotheses There is a viable business case for a monitoring system to alert and inform farmers of the status of sheep –Growth rates of sheep on a stubble can be predicted before and during grazing –Energy requirement for walking can be measured –Areas of paddock over and underuse can be identified and managed, sheep moved to new camping areas if required –Normal behaviours and water point use can be detected –Sick, predated and escaped sheep identified –Potential cost savings (labour, stock losses) using livestock monitoring technology identified and currently possible

Stubble grazing and stock monitoring trials Ref: WMG1 Location: Warradarge Group: West Midlands Host: Will Browne Trial: 7 Dec 15 – 4 Jan 16 Ref: WMG2 Location: Dandaragan Group: West Midlands Host: Peter Negus Trial: 2 Feb 16 – current Ref: WATG Location: Williams Group: West Arthur Trials Group Host: Colin Houghton Trial: 5 Feb 16 – current Ref: UWA Location: Dandaragan Group: Ridgefield Future Farm Host: Steven Wainewright Trial: begins late Feb Ref: Facey Location: Dandaragan Group: Facey Group Host: Tom Wittwer Trial: 10 Dec – 5 Jan Ref: MADFIG Location: Dandaragan Group: Merredin and Districts Farm Improvement Host: Phillip Gray Trial: 5 Jan 16 – 1 Feb 16

Measurements Behaviour Liveweight Feed biomass

Stubble (Mace wheat) forage components Biomass (kg/ha) StubbleFaceyWMG1WMG2MADFIGWATG Straw TBD Grain120110TBD4615 Green00TBD025 Supplement Lupins (300 g/head, 3 times/week)

Liveweight gains and losses Liveweight gain (g/head/day) FaceyWMG1WMG2MADFIGWATG Initial LW (kg) Initial CS (0-5) Week 1-2 LWG Week 3-4 LWG Total LWG (kg)

Liveweight gains from other research (Thomas et al. 2015)

Grazing behaviour and stubbles Ref: Facey, 72 ha (3.6 ewes/ha) Ref: WMG2, 310 ha (2.2 ewes/ha) Ref: MADFIG, 147 ha (3.2 ewes/ha) Ref: WATG, 94 ha (5.8 ewes/ha) Ref: WMG1, 192 ha (2.2 ewes/ha)

Paddock use (10 m grid)

Patterns over time in distance travelled?

Little effect of temperature on distance travelled Distance travelled (km/day) Max Temp. °CFaceyWMG1WMG2MADFIGWATG < > Average

Max. temperature affects pattern of activity

Is energy used for walking important? WATG sheep walked 11.3 km/day (chasing green pick?) Energy cost at 2.6 kJ/km/kg (SCA 1997) is 1.5 MJ/day Growing 37 g/day requires ME intake of 11.5 MJ/day Sheep fed 300 g/hd lupins every 3 days getting 1.4 MJ/day Sheep stubble ME intake = = 11.2 MJ ME/day Walking energy 13% of energy intake from stubble

Practical applications for animal behaviour as an indicator of feed supply and weight gain Data to aid qualitative observations New metrics that can be used as indicators

Potential indicators Flock dispersion (Dudzinski et al. 1978) Travel speed/distance (Thomas et al. 2008) Grazing time (Allden et al. 1970, Roberts 2014) Paddock use (number of visits to each point of the paddock) Farmers main cues for adjusting stubble grazing Behaviour 66.7% Liveweight 0.0% Condition score 25% Other 8.3%

Web application

Research hypotheses There is a viable business case for a monitoring system to alert and inform farmers of the status of sheep –Growth rates of sheep on a stubble can be predicted before and during grazing –Energy requirement for walking can be measured –Areas of paddock over and underuse can be identified and managed, sheep moved to new camping areas if required –Normal behaviours and water point use can be detected –Sick, predated and escaped sheep identified –Potential cost savings (labour, stock losses) using livestock monitoring technology identified and currently possible ? ? ? ? ? ?

Conclusions Knowledge of feed value from stubbles is important for more precise management of animal productivity The feed value of stubbles is variable, complex and difficult to measure Commercial monitoring requires biological knowledge integrated with software and hardware applications Monitoring tools will need to be cost effective, not take much time to learn and use, and provide priority information

Thank you Host farmers: Will Browne, Tom Wittwer, Phillip Gray, Peter Negus, Colin Houghton, Robert Shepherd, Steven Wainewright Grower groups: Rebecca Wallis, Sarah Houston, Anne Wilkins, Gina Micke, Sarah Hyde, Tanya Kilminster, Janelle South, Ed Riggall, Andrew Ritchie, Anthony Shepherd Farmer survey participants CSIRO Digital Agriculture Initiative CSIRO Agriculture Dean Thomas Research Scientist t

Most feed value from spilt grain or green plants