Have a look at the grazing programs such as Prograze, Pastures from Space, feed management calculators, and search for some of the terms like "strip grazing" "cell grazing" and the like.

There has been plenty of work done on animal production, you just have to look into the industry extension and science itself as they have registered producers and target their members rather than the broader public.

In December 2009, the Western Australia Department of Water published their findings from a study of the Swan Canning River system which revealed contaminants were detected in surface water in all of the sub-catchments.

“Twenty five pesticides (including insectides and herbicides) were detected in total, of which simazine, diuron and atrazine were the most prevalent, being detected in every drain during almost every sampling event. Diazinon, trifluralin and metachlor were also detected in several drains.

“The herbicides simazine, diuron and metolachlor were measured above freshwater ecosystem trigger values (ANZECC & ARMCANZ 2000), as were the insecticides diazinon, chlorpyrifos and dieldrin. Two metabolites of atrazine were also detected. Atrazine has been linked to hermaphroditism in male frogs, mutagenicity and carcinogenicity (Hayes et al. 2002; Cox 2002). Simazine is a suspected endocrine disrupting chemical (Cox 2002).”

http://www.water.wa.gov.au/PublicationStore/first/89366.pdf

The APVMA advised in 2009: “Simazine was placed on the APVMA Priority Candidate Review List as a priority 2 chemical in the mid 1990s in order to reconsider environmental and human health aspects. The health concerns that prompted this nomination at that time related to fears that simazine might promote cancer in humans. These concerns have since been discounted.”

Once must ask why the APVMA had simazine under review for some 14 years? For what reason? Tardiness? Captives of industry? After all only "first world" Australia requested an exemption at the Stockholm Convention from the ban on the hazardous pesticide, Mirex, one of the "dirty dozen" organochlorine pesticides.

@ Tim Scanlon: “Secondly, the high use areas of horticulture are rife with bad practices of chemical usage. Don't blame the tool, blame the person using it.”

Thank you Tim for confirming what I had already implied. Your comments confirms that the horticultural industry is a self-regulator and that it, state and federal departments of agriculture are more interested in economics than the environment, human and animal health.

Australia’s horticulture industry comprises fruit, vegetables, nuts, flowers, turf and nursery products. Australia’s horticultural industry is the nation’s third largest agricultural industry—based on gross value of production. There are 63,300 people employed in Australia to grow fruit, vegetables and nuts for human consumption (DAFF).

I am aware of the health, bioaccumulative and transboundary impacts of persistent organic pollutants (POPS) which were force-fed to Australian consumers for >40 years while the pesticide industry covered up the evidence and where taxpayers now pick up the tab for the Stockholm and Rotterdam Conventions.

I am also aware that in 2010, Nufarm Australia, through the determinations of the APVMA, suspended its sales of the approved Terraclor 75 WP (pentachloronitrobenzene - quintozene) which contained a dioxin load 20-1000 times higher than those found in other pesticides. Chlorobenzene contamination has also been found in atrazine and simazine.

Further, the increasing incidence of farmers illegally using pesticides for off-label uses was slammed last year by peak industry body, Ag Institute Australia. Incidents of unethical behaviour and resistance to reform in farming practices is the status quo and these incidents are as long as a monkey’s arm. It is an industry that has contempt for the Precautionary Principle as revealed by the overwhelming evidence of “hit first, fix later.”

I am also aware that ANU’s Dr Liz Hanna advised that “the health of Australian farmers is being subjected to serious risks by exposure to some of the most dangerous chemicals available. Dr Hanna said the increase in the rate of cancers in farming communities has become dire.”

Dare I say it: “Citizen, heal thyself?”

Tim, chemicals are not 'needed' by everybody so maybe they really fall into the 'wanted' category instead. We may have had a production increase with the green revolution but it has been at a massive environmental, economic and social cost & I just think we have the knowledge and ability to be doing a lot better.
And we will need to.
I'm not trying to drag you to my way of looking at things because I'm aware of how difficult that chore is from experience. However, I've come a long way in my thinking & now know that what I thought I once knew just really wasn't so!
And yes you are right... I haven't measured my weed seed numbers nor even done a worm egg count. Rough guess is that there well could be a few worms present, but they certainly don't have a noticeable impact on the livestock so I'm not worried, and there could well be gazillions of weed seeds but I don't give a damn because I don't create the environment for them to flourish.
Weeds are simply an early succession species trying to do a job, and those bare areas here were colonised by early succession copper burrs etc first, & I was quite pleased to see anything that was tough enough to grow be there.
Can you explain to me how that place had "productivity down on potential by 35-40%"?
We measure plenty of things here & by any count our 'actual' productivity is more than double what it was historically per 100mm of rain received. And I think we have plenty of improving to do yet and our only imputs are time & effort planning..... So I don't know where that ‘extra’ is coming from if it is not from improved soil and plant biology!
Do you think that until something is measurable by scientists that it doesn't exist? If I learn from someone how to improve something I don't need to be able to write a thesis on it. I just want the outcome & I'll leave the intricate explaining to academia.
It disappoints me that a person involved in ' Climate & Agronomic Extension at the Department of Food and Agriculture' is sceptical about soil biology.
If you are ever in western NSW than don't hesitate to call in and measure whatever you like! Google Bokhara Hutz. Great accommodation & friendly hosts.... even if I do argue a little!

Um, my weed scientist wife wanted me to clarify your weeds statement. Whilst correct, crops and pastures are early succession plants too. Thus they are a competitive antagonist in any farming system.

The 35% figure comes from the research into "organic" systems that don't use chemicals. No one part gives that reduction in productivity, it is the sum of pressures from all vectors that aren't controlled appropriately, as done with chemicals.

Next point is that I'm not skeptical of soil biology, I am skeptical of those whom claim X benefit from Y change of soil biology. There hasn't been any quantification of this to make said claims. As I said, techniques are still in development and research, the products to come from this research are still a long way off. Just have a look at the current products for mycorrhiza, they claim soil biology benefits, something that was researched and found to be largely rubbish.

I'm not against a low input system (which is what it sounds like you have), because it cuts costs and risks way down. This can be very productive in terms of dollar return on production investment, or as you stated, return on rainfall. The only thing wrong with this approach is for new farmers (startup debt) and produce to feed the world - too many people go low input and supply drops and flow on weed, disease and pest control issues. This last issue was covered in a brilliant paper outlining that organic farms needed a buffer of conventional farms to stop influx of weeds, disease and pests.

Graham, I think we could have a great discussion over a nice white wine. Might just take you up on the offer!

Sounds good Tim, but if you make the long trip from WA I'd get you to grab a bottle of one of those great Margaret River Reds...

Hmmm... the 'ol weed debate.

A weed is just a plant growing where you don't want it to. A lot of the problems in agriculture seem to revolve around people trying to grow things that want to die, and trying to kill things that want to live! You would think we may occasionally step back and think a little about why we choose to do this. I don't consider any plant to be a weed here at all (no offence to Mrs Scanlon for making her job redundant!), and I recognise that some early succession 'pioneering' types of plant that may not have any productive benefit to me will still none the less have a role to play in the land regeneration process.
I was told a long time ago by a guy a lot smarter than me to be careful of what we focus on. For what we tend to focus on will be that thing that tends to 'expand'. Choose to 'fight weeds' and that my friend is what we will end up doing for the rest of our lives.
It is not by chance that once the focus goes on to increasing the numbers and diversity of higher succession species, i.e. the perennials, then the less desirable just seem to fade away. Nature does not like mono cultures and will always try to shift the ecological state towards complexity and diversity, and the challenge for the dryer rangelands of the world is that we need to reintroduce the large herbivores back into the system to encourage positive change, and instead we have science demonising them.
Be careful of studies debunking so called ‘organic systems’ as we are not talking the same language as far as inputs etc. are concerned. Improving soil health should be the focus when doing away with chemicals & depending on what condition the farm is in this could be a long process. Once that is achieved & the farm is managed for diversity & utilising synergistic enterprises it will produce far more than any mono culture based industrial system. Google ‘Joel Salatin – Polyface Farms’ for a look at a place that would be the world leader in what is possible, and inspiration. It is a place that struggled to run thirty or forty cows historically, & last year turned off over two million dollars in produce! By the way, he calls himself ‘beyond organic’. Actually he doesn’t even mention the ‘O’ word as he thinks the brand has been bastardised so much.
And economically Tim, if I was starting up the focus would be the same as I have now as economically it is imperative for us to remain profitable and to remain viable. Despite what many economists seem to think, the ecology does not revolve around the economy and nature (in the end) has got a far bigger cheque book than any of us....