Pest animal and Weed Management...

Pest animal and Weed Management Survey National landholder survey results Nyree Stenekes, Rob Kancans and Bill Binks

Research by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences

Research report 17.5 Report to Client for the Biosecurity Policy and Implementation

Division May 2017

© Commonwealth of Australia 2017

Ownership of intellectual property rights Unless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights, if any) in this publication is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia (referred to as the Commonwealth).

All material in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence except content supplied by third parties, logos and the Commonwealth Coat of Arms.

Inquiries about the licence and any use of this document should be emailed to [email protected].

Cataloguing data Stenekes, N, Kancans, R and Binks, B, 2017, Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results, ABARES research report 17.5, May. CC BY 4.0.

ISSN: 1477-8358

ISBN: 978-1-74323-339-9

ABARES project 43588 & 43591

Internet This publication is available at agriculture.gov.au/abares/publications.

Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) Postal address GPO Box 858 Canberra ACT 2601 Switchboard +61 2 6272 2010 Email [email protected] Web agriculture.gov.au/abares

Disclaimer The Australian Government acting through the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, represented by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, has exercised due care and skill in preparing and compiling the information and data in this publication. Notwithstanding, the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, ABARES, its employees and advisers disclaim all liability, including for negligence and for any loss, damage, injury, expense or cost incurred by any person as a result of accessing, using or relying on information or data in this publication to the maximum extent permitted by law.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode

mailto:[email protected]

http://agriculture.gov.au/abares/publications

mailto:[email protected]

http://agriculture.gov.au/abares/

Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES

iii

Contents Key findings 1

1 Introduction 3

2 Results 4

Pest animal and weed impacts 4

Management 29

Appendix A: Survey respondents and property characteristics 40

Appendix B: Methods 44

Appendix C: Response rates 48

Appendix D: Selected results for NRM regions 49

Appendix E: Map key 55

References 56

Tables Table 1 Impacts of pest species on property in past 12 months 25

Table 2 Expenditure ($) per property on managing pest animals and weeds, last 12 months 33

Table 3 Days spent on managing pests and weeds on property, average per farm, last 12 months 34

Table 4 Pest animal and weed group membership and management plans 38

Table 5 Awareness of and participation in activities and programs 39

Table 6 Sources of information and advice on dealing with pest animal and weed 39

Table 7 Median and mean property size 42

Table 8 Property size by percentile 42

Table 9 EVAO of survey respondents 43

Table 10 Australian agricultural industry sub-industries 45

Table 11 Calculated sample sizes to meet survey requirements 45

Table 12 Survey response rate by NRM region 48

Table 13 Selected results for NRM regions – awareness on property (feral pest animals) 49

Table 14 cont. Selected results for NRM regions – awareness on property (feral pest animals) 50

Table 15 Selected results for NRM regions – awareness on property (other pests and weeds) 51


iv

Table 16 Selected results for NRM regions – major problem with species group 53

Table 17 Selected results for NRM regions – management effort and group participation 54

Figures Figure 1 Aware of the presence of pest animals on the property in the past 12

months 4

Figure 2 Degree of the pest problem on property in the last 12 months, of respondents who reported an awareness of a pest 19

Figure 3 Overall feral animal problem on the property in last 12 months 20

Figure 4 Major problem with feral animals in the past 12 months, ranked by NRM Region 21

Figure 5 Degree of weed problem on the property in last 12 months 22

Figure 6 Impacts of weeds on property in last 12 months 25

Figure 7 Aware of the presence of pest animals in local area in the past 12 months 26

Figure 8 Degree of the pest animal problem in local area in the last 12 months, of respondents who reported an awareness of a pest 27

Figure 9 Overall feral animal problem in local area in last 12 months 28

Figure 10 Degree of weed problem in local area in last 12 months 28

Figure 11 Pest animal management activities, on the property in the past 12 months 29

Figure 12 Effectiveness of pest animal management actions, on the property in the last 12 months 30

Figure 13 Management of weeds, on the property in the past 12 months0 31

Figure 14 Effectiveness of weed management actions, on the property in the last 12 months 32

Figure 15 Pest animal management activities in local area in the past 12 months 35

Figure 16 Effectiveness of pest management activities undertaken by all stakeholders in local area in the last 12 months 36

Figure 17 Overall effectiveness of feral animal management activities that were undertaken by all stakeholders in local area in the last 12 months 36

Figure 18 Weed management activities in local area in the past 12 months 37

Figure 19 Overall effectiveness of weed management activities that were undertaken by all stakeholders in local area in the last 12 months 37

Figure 20 Importance of actions to improve pest and weed management in local area 38

Figure 21 Age distribution of survey respondents 40

Figure 22 Gender of survey respondents 40


v

Figure 23 Role of survey respondents on the property 41

Figure 24 Main purpose of the property 41

Figure 25 Survey respondents by agricultural industry 43

Figure 26 EVAO proportions of agricultural establishments sampled compared with respondents to the ABARES pest and weed survey (PAWS) 46

Maps Map 1 Awareness of wild dogs on property in the last 12 months 5

Map 2 Awareness of foxes on property in the last 12 months 6

Map 3 Awareness of rabbits/hares on property in the last 12 months 7

Map 4 Awareness of introduced pest birds (e.g. Starling, Indian myna) on property in the last 12 months 8

Map 5 Awareness of feral deer on property in the last 12 months 9

Map 6 Awareness of feral pigs on property in the last 12 months 10

Map 7 Awareness of feral camels on property in the last 12 months 11

Map 8 Awareness of feral goats on property in the last 12 months 12

Map 9 Awareness of feral horses/donkeys on property in the last 12 months 13

Map 10 Awareness of cats on property in the last 12 months 14

Map 11 Awareness of rats/mice on property in the last 12 months 15

Map 12 Awareness of native animals and birds (e.g. kangaroos, crows, possums, etc) on property in the last 12 months 16

Map 13 Awareness of insects (e.g. locusts, flies, aphids, etc) on property in the last 12 months 17

Map 14 Awareness of other pests (e.g. parasites, slugs, nematodes, mites, etc) on property in the last 12 months 18

Map 15 Major problem with feral animals in the past 12 months 21

Map 16 Major problem with weeds in the past 12 months 23

Map 17 Weed problems on property caused by Weed of National Significance (WoNS) in the last 12 months 24


1

Key findings Background This report presents the key results from a national survey of 6470 agricultural land managers undertaken by ABARES in 2016 about pest and weed management on their property and local area.

The survey respondents represented land managers across broadacre, horticulture, dairy and other livestock (poultry, deer, horses, bee-keeping) industries, each with an estimated value of agricultural operations (EVAO) of $5000 per year or more, across 53 natural resource management regions in Australia.

The data were collected through a combination of hardcopy postal and online versions of the survey. Approximately 77 per cent of responses received were via the postal survey and 23 per cent via the online survey. A response rate of 50.1 per cent overall was achieved.

This report presents results on a range of topics from the survey including: level of awareness of pest animals and Weeds of National Significance (WoNS), impacts of pest animals and weeds, pest animal and weed management activities on the property and in the local area, and information sources and participation in local support networks.

Key findings from the survey are:

Awareness • A majority of land managers indicated an awareness of the presence of rabbits/hares,

foxes, native animals and birds, and rodents (rats and mice) on their property in the past 12 months.

• The awareness of wild dogs, feral pigs, feral deer, feral goats, camels and horses/donkeys varies significantly across Australian agricultural regions. Queensland land managers reported a higher awareness of feral pigs. In Victoria, land managers reported a higher awareness of feral deer.

Problem • The presence of a given pest animal does not necessarily indicate it is a major problem

for land managers. For example, while rabbits/hares are widespread (72 per cent of respondents indicating presence on their property) only 11 per cent of respondents indicated they are a major problem, with the majority (61 per cent) of respondents indicating they are only a minor problem or no problem.

• Twenty five per cent of land managers reported major weed problems in the last 12 months.

• Problems related to the presence of Weeds of National Significance (WoNS) on agricultural properties are widespread, with land managers in all regions reporting issues with WoNS.

Impacts • Landholders reported feral animals contributing to crop damage, decreased livestock

production and infrastructure damage; native animals and birds contributing to crop


2

damage, infrastructure damage and decreased livestock production; and insects contributing to crop damage.

• The majority of land managers reported a decrease in the value of production as the main impact stemming from weeds.

Management • Nearly 80 per cent of respondents were actively managing a pest animal, and 85 per cent

were actively managing weeds on their property in the last 12 months.

• Shooting and ground baiting continue to be widely used tools for vertebrate pest management.

• Herbicide is used by 90 per cent of landholders in the management of weeds and reported as effective by the vast majority.

• The majority of respondents reported that pest animal and weed control methods they were using were at least moderately effective.

• Sixty five per cent of land managers reported that an agency or group were undertaking pest and animal management activities in their local area, while 51 per cent reported an agency or group were undertaking weed management activities.

• An average of $19,620 was spent per agricultural business on undertaking pest animal and weed management activities in the last 12 months. This figure includes pest animal and weed management related expenditure on traps, baits, pesticides/insecticides, herbicides, fuel, fencing materials, and labour (including the cost of contractors) on the property in the last 12 months. Weed management includes all activities undertaken as part of the farming enterprises business as usual production cycle, for example spraying weeds before planting a crop.

• Pest animal and weed control activities took an average of 77 person days per agricultural business by owners/operators (including family members) and 39 person days by contractors, employees and other people (for example, volunteers) in the last 12 months.

Management Groups, activities and programs • Nearly eight per cent of landholders were members of a pest animal or weed

management group. The majority of the groups had developed a plan for coordinating management activities or collaborating with other stakeholders.

• A majority of land managers reported: new and improved control methods; access to information on control options and methods; more management activities by other land managers (private and public); and better access to biological controls as important actions that could improve pest animal and weed management.

• Pest animal and weed management program awareness and participation was highest for activities provided by Regional Natural Resource Management groups, local government and Landcare.

• Land managers predominately used: peers and neighbours; agribusiness; state government; family and friends and private agricultural consultants for information and advice.


3

1 Introduction Established pest animals and weeds represent a high ongoing cost to agriculture, and they affect agricultural competiveness, the environment and the natural resource base. The Australian Government is investing $50 million through the Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper to improve the way pest animals and weeds are managed and to increase the capacity of farmers to deal with these threats. This is through investment in projects that: develop new and improved control tools and technologies; improve land manager awareness and access to control tools and technologies; improve land manager knowledge of best practice pest animal and weed management; and increase land manager and community participation in pest animal and weed management activities.

To enable the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to evaluate outcomes of this investment, baseline data is required to provide a national overview of the status and management of established pest animals and weeds. Currently, there is insufficient data available to establish the baseline. Therefore a national survey of agricultural land managers was undertaken to collect data on pest animal and weed status, impacts and management actions at the property and local area levels. A secondary objective is to provide a national data set that can be utilised by relevant stakeholders such as land managers, jurisdictions and regional bodies to assist in their management of pest and weeds.

The survey collected agricultural land managers’ perspectives on the following:

1. Pest animal and weed impact • The presence of pest animals and weeds on their property and in their local area. • The degree to which pest animals and weeds are a problem on their property and in

their local area. • The problems caused by established pest animals and weeds on agricultural

production (for example, crop losses) and the environment (for example, loss of native flora).

2. Property level management • The management/control actions (including non-action) undertaken by land

managers individually—including the time used by the land manager and the cost of management.

• Adoption of new control methods, tools and technologies—are people adopting new methods, which types of method, why (or why not).

3. Regional and community level management • Participation in local management groups and landscape level approaches. • The severity and impact of common pest animals and weeds in their local

area/region. • The effectiveness of collective pest animal and weed management actions in their

local area/ region. • The management/control actions (including non-action) undertaken within groups. • Adoption of new control methods—are groups adopting new methods, which type of

method, why (or why not). • The ways to improve the management of pest animals and weeds.

4. Information, support and networks • Preferred and trusted sources of information for building skills and knowledge in

management actions. • Effectiveness of activities encouraging adoption of improved control methods and

coordinated management across a local area/region.


4

2 Results Results presented in this report are based on the responses of 6,470 agricultural land managers who participated in the 2016 ABARES pest and weed management survey. The characteristics of the participants are presented in Appendix A.

Sample numbers are low for NRM regions of Cape York (QLD) and Alinytjara Wilurara (SA), therefore these estimates should be used with caution. No data was collected from Cooperative Management Area or external territory natural resource management regions. Australian Capital Territory and Torres Strait region responses via the open online survey are not presented at the regional level, but are included in national, state and industry level estimates.

Pest animal and weed impacts Awareness of presence on property Figure 1 presents the proportion of respondents who said they were aware of a pest animal species on their property in the last 12 months, while Maps 1 – 14 provide a spatial distribution of the awareness of wild dogs, foxes, rabbits/hares, introduced pest birds, feral deer, feral pigs, feral camels, feral goats, feral horses/donkeys, feral cats and rats/mice, native animals and birds, insects and other pests on properties. A map key showing the location of NRM regions is provided in Appendix E.

Figure 1 Aware of the presence of pest animals on the property in the past 12 months

Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

None of the above

Other pests (e.g. parasites, slugs, nematodes, mites, etc.)

Insects (e.g. locusts, flies, aphids, etc.)

Native animals and birds (e.g. kangaroos, crows,…

Rats/mice

Feral cats

Feral horses/donkeys

Feral goats

Camels

Feral pigs

Feral deer

Introduced pest birds (e.g starling, Indian myna)

Rabbits/hares

Foxes

Wild dogs

Percent survey respondents

Yes No


5

Map 1 Awareness of wild dogs on property in the last 12 months


6

Map 2 Awareness of foxes on property in the last 12 months


7

Map 3 Awareness of rabbits/hares on property in the last 12 months


8

Map 4 Awareness of introduced pest birds (e.g. Starling, Indian myna) on property in the last 12 months


9

Map 5 Awareness of feral deer on property in the last 12 months


10

Map 6 Awareness of feral pigs on property in the last 12 months


11

Map 7 Awareness of feral camels on property in the last 12 months


12

Map 8 Awareness of feral goats on property in the last 12 months


13

Map 9 Awareness of feral horses/donkeys on property in the last 12 months


14

Map 10 Awareness of cats on property in the last 12 months


15

Map 11 Awareness of rats/mice on property in the last 12 months


16

Map 12 Awareness of native animals and birds (e.g. kangaroos, crows, possums, etc) on property in the last 12 months


17

Map 13 Awareness of insects (e.g. locusts, flies, aphids, etc) on property in the last 12 months


18

Map 14 Awareness of other pests (e.g. parasites, slugs, nematodes, mites, etc) on property in the last 12 months


19

Problem on property Pest animals

Agricultural land managers who were aware of a pest on the property were asked to indicate the degree of the pest animal problem (ranging from ‘no’, ‘minor’ or ‘major’ problem) in the past 12 months. The results are presented in Figures 2 and 3, and in Map 15.

Land managers who reported they were aware of feral animals were also asked to rate the overall degree of the problem they had experienced with all feral animals on the property (Figure 3). Map 16 shows the proportion of land managers who experienced major problems with feral animals in the past 12 months across the regions. Natural Resource Management regions are ranked according to major problems with feral animals in Figure 4.

Figure 2 Degree of the pest problem on property in the last 12 months, of respondents who reported an awareness of a pest


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other pests (e.g. parasites, slugs, nematodes,mites, etc.)


Native animals and birds (e.g. kangaroos,crows, possums, etc.)

Rats/mice

Feral cats


Feral goats

Camels

Feral pigs

Feral deer

Introduced pest birds (e.g starling, Indianmyna)

Rabbits/hares

Foxes

Wild dogs

% survey respondentsNo problem Minor problem Major problem Not specified


20

Figure 3 Overall feral animal problem on the property in last 12 months

Note: 31 per cent of respondents did not specify an overall feral animal problem rating for the property. Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Major problem Minor problem No problem

Perc

ent o

f sur

vey

resp

onde

nts


21

Map 15 Major problem with feral animals in the past 12 months

Note: Sample numbers are low for NRM regions of Cape York (QLD) and Alinytjara Wilurara (SA), therefore these estimates should be used with caution. No data was collected from Cooperative Management Area, ACT or external territory natural resource management regions. Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016

Figure 4 Major problem with feral animals in the past 12 months, ranked by NRM Region

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Eyre PeninsulaSouth East

Northern and YorkeAdelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges

Glenelg HopkinsMurray

Peel-HarveyPort Phillip and Western Port

MalleeSouth Australian Murray Darling Basin

North CentralGreater Sydney

South Australian Arid LandsCorangamite

South East QueenslandWimmera

North CoastNorth West

RiverinaSouth

Goulburn BrokenPerthAvon

South CoastBurnett Mary

South WestNorth

South East NSWWest Gippsland

CondamineHunter

RangelandsBurdekin

Mackay WhitsundayNorthern Agricultural

Central TablelandsFitzroy

Central WestWestern

Kangaroo IslandNorth West NSW

Border Rivers Maranoa-BalonneNorth East

Northern TablelandsDesert Channels

Northern TerritorySouthern GulfNorthern Gulf

East GippslandWet Tropics

South West QueenslandCape York

Alinytjara Wilurara


22

Weeds

Agricultural land managers were asked to indicate the degree of the problem (ranging from ‘no’, ‘minor’ or ‘major’ problem) presented by weeds on their property in the past 12 months. A weed was defined as any unwanted plant that requires some form of action to reduce its economic, environmental, human health and amenity impacts. The results are presented in Figure 5. Spatial distribution of land managers experiencing major weed problems in the last 12 months is presented in Map 16. Map 17 provides a spatial representation of the proportion of respondents who indicated that a Weed of National Significance (WoNS) caused a problem on their property in the past 12 months.

Thirty two Weeds of National Significance have been agreed by Australian governments based on an assessment process that prioritised these weeds according to their invasiveness, potential for spread, their environmental, social and economic impacts, and ability to be successfully managed. The list of Weeds of National Significance was provided to respondents in the survey and can be accessed from the Department of Environment and Energy website (Australian Government 2017).

Figure 5 Degree of weed problem on the property in last 12 months


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Perc

ent o

f sur

vey

resp

onde

nts


23

Map 16 Major problem with weeds in the past 12 months


24

Map 17 Weed problems on property caused by Weed of National Significance (WoNS) in the last 12 months


25

Impacts at the property level Agricultural land managers who were aware of pest animals on their property were asked to indicate the kinds of impacts caused by pest animals and weeds in the past 12 months. The results are presented in Table 1 and Figure 6.

Table 1 Impacts of pest species on property in past 12 months

% surveyed landholders reporting impact Feral animals Native animals and birds

Insects Other pests

Crop damage or decreased crop production 42.6 60.8 61.7 24.7

Decreased livestock production 44.9 30.2 19.6 13.3

Decreased native plant or animal populations and distribution

24.4 13.3 4.1 3.4

Damage to property/infrastructure 35.9 38.2 2.8 7.7

Disease risk increase or spread 24.6 11.8 14.8 8.4

Soil erosion 23.4 9.7 1.1 2.6

Impacts on water sources 14.8 11.5 0.6 2.5

Other impacts 25.6 27.0 21.0 18.8 Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016

Figure 6 Impacts of weeds on property in last 12 months


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Decreased value of production

Increased fire risk

Blocked water courses

Decreased value of property

Poisoned stock

Decreased native plant or animalpopulations and distribution

Percent of survey respondents

Yes No


26

Awareness of presence in local area Pest and weed management activities are most effective when they are delivered over a local area. Landholders were asked how control activities were delivered in their local area and their level of involvement with these activities. Local area was defined as the land or other farms located nearby or surrounding the property.

Pest animals

Figure 7 presents the proportion of respondents who said they were aware of a pest animal species in their local area in the last 12 months.

Figure 7 Aware of the presence of pest animals in local area in the past 12 months


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

None of the above



Native animals and birds (e.g. kangaroos, crows, possums,etc.)

Rats/mice

Feral cats


Feral goats

Camels

Feral pigs

Feral deer

Introduced pest birds (e.g Starling, Indian myna)

Rabbits/hares

Foxes

Wild dogs


Yes No


27

Problem in local area Pest animals

Agricultural land managers who were aware of a pest animal species in the local area were asked to indicate the degree of the pest animal problem (ranging from ‘no’, ‘minor’ or ‘major’ problem) in the past 12 months. The results are presented in Figure 8 and 9.

Land managers who were aware of feral animals were also asked to rate the overall degree of the problem they had experienced with all feral animals in their local area (Figure 9).

Figure 8 Degree of the pest animal problem in local area in the last 12 months, of respondents who reported an awareness of a pest


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



Native animals and birds (e.g. kangaroos, crows, possums,etc.)

Rats/mice

Feral cats


Feral goats

Camels

Feral pigs

Feral deer


Rabbits/hares

Foxes

Wild dogs

% survey respondents

Major problem Minor problem No problem Not specified


28

Figure 9 Overall feral animal problem in local area in last 12 months

Note: 39 per cent of respondents did not specify an overall feral animal problem rating for the local area. Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016

Weeds

Weed impacts may include reduced yields, contamination of grain, health impacts on livestock, decreased value of property, and increased fire risk. Agricultural land managers were asked to indicate the degree of the problem (ranging from ‘no’, ‘minor’ or ‘major’ problem) presented by weeds in the local area in the past 12 months. The results are presented in Figure 10.

Figure 10 Degree of weed problem in local area in last 12 months

Note: 9 per cent of respondents did not specify a weed problem rating for the local area. Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Perc

ent o

f sur

vey

resp

onde

nts

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Perc

ent o

f sur

vey

resp

onsd

ents


29

Management Management activities (on property) Land managers were asked to indicate if they were undertaking pest and weed management activities and if so, what pest animal and weed management activities they had undertaken on the property over the past 12 months, and their perception of the effectiveness of these control methods. The results are presented in Figures 11, 12, 13 and 14.

Pest animals Seventy six per cent of land managers indicated they were undertaking pest animal management activities, including for preventative maintenance.

Figure 11 Pest animal management activities, on the property in the past 12 months


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Use of pesticides and/or insecticides

Crop or grazing management to address pests

Exclusion fencing and/or netting

Use of introduced biological control (e.g.predatory insects, rabbit calicivirus)

Trapping

Shooting

Ground baiting

Aerial baiting

Percent of surveyed landholders

Yes No


30

Figure 12 Effectiveness of pest animal management actions, on the property in the last 12 months


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Use of pesticides and/or insecticides

Crop or grazing management to addresspests


Use of introduced biological control (e.g.predatory insects, rabbit calicivirus)

Trapping

Shooting

Ground baiting

Aerial baiting

Very effective Moderately effective A little effective Not effective Not sure/don’t know


31

Weeds Eighty five per cent of land managers indicated they were undertaking weed management activities. Of those who undertook weed management, Figure 13 shows the actions used, and Figure 14 shows how effective they thought those actions were in managing weeds.

Figure 13 Management of weeds, on the property in the past 12 months0


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Pulling, manual removal or chipping

Application of herbicides

Use of biological controls (e.g. insects)

Slashing, cutting or mowing

Crop or grazing management to addressweeds (e.g. rotation, burning, mulching,

tillage)


Yes No


32

Figure 14 Effectiveness of weed management actions, on the property in the last 12 months


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%





Crop or grazing management to address weeds (e.g.rotation, burning, mulching, tillage)




33

Effort and expenditure on managing pests and weeds (on property) Eighty one per cent of land managers reported an expenditure on pest and/or weed management. Those reporting an expenditure were asked how much they spent on managing pests and weeds (for example, on traps, baits, pesticides/insecticides, fuel, fencing materials and labour including the cost of contractors) on the property in the last 12 months. The costs are attributed to all weed species managed on-farm and not just WoNS. This includes weed management activities that are undertaken as part of the farming enterprises business as usual production cycle, for example spraying weeds before planting a crop.

The average total expenditure of land managers who reported an expenditure on managing pests and weeds in the last 12 months was $19,620 (RSE 1.4%) per agricultural property. Average expenditure on activities to control individual pest species and weeds is shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Expenditure ($) per property on managing pest animals and weeds, last 12 months

Mean ($) a Median ($) a Relative Standard

Error (%) on mean b

Wild dogs 5,176 600 4 Foxes 965 270 3 Rabbits/ hares 898 200 4 Introduced pest birds (e.g. Starling, Indian myna) 3,183 100 25 Feral deer 2,133 500 16 Feral pigs 1,972 600 3 Camels 8,396 6,500 12 Feral goats 2,800 800 4 Feral horses/donkeys 3,591 2,000 13 Feral cats 377 100 6 Rats/mice 564 150 3 Native animals and birds (e.g. kangaroos, crows, possums, etc.)

3,850 968 3

Insects (e.g. locusts, flies, aphids, etc.) 6,303 1,200 4 Other pests (e.g. parasites, slugs, nematodes, mites, etc.) 4,759 1,500 2 Weeds 17,917 2,000 2

a Weightings were applied for expenditure and days estimates using ABARES survey weightings. b see Appendix B. Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016


34

Overall, for those land managers who reported their effort, these activities to control pest animals and weeds took an average of 77 person days per agricultural business (RSE 1.0%) by the owners/operators (including family members) and 39 person days (RSE 1.3%) by contractors, employees and other people (for example, volunteers) in the last 12 months (Table 3).

Table 3 Days spent on managing pests and weeds on property, average per farm, last 12 months

Mean

(days/year—owner/operator including family

members) a

Relative Standard Error (%)

b

Mean (days/year—

contractor, employee and

other persons, e.g. volunteers) a

Relative Standard

Error (%) b

Wild dogs 28 2 16 3 Foxes 18 1 10 3 Rabbits/hares 14 2 9 3 Introduced pest birds (e.g. Starling, Indian myna) 18 3 14 7

Feral deer 31 4 12 4 Feral pigs 33 2 20 2

Camels 44 28 35 31 Feral goats 24 6 26 7 Feral horses/donkeys 7 10 8 8 Feral cats 18 4 9 12 Rats/mice 17 2 13 4 Native animals and birds (e.g. kangaroos, crows, possums, etc.) 35 1 18 2

Insects (e.g. locusts, flies, aphids, etc.) 15 2 17 3 Other pests (e.g. parasites, slugs, nematodes, mites, etc.) 18 2 17 3

Weeds 37 1 30 2 a Weightings were applied for expenditure and days estimates using ABARES survey weightings. b see Appendix B. Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016


35

Management activities in local area Land managers were asked to indicate what pest control methods and weed management activities had been undertaken in the local area by an agency or group over the past 12 months, and their perception of the effectiveness of these control methods and activities. The results are presented in Figures 15, 16, 17 and 18. A ‘group’ was defined as a collection of neighbours, landholders, or other parties (government or non-government) in a formal or informal arrangement, committee or syndicate for the purpose of collectively managing pest animals or weeds.

Pest animals Sixty five per cent of land managers indicated that pest animal management activities were being undertaken in their local area by an agency or group. Figure 15 presents the proportion of landholders who believe pest management activities are being undertaken in their local area. Land managers were asked how effective they considered the overall pest animal management actions undertaken by all stakeholders in their local area in the past 12 months to have been for each species (Figure 16) and for feral animals overall (Figure 17).

Figure 15 Pest animal management activities in local area in the past 12 months


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other management control method taken

Use of pesticides and/or insecticides (e.g. drenches)

Crop or grazing management to address pests


Use of introduced biological control (e.g. predatoryinsects, rabbit calicivirus)

Trapping

Shooting

Ground baiting

Aerial baiting

Percent surveyed landholders

Yes No


36

Figure 16 Effectiveness of pest management activities undertaken by all stakeholders in local area in the last 12 months


Land managers gave a rating on the overall effectiveness of all feral animal management activities in their local area (Figure 17). Feral animals include all introduced vertebrate pest animals (wild dogs, foxes, rabbits/hares, introduced pest birds, feral deer, camels, feral goats, feral horses/donkeys, feral cats, and rats/mice).

Figure 17 Overall effectiveness of feral animal management activities that were undertaken by all stakeholders in local area in the last 12 months


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other pests (e.g. parasites, slugs, nematodes, mites,etc.)


Native animals and birds (e.g. kangaroos, crows,possums, etc.)

Rats/mice

Feral cats


Feral goats

Camels

Feral pigs

Feral deer


Rabbits/hares

Foxes

Wild dogs



0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Feral animal management (overall)


Not effective A little effective Moderately effective Very effective Not sure/don’t know


37

Weeds Fifty one per cent of land managers indicated that weed management activities were being undertaken in their local area by an agency or group. Figure 18 presents the proportion of landholders who said a given weed management activity was taking place in the local area. Land managers were asked how effective they considered the overall weed management actions undertaken by all stakeholders in their local area in the past 12 months to have been (Figure 19).

Figure 18 Weed management activities in local area in the past 12 months


Figure 19 Overall effectiveness of weed management activities that were undertaken by all stakeholders in local area in the last 12 months


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%





Crop or grazing management to address weeds (e.g.rotation, burning, mulching, tillage)


Yes No

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Weeds


Not effective A little effective Moderately effective Very effective Not sure/don’t know


38

Participation in groups, activities and programs Agricultural land managers were asked to indicate if they were currently a member of a pest animal or weed management group. If they were a member, they were also asked if the group had a pest animal or weed management plan for coordinating activities and collaborating with other stakeholders to manage pest animals and weeds (Table 4).

Table 4 Pest animal and weed group membership and management plans

% landholders that are members of one group only 7.7

% landholders that are members of more than one group 2.2

% of groups with a pest animal management plan 63.7

% of groups with a weed management plan 51.8


Agricultural land managers were asked to indicate the importance of a range of actions to improve the management of pest animals and weeds in their local area. The results are presented in Figure 20.

Figure 20 Importance of actions to improve pest and weed management in local area


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Better coordination of landholders’ management activities by using an agency/group

Greater resources to assist with coordination (e.g. acoordinator or facilitator)

More management activities by other land managers(private and public)

New or improved control methods

Better access to existing biological control agents

Greater access to information on controloptions/methods/tools

More extension/training services


Very important Important Moderately important Slightly important Not important


39

Agricultural land managers were asked to indicate their awareness and participation in activities and programs for pest animal and weed management. The results are presented in Table 5.

Table 5 Awareness of and participation in activities and programs

Yes, aware and participated %

Yes, aware but did not participate %

No, not aware %

Local government 11.9 18.9 69.1

State government (e.g. agriculture departments) 9.9 17.7 72.4

Regional National Resource Management (NRM) group/Catchment Management Authority/Local Land Service

13.5 20.0 66.4

Landcare group 11.8 24.1 64.1

Community group 6.9 12.5 80.6

Pest animal or weed management group 7.9 10.8 81.4

Biosecurity group 4.0 7.3 88.8

Private consultant or agribusiness agent 9.9 8.3 81.8

Farming system group 7.5 8.1 84.4

Industry group 6.7 8.0 85.3


Sources of information and advice Agricultural land managers were asked to indicate their sources of information and advice about pest animal and weed management. The results are presented in Table 6.

Table 6 Sources of information and advice on dealing with pest animal and weed

Yes % No %

I don’t know where to go for information and advice 2.9 97.1

Peers and neighbours 54.4 45.6

Family and friends 29.6 70.4

State government (e.g. agriculture departments) 38.9 61.1

Local government/Council 20.8 79.2

Conservation group 7.3 92.7

Regional NRM group/Catchment Management Authority/Local Land Service 19.9 80.1

PestSmart products (e.g. Wild DogScan, guides, DVDs, fact sheets, etc.) 5.6 94.4

Farmer production group 19.5 80.5

Industry associations and groups 17.5 82.5

Private agriculture consultant 29.5 70.5

Demonstration trials 16.3 83.7

Internet 44.9 55.1

Books, magazines and journals 31.8 68.2

Landcare group 13.8 86.2

Pest animal or weed management group 8.3 91.7

National facilitator (e.g. National Wild Dog Facilitator) 2.4 97.6

Local pest animal or weed management coordinator 8.4 91.6

Agribusiness (co-ops, Elders, etc.) 42.6 57.4

Research and Development Corporations/Cooperative Research Centres 6.3 93.7

TAFE/University 1.9 98.1 Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016


40

Appendix A: Survey respondents and property characteristics The respondents Results presented in this report are based on the responses of 6,470 agricultural land managers who participated in the 2016 ABARES pest and weed management survey. Approximately 0.5 per cent of respondents indicated that the main purpose of their property was not agricultural production, these respondents have only been included in analysis where relevant. The characteristics of participants are presented in the following tables.

Age The age ranges of participants in the survey is shown in Figure 21. Figure 21 Age distribution of survey respondents

Gender Proportions of males and females in the survey is shown in Figure 22.

Figure 22 Gender of survey respondents

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

18 to 35 years 36 to 55 years Over 55 years

Perc

ent o

f sur

vey

resp

onde

nts

82%

18%

Male Female


41

Role on the property The role of survey respondents on the property is presented in Figure 23.

Figure 23 Role of survey respondents on the property

The property The main purpose of the properties of survey respondents is presented in Figure 24.

Figure 24 Main purpose of the property

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Owner/operator Manager Employee Other

Perc

ent o

f sur

vey

resp

onde

nts

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Agriculturalproduction

Conservation of nativeplants and animals

Residential Hobby/lifestyle farm Other

Perc

ent o

f sur

vey

resp

onde

nts


42

Property size The average size of property represented in the survey was 14,145 hectares with a range of between 1 and 12,148,674 hectares (Table 7), and the distribution of property sizes by percentile is in Table 8.

Table 7 Median and mean property size Median ha Mean ha

Australia 300 14 145

NSW 400 9969

VIC 246 1576

QLD 281 27 632

SA 401 7880

WA 340 6261

TAS 190 891

NT 311 195 565

Table 8 Property size by percentile

Percentile ha

10 <16

20 16 - 40

30 41 - 85

40 86 - 162

50 163 - 300

60 301 - 567

70 568 - 1214

80 1215 - 2452

90 2453 - 6475

100 >6475


43

Industry type The proportion of each agricultural industry that responded to the survey (using ABS ANSZIC classifications) is presented in Figure 25.

Figure 25 Survey respondents by agricultural industry

Note: ANSZIC Classifications that were in scope of the survey sample are in Table 10. ‘Other livestock’ includes poultry, deer, horse, and pig farming, and bee-keeping.

Farm value of production Table 9 presents a breakdown of the estimated value of agricultural operations (EVAO) of agricultural businesses responding to the survey.

Table 9 EVAO of survey respondents

Mean $ 1 373 307

Median $ 544 405

Min $ 5000

Max $ 113 019 065

Percentile

10 <25 858

20 75 255

30 199 247

40 366 633

50 544 405

60 800 692

70 1 090 720

80 1 629 108

90 2 781 514

100 >2 781 514 Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics 2016

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Broadacre Horticulture Dairy Other livestock

Perc

ent o

f sur

vey

resp

onde

nts


44

Appendix B: Methods The ABARES pest and weed survey is a key part of a larger research project to determine what changes have occurred in pest and weed management activity on agricultural properties in Australia. The approach consists of:

1. baseline survey of managers of agricultural establishments in 2016 2. follow-up survey of managers of agricultural establishments in 2018.

The second survey will contain similar questions to enable measurement of the changes in management activity over the intervening two years.

1.1. Survey instrument development

The survey instrument was designed to address the objectives specified at the beginning of the report. A range of literature—including survey instruments—was reviewed in the design phase of the survey. The ABARES pest and weed survey was designed to be a baseline for comparison in terms of:

• awareness and extent of pest and weed problem • type of pest and weed problems/issues • management activities/control measures • effort and expenditure of undertaking pest and weed management/control, in

expenditure and days.

Some similar survey questions from the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006-07 NRM survey (ABS 2008) were included to enable trend analyses from the past where appropriate. The follow-up survey of land managers in 2018 will be designed to measure changes that have occurred since the 2016 pest and weed survey.

A monitoring, evaluation, improvement and reporting (MERI) framework for pest animal and weed management was developed through the Invasive Plants and Animals Committee. This survey will contribute evidence that can inform high-level national indicators in the framework.

The primary survey method used was a paper survey instrument delivered by post to managers of agricultural establishments. The postal survey methods used for approaching the target sample was based on Dillman (1978). Agricultural land managers also had the option of accessing an online version of the survey using a unique login code sent to them, or by using an open online survey invitation. There was a marked preference by land managers for completing the survey in the paper format and returning it by post (76 per cent returns) compared with the online version (24 per cent returns).

1.2. Survey Sampling

The sample of agricultural establishments used for the survey was drawn from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) agricultural census survey frame. The sample criteria were as follows:

• farm establishments with an Estimated Value of Agricultural Operations (EVAO) of $5000 or more

• representative of agriculture across Natural Resource Management (NRM) regions, States/Territories and nationally

• representative of four custom sub-industries: Horticulture, Broadacre, Dairy, Other Livestock (Table 10).


45

A Relative Standard Error (RSE) target of 8 per cent at the NRM region level and 5 per cent RSE at the State/territory level, was selected to deliver confidence in results and more accurate evaluation of changes over time.

Table 10 Australian agricultural industry sub-industries

Custom sub-industries Sub-industry category (ABS ANZSIC 2006) Population (farm establishments

EVAO $5000 or more)

Horticulture 012 Mushroom and Vegetable Growing 4539

013 Fruit and Tree Nut Growing 12,260

Broadacre 014 Sheep, Beef Cattle and Grain Farming (incl. rice) 90,579

015 Other Crop Growing (incl. sugar and cotton) 6667 Dairy 016 Dairy Cattle Farming 8263

Other livestock

017 Poultry Farming 1130 018 and 019 Other Livestock Farming (incl. deer, pigs,

horses and beekeeping) 6419

Total 129,857 Note: 011 Nursery and Floriculture Production (2389 farm establishments) were excluded from the sample.

In order to achieve representativeness at the NRM region scale and for the custom sub-industries at State, Territory and national scales with an acceptable level of error, a minimum of 6449 responding farm establishments were required. Table 11 provides the calculated sample sizes to meet these requirements.

Table 11 Calculated sample sizes to meet survey requirements

Sample size Geographical coverage Industry level representation Relative Standard Error

383 Australia Horticulture, Dairy, Broadacre, Other livestock*

5% RSE

2820 State / Territory Horticulture, Dairy, Broadacre, Other livestock*

5% RSE

6449 Responses by NRM Region 01 Agriculture** 8 % RSE

*Based on four custom sub-industries defined as per section 1.2 Survey Sampling aggregated from ANSZIC Classifications (ABS and Statistics New Zealand 2008). **ANSZIC Classification (ABS and Statistics New Zealand 2008).

The proposed approach was for a sampling target of ≈ 13,000 farm establishments to achieve a response from ≈ 6500 farm establishments. ABARES engaged an external supplier, The Social Research Centre (SRC) to carry out the data collection.

Analysis of the survey results was undertaken by ABARES using the statistical software package SPSS19 and statistical approaches in Pallant (2005).

1.3. Survey Response

A comparison between proportions of targeted agricultural properties by EVAO and those that responded to the survey are shown in Figure 26. There was negligible response bias based on EVAO, which is a derived value based on the turnover reported by an agricultural business operation in its Businesses Activity Statement (BAS).


46

Figure 26 EVAO proportions of agricultural establishments sampled compared with respondents to the ABARES pest and weed survey (PAWS)

Note: EVAO is the Estimated Value of the Agricultural Operation. REACS refers to the Rural Environment and Agricultural Commodities Survey which is an annual sample survey conducted by Australian Bureau of Statistics in inter-censal years.

A larger proportion of agricultural properties in the higher EVAO ranges were targeted in the ABARES pest and weed management survey than the proportion that exists in the population of agricultural properties (Figure 26). Therefore, weightings were applied to the survey estimates that involved expenditure or days of effort spent on managing pests and weeds. Weightings were not applied to survey estimates that relate to the awareness of pests and weeds or to pest and weed management activities because there is no evidence that these activities are correlated with factors used to generate weightings, such as number of farms in a region, areas of crops and numbers of livestock. Weightings were not applied unless indicated in the note below each table in this report. The weighting methodology used for the pest and weed survey sample is based on the approach described in ABARES (2011).

ABARES pest and weed management survey sample numbers were low for NRM regions of Cape York (QLD) and Alinytjara Wilurara (SA), therefore estimates for these regions should be used with caution. No data was collected from Cooperative Management Area or external territory natural resource management regions. The small number of Australian Capital Territory and Torres Strait region responses via the open online survey are not presented at the regional level, but are included in the national, state and industry level estimates.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Farm

est

ablis

hmen

ts (%

)

EVAO ranges ($)

Proportion farms ABS Agricultural Census 2011 (%)

Proportion farms REACS 2014-15 (%)

Proportion PAWS targeted 2016 (%)

Proportion PAWS responded 2016 (%)


47

1.4. Reliability of estimates

The estimates in this report are based on information from the ABARES pest and weed survey conducted in August-December 2016. The results may differ from those of the true population of agricultural businesses because they are based on a sample. These differences are due to sampling errors. The size of the sampling error is influenced by the survey design, the estimation procedure used and the variability in agricultural businesses in the population. The higher the sample size, the lower the error. Therefore, national estimates are likely to be more accurate than NRM region, industry or species level estimates.

In this report, the error due to sampling variability is measured by the relative standard error (RSE) which is calculated using the standard error (SE) and the survey estimate (referred to as x) in the following manner: RSE%(x) = (SE(x)/x)*100. RSEs on estimates at the national level (using all valid responses) are generally in the range of 5 percent or less. At the 4 agricultural sub-industry levels (dairy, horticulture, broadacre and other livestock) and state level, RSEs are generally less than 5 per cent. For NRM region estimates and species level estimates, the RSEs can be higher depending on the response rates for the particular survey question. For tables with selected estimates at these scales the RSE is provided.

For more information about reliability of estimates, sampling errors and calculating confidence intervals using relative standard errors please consult ABARES (2011).

1.5. Approval from ABS Statistical Clearinghouse

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Statistical Clearinghouse granted approval for the survey in June 2016 (approval number 02479 – 01).


48

Appendix C: Response rates Table 12 summarises all modes of response to the ABARES pest and weed survey by NRM region, including surveys received via online and hardcopy postal formats.

Table 12 Survey response rate by NRM region

State/Territory NRM region Targeted sample

Total responses

Response rate (%)

NSW Central Tablelands 182 102 56 Central West 308 169 55 Greater Sydney 291 153 53 Hunter 247 120 49 Murray 300 147 49 North Coast 319 149 47 North West NSW 328 161 49 Northern Tablelands 113 55 49 Riverina 454 221 49 South East NSW 245 130 53 Western 153 80 52

VIC Corangamite 254 129 51 East Gippsland 35 24 69 Glenelg Hopkins 296 162 55 Goulburn Broken 369 169 46 Mallee 318 172 54 North Central 360 177 49 North East 115 74 64 Port Phillip and Western Port 433 214 49 West Gippsland 286 156 55 Wimmera 202 104 51

QLD Border Rivers Maranoa-Balonne 213 122 57 Burdekin 193 88 46 Burnett Mary 378 197 52 Cape York 13 4 31 Condamine 309 151 49 Desert Channels 103 65 63 Fitzroy 274 135 49 Mackay Whitsunday 71 28 39 Northern Gulf 70 27 39 South East Queensland 457 224 49 South West Queensland 51 47 92 Southern Gulf 54 30 56 Wet Tropics 231 114 49

SA Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 426 217 51 Alinytjara Wilurara 4 3 75 Eyre Peninsula 154 84 55 Kangaroo Island 21 12 57 Northern and Yorke 283 159 56 South Australian Arid Lands 26 20 77 South Australian Murray Darling Basin 531 258 49 South East 326 149 46

WA Avon 309 159 51 Northern Agricultural 222 113 51 Peel-Harvey 161 80 50 Perth 187 71 38 Rangelands 101 36 36 South Coast 223 108 48 South West 436 212 49

TAS North 460 228 50 North West 469 211 45 South 280 147 53

NT Northern Territory 276 101 37 Aust. All 12,920 6470 50

Note: Responses from Torres Strait and Australian Capital Territory NRM regions (2 responses) received via the open online survey are not presented at the regional level, but are included in national, state and industry level estimates.


49

Appendix D: Selected results for NRM regions Table 13 Selected results for NRM regions – awareness on property (feral pest animals)

State/ Territory

NRM region Aware of presence of pest animal on property

(% respondents) Wild dogs

RSE (%)

Foxes RSE (%)

Rabbits/ hares

RSE (%)

Introduced pest birds

RSE (%)

Feral deer

RSE (%)

Feral pigs

RSE (%)

Camels RSE (%)

Feral goats

RSE (%)

Feral horses/

donkeys

RSE (%)

Feral cats

RSE (%)

Rats/mice

RSE (%)

NSW Central Tablelands 9 32 91 3 80 5 41 12 25 17 31 15 0 8 34 3 57 34 14 60 8 Central West 8 27 88 3 79 4 34 11 8 27 59 6 0 17 17 1 70 64 6 68 5 Greater Sydney 23 15 63 6 57 7 43 9 15 20 4 40 0 3 49 0 21 16 64 6 Hunter 48 9 78 5 72 6 49 9 17 20 23 17 0 7 34 1 100 25 16 71 6 Murray 10 25 88 3 83 4 47 9 14 21 19 17 0 3 49 0 46 9 70 5 North Coast 62 6 54 8 51 8 51 8 10 25 4 40 0 2 57 1 70 23 15 82 4 North West NSW 16 18 84 3 71 5 53 7 12 22 86 3 0 16 18 0 64 6 77 4 Northern Tablelands 47 14 84 6 80 7 47 14 33 19 51 13 0 22 26 2 99 55 12 65 10 Riverina 5 29 85 3 74 4 37 9 7 24 14 17 0 8 23 0 100 43 8 67 5 South East NSW 15 21 92 3 81 4 42 10 32 13 25 15 0 8 30 1 100 32 13 61 7 Western 26 19 84 5 75 6 21 22 13 30 51 11 1 99 45 12 3 70 55 10 45 12

VIC Corangamite 3 49 87 3 83 4 35 12 13 23 4 44 0 2 57 1 100 33 12 67 6 East Gippsland 50 20 100 0 83 9 67 14 79 10 8 68 0 4 98 0 50 20 79 10 Glenelg Hopkins 7 28 90 3 83 4 31 12 7 28 2 57 0 3 44 2 57 35 11 69 5 Goulburn Broken 6 31 77 4 79 4 54 7 12 21 5 32 0 4 40 1 70 34 11 55 7 Mallee 11 22 78 4 74 5 26 13 2 49 16 18 0 7 28 2 57 38 10 49 8 North Central 4 37 86 3 83 3 44 8 5 32 3 44 0 2 49 1 70 36 10 71 5 North East 48 12 92 4 78 6 40 14 62 9 14 29 0 5 49 1 99 42 14 68 8 Port Phillip and Western Port

6 27 76 4 79 4 49 7 15 16 2 50 0 2 50 0 100 20 14 62 5

West Gippsland 6 31 91 3 81 4 60 7 22 15 0 0 0 0 27 13 71 5 Wimmera 5 44 92 3 92 3 28 16 10 30 0 0 1 100 0 30 15 70 6

QLD Border Rivers Maranoa-Balonne

61 7 73 6 81 4 39 11 11 26 83 4 0 24 16 0 66 7 80 4

Burdekin 71 7 23 20 44 12 3 57 13 28 80 5 0 3 57 8 36 37 14 45 12 Burnett Mary 71 5 57 6 62 6 31 11 14 18 53 7 0 2 57 2 57 37 9 73 4 Cape York 75 29 25 87 25 87 50 50 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 50 50 Condamine 56 7 73 5 69 5 53 8 3 44 59 7 0 2 57 1 70 55 7 82 4 Desert Channels 100 0 40 15 55 11 6 48 3 70 88 5 15 29 28 20 18 26 72 8 40 15 Fitzroy 84 4 42 10 73 5 24 15 8 29 79 4 0 1 100 3 49 64 6 67 6 Mackay Whitsunday 79 10 0 14 46 4 98 4 98 64 14 0 0 0 25 33 64 14 Northern Gulf 70 12 0 37 25 22 36 7 68 81 9 0 0 15 46 41 23 41 23 South East Queensland 56 6 51 7 61 5 36 9 19 14 30 10 0 2 50 1 57 26 11 74 4 South West Queensland

87 6 62 11 79 8 19 30 4 69 89 5 0 34 20 4 69 79 8 53 14


50

Table 14 cont. Selected results for NRM regions – awareness on property (feral pest animals)

State/ Territory

NRM region Aware of presence of pest animal on property (% respondents)

Wild dogs

RSE (%)

Foxes RSE (%)

Rabbits/ hares

RSE (%)

Introduced pest birds

RSE (%)

Feral deer

RSE (%)

Feral pigs

RSE (%)

Camels RSE (%)

Feral goats

RSE (%)

Feral horses/

donkeys

RSE (%)

Feral cats

RSE (%)

Rats/mice

RSE (%)

Southern Gulf 90 6 41 22 31 28 14 46 10 55 83 8 10 55 10 55 3 98 66 13 45 21 Wet Tropics 48 10 1 100 17 21 30 14 5 40 68 6 0 0 1 100 21 18 81 4

SA Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges

2 44 66 5 67 5 35 9 21 13 3 40 0 100 3 40 0 100 21 13 65 5

Alinytjara Wilurara 67 41 67 41 67 41 67 41 0 0 33 82 0 33 82 67 41 33 82 Eyre Peninsula 8 36 93 3 86 4 54 10 6 43 0 0 15 25 0 64 8 77 6 Kangaroo Island 8 96 0 0 42 34 0 17 65 0 0 0 92 9 83 13 Northern and Yorke 4 40 86 3 81 4 43 9 16 18 1 100 0 3 44 0 38 10 81 4 South Australian Arid Lands 63 18 89 8 89 8 16 53 0 32 34 11 67 58 20 11 67 79 12 63 18 South Australian Murray Darling Basin

3 37 81 3 80 3 33 9 7 23 1 57 0 7 23 0 32 9 65 5

South East 5 37 85 3 80 4 38 11 26 14 2 57 0 1 100 0 30 13 61 7

WA Avon 13 21 91 2 84 3 6 31 1 100 5 34 1 100 0 1 100 60 6 74 5 Northern Agricultural 26 16 88 3 84 4 4 44 1 100 22 18 0 9 30 0 58 8 63 7 Peel-Harvey 3 70 81 5 71 7 6 43 3 70 35 15 0 1 99 0 30 17 68 8 Perth 4 56 57 10 60 10 24 22 3 70 6 49 0 1 99 3 70 24 22 53 11 Rangelands 44 19 25 29 31 25 6 69 0 8 55 6 69 14 41 17 37 44 19 36 22 South Coast 12 26 91 3 91 3 12 26 6 40 3 57 2 70 1 100 3 57 50 10 87 4 South West 4 33 87 3 88 3 9 21 3 40 22 13 0 1 57 0 100 41 8 70 4

TAS North 4 35 0 70 4 57 6 36 9 2 44 0 0 100 0 59 6 64 5 North West 3 37 0 71 4 53 7 5 29 0 0 0 100 0 41 8 54 6 South 4 40 0 69 6 62 6 39 10 0 0 3 49 0 57 7 59 7

NT Northern Territory 69 7 9 32 14 25 11 28 4 49 51 10 11 28 4 49 22 19 39 13 39 13


51

Table 15 Selected results for NRM regions – awareness on property (other pests and weeds)

State/ Territory

NRM region Aware of presence on property (% respondents)

Native animals RSE (%) Insects RSE

(%) Other pests (e.g. parasites,

slugs, nematodes) RSE (%)

Weeds of National Significance (WoNS) a

RSE (%)

NSW Central Tablelands 82 5 49 10 32 15 78 5 Central West 84 3 62 6 37 10 50 4 Greater Sydney 43 9 42 10 25 14 52 6 Hunter 71 6 42 11 26 15 79 4 Murray 77 5 56 7 40 10 43 5 North Coast 61 7 48 9 37 11 75 4 North West NSW 82 4 65 6 36 10 62 4 Northern Tablelands 82 6 51 13 44 15 67 7 Riverina 79 3 57 6 38 9 46 4 South East NSW 76 5 42 10 37 11 86 3 Western 70 7 44 13 26 19 34 6

VIC Corangamite 65 6 41 11 36 12 66 5 East Gippsland 79 10 46 22 33 29 89 7 Glenelg Hopkins 76 4 49 8 51 8 32 4 Goulburn Broken 75 4 52 7 42 9 52 4 Mallee 65 6 54 7 35 11 26 4 North Central 76 4 58 6 36 10 42 4 North East 79 6 48 12 36 16 71 6 Port Phillip and Western Port 58 6 43 8 33 10 61 4 West Gippsland 72 5 46 9 42 9 78 4 Wimmera 69 7 57 9 50 10 32 5

QLD Border Rivers Maranoa-Balonne 81 4 56 8 39 11 47 5 Burdekin 61 9 59 9 32 16 77 5 Burnett Mary 70 5 56 6 44 8 69 4 Cape York 50 50 25 87 0 75 22 Condamine 71 5 55 7 31 12 58 5 Desert Channels 85 5 52 12 11 36 76 6 Fitzroy 75 5 56 8 31 13 86 3 Mackay Whitsunday 61 15 39 23 29 30 65 10 Northern Gulf 74 11 56 17 44 22 67 11 South East Queensland 56 6 44 7 34 9 68 4 South West Queensland 91 4 45 16 21 28 47 8 Southern Gulf 66 13 59 16 10 55 100 0 Wet Tropics 54 9 40 12 40 12 51 6


52

State/ Territory

NRM region

Aware of presence on property (% respondents)

Native animals RSE

(%) Insects RSE (%)

Other pests (e.g. parasites, slugs,

nematodes)

RSE (%)

Weeds of National Significance (WoNS) a

RSE (%)

SA Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 64 5 44 8 43 8 48 4 Alinytjara Wilurara 67 41 33 82 33 82 0 0 Eyre Peninsula 75 6 71 7 45 12 46 6 Kangaroo Island 100 0 67 20 83 13 60 15 Northern and Yorke 79 4 65 6 50 8 45 4 South Australian Arid Lands 84 10 53 22 26 38 67 12 South Australian Murray Darling Basin 75 4 49 6 37 8 52 4 South East 70 5 60 7 50 8 20 4

WA Avon 78 4 72 5 41 10 14 3 Northern Agricultural 77 5 65 7 35 13 7 3 Peel-Harvey 60 9 43 13 20 22 29 6 Perth 63 9 51 12 44 14 14 5 Rangelands 50 17 53 16 33 24 42 10 South Coast 81 5 68 7 57 8 20 4 South West 79 4 59 6 60 6 50 4

TAS North 89 2 45 7 46 7 74 3 North West 85 3 43 8 47 7 60 4 South 88 3 50 8 45 9 70 4

NT Northern Territory 59 8 44 11 26 17 66 6 a WoNS estimates refer to per cent of respondents who said that weed problems on their property have been caused by a Weed of National Significance.


53

Table 16 Selected results for NRM regions – major problem with species group

State/ Territory

NRM region Major problem with species group on property

(% respondents)

Feral animals

RSE (%)

Native animals

RSE (%) Insects RSE

(%) Other pests

RSE (%) Weeds RSE

(%)

NSW Central Tablelands 32 18 62 9 8 48 13 42 26 17 Central West 33 13 61 7 25 17 16 28 36 10 Greater Sydney 17 22 14 29 10 36 12 38 11 23 Hunter 26 19 27 18 23 25 11 47 21 18 Murray 13 26 36 13 17 24 8 43 30 13 North Coast 18 21 12 28 19 23 13 33 19 17 North West NSW 37 12 54 8 22 18 19 26 36 10 Northern Tablelands 40 18 40 18 24 33 27 32 40 17 Riverina 20 17 42 9 18 18 16 24 33 10 South East NSW 24 17 56 9 9 43 13 35 24 16 Western 33 19 63 10 15 38 17 45 27 19

VIC Corangamite 17 24 30 16 20 26 30 22 20 18 East Gippsland 48 23 58 20 31 42 20 63 46 22 Glenelg Hopkins 13 25 51 9 33 15 34 15 22 15 Goulburn Broken 21 18 46 10 31 16 25 20 18 16 Mallee 15 22 26 16 25 18 26 21 21 15 North Central 17 20 37 11 21 19 14 29 28 12 North East 38 18 51 13 11 47 14 46 37 15 Port Phillip and Western Port 14 20 35 12 14 25 16 27 19 14 West Gippsland 25 16 24 17 14 28 17 27 18 17 Wimmera 18 24 41 14 21 25 28 22 25 17

QLD Border Rivers Maranoa-Balonne 38 13 68 7 23 22 7 48 34 13 Burdekin 27 20 41 16 37 18 39 23 30 16 Burnett Mary 22 16 16 20 23 17 25 18 26 12 Cape York 67 41 100 50 71 0 75 23 Condamine 25 17 28 15 13 28 15 33 26 14 Desert Channels 41 17 63 10 17 37 0 25 22 Fitzroy 32 14 26 17 16 27 11 42 33 12 Mackay Whitsunday 29 42 28 38 33 41 20 63 25 33 Northern Gulf 45 25 43 25 39 30 50 27 26 33 South East Queensland 18 18 20 17 23 18 27 18 27 11 South West Queensland 54 15 74 9 5 98 0 32 21 Southern Gulf 43 24 26 38 47 26 0 37 24 Wet Tropics 51 11 33 17 27 23 38 18 29 15

SA Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 12 24 29 13 17 22 16 23 19 14

Alinytjara Wilurara 67 41 50 71 0 0 0 Eyre Peninsula 3 70 33 18 28 21 30 25 33 16 Kangaroo Island 33 58 67 20 33 47 30 48 25 50 Northern and Yorke 11 24 28 14 21 19 30 17 30 12 South Australian Arid Lands 17 53 44 28 9 95 14 93 25 39 South Australian Murray Darling Basin 16 17 28 11 18 18 15 24 18 13

South East 7 36 26 17 23 19 22 21 13 21 WA Avon 22 17 37 12 30 14 13 31 42 9

Northern Agricultural 29 18 26 18 23 21 11 42 38 12 Peel-Harvey 14 33 45 16 26 29 21 44 14 28 Perth 21 30 43 18 21 34 37 24 9 39 Rangelands 26 38 47 24 50 22 36 36 25 29 South Coast 22 21 41 13 38 15 42 15 33 14 South West 22 15 48 8 35 12 26 15 21 14

TAS North 22 16 58 6 12 26 20 20 22 13 North West 18 20 68 5 20 20 16 22 15 16 South 21 19 64 7 19 23 14 29 25 14

NT Northern Territory 42 14 35 17 10 42 17 41 22 19


54

Table 17 Selected results for NRM regions – management effort and group participation

State/ Territory NRM region

Average expenditure per property – all pest

and weed management

Combined average days spent by owner/operator and

contractors per property – all pest and weed management

Participating in one (or more) pest animal or weed management

group

($) RSE (%) (Days) RSE (%) (%

respondents) RSE (%)

NSW Central Tablelands 7,467 4 75 4 8.2 34 Central West 21,509 7 84 3 13.2 20 Greater Sydney 6,260 11 85 7 2.6 49 Hunter 4,559 4 40 3 12.7 24 Murray 18,145 5 59 3 3.4 44 North Coast 6,108 7 75 3 2.7 49 North West NSW 28,106 5 140 4 13.1 21 Northern Tablelands 13,697 3 84 2 35.2 18 Riverina 32,637 5 171 4 9.7 21 South East NSW 6,023 3 42 2 15.9 21 Western 18,220 5 103 7 11.4 31

VIC Corangamite 5,888 6 27 3 13.0 23 East Gippsland 13,672 24 91 5 29.2 32 Glenelg Hopkins 9,388 4 86 5 5.6 32 Goulburn Broken 13,226 5 62 4 10.8 22 Mallee 26,147 6 65 4 25.5 13 North Central 15,156 4 41 3 14.8 18 North East 6,821 4 72 6 21.1 23 Port Phillip and Western Port 6,096 7 70 5 11.2 20 West Gippsland 3,460 5 137 4 10.3 24 Wimmera 25,611 7 66 5 8.8 32

QLD Border Rivers Maranoa-Balonne 40,669 17 259 3 20.5 18 Burdekin 15,531 7 113 7 8.4 36 Burnett Mary 8,143 6 78 2 3.6 37 Cape York 22,826 13 91 8 np np Condamine 20,579 5 55 3 6.8 31 Desert Channels 66,123 7 136 7 31.3 19 Fitzroy 16,147 5 195 4 9.8 26 Mackay Whitsunday 7,773 8 52 6 3.8 98 Northern Gulf 12,418 17 216 12 7.4 68 South East Queensland 10,775 21 85 2 5.0 29 South West Queensland 37,764 15 216 7 60.0 12 Southern Gulf 29,371 5 68 5 30.0 28 Wet Tropics 14,544 5 173 4 1.8 70

SA Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 9,443 6 51 5 4.2 33 Alinytjara Wilurara 26,034 69 63 31 np np Eyre Peninsula 46,214 8 86 6 4.8 49 Kangaroo Island 25,567 22 63 7 8.3 96 Northern and Yorke 31,063 4 41 3 1.9 57 South Australian Arid Lands 12,621 26 48 13 35.0 30 South Australian Murray Darling Basin 18,584 7 47 4 5.9 25

South East 12,257 5 41 3 2.8 49 WA Avon 113,397 4 116 4 10.8 23

Northern Agricultural 81,275 6 88 3 17.3 21 Peel-Harvey 8,265 8 46 10 1.3 99 Perth 12,650 10 33 6 1.5 99 Rangelands 25,099 17 56 11 23.5 31 South Coast 56,795 7 62 3 8.7 32 South West 12,951 6 82 6 7.2 25

TAS North 12,464 7 102 6 5.9 27 North West 18,554 24 79 7 2.4 44 South 27,076 27 77 7 6.3 32

NT Northern Territory 24,935 8 125 13 18.4 21 Aust. Total 19,620 1.4 88 1 9.8 4

Note: Weightings were applied for expenditure and days estimates using ABARES survey weightings. np = not provided due to low sample numbers.


55

Appendix E: Map key


56

References ABARES 2011, Survey methods and definitions, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource

Economics and Sciences, Canberra, available at http://www.agriculture.gov.au/sitecollectiondocuments/abares/data/definitions-methods.pdf.

ABS 2008, Natural resource management on Australian farms 2006-07, Catalogue 4620.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.

ABS & Statistics New Zealand 2008, Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification (ANZSIC) 2006 (Revision 1.0), Catalogue 1292.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.

Australian Government 2017, Weeds of National Significance, Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy, available at http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/weeds/weeds/lists/wons.html [Accessed 20 April 2017].

Dillman D 1978, edn, Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method, New York Wiley. Pallant J 2005, SPSS Survival Manual (2nd edn.), Ligare, Sydney.

http://www.agriculture.gov.au/sitecollectiondocuments/abares/data/definitions-methods.pdf

http://www.agriculture.gov.au/sitecollectiondocuments/abares/data/definitions-methods.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/weeds/weeds/lists/wons.html

Pest animal and Weed Management...

Documents

Transcript of Pest animal and Weed Management...