1. Dr Lisa Lobry de Bruyn School of Environmental and Rural Sciences University of New England, Armidale NSW 2351 llobryde@une.edu.au

2. 2 Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Commission stated that “Targets at the Basin and catchment scales for resource condition will translate to targets for improving management at a property scale. We will need to evaluate the links between targets at different scales, so that we can be confident that on-ground actions will lead to overall improvement in Basin health.” University of New England, 30 April 2015, Lincoln, Nebraska

3. 3 A Catchment Target as defined by Department of Land and Water Conservation, NSW: “is a precise definition of an acceptable condition of a natural resource or combination of resources at a given point at a given time, providing a broad indicator of catchment health … They should integrate the environment, social and economic outcomes communities want, but should be expressed in biophysical terms.” University of New England, 30 April 2015, Lincoln, Nebraska

4. In NSW, the NRC (2005) addressed the protection of soil and land resources in two of its 13 key NRM targets:  By 2015, there will be an improvement in soil condition.  By 2015, there is an increase in the area of land managed within its capability. The overall index for soil condition across the state is 3.7 out of 5. On a state-wide basis this suggests that soils in NSW are in good condition. There has been a noticeable loss of soil function for ecosystem services and agricultural productivity. University of New England, 30 April 2015, Lincoln, Nebraska4

5. 5

6. 6 Environmental Management Systems (EMS) Working Group (discussion paper suggests that the implementation of an EMS framework will provide the “linkages with key agencies to ensure actions by individual landholders on their own properties can align with regional targets and contribute to larger scale environmental outcomes. … while EMS may be a valuable tool for translating broad regional strategies into practical on-farm actions.” University of New England, 30 April 2015, Lincoln, Nebraska

7. “We should not indulge in wishful thinking about user friendly soil structure tests - unfortunately there is a limit to how far tests can be simplified if the results are to be repeatable and meaningful.” This quote illustrates the dominance of the scientific methodology, and the displacement of farmers from the knowledge generation and problem solving process to: “passive recipients from expertise from outside”

8. 8 Empowering farmers to be more self reliant and diagnose soil problems. Farmers taking the initiative on why, how, when and where to conduct soil testing. Providing a common language for communicating more effectively about soil condition. University of New England, 30 April 2015, Lincoln, Nebraska

9. 9 N New South Wales Legend Interview participant Workshop farm participants Rural town centre District perimeter NARRABRI COONAMBLE GUNNEDAH GILGANDRA GOONDIWINDI WARIALDA 0 100 km University of New England, 30 April 2015, Lincoln, Nebraska

10. A set of core questions, but the series of prompts were driven by the participant’s responses - not reaffirming a predetermined agenda set by interviewer. Interviewed by a non-soil specialist with experience in interviewing. Allow the farmers to “open up”, form trust and realise we value their contribution - not a “test”. Qualitative Software Package that allows building, prioritising and interrogation of themes. 10 University of New England, 30 April 2015, Lincoln, Nebraska

11. 11 University of New England, 30 April 2015, Lincoln, Nebraska

12. 12 University of New England, 30 April 2015, Lincoln, Nebraska

13. 13 University of New England, 30 April 2015, Lincoln, Nebraska

14. 14 Farmers mentioned: soil testing (67%), visual appraisal (52%), while yield and protein level of crop (<25% of farmers interviewed). University of New England, 30 April 2015, Lincoln, Nebraska

15. l Purpose – nutrient requirements l Process – when, where and how often? l Techniques used 15 University of New England, 30 April 2015, Lincoln, Nebraska

16. 16 University of New England, 30 April 2015, Lincoln, Nebraska

17. 17 “Have it at home collecting dust”, “Take too long to read”, “Too much work”, “Read it and bin it”, “Good quick easy reference”. University of New England, 30 April 2015, Lincoln, Nebraska

18. 18 University of New England, 30 April 2015, Lincoln, Nebraska

19. 19 Level and detail of record keeping Soil sampling strategy Interpretation of soil analyses University of New England, 30 April 2015, Lincoln, Nebraska

20. 20 For a monitoring system to be used by farmers it needs to: l be relevant and adaptable, l have a transparent process for interpretation, l be able to translate “data” into management actions, and l use existing trusted networks for dissemination. “People do it, and do it well, because they enjoy it and see a point in it.” University of New England, 30 April 2015, Lincoln, Nebraska

21.  How autonomous are farmers in America at monitoring land condition?  What is the role of soil testing and farm planning in collecting data on soil condition at farm scale?  Are farmers in America subject to legal requirements to monitor, collect and interpret data on land condition?  How would you describe farmers’ interest in America in monitoring land condition or soil testing?  Is there a role for precision agriculture in improving land literacy for farmers? 21 University of New England, 30 April 2015, Lincoln, Nebraska

22.  Lobry de Bruyn, L. A., and Abbey, J. A. (2003). Characterisation of farmers' soil sense and the implications for on-farm monitoring of soil health. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 43, 285- 305  Lobry de Bruyn, L. A. (2009). Reasons, means and consequences: monitoring soil condition for the proper use of land. In "Extending Schumacher's Concept of Total Accounting and Accountability into the 21st Century", Vol. 14, pp. 261-294. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. University of New England, 30 April 2015, Lincoln, Nebraska22