Key messages
- Riverine Plains harvest debrief and planning sessions at Buraja, Berrigan, Urana and Dookie highlighted that rainfall and crop establishment drove yield in 2025,
- Yields were better than expected compared to pre-harvest estimates in most, but not all areas, with barley a standout.
- Key challenges for 2026 include a lack of stored soil moisture at depth, nitrogen management, machinery and cash flow.
- Technologies such as optical spot spraying (OSST) and farm mapping can add value, when the setup and use are sound.
Sykesy’s Buraja Meeting and the Riverine Plains Road tested Research Days at Berrigan, Urana and Dookie held in February, saw around 220 farmers and advisors come together to review the 2025 season and prepare for 2026.
Across the events there were consistent themes raised by farmers. Read on for our insights from the days.
Rainfall and early crop establishment were the clearest drivers of performance in 2025.
Canola and long-season grazing cereals sown early April on the back of March rain established well. However, later sown crops in patchy soil moisture caused variable emergence and split germination. Dry sown crops had to wait until the end of May for geminating rain, reinforcing dry sowing as a risk management strategy.
While early sowing created yield opportunities in 2025, it also carried frost risk. This trade-off remains central to planning and managing risk.
At Buraja, Dale Boyd (Agriculture Victoria) reiterated that it’s not uncommon for spring rainfall to be deficient, with crops having to draw on stored soil moisture at depth for grain fill. Dale reinforced stubble retention and summer weed control for improving infiltration and conserving summer rainfall.
Disease was higher than expected given the dry season, with septoria and crown rot seen in wheat, and sclerotinia and blackleg in canola, even with fungicide use. Canopies holding moisture is an explanation for this.
Cooler conditions at grain fill, lower evaporation and moisture at depth supported crop performance, despite limited in-crop rainfall. Yields were better than expected compared to pre-harvest estimates in most, but not all areas.
Barley was a standout, with strong yields and, in many cases, better gross margins than wheat. At Buraja, Felicity Harris (Charles Sturt University) attributed this to barley’s phenology, with trial data showing barley flowered an average 15 days earlier than wheat and achieving a 0.5–1.5 t/ha yield advantage in 2025. Felicity described how barley and wheat achieve yield differently, with wheat able to respond to small rainfall events during grain fill which extends its filling duration but also widens its risk window (frost, heat, moisture stress) . In contrast, barley’s critical period is three weeks before flowering, but it isn’t able to compensate much beyond this.
Returns were mixed in 2025. Canola and barley pricing was more favourable than wheat, but high input and overhead costs continued to place pressure on margins.
Livestock performed well, despite a high workload due to feeding, with prices and quality rewarded at the end of the year. Stock containment areas were well utilised by those that had them. Dry conditions impacted dam levels and livestock water supply, however many farmers took advantage of this to clean out dams.
A key message for hay producers was to focus on quality. Separating good/poor quality areas within a paddock and feed testing and marketing separately can help achieve premiums. Also consider storage options to avoid degradation as hay stored in sheds is always preferred by buyers.
Looking ahead to 2026, a message was to keep crop plans flexible if opening rains are delayed.
Nitrogen management is likely to be challenging, with low stored soil moisture and urea pricing driving uncertainty. A recommendation was not to guess the amount stored in soil, but to measure actual nitrogen using deep soil nitrogen (DSN) testing to avoid under or over supplying crops.
The challenge is to balance costs without capping potential.
Machinery decisions for 2026 should weigh up efficiency, accessibility of parts and service, maintenance costs and cash‑flow impacts.
The Optical Spot Spraying Technology (OSST) field day at Urana, hosted in partnership with WeedSmart, put a practical focus on how spot spraying can reduce costs and improve weed control in summer fallows.
The main return on investment (ROI) message is clear: high up-front cost can pay back quickly in the right situation, but you need to run the numbers for your own farm and weed scenario (especially where you’re currently blanket-spraying expensive chemistry over low weed density). A key advantage discussed is that OSST can make it more economical to spray small, low-density weeds and act earlier, supporting tactics like stopping seed set and mixing/rotating herbicide modes of action.
Boom stability, speed, nozzle control, dust management and sensor accuracy were highlighted as factors that determine performance. Retrofit options were discussed in detail, including staged upgrades. The conclusion was not that every business should adopt OSST, but that the economics can be strong where paddock conditions and machine setup are suitable.
At Berrigan, Tim Neale (Data Farming) and Ed Scott (Field Systems) led a farm mapping workshop. They focused on the basic requirements for reliable data use: clean paddock boundaries, consistent naming conventions and data systems that allow machine data, paddock records and imagery to be compared properly over time.
Return on investment from variable rate technology usually comes from one (or both) of these pathways:
Spend less where it won’t pay (input efficiency)
Spend more where it will pay (profit per hectare optimisation)
Farm mapping allows you to assess how variable your paddocks really are and identify the regions/zones that can give you ROI from variable input application.
Historical normalised difference vegetation index (NDVI) imagery, yield maps and soil data were all considered useful for supporting variable rate decisions and comparisons across seasons.
At Dookie, Ben Percy (AgInsights) highlighted that cash flow budgets should start with actual figures exported from finance software, not rough estimates, as small costs can accumulate quickly, with actuals giving a more reliable base.
Ben also stressed that a budget does not need to show a profit to be useful; it needs to show the gap clearly enough for businesses to plan how to manage it.
Having clear roles and accountability for cash flow management is key, so decisions don’t drift. Ben also recommended assessing performance by enterprise, to make it easier to identify where small improvements can have an impact overall.
Many paddocks are starting with low subsoil moisture, so build flexibility into sowing plans and use DSN testing to measure, rather than assume soil nitrogen. Technology such as spot spraying and mapping can add value, when the setup and use are sound. And with high costs still pressuring margins, accurate cash flow planning and enterprise-level analysis remain essential.