Yet again we see the U.S.pushing there ways onto the Aus farmer, more of the milking cow system and some farmers just don't get it. Every time a new trend is taken on the end-product always becomes more costly. So much for bigger yeilds. Not to mention the pollution these sprays are doing to the land and the people in close contact to them.

not my scene has not done his/her home work. A lot of these new technologies in spray application are designed to apply less chemical. Issues with resistance to herbicides has allowed for development of targeted weeds. The approach using intergrated pest management is pushing for the smarter use of agro chemicals. Therefore using less. We are on the right track in a agronomic point of view, we are on the right track environment and pollution by using less chemicals, and we are on the right track and we are on the right track in chasing technologies that can minimise our input costs. As the old saying goes you have to spend money to make money and in the grains industry this could not apply more. These new "trends" may mean sustainable agriculture for years to come.

Not my scene, stating that "farmers just don't get it" is insulting and ridiculous. You "just don't get it", do you think that farmers just buy stuff because it's cool? we are not teenagers and these are not iPhones. We buy in to these "new trends" because we are working towards becoming more productive and more sustainable. As for the US "pushing there ways onto the Aus farmer", once again, we are not teenagers, these are not iPhones, we don't buy them because someone tells us to, we invest in them based on what Mr Haefner (above) said "purchasing decisions had to be justified on the basis of improved productivity which also had to translate into bigger yields". With regards to your comment "Every time a new trend is taken on the end-product always becomes more costly. So much for bigger yeilds.", I would like to say 2 things; firstly, our end product (i.e. what we grow) is a global commodity, WE DO NOT SET THE PRICE, so as our costs and overheads go up, farmers, unlike most other industries, can't just increase the price of our end products, consequently our profit margins are erroded. To combat this, we have to become more productive and more efficient, and to do this, we have to invest in new technologies and improved farming techniques . Secondly; increased end-product cost has absolutely no impact on yield whatsoever, yield refers to the quantity or amount produced. Yields however, can impact on end-product cost, as supply increases, in theory, prices decrease, so any technology or technique that improves yield, ultimately benefits end-users. My final comment; at this point in time, use of chemicals in agriculture is inevitable, we farmers are improving our spraying applications and implementing new technologies to use them more efficiently, if agriculture was to stop using chemicals overnight, yields would drop so dramatically (any yield estimates from agronomists would be welcome) that there would be an unprecedented global food crisis.

Not My Scene: Without in-crop pesticide sprays, the entire continent of Australia would have faced near-total wheat crop failure every year since about 2005. Pathogens and pests are always trying new tricks and throwing out new specialised strains; if we don't keep up, not to sound melodramatic here, food production crashes and everyone starves. Farmers have a vested personal and financial interest in minimising pesticide usage. But we can't just stop outright, nor do we run around wasting our money and ruining our health just to feel hip. Most new technology is aimed squarely at reducing the quantity and frequency of application. Some "new fangled American toys" have reduced application rates by 80% without sacrificing effectiveness.