 So we farm at Wara which is on the Darlan Downs. It's about 250 kilometres west of Brisbane. We grow summer and winter crops with our main crops being mung beans, sorghum, corn, chickpeas and fava beans. Although also grow lesser amounts of wheat, barley and millet. We dry land farm on a flood plain. Our soils are grey, crack, inverteous soil and we receive an average of 650 mills of rain a year. And that would range between 300 and 1,000, I reckon, in the last five years. Our investment on farms doesn't just include an investment in machinery infrastructure. To get the most out of any investment and increase the profitability on any farm, there also needs to be a large investment in knowledge. Knowledge to get the most out of machinery and knowledge to identify shortfalls in your farm and how to act upon them. And when I talk about profitability, the vast majority of the time we're talking about increasing yield. Yield is king and if reduction in inputs means decreasing yield in even one in five years, then very often this is a very poor decision. One example of a technology that a majority of farmers have invested in over the last 15 or 20 years is yield monitoring in harvesters. These monitors and their associated software produce colourful yield maps that highlight high and low yielding areas of a paddock. Here's a couple of yield maps from one of our paddocks. Despite the huge uptake in Monders though, the vast majority of farmers, at least in our area, do absolutely nothing with them. In fact, I'd say that after looking at them while they're on the header, 90% of growers now reach and don't even bother downloading the file off the header. And the reason for that is simple. It has been very difficult for anyone to find a way to use this data to increase profitability. You can see from this yield map that the high yielding and low yielding areas swap around in wet and dry years. And that makes variable rate fertiliser application very difficult. And in fact, there's a good argument to say that trying variable rate on this paddock would in fact decrease your profitability. So on our flood plain farm, we have very low slopes. The reason for this is water and the solution is land forming. While the problem paddocks don't look all that bad, you can see the paddock in that last picture there on the side. With the low slope, every little ridge from past farming practices or remnant melancholy left after countless passes with the land plain potentially holds water for weeks at a time in wet years. Land forming is a process where fields are first very accurately surveyed using corrected GPS, fixed base stations near the fields being surveyed and permanent accurate benchmarks. The elevation data from this survey is then fed into a land forming program. Parameters are set and outpops are proposed elevation and cut and fill map for that field, which balances the cuts and the fills and allows the field to drain perfectly. The software we use allows the field to drain along natural drainage lines, not in fixed directions, which drastically cuts the amount of soil that has to be shifted so that what would once have been a very expensive job and shifting lots of soil now takes a lot less time and the cuts are much smaller, which means a lot less soil disruption and corresponding yield impacts on crops for years to come. The file out of this program is then put back into the tractor, which controls the cutting edge of the bucket perfectly wherever you are in the paddock. While there are some short-term negatives to land forming such as giving up the zero-till program and the compaction and topsoil movement involved with the levelling, the results with drainage have been excellent. So here's an example of what the land form has done to a paddock at our place. The left-hand picture shows the water crossing one of our paddocks in a flood, as in 2013. While the right-hand photo shows the same field, although a little bit further to the west, and 10 days later. The foreground of this picture hasn't been levelled yet, while the background has. And you can see all that standing water in the foreground, and that standing water led to the yield losses in that yield map there, which is the same field just the northern half, pre-landformant. The landform of that paddock costs us about $250 a hectare, which is very expensive, but it's nothing compared to the $600 per hectare worth of damage to that field in that year alone. We think that the landforming program will provide us with the next step-changing yields, particularly during wet years when the potential for profit is so high, but all too often ends up being our years with the largest losses. Having said that though, I'm not sure that landforming will provide the same step-up in yield as our investment in controlled traffic and zero-till. Over the last 20 or so years that we've been implementing these practices, our yields have nearly doubled. Certainly genetics and agronomic practices have played their role in that improvement, but I firmly believe it is controlled traffic and zero-till, along with our program of manure application that have been the biggest contributors to the increases. Our soils now capture and hold more water. Our planting windows have been extended. Operations now occur in a more timely manner, and our soils are more nutritious than they once were. Perhaps the most pleasing thing with these farming methods though are the environmental benefits. The erosion is drastically reduced, so now sediment in the waterways and dams are a tiny fraction of what it used to be. Crop residues on the ground are now thriving with ground nesting birds. The cessation of plowing and the increased organic matter has led to an explosion of worms in our paddock, which is often said to be the sign of a healthy soil. Our nutrition program based around manure has met with not only replacing nutrients taken out by crops, but increasing their levels in the soil, so we have a buffer to provide the maximum yields when the season permits. The nitrogen in the manure, as well as that fixed by our legume-dominated rotation, is not so prone to denitrification during floods, which is both good for our bottom line and for the environment. Investment in knowledge is also critical for the modern farmer. We host a number of GRDC trials and research sites on our farm, and the information coming out of these is fantastic. The information coming out of the research was more widely utilized by the farming community. There would be significant gains in profitability by the industry as a whole. The question of how to get more farmers to more quickly take up this research must be a tough one for the GRDC. I still hear of farmers growing weed on, weed on, wheat, and then complaining about yellow spot and crown rot, and the same can be said for soil nutrition. If nutrients aren't replaced and the crop is only barely fertilized for an average yield, then after you've finished mining your soil, you will not get a high yield. It's obvious and very well researched, but it still happens all the time. So that brings me to where I see the future for on-farm investment. To illustrate the drivers for farm investment in the future, I've prepared this graph of roughly what happens on our farm. The right-hand column shows our average in-paddock expenses for the last three years. Not on what our expenses occurred for labour that doesn't occur in the paddock, which is probably over 50% of the total labour. Silo sheds frayed around the farm, living, all that kind of stuff. The left-hand column shows what could be classes and above average wheat yield for our area of four tonnes per hectare, multiplied by a price of $280 Brisbane at a safe average of one crop similar to this every 18 months, hence multiplied by two-thirds. I've also added the interest cost of the bank for 70% of the land at 4.5% interest and the cost of getting the wheat to the port. Possibly the first thing that stands out in my mind is how susceptible the farming community is to an increase in interest rates and as a lead-on from that, how overvalued land has become. Also what stands out, I think, is the high freight charge. We're only 250 kilometres from port and how difficult it would be for people further out west where the freight charge is often over $50 a tonne and the yields are less than half what we have. I think it also shows up how devastating a wipeout is, particularly if it happens at the end of the season, but it also shows how good a fantastic crop is and how important it is to make the most of a fantastic crop and a fantastic season when it comes around. So this graph, while it is a little alarming at times, does show some tremendous opportunities for farmers. A 1% increase in yield in this situation gives a massive 21.6% increase in profit, while a 5% yield increase gives a huge 208% profit increase. While this graph will change depending on the crop or the season, what doesn't change is that doing all the little things right, the little 1%ers that are really difficult to measure on farm do make a big difference to the size of a farm's profit or their loss. It should also provide impetus for more adoption of research coming out of GRDC, which often has these small but measurable improvements that ultimately makes a massive impact on profits. Therefore, I think first and foremost investment in the future will go to increasing yields and protecting our yields. Anything that increases yields will be adopted out of necessity, be it better crop varieties, better crop choices, better agronomic practices or genetically modified crops, which lead to higher yields or prices. I think a lot of investment in the future will need to be on protecting our zero-till farming systems. In our area, at least, the yield and profitability gains from zero-till have translated into higher prices, higher land prices, as farmers realise they can produce more from their land. Unfortunately, returns from farming at current land prices aren't particularly high, even given the record low interest rates we currently enjoy. So the reduction in yield due to the abandonment of zero-till would be a very bad thing for agriculture. And the biggest threat to zero-till would have to be herbicide resistance in weeds. To overcome this, there's going to have to be more use of weed sensing technology. The use of herbicides are different modes of actions, including residuals, and more thought will need to be placed in the crop rotations. Research will need to be, as it is, targeted towards different herbicides that can be better utilised, as well as non-chemical means of weed control without resorting to full-tillage. Will robots be used? Maybe, but not at the expense of controlled traffic systems. And it will need to be able to happen as quickly as it does now. Timeliness is everything. Driverless tractors and sprayers, perhaps, except all operations now require the carrying of a payload, be it pesticides, seed or fertiliser. So if labour requirements are to be cut, they will need to be researched into automatic filling as well. And you can see from that graph that the labour component of our expenses really isn't all that high in the scheme of things. High payload drones? Well, that is where I think the future may be for pest-slide application. The impact of the spray applicator on yield due to compaction in the spray lanes is in the range of a 5% to 10% reduction. This equates to a 2% to 3% year reduction over the whole field. Drones would also allow for more timely targeting of weeds and pests, as plastics could be traversed sooner after rain. In the end, though, the fact remains that yield is king. Anything that increases yield will have the greatest impact on the farmer's profitability. And I think whatever that is, is where we will find the most investment flowing in the future. Thank you.