MerinoLink is thrilled to introduce:
‘Developing practices for profitable, sustainable sheep production in a variable climate’.
This project is supported by the Australian Government through funding from the Climate-Smart Agriculture Program under the Natural Heritage Trust. Led by Charles Sturt University (CSU) and in partnership with Green Blue Health Pty Ltd, Four Season Company Pty Ltd and JM Livestock, the project aims to discuss best practices and develop novel strategies which sheep producers can use to increase production, profit and resilience to climate variability while protecting our natural resources.
So far the team has engaged with producers at 6 workshops held last year with the aim of identifying what information is needed by producers to successfully feed ewes in confinement using supplements. These workshops provided the team with invaluable baseline information on producer attitudes and knowledge gaps, and these can be found below a comprehensive summary and reflections report. As a multi year project, the next stage will be to conduct a physical trial of pregnant ewes in confinement comparing 4 different rations. Watch this space!
Climate Smart Project Resources
FACTSHEET – Frequently asked questions – and answers – on confinement feeding
2025 Workshop Series Page – Workshop information and webinar recording
AWI FACTSHEET – Releasing Sheep from Confinement
Confinement Podcast – Free streaming now available on several platforms:
Soundcloud https://soundcloud.com/csu-gulbali-institute
Apple Podcasts https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/gulbali-institute/id1870212119
Spotify https://open.spotify.com/show/6omYmK2zsPWVPJqMPvCnNF
Amazon Music https://music.amazon.com.au/podcasts/efd400fa-ae27-48ee-b9aa-deef9c1bd44f/gulbali-institute
“Developing Practices for Profitable, Sustainable Sheep Production in a Variable Climate”
Summary and Reflections on Workshops run in June 2025
By Dr Christine Storer with input from the project team: Dr Susan Robertson and Jim Meckiff
1. Introduction
This is part of a preliminary report on the producer workshops run in the “Developing Practices for Profitable, Sustainable Sheep Production in a Variable Climate” project. The project is funded by the Climate-Smart Agriculture Program through the National Heritage Trust administered by Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF). The project aims to develop practices for profitable, sustainable sheep production in a variable climate to build resilience to climate change. The project provides insight to:
- Sheep producer adoption of climate change resilient agricultural practices of confinement feeding, use of feed supplements and other sheep management practices;
- Sheep producer response to extension and communications activities;
- Industry stakeholders’ perceptions of climate change and sheep producer risk management and the key components of the social context which link to this.
This is a first draft report on the participants feedback on how the workshops run in 2025 went. Focus group discussions as part of producer workshops were undertaken at five locations across NSW and Victoria as well as an online webinar in June 2025. A follow-up survey was run after the workshops and webinar to get informed responses from attendees about their feedback on the activities (Appendix 1).
2. Insights on Information Producers Need
The workshops were run as the first stage of the project so of interest was if the expected aims to were met. Producers were advised “The aim of the workshop was to identify information needed by producers on confined feeding of ewes and using supplements”. They were then asked “to what extent did you feel insights were gained about this” (scale 0 not much to 10 a lot). The box in Figure 1 shows most of the workshop attendees rated the workshop 7 to 9 out of 10 in providing insights on information producers needed on confined feeding of ewes and using supplements. While a couple provided ratings of 5 and 6 being midpoint ratings, they are considered to be responses of attendees who were uncertain (mid-point scores 4 to 6 have been circled in black).
Figure 1 Extent insights were gained to identify information producers need
3. Relevance of Workshop to Planning for Climate Challenges
Also of interest was if the project was expected to be relevant to producers in the regions. Producers were asked “How relevant was this workshop to the types of decisions producers in this region face to maximise planning for climate challenges over time?”. The box in Figure 2 shows all of the workshop attendees rated the workshop 8 and 9 out of 10 (no other responses) in being relevant for producers’ decisions to maximise planning for climate challenges over time.
Figure 2 Extent insights were gained to identify information producers need
4. Understanding Project Aims
Producers were asked “As a result of the workshop, do you better understand the aims of this project?” The box in Figure 3 shows most of the workshop attendees rated the workshop 7 to 9 out of 10 in assisting them to understand the aims of the project (mid-point scores 4 to 6 have been circled in black).
Figure 3 Better Understand Project Aims
5. Contributing Ideas and Experience
Producers were asked “To what extent did you have an opportunity to contribute your ideas/experience?” The box in Figure 4 shows most of the workshop attendees rated the workshop 8 to 10 out of 10 in assisting them to understand the aims of the project (mid-point scores 4 to 6 have been circled in black).
Figure 4 Opportunity to Contribute Ideas and Experience
6. Provide New Information to Benefit Producers
Producers were asked “How confident are you this project will provide new information to benefit producers in the region?” The box in Figure 5 shows most of the workshop attendees rated the project 7 to 10 out of 10 providing new information to benefit producers in the region (mid-point scores 4 to 6 have been circled in black). One webinar attendee provided a rating of 3 with the comment “Too many sheep are put into confinement for minimal return in the business. Producers are doing it because a. they have infrastructure so feel the need to use it and b. because their peers are doing it”.
Figure 5 Provide New Information to Benefit Producers
7. Getting Maximum Project Benefits
Producers were asked to provide comments on “What is the main consideration the project needs to address for maximum benefits?” Table 1 shows that attendees suggested the project needs to focus on cost, efficiency, productivity and profitability challenges as well as providing relevant best practice information.
Table 1 Getting Maximum Project Benefits
8. Workshop Impact
Producers were asked to provide feedback if the workshop had “impacted on your thinking and/or you are considering a potential change, what might that be?” Table 2 shows that attendees who had considered changes by the end of the workshop had a range of responses from being more professional and confident to change feeding times, increasing fibre, changing designs and infrastructure, more budgeting on feed and shelter, reducing supplements/additives.
Table 2 Workshop Impact
Producers were asked “What information/support would you need to be able to effectively act on the learning from the activity?” Table 3 shows that attendees who had considered changes by the end of the workshop wanted the notes from the presenters, more face to face time with experienced people, getting advice on nutrition, from a vet and LLS as well as information on location selection and designs as well as case studies of producers who do not use it when not required. One producer wanted a best practice manual and others updates on new developments.
Table 3 Information & Support Needed
Questions raised in the workshops are shown in Figure 6 with the confinement lot infrastructure questions in Figure 7. While many may suggest that there is sufficient information on these topics, it seems producers would like further information on these topics or the information in a format that better suits their needs.
Figure 6 Workshop Questions Raised
Figure 7 Workshop Infrastructure Questions Raised
9. Workshop Structure
The in-person workshops started with a focus group discussion of producers’ experience with confinement feeding and use of supplements along with identifying the information that they needed. This was followed by presentations by experts on what has been scientifically known about the questions producers wanted information on and what further information would be provided by the project. The online webinar started with information collected from the in-person workshops then presentations by experts. Given this format was different to many workshop presentations, producers were asked “How well did the structure of the workshop work for you?” The box in Figure 8 shows most of the workshop attendees rated the project 7 to 10 out of 10 being structed in a format that worked for them (mid-point scores 4 to 6 have been circled in black).
Figure 8 Workshop Structure
Producers were asked to provide comments on “What would have made the activity more effective or relevant for you?” Table 4 shows that while most attendees did not have any comments to make the activity more effective or relevant, there were some suggestions.
Table 4 How to make Workshop more Effective or Relevant
There were suggestions for seeing more examples, being more hands on and clarifying the aim at the start (implemented in subsequent workshops). There was a request for “Another producer speaker or consultant talking on whole business benefits to a mixed farming enterprise” and “More interaction/learning from other people in the zoom meeting who are already doing it”. Another wanted greater clarity in the focus group discussion of the upcoming questions.
Producers were asked “Do you have any additional comments that you would like to make e.g. presenters, facility, catering, organising?”. Table 5 shows nearly all attendees only had positive comments. One commented they did not find the MerinoLink flyer clear in the intention to gather industry information to inform the CSU project.
Table 5 Additional Workshop Comments
10. Why Use Supplement Additives?
To provide insights to the trials being run, producers were asked what was important when deciding to purchase or use a supplement additive (scale 0 not important to 10 most important in Figure 9 – mid-point scores 4 to 6 have been circled in black). Nearly all said it was important to use supplement additives for animal health or disease concerns, mineral and vitamin deficiency and to increase production potential. Not all had a high importance on the supplement additive being cost effective. There was varying importance placed on the supplement additive being used for energy or protein boost – indicating it would depend on the supplement used.
Figure 9 Why Use Supplement Additives?
11. Preferred Paddock Supplements
Producers were asked of the preferred methods of feeding supplement additives in paddocks. The most popular was a loose lick (92%) followed by mixed in grain (27%), lick block (21%) and pellets (19%). Only one producer preferred a liquid lick (Figure 10).
Figure 10 Preferred Paddock Supplement
12. Preferred Confinement Lot Supplements
Producers were asked of the preferred methods of feeding supplement additives in confinement lots. The most popular was once again a loose lick (77%) followed by mixed in grain (40%), pellets (23%) then a lick block (13%). No producers preferred a liquid lick and there was a greater preference for supplements mixed in grain and pellets compared to use in the paddock (Figure 11).
Figure 11 Preferred Confinement Lot Supplement
13. Workshop Reflections Conclusions
The project team reflected that the timing of the workshops in June 2025 was good at it is usually a slower time of year when producers may be available – unless there is a poor season with ongoing hand feeding as happened in Victoria. The feedback received from workshop attendees was favourable in providing a mixture of information by experts along with discussion with other producers as a peer learning process. The format of the workshops allowed producers to raise questions they would like further information about in guiding the future activities of the project. The format while not expected by attendees, is recommended for future workshops. The locations, facilities and catering worked well and many attendees were keen to have a follow up future workshops in the same or similar locations. In conclusion, it is recommended that the workshops for 2026 be run mid-year at the same locations used in 2025. The format of the next workshops will be to provide additional information of interest to producers in addition to results on the project to date and the opportunity to provide input into the final stage of the project.
A very poor season across most of eastern Australia meant many producers were feeding stock, so were interested in learning more on how to feed in confinement. The workshops gave the opportunity for producers to hear what others were doing, what worked and what did not, in addition to more technical presentations. Similar questions were asked across locations indicating that while information may be available, producers wanted more information in different formats and accessible concisely as needed. In response, the project put together a quick guide of key questions and answers on the project webpage on the MerinoLink site, including links to podcasts audio recordings and more detailed manuals for those needing more information on.
For more information also, you can visit the newest version of stock planner at https://mystockplanner.dpi.nsw.gov.au/
This project is supported by the Australian Government through funding from the Climate-Smart Agriculture Program under the Natural Heritage Trust. Led by Charles Sturt University (CSU) and in partnership with Green Blue Health Pty Ltd, Four Season Company Pty Ltd, JM Livestock and MerinoLink.
Appendix 1 – Post Workshop Online Survey
