Alleged inconsistencies of single sorghum loads being assessed at different category rankings at separate receival sites has growers calling for more technology to bring more confidence into the market.
After intense rains earlier this year caused sprouting and weather damage in many sorghum crops, growers and farm industry groups have united in their demands to have the human factor taken out of assessment.
As the economic impact could very well mean the difference between making a loss or a profit, its no wonder growers are keen to have a system which relies less on a human subjective assessment and more on advanced technology.
AgForce grains policy director Ruth Thompson said better technology was needed to be developed in order to have "more consistent outcomes for grain grading."
"We feel for producers regarding grading inconsistencies," she said.
"There needs to be better outcomes for grain grading classifications for everyone so there's a consistent approach across all receival sites across the state.
"This will give confidence to farmers and buyers."
Ms Thompson said the industry "is on the cusp of new technology to be able to ensure consistency and fairness across receival sites."
"Grain Corp and other receival sites have been very welcoming and look forward to the new technology," she said.
According to Grain Corp's Sorghum Standards 2023 - 2024 there can be 3 per cent sprouted grain in Sorghum 1, the top quality grade, and 10pc in Sorghum 2.
For grain grower Scotty Loughnan, the new technology cannot come soon enough.
Mr Loughnan who grows sorghum, mung beans, chick peas, wheat and barley at his property west of Roma, said the fact some grain could be classified at one grade at once site then another somewhere else, needed to be addressed.
"At one point our sorghum was given one classification at one place and different classification at another," he said.
"It's 2024, the system for grading classifications has to be better than it is.
"We have not delivered any late sorghum due to the weather, what we have harvested is stored on the farm."
For Biloela grain grower Scott Muller, the grade a sorghum crop was assigned or it's appearance does not always reflect the quality.
"Sorghum S or X may be classified as feed grade but the protein level is very high and (might) have a high weight," he said.
"But if it's not beautiful, red and shiny then it might be bought at a lessor value."
Mr Muller said he had heard of a trader buying a crop at a lessor grade and then selling it at a higher one.
"We need better classifications," he said.
"It's very subjective, you might get a grade of SX and then 10km down the road the same load could get an S2."
AgForce grains president and Grains Producers Australian board northern region director Brendan Taylor gave a blunt comment.
"We need more consistency because at the moment we can get drastically different results depending on which receival sites you go to," he said.
"With a human visual assessment whether its sprouts or weather damage, two assessors can screen the same sample but will assign it differently grades according to Grain Trade Australia standards."
Mr Taylor said the differences for a grower achieving a higher grade could make or break the economic success of the crop.
"A grower with an S1 premium crop will currently earn $20 to $30 more a tonne than with S2 crop," he said.
"In some cases growers had been offered bids $60 to $70 less than $320 ex-farm, there's some $250 bids out there."
He said AI visual technology which included algorithms to identify factors on a test sample including sprouting and weather damage as well as test weight would provide consistent classification across all receival sites.
"All we are after is consistency," he said.
"By fast-tracking this technology we can make grain grading fairer for everyone."
Grain Trade Australia CEO Pat O'Shannassy said while he agreed more technology was needed, the matter comprised several complex issues.
"Truck load variety is one issue," he said.
Mr O'Shannassy said a single load could have several examples of crop devastation which could include sprouting and weather damage.
Another element comprised the human factor he said.
"Visual assessment is subjective, it's done by people on the (receival) stand and this comes down to training and experience.
"We are all human so this lends itself to variability."
However, Mr O'Shannassy said he understood the need to have more sophisticated technology involved in the assessment process.
"I think what happened this year with sorghum is we have had some seasonal influences in the crop," he said.
"With sprouting this is not necessarily very common year-on-year and it means people may not have experienced this before.
"What we have been hearing is the damage caused by weather could be interpreted differently."
Mr O'Shannassy said GTA would be issuing updated images of damaged sorghum crops to assist assessors with their assessments.
"In the near future we intend to issue photos which may help with the interpretation," he said.
"The advances of assessment technology and how it can be integrated is a longer-term issue and must be done in a way which gives people confidence."
Know more about this issue? Contact Alison Paterson on 0437 861 082.
