Ruth Nettle

How Programme Teams Progress Agricultural Innovation in the Australian Dairy Industry

Abstract Purpose: This article outlines the emergence of programme teams in the Australian dairy farm sector as a response to counter weaknesses in the institutional environment for agricultural innovation which favours technology adoption/diffusion approaches. Design/methodology/approach: The strengths, weaknesses and risks of different approaches to innovation in the Australian dairy sector RD&E system are analysed and key features of an emerging programme team approach defined. The programme team approach is compared and contrasted with the features of innovation capacity from international literature. An analysis of the relative investment in this innovation capacity in different topics or domains of dairy innovation is provided. Findings: The programme team approach to innovation involves groups of researchers, extension people, public and private organisations, farmers, community groups, and policy and service groups brought together to progress innovation and change in a topic area or domain. Leadership of the process is provided by an area expert or champion. The team takes responsibility for: (a) understanding the businesses of key players who have an influence in the innovation or domain; (b) deciding the nature of the desired change that all stakeholders can align to; (c) identifying features of the enabling environment to establish what capacity is needed; (d) designing a ‘route to change’ strategy (in contrast to traditional route-to-market thinking); and (e) piloting and refining the approach within the target populations. The group manages emerging risks and keeps on top of issues, as well as identifies any knowledge gaps for research that are preventing innovation and change. Conclusions/practical implications: The programme team approach provides a semi-formal governance mechanism for innovation to develop, despite an institutional environment that favours technology adoption. Further, the activities of programme teams consist of practices which integrate research-led and demand-pull approaches. Currently, investment in such innovation capacity is relatively low and highly variable across different topic domains. Added value: The article provides tangible activities that managers of agricultural RD&E programmes can invest in to progress systemic approaches to innovation and is a guide for agricultural education and extension practitioners to proceed in their innovation work.

Farms and Learning Partnerships in Farming Systems Projects: A Response to the Challenges of Complexity in Agricultural Innovation

Abstract Managing the competing interests of productivity growth, environmental concerns, landscape change and societal expectations presents challenges for agricultural industries. Innovation projects supporting knowledge development to address these challenges often involve partnerships with commercial farms, a methodology which promises much but has inherent challenges as well. This paper will examine the requirements of learning partnerships between farmers, research and extension (as members of innovation projects) to address conditions of complexity. We review designs for the involvement of commercial farms in innovation projects and explore the conditions for effective learning partnerships using two case studies from the Australian dairy industry. Learning partnerships with commercial farms can contribute to addressing the conditions of complexity faced by agricultural industries. Our analysis suggests that the conditions for effective learning partnerships involve the active negotiation of learning roles between farmers, researchers and advisors. This requires a unique form of facilitation to support the learning environment and use of learning tools, assisting project teams to act on complex issues. As learning partners, commercial farms in innovation projects are an effective response to the challenges of complexity in agricultural innovation.

FutureDairy: a national, multidisciplinary project to assist dairy farmers to manage future challenges – methods and early findings

FutureDairy is a national, multidisciplinary project designed to assist Australian dairy farmers to manage future challenges. FutureDairy is exploring technical, economic and social aspects of technology adoption through an innovative approach that combines methodologies of social research (‘People’), extension (‘System’) and technical research (‘Science’). The technologies being investigated revolve around increasing forage production per unit of land through a complementary forage rotation; evaluating the most efficient use of brought-in feed to increase milk production per ha; and, the incorporation of automatic milking and other technological innovations that would either reduce labour input or allow more precise agriculture. The central strategy of FutureDairy is to utilise ‘knowledge partnerships’ to co-develop knowledge around each of the key areas of investigation; thus a key feature of the project is its linkage with commercial ‘partner’ farmers that explore similar questions to those being investigated at Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute (NSW Department of Primary Industries), where the technical research is being undertaken. This paper focuses on early findings from the forages module. Work thus far has shown that forage yields in excess of 40 t DM/ha.year are achievable. However, the practicalities of implementing this technology on-farm have already identified new and diverse issues that, unless understood, will jeopardise its effective adaptation by farmers.

Public response to plantation forestry on farms in south-western Victoria

Summary The region of south-western Victoria has experienced significant land use change over the past decade. Traditional grazing enterprises have decreased, while crop production, dairy farming and timber production have increased. This change has been associated with public expression of concern, much of it directed at the developing plantation timber industry. Research was undertaken to identify the level and nature of concern within the population of south-western Victoria. Results indicated that dairy farming and crop growing were viewed more favourably than plantation forestry. Residents of smaller townships and rural areas were more likely to believe plantation forestry had an overall negative impact on their area. Their concerns were related most strongly to beliefs about impacts on local employment and population retention. The findings help identify strategies for more successful integration of tree growing in rural landscapes.

Water Security and Farming Systems: Implications for Advisory Practice and Policy-Making

Abstract Water issues are a feature of public debate in Australia. The increasing privatisation of water and changes to water allocation systems are resulting in change, often referred to as water ‘wars’ (de Villiers, 1999). The Australian dairy industry uses 25% of the surface irrigation water in Australia. How does a rural industry like dairying negotiate a future? What is the role of broker professions like extension in supporting change in this context? We focus on three critical issues to address these questions: farm-level adaptation; new technologies; and balancing environmental and productive water-use. Two case studies of farm decision-making and advisory practice suggest that managing complexity in water issues requires learning processes at three levels: farmer–advisor; advisors–policy; advisors–other disciplines–policy. We conclude there is a need for a framework to guide an ethical response to water policy, bringing farm adaptation and advisory practice to implement change.

Aligning farm decision making and genetic information systems to improve animal production: methodology and findings from the Australian dairy industry

To date there has been little research into the way genetic improvement decisions are made in practice on Australian farms. This type of knowledge is important for guiding the design of programs to increase the use of genetic information and thereby the rate of genetic gain in animal production systems. This paper describes an approach to understanding farm decision making in order to improve the design of services to increase the use of genetic information in the Australian dairy industry. A mixed-method approach involving a national survey and regional focus groups was used to determine farmers’ perceptions of the genetic information system overall and the key features of bull selection decisions and information sources. The current genetic information system was found to have a strong reputation for ease of access, use and fit with the way farmers evaluated bulls. In the focus groups the farmers described their decision process as having an ‘ideal cow’ in mind that fitted their farming system (e.g. balancing survival, milk volume, milk components, mammary features, fertility, milking speed, etc.). Bull proofs were then screened to identify a batch of eligible bulls that were further screened for their specific situation. Focus groups of advisers generally concurred with the process described by farmers. Further, farmers tended to rely on one or two main information sources in making decisions. To address the issue of greater alignment between farmer decision making and use of genetic information through industry organisations requires a coordinated strategy and a comprehensive development program. Suggestions for activities to this end are outlined.

Community sustainability and agricultural landscape change: insights into the durability and vulnerability of the productivist regime

Abstract Food is produced in material places: distinct combinations of landform, soil, climate, hydrology and biota. However, agricultural landscapes are more than material, they are also social. Biophysical materials interact with phenomena including communities of place, and the wider economic, political and social context, to produce particular practices and arrangements of food production. The sociologically informed concept of place-making has recently been introduced to sustainability science, with the suggestion that it can assist in identifying practical pathways towards more sustainable landscapes, through offering insight into this variety of relations between the physical and the social. Here, we apply this perspective to a case study of an Australian rural community of place that is grappling with questions surrounding the future of its farm land. We have used “community sustainability” as a conceptual entry point for exploring how landscape development trajectories result from discursive place-frames that draw on different sets of place-making relations. In this case, the relations that reproduce a broadly “productivist” trajectory in landscape change are strong, but under some pressure, most evident in community perceptions of the relative unattractiveness of traditional farming livelihoods to a younger generation. However, place-making relations that might lead in alternative directions are weak. Incremental change towards a more diverse agricultural landscape appears possible if different economic and discursive relations can be drawn on to create a different place-frame that offers an equivalent promise for maintaining community in place.

The evolving extension environment: implications for dairy scientists

This paper reviews current challenges in the Australian extension environment and provides a case for developing an adaptive extension platform for the dairy sector in Australia and New Zealand, to support evolving dairy farm systems. The variation in the public-sector engagement in extension, the diversity and number of extension providers and a relatively uncoordinated approach to define new extension roles, functions and professional requirements are current challenges for dairy extension across Australia. In the dairy sector, these challenges coincide with increasing demand for a responsive research, development, extension and education system in supporting the rapid evolution in dairy farming systems. Addressing these challenges is not an issue for extension alone; however, the required level of integration among research, development, extension and education in an environment where needs are changing and resources are scarce demands an engaged dairy-science profession. Drawing on international extension and agricultural innovation-system literature and earlier empirical research, the following three areas for development are proposed: (1) a professional development strategy that incorporates (i) an understanding of the new professional situations extension works within, (ii) leadership in cross-industry and cross-sector coordination concerning the nature of the changing client in research, development, extension and education system and (iii) clear priorities for extension; (2) a professional development plan that incorporates a workplace-learning approach; and (3) for extension specialists to be engaged in defining research priorities, the agenda for change and suitable pathways for change alongside other professional groups, including farming. This development agenda will, however, require an adaptive extension platform to advance these areas on behalf of farmers and public stakeholders.

Extension Approaches for Horticultural Innovation

The focus of this chapter is towards the changing extension climate surrounding the horticultural industry and the implications for horticultural extension now and into the future. Extension as a function and a practice is being redefined in many countries alongside changes in the institutional arrangements for extension, changing funding models and varying degrees of involvement of the private sector. The chapter analyses: industry/sector changes and implications for extension traditional and more recent interpretation surrounding extension definitions and delivery models the evolving enabling environment, resource constraints and institutional roles surrounding extension service delivery the extension practitioner (their skills, competencies, roles) elements of a model suited to support industry needs with high, ongoing innovation requirements.

A new framework to analyse workforce contribution to Australian cotton farm adaptability

Farmers face many challenges, including climate variability, that require continual adaptation. However, studies of farm adaptation have paid limited attention to the farm workforce, despite changes in farm workforce organisation (i.e. the number, type and forms of employment on farm) being a significant feature of agricultural change globally. To effectively support farmers’ adaptation, it is important to understand farmers’ workforce strategies (i.e. how farm workforce organisation supports the needs and priorities of the farm), how workforce choices are made and the implications for adaptation. This paper progresses a framework for analysing farm adaptability, including the farm workforce. Bringing together theories of livelihoods analysis and strategic human resource management, the farm workforce strategies of 16 case study farms in the Australian cotton production sector are analysed. Cotton production is exposed to major resource constraints, such as irrigation water. We interviewed farmers and collected data on farm business performance, workforce organisation choices, human resource management practices and employees’ experiences of work. We integrated data to characterise farm workforce decision-making and the relationship between workforce strategies and farm adaptability for each farm. A cross-case analysis explored differences between farms. A diversity of workforce strategies was found, involving combinations of workforce options, defined as ‘core’, ‘contract’ and ‘casual’ workers at different levels of skills and experience. Farm workforce strategies were found to influence and be influenced by sources of financial capital, irrigation water availability/holdings, farm remoteness, new farm infrastructure and human resource management practices. The farm workforce was a response option to provide production flexibility, yet high adaptability was associated with some negative consequences for managers and employees. We show for the first time the influence of farm workforce organisation dynamics in adaptation and negative consequences of high farm adaptability. ‘Factoring-in’ the farm workforce in sustainable development studies should therefore be a priority.