Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Facilitated recruitment increases participation in the paired-paddock program

Jason Trompf1 and Peter Sale1

1Department of Agricultural Sciences, La Trobe University, Melbourne, 3086

Summary

A survey was undertaken of the practices and attitudes of 229 pastoral producers who volunteered to enter the Triple P Program in 1997, together with 89 pastoral producers from two representative districts of Victoria. Comparison of the survey results reveals that the Triple P volunteers employed different management practices and had different attitudes to the general pastoral producers. We contend that these differences are a direct consequence of the voluntary approach used to recruit Triple P participants. This approach attracts a select group of farmers that are inclined to engage in extension and training activities and tend to have different attitudes and practices to the general pastoral producers. A process was developed that encouraged more producers to join the Triple P program over and above those who had previously volunteered to participate. In targeted districts this facilitated recruitment process delivered a 7-fold increase in participation density in the Triple P Program. As a result producers who otherwise would not have joined the program benefited greatly by undertaken marked changes in attitudes and practices, which were even more profound than the changes undertaken by Triple P volunteers.

Introduction

In 1997 a paired-paddock program known as the Triple P Program was initiated to assist wool producers in south-east Australia to develop skills and gain confidence in their ability to adopt more productive pastures. These pastures result when increased rates of fertiliser are applied to pastures containing productive species, and stocking rates are adjusted to consume increases in available pasture. The extension approach employed in the Triple P Program used the paired-paddock model (Trompf and Sale 2000). This involves small producer groups (minimum of 6 members), under the guidance of a facilitator, establishing a paired-paddock comparison on each participant’s property to compare productive pastures to existing pastures. The groups also received skills training in monitoring pasture and livestock (Trompf and Sale 2000). By 1998 the Triple P Program consisted of more than 65 groups of 400 farmers spread across four states.

The Triple P groups were established using a voluntary recruitment approach that relied on reaching potential participants by creating general awareness through the media, by word-of-mouth from fellow producers and by direct contact with program facilitators. Group formation was based on producer inquiry about the program. Interested producers were encouraged to use their farmer contacts to identify other district producers who might join their group, when there were insufficient inquiries to form a group within a district.

Industry bodies, service providers and other individuals have expressed concern about the voluntary basis used to recruit participants into training programs like the Triple P Program. This process has been criticised for attracting only those producers who are willing to listen, discuss and trial new ideas (Cloonan and Woog 1997). As a result producers enrolling in courses such as the Triple P Program tend to be, in many cases, the more efficient producers (ABARE 1998). This leads to issues of inequity among producers in the service they receive from industry and government extension efforts and training funds. According to Roling (1988) innovative farmers will self-select as the ones that join extension programs unless a deliberate effort is made to reach other farmer categories. Given that only a small percentage (10-15%) of the producer population is keen to enrol in these courses (Cloonan and Woog 1997) then it is unlikely that extension programs will achieve marked improvement on an industry scale if participation levels remain below 15% of the total producer population.

This paper summarises the findings of a detailed study of the attitudes and practices of producers who voluntarily entered the Triple P Program in 1998 and the general farmer population (Trompf and Sale 2001a). The number of volunteer participants within selected districts was determined to quantify participation density within those districts. A process that was developed to improve this participation is briefly outlined. The attitudes and practices of producers who joined the program as a result of this process (Triple P recruits) are then compared to that of the volunteer participants and the non-participants. Finally, this paper summarises the findings of a detailed study of the change in attitudes and practices undertaken by the Triple P recruits after two years involvement in the program compared to that undertaken by the voluntary participants (Trompf and Sale 2001c).

Methodology

Study areas

The practices and attitudes of 229 Triple P Program volunteers from groups in South Australia, southern New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania were recorded in a benchmarking survey completed at the beginning of the program in the autumn of 1998. Pastoral producers in the Benalla (north-east Victoria) and Glenthompson (south-west Victoria) districts also completed a survey containing the same questions. The combined information from these 2 districts (89 respondents in total) was considered to be representative of the general pastoral producer population across the higher rainfall, permanent pasture zone of south-east Australia. This was because the 2 districts were centrally located in the Triple P recruitment area, the average annual rainfall and rainfall range were similar to that for the Triple P volunteers, and the average stocking rates (8.7 dse/ha) for the respondents were almost identical to that reported by ABARE (2000) for specialist woolgrowers in southern Victoria between 1995-96 and 1997-98 (8.6 dse/ha). A final reason why the sample was considered to be representative was that every pastoral producer in designated contiguous portions of the two districts were visited and surveyed face-to-face.

Statistical analyses

The survey data were analysed using SPSS (SPSS Inc. 1994). Differences between the groupings were compared by an analysis of variance (ANOVA). Because of the sample size and uncertainties about the normality of distribution of variables, an equivalent non-parametric test was also carried out (Kruskal-Wallis for independent samples). In all cases the non-parametric test resulted in similar conclusions to those from parametric tests.

Results

Participation density

Participation density is the number of participants from a given area who join an extension program, expressed as a percentage of the total number of producers in that area who could have joined the program. In the Benalla and Glenthompson districts 5 out of 89 or 5.6% of the producers had volunteered to participate in the Triple P Program. This estimate was very similar to the overall participation density across southern Victoria that was found to be 5.4%.

Comparison between Triple P volunteers and the general pastoral producers

The producers who volunteered to participate in the Triple P Program had different practices and attitudes in 1997 to the general pastoral producers (Table 1). Prior to entering the program, the Triple P volunteers were already employing more productive practices, with higher stocking and fertiliser rates than the general pastoral producers. The Triple P volunteers were also more likely to be employing practices such as measuring available pasture and weighing livestock. In contrast, the general pastoral producers, with comparatively lower stocking and fertiliser rates, were using fewer practices associated with more intensive pasture production such as measuring available pasture and weighing livestock. Instead, they were more inclined to be measuring livestock performance by gauging production per head or per animal.

Table 1. Differences in practices and attitudes of the Triple P volunteers and the general pastoral producers.

 

Triple P volunteers

General pastoral producers

Sign.

Practices
Stocking rate in 1997 (dse/ha)
Fertiliser rate in 1997 (kg P/ha)

Measure pasture quantity
Assess livestock - weighing
Gauge production/head

Attitude- performance measure

Production/ha
Production/head
Attitude- constraint to profitability
Low farm productivity
Attitude- priority of expenditure
Fertilisers
Animal health


10.4
9.6
(proportion)A
0.36
0.43
0.59

(score out of 5)
B
4.7
3.9

3.8

4.7
3.9


8.7
6.4
(proportion)
A
0.02
0.15
0.80

(score out of 5)
B
3.9
4.2

2.8

4.0
4.6


**
**

**
**
**


**
**
**
**

**
**

[**means that differ significantly (p<0.01). A the quotient of the number of producers conducting a given practice over the total number of producers in that grouping. B importance scores range from: 1, not important to 5, very important].

The differences in practices conducted by the 2 groups are consistent with their contrasting attitudes to managing their farms. For example, the Triple P volunteers regarded production per hectare to be a significantly more important measure of farm performance in 1997 than the general pastoral producers, who in contrast considered production per head to be a more important measure than the Triple P volunteers. Therefore, the general pastoral producers regarded low farm productivity to be only a minor contributor to poor farm profitability prior to 1997, where as the Triple P volunteers considered low productivity to be a major constraint to farm profits. Further indication of the difference in attitudes between the Triple P volunteers and the general pastoral producers was their intended priorities of expenditure for the farm. The Triple P volunteer regarded fertiliser application as a major expenditure priority while general pastoral producers considered expenditure on animal health the most important which is consistent with their focus on individual livestock performance.

The recruitment process

A process known as facilitated recruitment (Trompf and Sale 2001b) was developed in an attempt to increase participation in the Triple P Program beyond those producers who readily volunteer to participate. This is very important, as it enables the Triple P Program to have an impact on the practices and attitudes of more producers, leading to greater industry impact from the program. The facilitated recruitment process involved 3 phases.

Phase 1 involved identifying the geographical location of the farms of all pastoral producers in the target district. A visit was made by the senior author to the farm of each producer in designated contiguous portions of the Benalla and Glenthompson districts and each producer was interviewed face-to-face. The farm visits were un-prompted so an initial introduction was required to engage the producer. A semi-structure interview was then carried out with particular emphasis on the issue of pasture productivity. The questions focussed on their current practices and attitudes and interest in addressing the issue of pasture productivity.

The second phase of the recruitment process involved a series of follow-up actions in response to the significant interest shown by district producers in the productivity issue. A letter describing this ‘district interest’ was sent to each of the producers, who were also informed that a field day would be organised on a local property where a paired-paddock comparison had been undertaken. A follow-up phone call was made to producers to confirm that the letter had arrived and to thank them for their time. In addition producers were reminded of the field day that had been organised as a result of the responses.

The final phase of the process related primarily to the field day itself. An important aspect was for producers to hear about the experiences of a local producer who had conducted a paddock comparison on his/her property and how this experience challenged their attitudes towards pasture productivity. A facilitator from the paired-paddock program was also invited to the field day to provide further insights and to outline some of the benefits experienced by farmers in the program. Visiting producers were also given the opportunity to see the paired-paddock comparison first hand and question the local producer and facilitator about it. They were also told that more producer groups were being formed to evaluate productive pastures and that opportunities existed for them to join the program. The formation of groups by interested producers was then left primarily to the producers themselves who were to make contact with the facilitator once they had organised their group.

A total of 89 producers were interviewed in the Benalla and Glenthompson districts. This represented 93% of total producers in designated portions of these districts; around 2% of producers were not willing to partake in an interview and around 5% of producers were unavailable to be interviewed. Of the 89 producers, there were 5 (5.6%) who were already participating in a paired-paddock program (referred to as Triple P volunteers). Another 30 producers agreed to participate in the Triple P Program as a result of the recruitment process (Triple P recruits), which increased the participation density to 39.3%. The remaining 54 chose not to participate at all, and are referred to as non-participants.

Comparison between Triple P recruits, Triple P volunteers and the non-participants

The practices and attitudes of the producers who were recruited into the Triple P Program were considerably closer to those of the non-participant than were the attitudes and practices of the Triple P volunteers (Table 2). In only 2 of the 10 measures of practices and attitudes in 1997 did the Triple P recruits differ significantly (p<0.05) from the non-participants. For example the recruits regarded low farm productivity as a more important constraint to farm profits than did the non-participants, while the non-participants were more inclined to measure livestock performance by gauging production per head than the Triple P recruits.

In contrast, the Triple P volunteers differed from the non-participants for all 10 measures of practices and attitudes. The volunteers had higher stocking and fertiliser rates than non-participants, a significantly greater proportion of volunteers measure pasture availability and weigh livestock than non-participants, and volunteers are much more attuned to the key determinants of farm profitability such as production per hectare, farm productivity and fertiliser use. In contrast, the non-participants considered farm profitability to be determined by livestock production per head and as a result regarded expenditure on animal health a much higher priority than the Triple P volunteers. This finding is consistent with the conclusions reached by Schroder (1997) who separated pastoral farmers into either intensive or extensive managers. The intensive managers were interested in improving production and productivity, while the extensive managers were more focussed on animals rather than pastures and therefore are less inclined to increase stocking rates.

Table 2. Differences in practices and attitudes of Triple P recruits, compare to those of the Triple P volunteers and the non-participants.

 

Triple P volunteers

Triple P recruits

Non-participants

Practices
Stocking rate in 1997 (dse/ha)
Fertiliser rate in 1997 (kg P/ha)

Measure pasture quantity
Assess livestock - weighing
Gauge production/head

Attitude- performance measure
Production/ha
Production/head
Attitude- constraint to profitability
Low farm productivity
Attitude- priority of expenditure
Fertilisers
Animal health


10.4 a
9.6 a
(proportion)A
0.36 a
0.43 a
0.59 a

(score out of 5)B
4.7 a
3.9 a

3.8 a

4.7 a
3.9 a


8.9 ab
6.7 b
(proportion)A
0.07 b
0.03 b
0.87 b

(score out of 5)B
4.1 b
3.9 a

3.2 b

4.2 b
4.5 b


8.6 b
5.7 b
(proportion)A
0.00 b
0.15 b
0.74 b

(score out of 5)B
3.7 b
4.4 b

2.6 c

3.8 b
4.6 b

[Means for each farmer grouping that are followed by a similar letter do not differ significantly (p>0.05). A the quotient of the number of producers conducting a given practice over the total number of producers in that grouping. B importance scores range from: 1, not important to 5, very important].

Comparison of changes in practices and attitudes by Triple recruits and Triple P volunteers

Between 1997 and 1999 both the Triple P recruits and the Triple P volunteers significantly (p<0.05) increased their fertiliser and stocking rates (Table 3). The increases achieved by the recruits over this period were equivalent to those of the volunteer. The recruits intended to further significantly increase fertiliser use between 1999 and 2001, while the volunteers only intended to marginally increase fertiliser use over this period. Both groups intended to increase stocking rates significantly between 1999 and 2001 (p<0.05).

Table 3. Change in fertiliser and stocking rates by Triple P volunteers and Triple P recruits between 1997 and 1999, and intended rates by 2001.

Productivity setting

1997

1999

2001
(intended)

Change 1997 to 1999

Fertiliser rate (kg P/ha)
Volunteers

Recruits


9.5 a
*
6.7 a


11.5 b
*
8.5 b


12.1 b
10.1 c


2.0
1.9

Stocking rate (dse/ha)
Volunteers
Recruits


10.0 a
9.0 a


11.3 b
10.3 b


12.5 c
10.9 c


1.2
1.3

[* indicates that means between participant groupings within years differed significantly (p<0.05). Means for individual participants over time that are followed by a different letter differ significantly (p<0.05)].

Between 1997 and 1999 the Triple P recruits underwent a greater change in attitudes and practices than did the Triple P volunteers (Table 4). The increased use of practices such as measuring available pasture and weighing stock by recruits was much more marked than that undertaken by the volunteers. The recruits also changed their attitudes to the key drivers of their farms’ profitability, regarding production per hectare as a significantly more important measure of farm performance in 1999 compared to their scores in 1997. Another major attitudinal change made by the recruits was their greater recognition of low farm productivity as a restriction to farm profitability. This is evidenced by the significantly greater importance score given to low farm productivity as a restricting factor to farm profitability in 1999, compared with their score in 1997. The volunteers did not change their attitudes as they already considered these determinants of farm profitability to be important when they volunteered to enter the program in 1997.

Table 4. Change in practices and attitudes by Triple P volunteers and Triple P recruits between 1997 and 1999.

Recommended practice

Proportion in 1997

Proportion in 1999

Change from 1997 to 1999

Measuring available pasture
Volunteers
Recruits

(proportion)A
0.37 a
*
0.05 a

(proportion)A
0.82 b
0.75 b

(proportion)A
0.45
0.70

Weigh stock
Volunteers
Recruits


0.45 a
**
0.00 a


0.63 b
0.50 b


0.18
**
0.50

Gauge production/head
Volunteers
Recruits


0.55 a
0.70 a


0.68 b
*
0.90 a


0.13
0.20

Production per hectare
Volunteers
Recruits

(score out of 5)B
4.6 a
*
4.2 a

(score out of 5)B
4.6 a
4.6 a

(score out of 5)B
0.0
0.4

Production per head
Volunteers
Recruits


3.8 a
4.1 a


3.9 a
3.9 a


0.1
-0.2

Low farm productivity
Volunteers
Recruits


3.7 a
*
3.1 a


4.0 a
3.8 b


0.3
*
0.7

Fertiliser
Volunteers
Recruits


4.7 a
**
4.2 a


4.4 b
4.4 a


-0.3
0.2

Animal health products
Volunteers
Recruits


3.8 a
*
4.3 a


3.5 b
**
4.3 a


-0.3
0.0

[* and ** indicate that means between participant groupings within years differed significantly with probabilities p≤0.05 and p≤0.01, respectively. Means for individual participants over time that are followed by a different letter differ significantly (p<0.05). A the quotient of the number of producers conducting a given practice over the total number of producers in that grouping. B importance scores range from: 1, not important to 5, very important].

By 1999 many of the differences in attitudes and practices that existed between the recruits and the volunteers when they entered the program in 1997, had disappeared. Of the 10 measures of attitudes and practices used in the study the recruits differed significantly (p<0.05) from the volunteers in 8 of the measures in 1997, whereas by 1999 the recruits and the volunteers differed in only 3 of the 10 measures. One of these differences was that the recruits were still more inclined to measure livestock performance by gauging production per head in 1999 than were the volunteers (Table 4). Given that the recruits also maintained a higher expenditure priority on animal health (Table 4) it appears that they retained a continuing sensitivity for the wellbeing of their animals, despite undertaking a marked shift in management attitudes in other areas.

The Triple P recruits gave the program a significantly higher (p<0.01) overall satisfaction rating (9.5 out of 10) than the Triple P volunteers did (8.6 out of 10). This was perhaps due to the volunteers already being attuned to managing their property according to productive pasture practices, whereas the program provided a greater revelation for the recruits.

Conclusions

The facilitated recruitment process was able to encourage more producers to join the Triple P Program over and above those who had previously volunteered to participate in the program. In so doing, the facilitated recruitment process delivered a 7-fold increase in the participation density in paired-paddock programs in the targeted districts, compared with the voluntary approach. This process significantly increases the degree of impact that the program may potentially have at a district, regional or industry level. The voluntary approach restricts the potential impact because the type of producers attracted to the program have already adopted some of the attitudes and practices that are consistent with managing a productive pasture system. A more pro-active approach to recruitment can attract farmers who otherwise would not have joined the program, and who potentially are capable of benefiting greatly from the program by undertaking marked changes in attitudes and practices.

References

  1. ABARE (1998) ‘Australian farm surveys report: financial performance of Australian farms 1998.’ (Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics: Canberra. ACT).
  2. ABARE (2000) ‘Profile of Australian wool producer: 1995-96 to 1997-98.’ (Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics: Canberra. ACT).
  3. Cloonan, D and Woog, R (1997) How do we do it? Waddling toward a new theoretically-informed practice of extension. In ‘Managing change - building knowledge and skills’, Proceedings of the 2nd Australasian Pacific Extension Network Conference, Albury, November 1997, p. 433-39.
  4. Roling, N (1988) Extension science: information systems in agricultural development. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge).
  5. Schroder, P (1997) Getting more people to sow more pasture more often. In ‘Managing change - building knowledge and skills’, Proceedings of the 2nd Australasian Pacific Extension Network Conference, Albury, November 1997, p. 523-33.
  6. SPSS Inc (1994) SPSS 6.1 base system user’s guide, part 2. (SPSS Inc.: Chicago).
  7. Trompf, JP and Sale, PWG (2000) The paired-paddock model as an agent for change on grazing properties across south-east Australia. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 40, No. 4, 547-56.
  8. Trompf, JP and Sale, PWG (2001a) Differences in management practices and attitudes between the Triple P Program entrants and other pastoral producers in the region. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 41, No. 6 773-79.
  9. Trompf, JP and Sale, PWG (2001b) Facilitated recruitment results in more of the general farmer population into the paired-paddock extension program. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture (In press).
  10. Trompf, JP and Sale, PWG (2001c) A comparison of changes in farm practices and attitudes between the volunteer and the recruited participant, during their involvement in the paired-paddock extension program. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture (In press).

Previous PageTop Of PageNext Page