Abstract

An extensive farmer–driven extension project involving NSW dairy farmers groups, universities and NSW Agriculture has produced learning and farmer research outcomes for all participants.

The Profitable Pastures Program (PPP) was conceived in an action research paradigm where the parties participated in farmer driven on-farm research. The outcomes were described and evaluated using action learning and on-farm trials. Although the program’s results are published elsewhere, a definitive analysis of outcomes based on the evaluation of a farmer-driven research project called ‘the silage wastage project’ using extension theory and a participatory typology is described.

This paper begins with a review of the change from top-down to bottom-up and participatory extension approaches. The conclusions are that relationships between farmers and scientists are crucial to the success of participatory research. A ‘typology of participation’ was used to evaluate the silage wastage project. It was found that level of participation and learning varies depending on the extent of outsider control. It was also noted that control varied throughout the work; the farmers conceived the work, then the scientists collected the data, analysed it and wrote the papers. But the learning and changes on farm went back to the farmers.

Other outcomes were that the farmer group developed cohesion and impetus over time and took control of meetings, focus farm and developed a subsequent research project with less input from the scientists.

Extension models are a useful way to evaluate the relationships between farmers and scientists. Farmer –driven research based on farmer groups and external R&D funding can lead to outcomes that satisfy all parties. Action research is a useful theory to guide and evaluate learner centred programs. A participatory typology was used to evaluate a farmer-driven project.

Media summary

NSW dairy farmers conducted their own research to reduce wasted feed. Their work, which was assisted by scientists lead to, improved feed-out methods and silage quality.

Keywords

Action research, farmer-driven research, extension models, top-down, bottom-up, participatory approach.

Introduction

Farmer–driven research and extension is described as a bottom-up approach, which is usually seen as a [new] alternative to a top-down [traditional] approach. This paper reviews the literature on farmer participation in research – using insights to evaluate a farmer-initiated study into silage wastage. Relevant literature in this field is extensive drawing on several disciplines and cultural contexts. Various industry are also applicable in that experience in agriculture, forestry and landcare are relevant.

As well as providing a background to new approaches in extension the literature review is also used to evaluate the silage wastage project. The project aimed ‘to learn about and improve silage feeding’ (‘silage project’); it was done under the auspices of the Riverina Dairy Advancement Group (RDAG) – involving 5 dairy families assisted by researchers from Charles Sturt University and NSW Agriculture. It was planned and approved as a RDAG project under the Profitable Pastures Project (PPP) and funded by the Dairy Research and Development Corporation (DRDC). The PPP supported farmer led projects with 7 NSW dairy farmer groups – using action research (Jennings et al 2001). The silage project also introduced Farming Systems Research - a complementary paradigm that sees the farm and farmer as a central feature of the research (Dunn et al 2003).

New ways of doing research such as farmer participation pose challenges to those involved as well as the relevant disciplines and institutions. It is easy to say that farmers should determine and control research within a farm context, but how this is done needs new methods and theory as well as new professional relationships. Chambers (1990) calls this ‘reversals’. – where researchers and extension workers learn from farmers and the research is located on the farms not the research stations.

In this paper we describe the methods used in the silage project as well as discussing the relevant extension theories. In the field level Farming Systems Research (FSR) (Hildebrand 1990) and action learning provided a framework for data collection and interpretation. In the wider research context the evolution of farmer participatory (action research) research is discussed in the light of the authors’ experience with the Profitable Pastures Program. Finally a ‘typology of participation paradigm’, stakeholder/community participation and lessons from landcare were used to evaluate the silage project.

This paper explores whether the lessons from the silage wastage project can be applied in other contexts. It also provides a critique of extension, participatory action research.

Changing research - extension paradigms

In the last 30 years major changes in the relationship between researchers and farmers has happened on a global scale. The substance of these changes are well documented and described as new methodologies - namely, Farming Systems Research (Hildebrand 1990, Collinson 1981 & 2000), Rapid Rural Appraisal and Agroecosystem Analysis (McCracken 1988 and Conway & McCracken 1990), farmer-first (Rhoades & Booth 1982, and Chambers & Ghildyal 1985) and farmer participation (Ashby 1990). Changing the way research is done and the central role of farmers is the common feature in all the new methodologies, however, Thiele et al (2001) remind us that ‘there are almost as many definitions of participatory research as there are practitioners’. In Australia interest in farmers’ knowledge emerged from the landcare movement (Campbell 1994) and from interest in overseas development - particularly Farming Systems Research (Petheram & Clark 1998) and Rapid Rural Appraisal as ways of finding out farmers’ research needs and reasons for non adoption (Webber & Ison 1995 and Vanclay 1992).

Through programs like Top Crop the grain and cropping industry has taken centre stage in implementing bottom-up R&D (Carberry 2001), however, this does not mean that other industries are bereft of progressive research and extension approaches (Buggie et al 1980 and Trompf and Sale 2001). The high profile and visible activity in grains R&D is acknowledged, but we present evidence of similar progress in animal industry R&D.

Investigating silage wastage with farmers: A project in PPP

For many years the elements in the Australian dairy industry used farmer groups and other progressive extension methods such as Target 10 and Focus Farms. However, PPP was the first research and extension program to be based entirely on the principles of action research (Jennings et al 2000). The PPP project involved 7 NSW dairy farmer groups conducting on- farm pasture related research. Projects were conceived and conducted by farmers using the principles of action research – namely, a 4-step cycle of observation, planning, action, and reflection. Farmers played the role of co-researchers over the 3-year life of the program – with the help of researchers who explained the action research process.

The Wagga farmers belonged to the Riverina Dairy Advancement Group. One of several projects they conceived was to investigate the losses of silage under 5 different farm-feeding systems. The researchers designed the collection and analytical methods but each farmer was in charge of the feed out and data collection method. When the data were analysed preliminary results were given to each farming family for comment and interpretation. The next stage was the 5 participating families agreed to share their results with one another and then with the Wagga group. Finally a presentation was made at the annual conference, which was attended by members from all 7 groups plus researchers and R&D administrators (Hildebrand & Ryan 2003).

The silage wastage project was consistent with the aims of PPP; in that farmers conceived the research idea and the data were collected from farms during normal farm operations under their supervision. Although laboratory analysis was done off farm, the results belonged to the farmers. Results were reported at the Australian Farming Systems Conference in 2 sections. Quantitative results were graphed and compared across faming systems, while qualitative data were presented in terms of what had been learnt and what had changed in each situation. It is posited that informal discussions occurred in families and amongst farmers. Certainly, there was anecdotal evidence of this at the conference (Dunn et al 2003).

The extension discipline?

Extension is not a discipline, but it is a profession and institution in agriculture and resource management. It is also in agricultural curricula, which Colin Spedding noted - requires a multi-disciplinary approach. An investigation of agriculture courses in Australia shows that extension is often associated with communication and rural sociology and is sometimes absent (Dunn & Wolfe 2001).

A ley definition of extension is that it’s about people and change. Usually it draws on social science and in particular rural sociology and communication theory. Berlo (1960) developed a communication model that fitted in with diffusion of innovations – the major theory of social change in rural societies (Rogers 1983). Although diffusion underpinned social research and extension practice for 20 years post WW2, it begs the question of which theories are useful in understanding and developing ‘bottom-up’ and FF approaches.

Extension models

Although widely used ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ have no definitive origin and no explicit theory. Roling (1988) uses both terms and Gartner (1990) noted that ideas and knowledge were ‘transferred from centres of learning to centres of production’. Dunn et al (2000) searched the literature for the terms and found similar ideas like ‘trickle down’ (Rogers & Shoemaker 1971) and ‘inducing change at the top of the social structure’ (Maunder 1972) – both of which are associated with diffusion theory. Cary (1993) was one of the first Australians to use the terms, but Goss (1979) – also an Australian studying in the USA was the first to point to the limitations of diffusion theory.

Similarly ‘bottom-up’ which came into use around the same time was associated with farmer-first – the key idea coined by Robert Chambers who advocated a new way to conduct research for poor farmers on complex diverse resource poor land (CDR). In a nutshell, Chambers described FF as a ‘reversal of parts of TOT’ … ‘ meaning that researchers learn from farmers’ and that farms (not research stations) should be of central importance to understand agriculture. Furthermore he urged us to accept that farmers’ rejection of technology usually resulted from deficiencies in the technology rather than ignorance (Chambers 1990). The detail and key ideas of FF were written down in an earlier reference by Chambers and Ghildyal (1985) – providing an historical explanation of the extension situation for poor farmers and the origins of FF.

Despite the fashion and interest in bottom-up and farmer driven research a paper by Thiele et al (2001) warns proponents us that ‘most biological scientists were skeptical of its relevance and preferred to continue with normal science…’

Interpretativist social and extension research also ushered in a new paradigm for investigating environmental and resource degradation problems (Fleigel and van Es 1983). It was found that ToT models were of limited use, but methodologies like Rapid Rural Appraisal, action research and qualitative social research were used. Some of these methodologies evolved in the same way as FF (Conway and McCracken 1990), but the influence of social scientists are acknowledged (Byerlee and Tripp 1988).

Despite the influence of these methodologies some of the original claims have been challenged (Guijt and Cornwell 1995, Bentley 1994). In Australia production research is dominated by research and development corporations (RDCs) such as GRDC, DRDC, and RIRDC. At the environment/agriculture interface institutions such as Land and Water Australia, CSIRO, CRCs and the Murray Darling Basin Commission are influential. In this field farmer participation and qualitative social science are influential – even though there are many expressions of multi-disciplinarity, and power sharing arrangements. Where many stakeholders exist - particularly community groups and where the state wants to devolve responsibility, participatory approaches are used, but success is mixed. Community members and groups express frustration and some research projects seem to be dominated by powerful interests to the extent they can hardly be called ‘participatory’. Thus a method is needed to analyse research projects so that the process can be understood and improved. It could be said that PPP would benefit from such a process.

Race and Buchy (1999) described a participatory approach to forestry development in Australia. Their ideas were based on stakeholder groups and lessons from landcare. In particular Cornwell’s typology of participation (cited in Race and Buchy 1999) provides a framework for evaluating the level of community involvement. It is posited that the same approach could be used to the silage wastage project. The key ideas are described below.

Research with stakeholders: The beginnings of participation

Textbooks state that extension workers interact with farmers in 3 ways: doing to, doing for and doing with. Neils Roling was more sophisticated when he observed that extension varied from being interventionist to emancipatory (Roling 1988, chapts 3& 4). Roling’s treatise on ‘extension science’ is a scholarly introduction to the need for participatory extension. At the field level Race and Buchy (1999) demonstrated the complexity of this task, which in their example required an accurate identification of the players, involved using the following questions:

1. Have stakeholder groups been clearly defined?

2. Do all members of stakeholder groups have the same voice and opportunity to participate?

3. How have voice and views been obtained?

4. What has been done to define and agree on issues of equity?

In answering these questions they draw on lessons from landcare and Cornwell’s ‘typology of participation’ classification (Table1).

From the Race and Buchy (1999) review of landcare 4 points are useful for our evaluation of the silage wastage project, namely:

1. Voluntary participation of group members and government contribution [in our case DRDC and NSW Agriculture] in the form of technical advice and group facilitation.

2. Devolving power to farming communities, needs to be real to effect change, otherwise it’s just a shift in responsibility.

3. Facilitators who can harness community diversity can build human capital.

4. Building on existing rural networks extending them to sophisticated links at all levels of government.

The silage project exhibited several aspects described above, namely devolution of money and power to a farmer group. Also evident was the benefit of facilitators who can help build human capital, and improving farmer networking with R&D organisations and universities.

Before using Cornwell’s typology to evaluate the silage wastage project it is worth summarising the work of William Foote Whyte – a famous sociologist who researched participation in rural communities and the industrial context. His work is also cited by Neils Roling.

Whyte (1991) stated that participation was about human relations management – originating in industry as well as agriculture. He discussed reasons why American and Japanese industry moved from Taylorism – where workers were passive and manipulated by managers – to being active collaborators. Whyte’s book is interesting because it combines agricultural and industrial participation. The case for participation in agricultural research arises from deficiencies in the technology transfer change – a model based on the erroneous assumption that scientists knew it all and farmers knew nothing. Participation in the industry situation was because of productivity increase. Although the benefits were patchy, each situation was analysed in terms of motivation, competence and the benefits of working together. Surely this applies also in agriculture.

Like Whyte, Race and Buchy (1999) recognised the importance of the community. They explained that ‘community’ meant many things including geographic, political, and cultural. For instance state organisations use geographic and administrative boundaries, while local people may use looser cultural boundaries, such as where people live and where they have common interests. They also make the point that rural communities are diverse in terms of social status, origins, gender and socio-economic interests. Such is an asset and a hindrance when big changes loom such as plantation forestry. It is then that the range of interest groups and stakeholders are revealed as they all have interests and expectations that conflict. Who participates, how much power and resource is devolved are key considerations. Cornwell’s typology (Table 1) sets the parameters for planning and evaluation of participatory action. In the next section we use it to evaluate the silage project.

Table 1. A typology of participation: A continuum of approaches.

Mode of local Community’s participation	Type of participation	Extent of outsider control	Potential for sustaining local action and leadership	Role of local community in research & action
Co-option	Tokenism: representatives are chosen but have no real input or power	***********		Subjects
Cooperation	Tasks are assigned with incentives; outsiders decide agendas & direct the process	********		Employees/ Subordinates
Consultation	Options asked; outsiders analyse information and decide on a course of action	******		Clients
Collaboration	Local community work together with outsiders to determine priorities; outsiders have responsibility for directing the process	*****	***	Collaborators
Co-learning	Local community & outsiders share their knowledge to create new understanding & work together to form new action plans; outsiders facilitate	***	******	Partners
Collective action	Local community set & implement their own agenda		***********	Directors

(Source: Cornwell 1995, cited in Race and Buchy 1999)

Evaluating the silage wastage project

The silage wastage project fits in between collaboration and co-learning. Although the research was the farmers’ idea and knowledge was shared between the scientists and cooperating farmers, who appeared to form new understanding and action, the project was designed and data collected by the former group. During most of the fieldwork the scientists were in control, although each farmer modified the data collection procedures to suit their situation. The scientists did data analysis and reporting, but results were handed over at a later meeting.

At a teleconference in March the PPP leadership team¹ was given a progress report on the silage wastage project. At this meeting we had to be circumspect about the results, as we hadn’t permission from the 5 co-operators to divulge their results. Before this, however, we discussed the results one-to-one, then within the group of 5 and finally we asked their permission to do a presentation at the Riverina Dairy Advancement Group focus farm meeting in March 2003. This did not generate a lot of discussion, but a second presentation in Sydney, May 2003 by a farmer and a scientist to a conference of PPP groups. Questions at this meeting were about the types of farms, how much variation there was between the farms and the levels of feed and wastage measured. Both presentations were technical results only.

The key part of action research is what is learnt and what changes. We conducted a 2 question survey (i.e. ‘what did you learn?’ and ‘what have you changed?’) but this elicited some insights (Dunn et al 2003), however, in hindsight we should have conducted a focus group to get more information on change and learning.

Focus on the process – i.e. action research, the paper by Dunn et al (2003) was presented at a Farming Systems Research conference in September 2003. Here we achieved collaboration as all farmers were named as authors, but again they did not contribute actively to the write.

Local action and the role of the local community in research are 2 questions raised by Cornwell. We could claim that we helped sustain the group in that it has begun another project on soil and pasture monitoring and evaluation – this time being led by one of the farmers who participated in the earlier research. In this project the farmers control the work and have recruited some new scientists. Thus suggests that they have moved more towards co-learning in the Cornwell typology. Observed from a distance it seems that farmers and scientists are equal partners, but we cannot attribute this to the earlier projects such as silage wastage.

Associated with the new project there was also a change in the focus farm. Previously the Charles Sturt University farm had been focus farm and generally hosted most of the meetings; however, the new focus farm leader has just acquired a diploma by RPL (through Tocal College). It could be argued that this qualification together with his experience in the silage wastage project gave him the impetus to lead.

Another point can drawn from Table1 concerns ‘community’. Based on Cocklin and Alston (2003, p6) ‘the concept of community has been used in two main ways’ namely, ‘communities of place’ and ‘communities of interest’. We are unsure whether the Riverina Dairy Advancement Group is a community in this sense. In the first place they do not live and farm in the same local area, and at the time of our work with them they were divided on marketing matters. On the other hand they did meet as a farm focus group and implemented several pasture and animal nutrition projects – achieving what Cornwell calls ‘collective action’ including the silage wastage project) they are an effective small group, but perhaps not a community. In comparison dairy farmers at Bega do seem to be a community in that they all belong to (and own) the Bega Dairy Cooperative and they all live in the Bega district.

Finally – a caution on bottom-up approaches. Thiele et al (2001) conclude by reminding us that although the International Potato Centre (CIP) ‘was the acknowledged leader in developing PR [participatory research] in the 1980s’, and they promoted the farmer-back-to-farmer model world wide, PR was only adopted in ‘small pockets of intensive activity’… ‘as most biological scientists were skeptical of the usefulness of PR’.

Conclusions

Farmer driven research depends on relationships - amongst the farmers themselves and with scientists. In our experience and from the results described we claim to have had some success. How much learning and change has not been measured, but in terms of the objectives and funding in PPP our work has yielded results that can be evaluated using Cornwell’s typology.

The literature on participatory research advocates a new way of working together for farmers and scientists. From our experience and observations we believe offer our project as an example of this new way, but that we should have measured our success shortcomings with more rigour. However, action research and participatory methods are process and people centred and it is known that farmers and agricultural scientists generally prefer to work with concrete experiences and data. We cannot say whether we have started new ways of research, but the experience was valuable. However, we acknowledge the value of new relationships, learning and the work of farmers and funding bodies who supported PPP.

Acknowledgments

Farmers in the Riverina Dairy Advancement Group, who worked hard attending meetings and collecting data and the funding bodies, Dairy Australia (formerly the Dairy Research and Development Corporation – DRDC) and the Dairy Industry Development Company NSW (DIDCO).

References

Ashby JA (1990). Small farmers’ participation in the design of technologies. In ‘Agroecology and small farm development’ (Eds. MA Altieri and SB Hecht). CRC Press Boca Rutan.

Bentley JW (1994). Facts, fantasies, and failure of farmer participatory research. Agriculture and Human Values (Spring-Summer), 140-150.

Berlo DK (1960). The process of communication: An introduction to theory and practice. Rinehart Press. San Francisco.

Byerlee D and Tripp R (1988) Strengthening linkages in agricultural research through a farming systems research perspective: the role of social scientists. Experimental Agriculture 24, 137-151.

Buggie GJ, Ayres JF, Robson JK, Quirk RD, Want GR and Sundstrom B (1980). Involving farmers in research. Animal production in Australia.

Campbell A (1994). Community First: Landcare. In Australia. IIED Gatekeeper Series No 42.International Institute for Environment and Development. London.

Chambers R (1990). Farmer-first: A practical paradigm for third world agriculture. In ‘Agroecology and small farm development.’ (Eds. MA Altieri and SB Hecht). CRC Press. Boca Raton.

Chambers R and Ghildyal BP (1985). Agricultural research for resource-poor farmers: The farmer-first-and-last model. Agricultural Administration. 20, 1-30.

Carberry PS (2001). Are science rigour and industry relevance both achievable in participatory action research? Proceedings of the 10^th Australian Agronomy Conference, Hobart.

Cary JW (1993). Changing foundations for government support of agricultural extension in economically developed countries. Sociologia Ruralis. XXXIII, 336-347.

Cocklin C and Alston M (2003). Community sustainability in rural Australia: A question of capital? Academy of Social Sciences in Australia and the Centre for Rural Social Research. Wagga Wagga.

Collinson M (2000). A history of Farming Systems Research. Food and Agriculture Organisation. Rome.

Collinson M (1981). A low cost approach to understanding small farmers. Agricultural Administration 8, 433-450.

Conway and McCracken (1990). Rapid Rural Appraisal and Agroecosystem Analysis. In ‘Agroecology and small farm development’ (Eds. MA Altieri and SB Hecht). CRC Press Boca Rutan.

Dunn T, Friend M, Hildebrand S, Jennings J, Clarke S, Davidson G, Mellor, J Ray T, and Ryan P (2003). Action Research and Farming Systems Research: Farmers and Researchers Investigation of Silage Wastage on Five Dairy Farms in NSW. Proc. of 1^st Australian Farming Systems Research Conference. Toowoomba. Qld. September 8-10, 2003.

Dunn A, Gray I, and Phillips E (2000). From personal barriers to community plans: A farm and community planning approach to the extension of sustainable agriculture. Part 1 extension theory. In Shulman, AD and Price RJ (eds) ‘Case studies in increasing the adoption of sustainable resource management practices.’ Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation. Canberra.

Dunn T and Wolfe T (2001). Agricultural education: Social science in the curricula. Rural Society 11, 271-280.

Farrington J and Martin AM (1988). Farmer participatory research: A review of concepts and recent fieldwork. Agric. Admin. & Extension 29, 247-264.

Fleigel FC and van Es JC (1983). The diffusion adoption process in agriculture: Changes in technology and changing paradigms. In ‘Technology and social change in rural areas’. (Ed. GF Summers). Westview Press. Boulder, Colorado.

Gartner JA (1990). Extension education: Top(s) down, bottom(s) up and other things. In ‘Systems theory applied to agriculture and the food chain. (Eds. JGW Jones and PR Street). Elsevier Applied Science. London

Goss KE (1979). Consequences of diffusion of innovations. Rural Sociology. 44, 754-772.

Guijt and Cornwell (1995). Critical reflections on the practice of PRA. Rivista di Agricoltura Subtropicale e Tropicale 89, 384-392.

Hildebrand P (1990). Farming Systems Research – Extension. In ‘Systems theory applied to agriculture and the food chain.’ (Eds. JGW Jones and PR Street). Elsevier Applied Science London.

Hildebrand S, and Ryan, P (2003). Silage wastage: results of a trial on five Wagga Wagga dairy farms. Unpublished paper presented at “The Profitable Pastures Project interactive workshop”, Pasadena on Pittwater, Sydney. (Unpublished workshop notes).

Jennings J, Ison M, Friend M, Sriskandarajah N and Andrews A (2000). Farmer perspective on profitable pasture production for dairying in New South Wales. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science. 13, 42-45.

Jennings J, Andrews A, Friend M, Ison M, and Sriskandarajah N. (2001). Taking the reigns: Farmer-driven learning, innovation and extension for profitable dairy pasture production in New South Wales. Proc. of the 10^th Australian Agronomy Conference. Hobart.

Maunder AH (1972). Agricultural extension: a Reference manual. FAO. Rome.

Petheram RJ and Clark RA (1998). Farming Systems Research: relevance to Australia. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 38, 101-115.

Race D and Buchy (1999) A role for community participation in Australian forest management? Rural Society 9, 405-419.

Rhoades RT and Booth RH (1982). Farmer-back-to-farmer: A model for generating acceptable agricultural technology. Agricultural Administration 11, 127-137.

Rogers EM (1983). Diffusion of innovations. 3^rd ed. The Free Press. New York.

Rogers EM and Shoemaker FF (1971). Communication of innovations: a Cross cultural approach. The Free Press. New York.

Roling N (1988). Extension science: Information systems in agricultural development. CambridgeUniversity Press. Cambridge.

Thiele G, van der Fliert E and Campilan D (2001) What happened to participatory research at the International Potato Centre? Agriculture and Human Values 18, 429-446.

Trompf JP and Sale PWG (2001). Adult learning principles embodied in the paired-paddock model. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 41, 195-204.

Vanclay F (1992). Barriers to adoption: A general overview of the issues. Rural Society 2, 10-12.

Webber LM and Ison RL (1995). Participatory Rural Appraisal and design: conceptual and process issues. Agricultural Systems 47, 107-131.

Whyte WF (1991). Social theory for action: How individuals and organisations learn to change. Sage. Newbury Park.

¹ The leadership team (LT) comprised a representative of the PPP partners plus a coordinator and farmer representatives. The LT oversaw the activity of all 7- farmer groups in NSW. In this case they were particularly interested in the Riverina group and its progress with the silage wastage project.