Abstract

Grapecheque is a group based extension program for grape growers in Victoria, primarily funded by the Department of Primary Industries. The program helps grape growers make informed decisions about their businesses. It was recently evaluated quantitatively using phone surveys and qualitatively through focus group discussions. Evaluation demonstrated that Grapecheque had a significant positive impact on a number of viticultural management practices of grape growers in Greater Victoria, particularly in the key areas of crop forecasting, irrigation and nutrition. For example, 90.9% of Grapecheque respondents used some form of crop forecasting compared to 78.8% who did not attend the program (p<0.01) (excluding growers from North West Victoria). Between 2000 and 2003, for the management practices assessed, the proportion of Grapecheque participants who used better management practices increased significantly, but this was not the case amongst growers who did not participate in the program. For example, across Greater Victoria, the use of visual indicators of vine stress to determine when to irrigate increased from 63.1% to 83.6% amongst Grapecheque participants between 2000 and 2003 (p<0.01). There was no significant increase over the same time period for non-participants. The strengths of Grapecheque for growers includes the small group structure of the program, being able to choose priority topics for the season, having access to good quality speakers and networking opportunities. Areas of improvement identified by growers include aligning meetings better with activities in the vineyard, ensuring suitable meeting times, improving publicity of group meetings and making certain material presented is not too technical. The evaluation results will be used to publicise Grapecheque achievements and to plan further implementation of the program.

Media summary

Keywords

Introduction

Grapecheque is a Victorian extension program, primarily funded through the Department of Primary Industries (DPI), which helps grape growers make informed decisions about their businesses. The program began in 1997 and is supported by the Victorian viticultural industry organisations.

The program uses a ‘participatory group-based extension’ approach. Twenty-three regionally based grower groups operate throughout Victoria and each is supported by one of four DPI facilitators. The group and the facilitator meet at the beginning of each season and plan a minimum of four events for the following year. Events are conducted using ‘Adult Learning Principles’ and include seminars, vineyard walks and study tours. Over the past three years, 246 Grapecheque meetings have been held, there were 4283 attendances across the State and the average number of participants at each meeting was 17.

Grapecheque aims to not only provide information on new and existing technologies, but to also help growers think about practical ways of implementing them. Some events use experts to deliver information on various subjects, but there is also a strong emphasis on learning from other growers through vineyard walks. The focus of the program is on best practice viticulture and developing sustainable businesses. The topics covered by each group vary depending on where the group is located. For example, the most popular topic in 2000-03 for groups in the hot/dry North West Victoria was ‘irrigation management’. In contrast, for groups in the cooler/wetter region of Southern Victoria, the most sought after subject was ‘pest and disease management’.

The Grapecheque program has an evaluation plan, based on Bennett’s Hierarchy (Bennett and Rockwell 2003). This method has been widely used in planning and evaluating extension programs, particularly in Australia. Key evaluation questions and targets for practice change were developed for various vineyard management practices. A restricted number of issues were chosen for evaluation to keep the process at a manageable level.

An evaluation of the Grapecheque program was conducted in 2003, to demonstrate the impact of the program on the viticultural practices of grape growers in Victoria over the past 3 years (2000-03). Quantitative data about vineyard management practices was obtained through phone surveys. Qualitative data about participants’ perceptions of the program was gathered through focus group discussions. A similar evaluation was carried out after the first three years of the program (1997-2000) (Fisher et al. 2001; Marks and Fisher 2001). As a result of the first evaluation, other DPI extension programs such as ‘Fruitcheque’ and ‘Vegcheque’ were developed based on the ‘Grapecheque’ model.

This paper focuses on the recent evaluation of Grapecheque, which demonstrated that the program is having a positive impact on the viticultural practices of grape growers in Victoria.

Methods

The impact of the Grapecheque program was evaluated in 2003 using quantitative and qualitative methods (Table 1).

Table 1: Methodology used to evaluate the Grapecheque program in 2003.

Methodology	Target groups within Victorian grape growing community	Objectives
Quantitative: Phone surveys	Grapecheque participants and non- participants	Determine viticultural management practices used
Qualitative: Focus group discussions	Grapecheque participants only	Determine participants perceptions of the Grapecheque program (what has worked, what needs to improve and where to for the future)

Phone surveys

A phone survey of 250 grape growers was conducted in June 2003. Fifty growers were randomly selected from grape growing zones in Victoria, excluding the North West part of the state (North East Victoria, Central Victoria, Western Victoria, Port Philip East and Port Phillip West). Selected growers received a letter advising them to expect a phone call. They were then phoned and asked to voluntarily complete the ten-minute survey. To ensure impartiality, the growers were phoned by a person that they didn’t know (either a completely independent casual employee or, less commonly, a Grapecheque facilitator who didn’t work in their region).

A separate mail survey was conducted for North West Victoria, because DPI does not hold mail or phone lists for growers in this region. Due to privacy laws the Grapecheque team was unable to access this information, therefore a list of 140 randomly generated mail surveys was passed on to the Victorian and Murray Valley Winegrape Growers’ Council who provided addresses on our behalf. The return rate of the survey was around 30%, representing less than 3% of the growers in the region. The results of the mail survey were deemed inadequate to be a representative sample and will not be discussed in this paper.

The data was analysed using the SPSS statistical package using a chi-square test of significance to compare between data sets. Vineyard management practices between grape growers who attended Grapecheque and those who did not attend the program were compared. Results were also compared with a similar survey conducted in 2000.

Focus groups

Five focus groups were held across the grape growing regions of Victoria in January-February 2003, encompassing both wine and table grape producers (Table 2). Grapecheque facilitators selected both male and female participants to represent a broad range of industry experience, attitudes and enterprise mixes. Meetings were held in local venues such as wineries and restaurants, ensuring a comfortable environment for the participants.

Table 2: Groups involved in focus group discussions in 2003.

Victorian grape growing region	Location	Industry	No. of participants
Mildura (part of North West Victoria)	Irymple	Wine grapes	6
Euston (part of North West Victoria)	Euston	Table grapes	6
Central Victoria	Avenel	Wine grapes	5
North East	Wangaratta	Wine grapes	10
Southern (including Port Phillip East and Port Phillip West)	Melbourne	Wine grapes	10

To ensure impartiality, Sally Dickinson, a DPI employee who was not working with the Grapecheque program at the time, facilitated the focus group discussions. An independent note taker was also present at most discussions to record the open and honest feedback from participants. With the permission of participants the discussions were recorded in order to accurately capture the responses.

The focus group discussions were guided by a series of questions, starting broadly about the challenges growers currently face and finishing more narrowly on the role of Grapecheque in the future (Krueger and Casey 2000). This paper will only focus on the data relating to strengths of the Grapecheque program, outcomes for growers and areas for improvements.

Results

Phone surveys

According to the results of the phone survey, Grapecheque participants managed their vineyards differently to non-Grapecheque respondents in three key areas: crop forecasting, irrigation management and nutritional testing (Table 3).

Table 3. Vineyard management practices used by grape growers in Greater Victoria in June 2003 (excluding North West Victoria).

Vineyard Management Practice	% Growers who participated in Grapecheque	% Growers who DID NOT participate in Grapecheque	Significance
Do crop forecasting	90.9	78.8	***
Monitor soil moisture	93.3	84.7	**
Use weather conditions as part of irrigation scheduling	55.2	40.0	**
Test petioles as part of nutritional testing	75.2	61.2	**

***p<0.01, **p<0.03

Crop Forecasting

Inaccurate crop forecasting has been identified as a major issue in the Australian wine industry and is estimated to cost $85 million per year (Steve Martin pers comm 2003). The ability of growers to accurately forecast their crop levels assists in planning their own harvesting and transport operations. Wineries also value accurate forecasts of crop yield to assist them with intake scheduling and forward marketing of wine. Of the surveyed growers who attended Grapecheque, 90.9% complete crop forecasting, compared to 78.8% of respondents who did not attend Grapecheque (p<0.01).

Irrigation Management

Most of Victoria’s viticulture relies heavily on irrigation, particularly in the north of the state. Irrigation has a big impact on the growth of the vine and therefore influences the quality and quantity of fruit harvested. Efficient irrigation ensures that enough water is applied to meet the needs of the plant, whilst minimising loss due to run off and drainage. Growers can determine when their vines need irrigation through the use of soil moisture monitoring tools. A significantly higher proportion of Grapecheque participants used these tools compared to growers that do not participate in the program (93.3% of Grapecheque respondents compared to 84.7% of non-Grapecheque respondents, p<0.03).

Responding to weather conditions is another way that growers can fine-tune their irrigation regime to ensure adequate and appropriate moisture levels for their vines. The survey showed that 55.2% of respondents who attended Grapecheque use weather conditions as part of their irrigation scheduling, while only 40.5% of non-Grapecheque respondents do so (p<0.03).

Nutritional Testing

Determining the nutritional status of the vine is a critical tool is assessing how much fertiliser to apply. Efficient fertiliser application reduces wastage and nutrient leakage. Petiole testing is an accurate way of determining the actual nutritional status of the vine. Of the surveyed growers who attended Grapecheque, 75.2% use petiole testing in their nutritional program, compared to only 61.2% of non-Grapecheque respondents (p<0.03).

2003 survey results compared to 2000

The results of the survey completed in 2003 were compared to a similar survey conducted in 2000. The percentage of Grapecheque participants using ‘best’ vineyard management practices significantly increased between 2000 and 2003. However, this was not always the case amongst grape growers who did not participate in the program (Table 4). Again, the differences were in three key areas very important to running a successful vineyard: crop forecasting, irrigation and nutrition.

Table 4. Vineyard management practices used by grape growers in Victoria in 2000 and 2003.

Vineyard Management Practice	% Growers who participated in Grapecheque			% Growers who DID NOT participate in Grapecheque
	2000	2003	Significance	2000	2003	Significance
Use crop forecasting	80.5	90.2	**	76.2	78.8	NS
Use % budburst as part of crop forecasting	18.1	34.1	**	17.9	27.1	NS
Visually assess soil moisture to assist irrigation scheduling	35.6	48.5	**	38.1	41.2	NS
Examine vine stress indicators to assist irrigation scheduling	63.1	83.6	***	69.0	76.5	NS
Use weather conditions to assist irrigation scheduling	40.9	55.2	**	38.1	40.0	NS
Use “Gopher” to assist irrigation scheduling	5.4	12.7	**	6.0	2.4	NS
Use sap testing as part of nutritional testing	2.0	13.3	***	4.8	5.9	NS

***p<0.01, **p<0.03, NS not significant (p>0.05)

Over the period from 2000 to 2003, growers who attended Grapecheque events significantly increased their use of two techniques used in crop forecasting, four practices relating to improved irrigation, and a sap test for nutrition management (Table 4).

Between 2000 and 2003, respondents who attended Grapecheque significantly increased their use of two relatively new forms of technology, ie. a “Gopher” for measuring soil moisture (p<0.03) and sap testing as part of nutritional testing (p<0.01). In contrast, there was no significant increase in the number of non-Grapecheque participants using this new equipment (Table 4).

Focus groups

During the focus group discussions, the participants raised the following issues about the Grapecheque program.

a) Strengths- Grapecheque program

Grapecheque’s greatest strengths were the group nature of the program and the workshops, field days and bus trips that were organised by the facilitators. The variety of topics, up to date information on new concepts and ideas and the practical nature of Grapecheque events provided many advantages for participants. The vineyard walks and bus trips were of particular interest to growers as they provided an opportunity to “get away from” their own environment and see a range of different vineyards and vineyard management techniques. It was also more beneficial to go to “real” vineyards as opposed to DPI research station sites.

“If you go to other people’s places, it’s not like the Department of Ag, where they spend millions of dollars and everything is perfect, you go to other peoples place’s you relate to and you can relate it back to your property pretty easily.”

The participants felt that a significant advantage of being involved in Grapecheque was that they were the ones driving the process and were able to choose the priority topics for the year. This created a great sense of ownership of the program, and was reflected in a number of the focus group discussions.

“We set what we want to talk about at the start of the season and so far things have been spot on.”

Participants also felt that the smaller regional group structure of Grapecheque made it easier than in a larger group for growers to share information. They felt more comfortable in the Grapecheque groups, where they were familiar with each other, to ask for information on specific topics and discuss any issues they needed more information about.

“The groups are just the right size for the truth to come out”

The informal BBQ’s and drinks after meetings also provided participants with a comfortable environment to further discuss any issues, with some commenting that they learnt more after the formalities were over.

b) Strengths- outcomes for participants

Through Grapecheque activities, growers felt that they could access good quality speakers and information that was intellectually challenging, that individually may be inaccessible or too costly.

“I get access to people who I am not able to pay for who have the knowledge. As a small vineyard it’s not feasible for me to get (a consultant) to come across, so to go look at a vineyard with him in an afternoon is very good for me.”

Grapecheque events provided growers with a good link to the research being carried out by DPI and other service providers, allowing them to make initial contact with researchers that may be interested in doing further trials on farm. Participants also felt that the outside expertise that was introduced at Grapecheque meetings provided a wider scope of information for growers and added to the local knowledge base.

“The district is very well serviced for information, technical input from public and private providers is better than most regions”.

Grapecheque events were essential for maintaining grower networks. They provided an arena for growers from within and between local areas to communicate and exchange information in a social setting. Growers find out about “what works and what doesn’t” and about the latest management techniques. Field days, bus trips and vineyard walks were good networking tools and provided important information for growers, allowing them to see first hand how “other growers are doing it”.

“Grapecheque gives us a chance to see people and hear what’s happening in the department (DPI). Without Grapecheque we would have very little face to face with the department”.

Vineyard employees had a better understanding of new techniques and were more loyal after being sent to Grapecheque meetings.

“Grapecheque empowers them (the staff). It gets them out of the vineyard for the day. It’s a practical thing and they go away at the end of the day and talk to their peers and they are as empowered as we, the owners are.”

c) Areas for improvement

There was concern with the poor attendances at some Grapecheque events, linked to poor timing of events, inflexible meeting times and ineffective publicity and communication. Growers felt that the timing of topics needed to be carefully considered to align with activities in the vineyard. They thought that it was important to get a consensus amongst the group about suitable meeting times.

“Harvest catch ups are usually inappropriate, as it is a very busy time during the season.”

Publicity about Grapecheque meetings needs to be improved to “cast the net wider” to avoid the groups becoming exclusive.

Many growers wanted a yearly plan so they were aware of the focus for the season. Meetings should be held on a regular basis and include ongoing topics that are followed up throughout the year. Regional co-ordination of Grapecheque events was also suggested, so growers could interact more widely and be aware of other groups’ activities.

Presenters need to find a balance with the depth of information they deliver. They had to be aware of not being too technical.

“the bloke presenting seemed to be there to impress us with his knowledge, he was probably the best bloke at the time, but he lost us in the first 5 minutes”.

Presenters also have to avoid being too simplistic because experienced growers and those who regularly attended Grapecheque still needed to be challenged. Growers felt that some speakers were in command of the subject but were not good at delivering the information.

Learnings and the future

The evaluation data demonstrates that Grapecheque is having a positive impact on the viticultural practices of grape growers in Victoria. But, it also raises many questions for Grapecheque to consider when planning further implementation of the program. For example:

• What changes in practice can be expected after the next three years of the program? How do we anticipate those changes?
• Is it possible to achieve further practice change using ‘participatory group-based extension’? If so, how? If not, should we change our approach? Will incentives or penalties be needed for growers to change some of their management practices?
• The phone survey does not give us any indication of the ‘barriers’ to adoption. Should we investigate these barriers? If so, how?
• If more grape growers attend Grapecheque, will this necessarily increase the rate of practice change, or are there other barriers that will prevent them from adopting better management practices?
• Grapecheque is achieving results in at least three key areas: crop forecasting, irrigation and nutrition. Should the program focus continue in these areas, or change to looking at other vineyard management practices instead?
• Should the emphasis change from technical subjects to more social and economic issues? If the focus changes, how does this fit in with the needs of the program participants and other stakeholders such as DPI?
• The focus group discussions looked at the perceptions of participants, but how can we gather the opinion of other stakeholders?
• Land Care and Top Crop are two long-running participatory group-based extension programs. How can Grapecheque learn from these programs, about issues such as group burnout and strategies for attracting external funding?
• How do we collect more complete stories about the impact of Grapecheque on the lives of participants? Other evaluation techniques such as the ‘story telling method’ (Dart 1999) or ‘face to face’ semi-structured interviews may be suitable.

Conclusion

Evaluation via phone surveys and focus group discussions demonstrated that Grapecheque is having a positive impact on the viticultural practices of grape growers in Victoria. Phone surveys generated quantitative data specifically about the management practices used by Grapecheque participants and growers that did not participate in the program. The focus group discussions gathered qualitative information about participants’ perceptions of the Grapecheque program. Similar evaluation techniques may be useful for other extension programs.

The results of the evaluation will be used to demonstrate the impact of the Grapecheque program to various stakeholders and to plan the future of the program. Grapecheque and other similar extension programs face the challenge of balancing the needs of the grape growers (program participants) with the needs of DPI and other stakeholders (funders).

References

Bennett C and Rockwell K (2003). A hierarchy for targeting outcomes and evaluating their achievement. http://citnews.unl.edu/TOP/english/index.html

Dart JJ (1999). A story approach for monitoring change in an agricultural extension project. Paper read the AQR international conference, Melbourne, Victoria. http://www.latrobe.edu.au/www/aqr/offer/papers/Jdart.htm

Fisher J, Dunstone R, Hill M, Kelly S and Whiting J (2001). Grapecheque: Using Bennett’s Hierarchy to implement change in the Victorian viticultural industry. Proceedings of the APEN 2001 International Conference, Toowoomba, Queensland, (Australasian Pacific Extension Network).

Krueger RA and Casey MA (2000). Focus groups- a practical guide for applied research, 3^rd edition. (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks).

Marks N and Fisher J (2001). “Clearing the fog from the window”: A qualitative case study in viticultural extension. Proceedings of the APEN 2001 International Conference, Toowoomba, Queensland, (Australasian Pacific Extension Network).