Abstract

A research project was undertaken in early 2003 to examine a range of biodiversity issues for dairy farmers in South West Victoria. The project recognised that to encourage voluntary adoption of biodiversity practices, resource management strategies should clearly specify the desired behavioural changes and measurable biodiversity outcomes for specific segments of farmers. Any policies being developed should meet the needs of individual farmers as part of a process of value exchange, and minimise the costs and difficulties of the change process itself.

Five environmental practices were the focus for this study; preserving and enlarging fragments of indigenous bush, implementing riparian management, establishing shelter belts, restoring eroded soils, and restoring saline soils. All these practices could contribute to improved biodiversity outcomes within the Region. To study these, sixty five farmer interviews were carried out across the catchment and the results then qualitatively and quantitatively analysed.

The farmers in the catchment used a range of indicators to measure resource condition as part of their general farming decision making. Some of these indicators varied in their effectiveness, and some could be quite difficult to interprete. Farmers generally considered the natural resources on their properties to be in good condition and even improving. Given that most farmers did not consider that there was an environmental problem needing their attention, they were most interested in using biodiversity practices when there was a material production advantage to be gained and minimal conflict with their existing farming systems. For these reasons, establishing shelter belts was widely supported amongst farmers, but the other practices were felt to be too costly in time, finances, and loss of productive potential.

From the study, four farmer segments were identified:

• Production farmers
• Cosmopolitan farmers
• Future builders
• Conservationist farmers

The different segments each had different expectations regarding the benefits to them of the biodiversity practices, and would respond to different extension approaches.

Media Summary

Keywords

Introduction

The project aimed to assist the Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority (GHCMA), WestVic Dairy and farmer leaders, ensure that biodiversity in southwest Victoria was protected and reinstated to its former condition (Nelson et al 2003). The results of the project will provide landowners across the region with information and support for making economically rational, environmentally responsible decisions about the way that they manage their properties. In so doing, the project will be making a major contribution towards achieving some of the stated ideals of the GHCMA Regional Catchment Strategy and the WestVic Dairy Regional Action Plan.

The Glenelg-Hopkins Catchment Management Authority is responsible for natural resource management in a catchment from Ballarat through to Warrnambool and the South Australian border, containing about 2.6 million hectares. More than 100,000 people live in the catchment, 80% of them living in urban areas. Agriculture is the main landuse for 80% of the region, including extensive sheep, beef, and dairy cattle enterprises (WestVic Dairy 2001). Large areas of the catchment are expected to be converted to dairying, and dairy production is forecast to double in the next ten years. Increasing dairy cow numbers and stocking rates can pose a threat to the region’s biodiversity, and dairy industry organisations are working with the relevant policy institutions to address likely biodiversity issues before they arise. Biodiversity issues may be given priority because of their ecological significance, but they can only be resolved by addressing the human factors relating to their cause and remedy. Effective policy strategies to manage biodiversity issues will address both the management of biodiversity on private land as well as its protection in government reserves. Private land contains a large proportion (30%) of Victoria’s threatened species, especially it’s at-risk native vegetation ecologies (Nettle 2002). The existing targets for the CMA’s native vegetation plan (Glenelg-Hopkins 2002^a)are to increase the overall cover of native vegetation from less than 13% of the catchment to 30% by 2030. Extension and education approaches provide suitable frameworks for encouraging private landowners to take responsibility towards biodiversity issues relating to their own properties. The CMA strategy (2002^a) recognises that currently for many people in the region, biodiversity issues are difficult to understand and personalise to their own situation. As a result, a lot of scientific information about biodiversity problems and how they can be addressed are not being utilised.

Unless policy interventions address the fundamental pressures that drive the actions of people they cannot succeed in the long run (OECD, 1996). Developing policies that are effective at encouraging biodiversity on private land is not a simple matter. It requires understanding landowner behaviour as well as the economic and social factors influencing their decision making (Binning 2000). A study of DPI extension officers (Nettle 2002) found that farming profitability was a central determinant of the officers’ willingness to provide sustainability and biodiversity advice. Biodiversity issues that were isolated from farming systems and farmer decision making had little relevance to farmers and therefore was of low priority to the extension staff working with them.

The first stage of the project reported here was intended to identify the key attitudes and beliefs of farmers associated with their implementation of biodiversity practices within farm production systems and how these might be addressed by policy agencies working with existing industry networks and farmers directly (Nelson et al 2003).

Five environmental practices were selected by the researchers to provide a focus for the study, these being; preserving and enlarging fragments of indigenous bush, implementing riparian management, establishing shelter belts, restoring eroded soils, and restoring saline soils.

There are fourteen possible management practices suitable for use by dairy farmers wishing to avoid creating significant natural resource issues on their properties (Bird 2003). Six of these practices involved planting trees. Depending upon the purpose, trees could be planted a number of different ways. These include: as a vegetation reserve (10-20m wide), a wildlife corridor (25-50 m wide), riparian buffer zone (10-20m wide), shelter belts (3 rows or 10 m wide), ground water re-charge control (20-50% of ground cover), and soil acidity regulator. Trees could also be planted in woodlots for additional or diversified farm income from timber and firewood. On dairy farms it is not possible to have the same block of trees fulfil all these functions simultaneously, but with some compromises it is considered possible for farmers to include trees within their farming systems at minimal cost and achieve substantial water quality and biodiversity benefits.

Trees are a long term investment that may not realise their full ecological (or financial) benefit for 30-50 years. This makes it important that farmers have a decision making process to carefully match possible tree-planting solutions to their needs.

Methods

The project was carried out by holding personal interviews with sixty five farmers across the catchment and qualitatively analysing the results (Nelson et al 2003). Farmers for the interviews were randomly selected from a list of property owners who had worked in dairy industry initiatives in recent years. Three researchers operating independently carried out the interviews based upon semi-structured questioning (Mikkelsen 1995) during February and early March in 2003. The interviews examined the values, attitudes, and decision making context of farmers and related these to their resource management practices for possible quantitative projects that might occur later. Closed and open questions were included in the questionnaire to provide both structure in the data for analysis and the flexibility for respondents to contribute the information that they thought most relevant. Analyses of the results compared the information gathered about the farmers and their decision making with the factors influencing their use of different biodiversity practices. Analyses were carried out using Excel statistics for the numerical data and NUD.IST© (nonnumeric unstructured data indexing searching and theorising ; QSR 1985) analyses for coding answers to open questions.

Results

Background to Interviewees

The average results from the demographic section of the survey are shown in Table 1 (Nelson et al 2003). These results provide background information about the respondents who contributed to the study and, along with the data in Table 2, the farming systems that they were involved in. The average age of the farmers surveyed was 46 years of age and 90% of these farmers were male. Most of the farmers interviewed (91%) were farm owner/operators rather than lessees or share farmers.

Table 1: Farmer Demographic Results

Farmers Age	Mean	Range
	46 years	34 – 84 years
Gender	Male	Female
	90%	10%
Occupation	Farm Owner/Operator	Lessee/Sharefarmer
	91%	9%

The results are similar to a previous state-wide industry survey (Parminter and Wilson 2001) of over 500 dairy farmers, which had an average age range of 50 years and 16% of the farmer respondents were women.

The average farm size in this survey was approximately 220 hectares (ha)¹, milking 320 cows (Table 2) and the calculated average stocking rate was 1.5 milking cows per hectare. Most farmers calved their cows in the Autumn, with an average production for the 2002 season of approximately 140,000 kg Milk Solids (MS) per farm, 440kg MS per cow and 640kg MS per hectare.

Table 2: Farm Production Results

	Mean
Total Farm Area	224 ha
Number of Cows Milked	321 cows
Stocking Rate	1.5 cows/ha
Total Production	137,978 kg MS

Information Sources

Information about farmer involvement in community groups provides external agencies with some idea of the networks that farmers are already participating in, and that might provide important collaborators for the implementation of policy. The previous State-wide survey (Parminter and Wilson 2001) identified 42% of farmers who did not belong to any farming groups at all, 36% who belonged to one, and 22% who belonged to more than one. The farmers surveyed in this study tended to be part of more groups than may be typical, and this could indicate that they were more involved in the dairy industry and in industry development.

In this project farmers were asked about which farming and community groups they belonged to (Nelson et al 2003). The United Dairy Farmers Association at 78% and local organisations (e.g. School Councils) at 58% were the most well supported organisations. Twenty five percent of farmers in this catchment belonged to a Landcare Group.

The CMA strategy (2002^a) identifies Landcare as the largest community-based organisation for natural resource management in Victoria and a “vital component” of the CMA’s partnership with communities in the region. There are over 100 Landcare groups in the catchment at varying levels of commitment. A survey in May 2002 of the groups (Glenelg Hopkins 2002^b) indicated that less than 20% were enthusiastic about remaining active, about 60% were “steady”, and the rest were in varying stages of decline.

The areas where Landcare group members wanted to improve their skills was in: planning, funding applications, improving farm productivity, pest and animal control, and setting priorities and goals. Of the farmers interviewed in this study, sixteen said that they currently belonged to a Landcare Group, although several others had at some stage been involved in or received grants through a Landcare Group. Indications are that an additional number of farmers may have some contact with Landcare Group members and may attend some Landcare Group activities, but they may not yet consider themselves as group members and did not declare any involvement during that part of their interview. One farmer said, “I haven’t attended a Landcare Group meeting, but I have paid the membership to get the fence and the plants.” Others were more positive, e.g. “Landcare has started in the area and is causing us to think more about the environment”.

Resource Indicators

A problem for some farmers was their lack of knowledge about suitable measures of resource condition, and what their results might mean (Nelson et al 2003). The farmers assessed resource condition using a range of indicators varying in effectiveness, and difficulties for interpretation. For instance one farmer said “I don’t know how to assess whether or not my property has good habitat for native birds and animals.” and yet they were still confident that resource condition was generally stable or improving (table 3). Table 3 highlights the most common indicators for a selection of natural resources included in the study and the average assessment in resource condition on farms by farmers. Indicators were a mix of quantitative and subjective but it appears that either way, farmers prefer a numerical scale if possible e.g. numbers of trees were preferred as an indicator of land habitat rather than variety of trees. The resource in the lowest average condition was considered to be surface waterways, but only if it was required to be at a sufficient standard for human drinking. Waterways as habitat were assessed as being satisfactory to good (a score of 12) as was land habitat. After drinking water quality, the natural resource in the next poorest state was farm shelter. Farmers also felt that improving shelter belts would make the greatest contribution to their farming goals, whereas establishing riparian strips would only make a low contribution.

Table 3: Natural Resource Indicators and Resource State

0 = very poor resource state, 20 = very good resource state

	Livestock Performance	Shelter Belts for Livestock	Land Habitats	Water Quality for Drinking	Waterway Habitat
Most Common Indicator	herd tests	cow behaviour	numbers of trees	water flow	various e.g. fish numbers
Average Resource State (0 20 scale)	14	9	12	7	12

Many of the indicators had results which were correlated together. This suggests that farmers’ assessments of resource condition may not be as distinctly separated as they are presented in Table 3. For instance their assessment of the adequacy of shelter for livestock and habitat for birds and animals were related (Cronbach Alpha equal to 0.85). In that example, it is likely that farmers who consider that they have adequate shelter for their cows will also believe that their shelter belts provide sufficient habitat for wildlife.

Farmers were most interested in using biodiversity practices when there was a material production advantage to be gained and minimal conflict with their existing farming systems. For these reasons, establishing shelter belts was widely supported amongst farmers, but the other practices discussed were felt to be too costly in time, finances, and loss of productive potential (Nelson et al 2003).

Biodiversity Practice Attributes

(a) Preserving and Enlarging Fragments of Indigenous Bush

Areas of native trees on farms most found value when they could provide production advantages. For instance one farmer benefited from the bush providing a wintering area, he said, “Preserving and enlarging fragments of indigenous bush can provide a sacrifice paddock in a wet winter – like a feedlot.” Other advantages included providing shelter from wet weather, and reducing salinity and erosion problems. One farmer also valued trees as a way of filtering nutrients out of the groundwater. Plantations of timber trees like pines can provide a future source of income for some farmers.

Preserving bush fragments to encourage regeneration decreased the productive area of a farm, reduced the management flexibility of farmers, encouraged weeds to grow, and increased the threat of fire. Areas of bush take up valuable land, and small areas of bush were considered untidy, however the farmers seemed to have a minimum size above which any areas of bush were considered to add capital value to the surrounding farm. An increase in wildlife associated with bush areas could bring in predators which also threatened farm pets, and attacked sick animals. Numbers of protected wildlife in bush areas could increase so much that they become a nuisance. For instance one farmer said, “Its not planting the trees that is the problem, its all the other things that come with them … preparation, fencing, watering, replacing dead ones, weed spraying, pest management …”

If a bush block is maintained but not fenced-off from livestock, then the understorey can become replaced by grazeable grass areas. These paddocks contain a lot of scattered trees able to provide shade and shelter, and farmers can still feed-out underneath them, and also obtain fallen firewood. The factors limiting the maintenance of scattered trees through paddocks was the increased problems with cutting grass, boom spraying weeds, and applying fertiliser.

(b) Implementing Riparian Practices

Establishing riparian strips on farms was generally considered by some farmers to be important to the “authorities” for improving water quality and they could be useful on properties that had difficult-to-manage areas alongside streams. One farmer felt that there were a number of similar benefits, he said, “Keeping stock out is better for the river banks, and it’s better for rivers to have trees. It’s better for wildlife on the farm.” The most compelling reasons for a riparian management investment by farmers were to improve stock management. Some farmers found that fencing out the riparian area had benefits for farm production through reducing stock losses, obtaining additional shelter, and improved animal traffic-ways. At times though, the fencing was a problem with extra maintenance and restricting stock access to drinking water.

The costs of fencing and planting riparian areas were considered unproductive expenditure but the government’s financial grants provide valuable assistance. Conditions for obtaining the grants (e.g. minimum distances to water) put some farmers off using them although they may have still proceeded with their own work. One farmer who was not using any grants said, “The authority’s stipulations are too wide when the land is valued at $2-4,000 per acre. These widths are not feasible for this expensive land.” The time for establishing riparian plantings conflicted with autumn calving and other farm priorities. Government schemes that provided labour schemes assisted farmers with this problem. Farmers who had established riparian areas using planted out seedlings had experienced high losses, but direct seeding seems to have been more successful.

(c) Establishing Shelterbelts

Shelterbelts were mainly considered by farmers as a means to increase pasture growth and protect dairy cattle from rain and wind. Mature trees could also provide shade for cattle during the summer. For some farmers, the increase in wildlife around shelterbelts was also considered a benefit, although this again was usually couched in terms of some material benefit to the farm e.g. reductions in insect damage to pasture. One farmer said, “Eleven years ago it was very cold around the farm and we had a lot of mastitis. We plan to put a shelterbelt around the farm and put them in from there.” Some farmers found shelter belts were aesthetically pleasing and believed that they could add to the asset value of a farm.

If the farmers were putting in irrigation they were likely to remove most of their shelter belts to allow machinery passage. The other factors limiting the use of shelterbelts were: the loss of farming land, extra financial costs, and fence maintenance from broken limbs and storm damage. For instance, one farmer said, “Cypress trees grow out too wide and smother pasture, they have unsightly branches sticking out into paddocks. Cypress causes abortion in cattle so we have to remove the prunings.” Newly established shelterbelts could become quite weedy, but over time, farmers reported that these could decrease to acceptable levels. Farmers’ early experiences with weed growth put some of them off from establishing any further shelter belt areas.

(d) Restoring Eroded Soils

Farmers expressed very little familiarity with erosion and the many forms that it could take. Having to carry-out erosion control management was generally avoided. A farmer said, “Grass is the best way to stop erosion.”

(e) Restoring Saline Soils

Salinity was considered by farmers to be a slowly developing problem that often went unnoticed by other farmers. They expressed difficulty in assessing its significance, and how to “fix it.” A farmer said, “At the moment it doesn’t really impact on our operation, it’s hard to recognise that the problem exists, and that it’s important.”

Segmentation of Farmer Groups

The results of this study can be used to segment farmers into four groups based upon them having different motivations to adopt biodiversity practices (Nelson et al 2003). The number of segments is determined by the size of the differences between the groups and the ability of the external agency to work with each group distinctively. In this project four segments were identified: Production farmers, Cosmopolitan farmers, Future builders, and Conservationist farmers.

Farmers are likely not to consider new ideas unless they are consistent with their goals and values. Ideas which are associated with one set of goals (e.g. financial goals) may appear to conflict with others (e.g. environmental goals). By segmenting farmers into motivational groups, the CMA can adapt their preferred practices and design their information and communication strategies to appeal to a wide cross-section of the catchment population. In this study, groups of farmers were identified from their demographic and psychographic characteristics, some of which were described earlier. Each of the segments tended to emphasis different farming goals and had achieved different levels of farming performance. Some individuals could fit into more than one segment, and so the proportions of farmers when added together total more than one hundred percent. Farmers fitting into more than one segment will be influenced by a range of different agency approaches whereas farmers in one particular segment will tend to ‘filter-out’ information which they consider not relevant to them.

(a) Group 1. Productionists

This group represents the largest group of farmers (up to 80%). They prioritise the farming business, its profitability, and having a stable farming system for their farming goals. “Looking after nature” is a mid-range goal for them, and they have the least favourable attitudes towards the biodiversity practices of any group. The Productionists were on average, the oldest group of farmers interviewed (average 57 years) and although they had the smallest farms, they had the highest level of dairy production.

This group were interested in biodiversity practices that could be shown to provide measurable (but not necessarily financial) benefits for them and that would not conflict with their existing farming systems. One farmer said, “The notion of putting more land into trees is not Ok. Trees take up productive land. We want to build up the soil fertility a bit more, and be able to milk more cows on a lot smaller number of acres before we can sacrifice a bit of land for planting trees on. At the moment we are still developing the farm. Development is the priority and it will take a while to build it up. You spend dollars on fertiliser and then you’ve still got to live”.

(b) Group2. Cosmopolitans

This group was almost one third of those surveyed. As well as business and profit, they prioritise “having time available for socialising with family and friends”. They try to build increasing levels of independence and self-reliance into their management. Getting on-with people and knowing that their farm is performing well against socially accepted benchmarks is important to them. These farmers are very aware of the condition of their properties. They want to be profitable, but not by running down the natural resources on their farm, and they have relatively positive attitudes towards the contribution that biodiversity practices can make to their farms. One farmer said, “Sustainable I think is a key word at the moment. Farmers don’t like doing things that aren’t good for the environment, it costs them money. If you do something that is wrong or overdo things it costs money down the line some where. There is no point in doing it. You not only have to make a living from it but you have to live on the land as well.”

(c) Group 3. Future Builders

This group of farmers (20%) differentiate themselves from the others by placing the goal of “creating increased opportunities for future farmers” as their next most important goal after business and profit. “Looking after nature” itself is a mid-range goal for them, but they want to pass the farm on to the next generation in as good or better state than they had received it. Having a stable farming system is less important to them than it is to the other groups. The Future Builders have lower levels of dairy production than the other groups. They are the group most interested in establishing native bush areas, and managing salination. One farmer said, “It’s because we are being pushed to get more and more off our properties to stay viable, that the environment is suffering. Nitrogen gets into the stream because we’ve been forced to use more and more nitrogen, which is bumping up the nitrate in the stream. Low water-flows make it even more concentrated. Its so salt and nutrient laden and almost toxic for animals that have got to live in it.

(d) Group 4. Conservationists

This group of farmers were the smallest group in the study (10%). They include “looking after nature” as one of their high priority farming goals, along with building the farming business and its profitability. Farming system stability is a mid-range goal for them, but self-reliance, and independent decision making is ranked relatively low. This group are the youngest age-group of farmers. They tended to have larger dairy farms than the others (with more dairy cows) and moderate levels of production.

The Conservationists ranked riparian management as contributing the highest to their farming goals. They have the most positive attitudes towards all the biodiversity practices, and may therefore, once started, be open to ongoing implementation of additional biodiversity activities. One farmer said, “Implementing stream bank planting and fencing replaces what has been removed and makes it a more sustainable system. It is easy to do –the initial planting is hardest then you see the results.”

Summary and Conclusions

The 65 farmers in south west Victoria that were surveyed, were fairly typical of dairy farmers in the area but were probably more involved in their industry than many others. The farmers tended to use subjective but quantitative indicators of resource condition. Most of the farmers thought that their natural resources were in a satisfactory to good condition and no extra management was required by them. Based upon previous studies (Glenelg-Hopkins 2002^a), industry and government agencies may not consider this assessment to be aligned with their own evaluation. If this is the case, then farmers should be given the tools and resources to produce results which are comparable to the agency results so that they can see the evidence themselves and then they are likely to take responsibility for making any necessary voluntary changes.

Farmers appear to choose to implement biodiversity practices because of a combination of the attributes of the practices and the value of the attributes to them (Parminter and Wilson 2003^a). Social norms, availability of resources, and level of implementation confidence can also affect their intentions (Parminter and Wilson 2003^b). In another study of farmers’ intentions towards preserving bush fragments (Parminter, Wilson and Tarbotton 2003) it was apparent that the people intending to preserve bush had both higher scores for the positive attributes of the practice and lower scores for the negative attributes. On its own therefore, the benefits of preserving bush fragments are not enough to cause most of the nonadopters to change their behaviour. An extension strategy that takes into account the attributes of each of the practices and the needs of different segments will want to create clear benefits for each segment and reduce their costs and limitations. This study indicates how social research can provide information for guiding such extension strategies

Productionists are the largest group of farmers (80%); they are looking for practices which provide them with a productivity return on their farms. This is unlikely with practices that have only a biodiversity benefit although there may be some, such as planting trees for shelter belts that can contribute to both outcomes. This group of farmers are unlikely to use specialist environmental indicators to monitor resource state, but they will use information that has both a production and environmental benefit e.g. soil tests. If this group is being targeted by external agencies, then practices should be selected for promoting to them that have the most favourable production attributes. These are likely to be those that are least-cost and that will assist overall farm management e.g. fencing off potential erosion areas along stream banks.

Cosmopolitans are a large group of farmers (30%) sensitive to the opinions of other people important to them (e.g. family and neighbours). They don’t want to be told what to do and they want indicators that can help them to benchmark their environmental performance against farmers similar to themselves. This group of farmers may be easier for an agency to communicate with because of their interest in being socially responsible, and this may be a reason for them being given the greatest priority in an extension strategy. If the farmers in this group have a positive result from implementing their first environmental practice it will encourage them to consider implementing other additional practices that may be initially more difficult or costly.

Future builders (20% of farmers) are thinking of the next generation of farmers on their property. These may be family members who will want natural resources to be in a tidy and productive state, or new owners, in which case the value of the farm as an asset becomes important. For this group the implications of biodiversity practices to future farming productivity and capital value are important information and decision making indicators. This group may be difficult to reach for any agencies not involved in farm succession management.

Conservationists are a small group of farmers (10%) and they are the ones most likely to respond directly to exposure to environmental and biodiversity issues. These farmers will seek out reliable sources of practical information to assist them successfully implement environmental best management practices. They are the farmers most likely to implement a range of practices consistent with their environmental values.

Acknowledgements

The research was carried out by a team of people including Horrie Poussard and Terry Makin. We worked with Tim Nelson and the staff at WestVic Dairy and Felicia Choo and the rest of the staff at the Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority using funding also provided by WestVic Dairy and Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority. We are especially appreciative of the involvement and hospitality of farmers in south west Victoria.

References

Binning C 2000. Conserving biodiversity: institutions, policies and incentives. New Zealand Treasury Working Paper 00/26. Wellington.

Bird PR (2003). Sustainable systems of dairy production – a review of water quality, biodiversity, soil salinity/acidity, farm forestry, shade/shelter and productivity issues, and the likely impact on these of revegetation of dairy farms. Department of Primary Industries, Pastoral and Veterinary Institute, Hamilton, Australia.

Glenelg_Hopkins Catchment Management Authority, 2002^a. Regional catchment strategy: 2003 – 2007. Hamilton, Victoria.

Glenelg_Hopkins Catchment Management Authority, 2002^b. Draft regional Landcare strategy. Hamilton, Victoria.

Mikkelsen B (1995). Methods for development work and research: a guide for practitioners. Delhi, Sage Publications Ltd.

Nelson T, Parminter TG, Makin T, Poussard H, Atkins K, Wilson J, and Hanes L 2003. Investigations into The Role Of Trees In Protecting Water Quality And Biodiversity On Dairy Farms In South West Victoria. AgResearch Client Report, New Zealand.

Nettle R 2002. Agricultural extension and threatened species: the issues and opportunities. Findings from interviews with NRE extension staff. Ruth Nettle Consulting, Victoria.

Quantitative Solutions and Research Pty Ltd, 1985. NUD.IST version 3.0.4d is copyright software for qualitative research, QSR Melbourne.

OECD Expert Group on Economic Aspects of Biodiversity, 1996. Making markets work for biodiversity: the role of economic incentive measures. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.

Parminter TG and Wilson JA 2001. Report on an Investigation into Dairy Farmers’ Farm Financial Management Practices. Dairy Research and Development Corporation, Melbourne.

Parminter TG and Wilson JA 2003^a. Strategies to encourage adoption: a case study of New Zealand farmers and their possum control practices. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production. 63, 66-68.

Parminter TG and Wilson JA 2003^b. Systemic Interventions into Biodiversity Management based upon the Theory of Reasoned Action. Proceedings of the 1^st Australian Farming Systems Association Conference.

Parminter TG, Wilson JA and Tarbotton IS, 2003. National Farmer Survey on Preserving and Conserving Bush Remnants. AgResearch Client Report, New Zealand

WestVic Dairy 2001. South West Victoria: dairy investment opportunities. WestVic Dairy, Southwest Victoria.

¹ The previous State-wide survey (Parminter and Wilson 2001) analysed farmers with an average farm size of 140 ha. That survey did not collect any production information.