Abstract

The dairy irrigation adoption program ‘Irrigation for Profit’ of the Queensland rural water use efficiency Initiative (RWUEI) targeted all five major dairy areas. The objective: to develop better irrigation water use efficiency (WUE) through the adoption of best management practices in irrigation.

To achieve a WUE target of 11% (achieved 14%) and best management practice (BMP) target of 40% (achieved 49%) it was realised that the primary methods traditionally used in R, D&E are somewhat limiting (eg. Technology Transfer ‘ToT’). Additional approaches were needed for establishing self-awareness, self-reliance and community motivation, as well as deal with particular industry and community issues related to dairy farming.

WUE extension officers established ‘Participatory Action Research’ (PAR) grower groups to assist in providing local input into the specific objectives of extension activities. The groups also assist in developing grower’s perceptions of ownership of the work. Extension activities are based around on-farm demonstration sites in each region where irrigation management techniques are showcased.

This systems context is presented and developed from the Queensland dairy industry perspective. This is then followed by an overview of ‘Action Research’ and its applicability to the problem situation and context. A model is presented that has been developed by merging the first two parts (i.e. the context and the methodology). Conclusions are then drawn about the benefits of such a model to industry and rural community. The participatory approach utilises farmer’s knowledge and skills and assists them to gain greater self-reliance, sustainability and a stronger economic path.

Media Summary

Successful unification of farmer and state environmental benefits has been achieved with participatory-based learning’s in water use efficiency that involved inter-disciplinary profiles and inter-agency groups.

Keywords

Action-Research, Participatory, Water - Use - Efficiency, Perceptions, Community, Learning’s.

Background/Introduction

Australia is the driest inhabited continent even though some areas have annual rainfall of over 1200 millimetres. Our climate is highly variable-across the continent generally, as well as from year-to-year (Bureau of Meteorology 1997). There is an ever-increasing need to enhance our water resource programs as our population grows. Australia harvests, ‘utilises’, 5% of its surface water. Our irrigated agriculture uses approximately 70 to 80 percent of this resource (Goyne et al. 2002).

The dairy industry accounts for approximately 4% of this use nationally (A.N.R. Atlas 2002). Hood (2002) described WUE, in irrigated agriculture, as maximising the returns and minimising the environmental impacts for every megalitre (ML) of water used for irrigation purposes.

In 1999/2000 the Queensland Government introduced a four-year program, the Rural Water Use Efficiency Initiative (RWUEI) (Bell 2001). The rural industries involved were sugar, cotton & grains, horticulture, and the dairy and lucerne.

The Queensland Department of Primary Industries (DPI) Agency for Food and Fibre Sciences’ dairy group, undertook the dairy adoption program, within the irrigated dairy industry. The program was conducted as part of the RWUEI in partnership with the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (NR&M). ‘Irrigation for Profit’ is the localised team name for the dairy adoption program.

The objective of this adoption program is to help Queensland dairy irrigators (community) measure, record and monitor their progress in WUE improvement, thus aiming to increase, irrigation efficiency by at least 11%, with 40% of growers adopting Best Management Practice (BMP) for irrigation by June 2003.

The Program has industry ownership through and is administered by Queensland Dairyfarmers Organisation (QDO) in Brisbane. It was supervised by and took direction from a consultative committee, which included all major Queensland dairy industry community stakeholders. Traditionally these types of programs would have been developed and run with less structure (specifically less involvement or no involvement from industry parties except at farmer demonstration level).

Many (most) previous programs involved farmers as collaborators in the workings of the program but we wanted to have as much industry involvement as possible from all levels and communication channels. Previous programs (traditionally organised) achieved gains but were often slower in the uptake of information by farmers and were seen by many farmers as threatening with hidden agendas and little communication linkages at farm and industry levels.

The involvement of farmer and industry from the start using an action research platform was hoped to aid an increased uptake of information. Modify information in a relevant format to producers with the aid of producers and lay the cards on the table (No hidden agendas).

In essence we considered that there was little depth of knowledge by many farmers of the interaction of soil moisture relationships. But during the three years of this dairy program our work showed many achievements at grass roots farming.

The following dairy farm case studies (in brief) highlight the importance of soil moisture monitoring and measurement in irrigation management (Martin 2003):

1. Changing a traditional farming practice of applying 120mm of irrigation before planting ryegrass. The use of a scheduling tool was able to show that only 30mm was required to fill the profile, saving 0.9ML per hectare in one irrigation event. This farmer has also reduced his traditional 65mm irrigation application to 25mm, allowing him to take advantage of small rainfall events. Irrigation water use has been halved in a relatively dry year.

2. A farmer using a travelling irrigator has changed from applying 45mm every 21 days to 30mm as indicated by an EnviroSCAN®. They have also changed from a ring to a tapered nozzle to improve distribution uniformity. Production has increased by 20% using the same amount of water. The majority of deep drainage has been eliminated.

3. Most solid set irrigation systems in Queensland have been installed with a single jet nozzle. The Irrigation for Profit team has identified the opportunity to improve distribution uniformity (DU) on most solid set systems by installing a back jet (and modifying the front jet if required). One example improved DU% from 60% to 75%. This meant that 15% less water needed to be used to apply the same evenness of application.

4. Many farms with centre pivots have not been replacing nozzles with the correct size. One farm was able to increase DU% from 70% to 85% by installing the correct nozzles. Most centre pivot owners are now aware of this issue.

5. With planning assistance from the ‘Irrigation for Profit’ project the first centre pivot has been installed in the Wide Bay dairy industry. The labour requirement has been reduced significantly and initial production measurements are very positive (2000 kg DM/ha increase).

6. Through a consistent awareness campaign most farmers now aim to apply between 20 and 30mm per application to ryegrass. Five years ago it was common for farmers to aim to apply up to 75mm. Actual measurement with catch cans is showing that a perceived 25mm (based on advice at installation) is actually varying from 20mm to 50mm. Many farmers have changed their irrigation application based on actual measurement as opposed to a design specification.

Our use of extension theory

Our extension work was developed with the use of a system thinking approach, action research, action learning and adult learning, involving consideration to learning styles of farmer irrigators to maintain interest and industry pertinence.

Our extension group consisted of mainly activists and pragmatists but there was a good inclusion of officers that made a concise effort to encourage us all to reflect and theorise on our learning’s. We consider this aided us greatly and challenged us all.

Action Research

Action research can be described as a family of research methodologies, which pursue action (or change) and research (or understanding) at the same time. In most of its forms it does this by:

• Using a cyclic or spiral process which alternates between action and critical reflection and
• In the later cycles, continuously refining methods, data and interpretation in the light of the understanding developed in the earlier cycles.

It is thus an emergent process, which takes shape as understanding increases; it is an iterative process, which converges towards a better understanding of what happens. In most of its forms it is also participative (among other reasons, change is usually easier to achieve when those affected by the change are involved) and qualitative (Dick, 1999 p2).

Figure 1 A series of three-action research cycles with increasing knowledge as the process continues. (Source: adapted from Zuber-Skerritt, 1995)

One of the most simplified and easy to apply forms of action research is that developed in 1992 by Zuber-Skerritt (1995), where the core of the action research process is based upon a spiral of cycles of action and research consisting of four phases (figure 1). These are planning, action, observation and reflection. Planning consists of analysing a complex situation and developing a strategic action plan. Action is implementing the plan - the practical testing phase. Observing is the monitoring of the action taken, and finally, reflecting - the process of reflectively evaluating the results over the whole action research process. The final stage of reflecting is perhaps the most critical part in the process as it allows for continual refinements. In this process there is a continuous improvement of practice and extension of personal knowledge.

We found a combination of this action research approach model (figure 1) embedded in a systems approach, of which some of the extension tools/theory are expanded on below. These processes/tools enriched our extension program and aided successful outcomes by often challenging our perceptions of how we could achieve our program goals.

Our team view of a systems approach:

Systems thinking approach encapsulates the notion of holism. Holism suggests that a system is not only made up of a collection of parts (ie. reductionism), but is also, in itself, an integrated whole that shows certain properties (‘systemic’ properties) that the parts do not have. These properties appear from the relationships between the parts and are therefore absent if the whole is reduced to parts. The project will base research and development on a systems approach that will give immediate support to (day to day/ operational) problems as they arise on farm. (Martin and King 2003 p4)

The view of a systems approach blends well for us. Our WUE program has many associated parts all have individual purpose yet we consider placed together give a greater purpose to our work. All these parts combine to develop our holistic view of our work as extension officers (one part almost dependant on another’s development) and thus make up our systems approach.

Experiential Learning Theory

Experiential learning theory describes learning as a process where knowledge is developed through grasping and transforming experiences. It is not an alternative process of learning, but rather forms ‘a holistic integrative perspective on learning that combines experience, perception, cognition and behaviour’ (Kolb, 1984 p84). Experiential learning theory contrasts with previous theories firstly in that it focuses on individuals’ adaptation to new experiences rather than a particular outcome from learning, secondly, it leads to a ‘continual refinement’ of personal constructs rather than there being one true reality that can be learned, and thirdly, experiences are transformed into individual knowledge that has both subjective as well as objective dimensions (Kolb 1984).

Figure 2 Experiential Learning Model. (Kolb, 1984)

Kolb (1984) believed learning is strongly based around experiences, and that knowledge is created through the transformation of experience. He conceptualised a cycle of experiential learning encompassing stages of concrete experience, observation and reflection, conceptualisation and active experimentation (Figure 2). He suggested that people may tend to focus more on one of these, resulting in a particular style of learning, however, Kolb suggested that learners need to be competent in each stage for effective learning to take place.

Learning styles

Honey and Mumford (1986) classified learners in terms of their preferences for their modes of learning or grasping of experiences. These learning styles have been the basis for many studies of the learners use of various resources and mechanisms for learning with the goal of developing resources and instruction modes more tailored to learners’ individual needs.

Honey and Mumford’s concept of learners’ strengths and preferences in learning (1986) broke learners into four styles:

• Activists focus fully on new and immediate experiences, tackle problems by brainstorming, thrive on challenge, but bore with implementation. They like to be the centre of attention.
• Reflectors who collect data from themselves and others, ponder experiences, consider varying perspectives and act as part of a well planned scheme.
• Theorists observe and think problems through step by step and logically so as to develop coherent theories. They are consistently logical, like to analyse and tend to be detached.
• Pragmatists try out ideas, theories and techniques to see if they work in practice. They are practical, down to earth people who like making practical decisions and solving problems.

Methods

The challenge to us was to achieve our program goals in a manner we considered (as extension practitioners) would benefit the development of the community of dairy irrigators. Almost from day one we needed to amend our program in the field. This required a major rethink of our targeted starting point. We wanted to focus on water scheduling, but from numerous farm visits we realised that the basic mechanics of irrigation needed urgent attention prior to embarking on water scheduling. This took us backwards from where we thought industry was at present but aided us to get stronger relationship with the dairy community of irrigators.

We also needed to deal with farmers concerns that this was all just a plot to take away water quotas. It is correct that a major aim was to reduce water use, but we wanted to do this in a manner that was accepted by the farming community by demonstrating efficiencies in water use and productivity gains that come from this.

Firstly (at the commencement of the program) we opted for a media release in newsprint and radio. We followed this up with a direct mail-out of a booklet to every dairy farmer in the state. It was from contacts made from these methods that we developed ‘our first contact’ with our future ‘farmer champions’ of this work.

The irrigation for profit team used numerous mediums (of extension) to achieve change, in summary:

• Demonstration farm sites
• Field days, farm walks, farm tours
• One to one irrigation system audits (Testing current equipment)
• Issue based workshops, irrigation farm planning advice
• Seminars
• Road shows
• Newsletters & Fliers, media releases
• Discussion groups
• Awards Program
• Benchmarking
• Given farmers equipment to experiment with
• Gained specialist services as required to aid field officers and farmers
• Developed regional data from Demonstration sites
• Strong linkages to Dairy R & D program at Mutdapilly
• Linkages to other extension programs
• Have regular team meetings and phone hook-ups
• Have a reference group committee
• Our Irrigation web site

On numerous occasions we re-modified our thoughts (reflection) and practices after consultation with our farmer participants. Our team was proactive in-group communications where we had a phone hook-up on a fortnightly basis. This aided us in knowing what was going on statewide and gave us an opportunity to develop from each other experiences, both positive and negative.

The program goals were:

• Improved water use efficiency (11% equivalent of 33,000ML*);
• Percentage of irrigators achieving BMP (40%); and
• Social Indicators (participation)

*During the project life 28% of irrigated dairy farms left dairying and the final figure of 30,580ML represented 14% savings of water and productivity gains. The decreases in farm numbers were due to a combination of external factors of drought and its direct effect after deregulation of the dairy industry.

Extension staff established grower groups to assist in providing local input into the specific objectives of extension and demonstration activities. The groups also assist in developing growers' perceptions and ownership of the work. Activities are based around at least six and up to twelve on-farm demonstration ‘on farm learning sites’ in each region, where irrigation management techniques and hardware (new technology) are showcased and used on a long term learning platform. These ‘learning platforms’ became a focus for individual/group changes on farm as noted in farmer case studies in the introduction. A key theme of the program was its monitoring of water use. This is applied both to distribution as well as to application methods and in-field management. On reflection these were key steps (building blocks) that gave us major advances in the program.

WUE extension staff developed an education program for farmers with farmers’ input, which includes:

• On farm system checks, which are used to aid the participatory management of the demonstration and learning sites.
• Developing, demonstrating and promoting the implementation of the water monitoring systems on farm using simple practical methods and devices, in remote areas utilising remote telemetry (both digital and analogue/CDMA), bringing in specialist experience
• Establishing an annual farmer award system which provided incentives and opportunities to improve WUE and which recognises individual farmer achievements or initiatives that have led to improved WUE.
• Developing a strong awareness of all water management issues.
• Conducting surveys at strategic times on specific issues during the project to evaluate performance and delivered outcomes of significance to program outcomes.
• Re-evaluating and reflecting on progress and adapting for appropriate changes led by the farmer groups.

To address some of the many issues confronting irrigators, 42 demonstration ‘on farm learning sites’ were established during 2001/2002. Irrigated crops and pastures involved were: maize, oats, barley, sorghum, lucerne, rye grass, clover mixes, kikuyu and other tropical grass pasture mixes. Irrigation systems involved included, centre pivot, subsurface drip, side-roll sprays, lateral move, travelling gun and hand shift systems. In addition, these were established to investigate the control of water loss due to deep percolation beyond the root zone caused by over-irrigation. The program team carried out similar activities in previous years.

Due to vast distances covered by the project it has meant introducing new remote monitoring technologies to farmers. High-end technology soil moisture monitoring equipment EnviroSCAN® was installed on twenty farms to gain in-depth knowledge of crop/soil and irrigation interactions. The information is downloaded by extension staff (using analogue/CDMA and digital technologies) and farmers. From this we gained greater understanding of these interactions. Numerous field days were aided by this information.

Incentives

A government Financial Incentives Scheme (FIS) that partly subsidises growers for their outlays assisted the implementation of the adoption of new irrigation technologies was introduced running in parallel with this RWUEI program. This scheme (with farmer inputs) invested $7M into dairy/pasture irrigation infrastructure within its first two years of operation ($1 government contribution for each $3 farmer contribution). This has aided rapid change in increased efficiencies WUE.

Results

Learning’s

Growth in information available (education and technology) has also brought with it growth in learning and uptake of information. This has required technology learners to adapt to an ever-increasing rate of supply of new information. It has also meant that there is a need to change tack from time to time (periods of reflection on issues and replanning). Making sure that the information is delivered in a manner that stimulates uptake. Group discussion and development were organised in a manner that encouraged learning. The key to this we consider was from information adapted from Malouf (1993), his 7 laws of learning. This was another of the pieces of our systems approach.

Malouf (1993) developed 7 laws of learning; these were fundamental to our groups and interaction with dairy irrigators.

• Feel need to learn
• Environment must be safe
• Participate actively in learning process
• Build on, and use, the learners experience
• See that learning has been successful
• Involve two-way communication

We considered that our best opportunity for water savings lies with accurate measurement. However we took a backward step to get to here after realising the negative condition of the majority of irrigation systems in the dairy community. Major functional system problems existed in over 90% of farms. This meant that these needed to be rectified prior to launching work into the area of scheduling/monitoring water use.

Through project officer guidance and measurement, our trial site co-operators have investigated various management options and eventually set their own targets for improvement. There has been a growth in irrigation scheduling tools being utilised to effectively time irrigations, but they are yet to be used to their full potential. If these tools are correctly calibrated they can be used to show the irrigator how much water needs to be applied and the appropriate duration and timing of irrigations.

The framework of the program involved a three-tiered structure:

Social indicators involving awareness and participation of growers;

Changes in irrigation management practices, BMP; and

Equivalent water use efficiency improvement of 30, 000 ML

Social indicators, cultural change, are demonstrated by awareness, percentage of producers who have project understanding and involvement (Coutts & Russell 2001). ‘Irrigation for Profit’ achieved greater than >70% gains with our industry irrigators across this program (Martin M 2003). Detailed results from this and other irrigation industry WUE programs can be viewed on the Natural Resources and Mines web site.

Table 1: WUE Best Management Practice in Qld. Dairy Industry (49. 27%)

Level of Contact	No. Farms (560)	Confidence level # (+ /- %)	% Adopting BMP
High	226 (40.4%)	5	65 (146.9)
Medium	212 (37.8%)	10	50 (106)
Low	108 (19.3%)	20	2 (21.6)
Little	14 (2.5%)	80	1 (1.4)

# Confidence level, refers to degree of accuracy placed on the data.

** Tables 1 & 2 represent a summary of data collected by extension staff for the three-year life of this program on all activities.

All irrigated farmers in were placed into categories representing their level of contact (Table1) with the RWUE project. From this process it was clear that 226 (40%) farmers were involved in a high level of contact (this includes demonstration farms, system checks etc), 212 (37%) were involved in a medium level (FIS, awards etc), 108 (19%) were involved in a low level way (media, phone etc) and 14 (2%) had little contact or mail outs only. These figures were then further developed to identify the percent of farmers who had adopted Best Management Practices.

Of the farmers involved (Table 1 above), in a high level of contact it was determined that approximately 65% had altered their irrigation management and adopted BMP. It was determined that 50% of farmers involved in a medium level of contact had also significantly altered their irrigation practices and 2% at a low level had adopted significant BMP change. From the farmers involved rated at little level of contact 1% were expected to have adopted BMP. These figures result in a BMP adoption level of 49% for the dairy industry farmers in Queensland. The same process was used in determining WUE (Table 2 below).

If there has been any reason for the program not influencing more irrigators in the adoption of BMP it has been the climatic conditions and subsequent financial restrictions during 2001/2 drought. As stated by one farmer “we know when we should be irrigating (from EnviroSCAN data) but we simply do not have the water resources to do so (during drought)”. If farmers do not have on farm water storage, their irrigation scheduling is completely based on outside factors, not the crop water requirements.

“With scarce water allocations we need to decide if we should reduce our irrigated area and water it properly, or keep the same area and hope it rains”. This was the question facing many dairy farmers, and other irrigated farmers across the state. (Farmer quotation, case studies, Martin M 2003 p26)

Table 2: Water savings Dairy Industry (ML) (14%)

Level of contact	How measured	Examples	No. Farms	Confidence level - water saving (+/-%)	(WUE) ** Water saving & Productivity Gain (ML)
High	Measured data	Demo. farms W'shops , System Checks , "1 to 1"	226	5	20,340
Medium	Accurate estimates	FIS F'days, F'walks, Awards	212	15	8,480
Low	Subjective Professional Appraisal	Phone, fliers, all media, mailouts	108	25	1,620
Nil	Little or no contact	Possibly little change, third party reports	14	80	140
Total			560		30,580

** Water saving & productivity gain -- amount of water saved by improved practices with same yields as last two previous years and increased production with same water use the last two previous years expressed in ML.

Water savings, water use efficiency, can be achieved in many ways by applying water more appropriately, in most cases resulting in less water per area used, and increased yield production and quality.

Due to the efforts extension staff and farmer champions, an increasing number of irrigators are now achieving irrigation efficiencies well in advance of the State benchmarks presented in stocktake industry reports (Barraclough & Co.1999, & 2000), which was compiled in the early stages of the program. These efficiency gains indicate that the target increase in efficiency set for the program is being achieved and in many cases exceeded.

Figure 3 Momentum to Change, Bell and Coutts (2003)
The progression logic moves from no involvement to participation by irrigators in RWUEI activities leading to increase in knowledge, attitude, skills and aspirations (KASA), leading to effective practice changes on farm which increases water use efficiency (Bell and Coutts 2003)

In September 2003 (after the completion of the program) the ‘Irrigation for Profit’ team conducted a survey. A random sample of 10% of irrigators’ statewide has showed that attitudes to WUE and the continuation of the program goals have been positively achieved. With 92% positive response rate, farmers indicated that they are now continuing to monitor irrigation practices and farm management practices in ways they did not prior to the program. 82% are aiming to increase yields from less water usage (strategic irrigation practices). This has shown us that the path to continuous improvement as shown in Figure 3 is possible.

Up to June 2003 the project had >70% participation of irrigators in extension activities including field days, workshops and farm visits, 27% who have had their irrigation systems audited for Distribution Uniformity (DU), pumping efficiency, pumping costs ($/ML) and application rate, and 51% who have used the FIS to make improvements to their irrigation efficiency.

Our best opportunity for water savings lies with accurate measurement. Through project officer guidance and measurement, our trial site co-operators have investigated various management options and eventually set their own targets for improvement. There has been a growth in irrigation scheduling tools being utilised to effectively time irrigations, but they are yet to be used to their full potential. If these tools are correctly calibrated they can be used to show the irrigator how much water needs to be applied and the appropriate duration and timing of irrigations.

It was noted in the Barraclough & Co report (1999 p 12) that a major issue was…the lack of data relating to the water used for irrigation and information on how efficiently it was being used. The RWUE project was seen as a vehicle for collecting more accurate data but it was recognised that some information…would only be available for certain areas in 2003 (Barraclough & Co report 1999 p 12). For this reason equal emphasis was placed on monitoring changes in attitudes and actions as BMP and WUE. We now consider that we have a better understanding of issues and practices in the irrigated dairy industry in Queensland.

Conclusion

This paper has given a glance into the three years of challenges with triumphs that the dairy ‘Irrigation for Profit’ team has experienced.

Water use efficiency is a key component impacting on farming systems and is an important political issue across agricultural industries. The key outcome of the RWUEI program was to improve water use efficiency at the farm level and yet accurate measurements of improvements at this level were difficult to obtain. It is by a joint participatory systems approach that this work has been accepted by industry and much progress has been gained.

The Rural Water Use Efficiency Initiative extension program was partnership between Queenslands Department of Natural Resources and Mines and the main irrigation industries: cotton and grains, dairy and lucerne, horticulture and sugarcane. The Queensland’s Department of Primary Industries managed the, dairy/pasture and cotton and grains parts of the program. The main emphasis of the program was to encourage more efficient use of irrigation water within the total farming system through various mechanisms including workshops, field days, media releases, award programs, financial incentive schemes and benchmarking sites.

The system contexts in which we worked and extension practices that were involved. This was all rolled into our action research framework. Merging all of our actions/learning’s/reflections develops our team’s system approach to WUE as mentioned earlier. This learning’s are revisited frequently. We consider the benefits of such a model that is continually revisiting reflection and replanning makes this dynamic and not a static approach. We consider that it is this dynamic cycling of inputs from all involved that made it possible to exchange ideas and learning’s. The participatory approach utilised farmer’s knowledge and skills and assists them to gain greater self-reliance, sustainability and a stronger economic path. In essence it is this participatory approach that we consider has given us all the momentum to change.

The RWUE “Irrigation for Profit” dairy program achieved very significant outcomes towards the better management of irrigation water in the Queensland dairy industry (Martin 2003).

The final formal program evaluation by Coutts (2003):

• Survey 15% of industry to gauge an accurate measure of improvement
• Report outcomes and outputs against agreed measures and targets
• Report on accuracy of the data within all programs
• Using the data accumulated, undertake a benefit/cost analysis of the program
• Report on reasons for successes and failures

Importantly

• Provide recommendations for future actions to improve performance in WUE

The report by Coutts has exemplified the work done by extension staff in this program.

The picture that emerges from the data collected and analysed for this evaluation is that of a highly targeted, very integrated intervention program that was highly successful despite the pressures of drought and, deregulation. (Coutts 2003)

References

Australian Natural Resources Atlas, (2002). Commonwealth of Australia. http://audit.ea.gov.au/ANRA/atlas_home.cfm.

Barraclough & Co., (1999). Performance evaluation of the Rural Water Use Efficiency Initiative - Adoption Program. Final Report. http://www.nrm.qld.gov.au/rwue/pdf/publications/dairy_audit2000.pdf

Barraclough & Co., (2000). Audit of Water and Irrigation use efficiencies on farms within the Queensland Dairy Industries. http://www.nrm.qld.gov.au/rwue/pdf/publications/dairy_audit2000.pdf

Barraclough & Co., (2000). Audit of Water and Irrigation use efficiencies on farms within the Queensland Lucerne Industry. www.nrm.qld.gov.au/rwue

Bell K and Coutts J (2003). Evaluating the impact of a program through multiple methods: Case study of the Rural Water Use Initiative (RWUEI) Program, 1^st Australian Farming Systems Conference, CD Preceding.

Bell RI. (2001). Outline of Queensland’s water use efficiency initiative and progress. Proceedings Irrigation 2001, Regional Conference and Exhibition, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia .pp 19-21, 2001.

Bureau of Meteorology (1997). Adapted from field note, Published by Bureau of Meteorology © Commonwealth of Australia, Cat. No. 476164.

Bureau of Meteorology (1997). Published by Bureau of Meteorology © Commonwealth of Australia, ISBN 0 644 47637 0, Cat. No. 476172.

Coutts J and Russell R (2001) Mid-term Review of the Rural Water Use Efficiency Adoption, University of Queensland, Report held with Department of Natural Recourses and Mines, Brisbane.

Coutts J (2003) Final Evaluation of the Rural Water Use Adoption Program, Report held with Department of Natural Recourses and Mines, Brisbane.

Dick, R. 1999 What is action research? Available on line at http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/whatisar.html

Goyne PJ and McIntyre G (2002). G.T. Proceedings, River Symposium, Brisbane, CD conference preceding.

Honey P and Mumford A (1986). Learning styles and questionnaire: Manual of learning styles, Honey Maidenhead, UK.

Hood S (2002). Rural water use efficiency- Real water use efficiency and the opportunities. Proceedings 11^th Australian Cotton Conference, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. pp 285-295.

Kolb, D.A. 1984. Experimental Learning as a source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.

Malouf D 1993 - Understanding Learning - How to Teach Adults in a Fun and Exciting Way. Business and Professional Publishing, NSW, Australia.

Martin M (2003). Rural Water Use Efficiency Initiative, Dairy and Lucerne Industries Adoption Program “Irrigation for Profit” – Milestone Report – June 2003. http://www.nrm.qld.gov.au/rwue/pdf/publications/dairymr2003_01.pdf

Martin M (2003) Case studies and Farmer Learning’s – Rural Water Use Efficiency Initiative, Dairy and Lucerne Industries Adoption Program “Irrigation for Profit” – Milestone Report – June 2003. http://www.nrm.qld.gov.au/rwue/pdf/publications/dairymr2003_03.pdf

Martin M and King C (2003). Utilising a systems methodology approach in a participatory action research model to aid the reduction of maize silage wastage, 1^st Australian Farming Systems Conference, CD Preceding.

Natural Resources and Mines Queensland http://www.nrm.qld.gov.au/rwue

Zuber-Skerritt O. 1995. Improving learning and teaching through action learning and action research, Higher Research Development 12(1), 45-58.