The productivity, environmental and social benefits of increasing producer participation in extension
Department of Agricultural Sciences, La Trobe University, Melbourne, 3086
A case study undertaken in the Glenthompson district of western Victoria has found that unless a deliberate effort is made to reach the wider producer community, then the more innovative producers will self-select as the ones that join and benefit from extension programs. The attitudes and practices of 36 pastoral producers in the Glenthompson district were assessed in 1997 and again in 2005. In 1997 it was found that only 5.6% of the producer community participated in extension activities. In the spring of 1997 a facilitated recruitment process was undertaken which involved face-to-face contact with all producers in the district, to discuss their attitudes and practices and to directly expose them to an opportunity to get involved in the Triple P Program.
The Triple P Program is a small-group training program (6 producers per group) that aims to improve the pasture and livestock management skills of participants, and assist them to trial more productive pastures on their own farm. Following the facilitated recruitment process, over half (56%) of the producers in the Glenthompson district chose to participate in the Triple P Program. Subsequently these producers went on to form a Best Wool 2010 group that has operated since 2000 and in 2004/05 was awarded the Best Wool 2010 group of the year.
Three key learnings: (1) that the facilitated recruitment process increased producer participation in extension in the Glenthompson district from 5.6% to 56% of the producer community; (2) that between 1997 and 2005 there was significant change in the knowledge, attitudes, skills, aspirations and practices of these producers; and (3) that increased participation in extension has led to more widespread productivity, environmental and social benefits for the Glenthompson community.
Key words
Participation, recruitment, capacity building, triple bottom line, productivity, environmental, social
Introduction
In 1997, two key extension programs targeting Victorian wool producers were initiated. One was the Triple P Program, initiated to assist wool producers develop skills and gain confidence in their ability to adopt more productive pastures. The other was Best Wool 2010, which aims to achieve on-farm productivity growth of 3% annually across the Victorian wool industry between 1998 and 2010.
The extension approach employed in the Triple P Program is the paired-paddock model (Trompf and Sale 2000). This involves small groups of producers (maximum of 6 members), under the guidance of a facilitator, establishing a paired-paddock comparison of productive pastures with existing pastures on each participant’s property. The groups also receive skills training in monitoring pasture and livestock (Trompf and Sale 2000). By 1998 the Triple P Program consisted of more than 65 groups including 400 producers. This was in addition to the 200 producers that had participated in the Grasslands Productivity Program that preceded the Triple P Program.
In contrast, the extension approach employed in Best Wool 2010 is less structured and provides the infrastructure for producer groups (at least 10 members) to decide how they can lift their farm profitability and productivity. A coordinator assists groups to undertake learning opportunities and source products from the most appropriate service provider for their needs. By 2003 there were 70 Best Wool 2010 groups involving approximately 1700 producers.
Most Triple P and Best Wool 2010 groups were established using a voluntary recruitment approach that relied on attracting participants by creating general awareness through the media, by word-of-mouth from fellow producers, and by direct contact with program facilitators. Group formation was based on producer inquiry about the programs. Interested producers were encouraged to use their contacts to identify other producers who might join their group when there were insufficient inquiries to form a group within a district.
Industry bodies, service providers and other individuals have expressed concern about the voluntary basis used to recruit participants into training programs like the Triple P Program and Best Wool 2010. This process has been criticised for only attracting those producers who are willing to listen, discuss and trial new ideas (Cloonan and Woog 1997). As a result, producers enrolling in these programs tend to be, in many cases, the more efficient producers (ABARE 1998). This leads to issues of inequity among producers in the service they receive from industry and government extension efforts and training funds. According to Roling (1988), innovative farmers will self-select as the ones that join extension programs unless a deliberate effort is made to reach other farmer categories. Given that only a small percentage (10-15%) of the producer population is keen to enrol in these programs (Cloonan and Woog 1997) then it is unlikely that extension programs will achieve marked improvement on an industry scale if participation levels remain below 15% of the total producer population.
This paper outlines the findings of a detailed case study of the attitudes and practices of 36 pastoral producers in the Glenthompson district of western Victoria, assessed in 1997 and again in 2005. In the late spring of 1997 a facilitated recruitment exercise was undertaken in the Glenthompson district with the aim of increasing producer participation in extension, in particular the Triple P Program and subsequently Best Wool 2010. This paper reports on the participation of Glenthompson producers in extension prior to and following facilitated recruitment, and then outlines the productivity, environmental and social benefits of increasing producer participation in extension programs such as the Triple P Program and Best Wool 2010.
Method
The attitudes and practices of 36 pastoral producers in the Glenthompson district were assessed in 1997 and again in 2005. The regional fire map was used to help identify pastoral producers in Glenthompson district. Attempts were made to personally visit and interview every producer. A total of 90% of the producers in the district were interviewed, with 2% of producers not willing to participate and 8% of producers unavailable to be interviewed. Hence, the sample was considered to be representative of the general population of pastoral producers in the Glenthompson district.
The producers who subsequently participated in the Triple P Program and Best Wool 2010 between 1997 and 2005 are referred to as ‘participants’ in this paper, while the producers who did not participate in either program are referred to as ‘non-participants’. The data collected were analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS Inc. 2004). Differences between the producer groups (participants and non-participants) were compared by an analysis of variance (ANOVA). Differences within producer groups over time were compared using a paired t-test.
Results
Participation density
Participation density is the number of participants from a given area who join an extension program, expressed as a percentage of the total number of producers in that area that could have joined the program. In 1997 in the Glenthompson district, the participation density of producers in the Triple P Program was 2 out of 36, or 5.6% of the producer community. This was very similar to the participation density for the Triple P Program across all of southern Victoria of 5.4% (Trompf 2001). In the spring of 1997 the facilitated recruitment process (Trompf and Sale 2001) was undertaken to increase participation beyond those who readily volunteer to participate in extension. As a result, 20 out of 36, or 56% of the Glenthompson producer community participated in the Triple P Program and then subsequently Best Wool 2010, which represented a tenfold increase in participation density.
Farm settings
In 1997 the farm settings of the participants and non-participants were very similar (Table 1). In contrast, by 2005 the participants had significantly higher stocking rates, higher phosphorous fertiliser use, a larger area of the farm limed, and more pasture resown than did the non-participants. In addition, by 2005 the participants were significantly younger, had more of the next generation involved in the farm, and were more satisfied with farming.
Table 1. The farm settings of participants and non-participants in 1997 and 2005, and the changes between 1997 and 2005.
Productivity settings |
1997 |
2005 |
Change 1997-2005 | |||
Farm area (ha) |
|
|
|
|||
Cropped area (ha) |
|
|
|
|||
Stocking rate (dse/ha) |
|
|
|
|
| |
Fertiliser use (kg P/ha) |
|
|
|
|
| |
Area limed (% of farm/yr) |
|
|
|
|
| |
Pasture resown (% farm/yr) |
|
|
|
|
| |
Age (years) |
|
|
|
|
| |
Next generation involved in farm (Proportion of the population) |
||||||
Participants |
0.2 a |
0.6 b |
|
0.4 |
| |
Satisfaction with farming |
(Satisfaction score out of 10) |
|||||
Participants |
5.8 a |
8.7 b |
|
2.9 |
| |
* and ** indicate that means between groupings within years differ significantly with probabilities p≤0.05 and p≤0.01, respectively. Means for individual groupings over time followed by a different letter differ significantly (p<0.05).
Between 1997 and 2005 the participants attracted significantly more of the next generation to become involved in the farm, while the level of involvement of the next generation on non-participants’ farms remained unchanged (Table 1). Participants regarded this increased involvement of the next generation, the improvement of their farm, the improvement of their knowledge and skills, and the improvement of their lifestyle as the key reasons for their increased satisfaction with farming since 1997. The key reasons given by non-participants for their increase in satisfaction with farming was diversification away from wool production into cropping and prime-lamb production, for which they had experienced increased commodity prices since 1997.
Use of recommended practices and key indicators
In 1997 the use of recommended practices by the participants and non-participants was very similar (Table 2). In contrast, by 2005 a significantly greater proportion of participants than non-participants were undertaking the 9 recommended practices that were assessed. Rotational grazing and physically assessing livestock were the only recommended practices that significantly more non-participants undertook in 2005 than in 1997.
Table 2. The proportion of participants and non-participants using recommended management practices in 1997 and 2005, and the changes in proportions between 1997 and 2005.
Recommended practice |
Proportion in 1997 |
Proportion in 2005 |
Change in proportion from 1997 to 2005 | |||
Managing soil fertility |
|
|
|
|
||
Managing pastures |
|
|
|
|
| |
Calculating feed budgets |
|
|
|
|
| |
Rotational grazing |
|
|
|
|
| |
Managing livestock |
|
|
|
|
||
Physically assess stock |
|
|
|
|
||
Measuring farm performance |
|
|
|
|
| |
Calculate cost of production |
|
|
|
|
| |
Benchmarking |
|
|
|
|
| |
* and ** indicate that means between groupings within years differ significantly with probabilities p≤0.05 and p≤0.01, respectively. Means for individual groupings over time followed by a different letter differ significantly (p<0.05).
Attitudes towards the determinants of farm profit
In 1997, the attitude of participants and non-participants towards the determinants of farm profit were very similar (Table 3). By 2005, the attitude of the 2 groups differed significantly towards 5 of the 7 determinants of farm profit measured. In 2005 the participants considered the amount of fertiliser applied, stocking rate, production per hectare and cost of production to be significantly more important determinants of farm profit than non-participants did. In contrast, non-participants considered production per head to be a significantly more important determinant of farm profit than participants did (Table 3). Between 1997 and 2005 the attitude of participants changed significantly towards 6 out of 7 of the determinants of farm profit measured, while no attitude changes were measured among non-participants.
Attitude towards the priorities of expenditure and attitude to training
In 1997, the attitude of participants and non-participants towards the priority of expenditure on 6 items related to farming were very similar (Table 4). By 2005, the attitude of the 2 groups differed significantly on 5 out of the 6 items. In 2005, participants considered expenditure on fertiliser, consultants, training and holidays to be significantly more important than did non-participants. In contrast, non-participants considered expenditure on genetics to be significantly more important in 2005 than did participants. Between 1997 and 2005 participants significantly increased the priority of expenditure on natural resource management, consultants, training and holidays, while non-participants increased the priority of expenditure on genetics (Table 4).
Table 3. Importance scores for determinants of farm profitability, given by participants and non-participants in 1997 and 2005, and changes between 1997 and 2005. (Importance scores; 1, not important to 5, very important).
Importance scores out of 5 |
||||||
Profitability determinant |
1997 |
2005 |
Change in score from | |||
Amount of fertiliser applied |
|
|
|
|
||
Stocking rate |
|
|
|
|
| |
Production per head |
|
|
|
|
||
Production per hectare |
|
|
|
|
| |
Labour efficiency |
|
|
|
| ||
Lambing percentage |
|
|
|
| ||
Cost of production |
|
|
|
|
| |
* and ** indicate that means between groupings within years differ significantly with probabilities p≤0.05 and p≤0.01, respectively. Means for individual groupings over time followed by a different letter differ significantly (p<0.05).
Table 4. Importance scores for expenditure priorities, given by participants and non-participants in 1997 and 2005, and change between 1997 and 2005. (Importance scores; 1, not important to 5, very important)
Importance scores out of 5 |
Change in score from | |||||
Expenditure item |
1997 |
2005 |
||||
Fertiliser |
|
|
|
|
||
Natural resource management |
|
|
|
| ||
Consultants |
|
|
|
|
| |
Training |
|
|
|
|
| |
Holidays |
|
|
|
|
| |
Genetics |
|
|
|
|
| |
* and ** indicate that means between groupings within years differ significantly with probabilities p≤0.05 and p≤0.01, respectively. Means for individual groupings over time followed by a different letter differ significantly (p<0.05).
Further evidence of the difference in attitude towards the priority of training between participants and non-participants is outlined in Table 5. The participants had been involved in 6 training groups since 1997, while non-participants had been involved in an average of 1 training group since 1997. The most common training groups or courses undertaken by participants included the Triple P Program, Best Wool 2010, Benchmarking, Profitable Sheep Breeding, Wool Marketing and Succession Planning. Some participants had also been involved in Prograze, Sheep Nutrition, FM500 and Southern Farming Systems, but to much less extent than the training groups listed previously.
The difference in attitude to training and holidays is also illustrated in a basic business health test assessing the number of days training, the number of weeks of holiday and the number of new initiatives tried on the farm, in the last 12 months (Table 5). It was found that participants undertook 9 days training while non-participants undertook just 1. It was also found that participants had twice the number of holidays in the last 12 months and undertook 5-times more new initiatives on their farms than the non-participants did. The new initiatives included principles for ewe management developed in the LifeTime Wool Project, planting of summer crops, planting of new crop varieties and purchasing rams from new suppliers.
Table 5. The attitude of participants and non-participants to training and holidays in 2005
Participants |
Non-participants |
Sign. | |
Training undertaken |
(Number of training groups) |
||
Number of training groups involved in since 1997 |
6.0 |
1.0 |
** |
Business health test |
(Number) |
||
Days training undertaken in the last 12 months |
9.0 |
1.0 |
** |
Weeks holiday undertaken in the last 12 months |
4.0 |
2.0 |
** |
Number of new initiatives in the last 12 months |
5.0 |
1.0 |
** |
Attitude to training |
(Proportion of the population) |
||
Agreed that farmer groups are beneficial |
1.0 |
0.7 |
* |
Agreed that attitude to learning has changed since 1997 |
0.7 |
0.2 |
* |
Agreed that more willing to invest in training than in 1997 |
0.8 |
0.2 |
** |
Agreed that FarmBis is important to undertaking training |
0.9 |
0.6 |
* |
Agreed that without FarmBis would still invest in training |
1.0 |
0.4 |
** |
* and ** indicate that means between groupings differ significantly with probabilities p≤0.05 and p≤0.01, respectively.
A significantly greater proportion of participants than non-participants regard involvement in farmer groups as being beneficial (Table 5). Also, a significantly greater proportion of participants than non-participants believe that their attitude to learning and willingness to invest in training had changed since 1997. The primary reasons given by participants for this change in attitude is that they have now seen the benefits of training, and more specifically, that participation in the Triple P Program has opened up their minds to the value of training. This is illustrated by the comments of participants recorded below:
“The Triple P Program got us thinking about what we can change; it really opened up our minds.”
“The Triple P Program has given us faith in the industry; we now believe we can learn and we can improve.”
In addition, a significantly greater proportion of participants than non-participants agree that FarmBis has been important in assisting them to undertake training and that they would continue to invest in training without FarmBis support (Table 5). The primary reasons given by participants for continuing to invest in training is that they have seen the benefits and value of undertaking training, which is supported by comments such as:
“We have learned that we must keep pace with the times and with new technology, with or without FarmBis.”
Even though all participants indicated that they would continue to invest in training in the future, some felt that without the FarmBis subsidy they would become more selective in what training they would undertake.
Difference in aspirations
The participants and non-participants reflected on how much they had changed since 1997 in relation to measures of their aspirations towards farming (Table 6). Since 1997, participants’ confidence, optimism, satisfaction, awareness, motivation, pro-activeness, information seeking, willingness to innovate and responsiveness to environmental issues all increased by a greater level than that of non-participants. In fact, the increase in all measures of aspiration since 1997 among participants was more than double the increase reported by non-participants over the same period (Table 6).
Table 6. Change in aspirations of participants and non-participants between 1997 and 2005. (Change scores; 0, no change in aspiration to 10, marked change in aspiration)
Change scores out of 10 |
|||
Measures of aspiration |
Participants |
Non-participants |
Sign. |
Confidence in the farming business |
6.4 |
3.1 |
** |
Optimism about the future of the farm |
5.1 |
1.0 |
** |
Satisfaction with farming |
6.0 |
2.7 |
** |
Awareness of opportunities |
6.9 |
2.2 |
** |
Motivation to improve |
6.3 |
2.1 |
** |
Information seeking |
5.9 |
2.5 |
** |
Willingness to innovate |
5.7 |
2.1 |
** |
Pro-activeness to implement change |
5.2 |
2.5 |
* |
Responsiveness to environmental issues |
5.0 |
2.3 |
** |
* and ** indicate that means between groupings differ significantly with probabilities p≤0.05 and p≤0.01, respectively.
Management skills
In 1997 the management skills of the participants and non-participants were very similar (Table 7). In contrast, by 2005 the participants regarded themselves to be significantly more skillful than the non-participants in all 6 management skills assessed. Assessing sheep condition was the only skill that non-participants improved.
Table 7. Skill level ratings for management skills, given by participants and the non-participants in 1997 and 2005, and change between 1997 and 2005. (Skill level ratings; 1, low skill level to 5, high skill level)
Management skill |
Skill level rating out of 5 |
Change in skill level | ||||
1997 |
2005 |
from 1997 to 2005 | ||||
Interpreting soil test results |
|
|
|
|
| |
Assessing pastures |
|
|
|
|
| |
Assessing sheep condition |
|
|
|
|
||
Calculating feed budgets |
|
|
|
|
| |
Matching feed demand to FOO |
|
|
|
|
| |
Managing a high SR system |
|
|
|
|
| |
* and ** indicate that means between groupings within years differ significantly with probabilities p≤0.05 and p≤0.01, respectively. Means for individual groupings over time followed by a different letter differ significantly (p<0.01).
Attitude to Landcare and environmental issues
Significant differences were identified between participants and non-participants in their attitudes and practices relating to Landcare and environmental issues in 2005 (Table 8). Significantly greater proportions of participants than non-participants are active Landcare members, identify and repair land areas needing remediation, and minimise acidification and salinisation processes. Also, since 1997 a significantly greater proportion of participants than non-participants believe they have become more interested and have more capacity to address environmental issues on their farm.
Table 8. The attitude and practices of participants and non-participants in 2005 relating to environmental issues and Landcare.
Environmental attitudes and practices |
Participants |
Non-participants |
Sign. |
Landcare commitment |
(Proportion of population) |
||
Active Landcare members |
1.0 |
0.7 |
* |
Attitude to Landcare |
(Proportion of the population) |
||
Agreed that more interested in addressing |
0.9 |
0.2 |
** |
Agreed that have a greater capacity to address |
0.9 |
0.2 |
** |
Landcare work undertaken |
(Number of Landcare works since 1997) |
||
Number of works undertaken on the farm to address |
4.0 |
1.0 |
** |
* and ** indicate that means between groupings differ significantly with probabilities p≤0.05 and p≤0.01, respectively.
The differing level of Landcare works undertaken on their farms (Table 8) also supports the difference in attitude towards environmental issues between the 2 groups. Since 1997, participants have completed 4-times the number of works on their farms addressing environmental issues than the non-participants. Examples of these works include tree plantations, fencing off and repairing creeks and gullies, improving saline areas, rabbit control, sowing perennial pastures and establishing wetland sanctuaries. According to participants, the outcomes of this work include decreased erosion and salinity, improved soil conservation, improved water quality, increased bio-diversity, and enhancement of the landscape.
Discussion
In the Glenthompson district in 1997 there was a severe lack of producer participation in extension (with only 5.6% of the producer community involved) and a lack of adoption of proven technology. Producers who were willing to participate in extension programs had to travel away from the district to become part of other networks. This situation was reflected in many other rural communities at that time, and is still common in some districts today.
Furthermore, the low productivity of farms in the Glenthompson district was evident from their carrying capacity of 10 dse/ha relative to a potential carrying capacity of 16 dse/ha (French 1992), as well as the decline in productive pasture species and soil fertility as described by Quigley (1992). Also, there was minimal involvement of the next generation in farm businesses (20%). The net outcome was that producers in the Glenthompson district had low levels of satisfication with farming (Table 1).
In contrast, by 2005 the Glenthompson producer community had been rejuvenated. This was a direct result of a fundamental shift in the level of participation of producers in extension, primarily the Triple P Program and Best Wool 2010. A tenfold increase in participation density occurred following the facilitated recruitment process in 1997. Subsequently the majority of producers in the Glenthompson district underwent marked changes in knowledge, attitude (Tables 3-4), skills (Table 7) and aspirations (Table 6) which are recognised as key pillars for practice change (Bennett 1977). Practice changes included a marked increase in the use of recommended management practices relating to managing soil fertility, managing pastures and livestock, and measuring farm performance (Table 2).
The overall outcome in the Glenthompson district has been a series of economic, environmental and social benefits, which are the key components for achieving sustainable rural communities (Stoneham et al. 2003). This is a genuine example of a triple-bottom-line outcome where the majority of producers are now more productive (Table 1), and previous research (Trompf 2001) has shown that substantial increases in whole-farm profitability are associated with these levels of adoption of productive pasture technology. The majority of producers are also now more focused on managing their farms in an environmentally sound manner (Table 8), as well as focusing on social benefits such as more holidays taken by the family unit (Table 5) and more involvement of the next generation in the farming business (Table 1). This is important given the reported decline in interest shown by young people in returning to the family farm (Barr et al. 2005).
We contend that these same outcomes can be achieved in more producer communities if the majority of the producers in these communities participate in extension activities that assist them to improve their performance and their capability to learn and make decisions. Roberts (1995) stated that the sustainability of a community is enhanced through participation and equity, which is what the facilitated recruitment process has delivered in the Glenthompson district.
There are some critical reasons as to why the intervention (facilitated recruitment and extension activities) in the Glenthompson district was so effective. These include the embodiment of a number of widely documented adult learning principles such as active participation in the learning process, learning that meet the needs and relates to the problems of the group, learning that builds on local experience and uses knowledge from within the group, and most importantly, that learners feel the need to learn (Knowles 1990; Malouf 1994; Burns 1995).
Another reason for the effectiveness of the intervention in the Glenthompson district is a concept referred to by Petris (2005) as place management. This is where an initiative such as that undertaken in Glenthompson is characterised by targeting at a very local, often neighborhood level; by intensive intervention through a coordinated effort to address a series of interrelated problems; and by the use of a ‘place manager’ to coordinate activity and to act as a point of responsibility for outcomes (Petris 2005). Ultimately, the facilitated recruitment process encouraged a number of otherwise reluctant Glenthompson producers to participate in extension and as a result they became active learners and information seekers - an outcome we refer to as being ‘on the learning curve’.
Facilitated recruitment must be assessed on a cost-benefit basis. The process involved focused face-to-face discussions with individual producers on their properties, with follow-up contact and the organization of a local field day. The process is more expensive than the cost of enticing progressive producers to volunteer to join extension programs, and it is considered by some that it cannot be justified on financial basis. Future research will determine the answer to such questions. Nevertheless, the benefits for this community of producers in the Glenthompson district were profound; and the list is long and varied (Figure 1).
In most cases the dollar value of the benefits are difficult to quantify. What value, for example, can you place on producers developing confidence in their land and their industry, and hope for the future (Table 6) such that their sons and daughters choose to return to the farm to pursue a career on the land (Table 1)? What value might funding bodies place on the development of ‘information-seeking’ capacity (Table 6), where producers are keen to trial, and become customers for, the new technologies that flow from research, development and extension efforts? What value does the nation place on the increased attention given to natural resource management (Table 8) by the farmers who use the land? Many of these benefits deliver public good and so a case can be made for active support by Government to assist facilitated recruitment initiatives in other communities.
Figure 1. The productivity, environmental and social benefits of increasing producer participation in extension via facilitated recruitment in the Glenthompson district
Productivity changes since 1997
- Participants increased stocking rate by 35% compared to non-participants by 17%
- Participants increased P fertiliser use by 50% compared to non-participants by 29%
- Participants increased area limed/yr by 190% compared to non-participants by 47%
- Participants increased pasture resown/yr by 196% compared to non-participants by 25%
Practice & skill changes since 1997- excluding non-participants due to little change
- Increased proportion of participants using recommended practices- such as calculating production/ha (2 fold), calculating cost of production (6 fold) & benchmarking (6 fold)
- Increased level of skill among participants for all key management skills- such as assessing pastures and feed budgeting (2 fold), managing high stocking rates (2 fold)
- Greater proportion of participants meeting AWI indicators that non-participants
Attitude change since 1997- excluding non-participants due to minimal change
- Increased proportion of participants focused on fertiliser use, stocking rate, lambing percentage, production/ha and cost of production as the drivers of profitability
- Participants felt profits have risen due to improved skills, productivity and decreased cost of production compared to diversification and market prices for non-participants
- Increased proportion of participants focused on fertiliser use, natural resource management, consultants, training and holidays as priorities of expenditure for the farm
Social benefits since 1997
- Participants undertake more training and holidays per annum than non-participants
- Participants are more interested in learning and willing to invest in training
- Participants will continue to invest in training with or without FarmBis support
- Participants have a much higher level of satisfaction with farming than non-participants
- Participants are attracting more of the next generation and are therefore younger
- Participants have increased confidence, optimism, satisfaction, awareness, motivation, pro-activeness, information seeking and innovation more than non-participants
Environmental benefits since 1997
- Participants have increased the priority of expenditure on natural resource management
- Participants are more responsive to environmental issues than they were in 1997
- Participants have more interest & capacity to address environmental issues than in 1997
- Participants have undertaken more environmental works on their farms non-participants
- Participants are more willing to fence off and repair areas needing remediation on-farm
Conclusion
In short, the majority of producers in the Glenthompson district have changed as a result of the facilitated recruitment experience: they now think differently, act differently, aspire differently and perform differently. The 3 key learnings from this study (outlined in Figure 1) are that the facilitated recruitment process increased producer participation in extension in the Glenthompson district from 5.6% to 56% of the producer community. Second, that between 1997 and 2005 these producers significantly changed their knowledge, attitudes, skills, aspirations and practices. Finally, the increased participation in extension led to more widespread productivity, environmental and social benefits for the Glenthompson farming community.
References
ABARE (1998) ‘Australian farm surveys report: financial performance of Australian farms 1998’. (Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics: Canberra, ACT).
Barr N, Karunaratne K and Wilkinson R (2005) Australia’s farmers: past, present and future. (Land and Water Australia: Canberra).
Bennett CF (1977) Analysing impacts of extension programs. (Washington D.C. Extension Service: US Department of Agriculture).
Burns R (1995) The adult learner at work: a comprehensive guide to the context, psychology and methods of learning for the workplace. (Business and Professional Publishing: Australia).
Cloonan, D and Woog, R (1997) How do we do it? Waddling toward a new theoretically informed practice of extension. In ‘Managing change- building knowledge and skills’, Proceedings of the 2nd Australasian Pacific Extension Network Conference, Albury, November 1997, p. 433-39.
French R (1992) Looking forward-a vision. In ‘Looking forward’, Proceedings from the 33rd Annual Conference of the Grasslands Society of Victoria. p.105-13. (Grasslands Society of Victoria: Parkville).
Knowles MS (1990) The adult learner: a neglected species. (Gulf Publishing Company: Texas USA).
Malouf D (1994) How to teach adults in a fun and exciting way. (Business and Professional Publishing: Australia).
Petris S (2005) Making sense of recent developments in public sector governance. (Victorian Government Department of Primary Industries: Tatura).
Quigley PE (1992) The current state of Victoria’s pastures. In ‘Realising the potential of our grazing land’, Proceedings of the 1992 Pasture Specialists Conference. (Eds. G. Ward, K. Reed and K. Bishop). Conference proceedings series No. 48, p.9-13. (Department of Food and Agriculture: Hamilton).
Roberts B (1995) The quest for sustainable agriculture and land use. (University of New South Wales Press Ltd: Sydney Australia).
Roling N (1988) Extension science: information systems in agricultural development. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge).
SPSS Inc (2004) SPSS 6.1 base system user’s guide, part 2. (SPSS Inc.: Chicago).
Stoneham G, Eigenraam M, Ridley A and Barr N (2003) The application of sustainability concepts to Australian agriculture: an overview. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 43, 195-203.
Trompf JP (2001) The impact of the paired-paddock model on the adoption of productive pastures across south-east Australia. PhD Thesis. (Departmental of Agricultural Sciences: La Trobe University, Bundoora).
Trompf JP and Sale, PWG (2000) The paired-paddock model as an agent for change on grazing properties across south-east Australia. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 40, No. 4, 547-56.
Trompf JP and Sale PWG (2001) Facilitated recruitment increases participation in the paired-paddock program. In ‘Managing change- building knowledge and skills’, Proceedings of the 2nd Australasian Pacific Extension Network Conference, Albury, November 1997.
