Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Social research helps target audiences to increase adoption of precision viticulture

Vanessa Hood1 and Megan Hill2

1 Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 3000, Box Hill, Vic 3128. www.dpi.vic.gov.au Email vanessa.hood@dpi.vic.gov.au
2
Department of Primary Industries, Private Bag 1, Tatura, Vic 3216. www.dpi.vic.gov.au Email: megan.hill@dpi.vic.gov.au

Abstract

The Australian grape industry has invested substantial resources into the development of precision viticulture (PV) tools and their application to aid grape growers manage yield and quality variability on their vineyard. The adoption of PV is perceived to be low, despite its apparent economic benefits. A social research project was undertaken to understand why this was the case. The three PV tools investigated in the project were: EM38 (to map soil characteristics), aerial reflectance data (to map vine canopy growth) and load cells attached to machine harvesters (to measure yield variability). These tools are used to produce a map of the vineyard that can be used to inform management decisions. All growers interviewed knew of the PV tools, indicating that extension efforts have successfully raised awareness. However, although all the growers we interviewed experienced variability in yield and quality, only half had used the PV tools and none had used them more than once. Growers believed they could manage variability adequately using existing management tools and there was little advantage in managing at the finer level PV offered. This work can help define target audiences for extension strategies aimed at increasing adoption of PV; such audiences include wine grape growers, policy makers, service providers and wineries.

Three key learnings: (1) extension has effectively raised awareness of PV; (2) growers don’t see a need to use PV tools at present; (3) extension strategies to increase adoption of PV should be targeted at wine grape growers, policy makers, service providers and wineries.

Key Words

Precision management, grape growers, variability, technology, mapping, vineyards

Introduction

The Australian grape industries have invested substantial resources into the development of precision viticulture (PV) tools, to assess spatial and temporal variation on vineyards. It has been suggested that adoption of these tools will be crucial for the sustainable development of viticulture in Australia, because it will enable growers to produce fruit of a specific quality for their specific target market.

Despite the claimed benefits, the adoption of PV is perceived to be low. This study was funded to investigate why this is the case, in the wine industry, the sector of the grape industry in which most PV work has focussed. It appears to be the first formal study into the adoption of PV by the Australian grape industry.

This study used social research methods to investigate the drivers and barriers to adoption of PV tools. The three particular PV tools studied were: EM38 (to map soil characteristics), aerial reflectance data (to map vine canopy growth) and load cells attached to machine harvesters (to measure yield variability). These tools are used to produce a map of the vineyard that can be used to make informed management decisions.

Methods

According to Kaine (2004), adoption of a new technology depends on the extent to which the attributes of the scientific innovation meet the needs of the target audience (eg. a farmer). Recent studies have suggested that the adoption of innovations by primary producers in an active, not a passive process. By understanding the needs of the grower and how well the attributes of the innovation meet these needs, a group of people in the industry likely to adopt the innovation can be identified (Linehan and Kaine 2003, Linehan et al. 2004). One way of understanding these decision-making processes is by conducting in-depth interviews with growers. This information can be used to set realistic goals for adoption and to target extension programs more effectively.

A total of 19 interviews were conducted with wine grape growers between January and June 2005, in four regions of Australia: Yarra Valley (southern Victoria), Sunraysia (north west Victoria), Riverland (upper Murray in South Australia) and Coonawarra (south east South Australia). The growers were chosen to cover a range of vineyard sizes and varieties and quality grades of grapes grown. Some growers owned wineries while others were wholly contract fruit producers.

The interviews were semi-structured in format, meaning that they were conducted in a casual discussion like manner, yet with an underlying structure and specific information to be obtained. Laddering techniques were used to explore the reasoning underlying the decisions and actions of the growers (Grunert and Grunert 1995). This technique was used to identify common and complementary patterns of reasoning among the growers and to ensure that the information was consistent and made sense. Interview responses were recorded manually by two interviewers, transcribed and analysed. Information from cases were compared and contrasted to determine similarities and difference in these that arose in the data (Patton, 1990).

Results

Extension has effectively raised awareness of PV

All growers interviewed were aware of, and had some knowledge about PV tools. Some had attended seminars on the subject, others knew someone who had used it, or had seen information about it in industry publications. This suggests that the extension activities to date have been successful in raising awareness of these technologies throughout the industry.

In the past five years or so, extension activities have delivered general information about PV and raised awareness about it through seminars, field days and industry journal articles. This work was mainly conducted by the key scientific PV researcher in Australia (Dr Rob Bramley). These activities were aimed at the wine industry as a whole, not targeted towards specific segments of the industry.

Some growers interviewed used PV

Although all the growers interviewed experienced variability in yield and quality, only half had used the PV tools and none had used them more than once. The growers that had used PV tools had used them to confirm causes of variability in fruit yield and/or quality, and/or to map the boundaries of different patches of vines within a vineyard.

All of the growers interviewed believed that they knew the causes of variability in fruit yield or quality in their vineyard. Some growers used PV tools to confirm their views were correct, and to help plan management responses such as mulching areas of shallow soil or modifying irrigation systems. For example, one grower from the Sunraysia region said, “The vigour map showed up a few hotspots with extra vigour. I went to have a look and, as I expected, I found some irrigation leaks.”

While most vineyard managers said they had intimate knowledge of the vineyard, some of them found PV information useful in communicating with staff, service providers or contractors. One winery used it to liase with a grower on quality issues.

A few growers used vigour or yield maps to draw precise boundaries around areas of high or low performing vines, either for pruning or soil management or to do differential harvesting. One vineyard manager had an EM38 survey conducted to map salinity levels and to plan where drainage should be installed.

Most growers interviewed saw no need to use PV at present

Growers believed they could manage variability adequately using existing management tools. The growers that had not used the PV tools had decided against using them for one or more of the following reasons:

  • satisfied with the way they were managing variability on their vineyard
  • believed they could obtain sufficient information on the causes of fruit variability using other techniques
  • meeting their fruit quality or yield parameters
  • unable to differentially harvest fruit within blocks
  • unable to change their management practices in the short term.

Most growers saw little advantage in managing their vineyards at a more detailed level at the moment, particularly given the perceived cost of using the tools and expected return on their investment. For example, one grower from the Yarra Valley commented, “I could justify an investment in PV if there was a measurable gain, but at the moment, no.”

The growers were satisfied with the way they were managing variability on their vineyard. All the growers we interviewed said that their vineyards were variable to an extent. They all also said that they already manage their vineyards to reduce this variability. They described a number of practices they used to manage variability and said that they were happy with the results they achieved. For example, some growers successfully ameliorated variable soil in their vineyard using mulches and/or cover crops. Consequently, they did not see any need to invest in technologies to further reduce variability.

The growers believed they could obtain sufficient information on the causes of fruit variability using techniques other than PV. Some growers had used other technologies to obtain information on factors causing variability in fruit yield or quality. Most of these growers did not believe that they required additional information. One grower from the Riverland region said, “I don’t need a vigour map, it is expensive and I know how vigorous the vines are, as I see them every day.”

The growers were meeting their fruit quality or yield parameters. Some growers in the Riverland and Sunraysia regions commented that they were successfully meeting winery quality parameters. One grower from the Sunraysia region said, “I am happy with the fruit we are producing. We are at the top of our winery contract in regards to the tonnes per acre we can produce.” They may have used innovations in the past to increase quality (such as irrigation scheduling), but the wineries wanted to purchase a lower quality grade of fruit, which the growers could achieve without the use of PV.

Others reported that they had excess fruit, or that their winery contract was specific in regard to the tonnage to be grown. Hence again, there was no need to use PV tools to identify and manage patches of low yielding vines to increase production at this stage.

Unable to differentially harvest fruit within blocks. Most of the growers interviewed were directed by the purchasing winery as to which blocks and when to harvest fruit. Consequently they had little or no opportunity to harvest fruit differentially from within blocks. In the few cases where differential harvesting was possible, the winemakers selected the rows to be harvested, without the use of PV.

Unable to change management practices in the short term. The growers said there is usually limited scope to make significant changes to an established vineyard. For example the existing irrigation system may not allow the independent irrigation of specific blocks or sections of vines. Heavy machinery does not fit down vineyard rows, and hence major soil modification practices are difficult in an established vineyard. These constraints mean that growers are limited in their flexibility to manage variability, and hence they do not require PV information.

Extension strategies to increase adoption of PV should be targeted at various levels - wine grape growers, policy makers, service providers and wineries.

Our study recommended different target audiences for the three PV tools, as outlined below. These recommendations are based on the reasons various growers identified as drivers for their current use of PV.

Soil Mapping

To increase adoption of soil mapping techniques we suggest promoting technologies such as EM38 to the following:

  • Policy-makers who contribute to the design of incentive programs for new vineyards, to allow the use of EM38 to pinpoint where soil pits should be dug to capture the range of soil diversity.
  • Growers, contractors and designers who plan the instalment of new vineyards, or who redevelop existing vineyards or deal with drainage and/or salinity issues in the vineyard.

Vigour Mapping

To increase adoption of vigour mapping technology we suggest promoting this technology to:

  • Growers, contractors and designers who plan to redevelop existing vineyards or deal with drainage and/or salinity issues.
  • Winery representatives or technical officers who could use this technology to be specific in regard to the fruit they wish to purchase, or to provide technical advice to growers on managing fruit variability.

Yield Mapping

To increase the adoption of yield mapping the following people should be targeted:

  • Contract harvesters who could consider providing yield mapping services as a component of their harvesting service
  • Growers who can obtain benefits from differentially harvesting fruit within blocks
  • Growers who can use the information to tailor pruning or irrigation practices to better reduce variability in yield or quality
  • Consultants or technical officers who can use the information to design/ refine their agronomic advice

The challenges of ensuring that social research is used to inform extension

As primary author of this paper, I would like to share some insights from my time spent on this social research project. My usual role is as an extension officer and one of the reasons I became involved in extension was that I saw lots of biophysical research sitting on shelves and not being used by the farming community. There is a danger that the issue could arise with the results of some social research work also, with this study being a prime example. The results of this study are publicly available (Hill et al. 2005), but there are no formal plans to use the results and there is a danger that they will ‘sit on a shelf and gather dust’.

Currently, an extension project, funded by the Co-operative Research Centre for Viticulture (CRCV) aimed at accelerating the adoption of PV through participatory trials is underway. The results of our social research are being used to guide the implementation of this extension project and will also provide an opportunity to test our conclusions (John Whiting, pers. comm.). However, this is a very informal approach that provides no guarantee that the results of this social research will be used to develop specific extension projects. (Furthermore, funding for the CRCV ceases in December 2006, so any future projects based on our results, will be reliant on other sources of funding).

There has been little social research work conducted in the Australian grape industry, but funding bodies and government agriculture departments seem keen to invest in this type of work more in the future. Social research can provide extension practitioners with tools that can assist in setting practice change targets and can help us target our messages more effectively. The challenge is for social researchers and extension practitioners to work closely together to achieve the best outcomes for our communities of interest and our funding bodies.

Social researchers and extension officers need to appreciate each other’s skills and expertise and also understand how each measures success. As an extension practitioner, my measures of success may include changing a grower’s behaviour or attitude. In contrast, a social researcher may be more interested in generating new ideas and writing a scientific paper, not necessarily having that new knowledge used. As an extension community, we’ve spoken a lot in the past about how to bridge the gap between biophysical research and extension. There seems to be a need to focus on bringing together the two disciplines to achieve the best outcomes for us all.

Conclusions

Despite the benefits claimed by some of using PV, most growers don’t see a need to use it at present because it doesn’t offer them benefits beyond their current management practices. They don’t see that there is an advantage in managing their vineyards at a more detailed level under present conditions and therefore widespread adoption of PV is unlikely in the regions we studied (Yarra Valley, Sunraysia, Riverland and Coonawarra). However, if there is a significant change in grower’s context, such as a change in incentives offered by wineries to use PV, this may alter the relevance of PV to the growers and therefore increase the levels of adoption.

This study identified audiences that could be targeted to increase the adoption of PV, which includes grape growers, policy makers, service providers and wineries. Further work would be needed to determine the size of the market for PV.

There is a challenge for social researchers and extension officers to work closely together to ensure that the results of studies such as this one used and don’t just ‘sit on a shelf to gather dust’.

References

Grunert K and Grunert S (1995). Measuring subjective meaning structures by the laddering method: Theoretical considerations and methodological problems. International Journal of Research Marketing 12, 209-225.

Hill M, Hood V and Linehan C (2005). A scoping study into the factors influencing the adoption of precision viticulture technologies. Final report to the Co-operative Research Centre for Viticulture, June 2005. www.crcv.com.au. Accessed November 2006.

Kaine G (2004). Social Research Working Paper: Consumer Behaviour as a Theory of Innovation Adoption in Agriculture, AgResearch, New Zealand.

Linehan C and Kaine G (2003). They key to reducing the gap between research and application: Proceedings for the Landcare Conference, Darwin, Australia, 2003.

Linehan C, Krstic M and Kaine G (2004). Combining biophysical and social science to achieve change through targeted extension: Proceedings for the International Society of Horticultural Science Symposium, Perth, Australia, August 2003.

Patton M. Q (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods 2nd edition, Sage Publications, USA.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext Page