Abstract

Introduction

The Darling Downs and Southern Inland Burnett are important geographical subregions of the Queensland dairy industry (Figure 1). The system of dairying in these subregions is based on grazed annual forage crops rather than pastures. While there are some sound agronomic and socio-economic reasons as to why crops are favoured over pastures, traditional cropping practices for grain or forage are inherently unsustainable because they expose the soil to erosion, fertility and structural decline. This has resulted in a decline in soil productive capacity, and ways to address it, have been the subject of a number of long term comprehensive biophysical and sociological studies in the grains industry (Dalal et al. 1995; Hamilton 1995). While common technologies are shared between farmers cropping for grain, or for forage for grazing dairy cows, there are some important differences between the two systems which limit the direct adoption of technologies developed for one industry to the other. There is a need for further evaluation of technologies in the dairy industry.

Farming Systems Research (FSR) provides an approach to this style of assessment that enhances the relevancy of the research to farm management practices and enables farming systems to be judged and defended on multiple criteria (Norman 2002). A key element of FSR is that it is a joint effort involving farmers, researchers and extension workers in designing, testing and modifying improved agricultural technologies (Cornwall et al. 1994). It is the participatory aspect of FSR, particularly farmer participation, that is the focus of this paper.

Figure 1. Map of the Darling Downs and Southern Inland Burnett dairy regions showing farms (grey circles represent individual farms), main town and rainfall isohyets.

Participation by farmers has potential net benefits in terms of problem identification, valuing local technical knowledge, ensuring that technology is appropriate for local conditions and gaining insights from the experiential learning process itself (Cornwall et al. 1994; Hamilton 1995; Vanclay and Lawrence 1995). Some cautions have been expressed regarding the relationship between farmer participation and science. These include the risk of diminished scientific objectivity (Caldwell and Christian 1996); the potential inadequacy of farmer descriptions of farm-level problems, particularly environmental issues (Vanclay and Lawrence 1995) and the tendency of some practitioners to recommend ‘local knowledge’ above all other forms of constructions (Beilin and Boxelaar 2001). While being cognisant of these limitations, there is general support, and an expectation by farmers and agribusiness, for participation in some manner in research activities (Carberry 2001). I would suggest that the main conjecture is not over whether farmers should participate in the research process, but how researchers and farmer manage their interaction ie. who is responsible for what (Martin and Sherington 1997).

This paper is concerned with detailing the role and level of farmer participation in the dairy soil restoration project conducted between 1994-2002 (Figure 3). Farmer participation will be reviewed within three important, and typically sequential, stages of farming systems research (Figure 2). Particular emphasis will be placed on those trials where farmers worked as co-researchers with agency staff.

Figure 2. Stages of project to be reviewed in terms of farmer participation in the dairy soil restoration project

Figure 3. The sequence of main activities, relevant to this paper, in the dairy soil restoration project

What was done

Stage 1. Describing the farming system and identifying key constraints

This activity was undertaken by a team of two experienced research scientists (one from the regions grains industry and the other from the dairy industry) and an experienced dairy extension officer. Previous descriptive (Ashwood et al. 1993) and research material from both the dairy and grains industry was the primary source used to describe the cropping based farming system and identify key constraints to long term production and sustainability. Advice was also taken from The Northern Dairy Group, a research advisory body comprising farmers and researchers (Chamberlain 2000) who had identified low forage crop productivity as a key regional constraint.

Stage 2. Identifying management strategies that may address the issue and developing an investigative project

This activity was undertaken by the same team of agency staff with additional input from an innovative (Rogers 1958) dairy farmer. The teams experiential knowledge and recent findings from grains and dairy industry work were the main resources used to identify strategies and develop an investigative project. The project proposal was refereed under the auspices of the Dairy Research Development Corporation. In response to referees comments, the Corporation appointed a specialist soil scientist to revise the experimental component in consultation with the project team. Changes were also sought in the strategies for This review and negotiation process took place over a two year period. No additional participation of the farming community was involved in this review process.

Stage 3. Screening strategies through appropriate investigations

Prior to the commencement of the field studies, a group of producers (Site Management Group Meeting, Kulpi, August 1996) screened the management strategies for their practicality.

A mail out survey, to determine farmers current practices and opinions regarding a range of soil management strategies to be investigated in the field studies (ley pastures, opportunistic double-cropping, zero-till planting and higher fertiliser inputs) was completed (Chataway et al. 2003b) (Figure 3).

Major field evaluations. On two farms located on contrasting soils, 15 different cropping and pasture systems were evaluated in two, grazed, replicated, randomised experiments using large experimental plots (300 m²/plot). Farmers and local extension officers participated in the identification of over 40 farms for preliminary evaluation and then in the final selection of two contrasting experimental sites. Farmer contacts were made through the advice of extension officers and key farmer informants (Caffarella 1982). Following the decision as to where to locate the major study sites, existing industry discussion groups, of which the host farmers were members, were asked to act as advisory groups for the two experimental sites. These groups met twice a year with agency staff to review findings from the previous season, and discuss general operational plans (varieties, planting, grazing and fallow management) for the coming season. Representatives of these groups were involved in a project review at the completion of Phase 1 (3 years field work). The contact with the host farmer was more frequent (once or twice per month) to discuss the timing of grazing/tillage/planting operations. Agency staff undertook all field activities (planting, cultivation, soil and plant sampling) and data analysis while the host farmer grazed the plots as part of his/her feed plan. Using Biggs’ typology (1987) the relationship between researcher and farmer would be best described as consultative with a high level of researcher management and implementation (Norman and Collinson 1985).

Additional on-farm investigations (satellite sites). Following commencement of the major field investigations, additional on-farm activities with greater farmer involvement were initiated. These activities were intended to complement the major field studies in; enabling the technology to be evaluated across a wider geographical base, increase the opportunity for co-learning between scientists, extension officers and farmers, and provide learning platforms for local farmer groups and the wider dairy community. The farming community was made aware that these activities were to commence through meetings with Sub Regional Teams (SRT) of the Sub Tropical Dairy Program (SDP) (Chamberlain 2000) and through invitations extended through industry newsletters. On the Darling Downs, interested farmers were asked to contact the project team or their local extension officer with any proposal they had that may complement the existing field work, and, if possible, attend a specific planning meeting. At this meeting, a nominal group technique (Delbecq et al. 1975) was used to identify and prioritise soil resource management issues farmers wished to investigate in these additional activities. Following the identification of issues, working groups comprising farmers, extension officers and a technical or research officer from the project team formed and discussed possible ways to investigate issues of highest priority. In the South Burnett region, which was more geographically removed from the projects main experimental sites, the local SRT took on the task of identifying and prioritizing issues for additional on-farm investigations. Members of the SRT spent two days with the project team considering potential investigations and study sites. The outcome of these discussions between farmers and project team staff in both regions are detailed in Table 1. Using Biggs’ typology (1987) the relationship between researcher and farmer would be best described as collegiate with farmers implementing activities in partnership with agency staff.

Table 1. The satellite site studies involved in the dairy soil restoration project.

General Issue	The location of individual investigations	Method/s used to address issue and share findings
The value of feedlot manure, when used in addition to bagged fertiliser, to crop production and soil properties	Bell (Central Darling Downs), Nanango (Southern Burnett), Kingaroy (Southern Burnett) 1997-1999	Within paddock comparisons, limited replication, discussions, expert questioning, seminar, farm walk and newsletter articles
Alternative fertilisers for forage production	Evergreen (Darling Downs) 1998-2000	Within paddock comparison, replication, discussion, seminar and newsletter article
The viability (establishment and productivity) of ley pasture mixes on cropping based farms	Hampton, Freestone via Warwick, Kulpi and Acland (Darling Downs) 1998-2001	Non replicated trials, discussions, farm walks, newsletter article
Zero tillage - an alternative to conventional tillage?	Crows Nest and Murgon (1998-1999)	Non replicated trials,, discussions, expert questioning, workshops

What happened and what was learnt – with respect to farmer participation

Stage 1. Describing the farming system and its key constraints

The project team, initially comprising just agency staff, relied heavily on experiential knowledge and published studies to inform it of the current farming system and determine its’ key natural resource management constraints. While there was some indirect influence from farmers through the existing Northern Dairy Group, direct farmer participation into describing the farming systems and identifying key constraints was limited. This approach supports Chamala et al (1999) concerns that FSR is still often a ‘top-down’ approach to research. Remenyis and Coxhead (1985) noted that early approaches to FSR in Australia were distinguished by a limited amount of time on the descriptive/diagnostic phase with researchers tending to set to directly on dealing with constraints to increased productivity and efficiency, satisfied that they understood why farmers do what they do. It was also only as the project developed further that members of the farming community became more directly involved.

Stage 2. Identifying strategies that may address the issue and developing an investigative project

Petheram and Clarke (1998) note that strategies identified to deal with constraints need to be practical and attractive to farmers and derived from farmer and specialist knowledge. Both farmers and specialists should screen them for their technical feasibility, economic viability and social acceptability to the local farming family. The project suffered some weaknesses in this area. Farmer involvement was initially restricted to one style of farmer (Rogers 1958) and the project was reviewed only by members of the scientific community. This scientific review resulted in the narrowing of the projects objectives and reduced application to farmers. While there was some subsequent screening of management strategies by a broader cross section of farmers prior to the commencement of field trials (Site Management Group Meeting, Kulpi, August 1996) this screening took place too late in the projects development to be truly effective. One of the outcomes of inadequate farmer consultation was the reduced relevance of strategies evaluated in the major field trials, and the subsequent testing of some ‘farmer strategies’ in the additional on-farm sites that would have been better incorporated into the major trial work.

Stage 3. Screening strategies through appropriate investigations

In the mail out survey, farmers raised a number of issues that they believed needed consideration in transferring practices developed in the grains industry to dairy forage cropping systems (Chataway et al. 2003b). Most of these issues were able to be addressed through field studies, workshops and farmer case studies conducted and reported on over the course of the project (Chataway et al. 2003a). There would have been benefits in this survey being conducted earlier in the project cycle to better understand the constraints farmers believed they faced with respect to particular management options. Focus group interviews with their extensive use of open ended questions (Blacket and Hamilton 1992) may have provided a more direct and better strategy for understanding the concerns of farmers.

The major trials conducted at the two contrasting sites proceeded as planned and were of sufficient rigour to establish new understandings of the impact of a range of farming practices on soil fertility and forage production (Chataway 2004). Farmers expressed no dissatisfaction with the manner in which the trials were conducted, or their level of involvement in trial activities. However, while feedback was sought from farmers on the relevance of different cropping system options throughout the trials, a weakness in the process was a failure to involve farmers formally in evaluating the different management strategies under investigation. These insights were then lost in project reporting. Shroud and Kirby (2000) state that there is a tendency for researchers to rely on traditional performance criteria and classical statistical significance when evaluating researcher managed trials, while relying heavily on farmer assessment for trials in which farmers have greater involvement. This was the tendency in this project. Shroud and Kirby (2000) argue that farmer involvement in formal assessment processes in both types of trials is beneficial as farmers have the ability to integrate and weight a number of factors; something difficult for researchers to do using conventional statistical and economic methods.

With respect to the additional on-farm investigations conducted at the satellite sites, these studies generally proved to be of limited use in collecting new biophysical data regarding changes in soil properties and/or the effect on forage yield of a new practice. This was due to a number of factors including; inadequate trial design, failure to implement the trial as planned and the short duration of many trials (1-3 years). However, they did provide some insights into logistical and attitudinal issues associated with new or emerging technologies and were also successful in increasing the level of engagement between farmers, scientists and extension officers. In this sense they achieved some of the objectives of farmer-managed trials in FSR activities (Petheram and Clarke 1998).

In looking more specifically at the activities conducted in these more collegiate trials, it may be beneficial to consider them in light of the views of Carberry (2001), that participative on-farm research trials should have sufficient rigour to ‘stand alone’; Petheram and Clarke (1998), that farmer opinion of the practicality of ideas being tested is one of the most important pieces of information researchers gain from participatory on-farm trials; or thirdly, from (Cox 1998) that the capacity building (increasing awareness, skills, knowledge, confidence) process outcomes from this style of R and D are often overlooked in a cost:benefit analysis.

With respect to the manure and fertiliser trials (Table 1), these were generally designed as ‘stand alone’ on-farm research activities. However, in reflection, they generally lacked either sufficient design rigour, or insufficient implementation of the proposed design, to answer confidently biophysical questions about the impact manure or alternative fertilisers would have on forage production and soil properties. In contrast, the ley pasture evaluations (Table 1) which were more closely aligned to Petheram and Clarke’s (1998) notion of testing the practicality of ideas placed greater emphasis on farmer assessment of the outcome/impact rather than relying on traditional statistical evaluation. The evaluations proved useful in providing a greater appreciation of the strengths and weaknesses of different pasture systems in different environments, and in so doing complemented the knowledge gained in the major field evaluations. The investigations into zero tillage (Table 1) provided farmers with some tools – access to planters and specialists (practicing farmers and agency staff) to ‘test the practicality’ of this technology. The investigations were useful in complementing the biophysical data collected at the plot scale in that their emphasis was on the practicality of technology. The zero tillage activities were different from the other on-farm studies in that they placed more emphasis on other sources of investigation, such as farmer case studies and the questioning of technical specialists, than on field measurements. The nature of the activities also provided potential to meet some of the process skills emphasized by Cox (1998) in valuing Farming Systems Research.

Within the context of Farming Systems Research, these more collegiate on-farm activities raised a number of issues that need consideration.

1. Activity objectives were sometimes overly ambitious given the level of project resourcing and the amount of time farmers and scientists could devote to an activity. Because of this, the proposed investigation did not necessarily have sufficient rigour to answer – with confidence – the question being asked. As already noted, this issue applied particularly to the manure and alternative fertiliser studies. There would appear to be a number of alternative solutions to this problem. The first would be that these investigations should have been restricted to the major field studies where the level of precision required in measurement had a greater likelihood of being achieved. Additional on-farm studies would then have restricted their activities to evaluating the practicality of ideas being tested (Petheram and Clarke 1998). Secondly, with more planning and co-ordination, a common and simpler experiment could have been conducted across all sites to achieve greater experimental rigour while still retaining the goals of farmer participation and practical evaluation of ideas. Thirdly, taking Carberry’s (2001) approach, the major experimental sites would have been replaced by better resourced, and more rigorous participative on-farm research activities. These on-farm research activities would combine the rigour of the major studies with the farmer participation captured in the ‘minor’ studies. While I favour the first of these alternatives – because it appears to provide the best opportunity for the collection of rigorous quantitative and qualitative data in a cost effective manner – all three alternatives offer advantages over this projects’ more ad-hoc approach, and should be considered for future work.

2. There was no specific training provided for agency officers or farmers in principles and operational methodologies appropriate for these collegiate investigations. The various participants involved (farmers, scientists, experimentalists, extension officers) were forced to rely on past experiences/training to conduct these investigations. Sometimes their concept of on-farm investigations was very narrow. For example, in the temperate pasture ley trials at Hampton, while the farmer took great interest in this work and kept a meticulous diary and photo record of the experiment, the technical officer working with him showed little interest in his recordings and dismissed the activity as ‘just a demonstration’ and not worthy of this level of evaluation. There needed to be greater clarity between all participants on what the objectives of the studies were and the methodologies that would be used to achieve these objectives. More training in particular is needed in the collection of qualitative data. These findings support the concerns of Martin and Sherrington (1997) that, while there is enthusiasm for participatory research methods (Carberry 2001; Cornwall et al. 1994; Hamilton 1995), practical information is lacking in the areas of research and extension linkages, experimental design, data analysis, interpretation and verification. The wide divergence of views on the purpose of participative on-farm studies in Farming Systems Research (Carberry 2001; Petheram and Clarke 1998) means that alternative processes need to be considered with the one chosen being appropriate to the objectives of the study.

3. Farmer control. While an investigating team (scientists, extension officers and farmers) may have reached an agreement on how a study should proceed, host farmers could change or neglect a planned methodology due to farming pressures, a change of attitude or a lack of perceived benefit in the study. On-farm participative trials, like other trials, require the development of protocol that will ensure the investigating team they can have confidence that the trial will proceed as planned. This is critical if a positive cost:benefit analysis from on-farm trial work is to be achieved.

4. Short term approach. It was difficult to achieve a long-term commitment (greater than one or two years) from farmers and advisors to investigations. Issues did not necessarily remain a high priority for long as these stakeholders may have ‘moved on’ long before scientific staff believed that they had collected adequate data. McCown (2001) alludes to this issue in describing the difference between experimental work conducted to meet the needs of farmers and advisors, versus that required for creating the knowledge needed to make Australian farming more ecologically sustainable. He suggests that much on-farm research that is of interest to farmers serves the purpose of ‘accelerating’ farmers’ experience. This is similar to Reid and Butlers’ (2003) understanding of on-farm research; that it is primarily an activity to resolve issues that may arise in commercial practice.

Conclusion

The dairy soil restoration project developed out of priorities of the Northern Dairy Group – a collaboration of farmers and researchers formed to achieve better outcomes for dairy farmers from research funding. However, active farmer participation in the descriptive and diagnostic stage was limited and relied heavily on the knowledge and skills of two experienced research scientists. From a FSR perspective, the review process that the project then underwent proved to be a particular ‘weak link’ in the projects life as new perspectives were sought only from the research community and not from the farming and extension communities as well. As a result, there was redundancy in some of the strategies that underwent evaluation in the major field trials and some of the additional on-farm activities dealt with issues that would have been explored more effectively in the major field experiments.

The proposed management strategies were evaluated for their technical/social feasibility and impact on forage productivity and the soil resource base through a farmer survey and field trials with varying levels of farmer participation. Participation of farmers in the survey of farming practices raised a number of issues that needed consideration in the transfer of practices from the grains industry to forage cropping for dairy production. In the major field experiments, farmers’ lack of involvement in their interpretation of findings was probably the weakest aspect of this work while in the additional on-farm activities greater resourcing and the restriction of research questions to the testing of managerial requirements and farmer acceptability would have made these activities more effective. Where research activities involve a more collegiate style of participation, more resources and skills are needed to capture the full benefits of this process in terms of new empirical knowledge and capacity building.

Achieving a truly joint effort between farmers, researchers and extension officers in designing, testing and modifying improved agricultural technologies is difficult but needs to be pursued for the potential benefits it can bring.

References

Ashwood A, Kerr D, Chataway RG, Cowan TM (1993) Northern Dairy Feedbase 2001. 5. Integrated dairy farming systems for northern Australia. Tropical Grasslands 27, 212-228.

Beilin R, Boxelaar L (2001) Rethinking action research: Theory and extension practice. In 'APEN 2001 Conference'. Toowoomba, Qld pp. 31-36. (Australasia Pacific Extension Network Inc.)

Biggs S (1987) Proposed methodology for analysing farmer participation in the ISNAR OFCOR study. In 'Agricultural Administration (Research and Extension) Network Newsletter, No. 17'. (Overseas Development Institue, London)

Blacket DS, Hamilton G (1992) 'Understanding farmer decision making on land use: research using focus groups in southern Queensland.' Queensland Department of Primary Industries, SQA 92006, Goondiwindi, Qld.

Caffarella RS (1982) Identifying client needs. Journal of Extension 20, Available online at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1982july/index.html (accessed 23 November 2005).

Caldwell JS, Christian AH (1996) Reductionism, systems approaches, and farmer participation: conflicts and contributions in the North American land grant system. Journal for Farming Systems Research-Extension 6, 33-44.

Carberry PS (2001) Are science rigour and industry relevance both achievable in participatory action research. In 'Proceedings of the 10th Australian Agronomy Conference'. Hobart . (Ed. B Rowe). (www.regional.org.au/au/asa/2001/plenary/5/carberry.htm)

Chamala S, Coutts J, Pearson C (1999) 'Innovation management: Participatory action management methodologies for R, D & E Industry stakeholders.' Canberra, Australia.

Chamberlain P (2000) Outcomes from farmer defined research priorities. In 'AAAP-ASAP Satellite Conference'. Gatton. (Ed. T Cowan) pp. 46-53. (University of Queensland: Gatton, Qld)

Chataway RG (2004) Sustaining soil resources on dairy farms based on crops in southern Queensland. PhD thesis, University of Queensland.

Chataway RG, Cooper JE, Orr WN, Buchanan IK (2003a) 'Rebuilding the productive capacity of cropping soils on Darling Downs dairy farms. Final Report, Project DAQ155.' Dairy Research and Development Corporation, Melbourne.

Chataway RG, Doogan VJ, Strong WM (2003b) A survey of dairy farmers' practices and attitudes to some aspects of arable land management in the Darling Downs and South Burnett regions off Queensland. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 43, 449-457.

Cornwall A, Guijt I, Welbourn A (1994) Acknowledging process: methodological challenges for agricultural research and extension. In 'Beyond Farmer First'. (Eds I Scoones and J Thompson) pp. 98 - 117. (Intermediate Technology Publications: London)

Cox PG (1998) The value of investment in FSR&D: some methodological issues. In 'Proceedings of the 15th AFSRE Symposium, Rural Livelihoods, Empowerment, and the Environment'. Pretoria, South Africa pp. 1054 - 1059

Dalal RC, Strong WM, Weston EJ, Cooper JE, Leahane KJ, King AJ, Chicken CJ (1995) Sustaining productivity of a Vertisol at Warra, Queensland, with fertilisers, no-tillage, or legumes 1. Organic matter status. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 35, 903-13.

Delbecq AL, Van de Ven AH, Gustafson DH (1975) 'Group Techniques for Program Planning - A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes.' (Scott Foresman & Co.: Glenview Illinios)

Hamilton NA (1995) Learning to learn with farmers. An adult learning extension project. PhD thesis, Landbouw University, Wageningen.

Martin A, Sherington J (1997) Participatory Research Methods - Implementation, Effectivenss and Institutional Context. Agricultural Systems 55, 195-216.

McCown RL (2001) Farming Systems Research and Farming Practice. In 'Proceedings of the 10th Australian Agronomy Conference'. Hobart. (Ed. B Rowe). (www.regional.org.au/au/asa/2001/plenary/4/mccown.htm)

Norman D, Collinson M (1985) Farming Systems Research in Theory and Practice. In 'Agricultural Systems Research for Developing Countries'. Richmond, N.S.W., Australia. (Ed. JV Remenyi) pp. 16-30. (ACIAR:Canberra)

Norman DW (2002) The farming systems approach: a historical perspective. In 'Proceedings of the 17th International Farming Systems Association Symposium'. Orlando, U.S.A.

Petheram RJ, Clarke RA (1998) Farming systems research: relevance to Australia. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 38, 101-15.

Reid DJ, Butler DG, Knight SM (2003) Statistics and farming systems research - do they mix? In 'Proceedings 1st Australian Farming Systems Conference'. Toowoomba, Qld Theme 4, Abstract p.172 (Published on CDROM) 7pp.

Remenyi JV, Coxhead I (1985) Farming Systems Research in Australia: Results of a Survey. In 'Agricultural Systems Research for Developing Countries'. Richmond, N.S.W. (Ed. JV Remenyi) pp. 96-106. (ACIAR: Canberra)

Rogers E (1958) Categorizing the adopters of agricultural practices. Rural Sociology 23, 345-354.

Shroud A, Kirby R (2000) The application of FSR technology development. In 'A History of Farming Systems Research'. (Ed. M Collinson) pp. 95-129. (CAB International: London)

Vanclay F, Lawrence G (1995) 'The environmental imperative: eco-social concerns for Australian agriculture.' (Central Queensland University Press: Rockhampton)