Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Attitudes and needs of grain growers to developing lucerne-based farming enterprises

Kieran Ransom1, Nicholas Bate1, Jeff Hirth2 and Michael Crawford1

1Dept. Natural Resources & Environment, Bendigo, Vic. 3550. www.nre.vic.gov.au Email kieran.ransom@nre.vic.gov.au
nicholas.bate@nre.vic.gov.au , michael.crawford@nre.vic.gov.au
2Dept. of Natural Resources & Environment, Rutherglen, Vic. 3685. www.nre.vic.gov.au Email jeff.hirth@nre.vic.gov.au

Abstract

We are involved with an applied research and extension project, working with grower groups across northern Victoria to increase the area of lucerne grown in crop rotations. A formal questionnaire, facilitated discussions and ranking of priorities were used to measure growers’ current practices and attitudes to lucerne. This information is being used to help plan research and extension activities with grower groups. It is also being used to evaluate the success of the project. Strong interest in lucerne was reflected by the good attendance at public meetings. At five initial meetings, a total of 66 growers completed two questionnaires each. Growers attending these meetings already had positive attitudes and aspirations for lucerne use. For these 66 growers, average farm area was 1005 ha with 49% cropped. The area sown to lucerne had increased from 7% to 17% over seven years. If practical problems with lucerne establishment and management could be overcome, they would like to have about 21% of their farm sown to lucerne, without any decrease in the area cropped. When asked to rank activities that would help them to develop better lucerne-crop rotations, the whole-farm economics of lucerne was ranked as the highest priority for future workshops. Other highly ranked priorities included information-sharing sessions on farm and paddock comparisons of lucerne farming practices. This farmer-based research has helped us develop our project and is relevant to other areas of Australia where lucerne in cropping enterprises is being promoted.

Introduction

The development of dryland salinity is a major environmental issue in the grain growing zones of south-eastern Australia. Cropping rotations that include lucerne will help reduce this risk whilst ensuring continued crop productivity (2). Many growers are now successfully incorporating lucerne into their cropping rotations, although the achievement of greater adoption will depend on overcoming a number of agronomic and economic constraints. We are involved in an applied lucerne research and extension project that aims to increase the area of lucerne sown in rotation with cereal crops. We aim to provide grain growers in northern Victoria with relevant technical and economic information through on-farm participatory research, workshops and field days and printed material. Grower meetings were used to investigate initial grower attitudes to lucerne, the results of which are reported in this paper and will guide future extension programs.

Method

Grower meetings were held at Dookie (north east Victoria), Wycheproof and Maryborough (two meetings) (north central Victoria), and Rainbow (northern Wimmera) between November 2001 and April 2002. Localities were selected because of previous and current lucerne promotion activities associated with dryland salinity. Meetings were publicised by personal letters to members of existing salinity management or crop improvement groups. Each meeting had three main components. On arrival growers were asked to complete a questionnaire on their experiences with, and attitudes to lucerne. It took about 20 minutes to complete and was done prior to any reporting or discussion about lucerne so that their initial knowledge, attitudes, skills, aspirations and current practices could be determined for future evaluation of the effectiveness of our project. The meetings then involved discussions on various lucerne issues and concluded with a second questionnaire to identify grower preferences for future local activities on lucerne.

The introductory questionnaire asked about (a) farm details, area of crop, long fallow, pasture and lucerne, and soil types; (b) reasons for growing or not growing lucerne, and perceived benefits and disadvantages for grain crops following lucerne; (c) lucerne establishment success in the past, and plans for the future; and (d) lucerne in cropping rotations-suitability, profitability, grazing practices and livestock management. The second questionnaire contained 14 short questions that required tick-the-box answers, and priority ratings of 1 (very low) to 5 (essential). Questions asked about the types of information sessions they would like (field days, farm walks, bus tours and technical meetings), economic analyses, and local trials and demonstrations.

Results and discussion

The 66 growers who completed the initial questionnaire collectively managed 66,400 hectares and crop 45% of their farm (Table 1). Pasture accounted for 46% of the farm area, 5% was fallowed and 4% was classified as “other” or “unproductive”. The lucerne area had increased from 7% seven years ago to 17% currently. If establishment and management problems limiting their use of lucerne could be overcome, they would like to have about 21% of their farm sown to lucerne in seven years time.

Table 1: Summary of farm details from the initial questionnaire.

 

Growers completing question-naire

Growers with
some lucerne

Growers with lucerne in future plans

Average annual
rainfall
(mm)

Average
farm area
(ha)

Crop area
(% total farm)

Current pasture
area (% total farm)

Current lucerne
area (% total farm)

Dookie

16

13

16

554

638

41

51

7

Maryborough (north)

9

9

9

500

651

25

70

13

Maryborough (west)

18

14

18

472

1107

39

58

20

Rainbow

4

4

4

368

1618

76

16

10

Wycheproof

19

16

19

378

1233

49

37

19

All groups

        

1005

45

46

17

The farm practices of growers attending the Wycheproof and Rainbow meetings were compared with the 1996 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) farm census data for the surrounding shires (Table 2). This indicated that growers attending these meetings were a highly selected group with a strong interest in lucerne. For instance, growers attending the meeting at Wycheproof had 17% of their farm under lucerne while the average for the Buloke shire was 1.7%. At this meeting, 96% of growers had lucerne on their farm while across the Buloke shire only 12% of farms had some lucerne. There was little difference in the percentage of farm under crop between growers attending the Wycheproof meeting (49%) and in the surrounding shire (51%). The findings for growers attending the Rainbow meeting and the surrounding Yarriambiack shire were similar (Tables 1 and 2). Based on the 1999 ABS farm census data (only 20% population surveyed), the area of lucerne in the Yarriambiack and Buloke shires was estimated to have increased by 0.3% in both shires, to 1.1% and 2.0% of total farm area respectively, which is still well below the values from our survey.

Table 2: Selected data on cropping intensity and lucerne pastures from ABS 1996 farm census for the shires in which the Wycheproof (Buloke) and Rainbow (Yarriambiack) meetings were held.

 

Number of holdings

Number of holdings with crop (%)

Number of holdings with lucerne (%)

Average farm area (ha)

Crop area
(% total farm)

Lucerne area (% total farm)

Buloke

799

91

13

891

51

1.7

Yarriambiack

776

95

7

785

54

0.8

Over 85% of growers completing our questionnaire believed that lucerne benefited crop growth, grain yield, soil nitrogen and soil structure (Table 3). Questionnaire results and meeting discussions indicated concern over the effects of drier soil profiles after lucerne on grain yield, grain size and percent screenings in lower rainfall areas, while in higher rainfall areas several growers reported very good crops with high grain proteins after lucerne.

From the questionnaire, 126 paddocks had been sown to lucerne over the previous 3 years; of these, growers classified 71% as successful, 19% as partially successful and 10% as failures. While this success rate is good, other questionnaire results indicated that establishment issues still concern many growers (Table 4). Almost one third of growers had indicated that “establishment difficulties” prevented them from growing larger areas of dryland lucerne. However, few growers thought there were “too many practical problems with lucerne establishment and management to make it successful on our farm”. Establishment costs did not seem to be a major factor. Discussions during the meetings, and results from the second questionnaire, indicated that growers are keen to learn from each other on this topic. Preferred activities were local paddock inspections and discussions.

Table 3: Growers’ perceptions on the effects of lucerne on the following grain crops.

Lucerne effect

Beneficial effect
(%)

No effect
(%)

Negative effect
(%)

General crop growth after lucerne

89

11

0

Crop yields after lucerne

86

14

0

Grain quality (protein, grain size, screenings) after lucerne

65

29

6

Soil nitrogen status after lucerne

89

9

3

Soil water status after lucerne

32

29

38

Soil structure after lucerne

85

9

6

Table 4: Growers’ perceptions on the success of lucerne establishment under dryland conditions.

Lucerne establishment factors

Disagree
%

Neutral
%

Agree
%

Costs of establishment are too high to justify returns

57

32

11

Failure rates are too high

49

36

15

Establishment difficulties a deterrent to sowing larger areas

52

19

29

Too many practical problems with establishment and management

74

21

5

Growers attending our Wycheproof meeting had similar areas of their farms under crop, compared with growers across the Buloke shire (Tables 1 and 2). This suggests they are no less committed to cropping - but have replaced annual pastures with lucerne. Over the 5 meetings only 22% thought that “cropping is our main enterprise and lucerne has no role in our farming situation” (Table 5). Positive attitudes to lucerne-crop rotations were also supported by 61% of growers who agreed that they would “prefer mostly lucerne pastures if the practical problems with lucerne were overcome”.

Table 5: Growers’ perceptions on the suitability and management of lucerne in mixed farming enterprises.

Lucerne suitability and management

Disagree
(%)

Neutral
(%)

Agree
(%)

Annual legumes are better suited to our situation than dryland lucerne

29

46

26

Cropping is our main enterprise and lucerne doesn’t have a role on our farm

78

16

6

If practical problems with lucerne were overcome, we would prefer mostly lucerne pastures

8

31

61

Dryland lucerne has little or no place in our future plans

91

6

3

Rotational grazing is very difficult to carry out on our farm

57

17

26

A previous survey of randomly selected growers in north central Victoria (1) indicated that suitable grazing practices for lucerne were a concern, especially in lower rainfall areas where paddock sizes are larger. Growers attending our meetings had more positive attitudes to managing lucerne and stock together. For example, 57% did not support the statement that “rotational grazing of lucerne is very difficult to carry out on our farm” (Table 5). Most growers (72%) believed that lucerne-crop rotations were profitable (Table 6). Only 5% thought that there was no economic justification for investing in dryland lucerne enterprises. Discussions during and following our meetings have yet to find one grower who has undertaken a detailed economic analysis of their lucerne-crop rotations. Very high ratings were given to future activities involving economic analyses of lucerne establishment, livestock enterprises with lucerne, crops after lucerne and the benefit of lucerne to the whole farm business.

Table 6: Growers’ perceptions on the effects of lucerne on the profitability of their farm.

Profitability of lucerne

Disagree
(%)

Neutral
(%)

Agree
(%)

Increased areas of dryland lucerne would increase our overall profitability

5

24

72

Current economic conditions don’t warrant investments in lucerne

71

24

5

Conclusion

Although the growers attending our meetings are not a random sample, they have very positive attitudes to the role of lucerne in their cropping enterprises. They represent a core group of growers who are keen to make crop rotations with lucerne work better. Their positive attitudes were similar to the market segment of “established lucerne growers’’ who made up 6% of growers in a random survey of growers in north central Victoria (1). This project will address the needs of these motivated growers in making grain – lucerne farming systems a profitable practical alternative.

Most growers with substantial areas of lucerne are still developing their farming practices. There was wide support for all types of information and activities, including economic analyses, local farm walks, and farm-scale demonstrations and trials. Even growers involved with benchmarking groups have not yet undertaken economic analyses of the benefits of lucerne to their cropping enterprises. These groups will continue to be core drivers for the integration of lucerne with grain crops on-farm and have highlighted the need to test lucerne guidelines under local conditions. As well, economic assessments that consider the benefits, costs and risks associated with a transition to lucerne-crop rotations are needed. The first stage of our project has been to work with this self-selected group of growers to assist them in realising their aspirations for lucerne in their cropping enterprises.

Currently crop-lucerne rotations can neither be proved nor disproved to be as profitable as crop-only farms. Even if they could be, we cannot simply assume they will gain wider acceptance. The promotion of lucerne to the wider cropping community raises many other issues. The very positive attitudes to lucerne of the random group of growers in north central Victoria (1), possibly because they do not consider their soils suitable for continuous cropping, may not be reflected elsewhere in Victoria. Discussions by the authors with farmers from other districts, who have very high cropping intensities on suitable soils, and their cropping advisers, raise many negative attitudes to lucerne. These farmers consider crop-lucerne rotations are likely to be less profitable because of their livestock component and in some cases there is a personal preference for working with crops and machinery rather than with livestock. As well, in lower rainfall areas, there is still considerable farmer and scientific debate concerning ground water recharge and the necessity or frequency of a lucerne phase. Thus this project aims to develop a suite of options based on thorough economic analyses for a range of soils and climates.

Acknowledgments

The Grains Research and Development Corporation and the Grains program of the Victorian Department of Natural Resources and Environment fund this work through DAV 453 “Increasing lucerne adoption in farming systems, an integrated approach”.

References

(1) Ransom, K. and Barr, N., (1994) The adoption of dryland lucerne in north-central Victoria. Research Report Series No 151. Dept. Agriculture, Victoria.

(2) Whitfield, D.M. and O’Connell, M.G. 2001. Proc. 10th Aust. Agron. Conf., Hobart, http://www.regional.org.au/au/asa/2001/5/a/whitfield.htm

Previous PageTop Of PageNext Page

...

Search Site