Search

This paper presents results from a review of methods of agricultural extension, including the evidence for the effectiveness of methods in supporting farm practice change, how they affect the change process, and the critical success factors involved. Agricultural scientists face challenges in aligning their research outputs to the change process on farm. These challenges are exacerbated by the funding environment for research, development, and extension (RD&E), the complexity of the adoption process and the privatisation and commercialisation of advisory and extension services. To assist scientists in navigating these challenges, a structured literature review of extension methods was conducted, examining the following: group-learning/peer-topeer; technology development; training; information provision; one-on-one advice/coaching; e-extension; co-innovation; best management practice; and social marketing. In addition, two case studies outlining the application of combinations of extension methods in the context of feeding system challenges in the Australian dairy industry, and their effects, are described. While the evidence across the studies reviewed was strongest for the effect on adoption of small group-learning and one to one consulting, it was combinations of methods that resulted in larger effects (for example, in practice change or profitability), which was credited to how they addressed the human and social dimensions of the adoption process. Case studies of adoption in the dairy sector found that scientists influenced adoption by collaborating with the private sector, being directly involved with on-farm trials and demonstrations, and supporting grouplearning approaches to help the adoption of past research. This role for scientists in adoption was enabled by investment in programs of RD&E rather than discreet research experiments, and research designs and methods that incorporated the social dimensions of adoption. This synthesis demonstrates the need for scientists to be proactive in providing guidance for farmers on where to access and source information related to their work, engage with a broad range of advisor types associated with their research field, champion in-field trials and/or demonstrations and be active participants in collaborative approaches to RD&E. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Social aspects of livestock farming systems, including farm workforce and how work is organised, have received less research attention than the biophysical and technological aspects. This constrains understanding of social challenges to the sustainability of livestock systems, such as farm labour shortages, farmers' overwork, the undesirability of farming careers, workforce and skills changes linked to new technologies, and the connections of all these to farm performance and profitability. Aims: We introduce and test the applicability and utility in the Australian context of a method developed in France for assessing work organisation: The Work Assessment Method (WAM). The WAM goes beyond standard labour productivity metrics, such as total labour cost or livestock units per worker, to examine different types of work (routine, seasonal), who does the work (owner–managers, employees, contractors) and how these change seasonally. A measure of social sustainability ('calculated time available') is a key feature. Methods: We conducted the first Australian trial of the WAM on two Victorian dairy farms. Through facilitated discussions between participating farmers and the research team, we evaluated the utility of the method, and identified requirements to adapt it for larger, pasture-based dairy systems. Key results: The WAM was applied successfully on the pilot farms, despite differences in farm systems between France and Australia. The method characterised in detail the sources of overwork for each farm, enabling discussion of how the social sustainability and overall performance of the farms could be improved. The participating farmers reported that the method provided insights that were not available from current financial and physical analyses. Conclusions: The WAM shows potential for supporting farmers, advisors and researchers in work aimed at improving farm social sustainability and profitability, but requires adaptation to suit Australian conditions. A larger exploratory study applying the WAM on additional dairy farms, and on mixed farms, is suggested. Implications: This study provides a strong foundation for further research to develop the WAM as a useful research and advisory tool for Australian livestock production systems. Farmers, advisors and researchers need better methods for analysing farm work, to address challenges affecting the social sustainability and profitability of livestock farming. We report results from the first Australian trial of a method developed in France for assessing farm work organisation: The Work Assessment Method. Participating farmers reported that the Work Assessment Method provided insights not available from standard physical and financial analyses and the study provides a foundation for research to further develop the Work Assessment Method for Australian livestock production systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]