Search

The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension (JAEE) has announced changes to its editorial team. Dr. Kristin Davis and Prof. Laurens Klerkx served as editors-in-chief, working to improve the quality and scope of the journal. They encouraged submissions on new topics such as digitalization and changes in advisory organizations. The journal has also transitioned to an online-only format to save resources and reduce emissions. Dr. Fernando Landini and Prof. Ruth Nettle will take over as the new editors-in-chief, ensuring continuity and bringing new directions to the journal. The JAEE has seen an increase in impact factor and is now a Q1 journal in the Web of Science Social Sciences Citation Index. The new editors-in-chief express their commitment to continuing the journal's growth and contributions to agricultural education and extension. [Extracted from the article]

Purpose: Current developments in the Australian agricultural research, development and extension (RD&E) system exemplify the complex governance challenges arising from the international privatisation of agricultural extension. Presenting early challenges emerging from a multi-stakeholder project aimed at stimulating the role of the private advisory sector in the RD&E system, this paper contributes to understanding change dynamics in the RD&E system. Methodology: The project applies action research to assist reframing current RD&E governance arrangements towards an enhanced, pluralistic and collaborative system. This paper uses multi-level transition theory (MLP) to explore the dynamics of change by describing the "regime" of the current Australian RD&E system, wherein the project is an emergent "niche-in-the-making". Findings: The regime-based challenges arising from the unfolding Australian project collaboration allow critical assessment of the first moves of niche formation initiated by the project. Initial findings suggest a persisting instrumentalist conceptualisation of the private sector's role in the RD&E system solely as extension providers. This is in tension with the project vision of supporting new roles for private sector advisers as key actors in the governance of co-innovation processes. Practical implications: In describing these challenges and considering how the project's action research can facilitate participant responses, we contribute to understanding how niche formation can be supported in Australia and internationally. Theoretical implications: The paper contributes to a research agenda related to the governance of agricultural advisory services via an analysis of social practice elements that constitute internal niche processes. Originality: Enabling critical analysis of the incumbent regime of the current RD&E system, this framework provides insights into how niche responses aimed at the RD&E system change can be supported.

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]

Purpose: This article outlines the emergence of programme teams in the Australian dairy farm sector as a response to counter weaknesses in the institutional environment for agricultural innovation which favours technology adoption/diffusion approaches. Design/methodology/approach: The strengths, weaknesses and risks of different approaches to innovation in the Australian dairy sector RD&E system are analysed and key features of an emerging programme team approach defined. The programme team approach is compared and contrasted with the features of innovation capacity from international literature. An analysis of the relative investment in this innovation capacity in different topics or domains of dairy innovation is provided. Findings: The programme team approach to innovation involves groups of researchers, extension people, public and private organisations, farmers, community groups, and policy and service groups brought together to progress innovation and change in a topic area or domain. Leadership of the process is provided by an area expert or champion. The team takes responsibility for: (a) understanding the businesses of key players who have an influence in the innovation or domain; (b) deciding the nature of the desired change that all stakeholders can align to; (c) identifying features of the enabling environment to establish what capacity is needed; (d) designing a "route to change" strategy (in contrast to traditional route-to-market thinking); and (e) piloting and refining the approach within the target populations. The group manages emerging risks and keeps on top of issues, as well as identifies any knowledge gaps for research that are preventing innovation and change. Conclusions/practical implications: The programme team approach provides a semi-formal governance mechanism for innovation to develop, despite an institutional environment that favours technology adoption. Further, the activities of programme teams consist of practices which integrate research-led and demand-pull approaches. Currently, investment in such innovation capacity is relatively low and highly variable across different topic domains. Added value: The article provides tangible activities that managers of agricultural RD&E programmes can invest in to progress systemic approaches to innovation and is a guide for agricultural education and extension practitioners to proceed in their innovation work. (Contains 3 tables and 2 figures.)

Water issues are a feature of public debate in Australia. The increasing privatisation of water and changes to water allocation systems are resulting in change, often referred to as water "wars" (de Villiers, 1999). The Australian dairy industry uses 25% of the surface irrigation water in Australia. How does a rural industry like dairying negotiate a future? What is the role of broker professions like extension in supporting change in this context? We focus on three critical issues to address these questions: farm-level adaptation; new technologies; and balancing environmental and productive water-use. Two case studies of farm decision-making and advisory practice suggest that managing complexity in water issues requires learning processes at three levels: farmer-advisor; advisors-policy; advisors-other disciplines-policy. We conclude there is a need for a framework to guide an ethical response to water policy, bringing farm adaptation and advisory practice to implement change. (Contains 1 figure.)

Managing the competing interests of productivity growth, environmental concerns, landscape change and societal expectations presents challenges for agricultural industries. Innovation projects supporting knowledge development to address these challenges often involve partnerships with commercial farms, a methodology which promises much but has inherent challenges as well. This paper will examine the requirements of learning partnerships between farmers, research and extension (as members of innovation projects) to address conditions of complexity. We review designs for the involvement of commercial farms in innovation projects and explore the conditions for effective learning partnerships using two case studies from the Australian dairy industry. Learning partnerships with commercial farms can contribute to addressing the conditions of complexity faced by agricultural industries. Our analysis suggests that the conditions for effective learning partnerships involve the active negotiation of learning roles between farmers, researchers and advisors. This requires a unique form of facilitation to support the learning environment and use of learning tools, assisting project teams to act on complex issues. As learning partners, commercial farms in innovation projects are an effective response to the challenges of complexity in agricultural innovation. (Contains 1 figure.)

This editorial introduces a special issue (SI) concerning quests for responsible digital agri‐food innovation. We present our interpretations of the concepts of responsible innovation and digital agri‐food innovation and show why they can and have been productively interrelated with social science theories and methods. First, each of the articles in this SI is briefly introduced and synthesised around three themes: (1) the need for a critique of digital 'solutionism' in current interdisciplinary research, development and innovation settings; (2) that social science contributes value via the ideas it brings to life to challenge dominant power dynamics and (3) that social scientific imagination and practice is a valuable long‐term investment to both mitigate risk but also embrace socioenvironmental opportunities as we face ongoing sustainability crises into the future. Second, we identify future research considerations arising within the field, sitting at the intersection of social science and agricultural sociotechnical transitions. Our insights relate to challenges and opportunities to 'do' social science within the context of contemporary and nascent transitions such as increasing digitalisation. Researchers trained in social science theory and practice can make distinctive contributions to agri‐food innovation processes by making social stakes visible and by advancing inclusive processes of research policy and technology design. [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]

The concept of responsible innovation is gaining traction in the Smart Farming field to address emerging socio-ethical issues such as power asymmetries between farmers and technology development companies in farm data ownership, and animal welfare issues arising from the automation of livestock management. Responsible innovation involves the democratisation of science and decision making for societal control of innovations. The application of responsible innovation principles to the adoption phase of Smart Farming technologies is an under explored area in terms of defining what responsible adoption practices are for Smart Farming, and with what effect. This empirical research aims to provide insights into what responsible adoption practices might involve, based on application of a responsible innovation approach to designing a cross-industry adoption strategy for a virtual fencing technology in Australia. This case study also examines what responsible adoption practices mean for enacting responsible innovation of Smart Farming technologies more broadly. A participatory Technology Assessment (pTA) approach engaged a range of virtual fencing technology end-users (livestock producers) and stakeholders (agricultural advisers, natural resource managers, food retailers, a food processor, and state government department staff) (n = 80). The participants identified and considered the benefits and risks of implementing a specific virtual fencing product in various contexts. The engagement methods were 12 interactive workshops organized in peer/sector groups and one reflective and deliberative consultation process with 13 adoption specialists and practitioners to define an adoption pathway for virtual herding technology. The adoption of the virtual herding technology product requires multiple levels of support to ensure that the technology is used responsibly and generates private, industry and public goods. This prospective knowledge, built from the considerations of end-users and stakeholders, was integrated into a virtual herding adoption strategy, and accounted for animal welfare concerns, the empowerment of producers to lead their own adoption support network and the desire for some form of regulatory governance. The responsible adoption practices were limited by the lack of institutional pathways to mobilise the strategy beyond the life of the research project. The research indicates that there is value in further pursuing the notion of responsible adoption practices for Smart Farming technologies. These practices need to be designed for understanding the complexity of the adoption situation, testing the assumptions about what the 'right' adoption pathway should be, and inclusive participation in the ongoing governance of adoption pathways. [Display omitted] • Responsible innovation principles have not been extensively applied in the adoption phase of smart farming technologies. • A participatory Technology Assessment approach was used to the adoption of a virtual fencing technology in Australia. • Responsible adoption practices that engaged various stakeholders highlighted the complexities with adopting this technology. • Complexities were managed by integrating adoption values expressed by stakeholders into a 'responsible' adoption strategy. • More research into designing responsible adoption practices and ways to mobilize adoption strategies is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research in innovation studies suggests that appropriate starting conditions are required if alignment of research to practice and policy is to be enabled. To achieve this alignment, a scoping exercise is required and must involve those people and institutions that have an interest in the research. This paper describes a consultation process to develop aBlueprint for Regional Water Productivityin Australia through a new research initiative at the University of Melbourne. This Blueprint was developed through a two-stage consultation project in which opportunities and constraints for system innovation in regional water productivity in Australia were identified and discussed with key stakeholders without pre-empting research or development questions. In this paper, we ask: Did this consultation process constitute a platform for innovation in research practices? In addressing this question, we describe this process and suggest that it constituted a fledgling platform for innovation in research practices characterised by new social arrangements, material exchanges and the discursive object of `innovation systems'. However, the potential for institutional change from this platform will depend on continued deliberation between water sector actors in new routines of research-development practice, and collective action through the formalisation of new partnerships between researchers, practitioners and policy-makers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Using the framework of Adult Learning Theory, this study worked to uncover the composition of rural landowners' information sources and learner characteristics that impact information-seeking behavior among maple syrup producers in Wisconsin. Design: Regression models were used to analyze data from a survey targeted at Wisconsin maple syrup producers (N = 677). Findings: Maple syrup producers mostly learn through interactions with peers and underutilize expert resources, but opinion leaders and early adopters of new technologies are more likely to seek information through both formal and informal knowledge networks than maple producers who are not influencers in their community. Extrinsic motivation was associated with maple producers' tendency to engage in optimal knowledge acquisition, whereas intrinsic motivation was not. Practical implications: Professionals can optimize resources to design outreach programs and develop marketing strategies by targeting landowners based on their learner characteristics. Theoretical implications: Our research contributes to the adult learning literature and advances the theoretical understanding of micro-Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems by investigating the influence of different types of learning motivations on optimal knowledge acquisition. Originality/Value: This study identified landowner characteristics related to optimal knowledge acquisition and is the first to highlight the roles of family legacy and social norms as motivators that drive maple producers to acquire new skills and knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Digitalization and the use of Smart Farming Technologies are considered a major opportunity for the future of agriculture. However, realisation of full benefits is constrained by: (1) farmers' interest in and use of big data to improve farm decision making; (2) issues of data sovereignty and trust between providers and users of data and technology; (3) institutional arrangements associated with the governance of data platforms. This paper examines the case of Australia's dairy herd milk recording system, arguably one of agriculture's first cases of 'big data' use, which collects, analyses and uses farm-level data (milk production, lactation and breeding records) to provide individual cow and herd performance information, used by individual farmers for farm management decisions. The aim of this study was to 1) examine the use of big data to add value to farm decision making; and 2) explore factors and processes, including institutional arrangements, which influence farmer engagement with and use of big data. This paper traces the Australian history of the organisation of dairy herd recording (established in 1912 and digitalized in late 1970s) and then uses findings from a longitudinal study of 7 case study dairy farms, which were incentivised to become involved in herd recording in 2015. Applying a conceptual framework linking path dependency in farm decision making and collaborative governance capacity, we find three new important dimensions of the farm user context influencing farmer demand for big data applications: 1) the transition to a new business stage; 2) the additionality farmers seek from data generated in one component of the farm system to other subsystems, and 3) the use of data in long term or strategic decision making. Further, we identified critical attributes of support services in addressing digital literacy, capacity and capability issues at farm level, including diversity in data presentation formats and facilitation of the on-farm transition process through intermediary herd test organisations. The role of farmers as governance actors, or citizens in the decisions of the trajectory of big data applications, adds to understanding of the nature of collaborative governance arrangements that support farm engagement. • Farmer interest in data relates to business stage and the decision's importance. • Cooperative governance structures facilitate farmer trust and use of big data. • Support services reduce the impact of low digital literacy, capacity and capability. • Inter-dependence occurs between existing data processes and optimising data use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Digital innovation is a key challenge for farm advisers in realising the 'value' of smart farming technologies to their businesses. • A co-design process with farm advisers supported them to effectively do digital innovation. • Symbolic (or representational) practices should be recognised as particularly important in digital innovation. • Digiware is an innovation domain that is constituted in and by diverse digital innovation practices. The promise of technology development in agriculture is well publicised with some claiming that digital disruption will transform the way farming and food production is done in the future. For farm advisers, engaging in smart farming involves managing the proliferation of new forms of information, new knowledge and networks and new technical devices that produce digitised representations of farm performance. The nature and effects of digital practices in particular poses challenges for farm advisers as they seek to understand how digital tools and services can be integrated into their service delivery for improved farm decision making. In this paper we present insights from a co-design process with private farm advisers and ask: What enables farm advisers to engage with digital innovation? And, how can digital innovation be supported and practiced in smart farming contexts? Digital innovation presents challenges for farmers and advisers due to the new relationships, skills, arrangements, techniques and devices required to realise value for farm production and profitability from digital tools and services. We show how a co-design process supported farm advisers to adapt their routine advisory practices through recognising and engaging with the social, material and symbolic practices of digiware in smart farming. We demonstrate the need to recognise 'digiware as constituted in and by heterogeneous practices from which possibilities for digital innovation emerge. These possibilities include the increased capacity of farm advisers to identify the value proposition of smart farming tools and services for theirs and their clients' businesses, and the adaptation of advisory services in ways that harnass and mobilise diverse skills, knowledge/s, materials and representations for translating digital data, digital infrastructure and digital capacities into better decisions for farm management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Advisors need the knowledge and capability to determine technology value proposition. • Greater cloud-based data and video calling will redefine farmer-advisor relationships. • Advisor knowledge needs to merge with smart farming data for hybrid knowledge systems. • Back-office advisory services will include more data-analysis for farmers. Increased use of data from smart farming technologies presents an opportunity for farmers to better understand their farm systems, and thereby improve outcomes for productivity, sustainability, and animal care. A research gap exists regarding the impact of data-driven smart farming on the relationship between advisors and farmers, and advisors and farm data/technology. Therefore, we asked: how are farmers and advisors interacting with data-driven smart farming, and what are the implications for farm advisor capability and roles in a future where farmers use more data-driven smart farming? We studied advisory roles, advisor-farmer interactions, and new technologies in the context of three case studies: i) automated cow body condition scoring in New Zealand; ii) precision grazing management in New Zealand; and iii) the Soil Water Outlook tool in the Australian grains and lamb sectors. We propose a conceptual framework involving on-farm adaptation, learning, capability development and organizational roles. The findings show that smart technologies exhibit potentially disruptive features for farm management, necessitating greater input from a farmer's advisory network to facilitate optimal farm system adaptation. This has implications for the nature of the advisory relationship, where advisory capabilities evolve to include skills on determining technology value propositions alongside farmers and new skills are built for linking data to better decision-making on farm. This paper contributes to improved understanding of how back-office advisory roles may move from information gathering, to remote data interpretation due to data-driven smart farming. We identify the advisor's role in acting as a sensemaker in the smart farming innovation system, rather than a promoter or barrier to technology uptake. Further adaptation of advisory practices is required to enable greater value from data-driven smart farming to be captured by farmers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The organization of work and changes in patterns of working life is of increasing concern to farmers worldwide. This creates challenges for advisors, who do not always know (i) how to recognize farmers' or their own needs for knowledge and new approaches to farm work organization or (ii) how to assess different methods of advice to tackle this issue. How are advisors responding to this concern and what are the implications for advisory roles and the advisory situation? In this paper, we review the situation of farm work organization changes and advisory responses. We describe a conceptual framework integrating different foundations relating to work organization on farms, the farmer-advisor relationship and methods of advice. Applying this framework to farm work organization and advisory responses in Australia, Belgium, France and Uruguay, our findings are as follows: (i) the specific characteristics of work are a source of difficulties for both farmers and advisors; (ii) for the farmers, work is a very personal subject linked to identity; (iii) for the advisors, it requires different methods of advisory practice and skills; (iv) success of advisory roles in the context of farm work requires the control of various 'role statements'; and (v) the organizational framework in which advisors carry out their activity, as well as specific training, can make it easier to identify and organize the skills. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research addressing the challenges emerging from the development and diffusion of digital technologies has grown rapidly in recent years. However, much of this literature tends to overlook the immersion of these technologies into our everyday lives. This everyday digitalization cannot be reduced to specific technological innovations and is obviously a crucial aspect of the social changes introduced by digital technologies. This themed issue sets out to explore the everyday dimension of digitalization, in the specific context of agri-food systems. We propose a collection of papers that contribute to opening new approaches to digitalization in food and agriculture, by concentrating the attention on the mundane and ordinary aspects of digitalization and exploring their potential contributions to profound transformations in agri-food systems. The various forms of everyday digitalization that are presented in this symposium offer two particular ways of critically engaging with the digitalization of agriculture and food. Firstly, our everyday digitalization looks beyond examining the impacts of digitalization and positioning digital technologies in opposition to farmers, consumers, government, or other actors. Secondly, we shed light on the politics of uncertainty, which enables us to make anticipatory actions and see things beyond success and failure. What we observe is how these imaginaries participate in the co-production of digital realities through their encounter with the complexity of everyday life. Therefore, it remains essential to engage critically with both the imaginary and the everyday dimensions of digitalization in their multiplicity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The advancement of water sustainability and reliance is highly dependent on the innovative ideas implemented in the sector. However, despite water being a vital resource, the water sector still faces many challenges in terms of innovations in comparison to other sectors. This study investigated different aspects of innovation activities in the water sector in the case of Kazakhstan and neighboring countries. The potential water-related issues calling for more innovation activities in the field are also expounded. Moreover, the potential effect of the COVID-19 global pandemic is also highlighted, based on a questionnaire survey conducted among different water-related firms. The innovation datasets were divided into three different decades to investigate the potential influence of a 10-year period on the characteristics of the innovation activities in the water sector; whereby, a p-value of approximately 0.014 was retrieved from the analysis of variance (less than the significance threshold of 0.05). As a result of our findings, it can be stated that there were statistically significant differences in terms of innovation during the three decades investigated in this study. Moreover, a relatively high correlation was observed between wastewater handling tariffs and the number of patented innovations, with a correlation coefficient of 0.868; however, there was a weak correlation between water supply tariffs and patented innovations, with a correlation coefficient of 0.333. Based on the questionnaire survey, it was observed that the innovation disruption caused by COVID-19 in terms of the motivation in water-related innovations has impacted more of the large-scale water firms than the small-scale firms. Therefore, the results derived in this study further reveal that there is a significant need to invest more towards innovation in the water sector, especially regarding large-scale firms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper aims to examine interactions between demonstrations at programme level and Agricultural Advisory Services (AAS). It situates analysis of the demonstration programme activities within contemporary advisory contexts, asking: how do demonstration programmes interact with the AAS in which they are situated; and what role do demonstration programmes play in enhancing and contributing to the AAS? Data, pertaining to organisational arrangements, were collected using interviews and workshops representing 35 demonstration programmes across Europe. Themes from the literature together with emergent themes were used to progressively unpack and understand the interaction between the programmes and the AAS. Demonstration organisational arrangements show different degrees of embedding in, and adapting to, the AAS. Embedding is being incorporated into existing formalised structures and is more likely in the AAS with a low level of pluralism. Adaptation occurs through collaboration, partnership and networking and is more likely in more pluralistic AAS. The need to support demonstration programmes to create more stable networks, to strengthen their linking role in the AAS, and to foster strategies for the progression of farmers' learning was identified. The paper contributes to the literature by providing insights at the demonstration programme level (as opposed to farm or event level) and revealing embedded and adaptive processes with many interdependencies between the programmes and AAS components. This paper opens up new perspectives on understanding how demonstrations are positioned in contemporary AAS contexts, looking at AAS influences on delivering demonstrations beyond farm and event level methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Understand the emergence of new potential career trajectories in the liberalised Irish dairy farming sector through analysis of the narratives of students of a Professional Diploma in Dairy Farm Management Design/methodology/approach: A review of the literature highlights that entry to a working life in agriculture has been characterised by protracted farm succession processes; a strong association between being a farmer and owning land in the family name; lingering male identities esteeming manual labour; and a pragmatic need at farm level for manual work. The abolition of milk quota in 2015 was predicted to catalyse expansion of production on dairy farms with an increase in milk production; accompanied by a demand for qualified personnel. The BNIM method was employed. Findings: Results confirm that agricultural education is perceived and experienced as offering new pathways for young farmers to enter the occupational category of 'farmer', helping to manoeuvre around the constraints of non-inheritance. The students' narratives evidenced managerial identities, being strongly influenced by encountering management approaches through their agricultural education. All students desired to eventually own a farm someday and to be to employed as a professional dairy farm manager was a perceived as an intermediary goal. Practical implication: Discontinuation of the traditional family farming model based on family farm/land ownership is not imminent even among a cohort qualified to become employed dairy farm managers. Theoretical implication: This paper contributes to theoretical framework which highlights the shift in farmer masculine identity and the career trajectory of graduates of specialised agricultural education programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]