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]

Adaptive governance relies on the collaboration of a diverse set of stakeholders in multiple institutions and organizations at different times and places. In the context of unprecedented water policy and management reform in Australia over the past decade, we add to insights from resilience scholarship, which identifies adaptive governance as critical to improving complex social-ecological systems, such as water management. We present empirical research with agricultural industry stakeholders who are responding to a major change initiative to renew or modernize the largest irrigation system in Australia's Murray Darling Basin and who ask: "What can a resilience assessment intervention contribute to adaptive water governance in this context?" Using resilience approaches and connecting these with insights from science and technology studies (STS), we found that a particular resilience assessment intervention supported dairy industry stakeholders to manage the complexity, uncertainty, and diversity of an irrigation modernization governance challenge. It did so by explicitly accounting for, representing, and aligning different water governing practices through the use of resilience concepts, a particular resilience assessment tool, and a participatory process for engaging social actors. Possibilities for adaptive governance emerged from the intervention in the form of new joint strategic actions and new understandings, alliances, and roles between people and institutions for addressing irrigation modernization. [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]

Abstract: Policymakers and innovation scholars share an increasing interest in how to operationalize innovation support given the increasing number and range of stakeholders engaged in co-producing innovation. Using comparative case study analysis, this article examines support initiatives for dairy sector innovation in The Netherlands and Australia, addressing common challenges such as environmental issues, cattle health, new technology, and human resources. To this end, a review was conducted of documented information and articles published on the initiatives. The qualitative analysis focused on how the co-production process was supported and the achievements and challenges associated with each case. Across both countries and between different initiatives, the main achievements were found to be the generation of very different ideas addressing dairy sector challenges and attempting to bridge public and private sector interests. The main challenges included maintaining effort and momentum for high ambition targets and the potential for duplication as stakeholders became enrolled in different initiatives sponsored by different organizations in an increasingly devolved institutional setting. Furthermore, without strong institutional support for innovation co-production processes, individual actors were less able to operate effectively in innovation co-production roles. It is concluded that dairy sector innovation policies should address institutional constraints (e.g. provision of leadership and rewards for involvement in co-production processes), recognize that facilitation of innovation co-production needs to be adequately resourced, enhance support for initiative coordination to avoid duplication of effort, and take into account the specific institutional setting of countries and sectors to guide the design of innovation co-production support initiatives. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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]

Farmers face many challenges, including climate variability, that require continual adaptation. However, studies of farm adaptation have paid limited attention to the farm workforce, despite changes in farm workforce organisation (i.e. the number, type and forms of employment on farm) being a significant feature of agricultural change globally. To effectively support farmers’ adaptation, it is important to understand farmers’ workforce strategies (i.e. how farm workforce organisation supports the needs and priorities of the farm), how workforce choices are made and the implications for adaptation. This paper progresses a framework for analysing farm adaptability, including the farm workforce. Bringing together theories of livelihoods analysis and strategic human resource management, the farm workforce strategies of 16 case study farms in the Australian cotton production sector are analysed. Cotton production is exposed to major resource constraints, such as irrigation water. We interviewed farmers and collected data on farm business performance, workforce organisation choices, human resource management practices and employees’ experiences of work. We integrated data to characterise farm workforce decision-making and the relationship between workforce strategies and farm adaptability for each farm. A cross-case analysis explored differences between farms. A diversity of workforce strategies was found, involving combinations of workforce options, defined as ‘core’, ‘contract’ and ‘casual’ workers at different levels of skills and experience. Farm workforce strategies were found to influence and be influenced by sources of financial capital, irrigation water availability/holdings, farm remoteness, new farm infrastructure and human resource management practices. The farm workforce was a response option to provide production flexibility, yet high adaptability was associated with some negative consequences for managers and employees. We show for the first time the influence of farm workforce organisation dynamics in adaptation and negative consequences of high farm adaptability. ‘Factoring-in’ the farm workforce in sustainable development studies should therefore be a priority. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

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]