1.1.Purpose of the review (Given)
Many extension and adoption programs that have aimed to improve productivity have failed to result in widespread change in farming practices. The purpose of this review is to provide generic recommendations on how funding for extension and adoption programs to improve the productivity of the red meat industries across southern Australia can be used more effectively, through looking look at investments made past extensive and adoption programs.
There has been an increasing international demand in protein which means that the future of the Australian red meat industries is bright (PWC). This is due to the increase in global population especially in developing countries such as Korea and China (World population review). Australia exports about 60% of their produce due to the relatively small population domestically. In this report, the focus is on funding for extension and adoption models which aim to increase the productivity of Southern Australian cattle, sheep and goat industries to meet the demands of their major export markets such as Korea, Russia, Japan and the rising market in China.
Beef farms in the Southern Australian are more intensive with high quality flavour and marbling meat than the northern counterpart, selling to high value export markets (PWC). Australia has been the largest sheep exporter in the world (MLA). These were made possible much to the Research, Development and Extension (RD&E) programs implemented into the industries in the past 2 decades, which have already set the stage for an increase in productivity, making Australia one of the few exporters to have a steady growth in their herds and flocks towards an increase in export volumes. However, despite the foreseeable growing demands, combinations of local and global issues have risen putting the industries in challenges. The high Australian dollar and uncertain domestic and global economic conditions combined with increasing supply for both cattle and sheep have brought the meat prices down since its peak in 2006 (MLA Annual report 2011-2012).
With the volatile changes in the markets and factors brought on by nature effects, it is necessary to have long term and short term multi-faceted arrangement in the funding of extension and adoption programs for them to be effective in the improvement of productivity.
To increase productivity in red meat industries, MLA has funded R&D in between 2000-2007 and the addressed strategies are: Increasing reproduction rates, decreasing mortality rates, reducing age at sale and lowering cost of production.
Classification of Models (Coutts)
1. Group facilitation/Empowerment Model
2. Technology Development/Problem Solving Model
3. Programmed Learning/Training Model
4. Information Access Model
5. Multistakeholder Negotiation
Case studies and extension models.
RD&E Program Year Classification Adoption Rate Outcome
*Charts of previous expenses and income
RD&E needs to have good adoption and implementation for them to be worthwhile. According to previous RD&E models, the lessons and conclusion drawn are: 1.BREEDPLAN 1985-2008, on-farm RD&E Quantitative genetic engined. Breeding soundness examination standard, index. Increased animal growth rate and reduced age of turn-off at the same weight; genetic improvement.
2.EDGEnetwork: 2000-2008 Aim to promote practice change in general; grading land management education package and workshop. Information access and programmed learning and training model. Very high level of course participants, high level of uptake and adoption implementation. 3.PrimeTime 2003-2004 Aim to increase sheep flock on-farm productivity and profitability and motivate farmers. Increase stakeholders awareness, understanding and apply behavioural changes and adoption; provide training to improve flock genetics, pasture management and breeding management. Applying Awareness, Attitude, behaviour, Knowledge and Aspiration technique in training modules. Designed demand driven information access model and multistakeholder negotiation, Technology development problem solving model in progressive modulating manners. Combination of PIRDs, EDGEnetwork with feedback analysis, highly focused on communication. High participation and adoption.
Training and Visit
•Knowledge of wheat technology
•Quantity & quality of extension contact
worldwideLow IRR, at least 22 countries >$700 million
•Increase in quantity but not quality of extension contact •Increased farmers knowledge and adoption of technology
•Relatively small impact (Hussain 1994)
•Disenchancement lack of fiscal sustainability
•close-loop (Neuchatel Group< Anderson J 04, 07, Oosterhaven 06, rivera 05) LambPlan
•Quantitative genetics engine
mid to late 90’s re-invented;
Australia •Rapid uptake initially then plateau
•Later stage PIRD
•low adoption across industry with respect to High input, high risk practices •(Venture cap, BarnettR 2007)•Increase reproduction rate • Increase carcase weight
•increase cost of production
•little change in average marking rate
•Drought heavily affected outcome
•Cater to adoption of Innovators and Early Adopters
•better integrate economic, environmental and social aspects.
Post pilot 2002-05;
Northern AustraliaBuilding management skill
Initially top-down then post pilot was farmers initated; bottom-up Highly effective in facilitating change, high level of peer support, high adoption•suucess attribute to the freedome producers were granted
Global economy recession in overseas market, economic crisis, high AUD exchange
Major export market is developing country like China and Korea, but China’s economy growth has started slowing down, buying less from AUD, from mineral to consumables, causing low market prices.
Therefore does high profitability has carrying power? Has markets and demand to consume the products?
Funding, graphs show that MLA focuses investment on on farm technology, 3.1, significantly less on off farm, and the rest 4.1 and 5.1 until it joins cooperation with other forces, joint venture, to invest in adoption in innovation and training people later in 2012-2013. This shows
Private sector should subsidized producers fee to participate in E & A program –source. (look up, India or T&V-pg 25 Funding mechanism) as revenue is mostly industry good and not public good. Interest rates has decrease and AUD is weakened nad lack politialca support (vanclay, 1994)
Recent expansion in productivity were brought on by the massive increase in cost-of-production, leading to the surplus in sheep, goat and beef industries since 2011. Short term benefits may not return, and stakeholders will need to rely on their reserve. The larger scale of production tends to sustain longer and better in difficult times, such as when prices of produce are low ( ). Smaller producers may consider joining force to strengthen their sustainability, even out the cost. While returns are not great, cutting cost and resources management can off set the effect and bring in a healthier Benefit Cost Ratio.
Review of the RD&E participation statistic is revealing. Changes made to health and management practices and management of resources on-farm affect subsequent results in the following year. However, changes made to breeding practices on-farm do not have subsequent results until at least the fourth program year. This is because there is a significant lag in time from when the initial program results are received by the producer, used to make changes to breeding and genetics programs, and then the resulting calf crop is weaned and ready to enter to Feedlot program. Therefore, for producers to identify needed genetic changes and then observe the results of these changes through genetic programs, they must engage in relatively longer participation, with higher participation fee and higher discount rate of interest which increases as time goes along. These are risk factor that come with an increase in time awaiting for the benefit to be returned. Depreciation, inflation and seasonal impacts are calculated into the time value of money. (Hanson, 1990)
According to the above mentioned RD&E programs, the areas that attract high levels of particpation and adoption in previous programs are MBfP, Cost of Production, highly focused on communication and management building instead of the high and long term investment and participation of and new innovation.
Drought and low prices can work against the best managed project Coutts Beef crc
-Primary producers tend to think short term not long term so they won’t adapt practices because of climate change. (Donnell 2009). But studies have revealed that “the most profitable herds have sustained respectable returns through poor seasonal conditions where others have floundered. This has been largely achieved by focusing on the important drivers of herd productivity and profitability. The most efficient and profitable beef producers have a combination of higher productivity, and a lower cost of production. They do not have the individual highest productivity or price. Donnelly D., Mercer, R., Dickson, J., Wu E. 2009. ‘Australia’s Farming Future Final Market Research Report’. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Instinct and reason Sydney, NSW, Australia.
•increase confidence, family relationships, enhance social and learning network •mental stimulation
Summary of Extension and Adoption
Peer-peer support in BeefPlan led to sturdy implementation and growth in adoption. Adoptability is affected by the practicality and if the innovation is compelling for changes. Majority of producers prefer short-term investment in time, financial cost and low behavioural changes. Participation and implentation are proportionate. Communications is key to increase in adoption. Lambplan has all the important facilitating resources applied, unfortunately, the high cost of production, the slower return of benefits and the drought in 2009 has given it poor result in adoption.