Evaluating the implementation of new technologies in the
Northern Agricultural Region of Western Australia.
Liebe Group Technical Audit Results
~
Executive Summary
GRDC Funded Liebe Group Project LIE 00005
‘Growers Critically Analysing New Technologies For Improved Farming Systems’
The Liebe Group sincerely
thanks the project supporter
GRDC and the growers
involved in the technical
audit process.
Project Background
Funding from the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) has enabled the Liebe Group to undertake
a three year project that has benchmarked, investigated and improved the adoption of various technologies and
management practices throughout the Liebe Group region (Coorow, Dalwallinu, Perenjori and Wongan-Ballidu shires).
The project commenced in July 2006 and is titled ‘Growers critically analysing new technologies for improved farming
systems’.
The project focuses on three technologies/management strategies that were chosen by local growers as the most
likely factors to influence their farming enterprise in the medium term (approximately five years). The three focus
technologies are;
1.
Variation of management strategies - includes the use of map-based yield, soil and biomass information and
input-control technologies to efficiently match agronomy with paddock variability,
2.
Soil management strategies - includes proactive management practices to address physical, chemical and
biological constraints of the soil, and
3.
Innovative enterprise analysis - includes strategic decision making processes which lead to the adoption of new
enterprises or management practices.
The membership rationale for focusing on these areas of research was that ‘growers making more effective adoption
decisions will result in their businesses being more profitable, productive and ensuring their farming systems are
sustainable’.
This executive summary details the results obtained from the initial and final technical audit surveys. Results from
members and non-members have been combined to show all responses gained from the audits. The figures are
averages derived from all growers who were surveyed. For the full technical audit reports and analysis of the results
please contact the Liebe Group.
Contents
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Title
Page number
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Technical Audit Background
General Socio-Economic Information
Variation of Management Strategies
Soil Management Practices
Innovative Enterprise Analysis
General Information
Feedback
Technical Audit Process Summary
Acknowledgments and Further Information
3
3
4
7
11
13
14
15
16
Disclaimer: All information in this booklet is believed to be true and correct. No responsibility is
taken for any incorrect information printed.
2
Liebe Group Technical Audit Results - Executive Summary
Technical Audit Background
An initial technical audit was conducted between October 2006 and May 2007 to create a baseline. This involved face
to face interviews with 65 growers (50 Liebe Group members and 15 non-members) within the Liebe Group region. The
interviews were carried out with the participants being randomly selected. The final technical audit survey was
developed by Dr. Elizabeth Petersen of Advanced Choice Economics Pty Ltd in close consultation with the Liebe
Group’s GRDC Project Management Committee and Project Coordinator, Lara Swift.
The technical audit surveys focused on different stages of adoption, the use of new technologies and drew heavily from
theories developed by Pannell et al. (2006). Adoption stages measured in the audit included awareness of the
innovation, information collection, small-scale testing, scaling up use of the innovation, review, modification and scaling
down or assessment that the technology was unsuitable for the enterprise.
The aim of the initial technical audit was to benchmark adoption levels, to ensure the three chosen focus strategies
addressed real farming systems and to set direction of the project’s communication and extension strategies. The initial
technical audit was also used to identify growers who were adopting new strategies or who were considering adopting,
to be included in project activities including case studies, on-farm testing and economic modelling.
Results from the initial technical audit provided the Liebe Group with a baseline for the current level of adoption, grower
perceptions and the way growers assess the value of new innovations in their enterprise.
A second and final technical audit was conducted with the same 65 growers between October 2008 and January 2009.
The aim of the final technical audit was to assess any changes in adoption levels across the three focus technologies
in the Liebe Group region over the two year period.
The final technical audit results were used to identify potential growers to be involved in the adoption improvement
packages. It was also used to determine how beneficial this project has been in assisting growers to make information
based decisions when considering adoption of various technologies.
General Socio-Economic Information
- Respondents had an average of 26 years of farming experience, 24 years of which are in the shire where they
are currently located
- 88% of respondents were between 35 and 64 years of age, 28% were under the age of 44
- The average arable area of land managed by respondents was 4,767 hectares, an increase from 4,244 hectares
recorded in the initial audit
- Liebe Group members showed a large increase in
the area of arable land managed of over 20% from
the initial audit
- The average annual rainfall for all respondents is
323mm
- The percentage of land cropped each year remained
fairly consistent with 71% cropped in the initial audit
compared with 74% in the final audit
- Respondents managed land in the following shires:
- Dalwallinu
- Perenjori
- Coorow
- Wongan-Ballidu
- Moora
- Carnamah
Liebe Group President, Ron Carlshausen
- Victoria Plains
conducting
the final technical audit survey with
- Dandaragan
Project
Coordinator, Lara Swift.
- Koorda
Liebe Group Technical Audit Results - Executive Summary
3
Variation of Management Strategies
Nine different variation management strategies were measured in the technical audits and included yield monitoring,
yield mapping, soil testing, biomass imagery, GPS technologies, GPS with autosteer, geophysical technologies, aerial
topography mapping and variable rate technology (VRT) (only measured in the final audit).
Key messages on the adoption of variation management strategies;
-
-
Of the nine variation management strategies investigated, awareness amongst respondents was high (over
90%) except for geophysical technologies (gamma radiometrics and electro-magnetics (EM))
Strategies that have high adoption rates (greater than 50% of respondents using on a regular basis) include:
soil testing, GPS technologies, yield monitoring and GPS with autosteer
Strategies where the majority of respondents either have no intention of using, may use it but are not
currently researching, or are currently researching are biomass imagery and geophysical technologies
Respondents who are researching and testing the strategies have been doing so for 1-5 years
The following strategies were adopted by growers specifically for managing variability:
- Soil testing (considered the most important strategy)
- Geophysical technologies
- Aerial topography mapping
- Yield mapping
Most respondents use these variation management strategies both within and between paddocks
The most common reasons for using variation management was for varying fertiliser and lime applications
Respondents indicated soil testing and yield mapping are the most important strategies for managing yield
variability
The recent two year drought has slightly reduced the adoption of yield monitoring, yield mapping, biomass
imagery, geophysical technologies, aerial topography mapping and variable rate technology
However, the adoption of soil testing and GPS technologies has been slightly increased due to the droughts
and economic factors including high fertiliser costs
GPS is being adopted mainly for autosteer, rather than VRT. This means further adoption of VRT will depend
on those growers that have already adopted GPS for their autosteer
On average, most technologies showed an increase in adoption over the period of the audit with the exception of aerial
topography mapping which decreased by approximately 40%. Table 1 illustrates the percentage of respondents who
have adopted the various technologies. It should be noted variable rate technology was not measured in the initial
survey, however it was included in the final audit.
Table 1: Percentage of respondents who have
adopted variation management strategies and
Similarly to the initial audit, the most highly used
technologies.
technology was soil testing with 97% of respondents
using the practice on an on-going basis. The constant,
high level of soil testing may have been attributed to
Variation management
% Growers who
growers recognising the importance of understanding
strategies
have adopted
and monitoring their soil resource.
Initial audit Final audit
There is a significant difference (21%) between the number
Soil testing
97
97
of respondents using yield monitors verse yield mapping.
This indicates there are many growers using yield monitors
GPS
71
78
but not all of them are turning the data into yield maps.
Aerial topography mapping
70
32
A total of 52% of respondents were utilising their soil
Yield monitoring
65
68
testing for both within and between paddock variation
GPS with autosteer
46
66
management, while 37% were using their soil testing
results for between paddock management only (figure 2 Yield mapping
45
47
page 6). Furthermore, 11% of respondents were using soil
testing results for within paddock management alone.
Variable rate technology
14
4
Liebe Group Technical Audit Results - Executive Summary
Participants recorded within and between paddock variation management was largely used for varying fertiliser,
herbicide and lime applications, followed by the management of seeding rates, culling poor performing areas within a
paddock and for crop species choice.
The adoption of GPS guidance with autosteer increased from 46% in the initial audit to 66% in the final audit. It was
apparent the increased uptake of autosteer technology was driven by a combination of advantageous factors. The lower
costs of the technology and the higher price of inputs in recent years makes for short payback periods for medium to
large operations, due to the reduced overlap in the seeding and spraying operations alone. Another major advantage
is the growing realisation that autosteer technology reduces stress and tiredness when operating machines for
extended periods of time. Hence the operator is able to be more alert and monitor the effectiveness of the machinery
rather than focusing on keeping the right line.
There were no growers using biomass imagery (a measure of vegetation greenness made by a satellite that relates to
crop cover or biomass, also known as NDVI) and geophysical technologies on a regular basis in both audits. Early
adopters in the Liebe Group region had limited success with the application of these two technologies which resulted
in the technologies having little relevance.
% respondents
Figure 1 illustrates the level of respondents using the technologies specifically for variation management decreased
between the initial and final audits for all of the technologies.
Figure 1: Percentage
of respondents using
various technologies
specifically for
variation
management.
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Initial
Final
Yield monitoring
Initial
Final
Yield mapping
Initial
Final
Initial
Soil testing
Final
GPS
Management strategy being used specifically for variation m anagem ent
While awareness is high among growers about the range of spatial information available for variation management, soil
testing followed by yield monitoring remain the most popular methods for monitoring and mapping variation. It is worth
noting that where precision agriculture technologies (i.e. yield mapping and monitoring and GPS) have been developed,
they are being used over most of the cropped area. However the use of the precision agriculture technologies for
variation management is relatively low. This reinforces the view that the technologies are being adopted for the
reduction in overlap but are not being taken further to a better targeting of the inputs based on yield potential.
Fertiliser is the main input being varied where variation management is being used. This is not surprising given the
current high cost of fertiliser together with the almost linear relationship between yield and nutrient requirement. One
point of interest was that 25% of participants are making liming decisions without using soil test data. It is unknown what
data they are using or whether liming has become a time-based strategy.
The initial and final audit results showed that soil variation was being managed both within and between paddocks for
the different technologies. Soil testing was again the traditional method growers use to determine where and how to
vary management practices between and within paddocks. Respondents had been using soil testing for variation
management for an average of 11 years.
Figure 2 (page 6) is a comparison of how growers are using the technologies for variation management (i.e. between
or within paddocks). The results are represented as a proportion of the total number of respondents who have adopted
the technology.
Liebe Group Technical Audit Results - Executive Summary
5
% of respondents using the technology
As figure 2 illustrates, a majority of participants are using the technology for variation management for both within and
between paddocks. Also, the percentage of growers varying management within paddocks increased significantly for
all technologies.
90
80
Figure 2: Percentage
of respondents using
technologies for
variation management
only between
paddocks ( ), only
within paddocks ( )
and both within and
between paddocks ( ).
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Initial
Final
Yield monitoring
Initial
Final
Yield mapping
Initial
Final
Initial
Soil testing
Final
GPS
Table 2 shows the percentage of respondents recorded as researching (i.e reading about, actively looking for
information and discussing the technology with associates) various technologies during both audits. It also shows the
level of participants researching the technologies has declined by approximately 15% across all technologies.
The reduction of respondents researching GPS with
autosteer is attributed to the large increase in
growers adopting the technologies between the
audits being conducted.
Variable rate technology was not measured in the
initial audit, however it ranked as the most highly
researched technology in the final audit.
Respondents are still researching and testing the
technologies for an average of three years. The
percentage of the cropping program on which the
technologies are being used remained at a
consistently high level. Furthermore, the number of
years growers had been using the various
technologies was in direct correlation to the period
the technology had been readily available.
Table 2: Percentage of respondents researching
variation management strategies and technologies.
Technology
% respondents
researching
Initial audit
Final audit
GPS with autosteer
24
12
Biomass imagery
23
10
Geophysical technologies
20
14
Yield mapping
20
6
Variable rate technology
-
31
Participants were asked which variation management technology they thought was most important for managing yield
variability within their farming enterprise. Soil testing was deemed the most important variation strategy, ranking an
average of over 60% of respondents in both audits. The second highest ranked technology was yield mapping with an
average of 20% over both audits.
Liebe Group Technical Audit Results Executive Summary
3
Unfortunately two of the years measured in the technical audits (2006 and 2007) were particularly dry seasons. In the
final audit growers were asked to indicate how they felt the drought had impacted, either positively or negatively, on
their adoption of the various technologies. Respondents thought their adoption of yield monitoring, yield mapping,
biomass imagery, geophysical technologies, aerial topography mapping and variable rate technology had been slightly
reduced due to the effects of the droughts. On the other hand, respondents recorded the droughts had slightly
increased their adoption of soil testing and GPS technologies.
6
Liebe Group Technical Audit Results - Executive Summary
Soil Management Practices
Thirteen soil management practices which addressed deficiencies in physical, chemical and biological properties of the
soil were assessed and monitored throughout the technical audit process. These included liming, gypsum, minimum
tillage, zero tillage, deep ripping, furrow sowing, tramline farming, stubble retention, green manuring, brown manuring,
plant tissue testing, surface drainage and deep drainage.
Key messages on the adoption of soil management practices;
-
Of the 13 soil management strategies investigated, awareness amongst respondents was very high (above
90%)
- Strategies that have high adoption rates (greater than 50% of respondents using on a regular basis) include
minimum tillage, stubble retention, liming, plant tissue testing, gypsum, deep drainage, deep ripping and
brown manuring
- Strategies that respondents either have no intention of using, may use it but are not currently researching,
or are currently researching are green manuring, zero tillage and tramline farming
- A significant proportion of respondents are scaling down their use of surface drainage for reasons including
less run-off due to the use of minimum tillage, bigger and more efficient paddocks and making paddocks square
again to enable the use of up and back seeding and easier use of guidance
- Surface drainage is a traditional soil management practice which was first used approximately 26 years ago
- All other strategies were first used between 10 and 20 years ago
- Respondents indicated the recent droughts has led them to significantly increase their use of minimum tillage
and stubble retention and slightly reduce the level of application of lime and gypsum
Soil constraints such as acidity, poor soil structure, compaction and limited water holding capacity are common
problems for growers in the Liebe Group region. Alleviation of these constraints can potentially be achieved by
applications of lime or gypsum, deep ripping and using minimum tillage in cropping paddocks.
In the initial audit almost 90% of all respondents recorded they were applying lime where required. Additionally, 70%
of respondents were using gypsum as a soil ameliorant and deep ripping was also a highly adopted management
practice (57% of respondents).
Throughout the dry seasons, respondents indicated they were still treating soil with lime and gypsum where required.
The percentage of the farm being treated over the past three years has decreased by 5% for lime and increased by 5%
for gypsum.
80
70
% Land
60
50
Figure 3: Percentage
of users land that is
responsive to the
three practices ( )
and of that land the
percentage that
has been treated over
the last five years ( ).
40
30
20
10
0
Initial
Final
Liming
Initial
Final
Gypsum
Initial
Final
Deep ripping
Liebe Group Technical Audit Results - Executive Summary
7
These usage levels may be linked with the consistent, high level of growers soil testing in the Liebe Group region over
the past three years. It is suggested growers’ recognise the importance of maintaining soil health, structure and pH and
ensuring their soil is equipped to deal with the impacts of drier seasons.
The reduction in the percentage of the farm treated with lime may be the result of growers getting on top of their liming
requirements. The second audit indicates they have been able to reduce the liming program back to the longer term
rotations according to paddock soil type, history and indicators. The drought conditions also increased the financial risk
of lime applications. During these years funds were tight for many businesses and the risk of lime loss due to wind
erosion was higher.
Figure 4 shows a slight increase in the percentages of respondents using minimum tillage (narrow/knife point seeding
with less than full cut-out) and plant tissue testing. There was also an increase in the cropping area on which these two
practices were being used. The practice of zero tillage (seeding with discs) remained the same with only 3% of
respondents using the practice.
Stubble retention is a highly adopted soil management practice across the Liebe Group region. This was emphasised
by the percentage of stubble being retained increasing by 16% (table 3) while the percentage of stubble burnt
decreased by 4% over the audit period. The drought and associated reduction in cover, along with the necessity for rain
infiltration and moisture retention has reinforced the benefits of reduced tillage in the last two years. The percentage of
the cropping program which is not being minimum tilled matches the use of green manuring (figure 5 - page 9).
% respondents
100
90
80
70
Figure 4: Percentage
of respondents using
various soil
management practices
in both the initial ( )
and final ( ) technical
audits.
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Minimum tillage
Zero tillage
Furrow sowing
Table 3 shows the cropping program percentage on
which these soil management practices are being used.
All soil management strategies are highly adopted,
with the exception of plant tissue testing and zero
tillage. The low percentage of plant tissue testing would
be in direct response to the droughts.
The audit has shown respondents have increased the
percentage of cropping program they are using zero
tillage on from 25% to 60%.
8
Stubble retention
Plant tissue
testing
Table 3: Percentage of cropping program on which soil
management practices are used.
Soil management
strategy
% cropping program used
across
Initial audit
Final audit
Minimum tillage
91
86
Furrow sowing
84
90
Stubble retention
68
84
Plant tissue testing
24
15
Zero tillage
25
60
Liebe Group Technical Audit Results - Executive Summary
Figure 5 shows three aspects, the percentage of respondents who have no intention of adoption, those who are
considering usage and those who have adopted the various soil management practices.
Deep ripping, surface drainage and brown manuring remained highly adopted soil management practices. Tramlining,
zero tillage and green manuring showed a consistently high recording of respondents having no intention of adopting
the practices.
Figure 5: Comparison between the percentage of respondents who had no intention of adopting ( ), who
were considering adopting ( ) and those using ( ) the soil management practices.
60
% respondents
50
40
30
20
10
0
Initial
Final
Deep ripping
Initial
Final
Tramlining
Initial
Final
Zero tillage
Initial
Final
Surface
drainage
Initial
Final
Green
manuring
Initial
Final
Brown
manuring
Interestingly, the percentage of respondents researching tramlining in the initial audit decreased at the same level the
percentage of respondents in the final audit recorded they have no intention of using the practice. This indicates that
the growers researching tramlining in the initial audit had decided not to adopt the practice by the time they were
audited in the final survey.
The percentage of respondents green manuring decreased slightly (2%), whilst the percentage of the farm being
treated with the practice increased. Brown manuring increased to over 50% of respondents now using the practice.
Brown or green manuring in poor seasons may be more viable than harvesting a poor crop, particularly if it looks like
the crop may not have enough moisture to get through to grain fill. The drought years may explain some of the increase
in the use of this strategy to gain greater weed control in these paddocks and continue more conventional rotations. At
these low percentages it is unlikely that it is being used regularly on the same paddock.
The much higher use of brown manuring than green manuring indicates most survey participants recognise the
problems of green manuring in this drier environment. That is, the act of ploughing in a green manure crop exposes
the soil to wind erosion, difficulties with weed control and can be a costly and time consuming exercise.
The number of growers using surface drainage is relatively high, however 48% of respondents indicated they were
scaling down or no longer using the practice. The main reasons given for scaling down included less run-off due to the
use of minimum tillage, bigger and more efficient paddocks to enable the use of up and back seeding and making the
use of guidance easier.
The use of deep drains increased during the period of the audit with the average kilometres of deep drains on
respondents properties being 9 kilometres in the initial audit and 16 kilometres in the final audit.
Liebe Group Technical Audit Results - Executive Summary
9
Despite research and promotion of tramline farming as a management tool to reduce compaction and improve yield,
tramlining remains a technology/management practice not widely adopted throughout the Liebe Group region. Table 4
shows the percentage of respondents at various stages of tramline farming adoption for both technical audits.
A total of 33% of respondents indicated they have no
intention of adopting tramlining (table 4).
The proportion of participants who recorded that
they are considering the use of a tramline farming
system increased from 23% in the initial audit to
33% in the final audit.
A general consensus from the interviews was that
the low adoption is due to the high expense in
machinery changeover and grower uncertainty in the
return on investment following adoption.
Tramlining is a technology that is very specific to
individual enterprises. Hence, there is limited
information relevant to their farm.
Table 4: Percentage of respondents at various stages of
adopting a tramline farming system.
Adoption status
No intention of using
May consider using in the future
% Respondents
Initial audit Final audit
27
33
23
33
Currently researching
Currently testing it
38
3
21
5
Using it
Scaling down or no longer using
8
2
8
0
It has been recognised that some management strategies are only feasible and responsive to specific soil types and
areas. By supporting growers to make informed decisions concerning adoption they will achieve increased
sustainability and profitability of their soil resource.
Respondents were asked to indicate their perception of the impacts of drought on the adoption of the various soil
management practices, either positively or negatively. They indicated the recent droughts had led them to significantly
increase their adoption of minimum tillage and stubble retention and slightly reduce their use of lime and gypsum.
These perceived adoption trends are consistent with the actual adoption and usage figures.
10
Liebe Group Technical Audit Results - Executive Summary
Innovative Enterprise Analysis
The Innovative Enterprise Analysis involved an investigation into the strategic decision making process which lead to
the adoption of a new enterprise management practice. The aim of this section was to study growers who have adopted
a new/innovative enterprise and to gain a better understanding of the decision making framework they used with a view
to helping other farmers use a similar process.
A decision making process can have stages which may be thought through and utilised by the grower or avoided,
depending on the grower and the innovation being adopted. Some of these stages include: learning about the
innovation, seeking and responding to commercial and independent information, the decision to adopt or not to adopt,
implementation of the innovation and information which will reaffirm or reject the decision to continue use of an
innovation within the farming enterprise.
Key messages from the innovative enterprise analysis;
-
Respondents indicated that when adopting a specific innovation it was highly important it matches the farm
business goals
Respondents mostly become aware of the innovations through other farmers, family members and technical
experts (includes consultants, agronomists, grower groups, machinery dealerships, financial institutions and
researchers or research papers/newspapers)
Growers source information regarding the innovation’s feasibility from technical experts, other farmers or
family members
Approximately 56% of respondents indicated they tested the innovation before scaling up their use,
On average, respondents spent 1.5 years researching the innovation and where appropriate, another 1.5
years testing it
Common testing strategies included testing the innovation on a small portion of land or producing and storing
and selling small quantities
The main strategies used when scaling up included purchasing equipment and infrastructure, making
significant land use changes and making strategic alliances with other members of the supply chain
When reviewing and modifying the innovation the most important considerations were ease of management
and comparing the budgeted to the actual profit
In general, respondents felt that paid expert advice had little importance when assessing the feasibility of an
innovation. However, this is largely dependent on the innovation the growers had adopted
Growers were asked for information on a specific innovation they have adopted on their farm. Respondents indicated
that when adopting their specific innovation it was highly important it matched the farm business goals.
Business goals that benefited from adopting innovations were mainly profit and management improvement (e.g.
improved soil, chemical, pasture management, etc.) (table 5). Participants were initially focused on increasing price,
however in the final audit the focus was on decreasing costs. This may be attributed to response of the droughts and
higher input costs.
In both audits most respondents said they became
aware of their indicated innovation either through
another farmer or family member (approximately 23%)
and/or through a technical expert (greater than 20%).
In both audits the information shows growers placed
a higher value on technical expertise when moving from
the awareness to feasibility stage of innovation.
Table 5: Specific farm business goals that have been
benefited by the innovation.
Farm business goal
% responses
Initial audit
Final audit
Profit - all
53
52
Profit - increase in price
22
2
Profit - decrease costs
4
23
Improved management
32
32
Liebe Group Technical Audit Results - Executive Summary
11
The audit found a big difference between Liebe Group members and non-members when becoming aware of
innovations. Liebe Group members used technical experts and research papers whereas non-members were more
reliant on themselves with 30% indicating they are
using their own initiative and trial and error.
Table 6: Main issues considered when assessing the
feasibility of the new innovation.
Results from the initial audit showed 62% respondents
saw ‘expected profit’ to be the most important issue
considered when adopting an innovation. This was
Main issues
% responses
followed by ‘ease of management’ which averaged 22%.
considered
Initial audit
Final audit
A higher weighting was placed on profit related issues in
the final audit (i.e. expected profit, rate of return, etc.).
The importance placed on ‘ease of management’
reduce from 22% in the initial audit to 10% in the final
audit due to the emphasis on productivity.
Expected profit
Ease of management
Rate of return
62
22
6
45
10
8
When reviewing and modifying factors of the innovation, the main issues considered were ‘ease of management’ and
‘achieving profitability’. These issues remained consistent through both audits. Liebe Group members showed an
increase in their consideration of monitoring the likely impact on the environment, measuring management hours and
the effects on lifestyle.
These innovation results reflect the reality for many farmers that in seasons of surplus cash flow they consider ease of
management a priority, however when cash flow is limited making profit is the important consideration. Once a new
innovation has been implemented the ease of management becomes a greater importance. This shows farmers are
focusing on the profitability of their business.
In both audits, approximately 56% of respondents tested the innovations on a small scale to assist with the decision of
whether to adopt or not, the other 44% went straight into extensive adoption. Small scale testing mainly included testing
it on a small portion of arable land, producing or storing the innovation in small quantities and having an expert
demonstrate it on-farm. If respondents conducted small-scale testing of the innovation, on average they spent 1.6 years
researching the issue before testing it for another 1.7 years.
If respondents did not conduct small-scale testing, the average time from becoming aware of the innovation and its
implementation was 3.4 years. This is an increase from the initial audit when the average was 2.7 years. The most
common ways in which respondents scaled up their use of the innovation to their current levels included purchasing
equipment and infrastructure, making significant land use changes and forming strategic alliances with other members
of the supply chain.
In the final audit 66% of respondents indicated gaining paid expert advice when assessing the feasibility of the new
innovation was of little importance, an increase from 41% in the initial audit. Liebe Group members placed a higher level
of important on gaining paid expert advice in the final
audit which may be related back to non-members
Table 7: Percentage of respondents currently using farm
using their own initiative and learning about new
consultants on a regular basis.
innovations through ‘trial and error’.
Table 7 highlights 75% of growers are using farm
consultants on an on-going basis. This is despite
participants placing a low level of importance on paid
expert advice when assessing the feasibility of a new
innovation.
Table 8 shows the average amount of paid expert
advice respondents are purchasing annually has
increased from 52 hours to 66 hours. The increase
in hours may be a result of growers valuing technical
and economic information to make informed adoption
and management decisions.
12
% responses
Use farm consultants
on a regularly basis
Initial audit
Final audit
76
75
Table 8: Average number of paid expert advice
respondents are purchasing during a one year period.
Hours of paid expert
advice
Initial audit
Final audit
52
66
Liebe Group Technical Audit Results - Executive Summary
General Information
Respondents were asked about their perception of their own innovativeness, the long-term future of farming in the area,
what they saw as the most important factors that will limit their farming business in the future, how they distribute their
time and what innovations they have plans to remain using and/or adopt in the near future.
Key general information messages;
-
Respondents are quite optimistic about the long term future of farming in their area, although their current
perceptions are slightly less optimistic than what they estimated their response to be three years ago
Respondents perceived the most important limiting factors on their businesses in the future would be
variability of seasons and cost of production
A majority of respondent’s time is spent on field work
The average response for participant’s perception on
their own innovativeness was neutral at three (table 9).
44% of Liebe Group members and 25% of non-members
rated themselves as above average in terms of
innovativeness.
Participant’s current perception of the long term future
of farming in the area was 3.8 (table 10), down slightly
compared to their estimated perception of 4.3 three
years ago. This indicates growers are still relatively
optimistic about the future of farming in the area. Liebe
Group members were considerably more optimistic
about the long term future of farming in the area than
non-members.
Table 9: Respondents perception of their innovativeness
where 1 is not very innovative and 5 is very innovative.
Respondent’s perception
Average response
Initial audit
Final audit
3.2
3.0
Table 10: Respondents perception of the long term
future of farming in the area where 1 is very pessimistic
and 5 is very optimistic.
Respondent’s perception
Average response
Estimated ranking 3 years ago
4.3
Respondents were asked to indicate any farming
enterprises or management practices they have adopted
or are considering adopting in the near future (table 11).
Current recording
3.8
It is not surprising there are more participants who are
considering cropping innovations in comparison
to livestock innovations. This is due to income generated
from a cropping enterprise often being more than 90%
of the farms income base. Therefore, small changes in
the cropping enterprise can have a big effect on the
businesses profit.
Table 11: Percentage of respondents considering using
or who have adopted different innovations.
Type of innovation
% of respondents
Initial audit
Final audit
69
66
Cropping Innovations
Livestock Innovations
33
31
An important business management practice was
growing high value varieties. The number of
respondents growing bio-diesel crops and manufacturing bio-diesel both decreased significantly. It can be assumed
this was influenced by the fall in the price of oil since the initial audit was conducted.
When asked to list the most important on-farm limiting factors in the near future, 29% of respondents listed weather
related issues (i.e rainfall, drought, seasons, climate change). Other high ranked factors were cost of production
(mainly inputs), general profitability (including cash flow and financing) and commodity prices and marketing. This
shows growers are identifying increasing business risk.
Liebe Group Technical Audit Results - Executive Summary
13
Figure 6 shows the average proportion of time spent on various farm activities annually. The results do not reflect the
level of input or time put in by other people involved in the business. For example, others may be conducting office work
or marketing activities.
The results were very similar between the initial and final audits and shows a large proportion of respondents time is
spent on field work. Many respondents indicated they conduct a number of activities simultaneously, for example
growers are farm planning whilst doing field work.
It is anticipated a greater proportion of time will be spent on grain marketing from 2009, due to the deregulation of the
marketing system.
Figure 6: Proportion
of time spent on
various farm activities
annually.
Feedback
Participants were asked about the usefulness of the Liebe Group’s technical audit process and the case study booklets
produced through the project. Half of all respondents ranked the technical audit process a three on a scale where one
was not helpful and five was very helpful. Furthermore, 39% of respondents gave a ranking of four or five.
The dominant reasons for valuing the audit process were
it provided information and ideas, encouraged critical
analysis of their farming system and indicated what other
growers were doing (table 12).
Respondents were asked to indicate which
individual case studies in the 2007 and 2008 Liebe
Group Grower Adoption Case Study Booklets
(Frameworks for Forward Farming) had an
influence on their on-farm decision making.
The case studies most often identified as having an
influence were:
2007 Liebe Group Grower Adoption Case Study Booklet;
- Digging deep to get benefits – Michael Dodd, and
- Keeping an open mind to soil biology management –
Colin Cail.
Table 12: Reasons why respondents found the
technical audit process to be helpful in making
decisions about adopting new technologies.
Reason
Provides new information and ideas
Encouragers critical analysis of own
farming system
Gives an indication of what others are
doing
Provides exposure to innovative thinking
Helps validate own operations / increases
confidence
The audits have helped their other research
2008 Liebe Group Grower Adoption Case Study Booklet;
- New alternatives for weeds and fertilisers are ‘entwined’ – Michael and Graham Shields, and
- Soil management for the future – Mark and Suzanne Wilson.
It is noted not all respondents had received or read the 2008 booklet at the time of the final audit.
14
Liebe Group Technical Audit Results - Executive Summary
%
responses
34
29
25
6
3
3
Technical Audit Process - Summary
The technical audit process was a valuable method of benchmarking adoption levels and measuring any changes and
trends in adoption levels throughout the Liebe Group region over the life of the project.
The detail of information obtained throughout the technical audit process (face to face interviews) was far greater than
the information that may have been received through an on-line, mail or fax survey. Respondents indicated the
interviews were of some use, especially for providing new information and ideas, encouraging critical analysis of their
business and indicating what other growers in the region are doing.
It was positive to see the adoption and usage of a majority of the variation and soil management practices were not
largely affected by the droughts in 2006 and 2007. It can be suggested the growers involved recognise the importance
of maintaining their soils so they are better equipped to deal with the impacts of the drier seasons.
The aim of the innovative enterprise analysis was to understand decision making frameworks used by effective
innovators. This was done with the view to enable other farmers with examples of decision making processes used for
adoption. This method is also being explored through the project’s next stage of adoption improvement packages.
Another positive message to come out of the audit results is a majority of respondents are scrutinising their
management decisions and placing more emphasis on the economic impacts of their decisions. This technique will lead
to growers making more informed decisions leading to sustainable farming systems, business progress, addressing of
environmental concerns, a balance of lifestyle and healthy communities for growers in the Liebe Group region.
The results from the technical audits are the first of a kind for benchmarking and measuring adoption levels of the three
focus technologies within the Liebe Group region. Experience and information gained from the technical audit process
has shown the many complexities in the process of adoption. The Liebe Group is in a position to unfold more of these
in the future to increase effective adoption of technologies and practices to ensure grain growers are competitive in the
global industry.
Reference
Pannell, D.J., Marshall, G.R., Barr, N., Curtis, A., Vanclay, F. and Wilkinson, R. 2006, Understanding and promoting
adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders.
Liebe Group Technical Audit Results - Executive Summary
15
Development of the Technical Audit Executive Summary
This technical audit executive summary was compiled by Liebe Group Project Coordinator, Lara Swift in consultation
with the GRDC Project Management Committee.
The technical results presented in this document is a combination of the raw data collected from the technical audit
questionnaires and information presented in the complete audit analysis reports developed by Dr. Elizabeth Petersen
from Advanced Choice Economics Pty Ltd.
This publication is a component of the Liebe Group’s GRDC funded project 'Growers Critically Analysing New
Technologies for Improved Farming Systems'.
Acknowledgements
Thank you to our project partner, the Grains Research and Development Corporation.
The time contributed by all of the growers involved in the technical audit process was greatly appreciated, thank you.
A sincere thank you for the assistance and support from the project committee;
-
Local growers; Mr. Blayn Carlshausen, Mr. Brian McAlpine and Mr. Harry Hyde
Mr. Rob Sands of Farmanco
Dr. Elizabeth Petersen of Advanced Choice Economics Pty Ltd
Dr. Michael Robertson of CSIRO
Mr. Peter Tozer of Muresk Institute, Curtin University of Technology
Mr. Erin Cahill of CSBP
Dr. Francis Hoyle of the Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia
Dr. Daniel Murphy of the University of Western Australia
Mr. Andrew Wherrett of the Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia
Thank you to Emma Wilson (formerly Liebe Group) for developing, conducting and reporting on the initial technical
audit.
Further Information
To obtain a copy of the complete technical audit results please contact the Liebe Group office by phoning
(08) 9664 2030 or emailing admin@liebegroup.asn.au .
For further information on the Liebe Group’s GRDC funded adoption project visit the Liebe website
www.liebegroup.asn.au .
The Liebe Group sincerely thanks its project partner GRDC.