Extension as a knowledge partner in farming systems research Early lessons from FutureDairy Australia

Transcription

1 Extension as a knowledge partner in farming systems research Early lessons from FutureDairy Australia Sean Kenny 1, Ruth Nettle 2 1 The University of Sydney, Private Bag 3, Camden, NSW, Australia, seank@camden.usyd.edu.au 2 The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic, Australia, ranettle@unimelb.edu.au Abstract FutureDairy is a new initiative developed to help Australia s dairy farmers manage the challenges they are expected to face over the next 20 years. It is investigating the issues associated with large increases in forage and milk production/ha along with new technologies to improve labour efficiency and lifestyle. The project is designed around partnerships between researchers, both technical and social, extension agents and farmers. Such partnerships aim to co-develop the knowledge and practices required for managing technologies to meet industry challenges. These knowledge partnerships are viewed as a potential way to fast-track learning about the adaptation of technologies on-farm and are being considered for their suitability for other farming systems RD&E in Australia. The extension role in FutureDairy includes: establishing and supporting effective partnerships between commercial farmers and technical research; brokering the different knowledge types within the partnership; and, building networks with local extension and farming groups associated with commercial farms. Issues emerging in this role include managing diverse farmer expectations and needs; working through the form of partnership required between farmers, extension and researchers; and redefining the role of extension in real time. Such issues are discussed with a view to the development of a framework for effective extension practice as a broker of knowledge partnerships in farming systems research. Keywords Dairy, Extension, knowledge partnerships, technology, future farming systems. Introduction The terms of trade for the Australian dairy industry have fallen by 1.8% per year over the past decade (ABARE 2004). Despite a four fold increase in production per farm since the early 80 s (Dairy Australia, 2005), productivity growth has been modest at 1.2% over the same period (ABARE 2004). Such figures suggest that increased farm production is almost being matched by the inputs required to achieve this production and that new technology is providing little in the way of improved farm efficiency. With pressure on the terms of trade for Australian dairy farmers likely to continue, many are questioning what the most efficient future production systems will look like (Garcia and Fulkerson, 2005). The availability and cost of labour along with the challenges associated with efficiently feeding dairy cows are seen as the key issues of concern for dairy systems of the future, and form the focus for the FutureDairy project. The FutureDairy Project a response to industry challenges

2 The FutureDairy project centres on three modules of research around forages, feeding and innovations (Garcia et.al 2006). The forages module aims to produce more homegrown feed from a given parcel of land. The target is to utilise over 40t DM/ha/yr sustainably using a Complementary Forage Rotation (CFR) (Garcia and Fulkerson, 2005). The feeding module is researching alternative pathways to increasing production per hectare by 30-50%. The key question relates to intensification of the farm business if dairy farms have to increase output to overcome declining terms of trade, and given the competition for land resources faced by many dairy producers, what is the most efficient way to use bought in feed? Finally, the innovations module is investigating a number of innovations that have the potential to improve farm efficiency, labour management and/or lifestyle. The key innovation under investigation is automatic milking systems (AMS). Investors come from a diverse group including industry bodies (Dairy Australia, Regional Dairy industry development corporations), State government departments, academia (Universities of Sydney and Melbourne) and private companies (DeLaval, C-DAX, Kahn). As issues surrounding future production systems for increased industry productivity involve technical, economic and social domains of knowledge, a multidisciplinary research design was considered necessary. The central strategy of FutureDairy is to create a platform for different disciplines and knowledge types to co-develop knowledge for improving farm and industry productivity. These knowledge partnerships (Nettle and Kenny, 2006) are facilitated through a research-extension interface with links to five commercial dairy farms (partner farms). This interface is enhanced by links to farmer discussion groups (support groups) and is coordinated by the project s extension leader. Critical to the partnership is social research, whose role it is to capture the decision making process of the farmers around the issues of concern, document learning s of the knowledge partnership, and critically analyse the effectiveness of this RD&E model. A key challenge for such large, multidisciplinary projects is the role the extension discipline plays. Recent literature advocates learning and negotiation processes amongst inter-disciplinary teams in technology development (Leeuwis, 2000). The need for such processes highlights the importance of a designated facilitator of the innovation process, competent in both technical and socio-organisational domains. Campbell (2001) describes such a social agriculturalist as the new extensionist, a professional intermediary between science and practice who recognises the implications of technological change on handling information and social learning. This mediator also informs debates, illuminates trade-offs, and works as a go-between, brokering information. However, it is one thing to describe the role of the new extensionist, and another to make it work in an RD and E environment dominated by the agribusiness paradigm (Nettle 2003). What does the every-day practice for the new extensionist in multi-disciplinary teams entail and how does the extension role contribute to innovation? The remainder of this paper aims to address these questions through the documented experiences to date of the extension and social research leader s of FutureDairy. Doing FutureDairy the challenge for extension The extension role in FutureDairy has primarily revolved around: a) establishing and supporting effective partnerships between commercial (partner) farmers (located in

3 vastly different production and social landscapes of Australia) and technical research (located at one site); b) brokering the different knowledge types of farmers, extension and researchers (both technical and social); and c) building networks with local extension and farming groups associated with partner farms One key reflection for each element of extension s role is discussed below. Establishing and supporting partnerships In general the transfer of technology paradigm (TOT) (Rogers, 1983) has dominated agricultural RD and E in Australia. During the 1990 s, the espoused focus of extension shifted more toward working and learning together with farmers through developing an understanding of their unique context and building effective responses from this position (Hamilton, 1995; Paine, 1997; Kenny, 2002). The FutureDairy project utilises this latter approach, with farmer knowledge supporting the understanding of issues associated with adaptation of new technology. One persistent challenge relates to shifting the focus within the knowledge partnership away from technical science as the primary discourse, to seeing each discourse within the partnership as equally legitimate. The expectation science will provide the answers still persists and a shift toward the notion of codevelopment has caused tension within a number of the partnerships. For example, one partner farm and their support group became frustrated when their expectation of new technology was not met early in the project. This was despite significant efforts during the engagement process and initial activities with the farmers to reinforce how each practice is contributing to the knowledge partnership. This issue was resolved through revisiting the nature of the project questions and explaining the farmers unique contribution. This suggests that a new model of knowledge construction (codevelopment) needs to be learned, particularly in an environment were alternate paradigms (ie: TOT) dominate. Thus the extension role involves facilitating learning around a shared concept of what co-development of knowledge looks-like, whilst operating in a tension filled environment. Brokering knowledge types As stated previously, the new extensionist needs to be competent in both technical and socio-organisational domains. This is no exception within FutureDairy where extension, in order to fulfil its role as knowledge broker, must have the capacity to mediate between multiple knowledge types. An example of this is the process of planning for a complementary forage rotation (CFR) on the project s partner farms. Within the FutureDairy knowledge partnership, technical research has provided knowledge concerning agronomic requirements of growing a CFR whilst the farmers have provided insights into the effects of scale (large herd issues), regional constraints (timing, climate), perceptions of risk and the preferred division of labour for sowing and harvesting the maize components of the rotation. This has meant a far richer picture is emerging of the technical, economic and social requirements of growing a CFR than would have been gained through demonstrating agronomic best practice alone. Extension in this situation provided the farmers with the initial insight into the technology, established an appropriate environment for the technical scientists to share their knowledge around the CFR and developed a detailed understanding of the farm business which enabled customisation of the CFR via modelling potential crop area scenarios. It also provided a means of feeding back the farmer insights around

4 managing the CFR to the researchers, thus ensuring the farmers experience was considered in ongoing research activities. This process effectively formed a case study for social research on how the knowledge partnership functioned around planning for the CFR, insights of which have been critical in further developing our understanding of farmer decision making and the effectiveness of the partnership. Building networks The network which forms the basis of the knowledge partnerships within FutureDairy consists of over 50 people, in four vastly different physical and social landscapes, spread across 2000km within Australia s eastern states. These networks within a network, are predominantly based on good will, verbal agreements and in-kind support. Maintaining, developing and supporting the network becomes the mechanism for brokering knowledge and also the main focus for extension practice in the project. This has presented 2 main challenges. First is logistical, in that keeping informed of farm progress and ensuring an approach tailored to local cultural and advisory arrangements requires significant travel and communication with local support people. Second is institutional, in that the project relies on the commitment of participating organisations, irrespective of contractual obligations. For example, six months into the knowledge partnerships, one participating organisation withdrew funding for a critical FutureDairy network member. Although an issue for project management, extension as the overseer of the network has to work to manage the impact this will have on the functioning of the network and knowledge partnerships at the local level. These challenges suggest that facilitating effective networks across varied farming and advisory landscapes requires an equal focus on networks at the local and the project central levels. Such a focus requires a significantly different set of skills to be employed by extension. Towards a model for extension in farming systems RD&E Extension therefore has a unique role as a mediating practice in industry level knowledge management. As such its competent performance is based on a capacity to share in a number of competent performances with a range of other practices like farming, researching and policy making. In so doing extension requires its own body of theory and methodological resources to continuously improve its practice and that of other practices in which it shares a competent performance (Paine et al 2004). This presents challenges around managing expectations of extension as they currently stand whilst at the same time operating within an alternate paradigm. Although a model for the new extension in farming systems RD and E may be in its early days, early insights suggest that such a model will need to resolve the question of how to effectively resource and manage the relationships required for knowledge partnerships to function effectively. Such relationships will have to be built upon: An acknowledgement of the tension filled process associated with ushering in a new paradigm for generating new knowledge around technology adaptation and innovation. Such an acknowledgement will involve a process of negotiating and agreeing upon new a power dynamic within RD&E projects. A new technical competence for extension based on a better understanding of the broker role and how to track and modify its performance.

5 More definition (through documentation) of the new role of extension in farming systems RD&E so that capacity for managing farming systems projects can be built. The experience of extension in FutureDairy and the way the role of extension is effectively being redefined in real time is seen as a platform for building theoretical and methodological resources to improve the performance of extension (mediating practices) in farming systems RD&E. References ABARE (2004) Production systems, productivity and profit. Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics. ADIC (April, 2002), Strategic Review of RD&E. Australian Dairy Industry Council, Melbourne. Campbell, A. (2001), Managing Australia as if we are here to stay, for good, Proceedings, Landcare Conference, Goondawindi. Dairy Australia (2005), Dairy Situation and Outlook Dairy Moving Forward, Melbourne. ( Engel, P.G.H. (1995), Facilitating innovation. An action-oriented and participatory methodology to improve innovative social practice in agriculture. Dissertation. Department of Communication and Innovation Studies. Wageningen University, Netherlands. Garcia S.C., Fulkerson W.J., Nettle R.A. and Kenny S.N. (2006) FutureDairy: a national, multidisciplinary project to assist dairy farmers manage future challenges - Early learnings. Proceedings of the National Dairy Science symposium, Mt Gambier, Sth Australia. Garcia S.C. and Fulkerson W.J. (2005) Opportunities for future Australian dairy systems: a review. Aust J.Exp.Agric., 45, Hamilton N.A. (1995) Learning to learn with farmers: An adult learning extension project. Phd Thesis, Wageningen, The Netherlands Kenny S.N. (2002) A process for practice: learning for change in the dairy industry. MAgSc Thesis, Melbourne University, Melbourne. Leeuwis, C (2000), Learning to be sustainable. Does the Dutch agrarian knowledge market fail? European Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension: international journal on changes in agricultural knowledge and action systems Vol. 7, No. 2, pp Nettle R.A. (2003) The Development of a National Dairy Extension Strategy: A Literature Review for Dairy Australia. Parkville, Institute of Land and Food Resources, University of Melbourne. Paine, M.S., Nettle, R.A.and Coats, S (2004). Countering Knowledge Markets in Agrisystems. Organisational Knowledge and Learning Conference, Austria. March, 2004.p15 Paine M.S., (1999). Improving the Management of Technology Development Through Mediation (Part A) Journal of Education and Extension, 6, 2. pp Paine M.S. (1997) Doing It Together Technology as Practice in the Dairy Sector. Phd Thesis, Wageningen, The Netherlands Rogers E.M. (1983) Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd Edition, Free Press, New York.