An evaluation of farmer response to Pestweb

Transcription

1 An evaluation of farmer response to Pestweb A short report for the SFF project PestwebNZ June 2009

2 An evaluation of farmer response to Pestweb AgResearch Limited June 2009 D. Bewsell DISCLAIMER: While all reasonable endeavour has been made to ensure the accuracy of the investigations and the information contained in this report, AgResearch expressly disclaims any and all liabilities contingent or otherwise that may arise from the use of the information. COPYRIGHT: All rights are reserved worldwide. No part of this publication may be copied, photocopied, reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of AgResearch Ltd.

3 Table of Contents 1. Executive summary Recommendations Project description Evaluation of website Methods Results Response to Pestweb Positive aspects of Pestweb Suggestions for improvement Barriers to uptake of control strategies Discussion and recommendations Effectiveness of Pestweb Barriers to uptake of control strategies Recommendations References i

4 1. Executive summary Pestweb has been designed to collate available information on pests and weeds into an easily accessible format for farmers. In order to evaluate the website, research was undertaken to assess the effectiveness of the website for disseminating information on pest and weed management, and to identify barriers that may impede the uptake of control strategies for pest and weed management. Six farmers were interviewed, all of whom were sheep and/or beef and/or cropping farmers in the south Otago region, and participants in the south Otago monitor farm group. In addition, one rural supplier field officer and one education provider representative were interviewed. The results of the interviews indicate that Pestweb has the potential to be an effective method of disseminating information on pest and weed biology and control. The farmers interviewed believed that the current design and level of information on Pestweb was appropriate and put forward several suggestions for additions to the site. One need was to expand the range of pests and weeds in order to ensure the website was relevant to a wide range of farmers. Farmers indicated that the pest alert service was pertinent and useful, particularly for new pests or weeds to the region. The main barrier to the uptake of the control strategies outlined in Pestweb was found to be the perception that many control measures are not cost effective. This perception is most likely to be linked to the mix of enterprises on the farm. However, it appeared that farmers were prepared to use control strategies at specific times (e.g. when regrassing) when they felt the outcome justified the effort. 1.1 Recommendations Continue to expand Pestweb, adding other relevant pests and weeds As Pestweb is expanded, ensure that the pest alert service is part of the package Link pest and weed control with activities such as resowing. Farmers are putting a great deal of time and effort into these activities and will be more prepared to add pest and weed control options into the process if it is demonstrated to be effective Commission further research to better understand the decisions farmers make about which control measures to use for particular pests and weeds 1

5 2. Project description Grass grub, porina, slugs, stem weevil, Californian and nodding thistles and ragwort reduce pasture persistence and productivity in Southland and southern Otago. Currently there is a range of information available regarding control of these pests and weeds. However, this information is often fragmented and can be difficult to access by farmers and others involved in the pastoral industry. A website was developed by AgResearch scientists in conjunction with the south Otago monitor farm group in order to help collate and effectively disseminate available information on pest and weed management. The website Pestweb is accessed at The prototype website has two pests and two weeds (porina, grass grub, Californian thistle, barley grass) found throughout New Zealand. Users have the option of searching the site by pest/weed name, appearance (through photos), or pasture symptoms. The information provided on the site covers the management and biology of each pest or weed and focuses on details of sustainable control options (i.e. biocontrol and other methods with less reliance on pesticides). A key feature of the website is the 'pest alert'. This is a free alert to which farmers can subscribe, to inform them of regional pasture pest outbreaks. An example alert has been written for grass grub and porina and is currently available on the website. The development of Pestweb enables scientific experts to collate available information on pests and weeds into an easily accessible format for farmers. However, the website will also be of interest and use to others in pastoral service industries and could be used by them as a training tool. In addition, Pestweb provides a forum for capturing the experience of scientists before they retire in order that the information can be accessed. Depending on the feedback from farmers and other stakeholders, as well as funding options, the plan is to develop a comprehensive, national website including more weeds and pests in the future. 3. Evaluation of website The research outlined in this report was designed to assess: The effectiveness of the website in disseminating information about pest and weed biology and control; and Identify barriers that impede the uptake of these control strategies. 2

6 4. Methods To obtain information from farmers about Pestweb and the pest and weed management strategies they currently use, qualitative interviews were undertaken. Interviewing is a well-established data collection technique. Interviews provide a means of generating data that directly reflect the views of the person being interviewed. Interviews allow respondents to express the impact or meaning of an event in their own words (Flick, 2009; Patton, 2002). Although a face-to-face interview process was developed, most interviews for this project were unable to be undertaken in this manner. Telephone interviews were therefore carried out with most of interviewees. Telephone interviewing can be successfully used as a substitute for face-to-face interviews to gather qualitative data (Struges and Hanrahan, 2004). Interviewees were asked about the Pestweb website to determine whether they felt it was easy to use, and whether the level of information provided was appropriate. They were also asked where they normally obtained information on pests and weeds. In addition, interviewees were asked to identify the key pests and weeds they had experience with on their farm in order to provide some context to their response to Pestweb. Interviewees were asked about the control strategies they used for key pests and weeds to provide an indication of potential barriers to adoption of alternative control strategies outlined on the website. A total of six farmers were interviewed. All farmers were sheep and/or beef and/or cropping farmers in the south Otago region, and were part of the south Otago monitor farm group. In addition, one rural supplier field officer and one education provider representative, both of whom also took part in the monitor farm group, were interviewed. 3

7 5. Results 5.1 Response to Pestweb Most farmers were positive about the Pestweb site and felt that it was useful. Similarly the rural supplier field officer and education provider said that Pestweb helped fill an information gap. One farmer interviewed felt that he already had access to a range of people who could provide him with information he needed on pests and weeds and so did not feel that Pestweb was particularly useful in his situation Positive aspects of Pestweb Most farmers thought that Pestweb was well structured, easy to follow and had the right amount and level of information. Farmer 5 explained; You need to keep the information succinct as you do not want to be wading through the equivalent of lots of fact sheets. Farmer 4 added; The key areas are covered in Pestweb. There should not be too much information, just the relevant facts. Two or three lines is all that is needed as you can always google a weed or pest and get more information if you want it. You have to set up Pestweb for people who aren t used to using the web so it needs to be short and sweet. The pest alert service was of particular interest to some farmers as they felt it would help them make key decisions on control or management of pests in particular. Farmer 1 said; It s the real benefit. If he had known for example that grass grub was going to be particularly bad this season he may have done things differently. Other farmers believed that this service would help them to identify new pests. Farmer 5 explained; Clover Root Weevil and Argentine Stem Weevil haven t previously been a problem here but are becoming more prevalent. Farmer 2 added; Pestweb was useful, not so much for the pests he is used to, but for the sporadic ones that he wants some information on. For example if he sees something new (pest or weed). Occasionally you see something odd and you want to make sure what they are. Pest alert is a good idea if it was a nice and simple , not too often. Often you are too busy to look and some things are always there but any tips on when to look is good. It could be useful for when things are spreading into new areas Suggestions for improvement A few farmers felt that ensuring other information providers were aware of, and could promote Pestweb was important. One farmer felt that the information in Pestweb was 4

8 already provided through other sources and so could see limited use for the site for him. Farmer 1 said; X (CRT rep) knows most in the district and would be the current pest alert person. He notices things on the ground out there, and is well known. Seed companies are also good sources of information (e.g. for Argentine stem weevil recently). Farmer 3 agreed saying; At the moment the rural supplies rep would be the source of information (e.g. the CRT or PGGWrightsons guy) depending on the problem. But sometimes reps do not know enough or have not got much information. Pestweb would be a good substitute as long as it takes only 5 minutes to grab the information you need. The current set up looks user friendly, it s just a matter of having all the information there. Farmer 6 felt that other people already provided much of the information. They have agronomists to look for new pests (e.g. CRW) and rely on them to provide information to know what is going on in terms of pests. However Pestweb could be useful for those farmers who were not sure about a pest or weed. One farmer, as well as the education provider and rural supplier field officer indicated that the range of pests and weeds currently covered needed to be expanded for the website to be really useful. In addition, one farmer suggested that a map showing the pest or weed distribution could be useful. Another felt a chat or forum area could be of interest to farmers as it would allow them to share successful control strategies. 5.2 Barriers to uptake of control strategies It became clear when interviewing farmers that the control strategies they chose to use on their farm depended on; The extensive/intensive nature of the farm enterprise, and in particular whether cropping was part of the farm system; and The cost of the control strategy in relation to the perceived effectiveness of that strategy. Those farmers interviewed who had a significant area of cropping in their farm system were more likely to use control measures for pests or weeds on the crops. This also had some impact on the resulting pest or weed levels in pastures through rotations or simply reducing the pest or weed population. Farmer 1, who had 50% of his farming in cropping explained; Grass grub is one of the key pests to deal with, although it has been much worse over the last 2 3 years. It s not as bad on the property because of the cropping that helps keep it in check. There are also some problems with porina, especially in older pastures (9 10 years old). Again farmer 1 finds that cropping helps keep these in check because cropping compacts the soil and makes it difficult for these pests to become a problem. There are more pests in the crops (e.g. aphids) that are trickier to manage. It is easier to see pests in the crops, whereas sometimes damage in pasture is undetectable. 5

9 This helps the decision to use chemicals on the crops. Chemical control is the only form of control available. Farmer 1 sees the difference using chemicals in the crops (e.g. one sprayed paddock last year had 2 3 tonnes more grain than others that didn t get sprayed). Often pastures are put into cropping if the pests get really bad as the return is better off it and justifies the use of chemicals. The decision to use a control strategy, particularly a chemical one, was dependant on the return for the cost incurred. Farmer 4 explained; Sometimes the cost of treatment and the uncertain return is enough to prevent farmers from applying treatment. For example with grass grub the recommended control is hit and miss. You need rain to make it effective so often farmers decide it is not worth it. Porina control is cheaper and effective. It was about $10/ha to control porina, but for grass grub it was more like $80/ha and only 30% effective. These numbers do not stack up for farmers. Often farmers spend money on paddocks they are regressing as they are already focussed on getting that right. Farmer 2 explained that he did not believe it was worth going to the time and effort to try and control grass grub on his property. The grass grub is in the hill country and you can t get a tractor over those parts of the farm (10% of the farm is uncultivatable). It s hard to make a decision about how to control the pest under these circumstances. Sometimes the pasture cover he has compensates for the losses from the grass grub. He has some porina but is using AR37 so it is not supposed to be an issue. He is happy to live with a bit of pest damage. Farmer 3 agreed; In the past he hasn t done much about these pests because it costs money but doesn t do anything. Most farmers were using management techniques to help control some pests. Farmer 5 explained; He has taken the strategy of using AR37 endophyte when resowing to try and counteract the rise in pest numbers (particularly weevils). He made this decision three seasons ago so every paddock he has resown since has gone in with AR37 if it was available. Other farmers used resowing of pastures as an opportunity to deal with weeds. For example, farmer 6; In terms of weed management he tends to use the areas he is regrassing and the areas in crop to deal with weeds. This year he trialled switching from regrassing in spring to autumn, putting in a rape crop over summer and spraying for fat-hen while the rape crop was in. It went so well that this is what he is going to do from now on. Farmer 6 was using nitrogen to help deal with pests; Nitrogen is used in spring to heal up and stitch in. This generally deals with any pasture damage. 6

10 Further research is needed to better identify barriers that impede the uptake of the control strategies outlined on Pestweb. 7

11 6. Discussion and recommendations 6.1 Effectiveness of Pestweb Pestweb has the potential to be an effective method of disseminating information on pest and weed biology and control. The farmers interviewed believed that the current design and level of information on Pestweb was appropriate. Several made the point that not all farmers have access to high speed internet services and so it was important to ensure that relevant information was a couple of clicks away. In order to ensure the website was relevant to a wide range of farmers there was a need to start the next stage of the work and expand the range of pests and weeds on Pestweb. Farmers indicated that the pest alert service was pertinent and useful, particularly for new pests or weeds to the region. However farmer response to new pests or weeds would depend on the availability of cost effective control measures for the pest or weed. 6.2 Barriers to uptake of control strategies The main barrier to the uptake of the control strategies outlined on Pestweb is the perception that many control measures are not cost effective. This perception is most likely to be linked to the mix of enterprises on the farm. The interviewees that had extensive sheep and/or beef enterprises tended to conclude it was not worth the time and effort to control some pests and weeds below a certain level of damage. In contrast those farmers with a high percentage of cropping tended to believe that it was worth putting time and effort into controlling some pests and weeds, particularly as they were able to see an increase in the yield of a crop, as well as decrease the pest and/or weed burden for the farm as a whole. In addition, there were management strategies available to farmers that enabled them to deal with a certain level of pest or weed damage (e.g. using extra nitrogen). It appeared that farmers were prepared to use control strategies at specific times when they felt the outcome justified the effort. Pasture renewal (regrassing) was consistently mentioned by farmers as a time that control measures for pests and weeds were worthwhile. This outline of farmers response to a range of control strategies is consistent with other research on adoption of pest and weed management strategies. For example, Horne et al. (2008) notes that it is easier for farmers to use a well established and proven pest control method than rely on alternative approaches, particularly in the absence of a crisis. Swanton et al. (2008) concluded that a key barrier to adoption of Integrated Weed Management was the lack of an economic incentive. Further research is needed to provide more information on strategies to help promote the use of alternative control measures for pests and weeds. 6.3 Recommendations Continue to expand Pestweb, adding other relevant pests and weeds 8

12 As Pestweb is expanded, ensure that the pest alert service is part of the package Link pest and weed control with activities such as resowing. Farmers are putting a great deal of time and effort into these activities and will be more prepared to add pest and weed control options into the process if it is demonstrated to be effective Commission further research to better understand the decisions farmers make about which control measures to use for particular pests and weeds 9

13 7. References Flick, U. (2009). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Fourth Edition. Sage Publications. Horne, P.A. Page, J. and Nicholson, C. (2008). When will integrated pest management strategies be adopted? Example of the development and implementation of integrated pest management strategies in cropping systems in Victoria. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 48(12), Patton, M.Q. (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Third edition. Sage Publications. Sturges, J.E. and Hanrahan, K.J. (2004). Comparing Telephone and Face-to-Face Qualitative Interviewing: a Research Note. Qualitative Research 4(1): Swanton, C.J. Mahoney, K.J. Chandler, K. and Gulden R.H. (2008). Integrated weed management: Knowledge-based weed management systems. Weed Science 56(1):