Reducing the cost of complexity for greater farming system change. Rick Llewellyn
-
Upload
joanna-hicks -
Category
Education
-
view
518 -
download
3
description
Transcript of Reducing the cost of complexity for greater farming system change. Rick Llewellyn
Reducing the cost of complexity for greater farming system change
Rick Llewellyn
CSIRO, Waite Campus
Increasing value of convenience
• Trends in farm businesses and management
• Implications for agricultural innovation and technologies• Value of convenience • Cost of complexity
• Challenge for R&D• Shift in drivers of relative advantage• Potential for innovation-advisor synergy• Expanding research role in innovation development process
Increasing farm sizeLess managers per hectareGreater land use intensity
More management demands
Less available labour & management attention
Farm business trends
Management constraints affecting farm productivity
- Management constraints a major factor limiting farm productivity growth and technical efficiency
- Management constraints leading to widening gap in farm efficiency
(ABARE, 2010; Hughes et al., 2011)
Increasing research recognition of complexity and labour constraints in farming systems
(Kingwell 2011; Doole et al 2009)
Lucerne increases whole farm profitability by 3% but increases management time by 9%
Examples from Australian crop-livestock farming
No-shear sheep
(or no sheep)
Autosteer/ GPS Guidance
Convenience in a bag:Herbicide tolerant soybean, US
Non-pecuniary embodied benefits:
simplicity; flexibility
Piggot and Marra 2008
Embodied innovations
Embodied innovations:
The benefits are obtained relatively simply through its direct use.
Benefits can be attributed simply and directly
(e.g. new disease resistant crop; autosteer)
Non-embodied innovations: Usually information-intensive. Ongoing decisions and management
are needed to benefit from the technology
Require higher levels of management capacity to gain full value - skills, education, advisory support
(e.g. monitoring tools; variable rate technology; soil tests)
RR Soybean: the growing value of convenience
• Evidence that growers become accustomed to convenience
• More inelastic demand
• Willing to pay higher prices for embodied convenience
• Less willing to shift away from embodied convenience
• Shifts in farm labour allocation; IWM reluctance
Piggot and Marra 2008 +Uematsu et al 2010; Fernande z-Cornejo et al 2005.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
% n
o-til
l ado
ptio
nNo-till adoption in Australian cropping regions
Llewellyn & D’Emden 2010
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
% n
o-til
l ado
ptio
nNo-till adoption in Australian cropping regions
Llewellyn & D’Emden 2010
Factors influencing no-till adoption rate
Use of crop consultant Higher education
Higher participation in extension activities Years since first awareness of nearby no-till adopter
Prior year much drier than average
Perceived soil moisture conserving benefits and improved seeding timeliness
Effectiveness of pre-emergent weed control (perceived) Relative price of glyphosate herbicide Location (region/state) and average rainfall
D’ Emden et al. 2007 (SA, Vic, NSW, WA 2003) ; 82% of decisions correctly predicted – 2003 use
From Logit &
Duration analysis
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
% no
-till a
dopt
ionNo-till adoption in Australian cropping regions
Llewellyn & D’Emden (2010) ; 2008 use
Logit analysis of no-till use & extensive use (>90% crop area)
Growers without a crop consultant are less than ½ as likely to be no-till adopters.
• No-till system has complex demands
• Information and knowledge intensive (NT groups)
• Not an embodied technology, but advisor support evolved
• Advisors have had a substantial role – ongoing
• Agronomic constraints to more extensive use (perceptions):
• Disease
Adoption of no-till systems
Convenience, complexity and advisor support affecting peak adoption, not just rate
Time
Early majority
Late majority
Actual relative advantage
Personal characteristics; learning-related characteristics; extension; actual relative advantage
Adoption of variable rate fertiliser in Australian grain growing regions
Region
Have yield map (%)
Varying fertiliser rates on zones
and yield map (%)
SA
Central 20 7
Lower EP 32 10
Upper EP 20 5
Western EP 8 3
Mallee 17 9
VICMallee 24 18
Wimmera 23 4
WA Central 40 9
Robertson, Llewellyn et al 2011 (2008 use)
Adoption of variable rate fertiliser in Australian grain growing regions
Region
Have yield map (%)
Varying fertiliser rates on zones
and yield map (%)
SA
Central 20 7
Lower EP 32 10
Upper EP 20 5
Western EP 8 3
Mallee 17 9
VICMallee 24 18
Wimmera 23 4
WA Central 40 9
Robertson, Llewellyn et al 2011 (2008 use)
Consultant use 2x ***Logistic adoption model of VR
From complexity to convenience?
The role for research
The R&D challenge: the case of PA
Expected profitability alone not leading to high adoption
Complexity and inconvenience
A role for research not just extension
Overcoming low ‘adoption’ by advisors
Finally
• Role for ‘advisor-technology synergy’ • Innovation can be complex, but supported by
advisors• Research aimed at developing relative advantage for
advisors & farmers
• Management time scarcity increasingly affecting relative advantage• Cannot be ignored in full economic analyses (whole-
farm)• Increasing value of ‘convenience agriculture’
9% management attention Vs 3% profit increase?
THANK YOU