• 
• 
• 

You are here: Agriculture » About Agriculture » Publications and Resources » Dairy » Grazier Adoption of Hill Land Class Fencing and Deep Rooted Perennial Pasture

Grazier Adoption of Hill Land Class Fencing and Deep Rooted Perennial Pasture in the Upper Wimmera

ISBN 978-1-74199-485-8

Authors

Lisa Cowan Practice Change Research Department of Primary Industries

Chris Linehan Practice Change Research Department of Primary Industries

Acknowledgments:

The authors would like to thank Julie Andrew, Felicity Brown, Ewan Letts and Riad Naji at the Department of Primary Industries, Stawell for their support and guidance on this project.

We would like to thank Ben Rowbottom and Cinzia Ambrosio for their contribution to the interviews.
We like to thank Vic Wright, Geoff Kaine and Fiona Johnson for their feedback and support in analysing and writing this report.
Finally, we gratefully acknowledge the landowners in the Upper Wimmera who gave their valuable time and input into this research.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Background
3. Research Approach
4. Methods
5. Hill Land Class Fencing 
   • Results
   • Discussion
   • Summary key findings
   • Recommendations
6. Deep Rooted Perennial Pasture
   • Deep Rooted Perennial Grasses
   • • Results
     • Discussion
     • Summary of key findings
     • Recommendations
   • Lucerne
   • • Results
     • Discussion
     • Recommendations
7. References

Introduction

The Wimmera Catchment Management Authority (CMA), in partnership with the Department of Primary Industries (DPI), has implemented extension and incentive based programs to protect the catchment's valuable natural resource assets. There are landholder programs that encourage the installation of hill land class fencing (HLCF) to reduce the impact of erosion on fragile hills and improve perennial pasture management.  There are also programs that encourage the sowing of deep rooted perennial pastures (DRPP) to reduce dry land salinity in key areas of the Upper Wimmera.

A number of targets have been identified for these programs in the Wimmera Regional Catchment Strategy (RCS) (Wimmera Catchment Management Authority 2005). Landholder interest in the programs has changed over time with the current rate of incentive uptake falling below what is required to meet the RCS targets for HLCF (J. Andrew 2007, pers. comm., February 2007). Staff at the Wimmera DPI are concerned that graziers may not be implementing these two practices, with a possibility that Upper Wimmera soil and water health targets may not be achieved. To address these concerns, now and into the future, staff in the Wimmera DPI are investigating potential ways to modify their incentive and extension programs.

In this study we investigate the adoption of hill land class fencing and deep rooted perennial pasture by landholders to assist Wimmera DPI staff in identifying potential modifications to the current extension and incentive programs that may increase the likelihood of achieving RCS targets.

Background

Graziers (i.e. landholders with livestock) have been encouraged to implement HLCF, which separates steep hill country from the rest of their property, for over 30 years. HLCF grants have been available in various forms for more than 10 years. HLCF can help graziers manage stock access to steep hills more effectively, minimising the risks of overgrazing on fragile soils in the steep hills of the Upper Wimmera.

The DRPP program encourages the adoption of deep rooted perennial grasses (i.e. phalaris, cocksfoot, tall fescue) and lucerne in salt recharge areas to reduce salinity problems. Salinity extension has been operating for over 10 years, with the DRPP grants introduced three years ago.

The DRPP program has a number of conditions and recommendations for graziers. To qualify graziers must sow pasture within priority areas for recharge control. Weed control prior to sowing and stock exclusion for the first year are also required. Additionally, there are a number of recommendations relating to cultivar selection, methods of sowing and pasture management, which are offered to graziers but are not required within the grant.

Though the HLCF and DRPP programs were developed separately, they are now offered as a complementary package of voluntary approaches targeting graziers. This package includes incentives and a broad range of extension activities that are delivered by DPI to achieve RCS targets.

Wimmera DPI staff are concerned that the HLCF incentive program may not meet the three-year RCS target, which is measured by number of kilometres of fencing over three years (J. Andrew 2007, pers. comm., February 2007). As the DRPP grants have only been recently introduced, Wimmera DPI staff are interested in understanding the potential scope of the uptake of the grants in their salinity program (E. Letts 2007, pers. comm., February 2007).

Research Approach

Kaine et al. (2005) suggest that the decision to adopt an innovation in agriculture is based on whether or not the innovation provides a net benefit to the farmer. Kaine et al. (2005) also suggest that the end user's farm context, (i.e. the resources, mix of practices and techniques used in a farm enterprise) is the key driver determining the benefit the landholder is seeking from an innovation and therefore the key to determining whether an innovation is relevant for a landholder to adopt.

As not all farm contexts are the same, Kaine et al. (2005) suggest different farm contexts may mean that the same innovation could provide different benefits to different farmers. By understanding these contexts and the benefits landowners seek when adopting an innovation we can classify landholders into market segments. These segments can then be used to target extension messages to landholders based on the information that is likely to be relevant to them (for examples see Kaine et al. 2005 and Ambrosio et al. 2006).

In this research study we used the Kaine framework (Kaine et al. 2005) to identify the benefits landholders were seeking that led to the adoption of HLCF and DRPP, as well as the issues landholders faced that affected their decision making regarding adoption of these practices. The findings in this research will be used to identify the potential for meeting RCS targets and to develop recommendations for Wimmera DPI on changes to the existing program.

Methods

The methods we used to understand the decision making process of graziers in the adoption of HLCF and DRPP were consistent with Kaine et al. (2005). In this paper, the term 'grazier' refers to any landholder who has livestock on his or her property.

First, we conducted three semi-structured interviews with DPI representatives who administer the incentive programs. The purpose of the interviews was to assemble background information on extension and incentive programs currently offered to landholders. These interviews helped us to understand the context in which Wimmera DPI operates.

We then conducted grazier interviews for HLCF in the Upper Wimmera during March 2007, followed by grazier interviews for DRPP from late March through April 2007. Interviews were conducted separately for each innovation because our theoretical approach suggests that the decision making process for each would be different.

We used convergent interviewing (Dick 1998) to identify the key issues influencing the adoption of HLCF and DRPP. Convergent interviewing is unstructured in content so we used laddering (Grunert & Grunert 1995) to systematically explore the reasoning underlying the decisions and actions of the interviewee. These methods allowed us to then identify similar and dissimilar patterns in reasoning among the interviewees and the rationale for these patterns.

We used purposive sampling to identify suitable interview subjects because it allowed us to selectively target interviewees, helping to ensure that we explored a range of farm contexts and views (Patton 1990). Within the HLCF study we targeted graziers in hill-country. For DRPP, we targeted graziers who owned property in salt recharge priority areas. For both studies, we sought people who had a variety of experiences with the innovations.

Within our purposive sampling, we used snowball sampling (Patton 1990) to target interviewees, as the different sets of farm context relevant to the adoption of HLCF and DRPP were unknown. Using this technique, we asked initial interviewees to recommend other potential interviewees, who they considered may add insights to our findings, including those who have had similar and dissimilar experiences to themselves. This process continued until we achieved convergence, i.e. when no more substantial information was gained (Patton 1990), which we believe occurred after 22 interviews for HLCF and 14 interviews for DRPP.

Interview responses were recorded manually by the two interviewers and then transcribed. Transcribed interview notes were cross-checked for accuracy, both in terms of relevance to the research and the transcription process (Patton 1990).

Hill Land Class Fencing

Results

The graziers we interviewed in relation to HLCF suggested the topography varied on their properties which they described as including lowlands, undulating country and steep hills. The steep hills predominantly consisted of native grasses. Interviewees identified the transition point between the undulating land and steep hills as the break in slope above which they could not drive machinery safely. This was consistent with the definition of steep hills used by DPI and CMA when determining whether an area qualifies for the HLCF incentive.

Interviewees stated that they manage their steep hills differently from other farming land. The graziers described a range of problems that they have experienced which lead them to having this opinion. The problems related to a loss of productivity on the steep hills due to soil loss, a decline in the amount of native grasses and an increase in weeds; as well as problems in the lowlands that stemmed from the steep hills such as run off, sheet erosion, salt discharge, land slips, silt and other debris and gullying.

Some landowners also suggested that north and south facing slopes of the steep hills needed to be managed differently, because they believed the northern slopes had more fragile soils due to being exposed to harsher climatic conditions than the southern slopes. Graziers noted that the risk of negative consequences from poor management decisions was greater on these northern slopes.

Graziers described a number of ways they managed their steep hills differently. The majority of graziers we interviewed believed appropriate management of the native pasture on the steep hills was important for their farm. While some of the graziers we interviewed had tried improving the pasture by aerial sowing and/ or fertiliser at some stage, most of the interviewees did not deem this a viable long term option for steep hill management. Some landowners had decided planting trees on the steep hills or letting the steep hills regenerate naturally was more appropriate than having to management native pastures for grazing.

We found that practices to control stock were a major part of the graziers' management strategy to maintain native pasture. Graziers suggested the native grasses in the steep hills responded well to these grazing practices. Most of the landholders we interviewed de-stocked the steep hills over summer to allow the native grasses to naturally seed. Many interviewees also used lower stocking rates or allowed stock to crash graze the steep hills, which were described as different management tactics compared to those they used on their undulating or lowland areas. Some interviewees said they did not run ewes in the steep hills, as ewes increased the grazing pressure on paddocks because they require more feed per head compared to wethers. Most graziers believed wethers had a less environmentally detrimental impact on the fragile hills compared to ewes.

Erecting fencing at the break in slope between the undulating land and steep hills was identified by most interviewees as a key management practice for keeping the hills in a viable state as it allowed them to control stock access to these fragile areas. Some interviewees described how they also fenced across the north/south ridgelines to control these slopes separately. We found that there was a high level of adoption of HLCF in the study area, which seems logical given the importance graziers place on fencing to control stock and manage the hills. In fact, we could not find any graziers in the target area who had not adopted HLCF.

While there is a high level of adoption, this does not mean that all hills have been fenced. In this study we define adoption as first time a grazier erects HLCF. This does not take into account the length of the fence. Most graziers we interviewed had a number of steep hills on their property and/ or had a number of paddocks that were connected to a steep hill. Once HLCF was adopted it could then be implemented across the property. Graziers described the implementation of HLCF as something they did over time, as a part of pasture renovation. Graziers also described a number of constraints to the implementation of HLCF on specific hills. These reasons were related to water access for stock and limitations of farm layout. However, we found that both adoption and implementation of HLCF was high.

Most of those who had adopted HLCF did so with the support of various government incentive programs which have been available over several decades. Some graziers had fenced all or part of their hills before the grants were available while others had bought property with the fencing already erected.

Interviewees described a range of reasons that led them to the adoption of HLCF as a management practice for their hills. These related to having a high proportion of hills on the farm, controlling stock for pasture management, negative impacts on the lowlands from the steep hills, and keeping stock out of revegetation areas. Based on the reasons that graziers described for adopting HLCF, we have classified graziers into four segments.

Segment One (High proportion of the property is steep hills)

These graziers adopt HLCF because they have a high proportion of steep hills on their property when compared to those in the other segments. Given this high proportion of steep hills, productivity in these hills is important for the viability of the grazing enterprise.

• These graziers use the steep hills as a regular part of their grazing regime, so they tend to have stock in the steep hills for longer periods of the year than those in the other segments.
• These graziers actively invest resources (time, labour and money) in the steep hills to maintain and increase productivity.
• These graziers believe they need to focus their management on issues such as soil loss, decline in the amount of native grasses and the increase in weeds on the steep hills, to ensure productivity of the steep hills.
• While some of these graziers have gullying problems in their lowland areas, they manage these problems by implementing management options in the lowlands rather than the steep hills (e.g. gully battering).
• These graziers do not believe they have a serious problem with run off, silt in dams, sheet erosion, salt discharge or land slips.
• These graziers tend to only tree the parts of the slopes that are substantially degraded, as most of the steep hills are maintained as pasture.

*****
Bill runs a superfine wool business on a 640 hectare property. More than half of the property is made up of steep hills that are not arable. It is too steep to get machinery on the steep hills to fertilise and introduced pasture doesn't persist up there. Bill believes that it is good superfine wool country in the steep hills, with fewer problems with worms and fly strike. He runs wethers on his steep hills as they require less feed and management than ewes and lambs. Bill fenced his steep hills to stop the topsoil and groundcover loss he was experiencing caused by sheep camping on the tops of his steep hills. He also fenced to divide the north and south facing slopes on his steep hills because the sheep were impacting more on the north side.
*****

Segment Two (controlling stock for pasture management)

Graziers in segment two adopt HLCF to control stock on their property to aid in pasture management. These graziers do not have a high proportion of steep hills, nor do they have erosion problems that stem from the steep hills. While the steep hills may not be as important to farm viability for these graziers when compared to segment one, the risk to the farm of using the hills as a part of the regular grazing regime is minimal.

• These graziers believe they have no or minimal problems stemming from the steep hills that affect their productivity (i.e. no sheet erosion, silt, land slips or salt discharge problems).
• While some of these graziers do have gullying problems, they associate these problems with the dispersive and erosion prone soil types in their lowland areas and not with their steep hills.
• These graziers are likely to focus on issues related to stock management including ensuring stock grazed all the pasture in a paddock before moving them and keeping stock off paddocks that are being improved.
• Like those in segment one, these graziers tend to only tree the parts of the slopes that are really degraded, as most of the steep hills are maintained for pasture.

*****
Joyce has a wool and prime lamb business on a 330 hectare property. A little over 15% of the property is made up of steep hills. Her property does have a gullying problem in the lowlands because it has dispersive soil. She is working to get rid of the gullies because it is hard to check for lambs in the gullies and more gullies mean less productive land. The steep hills on the property are shale and do not have any problems with water running off of them. Joyce has fenced off the steep hills to increase productivity in the steep hills and control the stock in lowland paddocks as a part of her cropping program.
*****

Segment Three (Steep hills have a negative impact on the lowlands)

These graziers adopt HLCF to reduce problems stemming from the steep hills that affect productivity of their lowlands. While the hills are likely to make up a smaller proportion of the property compared to segment one the impact on the lowlands is significant, therefore the risk to the farm of using the steep hills as a part of the regular grazing regime is high.

• These graziers believe they have problems they attribute to the steep hills such as run off, sheet erosion, salt discharge, land slips, silt and other debris, and gullying; which affect the productivity of their lowlands.
• These graziers believe the risk to the lowlands, by inadequately managing their steep hills, is too high to use their steep hills as a regular part of their grazing regime. Therefore these graziers graze steep hills opportunistically and tend to not have stock in the steep hills as long as those in segments one and two.
• These graziers tend to plant trees onto bigger areas of their hills than those in segment one and two, and are more likely to tree the entire north side of hills.

*****
 Elliot has a prime lamb and wool sheep farm on a 480 hectare property. The property is mostly undulating land with about 80 hectares of steep hills. Elliot has found that the steep hills are harder to manage than the undulating country. He believes if steep hills are not managed differently, it can really affect his business. For example, he recently had 100 mm of rain in 20 minutes, and run-off from his neighbour's steep hill destroyed his fencing and put a lot of silt in his dams. Elliot has also had a problem with erosion which he believes has required him to do a lot of extra work over the last five years.
 Elliot has been treeing up more areas of his steep hills and said that one day all of the steep hills will be trees. He believes this will provide stable soil structure in the hills so as not to affect the undulating land below.
 *****

Segment Four (Keeping the stock out of revegetation)

HLCF is adopted by graziers in this segment to exclude stock from revegetation areas. Graziers in segment four can broadly be described as lifestyle farmers. These graziers are interested in promoting tree growth on the hills for aesthetic reasons. They are more likely to have off-farm income and are not as focused on the productivity of the property compared with the other segments.

• These graziers are not concerned by the pasture productivity of the steep hills. While these graziers may derive some income from their property, grazing stock is less important to their income.
• These graziers keep livestock in some areas of their property, although the stocking rate may be lower than that set by graziers in other segments.
• These graziers value the aesthetic nature of the trees on the steep hills and are mainly concerned with preventing access to the steep hills by livestock to protect the trees and views.
• These graziers tend to plant trees over larger areas of their steep hills, often accessing different grants and subsidies for fencing through tree planting grant programs, rather than through HLCF.

*****
 Stan, who lives in Melbourne, bought a 600 acre block of land a couple of years ago because he wanted a bit of land to play with. Stan has the aim to move out there some day. He currently goes up to the property every second weekend, and is actively working to improve it. He wants it to look aesthetically pleasing.
 Stan fenced and treed 178 acres of his steep hills, and says he still has more that he wants to plant to trees, once the first lot gets established. A local sheep grazier has agisted his sheep on Stan's land. Stan believes the HLCF is beneficial because it helps him to establish and develop trees on the steep hill while also meeting the needs of the local sheep grazier.
 *****

Discussion

We believe the future uptake of grants in HLCF is likely to remain low. This is because the DPI, in partnership with the CMA, has run a successful HLCF extension and incentive program that has had a high level of adoption. While all steep hills in the Upper Wimmera have not been fenced, we believe this is likely to be due to graziers' current farming context not supporting the implementation of HLCF (e.g. lack of access to water or area too small). Additionally, the implementation of HLCF is constrained by the implementation of farm renovations, (i.e. pasture renovation, paddock clearing, water access changes). The incentive for HLCF is likely to be taken up to complement a grazier achieving the aims of farm renovations rather than the incentive for HLCF being a primary driver for change.

Given the already high adoption rate and demographic trends in the Upper Wimmera as suggested by Barr (2005), we believe that the number of graziers who take up the incentive in segments one, two and three is unlikely to substantially increase. The graziers in these segments may take up the incentives when they continue their program of pasture renovation over time.

While some graziers suggest that north-south slopes need to be managed differently, not everyone is managing the hills accordingly. There is a possibility that grazier management of the north-south facing steep hills as a unit is leading to further degradation of the hills. We believe that providing incentives for north-south aspect fencing may be worth considering, as this may encourage better use of the steep hills in line with catchment outcomes. We believe graziers in segment one and two are more likely to be interested in an incentive of this nature.

If demographic trends in the Upper  Wimmera continue to follow those described by Barr (2005) there will be an increase in smaller, lifestyle landowners in the region, which may lead to an increase in the number of graziers in segment four. This may not lead to a significant increase in the uptake of HLCF due to the high level of adoption by all segments (i.e. these landowners are likely to purchase land that has existing HLCF erected or they are likely to be interested in incentives that pay for revegetation and associated fencing rather than the HLCF incentives). That is, HLCF program objectives are likely to be further achieved via adoption of related, but different, programs.

Summary of key findings

• We found that there is a high adoption rate of HLCF, and that once adopted graziers continue to implement HLCF across their property over time as a part of a farm renovation program.
• Just because graziers adopt HLCF, this does not mean they fence all of their hills. Some hills are not fenced because the farm context does not support HLCF (e.g. lack of water access).
• Future uptake of HLCF grants is likely to be low because of the program's success in achieving high adoption and high implementation of HLCF in the district (i.e. there are not many areas that have not been fenced).

Recommendations

1. The DPI and the Wimmera CMA may benefit from continued discussion on whether HLCF is the most relevant way to use resources to achieve catchment outcomes.
2. The DPI and Wimmera CMA may like to consider providing incentives for north-south aspect fencing to encourage better use of steep hill country, which would most likely be of interest for those graziers in segment one and two.

Deep Rooted Perennial Pasture

During our interviews we found graziers described their businesses as a combination of livestock and cropping variables. The livestock part of graziers' business was sheep (for wool, meat or both) and/ or cattle. The cropping part of the business consisted of various crops that were either sown directly for market or as a feed source for their livestock. Importantly, the combination of both livestock and crops was not fixed but rather altered, both spatially and temporally, in response to the graziers' objectives. Graziers suggested that the key to success was an ability to have an appropriate combination of crops and livestock that allowed them to supply the current market as well as respond quickly to changing market or climatic conditions.

While the variables (i.e. livestock species and number and crop variety and area) differed from farm to farm, the way graziers described the farm topography and the consequences of this was consistent. Graziers described their farm topography as having three distinct parts: the steep hills, lowlands or creek/river flats and undulating land.

The steep hills were described as a part of the farm that could not be accessed by machinery due to the incline of the slopes. The steep hills predominantly consisted of native grasses. Some graziers talked about using aerial seeding and fertilising, but many said that this has become costly. All graziers we interviewed suggested that DRPP would not be sown on the steep hills.

Graziers described the creek flats and other lower lying lands as generally being the most productive, well drained and fertile soil on their properties. Graziers predominantly used the lowland areas for planting crops. Crops were used for either direct market sales or as strategic supplementary feed for stock, when other feed was scarce or additional nutrition was required. Graziers were unlikely to use this area to sow DRPP with the exception of lucerne, which will be considered later in this report.

The graziers we interviewed described the undulating land as the intermediate country below the steep hills and above the lowlands. Graziers suggested that apart from sowing crops as part of pasture renovation, the undulating area was used to sow annual and perennial pasture species for livestock consumption via direct grazing and fodder conservation. Graziers suggested they were likely to sow a variety of pasture species in the undulating area including various deep rooted perennial grasses (i.e. phalaris, cocksfoot and tall fescue), annual grasses or legumes and perennial rye and clover. Pasture species could be mixed either within paddocks or between paddocks. Graziers told us the pastures sown in the undulating land were the main feed source throughout the year for their livestock. In particular, graziers told us of the critical nature of ensuring they had an appropriate mix of annuals, perennials and summer fodder crops to guarantee they had adequate forage for livestock throughout the year.

Of particular importance to this report is that we found while lucerne can be considered a deep rooted perennial it is not used by graziers in the same way as deep rooted perennial grasses. While graziers sowed deep rooted perennial grasses in the undulating country as a source of stock feed for a majority of the year, lucerne was sown in the lowlands or creek/river flats and is used primarily to fatten or finish lambs. Accordingly, we present the finding/discussion for deep rooted perennial grasses and lucerne separately.

Deep Rooted Perennial Grasses

Results

The graziers we interviewed stated that deep rooted perennial grasses are a vital input into their farming system. We found that grazier adoption and implementation of deep rooted perennial grasses was influenced by location, species availability, pasture renovation and management.

A key finding of this study was that all the graziers we interviewed believed deep rooted perennial grasses are only beneficial when sown in the area they class as undulating country. This area is predominantly sown to a mixture of perennial and annual pasture based species. They did not plant deep rooted perennial grasses in the steep hill country because it is not practical or in the flat country as it will compete with more profitable crop species for available land.

We found that interviewees referred to particular perennial grass species and cultivars and the advantages or disadvantages of each, rather than identifying perennial grasses as a homogeneous group. Graziers chose what species and cultivars to sow based on farm context (e.g. soil type, rainfall, water logging, lambing cycle etc.). Some of the graziers had strong views about particular cultivars or particular species, based on their personal experience (e.g. animal deaths, failed sowing, exceptional strike rate, responsiveness to rain). While the reasons for these experiences are beyond the scope of this report, pertinent to this report is that landowner experience, as well as the benefit sought, meant the area and the cultivar of deep rooted perennial grass sown by a grazier varied from farm to farm.

The graziers that we interviewed told us that they sowed deep rooted perennial grasses as a part of pasture renovation. They described several factors in the pasture renovation process that they identified as contributing to pasture success, including:

1. pasture preparation (e.g. weed eradication, fertilizer and possibly lime, growing a few crops or annual pasture species before sowing the deep rooted perennial grass),
2. sowing methods (e.g. traditional cultivation, minimum tillage or direct drill),
3. pasture establishment (e.g. stock exclusion –though length of exclusion time varied according to farmer experience, type of pasture and climatic conditions) and
4. pasture management (e.g. stocking regimes and fertilizer application).

Given that these factors all affect pasture productivity, grazier adoption of deep rooted perennial grasses does not mean individuals have always been able to sow and manage it in a way that was successful. In fact graziers described a range of experiences with pasture success which they attributed to a number of the factors we have described. Some graziers admitted that their sowing and management practices did not align with the DPI conditions and recommendations, but when they applied their approach they were satisfied with the result. Other graziers described how they had to compromise on what they know to be the optimal practices to managing pasture due to circumstances on farm (e.g. stock exclusion recommendations versus the need to feed stock in times of feed shortages).

We found, consistently, that graziers adopted and continue to use deep rooted perennial grasses for productivity reasons rather than to reduce salinity. Importantly, these two outcomes are not always be seen by graziers to be complementary and this impacts on the effectiveness of the incentive to influence behaviour. The graziers' farm context means they may:

1. (a) want to sow deep rooted perennial grasses outside the salinity priority areas for production reasons, so the incentive is not useful;
2. want to sow deep rooted perennial grasses within the priority area for production reasons, so the incentive may not be a factor in the decision to adopt, but it may be a factor affecting when (time) and how much (area) they sow; or
3. not be overly particular about where deep rooted perennial grasses are sown. In this instance the incentive may be the critical factor increasing the area sown to deep rooted perennial grasses in priority areas.

Graziers initially adopted deep rooted perennial grasses for one of three reasons: to increase feed quantity, to increase feed quality or to decrease input requirements by the grazier. We were able to classify graziers into segments based on the benefits sought for adopting deep rooted perennial grasses.

Segment One (Feed Quantity Focused)

Graziers in segment one adopt deep rooted perennial grasses because they want to increase the quantity (bulk) of feed they grow at a particular time of the year. Typically, a grazier in this segment is dissatisfied with the current pasture performance in terms of density of cover, responsiveness to rain or length of time the feed is available for grazing or fodder conservation.

The graziers in this segment are typically interested in increasing stocking rates as a strategy to maintain a viable farming business. They identify deep rooted perennial grasses as more forgiving to overgrazing than other pasture alternatives.

*****
Frank runs 2200 sheep as a part of a wool and prime lamb business on 1300 hectares. He has a fair bit of annual pasture but has found that the sheep and wool returns have been poor for the past 10 to 15 years. He started putting in perennial pasture over the past 10 years to increase productivity per hectare. He tried rye, but found that he didn't get enough rain for it to persist. He has since moved on to the deep rooted perennial grasses phalaris and cocksfoot, with better success. Frank now runs twice as many sheep on deep rooted perennial grasses compared to his annual pastures.

*****

Segment Two (Quality Focused)

Graziers in segment two adopt deep rooted perennial grasses because they want to increase the quality (nutrition) of feed they grow at particular times of the year. Typically, a grazier in this segment is dissatisfied with current pasture performance in terms of nutritional value (e.g. pasture dries off at a critical time for enterprise) or palatability (e.g. stock selectively graze and therefore underutilise the current pasture).

The graziers in this segment are typically interested in increasing feed quality at certain times of the year as a strategy to maintain a viable farming business (e.g. green feed availability and ensuring full utilisation of pasture). They identified some deep rooted perennial grasses as being more suitable for this strategy than others.

*****
Sam owns a 1500 acre wool farm, where he generally runs 2-2,500 sheep. He used to crop and under sow annual rye and clover with oats as a part of a cropping rotation. He decided to try perennial pastures because he was not satisfied with his annual pastures, which were drying off when he needed more green feed for his lambs. He planted perennial rye five years ago, but again this did not provide the quality of feed he needed at particular times of the year. Last year he planted 60 acres to phalaris. He plans to continue to plant other types of deep rooted perennial grasses, as well as maintain his perennial rye and annual pastures, as he believes that a mixture of pastures is important
*****

Segment Three (Decreased Input Focus)

Graziers in segment three adopt deep rooted perennial grasses because they want to reduce their labour input into pasture management. Typically, a grazier in this segment is likely to use pasture species/cultivars that they believe reduces their need to manage pasture. For example, these graziers are more likely to use varieties that are not inclined to cause toxicity issues, require less management or they believe can be grazed for extended periods of time without causing any productivity issues.

The graziers in this segment typically use off farm income as a strategy to maintain their property and are likely to be weekend farmers or have leased the property to a neighbour.

*****
 Luke bought his 15 acre property two years ago. The property includes a 2 acre house block and 13 acres of old pasture. He is leasing the 13 acres to his neighbour to run sheep on and was looking for something he could plant it all out to so that his neighbour could run his sheep with little input from Luke. Luke considered lucerne but was told that it would not grow well in his area, so he is in the process of planting phalaris. He chose phalaris because it requires little maintenance once established and it is a persistent pasture that will last for decades.
*****

In determining the segments for the adoption of deep rooted perennial grasses we uncovered the benefit a grazier sought when they were considering sowing deep rooted perennial grasses for the first time on their property. However, unlike the adoption of most agricultural innovations the subsequent benefits sought for the use of deep rooted perennial grasses does not have to be limited to one segment on the one farm. For example, a grazier may have adopted deep rooted perennial grasses to increase quality of his/ her pasture in the summer 20 years ago. In the next season the same grazier may have used the deep rooted perennial grasses to increase the quantity of feed available in the autumn. Therefore deep rooted perennial grasses can be used to meet different benefits both temporally and spatially in the same year.

Discussion

The Wimmera CMA and DPI have introduced DRPP incentives to encourage graziers to adopt deep rooted perennials in salt recharge areas. While deep rooted perennial grasses are relevant to all graziers in the Upper Wimmera, the relevancy to graziers is determined by productivity benefits rather than salinity reasons.

In general, the decision to sow or renovate a pasture is determined by pasture performance. Graziers are not likely to tear up good performing pastures for renovation and will focus instead on renovating pastures that are poor performers. For deep rooted perennial grasses, this can be anywhere in the undulating area. The land identified by the Wimmera CMA and DPI to be within the salinity priority area for recharge may be a much smaller portion of this undulating land.

Graziers continuously make decisions about pasture renovation. When they make these decisions, DPI's extension and incentive program may influence grazier decision-making in two main ways.

• There may be an opportunity for extension officers to use the incentive program to encourage graziers to sow deep rooted perennial grasses in the priority areas, compared with other areas of the undulating land.
• The incentive program may also encourage graziers to choose deep rooted perennial grasses over other perennial pasture options, to increase the amount of pasture they are going to sow or to resow degrading pasture more often.

The decision initially to sow deep rooted perennial grasses is made because the grazier deems that, at the time of sowing, deep rooted perennial grasses meet one of the three previously mentioned benefits, better than any available alternative (e.g. it provides more dry matter in the summer months than rye grass, it provides greater quality at certain times of the year than annual species, or it reduces the frequency of sowing). Importantly while there are legitimate differences in the reasons graziers adopt deep rooted perennial grasses (hence the three segments), they are not particularly helpful in predicting subsequent individual landholder use of deep rooted perennial grasses. This is because the reason for the adoption (i.e. initial use) of deep rooted perennial grasses does not preclude the same grazier from using deep rooted perennial grasses later for a different purpose. Therefore, it is important for DPI to have information relevant to all three segments available and promoted to allow graziers to self select into each segment.

There are a number of factors in the process of pasture renovation that affect pasture performance (i.e. weed eradication, fertiliser, sowing practices, pasture establishment and management), many of which are outside the scope of the incentive program. Graziers sow and manage deep rooted perennial grasses using practices that they believe have been successful for them on their property. This means that they may not follow methods recommended by DPI in their pasture renovation. We do not know however whether this is because of a lack of knowledge by graziers or because graziers sometimes need to compromise optimal practices with other farm needs. If the Wimmera DPI and CMA determine that improving pasture performance of deep rooted perennial pastures provides a greater benefit in the salinity recharge area it may be worth considering ways of encouraging optimal practices at the various stages of pasture renovation.

Summary of key findings

• Deep rooted perennial grasses are likely to be relevant to all graziers in the Upper Wimmera and are adopted for productivity rather than salinity reasons.
• Adoption of deep rooted perennial grasses is driven by pasture performance. Graziers renovate poor pastures, wherever they emerge within the undulating land on their property.
• The incentive may be a useful way to get graziers to sow deep rooted perennial grasses on the salinity recharge priority area, which may be a small part of the undulating zone. Additionally, the incentive may encourage graziers to choose deep rooted perennial grasses over other pasture options, to sow more of it or to sow it faster over time.
• The choice of pasture species may be one of a number of factors in the process of pasture renovation that affect pasture success, and therefore potentially the effectiveness of deep rooted perennial grasses in salinity recharge areas.

Recommendations

• To ensure optimal targeting for the deep rooted perennial grasses incentive, extension material should account for all three benefits graziers are seeking and link these benefits to sowing in the salinity recharge area.
• Promotional materials pertaining to deep rooted perennial grasses incentives should continue to be general, rather that focusing on specific cultivars, and allow graziers to choose based on their needs and experience.
• We recommend consideration be given to understanding why graziers may not always follow optimal methods in the pasture renovation process. This can then be used to align the incentive with an agronomic extension program to help graziers throughout the renovation process, which may reduce the risk that intended salinity outcomes of deep rooted perennial grass sowing may not be realised due to poor pasture performance.

Lucerne

Results

We found the benefit graziers are seeking when they adopt lucerne is dissimilar to the benefit they are seeking when they use other DRPP. All the graziers we interviewed identified the weaning or fattening of lambs as the primary reason they adopted lucerne. These graziers described lucerne as a highly nutritious, good quality feed that is green in summer, a period when other pasture often goes dormant.

The graziers we interviewed suggested that lactating ewes and young stock (lambs) have a higher metabolic rate, requiring a higher quantity of easily digestible, good quality feed compared to other sheep. This can present a challenge for graziers as lambing and weaning seasons may occur when perennial pasture lies dormant. By adopting lucerne growers believed they had a highly palatable and nutritional feed source at a crucial time. Some individuals stated that they had changed their lambing cycle to coincide with lucerne availability, so they could take advantage of its benefits.

In addition to weaning lambs, graziers described some other benefits to using lucerne. These included filling feed gaps, as a summer fodder crop, and cutting for hay as a risk management strategy for when feed is low. Additionally, some graziers identified lucerne as fire protection for sheep.

Importantly, graziers believe that to achieve a good lucerne stand, the lucerne must be sown in the better, well drained soil of the lowland areas. This meant that lucerne was not competing with any of the pasture species sown in the undulating land but was competing with crops. Therefore graziers had to be certain the benefits achieved by lucerne would outweigh the opportunity cost of forgoing the future returns from cropping. Sowing lucerne is a significant decision for graziers, since the lifespan of a lucerne stand is around eight years and restricts the graziers' flexibility to respond to seasonal market and climatic conditions.

Graziers described a number of limitations to lucerne, which prevented them from sowing more of it. Interviewees believed that lucerne requires a specific grazing regime (crash grazing), with strict resting times. They perceived that kangaroos preferred lucerne to a number of other pastures, which meant that more stringent kangaroo controls are required if lucerne is to be available as feed for lambs.

*****
Alfred has a 207 hectare property that he grazes intensively for wool and prime lamb production. Alfred believed his pastures were not supplying adequate nutrition at certain times of the year, particularly when he wanted to finish off his lambs. Alfred decided on lucerne because he believed it was the most productive species at the time he needed it. Through his investigations Alfred concluded that the most appropriate place to sow lucerne was in the river flats area not the undulating area. Alfred sows lucerne, in addition to cropping species in this area. About 15% of the property is now lucerne which Alfred believes this is about right for his property. Alfred says the planting of lucerne was a major contributor to allowing him to change from autumn to spring lambing in 2000. The good quality green feed lucerne provides for lambs, means that the lambs will be healthy and fatten up well. Alfred also cuts lucerne for hay when there is surplus to stock needs.
*****

Discussion

While grazier adoption of lucerne in the Upper Wimmera is common, it is unlikely that graziers will sow a large amount of their properties to lucerne. Graziers adopt lucerne to fatten lambs, but graziers also tend to have a mixed farming enterprise that provides them the flexibility to respond to seasonal and market conditions. The planting of lucerne reduces the grazier's ability to make flexible management decisions over the 8-10 year lifespan of the pasture and the risk of relying entirely on lambing is too high for most graziers, which means they generally only grow enough to meet their lamb requirements.

Grazier use of lucerne may be challenging for DPI's incentive program. While many graziers have adopted lucerne on their farms, the locations in which they plant it is generally outside the priority area for salinity control. Furthermore, graziers are unlikely to consider planting lucerne within the priority area as they do not believe they will achieve the benefit they desire.

Summary of key findings

• While graziers adopt lucerne to fatten and finish lambs, they are unlikely to plant large amounts of it because the risk to the farming enterprise of locking up land in the lowland cropping area is too high.
• Graziers do not plant lucerne in the salinity recharge area and have strong views about the requirements where and how lucerne can be grown.

Recommendations

• The DPI and Wimmera CMA may like to investigate the benefit lucerne has for salinity control in the low land areas and, if it is considered significant, to include these areas in the incentive program.
• The DPI and Wimmera CMA may benefit from investing in research to quantify the value of lucerne grown in the undulating area to determine if it is a viable alternative to other deep rooted perennial pasture.

References

Ambrosio, C, Linehan, C and Kaine, G 2006, Understanding adoption of precision agriculture technologies, Conference Proceedings: APEN International Conference "Practice change for sustainable communities: Exploring footprints, pathways and possibilities", March 2006, Beechworth, VIC.

Barr, N 2005, Understanding Rural Victoria, State of Victoria, Department of Primary Industries.

Dick, B 1998, Convergent interviewing: a technique for qualitative data collection, http://www.scu.edu.au/school/gcm/ar/arp/iview.html

Grunert, K and Grunert, S 1995, 'Measuring subjective meaning structures by the laddering method: Theoretical considerations and methodological problems', in the International Journal of Research in Marketing, vol. 12, pp 209-225.

Kaine, G, Bewsell, D, Boland, A and Linehan, C 2005, 'Using market research to understand the adoption of irrigation management strategies in the stone and pome fruit industry', Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, vol 45, pp 1181-1187.

Patton, M 1990, Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, second edn, Sage Publications, pp 169-183.

Wimmera Catchment Management Authority 2005, Wimmera Regional Salinity Action Plan 2005-2010, State of Victoria, Wimmera Catchment Management Authority.