Coordination of Participatory R&D in NSW

Summary

​The producer research sites (PRS) project (originally Producer Participatory Research) was instigated in 2013 by Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) as an adjunct to the core feed base research plan. PRS was intended to facilitate cooperative research projects on farm which added value to the core feed base investment plan research portfolio.

Producer groups were engaged through an expression of interest process and facilitated meeting held to help the producer groups and researchers formulate research objectives and plans for a full funding submission. A key requirement of the PRS was that projects be conducted in such a way as to give statistically sound results and to add value to the core research. It was also important that a core group of producers was actively involved in the conduct of the research.

Thirteen groups in NSW expressed interest in the program. For some groups the demands of a research project proved too high or the resources deemed insufficient for them to afford the technical assistance they felt was necessary to conduct work to this standard. Others found that the topic areas were too confining and were not able to formulate research plans that met the goals of the group as well as the MLA research areas. These groups withdrew from the project prior to contracting. Five groups were ultimately contracted to the project in NSW and conducted projects related to Phosphorous use efficiency, novel legumes, real time pasture assessment and subtropical pastures (x2).

Seasonal conditions proved difficult for four out of the five groups and impacted on the success of trial establishment (dry conditions) and access to trial sites (flood/waterlogged conditions). In addition to seasonal challenges four of the five projects involved sowing of new pasture trials and with short project lead times, poor weed control had large negative impacts on trial establishment and persistence.

Producer groups with good executive support found the demands of reporting and contractual processes easier to deal with and the groups with the most success in completing research tasks and meeting milestones also had access to more skilled technical assistance. Groups with less skilled assistance found meeting milestone difficult and were more likely to miss planned measurements or diverge from the agreed protocols for measurement techniques.

Results from producer research sites would be enhanced in future by having mechanisms to ensure that producer groups had access to suitably qualified technical assistance with the completion of research activities prior to contracting projects. It must also be recognised that these skills are quite specialised and that sufficient financial resources must be available to contract these qualified technical services. The use of qualified technical assistance need not diminish the producer engagement with the research process but it would ensure a more uniform quality of producer research delivery and a higher likelihood of achieving the stated research objectives trough maintaining data quality.

Overall the PRS process provided a successful medium to engage producers in the MLA's feed base research and very useful and ongoing relationships between the researchers and the producers have resulted. Producers in the participating groups have a far better appreciation for the research process and researchers a better understanding of the difficulties producers have in adapting new research to fit their farm systems.