The Work Assessment Method shows potential to improve performance and social sustainability on Australian dairy farms
Michael Santhanam-Martin
A * , Ruth Nettle A , Jason Major A , Jocelyn Fagon B , Emmanuel Beguin C and Patten Bridge D
A Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Vic. 3010, Australia.
B Institut de l’Elevage, Auzeville-Tolosane, France.
C Institut de l’Elevage, Amiens, France.
D BridgeLogic Consulting, Osbornes Flat, Vic. 3691, Australia.
Animal Production Science 62(1) 90-100 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN20438
Submitted: 6 August 2020 Accepted: 27 June 2021 Published: 30 September 2021
© 2022 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing
Abstract
Context: Social aspects of livestock farming systems, including farm workforce and how work is organised, have received less research attention than the biophysical and technological aspects. This constrains understanding of social challenges to the sustainability of livestock systems, such as farm labour shortages, farmers’ overwork, the undesirability of farming careers, workforce and skills changes linked to new technologies, and the connections of all these to farm performance and profitability.
Aims: We introduce and test the applicability and utility in the Australian context of a method developed in France for assessing work organisation: The Work Assessment Method (WAM). The WAM goes beyond standard labour productivity metrics, such as total labour cost or livestock units per worker, to examine different types of work (routine, seasonal), who does the work (owner–managers, employees, contractors) and how these change seasonally. A measure of social sustainability (‘calculated time available’) is a key feature.
Methods: We conducted the first Australian trial of the WAM on two Victorian dairy farms. Through facilitated discussions between participating farmers and the research team, we evaluated the utility of the method, and identified requirements to adapt it for larger, pasture-based dairy systems.
Key results: The WAM was applied successfully on the pilot farms, despite differences in farm systems between France and Australia. The method characterised in detail the sources of overwork for each farm, enabling discussion of how the social sustainability and overall performance of the farms could be improved. The participating farmers reported that the method provided insights that were not available from current financial and physical analyses.
Conclusions: The WAM shows potential for supporting farmers, advisors and researchers in work aimed at improving farm social sustainability and profitability, but requires adaptation to suit Australian conditions. A larger exploratory study applying the WAM on additional dairy farms, and on mixed farms, is suggested.
Implications: This study provides a strong foundation for further research to develop the WAM as a useful research and advisory tool for Australian livestock production systems.
Keywords: Australia, dairy farming, labour efficiency, labour productivity, liveability, social sustainability, work assessment, work organisation.
References
Alston M (2004) Who is down on the farm? Social aspects of Australian agriculture in the 21st century. Agriculture and Human Values 21, 37–46.| Who is down on the farm? Social aspects of Australian agriculture in the 21st century.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ayre M, McCollum V, Waters W, Samson P, Curro A, Nettle R, Paschen J-A, King B, Reichelt N (2019) Supporting and practising digital innovation with advisers in smart farming. NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91, 100302
| Supporting and practising digital innovation with advisers in smart farming.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Carneiro dos Santos Filho J, Hostiou N, Damasceno JC, Dedieu B (2012) Room for manoeuvre in time of the workforce in dairy production systems. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 41, 2450–2457.
| Room for manoeuvre in time of the workforce in dairy production systems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cournut S, Chauvat S, Correa P, Santos Filho JCD, Diéguez F, Hostiou N, Pham DK, Servière G, Sraïri MT, Turlot A, Dedieu B (2018) Analyzing work organization on livestock farm by the work assessment method. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 38, 58
| Analyzing work organization on livestock farm by the work assessment method.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Couzy C, Dockes A-C (2008) Are farmers businesspeople? Highlighting transformations in the profession of farmers in France. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business 6, 407–420.
| Are farmers businesspeople? Highlighting transformations in the profession of farmers in France.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dairy Australia (2013) ‘Dairy people factfinder.’ 2nd edn. (Harris Park Group for Dairy Australia’s Industry People & Capability Group: Melbourne).
Dairy Australia (2016) DairyBase. Available at https://www.dairyaustralia.com.au/farm-business/DairyBase [Accessed 12 September 2021].
Delecourt E, Joannon A, Meynard J-M (2019) Work-related information needed by farmers for changing to sustainable cropping practices. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 39, 28
| Work-related information needed by farmers for changing to sustainable cropping practices.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dockès A-C, Chauvat S, Correa P, Turlot A, Nettle R (2019) Advice and advisory roles about work on farms. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 39, 2
| Advice and advisory roles about work on farms. A review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dufty N, Martin P, Zhao S (2019) ‘Demand for farm workers: ABARES farm survey results 2018.’ (ABARES: Canberra)
Eastwood C, Ayre M, Nettle R, Dela Rue B (2019) Making sense in the cloud: farm advisory services in a smart farming future. NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91, 100298
| Making sense in the cloud: farm advisory services in a smart farming future.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Eastwood C, White T, Sheridan J, Manning M, Mashlan K (2017) Skills required by dairy farmers when strategically adapting their farm system. Rural Extension and Innovation Systems Journal 13, 22–31.
Eastwood CR, Greer J, Schmidt D, Muir J, Sargeant K (2018) Identifying current challenges and research priorities to guide the design of more attractive dairy-farm workplaces in New Zealand. Animal Production Science 60, 84–88.
| Identifying current challenges and research priorities to guide the design of more attractive dairy-farm workplaces in New Zealand.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Eastwood CR, Jago JG, Edwards JP, Burke JK (2016) Getting the most out of advanced farm management technologies: roles of technology suppliers and dairy industry organisations in supporting precision dairy farmers. Animal Production Science 56, 1752–1760.
| Getting the most out of advanced farm management technologies: roles of technology suppliers and dairy industry organisations in supporting precision dairy farmers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Edwards JP (2020) A comparison of profitability between farms that milk once or twice a day. Animal Production Science 60, 102–106.
| A comparison of profitability between farms that milk once or twice a day.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Edwards JP, Kuhn-Sherlock B, Dela Rue BT, Eastwood CR (2020) Short communication: Technologies and milking practices that reduce hours of work and increase flexibility through milking efficiency in pasture-based dairy farm systems. Journal of Dairy Science 103, 7172–7179.
| Short communication: Technologies and milking practices that reduce hours of work and increase flexibility through milking efficiency in pasture-based dairy farm systems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 32505396PubMed |
Fagon J, Sabatte N (2010) ‘Référentiel travail en élevages bovins lait. Synthèse de 190 Bilans Travail.’ (Institut de l’Elevage: Auzeville-Tolosane, France)
Ferris CP, Frost JP, Binnie RC, Patterson DC (2006) Dairy cow performance and labour inputs associated with two silage feeding systems. Grass and Forage Science 61, 304–314.
| Dairy cow performance and labour inputs associated with two silage feeding systems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hay R, Pearce P (2014) Technology adoption by rural women in Queensland, Australia: women driving technology from the homestead for the paddock. Journal of Rural Studies 36, 318–327.
| Technology adoption by rural women in Queensland, Australia: women driving technology from the homestead for the paddock.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Henty S, Ho CKM, Auldist MJ, Wales WJ, Malcolm B (2020) A whole-farm investment analysis of a partial mixed ration feeding system for dairy cows. Animal Production Science 60, 444–453.
| A whole-farm investment analysis of a partial mixed ration feeding system for dairy cows.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hostiou N, Dedieu B (2012) A method for assessing work productivity and flexibility in livestock farms. Animal 6, 852–862.
| A method for assessing work productivity and flexibility in livestock farms.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22558933PubMed |
Hostiou N, Khanh PD, Duteurtre G, Binh VT, Dedieu B (2012) Relationships between work organisation and size of dairy farms: a case study based in Vietnam. Tropical Animal Health and Production 44, 1709–1716.
| Relationships between work organisation and size of dairy farms: a case study based in Vietnam.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22488524PubMed |
Janker J, Mann S (2020) Understanding the social dimension of sustainability in agriculture: a critical review of sustainability assessment tools. Environment, Development and Sustainability 22, 1671–1691.
| Understanding the social dimension of sustainability in agriculture: a critical review of sustainability assessment tools.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kingwell R (2011) Managing complexity in modern farming. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 55, 12–34.
| Managing complexity in modern farming.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Madelrieux S, Dedieu B (2008) Qualification and assessment of work organisation in livestock farms. Animal 2, 435–446.
| Qualification and assessment of work organisation in livestock farms.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22445047PubMed |
Madelrieux S, Dedieu B, Dobremez L, Girard N (2009) Patterns of work organisation in livestock farms: the ATELAGE approach. Livestock Science 121, 28–37.
| Patterns of work organisation in livestock farms: the ATELAGE approach.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Makeham JP, Malcolm L (1993) ‘The farming game now.’ (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK)
Malanski PD, Ingrand S, Hostiou N (2019) A new framework to analyze changes in work organization for permanent employees on livestock farms. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 39, 12
| A new framework to analyze changes in work organization for permanent employees on livestock farms.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mountain Milk Co-Operative (2019) About us. Available at https://www.mountainmilkcoop.com.au/about-us/our-story/ [Accessed 26 November 2019].
Nettle R (2015) More than workforce shortages: how farm human resources management strategies will shape Australia’s farming future. Farm Policy Journal 12, 17–27.
Nettle R, Kuehne G, Lee K, Armstrong D (2018) A new framework to analyse workforce contribution to Australian cotton farm adaptability. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 38, 38
| A new framework to analyse workforce contribution to Australian cotton farm adaptability.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Nye C (2018) The ‘blind spot’ of agricultural research: labour flexibility, composition and worker availability in the South West of England. Cahiers Agricultures 27, 35002
| The ‘blind spot’ of agricultural research: labour flexibility, composition and worker availability in the South West of England.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Productivity Commission (2005) ‘Trends in Australian agriculture: research paper.’ (Productivity Commission: Canberra)
Romera AJ, Bos AP, Neal M, Eastwood CR, Chapman D, McWilliam W, Royds D, O’Connor C, Brookes R, Connolly J, Hall P, Clinton PW (2020) Designing future dairy systems for New Zealand using reflexive interactive design. Agricultural Systems 181, 102818
| Designing future dairy systems for New Zealand using reflexive interactive design.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Santhanam-Martin M, Cowan L (2018) Making “middle managers”: Workforce development for agricultural industries in transition. In ‘Proceedings of the 13th European IFSA Symposium’. (International Farming Systems Association - Europe Group: Vienna). Available at http://ifsa.boku.ac.at/cms/fileadmin/Proceeding2018/1_SanthanamMartin.pdf [Accessed 23 July 2018]
Shalloo L, Hanrahan L (2020) Setting targets for the Irish dairy industry. Animal Production Science 60, 159–163.
| Setting targets for the Irish dairy industry.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Thomas EB, Dolecheck KA, Mark TB, Eastwood CR, Dela Rue BT, Bewley JM (2019) A decision-support tool for investment analysis of automated oestrus detection technologies in a seasonal dairy production system. Animal Production Science 59, 2280–2287.
| A decision-support tool for investment analysis of automated oestrus detection technologies in a seasonal dairy production system.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Thompson PB (2007) Agricultural sustainability: what it is and what it is not. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 5, 5–16.
| Agricultural sustainability: what it is and what it is not.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
