An objective prioritisation method for agriculture RD&E
Geoffry Fordyce A * , Dave R. Smith B , Nigel R. Perkins C and Michael R. McGowan CA GALF Cattle Pty Ltd, PO Box 784, Charters Towers, Qld 4820, Australia.
B Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Charters Towers, Qld 4820, Australia.
C School of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland, Gatton, Qld 4343, Australia.
The Rangeland Journal 44(3) 149-158 https://doi.org/10.1071/RJ22009
Submitted: 27 February 2022 Accepted: 3 June 2022 Published: 19 July 2022
© 2022 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing on behalf of the Australian Rangeland Society.
Abstract
We aimed to develop and test a relatively objective method for rapidly and accurately assessing the priority for research of interventions tendered as potential solutions to a prevailing problem in agriculture. In this test, our method aimed to direct research of evidenced-based strategies to ameliorate consistently high rates of foetal and calf loss experienced in northern Australia’s beef herd. Detailed reviews of factors affecting foetal and calf loss and potential solutions were conducted. A simple economic analysis, based on rating management interventions for their impact on earnings before interest and tax, was then developed to enable rapid simultaneous business-impact comparison of multiple options. If the outcome value for an option is negative, it suggests that the option is less profitable than is prevailing practice, if approximately zero, it suggests that the option is very marginal, and more positive values suggest a higher potential benefit. The values obtained were further analysed by rating for incidence and researchability to derive research priority. This sequence of activities was conducted by peers representing a broad spectrum of beef business (managing an estimated 0.4 million cattle), science and agribusiness representatives from across northern Australia. A sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the method was robust in ranking both business impact and research priority. Ten foetal and calf-loss minimisation interventions were rated by producer and agribusiness representatives and the project team as a high priority for business. Four of these were excluded because of low incidence or low researchability, leaving six rated as having highest priority for research. Informal feedback from many participants indicated high satisfaction with the proposed method. The conclusion was that this method, with suggested variations, successfully discriminated priority for a large range of potential interventions for calf loss research, development and extension (RD&E). The method described could readily supplant commonly used more subjective methods and be used to assess priority for RD&E of other issues for multiple agricultural commodities, as well as simply for rapid assessment of management options within a production enterprise.
Keywords: beef cattle, calf loss, economics, northern Australia, priorities, research, management, objective.
References
Anon. (2005) Expert opinion workshop on biosecurity in beef, dairy and sheep farms. Final report, Project SE4002, Reference CTA0301c. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK.Anon. (2019) ‘Rural Research and Development Corporations.’ (Department of Agriculture, Australian Government: Canberra, ACT) Available at http://www.agriculture.gov.au/ag-farm-food/innovation/research_and_development_corporations_and_companies
Anon. (2016) Expert panel method. Foresight. Available at http://foresight-platform.eu/community/forlearn/how-to-do-foresight/methods/expert-panels/
Burns, BM, Fordyce, G, and Holroyd, RG (2010). A review of factors that impact on the capacity of beef cattle females to conceive, maintain a pregnancy and wean a calf - Implications for reproductive efficiency in northern Australia. Animal Reproduction Science 122, 1–22.
| A review of factors that impact on the capacity of beef cattle females to conceive, maintain a pregnancy and wean a calf - Implications for reproductive efficiency in northern Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20447780PubMed |
Byerlee, D (2000). Targeting poverty alleviation in priority setting for agricultural research. Food Policy 25, 429–445.
| Targeting poverty alleviation in priority setting for agricultural research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fordyce G, McGowan MR, McCosker K, Burns BM (2014) Foetal and calf loss in extensively-managed beef cattle. In ‘Proceedings of the 28th World Buiatrics Congress, Keynote lectures’. 27 July-1 August 2014, Cairns, Qld, Australia. pp. 94–100. (World Association for Buiatrics: Montreal, Canada)
Hartwich, F, and Janssen, W (2000). Setting research priorities: an example from agriculture using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Research Evaluation 9, 201–210.
| Setting research priorities: an example from agriculture using the Analytic Hierarchy Process.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hsu, C-C, and Sandford, BA (2007). The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation 12, Article 10.
| The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Humphrey-Murto, S, Varpio, L, Wood, TJ, Gonsalves, C, Ufholz, LA, Mascioli, K, Wang, C, and Foth, T (2017). The use of the Delphi and other consensus group methods in medical education research: a review. Academic Medicine 92, 1491–1498.
| The use of the Delphi and other consensus group methods in medical education research: a review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28678098PubMed |
McGowan MR, McCosker K, Fordyce G, Smith D, O’Rourke PK, Perkins N, Barnes T, Marquet L, Morton J, Newsome T, Menzies D, Burns BM, Jephcott S (2014) North Australian beef fertility project: Cash Cow. Final report, Project B.NBP.0382. Meat and Livestock Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Available at https://www.mla.com.au/research-and-development/reports/2014/cash-cow---northern-australian-beef-fertility-project/
McGowan MR, Fordyce G, Smith D, McCosker K, Barnes T, Hegarty R, McNeil D, Perkins N, Miller J, Schooley K, Brodie W, Comiskey R, Lynch D, Murrell G, McClymont A (2017) Development of candidate management interventions to reduce foetal and calf loss in beef herds in northern Australia. Final report, Project B.GBP.0001. Meat and Livestock Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Available at https://www.mla.com.au/research-and-development/reports/2017/development-of-candidate-management-interventions-to-reduce-foetal-and-calf-loss-in-beef-herds-in-northern-australia/
McLean I, Holmes P, Counsell D (2014) The Northern beef report 2013 – Northern beef situation analysis. Final report, Project B.COM.0348. Meat and Livestock Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Available at https://www.mla.com.au/research-and-development/reports/2014/northern-beef-situation-analysis-2013/
Mutangadura, G, and Norton, GW (1999). Agricultural research priority setting under multiple objectives: an example from Zimbabwe. Agricultural Economics 20, 277–286.
| Agricultural research priority setting under multiple objectives: an example from Zimbabwe.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Spool JM (2004) The KJ-technique: a group process for establishing priorities. Available at https://articles.uie.com/kj_technique/
