Free Standard AU & NZ Shipping For All Book Orders Over $80!
Register      Login
Animal Production Science Animal Production Science Society
Food, fibre and pharmaceuticals from animals
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > AN > EA05103
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 46(4)

Specifying the farming styles in viticulture

L. Mesiti A and F. Vanclay A B
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Tasmanian Institute of Agricultural Research, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 54, Hobart, Tas. 7001, Australia.

B Corresponding author. Email: frank.vanclay@utas.edu.au

Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46(4) 585-593 https://doi.org/10.1071/EA05103
Submitted: 31 March 2005  Accepted: 28 October 2005   Published: 20 April 2006

Abstract

Fourteen styles of viticulture are defined: Astute Business Grower; Experimentalist Grower; Industry-Endorsed Early Adopter; Professional Scientific Manager; Experienced Manager; Labour-Efficient Grower; Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture Grower; Traditional Grower; Ethnic Grower; Conventional Grower; Retiree Grower; Hobby Grower; Sea-Change Grower; and Marginal Grower. The methodology to identify these farming styles included 6 focus groups in Mildura, Victoria, a face-to-face interview with 142 grape-growers in the Sunraysia region of Victoria, and qualitative interviewing with industry personnel and extension staff. Problems of social desirability response bias, the lack of self-identification by growers with styles, and literacy and other methodological issues meant that qualitative, participatory (emic) methods for identifying styles were not reliable. Following considerable immersion in the field, the researchers identified, on the basis of expert judgment (etic classification), the 14 farming styles in viticulture which they regard as a typology of ideal types. Benefits of the identification of farming styles in viticulture in terms of extension are discussed.

Additional keywords: extension, grape-growing, rural sociology, Sunraysia, targeting, typology.


Acknowledgments

The research was conducted with support from the Cooperative Research Centre for Viticulture.


References


Black A (2000) Extension theory and practice: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 40, 493–502.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | (verified 21 March 2006)

Rogers E (1962) ‘The diffusion of innovations.’ (Free Press: New York)

Salamon S (1992) ‘Prairie patrimony: family, farming and community in the Midwest.’ (University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill)

Thomson D (2001) ‘As if the landscape matters: the social space of farming styles in the Loddon catchment of Victoria. PhD thesis, School of Anthropology, Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Melbourne, Australia.

Thomson D (2002) Understanding diversity in farming behaviour using ‘farming styles’. Wool Technology And Sheep Breeding 50, 280–286. open url image1

Vanclay F (2004) Social principles for agricultural extension to assist in the promotion of natural resource management. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44, 213–222.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Vanclay F, Lawrence G (1994) Farmer rationality and the adoption of environmentally sound practices: a critique of the assumptions of traditional agricultural extension. European Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 1, 59–90. open url image1

Vanclay F, Lawrence G (1995) ‘The environmental imperative: ecosocial concerns for Australian agriculture.’ (Central Queensland University Press: Rockhampton)

Vanclay F, Mesiti L, Howden P (1998) Styles of farming and farming subcultures: appropriate concepts for Australian rural sociology? Rural Society 8, 85–107. open url image1

Youngs G, Goreham G, Watt D (1992) Classifying conventional and sustainable farmers: does it matter how to measure? Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 2, 91–115.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1