Successful adoption of new guidelines for the nutritional management of ewes is dependent on the development of appropriate tools and information
M. Curnow A I , C. M. Oldham A , R. Behrendt B , D. J. Gordon B E , M. W. Hyder A , I. J. Rose C , J. W. Whale B F , J. M. Young D and A. N. Thompson B G HA Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia, 444 Albany Highway, Albany, WA 6330, Australia.
B Department of Primary Industries Victoria, Private Bag 105, Hamilton, Vic. 3300, Australia.
C Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia, 3 Baron-Hay Court, South Perth, WA 6151, Australia.
D Farming Systems Analysis Service, RMB 309, Kojonup, WA 6395, Australia.
E Present address: Rural Industries Skills Training, Private Bag 105, Hamilton, Vic. 3300, Australia.
F Present address: Mike Stephens and Associates, 96 Harbours Road, Yendon, Vic. 3352, Australia.
G Present address: Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia, 3 Baron-Hay Court, South Perth, WA 6151, Australia.
H Present address: School of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences, Murdoch University, 90 South Street, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia.
I Corresponding author. Email: mandy.curnow@agric.wa.gov.au
Animal Production Science 51(9) 851-856 https://doi.org/10.1071/EA08305
Submitted: 18 December 2008 Accepted: 29 November 2009 Published: 14 September 2011
Journal Compilation © CSIRO Publishing 2011 Open Access CC BY-NC-ND
Abstract
Low rates of adoption of innovations in sheep management have been blamed on the poor targeting of messages, low relative advantage of the innovation, a focus on awareness-raising activities rather than adoption activities, poor ‘packaging’ of information and few effective tools to aid decision making. Lifetimewool, a national project that developed management guidelines for Merino ewes specific to regions and different times of lambing, used a ‘review and improve’ process to identify areas of interest, level of knowledge and the skills required by different sectors of the audience to adopt the new recommendations for ewe management. To match these needs and to effectively communicate information from Lifetimewool, a combination of simple and complex tools were produced which were practical, effective, regionally specific and credible. All of the products were designed as a ‘family’ in terms of design and content, allowing a recognition by the producer that they complemented each other and led producers through logical steps for making decisions on managing and feeding ewes. The average awareness of all tools by consultants and extensionists was almost 90% and average usage rates were above 50%. However, the usage rates varied dramatically between tools and users, for example, 46% of consultants used the feed budget tables compared with 76% of extensionists for a similar awareness. Of 1353 producers surveyed more than 55% were aware of the Lifetimewool tools and average usage within this group was 19% and related to the length of time the tool had been available. An estimated 14 000 producers were aware of tools produced by Lifetimewool. The uptake and use of these tools by the target audiences support our hypothesis that tools of differing complexities are required to cater for individual needs.
References
Barnett R (2007) Best practice sheep reproduction management: a review of current extension and adoption. Final Report, Meat and Livestock Australia and Australian Venture Consultants Pty Ltd. Project reference SHGEN.114. Sydney, NSW.Behrendt R (2009) Lifetimewool Final Report, Australian Wool Innovation Ltd. Project reference EC298. Sydney, NSW.
Bennett C (1975) Up the hierarchy. Journal of Extension 13, 7–12.
Clark K, Fujimoto T (1991) ‘Product development performance: strategy, organization, and management in the world auto industry.’ (Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA) 409 pp.
Curnow M (2007) ‘Feed-on-offer pasture photo gallery.’ (Lifetimewool, Department of Agriculture and Food WA: Albany, WA)
Curnow M (2008) Australian sheep farmers are increasing pasture utilisation and reducing risk with tools from lifetimewool. In ‘International grassland congress proceedings XXI’.Vol. II, p. 1091. (Guangdong People’s Publishing House: Guangzhou, China)
Curtis K (2008) Wool Desk Survey Report, DAFWA. Perth, WA. Available at www.agric.wa.gov.au [Verified 15 March 2010]
Dart JJ, Curnow M, Behrendt R, Kabore C, Oldham CM, Rose IJ, Thompson AN (2011) The national Lifetimewool project: a journey in evaluation. Animal Production Science 51, 842–850.
| The national Lifetimewool project: a journey in evaluation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Donnelly J, Freer M, Salmon L, Moore A, Simpson R, Dove H, Bolger T (2002) Evolution of the GRAZPLAN decision support tools and adoption by the grazing industry in temperate Australia. Agricultural Systems 74, 115–139.
| Evolution of the GRAZPLAN decision support tools and adoption by the grazing industry in temperate Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gherardi S, Oldham C (2003) The value proposition for remotely sensed estimates of feed on offer and pasture growth rate. In ‘Grassland farming – rocket science: proceedings of the first joint conference of the Grassland Societies of Victoria and NSW, 11–13 June 2003, Albury, New South Wales’. (Grassland Society of Victoria: Mornington, Vic.)
Hocking Edwards JE, Copping KJ, Thompson AN (2011) Managing the nutrition of twin-bearing ewes during pregnancy using Lifetimewool recommendations increases production of twin lambs. Animal Production Science 51, 813–820.
| Managing the nutrition of twin-bearing ewes during pregnancy using Lifetimewool recommendations increases production of twin lambs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Jefferies B (1961) Body condition scoring and its use in management. Tasmanian Journal of Agriculture 32, 19–21.
Jones A, van Burgel AJ, Behrendt R, Curnow M, Gordon DJ, Oldham CM, Rose IJ, Thompson AN (2011) Evaluation of the impact of Lifetimewool on sheep producers. Animal Production Science 51, 857–865.
| Evaluation of the impact of Lifetimewool on sheep producers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
McGuckien N (2008) ‘Managing complex systems: preliminary findings from Grain & Graze.’ (Land and Water Australia: Canberra)
Rose I, Kabore C, Dart J (2005) Lifetime Wool – farmers’ attitudes affect their adoption of recommended ewe management. Agribusiness Sheep Updates July 2005. pp. 41–42.
Saul G, Kearney G (2002) Potential carrying capacity of grazed pastures in southern Australia. Wool Technology and Sheep Breeding 50, 492–498.
Trompf JP, Gordon DJ, Behrendt R, Curnow M, Kildey L, Thompson AN (2011) Participation in Lifetime Ewe Management results in changes in stocking rate, ewe management and reproductive performance on commercial farms. Animal Production Science 51, 866–872.
| Participation in Lifetime Ewe Management results in changes in stocking rate, ewe management and reproductive performance on commercial farms.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
van Burgel A, Curnow M, Gordon D, Oldham C, Speijers J (2004) Lifetimewool 13 calibration of condition scoring between operators. Animal Production in Australia 25, 338
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.
| Social principles for agricultural extension to assist in the promotion of natural resource management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Young JM, Thompson AN, Curnow M, Oldham CM (2011) Whole-farm profit and the optimum maternal liveweight profile of Merino ewe flocks lambing in winter and spring are influenced by the effects of ewe nutrition on the progeny’s survival and lifetime wool production. Animal Production Science 51, 821–833.
| Whole-farm profit and the optimum maternal liveweight profile of Merino ewe flocks lambing in winter and spring are influenced by the effects of ewe nutrition on the progeny’s survival and lifetime wool production.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
