PROFILING GROWERS TO UNDERSTAND THEM AND THE FACTORS IMPACTING THEIR PRODUCTION

HAVE YOU HEARD the line, ‘we don’t need more research; it’s all sitting there on the shelf waiting to be adopted?’ The implication is that extension has not been working particularly well. Why do growers adopt some practices easily and reject others? Some Productivity Services Companies have come under fire receiving criticism from millers that they are not having a significant enough impact on productivity. During a review of Mackay Area Productivity Services (MAPS) strategic plan in 2015/16, productivity officers were encouraged to think more along productivity lines and to review each grower’s productivity data every year. Because each productivity officer is the point of contact for approximately 200 farms, there is little time to employ extension techniques per individual. MAPS needed to prioritise efforts to get the biggest productivity increase for extension time invested. Grower profiling by field staff was the starting point. Grower profiling involved field staff attempting to answer a series of questions about each of their farmers. Questions directed at the primary decision maker were: age, attitude to change, succession plan status, consideration of farm leasing, off-farm work and the main factors holding back production. Each grower was also assigned to a productivity bracket based on average cane yield over the past seven years. Once profiled, the idea was to target receptive growers who have the potential in their farms and in their own capacity to make changes that will deliver production increases. SRA conducted a phone survey of 400 growers in 2016. Some of the questions and responses from Central District respondents, were used as another source of data to assist MAPS with insight into grower attitudes, behaviour and issues. Mackay Sugar grower production data was also queried using a technique called cluster analysis. Distinct productivity clusters exist and maintain themselves through time. Looking within clusters for common characteristics that can be used as foci for extension strategies will be the next step in this process. Most major constraints to production appear largely out of grower and advisor control; for example: little/no irrigation water, off farm work commitments, financial constraints and costs of production. Soil health and using available irrigation were two tangible constraints that rated in both the MAPS and SRA studies. SRA found that 60% of central growers listed ‘varieties’ as their number one constraint. Linking improved practices to maximisation of varietal potential may be a way of enticing growers to look beyond the ‘variety-fixes-all’ viewpoint. More attractive options are also required to allow those growers who want out of the industry to exit.