GRDC OrganisationalPerformance Research · 2016. 8. 31. · Grower Profiling (national figures) Farm Related: 88% have internet connection (steady with 2008). ... the 2010 study (as

2010 Grower Survey – Final Report

GRDC Organisational Performance Research

Project number: 0903172201

Date: December 2010

Ipsos Consultants: Jodi CoppinJenn FowlerPoppy Wise

©201

0 I

psos

Contents

� Appendix 3 – Summary tables

� Appendix 2 – Nets for Q21F

Pg 139� Appendix 1 – Questionnaire

Pg 138Appendices

Pg 129� Information needs and preferred formats

Pg 123� Influential Sources

Pg 122� Communication & Capacity Building

Pg 120� Feed Grain

Pg 112� On-Farm Storage

Pg 111� New Products

Pg 102� Sustainable Farming

Pg 91� Crop Protection

Pg 83� New Farm Practice Adoption

Pg 82� Practices

Pg 72� Pulses and Oilseeds

Pg 61� Cereals

Pg 60� Varieties

Pg 34� GRDC Corporate Measures

Pg 17� Grower Mood and Profile

Pg 16� Overall

Pg 15Research Findings

Pg 12Background

Pg 3Executive Summary

2

Executive Summary

3

©201

0 I

psos

Executive Summary

General Grower Mood

In 2010 growers felt more pessimistic about the current state of the Australian grains industry than in 2008. Less than half (44%) described the industry as being in ‘extremely good’, ‘good’ or ‘fair’shape, while 56% felt the industry was under some or considerable threat (up from 30% in 2008).

Furthermore, growers remain confident that grains R&D is addressing on-farm long-term threats (70%, slightly down from 73% in 2008). Importantly, the majority of growers (67%) feel they are directly benefitting from grains industry R&D and extension activities (down from 76% in 2008), and believe that investment in R&D is critical for their farm business (82%)

Grower Profiling (national figures)

Farm Related:� 88% have internet connection (steady with 2008). Nearly three

quarters (63%) of growers are satisfied with their internet speed and how it affects their ability to use it for their farm business, significantly higher than last wave, up from 56%. (Q103 and Q103e)

� 82% see investment in R&D as critical to their farm business. (Q108)

� 61% of total farm income is from crops on average (in line with last wave), primarily winter cereals at 45%, and on average, 27%is from livestock/wool. (Q5)

� 59% have attended a grain related learning or information exchange in the last 12 months (up 10% from 2008). (Q100e)

� 48% claim a farm household member has undertaken formal or informal training in the past 12 months. (Q108)

� 37% are members of a formal or regular farm discussion group (down 5%). (Q96)

� 11% stopped growing oilseeds in the past two years (no change)…7% also stopped growing pulses (down 4%). (Q56)

GRDC Related:�21% had attended a GRDC crop research update seminar in last

12 months (up by 1%) (Q100e)�24% had accessed the GRDC website in the last 12 months…up

4% points from 2008 (Q100e)

4

©201

0 I

psos

Executive Summary

KPI Targets

GRDC has set a number of KPI targets as part of its Strategic Research and Development Plan 2007 –12. The 2010 Organisational Performance Measures Study was used to measure performance against a number of these KPIs – as covered in this executive summary.

� The majority of these targets have been set by GRDC for the period 2007 – 12, so it is expected that they will be gradually achieved by 2012.

� In addition, this document covers KPI targets set prior to 2007, which are not a part of the 2007 – 12 targets – this is to provide a richer and more comprehensive picture of GRDC’s organisational performance.

In summary, the 2010 study (as with the 2008 study) shows that most KPI targets to 2012 have not yet been met, with some again recording declines, as well as some areas of improved performance.

� These results continue to suggest that GRDC cannot afford any complacency and needs to invest considerable effort in the next two years to improve ratings and achieve the set targets.

� Highly performing indicators include the uptake of key farming practices such as the use of climate risk management tools, improved confidence in managing weeds, pests and diseases, soil condition improvement (using lime) and nutrient budgeting.

� Particularly low performing indicators against the set targets are in the areas of communication and capacity building, and organisational performance – specifically, awareness and knowledge of GRDC, overall performance, and perceived direct benefits from GRDC activities.

5

©201

0 I

psos

Executive Summary

Communication and capacity building

Overall, most communication and capacity building KPIs have remained stable over time, but are still below the set targets.

� The majority of growers participating in the 2010 survey were spontaneously aware of GRDC and have used Ground Cover as a source of information (67% and 77%, respectively)

� Meanwhile, growers still don’t feel quite as well informed about what GRDC does, with just over half (54%) claiming to know a fair or considerable amount (vs. 53% in 2008, and 58% in 2006). This suggests that increased efforts to communicate GRDC’s activities are needed and would be most welcome.

� Agronomists remain an important source of information and influence on-farm, yet continuing the trend from 2008 few are strong advocates for GRDC. This represents an important and continuing challenge for GRDC – to strengthen ties and propensity for agronomists to advocate and promote GRDC.

20%

55%

32%

53%

66%

2008 Result

Communication and Capacity BuildingRecommended Key Performance Indicators

KPI Target

2010 Result

2006 Result

2005 Result

2004 Result

% aware of GRDC unprompted (2007-12 target) (Q6) 90% 67% 68% 63% 59%

% claiming to know fair/considerable amount about what GRDC does (2005) (Q8)

70% 54% 58% 50% 48%

% significantly valuing Ground Cover supplements as credible (2007-12)

50% 40% 25% - -

% aware of the GRDC’s regional panels (2007-12 target) (Q11)

70% 60% 58% 50% 42%

% accessing the GRDC’s website (2007-12 target) (Q100e)

50% 25% 14% - -

6

©201

0 I

psos

Executive Summary

Perceived performance, benefits and influence of changes

Mixed results are observed for GRDC performance indicators against 2010, although most measures are

still lagging behind the set KPI targets.

In order to achieve these targets, GRDC would need to focus its efforts on consistently improving indicators such as overall performance, perceptions of directly benefitting from GRDC activities, adoption of actions to ensure longer term sustainability, and GRDC influence of farm changes.

Considerable gains continue to be made in terms of the proportion of growers stating that GRDC information has had a major influence on their farm changes in the last two years (at 42%). This is a result to celebrate as it now exceeds the target of 33%.

30%

40%

34%

61%

68%

2008 Result

Perceived performance, benefits and influence of changesRecommended Key Performance Indicators

KPI Target

2010 Result

2006 Result

2005 Result

2004 Result

% rating GRDC performance very or fairly high (Q13) 80% 69% 71% 72% 68%

% directly benefiting from GRDC activities or initiatives (Q18)

80% 55% 68% 66% 67%

Of those who have adopted new or improved farming practices in the last two years % who did so as a direct result of GRDC activities or initiatives (Q24A3)

33% 31% 29% 30% 26%

% adopting actions to ensure longer term sustainability of farm as a result of GRDC activities or initiatives (Q31)

60% 42% 45% 40% 40%

% influenced in a major way by GRDC information in motivating change on farm (Q95Y_3)

33% 42% 18% 21% 21%

7

©201

0 I

psos

Executive Summary

Uptake and management of key farming practices

GRDC has set targets for a number of key farming practices…

� Five of which are very close to or exceed their target, including taking up precision agriculture and related practices, improved confidence in managing weeds and diseases, improving soil condition by use of lime, and climate risk management tools usage.

� The remainder of the practices are still in need of improvement including: improved confidence in managing pests, improving soil condition by use of gypsum or controlled traffic, and managing nutrients and minimising loss through nutrient budgeting and variable rate technology.

64%

59%20%

42%53%30%

86%70%78%

63%*

2008 Result

Uptake and management of key farming practicesRecommended Key Performance Indicators

KPI Target

2010 Result

2006 Result

2005 Result

2004 Result

% taking up precision agriculture and related practices (Q83) 60% 77% 48% 44% 36%

% with improved confidence in managing pests, weeds and diseases (Q67):WeedsPestsDiseases

90%90%90%

84%70%82%

86%79%82%

81%71%78%

84%73%78%

% improving soil condition as indicated by the increased use of (Q83): LimeGypsumControlled traffic

45%55%30%

48%44%22%

39%49%20%

41%48%24%

40%51%15%

% managing nutrients and minimising nutrient loss increases, as indicated by the increased use of (Q83):Nutrient budgeting Variable rate technology

60%30%

50%20%

54%20%

63%16%

66%16%

% using climate risk management tools to actively manage climate variability (Q85J)

40% 60% 53% - -

8*Note this figure is different to that reported in the 2008 report. During the analytical phase of this project it was discovered that an error occurred

in 2008 (including Direct Drilling in precision agriculture). The analysis has been re-run and the correct figure is reported here.

©201

0 I

psos

Executive Summary - Strategic Implications

Ipsos considers the following to be the key strategic findings and implications from the 2010 Grower Survey. We also highlight areas worthy of attention or specific action…Almost all growers are now aware of GRDC, however the extent to which they know about GRDC varies and has remained constant

� Overall, a high level of importance is placed on regular updates to growers

� Growers continue to access information from a wide range of sources – this should be utilised where possible

� The internet, while an important resource, should be used in conjunction with other communication methods due to consistently low grower ratings

Ground Cover remains the key information source on GRDC

� Although use has slowly increased over the last two waves, the GRDC website’s profile and relevance continues to need lifting among growers

Local contacts and support networks (agronomists, other growers, etc) are the most trusted sources of information and advice, and are highly influential in growers’ farm management decisions

� Few paid agronomists regularly make reference to GRDC information and 41% never do, so there’s an opportunity to improve these relationships

� A total of 60% of growers are aware of GRDC Regional Panels (up from 55% in 2008), and the proportion of growers who had direct contact remained steady at 23%

� GRDC information is rated as highly credible by most growers, however less feel that it adds high value to their farm businesses

� There is a great opportunity to better utilise the ‘local’ network (Regional Panels) to disseminate GRDC information

9

©201

0 I

psos

Executive Summary - Strategic Implications

Expectation that GRDC plays a diverse investment role addressing many and varied areas

� The overall performance of GRDC continues to rate highly – more so among growers who feel they have directly benefited

� Growers want evidence that GRDC investment is helping them to manage their issues, and a number of factors outside their control (e.g. fuel costs, climate)

The idea of selling grain online appeals to many growers and presents an opportunity worth exploring further – certainly as a means to direct more growers to the website

Climate change is an increasingly salient topic, with almost two thirds of growers having taken action to adapt

� However, there are still a number of growers not convinced or aware of the impact climate change is or will have on their farm business … especially older growers

� Climate change messaging could be improved as nearly half still do not factor in climate change issues in farm decision making, half do not believe that climate change is posing a real threat to their farm business, and 12% are unsure. While the majority have adopted new management practices to deal with climate variability, many have yet to address this

10

©201

0 I

psos

How to read this report

Findings in written form

Tables and charts showing results

Page number

Statistical significance indicators: Arrows are used to identify significant differences compared to other regions,

and/or compared with the previous wave.

Sample base (n= value), filter/ skip

parameters and actual

survey question

Insight, key take-out /

implication from results

11

Background

12

©201

0 I

psos

Background

Project Aim

� Implementation of a valid and reliable survey tool for tracking GRDC performance measures, addressing corporate and program specific KPIs

Research Process

� Year 4 (2008) survey revamped:

� Core questionnaire remained intact for comparison purposes

� GRDC program managers/personnel consulted extensively for new issues included

� Conduct of 1,201 telephone interviews nationally with growers in 2010:

� Representative spread of interviews across the three regions, covering all key agro-ecological zones

� Randomly generated using GRDC database, topped up with sample left from previous survey waves in order to reach 2010 targets

� Average interview length 30.4 minutes

� Not all questions asked to all growers…rotation of program specific survey questions

� Survey results adjusted at data processing stage to more accurately reflect total farm population estimates in each State (source: 2010 ABARE data)

13

©201

0 I

psos

NOTE:Survey results in this report represent the

proportion of all growers, unless clearly stated otherwise.

Comparisons with 2008 survey results are highlighted where similar questions were

asked.

Differences between agro-ecological zones should be viewed with caution due to small

base sizes.

14

Research Findings

15

OVERALL

16

Grower Mood and Profile

17

©201

0 I

psos

24

30

28

15

3

0 40

60+

50 - 59

40 - 49

30 - 39

Under 30

%

Grower profile

Base: All respondents (n=1201). Note: Unweighted data shown.Q106. Record gender. Q105. And just for classification purposes, into which of the following age groups do you belong?Q2. Could I just have the postcode of your farm?

Gender

Age groups

Location

Female

11%

Male

89%

33

32

35

0 40

West

South

North

%

Note: More detail on grower profile can be found in Appendix 3.

18

©201

0 I

psos

Farm characteristics

Base: All respondents (n=1201). S1. Taking all grains into account, how many acres, not hectares, did you sow last season? Q1. Can you tell me your total farm area in acres, not hectares?

Mean farm size in 2010 is 2683 hectares, down slightly from a mean farm size of 2724 hectares in 2008:

� The proportion of smaller farms (up to 1000 hectares) has significantly increased since 2008 (37% vs.30% in 2008). This growth is due in part to a significant growth in farms sized 201 to 400 hectares (from 5% in 2008 to 8% in 2010).

� The proportion of farms sized between 1001 and 2500 hectares is 33% and farms sized over 2500 hectares is 30%.

� Farms up to 1000 hectares are more likely to be run by an older farmer (60+ years), while farms of 2500 + hectares are more likely to be run by a farmer aged 40 years or under.

� Farm size peaks in the North at 3464 hectares, with the South representing the smallest average at 1787 hectares.

On average, farms in 2010 sowed 1301 hectares of grain:

� Reflecting the increased number of smaller farms, there has been a significant increase in the proportion of farms sowing up to 300 hectares of grain (23%, up from 17% in 2008).

� Like 2008, farmers considering themselves to be innovative have sown significantly more grain than those that do not (1512Ha vs. 886Ha).

19

©201

0 I

psos

Grower mood has darkened since 2008

Growers were also asked the extent to which they agreed with the statement, “I am optimistic about the future of the Australian grains industry” (where 0 is strongly disagree and 10 is strongly agree):

� The mean score was 5.67.

� Growers were more likely to provide a higher score if they knew a considerable or fair amount about the GRDC and gave GRDC a net high performance rating.

Base: All respondents (n=1201). Q109. Which of the following best describes how you feel about the current state of the Australian grains

industry. Would you say it’s in…Q109A. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement, “I am optimistic about the future

of the Australian grains industry”…

Grower Mood Towards State of

Australian Grains Industry

2011

26

29

19

30

38

43

35

13

24

93

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2008 2010

Extremelygood shape

Good shape

Fair shape

Under somethreat

Underconsiderablethreat

= Significant difference from 2008(at 95% confidence)

1327

9

56

30

49

20

©201

0 I

psos

Less than half of growers are growing pulses

Base: All respondents (n=1201).Q3. Can you tell me all of the grain crops you have grown in the last 12 months? (Multiple response).

36% 39%

30%33%

39%

47% 47% 46%51%

46%

99% 97% 99% 99% 100%

0%

50%

100%

2004 2005 2006 2008 2010

Oilseeds Pulses Cereals

Crops Grown in Last 12 Months

Triticale, canola and lupins

stand out as crops in the South, barley, canola and lupins in the West and chickpeas and sorghum in the North.

100West

100South

96North

Winter Cereals

64West

42

35

49

47

21

%

North

Pulses South

West

South

North

Oilseeds

RegionCrop

21

©201

0 I

psos

Significant increases in wheat, oats, barley, lupins, chick peas and canola as ‘main crop’

Base: All respondents (n=1201).Q4. Can you tell me which crops you regard as your main crops over the last 2 seasons?

▲ 11Maize

-6Sorghum

▼ 11Triticale

▲ 722Barley

▲ 47Oats

▲ 575Wheat

2008-2010 +/- %%Cereals

-0Peanuts

-0Sunflower Seed

-0Soybeans

-0Safflower Seed

-0Linseed

▲ 79Canola/ Rape Seed

2008-2010 +/- %%Oilseeds

-0Navy beans

-0Mung beans

-0Faba beans

▲ 22Chick peas

▲ 11Lentils

▲ 22Lupins

2008-2010 +/- %%Pulses


22

©201

0 I

psos

Over half of all growers have an off-farm source of income

Base: All respondents (n=1201).Q5. Thinking about your total income over the last 12 months, what proportion of your total

income currently comes from…off-farm activities. Base: Growers with off-farm income (n=618).Q5a1. Thinking about your off-farm income, what activities does this include?Base: All respondents (n=1201).Q5a2. What percentage of your total income was generated by off-farm activities?

Proportion of Total Income from Off-

farm Activities

8

11

0 100

2006/2007

2008/2009

Sources of Off-farm Income

4

2

15

41

52

0 100

Other

Superannuation

My partner/spouse works off-farm

Investments

I work off-farm

(▼ 1)

( - )

( - )

(▼ 6)

(▲ 2)

A total of 52% of farmers have some income from off-farm activities:

� Peaks in the Western region at 55% compared to 46% in the Northern region and 45% in the Southern region.

The proportion of total off-farm income has increased significantly compared to 2008’s results (from 8% to 11%).

Not surprising, given the Global Financial Crisis, the proportion of farmers indicating investments are a source of off-farm income has declined (41% compared to 47% in 2008).


23

©201

0 I

psos

Crops continue to comprise nearly two thirds of growers’ income

Base: All respondents (n=1201). Note: Q5. Thinking about your total income over the last 12 months, what proportion of your total income

currently comes from…

On average, crops make up nearly two thirds (61%) of total farm income, which is steady compared to 2008 (62%):

� Winter cereals continue to be the top income source at 45% on average, steady compared to 2008 (46%);

� In line with the last survey, winter cereals peak in the West at 58% of total income, down from 62%.

� Livestock and wool is 27%;

� Highest in the South at 29%.

� Following these sources there is a significant drop off;

� Off-farm activities (11%), summer coarse grains at 4% (5% in 2008), pulses and legumes 5% (up from 4%), oilseeds 4% (up from 3%) and other crops 3% (no change from 2008).

Peak farm income sources by agro-ecological zone:

� Winter cereals – WA Eastern (75%)…lowest in NSW North East (32%).

� Summer coarse grains - QLD Central (35%).

� Pulses/legumes – NSW NW/QLD SW and QLD Central (11%)…lowest at 1% NSW Central.

� Oilseeds – WA Sandplain (13%).

� Net crops range from 50% to 84% across the zones.

24

©201

0 I

psos

Over a third of growers are members of a formal discussion group

Membership of a formal discussion group has declined over time:

� Peaks at 46% in SA, lowest at 21% in QLD.

Who are more likely to be members?

� Those that claim to know a considerable amount about GRDC (58%) compared to those that know a little (21%), or nothing at all (20%).

Members are involved in a variety of groups, including:

� Grain grower association (49%)

� State farming association (39%)

� Farming systems group (35%)

� Landcare group (38%)

� Catchment Management Authority (CMA) at 11%

� Private agribusiness (20%)

� Partners in grain (6%).

Base: All respondents (n=410) Note: Split samplingQ96. Are you a member of a formal or regular discussion group, which meets to discuss cropping

practices, farm systems or soil conservation?

43

44

23

37

0 100

Western region(C)

Southern region(B)

Northern region(A)

Nationally

% Member of a Formal or Regular Farm Related Discussion Group

Note: Movement in percentage points since 2008 survey highlighted

(▼1)

(▼10)

(▼ 5)

(▼5)

= Letters next to arrows indicate significant differencebetween regions (at 95% confidence)

B, C

25

©201

0 I

psos

Nearly half of all growers are members of a Grain Grower Association

Base: Respondents who are members of a formal group (n=148). Note: split sampling. Top mentions only.Q96D. Which professional industry groups or associations are you currently a member of, if any?

7

6

11

20

35

38

39

49

0 100

Other

Partners in Grain

Catchment Management Authority

Private Agribusiness

Farming Systems group

Landcare group

State farming association

Grain Grower association

%

Professional Industry Groups or Associations

( - )

(▼13)

(▼16)

( - )

(▼10)

(▼6)

(▼7)

(▼2)


Membership of Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs) has declined significantly since 2008 (11% vs.27% in 2008).


26

©201

0 I

psos

Internet access remains stable, and almost two-thirds are satisfied with their internet speed

Base: All respondents (n=410).Q103. Do you currently have internet access on your farm? Note: Slight wording change in 2006. Q103 in 2006 – Are you currently connected to the internet?

Proportion of growers with Internet access stable at 88%.

Nationally, just over half of growers have some form of broadband (55%), followed by satellite (38%) and dial-up (5%).

63% are satisfied with their Internet speed (19% very satisfied and 44% fairly satisfied).8% 11%

19%

32%

47%

56%

78%74%

71%

83%88%89%

0%

100%

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2004

2005

2006

2008

2010

Internet Access

27

©201

0 I

psos

The proportion of growers paying for agronomic advice is steady on 2008 results

Base: All respondents (n=410). Note: split sampling.Q95A4. Do you currently pay for any general agronomic advice or related services? Q95A5. Approximately, how much do you pay per year for general agronomic advice or related services? Q95C. Does your paid agronomic adviser make reference to GRDC information that is available?

38

4744

0

100

2006 2008 2010

%

% Currently Pay for Agronomic Advice A total of 44% of growers pay for agronomic advice:

� Peaks in WA at 59%, with all other states significantly less likely to pay for advice.

� Growers who consider themselves innovative are more likely to pay for advice (49% vs.35% of those who do not consider themselves innovative).

The mean value of information and advice is $4,346 (peaks in the Northern region at $4,909):

� 21% pay between $1-$1,000

� 50% pay between $1,001-$5,000

� 21% pay more than $5,001

� (7% don’t know).

A total of 13% of paid agronomic advisers refer to GRDC materials regularly (16% in 2008), and 47% refer to these materials occasionally (46% in 2008).

28

©201

0 I

psos

And those who charge a fee for information or advice has not changed since 2008

Base: Those who currently pay for agronomic advice (n= as charted) Q95B. Does the …you use charge you a fee for information or advice?

4

7

25

28

93

0 100

State based

extension

officers (n=55)

Department of

Agriculture

(n=110)

Retail

agronomists

(n=129)

Grower groups

(n=124)

Private

agronomist/farm

adviser (n=172)

%

% Charge a Fee for Information or Advice

(▲3)

(▲1)

(▲2)

(▲5)

( - )


For those who use a retail agronomist:

� Growers in the Northern region are significantly more likely than the Western region to pay a fee (38% vs.13%).

� Growers under 40 are also more likely to be paying a retail agronomist a fee vs. older growers (49% compared to 22% for growers aged 40-59 and 15% for growers aged 60+).

29

©201

0 I

psos

Fee for service agronomists appear to be providing less information on GRDC and its activities

Base: Those who currently pay for agronomic advice (n=187). Q95A6. Which of the following has your fee for service agronomist assisted you with? Q95A7. And what role does your paid agronomic adviser play in your farming system?

21

52

66

78

79

85

86

88

0 100%

Fee for Service Agronomist Assisted With…?

(Prompted responses)

( - )

( - )

(▼12)

(▼11)

(▼3)

(▼1)

(▲1)

(▼1)


The information fee for service agronomists are assisting growers with has largely remained steady compared to 2008:

� They are assisting with information on precision agriculture significantly less compared to 2008 (52% and 64% respectively).

� Highlighting the need to further develop relationships with these agronomists, they are also assisting less with information on GRDC and its activities (21% and 32% respectively).

Thinking about the role these agronomists play in growers’ farming systems, nearly two thirds (63%) say they provide tactical advice, 31% indicate they validate ideas/plans and 23% say they provide variety choices (top mentions only).


Information on precision agriculture

Adoption of new winter cereal varieties

Information on integrated pest, weed or disease management

Information on GRDC and its activities

Adoption of new pulse and oilseed varieties

Activities or initiatives to ensure the long-term sustainability of your farm

Adoption of new or improved farming practices, techniques or

methods

Action, initiatives or changes to improve production and quality

30

©201

0 I

psos

Most regard investment in R&D as critical for their farm business

Base: All respondents (n=1201). Note: Top responses only.Q108. Which of the following applies to you or your farm…? Please say yes or no after each item.

(Multiple response)

48

56

61

66

67

68

82

0 100

Heard of Pulse Breeding Australia (PBA)

Regard investment in R&D as critical for my farm business

Household member undertaken formal or informal training in past

12 months

Interested in being able to sell my grain directly online

Consider myself an innovative grower

Always keen to adopt the latest technology

Now place high importance on using decision support tools

Key Descriptors(Prompted Responses)

(▼2)

(▲5)

(▲2)

(▼6)

(▼3)

(▼4)

(▼3)


These key defining attitudinal characteristics of growers have remained very steady since 2008, with no significant differences.

Among those that consider themselves to be an innovative grower (66%), these growers are more likely to indicate they know a considerable amount about the GRDC (74%).

Unsurprisingly, growers aged under 40 are more likely to be interested in selling their grain online (70% vs.56% total sample).

%

31

©201

0 I

psos

Innovative growers tend to adopt the latest technology, use decision support tools and pay a fee for advice

Base: All respondents (n=1201)Q95A4: Do you currently pay for any general agronomic advice or related services?Q100E: Which of the following apply to you?Q108. Which of the following applies to you or your farm…? Please say yes or no after each item. I

consider myself to be an innovative grower…

Similar to 2008 results, growers who believe they are innovative or progressive tend to have a specific set of traits. They are more likely to:

� Currently pay for agronomic advice or related services (49% vs. 35%).

� Have attended a GRDC crop research update seminar in the past year (27% vs. 11%).

� Say they place high importance on using decision support tools for running their farm enterprise (75% vs. 53%).

� Say they are always keen to adopt the latest technology wherever possible (75% vs. 53%).

� Indicate they visit the GRDC website regularly to keep up to date (14% vs. 5%).

32

©201

0 I

psos

Nearly three quarters of growers usually read the GRDC factsheets

21

24

59

72

81

0 100

Key Information Sources(Prompted Responses)

(▲1)

(▲4)

(▲10)

(NEW)

(▲6)


Usage of key information sources by growers remains steady compared to 2008 results.

Encouragingly, nearly three quarters of growers (72%) usually read the GRDC factsheets (a new measure in 2010).

Males are significantly more likely (85%) than females (63%) to usually read the Ground Cover supplement inserts.

Attended a GRDC crop research update

seminar in the last 12 months

Usually read the Ground Cover supplement

inserts

Accessed the GRDC website in the last 12

months

Attended an event or activity on grain

production in the last 12 months

Usually read the GRDC factsheets

Base: All respondents (n=395). Note: split sampling. Q100E: Which of the following apply to you? 33

Corporate Measures

34

©201

0 I

psos

Unprompted awareness of the GRDC remains constant

Unprompted recall highest in the West (71%) followed by the South (67%) and lowest in the North (63%):

� Highest amongst members of a formal discussion group (81%), those aged under 40 years (73%), those who pay for agronomic advice (72%), and those with the internet (69%).

Total GRDC awareness peaked in the Western region (92%):

� Slightly higher among females (92%) than males (90%).

Base: All respondents (n=1201)Q6. Do you know the name of the organisation responsible for making investment across Australia for

grains research and development projects?Q7. Before this interview had you heard of the Grains Research and Development Corporation or GRDC?

0

100

199

31

99

41

99

51

99

61

99

71

99

81

99

92

00

02

00

12

00

22

00

42

00

52

00

62

00

82

01

0

Total awareness Unaided awareness

Awareness of GRDC

%

91%

67%

35

©201

0 I

psos

Knowledge of GRDC has remained constant

The proportion of growers claiming to know a considerable or fair amount about the GRDC has remained fairly steady at 54% (was 53% in 2008):

� Peaking in SA (63%).

� Higher amongst those who consider themselves innovative (61%) versus those who do not (42%).

� Higher amongst those rating GRDC’soverall performance high (68%) versus those rating it low (39%).

The proportion who know nothing at

all has fallen slightly to 5%:

� Highest for those aged 60+ (8%).

12 9 5 6 5

1314

11 11 11

27 27

2630 30

36 38

4140 39

12 1217 13 15

0%

100%

2004 2005 2006 2008 2010

Fair amount Small amountConsiderable amount

Very little amount Nothing at all

48

40

50

41

58

37

53

41

54

41

How Much Growers Claim to Know About GRDC

Base: All respondents (n=1201)Q8. How much would you say you know about what the GRDC actually does? 36

©201

0 I

psos

GRDC’s core role is still considered R&D into new/better grain varieties

Base: All aware of GRDC (n=1145). Note: Top mentions only.Q9. What is your understanding of the GRDC’s role? What are its functions or areas or responsibility?

(Multiple response).

▼ 5

▼ 2

▼ 1

▼ 5

(-)

▼ 11

▼ 7

▲ 3

▲ 7

▼ 354%R&D into new/better grain/crop breeds/varieties


4%Research organisation funded through grower levies

5%Conducts trials/field days/workshops/seminars

8%Marketing of grains/developing new markets/market requirements

8%R&D into improve/develop/promote grains industry

9%Keep growers informed/provide research results

11%R&D into new/improved farm/sowing methods/practices/agronomy/management

12%R&D into grain diseases/disease/rust resistant plants/grains

13%Allocates/directs funding into research projects/grain research

30%Research and Development (no further information)

% MentioningUnderstanding of GRDC Core Role The majority of growers believe GRDC undertakes R&D into new and better grain varieties at 54%.

A larger proportion said research and development (no further information) compared to last survey (30%, up from 23%), followed by allocates/directs funding into research projects/grain research at 13%.

There have been decreases across many areas, most notably, R&D into new/improved farm/sowing methods/ practices/ agronomy /management and R&D into grain diseases/ disease/rust resistant plants/grains (down 11% and 7% respectively).

A small proportion still believe that GRDC’s core role is marketing of grains/developing new markets/market requirements at 8%.

= Significant difference from 2008 (at 95% confidence)

37

©201

0 I

psos

Ground Cover remains critical in generating awareness of GRDC… GRDC website continues to grow in importance

Ground Cover remains the major source of (unprompted) awareness of the GRDC (77%):

� Highest in the North (79%).

Rural weeklies continue to be an important medium (34% down from 39%):

� Peaking at 43% in the West.

For farm journals, less than 1 in 10 now mention this as a source of awareness (8%).

Consistent with 2008, 13% mention the GRDC website:

� Most commonly mentioned in the West (15%) compared to the North and South regions (both at 12%).

28

29

16

3

67

13

4

25

67

17

15

12

39

8

10

13

34

77

63

2

13

36

33

29

68

0 80

2010

2008

2006

2005

2004

Source of Awareness of GRDC(Top Five Unprompted Responses)

%

Base: All aware of GRDC (n=1145).Q10. In what ways or via what sources do you find out about the Grains Research and Development

Corporation and its activities? (Multiple response).


Farm journals

Grower groups / forums

GRDC Website

Rural Weeklies

Ground Cover newspaper

38

©201

0 I

psos

Awareness of GRDC’s Regional Panels on the rise

Base: All respondents (n=1201).Q11. Are you aware that the GRDC has regional panels in place, comprising of growers and researchers,

or advising on the allocation of investment priorities? Q12. Have you interacted or had any direct contact with any of the panel members in your region?

25

21

23

23

67

58

57

60

0 100

Nationally

Northern region(A)

Southern region(B)

Western region (C)

%


(▲ 2)

(▲ 5) (▲ AB)

(▲ 1)

(▲ 6)

(-)

(▲ 5)

(-)

(▲ 5)

GRDC Regional Panels

% Having direct contact with panel members

% Aware GRDC panels in place

Awareness of GRDC Regional Panels has increased significantly since 2008 at 60%

� Significantly higher among:

� Growers who consider themselves innovative (64%), and those who claim to know a considerable/fair amount about GRDC (79%)

� Male growers (62%)

� Those with internet access (60%).

Although awareness has increased, the proportion of growers who have had direct contact with Regional Panels remains steady

� Significantly higher among:

� Growers who consider themselves innovative (27%), and those who claim to know a considerable/fair amount about GRDC (35%)

� Member of a formal group (36%)

� Have benefitted from GRDC activities in the last 5 years (32%)

� Those with internet access (25%).


39

©201

0 I

psos

Rating of regional panels

Nearly three quarters (71%) of growers aware of GRDC’sRegional Panels thought they were of high value (net very high/fairly high):

� Highest in SA and QLD (81% and 78% respectively).

� Peaks for growers who have benefitted from the GRDC in the past 5 years and those claim to know a considerable /fair amount about the GRDC (both 79%).

Base: All aware of GRDC’s regional panels (n=733).Q12C. Overall, how would you rate the value of the GRDC regional panels?

Overall Rating of the value of GRDC Regional Panels

9 11 10 7

6 7 4 6

1312 19

51 46 5450

20 23 19 18

14

0%

100%

National Northern

Region (A)

Southern

Region (B)

Western

Region (C)

Very highFairly highNot too highNot high at allCan’t say/Don’t know

40

= Letters next to arrows indicate significant difference between regions

(at 95% confidence)

69

20

70

20

7469

16 C 25

©201

0 I

psos

Overall performance remains reasonably high

41

Base: All aware of GRDC (n=1145)Q13. Overall, how would you rate the performance of GRDC as investors in grains research?

24

21

16

14

12

12

13

8

12

12

13

11

16

7

10

7

5

5

6

4

3

4

17

18

17

14

20

44

48

52

53

57

58

60

64

67

63

57

62

57

56

55

3

8

7

9

12

12

11

11

9

16

12

10

14

13

14

68

72

71

69

15

16

2

2

2

3

6

4

68

Rating of GRDC as Investors in Grains Research

Very highFairly highNot too highNot high at all

2010

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2004

2005

2006

2008

Growers rating the performance of GRDC as investors in grains research as high (fairly high and very high) has remained consistent with 2008 at 69%:

� This is significantly lower in the North at 64%.

� Higher for growers who claim to know a considerable to fair amount about the GRDC (83%) compared to those who know little (50%).

� Peaks for those who have benefitted from GRDC activities in the last 5 years (82%).

� More likely to be growers under 40 years of age (76%) and male (70%).

The proportion of people rating the GRDC not

high has increased significantly from 14% in 2008 to 20% in 2010:

� Peaks in WA (24%), lowest in SA (14%).

Those unable to rate the performance of the GRDC decreased from 18% in 2008 to 11% in 2010.

%= Significant difference from

2008 (at 95% confidence)

©201

0 I

psos

Vast majority of growers continue to rate GRDC highly on providing credible information

42

Base: All aware of GRDC (n=1145)Q13B. How would you rate GRDC on the following …

27

23

28

18

6

7

4

3

39

32

34

41

44

45

49

49

50

54

12

10

11

9

10

10

33

53

54

56

58

59

60

87

32

26

7

4

8

2

34

27

21

8

Rating of GRDC

Working with relevant parties in your region to

address important issues

Investing in activities for the public good

Adding value to your farm business activities

Communicating plans and future strategy

Engaging with growers

Allocating sufficient funding to important R&D

issues

Credibility of information

%


(▼ 2)

(▲ 4)

(▼ 1)

(▲ 5)

(▲ 4)

(▲ 1)

(▲ 2)

Positive ratings for all measures have remained fairly steady since the 2008 survey, with credibility of information

receiving the highest favorable ratings at 87% (net very high/fairly high):

� Peaks for those who claim to know a considerable/fair amount about GRDC (93%) and growers under 40 (94%).

� Significantly more likely to be male (89%) than female (77%).

Net high ratings for communicating

plans and future strategy, saw a significant increase since last survey.

The area for the biggest improvement is working with relevant parties in your

region to address important issueswhich could be addressed through Regional Panels.


Very highFairly highNot very highNot at all high

©201

0 I

psos

The majority of growers are comfortable paying the GRDC levy

43

Base: All aware of GRDC (n=1145)Q13C. A GRDC levy is collected on 25 different crops produced in Australia. The levy provides funding for

grains research and development projects managed by the GRDC. How comfortable are you paying this levy?

3

9

14

59

14

0 100%

Comfort with GRDC levy Overall, almost three-quarters of growers are comfortable paying the GRDC levy (74%):

� Peaks in SA (84%).

� Lowest in WA and QLD (70%).

� Males significantly more likely to be comfortable paying the levy than females (75% vs. 66%).

Less than 1% responded don’t know or can’t say.Extremely uncomfortable

Uncomfortable

Makes no difference

Comfortable

Extremely comfortable

©201

0 I

psos

Declining proportion of growers who feel they have directly benefited from grains industry R&D and extension activities

44

58

54

53

55

68

68

66

67

0 100

Growers Who Have Directly Benefited from Grains R&D Activities in Past 5 Years

Nationally

Northern region

Southern region

Western region

%

Net GRDC played roleGeneral activities


In 2010, significantly less growers claim they have benefitted directly from grain industry R&D and extension activities than in 2008.

The proportion of growers saying GRDC played a role in achieving these direct benefits also decreased significantly from 61% to 55%:

� 35% said significant role and 20% a minor role.

Other important sources identified:

� Grower groups/forums (18%)

� Farm adviser/agronomists (12%)

� Private consultants (11%)

� Other growers (9%)

� Seed suppliers/plant breeders (5%).

Base: All respondents (n=1201).Q17. Do you feel you have directly benefited from any research and development project or extension

activities or on-farm trials undertaken in the grains industry, in the past 5 years?Q18. Did the GRDC play a role in achieving any direct benefits?

(▼5)

(▼13)

(▼9)

(▼9)

(▼5)

(▼8)

(▼6)

(▼9)


©201

0 I

psos

GRDC involvement in new grain varieties the largest benefit to growers in the last 5 years

6

6

8

15

16

19

23

40

0 100

Benefits GRDC Played a Role In Achieving

%

New farm products and services available to growers

GRDC validation and integration (i.e. extension) activities (e.g. Grower Groups, Grower Updates, workshop or event)

National Variety Trial (NVT) information

Funding research / trials

New technologies available to growers (e.g. precision agriculture technologies, or on-farm soil or grain quality testing etc.)

Agronomy and crop protection information made available to growers

Other GRDC information delivered to growers

New grain varieties available to growers

Base: All respondents who benefitted from GRDC R&D activities in the past 5 years (n=650).Q18A. In what ways did the GRDC play a role in achieving these direct benefits?

45

©201

0 I

psos

Importance placed on GRDC playing an investment role in specific activities

Base: Split sampling – Q’s 1-10 (n=605) and Q’s 11-20 (n=596).Q21A. How important is it that the Grains Research and Development Corporation plays an investment

role in the following activities? (Multiple response).

(NEW)77 3938Long term investment in trait development


(▲2)

(▼ 13)

(▼ 2)

(▲ 3)

(▼ 1)

(▼ 3)

(NEW)

(-)

25

24

35

26

29

39

48

35

36

44

47

61

51

61

57

66

73

65

Very Important

41

43

35

44

46

37

28

44

44

40

40

26

39

31

37

28

22

31

Fairly Important

66

67

70

70

75

76

76

79

On-farm storage

Responding to climate change

Segregation of grain

Developing farm business management skills

On-farm soil management

GM technologies

Addressing declining terms of trade

(NEW)

(NEW)

(▼ 3)

(NEW)

(▼ 2)

(▼ 4)

(▲ 2)

(-)

(▼ 1)

(NEW)96Integrated pest, weed and disease management strategy

Agricultural engineering technology

80Precision agriculture techniques

84Collaboration with international R&D organisations

87Developing research partnerships with end-users of Australian grain

87Improving the profitability of farm enterprises as a business

90New grain products with food or industrial uses

92Cereal rust management

94Soil health and biology

94Herbicide resistance management

95Developing new varieties

Net %Activity

46

©201

0 I

psos

Highest importance placed on integrated pest, weed and disease management

GRDC is expected to play a diverse R&D investment role, which is in line with previous waves. In 2010 greatest importance was placed on:

� Integrated pest, weed and disease management strategy

� Developing new varieties

� Herbicide resistance management

� Soil health and biology.

70% of growers feel GRDC should be responding to issues surrounding grain segregation, which is slightly down from 72% in 2008.

There is significantly less expectation that GRDC play a prominent role responding to climate change, down 13 percentage points since last survey:

Growers suggested that GRDC could also be investing in (net results) :

� New varieties with particular attributes

� GM information / technology

� Assistance with grain prices / rising input costs

� Grain marketing programs.

(Note: For a full breakdown of Q21F nets please see Appendix 2).

Base: All aware of GRDC (n=1145). Q21A. How important is it that the Grains Research and Development Corporation plays an investment

role in the following activities? (Multiple response). Q21F. What other activities should GRDC be investing in that would benefit your farm business?

47

©201

0 I

psos

Growers seek information on new crop varieties to assist with variety selection

48

10

2

13

18

20

22

24

0 100

Information , Training, Advice or Materials That Would be Helpful

to Farm Household

Base: All respondents (n=1201). Note: Top responses only.Q21G. In order to help your farm business to be more successful, what specific information, training,

advice or materials would be most helpful to you or other members of your farm household? This could be anything at all that you think would improve or develop your operations. (Multiple response).

%

Information on new crop varieties to assist with variety selection

Information on new farm practices / techniques and / or technologies

Information on new farm products and services to facilitate awareness and adoption

Assistance with grain marketing / trading

Information on climate / weather to assist in management decisions

Information on rotations / crop sequencing

Don’t know

©201

0 I

psos

Growers trust fee for service agronomists, farm advisors or consultants in operating their farm business, although trust haseroded since 2008

49

Base: All respondents (n=1201). Note: Top responses only.Q21H. Who or what sources do you trust the most for accessing information or support for helping you

operate your farm business? Any other sources? (Multiple response).

No-one

Accountant

Department of Primary Industry

Ground Cover

Department of Agriculture

Grower groups/forums

Rural weeklies

Other growers

Retail agronomist

Fee for service agronomist, farm adviser or consultant

6

6

6

7

9

10

10

16

31

38

0 100%

Trusted Information or Support Sources Relating to Operation of Farm Business

(▼2)

(▼4)

(▼4)

(-)

(▼3)

(▼6)

(▼6)

(▼5)

(▼6)

(▼1)


©201

0 I

psos

Agronomists most trusted in regards to information about farm operation

50

Base: All respondents (n=1201). Note: Top responses only.Q21H. Who or what sources do you trust the most for accessing information or support for helping you

operate your farm business? Any other sources? (Multiple response).

In line with 2008, the top sources for accessing information or support for operating their farm business were a fee for service agronomist, farm adviser or

consultant and a retail agronomist (38 and 31% respectively):

� Fee-for-service agronomist:

� Significantly higher in the West (46%)

� Retail agronomist:

� Significantly higher in NSW (35%), compared to 25% in WA

Ground Cover was mentioned by 7% of growers:

� 3% mentioned GRDC

� 5% mentioned GRDC magazines/publications (no further information)

� 5% mentioned GRDC - General information/enquiries

©201

0 I

psos

Many growers still undecided on adoption of GM varieties

Base: All respondents (n=393). Note: Split samplingQ46. Thinking about genetically modified or ‘GM’ crops, if and/or when GM varieties become available,

will you be adopting them?

Grower Sentiment Regarding Adoption of GM Varieties

(if and when becomes available)

19 16

3129

1723

33 33

0%

100%

2008 2010

Not sure/Don't know No, would not adopt Depends on a number of factors Yes, would adopt

51

©201

0 I

psos

One third of growers say they would adopt GM varieties, but majority undecided

While 33% of growers said they would adopt GM varieties if and/or when they become available, a high proportion said it would depend on a number of factors

or they don’t know (16%). There is still clear indecision around GM crops.

Of those who said yes:

� Peaks in QLD at 49%, compared to 19% in Victoria

� Highest among growers who rely less on off-farm income than 12 months ago (50%)

46% feel they will be worse off in the long-term if they don’t adopt GM varieties (up from 45% in 2008).

Base: All respondents (n=393). Note: Split samplingQ46. Thinking about genetically modified or ‘GM’ crops, if and/or when GM varieties become available,

will you be adopting them? Q46A. Do you feel Australian farmers will be worse off in the long term if they don’t adopt GM varieties?

52

©201

0 I

psos

Grower sentiment has shifted from uncertainty to consideration with regards to growing GM wheat

Base: All respondents (n=393). Note: Split samplingQ46B. Thinking specifically about wheat, would you grow GM wheat if it were available?

Grower Sentiment Regarding Adoption of GM Wheat

1 1

1811

24

22

2231

20 22

15 13

0%

100%

2008 2010

Don't grow wheat crop Not sure/Don't know Not at all Maybe Probably Definitely


53

©201

0 I

psos

More growers considering GM wheat varieties

When asked if they would grow GM wheat if it were available, the biggest shift in sentiment was the proportion of growers who said maybe, significantly up from last wave at 31% (was 22% in 2008):

� Significantly higher for growers who pay for agronomic advice verses those who don’t (43% and 18% respectively).

In line with 2008, 13% said they definitely would (down slightly from 15%):

� Peaks in QLD at 24%.

Also steady with last wave was the proportion that stated they would not grow GM wheat (22%, down from 24% in 2008):

� Significantly higher in Victoria and NSW (26% and 24% respectively) compared to QLD (11%).

� Significantly more likely to be female (35%) and growers aged 60+ (30%).

Base: All respondents (n=393). Note: Split samplingQ46B. Thinking specifically about wheat, would you grow GM wheat if it were available? 54

©201

0 I

psos

A similar proportion of growers considering take up of GM canola in 2010, where varieties are currently unavailable

Grower Sentiment Regarding Adoption of GM Canola(SA and Tas only)

40

16 25

811

2113

1113

43

0%

100%

2008 2010

ProbablyMaybeNot at all Not sure/Don’t know Definitely

Note: Only respondents where GM canola is currently unavailable were asked this question.Base: All respondents in SA and Tas only (n=45). Note: Split sampling. *CAUTION, small sample sizeQ46F. Now thinking specifically about canola, would you grow GM canola if it were available? 55

©201

0 I

psos

A small proportion have already adopted GM canola

Where GM canola is currently available only 6%* (n=11) have adopted these varieties.

The top reasons given for adoption was that growers expect better weed control at 91%*.

Note: Only respondents where GM canola is currently available were asked this question. Split sampling. *CAUTION: Small base size

Base: All respondents in NSW and VIC who have adopted GM canola varieties (n=11). Q46Y. Why are you growing GM canola?

9

27

91

0 100%

Reasons for Adopting GM Canola Varieties

Like to adopt new technology on farm

Expect higher yield compared to conventional canola

Expect better weed control

56

©201

0 I

psos

The majority of growers are not likely to grow GM canola where varieties are currently available

Over half (56%) said they are not at all likely to grow GM canola.

Nearly a quarter are undecided (24% maybe).

Growers who said probably or definitelywere:

� Significantly less likely to be from the North (1%) or the South (3%) compared to the West (10%).

Note: Only respondents where GM canola is currently available were asked this question.Base: All respondents in NSW and VIC not currently growing GM canola (n=274). Note: Split samplingQ46Z. Genetically modified ‘GM’ canola is now available in your state, how likely is it that you will grow GM

canola?

Likelihood to Adopt GM Canola(where currently available)

2

24

11

4

2

56

0%

100%

2010

ProbablyMaybeNot at all Not sure/Don’t know Don’t grow canola crop Definitely

57

©201

0 I

psos

58

Base: All respondents (n=1201)Q33. How well do you feel that research and development projects being undertaken in the grains

industry are addressing threats to the long-term sustainability of your farm? Would you say…?

Slight increase in proportion feeling that R&D is not addressing sustainability threats

How Well Grains R&D is Addressing On-Farm Long-Term

Sustainability Threats

10 9

3 5

14 16

62 61

11 9

0%

100%

2008 2010

Can't say Not at all well Not too well Fairly well Very well

73%

17%

70%

21%


©201

0 I

psos

Base: All respondents (n=1201)Q33. How well do you feel that research and development projects being undertaken in the grains

industry are addressing threats to the long-term sustainability of your farm? Would you say…?

How well grains R&D is addressing long-term sustainability threats

When asked how well research and development projects being undertaken in the grains industry are addressing threats to the long-term sustainability of their farm, the majority say very/fairly well (70% net).

There was a significant increase since last survey in the proportion saying not at

all/not too well (21% net, was 17%):

� Significantly higher in WA (25%) compared to Vic (17%).

59

VARIETIES

60

Cereals

61

©201

0 I

psos

Almost six in ten growers feel new grain varieties are meeting expectations

57% of all growers feel new varieties currently available are meeting expectations:

� Peaking in Vic and QLD (at 63% and 64% respectively), lowest in WA (52%).

Growers who feel they have benefitted from GRDC activities in the past 5 years more likely to feel new grain varieties are hitting the mark (64%) compared to others (50%).

55

58

58

57

0 100

% of Growers Feeling New Varieties Meet Expectations

Western region

Southern region

Northern region

Nationally

%

Base: All respondents (n=1201)Q33A. And how well do you feel new grain varieties that are currently available meet your expectations?

Would you say…?


(▼ 2)

(▼ 4)

(▲ 3)

(▼ 1)


62

©201

0 I

psos

Awareness of the National Variety Trials has increased

79% of all growers have heard of the term ‘National Variety Trials’ (up 6% from 2008):

� Across the regions, awareness is highest in the West (84%) and lowest in the North and the South (both 76%).

Fewer growers are aware of the abbreviation, NVT (39%, up 5%) or NVT Online (28%, up 8%), however awareness of both has increased since 2008.

Awareness of all NVT related terms was highest in the West:

� In all regions more than half of all growers were aware of National Variety Trials and State Sowing Guides, awareness consistently lowest for NVT Online.

Of growers who are aware of the National Variety Trials, almost two-thirds (61%) are aware that it is funded and managed by the GRDC (up a significant 11% from 2008).

In another question, of growers who pay for agronomic advice, 68% said their advisor made reference to NVT information.Base: All respondents (n=1201).

Q33E. Have you heard of the…

13

28

39

58

79

0 100

None of

these

NVT Online

NVT

State Sowing

Guide

National

Variety Trials

Awareness of NVT


(NEW)

(▼13)

(▲ 8)

(▲ 5)

(▲ 6)


%

63

©201

0 I

psos

Use of NVT Online is low but increasing

One quarter of growers (25%) accessed the NVT Online website (up from 11%). Of these growers:

� 70% considered the information on the NVT Online website easy to find (up from 56%).

Just over a quarter of growers (26%) attended a NVT field day in 2009 (up from 19% in 2007):

� Of those growers, most felt the information provided at the field day helped in choosing which varieties to adopt (82%).

90% of growers who accessed NVT Online since November 2007 and/or attended a NVT field day in 2009, agreed that the information provided by the NVT program helped them decide which varieties to adopt.

Base: Growers aware of NVT, NVT Online and NVT (n=979). Q33J. Have you accessed the NVT online website since November 2007? Q33O. Have you visited a NVT Field Day during 2009?

26

25

0 100

Visited a NVT

Field Day

during 2009

Accessed

the NVT

website since

November

2007

Grower Use of NVT Online and Field Days


(▲ 7)

(▲ 14)


%

64

©201

0 I

psos

The majority grow varieties that attract an end point royalty

A new question in 2010 found that over 8 in 10 (81%) grow varieties that attract an end point royalty:

� Of the regions, this is significantly lower in the North at 74%.

� Significantly higher among growers who consider themselves innovative (83%) and those who say they know a considerable to fair amount the GRDC (88%).

Of these growers, over two thirds (68%) believed these varieties added value to their farm operation:

� Significantly lower in the North at 60%.

� Significantly higher among growers who pay for agronomic advice (74%).

When asked if they would grow these varieties again, 89% said they would.

Base: All respondents (n=1201)Q33T. Do you grow varieties that attract an end point royalty?Base: Respondents growing varieties that attract an end point royalty (n=967)Q33U. Do you believe those varieties you grow deliver additional value to your operation?Q33V. Would you grow those same varieties again?

81

17

2

0 100%

% Growing Varieties Attracting an End Point Royalty

Not sure

No

Yes

65

©201

0 I

psos


Increase in proportions growing new varieties of wheat and barley in last 2 years and last 5 years

Base: All respondents (n=393). Note – Split sampling.Q34. In the last 5 years, that is, since March 2005 have you grown any new varieties of…? Q35. Have any of these new [READ CODE] varieties been grown in the last 2 years?

8

24

47

75

6

17

36

64

0 100

% Growing New Winter Cereal Varieties

%

Last 5 yearsLast 2 years


Triticale

Oats

Barley

Wheat

Up from 82% in 2008, 86% of growers in 2010 have grown new winter cereal varieties in the last 5 years:

� Significantly less in the North 78%) compared to the West (95%).

Significantly more growers have adopted new wheat varieties in the last two years:

� Significantly less in the North (56%), compared to the West (72%).

� Significantly higher among growers who consider themselves innovative (70%).

Uptake of barley varieties in the last two years has increased significantly since last survey:

� Peaks in the West at 72%, compared to 56% in the North.

On average, 3.5 winter cereal varieties are currently being grown.

Over half (51%) are currently growing old varieties (released 10 to 15 years ago).

(▲ 3)

(▲ 3)

(▲ 1)

(▲ 2)

(▲7)

(▲ 8)

(▲ 8)

(▲ 19)

66

©201

0 I

psos

New winter cereal varieties grown in last 2 years

The stand-out new winter cereal varieties grown in last 2 years (% growing)…

� *Wheat:� EGA Gregory (13%: 36% in the North)

� Gladius (11%, was 3%: 19% in the West)

� Ventura (10%, was 20%: 15% in the North)

� Magenta (10%: 31% in the West)

� Yipti (9%, was 6%: 16% in the West)

� Correl (9%, was 6%: 13% in the South)

� Mace (8%: 22% in the West)

� *Barley:� Hindmarsh (33%, was 1%: 60% in the South)

� Buloke (18%, was 5%: 33% in the West)

� Flagship (10%, was 15%: 20% in the West)

� Vlamingh (9%: 23% in the West)

� *Oats:� Mitika (26%, was 14%: 44% in the South)

� Winteroo (11%, was 10%: 19% in the West)

� Possum (9%, was 7%: 22% in the South)

� Taipan (8%, was 9%: 19% in the North)

� Kojonup (8%, was 6%: 43% in the West)

� *Triticale:� Tobruk (32%: 50% in the South)

� Rufus (17%, was 24%: 51% in the West)

Base: All respondents who have grown new varieties of: wheat (n=246), barley (n=139), Oats (n=67), Triticale (n=22)Note: Split sampling. Top responses only. * CAUTION: Small sample.Q36. What is the name of this new variety of [READ OUT CROP] that you have grown in the last 2 years? 67

©201

0 I

psos

6

7

7

9

17

22

25

38

0 100


National Variety Trials (NVT) results

Seed suppliers/plant breeders

Grower groups/forums

Private agronomic consultant

Farm advisor/agronomist

Other growers

GRDC

GRDC now plays the most prominent role in adoption of new cereal varieties

%

Sources Influencing Adoption of New Cereal

Varieties in Last 2 Years

Note: Only top responses shown

Base: All respondents (n=393). Note: Split sampling. Top responses only.Q38. Thinking about the adoption of these new cereal varieties, was it in any way the result of GRDC

activities or supported projects specifically? Q39 & 39C. Who or what sources have played a role in the adoption of these new cereal varieties?

(-)

(▲ 3)

(▼ 1)

(-)

(▼ 3)

(▲ 2)

(-)

(▲20)

GRDC activities or initiatives are a strong influencer for adoption of new cereal varieties, up significantly from 18% in 2008, becoming the most commonly sighted influence:

� More likely to be growers who consider themselves innovative (42%), know a considerable to fair amount about GRDC (52%), rate GRDC highly (49%) and have benefitted from GRDC in the past 5 years (54%).

Remaining steady, a quarter said that other growers play a role in influencing new cereal adoption, followed by agronomists which is in line with last survey.


68

©201

0 I

psos

Nearly two thirds still growing old wheat varieties

On average, 3.5 winter cereal varieties are currently being grown and on average, 1.6 of these are old varieties (10 to 15 years old), with 54% of growers currently growing old varieties.

Though down 12 percentage points, the proportion of those growing old wheat varieties is not significantly lower than last survey (down from 77% in 2008).

The proportions of farmers growing varieties of barley, oats and triticale released 10 to 15 years ago have remained steady since 2008.

The top reasons given for growing old varieties were:

� Perform well / proven performer / reliable (60%).

� Outperforms / better than new varieties (21%).

� Suits the area / land / region (9%).

� Yields well / good yielder / higher yields (9%).

Base: All respondents currently growing old winter cereal varieties (n=196). Note: Split sampling.Q45B. Which winter cereal crops does this apply to?

4

27

29

65

0 100

% Growing Old Winter Cereal Varieties

%


Triticale

Oats

Barley

Wheat (▼ 12)

(-)

(▲ 2)

(▼ 1)

69

©201

0 I

psos

Steady uptake of new sorghum varieties

There has been only a slight decrease since last survey on uptake of new sorghum varieties.

Sorghum is predominately grown in the North, so it’s not surprising that the proportion of growers taking up new varieties is significantly higher than the other regions:

� Uptake in the North has decreased by 4 percentage points (28%, down from 32% in 2008).

Stand-out new sorghum varieties grown include:

� Pioneer

� Tiger

� Dominator

� MR43

� 85G08.

On average, 2.0 varieties of sorghum are currently being grown.

39% of sorghum growers say they are currently growing old varieties released 10 to 15 years ago (down from 44% in 2008).

0

1

28

9

0

0

19

6

0 100

% Growing New Varieties of Sorghum

Western region(C)

Southern region(B)

Northern region(A)

Nationally

%


(-)

(▼ 4) (▲B,C)

(▼ 1)

(▼ 3)

(-)

(-)

(▼ 3) (▲B,C)

(▼ 4)



70

©201

0 I

psos

A slight increase in adoption of new maize varieties

There has been a slight increase since last survey on uptake of new maize varieties nationally.

Maize is predominately grown in the North, with uptake in the last two years up from 2% in 2008 to 6%. The South has also increased at 2%.

In the last five years there have been increases across the Northern and Southern regions.

Stand-out new maize varieties grown include:

� Pioneer 5395IR

� Hycorn 675

� Pioneer 3153.

0

2

11

4

0

2

6

3

0 100

% Growing New Varieties of Maize/Corn

Western region(C)

Southern region(B)

Northern region(A)

Nationally

%


(▲ 3)

(-)

(▲ 2)

(▲ 2)

(▲ 2)

(-)

(▲ 4)

(▲ 1)


Last 5 yearsLast 2 years= Significant difference from

2008 (at 95% confidence)

71

Pulses and Oilseeds

72

©201

0 I

psos

Adoption of new pulse varieties remains low and is falling in some areas

Base: All respondents (n=404). Note: Split sampling. Q49. And have you grown any new varieties of pulses or oil seeds in the last 5 years? Q50. Have any of these new varieties been grown in the last 2 years?

73

23

22

25

23

17

17

20

18

0 100

% Growing New Varieties of Pulses

Western region(C)

Southern region(B)

Northern region(A)

Nationally

%



(▼ 18)

(▼ 9)

(▼ 16)

(▼ 15)

(▲ 4)

(▲ 6)

(▼ 10)

(▼ 6)

Adoption of new pulse varieties in the last two years is down in all regions, significantly in the South.

Significantly higher among growers who consider themselves innovative (22%).

There was a significant decrease in national adoption of new pulse varieties in the last five years with uptake significantly down in the West and South.

11% of all growers adopted these new varieties as a result of GRDC activities or initiatives:

� Peaks among growers who consider themselves innovative (14%) and those who claim to know a considerable to fair amount about GRDC at 17%.


©201

0 I

psos

36

40

10

29

32

35

9

26

0 100

(▲ 10)

(▲ 13 )

(▼ 6)

(▼ 1)

(▲ 5) B,C

(▲ 7 )

(▲ 3)

(▲ 8 )

Adoption of new oilseed varieties has risen in last 2 years

Base: All respondents (n=404). Note: Split samplingQ49. And have you grown any new varieties of pulses or oil seeds in the last 5 years? Q50. Have any of these new varieties been grown in the last 2 years? 74

% Growing New Varieties of Oilseeds

Western region(C)

Southern region(B)

Northern region(A)

Nationally

%



There has been significant increases in adoption of new oilseed varieties in the last 2 years nationally and in the Northern and Western regions:

� Higher among growers under 40 compared to those 60+ (33% vs. 18%).

Nationally, uptake of new oilseed varieties remains steady compared to 2008 results, but adoption is significantly down in the South

� Significantly higher among growers who consider themselves innovative (33%) compared to those who don’t (22%).

12% of all growers adopted these new varieties as a result of GRDC activities or initiatives, up significantly from 7% in 2008:

� Significantly higher among growers who consider themselves innovative (15%) those who claim to know a considerable to fair amount about GRDC (16%).

= Significant difference vs. other regions outside brackets and vs.

2008 inside brackets (at 95% confidence)

©201

0 I

psos

Base: All respondents (n=404). Note: Split sampling.Q51I. For which of the following pulses have you grown new varieties in the last 5 years?Q51II. For which of the following have you grown new varieties in the last 5 years?

Significant drop in adoption rates of new field pea and lentil varieties

Uptake of field peas and lentils has decreased significantly since last survey, while other results remain steady.

2

1

4

12

9

10

22

0

2

2

5

9

10

28

0 100

New Varieties of Pulses and Canola Grown in Past Five Years

%


2010 2008Lentils

Navy / Mung Beans

Faba Beans

Field Peas

Lupins

Chick Peas

Canola


75

©201

0 I

psos

The stand-out new canola and pulse varieties grown in last 5 years (% growing)…

� Canola:

� ATR Cobbler (19% mention rate: 31% in the West)

� ATR Marlin (14%: 21% in the South)

� Clearfield System varieties (various) (12%: 25% in the North)

� TT Tanami (11%: 21% in the West)

� TT Thunder (6%, was 13% in 2008: 7% in the West)

� AV Garnett (6%: 12% in the North).

� *Field Peas:

� Kaspa (68%, was 82% in 2008: 70% in the South and the West)

� Parafield (13%, was 4% in 2008: 31% in the West).

Base: Those who have grown new varieties in last 5 years - Canola (n=107), Field Peas (n=17). Note: Split sampling. Top responses only. *CAUTION: Small sample.Q52. What is the name of these new varieties of [READ OUT] grown in the last 5 years?

New canola and pulse varieties grown in last 5 years

76

©201

0 I

psos

New pulse varieties grown in last 5 years

The stand-out new pulse varieties grown in last 5 years (% growing)…

� *Chick Peas:

� Flipper (18%, was 32%: 28% in the North)

� Genesis 090 (15%, was 33%: 56% in the South)

� Kyabra (15%, was 2%: 23% in the South)

� Almaz (10%, was 8%: 11% in the North and the South)

� Yorker (6%, was 12%: 8% in the North).

� *Lupins:

� Mandelup (62%, was 63%: 75% in the West)

� Luxor (15%: 50% in the North).

� *Faba Beans:

� Cairo (16%, was 4%: 25% in the North).

Base: Those who have grown new varieties in last 5 years – Chick Peas (n=42), Lupins (n=36), Faba Beans (n=6). Note: Split sampling. Top responses only. *CAUTION: Small sample.Q52. What is the name of these new varieties of [READ OUT] grown in the last 5 years?

77

©201

0 I

psos

NVT results*

Seed Companies/suppliers*

Field days*

Grower groups*

Private agronomist*

Farm adviser/agronomist*

Government departments*

Other growers*

GRDC

GRDC influencing a higher proportion of growers to adopt new varieties of oilseeds in the last 5 years

Steady compared to last wave, the GRDC has influenced 11% of growers nationally in adopting new varieties of pulses:

� Significantly more likely to be growers who consider themselves innovative (14%), and know a considerable/fair amount about GRDC (17%).

Significantly more growers were influenced by the GRDC to adopt oilseeds at 12%:

� Significantly more likely to be growers who consider themselves innovative (15%), and know a considerable/fair amount about GRDC (16%).

12

14

4

10

17

39

4

9

9

11

14

16

17

23

23

11

12

12

0 100%

Sources Influencing Adoption of New Varieties of Pulses/Oilseeds in Last 5 Years

(Among Growers Influenced by GRDC)

Pulses OilseedsNote: Top responses only.Movement in percentage points since 2008 survey highlighted.

Base: All respondents (n=404). Note: Split sampling. Top responses only.Q54. Was the adoption of these new varieties of pulses or oilseeds in any way a result of GRDC activities or initiatives specifically? Base: Growers who have adopted new varieties of pulses due to GRDC activities or initiatives (n=44). * CAUTION: Small sample. Q55. Who or what other sources have played a role in adoption of these new varieties of PULSES? Base: Growers who have adopted new varieties of oilseeds due to GRDC activities or initiatives (n=48). Q55B. Who or what other sources have played a role in adoption of these new varieties of OILSEEDS?

(▲ 12)

(▲9)

(▼ 3)

(▲6)

(▲ 4)

(▼6)

(▼3)

(▲ 1)

(▼37)

(▼11)

(▲ 18)

(▼ 14)

(▲ 4)

(▲ 23)

(▼1)

(▲ 3)

(▲ 5)

(▲ 1)


78

©201

0 I

psos

Agronomists remain the main influencers for uptake of new pulse and oilseed varieties

Among growers who said GRDC was not an influencing factor in the adoption of new pulse and oilseed varieties in the last 5 years, their main sources of influence were:

� Farm advisor/agronomist at 36%:

� Significantly lower in the West (14%), compared to the North and South (50% and 44% respectively).

� Private Agronomist (22%):

� Highest in the North at 26%.

Base: Growers who were not influenced by GRDC in adopting new varieties of pulses and oilseeds (n=97). Note: Split sampling. Q55D. Who or what sources have played a role in adoption of these new varieties of pulses or oilseeds?

7

5

6

15

22

36

0 100%

Sources Influencing Adoption of New Varieties of Pulses/Oilseeds in Last 5 Years

(Among Growers not Influenced by GRDC)

None

Seed companies/suppliers

NVT results

Other growers

Private agronomist

Farm adviser/agronomist

(▲ 6)

(▼ 9)

(NEW)

(▲ 4)

(▼ 14)

(▲9)


79

©201

0 I

psos

More growers retaining new varieties of pulses

Nationally, disadoption of new pulse varieties in the last 5 years has decreased significantly since last survey:

� The biggest drop in the North from 14% to 8%.

Disadoption of new oilseed varieties in the last 5 years remains steady nationally and across the regions.

The most common new varieties that farmers have stopped growing are:

� Canola - Surpass/Surpass 501/601

� Chick Peas – Amethyst & Howzat

� Field Peas - Parafield.

Top reasons for disadoption:

� New / improved varieties available / change to new variety

� Uneconomical / unprofitable

� Did not perform / meet expectations

� Poor yield

� Drought / too dry / lack of rainfall.

Base: All respondents (n=404). Note: Split sampling. Q56. Have you stopped growing any of these new varieties of pulses or oilseeds in the last 5 years?

That is, since March 2005.

10

17

4

11

5

7

8

7

0 100

(▼ 2)

(▼ 4)

(▼ 3)

(▼ 3)

(▲ 2) B

(▼ 6)

(-)

(▼ 4 )

% Stopped Growing New Varieties of Pulses/Oilseeds in Last 5 Years

Western region(C)

Southern region(B)

Northern region(A)

Nationally

%


Pulses Oilseeds

80

= Significant difference vs. other regions outside bracketsand vs. 2008 inside brackets (at 95% confidence)

©201

0 I

psos

Significantly less lupin varieties are being grown

Significantly less growers are growing old varieties of pulses released 10 to 15 years ago than last wave (10%, was 25%):

� Represents 10% of all growers nationally.

� On average, 1.6 pulse varieties are currently being grown.

� An average of 1.2 are old varieties .

Just 4% are currently growing old varieties of oilseeds (down one percentage point):

� Represents 4% of all growers nationally.

� On average, 1.7 oilseed varieties are currently being grown.

� An average of 1.2 are old varieties.

Base: Growers claiming to currently grow old pulse or oilseed varieties (n=29). Note: Split sampling. CAUTION: Small sample.

Q61B. Which pulses or oilseeds does this apply to?

12

3

10

39

7

23

9

11

14

5

8

8

10

13

20

25

0 100

Old Pulse or Oilseed Varieties Currently Growing (% of Unprompted Mentions)

%

2010 2008

Other

Navy / Mung beans

Lentils

Lupins

Faba beans

Field peas

Chick peas

Canola


81

PRACTICES

82

New Farm Practice Adoption

83

©201

0 I

psos

Some regional changes in adoption of new or improved farming practices, but no major changes overall

75

82

81

79

44

50

49

48

0 100

Adoption of New or Improved Farming Practices

Western region(C)

Southern region(B)

Northern region (A)

Nationally

%

Yes, last 5 yearsYes, last 2 years


Base: All respondents (n=1201)Q22. Have you changed your farming practices, techniques or methods in any way in the last 5 years?Q23. Have you changed your farming practices, techniques or methods in the last 2 years?

(▼ 3)

(▲ 4)

(▲ 4)

(▲ 7)

(▲ 3)

(▲ 5)

(▲ 1)

(▲ 5 )

The proportion of growers nationally who have adopted new or improved farming practices in the past 2 years has increased compared to 2008 (48% vs.43%).

The increase of growers adopting changes in the past five years is not significant nationally:

� Rates of adopting new or improved practices in the past 5 years is lower in the Western region (75%) compared to the Northern and Southern regions (81% and 82% respectively).

Growers who have adopted changes in the past 2 years are more likely to pay for agronomic advice (55%) and have on-farm internet access (50%).

A, B

84

= Significant difference vs. other regions outside bracketsand vs. 2008 inside brackets (at 95% confidence)

©201

0 I

psos

Base: All respondents who have changed farming practices, techniques or methods in last 2 years (n=576)Q24. In what ways have you changed your farming practices, techniques or methods in the last 2 years?

Anything else? (Multiple response).

Only small shifts in new methods used


▲ 914Other mentions

-8More extensive use of / reliance on chemicals / sprays / herbicides

-8Improving soil / adding nutrients / soil health

▲ 29Tram tracking / lining / precision farming

▼ 911Global positioning systems / GPS

▼ 412Fertiliser application / management

▲ 313Purchase / use of new / upgraded machinery / equipment / air seeder

▲ 513Stubble retention / less/no burning of stubble

▼ 518Minimum tillage/till / less ploughing

▲ 218Direct drilling

▲ 421Zero / no tillage/till

2008-2010 +/- %%New Methods Used in Last 2 Years


Focusing on the specific farming practices, techniques or methods that have changed in the past 2 years the results closely reflect those from 2008:

� Stubble retention as a new method (13%) has significantly increased from 8% in 2008.

� Use of GPS as a new method (11%) has significantly decreased from 20% in 2008, reflecting the broader penetration of the technology.

Some regional differences were apparent:

� The adoption of zero tillage and controlled traffic techniques were more prevalent in the Northern region (29% and 12% respectively).

� Direct drilling and stubble retention as new techniques were more prevalent in the Southern region (28% and 22% respectively).

85

©201

0 I

psos

42

59

63

56

64

68

65

66

28

36

26

31

64

56

62

60

0 100

Risk aversion

GRDC supported training event, workshop, project, other activity

R & D outcomes in the grains industry generally

The drought

The drought has become an increasingly strong motivation for adopting new farming practices

Base: All respondents who have adopted new farming practices in past 2 years (n=576)Q24A. Did you change your farming practices, techniques or methods as a result of any of the following?

Note: Percentage points movement since 2008 highlighted.

(▲ 14 ) (▲ 1) (▲ 6)

(▲ 15 ) (▼ 4)(▼ 4)

(▲ 19 ) (▲ 3) (▼ 8)

(▲ 16 ) (▼ 2) (▼ 3)

Nationally, growers were significantly more likely to mention the drought as a motivator of farming practice change over the past 2 years, when compared to 2008 results (56% vs.40%):

� In the Western region, growers were less likely to indicate the drought as a motivator (42%) compared to the Northern and Southern regions (63% and 59% respectively).

� Growers who consider themselves innovative were less likely to indicate the drought as a reason for their practice change (53% compared to growers who do not consider themselves innovative at 63%).

Growers under 40 were significantly more likely to mention risk aversion as a driver of practice change than growers aged 60+ (69% vs.51%).

Growers who nominated GRDC activities as a driver were more likely to give GRDC a net high performance rating (36%).

Activities Influencing Take-up of Specific Actions in the Last 2 Years

Western region(C)

Southern region(B)

Northern region (A)

Nationally

A, B

= Significant difference vs. other regions outside brackets and vs.2008 inside brackets (at 95%

confidence)

%

86

©201

0 I

psos

4

4

11

19

19

20

22

38

0 100

Regional panel members

GRDC staff

Website

Grower groups

Funded projects/ initiatives

Crop updates

GRDC factsheets

Ground Cover

87

Base: All respondents (n=1201)Q27A. When you access information from the GRDC that relates to you changing your farming

practices, techniques or methods, where do you specifically get this from?

Ground Cover the top GRDC source for information on new farm practices

(-)

(▼ 1)

(▲ 1)

(New)

(▲ 2)

(▲ 2)

(New)

(▲ 4)

The usage of various GRDC information sources on new farm practices closely reflects the 2008 results.

The new codes in 2010, GRDC factsheets and Grower groups both appear as sources for close to 1 in five growers (22% and 19% respectively).

Factsheets (24%), grower groups (21%), the website (13%) and GRDC staff (6%) are all more likely to be sources used by growers who consider themselves innovative.

Unsurprisingly, the website is more likely to be used by growers under 40 (17%) compared to those over 60 (6%).

GRDC Information Sources Relating to Adoption of New/Improved Practices

(Prompted responses)

%Note: Percentage points movement since 2008 highlighted.

©201

0 I

psos

3

3

4

8

9

11

18

0 100

Own intiative/trial

and error

Field days

Rural weeklies

Grower

groups/forums

Private agronomic

consultant

Farm

adviser/agronomist

Other growers

88

Base: All respondents (n=1201). Top mentions only.Q27. Who or what sources have played a role in you changing your farming practices, techniques or

methods?Q27H. Who or what other sources have played a role in you changing your farming practice, techniques

or methods?

Advice from peers continues to play strongest role in terms of information on farming practices

The most common source of information for growers regarding farming practice change is their peers, other growers at 18%.

Farm advisers/agronomists are playing an increasingly influential role compared to 2008, with 11% indicating they are a source of information (7% in 2008):

� More commonly mentioned as a source of information by growers under 40 (15%) and 40-59 (11%) compared to growers aged 60+ (6%).

Information Sources Relating to Changed Farming Practices, Methods & Techniques

(Unprompted responses)

%Note: Percentage points movement since 2008 highlighted.

(▼ 1)

( - )

(▲ 1)

(▼ 2)

(▲ 1)

(▲ 4)

(▲ 2)


©201

0 I

psos

89

Base: All respondents (n=1201)Q29. Are you currently doing anything to ensure the longer-term sustainability of your farm?Base: All respondents (n=404). Note: split samplingQ62. Have you done anything in the past 3 years to improve production or quality on your farm?

Proportions of growers taking action to ensure sustainability and improve production and quality remain high


(▲ 2)

(▲ 1)

(▼ 1)

(▲ 3)

(▼ 8 )

(▲ 4)

(▼ 2)

(▲ 3)

83

79

78

80

86

88

92

89

0 100

% Growers Taking Specific Actions Last 3 Years

Western region(C)

Southern region(B)

Northern region (A)

Nationally

%

Improving production and qualityEnsuring long-term sustainability

Very high proportions of growers indicate they are taking action to ensure long-term sustainability of their farms (89%) and improve production (80%):

� These results are consistent with 2008 results.

Growers in the Northern region are less likely (78%), when compared to 2008 (86%), to be doing anything to improve production and quality on their farms.

In the Western region, growers are less likely than the Northern and Southern regions to be doing anything to ensure the long-term sustainability of their farms (86% in the West, compared to 92% and 88% in the North and South respectively).

A

= Significant difference vs. other regions outside brackets and vs.2008 inside brackets (at 95%

confidence)

©201

0 I

psos

5

7

14

22

11

18

24

8

9

14

17

17

23

42

0 100

90

Base: All respondents (n=1201)Q31. Would you say that these actions are in any way a result of GRDC activities or

initiatives? Q32 & Q32C. Who or what sources have influenced any actions you have taken to

address the long-term sustainability of your farm?Base: All respondents (n=404). Note: Split sampling.Q63. Was the adoption of these changes in any way a result of the GRDC activities

or initiatives specifically?Q64 & Q64C. Who or what sources have influenced you to adopt these changes?

Sources of influence to take-up actions aimed at ensuring sustainability and improved production steady


(▲2) (▼3) (▼6)( - )(▲1) (▼1) (▼3)

(▲3)(▼5) (▼1) (▼5)(▲3)(▼5) (▲2)

Sources Influencing Take-up of Specific Actions

Farm adviser/agronomistPrivate agronomist

Own initiativeRural weeklies

Grower groups/forumsOther growers

GRDC

%

Improving production and qualityEnsuring long-term sustainability

Over four in ten of all growers (42%) who are taking action to ensure long-term sustainability of their farm note these actions are in some way a result of GRDC activities.

GRDC is having less of an impact on actions to improve production and quality with 24% of growers indicating some influence.

Other growers as a source of information to ensure long-term sustainability is more likely to be noted among growers in the Northern region (28%) compared to the Southern region (19%).

Grower groups/forums are significantly less likely to be mentioned as a source of information by growers in the Northern region compared to the Western region:

� 5% vs.17% for improving production.

� 12% vs.21% for ensuring long-term sustainability.

Crop Protection

91

©201

0 I

psos

GRDC is demonstrating a stronger influence on growers’ crop protection behaviour

Base: All respondents (n=377). Note: split sampling. Q65. Have you made any changes or improvements in the last 5 years, driven directly and or indirectly

from GRDC activities or supported projects with regards to protecting your crops from…?

% Making Changes Related to Crop

Protection in Last Five Years Influenced

by GRDC (directly or indirectly)

24

32

46

21

38

45

31

47

53

0 100

Pests

Weeds

Diseases

2010

2008

2006

GRDC is having a stronger influence on crop protection changes across diseases, weeds and pests compared to 2008.

The greatest influence relates to diseases, with 53% indicating they were influenced by the GRDC:

� Highest mention NSW (61%).

Just under half of growers note some influence in relation to protecting crops from weeds (47%) and pests (31%):

� Highest mention SA (55% -weeds) and NSW (32% - pests).

�Growers who note the influence of the GRDC in relation to crop protection are more likely to give GRDC a net high performance rating.

%


92

©201

0 I

psos

Confidence levels regarding crop protection issues steady

Base: All respondents (n=393). Note: split sampling. Q67. Compared to 5 years ago, do you believe you now have a better handle on dealing with issues on

your farm relating to…

% Growers Who Have a Better Handle on

Crop Protection Issues (Compared to

Five Years Ago)

79

86

82

70

86

78

70

84

82

0 100

Pests

Weeds

Diseases

2010

2008

2006

Diseases:

� Highest mention NSW (87%)

� Lowest mention QLD (65%).

� Weeds:

� Highest mention VIC (88%)


Pests:

� Highest mention SA (72%)


%

93

©201

0 I

psos

Main problems in relation to crop protection closely reflect 2008 results, except in relation to pests

Base: All respondents (n=393). Note: split sampling. Top mentions only. Q68. What would you say is the main problem you have experienced in the last 2 years, related

specifically to…

�� 724Rye Grass

�� 13

�� 2

�� 2

�� 7

�� 5

�� 3

�� 7

�� 5

�� 11

�� 3

-

�� 4

�� 1

�� 5

21No problems experienced

7Rhizoctonia

7Crown rot

47Stem rust / stripe rust / leaf rust / in cereals

Diseases


11Helicoverpa/heliothis

12Grasshopper

12Aphids

18Red Legged Earth Mite

Pests


8Fleabain

9Wild Radish

13Herbicide resistance

20Weather related / drought / variability

Weeds

%

Mentioning

Main Problems Experienced in Last 2 Years Relating to

Crop Protection (Main Unprompted Responses)


Growers are dealing with the same key issues since the 2008 survey, although there is some change in terms of pests

Weeds:

� Rye grass most likely to be a problem in the Southern & Western regions (30% and 35%).

� Highest mentions for weather related weed problems NSW, WA and SA (24%, 23%, 23%).

� Wild radish more likely to be a problem in the Western region (12%), Fleabainin the Northern region (23%).

Pests:

� Aphids and Grasshoppers increased significantly (predominantly in NSW for Grasshoppers, at 25%).

� Red Legged Earth Mite more likely to be a problem in the Western region (28%).

Diseases:

� Growers experiencing no disease problems has decreased significantly.

94

©201

0 I

psos

Farm advisers/agronomists and GRDC play the strongest role in terms of crop protection issues

Base: All respondents (n=393). Note: split sampling. Top mentions only. Q69, 70, 70C. Who or what sources have helped you with this [Weed / Pest / Disease] problem?

5% (▼1)4% ( - )6% ( - )Grower groups / forums

40% (▲11)33% (▲3)44% (▲2)Farm adviser / agronomist

4% (▲2)

2% (▼4)

8% (▲2)

22% (▲2)

43% (▲8)

Diseases

5% ( - )

4% (▲1)

6% (▲1)

19% (▼3)

20% (▲5)

Pests

7% ( - )Chemical companies

1% (▼5)Government Departments

9% (▼2)Other growers

26% (▼4)Private agronomist

32% (▲6)GRDC

Weeds

Sources Assisting in

Dealing with Main Crop Protection

Problems in Last 2 Years


GRDC continues to help many growers with crop protection issues, playing an increasingly strong role in relation to diseases:

� Diseases: significantly higher than 2008 at 43%, up from 35%, peaking in NSW at 47%.

� Weeds: less likely to be having an impact in the Northern region (27%).

� Pests: Peaks in VIC at 26%, lowest in QLD at 6%.

� Farm advisers/agronomists also playing a stronger role in relation to diseases (40% vs.29% in 2008), while Government Departments’ influence is decreasing (2% down from 6% in 2008).

95

©201

0 I

psos

Awareness and information sourcing for IWM, IPM & IDM have all increased since 2008

Base: All respondents (n=393). Note: split sampling. Q71A. Have you specifically heard of…Base: All respondents who have heard of Integrated Weed / Pest / Disease Management.

(n=271 / n=274 / n=195). Note: split sampling. Q71B. Have you actively sought information on…

Awareness of IWM, IPM & IDM

32

37

46

49

69

68

0 100

Integrated

disease

management

Integrated

pest

management

Integrated

weed

management

Sought information on Heard of


%

(▲ 6)

(▲ 9)

(▲ 4)

(▲ 11)

(▲ 15)

(▲ 19)

Awareness levels of Integrated Weed, Pest and Disease Management have all increased since 2008, the strongest increase being a 9% increase for IPM:

� IWM: Highest among younger farmers (77%)

� IDM: Highest among growers with canola as their main crop (70%).

�Of the growers aware of IWM, IPM and IDM, increasing proportions have also actively sought information, with nearly half the sample (46%) reporting they have sought IWM information.


96

©201

0 I

psos

Farm advisers/agronomists and GRDC/Ground Cover are the key information sources on IWM, IPM & IDM

Base: Respondents (n=157) who have sought information on IWM, IDM, IPM Note: split sampling. Top mentions only.

Q73. In what ways or via what sources have you accessed information relating to Integrated Pest, Weed or Disease Management?

Sources Growers Have Used to Access

Information on IWM, IPM & IDM

2

9

19

8

9

17

42

12

13

12

17

25

25

33

4

9

11

18

20

27

36

0 100

DPI

Department of

Agriculture

Farm

journal/magazine

Rural Weeklies

Private agronomic

consultant

Ground Cover /

GRDC newspaper

Farm

advisers/agronomist2010

2008

2006

%

The top sources growers have used to access information on IWM, IPM & IDM are farm advisers/agronomists (36%), GRDC/ Ground Cover (27%) and private agronomic consultants (20%):

� These results closely reflect findings from 2008.

97

©201

0 I

psos

Rates of IPM & IDM up compared to 2008

Adoption Rates

19

14

22

36

29

38

45

57

40

0 100

Integrated

disease

management

Integrated

weed

management

Integrated

pest

management

Currently adoptingthis practice

Likely to in the future

Not adopting anypractice

Base: All respondents (n=393). Note: split sampling. Q72. Integrated Pest, Weed or Disease Management means combining a range of different

techniques to overcome a weed, disease or insect threat to a crop. Based on this definition, and firstly thinking about Integrated Pest Management are you…

%


(▲ 14)

(▲13)

(▲10)


Current adoption rates of IPM and IDM have increased since 2008:

� IPM: Increased by 10% compared to 2008, peaks in SA (47%) and is highest among growers whose main crop is sorghum (56%).

� IDM: Increased by 13% compared to 2008.

Current adoption rates of IWM have decreased since 2008, although the adoption rates remains the highest of IWM, IPM & IDM:

� IWM: Highest among growers under 40 years of age (72%).

Growers adopting IWM, IPM and IDM are more likely to consider themselves innovative.

98

©201

0 I

psos

An opportunity exists to provide more education on Integrated Weed, Pest and Disease Management

Base: Respondents (n=54 / n=90 / n=75) who are not adopting IWM, IPM, IDM Note: split sampling. Top mentions only.

Q72A. What is preventing you from adopting these practices?

The top reasons for not adopting any Integrated Weed Management are:

� confidence in current techniques (25%); and

� lack of knowledge, training or information (22%).

The top reasons for not adopting any Integrated Pest Management are:

� confidence in current techniques (25%); and

� lack of knowledge, training or information (22%).

The top reasons for not adopting any Integrated Disease Management are:

� lack of knowledge, training or information (26%);

� confidence in current techniques (17%).

99

©201

0 I

psos

Confidence in the industry’s capacity to respond to new threats is steady

% Growers Who Feel Confident the

Industry can Respond to New

Weed, Disease and Insect Threats

63

54

60

58

0 100

Western

region (C)

Southern

region (B)

Northern

region (A)

Nationally

Base: All respondents (n=393). Note: split sampling. Q74. Are you confident that research in the grains industry can respond quickly to new weed, diseases and

insect threats, such as dealing with new disease types or increasing damage from existing pests? Q74A. What would improve your confidence?Q75. Do GRDC activities or supported projects help you deal with these threats or do you have to find your

own solutions to these problems?

Growers who feel confident industry can respond to new threats are more likely to give GRDC a net high performance rating (64%).

Confidence could be improved by (top three):

� More information on control options (19%).

� New varieties with better disease resistance (12%).

� Greater investment/Government support (10%).

A total of 43% of growers believe GRDC assists with these threats, either in combination with their own solutions or alone.Note: Movement in percentage points since 2008 survey highlighted

%

(▲ 8)

(▲ 2)

(▼ 6)

( - )

100

©201

0 I

psos

Action on herbicide resistance remains strong

% Growers Currently Doing

Something to Delay the Onset or

Manage Herbicide Resistance

95

86

80

87

0 100

Western

region (C)

Southern

region (B)

Northern

region (A)

Nationally

Base: All respondents (n=393). Note: split sampling. Q75A. Are you currently doing anything to delay the onset or to manage herbicide resistance on your farm? Base: Respondents not currently doing anything to delay the onset or manage herbicide resistance (n=52). Q75C. Do you think you will in the next two years?


%

(▲ 3)

( - )

(▼ 4)

( - )


A, B

� A total of 87% of growers are currently doing something to delay the onset or manage herbicide resistance:

� Action more likely in the Western region (95%).

� Younger farmers (less than 40 years old) more likely (93%) to be taking action.

� Of those growers not doing anything, 33% intend to commence in the next two years.

101

Sustainable Farming

102

©201

0 I

psos

103

Base: All respondents (n=397). Note: Split sampling.Q83. Which of the following do you currently use on your farm? (Multiple response)Q84. Was the adoption of [READ CODE] in any way a result of GRDC activities or supported projects

specifically?

Large increase in proportion currently using GPS guidance

▼1

▼3

-

▼1

▼6

▼1

-

▼2

▲2

-

▲3

▼1

▲1

▲2

-

▲13

▲1

3

4

0

2

7

8

9

9

8

6

16

8

13

11

15

13

18

% Influenced by GRDC


▼413EMS (Environmental Management Systems)

-20Variable rate seed/fertiliser technology

-22Use Yield Monitor for Yield Mapping

▼422Monitor the depth to the water table

▼822Controlled traffic

▲126Risk management tools

▼728Plant available water

▼1229Monitor available soil water

▼ 632Other risk management plan

-39Yield Monitor

▲141Industry recognised best management practice

▼944Gypsum

▲248Testing of leaf and root

▲6 48Lime

▼950Nutrient budgeting

▲3268GPS Guidance

▲285Soil testing for nutrients

% MentioningCurrent Methods Used


Noticeable adoption rate movements since 2008 are:

� Growth in GPS guidance use from 36% to 68%.

� Significant increase in proportion using lime (42% to 48%).

� Decrease in proportion monitoring available soil water, down from 41% to 29%.

©201

0 I

psos

GRDC increased influence for GPS use in 2010

GRDC activities and initiatives have some influence in relation to sustainable farming systems:

� A significant increase of influence is for GPS guidance use at 13%, up from 0%.

� At 18%, most influence relates to soil testing for nutrients, which is consistent with 2008.

� Followed by Industry recognised best management practice at 16%.

� Nutrient budgeting remains steady at 15%.

Areas where there was a slight drop in influence included:

� Controlled traffic down significantly from 13% to 7%.

� Variable rate seed/fertiliser technology at 4%, down from 7%.

Base: All respondents (n=397). Note: Split sampling.Q83. Which of the following do you currently use on your farm? (Multiple response).

104

©201

0 I

psos

The net proportion of growers using some form of precision agriculture has increased significantly in 2010, up from 65% last survey to 77%.

The use of GPS guidance has increased significantly at 68%.

In a new question for 2010, 39% of growers use a yield monitor, and of these growers, over half (56%) use this for yield mapping.

9

1

20

22

39

68

77

0 100

Current Adoption of Precision Agriculture Technology


Base: All respondents (n=397). Note: Split sampling Q83. Which of the following do you currently use on your farm? (Multiple response).

Significant increases in yield monitor use and GPS guidance


(▼ 4)

(▲ 2)

(-)

(▼ 8)

(NEW)

(▲ 32)

(▲ 12)

Yield mapping

Other precision agriculture

Variable rate seed/fertiliser technology

Controlled traffic

Yield monitor

GPS guidance

Currently using precision agriculture technology*

%

105

*Note: Yield monitor is new in 2010 and therefore the significant increase in the proportion of growers currently using precision agriculture should be viewed with caution.

©201

0 I

psos

Nearly 4 in 10 growers (39%) have considered Precision Agriculture in the last 12 months, while a quarter (25%) have not considered any form of Precision Agriculture.

Two thirds of growers (33%) are currently zoning for different management approaches.

Of growers who have not considered using Precision Agriculture technology in the last year and are not currently zoning their farm, just 3% would consider farm zoning.

Important information sources on Precision Agriculture include:

� Ground Cover/GRDC newspaper (35%)

� Rural weeklies (23%)

� Field days (10%)

� Email (10%).

25

3

33

39

0 100

Consideration of Precision Agriculture Technology

= Significant difference from 2008(at 95% confidence)Base: All respondents (n=397). Note: Split sampling

Q85A. Have you considered using Precision Agriculture technology or applications in the last 12 months?Q85C. Have you considered zoning your farm for different management purposes?Q85X. Do you currently zone your farm for different management approaches? (NEW)

Trend towards consideration of Precision Agriculture and away from farm zoning


%

106

Have not considered any form of Precision Agriculture

Considered zoning for different management approaches

Currently zoning for different management approaches

Have considered using precision agriculture in the last 12 months

Please note that a new question (Q85X) was included in this analysis in 2010 so the results are not directly comparable to those obtained for 2008.

©201

0 I

psos

37

50

45

12

20

26

35

2

12

60

0 70

Many growers factor in climate change issues as part of their business planning

Base: All respondents (n=397). Note: Split sampling.Q85H1. Are you factoring in issues surrounding climate change in your farm business decision-making? Q85H2. Do you see climate change as posing a real threat to your farm business?Q85J. Have you adopted any new or different management practices to better manage climate variability

or climate change?

%

Factoring in issues surrounding climate

change in farm decision making

Climate change posing a real threat to farm business

Adopted new management practices to manage climate variability or

climate change

Perceived Impact of Climate Change on Farm

Yes, regularly

Yes, on occasion

No

Yes, already a threat

Yes, will be in future

No

Yes

No

Not sure / Don’t know

Net Agree:55%

Net Agree:

39%

(▲ 4)

(-)

(▲ 7)

(▲ 5)

(-)

(▲ 2)

(▼ 4)

(▼ 6)

(▼ 1)

(▼ 6)

107

©201

0 I

psos

Impact of climate change

The net proportion who are factoring in issues surrounding climate change in farm decision making is down by 5% from 2008 at 55%.

The net proportion who agree that climate change is posing a real threat to farm business is down by 5 percentage points at 39%:

� Of those who agree that climate change is already a threat; there is significantly less agreement in the South (19%), compared to the West (34%).

60% of growers have adopted new management practices to manage climate variability or climate change (down 4% from 2008);

� Of the 60% who have adopted new practices, the top three practices are:

� Stubble retention (19%)

� No till cropping (14%)

� Plant / sow crop earlier /later /around weather conditions / soil moisture (13%).

� Of the 37% who have not adopted new practices, assistance or decision making tools identified to help address climate change are:

� Reliable/accurate weather forecasts/climate information/rain forecasting (15%)

� Climate change information /handling climate change (10%)

� New varieties / crops to suit climate / variable temperatures/drought tolerant crops / grasses (9%),

� Nothing 19% and Don’t know 24%.

108

Base: All respondents (n=397). Note: Split sampling.Q85H1. Are you factoring in issues surrounding climate change in your farm business decision-making? Q85H2. Do you see climate change as posing a real threat to your farm business?Q85J. Have you adopted any new or different management practices to better manage climate variability

or climate change?

©201

0 I

psos

A small proportion have a formal business plan in place

In relation to whole business planning, 2010 is steady compared to 2008 results:

� 22% have a formal business plan, inclusive of a farm budget (down 1%):

� Significantly lower in NSW (15%) versus SA and WA (32 and 28% respectively).

� Significantly higher among growers who say they know a considerable/fair amount about GRDC (28%) and those who are a part of a formal group (50%).

� Nearly two thirds (64%) have a farm budget only (in line with last wave):

� Significantly higher in NSW at 70%, compared to QLD (56%).

� 14% said they had neither a farm business plan or farm budget (up 1%):

� *Significantly higher in QLD (27%) vs. WA (7%), and for males at 16%.

� Significantly lower for those who know a considerable/fair amount about GRDC (10%) and for younger growers (under 40) .

Base: All respondents (n=397). Note: Split sampling. CAUTION: Small base size.Q76. Do you have a formal documented business plan for your farm or just a farm budget?

109

©201

0 I

psos

Over half of growers independently prepare their formal business plan or farm budget

Nearly half (48%) who have a formal business plan or budget, have this worked out or prepared with an adviser;

� Just over a quarter (26%) worked out their plan with an agronomic adviser:

� Significantly lower in the North (14%), specifically NSW at 15% and QLD at 17%.

� Nearly one third (31%) worked out their plan with a farm business adviser/consultant:

� Significantly higher in the West at 45%.

� Significantly higher among growers who claim to know a considerable to fair amount about GRDC (36%) and those aged 40-59 years old (35%) compared to those aged 60+ (20%).

� Over half (52%) said they did not use an advisor to prepare their plan or budget:

� Significantly higher in the North region (69%).

� Significantly higher among those who have a greater reliance on off-farm income than 12 months ago (65%).

15% say GRDC activities have helped in developing their farm budget/plan:

� Significantly higher among growers who claim to know a considerable to fair amount about GRDC (25%) and those who consider themselves innovative (18%).

� Significantly more likely to be male (16%) than female (5%).

Base: Those who have a formal documented business plan or farm budget (n=339)Q77. Is this plan or budget worked out or prepared with an agronomic adviser or with a farm business

adviser/consultant? (Multiple response).Q78. Have GRDC activities or supported projects in any way helped you develop your farm plan or budget? 110

NEW PRODUCTS

111

On-Farm Grain Storage

112

©201

0 I

psos

% Growers Storing Grain On-Farm

68

83

83

79

0 100

Western

region (C)

Southern

region (B)

Northern

region (A)

Nationally

Nearly four in five growers storing grain on-farm

Growers in the Western region (68%) are significantly less likely to store grain on-farm than Northern and Southern regions (both 83%):

� Highest in VIC & NSW (89% & 87% respectively), lowest in SA (56%).

On average, growers are storing 30% of total grain on-farm (29% in 2008).

A substantial proportion (41%) are storing more grain on-farm now than they were two years ago (39% in 2008):

� 12% are storing less than 2 years ago (18% in 2008) and nearly half (48%) are storing the same amount (42% in 2008).

Base: All respondents (n=401). Note: split sampling. Q86A. Do you store any of your grain on-farm? Base: Respondents storing grain on-farm (n=314). Note: split sampling.Q86A1. What percentage of your grain are you currently storing on-farm?Q86B. Has the amount of grain you store on-farm increased or decreased when compared to 2 years ago?


%

(▼ 13)

(▼ 9)

(▲ 8)

(▼ 4)


A, B

113

©201

0 I

psos

% Growers Storing Grain On-Farm

4

2

2

4

4

8

60

61

0 100

Other

Other silos

Bunkers

Sausage bags

Portable field bins

Bulk grain shed

Unsealed silos

Sealed silos

Silos remain most popular storage option, while alternative methods are decreasing in popularity

Base: Growers that store grain on-farm (n=314). Note: split sampling. Q86D. How are you storing your grain on-farm? Base: All respondents (n=401). Note: split sampling. Q86F1. How are you storing your grain on-farm?

Northern region significantly less likely to be using sealed silos (47%) with the Western region the most likely at 70%:

� WA is significantly more likely to be using sealed silos than all other states at 86%.

Just over half (52%) of growers are looking to purchase new silos in the next two years (57% in 2008):

� 43% sealed silos.

� 12% unsealed.

%


114

( - )

(▼ 2)

(▼ 1)

(▼5)

(▼ 3)

(▼ 4)

(▲ 2)

(▲ 1)


©201

0 I

psos

Off-farm grain storage expected to remain steady

A total of 41% of growers are storing grain off-farm:

� Off-farm grain storage significantly more popular in the Western and Southern regions (45% and 46% respectively), compared to the Northern region (31%).

Only 28% of all growers expect to be storing grain off-farm in 3 years time, marking a drop of 13% compared to those currently storing grain off-farm.

Of those storing grain off-farm, the average percentage of grain is 28%.

Base: All respondents (n=401). Note: split sampling. Q86E. Are you storing any of your grain off-farm with a warehouse or contract storer? Base: Respondent who are storing grain off-farm (n=155). Note: split sampling. Q86E1. What percentage of your grain are you currently storing or warehousing off-farm? Base: All respondents (n=401). Note: split sampling.Q86E2. What percentage of your grain do you expect to be storing or warehousing off farm, say three years

from now?

Off-farm Grain Storage

28

28

0 100

Average percentage of grain

expecting to store off-farm 3

years from now

Average percentage of grain

currently storing off-farm


(▲5)

(▲5)

115

©201

0 I

psos

Average period of grain storage is seven months

In line with the 2008 results, most growers store their grain for one to six months (62%).

Base: All respondents (n=401). Note: split sampling. Q86G2. How long do you store your grain for?

Duration of Grain Storage

4 2 2

54 63 62

3531 31

3 2 41 1 1

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2008 2010

25+ months

13-24 months

7-12 months

1-6 months

<1 month

116

©201

0 I

psos

Key source of information for on-farm storage is rural weeklies

Information Sources Relating to On-

farm Storage

7

7

8

10

12

12

20

0 100

Grower

groups/forums

Field days

GroundCover

GRDC

Other growers

Silo

manufacturers

Rural weeklies

Base: All respondents (n=401). Note: split sampling. Q86G4. Where do you source information relating to on-farm storage from?


%

( - )

(▼ 1)

(▼ 8)

( - )

(▼ 2)

(▼ 4)

(▼ 3)

� Rural weeklies most popular in SA at 29% and least popular in VIC at 11%.

� Field days as a source of information regarding on-farm storage has significantly decreased since 2008 (down from 15% in 2008 to 7% this year).


117

©201

0 I

psos

A third of growers have changed their phosphine application practices

Phosphine Usage and Attitudes

82

70

0 100

Willing to use

alternative

on-farm grain

fumigant,

even if more

expensive

Using

phosphine as

part of stored

grain pest

management

practices

A total of 70% of growers are using phosphine as part of stored grain pest management practices:

� Western region significantly more likely to be using phosphine (82%) compared to Northern and Southern regions (70% & 62% respectively).

Of the growers using phosphine, 32% of growers have changed their phosphine application practices (28% in 2008):

� NSW most likely to have changed practices (42%).

If phosphine was no longer available, 36% would look for an alternative, 9% would store less grain, 5% would use aeration, 4% would convert to sealed silos, 4% report they would panic/be in trouble and 23% were unsure of their action.

Base: All respondents (n=401). Note: split sampling. Q94A. Are you using phosphine as part of your stored grain pest management practices?Q94B. Have you changed your practices for applying phosphine at all?Q94E. To extend the life of phosphine, would you be prepared to use on a rotational basis an

alternative on-farm grain fumigant, even if it proved more expensive?Q94F. What would you do if phosphine was no longer available to growers?

%

(▲12)

(▲5)



118

©201

0 I

psos

Interest levels in measuring soil, grain and plant qualities remain high

% Growers Interested in

Measuring...

2

81

87

92

0 100

None of

these

Plant

qualities

Grain

qualities

Soil

qualities

Base: All respondents (n=401). Note: split sampling.Q94G. Which of the following would you be interested in being able to measure on-farm if it could

be done fairly quickly?

%Note: Movement in percentage points since 2008 survey highlighted

119

(▼4)

(▼1)

(▲1)

Growers continue to show strong interest in measuring soil, grain and plant qualities, if it could be done fairly quickly.

These results closely reflect those in 2008.

Feed Grain

120

©201

0 I

psos

Majority grow feed grain to sell off-farm

Base: All respondents (n=1201). (Multiple response).Q5a. Do you intentionally grow grain to sell off-farm as livestock feed? Q5c. What proportion of your feed grain do you sell to a livestock producer, if any? 121

Just over half of growers (53%) intentionally grow grain to sell off-farm as livestock feed.

Those growers who sell grain to a livestock producer (constituting 25%), sell 16% of their total feed grain on average.

18

29

24

25

33

0 100%

Intentionally Grow Grain to Sell Off-farm as Livestock Feed…?

No - but use some grain as livestock feed on own farm

No - only grow grain for human food consumption

Yes - sell to livestock feed manufacturer

Yes - sell to livestock producer

Yes - sell to bulk handler

COMMUNICATION AND CAPACITY

BUILDING

122

Influential Sources

123

©201

0 I

psos

Information provided by GRDC is a strong influencer for motivating recent on-farm change

Base: All respondents (n=410). Note: Split sampling.Q95X. I am going to read out some people or organisations that other farmers have told us have

motivated them to make changes for the betterment of their grains enterprise. For each, can you tell me whether or not each one I read out has actually motivated you to make any changes to your grains enterprise over the last 2 years

41

56

60

62

68

70

71

72

74

77

80

82

83

0 100%

Sources of Influence in Motivating Change On-Farm in Last Two Years (Prompted Responses)

Information you pick up on the internet

Conferences and workshops

Information given by a government department or agency

Radio

Guidance from a fee-for-service agronomist, farm adviser or consultant

An agronomist associated with a retail outlet

What you read in the weekly rural press

Grower advisor updates

Information disseminated by the GRDC

What leading growers in your district are saying

Grains related industry publications

Field days

What you hear in a grower group or forum

124

©201

0 I

psos

Information provided by GRDC is a strong influencer for motivating recent on-farm change

Sources of influence that motivated changes on-farm

� Almost all the sources listed in the survey were considered to influence change on-farm by at least half of respondents with the exception of information picked up from the internet (41%).

� While agronomists are the most trusted sources of information or support in relation to operations on-farm, as far as motivating on-farm change, nearly three quarters of growers (74%) said that information disseminated by the GRDC was a source of influence, compared to 70% and 68% for retail and fee-for-service agronomists respectively.

� Those who were significantly more likely to report information from the GRDC influenced change included those who:

� Considered themselves innovative (79% vs.64% of those who did not)

� Had farms that consisted of crops only (81% compared to 71% of those with crops and livestock)

� Members of a formal group (86% vs.67% of those who were not)

� Paid for agronomic advice or services (83% vs.67% of those who had not)

� Had internet access on their farm (76% vs.58%).

Base: All respondents (n=410). Note: Split sampling.Q95X. I am going to read out some people or organisations that other farmers have told us have

motivated them to make changes for the betterment of their grains enterprise. For each, can you tell me whether or not each one I read out has actually motivated you to make any changes to your grains enterprise over the last 2 years 125

©201

0 I

psos

Agronomists have a major influence over grower change decisions

78

76

71

66

59

58

54

54

52

51

49

46

37

21

23

28

33

40

42

45

45

48

48

50

54

62

0 100

Base: All respondents who responded ‘yes’ in Q95X (n=varied). Note: Split Sampling. May not add to 100% due to rounding and ‘Can’t say’ not included.

Q95Y. Did [READ ITEM] have a minor influence, or a major influence on changes to your grains enterprise?

Level of Influence of Sources in Motivating Change On-Farm in Last Two Years

Major influenceMinor influence

126

Radio

Information you pick up on the internet

What you read in the weekly rural press

Information given by a government department or agency

Grains related industry publications

Information disseminated by the GRDC

Grower advisor updates

Conferences and workshops

What leading growers in your district are saying

What you hear in a grower group or forum

Field days

An agronomist associated with a retail outlet

Guidance from a fee-for-service agronomist, farm adviser or consultant

%

©201

0 I

psos

Agronomists have a major influence over grower change decisions

Respondents who agreed the sources in the previous question were influential in motivating on-farm change, were then asked the degree of this influence.

Agronomists and field days ranked the highest when looking at major influence, which means that there is an opportunity for GRDC to leverage that by strengthening relationships with agronomists.

Information released by GRDC was still a strong influencer with 42% saying it was a major influencer of on-farm change in the last two years and 58% saying that it was a minor influencer:

� Those who had benefitted from GRDC activities were significantly more likely to indicate the information from the GRDC was a major influencer (50% vs. 12% who had not (although the sample for those who had not benefitted from GRDC in the last 5 years was small).

� As previously mentioned, those who paid for agronomic advice or services, were more likely to say that the information from GRDC had influenced motivation to change , however they were significantly less likely to say it was a major influencer (36% vs. 48% of those who had not paid for agronomic services).

Base: All respondents who responded ‘yes’ in Q95X (n=varied). Split Sampling. ‘Can’t say’ not included.Q95Y. Did [READ OUT ITEM] have a minor influence, or a major influence on changes to your grains

enterprise? Note. Not directly comparable to 2008 results as question asked differently in 2010.

127

©201

0 I

psos

The majority of growers look to peers for general agronomic advice

30

55

60

63

77

79

0 100%

Sources Used to Seek General Agronomic Advice(Prompted Responses)


Base: All respondents (n=410). Note: Split sampling. Q95A1. From which of the following sources do you currently seek general agronomic advice?

Other Growers

Retail Agronomists

Private agronomists, farm advisers or consultants

Grower groups


State based extension officers

128

(▼ 6)

(▼ 11)

(▼ 7)

(▼ 3)

(-)

(▼ 1)

Most growers turn to other growers (79%) for general agronomic advice, closely followed by agronomists at 77%.

As far as movement from 2008 – most sources were reported by fewer respondents in 2010, with the greatest decline in those who reported The Department of Agriculture, at 55% as a source of general advice (down 11 points compared to 2008).


Information Needs and Preferred

Formats

129

©201

0 I

psos

The Ground Cover newsletter is the most highly valued way to access GRDC information

Base: All respondents who have heard of GRDC (n=395). Note: Split sampling. Figures subject to rounding.Q100D. Thinking of all the different ways you can access information about GRDC activities and supported

projects, how much do you value each of the following?

A lotNot aware of it A littleNot at all

26

28

17

12

12

11

9

13

7

11

3

6

5

7

3

10

10

6

4

5

5

2

34

52

34

39

41

46

42

34

62

48

34

38

47

37

8

15

35

34

37

37

43

25

40

54

52

47

56

42

67

70

73

78

82

85

86

87

88

89

90

93

93

47

2

12

52

%

Value of Different Ways to Access GRDC Information

GRDC Website

GRDC Annual Report

Paddock Diaries

Ute Guides

GRDC Fact Sheets

GRDC Growers Report

Crop Updates

National Variety Trials (NVT)

Local or national newspapers

Ground Cover Supplement Inserts

ABC Country Hour

Ground Cover Direct

Rural Weeklies

Ground Cover Newsletter

130

(▲4)

-6

(▲7)

(▲4)

New

(▲6)

(▲3)

New

New

(▲3)

(-)

(▲10)

(▼2)

(▼3)



©201

0 I

psos

The Ground Cover newsletter is the most highly valued way to access GRDC information

The vast majority valued (a little or a lot) the Ground Cover Newsletter and Rural Weeklies

(both 93%). This was a slight decrease on 2008 (down 3% and 2% respectively).

� Those who considered themselves innovative were significantly more likely to value the Ground Cover Newsletter a lot (61% vs. 46% of those who didn’t think they were innovative).

� Respondents who had the same (59%) or less (63%) reliance on off-farm income compared to 12 months ago were more likely to value the Ground Cover Newsletter a lot (compared to 35% with greater reliance than 12 months ago).

� Respondents from North and South regions were less likely to value Rural Weeklies a lot compared to those in the West (58%).

Ground Cover Direct had the biggest increase in perceived value compared to 2008 with a significant increase of 10 percentage points (90% in 2010).

� Respondents aged 60+ were more likely to report they valued Ground Cover a lot (67% compared to 47% of those who were under 60).

The GRDC Growers Report and the Paddock Diaries also saw significant increases in net values since last wave (up 6% and 7% respectively).

The internet is the least valued resource, with the GRDC website netting 42% value rating.

� In addition, only 11% of all respondents agreed they view the GRDC website often to keep up to date.

Base: All respondents who have heard of GRDC (n=395). Note: Split sampling. Figures subject to rounding.Q100D. Thinking of all the different ways you can access information about GRDC activities and supported

projects, how much do you value each of the following? 131

©201

0 I

psos

Quality of information on the GRDC website rated highly

132

Very highFairly highNot too highNot at all high

Rating of GRDC Website

%

Base: Respondents who have accessed the GRDC website in last 12 months (n=100). Note: Split sampling. ‘Don’t know’ responses not shown. * Caution small sample size

Q100F1.How would you rate GRDC’s website on the following…?

36

16

13

5

2

3

38

18

16

17

15

8

47

62

58

61

61

55

6

8

11

11

11

25

53

69

69

72

72

80

13

12

2

2

5

3

A useful tool for running your farm business

Ability to access the latest R&D and extension information

Providing new information not read or seen before

Ease of use

Ability to access/download information in a timely manner

Quality of information New in2010


(▼ 14)

(-)

(▲ 1)

(▲ 8)

©201

0 I

psos

The most common reason for not using the GRDC website was lack of perceived need

5

7

9

11

12

20

22

0 30%

Reasons for not Using the GRDC Website


Base: Respondents not accessed internet in last 12 months (n=295). Note: Split sampling. Top responses only.

Q100G. Why haven’t you accessed the GRDC website in the past 12 months? [Unprompted]

Have poor internet access

Didn't need to

No particular reason

Didn't know GRDC had a website

Do not own computer/cannot use computer/not computer literate

Don't have internet access

Too busy/lack of time

133

(▼ 3)

(▲ 3)

(▼ 2)

(▼ 4)

(▲ 3)

(▼ 11)

(▲ 8)

Around four-in-ten of those who had not used the GRDC website in the last 12 months either didn’t need to (22%, up significantly from 14%) or gave no particular reason (20%, down significantly from 31% in 2008).

Technology also impacted access to the website –although barriers such as no computer, no or poor internet access, have decreased slightly compared to 2008.


©201

0 I

psos

The majority who attended GRDC Crop Research Update Seminars found the topics relevant to their business

6

9

42

80

85

0 100%

Statements related to GRDC Crop Research Update

None of the above

The information presented is usually too technical

More dynamic speakers are needed

The updates are interactive

Topics presented are usually quite relevant to my own farm business situation

Base: Respondents who attended GRDC Crop Research Update Seminars (n=85). Note: Split sampling Q103F. Which of the following statements relating to GRDC Crop Research Update Seminars do you

agree with? (Multiple response).

More than 8 in 10 who said they had attended GRDC Crop Research Update Seminars found the topics to be relevant to their farm business situation (85%) or found the updates to be interactive (80%):

� This is a decrease of 8% and 3% respectively.

However, just under half agreed that more dynamic speakers were needed (42%).

134

(▲ 3)

(▼ 3)

(▲ 5)

(▼3)

(▼ 8)

©201

0 I

psos

Awareness of Go Grains was low

Base: All respondents (n=1201). Q21J. Have you heard of Go Grains?

27

70

3

0 100%

Heard of ‘Go Grains’

Not sure

No

Yes

Just over a quarter (27%) of growers had heard of ‘Go Grains’.

Awareness was significantly higher in NSW (30%), VIC (32%) and QLD (31%) compared to SA (18%) or WA (22%).

Those who considered themselves to be innovative were more likely to be aware of the organisation (29% vs. 23%)

135

©201

0 I

psos

Of those aware of Go Grains, it was unclear what Go Grains did

Base: Aware of Go Grains (n=327). Q21K. And what do Go Grains do? [Unprompted, Multiple response]

75

11

7

4

2

1

3

0 100%

What ‘Go Grains’ Do

Other

Education program

Provide information on grains

Grains research

Promote benefits of grains in diet

Grains marketing

Not sure

Three-quarters (75%) of growers who had heard of Go Grains were not sure what they did.

Otherwise, marketing was the most common activity nominated by growers, with 11% reporting marketing as a Go Grains’ task.

Only a minority of growers were aware of the activities that Go Grains actually do for the industry.

136

©201

0 I

psos

Awareness of the Climate Champion initiative was also low

Base: All respondents (n=1201). Q21L. Have you heard of the Climate Champion initiative?

12

87

1

0 100%

Heard of ‘Climate Champion initiative’

Not sure

No

Yes

Only 1 in 8 (12%) growers had heard of the Climate Champion initiative.

� The North at 13%

� South and West both at 12%

Growers who were a part of a formal group were more likely to have heard of the initiative (21% vs. 8% who were not part of a group).

137

Appendices

138

Appendix 1 - Questionnaire

Submitted with Final Report

139

Appendix 2 - Nets for Q21F

140

©201

0 I

psos

Nets for Q21F

NET - Herbicide Management NET - New Varieties

Herbicide resistance management High rainfall area varieties / crops

Minimise herbicide damage / drift Frost resistant varieties / crops

Management of cereal rusts and other foliar diseases High yielding varieties / crops

On-farm measurement of soil and grain properties in a timely and cost effective manner High quality varieties / crops

On-farm storage Region / district / area specific varieties / crops

NET - GM information / technology Disease resistant varieties / crop / plant disease resistance

GM technologies in food / grain crops Developing new crop varieties

Information / balanced views on GM plants crops Drought resistant / tolerant varieties / crops

Soil health and biology Dryland / dry area varieties / crops

Segregation of grain Salt land varieties / suited to salt affected country

New grain products with food or industrial uses NET - Pest / Disease / Weed Management Control

Responding to climate change Disease management

Biofuels Pest control / management

Developing farm business management skills, which may include risk management Weed control / management

NET - Grains marketing NET - More research / independent research

Developing research partnerships with end-users of Australian Grain Objective / independent / unbiased research / trials

Grain marketing / effective marketing / marketing programs Ongoing / continuous research

141

©201

0 I

psos

Nets for Q21F

NET - Assistance with grain prices / rising input costs NET - New Technology / Adoption of New Practices

Stabilisation of grain prices Precision agriculture / new technology / techniques

Stabilisation of input costs Tillage advice / methods / zero tillage / no till farming

Transportation / freight options / issues / costs Agricultural engineering technology

Reliable / accurate weather forecasts / prediction devices Integration of livestock and cropping

NET - Conservation / Biological / Organic Farming

Organic production

Biological farming / bio-ag / bio technology development

Conservation farming techniques

142

Appendix 3 – Summary Tables

143

©201

0 I

psos

Agro-ecological Zone Results

2010 Results by Agro-ecological Zones

Key Survey Questions TO

TA

L

NS

W C

TR

L

NS

W N

E/

QL

D S

E

NS

W N

W/

QL

D S

W

NS

W/ V

IC

SL

OP

ES

VIC

HIG

H

RA

INF

AL

L

QL

D C

TR

L

SA

MID

/ Y

RK

E/ E

YR

E

SA

/VIC

BT

/ W

IMM

ER

A

SA

/VIC

M

AL

LE

E

WA

CT

RL

WA

EA

ST

WA

NT

H

WA

S

AN

DP

LN

% aware of GRDC unprompted (Q6) 67 54 66 67 77 59 59 61 65 65 74 83 76 87

% know fair to considerable amount about GRDC (Q8)

54 50 53 49 62 47 34 62 48 58 48 56 67 67

% aware of GRDC regional panels (Q11) 60 50 61 54 60 46 63 62 56 67 65 61 76 82

Had direct contact with GRDC Regional Panel (Q12)

23 13 25 32 21 18 41 19 22 21 27 22 30 27

% rating GRDC Regional Panel as high (Q12C) 71 64 71 67 75 72 75 80 66 79 63 64 51 78

% rating GRDC performance high (Q13) 69 61 66 60 72 69 55 78 72 71 66 61 63 78

Level of comfort paying GRDC levy (Q13C) 74 71 68 63 77 79 62 83 75 81 70 56 69 76

144

©201

0 I

psos

6473696676667069% rating GRDC performance high (Q13)

7376707173707171% rating GRDC Regional Panel as high (Q12C)

5067586257526460% aware of GRDC regional panels (Q11)

4959575453426154% know fair to considerable amount about GRDC (Q8)

6172596873636967% aware of GRDC unprompted (Q6)

2010 Survey Results by Profile

Key Survey Questions TOTAL

Claimed InnovativeGrowers Age Groups

Use Agronomist/ Consultant

Yes No <40 40 to 59 60+ Yes No

Had direct contact with GRDC Regional Panel (Q12)

23 27 13 23 24 19 27 19

Level of comfort paying GRDC levy (Q13C)

74 73 74 74 73 76 81 70

Grower Profile Results

145

©201

0 I

psos




TA

L

NS

W C

TR

L

NS

W N

E/

QL

D S

E

NS

W N

W/

QL

D S

W

NS

W/ V

IC

SL

OP

ES

VIC

HIG

H

RA

INF

AL

L

QL

D C

TR

L

SA

MID

/ Y

RK

E/ E

YR

E

SA

/VIC

BT

/ W

IMM

ER

A

SA

/VIC

M

AL

LE

E

WA

CT

RL

WA

EA

ST

WA

NT

H

WA

S

AN

DP

LN

% achieving direct benefits from GRDC in last 5 years (Q17)

67 64 67 63 66 69 66 78 61 76 64 50 57 71

% adopted new or improved farming practices last 2 years (Q23)

48 51 49 45 54 51 50 40 45 47 44 61 41 53

% adopted new or improved farming practices in last 2 years as a result of GRDC (Q24A)

31 32 21 32 40 27 40 36 38 34 20 27 36 33

% currently taking action to address long-term sustainability (Q29)

89 93 92 92 92 91 84 85 86 82 86 83 83 96

% feeling new varieties available meet expectations well (Q33a)

57 56 60 52 54 64 69 61 60 57 48 72 63 47

146

©201

0 I

psos

5755615559555857% feeling new varieties available meet expectations well (Q33a)

8890868990849189% currently taking action to address long-term sustainability (Q29)

4355464753455048% adopted new or improved farming practices last 2 years (Q23)

2630293033263231

% adopted new or improved farming practices in last 2 years as a result of GRDC (Q24A)

6472646772637067% achieving direct benefits from GRDC in last 5 years (Q17)



Claimed InnovativeGrowers

Age GroupsUse Agronomist/

Consultant



147

©201

0 I

psos




TA

L

NS

W C

TR

L

NS

W N

E/

QL

D S

E

NS

W N

W/

QL

D S

W

NS

W/ V

IC

SL

OP

ES

VIC

HIG

H

RA

INF

AL

L

QL

D C

TR

L

SA

MID

/ Y

RK

E/ E

YR

E

SA

/VIC

BT

/ W

IMM

ER

A

SA

/VIC

M

AL

LE

E

WA

CT

RL

WA

EA

ST

WA

NT

H

WA

S

AN

DP

LN

Grow varieties that attract end point royalty (Q33T)

81 71 77 68 89 65 72 81 83 91 86 89 96 91

Believe varieties (attracting end point royalty) delivered additional value to operation (Q33U)

68 57 63 53 60 77 70 74 67 79 71 50 77 76

Would grow same varieties (attracting end point royalty) again (Q33V)

89 82 88 93 88 92 100 88 86 93 90 100 96 95

% grown new winter cereal varieties in last 5 yrs (Q34)

86 79 81 79 87 78 30 96 81 96 94 100 89 100

% growing old winter cereal varieties (Q45A)

51 64 46 45 49 53 40 58 39 63 49 100 44 30

% would adopt GM varieties if and when became available (Q46)

33 32 40 44 34 19 30 33 28 32 31 80 22 40

Would definitely grow GM wheat if available (Q46B) 13 7 20 20 15 9 30 8 7 9 9 80 11 20

148

©201

0 I

psos


6274696769637068Believe varieties (attracting end point royalty) delivered additional value to operation (Q33U)

7189798281768381Grow varieties that attract end point royalty (Q33T)

5155524666485251% growing old winter cereal varieties (Q45A)

7890858783798986% grown new winter cereal varieties in last 5 yrs (Q34)

4024243637333333% would adopt GM varieties if and when became available (Q46)

1614171113121413% would definitely grow GM wheat if available (Q46B)

2010 Survey Results by Grower Profile




Consultant

Yes No <4040 to

5960+ Yes No

Would grow same varieties (attracting

end point royalty) again (Q33V)89 90 88 93 88 90 93 85

149

©201

0 I

psos



Key Survey Questions T

OT

AL

NS

W C

TR

L

NS

W N

E/

QL

D S

E

NS

W N

W/

QL

D S

W

NS

W/ V

IC

SL

OP

ES

VIC

HIG

H

RA

INF

AL

L

QL

D C

TR

L

SA

MID

/ Y

RK

E/ E

YR

E

SA

/VIC

BT

/ W

IMM

ER

A

SA

/VIC

M

AL

LE

E

WA

CT

RL

WA

EA

ST

WA

NT

H

WA

S

AN

DP

LN

% grown new pulse varieties in last 5 yrs (Q49)

23 11 30 26 28 12 30 25 27 20 19 50 17 27

% grown new oilseed varieties in last 5 yrs (Q49)

29 11 12 0 53 44 0 29 40 17 39 0 33 60

% taken action in last 3 yrs for improving production & quality (Q62)

80 68 83 74 81 87 80 79 68 75 79 100 94 93

% with better handle dealing with weeds (Q67)

84 93 78 90 82 90 91 88 89 84 81 67 72 100

% with better handle dealing with pests (Q67)

70 74 67 77 68 80 64 79 65 63 67 67 61 87

% with better handle dealing with diseases (Q67)

82 93 74 90 89 83 64 83 80 80 78 83 83 100

150

©201

0 I

psos


7587808384798482% with better handle dealing with diseases (Q67)





Consultant


% grown new pulse varieties in last 5 yrs (Q49)

23 27 15 26 23 22 26 25

% grown new oilseed varieties in last 5 yrs (Q49)

29 33 22 37 30 22 25 21

% taken action last 3 yrs for improving production and quality (Q62)

80 86 66 85 79 76 91 73

% with better handle dealing with weeds (Q67)

84 85 83 89 83 83 89 93

% with better handle dealing with pests (Q67)

70 70 71 73 71 67 83 75

151

©201

0 I

psos




OT

AL

NS

W C

TR

L

NS

W N

E/

QL

D S

E

NS

W N

W/

QL

D S

W

NS

W/ V

IC

SL

OP

ES

VIC

HIG

H

RA

INF

AL

L

QL

D C

TR

L

SA

MID

/ Y

RK

E/ E

YR

E

SA

/VIC

BT

/ W

IMM

ER

A

SA

/VIC

M

AL

LE

E

WA

CT

RL

WA

EA

ST

WA

NT

H

WA

S

AN

DP

LN

% adopting an IPM practice (Q72) 40 26 46 44 45 33 45 50 25 37 43 17 28 53

% adopting an IWM practice (Q72) 57 41 60 57 59 67 55 50 49 57 67 67 39 67

% adopting an IDM, practice (Q72) 45 41 44 50 52 46 27 50 38 47 46 17 17 53

% confident grains research responding quickly to new weed, pest, disease threats (Q74)

58 74 54 57 59 63 64 75 53 37 52 67 67 60

% with a formal business plan (Q76) 22 20 19 16 10 28 9 21 18 43 27 17 29 36

152

©201

0 I

psos


2741182130182422% with a formal business plan (Q76)





Consultant


% adopting IPM practice (Q72) 40 45 30 47 38 39 39 26

% adopting IWM practice (Q72) 57 61 49 72 56 48 46 49

% adopting IDM practice (Q72) 45 52 32 54 45 35 43 36

% confident grains research responding quickly to new weed, pest, disease threats (Q74)

58 59 57 57 58 61 55 66

153

©201

0 I

psos




TA

L

NS

W C

TR

L

NS

W N

E/

QL

D S

E

NS

W N

W/

QL

D S

W

NS

W/ V

IC

SL

OP

ES

VIC

HIG

H

RA

INF

AL

L

QL

D C

TR

L

SA

MID

/ Y

RK

E/ E

YR

E

SA

/VIC

BT

/ W

IMM

ER

A

SA

/VIC

M

AL

LE

E

WA

CT

RL

WA

EA

ST

WA

NT

H

WA

S

AN

DP

LN

% adopting EMS (Q83) 13 8 11 19 16 24 36 0 16 7 16 0 29 7

% adopting nutrient budgeting (Q83)

50 40 44 44 61 52 45 67 38 52 50 0 53 64

% adopting soil testing for nutrients (Q83)

85 68 82 69 90 83 73 88 87 81 92 100 94 100

% adopting testing of leaf and root (Q83)

48 36 31 38 49 55 27 58 50 39 64 67 76 71

% monitoring available soil water(Q83)

29 44 44 62 37 14 36 29 27 11 14 0 6 21

% monitoring depth to the water table(Q83)

22 44 27 25 18 10 0 17 21 3 34 33 18 43

% using plant available water(Q83)

28 40 48 47 27 21 45 17 26 16 13 17 12 14

% adopting controlled traffic (Q83)

22 20 41 41 18 34 36 21 11 0 6 33 18 43

% adopting variable rate technology (Q83)

20 16 14 22 26 28 27 13 18 22 13 33 29 29

154

©201

0 I

psos


1821182133132722% adopting controlled traffic (Q83)

1522151831122320% adopting variable rate technology (Q83)





Consultant


% adopting EMS (Q83) 13 16 8 7 12 22 9 10

% adopting nutrient budgeting (Q83)

50 58 37 56 54 36 63 40

% adopting soil testing for nutrients (Q83)

85 85 83 86 85 81 89 74

% adopting testing of leaf and root (Q83)

48 51 43 55 48 42 51 33

% monitoring available soil water (Q83)

29 32 25 41 29 21 34 29

% monitoring depth to the table water (Q83)

22 26 15 20 21 28 27 25

% using plant available water (Q83)

28 32 19 32 29 21 40 23

155

©201

0 I

psos




TA

L

NS

W C

TR

L

NS

W N

E/

QL

D S

E

NS

W N

W/

QL

D S

W

NS

W/ V

IC

SL

OP

ES

VIC

HIG

H

RA

INF

AL

L

QL

D C

TR

L

SA

MID

/ Y

RK

E/ E

YR

E

SA

/VIC

BT

/ W

IMM

ER

A

SA

/VIC

M

AL

LE

E

WA

CT

RL

WA

EA

ST

WA

NT

H

WA

S

AN

DP

LN

% adopting risk management tools (Q83)

26 12 27 28 23 34 27 33 26 35 23 17 18 14

% adopting gypsum (Q83) 44 24 23 19 61 62 9 42 73 33 55 33 53 57

% adopting lime (Q83) 48 20 22 28 84 86 0 17 54 4 88 67 88 50

% currently adopting

Precision Ag practices

(Q83)

77 80 79 79 71 79 73 75 73 74 72 67 88 93

% considered take-up of

Precision Ag practices

(Q85A)

39 60 44 68 28 33 - 20 57 42 41 - - 100

% considered zoning farm

(Q85C) 3 20 - - 7 - - - - - - - - -

% adopting new management practices to manage climate variability (Q85J)

60 60 62 41 63 79 45 50 61 63 64 33 53 50

156

©201

0 I

psos


6550576452625960% adopting new management practices to manage climate variability (Q85J)

-1942-5-3% considered zoning farm (Q85C)

3062224744374239% considered take-up of Precision Ag practices (Q85A)

6483687685688077% currently adopting Precision Ag practices (Q83)





Consultant


% adopting risk management tools (Q83)

26 30 20 27 29 19 25 11

% adopting gypsum (Q83) 44 48 38 52 43 42 50 39

% adopting lime (Q83) 48 51 43 52 47 48 55 39

157

©201

0 I

psos




OT

AL

NS

W C

TR

L

NS

W N

E/

QL

D S

E

NS

W N

W/

QL

D S

W

NS

W/ V

IC

SL

OP

ES

VIC

HIG

H

RA

INF

AL

L

QL

D C

TR

L

SA

MID

/ Y

RK

E/ E

YR

E

SA

/VIC

BT

/ W

IMM

ER

A

SA

/VIC

M

AL

LE

E

WA

CT

RL

WA

EA

ST

WA

NT

H

WA

S

AN

DP

LN

% storing any grain on farm (Q86a)

79 77 86 86 89 91 55 58 77 70 84 50 56 53

% storing any grain with warehouse or contract storers (Q86e)

41 9 35 38 38 47 45 75 49 55 32 50 33 13

% using phosphine (Q94a)

70 68 70 77 79 32 55 92 62 69 78 83 83 60

158

©201

0 I

psos







% storing any grain on farm (Q86a)

79 79 78 78 80 75 76 75

% storing any grain with warehouse or contract storers(Q86e)

41 45 34 53 40 37 30 54

% using phosphine (Q94a) 70 73 63 80 69 65 74 65

159

©201

0 I

psos




TA

L

NS

W C

TR

L

NS

W N

E/

QL

D S

E

NS

W N

W/

QL

D S

W

NS

W/ V

IC

SL

OP

ES

VIC

HIG

H

RA

INF

AL

L

QL

D C

TR

L

SA

MID

/ Y

RK

E/ E

YR

E

SA

/VIC

BT

/ W

IMM

ER

A

SA

/VIC

M

AL

LE

E

WA

CT

RL

WA

EA

ST

WA

NT

H

WA

S

AN

DP

LN

% regarding GRDC info. having a major influence on farm (Q95Y)

42 46 42 39 49 29 30 43 53 48 41 17 29 25

% currently using services of an professional agronomist, farm adviser, consultant (Q95a4)

44 42 39 44 47 37 45 29 37 46 61 29 63 62

% currently a member of a formal discussion group (Q96)

37 24 23 27 40 33 9 38 52 55 36 71 53 57

160

©201

0 I

psos


4836464139424242% regarding GRDC info. having a major influence on farm (Q95Y)






% currently using services of an professional agronomist, farm adviser, consultant (Q95a4)

44 49 35 45 44 43 100 0

% currently a member of a formal discussion group (Q96)

37 40 30 42 37 31 47 29

161

©201

0 I

psos




TA

L

NS

W C

TR

L

NS

W N

E/

QL

D S

E

NS

W N

W/

QL

D S

W

NS

W/ V

IC

SL

OP

ES

VIC

HIG

H

RA

INF

AL

L

QL

D C

TR

L

SA

MID

/ Y

RK

E/ E

YR

E

SA

/VIC

BT

/ W

IMM

ER

A

SA

/VIC

M

AL

LE

E

WA

CT

RL

WA

EA

ST

WA

NT

H

WA

S

AN

DP

LN

% valuing Ground Cover Supplement Inserts a lot (Q100d)

40 39 33 29 36 55 50 50 58 45 31 43 21 33

% having accessed GRDC website in last 12 months (Q100e)

24 17 30 25 20 28 30 13 19 26 31 43 32 29

% having attended a GRDC Crop Update in last 12 months (Q100e)

21 22 22 22 20 14 30 13 21 31 19 0 37 38

% having attended a learning event on grain production in last 12 months (Q100e)

59 56 54 40 57 62 60 63 52 84 54 43 74 62

162

©201

0 I

psos


2030232139152924% having accessed GRDC website in last 12 months (Q100e)

1727202222112721% having attended Crop Update in last 12 months (Q100e)

5168496359526259% having attended a learning event on grain production in last 12 months (Q100e)





Consultant


% valuing Ground Cover Supplement Inserts a lot (Q100d)

40 45 30 30 39 50 42 40

163

Canberra OfficeLevel 1, 55 Woolley Street

Dickson ACT 2602

Ph: (02) 6247 2700

Project number: 0903172201

164

Documents

GRDC OrganisationalPerformance Research · 2016. 8. 31. · Grower Profiling (national figures) Farm Related: 88% have internet connection (steady with 2008). ... the 2010 study (as