IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v104y2011i7p562-571.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cropcheck: Farmer benchmarking participatory model to improve productivity

Author

Listed:
  • Lacy, John

Abstract

In the 1970s in southern NSW, Australia, information was delivered to farmers through the transfer of technology (TOT) model. It was 'top down' with knowledge generated by researchers being passed onto farmers by extension officers. Farmers' knowledge was not respected by research and extension workers. In contrast Cropcheck is a farmer participatory program which benchmarks farmer crops to identify practices for lifting yields. With TOT there was good adoption of single factor technologies such as wheat varieties but by the late 1970s to early 1980s wheat yields were stagnant or only slowly improving. There was the realisation that farmers had valuable knowledge and that multiple factors were needed to increase productivity. To address these needs in developing countries many farmer participatory models were developed. This paper, based on my experiences as an extension officer, records development in a developed country of a farmer participatory crop benchmarking model called Cropcheck. This program benchmarks farmer crops to identify the checks (best practices) related to high yields. It has been successful in lifting crop yields and profitability. This paper discusses the development of the model for irrigated wheat, i.e. the Finley Five Tonne Irrigated Wheat Club (referred to hereafter as "Wheat Club") and adaption of the model for irrigated subterranean clover pasture, i.e. Subcheck. Since farmer participatory extension theory was undeveloped at that time, the development of the model was an intuitive learning process. The process was a planning, action and review cycle. Several years involving crop monitoring, farmer training, crop recording and reviewing results were needed to identify the objective checks consistently improving yields and gross margins. The results showed the more checks adopted the higher the yield and profitability. Farmers were trained in the learning steps of observing, monitoring, measuring, interpreting and recording their own crop practices. Farmer discussion groups were important for communication. Cropcheck has high farmer credibility because the checks are identified from farmer crops. Over a period of 6Â years, yields of the "Wheat Club" increased by 50%. With Subcheck the problem of reddened subclover and inconsistent production disappeared. The Cropcheck model has been adapted for many crops in eastern Australia. Precision agriculture and electromagnetic mapping and geographic information systems (GIS) have followed on as new technology and monitoring tools for farmers but it is still important to ground truth these technologies with crop monitoring.

Suggested Citation

  • Lacy, John, 2011. "Cropcheck: Farmer benchmarking participatory model to improve productivity," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(7), pages 562-571, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:104:y:2011:i:7:p:562-571
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X1100059X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Webber, Lynn M. & Ison, R. L., 1995. "Participatory Rural Appraisal Design: Conceptual and process issues," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 107-131.
    2. Farrington, John, 1989. "Farmer participation in agricultural research," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 97-100, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kim Lowell & Lindsay Smith & Ian Miller & Christopher Pettit & Eloise Seymour, 2012. "Extension Activity Support System (EASY): A Web-Based Prototype for Facilitating Farm Management," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-23, January.
    2. Cock, J. & Kam, S.P. & Cook, S. & Donough, C. & Lim, Y.L. & Jines-Leon, A. & Lim, C.H. & Primananda, S. & Yen, B.T. & Mohanaraj, S.N. & Samosir, Y.M.S. & Oberthür, T., 2016. "Learning from commercial crop performance: Oil palm yield response to management under well-defined growing conditions," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 99-111.
    3. Martínez-Alvarez, V. & García-Bastida, P.A. & Martin-Gorriz, B. & Soto-García, M., 2014. "Adaptive strategies of on-farm water management under water supply constraints in south-eastern Spain," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 59-67.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eastwood, C.R. & Turner, F.J. & Romera, A.J., 2022. "Farmer-centred design: An affordances-based framework for identifying processes that facilitate farmers as co-designers in addressing complex agricultural challenges," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    2. Thompson, John, 1995. "Participatory approaches in government bureaucracies: Facilitating the process of institutional change," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(9), pages 1521-1554, September.
    3. Shane Cronin & Mike Petterson & Paul Taylor & Randall Biliki, 2004. "Maximising Multi-Stakeholder Participation in Government and Community Volcanic Hazard Management Programs; A Case Study from Savo, Solomon Islands," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 33(1), pages 105-136, September.
    4. Alex Koutsouris, 2012. "Exploring the emerging facilitation and brokerage roles for agricultural extension education," Working Papers 2012-4, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    5. Zhaoxia Guo & Qinqin Guo & Yujie Cai & Ge Wang, 2021. "Unraveling Risk Networks of Cultivated Land Protection: An Exploratory Stakeholder-Oriented Case Study in Xiliuhe Town, Hubei Province, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, November.
    6. Uddin, M.N. & Anjuman, N., 2013. "Participatory Rural Appraisal Approaches: An Overview And An Exemplary Application Of Focus Group Discussion In Climate Change Adaptation And Mitigation Strategies," International Journal of Agricultural Research, Innovation and Technology (IJARIT), IJARIT Research Foundation, vol. 3(2), December.
    7. Livia Fritz & Claudia R. Binder, 2018. "Participation as Relational Space: A Critical Approach to Analysing Participation in Sustainability Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-29, August.
    8. Martin, G., 2015. "A conceptual framework to support adaptation of farming systems – Development and application with Forage Rummy," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 52-61.
    9. Koutsouris, Alex, 2012. "Facilitating Agricultural Innovation Systems: A critical realist approach," Studies in Agricultural Economics, Research Institute for Agricultural Economics, vol. 114(2), pages 1-7, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:104:y:2011:i:7:p:562-571. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.