Formative evaluation to benchmark and improve climate-based decision support for graziers in Western Queelsland

Researchers developing climate-based forecasts, workshops, software tools and information to aid grazier decisions undertook an evaluation study to enhance planning and benchmark impact. One hundred graziers in Western Queensland were randomly selected from 7 shires and surveyed by mail and telephone (43 respondents) to explore levels of knowledge and use of climate information, practices and information needs. We found 36% of respondents apply the Southern Oscillation Index to property decisions but 92% were unaware El Niño Southern Oscillation’s predictive signal in the region is greater for pasture growth than rainfall, suggesting they may not recognise the potential of pasture growth forecasts. Almost 75% of graziers consider they are conservative or risk averse in their attitude to managing their enterprise. Mail respondents (n= 20) if given a 68%, on average, probability of exceeding median rainfall forecast may change a decision; almost two-thirds vary stocking rate based on forage available, last year’s pasture growth or the Southern Oscillation Index; the balance maintain a constant stocking rate strategy; 90% have access to a computer; 75% to the internet and 95% have a fax. This paper presents findings of the study and draws comparisons with a similar study of 174 irrigators in the Northern Murray-Darling Basin (Aust. J. Exp. Ag. 44, 247-257). New insights and information gained are helping the team better understand client needs and plan, design and extend tools and information tailored to grazier knowledge, practice, information needs and preferences. Results have also provided a benchmark against which to measure project impact and have influenced the team to make important changes to their project planning, activities and methods for transferring technology tailored to grazier preferences.

The Ethics of a Co-regulatory Model for Farm Animal Welfare Research

Standards for farm animal welfare are variously managed at a national level by government-led regulatory control, by consumer-led welfare economics and co-regulated control in a partnership between industry and government. In the latter case the control of research to support animal welfare standards by the relevant industry body may lead to a conflict of interest on the part of researchers, who are dependent on industry for continued research funding. We examine this dilemma by reviewing two case studies of research published under an Australian co-regulated control system. Evidence of unsupported conclusions that are favourable to industry is provided, suggesting that researchers do experience a conflict of interest that may influence the integrity of the research. Alternative models for the management of research are discussed, including the establishment of an independent research management body for animal welfare because of its public good status and the use of public money derived from taxation, with representation from government, industry, consumers, and advocacy groups.