IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ijameu/149905.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Demonstration farms and technology transfer: the case of the Lincoln University dairy farm

Author

Listed:
  • Pangborn, M.C.
  • Woodford, K.B.
  • Nuthall, P.L.

Abstract

In 2001, Lincoln University and six commercial, education and research partners established a 161 hectare dairy farm (milking platform) and formed the South Island Dairy Development Centre (SIDDC) to demonstrate ‘best practice’ for South Island dairy farmers. In 2008, to assess the impact of the Lincoln University Dairy Farm (LUDF), a survey was sent to 622 farmers located in the LUDF extension catchment. Responses totalled 146 (24% response rate). The mean age of respondents was 45 years with 77% having some form of tertiary education. Respondents had higher milksolids production per cow (419 kg) and per hectare (1441 kg) than the Canterbury averages (381kg and 1224kg respectively). Most respondents (86%) identified themselves as using moderate levels of supplementary feeding (Systems 2, 3, 4). Nearly 70% of respondents attended at least one focus day (field day) over a three year period. Most attended to learn about grazing and animal management, to benchmark against the LUDF from a production and financial standpoint, and to learn about environmental management. Focus day attendees had larger operations and higher levels of productivity than those who never attended. Over 68% of respondents visited the farm website each year, with some visiting more than 30 times, but mainly to view benchmarking data rather than to learn about new technologies Of the technologies promoted by the LUDF, 82% of farmers had adopted low grazing residuals and 74% had re-grassed paddocks based on monitoring. Lower numbers had adopted synchronisation of heifers to calve a week before the main herd (29%), aggressive hormone intervention for non-cycling (42%) and a nil induction policy (36%). Over 70% felt that the adoption of some of the LUDF technologies had made their farm management easier. Twenty three farmers were willing to place an economic value on the adoption of LUDF practices. These ranged from NZ$50,000 per year to NZ$1,000,000 per year. It is concluded that a demonstration farm with clearly defined extension messages can be effective at achieving farmer adoption that adoption is high for messages where farmers see clear economic advantages, and that farmers obtain information from a wide variety of sources.

Suggested Citation

  • Pangborn, M.C. & Woodford, K.B. & Nuthall, P.L., 2011. "Demonstration farms and technology transfer: the case of the Lincoln University dairy farm," International Journal of Agricultural Management, Institute of Agricultural Management, vol. 1(1), pages 1-5.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:ijameu:149905
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.149905
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/149905/files/08-Pangborn.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.149905?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Micheels, Eric T., 2014. "Experience and learning in beef production: Results from a cluster analysis," International Journal of Agricultural Management, Institute of Agricultural Management, vol. 3(3), pages 1-10.
    2. AZUMAH, Shaibu Baanni & ZAKARIA, Abraham & BOATENGN, Nathaniel Amoh, 2020. "Modelling Rice Farmers Subscription To Agricultural Extension Methods In Ghana," Review of Agricultural and Applied Economics (RAAE), Faculty of Economics and Management, Slovak Agricultural University in Nitra, vol. 23(1), March.

    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:ags:ijameu:149905. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifmaaea.html .

    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.