IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/auagpe/234174.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Expected Public and Private Benefits of Embedding Farm Business Performance Systems in the Australian and New Zealand Dairy Industries

Author

Listed:
  • Ronan, Glenn

Abstract

An industry strategic planning process provided the context and drive for PIRSA to seek a dairy farm business performance system to clarify the case for investment, leading to adoption of the Red Sky Agricultural system. A scan in Australia and New Zealand for systems other than the national industry surveys by ABARE and ABS revealed five with an orientation to public posting of regional business performance information: ‘Red Sky’ (South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and New Zealand),[3] Tasmanian DPIW[4], Victorian DPI Dairy Industry Monitor Farm Project (Victoria)[5], DairyBase (NZ)[6] and MAF Farm Monitor Project (NZ)[7]. Adoption of the systems is driven by demand from a range of industry stakeholders (dairy business managers, industry organizations and governments) for analysis, benchmarking, monitoring, reporting and interpretation of business and industry performance data not satisfied by national farm performance surveys and statistics. Some points of difference between the systems are identified, including content, reporting timeliness and context. Increasing investment by government and industry stakeholders in complementary farm business performance systems and data sets is viewed as an important development, undertaken in expectation of substantial expected benefit, private and public. The proposition in some Australian agricultural economics and agribusiness literature that farm business benchmarking, without exception or qualification, has no utility appears to be at odds with international business and industry practice. In the absence of a more concerted effort to differentiate and recognize quality farm business performance information systems and processes, including benchmarking, government agencies and industry organizations are open to criticism that they are supporting suspect industry metrics. Further research to evaluate agri-food sector economic information systems and their benefits is recommended to achieve a position where quality performance analysis systems could be recognized as sound platforms for information critical to industry development and strategic planning and appreciation of internationally competitiveness. Popularity is no sound indicator of quality, but the continuing convergence of public and private clients to some of the business performance systems scanned in this paper adds to the case for evaluation research that looks for wheat and chaff and starts sorting. Such research would either confirm the prevailing unfavourable and undifferentiated perspective on farm business performance benchmarking in Australia or it may produce an alternative perspective that permits some quality and some utility, consistent with expectations and observations by contributors to this paper. Observation is usually instructive: in most populations not all ‘four legged’s’ are good and not all ‘two legged’s’ are bad! Four legs good, two legs bad. Animal Farm, George Orwell

Suggested Citation

  • Ronan, Glenn, 2007. "Expected Public and Private Benefits of Embedding Farm Business Performance Systems in the Australian and New Zealand Dairy Industries," Papers 234174, University of Melbourne, Melbourne School of Land and Environment.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:auagpe:234174
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.234174
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/234174/files/Paper%2072.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.234174?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
    ---><---

    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:auagpe:234174. 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: http://www.agrifood.info/perspectives/index.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.