IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

The influence of agronomic advice upon soil water thresholds used for planting decisions in Southern Queensland's grains region

Listed author(s):
  • Darbas, Toni
  • Lawrence, David
Registered author(s):

    At least two decades of sustained research, development and extension (RD&E) effort was undertaken in Southern Queensland's broad acre cropping zone regarding the role of stored soil water in crop performance. Grain industry concern that the resulting insights into stored soil water were not being integrated into the planting decisions of grain producers was raised when a series of dry years culminated in widespread wheat crop failure across Southern Queensland's Darling Downs in the winter of 2007. This paper reports on a resulting qualitative investigation into the use of stored soil water research in planting decisions in this cropping region of Australia. A dual sample of grain producer and agronomic RD&E advisors were interviewed in-depth in order to establish what planting strategies were used by grain producers, explore the relationship between these strategies and agronomic advice, as well as the relationship between grain grower's planting decisions and their short and long term economic objectives. We found that all of the interviewees understood the role of stored soil water in crop performance. However, this understanding supported three distinct planting decision strategies: plant only when a stored soil water threshold has been reached; take the opportunity to plant at least some crop each season; and plant at the appropriate time to maximise crop yield and consider stored soil water a bonus. These planting strategies were perceived by the interviewees to be aligned to agronomic advice differentiated by its commercial terms. Private agronomists, hired via an annual retainer, tended to be associated with the first planting strategy while retail agronomists, hired through the purchase of chemicals, were perceived as associated with the second strategy. These results indicate that an industry wide comparison of planting strategies in terms of yield outcomes and economic performance over multiple years is warranted in order to facilitate industry wide discussion of the trade-offs between long term enterprise profitability and short term economic pressures.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Agricultural Systems.

    Volume (Year): 104 (2011)
    Issue (Month): 1 (January)
    Pages: 20-29

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:104:y:2011:i:1:p:20-29
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. Mullen, John D. & Vernon, Don & Fishpool, Ken I., 2000. "Agricultural extension policy in Australia: public funding and market failure," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 44(4), December.
    2. Read, Nicholas & Quinn, John J. & Webster, Andrew, 1988. "Commercialisation as a policy mechanism in UK agricultural research, development and extension," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 77-87.
    3. L. Crowder, 1987. "Agents, vendors, and farmers: Public and private sector extension in agricultural development," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 4(4), pages 26-31, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:104:y:2011:i:1:p:20-29. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.