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

Cropcheck: Farmer benchmarking participatory model to improve productivity

Listed author(s):
  • Lacy, John
Registered author(s):

    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.

    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): 7 (September)
    Pages: 562-571

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:104:y:2011:i:7:p:562-571
    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. Farrington, John, 1989. "Farmer participation in agricultural research," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 97-100, May.
    2. Webber, Lynn M. & Ison, R. L., 1995. "Participatory Rural Appraisal Design: Conceptual and process issues," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 107-131.
    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:7:p:562-571. 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.