Industry implementation of research results from breeding herds in central Queensland.

Abstract

. INDUSTRY IMPLEMENTATION OF RESEARCH RESULTS FROM BREEDING HERDS IN CENTRAL QUEENSLAND W.J.A. HALL* and B. BRYANT** A survey of 233 beef properties demonstrated that 3% of properties practised some form of controlled mating and 965 weaned calves. While this represents a marked change over the last 20 years, the extension recommendations for time of mating and time of weaning were fully implemented by only 7s and y$ of properties, respectively, and both practices-by only 2s of properties. Significantly more properties had adopted weaning recommendations than mating recommendations. Property size, vegetation type, geographic location and type of dominant enterprise had no significant effect on implementation. The level of property development was a significant factor in the implementation of both recommendations but the failure to implement could not be attributed entirely to a lack of facilities. discussed. The reasons for non implementation of research results axe Ie INTRODUCTIOI? A combination of seasonal mating from October to Ma;rch and strategic weaning between April and June has been shown to maximize cow and calf production in beef breeders in the Central Highlands environment of Queensland (Stubbs and Mayer 1966, Rudder and McCamley 1972). Since the mid-sixties, an important component of the extension activities of the Queensland Department of Primary Industries has been . advocation of seasonal mating and strategic weaning based'on this local research. This paper reports the`results of a survey conducted in 1974 to measure the implementation of these practices by the beef industry and on the effect that various property components had on the level of implementation, II. MATERIALS AND KEZHODS The survey area was the Belyando, Peak Downs, Baerald, Bauhinia and Jericho local authority areas. The rural production of the mea was described by M&wson (1968)e * Department of Primary Industries, Emerald, Queensland, 4720 H Lands Administration Conmissioti, merald, Queensland, 4720 197 Information concerning the period of mating and the period of weaning was collected from 233 producers representing about 3% of the holdings with beef cattle. All Department of Primary Industry staff assisted in collecting the information from producers met in the course of their normal activities (extension, regulatory and social). In addition, local primary producer organisations asked members to provide information when attetiding meetings. These data* were classified according to implementation of research results based on the work of Stubbs and Elayer (1966) and Rudder and McCamley (1972) and were:Mating - Full implementation. The mating period continued for no'longer than seven months with the bulls removed from the breeding herd by the 30th April. - Partial implementation. The mating period continued for no longer tha,n nine months with the bulls removed from the breeding herd by the 30th June. - Non implementation. All other mating programmes. Weaning - Full implementation. Weaning between &rch 1st and June 30th but excluding those properties which weaned in June only. - PaJctial implementation. Weaning between &rch 1st and August 31st but excluding those properties which weaned in August only. - Non implementation. All other weaning programmes including those properties which did not wean at all. ' Surveyed properties were classified according to their dominant vegetation group; woodlands, open downs or scrub (Pedley 1967'and Story 1967) and according to their geographic location, whether east or west of the Drummond range. An evaluation was made of individual property development in terms of high (H), medium (PI), or low (L) and considered the existence of, and potential existence for, stock water, cattleyards, subdivision, timber treatment and pasture establishgent. The properties were further classified by size and by dominant enterprise, either beef cattle or agriculture. The &i-square test was used to analy se the differences in - levels of non implementation of mating andIwean ing ret ,ommendations 0 III. RZSULTS DISCUSSION This survey showed that 39% of properties removed bulls from the breeding herd for three months or longer, and 96s weaned. This compares with Sullivan (1954) who reported that the maJorMy of properties in the Central Highlandsdid not remove their bulls and only weaned male calves. This would indicate substantial changes in breeder management practices. However, only 7% control mate and 9% wean at the times recommended by research. Forty-nine percent of properties had not implemented either mating or weaning recommendations and only 2% had fully implemented both practices (Table 1). There was a significantly greater number of properties not implementing mating recommendations than weaning program- 198 Overall implementation of mating and weaning recommendations (Figures in parenthesis give the number of properties in each category) Property size had no significant effect on itiplementation, nor were there any differences between farmers and graziers, distinguished on the basis of dominant enterprise 9 as suggested as possible by Gmen (1970). The implementation of weaning and mating programmes did not differ significantly for both vegetation group and geographic location within each stage of development. Implementation of mating recommendations within property development (Figures in pazenthesis give the number of properties in esch category) TABLE 3 Implementation of weaning recommendations within pkoperty development (Figures in parenthesis give the number of properties in each category) 199 The most si@ificant property component affecting implementation of both practices was the stage of property development (Tables 2 and 3). Some of these differences could be attributed to a lack of facilities; for example, the 76 L properties implemented more recommended weaning programmes than mating programmes (P<O.Ol) which might be partially explained by the absence of an effective bull paddock. However, this does not explain differences between M and L properties in weaning implementation. Many complex propounded,,for example decision making may be management innovations reasons why an innovation is adopted have been by Emery and Oeser (1958). A system of priority in operation ) such as property development before as suggested by Crouch (1972). The discrepancies between the most effective time to carry out the practices as indicated by research and actual practice by the adopters could be explained by industry difficulties in applying the research results to the commercial situation, although in this case the rese&ch was conducted on moderately developed commercial properties in the local. environment, Other explanations are a lack of understanding of research results, a questioning of t.he accuracy of the results, or a failure ofextension to communicate accurately. It is considered that the high proportion of producers surveyed would have offset or greatly reduced any bi88 resulting from the method of survey. Although a random sample of producers might have been preferable it would have been difficult to implement, The method wed had a negligible cost and was comparatively simple. IV. AC'RNoWr;S The authors wish to gratefully acknowledge the assis tance of colleagues of the Queensland Department of E?&mry Industries. . GROUCH, B.R. (1972). Proceedims of the Third World Conmess of Rtxcal Socioloq, XIIa 43L . Ei!!IESY, F.E. and?&& 0.8. (1958). Information, Decision<v and Action, (Melbourne University Press) GREEN, F.H. (1970). Rural Australia, Australian Socie*: A Sociological Introduction, (Davies, A.F. and Encel, S. 2nd Edition: Melbourne). MAWSOH, W.F& (1968). Fitzroy Region, Queenslamd Resource Series Rural Production, (Department of National Development: Canberr& ~33~iiifiif67). Land Research Series, CSIRO Australia, 18: 138. RUDDER, T.H. and McCAMUX, K.D. (1972)* Proceedings of the?ustralian Society of Animal &oduction, 2: 153. STORY, R. (1967). Iand Research Series, CSIRO Australia, 2: 108, STUBBS, W.C. and MA=, B. (1966). Queensland ~icultur~Journa1, SULLIVAN, J.J. (1954). Queensland agricultural Journal, - 103. 80t gr 668. . 200