Monitor Farm programme hijacked

01-05-2009 | Alan Royal

The comments I have read in this publication regarding the national Monitor Farm programme, many of which are contradictory, leave me confused.

It may be useful to revisit the origins of the programme, to understand the concepts on which it was founded and successfully achieved its initial goals.

The Meat Research and Development Council was established by the-then Meat Board in 1990. A primary emphasis was to ‘effectively and efficiently transfer information and technology to the meat producer'.

A national survey of several hundred producers, agricultural organisations and individuals led to the conclusion that information and technology transfer had not always been successful and a new approach was needed.

Producers noted that much of the past information they had put to them for action was not understandable, measurable, profitable, useable, practical, cost effective, market driven or proven to be sustainable.

This was a strong criticism of knowledge transfer systems of that time. Much of the transfer that had been attempted in that era was through the ‘soft network' option of discussion groups.

While useful, producers had no formal expectations that anything would be done as a result.

The survey also showed the programme should be ‘about farming, on farm, by farmers and seeing it happen'.

Producers were very clear that they did not support the programme being used for farming and agribusiness talk fests. The original MRDC Board were strongly supportive on that issue.

Reading some of the recent comment on the programme, it appears as though this maxim has gone by the board, and the politicians have hijacked the process.

What the Monitor Farm approach did was to develop a hard network process where a local agribusiness community, under the guidance of a consultant, selected a district property that had the potential and the farming family to increase productivity.

The obligations included the development of a written and published business plan that would be driven by the community group.

It was also geared to show the community where to find, how to understand, how to use and how to manage the mass of information to which they were subjected.

The process included the group and the farming family analysing where they were at the start of the programme using the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) process. SWOT includes - what are we good at, what are we not so good at, the internal manageable options.

The external political, economic and social influences outside the control of the producer, where they intended to go (their goals -expectations) and how they were going to get there (the written business plan describing what was going to be done, why, how, when, by whom and how much would it cost).

The outcome of the process was the producer, together with his multi-skilled community support group, decided what information, if any, could be used, and what technology should be applied.

Critics have bemoaned the fact that they do not get the numbers to the field days that they once had.

This comment can be partly answered by the events explained above, but one also has to accept that geography plays a part.

In the 20-plus areas initially selected for the programme (based on geographical issues and stock numbers), it was agreed that the properties selected every three to four years would vary, e.g. high country to low country.

It is inevitable with that approach that numbers can change dramatically. The interests of the two groups may be quite different.

A 1998 report was commissioned by the MRDC and has been widely quoted. However, the more significant, and less quoted 1995 review report of the Monitor Farm programme completed after the first three year round is rarely mentioned.

That report, which can be found at tinyurl.com/336uzx, can be read as a response to some of the critics of the present day approach.

The results achieved were quite phenomenal both in terms of productivity and social benefits to the producer community.

I am not saying the programme shouldn't be tweaked. I am saying that notice should be taken of the producers who gave good, considered and strong guidance when the programme was initiated, and proved the approach to be valid nearly two decades later.

A memorable quote embodied in the Monitor Farm programme was:

"Tell me and I forget, show me and I remember, involve me and I understand".

• Alan Royal's CV includes: veterinarian, MAF meat division director, chief veterinary Officer, director, Wallaceville Animal Research Centre, NZ Meat Research & Development Council foundation executive director, chairman and board member of several organisations since retirement in 1996 plus Country-Wide columnist.

  Printable View