1. Aim This project aims to evaluate the current cropping practices impacting on soil biodiversity and determine the motivational factors that affect change. Farmers and their Soil: A Lasting Relationship Practice change in Australian cropping and their impact on soil biodiversity Author: Gemma Natalie ElwellSupervisor: John Rochecouste Discussion Results Method Introduction Soil Health is one of the accepted primary determinants of crop yields. The presence of organic matter, including soil flora and fauna is recognized as a visible characteristic of soil health. Traditional farming practices such as tillage and stubble burning result in a continual decline of soil organic matter leading to a loss of soil biodiversity and lower crop yields. Conservation agriculture (CA) is an holistic approach based on farming methods designed to halt soil degradation and improve soil quality resulting in greater crop yields (Dumanski et al. 2006). CA practices traditionally refers to reduced tillage, stubble retention, crop rotation, and more recently the inclusion of control traffic farming and precision agriculture. CA practices are highly beneficial to soil biodiversity, by minimising compaction, moderating soil temperature and moisture, reducing erosion and maximising nutrient and fertility rates (West 2002). The physical, chemical and biological components which make up the soil ecosystem are central to soil quality and health and therefore maximises soil biodiversity, resulting in improved crop yields. One possible contributing factor to the rise in the uptake of CA practices is field days and extension activities such as that organised by no-till farming associations across Australia. These events provide a network in which farmers are able to discuss ideas and research techniques, practices and products in relation to CA. Participants Participants were 31 randomly selected farmers at various no-till association field days across Australia. The breakdown of participants across states were: WA (n = 7), SA (n = 11), NSW (n = 3), VIC (n = 4) and QLD (n = 6). Interview Method Semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions were conducted to collect qualitative data (Merriam 2009). This method was selected to elicit a broader range of opinions and attitudes that drive practice. Data Analysis Data was collected with the use of an MP3 recorder and uploaded onto a computer for transcription. As the data relates to participant’s attitudes and opinions thematic analysis techniques were applied to participant’s responses.. Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisor, John Rochecouste for his guidance and support throughout this project. I would also like to thank my colleague Laura Jones for assisting in the analysis and collection of the data throughout the project. Finally, I would like to thank the participants for dedicating their time to the completion of the interview. All data shown represent frequency of themes. Participant responses could be classified as multiple themes, giving each theme a maximum frequency of 31. CA Practices Undertaken Dumanski, J, Peiretti, R, Benites, JR, McGarry, D & Pieri, C 2006, ‘The paradigm of conservation tillage’, Proceedings of World Association of Soil and Water Convention, paper no. P1, pp. 58-64 Hobbs, PR, Sayre, K & Gupta, R, 2008’The role of conservation agriculture in sustainable agriculture’, Philosophical transactions of The Royal Society, vol. 363, pp. 543-555 Merriam, SB 2009, Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation, Wiley, USA West, B 2002, Sustainable conservation agriculture with no-tillage, GDRC, NSW References Figure 3. What motivates farmers to continue with conservation agriculture. Figure 1. What CA farming practices are undertaken. Zero till is the main operation undertaken by CA farmers (96%), followed by stubble retention (90%). There are a similar number of farmers which operate crop rotation (81%) and precision agriculture (70%). Only 19% included cover cropping citing issues with cost and suitable climate. The main benefit of CA practice outcomes is cost effectiveness (61%), however 51% of farmers also experienced an increase in crop yields. This will also contribute to an increase in revenue resulting in the benefit of cost effectiveness Results (67%) and money (58%) are the two main drivers of the continuation of CA, which are both in conjunction with cost effectiveness and yield increase benefits in figure 2. Benefits Gained from Practice Change Motivation Figure 2. What benefits have been gained from CA outcomes. CA practices are regarded as the best farming method to maintain health and biodiversity abundance, as the main focus of CA is to minimise soil disturbance, retain crop residue and rotate crops, enabling soil biodiversity to establish (Hobbs et al. 2008). This is supported by figure 1, as most farmers attending field days have at some point introduced these practices on their farm. The major benefit experienced by farmers from attending field days and adopting new practices was economic, with a significant majority experiencing reduced input cost and increased yield (figure 2). There is an expectation by farmers that field days involving CA will provide an economic return. The social aspect of meeting with other farmers to discuss and verify ideas was also mentioned as an important aspect of attending field days. The major motivating factors revolves around outcomes, the farmers could see a change that lead to improved farming efficiency, such as less work time and eventually to more money. (figure 3) The social connection was also mentioned; it was helpful to connect with other farmers in a community sense and compare experiences. Soil and soil health was always a major topic of discussion. The relationship between farmers and soil biodiversity is symbiotic. Farming CA practices maximises quality and heath of soil biodiversity, which in return will result in yield increase and economic benefits. 71%