The
              Report

No. 82: Wildflower industry adopts a 'do it ourselves' research concept


The full report
This is a summary of a full report DOOR in Australian Wildflowers & Native Plants published by RIRDC 
(Pub. No. 00/103, DAQ-236A) by M. Hunter, ANOVA Solu-tions. Phone/Fax: 07 3378 7525, 
Email: mhunter@powerup.com.au 
The report is available in hardcopy (under wildflowers) or downloadable from this site.

A do-it-ourselves research concept in the Australian wildflower and native plants industry is proving useful in fine-tuning new technology for growers, according to a report funded by the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC).

The first "Do Our Own Research" (DOOR) project was initiated, developed and evaluated by the Australian Nursery Industry and reported by Mal Hunter from ANOVA Solutions in Brisbane.

This report forms part of the Australian wildflower and native plants industry R&D program which aims to improve the profitability and sustainability of the $30 million industry.

The Study

The objectives of the project were to find out:
 


The DOOR logo  

The project was set up as a pilot in Queensland and Western Australia. An initial survey was undertaken to determine interest among members of the wildflower and Protea industries.

A series of operators’ and consultants’ workshops was conducted in WesternAustralia in August 1997 and in Queensland in March 1998. These provided participants with the context of the DOOR program, some preliminary information on the research process and the opportunity for hands-on experience with a classroom experiment.

Groups were formed and trainee DOOR consultants were allocated to each of these. It was left to the groups to organise on-going meetings to finalise plans and commitments for implementation of their research programs. The trainee consultants acted as facilitators.

Mid-term reviews were conducted in Western Australia in August 1998, and in Queensland in December 1998.

A second series of operators’ workshops was held in September 1998 in WA and in July 1999 in Queensland. A survey of the participants engaged in trial work prior to the second workshop assessed how they had found the process.

From a total 49 participants who attended the initial workshops, 27 established experiments, but only 18 of them were involved in the collection of data for statistical analysis..

The Results

Two groups in WA studied the effect of the application time and rate of nitrogen on the performance and economic productivity of mature and young varieties of the protea variety Leucadendron, (cv Safari Sunset).

This work confirmed the economic value of additional nitrogen and recommendations based on the results have been adopted by some growers.

Another group carried out a comparison of organic and inorganic fertilisers on the production and economic performance of the new wildflower crop species, Verticordia. This work is still being col-lated.

In Queensland, a team worked on the effect of foliar fertilisers on rice flower leaf colour, the retention of green leaves, and the flower quality. Although leaf yellowing and leaf loss could not be alleviated by a range of foliar fertiliser, the results provided important baseline information for future trial work.

The application of sawdust in the cultivation of valentine lace (Platysace canceolata) reduced nematode balling of roors and has been commended as preferred industry practice.

Another team assessed soil bioconditioners/ ameliorants on plant establishment and growth of wax flower.

Significant positive responses were re-corded in the early growth cycle of some wax flower cultivars to the addition of beneficial microorganisms.

Importantly, all the experiments provided important experiential learning. While only 38 per cent who began the DOOR program actually completed their research, successful participants reported they felt a strong ownership of the trial through their individual contributions towards its success.

Individuals involved in successful programs were very satisfied with their outputs. ‘Doing their own thing’ gave growers the opportunity to customise their investigations to the crop and the farm, and this local focus meant the results were directly appli-cable. But even though the input and enthusiasm of group members exceeded expectations, the amount of specialist consulting help needed to achieve planned outcomes was greater than originally outlined in the DOOR con-cept.

Dependency on consultants proved attractive to some growers in the short term, but may not be viable long term as re-sources are withdrawn and consultants allocated elsewhere.

As well, communication difficulties between grower groups and consultants proved to be a reason for breakdowns in some groups and it is clear more attention is needed to roles and responsibilities.

There were a few cases where growers actually took the initiative and succeeded with relatively little input from the consultant.

In these cases, growers previously had research experience, and this gave them the confidence to implement the experimental program without consultant help. They were motivated by knowing this sort of research works and their experiences clearly support the DOOR philosophy that as growers gain more confidence about conducting their own research, ultimately a facilitator may not be needed.

Summary

The project showed that scientifically sound grower research is within the grasp of individuals of the wildflower industry.

The adoption and implementation of DOOR by the industry, in the conduct of ‘rape’ research will result in the generation and use of site specific information that will enhance the quality of crop manipulation and profit-ability.

Participating growers will develop a more critical approach to problem definition and problem solving that will impact on many of their management decisions.

With Governments increasingly unlikely to provide enough funds to the wildflower industry for more than a fraction of the necessary research, work by growers will underpin such industry improvement.

The DOOR approach, supplemented with easy-to-follow research recipes and consultant support, seems likely to be a cost-effective option.
 

Other RIRDC related reports: