Contents - Previous - Next

This is the old United Nations University website. Visit the new site at http://unu.edu

TABLE 4.6. Farmer Recognition of Soil Erosion

Source:: Field surveys 1971-72.
a. See Table 4.1.
b. Q: '"What are the principal disadvantages of farming in this area ? "" Responses indicate disadvantages mentioned first.
c. Q: " . . . how can you tell when drought is affecting your property ?" Responses indicate groupings of criteria offered.
d. Q: '"What way do you think a drought would affect your property?"" Responses indicate groupings of criteria offered and because multiple responses were allowed totals do not sum to 100 per cent.
e. Q: ·Would the damage done be considered as .,. 7" Responses are percentages of those respondents listing soil erosion damage.

In County Chandos, South Australia, in the mid-1960s an agricultural surveyor commented: "Farmers developing sandy areas to the north [of the county] have a background of cereal cropping and do not understand so well the principles and techniques of pasture establishment and management" (Woodroffe 1977, 16). The result would be an erosion risk if new land were to be opened up by them.

Further evidence for South Australia appeared in a 1975 survey of the condition of farms which had been reported as badly eroded in 1952. Of the 29 farms surveyed, only 3 were "much improved," 5 were "slightiy improved," 17 were "static" (neither worse nor better), and 5 were "deteriorating." The report included a questionnaire on farmer attitudes to erosion which showed that although 42 per cent were keen to stabilize the erosion taking place on their farms, 46 per cent had a neutral attitude (i.e., showed minimal concern at the erosion), and 12 per cent were completely disinterested in the problem (Wood 1976, 5-6).While such farms might represent those farmers least likely to be concerned about soil erosion, if the previous record had been any guide, the continuing lack of concern, even into the 1970s, must raise some doubts about farmers' concern for the problem. The 1975 report further noted that another 10 farms should be added to the list as being sufficiently eroded to cause official concern (Wood 1976, 12 and 15). The problem was apparently getting worse not better.

What were the attitudes of farmers to soil erosion in the field survey of the early 1970s? Questioned about the disadvantages of farming in the area, soil erosion was ranked as the major problem by an average of only 8 per cent of the respondents. The social disadvantages (of remoteness and lack of amenities) and drought were the major problems for from half to over 90 per cent of respondents, with drought looming largest in the highest drought-risk areas as might be expected (Table 4.6, A).

Soil erosion was recognized as one of the indicators of drought impact, but its significance was overshadowed by the concern for the direct and immediate agricultural impacts of drought on crop yields and livestock quality (Table 4.6, B). There was no doubt, however, for 42-70 per cent of respondents that soil erosion was expected to be associated with drought impact on individual farms (Table 4.6, C) and that erosion damage was expected to be substantial or total {with losses from 21 -100 per cent) on from 33-65 per cent of the properties. Significantly, the highest drought-risk areas had the highest damage expectations (Table 4.6, D). Thus a majority of farmers seem to be generally aware of the soil erosion problem, particularly as a result of drought impacts on their properties. A small minority, however, claimed no damage from soil erosion in droughts and a larger group (33-57 per cent) claimed only limited soil losses.

If drought was associated with soil erosion, what were the attitudes to drought itself? Over 80 per cent of all farmers recognized their locations to be drought-prone (Table 4.7, A). The effects were recognized to be "serious" or "very serious" by increasing numbers of farmers from the lowest drought-risk site (38 per cent) to the highest risk site (82 per cent). For 48 per cent in the lowest risk site to 15 per cent in the highest, the effects were tolerable (Table 4.7, B). All farmers assumed drought would occur again but the great majority (over 77 per cent in all sites) were uncertain as to when. An average of 11 per cent assumed a regular time or cycle in its occurrence. In the worst drought they had experienced the majority in three of the sites had carried on as normal, while smaller groups had changed their management or made a variety of other adjustments. Significantly the percentage of farmers obtaining another job (off-farm) increased as the drought risk of the site increased, so that for the two high risk sites, the figures were 20 per cent and 39 per cent, respectively (Table 4.8). Only a small number of farmers, and those only in South Australia, obtained government relief, although some of the other jobs mentioned in the high risk sites might have included government-financed public works organized through local government authorities.

In the 1930s the combination of economic depression and drought led to farm abandonment and the field survey asked farmers for their reaction to this possibility in the future. Asked how long a drought would have to last before they thought of abandoning their property, a core of from 33 per cent to 51 per cent claimed either that they would never leave or would "stick it out as long as possible." For the remainder abandonment was a matter of time- a drought of two years' duration might cause a loss of from 14 per cent to 36 per cent, a drought of three years might cause a loss of from 39 per cent to 62 per cent of the farmers (Table 4.9, A). Desertification in the sense of accelerated loss of farm population might then be created by a two to three year drought sequence in the Murray Mallee. Abandonment of the property, however, would not be considered as a normal reaction to drought (Table 4.9, B).

Given the recognition of the problems of soil erosion and drought, what were farmer attitudes to the role of official policies and particularly official research into these problems ? Despite drought being recognized as a major problem and an accepted influence on the incidence of soil erosion, farmers did not show any great faith in possible official action to reduce drought impacts. For three of the sites the farmers were almost equally divided, while the fourth site had a majority disbelieving any effective offical action (Table 4.10, A). Where there was some belief in official action, research activities, although mentioned, were overshadowed by financial policies to reduce costs and provide financial support during the drought (Table 4.10, B). When further questioned on the potential for official research activity such as crop and stock breeding, cultivation techniques (which would include soil conservation measures), weather forecasting, and surveys of droughty areas, all had majority support (Table 4.11). There were still, however, substantial minorities unconvinced of the potentials, and in the case of the highest drought-risk site (Millewa) even a majority (55 per cent) was not convinced that official research into weather forecasting would mitigate drought impact

TABLE 4.7. Farmer Attitude to Drought

Source: Field surveys 1971-72.
a. See Table 4.1.
b. Q: "Does this place experience droughts 7 "
c. Q: "If yes would you describe the effects as . . . ?"
d. Q: "Here is a story on which we would like your comments. Once after a drought four men spoke about the rains coming late. The first said that the drought would come again soon because when droughts happen more are soon to come. The second thought that droughts would come again but did not know when because droughts can happen in any year. The third said he knew when the drought would come for there is a regular time and that time must pass before it comes again. The fourth thought that drought would not come again. Which man had the best idea about the coming of drought ?"

TABLE 4.8. Farmer Reaction to Worst Drought Experienced

Source: Field surveys 1971-72.
a. Q: "What did you do then [in worst drought experienced] 7"
b, See Table 4.1.

MITIGATION OF SOIL EROSION

The variety of responses to the problem of soil erosion noted above implies a similar variety of approaches to the mitigation of soil erosion, from active concern to indifference. Such variety may reflect inter alia basic personality traits, management skills, or even a distinctive regional character in the farming population.

The Murray Mallee farmers no doubt include a variety of personality traits. At one end of the spectrum, innovative farmers in Victoria, concerned about soil erosion, had begun in 1977-78 to introduce "blade ploughs" and "farmer results are being watched by the Department of Agriculture" (McCord and Wood 1978, 10). In this case the farmers were anticipating official research in Victoria and seem to have been at least paralleling official research into the tool in New South Wales. At the other end of the spectrum illegal clearance of native vegetation has continued despite restrictive legislation. In South Australia, "in recent years policing the Act [Soil Conservation Act 1939-60] has been problematical;clearance without notification has taken place and some areas reserved because of soil erosion hazard have been cleared" (S.A.I. D.C.1976, 24).

Management skills, by their presence or absence, have affected farmer reactions to soil erosion. From the field survey, the Paruna Site stands out as the area with the highest proportion of farmers under 50 years of age (79 per cent) compared with the other sites (from 55 per cent to 62 per cent) and the lowest proportion of drought-experienced farmers (43 per cent with experience of three or more droughts compared with 48 per cent to 55 per cent on the other sites) (Table 4.1). This "lack of experience" might account for this site showing the highest potential abandonment of farms if a drought lasted three years (62 per cent compared with from 39 per cent to 46 per cent for the other sites) (Table 4.9, A) and the highest percentage considering abandonment as a reaction to drought stress (Table 4.9, B).

TABLE 4.9. Farmer Attitudes to Farm Abandonment

Source: Field surveys 1971-72.

a. See Table 4.1.
b. Cl: "How long would a drought have to last before you thought of abandoning the place?"
c. Q: "When a drought comes what do you do ?" Mentioned = volunteered answer: Yes and No when asked = responses to specific question 'Would you consider abandoning your property when a drought occurred ?""

The survey of eroded farms in South Australia in 1975 provides further evidence. Of the 29 farms surveyed, 3 (10 per cent) were unoccupied at the time of survey and 8 (28 per cent) had a non-resident owner, being let to a tenant, or share farmed, or with a manager. Of the 4 farms in the worst category (where there appeared to be no hope of improvement because of the negative attitude of owner/ occupiers), 3 were owned by absentees, and the other owner had to work off the farm part-time to make ends mast. Factors such as poor health seemed to affect management in 31 per cent of the farms and some of the features of the worst farms seemed to be present even in the better cases. abundant rabbit numbers, lack of feed and cover on sand hills, poor state of fences and watering points all [combined] . . . to make a "vicious circle." While this situation is really bad on only four farms it applies generally, in varying degrees. [Wood 1976,14]

The exceptions were "where the farm has been taken over by a new manager, with a positive attitude and adequate finances" (Wood 1976,14) The main conclusion from the report was that the properties worst affected would become so uneconomical that they would have to be sold and the best hope for control of erosion lay in new management with a more positive attitude backed by official agricultural extension services. Even so, it was acknowledged that "it will be a mammoth task to rehabilitate several farms."

TABLE 4.10. Farmer Attitudes to the Official Role in Resource Management

Source: Field surveys 1972-72. a. See Table 4.1.
b. Q: "Is there anything that the government can do to prevent damage from a drought ?""
c. Q: "If yes [ to question above], what?"" Table indicates mention of items by percentage of respondents but multiple answers were allowed so that totals do not sum to 100 per cent.

TABLE 4.11. Farmer Attitudes to Official Research Activity

Source: Field surveys 1971-72.
a. See Table 4,1.
b. Responses indicate reactions to specific questions asking "Could the government do anything to prevent damage from drought by research into. . . 7"

TABLE 4.12. Farmer Attitudes to Personal Advancement

Source: Field surveys 1971-72.

a. Q: "The main thing that helps people to get ahead in the world is " Finance = money, capital;
Externals = luck, things outside individual's control, climate; Skills = experience, good management (learned and acquired!; Personal qualities = determination, ambition.
b. See Table 4.1.

Financial and seasonal conditions would also play a part but "in spite of the favourable seasons (1973 and 1974) and good grain prices" the worst four farms had still been neglected (Wood 1976, 13).

Whether there is a distinctive "type" of farmer found in the Murray Mallee is difficult to say. Some local officials, interviewed in the field, suggested that there were characteristics which could be identified and some of these might be distinctive. In the words of one official with three years' experience in the area, they tended to be "peculiarly autonomous" and individualistic, were "fiercely aggressive" to any advice, especially from people they regarded as "educated idiots," were not generally open to innovations and believed that, as survivors of the process of attrition of farmers from the area from the 1930s onwards, they had survived not because they had scientific advice to take, or if they had, had taken it, but by hard work alone (Wayne 1974). Another person's view, based on six years' experience, confirmed the individualistic outlook and resistance to official agricultural extension work and innovations, but praised the farmers' preparation for, and tenacity and courage in the face of, drought stresses by comparison with other areas in Victoria and Queensland with which he was familiar (Telford 1974). Superficially, such comments seemed to be confirmed from the field study, but in some cases the evidence was more precise.

There was no doubt that the field study was interviewing 263 individuals each with his own view of farming and life in general. Of their neighbours' activities they were surprisingly ignorant, and of their neighbours' business success not only ignorant but disinterested. As neighbours they were prepared to help out in farming activities in emergencies but social life seemed to be limited to sporting and church activities and for some, only the "pub." In their attitudes to personal advancement "personal qualities," "skills," "hard work," and "finance" were identified by from 30 per cent to 15 per cent respectively of respondents. Skills were considered most important in the low risk sites and hard work and personal qualities most important in Millewa, the highest risk site (Table 4.12). As a technologically oriented community, the relatively small concern (9 per cent of responses) for "externals" such as luck or variables outside the individual's control might be expected. When specifically asked about their attitude to luck, however, only 24 per cent thought it of no importance, and the responses for the sites showed a consistent trend from the largest percentage (32 per cent) considering it unimportant in the low drought-risk sites to the smallest (14 per cent) in the highest risk site (Table 4.13). Indeed, the percentage of respondents stressing luck showed a significant increase with increasing drought risk, from 39 per cent in Pinnaroo to 66 per cent in Millewa. The higher the risk the more the farmers were convinced of the importance of luck in the outcome of their activities. Technology was not the only variable.

In their attitudes to religion and the role of religion in their lives, the Murray Mallee farmers revealed further variety. A majority (52 per cent) recognized God as either a supreme being or helper influencing their lives (Table 4.14), but there seemed to be no significant difference between these people and those denying the existence of God when faced by the stress of drought. For all four categories of attitudes to God there seemed to be a consistent 53 per cent to 58 per cent who felt "despair" or "stress" during a drought (Table 4.15). When distinguished by religious affiliation, however, the Anglican and Protestant exhibited more despair and stress than the Roman Catholic farmers (Table 4.161.0)

Continue

Contents - Previous - Next