Making changes to infrastructure and farm management when the season is good rather than waiting for a crisis to act was a positive outcome for many of the farmers and helped build their confidence to face future dry times. For example, Bert Matthews put in tree guards after a wet season when a lot of young trees came up and needed protection. And the Hannas built their SMA when pasture was abundant, so it meant they had no pressure to use the SMA immediately. 

‘We shouldn’t waste that opportunity and if we had not gone around and started to guard them, well, then the stock would have taken them back and like the next dry time we wouldn’t know they were even there.’ – Bert Matthews

For many of the farmers, the funding for implementing a drought resilient practice was very welcome. The funding helped their long-term goals of building drought resilience, supported the implementation of new drought resilience infrastructure in the near-term, provided accountability in reaching goals and provided support through hands-on guidance from experts. The infrastructure was supported by a $10k grant from Riverina LLS, funded by the Australian Government’s Future Drought Fund, and while in most cases additional co-investment from the farmers was required, most farmers said that having the funding put the project to the top of the list of priorities and meant that there was accountability to follow through. 

Overall, the farmers reported increased levels of new knowledge. All eight farmers in an end of project survey felt that their learnings from the project have led to their farm being more resilient to manage dry times. Many farmers commented on their increased or refined knowledge of their own soils and of soil monitoring methods. Six out of eight farmers felt better equipped and two felt somewhat better equipped to undertake soil monitoring as a result of the online learning and WhatsApp group. Participating in the Riverina project has led Steven Scott to reflect on ‘how little value he had been getting out of lab results in the past’, and ‘how little he really understood about what the soil test results mean’. He found it ‘incredibly valuable to have expert consultation’ in interpreting the soil test results and relating the results to practical implications in the context of his farming enterprises. 

Combining practice implementation with monitoring soil health was viewed as having great value within the program for many participants. Bert Matthews believes his own knowledge of soil health has increased and his monitoring habits have improved. The farmer-led soil assessments gave him greater confidence and helped prepare him to recognise changes in soil health. He believes he can use this information in a more preemptive way to make management decisions. Some farmers commented on the benefit of ongoing, informal communication of the soil monitoring experience within the group, which allowed stories, insights and challenges to be shared along the way. 

As a result of the learning, many farmers plan to expand their soil monitoring programs. For example, the process helped the Hannas see the value of monitoring more than one site to capture the variability across the landscape. They now plan to extend their monitoring to other sites across their property to better understand how their range of soils respond to changes in land use and management.

Expert knowledge was appreciated by many but some farmers wanted more time with specialists than was available within the scope of the project. For the Hannas, the expert advice from LLS representatives was invaluable in getting started. Bert Matthews also found LLS very supportive in advising on optimal locations for installing tree guards based on site conditions and goals. The Scotts found the discussion groups most useful when there were expert presentations. At least one farmer was seeking more technical, information-rich content across the activities and would consider participating in future groups if they had a technical focus on detailed management practices that could improve soil health and productivity specifically in cropping enterprises. Another farmer felt there was an overemphasis on soil at the expense of a more holistic ecological approach. 

Many of the farmers enjoyed the mix of different formats for learning and skills development and having expertise close on hand, including soil scientists, agronomists and agricultural specialists, to ask detailed questions and dive into specifics off the cuff.

For the Wilkes-Bowes, the combination of webinars, online discussion group sessions, WhatsApp, farm visits and field days worked well, with the field days providing practical feedback and the smaller online sessions becoming more focused towards the end of the series when fewer people could attend. 

Steven Scott observed the quality of engagement in the online sessions was genuine and those who committed really gave each other support. And for the Hannas, the field days were the most useful because they were able to see solutions in the actual environment with their own eyes. 

The Hannas really enjoyed the WhatsApp group because they could see images and comments that were happening in real-time (see Images 5 and 6). The WhatsApp also offered an opportunity for both targeted discussions to take place and for organic connections to form within the group. And the platform was also a useful place for sharing resources and for reminding the group about upcoming events. Steven had a lot of positive feedback on the WhatsApp coordination and supplementary content provided to support those who missed in-person events.

Image 5. Steven Scott’s infiltration assessment images showing infiltration rates and comments in the WhatsApp group. Source: The Scotts.

Image 6. Jack Hanna discusses groundcover observations within the WhatsApp group. Source: the Hannas.

Many of the farmers valued learning about drought resilience with other farmers in the group who shared similar contexts (e.g. region), but given the diverse landscapes within the Riverina, sometimes found it hard to relate to the other contexts. Yet, many also saw value in the diversity of experiences and contexts and connecting with others across different stages of career or practice change.

Reflecting on their participation in the project, the Wilkes-Bowes found that learning from people in similar rainfall areas was most valuable, though hearing different approaches from different regions provided additional perspectives. They also found relief and greater confidence approaching drought knowing that there are others in similar situations.

It’s good to hear what people are doing in other places. I probably learned most from people who are in a similar area … on one hand if everyone had been within a 200 km radius of us that might have been more relevant. But it’s also good to hear what people are doing in slightly different systems and landscapes. You just have to remember to put outcomes in context of rainfall! – Dee Wilkes-Bowes

The Hannas had a similar experience. Overall the experience has revealed to them a lot of new information and, while certain topics weren’t especially relevant to their farming context, they can see the advantages of participating in broad-focused groups. 

Cindy and Steven Scott valued the online sessions as an opportunity to ask questions and hear different perspectives. Steven highlighted the diversity of ideas presented and noted that he always tried to keep his Tuesday morning free.

‘Everyone came from their different background with their different thoughts and tossed those ideas in.’  – Steven Scott

Many of the farmers appreciated having a safe space within the group discussions to share ‘failures’ as well as successes. Overall many farmers appreciated being met where they were at in terms of their existing soil knowledge and being supported to build on and refine existing knowledge.

It was helpful for farmers to know that they weren’t alone, especially when trying out new practices and monitoring techniques. For example, quite a few of the farmers experienced compaction issues at their monitoring sites. As Bert recalls:

‘A number of us couldn’t get our shovels into the soil for a start. So that’s interesting and tells a story of what’s happening … and the compaction that’s in the soil … and how quickly or how little infiltration there is in the soil.’ – Bert Matthews

The Matthews believe their knowledge of soil health has increased and their monitoring habits have improved as a result of the variety of farmer-to-farmer engagements and facilitated learning sessions. Undertaking the soil monitoring within a shared learning environment has given the Matthews greater confidence and helped them to recognise changes in soil health. Bert Matthews found value in farmer-to-farmer peer learning through the exchanges of ideas and insights on revegetation practices.

Image 7. Bert Matthews sharing his observations from soil monitoring in the Riverina WhatsApp group. Source: Bert Matthews.

For the Wilkes-Bowes, the program helped focus and refine their approaches to drought resilience rather than fundamentally changing their understanding. The financial assistance through the program also enabled them to complete their important drought resilience goals and focus on the infrastructure they know they need.

For many, putting time aside for multiple activities, including joining the online sessions or doing the in-field assessments, was a challenge. Many farmers couldn’t make it to the field days, and for some the ongoing expectation of monitoring and contributing was too much given their other commitments. 

Most of the 15 farmers joined the online discussion group, except in the case where the timing clashed with other farm commitments. Finding a time that worked for everyone was a challenge for project staff, which was disappointing for at least one farmer. And while attendance at the start was pretty strong at just under 100%, it petered out towards the end of the project. Some found the smaller numbers useful to focus the sessions but for some of the regulars, the lack of overall attendance was a disappointment. And while there was acknowledgement that those not attending had good reason, some felt it affected the overall cohesion of the group. One suggestion was to have an in-person event at the beginning of the program to help people to establish relationships and build trust within the group.

There was strong overall enthusiasm from four of the seven farmers in this case study to maintain an ongoing version of the group following the end of the project. One farmer would first like to know what would be the focus and expected benefits of a future group, suggesting that now the group has introductory knowledge, there could be an opportunity to break up into more specialised areas. While one farming family found some topics weren’t very relevant to their environment, they were still open to a variety of information and they could see the benefits of a broad group. Rather than continuing in a group, another farming family would like ongoing access to expertise from program facilitators as this would be beneficial, even if just ad hoc or through annual check-ins. And another farmer would like to see a version of the group continue, with a particular focus on supporting and facilitating those who are committed to doing the work.