Get documents about "Small Lifestyle Farms and Biosecurity
Description
Small Lifestyle Farms and Biosecurity
Document Sample
Small Lifestyle Farms and
Biosecurity
National Forum
29 June, Attwood, Melbourne
1
Compiled by: Carole Hollier, Michael Reid & Danae Reed
Practice Change: Social Research
Department of Primary Industries
Rutherglen
RMB 1145, Rutherglen
Victoria 3685
Find more information about DPI on the Internet at:
www.dpi.vic.gov.au
Disclaimer
This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria
and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw
of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and
therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence
which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.
2
Contents
Contents....................................................................................................................................................3
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................4
Forum highlights ......................................................................................................................................4
The small farm sector (presentations) ......................................................................................................5
Session 1 – Key Characteristics of the Small Lifestyle Farm Sector........................................................6
Session 2: What needs to be done?...........................................................................................................8
Session 3: Looking into the future: What are the potential biosecurity risks?..........................................9
Session 4: Areas of future research: What are we doing well? What do we need to do? .......................11
Appendix 1 .............................................................................................................................................13
Project Brief .......................................................................................................................................13
Appendix 2 .............................................................................................................................................14
Biosecurity and Small Lifestyle Background Paper ...........................................................................14
Appendix 3 .............................................................................................................................................17
Biosecurity Awareness and the Small Lifestyle Farm Sector.............................................................17
Appendix 4 .............................................................................................................................................19
PowerPoint Presentation.....................................................................................................................19
Appendix 5 .............................................................................................................................................22
Participants List..................................................................................................................................22
3
Introduction
The Department of Primary Industries (DPI), Practice Change Research in partnership with
the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) has initiated a new
project Biosecurity and the Small Landholder: Linking Spatial Data to Risk Analysis. As part
of the initial research phase, a forum was convened on June 29, 2006 to bring together
biosecurity expertise to discuss issues associated with the sector. Thirty-two participants
representing the Department of Primary Industries, Biosecurity Victoria, Primary Industries
Research Victoria, Catchment and Agriculture Services, Marketing and Communication and
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF), Animal Health Australia,
Victorian Farmers Federation, Western Australia Department of Primary Industries and the
Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation participated.
Key learnings will inform the Services and Information to New Landholders project as part of
the Provincial Victoria Statement. This initiative will develop new information, networks and
services to more effectively engage ‘New, Lifestyle Landowners’ to ensure they have realistic
expectations of living in rural Victoria, and are aware of appropriate land management
practices and their obligations as land managers.
The forum was opened by Carolyn Cameron, Department of Primary Industries (DPI),
Practice Change Manager.
The objectives of the workshop were to:
• Build on existing knowledge of the characteristics of the small lifestyle farm sector.
• Develop a shared understanding of the potential biosecurity risks associated with the
sector.
• Develop a shared understanding of the implications for government.
• Increase network linkage to other organisations involved in biosecurity.
• Build on current strategies that develop biosecurity preparedness (engagement strategies,
communication strategies), response and prevention.
• Identify future directions for research.
Forum highlights
Key issues were identified as:
• Small lifestyle landholders pose considerable biosecurity risk to Australian agriculture.
They can be potential allies or create potential threats to biosecurity and welfare practices.
• A need for a long-term, national commitment to raise awareness and improve biosecurity
practices of small farmers (hobby farmers, part-time farmers, lifestyle farmers) in peri-
urban and regional landscapes.
• Improved clarity of biosecurity risks associated with the small lifestyle farm sector using
qualitative and quantitative research methods.
• Better engagement with the small lifestyle farm sector for delivery of better outcomes
across the biosecurity continuum – preparedness/prevention.
4
The small farm sector (presentations)
Carole Hollier and Michael Reid (DPI) Practice Change social researchers outlined the
project Biosecurity and the small farmer: linking spatial data to risk analysis and provided a
snap shot of the general characteristics of the sector. The changes in rural Australia were
described highlighting that traditional farming regions are being transformed in response to
population shifts, change in community values and lifestyle aspirations. The importance of
the sector as part of a complex mix of land uses alongside mainstream commercial farming
operations was highlighted.
Howard Conkey (DAFF) provided a national perspective detailing the importance of the
sector for biosecurity communication particularly small landholders from non-English
Speaking Backgrounds (NESB) and biosecurity awareness within the peri-urban fringe. He
stressed that the sector was keen to learn and targeted extension events (such as workshops on
basic farm practice) could provide opportunity for government to connect with this group.
In recent years there has been a wave of new buyers of agricultural land around the fringes of
urban districts and in attractive rural landscapes in parts of Australia. The number of new
arrivals - referred to as small lifestyle farmers pose a potentially high biosecurity risk to
Australian agriculture. This emergent sector is distinct from mainstream commercial farmers.
Risks most commonly associated with the emergent sector include
spread of existing pests and weeds; and risks associated with poor What is a small lifestyle
pasture, land management or animal husbandry. Current education farmer?
and awareness campaigns of government agencies and other
signatories to the Emergency Animal Disease Response • Land size between 5-
Agreement are targeted at mainstream producers. There is 60,000 100 hectares
plus small farm operations across Australia and they occupy • Estimated value of
approximately 20 % of agricultural land. agricultural operations
low
Many small farmers come from non-English speaking • Majority of income
backgrounds. It is estimated that this group represents more than generated off-farm
23,000 people working in agriculture, fisheries and forestry • Reduced reliance on
industries in Australia. The majority who own property are small agricultural economics
lifestyle farmers occupying peri-urban regions (between 5-20 as a driver for land use
hectares). and occupancy.
Recent research suggests small lifestyle farmers have poor
awareness of biosecurity and do not recognise it as a high priority
(see Appendix). They are unaware of the risk related to their practices. A survey conducted in
May (2006) with 124 small farmers revealed that the majority of respondents had little idea of
the meaning biosecurity.
5
Group discussion from presentations
The term biosecurity may not be appropriate to use when talking with this sector as it is poorly
understood and often carries negative connotations – particularly when used by government. There
is opportunity to raise community and individual landholder awareness through the use of emotive
language such as ‘protecting your land,’ or ‘protecting your animals’, or ‘freedom from pests and
disease’.
There is a need to define biosecurity for the project; however, it is recommended that this definition
be closely aligned to pre-existing definitions – ensuring relevancy of the work. Also, further data is
needed on small farm industry enterprise and demographics including age and gender to begin to
inform extension practitioners and program managers.
It is important to adopt a balanced perspective when exploring the sector. Small lifestyle farms
bring many positive benefits to rural communities and landscape health.
Session 1 – Key Characteristics of the Small Lifestyle Farm
Sector
The small lifestyle farmer group forms a distinct category of landowners in rural Australia.
Their characteristics, values, attitudes and land ownership aspirations may be very different to
mainstream commercial farmers. Diversity within the sector is the most striking
characteristic of small lifestyle farmers.
Forum participants were divided into groups to develop of a list of characteristics that may
influence biosecurity awareness and preparedness. Recorded comments are listed below.
• Don’t like or want to use chemicals • Can’t distinguish between expert or
(organic) ‘shonky’ adviser
• Knowledge from folk tales • High turnover- why?
• Naive • Unreal expectations of the environment
• Want and need information and amenity areas they are moving into.
• Social disconnected but biologically This leads of disappointment which leads
connected to loss of interest
• No contact with industry contractors and • Highest risk are the ones that care least
services • Educated, environmental, and aware
• Lack of skills – animal husbandry, • Love their animals (cure not cull)
cropping, horticulture • Most keen to learn but some not
• May not visit farm often • Primed to learn
• Poor understanding of obligations • Language problems
• Poor knowledge base of risks • Biosecurity is not their primary focus
• Urban values • Diversity of ownership, enterprise,
• Use of the word biosecurity is not purpose
appropriate • Disconnected, disenfranchised from
• Poor awareness of consequences at local, mainstream (may be good or bad thing)
state and national level • Many ‘out source’- use contractors and
• Don’t know what biosecurity means advisory services- but don’t know how to
• Poor knowledge of where to seek help source them or how good they are.
and information • Inject great energy into rural
• Not aware of cost of disease to farm communities (a plus for social capacity
animals building)
• We don’t know who they are, what they
have, or what they do?
6
Key characteristics of sector from discussion
• The sheer diversity of ownership.
• Language problems – the term biosecurity – diversity of languages.
• Most are keen to learn but some are not.
• They love their animals, rather cure them than cull them – farm animals have been
described as ‘my girls’.
• Unrealistic expectations in the environment they are moving unto.
• We are unclear of who they are, what they have or what they do.
• Diverse demographic – educated in environmental awareness—tend to be interested in
environment.
• They can not distinguish between expert and dodgy advisers.
• The use of the word biosecurity is not appropriate.
• May not visit the farm very often and hard to contact.
• Socially disconnect but biologically connected – social disconnect from the normal
networks (They are biologically connected – capsicum grower – western flower thrips –
lost his whole crop. Couldn’t figure out how he got the incursion. In the tearoom there
was a pot of Gerberas- they were moving that disease all around the country… their
whole life is about moving indoors and outdoors – biologically connecting).
• No contact with industry and low skill level.
• Positive – the sector have the ability to inject great energy.
• There is a high turn over – but why is this happening?
• Come from urban areas and they have urban values.
• Poor knowledge of where to seek help or information – poor understanding of
obligations.
Question: Do you think they see themselves as farmers or people from the city? If they
think of themselves as farmers they will get along better with their neighbours?
• Probably feel disconnected with their neighbours – for some this is desirable and others
may want to improve their relationships with their neighbours.
• Are all these blockies with all these animals coming onto the market taking away from
my income?
• Some small farmers have a doubt about their legitimacy –
whether they are contributing to the national economy or not. The sector may not
• Isn’t small lifestyle farming about subsidising an income see themselves as
versus interest and lifestyle – can make a few bucks doing farmers or even land
this but its not the main choice. managers. They are
• Risk question – more often or not they are small farms – thus lifestyle driven.
there is a different dynamic to how disease will behave – two Connection to
sheep and a couple of chooks. It’s not a situation where mainstream
disease will really get going compared to large intensive agriculture and
farms. Plants are the opposite; they are much more networks is low.
connected. There is disconnection
• We have been saved from animal disease because the small from full time
farms are a dead end – but if they jumped the bridge we commercial farmer
could be in a lot of strife.
• It’s not the system that is the issue - the ecology of having a few animals. Ecological
isolation is small. However, plants are the reverse because the disease can travel.
• Do we provide assistance to small farmers in managing their animals or route to market?
Because we can target them through it.
7
• When people are absentee owners and don’t come onto the farm – when the land is leased
by some of the larger farmers they move their animals around the district- this is where
disease can spread.
• Animal welfare – people don’t understand how many animals they can have on their
property.
• Animal welfare is considered a biosecurity issue in Western Australia, as is food safety.
Group Discussion
Size is important: It is important to recognise the property size (when discussing
biosecurity risk) will have implications on the epidemiology of pest plants and animal
disease. Small block size can often equate to an ecological isolation – inhibiting the spread
of animal disease outside of the property. Even through they might not understand
biosecurity the scale of their property may mean they are less of a threat.
Small lifestyle farmers are diverse: They may be from different professional
backgrounds, involved in a variety of industries, adding to the mix of land use. Overall,
there is a low recognition and a need to develop an understanding of the sectors needs,
industry involvement and land-uses.
Biosecurity is not on their radar: The high-risk category is those that care the least about
their property, which may be the absentee small lifestyle farmer. Lease of property to
larger neighbours may be a high biosecurity risk due to animal movement across different
properties.
Session 2: What needs to be done?
To build on the knowledge of the characteristics of the sector, forum participants were asked
what were the information gaps. The forum participants identified:
• Definition of biosecurity from a National perspective. For example, ‘Freedom from pest
and disease’.
• There needs to be clarification on biosecurity risks. An assessment of the biosecurity risks
associated with the sector needs to be undertaken.
• We need to understand small lifestyle farmer practices. For example, small lifestyle
farmers from non-English speaking backgrounds pose risks through ‘hidden’ practices
(such as importing cuttings, seeds or burying diseased plants). There is a need to further
investigate other practices that may pose significant biosecurity risks (such as movement
of products and animals through networks including roadside stalls, farmers markets and
garden markets).
• It is recognised that the sector is distinct and uses different pathways for farm inputs and
information. Identification of alternative pathways will provide information to inform
program managers to target information.
• This project could include welfare and the number of chemicals that can get into your
food.
• Can welfare extend into these issues? Welfare of the animal, it does become disease
control and other things. Welfare isn’t just cruelty.
• Biosecurity relates to animal health or plants – welfare is a part of health and should be
apart of it.
• Maybe we should look at defining the nature of risk, and linking that into compliance.
8
• Biosecurity has a meaning that is becoming more widely understood by government and
industry organisations across Australia when they role out their communication plans. So
if we change our definition we might alienate the project from there.
• How do small farms manage their disease compared to larger farmers?
• You might find that small farmers are not likely to use chemical control – because they
have got the inkling to low or no chemical usage. ‘Don’t like and don’t want to use
chemicals.’
• Industry requirements and small farmers – small lifestyle farmers are unaware of the
industry requirements when they sell animals. They need to know their legal requirements
when they supply an animal at the saleyard. How do we get the abattoirs and small
farmers to sit down and talk?
• They need to know what the industry wants and therefore how to manage their animals to
meet industry requirements. What do they know about management – do they know how
to fat score their animals to get a better price?
• Is there an under ground system of moving products and animals which isn’t captured
currently?
• Where does their seed and propagation material come from? It’s all about pathways –
inputs as well (such as) seedlings and cuttings. We need to understand this in order to
understand the ecology of the risk.
Discussion summary
Although the sector may not be well aligned to industry there is need to further develop
these linkages. In this way the sector will be aware and understand industry requirements.
Industries that have or are in the process of developing biosecurity plans need to recognise
the location and characteristics of the sector to build stronger alignment. For example,
problems of direct animal sales at the abattoirs were mainly associated with small lifestyle
farmers.
There is a need to better understand the sector’s attitudes, beliefs and mechanisms that are
needed to influence a social change of the sector in the context of biosecurity. For example,
failure of the sector to comply to comply with regulatory approaches. This information
would ensure programs are more efficient and relevant.
Session 3: Looking into the future: What are the potential
biosecurity risks?
Forum participants were broken into groups of 6 and asked to list what they believed were the
main biosecurity risks. These are:
• Feeding swill to pigs
• Wandering livestock
• Movement of plants and animals from and to farmers markets
• Tomato virus insect
• Hendra virus which is spread from horses to humans (Current outbreak in Queensland)
• Introduction of weeds and lack of weed control
• Non-compliance with legislation and standards
• Food safety issues such as residue chemicals
• Close proximity of pigs, fowls and humans due to the small size of the property can
create an environment that is conducive to the spread of disease
• Mid-range poultry farms are a big risk
9
• Spread of Phylloxera
• People from non-English speaking background that do not realise disease as being exotic
to Australia because it is native to their county or origin.
Key themes from discussion:
• Non-compliance with legislation
• Food safety
• Benign lack of knowledge- they don’t know what they don’t know.
• Risks have potential for personal impact – your animals, your family health
• What do the sector see as their risks?
• Alternative pathways – eg. weeds from hay, farmers markets or their naivety
• Unpredictablity of it all
• Peri-urban issue in itself- its so diverse- it’s complex.
For example, issues will vary across a small lifesdtyle Considering these issues, what
farm who has a young family versus retiree’s are the information gaps that
• Lack of data- much of this is hearsay and anecdotal- must first be addressed:
where is the hard data? In the correct language • Customer profiling-
• When they don’t make money they lose interest and motivators
problems arise- when work becomes a chore • What do they believe are
• Pigs the risks?
• Ignorance- lack of knowledge • Identify high risks groups
• We under estimate the care of urban dwellers eg. There and then target them
was a large response of concerned urban people
responding to the Fire blight outbreak.
• They’re not getting the support because they are outside our network
• We can’t generalise about such a complex group
• It’s weekenders and absentee owners that are a problem
• Time is the main issue - most are time poor. We need to look at it through an urban lens
not an agricultural lens.
Lack of definitive
After this discussion the group was also asked to answer: data: It was recognised
that the sector is diverse
• What are the main strategies/approaches we currently use? and generalisation
• What do we need to consider or include to better cater for this cannot be made about
sector? (identify risks and develop controls for them) the sector. Current
evidence is anecdotal
Group’s responses were: and there is a need to
predicate the
unpredicability through
• Communication plans
the collection of some
• Encourage them to adopt their own biosecurity plan
hard data. This data
• Property management plans collection can be further
• Knowledge and awareness complimented by
• Biosecurity entry and establishment understanding what the
• Don’t assume everyone is doing the wrong thing sector perceive are
• Emergency management plan (including biosecurity) page with potential biosecurity
rates notices risks on their property.
Once the groups considered what was already being done and what
could be done they were asked to consider….
10
Session 4: Areas of future research: What are we doing well?
What do we need to do?
• Provide information to school children
• Define drivers of sector and use this to construct our communication plans because
Agricultural Notes aren’t doing it
• Western Australian experience works. We have a small group who must contact as many
(small lifestyle farmers) as possible. They enter this information into a database for
mailing to advertise field days through media and the web. They ask people what their
interests are eg. 60% weeds 30% livestock, thus make topic specific field days. They
work in conjunction with Landcare.
• Must include an effective plan that showed how we worked with other groups
• Reality TV show, border security/ Burke’s backyard, using groups of the sector to deliver
the biosecurity message
• Extension is working well – The ‘Food Trail’ had a great response
• The National Livestock Identification scheme works well
• The key thing to consider is that information must engage everyone eg. use councils, need
a face eg. Steve Irwin, but is the money worth it? We are fine at the moment- touch wood
• Workshops for farmers with productivity focus work well
• ABC (tiered) approach to land ownership
• Lots of talking about them coming to us, we need to go to them because economics is not
their motivator
• Need liaison people, local guys, one-on –one contact, specialised extension officer
• Use Landcare networks
• People are on farms to escape complexity of urban life. So we can’t make it more
complex for them.
• Produce CD’s/DVD’s of how to identify weeds and how to get rid of them.
So what are the information gaps if these are our future aims?
• Where does the sector get their information? Grassroots (magazine)?
• Difference between communication and information. One entails on ground practice
change.
• What are their needs? What do they want to know? And how do they want to be
educated? These are the problems. What is the message we want to get across to them?
• What are their triggers? What’s in it for them?
• Customer profiling- what do they fear?
• Can we piggyback onto networks already there- eg. Horseland (stores) or Landcare
magazines.
• How high a priority are they? Are our funders concerned about them?
• Policy makers need to be influenced
11
As a concluding statement the group was asked for their final input. What do we
really need to know?
• Audit of all the small farms and biosecurity research
• Risk assessment and ranking
• Is it a priority? Funders? Can you tap into different buckets of money?
• Economic assessment of the potential production of small farms- would that increase their
importance? Don’t forget environmental and social aspects
• What they fear and who do they trust- motivators and networks (customer profiling)
• Local government areas – planning issues – Municipal strategic statement
• National linkages with other similar projects
• BLOG – interactive forum on the world wide web
12
Appendix 1
Project Brief
13
Appendix 2
Biosecurity and Small Lifestyle Background Paper
Carole Hollier & Michael Reid – DPI Practice Change
Introduction
In recent years there has been a wave of new buyers of agricultural land around the fringes of
urban districts and in attractive rural landscapes in parts of Australia. The number of new
arrivals—referred to as small farmers—has been identified as relatively large and growing
and could pose a potentially high biosecurity risk to Australian agriculture. This emergent
sector is distinct from traditional commercial farmers. It has been largely overlooked in terms
of ongoing biosecurity education and awareness activities.
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to:
• Raise the awareness of the potential biosecurity risk associated with small farms and the
importance of their location within multi functional landscapes shared with traditional
commercial farms.
• Provide background information on the potential biosecurity risks associated with small
farms.
Background
• Research has shown that small farms could pose a potentially high biosecurity risk.
• Current education and awareness campaigns of government agencies and other
signatories to the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement tend to be targeted at
mainstream producers.
• It is estimated that there are 60,000 small farmers across Australia and they occupy 17
million hectares of private land. Generally, knowledge on agriculture and land practice is
low. Many small farmers are engaged in alternative or unconventional agricultural
practices (such as, niche, organic or biodynamic).
• Many small farmers come from non-English speaking backgrounds. It is estimated that
this group represents more than 23,000 people working in agriculture, fisheries and
forestry industries in Australia. The majority who own property are small farmers
occupying peri-urban regions (between 5-20 hectares).
• Risks most commonly associated with the emergent small farm sector include spread of
existing pests and weeds; and risks associated with poor pasture, land management or
animal husbandry.
• Generally, small farmers have poor awareness of biosecurity and do not recognise it as a
high priority. They are unaware of the risk related to their practices. A recent survey
conducted in May (2006) with 130 small farmers revealed that the majority of
respondents had little idea of the meaning of the term biosecurity.
14
Issues
• Many small farmers are unaware of the importance of protecting the health of their plants
and animals for the national interest.
• Proximity to major cities, their farming practice and their connection with mainstream
agriculture industries contribute to high biosecurity risk status.
• Current government biosecurity awareness campaigns are not necessarily targeted or
tailored to the sector.
Recommendations
• There is a need to further clarify biosecurity risk associated with the small farm sector.
This will require qualitative and quantitative social research methods.
• There is a need to engage with the small farm sector for delivery of better outcomes
across the biosecurity continuum – preparedness/prevention.
• Issues of non-compliance of the small farm sector need to be explored in order to improve
extension and communication strategy development.
• There is a need for a long-term, national commitment to raise awareness and improve
biosecurity practices among small farmers (hobby farmers, part-time farmers, lifestyle
farmers) in peri-urban and regional landscapes.
An overview of some of the characteristics of the sector and possible biosecurity risks is
attached.
15
Characteristics of the sector Possible biosecurity risks
Low agricultural knowledge May not be able to identify biosecurity issues, eg. disease in animals or prohibited weeds.
Little or no farming infrastructure Not able to effectively manage animals (cattle yards) or spray weeds (spray unit).
Alternative views and values May be involved in alternative practices such as, organic or bio-dynamic that may not have developed as effective mainstream methods
for eradication of pest plants or animal diseases.
High turn-over of property sales New landowners with poor land management knowledge levels.
Location: Regional town or popular tourist regions increase the risk of exposure to exotic diseases as domestic and international visitors are attracted
to these regions.
• Close proximity to infrastructure and
regional towns
• Close proximity or directly bordering
State and National forests Environmental weeds: The escape of environmental weeds in public land – having the potential to threaten biodiversity and ecosystem
functions.
High disposable income Can be highly mobile, especially retired small lifestyle farmers, and undertake overseas or interstate travel, increasing the risk of the
introduction of exotic pests or disease.
Small property size (below 100 ha) Due to the small scale of operations, it is easier for a small farmer to ‘hide’ a biosecurity issue. For example, a small farmer,
that has a horticultural crop, may experience a particular disease, but due to the small scale of operations it is easier to ‘hide’
the problem. In comparison to a larger farming in which 20 hectares of a 100-hectare paddock may be infected by a strip
virus, which is much more visual to the local community and harder to hide.
Work off the farm Limited time to preform activities on the farm to combat biosecurity or to participate in extension programs.
non-English speaking background Although figures are unsure – field work suggests that there is a significant percentage of small lifestyle farmers from an non-
English speaking background (particularly market gardeners) – which raises a variety of issues for communication issues.
16
Appendix 3
Biosecurity Awareness and the Small Lifestyle Farm Sector
Results from Victorian Small Farms Field Day, Lang Lang
A survey was conducted on the 5 – 6th of May, 2006 at the Lang Lang Small Farms Field
Days to gauge biosecurity awareness amongst the small lifestyle farm sector. The day was
developed by the local Rotary Club in response to the growing number of small lifestyle
farmers in the Cardina Shire, of which there are approximately 3,000. 124 farmers were
surveyed with a 100 per cent response rate.
Figure 1. Property size of all participants surveyed.
Figure 2. The time participants have owned their property.
Figure 3. The various land-use of respondents.
17
Figure 4. ‘Are you aware of biosecurity issues that may impact on your farm?’
Key findings from surveys
• The majority of participants surveyed property size was on the smaller scale of our small
lifestyle farm criteria (less than 50 hectares). Participants were relatively new to the area with
half of all respondents owning their property for less than 5 years.
• Land use varied across participants. The majority were involved in agricultural production, mix
of agriculture and native vegetation (ie. 5 ha. bush and 5 hec. pasture) and a small percentage
of participants properties were devoted entirely too native vegetation.
• Most had no understanding of the term agricultural biosecurity, while awareness surrounding
biosecurity impacts on their farm was low, with 73 per cent of participants being unsure of
biosecurity that may impact on their farm.
• Participants were asked to list where they would go to receive more information on biosecurity,
with the main categories being government agencies (Department of Primary Industries,
Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, local government) or their neighbours.
18
Appendix 4
PowerPoint Presentation
19
20
21
Appendix 5
Participants List
First name Last name Organisation Position
Liz Atkinson DPI – Victoria Biosecurity Victoria - Communications Manager
Cathy Botta Private Facilitator
Michael Boyd DPI – Victoria Manager: Biosecurity and Emergencies
Carolyn Cameron DPI – Victoria Practice Change Manager
Howard Conkey DAFF Communications Manager: Animal and Plant Health
Barbara Crawford DPI – Victoria Manager: Communications Projects
Chris Dalley DPI – Victoria Senior Project Officer -Livestock QA
Ken Evers DPI – Victoria Project Officer - Livestock QA
Jane Fisher RIRDC Senior Research Manager
Julie Francis DPI – Victoria Practice Change
Phil Frankilin DPI – Victoria Agricultural Development: Meat and Wool
Gervaise Gaunt DPI – Victoria Research Scientist - Animal
John Harkin DPI – Victoria PVO Quality Management Systems
Carole Hollier DPI – Victoria Practice Change: Project leader
Mike Jeffers DPI – Victoria Senior Vet Officer
Tristan Jubb DPI – Victoria Manager: Animal Health Operations Branch.
Ruth McGown DPI – Victoria Practice Change: Project Manager
Russell McMurray DPI – Victoria Biosecurity Victoria: Manger Policy & Education
George Miller DPI – Victoria Senior Vet Officer
Don Moir DPI – WA Senior Vet. Officer
Jane Moran DPI – Victoria Research Director: Plant Health
Helen Murdoch DPI – Victoria Practice Change: Social researcher
Craig Murdoch DPI – Victoria Biosecurity Victoria: Plant Standards
Steven Nee DPI – Victoria Senior Animal Health Officer: Training
Meg Parkinson VFF Deputy President
Malcolm Ramsay DPI – Victoria Training Co-ordinator - Animal Health Operations
Danae Reed DPI – Victoria Practice Change: Graduate
Michael Reid DPI – Victoria Practice Change: Social researcher
Duncan Rowland AHA Manager - disease risk mitigation
Dave Ryan DPI – Victoria Media and communications officer
Dave Stewart DPI – Victoria Senior Chemical Standards Officer
Jess Strickland DPI – Victoria Communications adviser
Bill Woonton DPI – Victoria Principal Animal Health Officer
AHA – Animal Health Australia
DAFF – Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
DPI – Department of Primary Industries
VFF – Victorian Farmers Federation
RIRDC – Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation
22
