7 pages., via online journal, There are approximately 65 dairy farms in Mississippi (Gregory, 2019) with an estimated annual milk value of $26 million (Mississippi Farm Bureau, n.d.). Mastitis is the most expensive disease in the dairy industry (Neeser, Hueston, Godden, & Bey, 2006) and can decrease milk production by 1,181 kg per lactation in multiparous cows (Wilson et al., 2004). Clinical mastitis accounts for the largest use of antibiotics in livestock species (Thomson, Rantala, Hautala, Pyörälä, & Kaartinen, 2008), a circumstance that raises concerns of antimicrobial resistance (Pol & Ruegg, 2007; Wang et al., 2015) and increases producer expenses due to purchasing antibiotics and discarding milk during treatment (Rollin, Dhuyvetter, & Overton, 2015). On-farm bacteriological culturing (OFBC) enables producers to distinguish among broad categories of microorganisms with great accuracy and provides results within 24 hr, versus approximately a week when cultures are sent to a laboratory (Down, Bradley, Breen, & Green, 2017). Despite the availability of several viable OFBC systems, adoption of OFBC in Mississippi has been limited.
The purpose of the study reported here was to implement and evaluate an OFBC pilot test with a small sample of Mississippi dairy producers. The objectives of the study were
to identify reasons for producers' lack of OFBC adoption,
to explore change in producers' knowledge and perceptions of OFBC before and after trial, and
to assess the effectiveness of an Extension-led trialing program relative to OFBC adoption.
21 pages, via online journal, Purpose: This article outlines the emergence of programme teams in the Australian dairy farm sector as a response to counter weaknesses in the institutional environment for agricultural innovation which favours technology adoption/diffusion approaches.
Design/methodology/approach: The strengths, weaknesses and risks of different approaches to innovation in the Australian dairy sector RD&E system are analysed and key features of an emerging programme team approach defined. The programme team approach is compared and contrasted with the features of innovation capacity from international literature. An analysis of the relative investment in this innovation capacity in different topics or domains of dairy innovation is provided.
Findings: The programme team approach to innovation involves groups of researchers, extension people, public and private organisations, farmers, community groups, and policy and service groups brought together to progress innovation and change in a topic area or domain. Leadership of the process is provided by an area expert or champion. The team takes responsibility for: (a) understanding the businesses of key players who have an influence in the innovation or domain; (b) deciding the nature of the desired change that all stakeholders can align to; (c) identifying features of the enabling environment to establish what capacity is needed; (d) designing a ‘route to change’ strategy (in contrast to traditional route-to-market thinking); and (e) piloting and refining the approach within the target populations. The group manages emerging risks and keeps on top of issues, as well as identifies any knowledge gaps for research that are preventing innovation and change.
Conclusions/practical implications: The programme team approach provides a semi-formal governance mechanism for innovation to develop, despite an institutional environment that favours technology adoption. Further, the activities of programme teams consist of practices which integrate research-led and demand-pull approaches. Currently, investment in such innovation capacity is relatively low and highly variable across different topic domains.
Added value: The article provides tangible activities that managers of agricultural RD&E programmes can invest in to progress systemic approaches to innovation and is a guide for agricultural education and extension practitioners to proceed in their innovation work.
9 pages., Via online journal., Using an agent-based model we explore the model of slavery in modern business developed by Crane (2013). Taking the Spanish agricultural sector—specifically the area of Campo de Dalías in Almería where much of Europe's vegetables are grown—as a case, we find that labour exploitation flourishes in communities of like-minded companies that do not care about mainstream norms. We confirm which socio-economic aspects of labour demand/supply lead to slavery, while challenging the assumption that markets which are dominated by few employers are more prone to exploiting workers. We find that, regarding isolation and connectedness of employers, cluster effects and intense inter-employer communication are particularly effective drivers of underpayment if the cluster is homogenous in terms of wage level and if it is isolated from law-abiding employers. This means that employers tend to confirm and reinforce each other in their illegal behaviour, thus creating enclaves in which non-standard norms prevail and worker exploitation is regarded as legitimate. On the other hand, we see that breaking the isolation of employees among each other only increases pay levels if there are law-abiding employers, pointing to the potentially beneficial role social business and entrepreneurs, state-owned companies, or public entrepreneurs could play for transforming labour conditions of entire markets.
