However, the adoption of new farming practices, particularly integrated pest management, has been slow. This study uses a collaboratively developed research instrument as a case study to understand how cereal producers in south-west Western Australia access information and resources to manage fungicide resistance. We found that producers rely on paid agronomists, government or research agencies, local producer groups and field days for information on fungicide resistance. Producers seek information from trusted experts who can simplify complex research, value simple and clear communication and prefer resources that are tailored to local conditions. Producers also value information on new fungicide developments and access to rapid diagnostic services for fungicide resistance. These findings highlight the importance of providing producers with effective agricultural extension services to manage the risk of fungicide resistance.
Barley growers manage crop diseases through the selection of adapted germplasm, integrated disease management, and intensive use of fungicides, which are often preventative measures to avoid disease outbreaks1. Fungicides prevent infection, growth, and reproduction of fungal pathogens in crops. However, fungal pathogens can have complex population structures and are prone to mutation. Over-reliance on a limited spectrum of fungicide active compounds or inappropriate use of fungicides can result in fungal mutations that become resistant to these chemicals. With repeated use of the same active compounds, the tendency for pathogen communities to become resistant increases, which can lead to a decrease in the effectiveness of the active compounds in controlling crop diseases2,3,4.
Fungicide resistance refers to the inability of previously effective fungicides to effectively control crop diseases, even when used correctly. For example, several studies have reported a decline in fungicide efficacy in treating powdery mildew, ranging from reduced efficacy in the field to complete ineffectiveness in the field5,6. If left unchecked, the prevalence of fungicide resistance will continue to increase, reducing the effectiveness of existing disease control methods and leading to devastating yield losses7.
Globally, pre-harvest losses due to crop diseases are estimated at 10–23%, with post-harvest losses ranging from 10% to 20%8. These losses are equivalent to 2,000 calories of food per day for approximately 600 million to 4.2 billion people year-round8. As global demand for food is expected to increase, food security challenges will continue to escalate9. These challenges are expected to be exacerbated in the future by risks associated with global population growth and climate change10,11,12. The ability to grow food sustainably and efficiently is therefore critical to human survival, and the loss of fungicides as a disease control measure could have more severe and devastating impacts than those experienced by primary producers.
To address fungicide resistance and minimize yield losses, it is necessary to develop innovations and extension services that match producers’ capacities to implement IPM strategies. While IPM guidelines encourage more sustainable long-term pest management practices12,13, the adoption of new farming practices consistent with best IPM practices has been generally slow, despite their potential benefits14,15. Previous studies have identified challenges in the adoption of sustainable IPM strategies. These challenges include inconsistent application of IPM strategies, unclear recommendations, and the economic feasibility of IPM strategies16. The development of fungicide resistance is a relatively new challenge for the industry. Although data on the issue is growing, awareness of its economic impact remains limited. In addition, producers often lack support and perceive insecticide control as easier and more cost-effective, even if they find other IPM strategies useful17. Given the importance of disease impacts on the viability of food production, fungicides are likely to remain an important IPM option in the future. Implementation of IPM strategies, including the introduction of improved host genetic resistance, will not only focus on disease control but will also be critical to maintaining the effectiveness of the active compounds used in fungicides.
Farms make important contributions to food security, and researchers and government organizations must be able to provide farmers with technologies and innovations, including extension services, that improve and maintain crop productivity. However, significant barriers to the adoption of technologies and innovations by producers arise from the top-down “research extension” approach, which focuses on the transfer of technologies from experts to farmers without much attention to the contributions of local producers18,19. A study by Anil et al.19 found that this approach resulted in variable rates of adoption of new technologies on farms. Furthermore, the study highlighted that producers often express concerns when agricultural research is used solely for scientific purposes. Similarly, failure to prioritize the reliability and relevance of information to producers can lead to a communication gap that affects the adoption of new agricultural innovations and other extension services20,21. These findings suggest that researchers may not fully understand producers’ needs and concerns when providing information.
Advances in agricultural extension have highlighted the importance of involving local producers in research programmes and facilitating collaboration between research institutions and industry18,22,23. However, more work is needed to assess the effectiveness of existing IPM implementation models and the rate of adoption of sustainable long-term pest management technologies. Historically, extension services have been largely provided by the public sector24,25. However, the trend towards large-scale commercial farms, market-oriented agricultural policies, and the ageing and shrinking rural population have reduced the need for high levels of public funding24,25,26. As a result, governments in many industrialised countries, including Australia, have reduced direct investment in extension, leading to greater reliance on the private extension sector to provide these services27,28,29,30. However, sole reliance on private extension has been criticised due to limited accessibility to small-scale farms and insufficient attention to environmental and sustainability issues. A collaborative approach involving public and private extension services is now recommended31,32. However, research on producer perceptions and attitudes toward optimal fungicide resistance management resources is limited. Additionally, there are gaps in the literature regarding what types of extension programs are effective in helping producers address fungicide resistance.
Personal advisers (such as agronomists) provide producers with professional support and expertise33. In Australia, more than half of producers use the services of an agronomist, with the proportion varying by region and this trend expected to grow20. Producers say they prefer to keep operations simple, leading them to hire private advisers to manage more complex processes, such as precision agriculture services such as field mapping, spatial data for grazing management and equipment support20; Agronomists therefore play an important role in agricultural extension as they help producers adopt new technologies while ensuring ease of operation.
The high level of use of agronomists is also influenced by the acceptance of ‘fee-for-service’ advice from peers (e.g. other producers 34 ). Compared with researchers and government extension agents, independent agronomists tend to establish stronger, often long-term relationships with producers through regular farm visits 35 . Moreover, agronomists focus on providing practical support rather than trying to persuade farmers to adopt new practices or comply with regulations, and their advice is more likely to be in the interests of producers 33 . Independent agronomists are therefore often seen as unbiased sources of advice 33, 36 .
However, a 2008 study by Ingram 33 acknowledged the power dynamics in the relationship between agronomists and farmers. The study acknowledged that rigid and authoritarian approaches can have a negative impact on knowledge sharing. Conversely, there are cases where agronomists abandon best practices to avoid losing customers. It is therefore important to examine the role of agronomists in different contexts, particularly from a producer perspective. Given that fungicide resistance poses challenges to barley production, understanding the relationships that barley producers develop with agronomists is critical to effectively disseminating new innovations.
Working with producer groups is also an important part of agricultural extension. These groups are independent, self-governing community-based organizations made up of farmers and community members that focus on issues related to farmer-owned businesses. This includes active participation in research trials, developing agribusiness solutions tailored to local needs, and sharing research and development results with other producers16,37. The success of producer groups can be attributed to a shift from a top-down approach (e.g., the scientist-farmer model) to a community extension approach that prioritizes producer input, promotes self-directed learning, and encourages active participation16,19,38,39,40.
Anil et al. 19 conducted semi-structured interviews with producer group members to assess the perceived benefits of joining a group. The study found that producers perceived producer groups as having a significant influence on their learning of new technologies, which in turn influenced their adoption of innovative farming practices. Producer groups were more effective in conducting experiments at the local level than in large national research centres. Moreover, they were considered to be a better platform for information sharing. In particular, field days were seen as a valuable platform for information sharing and collective problem solving, allowing for collaborative problem solving.
The complexity of farmers’ adoption of new technologies and practices goes beyond simple technical understanding41. Rather, the process of adopting innovations and practices involves consideration of the values, goals, and social networks that interact with producers’ decision-making processes41,42,43,44. Although a wealth of guidance is available to producers, only certain innovations and practices are rapidly adopted. As new research results are generated, their usefulness for changes in farming practices must be assessed, and in many cases there is a gap between the usefulness of the results and the intended changes in practice. Ideally, at the outset of a research project, the usefulness of the research results and the options available to improve usefulness are considered through co-design and industry participation.
To determine the usefulness of fungicide resistance-related results, this study conducted in-depth telephone interviews with growers in the southwest grain belt of Western Australia. The approach taken aimed to promote partnerships between researchers and growers, emphasizing the values of trust, mutual respect and shared decision-making45. The aim of this study was to assess growers’ perceptions of existing fungicide resistance management resources, identify resources that were readily available to them, and explore the resources that growers would like to have access to and the reasons for their preferences. Specifically, this study addresses the following research questions:
RQ3 What other fungicide resistance dissemination services do producers hope to receive in the future and what are the reasons for their preference?
This study used a case study approach to explore grower perceptions and attitudes towards resources related to fungicide resistance management. The survey instrument was developed in collaboration with industry representatives and combines qualitative and quantitative data collection methods. By taking this approach, we aimed to gain a deeper understanding of growers’ unique experiences of fungicide resistance management, allowing us to gain insight into grower experiences and perspectives. The study was conducted during the 2019/2020 growing season as part of the Barley Disease Cohort Project, a collaborative research program with growers in the south-west grain belt of Western Australia. The program aims to assess the prevalence of fungicide resistance in the region by examining diseased barley leaf samples received from growers. Barley Disease Cohort Project participants come from the mid to high rainfall areas of the grain growing region of Western Australia. Opportunities to participate are created and then advertised (via various media channels including social media) and farmers are invited to nominate themselves to participate. All interested nominees are accepted into the project.
The study received ethical approval from the Curtin University Human Research Ethics Committee (HRE2020-0440) and was conducted in accordance with the 2007 National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 46 . Growers and agronomists who had previously agreed to be contacted regarding fungicide resistance management were now able to share information about their management practices. Participants were provided with an information statement and consent form prior to participation. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to participation in the study. The primary data collection methods were in-depth telephone interviews and online surveys. To ensure consistency, the same set of questions completed via a self-administered questionnaire was read verbatim to participants completing the telephone survey. No additional information was provided to ensure fairness of both survey methods.
The study received ethical approval from the Curtin University Human Research Ethics Committee (HRE2020-0440) and was conducted in accordance with the 2007 National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 46 . Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to participation in the study.
A total of 137 producers participated in the study, of whom 82% completed a telephone interview and 18% completed the questionnaire themselves. The age of the participants ranged from 22 to 69 years, with an average age of 44 years. Their experience in the agricultural sector ranged from 2 to 54 years, with an average of 25 years. On average, farmers sowed 1,122 hectares of barley in 10 paddocks. Most producers grew two varieties of barley (48%), with the variety distribution varying from one variety (33%) to five varieties (0.7%). The distribution of survey participants is shown in Figure 1, which was created using QGIS version 3.28.3-Firenze47.
Map of survey participants by postcode and rainfall zones: low, medium, high. Symbol size indicates number of participants in the Western Australian Grain Belt. The map was created using QGIS software version 3.28.3-Firenze.
The resulting qualitative data were coded manually using inductive content analysis, and the responses were first open-coded48. Analyse the material by re-reading and noting any emerging themes to describe aspects of the content49,50,51. Following the abstraction process, the identified themes were further categorised into higher-level headings51,52. As shown in Figure 2, the aim of this systematic analysis is to gain valuable insights into the main factors influencing growers’ preferences for specific fungicide resistance management resources, thereby clarifying decision-making processes related to disease management. The identified themes are analysed and discussed in more detail in the following section.
In response to Question 1, responses to the qualitative data (n=128) revealed that agronomists were the most frequently used resource, with over 84% of growers citing agronomists as their primary source of fungicide resistance information (n=108). Interestingly, agronomists were not only the most frequently cited resource, but also the only source of fungicide resistance information for a significant proportion of growers, with over 24% (n=31) of growers relying solely on or citing agronomists as the exclusive resource. The majority of growers (i.e., 72% of responses or n=93) indicated that they typically rely on agronomists for advice, reading research, or consulting the media. Reputable online and print media were frequently cited as preferred sources of fungicide resistance information. Additionally, producers relied on industry reports, local newsletters, magazines, rural media, or research sources that did not indicate their access. Producers frequently cited multiple electronic and print media sources, demonstrating their proactive efforts to obtain and analyze various studies.
Another important source of information is discussions and advice from other producers, especially through communication with friends and neighbors. For example, P023: “Agricultural exchange (friends in the north detect diseases earlier)” and P006: “Friends, neighbors and farmers.” In addition, producers relied on local agricultural groups (n = 16), such as local farmer or producer groups, spray groups, and agronomy groups. It was often mentioned that local people were involved in these discussions. For example, P020: “Local farm improvement group and guest speakers” and P031: “We have a local spray group that provides me with useful information.”
Field days were mentioned as another source of information (n = 12), often in combination with advice from agronomists, print media and discussions with (local) colleagues. On the other hand, online resources such as Google and Twitter (n = 9), sales representatives and advertising (n = 3) were rarely mentioned. These results highlight the need for diverse and accessible resources for effective fungicide resistance management, taking into account grower preferences and the use of different sources of information and support.
In response to Question 2, growers were asked why they preferred information sources related to fungicide resistance management. Thematic analysis revealed four key themes illustrating why growers rely on specific information sources.
When receiving industry and government reports, producers consider the sources of information they perceive as reliable, trustworthy, and up-to-date. For example, P115: “More current, reliable, credible, quality information” and P057: “Because the material is fact-checked and substantiated. It is newer material and available in the paddock.” Producers perceive information from experts as being reliable and of higher quality. Agronomists, in particular, are viewed as knowledgeable experts who producers can trust to provide reliable and sound advice. One producer stated: P131: “[My agronomist] knows all the issues, is an expert in the field, provides a paid service, hopefully he can give the right advice” and another P107: “Always available, the agronomist is the boss because he has the knowledge and research skills.”
Agronomists are often described as trustworthy and are easily trusted by producers. Additionally, agronomists are seen as the link between producers and cutting-edge research. They are seen as vital in bridging the gap between abstract research that may seem disconnected from local issues and ‘on the ground’ or ‘on the farm’ issues. They conduct research that producers may not have the time or resources to undertake and contextualise this research through meaningful conversations. For example, P010: commented, ‘Agronomists have the final say. They are the link to the latest research and farmers are knowledgeable because they know the issues and are on their payroll.’ And P043: added, ‘Trust agronomists and the information they provide. I am glad the fungicide resistance management project is happening – knowledge is power and I won’t have to spend all my money on new chemicals.’
Spread of parasitic fungal spores can occur from neighbouring farms or areas in a variety of ways, such as wind, rain and insects. Local knowledge is therefore considered very important as it is often the first line of defence against potential problems associated with fungicide resistance management. In one case, participant P012: commented, “The results from [the agronomist] are local, it is easiest for me to contact them and get information from them.” Another producer gave an example of relying on the rationale of local agronomists, emphasizing that producers prefer experts who are locally available and have a proven track record of achieving the desired results. For example, P022: “People lie on social media – pump up your tires (over-trust the people you are dealing with).
Producers value the targeted advice of agronomists because they have a strong local presence and are familiar with local conditions. They say that agronomists are often the first to identify and understand potential problems on the farm before they occur. This allows them to provide tailored advice tailored to the farm’s needs. In addition, agronomists frequently visit the farm, further enhancing their ability to provide tailored advice and support. For example, P044: “Trust the agronomist because he is all over the area and he will spot a problem before I know about it. Then the agronomist can give targeted advice. The agronomist knows the area very well because he is in the area. I usually farm. We have a wide range of clients in similar areas.”
The results demonstrate the industry’s readiness for commercial fungicide resistance testing or diagnostic services, and the need for such services to meet standards of convenience, understandability, and timeliness. This could provide important guidance as fungicide resistance research results and testing become an affordable commercial reality.
This study aimed to explore grower perceptions and attitudes towards extension services related to fungicide resistance management. We used a qualitative case study approach to gain a more detailed understanding of grower experiences and perspectives. As the risks associated with fungicide resistance and yield losses continue to increase5, it is critical to understand how growers obtain information and identify the most effective channels for disseminating it, particularly during periods of high disease incidence.
We asked producers which extension services and resources they used to obtain information related to fungicide resistance management, with a particular focus on preferred extension channels in agriculture. The results show that most producers seek advice from paid agronomists, often in combination with information from government or research institutions. These results are consistent with previous studies highlighting a general preference for private extension, with producers valuing the expertise of paid agricultural consultants53,54. Our study also found that a significant number of producers actively participate in online forums such as local producer groups and organised field days. These networks also include public and private research institutions. These results are consistent with existing research demonstrating the importance of community-based approaches19,37,38. These approaches facilitate collaboration between public and private organisations and make relevant information more accessible to producers.
We also explored why producers prefer certain inputs, seeking to identify factors that make certain inputs more attractive to them. Producers expressed a need for access to trusted experts relevant to research (Theme 2.1), which was closely related to the use of agronomists. Specifically, producers noted that hiring an agronomist gives them access to sophisticated and advanced research without a large time commitment, which helps overcome constraints such as time constraints or lack of training and familiarity with specific methods. These findings are consistent with previous research showing that producers often rely on agronomists to simplify complex processes20.
Post time: Nov-13-2024