Northern beef industry lagging in agtech in part due to a lack of engagement with researchers and developers

Northern Australia’s beef industry is lagging in the adoption of technology in part due to a lack of engagement with researchers and tech developers, a new report has found. The CSIRO report released this week revealed a lack of engagement with researchers and tech developers — despite a strong desire by producers to work collaboratively with both. The report, titled Insights on technology adoption and innovation among Northern Australia, found beef producers, proposed “a co-innovation approach” to help overcome lack of clear value proposition in some new technology and improve the understanding of the level of accessibility of the technology. The research was supported by the North Australia Beef Research Council, which aims to connect producers, researchers and industry stakeholders to drive improved production in the northern grassfed beef industry. NABRC chair John Taylor said the organisation wanted to “break down barriers” between research scientists and grassroots producers to “enrich research and development, simplify and improve adoption”. “Our 11 regional beef research committees are one way in which we bring together researchers and producers, but we’re also working to build knowledge among young researchers through farm and regional tours to familiarise them with the operating environments of different regions,” he said. The report identified key barriers to adoption of new technologies as including cost, risks associated with early adoption, the complexity of the technology and the infrastructure required for connectivity. This included the geographically dispersed nature of the industry, the large number of small producers and a “distinct” lack of a shared mental model among key actors in the beef production system. It also noted there was little recent literature on innovation and adoption in the Australian beef industry and “even less” on the northern beef industry. A total of 15 producers who identified as being at the “leading edge” of technology — and predominantly sourced through NABRC’s networks — were interviewed about their insights into the barriers to adoption of technology. Many expressed concerns about the pragmatic assessment of costs and benefits of adoption, and the increasing efficiency of adoption, and how innovation fit into their broader operating system. Barriers included cost, lack of clear benefit, the risks of early adoption, complexity of the technology, infrastructure required for connectivity and capacity available — both in terms of having the time to learn and integrate innovation into their own enterprise. A common perception was that there was a lack of engagement between producers and researchers, and that producers desperately needed a valid and valuable role to help ground truth research and ensure it had practical application. AgriStart co-founder and managing director Natasha Teakle said her WA-based business worked to connect startups with farmers and regional communities by running two six-month programs through their annual HARVEST agtech project. She said it was crucial researchers and agtech businesses engaged with farmers and pastoralists when developing technology, a point highlighted in the report. “The common challenge is there needs to be a strong value proposition for the technology before farmers or pastoralists will adopt it,” Dr Teakle said. “There needs to be engagement between agtech businesses and farmers, especially in the early stages of development. “Companies can’t wait until they think they have a perfect piece of technology before they show it to farmers, they need to be working with farmers and pastoralists to make sure it has value.” Dr Teakle said the need for technology that bolstered efficiency – rather than just profit – was crucial in parts of northern WA where the State’s chronic labour shortage was compounded by remoteness. “Connectivity is an even bigger issue … there is a lot of existing technology up there that can create Wi-Fi networks across pastoral stations, but the cost of doing that across whole stations is large,” she said. To read the report, visit doi.org/10.25919/cnqs-3b58.