Educação e Treinamento para Agricultores

Prévia do material em texto

A report for the 
 
 
 
Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation 
by 
Synapse Consulting Pty Ltd 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
March 1998 
RIRDC Publication No 98/26 
RIRDC Project No SYN-1A 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Farmer Education 
 and Training: 
Issues for 
Research and Development 
© 1998 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. 
All rights reserved. 
 
ISBN 0 642 54046 2 
ISSN 1321 2656 
 
"Farmer Education and Training: Issues for Research and Development” 
 
The views expressed and the conclusions reached in this publication are those of the author/s and not 
necessarily those of persons consulted or the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. RIRDC 
shall not be responsible in any way whatsoever to any person who relies in whole, or in part, on the contents of 
this report unless authorised in writing by the Managing Director of RIRDC. 
 
This publication is copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research, study, criticism or review 
as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced in any form, stored in a retrieval system 
or transmitted without the prior written permission from the Rural Industries Research and Development 
Corporation. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction should be directed to the Managing Director. 
 
 
Researcher Contact Details 
Synapse Consulting Pty Ltd 
(ACN 011030890) 
49 Gregory Terrace, 
BRISBANE, QLD 4004 
 
Phone: (07) 3831 0144 
Fax: (07) 3839 6056 
 
 
 
RIRDC Contact Details 
Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation 
Level 1, AMA House 
42 Macquarie Street 
BARTON ACT 2600 
PO Box 4776 
KINGSTON ACT 2604 
 
Phone: 02 6272 4539 
Fax: 02 6272 5877 
email: rirdc@netinfo.com.au 
Internet: http://www.rirdc.gov.au 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Published in March 1998 
Printed on recycled paper by DPIE Copyshop 
 
 
 
Education and Training 
 iii
FOREWORD 
 
How much education and training do farmers and farm managers need to effectively run 
their concerns? How much of this training needs to be formal and how best can we find 
out? 
 
These are some of the issues that this project set out to investigate. 
 
The report explains why farmers and farm managers generally have relatively lower levels 
of post-school qualifications in a country that has one of the highest proportions of higher 
education graduates in its adult populations. 
 
It looks at why there is a pressing need to develop strategies to improve tertiary education 
and training participation rates of rural based people. 
 
The researchers look at how the dynamics of people on farms affects their performance 
and how this can, in turn, be affected by their level of education and training. They also 
studied the purpose and scope of farmer education and training. 
 
The relevance of education and training systems comes under the microscope and the 
report shows why there is a need for national cooperation between organisations involved 
in research and development related to agribusiness and training. 
 
Recognising that human effort is the most important resource, this report is a valuable 
addition to the Corporation's Human Capital, Communications and Information Systems 
Program. It also adds to the store of knowoledge, and a springboard to action, for the rural 
community. 
 
 
 
Peter Core 
Managing Director 
Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation
Education and Training 
 iv
 
INDEX 
 Page 
 
Abbreviations iii 
Executive Summary iv 
List of Recommendations x 
 
1 INTRODUCTION 
 1.1 Purpose 1 
 1.2 Focus 1 
 1.3 Method 1 
 1.4 The Report 1 
 1.5 Acknowledgments 2 
 
2 PEOPLE ON FARMS 
 2.1 Farm Characteristics 3 
 2.1.1 Agricultural Outcome 3 
 2.1.2 Farm Performance 4 
 2.1.3 Composition of Farm Output 6 
 2.1.4 Concentration of Production 6 
 2.1.5 Farm Ownership 6 
 2.2 Farmers and Farm Employment 7 
 2.2.1 Farm Employment 7 
 2.2.2 Agribusiness Employment 8 
 2.2.3 Women in Agriculture 9 
 2.2.4 Farm Workforce Dynamics 10 
 2.2.5 Rural Communities 11 
 2.3 Farmers’ Education and Training Qualifications 12 
 2.4 Conclusions 16 
 
3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF FARMER EDUCATION AND TRAINING 
 3.1 Purpose of Farmer Education and Training 17 
 3.1.1 Agricultural Activities 17 
 3.1.2 Agribusiness Activities 20 
 3.1.3 Non-agricultural and Off-farm Activities 21 
 3.1.4 Post-farm Activities 23 
 3.1.5 Family Business Activities 23 
 3.1.6 Non-economic Purposes 24 
 3.2 Benefits of Education and Training to Farmers 24 
 3.3 Conclusions and Recommendations 26 
 
4 EDUCATION AND TRAINING SYSTEMS 
 4.1 Education and Training Institutions 28 
 4.1.1 Secondary School 28 
 4.1.2 Vocational Education and Training 29 
 4.1.3 Higher Education 29 
 4.1.4 Informal Education and Training 30 
 4.2 Student Numbers 31 
 4.3 Education and Training Outcomes 33 
 4.4 Beneficiaries of the Agricultural Education and Training System 37 
 4.5 Recent and Prospective Policy Developments 39 
 4.5.1 Higher Education 39 
 4.5.2 Vocational Education and Training 40 
 4.6 Discussion of Policy Directions 42 
 4.7 Policy and Advisory Institutions on Farmer Education and Training 45 
 4.8 Conclusions 46 
 
5 EDUCATION AND TRAINING ISSUES 
Education and Training 
 v
 5.1 Rural (Farm) Adjustment Scheme 48 
 5.2 Demand Issues 50 
 5.2.1 Factors Affecting Participation 50 
 5.2.2 Women 52 
 5.3 Delivery of Education and Training 53 
 5.3.1 Farmer Learning Processes 53 
 5.3.2 Curriculum Issues 55 
 5.3.3 Globalisation 56 
 5.3.4 Delivery Mechanisms and Technology 57 
 5.3.5 Integration of Education and Training Sectors 59 
 5.4 Conclusions and Recommendations 62 
 
6 RESEARCH ON FARMER EDUCATION AND TRAINING 
 6.1 Existing Arrangements 64 
 6.2 RIRDC’s Role in Farmer Education and Training Research 67 
 6.3 Conclusions and Recommendations 68 
 
APPENDIX A EDUCATION AND TRAINING DELIVERY AGENCIES 69 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 73 
 
 
Education and Training 
 vi
ABBREVIATIONS 
 
AARNet Australian Academic Research Network 
ABARE Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics 
ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics 
ACER Australian Council for Educational Research 
AETC Agricultural Education and Training Council 
AIAS Australian Institute of Agricultural Science 
AIEFC Australian International Education Foundation Council 
ANRAC ANTA National Research Advisory Council 
ANTA Australian National Training Authority 
AQF Australian Qualifications Framework 
ASCILITE Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education 
AVCC Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee 
CBT Competency Based Training 
CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation 
DEET Department of Employment, Education and Training 
DEETYA Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs 
DITAC Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce 
DPIE Department of Primary Industries and Energy 
DRDC Dairy Research and Development Corporation 
EVAO Estimated Value of Agricultural Output 
FarmBIS Farm Business Improvement Scheme 
GCC Graduate Careers Council 
GDP Gross Domestic Product 
HECS Higher Education Contribution Scheme 
ITAB Industry Training Advisory Board 
ITB Industry Training Board 
JCU James Cook University 
MCCC Ministerial Consultative Council on Curriculum 
MCEETYA Ministerial Council on Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs 
NBEET National Board of Employment, Education and Training 
NCODE National Council of Open and Distance Education 
NCVER National Centre for Vocational Educational Research 
NFF National Farmers’ Federation 
NFROT National Framework for the Recognition of Training 
OLA Open Learning Agency of Australia 
OTFE Office of Training and Further Education 
QDPI Queensland Department of Primary Industries 
RAS Rural Adjustment Scheme 
RIRDC Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation 
RPL Recognitionof Prior Learning 
RTCA Rural Training Council of Australia 
R&D Research and Development 
TAFE Technical and Further Education 
TE Tertiary Entrance 
UK United Kingdom 
UNS Unified National System 
USA United States of America 
VET Vocational Education and Training 
 
Education and Training 
 vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
 
Purpose of the Study 
 
This report was commissioned by the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) to identify 
issues for research and development related to farmer education and training. In undertaking the study we adopted the 
approach of identifying a limited number of key issues which reasonably could be progressed over a three year 
period. The review highlights the need for improved education and training and the vast quantity and high quality of 
available information leading to a judgement that, on balance, high priority should be directed towards developing 
and implementing strategies which utilise existing information. 
 
Focus of the Study 
 
The report encompasses the education and training needs of all persons employed in agriculture. However, the focus 
of the report is on the knowledge, skills and attributes required by farmers and prospective farmers. 
 
The report recognises the importance of informal education and training and its complementarity with formal 
education and training. Nevertheless the report intentionally focuses primarily on formal education and training issues 
in relation to agricultural and non-agricultural on-farm activities, off-farm activities, post-farm activities and broader 
social needs. 
 
Structure of the Report 
 
The report begins with an introductory chapter, followed by a discussion of some of the characteristics of farms and 
of farm persons. This is followed by a chapter on the purpose and scope of farmer education and training. Chapter 4 
examines education and training systems and is followed by a discussion of some of the policy issues relevant to the 
education and training sector. The report concludes with an examination of existing arrangements for research and 
development related to farmer education and training. 
 
Farms and People on Farms 
 
In aggregate terms the farm sector is characterised by poor economic outcomes with virtually no change since the 
early 1950s in the real gross value of production and a substantial decrease in the net value of production. The sector 
is, however, highly heterogeneous in relation to the size of each operation, farm productivity and profitability and the 
ratio of farm to off-farm income. Hence, the farm level response to changing circumstances varies considerably 
between farms and includes, for instance, further concentration of farm management and/or ownership, improved 
productivity of traditional enterprises, diversification and, most importantly, continuing increase in income from non-
agricultural on- and off-farm activities. 
 
The population of farm based persons is similarly heterogeneous and can be categorised, for instance, on criteria 
related to: 
 dynamic state: entering, or potentially entering, continuing and wholly or partially exiting farming; 
 age, gender, educational status and personal aspirations; 
 extent of, or potential for, on-farm income not related to agriculture and extent of off-farm income; 
 size and nature of the farm and the farm management team; and/or 
 extent of integration with local rural community. 
 
These factors, together with the small size and high dispersion of the population of farmers and farm managers 
relative to the total workforce, affect both the education and training requirements of persons employed in agriculture 
and the education and training delivery mechanisms best suited to servicing the farm (and rural) population. 
 
Farmer and Rural Education and Training 
 
Australia has one of the highest proportions of higher education graduates in its adult population in the world. 
However, Australian managers have relatively low levels of post-school qualifications and the tertiary education 
status of Australian farmers is lower than that of Australian managers generally. Although the proportion of persons 
working in agriculture having completed trade, technical and/or apprenticeship courses in 1995 was similar to that in 
the Australian workforce generally (19.4% and 23.2% respectively), there was a marked difference in the proportions 
holding associate diploma or higher qualifications (12.4% and 25.9% respectively). 
Education and Training 
 viii
 
Younger generations of farmers have higher levels of post-school qualification than do older farmers. However, the 
relatively low level of education and training of Australian farmers is not fully explained in generational terms and, 
importantly, participation rates of rural based people in tertiary education and training are substantially lower than the 
participation of their urban counterparts; and this differential is not decreasing. 
 
Synapse recommends as the highest priority that research be conducted to develop strategies to improve 
tertiary education and training participation rates of rural based persons, particularly those who are 
completing or have recently completed secondary school. 
 
Benefits of Farmer Education and Training 
 
There are both economic and social benefits of education and training and they are distributed between students, 
education and training providers, employers, the agribusiness sector and the broader society. The nature and 
distribution of these benefits are likely to mask relationships between particular education and training experiences 
and partial measures of their impacts. 
 
The education and training of farmers and potential farmers should encompass not only agriculturally related 
education and training requirements, but also those requirements related to pre- and post-farm occupations, on- and 
off-farm non-agricultural activities and non-economic purposes. These requirements are dynamic and include the 
knowledge, skills and attributes needed to facilitate timely and appropriate occupational choices. 
 
Agribusiness Sector 
 
Just as agriculture is interdependent with other agribusiness activities, so also are the education and training needs of 
farmers interdependent with those of other persons employed in agribusiness. Effective information flow and 
interdependent and complementary skills are as important to vertical, and horizontal, integration as are business 
structures and formal contractual arrangements. 
 
The purpose of this review is to identify the needs for research related to the education and training of farmers. 
However, these needs overlap and are inter-dependent with the education and training of persons employed more 
broadly in the agribusiness sector. 
 
Synapse recommends that the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation commissions a review 
of the needs for research into the education and training of the non-farm agribusiness sector. 
 
Education and Training Outcomes 
 
Several studies have examined the general pattern of knowledge, skills and attributes required by farmers. From those 
studies, it can be observed, unsurprisingly, that farmers need a balance of the knowledge, skills and attributes required 
for agricultural production and marketing and those required for management. Furthermore, it can be observed that, to 
some extent, the knowledge, skills and attributes overlap between these categories. 
 
Synapse concludes that further research to refine the general pattern of education and training needs of 
farmers is not warranted given the breadth, diversity and dynamic nature of those needs and the adequacy of 
published data. 
 
However, individual providers of education and training products need to understand the needs of their target markets 
and to ensure their education and training products meet those needs. 
 
Synapse recommends that, although generic research into farmer education and training is of low priority, 
educationand training providers, either individually or collaboratively, should undertake effective market 
research and audits of their performance. 
 
Farmer Education and Training Sectors 
 
The formal secondary, vocational and higher education sectors, as well as informal education and training, all bear 
upon the nature and extent of education and training provided to the farm sector with the key factor being the low 
participation rates of rural and remote persons in formal post-compulsory education and training relative to 
participation by urban based persons. 
Education and Training 
 ix
 
As measured by Tertiary Entrance scores, agriculture has a low level of student demand. This is believed to reflect the 
relatively poor image of agriculture, both economically and socially. However, student satisfaction with agricultural 
courses and the employment prospects of agricultural graduates are higher than that suggested by the low level of 
demand for agricultural courses. 
 
Only 20.2% of agriculture graduates are employed directly on graduation in the agriculture, fishing and forestry 
industries, with 8.2% being employed directly as farm managers. The majority of farmers with post-school 
qualifications have those qualifications in areas other than agriculture. Hence, the influence of the agricultural 
education system on farming outputs goes well beyond that exercised by farm managers and employees. Similarly, 
persons with non-agricultural qualifications affect farm outputs through their involvement in farm and off-farm 
activities. Hence, the common narrow identification of education and training for agriculture with agricultural courses 
may be misplaced. 
 
Education and Training Reforms 
 
The higher education system has undergone a period of transformation over the last decade. These reforms included 
the re-introduction of student fees; amalgamations of colleges of advanced education, and some agricultural colleges, 
with universities; and a move towards a mass system of education. 
 
Fees were re-introduced, initially at a flat rate, in the late 1980s through the Higher Education Contribution Scheme 
(HECS). In 1997, HECS charges were increased and set at a differential rate in an attempt to reflect supply and 
demand characteristics of courses. HECS charges for agriculture courses, for example, doubled. Nevertheless, there 
was actually an increase in 1997 enrolments, largely due to incentives to maintain enrolments given to education 
institutions by the Government. 
 
Restrictions on charging fees to overseas, undergraduate and post-graduate students have largely been abolished. 
However, given the low level of demand for agricultural courses, this is unlikely to have a major impact on farmer 
education and training. 
 
The vocational education and training system is currently undergoing reform, designed to make the system more 
responsive to ‘user’ needs. The reform involves the development of competency based training with recognition of 
prior learning, more flexible training packages and the expansion of vocational education and training into secondary 
schools. The rural sector has been supportive of, and active in, these reforms. The reforms have resulted in increased 
availability and uptake of agricultural training. 
 
The potential positive and negative, direct and indirect effects of pricing, competition and institutional policies on 
rural based students, including those who may enter the agricultural sector, should be examined in the context of the 
participation of rural students in secondary and tertiary education being low relative to participation by urban based 
students. 
 
Local, Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery 
 
A number of factors have led to the absence of a coherent framework for farmer education and training. Some of 
those factors are attitudinal, such as a strong focus on farmers’ needs for agricultural training as compared with 
training for off-farm, post-farm and non-economic purposes, or failure to see substantial overlaps between farmers’ 
education and training needs and those of others, such as other small business people. Other factors are institutional, 
such as the divisions between higher education, TAFE, private VET providers and providers of informal education 
and training experiences, such as extension officers and private consultants. 
 
While action has been taken on many of these broad framework issues in recent years, for example the recognition of 
prior learning and higher education/TAFE articulation, it is clear that more needs to be done. There is a strongly 
argued view that local community-based approaches are necessary to improve participation, delivery and outcomes in 
relation to farmer and rural education and training. 
 
Community-based programs should involve all stakeholders, such as education and training providers and farm and 
other business and community leaders, and should identify local needs and develop strategies to meet those needs. 
There is some of this flavour in the FarmBIS scheme, except that by the nature of the review leading to the scheme, 
there is a focus on farm business needs to the exclusion of other needs. 
 
Education and Training 
 x
Synapse recommends the following research program to support the development of an integrated local 
community approach to education and training: 
• Case studies of the application of community-based strategies with a view to developing a framework for 
‘best practice’ community initiatives. 
• Investigation of how advisory mechanisms and inter-institutional linkages can provide the required 
community and regional focus. 
• Investigation of the attitudes to education and training of local farm leaders, how these influence education 
and training decisions by farmers, and how local leadership can be harnessed to support improved 
education and training outcomes. 
 
Education and Training Policies 
 
A number of major policy initiatives are underway in respect of the formal education and training sector. Some of 
these, such as the National Training Framework, are likely to be of particular benefit to rural and regional Australia. 
The Rural Training Council of Australia has an ongoing role in pursuing the application of the positive aspects of 
these initiatives as well as their continued development. 
 
A number of other issues concerning the formal education and training sector, however, have been discussed in this 
report and are deserving of further research. 
 
Synapse recommends that research be conducted into: 
• The impact of institutional funding arrangements, including differential HECS and possible voucher 
schemes in higher education and fee arrangements applying to the vocational education and training 
sector, on demand for courses relevant to agriculture. 
• The potential for, and ways to stimulate appropriate use of, flexible and innovative delivery mechanisms to 
improve access to, and quality of, farmer education and training. 
• The role of the formal education and training sector in supporting the informal sector (eg, training 
extension officers and group leaders). 
• The appropriate emphasis within the proposed FarmBIS program on agriculturally related education and 
training relative to more generically oriented education and training and on ways to fully integrate 
FarmBIS into existing rural education and training policies and programs. 
 
Farmer Education and Training Research Arrangements 
 
Although the nature of the benefits of education and training are diverse and, hence, difficult to quantify, it is 
generally accepted that education and training play an important role in economic growth and community well-being. 
Furthermore, there are economies of association between education and training and R&D. 
 
Against, this background, and given RIRDC’s mission, it is legitimate and desirable for RIRDC to maintain a 
research program related to enhancing the education and training status of persons involved in the agribusinesssector 
broadly. Nevertheless, there are many other public and private sector organisations with responsibilities and 
capabilities related to agribusiness education and training. 
 
Synapse recommends that RIRDC establishes or participates in an effective consultation mechanism aimed at 
capturing synergies between itself and other national organisations involved in research and development 
related to agribusiness education and training. 
 
Education and Training 
 xi
LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS 
 
1. Synapse recommends as the highest priority that research be conducted to develop strategies to improve tertiary 
education and training participation rates of rural based persons, particularly those who are completing or have 
recently completed secondary school. 
2. Synapse recommends that the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation commissions a review of 
the needs for research into the education and training of the non-farm agribusiness sector. 
3. Synapse concludes that further research to refine the general pattern of education and training needs of farmers is 
not warranted given the breadth, diversity and dynamic nature of those needs and the adequacy of published data. 
4. Synapse recommends that, although generic research into farmer education and training is of low priority, 
education and training providers, either individually or collaboratively, should undertake effective market research 
and audits of their performance. 
5. Synapse recommends the following research program to support the development of an integrated local 
community approach to education and training: 
• Case studies of the application of community-based strategies with a view to developing a framework for 
‘best practice’ community initiatives. 
• Investigation of how advisory mechanisms and inter-institutional linkages can provide the required 
community and regional focus. 
• Investigation of the attitudes to education and training of local farm leaders, how these influence education 
and training decisions by farmers, and how local leadership can be harnessed to support improved education 
and training outcomes. 
6. Synapse recommends that research be conducted into: 
• The impact of institutional funding arrangements, including differential HECS and possible voucher schemes 
in higher education and fee arrangements applying to the vocational education and training sector, on 
demand for courses relevant to agriculture. 
• The potential for, and ways to stimulate appropriate use of, flexible and innovative delivery mechanisms to 
improve access to, and quality of, farmer education and training. 
• The role of the formal education and training sector in supporting the informal sector (eg, training extension 
officers and group leaders). 
• The appropriate emphasis within the proposed FarmBIS program on agriculturally related education and 
training relative to more generically oriented education and training and on ways to fully integrate FarmBIS 
into existing rural education and training policies and programs. 
7. Synapse recommends that RIRDC establishes or participates in an effective consultation mechanism aimed at 
capturing synergies between itself and other national organisations involved in research and development related 
to agribusiness education and training. 
 
 
1 INTRODUCTION 
 
1.1 Purpose 
 
This report presents an analysis of tertiary education and training issues as they relate to the knowledge, skills and 
attributes required by Australian farmers, with a view to identifying research and development (R&D) priorities for 
the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC). Although the report was commissioned by 
RIRDC, the views expressed in the report are those of Synapse Consulting. 
 
1.2 Focus 
 
The focus of the report is on farmers and prospective farmers and, to a lesser extent, on other people employed on 
farms. The emphasis is on the formal education and training system. However, the interface of this formal system 
with, and the importance of, informal learning activities are recognised. 
 
The tertiary education sector encompasses both higher education (for example, universities) and the vocational 
education and training sector (TAFE and other providers). However, virtually all tertiary education has both a 
vocational component, which is the imparting of knowledge, skills and attributes relevant to a particular career, and a 
general education component, which is the imparting of knowledge, skills and attributes of broader social relevance. 
 
The report recognises that individuals require a succession of education and training experiences, involving diverse 
combinations of higher, vocational and informal education and training at different times of life. In short, lifelong 
learning. This is particularly the case given the increasing probability of careers being comprised of a range of 
occupations, many of which may not be conceived when a person begins the transition from school to work. 
 
The knowledge, skills and attributes required by farmers and prospective farmers relate to both agricultural and non-
agricultural on-farm activities, off-farm activities, post-farm activities and broader social needs. 
 
1.3 Method 
 
The information in this report is based on an extensive literature search, combined with consultations with major 
stakeholders and researchers in the field, and the knowledge and experience of the consultants. 
 
1.4 The Report 
 
The report is organised as follows. Following this introductory chapter, Chapter 2 presents information on the 
characteristics of farms and of the farm population. Chapter 3 discusses the purpose and scope of farmer education 
and training leading to recommendations for research and development related to improving participation in and 
delivery of rural education and training programs. Chapter 4 presents information on current structures and trends in 
the education and training system. Chapter 5 discusses a number of issues of relevance to farmer education and 
training, including the role of education and training in adjustment processes, participation levels, and delivery and 
structural issues. It concludes with recommendations for research and development concerning education and training 
policies. Chapter 6 describes the existing arrangements for research and development on farmer education and 
training and proposes RIRDC adopt a collaborative approach to farmer education and training research. Appendix A 
provides information on public sector providers of agricultural education and training. 
 
1.5 Acknowledgments 
 
The project team comprised Tony Gleeson, Jim Groves and Kristel Whitaker. The draft report was widely circulated 
for comments and seminars were held in Canberra and at Gatton College, Lawes. We appreciate the assistance of 
Professor Snow Barlow and Associate Professor Tony Dunne and their colleagues in helping to organise these 
seminars and the inputs from all attendees. We especially acknowledge the discussions with and written comments 
from Don Blesing, Kay Bodman, Ron Cullen, John Drinan, Ray Hunt, Judy Huxley, Sue Kilpatrick, Kate Lawrence, 
Ian MacFarlane and Peter McInnes. 
Education and Training 
 2
 
 
2 PEOPLE ON FARMS 
 
This chapter examines aspects of farms and of people on farms so as to provide a context within which to consider 
research and development issues related to farmer education and training. 
 
2.1 Farm Characteristics 
 
2.1.1 Agricultural Outcome 
 
The aggregate long term outcome, in terms of value of production, of the agricultural sector is poor, as is illustrated in 
Figure 2.1. 
 
Figure 2.1 Agricultural Outcome, 1971-72 to 1994-951 
Net Value of 
Production
Gross 
Value of 
Production
 Volume of 
Production
World Trade Costs of 
Production
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Fa
ct
or
 C
ha
ng
e
 
1. 1994-95 Australian dollars. 
 
Source: Adapted from Synapse (1997) 
 
Since the early 1970s, there has been virtuallyno change in the real gross value of Australian agricultural output and 
a two-fold decrease in net value of production. There has nevertheless been a two-fold increase in the value of world 
trade in agriculturally based products and a one-and-a-half-fold increase in the volume of agricultural production. 
Costs have increased one-and-a-third-fold. 
 
The same general pattern, as that presented in Figure 2.1, has in fact been evident since the early 1950s. Clearly, in 
aggregate terms, agricultural outcomes have not been conducive to further investment and growth. Economic analyses 
invariably highlight the negative impact of adverse terms of trade; that is, declining ratios of prices to costs. This 
focus on the external causes of poor aggregate economic outcomes may have contributed to a slowness, generally, in 
the farm and off-farm sectors to adapt to sustained directions in international agricultural markets. 
 
There is, however, considerable variation in agricultural performance between farms. 
 
2.1.2 Farm Performance 
 
In an analysis of broadacre performance in the early 1990s (Synapse 1992), broadacre farms were grouped according 
to total cash receipts, with Group A being the largest 30% of farms in terms of cash receipts, Group B the next 35% 
and Group C the smallest 35% of farms in terms of total cash receipts. 
 
Education and Training 
 3
A selection of the results of this analysis are presented in Table 2.1. 
 
Table 2.1 Broadacre Farm Characteristics by Total Cash Receipts, 1990-91 
Characteristic (per farm) Group A Group B Group C 
Farm Cash Receipts ($000) 319 93 33 
Gross Cash Operating Surplus ($000) 92 21 4 
Interest Paid ($000) 30 11 10 
Farm Cash Operating Surplus ($000) 62 10 -6 
Receipts : Capital Ratio 0.18 0.11 0.06 
Average Total Off-farm Income ($000) 12 13 19 
Ratio of Off-farm Income to Total Income 0.16 0.56 1.46 
Age of Operator (years) 49 52 56 
Percent of Output Produced (%) 68 24 8 
Source: Synapse (1992) 
 
As shown in Table 2.1, there is considerable variation in productivity between the three groups of farms. On average, 
productivity was greater in Group A than in Group B and in Group B than in Group C. However, productivity varies 
greatly between farms producing similar levels of output. Within each farm category, the more economically 
productive properties produced almost four times the revenue per dollar invested than did less productive farms (see 
Table 2.2). 
 
Table 2.2 Percentile Bound Estimates for Selected Characteristics, 1990-91 
Characteristic Group A Group B Group C 
 12.5% 87.5% 12.5% 87.5% 12.5% 87.5% 
Total Cash Receipts 
 
($000) 165 473 61 132 14 49 
Farm Cash Income 
 
($000) -14 143 -22 44 -30 16 
Debt 
 
($000) 100 498 0 199 0 100 
Receipts : Capital Ratio 
 
 0.10 0.38 0.07 0.24 0.03 0.16 
Off-farm Income 
 
($000) 0.4 27 0 35 0.6 56 
Age 
 
(years) 35 64 36 70 37 73 
Source: Synapse (1992) 
 
In Group A, the middle 75% of producers, as bounded by the lower and upper 12.5% percentiles, had receipt : capital 
ratios ranging from 0.10 to 0.38. While the respective figures for Groups B and C were smaller, there was still 
considerable overlap between these groups and Group A and between Groups B and C. For example, farmers in the 
upper percentile for Group C had a higher receipt : capital ratio (0.16) than farmers in the lower percentiles of both 
Group A (0.10) and Group B (0.07). 
 
Whilst it is evident that productivity is greater on larger farms (Group A), increasing farm size per se is no panacea 
for improving farm productivity. Both large and small farms have a range of economic productivity. 
 
ABARE (1995) has also conducted an analysis of the broadacre farm sector in terms of farm cash receipts. Broadacre 
farms were ranked from smallest to largest in terms of the value of their cash receipts, and divided into three groups 
with equal farm numbers. The results of this analysis were similar to those obtained by Synapse, and indicated that 
the largest 30% of farms continue to account for more than two-thirds of broadacre production and all of the 
broadacre profits (ABARE 1995). 
 
These analyses support the widely held view that managerial performance, as reflected in economic statistics, varies 
considerably between farms. However, the aspirations of farm owners and managers also vary between farms and 
variations in economic productivity may not truly reflect managerial performance. Additionally, in most 
circumstances, land values are not determined only by agricultural productivity, and other factors, such as climate and 
proximity to recreational facilities and off-farm work, affect land values and hence apparent agricultural productivity. 
 
Education and Training 
 4
Additional to the variation in performance between farms of varying size, ranked according to cash receipts, there is 
also considerable variation in cash operating surplus between industries, as shown in Table 2.3. 
 
Table 2.3 Average Cash Operating Surplus by Industry, 1987-88 to 1992-93 
Industry 1987-88 1992-93 
 No of 
Farms 
Cash Operating 
Surplus 
No of 
Farms 
Cash Operating 
Surplus 
 (000s) ($000 per farm) (000s) ($000 per farm) 
Beef Cattle 16.4 31 20.8 21 
Grain - Sheep/Beef 24.9 57 18.6 39 
Sheep 19.2 53 16.5 11 
Dairy Cattle 16.3 32 13.6 55 
Cereal Grains 12.7 48 11.2 59 
Sheep - Beef 8.5 63 9.6 14 
Sugar Cane 5.5 41 4.9 28 
Pigs 2.0 31 1.5 31 
Poultry 1.5 80 1.2 63 
Average All Industries 128.7 44.7 120.6 34 
Source: ABS (1989;1995a) 
 
Furthermore, there is also variation between years. For example, average cash operating surplus for sheep properties 
was relatively high in 1987-88, but was poor, in relative terms, in 1992-93. The poultry industry, on the other hand, 
performed above the all industry average in each of 1987-88 and 1992-93. 
 
2.1.3 Composition of Farm Output 
 
The pattern of agricultural production has shown a long-term trend towards diversification, although the major 
commodities remain dominant. Between 1975-76 and 1995-96, for example, the proportion of the total gross value of 
agricultural production from the seven major commodities of wheat, sugar, meat, dairy, wool, pigs and poultry 
declined from 75.5% to 59% (ABARE 1996a). This translates into an annual rate of diversification of 0.8% in the 
twenty years to 1995-96. However, as observed by McInnes (pers. comm., January 1997), the average rate of 
diversification increased markedly to 1.6% per annum over the 5 years to 1995-96. 
 
2.1.4 Concentration of Production 
 
There are approximately 120,000 commercial1 farms and an estimated 30,000 hobby farms (Knopke, Furmage, 
Walters & Krieg 1995; ABARE 1996a). Over the ten years to 1994-95 the number of commercial farms declined by 
an average of approximately 1.3% per year (ABARE 1997b). 
 
There is a high degree of concentration in agricultural production, although this varies across commodities. Within 
the broadacre industries, 30% of farms produce approximately 70% of the gross value of broadacre production. 
Concentration is greatest in beef cattle, with 11% of beef farms producing about 50% of output from 85% of the beef 
lands. In industries where there is significant vertical integration, concentration of production is even greater. For 
instance, in the poultry industry, two companies supply approximately 75% of all day old broiler chickens and 
process approximately 70% of broiler chickens marketed in Australia (Douglas 1995). Within the pig industry, the 
top 2% of farms own 40% of the industry’s total sow population. 
 
2.1.5 Farm Ownership 
 
The overwhelming majority of farms are family-owned. Within the broadacre and dairy industries, 99.6% of 
establishments are family owned. Approximately 82% of these farms are family partnerships. The 0.4% of broadacre 
farms that are corporately owned tend to be larger, accounting for 6.5% of the gross value of production in 1994-95 
(Martin 1996). Within the Australian economy as a whole, family businesses accountedfor 83% of all businesses and 
employ about 50% of the private sector workforce (Romano, Smyrnios, Tanewski & Huang 1997). 
 
 
1 Commercial farms are defined to be those with an estimated value of agricultural operations (EVAO) of $22,500 or 
more (ABARE 1996b). 
Education and Training 
 5
2.2 Farmers and Farm Employment 
 
2.2.1 Farm Employment 
 
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (1997b) estimates there were 438,000 persons employed in agriculture, forestry, 
and fishing2 in February 1997. Of these, 89%, or 390,000 persons, were employed in agriculture, 5% in services to 
agriculture, and 3% in each of forestry and fishing. 
 
Persons are classified as being employed in agriculture, forestry and fishing if their principal job, in terms of hours 
worked, is in that industry category. Approximately 4% of the Australian workforce hold more than one job and, in 
1991, approximately 34,000 persons, or 10% of all Australian multiple jobholders, had a second job in agriculture. 
Approximately 35% of persons with a second job in agriculture also had their principal job in agriculture. This pattern 
is not dramatically different from that applying nationally for all industries (ABS 1992). 
 
Comparing farm numbers with farm employment implies that an ‘average’ commercial farm employs 3.2 people, 
comprised of 2.1 farm managers and 1.1 wage and salary earners (ABS 1997b). There is, however, considerable 
dispersion around this average. For example, 3% of farm enterprises employ 5 or more people (NBEET 1994). 
 
Table 2.4 presents selected information on the employment positions of persons employed in agriculture. 
 
Table 2.4 Employment Positions of Persons Employed in Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing, 1997 
Position Male Female Persons 
 (000s) % (000s) % (000s) % 
Farmers and Farm Managers 175 41 74 17 249 58 
Skilled Agricultural and 
Horticultural Labourers 
60 14 8 2 69 16 
Other 
 
69 15 52 11 121 26 
TOTAL 304 70 134 30 438 100 
 
Source: ABS (1997b) 
 
Closer disaggregation of farm wage and salary earners shows that, in 1992-93, there was nearly as many seasonal, 
casual and part-time employees (48%) as permanent full-time employees (52%). Moreover, this proportion of 
seasonal, casual and part-time employees had increased from 39% in 1986-87, suggesting a trend to casual 
employment. This has been identified as reflecting increasing mechanisation and improved farming practices allowing 
the owner-manager to undertake a higher proportion of routine work, with employees more likely to be required on a 
part-time basis or for peak periods, for example, for harvesting (RTCA 1995). As the Rural Training Council points 
out 
 
 ‘it follows that such persons will only remain available for industry employment if they can obtain a 
worthwhile living from a series of part-time jobs. This emphasises the need for multi-skilled training as a 
norm rather than an exception’ (RTCA 1995). 
 
2.2.2 Agribusiness Employment 
 
Woodford & Collins (1990) estimate that 16% of the national workforce is involved in the supply of inputs to, and 
processing and marketing the output of, the agricultural sector, up to the point of retail sale. Obviously, many people 
other than those categorised as being employed in agriculture directly or indirectly provide goods and services, 
including specialised technical and managerial inputs, into agricultural production and the composition of 
agribusiness activities is discussed in section 3.1.2 of this report. 
 
The education and training system for farmers is a subset of, and overlaps with, the education and training system for 
the agribusiness labour force defined more broadly. Moreover, the skills of many of these people, in particular 
extension officers and other farm advisers, are substitutes, in full or part, for the skills and knowledge of farmers 
themselves (Daniels & Chamala 1989). 
 
 
2 In what follows ‘agriculture’ is used to refer to the larger category of agriculture, forestry and fishing. 
Education and Training 
 6
Figure 2.2 illustrates the position of the agricultural workforce in relation to the agribusiness and Australian 
workforces. 
 
Figure 2.2 Agricultural Workforce (1997) 
 
 
 
Source: Woodford and Collins (1990); ABS 1997b 
 
2.2.3 Women in Agriculture 
The recorded proportion of women employed in agriculture has increased substantially in recent years. In February 
1997, 30% of persons employed in agriculture were female, up from 17% in 1972, with the corresponding figure for 
the whole workforce being 43% in 1997. In fact, over the 25-year period, male employment in agriculture declined by 
62,000, or 17%, while female employment rose by 57,800 or 76%. It is likely that the increased proportion of women 
recorded as working in agriculture reflects farm women respondents to labour force surveys increasingly, and 
accurately, defining themselves as part of the farm management team rather than outside the labour force. 
 
Nevertheless, statistics probably continue to understate the number of women involved in agriculture because of those 
who continue to define themselves as outside the labour force, and those whose primary employment is off-farm. A 
Department of Primary Industries and Energy (DPIE) study of eastern Australian rural producers found that over 80% 
of establishments had at least one female actively involved in the day-to-day operations of the farm (DPIE 1997). The 
implication of women not defining themselves in labour surveys and of those having a primary job elsewhere, while 
still being actively involved in farming, is that official estimates probably understate the size of the agricultural 
labour force and the role of women in agriculture. 
 
2.2.4 Farm Workforce Dynamics 
AUSTRALIAN 
WORKFORCE 
 
(8.3 million) 
 
Part-time 
Employees
20% 
Full-time 
Employees 
22% 
AGRICULTURAL 
WORKFORCE 
 
(438,000) 
AGRIBUSINESS 
WORKFORCE 
 
(1.7 million) 
Farm 
Managers 
58% 
Agriculture 
26% 
Agribusiness
Activities 
74% 
Agribusiness
16% 
Other 
84% 
Education and Training 
 7
The dynamics of the farm workforce are illustrated in figure 2.3. 
 
Figure 2.3 Farm Population Dynamics 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ABARE (1997b) estimates that about 8000 persons become farmers and farm managers each year. Given this entry 
rate, a 1.3% annual decrease in farm numbers and an average farmer/farm manager workforce of 2.1 persons per 
farm, Synapse estimates that, each year, approximately 11,270 persons cease to be primarily occupied as farmers or 
farm managers. Presumably some of these persons retain a second occupation in agriculture and, hence, do not totally 
exit the sector. Furthermore, the dramatic rise in off-farm income (see Section 3.1.3) indicates a rising number of 
persons partially entering or exiting agriculture. 
 
The average age of persons who have recently become farmers is 42 years (Garnaut & Lim-Applegate 1997) and the 
average age of farmers is 53 years (NBEET 1994). The average duration as a farmer appears to be around 25 years, 
which implies that, on average, persons retire from farmer status in their mid-60s.3 Long term forecasts suggest that 
the agricultural labour force is ageing, and that the entry of young persons into agriculture will be limited to the 
numbers of older persons leaving the industry (Cullen & Cullen 1994). 
 
New entrants to farming generally come from a farming background, having spent, on average, 70% of their lives on 
farms. A large proportion of these persons become farm operators of properties already owned by their families 
(Garnaut & Lim-Applegate 1997). Furthermore, new farmers tend to be younger and more educated than existing 
farm operators, and they have spent more time off-farm before becoming farm operators. Long term projections 
indicate that younger farmers will tend to have fewer higher education degrees,but more VET level qualifications 
(Cullen & Cullen 1994). A study by Stayner (1997b) found that new farmers who came from non-agricultural careers 
were more open to innovation and to seeking advice than farmers with a background only in farming. 
 
The education and training needs of new entrants to farming will differ from, and overlap with, the education and 
training needs of existing and wholly or partially exiting farmers. In the first instance, being more educated and open 
to innovation means that these new farmers are more likely to seek out education and training when they need to and 
to be aware of sources of information and where to find out more about farmer education and training. This has 
implications for the delivery of education and training services to these persons, as discussed in Section 5.3.4. 
 
It is possible that the rate of entry of persons to the sector could accelerate, which, against a continuing decline in the 
total number of farms, implies an acceleration in the rate of exit. This would reflect increased demands on farmers, 
such as for marketing and management skills, as has already occurred as a result of deregulation of commodity and 
financial markets. Whilst most such demands will be met by existing and future farmers obtaining more training in 
these areas, some could be met by a change in personnel. Ease of entry to and exit from farming could also be assisted 
by increasing opportunities for earning non-agricultural income from a farm residential base. Garnaut & Lim-
Applegate (1997) found that recent entrants to farming averaged 6 more hours per week in off-farm employment than 
existing farmers. 
 
3 These ages may be biased upwards to the extent that there is a distinction between owners and operators, with the 
age statistics referring to the former. 
Enter Workforce Transfer Within 
Workforce 
Potentially Employed in 
Agriculture 
Currently Employed 
in Agriculture 
Stay In 
Agriculture 
Enter Agriculture
Exit 
Agriculture 
As 
Primary Job 
As 
Secondary Job 
Not Enter Agriculture 
Education and Training 
 8
 
2.2.5 Rural Communities 
The need for community group involvement in the design and delivery of programs to rural communities and the 
importance of interaction in service delivery is highlighted by several sources (Synapse 1993; Kilpatrick 1996; 
Chapman 1997). In particular, it has been stated that programs for rural communities need to be delivered on a needs 
basis, where needs are determined by the local community, including farmers. Furthermore, it is believed that access 
to education and training services would be improved if they were delivered through existing community groups and 
structures. 
 
Institutional structures and cultures are likely to have a potent influence on farmer attitudes to education and training 
and on the delivery of education and training services. Given the history of Australian settlement and its economic 
development, it is unsurprising that there are very strong and influential institutions dedicated to servicing the 
political, economic and, to a lesser extent, social needs of farmers. This separatist approach to servicing the needs of 
farmers is reflected in a multiplicity of agricultural business support programs which are rarely integrated, in concept 
or delivery, with other programs directed at servicing rural communities more broadly. 
 
However, farmers are only a subset of the rural population and agriculture now accounts for less than a quarter of all 
rural employment, down from 48% in 1976 (ABS 1996a). Over the period from 1976 to 1991, the rural sector 
workforce actually grew by 50% (McColl, Donald & Shearer 1997). It is highly probable that slowly evolving 
institutional cultures and influences dedicated to farmers are inappropriate to the rapidly evolving needs of rural 
communities, including farmers. As noted by Lawrence (1997) ‘rural and remote “communities” are not just what’s 
left over after you take government and industry out of the equation, but rather they include all people, organisations, 
enterprises and institutions who belong to and have a commitment to a place and its people’. 
 
While there has been a net migration of persons out of remote rural and many inland towns, coastal areas and major 
regional centres have experienced population growths (McColl et al. 1997). The delivery of services to rural areas has 
moved with the migration trends and farm families may have been adversely affected due to the close interplay 
between rural communities and farming and the activities and well-being of farmers (Synapse 1997). This close 
interplay is reflected in an ABARE survey where farmers indicated that the viability of the local community was 
considered to be at least as important to farm families as the performance of the farm business itself (Gooday 1995). 
In this same survey, more than 25% of respondents considered educational facilities to be the major issue facing farm 
families. Rural employment was considered to be a major issue by 20% of respondents. 
 
The close interplay between farming and rural communities has implications for the delivery of education and 
training services to farmers. This is discussed in greater detail in Section 5.3.4. 
 
2.3 Farmers’ Education and Training Qualifications 
The present generations of Australian farmers have experienced relatively low participation rates in formal or 
structured education and training. 
 
In May 1995, approximately 32% of those employed in agriculture, forestry and fishing possessed post-school 
qualifications (ABS 1996c). This figure is relatively low compared with both overseas farmers and other Australians. 
In 1986, for example, when only 25% of Australian farmers had proceeded beyond Year 10 in secondary education, 
the comparable figures for Europe, the United States and New Zealand were 90%, 50% and 50%, respectively (Bell 
& Pandey 1987).4 In 1995, the proportion of the Australian labour force as a whole with post-school qualifications 
was 49% and 50% of managers and administrators held post-school qualifications. Retail trade (30%) was the only 
other industry sector with such a low level of post-school qualifications (ABS 1996c). 
 
The formal qualifications of persons employed in agriculture, as compared to the Australian labour force, is shown in 
Table 2.5. 
 
Table 2.5 Level of Qualifications, 1995 
Qualification Employed in 
Agriculture 
Australian 
Labour Force 
 (%) (%) 
 
4 By 1996, the Australian proportion had increased to 43%, but this is still behind the levels of their overseas 
counterparts a decade earlier. 
Education and Training 
 9
Completed (only) 4 Years or less of 
 Secondary School 
53.7 32.8 
Completed Secondary 
 School 
14.5 18.1 
Completed Trade, Technical 
 Course and/or Apprenticeship 
19.4 23.2 
 
Completed Associate Diploma or 
 above 
12.4 25.9 
 
With Post-School Qualifications 31.8 49.1 
Source: ABS (1996c) 
 
Approximately 32% of persons employed in agriculture in 1995 had post-secondary qualifications, up from 23% in 
1983. However, as shown in Figure 2.4, the proportions of both farmers and the workforce in general with post-
school qualifications have been rising at approximately the same rate, with little, if any, decline in the gap between 
the two. 
 
Given the predominance of entry into farming by persons with farming backgrounds, presumably this gap continues 
to reflect the relatively lower levels of participation of rural populations in education and training as compared with 
urban populations and the older age structure of farmers as compared with the Australian workforce generally. 
 
Rural and remote students have a lower level of participation in the later years of secondary school than do urban 
students. In 1994, estimated Year 12 completion rates were 71% for urban students, compared with64% for rural 
students and 58% for remote students (MCEETYA 1994). In 1991, the higher education participation rate among the 
urban population was over double that of the remote area population, and some 45% higher than that of the rural 
population. This gap is wider than at the secondary school level. Apparently there has been little improvement since 
that time (Illing 1997). Not surprisingly, students from rural and remote areas are more likely to study agriculture than 
those from urban areas: 4.2% of rural students and 5.9% of remote students in 1991, compared with only 1.1% of 
urban students, were studying agriculture (DEETYA 1992).5 
 
The 1991 NBEET report on a National Education and Training Strategy for Rural Australians identified young non-
metropolitan adults, particularly in the 15 to 29 age group, as the group most at risk of not participating in formal 
post-compulsory education and training. 
 
To the extent that these factors, and others, affect education and training profiles of farmers, the relatively low level 
of formal education and training qualifications of Australian farmers is not a unique characteristic of farmers but 
rather one which applies generally throughout rural communities. 
 
Figure 2.4 Post-school Qualifications 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
19
95
Year
Pe
rc
en
ta
ge
% persons employed
on agriculture etc
w ith post-school
qualif ication
% total w orkforce
w ith post-school
qualif ications
Gap
 
Source: ABS (1996c) 
 
5 Calculated on the basis of postcode of ‘home’ address. 
Education and Training 
 10
 
The diverse range of farm managers’ post-school qualifications is shown in Table 2.6. 
 
Table 2.6 Post-School Education Qualifications of Farm Managers, 1991 
Area of Qualification Males Female Persons 
 (%) (%) (%) 
Business, administration 0.3 0.8 0.5 
Sales, keyboarding, accounting 0.7 3.1 1.5 
Medicine, nursing 0.3 8.0 2.7 
Veterinary science 0.1 0.1 0.1 
Education 0.5 5.8 2.1 
Social sciences 0.8 1.9 1.1 
Natural sciences, engineering 1.3 0.8 1.2 
Trades 7.0 1.8 5.4 
Agricultural sciences 10.9 2.1 8.2 
Other/unstated 3.7 3.0 3.5 
SUB-TOTAL 25.5 27.6 26.2 
No Post-School Qualifications 74.5 72.4 73.8 
Source: ABS (1993a) 
 
This shows that only 8.2% of farm managers had formal qualifications, at either university or vocational level, in 
agricultural sciences. While this is the largest single category of qualifications, it represents less than one third of the 
qualifications held. Other qualifications are held across a wide variety of areas, particularly in the trades. 
 
Projections made by Cullen & Cullen (1994) suggest that, by the year 2001, 48% of the agricultural labour force aged 
between 16 and 64 years old will hold post-school qualifications. The corresponding projection for 24 to 34 year olds 
is considerably higher at 60%. Within this group, it is projected that the proportion with a degree level qualification 
will fall to 4.9% by 2001, down from 6.1% in 1993, while the proportion with VET qualifications is expected to 
increase to 55% by 2001 (from 37% in 1993). Similarly, projections for the agricultural labour force aged 16 to 64 
years old suggest that the proportion with degree qualifications will fall from 7.8% in 1993 to 6.8% by 2001, while 
the proportion with trade and certificate/diploma qualifications will rise. Projections suggest that a ‘certificate or 
diploma in science, computing or agriculture’ will account for 30% of all post-school qualifications held by the 
agricultural labour force in the year 2001. 
 
A higher proportion of female managers had post-school qualifications as compared to their male counterparts. This 
is the reverse of the pattern in the workforce as a whole, where males (53%) had a higher level of post-school 
qualifications than females (46%) (ABS 1996c). 
 
The differences in the types of educational qualifications held between male and female farm managers is a striking 
but unsurprising feature of Table 2.6. Male farm managers are more likely to hold agricultural qualifications (11% 
against 2%) and trade qualifications (7% against 2%).6 
 
The educational profiles of individuals do not necessarily relate closely to the educational profiles of the farm 
management as the ‘typical’ farm has more than one manager. If the concept of a management team is used, then a 
higher proportion of farms have post-school qualifications in the management team. Kilpatrick (1996) showed that in 
1993-94, 37% of farms included someone with post-school qualifications in their management team. Of these, 15% 
had agricultural qualifications. These are higher than the individual educational profile figures quoted above (31% 
and 8% respectively), but still indicate that only a minority of farm management teams contain people with formal 
post-school qualifications. 
 
These figures refer only to formal education qualifications. They give no indication about the extensive range of short 
training courses and informal education and training methods which are the traditional ways in which Australian 
farmers have received their education and training. 
 
Kilpatrick (1996) shows that 76% of farmers attended field days in 1993-94, 38% attended seminars and workshops, 
and 19% attended conferences and industry meetings. Only 20% attended no training. On the other hand, only 3% of 
Australian farm management teams include someone participating in formal award courses at universities, TAFE 
 
6 It should be noted that these figures exclude people whose primary employment is in other sectors, but who still 
contribute to farm management on a part-time basis. 
Education and Training 
 11
institutes and other accredited providers. This indicates that while only a minority of farmers are or have been 
involved in formal award training and education, a large majority do involve themselves in informal education and 
training. This is discussed further in Section 4.1.4. 
 
2.4 Conclusions 
The past and continuing poor economic outcomes of the agricultural sector point to a need for a ‘circuit breaker’ in 
the continuum of poor agricultural outcomes. However, the farm sector is heterogeneous in relation to the size of 
operation, farm productivity and profitability and the ratio of farm to off-farm income. Hence, the appropriate ‘circuit 
breaker’ will vary considerably between farms and will include, for instance, further concentration of farm 
management and/or ownership, improved productivity of traditional enterprises, diversification and, most 
importantly, continuing expansion of income from non-agricultural on- and off-farm activities. 
The population of farm based persons is similarly heterogeneous and can be categorised, for instance, on criteria 
related to: 
 dynamic state: entering, or potentially entering, continuing and wholly or partially exiting farming; 
 age, gender, educational status and personal aspirations; 
 extent of, or potential for, on-farm income not related to agriculture and extent of off-farm income; 
 size and nature of the farm and the farm management team; and/or 
 extent of integration with the local rural community. 
These factors, together with the small size and high dispersion of the population of farmers and farm managers 
relative to the total workforce, affect both the education and training requirements of persons employed in agriculture 
and the education and training delivery mechanisms best suited to servicing the farm (and rural) population. 
Australia has one of the highest proportions of higher education graduates in its adult population in the world. 
However, Australian managers have relatively low levels of post-school qualifications and the higher and tertiary 
education status of Australian farmers is lower than that of Australian managers generally. Although the proportion of 
personsworking in agriculture having completed trade, technical and/or apprenticeship courses is similar to that in 
the Australian workforce generally (19.4% and 23.2% respectively in 1995), there is a marked difference in the 
proportions holding associate diploma or higher qualifications (12.4% and 25.9% respectively). 
Although younger generations of farmers have higher levels of post-school qualifications than do older farmers, the 
relatively low levels of education and training of Australian farmers is not fully explained in generational terms and, 
importantly, participation rates of rural based people in tertiary education and training are substantially lower than the 
participation of their urban counterparts; and this differential is not decreasing. 
Synapse recommends as the highest priority that research be conducted to develop strategies to improve 
tertiary education and training participation rates of rural based persons, particularly those who are 
completing or have recently completed secondary school. 
Education and Training 
 12
3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF FARMER EDUCATION AND 
TRAINING 
 
In this chapter we discuss the purposes of farmer education and training, including assessments of the desired 
knowledge, skills and attributes to be imparted by the education and training system, and the benficiaries of the 
farmer education and training system. 
 
3.1 Purpose of Farmer Education and Training 
 
The purpose of farmer education and training is to equip farmers with the knowledge, skills and attributes they 
require. 
 
3.1.1 Agricultural Activities 
 
The primary education and training requirement of farmers is the knowledge, skills and attributes required to operate 
and manage their farms and to produce and market their commodities in a profitable and ecologically sustainable 
manner. This is the focus of most studies of farmer education and training, with non-agricultural and non-economic 
requirements generally being overlooked. 
 
Even within this confined framework, however, there is a divergence in opinion on the knowledge, skills and 
attributes that should be imparted by the education and training system. In particular, while all stakeholders would 
agree that there is a need for an appropriate balance between production, finance and people and resource 
management skills, there are substantial divergences between stakeholders as to where this balance lies. 
 
Farmers tend to focus on production-oriented skills. As reported by Kilpatrick (1996), data from the 1993-94 national 
Agricultural Financial Survey suggest that approximately 70% of farmers consider they need training in agricultural 
practices, 39% in business and/or financial management, and 29% in land management.7 A survey of Eyre Peninsula 
farmers showed broadly similar results, although with somewhat less interest in business management skills and 
somewhat more interest in land management skills (O’Brien 1991). This is likely to reflect the particular 
circumstances of the Eyre Peninsula. 
 
Kilpatrick (1996) notes the ‘discrepancy’ between this pattern of training intention and needs identified by ‘key 
stakeholders’, such as education and training providers and industry training councils, with the latter suggesting that 
training is especially required in the areas of financial and risk management, marketing and communication skills. A 
number of other sources confirm the view that farmers’ perceptions of their needs are different to what others believe 
their needs to be. 
 
However, the divergence between the views of farmers and other stakeholders should not be over-stated. As 
Kilpatrick (1996) points out, the 50% of farmers surveyed in a supplementary survey of Tasmanian farmers who 
believe they need training in business and/or financial management compares with only 20% who had actually 
undertaken such courses in the past three years. This suggests that farmers’ intentions are to increase the amount of 
business training they undertake. 
 
The relative emphasis placed on attaining appropriate knowledge, skills and attributes may be equally as important as 
the type of skills imparted through education and training. For example, when farmers were asked to nominate the 
key attributes they required in employees, as part of a review of agricultural college courses, they invariably placed 
personal attitudes as the most important set, followed by skills and then knowledge (Drinan, pers. comm., August 
1997). Teaching staff, on the other hand, ranked these in the reverse order and students tended to place skills first, 
followed by knowledge. 
 
Drinan’s observations are supported by Schroder’s (1991) analysis of the education and training priorities of 
agribusiness employers, which were stated to include, in descending order of importance, interpersonal skills 
(motivation, etc), communication skills, business and economic skills, computer, quantitative and information 
management skills. While agribusiness employees are a different set of people with a different set of needs to farmers, 
they and their employers have a substantial interest in, and hence potential influence on, the direction of agricultural 
education and training. 
 
7 17% believe they require no training at all. Figures add to more than 100% because respondents could nominate 
more than one area. 
Education and Training 
 13
 
A Queensland Ministerial Consultative Council on Curriculum expressed the view that the desired characteristics and 
skills to be imparted by agricultural education and training are, in priority order, communication, literacy/numeracy, 
knowledge of methods of producing the primary product, management and planning, self-motivation/initiative, 
financial knowledge, ethos of support from community and government, critical thinking, teamwork, and continued 
adoption of technology and responsiveness to markets (MCCC 1992). 
 
A workshop conducted by Cullen & Cullen (1994) of representatives from industry training councils and relevant 
government agencies found that new skills in marketing, management and technology skills were required to respond 
to the more deregulated and uncertain environment in which farmers operate. In particular, three core skill gaps were 
identified: those required to implement new approaches, to accelerate technology transfer and to manage production 
more effectively in a rapidly changing environment. 
 
Pearson & Ison (1992) supplied a view from education providers. They stated that the qualities that educators should 
assist agronomy graduates to develop were empathy with the industry, interdependence and independence with and 
from others, a problem-solving approach, a rigorous knowledge base, humility (that is, appreciation of what they 
don’t know) and communication skills. 
 
A number of people (Pearson & Ison 1992; Bawden 1992; Gleeson, Duncan & Finlayson 1995; Falvey 1997) suggest 
there is an increasing need to orient agricultural education and training towards natural resource management issues. 
This proposition could have been included among non-economic purposes of education and training (see Section 
3.1.6), but there is increasing recognition of the long-term dependence of profitability on ecological sustainability. 
The Rural Training Council, for example, describes this as ‘the key economic issue … within the next 20 years’ 
(RTCA 1995). 
 
Gleeson et al. (1995) conducted a study of stakeholders views for the then Queensland University Faculty of Land 
and Food Systems. A survey was conducted of 180 persons associated with Land and Food Systems, including 
individuals involved in natural resource management, primary production, land and food systems generally, in both 
public and private sectors, and past, present and prospective students. 
 
The survey respondents were asked to nominate, and indicate the relative importance of, the knowledge, skills and 
attributes required by students graduating nowand for students graduating in 10 - 20 years. A preliminary list of the 
knowledge, skills and attributes was identified through a workshop, pilot testing of the survey, from the literature and 
from consideration of the framework within which the Faculty of Land and Food Systems (now the Faculty of Natural 
Resources, Agriculture and Veterinary Science) will operate. The main results of this survey are presented in Table 
3.1. 
 
Table 3.1 Knowledge, Skills and Attributes Relevant to Land and Food Systems 
KNOWLEDGE SKILLS ATTRIBUTES 
Science 
Technology 
Environment* 
Communications* 
Markets 
Management* 
Economics 
Commerce* 
Politics 
Demography* 
Sociology/Psychology* 
Science 
Analysis/Problem Solving 
Accessing Information 
Using Computers 
Decision Making 
Being Organised 
Personal Communication* 
Management* 
Team Work* 
Ongoing Learning* 
Leadership 
Willingness to be Challenged* 
Life Skills* 
Marketing/Sales* 
Linguistics* 
Persevering 
Inquisitive 
Adaptable* 
Flexible* 
Creative* 
Tolerant 
Personable 
Visionary* 
 * indicates increasing importance 
 
Source: Gleeson et al. (1995) 
 
Education and Training 
 14
The respondents to the survey indicated that scientific and technical knowledge was considered to be of declining, but 
still strong, importance, while management, communications and environmental knowledge was considered to be of 
growing importance. Similar results were produced in respect of skills and attributes. 
 
In summary, farmers require a range of knowledge, skills and attributes to operate and manage a farm in a profitable 
and ecologically sustainable manner. However, opinions differ over the relative importance of knowledge, skills and 
attributes and of the component elements in each category. Employers tend to emphasise attributes more than do 
students and education and training providers. Farmers tend to focus on production skills whereas other stakeholders 
tend to focus on interpersonal, communication, marketing and management skills. Clearly there is no one simple 
answer and the benefits of diverse approaches and responsiveness to emerging requirements should be recognised. In 
brief, education and training systems need to impart a balance between the knowledge, skills and attributes required 
for agricultural production and those required for management, and these categories overlap considerably. 
 
3.1.2 Agribusiness Activities 
 
The business of farming does not begin and end at the farm gate. As defined by the National Farmers’ Federation 
(NFF) (1996), agricultural business systems are 
 
 ‘the interlinked sectors of the economy that an agricultural product passes through from production to 
consumption, encompassing commodity production, processing, transport and marketing’. 
 
Similarly, in a review of agricultural and related education and training, McColl et al. (1991) defined agriculture and 
related activities to include economic activities (production, processing and marketing) based on land utilisation 
(agriculture, horticulture, and forestry but excluding mining) and soil, water and forest conservation and management. 
 
These definitions reflect that adopted by Davis & Goldberg (1957) for agribusiness, agribusiness being farm 
production, the manufacture and distribution of farm supplies and the processing and distribution of agricultural 
products. 
 
Agribusiness contributes an estimated 25% to Australia’s GDP, compared with 6% from agriculture itself. It 
transverses the primary, manufacturing and service sectors and there is a high interdependency between the various 
marketing, processing, handling and production activities along the product chain. 
 
The relative contribution of the service sector is often under-rated. For instance, when direct and indirect inputs are 
accounted for, service sector inputs represent over one third of agricultural output value (DITAC 1993). More 
broadly, the relative contribution each sector makes to the total composition of Australian exports is very different 
when direct and indirect inputs are taken into account than that implied by the commonly-used sectoral output share 
measures. In particular, the contribution of the service sector to exports, which is under 10% directly, rises to over 
40% when all indirect contributions are taken into account (Gleeson et al. 1995). This is illustrated in Figure 3.1. 
 
 
Education and Training 
 15
Figure 3.1 Sectoral Contributions to Exports, 1986-87 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Agriculture M ining M anufacture Serv ices
Per cent
Proportion of these
products exported
(by value)
Proportion of value
contributed by th is
sector to exports
from a ll sectors
 
 
Source: DITAC (1993) 
 
The extent of contributions made by other sectors raises the question of the extent to which farmers ‘need to know’ 
about the broader business systems of which they are a part. On one hand, it could be argued that farmers need to 
know very little about some aspects of the broader system since there are, for example, marketing or stock agents who 
could market a farmer’s produce with very limited input from the farmer. 
 
On the other hand, with globalisation and product market deregulation, farmers’ requirements for certain skills, such 
as marketing, may increase in importance.8 Such skills and knowledge cannot be adequately developed without 
placing them in the broader context of the overall agricultural business system and, indeed, the domestic and 
international economic system as a whole. 
 
As illustrated by the reviews of O’Keeffe (1994) and Heilbron & Roberts (1995), competitive individual firms at each 
stage of the value chain require effective inter-firm linkages leading to benefits, such as improved market signals, 
increased responsiveness to market forces and reduced risks. Furthermore, farmers generally have access to a wide 
range of specialised informational, technical and financial inputs related to both on- and off-farm agricultural 
activities. Hence it may be more relevant for farmers to develop knowledge, skills and attributes related to activity 
and people management and to access, analyse and utilise these services more effectively, than to further develop 
capabilities in relation to particular technical aspects of farming (Cullen & Cullen 1994). 
 
3.1.3 Non-agricultural and Off-farm Activities 
 
Without wishing to diminish the obvious importance of education and training for agricultural purposes, it is likely 
that, for the majority of farmers, profitability will become less dependent on agricultural activities and the importance 
of non-agricultural farm and off-farm activities will increase. Instead of being defined purely in terms of agricultural 
production, it will become increasingly appropriate to consider farming as the conduct of all those economic and 
other activities which occur solely or principally on or from the farm. In other words, farm will become a descriptor 
of place rather than of activity. 
 
Off-farm income has become an increasingly important source of income to farm families. Average nominal off-farm 
income on broadacre farms increased from $7,144 in 1983-84 to $19,121 in 1995-96 (ABARE 1996b; Garnaut & 
Lewis 1997). Approximately 42% of this off-farm income was from wages and salaries and 6% from welfare 
payments, the remainder coming from off-farm businesses and investments (Peterson & Moon 1994; Synapse 1994) 
 
In 1995-96, approximately 42% of broadacre households received Commonwealth social security payments, 39% 
received income from wages and salary, and 75% of broadacre households received income from off-farm businesses 
and investments (Garnaut & Lewis 1997). 
 
Off-farm income varies with a number of factors, including: 
 
8 For example, additional marketing options for growers was an explicit objective of the deregulation of the domestic 
wheat market introduced in 1989. 
Education and Training 
 16
 age - Garnaut and