Reasons for the use, or otherwise, of soil and petiole nutrient testing by Australian wine grape growers

Ext ension Farm ing Syst em s Journal volum e 8 num ber 1 – Research Forum © Copyright AFBMNet work Re a sons for t he u se , or ot he r w ise , of soil a nd pe t iole nut r ie nt t e st ing by Aust r a lia n w ine gr a pe gr ow e r s M Hill, B Rowbot t om and G Kaine Depart m ent of Pr im ary I ndustries, 255 Ferguson Road ( Pr ivat e Bag 1) , Tat ura, Vict oria 3616 Em ail: m egan.hill@dpi.vic.gov.au Abst r a ct Current wine industry best pract ice is for wine grape growers t o base t heir fer tiliser and nut rit ion m anagem ent decisions on soil and pet iole t est result s. Yet indust ry surveys have found t hat only a sm all proport ion of growers regularly use t hese t est s. I n t his qualit at ive st udy 45 wine grape growers from cool, warm and hot clim at e wine grape producing regions in sout heast Aust ralia were int erviewed on t heir use of soil and pet iole t est ing, in order t o explain why, and when t hese growers used, or did not use, soil or pet iole t est s. We found t hat som e growers only used soil or pet iole t est ing once, seeking t he benefit of accurat e inform at ion t o enable t hem t o det erm ine what nut rit ion input s t o incorporat e int o t he soil when est ablishing a vineyard, or to enable t hem t o diagnose a vineyard problem . Ot her growers used t est ing for one t o four years ( short - t erm use) “ t o get a handle” on a new vineyard or t o evaluat e changes in vineyard condit ions or m anagem ent . A few growers t est ed regularly on a cont inuing basis ( long- t erm use) to m onit or a problem , guide t heir fert iliser input s or t o ensure t here were no nut r it ion problem s arising ( risk m anagem ent ) . Som e growers did not perceive t hat t hey needed t he inform at ion provided by soil and pet iole t est s. These growers had ext ensive experience in growing vines, or had inherit ed est ablished vineyards. They st at ed t hat t hey used t he sam e nut rit ion program each year, were sat isfied wit h t he perform ance of t heir vines, and did not have any nut rit ion relat ed problem s. Ke yw or ds: adopt ion, soil t est ing, pet iole t est ing, nut rit ion, wine grapes, vit icult ure, Aust ralia, m arket segm ent s. I nt r oduct ion Grape vines m ust have access t o adequat e nut rit ion in order t o grow a m arket able wine grape crop ( Robinson 1992; Singh 2006) . Nut rient deficiency can lead t o st unt ed vine growt h and subsequent loss of yield ( Robinson 1992; Whit e 1997) . Too m uch nut rit ion m ay cause excessive vine vigour and t he appearance of t oxicit y sym pt om s, as well as unnecessary expense and t he leaching of nut rient s int o t he environm ent ( Robinson 1992; Whit e 1997; Singh 2006) . The m ost com m on way t o det erm ine t he nut rient levels of vines or soils in vineyards is t o conduct pet iole ( vine leaf st em ) t est s or soil t est s, or bot h. Typically, pet iole and soil sam ples are collect ed in vineyards by grape growers and subm it t ed t o a laborat ory for analysis. Soil sam ples are analysed t o det erm ine m icro- nut rient , m acro- nut rient , pH and salt levels. Som et im es, depending on t he service provider and service purchased, ot her charact erist ics such as organic m at t er cont ent are also t est ed. Vine pet ioles are analysed t o det erm ine t he m icronut rient and m acro- nut rient s levels in t he vine ( Robinson 1992; Cooperat ive Research Cent re for Vit icult ure 2006) . The result s of t he t est s are t hen com pared wit h indust ry st andards for grapevines ( Swinburn and Saris 2005) . The Cooperat ive Research Cent re for Vit icult ure and t he Depart m ent of Prim ary I ndust ries Vict oria recom m end as best pract ice t hat wine grape growers base t heir nut rit ion m anagem ent decisions on t he result s of annual soil and pet iole t est s ( Robinson 1992; McConnell et al. 2003; Cooperat ive Research Cent re for Vit icult ure 2005) . I n a previous paper ( Hill et al. 2009) , we found t hat grape growers adopt ed nut rit ion- relat ed product s, prim arily fert ilisers and m ulches, for t wo key reasons. The first was t o opt im ise t he est ablishm ent and growt h of young grape vines. The second was t o m anage est ablished vines t o m eet t heir vineyard product ion obj ect ives. Overall, growers considered t he nut rit ion- relat ed product s and pract ices t hat were available t o be sat isfact ory for opt im ising t he growt h and est ablishm ent of young vines. Consequent ly, we concluded t here was lit t le need for research int o new product s in t his area. Growers report ed t hat t hey experienced a num ber of nut rit ion- relat ed problem s in regard t o t heir est ablished vineyards. These problem s concerned nut rient availabilit y, soil healt h and m odifying wine grape qualit y. However, despit e t hese problem s and in disregard of best pract ice recom m endat ions, indust ry sur veys have found t hat only a relat ively sm all proport ion of grape growers regularly used t est ing, even t hough bet ween 50 and 75 per cent of grape growers have had soil and pet iole t est s carried out at som e st age ( Hood et al. 2003; Swinburn and Saris 2005) . Our purpose in t his paper is t o explain why and when wine grape growers used soil and pet iole t est ing. ht t p: / / www.csu.edu.au/ facult y/ science/ saws/ afbm / archive/ efs- j our nal 1 Ext ension Farm ing Syst em s Journal volum e 8 num ber 1 – Research Forum © Copyright AFBMNet work Ba ck gr ou nd Growers t est soil and leaf pet ioles because t he result ing inform at ion offers som e kind of benefit in t heir m anagem ent of vines and vineyards. Presum ably, differences in growers’ use of soil and pet iole t est ing result from differences in t heir percept ions of t he m anagem ent benefit s from t est ing. Consequent ly, explaining differences in adopt ion of soil and pet iole t est ing depends on ident ifying t he benefit s growers seek from t he t est s, and ident ifying t he aspect s of t he farm cont ext t hat influence t he m agnit ude of t hese benefit s. A search of t he lit erat ure did not reveal any published papers on t he adopt ion of soil and pet iole t est ing in vit icult ure. However, t he adopt ion of soil t est ing has been st udied in ot her agricult ural indust ries ( King and Rollins 1995; Cont ant and Korsching 1997; King 1999; Srivast ava and Pandey 1999; Bewsell and Kaine 2001; Krem er et al. 2001; Napier and Tucker 2001; Yadav et al. 2006; Walt on et al. 2008; and Fe` li et al. 2010) . Generally speaking, t hese st udies have found t he adopt ion of soil t est ing was influenced by a variet y of fact ors including: knowledge of soil sam pling principles ( Fe` li et al. 2010) ; t im eliness and reliabilit y of t est s ( Yadav et al. 2006) ; age, educat ion level, size of farm and econom ic sit uat ion of t he farm er ( Cont ant and Korsching 1997; Krem er et al. 2001; Walt on et al. 2008; Fe` li et al. 2010) ; and t he t ype of com m unicat ion used by, and at t it udes of, ext ension agent s ( King and Rollins 1995; King 1999) Wit h t he except ion of farm size and t he t im eliness and reliabilit y of t est s t hese fact ors, by and large, are likely t o influence t he rat e of adopt ion of soil t est ing rat her t han influencing t he benefit s or relat ive advant age soil t est ing m ight provide. Bewsell and Kaine ( 2001) invest igat ed t he use of soil t est ing by Vict orian veget able growers. They report ed t hat t he specific m anagem ent benefit s t hese veget able growers sought from soil t est ing were t o t ailor crop fert iliser program s, t o m onit or nut rit ion problem s, t o ident ify and det ect t he em ergence of new problem s, and t o m anage product qualit y. M e t hod Many m odels of adopt ion have been proposed ( Aj zen 1971; Rogers and Shoem aker 1971; Fishbein and Aj zen 1975; Bandura 1977; Cham ala 1987; Davis 1989; Bagozzi 1992; Rogers 1995; Abadi Ghadim and Pannell 1999) . These m odels vary in t heir com plexit y; t he st ages in t he adopt ion process t hey dist inguish, t he sophist icat ion wit h which t hey describe t he processes at work in part icular st ages, and t heir generalit y. All of t hese m odels propose t hat t he adopt ion of an innovat ion is a funct ion of t he producer’s percept ion of t he degree t o which t he innovat ion offers a relat ive advant age, t hat is, cont ribut es t o t he achievem ent of t heir goals ( Lindner 1987; Pannell 1999) . However, all t hese adopt ion m odels are const ruct ed on t he assum pt ion t hat t he elem ent s in t he producer’s cont ext t hat influence t he ext ent t o which an innovat ion prom ises a relat ive advant age can be ident ified using a process of discovery t hat is ext ernal t o t hem . While som e of t hese m odels offer ext ensive suggest ions as t o t he various elem ent s in t he cont ext t hat m ay influence decisions, t hey do not cont ain m echanism s for ident ifying precisely which elem ent s are influent ial for a part icular innovat ion. Consequent ly, t hese m odels of adopt ion cannot be used in isolat ion t o ident ify t he populat ion of pot ent ial adopt ers of an innovat ion. Kaine ( 2008) described a m et hod, underpinned by concept s from consum er behaviour t heory and farm syst em s t heory, for analyt ically ident ifying t he fact ors in a producer’s cont ext t hat influence t he relat ive advant age offered by an agricult ural t echnology or pract ice. The m et hod has been applied t o a variet y of agricult ural t echnologies and pract ices in a num ber of indust ries. I n short , t he adopt ion of soil or pet iole t est ing by grape growers will depend on t he ext ent t o which growers believe t hese t est s offer t hem a relat ive advant age. To ident ify t he fact ors t hat influence grower’s percept ion of t he ext ent t o which soil and pet iole t est s would offer a relat ive advant age we followed t he m et hod described in det ail by Kaine ( 2008) . The m et hod uses laddering ( Grunert and Gruner t 1995) and convergent int erviewing, a dialect ical process ( Dick 1998) t o sim ilarit ies and differences in t he reasoning underlying t he decisions and act ions of producers. Laddering is used in personal int erviews wit h a producer t o elicit t he reasoning underpinning t heir decision t o use, or not , t he t echnology or pract ice of int erest . Sim ilarit ies in t he reasoning of producers should result in sim ilar decisions. Differences in decision- m aking by producers should be t he logical product of differences in t heir reasoning. Producers are int erviewed unt il t he point is reached where t he sim ilarit ies and differences in t he decisions of producers are reconciled wit h sim ilarit ies and differences in t heir reasoning. This is t he point of convergence ( Kaine 2008) . The m et hod described by Kaine ( 2008) can be applied, in principle, by int erviewing a random sam ple of producers unt il convergence is reached. I n pract ice, convergence can be achieved 2 ht t p: / / www.csu.edu.au/ facult y/ science/ saws/ afbm / archive/ efs- j our nal Ext ension Farm ing Syst em s Journal volum e 8 num ber 1 – Research Forum © Copyright AFBMNet work m ore efficient ly by int erviewing a random sam ple of producers st rat ified on use or not of t he t echnology or pract ice of int erest , and fact ors t hat m ight reasonably be expect ed t o influence t he relat ive advant age of t he t echnology or pract ice of int erest such as ent erprise locat ion and size. We conduct ed int erviews wit h 45 grape growers from cool ( Coonawarra, McLaren Vale, Padt haway, Yarra Valley and Wrat t onbully) , warm ( Barossa Valley, Bendigo, Goulburn Valley, Heat hcot e and St rat hbogie Ranges) and hot ( Sunraysia) wine grape producing regions. Growers were select ed t o represent large, m edium , sm all, fam ily and corporat e businesses, and a cross sect ion of wine qualit y grades and price point s. This num ber of int erviews was sufficient t o achieve convergence. 1 The int erview dat a were t ranscribed m anually wit h t wo int erviewers part icipat ing in each int erview. Following a dialect ical process, t he responses of int erviewees were analysed and sum m arised using case and cross- case analysis as each int erview ( case) was com plet ed ( Pat t on 1990) . Growers were classified int o benefit segm ent s for soil and pet iole based on t heir reasoning for using t est ing, or not , as described next . Re sult s a nd discu ssion The growers t hat used soil t est s and pet iole t est s did so seeking a range of benefit s. These benefit s varied depending on a num ber of cont ext ual fact ors, such as t he age of t he vineyard, and if t he grower was seeking t o evaluat e m anagem ent changes or t o diagnose a problem , and provide t he basis for classifying t hem int o benefit segm ent s ( see Figure 1) . The benefit s sought influenced if t he growers would use t he t est s only once, for a lim it ed t im e, or as a long- t erm decision support t ool. I nt erest ingly, reducing t he risk of nut rient losses t o t he environm ent did not em erge as a crit ical reason for regular use of soil and pet iole t est ing. This suggest s t hat effort s t o prom ot e regular soil and pet iole t est ing on t he grounds of environm ent al best pract ice are unlikely t o m eet wit h success. I t was possible for individual growers t o be in t wo or m ore segm ent s sim ult aneously depending on t he nat ure of t heir vineyard. For exam ple, a grower could be a m em ber of segm ent 1 ( soil t est pre- plant ing) if t hey were est ablishing a new block in t heir vineyard, and at t he sam e t im e, be a m em ber of segm ent 6 ( pet iole t est annually t o m onit or nut rit ion) for est ablished blocks in t heir vineyard. Figur e 1 . M a r k e t se gm e nt s ba se d on t he be ne fit s sough t by gr ow e r s by soil a nd/ or pe t iole t e st ing 1 The data for this paper was collected during the interviews in which we collected the data analysed in Hill et al. (2009). ht t p: / / www.csu.edu.au/ facult y/ science/ saws/ afbm / archive/ efs- j our nal 3 Ext ension Farm ing Syst em s Journal volum e 8 num ber 1 – Research Forum © Copyright AFBMNet work D e scr ipt ion of be ne fit se gm e nt s 2 Segm ent 1: Soil t est pre- plant ing Alm ost all of t he growers int erviewed t est ed t heir soils prior t o plant ing new vines. The benefit of t his was t o det erm ine accurat ely t he t ype and am ount of input s such as fert iliser, gypsum and lim e t hey should incorporat e, oft en by deep ripping, int o t he soil prior t o plant ing. I ncorporat ing t he correct nut rit ional input s was seen as im port ant by t hese growers in order t o opt im ise vine est ablishm ent and survival, and t o m inim ise fut ure nut rit ion relat ed problem s. Som e growers who conduct ed pre- plant ing soil t est ing did not ret est t he soil again lat er. Laura, a grower from t he St rat hbogie Ranges said: “ I had t he whole vineyard sit e soil t est ed before I plant ed. I want ed t o m ake sure t hat I got t he right am ount s of lim e, gypsum and superphosphat e down t he rip lines t o give t he vines a st rong st art . I f you m iss t hat chance you will run int o problem s lat er, and will always be t rying t o fix som et hing up t hat you should have t aken care of before” . Most of t he growers int erviewed said t hat t hey were sat isfied t hat t he soil t est s provided t hem wit h t he inform at ion t hey needed in t his regard. A few growers report ed t hat t hey believed t hey had received incorrect recom m endat ions, possibly because t he t est result s had been m isint erpret ed. Segm ent 2: Underst anding a new vineyard Som e growers used soil and pet iole t est ing in t he short - t erm t o “ get a handle on t hings” , t hat is, t o obt ain inform at ion about a vineyard t hat was new or unfam iliar t o t hem . The growers in t his segm ent t ended t o use soil and pet iole t est s for one t o four years, aft er which t hey said t hey underst ood t he nut rit ional requirem ent s of t heir vineyard and how t heir soil and vines responded t o t he fert ilisers and product s t hey were using. Test ing over t his period gave t he growers t he confidence t hat t heir nut rit ion program was working and t hey were not going t o run int o serious nut rit ion problem s in t he fut ure. Michael, a Bendigo grower, used pet iole t est ing while he was new t o t he vineyard: “ I ’ve done pet iole analysis in t he past . I t definit ely helped us set our fert iliser program . We have got a handle on it now t hough. We were get t ing t he sam e result s all t he t im e and t he sit e has fairly well balanced vines, so it ’s not wort h t est ing anym ore” . Tony is a Sunraysia grower, wit h vineyards on t hree different propert ies. Tony said: “ I used t o m onit or t he wat er and do soil and pet iole t est ing. I t gives you t he inform at ion t o m ake sound, inform ed decisions. But wit h falling grape prices and rising cost s I don’t do it anym ore. The soil t est s always cam e up good, and never ident ified any problem s. I kept doing pet iole t est s unt il I saw t he t rends, and unt il I got a good handle on it . You need t o com bine science wit h experience t o be successful” . The growers in t his segm ent said t hat t est ing provided t hem wit h t he inform at ion t hey needed. Segm ent 3: Evaluat ing m anagem ent changes Growers in t he segm ent describes as ‘Evaluat ing m anagem ent changes’, also used soil and pet iole t est ing for a lim it ed period. The benefit of using t est ing for t hese growers was t hat it enabled t hem t o evaluat e and underst and t he im pact of m anagem ent changes t hey had m ade in t heir vineyard, eit her on t he soil charact erist ics ( soil t est ) , t he vines nut rit ion st at us ( pet iole t est ing) , or bot h ( soil and pet iole t est ) . Exam ples of t he m anagem ent changes t hey evaluat ed were using a new fert iliser, or changing t he rat e of a fert iliser, m ulching, or inst alling drip irrigat ion. These growers used t he t est s for a few years unt il t hey felt t hat t hey “ had a handle on t hings” and underst ood t he im plicat ions of t he changes t hey had m ade. They t hen ceased t est ing. For exam ple Bill, who has a vineyard in Sunraysia, t old us: “ When I inst alled drippers I had soil pit s dug and t he soil t est ed. I want ed t o know if t he new irrigat ion syst em would affect t he nut rient availabilit y of m y soil. I t t urned out I ’ve got uniform soils and changing t o drippers didn’t have enough effect ( on nut rient availabilit y) for m e t o need t o change m y fert iliser program ” . 2 4 Names are fictional. ht t p: / / www.csu.edu.au/ facult y/ science/ saws/ afbm / archive/ efs- j our nal Ext ension Farm ing Syst em s Journal volum e 8 num ber 1 – Research Forum © Copyright AFBMNet work Hayden m anages vineyards in t he Coonawarra region. I n recent years organic sprays, m ulches and m anures have been included in his nut rit ion program and he w as int erest ed t o know if t hese changes had im proved soil healt h and nut rient st at us. Hayden said: “ We are t rying t o go for soft er opt ions now, convent ional ( fert ilisers) are not as good for soil, t hey kill off t he bact eria and fungi in soil, which dam ages t he soil st ruct ure and reduces nut rient upt ake. I will do a soil t est t his year which will include a biological t est because I haven’t done one for a while and I want t o know if t hese ( organic) product s are helping” . Growers in t his segm ent had not experienced any problem s wit h soil and pet iole t est ing. Segm ent 4: Problem diagnosis Growers in t he ‘Problem diagnosis’ segm ent used t he t est s t o t ry t o det erm ine why vines were looking unhealt hy or weak, for exam ple if vine growt h was sparse or t he leaves were discoloured. These growers said t hat when t hey found unhealt hy vines, t hey first checked t he vines’ root s for dam age and t hen conduct ed soil and pet iole t est s t o det erm ine if t he cause was nut rient or soil relat ed. For inst ance Chas, w ho grows vines in t he Goulburn Valley, said: “ I had a soil t est done because I had a problem in t he vineyard and was t rying t o rule out a num ber of possibilit ies. I ’d looked at t he root s, wat er, soil and weeds, but t here was no problem wit h t hese so I t hought I ’d bet t er look at nut rit ion. I t est ed an area of healt hy and an area of sick vines and t he t est s result s all looked t he sam e. This m ade m e realise it m ay be a pest issue. I t t urned out t hat t he sick vines were infest ed wit h phylloxera” . Dave grows red wine variet ies in t he Barossa Valley, Dave said: “ I f I see an issue wit h m y vines I get a pet iole t est done. I t est ed som e Shiraz five years ago, t he t est showed t he vines had a boron deficiency. I had a feeling t hat was t he problem because t he vines looked so ordinary. The t est confirm ed t hat t hat was t he problem ” . The benefit growers in t his segm ent sought from soil and pet iole t est ing was ident ificat ion of t he cause of t heir vine healt h problem . I f t he problem was nut rit ion relat ed, t he growers t hen want ed t o know which fert iliser or soil t reat m ent s would effect ively solve t he problem . Growers in t his segm ent observed t hat t he benefit s t hey sought from soil or pet iole t est ing were not realised if: • • • There was m ore t han one fact or causing t he problem wit h vines. The cause was relat ed t o nut rit ion, but t he vines were not flowering, so pet iole t est ing could not be conduct ed. The t est recom m endat ions were inaccurat e, incorrect or not suit ed t o t he sit e. D iscussion on one - off a nd sh or t - t e r m u se of t e st ing The growers in Segm ent 1 and Segm ent 4 used soil and pet iole t est s once. These findings are consist ent wit h t hose of Bewsell and Kaine ( 2001) who found t hat som e veget able growers only conduct ed soil t est s when plant ing on a new block of land. Growers in Segm ent 2 and Segm ent 3 used t he t est s in t he short - t erm ( one t o four years) t o enable t hem t o “ get a handle on t hings” when m anaging a new or unfam iliar vineyard or evaluat ing m anagem ent changes. These growers were sat isfied t hat t he t est s had helped t hem achieve t hat . Bewsell and Kaine ( 2003) found t hat grape growers in New Zealand used soil m oist ure m onit oring for som e years unt il t hey were confident wit h t heir vineyard irrigat ion and soil. Like t he wine grape growers in Segm ent 2 and Segm ent 3, t he New Zealand growers ceased using t he t echnology when t hey felt t hey “ had a handle on it ” . The growers in segm ent s 1, 2, 3 and 4 have used t est ing t o resolve a problem wit h product ion. They t hen cease t est ing because t hey do not perceive any furt her benefit t o be had from t est ing. I n effect , t he growers in t hese segm ent s are likely t o becom e m em bers of segm ent 7 once t hey discont inue t est ing. Conversely, under t he right condit ions, growers in segm ent 7 are likely t o be, or becom e, m em bers of any or all of segm ent s 1, 2, 3, or 4. There is t hen, an exchange of m em bers bet ween segm ent s 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7. Krem er et al. ( 2001) found a sim ilar pat t ern in t he adopt ion and use of t he N- t rack selfadm inist er soil nit rogen t est am ongst I owan farm ers who init ially adopt ed t he t echnology t hen discont inued use aft er a few years. These farm ers perceived t hat t he N- t rack had enabled t hem t o obt ain a good underst anding of t heir crop nit rogen requirem ent s. ht t p: / / www.csu.edu.au/ facult y/ science/ saws/ afbm / archive/ efs- j our nal 5 Ext ension Farm ing Syst em s Journal volum e 8 num ber 1 – Research Forum © Copyright AFBMNet work The short - t erm use of t he t est s does not represent a failure of t he t echnology, but rat her dem onst rat es t hat use of t he t est s had provided t he inform at ion t he growers required. Once t he growers’ inform at ion needs had been m et , t he cost of furt her t est ing out weighed t he benefit s received and hence t he gr ower ceased using t he t est s. The growers from t hese segm ent s said t hey would use soil or pet iole t est ing again if t hey w ere t o experience a nut rit ion problem in t he fut ure. This has t wo im port ant im plicat ions from an ext ension perspect ive. The first im plicat ion is t hat t he appeal of ext ension m essages prom ot ing t he use of soil and pet iole t est ing could be broadened if m essages included cont ent highlight ing t he benefit of t est ing when est ablishing new vines and t est ing t o diagnose and resolve problem s wit h vine healt h ( e.g. McConnell et al. 2003) . The second im plicat ion concerns t he value of prom ot ing t he regular use of soil and pet iole as a best m anagem ent pract ice t o im prove product ivit y. That growers used soil and pet iole t est ing t o m eet a short - t erm need but t hen abandoned it , suggest s t hat m ost growers possess t he knowledge and skills t o successfully adopt and im plem ent t he t est ing t echnology. Consequent ly, t he failure of growers in segm ent s 1, 2, 3 or 4 t o use t he t echnology cannot be at t ribut ed t o som e lack in t heir appreciat ion of, or capacit y t o im plem ent , soil and pet iole t est ing. I t seem s reasonable t o presum e t hat , had t hey experienced subst ant ial reduct ions in grape yield or qualit y once t hey discont inued t est ing, t hese growers would have resum ed regular t est ing. I n ot her words, t he failure of t he growers in t hese segm ent s t o cont inue regular t est ing suggest s t hat , once t hey had st opped t est ing, t hey did not det ect a decline in grape yield and qualit y sufficient t o convince t hem t hat it would be wort hwhile t o resum e t est ing. The experience of t hese growers is, t hen, t hat regular soil and pet iole t est ing is not wort hwhile for m at ure vines in good healt h. Therefore, growers who t est once, or for a short t im e only will be unlikely t o respond t o ext ension m essages seeking t o prom ot e regular t est ing as best m anagem ent pract ice for product ivit y. Such m essages cont radict t heir experience. At best , t hey will disregard such m essages, regarding t hem as not relevant t o t heir circum st ance, unless it can be dem onst rat ed t hat cont inued t est ing would generat e a subst ant ial im provem ent in product ion perform ance of m at ure vines. Such m essages could cause growers t o quest ion t he credibilit y of t he source of t hese m essages. Segm ent 5: Problem m onit oring Growers in t he ‘Problem m onit oring’ segm ent regularly used soil and pet iole t est s t o m onit or a long- t erm problem t hey were experiencing ( such as soil salinit y or nut rient deficiencies) , or a sit uat ion t hey believed could develop int o a problem ( such as acidit y levels) . The growers in t his segm ent indicat ed t hat t hey had ident ified t he source of t he nut rient im balance, hence t hey were not m em bers of Segm ent 4, and while t hey m ay be adj ust ing t heir fert iliser program t o address t he nut rient im balance, t hey were not planning m aj or m anagem ent changes ( Segm ent 3) . An exam ple of a grower in t his segm ent was Sarah who m anages a Coonawarra vineyard. Sarah said: “ We are worried about our soil salinit y levels, so we soil t est regularly. We also use soil t est s in problem areas t o confirm pet iole t est result s, which we conduct every year. We use pet iole t est s m ost ly because t hey have st andards and t hey give us a bet t er indicat ion of what t he plant has t aken up, rat her t han w hat is t here ( in soil) but not available. We j ust want t o m ake sure t hings are not get t ing out of hand” . Segm ent 6: Risk m anagem ent Growers in t he ‘Risk m anagem ent ’ segm ent had t est s done regularly t o m onit or condit ions in t heir vineyard, even t hough t hey do not have any significant soil- or nut rit ion- relat ed problem s. The growers said t hat t he benefit s of doing t his were t hat t hey had peace of m ind t hat t heir vines’ nut rit ion needs were being m et , t hat t heir product ion goals ( yield and qualit y) would be achieved, and t hat t hey would not be caught unprepared by any nut rit ion relat ed problem s. Ot her growers in t his segm ent used soil and pet iole t est result s when liaising wit h vineyard owners, chief vit icult urist s, finance m anagers or wineries about grape qualit y, vineyard planning or m anagem ent or budget s. Essent ially an unexpect ed nut rit ion problem poses a m aj or risk for t hese growers and soil or pet iole t est ing can easily and inexpensively m anage t his risk. Kingsley runs a vineyard in Heat hcot e. Kingsley t old us: “ We base our rat e of fert iliser applicat ion on soil and pet iole t est s, and t est nine out of sevent een blocks each year. I n April we soil t est and put out any necessary 6 ht t p: / / www.csu.edu.au/ facult y/ science/ saws/ afbm / archive/ efs- j our nal Ext ension Farm ing Syst em s Journal volum e 8 num ber 1 – Research Forum © Copyright AFBMNet work am eliorat ions we need t o m eet our product ion t arget s. The t est result s enable m e t o convince t he finance people we’re doing t he right t hing, and get t he fert iliser allowance we need” . D iscussion on lon g- t e r m use of t e st ing The growers in Segm ent 5 and Segm ent 6 used soil or pet iole t est ing regularly for long periods, which is recom m ended best pract ice, and said t hey found t he inform at ion valuable in enabling t hem t o m onit or problem s or m anage product ion risks. Likewise, Bewsell and Kaine ( 2001) report ed t hat som e Vict orian veget able growers used soil t est ing regularly t o det erm ine t he nut rient st at us of t heir soil and t ailor crop fert iliser program s accordingly, or t o m onit or nut rit ion problem s. They found t hat soil m oist ure m onit oring was regularly used by wine grape, fruit and veget able growers t o ident ify and det ect t he em ergence of new problem s, t o m onit or exist ing problem s, and t o m anage product qualit y ( Bewsell and Kaine 2001, 2003; Kaine and Bewsell 2001a, 2001b; Kaine et al. 2005) . The im plicat ion of t his behaviour is t hat , unlike t he growers in t he ot her segm ent s, growers t hat regularly use t est ing view t he cost s of regular t est ing as less t han t he ant icipat ed cost s of correct ing any nut rient - relat ed problem s in product ion t hat m ight appear in t he fut ure. However if t hese growers st art t o perceive t hat t he cost out weighs t he benefit gained t hrough t est ing, t hey will cease t est ing. This m ay be due t o t he em ergence of a new t echnology or service t hat provides t he inform at ion t hey require m ore quickly, cheaply or efficient ly, or t he problem t hey are m onit oring or risk t hey are m anaging m ay dwindle in im port ance. Segm ent 7: No t est ing The growers in ‘No t est ing’ segm ent had not used soil or pet iole t est ing and had eit her inherit ed est ablished vineyards or had ext ensive experience in growing vines in t heir vineyard. These growers said t hat t hey used t he sam e nut rit ion program each year, and, if any problem s had occurred, t hey had been able t o ident ify t he cause of t he problem and solve it . Consequent ly, t hey m ay, at an earlier t im e, have been m em bers of segm ent s four or five. The growers in t his segm ent were sat isfied wit h t he perform ance of t heir vineyards and said t hey did not require t he inform at ion soil and pet iole t est s would provide. Angelo is a Sunraysia grower of bot h wine and dried fruit grapes. Angelo said: “ I don’t soil or pet iole t est , I j ust look at t he vines. I f t he vines st art t o look poor I fert ilise wit h nit rogen. I don’t seem t o have any soil or nut rit ion problem s, t he vines usually look fine” . Anot her exam ple of a grower in t his segm ent was Bill who has been growing wine grapes in t he Barossa valley for m any y ears. Bill said: “ My grandfat her st art ed t his vineyard in t he 1920s, t hen m y fat her ran it and I ’ve run it for t he last 25 years. I f t he cover crop looks healt hy t hen I assum e t he nut rient s are all right . Our Shiraz is close t o t op of t he range so t here is no reason t o m ess wit h t hat ” . These growers appeared t o believe t hat soil and pet iole t est ing was not wort hwhile for m at ure vines in good healt h. Therefore, t hese growers will be unlikely t o respond t o ext ension m essages seeking t o prom ot e regular soil and pet iole t est ing as best m anagem ent pract ice t o im prove product ivit y, unless t he benefit s can be dem onst rat ed t o t hem . However, if t heir vineyard developed a nut rit ion- relat ed problem or perhaps t hey m ade m anagem ent changes such as st art ing t o m ulch t heir vines, t hese growers m ay decide t hat t est ing would provide wort hwhile inform at ion and m ay experim ent wit h, or begin t o use soil and pet iole t est ing. Conclu sion a nd fut u r e w or k Soil and pet iole t est s were widely used by wine grape growers when m aking vineyard nut rit ion and soil m anagem ent decisions. However, only a sm all proport ion of growers followed best pract ice and regularly t est ed on a cont inuing basis. We have described t he reasons why t his is t he case. Furt her research involving surveying a large sam ple of grape growers would be useful t o quant ify t he num bers of growers in t he segm ent s, and st at ist ically validat e t he result s and conclusions report ed here. Effort s t o prom ot e regular soil and pet iole t est ing as environm ent al best pract ice t o wine grape growers m ay be successful. Success will depend on t he ext ent t o which each grower is concerned about nut rient losses t hrough leaching and run- off in t heir viney ards and wish t o m inim ise t heir use of fert ilisers and if t he growers regard, or can be convinced, t hat soil and ht t p: / / www.csu.edu.au/ facult y/ science/ saws/ afbm / archive/ efs- j our nal 7 Ext ension Farm ing Syst em s Journal volum e 8 num ber 1 – Research Forum © Copyright AFBMNet work pet iole t est ing as useful t ools in achieving t his. I t would require furt her social research t o det erm ine growers’ at t it udes about t his t opic. The use of ot her available agronom ic t est s, such as sap t est ing or leaf blade analysis could be invest igat ed in t he fut ure t o det erm ine why t he use of t hese t est s is not m ore widespread. The exist ence of pat t erns in t he reasons for using m anagem ent t ools, such as soil and pet iole t est s and soil m oist ure m onit oring, across hort icult ural and ot her agricult ural indust ries m ay be wort h furt her research. Ack n ow le dge m e nt s We t hank t he Grape and Wine Research and Developm ent Corporat ion for support ing t his work, Nicole Dim os for her assist ance wit h int erviews, and t he wine grape growers who generously shared t heir t im e and knowledge. Re fe r e nce s Abadi Ghadim AK and Pannell DJ 1999, ‘A concept ual fram ework of adopt ion of an agricult ural innovat ion’, Agricult ural Econom ics, 21( 2) : 145–154. Aj zen I 1971, ‘At t it udinal vs. norm at ive m essages: an invest igat ion of t he different ial effect s of persuasive com m unicat ions on behaviour’, Sociom etry, 34( 2) : 263- 280. Bandura A 1977, ‘Self- efficacy towards a unifying t heory of behavioral change’, Psychological Review, 82( 2) : 191-215. Bagozzi RP 1992, ‘The self- regulat ion of at t it udes, int ent ions, and behavior’ Social Psychology Quart erly, 55( 2) : 178-204. Bewsell D and Kaine G 2001, 'Soil m onit oring, irrigat ion scheduling and veget able product ion', Working Paper, School of Market ing and Managem ent , Universit y of New England, Arm idale. Bewsell D and Kaine G 2003, 'Adopt ion of sust ainable pract ices in t he wine grape indust ry', Client Report . prepared for New Zealand Winegrowers, AgResearch Lt d, Ham ilt on, New Zealand. Cham ala S 1987, 'Adopt ion processes and ext ension st rat egies for conservat ion farm ing' in Cornish P and Pr at ely JE ( eds) Tillage: new direct ions in Aust ralian Agricult ure, pp. 400- 419. I nkat a Press, Melbourne, Aust ralia. Cont ant CK and Korsching PF 1997, 'Farm ers com m it m ent t o cont inued use of t he lat e spring soil nit rogen t est ', Am erican Journal of Alt ernat ive Agricult ure, 12(1) : 20- 27. Cooperat ive Research Cent re for Vit icult ure 2005, 'Good environm ent al m anagem ent guidelines: vineyard fert iliser and soil m anagem ent', Cooperat ive Resear ch Cent re for Vit icult ure, Sout h Australia. Cooperat ive Research Cent re for Vit icult ure 2006, 'Vit iNot es, Grapevine nut rit ion 3: Pet iole analysis. Accessed 12/ 12/ 10 from : ht t p: / / www.crcv.com .au/ vit icare/ vit inot es/ Vit iNot es/ grapevine% 20nut rit ion/ 03% 20Pet iole% 20analysis.pdf. Davis FD 1989, 'Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user accept ance of inform at ion t echnology', MI S Quart erly, 13( 3) : 319- 340. Dick B 1998, 'Convergent int erviewing: a t echnique for qualit at ive dat a collect ion'. Accessed 12/ 12/ 10 from : ht t p: / / www.scu.edu.au/ schools/ gcm / ar/ arp/ iview.ht m l Fe` li S, Bondarian N, Baghaei M and Mirzaei A 2010, 'Effect ive factors on adopt ion of soil t est ing for farm fert ilizer nut rit ion in Shahreza t ownship of Esfihan Pr ovince, I ran', Research Journal of Soil and Wat er Managem ent , 1: 38- 44. Fishbein M and Aj zen I 1975, Belief, at t it ude, int ent ion and behaviour: an int roduct ion t o t heory and research, Addison- Wesley Publishing Com pany, Boston, Massachuset t s. Grunert K and Grunert S 1995, 'Measuring subj ect ive m eaning st ruct ures by t he laddering m et hod: t heoret ical considerat ions and m et hodological problem s', I nt ernat ional Journal of Research in Market ing, 12: 209–225. Hill M, Rowbot t om B and Kaine G 2009, 'Underst anding t he benefit s sought from grapevine nut rit ion m anagem ent by Aust ralian wine grape growers', Ext ension Farm ing Syst em s Journal, 5(1) : 63–72. Hood V, Blackshaw P, Hannah R, Hill M, Dickinson S, Grills A and Whit ing J 2003, 'How do you know you’re having an im pact ? Evaluat ion of t he Grapecheque program ', in Pr oceedings of t he, Aust ralasian Pacific Ext ension Net work Conference Nat ional Forum . Nov. 26–28 2003, Aust ralasian Pacific Ext ension Net work, Hobart , Australia. Kaine G 2008, 'The adopt ion of agricult ural innovat ions'. Doct or of Philosophy t hesis, School of Market ing and Managem ent , Universit y of New England, Arm idale, NSW, pp. 315. Kaine G and Bewsell D 2001a, 'Managing irrigat ion for grape product ion', I nt erim Report t o The Vict orian Depart m ent of Nat ural Resources and Environm ent ', School of Market ing and Managem ent , Universit y of New England, Arm idale. Kaine G and Bewsell D 2001b, 'Managing irrigat ion for grape product ion', Second Report t o t he Vict orian Depart m ent of Nat ural Resources and Environm ent , School of Market ing and Managem ent , Universit y of New England, Arm idale. Kaine G, Bewsell D, Boland AM and Linehan C 2005, 'Using m arket r esearch t o underst and t he adopt ion of irrigat ion m anagem ent st rategies in t he st one and pom e fruit indust ry', Aust ralian Journal of Experim ent al Agricult ure, 45( 9) : 1181–1187. King RN 1999, 'I dent ifying effect ive and efficient m et hods to educat e farm ers about soil sam pling', Journal of Ext ension, 37( 1) . King RN and Rollins TJ 1995, 'Factors influencing t he adopt ion of a nit rogen t est ing program ', Journal of Ext ension [ On- line] , 33( 4) Article 4RI B2. Available at : ht t p: / / www.j oe.org/ j oe/ 1995august / rb2.php 8 ht t p: / / www.csu.edu.au/ facult y/ science/ saws/ afbm / archive/ efs- j our nal Ext ension Farm ing Syst em s Journal volum e 8 num ber 1 – Research Forum © Copyright AFBMNet work Krem er KS, Carolan M, Gast eyer S, Tirm izi SNK, Pet er F, Pet er G and Pingsheng T 2001, 'Evolut ion of an agricult ural innovat ion: t he N- Trak soil nit rogen t est - adopt and discont inue, or r ej ect ?', Technology in Society, 23: 93–108. Lindner RK 1987, 'The adopt ion and diffusion of t echnology: an overview'. I n Technological change in post harvest handling and t ransport at ion of grains in t he hum id t r opics. ( Eds BR Cham p, E Highley, JV Rem enyi) pp. 144–151. ( ACI AR Proceedings No. 19, Aust ralian Cent re for I nt ernat ional Agricult ural Research: Canberra) . McConnell S, Wight wick A, Sm it h T and Port eous C 2003, 'Code of environm ent al, best pract ice for vit icult ure, Sunr aysia Region, Volum e 1, Environm ental Best Pr act ices'. Depart m ent of Prim ary I ndustries, I rym ple, Victoria. Napier TL and Tucker M 2001, 'Use of soil and wat er prot ect ion pract ices am ong farm ers in t hree Midwest Wat er sheds, Environm ent al Managem ent , 27 ( 2) : 269- 279. Pat t on MQ 1990, Qualit at ive int erviewing: a t echnique for qualit at ive dat a collect ion, Sage Publicat ions, USA. Pannell DJ 1999, 'Econom ics, ext ension and t he adopt ion of land conservat ion innovat ions in agricult ur e' I nt ernat ional Journal of Social Econom ics (26) : 999-1012. Robinson J 1992, 'Grapevine nut rit ion', in B Coom be and P Dry ( eds) , Vit icult ure, Volum e 2 Pract ices, Underdale, Wine Tit les, Adelaide. Rogers EM 1995, The diffusion of innovat ions, 5t h edn, Free Pr ess, New York. Rogers EM and Shoem aker FF 1971, Com m unicat ion of innovat ions: a cross- cult ural approach, The Free Pr ess, 866 Third Avenue, New York, N. Y. 10022. Singh S 2006, 'Grapevine nut rit ion'. Lit erat ure Review prepared for Murray Valley Winegrowers' I nc, Yandilla Park Agribusiness, Renm ark, Sout h Australia. Srivast ava YC and Pandey AP 1999, 'Knowledge and at t it ude of sm all and m arginal farm ers t owards soil t est ing', Agricult ural Ext ension Review, 11( 6) : 3- 6. Swinburn G and Saris S 2005, Result s of a survey t o ident ify t he issues relat ing t o nut rit ion, fert ilizer use and soil m anagem ent for t he Murray Valley Wine I ndust ry. Pr epared for Murray Valley Winegrowers’ I nc. Walt on J, Lam bert D, Robert s R, Larson J, English B, Larkin S, Mart in S, Marra MC, Paxt on KW and Reeves JM 2008, 'Adopt ion and abandonm ent of precision soil sam pling in cot t on production', Journal of Agricult ural and Resource Econom ics, 33(3) : 428-448. Whit e R 1997, Pr inciples and pract ice of soil science - t he soil as a nat ural resource, 3rd edn, Blackwell Science, Carlt on, Vict oria. Yadav VPS, Ram an RS and Kum ar R 2006, 'Knowledge and at t it ude of farm ers t owards soil t est ing pract ices', I ndian Research Journal of Ext ension Educat ion, 6 (3) : 1- 3. ht t p: / / www.csu.edu.au/ facult y/ science/ saws/ afbm / archive/ efs- j our nal 9