Summary
The purpose of this study was to assess the value of the investment by MLA in research by determining the overall benefit to producers of a selection of recently completed projects. The evaluation includes not only immediate financial benefit, but also environmental, social and long term gains for producers. Projects selected for inclusion in this study had to have been completed within the past three years and have sufficient data available to allow quantitative analysis of the on-farm benefits. The ten projects for evaluation were selected by MLA staff from among the most successful in this group. Therefore, the results of this study cannot be extrapolated to the whole on-farm portfolio. All ten projects evaluated had considerable merit and all fulfilled or surpassed the main objectives they had originally set out to achieve. Six of the ten projects were regarded by participating producers to be of high or very high value. The on-farm financial benefit, as determined using actual adoption rates in the MLA Average Farm Model, was positive in nine of the projects, with the remaining one being too difficult to quantify. Direct benefits to the environment were identified in six projects and there were social or community benefits derived from five projects. .
Four projects which involved producer groups as an integral part of their implementation (SWAMP, Beefcheque, Prograze, Q Lamb Alliance) delivered non quantified benefits greatly valued by producers, as well as financial benefits. These non quantified benefits included: A new confidence to make rational decisions, based on the principles learnt and applied to their own situation. A new network of trusted, experienced people facing similar situations and ready to share highly relevant information in confidence. The realisation of a new partnership with the experts from the Department of Agriculture (or equivalent). Projects which producers ranked as low or medium benefit were still valued by producers for their potential importance: In keeping the industry at the cutting edge (eg, Net Feed Intake, Beef Marbling). In establishing facts to change industry attitudes and practice (eg, Maternal CPT). In providing well researched practical options in a constantly changing industry (eg, Molasses, Lamb Silage).
Two of the projects examined (Tagasaste and Molasses) show how skilled and experienced researchers who work closely with the local industry can provide uniquely Australian solutions to local problems. In both cases researchers used their understanding of the nutritional requirements of beef cattle to employ locally available nutrients in new ways to overcome regular seasonal feed shortages Finally, the study illustrated the need to consider a range of factors in assessing project value, rather than a benefit : cost ratio result alone.
The 10 projects evaluated range in character from those involving cutting edge research (eg, Beef Marbling, NFI) through to those applying existing knowledge in a new way (eg, Q Lamb, Prograze). Producers interviewed saw value in MLA supporting the Beef Marbling and NFI projects because of their enormous potential importance to the beef industry, even though neither project has delivered much tangible benefit to date. By contrast, both Q Lamb and Prograze are already delivering substantial benefits, but both are in an advanced stage of delivery and both rely on use of existing knowledge. Consideration of the benefit : cost ratio alone would give a misleading view of the comparative value of these four projects. In conclusion, the study has shown that:
1. All 10 projects selected for evaluation have achieved their main objectives and are valued by producers.
2. Producers directly involved in projects see personal benefits from their participation.
3. Producers value projects which do not offer immediate financial gain, but promise future benefits to them and/or their industry.
4. Assessment of a project's value needs to be broader than consideration of a benefit : cost ratio alone.
