Search

Farm advisors are recognised as playing an increasingly central role in facilitating interactions between scientists and farmers to improve local implementation of sustainable soil management practices and agricultural innovations more broadly. However, there has been limited scrutiny of what farm advisors do when faced with conflicting interpretations among actors over techniques or approaches for facilitating agricultural innovation. This article advances knowledge in this area by investigating the role of farm advisors in aligning different frames on agricultural soil research and extension across seven Australian mixed farming regions. Drawing upon theoretical work on frame alignment, we argue that farm advisors use three types of strategies to align conflicting frames—frame bridging, frame amplification and frame transformation. These strategies seek to frame local soil research and extension priorities in ways that are assumed to resonate more closely with the frames of multiple constituents, such as farmers and soil scientists. Through our analysis, we argue that the application of a frame alignment approach enables greater precision in identifying which (a) interactive and social learning processes, (b) key local influencers and communities of practice and (c) resourcing and governance arrangements are most likely to be effective in facilitating soil research and extension that is locally useful and useable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Smart farming technologies are primarily associated with the transformation of agricultural productivity. Despite this, empirical research focusing on farm-level application of smart farming reveals a more complex and nuanced picture characterised by considerable uncertainty over its implementation and use. In this paper we seek to extend farm-level research by investigating two questions: how do perceived uncertainties destabilise meso-scale actors' routines and practices that are critical for 'supporting farmer learning about the nature of digital data and its interpretation' (Eastwood et al., 2019: 8); and, in what ways do meso-scale actors seek to re-establish a sense of stability and, in doing so, manage the uncertainty associated with smart farming implementation, and technological change more broadly? To address these questions we investigate the findings from a qualitative study of 20 meso-scale actors involved in the planning and implementation of smart farming technology in the Australian rice industry through an ontological security lens. We refer to meso-scale actors as farm advisors and agronomists whom we argue play a critical role in the uptake of smart farming technology. In applying this lens we argue that the perceived uncertainties related to smart farming de-stabilise or de-securitise actors' day-to-day roles and routines, impacting on who they are and what they do. We then demonstrate that actors draw upon two specific cultural scripts as a way to re-securitise their uncertainty. The first script seeks to securitise resource uncertainty by drawing upon known discourses surrounding farmer adoption of technology, while the second reproduces the importance of technologies that are easy to adopt while downplaying the importance of smart farming technology. While at face value these scripts can appear to create barriers to smart farming adoption, we argue that they can be a catalyst for developing solutions to uncertainty in terms of making smart farming more workable at the farm-level. • Smart farming technology can be complex, characterised by considerable uncertainty over its implementation and use. • Uncertainties de-stabilise or de-securitise actors' day-to-day roles and routines, impacting on who they are and what they do. • Actors draw upon cultural scripts as a way to re-securitise their uncertainty. • Cultural scripts can enable solutions to uncertainty in terms of making smart farming more workable at the farm-level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Assemblage thinking is an increasingly influential approach in critical studies of food and farming, and particularly in research on new agri-food technology such as precision agriculture (PA). This research is important in highlighting the distributed forms of power and agency through which farming worlds are assembled, and what these engender for more sustainable and equitable farming futures. However, to date, there has been limited attention to assembling PA from the perspective of farmers, what Legun and Burch (2021) refer to as 'deliberative assembling'. This paper contributes to knowledge in this area by applying post actor network theoretical work to investigate across case studies in Australia, the Netherlands and France, the forms of tinkering by which farmers attempt to make PA workable, and what these engender for farmer agency. Through our analysis, we show that much of the tinkering by farmers is aimed at holding together their own priorities, routines, and experiences with practices inscribed in PA technology, such as dependence on commercial advice, data-driven knowledge, and commitment to a single technological platform/company. Integral to this tinkering work are support networks that include agronomists, advisors, machinery dealers and/or farmer discussion groups. We argue that whilst these support networks are critical to holding together different practices, and making PA workable, they also play a more diverse and nuanced role in PA implementation than what has previously been recognised. Our case studies provide insights into three key forms of tinkering used by farmers in navigating support networks to make PA workable – disconnection, experimentation and trial-and-error, and trade-offs and compromises – and the specific distributions of agency which these tinkering practices engender. In conclusion, we argue that a tinkering lens provides a valuable approach for enabling agri-food scholars to tease out in greater depth deliberative assembling practices and how these variously open-up or foreclose options for farmers in making PA workable. • Farmers use tinkering to make precision agriculture (PA) workable. • Analysis of PA tinkering happens in Australia, The Netherlands and France. • Principal forms of tinkering are holding together, separation, experimentation. • Support networks are critical to tinkering in PA implementation. • Appropriateness of this PA implementation support is a key consideration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]