at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Crop Protection 37 (2012) 71e80

Contents lists available

Crop Protection

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/cropro

Thwarting plague and pestilence in the Australian sugar industry: Crop protectioncapacity and resilience built by agricultural extension

Warren Hunt a,*, Colin Birch b,1, Frank Vanclay c,2

aDepartment of Resources, GPO Box 3000, Darwin NT 0801, Australiab Tasmanian Institute of Agricultural Research, Cutherbertson Research Laboratories, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 3523, Burnie TAS 7320, AustraliacDepartment of Cultural Geography, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen, PO Box 800, 9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 4 November 2011Received in revised form4 February 2012Accepted 15 February 2012

Keywords:Integrated pest managementIPMAgricultural extensionSugarcaneRodentsCanegrubsResilienceCapacity building

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ61 (0) 8 89992143, þfax: þ61 (0)8 8999 2049.

E-mail addresses: warren.hunt@nt.gov.au (W. Hu(C. Birch), frank.vanclay@rug.nl (F. Vanclay).

1 Tel: þ61 (0) 428 335082 (mobile).2 Tel.: þ31 (0) 50 363 8657.

0261-2194/$ e see front matter Crown Copyright � 2doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2012.02.005

a b s t r a c t

This paper investigates how Australian sugar industry extension services over the last decade haveovercome historical pest management challenges in sugarcane (Saccharum spp.). The industry has donethis by building increased capacity amongst its extension agents and farmers. This paper considers howcoordinated extension efforts have reduced production losses from its two principal pests: greybackcanegrub e Dermolepida albohirtum (Waterhouse), and rodents (i.e., Rattus sordidus and Melomysburtoni). It details the complexity of the respective pest management issues and the efficacy of industryefforts in resolving outbreak situations in the early 2000s. The paper then investigates how combinedresearch, development and extension efforts have been able to mitigate risk of similar outbreaks over thelast decade. These RD&E efforts have delivered IPM packages that are practical, defined, and ready for on-farm use. They have delivered sustained reductions in pest damage and an increase in knowledge andskills amongst extension agents and growers. Overall, industry is more confident, skilled and pro-activein the management of rats and canegrubs than in decades past. Consequently, the Australian sugarindustry is a more resilient entity as a function of these extension initiatives. The strategies describedhere provide a model for building capacity and resilience in the sugar and other industries when con-fronted with multi-faceted challenges related to pest biology and behaviour, availability of inputs forproduction, economic forces and environmental considerations.

Crown Copyright � 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The Australian sugar industry consists of around 4100 farmersoperating in discontinuous suitable agro-ecological zones alongthe east coast of the Australian continent from the northern riversof New South Wales (29� S) to Mossman (16� S) in far northQueensland, a distance of around 1700 km (ABARE, 2008) (Fig. 1).The industry crushes around 35 million tonnes of sugarcane (Sac-charum spp.) annually from approximately 400,000 ha of cultivatedland (ABARE, 2008). The industry has a history of major produc-tivity losses from pests and building industry capacity and resil-ience to pest impact has long been a priority.

In the 1990s, the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations Limited(BSES) e Australian sugar’s principal research, development and

61 (0) 409 809610 (mobile);

nt), Colin.Birch@utas.edu.au

012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All

extension (RD&E) agencye developed a three-pronged approach toprovide industry with improved systems for the management of allserious pests of sugarcane. These involved: (1) testing new pesti-cides; (2) further investigating the biology of pests to determine ifthere were behaviours of pests that could be exploited as controlmechanisms; and (3) undertaking action-research initiatives withcane growers in order to develop integrated farming systems tomitigate impact (Robertson, 1997; Allsopp, 2010).

The Australian sugar industry has two major groups of persis-tent pests e canegrubs and rats. By this we specifically refer togreyback canegrub e Dermolepida albohirtum (Waterhouse) andtwo rodents e Rattus sordidus (ground rat) and Melomys burtoni(climbing rat). Between 1999 and 2001, outbreaks of these pests inAustralian sugar-producing areas tested the effectiveness of pestmanagement systems. This paper provides background to thedevelopment of two major integrated pest management (IPM)programs and their initial efficacy in mitigating losses in theAustralian sugar industry. It then investigates the success of theseprograms in reducing losses over subsequent years and provides anunderstanding of the underlying biological and managementreasons for the ongoing success. In particular, it examines shifts in

rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Sugarcane-growing areas of Australia (Source: CANEGROWERS, 2011a).

W. Hunt et al. / Crop Protection 37 (2012) 71e8072

technology for improved pest management, and changes in theknowledge and skills of Australian sugarcane growers and theirsupporting extension agencies in better managing pest infestationrisks. The dividend resulting from these improvements is anAustralian sugar industry that is more resilient to its two mostserious pests.

This investigation addresses how extension services havecontributed to capacity building and resilience in this majorAustralian agricultural industry. To do this we use quantitative dataon damage estimates from three case-study mill regions, andqualitative data from interviews with key informants working inthe industry. Supporting the study is an initial overview of thesignificance of the pests and the biology and technical issuesassociated with control of these species.

2. Capacity and resilience

The influences that extension services in the Australian sugarindustry have had on industry capacity and resilience against thesepests relies on biological and socio-economic understanding(Vanclay, 2004; Hunt et al., 2011, 2012). Macadam et al. (2004, p.17)described the building of capacity in agriculture as “Externally orinternally initiated processes designed to help individuals andgroups . to appreciate and manage their changing circumstances,with the objective of improving the stock of human, social, financial,physical and natural capital”. More succinctly, Coutts et al. (2005,p.4) saw capacity as “increasing the abilities or resources of

individuals, organisations and communities to manage change”.Increasing the capacitye i.e., the knowledge and skills of individualsand the industry e is viewed as a necessary precursor to industryresilience. Resilience can be defined as the ability an individual orcommunity has to cope with stress, overcome adversity, or adaptpositively to change (Rolf, 1999; Luthar et al., 2000; Kaplan, 1999;Varghese et al., 2006). Thus, the greater the level of capacity thatindustry participants have, the greater their resilience will be incoping with or rebounding from episodic events, such as pestoutbreaks, that bring significant short term challenges.

3. The capitals framework

To discern evidence of capacity and resilience building, we useda framework of ‘Capitals’ (Carney, 1998; DFID, 1999; McIntosh et al.,2008). The relative levels and change in capacity and resilience canbe analysed around a framework of asset sets:

(1) Produced capital (the impact/benefit of the extension effort onthe productivity and economics of the industry);

(2) Human capital (the knowledge, skills, and competencies of theindividuals within the industry);

(3) Natural capital (the contribution to the state of the natural bio-physical environment);

(4) Institutional capital (i.e. influence of the initiative upon industryorganisations and institutions that can be drawn on as industrycapacity); and

W. Hunt et al. / Crop Protection 37 (2012) 71e80 73

(5) Social capital (relationships and cooperation within theindustry).

The extent and availability of this array of capital has a bearingon the relative resilience of an industry or community. Decline in,or absence of stocks of one type of capital may lead to diminishedresilience; or alternatively, increases may bolster the overall resil-ience of a community (DFID, 1999; Carney, 1998; Adger, 2000; Ellis,2000). The capitals framework can be used to investigate andexplain changes in practice over time e in this case, changes in pestmanagement in the Australian sugar industry from 1999 to 2009. Toallow the analyses of these ‘Capitals’ and their effectiveness, it isfirst necessary to provide the context within which they will beassessed. It is therefore necessary to document the biology of thepest species involved, the damage attributable to them, andresponses both before and after the development of IPM strategies.

4. Canegrubs

Canegrubs are larvae of scarab beetles. They feed on the roots ofsugarcane plants causing root system failure and plant death.Canegrubs have episodically caused serious losses in the industryimpacting heavily on individual farmers and the viability of specificmill regions until the introduction of organochlorine insecticides in1948 (Hunt et al., 2002; Allsopp, 2010). The species of most interestis the greyback canegrub, which has a one-year lifecycle. Greybackcanegrub occurs in the central (Mackay, Proserpine) and Burdekinregions, and northern zones of the industry (i.e. north of Towns-ville) (see Fig. 1), and is consistently the most damaging andeconomically significant of the canegrub species (Allsopp, 2001,2010; Hunt et al., 2003).

Canegrubs became more difficult to manage in the late 1980sfollowing the withdrawal of the organochlorine pesticide groupfrom Australian agriculture (Allsopp, 2001, 2010; Hunt et al., 2002,2003). Control techniques that protect the root system are con-strained by the semi-perennial nature of the crop and the lifecycleof the pest. Australian sugarcane is typically harvested annually inwinterespring for 3e6 years before being replanted (Allsopp,2010). Because crops grow rapidly to a height of greater than2 m, access for insecticide application is restricted to the first fewmonths after planting or following harvesting (Allsopp, 2010).

In 1984 joint corporate and BSES research developed the firstcontrolled-release insecticide suSCon� Blue (140 g/kg chlorpyrifos)for use in plant cane (i.e., sugarcane that has just been planted, or inits first season of growth prior to its first harvest). It was intendedas a replacement for organochlorine chemicals. Controlled-releasesuSCon� Blue granules were incorporated with the cane set atplanting and acted as a toxic barrier against canegrubs. However,suSCon� Blue had a shorter effective life (two years) than organo-chlorines (around five years). In the 1990s, a problem was discov-ered with the rapid degradation of the chlorpyrifos released fromsuSCon� Blue granules in alkaline soils and when used inconjunction with liming (Hunt et al., 2002, 2003; Samson et al.,2005; Allsopp, 2010). Consequently, research into methods formitigating chlorpyrifos degradation, and into alternative canegrubtreatments was initiated. The additional insecticide options thathave since been developed are (as modified from Samson et al.,2007):

� suSCon� Maxi, a controlled-release (CR) granule containing50 g/kg imidacloprid for use in plant cane.

� BioCane�, which is registered for plant crops, containingMetarhizium strain FI-1045, a naturally occurring fungus thatattacks greyback canegrub, and;

� Confidor� Guard, a suspension concentrate formulation con-taining 350 g/L imidacloprid that can be used in either plantcane or in ratoons (cane that re-grows from following theannual harvest).

Research into the behaviour of greyback canegrub found thatthe adults preferentially flew to crops of cane that were markedlytaller than adjacent crops (Hunt et al., 2001; Horsfield et al., 2002;Samson et al., 2007). This then allowed the concept of ‘trap crop-ping’ (where insects are attracted to a particular field), to beintroduced into greyback management (Hunt et al., 2001; Horsfieldet al., 2002; Samson et al., 2007). Statistical models to predictcanegrub infestation levels one year in advance have also beenconstructed, with the choice of model depending on the availabilityof data. The most reliable models use information on current can-egrub populations in individual fields and across districts, and theincidence of known grub diseases (Sallam et al., 2008; Samsonet al., 2008; Sallam and Samson, 2008).

A major outbreak of greyback canegrubs occurred in thenorthern region in 2000 and 2001, with over one million tonnes ofsugarcane worth AUD $38m (in 2001 dollar value terms) lost togreyback canegrubs (Hunt and Samson, 2002; Hunt et al., 2002,2003). It was thought that the combined effects of rapid degrada-tion of suSCon� Blue in alkaline conditions and increased areas ofunprotected crop in the preceding years (possibly because ofincreasing ratoon age and cost pressures on farmers during lowcommodity price years) may have been responsible (Hunt andSamson, 2002).

4.1. Extension response to the canegrub challenge

An extension initiative was undertaken by BSES to build thecapacity of cane growers in managing the outbreak (Hunt et al.,2001, 2002; Hunt and Samson, 2002, 2003; Samson et al., 2005;Allsopp, 2010). As part of the initiative, the IPM strategy (GrubPlan)was developed and used to train over 900 farmers and industryadvisory staff in 70 small-group workshops over several months inlate 2001. GrubPlan was an interactive extension approach thatfacilitated the knowledge, understanding, and skills of participants.The one-day workshops consisted of four components: situationassessment, education around canegrub biology and IPM compo-nents of the program, application of that knowledge, and evalua-tion (Hunt et al., 2002; Samson et al., 2005; Allsopp, 2010).Participants mapped cultural practices and distribution andintensity of damage on their farm. This allowed them to relate theirown situation to the information presented in the education phase,and to develop their own whole-farm risk reduction strategy withthe support of BSES and Cane Productivity Services (CPS) staff(Hunt et al., 2002; Samson et al., 2005; Allsopp, 2010).

5. Rodents

Rodents are Australian sugar’s second most serious pest and arefound in the northern and central districts of the industry. Twospecies, the ground rat and the climbing rat, are native grasslandspecies that have adapted well to sugarcane environments(McDougall, 1946; Wilson and Whisson, 1993; Hunt et al., 2004).Ground rat is consistently the more damaging of the two species(Wilson and Whisson, 1993). Approaches to managing rats havechanged significantly since about 1970 as the ecology and biologyof each species has become better understood (Hunt et al., 2004).Control programs were initially focussed on rat mortality (Huntet al., 2004), and in the 1970s and 1980s, area-wide aerial baitingprograms using 0.3% thallium sulphate were conducted by localCane Productivity Services (CPSs). These were discontinued in the

Table 1Rodent damage in the Mulgrave and Herbert River sugarcane growing regions2001e2009.

Year Mulgrave Herbert River

Tonnessugarcanelost

Total hectaresbaited forrodents

Tonnessugarcanelost

Total hectaresbaited forrodents

2001 4735 1090 92,000 48002002 4080 700 40,798 46002003 3885 100 50,261 47182004 3445 45 49,743 15702005 980 120 18,361 02006 3375 Not recorded 18,241 1862007 2500 Not recorded 13,071 742008 1017 Not recorded 6371 02009 675 Not recorded 8752 0

W. Hunt et al. / Crop Protection 37 (2012) 71e8074

early 1990s because of public health and environmental concerns(Robertson et al., 1995). The second-generation anticoagulantKlerat� (0.005% brodifacoum) was introduced and was applied byfarmers. It was later withdrawn by the manufacturer for use inAustralian sugarcane in 1998 due to increasing internationalevidence of secondary poisoning of predators, especially birds ofprey (Howald et al., 1999). Research in the early 1990s determinedthe cyclical breeding pattern of the ground rat, and how weedcontrol in crop and in adjacent harbourage areas (e.g., headlandsetc.), could limit rat populations (Wilson and Whisson, 1993;Robertson et al., 1995). This research became the foundation of theindustry’s first IPM program for rat control.

Extreme rainfall events throughout much of the central andnorthern regions in 1998 led to 15% of the crop in some mill areasbeing ‘stood over’ for another year before it could be harvested.Weather conditions also greatly hampered weed control in cropsand on headlands (Hunt et al., 2004). These areas provided idealbreeding grounds for a rodent plague that emerged in the 1999season (Hunt and Samson, 2002; Hunt et al., 2004). In the 1999 and2000 seasons, rats inflicted 852,000 t of direct sugarcane losses anddowngraded quality valued then at AUD $25m (Hunt and Samson,2002; Hunt et al., 2004).

With the withdrawal of Klerat�, the industry had no registeredrodenticide for one critical season until Racumin� (0.0375% couma-tetralyl) became available for use in 1999. In 2000, RATTOFF� (2.5%zinc phosphide) was introduced. These new rodenticides weremajorimprovements on previous options in environmental terms, due totheir low risk of potential secondary poisonings (BSES, 2000; Smithet al., 2002, 2003; Staples et al., 2003; John, 2008). A rodent IPMextension programwas prepared by BSES which included: detectionof populations, undertaking effectiveweedmanagement in crops andadjacent harbourage areas, and effective baiting using the availableregistered rodenticides. This strategy was extended to over 3200producers in 2000e2001 (Hunt et al., 2004). It was delivered througha series of large industry forums in central and northern growingregions and via follow-up one-to-one extension.

How these programs have added to the capacity and resilienceof the Australian sugar industry requires an investigation into bothindustry production data, as well as consultation with expertstakeholders who were involved in the IPM initiatives. Thesestakeholders are those that understand the complexity of the RD&Eassociated with the programs, both in the past and the present, andcan appraise how the industry has progressed around adoptingeffective IPM systems. Our study should also be able to provideguidance to effective strategies in other industries when con-fronted with similar challenges.

6. Research methodology

Relevant quantitative and qualitative data and information onthe incidence and severity of damage by pests and adoption ofmanagement practices from 2001 to 2009 were collected. The‘Capitals Framework’modified from Carney (1998), DFID, 1999, andMcIntosh et al. (2008) was used as the basis for collating data andinformation, and interpreting it.

To assess Produced Capital, damage data were collated fromthree mill regions, two in the wet-tropics of Far North Queensland(Mulgrave and Herbert River mill-regions); and one in the centralregion (Mackay). The two northern mill regions combined arecomparable in volume (tonnes of cane crushed) and number offarmers to the Mackay production region. Importantly, all of thesemill-regions have a long history of greyback canegrub and rodentinfestation, and are among the few regions that continue to collatepest impact data following progressive deregulation in theAustralian sugar industry since the early 2000s. There has been in

many locations a scaling down or cessation of reporting of pestimpacts by many CPSs. The damage estimates are presented as casestudies to assist in developing and understanding program impacts.

The remaining CapitalseHuman, Natural, Institutional and Socialewere investigated using 17 semi-structured telephone interviewsof key figures in sugar research, extension and production. Thisinvolved both voice and written recording of industry key infor-mants. The farmer stakeholders interviewed in this process wereselected because of their key regional or industry leadership andadvocacy roles during the 1999e2001 outbreaks and their cross-regional understanding of sugarcane production systems. Theorigins of the 17 interviewees were:

� Research scientists and managers e 6� BSES Limited Extension officers e 3� CPS Extension officers e 5� Leading farmers e 3

7. Findings

Table 1 to 3 detail canegrub and rodent impact in the three casestudy mill-regions of Mulgrave, Herbert River, and Mackay from2001 to 2009. Unfortunately, no comprehensive data on sugarcanelosses due to rodents were available from Mackay, though inter-views with informants indicated no event of similar magnitude tothat in 1999 and 2000. The pest data (Tables 1 and 2) and sup-porting testimonies from interviewees indicate that, since 2001,both canegrub and rodent damage have remained at greatlyreduced levels compared to the 1999e2001 period. The Mackayregion did experience an upswing in greyback canegrub damage(though not a catastrophic rise) over three years which precipitateda corresponding increase (in following seasons) in the area treatedwith insecticide ewhich, not surprisingly, seems to have mitigatedthe problem. The overall trends across the respective mill regionsfor both rodent and canegrub damage indicates a sustainedsuppression of pest impacts.

Table 3 details the findings collated from interviews with 17expert informants from the research, extension and farmingsectors. Against each of the described ‘Capitals’ are a range of keyissues, as well as supporting evidence, and related feedback aboutwhat is happening in industry.

8. Discussion

8.1. Canegrub management

Evaluation of the GrubPlan program in 2003 revealed high levelsof adoption of canegrub management plans that farmers prepared

Table 2Greyback canegrub damage in the Mulgrave, Herbert River and Mackay sugarcane growing regions 2001e2009.

year Mulgrave Herbert River Mackay

Tonnessugarcane lost

Total hectarestreated with canegrubinsecticides

Tonnessugarcane lost

Total hectarestreated with canegrubinsecticides

Tonnessugarcane lost

Total hectarestreated with canegrubinsecticides

2001 67,700 2771 231,420 6440 3027 25762002 1975 1770 33,060 5700 27,485 16902003 3470 1858 25,774 2466 5095 15322004 995 1623 20,508 2722 36,971 25992005 2800 1798 15,504 2312 37,344 31442006 705 2024 10,805 2578 29,785 29822007 1207 1846 8720 2243 7630 49072008 160 1536 12,625 2208 665 36832009 25 2301 9080 3051 11,095 3064

W. Hunt et al. / Crop Protection 37 (2012) 71e80 75

in the workshops (Hunt et al., 2003; Samson et al., 2005; Allsopp,2010). GrubPlan introduced new management technologies (e.g.new pesticides) and reinforced proven strategies that were eithernot being properly applied or had not been adopted (Hunt et al.,2003; Allsopp, 2010). It promoted the strategic treatment of high-risk zones throughout mill regions and helped achieve suppres-sion of the pest on an area-wide basis (Hunt et al., 2003; Samsonet al., 2005; Allsopp, 2010). The impact of the extension effortresulted in an 80% reduction in damage levels across the industryfrom 746,000 t of sugarcane in 2001 to around 150,000 t in 2002(Hunt et al., 2003; Allsopp, 2010).

Canegrub population dynamics are complex and not fullyunderstood (Hunt et al., 2003; Sallam and Samson, 2008; Sallamet al., 2008). Learning what has happened to produce the sus-tained suppression in both canegrub and rodent pest losses ischallenging as there is a range of possible biological and humanforces associated with this issue. It could be argued that a naturalevent may have reduced greyback populations and damage in2002. Horsfield et al. (2008) suggested that weather conditions inspring can impact beetle emergence, feeding, and oviposition. Theyfound a possible association between the dramatic 2002 damagedecline and higher than normal temperatures during the 2001spring. However, they could not demonstrate that this was thecause of the decline. Additionally, the influence of area-wideadoption of both preventive and knockdown chemicals on cane-grubs during this period was given little consideration as thecausative agent for the decline.

The Burdekin region is a useful case study of cause and effect oncanegrub populations because it is an area where soil-borne can-egrub pathogens are largely absent (Robertson et al., 1997) and thusthe influence of disease on canegrub populations and damage canbe excluded. Records show no evidence of markedly-reducedcanegrub damage in the Burdekin in the decade prior to 2002(Hunt et al., 2003); thereby excluding soil pathogens and generalweather fluctuations as principal drivers in the 2002 industry-widedecline in damage. The widespread use of new, more effectiveinsecticide options in both plant and ratoon cane appears to be themajor contributor to the damage reductions.

Interviewees speculated that a causal relationship may existbetween world sugar prices and the level of expenditure and areatreated with insecticide, which might then have a downstreameffect on canegrub populations and subsequent damage, as raisedin Hunt et al. (2003). We did not attempt to determine if thisrelationship exists, though it could be worth further investigation.

All interviewees asserted that the major influence on reductionof damage since 2001 has been cane growers having increasedflexibility for canegrub control compared to the past. In addition toa new effective controlled-release treatment (susCon� Maxi),growers can also act on signs of early damage in ratoons by gaining

improved skills in recognising visual symptoms, monitoring andacting on threshold numbers of canegrubs from field digs, andbetter understanding of soil types that canegrubs favour. They canalso treat higher-risk fields with liquid imidacloprid insecticidesto control canegrub populations in ratoons, after the effective life(2 years) of suSCon� insecticides applied at planting have expired.

Early in the decade, imidacloprid was still under patent and atAUD $250/ha (for Confidor Guard�) was very expensive. Despitethis, farmers in an effort to thwart the 2000e2001 outbreak,utilised it widely for protecting ratoons. Suppressing canegrubbuild-up in ‘at-risk’ fields allows for an extension of the number ofcrop ratoons. Replanting a sugarcane crop is the most expensivecomponent in the crop production cycle; hence, extending thenumber of ratoons makes good economic sense as long as highyields are maintained. The cost of imidacloprid to control canegrubpopulations in ratoons has now declined to about 1/3 of theprevious cost (AUD $80/ha), as the product is now out of patentprotection allowing competition and consequent price reductions.The reduction in product price probably explains part of the long-term suppression of canegrub populations regardless of sugarprice. Sustained industry-wide suppression is a result of farmersgaining increased competence in early detection of canegrubdamage, better management practices, and lower insecticide pricee these have enabled wider treatment of risk areas.

Extension has enabled farmers to make better risk managementdecisions (i.e. where, when and how to control canegrubs). Therespondents explained that by better understanding the biology ofthe pests and the capability of control and management options,farmers have been able to make better choices. The introduction ofeffective insecticide treatments in ratoons appears to have drivena change in attitude towards early detection of canegrub damage bygrowers. However, peer group influences around a need to be seento be taking action may also have helped in facilitating area-widesuppression of the pests. Area-wide pest management principleshave, as one interviewee remarked, “caught on with both pests”.

The widespread adoption and use of imidacloprid may causenegative repercussions on the natural capital of the industry. Imi-dacloprid has been detected in recent stream and groundwatermonitoring programs in the Burdekin region (Lewis et al., 2009),albeit at very low levels. Whilst it is a positive that the industry hasadopted modern chemistry that is superior to the formerchlorpyrifos-based product, imidacloprid remains a more mobilechemical in the environment. Consequently, future scrutiny of itsuse in regard to water quality and potential non-target impacts ispossible. Compounding the risk is that the industry has an over-reliance on one chemical for canegrub control. If imidacloprid iscompromised or lost because of unacceptable environmentalimpacts, the industry would be exposed again to increased cane-grub damage and the resilience of the industry would consequently

Table 3Key findings derived from interviews with key informants.

Capital Key issues relating to theIPM initiatives

Supporting evidence Industry actions

Produced Reductions in damage from bothgreyback canegrubs and rats.

No outbreaks since 2001. Continuation with IPM systems

Human Knowledge of BSES, CPS staffand farmers in managing pests.

IPM programs described as a ‘solidifying’ initiatives. � Regular updating of extension materials.

Effectiveness of extension programs Relevant pest management knowledge and practiceavailable to extension staff and industry participants.Two refresher courses run by BSES for CPS andBSES staff.

Knowledge and skills CPSs now better informed about effective pestmanagement strategies than previously.

� Continue extension support for GrubPlan.

Organisational culture of extensionproviders

BSES extension services in sugar have transitionedtowards capacity building group activities. Staff areno longer conducting regular one-to-one farm visits.

R&D on canegrub IPM Cane grub IPM systems need further development toresolve some existing knowledge gaps around the pest.

� Support for further R&D on prediction ofdamage.

Confidence in greybackcanegrub controls

Growers and extension agents observing effectivenessof control measures.

� Continue IPM training so skills are passed onin succession.

Adoption of area-wide managementagainst canegrubs

More land areas treated when damage threats areevident.Improved grower awareness and skills in identifyingand managing canegrub risk areas.Growers effectively identifying risk areas and takingpreventative action.

� Reinforce rodent IPM principleswith successive generations of growers.

Adoption of rodent IPM principlesare more universal thanwith canegrubs.

Growers rely heavily on insecticide components of IPMfor canegrub management.

Natural Capital Environmental constraintson chemical use

Potential for loss of imidacloprid due to mobility andwater contamination.

� Monitor results from waterquality programs.

Risk of increased water turbidity incoastal streams reduced

Successful control of greyback canegrubs reducedforced plough-outs and re-plantings of sugarcane,and associated soil erosion.

� Identify best practices that might mitigaterisk with existing chemistry.

Recognition of responsibleenvironmental stewardship

Improved in crop and harbourage weed control, torestrict rodent populations has reduced reliance onrodenticides.Ratification in 2010 of the first species managementplan for a native pest species (rodents) in anyagricultural industry in a Queensland Government/Industry agreementChange from second generation anticoagulant poisonsto toxins with reduced secondary poisoning risk i.e.,coumatetralyl and zinc phosphide.

� Ongoing R&D to explore new insecticidal,biological and cultural canegrub controltechnologies.

InstitutionalCapital

Maintenance of extension services. BSES having difficulty in maintaining extensionservices in some regions under previous industryRD&E investment/levy arrangements.Shortage of suitably qualified and experienced peopleto replace existing pest management staff as theyretire.Recruitment of new junior staff into extension rolesdifficult due to unavailability of employees and/orunattractiveness of career paths.

� Likely devolvement of BSES extensionservices to CPSs or private providers.

� The industry has decided to increase itsvoluntary levy for RD&E paid by millersand growers by 5 c/t of cane harvestedfor millers making their averagecontribution 22 c/t and 40 c/t for growers.

Capacity in pest managementresearch and extension disciplines.

Caneegrowers asserting that BSES has beensubstantially weakened by staff reductionand retirement of highly qualified personnel.Industry approaching a point of vulnerability in pestmanagement attributed by interviewees to lowinvestment in pest management R&D expertise.

Remuneration of staff. Competition from other industries thatoffer better employment conditionsInadequate career opportunities.

Restructure of sugar industryRD&E institutions

A review of sugar industry RD&E supported by theAustralian Sugar Milling Council and the agri-politicalbody CANEGROWERS is recommending a majorrestructure of sugar industry RD&E � with particularreference to BSES.

Social Capital Cooperation among industrystakeholders improvements.

Improved relationship between BSES and growersespecially around of pest management.Development of a process about how to securecross-stakeholder agency involvement on difficultissues e.g., rodent outbreaksCooperation among R&D providers and with BSES inR&Dactivities has been enriched by the pest managementprograms in the early 2000s.

� Several CPSs have moved into a closerworking relationship with BSES withcommon work-plans, geographic extensionteams, and designated groups.

W. Hunt et al. / Crop Protection 37 (2012) 71e8076

Table 3 (continued )

Capital Key issues relating to theIPM initiatives

Supporting evidence Industry actions

Cooperation among industrystakeholders e existing andfuture challenges.

Reduced reporting incidence of pest impact databy the CPSs.Residual resentment of implementation of IPMprograms of the early 2000s.Agri-politics have sometimes been unsupportiveof the IPM approaches.

Industry demographic change Young farmers are demonstrating independentthought and less loyalty to the agri-politicalestablishment.

� BSES has fostered successfulyoung farmers’ networks in some regions.

� BSES and the Sugar Research andDevelopment Corporation havesupported inter-region, interstateand even international travel andlearning exercises young growers.

W. Hunt et al. / Crop Protection 37 (2012) 71e80 77

be affected. Therefore, grower and miller interests would be wellserved in continuing research into both new chemistry for cane-grub control, and working in partnership with natural resourcemanagement and marine research entities to confirm if there areany potential environmental hazards from use of imidacloprid bythe Australian sugar industry.

There have been gains in natural capital from the canegrubIPM initiatives. Reductions in areas of forced plough-out andreplanting as a consequence of canegrub damage reduce runoff, soilcompaction and soil erosion, resulting in potentially less turbidityinwaterways. Reduction in soil compaction and erosion contributesto industry and environmental sustainability. Sugar mills also gainthrough less soil being transported to mills in ‘tipped out’ stools ofsugarcane (a result of canegrub damage), thereby reducing prob-lems with overall processing of the crop.

8.2. Rodent management

Industry losses to rats in 2001 were estimated at 201,000 t ofcane, which was 47% lower than in 2000 and 58% lower than the1999 harvest seasons. Total productivity savings in 2000 and 2001compared with 1999 were greater than AUD $10m (2001 dollarvalues) (Hunt and Samson, 2002; Hunt et al., 2004).

From 2001 to 2010, the industry experienced consecutivelydrier than average years. In such years, all cane can be harvestedallowing farmers to conduct effective weed control and rodenticideapplications prior to crop canopy closure (Redhead and Saunders,1980; Wilson and Whisson, 1993; Smith et al., 2002; Hunt et al.,2004). Interviewees said that this contrasted with the 1999e2000rodent population build-ups which were preceded by wetseasonal conditions during harvest that inevitably led to significantareas of cane that was not harvested until a year later, resultingin more weed infestation in crops precipitating the 1999e2000rat outbreak. Regardless, the existing research on rodent biology(Redhead and Saunders, 1980; Wilson and Whisson, 1993)confirmed that, if best rodent IPM practice was not being exercisedin the industry, there would almost certainly have been ongoingspikes in rodent damage in the mill regions over the last decade e

this has not been the case.The regulatory framework between the industry and the

Queensland Government for managing native rodents (Dyer, 2010)has provided rigor to rodent management in the industry by obli-gating both pest monitoring and regulation of an optimal baittreatment window. A positive environmental outcome has been thechange from a less environmentally-friendly rodenticide (Klerat�)to products with low secondary poisoning risk. However, extensioninformants indicated their suspicion of the ongoing use of unreg-istered second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides within the

industry in some districts. The industry should take steps toinvestigate this and, if substantiated, take action to eliminate thisbehaviour. Failure to act may cast a negative public image on theindustry, and eliminate past gains in building a good reputation forresponsible environmental stewardship.

The feedback from both RD&E personnel and farmers is thatextension agents are now more informed and confident withrodent IPM systems. Rodent IPM has over the last decade beenmuch better understood, extended and reinforced by both BSES andCPS. In general, when extension staff are confident in the reliabilityand practicality of the systems they are extending, there is anenhanced willingness for them to participate in programs.

8.3. Industry social capital

The aspect of social capital is more complex and has a politicalcomponent. In some mill-regions, there are apparent improve-ments across the stakeholder community (growers, sugarcanemillers, RD&E agents, and agri-politics), and many respondentsindicated this has been a direct consequence of the successes of theextension efforts of the early 2000s. By contrast, there are periodicdiscords between agri-politics, BSES and sugar millers in otherareas. One interviewee expressed the view that some in the agri-political side of the industry resented the IPM programs of theearly 2000s because they felt that they heralded a change towardsmore interference in the way farmers ran their businesses. Hilde-brand (2002, p.43) in his Independent Assessment of the SugarIndustry commissioned by the Australian Government reflecteda similar position when he said “Industry representation is hier-archical and suspicious of those outside its own group”. Theprograms took non-negotiable positions against any reintroductionof organochlorine chemicals for canegrub control and a return toineffective aerial rodent baiting practices. These positions werecontroversial amongst industry agencies as they required a moreecological (i.e., complex) strategy than mortality based (simple)interventions, therefore overturning long-held industry paradigms.

The interview process revealed that there had been reluctancein recent years by some millers to pay their full RD&E levy contri-butions to BSES. This also coincided with a reducing level ofQueensland State Government funding to BSES and several yearswhere reduced crop size saw falling voluntary levy flows into theorganisation. The tapering financial base threatened the institu-tional capacity of the industry. BSES has refrained from charginggrowers royalties on plant breeders’ rights (PBR) for its sugarcanebecause of potentially damaging industry reactions (i.e. withdrawalof voluntary levy payments). However, consultations have led topositive developments in late 2010 with industry stakeholders(sugarcane millers, agri-political stakeholders, and BSES), agreeing

W. Hunt et al. / Crop Protection 37 (2012) 71e8078

to an increase of levy contribution to BSES from 20 c/t to 40 c/t ofsugarcane for farmers, and 25 c/t for millers. Alarmingly, Welsman(2011) has argued that the new levy fee remains largely inadequateto support existing BSES infrastructure and services. Welsmanestimates that a levy contribution of 80 c/t of sugarcane may benecessary to sustain the current industry RD&E system in theabsence of any reforms.

Future collation and analysis of industry data on pest impactremain an issue. The majority of CPSs no longer collect damageimpact data relating to pests. The reasons for this are complex e

possibly a function of time allocation and priorities with otherduties. Whatever the case, the industry is now worse off as a resultof not having regular and disciplined reporting of damage esti-mates. It is now difficult to objectively plot industry-wide damagetrends attributed to different pests, and the people with these skillsare retiring, meaning the knowledge and skills are not being passedon to new employees. The consequent lack of long-term datameans that temporal changes, cycles of pest incidence, and rela-tionships of pest incidence (and damage) with environmentalvariables will not be able to be investigated. These data representan investment in the industry’s future capacity and resilience, and itseems illogical that they are not collected routinely.

A cultural shift has begun in at least one mill-region wherefarmer demographics have changed. Agri-political forces are losingthe franchise of a significant portion of younger farmers (i.e. thoseaged <50 years of age) in this location, and this younger group isnow becoming the dominant generation in the demographic mix.The older demographic of growers strongly supported the politicalstatus quo and accepted what was said, whereas the younger groupis more technically and business oriented. The younger farmershave also travelled more and have expanded their knowledge, andare now questioning the various positions of the agri-politicalestablishment as to whether they are serving their best interests.

The interviews revealed that, during the rollout of the IPMprograms there were tensions between BSES and sugar agri-politics. As the programs were delivered, agri-politics was quickto claim the accolades around success and little kudos wasextended to BSES’s role in this work. Sugar industry politics is notalways kind or helpful to RD&E efforts. “Common politics can alsosometimes overwhelm common sense, and hinder the commongood”, (Herbert Region, Interview, October 2010). A leading growersupported this assertion saying that industry often took RD&Eservices for granted and did not truly value the collective efforts ofRD&E agents. Irritating as this might be to those involved, organ-isational cultures do not change rapidly and this must be seen forwhat it ise a reality of the landscape inwhich Australian sugarcaneRD&E agencies function (cf Pini, 2004).

8.4. Industry institutions

The programs of the early 2000s and efforts since have seenimprovements in the capacity of industry extension services to dealwith pest management. This has been a result of researcher andextension leadership developing systems that local extension staffcan practically and confidently deliver to growers. BSES firstembedded this capacity in industry during the 1999e2001 pestmanagement responses. Since then, BSES has conducted twoupdate activities with BSES and CPS staff across the industry. Inaddition, BSES revised and reproduced relevant extensionmaterialsto keep personnel and growers informed of changes in technologyand gains in systems knowledge, especially with canegrubmanagement. This process has also aided in ensuring that newextension staff entering the industry have access to knowledge ofcurrent best practices.

Paradoxically, however, the evidence shows that even thoughthe industry has achieved ongoing containment of greyback cane-grub and rodent outbreaks, the overall institutional capacity is atrisk. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, BSES had over 300 staff,partly due to considerable Australian Government investment insugar industry RD&E (the Cane Productivity Initiative 2002). Newknowledge was generated, and systems developed and imple-mented during this period have served the industry well (Allsopp,2010). However, in 2011 BSES has only around 160 personnel(Wallis pers. comm., 2011), due to rationalisation pressures withinBSES, leading to reductions in some extension services. The threeleading growers who were interviewed asserted that BSES hadbeen weakened as an extension institution in the last decade.Specifically, there has been a reduction in organised pestmanagement extension activities. Furthermore, an industry reviewinto RD&E has been released, and its recommendations are toradically reform RD&E provided by BSES. It proposes that BSES besubsumed by a larger R&D body e Sugar Research Australia (SRA),which would focus on core R&D activities such as plant breeding,and pest and disease management (CANEGROWERS, 2011a,b;Welsman, 2011). Several BSES research stations are proposed to besold, and selected RD&E and resources would be concentrated atfour research stations Meringa (in the Mulgrave mill-region), Bur-dekin, Mackay and Woodford (a small research farm dedicated toplant pathology near Brisbane) (see Fig. 1 for locations). BSESextension capacity would be reduced to a non-field entity titled theProfessional Extension and Communication Unit within the newresearch body. It would be dedicated to capacity-building trainingwith industry stakeholders and general science communicationactivities using the retained core of expertise in the organisation(Welsman, 2011).

Arguably, there has been a costly over-servicing of the Australiansugar industry with two tiers of extension agencies (BSES and CPSs)working with the same clients, and not always functioning inharmony. If the recommendations of the industry reviewmentionedabove are accepted by industry and are implemented, a ‘silo-effect’could develop with R&D centred in one organisation (SRA), andextension services distributed among others (i.e., CPSs and futureanticipated independent service providers). The separation couldlead to adisengagement, confusedmessages andslow thebuildingofcapacity in the future, and even undermine what has already beenachieved. Well integrated arrangements between a research agencyand the extension providers e similar to that which has alreadydeveloped in theMackayandHerbertmill regions betweenBSES andthe local CPS e would be necessary to make this new structuresuccessful. Additionally, maintaining competence levels for anextension element that has largely been taken out of the field couldbe problematic. Whether the industry will ultimately support theproposed changes as reported is uncertain.

A driving force that has contributed to the success of the canegrub and rodent programs of 1999e2001 was that the severity ofthe crises forced stakeholders at all levels to cooperate. Extensionhas been the mechanismwhich initially facilitated the resolution ofthe outbreaks, and has since continued to embed pest managementcapacity in the industry. If structures are developed in the industrythat further divide R&D from extension, then similar cooperationwill become more challenging. Evident in the interviews was theneed for industry to move towards inclusiveness rather than frag-mentation, the latter being a risk given the changes that appearlikely to be implemented.

The reduced output of trained agriculturalists from Australianuniversities in the last decade (Pratley and Copeland, 2008) alsoappears to be impacting agencies such as BSES in terms of theirability to secure new staff. Concern was voiced by both RD&Emanagement and growers about industry capacity to respond to

W. Hunt et al. / Crop Protection 37 (2012) 71e80 79

exotic disease and pest incursion should these occur in the nextdecade. The industry is being forced to source more expertiseinternationally as insufficient trained personnel are being devel-oped locally. This is not restricted to the sugar industry, but isa widespread concern in Australia (Pratley, 2010).

9. Conclusions

Before 2000, there were no established IPM systems in theAustralian sugar industry. GrubPlan and the rodent IPM strategiesare now recognised IPM frameworks in the industry as they haveworked to achieve sustained suppression of pest damage. TheRD&E effort has delivered IPM packages that are practical,defined, and ready for on-farm use. They have contributed toincreasing the stocks of each of the recognised capitals in theindustry e produced, human, natural, institutional and aspects ofsocial capital. The greatest contribution of these initiatives was instrengthening the human capital of BSES and CPS personnel.These agents have then facilitated practice change at the farmlevel with growers, which have led to gains in produced capital(e.g. less tonnes of sugarcane lost to pest damage) and resultingeconomic benefits to the industry. Overall, industry is moreconfident and pro-active in the management of rats and cane-grubs than previously. Consequently, the Australian sugarindustry is a more resilient entity.

On a positive note is the turnaround in investment in RD&E byindustry stakeholders. This has been a critical decision that couldpotentially bolster institutional capital and provide for futureindustry capacity building and thereby the Australian sugarindustry’s future resilience. However, the proposed devolvement offield oriented extension services out of BSES could create institu-tional environments where capacity building becomes more diffi-cult (i.e. a new research entity will be beholden to others tofacilitate the adoption of technologies, practices or systems at thefarm level). Further to this issue, attention needs to be given toimproving aspects of social capital in the industry. Relationshipsbetween BSES and CPSs in some mill-regions have not beenoptimal. Some mill-regions appear to have well integrated coop-erative arrangements between BSES RD&E elements and CPSs.The incidence of less than effective relationships translatesinto comparatively difficult environments for capacity building.Rebranding research efforts into another agency may not resolvethis issue.

This study has also revealed the importance of research andextension leadership in embedding capacity in the ranks of itsextension agents so that they can affect meaningful and sustainedchange amongst industry clients. Needwas also a great driver in thesuccess of the programs. There was a motivation for people toheave together (albeit sometimes reluctantly), and resolve thecrises at hand. These learnings in hard times seem to havecemented certain practice changes in place so that they have nowbecome the new norms.

Our findings support Coutts (2000, p. 2) contention that the roleof extension in society is “the oil that makes things happen.Nothing is going to change on the ground, regardless of the excel-lence of legislation or science unless this oil is there”. So it was withAustralian sugar e today’s resilience to the impact of rodents andgreyback canegrubs is a direct consequence of the extensionprograms first run from 1999 to 2001. Its future capacity andresilience against pests will depend on maintenance of effectivestructural integration of RD&E into the future.

The work described here has clearly demonstrated improve-ments in capacity and resilience in the sugar industry, and identi-fied potential threats to its permanency. It also provides amodel forbuilding capacity and resilience in sugar and other industries when

confronted with multi-faceted challenges related to pest biologyand behaviour, availability of inputs for production, economicforces and environmental considerations.

References

ABARE, 2008. Financial Performance of Australian Sugarcane Farmers. Retrievedfrom: http://www.abare.gov.au/interactive/08_ResearchReports/SugarGrowers/htm/chapter_1.htm. on 13 December 2010.

Adger, W.N., 2000. Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Prog. Hum.Geog. 24 (3), 347e364.

Allsopp, P.G., 2001. The research process: canegrub management in the Australianindustry. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 23, 9e16.

Allsopp, P.G., 2010. Integrated management of sugarcane whitegrubs in Australia:an evolving success. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 55, 329e349.

BSES, 2000. The Rat Pack. BSES, Brisbane.CANEGROWERS, 2011a. Sugarcane-growing Areas of Australia. Retrieved on 2

November 2011. http://www.canegrowers.com.au/page/Industry_Centre/about-the-australian-sugarcane-industry/.

CANEGROWERS, 2011b. RD&E Review, CANEGROWERS Isis Newsletter. October2011.

Carney, D., 1998. Implementing the Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Approach: WhatContribution Can We Make? Department for International Development,London.

Coutts, J., Roberts, K., Frost, F., Coutts, A., 2005. The Role of Extension in CapacityBuilding: What Works and Why? Publication No. 05/094 Rural IndustriesResearch and Development Corporation, Kingston, ACT.

Coutts, J., 2000. Five Domains of Extensione A Queensland Perspective. Proc.Australian Pacific Extension Forum. Retrieved 3 October 2010 from: http://www.regional.org.au/au/apen/2000/5/coutts.htm.

Department for International Development, 1999. Sustainable Livelihoods GuidanceSheets. Department for International Development, London.

Dyer, B., 2010. Queensland Sugar Industry Species Management Plan. BSES Limited,Brisbane.

Ellis, F., 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. OxfordUniversity Press, London.

Hildebrand, C., 2002. Independent Assessment of the Sugar Industry. AustralianGovernment, Canberra.

Horsfield, A., Logan, D.P., Kettle, C.G., 2002. Trap crops for management of greybackcanegrub in the Burdekin. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 24, 213e218.

Horsfield, A., Sallam, M.N., Drummond, F.A., Schulz, R.J., 2008. Role of climaticfactors on damage incidence by Dermolepida albohirtum (Coleoptera: Scar-abaeidae), in Burdekin sugarcane fields, Australia. J. Econ. Entomol. 101,334e340.

Howald, G.R., Mineau, P., Elliot, J.E., Cheng, K.M., 1999. Brodifacoum poisoning ofavian scavengers during rat control on a seabird colony. Ectotoxicology 8,431e447.

Hunt, W., Samson, P., 2002. Final Report e SRDC Project BSS225 e EnhancedAdoption of Integrated Pest Management in Sugarcane. BSES, Brisbane.

Hunt, W., Horsfield, A., Cocco, R., Chandler, K., 2001. GrubPlan. BSES, Brisbane.Hunt, W.D., Chandler, K.J., Horsfield, A., Cocco, R., Sgarbossa, P.J., 2002. Developing

and extending ’GrubPlan‘ for management of greyback canegrub damage inQueensland sugarcane. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 24, 207e212.

Hunt, W.D., Chandler, K.J., Matthews, R., 2003. Evaluation of the ‘GrubPlan’ exten-sion program in Queensland sugarcane. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 25(on CD).

Hunt, W., Dyer, B., Marohasy, J., Kerkwyk, R., Thompson, J., 2004. Systems, policyand infrastructure for rodent management in the Queensland Sugar Industry.Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 26 (on CD).

Hunt, W., Vanclay, F., Birch, C., Coutts, J., Flittner, J., Williams, B., 2011. Agriculturalextension: building capacity and resilience in rural industries and communities.Rural Soc. 20 (2), 112e127.

Hunt, W., Birch, C.J., Coutts, J., Vanclay, F., 2012. The many turnings of agriculturalextension in Australia. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 18 (1),9e25.

John, W.D., 2008. An ecological assessment of secondary poisoning risk in theAustralian sugarcane industry. Thesis, Queensland University of Technology.

Kaplan, H.B., 1999. Toward an understanding of resilience: a critical review ofdefinitions and models. In: Glantz, M.D., Johnston, J.L. (Eds.), Resilience andDevelopment: Positive Life Adaptations. Kluwer, New York.

Lewis, S.E., Brodie, J.E., Bainbridge, Z.T., Rohde, K.T., Davis, A.M., Masters, B.L.,Maughan, M., Devlin, M.J., Mueller, J.F., Schaffelke, B., 2009. Herbicides: a newthreat to the great barrier Reef, Environ. Pollution 157, 2470e2484.

Luthar, S., Chicchetti, D., Becker, B., 2000. The construct of resilience: a criticalevaluation and guidelines for future work. Child. Dev. 71 (3), 543e562.

Macadam, R., Dinan, J., Inall, N., McKenzie, B., 2004. Growing the Capital of RuralAustralia: The Task of Capacity Building. Rural Industries Research and Devel-opment Corporation, Canberra.

McDougall, W.A., 1946. An investigation of the rat problem in Queensland cane-fields: breeding and life histories. Qld. Agric. J. 3, 1e43.

McIntosh, A., Stayner, R., Carrington, K., Rolley, F., Scott, J., Sorensen, T., 2008.Resilience in Rural Communities: Literature Review. Rural Industries Researchand Development Corporation, Canberra.

W. Hunt et al. / Crop Protection 37 (2012) 71e8080

Pini, B., 2004. On being a nice country girl and an academic feminist: usingreflexivity in rural social research. J. Rural Stud. 20, 169e179.

Pratley, J.E., Copeland, L., 2008. Graduate Completions in agriculture and relatedDegrees from Australian Universities 2001e2006. Farm Policy J., Aust. Farm Inst.5 (3), 1e10.

Pratley, J.E., 2010. A Lecture for Agribusiness e The Need for a Highly TrainedWorkforce in the Business of Agriculture. Agribusiness Australia, 70e73 pp.

Redhead, T.D., Saunders, I.W., 1980. Evaluation of thallium sulphate baits againstrats in Queensland (Australia), sugarcane fields adjacent to different vegetationtypes. J. Environ. Prot. Ecol. 2 (1), 1e19.

Robertson, L.N., Story, P.G., Wilson, J., 1995. Integrated pest management for rodentsin sugarcane. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 17, 70e74.

Robertson, L.N., Dall, D.J., Lai Fook, J., Kettle, C.G., 1997. Population dynamics ofgreyback canegrub (Dermolepida albohirtum), in north Queensland sugarcane(Scarabaeidae: Melolonthinae). In: Allsopp, P.G., Rogers, D.J., Robertson, L.N.(Eds.), Soil Invertebrates in 1997. Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations,Brisbane, pp. 140e144.

Robertson, L.N., 1997. Recent advances towards IPM for greyback canegrub,Dermolepida albohirtum in sugarcane, (Scarabaeidae: Melolonthinae). In:Allsopp, P.G., Rogers, D.J., Robertson, L.N. (Eds.), Soil Invertebrates. BSES, Bris-bane, pp. 92e95.

Rolf, J.E., 1999. Resilience. An interview with Norman Garmezy. In: Glantz, M.D.,Johnson, J.L. (Eds.), Resilience and Development. Positive Life Adaptations.Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, pp. 5e14.

Sallam, M., Samson, P., 2008. GrubPlan: A greyback canegrub monitoring programin Australian sugarcane fields. Proc. 23rd Int. Congr. Entomol.. Durban, SouthAfrica, 6e12 July.

Sallam, M.N., Samson, P.R., Puglisi, G.D., Bull, J.I., Donald, D.A., 2008. Samplingstatistics and population dynamics of greyback canegrubs in sugarcane fields:a case study. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 30, 182e192.

Samson, P.R., Hunt, W.D., Chandler, K.J., Horsfield, A., Cocco, R., Matthews, R.,Sgarbossa, P., 2005. Grubplan, a training program to help growers managegreyback canegrub (Dermolepida albohirtum) in Australia. Proc. Aust. Soc. SugarCane Technol. 25 (on CD).

Samson, P.R., Chandler, K.J., Sallam, M.N., 2007. GrubPlan: Options for GreybackCanegrub Management. BSES Limited, Brisbane.

Samson, P., Sallam, M., Chandler, K., Drummond, F., 2008. A prediction system forgreyback canegrub, Dermolepida albohirtum, to aid growers’ managementdecisions. Proc. 23rd Int. Congr. Entomol.. Durban, South Africa, 6e12 July.

Smith, M., Staples, L., Dyer, B., Hunt, W., 2002. Incorporation of a zinc phosphiderodenticide into integrated management of rats in sugarcane crops. Proc. Aust.Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 24, 228e234.

Smith, M., Dyer, B., Brodie, A., Hunt, W., Staples, L., 2003. Overcoming rat infestationin Australian sugarcane crops using an integrated approach that includes newrodenticide technology. In: Singleton, G.R., Hine, L.A., Krebs, C.J., Spratt, D.M.(Eds.), Rats, Mice and People; Rodent Biology and Management. ACIAR,Canberra, pp. 238e241.

Staples, L., Smith, M., Pontin, K., Hunt, W., 2003. Use of zinc phosphide to overcomerodent infestations. In:Wright, E.J., Webb, M.C., Highley, E. (Eds.), Stored Grain inAustralia 2003. Proceedings of the Australian Postharvest Technical Conference,Canberra, 25e27 June 2003. CSIRO Stored Grain Research Laboratory, Canberra.

Vanclay, F., 2004. Social principles for agricultural extension to assist in thepromotion of natural resource management. Aust. J. Exp. Ag. 44 (3), 213e222.

Varghese, J., Krogman, N.T., Beckley, T.M., Nadeau, S., 2006. Critical analysis of therelationship between local ownership and community resiliency. Rural Sociol.71 (3), 505e527.

Welsman, S.J., 2011. Sugar RDE Reform Report,_Reform Proposals,_ImplementationPoints.

Wilson, J., Whisson, D., 1993. The Management of Rodents in North QueenslandCanefields. QUT, Brisbane.