This paper reports on a study to answer the research question; why do dairy farmers adopt (or not adopt as the case may be) centre pivot irrigation (CPI) in the Central Goulburn Irrigation District (CGID) of southeastern Australia? Twenty-two dairy farmers were interviewed. Ten of these farmers had adopted CPI, four were considering adopting, and eight of the farmers were not planning to adopt CPI. The farmers interviewed represented the range of irrigated dairy farm sizes and production practices found within the CGID. The interviews were conducted and the data analysed as per the methods developed by Kaine (2004; 2008). We found that dairy farmers in the CGID only adopted CPI if their farm context (the farm's physical characteristics, the farmers' mix of skills and existing practices) meant that CPI would provide a relative advantage over alternative irrigation options. Therefore, CPI was only adopted when a farmer: required additional cattle feed; wanted to grow crops in a 'cut and carry' system to meet these requirements; and had access to undeveloped, physically suitable land. These findings suggest that rather than the adoption rates of CPI in the CGID being low, the market for CPI within the CGID is small. This is useful information that will enable realistic targets for adoption to be set, and guide research and extension in the CGID.

As water becomes an increasingly valued resource, communities are pressuring the agricultural sector to reconsider their practices so as to ensure the long-term sustainability of this precious resource. One way the Victorian viticulture industry is responding to this necessity is by investing in precision irrigation innovations, such as sustained deficit irrigation (SDI). SDI is an irrigation technique that allows for the regular application of irrigation water at lower quantities compared with current best management. Research investigating the effects of applying irrigation water at three different irrigation deficits on red wine grape varieties has been undertaken. Initial results indicate that some levels of SDI may have the ability to produce a profitable crop using substantially less irrigation water. These results seemed promising for SDI adoption. To understand if growers will adopt SDI, the Department of Primary Industries' Practice Change Research team conducted a study using a theoretical framework for predicting the adoption of agricultural innovations based on the integration of Consumer Behaviour Theory and Farming Systems Theory. We found that growers used irrigation water as a management tool to produce a profitable crop. Growers applied irrigation water at different rates and frequencies according to growth stage and seasonal requirements, in order to achieve both quality and quantity. Irrigation management decisions were based upon growers' experience, weather forecasts and various soil moisture monitoring tools. Growers, however believed the consequences of applying insufficient irrigation water would be detrimental to their business' viability and believed innovations, such as SDI would increase the likelihood of under irrigating. Given these findings we suggest that, in the current context, adoption is likely to be low. However, with continued long-term research and demonstrations, a persuasive case for SDI's relevance and worth to growers may be made.

Water use efficiency (WUE) in irrigated dairy systems has been defined, in this paper, as the amount of milk (kg milk fat plus protein) produced from pasture per megalitre of water (irrigation plus effective rainfall). A farm survey was conducted for the 1997-98 and 1998-99 seasons in the Goulburn Irrigation System (GIS) and Murray Irrigation System (MIS) when the irrigation water allocated to irrigators in the GIS was low (100-120% of water right compared with the MIS which was 130 and 200% of water right). These data were analysed in conjunction with information collected on the same farms in the 1994-95 and 1995-96 seasons when the irrigation water allocated to irrigators in both systems was above 150% of water right (Armstrong et al. 1998, 2000). The aim of the survey was to determine if the management decisions made by dairy farmers in seasons of low irrigation water allocations had an impact on WUE.Milk production averaged across the 2 irrigation systems increased significantly over the 5-year period (57540-75040 kg milk fat + protein per farm). Over the same period the amount of irrigation water applied (GIS 7.6 ML/ha, MIS 9.2 ML/ha) and the milking area (GIS 72 ha, MIS 73 ha) remained constant. The amount of concentrates fed per cow (GIS 650-1100 kg DM, MIS 480-860 kg DM) and per farm (GIS 119-228 t DM, MIS 72-157 t DM) increased, but pasture consumption ( GIS 8.9-9.5 t DM/ha, MIS 9.1-9.7 t DM/ha) did not increase significantly over the survey period. Therefore, the increase in milk production appeared to come primarily from an increase in supplementary feeding rather than an increase in pasture consumption, resulting in no significant change in WUE in either system (GIS 66 kg milk fat + protein/ML, MIS 61 kg milk fat + protein/ML).The survey results indicate that despite varying water allocations in the 2 major irrigation systems in northern Victoria, milk production on farms in both systems increased while changes in WUE could not be detected by the methods used. This suggests tactical options to increase WUE in response to short-term changes in water allocation were either difficult to implement or not a priority in a business sense.

Improvement in water use efficiency (WUE) in the irrigation areas of northern of Victoria is considered a major priority in addressing productivity and natural resource management issues by the dairy industry, service providers to the dairy industry, the community and natural resource managers. There has been a range of extension programs undertaken by these stakeholders to encourage change in farming practices to address WUE priorities. However, despite the continued lower than expected irrigation water allocations coupled with these programs, WUE, improvements have slowed in the irrigation area of northern Victoria over the past 20 years (Brown 2000). WUE for this paper is defined as the amount of milk produced from pasture per ML of water applied by irrigation plus effective rainfall (Armstrong et al. 1998, 2000). Despite increased awareness and the availability of improved practices, adoption has remained slow. We know the current rate of change makes sense from a farmers' business and contextual perspective.

Summary: The COPINE Project at the Department of Applied Psychology, seeks to address children's vulnerability in relation to the Internet and child pornography. As part of the project, offenders convicted of downloading such images have been interviewed. This paper considers existing models of offender behaviour alongside literature relating to Internet use. A single case study is used to illustrate a process-focused model of offending, using interview material to demonstrate how the offender represented and accounted for his behaviour. The offender in question had no history of engaging in sexual behaviour with actual children, but his case illustrated many of the stages described by offenders in their involvement with pornography, including: setting events, engagement, collecting behaviour, and the emergence of relationships.

Background/Aims: Five somatostatin receptors subtypes (SSTR) have been characterized in the gastrointestinal tract.Both bioactive forms of somatostatin, S-14 and S-28, bind to all SSTR's, but S-28 localized predominantly in ileum/colon has preferential affinity for SSTR5.This study examined whether SSTR-5 mediates somatostatin inhibition of PYY, also found in ileum/colon.Methods: Rat intestinal cultures were treated with somatostatin agonists with relatively high specificity for SSTR1-5.Results: Administration of GRP (10-TM) stimulated PYY secretion to 161 _+ 12% of paired controls; this response was not influenced by pertussis toxin (200 ng/ml) or nitredipine (50 uM).PYY secretion was more potently inhibited by S-28 (ICso 0.1nM) then by S-14 (IC5o 100nM).Phosphoramidon and amastatin did not alter the potencies of S-28 or S-14.The SSTR5 agonist, BIM 23052 inhibited PYY secretion (ICs0 0.1nM) with similar potency to S-28.Whereas the SSTR5 agonist L372, 588 also inhibited PYY (IC5o 0.1nM), the structurally-related peptides L-372, 587 (tyrosine conversion: 7 from 2) and L362, 855 (phenylalanines: both 2 and 7) caused no inhibition at I00 nM.The SSTR agonist NC8-12 was marginally more potent (ICso 50nM) than S-14 while an SSTR3 agonist was without effect at 100nM.Pertussis toxin blocked PYY inhibition by S-28 and the SSTR5 agonists; nitredipine was without effect.PYY stimulated by PMA was abolished by S-28 and the SSTR-5 agonists at lnM, but after forskolin-stimulated PYY secretion, S-28 and BIM 23052 caused two-fold less inhibition and L372,588 was without effect.Conclusions: S-28, acting through a G i protein mediates inhibition of GRP and protein-kinase C stimulated PYY secretion through SSTR5 activation.Hydroxyl group conversions of SSTR5 peptides may facilitate the development of more potent agonists or antagonists.

[Preface]: This publication combines the experiences and insights of irrigation consultants and extension officers with that of social, agronomic and engineering scientists. The resultant publication is targeted at those who advise, support and supply irrigation dependent enterprises with new information, tools and equipment. We have purposely defined irrigation decisions in their broadest context. This is based on the authors’ experiences who collectively have observed many failures when irrigation decisions are not placed in the context of the irrigation enterprise. In bringing together contributors across a wide range of disciplines and backgrounds, we commenced by agreeing on the following key principles: • Irrigation is a business. • Irrigation decisions are made right across the enterprise - at planning (strategic) and management (tactical) levels. • Irrigation enables enterprises and communities to exist in regions where otherwise there would be none. • Irrigation is but one input. To improve irrigation practice we must ensure that irrigation decisions are integrated into the enterprise. • Irrigation can be a powerful crop management tool. Correct irrigation decisions can have a major impact on crop yield, quality and profitability. • Production and business sustainability are the big drivers of adoption of new information, tools and equipment. • Irrigation decisions are made by people. By providing the context in which irrigation decisions are made the potential value of innovations are increased. Placing information, tools and equipment appropriately into the irrigation enterprise’s existing system increases the likelihood of successful business, productivity and environmental outcomes.