The FARMSCAPE Information System emerged in a long-running research program aimed at making simulation models useful to Australian farmers in managing climatic variability. This paper is about how well it has worked. This is reported in relation to two standards: (1) the value to thinking and action expressed by farmers and their consultants, (2) correspondence with theory about learning and judgement in uncertain external environments. The former utilises recorded narrative interviews with participants over many years. The latter uses a cognitive framework drawn from theory of judgment and decision making featuring the relationship between intuition and analysis (McCown, 2011).The cognitive theory framework makes sense of several evaluation surprises. The first was high enthusiasm by largely-intuitive farmers for an analytic approach to soil water in conjunction with a newly-appreciated "bucket" metaphor for water balance. The second surprise was the virtual absence of soil water measurement 10 years later. This had been replaced by various intuitive estimates, calibrated to maintain a heuristic relationship with regard to the "bucket" as a resource.Farmers and their advisers were facilitated in using simulation for thought experiments and planning under climatic uncertainty. Benchmarking enabled problem solving in documented conditions. Scenario analysis using historical climate records supported thought experiments by providing probability distributions that were valued for shaping expectations as a "history of the future". In retrospective evaluation interviews, researchers were surprised to find that yield forecasting and tactical decision making, anticipated to be analyses that were both site- and season-specific forecasts, had served farmers as "management gaming" simulations to aid formulating action rules for such conditions, thus reducing the need for an on-going decision-aiding service. Equipped with their soil monitoring techniques and with their heuristic rules, farmers still reserved a place for simulation "when you've got a planting situation out of the ordinary." (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Economic and climatic pressures are forcing many Australian dryland farmers to reassess their management of soil resources and climatic risk. FARMSCAPE intervention has offered enhanced soil characterisation and monitoring as a contribution to soil water and nitrogen inventory, and simulation as a contribution to interpretation of locally measured environmental data in stochastic production terms. This paper relates the journey taken by the farmers, their consultants, and the researchers as they worked together to assess the value to farming and consulting practice of these scientific tools and techniques. Ten years after FARMSCAPE interactions commenced, a sample of participant farmers and consultants was interviewed to evaluate effects on thinking and practice. Understandings and concepts gained in FARMSCAPE continued to guide thinking and action. Early simulations in response to ‘what if…?’ enquiries of strategic importance, such as crop sequencing and rotation choice, were still referred to as learnings of continuing value. However, techniques and practices varied markedly between individuals and organisations. Monitoring of soil resources varied from continued use of the relatively complex tools and techniques provided by the researchers through to the use of much-simplified techniques that provided adequate information to satisfy the conceptual models. Methods for interpreting soil water ranged from use of the simulator, APSIM, to simple water-use efficiency ‘rules of thumb’.

Crop simulation models relevant to real-world agriculture have been a rationale for model development over many years. However, as crop models are generally developed and tested against experimental data and with large systematic gaps often reported between experimental and farmer yields, the relevance of simulated yields to the commercial yields of field crops may be questioned. This is the third paper in a series which describes a substantial effort to deliver model-based decision support to Australian farmers. First, the performance of the cropping systems simulator, APSIM, in simulating commercial crop yields is reported across a range of field crops and agricultural regions. Second, how APSIM is used in gaining farmer credibility for their planning and decision making is described using actual case studies. Information was collated on APSIM performance in simulating the yields of over 700 commercial crops of barley, canola, chickpea, cotton, maize, mungbean, sorghum, sugarcane, and wheat monitored over the period 1992 to 2007 in all cropping regions of Australia. This evidence indicated that APSIM can predict the performance of commercial crops at a level close to that reported for its performance against experimental yields. Importantly, an essential requirement for simulating commercial yields across the Australian dryland cropping regions is to accurately describe the resources available to the crop being simulated, particularly soil water and nitrogen. Five case studies of using APSIM with farmers are described in order to demonstrate how model credibility was gained in the context of each circumstance. The proposed process for creating mutual understanding and credibility involved dealing with immediate questions of the involved farmers, contextualising the simulations to the specific situation in question, providing simulation outputs in an iterative process, and together reviewing the ensuing seasonal results against provided simulations. This paper is distinct from many other reports testing the performance and utility of cropping systems models. Here, the measured yields are from commercial crops not experimental plots and the described applications were from real-life situations identified by farmers. A key conclusion, from 17 years of effort, is the proven ability of APSIM to simulate yields from commercial crops provided soil properties are well characterised. Thus, the ambition of models being relevant to real-world agriculture is indeed attainable, at least in situations where biotic stresses are manageable.

The idea that simulation models of agricultural production can serve as tools for farmers remains a compelling ideaevenafter3decadesofmostlydisappointingdevelopmentefforts.Thispaperisthe firstinaseriesthatreportson17years of systems research that used models differently from the Decision Support System idea that has dominated the field. The starting point of FARMSCAPE (Farmers', Advisers', Researchers', Monitoring, Simulation, Communication And Performance Evaluation) was finding whether farmers could value simulation when conditions for appreciation were improved by (a) specifying the simulator for individual paddocks in question and (b) delivering customised simulation to decision makers as a supporting service rather than software as a decision support product. The first aim of the program has been to learn how to effectively intervene in farm management practice using complex, abstract models of croplands, specifiedwithlocalsoil,climate,andmanagementdata.Thesecondaimhasbeentolearnhowaresultingservicethatfarmers value can be delivered cost effectively by a third party. This first paper deals with an aspect of the first aim, i.e. valued decision support intervention. In the terms used by Checkland (1981), the activities that served this systems practice aim were guided by 'what we thought we were doing' in intervening in farmers' practice, i.e. our systems thinking. This first paper concerns FARMSCAPE systems thinking and howitevolvedover17yearsaswelearnedsuccessivelythroughdiscoveryofanewconceptorrepresentationintheliterature to overcome limitations of the then-current conceptual framework. Subsequent papers deal with customising scientific monitoring and simulation for farmers, communication as engagement in situations of practice, understanding decision support intervention as facilitation of personal knowledge construction, and piloting commercial delivery of a simulation- based service to farmers and their advisers.

Collaboration of researchers and service-providers with farmers in addressing crop and soil management, using on-farm experiments and cropping system simulation, was negotiated in 2 districts in Central Queensland, Australia. The 2 most influential variables affecting crop productivity in this region (soil water and mineral nitrogen contents) and the growth of sown crops, were monitored and simulated for 3 years beginning in December 1992. Periodic soil sampling of large experimental strips on 3 farms, from paddocks that differed in cropping history and soil properties, provided robust datasets of change, over time, of soil water and mineral nitrogen status. Farmers participated in twice-yearly discussions with researchers, informed by the accumulating data, which influenced thinking about soil behaviour and possible new management strategies. As the study period coincided with a prolonged drought, so that cropping opportunities were few, the objectives of the work were modified to concentrate almost exclusively on the soil variables.The contribution of the Agricultural Production Systems Simulator, which was used to simulate the measured changes in soil water and mineral nitrogen, was found by all participants to be useful. The APSIM output generally demonstrated close correspondence with field observations, which raised confidence in its applicability to local cropping systems. Exploration of hypothetical situations of interest to farmer participants, in the form of what-if scenarios, provided insights into the behaviour of the production system for a range of soil and seasonal conditions. The informed speculation of the simulator became a substitute for the farmers' own, more tentative, efforts.The regular participative review sessions proved to be highly effective in stimulating the learning of both farmers and researchers. The farmers were able to feel comfortable as owners of the collaborative experiments and custodians of the learning environment. Clear evidence for the ongoing learning of these farmers appeared in post-collaboration practices and experiences.

FARMSCAPE (Farmers', Advisers', Researchers', Monitoring, Simulation, Communication And Performance Evaluation) is a program of participatory research with the farming community of northeast Australia. It initially involved research to explore whether farmers and their advisers could gain benefit from tools such as soil characterisation and sampling, climate forecasts and, in particular, simulation modelling. Its current focus is facilitating the implementation of commercial delivery systems for these same tools, in order to meet industry demand for-their access. This paper presents the story of what was' done over the past decade, it provides performance indicators of impact, it reflects on what was learnt over this period and it outlines where this research is likely to head in the future.Over the past 10 years, the FARMSCAPE team employed a Participatory Action Research approach to explore whether farmers could value simulation as a decision support tool for managing their farming system and if so, could it be delivered cost-effectively. Through farmer group engagement, on-farm trials, soil characterisation, monitoring of crops, soils and climate, and sessions to apply the APSIM systems simulator, FARMSCAPE represented a research program on decision support intervention. Initial scepticism by farmers and commercial consultants about the value of APSIM was addressed by testing its performance both against measured data from on-farm trials and against farmers' experiences with past commercial crops. Once this credibility check was passed, simulation sessions usually evolved into participants interactively inquiring of the model the consequence of alternative management options. These 'What if' questions using APSIM were contextualised using local climate and soil data and the farmer's actual or proposed management rules.The active participation of farmers and their advisers, and working in the context of their own farming operations, were the key ingredients in the design, implementation and interpretation of the FARMSCAPE approach to decision support. The attraction of the APSIM systems simulator to farmers contemplating change was that it allowed them to explore their own system in a manner equivalent to learning from experience. To achieve this, APSIM had to be credible and flexible. While direct engagement of farmers initially enabled only a limited number of beneficiaries, this approach generated a commercial market for timely and high quality interactions based on soil monitoring and simulation amongst a significant sector of the farming community. Current efforts are therefore focused on the training, support and accreditation of commercial agronomists in the application of the FARMSCAPE approach and tools.The FARMSCAPE approach to decision support has come to represent an approach to guiding science-based engagement with farm decision making which is being tested nationally and internationally. Crown Copyright (C) 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

The failure of model-based decision support systems to impact on management of the agri-food value chain provides the background to an ongoing ten-year-old participatory action research (PAR) program. This program investigated an alternate paradigm in which a cropping systems simulator, APSIM, was used in discussions with managers to construct new understandings and new management options in practice. The research commenced in 1992 with a pilot project to investigate the possibility of simulation having an impact on farm managers' capacity to cope with a risky production environment. Researchers added value to farmers' practical trials through monitoring of daily weather, soil water and soil nitrogen resources. Simulation was used to extend the application of the trials to other years and other management options. Reflection on the impacts of the project led to a scaled up effort to develop networks of farmer groups facilitated by agronomy consultants to engage in on-farm monitoring and use simulation to aid discussions on a wide range of management possibilities in what became the FARMSCAPE (Farmers, Advisers, Researchers, Monitoring, Simulation, Communication And Performance Evaluation) approach. With evidence of significant impacts on farm management, and a growing demand for a sustainable delivery system for APSIM simulations, we turned our attention to a FARMSCAPE training and accreditation program to enable agronomic consulting companies to offer their own FARMSCAPE services in a commercial environment. A parallel development, which emerged from reflection on an earlier "in-business" study, was an investigation of the feasibility of APSIM having a useful role off farm in other sections of the agri-food value chain. Case studies in portfolio management, financial assessment, and crop insurance and crop loss assessment helped us understand what it takes to invent a role for APSIM in these sectors. We share our wider vision for future applications; our observations on the efficacy of PAR methodology in this program; and suggest institutional changes to encourage the engagement of scientists and their models with practice.