Date post: | 21-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
View: | 214 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Livestock EMS Pilots: Lessons About Educational Strategies
•Elizabeth Ann R. Bird, Coordinator•Vince Padilla, Evaluation Consultant
–University of Wisconsin – Madison Environmental Resources Center
Farm & Home Environmental Management
•With project partners across 10 states
Partnerships for Livestock Environmental Management Systems -
Started 2000.
Farm*A*Syst - Started 1990, 120,000 assessments conducted
Livestock and Poultry Environmental Stewardship Curriculum Project - Started 1999,
Training programs conducted
Funding: $2.5 million from:
USDA/CSREES Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems
Additional support from:
EPA Office of Non-Point Source Control
USDA/Natural Resources Conservation Service
Project Goal
Develop, pilot test and evaluate LIVESTOCK
Environmental Management Systems
with dairy, poultry and beef producers (three states, each commodity area)
Livestock EMS Project Partners(Mostly Cooperative Extension)
NATIONAL LEADERSHIP TEAM
Wisconsin: Richard Klemme (PI), Elizabeth Bird (Co-PI), Gary Jackson* (Co-PI), Karl Hakanson, Mrill Ingram, Janice Kepka, Lyn Kirschner, Vince Padilla
Nebraska: Richard Koelsch* (Co-PI), Jill Heemstra
Georgia: Mark Risse (Co-PI)
* Project originators
Livestock EMS Project Partners
POULTRY TEAM
Georgia (Lead Poultry State): Lawrence (Mark) Risse, Thomas Bass, Carrie-Lynn Presley Fowler, Casey Ritz
Pennsylvania: Amanda Mende, Les Lanyon, Paul Patterson, Amy Van Blarcom PennAg Industries
Virginia: Lori Marsh, Matt Habersack
Livestock EMS Project Partners
DAIRY TEAM
New York (Lead Dairy State): Peter Wright, Stanley (Lee) Telega
Idaho: Kent Foster, Jeanne Brittingham, Scott Koberg, Wayne Newbill, Jim Wood ID Ass’n of Conservation Districts
Wisconsin: Brian Holmes, Bill Bland, Karl Hakanson, Gary Jackson, Lyn Kirschner, Leah Nell Adams
Livestock EMS Project Partners
BEEF TEAM
Montana (Lead Beef State): Gene Surber, Taralyn Fisher
Texas: Brent Auvermann, Shelley Howard
Iowa: John Lawrence, Jeffery Lorimor, Jim Venner
Common Elements of State Pilot Delivery ApproachesBuild EMS understandingProvide for stakeholder inputLimit EMS scope for start-upFocus on comprehensive assessments & action planning and/or “functional” EMS; not ISO 14001 certifiableIntegrate with existing state efforts
Recruitment
Different Recruitment StrategiesExploit personal relationshipsRecommendations from trusted sources
(e.g., integrators)Personal recruitment of participantsAlready participating in other projects
Overcoming Difficulty
Three states reported difficulty
Strategies to overcome:Personal appealsConcentrate on quality participants over
quantity of participantsPatience and continued education
Delivering EMS Information
One-on-one meetings with producers on and off premises
Mailings, newsletters, conference calls, e-mail
Workshops
Train-the-trainers approach
Different groups in same state had differing amounts of contact with project staff
EMS Tools Tested by Pilot States
Poultry Dairy Beef GUIDEBOOK ELEMENTS
Nat’l Tool GA PA VA NY ID WI MT IA TX
Setting Scope . Tool
Taking Stock or Inventory
in
ID priority environmental issues
progress
Review environmental regulations
with
Principles of environmental stewardship
air
Farm’s environmental policy statement
quality
Environmental assessments
focus
Regulatory compliance assessment
Establish environmental objectives -
Actions to reach objectives
Assigning responsibility
ID of performance measures
Record keeping, written procedures, document
control
Training needs
Internal communication
External communication
Emergency Action Planning
Corrective/Preventive Actions
Assessment Tools Tested by Pilot States
Poultry Dairy Beef ASSESSMENT
TOPICS GA PA VA NY ID WI MT IA TX
Appearance Idaho Drinking water well
condition One
Nutrient management and manure
application practices Plan
Manure storage Livestock facilities
management: runoff
Farmstead facilities management
Milking center waste water management
Feed management Crop Pest
Management
Petroleum storage Air Quality
Biosecurity /Facility Pest Management
Septic system Mortality management
Manure exporting Pasture
Soil Erosion Wildlife Habitat
Energy use
Poultry Progress- Delivery Approaches
Georgia (Mark Risse, Poultry Lead, and Tommy Bass) –
Testing 3 delivery approaches for full EMS
Extension coached, with group workshops and regular contact (10 farms)
Consultant on-farm (2 farms)
Independent (5 farms, sent home with materials)
Georgia Participating in this project is very useful … for identifying environmental strengths of my operation
67% 4/6
… for identifying environmental weaknesses of my operation
67% 4/6
… setting priorities to reduce negative environmental impacts of my operation
67% 4/6
… for planning changes 67% 4/6
… for reducing the likelihood of regulatory infractions
67% 4/6
Georgia
Percent aware of risks of operation prior to assessments
67% 4/6
Know now how to reduce those risks?
50% 3/6
Why? I now have a written plan of action.
GeorgiaLiked most about participating in this project
Becoming more aware of livestock environmental managementMeeting with other farmers & talking with them on their needs & mine.The group setting and the extension specialist.The knowledgeable people from University of Georgia who visited my farm gave me new ideas. All I need to do to be more successful.
GeorgiaLiked least about participating in this project
Finding the time to read the material. Realizing that my record keeping has to improve.Not enough time -- needed more with [project staff]Nothing in particularThe drive from my house to Athens, GA. 90 mi. round trip.
GeorgiaI was satisfied with the amount of time
project staff spent with me.
Strongly Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
2/6 2/6
GeorgiaProject staff answered my questions and
provided the assistance I needed to complete the assessment tools.
Strongly Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
1/6 3/6
GeorgiaI would have preferred to receive this information
about environmental risks and Environmental Management Systems in a different way.
Strongly Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
1/6 3/6
GeorgiaAs a result of this project…
Received an accurate description of environmental conditions on my operation.
67% 4/6
Would like to make farm/ranch changes.
67% 4/6
Intend to implement changes. 67% 4/6
Within 6 months from now 2/6
Between 6 months and 1 year 1/6
Between 1 & 5 years 1/6
Georgia Participation in this process got me interested in
Agricultural Environmental Management Systems.
As a result of participating in this project, I now understand how an EMS applies to my operation.
Yes 67% 4/6
Strongly Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
2/6 2/6
GeorgiaAdvantages of developing an EMS for my operation
Helping me avoid mistakes that I should avoid.Safer place for employees to work and a more environmentally friendly placeTo identify crucial areas or impacts that result from my farm and trying to lessen the negativity of them.To try to meet all requirements that I need to do.
GeorgiaDisadvantages or difficulties of developing an EMS
Cost TimeLabor
Financial burden
Finding the time to learn a new system of operation.
GeorgiaHow to make the tools more useful?
I recommend it, but a lot of producers might not be as open minded as I am.
Yes,definitely 1/6
Yes,probably 2/6
Would you recommend developing an EMS in this way to other producers?
Poultry Progress- Delivery Approaches
Pennsylvania (PennAg Industries’ Amanda Mende, and Paul Patterson) –
Coached assessments (11 worksheets, including emergency planning)
$100 incentive
10 layer producers; 10 broiler producers; 10 turkey producers
Pennsylvania Participating in this project is very useful … for identifying environmental strengths of my operation
94% 16/17
… for identifying environmental weaknesses of my operation
94% 16/17
… setting priorities to reduce negative environmental impacts of my operation
94% 16/17
… for planning changes 94% 16/17
… for reducing the likelihood of regulatory infractions
94% 16/17
Pennsylvania
Percent aware of risks of operation prior to assessments
94% 16/17
Know now how to reduce those risks?
65% 11/17
Pennsylvania
Why (not)? •I feel as if it was a measuring stick on my environmental risk. Didn't tell me how to improve anything as of yet. The person who did the review is drawing up a report at this time.•The farm already had a BMP in place.•With Project Staff help.
Pennsylvania Liked most about participating in this project
It gave me a feel whether projects I have done so far are beneficial. Practices/issues I have addressed in past 5 years.Made me aware of the responsibility I have to do a good job of managing the environment around me. Made me think about changes I could make.Made me aware that we need to incorporate manure as soon as possible after spreading.Shows how our farm operation benefits the environment and ways to improve.Not a lot of time needed to complete. Not too long. Simple & to the point. Simple & informative. Very easy to understand.Staff assistance.The overall look at the operation. The overall nature of the assessments’ inclusiveness.
Pennsylvania Liked least about participating in this project
A bit awkward, especially some of the lessons 1-6 --- some of which I never did read, nor figured out why I needed to.I thought some of the pieces we did not score as well were not completely relevant to our operation.Nutrient/conservation/community has required these tools due to our operation.Some of it is "nit-picky."
Pennsylvania I was satisfied with the amount of time
project staff spent with me.
Strongly Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
4/17 11/17 2/17
Pennsylvania Project staff answered my questions and
provided the assistance I needed to complete the assessment tools.
Strongly Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
7/17 9/17
Pennsylvania I would have preferred to receive this information
about environmental risks and Environmental Management Systems in a different way.
Strongly Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
13/17 3/17
Pennsylvania As a result of this project…
Received an accurate description of environmental conditions on my operation.
88% 15/17
Would like to make farm/ranch changes.
47% 8/17
Intend to implement changes. 41% 7/17
Within 6 months from now 4/17
Between 6 months and 1 year 1/17
Between 1 & 5 years 3/17
Pennsylvania Participation in this process got me interested in
Agricultural Environmental Management Systems.
As a result of participating in this project, I now understand how an EMS applies to my operation.
Yes 82% 14/17
Strongly Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
3/17 7/17 5/17
Pennsylvania Advantages of developing an EMS for my operation
Environment friendly.Good environmental stewardship, plus legal compliance.Good PR within the neighborhood. Please the community -- that is where most issues come from. Shows neighbors we care and are trying to do things right for the environment.Help increase safety and overall performance/profitability.Phosphorus application on land would be reducedTo be able to prove I do all I can to be environmentally responsible.
Pennsylvania Disadvantages or difficulties of developing an EMS
Being less productive.Cost.Financing.I would need additional buyers for manure.There are some things we just can't change. i.e location.Weather can make problem with EMS.
Pennsylvania How to make the tools more useful?
Do something to make lessons 1-6 more user friendly. Instructors didn't seem to completely understand them either.It would be interesting to hear how other producers have made improvements on their farmsTo have them be more personal to the operation that is begin dealt with.
Pennsylvania
Yes,definitely 5/17
Yes,probably 10/17
Would you recommend these assessment tools to other producers?
Poultry Progress- Delivery Approaches
Virginia (Lori Marsh, Matt Habersack) –
Poultry integrator involvementDetailed self-assessments and abbreviated versions of other EMS componentsBegan with workshop, sent 30 farmers home with materials, then followed up with regular contacts to encourage progress
Virginia Participating in this project is very useful … for identifying environmental strengths of my operation
86% 6/7
… for identifying environmental weaknesses of my operation
86% 6/7
… setting priorities to reduce negative environmental impacts of my operation
86% 6/7
… for planning changes 86% 6/7
… for reducing the likelihood of regulatory infractions
86% 6/7
Virginia
Percent aware of risks of operation prior to assessments
86% 6/7
Know now how to reduce those risks?
86% 6/7
VirginiaWhy (not)? •Am now better informed than before.•I already knew of risks. This tool did not really help me to reduce them.•Info & ideas•It is helpful with proper training.•My operation is state permitted, although we were already using NMP, composters, odor control methods, etc.
Virginia Liked most about participating in this project
Help with pests, + biosecurity.I think since we produce the food for a hungry nation, that these tools should always be a guideline for us.Relatively easy to follow and pertinent to my operation.With some labor & a small amount of money I can control my odor & dust problem.
FOLLOW-UP:Excellent information & support available.Hear what others are doing & what can be done.I was able to revisit all the aspects of being an environmental conscious farmer.
Virginia Liked least about participating in this project
Cumbersome - this system was probably designed for large industries and modified to be used on a poultry farm.I didn’t think for the most part it [was useful].In my case, it would be better if the tools would be for raising broilers only.It didn't include the entire operation.The assessment tools or information provided follows my last 15 years with issues in the poultry business to a T.
FOLLOW-UP:Answering these questions. Too many surveys.
Virginia I was satisfied with the amount of time
project staff spent with me.
Strongly Agree
Agree
(Follow-up)
Disagree Strongly Disagree
2/7 4/7(4/4)
Virginia Project staff answered my questions and
provided the assistance I needed to complete the assessment tools.
Strongly Agree
Agree
(Follow-up)
Disagree Strongly Disagree
3/7 3/7(4/4)
Virginia I would have preferred to receive this information
about environmental risks and Environmental Management Systems in a different way.
Strongly Agree
Agree
(Follow-up)
Disagree
(Follow-up)
Strongly Disagree
3/7(1/4)
3/7(3/4)
Virginia As a result of this project…
Received an accurate description of environmental conditions on my operation.
57% 4/7
Would like to make farm/ranch changes.
43% 3/7
Intend to implement changes.
(Follow-up survey)
43% (50%)
3/7
(2/4)
Within 6 months from now 1/7
Between 6 months and 1 year 2/7
Between 1 & 5 years
VirginiaParticipation in this process got me interested in Agricultural
Environmental Management Systems.
Yes
(Follow-up)
86% (100%)
6/7(4/4)
Strongly Agree
Agree(Follow-up)
Disagree (Follow-up)
Strongly Disagree
5/7
(3/4)
1/7(1/4)
As a result of participating in this project, I now understand how an EMS applies to my operation.
Virginia What impact did your participation with the
Partnerships for LEMS [project] have on your [environmental] concerns?
Good info.
The impact on me is simply to continue to bring these issues to the forefront for our farms & way of life.
The LEMS did enlighten me to areas that I had not considered.
Wildlife habitat awareness.
Virginia Advantages of developing an EMS for my operationWe have such a similar plan in place but a personal EMS would help think out of that box and perhaps keep more regulators off our backs.By using a checklist on a monthly or annual basis you could see the progress being made.Having a proactive position on environmental issues could reduce the amount of regulation in the future.I guess it would be helpful if you were very large, lots of employees, with many violations.We always have tried to be careful with soil erosion, spreading poultry and dairy manure and being very careful that we don't contaminate our streams…extra guidance would be a plus.
Virginia Disadvantages or difficulties of developing an EMS
Finding the time.I don't see any difficulties at the present.More work and record keepingThis answer has been same for years. Money is always an issue when developing NMP and Environmental systems - cost share has helped in this area but you can't count on that for every project and you have to match those $Too much paperwork.
Virginia How could the tools be made more useful?
A monthly or annual checklist.I felt that forms 4 + 5 were somewhat redundant. The other forms were too tedious.If possible streamline the system somehow.Maybe you could have TV commercials or billboards supporting the importance of keeping our natural resources beautiful.The assessment tools may be more useful in a state that isn't under state law -- get the info to those areas before it happens.
Virginia
Would you recommend these assessment tools to other producers?
No, probably not 1/7
Yes,probably 2/7
Yes,definitely 3/7
Dairy Progress – Delivery Approaches
New York (Peter Wright, Dairy lead) –
Integrate assessment pilot with existing Agriculture Environmental Management watershed protection program, and Pro-Dairy systems management educational program.
5 coached EMS pilots
New York Participating in this project is very useful … for identifying environmental strengths of my operation
100% 2/2
… for identifying environmental weaknesses of my operation
100% 2/2
… setting priorities to reduce negative environmental impacts of my operation
100% 2/2
… for planning changes 100% 2/2
… for reducing the likelihood of regulatory infractions
100% 2/2
New York
Percent aware of risks of operation prior to assessments
100% 2/2
Know now how to reduce those risks?
100% 2/2
New YorkWhy (not)?
•Most [risk reduction actions] we are implementing or plan to in near future.
•Some risks are subjective and reduction is complex.
New York Liked most about participating in this project
I think it made you aware of some environmental concerns.
FOLLOW-UP:
They didn't threaten to shoot us. Thanks.
New York Liked least about participating in this project
Too lengthy.
FOLLOW-UP:
Cost. Money for milk at an all time low.
New York I was satisfied with the amount of time
project staff spent with me.
Strongly Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
2/2
New York Project staff answered my questions and
provided the assistance I needed to complete the assessment tools.
Strongly Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
1/2 1/2
New York I would have preferred to receive this information
about environmental risks and Environmental Management Systems in a different way.
Strongly Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
1/2 1/2
New York As a result of this project…
Received an accurate description of environmental conditions on my operation.
100% 2/2
Would like to make farm/ranch changes.
100% 2/2
Intend to implement changes. 100% 2/2
Within 6 months from now
Between 6 months and 1 year
Between 1 & 5 years 2/2
New York Participation in this process got me interested in Agricultural
Environmental Management Systems.
Yes 100% 2/2
Strongly Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
2/2
As a result of participating in this project, I now understand how an EMS applies to my operation.
New York What impact did your participation with the
Partnerships for LEMS [project] have on your [environmental] concerns?
Some impact.
New York Advantages of developing an EMS for my operation
Cleaner water
Clear procedures (SOP) [Standard Operating Procedures]
New York Disadvantages or difficulties of developing an EMS
Cost.
New York Which of the following statements best describes your awareness of the environmental risks associated with your operation prior to, and after, participating in this
project?
“No Idea” “Vague Idea”
New York
How could the tools be made more useful?
(No comments).
New York
Would you recommend these assessment tools to other producers?
No, probably not
Yes, probably 2/2
Yes, definitely
Dairy Progress – Delivery Approaches
Wisconsin (Brian Holmes and Bill Bland) – 30 On-line assessmentsCoaching EMS pilots on 2 research stations and 4 farms, additional farmers observingBuild agency and private stakeholder interest for long-term – insurance premium reductions; farmer organized workshop; DNR collaboration
Wisconsin Participating in this project is very useful … for identifying environmental strengths of my operation
100% 3/3
… for identifying environmental weaknesses of my operation
100% 3/3
… setting priorities to reduce negative environmental impacts of my operation
100% 3/3
… for planning changes 100% 3/3
… for reducing the likelihood of regulatory infractions
100% 3/3
Wisconsin
Percent aware of risks of operation prior to assessments
100% 3/3
Know now how to reduce those risks?
67% 2/3
WisconsinWhy [do you know how to reduce risks]?
•Clarified process.
Wisconsin Liked most about participating in this project
Being on computer.
Quick overview of operation.
Reinforced and was consistent with other standards DNS sets.
Wisconsin Liked least about participating in this project
A lot of time for the results obtained.
Being on computer.
More of the same.
Wisconsin I was satisfied with the amount of time
project staff spent with me.
Strongly Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
3/3
Wisconsin Project staff answered my questions and
provided the assistance I needed to complete the assessment tools.
Strongly Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
3/3
Wisconsin I would have preferred to receive this information
about environmental risks and Environmental Management Systems in a different way.
Strongly Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
1/3 2/3
Wisconsin As a result of this project…
Received an accurate description of environmental conditions on my operation.
100% 3/3
Would like to make farm/ranch changes.
0% (1- unsure 2 - no)
Intend to implement changes.
Within 6 months from now
Between 6 months and 1 year
Between 1 & 5 years
Wisconsin Participation in this process got me interested in Agricultural
Environmental Management Systems.
Yes 67% 2/3
Strongly Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
2/3 1/3
As a result of participating in this project, I now understand how an EMS applies to my operation.
Wisconsin Advantages of developing an EMS for my operation
Don't know for sure.
Wisconsin Disadvantages or difficulties of developing an EMS
More time spent/repetitious.
Wisconsin How could the tools be made more useful?
More clearly stated questions.
Reduce repeated questions.
Wisconsin
Would you recommend these assessment tools to other producers?
No, probably not 1/3
Yes,probably 1/3
Yes,definitely 1/3
Dairy Progress – Delivery Approaches
Idaho ( Wayne Newbill, Jeanne Brittingham, note presentation at this conference) – Already has a CNMP requirement for dairy farmers statewide (using GIS based OnePlan NMP). Short-term intensive interactive introduction of 11 farms to EMS process$50 incentiveCompare to One-Plan
Beef Progress – Delivery
ApproachesMontana (Gene Surber, Beef lead, with Tara Fisher)
Rancher led, very well received23 ranches pilot tested a self-assessment
tool; most requested coachingA few excited about a full EMS One has completed an EMS worksheet set
and begun implementation; 4 others in various stages of completion
Montana Participating in this project is very useful … for identifying environmental strengths of my operation
100% 10/10
… for identifying environmental weaknesses of my operation
100% 10/10
… setting priorities to reduce negative environmental impacts of my operation
90% 9/10
… for planning changes 90% 9/10
… for reducing the likelihood of regulatory infractions
100% 10/10
MontanaPercent aware of risks of operation prior to assessments
100% 10/10
Know now how to reduce those risks?
90% 9/10
MontanaWhy (not)? • Makes us all take a look at our operations, see our high risks as well as low risks and work through ways to change the problem areas.• I will require more assistance/guidance than a Q+A format. Manual? Personnel?• Identified problems, but it’s hard to figure out solutions.• Options were given that will work for me.• The program made me more aware of the risks. We need the "hands on" approach to solve these risks. Each operation is different, and will solve differently. I already have diversion dikes.• Things were brought to our attention.
Montana Liked most about participating in this project
Easy to understand.Gained information + knowledge.Getting the word out to people in the country.Got me thinking.How it made me look at our operation.It caused me to discuss my situation.It gave us many different questions to answer, to think about concerns on our ranches with different pollution aspects.Made me more aware of my runoff problems, in regards to my water wells near the house, also manure management.The assessment presented awareness w/specifics regarding distance from pen to well etc.
Montana Liked most about participating in this project
FOLLOW-UP:Awareness.Education and the extra nudge to get it done.Identifying trouble areas on the rough[?] and high risk areas. Asking Gene on how to mitigate these risks.It answered questions I had and also made me think of other possible problems.Knowledge, voicing an opinion.Opened my eyes to what may lie ahead.Seeing concern of others. The education I acquired. Working with Gene is always a thrill.The no-hassle low key identify the problem and seek solutions to fix it approach.Visiting with other ranchers and discussion of similar problems & concerns.
Montana Liked least about participating in this project
Doing it.
Hard to understand.
Some of the questions didn't pertain to me. Many didn't pertain to us. Some is not applicable.
Maybe too many questions.
The fact that we are not 100% compliant with environmental laws.
Time to do it - naturally, but worthwhile.
Montana Liked least about participating in this project
FOLLOW-UP:Government regulations that maybe should have more scientific background.I didn't receive as much information or technical advice as I would have liked.I don't know that I particularly had any dislikes other than I guess basic human nature reaction to being told "I need to clean up my act OR ELSE."I think we drove Gene crazy! Now he's leaving!Knowing I have to do more paperwork.That I missed part of the meeting.The realization government is someday going to tell us what, how, and where to run the agriculture sector.
MontanaI was satisfied with the amount of time
project staff spent with me.
Strongly Agree
(Follow-up)
Agree
(Follow-up)
Disagree
(Follow-up)
Strongly Disagree
6/10(3/9)
3/10(5/9)
1/10(1/9)
Montana Project staff answered my questions and
provided the assistance I needed to complete the assessment tools.
Strongly Agree
(Follow-up)
Agree
(Follow-up)
Disagree
(Follow-up)
Strongly Disagree
6/10
(3/9)
3/10(5/9)
1/10(1/9)
MontanaI would have preferred to receive this information
about environmental risks and Environmental Management Systems in a different way.
Strongly Agree
Agree
(Follow-up)
Disagree
(Follow-up)
Strongly Disagree
1/10 7/10(5/9)
2/10(4/9)
Montana As a result of this project…
Received an accurate description of environmental conditions on my operation.
70% 7/10
Would like to make farm/ranch changes.
90% 9/10
Intend to implement changes.
(Follow-up survey)
80% (90%)
8/10
(9/10)
Within 6 months from now
Between 6 months and 1 year 3/10
Between 1 & 5 years 5/10
Montana Participation in this process got me interested in Agricultural
Environmental Management Systems.
Yes
(Follow-up)
80% (100%)
8/10(9/9)
Strongly Agree
Agree(Follow-up)
Disagree (Follow-up)
Strongly Disagree
(3/9)7/10
(5/9)
3/10(1/9)
As a result of participating in this project, I now understand how an EMS applies to my operation.
Montana What impact did your participation with the
Partnerships for LEMS [project] have on your [environmental] concerns?
Ideas for corrections. That some corrections are easy and inexpensive.It made me much more aware where our operation is within the context. Also, it helped answer some of the problems.Made me more aware of the impacts possible.Made some plans to improve H20 quality.Made us more aware of problem areas.The concerns are still there, it is just a new way of working at them.
Montana Advantages of developing an EMS for my operation
Being up to speed on new + proposed rulesIt help me be a better steward of the land.It would clean up our corrals and help the health of our livestock.Just for personal use.Keep up with government regulations.Recognizing problems + prioritizing + committing.To know where we stand.We like to be proactive on our ranch. If it comes down to having someone tell that I have to do something I would like to be ahead of the rest.
Montana Disadvantages or difficulties of developing an EMS
Cost.
It takes time, and sometimes time is short on our place.
None.
Time and money it would take to divert the creek to a different location.
Montana Which of the following statements best describes your awareness of the environmental risks associated with your operation prior to, and after, participating in this
project?
44% “Vague Idea” “Fairly Sure” 44%
44% “Fairly Sure” “Know Exactly”
11% “Know Exactly” 56%
Montana How could the tools be made more useful?
Categorize into different operations - some questions deal with feedlots only, some non-confinement cow/calf operations etc.I am not sure.Make some of the questions easier to understand.Maybe more terminology explanation.Put on computer program & access yearly & evaluate changes.
Montana
Would you recommend these assessment tools to other producers?
No, probably not
Yes,probably 6/10
Yes,definitely 4/10
Beef Progress – Delivery Approaches
Iowa (John Lawrence, Jim Venner) –
Built on relationships with other projects and with DNR
37 producers attended 2 workshops last spring;
On-farm follow-up
17 still working through EMS process
Iowa Liked most about participating in this project
FOLLOW-UP:Awareness. Increase awareness.Description of the importance of EMS.Exposure to the alternative technology.Getting a plan worked out.Group approach to completing.Interaction with other producers. Meeting with other producers and advisors and sharing informationPut some practical ideas on the table.Seeing how others solved their problems.The additional information provided.The end results were measurable & self satisfying.
Iowa Liked least about participating in this project
FOLLOW-UP:An EQIP program approved in Sept and plans not finished until April.It changes how we do things currently.Paperwork.The distance traveled.The number of meetings.The time it took. Time necessary to implementTime commitment needed to do the paperwork which is necessary to do things right!!We should have been encouraged to use "before & after" photos. Pictures are worth a thousand words! Would have made the documentation easier.
Iowa I was satisfied with the amount of time
project staff spent with me.
Strongly Agree
Agree
(Follow-up)
Disagree Strongly Disagree
(2/15) (12/15) (1/15)
Iowa Project staff answered my questions and
provided the assistance I needed to complete the assessment tools.
Strongly Agree
(Follow-up)
Agree
(Follow-up)
Disagree
(Follow-up)
Strongly Disagree
(4/15) (9/15) (1/15)
Iowa I would have preferred to receive this information
about environmental risks and Environmental Management Systems in a different way.
Strongly Agree
Agree Disagree
(Follow-up)
Strongly Disagree (Follow-up)
(14/15) (1/15)
Iowa Participation in this process got me interested in Agricultural
Environmental Management Systems.
Yes
(Follow-up) (93%) (14/15)
Strongly Agree
Agree(Follow-up)
Disagree Strongly Disagree
(15/15)
As a result of participating in this project, I now understand how an EMS applies to my operation.
Iowa What impact did your participation with the
Partnerships for LEMS [project] have on your [environmental] concerns?
Increased awareness of the different areas of environment. Increased concerns.
It enforced my objectives.
It helped refine them. Clarified the issues.
It made me aware of ways to improve my operation, mainly managing an open feed lot.
My operation’s participation in the EMS program touched on [a full array of environmental] concerns.
Iowa What impact did your participation with the
Partnerships for LEMS [project] have on your [environmental] concerns?
Refreshed my memory and alerted me to other concerns.
That a lot of the open feedlot operations are very concerned about their environmental problems and are going to solve them.
Nutrient management should help to protect water quality as well as improve farm profitability. Soil conservation efforts will not only conserve the resources but benefit wildlife as well.
Iowa Which of the following statements best describes your awareness of the environmental risks associated with your operation prior to, and after, participating in this
project?
20% “Vague Idea” “Fairly Sure” 73%
73% “Fairly Sure” “Know Exactly”
7% “Know Exactly” 27%
Beef Progress – Delivery Approaches
Texas (Brent Auvermann, Shelly Howard) –
Feedyard Air Quality Management Program: “Clear the Air”
Strong commodity group support
Developing visual air quality indicators
All States (Early Returns)Time spent completing assessments
Spent 3.6 hours completing assessment tools on average (median time spent was 2 hours)
Range was 0-20 hours
95% of respondents spent less than 7.5 hours completing assessment
All States (Early Returns)Accuracy of assessment tools description
“Tools accurately described operation” Assessment tools
well designed EMS becomes part
of SOPs Project staff did good
job
“Tools did not accurately describe operation” Assumes a certain
type of operation that may not be realistic; not applicable to type of operation
All States (Early Returns)Making the assessment tools more useful
Tailor materials to details of the operationDoesn’t meet producers’ regulatory needsRemove repetitionCreate mechanism in tools (e.g., software) that allows comparing records over timeSimplify the presentationAdvertise to promote useProvide real life examples in materials and of successful implementations of EMS in Ag.
All States (Early Returns)
Support needs to adopt EMS
20 1824
20 22 2125
5 8
1819 13 14 9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Technical supportand other services
from a privateconsultant
Technical supportfrom a government
agency
Clear economicbenefits to the
producer
Cost-sharepayments for EMS
development
Educational toolkitsthat help a producerto develop his or her
own EMS
EPA/Stateenvironmental
agencies providingEMS developmentas an alternative to
increasedregulation
Farm organizationleadership in thedevelopment and
use of anagricultural EMS
Num
ber
Very Important Essential
Assessments of Strategic Success
Five states considered their strategies “Somewhat successful,” while three thought theirs to be “Very successful,” and one “Extremely successful.”
Problems included lukewarm reception from producers or field agents.
Contact with project staff had positive effect (or was expected to) on success of strategy.
Lessons Learned
What would you do differently?More contact with producers.Direct contact with producers (“skip the
middleman”).Start earlier to get early-adopters.Make instruments more user-friendly.More incentives for producers.
Lessons Learned
What would you keep?One-to-one contact.Assessment tools/guidebook.Workshops.Mechanisms to identify willing/eager
participants.
Pilot project lessons about tools
Tools need to bridge the gap between ISO 14001 and the producer’s world. They need to speak farmers’ language. Tools must recognize time limitations, especially of small & medium sized operations. Most producers need an active learning style – paperwork is quickly daunting. (Divide written materials into small bites.)
Pilot project lessons about pedagogy
Individual, one-on-one coaching is most effective.Classes with regular follow-up contact can be effective as well. Hands-on teaching style.Use of computers can be strong positive & strong negative.Materials need to be directly relevant.
Lessons about educational strategiesFarmers most receptive to learning about a new approach from those they trust and respect.Coaches need to be perceived as highly competent, knowledgeable and committed (don’t delegate!).Engaged advisory groups, trade ass’n and integrator buy-in, are important to success. Monetary or regulator incentives help.Strategy most effective where participants are individually motivated. Always easier with those most interested in change & improvement.
ADDENDUM:
Producer Characteristics(early returns)
Participant Characteristics
Avg. 24 years of experience (min. 2, max. 60; 95% had between 12 and 36 years)56% reported attending educational program about EMS before participating in project49% have operation previously run by family14% reported being a part-time farmer/rancherOn avg., respondents export 30% of manure off farm (min. 0, max. 100; 95% exported less than 70%, median 0)
Education (raw numbers shown)
0
5
1 0
1 5
2 0
2 5
3 0
3 5
4 0
4 5
5 0
A sso c ia te d e g re e B a c h e lo r 's d e g re e H ig h sc h o o lg ra d u a te
M a ste r 's d e g re e P o st h ig h sc h o o lte c h n ic a l e d u c a t io n
P r im a ry sc h o o l S o m e c o l le g e
Estimated acreage for crops
Crop Avg Acreage
Min Max St. Dev. Median
Row Crops
598.3 20 3000 679.4 300
Small Grains
563.3 10 8000 1344.8 65
Hay 224.4 3 2000 374.8 75
Pasture or Range
2291.4 1 50000 7743.5 90
Use of decision support tools for management decisions
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Livestock Management Crop Management Financial/BusinessManagement
EnvironmentalManagement
None of these
Nu
mb
er
Use of written records for operation management
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
LivestockManagement
Crop Management Financial/BusinessManagement
EnvironmentalManagement
None of these
Nu
mb
er
Keep records Update records monthly Consult records regularly
Use of consultants’ services
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Livestock Management Crop Management Financial/BusinessManagement
EnvironmentalManagement
None of these
Nu
mb
er
Use of management plans
38
25
43
33
58
38
25
41
27
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Livestock Management Crop Management Financial/BusinessManagement
EnvironmentalManagement
None of these
Nu
mb
er
Have plan Consult plan
Confidence that current expertise meets operation’s needs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Not confident Confident
Nu
mb
er
Livestock
Crop
Business
Environment
Producer reported environmental concerns
(Reported as either “Extremely concerned” or “Concerned a lot”)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Wat
er q
uality
(man
ure
mgm
t)
Wat
er q
uality
(che
mica
ls)
Odor/a
ir qu
ality
Soil q
uality
/con
serv
ation
Wild
life h
abita
t
Wat
er q
uant
ity/a
vaila
bility
Energ
y cos
ts/av
ailab
ility
Other
Nu
mb
er
Producers Neighbors
Actions taken to reduce operation’s environmental impact in last 2 years
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Soil co
nser
vatio
n
Nutien
t man
agem
ent
Odor c
ontro
l
Runof
f con
trols
Win
d br
eaks
or b
uffe
r stri
ps
Impr
oved
irrig
ation
man
agem
ent
Reduc
ed u
se o
f pes
tacid
es
Wild
life h
abita
t man
agem
ent
Other
None
of th
e ab
ove
Nu
mb
er
Agreement with statement: “I seek opportunities to adopt new agricultural innovations to improve my
operation.”
4%
0%
54%
43%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree
Innovations adopted: Erosion control (soil
loss) Manure storage Livestock rations Nutrient management Odor management Composting Grazing management Water quality Pollutant runoff Others (organic
production, chemical mix station)
Use of outside advisors/consultants for management
Consultant/Advisor Number who used
Producer organization/commodity group 50
State Cooperative Extension Service 86
Neighbor/another local producer 65
Hired consultant 40
University researcher 34
Federal or state conservation agencies (NRCS, SWCD, FSA)
81
Non-profit educational groups 4
Other 5
Helpfulness of outside advisors/consultants
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Not Helpful Helpful
Nu
mb
er
Producer organization/commodity group
State CooperativeExtension Service
Neighbor/another localproducer
Hired consultant
University researcher
Federal or stateconservation agencies(NRCS, SWCD, FSA)
Indicators of opinions about the environment
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
We worry too much about the futureof the environment, and not enough
about prices or jobs today
Natural environments that supportscarce or endangered species
should be left alone, no matter howgreat the economic benefits to yourcommunity from developing them
commercially might be
Any action that I take on myoperation won’t have much impact
on the environment
I do what is right for the environment,even when it costs me more money
or takes up more time
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree
Indicators of opinions about the environment
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Broader use of environmentalmanagement systems by
producers will increase theregulation of agriculture
Implementation of environmentalmanagement systems wouldsignificantly reduce negativeenvironmental impacts from
livestock operations
Environmental managementsystems aid in improving overall
farm management
An environmental managementsystem will improve my image with
neighbors and other communitymembers
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree
Current understanding of EMSs
Statement TrueFals
eUnsure
An environmental management system is required to be used by all regulated livestock operations
22% 59% 19%
An environmental management system is a flexible, voluntary program that aids producers in documenting actions they’ve taken to prevent pollution 77% 13% 10%
An environmental management system is a flexible, voluntary program that aids producers in documenting actions they’ve taken to comply with regulations 82% 6% 12%
An environmental management system is a flexible, voluntary program that aids producers in documenting actions they’ve taken to show continual environmental improvement 84% 5% 12%
An environmental management system can be used to certify environmental stewardship for marketing purposes 61% 12% 27%
An environmental management system can be used in negotiating insurance rates 31% 27% 41%
Current understanding of EMSs
Statement TrueFals
eUnsure
An environmental management system can assist in obtaining loans 48% 19% 33%
Developing an environmental management system makes me more vulnerable to regulation 16% 70% 13%
An environmental management system will increase my understanding of regulations that apply to my farm or ranch
93% 1% 6%
All livestock operations with more than 1000 animal units are regulated as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)
67% 10% 23%
Livestock operations of any size that have a direct discharge of pollutants to surface waters can be regulated as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)
63% 12% 25%
Livestock operations with 300 or more animal units are required to develop nutrient management plans 37% 29% 34%