1

Analysis of Pre- and Post-Summit Awareness Evaluation

The Soil Conservation Council of Canada’s (SCCC) Summit on Canadian Soil Health 2017 (the Summit) in Guelph, Ontario attracted over 150 participants with a variety of backgrounds including; Farmers, Agri-businesses, Agricultural organizations, Environmental non-government organizations (ENGO), Conservation Authorities, Research/Academia, Government, Students, Consultants and Press. Over the course of two days participants visited soil health projects in the Guelph area and heard from leading experts in the field of soil health. To help determine the impact of the event on their knowledge, awareness and actions related to soil health, participants were asked to complete a single Pre- and Post-Summit Awareness Evaluation. The Evaluation form can be found at the end of this section.

Key findings from the evaluation show that the Summit:

increased participant knowledge and awareness of the numerous costs and consequences of soil degradation.

identified the perceived key areas where there are gaps/barriers impeding increased adoption of soil health BMPs

confirmed that important best management practices (BMPs) and technologies shown to reduce soil degradation are currently being used and recommended.

increased the confidence in some participants in adopting or recommending new BMPs and technologies

strengthened the overall commitment of participants to take the necessary actions to reduce soil degradation

On a scale of 1 to 10, participants were asked to describe their Pre- and Post- Summit knowledge of the on-

farm, off-farm, short-term and long-term costs and consequences of soil degradation. These results were

organized into a summary table (Table 1) outlining Pre- and Post- Summit knowledge numerically. The

evaluations were categorized according to the previously mentioned groups (farmers, agri-business,

research/academia, etc). For all numerical questions, the average Pre- and Post-Summit answer was reported

for each group. The overall average for all

participants was also calculated for every

numerical question. It is significant to

mention that many participants identified

with multiple groups. Consider farmers as

an example; it is evident that this group is

very multi-disciplinary. Farmers self-

identified with almost every other group

provided. For analysis purposes, if a

participant identified under multiple

2

groups, the evaluation results were included in all.

Table 1: Summarized average numerical answers indicating participants Pre- and Post- Summit knowledge of

the on—farm, off-farm, short-term and long-term costs and consequences of soil degradation

Group (Number of participants)

Knowledge of the costs and consequences of soil degradation (scale of 1 out of 10)

On-farm Off-farm

(e.g. air and water) Short-term (1-5 years)

Long-term (20-30 years)

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

Farmers (25) 7 8 6 8 6 7 6 8

Agri-Business (14) 5 8 6 7 6 7 6 8

Ag Organizations (11) 6 8 7 8 6 7 6 8

Environmental NGO (9) 6 8 8 8 6 7 7 7

Research/Academia (13) 6 8 7 8 6 7 7 8

Government (25) 6 8 7 8 6 7 6 8

Student (8) 5 7 6 7 6 7 6 7

Other (8) 6 8 6 8 6 7 5 8

Participant Average (88) 6 8 7 8 6 7 6 8

First, participants were asked to describe their Pre- and Post- Summit knowledge of the on-farm costs and consequences which resulted in an overall average increase of 6 to 8. Second, participants rated their Pre- and Post- Summit knowledge of off-farm costs and consequences of soil degradation such as impacts on air and water quality. The overall average increase in knowledge of off-farm costs and consequences of soil degradation was 6 to 7. For the third question, the scale represents Pre- and Post- Summit knowledge of the short-term costs and consequences of soil degradation such as nutrient loss and management. From Pre- to Post- Summit, there was an increase of 6 to 7 for participant’s knowledge of the short-term costs and consequences of soil degradation. Finally, the last question asked participants to identify their knowledge of the long-term costs and consequences of soil degradation. Resource depletion and impacts on climate change are two examples that were provided to describe the long-term costs and consequences of soil degradation. An average increase of 6 to 7 indicates and overall increase in knowledge of the long-term costs and consequences of soil degradation.

By dividing the evaluations into specific categories, it is possible to assess how the Summit impacted each group individually. Farmers displayed the least change in their knowledge rating of on-farm costs and consequences (average increase of 1) in comparison to the other groups which had an average increase of 2 out of 10 which can be at least partially explained by their higher than average Pre-Summit knowledge. Although the average increase in knowledge rating of short-term costs and consequences of soil degradation was from 6 to 7, government reported a higher average increase from 6 to 8. This implies that government participants were more impacted by information focused on the short-term consequences of soil degradation. The results indicate that government participants may be more focused on the off-farm consequences which is evident in a higher than average rating Pre-Summit knowledge of the off-farm costs and consequences of soil degradation. In terms of long-term costs and consequences of soil degradation, ENGOs and Research/Academic participants had a higher average Pre-Summit knowledge rankings compared to other groups (7 compared to 5/6). Accordingly, ENGOs are likely more aware of both the off-farm and long-term costs and consequences of soil degradation. In addition, resource depletion and climate change are often the foci of academic research which explains why this group was less impacted in comparison.

3

Participants were also asked to indicate, with a numerical value (1-10), in what areas they believe the major barriers/gaps exist that prevent on-farm adoption of BMPs. These results are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2: Summarized numerical answers representing the level at which participants feel each category of barriers or gaps impedes taking action on soil health and sustainability

Group (Number of participants)

Gap category (scale of 1 out of 10)

Scientific knowledge gaps

Technical gaps or barriers

Gaps in knowledge and technology

delivery mechanisms to the farmer

Economic barriers to on-farm

implementation

Farmers (25) 7 6 7 8

Agri-Business (14) 6 6 7 8

Ag Organizations(11) 6 6 7 9

Environmental NGOs (9) 8 7 8 9

Research/Academia (13) 6 6 7 7

Government (25) 5 6 8 8

Student (8) 5 5 6 7

Other (8) 6 7 8 8

Participant Average (88) 6 6 7 8

‘Scientific knowledge gaps’ and ‘Technical gaps and barriers’ both ranked at an average of 6 out of 10. In comparison, the average significance for ‘Knowledge and technology delivery to the farmer’ was 7 out of 10 and ‘Economic barriers to on-farm implementation’ was ranked at 8 out of 10. It is interesting to note that students and researchers involved in academia graded scientific barriers lower in comparison to their other answers and other groups. Farmers, Agri-business and Agricultural organizations and ENGOs placed the highest significance on economic barriers for the lack of on-farm adoption of BMPs.

In point-form answers, participants were asked to list technologies and BMPs they currently use or recommend

for reducing soil degradation (Pre-Summit), and which additional practices they would feel confident in

implementing or recommending in the future (Post-Summit). Unless specifically listed, it is assumed that

participants will continue to practices BMPs that were listed Pre-Summit. These BMPs were compiled according

to their frequency of listing and grouped into similar categories. After the total was calculated, we compared

the frequency of each BMP to the total number of participants who answered question 7. Table 3 displays the

most recurrent BMPs and their frequency as a percentage of total answered evaluations.

4

Table 3: List of frequently mentioned BMPs to reduce soil degradation of the Pre- and Post- Summit Evaluation

Question #7 BMPs Pre-Summit Post-

Summit

% Increase (Post-Pre)/Post x

100

% Response (#/57) x 100

Cover crops/Perennial crops/residue management 34 40 15% 70%

Reduced Tillage 47 53 11% 93%

No-till 27 28 4% 49%

Reduced tillage 20 25 25% 44%

Crop rotation 14 19 26% 33%

Crop rotation 9 12 25% 21%

Rotation diversity 5 7 29% 12%

Nutrient Management 13 17 24% 30%

4R (Right source, Right rate, Right timing, Right place) 9 9 0% 16%

Fertilizer placement 2 5 60% 9%

Fertilizer timing 1 1 0% 2%

Reduce nutrients leaving farm 1 2 50% 4%

Organic amendments/microbial diversity/ increased SOC /livestock 9 12 33% 21%

Organic amendments 5 6 2% 11%

Livestock manure 4 5 2% 9%

Compost usage 0 1 100% 2%

Soil remediation 5 10 50% 18%

Soil remediation 4 9 56% 16%

Marginal land retirement and restoration 1 1 0% 2%

Water & Wind Erosion Management 5 13 62% 23%

Water control/drainage 5 12 21% 21%

Wind breaks 0 1 100% 2%

Extension/ Knowledge translation & transfer 8 15 47% 26%

Improved messaging and extension 8 15 47% 26%

5

Reduced tillage and cover-crops were the most commonly listed BMPs. Of the 57 participants who answered this question, 96.5% mentioned reduced tillage and 70.1% mentioned cover crops. This was followed by crop rotation (33.3%), nutrient management (29.8%), organic amendments (21.1%) and soil remediation (17.5%). From this question, it is apparent that many participants already implement or recommend these important BMPs. Although these practices are currently being used, it is evident that the Summit was an important step in providing the additional knowledge to expand and adapt current practices to specific Canadian soil and weather conditions. In addition, the interest of participants in obtaining new knowledge demonstrates a desire among stakeholders to learn and apply new practices and technology on their farms and professional activities. An important distinction was made between participants’ BMP definitions. For cover crops, all participants used the same terms. However, for reduced tillage, participants provided a variety of secondary terms (i.e.: smart tillage, vertical tillage, strip tillage, etc),indicating that there is general awareness of the importance of reduced tillage but it should be recognized that all forms of reduced tillage are not equally effective in mitigating soil degradation. However, despite a variety of definitions, reduced tillage (96.5%) was mentioned more often than cover crops (70.1%). Furthermore, this evaluation provides a list of BMPs that are presently being practiced or recommended.. It is exciting to see that there were many BMPs/technologies listed Post- Summit that do not appear Pre- Summit. This indicates that participants feel confident implementing or recommending additional BMPs or technologies as a result of the 2017 Summit. Some examples of these BMPs include strip tillage, remediation strategies, addition of carbon, soil ecology and crop residue management.

The next question on the Pre- and Post- Summit evaluation prompted participants to voice their “take away” message from the Summit. In this section, participants voiced the urgency of soil degradation, key priorities and a number of solutions that can be used to reduce soil degradation. Many participants stated the importance of soil health and that more needs to be done to reduce soil degradation. More specifically, participants said that soil health needs to be promoted to society as a whole and that soil needs to be recognized as a key non-renewable resource in Canada. Some key priorities for that emerged as a result of the Pre- and Post- Summit Evaluation include the importance of soil organic carbon and soil microbiology for soil health, and the significance of placing a dollar amount on the cost of soil degradation. There were also many responses that mentioned the importance of available solutions (e.g. no-till, cover crops, crop rotation, etc.) and how we must continue to promote, implement and enhance these practices to reduce soil degradation. One participant stated, “We are headed for disaster if we don’t change our practices”; which is complemented by one inspirational take-away message that said, “We can make a difference in our lifetime”.

6

Participants were also given space to express their recommendation for future Summits on Canadian Soil Health. Common recommendations for future events include; incorporating more innovative farmer participation and increasing farmer attendance, lengthening the Summit to 3 days, increasing advertisement and audience diversity, and offering more information on soil health assessments. Quite a few participants commented on the impact of having a farmer panel present, and that it is important to further increase farmer attendance. Other comments noted that there should be more notice and advertisement for future events and online programs should be adjusted throughout the Summit accordingly. Many participants took the time to express that they enjoyed the Summit and would be pleased to attend similar events in the future.

In conclusion, the Pre- and Post- Summit Evaluation garnered a large amount of information and helped us to assess the impact of the Summit. The survey clearly demonstrates that the Summit had a positive impact on the knowledge of the costs and consequences of soil degradation on the participants. Analyzing numerical answers provided the general level of knowledge of the on-farm, off-farm, short-term and long term effects of soil degradation. Participants, on average, were equally aware of each cost prior to the Summit. However, it is noted that there was a larger overall increase in knowledge of the on-farm and long-term costs and consequences of soil degradation as a result of the Summit. In general, participants reported that they believe the main gaps in implementing on-farm BMPs to reduce soil degradation are economically based. This barrier was ranked slightly higher (7) than the other options (6) which included scientific barriers, technology gaps and gaps in knowledge and technology delivery mechanisms to the farmer. Almost all survey respondents mentioned reduced tillage as a BMP they use or recommend to reduce soil degradation. Similarly, many participants (68.4%) cited cover crops in this section as an important BMP. However, it was noted that many terms are applied to reduced tillage (e.g. strip-tillage, conservation tillage, vertical tillage etc) but not all are equally effective in mitigating soil degradation.

Lastly, there were a number of valuable take-away messages from the Summit. Mainly, participants conveyed a sense of urgency and voiced the importance of key priorities and solutions with respect to reducing soil degradation. We must all make soil health a priority in Canada and encourage the implementation and development of BMPs that have been shown to reduce soil degradation. We are all responsible.

7

8

9