livestock ems pilots: lessons about educational strategies elizabeth ann r. bird, coordinator vince...

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


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


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


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


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


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?


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


94% 16/17


94% 16/17



94% 16/17

Pennsylvania


94% 16/17


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


Strongly Agree


4/17 11/17 2/17

Pennsylvania Project staff answered my questions and


Strongly Agree


7/17 9/17

Pennsylvania I would have preferred to receive this information


Strongly Agree


13/17 3/17

Pennsylvania As a result of this project…


88% 15/17


47% 8/17





Pennsylvania Participation in this process got me interested in

Agricultural Environmental Management Systems.


Yes 82% 14/17

Strongly Agree


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?


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


86% 6/7


86% 6/7



86% 6/7

Virginia


86% 6/7


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


Strongly Agree

Agree

(Follow-up)

Disagree Strongly Disagree

2/7 4/7(4/4)

Virginia Project staff answered my questions and


Strongly Agree

Agree

(Follow-up)


3/7 3/7(4/4)

Virginia I would have preferred to receive this information


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…


57% 4/7


43% 3/7

Intend to implement changes.

(Follow-up survey)

43% (50%)

3/7

(2/4)



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)


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


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


100% 2/2


100% 2/2



100% 2/2

New York


100% 2/2


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


Strongly Agree


2/2

New York Project staff answered my questions and


Strongly Agree


1/2 1/2

New York I would have preferred to receive this information


Strongly Agree


1/2 1/2

New York As a result of this project…


100% 2/2


100% 2/2


Within 6 months from now

Between 6 months and 1 year


New York Participation in this process got me interested in Agricultural


Yes 100% 2/2

Strongly Agree


2/2


New York What impact did your participation with the


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


No, probably not

Yes, probably 2/2

Yes, definitely


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


100% 3/3


100% 3/3



100% 3/3

Wisconsin


100% 3/3


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


Strongly Agree


3/3

Wisconsin Project staff answered my questions and


Strongly Agree


3/3

Wisconsin I would have preferred to receive this information


Strongly Agree


1/3 2/3

Wisconsin As a result of this project…


100% 3/3


0% (1- unsure 2 - no)



Between 6 months and 1 year

Between 1 & 5 years

Wisconsin Participation in this process got me interested in Agricultural


Yes 67% 2/3

Strongly Agree


2/3 1/3


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


No, probably not 1/3

Yes,probably 1/3

Yes,definitely 1/3


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


100% 10/10


90% 9/10



100% 10/10

MontanaPercent aware of risks of operation prior to assessments

100% 10/10


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


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


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


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…


70% 7/10


90% 9/10


(Follow-up survey)

80% (90%)

8/10

(9/10)




Montana Participation in this process got me interested in Agricultural


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)


Montana What impact did your participation with the


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


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


Strongly Agree

Agree

(Follow-up)


(2/15) (12/15) (1/15)

Iowa Project staff answered my questions and


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


Strongly Agree

Agree Disagree

(Follow-up)

Strongly Disagree (Follow-up)

(14/15) (1/15)

Iowa Participation in this process got me interested in Agricultural


Yes

(Follow-up) (93%) (14/15)

Strongly Agree

Agree(Follow-up)


(15/15)


Iowa What impact did your participation with the


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


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


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



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



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


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


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%

livestock ems pilots: lessons about educational strategies elizabeth ann r. bird, coordinator vince...

Documents

livestock ems pilots

jim venner slide

ems tools

matt habersack slide

commodity area slide

continued education

ems understanding

poultry lead