Making Our Nonpoint Source Pollution Education Programs Effective

Although education is often a major part of watershed protection programs, education strategies vary greatly from project to project and from educator to educator. For example, strategies may vary both in the way the information is delivered to the target audience and in the magnitude of the campaign. Since 1978, Wisconsin's nonpoint source pollution prevention strategies have been targeted toward watersheds, through a collaborative effort by the University of Wisconsin Extension, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (WDATCP).

Educational programming, often referred to as information and education (I&E) strategies, provides information to landowners in order to promote environmentally beneficial actions such as the installation of best management practices on farms. Educational strategies rely upon a planned approach to working with farmers. Such strategic approaches to educational programming by Extension Service professionals draw upon research-based knowledge to teach people to analyze information, identify problems, decide among alternative courses of action for dealing with those problems, and locate the resources to proceed with a preferred course of action (Rasmussen, 1989).

Prior research in Wisconsin's Priority Watershed Program by Shepard and Smetzer-Anderson (1997) has shown that I&E strategies, especially those that seek to reduce nonpoint source pollution from agriculture, generally rely on a combination of two approaches:

1. Diffuse communication campaign efforts that involve disseminating, somewhat randomly, information to a wide area - similar to the way a shotgun sprays lead shot over a target. These information delivery approaches attempt to reach as much of the target audience as possible, often through mailings, newsletters, and mass media.

2. One-on-one information transfer techniques such as on-farm visits, individual farm trials, and individual farmer consultation.

To assess the effectiveness of these two approaches, this research compares the rate of adoption of nutrient management strategies by farmers in two different Wisconsin watersheds over the same five-year period of 1990 to 1995. One watershed, a U.S. Department of Agriculture Water Quality Initiative Demonstration project, used intensive one-on-one information transfer processes. The other, a state-funded priority watershed project, relied on more diffuse educational communication campaign methods.

In Wisconsin, nonpoint source pollution has been identified as the greatest cause of water quality degradation affecting over 75% of inland lakes, many of the harbors and coastal waters on the Great Lakes, and substantial groundwater resources. The majority of this problem is attributed to agricultural land use (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1996).

Pervasive water quality problems are the symptom - the primary cause being the failure to implement existing remedial technologies (Lockertz, 1990; Nowak, 1992). While many reports have pinpointed excessive nutrients from animal manures as the major source of nonpoint source pollution, few of these reports provide reliable indicators of remedial technology adoption.

Animal manures contain organic pollutants, nitrogen, and phosphorus. Prior studies in Wisconsin have shown that although many farmers do attempt to follow best management practices for nutrient management, few do so accurately (Nowak et al., 1998; Shepard, 1993;). Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) estimates show that animal manures associated with the state's livestock industry produce an estimated 143 million pounds of phosphorus per year (Stevenson, 1993). WDNR estimates that at least 10% of this amount, approximately 14 million pounds, is lost to surface water. Consequently, livestock manure in Wisconsin contributes significant amounts of phosphorus to the state's surface water. With this in mind, the success of Wisconsin watershed projects in rural areas should be judged on the extent to which manure management practices are used.

Two watersheds were selected for this comparison of educational approaches. Both watersheds were selected in 1989 to begin nonpoint source pollution remediation programs due to degraded surface and groundwater quality. Both watersheds contained numerous dairy farms, making manure runoff from barnyards and fields a major concern.

In each watershed, a population of farmers was identified as all farmers in the watershed who operated on at least 40 acres of land and/or had 15 head of dairy cattle. In both watersheds, 75% of these populations completed an initial baseline survey in 1990. These surveys assessed nutrient management behaviors related to nitrogen and phosphorus application rates in the production of corn. Specifically, the rates of eight different sources of agricultural nitrogen and phosphorus were measured. Nitrogen and phosphorus derived from manure application was also measured by establishing the type of manure applied (dairy, beef, swine, and/or poultry) and estimating size and number of loads applied to the specific corn fields. The survey also measured nitrogen from legumes.

Nitrogen application rates were used as the principle comparison between the two watersheds. To determine nitrogen and phosphorus application, each farmer was asked to identify the form and rate of nutrients applied to a representative corn field. Due to logistical difficulties, this research used a representative field rather than collecting detailed information on multiple fields. The survey allowed the farmer to select a field that is fairly representative of how he or she grows corn. Then the farmer was asked to describe if the nutrient application rates were higher, lower or the same as on other fields in the production year of the assessment. This field was found to be representative of others in that 80% of the farmers did not vary commercial nitrogen application rates and 67% did not vary manure application rates on their corn fields.

Based on estimated University of Wisconsin fertility recommendations for corn production, and after adjusting for specific soil types (Bundy, 1989; Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, 1989), an estimate of appropriate nutrient application rates for each field was calculated. To account for differences in University of Wisconsin-Extension soil test recommendations between the two watersheds, soil maps were consulted to determine the general soil type for the area surrounding the respondent's farm. A University of Wisconsin-Extension recommended level of 160 pounds of nitrogen per acre was used for medium textured soils, 120 pounds of nitrogen per acre for sandy soils, and 140 pounds of nitrogen per acre for clay textured soils (Bundy, 1989).

Actual estimates of manure nutrients were determined by asking farmers to identify the type of manure, the size of their manure spreader, the number of loads applied to the representative field within 12 months prior to planting corn, and the size of that field. The amount of plant-available nitrogen was determined from university guidelines based on the type of manure applied. Manure credits were assigned for each form of manure: dairy cow manure, 3 pounds per ton; beef cattle manure, 3.5 pounds per ton; swine manure, 4 pounds per ton; poultry manure, 12.5 pounds per ton; and sheep manure, 10 pounds per ton. These values are based on no incorporation of manure. For liquid manure the values were, respectively, 8, 10, 12, 35 and 28 pounds per 1,000 gallons (Madison, Kelling, Peterson, Daniel, Jackson & Massie, 1986).

Nutrient credits for a first-year corn field coming out of a legume rotation also were estimated following University of Wisconsin guidelines. In calculating legume credits, it was assumed there was a 60% stand at plowdown. This results in a nitrogen credit of 100 pounds per acre (Bundy, Kelling & Good, 1990; Wolkowski, 1992).

Phosphorus (P2O5) application by farmers in the targeted watersheds also was assessed in a similar fashion. Each farmer's phosphorus application rate was calculated based on the type of nutrient applied. Phosphorus calculations only refer to the relative balance between phosphorus inputs and outputs. They do not consider current phosphorus soil test levels. Previous yields were used to determine how much phosphorus the previous crop would have removed, and that estimate was subtracted from the previous year's application rate.

Overall, the estimated nutrient application rates were calculated to be intentionally conservative in four ways: (a) they do not take into account residual soil nitrate other than first-year legume nitrogen credits, (b) they only account for first-year manure nitrogen credits, (c) they assume none of the manures were incorporated, and (d) only the lowest value was used when a range was presented for manure or legume credits.

In 1995, follow-up surveys were conducted in the two watersheds, through on-farm interviews. Respondents for this second survey were randomly selected from the original list of baseline survey respondents. Results were analyzed using direct comparison of individual farmers between their nutrient application rates in 1990 and in 1995.

In addition to measuring farmer management behavior, this study also asked local "watershed-based" educators to describe their approach to educational programming. Each educator monitored the amount of time dedicated to diffuse communication techniques versus the amount of time spent on face-to-face or direct information delivery to landowners.

Results of these 1990 baseline assessments indicated that over-application of nitrogen and phosphorus could be attributed to the farmer's failure to reduce commercial nutrient purchases by taking advantage of the availability of nutrients from field-applied livestock manure. During the ensuing years, each project focused on improving nutrient management practices in their respect watersheds. Each project relied on a full-time educator to provide information to farmers. The differences in how the educators approached their respective educational strategies is summarized in Table 1.

The two educators differed substantially in both their approaches to information delivery and to targeting landowners. Although educators used similar techniques, the degree to which certain techniques were favored over others separated their two approaches. The projects were very similar in the type of technical and financial assistance provided beyond purely educational information. Regulatory aspects for both projects were similar because they were administered by a WDNR program available in both areas.

The educator in the northern watershed began by specifically targeting 120 of the watershed's dairy farmers with personal farm visits. In addition, the northern watershed educator placed more attention on working with local COOP agronomists from the watershed's three main farm supply dealers. The northern watershed educator followed these approaches between 1993 and 1995.

The educator in the southern watershed gave greater attention to working with influential "peer" farmers in the watershed. This southern watershed educator also focused more on activities associated with watershed's citizen advisory committee. The southern watershed educator dedicated more time to delivering information through the news media, project newsletters, and local events such as on-farm demonstrations, tours, farm field days, watershed events, and in local schools. The educator in the southern watershed followed these approaches between 1991 and 1995.

Changes in nutrient management practices are critical to reducing nonpoint source pollution. Both watersheds in this study observed reductions in excessive nutrient application. However, as Table 2 indicates, the extent of change in nitrogen and phosphorus application was greater in the northern watershed where the educator followed a more targeted information delivery approach.

More specifically, in the watershed where the educator spent more time using one-on-one farm visits and working directly with COOP agronomists, the excess nitrogen application rates on corn decreased by more than 80 pounds per acre (Table 2). In the southern watershed, where the educator followed more diffuse program approaches, the decrease in excess nitrogen application was not statistically significant even though the average nitrogen application rates showed a slight reduction (Table 2).

The nitrogen over-application can also be linked to an over-application of phosphorus by the same farmers, due to the way animal manures are handled on the farm, and because of the ratios of nitrogen and phosphorus contained in manure. Therefore, it is likely that nitrogen over-application through excessive manure application also would result in an over-application of phosphorus. Indeed, calculation of phosphorus application rates also found substantial over application in 1990 for both watersheds. Over time, just as with reductions in nitrogen application, there was a greater reduction in phosphorus application in the northern watershed (Table 3). In the southern watershed the rate of nitrogen and phosphorus appears to be increasing, however, these differences are not statistically significant.

Nitrogen crediting refers to a reduction in commercial nitrogen purchases based on the application of nitrogen from animal manure. Just as with the reduction in the percent of farmers over-applying nitrogen and phosphorus, farmers in the northern watershed were more likely to credit nitrogen than farmers in the southern watershed. In the southern watershed there was no change in nitrogen crediting behaviors -- only 38% of the farmers attempted to credit nitrogen in manure in 1990 and the same percentage was recorded in 1995. In the northern watershed, 26% were crediting nitrogen from manure in 1990, but in 1995 that number increased to 32%. Another contributing management practice that may have helped decrease over-application of nitrogen and phosphorus in the northern watershed was the increase in the number of farmers using soil tests. During the five years of the program, the percent of farmers using soil tests in the northern watershed increased from 60% to 91% (a 31 percentage point increase). In the southern watershed, 74% used soil tests before the program, while 79% said they used soil tests five years later (a 4 percentage point increase).

*Both educators worked full time (40 hours per week), an estimated 260 days per year. The above represent annual estimates of days dedicated to educational approaches.

Farmers in the northern watershed also lowered their commercial nitrogen purchases, due to manure application of nitrogen in corn, from 26% to 32%. In the southern watershed, only 1% of the farmers changed their commercial nitrogen rates due to manure nitrogen.

Other positive management changes occurred in both watersheds. Changes were recorded in the percent of farmers reducing commercial nitrogen purchases due to nitrogen from prior legume crops, the percent of farmers using soil tests, and the percent of farmers practicing regular daily manure hauling. Both watersheds showed increases in environmentally beneficial practices, but the northern watershed experienced a greater rate of change than did the southern watershed.

Prior research on the adoption of farm practices has indicated that one-on-one information transfer is more effective than the more diffuse methods of communicating technical ideas (Rogers, 1983). While this research upholds such previous work, it also offers insight into how to structure water resource protection programs. The research supports an integration of a diverse set of educational approaches such as on-farm visits, and small group demonstrations, and workshops. An over-reliance on diffuse information dissemination may come at the expense of interpersonal information transfer through direct farmer contact. The more effective educational program does not force one approach over the other, but rather emphasizes the interpersonal communication by dedicating staff time and program resources to such approaches.

If a project does commit staff to educational programming, opinions often differ concerning how best to target educational assistance to farm and rural landowners. Other studies have supported the importance of helping people through one-on-one contact. Cobourn and Donaldson (1997) found that by visiting ranches and helping participants design management improvements, watershed program participation increased. Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) also stress the importance of interpersonal information delivery in the adoption process of more than 20 different agricultural innovations. Furthermore, the one-to-one contact also allows for greater experiential opportunities, which may further enhance adoption (Richardson, 1994).

Even though this research supports targeted educational programming, in practice water resource protection programs rarely achieve such a level of specificity. In addition, approaches that attempt to educate landowners often focus on randomly selected activities (Geller, Winett and Evertt, 1982). Carefully designed, multi-year strategies that reach the landowners who need specific assistance, are rare (Shepard and Smetzer-Anderson, 1997).

Providing locally-based educational assistance may seem overwhelming to those coordinating a local watershed project. Such demands on staff time make program targeting and priority setting even more important. In the northern watershed, the identification of key audiences was essential to increasing nutrient management adoption and reducing excessive nutrient rates. This targeting of key audiences allowed the northern watershed educator to acknowledge individual growers and their farm firm characteristics, perceptions of problems, current use of practices and preferences for educational formats (Alston and Reding, 1998).

This comparison of educational approaches supports watershed-based educational programming that emphasizes local, direct farmer contact. This comparison of diffuse communication information delivery versus one-on-one consulting shows that greater rates of management adoption are found in projects that emphasize direct transfer of information to farmers through one-on-one contacts. Lower rates of adoption (for example, reductions in nitrogen application) are found in more diffuse communication-based efforts that rely more heavily on secondary transfer of information to farmers through newsletters, mass media and events.

One-on-one information transfer is important for farmers because they need more types of information than other project participants do, especially if the watershed project is focused principally on reducing agricultural pollution. For the farmer to make informed decisions, he or she must be able to integrate all levels of information into crop and animal production decisions. Direct information exchange may be critical for farmers to adopt water quality practices. When locally-based educators are privy to site-specific information about individual fields, they can learn more about the effectiveness of BMPs on water quality and, in turn, persuade farmers to use appropriate BMPs. Likewise, when farmers are knowledgeable about BMPs and their positive effect on water quality, they are motivated to implement recommended BMPs (Coffey, Jennings & Humenik, 1998).

With reduced budgets and cutbacks in personnel it is even more important to focus natural resource protection programs on the audiences who need assistance most. Moreover, since specific groups of farmers have specific needs, extra effort is required to focus on these groups to help them adopt sustainable agricultural practices. The local one-on-one transfer of information, similar to a consulting approach, allows for the information to be targeted to farmer needs. Also, working directly with the farmer provides additional benefit in that the farmer may feel he/she has influenced water quality in their area. This is supported by other studies which examine the role of participatory decision-making, enlisting the farmer to participate in selecting and conducting appropriate program approaches and even in BMP research/evaluation (Drost, Long, Wilson, Miller & Campbell, 1996).

Other findings of this research include:

Superficial program targeting is insufficient. Target audiences should be identified and then program resources, especially educational programs, should be deployed in ways that insure that they actually reach those who need them most.

An over-reliance on mass dissemination of information (diffuse communication campaigns) can diminish the effectiveness of educational programs that encourage farmers to make specific management changes.

Staff positions and program commitment should acknowledge the effectiveness of one-on-one information delivery techniques.

Alston, D.G., & Reding, M.E. (1998). Factors influencing adoption and educational outreach of integrated pest management. Journal of Extension, 36 (3). Available on-line at www.joe.org

Bundy, L.G. (1989). The new Wisconsin nitrogen recommendations. A briefing paper prepared for the Area Fertilizer and Aglime Dealer Meeting, November 28 - December 14, 1989. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Extension.

Bundy, L.G., Kelling, K.A., & Good, L.W. (1990). Using legumes as a nitrogen source. Madison: University of Wisconsin Extension Publication (A3517).

Cobourn, J. & Donaldson, S. (1997). Reaching A New Audience. Journal of Extension, 35 (1). Available on-line at www.joe.org

Coffey, S.W., Jennings, G.D., & Humenik, F. (1998). Collection of information about farm management practices. Journal of Extension, 36 (2). Available on-line at www.joe.org

Drost, D., Long, G., Wilson, D., Miller, B., & Campbell, W. (1996). Barriers to adopting sustainable agricultural practices. Journal of Extension, 34 (5). Available on-line at www.joe.org

Geller, E.S., Winett, R.A., & Evertt, E.B. (1982). Preserving the environment: New strategies for behavior change. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.

Lockertz, W. (1990). What have we learned about who conserves soil? Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 45(5),517-23.

Madison, F., Kelling, K.A., Peterson, J., Daniel, T.C., Jackson, G., & Massie, L. (1986). Managing manure and waste: Guidelines for applying manure to pasture and cropland in Wisconsin. Madison: University of Wisconsin Extension Publication (A3394).

Nowak, P. (1992). Why farmers adopt production technology. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 47(1),14-16.

Nowak, P., Shepard, R., & Madison, F. (1998). Farmers and manure management: A critical analysis. In J.L. Hatfield and B.A. Stewart (Eds), Animal waste utilization: Effective use of manure as a soil resource. Ann Arbor, MI: Sleeping Bear Press.

Rasmussen, W.D. (1989). Taking the university to the people: Seventy-five years of Cooperative Extension. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

Richardson, J.G. (1994). Learning best through experience. Journal of Extension, 32 (4). Available on-line at www.joe.org

Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. NY: The Free Press.

Rogers, E M., & Shoemaker, F.F. (1971). Communication of innovations: A cross-cultural approach. NY: Free Press.

Shepard, R. (1993). Beyond superficial targeting-designing strategies for water quality education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Shepard, R., & Smetzer-Anderson, S. (1997). Planning for water quality education: Where do we stand? An evaluation report prepared for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Madison: University of Wisconsin Extension Report/Publication.

Stevenson, G.R. (1993). Watershed management and control of agricultural critical source areas. In Kenneth Steele (Ed.), Animal waste and the land-water interface (pp. 273-281). NY: Lewis Publishers.

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection and University of Wisconsin-Extension, Cooperative Extension Service (1989). Nutrient and pesticide best management practices for Wisconsin farms. Madison: University of Wisconsin Extension Publication A-3466.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (1996). Wisconsin Water Quality Assessment Report to Congress. 1996 Addendum. Madison: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Publication Publ-WT254-96-REV.

Wolkowski, R. (1992). A step-by-step guide to nutrient management. Madison: University of Wisconsin Extension Publication (A3578).