Knowledge of Sustainable Agriculture Practices by Extension Agents in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia

Introduction

Agriculture continues to experience a crisis that includes, in addition to rapid financial and structural changes, an awareness of farming's enormous influence on ecosystem health (National Research Council, 1989). When determining the level of environmental stewardship necessary to maintain an ecologically sound farmland system, sustainable agriculture comes into play. The National Research Council (1993) argues that sustainability is necessary to "keep the productive capacity of natural resources in step with population growth and economic demands while protecting and, where necessary, restoring environmental quality" (p. 66). Sustainable agriculture refers to an agricultural production and distribution system that:

• Achieves the integration of natural biological cycles and controls;


• Protects and renews soil fertility and the natural resource base;


• Optimizes the management and use of on-farm resources;


• Reduces the use of nonrenewable resources and purchased production inputs;


• Provides adequate and dependable farm income;


• Promotes opportunity in family farming and farm communities;


• Minimizes adverse impacts on health, safety, wildlife, water quality, and the environment (Sustainable Agriculture Network, 2002, p.1).

Sustainability rests on the principle that we must meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Feenstra, 1997). In other words, sustainable agriculture challenges educators and farmers to think about the long-term implications of practices and the broad interactions and dynamics of agricultural systems. Sustainable agriculture relies on three primary goals:

• Providing a more profitable farm income;
• Promoting environmental stewardship, including:
• Protecting and improving soil quality
• Reducing dependence on non-renewable resources, such as fuel and synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, and
• Minimizing adverse impacts on safety, wildlife, water quality and other environmental resources; and
• Promoting stable, prosperous farm families and communities (Exploring Sustainability in Agriculture, n.d., p.2)

Agriculturists throughout the world are continuously experimenting and enhancing agricultural practices in an effort to reach the goals of sustainability. By using a variety of farming strategies producers are meeting the goals in their operations, their environments, and their communities (Exploring Sustainability in Agriculture, n.d.). The methods being used, however, are as "different as prairie flowers dotting a Midwest landscape" (Exploring Sustainability in Agriculture, n.d., p.2).

There are many ways to improve the sustainability of a given farming system, and these vary from region to region. However, there are some common sets of practices among farmers trying to take a more sustainable approach, in part through greater use of on-farm and local resources (Sustainable Agricultural Network, 2002). For example, in order for farmers who practice sustainable agriculture to be successful in managing their farmlands, there must be a continuous network of information, new technologies, and innovations that are available to them. Educators must remain current on the latest agricultural research and technology, enabling them to understand the needs and problems that their clientele are facing.

The Extension Service can play a crucial role in providing this network of information on sustainable agriculture education. Extension not only has a long history of service to farmers, but Extension agents have also gained their respect and trust (Seevers, Graham, Gamon, & Conklin, 1997; Warner & Christenson, 1984). The 1990 Farm Bill states that Extension agents must be trained in sustainable agriculture in order to "develop their understanding, competence, and ability to teach and communicate the concepts" to farmers and others (Agunga, 1995, p. 172).

The Extension Service, due to its large network of personnel, is in position to formulate a cohesive structure for promoting sustainable agriculture education; however, if Extension agents are not convinced of the value of sustainability, they cannot be expected to educate farmers on the concepts (Agunga, 1995). Because the Extension Service can play a critical role in the evolution of sustainable agriculture education, it is vital to understand the preparation levels of Extension educators regarding the relatively new concepts involved with sustainable agriculture. Knowledge about the concept of sustainability is necessary in order to move the program forward (Minarovic & Mueller, 2000).

The purpose of the study reported here was to determine the level of knowledge and preparation that Extension educators possess related to the numerous dimensions of sustainable agriculture. The objectives of the study are reflected in the following research questions:

1. Do Extension educators have a clear understanding of sustainable agriculture?


2. What is the number of sustainable agriculture workshops or other information sessions that Extension educators attended? And


3. What areas of sustainable agriculture training are Extension agents interested?

Methods and Materials

The target population for the study was 179 Agriculture and Natural Resource Extension Agents employed in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. A descriptive survey research method was used to collect data from the target population. "Descriptive surveys focus on determining the status of a defined population with respect to certain variables. They basically inquire into the status quo; they attempt to measure what exists without questioning why it exists" (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 1990, p. 407).

The questionnaire was developed by the researcher based on the review of literature and the objectives of the study. Content and face validity of the instrument were established by a panel of experts. Based on the results of a split-half statistical procedure, the instrument was found to have "exemplary" reliability (Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991). The questionnaire was accompanied by a cover letter that explained the purpose of the study and gave directions for completing and returning the survey and a self addressed stamped envelope to encourage response. The instruments were coded to identify non-respondents for follow-up, and the code was destroyed before the data were analyzed. Follow up letters with a questionnaire were sent 3 weeks after the initial mailing. Out of the 179 questionnaires administered, 126 were returned. Of those returned, 121 (67.5%) were usable.

Early and late respondents were compared on three demographic variables using a chi-square statistical procedure and 17 knowledge questions using an independent t-test. No statistical differences were found between early and late respondents. Because non-respondents are similar to late respondents, it was assumed that the respondents were an unbiased sample of the population and generalizations could be made to the population (Ary, Jacobs, Razavieh, & Sorenson, 2006).

Results/Findings

Demographic Information

The respondents were asked to provide basic demographic information, including age, years worked, education level, and state of residence. The median age category for the respondents was 50-59 years of age (n = 41, 33.9%). Eleven to 15 years was the median category for years worked in Extension. A majority of the respondents (87.2%) had a Master's degree or above.

Sustainable Agriculture: Understanding and Research Availability

Using a six-point Likert scale with 1 = very strongly disagree, 2 = strongly disagree, 3 = disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree, 6 = very strongly agree, Extension agents were asked a series of questions to determine their understanding of sustainable agriculture and their perception of the availability of research findings on the topic. A six-point scale was used to encourage respondents to ponder the questions and not take the lazy way out by using a "neutral" response (Ary et al., 2006; Patten, 2001). The responses were averaged, and the following scale used to interpret the results: 5.5 - 6.0 very strongly agree, 4.5 - 5.49 strongly agree, 3.5 - 4.49 agree, 2.5 - 3.49 disagree, 1.5 - 2.49 strongly disagree, and 1 - 1.49 very strongly disagree.

Respondents strongly agreed (M = 4.56, SD = 0.89) that environmental protection readily came to mind when they heard the term "sustainable agriculture." Respondents also agreed that small-scale agriculture (M = 4.36, SD = 0.94), profitability (M = 4.23, SD = 1.03), low chemical input (M = 4.22, SD = 1.02), productivity (M = 4.05, SD = 0.99), and organic farming (M = 3.96, SD = 1.13) readily came to mind when they heard the term "sustainable agriculture." Respondents disagreed that non-animal agriculture (M = 2.81, SD = 0.93) readily came to mind when they heard the term "sustainable agriculture."

Respondents agreed that sustainable agriculture was a priority for present clientele interactions (M = 4.33, SD = 0.88). Participants strongly agreed that sustainable agriculture was a priority for future clientele interactions (M = 4.54, SD = 0.92). Respondents also agreed that if farmers were provided information on sustainable agriculture, it would increase the likelihood they would adopt the concepts (M = 4.08, SD = 0.72).

Respondents were asked a series of questions about the scientific evidence to support sustainable agriculture's concepts. Agents agreed that there was scientific proof that sustainable agriculture was socially acceptable (M = 4.20, SD = 0.88), environmentally sound (M = 3.97, SD = 0.77), and economically feasible (M = 3.86, SD = 0.83). Although respondents agreed that that sustainable agriculture was socially acceptable, environmentally sound, and economically feasible, they also agreed that research on sustainable agriculture was still in its infancy (M = 3.90, SD = 1.04).

Extension agents were asked a series of questions on their knowledge of sustainable agriculture's principles, where to locate information on sustainable agriculture, and if they would communicate sustainable agriculture concepts to clients. Agents strongly agreed that if researchers make innovations available on sustainable agriculture, they would communicate the information to farmers (M = 4.65, SD = 0.75). Respondents disagreed with the statement that they did not know enough about sustainable agriculture to inform others (M = 2.99, SD = 1.02) and they did not know where to get information on sustainable agriculture (M = 2.80, SD = 0.91).

Professional Development in Sustainable Agriculture

Many of the Extension agents had participated in professional development opportunities on the central concepts of sustainable agriculture. Ninety respondents (74.4%) had participated in conferences, 99 respondents (81.8%) had participated in workshops, 28 respondents (23.1%) had participated in dinner meetings, and 31 respondents (25.8%) had participated in professional development activities other than those listed. Ninety-two respondents (77.3%) had participated in professional development activities that specifically dealt with environmental soundness, 96 respondents (80.0%) had participated in professional development activities that specifically dealt with economic viability, and 47 respondents (39.2%) had participated in professional development activities that specifically dealt with social acceptability. Ninety-two respondents (76.0%) perceived most of their education on agricultural practices has sustainable implications, 15 respondents (12.4%) perceived that most of their education on agricultural practices used sustainable examples, and nine respondents (7.4%) perceived most of their education on agricultural practices to be in direct conflict with their perceptions of sustainable agriculture.

Areas of Sustainable Agriculture that Extension Agents Desired Training

Using a 6-point Likert scale with 1 = very strongly disagree, 2 = strongly disagree, 3 = disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree, 6 = very strongly agree, Extension educators were asked to identify the areas where they desired sustainable agriculture training. The responses were averaged, and the following scale used to interpret the results: 5.5 - 6.0 very strongly agree, 4.5 - 5.49 strongly agree, 3.5 - 4.49 agree, 2.5 - 3.49 disagree, 1.5 - 2.49 strongly disagree, and 1 - 1.49 very strongly disagree.

Respondents strongly agreed that they desired training in economics of sustainable agriculture (M = 4.75, SD = 0.96), innovative farming systems (M = 4.64, SD = 0.96), and marketing of sustainable agricultural products (M = 4.55, SD = 1.09). Agents agreed that they desired training in grazing/forage management (M = 4.42, SD = 1.14), farm management practices (M = 4.37, SD = 0.88), integrated insect pest management (M = 4.29, SD = 0.92), crop rotations (M = 4.28, SD = 0.99), organic matter management (M = 4.20, SD = 0.93), recycling farm wastes (M = 4.19, SD = 0.87), educational communication/Extension in sustainable agriculture (M = 4.15, SD = 1.08), water quality with respect to agrichemicals (M = 4.11, SD = 0.93), grass fed livestock (M = 4.10, SD = 1.16), restoration of the family farm (M = 4.08, SD = 1.13), food safety and pesticide residues (M = 4.06, SD = 1.03), natural resource conservation (M = 4.02, SD = 0.87), composting (M = 3.99, SD = 1.05), and system theory including biological systems (M = 3.67, SD = 0.99).

Conclusions/Recommendations

Conclusions

Based upon the findings of the study, the following conclusions were reached. Extension agents were familiar with and associated terms such as environmental protection, small-scale agriculture, profitability, low chemical input, productivity, and organic farming with sustainable agriculture. Extension agents felt sustainable agriculture was a priority for present and future clientele. Extension agents believed scientific proof existed for the concepts of sustainable agriculture; however, they also indicated sustainable agriculture research was in its infancy.

Extension agents were willing to communicate sustainable agriculture principles to their clients. Extension agents expressed a need for training in areas of sustainable agriculture such as economics of sustainable agriculture, innovative farming systems, marketing of sustainable agricultural products, grazing/forage management, farm management practices, integrated insect pest management, crop rotations, organic matter management, recycling farm wastes, educational communication/Extension in sustainable agriculture, water quality with respect to agrichemicals, grass fed livestock, restoration of the family farm, food safety and pesticide residues, natural resource conservation, composting, and system theory including biological systems.

Recommendations

The following recommendations are made to Agriculture and Natural Resource Extension Agents employed in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia included in the study. Researchers, specializing in sustainable agriculture, should include Extension agents as potential clientele for the distribution of their research findings. Agents should also be invited to all professional development activities involving research on sustainable agriculture. Extension administrators should include sustainable agriculture topics in all professional development events. Additional research should be completed to determine if knowledge and attitudes toward sustainable agriculture influence the topics and delivery of information to Extension clientele. Extension agents should continue to participate in professional development activities on sustainable agriculture and distribute the information to their clients.

References

Agunga, R. (1995). What Ohio Extension say about sustainable agriculture. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 5(3), 169-187.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A., Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to research in education (7^th ed.). California: Thomson Wadsworth.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (1990). Introduction to research in education. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.

Exploring Sustainability in Agriculture. (n.d.). Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education.

Feenstra, G. (1997). What is sustainable agriculture? UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. University of California, Davis, CA.

Minarovic, R. & Mueller, J. P. (2000). North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service professionals' attitudes toward sustainable agriculture. Journal of Extension [On-line], 38(1). Retrieved October 9, 2002, from http://www.joe.org/joe/2000february/a1.html

National Research Council (1993). Sustainable agriculture and the environment in humid tropics. Washington, D. C.: The Academy Press.

Patten, M. L. (2001). Questionnaire research: A practical guide. Los Angeles, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.

Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Criteria for scale selection and evaluation. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 1-16) New York: Academic Press.

Seevers, B., Graham, D., Gamon, J., & Conklin, N. (1997). Education through cooperative Extension. Albany: Delmar Publishers.

Sustainable Agriculture Network. (2002). What is sustainable agriculture? Retrieved October 9, 2002, from http://www.sare.org/htdocs/docs/SANand SARE.html

Warner, P. D. & Christenson, J. A. (1984). The Cooperative Extension Service: A national assessment. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.