Demonstration-Based Education Generates Behavior Change Related to Conservation Practices

Introduction

Experiential learning has been an effective way for Extension educators to teach youths and adults (Bechtel, Ewing, Threeton, & Mincemoyer, 2013; Torock, 2009). Richardson (1994) identified that learning opportunities that allowed for "doing" and "seeing" were preferred by Extension clients. Looking beyond learning preferences to adoption of practices, we evaluated the effectiveness of a demonstration-based agriculture education tool, called the rainfall simulator, in changing producer behavior related to conservation practices.

Research has shown that no-till farming techniques, the use of cover crops, and rotational grazing practices improve effects of the water cycle (Fu, Chen, & McCool, 2006; Lyons, Weigel, Paine, & Undersander, 2000; Wilson, Dalzell, Mulla, Dogwiler, & Porter, 2014). Yet implementation of these land-use practices remains relatively low in the United States (Conant, Six, & Paustian, 2003; Lal, 2002; Lal, Reicosky, & Hanson, 2007). Those who work closely with farmers and ranchers recognize the desire of producers to "do the right thing" when it comes to environmental stewardship. However, there sometimes are legitimate barriers to adopting certain sustainable agriculture practices (Baumgart-Getz, Prokopy, & Floress, 2012; Drost, Long, Wilson, Miller, & Campbell, 1996; Knowler & Bradshaw, 2007). Nevertheless, it is important for Extension and conservation groups to continue educational programming regarding the use of no-till, cover crops, and rotational grazing practices because policies and incentives will continue to fluctuate but sound science will not.

Since 2009, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the South Dakota Grassland Coalition (SDGC), and South Dakota State University (SDSU) Extension have partnered to deliver educational programming on the effects of the water cycle on managed lands in South Dakota by using a mobile rainfall simulator developed by the NRCS (Figure 1). The rainfall simulator demonstrates the water cycle by showing runoff, infiltration, and soil particle dislodging. Prior to the demonstration, the presenter collects intact soil from fields managed by a variety of practices (no-till cropping with and without cover crops, conventional cropping, continuously grazed pasture, and rotationally grazed pasture) and then applies a 30-min rainfall simulation (Figure 1). During the simulation, the presenter explains how the water cycle works and encourages the audience to make observations, comment, and ask questions. After the simulation is completed, the presenter dumps the soil containers to reveal how wet or dry the soil is and discusses the water-holding capacity for plant growth. The main goals of the simulation are to demonstrate relative differences among management practices, rather than to collect quantitative data, and to encourage discussion around the practices of no-till, cover crops, and rotational grazing.

Figure 1.
Mobile Rainfall Simulator

These demonstrations have occurred about a dozen times annually as part of various tours, pasture walks, field days, and farm shows since 2009. Over the years, we have observed that some producers attending these events have seen the demonstration before. Thus, our team was curious about whether producers who had seen the demonstration before had implemented conservation practices and taken action to monitor relevant changes on their farms and ranches. In addition, we wanted to know whether we were continuing to reach new audiences, thereby justifying the need to continue the demonstrations.

Survey

We conducted a survey (IRB-1611027-EXM) of event participants watching the rainfall simulator demonstration at five events in the summer of 2015. These events included two annual tours, a pasture walk, a field day, and a regional farm show. We distributed a one-page survey (Figure 2) to event participants watching the demonstration. The survey took less than 5 min to complete.

Results

We collected 169 surveys from about 350 participants (48% response rate) at the five demonstrations; survey participation rate across the events ranged from 29% to 56%. Of the respondents across all events, 62% were producers and 38% were nonproducers. Fifty-eight percent of the respondents had seen the demonstration before (Table 1).

Of the 98 respondents who had seen the rainfall simulator demonstration before, the majority had seen it at an NRCS event (Table 2). Additionally, the total number of responses relating to whether participants had seen the demonstration before was 172, indicating that some had seen the demonstration more than just one other time.

Because our focus was on addressing the impact of the rainfall simulator demonstration on producers, we isolated this group's responses to questions about changes in practices. Producers who had seen the demonstration before were asked whether they had made changes to their operations as a result. Seventy-six percent (53 out of 70) reported having made changes because of watching the rainfall simulator demonstration, and of these, most indicated having made multiple changes. The most frequently implemented practices were leaving more residue on cropland (55%), planting cover crops (53%), incorporating livestock grazing on cropland (38%), diversifying crop rotation (36%), switching from season-long continuous grazing to rotational grazing (36%), and switching to no-till (32%) (Table 3).

We also were interested in whether producers who had made changes to their farms or ranches had taken it upon themselves to monitor effects of the water cycle on their properties. Sixty percent (32 out of 53) had recorded monthly rainfall, and 25% (13 out of 53) had measured infiltration rates on their fields or pastures using an NRCS single-ring infiltration kit. We also found that 68% (36 out of 53) had noticed less water erosion in general and 47% (25 out of 53) had observed less gully formation on cropland and pastures.

Summary and Conclusion

Previous research has shown that simulations and active participation techniques can be effective tools for adult learning (Ota, DiCarlo, Burts, Laird, & Gioe, 2006). Our findings corroborate these results. The rainfall simulator demonstration discussed herein involved observation, discussion, and questioning in a group learning setting, and producers reported adopting conservation practices because of this learning experience. According to the results of our survey, the rainfall simulator demonstration is an effective educational outreach tool relative to the adoption of conservation practices on managed agricultural lands. Others in Extension can take this "idea at work" and apply it to their program areas.

References

Baumgart-Getz, A., Prokopy, L. S., & Floress, K. (2012). Why farmers adopt best management practice in the United States: A meta-analysis of the adoption literature. Journal of Environmental Science, 96, 17–25.

Bechtel, R., Ewing, J. C., Threeton, M., & Mincemoyer, C. (2013). Understanding the knowledge and use of experiential learning within Pennsylvania 4-H Clubs. Journal of Extension, 51(5), Article 5RIB7. Available at: https://www.joe.org/joe//2013october/rb7.php

Conant, R. T., Six, J., & Paustian, K. (2003). Land use effects on soil carbon fractions in the southeastern United States. I. Management-intensive versus extensive grazing. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 38, 386–392.

Drost, D., Long, G., Wilson, D., Miller, B., & Campbell, W. (1996). Barriers to adopting sustainable agriculture practices. Journal of Extension, 34(6), Article 6FEA1. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1996december/a1.php

Fu, G., Chen, S., & McCool, D. K. (2006). Modeling the impacts of no-till practice on soil erosion and sediment yield with RUSLE, SEDD, and ArcView GIS. Soil and Tillage Research, 85, 38–49.

Knowler, D., & Bradshaw, B. (2007). Farmers' adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy, 32(1), 25–48.

Lal, R. (2002). Soil carbon dynamics in cropland and rangeland. Environmental Pollution, 116, 353–362.

Lal, R., Reicosky, D. C., & Hanson, J. D. (2007). Evolution of the plow over 10,000 years and the rationale for no-till farming. Soil and Tillage Research, 93(1), 1–12.

Lyons, J., Weigel, B. M., Paine, L. K., & Undersander, D. J. (2000). Influence of intensive rotational grazing on bank erosion, fish habitat quality, and fish communities in southwestern Wisconsin trout streams. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 55(3), 271–276.

Ota, C., DiCarlo, C. F., Burts, D. C., Laird, R., & Gioe, C. (2006). Training and the needs of adult learners. Journal of Extension, 44(6), Article 6TOT5. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2006december/tt5.php

Richardson, J. G. (1994). Learning best through experience. Journal of Extension, 32(2), Article 2FEA6. Available at: https://www.joe.org/joe/1994august/a6.php

Torock, J. L. (2009). Experiential learning and Cooperative Extension: Partners in non-formal education for a century and beyond. Journal of Extension, 47(6), Article 6TOT2. Available at: https://www.joe.org/joe/2009december/tt2.php

Wilson, G. L., Dalzell, B. J., Mulla, D. J., Dogwiler, T., & Porter, P. M. (2014). Estimating water quality effects of conservation practices and grazing land use scenarios. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 69(4), 330–342.