 |
October 2017
|
October 2017 // Volume 55 // Number 5 // Ideas at Work // v55-5iw2
Bringing Farm Advisors into the Sustainability Conversation: Results from a Nitrogen Workshop in the U.S. Midwest
Abstract
Increasingly, farmers are looking to private sector advisors to inform their nitrogen decisions, but little is known about these important actors. We held a Sustainable Nitrogen Roundtable workshop to bring together important groups—private sector farm advisors, Extension educators, scientists, and farmers—to discuss new research and more sustainable use of nitrogen in midwestern cropping systems. We gained important insights by reaching outside academia and including private sector farm advisors as valued participants. Ninety percent of participants found that their understanding of varied viewpoints on nitrogen management improved, and an equal proportion would recommend such a workshop to a colleague.
Introduction
Nitrogen fertilizer is invaluable to Midwest crop production, but it is very mobile and easily lost from fields, with negative consequences for the environment (Robertson & Vitousek, 2009). University researchers and Extension program personnel have created tools to help farmers manage nitrogen efficiently (e.g., Sawyer et al., 2006). However, recent research indicates that many farmers seek information on farm decisions, including those involving nitrogen rates, from private sector retailers and advisors outside the university (Arbuckle & Rosman, 2014; Stuart, Schewe, & McDermott, 2014). These advisors are heavily influenced by Extension (Prokopy et al., 2015). Both private sector farm advisors and Extension play key roles in the network of information for farmers (King & Rollins, 1995; Shepard, 1999), but in ways that may be changing from historical patterns of interaction.
To date, little is documented on effective ways for Extension to interact with private sector advisors who are critical actors in farm decision making. We held a Sustainable Nitrogen Roundtable workshop to bring together important groups—private sector farm advisors, Extension educators, scientists, and farmers—to discuss challenges to and opportunities for research, education, and outreach initiatives aimed at increasing sustainable nitrogen use in midwestern cropping systems. Roundtables can be effective for bringing together diverse groups to discuss important issues (Lev, Briggs, & Stefani-Ruff, 2007).
Methods
Central to the nitrogen roundtable was a project funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF). Led by a team of Michigan State University (MSU) social and biophysical scientists, the project focused on integrating the biophysical, sociological, and economic aspects of nitrogen fertilizer for the purpose of informing management and policy decisions (Stuart et al., 2015). Across the Midwest, the team conducted field experiments, measured nitrogen loss, surveyed thousands of farmers, and conducted in-depth interviews with over 100 farmers about nitrogen use. We designed the roundtable to share and discuss these results with practitioners. Our goals were
- to share current research on nitrogen in cropping systems and receive feedback from practitioners who work with farmers;
- to provide an opportunity for discussions and shared learning among scientists, Extension educators, crop consultants, and farmers on sustainable nitrogen use; and
- to stimulate future research and education collaborations on nitrogen management.
We invited Extension educators and private sector farm advisors and nitrogen dealers from Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and Michigan. The 1.5-day workshop was held June 1–2, 2016, at the Kellogg Biological Station Long-term Ecological Research site in Michigan. The workshop began with an overview of the nitrogen cycle in agroecosystems, which was followed by presentations by the MSU research team. Presentations by researchers highlighted farmer decision-making processes that may be of use for practitioners when promoting new or innovative practices. Next, invited speakers shared applied research on decision-support tools and applied nitrogen management.
Presentations were followed by question-and-answer sessions that allowed for meaningful discussions about agronomic and behavioral aspects of fertilizer management. During a field tour, participants saw different ways that nitrous oxide emissions are measured and viewed crop responses to variable nitrogen rates. Throughout the workshop, we held facilitated breakout sessions to foster shared learning among participants (Table 1), and we hosted a panel discussion centered on the realities farmers are facing. Workshop content and presentations can be accessed at https://lter.kbs.msu.edu/nitrogen-roundtable-2016/.
| Breakout session topic | Format |
| What are the primary challenges to managing nitrogen efficiently for farmers, Extension, and crop consultants? What are unmet research needs? | Rotating flip charts activity in which participants break into small groups and rotate around a series of flip charts to address questions, with each group reading the previous groups' responses and adding to the list, and then reconvene for a whole-group discussion |
| What are the realities of managing nitrogen on the farm? | Farmer panela |
| How can we increase use of nitrogen decision-support tools by farmers? | Whole-group facilitated discussion |
| Where do we go from here: Who was not at the table for this discussion, who needs to be, and what are any potential next steps or collaborations? | Rotating flip charts activity followed by whole-group facilitated discussion |
| aThis panel included advisors and Extension educators who also farmed. | |
Results
Types and Numbers of Participants
We had a diverse mix of participants, although most farmer panelists could not attend due to delayed field activities resulting from an unusually wet spring (Table 2). It was relatively easy to recruit Extension educators through university and U.S. Department of Agriculture networks; nearly all invited Extension educators agreed to attend, and those who could not generally expressed enthusiasm for the event. Finding ways to tap into private sector networks was more challenging, and some private sector representatives canceled at the last minute due to pressing job duties. Participants had varied expertise in the aspects of farm management on which they provide recommendations, with the majority (96%) reporting that they advise farmers on nutrient management (Table 3).
| Participant type | Percentage of participantsa |
| Extension educator/specialist | 61% |
| Scientist/researcher | 29% |
| Certified/independent crop consultant | 25% |
| Farmer advisor | 21% |
| Nitrogen dealer | 11% |
| Farmer/producer | 4% |
| Other (specify)b | 14% |
| aThe percentages total more than 100% as participants could choose more than one category. bPrivate sector agronomist, on-farm researcher, independent crop advisor, and fertilizer biotechnologist. | |
| Topic | Percentage of participantsa |
| Nutrient management | 96% |
| Pest management | 76% |
| Crop rotation | 72% |
| Tillage | 68% |
| Weather/extreme events | 40% |
| Crop/seed selection | 40% |
| Financial planning | 28% |
| Nitrogen fertilizer rate | 20% |
| Other (specify)b | 28% |
| aThe percentages total more than 100% as some participants advise clients on multiple topics. bIn-season yield predictions, field quality, in-field variability, leasing/landlord-tenant relationships, contract research, environmental compliance, disease management, other nutrient management, and cover crops. | |
Postevent Evaluations
Ninety-six percent of participants said that the mix of presentations and discussions provided an effective means for learning about nitrogen management. Ninety percent stated that they improved their understanding of varied viewpoints on nitrogen management, and there was improved knowledge and understanding of nitrogen dynamics (Table 4). Fifty-five percent reported being somewhat likely and 45% reported being very likely to connect with other workshop participants for future collaborations. Importantly, 90% said they would recommend the workshop to a colleague.
| Knowledge/skill area | Increased | Did not change | |||
| A little | A moderate amount | A great deal | Did not grasp concept | Already knew | |
| Understanding of basic principles related to nitrogen cycling in agricultural systems | 27% | 57% | 7% | 0% | 10% |
| Understanding of farmer decision making regarding nitrogen management | 23% | 37% | 10% | 0% | 27% |
| Knowledge of available decision-support tools for managing nitrogen efficiently | 10% | 50% | 40% | 0% | 0% |
| Ability to address nitrogen management with science-based information for clientele or on farm | 43% | 27% | 20% | 0% | 7% |
| Confidence to make or recommend management that leads to sustainable nitrogen management | 27% | 43% | 10% | 3% | 13% |
| Desire for involvement in multistate Extension and outreach collaborations on nitrogen management | 17% | 43% | 37% | 3% | 0% |
| Motivation to implement knowledge in the area of sustainable nitrogen management | 20% | 30% | 37% | 0% | 10% |
| Note. The percentages do not always total 100% as some respondents did not answer every question. | |||||
Lessons Learned: Implications for Extension
A rising global population, climate change, and societal demands for environmentally friendly farming bring significant challenges to agriculture. Recent budget reductions in Extension exacerbate these challenges, and new partnerships are needed to meet them. Through our nitrogen roundtable, we gained insights that may inform Extension programming that relates to seeking new partnerships:
- While trust in Extension remains high, farmers are looking to private sector farm advisors. How can Extension best partner with farm advisors? It was challenging to identify interested farm advisors for the nitrogen roundtable. Little is known about this important group of actors in the agricultural sector, and making better connections with them is an important next step.
- Partnership with researchers on outreach events can be valuable. Scientists need to fulfill broader impact goals, and stakeholders value learning about new and exciting research results. If collaborations start early, Extension activities can be part of grant proposals, as was the case for the nitrogen roundtable.
- The timing of an event is an important consideration, making it difficult to plan for a diverse group. For example, summer is often best for university researchers to participate, but summer can be a busy, difficult time of year for farmers or advisors to attend. Soliciting input from each participant type should be a priority when planning an event.
- Most Extension and private consultants in attendance had never met before. For a vibrant Extension system, forming new partnerships outside academia is important; targeted workshops such as the nitrogen roundtable offer an important opportunity for building such partnerships.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the participants, panelists, and speakers of the roundtable for sharing their expertise, time, and experiences. MSU Extension educator Marilyn Thelen provided valuable planning advice, and we are grateful for the support of North Central Region Sustainable Agriculture and Research Education coordinators in helping recruit Extension educators to participate. Sarah Hanks was invaluable in organizing the event. Our work was funded by NSF's Dynamics of Coupled Natural and Human Systems program (NSF 1313677), NSF's Kellogg Biological Station Long-term Ecological Research program (NSF 1027253), and MSU AgBioResearch.
References
Arbuckle, J. G., & Rosman, H. (2014). Iowa farmers' nitrogen management practices and perspectives. Extension Report PM3066. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Extension.
King, R. N., & Rollins, T. J. (1995). Factors influencing the adoption of a nitrogen testing program. Journal of Extension, 33(4), Article 4RIB2. Available at: https://www.joe.org/joe/1995august/rb2.php
Lev, L., Briggs, S., & Stefani-Ruff, D. (2007). The growers' roundtable: Encouraging conversations about farmers' market management issues. Journal of Extension, 45(4), Article 4TOT3. Available at: https://www.joe.org/joe/2007august/tt3.php
Prokopy, L. S., Carlton, J. S., Arbuckle J. G., Haigh, T., Lemos, M. C., Mase, A. S., . . . Power, R. (2015). Extension's role in disseminating information about climate change to agricultural stakeholders in the United States. Climatic Change, 130, 261–272.
Robertson, G. P., & Vitousek, P. M. (2009). Nitrogen in agriculture: Balancing the cost of an essential resource. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 34, 97–125.
Sawyer, J., Nafziger, E., Randall, G., Bundy, L., Rehm, G., & Joern, B. (2006). Concepts and rationale for regional nitrogen rate guidelines for corn. Article PM 2015. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Extension.
Shepard, R. (1999). Making our nonsource pollution education programs effective. Journal of Extension, 37(5), Article 5FEA2. Available at: https://www.joe.org/joe/1999october/a2.php
Stuart, D., Basso, B., Marquart-Pyatt, S., Reimer, A., Robertson, G. P., & Zhao, J. (2015). The need for a coupled human and natural systems understanding of agricultural nitrogen loss. Bioscience, 65, 571–578.
Stuart, D., Schewe, R. L., & McDermott, M. (2014). Reducing nitrogen fertilizer application as a climate change mitigation strategy: Understanding farmer decision-making and potential barriers to change in the US. Land Use Policy, 36, 210–218.