| | Executive summary | Farm survey summary findings
Executive Summary
Introduction
The Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture (AESA) program strives to enhance the adoption of environmentally sustainable practices by the agriculture and food processing sectors. The AESA program builds on the successes of previous federal-provincial programs. Funded by Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (AAFRD), AESA addresses a broad range of environmental issues of high priority for the agricultural industry in Alberta.
This report presents the results of a farm level tracking survey conducted in late winter of 2001. This survey addressed awareness, attitudes and adoption of environmentally sustainable agriculture (ESA) practices, and any impact that the AESA program may have had. Specifically, the survey considered:
- Soil Conservation;
- Water Quality;
- Wildlife Habitat Conservation;
- Manure Management, and
- Agricultural Waste Management.
Five hundred and three (503) farmers participated in the telephone survey, and 256 of these completed a follow-up mail survey. The survey design was modelled after a similar study conducted in 1997 to evaluate the previous five-year Canada Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture (CAESA) Agreement.
Additionally, 58 Agricultural Service Board (ASB) fieldmen and representatives of Agricultural Organizations (AO’s) completed a survey to assess their perceptions of the program and satisfaction with AAFRD support, as "clients" or delivery agents of AESA.
Farm Survey Summary Findings
Seriousness of environmental issues on the farm
Respondent perceptions of the seriousness of environmental issues on their farms has not changed significantly since 1997. Proper disposal of agricultural waste remains the top issue of concern (31% rating it "very serious" on a prompted basis) and was also the issue rated highest in terms of increasing seriousness. Next most serious was loss of soil fertility (28% "very serious"), soil erosion (27% "very serious" but also declining in concern), groundwater and surface water pollution from fertilizer and pesticide runoff (each over 20% "very serious"), water contamination from manure (16% "very serious" - up 5% from 1997), loss of wildlife habitat, loss of productive riparian areas, and loss of air quality from manure (all rated "very serious" by 10% or less).
Awareness and adoption of ESA practices
Awareness of ESA practices, with a few exceptions, was high.
Adoption rates in 2000 averaged 63% of 51 "eligible practices" measured (i.e. if a farmer had livestock and water bodies on his land, a practice such as "fencing to manage livestock access to water" would apply). Adoption of ESA practices has shown an overall average increase of about 5% of eligible practices (those measured in both 1997 and 2001), coincident with the timing of AESA programming. Further, adoption of soil conservation practices has slowed. Of the five areas studied, adoption of water quality practices showed the greatest increase over 1997 (about a 10% average increase in eligible practice adoption).
| Summary of Awareness and Adoption of ESA Practices (Percentage of respondents) |
| PRACTICE | 2001 Awareness | 2000 Adoption | % Change in Adoption over 1996 |
| General |
| Environmental Farm Plan | 72 | 22 | Not Asked |
| Nutrient Management Plan | 83 | 39 | Not Asked |
| Practice Site-Specific Management on farm | 66 | 50 | Not Asked |
| Always wear protective clothing to apply pesticides | Not Asked | 44 | +3 |
| Soil Conservation Practices |
| Shelterbelts | 96 | 80 | 0 |
| No or min-till | 96 | 33 | +6 |
| Direct seeding | 96 | 20 | +3 |
| Continuous cropping (no fallow) | 93 | 55 | -6 |
| Use of perennial forages in rotation | 97 | 47 | -16 |
| Use of legume plowdown in rotation | Not Asked | 21 | -11 |
| Direct seeding to pasture or hayland | 90 | 15 | -5 |
| Use winter cereals in rotation | Not Asked | 10 | Not Asked |
| Chem or Chem/till summerfallow weed control (% SF acres) | Not Asked | 59 | +13 |
| Water Quality Management Practices |
| Buffer strips of grass/trees on edge of streams/ditches | 88 | 69 | +7 |
| Have grassed waterways | 87 | 62 | +4 |
| Have natural wetlands or sloughs | 91 | 71 | Not Asked |
| Avoid spraying near bodies of water | 96 | 88 | +14 |
| Avoid spraying in winds >20 km/hr or use shields | 97 | 89 | +5 |
| Calibrate the sprayer | 93 | 84 | +7 |
| Apply fertilizer at recommended soil/tissue test rate | 93 | 71 | Not Asked |
| Avoid draining natural wetlands or sloughs | 93 | 74 | Not Asked |
| Have fencing to manage livestock access to water | 96 | 66 | +12 |
| Provide alternate livestock watering systems (pumped) | 98 | 77 | +22 |
| Choose wintering site to avoid manure contamination | 96 | 90 | Not Asked |
| Wildlife Habitat Conservation Practices |
| Maintain natural wetland or sloughs | 98 | 80 | Not Asked |
| Buffer areas of grass or trees along streams/ditches | 96 | 81 | +16 1 |
| Buffer areas next to natural wetlands/ sloughs | 95 | 77 | +6 2 |
| Fencing to manage livestock access to water | 96 | 64 | Not Asked |
| Retain bush or native land | 97 | 87 | -4 |
| Winter cereals (nesting cover/ less spring disturbance) | 83 | 20 | Not Asked |
| Delay grazing for completion of nesting | 86 | 45 | -2 |
| Use rotational grazing | 95 | 79 | +10 |
| Delay haying for completion of nesting | 86 | 44 | +5 |
| Use flushing bars on the tractor | 82 | 14 | Not Asked |
| Manure Management Practices |
| Avoid spreading manure on frozen ground | 84 | 67 | +6 |
| Rotate fields manure applied | 98 | 93 | +7 |
| Incorporate manure immediately after spreading | 94 | 74 | +4 |
| Inject liquid manure instead of surface applying | 91 | 7 | Not Asked |
| Apply according to soil/tissue test recommendation | 89 | 36 | Not Asked |
| Avoid spreading close to water to minimize runoff | 99 | 92 | Not Asked |
| Compost before spreading | 96 | 71 | Not Asked |
| Develop a storage pond, lagoon or cistern | 90 | 16 | Not Asked |
| Use swath or winter grazing to extend grazing period | 94 | 34 | Not Asked |
| Agricultural Waste Management Practices |
| Recycle oil, rubber, plastics | 99 | 92 | +9 |
| Dispose oil, solvents, etc. at proper disposal sites | 99 | 94 | +11 |
| Recycle pesticide containers at proper sites | 99 | 95 | +1 |
| Compost dead animals | 77 | 36 | +8 |
1. 1997 wording "Maintain grassed waterways"
2. 1997 wording: "Maintain native areas or buffer strips along waterways"
Additionally, 38% of respondents said they were intending to change their farming practices or incorporate new practices, over the next 2-3 years, to improve the environmental sustainability of their farms. This was 9% higher than the rate of intended adoption expressed post CAESA in 1997.
The MAIN REASONS for adopting ESA practices were (in declining order of frequency of mention):
- Good stewardship/to preserve the land for future use;
- To reduce soil erosion/to conserve soil;
- To improve/maintain soil fertility/moisture;
- To enjoy/promote/protect wildlife;
- To save money/reduce costs/improve revenue;
- To maintain water quality/supply;
- To maintain/improve yields/productivity or grade; and
- To reduce chemical use/cost.
The most frequently mentioned reason cited in 1997 was to "reduce soil erosion", followed by "maintain/enhance soil quality". The range of reasons provided in 2001 seems to reflect a more holistic approach and understanding of ESA.
The MAIN BARRIERS to adoption cited on an unprompted basis in 2001 follow.
- Lack of financial resources/costs or low crop prices;
- Equipment costs/maintenance/lack of equipment;
- Inconvenience or impracticality of a given practice;
- Economics or cost benefit ratio does not justify investment;
- Too time consuming/lack of time; and
- Need for education, technical information or testing.
The most commonly used information sources on conservation and sustainable agriculture practices were the farm print media, the general media (radio and television) and AAFRD. Just under half of the respondents also obtained information from each of: attending workshops, seminars and courses, participating in demonstrations and field days, or directly from sources such as the PFRA, the agricultural service boards or commodity associations.
AESA impact
Just under 30% of the survey respondents had heard of the AESA program per se, while as many as two-thirds were aware of communications or events on specific AESA topics that had been offered over the past three years. Overall, just under half of the survey respondents had participated in AESA sponsored activities or accessed communications materials. Reasons for not participating related to time constraints, lack of awareness, lack of interest or applicability to the farm situation, or inconvenient location. Of those who had attended AESA events such as workshops, seminars, demonstrations or field days (about one-third of the sample), 60% said they had made a change to their farm operation as a result. Fifty-two percent (52%) also said they were planning to make changes to improve the environmental sustainability of their farms within the next 2-3 years, and another 31% said they may do so.
Just 2% of all respondents felt that AESA had been "very" influential in their decision to change their practices while 25% thought it had been "somewhat" influential. Thirty-four percent felt it had been of no influence, while 39% could not comment. The degree of perceived influence was higher (over 40%) amongst the sub-group that had attended AESA sponsored events. In spite of these results, the overall adoption scores between AESA event participants and non-participants were similar, suggesting that AESA type programming is of value to those who access it, but those who don’t, likely obtain information on practice change from other sources and are nearly as likely to adopt environmental practices on their farms as a result.
Farmer attitudes toward ESA
There has been very little shift in farmer attitudes toward ESA between 1997 and 2001, except for a slight increase in the opinion that "society as a whole benefits from my conservation efforts, so society should pay the bill". Overall, the farmers studied were reasonably consistent in their attitudes toward agricultural sustainability, their role as conservationists, society’s and the governments’ roles, and their attitudes toward the environment in general. Higher adoption rates of ESA practices were only slightly correlated to more positive attitudes toward the environment and the role of the individual farmer as a responsible steward of the land.
Future information requirements
Farmers in Alberta continue to have an appetite for information on the topic of environmental sustainability. Half of the survey respondents want more information on water quality, about one-third each on soil conservation, conservation economics and wildlife habitat conservation topics, and up to one-quarter are interested in manure management and agricultural waste management topics. |
|