| | Every three years, Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD) sponsors a farm-level survey to track changes in awareness of, attitudes toward and adoption of environmentally sustainable agriculture (ESA) practices in Alberta. The survey results provide valuable information about ESA progress in Alberta and help ARD and other agencies to improve ESA programs and activities.
This summary presents key results from the 2010 survey. Information about farm practices relates to the 2009 production year, while information about awareness and attitudes relates to 2010.
Survey Methods
The 2010 survey’s design, data collection and analysis were modelled after those used in the previous surveys, conducted in 2007, 2004, 2001 and 1997. Over the years, some changes have been made in the survey questions to reflect advances in ESA science, technology and understanding, and changes in government policy and programs, climate and economic realities. In the 2010 survey, 10 new practices or practice groups were added, one practice was substituted, eight had minor wording changes, and one was deleted.
The data were collected in a comprehensive telephone survey conducted from January 26 to February 9, 2010, with 500 farmers participating. The sample of farmers contacted for the survey was randomly drawn from a list of Alberta farmers maintained by a publisher of agricultural publications that target mostly crop and beef producers. Producers on this list had agreed to share their contact information. The list was supplemented with names of farmers known to produce less common commodities.
The survey sample was distributed evenly over five provincial agricultural regions, with 100 completed surveys per region. Since the survey was initiated in 1997, ARD has consolidated the regions from five into four, but the surveys continue to be based on the original five regions to be consistent with the benchmark data.
The margin of error for the 500-participant survey is ±4.4%. The data were analyzed by region, farm type, gross farm revenue, stage of farm operation, and farmer education. The margin of error increases for smaller sub-samples, so results for small groups, like irrigation farmers or farmers who apply liquid manure, should be interpreted with caution.
The survey questions covered seven topics: soil conservation, water quality and irrigation water quantity, wildlife habitat conservation, manure management, agricultural waste management, energy and climate change (a new category in 2010), and planning/general.
To determine the percentage adoption of specific ESA practices, each respondent was first asked a series of qualifying questions. Then the questions about adoption were targeted to those practices that the respondent was “eligible” to adopt. For example, only respondents who had irrigated land were asked about adoption of irrigation scheduling.
Key Findings
Major gains in adoption of practices to protect water quality
From the 2007 survey to the 2010 survey, the greatest gains in adoption of ESA practices were for water quality related practices. The biggest increases were in plugging and capping abandoned water wells (26% increase) and sealing/maintaining active water wells (22% increase). Other water quality practices with strong gains included: having vegetative buffer strips along the edges of water bodies (13% increase); having grassed waterways (10% increase); avoiding draining or filling natural wetlands (13% increase); and providing off-site watering systems to keep livestock out of water bodies (12% increase).
Most of the water quality practices in the 2010 survey had over 80% adoption. Practices with lower adoption levels included: applying manure or compost at the rate recommended by soil or crop tissue testing (41% adoption); applying chemical fertilizer at the rate recommended by soil or crop tissue testing (70%); plugging or capping abandoned wells (70%); and having grassed waterways (74%).
Considerable increase in environmental farm planning
Another area with impressive gains was environmental farm planning, which had a 16% increase from 2006/07 to 2009/10. However, there is still a long way to go to attain widespread adoption – even with that large increase, only 40% of respondents in the 2010 survey had an environmental farm plan.
To shed light on factors that might increase adoption of this practice, respondents without an environmental farm plan were asked what would encourage them to complete such a plan. Sixty percent of these people cited various motivators, with the most common ones being information about the plan, time, a cash incentive, and professional expertise. For the other 40%: 5% were planning to or already at work on a plan so they needed no further motivation; 29% said nothing would motivate them because they didn’t need a plan; another 5% said they wouldn’t develop one because they were planning to sell their farm; and fewer than 1% said they didn’t qualify.
Good gains in grazing management
Grazing management, which was noted as an area in need of improvement in the 2007 survey, showed significant gains in the 2010 survey. In 2009/10, 74% of those who grazed cattle on their land had a grazing management plan, up from 60% in the previous survey. As well, there was a 17% increase in the use of planned or rotational grazing, and a 12% increase in the use of grazing management to encourage understory rejuvenation.
Increases in adoption of some manure management practices, but certain awareness and adoption issues remain
Good progress is being made in some areas of manure management. For example, adoption was over 90% for four of the manure management practices in the 2010 survey. As well, three practices had significant improvements of 7% each, compared to the previous survey.
However, the survey results showed lagging awareness levels related to Alberta’s Agricultural Operation Practices Act (AOPA) despite efforts by extension agents and others to increase awareness and understanding of AOPA. Respondents who had livestock or handled manure were asked if they were aware of the management standards in AOPA that apply to their operation. Only 41% said they were aware of these standards.
The survey also explored barriers to using manure. Respondents who didn’t apply manure in their operations were asked why they didn’t. The main reasons cited were: no source (no animals on farm or close by); no need for nutrients/organic matter; operation not conducive to manure spreading or incorporation; lack of access to or difficulty scheduling custom applicators; too expensive (cost of manure and/or transportation); no build-up of manure to apply/animals spread manure in fields through grazing; and not enough animals or manure to apply efficiently.
Adoption of soil, manure and tissue testing is relatively low
One common theme that emerged in the survey results is the need for more precise management around nutrient testing and application. Testing of soil, manure and crop tissue samples for nutrient levels helps producers ensure that nutrient applications will meet but not exceed crop needs. Avoiding excessive nutrient applications has both economic and environmental benefits. Despite these benefits, adoption of various nutrient testing practices was relatively low. For instance, of those respondents with land in production, only 47% carried out soil sampling of their fields at least once every three years. Of those respondents who applied manure, only 51% based manure applications on either phosphorus requirements or both phosphorus and nitrogen requirements, and only 9% had manure samples tested for nutrient levels.
High level of adoption of some simple energy-saving techniques
The question series on energy and climate change was one of the new sections in the 2010 survey. Adoption was over 90% for most of the simple energy-saving equipment operation and maintenance practices.
Adoption was much lower for those energy-saving practices that required some extra investment to implement. Of these “higher level” energy-saving techniques and technologies, natural ventilation and energy-efficient lighting were most commonly used, with the other techniques employed by about one-third or fewer respondents. A number of the respondents were unsure about what some of these techniques were, especially variable frequency drives, high-voltage low-speed fans, heat recovery systems, and low-pressure irrigation systems.
Respondents were asked if they were aware that they could have an on-farm energy assessment completed for their farm operation, and if so, if they had one done yet. About half were aware, but only a small fraction of these had an assessment performed so far.
Effectiveness of communication methods
Farmers use multiple sources to learn about ESA. In descending order from most to least frequently mentioned in terms of perceived effectiveness were: 1) paper such as newsletters, newspapers, magazines, pamphlets or workbooks; 2) electronic including Internet, email and software; 3) workshops, courses or conferences; 4) informally through other farmers; 5) TV or radio; 6) demonstrations and field days; and 7) advice from an expert or specialist.
Preference for any one method does not mean that it is actually the most effective in influencing adoption, just that it is likely more often used to obtain information.
Adoption of ESA practices continues to increase
An overall adoption score was calculated based on the percentage of “eligible” practices adopted by respondents; for example, if a farmer had livestock and water bodies on his/her land, a practice such as “fencing to manage livestock access to water” would apply. The 2009/10 adoption score was 58% out of a possible 67 practices, higher than the 2006/07 score of 56% out of a possible 58 practices. A reduction in the score might have been expected, given the number of new practices added to the 2010 survey, including many with low usage. However, the gains in adoption from 2007 to 2010 more than offset the lower adoption levels for the new additions.
Of the 57 practices asked similarly in the 2007 and 2010 surveys, there was an average 5% improvement in adoption from 56% in 2006/07 to 61% in 2009/10. Very few areas showed declines in adoption from 2006/07 to 2009/10, and those few declines were generally small and within the range of statistical error (see Survey Methods box on page 2).
Some trends in the survey results over time suggest that ESA is becoming more and more a part of regular agricultural practice in Alberta. For example, in 2009/10, 74% of the respondents had adopted more than half of the practices they were eligible to adopt; in 2006/07, 69% had done so; and in 2003/04, almost 60% had done so.
Another trend, shown in Figure 1, also suggests ESA is increasingly becoming part of mainstream agriculture. From 2003/04 to 2009/10, the percentage of low adopters (i.e. those who have adopted less than 40% of eligible practices) decreased, while the percentage of medium adopters increased. The trend toward fewer low adopters may be attributed to shifting farm demographics (aging farmers exiting), farm consolidations (fewer smaller farms) and greater adoption of ESA practices supported by AARD programs, incentives, legislation, industry-driven initiatives, and commercialization of new technologies.
Figure 1 also shows that the percentage of high adopters has remained fairly stable over this time period. A challenge for the future will be to move low and medium adopters into the high adopter category, while also moving non-adopters toward adoption.
Thanks!
Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development thanks the 500 Alberta producers who participated in the 2010 survey and the ARD staff who provided input on the survey questions.
For More Information
To obtain a copy of the executive summary of the survey report, contact:
Roger Bryan, P. Ag.
Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development
Environmental Stewardship Division
306, J.G. O’Donoghue Building
7000 - 113 Street
Edmonton AB T6H 5T6
Phone: 780-427-3616
Fax: 780-422-9745
Email: roger.bryan@gov.ab.ca |
|