Many of the assessment tools discussed above have provided producers with tangible benefits and led to environmental improvements. One study that was conducted using Farm*A*Syst type assessments is presented in Koelsch et al., 2000 (Implementation of a Livestock Systems Environmental Assessment Tool, Journal of Extension http://joe.org/joe/2000february/a3.html.) In this study, a “Livestock Systems Environmental Assessment” tool (LSEA) was developed to address livestock environmental issues in Nebraska. The ability of the tool to assist in identifying environmental strengths, weaknesses, and solutions was pilot tested by 97 livestock producers in three counties. An evaluation was completed 6 to 9 months later by 61 participants. Many efforts to deliver LSEA were met with some reluctance or mixed feelings. However, close collaboration with local livestock commodity groups proved to be an extremely effective method for delivering LSEA. Involvement of the commodity groups’ leadership in the initial release of this tool within a county provided critical support and validation of the environmental assessment process. A variety of delivery methods were utilized within the three pilot counties. Based strictly on qualitative assessments by extension staff involved in the delivery process, they found that close collaboration with livestock commodity groups proved to be the most effective method for delivering LSEA to local producers. One-on-one meetings were relatively ineffective unless the producer initiated the request. Extension staff meetings with individual producers was met with some apprehension. Producers typically preferred to participate in small group meetings as opposed to a one-on-one setting. The exchange of ideas among peers was of value for this delivery format. Those who participated in a one-on-one format were the least enthusiastic group in their response to LSEA. Producers indicated LSEA was effective in helping them identify their livestock operation’s strengths and weaknesses and over half of them made changes on their operations.
In my opinion, this study, as well as years of experience with Farm*A*Syst, EMS pilot testing on farms, and participation in many of the programs above, leads to the following conclusions concerning environmental assessment of livestock farms:
- Producers need assistance in conducting environmental assessments. While some have the education and experience necessary, they need motivation and technical assistance. Self assessment tools have an educational impact and may lead to some changes but producers would rather work with knowledgeable professionals that understand agriculture.
- Producers must trust and respect the third party they are working with. This is critical to their acceptance of suggestions or modifications. Programs that are mandated or that are delivered by individuals with regulatory responsibilities or inadequate knowledge of agriculture, rarely get the results they desire. These third parties can come from the private sector or commodity groups, however, government agencies such as NRCS, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Extension, or State Departments of Agriculture can also supply this assistance.
- Partnerships work best. When coalitions develop to assist livestock producers, each agency brings different strengths to the group. Commodity groups are critical to producer acceptance. NRCS, the Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and State agencies bring technical backgrounds, respect, and financial assistance. Extension brings education to the program. Often, the Department of Agriculture is on the farm anyway and could provide a critical opportunity for third party verification.
- Producers need incentives. These incentives can come in the form of greater financial assistance, awards or recognition, less regulatory pressure or oversight, or reduced liability or insurance premiums. Very few, if any, programs have been able to capitalize on market benefits due to the structure of agricultural markets.
- Producers must take an active role in the assessment and development of changes or improvements. Programs that do not allow for producer ownership and involvement will not have the desired impact. Often, this necessitates the inclusion of educational activities to get the producer to the point where critical assessments and decisions can be made.
- EMS’s in agriculture will offer significant opportunities for some livestock sectors in the future. EMS’s involve the producer, require clear goals and documentation to meet these goals, establish the framework for improved management, and may allow for additional incentives to emerge. Many of the successful programs that were highlighted above involve 1) education, 2) assessment, 3) planning, and 4) third party verification. An EMS can accomplish all of these items.
- Regulatory assessment tools are needed for agriculture. While some tools exist, these are usually focused on one specific rule (such as the CAFO rule). Most operations are subject to many regulations and interpretation of rules related to agriculture seems to be an evolving process.