Nitrogen Smart Three Year Summary of Evaluation and Outcomes

Transcription

1 Nitrogen Smart Three Year Summary of Evaluation and Outcomes Nitrogen Smart OVERVIEW This report gives summary evaluation data for the first three years of the Nitrogen Smart program. A total of 36 events were conducted around Minnesota between 2016 and The program is a quasi-certification program, in that a Nitrogen Smart certification is granted, but there is no legal requirement to attend, nor special privileges granted with the certification. Because the certification is good for three years, meetings held in 2019 and beyond may have a mix of new and returning attendees. In addition, an on-line version of the program was launched late in 2018, and an Advanced Nitrogen Smart program series is set to begin in For these reasons, it is an appropriate time for an overall summary. METHOD A three part approach was used to collect evaluation and outcome data. First, a registration card was filled out by the attendee as a record of their attendance and to obtain contact information. This information was collated by the Minnesota Agricultural Water Resource Center, and was kept separate from all other data in order to maintain anonymity of responses. Second, a written evaluation filled out at the event collected demographic data about the attendee including farm size and crops grown. This evaluation also measured learning gains by attendees, evaluated the presenters, and gave the participant the opportunity to provide open ended input. Finally, an online outcomes survey was conducted in August and September following their attendance in order to determine what management practices were (or were planned to be) changed Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. University of Minnesota Extension is an equal opportunity educator and employer. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, this publication/material is available in alternative formats upon request. Direct requests to or afnr@umn.edu. Printed on recycled and recyclable paper with at least 10 percent postconsumer waste material.

2 POST EVENT EVALUATION Unofficial head count at the meetings has total attendance at 756. There were 689 cards turned in to receive Nitrogen Smart Certification (91%). As this program is targeted toward farmers, the difference in the number in attendance and the number of cards is likely primarily due to a number of attendees that are either agency staff or ag professionals who chose to not become certified. There may have been some farmers that did not turn in a card, but based on observation this number is very small (if any). The table below gives attendance details by Year. Year Head Count Registered Evaluations Farmers Agronomists Agency Total A total of 466 evaluations were returned for a return rate of 62%. Analysis of this data shows that 15% of attendees were Agronomists (sales and consulting were combined), and 14% were agency staff. If one assumes the ratios of farmers to agronomists and agency staff are similar between those that filled out evaluations and those that didn t, the overall attendance can be extrapolated to 537 farmers, 106 agronomists, and 96 agency staff. The total number certified (those that filled out registration cards) was used for this calculation rather than the unofficial head count. Farmers self-reporting showed a total of 423,695 ac. 359 out of 363 shared their farm size. This means the average size of an attendee s farm was 1,180 acres. Attendees reported 202,248 acres of corn, or 48% of the total acreage. 69% of corn acres were in rotation with soybeans or alfalfa and 31% followed corn or wheat. Other crop acreages include: soybeans 152,098 (36%), small grains 19,726 (5%), sugar beets 15,950 (4%), sweet corn 5,263 (1%), peas 2,866, alfalfa 9,360 (2%), dry beans 9,521 (2%), potatoes 2,995, pasture 2,977, and other crops that use nitrogen 691. Attendees (60 total, or 17%) reported 45,474 ac of land under irrigation, which is 11% of the total reported. 175 producers (49%) reported using manure. The average producer

3 using manure uses it on 31% of his/her crop land. This equates to a total of 64,359 ac which is 15% of total acres, or 32% of total corn ac (if one assumes all the manure goes on corn ground). Extrapolated numbers for attendees based on collected data and percent participation in the evaluations equals 632,381 acres total and 301,863 acres of corn. The most recent Agricultural Statistics available for Minnesota are from Totals from that year are 73,600 farmers with gross sales above $1,000, 25,900,000 acres of cropland, and an average farm size of 352 acres. This means that about 1% of Minnesota farmers attended this program, representing 2.4% of Minnesota s crop land. The average attendee had a farm size that was over 3 times bigger than average. The ag statistics report breaks farm numbers into size categories. The average farm size of an attendee placed them just above the average size for the $500,000 - $999,999 gross sales category. There were 16,700 farmers in this economic category plus the categories above and below (meaning gross sales of $250,000 and over). When this number is used the attendance rate is 3.5%. The following table lists instructor evaluation on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree): Prepared for class Presented clearly Brad Carlson Dan Kaiser Anne Struffert Greg Klinger Attendees were asked to rate their knowledge on a scale of 1 (very little) to 5 (very much) on five topics. They were asked about their perceived knowledge base before and after the workshop. By subtracting the two figures a learning gain (LG) attributable to the program can be obtained. The topics evaluated were: 1.) Nitrogen related water quality issues in Minnesota, 2.) The nitrogen cycle, 3.) Adapting nitrogen management to current conditions, 4.) The role of Nitrogen management in solving water quality issues, and 5.) Using basic knowledge of nitrogen to evaluate new technology. A total of 454 (97%) filled out this section on the evaluation. There were 44 individuals that reported no learning gains, or 90% of attendees reported a learning gain of some sort. More data is contained in the following table: Avg. LG % with 4 or 5 following attendance Question % Question % Question % Question % Question % The third section of the evaluation focused on the future of the program. Attendees were asked to evaluate options on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The following table provides a summary of the answers provided by farmers:

4 Average % answering agree or strongly agree I would recommend this program to others: I intend to maintain my Nitrogen Smart status: I would attend this program again: I am interested in an advanced class on Nitrogen: I would prefer to receive CEUs to renew: I would prefer to view materials online: SURVEY OF ATTENDEES IN AUGUST The August and September survey of attendees was sent to all addresses collected on registration cards. The survey used the Qualtrics web based survey tool. This program tracks unique users to ensure individuals do not fill out the survey more than once. Nitrogen application decisions occur at different times of the year for different farmers meaning there is no perfect time to determine when a practice change has occurred. August was chosen because significant time had passed since the training, and attendees were likely to know by August what their ideal management practices for the subsequent application/crop season would be. Of the 689 cards turned in, there were 577 addresses (84%). There were 47 address that were bad (8%), and overall, 237 completed the survey (45% of viable addresses). The survey first asked the respondent to identify which session they attended, and next, to answer whether they are a farmer, ag professional, or agency person. The following tables summarize the Qualtrics participation data: Year Respondents % of those certified Farmers Agronomists Agency Total The primary objective of this survey was to determine real outcomes: changed practices in farm fields. As the registration cards did not determine the demographic of the attendee, all attendees were surveyed. Overall, agricultural professionals, including agronomists and agency staff, had a higher level of completion. These people are more likely to be at their computers on a consistent basis, as well as probably place greater importance on the collection of survey data.

5 Qualtrics has the ability to customize questions based on the response for a previous question. Therefore, farmers were asked whether they intend to change various practices for the next year s crop based on information obtained at the Nitrogen Smart meeting, while ag professionals were asked different questions. The following table reflects farmer attendee s intention to adopt various practices for their N management for the next year s crop, as well as an estimated number of farmers (extrapolating from participation percentage and overall attendance) making change based on the evaluation and the survey: Practice % of respondents Estimated # of farmers Reduce overall N rate Increase overall N rate Use different rates on different fields Use a nitrification inhibitor for fall application Change from all fall application to all spring Change from all fall to some fall and some spring Start split-applying N Stop using fall Urea Adopt a variable rate technology No Changes Farmers who answered that they intend to reduce N rate were then asked by how much. The average response to this was 30 lb./ac. The average farmer attendee grows 563 acres of corn. If we assume the percentages reflected in the survey extrapolate to all attendees we can estimate the number of acres affected through changed practices and even potential reductions in the amount of N lost, and improved profits. The annual reduction in applied N by attendees using these averages and estimates is 2,246,370 lb. Using an estimated price of $0.30 per pound of N in fertilizer, this translates to a savings of $673,911, or $5,067 per attendee that will reduce rates. Research at the U of M Southern Research and Outreach Center (SROC) shows a long term yield advantage of 8 bu./ac (Randall, in Carlson, et. Al. 2014) for switching from fall to spring N application. For those that switched their fall application to spring this extrapolates to 44,477 ac, and an increase of 355,816 bu. of corn. Using a value of $3/bu. this gives an economic impact of $1,067,448, or $13,512 per attendee that adopted this practice. Another interesting result is the conversion of an estimated 27,587 ac of land that previously received fall urea. The impacts of this change will vary geographically, and from year to year, but a recently completed study at the SROC (Vetsch, unpublished) showed fall applied urea had a 3-year average N loss of 20 lb./ac greater than spring applied urea. If one uses these numbers, it extrapolates to a reduction of 551,740 lb. N lost to the environment. As a final point, it should be noted that 75.8% (or over 3 out of 4) of attendees changed at least one practice as a result of attending the meeting. Taking the estimates for rate reduction and change in timing alone, and dividing by overall farmer attendance the value of this program was $3,243 per attendee. The number is obviously much higher than that, but because making estimates for the other practice changes requires many more assumptions it is difficult to determine what the overall impact is per attendee.

6 A final question asked of farmers was whether they felt various conservation practices had the potential to be used on their farm to reduce nitrate in water. The following table lists these in order of farmer preference, and the percentage of those choosing the practice. Practice % Farmers Changing N Fertilizer Management 61.3 Cover Crops 42.7 Retirement of sensitive or marginal land 16.9 Changes in Crop Rotation 16.9 Controlled Drainage 16.9 Saturated Buffer 12.9 Bioreactor 5.6 Constructed Wetland 3.2 A final piece of information collected was from the Agricultural Professionals that responded to the survey. As mentioned previously, the survey was intended to collect data to determine real outcomes in the field, and that could only be provided by farmers. It was decided, however, that the Ag Professionals answering the survey could provide some insight regarding their opinions and/or priorities with respect to practices to reduce nitrate in surface water. Unlike the responding farmers, who were asked to check all that apply, the Ag Professionals were asked to rank the practices with respect to their potential to reduce nitrate in water. The following table shows their preference of potential solutions, and separates sales and consulting agronomists from agency staff. Practice Average Rank Ag Professionals Average Rank Agency Staff Better N Timing Reducing N Rates More Prescriptive N Rates Cover Crops Controlled Drainage Changes in Crop Rotation Constructed Wetlands Retirement of Sensitive/Marginal Land Bioreactors Saturated Buffers Overall there was consistency from one year to the next. It needs to be noted that the category Better N Timing does not separate changing from fall to spring versus split applying. This is significant because research has shown the former practice to significantly reduce N loss to the environment, while split applying only shows occasional improvements. Additionally, it should be noted that there is general agreement between sales and consulting agronomists, agency staff, and educators as to priorities for dealing with nitrates in water issues.

7 REFERENCES Randall, G.W. in Carlson, B.M., J.A. Vetsch, and G.W. Randall Nitrates in Drainage Water in Minnesota. University of Minnesota Extension Publication. Vetsch, J.A. Corn Production and Nitrogen Loss as Affected by Nitrogen Application Timing/Source, Rate and the Nitrification Inhibitor Instinct. Report to MN Corn Growers. Nitrogen Smart is funded, promoted, and gennerally supported by Minnesota Corn Farmers and their checkoff. Administrative support is provided by the Minnesota Agricultural Water Resource Center.