The Colorado State University Cooperative Extension administration formed a multi-disciplinary and multi-level working group to address the debate over large confined animal feeding operations. The work group structure included campus-based extension personnel, regional specialists, and county agents from each of Colorado\u27s Extension regions. The group undertook to inform the CE system, interest groups, elected officials, and the lay public about CAFO policy issues. Evaluation suggests support for the structure, content, and activities of the group. All respondents thought that the work group was a useful model for public policy and public issues education, although areas for improvement were also identified

Seidl, Andrew

English

Clemson University: TigerPrints

The Journal of Extension Volume 41 Number 2 Article 3 4-1-2003 Multi-Tiered, Multi-Disciplinary Work Teams--The CSU CAFO Work Group Tackles Controversial Public Issues Andrew Seidl Colorado State University, andrew.seidel@colostate.edu This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Seidl, A. (2003). Multi-Tiered, Multi-Disciplinary Work Teams--The CSU CAFO Work Group Tackles Controversial Public Issues. The Journal of Extension, 41(2), Article 3. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol41/iss2/3 This Feature Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Journal of Extension by an authorized editor of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact kokeefe@clemson.edu. 	 JOEHOME JOURNAL GUIDELINES ABOUT	JOE CONTACT NATIONAL	JOB	BANKCurrent	Issues Back	IssuesApril	2003	//	Volume	41	//	Number	2	//	Feature	Articles	//	2FEA2Multi-Tiered,	Multi-Disciplinary	Work	Teams--The	CSU	CAFOWork	Group	Tackles	Controversial	Public	IssuesAbstractThe	Colorado	State	University	Cooperative	Extension	administration	formed	a	multi-disciplinaryand	multi-level	working	group	to	address	the	debate	over	large	confined	animal	feedingoperations.	The	work	group	structure	included	campus-based	extension	personnel,	regionalspecialists,	and	county	agents	from	each	of	Colorado's	Extension	regions.	The	group	undertookto	inform	the	CE	system,	interest	groups,	elected	officials,	and	the	lay	public	about	CAFO	policyissues.	Evaluation	suggests	support	for	the	structure,	content,	and	activities	of	the	group.	Allrespondents	thought	that	the	work	group	was	a	useful	model	for	public	policy	and	public	issueseducation,	although	areas	for	improvement	were	also	identified.	IntroductionLivestock	operations	have	a	long	tradition	in	rural	Colorado's	agricultural	economy.	Beef	and	dairycattle,	sheep,	and	the	crops	to	feed	them	are	an	essential	part	of	the	Colorado	landscape.	Recentpoor	corn,	wheat,	and	beef	prices	have	created	a	tense	atmosphere	in	many	rural	Colorado	towns.The	number	of	agricultural	operations	is	in	decline	statewide.	However,	overall	livestockinventories	are	stable	or	increasing.	Colorado	livestock	operations	(and	agricultural	operations	ingeneral)	are	getting	larger,	more	specialized,	and	more	integrated,	and	small,	diversified	farms	arebecoming	increasingly	scarce.Growth	in	the	Colorado	livestock	industry	can	be	attributed	to	a	close	to	100%-increase	in	hognumbers	since	1993	to	about	800,000	(United	States	Department	of	Agriculture,	1999).	Thisgrowth	is	almost	exclusively	spread	among	17	large	integrated	and,	largely,	corporately	ownedfarrowing	and	nursery	operations.	Rural	Colorado	communities	are	struggling	to	understand	andevaluate	the	social,	natural	resource,	environmental,	and	economic	challenges	and	opportunitiesthat	hog	operations	create	as	a	potential	engine	of	community	economic	development.Colorado	is	also	among	the	fastest	growing	states	in	the	country	(U.S.	Department	of	Commerce,2002).	Agricultural	land	is	being	converted	to	residential	development	at	a	rapid	rate	(Obermann,Carlson,	&	Batchelder,	2000).	Rural	demographics	are	changing	as	retiring	urbanites	andtelecommuters	choose	to	homestead	in	traditionally	agriculturally	driven	communities(McGranahan,	1999).	Three-fourths	of	Coloradoans	now	live	in	urban	or	suburban	communities	inthe	North-South	corridor	within	about	30	miles	of	the	Rocky	Mountains	(U.S.	Department	ofCommerce,	2002).	New	urbanites	are	attracted	to	Colorado	for	its	abundant	outdoor	recreationalopportunities	and	natural	amenities	among	other	things	(McGranahan,	1999).It	can	be	expected	that	state	legislative	action	will	increasingly	represent	and	respond	to	thisprogressively	more	urban	majority,	which	may	or	may	not	coincide	with	traditional	Coloradopriorities	and	values.	Increasingly,	rural	residents	feel	left	out	of	state-level	politics	and	recognizethat	the	"I-25	Corridor"	is	where	state-level	policy	is	made	(Carlson,	personal	communication,1999).Andrew	SeidlPublic	Policy	Specialist	and	Assistant	ProfessorDepartment	of	Agricultural	and	Resource	EconomicsColorado	State	UniversityFt.	Collins,	ColoradoInternet	Address:	Andrew.Seidl@colostate.eduJustificationIn	the	spring	of	1998,	several	rural	counties	contacted	Colorado	State	University	CooperativeExtension	(CSUCE)	requesting	information	and	assistance	in	strategic	planning	and	in	evaluatingeconomic	development	alternatives	through	livestock	operations,	particularly	dairy	and	hogs.	Atthe	same	time,	Colorado	Counties	Incorporated	(CCI),	a	nongovernmental	organization	comprisedof	61	of	the	63	Colorado	county	commissions,	requested	CSUCE's	assistance	in	evaluating	thepolicy	environment,	community	economics,	natural	resources,	and	odor	issues	surroundinglivestock	operations,	hog	operations	particularly.By	early	summer,	two	state	level	ballot	initiatives	(Amendments	13	and	14)	and	their	advertisingcampaigns	aiming	to	regulate	livestock	operations,	but	particularly	hog	farms,	were	initiated,	andthe	popular	press	began	running	"pro"	and	"con"	corporate	hog	operation	columns,	articles	and	op-ed	pieces.	A	detailed	comparison	of	the	Colorado	livestock	policy	environment	with	the	provisionsof	Amendments	13	and	14	is	provided	in	Seidl	and	Grannis,	1998.Dozens	of	requests	were	made	of	Extension	agents	and	specialists	for	the	"facts"	from	manydifferent	perspectives	on	the	issue.	Responding	to	these	immediate	concerns,	in	anticipation	ofgreater	public	demands	for	information,	and	the	opportunity	to	be	"proactive"	on	an	importantpublic	policy	issue	drove	the	CSU	Confined	Animal	Feeding	Operation	(CAFO)	Work	Group	to	form.A	"teachable	moment"	on	a	public	issue	of	statewide	importance	was	at	hand.The	CSU	CAFO	Work	GroupAt	the	urging	of	a	small	number	of	state	and	regional	specialists	and	county	agents,	theadministration	of	CSUCE	decided	to	form	a	multi-disciplinary	and	multi-level	working	group	toaddress	the	present	and	upcoming	debate	over	large	confined	animal	feeding	operations,particularly	hogs.	The	work	group	structure	included	campus-based	Extension	personnel,	regionalspecialists,	and	at	least	one	county	agent	from	each	of	Colorado's	five	Extension	regions	(names,titles	and	affiliations	acknowledged	below).	Individuals	were	invited	to	join	the	work	group	basedupon	professional	interest,	responsibility,	and	expertise.The	group	created	a	listserve	in	order	to	keep	one	another	apprised	of	breaking	issues	in	the	stateand	around	the	nation,	to	share	questions	and	responses	to	queries,	and	to	attend	to	requests	forpresentations,	interviews	and	written	information.	Limited	and	unspecified	regular	operating	fundsleveraged	with	a	$13,000	contract	from	CCI	and	a	$4,500	contract	from	a	county	economicdevelopment	authority	were	allocated	toward	these	activities.ObjectivesAs	a	result	of	the	CAFO	Work	Group's	formation,	a	public	policy	education	Web	site	was	created,and	a	mission	statement	was	drafted	and	posted	there.	"Cooperative	Extension's	role	in	publicpolicy	education	is	to:	1)	raise	the	important	questions	that	should	be	addressed;	2)	provide	thebest	possible	information	based	on	current	science;	and	3)	facilitate	discussions	so	that	policymakers	and	citizens	can	make	wise	decisions.	Cooperative	Extension	does	not	advocate	for	aparticular	strategy	or	point	of	view,	but	rather	assists	the	public	in	understanding	the	implicationsof	potential	courses	of	action."The	CAFO	Work	Group	took	these	as	its	guiding	principles	in	providing	current,	objective,	andsalient	information	to	both	rural	and	urban	voters	regarding	the	multiple	aspects	of	CAFOs	in	avariety	of	educational	formats.Programmatic	Response1.	 In	August	1998,	a	2-day	training	session	was	held	for	CAFO	Work	Group	members	and	theleaders	of	the	major	interest	groups	in	the	state	(e.g.,	Farmers	Union,	Colorado	Counties	Inc[CCI],	Farm	Bureau,	Colorado	Water	Quality	Control	Commission	[WQCC],	NRCS).	Sometrainers	were	internal	(e.g.,	Seidl	[Policy	and	Community	Economic	Impacts],	Waskom	andDavis	[Water	Quality	Issues	and	Manure	Management	Best	Management	Practices]).	Inaddition,	recognized	experts	from	around	the	nation	(Iowa	State	University,	University	ofMissouri,	and	North	Carolina	State	University)	were	invited	to	"train-the-trainers."	Attendeeswere	provided	a	notebook	of	materials	entitled	"CAFO	Info"	that	briefly	covered	the	broadissues	to	be	addressed.2.	 A	brochure	detailing	the	two	ballot	initiatives	was	generated	from	within	the	group.	Of	the10,000	produced,	8,500	were	distributed	at	public	meetings,	in	press	packets,	and	throughindividual	requests.	The	brochure	and	other	documents	were	posted	to	the	public	policyeducation	home	page.	This	home	page	will	remain	as	repository	for	Public	Issues	Education(PIE)	&	Public	Policy	Education	(PPE)	materials.3.	 Fact	sheets	were	created	covering	economic	issues,	policy	issues,	community	developmentissues,	and	effluent	management	issues<http://dare.agsci.colostate.edu/extension/pubs.html>,	APR98-01	to	05	and	APR99-01	to	04).4.	 An	edition	of	the	CSUCE	Agronomy	Newsletter,	From	the	Ground	Up,	was	dedicated	to	theballot	initiatives	<http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/SoilCrop/extension/Newsletters/news.html/1998/1998/sept98gu.pdf>.5.	 Stories	using	Work	Group	information	or	interviews	ran	in	the	Colorado	Tribune	(Pueblo),	theHigh	Plains	Journal	(Kansas),	the	Pagosa	Springs	Sun,	the	Julesburg	Advocate,	the	GreeleyTribune,	the	Pueblo	Chieftain,	the	Yuma	Pioneer,	the	Ft.	Collins	Coloradoan,	and	Pork98printed	media.	Television	interviews	were	conducted	for	the	Salida,	Ft.	Collins,	and	GrandJunction	television	stations.6.	 In	addition	to	a	number	of	classroom	presentations	and	fielding	hundreds	of	phone	calls	anddrop-ins,	more	than	1,000	participants	attended	public	presentations	by	Work	Groupmembers	on	Colorado	CAFOs	and	the	Ballot	Initiatives.7.	 Work	Group	members	collaborated	with	CCI	to	produce	a	32-page	document	and	executivesummary	for	county	commissioners	covering	odor	technology,	model	local	ordinances,community	costs	and	benefits,	and	national	policy	trends	(Seidl	&	Davis,	1999).8.	 Several	members	(Davis,	McPhail-Gray,	Seidl,	Walker,	and	Waskom)	were	involved	with	therule-making	process	after	Amendment	14	was	passed.	(Amendment	13	was	defeated).	Theiractivities	included	serving	as	an	expert	witness	panel	on	behalf	of	the	Colorado	Water	QualityControl	Commission	(WQCC).	In	the	hearings,	CSU	personnel	were	recognized	by	both	sidesas	fair	and	objective	providers	of	the	scientific	information	needed	to	craft	necessary	andsufficient	legislation.9.	 Several	members	(Davis,	Waskom,	Seidl,	and	Tranel)	continue	involvement	in	regional	andnational	CAFO	policy	efforts.	This	allows	the	CSUCE	CAFO	Work	Group	to	keep	abreast	ofregional	and	national	initiatives	and	for	Work	Group	members	to	relate	policy	issues	inColorado	to	regional	and	national	experts.EvaluationAn	evaluation	was	conducted	of	the	CSUCE	CAFO	Work	Group	in	July	1999,	approximately	1	yearafter	its	formation.	The	return	rate	for	the	e-mail	administered	evaluation	was	60%	(12/20).Respondents	were	evenly	distributed	between	on	and	off	campus	personnel	and	were	considered"core"	Work	Group	members.Respondents	provided	their	opinions	on	aspects	of	the	structure,	activities,	content,	and	impact	ofthe	Work	Group.	Group	members	were	asked	to	rank	their	relative	agreement	with	statementsabout	these	aspects	of	the	Work	Group	on	a	seven-point	Likert	scale	(1=strongly	disagree;7=strongly	agree).	A	summary	of	the	responses	of	campus	and	off-campus	personnel	is	found	inTable	1.Overall	responses	were	supportive	of	the	structure,	content,	and	activities	of	the	group.	No	overallmean	responses	were	neutral	or	negative.	The	impact	of	the	Work	Group	was	considered	fair	togood,	meeting	some	expectations	but	requiring	improvement	in	areas.	All	respondents	who	gavean	opinion	thought	that	the	Work	Group	was	a	useful	model	for	public	policy	and	public	issueseducation,	although	many	indicated	there	were	weak	points	to	the	Work	Group	as	a	model.	Bothpositive	and	critical	comments	are	highlighted	below.Table	1.Responses	to	CSU	CAFO	Work	Group	Evaluation,	by	LocationQuestionOff-Campusn=6Campusn=6Overalln=12The	Structure	of	the	group	waseffective 5.33 4.33 4.83efficient 5.50 4.17 4.83fair 6.00 5.33 5.64inclusive 5.17 5.50 5.33The	Activities	of	the	group	wereappropriate 5.67 5.17 5.42effective 5.83 3.83 4.83efficient 5.67 4.33 5.00inclusive 5.00 5.17 5.08The	Content	of	the	materials	wasobjective 6.17 5.33 5.75comprehensive 6.17 5.00 5.58the	best	science	available 6.17 5.17 5.67effectively	communicated 5.67 3.83 4.75The	Impact	of	the	group	was(4=Outstanding,	3=Good,	2=Fair,1=Poor)2.83 2.17 2.50The	group	is	a	good	PIE	model	(1=yes,0=no)1.00 1.00 1.00Note:	Except	for	the	last	two	rows,	responses	are	to	a	7-point	Likert	scalewhere	1=	Strongly	disagree,	4=Neither	agree	nor	disagree,	and	7=Stronglyagree.	PIE	is	Public	Issues	Education.Generally	speaking,	off-campus	personnel	were	more	positive	about	the	CSU	CAFO	Work	Groupthan	were	on-campus	personnel.	The	range	of	mean	responses	to	questions	for	off-campusrespondents	was	5.00-6.17,	whereas	on-campus	personnel	mean	responses	were	3.83-5.50.	On-and	off-campus	responses	differed	statistically	on	four	questions,	with	off	campus	providing	higherratings	in	each	case:Effectiveness	of	work	group	activities	(p<0.01);Effectiveness	of	the	communication	of	the	content	of	work	group	materials	(p<0.01);Efficiency	of	work	group	activities	(p<0.05);	andImpact	of	the	Work	Group	(p<0.05).On-	and	off-campus	personnel	also	differed	with	regard	to	their	ranking	of	questions.	Table	2illustrates	the	range	and	rank	of	mean	responses	from	on-	and	off-campus	personnel.	Potentiallymost	notable	is	that	off-campus	personnel	ranked	the	inclusiveness	of	the	structure	and	activitiesof	the	Work	Group	lowest,	whereas	the	inclusive	structure	gained	the	highest	ranking	of	campus-based	personnel.Structural	aspects	(efficiency,	effectiveness,	and	inclusiveness)	of	the	Work	Group	garnered	threeof	the	four	lowest	rankings	among	off-campus	personnel,	while	content	features	gained	their	threehighest	rankings.	Effectiveness	and	efficiency	in	communication,	structure,	and	activities	were	ofgreatest	concern	to	campus-based	personnel.	In	spite	of	the	relatively	low	ranking	of	the	efficiencyof	the	work	group,	all	evaluators	providing	a	response	indicated	that	the	CSUCE	CAFO	Work	Groupprovided	a	useful	model	for	public	issues	and	public	policy	education.Table	2.Rank	of	Responses	to	CSU	CAFO	Work	Group	Evaluation,	by	LocationOff	Campus Campus OverallObjectiveContent6.17 InclusiveStructure5.50 ObjectiveContent5.75ComprehensiveContent6.17 Fair	Structure 5.33 Content	BestScience5.67Content	BestScience6.17 ObjectiveContent5.33 Fair	Structure 5.64Fair	Structure 6.00 AppropriateActivities5.17 ComprehensiveContent5.58EffectiveActivities5.83 InclusiveActivities5.17 AppropriateActivities5.42AppropriateActivities5.67 Content	BestScience5.17 InclusiveStructure5.33EfficientActivities5.67 ComprehensiveContent5.00 InclusiveActivities5.08ContentEffectivelyCommunicated5.67 EffectiveStructure4.33 EfficientActivities5.00EfficientStructure5.50 EfficientActivities4.33 EffectiveStructure4.83EffectiveStructure5.33 EfficientStructure4.17 EfficientStructure4.83InclusiveStructure5.17 EffectiveActivities3.83 EffectiveActivities4.83InclusiveActivities5.00 ContentEffectivelyCommunicated3.83 ContentEffectivelyCommunicated4.75Note:	Responses	are	to	a	7-point	Likert	scale	where	1=	Stronglydisagree,	4=Neither	agree	nor	disagree,	and	7=Strongly	agree.Concluding	and	Retrospective	RemarksThe	Colorado	State	University	CAFO	Working	Group	was	formed	as	an	interdisciplinary	group	toaddress	an	important	and	timely	issue	of	public	policy.	While	activities	can	be	listed	easily,	it	isless	simple	to	evaluate	the	Working	Group's	effectiveness	due	to	its	role	in	education	rather	thanadvocacy.The	CAFO	Working	Group	may	not	have	effectively	overridden	the	expensive	onslaught	of	emotion-driven	advertising	and	lobbying	efforts	surrounding	the	Initiatives	with	its	low-budget,	objectiveinformation.	Yet	the	Working	Group	generally	thought	that	it	was	the	Group's	responsibility	toaddress	these	important	public	issues	to	its	best	abilities	despite	limitations	in	having	the	messageheard.	Moreover,	the	Group	may	have	benefited	from	the	inclusion	of	producers,	environmentalactivists,	and	expertise	from	other	public	agencies	(e.g.,	NRCS,	FSA)	in	the	group.Overall,	based	upon	experiences	with	the	CSUCE	CAFO	Working	Group,	issues	teams	designed	inthis	manner	can	provide	an	effective	means	of	providing	timely,	appropriate,	and	accurate	cross-disciplinary	information	to	Extension	audiences	on	complex	issues	of	public	concern	and	interest.AcknowledgementsThe	comments	of	the	anonymous	reviewers	improved	this	article	and	are	appreciated.	The	CSUCECAFO	Working	Group	members,	whose	time,	effort,	and	expertise	were	illustrated	in	this	article	arealso	appreciated	and	acknowledged.	Colorado	State	University	Cooperative	Extension	andAgricultural	Experiment	Station	provided	financial	support	for	this	work.	All	errors	are	unintentionaland	the	responsibility	of	the	author.ReferencesMcGranahan,	D.	A.	(1999).	Natural	amenities	drive	population	change.	United	States	Departmentof	Agriculture,	Economic	Research	Service.	Agricultural	Economics	Report	No.	781.	24	pp.Obermann,	W.,	Carlson,	D.,	&	Batchelder,	J.,	eds.	(2000).	Tracking	agricultural	land	conversion	inColorado:	An	interagency	summary	by	the	Colorado	Department	of	Agriculture,	Natural	ResourcesConservation	Service,	and	Colorado	Agricultural	Statistics	Service.	September	2000.Seidl,	A.,	&	Davis,	J.	(1999).	Report	on	animal	feeding	operations	and	rural	Colorado	communities.Agricultural	and	Resource	Policy	Report,	Department	of	Agricultural	and	Resource	Economics,Colorado	State	University.	APR99-02.	February	1999.	32pp.	Available	at:http://dare.agsci.colostate.edu/extension/feeding.pdfSeidl,	A.,	&	Grannis,	J.	(1998).	Common	components	of	swine	policies.	Agricultural	and	ResourcePolicy	Report,	Department	of	Agricultural	and	Resource	Economics,	Colorado	State	University.	APR98-02,	October	1998.	6	pp.	Available	at:	http://dare.agsci.colostate.edu/extension/apr98-02.pdfUnited	States	Department	of	Agriculture,	National	Agricultural	Statistics	Service	(USDA/NASS).(1999).	1997	census	of	agriculture,	Volume	1:	National,	state,	and	county	tables.	Available	at:http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/volume1/vol1pubs.htmUnited	States	Department	of	Commerce,	Bureau	of	the	Census,	Census	2000.	(2002).	UnitedStates	Census	Bureau:	state	and	county	quickfacts.	Available	at:http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/08000.htmlCopyright	©	by	Extension	Journal,	Inc.	ISSN	1077-5315.	Articles	appearing	in	the	Journal	become	the	property	of	theJournal.	 Single	 copies	 of	 articles	may	 be	 reproduced	 in	 electronic	 or	 print	 form	 for	 use	 in	 educational	 or	 trainingactivities.	Inclusion	of	articles	in	other	publications,	electronic	sources,	or	systematic	large-scale	distribution	may	bedone	only	with	prior	electronic	or	written	permission	of	the	Journal	Editorial	Office,	joe-ed@joe.org.If	you	have	difficulties	viewing	or	printing	this	page,	please	contact	JOE	Technical	Support©	Copyright	by	Extension	Journal,	Inc.	ISSN	1077-5315.	Copyright	Policy

Multi-Tiered, Multi-Disciplinary Work Teams--The CSU CAFO Work Group Tackles Controversial Public Issues

https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4966&context=joe

Multi-Tiered, Multi-Disciplinary Work Teams--The CSU CAFO Work Group Tackles Controversial Public Issues

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Clemson University: TigerPrints