A self-assessment tool addressing livestock environmental issues was developed and pilot tested. A pilot study evaluated livestock producers response to environmental issues addressed by this tool, identified practices commonly observed to produce a high environmental risk, reviewed alternative delivery strategies, and reported on changes resulting from producer\u27s use of the tool. The resulting Livestock Systems Environmental Assessment was found to be an effective tool for assisting producers in reviewing environmental issues, especially when delivered through local livestock commodity groups

Hay, Paul

Howard, Larry

Koelsch, Rick

Pritchard, Steve

English

Clemson Open (Clemson University)

The Journal of Extension Volume 38 Number 1 Article 4 2-1-2000 Implementation of a Livestock Systems Environmental Assessment Tool Rick Koelsch University of Nebraksa, bsen126@unlvm.edu Larry Howard University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension, cnty5243@unlvm.unl.edu Steve Pritchard University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension, sprtchrd@unlvm.unl.edu Paul Hay University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension, cnty5032@unlvm.unl.edu Recommended Citation Koelsch, R., Howard, L., Pritchard, S., & Hay, P. (2000). Implementation of a Livestock Systems Environmental Assessment Tool. The Journal of Extension, 38(1), Article 4. https://open.clemson.edu/joe/vol38/iss1/4 This Feature Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at Clemson OPEN. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Journal of Extension by an authorized editor of Clemson OPEN. For more information, please contact kokeefe@clemson.edu. 	 JOEHOME JOURNAL GUIDELINES ABOUT	JOE CONTACT NATIONAL	JOB	BANKCurrent	Issues Back	IssuesFebruary	2000	//	Volume	38	//	Number	1	//	Feature	Articles	//	1FEA3Implementation	of	a	Livestock	Systems	EnvironmentalAssessment	ToolAbstractA	self-assessment	tool	addressing	livestock	environmental	issues	was	developed	and	pilottested.	A	pilot	study	evaluated	livestock	producers	response	to	environmental	issues	addressedby	this	tool,	identified	practices	commonly	observed	to	produce	a	high	environmental	risk,reviewed	alternative	delivery	strategies,	and	reported	on	changes	resulting	from	producer's	useof	the	tool.	The	resulting	Livestock	Systems	Environmental	Assessment	was	found	to	be	aneffective	tool	for	assisting	producers	in	reviewing	environmental	issues,	especially	whendelivered	through	local	livestock	commodity	groups.	IntroductionA	"Livestock	Systems	Environmental	Assessment"	tool	(LSEA)	was	developed	to	supportCooperative	Extension	programs	addressing	livestock	environmental	issues	in	Nebraska.	Theability	of	the	tool	to	assist	in	identifying	environmental	strengths,	weaknesses,	and	solutions	waspilot	tested	by	97	livestock	producers	in	three	counties.	An	evaluation	was	completed	6	to	9months	later	by	61	participants.Environmental	programs	for	the	livestock	industry	are	being	introduced	at	a	time	of	escalatingpublic	scrutiny	including	(a)	organized	community	opposition	groups	to	livestock	production,	(b)major	revisions	in	state	and	local	public	policy,	and	(c)	state	regulatory	inspections	of	all	confinedlivestock	operations	greater	than	300	animal	units	relative	to	operating	permit	requirements.These	issues	created	a	need	for	an	expanded	extension	role	in	assisting	livestock	producers	withenvironmental	issues.As	a	result	of	this	scrutiny,	many	efforts	to	deliver	LSEA	were	met	with	some	reluctance	or	mixedfeelings.	However,	close	collaboration	with	local	livestock	commodity	groups	proved	to	be	anRick	KoelschBiological	Systems	EngineeringUniversity	of	NebraskaLincoln,	NebraskaInternet	address:	bsen126@unlvm.unl.eduLarry	HowardUniversity	of	Nebraska	Cooperative	ExtensionCuming	CountyWest	Point,	NebraskaInternet	address:	cnty5243@unlvm.unl.eduSteve	PritchardUniversity	of	Nebraska	Cooperative	ExtensionPlatte	CountyColumbus,	NebraskaInternet	address:	sprtchrd@unlvm.unl.eduPaul	HayUniversity	of	Nebraska	Cooperative	ExtensionGage	CountyBeatrice,	NebraskaInternet	address:	cnty5032@unlvm.unl.eduextremely	effective	method	for	delivering	LSEA.	Involvement	of	the	commodity	groups'	leadershipin	the	initial	release	of	this	tool	within	a	county	provided	critical	support	and	validation	of	theenvironmental	assessment	process.ObjectivesThe	goal	of	LSEA	is	to	reduce	the	level	of	environmental	risk	resulting	from	livestock	production	bya	producer	self-assessment	of	current	practices	and	systems	and	identification	of	high	risksituations	to	be	addressed	by	a	more	comprehensive	environmental	planning	process.	The	specificobjectives	of	this	pilot	evaluation	effort	were	to:1.	Complete	an	environmental	assessment	of	livestock	management	practices	on	90	Nebraskalivestock	operations,	2.	Evaluate	alternative	delivery	strategies	for	LSEA,	and	3.	Evaluate	theeffectiveness	of	LSEA	in	promoting	adoption	of	environmentally	sound	practices	and	systems.ProceduresLSEA	consists	of	seven	worksheets.	Three	were	adapted	from	Wisconsin's	Farm*A*Syst	program(manure	storage,	silage	storage,	and	milking	center	wastewater).	Three	new	assessmentworksheets	(land	application,	odor,	and	feedlot	runoff)	and	a	quantitative	worksheet	for	estimatingmanure	nutrient	production	were	developed.	All	but	the	last	mentioned	worksheet	followed	themodel	used	by	the	Farm	and	Home*A*Syst	environmental	assessment	programs	(refer	towww.wisc.edu/farmasyst	or	www.wisc.edu/homeasyst).	New	worksheets	were	developed	by	theauthors	and	all	worksheets	were	reviewed	by	regulatory,	NRCS,	and	University	staff.Ninety-seven	livestock	producers	from	three	Nebraska	counties	participated	in	the	LSEA	pilot.Participants	were	self-selected	based	upon	their	attendance	of	a	local	extension	program	focusedon	LSEA.	Participants	completed	appropriate	worksheets	and	recorded	their	responses	both	ontheir	own	assessment	tool	and	a	separate	detachable	form	shared	with	the	authors.	Participantsalso	shared	background	information	about	their	livestock	system,	crop	system,	and	manuremanagement	system.	All	reported	data	is	a	summary	of	these	responses	with	no	statisticalanalysis	of	results.A	variety	of	methods	were	used	for	reaching	livestock	producers	including	delivery	throughcommodity	groups,	allied	industry	meetings,	area	network	meetings	for	custom	feeding	swineorganizations,	FmHA	Gold	Medal	meetings,	and	one-on-one	contacts.	Conclusions	relative	todelivery	methods	were	based	upon	recorded	observations	of	six	extension	field	staff	involved	inthis	pilot	effort.	Six	to	nine	months	after	completion	of	the	assessment	tool,	61	participantsreturned	an	evaluation	survey	for	the	purpose	of	identifying	potential	impact.	The	post	assessmentinvolved	a	mail	survey	with	follow-up	by	phone	of	non-return.Results	and	DiscussionProgram	DeliveryA	variety	of	delivery	methods	were	utilized	within	the	three	pilot	counties.	An	evaluation	ofalternative	delivery	methods	was	based	strictly	on	qualitative	assessments	by	extension	staffinvolved	in	the	delivery	process.	Their	evaluation	included	levels	of	participation	by	producers,willingness	of	other	organizations	to	partner	in	program	delivery,	and	learning	environmentassociated	with	the	assessment	process.Close	collaboration	with	livestock	commodity	groups	proved	to	be	the	most	effective	method	fordelivering	LSEA	to	local	producers	based	upon	extension	educator	observations.	Involvement	ofthe	commodity	groups'	leadership	in	the	initial	release	of	this	tool	within	a	county	provided	criticalprogram	support,	peer	promotion,	and	validation	of	the	assessment	process.Most	other	methods	of	delivery	were	met	with	at	least	some	reluctance	or	mixed	feelings.	Bankerswere	fearful	of	offending	their	customers	and	were	very	reluctant	to	assist	in	the	delivery	of	thisassessment	tool.	Contacts	with	allied	industry	and	pork	producing	networks	yielded	a	mixedresponse	ranging	from	significant	investment	in	program	promotion	to	wanting	no	part	of	anenvironmental	program.	Efforts	to	use	the	tool	within	the	Gold	Medal	program	(a	Farmers	HomeAdministration	sponsored	mandatory	educational	program	for	producers	to	secure	operating	loans)provided	mixed	results	due	to	the	diversified	group	in	attendance.One-on-one	meetings	were	relatively	ineffective	unless	the	producer	initiated	the	request.Extension	staff	meetings	with	individual	producers	was	met	with	some	apprehension.	Producerstypically	preferred	to	participate	in	small	group	meetings	as	opposed	to	a	one-on-one	setting.	Theexchange	of	ideas	among	peers	was	of	value	for	this	delivery	format.	Those	who	participated	in	aone-on-one	format	were	the	least	enthusiastic	group	in	their	response	to	LSEA	as	illustrated	by	theimpact	survey	six	months	later.Farm	CharacteristicsThe	livestock	on	the	participating	farms	were	swine	(43	farms	with	an	average	inventory	of	1218animals),	beef	cattle	(59	farms	with	an	average	inventory	of	1346	animals),	and	dairy	cattle	(21farms	with	an	average	inventory	of	238	animals).The	manure	management	systems	on	participating	farms	included	the	following	characteristics:-	Less	than	25%	of	the	crop	land	managed	by	these	producers	received	manure	within	the	past	3years.	Only	3	producers	reported	using	their	entire	land	base	for	manure	application	in	the	past	3years.	-	Manure	was	surface	applied	without	incorporation	by	63%	of	participants.	-	March	andNovember	were	the	most	popular	months	for	manure	application.	Manure	was	spread	by	morethan	50%	of	the	participating	farms	during	each	of	the	months	of	December,	January,	andFebruary.Assessment	Tool	ResponsesThe	first	worksheet	assists	a	producer	in	the	calculation	of	manure	nutrient	production	andavailable	nutrients	after	storage	losses.	On	average,	participating	livestock	operations	produced119,000	pounds	of	nitrogen	and	72,000	pounds	of	P2O5	equivalent.	Based	upon	worksheetassumptions,	most	of	the	phosphorus	was	available	for	crop	production	but	less	than	half	of	thenitrogen	was	conserved.	High	manure	nutrient	application	rates	were	commonly	observed	bymany	producers	(see	Table	1).	An	awareness	of	the	size	of	the	manure	nutrient	resource	as	well	asthe	current	rate	of	application	of	manure	nutrients	(usually	excessive)	was	regarded	by	theextension	educators	to	be	an	important	eye-opener	that	impacted	the	thinking	of	many	producersthroughout	the	use	of	LSEA.Table	1Average	manure	nutrient	application	rate	versus	size	of	livestock	operation.	Oneanimal	unit	=	1000	lbs.	live	weightAnimal	Units Application	Rate	(lb./ac)	for:N P2O5Average	of	all	farms 326 306Farms	with	0-250 245 239Farms	with	250-500 156 153Farms	with	500-1000 420 378Farms	with	more	than	1000 843 788Six	worksheets	provided	a	qualitative	assessment	of	risk	according	to	four	risk	levels.	Overall,producers	judged	their	land	application	practices	and	livestock	yards	as	representing	the	greaterenvironmental	risk	(see	Table	2).	Key	practices	essential	to	manure	nutrient	management	planningwere	found	to	be	among	the	major	individual	deficiencies	of	livestock	operations	(see	Table	3).	Thelack	of	the	required	Nebraska	permits	for	outdoor	lot	runoff	control	as	well	as	inadequate	facilitiesfor	containing	runoff	were	additional	high	risk	issues	identified	by	producers.Table	2Average	producer	rating	of	risk	for	individual	worksheets.Scale	is	from	1	(low	risk)	to	4	(high	risk).Worksheet Average	Risk	RatingLivestock	manure	storage* 1.8Livestock	yards	management* 2.3Land	application	of	manure* 2.3Silage	storage* 1.8Odor	management	and	control 2.1*	Addresses	surface	and	ground	water	issues.Table	3Individual	practices/systems	receiving	highest	and	lowest	risk	rating	by	producers	fortheir	own	livestock	operations.	Scale	is	from	1	(low	risk)	to	4	(high	risk).Practice/System Average	Risk	RatingHighest	risk	ratings:Knowledge	of	manure	nutrient	concentration 3.3Availability	of	manure	application	records 3.3Permit	for	outdoor	lot	runoff	control	facility 3.1Availability	of	a	nutrient	management	plan 3.0Knowledge	of	manure	application	rate 2.9Lowest	risk	ratings:Distance	from	drinking	water	well	to	silage	storage 1.1Frequency	of	neighbor	odor	complaints 1.3Distance	from	nearest	surface	water	source	to	manure	storage 1.5Distance	from	drinking	water	well	to	manure	storage 1.6Distance	to	neighbors 1.6Substantial	variation	existed	in	the	risk	producers	assigned	to	their	own	operation.	The	averagerating	of	risk	by	producers	of	their	livestock	operation	was	2.2	or	slightly	greater	than	a	moderate-low	risk.	Individual	producers'	average	rating	ranged	from	1.3	to	3.5.	Seven	producers	identifiedtheir	average	risk	as	greater	than	3.0.	The	self-assessment	aspect	of	this	tool	shows	somelivestock	operations	to	have	significant	environmental	risk.Changes	Resulting	from	LSEASixty-one	of	97	participants	returned	an	evaluation	survey	six	to	nine	months	after	using	LSEA.Producers	indicated	LSEA	was	effective	in	helping	them	identify	their	livestock	operation's:-	Environmental	strengths..........54	responses	(89%)-	Environmental	weaknesses.........50	responses	(82%)-	Priorities	for	future	efforts....52	responses	(85%)-	Changes	in	practices.............48	responses	(79%).As	a	result,	in	part	from	their	use	of	LSEA,	producers	identified	the	following	in	regard	to	changesin	manure	management	practices	or	systems:-	49%	indicated	that	changes	have	been	made.-	64%	anticipated	making	future	changes.-	24%	had	not	made	and	did	not	anticipate	making	changes.The	most	commonly	identified	change	implemented	to	date	was	associated	with	better	utilizationof	manure	in	crop	production.	Twenty-five	of	the	61	responses	indicated	changes	in	landapplication	and	nutrient	management	practices.	More	timely	removal	of	manure	and	odorreduction	related	efforts	were	also	identified	by	multiple	survey	responses.To	implement	these	changes,	producers	reported	their	planned	and	previous	financialexpenditures	that	resulted	from	the	assessment	process	(Table	4).	Only	20%	of	the	participantshad	invested	more	than	$1000	in	changes	since	the	assessment.	However,	more	than	halfanticipated	spending	more	than	$1000	to	implement	planned	changes.When	asked	about	their	motivation	to	make	changes,	the	top	four	reasons	given	by	producerswere:-	Desire	to	improve	farm's	environmental	stewardship..64%-	Desire	to	minimize	use	of	commercialfertilizers	in	crop	program.........................46%-	Desire	to	reduce	farm	expenses......................41%-	Desire	to	meet	regulations..........................41%Table	4Financial	expenditures	to	be	made	by	producers	to	implement	changes	that	resulted,	inpart,	from	completion	of	LSEA.Financial	Expenditure Completed	Changes Anticipated	Changes$0 23	producers 21	producers$1	-	$1,000 19	producers 6	producers$1,001	-	$5,000 5	producers 13	producers$5,001	-	$10,000 3	producers 9	producersMore	than	$10,000 2	producers 7	producersComments	and	suggestions	about	the	program	were	solicited.	Nearly	all	comments	were	positiveas	represented	by	the	such	examples	as	"Manure	management	is	not	fun	to	think	about	-	but	verynecessary	to	prevent	and	reduce	expenses.	A	must	for	every	producer	no	matter	their	size	ofproduction."	"We	are	presently	looking	at	other	hog	facilities	and	my	priorities	have	changed	somedue	to	this	meeting."	"All	cattlemen's	groups	should	be	made	aware!	Don't	hide	this	info	-	get	itout."ConclusionsBased	upon	experiences	with	the	use	of	LSEA	with	97	Nebraska	livestock	producers,	the	followingconclusions	were	drawn:LSEA	identified	significant	opportunity	for	livestock	operators	to	improve	their	stewardship	of	airand	water	resources	when	used	in	a	self-assessment	role.	Land	application	of	manure	and	runoffcontrols	for	outdoor	lots	were	the	most	commonly	identified	high	risk	practices	and	systems.Close	collaboration	with	local	livestock	commodity	groups	proved	to	be	the	most	effective	methodfor	delivering	LSEA	to	local	producers.	Involvement	of	commodity	groups'	leadership	in	the	initialrelease	of	this	tool	within	a	county	provided	critical	support	and	validation	of	the	environmentalassessment	process.	Other	delivery	approaches	were	met	with	at	least	some	degree	of	producerreluctance	or	skepticism.LSEA	resulted	in	significant	changes	of	practice.	Just	under	half	of	the	producers	had	made	somechanges	within	6	to	9	months	and	64%	intended	to	make	changes	as	a	result,	in	part,	due	to	theircompletion	of	LSEA.	Better	utilization	of	manure	nutrients	in	crop	production	was	the	mostcommonly	identified	change.LSEA	Availability:	This	extension	publication	titled	"Livestock	Systems	Environmental	Assessment",is	available	from	CIT,	Warehouse	#2	-	East	Campus,	University	of	Nebraska,	Lincoln,	NE	68583-0927.	Telephone:	(402)	472-9712.AcknowledgmentThe	authors	want	to	thank	the	Communications	Ad	Hoc	Review	Committee	for	their	hard	work,dedication,	and	foresight	in	developing	the	editorial	review	process.	They	also	thank	Ann	Senutaand	Sydni	Gillette	for	reviewing	early	drafts	of	this	manuscript.Copyright	©	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

Implementation of a Livestock Systems Environmental Assessment Tool

https://open.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7918&context=joe

Implementation of a Livestock Systems Environmental Assessment Tool

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Clemson Open (Clemson University)