social science evaluation report - purdue university

Social Science Evaluation Report Fieldprint Calculator Project: Big Pine Creek watershed, Benton County, IN and Indian Creek watershed, Livingston County, IL

Prepared September 2016 by: Belyna Bentlage, Sarah P. Church, and Linda S. Prokopy Natural Resources Social Science Lab Department of Forestry and Natural Resources Purdue University The Natural Resources Social Science Lab studies how human interactions with the environment impact natural resources. Our research, teaching, and engagement activities focus on how to best motivate farmers, stakeholders, and citizens of all kinds to participate in more environmentally friendly behaviors and practices. For more information, please go to https://www.purdue.edu/fnr/prokopy

Source: bunge.com

Purdue University, Fieldprint Calculator Project Social Science Report ii

Recommended Citation:

Bentlage, B., Church, S.P. and Prokopy, L.S. (2016). Social Science Evaluation Report Fieldprint Calculator Project: Big Pine Creek watershed, Benton County, IN and Indian Creek watershed, Livingston County, IL. West Lafayette: Purdue University.

Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................2

Context of Watersheds...................................................................................................................................3

Big Pine Creek .........................................................................................................................................................3

Indian Creek ............................................................................................................................................................3

Methods of Observations ...............................................................................................................................4

Results ...........................................................................................................................................................5

Initial Meetings .......................................................................................................................................................5

FPC recommendation meetings .............................................................................................................................5

Big Pine Creek ........................................................................................................................................5

CCA Perspectives, Big Pine Creek ...................................................................................................................5

SWCD Perspectives, Big Pine Creek ................................................................................................................6

Producer Perspectives, Big Pine Creek ...........................................................................................................6

Big Pine Creek Key Points ........................................................................................................................6

Indian Creek ...........................................................................................................................................7

SWCD Perspectives, Indian Creek ...................................................................................................................7

CCA Perspectives, Indian Creek ......................................................................................................................7

Producer Perspectives, Indian Creek ..............................................................................................................8

Indian Creek Key Points ..........................................................................................................................8

Fieldprint Calculator Data Release Meetings .......................................................................................................8

Focus Groups ..........................................................................................................................................................9

Big Pine Creek Key Points ........................................................................................................................9

Indian Creek Key Points ........................................................................................................................ 10

Differences and similarities between watersheds .............................................................................................. 11

Overall Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 12

Fieldprint Calculator as a Tool ........................................................................................................................... 12

Fieldprint Calculator as a Process ...................................................................................................................... 13

Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................................... 14

Appendix A

Example Fieldprint Calculator output report Appendix B

Supplementary data report for initial watershed meetings

Purdue University, Fieldprint Calculator Project Social Science Report 2

Introduction

Water quality, consumer demand for sustainably-sourced products, and government regulations continue to be major issues related to agricultural production in the U.S. In response to these issues, agricultural producers and conservation partners, such as Soil and Water Conservation District staff and certified crop advisors, are striving

toward continuous improvements with on-farm conservation tools and practices. One such tool is Field to Market’s

Fieldprint Calculator (FPC), a web-based software designed to measure current conservation performance. After a producer enters field-level data into the FPC, the online tool creates a sustainability assessment based on seven indices: land use, conservation practices, soil carbon, irrigation water use, water quality, energy use, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The assessment output includes state and national averages, with which producers may compare

their personal scores (see Appendix A for an example of the output report generated by the FPC). Field to Market

intends for these scores and the entire Fieldprint experience to be one that educates producers and fosters their awareness of farm impacts on broad environmental categories. The FPC is currently being used in over 50 Fieldprinting projects throughout the U.S. The Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC), with support and funds from the United Soybean Board, initiated 12-month Fieldprinting projects in two watersheds: Big Pine Creek watershed in Benton County, Indiana and Indian Creek watershed in Livingston County, Illinois. The Indian Creek watershed was selected due to high levels of conservation activity prevalent in the area and the existing relationships CTIC had built with producers in the watershed. The Big Pine Creek watershed was selected because analysis from The Nature Conservancy in Indiana showed the watershed was contributing to habitat and water quality degradation of the Wabash River. A central goal of these projects was to have 15 soybean producers from each watershed enter their data into the FPC with the assistance of local Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) staff members. CTIC identified one staff member in each watershed to assist with producer enrollment into the Calculator. After enrolling their data into the tool, the producers were asked to meet with a certified crop advisor (CCA) to discuss their results. The role of the CCA was to provide individualized conservation recommendations to the producers based on their Calculator results. In addition to the CCA and producer, these meetings were attended by the SWCD staff member and a researcher from the Natural Resources Social Science (NRSS) Lab at Purdue University. SWCD staff attended the meetings to provide information related to the FPC and conservation, while the NRSS researcher was there to observe interactions between the other three parties. Overall we learned that participating producers, CCAs, and SWCD staff members found the FPC to be a useful conversation starter about conservation improvements, but that the tool itself and the process involving the FPC could be improved in a variety of ways detailed in this report. The following report includes summaries of observed meetings, findings from conversations with participating producers, SWCD staff, and CCAs, and recommendations for future Fieldprinting projects.


Context of Watersheds

The Indian Creek and Big Pine Creek watersheds are dominated by row crop production of corn and soybeans, however the two locations differ in their histories of conservation and SWCD staff involvement. Indian Creek watershed in Livingston County, Illinois has experienced extensive conservation leadership, implementation, and monitoring over the past six years compared to Big Pine Creek watershed in Benton County, Indiana, where there has historically been little conservation outreach and implementation. A brief overview of conservation efforts and staffing situations related to the Fieldprinting projects for each watershed follows.

Figure 1. A) Big Pine Creek (HUC 10) and B) Indian Creek (HUC 12) Watersheds. Extent area shown by black box in insets. Urban area/cluster as defined by 2010 US Census Bureau population.

Big Pine Creek

Big Pine Creek watershed is located in Benton County in northwest Indiana. Unlike Indian Creek, the SWCD in Big Pine Creek has been historically less active in promoting conservation programs and facilitating conservation practice adoption as compared with the Livingston County, Illinois SWCD. Due to the district’s lack of conservation efforts and in conjunction with the new Fieldprinting project, CTIC contracted the Benton County SWCD to coordinate the watershed’s FPC project through a newly created SWCD Resource Conservation Specialist position. In addition to standard SWCD duties, the Resource Conservation Specialist engages in other capacity-building activities in the district and serves as the Big Pine Creek Watershed Coordinator. FPC project-specific tasks include recruiting producers for the Fieldprinting project, providing technical assistance for the FPC, and setting up meetings between participating producers and a CCA. In total, 19 producers enrolled in the FPC project. The Benton County SWCD Resource Conservation Specialist met one on one, in the SWCD office, with each of the enrolled producers to enter field-level data into the FPC. One CCA met with all enrolled producers. This CCA was chosen to participate in FPC recommendation meetings because he had been the Benton County SWCD District Technician for a number of years and was known and trusted by producers in the county.

Indian Creek

Indian Creek watershed is located in Livingston County in central Illinois. Since 2010, the local SWCD has been active in promoting conservation efforts throughout the watershed as part of an MRBI and Section 319 funded project. Over 50% of the farmed acreage in the watershed is currently in some form of conservation through enrollment in Farm Bill programs such as EQIP and CSP. The project’s steering committee made up of local producers and CCAs has been in place since 2010. Until his recent retirement, which coincided with the data release meeting for the current Fieldprinting project, the Livingston County SWCD Ag Resource Coordinator led the steering committee. His contributions have proved to be a driving force for conservation awareness and adoption in Indian Creek.


This senior SWCD staff member, along with his soon-to-be replacement, provided technical assistance to the

participating producers when entering their data into the Fieldprint Calculator. Instead of the producers directly entering the required information into the online tool, the senior SWCD staff member provided worksheets, designed by CTIC, for producers to complete on their own time. The two SWCD staff members then entered the written information into the FPC and contacted producers if there were questions about the data being entered. In total, 18 producers enrolled in the FPC project, including the senior SWCD staff member. After all participating producers were enrolled in the Calculator, the senior SWCD staff member scheduled meetings with producers and CCAs. Producers were given three options when choosing a CCA with whom to discuss conservation improvements based on their FPC results. The CCAs were chosen because of their existing relationships with participating producers. All participating producers met with a CCA.

Methods of Observations

Observations occurred in four settings: Initial watershed meetings, FPC recommendation meetings, FPC data release meetings, and focus groups that followed the data release meetings. CTIC organized and led initial meetings in each watershed, held in March 2016, to introduce the project and the FPC as a tool for improving conservation. Due to the lack of conservation outreach in Big Pine Creek, the introductory meeting in this watershed also included informational presentations on cover crops. Two NRSS researchers attended the meeting in Big Pine Creek and one NRSS researcher attended the meeting in Indian Creek. NRSS researchers prepared a one-page, two-sided questionnaire that assessed attendees’ awareness and understanding of the FPC before and after the meeting. CTIC distributed the questionnaires toward the end of the meeting and NRSS researchers collected the completed sheets at the conclusion of the meeting. NRSS researchers analyzed the descriptive statistics, identified themes in qualitative responses, and met to discuss their notes from the initial meetings (see Appendix B for these results). In total, 17 FPC recommendation meetings were observed throughout the month of July. All but one of the 17 observed meetings were attended by the same NRSS researcher. Five meetings were observed in Indian Creek at three separate locations (1 farm and 2 CCA offices), and 12 meetings were observed in Big Pine Creek (Benton County SWCD office and the Benton County Fairgrounds). All meeting locations, dates, and times were coordinated by SWCD project staff. These meetings incorporated aspects of participant observation, where the researcher recorded observations between SWCD staff, the CCAs, and the producers. At times, the researcher was brought into the conversation and also asked questions by meeting participants. The meetings in Big Pine Creek lasted approximately 15 to 30 minutes, entailing FPC discussions and recommendations, general conversation, and some researcher-led questions regarding pros and cons of the FPC. Indian Creek meetings lasted about one hour; conservation recommendations accounted for less than half that time with researcher-led discussions about the pros and cons of the FPC and general conversation making up the remaining time. Extensive field notes were taken during these meetings, including some quotations. These notes were later analyzed for key themes. Themes were discussed by two researchers who conducted the observations and checked for consistency. The same two researchers who observed the FPC recommendation meetings attended the FPC data release meetings in both watersheds. These meetings were organized by CTIC and were followed by focus groups led by the NRSS researchers. Participating producers were invited to the meetings to view aggregated data from their watersheds. Producers who attended the meetings were also able to compare their individual results to other participating producers in their watershed and to state and national averages. The meeting in Big Pine Creek included an additional presentation on cover crops. After the presentations, the researcher who conducted virtually all the observations led a focus group of producers. CTIC and SWCD and non-producer attendees were asked to leave during the focus group to allow the producers maximum freedom to critique the FPC and the project. CTIC and SWCD staff remained in attendance during the Indian Creek focus group. We allowed this because the overall feeling in the room was one of inclusivity, where the producers had already begun to express their thoughts and opinions. We felt that by asking staff to leave, the mood would have shifted to something less open and more guarded. We believe the overall relaxed feel


of this meeting was due to the producers in attendance being very familiar with CTIC and SWCD staff because of the relationships that had been built throughout the previous 6-year project. Because they remained in the room, CTIC and SWCD staff were able to answer questions and provide insights during this watershed’s focus group. Notes from both focus groups and data release meetings were recorded by one researcher and were correlated with key themes from the producer-CCA-SWCD meetings by both researchers.

Results

Initial Meetings

Excluding CTIC staff, presenters, and NRSS researchers, 39 total people (20 producers, 4 ag professionals, 8 NRCS/SWCD staff members, 1 TNC staff member, 6 “Others”) attended the introductory meeting in Big Pine Creek and 20 people (11 producers, 2 SWCD, and 4 crop advisors, 3 “Others”) attended the Indian Creek meeting. Based on feedback gathered from the questionnaires, the general sense from both watersheds after the initial meetings was that those who attended the meeting were largely unfamiliar with the FPC. Although respondents reported slight increases in understanding the basic purpose of the tool, many did not report a strong increase in understanding of how to enter the required data and how to interpret the results. Qualitative data from the questionnaires further explains the lack of increased understanding: Written responses demonstrated that some respondents thought the tool “could be of some value to my operation,” (Big Pine Creek) but that they “need to be able to try it out to get an impression” (Indian Creek). The overall tone of written responses demonstrated guarded optimism, with respondents expressing that the tool seemed useful based on presentations at the meetings, but that hands-on experience with the FPC would be the true measure of the tool’s usefulness.

FPC recommendation meetings

Overall, the meetings in both watersheds were run in the same manner: The SWCD staff person conducted an overview of the FPC and the producers’ results, followed by specific recommendations by the CCA. There was some back and forth with recommendations between SWCD staff and CCAs in both watersheds. However, the senior SWCD staff member in Indian Creek provided more detailed recommendations than the new staff member in Big Pine Creek. This was most likely because the SWCD staff person in Indian Creek was more knowledgeable of appropriate conservation practices due to personal experiences as a producer and his long tenure as Ag Resource Coordinator for the district.

Big Pine Creek

The same SWCD staff member and CCA were present at every observed meeting (n=12). The SWCD staff member and CCA worked well as a team. The SWCD staff member was the newly hired Resource Conservation Specialist for the district. The CCA had previously served as the Benton County SWCD District Technician, but currently works as an extension educator in addition to being a CCA. The SWCD staff member began every meeting by walking the producer through their FPC results and giving general recommendations. The SWCD staff member had advised participating producers to enter either their best or their worst field. Recommendations tended to focus on trips across the field, hauling grain, and pest management (scouting before spraying). As conversations were coming to a close in each meeting, the SWCD staff member gave producers advice on cost-share opportunities based on the recommendations that were discussed. She also gave each producer a copy of their FPC results. These results were printed in color which made for easy comparisons to state and national averages. The SWCD staff member said it was difficult to recruit the required amount of participants for this project because the producers said many organizations were asking for their on-farm data. The quota was eventually reached, but producers were financially compensated for participating ($50 per producer). CCA Perspectives, Big Pine Creek

The CCA had not seen the individual producers’ Calculator results prior to the meetings, but it was clear he had done his own research on the FPC. His focus tended to be on greenhouse gas emission scores. In contrast to Indian Creek,


the CCA in Big Pine Creek discussed climate change as a real and concerning phenomenon that should be addressed. At almost every meeting, the CCA discussed NO2 emissions resulting from excess nitrogen application when field conditions are especially wet. The CCA recommended tile-drainage as a solution, although he also advocated for capturing runoff in some way so that the water could filter into the soil (he said it helps with the soil health scores). In general, the CCA said he thought the tool was useful because it neatly summarizes data all in one place, but he remains curious about the metrics and how to reduce the scores for one index without increasing scores for another index (e.g., recommending split application of nitrogen fertilizer will improve a producer’s water quality score, but increases trips across the field thereby worsening the producer’s greenhouse gas emission score). SWCD Perspectives, Big Pine Creek

The SWCD staff member said her approach to the project was to first acknowledge to the participating producers that she recognizes everyone is “trying to feed their family,” meaning her goal was to tie conservation to economics. Though new to her position, the SWCD staff member understood that producers would only be willing to participate in a program or implement a conservation practice if doing so made financial sense. She said that being new, participating in the project and assisting producers with the FPC process granted her the opportunity to meet producers and better understand how their operations function, including their farming goals. Her own goal with the project was that she hoped that after using the FPC, producers would “stop and think for a little bit” while they’re out working, e.g., “I could save money if I....” and fill in the blank with something they learned from meeting with her and the CCA. Producer Perspectives, Big Pine Creek

Although there was not time during the recommendation meetings in Big Pine Creek to ask each producer about their experience with, and opinions of, the FPC, we found that in general producers were interested (and sometimes surprised) by their FPC scores. The FPC recommendation meetings fostered some discussion about the give and take between different practices’ impacts on the sustainability indices (e.g., GHG emissions and water quality). Moreover, a few producers told us that the FPC output raised their awareness about their environmental impacts and enabled them to have a “big picture” view of their farms. A few producers also expressed interest in seeing their FPC averages over multiple years.

Big Pine Creek Key Points

We found that there was some hesitation in this watershed, to push recommendations to the producers. The reluctance to make outright recommendations is evidenced by passive comments such as: “You might want to try…;” “the seed companies recommend…;” and “I’ve seen other guys use less than the recommended fertilizer rates and get good yield.”

The SWCD staff member said she took a “keeping up with the Jones’ approach” and took care to relate FPC results and recommendations with economics. This focus may have contributed to the hesitancy to make strong conservation recommendations, possibly resulting in more generic conservation discussions that revolved around commonly recommended practices that can be applicable to most farming operations (e.g., as nutrient management, tile-drainage, and cover crops).

According to the SWCD staff member and producers themselves, producers called the FPC a platform for “data mining”, which hints at some distrust toward the tool among producers. Overall, the SWCD staff member said producers were willing to provide their data, but were initially hesitant to do so and remained wary of how and by whom their information would be used.

“Total Managed Acres” was added to the FPC after this Fieldprinting project had already begun. The SWCD staff member said producers acted “very uncomfortable” with this metric. She thinks this is because the question is too similar to asking a producer how much money they are making. Because producers believed this question to be too invasive, the SWCD staff member believes producers may not have accurately entered their acres. She also said that producers were unsure how to classify those acres, e.g., does it include acres


that they custom farm? The SWCD staff member said she described “Total Managed Acres” to producers as all the acres over which they have decision-making power.

Large-scale producers (e.g., over 10,000 managed acres) in the watershed did not participate in the project. The SWCD staff member says these producers will participate in conservation programs such as CRP, but will not implement practices such as cover crops. She is unsure about how to engage what she termed “monopoly” producers with conservation, saying discussion about sustainability and thinking about the land in the long-term are not engaging subjects for these large-scale producers.

The watershed’s more progressive producers were also the ones who enrolled in the FPC program. The SWCD staff member hopes that by participating in the program, these producers will stop to contemplate their experience with the FPC and their conversations with the CCA, perhaps then shifting their farm management practices to incorporate the recommendations

Indian Creek

The senior SWCD staff member attended all observed meetings (n=5), and his replacement attended two. The CCA in attendance rotated between three CCAs, depending on the producer’s preference. The SWCD staff member asked participants to enter a field that was typical of their operation because it was generally agreed upon that producers in the area managed each of their fields with the same/similar practices. Even for producers with low FPC scores (indicating the producer is performing very well in terms of conservation), the SWCD staff member and the CCAs recommended methods for the producers to advance their conservation efforts (referred to in the meetings as “tweaking” their farm management practices). There was also more discussion in Indian Creek than in Big Pine Creek about using the FPC as a tool to demonstrate how different practices affect the different scores for the various environmental indices. The outgoing SWCD staff member in Indian Creek provided every producer with their FPC results, but unlike Big Pine Creek, did not ensure that the producers also took the results with them when they left. In addition, the FPC results were not printed in color, which made it more difficult to compare scores to state and national averages. While the staff in Indian Creek did not have difficulty enrolling the requisite number of producers into the project, the watershed was confronted with a unique FPC issue: Three of the participating producers had previously entered their field information into the FPC through their local GROWMARK cooperative. Wanting to participate in the watershed Fieldprinting project, these three producer sought to enter three different fields (fields other than the ones entered for their co-op), but the FPC would not allow the SWCD staff member into the system because GROWMARK was the “owner” of the producers’ data. The producers’ information was linked to their email and their data could not be shared due to confidentiality established through GROWMARK’s Fieldprinting project. The downside meant that the data for these producers’ fields was unusable for the current project.

SWCD Perspectives, Indian Creek

The incoming SWCD staff member presented information related to the Calculator with more enthusiasm than the established staff member. The outgoing SWCD staff member engaged with the FPC with skepticism and expressed to the NRSS researcher that he thought the tool was generally a waste of time. NRSS researchers are not convinced that the information entered into the FPC was as accurate as it could have been. For example, the outgoing SWCD staff member entered all participating producers into the Calculator as “basic” for pest management. It turns out that he could have entered “scouting” for some of the producers, but did not. The different options affect the producers’ final water quality score. CCA Perspectives, Indian Creek

None of the CCAs had seen the individual producers’ FPC output prior to the meetings. One CCA in Indian Creek had prior experience with the FPC because their company is currently using it in some capacity. The CCAs were fairly quick to understand which practices to recommend for each FPC metric. Recommendations generally revolved around nutrient management strategies including incorporating stabilizers, introducing minimal or no-till techniques, ensuring


pest scouting prior to spraying, and implementing cover crops. Reactions to the FPC varied from thinking that the tool is good for building awareness of a farm’s environmental impacts (especially for those implementing less conservation), that the FPC is a good tool to build public awareness of farmers’ conservation efforts, and that the tool is a waste of time as a producer’s CCA can provide the same whole-farm perspective without the FPC process. Producer Perspectives, Indian Creek

Because producers in Indian Creek were well-versed in conservation practices, the researcher had more time to inquire about the FPC process. In general, producers thought that the FPC had the potential to be a useful benchmarking tool. For example, some producers wanted to see how one field performed over time, e.g. over two years with corn and soy crop rotation. A similar desire was that some producers thought it would be useful for the Calculator to compute averages for each field over time. Producers also advocated for an economic component to be added to the FPC to increase its utility to producers. Overall, it was agreed that the FPC also has the potential to educate “the public” about conservation efforts taking place in the watershed, which would ultimately have a positive environmental impact. Notably, because the producers in Indian Creek had been involved in a 6-year watershed conservation project, the FPC results (and recommendations that followed) were not surprising to the producers.

Indian Creek Key Points

Many of the producers in the Indian Creek watershed have been involved in a watershed conservation project since 2010 and therefore, overall, were used to thinking about and discussing conservation practices. Being asked to participate in the Fieldprinting project did not appear to be a burdensome request perhaps due to the conservation culture of the watershed. Therefore it was not difficult to find producers who were willing to participate in the project.

SWCD staff utilized CTIC developed worksheets for FPC data input. Producers filled out the worksheets with field data on their own time, rather than meeting with SWCD to enter field information directly into the FPC. This process demonstrates the level of trust between SWCD and producers in this watershed built through long-term relationships and a mutual understanding of the overall intent of the project and conservation in general.

Also due to the 6-year Indian Creek watershed project, through which plot demonstration data was presented on a twice yearly basis, producers who participated in the FPC project already had a general understanding of how “sustainable” their farms were compared to others. Therefore, the FPC as an awareness tool was not as pronounced in this watershed as it was in Big Pine Creek.

There was some struggle to see value of the FPC to watershed producers and CCAs. Perhaps because many of the producers were already enrolled in Farm Bill programs, they were already tracking the data used to input into the FPC. Therefore the tool was often seen as redundant and a waste of time. However, potential value in the tool was seen with future updates that would allow for multiple fields to be entered over multiple years. Moreover, the potential capacity of the tool as a public education tool was seen as one of its primary benefits.

Fieldprint Calculator Data Release Meetings

Conversations with the SWCD staff leading the Fieldprinting projects in their respective watersheds indicated that the staff members were not expecting all of the participating producers to attend the final meetings. In Big Pine Creek, the SWCD staff member perceived participants felt overburdened by the amount of meetings they were required to attend for the project. In Indian Creek, the outgoing SWCD staff member believed participants were as unimpressed with the FPC as he was and therefore did not expect many producers to attend the meeting. His low expectations were met when only six of the 18 total participants showed up; all six were members of the watershed’s steering committee, including the outgoing SWCD staff member. Big Pine Creek fared slightly better with 10 out of 19 total participants in attendance at the final meeting.


Despite low attendance, the meetings went well as producers who chose to attend appeared interested in seeing how their FPC results compared to other participants and to state and national averages. Before the meetings began, producers were given folders with information relating to the project. The folders also contained each producer’s “unique, secret identifier” (CTIC) code that allowed the data to be presented confidentially to the group. CTIC presented data for each FPC index. The meeting in Big Pine Creek also featured two presentations, one on cover crops presented by a local cover crop seed retailer and one on conservation in general presented by the CCA who met with the participating producers. The SWCD staff member in Big Pine Creek spoke briefly at the end of the meeting, thanking the producers for their attendance and involvement with project. She also encouraged them to come into the office to discuss cost-share opportunities for conservation practices. Special SWCD camp chairs were given to attendees as thank you gifts for participating in the project in Big Pine Creek. Throughout both meetings, only a few producers asked questions during the presentations. No questions were asked at the conclusion of the meeting in Big Pine Creek. Possibly because the meeting in Indian Creek was significantly shorter and because the producers had a more established relationship with CTIC and the SWCD, there was an extended question and answer session at the end of the meeting in Indian Creek. Questions during this time focused on whether their FPC data might be shared with outside organizations, as well as the accuracy of how the tool calculates its metrics. These concerns, as well as other issues, were present in the focus groups in both watersheds.

Focus Groups

Six out of the ten producers in attendance at the meeting in Big Pine Creek remained for the focus group. Some of these participants were on the steering committee. All of the producers in attendance at the meeting in Indian Creek stayed for the focus group. Both groups tended to discuss issues that were mentioned in the observed FPC recommendation meeting. Such similarities between watersheds observed through different data collection methods (observations and focus groups) provides further assurance that the experiences we report here are common amongst FPC participants in both Big Pine Creek and Indian Creek watersheds.

Big Pine Creek Key Points

Participants think the FPC is more beneficial to companies, rather than individual producers. One participant stated, “They’re analyzing us for their benefit”. We observed that the participants were unconvinced that the FPC is a tool targeted for the producers’ benefit and were adamant that the FPC is for corporate gains.

Although they were skeptical if it could be done, the participants suggested fine-tuning the FPC so that it would more accurately capture what producers are actually doing on their fields. Specific suggestions were that the FPC should:

o Account for differences between GMO and non-GMO seeds.

o Clarify storage options. Some participants were concerned that the tool does not account for on-farm storage of grain after harvest.

o Increase options for tillage.

o As part of the FPC output, compare a producer’s FPC scores with others in a peer group based on total managed acres.

In addition to more accurate input data, participants wanted to have more transparency with how Field to

Market calculates final scores.

Participants were concerned about the representation of their watershed because the largest farmers did not participate in the Fieldprinting project. Participants agreed that the producers who enrolled in the FPC were most likely the more conservation-minded producers in the watershed and that the largest producers were completely disinterested in conservation efforts. Participants worried that if data from this project was


presented as representative of the Big Pine Creek watershed, that the large, non-participating producers would be able to say their operations were performing well by association.

Participants want solutions for how to recruit more producers, especially those who are not conservation-minded and who run large-scale operations, to participate in conservation projects, programs, and practices.

There was much discussion about how the participants felt consumers are un- or misinformed when it comes to agriculture. Using the FPC for positive marketing of agriculture to a public that seems uneducated about what really goes on during crop and livestock production was a perceived benefit of the tool.

Participants agreed that it was somewhat beneficial to see their results and to see if their scores were lower than others or lower than state or national averages. However, the participants acknowledged that for more accurate scores, they would like to see an average over time. When asked, they unenthusiastically said and nodded that they would be willing to enter their information again.

When asked if participants would be willing to implement more conservation after the FPC experience, the response was generally that they were open to improvements, but actual implementation depends on economic feasibility. Participants also cited relationships with landlords and cash-rent situations as potential issues for improving conservation.

Participants were told about the Sustainable Soy Fieldprinting program in Iowa and were asked if a 10-cent premium per bushel would incentivize further participation in Fieldprinting projects. Their response was tepid. Some producers agreed such a premium was a good start, but that the rate would need to be higher. Other producers said a premium was not worth the wealth of information given. The term “marketing ploy” and other similar phrases were used to describe such programs.

Participants said that the data entry meetings went well. The SWCD staff member helped prepare the participants before they met with her to enter their data into the FPC by telling them what information they needed to bring.

There was some concern over whether or not CTIC could sell the participants’ data and whether or not companies like Coca-Cola would have access to their data.

Ultimately, the participants were most concerned with protecting their profit and preventing regulation.

Indian Creek Key Points

Participants were unclear about who or what Field to Market is and what the organization’s goals are.

All participants agreed that the process of filling out the worksheet to give to the SWCD staff member was “fairly painless.” The consensus was that both the outgoing and incoming SWCD staff members were very helpful with data entry. One producer summarized the SWCD’s helpfulness with data entry, “I would have struggled without [SWCD staff members].”

When asked if the process was at all frustrating, participants agreed that the most frustrating part of the FPC experience is taking the next step to figure out how to make the tool useful to producers.

Participants agreed that the FPC was useful in the sense that the process and the output raise awareness about certain management-related impacts on natural resources. One participant said of producers in general, “Most of us are hard-wired to keep going” with a business-as-usual type of approach to management and went on to say that tools like the FPC are beneficial because they can help producers think a little more critically about their management decisions.


FPC results could be improved: Participants preferred seeing the bar graphs at the data release meetings more so than their individual spider graphs. On his reaction to the spider graph, one producer said “What is this? I mean really, it’s not simple.” Another participant said, “We’re more accustomed to seeing bar graphs.” Some producers were also dissatisfied with applicability of some of the measurement scales, such as BTUs, stating that they never think in terms of BTUs.

Participants appreciated the descriptions of the Fieldprint Calculator’s indices as presented by CTIC at the data release meeting. Participants agreed that such descriptions would have been very useful at the start of the project and when they were entering their data.

Uncertainty about how the state and national averages were calculated led producers to express skepticism over the accuracy of the averages.

Producers called for transparency on how the Fieldprint Calculator computes its scores. Producers were skeptical about the accuracy of the calculations, especially because they felt the Calculator did not provide enough management options to truly evaluate the performance of a given field (e.g., tillage options included only two options). A producer stated that it is “almost an impossible task to put a scientific number [sustainability score] on something [farming] with so many natural variables.”

When asked if they would be willing to use the FPC again, producers reluctantly agreed that they would be willing, especially because of the common sentiment that “it doesn’t have much value unless you track it over time.”

Some participants said they would appreciate removing redundancy from the data entry process, e.g., streamline the inputs from precision agriculture devices and other tools that are already recording data.

When asked if they thought the FPC would be helpful as a public relations tool, participants nodded. One participant said it would be beneficial to “show we care, show we’re trying to do something.” As in Big Pine Creek, a participant acknowledged that conservation and changing management strategies does not come without cost, “Everybody here is a for-profit organization. We want to do the right thing, but we are for-profit.”

Participants were concerned about how to reach out to producers who have not implemented conservation practices. The outgoing SWCD staff member said he thinks the FPC could help to show the less engaged producers that conservation practices and management strategies “are worth something.” While he recognized that producers would not change how they manage their operations overnight, the SWCD staff member said at least those producers might think about their options differently.

Differences and similarities between watersheds

In both watersheds, it was clear that conservation-oriented producers signed up to participate in the FPC project. Participants in both watersheds thought the FPC would be more beneficial for producers who are not already performing well in terms of conservation. In both watersheds, it is a challenge to successfully recruit such farmers into conservation and Fieldprinting projects.

The producers’ FPC scores generally indicated low environmental impacts in both watersheds, and almost always below the state and national averages. Whereas the advisors in Big Pine Creek used language meant not to offended or push the producers, advisors in Indian Creek consistently recommended next-step approaches to fine-tune producers’ farm management practices, even to those with low scores (i.e., good). Because of his extensive experience with producers in the watershed, the outgoing SWCD staff member in Indian Creek also gave recommendations for the management of corn if the field was entered into the FPC as soy (and vice versa). Overall, in both watersheds, the advice given to producers was within the realm of their


current management practices rather than anything that might affect the producers’ profit (e.g., adding a third crop rotation).

Key, and common, practice recommendations included increased pest scouting, crop rotation, nitrogen management (split application, nitrogen stabilizers), and cover crops.

The CCA in the Big Pine Creek watershed spoke more about GHGs than the CCAs in Indian Creek. In particular, NO2 emissions (due to the reaction of nitrogen with wet fields) were discussed at almost every observed meeting in Big Pine Creek. Solutions included tile-drainage as well as discussions of practices that could filter water back into the ground prior to running into the creek.

One CCA was used for the FPC recommendation meetings in Big Pine Creek, whereas three were used in Indian Creek. The producers in Big Pine Creek seemed comfortable with the CCA, as they had known him for many years through his role as SWCD District Technician. For the most part in Indian Creek, the CCAs had advised the producers in the past. Observing this meeting through the eyes of this producer-CCA relationship was the original intent of the research. Through our observations, we did not observe a noticeable difference in what was discussed and how, which indicates how strongly rooted farm management practices are within the current agriculture system as for-profit businesses.

Participants in both watersheds agreed that the tool needs to be more “user-friendly” and is in need of several improvements to become more useful to producers.

Overall Recommendations

Based on our observations of participating producers, CCAs, and SWCD staff members and their experiences with Field

to Market’s Fieldprint Calculator, we provide the following recommendations for the tool itself and the process for using the Calculator.

Fieldprint Calculator as a Tool

There is overall frustration about what metrics and calculations are utilized by Field to Market when generating the FPC scores. Not understanding the calculation process increased confusion about the meaning

and validity of the Calculator’s output. More clarity surrounding the Fieldprint Calculator’s input metrics and calculations would increase the transparency of the tool and, in turn, might increase trust, acceptance, and use of FPC outputs. This desire for transparency is true also for the state and national averages. As we noted previously, such uncertainty about FPC scores at every scale led to skepticism over data accuracy, which ultimately will affect producers’ willingness to participate in this and other “sustainability” programs.

There was some confusion as to whether low scores meant lower environmental impact for all metrics. For example, high Water Quality scores translated to lower water impacts, whereas most (if not all) other metrics utilized low scores to indicate low environmental impact. It was not clear whether that high Water Quality score was then translated to a smaller visualization on the FPC spidergraph output.

Data input selections for the following practices must be refined in order to accurately represent how producers actually manage their farms:

o Scouting

o Tillage

o Fertilizer rates and types

o Nutrient management

o Results from soil testing


Incorporating different output visualizations should be considered (e.g., bar graphs). The spider graph is difficult for most participants to understand. In terms of the spider graph, although it gives a good holistic view of a field, a concise explanation of the graph and the indices should be included as part of the graph and data input process. Moreover, in order to increase the perceived usefulness of the FPC, the tool should incorporate long-term field-by-field averages.

There appears to be some tradeoffs between GHG emissions and water quality with what is being recommended for each of those. For example, by applying nitrogen more than once (when the corn needs it), more trips across the field are required, which increases GHG emissions, but improves water quality. Likewise, tile-drainage for wet fields could be recommended in order to reduce GHG emission scores, but such tiling can decrease water quality scores. CCAs or others who are making recommendations should be prepared to discuss the costs and benefits of the different tradeoffs.

We found that there was a general sentiment amongst producers and advisors in both watersheds that the FPC could be utilized as a tool to build awareness for the producers and the public. If this is a desirable outcome, the utility of the educational utility of this tool should be explored through research in both contexts.

Fieldprint Calculator as a Process

An effort should be made to guide which field producers enter into the Fieldprint Calculator. Some producers may want to see their “best” field, while others may want to see their “worst” or most “typical.” As a producer-focused continuous improvement tool, we agree that this autonomy in field choice should be fostered. However, this becomes problematic if a project’s aggregated FPC data is used as a snapshot for portraying average performance within a watershed. This selection bias could also potentially skew the state and national averages. Producers expressed skepticism in the meaning behind the aggregate scores, especially when “conservation farmers” participate by entering their data and large-scale farming operations (e.g.,

10,000 + acres) do not. This feeds into a general unease about how Field to Market and its partners might use the FPC output, with some participants wanting a legal caveat included that the aggregate data is specific to a particular watershed entered by conservation farmers.

It is important to consider the SWCD staff and CCA attitudes toward the Fieldprint Calculator. It is possible that their positive or negative attitudes toward the tool will be conveyed in some part to the producers. Negative attitudes, for example, could then influence producers’ willingness to use the tool and discourage open-mindedness regarding the potential benefits of the tool, including practice recommendations.

Continue, and consider increasing, opportunities for formalized training for both SWCD staff and CCAs in order to ensure their understanding of the FPC metrics and spider graph output; perhaps also including a call center option if help understanding the FPC is needed during the data entry process. The Land Use Efficiency metric, for example, was not well understood and thus the advisors were not able to discuss it with any meaning, perhaps even misinforming producers with what the index was measuring.

Continue to encourage SWCD staff to help producers prepare in advance the type of information they will

need to enter into the Fieldprint Calculator. This reduces frustration and decreases time dedicated to data entry.

Encourage and facilitate producer experimentation with different management scenarios in the Fieldprint Calculator. Some producers were interested in utilizing the FPC to enter different management options in order to see how different scenarios affect their scores. Consider promoting this unique aspect of the tool.


Interested producers can create different scenarios on their own time if they are comfortable with the interface or they can schedule a meeting with SWCD staff to input data scenarios together.

When interpreting FPC results, consider explaining how the field data inputs relate to the FPC scores for each of the seven sustainability indices, utilizing the numbered metrics included on the second page of the FPC output. We observed that one of the most effective ways of running the FPC meeting was leading producers through the detailed numbers outlined as part of the FPC output. Explanations of what factors went into the calculations of scores for energy use, water quality, and pesticides were particularly effective. Although there was some consternation as to how each metric was calculated (e.g., what outside data was used in FPC formulas), SWCD staff in both watersheds were able to guide producers through most of the FPC metrics and relate the FPC output to the original data entered. In this way, producers were able to understand how their field inputs equated to each measure. A similar approach should be considered in future FPC recommendation/interpretation meetings.

There was most likely too much time between the first meeting where the producer entered their data into the FPC and the second meeting where the results were discussed. Future projects should aim to hold these meetings much closer together in time. Discussing results and providing recommendations might be most impactful if such conversations occurred immediately after data entry and creation of the output.

Create a document for SWCD and CCAs that lists practice recommendations for improving each of the seven sustainability indices. Such a document can help clarify which practices have an impact on which resources.

This document can also help to ensure that CCAs cover all of the Fieldprint Calculator’s environmental criteria instead of only discussing the CCAs’ areas of interest (e.g., a CCA might be a fertilizer dealer whose recommendations focus solely on nutrient management).

SWCD and CCAs should be sure to ask producers what their concerns and priorities for their farm are. When discussing FPC results, advisors should address the producers’ stated interests.

CCAs should have an opportunity to view a producer’s FPC results prior to meeting with a producer. This allows the CCA to have more time to prepare personalized recommendations to producers.

Consider using the FPC as a tool for Extension educators. One of the most valuable parts of the FPC process from the perspective of the producer, is that the tool raises their level of awareness regarding the environmental impacts of their operations. Perhaps the producers will see the greatest utility from the FPC if it is used as an educational tool for Extension outreach.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to Jackie M. Getson for GIS support, and Dr. Brian Bulla for meeting observation assistance.

social science evaluation report - purdue university

Documents