Implementing Effective Sustainable Agriculture Risk Management Programs - Lessons from the WV
Sustainable Agriculture Needs Assessment Survey
1
Singh-Knights ,
2
Knights ,
3
Liedl
Doolarie
Marlon
and Barbara
1Extension Specialist, 2Associate Animal Science Professor, West Virginia University
3Associate Professor, West Virginia State University
RESULTS
INTRODUCTION
Environmental degradation, erosion of rural communities, loss of small family farms, and inadequate conservation
of fragile lands have made agricultural sustainability a significant concern. The aim of sustainability in agriculture is
a healthy and ample food supply for both the present and future generations through the wise utilization of natural
resources. Agricultural Service Providers (ASPs) are facilitators of sustainable agricultural risk management
activities; they are expected to know more, and meet the increasing demands of a diverse farmer population.
Dealing with conflicting norms, values, and interests associated with sustainability requires improvements in the
competencies of ASPs. ASPs must receive continuous in-service training in line with their training needs about
sustainability if they are to improve their on-the-job effectiveness. In-service training needs assessments are
essential to determine and prioritize training needs, so that training resources can be efficiently utilized.
This poster highlights outcomes of the WV Sustainable Agriculture Needs Assessment. It focuses on the differences
in knowledge, interest, and adoption of ASPs versus producers with regard to sustainable agriculture programs;
determines what the targeted audience already knows/believes, and what gaps still exist, so we can design
effective future sustainable agriculture educational programs; and determines what methodologies we can employ
to make extension programs more accessible, acceptable and useful to our clientele.
Since the urgency to address agricultural sustainability is great, this study has broad applicability to general ASPs
and producers nationally, and to University Agricultural Education Programs, as they prepare their students to be
the next cadre of ASPs.
AGRICULTURAL SERVICE PROVIDERS (MWDS)
Problems including environmental degradation, the erosion of rural communities, the elimination of small family
farms from agriculture, and the inadequate conservation of fragile lands have made agricultural sustainability a
significant concern (Chizari et al., 2006). Economically sound, environmentally protective, and social acceptability
are the three widely advocated components of sustainable agriculture, with the aim of securing a healthy and
ample food supply for present and future generations through the wise utilization of natural resources (Williams,
2000; Al-Subaiee et al., 2005).
Given the need for sustainability in today’s world, ASPs are expected to know more, and meet the increasing
demands of a diverse farmer population. Dealing with complexity, uncertainty, and conflicting norms, values, and
interests associated with sustainability requires a fundamental transformation in the competencies required by
ASPs (Wals and Bawden, 2000). These ASPs are the potential facilitators of sustainable agricultural and rural
development. Therefore, if ASPs are to improve their on-the-job effectiveness, they must receive continuous inservice (professional development) training, in line with their own training needs and the needs of their clientele.
Once these needs are determined and prioritized, training resources can be utilized more efficiently.
Farm business planning, management and development
Risk management planning
Enterprise analysis, record-keeping and financial analysis
Farm and food safety
Alternative marketing systems (Farm to Institution)
Grazing systems and pasture management
Season extension production and management
Entrepreneurial opportunities, industry/market analysis
Processing and value-adding
Farm energy options
Beekeeping and honey production and marketing
Integrated/Ecological pest management
Youth Agriculture/Beginning Farmer education
Soil conservation and management
Specialty crops production and management (horticulture)
Community and local food systems
4.62
4.52
4.52
4.52
4.36
4.76
4.54
3.84
4.10
3.44
3.74
4.08
4.70
4.62
4.14
4.20
MWDS
3.40
3.32
3.32
3.64
3.48
3.98
3.76
2.92
3.26
2.46
2.84
3.26
4.00
4.04
3.50
3.60
5.64
5.42
5.42
3.98
3.84
3.71
3.54
3.53
3.44
3.37
3.37
3.35
3.29
2.68
2.65
2.52
60%
Enterprise analysis, record-keeping and financial analysis
Farm business planning, management and development
Soil conservation and management
Accessing funding opportunities/grant writing
Integrated/Ecological pest management
Community and local food systems
Farm and food safety
Entrepreneurial opportunities, industry/market analysis
Youth Agriculture/Beginning Farmer education
Risk management planning
Alternative marketing systems (farm to institution)
Irrigation/water conservation and management
Farm energy options
Season extension production and management
Specialty crops production and management (horticulture)
Facilitating farmer alliances and partnerships
Interest
Trial
Adoption
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Farm business
planning,
management and
development
Risk management
planning
Enterprise analysis, Farm and food safety
Alternative
Grazing systems and Season extension
record-keeping and
marketing systems pasture management production and
financial analysis
(Farm to Institution)
management
Entrepreneurial
opportunities, food
industry and market
analysis
Processing and
value-adding
Farm energy options
Producers' Stage of Adoption of Selected Sustainable Agricultural Practices
% of Repondents
60%
50%
Rejected
Awareness
Interest
Trial
Adoption
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Farm business
planning,
management and
development
Risk management
planning
Enterprise analysis, Farm and food safety
Alternative
Grazing systems and Season extension
record-keeping and
marketing systems pasture management production and
financial analysis
(Farm to Institution)
management
Factors Limiting Adoption of Selected Sustainable Agricultural
Practices (ASP Perception vs Producers' Responses)
ASP Rating Average
0.00
Producers Rating Average
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
Insufficient knowledge of appropriate SA practices
Believe implementing SA practices are costly
Believe implementing SA practices takes too much…
Do not know enough about incentive-based programs
Believe incentive-based programs are not sufficient…
Implementing SA practices restricts production
Implementing SA practices restricts profitability
Insufficient education programs about sustainable…
Have little follow-up support from others
Do not believe consumers are willing to pay higher…
Percent Variance F. Value Prob.
Perceptions of Compatibility
.459
.218
21.75
25.00*
Access to SA Information
.511
.262
5.0
15.75*
*p = .001
Processing and
value-adding
3.32
3.34
3.55
2.68
3.19
3.48
3.59
2.85
3.21
3.02
3.35
3.42
2.82
3.09
3.44
3.18
5.45
5.00
4.83
4.76
4.35
4.18
4.15
4.10
3.97
3.93
3.80
3.77
3.74
3.47
3.25
2.78
 Adewale Alonge, Robert Martin (1995).
Assessment of the adoption of
sustainable
agriculture
practices;
Implications for Agricultural Education.
Journal of Agricultural Education. Vol. 3,
No. 3, 1995.
 Al-Subaiee S, Yoder SF, Thomson JS
(2005). Extension agents' perceptions of
sustainable agriculture in the Riyadh
Region of Saudi Arabia. J. International
Agric. Ext. Educ. 12(1): 5-13.
 Amirhossein Alibaygi, Kiumars Zarafshani
(2008). Training needs of Iranian
extension agents about sustainability: The
use of Borich’s needs assessment model.
African Journal of Agricultural Research
Vol. 3 (10). Pp. 681-687, Oct. 2008.
 Chizari M, Alibaygi AH, Breazeale D
(2006). Analysis of the Training Needs of
Multi-Functional
Extension
Agents
Associated with Sustainability. J. Int. Agric.
Ext. Educ. 13(1): 51-58.
Farm energy options
CONCLUSION/IMPLICATIONS OF THIS STUDY
Believe their operation is too small to benefit from…
Predictor Variables (Adoption Levels) Multiple R R2
Entrepreneurial
opportunities, food
industry and market
analysis
4.52
4.46
4.60
3.90
4.22
4.42
4.51
3.90
4.17
4.00
4.24
4.29
3.80
3.97
4.21
3.90
MWDS
REFERENCES
50%
Awareness
Perceived Level of
Importance Knowledge
(Mean)
(Mean)
Sustainable Agriculture Topic/Practice
Agricultural Service Providers (ASP) Perception of Producers' Stage of Adoption of Selected Sustainable
Agricultural Practices
% of Repondents
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The main aim for this study was to identify, prioritize and compare the sustainable agriculture training needs of
Agricultural Service Providers compared to WV producers. We achieve this by looking at ‘sustainable agriculture
competency levels of ASPs and producers’ and ‘adoption of sustainable agriculture practices’ through the following
objectives:
1.To compare ASPs and producers perceived level of importance of 27 competencies regarding sustainability;
2.To compare ASPs and producers perceived level of competency of 27 competencies regarding sustainability;
3.To prioritize the training needs of ASPs (and producers) by determining the Mean Weighted Discrepancy
Score (MWDS) for each competency (difference between importance rating and ability/competence rating);
4.To analyze the degree to which selected sustainable agriculture practices have been adopted by producers
compared to ASP perception of producers’ adoption of these practices;
5.To compare ASPs perception to producers assessment of the factors that limits adoption of sustainable
agricultural practices; and
6.To determine the producers’ personal, farm and sustainability perceptions variables that were predictive of
their levels of adoption of selected sustainable agricultural practices.
Perceived Level of
Importance Knowledge
(Mean)
(Mean)
Sustainable Agriculture Topic/Practice
Rejected
RATIONALE
PRODUCERS (MWDS)
 The common competencies with the highest discrepancy score for both ASP and
producers (greatest need for in-service training (ASP) and outreach training
(producers) include: Farm Business Planning and Management; Risk Management;
Record-Keeping, and Enterprise and Financial Analysis; Farm and Food Safety;
Direct Marketing; and Entrepreneurial Opportunities and Market Analysis.
 The competencies with the highest discrepancy score for producers (but for which
ASP are competent) include: Soil Conservation and Management; Accessing
Funding Opportunities/Grant Writing; Integrated Pest Management; Community
and Local Food Systems; and Youth and Beginning Farmer Education. These are
areas for additional producer outreach training programs.
 There is some disparity between ASP’s perceptions of and producers’ actual level of
adoption of sustainable agricultural practices in WV. More communication is
necessary so training needs can be appropriately addressed.
 There is general agreement between ASP and producers about the general factors
that limits producers’ adoption of sustainable agricultural practices.
 The variable emerging as the best predictor of adoption of sustainable agriculture
practices include perceptions of compatibility with current farming systems (21.75%
of variation) and access to sustainable agriculture information (5%).