BEPs Research Navigation
Audience Description:
Farmers were studied as: People who work on the land to grow and produce food, animal feed, or other consumer products; and business professionals who support agricultural production. NOTE: Research identified for this target audience focused on farming practices in the central part of the North American continent, but included at least some research from all geographic areas. Few studies identified specific crop(s) relevant to the study area.
Study-Specific BEPs
These study-specific BEPs distill findings derived from the studies listed in the References below, which were identified using a meta-analysis technique.
Outreach Themes: BEPs are described by one or more of seven focus areas.
Outreach Themes |
Research Recommendations |
---|---|
The Audience |
Collect and assess data about the following, prior to developing the outreach program:
Consider target audience issues such as time, skill, and direct experience with saving money over time. Acknowledge a farmer characteristic to be “averse to additional risk “. That is, a new practice or technology must not add to current risks, or it must reduce risks to productivity incurred through other practices in order to be viewed favorably. Assure that intervention programs are relevant to perceived needs of farmers, relevant to cultural milieu of subgroups, and relevant to specific environmental needs:
Pay attention to unique factors of cultural groups, but programs that focus on efficiency and productivity in decision-making are likely to succeed, whatever the social characteristics of the farm group. Create information, communication and education design to address research-based information about farmer characteristics, such as:
|
Message content |
Make sure that participants know about the initiative and know how to participate. Address farmer perception of risk:
Provide information that is high quality, explains risks; and is:
Address economic benefits:
Include environmental stewardship information shown to be significant in predicting farmer adoption of new practices:
In communication and outreach about groundwater, address:
When persuading farmers to reduce chemical use:
Focus training for new farmers on problem-solving and production agriculture skill development. |
Message delivery vehicle |
Use farmer-preferred sources of information and strategies for outreach about making decisions. Sources of information that most influenced farmer views about problems associated with groundwater and agricultural chemical use were: farm magazines and newspapers; general newspapers and news on radio and television; educational/research agency reports; personal observation. Rely on farmer personal experience as more influential than education or research reports. Use the internet for training new farmers in preference to other distance education techniques. When providing information related to sustainable farming, use conventional sources of information to convey new ideas rather than start a new newsletter or organization or other new source of information. Provide information through field days, pamphlets, farm journals, media and books. These can contribute to:
|
Outreach strategy |
Look to these conditions for opportunities to provide education that is more likely to be effective:
Provide information to farmers in three stages:
Focus on a geographic area:
Involve target audience in:
Support stakeholder engagement more fully by anticipating a political dimension in addition to a focus on subject matter. [This emphasizes Cervero and Wilson’s (1994) democratic approach to program planning whereby adult educators talk openly about social and political aspirations of interested parties in addition to content matter objectives.] Work with consultants:
Emphasize one-on-one contact.
Facilitate farmer-led program design and implementation that leads to:
Design outreach to address farmer preferred learning style:
Use financial incentives, where possible, to facilitate behavior change:
Recognize the role of economic factors in behavior change:
Recognize the limits of regulation in producing behavior change:
Link education to production decisions to reflect the fact that operators prefer to make production decisions based on their own farm records and advice from on-farm employees.
Use farm assessments:
Encourage farmers to complete their own on-farm risk assessments rather than performing the assessment for them Focus programs designed to facilitate adoption of precision farming techniques on farmers who:
For sustainable agriculture education, target families with one or more of these characteristics:
Allow enough time for wide spread adoption of the demonstrated BMPs. A nine to ten year time frame may be necessary to move from initial implementation of BMP demonstration projects to adoption. |
Public participation |
No research available |
Supporting and motivating professionals |
No research available |
Evaluation |
No research available |
Linking Study-Specific BEPs to Essential BEPs
Essential BEPs provide an overview of Best Education Practices derived from education theory and other meta-analysis studies. This table shows which Essential BEPs are highlighted by research about farmers as a target audience. The entire collection of Essential BEPs is available on the Water Outreach website.
Supporting References
Al-Jamal, M. S., Sammis, T. W., & Ball, S. T. (2001). A case study for adopting the nitrate chloride technique to improve irrigation and nitrogen practices in farmers’ fields. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 17(5), 601-610.
Ashby, J. A., Beltran, J. A., Guerrero, M. d. P., & Ramos, H. F. (1996). Improving the acceptability to farmers of soil conservation practices.Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 51(4), 309-312.
Bosch, D. J., Cook, Z. L., & Fuglie, K. O. (1995). Voluntary versus mandatory agricultural policies to protect water quality: Adoption of nitrogen testing in Nebraska. Review of Agricultural Economics, 17(1), 13-24.
Cameron-Howell, K. (1992, September). Factors leading to permanent adoption of best management practices in South Dakota rural clean water program projects. Paper presented at the National RCWP Symposium, 10 Years of Controlling Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution: The RCWP Experience, Orlando, FL.
Contant, C. K., & Young, C. L. (1990). Evaluating the effectiveness of field demonstration programs. Ames: Iowa State University Extension.
Cooper, D., Giebink, B., & Olson, K. (1995, March). Water quality education to protect Minnesota’s Anoka sand plain aquifer. Paper presented at the Clean Water—Clean Environment—21st Century: Team Agriculture—Working to Protect Water Resources, Kansas, MO.
Feather, P. M., & Amacher, G. S. (1994). Role of information in the adoption of best management practices for water quality improvement.Agricultural Economics, 11(2-3), 159-170.
Grudens-Schuck, N. (2000, December). A qualitative study of the influence of farm leaders’ ideas on a sustainable agriculture education program. Paper presented at the 27th Annual National Agricultural Education Research Conference, San Diego, CA.
Holsman, R. H., & Krueger, D. (2002). The long and short of groundwater education for Michigan farmers. Journal of Extension, 40(1).
Knox, D., Jackson, G., & Nevers, E. (1995, March). Farm*a*Syst: A partnership program to protect water resources. Paper presented at the Clean Water—Clean Environment—21st Century: Team Agriculture — Working to Protect Water Resources, Kansas City, MO.
Kraft, S. E., Lant, C., & Gillman, K. (1996). WQIP: An assessment of its chances for acceptance by farmers. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 51(6), 494-498.
Kromm, D. E., & White, S. E. (1991). Reliance on sources of information for water-saving practices by irrigators in the high plains of the U.S.A. Journal of Rural Studies, 7(4), 411-421.
Lanyon, L. E., Kiernan, N. E., & Stoltzfus, J. H. (1996). Evaluating barriers to participation by fertilizer and agricultural chemical dealers in a federal water quality project. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education, 25(2), 160-165.
Lefko, S. A., Rice, M. E., & Pedigo, L. P. (1999). Producer perceptions and pest management practices in iowa alfalfa. Journal of Production Agriculture, 12(2), 257-263.
Mullan, P. B., Gardiner, J. C., Rosenman, K., Zhu, Z., & Swanson, G. M. (1996). Skin cancer prevention and detection practices in a Michigan farm population following an educational intervention. The Journal of Rural Health, 12(4), 311-320.
Murray, H., & Butler, L. M. (1994). Whole farm case studies and focus groups: Participatory strategies for agricultural research and education programs. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 9(1 and 2), 38-44.
Napier, T. L., & Bridges, T. (2002). Adoption of conservation production systems in two Ohio watersheds: A comparative study. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 57(4), 229-235.
Napier, T. L., & Johnson, E. J. (1998). Awareness of operation future among landowner-operators in Darby Creek watershed of Ohio. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 53(4), 353-357.
Napier, T. L., & Johnson, E. J. (1998). Impacts of voluntary conservation initiatives in the Darby Creek watershed of Ohio. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 53(1), 78-84.
Napier, T. L., Robinson, J., & Tucker, M. (2000). Adoption of precision farming within three Midwest watersheds. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 55(2), 135-141.
Napier, T. L., & Sommers, D. G. (1996). Farm production systems of Mennonite and non-Mennonite land owner-operators in Ohio. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 51(1), 71-76.
Nelson, D. R., & Trede, L. D. (2000, December). Educational needs of beginning farmers in Iowa as perceived by providers of agricultural education. Paper presented at the 27th Annual National Agricultural Education Research Conference, San Diego, CA.
Nowak, P., O’Keefe, G. J., Bennett, C., Anderson, S., & Trumbo, C. (1997). Communication and adoption of USDA water quality demonstration projects (Evaluation Report). Washington, DC: USDA, CSREES.
Padgitt, S. C. (1989). Farm practices and attitudes toward groundwater policies: A statewide survey (No. IFM 3). Ames: Iowa State University Extension.
Padgitt, S. C. (1990). Monitoring audience response to demonstration projects: Baseline report: Des Moines County (No. IFM 8). Ames: Iowa State University Extension.
Petrzelka, P., Korsching, P. F., & Malia, J. E. (1996). Farmers’ attitudes and behavior toward sustainable agriculture. The Journal of Environmental Education, 28(1), 38-44.
Petrzelka, P., Padgitt, S. C., Connelly, K., & Miller, R. (1995). Model farms demonstration project final report: A case study in promoting integrated crop management (No. Sociology Extension Report 95-3). Ames: University Extension, Iowa State University.
Petrzelka, P., Padgitt, S. C., & Miller, R. (1994). Farming practices and attitudes in Iowa: 1988 to 1992 report on a statewide survey (No. Sociology Extension Report 94-5). Ames: University Extension, Iowa State University.
Pompelli, G., Morfaw, C., English, B. C., Bowling, R. G., Bullen, G. S., & Tegegne, F. (1997). Farm operators’ preferences for soil conservation service information: Results from three Tennessee watersheds. Journal of Production Agriculture, 10(3), 472-476.
Rhodes, H. M., Leland, L. S., Jr., & Niven, B. E. (2002). Farmers, streams, information, and money: Does informing farmers about riparian management have any effect? Environmental Management, 30(5), 667-677.
Ribaudo, M. O., & Horan, R. D. (1999). The role of education in nonpoint source pollution control policy. Review of Agricultural Economics,21(2), 331-343.
Salamon, S., Farnsworth, R. L., Bulluck, D. G., & Yusuf, R. (1997). Family factors affecting adoption of sustainable farming systems. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 52(4), 265-271.
Shepard, R. L. (1999). Making our nonpoint source pollution education programs effective. Journal of Extension, 37(5).
Sommers, D. G., & Napier, T. L. (1993). Comparison of Amish and non-Amish farmers: A diffusion/farm-structure perspective. Rural Sociology, 58(1), 130-145.
Stanley, J. W. (1992, September). The key to successful farmer participation in Florida’s Rural Clean Water Program. Paper presented at the National RCWP Symposium: 10 Years of Controlling Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution, the RCWP Experience, Orlando, FL.
Trede, L. D., & Miller, K. S. (2000, December). Assessing the learning styles of Iowa farmers. Paper presented at the 27th Annual National Agricultural Education Research Conference, San Diego, CA.
Tucker, M., & Napier, T. L. (2001). Determinants of perceived agricultural chemical risk in three watershed in the Midwestern United States.Journal of Rural Studies, 17(2), 219-233.