Home
Calendar
Search
Contact Us
Webmaster
 

BIFS Workgroup Plenary Session 10-01-02

What follows is a summary of the questions, answers and comments from the discussions that followed each of the Workgroup sessions. For general information about the meeting, email Bev Ransom at baransom@ucdavis.edu or Jeri Ohmart at jlohmart@ucdavis.edu. For more information about each presentation, please contact the speaker or presenter. Their email addresses are listed below with the titles of the presentations.

OPENING PRESENTATION

Keith Warner: "Assessing the Importance of Grower Participation in Agricultural Partnerships" from his dissertation: "Agroecocogy in Action: Nature, networks, knowledge and risk in California Agriculture" keithdw@cats.ucsc.edu

Question: In relation to the partnerships definition, maybe you should ask people how they perceive partnerships and the value of partnerships. What is their idea of the value of partnerships?
Answer: Economic value is usually given as the biggest reason. "However, the issue is more powerful and more ambiguous if you can bundle things together." A partnership approach is more powerful because you are bringing different perspectives and energies together. But it is also more ambiguous when you begin to analyze, break it down because the issues become much more complex.
Question: Why only focus on specialty crops? For example, rice is a commodity in which the participants are highly networked. For purposes of comparison, questioner suggests it would be good to investigate rice.
Answer: Warner says that he has limited his study because of looking at certain issues. He acknowledges the issue and will think about it.
Question: Sociograms (shown by Warner in the presentation) show PCAs as having an important role. What about a third question: how to engage PCAs?
Answer: This issue is all over the map. PCAs play different roles in different commodities. For example, a grower group in Napa says they have no problem with PCAs or with engaging them. However, it’s worth noting that they’ve hired someone outside of the PCA community to run the field days because of the public perception. She is independent and the growers trust her.
Comment: Speaker thinks we’ve had a lot of participation from independent PCAs in the BIFS type projects, but the vast majority of PCAs are affiliated.
Comment: Sometimes it’s just a matter of inviting the PCAs. They will come if you engage them.
Comment: Back to the question of definition of partners in partnerships and the extent of involvement, economic interest. To the degree these partners can incorporate concerns of growers, the better partner they are. There can be misinterpretations about independent PCAs. Independent PCAs aren’t always working more on behalf of the grower than affiliated ones. It depends on the PCA. We need to think about broader ways to include PCAs in decision making.
Question: We know that in the past, most PCAs were paid on commission basis unless they were independent. She has heard that this is no longer true for all PCAs. Does anyone know if this is true?
Question: Speaker has read a study that said that it’s really the grower who drives the decision making, not the PCA.
Keith Warner: Deciding how the grower makes the decision is the crucial question. Some PCAs want the growers to define their goals clearly. Others take more responsibility.

 

NITROGEN SESSION

Marco Barzman, BIFS Coordinator, "Why is Overuse of Nitrogen a Concern?" marco.barzman@nuigalway.ie
Stu Pettygrove, Land Air and Water Resources, UC Davis, "The Problem with Bessie" gspettygrove@ucdavis.edu
Willi Horwath, Land Air and Water Resources, UC Davis, "Cover Crops in California Agriculture" wrhorwath@ucdavis.edu
Alison Berry, Department of Horticulture, UC Davis, "Legume Cover Crops in Almond Orchards: Nitrogen Release and Tree Uptake" amberry@ucdavis.edu
Mark Cady, Program Director, Community Alliance with Family Farmers, "Nitrogen Budgeting Worksheets: How do Growers Use Them?" mark@caff.org

Discussion

Question: What has been the impact of the efforts to change nitrogen management practices in terms of adoption rates? CAFF, BIFS projects?
Answer: You have to define what you mean by cover crop. Many growers say they use cover crops but they aren’t recognizable crops or crops we would identify as a cover crop. They might be a native cover. Can be anything from weak weeds to lush seeded annual cover crops. It appears that seeded annual cover crops are not very widely adopted. Probably 20% is a bit high, but it depends on the region and the irrigation system. In North San Joaquin cover crops are more widely used and accepted than in Southern San Joaquin County.
Comment: Getting growers to implement these practices was more successful in the first years when the growers were given a lot of assistance.
Comment: Re: the differences between North and South San Joaquin valley regions. Water use efficiency value is not clearly understood (no data). Cady thinks it would take a few years before water use efficiency is known.
Question: What are growers’ perception of the N budgeting workshop? Is it seen as just having to use another piece of paper, or another bureaucratic process?
Answer: If growers can see a value in the data, they will collect and use it. I have seen this to be true from going through this process (N budgeting worksheet). Even doing it once will change their attitudes and practices.
Comment: From the experience of this advisor with CAFF field days, growers perceive the N budgeting as one of the more valuable offerings.
Comment: Soil quick testing in Monterey County resulted in a drop in N use.
Question: How do you come up with estimates?
Answer: Even rough estimates help growers get closer to the desirable amounts. It is noted that growers must check their balance periodically. This process is not a "one shot" deal.
Question: Where should BIFS Workgroup go with this information? How important is the N issue compared to some other issues BIFS deals with?
Suggestions:

Potential project topic areas for Nitrogen management

  1. Studies on water use efficiency in cover crops and water holding capacity (soil at regional differences)
  2. Contributions of project use changes (N,C) to global budgets
  3. Evaluation of project level impact and then scale up
  4. Nitrates in water and EPA thresholds—a more detailed collection of data and presentation
  5. Regional nutrient budgets
  6. Predict risks of offsite movement of nutrients (NRCS working in this area)
  7. N work needs to be linked to pest management system etc.
  8. N and irrigation linked
  9. Reinforce N budgets and cover crop management reinforce
  10. Environment whole farm management plans that incorporate nutrient management.

 

IMPACT EVALUATION


Joe Grant, UCCE Farm Advisor, San Joaquin County, "UCCE/CAFF San Joaquin BIOS Walnut Project" jagrant@ucdavis.edu
Bev Ransom, BIFS Research Associate, "Measuring Impacts of BIFS Projects: Walnut Survey Results" baransom@ucdavis.edu

Question and Answer session

Question: What is the correlation of grower selection with awareness levels? Are the growers in BIFS self-selected for intellectual levels? How were BIFS growers selected?
Answer: We just took first 10 growers that showed up. We tried to pick real walnut growers, so that others might look up to them later, growers who were willing to take risks. Yes, in that sense, it is a select group.
Comment: In relation to growers exposed vs. not-exposed to BIFS practices and information, SAREP and others need to think about the fact that the timeframe for these projects is too short to be meaningful. Most alternatives are more costly and growers will not do them unless they are highly motivated. In this case, the demonstration and discovery phases were running in parallel. This project was never meant to be implementation, only demonstration. It was not structured or funded for a broad scale, short time scale implementation. You need 10 more years for benefits to be shown.
Comment: Yes, it takes longer. This survey serves as a baseline. The data supports the idea that it was a demonstration project. The twelve growers are not typical but that is not a problem. Looking at those not-exposed vs exposed is key.
Comment: Impact of these demonstrations may not be seen until 1-2 years after project life. But funders don’t take this into account.
Question: How would you do survey differently now? How would you re-design BIFS program?
Answer: Overall we are happy with survey and questionnaire and would only make minor changes.Given unlimited resources, we would conduct a survey before a project starts as a baseline, do one at the close of the project, and another one year after the end of the project.
Question: What is blackline (one of the areas identified as needing research)? The survey was very helpful in identifying a research agenda for Walnut board.
Answer: Major problems in walnuts are pests and disease. Also, we did an informal survey last winter at the grower meetings. In Stanislaus County there are 200-300 growers, plus 30 from San Joaquin County, and the results parallel Bev’s survey results, specifically in terms of the need to address blackline. The survey is valuable in showing us that this is a significant problem that needs to be addressed.
Comment: Yes, it means growers think not enough research on blackline is conducted.
Question: How do you know when to stop asking for more evaluation? Where is the limit? Evaluation can take up a lot of time and money.
Answer: These become complex issues. The surveys can provide some very useful data. However, often the projects are too busy. The PIs need to be relieved somewhat from the burden of conducting the evaluation on top of running the project. This was the idea for the BIFS program to step in to help with evaluation work.
Question: There is the question of what kind of knowledge you are after with evaluations? It’s not always easy to know and/or decide. Is the information for growers? For future projects? For the board to make policy decisions? Will it be used as institutional information? Survey should help growers to make better decisions. "It always comes back to cost" is what growers say. Cost of alternatives is higher than conventional practices, so what is the benefit of incurring extra cost? This becomes a cost-benefit analysis, which might interest growers, but which is not generally the purpose of an evaluation.
Comment: Another purpose of evaluation is for the funders. They really want to see results. Sometimes with qualitative data it is difficult to get cause-effect relationships. But that is needed for funders. Some foundations incorporate assistance on developing evaluation tools as a part of the funding.
Comment: Evaluation must be an objective of project.
Comment: Many unemployed social scientists are available!
Comment: Have a person on staff who is evaluator.
Comment: Different funders have different criteria. Two to three years is not enough to show change in adoption of practices. It takes a lot of effort to analyze survey data and is even more difficult when dealing with whole farms.
Question: Under the question about educational opportunities it appears that field meetings were not seen as effective? What is?
Answer: For example, there are opportunities to provide education to those folks who checked "don’t know" when asked if mating disruption is effective.
Comment: Field meetings attended by small numbers. How to improve educational effort?
Comment: Demonstration vs implementation?
Comment: A helpful approach is Cliff Ohmart’s in Lodi with growers: self evaluation. This is different from a survey, but equally important.
Comment: At SAREP, we try to catch both (demonstration and implementation). We hoped projects would be on the implementation side but most are not. Some are even more on research side.

****

Overview, Summary and Future Workgroup projects

  1. Where do we go from here with the workgroup…brainstorming time
  2. Funds available for access database trainings
  3. Will use listserv to continue discussion on how to use funds.
  4. May use funds to go around to new projects.
  5. Database training can be done on individual basis. Need input on what events people would like.
  6. Facilitating brainstorming on a research vehicle to apply for funds
  7. Need to further develop how evaluation & research relate.
  8. Use meeting funds to pull in social scientists – expertise in program evaluation field – workshop could lead to a research proposal
  9. Provide training on how to incorporate evaluation into projects.
  10. DPR is trying to do that with PMAs. Karen Klonsky is doing PUR analysis in reverse…trying to discern causes of existing patterns.
  11. Work on building a front end software tool to make PUR more accessible, and to improve interface to the PUR data.
  12. Research project looking at partnerships at a watershed level – N leaching, etc.
  13. Suggestion to have an event to address how to do economic analysis of a new technology. How do you realistically evaluate?
  14. Research project could take soil measurements on cross-BIFS projects

Possible research projects

  1. Evaluation of project & program impact
  2. Workshop on incorporating evaluation into projects
  3. DPR project with Goodhue & Klonsky to look at PUR data
  4. PUR interface work; improve accessibility with a programmer
  5. Conduct a research project on cooperative extension compared to grower decision making process
  6. Scale up commodity project to landscape scale—work at the level of the watershed and link the work to regulatory issues
  7. More detailed study of the economics of the new alternative practices

 

Home | Search | Calendar | Contact Us | Webmaster | Copyright Notices