Source: Prepared September 2016 by:

Transcription

1 Scial Science Evaluatin Reprt Fieldprint Calculatr Prject: Big Pine Creek watershed, Bentn Cunty, IN and Indian Creek watershed, Livingstn Cunty, IL Surce: bunge.cm Prepared September 2016 by: Belyna Bentlage, Sarah P. Church, and Linda S. Prkpy Natural Resurces Scial Science Lab Department f Frestry and Natural Resurces Purdue University The Natural Resurces Scial Science Lab studies hw human interactins with the envirnment impact natural resurces. Our research, teaching, and engagement activities fcus n hw t best mtivate farmers, stakehlders, and citizens f all kinds t participate in mre envirnmentally friendly behavirs and practices. Fr mre infrmatin, please g t

2 Recmmended Citatin: Bentlage, B., Church, S.P. and Prkpy, L.S. (2016). Scial Science Evaluatin Reprt Fieldprint Calculatr Prject: Big Pine Creek watershed, Bentn Cunty, IN and Indian Creek watershed, Livingstn Cunty, IL. West Lafayette: Purdue University. Purdue University, Fieldprint Calculatr Prject Scial Science Reprt ii

3 Cntents Intrductin...2 Cntext f Watersheds...3 Big Pine Creek...3 Indian Creek...3 Methds f Observatins...4 Results...5 Initial Meetings...5 FPC recmmendatin meetings...5 Big Pine Creek...5 CCA Perspectives, Big Pine Creek...5 SWCD Perspectives, Big Pine Creek...6 Prducer Perspectives, Big Pine Creek...6 Big Pine Creek Key Pints...6 Indian Creek...7 SWCD Perspectives, Indian Creek...7 CCA Perspectives, Indian Creek...7 Prducer Perspectives, Indian Creek...8 Indian Creek Key Pints...8 Fieldprint Calculatr Data Release Meetings...8 Fcus Grups...9 Big Pine Creek Key Pints...9 Indian Creek Key Pints Differences and similarities between watersheds Overall Recmmendatins Fieldprint Calculatr as a Tl Fieldprint Calculatr as a Prcess Acknwledgments Appendix A Example Fieldprint Calculatr utput reprt Appendix B Supplementary data reprt fr initial watershed meetings

4 Intrductin Water quality, cnsumer demand fr sustainably-surced prducts, and gvernment regulatins cntinue t be majr issues related t agricultural prductin in the U.S. In respnse t these issues, agricultural prducers and cnservatin partners, such as Sil and Water Cnservatin District staff and certified crp advisrs, are striving tward cntinuus imprvements with n-farm cnservatin tls and practices. One such tl is Field t Market s Fieldprint Calculatr (FPC), a web-based sftware designed t measure current cnservatin perfrmance. After a prducer enters field-level data int the FPC, the nline tl creates a sustainability assessment based n seven indices: land use, cnservatin practices, sil carbn, irrigatin water use, water quality, energy use, and greenhuse gas (GHG) emissins. The assessment utput includes state and natinal averages, with which prducers may cmpare their persnal scres (see Appendix A fr an example f the utput reprt generated by the FPC). Field t Market intends fr these scres and the entire Fieldprint experience t be ne that educates prducers and fsters their awareness f farm impacts n brad envirnmental categries. The FPC is currently being used in ver 50 Fieldprinting prjects thrughut the U.S. The Cnservatin Technlgy Infrmatin Center (CTIC), with supprt and funds frm the United Sybean Bard, initiated 12-mnth Fieldprinting prjects in tw watersheds: Big Pine Creek watershed in Bentn Cunty, Indiana and Indian Creek watershed in Livingstn Cunty, Illinis. The Indian Creek watershed was selected due t high levels f cnservatin activity prevalent in the area and the existing relatinships CTIC had built with prducers in the watershed. The Big Pine Creek watershed was selected because analysis frm The Nature Cnservancy in Indiana shwed the watershed was cntributing t habitat and water quality degradatin f the Wabash River. A central gal f these prjects was t have 15 sybean prducers frm each watershed enter their data int the FPC with the assistance f lcal Sil and Water Cnservatin District (SWCD) staff members. CTIC identified ne staff member in each watershed t assist with prducer enrllment int the Calculatr. After enrlling their data int the tl, the prducers were asked t meet with a certified crp advisr (CCA) t discuss their results. The rle f the CCA was t prvide individualized cnservatin recmmendatins t the prducers based n their Calculatr results. In additin t the CCA and prducer, these meetings were attended by the SWCD staff member and a researcher frm the Natural Resurces Scial Science (NRSS) Lab at Purdue University. SWCD staff attended the meetings t prvide infrmatin related t the FPC and cnservatin, while the NRSS researcher was there t bserve interactins between the ther three parties. Overall we learned that participating prducers, CCAs, and SWCD staff members fund the FPC t be a useful cnversatin starter abut cnservatin imprvements, but that the tl itself and the prcess invlving the FPC culd be imprved in a variety f ways detailed in this reprt. The fllwing reprt includes summaries f bserved meetings, findings frm cnversatins with participating prducers, SWCD staff, and CCAs, and recmmendatins fr future Fieldprinting prjects. Purdue University, Fieldprint Calculatr Prject Scial Science Reprt 2

5 Cntext f Watersheds The Indian Creek and Big Pine Creek watersheds are dminated by rw crp prductin f crn and sybeans, hwever the tw lcatins differ in their histries f cnservatin and SWCD staff invlvement. Indian Creek watershed in Livingstn Cunty, Illinis has experienced extensive cnservatin leadership, implementatin, and mnitring ver the past six years cmpared t Big Pine Creek watershed in Bentn Cunty, Indiana, where there has histrically been little cnservatin utreach and implementatin. A brief verview f cnservatin effrts and staffing situatins related t the Fieldprinting prjects fr each watershed fllws. Figure 1. A) Big Pine Creek (HUC 10) and B) Indian Creek (HUC 12) Watersheds. Extent area shwn by black bx in insets. Urban area/cluster as defined by 2010 US Census Bureau ppulatin. Big Pine Creek Big Pine Creek watershed is lcated in Bentn Cunty in nrthwest Indiana. Unlike Indian Creek, the SWCD in Big Pine Creek has been histrically less active in prmting cnservatin prgrams and facilitating cnservatin practice adptin as cmpared with the Livingstn Cunty, Illinis SWCD. Due t the district s lack f cnservatin effrts and in cnjunctin with the new Fieldprinting prject, CTIC cntracted the Bentn Cunty SWCD t crdinate the watershed s FPC prject thrugh a newly created SWCD Resurce Cnservatin Specialist psitin. In additin t standard SWCD duties, the Resurce Cnservatin Specialist engages in ther capacity-building activities in the district and serves as the Big Pine Creek Watershed Crdinatr. FPC prject-specific tasks include recruiting prducers fr the Fieldprinting prject, prviding technical assistance fr the FPC, and setting up meetings between participating prducers and a CCA. In ttal, 19 prducers enrlled in the FPC prject. The Bentn Cunty SWCD Resurce Cnservatin Specialist met ne n ne, in the SWCD ffice, with each f the enrlled prducers t enter field-level data int the FPC. One CCA met with all enrlled prducers. This CCA was chsen t participate in FPC recmmendatin meetings because he had been the Bentn Cunty SWCD District Technician fr a number f years and was knwn and trusted by prducers in the cunty. Indian Creek Indian Creek watershed is lcated in Livingstn Cunty in central Illinis. Since 2010, the lcal SWCD has been active in prmting cnservatin effrts thrughut the watershed as part f an MRBI and Sectin 319 funded prject. Over 50% f the farmed acreage in the watershed is currently in sme frm f cnservatin thrugh enrllment in Farm Bill prgrams such as EQIP and CSP. The prject s steering cmmittee made up f lcal prducers and CCAs has been in place since Until his recent retirement, which cincided with the data release meeting fr the current Fieldprinting prject, the Livingstn Cunty SWCD Ag Resurce Crdinatr led the steering cmmittee. His cntributins have prved t be a driving frce fr cnservatin awareness and adptin in Indian Creek. Purdue University, Fieldprint Calculatr Prject Scial Science Reprt 3

6 This senir SWCD staff member, alng with his sn-t-be replacement, prvided technical assistance t the participating prducers when entering their data int the Fieldprint Calculatr. Instead f the prducers directly entering the required infrmatin int the nline tl, the senir SWCD staff member prvided wrksheets, designed by CTIC, fr prducers t cmplete n their wn time. The tw SWCD staff members then entered the written infrmatin int the FPC and cntacted prducers if there were questins abut the data being entered. In ttal, 18 prducers enrlled in the FPC prject, including the senir SWCD staff member. After all participating prducers were enrlled in the Calculatr, the senir SWCD staff member scheduled meetings with prducers and CCAs. Prducers were given three ptins when chsing a CCA with whm t discuss cnservatin imprvements based n their FPC results. The CCAs were chsen because f their existing relatinships with participating prducers. All participating prducers met with a CCA. Methds f Observatins Observatins ccurred in fur settings: Initial watershed meetings, FPC recmmendatin meetings, FPC data release meetings, and fcus grups that fllwed the data release meetings. CTIC rganized and led initial meetings in each watershed, held in March 2016, t intrduce the prject and the FPC as a tl fr imprving cnservatin. Due t the lack f cnservatin utreach in Big Pine Creek, the intrductry meeting in this watershed als included infrmatinal presentatins n cver crps. Tw NRSS researchers attended the meeting in Big Pine Creek and ne NRSS researcher attended the meeting in Indian Creek. NRSS researchers prepared a ne-page, tw-sided questinnaire that assessed attendees awareness and understanding f the FPC befre and after the meeting. CTIC distributed the questinnaires tward the end f the meeting and NRSS researchers cllected the cmpleted sheets at the cnclusin f the meeting. NRSS researchers analyzed the descriptive statistics, identified themes in qualitative respnses, and met t discuss their ntes frm the initial meetings (see Appendix B fr these results). In ttal, 17 FPC recmmendatin meetings were bserved thrughut the mnth f July. All but ne f the 17 bserved meetings were attended by the same NRSS researcher. Five meetings were bserved in Indian Creek at three separate lcatins (1 farm and 2 CCA ffices), and 12 meetings were bserved in Big Pine Creek (Bentn Cunty SWCD ffice and the Bentn Cunty Fairgrunds). All meeting lcatins, dates, and times were crdinated by SWCD prject staff. These meetings incrprated aspects f participant bservatin, where the researcher recrded bservatins between SWCD staff, the CCAs, and the prducers. At times, the researcher was brught int the cnversatin and als asked questins by meeting participants. The meetings in Big Pine Creek lasted apprximately 15 t 30 minutes, entailing FPC discussins and recmmendatins, general cnversatin, and sme researcher-led questins regarding prs and cns f the FPC. Indian Creek meetings lasted abut ne hur; cnservatin recmmendatins accunted fr less than half that time with researcher-led discussins abut the prs and cns f the FPC and general cnversatin making up the remaining time. Extensive field ntes were taken during these meetings, including sme qutatins. These ntes were later analyzed fr key themes. Themes were discussed by tw researchers wh cnducted the bservatins and checked fr cnsistency. The same tw researchers wh bserved the FPC recmmendatin meetings attended the FPC data release meetings in bth watersheds. These meetings were rganized by CTIC and were fllwed by fcus grups led by the NRSS researchers. Participating prducers were invited t the meetings t view aggregated data frm their watersheds. Prducers wh attended the meetings were als able t cmpare their individual results t ther participating prducers in their watershed and t state and natinal averages. The meeting in Big Pine Creek included an additinal presentatin n cver crps. After the presentatins, the researcher wh cnducted virtually all the bservatins led a fcus grup f prducers. CTIC and SWCD and nn-prducer attendees were asked t leave during the fcus grup t allw the prducers maximum freedm t critique the FPC and the prject. CTIC and SWCD staff remained in attendance during the Indian Creek fcus grup. We allwed this because the verall feeling in the rm was ne f inclusivity, where the prducers had already begun t express their thughts and pinins. We felt that by asking staff t leave, the md wuld have shifted t smething less pen and mre guarded. We believe the verall relaxed feel Purdue University, Fieldprint Calculatr Prject Scial Science Reprt 4

7 f this meeting was due t the prducers in attendance being very familiar with CTIC and SWCD staff because f the relatinships that had been built thrughut the previus 6-year prject. Because they remained in the rm, CTIC and SWCD staff were able t answer questins and prvide insights during this watershed s fcus grup. Ntes frm bth fcus grups and data release meetings were recrded by ne researcher and were crrelated with key themes frm the prducer-cca-swcd meetings by bth researchers. Results Initial Meetings Excluding CTIC staff, presenters, and NRSS researchers, 39 ttal peple (20 prducers, 4 ag prfessinals, 8 NRCS/SWCD staff members, 1 TNC staff member, 6 Others ) attended the intrductry meeting in Big Pine Creek and 20 peple (11 prducers, 2 SWCD, and 4 crp advisrs, 3 Others ) attended the Indian Creek meeting. Based n feedback gathered frm the questinnaires, the general sense frm bth watersheds after the initial meetings was that thse wh attended the meeting were largely unfamiliar with the FPC. Althugh respndents reprted slight increases in understanding the basic purpse f the tl, many did nt reprt a strng increase in understanding f hw t enter the required data and hw t interpret the results. Qualitative data frm the questinnaires further explains the lack f increased understanding: Written respnses demnstrated that sme respndents thught the tl culd be f sme value t my peratin, (Big Pine Creek) but that they need t be able t try it ut t get an impressin (Indian Creek). The verall tne f written respnses demnstrated guarded ptimism, with respndents expressing that the tl seemed useful based n presentatins at the meetings, but that hands-n experience with the FPC wuld be the true measure f the tl s usefulness. FPC recmmendatin meetings Overall, the meetings in bth watersheds were run in the same manner: The SWCD staff persn cnducted an verview f the FPC and the prducers results, fllwed by specific recmmendatins by the CCA. There was sme back and frth with recmmendatins between SWCD staff and CCAs in bth watersheds. Hwever, the senir SWCD staff member in Indian Creek prvided mre detailed recmmendatins than the new staff member in Big Pine Creek. This was mst likely because the SWCD staff persn in Indian Creek was mre knwledgeable f apprpriate cnservatin practices due t persnal experiences as a prducer and his lng tenure as Ag Resurce Crdinatr fr the district. Big Pine Creek The same SWCD staff member and CCA were present at every bserved meeting (n=12). The SWCD staff member and CCA wrked well as a team. The SWCD staff member was the newly hired Resurce Cnservatin Specialist fr the district. The CCA had previusly served as the Bentn Cunty SWCD District Technician, but currently wrks as an extensin educatr in additin t being a CCA. The SWCD staff member began every meeting by walking the prducer thrugh their FPC results and giving general recmmendatins. The SWCD staff member had advised participating prducers t enter either their best r their wrst field. Recmmendatins tended t fcus n trips acrss the field, hauling grain, and pest management (scuting befre spraying). As cnversatins were cming t a clse in each meeting, the SWCD staff member gave prducers advice n cst-share pprtunities based n the recmmendatins that were discussed. She als gave each prducer a cpy f their FPC results. These results were printed in clr which made fr easy cmparisns t state and natinal averages. The SWCD staff member said it was difficult t recruit the required amunt f participants fr this prject because the prducers said many rganizatins were asking fr their n-farm data. The quta was eventually reached, but prducers were financially cmpensated fr participating ($50 per prducer). CCA Perspectives, Big Pine Creek The CCA had nt seen the individual prducers Calculatr results prir t the meetings, but it was clear he had dne his wn research n the FPC. His fcus tended t be n greenhuse gas emissin scres. In cntrast t Indian Creek, Purdue University, Fieldprint Calculatr Prject Scial Science Reprt 5

8 the CCA in Big Pine Creek discussed climate change as a real and cncerning phenmenn that shuld be addressed. At almst every meeting, the CCA discussed NO 2 emissins resulting frm excess nitrgen applicatin when field cnditins are especially wet. The CCA recmmended tile-drainage as a slutin, althugh he als advcated fr capturing runff in sme way s that the water culd filter int the sil (he said it helps with the sil health scres). In general, the CCA said he thught the tl was useful because it neatly summarizes data all in ne place, but he remains curius abut the metrics and hw t reduce the scres fr ne index withut increasing scres fr anther index (e.g., recmmending split applicatin f nitrgen fertilizer will imprve a prducer s water quality scre, but increases trips acrss the field thereby wrsening the prducer s greenhuse gas emissin scre). SWCD Perspectives, Big Pine Creek The SWCD staff member said her apprach t the prject was t first acknwledge t the participating prducers that she recgnizes everyne is trying t feed their family, meaning her gal was t tie cnservatin t ecnmics. Thugh new t her psitin, the SWCD staff member understd that prducers wuld nly be willing t participate in a prgram r implement a cnservatin practice if ding s made financial sense. She said that being new, participating in the prject and assisting prducers with the FPC prcess granted her the pprtunity t meet prducers and better understand hw their peratins functin, including their farming gals. Her wn gal with the prject was that she hped that after using the FPC, prducers wuld stp and think fr a little bit while they re ut wrking, e.g., I culd save mney if I... and fill in the blank with smething they learned frm meeting with her and the CCA. Prducer Perspectives, Big Pine Creek Althugh there was nt time during the recmmendatin meetings in Big Pine Creek t ask each prducer abut their experience with, and pinins f, the FPC, we fund that in general prducers were interested (and smetimes surprised) by their FPC scres. The FPC recmmendatin meetings fstered sme discussin abut the give and take between different practices impacts n the sustainability indices (e.g., GHG emissins and water quality). Mrever, a few prducers tld us that the FPC utput raised their awareness abut their envirnmental impacts and enabled them t have a big picture view f their farms. A few prducers als expressed interest in seeing their FPC averages ver multiple years. Big Pine Creek Key Pints We fund that there was sme hesitatin in this watershed, t push recmmendatins t the prducers. The reluctance t make utright recmmendatins is evidenced by passive cmments such as: Yu might want t try ; the seed cmpanies recmmend ; and I ve seen ther guys use less than the recmmended fertilizer rates and get gd yield. The SWCD staff member said she tk a keeping up with the Jnes apprach and tk care t relate FPC results and recmmendatins with ecnmics. This fcus may have cntributed t the hesitancy t make strng cnservatin recmmendatins, pssibly resulting in mre generic cnservatin discussins that revlved arund cmmnly recmmended practices that can be applicable t mst farming peratins (e.g., as nutrient management, tile-drainage, and cver crps). Accrding t the SWCD staff member and prducers themselves, prducers called the FPC a platfrm fr data mining, which hints at sme distrust tward the tl amng prducers. Overall, the SWCD staff member said prducers were willing t prvide their data, but were initially hesitant t d s and remained wary f hw and by whm their infrmatin wuld be used. Ttal Managed Acres was added t the FPC after this Fieldprinting prject had already begun. The SWCD staff member said prducers acted very uncmfrtable with this metric. She thinks this is because the questin is t similar t asking a prducer hw much mney they are making. Because prducers believed this questin t be t invasive, the SWCD staff member believes prducers may nt have accurately entered their acres. She als said that prducers were unsure hw t classify thse acres, e.g., des it include acres Purdue University, Fieldprint Calculatr Prject Scial Science Reprt 6

9 that they custm farm? The SWCD staff member said she described Ttal Managed Acres t prducers as all the acres ver which they have decisin-making pwer. Large-scale prducers (e.g., ver 10,000 managed acres) in the watershed did nt participate in the prject. The SWCD staff member says these prducers will participate in cnservatin prgrams such as CRP, but will nt implement practices such as cver crps. She is unsure abut hw t engage what she termed mnply prducers with cnservatin, saying discussin abut sustainability and thinking abut the land in the lngterm are nt engaging subjects fr these large-scale prducers. The watershed s mre prgressive prducers were als the nes wh enrlled in the FPC prgram. The SWCD staff member hpes that by participating in the prgram, these prducers will stp t cntemplate their experience with the FPC and their cnversatins with the CCA, perhaps then shifting their farm management practices t incrprate the recmmendatins Indian Creek The senir SWCD staff member attended all bserved meetings (n=5), and his replacement attended tw. The CCA in attendance rtated between three CCAs, depending n the prducer s preference. The SWCD staff member asked participants t enter a field that was typical f their peratin because it was generally agreed upn that prducers in the area managed each f their fields with the same/similar practices. Even fr prducers with lw FPC scres (indicating the prducer is perfrming very well in terms f cnservatin), the SWCD staff member and the CCAs recmmended methds fr the prducers t advance their cnservatin effrts (referred t in the meetings as tweaking their farm management practices). There was als mre discussin in Indian Creek than in Big Pine Creek abut using the FPC as a tl t demnstrate hw different practices affect the different scres fr the varius envirnmental indices. The utging SWCD staff member in Indian Creek prvided every prducer with their FPC results, but unlike Big Pine Creek, did nt ensure that the prducers als tk the results with them when they left. In additin, the FPC results were nt printed in clr, which made it mre difficult t cmpare scres t state and natinal averages. While the staff in Indian Creek did nt have difficulty enrlling the requisite number f prducers int the prject, the watershed was cnfrnted with a unique FPC issue: Three f the participating prducers had previusly entered their field infrmatin int the FPC thrugh their lcal GROWMARK cperative. Wanting t participate in the watershed Fieldprinting prject, these three prducer sught t enter three different fields (fields ther than the nes entered fr their c-p), but the FPC wuld nt allw the SWCD staff member int the system because GROWMARK was the wner f the prducers data. The prducers infrmatin was linked t their and their data culd nt be shared due t cnfidentiality established thrugh GROWMARK s Fieldprinting prject. The dwnside meant that the data fr these prducers fields was unusable fr the current prject. SWCD Perspectives, Indian Creek The incming SWCD staff member presented infrmatin related t the Calculatr with mre enthusiasm than the established staff member. The utging SWCD staff member engaged with the FPC with skepticism and expressed t the NRSS researcher that he thught the tl was generally a waste f time. NRSS researchers are nt cnvinced that the infrmatin entered int the FPC was as accurate as it culd have been. Fr example, the utging SWCD staff member entered all participating prducers int the Calculatr as basic fr pest management. It turns ut that he culd have entered scuting fr sme f the prducers, but did nt. The different ptins affect the prducers final water quality scre. CCA Perspectives, Indian Creek Nne f the CCAs had seen the individual prducers FPC utput prir t the meetings. One CCA in Indian Creek had prir experience with the FPC because their cmpany is currently using it in sme capacity. The CCAs were fairly quick t understand which practices t recmmend fr each FPC metric. Recmmendatins generally revlved arund nutrient management strategies including incrprating stabilizers, intrducing minimal r n-till techniques, ensuring Purdue University, Fieldprint Calculatr Prject Scial Science Reprt 7

10 pest scuting prir t spraying, and implementing cver crps. Reactins t the FPC varied frm thinking that the tl is gd fr building awareness f a farm s envirnmental impacts (especially fr thse implementing less cnservatin), that the FPC is a gd tl t build public awareness f farmers cnservatin effrts, and that the tl is a waste f time as a prducer s CCA can prvide the same whle-farm perspective withut the FPC prcess. Prducer Perspectives, Indian Creek Because prducers in Indian Creek were well-versed in cnservatin practices, the researcher had mre time t inquire abut the FPC prcess. In general, prducers thught that the FPC had the ptential t be a useful benchmarking tl. Fr example, sme prducers wanted t see hw ne field perfrmed ver time, e.g. ver tw years with crn and sy crp rtatin. A similar desire was that sme prducers thught it wuld be useful fr the Calculatr t cmpute averages fr each field ver time. Prducers als advcated fr an ecnmic cmpnent t be added t the FPC t increase its utility t prducers. Overall, it was agreed that the FPC als has the ptential t educate the public abut cnservatin effrts taking place in the watershed, which wuld ultimately have a psitive envirnmental impact. Ntably, because the prducers in Indian Creek had been invlved in a 6-year watershed cnservatin prject, the FPC results (and recmmendatins that fllwed) were nt surprising t the prducers. Indian Creek Key Pints Many f the prducers in the Indian Creek watershed have been invlved in a watershed cnservatin prject since 2010 and therefre, verall, were used t thinking abut and discussing cnservatin practices. Being asked t participate in the Fieldprinting prject did nt appear t be a burdensme request perhaps due t the cnservatin culture f the watershed. Therefre it was nt difficult t find prducers wh were willing t participate in the prject. SWCD staff utilized CTIC develped wrksheets fr FPC data input. Prducers filled ut the wrksheets with field data n their wn time, rather than meeting with SWCD t enter field infrmatin directly int the FPC. This prcess demnstrates the level f trust between SWCD and prducers in this watershed built thrugh lng-term relatinships and a mutual understanding f the verall intent f the prject and cnservatin in general. Als due t the 6-year Indian Creek watershed prject, thrugh which plt demnstratin data was presented n a twice yearly basis, prducers wh participated in the FPC prject already had a general understanding f hw sustainable their farms were cmpared t thers. Therefre, the FPC as an awareness tl was nt as prnunced in this watershed as it was in Big Pine Creek. There was sme struggle t see value f the FPC t watershed prducers and CCAs. Perhaps because many f the prducers were already enrlled in Farm Bill prgrams, they were already tracking the data used t input int the FPC. Therefre the tl was ften seen as redundant and a waste f time. Hwever, ptential value in the tl was seen with future updates that wuld allw fr multiple fields t be entered ver multiple years. Mrever, the ptential capacity f the tl as a public educatin tl was seen as ne f its primary benefits. Fieldprint Calculatr Data Release Meetings Cnversatins with the SWCD staff leading the Fieldprinting prjects in their respective watersheds indicated that the staff members were nt expecting all f the participating prducers t attend the final meetings. In Big Pine Creek, the SWCD staff member perceived participants felt verburdened by the amunt f meetings they were required t attend fr the prject. In Indian Creek, the utging SWCD staff member believed participants were as unimpressed with the FPC as he was and therefre did nt expect many prducers t attend the meeting. His lw expectatins were met when nly six f the 18 ttal participants shwed up; all six were members f the watershed s steering cmmittee, including the utging SWCD staff member. Big Pine Creek fared slightly better with 10 ut f 19 ttal participants in attendance at the final meeting. Purdue University, Fieldprint Calculatr Prject Scial Science Reprt 8

11 Despite lw attendance, the meetings went well as prducers wh chse t attend appeared interested in seeing hw their FPC results cmpared t ther participants and t state and natinal averages. Befre the meetings began, prducers were given flders with infrmatin relating t the prject. The flders als cntained each prducer s unique, secret identifier (CTIC) cde that allwed the data t be presented cnfidentially t the grup. CTIC presented data fr each FPC index. The meeting in Big Pine Creek als featured tw presentatins, ne n cver crps presented by a lcal cver crp seed retailer and ne n cnservatin in general presented by the CCA wh met with the participating prducers. The SWCD staff member in Big Pine Creek spke briefly at the end f the meeting, thanking the prducers fr their attendance and invlvement with prject. She als encuraged them t cme int the ffice t discuss cst-share pprtunities fr cnservatin practices. Special SWCD camp chairs were given t attendees as thank yu gifts fr participating in the prject in Big Pine Creek. Thrughut bth meetings, nly a few prducers asked questins during the presentatins. N questins were asked at the cnclusin f the meeting in Big Pine Creek. Pssibly because the meeting in Indian Creek was significantly shrter and because the prducers had a mre established relatinship with CTIC and the SWCD, there was an extended questin and answer sessin at the end f the meeting in Indian Creek. Questins during this time fcused n whether their FPC data might be shared with utside rganizatins, as well as the accuracy f hw the tl calculates its metrics. These cncerns, as well as ther issues, were present in the fcus grups in bth watersheds. Fcus Grups Six ut f the ten prducers in attendance at the meeting in Big Pine Creek remained fr the fcus grup. Sme f these participants were n the steering cmmittee. All f the prducers in attendance at the meeting in Indian Creek stayed fr the fcus grup. Bth grups tended t discuss issues that were mentined in the bserved FPC recmmendatin meeting. Such similarities between watersheds bserved thrugh different data cllectin methds (bservatins and fcus grups) prvides further assurance that the experiences we reprt here are cmmn amngst FPC participants in bth Big Pine Creek and Indian Creek watersheds. Big Pine Creek Key Pints Participants think the FPC is mre beneficial t cmpanies, rather than individual prducers. One participant stated, They re analyzing us fr their benefit. We bserved that the participants were uncnvinced that the FPC is a tl targeted fr the prducers benefit and were adamant that the FPC is fr crprate gains. Althugh they were skeptical if it culd be dne, the participants suggested fine-tuning the FPC s that it wuld mre accurately capture what prducers are actually ding n their fields. Specific suggestins were that the FPC shuld: Accunt fr differences between GMO and nn-gmo seeds. Clarify strage ptins. Sme participants were cncerned that the tl des nt accunt fr n-farm strage f grain after harvest. Increase ptins fr tillage. As part f the FPC utput, cmpare a prducer s FPC scres with thers in a peer grup based n ttal managed acres. In additin t mre accurate input data, participants wanted t have mre transparency with hw Field t Market calculates final scres. Participants were cncerned abut the representatin f their watershed because the largest farmers did nt participate in the Fieldprinting prject. Participants agreed that the prducers wh enrlled in the FPC were mst likely the mre cnservatin-minded prducers in the watershed and that the largest prducers were cmpletely disinterested in cnservatin effrts. Participants wrried that if data frm this prject was Purdue University, Fieldprint Calculatr Prject Scial Science Reprt 9

12 presented as representative f the Big Pine Creek watershed, that the large, nn-participating prducers wuld be able t say their peratins were perfrming well by assciatin. Participants want slutins fr hw t recruit mre prducers, especially thse wh are nt cnservatinminded and wh run large-scale peratins, t participate in cnservatin prjects, prgrams, and practices. There was much discussin abut hw the participants felt cnsumers are un- r misinfrmed when it cmes t agriculture. Using the FPC fr psitive marketing f agriculture t a public that seems uneducated abut what really ges n during crp and livestck prductin was a perceived benefit f the tl. Participants agreed that it was smewhat beneficial t see their results and t see if their scres were lwer than thers r lwer than state r natinal averages. Hwever, the participants acknwledged that fr mre accurate scres, they wuld like t see an average ver time. When asked, they unenthusiastically said and ndded that they wuld be willing t enter their infrmatin again. When asked if participants wuld be willing t implement mre cnservatin after the FPC experience, the respnse was generally that they were pen t imprvements, but actual implementatin depends n ecnmic feasibility. Participants als cited relatinships with landlrds and cash-rent situatins as ptential issues fr imprving cnservatin. Participants were tld abut the Sustainable Sy Fieldprinting prgram in Iwa and were asked if a 10-cent premium per bushel wuld incentivize further participatin in Fieldprinting prjects. Their respnse was tepid. Sme prducers agreed such a premium was a gd start, but that the rate wuld need t be higher. Other prducers said a premium was nt wrth the wealth f infrmatin given. The term marketing ply and ther similar phrases were used t describe such prgrams. Participants said that the data entry meetings went well. The SWCD staff member helped prepare the participants befre they met with her t enter their data int the FPC by telling them what infrmatin they needed t bring. There was sme cncern ver whether r nt CTIC culd sell the participants data and whether r nt cmpanies like Cca-Cla wuld have access t their data. Ultimately, the participants were mst cncerned with prtecting their prfit and preventing regulatin. Indian Creek Key Pints Participants were unclear abut wh r what Field t Market is and what the rganizatin s gals are. All participants agreed that the prcess f filling ut the wrksheet t give t the SWCD staff member was fairly painless. The cnsensus was that bth the utging and incming SWCD staff members were very helpful with data entry. One prducer summarized the SWCD s helpfulness with data entry, I wuld have struggled withut [SWCD staff members]. When asked if the prcess was at all frustrating, participants agreed that the mst frustrating part f the FPC experience is taking the next step t figure ut hw t make the tl useful t prducers. Participants agreed that the FPC was useful in the sense that the prcess and the utput raise awareness abut certain management-related impacts n natural resurces. One participant said f prducers in general, Mst f us are hard-wired t keep ging with a business-as-usual type f apprach t management and went n t say that tls like the FPC are beneficial because they can help prducers think a little mre critically abut their management decisins. Purdue University, Fieldprint Calculatr Prject Scial Science Reprt 10

13 FPC results culd be imprved: Participants preferred seeing the bar graphs at the data release meetings mre s than their individual spider graphs. On his reactin t the spider graph, ne prducer said What is this? I mean really, it s nt simple. Anther participant said, We re mre accustmed t seeing bar graphs. Sme prducers were als dissatisfied with applicability f sme f the measurement scales, such as BTUs, stating that they never think in terms f BTUs. Participants appreciated the descriptins f the Fieldprint Calculatr s indices as presented by CTIC at the data release meeting. Participants agreed that such descriptins wuld have been very useful at the start f the prject and when they were entering their data. Uncertainty abut hw the state and natinal averages were calculated led prducers t express skepticism ver the accuracy f the averages. Prducers called fr transparency n hw the Fieldprint Calculatr cmputes its scres. Prducers were skeptical abut the accuracy f the calculatins, especially because they felt the Calculatr did nt prvide enugh management ptins t truly evaluate the perfrmance f a given field (e.g., tillage ptins included nly tw ptins). A prducer stated that it is almst an impssible task t put a scientific number [sustainability scre] n smething [farming] with s many natural variables. When asked if they wuld be willing t use the FPC again, prducers reluctantly agreed that they wuld be willing, especially because f the cmmn sentiment that it desn t have much value unless yu track it ver time. Sme participants said they wuld appreciate remving redundancy frm the data entry prcess, e.g., streamline the inputs frm precisin agriculture devices and ther tls that are already recrding data. When asked if they thught the FPC wuld be helpful as a public relatins tl, participants ndded. One participant said it wuld be beneficial t shw we care, shw we re trying t d smething. As in Big Pine Creek, a participant acknwledged that cnservatin and changing management strategies des nt cme withut cst, Everybdy here is a fr-prfit rganizatin. We want t d the right thing, but we are fr-prfit. Participants were cncerned abut hw t reach ut t prducers wh have nt implemented cnservatin practices. The utging SWCD staff member said he thinks the FPC culd help t shw the less engaged prducers that cnservatin practices and management strategies are wrth smething. While he recgnized that prducers wuld nt change hw they manage their peratins vernight, the SWCD staff member said at least thse prducers might think abut their ptins differently. Differences and similarities between watersheds In bth watersheds, it was clear that cnservatin-riented prducers signed up t participate in the FPC prject. Participants in bth watersheds thught the FPC wuld be mre beneficial fr prducers wh are nt already perfrming well in terms f cnservatin. In bth watersheds, it is a challenge t successfully recruit such farmers int cnservatin and Fieldprinting prjects. The prducers FPC scres generally indicated lw envirnmental impacts in bth watersheds, and almst always belw the state and natinal averages. Whereas the advisrs in Big Pine Creek used language meant nt t ffended r push the prducers, advisrs in Indian Creek cnsistently recmmended next-step appraches t fine-tune prducers farm management practices, even t thse with lw scres (i.e., gd). Because f his extensive experience with prducers in the watershed, the utging SWCD staff member in Indian Creek als gave recmmendatins fr the management f crn if the field was entered int the FPC as sy (and vice versa). Overall, in bth watersheds, the advice given t prducers was within the realm f their Purdue University, Fieldprint Calculatr Prject Scial Science Reprt 11

14 current management practices rather than anything that might affect the prducers prfit (e.g., adding a third crp rtatin). Key, and cmmn, practice recmmendatins included increased pest scuting, crp rtatin, nitrgen management (split applicatin, nitrgen stabilizers), and cver crps. The CCA in the Big Pine Creek watershed spke mre abut GHGs than the CCAs in Indian Creek. In particular, NO 2 emissins (due t the reactin f nitrgen with wet fields) were discussed at almst every bserved meeting in Big Pine Creek. Slutins included tile-drainage as well as discussins f practices that culd filter water back int the grund prir t running int the creek. One CCA was used fr the FPC recmmendatin meetings in Big Pine Creek, whereas three were used in Indian Creek. The prducers in Big Pine Creek seemed cmfrtable with the CCA, as they had knwn him fr many years thrugh his rle as SWCD District Technician. Fr the mst part in Indian Creek, the CCAs had advised the prducers in the past. Observing this meeting thrugh the eyes f this prducer-cca relatinship was the riginal intent f the research. Thrugh ur bservatins, we did nt bserve a nticeable difference in what was discussed and hw, which indicates hw strngly rted farm management practices are within the current agriculture system as fr-prfit businesses. Participants in bth watersheds agreed that the tl needs t be mre user-friendly and is in need f several imprvements t becme mre useful t prducers. Overall Recmmendatins Based n ur bservatins f participating prducers, CCAs, and SWCD staff members and their experiences with Field t Market s Fieldprint Calculatr, we prvide the fllwing recmmendatins fr the tl itself and the prcess fr using the Calculatr. Fieldprint Calculatr as a Tl There is verall frustratin abut what metrics and calculatins are utilized by Field t Market when generating the FPC scres. Nt understanding the calculatin prcess increased cnfusin abut the meaning and validity f the Calculatr s utput. Mre clarity surrunding the Fieldprint Calculatr s input metrics and calculatins wuld increase the transparency f the tl and, in turn, might increase trust, acceptance, and use f FPC utputs. This desire fr transparency is true als fr the state and natinal averages. As we nted previusly, such uncertainty abut FPC scres at every scale led t skepticism ver data accuracy, which ultimately will affect prducers willingness t participate in this and ther sustainability prgrams. There was sme cnfusin as t whether lw scres meant lwer envirnmental impact fr all metrics. Fr example, high Water Quality scres translated t lwer water impacts, whereas mst (if nt all) ther metrics utilized lw scres t indicate lw envirnmental impact. It was nt clear whether that high Water Quality scre was then translated t a smaller visualizatin n the FPC spidergraph utput. Data input selectins fr the fllwing practices must be refined in rder t accurately represent hw prducers actually manage their farms: Scuting Tillage Fertilizer rates and types Nutrient management Results frm sil testing Purdue University, Fieldprint Calculatr Prject Scial Science Reprt 12

15 Incrprating different utput visualizatins shuld be cnsidered (e.g., bar graphs). The spider graph is difficult fr mst participants t understand. In terms f the spider graph, althugh it gives a gd hlistic view f a field, a cncise explanatin f the graph and the indices shuld be included as part f the graph and data input prcess. Mrever, in rder t increase the perceived usefulness f the FPC, the tl shuld incrprate lng-term field-by-field averages. There appears t be sme tradeffs between GHG emissins and water quality with what is being recmmended fr each f thse. Fr example, by applying nitrgen mre than nce (when the crn needs it), mre trips acrss the field are required, which increases GHG emissins, but imprves water quality. Likewise, tile-drainage fr wet fields culd be recmmended in rder t reduce GHG emissin scres, but such tiling can decrease water quality scres. CCAs r thers wh are making recmmendatins shuld be prepared t discuss the csts and benefits f the different tradeffs. We fund that there was a general sentiment amngst prducers and advisrs in bth watersheds that the FPC culd be utilized as a tl t build awareness fr the prducers and the public. If this is a desirable utcme, the utility f the educatinal utility f this tl shuld be explred thrugh research in bth cntexts. Fieldprint Calculatr as a Prcess An effrt shuld be made t guide which field prducers enter int the Fieldprint Calculatr. Sme prducers may want t see their best field, while thers may want t see their wrst r mst typical. As a prducer-fcused cntinuus imprvement tl, we agree that this autnmy in field chice shuld be fstered. Hwever, this becmes prblematic if a prject s aggregated FPC data is used as a snapsht fr prtraying average perfrmance within a watershed. This selectin bias culd als ptentially skew the state and natinal averages. Prducers expressed skepticism in the meaning behind the aggregate scres, especially when cnservatin farmers participate by entering their data and large-scale farming peratins (e.g., 10,000 + acres) d nt. This feeds int a general unease abut hw Field t Market and its partners might use the FPC utput, with sme participants wanting a legal caveat included that the aggregate data is specific t a particular watershed entered by cnservatin farmers. It is imprtant t cnsider the SWCD staff and CCA attitudes tward the Fieldprint Calculatr. It is pssible that their psitive r negative attitudes tward the tl will be cnveyed in sme part t the prducers. Negative attitudes, fr example, culd then influence prducers willingness t use the tl and discurage pen-mindedness regarding the ptential benefits f the tl, including practice recmmendatins. Cntinue, and cnsider increasing, pprtunities fr frmalized training fr bth SWCD staff and CCAs in rder t ensure their understanding f the FPC metrics and spider graph utput; perhaps als including a call center ptin if help understanding the FPC is needed during the data entry prcess. The Land Use Efficiency metric, fr example, was nt well understd and thus the advisrs were nt able t discuss it with any meaning, perhaps even misinfrming prducers with what the index was measuring. Cntinue t encurage SWCD staff t help prducers prepare in advance the type f infrmatin they will need t enter int the Fieldprint Calculatr. This reduces frustratin and decreases time dedicated t data entry. Encurage and facilitate prducer experimentatin with different management scenaris in the Fieldprint Calculatr. Sme prducers were interested in utilizing the FPC t enter different management ptins in rder t see hw different scenaris affect their scres. Cnsider prmting this unique aspect f the tl. Purdue University, Fieldprint Calculatr Prject Scial Science Reprt 13

16 Interested prducers can create different scenaris n their wn time if they are cmfrtable with the interface r they can schedule a meeting with SWCD staff t input data scenaris tgether. When interpreting FPC results, cnsider explaining hw the field data inputs relate t the FPC scres fr each f the seven sustainability indices, utilizing the numbered metrics included n the secnd page f the FPC utput. We bserved that ne f the mst effective ways f running the FPC meeting was leading prducers thrugh the detailed numbers utlined as part f the FPC utput. Explanatins f what factrs went int the calculatins f scres fr energy use, water quality, and pesticides were particularly effective. Althugh there was sme cnsternatin as t hw each metric was calculated (e.g., what utside data was used in FPC frmulas), SWCD staff in bth watersheds were able t guide prducers thrugh mst f the FPC metrics and relate the FPC utput t the riginal data entered. In this way, prducers were able t understand hw their field inputs equated t each measure. A similar apprach shuld be cnsidered in future FPC recmmendatin/interpretatin meetings. There was mst likely t much time between the first meeting where the prducer entered their data int the FPC and the secnd meeting where the results were discussed. Future prjects shuld aim t hld these meetings much clser tgether in time. Discussing results and prviding recmmendatins might be mst impactful if such cnversatins ccurred immediately after data entry and creatin f the utput. Create a dcument fr SWCD and CCAs that lists practice recmmendatins fr imprving each f the seven sustainability indices. Such a dcument can help clarify which practices have an impact n which resurces. This dcument can als help t ensure that CCAs cver all f the Fieldprint Calculatr s envirnmental criteria instead f nly discussing the CCAs areas f interest (e.g., a CCA might be a fertilizer dealer whse recmmendatins fcus slely n nutrient management). SWCD and CCAs shuld be sure t ask prducers what their cncerns and pririties fr their farm are. When discussing FPC results, advisrs shuld address the prducers stated interests. CCAs shuld have an pprtunity t view a prducer s FPC results prir t meeting with a prducer. This allws the CCA t have mre time t prepare persnalized recmmendatins t prducers. Cnsider using the FPC as a tl fr Extensin educatrs. One f the mst valuable parts f the FPC prcess frm the perspective f the prducer, is that the tl raises their level f awareness regarding the envirnmental impacts f their peratins. Perhaps the prducers will see the greatest utility frm the FPC if it is used as an educatinal tl fr Extensin utreach. Acknwledgments Thank yu t Jackie M. Getsn fr GIS supprt, and Dr. Brian Bulla fr meeting bservatin assistance. Purdue University, Fieldprint Calculatr Prject Scial Science Reprt 14