Grazing School Survey Results
Jim Gerrish
Introduction: The Management-intensive Grazing (MiG) workshop program began
at FSRC in 1990. The program has been a highly successful cooperative effort
of the Agricultural Experiment Station, University Extension, Natural
Resource Conservation Service, Green Hills Farm Project, and the Missouri
Forage and Grassland Council. In 4 of the 7 years of the program, there have
been 3 workshops held annually and 4 workshops in the remaining 3 years. The
workshops have been open to both private individuals and public agency
employees, as well as to Missourians and non-Missourians.
In order to determine the effectiveness of the educational program on
producer and public agency employee's perception and acceptance of MiG, a
written survey of all Missouri residents attending the workshops from 1990
through 1995 was conducted.
This survey project was funded through a grant from the Missouri Soil
and Water Conservation Districts Commission. The 2-day regional grazing
schools taught across the state are an outgrowth of the FSRC grazing schools.
Attendance at one of these schools is a prerequisite for participation in
some SWCD costshare programs.
Demographics of workshop attendees: A total of 1214 attendees have come
from 33 states, including Missouri, and 6 foreign countries. In addition to
the 3-day producer oriented workshops, 331 University Extension, NRCS, SWCD,
MODNR, and MDC employees have attended 2 or 3 day in-service education (ISE)
sessions at FSRC. While some agency employees have also attended a 3-day
producer workshop, others have attended only an ISE session. Only agency
employees who attended a 3-day producer oriented workshop were included in
the survey project.
The gender breakdown of workshop attendees has very consistently held at
80 to 85% male and 15 to 20% female. The female attendees very consistently
follow the same producer:agency ratio of 2:1. Age data was collected only in
1992 and 1993. At that time the average age for producers attending the
workshops was 41 which is well below the average age of farmers in Missouri
and surrounding states.
The following data is specific to Missouri producers and does not
include any non-Missouri producers. Over 40% of the producers have been in
the livestock business longer than 20 years, dispelling the myth that only
neophytes show any interest in MiG. Over 60% have been in business longer
than 10 years, while fewer than 20% have been in business less than 5 years.
The vast majority of producers attending workshops are primarily beef
producers with only about 10% indicating dairy, sheep, or elk as primary
livestock operations. Approximately 60% of the operations are predominantly
cow-calf and 40% are predominantly stocker operations. About 35% of the
cow-calf operations indicate an average herd size of 21 to 50 cows, which
would represent the Missouri state average herd size. Another 35% fall in
the 51 to 100 cow range with the remaining 30% divided between <20-cow and
>100-cow herds.
Based on this information, we can conclude that the type of livestock
operation represented at grazing workshops would be typical of the Missouri
cattle industry. The age of operator, however, is significantly younger than
the average cattle producer.
Approach: Baseline information regarding participant's attitudes toward
grazing management concepts and issues was collected in 1992 and 1993. The
baseline information cannot be separated on the basis of Missouri versus
non-Missouri residents and, thus, will only correlate loosely with the 1995
survey. Participants were asked to fill out a survey prior to the beginning
of the workshop and then fill out the same survey after they had completed
the workshop. This allowed us to determine if and how perceptions and
attitudes had been changed over the 3-day course of the workshop.
In the pre-workshop surveys the term "Intensive Grazing Management"
(IGM) was used, as IGM was the in-vogue term for this basic approach to
grazing at the time. In the post-workshop surveys "Management-intensive
Grazing" was used as this was the concept promoted at the workshops. A good
part of the workshops emphasize the importance of intensifying management
rather than just grazing intensity.
A written survey form was sent to the 739 Missouri residents who had
attended grazing schools at FSRC during the 1990 through 1995 period.
Approximately 260 forms were returned in the designated time period and were
tabulated for this project. The overall return rate of the survey within the
response period was 35%. Of the returned surveys, 67% came from producers
and 33% from agency employees giving a near perfect reflection of the
producer:agency ratio actually attending the workshop.
Results: Of the producers surveyed in 1995, 88% indicated that they were
presently using or implementing MiG practices on their farms. In the
pre-workshop survey 52% indicated use of intensive grazing management (IGM)
practices while only 28% indicated on the post-workshop survey that they were
using MiG practices. This difference between pre- and post-workshop surveys
indicates that participants may have had misconceptions about what was really
involved in sound grazing management. On post-workshop surveys, 94% of the
producers indicated they planned to implement MiG. The 1995 survey suggests
that over 90% of the producers who attended a workshop and indicated an
intention to implement MiG, did in fact do so. About 75% of the agency
personnel who operate farms, indicated that they had implemented MiG in their
own operations.
Survey participants were presented with the following list of 12
pasture, livestock, and environmental parameters and were asked, "To what
degree do you perceive an impact on ...." and they were asked to indicate
level of benefit or detriment on a 5 point scale:
Livestock well-being Water quality
Economic benefits Wildlife population
Wildlife diversity Pasture diversity
Carrying capacity Forage quality
Legume persistence Grass persistence
Weed population Soil erosion
Producers indicated that the greatest positive impact from MiG had been
on forage quality, carrying capacity, and forage utilization. The least
perceived impact had been on weed control, wildlife diversity, and wildlife
population. For none of the parameters did more than 5% of the producers
report a detrimental effect. In the pre-workshop surveys, the perceived top
3 benefits to MiG were: increased economic benefit, improved forage quality,
and improved carrying capacity. In the post-workshop surveys, the order of
benefits were: economic benefit, carrying capacity, and forage quality.
Economic benefits ranked 6th on the list of benefits in the 1995 survey. If
reduced feed costs and increased profits are combined, economic benefit
becomes 4th on the list.
Responding to the same 12 parameters, agency personnel ranked improved
forage quality and carrying capacity at the top of the list, but placed
improved forage diversity as 3rd main benefit. Wildlife diversity, wildlife
population, and weed control were again identified as areas responding less
positively to MiG. Economic benefits slipped to 8th on the agency list.
Fescue and red clover were by far and away the most commonly used
forages on the respondent's farms. Fewer than 10% indicated significant
usage of native warm season grasses in their pastures. About 10% indicated
`mixed warm season grasses', but we are unsure what exactly their
interpretation means.
Constraints to implementing MiG: In the pre- and post-workshop surveys, as
well as the 1995 survey, both producers and agency employees were asked to
indicate whether they considered a number of different factors to be
constraints to implementing MiG. In the workshop surveys, 10 parameters were
listed while 20 were listed in the 1995 survey. Ranking of significance is
based on the percent of respondents indicating that a particular parameter
was a constraint to implementing MiG (Table 1).
In all three surveys, water availability was ranked as the number one
constraint for implementing MiG. The number of respondents considering water
availability a serious constraint has stayed about the same, while the number
not considering water to be a constraint has declined. Many fewer 1995
respondents considered the fence system to be a serious constraint than they
did when attending the workshops. However, over half of the 1995 respondents
still consider fencing to be somewhat of a constraint.
Similar trends exist for management expertise, labor requirements, and
operating capital. Fewer respondents consider these to be serious
constraints, but approximately half of the respondents still consider them to
be somewhat constraining, while an increasing number do not consider them to
be constraints.
As an interesting contrast, an increasing number of respondents
indicated that they did not consider forage species to be a constraint, while
at the same time an increasing number indicated that too much fescue was a
constraint. About the same percentage of respondents considered both forage
species and too much fescue to be serious constraints. It is quite likely
that these are the same individuals making these responses.
As a reflection of fairly broad applicability of MiG, type of livestock
operation and size of operation were considered to be serious constraints by
less than 6% of the respondents while over 65% thought the type and size of
operation to be non-constraining.
Table 2. Ranking of parameters and percentage of respondents considering
specific parameters to be constraints to implementing MiG.
Parameter Ranking Serious Somewhat Not a
to consider Constraint Constraint Constraint
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water availability 11 12 13 694 80 68 18 10 27 13 8 6
Fence system (costs) 2 3 4 66 50 26 21 35 56 14 15 18
Management expertise 3 2 3 57 64 26 31 27 50 11 9 24
Operating capital 4 4 7 37 44 20 41 35 49 22 20 31
Forage species 5 6 14 32 22 9 40 41 44 27 37 46
Labor requirements 6 5 10 28 28 14 37 44 54 35 29 32
Soil fertility 7 7 17 16 17 7 41 37 43 43 46 50
Too much fescue 8 10 9 16 8 15 22 20 34 62 72 51
Type of livestock
operation 9 9 19 7 11 6 32 28 29 62 61 66
Cattle working
facilities 10 8 13 7 12 12 40 43 44 53 44 44
Narrow profit margin 2 28 46 26
Investment capital 5 23 51 26
Fence system: labor 6 22 54 24
Too much rented ground 8 15 26 58
Financial risk 11 14 45 41
Water quality 12 12 39 49
Fence systems:
technology 15 7 33 59
Production risk 16 7 38 55
Too large an operation 18 6 22 72
Too small an operation 20 4 25 71
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Based on pre-workshop survey
2 Based on post-workshop survey
3 Based on 1995 survey
4 Percentage of respondents classifying the parameter in this category.
The ordering of data is the same as the rankings according to which survey.
Agency personnel response: Several questions were directed toward
determining the role of agency personnel in serving producer needs regarding
MiG. Of the agency respondents to the 1995 survey, 59% were NRCS, 21% were
extension, 11% were other (MODNR, MDC, USFWS, etc.), and 9% were SWCD staff.
At the time they attended their first grazing workshop, 56% of agency
employees indicated that they had been called upon to advise a commercial
livestock producer about MiG within the previous 60 days. In 1995, 85%
responded affirmatively to the same question.
Only 9% of agency personnel on the 1995 survey reported that they had
not advised a producer on MiG in the previous 60 days, whereas 23% reported
no contact when they first attended a grazing workshop. At the time they
first attended a workshop, about 16% indicated they advised 6 or more
producers in a 6 month period, compared to 76% of the 1995 respondents
indicating that they had advised 6 or more producers in a six month period.
In the pre-workshop survey, only 23% of agency employees felt they could
adequately address producer questions about MiG based on their current
knowledge level. Following the workshop, 88% felt they could adequately
answer producer questions. Interestingly enough, 88% of the 1995 respondents
also felt they had adequate knowledge to address producer questions
concerning MiG.
When asked what were the three most critical areas of producer needs
that agency personnel should focus on, the following list of needs was
generated. The rankings are based on percentage of respondents indicating
this area as first priority.
% of respondents Priority area
---------------------------------
26 Producer goals and needs
22 Layout and design of grazing system
22 Pasture management
10 Costs and returns
7 Determining appropriate stocking rates
5 Erosion control
3 Harvest timing
3 Water quality control
2 Livestock nutrition
The results of the 1995 survey indicate that agency personnel are being
called upon more and more to advise producers on MiG practices. Most of the
agency employees feel they have an adequate knowledge base to address these
producer needs. About 75% of the producers surveyed in 1995 did indicate
that they seek advice from public agencies regarding MiG. About 40%
indicated that FSRC was there primary source of information, 30% indicated
the extension service, and 25% indicated NRCS, 10% indicated other with SWCD
included in this category. There is probably considerable overlap between
NRCS and SWCD in the producer's mind and the indicated division as
information sources is questionable.
Specific Grazing School comments: The question, `What information from the
grazing school have you found the most useful over time since you attended
your first workshop?' elicited the following general responses: 1) the
importance of understanding grass growth and physiology to gain the best
animal response, 2) the need to remain flexible in management and be willing
to make adjustments when necessary, and 3) paddock layout and design.
When asked, `Have you found there to be information presented at the
grazing schools that was not consistent with your experience?', One producer
indicated that he was not able to let his cattle do without shade. Three
other respondents reporting inconsistencies indicated that cattle were still
rejecting fescue in mixtures even at high stock densities and with short
grazing periods.
The question, `Specifically, how has information from grazing schools
changed your operation?' brought comments on the following principles: 1)
management focus has shifted away from animal or hay management to greater
emphasis on pasture management, 2) carrying capacity has increased nearer
the true potential of the farm, and 3) greater realization of need to
incorporate soil and landscape consideration into management.
Several questions were asked regarding content of the grazing schools
and information sources. One suggested more information on forage testing,
while 5 other comments referred to more information on either livestock
systems other than beef cattle or alternative forage species. There was only
one suggestion to delete any part of the program. The respondent suggested
deleting the session on estimating forage availability as it was impractical
to do on the farm.
If adding more topics to the curriculum required the workshop to be
increased from 3 days to 4 days, 2/3rds of respondents indicated they would
still attend.
Only one respondent suggested any improvement to the handout material.
The suggestion was for more "how-to" type information on fencing and water
systems with step-by-step instructions. When asked for other appropriate
formats for information dissemination, one respondent (probably the same one
as above) suggested a handbook of successful ideas and innovations from both
producers and agency staff. One suggested having video tapes of the more
recent schools available for people who had attended workshops several years
ago and wished to stay current without attending another complete workshop.
It is interesting to note, that no respondent mentioned the Internet, World
Wide Web, home pages, satellite downlinks, and only one mentioned videos.
Either they were not thinking a lot on this question or graziers tend not to
access the information superhighway.
Summary
Based on the results of this survey, the grazing workshop program at
FSRC has had a significant impact on the management strategies of the vast
majority of producers attending the workshop. How far the impact reaches
into the general population of livestock producers cannot be answered at the
present time. At some point in the future, a similar survey of producers
attending the regional grazing schools would be appropriate to determine the
level of adoption for regional school participants.
Agency personnel appear to be in a better position to address producer
needs after they have attended a MiG workshop. Clearly, an increasing number
of producers are requesting information on MiG from extension, NRCS, and
SWCD. It is in the best interest of all public agencies to keep staff
training ahead of the producers they advise.
|
