Most farms are on a continuous journey of environmental stewardship. This journey includes voluntary and regulatory pathways (e.g., programs, regulations) and checkpoints (e.g., certifications, production goals). Industry initiatives like the Net Zero Initiative (US Dairy) and Pork Cares (National Pork Board) provide goals that serve as destination descriptions, motivating collective action amongst their farms. However, industry initiatives do not dictate which mitigation actions can serve as the route. Every farm has a unique starting point in the present, and there are many pathways for the future that can be illuminated, shaped and supported by advisors.
This workshop was designed to provide the advisor community insights on opportunities to support the industries’ sustainability commitments through data, methods, and tools related to mitigation adoption. The desired outcome was to accelerate adoption by strengthening a community of support for sustainability initiative practices.
What Did We Do?
This workshop used multiple formats to engage participants in discussion and ideation, recognizing there is a need not only for purposeful planning, but also for quick action. There were brief introductions to a suite of tools and resources that support on-farm decision-making, and opportunities for crowd-sourcing additional material. Collective discussions charted networks and roles for advisors to support farmers in the implementation process for select scenarios. Activities considered both one-on-one advisor-advisee relationships, as well as the role of advisors within a broader network of actors involved in sustainability initiatives. The workshop culminated in identifying basic, finite steps for the promotion of action.
What Have We Learned?
The workshop content supports advisors for all types of livestock farms, but draws heavily from experiences in the swine and dairy industries. In extension work, we observed that advisors can serve as connectors, motivators, and informers. We noticed that exploring options for mitigation pathways can require a variety of advisor services.
Summary of Workshop Findings
Following the workshop, an accessible guide of resources to support participants and LPELC community members was compiled, available here:
This workshop is supported by Multistate Project S1074 – Fostering Technologies, Metrics, and Behaviors for Sustainable Advances in Animal Agriculture. This workshop benefitted from supporting materials provided by National Pork Board and the National Milk Producers Federation Farmers Assuring Responsible Management Program.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7-11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Environmental assessments are core to sustainability initiatives in several livestock sectors. For example, the Farmers Assuring Responsible Management Environmental Stewardship Program and the National Pork Board’s On-Farm Sustainability Reports support dairy and swine farms, respectively, in documenting baselines and improving environmental performance. Although many farms have a long history of environmental stewardship, farms may have limited experience in quantifying and communicating about farm environmental performance. In these cases, an environmental stewardship assessment or other evaluation can be an opportunity to learn about sustainability metrics and discuss their farm impacts. Farms, advisors, processors, and other stakeholders share responsibility in conducting and responding to environmental assessments. Uniquely, advisors and educators can build value in environmental assessment processes by assisting stakeholders in interpreting and communicating results.
What Did We Do?
To improve the translation from assessments to action, we designed a cross-institutional extension program for farmers and advisors in 2023. This W2W workshop shared key findings from this extension program by immersing participants in similar activities. The workshop included two parts. In Part I “Understanding environmental assessment models,” participants discussed fictional assessment results–reviewing inputs, then outputs, then discussing unknowns to the calculation processes. In Part II “Your role in assessment processes,” participants developed an action plan for incorporating environmental assessments into their own advising and professional work through facilitator-guided ideation activities. In summary, our workshop sought to empower participants to: 1) accurately interpret and explain the results of an environmental assessment; 2) develop strategies for incorporating environmental assessment results into their professional activities; 3) build confidence in initiating and leading discussions on environmental sustainability assessments.
What Have We Learned?
In brief, based on the perspectives of farmers and advisors in our Fall 2023 focus groups, an advisor can recognize:
Environmental assessments and reports can be relatively simple;
Assessments will not capture all the specifics for every farm;
Assessments enumerate key environmental indicators (greenhouse gases and energy consumption), and this can help processors and retailers sell more animal products;
More support, beyond an assessment, is needed to inform on-farm decision-making.
These acknowledgments are a starting point to establish a common understanding between advisors and others involved in environmental assessment processes.
Summary of Workshop Findings
This workshop generated ideas that we collected into a summary document to distribute to the broader community of Livestock and Poultry Environmental educators and advisors, available below:
We thank Midwest Dairy for supporting the original work. Additionally, we are grateful to participants in these focus groups and surveys for sharing their experiences. This workshop benefitted from supporting materials provided by National Pork Board and the National Milk Producers Federation Farmers Assuring Responsible Management Program.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7-11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
The curricula contains a map where participants keep track of their progress visually as they work through the different activities.
An educational curricula was pilot tested in 2020 by Extension professionals in Nebraska and Minnesota. It utilizes a table-top sized map game board, six pre-planned scenarios, and interactive planning by small groups to select preferred manure application sites. The original curricula addresses:
How far will I need to travel to manage manure nitrogen? Phosphorus?
Which fields benefit the most agronomically from manure?
How far can I afford to travel?
Which fields benefit most from manure’s soil health benefits?
What water quality risks are connected with individual fields?
How can I use a weather forecast to minimize neighbor’s odor risks?
These activities often lead to lots of peer-to-peer teaching. For example, we have witnessed discussions about minimizing compaction and planning to minimize impacts on community infrastructure and neighbors. As participants work through these discussions, they add visual reminders (i.e. happy and sad face emojis) to the map to weigh the benefits and concerns connected to individual fields.
Over the course of the last several years, the curricula has been expanded. There are now additional activities on the following topics:
Crediting nitrogen from all sources to choose a nitrogen rate
Determining value of commercial fertilizer nutrients
Determining manure availability
Observing setbacks and stockpiling manure
Reading soil and manure samples
Soil health practices for early career farmers and educators (developed by the Soil Health Nexus)
Resources are Available for Adapting to Your State
The curricula includes:
Fact sheets complement many of the activity’s main worksheets, helping the participants make their decision.
Scenarios
worksheets for each of the activities, and
a facilitator guide to help set up the scenario.
You may download electronic copies of all resources, adapt to your state, and begin sharing a highly interactive and peer-to-peer educational experience.
Downloadable Resources
Thank you for your interest in the curricula. Please fill out the following form to access the files:
Contemporary issues faced by Extension professionals are often technically and politically complex, crossing a range of subjects, academic disciplines, and value systems. Addressing complex social issues to achieve desired impacts across disparate audiences requires collaborative efforts that engage multiple disciplines, represent unique geographic regions and cultural settings, and implement varying outreach methods. For example, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is truly a “wicked problem” as it is global, complex, and difficult to solve. It is a “big picture” issue that must be addressed at multiple smaller scales where values, beliefs, cultural norms, and habits collide with science, innovation, public policy, and behavioral science, all forming a complicated intersection of separate, yet linked, continuous feedback loops.
The iAMResponsibleTM Project, is a nationwide extension program working on outreach and education on AMR within agriculture, food production, and food safety systems. In 2019, the team prioritized two approaches to promote cross-disciplinary collaborations on AMR research and increase AMR-related outreach to disparate audiences: a) greater engagement of graduate students in understanding AMR and the value of their area of study to approaching this issue from a One Health perspective; and b) improved science communication skills among graduate students. To that end, we proposed the development of a web-based, graduate-level university course to expand the impact of iAMResponsibleTM programming by engaging students in learning about the scientific, cultural, and political aspects of AMR across relevant disciplines.
The primary objectives in offering this novel, web-based university course that integrates research-based learning with science communication were to:
Facilitate optimal distribution and utilization of research-based, AMR-related food safety information and resources at the state, regional and national levels among future and current food producers and consumers; and
Develop AMR/Food Safety content to fill existing gaps or emerging areas of significant needs that are not being addressed regionally, nationally, and globally.
What Did We Do
Multi-university instruction
Spring 2020
A one-credit, graduate-level seminar course exploring U.S. and global challenges related to AMR in food systems, research-based strategies to mitigate potential risks associated with AMR, and successful methods of communicating this complicated scientific topic to food producers and consumers was first taught simultaneously at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and the University of Maryland. Instructors on site at each participating institution facilitated listing of the course in their course catalog to allow students to enroll for credit at the university where they are studying. Each meeting of the class featured invited presentations by experts from across the U.S. sharing research, policy, and communication perspectives on AMR.
Spring 2021
Following the same format as the initial offering, the course was taught simultaneously at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, University of Maryland, North Carolina State University, University of Minnesota, and Washington State University.
Based on experiences and student feedback from the 2020 and 2021 offerings of the course, lecture topics for the 2022 offering include:
Topic
Presenter
Introduction to antibiotic resistance one-health
Dr. Amy Schmidt, University of Nebraska – Lincoln and Dr. Stephanie Lansing, University of Maryland
Principles of extension programming and outreach
Dr. Joe Harrison, Washington State University
First fully live session: Introduction to the course and student expectations
All Instructors
Impact of AMR on medical practice and human health
Dr. Rosa Helena Bustos – head of clinical pharmacology at Universidad de la Sabana
Challenge of AMR for animal health care
Dr. Paul Morley, Texas A&M University
The natural occurrence and current state of the AMR challenge for environmental pollution
Dr. Thomas Ducey (USDA-ARS)
Guided panel: Environmental mitigations for AMR
Panelists: Carlton Poindexter, University of Maryland; Dr. John Schmidt, USDA-ARS; Dr. Shannon Bartelt-Hunt, University of Nebraska;
Moderators: Dr. Stephanie Lansing and Dr. Mahmoud Sharara
Intervention and tracing of AMR in the food supply
Aaron Asmus – Hormel Foods
Julie Haendiges, US-FDA
History of public attitudes towards microbiology and what it tells us about how to approach AMR
Dr. Kari Nixon, Whitworth University
Alternating Spring Break
Class activity on identifying and evaluating science communication
Alternating Spring Break
Class activity on identifying and evaluating science communication
Worldwide Implications of AMR
Student led examination of AMR as it is experienced around the world
Challenges in development of antibiotics and alternatives for antibiotics
Dr. Glenn Zhang, Oklahoma State University
How to assign risk to AMR found in non-clinical settings
Dr. Bing Wang, University of Nebraska
Dead week workday – students work time. Submit reports and recorded presentations by the end of the workday on Friday, April 22.
Zoom rooms will be available as needed. Led by Dr. Noelle Noyes
Final project review
Student project Q&A sessions
Science Communication
As a joint offering by several extension faculty, this course was designed not only to cover the fundamentals of AMR but also as an opportunity to introduce STEM students to important skills and concepts used by extension professionals. As a part of this multi-institution collaboration, students worked together with their peers across the country to review and develop research-based resources and methods for communicating scientific information about AMR to non-academic audiences. These efforts were facilitated by the inclusion of lectures on extension principles and science communication, and team-based outreach projects, to support development of outreach and educational thinking and skill development within students in STEM fields. Moreover, content created by students through team projects that produced well-designed outreach content were intended for dissemination by the iAMResponsibleTM Project. The result was the production of outreach materials that transcended expertise represented by project team members.
Evaluation methods
Methods for evaluating the content and delivery of this course have been adjusted with each subsequent offering. During the first year an informal focus group discussion was conducted with students at the end of the term to solicit feedback and suggestions for future iterations. Throughout the second session (2021) students filled out weekly surveys following each lecture, as well as a survey assessment of the course. Instructors were also asked to evaluate the course content and delivery following the 2021 offering.
Students are evaluated on a combination of participation in the course discussion (during the lecture period or online following the lecture) and on evaluation of student projects. The student projects include a large emphasis on teams cooperating to identify a target audience for their shared topic, establishing a shared goal for their audience, and creating impactful outreach products to achieve their intended outcomes. Moreover, as a part of their participation and evaluation for this course, students are asked to review the effectiveness of their peers’ outreach products and the peer critiques are incorporated into the final student evaluation for the course.
What Have We Learned
Feedback from the students
Results from the student focus group in 2020 were highly influential on the expanded instruction for science communication strategies and addition of international emphasis on AMR discussions in subsequent years. Survey results following the second session again highlighted the value the students placed in the instruction on science communication, audience identification, and navigating public attitudes toward AMR, science, and disease. Student participation in Spring 2020 (two institutions) and 2021 (five institutions) totaled 28 students. Evaluations by students revealed the following outcomes:
Student comments included:
Student surveys also indicated that the logistical issues surrounding the expectation for students to work with colleagues cross-institutionally on class assignments was the most significant challenge encountered. Accordingly, the syllabus for the current (Spring 2022) offering allocates more discussion time during lectures for students to grow more comfortable with one another and provides the students with a cross-institutional work environment on Slack to facilitate discussion outside of class time. We await the student evaluations from 2022 to provide a more detailed understanding of how these changes will affect student experience but, after 4 weeks of the course, the average weekly participation on Slack is holding at about 70% of participants who regularly check-in, read, or respond to discussion on the platform.
Feedback from the instructors
The development and delivery of this course has had the unintended consequence of providing an opportunity for the instructors of the course to also continue to learn and engage on this dynamic topic. Following delivery of the course in 2021, instructors were asked to evaluate the course content and delivery method, revealing the following data:
Future Plans
Utilization of course materials outside of the course
Lectures, and student projects developed during the first two offerings of the course have been repurposed and made available for a wider audience through the LPELC platform, further linking extension and classroom educational goals and providing the students in the course the opportunity to develop materials for immediate practical application within the national extension community.
How to apply the lessons learned for other extension issues areas
We believe that the results of the students’ evaluations indicate that the next generation of STEM professionals not only values expertise in extension skills but will actively seek to develop those skills for themselves if given the opportunity. Accordingly, we see a value in pursuing similar courses as part of an extension portfolio.
How to assess the long-term impacts
We will also seek to engage former participants in this course in an assessment of how the training received, in systems thinking, multidisciplinary collaboration, and science communication have been effective in their professional work in subsequent years.
Authors
Amy Schmidt, Associate Professor, University of Nebraska – Lincoln aschmidt@unl.edu
Mara Zelt, Research Technologist, University of Nebraska
Stephanie Lansing, Professor, University of Maryland
Rohan Tikekar, Associate Professor, University of Maryland
Mahmoud Sharara, Assistant Professor, North Carolina State University
Joe Harrison, Professor Emeritus, Washington State University
Noelle Noyes, Assistant Professor, University of Minnesota
Additional Information
Selected course materials are available through the LPELC website
Acknowledgements
Funding for the iAMR Project was provided by USDA-NIFA Award Nos. 2017-68003-26497, 2018-68003-27467 and 2018-68003-27545. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2022. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Oregon, OH. April 18-22, 2022. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Resiliency to weather extremes is a topic that Northern Plains farmers and ranchers are already familiar with, but now climate change is adding new uncertainties that make it difficult to know the best practices for the future. Scenario planning is a method of needs assessment that will allow Extension and beef system stakeholders to come together using the latest climate science to discover robust management options, highlight key uncertainties, prioritize Extension programming needs, and provide an open forum for discussion for this sometimes controversial topic.
Overall objectives:
1. Determine a suite of key future scenarios based on climate science that are plausible, divergent, relevant, and challenging to the beef industry.
2. Determine robust management options that address the key scenario drivers.
3. Develop a plan for Extension programming to address determined educational needs.
What did we do?
A team of researchers, Extension specialists, and educators was formed with members from University of Nebraska and South Dakota State University. They gathered the current research information on historical climate trends, projections in future climate for the region, and anticipated impacts to the beef industry. These were summarized in a series of white papers.
Three locations were selected to host two half day focus groups, representing the major production regions. A diverse group representing the beef industry of each region including feedlot managers, cow calf ranchers, diversified producers, veterinarians, bankers, NRCS personnel, and other allied industries. The first focus group started with a discussion of the participants past experiences with weather impacts. The team then provided short presentations starting with historic climate trends and projection, anticipated impacts, and uncertainties. The participants then combined critical climate drivers as axis in a 2×2 grids, each generating a set of four scenarios. They then listed impacts for each combination. The impacts boundaries were feed production through transporting finished cattle off-farm.
Project personnel then combined the results of all three locations to prioritize the top scenarios, which were turned into a series of graphics and narratives. The participants were then brought together for a second focus group to brainstorm management and technology options that producers were already implementing or might consider implementing. These were then sorted based on their effectiveness across multiple climate scenarios, or robustness. The options where also sorted by the readiness of the known information: Extension materials already available, research data available but few Extension materials, and research needed.
What have we learned?
The key climate drivers were consistent across all focus groups: temperature and precipitation, ranging from below average to above average. In order to best capture the impacts, the participants separated winter/spring and summer/fall.
This method of using focus groups as our initial interaction with producers on climate change was well received. Most all farmers love to talk about the weather, so discussing historical trends and their experiences with it as well as being upfront with the uncertainties in future projections, while emphasizing the need for proactive planning seemed to resonate.
With so many competing interests for producers’ time, as well as a new programming area, it was critical to have trusted local educators to invite participants. Getting participants to the second round of focus groups was also more difficult, so future efforts should considering hosting a single, full day focus group, or allowing the participants to set the date for the second focus group, providing more motivation to attend.
Future Plans
The scenarios and related management options will be used to develop and enhance Extension programming and resources as well as inform new research efforts. The goal is to provide a suite of robust management options and tools to help producers make better decisions for their operation.
Corresponding author, title, and affiliation
Crystal Powers, Extension Engineer, University of Nebraska – Lincoln
Rick Stowell, Associate Professor at University of Nebraska – Lincoln
Additional information
Crystal Powers
402-472-0888
155 Chase Hall, East Campus
Lincoln, NE 68583
Acknowledgements
Thank you to the project team:
University of Nebraska – Lincoln: Troy Walz, Daren Redfearn, Tyler Williams, Al Dutcher, Larry Howard, Steve Hu, Matthew Luebbe, Galen Erickson, Tonya Haigh
South Dakota State University: Erin Cortus, Joseph Darrington,
This project was supported by the USDA Northern Plains Regional Climate Hub and Agricultural and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant No. 2011-67003-30206 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2017. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Cary, NC. April 18-21, 2017. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
The Animal Agriculture in a Changing Climate (AACC) project was established to leverage limited Extension expertise across the country in climate change mitigation and adaptation, with the goal of building capacity among Extension professionals and other livestock advisers to address climate change issues.
What did we do?
The Animal Agriculture in a Changing Climate project team created a suite of educational programs and products to build capacity across the United States. Key products of the project:
Online courses: 363 participants registered with a 35% completion rate (Whitefield et al., JOE, 2016)
National and regional symposia and workshops: 11 face-to-face conferences with approximately 1,350 attendees.
Website: Over 5,900 users with over 21,100 total views. Project videos have received nearly 8,900 views.
Social media: AACC weekly blog (990 subscribers); daily Southeast Climate Blog (38,506 site visits); regional newsletters (627 subscribers); Facebook & Twitter (280 followers)
Ready-to-use videos, slide sets, and fact sheets
Educational programming: 390 presentations at local, regional, and international meetings
Collaboration with 14 related research and education projects
What have we learned?
A survey was sent out to participants in any of the project efforts, in the third year of the project and again in year five. Overall, participants found the project resources valuable, particularly the project website, the online course, and regional meetings. We surveyed two key measures: abilities and motivations. Overall, 60% or more of respondents report being able or very able to address all eight capabilities after their participation in the AACC program. A sizeable increase in respondent motivation (motivated or very motivated) existed after participation in the program, particularly for helping producers take steps to address climate change, informing others about greenhouse gases emitted by agriculture, answering client questions, and adding new information to programs or curriculum.
The first challenge in building capacity in Extension professionals was finding key communication methods to engage them. Two key strategies identified were to: 1) start programming with a discussion of historical trends and agricultural impacts, as locally relevant as available, and 2) start the discussion around adaptation rather than mitigation. Seeing the changes that are already apparent in the climatic record and how agriculture has adapted in the past and is adapting to more recent weather variability and climatic changes often were excellent discussion starters.
Another challenge was that many were comfortable with the science, but were unsure how to effectively communicate that science with the sometimes controversial discussions that surround climate change. This prompted us to include climate science communication in most of the professional development opportunities, which were then consistently rated as one of the most valuable topics.
Future Plans
The project funding ended on March 31, 2017. All project materials will continue to be available on the LPELC webpage.
Corresponding author, title, and affiliation
Crystal Powers, Extension Engineer, University of Nebraska – Lincoln
Rick Stowell, Crystal Powers, and Jill Heemstra, University of Nebraska – Lincoln
Mark Risse, Pam Knox, and Gary Hawkins, University of Georgia
Larry Jacobson and David Schmidt, University of Minnesota
Saqib Mukhtar, University of Florida
David Smith, Texas A&M University
Joe Harrison and Liz Whitefield, Washington State University
Curt Gooch and Jennifer Pronto, Cornell University
This project was supported by Agricultural and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant No. 2011-67003-30206 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2017. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Cary, NC. April 18-21, 2017. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Responsible manure nutrient management improves environmental quality while maintaining agricultural productivity. Multiple organizations and individuals play a part in improving the understanding and practice of responsible management. But how does manure nutrient management information flow? The “Pathways” project’s goals were to understand and delineate pathways for effective information dissemination and use among various agricultural professional audiences that facilitate successful integrated (research/outreach/education) projects and programs. This presentation examines the relevance of partnerships within the manure nutrient management network and barriers to these partnerships.
What did we do?
We disseminated the “Pathways” survey online utilizing the mailing lists of several professional and producer organizations and listservs associated with manure management. There were 964 surveys started and 608 completed. The six types of organizations with more than 10% of the total survey population’s responses were university/Extension; government non-regulatory agencies; government regulatory agencies; producers; special government agencies; and sale or private enterprises.
The South Dakota State University Institutional Review Board deemed the survey exempt under federal regulation 45 CFR 46.101 (b) (IRB-1402010-EXM and IRB-1502001-EXM).
What have we learned?
The survey posed “How important is collaboration with each of the following groups related to manure nutrient management?” Figure 1 shows the mean relevance among all survey participants, evaluated on a scale of 1 (Not important/somewhat unimportant) to 4 (Highly important). On average, all potential partner groups were recognized as important (>2). Partnerships with producers were deemed most important (3.68) by all survey respondents.
After assessing relevance, we asked survey participants to indicate what barriers, if any, deter them from collaboration with each of the following groups related to manure nutrient management (select all that apply). For all potential partners listed, with the exception of tribal governments, “No Barriers to Use” was the most selected option. “Do Not Have a Relationship” was a common and stronger barrier for commodity, sales and service partners, compared to government agencies, for example.
The barriers “Discouraged or Not Allowed” and “No Incentive to Collaborate” were relatively small selections. The barrier “Do Not Have a Relationship” is possible to overcome at both individual and organizational levels, where needed.
Future Plans
In the future, assessing the reasons for specific partnerships can further aid improving communication and collaboration in the manure nutrient management network.
Corresponding author, title, and affiliation
Erin Cortus, Associate Professor and Environmental Quality Specialist at South Dakota State University
The Pathways Project greatly appreciates the support of the North Central Region Water Network Seed Grant, South Dakota Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education, and the collaborative groups of educators, researchers and agency personnel, for improving and advocating the survey.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2017. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Cary, NC. April 18-21, 2017. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
The goal of the Sustainable Dairy “Virtual Farm” website is to disseminate research-based information to diverse audiences from one platform. This is done with layers of information starting with the most basic then drilling down to peer-reviewed publications, data from life-cycle assessment studies and models related to the topics. The Virtual Farm focuses on decision makers and stakeholders including consumers, producers, policymakers, scientists and students who are interested in milk production on modern dairy farms. The top entry level of the site navigates through agricultural topics of interest to the general public. Producers can navigate to a middle level to learn about practices and how they might help them continue to produce milk for consumers responsibly in a changing climate while maintaining profitability. Featured beneficial (best) management practices (BMPs) reflect options related to dairy sustainability, climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, and milk production. Researchers can navigate directly to deeper levels to publications, tools, models, and scientific data. The website is designed to encourage users to dig deeper and discover more detailed information as their interest develops related to sustainable dairies and the environment.
What did we do?
As part of a USDA Dairy Coordinated Agricultural Project addressing climate change issues in the Great Lakes region, this online platform was developed to house various products of the transdisciplinary project in an accessible learning site. The Virtual Farm provides information about issues surrounding milk production, sustainability, and farm-related greenhouse gases. The web interface features a user-friendly, visually-appealing interactive “virtual farm” that explains these issues starting at a less-technical level, while also leading to much deeper research into each area. The idea behind this was to engage a general audience, then encourage them to dig deeper into the website for more technical information via Extension offerings.
The main landing page shows two sizes of dairy farms: 150 and 1,500-cows. The primary concept was to replace an all-day tour of multiple real dairy farms by combining their features into one ‘virtual farm’. For example, the virtual farm can describe and demonstrate the impact of various manure processing technologies. Users can explore the layout image, hover over labeled features for a brief description, and click to learn more about five main categories: crops and soils, manure management, milk production, herd management, and feed management. Each category page contains a narrative overview with illustrations and links to more detailed information.
What have we learned?
The primary benefit is that participants can learn about different practices, at their level of interest, all in one place. The virtual farm incorporates a broad theme of sustainability targeted at farming operations in the northeastern Great Lakes region of the USA.
The project has included regional differences in dairy farming practices and some important reasons for this such as environmental concerns (focus on N and/or P management in different watersheds) and long-term climate projections. Dairy industry supporters find value in having a one-stop repository of information on overall sustainability topics rather than having to visit various organizations’ sites.
Future Plans
We plan to continue to develop the website by adding relevant information, keeping information up to date, developing the platform for related topic areas and adding curriculums for school students.
Corresponding author, title, and affiliation
Daniel Hofstetter, Extension-Research Assistant, Penn State University (PSU)
Eileen Fabian-Wheeler, Professor, PSU; Rebecca Larson, Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin (UW); Horacio Aguirre-Villegas, Assistant Scientist, UW; Carolyn Betz, Project Manager, UW; Matt Ruark, Associate Professor, UW
Additional information
Visit the following link for more information about the Sustainable Dairy CAP Project:
This material is based upon work that is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under award number 2013-68002-20525. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2017. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Cary, NC. April 18-21, 2017. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Climate change has become a hot-button issue in mainstream American politics, and people are divided over its causes, impacts, and solutions. This presentation will offer an overview of how the public views the issue of climate change, several explanations for these differences in perception, and possible approaches for bridging the gaps through innovative communication strategies. I will also present some initial findings from a NSF funded project aimed at communicating about climate change and its long-term association with the issue of agricultural runoff in the Maumee Watershed area of Ohio.
This presentation will include information about:
Public opinion trends about climate change and public policy
Different explanations for divisions in public opinion about climate change
What the latest communication research tells us about best climate change communication practices, and about developing a public consensus about this issue
What Did We Do?
What Have We Learned?.
Future Plans
Authors
Dr. Erik Nisbet, Assistant Professor, The Ohio State University
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
ost basic then drilling down to peer-reviewed publications, data from life-cycle assessment studies and models related to the topics. The Virtual Farm focuses on decision makers and stakeholders including consumers, producers, policymakers, scientists and students who are interested in milk production on modern dairy farms. The top entry level of the site navigates through agricultural topics of interest to the general public. Producers can navigate to a middle level to learn about practices and how they might help them continue to produce milk for consumers responsibly in a changing climate while maintaining profitability. Featured beneficial (best) management practices (BMPs) reflect options related to dairy sustainability, climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, and milk production. Researchers can navigate directly to deeper levels to publications, tools, models, and scientific data. The website is designed to encourage users to dig deeper and discover more detailed information as their interest develops related to sustainable dairies and the environment.