Oregon Report

SARE Professional Development Program Annual Report for Oregon
January 1-December 31, 2010

State SARE Co-Coordinators:

Summary of 2010 PDP Activities and Results

For 2010, the Oregon SARE PDP program had five primary areas of focus, which included funding the 2010 Oregon Small Farms Conference; Measuring Impacts for Sustainable Agricultural Programs Workshop; North Willamette Horticulture Society Annual Meetings; Agriculture Composting Resources and Education Series Workshop; and Beef Cattle In-Service Training. These programs are part of the Oregon PDP focus of “encouraginge long-term changes in the use of sustainable agricultural practices by providing yearly funding” for a three-years period.

Context and Overview

The Oregon SARE PDP program went through a period of review to define the best focus of the program with input from program users, advisory committee members and past experience. In 2010, the Oregon SARE PDP program began to focus more on longer term and sustainable results. The Oregon SARE PDP program is now providing mini grants on a three-year basis (contingent upon Western SARE Funding) to encourage longer term projects. In the fall of 2009, the Oregon SARE PDP program selected five projects for three year funding. Projects include training programs for agriculture professionals in the areas of agriculture composting, measuring sustainable agriculture impacts, direct marketing, livestock and horticulture. Again it is felt this is a more sustainable program for Oregon and will provide more effective use of Western SARE PDP funding.  

Activities and Methods

2010 Oregon Small Farms Program

Oregon SARE PDP funding provided honoraria provided to farmer panelists who contributed their practitioner expertise to the presentations of College of Agricultural Science faculty. The program exceeded expectations with 601 participants. Participants included farmers’ markets managers and educators.

The conference’s focus was three-fold: scale-appropriate sustainable production practices for beginner, limited resource and traditionally underserved small-scale commercial farmers; scale-appropriate viable alternative marketing channels for the same group; and business/policy information for food and nutrition advocates. The conference included three concurrent tracks of six sessions each; three sessions were offered twice. One, the mandatory face-to-face training for the WIC voucher program was offered three times. In addition to the WIC sessions, conference production session topics included cover crops (offered twice), grain, poultry feed (offered twice) and farm internships. Conference marketing session topics included meat marketing, new tools for direct marketing, farmers’ markets business operations and agritourism as a value-added enterprise. Policy session topics included farmers’ market – public health partnerships, farmers as writers and funding on-farm energy improvements for agricultural professionals, farmers’ markets managers and board members, and food policy, access, and nutrition advocates.

Forty percent of the conference attendees submitted written evaluations. On a 1-5 Likert scale (5 was high score), ag professionals responded to the following questions:

• Did the conference increase your  knowledge of small farms issues and opportunities? – scored 4 out of 5;
• Do you plan to use anything you  learned at the conference? 4.1;
• Overall rating of the conference? 4.23;
• On average, agricultural professionals drove 111 miles to attend the conference.

Total scores for all respondents to the same questions were 4.0, 4.17, 4.18 and 93.4.

In response to the question, “Any specific ideas you will use from today’s event?” we are unable to break the qualitative responses out by category or professional affiliation. However, meat marketing ideas, cover crop use as a substitute for other forms of nitrogen fertilizer and value of knowledge regarding farm internship policy and law received very strong text responses from all conference attendees.

Agricultural Composting Resources and Education Series (ACRES)

Participants: Thirty-three participants attended the workshop titled, Agricultural Composting Resources and Education Series (ACRES). Fourteen participants were agricultural professionals from OSU Extension, Soil and Water Conservation District, Department of Environmental Quality, ODA, consultants and farmer educators. Part of the value of this series is for new DEQ compost regulators to meet agricultural composters. Seventeen farmers and nursery managers involved in agricultural composting attended the course. The rest of the audience was composed of community members involved in waste diversion at schools and other entities.

b. Output: We adapted WSU/WORC and USCC composting curriculum to fit the needs of agricultural composters in Oregon. From the adapted curriculum we developed ACRES, a two-day workshop, consisting of classroom presentations and hands-on activities. We created a resource binder, workbook and website to supplement the workshop. The resource binder includes vital publications and printouts from the lectures. The workbook is a compilation of worksheets use during the hands-on activities. We developed and distributed promotional materials via email lists targeting our target audience. ACRES was advertised on the Small Farms Website and in various event calendars. The workshop was delivered in February. We developed and delivered a final evaluation to capture impacts. Twenty-three participants (70%) responded to the evaluation. In addition to the project output, OSU Extension and Clackamas SWCD developed a new partnership to co-sponsor this workshop series. This is an important new institutional relationship.

c. Changes in awareness, knowledge or attitudes: Participants develop a solid foundation of knowledge in agricultural composting. On the evaluation participants rated their knowledge of various topics before and after the workshop on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 being the strongest understanding. On average, the participants rated their knowledge prior to the workshop as 2.8, a low-medium level of understanding of the topics presented. After the workshop the participants rated their knowledge as an average of 5.4 out of 7, a high level of knowledge. Every participant reported increased understanding of all major aspects of composting. The areas in which the participants rated their knowledge increased the most were: understanding of regulatory requirements, ability to choose feedstocks, ability to evaluated compost quality and knowledge of where to access agricultural compost information.

d. Changes in practice, behavior and decision-making: Participants now have a strong base of knowledge from which to operate. The agricultural professionals are using the information to educate their clientele and make more educated decisions regarding regulations. Farmers and nursery managers have the tools and information to regulate their composting and ensure they are complying with regulations. One participant is using the information to develop a best practices manual for composting in schools. 

How many agricultural professionals increased their knowledge and/or changed their behavior as a result of this sustainable agriculture training?

All of the agricultural professionals that responded to the evaluation reported that they gained knowledge from the workshop. On average, the agricultural professionals rated their knowledge prior to the workshop as 2.9 out of 7, a low-medium level of understanding of the topics presented. After the workshop the participants rated their knowledge as an average of 5.6 out of 7, a high level of knowledge. Testimonials from agricultural professionals were predominantly very positive with some suggestions for minor improvements. Comments included: “enjoyed the team approach to this activity. Overall, the course was great,” “very valuable class. I learned a lot! I really enjoyed the outside activities for hands on learning,” “Very well planned. Thank you, thank you! Take home materials are actually useful.”

Measuring Impacts for Sustainable Agricultural Programs

a. Participants: Agricultural professionals are increasingly expected to measure the impacts of their programs. However, there is a lack of training available on best methods for such measurement. This workshop aims to increase our capacity to measure the impact of sustainable agriculture programs in Oregon. Twenty-seven agricultural professionals participated in this new workshop in 2010. Nineteen of these participants were from Oregon State University, the other eight were from other agencies and non-profit organizations including Oregon Food Bank, Ten Rivers Food Council and the Benton County Soil and Water Conservation District.

In this series of workshops, we are adapting the Sea Grant impact assessment methodology for sustainable agriculture programs. In addition to developing the workshop, we have begun collecting reference materials that describe innovative methods of impact assessment. All participants received a CD containing more than 40 papers addressing various aspects of impact measurement. This CD will be expanded in 2011, and by 2012 it will be refined onto an online impact assessment manual for use by Sustainable Agriculture Professionals.

b. Changes in awareness, knowledge or attitudes: Participants learn how funding agencies, Universities and legislators use impact statements to set funding and programming priorities. They also learn about methods for collecting qualitative and quantitative impact data, and how to incorporate this information into impact statements for multiple audiences.

Twenty written evaluations were completed, representing 74% of the participants. Participants rated the workshop on a scale of 1-5 (5 being the highest). When asked whether they better understand what funding agencies, legislators and others expect from impact measurement, the mean response was 4.1/5. The mean response when asked whether they felt more confident assessing the impacts of their work was 3.4/5. Overall, the workshop was rated 4.0/5. Some useful concepts participants recalled from the workshop include:

• No stories without numbers or numbers without stories
• Understanding the difference between public and private goods
• How to use logic models
• Invite legislators to volunteer award events and other program events
• Outcome-only measurement can skew projects so that only certain things are tried
• Consider the products of our work

Some useful critiques included:

• Provide more information on the goals of sustainable agriculture
• We need examples of specific tools for measuring impacts in sustainable agriculture programs
• Please gather examples of exemplary reporting techniques
• We should spend more time on practical impact assessment tools and less time on general theory.

c. Changes in practice, behavior and decision-making: This first year of the workshop was well received, and participants reported improved understanding of impact assessment theories and practices. The 20 survey respondents described 59 valuable concepts they learned during the workshop and 51 ways they will use these concepts in their work. The focus during the first year of this workshop was how different audiences use impact statements and on methods for measuring economic impacts. In 2011 this focus will be expanded to include environmental impacts. In 2012 the focus will be expanded to social impacts and an online impact measurement manual will be published.

How many agricultural professionals increased their knowledge and/or changed their behavior as a result of this sustainable agriculture training?

Twenty-seven agricultural professionals attended the meeting. 74% completed surveys and each of these respondents described several useful concepts they learned in the workshop. All of the agricultural professionals that responded to the evaluation reported that they gained knowledge from the workshop.

North Willamette Horticultural Society Annual Meetings

a. Participants: The North Willamette Horticulture Society (the Society) serves the berry and fresh vegetable industry in Oregon and SW Washington. The Society’s Board of Directors currently has 11 members including a President and Treasurer. McReynolds, Andrews and Kaufman serve as secretaries for the days they organize. Board members and other interested participants provide strong input into the session agendas, venue selection, meals and all other aspects of conference planning. Exhibitors sponsor publication of the meeting announcement and agenda and provide information on their products and services throughout the three day meeting. Three hundred people attended the conference in 2010 with 165 at organic day, 149 at vegetable day and 168 at berry day. Agricultural professionals were from governmental organizations (USDA, ODA, NRCS, SWCD’s, etc.), Extension, non-profit organizations, distributors of agricultural inputs and private agricultural consultants.

b. What was done during the project?

Two planning meetings were held in 2009. The winter meetings were held at the Canby Fairgrounds with Organic Crops Section on January 12,   2010, Vegetable Section on January 13^th and Berry Section on January 14^th . Western SARE PDP funds sponsored Dan Munk (UC Fresno) who spoke on January 12^th and 13^th about the current drought in California and irrigation management. The meeting was reviewed by the Board at the wrap up meeting on March 12, 2010.

c. What changes in awareness, knowledge or attitudes occurred as a result of the project?

Presentations increased understanding of many issues related to sustainable agriculture. Dan Munk’s presentation provided a brief history of water use law in California. He also described the man-made and natural factors contributing to the current drought and reviewed efforts to improve water use efficiency in California. Other speakers addressed several other issues of sustainable agriculture with presentations covering the following topics:

• Organic Market Reports
• Enhancing Disease Suppression in Soils
• Biology and Ecology of Parasitoids in Raspberries
• OSU Cover Crop Calculator
• Breeding Vegetables for Organic Systems
• Cabbage Maggot Control
• Food Safety and the IR-4 Specialty Crops Project
• Managing Downy Mildew, Powdery Mildew and Fusarium
• Weed Management in Vegetables
• IR-4 Pesticide Update
• Perennial Weed Control Research Update
• Two presentations on the Spotted Wing Drosophila (a new invasive pest species)

d. What actual changes in practice, behavior and decision making occurred as a result of the project?

Participating agricultural professionals have been updated on several sustainable pest management strategies, including enhancing disease suppression in soils, biological control of insects in raspberries, targeted seed treatments for cabbage maggot control, protecting food from chemical and microbial contaminants, weed management in vegetables and berries, and biology and control of the newly introduced Spotted Wing Drosophila. They can also use the new OSU Cover Crop Calculator to estimate N contributions from cover crops and compare fertilizer programs, and can better recommend vegetable varieties that are suited to organic production systems.

How many agricultural professionals increased their knowledge and/or changed their behavior as a result of this sustainable agriculture training?

Attendance included 162 agricultural professionals and 138 farmers.

2010 Beef Cattle In-Service Training

a. Participants: A total of 13 OSU extension faculty members attended the event, in addition to 5 speakers (3 from Oregon State University, 1 from University of Idaho, and 1 from New Mexico State University).

b. Please rate the following using a 1= strongly disagree, 3=neutral, 5=strongly agree

The event was well prepared and organized     4.6

Topics discussed were timely and relevant to beef production    4.5

Information provided will support your extension efforts    4.1

Presentations were appropriately geared to the audience    3.8

Information provided can be directly applied in the field    4.1

Presenters interacted effectively with the audience     4.1

Audience participation and questions were encouraged    4.8

Visual aids and other educational materials were effective    4.3

Overall, the program will benefit your extension program    4.5

Do you plan on attending the 2012 Beef Cattle In-Service Training No=0, Yes=6

c. Overall suggestions for topics and future speakers. The topic for the 2012 program will be “New concepts and sustainable approaches for cattle reproduction and genetic improvement.”

- I’d like to hear about retaining vs. buying replacement heifers. In addition to moreinfo on the grass-fed vs. grain-fed sire selection.

- Suggestion for speaker would be Dr. Tom Geary from USDA-ARS Forth Keogh,MT. Ask him to talk about how Extension faculty can help producers understand and adopt reproductive management that improves efficiency and profitability.Other speaker would be Ron Torell, former University of Nevada Extension Livestock Specialist.

- I think Tom Geary would be great for reproductive topics. Jim Lauderdale would be awesome if we could get him as well. Anybody that is a member of the Beef Reproductive Task Force would be good as well. I am not familiar with folks working in the genetic area so no suggestions in that area.

d. General comments about the event:

- Thanks for all your efforts. It would be better if the workshop was held some other day except the Friday before Memorial Day weekend.

- Agenda provided was helpful.

- I’m not sure how to use all the information provided during the talks, but some of them will help me.

- Presentations were a little technical, but that’s probably just me – I’m not a scientist. It is nice to know what research is going on.

- The mineral talk could be useful in the future.

- The lectures are tough to sit through, but I don’t have a suggestion on how to change the format.

- Networking is critical, and I felt that typically we don’t get enough opportunities for this. It’s great to know what research is going on. I wish we had more opportunities to discuss collaboration efforts and potential writing opportunities. For P&T I need these things and I would love the opportunity to do these things with others, more experienced agents.

- Thank you Reinaldo for putting this together!

- More thought or instructions for participants sharing part was needed, including visual aids.

- Some of the information provided was too elementary.

PDP-funded Publications/Educational Materials and Product

All presentations provided during the 2010 Beef Cattle In-Service Training are available for download at the Beef Cattle Sciences website.

 ACRES resource binder, workbook and website.

Measuring Impacts for Sustainable Agricultural Programs resource CD

Changes in Ag Professionals’ Knowledge, Skills and Action

See Program Activities and Methods

Involvement of others in state PDP planning and implementation:

We do have an Oregon SARE PDP Advisory which is made up of OSU Extension Faculty (Agents and Specialists and Program Leaders). We did not meet formally in 2010 but did communicate via e-mail.