Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T11:23:55.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A new conservation education delivery system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2007

Sharon Clancy  and
Britt Jacobson
Sharon Clancy*
Affiliation:
Coordinator for Conservation Agriculture, North Dakota Natural Resources Trust, Bismarck, ND, USA.
Britt Jacobson
Affiliation:
Technical Writer, Encore Consulting, Valley City, ND, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Conservation Agriculture Project (CAP) of the North Dakota Natural Resources Trust (Trust) has demonstrated a new concept for delivering conservation education that improves farm economics while enhancing environmental health, restoring landscape functions and providing societal benefits. The 5-year project, initiated by the Trust in 2000, incorporated Resource Analysis Teams to assist four farmers and farm families serving as a demonstration in developing and implementing holistic farm plans. Resource Analysis Team members were agricultural, environmental, conservation and economic professionals. Resource Analysis Teams met with each demonstration farm family twice each year in a non-threatening setting, usually around the family's kitchen table. The integration of diverse knowledge bases resulted in an educational roundtable with all participants being educators and students at the same time. As round-table participants became familiar with the intricacies of each particular farm and with each other, adversarial relationships dissolved and team members worked together to move the farms toward sustainability—economic, environmental and social. This approach differs from most federal conservation programs to date, which have approached on-farm conservation in a piecemeal manner, only protecting a parcel of land or a critical problem area. For those programs, responsibility for searching out and implementing conservation practices has fallen primarily on the farmer, who also has had to assume associated risks. The Conservation Agriculture Project has demonstrated that the Resource Analysis Team approach yields positive results for the environment, wildlife, farm families and society while enhancing information delivery and improving communication and acceptance among diverse groups with varying agendas. Most importantly, it has demonstrated the need and positive impacts of delivering conservation education directly to farmers and ranchers, who manage 43% of the land nationwide.

Keywords

conservationConservation Agriculture Project (CAP)environmental educationresource teamssustainable farmswhole farm planning
Type
Research Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 11 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hartwig, D., Meyer, B., Prashek, K., and Bilden, J. 2002. North Dakota Agricultural Statistics No. 71, June. North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota. p. 10–12.Google Scholar
2 National Wildness Institute. 1995. State by state government land ownership. Available at Website: http://www.nwi.org/Maps/LandChart.html (verified 26 August 2005).Google Scholar
3 Utah Agricultural Education. 2005. Just the facts. Agricultural education home page. Available at Website: http://www.usoe.k12.ut.us/ate/Ag/agr/facts.html (verified 19 September 2005).Google Scholar
4 Hanson, J., Dismukes, R., Chambers, W., Greene, C., and Kremen, A. 2004. Risk and risk management in organic agriculture: views of organic farmers. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 19(4):218–227.Google Scholar
5 Hollevoet, R. 1999. A comprehensive and multipurpose approach to watershed management – a concept. Proceedings of the North Dakota Academy of Science 53:45–48.Google Scholar
6 The Savory Center. Providing the link between a healthy environment and a sound economy. Available at Website: http://www.holisticmanagement.org (verified 25 August 2005).Google Scholar
7 Ervin, D.E. and Smith, K.R. 1996. What it takes to “Get to Yes” for whole-farm planning policy. Policy Studies Report No. 5. Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture. Greenbelt, Maryland. p. iii and 16.Google Scholar
8 Miller, M., Johnson, D.B., Bird, E.A.R., and Buttel, F.H. 1995. Whole-farm planning: an overview workshop, participant's workbook and facilitator's guide. Quality of Life Project, Consortium for Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education. Program on Agricultural Technology Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
9 Schroeder, J.W. 2002. Diagnostics for dairying. Annual Highlights. Available at Website: http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/legislators/highlights/02page04.htm (verified 24 August 2005).Google Scholar
10 The Land Stewardship Project. 1998. The monitoring tool box. Land Stewardship Project, White Bear, MN, USA.Google Scholar
11 Schneider, J. 2005. Farm diversification grant. North Dakota Agricultural Products Utilization Commission, Bismarck, ND, USA.Google Scholar
12 North Central Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education 2005. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education for farmers and ranchers. Available at Website: http://www.sare.org/coreinfo/farmers.htm (verified 1 September 2005).Google Scholar
13 Beck, D. 2005. Principles and practices of no-till systems. Available at Website: http://www.dakotalakes.com/Publications/NT_Principles.PDF (verified 1 September 2005).Google Scholar