Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Evaluation of the change in Knowledge, Attitude, Skills, Aspiration & Practice (KASAP) with regard to soil acidity and its management by farmers in Western Australia

Sally-Anne Penny1, Amanda Miller2

1Agriculture Western Australia, Merredin
2
Agriculture Western Australia, Lake Grace

Abstract

In 1990 a survey was sent out to 234 farmers to gauge their knowledge, attitude, skills, aspirations and practice (KASAP) of soil acidity. In 1999 this survey was sent out again to the same set of farmers.

The completed surveys were statistically analysed and then compared against each other.

The survey has shown that farmers now have a sound Knowledge of soil acidity technology, a positive Attitude towards correcting soil pH, the Skills to make decisions to manage soil acidity, the Aspiration to manage soil pH for the future and are implementing Practices to correct or maintain soil pH.

Major changes in soil acidity have been seen in the adoption of lime use which has doubled from 40% of respondents in 1990 to over 87% of respondents using lime in 1999. This has reflected the Australian Bureau of Statistics data that lime usage has dramatically increased in tonnage between the period of the two surveys (117,000t in 1990 to 650,000t in 1999).

Knowledge of the causes of acidification has been greatly improved with the majority of respondents now having a good awareness of the causes compared to having almost no idea of soil acidification causes in 1990.


The attitude, skills, and aspirations of when to apply lime has increased to a level that is in line with current recommendations. In 1990 respondents believed a soil pH below 4.0 was considered to be adequate for liming, but now this has increased to anything below a pH of 5.0.

From the survey findings, growers knowledge, attitude, skills, aspirations, and practice (KASAP) of soil acidity has been invaluable to the soil acidity project in order to determine shifts/changes, monitor the successes and failures, and to assist with ongoing project developments.

Introduction

Soil acidity in Western Australia (WA) is the second largest land degradation issue behind soil salinity.

Of the 10 million hectares of agricultural soils in WA, two thirds are at risk from acidification. Approximately half of the agricultural soils already require the application of lime, and two thirds of the agricultural soils require changes in management practices to address soil acidity.

It is estimated that $70 million of production is lost annually in WA because of acid soils (Leonard & Bolland, 1995).

Figure 1. Area of agricultural soils in Western Australia that are acid or are at risk from acidification (Leonard & Bolland, 1995).

The Soil Acidity Project in WA is an integrated project with collaboration between Agriculture Western Australia, the University of Western Australia, and CSIRO. Funding for the project is provided through the collaborating agencies as well as the Grains Research Development Corporation (GRDC), the Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation (LWRRDC), and the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT).

In 1990 the extension project officer for the National Soil Conservation Program (NSCP) project “Soil Acidity Extension in the South West of Western Australia” conducted a survey of farmers to gauge:

  • level of knowledge with regards to soil acidification
  • attitude to given scenario’s of soil pH.
  • skills to help them in monitor, treat and manage acid soils
  • aspirations for their farm in the future i.e. given a scenario what would be the farmers action be, which reflects the farmers commitment to the longevity of the farm.
  • changes in farm practice, i.e. were they applying lime.

The data from the 1990 survey was never published, but has been used in the development of extension activities. This survey has also provided a prime opportunity to monitor the changes in knowledge, attitude, skills, aspiration and practice (KASAP) of growers in WA over a 9 year timeframe by using the 1990 data as a baseline.

Therefore, in 1999 it was decided to undertake a similar survey to the 1990 survey. The 1990 survey was re-coded, partially re-structured and was sent to the same growers using questions similar to those asked in the 1990 survey to:

  • establish the current KASAP of farmers with regards to soil acidity.
  • gauge the change in KASAP over a 9 year time frame with the vision that the survey would be repeated again in 2002 at the expected end of the broad based soil acidity research, development and extension project in Western Australia.
  • provide impact evaluation for the “Accelerated adoption of soil acidity technology in WA” project that was completed in December 1998,
    and provide process evaluation
    and evaluation for design clarification for the “Transfer of responsibility for soil acidity technology to industry” project funded from January 1999 to December 2001.
    help identify the deficiencies (necessary) and opportunities (if any)
    that need to be captured to achieve the KASAP targets for the acid soils project by the project end in 2001.
  • allow farmer input into what aspects of soil acidity technology research, development and extension they feel needs most attention which can be directly compared to the research currently being undertaken or planned.

This paper describes the changes in knowledge, attitude, skills, aspiration and practice (KASAP) of growers in WA over a 9 year timeframe in regard to soil acidification.

The identification of changes will allow the current project to review processes and methodology to “fill the gaps” and to better refine the focus of the project.

Methods

1990 survey

The methods used in the 1990 survey are unknown. This survey was sent out in 1990 to 234 farmers from selected farmer groups.

1999 survey

The frameworks, planning tools, and processes used in the 1999 survey were:

Bennett's Hierarchy

Planning framework for planning extension programs and developing evaluation strategies (Bennett, 1975). This planning framework has been used retrospectively in this case but has given a new perspective to some of the process evaluation for project improvement and evaluation for design clarification of the project.

Figure 2: Hierarchy of evidence for program evaluation. (Adapted from Bennett, 1975)

Wissemann’s Six Steps

Summary of steps that need to be taken when planning an evaluation (Wissemann, 1992, cited Rural Extension Centre, 1998). The six step process was used extensively in planning the proposed KASAP evaluation.

The mail survey form was developed through using Wissemann’s Six Steps to planning an evaluation, and the 11 step survey design process.

Figure 3: Wissemann’s six step summary of steps that need to be taken when planning an evaluation. (Adapted from Wissemann, 1992 cited Rural Extension Centre 1998)

Eleven stage process in survey design (Rea & Parker 1997)

To conduct any type of survey in a rigorous and unbiased fashion, it is important to adhere to specific procedures and apply them in a systematic manner. Although the stages are presented here as distinct steps, there is actually a great deal of overlap as the survey research process is pursued and implemented (Rea & Parker 1997).


Table 1: Eleven stages of survey design (Rea & Parker 1997).

Stage 1

Identifying the focus of the study and the method of research

Stage 2

Determining the research schedule and budget

Stage 3

Establishing an information base

Stage 4

Determining the sample frame

Stage 5

Determining the sample size and sample selection procedures

Stage 6

Designing the survey instrument

Stage 7

Pretesting the survey instrument

Stage 8

Selecting and training interviewers

Stage 9

Implementing the survey

Stage 10

Coding the completed questionnaires and computerising the data

Stage 11

Analysing the data and preparing the final report

The survey was sent out in 1990 to 234 farmers from selected farmer groups and in 1999 the survey was re-coded, partially re-structured and was sent to the same growers using questions similar to those asked in the 1990 survey. The data from the two surveys were statistically analysed by Agriculture Western Australia in order to compare KASAP differences.

Results

The 1990 and 1999 survey can not be directly compared to each other due to the different questions asked in them. The following table is using questions that are directly comparable between the two surveys and data is based on frequency of response.

Table 2: Comparison of 1990 KASAP with 1999 KASAP.

Description

Range

1990 Survey

1999 Survey

Survey Response

 

234

101

Property Area Ha(Average)

 

1816

1938

Cropped Area Ha (Average)

 

837

1016

Area of farm soil tested in last 5 years (0-10cm)

 

70.0%

87.6%

Use of lime (at any time)

 

40.0%

87.5%

Area of farm treated by lime in last 5 years

0%

64.0%

12.5%

 

1 – 25%

20.4%

38.5%

 

26 – 50%

7.0%

22.9%

 

51 – 75%

2.6%

13.5%

 

75 – 100%

3.0%

12.5%

Lime trial on your property (Yes)

 

14

11

Average rate of application

 

2.31 t/ha

1 – 1.5 t/ha

Lime incorporated into the soil works :-

Slower

3.0%

1%

 

Faster

61.7%

70.8%

 

No change

16.5%

2.1%

 

Don’t know

18.7%

26%

Reaction to topsoil pH range (CaCl2)

<3.0

A

A

(1990 pH data converted from water toCaCl2)

3.1 – 3.5

A

A

Reaction to topsoil pH range codes

A - Apply lime to the whole paddock and continue to monitor pH.

B - Apply lime to a test paddock and leave an untreated control strip. Continue to monitor pH.

C - A bit worried - put out some lime test strips and continue to monitor pH.

D - A bit worried - maybe get some information on soil acidity

E - Treatment of soil pH not required

F - Become concerned about over-liming (pH too high

3.6 – 4.0

A/B

A

4.1 – 4.5

D

A

4.6 – 5.0

E

A

5.1 – 5.5

E

E

5.6 – 6.0

E

E

6.1 – 6.5

F

E

6.7 – 7.0

F

E

>7.0

F

F

Causes of Acidity

Superphosphate

1

2

(comparison of range with most responses)

Waterlogging

1

3


1 = Most important cause of acidity
2 = A cause of acidity but not a major cause
3 = Not a cause of acidity
4 = Do not know
NA = Not applicable (as not mentioned in the 1990 survey)

Over cultivation

4

3

Ammonium based nitrogen fertiliser

1

1

Non Ammonium based fertiliser

NA

1

Nitrate leaching

NA

2

Growing Subclover or Medic based pasture

2

2

Cultivating too deep

2/4

3

Lack of Cultivating

2

3

Legume crops

3

2

Grain production (removal of grain from the farm)

2

3

Baling stubble

NA

4

Cutting hay

3

3

Providers of information on acidity

Neighbours

3

3

(comparison of range with most responses)

Particular farmer

3

4

Providers of information on acidity code descriptions

1 = No experience

2 = Information is not useful

3 = Some information is useful

4 = Information is useful

5 = Information is extremely useful

Research station

3

4

CSBP field advisors

4

3/4

AGWEST Advisors

4

4

AGWEST Research Officers

3

4

Private consultants

1

4

Lime suppliers

3

3

Private soil test labs.

1

4

Survey findings

The 1990 survey and the 1999 survey can not be directly compared to each other because of the different questions asked in them. The following findings are from questions that are directly comparable between the two surveys.


The number of people responding to the survey has decreased by 43% in 1999. This is to be expected when using a mailing list that is 10 years old.

Soils

The area being surface soil tested has increased (from 1990 to 1999) by 17.6%.

Lime

In the 1990 survey only 40% of respondents had used lime on their property, but in 1999 the majority of respondents (87.5%) had used lime.


Lime use has more than doubled from 1990 to 1999 which corresponds to the greater lime use recorded by the Australian Bureau of Statistics data of 117,000 t in 1989/90 to 438,772 tonnes in 1997/98 and a further increase to 653,000 t in 1989/99.

Rate

The average rate of application has decreased significantly from 2.3t/ha in 1990 to 1-1.5t/ha in 1999 which is representative of the current recommended application rate.

Incorporation

There are still a high percentage of respondents in 1999 (26%) compared to 18.7% in 1990 that do not know what lime incorporation does to pH.

Critical pH

Reaction to topsoil pH’s have greatly changed between the two surveys. In 1990, respondents believed liming should take place at a pH below 4.0 (CaCl2), and anything above that pH is not of concern.

In 1999 respondents believe that liming should take place at a pH below 5.0 and any higher pH treatment of soil acidity is not required.

Acidification

The current major causes of acidification as indicated by the Soil Acidity project are nitrate leaching, ammonium based fertilisers, legume crops, pastures, continuous cropping, and bailing stubble and hay.

In the 1990 survey, nitrogen fertiliser, superphosphate, waterlogging, and growing pastures were perceived as the main acidification causes.

In 1999 knowledge of the causes of acidification had changed from 1990. Respondents identified nitrate leaching, ammonium based fertilisers, legume crops, pastures and non-ammonium based fertilisers as the causes of acidification.

Lime information sources

Providers of soil acidity information have all increased in the usefulness of their soil acidity knowledge from 1990 to 1999. The biggest increase in usefulness of soil acidity information was seen with the private consultants, and private soil testing laboratories because in 1990 they were rated as having limited information on soil acidity to now being considered as a useful information source.

The increase in soil acidity knowledge of the private consultants can be attributed to the soil acidity training courses run by Agriculture Western Australia’s Soil Acidity project for consultants and agribusiness.

Conclusion

The data obtained from the 1990 survey was previously never statistically analysed or published.


In 1996, the Time to lime extension campaign used the 1990 data to provide a starting point for a key soil acidity extension presentation. The soil acidity knowledge of farmers in the 1990 survey was limited thus the content of the presentation started with soil acidity basics.


Undertaking the survey in 1999 and comparing the results with the 1990 survey provided the soil acidity project with significant information on any knowledge base changes.

Farmers now have a sound knowledge of soil acidity technology, a positive attitude towards correcting soil pH, the skills to make decisions to manage soil acidity, the aspiration to manage soil pH for the future and are implementing practices to correct or maintain soil pH.

The issues raised in the 1999 survey will be used as a basis for future extension programs that are currently being planned.

The monitoring and evaluation of growers knowledge, attitude, skills, aspirations, and practice (KASAP) of soil acidity has been worthwhile to the soil acidity project in order to determine shifts/changes, monitor the successes and failures, and to assist with ongoing project developments.

Note: A copy of the full paper including all results from the 1990 and 1999 survey is available from the authors.

References

  1. Bennett, C. (1975) “Up the hierarchy”. Journal of Extension. March/April
  2. Leonard L. & Bolland M. (1995) ‘Soil Acidity - A reference manual’, Agriculture Western Australia Perth.
  3. Rea LM & Parker RA. (1997) Designing and Conducting Survey Research A Comprehensive Guide 2nd Edition. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco
  4. Wissemann A. (1992) “Three Key Concepts in Extension Evaluation” Rural Extension Center QM727/REC 68 Evaluation Course Notes 6-10 July 1998.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext Page