2012 Manure Expo: Impacts on Attendees Ten Months After the Event

Transcription

1 2012 Manure Expo: Impacts on Attendees Ten Months After the Event University of Wisconsin Introduction The 10 th North American Manure Expo was held in August, 2012, in Prairie du Sac, Wisconsin. With the goal of connecting farmers, manure haulers, and environmental professionals with the latest manure management technology, the Expo acts as three events in one: (1) Industry trade show, (2) Manure technology demonstrations, and (3) Educational events in support of continuing professional improvement. To this end, the 2012 Manure Expo featured over 60 industry exhibitors, 14 educational seminars on manure and nutrient management, and a number of equipment demonstrations. The present report seeks to assess the Expo s impact on attendees manure management practices, as well as attendees product and equipment purchasing behavior and business savings/earnings resulting from the Manure Expo. Methods Evaluation Unit Philip Deming, Evaluation Assistant; Andrew Meyers, Evaluation Associate; Jenna Klink, Evaluation Specialist April 2014 Two follow- up surveys were conducted: the first was carried out two months after the Expo, and the second was run ten months after the event. Both the 2- Month and 10- Month follow- up survey were delivered in two forms, paper and online, based on contact information attendees provided at the Manure Expo. Those who provided a valid address were ed a link to the online survey, while those who provided a mailing address but no address were mailed a paper version of the survey. The 2- Month follow- up survey was distributed in October, 2012, via mail and . Paper surveys were distributed via an initial survey mailing, and those who failed to return a completed survey received a reminder postcard, followed by a second survey, and then a final reminder postcard. Of the 253 paper 2- Month follow- up surveys sent, 99 surveys were returned at least partially completed (i.e. provided more than basic demographic information), resulting in a response rate of 39%. Online surveys were distributed via , and three successive reminder s were sent to non- respondents. Of the 403 online 2- Month follow- up surveys sent, 205 were returned at least partially completed, yielding a response rate of 51%. In all, Month follow- up surveys were distributed, and 304 individuals returned at least partially completed surveys (Total 2- Month Response Rate: 46%). The 10- Month follow- up survey was conducted in June, 2013, via mail and . Once again, paper surveys were sent in an initial survey mailing, followed in succession by a reminder postcard, second survey, and a final reminder postcard. A total of 255 paper 10- Month follow- up surveys were sent out, and 78 were returned at least partially completed, producing a response rate of 31%. The online version of the 10- Month survey was distributed via , followed by three reminder s, to 404 individuals, of which 132 returned at least partially completed surveys. The resulting response rate was 33%. Combined, a total of Month follow- up surveys were distributed, and 210 respondents returned at least partially completed surveys (Total 10- Month Response Rate: 32%). In order to assess changes in impact between the 2- Month and the 10- Month survey, the present sample was restricted to those respondents who at least partially completed both the 2- Month and 10- Month survey. Therefore, the sample analyzed in this report consists of 156 survey respondents (see table at right for frequencies of paper and online surveys Survey type of those who responded to 2- and 10- month follow- up surveys completed in the present sample). For complete data from the 2- Month survey, Survey Type # % of Sample please see For complete data from Paper 53 34% the 10- Month survey, please see Appendix B of this report. Online % The current report presents findings regarding the Manure Expo s impact on Total Sample % attendees in the following areas: activities completed as a result of attending the Manure Expo, time and money saved because of the Manure Expo, and the use of manure management technologies and methods as a result of attending the Manure Expo. The report first covers the present sample s demographic information and attendance behavior, followed by the impacts of the Manure Expo, and a summary of findings. 1

2 I. Demographics and Attendance Behavior The 2- Month survey gathered demographic information regarding state/country of residence and occupation, as well as attendance behavior information, including attendance of past Manure Expos and attendance of demonstrations, classes, and seminars at the 2012 Manure Expo. The 10- Month survey also collected data regarding occupation; this information is presented alongside the occupation data collected on the 2- Month survey. State/Country Residence: Majority Live in US, in Wisconsin As Table 1 shows, 95% of respondents live in the US, while 5% live outside the US. Most non- US respondents live in Canada (4), while 1 non- US respondent lives in France. As expected, the majority of US respondents (69%) reside in Wisconsin, followed by several neighboring states: Iowa (8%), Minnesota (7%), and Illinois (3%). Respondents also hailed from states in northeastern, western, and southern states. Table 1 displays state residence frequency and percentages. Attendance of Past Manure Expos: Over Half Were Attending their First Manure Expo Survey respondents indicated which of the 9 previous Manure Expos they attended, if they attended any (Table 2). Sixty- three respondents (40%) attended at least one past Manure Expo, while 60% were attending their first Manure Expo. Not surprisingly, the most commonly attended past Manure Expo was the most recent Wisconsin Expo, held in Nearly one in four respondents (24%) attended the 2007 Wisconsin Expo. The next most commonly attended past Expo was Wisconsin in 2003 (15%), followed by Nebraska in 2011 (13%), Iowa in 2009 (10%), and the original Expo in Wisconsin in 2001 (10%). Demonstration, Class, and Seminar Attendance: Demos and Seminars Were Well Attended Demonstrations were particularly well attended. A large majority (83%) attended at least one demonstration, and 49% attended at least two demonstrations. As Table 2 shows, the pit agitation demonstration was the most popular, with 62% of respondents having attended, followed by the solid spreaders demo (58%) and liquid tankers demo (54%). By comparison, classes (i.e. Pump School and the Digester Tour) were less frequently attended, with 80% of respondents attending neither available class (Table 2). However, classes were held on the day before the main Expo events, which may explain the low attendance rate. Eight percent (8%) of respondents Table 2 Past Expo Attendance (n=156) 2012: Demonstrations Attended (n=156) attended only Pump School, 5% attended only the Digester Tour, and another 7% attended both Pump School and the Digester Tour. More than two- thirds of respondents (71%) attended at least one of the fourteen educational seminars held under tents. As Table 2 shows, 37% of respondents attended 3-4 seminars, and 34% attended 1-2 seminars. Table 1 US Residency Status (n=154) # % Live in US % Do not live in US 7 5% State Residence (n=144) # % Connecticut 1 1% Illinois 4 3% Iowa 12 8% Kansas 1 1% Michigan 3 2% Minnesota 10 7% Missouri 1 1% Nebraska 2 1% Nevada 1 1% North Dakota 1 1% Ohio 2 1% Oklahoma 1 1% South Dakota 1 1% Tennessee 1 1% Vermont 1 1% West Virginia 1 1% Wisconsin % Wyoming 1 1% Other Country Residence (n=156) # % Canada 4 3% France 1 1% 2001 Wisconsin 16 10% Pit Agitation 97 62% 2003 Wisconsin 23 15% Solid Spreaders 91 58% 2005 Minnesota 13 8% Liquid Tankers 84 54% 2006 Michigan 4 3% Liquid Dragline 64 41% 2007 Wisconsin 37 24% Manure Spill Response 27 17% 2008 Ohio 8 5% 2009 Iowa 16 10% 2010 Pennsylvania 9 6% 2011 Nebraska 20 13% 2012: Tuesday Classes Attended (n=147) 2012: Number of Educational Seminars Attended (n=154) Pump School 11 8% None 44 29% Digester Tour 8 5% 1-2 Seminars 53 34% Both 10 7% 3-4 Seminars 57 37% Neither % 2

3 Occupation/Affiliation: Livestock Farmers Represent Largest Group On both the 2- Month and 10- Month survey, respondents provided their occupation or affiliation (Table 3). Livestock farmers made up the largest group of respondents (28% on 10- Month survey), followed by agency staff (17%) and for- hire manure haulers (17%). Sixteen percent (16%) were vendors or exhibitors. Although the present sample is the same for the 2- Month and 10- Month survey, the frequencies and percentages for each occupation differ slightly between the two surveys. The cause for this slight discrepancy is unknown, but may involve the addition of the Extension staff category on the 10- Month survey, or respondents changing of primary occupation in the time period between surveys. Table 3 also provides a list of occupations which respondents marked as other. The most commonly listed other occupations were: educator (4), manufacturer (4), student (2), research (2), and salesman (2). Table 3 Respondent Occupation/Affiliation (n=156) 2- Month 10- Month Other Occupations/Affiliations Livestock farmer 48 31% 44 28% Educator (4) Municipal Water Resources Division (1) Agency staff 31 20% 27 17% Manufacturer (4) Employee of manure hauler (1) For- hire manure hauler 24 15% 26 17% Student (2) Feedlot officer (1) Vendor/Exhibitor 22 14% 25 16% Researcher (2) Product manager (1) CCA/Consultant 16 10% 14 9% Salesman (2) Reporter (1) Extension staff Not Asked 10 6% Engineer (1) Retired farmer (1) Other 26 17% 26 17% Ag business (1) University staff (1) II. Impacts of the Manure Expo Both the 2- Month and 10- Month follow- up surveys asked respondents to report behavior and manure management practices that resulted from attending the 2012 Manure Expo. This section details impacts of the Manure Expo in four categories in the following order: (a) Activities Completed after Manure Expo, (b) Other Results of Manure Expo, (c) Time and Money Saved as a Result of the Manure Expo, and (d) Use of Technologies/Methods after Manure Expo. Activities Completed after Manure Expo: Attendees Shared New Knowledge with Others and Increased Work Quality Respondents indicated which of six listed activities they completed after attending the Expo (Table 4). For each activity, the sample size was limited to those who responded to the activity on both the 2- Month and 10- Month survey, so that completion percentages on the 2- Month can be directly compared to completion percentages on the 10- Month survey. Additionally, for each activity, individuals who designated the activity Not applicable to their job were excluded from analysis. Activities Completed as a Result of Attending 2012 Manure Expo. It is important to note that three of the listed activities were worded differently on the two surveys (as noted in Tale 4). Because respondents likely interpreted the distinct wordings in different ways, drawing direct comparisons between the two surveys for these activities is inappropriate. A large percentage of individuals reported having Shared knowledge gained with others on the 2- Month survey (129, or 95%) and 10- Month survey (126, or 93%). A substantial group of individuals also Increased or improved work quality/efficiency/methods two months after the Expo (98, or 96%) and ten months after the Expo (74, or 73%). Two activities were completed by a noticeably higher percentage of respondents after ten months than after two months, although frequencies were still low compared to the total sample size of 156. Nonetheless, the 10- Month survey allowed time for more respondents to (a) Purchase equipment, product or service seen at the Expo ( 5, or 8%; 10- Month: 22, or 35%) and (b) Sell additional equipment/service ( 11, or 34%; 10- Month: 16, or 50%). 3

4 Table 4 Activities Completed as a Result of Attending 2012 Manure Expo 2- Month Survey 10- Month Survey Total N Shared knowledge gained with others % % 136 Increased or improved work quality/efficiency/methods* 98 96% 74 73% 102 Learned about/implemented nutrient management technologies/ practices** 59 64% 56 61% 92 Made a new business connection with someone you met at the Expo*** 48 67% 48 67% 72 Purchased equipment, product or service seen at the Expo 5 8% 22 35% 63 Sold additional equipment/service 11 34% 16 50% 32 Note: Total N includes only individuals who responded to each item on BOTH the 2- Month and 10- Month survey. Individuals who selected N/A were excluded. *2- Month Survey Wording: Used what I learned to better do my job 10- Month Survey Wording: Increased or improved work quality/efficiency/methods **2- Month Survey Wording: Learned about technologies related to nutrient management, such as GPS, sensor, load cells 10- Month Survey Wording: Implemented nutrient management technologies/practices ***2- Month Survey Wording: Got lead(s) for further business 10- Month Survey Wording: Made a new business connection with someone you met at Expo Effect of Learning on Implementation of Nutrient Management Technologies/Practices. Although the changing language for the activity Learned about/implemented nutrient management technologies/practices does not allow for direct comparisons of activity completion, the language does allow us to examine whether those who learned about nutrient management technologies after two months were more likely to implement nutrient management technologies after ten months. Given that nearly as many respondents implemented nutrient management technologies/practices after ten months (61%) as learned about them after two months (64%), the relationship between the two activities requires further analysis. McNemar s test revealed that those who learned about nutrient management technologies/practices by the 2- Month survey were not significantly more likely to implement such technologies/practices than those who did not learn about them by the 2- Month survey, p =.728. As Table 5 displays, 40 respondents (69%) who learned about technologies related to nutrient management as a result of the Expo had implemented such technologies/practices ten months after the Expo. Additionally, nearly half (15, or 45%) of respondents who did not learn about nutrient management technologies/practices because of the Manure Expo had also implemented such technologies/practices by the 10- Month survey. Table 5 Effect of Learning on Subsequent Implementation of Nutrient Mgmt. Technologies/Practices Implemented nutrient mgmt Did not implement nutrient tech./practices mgmt tech./practices 2- Month Survey: Learned about tech. related to nutrient mgmt. 2- Month Survey: Did not learn about tech. related to nutrient mgmt. 40 (69%) 15 (45%) 18 (31%) 18 (55%) Total N 58 (100%) 33 (100%) Effect of Planning on Equipment Purchasing Behavior. A question on the 2- Month survey broke down equipment purchasing behavior even further. Respondents indicated not only whether they had already purchased equipment, product or service seen at the Expo, but whether they were planning to do so. The 10- Month survey also collected equipment purchasing data, allowing for analysis of the question: Did planning to purchase equipment two months after the Expo translate into actual purchases ten months after the Expo? A McNemar analysis did not reveal a significant difference in equipment purchasing behavior between those who planned to purchase equipment on the 2- Month survey and those who did not plan to purchase equipment, p =

5 However, Table 6 shows that, of 28 individuals who planned to purchase equipment seen at the Expo, 17 (61%) completed a purchase by the 10- Month survey. In a similar manner, 30 of 35 respondents (86%) who did not plan to purchase equipment seen at the Expo followed their planned behavior and did not purchase equipment by the 10- Month survey. Table 6 Effect of Planning on Equipment Purchasing Behavior Purchased equipment 2- Month Survey: 17 Planned to purchase equipment 2- Month Survey: Did not plan to purchase equipment (61%) 5 (14%) Did not purchase equipment 11 (39%) 30 (86%) Other Results of Manure Expo: Expo Was Learning and Networking Opportunity Total N 28 (100%) 35 (100%) An open- ended question on both the 2- Month and 10- Month allowed respondents to provide results from the Manure Expo other than those listed in Table 4. Of the 156 respondents in the current sample, 19 provided other results on the 2- Month survey, and 39 listed other results on the 10- Month survey. The analysis below combines data collected on each survey. The most common other result was that respondents learned from the Manure Expo (22 individuals listed this result). In particular, respondents learned about manure management practices (10), equipment (4), and technology (3). Below are examples of these comments: Incorporating manure with a cover crop. Let the cover crop convey the nutrient deep in the soil. Pump School and how to improve pump efficiency was very helpful. Gained some knowledge on pumps and hose- dragging equipment. Better understanding of digestion and how it fits on farms. Another respondent added a similar comment, saying it is always good to be able to discuss ideas with other people in the industry. Additionally, 13 respondents saw the Manure Expo as a networking opportunity. Some examples are below: Networking with other applicators. Through networking, we are seeking to apply lessons learned in Wisconsin to our local situation in Manitoba. Connected with other regulatory agency personnel for knowledge about their programs. In the same vein, 3 respondents mentioned that the Manure Expo connected them directly with vendors, and another 3 individuals reiterated that they made business connections at the Manure Expo. Examples of these comments are below: Communication with vendors that we would not normally have contact with. Generate contacts for future business. Finally, 3 respondents appreciated the equipment demonstrations: Field demos helped us with our decisions on products. Got to see equipment in action. Time and Money Saved as a Result of the Manure Expo: A Small Number of Respondents Reported Sizable Savings/Earnings in Time and Money Each survey asked respondents to indicate whether the previously designated results from the Manure Expo brought about monetary earnings or savings, or savings in time. Few respondents said that the Manure Expo resulted in saved money ( 5, or 3%; 10- Month: 9, or 6%), saved time ( 5, or 3%; 10- Month: 15, or 10%), or money earned through sales ( 6, or 4%; 10- Month: 5, or 3%). 5

6 However, respondents who reported savings or earnings reported sizable values (Table 7). Ten months after the Manure Expo, a total of 8 participants reported an average of $6,275 in savings resulting from the Expo, with a maximum of $11,000 in savings. Similarly, 15 respondents declared an average of 69 hours saved ten months after the Expo, with a maximum of 400 hours saved. Another 8 individuals reported making money because of the Expo within the first ten months, with an average of $89,063 earned and a maximum of $300,000 earned. Table 7 Time and Money Saved as a Result of the Manure Expo 2- Month Survey 10- Month Survey* Mean Avg. $4,400 Mean Avg. $6,275 Money Saved Since Min. $200 Min. $ Manure Expo Max. $10,000 Max. $11,000 N 3 N 8 Hours Saved Since 2012 Manure Expo Money Made in Sales Since 2012 Manure Expo Mean Avg. 17 Hours Mean Avg. 69 Hours Min. 3 Hours Min. 3 Hours Max. 35 Hours Max. 400 Hours N 5 N 15 Mean Avg. $96,625 Mean Avg. $89,063 Min. $1,500 Min. $1,500 Max. $275,000 Max. $300,000 N 4 N 8 *10- Month Survey data includes values given on the 2- Month Survey, without overlapping data, to reflect the cumulative money and hours saved/earned since the 2012 Manure Expo. Use of Technologies/Methods after Manure Expo: Spill Response Plan was Commonly Used; Manure Expo had Small Impact on Technology/Method Use Survey respondents provided a series of information regarding their use of, planned use of, and familiarity with six listed technologies and management methods. Those who were using a listed technology or method also indicated whether the Manure Expo influenced them to use that technology or method. The following section presents technology/method use data in four different manners: (a) Use, planned use, and familiarity with technologies/methods ten months after Expo (Table 8), (b) Influence of Manure Expo on use of technologies/methods by manure haulers (Table 9), (c) Influence of Manure Expo on use of technologies/methods by livestock farmers (Table 10), and (d) Effect of planning on use of technologies/methods ten months after Expo (Table 11). Use of Technologies/Methods 10 Months After Expo. On the 10- Month survey, respondents who were using a listed manure management technology or method also indicated, in a follow- up question, whether they were using that technology or method because of the Manure Expo. Those who were not using a listed manure management technology or method answered a series of follow- up questions indicating their familiarity with the technology or method and, subsequently, whether they planned to use, might use but had no current plans to use, or were unlikely to use technologies or methods they were familiar with in the future. Respondents could also designate a technology or method as Not applicable to my business ; these respondents were excluded from analysis, and the below data represent only those who found each technology or method applicable to their business. As Table 8 shows, the most widely used technology or method after ten months was the spill response plan, with 47 respondents (78%) using this method. A total of 27 respondents (47%) were creating as- applied maps via GPS ten months after the Manure Expo, and 10 respondents (17%) were using an agitation boat/barge ten months after the Expo. Even for these commonly used technologies or methods, however, very few respondents reported that the Expo influenced their use of the technology or method. Seven individuals (12%) were creating as- applied maps via GPS because of the Manure Expo, 4 respondents (7%) were using a spill response plan because of the Manure Expo, and 4 respondents (7%) were using load cells on spreaders because of the Expo. Respondents showed high rates of familiarity with the technologies and methods they were not using ten months after the Expo (Table 8). For each of the technologies and methods listed, over half of non- users who responded said they were familiar with the technology or method. For three technologies or methods which respondents were familiar with but were not using, the majority said they might use the technology or method in the future, but they had no current plans to: Agitation boats/barge (13, or 54%), Creating as- applied maps via GPS (10, or 83%), and Spill response plan (2, or 67%). For three other technologies or methods, at least half of respondents were familiar, but were unlikely to use the technology or method in the future: Hose bridge (19, or 79%), Load cells on spreaders (11, or 58%), and Side- dressing manure on corn (10, or 50%). These results can be found in Table 8A in Appendix A. 6

7 Table 8 Use of Technologies/Methods 10 Months after Expo (Abbreviated Table) because Not using, but familiar with Not using, but plan to use in next year #/Total N (%) #/Total N (%) #/Total N (%) #/Total N (%) Spill response plan 47/60 (78%) 4/60 (7%) 7/7 (100%) 1/3 (33%) Hose bridge 1/59 (2%) 0/59 (0%) 31/33 (94%) 0/24 (0%) Agitation boats/barge 10/60 (17%) 3/60 (5%) 28/28 (100%) 8/24 (33%) Load cells on spreaders 8/57 (14%) 4/57 (7%) 27/30 (90%) 1/19 (5%) Creating as- applied maps via GPS 27/58 (47%) 7/58 (12%) 19/22 (86%) 1/12 (8%) Side- dressing manure on corn 5/58 (9%) 0/58 (0%) 24/37 (65%) 2/20 (10%) Individuals who responded Not applicable to my business were excluded from analysis. Note: Because is a subset of. Respondents reported first whether they were using each technology/method, then whether the Manure Expo influenced their use of that technology/method. Note: Not using, but plan to use in next year, Not using, might use in future, not currently planned, and Not using, unlikely to use in future are subsets of Not using, but familiar with. Only those familiar with a technology/method were asked to provide their likelihood of use in the future. For full results, please see Table 8A in Appendix A. Influence of Manure Expo on Use of Technologies/Methods by Manure Haulers. The first of two key audiences, manure haulers commonly reported using a spill response plan on both the 2- Month and 10- Month survey, but few attributed their use of a spill response plan to the Manure Expo (Table 9). Indeed, 18 manure haulers (78%) were using a spill response plan two months after the Expo, and 23 manure haulers (92%) were using a plan ten months after the Expo. However, only 2 individuals on each survey said they were using a spill response plan because of the Manure Expo. Two months after the Expo, 7 manure haulers (33%) were creating as- applied maps via GPS, and this figure rose to 13 manure haulers (54%) on the 10- Month survey. However, the Manure Expo caused only 2 individuals to start creating as- applied maps via GPS following the 2- Month survey. The next most commonly used technology or method was the agitation boat/barge, with 7 manure haulers (33%) using by the 2- Month survey and 8 manure haulers (33%) using by the 10- Month survey. Table 9 Influence of Manure Expo on Use of Technologies/Methods by Manure Haulers Because 10- Month: 10- Month: Because #/Total N (%) #/Total N (%) #/Total N (%) #/Total N (%) Spill response plan 18/23 (78%) 2/23 (9%) 23/25 (92%) 2/25 (8%) Hose bridge 0/19 (0%) 0/19 (0%) 0/23 (0%) 0/23 (0%) Agitation boats/barge 7/21 (33%) 1/21 (5%) 8/24 (33%) 2/24 (8%) Load cells on spreaders 0/19 (0%) 0/19 (0%) 3/24 (13%) 1/24 (4%) Creating as- applied maps via GPS 7/21 (33%) 0/21 (0%) 13/24 (54%) 2/24 (8%) Side- dressing manure on corn 2/22 (9%) 0/22 (0%) 2/24 (8%) 0/24 (0%) Individuals who responded Not applicable to my business were excluded from analysis. Note: Because is a subset of. Respondents reported first whether they were using each technology/method, then whether the Manure Expo influenced their use of that technology/method. Influence of Manure Expo on Use of Technologies/Methods by Livestock Farmers. The second key group, livestock farmers also commonly reported using a spill response plan (Table 10). Two months after the Expo, 24 livestock farmers (56%) were using a spill response plan, and this number increased to 29 livestock farmers (73%) ten months after the Expo. However, only 2 livestock farmers (5%) attributed their use of a spill response plan to the Manure Expo on the 2- Month survey, and 3 livestock farmers (8%) did so on the 10- Month survey. Additionally, nearly half of livestock farmers (18, or 46%) were creating as- applied maps via GPS by the 10- Month survey, up from 11 livestock farmers (26%) who were creating as- applied maps via GPS by the 2- Month survey. Although no livestock farmers (0%) were creating as- applied maps via GPS because of the Manure Expo two months after the event, a total of 5 livestock farmers (13%) were doing so because of the Expo ten months after the event. The next most commonly used technology or method after ten months was Load cells on spreaders (5, or 13%), with 3 livestock farmers (8%) using load cells on spreaders because of the Manure Expo. 7

8 Table 10 Influence of Manure Expo on Use of Technologies/Methods by Livestock Farmers Because 10- Month: 10- Month: Because #/Total N (%) #/Total N (%) #/Total N (%) #/Total N (%) Spill response plan 24/43 (56%) 2/43 (5%) 29/40 (73%) 3/40 (8%) Hose bridge 2/43 (5%) 0/43 (0%) 1/41 (2%) 0/41 (0%) Agitation boats/barge 3/44 (7%) 1/44 (2%) 3/41 (7%) 1/41 (2%) Load cells on spreaders 2/41 (5%) 0/41 (0%) 5/38 (13%) 3/38 (8%) Creating as- applied maps via GPS 11/42 (26%) 0/42 (0%) 18/39 (46%) 5/39 (13%) Side- dressing manure on corn 1/40 (3%) 0/40 (0%) 3/39 (8%) 0/39 (0%) Individuals who responded Not applicable to my business were excluded from analysis. Note: Because is a subset of. Respondents reported first whether they were using each technology/method, then whether the Manure Expo influenced their use of that technology/method. Use of Planned/Unplanned Technologies and Methods 10 Months after Expo. Similar to the question regarding planning to purchase manure management equipment, the 2- Month survey allows for analysis of the question: Did planning to use manure management technologies or methods after two months translate into actual use of those technologies after 10 months? Table 11 displays only the technologies/methods that achieved significance using McNemar s test. For full results, please see Table 11A in Appendix A. As Table 11 shows, three technologies/methods showed a significant difference between planners and non- planners use of the technology/method ten months after the Expo. McNemar s test showed that those who planned to use agitation boats/barge were significantly more likely to use this technology by the 10- Month survey than those who did not plan to use agitation boats/barge, p =.000. Despite this significant difference, only 3 respondents (15%) who planned to use agitation boats/barge were using the technology by the 10- Month survey. A McNemar analysis also showed that respondents who planned to create as- applied maps via GPS were more likely to use this method by the 10- Month survey than those who did not plan to create- as applied maps via GPS, p =.012. Half of respondents (10, or 50%) who planned to create as- applied maps via GPS were doing so by the 10- Month survey. Finally, McNemar s test showed that those who planned to side- dress manure on corn were more likely to be using this method by the 10- Month survey than respondents who did not plan to use this method. However, a very low percentage of respondents (1, or 10%) who planned to side- dress manure on corn were using this method ten months after the Manure Expo. Table 11 Use of Planned/Unplanned Technologies/Methods 10 Months after Expo (Abbreviated Table) Not Total N* Not using at time of 2- Month Survey: Agitation boats/barge # Plan to use 3 (15%) 17 (85%) 20 (100%) No plans to use 1 (8%) 12 (92%) 13 (100%) Creating as- applied Plan to use 10 (50%) 10 (50%) 20 (100%) maps via GPS ## No plans to use 1 (9%) 10 (91%) 11 (100%) Side- dressing manure Plan to use 1 (10%) 9 (90%) 10 (100%) on corn ### No plans to use 1 (3%) 29 (97%) 30 (100%) * Those who responded Not applicable to my business were excluded from this analysis. # McNemar test: p =.000. ## McNemar test: p =.012. ### McNemar test: p =.021. For full results, please see Table 11A in Appendix A. 8

9 III. Summary of Findings Activities Completed after Manure Expo As a result of the 2012 Manure Expo, respondents completed a number of activities relevant to their jobs at a high rate. Indeed, ten months after attending the Manure Expo, five of the six listed activities were completed by half or more of respondents who found the activities applicable to their job: (1) Shared knowledge gained with others (126, or 93%), (2) Increased or improved work quality/efficiency/methods (74, or 73%), (3) Implemented nutrient management technologies/practices (56, or 61%), (4) Made a new business connection with someone you met at the Expo (48, or 67%), and (5) Sold additional equipment/service (16, or 50%). See Table 4. It is notable that 59 respondents (64%) reported having learned about nutrient management technologies on the 2- Month survey, and a similarly high frequency of respondents (56, or 61%) actually implemented such technologies by the 10- Month survey. Additional analyses revealed that respondents who learned about nutrient management technologies because of the Manure Expo were not significantly more likely to implement those technologies than respondents who did not learn about nutrient management technologies. Of those who learned about nutrient management technologies because of the Manure Expo, 40 respondents (69%) had implemented those technologies ten months after the Expo. And nearly half (15, or 45%) of those who did not learn about such technologies implemented them by the 10- Month survey. See Table 5. The frequency of respondents who purchased equipment, product or service seen at the Expo increased between the 2- Month survey (5, or 8%) and the 10- Month survey (22, or 35%), suggesting the 2- Month survey did not allow enough time to capture the Expo s full impact by this measure. According to McNemar s test, planning to purchase equipment to not significantly affect respondents equipment purchasing behavior. Nonetheless, the majority of respondents (17, 0r 61%) who planned to purchase equipment did so by the 10- Month survey. See Table 6. Other Results of Manure Expo When given the opportunity to list results of the Manure Expo other than those listed, a substantial group reported that the Manure Expo served as a learning opportunity (22 individuals listed this result). Specifically, respondents learned about manure management practices (10), equipment (4), and technology (3). Others indicated the Manure Expo was a useful opportunity to network with other industry professionals (13). Some respondents mentioned that the Manure Expo connected them directly with vendors (3), allowed them to make connections for future business (3), and provided valuable equipment demonstrations (3). Time/Money Saved as a Result of the Manure Expo Although few respondents reported saving time or saving/earning money as a result of the Manure Expo, those who did report savings or earning described considerable amounts of time and money saved. Ten months after the Expo, 8 respondents saved an average of $6,275, 15 respondents saved an average of 69 hours, and 8 individuals made an average of $89,063 in sales because of the Manure Expo. See Table 7. Use of Technologies/Methods after Manure Expo Ten months after the Expo, two manure management methods were frequently used by respondents who found them applicable to their jobs: (1) Spill response plan (47, or 78% ), and (2) Creating as- applied maps via GPS (27, or 47% ). However, small percentages of respondents attributed their use of these methods to the 2012 Manure Expo: (1) Spill response plan (4, or 7% because ), and (2) Creating as- applied maps via GPS (7, or 12% because ). Other listed technologies/methods (Hose bridge, Agitation boats/barge, Load cells on spreaders, and Side- dressing manure on corn) were not widely used. See Table 8. This pattern of results generally held for both manure haulers and livestock farmers. For both groups, Spill response plan was the most widely used technology or method, followed by Creating as- applied maps via GPS. Although few attributed their use of these methods to the Manure Expo, each group s use of these two methods increased between the 2- Month and 10- Month survey. Agitation boats/barge were used by a higher percentage of manure haulers (8, or 33% ) than livestock farmers (3, or 7% ) ten months after the Expo. See Tables 9 and 10. McNemar s test showed that planning resulted in higher frequency of use for the following three technologies/methods: (1) Agitation boats/barge, (2) Creating as- applied maps via GPS, and (3) Side- dressing manure on corn. See Table 11. 9

10 Appendix A Full Versions of Abbreviated Tables in Present Report Table 8A Use of Technologies/Methods 10 Months after Expo (Full Table) because of Expo Not using, but familiar with Not using, but plan to use in next year Not using, might use in future, not currently planned Not using, unlikely to use in future #/Total N (%) #/Total N (%) #/Total N (%) #/Total N (%) #/Total N (%) #/Total N (%) Spill response plan 47/60 (78%) 4/60 (7%) 7/7 (100%) 1/3 (33%) 2/3 (67%) 0/3 (0%) Hose bridge 1/59 (2%) 0/59 (0%) 31/33 (94%) 0/24 (0%) 5/24 (21%) 19/24 (79%) Agitation boats/barge 10/60 (17%) 3/60 (5%) 28/28 (100%) 8/24 (33%) 13/24 (54%) 3/24 (13%) Load cells on spreaders 8/57 (14%) 4/57 (7%) 27/30 (90%) 1/19 (5%) 7/19 (37%) 11/19 (58%) Creating as- applied maps via GPS 27/58 (47%) 7/58 (12%) 19/22 (86%) 1/12 (8%) 10/12 (83%) 1/12 (8%) Side- dressing manure on corn 5/58 (9%) 0/58 (0%) 24/37 (65%) 2/20 (10%) 8/20 (40%) 10/20 (50%) Individuals who responded Not applicable to my business were excluded from analysis. Note: Because is a subset of. Respondents reported first whether they were using each technology/method, then whether the Manure Expo influenced their use of that technology/method. Note: Not using, but plan to use in next year, Not using, might use in future, not currently planned, and Not using, unlikely to use in future are subsets of Not using, but familiar with. Only those familiar with a technology/method were asked to provide their likelihood of use in the future. Table 11A Use of Planned/Unplanned Technologies/Methods 10 Months after Expo (Full Table) Not Total N* Not using at time of 1 Month Survey: Spill response plan Plan to use 8 (62%) 5 (38%) 13 (100%) No plans to use 1 (25%) 3 (75%) 4 (100%) Hose bridge Plan to use 0 (0%) 7 (100%) 7 (100%) No plans to use 0 (0%) 25 (100%) 25 (100%) Agitation boats/barge # Plan to use 3 (15%) 17 (85%) 20 (100%) No plans to use 1 (8%) 12 (92%) 13 (100%) Load cells on spreaders Plan to use 4 (36%) 7 (64%) 11 (100%) No plans to use 2 (8%) 23 (92%) 25 (100%) Creating as- applied Plan to use 10 (50%) 10 (50%) 20 (100%) maps via GPS ## No plans to use 1 (9%) 10 (91%) 11 (100%) Side- dressing manure Plan to use 1 (10%) 9 (90%) 10 (100%) on corn ### No plans to use 1 (3%) 29 (97%) 30 (100%) * Those who responded Not applicable to my business were excluded from this analysis. # McNemar test: p =.000. ## McNemar test: p =.012. ### McNemar test: p =.021. Appendix A1

11 Appendix B Data from Full Samples of 2- Month and 10- Month Survey Respondents The following tables present data from the complete 2- Month and 10- Month samples (i.e. data not restricted to those who completed both the 2- Month and 10- Month survey). Table i Respondent Occupation/Affiliation (Full Survey Samples) 2- Month (n=336) 10- Month (n=225) Other Occupations/Affiliations For- hire manure hauler 50 15% 45 20% Salesman (6) Livestock farmer 86 26% 68 30% Professor (4) Agency staff 56 17% 31 14% Researcher (3) Extension staff Not Asked 13 6% Student (3) Vendor/Exhibitor 44 13% 29 13% Engineer (2) CCA/Consultant 34 10% 16 7% Farmer (2) Other 56 17% 39 17% Table ii Activities Completed as a Result of Attending 2012 Manure Expo (Full Survey Samples) 2- Month Survey 10- Month Survey Sold additional equipment/service 30 26% 27 39% Increased or improved work quality/efficiency/methods* % % Shared knowledge gained with others % % Implemented nutrient management technologies/practices % learned about technologies 89 63% Purchase equipment, product or service seen at Expo 15 9% (and 35% planned to) 41 32% Make a new business connection with someone you met at Expo % got lead for further business 98 58% Respondents who marked N/A were excluded from analysis for each item. *Note that this item was worded differently on the 2- Month survey: Used what I learned to better do my job was used instead of increased or improved work quality/efficiency/methods. Table iii Other Results of Manure Expo (Full 10- Month Sample) # Result from Expo 12 Networking, getting more business contacts or sharing information learned 7 Learned more about manure transport/application techniques 7 Get to see equipment in person and in action with the demos 5 General knowledge gain regarding the manure industry 3 Learned more about hauling costs or improving efficiency 2 See newest equipment in the industry Appendix B1

12 Table iv Did Results of Manure Expo Save Time or Money? (Full Survey Samples) 2- Month 10 - Month Saved time or money 25 7% 46 22% Did not save time or money % % Don t know % Table v Time and Money Saved as a Result of the Manure Expo (Full Survey Samples) 2- Month Survey 10- Month Survey* Mean Avg. $4,200 Mean Avg. $6,571 Money Saved Total $25,222 Total $46,000 Since 2012 Manure Expo N 11 N 14 Hours Saved Since 2012 Manure Expo Money Made in Sales Since 2012 Manure Expo Mean Avg. 16 Hours Mean Avg. 94 Hours Total 117 Hours Total 1,525 Hours N 10 N 19 Mean Avg. $67,750 Mean Avg. $81,500 Total $406,500 Total $326,000 N 12 N 5 *10- Month results are not cumulative (i.e. do not include responses provided on 2- Month survey), unlike Table 7 in the body of this report. Table vi Influence of Manure Expo on Use of Technologies/Methods after Expo (Full Survey Samples) Because 10 Month: Because #/Total N (%) #/Total N (%) #/Total N (%) #/Total N (%) Spill response plan 80/117 (69%) 8/117 (7%) 74/91 (81%) 6/91 (7%) Hose bridge 6/112 (5%) 2/112 (2%) 3/62 (5%) 0/62 (0%) Agitation boats/barge 24/118 (20%) 4/118 (3%) 18/70 (26%) 5/70 (7%) Load cells on spreaders 7/112 (6%) 3/112 (3%) 11/66 (17%) 4/66 (6%) Creating as- applied maps via GPS 42/114 (37%) 5/114 (4%) 42/70 (53%) 8/70 (11%) Side- dressing manure on corn 13/113 (12%) 13/113 (12%) 7/66 (10%) 0/66 (0%) Other new idea/method learned from Expo - - 7/79 (41%) 6/79 (8%) Other Ideas/Methods Learned from Expo Agitation Boat (2) Even if we are not using equipment, we need to see our options Manure and no till Pump efficiency Newton bar True hauling costs Note: Because is a subset of. Respondents reported first whether they were using each technology/method, then whether the Manure Expo influenced their use of that technology/method. Appendix B2

13 Table vii Technologies/Methods Not Used 10 Months after Expo (Full 10- Month Sample) Not using, but familiar with Not using, but plan to use in next year Not using, might use in future, not currently planned Not using, unlikely to use in future #/Total N (%) #/Total N (%) #/Total N (%) #/Total N (%) Spill response plan 13/13 (100%) 2/6 (33%) 4/6 (67%) 0/6 (0%) Hose bridge 42/45 (93%) 1/33 (3%) 9/33 (27%) 23/33 (70%) Agitation boats/barge 41/41 (100%) 10/33 (30%) 15/33 (46%) /33 (24%) Load cells on spreaders 35/43 (81%) 1/24 (4%) 9/24 (38%) 14/24 (58%) Creating as- applied maps via GPS 22/27 (81%) 1/14 (7%) 11/14 (79%) 2/14 (14%) Side- dressing manure on corn 35/53 (66%) 3/28 (11%) 10/28 (36%) 15/28 (53%) Other new idea/method learned from Expo 4/7 (57%) 1/2 (50%) 1/2 (50%) 0/2 (0%) Note: Not using, but plan to use in next year, Not using, might use in future, not currently planned, and Not using, unlikely to use in future are subsets of Not using, but familiar with. Only those familiar with a technology/method were asked to provide their likelihood of use in the future. Appendix B3