Implementing Effective Sustainable Agriculture Risk Management Programs - Lessons from the WV Sustainable Agriculture Needs Assessment Survey Doolarie Singh-Knights 1, Marlon Knights 2, and Barbara Liedl 3 1 Extension Specialist, 2 Associate Animal Science Professor, West Virginia University 3 Associate Professor, West Virginia State University Environmental degradation, erosion of rural communities, loss of small family farms, and inadequate conservation of fragile lands have made agricultural sustainability a significant concern. The aim of sustainability in agriculture is a healthy and ample food supply for both the present and future generations through the wise utilization of natural resources. Agricultural Service Providers (ASPs) are facilitators of sustainable agricultural risk management activities; they are expected to know more, and meet the increasing demands of a diverse farmer population. Dealing with conflicting norms, values, and interests associated with sustainability requires improvements in the competencies of ASPs. ASPs must receive continuous in-service training in line with their training needs about sustainability if they are to improve their on-the-job effectiveness. In-service training needs assessments are essential to determine and prioritize training needs, so that training resources can be efficiently utilized. This poster highlights outcomes of the WV Sustainable Agriculture Needs Assessment. It focuses on the differences in knowledge, interest, and adoption of ASPs versus producers with regard to sustainable agriculture programs; determines what the targeted audience already knows/believes, and what gaps still exist, so we can design effective future sustainable agriculture educational programs; and determines what methodologies we can employ to make extension programs more accessible, acceptable and useful to our clientele. Since the urgency to address agricultural sustainability is great, this study has broad applicability to general ASPs and producers nationally, and to University Agricultural Education Programs, as they prepare their students to be the next cadre of ASPs. INTRODUCTION RESULTS  The common competencies with the highest discrepancy score for both ASP and producers (greatest need for in-service training (ASP) and outreach training (producers) include: Farm Business Planning and Management; Risk Management; Record-Keeping, and Enterprise and Financial Analysis; Farm and Food Safety; Direct Marketing; and Entrepreneurial Opportunities and Market Analysis.  The competencies with the highest discrepancy score for producers (but for which ASP are competent) include: Soil Conservation and Management; Accessing Funding Opportunities/Grant Writing; Integrated Pest Management; Community and Local Food Systems; and Youth and Beginning Farmer Education. These are areas for additional producer outreach training programs.  There is some disparity between ASP’s perceptions of and producers’ actual level of adoption of sustainable agricultural practices in WV. More communication is necessary so training needs can be appropriately addressed.  There is general agreement between ASP and producers about the general factors that limits producers’ adoption of sustainable agricultural practices.  The variable emerging as the best predictor of adoption of sustainable agriculture practices include perceptions of compatibility with current farming systems (21.75% of variation) and access to sustainable agriculture information (5%). CONCLUSION/IMPLICATIONS OF THIS STUDY MATERIALS AND METHODS The main aim for this study was to identify, prioritize and compare the sustainable agriculture training needs of Agricultural Service Providers compared to WV producers. We achieve this by looking at ‘sustainable agriculture competency levels of ASPs and producers’ and ‘adoption of sustainable agriculture practices’ through the following objectives: 1.To compare ASPs and producers perceived level of importance of 27 competencies regarding sustainability; 2.To compare ASPs and producers perceived level of competency of 27 competencies regarding sustainability; 3.To prioritize the training needs of ASPs (and producers) by determining the Mean Weighted Discrepancy Score (MWDS) for each competency (difference between importance rating and ability/competence rating); 4.To analyze the degree to which selected sustainable agriculture practices have been adopted by producers compared to ASP perception of producers’ adoption of these practices; 5.To compare ASPs perception to producers assessment of the factors that limits adoption of sustainable agricultural practices; and 6.To determine the producers’ personal, farm and sustainability perceptions variables that were predictive of their levels of adoption of selected sustainable agricultural practices. RATIONALE Problems including environmental degradation, the erosion of rural communities, the elimination of small family farms from agriculture, and the inadequate conservation of fragile lands have made agricultural sustainability a significant concern (Chizari et al., 2006). Economically sound, environmentally protective, and social acceptability are the three widely advocated components of sustainable agriculture, with the aim of securing a healthy and ample food supply for present and future generations through the wise utilization of natural resources (Williams, 2000; Al-Subaiee et al., 2005). Given the need for sustainability in today’s world, ASPs are expected to know more, and meet the increasing demands of a diverse farmer population. Dealing with complexity, uncertainty, and conflicting norms, values, and interests associated with sustainability requires a fundamental transformation in the competencies required by ASPs (Wals and Bawden, 2000). These ASPs are the potential facilitators of sustainable agricultural and rural development. Therefore, if ASPs are to improve their on-the-job effectiveness, they must receive continuous in- service (professional development) training, in line with their own training needs and the needs of their clientele. Once these needs are determined and prioritized, training resources can be utilized more efficiently.  Adewale Alonge, Robert Martin (1995). Assessment of the adoption of sustainable agriculture practices; Implications for Agricultural Education. Journal of Agricultural Education. Vol. 3, No. 3,  Al-Subaiee S, Yoder SF, Thomson JS (2005). Extension agents' perceptions of sustainable agriculture in the Riyadh Region of Saudi Arabia. J. International Agric. Ext. Educ. 12(1):  Amirhossein Alibaygi, Kiumars Zarafshani (2008). Training needs of Iranian extension agents about sustainability: The use of Borich’s needs assessment model. African Journal of Agricultural Research Vol. 3 (10). Pp , Oct  Chizari M, Alibaygi AH, Breazeale D (2006). Analysis of the Training Needs of Multi-Functional Extension Agents Associated with Sustainability. J. Int. Agric. Ext. Educ. 13(1): REFERENCES AGRICULTURAL SERVICE PROVIDERS (MWDS) PRODUCERS (MWDS) Sustainable Agriculture Topic/Practice Perceived Importance (Mean) Level of Knowledge (Mean) MWDS Sustainable Agriculture Topic/Practice Perceived Importance (Mean) Level of Knowledge (Mean) MWDS Farm business planning, management and development Enterprise analysis, record-keeping and financial analysis Risk management planning Farm business planning, management and development Enterprise analysis, record-keeping and financial analysis Soil conservation and management Farm and food safety Accessing funding opportunities/grant writing Alternative marketing systems (Farm to Institution) Integrated/Ecological pest management Grazing systems and pasture management Community and local food systems Season extension production and management Farm and food safety Entrepreneurial opportunities, industry/market analysis Entrepreneurial opportunities, industry/market analysis Processing and value-adding Youth Agriculture/Beginning Farmer education Farm energy options Risk management planning Beekeeping and honey production and marketing Alternative marketing systems (farm to institution) Integrated/Ecological pest management Irrigation/water conservation and management Youth Agriculture/Beginning Farmer education Farm energy options Soil conservation and management Season extension production and management Specialty crops production and management (horticulture) Specialty crops production and management (horticulture) Community and local food systems Facilitating farmer alliances and partnerships Predictor Variables (Adoption Levels) Multiple R R2R2R2R2 Percent Variance F. Value Prob. Perceptions of Compatibility * Access to SA Information * *p =.001