Notes

Outline

An Assessment of Pollution Prevention in Montana Secondary Agricultural Education Laboratories Thomas M. Bass, M.S. Martin J. Frick, Ph.D. Montana State University Bozeman, Montana Presented at NAERC December 06, 2000

INTRODUCTION What is pollution prevention? Also known as P2, waste minimization, and source reduction. Reduces waste and pollutants at the source through better management, in-house reuse of materials, alternate products and alternate processes. Preferred method of waste management.

INTRODUCTION Schools have begun to more closely examine waste reduction, waste management, pollution prevention, and hazardous waste management. Traditional science education has begun to examine waste streams from educational activities and laboratories, ie: “Green Chemistry”.

INTRODUCTION “If agricultural educators recognize these {environmental} concerns and teach their students how to develop solutions to these problems through the application of scientific principles, then the students, the agricultural industry and the profession of agriculture will all benefit.” (Williams, 1997)

INTRODUCTION From 1986 to 1996 only 18, of 853 articles, published in the Journal of Agricultural Education dealt with “environmental” issues. Environmental issues are only an emerging topic in agricultural education.

INTRODUCTION “If students are learning in class about the environment and how to act responsibly, and the university, through its buildings, its operations and investments is unsustainable, then they are sending a very subtle but effective message that says ‘Do what I say, not what I do’, practicing what they preach is extremely important.” A. Cortese, former dean, Tufts

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES To determine Montana agricultural educators’ current practices in pollution prevention and waste management; To identify barriers to practicing pollution prevention by Montana agricultural educators;

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES To determine Montana agricultural educators’ perceptions of environmental issues and pollution prevention.

Highlights from Literature Review EPA identified hazardous materials associated with agricultural and vocational education: pesticides, fertilizers, stains, solvents, wood preservatives, paints, metal dust, de-greasing solvents, oil, grease, batteries, acids, alkaline wastes, and stripping and cleaning solutions (1990).

METHODS/PROCEDURES All agricultural education programs at Montana secondary schools were included (n=73). Population was identified through the Directory of Montana Agricultural Educators. Pre-survey notification card was sent to potential participants.

METHODS/PROCEDURES A mailed survey instrument was used. Survey included: nominal scale questions, Likert-type scale questions as well as open ended format, 67 total. Pilot test conducted. Cronbach’s Alpha-Reliability coefficient for this instrument was .78.

METHODS/PROCEDURES Late responders tested against early responders T-test and Mann Whitney U test verified response groups were from the same population Statistics run in SPSS software Final response rate of 56.2%

RESULTS/FINDINGS The data presented in this article were part of a larger study which collected data in the following ten areas. Demographics Program information Agricultural or power mechanics lab Greenhouses and farm plot Wood lab Metals/welding lab Animal confinement area Curriculum and classroom management Perceptions Barriers to P2

RESULTS/FINDINGS Ag Power Mech Lab Table 1.  Number of programs who acquire the following wastes through teaching activities in agricultural or power mechanics laboratories.*

RESULTS/FINDINGS Ag Power Mech Lab 32.4% (ntotal =34) of respondents seldom recycle solid mech lab waste. 14.7% (ntotal =34) never recycle solid mech lab waste. 25.7% (ntotal =35) of respondents always recycle engine fluid waste. 48.6% (ntotal =35) mostly recycle engine fluid waste.

RESULTS/FINDINGS Greenhouse or Farm Plot Nearly 60% (ntotal =21) of respondents reported that they always and mostly recycled or properly disposed of ag chemicals and empty containers.

RESULTS/FINDINGS Greenhouse or Farm Plot 19 responded to the following question:  Do you mix pesticides on a pad that will contain spills and prevent contamination of soils and water resources. 26.3%= always 31.6%= mostly 31.6%= seldom 10.5%= never

RESULTS/FINDINGS Wood Lab Table 17.  Level of awareness and practice of recycling options and proper disposal techniques for wood finishing chemicals (paint, stain, solvents/strippers and other waste).

RESULTS/FINDINGS Perceptions Seven questions were asked concerning perceptions of waste management and pollution prevention in the a broad agriculture setting.  Most respondents agreed agriculture was dependent on clean safe air, soil, and water, and that agriculturalists were responsible for their own actions concerning the environment.

RESULTS/FINDINGS Perceptions Table 25.  Level of agreement with statements concerning perceptions of waste management and pollution prevention in a broad agricultural setting.

RESULTS/FINDINGS Barriers to Pollution Prevention Table 26. Reduction in barriers to pollution prevention.

CONCLUSIONS Deficiencies were identified in current P2 and waste management practices. Lack of knowledge, or need for further education was the primary barrier to practicing pollution identified by respondents.

CONCLUSIONS Ag educators in Montana had positive perceptions of pollution prevention. Ag educators do have a basic knowledge or awareness of P2 and proper waste management.

RECOMMENDATIONS A P2 education program for ag ed should be developed as soon as possible. Agricultural educators themselves, should be involved in the development of such programs. P2 training should be an integral of teacher education and teacher re-certification.

IMPLICATIONS Education on managing ag ed labs in an environmentally responsible way should address instructors, students and administrators. Data obtained in this study may be pertinent to other fields of vocational education where similar teaching or research facilities are maintained.

IMPLICATIONS A potential exists for some ag educators to receive reprimands should a regulatory agency scrutinize current practices.

Thank you for your time and attention. Invitation for further questions after all session presentations are complete.