
































Microsoft Word - 89-Manuscript-1003-2-11-20210304.docx


Olsovsky et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 2, Issue 1, 2021 
  agdevresearch.org 

1. Taylor Olsovsky, Graduate Research Assistant, Texas A&M University, 600 John Kimborough Blvd. Suite 263, College 
Station, TX 77843-2116, taylorolsovsky@gmail.com,  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0476-1440 

2. Robert Strong, Associate Professor, Texas A&M University, 600 John Kimborough Blvd. Suite 254, College Station, TX 
77843-2116, r-strong@tamu.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5279-4808 

3. Allen Berthold, Assistant Director, Texas Water Resources Institute, 578 John Kimbrough Blvd., College Station, TX 

77843. taberthold@ag.tamu.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2604-1447  
 

56 

 

Enhancing Landowner Adoption of the Natural Resource 
Conservation Service’s Recommended Beef Cattle Grazing 

Management Practices 
T. Olsovsky1, R. Strong2, A. Berthold3 

 
 

  

Abstract 

Water has a significant role in society, whether through human consumption or agricultural use. The 
Lavaca Watershed is an agricultural community affected by nonpoint source pollution, and water 
quality protection is of high concern. Beef cattle operations are linked to nonpoint source pollution 
which contaminates surrounding water sources. If proper grazing management practices are not 
used, wastes from the operation impair water quality in the area. Landowners should use proper 
stocking rates and implement best management practices to benefit land and water quality in 
addition to overall operation profit. Females reported a higher intention to adopt, indicating these 
respondents are more open to practice changes on their own operation. Results indicated a need for 
the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and Texas Soil and Water Conservation Board to 
conduct further outreach to increase interaction with landowners. NRCS agencies could help 
increase the use of water conservation plans and inquiries by making this clear to current 
landowners participating in their program as well as potential clients by sending informational flyers 
or speaking at local organizational gatherings. The importance of adopting water management 
practices and barriers to adoption are ongoing global concerns.  
 
 

Keywords 

water, Texas, intention, awareness, diffusion  



Olsovsky et al.   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.89   57 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement  
 
The decline in water quality is a reoccurring concern, as water is one of our most significant 
resources. Agricultural practices alone use approximately 80% of the United States’ water 
resources (National Institute of Food and Agriculture, n.d.). Many experts have stated increased 
communication and education on the impairment of water resources is essential in solving the 
water quality issue. Mulki et al. (2018) stressed the need for the public to take a role in actively 
conserving water resources through investing “in thorough communication strategies to engage 
and educate” (p. 117). The Lavaca Watershed has many bodies of water that are home to 
aquatic life and used recreationally (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 2019). 
Agricultural practices can negatively impact the water quality of the Lavaca Watershed.   
 
Water quality protection is a high concern as an agricultural community affected by nonpoint 
source pollution. Devant et al. (2020) reported cattle performance relies on access to high 
quality water. Overstocking may cause the manure from cattle operations to deposit into the 
streams and rivers of the ecosystem through runoff water (Tarakalson et al., 2006). Redmon et 
al. (2012) indicated overgrazing depletes forage availability, which leads to decreased beef 
production efficiency and increases costs. 
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) presents logic for why landowners’ may or may not 
adopt new water conservation practices. Under critical review, Ajzen (1991) points out weak 
arguments, describing human behaviors as multifaceted. Therefore, Ajzen (1991) presents TPB 
as a model to predict and explain human behavior in a specific setting. This theory, as shown in 
Figure 1, involves predicting behavior by evaluating the relationship of behavioral intention to 
the three elements: attitude, perceived behavior control and subjective norms (Ajzen, 1991). In 
explaining the behavior, each element has a foundational belief, such as behavioral, control, or 
normative underlying the intention and action (Ajzen, 1991).  
 
Rogers’ (2003) Diffusion of Innovations provides understanding on the adoption process for an 
innovation, such as new products or practices. Diffusion is defined as “the process by which an 
innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social 
system” (Rogers, 2003, p. 5). With the introduction of an innovation, there are uncertainties the 
influencer must alleviate prior to the persuasion stage (Rogers, 2003). The influencer clears 
those uncertainties through three types of knowledge including awareness-knowledge, how-to-
knowledge, and principles-knowledge (Rogers, 2003). This study focused on the awareness-
knowledge. Awareness-knowledge informs the individual the innovation exits (Rogers, 2003).  
 
 
 
 
 



Olsovsky et al.   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.89   58 
 

Purpose 
 
The purpose of this study was to understand landowner adoption of the Natural Resource 
Conservation Service’s recommended beef cattle grazing management practices.  More 
specifically, the research objectives were to:  
1. Describe Lavaca County landowner’s knowledge of stocking rates; 
2. Identify Lavaca County landowner’s awareness of NRCS and TSSWCB; and 
3. Explain Lavaca County landowner’s intention to adopt grazing management practices. 
 

Methods 
 
A quantitative research design was used to analyze data collected through surveying the 
targeted population in Lavaca County, Texas. A mail survey was designed using the principles 
described by Dillman et al. (2014). The survey instrument measured the independent variables, 
demographics, knowledge levels, and awareness of the NRCS and TSSWCB in relation to the 
dependent variable, beef cattle producers’ behavioral intention to adopt grazing management 
practices.  
 
A simple random sample was acquired from the target population, landowners with beef cattle 
operations on their property. After contacting the Appraisal District’s office, a contact list was 
acquired and further developed by eliminating duplicate landowners and land plots under ten 
acres, which does not qualify for agricultural tax exemptions. The final contact list comprised of 
4,921 landowners, and 1200 landowners were surveyed. The final response rate was 39%, with 
a total of 455 surveys received and 38 nondeliverable. One hundred ninety-four of the 455 
were usable responses. Texas A&M University faculty, Texas Water Conservation Board staff, 
and NRCS staff, assessed criterion validity of the instrument. All constructs were reliable; 
strategies to determining stocking rates α = 0.81; indicators of overstocking, α = 0.83, results of 
overstocking α = 0.96, advantages of using proper stocking rates α = 0.97; awareness of NRCS 
and TSSWCB α = 0.85. Intention to adopt was reliable, α = 0.79. 
 
Dillman et al.’s (2014) Tailored Design Method was used for this study. Multiple contacts with a 
variety in appearance can help increase response rates (Dillman et al., 2014). Therefore, mailing 
the surveys occurred in four stages: prenotice postcard, 19 question survey package, reminder 
postcard, and finally the second 19 question survey package. To ensure landowners do not 
received duplicate surveys, a random identification number was assigned and printed on the 
survey package and envelopes. Data collection began early June, ended late July, and was 
extended due to COVID-19 effects on mailing. Early and late respondents’ responses were 
examined Lindner et al. (2001) to assess nonresponse error. Significant differences did not exist 
between the two groups, and therefore, data can be generalized to the population.  
 

 
 



Olsovsky et al.   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.89   59 
 

Findings 
 
The first objective was to describe landowner’s knowledge of beef cattle stocking rates. 
Researchers utilized SPSS to analyze descriptive statistics for the knowledge items. Participants 
responded most favorably under advantages of properly stocking. With a mean score around 
five, this result indicated landowners agreed increased forage production, protection of soil and 
water resources, increased plant resiliency, higher body scores, decreased feeding period, 
decrease in supplemental feeding needs, and drought resilience were all advantages of using a 
proper stocking rate.  
 
The grand mean of advantages of using a proper stocking rate was M = 5.10, SD = .80. Overall, 
Results of Overstocking construct resulted in M = 5.05, SD = .87. The construct, Indicators of 
Overstocking, had a grand mean, M = 4.65, SD = 1.17. Finally, landowners reported M = 4.11, SD 
= 1.31 for Strategies to Determine Stocking Rate (see Table 1).  
 
  



Olsovsky et al.   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.89   60 
 

Table 1 

Descriptive Statistics for Knowledge  

Knowledge Items n M SD 
Advantages of Using a Proper Stocking Rate    

Increased forage production 179 5.21 .72 
Protection of soil and water resources 180 5.19 .82 
Increased plant resiliency 173 5.12 .74 
Higher Body Scores 175 5.09 .78 
Decreased feeding period 179 5.08 .79 
Decrease in supplemental feeding needs 180 5.04 .88 
Drought resilience 180 4.99 .85 

Results of Overstocking    
Reduced land carrying capacity 177 5.12 .74 
Increase in supplemental feeding needs  180 5.12 .84 
Decrease in herd performance 180 5.11 .75 
Decrease in forage production 180 5.11 .89 
Susceptibility to drought 179 5.09 .96 
Increased soil erosion and rainfall runoff 178 5.08 .96 
Increased external parasites 174 4.73 .94 

Indicators of Overstocking    
Bare patches on the land 181 4.86 1.08 
Less desirable body scores 171 4.85 1.04 
Weed/brush encroachment 179 4.63 1.23 
Visible hooves from a distance 173 4.49 1.26 
Noticeable manure visible from a distance 177 4.40 1.23 

Strategies to Determine Stocking Rate    
Based on forage availability 175 5.00 1.06 
Based on calculated grazeable acres for my 
pastures 

175 4.62 1.23 

Based on preparation for change in season 173 4.48 1.26 
Based on current or anticipated market prices 173 3.28 1.50 
Based on the county appraisal district’s 
recommendations 

162 3.18 1.48 

Note. Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Somewhat Disagree, 4 = Somewhat Agree, 5 
= Agree, 6 = Strongly Agree. 
 

In Table 2, descriptive statistics were given for age on knowledge of results of overstocking and 
indicators of overstocking. Participants 51-70 years of age indicated to agree with the items, 
less desirable body scores, weed/brush encroachment, and visible hooves from a distance while 
participants 71 and older varied and held lower means.  
 



Olsovsky et al.   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.89   61 
 

The grand mean of the item, less desirable body scores, was M = 4.79, SD = 1.09. Weed/bush 
encroachment had an overall mean, M = 4.69, SD = 1.20. Lastly, landowners reported a grand 
mean, M = 4.51, SD = 1.27, for visible hooves from a distance. 
 
Table 2 

Descriptive Statistics of Age on Knowledge  

Knowledge Items n M SD 
Less desirable body scores 

   

51 - 70 80 5.01 .83 
71 and over 59 4.56 1.34 

Weed/brush encroachment 
   

51 - 70 83 4.76 .98 
71 and over 64 4.61 1.41 

Visible hooves from a distance 
   

51 - 70 81 4.58 1.17 
71 and over 62 4.44 1.37 

Note. Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Somewhat Disagree, 4 = Somewhat Agree, 5 
= Agree, 6 = Strongly Agree. 
 
Provided in Table 3 are descriptive statistics for income on knowledge of advantages of 
properly stocking and results of overstocking. Landowners with 0-20% of their income came 
from the operation indicated higher agreement than landowners who receive 21-100% that 
increased forage production is an advantage of properly stocking and increased soil erosion and 
rainfall runoff is a result overstocking. The grand mean for increased forage production was M = 
5.11, SD = 0.76, and increased soil erosion and rainfall runoff, M = 4.86, SD = 1.04.  
 
Table 3 

Descriptive Statistics of Income on Knowledge 

Note. Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Somewhat Disagree, 4 = Somewhat Agree, 5 
= Agree, 6 = Strongly Agree. 
 
Landowner awareness of NRCS and TSSWCB is shown in Table 4. While the data showed many 
landowners were aware of the Lavaca Soil and Water Conservation District along with the local 
NRCS, many landowners indicated they were not aware that the technical and financial 

Knowledge Items n M SD 
Increased forage production 

  

0–20%  of income 136 5.28 .66 
21–100% of income 31 4.94 .85 

Increased soil erosion and rainfall runoff 
   

0–20% of income 137 5.20 .85 
21–100% of income 31 4.52 1.23 



Olsovsky et al.   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.89   62 
 

assistance received was confidential. Additionally, many indicated they were not aware that the 
agencies offer financial assistance for implementing practices. Overall, landowners indicated 
they were aware of the agencies purpose and free technical assistance available. 
 
Table 4 

Descriptive Statistics for Awareness of the Natural Resources Conservation Service & Texas State 
Soil and Water Conservation Board 

Awareness of the Natural Resources Conservation 
Services Items 

f % Yes f % No 

Did you know that any technical and financial 
assistance that you receive is confidential? 

64 36 114 64 

Did you know that the agencies mentioned above 
offer financial assistance? 

88 49 92 51 

Did you know that the agencies mentioned above 
work with you to develop a water conservation 
plan that will help attain your goals? 

104 59 73 41 

Did you know that the agencies mentioned above 
offer free technical assistance? 

118 62 66 34 

Are you aware of the Natural Resources 
Conservation Services? 

135 75 44 25 

Did you know that the agencies mentioned above 
work to protect and enhance your working lands 
and natural resources? 

144 80 36 20 

Are you aware of Lavaca Soil and Water 
Conservation District? 

149 82 32 18 

Note. Scale: 1 = Yes, 2 = No.  
 
Descriptive statistics illustrated age on awareness of NRCS and TSSWCB. Both landowners, 51–
70 years old and 71 and older, reported unaware of NRCS and TSSWCB confidentiality. 
However, both age groups indicated awareness of NRCS and TSSWCB conservation plans (see 
Table 5). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



Olsovsky et al.   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.89   63 
 

Table 5 

Descriptive Statistics of Age on Awareness of Natural Resources Conservation Service & Texas 
State Soil and Water Conservation Board 

Awareness Items f % Yes f % No 

Did you know that any technical and financial 
assistance that you receive is confidential? 

 

51–70 23 28 58 72 
71 and over 25 38 40 62 

Did you know that the agencies mentioned above 
work with you to develop a water conservation plan 
that will help attain your goals? 

    

51–70 43 52 39 48 
71 and over 43 68 20 32 

Note. Scale: 1 = Yes, 2 = No 

Education on awareness of NRCS and TSSWCB descriptive statistics were demonstrated in Table 
6. Landowners with a graduate degree, bachelor’s degree, and some college indicated lack of 
awareness while landowners with a high school diploma indicated awareness of NRCS and 
TSSWCB confidentiality.  
 
Table 6 

Descriptive Statistics of Education on Awareness of Natural Resources Conservation Service & 
Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board 

Awareness Items f % Yes f % No 
Did you know that any technical and financial 
assistance that you receive is confidential? 

    

Graduate Degree 7 21 27 79 
Bachelor's Degree 15 29 36 71 
Some college 12 40 18 60 
High school graduate 21 57 16 43 

Note. Scale: 1 = Yes, 2 = No 

Descriptive statistics are given for gender on awareness of NRCS and TSSWCB. Males indicated 
less awareness than females of NRCS, TSSWCB, and confidentiality (see Table 7).  
 
 

  



Olsovsky et al.   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.89   64 
 

Table 7 

Descriptive Statistics of Gender on Awareness of Natural Resources Conservation Service & 
Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board 

Awareness Items f % Yes f % No 
Did you know that any technical and financial 
assistance that you receive is confidential? 

    

Male 39 30 89 70 
Female 21 49 22 51 

Are you aware of the Natural Resources Conservation 
Services? 

    

Male 94 73 34 27 
Female 36 84 7 16 

Are you aware of Lavaca Soil and Water Conservation 
District? 

    

Male 103 79 27 21 
Female 39 91 4 8 

Note. Scale: 1 = Yes, 2 = No  

In Table 8, income on awareness of NRCS and TSSWCB descriptive statistics were presented. 
Landowners who receive 0–20% of their household income from their beef cattle operation 
indicated less awareness of NRCS and TSSWCB items than landowners who receive 21–100% of 
their income from the operation. Landowners who receive 0–20% of their income from the 
operation indicated they were not aware of financial assistance offered by the NRCS while 
landowners who receive 21–100% from the operation were aware of the offer. 
 
  



Olsovsky et al.   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.89   65 
 

Table 8 

Descriptive Statistics of Agricultural Income on Awareness of Natural Resources Conservation 
Services & Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board 

Awareness Items f % Yes f % No 
Did you know that the agencies mentioned above offer 
financial assistance? 

    

0–20% 60 43 78 57 
21–100% 23 77 7 23 

Did you know that the agencies mentioned above work 
with you to develop a water conservation plan that will 
help attain your goals? 

    

0–20% 74 55 61 45 
21–100% 22 73 8 27 

Did you know that the agencies mentioned above offer 
free technical assistance? 

    

0–20% 84 61 54 39 
21–100% 26 87 4 13 

Are you aware of the Natural Resources Conservation 
Services? 

    

0–20% 102 75 34 25 
21–100% 26 84 5 16 

Did you know that the agencies mentioned above work 
to protect and enhance your working lands and natural 
resources? 

    

0–20% 108 79 29 21 
21–100% 27 87 4 13 

Are you aware of Lavaca Soil and Water Conservation 
District? 

    

0–20% 111 80 27 20 
21–100% 28 90 3 10 

Note. Scale: 1 = Yes, 2 = No 

The grand mean for landowner’s intention to adopt grazing management practices was 3.44. 
Landowners already adopted the use of alternative water sources (M = 3.60, SD = 1.00) and 
cross fencing (M = 3.60, SD = .92) on their operation. Landowners reported they either plan to 
adopt or already adopted the use of alternative feed/salt/mineral locations (M = 3.53, SD = .92). 
Finally, landowners indicated they plan to adopt alternative shade structures (M = 3.34, SD = 
1.22), grazing plans (M = 3.30, SD = .96), and calculating grazeable acres for stocking rates (M = 
3.29, SD = 1.01) (see Table 9).  
 
 

 



Olsovsky et al.   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.89   66 
 

Table 9 

Descriptive Statistics for Intention to Adopt 

Intention to Adopt Items n M SD 
Alternative Water Sources 179 3.60 1.00 
Cross Fencing 178 3.60 .92 
Alternative Feed/Salt/Mineral Locations 178 3.53 .92 
Alternative Shade Structures 180 3.34 1.22 
Grazing Plan/Prescribed Grazing  171 3.30 .96 
Calculating Grazeable Acres for Stocking Rates 175 3.29 1.01 

Note. Scale: 0 = Not Applicable, 1 = Will Not Adopt, 2 = Undecided, 3 = Plan to Adopt, 4 = 
Already Adopted 
 
Descriptive statistics were provided for gender on intention to adopt grazing management 
practices. Females indicated to have adopted calculating grazeable acres for stocking rates and 
grazing plans while males plan to adopt the practices. The grand mean among males and 
females for calculating grazeable acres for stocking rates was M = 3.39, SD = 0.96 and grazing 
plan, M = 3.37, SD = 0.94 (see Table 10). 
 
Table 10 

Descriptive Statistics of Gender on Intention to Adopt 

Grazing Management Practices n M SD 
Calculating Grazeable Acres for Stocking Rates    

Female 
Male  

41 
127 

3.63 
3.15 

.89 
1.03 

Grazing plan/Prescribed Grazing.    
Female 40 3.53 .88 
Male 124 3.20 1.00 

Note. Scale: 0 = Not Applicable, 1 = Will Not Adopt, 2 = Undecided, 3 = Plan to Adopt, 4 = 
Already Adopted. 
 
Provided in Table 11 were descriptive statistics for age on intention to adopt grazing 
management practices. Landowners 51–70 years old adopted cross fencing while landowners 
71 and older plan to adopt the practice. The grand mean for cross fencing among landowners 
51–70 years old and 71 and over was M = 3.55, SD = 0.97.  
 
 

 

 

 



Olsovsky et al.   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.89   67 
 

Table 11 

Descriptive Statistics of Age on Intention to Adopt 

Note. Scale: 0 = Not Applicable, 1 = Will Not Adopt, 2 = Undecided, 3 = Plan to Adopt, 4 = 
Already Adopted. 
 
Descriptive statistics were displayed for income on intention to adopt grazing management 
practices in Table 12. Landowners who receive 21–100% of their income from the operation 
adopted alternative feed/salt/mineral locations while landowners with 0–20% of income from 
the operation plan to adopt the practice. The grand mean between income groups for 
alternative feed/salt/mineral locations was M = 3.64, SD = 0.81.  
 
Table 12 

Descriptive Statistics of Income on Intention to Adopt 

Grazing Management Practices n M SD 
Alternative Feed/Salt/Mineral Locations. 

   

21–100% 31 3.81 .65 
0–20% 135 3.47 .96 

Note. Scale: 0 = Not Applicable, 1 = Will Not Adopt, 2 = Undecided, 3 = Plan to Adopt, 4 = 
Already Adopted. 
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 
Females indicated higher knowledge than males in determining stocking rate based on county 
appraisal district recommendations. These results suggest that females may be researching 
stocking rates more than males, looking to improve the operation. Landowners in the 0–20% 
income group indicated higher knowledge than landowners earning between 21–100% of their 
income from the beef cattle operation. This result was a contradiction to the literature as 
landowners with more income coming from the operation would have more of a focus, leading 
to more knowledge (Peterson et al., 2015).  
 
Landowners indicated awareness of the NRCS and TSSWCB yet lack of awareness in financial 
assistance and the confidentiality policy. Males and females both indicated awareness of the 
NRCS and TSSWCB. However, both males and females also showed they were unaware the 
technical and financial assistance provided by the NRCS is confidential. Males reported a higher 
mean than females, indicating males were more unaware than females. Similar to the 
knowledge and gender findings, this result also suggests that perhaps females are pursuing 
further research for the success of their operation.  

Grazing Management Practices n M SD 
Cross Fencing. 

   

51–70 85 3.61 .87 
71 and over 61 3.49 1.06 



Olsovsky et al.   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.89   68 
 

 
Landowners with some college, Bachelors, and Graduate degree were unaware of the technical 
and financial assistance they received was confidential. This result suggests there may be a 
misconception acting as a barrier to landowners engaging in assistance from the NRCS.   
 
Rogers (2003) indicated knowledge is essential for a successful adoption rate of an innovation. 
In this case, females reported to have knowledge and intention to adopt, confirming Rogers’ 
(2003) theory. Also, Ajzen (1991) predicted, a favorable attitude is an element leading to a 
higher likelihood of intention to adopt. Females appear to have a more favorable attitude with 
an indication they are more open to change on their operation. Consistently, assistance from 
the NRCS being confidential was significant in relation to adoption of practices. Landowners 
who were unaware of NRCS confidentiality had a lower intention to adopt. This confirms 
Rogers’ (2003) emphasis on trust when adopting a new practice. Landowners indicate to be 
unaware of NRCS confidentiality, and privacy is a valued aspect of working with a government 
agency. 
 
Practitioners such as Extension and NRCS agencies should take a step towards making 
landowners more aware of the resources available. Given the females’ results, females might 
reach out to these agencies and develop positive working relationships that will increase the 
likelihood others reach out for help.  
 
Also, data indicated a common theme in landowners not being aware that working with the 
NRCS is confidential. NRCS agencies could help increase the use of water conservation plans 
and inquiries by making this clear to current landowners participating in their program as well 
as potential clients by sending informational flyers or speaking at community civic or 
development organizational gatherings. Sharing this conservation responsibility with the public 
can increase awareness of the potential impact and create the change society needs to live 
healthy lives. 
 
There are multiple inquiries for researchers to investigate moving forward from this finding. 
Further research is necessary to determine the cause of the difference in females over males in 
their knowledge and intention to adopt. Additionally, researchers can further explore 
interaction or lack thereof between the public and the NRCS. Research could confirm the extent 
confidentiality and privacy have a role in whether landowners engage with the NRCS. Future 
researchers should examine the role of NRCS’ electronic information dissemination efforts on 
stakeholders learning, adoption, and program impact.  
 

Acknowledgements 
 

Funding for this project was provided by the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board through a 
state nonpoint source grant. 
 
 



Olsovsky et al.   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.89   69 
 

References 
 
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human 

Processes, 50(2), 179–211.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T  
 
Devant, M., Verdu, M., Medinya, C., Riera, J., & Marti, S. (2020). PSXI-11 Drinking device can 

reduce apparent water consumption and improve device cleanliness without impairing 
calf performance. Journal of Animal Science, 98(4), 389. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skaa278.685  

 
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Mail and internet surveys: The Tailored 

Design Method (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.  
 
Lindner, J. R., Murphy, T., & Briers, G. E. (2001). Handling nonresponse error in social science 

research. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(4), 43–53. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2001.04043 

 
Mulki, S., Rubinstein, C., & Saletta, J. (2018) Texas’ water quality challenge and the need for 

better communication in an era of increasing water quality contamination events. Texas 
Water Journal, 9(1), 108–119.  https://twj.media/wp-
content/uploads/2018/10/Mulki.opt_.pdf  

 
National Institute of Food and Agriculture. (2020, December 15). Water. U. S. Department of 

Agriculture. https://nifa.usda.gov/topic/water   
 
Redmon, L., Wagner, K., & Peterson J. (2012). Lonestar healthy streams: Beef cattle manual. 

(Extension Publication No. B-6245) Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service. 
http://lshs.tamu.edu/media/340444/beef_cattle.pdf 

 
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.  
 
Tarakalson, D. D., Payero, J. O., Ensley, S. M., & Shapiro, C. A. (2006). Nitrate accumulation and 

movement under deficit irrigation in soil receiving cattle manure and commercial 
fertilizer. Agricultural Water Management, 85(1–2), 201–210. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2006.04.005  

 
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. (2020, October 29). Lavaca River above tidal and 

rocky creek: A community project to protect recreational uses.  
https://www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/tmdl/nav/lavaca-rocky/108-lavaca-rocky-
bacteria   

 
© 2021 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 


