Volume 33 Number 6
|
December 1995 Volume 33 Number 6 |
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Table 1
Responses to Statements Related to the Food Safety Fact Finder for Media Among Reporters Who Had Used the Manual (n = 46) | |
|---|---|
| Statement | Strongly Agree/Agree (Percent of Reporters) |
| The Food Safety Fact Finder is a helpful way to get background information. | 99% |
| It is important to know food safety experts I can count on. | 100% |
| The organization of the food safety manual made it easy to use. | 95% |
| I found the information in the Food Safety Fact Finder to be timely. | 95% |
| If more material was written on food safety, I would like to receive it. | 100% |
| Public interest in food safety is growing. | 95% |
Use of specific sections in the manual corresponded closely to reporters' ratings of audience interest. Information on the causes and prevention of foodborne illness was used most often and rated the highest in audience interest (Table 2). It is important to point out that the evaluation of this program was conducted after a regional E. Coli O157:H7 outbreak had occurred, and that this incident may have affected use of the manual and interest in foodborne illness. Nearly half (48%) had used the dictionary of terms and 16% had used the sample news stories. Suggestions for additions to the manual included information on food values, cutting boards, E. Coli O157:H7, eating away from home, and reasons for public fear.
| Table 2 Comparison of Reporters' Use of the Food Safety Fact Finder for Media with Ratings of Audience Interest (n = 46) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Percent (& Rank) of Reporters Who Had Used Manual Components | Reporters' Ratings of Audience Interest | |
| Consumers and Food Safety | 58 (3) | 2.3 (3) |
| Pesticides | 41 (5) | 2.4 (4) |
| Organic Foods | 23 (7) | 3.1 (8) |
| Risk Assessment | 32 (6) | 3.0 (7) |
| Foodborne Illness-Causes | 61 (2) | 2.1 (2) |
| Foodborne Illness-Prevention | 61 (1) | 1.9 (1) |
| Food Additives | 20 (8) | 2.8 (6) |
| Hormones and Antibiotics | 18 (9) | 2.5 (5) |
| Natural Toxicants | 18 (9) | 2.8 (6) |
| Regulating Food Safety | 46 (4) | 2.4 (4) |
| Note. Rating scale range was as follows: 1 = "Very Interested" to 5 = "Not At All Interested." | ||
Although only a small number had contacted someone listed in the resource directory at the time of the interview, nearly all (96%) anticipated using it when/if the need arose. Reporters who had used the directory (n = 21) were very satisfied with the results. Using a scale from one to five (1 = very satisfied and 5 = not at all satisfied), reporters' mean rating was 1.3 (SD = .48). Other sources of food safety information mentioned by reporters were local health departments, wire services, local libraries, newsletters, and federal agencies.
Reporters who had used the manual were also asked if they had changed their personal food handling practices. Forty-one percent noted changes in both cooking temperature (for meat, fish and poultry) and methods for thawing food; 30% made different food selections; and 28% stored food differently. Other changes were related to sanitation and cleanliness (avoiding cross- contamination, washing produce, wearing gloves, washing hands) and handling leftovers.
Several open-ended questions were also included in the interview including suggestions on how Cooperative Extension can work more effectively with the news media. Most reporters emphasized the need for additional information on timely subjects (e.g., press conferences/releases, calendar of events, camera- ready graphs and illustrations, monthly updates), in addition to background information such as the Food Safety Fact Finder for Media.
The Food Safety Fact Finder for Media manual was developed to enhance news reporters' understanding and reporting of food safety issues. Before the manuals were distributed, a significant proportion of the recipients indicated that they had some/little interest in food safety and rarely/never reported on the topic. Four to six months later, half of the recipients had used the manual and found it helpful, easy to use, and timely. These findings suggest that a proactive approach may be an effective way to work with the news media and thus, increase the impact of Extension's efforts--particularly those related to food safety.
With regard to reporters' utilization of specific parts of the manual, reporters found the information on foodborne illness most useful. In fact, many had made changes in their own food handling practices to avoid foodborne illness. Although few had used the resource directory to contact a food safety expert, nearly all reporters anticipated using it when/if the need arose.
Given the potential audience size of both print and broadcast media and the impact that the media can have on public awareness (Boston University, 1994), it is important that Cooperative Extension continue to support reporters' efforts. This may include sending information on timely issues routinely, providing background information, such as the Food Safety Fact Finder, and being available for questions. By supporting and promoting this important partnership, Cooperative Extension's role in community education may be enhanced.
Boston University, College of Communication. (1994). Reporting on food and nutrition--and getting it right. Proceedings of Issues in Nutrition Reporting Symposium (p. 9). Boston: Author.
Gallup Organization. (1994, April). How are Americans making food choices?--1994 update. Princeton, NJ: Author.
Giles, R. H. (1992). Educating the masses--of reporters, that is. The Bulletin of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, 740, pp. 14-16.
Tyler, P. L., Benedict, J. A., & Good, A. M. (1994, July). Survey of food safety news coverage. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Nutrition Education, Portland, OR.
Author Notes
Funding for this project was provided by Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under special project number 91-EFSQ-1-4005.
John W. Cary
Associate Professor
Department of Agriculture and Resource Management
University of Melbourne
Parkville, Australia
Internet address: john_cary@muwayf.unimelb.edu.au
Roger L. Wilkinson
Research Scientist
Landcare Research NZ
Lincoln, New Zealand
Internet address: wilkinsonr@landcare.cri.nz
Recent proposed reductions in the public funding and public delivery of Extension programs in Australia have occurred against a background of apparent strong demand for public Extension services. Departments of Agriculture in five of Australia's six states have conducted reviews of their Extension services within the last few years. These reviews have generally recommended refocusing or 'downsizing' Extension activity, often as a consequence of reduction in public funding. During this period the demand for public Extension related to land degradation has increased. The strong demand for Extension information likely reflects Australian farmers becoming increasingly more independent, better educated, and more active and selective consumers of Extension information.
Proposed institutional changes in Extension service delivery include service reduction, commercialization by charging fees for services, contract delivery by private agents, and sale of service units to the private sector (Rivera & Cary, 1995). Changes that have occurred or that are proposed in Australia include both changes in sources of funding and changes in means of delivery (Cary, 1995).
Against this background, publicly-available information on the nature and extent of recent client use of Extension services in Australia has been virtually non-existent. This article reports the results of a survey of farmer use of Extension services in the state of Victoria. The objectives of the article are two-fold. First, to provide information about one side of the Extension delivery equation--the demand for public Extension services. The second objective is to provide a background for assessment of the likely implications for maintaining effective Extension services in the face of reduced public funding for Extension.
The data for the study were collected by telephone interviews of a random sample of 426 Victorian farmers during September 1992. The sample was selected from a sampling frame comprising all financial members of the Victorian Farmers' Federation (N = 17,950) which represented 75% of the state's 24,000 farmers. Completed telephone interviews were obtained from 85% of those selected in the probability sample. The sample was stratified to exclude respondents from the intensive pig and poultry industries. These industries are dominated by relatively few, large agribusiness firms with predominantly private research and Extension delivery systems. Respondents represented broad-acre cropping, grazing, dairying, horticulture, and other minor agricultural industries. While some bias might be expected because the sampling frame did not include all the state's farmers, measures of demographic variables such as age, and membership of various farm groups were equivalent for the sample and the state farm population as measured by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and other studies such as Mues, Roper, and Ockerby (1994). General results of the study are reported in Cary and Wilkinson (1992).
In each Australian state, the major provider of publicly funded Extension services is the state Department of Agriculture or Department of Primary Industry. In Victoria, the Department of Agriculture (DAV), now called Agriculture Victoria, had a high rate of contact with the farming community. For the 12 months preceding the survey almost all farmers reported having used DAV information or services at some time. Eighty-five percent of farmers had seen information from DAV within the previous few months. The most common sources of DAV information, for both frequent and infrequent users of DAV services, were articles in local newspapers, newsletters or journals, and state agricultural newspapers.
More than 70% of farmers used the DAV services about once a year or more frequently (Table 1). Only 9% of farmers claimed never to have used DAV services. This figure was similar to the finding of a survey of farmers in the state of South Australia (Harrison Market Research, 1991).
| Table 1
Frequency of Use of Department of Agriculture Services by Farmers (n = 426) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Frequency of Contact | Percentage | Cumulative Percentage |
| Four or more times a year | 20 | 20 |
| Two or three times a year | 28 | 48 |
| About once a year | 24 | 72 |
| Less than once a year | 19 | 91 |
| Never use | 9 | 100 |
While nearly three quarters of farmers had used the services of the DAV, at least half of Victoria's farmers had had some form of face-to-face contact with agency staff during the twelve months preceding the survey (Table 2). The level of face-to-face contact was also similar to that found in South Australia (Harrison Market Research, 1991). DAV policy discouraged farm visits in favor of group Extension activity, for reasons of delivery efficiency and because individual visits conferred private benefits to individuals from a declining pool of public Extension resources (see Cary, 1993). In the face of espoused agency policy, a high level of farm visits by DAV Extension staff was reported by farmers. Telephone contacts and office visits were the most frequent means of direct contact between DAV staff and farmers.
| Table 2
Use of Department of Agriculture Services by Farmers in Previous Twelve Months (n = 426) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Type of Contact | Frequency | Percentage |
| Used services of Department of Agriculture (any contact) | 320 | 75 |
| Face to face contact: Farm, office, research station, or laboratory visit | 343 | 57 |
| Face to face contact: Farm or office visit | 209 | 49 |
| Farm visit | 111 | 26 |
| Office visit | 153 | 36 |
| Research station visit | 89 | 21 |
| Laboratory visit | 42 | 10 |
| Telephone contact | 234 | 55 |
| Letter | 81 | 19 |
| Contact with DAV staff at field day | 196 | 46 |
Farmers who were more frequent users of DAV services used all services more frequently (Cary & Wilkinson, 1992). Farmers in the more intensive industries of horticulture and dairying had the highest level of contact with the DAV. In both these industries more than 50% of producers had contact more than once a year with staff of the DAV.
From analysis of the survey data not reported here, the most common reasons for farm visits, visits to Departmental premises and telephone contacts concerned advice on production and technical matters and, to a lesser extent, advice on animal health. About a third of farm visits were concerned with the provision of production or technical advice; and more than a quarter of visits were concerned with animal health matters (Cary & Wilkinson, 1992).
Farmers most commonly saw DAV as predominantly a supplier of technical information. Some farmers looked to DAV mainly for management information or laboratory testing services, but relatively few were looking for marketing or environmental information (Table 3).
|
Table 3 Most Important Information Needs Which Farmers Consider Should be Provided by Government Extension Agents: Unprompted (Multiple) Responses (n = 415) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Information | Percentage of responses | Percentage of farmers |
| Technical | 28 | 37 |
| Management and financial | 9 | 12 |
| Marketing | 6 | 8 |
| Environmental and Landcare | 5 | 7 |
| Laboratory and testing services | 11 | 14 |
| Whatever needed at the time | 16 | 21 |
| Latest up-to-date information | 15 | 20 |
| Other (content unspecified) | 10 | 15 |
| Total | 100 | 134 |
Half of the surveyed farmers were members of at least one group concerned either with environmental or land care matters or with a farm production focus, such as a farm discussion group (Table 4). The relatively recent growth in landcare groups (Campbell, 1994) provided increased demands for Extension activities, where agents of DAV and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources frequently provided technical advice or group facilitation service. Landcare groups are voluntary community land conservation groups in which landholders in a locality work together to identify and tackle local land degradation problems, such as soil salinity or soil erosion. Twenty one percent of farmers were members of production-oriented groups such as discussion groups. This reflects the high membership (49%) of dairy farmers in dairy discussion groups focused on pasture and herd management and sometimes financial management issues.
|
Table 4
Membership of Landcare-Type or Production-Type Farm Groups (n = 426) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Group membership | Percentage | Cumulative Percentage |
| Landcare only | 30 | 30 |
| Production only | 10 | 40 |
| Landcare and production | 11 | 51 |
| Not a member of these groups | 49 | 100 |
Analyses of the survey data not reported here showed that members of landcare groups and production groups used the services of government Extension agents more frequently than other farmers.
Government departments were not the only sources of professional advice sought by Victorian farmers. Farmers obtained technical or management advice from a range of commercial and other sources. There has been an apparent growth of private consulting services in some types of farm enterprise in recent years. Thirteen percent of all farmers obtained advice from commercial, privately-employed farm consultants. The more intensive dairy industry had a higher use of consultants (23%) than other more extensive agricultural industries (see Cary & Wilkinson, 1992).
In the face of contracting resources for publicly funded Extension services, a high proportion of the farming community had contact with the government Extension agency. The high level of face-to-face contact between DAV Extension staff and farmers points to the difficulty of an agency seeking to reduce high cost face-to-face contact. Farmers prefer such services. Extension officers derive satisfaction providing them, while at the same time improving their understanding of on-farm problems and the credibility of their other Extension activities. As well, a more specialized agriculture requires more sophisticated and much more individually tailored information to be provided to individual farmers operating complex farm management systems.
Such demands are likely to require more extensive one-on-one dealings between Extension advisers and farmers. The high proportion of farmers with Extension officer contact probably reflects a farming community increasingly more active in its search for information (Watson, et al., 1992). In the face of such demands the role of local farmer groups in Extension delivery has increased, and the demand for Extension services to Landcare groups has increased rapidly over a short time. Refocusing Extension effort towards group-based methods may have increased farmer demand for individual Extension contact.
Farmers saw DAV as predominantly a supplier of technical information. Leaders of Australian Extension agencies have often espoused a greater emphasis on marketing and management aspects of farming. The strength of public Extension has traditionally been transfer of, or advice about, technology. Farmers in Australia do not appear to have a strong demand for marketing and management information from public Extension agencies. This may be because farmers do not perceive government agencies to be highly competent in this area. Or it may be perceived as the domain of the private sector. In Australia, the growth in the demand for marketing and management information and advice is likely to be met increasingly by the private sector rather than by publicly funded Extension.
The significance of the commercial sector in the provision of Extension advice is evident in the importance of commercial suppliers, processing firms, and consultants as sources of advice and information. This reflects similar findings reported in U.S. agriculture (Postlewait, Parker & Zilberman, 1993). In Australia, there appears to have been a significant shift to information provision by the commercial sector for the dairy industry and the cropping industry, specifically by processing companies, input suppliers, and farm consultants. For industries such as cropping, this reflects the management complexity of modern farming systems and the increasing use of purchased technical inputs. The dairy industry in Australia is approaching a situation where its advisory and Extension services can be delivered by commercially-employed providers or, as already occurs, by the employment of some government Extension agents whose salaries are funded by dairy industry farmer levies.
The demand for delivering viable and equitable Extension services in the face of declining resource provision presents a challenge for government agencies. The increasing demands for government Extension agents to provide public good services to an expanding number of Landcare and other environmental groups puts additional strains on limited resources. It would seem that there will need to be some re-allocation of public Extension effort away from advisory services for production agriculture--a move which should lead to increased availability of Extension services provided by the commercial sector. However, there are persuasive arguments against sole reliance on commercial information provision in some farm industries. Eliminating all public delivery of Extension presents some dangers, not the least being the extreme fluctuations of income in some rural industries. Long periods of low farm incomes in such industries can lead to the demise of commercial advisory and consulting services.
Commercialization of government Extension delivery has not met with great success in Australia. The challenge of rethinking publicly funded Extension delivery with fewer resources presents opportunities for Extension services to identify their strengths as seen by farmers, to identify the roles public agencies should have in contrast to the roles of commercial Extension, and to facilitate technology transfer through wider networks which may include commercial Extension agencies.
Campbell, A. (1994). Community first: Landcare in Australia. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.
Cary, J. W. (1993). Changing foundations for government support of agricultural Extension in economically developed countries. Sociologia Ruralis, 33, 336-347.
Cary, J. W. (1995). Privatization of Extension: Some lessons from Australia and New Zealand. Invited paper presented at Privatization of Technology and Information Transfer in U.S. Agriculture: Research and Policy Implications. University of Wisconsin - Madison, October 25-26, 1995.
Cary, J. W., & Wilkinson, R. L. (1992). The provision of government Extension services to the Victorian farming community. Parkville, Victoria: School of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Melbourne.
Harrison Market Research. (1991). Survey of farm managers: study overview and commentary about commercialization. A report to the Department of Agriculture, South Australia.
Mues, C., Roper, H., & Ockerby, J. (1994). Survey of Landcare and land management practices, 1992-93. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
Postlewait, A., Parker, D.D., & Zilberman, D. (1993). The advent of biotechnology and technology transfer in agriculture. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 43, 271-287.
Rivera, W. M., & Cary, J. W. (1995). Privatizing agricultural Extension. In B. E. Swanson (Ed.), Improving agricultural Extension: A reference manual. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation. In press.
Watson, A. S., Hely, R., O'Keeffe, M., Cary, J. W., & Clark, N. (1992). Review of field-based services in the Victorian Department of Food and Agriculture. Melbourne: Agmedia.
Lisa A. Mecsko
Extension County Health Council Coordinator
Alabama Cooperative Extension Service
Internet address: lmecsko@acenet.auburn.edu
John E. Dunkelberger
Professor
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology
Internet address: jdunkelb@ag.auburn.edu
Auburn University
The County Health Council Program
In 1979, the Alabama Cooperative Extension Service (ACES) along with the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) School of Public Health developed a program to help local people become more involved with community health issues. It was believed these needs extended beyond just medical services and the provision of health care. What many communities needed was a way to mobilize local people for promoting healthy lifestyles and environments where they live and work. This was a goal to which local residents had much to contribute. Thus, a grassroots approach seemed desirable, and the county health council program was developed as the vehicle for accomplishing this goal.
Health councils are organized at the county level to be citizen-based voluntary groups. Their purpose is to increase participation in health planning and programming by developing a social infrastructure to involve a wide spectrum of concerned citizens. Council members represent people who work in or are members of a wide variety of community agencies and organizations. In addition, private citizens with an interest in local health are encouraged to become involved in the councils. These volunteers identify needs and develop activities to address health and quality of life issues in there broadest sense.
Change is accomplished by the councils through promoting lifestyle modifications and by addressing community health needs such as sanitation, water quality, injury prevention, teen pregnancy prevention, and access of medical services. Councils help focus attention on local concerns, as well as promote the allocation of resources to address these concerns. Such efforts can range from the simple documentation of an existing local problem, to implementing activities to meet a local health need. Health councils are dedicated to increasing the degree of control that local people have over both their own health and the health status of the communities in which they live. In Alabama, county health councils represent a way for citizens to have a direct voice in solving health-related issues at the community level.
As of 1992, twelve years after the County Health Council program was introduced and promoted across Alabama, little information was available about its adoption and use. Even the number of active councils in existence across the state was unknown. Information was needed about the status, composition, goals, activities, operation, and structure associated with these community-based health organizations. In response, the Alabama Cooperative Extension Service with assistance from rural sociologists at Auburn University, conducted a program review to increase their knowledge and to determine the extent to which county health councils were functioning as effective mechanisms for promoting and influencing health, particularly in rural counties.
The program review involved two distinct phases of information gathering. First, the current number of existing health councils needed to be documented and their current status established. Second, information needed to be obtained on membership size, goals, activities, etc. of existing councils to determine their organizational and operational structure. This second phase was conducted to address such questions as: "How were these county health councils organized?" "Were the councils promoting and impacting health and wellness in the county?" and if so, "What factors contributed to success in achieving this goal?" To accomplish these objectives, multiple methods were used.
The first step was to conduct telephone interviews with each of the 67 county Cooperative Extension offices and agents with health program responsibilities. The purpose of these interviews was to determine the past and current status of health councils in each county and to determine the role Extension plays in active councils. It was discovered that 48% of the counties currently had an existing health council, 18% had never attempted to organize a health council, 31% had organized a council at some point between 1979 and 1992, but were no longer active, and 3% of the counties were unsure a council ever existed.
The second review phase involved selecting six active county health councils for intensive case studies. The selected health councils were chosen on the basis of their county's population, council's start date, membership size, organizational goals, activities, future plans, and perceived effectiveness. These six councils were selected because of their differences rather than their similarities, except for being considered active councils. For example, one multi-county council consisted of two urban and one rural counties. After selecting these six health councils for study, a variety of methods were employed to obtain information about each council. These methods involved conducting focus group discussions, key leader interviews, mail surveys, and the analysis of available council records and historical information. Data were obtained from the county Cooperative Extension agent, key health council leaders, and health council members.
Composition and Membership
In all six case studies, health council membership was open to all county residents having an interest in local health concerns. Broad-based membership of residents from across the county was a desired goal, but participation tended to involve primarily people representing health and social service agencies.
The relatively few members unaffiliated with such agencies or organizations were often retired people who had joined the council when they were employed and continued to participate after retirement. All six county health councils reported experiencing difficulty maintaining representation from county segments lacking formal health positions such as local businesses, government agencies, and private citizens. One factor that these six councils had in common was a core group of longtime members. In spite of this stable core, all reported frustration over the constant struggle to sustain participation and keep members actively involved. Recruitment of new volunteers was a serious concern.
Participation
The majority of current members first became aware of the County Health Council by means of a personal invitation received from the Cooperative Extension Service and/or the UAB School of Public Health. Most current members who responded to the mail survey indicated being a council participant for five or more years. They also attended meetings on a regular or frequent basis. When asked why they had joined the council and continued to be active, three reasons were often cited: (a) a belief in the need to address health issues and problems in their counties, (b) a desire to play an active role in addressing local health needs, and (c) a request by their employer to represent their agency. One of the most commonly experienced concerns of the six councils was the lack of attendance at council meetings. This problem was usually attributed, in one way or another, to the time of meetings, travel time involved in getting from the work place or home to the meeting, conflicts with other organizational commitments, and lack of interest.
Goals and Objectives
Clearly defined goals were an integral component in the structure of the selected health councils. Each of the six councils had adopted its own goals, consistent with county needs and the interests of council members. Each council was formally organized with a set of by-laws and articulated statements of their goals and/or objectives. They reviewed their purpose periodically. Modification of the goals and objectives occurred when new health or wellness concerns and issues arose within the local community. Flexibility and adaptation to perceived new issues contributed to the sustainability of these councils. The overall or general goal of these councils was viewed as the need to inform and educate local citizens about health and wellness concerns relevant to their county. Council members indicated a strong sense of agreement with the goals of their own council. Moreover, a strong value was placed on the achievement of council goals. Most members believed their council had achieved many of its goals and was continuing to be effective in promoting better health in the county.
Activities
Members of these six County Health Councils perceived their councils to be playing an important and unique role in promoting local awareness, education, and prevention related to a broad range of health concerns. Health activities of these six councils can be classified as one of two types. First, some activities focused on issues affecting a specific population such as youth, elderly, or women. Second, other activities involved an issue that affected the entire county such as rabies, water quality, chronic diseases, injury prevention, and other local health needs. These six health councils had sponsored a variety of active programs over the years. Some example programs include drug education in schools, wellness programs in local industries, water quality projects, and health screening fairs. Such proactive health programs were perceived by members as reaching more county residents than those that merely provided educational information. Overall, members had a more positive attitude toward the council if it sponsored local health and wellness programs.
Not all member assessments of council activities were positive. A few members identified several barriers they saw in conducting an active health council program at the county level. One of the barriers identified was the lack of long-term member participation and commitment to Council activities. This was a commonly expressed problem, as members were prone to getting involved in a specific program or project of interest to them or their organization. When that project was completed, they did not transfer their commitment to the broader range of local health issues and needs. Other barriers mentioned were the lack of funds, internal conflicts within the council, and communication problems. Because none of the councils charged membership dues, there was no readily available source of funds to carry out even small projects. Assistance needed to be obtained from other organizations and agencies.
Performance
Several indicators of council performance were examined in the case studies of these six health councils. Specifically, decision-making, leadership, and productivity were assessed. The majority of members in all six councils perceived that all members had an equal say in group decisions. Moreover, the members saw the council as operating independently from other local and state health groups and organizations with no interference or pressure exerted on them. The leadership structure of all six of these councils was provided by a set of leadership offices including a chairperson, a co-chairperson, and a secretary. Traditionally, an Extension agent acted as secretary and facilitator for the council. The role of the secretary was to provide organizational and educational assistance through his/her contacts with ACES and UAB. All councils relied heavily on the coordination provided by the secretary, who in every case was the Extension agent serving on a permanent basis. Members of all councils perceived the Extension agent and the role that person played as indispensable to a successful council. In addition, a dedicated chairperson was identified as a key factor in council's success and effectiveness. All members agreed that strong leadership from these two officers was required to maintain a viable and functioning council.
County Health Councils were seen as positively influencing the health of local residents. These attitudes were enhanced by successful completion of visible projects contributing to health within the County. Moreover, the councils were perceived as especially productive in networking between agencies and individuals. This was viewed as important because it provided Council members with information about the activities of one agency that were of interest and concern to other agencies, as well as providing insights about available needs and resources within the county. Overall, participants in these six health councils believed the productivity of their Council was the result of the deep commitment by core members to promoting good health in their counties.
County Health Councils have a unique role to play in meeting the health care needs of local areas and citizens. The health council approach empowers county residents to influence the health and wellness issues in their county by employing a grassroots organizational strategy. Based on findings from case studies of six county health councils, the following recommendations are made to aid in the establishment of councils in Alabama and other states and to strengthen existing health councils:
Alabama Cooperative Extension Service. (1992). Alabama county health council handbook. Auburn University, AL: Author.
Mecsko, L. A. (1992). Empowering citizens for involvement in health issues: A review of county level health councils in Alabama. Unpublished masters thesis, Auburn University, Auburn, AL.
Ernest Oelker
Extension Agent
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Stark and Summit Counties
The Ohio State University
Internet Address: oelker@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu
The Dairy Excel Mission:
Dairy excel is designed to improve the competitiveness of northeast Ohio dairy farms by on-the-farm application of proven principles of resource management.
The Ohio dairy industry fell from 15th among U.S. states in production per cow in 1960 to 31st in the U.S. in 1992 (Schnitkey, 1993). Ohio dairy farmers were experiencing widespread financial distress, while dairy farmers in some other areas of the U.S. grew more profitable and productive (Yavuz, 1993). Consensus of opinion among Extension Agents in Northeast Ohio was that the Ohio dairy industry was at risk of losing the majority of its remaining herds and associated dairy infrastructure, resulting in the loss of jobs and farm related businesses.
The Dairy Excel Team, formed under the leadership of the Northeast District Dairy Industry Specialist, consisted of two district specialists, five county Extension agents, and two state Extension specialists. The team's first project was to develop a mission statement focusing on the goal of improving competitiveness of Northeast Ohio dairy farmers.
Team members spoke with Extension Specialists and reviewed educational materials from Wisconsin, Kentucky, Iowa, Minnesota, and New York. Except for New York, these states were still doing more of the same, teaching technical subject matter to dairy farmers, and experiencing similar declines in their dairy industries. However, the Cornell University Extension PRO-DAIRY program was different from other dairy management programs. This program emphasized human resources management (i.e., managing people) in dairy production.
The Dairy Excel Team arranged to visit county and state Extension faculty in New York to observe the program. Dr. Robert Milligan, PRO-DAIRY Program Leader, Cornell University Extension, explained how the program was designed and put into practice statewide in New York. The Ohio agents agreed that human resources management was lacking in most Ohio dairy farm businesses.
Ohio Extension agents needed to train dairy farmers to manage people. Fear of employing workers appeared to be the biggest reason why Ohio dairy farmers were reluctant to expand their herds to sizes which could achieve the improved productivity and profitability required to maintain a minimum standard of living. A study by Polson and Schnitkey (1995) confirmed this supposition. Dr. Milligan later visited Ohio to provide in-service training for the Dairy Excel Team on human resources management. The team decided to create Dairy Excel to be marketed and taught in early 1992. A major difference between PRO-DAIRY and Dairy Excel was that Dairy Excel had no budget, while Cornell was spending about $300,000 annually on PRO-DAIRY. The Ohio program had to be self-supporting. Another major difference was that Dairy Excel was a grass roots Extension program, originating at the county-district level, rather than at the university level.
A five-workshop series was presented at four locations in the 18 county Northeast Ohio District in 1992. The five workshops consisted of: Managing For Success, two days; Labor Management, one day; and Feeding Management, two days. The first two workshops in the series utilized Cornell's PRO-DAIRY Managing For Success Workshops approach. The PRO-DAIRY Management Resource Notebook (Hutt, Milligan, Kaufman & Claypoole, 1989) units on planning and problem solving, were adapted by the Dairy Excel Team, which added (a) a section on paradigms of dairy farmers and (b) additional detail on the controlling function of management.
The feeding management workshops were based in part on PRO-DAIRY Feeding Management, A Management Focus Workshop for Dairy Farmers (Chase, Bigger, Conway, Menzi, Ruppel, Rymph & Young, 1990), but placed more emphasis on strategic and tactical management and problem-solving. Feeding Workshop sessions were designed to teach improved feeding management skills: (a) managing for improved forage quality, (b) working with consultants, and (c) improving dry matter intake of milking cows. The Labor Management Workshop, prepared and taught by Dr. Bernard Erven, State Extension Specialist, Dairy Farm Management, emphasized labor relations, recruiting, training, and directing dairy farm employees.
The team divided into pairs to develop teaching plans for each segment of each workshop day. Each team member was prepared to teach his or her own preparation sections, plus those of a team-mate. Practice-teaching sessions were conducted. The team evaluated all aspects of teaching and supporting materials of each teacher.
A promotional luncheon was held for dairy industry leaders, sponsored by funds from Ohio Extension administration. A promotional brochure was prepared and distributed to all counties in Northeast Ohio for distribution to dairy farmers. Host agents used personal contacts with individual dairy managers as their major recruitment tool.
Each workshop participant was provided with Dairy Excel: Managing For Success, a course notebook containing all the handouts, worksheets, and overhead transparency masters (Anderson, Beck, Brockett, Erven, Noyes, Oelker, Polson, Shoemaker & Weiss, 1992). They also received PRO-DAIRY's Milk Production Records for Management Control book (Telega & Hutt, 1989), and Farm Management Planner (Hutt & Telega, 1989), which were purchased from Cornell Cooperative Extension. Participants paid $75 each for the five workshops series.
Dairy Excel was designed to be a rigorous educational experience that participants would be proud to complete. Graduation dinners were planned as part of the program for each workshop location. To qualify for graduation, participants were required to attend all workshops sessions, complete a mission statement for their farm, and complete other homework assignments. Graduation from Managing For Success was a prerequisite for participation in subsequent advanced Dairy Excel Workshops, and for being placed on the mailing list for a quarterly newsletter for and about Dairy Excel graduates.
Management Clinics were conducted on the farm of each Dairy Excel 1992 participant by the host county agricultural agent, or a Dairy Excel Team member, following the final workshop. The purposes of the management clinic were to individualize the management training of Dairy Excel 1992 to fit the needs and circumstances of each participant, and to conduct a detailed evaluation of the workshops. All Dairy Excel 1992 graduates were interviewed to obtain their responses to questions about curriculum content, teaching methods, and teaching effectiveness. They were also polled for information about their changes in attitude about management, recommendations for improvements in future workshops, and whether Dairy Excel was a worthwhile use of their time and money.
An evaluation of the Dairy Excel Program was conducted to measure changes in farmers' perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors as a result of participation in the program. It was hypothesized that such changes would result in increased farm productivity and profitability. Specific evaluation objectives were:
Data has been collected to address objectives one, three, and four. Evaluation of objective two is still in progress and involves follow-up with participants two to three years after participation in Dairy Excel.
A standardized "Evaluation of Effective Extension Teaching" instrument, (Spiegel, 1992) was used to gauge teaching effectiveness of each individual team member. During the on-farm management clinics, a reflective appraisal questionnaire developed by the author (Oelker, 1992) was used in an interview setting to assess the effectiveness of the workshops in meeting educational objectives. Evaluation data were collected from all graduating participants (n = 86).
In 1992, a total of 88 men and women from 66 different farms participated in the five workshop series at four locations. Of these, 86 (97.7%) completed the requirements for graduation. Asked whether the Dairy Excel Program was worthwhile, 100% of the graduates responded "yes." Asked whether the Dairy Excel Workshops should be repeated, 100% of the graduates answered "yes." One hundred percent of the participants said the "management wheel" picture of the five functions of a farm manager helped them to better understand their management role. Ninety-seven percent of the participants reported they had begun using at least some of the management skills they learned in Dairy Excel. Ninety-four percent indicated they had improved the management of their feeding programs as a result of Dairy Excel. Ninety-four percent of participants also said they had improved the management of their farm labor as a result of skills learned in Dairy Excel.
Results of the on-farm interviews were used to make minor changes and adjustments in the Managing For Success curriculum for 1993. The Feeding Management Workshops were separated from the Managing for Success Workshops for 1993 and offered as a separate series for Managing For Success graduates, only.
Evaluation of Effective Extension Teaching instruments for each team member were completed by each participant, collected by the author and submitted to the Ohio State University Extension Office of Evaluation for computer analysis. Results were returned directly to each team member for his or her use.
A quarterly newsletter for and about Dairy Excel and Dairy Excel graduates was initiated in 1992 and is mailed to all graduates. The newsletter is supported by District Farm Management account funds, with postage covered by a county office that had excess postage allocations. A two-day tour of highly successful dairy farms in New York State was conducted for 22 graduates in 1993. A tour of rapidly-expanding dairy farming regions in Washington State was conducted in June, 1994 for graduates only. A two-day tour of top Michigan dairy farms was conducted for 10 graduates in November, 1994. The above tours were paid for by participants. The early successes of Dairy Excel in Ohio have prompted the formation of a number of Extension teams in other subject matter areas, including horticulture, swine, horse stable management, vegetable production, and grain production.
Dairy Excel has been successful in affecting the attitudes of some Northeast Ohio dairy farmers toward management of the human resources on their farms. Some Dairy Excel graduates have made progress in changing their attitudes about profitability of their farms in relation to herd size. Many Dairy Excel graduates now realize that achieving financial success and even survival as dairy farmers will require herd expansion.
In 1993, 55 people from 46 dairy farms attended three Managing for Success workshop series. Twenty-five farmers from 23 active farms attended two Financial Management Workshop series. Eighteen farmers attended two Feeding Management Work shop series.
Dairy Excel Team Members are helping graduates to set up local discussion groups to address such issues as: ideas for utilization and management of bovine somatotropin (bST), working through dairy herd expansion, and formation of local buyers groups designed to improve production cost control. New Dairy Excel Workshops on such subjects as Management Team-Building, Advanced Feeding Management, and Advanced Financial Management have been suggested.
Extension Educators who plan to conduct management excel workshops need to make the paradigm shift from teaching technology to teaching management. Extension educators must learn management teaching techniques from management teachers. Extension educators interested in conducting management workshops should read books on management and attend seminars on human resources management. We must read works and attend workshops taught by such people as Steven F. Covey, Hirum Smith, James M. Higgins, and other experienced management educators. Finally, we must realize that teaching management to farmers using this approach takes a large amount of time (20-40 working days per team member for the first year) and an unwavering commitment to the mission and goals set for these programs.
The most important professional skill required of Extension educators who become members of management excel teams is the ability to be a productive, complimentary member of an effective teaching team. The overall effectiveness of the team depends on each member's commitment to the mission and goals of the program.
Anderson, L., Beck, T., Brockett, B., Erven, B., Noyes, T., Oelker, E., Polson, J., Shoemaker, D., & Weiss, W. (1992). Dairy excel: Managing for success (Notebook). Columbus: The Ohio State University Extension.
Chase, L., Bigger, L., Conway, J., Menzi, B., Ruppel, K., Rymph, M., & Young, C. (1990, Rev). Feeding management: A PRO-DAIRY management focus workshop for dairy farm managers. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Cooperative Extension.
Hutt, G., Milligan, R., Kaufman, R., & Claypoole, E. (1989). PRO-DAIRY management resource notebook. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Cooperative Extension.
Hutt, G., & Telega, S. (1989). Farm management planner. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Cooperative Extension.
Oelker, E. (1992). Dairy excel evaluation: Interview form for participants completing all 1992 dairy excel workshops. Columbus: The Ohio State University.
Polson, J., & Schnitkey, G. (1995). Increasing number of dairy cows needed to support a farm family (E.S.O. 2214). Columbus: The Ohio State University.
Schnitkey, G. (1993). [Milk cow productivity: Ohio and the United States]. Unpublished raw data.
Spiegel, M. (1992). Evaluation of effective Extension teaching, group form. Columbus: The Ohio State University, Office of Evaluation.
Telega, S., & Hutt. G. (1989). Milk production records for management control. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Cooperative Extension.
Yavuz, F. (1993). A spatial equilibrium analysis of regional structural change in the U.S. dairy industry. Unpublished manuscript.
Satish Verma
Professor
School of Vocational Education
Internet address: xtpvrm@lsuvm.sncc.lsu.edu
Alvin C. Burns
Professor
Marketing Department
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
In the mid 1980s, "marketing extension" was a popular initiative among several state Cooperative Extension Services. New York was in the vanguard of this initiative. Referencing private sector marketing practices, New York determined that a unique organizational identity was crucial to successful marketing. They developed a new name, logo, outreach materials, and staff training programs to project a unified, consistent, and cohesive image (Boldt, 1988). Other states--Georgia, Oregon, Montana, Minnesota and North Dakota, to name a few--followed suit, developing marketing strategies that involved their personnel, focused on need-based programs, and stressed key relationships with external stakeholders.
Faculty of the Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service (LCES) implemented scattered marketing efforts for local audiences in the late 1980s, but there was no comprehensive and coordinated statewide marketing plan. The need for a strategic marketing plan was identified by faculty who were surveyed for their opinion regarding the relative importance of marketing tools in use and their suggestions for strengthening existing marketing efforts (Coreil & Verma, 1992). The notion of a strategic plan was revived in mid-1994, when the "Marketing Extension to Louisiana" project was initiated. A faculty task force, established to lead this project, identified an immediate need for a survey of the public's image of Extension. Warner and Christenson's (1984) national assessment of the Cooperative Extension Service had shown high levels of public awareness (87%) and satisfaction (95%), but low use (27% lifetime, 14% yearly). Their work was used to guide LCES' survey design and compare results. The survey was intended to determine public awareness, user satisfaction, and potential usefulness of Extension and Extension programs, and to compare rural and urban audiences on these factors.
A telephone interview survey instrument contained questions on public awareness, user satisfaction and potential usefulness of Extension and Extension programs, user contacts with Extension, and selected demographic characteristics. It was developed by LCES collaborating with Louisiana State University's marketing department. Rural and urban populations were purposefully identified. Twelve parishes (counties) representing major cropping patterns and family audience groupings formed the rural population. The urban population comprised four parishes in the New Orleans metropolitan area.
Students in an undergraduate marketing research class conducted the telephone interviews. Instruction was provided on sampling and interview techniques. Telephone books were randomly sampled for primary and alternate interviewees, and the data were collected over a two-week period in the fall of 1994. A total of 1,077 telephone calls were made resulting in 727 useable interviews (67.5%). Long distance calls were charged to a special LCES account, and the average charge per completed interview was about $2.
The rural sample comprised 343 respondents, and the urban sample 384 respondents. To adjust for response bias, race and education were weighted to reflect their distribution in the 1990 census using a statistical routine in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS-X, 1988). This procedure adjusted the rural sample downward from 343 to 201, and the urban upward from 384 to 532. Rural-urban comparisons are reported for these adjusted sample sizes.
Representativeness
In addition to race and education weighted for rural-urban comparisons, the respondents were visually compared with 1990 census data on other demographic characteristics. No meaningful differences were observed between the sample and the population on these characteristics. Therefore, it was assumed that the weighted findings for the weighted sample could be generalized to the state population.
Profile of respondents
The average age of respondents was 49.5 years. Racial makeup was 62.9% white, 36.0% black, and 1.1% Hispanic. Nearly 60% had grade/high school education, and 20% had a college degree. Reported income of one-third of the respondents was $20,000 or below, one-third between $20,000 and $40,000, with the remainder reporting income greater than $40,000. One-half of the respondents were employed, one-fourth were retired, 10% were homemakers, and 6% were unemployed. Nearly 70% owned their home, and 30% were renters.
Awareness, Contact, and Receipt of Extension Information
Over 40% of the respondents were aware of Extension (LCES). Awareness of the 4-H youth program was greatest (49.6%), followed by agriculture (27.2%), community development (19.8%), home economics (18.8%), and leadership development (12.3%). Rural respondents were more aware of LCES and all five programs than urban respondents, and these differences were statistically significant (p = .0001 for all programs).
A followup question revealed that nearly 15% of respondents who were aware of Extension had contacted an Extension agent or an Extension office. An average of 2.7 contacts took place in the past year. Rural respondents made twice the number of contacts as urban respondents. This difference in number of contacts was statistically significant (p = .03).
Between one-fifth to one-third of the respondents who were aware of Extension had received information in the past year through bulletins, newsletters and publications (34.0%), radio (28.8%), and television (22.7%). Significantly higher proportions of rural respondents than urban respondents indicated receiving information by the above channels (p = .0001 and p = .04, respectively).
Knowledge of Parish Extension Office
It is noteworthy that 40.6% of all respondents knew there was an Extension office in their parish, but 51.8% were unsure, and 7.6% did not know. Twice as many rural as urban respondents knew there was a parish Extension office (p = .0001).
User Satisfaction
Over 90% of users indicated they were very satisfied or satisfied with Extension and its programs. From two to three times as many rural as urban respondent users were very satisfied with all programs. These differences were statistically significant for Extension overall (p = .05), agriculture (p = .0195) and 4-H youth (p = .007).
Usefulness of Basic Extension Programs
A majority of respondents indicated that each of nine basic Extension programs was very useful, useful, or somewhat useful in making their family's life better. Usefulness ratings ranged from 75-86% for seven programs--nutrition and food safety, family and economic wellbeing, leadership and volunteerism, community development, economic development, youth development, and public policy education. Rural respondents ratings were higher than urban respondents and the rating differences were statistically significant for all nine programs (p-value ranged from .05 to .0001).
The survey results indicate that while the general public is somewhat aware of Extension, only a small percentage of Louisianians used LCES' programs in the past year. However, it is significant that a majority of the users are satisfied with these programs. An important finding of the survey is that practically all Extension programs are perceived by Louisianians as potentially useful in improving their family's lives.
As expected, compared to urban audiences, the rural audiences are more aware of Extension and its programs. In addition, they use programs more and are more satisfied with them, and more of them believe the programs will be useful to their families.
The survey proved insightful in general. Specific marketing implications for LCES arising from a few of the findings are illustrated below. In addition, some marketing strategy principles that are useful in translating survey findings into marketing actions are described.
In this study, public awareness of both LCES and its programs was about one-half that found in the 1984 national study by Warner and Christenson, whereas use and satisfaction were about the same. This awareness deficit implies that LCES needs to develop a marketing strategy to increase its visibility among the general public and, particularly, those groups targeted by Extension's mission statement, its work, or its specific programs. Awareness is typically accomplished by mass communication media such as television, radio, and newspapers. The low awareness finding implies that LCES should increase its efforts with these media.
At the same time, good marketing practice requires that these impersonal, mass communications messages be dovetailed with a grass-roots strategy in which Extension agents and local offices have unified, distinct, and readily identifiable features such that prospective users can make the connection. Virtually all private sector promotion campaigns create a tangible bond between the mass message and local signage, employee uniforms, or insignia such as lapel buttons (Kotler, 1991).
Differences in awareness of Extension's programs are not surprising. These arise from differences in funding, resource allocation, program emphases, and past and present mandates. For example, the 4-H Youth program, which had the highest level of awareness, enjoys a substantial share of LCES faculty resources, is closely affiliated with Louisiana school systems, and receives considerable assistance from parents, volunteers, and leaders. From a marketing standpoint, the high visibility and good will associated with LCES' 4-H programs is a logical cornerstone of future efforts to increase awareness of other LCES programs and to promote their use by Louisiana residents. Such "shirttail" or "piggyback" strategies are often successful in private sector marketing (Lamb, Hair & McDaniel, 1992). A good example is McDonalds, which has leveraged its strength of fast service many times over with the addition of menu items that are consistent with customers' perceptions.
Taking this strategy a step further is warranted by the findings. An opportunity exists in the high perceived usefulness of community-based programs. This finding reveals latent demand for leadership, volunteer, and community development programs. Such programs spin logically out of the 4-H model, so LCES stands to gain synergy by redoubling its efforts to refine, develop, and launch these programs both in rural and urban parishes. When private sector marketers diversify, they normally expand around their core businesses (Kotler, 1991). This approach ensures that they use their expertise and talents to develop markets that are similar to those where they have been successful rather than dashing into radically different marketing environments where they cannot easily transfer their learning or skills.
Continuing the emphasis on LCES' agricultural programs highlights the principle of building on organization strengths. Historically, agricultural programs have been the primary focus of Extension work, especially in rural areas where LCES' agricultural programs enjoy relatively higher awareness and high satisfaction levels. Interestingly, the survey revealed that both home gardening and agricultural programs are deemed useful by over one-third of the urban population. A clear opportunity exists for LCES to adapt these programs to shifting population dynamics and urban life styles.
Implications from marketing research such as that conducted by LCES abound, but it is necessary to use caution in interpreting the findings and deciding strategic thrusts. Granted, every specific finding can be addressed with a marketing tactic to capitalize on it if the finding is positive or to fix it if a deficiency is revealed. For example, LCES could work to create a stronger presence across all of its programs. It could simultaneously introduce new programs in those areas voted for by the survey respondents. However, while a wholesale increase in the number of Extension program users would be seen as a positive trend, it could very well place LCES in the dilemma of trying to cater to increased clientele demand in the face of shrinking budgets and diminishing manpower. Private sector marketers long ago learned that service quality typically suffers when customer counts escalate (Lamb, Hair & McDaniel, 1992). To forestall this problem, they have adopted a strategic marketing planning orientation. This approach is advocated for LCES or any state Extension agency to methodically sort out the most appropriate marketing strategies and to schedule developments in a master Extension marketing plan to manage growth and to maximize service quality. Survey results and especially the marketing strategies that are born from these results should always be integrated into a master marketing plan.
Boldt, W. (1988). Image: Creating a unique and unified one for Extension. Journal of Extension, XXIV(Spring), 27-28.
Coreil, P., & Verma, S. (1992). Utilizing evaluation to develop a marketing strategy in the Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service. American Evaluation Association, Extension Education Evaluation Topical Interest Group Proceedings, 109-114.
Kotler, P. (1991). Marketing management: Analysis, planning, implementation, and control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lamb, C., Hair, J., & McDaniel, C. (1992). Principles of marketing. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
SPSS-X Users' Guide. (1988). Chicago: SPSS, Inc.
Warner P., & Christenson, J. A. (1984). The Cooperative Extension Service: A national assessment. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Greg Pompelli
Associate Professor
Internet address: gpompeli@utk.edu
Christopher Morfaw
Research Associate
Burton English
Professor
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, Tennessee
Implementation of water quality legislation often requires farm operators to adopt new soil conservation practices. Despite their apparent information needs, farm operators' attitudes about the usefulness of information from specific information providers, such as the Agricultural Extension Service, may limit the extent to which accurate soil conservation information is utilized. If the information source preferences of farm operators could be identified, then perhaps more cost-effective information dissemination campaigns could be developed.
As with any set of potential information users, farm operators' perceptions about their needs for soil conservation information may affect their attitudes about soil conservation information. Nonetheless, the classification of operators by identifiable characteristics may aid in the development of approaches designed to reduce the cost of providing information. If a farm operator's potential receptiveness can be foreseen with some confidence, then techniques could be developed to address that farmer's predispositions and this, in turn, might lead to increased success in the promotion of soil conservation practices.
Most studies of the information source preferences of farmers in the United States have focussed on marketing and production information sources (Ford & Babb, 1989; Schnitkey, Batte, Jones & Botomogno, 1992; Batte, Jones & Schnitkey, 1989; Jones, Batte & Schnitkey, 1990; Ortmann, Patrick, Musser & Doster, 1993), but not specifically on soil conservation information sources. Although the existing literature provides a valuable starting point for identifying key variables, it cannot be directly applied to the analysis of farmers' attitudes about the usefulness of soil conservation information provided by various sources.
The objective of this study was to examine the factors affecting Tennessee farm operators' attitudes about the usefulness of soil conservation information provided by the Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service (TAES). The Soil Conservation Service (SCS), supply store personnel, and farm magazines were included in this study as alternative sources of information. However, only farm operators' attitudes about TAES soil conservation information are presented.
In 1991 and 1992, data on farm and farm operator characteristics and financial characteristics were collected from 214 farm operators through personal, on-farm interviews in three Tennessee watersheds (geographically identified as east, middle, and west Tennessee). Within each watershed farm operators were randomly selected based on numbers assigned to their farms. Farm operators who refused to participate were replaced by other randomly selected operators. The watersheds chosen for this study were selected because of their high potential for soil erosion and nonpoint source water pollution.
In addition to farm and farm operator characteristic information, respondents were asked to rate the "usefulness" of soil conservation information from the TAES and three alternative sources. A rating scale from 1 to 11 was used, with 1 denoting "most useful," 10 denoting "least useful," and 11 denoting that the source was "not used." In this study an information source was judged "useful," if it received a rating of 1, 2, or 3.
The average farm operator in this study was 54.5 years old with 29.4 years of experience and a high school education. About 45% of the farm operators earned less than 25% of their income from farm sales, and 60% had gross farm sales of less than $15,000 per year. About 44% of the farm operators were from East Tennessee, 31% were from Middle Tennessee, and 25% were from West Tennessee. Sixty-eight percent of the farm operators had contact with the TAES, 67% had contact with the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), and 25% had a conservation compliance plan.
The usefulness responses indicated that farm operators were generally skeptical about soil conservation information from all four sources. Twenty-seven percent of the respondents considered TAES information useful, 32% considered SCS information useful, while 42.5% considered information from supply store personnel useful. Soil conservation information obtained from farm magazines was only considered useful by 19.5% of the respondents. One reason for the perception differences across sources may be the extent to which farm operators felt each source understood their farm operations.
A logit model was used to estimate the influence of farm and farm operator characteristics on farm operators' perceptions about the usefulness of TAES soil conservation information. The logit model was considered appropriate because the results could be used to assess the influence of characteristics on the likelihood that a farm operator judged TAES soil conservation information as useful.
The logit model results presented in Table 1, show that the coefficients for East, Middle, and West Tennessee, Extension contact (TAES), the existence of a mortgage on the farm (Mort), and farm operators who earn less than 25% of their household income from farming (Part) were statistically significant at an alpha level of 5%. However, only the TAES and mortgage variables positively influenced the likelihood that farm operators considered TAES information useful (a negative coefficient indicates a positive relationship).
| Table 1
Logit Model Results | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter Variable | Wald Coefficient | Chi-Square | P-value |
| East | 2.30 | 16.68 | 0.0001 |
| Middle | 3.26 | 18.75 | 0.0001 |
| West | 2.52 | 12.05 | 0.0005 |
| TAES | -2.25 | 15.81 | 0.0001 |
| SCS | 0.61 | 1.37 | 0.2414 |
| Mort | -1.53 | 14.88 | 0.0001 |
| Part | 0.83 | 4.05 | 0.0442 |
| Note. Log-Likelihood Ratio Test Statistic = 82.81; Critical Chi-square Value for the Likelihood; Ratio Test = 14.45 (.95, 6 d.f.) | |||
The coefficient for contact by the SCS was not statistically significant. The lack of statistical significance for the SCS contact variable indicates that contact by SCS personnel did not affect farm operators' perceptions of TAES information.
It is not clear why farm operators with mortgages consider TAES information useful. If lenders pressured farm operators to use TAES soil conservation information, it is doubtful that this would lead to positive farm operator attitudes about TAES information.
The negative influence of the part-time farm operator variable (Part) indicates these farm operators generally do not consider TAES information useful. Given that part-time farm operators generally are their farm's main source of labor, these farm operators may feel too overloaded or pressed for time to obtain TAES soil conservation information.
Finally, it is important to note that during the development of this model, a number of variables were initially used that did not influence the likelihood that farm operators would consider TAES useful and these were not included in the final model. Variables that were not used because they were statistically insignificant included: the percent of farm land rented, years of education, years of experience, operator's age, average gross sales, the presence of livestock operations, and participation in federal commodity programs.
A comparison of this study's results reinforces the notion that factors affecting farm operators' information source preferences are not easily discovered. However, the overall reluctance of farm operators to consider TAES information useful corresponds with the findings of Ortmann et al., (1993) which revealed that large cornbelt farmers preferred to consult their on-farm advisors rather than outside information providers.
Perhaps the most important implication of this study is that contact by TAES personnel has a positive effect on the likelihood that a farm operator considers TAES soil conservation information useful. As discussed by King and Rollins (1995), it appears that information usefulness is positively related to the development of working relationships between information providers and those they advise. Unfortunately, this realization comes at a time when funding restrictions limit opportunities to reach f
