Editor's Page

Editor's Page

Questions & Answers for Authors

Q&A for Authors

Submission Instructions

Instructions for Submitting Articles

Review and Evaluation Process

Review and Evaluation Process

Editorial Committees and Board

Editorial Committee and Board

Commentary

Integrating a Marketing Mindset: Building Extension's Future in the Information Marketplace

Maddy, Deborah J. Kealy, Laura J. M.

Feature Articles

Scholarship Unbound for the 21st Century

Weiser, C. J. Houglum, Lyla

Extension Outreach Opportunities among Segmented Dairy Producers

Parsons, Robert L. Hanson, Gregory D. Luloff, A. E. Winsten, J. R.

Integrated Pest Management in Cucurbit Crops in South-Central USA: Pest Status, Attitudes toward IPM and a Plan for Implementation

Riley, D. G. Edelson, J. V. Roberts, R. E. Roe, N. Miller, M. E. Cuperus, G. Anciso, J.

Increasing Fruit and Vegetable Consumption among Middle School Students: Implementing the 5-A-Day Program

Spoon, Mary Dodds Benedict, Jamie Leontos, Carolyn Krelle-Zepponi, Natalie

Florida Cooperative Extension's County Program Review Process

Jacob, Steve Israel, Glenn D. Summerhill, William R.

Research in Brief

From Knowledge Extended to Knowledge Created: Challenges for a New Extension Paradigm

Warner, Mildred E. Hinrichs, Clare Schneyer, Judith Joyce, Lucy

Consumer Response to IPM-Grown Produce

Govindasamy, Ramu Italia, John Adelaja, Adesoji

The Rural Families Program Makes a Difference

Viegas, Swarna Meek, Jim

Ideas at Work

Defining Scholarship for County Extension Agents

Schauber, Ann Aldrich-Markham, Susan Olsen, Jeff Gredler, Gail Olsen, Pamela Reichenbach, Mike

Working through the Maze of Liability Shields

King, Jeff Schmiesing, Ryan

Impacts of Family Nutrition Classes Taught to Food Stamp Recipients in Grant/Adams Area of Washington State

Meloy, Betty J.

Tools of the Trade

PowerPay: Consumer Debt Reduction Software for Extension Educators

Miner, F. Dean, Jr. Harris, Judy L.

Technological Issues for Improving Access to Internet Web Sites for Rural Users

Samson, Scott A.

Dear Reader,

If this issue has a main theme, it's scholarship and Extension. Certainly a timely topic as many universities are wrestling with the issue of how to judge Extension faculty members in terms of promotion, tenure, and scholarship.

I think you find the two articles from Oregon particularly interesting as Oregon implements its new system of evaluation not only of Extension but all faculty members. New York chimes in with a piece about Extension and research working together. Florida contributes an article about county program reviews.

A secondary theme might be Integrated Past Management, or IPM as it's popularly known. The south central region offers a piece about how they assessed needs grower knowledge as well as identifying needs for research and Extension programs. From New Jersey comes an article with a different emphasis. Are consumers willing to pay more for IPM-grown produce?

Rounding out this issue are other thoughtful articles many will find of interest. Liability and risk management are particular concerns of the 4-H program and an article from Ohio deals with this subject. Two states, Washington and Nevada, talk about nutrition topics.

In other news of interest to parts of the Extension system, the Dairy Practices Council has announced for new guidelines for its membership. For more information and a free brochure, contact the council at P. O. Box 866, Barre, VT 05641-0866 or visit its web site at www.dairypc.org

The National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) is releasing the Equine ,98 Study results. The USDA effort collected data from 28 states representing more than 78% of the horses and ponies in the nation. Check out the web site at www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cahm or call 970-490-8000 to request a hard copy.

Leonard Calvert, editor

Extension Journal, Inc.

Extension Journal, Inc. is a quasi-official body of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges and the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP). It is a nonprofit corporation organized for the purpose of publishing a journal for professional Extension staff, adult educators, and community developers.

Board of Directors:

Michael Lambur, President, Virginia, member-at-large
Emmett Fiske, Secretary, Washington, Member-at-Large
Janice Leno, Treasurer, Oregon, site institution representative (editorial)
Tom Archer, Ohio, President-Elect
Victor Artero, Guam, Western Directors
Bill Braden, Texas, Epsilon Sigma Phi
Henry Brooks, Maryland, 1890 Institutions
Sorrel Brown, Iowa, North Central Directors
Patricia Dawson, Oregon, National Association of Extension 4-H Agents
Judith Jones, Virginia, Southern Directors
Jim Lemon, Ohio, Agricultural Communicators in Education and site institution representative (technical)
Terry Meisenbach, Washington, D.C., Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, USDA
Keith Smith, Ohio, Extension Committee on Organization and Policy
Ellen Taylor-Powell, Wisconsin, Editorial Committee Chair
Joan Thomson, Pennsylvania, North East Directors
Satish Verma, Louisiana, Member-at-Large

Ex-officio:
Leonard Calvert, Oregon, Editor
Patrick Robinson, Virginia, Technical Consultant

Editorial Committee:
Joyce Alves, University of Arizona
Tom Archer, The Ohio State University
Sue Buck, University of Wisconsin
Michael Cloughesy, Oregon State University
Angela Corbett, South Carolina State University
Daniel Drost, Utah State University
Henry Findlay, Tuskegee University
Carolyn Gilles, The Pennsylvania State University
Fred Herndon, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Annie Mae Kingston, University of Kentucky
Terry Meisenbach, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, USDA
Ron Meyer, Colorado State University
Joel Plath, Colorado State University
Rama Radhakrishna, Clemson University
Shirley Rouse, North Carolina A&T University
Janet Schmidt, Washington State University
Ellen Taylor-Powell, University of Wisconsin, Committee Chair
Kendra Wells, University of Maryland
Judy Winn, Texas A&M University

2001 is not the year nor the movie but the number of marketing messages the average consumer sees each month in the United States, according to the Advertising Research Foundation (Reitman, 1994). It is in this highly cluttered environment, with consumers suffering from sensory overload, that all communications -- including information about Cooperative Extension's educational programs -- exist.

In the late 1980s, the term "integrated marketing" seemed to enter the vocabulary of many Madison Avenue marketers and advertising agencies overnight. Integrated marketing means becoming involved in the client's entire strategic planning process and then providing communication solutions and executions. An understanding of how consumers get information about products and services and how marketers can manage that information for maximum effectiveness is the heart of integrated marketing (Rose & Miller, 1994).

As Extension professionals, we have to wonder if an education-based, not-for-profit organization like Cooperative Extension can compete with the corporate world in the information marketplace. Can Cooperative Extension capture the attention of consumers bombarded with marketing messages developed through seven-figure advertising campaigns?

While our marketing budget will never be plush, the Cooperative Extension System can benefit from an integrated approach, focusing on marketing communications that are strategic to the program development process. Bette DeGraw, dean of the College of Extended Education, Arizona State University, suggests that professionals in the field of continuing education should adopt the corporate communication model and learn from Madison Avenue experts.

"Today, continuing education institutions must establish a corporate image that promises quality and accessibility to the consumer. The corporate image reflects the way your institution is perceived, including the emotions and associations evoked in the mind of the consumer, and adds value to any product line that you offer," said DeGraw (1995) at the University Continuing Education Association's Third Annual Marketing Seminar (1995).

The corporate model begins with branding (Murphy, 1987). As a consumer of goods and services, you're familiar with the concept. Branding is used to create memorability, preference, and loyalty in consumers' minds. It creates a platform to build a relationship between product and user. Whether it is the toothpaste you used this morning or the car you drove to work, you have established a relationship with a particular brand name and are more likely to use other products developed by that company because of a positive brand identity.

A brand is a promise of value. Because the effects of image marketing -- and therefore branding -- build over time, consistency is critical. Every piece of communication should support the brand and be consistent over time.

The idea of accumulating a reservoir of good will and good impressions is called brand equity (Christiani, 1995). This concept is as critical to the Cooperative Extension System as it is to for-profit organizations. If the consumer has a positive learning experience with one of our educational product lines, he or she will be more likely to be a repeat customer. But, if Extension educators don't do a good job of communicating the Cooperative Extension brand, the consumer may not know how to become a repeat customer.

Because consistency has proven to be essential for building corporate images and establishing brand equity, Cornell Cooperative Extension invested time, commitment and dollars during the late 1980s to gain greater name recognition and improve visibility. A name change to Cornell Cooperative Extension unified the system's diverse capabilities with, and emphasized the linkage to, Cornell University, New York's Land- Grant institution. A mission statement and a slogan were developed, a standard description of Extension was crafted, and graphics designed, in an effort to project a positive corporate image and help consumers establish brand loyalty.

Today, consistent verbal and graphic images remain important to our brand identity. The Cornell Cooperative Extension Marketing Manual and Style Manual are important references in every Extension county association, college department, and campus unit.

Remember, marketing integration is a strategy for giving consumers information about our products and services. Marketing professionals use a model called brand connection path (Watras 1995), representing ways in which consumers begin an experience with a brand. The model starts with experience and includes exposure to traditional media-based advertising. It also includes exposure to competitors' advertising, word-of-mouth, shopping trips, family reaction to the product, direct marketing, and so forth. Extension educators can identify similar examples of a consumer's experience with Extension's brand.

The brand connection path is different for different people. Knowing how to effectively integrate communications along that path for a specific group of consumers is the key to marketing success in the 1990s and beyond, whether the organization is selling goods or offering educational programs.

In the early 1980s, John Naisbitt, author of Megatrends (1982) said, "The key to marketing in the future will not be primarily distribution, but information" and using information to market more successfully. He went on to explain that this means marketing on the differences among people, not their similarities; in an increasingly diverse population, one message or one medium for all consumers just won't work anymore.

To think of consumers as a mass market suggests a homogeneity that does not exist. You and I, as consumers, have different names, ages, addresses, educations, and incomes. Besides these superficial differences, we also have different aspirations, experiences, family structures, motivations, personalities, and emotional makeups. Consumers are as unique as snowflakes.

According to Jerry I. Reitman, executive vice president of Leo Burnett Company, a Chicago-based advertising firm, and author of Beyond 2000: The Future of Direct Marketing (1994), integrated communication is, "The process of managing all sources of information about a brand to which a customer or prospect is exposed along the brand connection path which behaviorally moves that person toward a sale. At the cornerstone of true integrated marketing is integrated thinking!"

Although education is different from most consumer products, integrated marketing can build and extend brand equity in the information marketplace. Education is a high-involvement decision. It is not an impulse or often - repeated buy. It is expensive in time, commitment, and often in hard dollars; the decision is personal and emotion-laden.

What we know about Cooperative Extension customers is that super heavy users account for a disproportionately large amount of all users. But we don't know why these people are loyal Extension customers, how they receive information about our products and services, or most importantly, how they would prefer to receive information about our products and services.

Long ago we learned that program success means involving the target audience in the decision-making process. Good marketing is no different. In fact, good marketing is part of the program development process, not a special event.

It is possible to have a variety of forms of communication work in harmony; to have them equal in quality and production values; to have each reinforce brand equity while time promoting a particular product line. An integrated, strategic marketing focus has substantial advantages for the Cooperative Extension brand.

If Cooperative Extension is to successfully address the critical issues of wide public concern arising out of complex human problems, then we must increase our ability to target increasingly fragmented audiences with increasingly relevant messages, for increasingly tailored products. Certainly, part of our future lies in integrated communication and integrated thinking.

Now think about 2001, the year: Cooperative Extension is a household brand name associated with quality and accessible educational programming that helps people put knowledge to work.

Christiani, A. (1995). Exploring brand equity. New York: Advertising Research Foundation.

DeGraw, B. (1995). Internal marketing: What does it entail, what is it designed to achieve? Panel discussion, Highways, Byways, and Pitstops: A Complete Atlas to Smart Marketing. Third Annual Marketing Seminar, University Continuing Education Association, Albuquerque, NM.

Murphy, J., ed. (1987). Branding: A key marketing tool. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Naisbitt, J. (1982). Megatrends: Ten new directions transforming our lives. New York: Warner Books.

Reitman, J. (1994). Beyond 2000: The future of direct marketing. Lincolnwood, IL.: NTC Business Books.

Rose, P., & Miller, D. (1994). "Merging advertising and PR: Integrated marketing communications," The Journalism Educator 49(2), 52.

Watras, M. (1995). "Potential pitfalls on the road to integrated marketing," Communication World, 12(9), 22.

A faculty senate task force at Oregon State University (OSU) undertook the challenge of defining and articulating the core characteristics of scholarship that apply across academic disciplines and university missions to provide a conceptual base for reviewing and revising tenure and promotion guidelines. The result was: Scholarship is creative intellectual work that is validated by peers and communicated--including creative artistry and the discovery, integration, and development of knowledge.

Scholarly achievement and excellence in performing assigned responsibilities are the primary categories for evaluating faculty performance, but OSU's new promotion and tenure (P&T) guidelines describe other aspects of faculty performance that the University values. These include collaborative effort, international perspective and service. Revised tenure and promotion guidelines reflecting these values, and basing faculty evaluation on a position description, were adopted by the university in 1995 with unanimous Faculty Senate support.

Some may be familiar with the model put forth by the Carnegie Foundation (1990) that asserts that scholarly achievements are assessed by determining whether "phases of an intellectual process" were followed. The phases are clear goals, adequate preparation, appropriate methods, significant results, effective preparation, and reflective critique. In contrast, the OSU model uses criteria that focus more on outputs to validate scholarship. Specifically, the criteria are used in assessing the extent to which a scholarly achievement is original, significant, and useful to others.

The Carnegie and OSU models both envision scholarship as broader than results of research published in a peer refereed journal. Both models place high value on scholarly achievements that result from research. Both models extend the concept of scholarship beyond research to include the other types of creative intellectual work and achievement. The Carnegie Foundation model basically describes scholarship in terms of the teaching and research activities those faculty members normally engage. The OSU model views scholarship fundamentally as creative work that is peer validated and communicated to others. This view suggests that scholarship can occur in all areas of professorial work as well as outside of academia.

OSU's new guidelines eliminated the need for separate supplemental promotion and tenure guidelines previously used to describe scholarship in programs such as Extension, international development, veterinary medicine, and library and information services where scholarship sometimes does not fit the traditional research model of results published in peer reviewed journals.

In short, Oregon State University's new (P&T) guidelines:

• Reaffirm that scholarship is required of all professorial faculty, and articulate a definition of scholarship that applies across the arts and sciences.
• Require that an annually updated position description serves as the basis for evaluating a faculty member's performance. The position description explicitly describes assigned duties, relevant areas of scholarship, and the relative balance of effort among assigned duties, scholarship, and service for each faculty position.
• Identify performance of assigned duties and scholarly achievement as the two primary areas of faculty evaluation.
• Recognize service performed by faculty members that is not part of their assigned duties as a secondary area of performance evaluation. Assigned duties such as administration, Extension, outreach, and student advising are not viewed as service when they are duties assigned to a faculty member. By the same token such activities are considered service when they are performed by a faculty member whose assigned duties lie in another area, such as research or teaching.
• Recognize teaching, research, and outreach as vital university missions and faculty activities that are not scholarship in themselves but which can each involve creative, communicated, peer-validated intellectual work (scholarship) in any of its several forms (discovery, development, integration, artistry). This is a significant departure from Ernest Boyer's (1990) view of teaching per se as scholarship.
• Recognize that peer validation and communication are separate processes that can occur in a variety of ways including, but not limited to, peer-refereed publications. When peer validation and communication are accomplished in non-traditional ways it is the faculty member's responsibility to clearly describe and document how peer validation and communication were accomplished.
• Recognize that creative work of teachers and extension educators in developing education materials, methods, or programs or in conducting research in their subject-matter discipline will become scholarship if the work is validated by peers and communicated.
• Recognize that the audiences for scholarship in research are disciplinary peers worldwide, but that audiences for scholarship in teaching, Extension, and site-specific field research are often more localized. The P&T guidelines language was changed to reflect this reality-from "professors must achieve a national or international reputation for their scholarship" to "professors must achieve distinction in scholarship as evident in the candidate's wide recognition and significant contributions to the field or profession."
• Emphasize that the university values and encourages collaborative work, and asks faculty members to report contributions to significant team efforts in documenting their accomplishments.
• Recommend that documentation of achievements focus whenever possible on what was accomplished rather than how it was accomplished; on substance rather than form; on accomplishments rather than activities. In short, on describing what changed or improved as a result of a faculty member's efforts.

The OSU P&T guidelines acknowledge that the faculty of a university performs essential and valuable activities that are not scholarship. The guidelines explicitly describe scholarship as creative intellectual work that is validated by peers and communicated including: discovery of new knowledge; development of new technologies, methods, materials, or uses; integration of knowledge leading to new understandings; and artistry that creates new insights and understandings. This view acknowledges that scholarship can be carried out by knowledgeable creative people throughout society--not just at universities. It emphasizes the importance of ensuring validity, and of communicating to broader audiences to ensure that results of scholarship will be accessible and useful to others. In addition, it articulates the fundamental nature of scholarly achievement that applies across all disciplines.

OSU has just completed a third year of using the new University P&T guidelines. How the OSU model has affected the Oregon Extension Service was recently outlined by Lyla Houglum, dean and director of the Extension Service. She makes the following observations about changes that have occurred over the past three years:

• All Extension faculty in Oregon (county and campus-based) carry an appointment in an academic college or department. Oregon county agents and specialists have long held professorial rank with full privileges and tenure in Extension. Since 1995 the tenure home of all Extension faculty has become an academic department or college through which they are considered for promotion and tenure along with their on-campus teaching and research colleagues.
• Department and college P&T committees now have broader representation that includes Extension faculty (both county and campus based faculty). Committees have worked hard to appropriately evaluate and value Extension faculty accomplishments. In addition, the dean and director of the Extension Service serves on the University P&T committee.
• Research faculty are accepting Extension faculty as peers within departments and colleges and are evaluating them, and being evaluated by them, through the department committee P&T process. This represents a huge change from the first year of implementation when several researchers balked at evaluating or being evaluated by Extension faculty.
• Academic deans have worked hard to gain the necessary knowledge to evaluate, support, and defend their Extension faculty through the college and university P&T processes.
• There is much more clarity among faculty, department heads, deans, and the university P&T committee about how scholarship is defined. The university committee commonly refers back to the definition when evaluating faculty accomplishments; for example, Was there creative intellectual work? Was the work validated by peers? Was it communicated?
• The quality of all faculty position descriptions has improved significantly. The position description is used as the foundation for annual performance appraisals and for P&T dossier evaluation.
• OSU faculty without Extension appointments are including outreach activities and accomplishments in their dossiers.

Citizen advisors value OSU's new guidelines because they feel the guidelines recognize and reward faculty efforts benefiting students and citizens in Oregon. Several universities are finding that OSU's definition of scholarship provides a useful starting point for their institution's deliberations about faculty evaluation, promotion and tenure, and post-tenure review. Iowa State University and the University of Idaho have recently adopted broader views of scholarship and revised promotion and tenure criteria to reflect that view. University faculties and the broader public seem ready to improve faculty evaluation and reward processes.

OSU will host a national forum on this subject on campus October 1-3, 1998, entitled "Scholarship Unbound: Reframing Faculty Evaluation and Rewards. Registration forms for this W. K. Kellogg supported workshop, co-sponsored by the American Association for Higher Education, may be obtained by writing to Scholarship Unbound Workshop, Oregon State University, 202 Peavy Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331-5707; fax (541) 737-4966; phone (541) 737-2329; or e-mail: duncanp@ccmail.orst.edu.

Other information may be found on the Internet, including OSU's revised tenure and promotion guidelines at http://www.adec.edu/clemson/papers/houglum.html and a draft paper called "The Value System of a University-Rethinking Scholarship", at http://www.adec.edu/clemson/papers/weiser.html

Relevant questions and answers from the authors' participation in a satellite teleconference titled "Position Description: A Key to Scholarship," program #2, October 2, 1997, in a program series titled "21st Century Land Grant University" sponsored by Clemson University can also be accessed at http://www.adec.edu/clemson/questions/program2.html

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professorate. Special report. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

This paper suggests the value of a system-specific outreach education program for dairy producers that will both enhance economic survival and ability to adjust to technological change. These findings are based on a 1997 survey of Pennsylvania dairy farmers employing confinement, traditional, and intensive grazing management systems.

Three distinct production systems have emerged in the northeast: (a) confinement production, (b) intensive grazing, and (c) traditional systems that rely on both extensive grazing and supplemental confinement feeding. The first two systems are becoming highly specialized in terms of management processes. Confinement production frequently utilizes total mixed rations (TMR) which require meticulous detail for balancing a ration of processed forages and supplements. Intensive grazing requires frequent cattle rotation among a series of paddocks. Traditional dairy systems benefit from a diverse mix of extensive pasturing and in-barn feeding, but frequently forego benefits of production specialization.

A 1993 Pennsylvania survey found that 64% of a sample of traditional and intensive grazing dairy producers listed increased production efficiency and improved finances as their primary motivations for change (Hanson, Cunningham, Morehart & Parsons). The confinement production system, benefiting from increasing specialization in mechanized feed production, ration- balancing and feeding processes has steadily gained in usage since the mid-1900's (Cochrane, 1979). In order to more clearly understand their needs, a stratified random sample of Pennsylvania dairy farmers served as the basis for this 1997 study. Data were collected via a mail survey followed where necessary by a reminder post-card and a reminder survey (Dillman, 1978). Questions were asked concerning farm production practices, level of satisfaction, and farm and farmer demographical characteristics. A 66% response rate was achieved with 874 completed surveys returned. Data were compiled and statistically analyzed with SAS (SAS Institute, Inc., 1980). Stratification was based on the type of production system.

The key variable differentiating dairy systems was the grazing intensity on the farm. Confinement producers in the study are defined as those that do not graze their milking cows. Intensive grazing producers are defined as using grazing and pasture rotations of seven days or less. Traditional system producers are those who rotate pastures at intervals of eight days or longer.

Confinement systems comprised 42% of the sample (Table 1). Confinement offers advantages in terms of ease of adding more cows to the operation and use of controlled-environment feeding (which is conducive to greater milk production per cow). Those farmers with ready access to equity or borrowed capital often find the confinement production formula of more cows, more milk per cow, and more acres per farm to be highly competitive.

On the other hand, intensive grazing systems typically have less row-crop production and hence fewer total acres, which is consistent with fewer cows per farm. Similar to other studies (e.g., Jackson-Smith, Barham, Nevius & Klemme, 1996) the 1997 survey found 11% lower milk production per cow with intensive grazing systems compared to confinement feeding. Traditional systems were similar to intensive grazing in terms of milk per cow and cows per farm, but were found to have more acres and twice the number of years using their system of grazing (18 vs. 9 years, respectively). With the highest percentage having attended college, being younger, and more likely to use farm plans, the intensive grazing group may be hypothesized to be particularly open to innovative ideas and production methods arising in the future.

Intensive grazing producers were the most dissatisfied with milk and hay yields, which are critical to the survival of intensive grazing operations (Table 2). Traditional producers were more dissatisfied with 1996 corn silage yields and profit levels. The lack of specialization, via intensive grazing or confinement systems, has likely made it more difficult for traditional producers to translate production levels into a healthy level of farm profitability.

A higher percentage of traditional producers were more dissatisfied with time away from the farm and with financial progress since 1990. The survey finding that 46-49% of those farmers were dissatisfied with current stress levels indicates the presence of a high level of anxiety in Pennsylvania dairy farming at this time. Poor economic performance is correlated with personal stress.

A larger percentage of intensive grazing farmers intended to add cows, add acres, and increase use of grazing than was the case for either the confinement or traditional groups (Table 3), although increasing acreage farmed is statistically insignificant. The traditional group, however, intended to increase use of grazing substantially more than confinement producers, 11% vs. 3%, respectively. The slower and more mixed expansion of the traditional farmers can be interpreted as being consistent with their high level of dissatisfaction with 1996 profit levels and financial progress. Confinement producers with larger farm units and higher per cow production appear generally satisfied with a continuing focus on confinement technology. Similarly, 29% of the intensive grazing practitioners intend to specialize to a greater degree by increasing use of grazing. It is the traditional system practitioners that are less uniform in terms of the direction of future growth for their farms.

Important management tools now available to farmers include DHIA records, TMR feed mixing programs, computers, and farm planning techniques (Table 3). The current use level of Dairy Herd Improvement Associations (DHIA) which provide detailed milk production records on an individual cow basis, differed among the three dairy systems. While continuing to be more actively used by confinement producers during the next three years, there is little anticipated future increase in DHIA membership on the sample farms.

Current application of TMR also differed significantly, with use among confinement producers more than double that among the other groups. The substantial projected increase in usage of TMR among the traditional and intensive grazing farmers (and convergence in future rates-of-use across all systems) suggests that increasingly precise feeding technologies will complement increased future use of pasture forage. In effect, TMR is becoming viewed by graziers as an appropriate substitute for pasture forages during winter months.

Current usage of personal computers and formal farm planning differs slightly across the three dairy systems. Perhaps more importantly, the farmers in each group indicate substantial increases in future use of computers and planning techniques in their operations. This implies that educational outreach efforts focusing particularly on computer and planning applications will more likely receive a favorable response from farmers than future workshops focusing on DHIA applications to decision-making. Similarly, the findings of greater dissatisfaction with current performance, a more diffuse approach to future change, and lower indebtedness which facilitates financing innovation, present compelling reasons for outreach education efforts directed toward the traditional producers. Farms pertaining to this group are likely to undergo substantial future changes in adoption of more specialized production systems.

The results suggest that a two-fold outreach strategy consisting of (a) specialized Extension programs with topics tailored to specific dairy systems and (b) more general management programs for educational meetings that include dairy producers employing any one of the major production systems, will achieve greater success than a one-size-fits-all educational strategy. The overwhelming majority of confinement producers were not planning to intensify grazing use in their operations (other than for cow-holding and exercise lots). This group is therefore more likely to be responsive to large-herd confinement decision- making aids focusing on production and size efficiencies. On the other hand, a change-focused education program will likely have broad appeal for traditional producers who are most dissatisfied with current profitability and are most likely to shift to more specialized production in the future. In this regard, workshops that contrast the performance of intensive grazing versus confinement systems come to mind. However, workshops that enhance on-farm applications of computers to address ration balancing costs and returns, including TMR use, and formalized farm business planning will have broad appeal across all dairy groups. From an educator's perspective, it is encouraging to find increasing recognition of the critical role of computers and formal planning for improving future competitiveness.

The findings lend support for specialization in outreach education programs analogous to the increasing specialization of production systems found among the dairy farmers surveyed. Farm management extension educators are confronted with the dilemma that the dairy farmers most likely to benefit from outreach programs designed to ensure farm survival and success, the traditional producers, are among the most reluctant to attend educational meetings and workshops focusing on decision-making techniques. For example, a core base of 60% to 65% of all surveyed farmers do not intend to utilize computers or formal farm planning processes in the next three years. The survey results do not explicitly suggest that a differentiated or segmented marketing approach for Extension programs will solve the problem of low farmer participation. However, by identifying alternative education interests by producer group, study results may contribute to the design of outreach materials that are more useful in aiding extension educators address the base of critical informational needs of dairy farmers

Cochrane, W. W. (1979). The development of American agriculture: A historical analysis. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Dillman, D.A. (1978) Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: Wiley & Sons.

Hanson, G. D., Cunningham, L. C., Morehart, M. J., & Parsons, R. L..(in press) Profitability of moderate intensive grazing of dairy cows in the Northeast. Journal of Dairy Science.

Jackson-Smith, D., Barham, B., Nevius, M., & Klemme, R. (1996). Grazing in dairyland: The use and performance of management intensive rotational grazing among Wisconsin dairy farms. (Tech Rep #5). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin- Madison Ag Tech & Family Farm Institute.

SAS Institute, Inc. (1989). SAS/STAT Users Guide, Version 6, Fourth Edition, Volume 1. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.

Cucurbits are an important part of the fresh market vegetable crops in the USA comprising approximately 9% of all fresh vegetable shipments in 1992 (USDA Agricultural Statistics 1993). Cucurbit fruit such as pickling cucumber, pumpkin, and squash, are also important processed or frozen commodities. Watermelon, cantaloupe, honeydew melon, cucumber, squash, and pumpkin are grown throughout the south central region of the U.S. from south Texas through Oklahoma. It is estimated that over 100,000 acres for the crop complex as a whole are produced in Texas and Oklahoma.

The fruit is primarily channeled through the fresh market and through processors for pickles and frozen goods. The pest complex attacking these crops in these areas can result in severe yield losses. Consumer demands for unblemished produce in the fresh market coupled with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations for the processor market dictate that cucurbit fruit be blemish free and of standard size and color. Because of this, pesticide usage has remained high for these crops and adoption of integrated pest management (IPM) practices slow because of the perceived risks to production.

A fundamental aspect of IPM affecting growers, government regulators, and consumers alike is the concept of risk. An important risk to growers that rely heavily on pesticides is the development of resistance to pesticides that can greatly affect production economics and pesticide use patterns.

There are also the real and perceived risks to human health. These include potential chronic health effects from pesticides in diet, exposure to acute toxicity by agricultural workers and handlers that deal with pesticides, and indirect exposure through feeding of treated plant material to livestock. Risks to environmental quality can include non-target effects of pesticides, effects of pesticides on the severity of other pests, reduction in the abundance of fungal parasites of the invertebrate pest (e.g., EBDC fungicides increasing aphids), toxicity to aquatic vertebrates, and contamination of groundwater (soil-mobile fungicides, e.g., metalaxyl). A basic assumption of the proponents of IPM is that IPM can reduce these risks.

In 1993, the USDA, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and FDA entered into an agreement to develop and implement IPM on 75 percent of the total crop acreage in the United States by the year 2000. In 1994 the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) began with an initiative focusing on developing plans for implementing IPM on specific agricultural commodities. Scientists and specialists with Oklahoma State University, USDA-SCARL and Texas A&M University submitted a planning grant proposal to implement IPM on cucurbit crops in Oklahoma and Texas that was funded for one year.

The goal of this planning grant, USDA Cooperative Agreement Project G-8438, was to develop a plan to implement improved IPM methods on cucurbit crops (cantaloupe, watermelon, cucumber, squash, pumpkin, etc.) in south-central USA. Three specific objectives of this project were to: (a) describe the current status of IPM in terms of implementation and research at IPM workshops in Texas and Oklahoma, (b) allow IPM practitioners (workshop participants) to define the constraints to an advanced IPM system, and (c) identify research, Extension and education priorities for implementing IPM in cucurbit crops.

A series of cucurbit IPM workshops were held in Oklahoma and Texas in 1995-1996 to promote cucurbit IPM and to survey growers, pest consultants, government agencies, and related agricultural industries on their needs for increasing the implementation of IPM. Major pests, such as arthropods (e.g., foliar aphids, whiteflies, squash bugs, cucumber beetles, etc.), plant pathogens, weeds, and others were identified and ranked by participants of the workshops without providing choices or leading information so that an unbiased list of pests could be generated.

Also, participants were asked candid questions about their perception of IPM and the role of government agencies in IPM implementation. The workshop conferences were held at sites close to representative production areas within the south central region in Texas and Oklahoma.

The survey at the workshops was to evaluate pest management in various cucurbit production areas in terms of levels of implementation of IPM and specific research and education needs to increase the level of implementation. A survey was circulated, time allowed for answering, and then responses were discussed, using one person to facilitate the discussion. In Oklahoma, a facilitator reviewed the survey results with participants, who then voted on the importance of the various topics identified. After the discussion session, seminars on current cucurbit pest management and crop production research were provided for the participants along with educational materials (books, bulletins, leaflets, etc.).

In Texas, a series of facilitated workshops at growers' meetings surveyed responses to the following five questions. These were as follows: (a) What are the three most manageable and the three most unmanageable pest problems in cucurbit crops? (b) What are IPM practices (give one example) and do you think that the use of this practice improves the image that U.S. consumers have of the agricultural industry? (c) Do you use or endorse IPM and do you think it increases or decreases production risks? (d) What are the biggest constraints on IPM? (e) What is the most important thing that agencies (Experiment Station, Extension Service, Department of Agriculture) can do to improve pest management in cucurbits?

For each meeting, a brief introduction was included to give an overview of the project and the survey was conducted before discussing each question individually to avoid influencing responses. A total of 168 participants were surveyed in Texas representing growers, pest consultants, pesticide industry representatives, and agricultural government agencies.

The Oklahoma surveys were also conducted in a series of facilitated workshops at growers' meetings during the winter of 1995- 1996. A facilitator then moderated the meeting and presented a series of three survey questions to the grower and industry audience. The three questions asked were: (a) Do you use IPM? (b) What are the constraints to adopting IPM? (c) What do you want universities and USDA to do to aid in pest management?

The first workshop was conducted in an open forum in the Tulsa Horticulture Industry Show, January 1996 (ca. 45 participants, including growers, applicators, and consultants). The second was at the Vegetable Production Meeting at Hydro (ca. 20 growers, consultants, and agricultural industry representatives) and the third was at a grower meeting at Rush Springs (13 growers). The responses were recorded and after all response from the audience was complete, each participant was asked to 'vote' on the most important issues (responses). Based on counts of votes, the top priorities were determined and ranked.

A total of 168 participants were surveyed in Texas and 78 in Oklahoma representing growers, pest consultants, pesticide industry representatives, and agricultural government agencies. Following all of the workshops, selected team members reviewed findings and summarized the data.

The pest complex for the cucurbit crops could be divided into four major categories: arthropods, diseases, weeds, and vertebrate pests. The major pests of cucurbit crops in south central USA were identified by researchers and Extension specialists in the planning grant proposal by category in Table 1. The cucurbit pests identified at the workshops were similar, but one major difference was that researchers and Extensionists attempted to identify all possible pests for this region represented by their discipline, where as workshop participants simply identified one or two pests of immediate concern (Table 2).

The results of the workshop surveys identified and ranked the most important pests in the view of the participants at the workshops. Table 2 represents the combined response of 168 workshop participants in Texas to the question, "What are the three most manageable and the three most unmanageable pest problems in cucurbit crops?". The participants included agricultural producers (small farms to large corporate farms), packers and processors, crop consultants, pesticide industry representatives, federal researchers, state researchers, and Extension specialists. From the 626 individual responses, 28% were only identified to categories, such as insects, fungi, etc., that were too general to make any logical pest management decision. In addition, 3% of the respondents misidentified a pest problem, for example, "rust" or pollination as a pest. This suggested that there is a serious need for better pest identification and training so that at least the pest species and disease agents are properly identified among the IPM team members.

It was expected that there would be some respondents that would not classify the pests as manageable or not, but the resulting 36% unclassified pests was higher than expected. This could reflect an inability or unwillingness to properly categorize pests in terms of their manageability, which suggests that better pest identification/classification training is needed. On the other hand, the responses did clearly point out the pest categories that most occupy the IPM team members attention (Table 2). These were: (a) insects (341 responses, 54%), (b) fungi (129, 21%), (c) weeds (52, 8%), (d) virus (25, 4%), and mammals (23, 4%). Interestingly, government personnel was indicated as a pest in a few responses.

To further describe the current status of IPM in terms of implementation, the following question was asked in the workshop survey (Table 3). "What are IPM practices (give one example) and do you think that the use of this practice improves the image that U.S. Consumers have of the agricultural industry?" This double topic question was formulated to determine if the participants had a good grasp of the working of IPM and at the same time test their acceptance of these practices. Of the 168 respondents, 163 (97%) answered the first part of the question and only 71 (42%) answered the second part. One third of the responses to the first part had to do with the use of scouting and thresholds. Biological control, reduced pesticides, and cultural controls were also seen as important practices.

Other examples not listed in Table 2 were weed control, use of organic pesticides, spraying field perimeters, economic and environmental health, weed and bug control, reduce seed borne disease, airplane spraying, improved crop quality, and monitoring weather. In general, the results indicated that the participants had a reasonably good grasp of the what IPM involved. Of the 71 responses for the second part, 58 (82%) stated that IPM improved the image of the agricultural industry and 13 (18%) did not, but the overall lack of response to this question (only 44%) indicated that there was either an unwillingness to form an opinion or a lack of knowledge as to how IPM is viewed by the U.S. Consumers. Also, two respondents specifically stated that there was a lack of publicity about what IPM is and its benefits to the U.S. Consumers.

To determine if IPM was being used and whether or not its use was perceived as a risky proposition, the following question was asked. "Do you use or endorse IPM and do you think it increases or decreases production risks?" Surprisingly, 132 (89%) of the 148 respondents already used or endorsed the use of IPM, only 13 (9%) did not, while 3 (2%) were uncertain. Even though this was encouraging for IPM proponents the second part of the question revealed an important problem related to this enthusiastic response, i.e., perceived increase production risk to 37% of the respondents. Fifty-five (56%) of the 98 respondents to the second part of the question felt that IPM reduced production risks, but as long as this percentage does not rise, attaining the USDA targeted 75% use of IPM in cucurbit crops in the year 2000 is unlikely given that a majority of vegetable producers are risk aversive.

To evaluate constraints to the implementation of IPM the following question was asked (Table 4). "What are the biggest constraints on IPM?" The majority of the participants clearly indicated that information, and the integration of that information, was lacking for various pest problems. Also, specific IPM practices needed to be tailored to specific agricultural production locations.

Constraints not listed in Table 3 were production risks (based on zero tolerance of pests), lack of available tools and chemical labeling, lack of qualified applicators and scouts, researcher's pesticide-oriented mentality, slow response to crisis situations, neighbors killing beneficial organisms, IPM is too much work and too crop specific (too much information), time lapse in control, staying on top of problems, organic production, synchronizing beneficial/damaging pest life cycles, soil management, and consultants protecting themselves. The importance of specific commodity markets and time constraints was evident in these responses.

The final question in the workshop survey was, "What is the most important thing that agencies (Experiment Station, Extension Service, Department of Agriculture) can do to improve pest management in cucurbits (Table 5)?" Again, the importance of IPM Extension, IPM research, and formal educational programs were highlighted by the responses. Also, there appeared to be a need for pest forecasting as well as providing current IPM information.

The IR-4 program and product testing continued to be important as expected for a vegetable crop, since pesticide labeling (because of regulatory issues) and pesticide efficacy (because of pest resistance to chemical pesticides) are such dynamic issues. Other examples not listed in Table 4 were research on pathogens and their control, government inspection of commercial fields to check for problems, improved marketing, economic data on IPM, providing more money for agriculture, more tests on actual problems, increased industry support, increased yield quality and profit, development of spray schedules, agricultural weather forecasting, promotion of the use of natural insect enemies, work on the nutsedge problem, be involved with pest control, control all government expenditures, develop resistant varieties, and finally to let growers be aware of the agencies.

The Oklahoma surveys were based on counts of votes and the top priorities were determined and ranked. In response to question #1, all growers with one exception indicated by show of hand that they believe that they use IPM on their farms. In a second workshop at Hydro at an annual vegetable grower meeting in February 1996, the priorities for research and extension were further examined with a similar facilitated survey. Again, all but one participant stated that they currently used IPM on their farms. Finally, at a workshop/grower meeting at Rush Springs all the respondents (13 growers) stated that they currently used IPM on their farms. The responses to questions #2 and #3 for all three workshops are listed in Tables 6 and 7, respectively.

Grower priority needs from Oklahoma-based producers were combined with those from Texas (producers, representatives of various agricultural industries, and government agencies) and a short list of priority needs were developed based on these responses. From Oklahoma and Texas the following were determined to be the top priorities for research and extension programs in the region:

First, agencies need to improve IPM delivery systems and technology demonstrations to get clear, user-friendly instruction to growers, agricultural consultants, and other users of IPM technology.

Secondly, more research is needed on specific problems, such as weed management, arthropod vectored virus control, soil borne pathogen management, foliar and fruit insect management, foliar and fruit pathogen management, beneficial insects (pest predators, pest parasites, and crop pollinators), etc., with priority ranking strongly differing between locations in Texas and Oklahoma.

Thirdly, more workshops and other formal educational conferences are desired for specific vegetables crops. They are seen as useful and concise mechanisms for providing information on IPM, particularly when printed materials on crop specific IPM were provided in the workshops. Crop-specific IPM books with color plates were highly desirable teaching materials at all of the workshops (e.g., "Cucurbit Production and Pest Management," OSU Circular E-853).

Fourthly, crop production issues, such as cultural practices, marketing windows, crop coefficients for irrigation, etc., need to be more integrated with pest management in any IPM programs that are developed for the producers for them to have any chance of adoption. This was one of the concerns that we attempted to address in the workshops by providing a comprehensive educational program along with the opportunity for questions and facilitated discussions.

Finally, assessment of IPM programs by representative IPM Team members, their economic viability, and annual re-evaluation for progress toward specified goals was seen as very important. The priorities identified in the workshop surveys attest to the importance of getting "outside" input.

The information presented in the workshops indicated that there is an abundance of IPM knowledge available, although certain serious pest problems continue to need research to find solutions. From the survey it appeared that IPM was fairly well understood by the workshop participants and was generally accepted as useful. The main tools for management of the pests included application of pesticides, disease resistance incorporated into cultivars, and cultural practices such as planting dates, field rotation and soil cultivation. Thus, it is likely that some integration of control tactics is already being used.

Disease resistance incorporated into cultivars was viewed as desirable, but is dependent upon commercial seed company interest and is driven by the economics of scale; for example, sufficient acreage and seed sales to warrant research and breeding. Use of planting dates and rotation is driven by economics; for example, market windows based on harvest dates and availability of suitable crop land with irrigation. The use of pesticides (a primary tool) is dependent upon availability of effective materials, regulations affecting the use of the materials on specific crops in specific regions and to a lesser extent on the impact on non-target organisms (i.e. honeybee pollinators), and human and environmental concerns (mammalian toxicity and handling, danger to aquatic organisms).

An effective integrated strategy for pest management is therefore affected by economics of production, government regulations, effective management strategies and education programs that transfer current research results to the industry. Considerable research has been conducted to develop IPM practices over the past decades either through the agricultural experiment station system, USDA/ARS and/or private agricultural industry. Production and pest management methods resulting from this work have been transferred into practice with varying degrees of success.

Based on informal discussions at the workshops, it was apparent that current pest management still relies heavily on chemical pesticide controls. However, workshop participants understood that there are limitations to this tactic including: (a) development of resistance to chemicals (for example, systemic fungicides like metalaxyl, benomyl, thiophonate-methyl, fosetyl Al, tridimefon); (b) the high costs associated with treatments in terms of both the application costs and environmental effects; (c) no clearly defined use recommendation based on economic thresholds; (d) lack of specifically needed products, such as fungicidal seed-treatments (no systemic fungicides currently labeled for seed treatment); (e) lack of advisories (forecasting systems:) for most foliar diseases; (f) lack of implementation of developed advisories; and (g) lack of systemic fungicides with eradicating properties (post-infection activity). Based on these discussions it was also apparent that other pest control tactics that need further evaluation and study included cultural controls, host plant resistance, and biological controls (antagonists, etc.).

There is a perceived lack of effective commercially- available biological control agents for management of pathogens. One participant commented that biological control of post-harvest diseases may be achieved using controlled environments. Field evaluations were viewed as necessary to determine the effectiveness of these same biocontrol agents in field conditions. Many participants felt that there is a lack of development of cross-protection to plant viruses in host plant resistance work. Systematic seed certification and seed health testing were also viewed as important in this area.

Regulatory control is another tactic that has been under utilized in pest management programs. This includes testing for seed and transplant health using certification/inspection methods. In the future the results of these surveys should be used to develop priorities for research and extension programs in the south-central region of the USA.

Research literature clearly states that populations consuming diets rich in vegetables, fruits, and grain products have significantly lower rates of many types of cancer (Public Health Service, 1988.). Unfortunately, the 1989-1991 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals showed that only 32% of Americans currently consume the minimum numbers of five servings of fruits and vegetables each day (Krebs-Smith, 1995). In addition, the 1991 5 A Day Baseline Survey found that only eight% think they should eat five or more fruits and vegetables each day for good health (Subar, Heimendinger, Krebs-Smith, Patterson, Kessler, & Pivonka, 1992).

Education is one way to increase the consumption of fruits and vegetables. Research shows that those who think they should eat more fruits and vegetables are more likely to do so (Subar et al., 1992). Those who develop the habit of eating more fruits and vegetables early in life are more likely to continue those habits into adulthood (Subar et al., 1992). The 5-A-Day for Better Health Program is a national effort to increase Americans' fruit and vegetable consumption to five servings daily - one of the objectives of Healthy People 2000 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), 1991).

Through partnerships with county school districts, school food services, retail supermarkets, and produce companies, the University of Nevada Cooperative Extension developed, implemented, and evaluated a 5-A-Day program in two Nevada middle schools with diverse student bodies from low socio-economic backgrounds were chosen since research has shown this audience has a higher incidence of chronic disease (DHHS, 1991).

The goal of this 5-A-Day program, called "Take Five," was to increase knowledge, improve attitudes, and promote the consumption of fruits and vegetables. The program, based on Social Learning Theory, used a combination of educational methods to influence behavior change. The Social Learning Theory, also known as Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986) is unique in that it provides a framework for designing interventions for the individual as well as the environment. The underlying assumption of Social Learning Theory is that behavior is dynamic and depends on personal and environmental constructs that influence each other simultaneously (Perry, Baranowski, & Parcel, 1990). The "Take Five" program used this theory by incorporating environmental modifications, observational learning, and reinforcement to enhance self-efficacy and influence behavior.

The implementation of the "Take Five" program required a high degree of collaboration. While strong support for the program was provided by school principals, it was also essential that teachers, school secretaries and custodians support the effort because they influence school programs and policy.

One day a week for 16 weeks, teachers taught a "Take Five" lesson in their homeroom classes. Lesson concepts were then reinforced that day at lunchtime with fruit and vegetable samples and poster displays in the cafeteria. This also provided opportunities for students to observe other students and teachers consuming fruits and vegetables.

An incentive program in which students earned "points" for prizes encouraged participation. Each week when students sampled a new fruit or vegetable, they were given point stickers to place on a prize card. Filled prize cards were entered in the prize drawing. Most prizes were donated by fruit and vegetable companies and included such items as beach towels, baseball caps, watches, and T-shirts.

Parents received a monthly newsletter which contained nutrition information, serving ideas, recipes, and money-saving supermarket coupons for fruits and vegetables to encourage fruit and vegetable consumption at home.

The program was evaluated using a pyre-/post-design. Teachers administered the evaluation instrument to students prior to and upon completion of the program. The 43-item instrument assessed knowledge, behavior, and attitudes about eating fruits and vegetables. The instrument included closed-ended questions with ordered, five-point response sets (e.g., "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree"), three-point sets (i.e., "true", "false", "don't know"), open-ended questions, and a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) adapted by National Cancer Institute staff from the questions of the FFQ of Block, Woods, Potosky, Clifford (1990). Demographic data was also collected.

Results showed that students' attitudes about the acceptability of eating fruits and vegetables improved significantly (p=.005), as did their perception of their ability to eat five fruits and vegetables per day (p<.0001). Post-test results also showed a greater number of students (42%) knew they should eat five fruits and vegetables each day compared to the pretest (12%). Students demonstrated a high level of knowledge of the health benefits of eating fruits and vegetables on the pretest (mean score of 55 points out of 75 points) and showed no significant increase on the post-test.

Though 46% of students stated they ate more fruits and vegetables as a result of the program, results of the FFQ were not useful since large numbers of students used the highest category to report consumption (five or more times per day). The validity of this tool for elementary-school children was questioned in a recent article by Baranowski, Smith, Baranowski, Wang, Doyle, Loin, Hear, Resnicow (1997). They reported that the large number of response categories with varying frequencies and time intervals may have been confusing for children of this age. With similar results of the FFQ with middle-school age children, the use of this tool with children seems limited.

While approximately 4,500 newsletters containing coupons were sent to the students' homes, only 82 of the coupons were redeemed at the designated supermarkets. Reasons for this poor return might include: target audience may not have been accustomed to using coupons; the coupons were not viewed as valuable; or the supermarkets may not have had accurate tracking of those coupons redeemed. Also, due to the fact that other supermarkets accept competitor's coupons, the "Take Five" coupons may have been redeemed elsewhere and could not be tracked.

School programs like the "Take Five" program require support from all levels. Not only do principals, teachers and food service personnel need to be highly supportive, but also ancillary employees such as school secretaries and custodians. Much to our surprise, custodians, not the food service director, often dictated which fruits and vegetables were acceptable for serving in the cafeteria. Due to the janitorial problems they could create, some fruits and vegetables, such as blueberries and grapes, were not allowed to be served regardless of how nutritious or well-liked the foods were by the students. Involving custodians in the early stages of program development may prove advantageous in implementation.

While students showed a high degree of enthusiasm toward the program and were quite willing to try the variety of fruits and vegetables, it was not possible to objectively measure behavior changes. What was evident was that students enjoyed the program and devoured fruit and vegetable samples each week and, in many instances, requested multiple servings until the abundant supplies were depleted. Teachers claimed that students seemed more well-behaved on "Take Five" program days in order to get to the cafeteria in time to participate in the fruit and vegetable samplings. For future programs, alternative methods to assess dietary intake should be included.

In summary, the "Take Five" program improved or enhanced students' attitudes towards the acceptability of eating fruits and vegetables and their perception as to whether they could eat five fruits and vegetables each day. Though incentives were offered to encourage participation, it became clear that they weren't needed.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Baranowski, T., Smith, M., Baranowski, J., Wang, D., Doyle, C., Loin, L., Hear, M., Resnicow, K. (1997). Low Validity of a seven-item fruit and vegetable food frequency questionnaire among third-grade students. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 97, 66-68.

Block, G., Woods, M., Potosky, A., Clifford, C. (1990). Validation of a self-administered diet history questionnaire using multiple diet records. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 43, 1327-1335

Krebs-Smith, S. M., Cook, A., Subar, .A. F., Cleveland, L., Friday, J. (1995). US Adults' Fruit and Vegetable Intakes, 1989 to 1991: A Revised Baseline for the Healthy People 2000 Objective. American Journal of Public Health, 85, (12), 1623- 1629.

Perry, C.L., Baranowski, T., and Parcel, G.S. (1990). How individuals, environments, and health behavior interact: Social Learning Theory. In K. Glans, K. Lewis, B. River (Ens.), Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory Research and Practice (pp. 161-186). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Public Health Service (1988). The Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health (DHHS Publication No. PUS 88-50210). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Subar, A. S., Heimendinger, J., Krebs-Smith, S. M., Patterson, B. H., Kessler, R., Pivonka, E. (July 1992). 5 A Day For Better Health: A Baseline Study Of Americans' Fruit And Vegetable Consumption. Rockville, MD: National Cancer Institute.

United States Department of Health and Human Services (1991). Healthy People 2000 (DHHS Publication No. PUS 91- 50212). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Author Notes: Funding for this project was provided by the Nevada State Preventative Health Advisory Committee.

County program reviews are a comprehensive assessment of the program delivery and educational services offered by the faculty and staff of a local Extension office. In Florida, the county program review process is designed to assess program quality, facilitate program improvement, foster cooperation among Extension's various units, and assist in achieving the best use of institutional resources. The information gathered further assists faculty and administration in future planning efforts and guides the evaluation of new program proposals, budget requests, and capital project requests.

Florida's county program review process is primarily a formative evaluation, to improve program delivery at the county level, and to assess state-level program and administrative support of the county faculty. To serve this end, the process includes an administrative review that assesses the support and guidance provided by county and district Extension directors. The review also assesses compliance with Affirmative Action and Americans with Disabilities guidelines.

This process achieves validity and reliability by incorporating multiple sources of data that are both qualitative and quantitative and analyzed in a case-study framework. Quantitative data collection begins approximately two months before the county office visit. The county director forwards all mail lists, two years' worth of all advisory committee meeting minutes, and a list of all county faculty and staff by appointment type and/or assignment. This information is used to identify clientele, advisory members, and collaborators to interview during the on-site phase of the review. Further, this information indicates the extent of the advisory committees' involvement in program planning and delivery.

Other quantitative data is gathered and reviewed before the county visit, especially demographic and economic information from the Decennial Census and Census of Agriculture. Further, clientele contacts, current plans of work, and the most recent reports of accomplishment are gathered for all programs delivered in the county. Clientele contacts are compared with demographic and economic information to assess the adequacy of program coverage, productivity, and to assist in the identification of potential new audiences. Plans of work are evaluated against criteria of logic and evidence of quality planning. Reports of accomplishment are reviewed for program outcomes, evaluation results, and indicators of effectiveness and productivity. The quantitative data begin to establish a view of county program delivery that is either confirmed or rejected by qualitative data gathered in the county.

Qualitative data are gathered through personal interviews with three major groups within the county: (a) agents, program assistants, staff, and volunteers; (b) Clientele and advisory members; and (c) collaborators (including local government and agencies). The interviewers ask questions about the program development process, delivery, quality, and productivity. Generally, the review team spends 2-4 days in the county, depending on the number of faculty and staff in that particular office. As a rough rule of thumb, the team conducts 10-15 interviews for each county major program (approximately 40-80 planned days) conducted. Each faculty member typically has two or three county major programs. Agent interviews are scheduled for two hours, while most other interviews are scheduled to last 30 minutes.

The review teams have consisted primarily of state Extension specialists, but also have included program area leaders and county faculty from other Extension districts in Florida. Review team members and the county faculty being evaluated have almost unanimously embraced the process, and in no case has the inclusion of a specific specialist, program area leader, or county faculty member caused any unresolved problems. This is undoubtedly due to the consideration given to the composition of the review team, which is chosen with input from the county faculty.

Initially, the review sites were chosen because of personnel or productivity issues in a particular county. Now, evaluation specialists and key administrators have communicated the purpose of the reviews as a program development and evaluation function and most faculty in the state now have a clear understanding of that mission. Now, district directors nominate counties for review on an annual basis. The different directors use various rationales, which have included: (a) letting the counties volunteer for review; (b) random rotation; (c) reviewing offices with new county directors.

Program reviews in Florida have become an important monitoring and evaluation tool. The process in Florida is based upon case study methodology, which triangulates both quantitative and qualitative data to give a reliable and valid picture of program delivery in the county. Impacts of the reviews for county faculty have been numerous. Many have reinvigorated the advisory process and placed new emphasis on program planning, which has identified new audiences and programs, and led to improvements in old programs. In other cases, opportunities for county faculty to collaborate with one another across program areas have been developed. In some cases faculty have pursued professional development plans to improve the quality of their outreach. In all cases, county program reviews have led to organizational renewal and increased attention to program quality.

Extension as Knowledge Extended

The Extension system has a long and distinguished history of non-formal education focused on enhancing the well-being of individuals, families and communities. A strong connection to the Land-Grant research institutions sets Extension apart from other non-formal education providers by providing it with an exceptionally strong research base. Hence, it is not surprising that Extension has developed a strong track record in extending university based knowledge to industry (particularly agriculture), families, and communities. This tradition of "knowledge extended" or "knowledge applied" is captured in the old Cornell Cooperative Extension motto, "Helping you put knowledge to work."

Extension has played an important role stimulating research within the Land-Grant university as well. Extension has helped identify new research agendas and new clienteles for the Land- Grant university system. Thus, Extension extends knowledge in both directions: from the university to the public, and from the public back to the university - closing the feedback loop.

Extension as Knowledge Created

As communities have become more complex and integrated within the broader society and economy, Extension has had to address new challenges that do not lend themselves neatly to the disciplinary boundaries that traditionally define university research. To meet these demands, Extension has taken its role as educator and facilitator to a new level - building community coalitions to engage in research for community problem solving. Such Extension programs create local knowledge to be used in policy and program design.

Examples of such programs include public policy education (Hahn, 1992) business retention and expansion (Cornell Local Government Program, 1993) and nutrition monitoring (Pelletier 1995). This new approach is reflected in Cornell Cooperative Extension's new motto, developed in 1996, which acknowledges the importance of the partnership between university research and local knowledge. "The Cornell Cooperative Extension education system enables people to improve their lives and communities through partnerships that put experience and research knowledge to work"(Cornell Cooperative Extension, 1996).

This reorientation reflects, in part, an international movement in non-formal education, participatory action research, designed to bring communities and researchers into a closer, more effective partnership which will result in social research for social change (Deshler & Ewert, 1995). Participatory action research not only incorporates the collective knowledge of the community, it increases the likelihood that research results will be applied by giving the community ownership over the research process and its results (Shafer, 1995).

If Extension can effectively partner with communities in collaborative research leading to community change, can a similar collaborative model be applied to university based researchers working with Extension agents to test and elaborate theory? This article explores the challenges and limitations to involving Extension agents as full partners in research projects designed to test theory.

This project involved a collective process of critical reflection between two Extension agents and two university researchers to test the relevance and applicability of social capital theory to Extension practice. Social capital is defined as those features of social organization - networks, norms of reciprocity and trust - that facilitate cooperation for mutual benefit (Putnam 1993, Flora & Flora, 1993). Of key interest in the theoretical literature is whether the level of social capital in a community can be altered through deliberate intervention. Much Extension practice is dedicated to the notion that community capacity can be fostered. Thus, Extension provides an important context in which to test the applicability of social capital theory.

Extension agents working on agricultural land preservation in the suburban fringe of New York City had designed programs to address social as well as environmental and economic concerns. Researchers thought this work might provide an example of social capital construction at the community level. The agents were introduced to social capital theory and encouraged to review their program strategies from that perspective. Critical discussion between researchers and Extension agents led to new insights on the importance of network formation not fully elaborated in social capital theory.

The Extension agents acknowledged their work to establish farmers markets and community visioning groups, while billed as economic development efforts, were also designed to build the trust and communication necessary for promoting cooperation between agriculture and the broader community. These public spaces reflected the intentional creation of new social forums for interaction between diverse interests (in this case, farm and non-farm interests). Secondly, the Extension agents identified the need to build bridging ties between diverse interest groups. Such ties enable the exchange of information, power and vision across networks without diverting the energy and focus which comes with single issue based groups. These two strategies - intentional creation of forums for interaction and bridging ties - provided explicit examples of how social capital could be built at the community level, strengthening mechanisms for agricultural land preservation and fostering a stronger sense of community (Warner, Hinrichs, Schneyer & Joyce, 1997).

These insights resulted from a collective process of critical reflection between the Extension agents and researchers. Eldon and Levin (1991) speak of the importance of co-learning through a dialogue between practitioners and researchers. In this case, the Extension agents provided an "insiders" framework (emphasizing Extension practice), while university based researchers provided an "outsiders" framework (providing theoretical context). As a result of the collaboration, Extension agents considered the larger theoretical ramifications of their stance, and researchers became more sensitive to and appreciative of practical details. The dialogue between the practical and theoretical resulted in new insights on social capital theory, specifically attention to network formation and the need to create new forums for interaction and bridging ties among previously isolated groups.

Collaborations between researchers and Extension agents have traditionally respected a division of labor which distances Extension agents from the research process and researchers from Extension practice. This project tested a new approach where Extension agents were brought in as full partners, co-authors, in the research process. This new approach brought new challenges - to research design and methodology, to Extension practice, and to organizational style and culture - which must be addressed to successfully promote more participatory research collaborations in the future.

Traditionally Extension agents have been used as key informants or to facilitate access to local knowledge and communities. By involving agents as co-authors, insights afforded by the unique Extension lens were balanced by the contributions of the research lens. Nuance and detail which would have been easier to leave out (to create a cleaner and more compelling research account) had to be incorporated in a way all parties found comfortable. As a result, new insights into social capital theory were identified.

Rather than interviewing a large number of key informants, this process relied on the critical review and analysis supplied by Extension agents. Based on many years experience in the field, the Extension agents could reference multiple perspectives from a broad range of community groups. The Extension agent serves not only as actor in a community process, but also observes the process from the professional distance of an organizer/facilitator. This dual perspective was instructive to the research process and provided a separate lens on local experience. The approach also allowed a more qualitative research inquiry without incurring the costs and time of numerous in-depth local interviews.

This process privileges the Extension lens as much as the research lens has been privileged in the past. The tension between the research and Extension perspectives was dynamic, instructive and highly productive in pushing the boundaries of social capital theory, particularly in identifying some of the specific mechanisms by which social capital is created.

Research collaborations such as the one described here, allow Extension agents to engage and challenge theory. Time for reflection on one's professional work is a luxury which field based practitioners rarely can justify. Nonetheless, there is a benefit to reflecting on Extension practice through a research lens. Using theory to understand different outcomes across time or place helps agents get beyond the particularities of a situation to discern broader patterns which may offer clues about designing and planning future work.

Another challenge to Extension is the political cost of engaging in critical inquiry about one's practice. If the Extension system and the broader community have not adopted some of the features of a learning organization (which supports critical reflection leading to system change, Ratner, 1997), new insights gleaned from the research process could be viewed negatively or used to undermine program budgets and professional effectiveness.

In order to engage in successful research collaborations with Extension agents, the privileged position of researchers within the research/Extension partnership must be challenged. Mutual respect, confidence and trust must be built between Extension and research colleagues in order for Extension/research collaborations to be effective. Extension colleagues are co- equals with different areas of expertise; their time and voice must be honored. Researchers must avoid the temptation to "leave their Extension partners behind" once they have gleaned the necessary local insights and don't want to trouble with the challenges of continuing to incorporate a practical Extension perspective in subsequent writing and analysis.

Reality complicates theory, and theory, by definition, attempts to simplify reality. Too close an engagement with local practice removes the distance often thought necessary to assure research objectivity. Knowledge is socially constructed and the collaborative research process capitalizes on the value of differing interpretations of the same events. Such a close articulation with local actors inevitably pulls researchers into the action phase. This "erosion of research distance" is both the challenge and promise of participatory action research.

On the Extension side, effort must be made to lower the costs of engaging in academic scrutiny of one's practice. Time is a limited commodity and the value of time spent on research must be recognized at an institutional level. The benefits of seeing one's experience through a researcher's lens can yield new insights for future practice. However, if the research collaboration only focuses on the past and ignores insights for the future, then the benefits to Extension practice will be greatly reduced.

A particular challenge of collaborative research with Extension agents is the differential political costs they may face as a result of engaging in the process. Given the potential for higher political risks to Extension agents, research collaborators must be especially sensitive to Extension concerns throughout the research process. In survey research, anonymity is often guaranteed respondents to protect their privacy. The more open nature of participatory research does not allow such anonymity. While participatory action research may lead more quickly to community action based on research findings, it may also suppress critical inquiry if the political costs to participants are too high. This is the promise and curse of the participatory process, and may pose a serious challenge to the tradition of unbiased Extension and research espoused by the Land -Grant system.

Extension is uniquely positioned to engage researchers in collaborations which challenge theory to more effectively address practical concerns. Such collaborations provide new dimensions to the research-Extension feedback loop - blurring traditional divisions of labor between research and Extension. Notions of objectivity, academic freedom and independent verification are challenged by such collaborations. That such collaborations strengthen the connections between research and practice is clear. Both research and Extension stand to gain from new insights. However, hidden costs to Extension effectiveness and research independence should be assessed.

Cornell Cooperative Extension: (1996). Pathways to the twenty-first century: Strategic directions for the Cornell Cooperative Extension System. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

Cornell Local Government Program. 1993. Schuyler county business retention and expansion program. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

Deshler David and Merrill Ewert, 1995. "Participatory Action Research: Tradition and Major Assumptions," The PAR Tool Box: Part #001, http://www.parnet.org/tools.

Eldon, M. & Levin, M. (1991). Co-generative learning: Bringing participation into action research. In W. F. Whyte (Ed.) Participatory action research (pp. 51-84). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Flora, C. B. & Flora, J. L. (1993). Entrepreneurial social infrastructure: A necessary ingredient. The Annals of the Academy of Social and Political Sciences 529 (September),48-58.

Hahn, A. (1992). Resolving public issues and concerns through policy education. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Cooperative Extension Information Bulletin 214.

Pelletier, D. L. (1995). Redefining "information" and linking it to decisions: Experiences from community-based nutrition monitoring, Innovations in Community and Rural Development, CaRDI, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NY: Princeton University Press.

Ratner, S. (1997). Emerging issues in learning communities. St. Albans, VT: Yellow Wood Associates.

Shafer, C., (1995). Doing research with communities: Smart research that results in sustainable change, Innovations in Community and Rural Development, CaRDI, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

Warner, M.; Hinrichs, C.; Schneyer, J.; & Joyce, L. (1997). Sustaining the rural landscape by building community social capital. Community Development Reports 5(2) Ithaca, NY: CaRDI, Cornell University. http://www.cals.cornell.edu/dept/cardi/ publications/cdr/cdr5-2.html.

Acknowledgments: This research was supported in part by a grant from the USDA Hatch Research Program through the Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station.

Consumer aversion toward synthetic pesticide residues has been a top food safety concern since the late 1960s. To address health and sustainability concerns, integrated pest management (IPM) programs have been developed to decrease the net quantity of chemical pesticides required in many types of agriculture. IPM can reduce the amount of pesticide residues consumed by humans while not reducing yield or produce quality, particularly in fruits and vegetables. IPM uses biological, cultural, and natural pest predators as partial substitutes for synthetic pesticides. When chemical pesticides become necessary as a last resort, IPM seeks the most efficient usage possible.

IPM practices are safer and often less expensive than conventional agriculture and more cost effective on a large scale than organic production. While IPM is an imminently successful program that will play a significant role in the future of agriculture, few studies have analyzed relevant marketability or consumer response issues. This report summarizes two years of research aimed at empirically evaluating consumer response to IPM -grown produce.

The existing literature on consumer response to IPM consists largely of aggregate results and descriptive statistics. For instance, when polled, consumers have responded favorably to purchasing IPM produce. Hollingsworth, Pascall,.Cohen & Coli (1993) reported that 75% of respondents said they would purchase IPM-labeled produce over non-labeled produce if no price differential existed and 40% were willing to purchase IPM-labeled produce if it costs slightly more than non-labeled produce. Similarly, Burgess, Kovach, Petzoldt, Shelton & Tette (1989) found that 92% of consumers indicated they would buy IPM grown produce and Anderson, Hollingsworth, Van Zee, Coli & Rhodes (1996) found that 74% would prefer IPM-certified produce. However, nearly all previous studies have been limited in their scope because they did not document or estimate how specific demographic subgroups responded.

Burgess, Kovach, Petzoldt, Shelton & Tette (1989) found that few respondents (27%) to a 1989 survey in New York had heard of IPM, but when the concept was explained to them, they were receptive to spending 10% to 25% more for produce grown using IPM techniques. Many respondents indicated that they would even be willing to switch supermarkets to obtain IPM produce.

Morris, Rosenfeld & Bellinger (1993) also reported that the majority of consumers indicated that they would be willing to pay somewhat more for chemical-reduced produce, and that 79% would like more signs which labeled low-input produce. Ott, Huang and Misra (1991) found that while consumer support for chemical residue testing in fresh produce was strong, and 54% of those who indicated that pesticides usage was a food concern were willing to pay more to obtain pesticide free produce, the premium they were willing to pay was very low. Only about one tenth of the sample indicated they would be willing to pay more than an additional 10 percent.

Underhill and Figueroa (1996) attempted to explain differences in willingness-to-pay for IPM produce by socio- demographic characteristics. However, the explanatory variables in that study were limited to age, income, regional setting (i.e. suburban, urban) and a variable which captured the effect of having previous information about IPM. Underhill and Figueroa reported that younger individuals, higher earning individuals, and those who live in urban settings were the most likely to pay more for certified IPM produce.

New Jersey consumers of fresh vegetables were surveyed in early 1997 to assess their attitudes and perceptions of several types of low-input agriculture. Overall, 408 surveys were physically distributed to respondents yielding a sample of 291 responses and a response rate of 71 percent. The survey was administered at five grocery retailers throughout New Jersey. The locations included three corporate supermarkets of various sizes, one independent supermarket, and a privately-owned direct market establishment. The survey was conducted during both weekend and weekday periods throughout the morning and afternoon hours. Respondents were approached at random while entering the retail establishment. Participants read and completed the questionnaire individually with no assistance from the survey administrator.

Because IPM produce is not typically labeled as such in retail establishments, few understand what it is. The survey found that only 31 percent of the sample had heard or read any news reports about IPM prior to participating in the study; however, a number of factors were found to be significant in predicting which participants were most likely to be familiar with IPM. Overall, education was the most significant determinant of having prior knowledge of IPM. Those who had completed at least a masters degree were at least 15 percent more likely to know about IPM than those who had not. Both those who had recently visited farmers markets and those who currently grew fresh vegetables for consumption in their homes were more likely to have prior knowledge of IPM than those who did not. Males were 11 percent less likely to have prior knowledge of IPM than females. The survey results also suggested that familiarity with IPM increases with annual household income. Additionally, those who made frequent use of food safety reports in the media were 10 percent more likely to have prior knowledge of IPM.

After reading a short definition of IPM, participants were asked if they would consider purchasing IPM-grown produce. Support for IPM was strongly demonstrated with 71 percent of the participants indicating that they would purchase IPM produce while 24 percent reported that they were not sure. Only 4.5 percent said that they probably would not purchase IPM-grown produce. Overall, 50 percent of the participants said they would even switch supermarkets to purchase IPM produce. Income was found to be highly significant in predicting which consumers would be most willing to purchase IPM produce. Households earning $30,000 to $70,000 annually were 14 percent less likely to purchase IPM produce than those earning more than $70,000. Similarly, households earning less than $30,000 annually were 26 percent less likely to purchase IPM produce than those earning more than $70,000.

Suburban residents were 17 percent more likely to purchase IPM produce than either rural or urban residents. Those who frequently visited farmers' markets were 11 percent more likely to purchase IPM produce than those who did not. The results also suggest that willingness-to-purchase IPM produce decreases with age. Those over 65 were found to be the least likely to purchase IPM grown produce when compared to other age groups. Participants who were the primary household shopper were 12 percent more likely to purchase IPM produce than those who were not. Those who believed that pesticides caused environmental damage and those who frequently purchased organic produce were more likely to purchase IPM produce than those who did not.

Participants were also asked if they would be willing to pay a premium to obtain IPM grown produce. Overall, only 12 percent of the sample indicated that they would be unwilling to pay any premium (Table 1). Approximately 39 percent of the respondents indicated a willingness to pay at least a 10 percent premium.

Males were found to be 13 percent less likely than females to pay the premium (Table 2). Age and income were also highly significant in predicting willingness-to-pay.

Those 35 and younger were at least 16 percent more likely to pay a premium for IPM-grown produce than those who were older than 35. Similarly, those with annual household incomes greater than $70,000 were at least 19 percent more likely to pay a premium for IPM produce. Both those with high risk aversions toward chemical pesticide use and those who frequently purchased organic produce were found to be more likely to pay a premium. The results also indicate that households with four or more individuals would be less likely to pay a premium for IPM-grown produce.

The results of this survey should provide valuable information for those developing marketing strategies for low- input agriculture. The participants indicated strong support for IPM through both a high willingness-to-purchase and willingness- to-pay. However, before the average consumer exhibits the same level of interest in IPM as t