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

Feature Articles

North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Professionals' Attitudes Toward Sustainable Agriculture

Minarovic, Rosanne E.; Mueller, J. Paul
Conducted in 1995, this study collected baseline data that described North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service professionals' attitudes towards sustainable agriculture. A mailed survey included questions from five categories that defined attitudes toward sustainable agriculture: organizational shared vision; systems thinking; teamwork--interdisciplinary projects and collaborations with organizations outside the university; grassroots involvement; and knowledge of sustainable practices and technologies. This study suggested Extension professionals in North Carolina do not operate using a single, unified definition of sustainable agriculture. More work can be done among Extension professionals to understand all components of a sustainable agriculture system.

The Role of Extension Specialists in Helping Entrepreneurs Develop Successful Food-Based Businesses

Holcomb, Rodney; Muske, Glenn
Business planning has been found to be an important determinant of future business success. Extension specialists often have the opportunity to encourage food industry entrepreneurs to plan and can be of great service in those planning efforts. This paper discusses how Extension specialists can be such a catalyst. Specialists, in addition to providing their own expertise, can often provide local, state and national contacts. They also are excellent outside reviewers of such plans as they are able to bring the combination of basic and applied research as well as real world experience into the review process.

Implementation of a Livestock Systems Environmental Assessment Tool

Koelsch, Rick; Howard, Larry; Pritchard, Steve; Hay, Paul
A self-assessment tool addressing livestock environmental issues was developed and pilot tested. A pilot study evaluated livestock producers response to environmental issues addressed by this tool, identified practices commonly observed to produce a high environmental risk, reviewed alternative delivery strategies, and reported on changes resulting from producer's use of the tool. The resulting Livestock Systems Environmental Assessment was found to be an effective tool for assisting producers in reviewing environmental issues, especially when delivered through local livestock commodity groups.

Farmers' Perspectives of Michigan State University Extension: Trends and Lessons from 1996 and 1999

Suvedi, Murari; Lapinski, Maria Knight; Campo, Shelly
In 1994, Michigan State University Extension (MSUE) reorganized into Area of Expertise teams (AOE) linking county agents and specialists around specific commodity groups' needs. A statewide survey was conducted in 1996 and 1999 to determine agricultural producers' educational needs and perceptions of MSUE. Participation rates among full-time farmers in MSUE programs are high. The number of part-time farmers is increasing, and these farmers are participating less in MSUE programs. Farmers want one-on-one interaction with Extension agents. Marketing, business management and farm economics were named as important educational needs by significantly more farmers in 1999 than in 1996.

Evaluation of a Logger Training and Education Program in Virginia

Wrightman, Aaron R.; Shaffer, Robert M.
Virginia's SHARP Logger education and training program began in late 1995 and consists of three training sessions on logging safety, business management, and harvest planning. Through 1997, 408 loggers had completed the program. A post-training evaluation of the program's impact was conducted in 1998. On-site interviews and observations of 50 sample participants focused on determining changes made as a result of the training. Results indicate that 86% of participants believed that their operation was improved as a result of their training. The harvest planning training was the most effective (95% of the participants reported change[s]), then logging safety (82%), and business management (59%). Ninety-six percent of participants rated the training as being of much (55%) or some (41%) benefit, while 4% felt it was of little or no benefit.

Research in Brief

Pesticide Use and Grower Perceptions of Pest Problems on Ornamental Crops in Hawaii

Hollingsworth, Robert G.; Hara, Arnold H.; Sewake, Kelvin T.
Ninety-five out of 400 growers (23.8%) of ornamental crops in Hawaii responded to a survey about pest problems and pesticide use. Sixty-eight percent of respondents listed either cut orchids or anthuriums as their main crop. Pests considered serious on these crops included thrips, mites and slugs/snails. Pesticide use (excluding fungicides) was heavy on cut orchids and anthuriums, averaged 35.8 and 27.7 pesticide applications per grower per year, respectively. Growers who scouted for pests made far fewer pesticide applications than those who did not. Growers obtained most of their pest control information from government sources, chiefly the Cooperative Extension Service.

Benefits and Values of the Master Gardener Program

Schrock, Denny S.; Meyer, Mary; Ascher, Peter; Snyder, Mark
Current and former Missouri Master Gardeners were asked to respond how strongly they agreed or disagreed with a list of benefits provided by the Master Gardener program. Questions were assigned to one of 6 principal components of volunteer motivation. Respondents most strongly agreed that the Master Gardener program provides benefits related to Understanding. Benefits related to Enhancement, Values, and Protective issues formed the second tier of importance. Benefits related to Career were next, and Social benefits concluded the list. Currently active Master Gardeners volunteers were more likely to respond favorably to benefits provided by the Master Gardener program.

Interaction Analyzed in Traditional and Satellite-Delivered Extension Educational Presentations

Rost, Bob
Although satellite technology for distance-delivery of educational programs has been available for a decade, Oregon State University Extension educators have made limited use of the technology. Many educators seem concerned that separation of instructor and learner in distance-delivered presentations will lead to unacceptably low levels of instructor-learner interaction. This study employed the Verbal Interaction Category System to measure and compare levels of instructor-learner interaction in satellite-delivered presentations and traditionally-delivered presentations. Study participants were adults enrolled in the Master Gardener training program in six Oregon counties. Interaction analysis results indicated relatively small differences in interaction levels of traditional and distance sessions.

Information Transfer In The Illinois Swine Industry: How Producers are Informed of New Technologies

Brashear, Genefer; Hollis, Gilbert; Wheeler, Matthew B.
This study examined how information transfer of new technological advances occurs between university scientists and pork producers. The questionnaire was designed to determine two things: (a) where producers from various swine operations obtain their information about new technologies and (b) how aggressively they implement of these advances. The subjects for this survey were swine producers primarily from Illinois. The survey was mailed to more than 300 swine producers and 127 usable surveys were returned. The results showed that producers have access to on-farm computers, but rely on them and university specialists less as information sources.

Differences in the Solution-Oriented Conflict Style of Selected Groups of 4-H Youth Development Volunteer Leaders

Deen, Mary Y.
Conflict is an inevitable part of life and the 4-H Youth Development program. To determine how to best deal with conflict and design conflict resolution educational workshops a study was conducted to determine if selected groups of 4-H volunteer leaders differed in their solution-oriented conflict style. Three hundred and seventy-one participants responded to a written questionnaire designed to determine their predominant style of conflict resolution. The findings revealed that differences existed in solution-oriented conflict styles of the selected groups by program area and training. Implications indicate a need for a variety of training topics and methods when teaching conflict resolution skills.

Ideas at Work

Creating Agriculture Awareness through an Interactive Learning Experience: Incubators in the Classroom

Meunier, Ryan A.; Talbert, B. Allen; Latour, Mickey A.
The poultry Extension staff at Purdue University has implemented an Extension program for fourth-grade elementary students. The program, called "Incubators in the Classroom", offers interactive experiences by which students can learn about various aspects of agriculture. Interactivity is accomplished through interaction with teachers/educators, CD-ROMs, and other learning materials. The overall programmatic goal is to increase agriculture awareness and enhance education among fourth-grade students. The program was re-vamped in May 1997, and to date has directly reached more than 15,000 students. Presently, the investigators are seeking ways to critically evaluate the program. Critical evaluation is the only objective method of assessing the true impact of this endeavor.

Youth Beef Roundup

Nold, Rosie
An intensive two-day program for youth with an interest in the beef industry was designed with the following objectives: (a) Provide youth with skills and knowledge necessary for more active involvement in the family's farm or ranch; (b) Introduce youth to opportunities in the beef industry beyond production; (c) Familiarize youth with the University faculty and facilities; and (d) Develop leadership skills. An evaluation of the program by the youth indicated they significantly increased their knowledge in all the topic areas covered and that they would use the information in the future.

Grant Program To Increase Wine Grape Production in Ohio

Brown, Maurus
A Vine Grant program has been established through the Ohio Grape Industries Committee (OGIC) in cooperation with the Ohio State University Extension viticulturist to encourage the establishment of new wine grape vineyards in Ohio. OGIC has set aside funds for reimbursement of established vines as an incentive to promote the production of wine grapes in Ohio and provide a more stable source of wine grapes for Ohio wineries on land that is not owned or operated by an Ohio winery. This incentive program covers from 1-to-5 acres per grower each year, with a target of 15 new acres established each year. The Extension viticulturist will inspect and evaluate each vineyard site.

Collaboration Builds A Successful Farm Management Workshop

Zoller, Christopher T.
Farmers realize the importance of farm records in the day-to-day management of their businesses, but for a number of reasons they fail to use their basic records for management purposes. The Tuscarawas County office of Ohio State University Extension, along with two local lenders and the local Career Center, developed a financial records short course to teach farm managers about the basic financial statements. The five- week course included lecture, discussion, and practical hands-on application using a sample farm. Based on a pre-test/post-test, participants indicated an increase in knowledge and stated they could apply the concepts taught in the workshop to their own farm records.

Tools of the Trade

Survey Results from Users of a Dairy Management Web Site

Walker, Robert C.; Holden, Lisa A.
To augment the educational opportunities in a program called Dairy Management and Profitability (Dairy-MAP), a Web site was developed for dairy producers, agribusiness personnel, and educators. The Web site had more than 10,000 users from 1995 to 1998. In 1998, a voluntary survey was conducted on the Web site to gather information about users and educational impact. Less than 10% of the site users completed the survey. Only 26% of the Dairy-MAP program participants visited the Web site. A majority of the users (71%) were from the United States, and nearly half (45%) from educational institutions. About half (49%) of the site users indicated that they frequented the site occasionally. Results of the limited number of users in this survey indicated that the Web site was not an effective way to supplement educational workshop materials for most of the program participants.

Keep It Simple... Use A Supertable

Santos, J. Reynaldo A.; Higginbotham, Billy J.
When used in conjunction with statistical analysis, tables and graphs facilitate value comparisons, help discern trends, and indicate the magnitude or lack of differences between and/or among test variables. Supertables overcome the need for many small tables and/or graphs and presents many comparisons in common, easily understood dimensions. Supertables offer easily comprehensible, bite-sized information to the intended audience without overwhelming them. Used alone, it minimizes the introduction of extraneous data and redundant statistics into any project report or summary. This paper demonstrates the design and construction of a supertable for a typical Extension survey.

This "Editor's Page" is a bit different from those you may have read before. It's longer. And, to make the length more palatable, it's got headings.

No, the first "Editor's Page" for the year is not starting with a weather forecast. As the new editor of the Journal of Extension, I want to introduce myself and to salute my predecessor, Len Calvert.

My name is Laura Hoelscher. When I'm not wearing my new JOE hat, I'm senior editor in the Department of Agricultural Communication at Purdue. I've worn the Purdue hat since 1983.

Between then and now, I've edited countless Extension bulletins, many research publications, 34 issues of an electronic newsletter on communications, and five books. Before 1983, I taught composition and technical writing while earning two graduate degrees in American Studies. (I won't tell you how long that took me.)

That's me. What about Len Calvert?

Len ably served as editor of the Journal of Extension for four years. Just how able his service and how extensive his contribution to JOE have become increasingly clear to me in the two months that I have been trying to fill his shoes.

My refrain with people who know and have worked with him is that "my respect for Len increaseth daily." And it does. The sensitivity and warmth he brought to his interactions with prospective JOE authors. His command of the multitudinous tasks involved in being JOE editor. The skill with which he "put together" JOE issues. His generosity in putting together the current issue when he was not obliged to. Wow.

In his last "Editor's Page," in the December '99 JOE, Len asked that you all be patient with me because "there's a lot of detail to learn in this job." There sure is, and I second Len's request for your patience.

But Len also talked about all of the people he'll miss when he's no longer JOE editor. I know that all of you who have worked with Len and all of you who have enjoyed and learned from JOE while he was editor will miss him, too.

JOE has them. Jim Lemon, Ohio State, and I have worked over the last month to update the guidelines and bring them more in line with JOE as it is now and hopes to be in the future.

We request submissions as Microsoft Word or WordPerfect attachments rather than as ASCII text embedded in email messages. We give length parameters as word counts rather than numbers of pages when printed. And so on.

Check out the new guidelines http://www.joe.org/sub1.html, and please let me know what you think joe-ed@joe.org.

Quality submissions are the lifeblood of any journal, so we want to make the JOE submission process as transparent and painless as possible.

As I mentioned before, this is really Len Calvert's last issue rather than my first. In other words, I can't take credit for it. I wish I could.

Len's generosity in preparing this issue so I could get my JOE bearings has given me a kind of freedom I won't enjoy again until my three-year term is over--the freedom to read an entire issue without being responsible for it. What I was freed to notice is just how interesting JOE is and, by extension, how interesting Extension is.

Sometime--when time permits--allow yourself the freedom Len gave me, and read an entire JOE issue without feeling constrained by your responsibilities. You'll enjoy it.

A specific note about this issue: "Farmers' Perspectives of Michigan State University Extension: Trends and Lessons from 1996 and 1999" discusses "AOE teams." If you want more information you can find it in an article in the June '99 JOE http://www.joe.org/joe/1999june/a3.html.

A specific note about the "Editor's Page": The next one will be shorter.

Laura Hoelscher, Editor

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:

Satish Verma, Louisiana, President, Member-at-Large
Tom Archer, Ohio, Past President, Member-at-Large
Beth Spaugh, New York, Secretary, Member-at-Large
Janice Leno, Treasurer, Oregon, Member-at-Large
Victor Artero, Guam, Western Directors
Bill Braden, Texas, Epsilon Sigma Phi
Henry Brooks, Maryland, 1890 Institutions
Jane Wolf Brown, Purdue, Site Representative (editorial)
Sorrel Brown, Iowa, North Central Directors
Patricia Dawson, Oregon, National Association of Extension
4-H Agents
George Godfry, Haskell Indian Nations University, 1994 Tribal
Institutions
Jean Justice, Colorado, Member-at-Large
Jim Lemon, Ohio, Site Representative (technical)
Terry Meisenbach, Washington, D.C., Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service, USDA
Charles L. Norman, Tennessee, Southern Directors
Bonnie Parnell Riechert, Tennessee, Agricultural Educators in
Communication
Keith Smith, Ohio, Extension Committee on Organization and Policy
Ellen Taylor-Powell, Wisconsin, Editorial Committee Chair
Deborah Thomason, South Carolina, National Extension
Association of Family and Consumer Science
Joan Thomson, Pennsylvania, North East Directors

Ex-officio:

Leonard Calvert, Oregon, Editor
Laura Hoelscher, Indiana, Editor-designate

Editorial Committee:

Sue Buck, University of Wisconsin
Michael Cloughesy, Oregon State University
Ken Culp III, University of Kentucky
Angela Corbett, South Carolina State University
Daniel Drost, Utah State University
Bari Dworken, University of Connecticut
Linda Fox, University of Idaho
Carolyn Gilles, The Pennsylvania State University
Roger Ingram, University of California
Annie Mae Kingston, University of Kentucky
Sheila Knop, Colorado State University
Terry Meisenbach, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, USDA
Patricia Nelson, University of Delaware
Rama Radhakrishna, Clemson University
J. Reynaldo A. Santos, Texas A&M 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

When one thinks of an organization's vision, it is usually assumed that those working for the organization are committed to a unified vision. In reality, organizations consist of individuals with diverse educational and personal backgrounds, often with different value systems. Diversity adds richness to an organization by providing members the opportunity to gain an appreciation for various points of view and access a broad array of expertise. A challenge for any large organization is to build a shared vision where members are committed to a common goal and work towards reaching that goal.

Organizations can begin to build a shared vision when members have similar attitudes that support an organization's mission. Attitudes are mental images a person forms about a concept based on their knowledge, feelings, and actions toward it (Alreck & Settle, 1985). The organization achieves its goal when members share a vision of intended outcomes and collaborate to accomplish objectives.

This study was conducted to develop benchmark data documenting North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service (NCCES) professionals' attitudes toward sustainable agriculture. Extension professionals' attitudes toward the concept of sustainability and their vision for agriculture is fundamental in building a strong sustainable agriculture program for North Carolina.

NCCES's emphasis on agricultural sustainability intensified with the formation of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS) Sustainable Agriculture Task Force in 1992. This broadened the scope and depth of the program by bringing together research, Extension, and teaching faculty and advisors from outside the university to focus on common goals. Although sustainable agriculture was recognized as an important Extension program, Extension professionals' knowledge, and support for the concept was limited. According to Boone (1985), members of an organization "must understand and be committed to its mission and philosophy, the organization's objectives or ends must be understood at all levels of the organization" (p. 85). That commitment is the underpinning that drives programming efforts. Extension professionals committed to the sustainable agriculture program are: committed to the philosophy and objectives of the Extension organization; understand how the concept of sustainability relates to the mission of the organization, and are aware that the organization must change and adapt in order to respond to the changing needs of its clientele (Boone, 1985).

The study employed a descriptive research design. Participants were selected from a predetermined population of 500 NCCES professionals who worked in the area of agriculture: administrators, department heads, specialists, county directors, agriculture agents, and some 4-H agents. Of the 500 questionnaires sent out, 253 questionnaires were returned from the first mailing and 105 questionnaires returned from the second mailing (32 were non-useable). A total of 369 questionnaires were used for analysis, reflecting a 73% return rate. Data were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).

The scope of this research included five concepts identified by the researcher that supported sustainable agriculture within an organization. The concepts are shared vision, knowledge, teamwork, grassroots involvement, and systems thinking in research and problem solving on the farm. Shared vision is an organization's foresight that is bound together by a common purpose or goal. Senge stated "visions spread because of a reinforcing process of increasing clarity, enthusiasm, communication, and commitment." An organization's visioning process can slow down or stop if diverse views overcome the programming focus and cause conflict. "People see different ideal futures" (Senge, 1990 p227).

Extension professionals' knowledge about the concept of sustainability is necessary in order to move the program forward. Professionals must remain current on agricultural information and technologies. As a educational organization, Extension must understand the needs and problems of its clientele so it can select the appropriate information to help farmers understand their short and long term goals and provide them with tools for problem solving (Doll & Francis, 1992). For example, address problems by implementing problem-solving techniques that consider whole-farm activity and preventative measures, rather than problem-solve by eliminating symptoms, with no consideration of why the problem occurred or how short-term solutions will impact the whole system.

Today's agriculture is complex and agricultural research and Extension must consider environmental implications (such as water and soil quality, impact of production on wildlife), social issues (for example, national food security, preservation of rural communities and farmland, and food and farmer safety), and profitability. Teams of interdisciplinary experts can address complex problems and provide comprehensive information on agriculture.

Grassroots involvement empowers citizens to solve local problems. All stakeholder groups: farm communities, agribusiness, environmental and nonprofit organizations, and consumers are encouraged to actively participate in the development of research or education programs that address local issues. Farmers, environmentalists, and community groups are increasingly interested in contributing to the land-grant agenda (Stevenson, 1992).

When researchers, Extension educators, and farmers work as peers, the traditional, 'top-down' approach to research and education becomes a horizontal structure (Watkins, 1990). According to Gerber (1992), Lockeretz (1987), Doll & Francis (1991), and Lockeretz & Anderson (1990), substantive farmer participation in research and Extension gives farmers the opportunity to participate in generating knowledge that can affect their livelihood. Forming linkages with farmers exercises shared responsibilities in research and Extension, giving programs creditability in the eyes of the farmer.

Teamwork refers to various groups coming together to achieve a goal. Teamwork includes interdisciplinary research and educational planning and coalitions of community groups, agriculture organizations, and farmers. During a time of downsizing and budget cuts, organizations find it necessary to share resources and expertise. To gain a holistic perspective, many granting agency guidelines require multi or interdisciplinary participation in sustainable agriculture proposals. There are various styles of teamwork and it is important to implement the correct model of teamwork according to the needs of a project. In agriculture, independent research and Extension, as well as team approaches, may be necessary.

Systems thinking in agriculture involves examining farms holistically, attempting to understand the impact and inter-relatedness of each component of the whole farm. The cause of a production problem is addressed, in addition to treating the immediate symptoms. Systems research has been found to be appropriate for sustainable agriculture because it integrates information to solve complex problems. According to Francis (1994, p153), "as we begin to examine more of the total activities in a micro-agroecosystem, it becomes apparent that the interactions among components and the integration of biological elements are complex. Yet it is the design and management of these complex systems and the measurement of inputs and outputs that help us understand the complexities and better organize production systems for our use."

Survey questions were grouped according to the concept represented and analyzed. Table 1 shows the percentage and overall mean for the five concepts: shared vision, systems thinking, teamwork, grassroots involvement, and knowledge.

Conclusion 1: Based on the results of the shared vision statements, overall participant's attitudes reflected a shared vision for sustainable agriculture. Results indicated that 74% agreed NCCES had a strong commitment to sustainable agriculture. Although, what constituted sustainable agriculture was questioned, since the Farm Bill definition was not provided in the questionnaire. Results indicated that respondents did not share a single definition for the concept. Many participants stated that all agriculture was sustainable and North Carolina agriculture had always been sustainable.

Results indicated the need for a stronger, unified, vision for sustainable agriculture. As one specialist commented, "we must be able to communicate a vision for sustainable agriculture. Right now, there are conflicting visions, that is the biggest problem". According to American Institute of Biological Sciences, AIBS, (1995), lack of a unified vision was identified as a barrier that impacted research projects and approaches used by scientists nationally.

Ninety-eight percent agreed on the importance of using environmentally sound practices in all farming operations, large or small. Eighty-six percent agreed, they had a responsibility as Extension professionals to support--through research and education--the long-term integrity of the environment. Participants agreed (97.5%) a proactive perspective was necessary when developing Extension programs, in order to consider possible future consequences.

According to respondents, the most important challenge was creating an agriculture that was profitable. Throughout the survey, participants stressed the importance of an economically sustainable agriculture. There was doubt whether sustainable agriculture could be profitable. Some participants commented that economic sustainability could not be achieved using environmentally sustainable practices.

Conclusion 2: Ambiguity existed among NCCES professionals in reference to social sciences involvement in agriculture. The means for questions associated with social components of sustainable agriculture were relatively lower, suggesting that social sustainability was not as strongly endorsed by the participants throughout the survey. Seventy-two percent agreed that most educational programs developed by NCCES focus on the physical and biological sciences rather than social sciences. Participants were agreeable about involving farmers (75.8%) in the research and educational process and involving rural communities (71.0%) in problem-solving local agriculture issues. The idea of preserving rural farm communities was not strongly supported by participants (58.7%). Sixty-seven percent agreed (20% undecided) when asked if the social impact of production agriculture was often overlooked in research. Fifty-three percent agreed, 27.8% were undecided, and 19.7% disagreed that strong community participation was necessary to develop sustainable agriculture.

According to Lyson (1998) Land Grant faculty from various academic disciplines define the concept of sustainability differently. More faculty subscribed to enhancing environmental quality than to increasing profitability and quality of life issues, social and community dimensions were considered less important.

Conclusion 3: Participants' attitudes about systems thinking reflected that they understood the importance of the concept in research, education, and problem-solving on the farm, and were knowledgeable about practices used in farming systems, but when asked about actions taken to implement a systems thinking philosophy, there was no indication of strong Extension efforts. Most participants agreed (82.0%) that there was a need for more long-term, whole farm research because single commodity research did not investigate interrelationships within an agriculture system. Participants agreed (80.2%) that systems research required collaboration among researchers from social, biological, and agricultural sciences. Sixty percent agreed the Center for Environmental Farming Systems, a designated facility for sustainable agriculture research, was needed to conduct systems research (some participants were not informed about the facility).

Participants agreed the NCCES encourages sustainable practices in farming systems such as the application of organic matter that improves soil properties, efficient use of inorganic fertilizers (81.8%), and the integration of livestock in a farming operation (72.1%).

Participant responses were divided (30.8% disagreed, 30.8% undecided, and 38.4% agreed) when asked if lack of systems research was a barrier to the adoption of sustainable agriculture. The three main barriers identified as preventing NCSU from moving forward with sustainable agriculture were: (a) attitudes and the need for a paradigm shift; (b) limited funding; and (c)confusion about the definition.

Participant responses were also divided when asked if NCCES educators developed programs that emphasized whole-farm agriculture systems (35.9% disagreed, 29.8% undecided, 34.3% agreed) and if agents taught clientele holistic approaches to problem-solving (31.7% disagreed, 35.6% undecided, and 32.8% agreed). Sixty-three percent agreed (26.8% undecided) that government agriculture programs and policy do not address agriculture holistically, problems are addressed individually and often have conflicting objectives to other programs and policies.

Conclusion 4: Participants were interested in working on collaborative projects with members from other disciplines, although, a collaborative approach was the least used method to establish linkages. Participants agreed that the concept of interdisciplinary teamwork and collaboration was important in research and education efforts. Although, the most used method to establish linkages was one-on-one contacts to exchange information and resources, the least used approach was collaboration. Participants felt there were barriers to working collaboratively, such as institutional barriers which place strong emphasis on traditional research methods and publishing, and a lack of reward for Extension work. Fifty-seven percent agreed (26.2% undecided, 16.9% disagreed) institutional constraints, were a barrier to interdisciplinary research. Sixty percent agreed Center for Environmental Farming Systems (CEFS) was needed to provide interdisciplinary research. Many participants thought existing research farms should be involved in sustainable research in addition to CEFS.

Conclusion 5: Participants' attitudes about grassroots involvement reflected limited support for local involvement in agriculture research and Extension programs. Participants agreed (75.8%) farmers should have more involvement in agriculture research. Seventy-nine percent agreed North Carolina needs more programs that focus on extending a commodity's value by educating communities about processing and marketing opportunities. But when asked if revitalizing rural communities was an important goal of NCCES, 58.7% agreed. Fifty-five percent agreed a responsibility of Extension professionals was to develop agricultural programs that promote the preservation of rural community life. When asked if strong community participation was necessary to develop a sustainable agriculture, 52.6% agreed, 27.8% were undecided, and 19.7% disagreed. Overall, there was not strong agreement for grassroots involvement of agricultural Extension.

Conclusion 6: Participants' attitudes about sustainable agriculture practices and technologies reflected that they understood that agriculture sustainability involved more than the development of new technologies, but participants' mixed responses indicated indecisiveness about some sustainable concepts. Participants agreed (80.1%) there was a need to change some of the accepted methods of agriculture production practiced over the past 50 years because of the adverse environmental impacts. Seventy-eight percent understood that sustainable agriculture involved more than implementing sustainable farming practices. Participants stated management, marketing, and profitability as other important factors in a sustainable farming system.

Participants agreed that crop and livestock diversity, no-till practices, preservation of farmland, and soil and water conservation are components of sustainable agriculture. Participants were less agreeable that the following support a sustainable agriculture system: global niche markets, organic production, low-input agriculture systems, the importance of maintaining national food security, developing agriculture systems according to the agroecological and social needs of a region, and stimulating economic growth of local businesses and rural communities.

Overall, results indicated a positive response regarding the attitudes of NCCES professionals towards sustainable agriculture. However, some concepts that support environmental, economic, and social sustainability were not strongly endorsed by the respondents. Sustainable agriculture is a complex term that means different things to different people. This study confirmed that the term continues to be interpreted individually. There is a need to clarify concepts under the sustainable agriculture umbrella so it is understand how environmental, economic, and social concepts are interrelated and to grasp North Carolina's vision for sustainable agriculture.

Many were unsure about the meaning, while others adapted a meaning that supported their own belief about what constituted sustainable agriculture. According to the results of the State of the South Project (Worstell, 1994), lack of a clear definition of sustainable agriculture was one of the main barriers to implementation. The Worstell study revealed that agents needed broader training in sustainability concepts in addition to information about practices and technologies.

According to Rogers (1983), introducing a new idea or concept can be accelerated through communication and education. To initiate the process, leaders at the top of the Extension organization, administrators and department heads, can relay the vision vertically and horizontally through the organization. It is a leader's responsibility to build a shared vision by increased communication with members in the organization.

The sustainable agriculture program in North Carolina is gaining momentum. The Sustainable Agriculture Task Force has grown and developed six Sustainable Agriculture Work Groups. Teams of university faculty, Extension agents, NGO representatives, agency personnel, industry representatives, and farmers are working together to address strategic programming planning efforts in the following areas: (a) mission and vision, (b) training agricultural professionals, (c) sustainable agriculture curricula, (d) sustainable agriculture faculty/institute and rewards program, (e) Center for Environmental Farming Systems, (f) farmer based research.

Since sustainable agriculture research and education is not 'business as usual,' research and Extension activities should include the following methodologies: (a) holistic approach to agriculture, (b) interdisciplinary projects; (c) networking, coalition building; (d) systems research, (e) needs assessment and impact assessments, and (f) grassroots involvement. If agents and other agriculture professionals are to be trained and students pursue a career in agriculture, an understanding of the basic framework of sustainable concepts is critical to the success of research and Extension activities. This study suggests that more work can be done among agriculture professionals to understand the philosophy of sustainability and to prepare them for practice in the future.

AIBS, American Institute of Biological Sciences. (1995). Research in Support of Sustainable Agriculture. Workshop sponsored by U.S. Department of Agriculture and the North Carolina Agricultural Research Service.

Alreck, P.L. & Settle, R.B. (1985). The survey research handbook. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.

Boone, E. J. (1985). Developing programs in adult education. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Doll, J. D. & Francis, C. A. (1992). Participatory research and Extension strategies for sustainable agricultural systems. Weed Technology, 6, 473-482.

Francis, C. A. (1994). Practical applications of agricultural systems research in temperate countries. Journal of Production Agriculture, 7, 151-157.

Gerber, J.M. (1992). Farmer participation in research: A model for adaptive research and education. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 7(3), 118-121.

Lockeretz, W. (1987). Establishing the proper role for on-farm research. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 2(3), 132-136.

Lockeretz, W. & Anderson, M.D. (1990). Farmer's role in sustainable agriculture research. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 5(4), 178-182.

Lyson, T. A. (1998). Environmental, economic and social aspects of sustainable agriculture in American Land-Grant universities. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 12, 119-129.

Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations, Third Edition. NY: The Free Press, Macmillan Publishing Co.

Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline. NY: Doubleday.

Stevenson G. W. & Klemme, R. M. (1992). Advisory/Oversight councils: An alternative approach to farmer/citizen participation in agenda setting at Land-Grant universities. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 7(3), 111-117.

Watkins, G. (1990). Participatory Research: A farmer's perspective. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 5(4), 161-162.

Worstell, J. (1995). Southern futures: Opportunities for sustainable agricultural systems. A Report of the State of the South Project. Frankfort, KY: Community Farm Alliance.

Funding for this research was provided by the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service and the North Carolina Agriculture Research Service.

Planning for a business is no different than planning any other major event, such as a family vacation. Before starting the vacation, time must be taken to define the desired outcome and the stops to be taken along the way. Then a time frame is added and expected costs calculated. The process involves developing alternatives to counter possible changes in the participants' goals or external factors. The results of the planning process determine if indeed the desired outcome is feasible and, if so, how to proceed in achieving that outcome. Also like planning a vacation, professional help may be needed in business planning to fill in gaps and provide a knowledgeable view of all options.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss how Extension educators from many different disciplines can be catalysts in the development of business plans for food industry entrepreneurs. Extension specialists can both encourage the use of a business plan as well as be active participants in its development, serving as information resources and reviewers. One thing an Extension specialist cannot do, however, is develop the plan for the entrepreneur. The owner has the conceptual idea for the business, and only the owner can realistically know the issues, the available resources, and his or her own level of commitment and perseverance.

For a food industry entrepreneur, business planning is a multi-faceted exercise that may require assistance from experts in financial management, engineering, nutrition, and marketing/promotion. This paper focuses on three specific areas where Extension educators can assist these entrepreneurs:(a) Understanding the essential components of a business plan. (b) Pro forma financial analysis. (c) Legal issues that affect the food industry, its operations, costs, market access, and future opportunities.

While the first two areas are common to all types of business planning endeavors, the unique operating parameters of the food industry profoundly impact business planning and implementation efforts of entrepreneurs.

It has been written that business owners who "fail to plan, plan to fail" (Covello & Hazelgren, 1994). In a variety of studies, business owners who plan are more likely to remain in business as compared to those who do not plan. Going further, those who do more extensive planning are more likely to remain in business than those who do less extensive planning (Bruno, Leidecker & Harder, 1987; Gaskill, Van Auken, & Manning, 1993; Lambert, 1993; Lauzen, 1985; Lussier, 1995; Reynolds, 1987; Sommers & Koc, 1987; Wood, 1989). Yet for its importance, business owners often fail to perform business planning activities.

The most important reason for business planning is to benefit the owner (Brodsky, 1998). The planning process of evaluation and development, playing "what if" games, outlining the risks and rewards of the venture, and determining the existing gaps in people and resources help the owner determine project feasibility and costs. Here the focus changes from the production of a glossy handbook to the process itself. It is during the process of developing a business plan that the owner can learn, understand, and prepare for any adjustments that might be foreseen. It is also in the process stage that Extension specialists can provide information necessary for determining the feasibility of a venture.

During the business plan development process, the owner prepares to understand his or her product or service, the market for that product or service, the competition, and the overall business environment. Close attention is paid to existing and future competition and to understanding if the proposed area is one of growth or stagnation (Sahlman, 1997; Thompson, 1988). The business planning process allows the owner to fail on paper thereby reducing the probability of failure and the costs associated with a real-world failure (Grover, 1998). Business planning is not a choice according to Hogan and Utierrez (1997). They consider it a "matter of survival," particularly in agriculture and low-margin business activities common to the food industry.

Effective business planning is a continuous process. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, it is the "first management job...a combination of realistic calculations and crystal ball gazing...an exercise in arithmetic and imagination" (Brabeck, 1994). As the process continues it adds the tasks of evaluating, monitoring, and comparing actual results to the outlined goals and objectives. As variances from the plan are noted, revisions and updates to the business plan are implemented in order to keep the business on line to meet the goals of the owner and the needs of his/her customers.

If one looks at any of the multitude of business planning aids, a variety of plan formats exist. This paper follows a format developed for value-added agricultural products (Holcomb, Muske, & Kenkel, 1998). Eight sections are recommended: (1) Executive Summary; (2) Introduction; (3) Situational Analysis; (4) Business Proposition; (5) Action Plan; (6) Financial Analysis; (7) Evaluation and Measurement; and (8) Contingency Plan. The format offered encourages the potential business owner to look at business development factors in a logical sequence.

1. Executive Summary - The summary is an often-overlooked segment of the business plan. It should be the last segment written. It provides an outline and a concise description of the major points of the plan. The summary offers the reader a condensed picture of the risks involved and the potential returns. For outside readers, the summary must draw the person into reading the entire plan with an exciting, yet realistic picture of the opportunity presented.

2. Introduction - The introduction gives the reader a historical perspective of the business and an understanding of how the business has developed to this point. It provides a general description of the proposed venture. The vision and mission of the business are outlined as well as goals in this section.

3. Situational Analysis - For the owner, this section is one of the most crucial parts of a business plan. Because of its importance and because of the diversity of issues covered, it is often the largest part of the plan. Sahlman considers this section key in the development of a successful business (1997). His article defines the four critical factors outlined in this section. Those four factors include the people, the opportunity, the context, and risks and rewards.

It is suggested that the owner break this section into two parts: internal assessment and external assessment. The internal assessment elaborates on the business structure as well as its resource advantages. Included in this section are the marketing and distribution networks that already exist or are available to the entrepreneur. The external assessment evaluates the industry and specific competitors, the legal and regulatory environment, "downstream" customers, and the end consumer. Part of the assessment must evaluate the state of the industry - is it growing, stable, or declining? Based upon his/her findings, the owner must identify risks and potential rewards of the proposed business venture. An outside reader, such as an Extension professional, can offer an excellent critique of the situational analysis.

4. Business Proposition - In this section, the owner lays out the goals and objectives of the company. This may include sales goals, financial objectives, and market share. Certainly an important consideration will be the desired rate of return on the entrepreneur's investment. The driving force in the development of the business proposition, however, must be the desires of the customers. Businesses that fail do so because they forget their purpose - to satisfy the wants and needs of a specific customer group.

5. Action Plan - This section specifically outlines the steps perceived by the owner as necessary to reach his/her business goals. Product development and production flows, pricing strategies, and promotion/marketing campaigns are outlined in detail with a time frame, budget, and responsible persons.

6. Financial Analysis - Probably the most troublesome area for business owners is the development of pro forma (forecasted) financial statements. Besides being difficult to develop numbers prior to the business' start-up, it is also very easy to make the numbers say what you want versus depicting a realistic scenario. This section will be further discussed in this article, as an area where Extension specialists may provide considerable assistance.

7. Evaluation and Measurement - After the plans have been made a system or structure must be put into place to ensure that the plans are being followed and the goals achieved. The actual progress must be measured and some level of acceptability (between reality and ideal) established. If the results are unacceptable, then the owner moves to the next section, contingency plans.

8. Contingency Plans - If measurements of business activity and customer satisfaction show that the various objectives and goals of the company are not being met, it may be necessary to make changes. Already in the plan development process, the owner should begin to anticipate where possible problems might arise and outline some alternative strategies. Then, if a variance between the desired goal and actual performance is noted, the owner is prepared to respond. However, before doing so the owner must first understand why a goal was not met. Again, an Extension educator can be an excellent evaluator of the owner's contingency plans.

The primary challenge in business planning is taking the time to develop the plan. Too often entrepreneurs think about their dreams for a business and forego the planning required to turn those dreams into reality. One of the tasks for an Extension specialist is to help the entrepreneur follow steps to increase the likelihood of business success.

The purpose for pro forma financial analysis in business planning is twofold: (a) to provide estimated accounting information in advance, and (b) to determine changes in profitability and liquidity given changes in assumptions. Extension personnel often field requests for assistance in this area, and their objective input allows for a more accurate financial assessment of a given entrepreneurial effort. In developing pro forma statements, food-based businesses commonly overlook three items: market/sales planning, regulatory compliance costs, and product flowcharts.

Extension personnel need to remind entrepreneurs of the importance of market/sales planning. Marketing involves understanding the customer and his/her expectations of the product. Researching the customer and his/her demands incurs costs in the forms of product testing and evaluation, developing a "catchy" packaging design, and promotional programs. Selling products incurs additional costs such as maintaining an inventory, distributing the products to customers, and possibly even sales commissions. Sales planning also involves determining appropriate sales appeals and the levels of those sales appeals (for example, cash and/or quantity discounts, and seasonal pricing strategies).

Extension specialists may often serve as information resources for predicting sales and determining marketing costs. Their assistance is often requested for two reasons:

1. Too often, food business entrepreneurs focus on their own products and neglect the competition. Extension specialists assisting these entrepreneurs must suggest that they focus on competitors - the number of competitors, how their products compare/differ, and the pricing strategies of competitors.

2. Besides these store shelf comparisons, Extension specialists must often direct entrepreneurs towards information sources for overall industry growth and sales trends by geographic regions. By doing so, Extension personnel provide entrepreneurs with an indication of how well their products/services may sell in the first year of business and how fast they can expect their sales to increase.

Another factor affecting the costs of operating a food business is regulatory compliance. Meeting local, state, and federal regulations increase both fixed and variable costs of operations. Fixed costs associated with regulatory compliance may include equipping a facility with the proper utilities to meet FDA (Food and Drug Administration), USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), and OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) requirements. These costs may include initial plant and/or annual licenses/permits, and possibly additional costs incurred for equipment that will meet FDA or USDA processing guidelines and OSHA safety requirements.

Variable costs associated with regulatory compliance may come in several different forms. Paying more for product labels that have the appropriate nutrition information format (FDA requirement) is one example. Another example may be the labor, utilities, and materials expense associated with clean-up activities. Nationally distributed meat products will include the expense associated with having a required USDA inspector in the plant during processing activities.

After considering the magnitude of fixed clean-up and inspection expenses, an entrepreneur may find it more profitable to contract with a larger existing processor. Extension personnel may be a useful resource for information on processors willing to contract with entrepreneurs for co-packing.

While marketing, sales, and regulatory compliance activities significantly impact the costs of doing business, they are only indirectly related to production costs. Many entrepreneurs fail to include all production costs in their financial planning because they did not develop a flowchart of every step in the production and packaging system. The flowchart also serves as a reminder of all costs associated with production, whether that production takes place in the entrepreneur's own facility or in another company's facility. Extension engineers and processing specialists can assist in flowchart development and serve as objective reviewers of these flowcharts to ensure inclusion of all processing steps and their associated costs.

Once the costs of production, marketing, sales, and regulatory compliance are known, pro forma income statements, cash flow sheets, and balance sheets can be developed for the first three-to-five years of the business. These pro forma financial statements serve as a projection of predicted business activities and may be used to pinpoint expected cash shortages, surpluses, and predicted profits/losses for these first few years. Because Extension specialists often assist farmers, ranchers, and even households in developing budgets and analyzing the costs/benefits of various enterprises, food business entrepreneurs may also approach these specialists for assistance in pro forma financial analysis.

The pro forma income statement projects the profitability of a venture over the upcoming fiscal year given predicted sales and cost estimates. It does not, however, provide an indication of liquidity or loan repayment ability. If profits are projected, these profits may be used to pay back debt or be added to owner's equity.

Cash flow budgets assess loan repayment ability and liquidity for a fiscal year by projecting cash inflows and outflows over time. The cash balance, which changes as products are sold and as debts are paid, may be positive or negative at different times during the fiscal year. Negative cash flows may indicate a need to borrow money, whereas positive cash flows may be used to pay off debt early.

Fiscal year-end balance sheets give a representation of the business' assets, liabilities, and owner's equity. If the business is projected to make a profit during the fiscal year, the year-end balance sheet should show an increase in owner's equity, either from having the profits retained as cash (increased assets) or using the profits to retire debt (decreased liabilities). The cash balance on the year-end balance sheet then serves as the beginning cash balance for the next fiscal year's cash flow budget.

There are legal issues to be considered in any type of business such as operational structure, tax liabilities, business permits, and legal liabilities. Food businesses must also cope with the additional regulations related to facility specifications, food processing and handling procedures, inspections of facilities and processes, nutritional analysis, and product labeling. Extension agribusiness and home-based business specialists can provide such information to entrepreneurs.

Many tax and legal liability issues are determined by an entrepreneur's choice of business structure. Extension business specialists can serve as an educational resource to help entrepreneurs determine which structure best fits their individual goals. While several variations exist, the most common business structures are the sole proprietorship, general partnership, limited liability company (LLC), corporation, and cooperative.

A sole proprietorship is the easiest form of business to establish. The proprietor has complete control over the business and income from the business is treated as personal income for tax purposes. However, in the event of a lawsuit, the sole proprietor's personal assets are just as vulnerable as the business' assets. The ability to generate capital through equity or debt financing is limited to the assets and credit limits of the proprietor. General partnerships are essentially the same as sole proprietorships, except control is divided among partners and legal liability increases as each partner is now liable for the actions of other partners as well as himself/herself.

A limited liability company (LLC) circumvents the increased legal liabilities and risks associated with general partnerships, even though most aspects of the two structures are the same. An LLC requires a legal agreement between partners in which control issues are addressed. LLC profits, after division between partners, are treated as additional personal income to each partner. Unlike a general partnership, each partner's liability is limited to his/her invested capital. Depending on the legal agreement between partners, ownership shares may be transferred to other parties with or without the consent of the other partners.

Corporations and cooperatives are both legal entities, separate from the individuals owning the entities. They both require their members/owners to purchase shares of stock, and legal liabilities are limited to the equity in the corporation or cooperative. There are, however, three fundamental differences between corporations and cooperatives: (a) corporation control is based upon "one share, one vote" while cooperative control is based upon "one member, one vote"; (b) stocks in corporations may be sold or willed to heirs while stocks in cooperatives are redeemed when membership is discontinued; (c) cooperatives have a system for investment and stock redemption (for example, revolving equity); and (d) corporate profits are subject to corporate income taxes while cooperative profits are not. Varying state corporation and cooperative charter laws may provide for additional differences.

Aside from the business permits and operational guidelines associated with general forms of business, food businesses face considerably more regulation from both state and national governmental agencies. Once again, Extension specialists are often called on to provide education regarding regulatory guidelines. Areas of significant regulation in the food industry come from state health departments, FDA, and OSHA. USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service (USDA-FSIS) may also be a regulatory force to be considered if the product in question is a processed meat item intended for interstate distribution.

State health departments enforce inspection codes for all processing, storage, and salvage merchandise facilities. The FDA is the primary inspection service for grain-based products, fruits, and vegetables. Additionally, the FDA sets the guidelines for labeling food items and reporting nutrition facts on those labels. USDA-FSIS inspects meat processing plants that distribute products nationally and internationally, although state meat inspection is sufficient for products distributed solely within state boundaries.

The regulations associated with these inspection authorities, along with the safety guidelines overseen by OSHA, are often confusing to entrepreneurs. Extension specialists can provide a better understanding of the specific rules and regulations enforced by all of these entities.

In helping the reader to understand important aspects of the business planning process, several ideas have been offered regarding how Extension specialists can assist the business owner in this task. The help offered by an Extension specialist comes from his or her area of expertise or experience. As already suggested, specialists might be helpful in financial analysis based upon their budgeting experience. Certainly specialists involved in nutrition can help with product development, evaluation, and nutritional labeling. Specialists with engineering backgrounds can be of help in determining the adequacy of a proposed processing line and its ability to meet any state, FDA, USDA, and OSHA requirements.

Extension specialists, in addition to providing their own expertise, can also assist the business owner with local, state, and national contacts. Business owners are often stymied by the simple fact that they do not know who to call. For example, it is often more important to know how specific provisions of laws or regulations are interpreted. Extension personnel can aid an entrepreneur in finding the appropriate contact point for such information and how to include that information within the business plan.

Next, Extension specialists can act as an objective third party in the review of a business plan. State cooperative Extension services are already known as providers of unbiased information. With this reputation, Extension personnel can offer the entrepreneur a perceptual view of the plan that might be different than that offered by the entrepreneur's banker and/or accountant. This is not to suggest that those views are not important; they certainly are. However, just as important is the view from a non-involved third party. Such third party reviews might also be solicited from other agencies such as the Small Business Development Centers or the Service Corp of Retired Executives. Each of these reviewers offers something different as each brings a different experience and education background into the review process.

Finally, Extension specialists bring an ability to include basic and applied research as well as real-world experience to business planning efforts. This blending of information and experience is somewhat unique. Such an understanding allows the owner to go beyond the numbers to understand some of the reasons for the results (Bittleston, 1998), thereby increasing the probability of business success and the entrepreneur's quality of life.

Bittleston, R. (June, 1998). Measure cause, not effect. Management Today, 88-90.

Brabeck, B. (1994). Homemade money (5th ed). Cincinnati, OH: Betterway Books

Brodsky, N. (1998). Due diligence. Inc, 20(2), 25-26.

Bruno, A., Keidecker, J. & Harder, J. (1987). Why firms fail. Business Horizons, 2, 13-24

Covello, J.A. & Hazelgren, B.J. (1994). The complete book of business plan. Naperville, IL: Sourcebook Trade.

Gaskill, L.R., Van Auken, H.E., & Manning, R.A. (1993). A factor analysis of the perceived causes of small business failure. Journal of Small Business Management, 31(4), 18-31.

Grover, M. B. (1998). The best-laid plans. Forbes, 161(12), 150.

Hogan, T. & Utierrez, P. (1997). Strategic planning in agriculture: A matter of survival. Texas Banking, 86(2), 14-15.

Holcomb, R.B., Muske, G., & Kenkel, P. (1998). Developing a business plan for value-added agricultural products (F-909). Stillwater: Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service.

Lambert, A. (1993). Factors of success in the restaurant business: A survey study. International Journal of Management, 10(1).

Lauzen, L. (Summer, 1985). Small business failures are controllable. Corporate Accounting, 34-38.

Lussier, R.N. (1995). A nonfinancial business success versus failure prediction model for young firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 33(1), 8-20.

Reynolds, P. (1987). New firms: Societal contribution versus potential. Journal of Business Venturing, 2, 231-246.

Sahlman, W. A. (1997). How to write a great business plan. Harvard Business Review, 75(4), 98-108.

Sommers, W. & Koc, A. (1987). Why most new ventures fail (and how others don't). Management Review, 9, 35-39.

Thompson, R. (1988). Business plans: Myth and reality. Nation's Business, 76(8), 16-22.

Wood, D.L. (1989). Why new businesses fail and how to avoid disaster. Corporate Cashflow, 8, 26-27.

A "Livestock Systems Environmental Assessment" tool (LSEA) was developed to support Cooperative Extension programs addressing livestock environmental issues in Nebraska. The ability of the tool to assist in identifying environmental strengths, weaknesses, and solutions was pilot tested by 97 livestock producers in three counties. An evaluation was completed 6 to 9 months later by 61 participants.

Environmental programs for the livestock industry are being introduced at a time of escalating public scrutiny including (a) organized community opposition groups to livestock production, (b) major revisions in state and local public policy, and (c)state regulatory inspections of all confined livestock operations greater than 300 animal units relative to operating permit requirements. These issues created a need for an expanded extension role in assisting livestock producers with environmental issues.

As a result of this scrutiny, many efforts to deliver LSEA were met with some reluctance or mixed feelings. However, close collaboration with local livestock commodity groups proved to be an extremely effective method for delivering LSEA. Involvement of the commodity groups' leadership in the initial release of this tool within a county provided critical support and validation of the environmental assessment process.

The goal of LSEA is to reduce the level of environmental risk resulting from livestock production by a producer self-assessment of current practices and systems and identification of high risk situations to be addressed by a more comprehensive environmental planning process. The specific objectives of this pilot evaluation effort were to:

LSEA consists of seven worksheets. Three were adapted from Wisconsin's Farm*A*Syst program (manure storage, silage storage, and milking center wastewater). Three new assessment worksheets (land application, odor, and feedlot runoff) and a quantitative worksheet for estimating manure nutrient production were developed. All but the last mentioned worksheet followed the model used by the Farm and Home*A*Syst environmental assessment programs (refer to www.wisc.edu/farmasyst or www.wisc.edu/homeasyst). New worksheets were developed by the authors and all worksheets were reviewed by regulatory, NRCS, and University staff.

Ninety-seven livestock producers from three Nebraska counties participated in the LSEA pilot. Participants were self-selected based upon their attendance of a local extension program focused on LSEA. Participants completed appropriate worksheets and recorded their responses both on their own assessment tool and a separate detachable form shared with the authors. Participants also shared background information about their livestock system, crop system, and manure management system. All reported data is a summary of these responses with no statistical analysis of results.

A variety of methods were used for reaching livestock producers including delivery through commodity groups, allied industry meetings, area network meetings for custom feeding swine organizations, FmHA Gold Medal meetings, and one-on-one contacts. Conclusions relative to delivery methods were based upon recorded observations of six extension field staff involved in this pilot effort. Six to nine months after completion of the assessment tool, 61 participants returned an evaluation survey for the purpose of identifying potential impact. The post assessment involved a mail survey with follow-up by phone of non-return.

A variety of delivery methods were utilized within the three pilot counties. An evaluation of alternative delivery methods was based strictly on qualitative assessments by extension staff involved in the delivery process. Their evaluation included levels of participation by producers, willingness of other organizations to partner in program delivery, and learning environment associated with the assessment process.

Close collaboration with livestock commodity groups proved to be the most effective method for delivering LSEA to local producers based upon extension educator observations. Involvement of the commodity groups' leadership in the initial release of this tool within a county provided critical program support, peer promotion, and validation of the assessment process.

Most other methods of delivery were met with at least some reluctance or mixed feelings. Bankers were fearful of offending their customers and were very reluctant to assist in the delivery of this assessment tool. Contacts with allied industry and pork producing networks yielded a mixed response ranging from significant investment in program promotion to wanting no part of an environmental program. Efforts to use the tool within the Gold Medal program (a Farmers Home Administration sponsored mandatory educational program for producers to secure operating loans) provided mixed results due to the diversified group in attendance.

One-on-one meetings were relatively ineffective unless the producer initiated the request. Extension staff meetings with individual producers was met with some apprehension. Producers typically preferred to participate in small group meetings as opposed to a one-on-one setting. The exchange of ideas among peers was of value for this delivery format. Those who participated in a one-on-one format were the least enthusiastic group in their response to LSEA as illustrated by the impact survey six months later.

The livestock on the participating farms were swine (43 farms with an average inventory of 1218 animals), beef cattle (59 farms with an average inventory of 1346 animals), and dairy cattle (21 farms with an average inventory of 238 animals).

The manure management systems on participating farms included the following characteristics:

The first worksheet assists a producer in the calculation of manure nutrient production and available nutrients after storage losses. On average, participating livestock operations produced 119,000 pounds of nitrogen and 72,000 pounds of P2O5 equivalent. Based upon worksheet assumptions, most of the phosphorus was available for crop production but less than half of the nitrogen was conserved. High manure nutrient application rates were commonly observed by many producers (see Table 1). An awareness of the size of the manure nutrient resource as well as the current rate of application of manure nutrients (usually excessive) was regarded by the extension educators to be an important eye-opener that impacted the thinking of many producers throughout the use of LSEA.

Six worksheets provided a qualitative assessment of risk according to four risk levels. Overall, producers judged their land application practices and livestock yards as representing the greater environmental risk (see Table 2). Key practices essential to manure nutrient management planning were found to be among the major individual deficiencies of livestock operations (see Table 3). The lack of the required Nebraska permits for outdoor lot runoff control as well as inadequate facilities for containing runoff were additional high risk issues identified by producers.

Substantial variation existed in the risk producers assigned to their own operation. The average rating of risk by producers of their livestock operation was 2.2 or slightly greater than a moderate-low risk. Individual producers' average rating ranged from 1.3 to 3.5. Seven producers identified their average risk as greater than 3.0. The self-assessment aspect of this tool shows some livestock operations to have significant environmental risk.

Sixty-one of 97 participants returned an evaluation survey six to nine months after using LSEA. Producers indicated LSEA was effective in helping them identify their livestock operation's:

• - Environmental strengths..........54 responses (89%)
• - Environmental weaknesses.........50 responses (82%)
• - Priorities for future efforts....52 responses (85%)
• - Changes in practices.............48 responses (79%).

As a result, in part from their use of LSEA, producers identified the following in regard to changes in manure management practices or systems:

• - 49% indicated that changes have been made.
• - 64% anticipated making future changes.
• - 24% had not made and did not anticipate making changes.

The most commonly identified change implemented to date was associated with better utilization of manure in crop production. Twenty-five of the 61 responses indicated changes in land application and nutrient management practices. More timely removal of manure and odor reduction related efforts were also identified by multiple survey responses.

To implement these changes, producers reported their planned and previous financial expenditures that resulted from the assessment process (Table 4). Only 20% of the participants had invested more than $1000 in changes since the assessment. However, more than half anticipated spending more than $1000 to implement planned changes.

When asked about their motivation to make changes, the top four reasons given by producers were:

• - Desire to improve farm's environmental stewardship..64%
• - Desire to minimize use of commercial
  fertilizers in crop program.........................46%
• - Desire to reduce farm expenses......................41%
• - Desire to meet regulations..........................41%

Comments and suggestions about the program were solicited. Nearly all comments were positive as represented by the such examples as "Manure management is not fun to think about - but very necessary to prevent and reduce expenses. A must for every producer no matter their size of production." "We are presently looking at other hog facilities and my priorities have changed some due to this meeting." "All cattlemen's groups should be made aware! Don't hide this info - get it out."

Based upon experiences with the use of LSEA with 97 Nebraska livestock producers, the following conclusions were drawn:

LSEA identified significant opportunity for livestock operators to improve their stewardship of air and water resources when used in a self-assessment role. Land application of manure and runoff controls for outdoor lots were the most commonly identified high risk practices and systems.

Close collaboration with local livestock commodity groups proved to be the most effective method for delivering LSEA to local producers. Involvement of commodity groups' leadership in the initial release of this tool within a county provided critical support and validation of the environmental assessment process. Other delivery approaches were met with at least some degree of producer reluctance or skepticism.

LSEA resulted in significant changes of practice. Just under half of the producers had made some changes within 6 to 9 months and 64% intended to make changes as a result, in part, due to their completion of LSEA. Better utilization of manure nutrients in crop production was the most commonly identified change.

LSEA Availability: This extension publication titled "Livestock Systems Environmental Assessment", is available from CIT, Warehouse #2 - East Campus, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0927. Telephone: (402) 472-9712.

Previous studies to assess Extension delivery have focused on the adoption of innovations, effectiveness of various media used to disseminate knowledge, and client satisfaction. Habeeb, Birkenholz and Weston (1987) recommended that agricultural Extension workers increase their amount of direct contact with clientele groups, refocus Extension programs, and expand delivery methods to address the needs of innovative farmers. Lavis and Blackburn (1990) also found a positive relationship between client satisfaction and contact with local Extension offices. They concluded that people who use Extension more intensively rate it higher than non-users. Warner and Christenson (1984) state that satisfaction is considerably greater among persons who are regular rather than occasional users of the services.

Previous studies conducted in Oregon, North Dakota, and Florida indicated that agricultural producers and other clients were very satisfied with Extension services (Meadowbrook & Fletcher, 1988; North Dakota State University, 1996; Warnock, 1992). A survey in Ohio showed that the Cooperative Extension Service ranked high as an information source among farmers (Schnitkey, Batte, Jones & Botomogno, 1992).

Not all studies suggest that Extension services are highly ranked. Many farmers view the dominant agricultural research and Extension education model skeptically (Gerber, 1992). Habeeb et al. (1987) reported that persons who were more innovative tended to be less satisfied with Extension's information, specialists, and agricultural education program. Auburn and Baker (1992) suggest that communication between farmers and researchers usually has been one-sided and that researchers have not adequately considered the research priorities of farmers. Various authors suggest changes in the dominant Extension model in which innovations in farming practices are developed by researchers and delivered through an Extension program (Braund, 1995; Gerber, 1992). The importance of effective delivery methods to the impact of Extension programs has also been suggested (Israel, 1991). These studies have not examined the longitudinal impact of modification of Extension delivery.

In order to serve its clients better, Michigan State University Extension modified program planning and delivery by establishing Area of Expertise (AOE) teams (Leholm, Hamm, Suvedi, Gray, & Poston,1999). The AOE teams consist of agents and specialists who plan and deliver educational programs to meet the needs of Michigan farmers and agribusiness. The AOE teams have joint leadership, with at least one co-chair from the MSU campus and one from off-campus Extension. Stakeholder involvement in program planning and evaluation are key elements of the AOE team. County Extension agents on these teams have specialized roles in specific commodity groups and cover multi-county areas. MSU Extension identified 18 initial Area of Expertise teams that were formed between 1995 and 1996.

In this context, a longitudinal study was conducted to find out how agricultural producers view MSUE and how changes in delivery impact perceptions. Surveys were conducted in 1996 and 1999. The 1996 survey served as a baseline and was conducted before AOE teams were fully implemented. In 1999 the same survey served as a follow-up for comparison.

A statewide baseline and follow-up study were conducted to assess change in farmers' perceptions of MSUE and AOE teams over time. The objectives of both the baseline study and the follow-up were:

• To determine agricultural producers' awareness of MSUE and the types of Extension education programs used by the agricultural community.
• To determine the quality of MSUE educational programs as perceived by the agricultural community.
• To determine farmers' and agribusiness operators' perceptions of AOE teams and specialized Extension agents.
• To identify major educational needs of agricultural producers.

The population for this study was comprised of cash crop, vegetable, fruit, nursery and greenhouse, beef, dairy and swine farmers in Michigan. A stratified random sample of farmers and agribusiness operators was drawn with the help of the Michigan Agricultural Statistics Service. In 1996, this sample consisted of 1,534 farmers and agribusiness operators. In 1999, the sample consisted of 1,569 members of the same population.

This study used a mail survey for data collection. A seven-page instrument was developed and validated by a panel of experts to assess farmers' perspectives on MSUE agricultural and natural resources programs. It included both closed- and open-ended questions. The instrument was field-tested to ensure usability and reliability. The same instrument was used for both the 1996 and 1999 data collections.

Respondents were asked to indicate their awareness of MSUE, and whether they had participated in Extension programs or received information from Extension. They were asked to rate the quality of educational programs and perceptions of the AOE programs and services on a 1 to 5 Likert-type scale, with 1 representing poor quality and 5 representing excellent quality. Open-ended questions solicited suggestions about how MSU Extension can improve its role in helping Michigan agricultural producers. Similarly, respondents were asked to list the major areas of educational need for Michigan agricultural producers. To determine the overall evaluation of MSU Extension and perceptions of the AOE teams, composite scales were developed. Cronbach's alpha was determined for both 1996 and 1999. Perceptions of the quality of MSU Extension's programs were assessed with six items and exhibited an alpha of .90 for both years; eleven items assessed perceptions of the AOE teams and had alpha values of .72 (1996) and .75 (1999).

The instrument was mailed to the sample in March of both 1996 and 1999. One week after the first mailing, a follow-up postcard was mailed to the sample population. Two weeks later, non-respondents were mailed a second follow-up letter with a replacement questionnaire. In 1996 the survey had a usable response rate of 58% (N = 851). The 1999 survey had a usable response rate of 51% (N = 730). The respondents were found to be representative of the various agricultural enterprises and counties in the state.

Analysis indicated that, in both samples, the respondents came from a range of demographic groups. The characteristics assessed included age, formal education, land-holdings and income. The sample for both surveys included respondents from all of the major commodity groups. Types of agricultural producers were categorized as cash crop, vegetable, beef, etc. (see Table 1).

Of the farmers surveyed in 1996, about 53% were full-time farmers and 47% were part-time farmers. There were more part-time (51.1%) than full-time farmers (48.9%) in the 1999 survey. Analysis of off-farm employment status showed that in 1996, 40.6% were employed elsewhere. In 1999 the number employed elsewhere had increased to 46.5% of respondents. Analysis showed that the difference in 1996 and 1999 respondents' outside employment was significant (chi-square (1) = 4.9 p =.03), which indicates that in 1999 more farmers were employed outside of farming than in 1996.

Respondents were asked to indicate whether they had heard of MSU Extension. Analysis of the data showed that in 1996, 91.1% of the respondents were familiar with MSUE. In 1999, this increased to 94.5%. Those who indicated awareness were asked more questions about their participation in MSU Extension programs and services. In both years, the most common method of participation was through county Extension newsletters and/or mailers -- 90.6% of those surveyed in 1996 indicated having received these documents and 84.2% in 1999.

Likewise, in 1996 77% of the respondents had acquired Extension bulletins or fact sheets compared with 73.4% in 1999. Visits to a county Extension office were also found to be a common method of participation in MSUE programs -- 74.2% of the 1996 respondents and 73% of the 1999 respondents had visited an office. Mass media (e.g. newspapers, radio, etc.) were also used by 70.9% of the people to gain information from Extension in the 1996 survey. This decreased to 64% in 1999. In both years, more than half of those surveyed had been in contact with an MSUE specialist.

The analysis also indicated that in 1996, 52.8% of those familiar with MSUE had attended Extension farm meetings/workshops; 49.5% reported attending these programs in 1999. A significant change occurred in reports of visiting the MSU campus for educational programs -- from 42% in 1996 to 35.6% in 1999. In 1996 40.9% participated in field days/demonstrations. This percentage decreased to 35.5% in 1999. About 36.4% of the respondents reported in the 1996 survey that a local Extension agriculture agent or team of agents had visited their farms or agribusinesses. This percentage increased slightly in 1999 to 37.7%.

These data indicate that computer-based information is still not a common method of participation in MSUE activities in both years. Only 10% of those surveyed acknowledged having received information via Farm Data Systems(DTN). Approximately 6% of the respondents had used an Extension software package. There was a significant change in the percentage of respondents who gained information about MSU Extension via the World Wide Web. In 1996, only 1.4% had received information via the World Wide Web; this increased to 10% in 1999. Extension videotapes were not seen very frequently -- only 8% of the 1996 respondents familiar with MSUE programs had ever borrowed or purchased an Extension videotape, and this decreased to 5% in 1999.

Results of chi-square analyses showed a difference between full-time and part-time farmers in frequency of participation in MSUE programs. In both 1996 and 1999, full-time farmers indicated greater awareness of MSUE programs than part-time farmers and tended to participate more in MSUE-organized farm meetings, field days and demonstrations. In both 1996 and 1999, full-time farmers reported greater participation in all MSU Extension programs. A significantly higher (P<0.05) proportion of full-time farmers acquire Extension bulletins, fact sheets and newsletters; they also report using electronic information and Extension software packages more than part-time farmers. A significantly higher number of full-time farmers reported that they had been visited by Extension agents, had contacts with MSU Extension specialists and visited the MSU campus to participate in educational events.

Both the 1996 and 1999 results indicate that those farmers who held off-farm employment attended Extension meetings and participated in field days/demonstrations less frequently than those who did not have off-farm employment. Further analysis also revealed that, in both years, farmers who did not have off-farm employment tended to meet Extension agents significantly more than those who had off-farm employment. Similarly, the 1999 data indicated that those who did not have outside employment were more likely to use Extension software packages and gain information about MSU Extension via the mass media. This difference was not apparent in the 1996 data.

The respondents who had heard of MSUE or participated in number of programs offered by MSUE were asked to rate the quality of the programs they attended. These items included questions about the timeliness, relevance, and usefulness of the information provided in these programs. A composite rating of participants' evaluation of the quality of MSU Extension programs was obtained. On a scale of 1 to 5 (1=poor, 2=fair, 3=average, 4=good and 5=excellent), the mean rating of the programs was 3.76 (StDev.= 0.75) in 1996 and 3.81 (StDev.= 0.69) for 1999. T-test analysis indicated that these ratings did not change significantly from 1996 to 1999 (t [1189]= 0.086; p=.93).

MSUE developed AOE teams consisting of agents and specialists to plan and deliver educational programs to meet the needs of Michigan agricultural producers. In 1996, half of the respondents (50%) had heard of the AOE teams, one-third (34%) had not heard about these teams and the rest (16%) were not sure. The percentage of people aware of AOE teams was lower in 1999. Approximately 41% of respondents to the 1999 survey said that they were aware of AOE teams, 41% had not heard of the teams and 18% were unsure.

A composite score for ratings of perceptions of AOE teams was created to achieve an overall view of farmers' perceptions. The mean for this scale was exactly the same in both 1996 and 1999 (3.47), which indicates there has been no change in farmers' perceptions of the effectiveness of AOE teams. T-tests on the 1999 data showed a significant difference between the full-time and part-time farmers in their overall perceptions of AOE teams. Full-time farmers had an overall higher rating of AOE teams than part-time farmers [t (508) = 2.45; p = .015]. These differences were not evident in the overall-ratings in 1996. Similarly, t-tests indicated that farmers without outside employment expressed more agreement than those who had outside employment in both 1996 [t (678) =2.10, p = .036] and 1999 [t (572) =1.97; p =.05].

Analyses performed for individual questions also indicated differences. The data from both 1996 and 1999 indicate that full-time farmers are more likely than part-time farmers to believe that MSU Extension agents need to be more specialized. Additionally, in both 1996 and 1999, full-time farmers indicated that they have a greater need than part-time farmers for more research-based information. In both samples the data indicated that significantly more full-time farmers than part-time farmers sought the services of private consultants. In 1996 full-time farmers were more willing to pay for such services than part-time farmers, but in 1999 these two groups did not differ significantly.

Respondents provided specific suggestions for ways in which MSUE could improve its role in helping the agricultural community. These suggestions revealed that many respondents would like more informational and appropriate meetings. For example, in the 1999 responses, several farmers suggested that the timing of meetings could be improved by holding more weekend and winter meetings. The 1996 respondents indicated that they would like more on-site visits by Extension staff members and 1999 respondents made similar suggestions. One fruit farmer suggested that MSUE should "offer farm visits to determine if there is a problem and how to correct it." In both years, some small farmers felt that Extension was not interested in them and indicated that more involved and experienced agents are needed.

In 1996 some of the respondents expressed a need for advanced marketing workshops, more research, and on-site testing. The 1999 data revealed a dramatic increase in the number of respondents mentioning these issues (Table 2). Indeed, marketing of farm products was the most frequently mentioned issue in the 1999 responses. For example, one crop farmer suggested MSUE should "help the small farmer develop and market new crops" and many respondents listed "marketing" in response to several questions on the survey. In 1996 and 1999, advertising of MSUE services available and more information on specific topics related to farm management were also discussed by producers. Also mentioned were needs specific to the agricultural producer's commodity area; these included requests for information on everything from manure management to urban sprawl/farmland management.

Based on the findings from 1996 and 1999, a number of conclusions can be drawn that may assist Extension services in designing future programs. They include the following:(a) Awareness of MSU Extension has remained consistently high among agricultural producers. (b) Participation among full-farmers in MSUE programs and activities is high across producer groups. The number of part-time farmers is increasing and these farmers are participating less in all MSUE programs. Extension should consider ways to better serve part-time and small, family farmers. (c) Farmers want one-on-one interaction with Extension agents. Many farmers mentioned a strong desire to have agents visit them at their farm or business, or at the least, to be readily available by phone. As Extension plans strategies to reach and teach agricultural operators, it is important to consider that there is no substitute for interpersonal interaction. (d) Marketing, business management and farm economics were named as important issues by 50% more farmers in 1999 than in 1996. Traditional topics such as safe use of pesticides and improved seed varieties remained at consistent levels across time. (e) AOE teams should work across team areas on certain issues to better serve farmers. Cooperation and collaboration between teams can help save time and money, generate more ideas, and in turn, better serve farmers' educational and information needs.

Auburn, J.S., & Baker, B. P. (1992). Reintegrating agricultural research. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 7, 105-110.

Braund, D.G. (1995). Changing paradigms in animal agriculture: The role of academia and industry in technology transfer. Journal of Animal Science, 73, 3173-3177.

Extension Service (1941). History of Cooperative Extension Work in Michigan, 1914-1939. Extension Bulletin E-229. East Lansing: Michigan State College.

Gerber, J.M. (1992). Farmer participation in research: A model for adaptive research and education. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 3, 118-121.

Habeeb, M., Birkenholz, R.J. & Weston, C.R. (1987). Clientele group and Extension council officer perceptions of the Cooperative Agricultural Extension Service. Journal of the American Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture, 28(4), 15-20.

Israel, G. (1991). Reaching Extension's clientele: Exploring patterns of preferred information channels among small farm operators. Southern Rural Sociology, 8, 15-32.

Lavis, K.R., & Blackburn, D. J. (1990). Extension clientele satisfaction. Journal of Extension, 28, 36.

Leholm, A., Hamm, L., Suvedi, M., Gray, I., & Poston, F.(1999). Area of Expertise Teams: The Michigan approach to applied research and Extension. Journal of Extension, 37 (3).

Meadowbrook, A., & Fletcher, R.L. (1988). It's worth the effort: understanding our clients. Journal of Extension, 26, 18-19.

Michigan State University Extension (1994, December). Update on implementation of Area of Expertise and core competency.

North Dakota State University (1996). North Dakota State University (1996). Internal and external assessment of the NDSU Extension Service full report. Fargo: North Dakota State University Extension.

Schnitkey, G., Batte, M., Jones, E. & Botomogno, J. (1992). Information preferences of Ohio commercial farmers: Implications for Extension. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74, 486-497.

Warner, P., & Christenson, J. (1984). The Cooperative Extension Service - -A national assessment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Warnock, P. (1992). Surveying client satisfaction: Florida counties study their information services. Journal of Extension, 30, 9-11.

Virginia's Sustainable Harvesting and Resource Professional (SHARP) Logger training and education program began in 1995 as part of the American Forest and Paper Association's (AF&PA) Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) (AF&PA, 1998). This nationwide program is aimed at strengthening the forest industry's commitment to sustainable forestry and includes extensive logger and forest landowner education and training. In Virginia, the SFI is a cooperative effort of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Forestry Extension, the Virginia Forestry Association, the Virginia Logger's Council. and Virginia-based AF&PA member companies.

The SHARP Logger program, designed by Virginia Tech Forestry Extension specialists, consists of three core educational modules, each involving six hours of instruction in a discussion-leader format:

Logging safety--topics include first aid review, overview of OSHA Logging Safety Standards, logging equipment safety, log truck safety, and chainsaw safety(hazard recognition). Classroom format.

Logging business management--includes business structure, recordkeeping, and cost analysis, taxes, and cash flow management, equipment financing, personnel management, insurance, independent contractor status, overview of forest management, and environmental laws and regulations. Classroom format.

Harvest planning and forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs)--includes comprehensive timber harvest planning and proper implementation of BMP's. Field exercise.

Program sessions were presented at 16 locations across the Commonwealth, often at community colleges. Class sizes ranged from 20 to 50 participants. The direct cost of the training was funded by the cooperating forest industry firms. Participating loggers did not pay a registration fee. By the end of 1997, 1,962 individuals, representing 781 logging firms, had attended one or more training sessions. All three modules were completed by 408 loggers, thus earning them SHARP Logger status.

In early 1998, at the end of the program's third year, Virginia Tech's Forestry Extension personnel conducted a post-training evaluation of the program. The objective of the evaluation was to determine the extent to which loggers had made changes that improved their operation as a direct result of the SHARP Logger training.

Fifty Virginia loggers who had completed the SHARP Logger program were randomly selected to participate in the evaluation survey. Foresters from AF&PA member companies completed the survey through on-site interviews and observations at the loggers' current job sites.

The evaluation survey was divided into four basic sections. The first three covered the safety, business management, and harvest planning modules. The final section allowed the forester conducting the interview to make some observations about safety, harvest planning, and water quality protection at the logger's current job site, providing the opportunity to corroborate the comments of the logger with independent observations by the interviewing forester.

Each section of the survey included questions designed to determine whether the SHARP Logger program had improved the logger's business operation. Loggers are asked to describe specific changes, if any, that were made as a result of the training. The survey also included a question that gauged the logger's overall satisfaction with the SHARP program. Survey responses were entered into a database for summary and analysis. A copy of the survey form is available upon request from the author.

Of the 50 SHARP Logger graduates randomly chosen for the evaluation interviews, six (12%) had either moved out of state or had gone out of business. Thus, the evaluation results are based on 44 completed on-site interviews. Overall, 86% of the loggers interviewed reported that some specific aspect of their operation had improved as a result of attending the training. Fifty-five percent believed the training was of "much" benefit, while 41% believed it was of "some" benefit. The remaining 4% split evenly among the belief that the training was of "little" or "no" benefit. Survey results are summarized and discussed according to the following areas: (a) safety, (b) business management, and (c) harvest planning/BMP's. Table 1 summarizes actual changes instituted as a result of SHARP training.

Fifty-seven percent of respondents believed that the safety of their operation improved after they attended the SHARP program, and 82% described at least one new safety practice implemented following the training.

The safety practices most commonly adopted following SHARP training were the increased use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and safety talks with employees. As highlighted in Table 2, other practices such as the use of safer equipment were also successfully promoted by SHARP training.

Observations of the foresters who conducted the interviews indicate that a majority of the sample loggers (71%) used appropriate PPE, although unsafe acts or conditions were noted at 6 of 44 job sites.

A noteworthy effect of the training is a marked increase in safety awareness. This increased attentiveness to safety issues undoubtedly contributes to other trends such as greater PPE usage. Increased awareness is most effective when loggers are armed with an understanding of issues such as the industry safety record, regulations, and the impact of safety upon operating costs. This knowledge provides the logger with the level of information necessary to weigh costs and benefits and choose an appropriate course of action. SHARP training appears to be effective in this respect. However, long-term study of actual safety records is necessary to completely evaluate the program.

In contrast to the markedly positive opinion about other aspects of SHARP Logger training, only 28% of the participants believed that the business management aspect of their operation had improved. However, 45% believed that SHARP training provided information that helped them manage their business more effectively, and 59% instituted changes in their business management practices following the SHARP Logger training. Table 3 lists the most common changes.

Loggers respond well to educational programs that provide immediate, tangible benefits (Schmidt and Blinn,1994). Accordingly, a number of loggers took the initiative to search for lower workers' compensation insurance rates. Searching for lower insurance rates requires little time and creates the prospect of immediate financial gains. Conversely, other changes in business management may be perceived as difficult to achieve with less obvious benefits. For example, switching to a computer for recordkeeping is initially expensive and may not seem worth the trouble for loggers who are accustomed to their present manual system.

Survey results indicate that SHARP Logger training in business management was moderately successful in informing loggers of ways to improve the management of their business. However, emphasizing and more clearly demonstrating the potential benefits of improved management may be worth considering in future programs as a way to increase adoption.

Eighty-six percent of the participants believed that the SHARP Logger training improved their harvest planning and BMP implementation. An impressive 95% had planned their current operation. Observations of the interviewing foresters corroborate this finding. Ninety-five percent of the job sites visited appeared to be well planned and using appropriate BMPs. Planning skid trails and deck locations topped the list of changes enacted following SHARP Logger training, as indicated in Table 4. Participants also frequently mentioned planning stream crossings as a change in their operation. Some examples include selecting a crossing method before beginning a harvest and planning skid trails to minimize stream crossings.

Logger comments suggest that SHARP Logger participants recognize the value of harvest planning. One logger remarked, "By prior location of haul roads . . . as well as deck location and through the use of logging mats I was able to work a tract during extremely wet weather without harming the land at all." Overall, 70% of the participants reported recent examples of harvest planning having a positive impact on their operation. Table 5 lists the most common examples.

At the time of the survey, all 44 of the sample SHARP loggers were in full compliance with Virginia's Forestry Water Quality Law.

Overall, the Virginia SHARP Logger Training and Education Program successfully fulfilled its objective of presenting information that participants adopt to improve their business operations and ensure sustainable forestry. Opinions of the program were generally favorable and a majority of the participants noted improvements in their operations as a result of completing the program.

In some cases, the percentage of loggers with a highly favorable opinion of the program was slightly smaller than the percentage who enacted changes to improve their operation following the training. One possible explanation for this may be a lack of enthusiasm for the classroom setting. Most loggers are not accustomed to classroom instruction and may have had difficulty maintaining their interest in such an environment. Interactive presentations, examples derived from other loggers' experiences, and hands-on demonstrations offer potential solutions to this problem.

Safety training was successful and resulted in significant improvement in safety practices. Loggers are gradually accepting PPE and other safety equipment, but continued emphasis on safety is necessary. Continued attention to safety practices will be necessary for the logging industry to bring its safety record into line with other industries.

The SHARP Logger business management training was effective in generating some positive change. However, the level of enthusiasm for this part of the training