|
December 2002
|
       |
Ideas at WorkInformation Technology Adoption in Agricultural Operations: A Progression PathDaniel C. Thomas Dale W. Callahan University of Alabama at Birmingham Technology Utilization: Current State and Future NeedThe U.S. Agriculture Industry has not been left out of the "information revolution" that has been taking place over the past 20 years. For example, a cursory search of the Internet yields a long list of software companies that produce sophisticated software to assist agricultural producers in managing the farm (e.g., herd management, financial/accounting). Research (Findlay, Zabawa, Morris, & Oben, 1993: Schmidt, Rockwell, Bitney, & Sarno, 1994) indicates that during the 1980s and early 1990s, farmers largely were not taking advantage of information technology (IT). Blezinger's (2001) experience with cattle operations showed that many operations are not keeping good records, which suggests the operations are not utilizing IT. Discussions at the 1999 EFITA (European Federation for Information Technology in Agriculture) Conference (Gelb, Schiefer, Parker, & Rosskopf, 2000), suggest that, while many factors impact IT adoption, it is critical, both now and in the future, that IT be utilized in agricultural operations. One speaker at the conference used the word "dictate" to indicate the criticality of IT adoption. While the concept of IT can represent many different functions, most agricultural operators will, arguably, maximize utility from record-keeping functionality to support strategic, tactical, and operational management of the farm. A Progression Path for Technology AdoptionThe fact is that many agricultural operations are short on information technology. Leaping into new technologies can have substantial impact on productivity, both positive and negative. The right choices taken at the right time are crucial. So a question is raised: How can we help a farmer adopt IT tools that will assist in the management of the agricultural operation? Progression Path Definition This article proposes that a "Progression Path" framework can be defined as an evaluation tool to assist with IT adoption in agricultural operations. This framework could be used to:
The basic stepping stones for this path cover a wide spectrum, ranging from no IT to a networked, multi-user IT environment. The five steps are defined as follows.
Why a Progression Path? There are at least three reasons why this concept of a "Progression Path" can be used to assist a farmer in realizing the benefits of IT. Incremental Change Given that humans resist change, especially when the level of change is significant, this progression path allows for small steps as opposed to giant leaps. For example, it is unlikely that a Step I farmer with no PC experience will purchase a PC with herd-management software and use it to manage the herd. It is more likely that such a farmer would begin the record-keeping journey by writing information on paper. Incremental Expenditures Each step along the path requires expenditures for equipment and tools. Skipping steps will stack expenditures all at once. The expenditures at the lower steps will likely focus on operational equipment and tools that will be needed to produce the data required at later steps. For example, the Step I farmer likely does not weigh calves or yearlings because he is not keeping up with that data. Knowing that Step IV tools can maintain such information, the farmer can purchase scales at Step II, where IT expenditures are virtually nonexistent, to allow for weighing animals and institute that process on his farm. Expenditures at the higher steps will shift towards IT equipment and tools. For example, Step III calls for a PC to be purchased while Step IV calls for extra software. Incremental Build Most of the expenditures and operational processes adopted at a given step will not be lost with migration to the next step. In fact, most of the operational processes adopted in a particular step are actually in preparation for the next step. Similarly, records kept at a given step can be expanded upon in later steps. Migration Process When using the Progression Path framework to assist with IT adoption, a migration process is needed to guide the development and execution of the farmer-specific "step migration plan." As intimated above, the basic migration process would be:
During the migration process, time spent in a given step should be long enough to ensure that both operational processes and IT tools are used consistently and effectively. It is suggested that a farmer stay in each step for at least 2 years. This allows a year for adoption of the current step's technology and operations, followed by a year of planning to take the next step. That means that at least a 5-year commitment is needed to move from Step I to Step IV. Implications for ExtensionExtension professionals can use this Progression Path in at least two ways, as an evaluation tool and in program development. Individual agents can use an understanding of this framework when working with a farmer to quickly assess the step on the path that best represents his/her IT utilization and associated operational processes. The agent can then counsel the producer on preparing to move to the next step in the path. The agent can also target producers for the appropriate level of step-based training or educational sessions. The aforementioned training or educational programs can be developed based on the framework. These programs would seek to increase both IT adoption and retention. Alternatively, the framework could be used as supplemental information in existing programs that deal with operational processes and technologies. It should be noted that, while this research was focused specifically on beef cattle operations, the stepping-stones of the "Path" represent a framework that could easily be applied to other agricultural operations, including crop production operations. Obviously, the details could vary greatly between particular operations' migration paths in terms of software tools and supporting operational process but the framework would still apply. ReferencesBlezinger, S. (2001). Many tools are available to help build a quality herd. Cattle Today Online [On-line]. May 2001. Available at: http://cattletoday.com/archive/2001/May/CT147.shtml Findlay, H. J., Zabawa, R., Morris, C. E., & Oben, M. (1993). Computer awareness among limited-resource farmers. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 31(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1993spring/a8.html Gelb, E., Schiefer, G., Parker, C., & Rosskopf, K. (2000). Why is the IT adoption rate by farmers so slow? 1999 EFITA Conference. Retrieved at: http://www.efita.dk/papers/ep4/EfitaPaper-4.asp Schmidt, D., Rockwell, S. K., Bitney, L., & Sarno, E. A. (1994). Farmers adopt microcomputers in the 1980s: Educational needs surface for the 1990s. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 32(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1994june/a9.html
Understanding Stepfamilies: Family Life Education for Community ProfessionalsFrancesca Adler-Baeder IntroductionExtension educators can broaden efforts to positively affect family's experiences and children's development by delivering programs on relevant and recent family life research to community professionals. This represents a "second tier" of family life education and fits within an ecological perspective on human development. This theoretical framework recognizes multi-level environmental influences on human development. Specifically, community professionals represent factors outside the family that can affect family functioning. "Understanding Stepfamilies: Information and Strategies" is a 4-hour research update seminar for professionals who work with children and families. Responses to the program indicate receptiveness to similar Extension programs targeting professionals. Rationale for the Program on StepfamiliesRationale for developing a professional seminar on stepfamilies centers on the following. The Predominance of Stepfamilies Many individuals, even those who work with children and families, hold on to the traditional family form as the predominant family structure in the U.S. and do not recognize the trend of increasing family type diversity, particularly the predominance of stepfamilies (Ganong & Coleman, 1997). Approximately half of marriages each year are remarriages for one or both partners; approximately 65% of these involve children (Cherlin, 1992). Overall, estimates are that half of Americans today are or will be in a step relationship in their lifetime (Larson, 1992; Pasley, 2001). Negative Attitudes Towards Stepfamilies Continue to Exist Biases in favor of first families persist. Specifically, teachers, counselors, and peers hold negative stereotypes of stepfamilies (e.g., Crosbie-Burnett, 1995). Ganong and Coleman (1997) posit that societal views (i.e., stereotypes, myths) indirectly impact relationships in families by influencing the social support stepfamilies receive. Low social support is associated with poor family functioning. Children, especially, feel distress when they feel they "don't fit in" (i.e., low social acceptance). Community Practices Fail to Acknowledge Stepfamily Structure Stepfamilies are an "undeveloped institution" without established norms that prescribe roles and rules or institutional support for its structure. This is evident in programs, services, and organizations that work with families. For example, most forms regarding the child do not provide a structure that allows inclusion of stepparent information or more than one household address (Bainbridge, 2000). Stepparents have unclear legal relationships and financial obligations to stepchildren. In general, most institutions and organizations continue to assume a nuclear family model in attitude and practice. The Relative Newness of the Research Research on stepfamilies is a comparatively new area of investigation in the social sciences, with the majority of current knowledge about stepfamilies coming from the last decade and a half of research (Pasley, 2001). It is therefore not surprising that professionals working with families (e.g., teachers, social workers, childcare providers, counselors, attorneys) may not have a solid working knowledge of the research on stepfamily experiences, due to the likelihood that their program of study did not include information on the study of stepfamilies. Developing the ProgramGiven these factors, stepfamily functioning is an important topic for a family life education seminar for professionals and an opportunity for meaningful outreach. Greater community support, understanding, and validation of stepfamily members' experiences can provide much in the way of healthy child and family development. The Understanding Stepfamilies program resulted from an interdisciplinary review of the research literature on stepfamilies. The structure of the seminar consists of three parts:
Additionally, the program development incorporated ideas for effective adult learning (Johnson, 1991) by balancing didactic delivery with experiential activities, small and large group discussions, and the use of different media (e.g., PowerPoint, video). Response to the ProgramData are from 127 participants across six 4-hour seminars conducted during the period of March-December 2000 (69% return rate from the 183 attendees). Respondents were:
Participants rated aspects of the program using a 5-point Likert scale (1-5; poor to excellent). Table 1 shows the mean scores on each factor.
Following the program, participants rated their level of knowledge about stepfamilies before and after the program on a 5-point Likert scale, using a post pre/post pair of questions (Rockwell & Kohn, 1989). After the workshop, they rated their level of knowledge of stepfamily functioning prior to attending the workshop and after the program. A paired-samples t-test showed a significant change in this global measure item from an average of 1.4 before the workshop to 4.3 after the workshop (t=54.56; p <= .0001). Qualitative comments included the following. About the program design and delivery:
About the relevance of the information:
SummaryVarious factors support an increased emphasis on stepfamily research for Family Life Educators. Additionally, targeting community professionals who work with families is warranted (e.g., Ganong & Coleman, 1997) and represents a second tier of education the potential for a broader range of impact. A description of "Understanding Stepfamilies" professional education workshop is offered for replication for agents and specialists. Participants responded positively to the program's structure and content, and indicated improved knowledge of stepfamily dynamics on a global measure. Follow-up evaluation will determine the extent to which program participation impacts participants' work with families. ReferencesBainbridge, W. (2000). One student, two homes, sometimes two schools, Today's School Psychologist, 4. Belsky, J. (1993). Etiology of child maltreatment: A developmental-ecological analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 413-434. Cherlin, A.J. (1992). Marriage, divorce, remarriage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Crosbie-Burnett, M. (1995). The interface between stepparent families and schools: Research, theory, policy, and practice. In K. Pasley & M. Ihinger-Tallman (Eds.), Remarriage and stepparenting: Current research and theory. (pp. 199-216). NY: Guilford Press. Ganong, L.H., & Coleman, M. (1997). How society views stepfamilies. Marriage and Family Review, 26,(1-2), 85-106. Johnson, D. (1991). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. MN: Interaction Book Co. Larson, J. (1992). Understanding stepfamilies. American Demographics, 14, 36-39. Pasley, K. (2001, February). The changing face of American families. Invited plenary presentation at the First National Conference on Stepfamilies, New Orleans, LA. Rockwell, S.K. & Kohn, H. (1989). Post-then-pre evaluation: Measuring behavior change more accurately. Journal of Extension [On-line], 27(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1989summer/a5.html
Using Agriculture as the Foundation for an Extension Nutrition Education ProgramLuanne J. Hughes IntroductionCommunity Supported Agriculture (CSA) is based on the principle that the future success of our farms is dependent upon the relationships between farmers and an expanding non-agricultural population. And, in many ways, the future success of our communities can be cultivated by strengthening our connection with our agricultural roots. Building on this concept of community (linking farmers with consumers), Rutgers Cooperative Extension (RCE) created a nutrition and agriculture education initiative for children ages 3 to 8 called "From Our Farms." From Our Farms promotes improved nutrition and consumption of locally grown foods (which will, in turn, sustain the economic viability of local farms) through a series of family-based activities that are offered through local libraries. What Is CSA and How Does It Work?CSA farming has been gaining momentum since its introduction in the United States in the mid-1980s. The CSA concept originated in the 1960s in Switzerland and Japan, where consumers interested in safe food and farmers seeking stable markets for crops joined together in economic partnerships. Today, CSA farms in the U.S. number more than 400. Most are located near urban centers in New England, the Mid-Atlantic states, and the Great Lakes region, with growing numbers in other areas, including the West Coast. A CSA farm is made up of a community of individuals who pledge support to a farm operation so that the farmland becomes, either legally or spiritually, the community's farm. Both growers and consumers provide mutual support and share the risks and benefits of food production. Typically, members or "share-holders" of the farm pledge in advance to cover the anticipated costs of the farm operation and farmer's salary. In return, they receive shares in the farm's bounty throughout the growing season, as well as satisfaction from reconnecting to the land and participating directly in food production. Bringing the Farm to the People . . . and the People to the FarmHelping people understand where their food comes from is one way to help them explore food options and incorporate more fresh foods into their diets. This approach to nutrition education can be a savvy, appealing, and marketable way to interest consumers in nutrition and nutrition education programs. From Our Farms does not serve as a CSA farm or farm market. Instead, it applies the principles of CSA to teach consumers about food, nutrition and the farm. It involves the community in agriculture (something with which many consumers are not familiar); introduces consumers to locally grown foods and farms; and teaches them why those foods are good for us. The program has four key objectives:
Project SummaryFrom Our Farms operates through nine local libraries. It offers parents and children a series of inter-related activities to teach nutrition and agriculture. There are two key components. From Our Farms Learning Boxes Children (and their parents) learn about food, nutrition, and the farm with From Our Farms learning boxes, available through libraries. Learning boxes are themed learning kits. They include instructional materials that serve a variety of learning styles, including games, puppets, audio and/or videotapes, puzzles, and farm- and food-focused storybooks. Boxes also include family fun pages and activity sheets, developed by Rutgers Cooperative Extension. Fun pages (textbooks) and activity sheets (workbooks) contain a series of lessons and activities for parents and children to work on at home, in conjunction with the storybooks and other materials in the boxes. Parents use the boxes with children at home, where they read stories and play games that teach about food, nutrition, and agriculture. Then, they complete a series of lessons and hands-on activities outlined in the fun pages and activity sheets. (They grow vegetables; visit local farm stands and grocery stores; count/sort fruit; taste and compare different varieties of tomatoes; and so forth.) There are three different learning boxes, vegetables, fruits, and dairy cows. Educational messages for each box emphasize how foods are grown or produced, local farms that grow/raise the commodity, the nutritional value of the commodity and the role it plays in a healthful diet, where to find the commodity, and how to select and prepare the commodity. All messages are kid-focused, with "FYI" tidbits on agriculture and nutrition included for parents. From Our Farms Family Activity Days Multiple educational workshops are offered each year to complement the learning boxes. Activity days incorporate hands-on activities to teach children and parents what foods are produced locally; how vegetables, fruit and animal products are grown; and how to select, use, and prepare agricultural products. In an era when consumers are becoming farther and farther removed from the basics of where their food comes from, From Our Farms' agrarian and back-to-nature appeal has attracted the interest of parents, children, community groups, farmers, and government officials, alike. Initial Survey ResultsAn in-depth applied research intervention will be initiated in 2003. An initial follow-up telephone survey of 250 From Our Farms participants revealed that participation in the program resulted in the following behavior changes, based on a response rate of 18% (n=46).
For more information on the From Our Farms project, including ordering information, contact the author at the e-mail address above or call 856/307-6450, extension 2. ReferencesAbel, J., Thomson, J., & Maretzki, A. (1999). Extension's role with farmers' markets: Working with farmers, consumers and communities. Journal of Extension [On-line], 37(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999october/a4.html Crockett, S. J., & Sims, L. S. (1995). Environmental influences on children's eating. Journal of Nutrition Education, 27(5), 235-249. Francis, M., et al. (1995). The healing dimensions of people-plant relations: A research symposium (proceedings). Center for Design Research, Landscape Architecture Program, University of California, Davis. Hahn, N. I. (1997). Growing a healthy food system: Rebuilding connections between farmers and consumers. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 97(9), 949-950. Lytle, L., & Achterberg, C. (1995). Changing the diet of America's children: What works and why? Journal of Nutrition Education, 27(5), 250-260. Trissler, R. J. (1998). Setting up a library book box: A how-to for dietetics professionals. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 30(11), 289.
Extension Programs Increased Missouri Cotton Farmer Use of Survey-Based Pest ManagementJ. Allen Wrather Michael L. Boyd J. Andrew Kendig Ray A. Nabors University of Missouri-Delta Center IntroductionPests such as weeds, insects, and diseases reduced Missouri cotton production by millions of pounds of lint each year in the early 1980's (Boyd and Wrather 2002). Cotton farmers had several pest management practices to choose from, such as crop rotation, planting resistant cultivars, and pesticides, but most farmers made decisions about pest management without knowledge of the pest problems in their fields. This resulted in lower yields because of inadequate pest management and ineffective and often unnecessary use of various pest management strategies. In 1982, only 5% of Missouri cotton farmers surveyed their fields for pests and used this information when selecting pest management strategies, i.e., survey based pest management (SBPM). That year, the Cotton Pest Management Team in Missouri initiated a program to teach Missouri cotton farmers and other members of the agriculture community about the benefits of scouting fields for pests and using these results to select pest management strategies. MethodsFrom 1982 to 1999, the team members provided instruction to farmers and other members of the agriculture community on scouting cotton fields for pests and the usefulness of this information when selecting pest management strategies. Instruction was provided through individual consultations, group presentations, news reports, newsletters, videotapes, pamphlets, field day presentations, displays, class lectures, and the World Wide Web: http://aes.missouri.edu/delta/. The University Cotton Pest Management Team received support for this program from the University of Missouri Delta Center Advisory Board, Cotton Incorporated, University Extension Councils in cotton-producing counties, Missouri Cotton Producers Association, and the National Cotton Foundation. Funding was provided by Cotton Incorporated, University Extension, and the Cotton Foundation. In 1999, 3% of the 2,200 cotton farmers in Missouri were selected at random and surveyed by phone (Dillman, 1978) to determine their use of SBPM. Results and DiscussionIn 1999, Missouri cotton farmers used pest survey data when selecting cotton pest management strategies for 82% of cotton acres in the state. The reasons some Missouri farmers did not use the results of cotton field pest surveys when selecting pest management strategies was not determined. Cotton yields in fields where pest management decisions were made using pest surveys were conservatively estimated to be 50 pounds (lint) per acre greater than in fields where pest management decisions were made without prior knowledge of the pest population present in the field (Boyd & Wrather, 2002). The cotton yield increase in Missouri due to use of pest surveys in 1999 [(82% of 377,000 acres) × 50 pounds of lint at $.65/pound] was valued at $10.0 million. This is the first report indicating the impact of an Extension program designed to instruct farmers about the benefits of using pest survey data when selecting pest management strategies. ReferencesBoyd, M. L. & Wrather, A. (2002). Scouting cotton for insects and diseases and management strategies. Extension manual IPM 1021, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO. Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Copyright © by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. Articles appearing in the Journal become the property of the Journal. Single copies of articles may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use in educational or training activities. Inclusion of articles in other publications, electronic sources, or systematic large-scale distribution may be done only with prior electronic or written permission of the Journal Editorial Office, joe-ed@joe.org. |