April 2003
Volume 41 Number 2

Ideas at Work

Integrating Value-Added Research with Field Management Practice: An Effective Extension Mechanism at the University of Maryland

Y. Martin Lo
Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist, Food Processing and Safety
Department of Nutrition and Food Science
Internet Address: ymlo@umd.edu

John E. Hall
Extension Educator, Kent County
Agricultural Science
Internet Address: jh8@umail.umd.edu

Robert J. Kratochvil
Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist, Field Crops
Department of Natural Resource Sciences and Landscape Architecture
Internet Address: rk32@umail.umd.edu

William J. Kenworthy
Professor, Soybean Genetics and Breeding
Department of Natural Resource Sciences and Landscape Architecture
Internet Address: wk7@umail.umd.edu

Julia A. Radinsky
Research Associate, Food Quality and Processing
Department of Nutrition and Food Science
Internet Address: jradinsk@wam.umd.edu

Eric B. Johnson
Director, Chesapeake Fields Institute
Internet Address: chesapeakefields@mail2farmer.com

Maryland Cooperative Extension
University of Maryland
College Park - Eastern Shore, Maryland

Introduction

The Upper Eastern Shore (UES) of Maryland, also known as the corn-belt of the Mid-Atlantic, produces corn, soybeans, and wheat as its principal agronomic crops. Currently, almost all of these grains are sold to a commodity market, with most being used by the large poultry broiler industry located on the Delmarva Peninsula. Recently, losses in local buying competition coupled with national overproduction of these commodities have reduced the prices received by UES farmers for these commodities. Data indicate that UES farmers are currently experiencing negative cash flows, with many farmers leaving the industry altogether.

The traditional focus by farmers on producing quantity, as opposed to quality, must be reversed to ensure that a sustainable and more profitable agricultural industry will exist. Current commodity grain price forecasts have little bullish news. Compounding this is the fact that Third World countries continue to provide strong competition, thereby driving prices even lower. Farm Credit data drawn from area farmers also paints a dismal picture, indicating that cash grains have showed a negative cash flow for 6 out of the past 9 years.

If our farmers are going to become profitable, and if land and natural resources are to be preserved through a sustainable agricultural community, it is important for value-added products and new markets to be identified. On-going, sophisticated research is required to identify value-added products as well as locate profitable niche markets.

Development of the Mechanism

In the wake of this agricultural crisis, the Maryland Cooperative Extension (MCE) teamed with the Chesapeake Fields Institute (CFI), a 501(c)(3) organization chartered in the year 2000 to address the loss of profitability in traditional agricultural markets throughout UES farms. By working with local agribusiness, government officials, and community leaders, MCE and CFI have developed a strategic plan for a comprehensive project that will result in UES farmers gaining knowledge and skills that will move them toward greater sustainability.

The long-term objective of this project is to enable UES farmers to engage in the production of alternative crops through which value-added enhancements are to be achieved. Subsequently, a sustainable/profitable agricultural community will emerge. The research outcomes from this project are expected to contribute to the knowledge of alternative crop production and value-added product development. Ultimately, achievement of the long-term objective will result in preservation of the land through environmentally sound farming practice that is profitable.

The short-term objectives are to:

1. Develop an integrated quality assessment methodology,

2. Incorporate the quality assessment methodology into production practices, and

3. Establish a baseline against which food quality may be measured.

To accomplish these objectives, MCE has assembled a team of researchers at the University of Maryland that possess rich backgrounds in cereal chemistry, plant genetics, crop production, food science, and market feasibility. This diverse set of academic backgrounds ensures a comprehensive approach to developing value-added products and markets. To date, this team has received some major grants to finance the project. Not only will the information generated from this research be disseminated to the UES farmers, but also manuscripts based on the research outcomes will be prepared for publication in appropriate scientific journals.

This integrated mechanism consists of four stages:

• Crop Production (Stage 1): Initial crop production projects are focused upon wheat and soybeans. Of particular interest is the effect that management practices will have upon both the quality and the seed composition of hard red winter wheat, because it is the quality that will garner farmers premiums. A large number of specialty wheat varieties are being grown at a number of Maryland locations to determine their adaptability to the region. For soybeans, a number of varieties that have enhanced protein, a greater than normal oil content, and a more desirable fatty acid composition are under investigation.

• Laboratory Analysis (Stage 2): Harvested grain samples from the crop production stage are submitted for laboratory analysis immediately following their respective harvests. This is the key stage in identifying value-added applications of the crops. An in-depth texture characterization with regard to protein quality and potential applications is in progress to verify each and every applicable area. Correlations between the composition profile and product quality will be evaluated against the cultivars and management programs employed.

• Crop Enhancements/Changes (Stage 3): The results from the laboratory analyses will be used to determine whether crop production management practices should be changed in order to obtain grain quality. Fertility enhancements, variety modifications, and tillage enhancements/changes for wheat could be made prior to planting in October, and for soybeans in May/June.

• Market Feasibility Studies (Stage 4): Repeated for wheat, corn, and soybeans as value-added products are identified in Stage 2. A market feasibility study will be conducted to determine the potential market(s) for the proposed product as well as the facility needs, capital and financing requirements, and potential costs/returns. As part of the feasibility study, surveying of area producers and regional manufacturers will take place.

Conclusions

What makes this mechanism unique is the fact that farmers are involved in a research-oriented effort that will facilitate adding value to their crops. This mechanism is innovative in that it is the result of major collaborations with area farmers, Extension offices, government officials, and academic institutions from all over Maryland. As a measurable outcome, this mechanism is expected to directly lead to improved and more profitable farming practices, as well as enhanced quality of life for Maryland UES farmers and their rural communities.

Implementing a 4-H Aquatic Resources Education Program in New York City Through Collaborations

Stephen C. Brown
Assistant Professor
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences
University of Texas at San Antonio
Internet Address: scbrown@ksu.edu

Gretchen Ferenz
Leader, Environmental Revitalization and Management Issues
Senior Extension Associate
Cornell University Cooperative Extension - New York City
Internet Address: gsf4@cornell.edu

Marianne E. Krasny
State Program Leader, 4-H Natural Resources
Associate Professor
Department of Natural Resources
Cornell University
Internet Address: mek2@cornell.edu

Carolyn Tse
Extension Associate
Cornell University Cooperative Extension - New York City
Internet Address: cct2@cornell.edu

New York State's Success and Challenges with Aquatic Resources Education

In 1989, Cornell University Cooperative Extension and the New York State (NYS) Department of Environmental Conservation developed an aquatic resources education program for youth known as the "NYS 4-H Sportfishing and Aquatic Resources Education Program" (SAREP). The purpose of SAREP is to instill in youth an appreciation and understanding of the state's aquatic resources. Most commonly this is achieved by teaching youth angling skills and water-related 4-H projects.

The program works by recruiting volunteers from across NYS to participate in weekend-long training programs. Once trained, these Extension volunteers then work with youth in local counties by forming "SAREP clubs" that follow the traditional rural 4-H club model. Since 1989, approximately 35,000 youth a year have been involved in SAREP clubs or activities throughout NYS.

However, in New York City (NYC) only a handful of SAREP clubs had been formed by 1997. NYC enjoys an extensive 4-H program, but it is not based upon the traditional 4-H club scenario. Consequently, there are very few traditional 4-H club leaders in New York City from which to recruit SAREP volunteers. Additionally, 4-H in NYC does not benefit from the recognition and informal communication networks often found in rural communities (Christenson & Warner, 1985; Warner, Christenson, Dillman, & Salant, 1996). This makes volunteer recruitment even more difficult.

As a result, the Cornell SAREP leadership did not see how the program could be implemented on a large scale citywide. For SAREP in NYC to attain participation levels equivalent to upstate New York, a non-traditional approach was needed.

SAREP in the City: A Collaborative Approach

Many organizations in NYC have well-established youth-serving programs with similar goals as 4-H's, including teaching youth to understand and appreciate the environment. Rather than trying to implement a "new" organizational structure in NYC (the traditional 4-H club system), Cornell Cooperative Extension -- New York City (CCE-NYC) and SAREP decided to collaborate with existing youth serving organizations.

Organizations that did or might have an interest in aquatic education were identified as potential collaborators. Identified collaborators were then invited to an organizational meeting where we discussed how collaborating with SAREP could further their own organizational goals as well as those of SAREP.

In the summer of 1998 at Prospect Park, Brooklyn, SAREP conducted a 2-day instructor training. Twenty-five representatives from eight partnering organizations attended the training, including: Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Prospect Park Alliance, Urban Park Rangers, Police Athletic League, Girls Club, Boys Club, and the YMCA/Environmental Service Corps. Following the training, the 25 participating instructors then conducted SAREP programs through their collaborating organizations and reached more than 15,000 youth and 4,000 adults between June and December 1998.

An example program includes one with the Girl Scouts where over 1,000 girls completed the 4-H project "Pond and Stream Safari" (Edelstein, 1993) in pursuit of Girl Scout badges. The Prospect Park Alliance in Brooklyn successfully conducted a weeklong catch-and-release fishing contest reaching over 2,500 youth. Participating youth were given SAREP educational materials and attended workshops on aquatic ecology and ethical fishing behavior as part of the contest.

By 2002, more than 100 staff and volunteers from 17 NYC organizations were collaborating with SAREP and CCE-NYC, and attending SAREP trainings. It is conservatively estimated that more than 40,000 NYC youth a year are now involved in SAREP programs conducted by the collaborating organizations.

Benefits and Drawbacks of a Collaborative Approach to 4-H and SAREP

In contrast to the traditional 4-H Club model, benefits of a multi-agency collaborative approach to SAREP in NYC include:

• Greater participant numbers,
• Establishment of a local SAREP-NYC network,
• Decreased program costs,
• Increased program publicity, and
• Greater acceptance of the SAREP program by its primary public funding partner, the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation.

Such collaborations are more likely to achieve program objectives, access diverse resources, and provide the opportunity for greater expansion in the urban environment. Because of the diversity of organizations that collaborate with SAREP for conducting urban programs, CCE-NYC is also more competitive when applying for additional grant monies to enhance its program.

A less positive aspect of this collaboration, however, is that Cornell Cooperative Extension's identity as the lead agency could become diluted. Collaborations also require a considerable investment in time to manage, maintain, and expand.

References

Christenson, J.A., & Warner, P.D. (1985). Extension's future is today, Journal of Extension [On-line], 23(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1985summer/a6.html

Edelstein, K.L., 1993. Pond and stream safari: A guide to the ecology of aquatic invertebrates (Experience 4-H Natural Resources Series), Cornell University Cooperative Extension, Ithaca, New York. Available through: http://www.dnr.cornell.edu/ext/youth/pubs.htm

Warner, P.D., Christenson, J.A., Dillman, D.A., & Salant, P. (1996). P. Public perception of Extension, Journal of Extension [On-line], 34(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1996august/a1.html

Collaborations for the Community: The Partnership of Extension and Pharmacy

Bella Mehta
Assistant Professor, Clinical
College of Pharmacy
Internet Address: mehta.6@osu.edu

Kathy Reschke
Assistant Professor, Human Development and Family Sciences
Extension State Specialist, Early Childhood/Child Care
College of Human Ecology

Gerald Cable
Director, Professional Experience Programs
College of Pharmacy

Joyce McDowell
Interim Assistant Director and Associate Professor
OSU Extension, Family and Consumer Sciences

The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio

Background

The Ohio State University (OSU), a land-grant institution, has a strong tradition of excellence in teaching, research, and service, and a commitment to advance the well-being of Ohioans and the global community through the creation and dissemination of knowledge. Individually, each college exhibits distinction in its respective field; however, together, they all contribute to growth and development of our communities throughout Ohio and beyond its boundaries.

Within the university, the College of Pharmacy (Pharmacy) has been successful in acquiring ongoing research support and is nationally recognized as a leader in community pharmacy. Within the community, Pharmacy faculty and students participate in established service-learning experiences including:

• Patient education to diabetes support groups
• Medication management and counseling to senior citizens
• Medication safety discussions at elementary schools

OSU Extension (Extension) faculty and professionals are recognized within the communities they serve as trusted sources of research-based information. They have a long history of effective community-based, non-formal education programming targeting financial management, nutrition, food safety, childcare, child development, and community health issues.

In 1999, because both the College of Pharmacy and OSU Extension were committed to addressing community health issues, administrators and selected faculty began to discuss ways to partner program development and research resources in order to effectively address the health issues of Ohioans.

The underlying philosophy of the newly formed partnership was "doing what each does best." A task force of representatives from Pharmacy and Extension was created. Members from Pharmacy included the Dean, the Director of Experiential Programs, and three faculty members involved in student service-learning. Extension membership included the Director of OSU Extension, the Assistant Directors for Family and Consumer Sciences and for Community Development, and the Health Specialist.

Key to this task force was the commitment of administrators to university outreach and engagement. Task force members outlined the contributions that each partner brought to the table. Extension had a well-established county and community based infrastructure, including OSU Extension faculty and professionals located in Ohio counties, a network of community leaders, established programming, and positive name recognition. Pharmacy had a strong research base, a network of healthcare providers throughout the state, an active commitment to engage students in service learning, and the innovative educational experience of faculty.

Partnership Projects

An early project targeted herbs and dietary supplements. OSU Extension Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS) nutrition issues team members developed a series of fact sheets to address questions consumers and health professionals had about supplements. Two Pharmacy faculty members provided critical reviews. One Pharmacy faculty member joined the nutrition issues team to provide an in-service on dietary supplements to Ohio's Extension FCS professionals and a continuing education program for pharmacists. The successes of this collaboration and its outcomes have been shared as poster presentations at professional meetings and have earned regional and national recognition from professional associations.

Concurrently, county agents were contacted to identify collaborative programming opportunities for Pharmacy and Extension. Crawford County's Senior Health Day was the pilot project for a county-based project. The Extension FCS Agent worked with local healthcare professionals to plan, organize, and publicize the program. During the event, Pharmacy faculty and students provided medication counseling through a "brown bag" medicine program. Seniors were invited to bring all medications they were using to an individualized counseling session with a pharmacist or pharmacist-supervised Doctor of Pharmacy (Pharm.D.) student. An outcome of this event was the development of a Crawford County committee of healthcare professionals and stakeholders that works with Pharmacy faculty and Extension professionals to develop educational programs to meet the healthcare needs of consumers in that area.

The College of Pharmacy and OSU Extension have formalized their collaboration as the Ohio Extension/Pharmacy Alliance for Community Health (Ohio EPACH). The Ohio EPACH task force consists of Pharmacy administrators and faculty and Extension administrators and faculty (including Extension agents). The task force is currently focusing on health literacy issues and targeting program development to:

• Parents and childcare providers within Ohio's Appalachian regions
• Geriatric patients and their care providers

A program for parents and childcare providers is being piloted in four Ohio counties. The program will be expanded into eight counties within 2 years and then expanded into other Appalachian regions. Ohio EPACH is also investigating program expansion through involvement with the parish nurse system and is exploring initiatives addressing unique healthcare needs of the geriatric patient population.

Pharmacy Student Participation

Student involvement in Ohio EPACH programming is a priority for the upcoming year. The first entry-level Pharm.D. student recently completed a 1-month advanced practice experiential rotation (during the last year of the curriculum) with the FCS Agent in Ross County. The student's activities targeted parents and childcare providers and included:

• Survey distribution and tabulation of gathered data,
• Development of educational materials on acetaminophen use, and
• Brown bag medication counseling

While incorporation of advanced practice students will expand over the next year, other pharmacy students, at various levels of training, will also have opportunities to learn about community health through service-learning projects conducted by Ohio EPACH.

Conclusion

Future projects with the task force will focus on health literacy related to two target population groups--children and the elderly. As program development grows, so will involvement of pharmacy students and integration with community stakeholders. Thus far, the collaboration of Pharmacy and Extension has resulted in health-based projects that will:

• Contribute to the overall well-being of Ohioans,
• Provide a service-learning opportunity for students, and
• Establish a connection between university administration and faculty and the community they serve.

Building a Risk Management Education Program for New England Dairy Farmers

Dennis Kauppila
Associate Professor - Business Management Specialist
Internet Address: dennis.kauppila@uvm.edu

Neil Pelsue
Associate Professor- Extension Economist
Internet Address: neil.pelsue@uvm.edu

University of Vermont Extension
Burlington, Vermont

Justification

The New England and U.S. dairy industries have undergone substantial change in the last decade. The Federal Milk Order Program was reformed on January 1, 2000, reducing the number of orders from 31 to 11. Milk pricing in several of the orders changed from a volume and butterfat system to a multiple-component, product-based system. The 1996 Farm Bill moved U.S. agriculture, including the dairy sector, from a system with major financial safety nets to one that relied more on market supply and demand to determine prices and influence incomes.

As the federal government backed away from its former support role in agriculture, New England dairy farmers found themselves needing alternative methods to deal with the variety of risks associated with their businesses. Some risk management tools were already available, e.g., futures and options. However, a lack of understanding and knowledge about these tools had slowed their use in dairy farm business planning.

An initial goal of the project described here was to help New England dairy producers better understand the nature and extent of risks they faced in their farm businesses. These risks included modifications of commodity price support programs, increasing globalization, land use regulations, or any of a number of other factors. The project introduced alternative tools that could be used to manage the production, market, price, human resource, legal, and/or other business risks in farm operations.

At the beginning of the project, farmers were asked to identify the risk events they anticipated would have the greatest impact on their farms in the next 1-2 years. (See Appendix for questions.) An Extension education program was then built upon these expressed needs.

Objective

The anticipated outcome was to help farmers identify, better understand, and effectively manage more of the types of risks they expected to face in their farm business operations.

Approach and Outcome

We conducted one focus group session (Nov. 2000) and two mail surveys (Dec. 2000, Jan. 2001) in which farmers identified and ranked the risk management topics that were of greatest concern to them.

We asked these questions of farmers.

1. Would you please identify 1 - 3 events that occurred in the last year or two which had a significant impact, economic or otherwise, on your farm business or family.
2. If you went back another 2 or 3 years, would there be other significant events that you would add to the above list? If yes, please list them below.
3. Now, from those events you listed above, please identify the one event that had the greatest impact or was of the most importance to your farm business or family.
4. Now let's look ahead. What risk events do you believe will be of the greatest concern to New England dairy farmers in the next 1 - 2 years?
5. Now please rank them: mark the most important one with an M.

Table 1 summarizes the findings from the focus group and surveys.

These producer responses guided the development of risk management educational programs for New England dairy producers.

In April 2001, we conducted daylong educational workshops at three sites in New England. Fifty-three dairy farmers attended, as well as people from Extension, USDA, and state departments of agriculture.

Topics covered at each workshop were:

• Dairy markets and prices, futures, and options contracts;
• Farm transfer and estate planning, and
• Nutrient management, environmental regulations.

The workshop format consisted of a half-hour overview of each of the three main topic areas in the morning, followed by a general Q+A session. In the afternoon, participants selected one of three workshops to further explore risk management strategies for their farms. A 60-page instruction manual was developed for the attendees to use at the workshops and to take home for future reference.

At the time the workshops were held, the extent of the impact of the outbreak of Foot and Mouth disease (FMD) in Britain was just becoming apparent. We took this as an opportunity to integrate discussions of the FMD risk event, providing USDA's FMD informational brochures to farmers at each workshop, and to bring coverage of bio-security risk into the program.

In addition to providing dairy farmers with risk management information, we strengthened the risk management education programming network in New England. During the following winter (2001-2002), the authors and other Extension colleagues conducted five additional workshops with 64 participants. Instructional materials were based upon the programs and materials developed for the initial workshops. Some of the material is available on the New England Livestock Web page <http://www.umaine.edu/animalsci/>. Additional information is forthcoming.

Conclusion

Both the focus group and survey techniques were found to be useful techniques to identify and prioritize risk issues and concerns on farmers' minds. In addition, these methods increased the awareness of risk management issues and tools. Information provided by farmers was used directly to build the workshops. This work has enhanced our efforts to provide meaningful risk management education to farmers and has positioned us to continue with additional multi-state risk management programming in anticipation of future needs and opportunities.

Acknowledgement

This project was funded in part by the Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development.

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.