August 2004
Volume 42 Number 4

Ideas at Work

Super Nutrition Activity Program

Barbara Brown
Food Specialist
bbrown@okstate.edu

Janice Hermann
Nutrition Specialist
jrher@okstate.edu

Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, Oklahoma

Introduction

Children's health, especially related to nutrition, food safety, and lack of physical activity, is a national priority. Nationwide surveys indicate children are doing poorly in meeting the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Total fat intake as a percent of total calories has decreased, primarily due to increased carbohydrate intake, not decreased fat. Diets of the majority of children do not meet recommendations for calcium or fruits and vegetables. Eating patterns have changed, with increased between-meal snacks and meals eaten away from home (Lin, Guthrie, & Frazao, 2001; Johnson, 2000).

The 1993 outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 attributed to undercooked hamburgers sickened hundreds and was responsible for four deaths. E. coli O157:H7 is destroyed when ground beef is cooked to an internal temperature of 160^oF (71^oC). A thermometer is crucial in determining doneness. Research indicates some patties may prematurely brown before a safe internal temperature has been reached while some cooked to 160^oF or above may remain pink inside (USDA, 1998). Color alone is not a reliable indicator of ground beef safety. But the final line of defense for children may be checking color prior to eating.

Lack of physical activity is a major health concern. Participation in physical activities among children declines with age. Contributing to low physical activity levels may be increased participation in sedentary activities, most notably use of electronic media (French, Story, & Jeffery, 2001). Poor eating habits and lack of physical activity may be exacerbating the trend toward increasing obesity. Childhood obesity increases risk of chronic diseases. About 60% of overweight children ages 5 to 10 have one or more risk factors associated with chronic diseases (Gorton, 2000).

Objective

The Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service developed and evaluated an education program for children, grades 3-5, titled "Super Nutrition Activity Program" (SNAP). The objective was to increase knowledge and application of nutrition, food safety, and physical activity behaviors among children. This project was approved by the Oklahoma State University Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects.

Intervention

The SNAP curriculum contained 13 lessons on nutrition, food safety, and physical activity. Each lesson contained a "super message," "SNAPpy Points," background information, lesson opening points, lesson discussion points, activities for younger and older children, and a take-home page to reinforce the message. Children received SNAP stickers for each lesson they completed, which they could put on a "SNAP To Good Health" passport card.

The SNAP program was implemented with children, grades 3-5, in nine Oklahoma counties. Demographic data was collected on gender and grade level. Classes were held in school classrooms, after school programs, and 4-H clubs. The program lasted six to 13 weeks. Oklahoma County Extension Educators served as teachers for the program. They attended in-service training on conducting and evaluating the SNAP program.

Evaluation

The impact of the SNAP program on children's nutrition, food safety, and physical activity behaviors was evaluated using a SNAP Check questionnaire. The SNAP Check questionnaire consisted of 10 questions using a Likert scale format of "no"=1, "sometimes"=2, and "yes"=3. Children were asked to mark the statement that best represented their behavior. Questions were read by the teacher to limit problems resulting from lack of reading ability. The SNAP Check score was the total score from all questions. Test-retest reliability was evaluated by 32 school-age children, grades 3-5, r = 0.94.

A pre-test, post-test design was used to evaluate SNAP. Children completed the SNAP Check questionnaire prior to receiving any education using the SNAP curriculum and after completing the SNAP program. Pre- and post-total SNAP Check scores and individual question scores were analyzed using the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) General Linear Modules and least squared means procedures. Significance level was set at p < 0.05.

A total of 176 children, grades 3-5, participated, 75 boys and 101 girls. After completing the program, total SNAP Check scores significantly increased, with 64% of children increasing their total score. Significant increases were observed for individual question scores, including "I eat bread or grain foods every day"; "I drink milk every day"; "I eat fruits every day"; "When I am thirsty, I drink water"; "Nutrition food labels help me to pick foods to eat"; and "I check to see my hamburger is brown all the way through before I eat it."

Although not significant, increases were also observed for individual question scores, including "I eat something before school starts"; "I wash my hands before I eat"; "I eat vegetables every day"; and "Every day I do some exercise like running, biking, swimming, playing a sport or other physical activity."

Implications

The Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service SNAP program was effective in improving school-age children, grades 3-5, total SNAP Check scores and individual question scores. Implications for the future include addition emphasis on food safety and hand washing, using tools such as the Glo-germ materials. In addition, further research is needed to evaluate children's perception of physical activity.

References

French, S. A., Story, M., & Jeffery, R. W. (2001). Environmental influences on eating and physical activity. Annual Review of Public Health, 22,309-335.

Gorton, K. (2000). ADA leads way in putting children back on the road to good health. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 00, 1012.

Johnson, R. K. (2000). Changing eating and physical activity patterns of US children. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 59, 295-301.

Lin. B., Guthrie, J., & Frazao, E. (2001). American children's diets not making the grade. Food Review, 24, 8-17.

USDA. (1998). An FSIS/ARS study: Premature browning of cooked ground beef. Available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPHS/prebrown.htm

Development of a "Canons of Practice" Policy at Washington State University

Emmett P. Fiske
Organizational Effectiveness Specialist
Pullman, Washington
fiske@wsu.edu

Philip R. Wandschneider
Extension Economist and Professor
Pullman, Washington
pwandschneider@wsu.edu

Kay E. Haaland
Regional Faculty for Leadership and Community Development
Washington State University
Mount Vernon, Washington
kayh@co.skagit.wa.us

Robert H. McDaniel
Program Leader for Community Resource Development
Olympia, Washington
mcdaniel@wsu.edu

Susan B. Roberts
Formerly Publications Specialist
Pullman, Washington
sbrwnng@moscow.com

Ronald C. Faas
Extension Economist Emeritus
faas@verizon.net

Washington State University

Introduction

In 1993, Boyle and Mulcahy said accepting the challenge of public policy education can strengthen political support for Cooperative Extension as the most relevant educational institution in contemporary society. Yet 6 years later, only nine states had implemented a formal policy for conduct of public issues education programs (Favero & Haaland, 1999). Given the lack of such a policy, Extension faculty involved in public policy education risk having their work questioned. Washington State University has experienced several cases in recent years in which communications from stakeholders to administrators questioned the integrity of individuals.

For example, several faculty had convened collaborative problem-solving processes bringing together competing interest groups and affected stakeholders to foster dialogue and facilitate agreements. Other faculty had conducted studies (commissioned by legislators and state agencies) that evaluated the costs and benefits of alternative resource policies. In these and other policy cases, stakeholder groups dissatisfied with the problem-solving process or research results then complained to university administration. In several instances, they threatened to withhold promised financial gifts and in some cases demanded that involved faculty be relieved of further responsibilities.

Compounding the problem, no administrative policies or procedures addressed external criticism of faculty activities in public policy education. (Policies and procedures in existing documents such as the faculty manual dealt only with issues of financial and personal behavior.) Thus, administrators sometimes failed to consult with faculty before crafting and conveying their response to stakeholder groups. This perceived lack of due process had a negative impact on faculty morale. Many faculty were unsure of administrative support for either public policy education or applied research on potentially controversial issues. Lacking a common set of guidelines for engaging in public policy education and research, faculty and administrators were uncertain how to proceed.

In response, a faculty committee developed engagement guidelines for Extension and research faculty involvement in public policy education and research within the College of Agriculture and Home Economics. They also addressed the related responsibilities of administrators and the public.

Developing the Canons

Committee members extensively reviewed best practices, principles, and guidelines available both within the land-grant system (ECOP's policy statement on public issues education, 1991; Stevens & Vance's edited guide for public issues education, 1995) and from professional organizations involved in public policy research and education (Bourne & Carlson's publication prepared for the Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution, 1996), and then prepared a draft policy statement.

The draft document underwent internal review and multiple revisions, including legal revision acceptable to university counsel. After the full college, faculty and staff had the opportunity to review the proposed policy and offer comments, the college administration approved the document. The college administration officially adopted the Canons of Practice on April 11, 2002.

Importance of the Canons of Practice

Land-grant researchers and educators are duty bound to conduct themselves professionally at all times. The College of Agriculture and Home Economics is now using the Canons of Practice whenever faculty members engage in public policy research and education. The Canons of Practice identify the parameters within which policy research and education is appropriate, specify professional conduct during such work, and quantify expectations of the public's behavior while engaged in public policy research and education processes. Still, public policy research, education, and dispute resolution are areas wherein competing interests and values often collide. Complaints from members of the public are inevitable. Such complaints most often go to college administrators before reaching the involved faculty, professional staff, or graduate student employee.

"Due process" is at the core of administrative response. The Canons of Practice details a sequence of activities for administrators to follow, including:

1. Administrators will inform employees immediately about concerns or complaints and consult them about resolution.
2. Employees will be provided with all relevant information in a timely fashion according to written procedures and will be granted an immediate opportunity to respond to the complaint.
3. Where complaints or concerns are substantive and not resolved immediately, administrators will provide written notification of the complaint and keep the affected employees informed during all stages of the process.
4. Administrators will act to assure that responses to complaints are not, and do not appear to be, biased towards particular constituents based on their political position, financial connection to the university, or other invidious bias.

Implications for Extension Colleagues

The fact that only nine institutions had implemented policies for conduct of public issues education programs by 1999 (Favero & Haaland, 1999) is cause for concern. What safety nets are in place for educators and researchers whose states lack policies? What needed policy and public issues education or research is not getting done because faculty and staff have no clear guidelines or support for such engagement?

The Canons of Practice guidelines provide a model for review and a possible template for adaptation and adoption by other land-grant institutions.

Land-grant institutions have a rich history of working with the public and their representatives in addressing controversial issues. The anticipated improvement in communication and understanding between college employees and members of the public should engender closer collaboration, more effective working relationships, and stronger partnerships.

The Canons are online at http://www.cahe.wsu.edu/cop/.

References

Bourne, G., & Carlson, C. (1996). Best practices for using mediated approaches to develop policy agreements: Guidelines for government agencies. Prepared for the Critical Issues Committee of the Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution.

Boyle, P. G., & Mulcahy, S. H (1993). Public policy education: A path to political support. Journal of Extension [On-line], 31(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1993winter/tp1.html

Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP) and the Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (1991). The Cooperative Extension System's role in addressing public issues. Cooperative Extension System Task Force on Public Issues Education. The ECOP Task Force's policy statement.

Favero, P., & Haaland, K. (1999). Statements concerning public issues education: A summary and analysis of state Extension policies and ideas. Prepared for the Farm Foundation (co-sponsor) and participants of the National Extension Symposium, Building Capacity in Cooperative Extension for Managing Public Issues Disputes, held at the University of Arizona [On-line]. Available at: http://skagit.wsu.edu/community/publicissues.htm

Stevens, G. L., & Vance, K. A., (Eds.) (1995). Inservice guide for public issues education: Increasing competence in resolving public issues. Public Issues Education Materials Task Force of the National Public Policy Education Committee and PLC and PODC Subcommittees of the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.

Intermountain Beef 3910 Workshop--Collaborating with Industry in Extension Education

D. R. ZoBell
Extension Beef Specialist
Logan, Utah
dale.zobell@usu.edu

C. Kim Chapman
Area Animal Scientist
Richfield, Utah
kimc@ext.usu.edu

Clell Bagley
Extension Veterinarian
Logan, Utah
clellb@ext.usu.edu

Kevin Heaton
County Agent
Panguitch, Utah
kevinh@ext.usu.edu

Dick Whittier
Instructor
Logan, Utah
dickw@cc.usu.edu

Utah State University Cooperative Extension System

Introduction

Successful Extension programs must be useful and practical in order for participants to gain information that can be readily adopted. Seaman Knapp, one of Extension's most influential pioneers, stated, "What a man hears, he may doubt. What he sees, he may possibly doubt. But what he does himself, he cannot doubt (Seevers, Graham, Gamon, & Conklin 1997)."

Intermountain Beef 3910 takes participants through a number of learning exercises that increase their knowledge in beef grading, price discovery, certain aspects of production, and animal husbandry. This 2-day workshop was developed in collaboration with industry partners, including major sponsorship from the Utah Cattlemen's Association, Global Animal Management, and Utah State University Extension. Logistical support is provided by E.A. Miller Company (Swift and Company) in the form of facilities and personnel. Each workshop is limited to 20 participants, and there have been seven workshops to date. Participants also have the option of receiving one continuing education undergraduate or graduate credit.

The objectives of the workshop are to provide participants with a basic understanding of the beef grading system and Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) to demonstrate how these principles relate to them and the entire beef industry.

Approach and Outcome

Day One

On day one, the participants are assigned to one of four groups and instructed on the fundamentals of the U.S. grading system and price discovery. Four slaughter steers (SS1) are evaluated by the groups to determine live price and estimate various carcass traits. Steers selected for this exercise exhibit varying degrees of finish, frame score, and breeding. At this time various production practices are demonstrated, including ultrasound technology and BQA principles such as proper injection technique, drug and vaccine care and storage, and animal handling and restraint. Following this evaluation, the SS1 steers are taken and harvested at the E.A. Miller facility.

A video is then viewed of another set of steers (SS2). The video is produced 5 days prior to the workshop and includes four finished steers of various breeding, degree of finish, and frame score. A mock auction is held for each of the four SS2 steers from the video, and each group "purchases" one SS2 steer. Calves receive bids based on visual appraisal of conformation and carcass characteristics.

Each group fabricates the carcass of the SS2 steer they purchased into wholesale, boxed beef cuts. This exercise requires considerable time, a large support team, and adequate facilities. All wholesale cuts are trimmed (one quarter inch) and weighed, as are trim, fat, and bone. Various carcass traits are determined. Wholesale carcass price is calculated, and a live value is calculated. Profit for each calf, based on the auction bids and actual wholesale value, is also calculated (Table1).

The exercise of fabricating the carcasses into wholesale cuts allows participants to gain considerable knowledge relative to the packing industry. Current prices for the live animal and wholesale cuts are used to demonstrate profitability of individual animals being processed.

Day Two

On day two, groups are taken on a tour of the harvest facilities, allowing participants to interact with packing plant personnel. Examples of various carcass types are shown and discussed, providing a more applied view of the grading system and the problems encountered in the wholesale beef industry. Information on procurement and marketing from the packer's perspective provides additional insight. During the tour, the SS1 calf carcasses are viewed. In addition, a system of electronic identification (EID) is demonstrated.

After the packing plant tour, participants review what they have learned and are provided an opportunity to discuss data from the previous afternoon's cutting tests. Lunch includes an industry representative who discusses the importance of genetic selection and evaluation to the industry. The last segment of the workshop has been devoted to an industry presentation on the utilization of best management practices relative to animal health.

Meals

All meals are provided to participants and are used to provide additional education. Lunch on day one is sponsored by the Utah Beef Council and involves a presentation and taste test on new beef products, which allows participants to learn from the consumer's perspective. Evening dinner on day one is prime rib, prepared and served by culinary arts students. The dinner speaker presents results of the NCBA Beef Quality Audits.

The lunch on day two is titled "Steaks, is one-in-four unacceptable?" Each group purchases 10 ribeye steaks from the local retail market. These steaks are then prepared by a chef and served to the workshop participants. An evaluation form comes with the meal. Industry data suggest that one in four steaks are unacceptable to the consuming public. It is our observation from the workshops to date that this trend is correct.

Evaluation

A course evaluation is provided for each participant. Example questions include how they heard about the course; were the facilities, transportation, dates and times adequate; were the meals to their satisfaction; what ideas were generated due to the workshop; and what could be improved and an evaluation of each speaker. Over 85% of the participants have rated this workshop as excellent.

Conclusions

The success of the program has been a result of collaboration and cooperation from various segments of Extension, industry, and the Utah Cattlemen's Association. We will continue to provide this workshop and use it as a means to develop partnerships and learn from each other.

Reference

Seevers, B., Graham, D., Gamon, J., & Conklin, N. (Eds.) (1997). Education through Cooperative Extension, p. 30. Delmar Publishers, Albany, NY.

Clientele Impact for Beef Producers from a Grass-Roots Style of Extension Programming

Cindy Sanders
Graduate Student/Extension Agent
Agricultural Education and Communication Department
University of Florida Cooperative Extension
cbsanders@mail.ifas.ufl.edu

Nick T. Place
Assistant Professor
Agricultural Education and Communication Department
nplace@ufl.edu

University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida

Introduction

Today's beef producers are facing a rapidly changing industry that is very much consumer driven. Over the past 10 years, the development of marketing through some type of a "connected structure," such as an alliance affiliation or a cooperative among producers, has significantly increased. These marketing groups attempt to aid the producer in capturing the highest value for the beef produced.

Alachua County currently ranks 14th in Florida in beef cattle numbers (Florida Department of Agriculture, 2002). Producers in the county continue to market a majority of their calves through livestock markets in the surrounding counties, receiving discounted feeder calf prices. The discounted prices are due to:

• Lack of uniformity,
• Co-mingling of calves,
• Poor herd health,
• Poor genetics, and
• Producers not preconditioning the calves.

Purpose

To meet the needs of the livestock advisory committee's (made of local producers, veterinarians, and agricultural leaders in the community) recommendations, a program was developed titled "Alachua County Master Cattlemen Program." This program was designed after the Georgia program of the same name. The goal of the Alachua County Master Cattlemen Program was to increase beef cattle reproduction efficiency using expected progeny differences (EPD) and to increase total pounds of beef produced, thereby increasing producers' profitability.

Through the Alachua County Master Cattlemen program, beef producers could improve profitability by taking advantage of new marketing programs or developing cooperatives of their own. Moreover, producers could improve profitability through an increase in production efficiency, improved forages, reproduction, and genetic and herd health management while reducing costs per animal weaned or retained in ownership.

The average herd size is relatively small, so producers must be able to group or sort a uniform set of calves together, as truck load lots. Additionally, in order to market a uniform set of cattle, herd health and nutrition play a significant factor in obtaining a healthy group of cattle with proper vaccinations that would fit the ideal market weights. The significant concerns developed by the advisory committee must all fit together in order for a successful marketing program to be implemented.

Procedures

The Alachua County Master Cattlemen Program consists of four programs, one program per week for 4 weeks. Based upon the recommendations of the advisory committee, the following topics were included:

1. Cattle Reproduction & Expected Progeny Differences;
2. Feeding the Cow;
3. Cattle Economics;
4. Herd Health;
5. Calf Marketing;
6. Carcass Quality and Pricing; and
7. Chute Side Manners.

The Extension agent and state specialists conducted the educational programs using both classroom and hands-on instruction.

Objectives of the program were as follows.

1. 50% of the beef cattle producers attending the program would increase in knowledge, convey positive aspirations, and make at least one practice change in genetics, reproduction, nutrition, economics, herd health, and/or marketing.

2. As a result of the cooperative marketing discussions, 10% of the producers would develop a multi-county marketing co-op.

Promotion/Marketing

The program was advertised in the local newspaper (circ. 3000) and in the Florida Cattlemen's magazine (circ. 5000). The Extension agent promoted the program in the monthly newsletter, reaching 575 producers. Flyers were also posted in local agribusinesses. Attendance at the Alachua County Master Cattlemen Program averaged 52 people at each program. Participants paid a registration fee of $10 for the entire 5-week program, and local Animal Health Representatives and Feed Companies provided sponsorship.

Results and Evaluation

At the conclusion of all four programs, a post evaluation questionnaire was given to measure knowledge gained from the Master Cattlemen Programs. Eighty percent of those attending turned in the evaluation at the conclusion of the program, and the following data was collected.

Knowledge Gained

• 94% of those attending said the EPD discussion helped them to understand how to use EPD data.
• 56% expressed an awareness that they need to supplement their cattle during the fall and winter.
• 88% said that the herd health discussion assisted them in better understanding a herd health vaccination program.
• 88% became aware of marketing alternatives.

Attitudes/Aspirations Changed (Producers' Intent to Make Management Changes)

• 79% of the respondents said they will use EPD material when selecting herd sires.
• 53% attending said they will change their current supplementation program.
• 81% will investigate different marketing possibilities.

Economic Impact

As a result of this program, approximately 10 producers have made a practice change and formed a beef marketing cooperative. This year this cooperative sorted and sold 850 head (average weight 510 lbs) of calves at $.08- $.10 per hundredweight above the current local market price for a premium above local market price of about $50/head. Group marketing increased producer returns by approximately $42,500.00.

Conclusions

This program will now be offered annually due to the success of the first year and will be open to new attendees as well as past graduates. Future topics will be based upon recommendations from the post evaluation and the livestock advisory committee.

The Extension agent is currently working on a management plan for the beef cooperative that includes vaccination calendars, forage rotations, shorter breeding cycles, and genetic selection of herd bulls. These tools will be delivered to current and prospective members of the beef cooperative as guidelines for their management practices.

Through Extension programming like the Master Cattlemen Program, beef producers are provided the latest research information available to improve the quality of their beef herd through intensive management-based education. This program demonstrates that Extension education focused on clientele needs can result in significant economic impact that helps to answer accountability questions faced by Cooperative Extension.

References

National Cattlemen's Board Association. (1995). Executive summary of the National Beef Council. Denver, CO.

Florida Department of Agriculture. (2002). Florida agricultural facts directory, 51-52.

Stewart, R., & McCann, M. (1990). Georgia master cattlemen program, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

A Model for Testing New Seed Technologies

Peter R. Thomison
Associate Professor and Extension Specialist, Corn Cropping Systems
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science
The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio
thomison.1@osu.edu

Roger W. Elmore
Professor and Extension Crops Specialist
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture
University of Nebraska
Lincoln, Nebraska
relmore1@unl.edu

Greg W. Roth
Professor and Extension Crops Specialist
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania
gwr@psu.edu

Joseph G. Lauer
Professor and Extension Specialist
Department of Agronomy
University of Wisconsin-Extension
Madison, Wisconsin
jglauer@wisc.edu

Background

New seed technologies, especially those involving genetically modified organisms (GMOs), are often commercialized and marketed to grain producers in the U.S. at the same time they become available to public researchers for evaluation. This rapid commercialization provides limited opportunity for public researchers to conduct field trials that provide objective results before wide-scale planting begins.

Although entomologists and weed scientists at some land-grant universities evaluate GMOs prior to their commercial release, these investigations are limited to assessing the efficacy of these new products from the standpoint of insect resistance or herbicide tolerance. Often only a single experimental hybrid or cultivar representative of a new seed technology is considered, and little or no information on yield and other important agronomic information (such as crop maturity, stalk quality, and disease resistance) is collected.

Many producers are adopting GMO hybrids and cultivars to reduce yield losses caused by insects (e.g., Bt-corn or cotton) or obtain more effective weed control (e.g., glyphosate tolerant or resistant soybean, corn, or cotton). However, some farmers perceive that insect- and herbicide-resistant GMO cultivars and hybrids are inherently lower yielding than their conventional counterparts due to yield "drag" or "lag." Growers need non-biased information on whether GMOs suppress yield potential if they are to make profitable decisions involving cultivar selection. Moreover, producers expect university Extension programs to provide such information.

Recent studies by Elmore et al. (2001; 2002) provide an example of a typical evaluation of a new GMO crop. To test the agronomic performance of recently commercialized glyphosate resistant soybean cultivars, five glyphosate resistant (GR) soybean cultivars were compared with their non-GR counterparts in replicated tests conducted at four Nebraska locations for two years. This study demonstrated the lower yield potential of GR soybeans compared to non-GR counterparts. A related study compared the response of twelve GR soybean cultivars to glyphosate.

However, with major budget cuts and downsizing occurring in agricultural programs at many land-grant universities and less external funding available from public and private sources for crop production research, it has become difficult to conduct such comprehensive evaluations of new GMO seed technologies.

Development of a New Approach for Testing GMO Crops

Given the reduced funding available for testing new GMO seed technologies, we proposed a new approach for testing GMO seed technologies and an alternative to in-state multi-location evaluations. The objective of this new approach was to develop a cooperative crop testing procedure that could produce meaningful, unbiased data on new GMO crops within 1 year without funding.

Instead of conducting multiple tests of GMOs within a state for 2 or more years, a state Extension specialist would establish one or two tests comparing a set of GMOs and their conventional counterparts, which would be common to all locations. To minimize costs, planting, and harvesting, the GMO and non-GMO hybrid plots could be integrated into existing state crop hybrid testing programs.

In 1999 and 2001, participating states used this approach to evaluate the agronomic performance of newly released GMO glyphosate-tolerant (GT) corn. In the 1999 study, GT hybrids contained the GA21 event or gene insertion, while in the 2001 study, they contained the NK603 gene insertion. In 1999, multi-state testing of GT hybrids was conducted at nine locations across five states (NE, MN, WI, OH, and PA) and coordinated by a Nebraska Extension specialist. In 2001, the testing was performed at 12 locations across nine states (SD, NE, KS, IA, MO, WI, MI, OH, and PA), and coordinated by an Ohio Extension specialist. The testing coordinators' responsibilities included distributing seed, planting schemes, and data collection protocols. Project coordination and communication relied primarily on e-mail.

The 1999 and 2001 evaluation indicated the following:

• Glyphosate herbicide had no effect on GT corn hybrids (Elmore et al., 2000).
• There was no evidence of yield suppression associated with GT corn technology (Elmore et al., 2000).

Benefits and Drawbacks

Results of the cooperative GT corn hybrid tests were widely disseminated using a variety of Extension information delivery mechanisms, as the following indicates for 1999:

• 44 meetings with a total of 2150 people attending (5 states),
• 2 news releases (1 state),
• 5 newsletter articles (3 states),
• Internet postings (2 states) ( Elmore, 2000; Roth, 2000), and
• 2 radio tapes (1 state).

Collaborators identified the following as some of the major benefits of this approach for GMO crop testing:

• Generated a powerful set of data for a range of production environments within a single year,
• Required a minimal amount of input and resource allocation, and
• Provided unbiased data that producers could use to address a practical question.

Although all the collaborators indicated that it was vital to continue this kind of cooperative evaluation, several suggestions were offered for future improvement:

• A simpler design to facilitate analysis of the study;
• High-yielding non-GMO checks;
• Additional funding (however this may enhance credibility of data in eyes of growers);
• A shorter turn-around time to get data assembled, analyzed, and released;
• A need to discuss data dissemination and project promotion early in development of the project; and
• Establishment of an ad hoc committee to consider and coordinate future efforts.

Topics identified for future collaborative testing included:

• Any new seed based technology with value added traits (e.g., rootworm resistance, nutritional enhancements),
• Non-traditional crop amendments, and
• New seed insecticide treatments.

References

Elmore, R. W., Roeth, F. W., Nelson, L. A., Shapiro, C. A., Klein, R. N., Knezevic, S. Z., & Martin, A. (2001). Glyphosate-resistant soybean cultivar yields compared with sister lines. Agronomy Journal 93:408-412.

Elmore, R. W., Roeth, F. W., Shapiro, C. A., Nelson, L. A., Martin, A., Knezevic, S. Z., & Klein, R. N. (2002).Yield Suppressions of Glyphosate-Resistant (Roundup Ready) Soybeans. Nebraska Cooperative Extension Bulletin NF02-539.

Elmore, R. W., Hicks, D. R., Hoverstadt, T., Jordan, D., Klein, R. N., Lauer, J. G., Loux, M., Nelson, L. A., Porter, P. M., Roth, G. W., & Thomison, P. R. (2000). Comparison of Roundup Ready® hybrids and conventional sister lines. Corn Management Research Report No. 00-06, Dept. of Agronomy, Pennsylvania State University. Available at: http://cornandsoybeans.psu.edu/pdfs/CMRR00-06.pdf

Elmore, R. W. (2000). GMO, non-GMO hybrids produce similar yields in side-by-side trials. Crop Watch News Service, Archives, April 7, 2000. University of Nebraska. Available through: http://cropwatch.unl.edu/

Roth, G. A. (2000). Glyphosate tolerant hybrid study. Field Crop News, Pennsylvania State University. 00(2) Available at: http://fcn.agronomy.psu.edu/FCN002.pdf

Development of Educational Programs for Retail Stores That Sell Pesticides

George F. Czapar
Extension Educator
Springfield, Illinois
gfc@uiuc.edu

Raymond A. Cloyd
Assistant Professor, Extension Specialist in Ornamental Entomology
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences
Urbana, Illinois
rcloyd@uiuc.edu

Pablo A. Kalnay
Formerly Extension Educator
Springfield, Illinois
pakalnay@yahoo.com.ar

Marc P. Curry
Extension Educator
Springfield, Illinois
curry@uiuc.edu

University of Illinois

Introduction

It is estimated that 85% of all U.S. households have at least one pesticide product in storage, while 63% of all households have between one and five pesticide products in storage (EPA, 1992).

Lajeunesse, Johnson, and Jacobsen (1997) and Sclar, Cranshaw, Jacobi, and Fleener (1997) found that the majority of homeowners purchased pesticides from home/garden centers and used these outlets as information for pest management recommendations.

A statewide survey in Illinois found that only 34% of the retail stores provided any employee training related to pesticide use (Czapar, Curry, & Lloyd, 1998). Furthermore, of those individuals who received any training, only about one-half indicated that the level of training was adequate. If any training was provided, the focus tended to be on pesticide selection and use, while the concepts of integrated pest management (IPM) were largely ignored.

Educational Program

In 2001, a program was developed to provide educational training for retail store employees who recommend and sell pesticides used in the home and garden. Funding for this program was provided through a grant from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 5 in cooperation with the Illinois Department of Agriculture (IDOA).

Training programs were conducted by a University of Illinois specialist and Extension Educators at eight locations throughout Illinois between 2001 and 2003. In 2002, the program was also presented in Spanish to employees of Home Nursery located in Albers, Illinois.

In order to accommodate retailers' schedules, programs were conducted during the month of February. Each program was approximately 3 hours in length. For convenience, programs were held in the morning or afternoon at local county Extension offices.

Topics addressed during each program included pest identification (insects and weeds) and integrated pest management recommendations (both chemical and non-chemical options). There were also discussions on pesticide safety, pesticide toxicity, the role of personal protective equipment, pesticide poisoning symptoms, and emergency procedures in case of spills.

We also wanted to make the audience more aware of University of Illinois Extension resources, including publications, fact sheets, Web sites, and the Master Gardener Program. For example, each session ended with a brief presentation by a local Master Gardener or Extension educator, explaining additional programs and showing the stores how they might collaborate in specific areas, such as customer referrals and pest identification.

As an incentive to participate, several University of Illinois publications were provided free of charge to each store that sent an employee. The value of the publications was approximately $60.00.

The target audience for this program was very specific: employees of retail stores that sell general use pesticides. Because the stores had to commit their employees for a half-day, this was a significant investment for store management. In fact, some retailers from small stores expressed an interest in the program, but were unable to participate because they would have to close the store to allow their employees to attend.

Results

Approximately 100 individuals participated in the program over the 3-year period. This included employees from chain stores such as Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Ace Hardware, Big R, Lowe's, True Value, and several smaller local garden centers. Participation in most of the programs tended to be relatively small, with the average attendance from the eight locations around 13 individuals.

Following each program, participants were asked to evaluate the usefulness of each topic on a one to five scale (1=lowest, 5=highest). As shown in Table 1, evaluation results suggested a high level of satisfaction with the training received.

The most useful topics to the audience were references, pesticide safety, Extension resources, and materials provided in handouts.

This educational program was also featured on the Healthy Homes national satellite videoconference on March 27, 2003. It was broadcast to more than 200 Extension sites nationwide and 81 department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) field offices. To see the Webcast, go to http://www.hud.gov/webcasts/archives/training.cfm, and follow the link for Lead Hazard/Healthy Homes - March 27, 2003. The entire broadcast is approximately 2 hours long, but the Illinois IPM segment is 8 minutes long and begins 57:25 into the program.

Summary

The audience was very receptive to the educational training programs, and individual comments suggested that most participants were willing to attend future programs. Previous surveys have shown that improved customer service is the most important training outcome identified by this audience (Czapar, Curry, & Lloyd, 1998).

The audience also faces several challenges related to maintaining store personnel able to answer pest management questions and provide recommendations. Because many stores hire seasonal employees to help with the lawn and garden departments during spring and summer, there tends to be a high turnover of employees, which indicates that regular training programs are important in educating new employees.

The wide range of backgrounds and understanding of pest management was noted in some of the evaluation comments. A few individuals suggested that the materials were too advanced and too much information was presented. In contrast, others attending the same program commented that some topics were too basic and would like to have gone into more detail.

Another concern that was identified by storeowners was the time commitment required to attend educational programs. In some cases, owners of small stores would have had to close the store in order to attend meetings.  

Recommendations

Schedule training to fit the store owners'/employees' availability. Similar to the Pesticide Applicator Training program for farmers, educational programs for retail stores should be held in January or February. In addition, conducting two or more short training sessions may be more convenient than one long session.

Provide incentives for participation. This could include reference materials, educational resources, or access to Extension Web sites. After the training is completed, these resources could remain in the store and be available for other employees. For some store employees, a certificate of completion adds value to the program. Displaying the certificate increases their credibility and helps differentiate them from their competition.

Develop closer relationship between stores and Master Gardeners, and make stores aware of existing publications. This will help Extension increase visibility with a new audience and become more recognized as a local resource. The ability to refer customers for unbiased pest management advice or to reference a newsletter or fact sheet should be a preferred option.

Finally, target and customize training programs to increase participation. The largest retailers, who sell the largest volume of products, might be interested in a general program that is easily transferable. For example, training full-time employees and managers, who, in turn, train seasonal employees might be the best approach where there is a high turnover of staff.

In contrast, smaller retailers who use customer service as a tactic for capturing and retaining customers may be interested in a more in-depth program. A modular curriculum with beginning, intermediate, and advanced levels of training may be more appealing to storeowners who may be the sole providers of pest management information.

Retail stores that sell pesticides represent a large potential audience for Extension programs. There appears to be a significant demand for information on pesticide safety, pest management references, and local Extension resources. Educational programs for store employees should improve their ability to make recommendations and make them more aware of safety considerations for pesticide use.

Acknowledgements

This program was partially funded by a grant from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 5 in cooperation with the Illinois Department of Agriculture (IDOA).

References

Czapar, G. F., Curry, M. P. & Lloyd, J. E. (1998). Survey of integrated pest management needs among retail store employees in Illinois. J. Soil and Water Cons. 53(1) 31-33.

Environmental Protection Agency. (1992). National home and garden pesticide use survey. No. RTI/5100/17-01f. 400pp.Washington, D.C.

Lajeunesse, S. E., Johnson, G. D., & Jacobsen, J. S. (1997). A homeowner survey: Outdoor pest management practices, water quality awareness, and preferred learning methods. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education. 26(1) 43-48.

Sclar, D. C, Cranshaw, W. S. Jacobi W. R. & Fleener, . (1997). Integrated pest management practices in Colorado: A survey of woody plant nurseries and homeowners, 1995-1996. Tech. Bull. TB97-2. Colorado State University Cooperative Extension Service. 17 pp.

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.

If you have difficulties viewing or printing this page, please contact JOE Technical Support.