|
June 2004
|
       |
Teaching Complex, In-Depth ProgramsJohn B. Hall Bill R. McKinnon Scott P. Greiner William D. Whittier Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University IntroductionChanges in U.S. demographics are creating challenges for Extension program delivery. In rural areas, the shift towards dual income households with off-farm employment results in clientele being less available for daytime producer meetings or field days. Although face-to-face programming continues to shift towards more evening and weekend meetings, these meetings increasingly conflict with limited family time. In addition, more clientele seek information in areas where they may have little background or limited experience. In Iowa, education of beginning farmers is an important programmatic thrust (Trede & Whitaker, 1998). In the eastern U.S., many new part-time beef producers are people "returning to the land" or producers desiring to add an alternative enterprise to row crops or tobacco. As a whole, these clients lack basic livestock production skills and may have limited exposure to Extension. Although most Extension clientele prefer experiential learning (Richardson, 1994), audiences still want concise printed material (Rodewald, 2001) for reference and review. Both of these methods are preferred over seminars. Exposing clients to problem solving and critical thinking is essential to developing skills to handle a variety of situations and decisions (Meir, 1989; Jones, 1992). Self-directed learning or at-home short courses provide considerable information, but may not establish or evaluate needed skills. In rural areas, access to the Internet may be limited by computer literacy (Taylor, Hoag, & Owen, 1991), bandwidth, modem speed or cost. Therefore, program delivery may need to use multiple methods simultaneously, especially for rural audiences that are geographically dispersed. This multi-method delivery system may be particularly important for highly technical information. The Virginia Cow/Calf Management Course was designed to use diverse teaching methods and media to deliver complex information. PurposeThe purpose of this article is: 1) to describe the development and conduct of a complex, in-depth educational program for beef producers; 2) to evaluate the program impact on producers' adoption of the practices; and 3) to evaluate different delivery methods for educating beef producers. Program DevelopmentSeveral surveys indicate that Virginia beef producers may be technologically "above average" compared to other beef producers in the Southeastern and Mid-Atlantic states, but Virginia beef producers are limited users of technology in cow/calf operations (Stanley, Eller, McKinnon, Wahlberg, & Gerken, 1993; Eller & McKinnon, 1994). Similarly, a USDA survey (NAMS, 1997; 1998) indicated that U.S. beef producers are not using basic technologies (Table 1). This lack of use of these basic procedures results in lower productivity and profitability compared to producers adopting these technologies. Interviews with Extension agents, beef producers, and Extension specialists indicated a need for educational programs for beginning and part-time beef producers. The planning group of specialists, agents, and producers indicated the course should:
Program DeliveryThe goal of the Virginia Cow-Calf Management Course is to teach proper management techniques and instill usable skills to beginning and part-time beef producers. The program is designed as a 5-month series that combines at-home learning, lectures, Web-based materials and discussion groups, and hands-on workshops. The course is taught at four different locations around Virginia each year. About 1 month before each workshop, participants receive reading material and study questions that relate to the upcoming workshop. By the end of the course, the reading material forms the Virginia Cow/Calf Management Handbook. Handbook materials and other pertinent information are posted on the Virginia Cow/Calf Management Course Web site. Web-based materials are password protected. A bulletin-board discussion page is also accessed through the Web site, which allows producers to ask questions when not in class. The workshops meet on one Saturday in the months of October, November, January, February, and March. Workshops stress skill building by allowing and encouraging participants to engage in actual management practices. Cattle are used in every workshop. Skills taught at the workshops include body condition scoring, castration, implanting, freeze branding, ear tagging, tattooing, forage sampling, and vaccination. Producers learn to select bulls and heifers, read Expected Progeny Difference data, balance feed rations, evaluate feeder cattle, and cull cows. Demonstrations are given on delivering calves, performing breeding soundness exams, examining rumen microflora, erecting high tensile electric fence, facility design, and proper animal handling. The importance of various marketing options is also discussed. Extension Beef Cattle Specialists, Extension Veterinarians, and local Animal Science Extension Agents teach the course. One specialist is teamed with two or three agents. Agents stay constant within each location, but specialists rotate among locations. Rotation of specialists allows participants to access each specialist while maintaining the agent as the local expert in beef cattle production. University veterinarians, local veterinarians, and Farm Management Extension agents serve as guest instructors. Workshops are held on a different farm in the community each month. The farms are chosen to demonstrate proper cow/calf management, and their owners become instructors for the workshop, as well. An Extension Program Support Technician assembles instructor packets for workshops with all materials, equipment, and supplies. This technician is also responsible for communication among location instructors as well as participants. All handbook materials, registrations, and data input are handled by the technician. Program EvaluationA survey is given at the beginning and end of the course to all participants. These surveys are designed to assess: 1) changes in adoption of technology, 2) effectiveness of various course components and instructors, and 3) impact of the course on the beef operation. The beginning course survey consisted of 35 questions on producer and operation demographics as well as current management practices. All participants were given this survey on the first workshop they attended. The end of course survey was administered at the conclusion of the last workshop. The 50-question survey was to be completed by a representative from each farm. If a person was absent on the last workshop, then a survey was mailed to them. Final survey questions addressed course content and quality as well as changes in management as a result of the course. Over forty-six percent of the participants (228) representing approximately 65% of the operations returned the full end-of-course survey. Changes in pre- and post-course adoption rate of management techniques were analyzed by Chi Square (SAS, 1999). A long-term follow-up is planned to assess behavioral change and ranch-level impacts 3 to 5 years after the course. ResultsFrom 1998-2001, 490 producers participated in the Virginia Cow-Calf Management Course. These producers came from almost every county in Virginia and the five surrounding states (Figure 1). Courses were held in 12 different locations identified by stars on the map in Figure 1. Figure 1.
Pre-Course Survey ResultsProducers taking the course were generally representative of beginning to part-time beef producers in Virginia. The average age of participants was 48 years old with 10.5 years experience in the beef industry. A majority of the participants (>60%) had off-farm jobs, which is typical for this region. Farm size was moderate for the area, ranging from 200 to 500 acres (Figure 2) and supporting about 100 cows (Figure 3). Average herd size in Virginia is 30 cows. Even though the relative herd size was moderate, larger cowherds were well represented, with herds exceeding 250 cows accounting for 10% of the operations participating in the course (Figure 3). Figure 2.
Figure 3.
At the start of the course, a majority of the farms did not employ basic management practices such as body condition scoring or implanting calves (Figure 4). While producers claimed pregnancy rates for their herds of 85% to 90%, only 50% of the operations pregnancy checked cows. Body condition scoring and feeding cattle by age and production stage groups were used as indicators of nutritional management. Limited use of these strategies indicated marginal nutritional management. Non-adoption of breeding soundness exams for bulls and pregnancy diagnosis in cows demonstrated a need for basic reproductive management. Producers tended to be more likely to use some type of pasture rotation during the year, indicating at least a basic knowledge of pasture management. Producers were limited in employing additional growth promotants such as implants and ionophores. Figure 4.
In general, most producers were not using some of the most basic management strategies available to beef producers. Many of these strategies are low cost practices. Informally, producers indicated that the prevailing reasons for not using these technologies were not being familiar with the practice or not feeling skilled in conducting the practice. End-of-Course Survey ResultsCompared to other Extension programs they had taken, producers rated the Cow/Calf Management Course highly, averaging 9.1 (1 = worst program; 10 = best program). They also felt the course was very useful (4.6; 1 = not useful; 5 = extremely useful) to their operation. In addition, 86.7% of the participants wanted a follow-up program or an in-depth course on a single topic. Components of the course were also rated. The handbook was rated very good (8.8; 1 = poor to 10 = excellent) and was considered a valuable resource for the future. Participants particularly enjoyed the hands-on workshops, and they indicated the workshops were an important part of the course. Workshops were also listed as a primary reason that producers took the course. The Web site portion of the course was considered less valuable. Only 35.9% of the participants accessed the Web site. Those using the Web site rated it as fairly useful (3.9; 1 = not useful, 5 = extremely useful). Only 13.8% of all participants used the Web-based discussion. The Cow/Calf Management Course resulted in increased adoption of most management procedures or technologies (Tables 2 & 3). Simple procedures that could be easily performed by the producer on the ranch, such as body condition scoring cows, showed the greatest increase in adoption by producers. Procedures that required more expense or the hiring of a professional showed greatest resistance to adoption. For example, use of proper injection sites or timely and proper castration of calves were readily adopted, with adoption rates of 90 to 100%. On the other hand, getting breeding soundness exams for bulls or using artificial insemination only had total adoption rates of 46% and 48%, respectively.
ConclusionsThe Virginia Cow/Calf Management course has been effective in assisting participating producers in improving the efficiency of their operations. In addition, it serves as a model for the type of program that results in positive changes in producers' skills, knowledge, and abilities. Important points for successful programming for agricultural producers were as follows.
Results from this course demonstrate that program delivery should focus on experiential learning opportunities backed by written reference materials. Providing face-to-face contact among Extension professionals and clients is essential. The technical skills of clients can be improved through these methods. In addition, a team approach among Extension professionals results in positive perception of the organization. At this time, physical and social barriers to Web-based instruction do not support extensive investment in this delivery system for Virginia beef producers; however, this method should not be ignored. Acknowledgment This program was supported by a grant from the USDA-EPA Ruminate Livestock Efficiency Program. ReferencesJones, J. (1992). Teaching clientele what or how to think. Journal of Extension [Online], 30(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1992spring/a2.html McKinnon, B. R., & Eller, Jr., A. L. (1992). Virginia beef producer survey. Virginia Cooperative Extension. Meier, H. A. (1989). Extension trends and directions. Journal of Extension [Online], 27(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1989fall/a3.html Richardson, J. G. (1994). Learning best through experience. Journal of Extension [Online], 32(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1994august/a6.html Rodewald, A. D. (2001). Delivery systems--Is the "latest" technology the greatest? Journal of Extension [Online], 39(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001august/tt2.html Stanley, T., Eller, Jr., A. L. , McKinnon, B. R., Wahlberg, M. L., & Gerken, Jr., H. J. (1993). Virginia's beef industry: A study and blueprint for the year 2000. Pub. 400-200. Taylor, M. T., Hoag, D. L., & Owen, M. B. (1991). Computer literacy and use. Journal of Extension [Online], 29(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1991winter/a3.html Trede, L. D., & Whitaker, S. (1998). Beginning farmer education in Iowa: Implications to Extension. Journal of Extension [Online], 36(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1998october/a3.html USDA-APHIS. (1997). National animal health monitoring system. Part 1: Reference of 1997 beef cow-calf management practices. USDA-APHIS. (1998). National animal health monitoring system. Part 1: Reference of 1998 beef cow-calf management practices. This article is online at http://www.joe.org/joe/2004june/a2.shtml. 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. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
