August 2005
Volume 43 Number 4

Ideas at Work

Autobiography Workshop: Personal Narrative as a Wellness Tool for the Elderly

Claudia Collins
Area Aging Issues Specialist
University of Nevada Cooperative Extension
Las Vegas, Nevada
collinsc@unce.unr.edu

Introduction

With the growth of the aging population, Extension is trying to provide meaningful educational programming for seniors. The University of Nevada, Cooperative Extension created the Senior Autobiography Workshop to help older adults write about their lives in a way that can enhance social and family networks and improve seniors' self-esteem, important factors in maintaining physical and mental well-being.

This interactive educational program helps older adults create an autobiographical record of their lives with historical value for them and their families. Sharing their life stories and collaborating with peers in the workshop can enhance their sense of social connection. This writing and sharing process can add meaning to seniors' lives by helping them better understand the past and present (Birren & Cochran, 2001).

Program Design and Delivery

The theoretical basis of the program derives from the body of literature identifying the importance of personal narratives to improve memory and promote self-esteem that can lead to extended independence and more successful aging. This workshop utilizes the social network theoretical model (Heaney & Israel, 1997).

The workshop is offered in collaboration with public and private organizations that provide services for the elderly population, primarily at senior centers and older adult housing. While there is a lot of interest in autobiography-related activities, few of these organizations have staff who feel qualified to conduct life history programs. Extension personnel can either conduct the workshop, or they can provide train-the-trainer instruction for staff or volunteers who provide services to the older adult community. Because Extension is the outreach arm of the university, the workshop gives legitimacy to a project that seems formal and academic but is actually informal and personal.

The program appeals to seniors from a wide variety of cultural and ethnic backgrounds and from varying educational and income levels. As with other Extension wellness programs for older adults, participants tend to be lifelong learners who constantly try new experiences. They are recruited primarily through newsletters or flyers posted in senior centers and older adult housing complexes.

Instructor training basically involves providing an outline for the creative and interactive process, such as outlined here. Taught in a minimum of two sessions, the workshop comprises four incremental action steps: to get seniors thinking, talking, writing, and sharing details of their lives.

First, to get workshop attendees thinking about recounting their lives, the instructor describes different approaches to autobiography and the varied ranges of scope from a single page to book-length manuscripts. Program attendees have told their stories in a variety of traditional written formats as well as in poetry, cookbooks, plays, art, photo albums, and songs. Often someone in the class will question the value of their own life story. In response, the instructor asks them, "How interested would you be to read one paragraph or 100 pages that your parents or grandparents wrote about their lives?"

The next step is to get them talking by asking individualized questions. The process of peer-education usually takes over as they hear others begin reminiscing; this reminds them of incidents from their own lives.

The instructor explains there is no wrong approach and offers suggestions on how to create the document in their own style. Participants are given a three-ring, loose-leaf binder, paper, and pens so that they can start jotting notes throughout the session. It is suggested that they start each topic on a separate page in the loose-leaf binder, making it easier to move ideas around as the work progresses.

Most older adults love to talk; the major challenge is to transition them to writing. At the end of the first session, the assignment for the next class is to write about one topic, event, or life situation. Over the week-long-period, new ideas begin to take shape as they read newspapers, watch television or chat with friends. To help this process, workshop attendees are provided with a written list of questions that include far ranging topics such as:

Q. What were crucial turning points in your life, the decisions you made, the consequences?

Q. Describe an incident you remember from your school days,

Q. How did your family spend vacations or celebrate holidays?

At the second class, the focus is to get them to share their stories by having them read what they've written to the group. They hear what others have created and that all the stories are interesting, and they see the amazing variety of formats. Workshop attendees also begin to realize the value of what they've composed by the praise from their peers.

Workshop attendees are cautioned not to be discouraged by negative people who might undermine their project. It is important for these creative older adults to realize that they are producing this story of their life, primarily as an experience for themselves, secondarily as a legacy for their family. The journey of compiling an autobiography can place their life into new perspective to help them understand how their own personal identity has been shaped by their lives (Birren & Cochran 2001).

Accomplishments and Impacts

Qualitative interviews with workshop attendees reveal the impact of the program, which often includes improved self-esteem and interesting reconnections with social networks. Many describe gaining insight on the value of their life within the context of their family structure. While many claimed at the start of the workshops that their lives "aren't anything important," most report enthusiastic reactions from family, especially grandchildren, and friends to what they write. They also see how they fit, what they contribute, in a process that one participant compared to the holiday classic movie, It's a Wonderful Life.

In April 1999, a group of 15 active older adults at a Las Vegas senior apartment complex participated in two sessions with the Extension instructor. Nine of them decided to continue meeting weekly. Seven months later, each participant had a printed book including pictures, bound with covers, to give their family members as a unique Christmas gift.

The professional quality of their life documents was matched with their stories of reuniting with family members. Bridges were rebuilt as they called, wrote, and visited friends and relatives to obtain pictures and memorabilia or to check facts. Many had not been in contact with these people for decades. One said, " I never thought I could have this much fun." Most of the statements about the impact of the workshop on their lives reflected improved self-esteem and/or reconnections with social networks, program goals directly related to the theoretical model.

References

Birren, J., & Cochran, K. (2001). Telling the stories of life through guided autobiography groups. Baltimore, Maryland the Johns Hopkins University Press.

Heaney, C. A., & Israel, B. A. (1997) Social networks and social support. In Glanz, K. Lewis, F.M. & Rimer, B.K. (eds) Health behavior and health education (pp. 179-205). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Effectiveness of a Program to Increase Fruit and Vegetable Consumption

Katherine L. Cason
Professor
Clemson University
Clemson, South Carolina
kcason@clemson.edu

Introduction

Consuming an adequate intake of fruits and vegetables has been proposed as one way to reduce morbidity and mortality from heart disease and cancer (American Cancer Society, 1996; Deckelbaum et al., 1999; Ness, 1997). Fruits and vegetables contain several essential nutrients, such as vitamin C and folate, and other dietary factors, such as fiber and flavenoids, which have been linked to the prevention of various cancers and other chronic illnesses. In addition, obesity levels are lowest among those who have high intakes of fruits and vegetables (Produce for Better Health Foundation, 2001).

The U.S. Dietary Guidelines recommend that all people over the age of 2 years of age eat five to nine servings of fruits and vegetables every day (USDA, 1995). However, more than 75% of U.S. residents fail to meet these recommendations (Produce for Better Health Foundation, 2001). Americans are eating only about four servings of fruits and vegetables, including French fries and potato chips. Excluding these high-fat processed potato products, Americans are eating only about 3.6 servings each day. Only one in five Americans meets the 5-A-Day minimum requirement for fruits and vegetables. Only 13% of American families, 22% of single persons, 27% of "empty nesters," and 39% of the elderly are eating the minimum recommended five servings per day of fruits and vegetables. Only nine out of 10 teen girls (89%) and 96% of children ages 2-12 do not eat five servings per day.

Project Description

Recognizing that the majority of people consume an inadequate intake of fruits and vegetables, a program was developed with the goal of increasing consumption. This program arose from a partnership between the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) and the South East Produce Council (SEPC).

EFNEP targets those with fewer economic and social resources, those who might be food insecure, and those at vulnerable life cycle stages. Through EFNEP, participants learn how to make good choices to improve the nutritional quality of the meals they serve their families. They participate in a series of at least 12 lessons based on the Food Guide Pyramid and the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The hands-on, learn-by-doing approach allows the participants to gain the practical skills necessary to make positive behavior changes.

The SEPC is a non-profit organization made up of growers/shippers, wholesalers, retailers, brokers, institutional food service operators, distributors, the media, and industry product or service providers. The organization is committed to serving its members and the community, and they support charitable causes in Southeastern communities.

Through the partnership, EFNEP's educational lessons were enhanced to focus more on fruit and vegetables. The SEPC provided information on different produce items, which includes the nutritional value and health benefits of the item along with proper selection and handling. Fruit and vegetable recipes were developed and tested in the Food Science and Human Nutrition sensory evaluation/food product development lab at Clemson University. These recipes were used in the hands-on portion of the educational classes provided by EFNEP educators.

One of the unique components of this program involves funding provided by the SEPC for the purchase of a seasonal produce item that would be "featured" in the educational lessons. The SEPC provides a coupon to be used by the educators and to be left with the family redeemable at their preferred local supermarket. The first set of coupons (for collards) was distributed and redeemed during the months of February and March. The second set of coupons was for sweet potatoes, and was distributed during November and December.

Evaluation

The program includes a pre-test and a post-test evaluation to assess preferences and changes in level of consumption of fruits and vegetables. The entry survey revealed that the top four fresh fruit items the participants purchased were apples (80.6%), oranges (70.4%), grapes (68.5%), and bananas (65.7%). The top fresh vegetable items were cabbage (48.1%), corn (42.6%), collards (35.2%), lettuce (25.0%), carrots (25.0%), and potato (25.0%).

Before the program, the participants ate 2.7 servings of fresh fruits and vegetables in a day. Approximately one third of the participants (33.3%) ate three servings of fresh fruits and vegetables in day, and 27.8% ate two servings of fresh fruits and vegetables in day.

About half of the participants (45.4%) were aware of the 5-A-Day program, and half of the participants (53.7%) were not aware of the 5-A-Day program before the program. The top two fruits that participants never had but would like to try were mango (40.4%) and kiwi (33.0%). The top four vegetables that participants never had but would like to try were eggplant (21.1%), asparagus (17.4%), mushrooms (39.2%), and squash (7.4%).

The results indicate that about three quarters of the participants (74.0%) consume more fruits and vegetables since starting the program. After the program, the participants ate 3.2 servings of fresh fruits and vegetables in a day. About one third of the participants (31.6%) ate four servings of fresh fruits and vegetables in day and 25.3% ate three servings of fresh fruits and vegetables in day. About one quarter of the participants (24.2%) ate two servings of fresh fruits and vegetables in day. Almost all participants (94.7%) thought this program was helpful in educating them about the benefits of eating fresh fruits and vegetables. Paired T-tests results on the question "On average, how many servings of fresh fruits and vegetables do you eat in a day" showed that after the program, the participants significantly increased number of servings of fresh fruits and vegetables eaten in a day (P<.01).

Conclusion

The program is an innovative way to help participants acquire knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors necessary to improve their eating habits. Evaluation data shows that the program participants made a significant increase in their consumption of fruits and vegetables. In addition, through the administration of entry surveys, a baseline profile of the families' fresh produce purchases and consumption was developed. The knowledge base developed through this project can contribute to other education programs, and provide needed information for disease prevention and intervention planning.

References

American Cancer Society Advisory Committee on Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer Prevention. (1996). Guidelines on diet, nutrition, and cancer prevention: reducing the risk of cancer with healthy food choices and physical activity. The American Cancer Society 1996 Advisory Committee on Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer Prevention. Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 46(6):325-41.

Deckelbaum, R. J., Fisher, E. A., Wintson, M., Kumanyika, S., Lauer, R. M., Pi-Sunyer, F. X., St. Jeor, S., Schaefer, E. J., & Weinstein, I. B. (1999). Summary of a scientific conference on preventive nutrition: Pediatrics to geriatrics. Circulation 1999;100(4):450-6.

Ness A. R., & Powles, J. W. (1997). Fruit and vegetables, and cardiovascular disease: A review. International Journal of Epidemiology, 26(1):1-13.

Produce for Better Health Foundation. (2001). Fruit and vegetable intake in the U.S. survey data and demographics. Available at: http://www.5aday.com/html/research/consumptionstats.php

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. (1995). Report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee on the dietary guidelines for Americans, 1995.

What Is Forestry: A Multi-State, Web-Based Forestry Education Program

Robert Wheeler
Forestry Specialist
University of Alaska Fairbanks Cooperative Extension Service
Fairbanks, Alaska
ffraw@uaf.edu

Marcella Szymanski
Formerly, Assistant Extension Specialist in Forest Economics & Natural Resources
/ University of Kentucky, Cooperative Extension Service
Lexington, Kentucky

Introduction

What Is Forestry: Connecting Communities, a Web-based <http://www.uaf.edu/coop-ext/forestry/wif/> forestry education program, was developed through the combined efforts of the Cooperative Extension Services in Alaska and Kentucky and was funded by a grant for the University of Alaska.

This year-long forestry education program was designed for primary level (4th and 5th grades) and its mains goal were:

• To promote education and connect people to a greater appreciation of forests and their cultural connections with communities and

• To create a program that is fun, exciting, and challenging

Emphasis was put on building student interest and involvement in forestry through multiple means of educational experiences, including science, math, art, photography, poetry, music, and hands-on field activities. Through these activities, students were challenged to build a better understanding and appreciation of community forestry resources. Success of the program was measured by the combination of pre- and post-program surveys as well as through the use of concept mapping.

The Program

Schools Involved in the Program

The initial offering of the program was conducted with three 4th grade classes at Kalifornski Beach Elementary School in Soldotna, Alaska, and with 5th grade classes at Issonville Elementary, Lakeside Elementary, and Sandy Hook Elementary schools in Elliott county in eastern Kentucky.

To assist both students and teachers with the sharing of their community-based forestry activities through the Web site <http://www.uaf.edu/coop-ext/forestry/wif/>, sister school classes were assigned between the Alaska and Kentucky schools. Through the Web site, students and teachers were able to interact, learn about forestry, and share digital images.

The Web Exchange

The design of the program involved not only students conducting the activities identified in the unit, but also an associated interchange of information through the WIF Web site with their sister school classroom. The teachers also had a Web page of their own with necessary teaching and support materials.

The WIF-CC program was developed around seven educational units. Each unit was designed as a learning cycle model and was aligned with core content and both Alaska and Kentucky educational standards. Each unit has a 5E learning cycle (engage, explore, explain, expand, evaluate), a culminating project, and an associated cultural activity.

Starting the Program--The Introductory Unit: What Is a Forest and Why Is Mine Different?

This introductory unit involved students measuring and observing their forests and then comparing their observations with forests in the partner state. In order to better understand and describe their local forest, students measured a forest inventory plot and collected information on tree species, age, height, and diameters. Additionally, each class was responsible for creating digital postcards for sharing on the WIF-CC Web site.

Students in both states were assigned to teams to capture images of select forestry topics, such as forest products, recreational activities, colors of the forest, jobs, water, road and access, and forest organisms.

Figure 1.
Digital Image Camera Team During Field Trip from Kalifornski Beach Elementary School in Soldotna, Alaska

Results of the Program

Pre- and Post-Program In-Services

During August 2001, prior to the start of the school year, a pre-program in-service was conducted in order to introduce the participating teachers to the program and use of the web site. During April 2002, a post-program in-service was conducted with the participating teachers during which they listed the following achievements of the program.

• Greater understanding of their own community and state and the influence of forests
• Increased feeling of commonality between AK and KY as human beings
• Students' awareness of how important the forest is to our community
• Learning different vocations from the forest
• Cultivating relationships
• Realizing that forests impact them/us
• Learning that not all forests are like theirs
• Putting together geography with the people and forests
• Awareness of differences in tree species
• Use of the Web to search information
• Getting the experience of meeting teachers from Alaska and sharing information
• Connecting the science contents to the forestry unit
• Students broadening their knowledge base of forest even in their backyard
• Students becoming aware of the diverse uses of the forest
• Students finding many similarities between people from Alaska and Kentucky
• Students becoming aware that some of their relatives are famous

Culminating Activities

Each unit of study required students to do a culminating project. These projects could be done individually, as a group, or as a class and were intended to provide examples of application for the information provided in the unit. A listing of some of the culminating projects conducted include:

• Making a movie on the forest
• Making a PowerPoint presentation
• Presenting a play
• Giving a presentation during parents night at the school
• Writing articles for newspapers
• Creating posters
• Writing poems
• Creating Venn Diagrams
• Field trips conducted by each class to local forest areas

Evaluation for the Project

A What Is Forestry Baseline Survey was conducted both pre- and post- program for both teachers and students with the results shown in Table 1.

Survey results show significant differences were found in perceptions of forest harvesting as a management method for forests, an increase in the tolerance for multiple uses of forests, an increase in personal connection to the care of forest, an increase in awareness of the quality of life and forest care, and an increase of the awareness of the cultural connections forests have to communities.

Figure 2.
Graphs of Results from the Pre and Post What Is Forestry Survey

Figure 3.
Graphs of Results from the Pre- and Post- What Is Forestry Survey

Figure 4.
Graphs of Results from the Pre- and Post- What Is Forestry Survey

Concept Maps

In addition to the pre- and post- program baseline surveys, pre- and post-program concept maps were obtained. Concept maps are pictorial representations of concepts with lines used to represent the relationships between concepts (Lanzing, 2002). The concepts and lines are labeled on the concept map. Once completed, the concept map is a visual graphic that represents how a person thinks about a subject, topic, etc. Concept maps were drawn on the each of the three subjects, What Is Forestry or Forest, My Community, and The Importance of the Forest to My Community at the beginning of the 2002 school year and in February of 2003 school year to assess how much was learned. Points for each concept map were added together. The total number of points each student was earned was based on the following scoring method.

1pt.   Number of relevant concepts
1pt.   Number of times words linked concepts together
1pt.   Number of times branching occurred.
3pts. Number of crosslinks between concepts
1pt.   Number of examples of concepts.

Significant differences were found in students' concept of the forest showing an increase in concepts, examples, and how concepts were linked together (Table 2 and Figure 5).

Figure 5.
Graphs of Concept Mapping Results

Conclusions

The success of the What Is Forestry: Connecting Communities program was reflected in the diverse list of activities, culminating projects, student involvement, and hands-on learning. Students and teachers were surprised at how similar their interests and activities were in spite of great differences in the forests of the two states. More work is needed to further enhance the Web site, but it is believed that the What Is Forestry: Connecting Communities program has opened the door for further application of the program on a national level to assist students from different states to teach each other about their local forests.

Reference

Lanzing, J.W.A. (1996, August). Everything you always wanted to know about . . . Concept Mapping

Use of a Cattle Feeding Profitability Prediction Contest in Beef Extension Programming

Jane A. Parish
Assistant Professor
Extension Beef Cattle Specialist
jparish@ads.msstate.edu

W. Blair McKinley
Extension Professor
Extension Beef Cattle Specialist
bmckinley@ads.msstate.edu

Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences
Mississippi State University
Mississippi State, Mississippi

Introduction

Over the last 11 years, beef producers from Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana have retained ownership through the feedlot of over 6,700 head of cattle in the Mississippi Farm to Feedlot Project. Carcass information collected includes carcass weight, marbling score, ribeye area, fat thickness, USDA Yield Grade, and USDA Quality Grade. Similar cattle feeding data collection projects are offered as Extension programs across the United States. These projects allow beef producers to assess feeding performance and carcass characteristics of their cattle and make any needed changes in their breeding, health, and management programs. They also provide the opportunity to evaluate retained ownership as a viable marketing alternative.

Contest Participation and Guidelines

As an enhancement to the Mississippi Farm to Feedlot Project, beef cattle producers were recently challenged to predict which three calves in the Mississippi Farm to Feedlot Contest would be most profitable beyond the farm gate. Pictures, weights, and live prices for 10 randomly selected steers in the 2003-2004 Mississippi Farm to Feedlot Project along with contest guidelines appeared in the January 2004 and April 2004 issues of Cattle Business in Mississippi, published by the Mississippi Cattlemen's Association. Contest cattle pictures, guidelines, and entry forms were posted on the Mississippi State University Extension Service beef cattle Web site <http://msucares.com/livestock/beef/ftf/contest.html> as well as being included in the April 2004 issue of the Mississippi Beef Cattle Improvement Association newsletter.

The purpose of the contest was twofold: 1) to demonstrate the value in knowing the genetic and profit potential of a set of calves prior to making cattle feeding decisions and 2) to stimulate renewed interest in the Mississippi Farm to Feedlot Project and expand the audience reached by this educational effort. Beef cattle producers were encouraged to participate in the Farm to Feedlot Contest regardless of whether they consigned calves to the Farm to Feedlot Project. Eighty-two percent of the contest participants had never consigned cattle to the Farm to Feedlot Project.

The contest guidelines were as follows:

1. Contest steers are part of the 2003-2004 Farm to Feedlot consignment and are of varying types and breeds.
2. Initial weight is the pay weight in Mississippi the day of shipment.
3. Beginning steer value is defined as the value of cattle in Mississippi the week of shipment.
4. Cattle will be fed, handled, and marketed similarly to any other pen of steers at a commercial feedlot.
5. Feedlot average daily gain and health status data will be collected.
6. Cattle will be marketed when the feedlot manager has determined an appropriate harvest end point has been reached (March ® May 2004).
7. Carcass data collected on each steer will include USDA Quality Grade, rib eye area, fat thickness, and USDA Yield Grade.
8. For contest purposes, cattle will be priced on a grid basis. The grid will favor cattle that grade USDA Choice or higher and produce a USDA Yield Grade of 3 or less. The grid severely discounts for USDA Yield Grade 4 and higher, USDA Standard Quality Grade, dark cutters and hard bones.
9. For contest purposes, net return will be determined by subtracting expenses (initial feeder calf cost, feed costs, animal health costs, etc.) from the income generated by selling the carcass to a packer on a quality grid basis.
10. Contest divisions include youth (18 years of age and younger), college, and adult. The winner in each division will be the contestant with the highest calculated net return over three steers. Tie Breakers will be used in the event of ties.
11. Contest entries are limited to one per person.

Contest participants were asked to predict which three steers would have the highest net return from feeding and list the identification numbers of those steers on the contest entry form. The fill-in-the-blank tiebreaker questions included:

1. The pen of 10 contest steers will produce carcasses that are _______ % USDA Choice.
2. The difference between the highest and lowest net returns among the 10 contest steers will be $_______.
3. The difference in hot carcass weight between the lightest and heaviest steers among the 10 contest steers will be _______ lbs.

Contest Results

Contest results indicated that total cost, carcass weight, and Quality Grade were important factors in determining feeding profitability. Selecting the most profitable cattle through a finishing phase using visual appraisal and a known starting weight turned out to be quite challenging as evidenced by the wide variety of answers submitted on the 10 contest steers (Table 1).

Summary and Conclusions

At the annual Mississippi Farm to Feedlot Project wrap-up meeting held in July 2004, contest results were announced, and a presentation that included a question-and-answer session on the results was conducted. Questions posed to the audience included the following:

1. Did perceived breed composition influence predictions of which calves would be the most profitable?

2. Would it have made a difference if health histories of the calves were part of the initial information?

3. Would knowing more about the genetic potential of the calves have helped to identify the more desirable calves to feed?

4. Finally, how well do you know the genetic and profit potential of the calves on your own farm?

The consensus was that recording and using information on calf genetics and health histories was of utmost importance in producing and retaining ownership of feeder cattle through a feedlot phase.

Contest results were also reported in the August issue of Cattle Business in Mississippi. Division winners won their divisions outright, and each received a whole beef tenderloin, complements of the Mississippi Cattlemen's Association. The information generated by this contest continues to provide educational material for presentations at local beef production and cattlemen's association meetings. The Mississippi Farm to Feedlot program remains a valuable opportunity for beef producers to learn more about cattle performance in the feedlot and on the rail.

Demonstrating Manure Spreader Calibration at Field Days

Karen M. Mancl
Professor
Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering and Extension Water Quality Specialist
mancl.1@osu.edu

J. Dean Slates
Extension Agent
Agricultural and Natural Resources
slates.1 @osu.edu

The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio

Introduction

Livestock producers are being encouraged to develop manure management plans. Ohio law requires livestock operation of over 1,000 animal units to adopt a manure management plan (Ohio Revised Code 903). Smaller operations were encouraged, beginning in 1991, to develop plans (Ohio Revised Code 1511 & 1515).

Manure management plans include testing soil and manure and match nutrients to crop needs. Many testing labs and manure management specialist calculate the appropriate application rate for each farm and field. Several investigators (Levins, Schmitt, & Richardson, 1996; Quirke, Magette, Curran, & Dodd, 2000) have produced computer programs for regulators and planners to determine appropriate application rates for farm operations.

The agronomic benefits of manure applied to soil have long been recognized. The plant nutrients and organic matter in manure improves soil tilth, increases water holding capacity, lessens erosion, improves soil aeration, and benefits soil microorganisms (Loehr, 1968). However, if not applied carefully, nutrients can be lost through volatilization, leaching or runoff.

The first step in determining manure application rates is manure nutrient testing. A survey of 390 Minnesota farmers (Schmidt, Jacobson, & Schnitt, 1996) showed that 20% tested manure and 37% kept records of manure application.

To apply manure at the desired rate can be problematic. Spreading equipment is typically not calibrated to apply at the desired rate. Schmidt, Jacobson, and Schnitt (1996) found that 16% of Minnesota farmers calibrated application equipment. Hoban, Clifford, Futreal, and McMillian (1997) interviewed over 1,000 North Carolina livestock producers. They found 38% tested manure and 36% have calibrated their spreading equipment.

Uniformity of application is also a concern. Wright & Cross (1996) evaluated the application uniformity of five types of spreading equipment: drag hose, center pivot irrigation, V-spreader, traveling gun irrigation, and tank spreader. They found tank spreaders had the highest coefficient of uniformity.

The next step is to ensure that manure is applied at a rate to match the nutrient needs of a crop. However, with surveys showing fewer than 40% of farmers calibrating equipment, what is the potential for over or under applying manure? In the study described here, field days were used to demonstrate how to calibrate a manure spreader. The demonstration also illustrated the limited capability of farmers to estimate manure application rates just based on their experience and the importance of calibration.

Methods and Materials

Livestock producers, growers and others were invited to six Ohio field demonstrations including a 30-minute spreader calibration demonstration. The demonstration followed instructions presented by Woodward (1985).

A commercially available manure spreader was loaded with solid livestock manure. Three, 10-by-10-foot plastic sheets were weighed and laid out in a field. The spreader applied manure, including the areas covered by the plastic sheets. The plastic was carefully gathered and weighed to determine the amount of manure applied to each sheet. Based on the size of the sheet and the average weight of manure, the application rate was converted from pounds of manure per square feet to tons of manure per acre using the following conversion factor:

Lbs. of manure * 21.8 = Tons of manure per acre

Sheet size in ft²

Table 1 shows the conversion to tons per acre for different sized plastic sheets. As a part of the demonstration, following spreading, participants completed a survey (Figure 1). They were asked if they had seen this demonstration before, their occupation and manure application estimate. Responses were sorted for first-time participants who were livestock producers or growers.

Figure 1.
Observational Survey for Manure Calibration Field Demonstrations

 

Results and Discussion

A total of 101 livestock producers and growers responded to the survey during the demonstrations. Actual application rates varied at the demonstrations from 4 to 18 tons/acre. The application estimates are presented in Table 2.

Of the 101 respondents, 13% estimated at or near the actual application rate (± 1 ton). Some (22%) estimated high rates with 2 estimating four times the actual application rate. Most (65%) underestimated the rate with 50% estimating less than one-half the actual application rate.

Summary and Conclusions

The survey, conducted as a part of the field demonstration, illustrated that experience and visual estimates of manure application, without training, will likely result in over-application of manure. Without calibration, 50% of the livestock producers and growers surveyed would have applied twice the desired application rate. The tendency to underestimate manure application and therefore over-apply manure reinforces the need to calibrate spreading equipment as a part of a manure management plan.

The 30-minute field demonstration showed that spreader calibration is quick, simple, and inexpensive. Calibrating spreading equipment can increase the value of a manure management plan without placing a hardship on livestock producers or growers. Extension offices and Soil and Water Conservation Service offices can facilitate calibration by having scales and calibration tables available for farmers. A short demonstration at a local field day can reinforce the need for calibration and demonstrate how quickly and easily it can be done.

Acknowledgements

Support provided by OSU Extension and Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center.

References

Hoban, T. J., Clifford, W. B., Futreal, M., & McMillian, M. (1997). North Carolina producer' s adoption of waste management practices. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 52(5), 332-339.

Levins, R. A., Schmitt, M. A., & Richardson, D. W. (1996). Extension programming for teaching manure management to farmers. Review of Agricultural Economics, 18(1996), 275-280.

Loehr, R. C. (1968). Pollution implications of animal wastes--A Forward oriented review. US Department of the Interior. Kerr Water Research Center, Ada, OK.

Ohio Revised Code. (1991). Agricultural Pollution Abatement. Sec. 1511 and 1515.

Ohio Revised Code. (2002). Concentrated Animal Feeding Facilities. Sec. 903.

Quirke, T., Magette, W. L., Curran, T., & Dodd, V. A. (2000). Computer software for pig and poultry environmental management system. Proceedings of the 8th international symposium on animal, agricultural and food, processing wastes. ASAE St. Joseph, MI.

Schmidt, D. R., Jacobson, L. D., & Schnitt, M. A. (1996). A manure management survey of Minnesota swine producers: summary of responses. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 12(5), 591-594.

Woodward, M. (1985). Manure spreader calibration worksheet. Technical Note #4. Cooperative Extension Service. Penn State University.

Wright, P., & Cross, T. (1996). Uniformity of manure application by traveling guns. ASAE paper no. 962038. St. Joseph, MI.

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.