December 2005
Volume 43 Number 6

Ideas at Work

The Pesticide Notification Network: An E-Source for Agriculture

Jane M. Thomas
PNN Database Coordinator
Richland, Washington
jmthomas@tricity.wsu.edu

Catherine Daniels
WSPRS Director
Puyallup, Washington
cdaniels@wsu.edu

Washington State University

With the Pesticide Notification Network (PNN), Washington State University (WSU) has developed a unique method for updating the agricultural community about pesticide regulatory changes in Washington. Through computer programming, the PNN delivers targeted pesticide registration information, distributing the right information to the right people.

Keeping Up to Date

Washington's agriculture is very diverse. We rank third behind California and Florida in specialty crop farmgate value (Jerry Baron, personal communication, March 21, 2005) and produce on the order of 250 different crops. Growers often rely on Section 18 and 24c/Special Local Needs (SLN) registrations for uses not provided on Section 3 pesticide labels. The need for tracking the availability of effective pesticides for use on specialty crops is well recognized in the state and, in fact, is discussed in the mandates for both WSU's Food and Environmental Quality Laboratory (RCW 15.92.060) and the Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration (WSCPR) (RCW 15.92.100).

The need for pesticide registration information stems from the volume of activity. According to EPA's Section 18 Web site <http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/section18/>, in 2004 Washington led the nation with activity on 19 exemption requests. In 2004, the Washington State Department of Agriculture issued 40 SLNs <http://ext.wsu.edu/pnn/> and as of February 8, 2005 Washington led the United States with 313 active SLN registrations (Robert Schultz, personal communication, February 8, 2005).

In Washington, as in most states, throughout a typical year there is a great deal of pesticide regulatory activity (new product registrations, cancellations, and label revisions). Because we produce a large number of crops, we have a large number of registered pesticides; therefore we have many regulatory changes to track. A quick review of pesticide registration in Washington via the Pesticide Information Center On-Line (PICOL, http://picol.cahe.wsu.edu/labels/Labels.php) shows that:

• Of the more than 12,000 pesticides registered in Washington, 7,449 are commercial-use products and

• Of the 1503 new labels registered in 2004, 914 were commercial-use products.

With the number of specialty crops grown in the state and the high volume of labeling activity, it is important that growers, crop advisors, commodity/commission staff, researchers, and Extension personnel receive up-to-date information about available pest management tools. WSU, through the PNN, has found an innovative way to deliver this information.

System Description

The PNN provides a means of delivering targeted information directly to the agricultural community about pesticide uses important to Washington agriculture. The system, which is free to subscribers, tracks:

• New product registrations;
• Label changes;
• New or amended Section 18 exemptions;
• New, revised, or cancelled SLN registrations;
• Re-registration eligibility decisions (REDs);
• Proposed product cancellations and use deletions; and
• miscellaneous/regulatory information.

While distributing this type of information is in no way unique, we think our targeted delivery system is. The PNN is operated using a Web-based relational database. Users subscribe to the PNN on-line, customizing their subscription by crop and pesticide type.

Each PNN notification is linked to one or more pesticide products and then to one or more crops (Figure 1, items 1 & 2). When the notification is to be sent, the computer program builds a distribution list first based on the crop(s) selected, then based on the type of pesticide. Once a notification is completed it is distributed directly to the subscriber by e-mail.

Figure 1.
PNN Notification 2005-49

For example, take a look at PNN notification 2005-49 (Figure 1). This notification discussed the revision of SLN WA-960024. This SLN provided for the use of Orthene 75S Soluble Powder for insect control on cranberries. (Note item 3, a link to a copy of the revised SLN.) To build the distribution list for this notification, the PNN database first compiled a list of everyone in the system who desires cranberry information. Next, the program eliminated everyone who did not subscribe for insecticide information. This notification was distributed to the Washington Cranberry Alliance, cranberry growers, and Extension agents and entomologists who subscribed to receive cranberry information. By using this targeted distribution, we avoid flooding already overtaxed growers, Extension staff, and researchers with information not pertinent to their work.

The Numbers

The PNN delivers between 300 and 350 notifications each year. In 2004, 325 PNN notifications were distributed using 16,621 e-mails. There are currently 221 subscribers to the system.

Operational Information

The nuts-and-bolts part of the operation of the PNN (reviewing revised labels and new registrations) is possible because the Washington State Pest Management Resource Service office also operates PICOL, a searchable label database. Because of PICOL, the Washington State Pest Management Resource Service office receives copies of all Washington's new and revised pesticide labels. As the PICOL Database Coordinator processes this information, she sorts out PNN-related registrations and notes relevant changes on any revised labels. New and revised labels are forwarded to the PNN Coordinator for processing.

The operation of the PNN is funded with an annual grant from the WSCPR. The grant currently covers 48% of an FTE for the PNN Database Coordinator, 20% of the PICOL Database Coordinator, and 37.5% of a file clerk.

Beyond E-Mail

While the unique feature of the PNN is the targeted information distribution, the PNN also provides a Web page <http://ext.wsu.edu/pnn> with:

• Copies of all PNN notifications;
• Lists of both the SLNs and Section 18s;
• Electronic copies of most Washington SLNs and Section 18 labels;
• Search screens for notifications, SLNs, and Section 18s;
• Postings of miscellaneous information; and
• Subscriber links.

Subscriber Satisfaction

We have surveyed the PNN subscribers twice since the system was started in the spring of 1997 (Thomas 1998, Thomas 2002). In both surveys, PNN users reported that they were satisfied with PNN services and indicated that information was both timely and useful. In the 2001 survey, we asked if the PNN information was redundant of other information sources, and 85% reported that it was not. Further, 79% of those responding reported that they were either formally or informally distributing PNN information to others.

References

RCW15.92.060, Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 15.92, Center For Sustaining Agriculture And Natural Resources, Section 060, Laboratory Responsibilities.

RCW15.92.100, Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 15.92 Center For Sustaining Agriculture And Natural Resources, Section 100, Commission on pesticide registration -- Duties.

Thomas, J. M. (1998). PNN users give network high marks. Agrichemical and Environmental News [On-line], 145. Available at: http://aenews.wsu.edu/May98AENEWS/may98pnn.html

Thomas, J. M. (2002). PNN gets good grades from subscribers: Results of the 2001 survey. Agrichemical and Environmental News [On-line], 189. Available at: http://aenews.wsu.edu/Jan02AENews/Jan02AENews.htm#PNNSurveyArticle

Using Technology to Survey New Audiences

Natalie Carroll
Associate Professor and Extension 4-H Specialist
Youth Development and Agricultural Education
ncarroll@purdue.edu

Stephen Lovejoy
Professor and Extension Specialist
Agricultural Economics
lovejoy@purdue.edu

Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana

Introduction

Assessing citizen understanding and concerns about water quality issues in order to plan educational activities and programs can be challenging. The authors wanted a survey method that was relatively inexpensive, convenient for staff to administer, gave quick and accurate feedback, and would include a representative group of citizens. These criteria were met by using a touch-screen computer at a large, informal public venue, a state fair.

Touch screen technology is becoming very common. It is used in most PDAs and was used in voting machines in a few states in the 2004 presidential election. Health information has been available in public access kiosks since the early 1990s utilizing touch screens, and there is some evidence that they could improve physical access to health information (Jones, 2003).

In a recent study of patients' acceptance of a computerized screening using touch screen technology, 95% of users found it easy to use the touch screen and understand the instructions, even those with little computer experience. Furthermore, 74% of the patients preferred a computerized feedback over feedback from staff members (Karlsson, Bendtsen, 2005). In a study investigating the effects of interaction devices on performance of older users, results indicated that participants using touch screen were faster and less frustrated than participants using voice control and mouse (Rau, Hsu, 2002). Getting information or answering a survey on a computer is attractive to some people because of the anonymity it offers. Because it reduces human interaction, it also reduces constraints that participants may feel to answer questions honestly.

Methods

A computer with a touch screen display was set up at a state fair in 2003. The fairgrounds are located within a fairly large city (population 784,000) and attract both urban and rural people. Fairgoers have set time aside to enjoy the day and may have more time to complete a survey than when they are called at home, stopped on the street, etc. The computer was set up in an air-conditioned building (always a draw on a hot August day) and monitored by Extension staff who were on-site to answer general questions and keep an eye on a number of educational displays.

The touch-screen, computerized survey required participants to rank water quality issues and indicate the strength of their feelings about each issue. The survey was programmed, using Macromedia's Director¬ software, so that issues were randomly presented to remove the influence of order preference. The touch screen monitor has software that is easily loaded on the computer to adapt the program to a touch screen response format. The touch screen monitor and computer rented for the duration of the fair.

Results

A total of 511 people completed this survey. Of the 960 people who started the survey, 322 were removed because they were under 18, and 127 people quit before completing the first phase, ranking of the seven water quality issues. Forty percent (40%) of the respondents reported living in a large city or suburb, and 14% were from farms (Table 1). The largest number of respondents, with respect to age, was in the 35-44 year age group, although people 18 – 54 were fairly equally represented (Table 2). Gender of respondents was not determined, so the authors do not know if more women or men took the survey.

Most respondents (41%) felt the most important water quality issue is "supply of clean drinking water." Significantly lower numbers indicated that "wastewater treatment" (15%) and "community planning resources" (13%) were the most important issues facing local communities. Other issues (ag production issues, surface water quality, health of aquatic ecosystems, and water-based recreational opportunities) were chosen as the most important issue less than 10% of the time.

Rankings were also examined by characteristics of the respondent. Each demographic group felt that "supply of clean drinking water" was the most important issue, except respondents 65-74 years old, who chose "wastewater treatment" as the most important issue (26% ranked it first). Respondents 18-24 years old gave "supply of clean drinking water," "wastewater treatment," and "community planning resources" nearly equal importance. Similarly, respondents 25-34 years old gave "supply of clean drinking water" and "wastewater treatment" nearly equal importance.

When analyzed by community size, most individuals chose "clean drinking water" as the most important issue, with the exceptions of people from towns of 5-10K, who chose "community planning resources as most important, and people from small towns (less than 5K) and farms chose "ag production issues" as most important issue facing their community.

Conclusion

The touch screen computer and the state fair venue provided a very successful and cost effective method of data collection. The touch-screen computer made it fun and easy for people to give feedback in a relaxed, air-conditioned venue and at their own pace. The state fair was a great place to collect data to be used in planning Extension educational activities. Respondents from ages 18 to 75+ participated.

The feedback will enable us to develop programs that meet clientele need and to target those programs to specific clientele groups. Data handling was easy, and transposition errors were eliminated. The data was automatically saved, compiled, and input to an Excel file for further analysis. This technology could be utilized in other public spaces like libraries, shopping malls, office buildings, etc., for needs assessment, marketing, and providing Extension information to citizens in non-traditional settings.

References

Jones, R. (2003). Making health information accessible to patients. ASLIB Proceedings. 55(5-6):334-338.

Karlsson A., & Bendtsen P. (2005). Acceptability of a computerized alcohol screening and advice routine in an emergency department setting - a patient perspective. Addictive Behaviors. 30(4):767-776.

Rau, P-L P, & Hsu, J-W. (2002). Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 46th Annual Meeting; Baltimore, MD; USA; 30 Sept.-4 Oct. 2002. pp. 219-223.

The Meskwaka Tree Project: Ten Years of Community Forestry Volunteer Development

Robert M. Ricard
Extension Educator
Urban and Community Forestry
University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension System
West Hartford, Connecticut
robert.ricard@uconn.edu

Background

Connecticut is an urban state that is ranked fifth most densely populated and yet is heavily (59%) forested. Residents derive many essential benefits from a sustainable community forest and public trees--air is cleaner, property is more valuable, violent behavior is reduced, heat island effect is mitigated, noise is deadened, and non-point source pollution is reduced. To supply these benefits, community forests and public trees must be well managed, but communities often lack sufficient financial resources necessary to employ well-trained professionals to sustain high-quality community forestry programs.

Public safety is the highest priority of local government, and trees are risks. All trees can cause damage to property and can injure or kill people if they fail, especially if they have not been maintained and are located where people and public trees come in frequent contact. But acceptable risk can be managed if cities and towns have well-developed community forestry programs.

Community Forestry Needs Assessment

In 1991 a statewide needs assessment was conducted by the University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension System to determine the quality of municipal community forestry programs. The survey audience included tree wardens, elected municipal officials, community forestry volunteers, and municipal employees (n=635). The survey determined that:

Public tree planting and maintenance is under funded.

Many public trees are old and decaying thereby increasing risk to public safety.

1. Inappropriate trees are selected.
2. Trees are incorrectly planted.
3. Young, newly planted trees are not cared for and are often damaged.
4. Municipal personnel often do not posses tree care knowledge and skills.
5. Citizen participation in community forestry is limited.
6. Local officials do not recognize the need to manage and care for public trees.

These problems clearly were rooted in public policy decision making at the community level. In response, developing well-trained volunteers to perform community forestry functions, including, if not emphasizing, public policy efforts, was identified as an appropriate response to developing high-quality community forestry programs.

Program Development: The Meskwaka Tree Project

Studies have shown that community forestry volunteers can enhance community forestry efforts, especially in communities deficient in financial and professional resources (Kuser, 2000; McCullough, 1995). To be successful, volunteers must be motivated and possess specialized knowledge and skills, with identifying motivated volunteers as the most important first step in developing volunteer-based programs (Brudney, 1990). Once volunteers have been identified and recruited, outreach education programs can be more efficiently and effectively designed and implemented (Tyson, 2002).

Communication models exist that can aid Extension program design, development, delivery, and assessment and communication scientists recognize that improved communications skills can produce desirable changes in the behaviors of target audiences for specifically identified purposes (Andreasen, 1995; Tyson, 2002). Roger's (1995) Diffusion of Innovations Model emphasizes the importance of assessing target audiences and contributes important ideas for sequencing the various stages of program development. In 1992, Roger's model was used to guide the development of a new statewide outreach education program called the "Meskwaka Tree Project"; the purpose was to train and support Connecticut community forestry volunteers.

Roger's model identifies recruitment as the first and most critical step in volunteer development. People interested in volunteering for community forestry activities were required to complete a thorough questionnaire regarding their past and current volunteer activities to help determine their willingness (motivation) to participate in public policy processes. Applicants who had demonstrated by example willingness to meet with municipal leaders, work with the media, and engage in public speaking, and who were will to volunteer for at least 1 year, were accepted into the program.

They then participated in the 3-day, 2-night Meskwaka Tree Project Weekend, where they gained knowledge and skills in tree biology, tree care, fundraising, media relations, community affairs, tree law, and marketing. Participants also met key state and local decision makers and subject experts. They returned home with the knowledge, skills, contacts, and support needed to initiate new community forestry programs or enhance existing ones.

Outcomes

From 1992 to 2001, over 202 community forestry volunteers from 69 Connecticut communities and three other states participated in the Meskwaka Tree Project. A follow-up assessment of these participants was completed 10 years after (2002) the start of the program. The assessment found that these volunteers have initiated or participated in a wide variety of community forestry efforts. For example:

• 38 communities have written and passed shade tree ordinances,
• 28 shade tree commissions have been established,
• More than 3,830 new public trees have been planted,
• 21 cities and towns have conducted volunteer organized shade tree inventories,
• Three nonprofit forestry organizations have been founded, and
• Seven municipal memorial tree programs have been created.

Total volunteer hours contributed average 5,240 annually.

Conclusions

The Meskwaka Tree Project has provided Connecticut municipalities with well-trained community forestry volunteers for 10 years. People willing to participate in public policy processes necessary for effective community forestry programming were identified and recruited from local municipalities and were provided with training in community forestry. These volunteers remained motivated and dedicated to community forestry activities in their communities, successfully accomplishing many tasks, and filled a need that otherwise could not be filled in most communities due to limited financial resources and professionals. The accomplishments of Meskwaka Tree Project volunteers also demonstrate the effectiveness of Roger's Diffusion of Innovations Model as an appropriate tool for Extension outreach.

References

Andreasen, A. R. (1995). Marketing social change: Changing behavior to promote health, social development, and the environment. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Brudney, J. L. (1990). Fostering volunteer programs in the public sector. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Kuser, J.E., ed. (2000). Handbook of urban and community forestry in the northeast. New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

McCullough, R. (1995). The landscape of community: A history of communal forest in New England. Hanover, NH, University Press of New England.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York, Free Press.

Tyson, C. B. (2002). Strategic communications for influencing environmental behaviors. North Chelmsford, MA, Anthology Pro.

Using Electrofishing Demonstrations to Increase Water Quality Awareness

J. P. Lieser
Extension Educator, Watershed Management
Caldwell, Ohio
lieser.8@osu.edu

Chris Zoller
Extension Educator, ANR/Community Development
New Philadelphia, Ohio
zoller.1@osu.edu

Renee Clark
Extension Program Assistant, Agriculture and Horticulture
New Philadelphia, Ohio
clark.471@osu.edu

Ohio State University Extension

Introduction

The Ohio State University (OSU) Extension Electrofishing program is designed to enhance people's appreciation of nature by providing hands-on field demonstrations and discussions. Reaching out to new, non-traditional, diverse audiences and forging new partnerships is the key to facing the challenge of conserving natural resources. Through the electrofishing program, OSU Extension teaches people about their local streams and watersheds, inspires them to appreciate their environment, and strives to ensure that others will be able to have clean water for years to come.

Electrofishing Program

Since, 2001, the electrofishing program has reached a large, new audience of over 2,000 participants in 72 demonstrations. Participants have ranged from watershed groups to elected officials, high school science classes, and Extension professionals.

Program Objectives

• Teach participants about indicators of water quality,
• Explain the process of electrofishing,
• Show aquatic wildlife and good stream habitat up close,
• Explain how land use practices affect water quality, and
• Discuss how conservation can help protect and restore streams.

Background & Methods

In the fall of 2000, the OSU Extension Watershed Program was founded. Advisory committee meetings and interviews showed a need for basic stream ecology and water quality education in OSU Extension's East District. However, it was apparent that a fun, non-confrontational method of information delivery was needed. Electrofishing demonstrations were identified as a perfect fit, and the program was begun in the spring of 2001.

Fish as Biological Indicators

Monitoring of fish populations is an integral component of many water quality management programs, and its importance is reflected in the aquatic life use-support designations of many states (Barbour, Gerritsen, Snyder, & Stribling, 1999). Fish are good indicators of long-term (several years) effects and broad habitat conditions because they are relatively long-lived and mobile (Karr, Fausch, Angermeier, Yant,, & Schlosser, 1986). They are also at the top of the aquatic food web and are consumed by humans, making them important for assessing contamination and human health. In addition, fish are relatively easy to collect and identify to the species level (Barbour et al., 1999). Research has shown that different species of fish are sensitive, mildly sensitive, tolerant, or very tolerant to pollution. Thus, based on the type and quantity of fish caught, a score can be given for the health of a waterway.

Electrofishing

Electrofishing has proven to be the most comprehensive and effective single method for collecting stream fishes (Barbour et al. 1999). Electrofishing is a fish population survey technique that involves generating an electrical field in the water. Fish that pass through the electrical field are temporarily stunned, then collected by dip net, placed in a live well, counted and identified by species, and then returned to the stream unharmed.

Resources Needed

• Trained fisheries professional with the necessary equipment and experience to conduct a demonstration. The state department of wildlife or environmental protection agency often has many individuals trained to do this type of work.

• An easily accessible demonstration site providing plenty of room for participants to stand. Choose a site that is as natural as possible to demonstrate good stream habitat and to discuss its benefits.

• Two Sturdy tables, two to four 10-gallon aquariums, and plastic bags or plastic specimen containers to pass around the fish for viewing.

Warning: A permit is needed in most states to use electrofishing equipment. Also, due to the risk of electrical shock, participants should not be allowed to touch any of the equipment or walk into the water during the demonstration.

Demonstration Format

• Educators and participants gather at a pre-determined streamside location.

• The Extension educator or resource person provides an introduction to the importance of water quality.

• An explanation of chemical, biological, and physical monitoring methods and rationale for water quality monitoring is provided.

• Fisheries professional provides a demonstration of the electrofishing equipment and gathers fish.

• Stunned fish are placed in a live well and transferred to aquariums placed on a table for display.

• Fish are separated and placed in aquariums.

• Fish are identified to species level and pollution tolerance of each species is discussed. Individual fish are then passed around in specimen containers or plastic bags filled with water.

• Demonstration concludes with a discussion of how to protect and restore water quality in our watersheds.

Note: Extension professionals who are interested in organizing a demonstration are encouraged to contact the authors to answer any additional questions they may have.

Results

In an effort to evaluate one county-based program, a pre/post test was conducted. A Likert-type scale was used, with 1 = Poor to 4 = Excellent. The results are summarized in Table 1.

When asked to share what they learned from the demonstration, participants provided answers that could be divided into three primary categories: the process of electrofishing, factors affecting water quality, and fish identification. Participants were also asked to provide examples of what they would do with their new knowledge. Their comments included going fishing more often, working with government officials to improve water quality, and sharing the information with students.

Conclusions

Electrofishing is a fun, non-confrontational way to teach people about water quality indicators. It provides an opportunity to explain how our actions may contribute positively or negatively to water quality and aquatic life. The demonstrations are designed to appeal to the participants' natural curiosity. Participants are provided the opportunity to explore their local streams and view wildlife and habitat up close. The hope is that by exposing people to the natural world they will gain a greater appreciation and use it as motivation to conserve their local natural resources.

Electrofishing demonstrations are particularly helpful in providing conservation-minded farmers an opportunity to discuss the management practices they and their neighbors follow to maintain and protect water quality. Because agriculture is often blamed for poor water quality, these demonstrations provide an opportunity for non-farmers and farmers to discuss efforts to protect the environment in a relaxed atmosphere.

References

Barbour, M. T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B .D., & Stribling, J. B. (1999). Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: Periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish, 2nd ed. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, D.C.

Karr, J. R., Fausch, K. D., Angermeier, P. L., Yant, P. R., & Schlosser, l. J. (1986). Assessing biological integrity in running waters: A method and its rationale. Special publication 5. Illinois Natural History Survey.

Sanders, R., (ed.). (2000). A guide to Ohio streams. The Ohio Chapter of American Fisheries Society (AFS). Columbus, OH.

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.