February 2006
Volume 44 Number 1

Research in Brief

Survey of University of California Academics' Attitudes Regarding the Impact of Escaped Horticultural Introductions on Wildlands

Cheryl A. Wilen
Area Integrated Pest Management Advisor
UC Statewide IPM Program and UC Cooperative Extension
San Diego California
cawilen@ucdavis.edu

Carl E. Bell
Regional Advisor
University of California Cooperative Extension
San Diego, California
cebell@ucdavis.edu

James I. Grieshop
Education Specialist
University of California
Davis, California
jigrieshop@ucdavis.edu

Karen L. Robb
County Director and Farm Advisor
University of California Cooperative Extension
Mariposa, California
klrobb@ucdavis.edu

Introduction

In the United States, 85% of purposeful introductions of non-native plants have been for ornamental plants, creation of wildlife habit, and mitigating soil erosion (Reichard, 1996). The majority of these plants have been environmentally benign, but significant numbers have become invasive. Of the 78 plants considered the most invasive in California (Bossard, Randall, & Horshovsky, 2000), 41 were introduced as ornamentals. Invading non-native plants displace the native flora, which then reduces or eliminates the habitat for wildlife, birds, and insects, and can alter physical properties of invaded habitats (Bossard et al., 2000).

Ornamental plants sold by nurseries have marketable aesthetic qualities and agronomic characteristics that make them commercially successful for nursery production and landscape use. These traits include ease of propagation, rapid growth and spread, and disease tolerance. While these characteristics are valuable for horticultural production, they also increase the propensity of plants to survive without human assistance and become established in natural habitats. Plants that are well adapted to local conditions may become invasive.

Many land grant institutions have academic fields supporting ornamental horticulture and natural resources. There may be different and possibly incongruous philosophies between academics wanting to introduce new plants and those trying to control invasive plants and restrict their introduction. For example, within the University of California (UC), Agriculture Experiment Station (AES) and Cooperative Extension (CE) academics conduct research and extension programs to evaluate new ornamental varieties and promote urban forestry. However, academics in weed science, forestry, rangeland management, and natural resources are increasingly focusing their efforts on managing invasive species.

To investigate this issue within UC, we conducted a survey of academics with assignments in natural resource (NR) programs or ornamental horticulture (OH) regarding perceptions and attitudes about invasive plants of horticultural origin. These data can be used to facilitate discussion between the different groups.

We selected four plant species or plant groupings to focus the survey questions: Pampasgrass (Cortaderia selloana), Tasmanian blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus Labill.), fountaingrass (Pennisetum setaceum), and brooms (Scotch broom [Cytisus scoparius]), (French broom [Genista monspessulanus]), (Spanish broom [Spartium junceum L.]). We selected these species because they were: 1) originally introduced for landscape use, 2) with the exception of French broom, can still be purchased from nurseries or catalogs, and 3) are considered invasive by the California Department of Food and Agriculture or by the California Invasive Plant Council.

Materials and Methods

A 12-question survey was distributed to members of the UC Natural Resources (NR) Workgroup and the Floriculture and Nursery (OH) Workgroup. These workgroups include AES faculty, specialists, and farm advisors. Sixty-one surveys were sent to the OH workgroup and 60 to the NR workgroup. Questions were designed to determine respondents' awareness of invasive plants in California and their attitudes regarding the risks of invasive ornamental plants. Responses were anonymous. Data were tabulated and analyzed using Chi-square test of independence (CoHort Software, Pacific Grove, Ca).

Results and Discussion

Demographics

A total of 42 surveys were returned, 27 (45%) from NR and 15 (24.6% response) from OH. The majority of the respondents (82.5%) have 100% CE assignments. Ten percent of the respondents have appointments that include both CE and AES research or education. The remaining respondents (7.5%) are AES faculty. Because the surveys were distributed via workgroups and the bulk of workgroup members have CE appointments, the sampled population is skewed towards CE.

Most (61.9%) are county-based, 33.3% are campus-based, and 4.8% are located on a natural reserve. There are three UC campuses that are part of the Land Grant System (Berkeley, Davis, and Riverside). The state is also divided into three regions, Central and South Coast, Central Valley, and North Coast and Mountain, for the purpose of administration of the county-based advisors (Figure 1).

Figure 1.
Regional Breakdown of Campuses and County-Based Cooperative Extension Advisors

Awareness of Non-Native Ornamental Plants in Wildlands

Nearly all (97.6%) of the respondents recognized that non-native ornamentals occur in California's wildlands. One hundred percent responded that non-native landscape ornamentals are problematic in some manner in California's wildlands, although there is a nearly equal spilt between those who believe that the problem is widespread and those who believe non-native ornamentals affect wildlands in fewer areas

Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement on whether the plants in question are significant problems. The majority felt that brooms and pampasgrass are significant problems, with over 90% of the respondents either agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement (Table 1). The majority (62.8%) of the respondents also agreed or strongly agreed that fountaingrass is a significant problem. Only a slight majority (52.5%) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement for eucalyptus. This may be due to the long ornamental history of eucalyptus in California and its slower speed of invasion in relation to the other species.

Respondents who agreed or strongly agreed with the previous statement were asked to indicate their perception of the geographical impact of these plants. It was interesting to find that none of the species were perceived by most respondents to be widespread problems in California (Table 2). For each species, the majority of the respondents indicated that these plants were problematic in several or fewer areas in California. This shows that the respondents feel that the negative impact of the species on California wildlands is regionalized.

However, when asked about the rate of non-native plants moving into wildlands, 73.8% felt that the rate was increasing, and 14% were not sure. Therefore, there is the perception that non-native plants are spreading more rapidly in wildlands. This may be due to increased awareness of the presence of non-native plants in natural areas of California.

The majority of the respondents indicated that there should be some limits to plant importation into California (Table 3), with 84.7% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing to the statement that "Plant importation should not be limited."

A similar percent (83%) also disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement "All new plant species should be excluded from being used in California landscapes." It is interesting to note that 7.3% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed to that statement, while 12.9% felt that plant importation should not be limited. Although the numbers are small, they do indicate that there are members of ANR who have strongly opposing viewpoints regarding the importation of non-natives into California.

The majority of the respondents (83%) indicated that California landscapes should not be limited to planting native species, but they also felt that plants should have a minimal risk of escaping from the planted area (Table 4). From the responses regarding the impact of invasive plants, it was surprising that high percentages of the respondents indicated that non-natives could or should be grown near sensitive areas and that they felt that non-natives contribute to the aesthetic value of wildlands.

Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement to a series of statements regarding levels of restriction for imports of plants into California. Only the most restrictive statement, "All new plant species should be excluded from being used in California landscapes," had a significant chi-square statistic (0.0028). None of respondents who held a full CE appointment agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, but 20% those with a full or partial AES assignment felt that new plant species should not be allowed in California landscapes (Table 5).

Similarly, when asked to indicate their level agreement with the statement "Only natives should be grown in California landscapes," those with a full CE assignment were more likely to disagree with the statement than those with a full or partial AES assignment (chi square= 0.0127) (data not shown).

Awareness of Non-Native Ornamental Plants by Program Area

There were few significant chi-square statistics when testing for independence between respondents in OH and NR. This indicates that there are similar opinions regarding the impact of non-native ornamental plants on California wildlands.

There was a significant relationship (p=0.002) only between "Program Area" and the level of agreement with the statement of eucalyptus as a significant problem. Interestingly, there appears to be more variation in opinion among the respondents in the OH group than between the two programs. Roughly half (47%) of those in OH agreed or strongly agreed that eucalyptus was a problem but 54% also disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. Of the NR group, 52% agreed and 40% did not agree or strongly disagreed with the statement.

Both groups felt that eucalyptus was a problem in several areas, brooms in limited areas, and fountaingrass in limited to several areas of California (data not shown).

There was a significant relationship between program area and opinion of geographic spread of pampasgrass (p=0.0191). While 100% of the OH group felt that pampasgrass was a problem in several areas of California, 38% of the NR group felt that it was a problem in most of the state (Table 6). This indicates that there is a difference in perception between the two groups in regard to the geographic impact of pampasgrass. Neither group had respondents that felt that pampasgrass was a significant problem in most of California.

Conclusions

In general, OH academics did not view the problem of invasive species as severely as did NR academics. However, results do indicate that academics, regardless of assignment, recognize that non-native landscape ornamentals occur in California's wildlands.

Responses varied over which species were most troublesome, on the impact of these plants on natural areas, and about what should be done about the problem. These groups should continue to dialog both formally and informally in order to have cooperative, rather than conflicting, goals. As representatives of the university, the message presented to clientele should be consistent rather than confusing.

OH Advisors should continue to work with nurseries to develop production and marketing practices for plants that are less invasive as well as educate nurseries and their customers about appropriate plant selection. NR Advisors should continue to educate stakeholders such as the California Invasive Plant Council about their criteria for deciding which plant are invasive and help them develop appropriate protocols by region for testing or validation.

References

Bossard, C. C., Randall, J. M., &. Horshovsky, M.C. (Eds.) (2000). Invasive plants of California's wildlands. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: Univ. of Calif. Press.

Reichard, S.E. (1996). Prevention of invasive plant introductions on national and local levels. In: J.O. Luken & J.W. Thiere (Eds.), Assessment and management of plant invasions ( pp. 215-227). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Consumer Trust in Extension as a Source of Biotech Food Information

Enefiok Ekanem
Institute of Agricultural & Environmental Research
Tennessee State University
Nashville Tennessee
eekanem@tnstate.edu

M. Mafuyai-Ekanem
Cooperative Extension
North Carolina A&T State University
Greensboro, North Carolina
mafuyai@ncat.edu

Fisseha Tegegne
Institute of Agricultural & Environmental Research
Tennessee State University
Nashville Tennessee
ftegene@tnstate.edu

Safdar Muhammad
Institute of Agricultural & Environmental Research
Tennessee State University
Nashville Tennessee
smuhammad@tnstate.edu

Surendra Singh
Dept. of Agricultural Sciences and Institute of Agricultural & Environmental Research
Tennessee State University
Nashville, Tennessee
ssingh@tnstate.edu

Introduction

In recent years, the issue of biotechnology in agriculture has generated extensive debate and controversy. This debate will continue as more modified crops and foods enter the food system. One important issue that has confronted professionals in the biotechnology debate is the issue of consumer trust. In the face of massive information coming at them, consumers may not readily be able to determine which source(s) of information to trust. The degree of trust assigned to a source is crucial in the overall decision of the individual.

Biotechnology will continue to have significant impacts on agriculture, rural communities, and organizations such as Extension (Hoban, 1989; Brown, Kiernan, Smith, and Hughes, 2003). Even in the light of these impacts, controversies surrounding biotechnology (Arends-Kuenning & Makundi, 2000) and how the media is handling coverage of the technology will continue (Eyck & Williment, 2003).

Use of genetically modified crops has been quite pervasive since their introduction. Genetically modified (GM) crops were planted to 145 million acres, worldwide, with U.S. farmers planting more than 66% (96.3 million acres) of all the biotech crops planted globally <http://pewagbiotech.org/resources/factsheets/crops>. In recent years, biotechnology has become a strong part of the American agricultural sector, and, according to the International Food Information Council, IFIC, biotechnology seed usage was expected to reach an "all-time highs in 2003" (IFIC, 2003)

Along with the rapid adoption of the new biotechnology in agriculture is the accompanying belief of American consumers that biotechnology will benefit them and their families within the next 5 years. In an IFIC consumer survey, 43% of survey participants believed that biotechnology will lead to improved quality, taste, and variety of foods. Forty percent believed that nutritional and health value of foods will be improved, while 19% believed that the technology will lead to reduced chemical and pesticide use on plants. While 10% of American consumers believed that biotechnology will lead to reduced food costs, 9% believed that there will be improvements in crops and crop yields (IFIC, 2003).

The role of Extension in the current debate on biotechnology is crucial because Extension " . . . can provide farmers with unbiased information on biotechnology. Agents can provide specialists and researchers with information on farmers' needs, as well as feedback on effectiveness of new technologies" (Hoban, 1989). These new expectations will require training of Extension professionals to ensure that Extension remains competitive in providing needed information to its clientele and stakeholders.

Objectives

The objectives of this article are to: (1) present findings on the media and sources used by consumers to gather information about biotechnology and (2) estimate the level of trust that consumers put in different biotech food and nutrition information sources, including Extension.

Data and Methodology

Data analyzed for this article were collected from a mail survey of consumers in Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee during the summer of 2003. The mail survey instrument was developed with input obtained from focus group meetings in the three states. County Extension agents assisted in organizing the focus group meeting, serving as moderators and/or facilitators.

A preliminary questionnaire was developed and pre-tested using students, university employees, and other willing participants. After the pre-testing, the questions were refined, and a final questionnaire was developed. The finalized questionnaires were used in collecting the information reported in this article. Respondents to the finalized questionnaire were randomly selected from the telephone directories from cities in the counties identified as "high," "medium," "low" income to ensure that the sample was fairly representative of the states' populations. One source for the information used for the county classification was the income data published by the National Association of Counties <http://www.naco.org>.

After randomly selecting the counties and the cities to include in the study, a mailing list was generated from local telephone books. The survey package sent to households contained a cover letter, a coded survey, and a postage-paid, self-addressed envelope. Surveys were mailed to a total of 2,167 randomly selected households, and respondents were instructed that surveys were only to be completed by the household grocery shopper. A total of 250 useable surveys (12% response rate), received in a timely manner, were analyzed.

In order to accomplish this objective, the mean trust scores for each of all other sources of information were compared to the mean trust scores for Extension professionals. All analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS, 2003). Findings from the study are used in offering policy implications of the role of Extension professionals in conveying biotech food and nutrition information to consumers.

Results and Discussion

Socio-Economic/Demographic Information

Analysis of data collected showed that 38% of the survey participants were males, while 61% were females. About 78% of survey participants indicated that they had two to four people living in their households, while about 8% indicated that they had five or more. Ten percent of survey participants were less than 34 years old, 53% were between 35 and 54, and about 35% were 55 years or older.

Slightly more than 20% of respondents had high school (including GED) or less education, 22% had trade or vocational school or some college but no degree, while the remaining 42% had associate or bachelor's degree. About 16% indicated that they had graduate or professional degrees.

Fifty percent of survey participants lived in a rural area outside of town, 10% lived in towns with less than 2,500 people, and 30% lived in towns with 2,500 – 49,999 people.

Based on their 2002 pre-tax (gross) income, only 9% of survey participants earned less than $14,999. About 20% earned between $15,000 and $34,999, while 38% of families in the survey had household incomes between $35,000 and $74,999 (Table 1).

Media Used in Gathering Information and Frequency of Use

Consumers were given seven options (including "other") to indicate how frequently they were used to gather of information on food products and nutrition issues. Respondents were asked to select appropriate responses from a Likert-type rating scale with choices of: 0 = "never used," 1 = "rarely used," 3 = "occasionally used," and 4 = "frequently used." Newspaper was the most frequently used medium, followed by television and word-of-mouth (tied as second most-used) and magazine. The Internet was the lowest in terms of frequency of use. The rankings are presented in Table 2.

A chi-square test of independence was conducted to examine the level of significant relationship between all selected socio-economic variables and the media used for gathering information. There were significant differences in the use of Newspapers (Π² = 12.603, p # 0.05) and Word-of-Mouth (Π² = 11.515, p # 0.05) to gather information between males and females. A re-categorization of the variable AGE [0 = less than 44 years, "YOUNG" and 1 = older than 44 years, "OLD"] was used in the analysis.

Age influenced the use of magazines and newspapers in obtaining information about food products and nutrition issues. The level of education influenced the use of word-of-mouth, television, and Internet as media sources of information. The level of significant difference was strong for the Internet (Π² = 6.857, p # 0.01). A strong relationship exists between income and the Internet as a medium of information.

Gross 2002 income was very significantly (Π² = 15.716, p # 0.01) related to the use of the Internet to gather information (Table 3). Information presented in Table 3 shows that, in general, gender, age, education level, where the consumer lives, and gross household income are important variables that can be used in explaining differences in sources used to gather information on food products and nutrition issues. Understanding how these variables affect consumers' search for information is crucial for delivery of Extension program(s) to consumers.

Consumer Biotechnology Information Sources

Respondents to this survey were presented with sources of biotechnology and production information sources and asked to identify the level of trust they put in them. Five Likert-type options were given: "0 = no trust," "1 = low trust," "2 = low trust," "3 = moderate trust," "4 = high trust," and "5 = do not know," and respondents were asked to use the categories in responding.

The frequency of response (Table 4) indicates that the highest percent of response showing the highest trust were Extension professionals (38.4%), closely followed by health officials (37.1%). About 30.9% of all participants indicated that they had high trust for university scientists. The sources with no consumer trust at all were political officials (43.5%), followed television news reporters (23.7%) and radio news reporters (18.7%). These results are consistent with previous studies.

Comparing Extension Professionals with Others as Information Source

Because one interest of the article is to compare the trust rating of Extension professionals to others, t tests were used for accomplishing the task. The null hypotheses tested, in all cases, was that the differences in the mean value of trust for extension professionals and the mean value of trust for other sources of information was equal to 0. The alternative was that the difference was not equal to 0. Specifically, these could be written as:
H₀: μ_{mean trust in extension} - μ_{mean trust in other source} = 0; H₁: μ_{mean trust in extension} - μ_{mean trust in other source} ≠ 0,

where H₀ and H₁ are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively and μ denotes the mean.

This formulation represents a two-tailed hypothesis test where there is no a priori assignment of the direction of the relationship. The specific formula for computing the t statistic used in testing the null hypothesis is given by: t = [(Mean Difference)/ (Standard Deviation /sqrt (n))]. Results of the pair-wise tests showed that the other sources of information used in acquiring biotechnology information were significantly different from extension professionals as a source. All results were significant at the 5% level. Results are displayed in Table 6.

Conclusion

This article has shown that consumers gather food products and nutrition information through various media. Four commonly used media were: newspapers, television, word-of-mouth, and magazines. Chi square analysis showed that media used to gather information about farm products and nutrition issues were related to gender, age, level of education, place of residence, and gross household income. These findings are consistent with previous research that suggests that the young and wealthy tend to use the Internet more than do the old and the poor.

The top three sources from which consumers gathered information about biotechnology were: Extension professionals, health professionals, and university scientists. These sources were also the most trusted sources for the consumers that participated in the survey.

Implications for Extension

Biotechnology in agriculture has only recently been the subject of intense debate among scientists, the public, and policy makers. This article has demonstrated that opinions and attitudes towards biotechnology and trust in the sources of biotech information depend, to a great extent, on demographic, socio-economic, and other characteristics of the consumer. These characteristics are very important and could affect how Extension delivers its programs to them.

Because consumers are seeking Extension professionals as a source of information, there should be a conscious effort to invest in training/education for sharpening the skills of these professionals. This kind of training and education will update current skills and knowledge in the area of biotechnology to further enhance consumer confidence in extension professionals. Such an investment will benefit not only the extension system, but also the clientele and stakeholders it serves.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the editor and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. We extend our appreciation to campus project directors Dr. Eric Wailes (University of Arkansas, Fayetteville), Dr. Dennis Balogu (University of Arkansas, Pine Bluff), and their research staff for assistance in collecting data for the project. Financial assistance from the United States Department of Agriculture under project #2001-52100-11212 and the Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Research, Tennessee State University, are also gratefully acknowledged. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the USDA or collaborating universities.

References

Arends-Kuenning, M., & Makundi, F. (2000). Agricultural biotechnology for developing countries: Prospects and policies. American Behavioral Scientist, 44(3), 318 – 349.

Brown, J. L., Kiernan, N. E, Smith, E. S.. & Hughes, L. (2003). County agent views about facilitating public education and discussion of genetic engineering use in agriculture. Journal of Extension [On-line], 41(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2003december/rb5.shtml

Eyck, T.A.T., & Williment, M. (2004). The more things change . . . : Milk pasteurization, food irradiation, and biotechnology in the New York Times. The Social Science Journal, 41: 29 – 41.

Hoban, T. J. (1989). Biotechnology: Implications for Extension. Journal of Extension [On-line], 27(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/joe1989fall/a7.html

International Food Information Council, IFIC. (2003). Americans' acceptance of food biotechnology matches growers' increased adoption of biotech crops. Available at: http://www.ific.org

ISAAA. (2003). Global review of commercialized transgenic crops: 2002 feature: Bt maize. Available at: http://www.issa.org/

Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. (2003). Genetically modified crops in the United States. Fact sheet. Available at: http://pewagbiotech.org/resources/factsheets/

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, SPSS. (2003). User's guide. Chicago, Illinois, SPSS, Inc.

Texas Agricultural Commodity Board Members' Perceptions of the 2002 U.S. Farm Bill

Christa L. Catchings
Sales Representative
Lockhart Post-Register
Lockhart, Texas
Internet Address: ckaching34@yahoo.com

Gary J. Wingenbach
Associate Professor
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas 77843-2116
Internet Address: g-wingenbach@tamu.edu

Introduction

The U.S. government's role in farm policy changes every 6 years. During initial debates and policy formation processes, national commodity board members and congressional leaders create farm bill provisions that affect producers nationwide. However, agricultural organization leaders cannot assess accurately if their organization's members have truly contributed to the farm bill process. Researchers (Mark, Daniel, & Parcell, 2002) found producers' and non-producers' needs and perceptions of farm bill provisions useful to policy makers in the development of the 2002 Farm Bill. Yet questions remain about agricultural commodity groups' influence and communication of the farm bill process. What U.S. Farm Bill issues are most important to agricultural commodity group board members? Do state-level commodity group leaders communicate their organizations' farm bill interests to local members in an unbiased manner?

Mark, Daniel, and Parcell (2002) studied Kansas producers and agribusiness professionals' perceptions of the changes in agricultural policy from 1996 to 2000. The results showed producers' and non-producers' perceptions of the 1996 Farm Bill (The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act) were useful to policy makers and agricultural interest groups preparing the 2002 Farm Bill. Mark, Daniel, and Parcell noted that because farm policy is created with consideration given to producers' and agribusiness persons' perceptions, it is important to gather this information. Such information would be used by policymakers in adjusting future farm bills to better fit what producers and agribusiness people need. The authors noted that Extension personnel are often in a good position to help gather this information.

The purpose of the study described here was to assess selected Texas agricultural commodity (grain sorghum, corn, wheat, and cotton) board members' perceptions of the 2002 U.S. Farm Bill. Specific objectives guiding this study were to:

1. Determine the most important producer programs in the 2002 Farm Bill.

2. Describe organizational support of the primary issues in the 2002 Farm Bill.

3. Determine organizational influencers affecting the final outcome of the 2002 Farm Bill.

4. Describe the sources of information for understanding the 2002 Farm Bill.

5. Determine if relationships existed between respondents' perceptions and selected demographic variables.

Methods

A descriptive survey design was used in the study. The target population was all Texas agricultural commodity board members representing the Corn Producers, Cotton Growers, Grain Sorghum, and Wheat Producers Associations. The target population (N = 256) represented the major Texas agricultural commodity groups with a vested interest in the 2002 Farm Bill. The accessible population was considerably less (n = 100), due to commodity boards' privacy concerns over the release of their members' personal information.

A stratified-random sample (n = 80) was used to elicit respondents' participation in the study. Cover letters, questionnaires, and return envelopes were sent to commodity board directors in fall 2002, with instructions to distribute, collect, and return the instruments after their annual winter board meetings. Only one response was collected from the grain sorghum association, thereby eliminating or severely limiting their inclusion in this study. A 63% response rate was attained from corn, cotton, and wheat commodity board members. Despite repeated follow-up procedures to non-respondents, caution is warranted against generalizing the results of this study beyond the accessible population.

A modified version of Sulak's (2000) 1996 Farm Bill Survey was used to collect data. Producer program importance was measured using a rank order list of six major farm bill programs (Table 1). Organizational support of the primary issues was measured using an inventory (opposed, neutral, or support) on nine issues (Table 2). Organizational influencers affecting the final outcome of the 2002 Farm Bill were measured using a Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree...4 = strongly agree). The value of commodity board members' sources of information was measured using a similar Likert-type scale (1 = poor...4 = excellent). Cronbach's alpha coefficient of .63 was reported for the organizational influencers scale, and .76 for the sources of formation value scale.

Content and face validity were established by an expert panel of Texas agricultural commodity board members who did not participate in this study. The instrument was field-tested and the study was approved by the Texas A&M University Institutional Review Board (#2002-548). Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were used to analyze data.

Results

Respondents (N = 50) were male (98%), represented a cotton growers association (66%), and were 46 to 55 years old (46%). They had attended college or completed an undergraduate degree (80%), were raised on a farm or ranch (74%), and currently owned a family-operated farm or ranch (98%).

Respondents were asked to rank order the most important producer programs in the 2002 Farm Bill. Six programs were included from the literature to determine respondents' perceptions of farm bill programs affecting their respective agricultural commodity organizations (Table 1). Respondents ranked farm commodity programs, disaster assistance, and international trade as the most important 2002 Farm Bill programs. Foreign food aid, promotion/check-off, and conservation programs were ranked least important.

Organizational support for nine primary farm bill issues was measured using an inventory (opposed, neutral, or support). Respondents indicated their organization's initial position to each issue before it became a part of the farm bill (Table 2). Selected Texas agricultural commodity board members believed their organizations initially were most supportive of issues concerning target prices, marketing loans, and planting flexibility (88%, all). Least supported (10%), and most opposed (78%), was the issue of payment limitations (Table 2).

Respondents recorded their agreement levels for 12 statements measuring their perceptions of organizational influencers affecting the final outcome of the 2002 Farm Bill (Table 3). Respondents strongly agreed that their respective organizations influenced the final outcome of the 2002 Farm Bill (M = 3.52). They agreed that farm organization coalitions were essential for enacting the 2002 Farm Bill (3.49). They disagreed that their organizations' policy influence had decreased with the current farm bill more than it had compared to previous farm bills (1.84) (Table 3).

The value of commodity board members' sources of information for learning more about the 2002 Farm Bill was measured using a Likert-type scale (1 = poor...4 = excellent). Respondents rated seven sources of information (Table 4). Agricultural commodity board members rated Extension/university (M = 3.13) and Internet (2.83) as "good" information sources. Radio, television, and newspapers (2.17) and congressional reports (2.33) were rated "fair" sources of information (Table 4). No information sources achieved an overall rating of "excellent."

Respondents' perceptions of influencers affecting the final outcome of the 2002 Farm Bill and value of information sources used to learn about the 2002 Farm Bill were summated and correlated with selected demographics (commodity organization type, age, location where raised, and education) to determine if significant relationships existed (Table 5). Davis' (1971) convention was used to describe the magnitude of relationships. Relationships between multichotomous nominal and interval variables were analyzed as Cramer's V correlations (Hinkle, Wiersma, & Jurs, 1994).

A significant, moderate relationship (r = .41) existed between perceived levels of influence affecting the final outcome of the 2002 Farm Bill and cotton board membership (Table 5). Cotton board members perceived their organizations influenced the final outcome of the 2002 Farm Bill more so than did board members from other agricultural commodity organizations. A significant, moderate negative relationship (-.34) existed between perceived levels of the influencers and corn board membership. Corn board members perceived their organization's influence had less effect on the final outcome of the 2002 Farm Bill than did board members from other agricultural commodity organizations.

Conclusions, Recommendations, and Implications

Respondents were male, reared in a rural location, and operated their family-owned farms or ranches. The vast majority had attended college or held an undergraduate degree, which bodes well, when coupled with age and experience, for the leadership being provided to the corn, cotton, and wheat commodity boards. Respondents valued target prices, marketing loans, and planting flexibility issues most in the 2002 Farm Bill. Board members perceived these programs had the most impact on their organizations and probably held the greatest relevance to their livelihoods. These findings mirror an earlier study of national commodity board leaders' perceptions of the 1996 Farm Bill (Sulak, 2000).

The value Texas agricultural commodity board members placed on the Cooperative Extension Service and university as information sources has relevance in all states. Based on the findings, the following action points should be implemented in all Extension and/or university-based agricultural policy Web sites:

• Provide updated agricultural policy materials that are easily found and/or accessed from the site's initial entry page.

• Provide segmented (by commodity group interest) farm bill information to reduce search time and drill-down effects.

• Determine, through Web page hits, what types of agricultural policy materials are being accessed most and least often, by site visitors.

• Conduct research with stakeholder groups to determine agricultural policy information type, format, and delivery method most desirable for learning more about the U.S. Farm Bill in a Web-based environment.

• Conduct research with other groups to determine the information and delivery format (text only; graphics; streaming video; etc.) desired in a Web-based medium.

• Reduce efforts in producing educational resources that are radio-, television-, or newspaper-based.

Additional research will help us understand the relationships between agricultural commodity board members' perceptions of and influences on the final outcome of future farm bills. Increased efforts are needed in gathering, analyzing, and reporting agriculturists' perceptions of national agricultural policies and communication methods needed to reach policy makers and the public.

References

Davis, J. A. (1971). Elementary survey analysis. Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hinkle, D., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. (1994). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Mark, D. R., Daniel, M. S., & Parcell, J. L. (2002). Gauging perceptions of farm programs. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002august/rb2.shtml

Sulak, M. (2000). The impact of the 1996 Farm Bill on members of national commodity organizations as perceived by selected organizational leaders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station.

Direct Marketing Edamame (Glycine max [L.] Merrill) to Professional Chefs

Dru N. Montri
Horticulture Master of Science Graduate
dnb135@psu.edu

Kathleen M. Kelley
Assistant Professor of Consumer Horticulture
kmk17@psu.edu

Elsa S. Sánchez
Assistant Professor of Horticultural Systems Managementelsasanchez@psu.edu
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania

Introduction

Producing specialty crops, such as edamame, may provide small-acreage growers in the U.S. with a means to diversify marketing options (Miles & Alleman, 2001). A direct marketing approach, for instance selling to restaurants, offers small-acreage growers several advantages, including a reliable market throughout the growing season, premium prices, and flexibility in the crops grown (Gibson, 1991). To appeal to restaurant clientele, benefits of regionally grown produce, including freshness, uniqueness, great flavor, special care, and personal service should be emphasized (Gibson, 1991).

Small-acreage growers, defined as those producing on one to 99 acres, account for nearly half of all U.S. farms (USDA, 2004). These growers are the most likely to rely on innovative marketing methods to sell their crops (Adam, Balasubrahmanyam, & Born, 1999); therefore, it is imperative that Extension efforts investigate potential marketing opportunities and supply grower clientele with educational resources and instruction that enables them to better understand how to effectively market to potential consumers. The research format described here can be used as a template for further studies that focus on marketing efforts for small-acreage growers.

Edamame as a Specialty Vegetable

Edamame, also known as "green vegetable soybeans," are specialty cultivars of soybean that have been bred for direct human consumption. They are the same species as agronomic soybeans but have a sweet, mild flavor and nutty texture (Miles, Lumpkin, & Zenz, 2000). Edamame beans are rich in vitamin C, vitamin E, dietary fiber (Johnson, 2000), vitamin A, calcium, and protein (Miles, Lumpkin, & Zenz, 2000). Edamame also are one of the few natural sources of a group of phytoestrogens known as isoflavones (Rao, Bhagsari, & Mohamed, 2002). Health benefits of eating foods like edamame can include stronger bones and teeth, lower cholesterol levels, prevention of cardiovascular disease, and reduction in mammary and prostrate cancers (Rao, Bhagsari, & Mohamed, 2002).

Edamame can be prepared by boiling pods in salted water for approximately 5 to 7 minutes (Johnson, 2000). Beans are then removed from the pod and either eaten as an appetizer or a snack, or used as an ingredient in entrees (Rao, Bhagsari, & Mohamed, 2002). Edamame pods should not be eaten because they are tough, fibrous, and have an overall unappealing texture (Miles & Alleman, 2001). The popularity of edamame and other Asian vegetables is increasing in the U.S. due to growing interests in ethnic cuisines and better understanding of preparation instructions (Adam, Balasubrahmanyam, & Born, 1999).

Research objectives for the study were to:

• Discover if demand for edamame exists among chefs in metro-Philadelphia,

• Determine chef preferences for edamame cultivars 'Early Hakucho,' 'Green Legend,' and 'Kenko,' and

• Investigate chef interests in acquiring edamame from regional, small-acreage growers.

Methodology

In the fall of 2003, a consumer-research study was conducted to investigate professional-chef preferences and demand for edamame. The metro-Philadelphia area was chosen as a test site because it is a metropolitan area with diverse demographics such as age, level of education, household income, and ethnicity (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).

A list of restaurants in metro-Philadelphia was developed to represent a variety of international food offerings (American; Asian, particularly Japanese and Chinese; Chinese-French; continental; Swiss and tropical), establishment types (cafes to four star restaurants), and menu selections to evaluate where edamame could be incorporated into menu items. Chefs at selected restaurants were contacted in early September 2003 and asked to evaluate edamame cultivars. A total of 20 chefs agreed to participate and were given a $100 incentive.

In October 2003, chefs were provided with edamame cultivars grown at the Russell E. Larson Agricultural Research Center, Rock Springs, Pennsylvania. All cultivars had dark green pods and light colored pubescence. There were no significant differences between cultivars in bean weight per pod (data not shown). Edamame was considered marketable when pods contained two or more beans and were unblemished.

Prior to distribution, edamame was blanched and frozen to comply with food safety standards. Chefs were given basic preparation instructions along with the shelled (beans removed from the pod, Figure 1) and inshell (Figure 2) edamame.

Figure 1.
Representation of Shelled Edamame Beans Removed from the Pods, Supplied to Professional Chefs at Restaurants in the Metro-Philadelphia Area

Figure 2.
Representation of Inshell Edamame Beans Left in Pods, Supplied to Professional Chefs at Restaurants in the Metro-Philadelphia Area

Chefs were asked to rate each of the edamame cultivars individually based on visual appeal, mouth feel, and flavor and answer the following question:

"On a scale of 1-9 (1 being dislike extremely and 9 being like extremely), how well did you like the sample overall?"

Chefs were then asked to complete a follow-up survey by mail, fax, or telephone to aid in determining demand for edamame and the potential for small-acreage growers to supply this market. Data collected included:

• Chef demographics, including gender, years of culinary experience, and certification level;
• Description of restaurant establishment;
• Previous experience using edamame;
• Quality perceptions of edamame provided;
• Cultivar and presentation (shelled or inshell) preferences;
• Likelihood of using edamame again;
• Interest in obtaining contact information for regional, small-acreage growers who produce edamame; and
• Price chefs were willing to pay per pound for shelled and inshell edamame

Chefs were also asked to create an original recipe using edamame as an ingredient and provide it for use in future marketing studies.

Results

Eighteen chefs completed the study. Sixteen were male, two were female, and experience as a chef ranged from 3 to 30 years. Types of restaurant establishments included: contemporary American, casual upscale vegetarian, Asian-fusion, Japanese, eclectic, and international. The number of meals served per week at the restaurants ranged from 12 to 2,800, with three to 500 patrons served each evening. Prices of entrees ranged from $7.50 to $65.00 per dinner.

Sensory Evaluation

Chefs completed a sensory evaluation rating each edamame cultivar independently on overall appeal. Responses were combined to create three categories: like, neutral, and dislike. Fourteen chefs liked 'Kenko,' 12 chefs liked 'Early Hakucho,' and 11 liked 'Green Legend' (Table 1).

Follow-Up Survey

Ten chefs had previous experience using edamame either as an appetizer or in dishes such as Lobster Risotto with Edamame, Edamame Pancakes, or Edamame Nori Salad. Chefs had obtained edamame from a variety of sources and had purchased it as shelled or inshell, depending on use. Three of the chefs had purchased products with edamame used as an ingredient.

These 10 chefs were asked to compare the quality of the edamame supplied for this study with the quality of the edamame obtained from other sources. Five chefs noted that the edamame supplied was superior to edamame obtained from other sources, four responded that the edamame was the same quality, and one chef noted that the edamame was inferior.

The follow-up survey also addressed preference for cultivar and potential differences in demand for shelled and inshell edamame. After tasting all three cultivars, chefs ranked the cultivars by preference. 'Green Legend' was ranked as most preferred by eight of the chefs, with 'Early Hakucho' and 'Kenko' ranked as most preferred by five and four chefs, respectively (Table 2). When chefs indicated the cultivar they preferred least, responses showed little difference between cultivars, with each receiving five to six responses. One chef indicated that preference was dependent on the recipe used, so he was unable to select a cultivar he preferred most or least.

Eleven of the chefs preferred shelled edamame (Table 3). When asked if they had any difficulty removing the beans from the unshelled edamame pods, two chefs answered affirmatively stating that shelling was "too time consuming," and one chef noted that the "pods did not open correctly so the beans would not slip out."

Chefs used a scale of 1-7 (1 being very unlikely, 4 being neutral, and 7 being very likely) to rate how likely they would be to use edamame as an ingredient in a recipe again. All chefs responded with a rating of four (neutral) or higher, with 10 of the chefs indicating that they were "very likely" to use edamame again. When asked if they had an interest in obtaining contact information for small-acreage growers in Pennsylvania who produce edamame, 14 chefs gave a positive response. Prices chefs were willing to pay for edamame ranged from $0.50-$9.00 per pound for shelled edamame and from $0.25-$7.00 per pound for inshell edamame.

Edamame Recipes

Chefs created original recipes using edamame as an ingredient. Examples of recipes include:

• Edamame Cakes with Sweet Chili Vinaigrette
• Linguini with Zucchini and Fresh Edamame
• Moroccan Edamame Soup
• Sesame Crusted Ahi Tuna with a Saffron-Ginger Buerre Blanc and a 'Green Legend'-Shiitake Saute
• Edamame Bean and Radish Salad (Figure 3)

Figure 3.
Edamame and Radish Salad Created by a Chef in Metro-Philadelphia

Conclusions and Implications

Results indicate there is a demand for Pennsylvania-grown edamame among metro-Philadelphia chefs who participated in this study. Over half of the chefs were "very likely" to use edamame again, and the majority were also interested in obtaining edamame from a Pennsylvania grower for use in their restaurant. This indicates that small-acreage growers in Pennsylvania may become potential suppliers.

Although these research results are primarily of interest to those in the metro-Philadelphia area, the methodology can be used across the country to investigate professional chef demand and preference for other specialty crops and their interest in acquiring a selected specialty crop from regional, small-acreage growers. Extension personnel can survey professional chefs in their vicinities and assist small-acreage growers with establishing mutually beneficial relationships with restaurants or chefs as a direct marketing option for specialty crops.

Researchers should begin by determining what information is desired and choose the most appropriate survey tool, which may include a sensory evaluation and follow-up survey. In an effort to design a more useful survey instrument, small-acreage growers should be consulted to develop questions with the intent of better understanding the needs and desires of this audience. Researchers should then create a list of restaurants in their area and determine how many they are able to supply with the quantity of selected product available. Chefs should be contacted by telephone, asked to participate, and have committed to participate prior to harvest. If the selected specialty crop is to be sampled fresh, it is imperative to have the survey sample committed prior to harvest. A monetary incentive can be a persuasive tool when dealing with time-stressed chefs.

In the stud described here, it was observed that chefs had no preference for cultivar; however, the majority of chefs preferred shelled edamame, possibly because it is more convenient to work with. This type of preference criteria can be determined from a survey and is important for small-acreage growers to understand when pursuing new market outlets. Once survey results are compiled, a list of interested restaurant clientele along with preference criteria could be compiled to assist small-acreage growers in successfully selling to restaurants.

A component of the Extension mission is to be forward thinking and to inform clientele about existing and potential production and marketing opportunities. As specialty crops become more popular among average U.S. consumers, small-acreage growers can learn from Extension educators and specialists about niche markets and competitive channels of distribution and decide whether or not to enter these potentially lucrative markets. By conducting research to investigate professional chefs' cultivar preferences, demand, and how the product should be handled prior to delivery, Extension offers an important service to their grower clientele by reducing monetary and time-related risks. Results from this type of research can also provide valuable marketing tools for small-acreage growers, such as chef-created recipes that can be attached to the product package. Using this research format as a template, Extension personnel can continue to investigate where marketing efforts should focus and how to best meet consumer needs.

Acknowledgement

Funding for this research was provided by The USDA Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program and The Pennsylvania State University College of Agricultural Sciences Seed Grant Program.

References

Adam, K., Balasubrahmanyam, R., & Born, H. (1999). Direct marketing business management series. ATTRA – National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service [On-line]. Available at: http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/directmkt.html

Gibson, E. (1991). Selling direct to restaurants: White-linen produce. California Grower, 15(4), 38.

Johnson, D. (2000). Edamame. Engineering and Technology for a Sustainable World, 7, 11-12.

Miles, C. A., & Alleman, D. G. (2001). Promoting and marketing Asian crops. HortTechnology, 11(4), 517-519.

Miles, C. A., Lumpkin, T. A., & Zenz, L. (2000). Edamame. Washington State University Cooperative Extension Bulletin No. PNW0525.

Rao, M. S. S., Bhagsari, A. S., & Mohamed, A. I. (2002). Fresh green seed yield and seed nutritional traits of vegetable soybean genotypes. Crop Science, 42, 1950-1958.

United State Census Bureau. (2000). Pennsylvania Quick Links [On-line]. Available at: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42000lk.html

United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. (2004). Farm Characteristics [On-line]. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts

Financial Fitness Quiz Findings: Strengths, Weakn