August 2007
Volume 45 Number 4

Tools of the Trade

Negotiating the Complexities of Qualitative Research in Higher Education: Fundamental Elements and Issues--A Book Review

Graham R. Cochran
Assistant Professor and Leader, New Personnel Development
Ohio State University Extension
Human Resources
Columbus, Ohio
cochran.99@osu.edu

Introduction

After reading any good book that stimulates thought and generates questions, I like to share with colleagues. Negotiating the Complexities of Qualitative Research in Higher Education will provide readers with a solid grounding in the fundamental elements, issues, and complexities of qualitative research. Jones, Torres, and Arminio (2006) note that most of us have schooling and experience in quantitative research, while few of us have been trained in qualitative research and the philosophy that grounds it.

This is the unfortunate reality for most of us in Extension, and I am a good case study. Eleven years ago, having recently completed a Master's degree in Zoology, I embarked on a career in Extension. Today, I am still enjoying an exciting career in Extension as well as completing doctoral studies in Extension Education. Both my graduate studies in Zoology and in Extension Education included intensive coursework in statistics and quantitative research. Having only one course in qualitative research, I found Negotiating the Complexities of Qualitative Research in Higher Education useful and valuable in helping me understand qualitative research, and think you will too.

Reasons for Writing (and Reading) This Book

Jones, Torres and Arminio share two primary reasons they wrote this text:

• Improve the methodological goodness of qualitative work--The authors had concerns for the quality of manuscripts submitted to journals.


• Improve the quality of life; especially for those undervalued--The ultimate purpose of research is to create a pathway to greater good and social action.

Their goal is to help researchers through the complexities of the research process. The approach used is to emphasize the intentionality in decisions that researchers make along the way and the relationship of these decisions to the research process. Negotiating the Complexities of Qualitative Research in Higher Education was written to improve the quality of research for the purpose of improving lives, a lesson important in Extension.

I believe there is a strong argument for Extension professionals in the United States learning more about qualitative research and its application to our field. There is considerable dialogue in the U.S. about "scholarship" in Extension. I recently returned from a national conference where a team of our colleagues presented a workshop emphasizing the need for Extension professionals to be engaged in scholarly work and efforts to redefine scholarship. As faculty of land-grant universities, we have the privilege and responsibility to be engaged in research and apply the knowledge gained to our work in local communities.

While quantitative research can and will remain an important part of the agenda, good qualitative research needs to be an equal partner at the table. As the authors point out, including open ended questions at the end of a survey or using interviews as a method does not mean we are engaged in sound qualitative research. Much of the work we do in Extension is about process and catalyzing change, not product and quantifiable results. Thus, there is good reason to read this book and begin your journey toward being a better qualitative researcher.

Key Content and Useful Information

Early in the book, I found the authors' discussion of the full book title interesting and it set a good stage for following chapters. Negotiating the Complexities of Qualitative Research in Higher Education: Fundamental Elements and Issues is the full title. Jones, Torres, and Arminio point out that, by including the phrases negotiating complexities and fundamental elements, the title itself is contradictory and ironic. The words "fundamental elements" refer to building blocks while "negotiating complexities" refers to the ambiguity, challenges and troubling assumptions, which are part of qualitative research.

The book is divided into nine chapters that contain the following key topics:

• Situating, or anchoring--The first two chapters helped me understand fundamental terms in qualitative research and apply those epistemology, theoretical perspectives, methodologies, and methods.


• Identifying participants, sampling and connecting elements of the research design--This section included discussions on sample size, sampling strategies, the complex dynamics at work when participants mirror or do not mirror the social identity of the researcher, and issues of continuity and congruence.


• Positionality and power--A good discussion on being aware of your own lens and position, and the responsibility we have as researchers to become aware of our own influence and to take steps to understand others.


• Criteria for goodness and trustworthiness--Criteria are presented that apply to all research. Here I appreciated the authors' assertion that part of goodness is convincing the reader that the study findings are important in bringing about informed action.


• Mixed methods--Issues involved in mixing methods are discussed as well as what it means to mix methods and how to manage the tensions created.


• Ethical issues--Ethical issues are raised and strategies for working through them are provided. Respect--for the research process, the setting, and the participants--is the major theme.


• Working qualitatively--The authors' own learning, through writing the text, about what it means to work qualitatively and key lessons they have learned is something readers can apply to their own work.

Conclusion

The authors are successful in their commitment to create a text that is useful and accessible while also engaging readers in the complex issues associated with qualitative research. A good example of making a difficult subject accessible is the authors' use of an analogy to explain the phases of situating a study. They described a study as a journey, so I was able to understand the fundamental elements of a study in terms of a destination (understanding of an unsettled question), territory to travel upon (epistemological worldview), map (theoretical perspective), route(s) to take (methodology), and mode of transportation (method). Exercises at the end of each chapter are helpful for individual reflection or could be used with a group learning together.

Good qualitative research should be an important part of scholarship for Extension professionals. Toward this end, I recommend reading Negotiating the Complexities of Qualitative Research in Higher Education.

References

Jones, S. R., Torres, V., & Arminio, J. (2006). Negotiating the complexities of qualitative research in higher education. New York: Routledge.

What Makes a Great Science Experience? A Program Planning Checklist for Educators

Marcia Eames-Sheavly
Senior Extension Associate, Horticulture
ME14@cornell.edu

Jon Gans
Program Director, Service Learning Initiative
Cornell institute for Public Affairs
jag33@cornell.edu

Charlotte W. Coffman
Senior Extension Associate, Fiber Science & Apparel Design
cwc4@cornell.edu

Cornell University
Ithaca, New York

Introduction and Background

4-H Youth Development in New York has several program areas that serve as focal points for project activities and as points of convergence for staff with varied subject matter interests, yet a desire to work together. One of these program areas, Science and Technology, has generated enthusiasm and commitment from a number of dedicated individuals for nearly two decades. Under the umbrella of science and technology, Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE) educators and campus-based faculty and staff have planned conferences and in-service trainings, collaborated on curricula and educational materials, and learned from one another's trials and successes, first as an informal group meeting occasionally over lunch and then as an official program work team.

In 2002, members of the 4-H Science and Technology Program Work team (PWT) initiated a group process to understand more about what constitutes a fun, exciting, and successful science-oriented learning experience. While historically, project efforts have been based on assumptions about what makes a great science experience, this group sought to move beyond these assumptions to explore the question more seriously and reflectively, using well-established methodology. The goal was to compile findings into a program-planning tool that would assist educators in being more deliberate as they renew existing and develop new science and technology programs.

Methods and Results

The PWT employed a group decision-making tool called the Concept System® <http://www.conceptsystems.com/ConceptMapping/ConceptSystem.cfm> to structure the process in order to better understand the audience and to begin with a question of general interest. This tool employs a group process, decision support, and a software package/program to assist groups in moving from an individual to a collective understanding of questions and issues. The process was administered online, allowing participants at a distance to provide input.

To begin the process, the PWT invited Extension educators and staff to complete the following prompt during an on-line group brainstorming process:

"One specific technique, tool, approach etc… that I employ to engage the young people in my program in a science-oriented learning experience is…"

Simultaneously, children and youth were invited to respond to a slightly different prompt through several facilitated group discussions:

"One specific thing that makes science fun and interesting is…"

More than 220 statements were generated and distilled (edited for content and duplication) into a final list of 144 unique ideas. Ideas were ordered randomly from 1 to 144 and grouped into 15 clusters. Each idea was rated from 1-5 to demonstrate its importance or prioritization relative to other statements in the same cluster. Table 1 demonstrates how five ideas were rated and grouped into the Real World Science Cluster.

The end result was the Final Cluster Rating Map (Figure 1), which depicts 15 groupings of ideas. Each small square within the clusters represents one of the 144 ideas generated by the brainstorming activity. The relationship of any one idea to the rest of the ideas in the map is determined by how close that idea is to the others; ideas that are closer together are conceptually more similar than ideas that are further away.

The orientation of the map is not relevant because the distance of any one idea to the rest would remain the same if the map were rotated or flipped. The cluster layers represent the group prioritization of the ideas as an average; the more layers to a cluster, the higher the prioritization of the ideas in that cluster relative to the other clusters. The legend in the bottom left-hand corner of the figure provides the range for the average priority of the cluster layers expressed on a 1 to 5 scale.

Figure 1.
Final Cluster Rating Map

Translation of Results into a Checklist Tool for Program Planning

To interpret these results, PWT members reviewed the ideas located in each cluster and studied the relationships between clusters. What stories describe these relationships? What is meaningful about the location of each cluster or set of ideas relative to the other clusters? How might these results be used to contribute to the planning efforts of the PWT? How can 4-H educators benefit from this study?

The PWT members noted that all 15 clusters fell within three broad principles/elements of program design: Content (science), Context (audience and environment), and Delivery (educators). Content refers to the learning objectives of the program/activity and how to achieve them. What is the purpose of the program/activity? How can educators ensure that the learning objectives are achieved? The context is the environment for the learning objectives. In most cases, the audience is paramount when thinking of the context, but the atmosphere, tone, and approach will affect the overall experience of the audience. Delivery refers to the manner in which the learning objectives are achieved. The educators are critical to ensuring that the integrity of the content and the context are maintained.

Although it is important to note that the ideas within the clusters fell neatly into the program design principles of content, context, and delivery, the Science and Technology PWT was reluctant to further consolidate the findings as might have been the case had the committee wanted to identify and set committee priorities. Given the time dedicated to this effort and the depth of information in the findings, the PWT chose, instead, to develop the information into a checklist to assist Extension educators in the planning and delivery of science programming.

Using the Checklist

The checklist was posted online, introduced at 4-H science and technology events, explained in educator trainings, and distributed via newsletters. The intention was that educators would refer frequently to this checklist as they developed new programs and planned new events, making needed adjustments to ensure that their science offerings were indeed fun, exciting, and successful.

A 2005 survey of 24 New York 4-H educators showed that most recognized its validity, but felt they had internalized the ideas and did not need to constantly refer to the checklist. The checklist was most frequently used when training new volunteers and staff. Some respondents suggested shortening the checklist or adapting it for other types of programs. Others wondered if the checklist might also be an effective evaluation tool.

In 2006, at the New York statewide 4-H educator's conference, participants were asked to use a modified version of the checklist to reflect on a program or project of importance in their counties. This program did not have to be about science. The purposes were: 1) to evaluate the program/project in terms of content, context, and delivery, 2) to align the program/project with at least one of the National 4-H priorities, and 3) to generate discussion about the effectiveness of the checklist as a planning/evaluation tool.

Conclusions

The What Makes a Great Science Experience checklist <http://www.hort.cornell.edu/gbl/groundwork/activitychecklist.pdf> is a useful tool for 4-H educators who are developing a new program or adapting, revising, or evaluating an existing program. Designed specifically for science experiences, it can be used for other activity-based learning with modest modifications. Readers are invited to access this tool online and suggest ways to increase it usefulness.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge all our survey respondents, the Program Work Team members, and Craig Cramer, who assisted with graphics.

The Growers' Roundtable: Encouraging Conversations About Critical Farmers' Market Management Issues

Larry Lev
Professor
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon
larry.lev@oregonstate.edu

Suzanne Briggs
Oregon Farmers' Market Association
Portland, Oregon
sbriggs@att.net

Dianne Stefani-Ruff
Executive Director
Portland Farmers' Market
Portland, Oregon
dianne@portlandfarmersmarket.org

Introduction

While farmers markets have grown impressively in the last decade, most face complex and controversial management challenges. The organization and management structure of the market often makes it difficult to discuss and address these key issues. For example:

• Within every market, each vendor must both cooperate and compete with other vendors.


• Growers (market vendors) have little time to serve on market boards, especially during the production and market season. Because many growers participate in more than one market, the attention that they can give any single market is further limited.


• Although market managers are dedicated and hard working, they are often poorly compensated and inadequately trained.

Oregon State University and the Oregon Farmers Market Association (OFMA) have developed a Growers' Roundtable Meeting (GRM) format that provides an opportunity for open and productive conversations concerning difficult topics and occurs completely outside of the individual market board. These specially convened sessions provide all GRM participants with new insights and information that can be fed back into their own market board meetings and discussions.

Our instructions to participants state:

No decisions will be made today as no one here has the authority to do so. Please relax and listen carefully to what others have to say. These discussions can and will have an impact. Many participants last year said they left with a better understanding of, and appreciation for, the diverse opinions surrounding these difficult issues. The notes taken today will be sent to everyone present and all OFMA members. Last year's notes were used by several market groups to introduce and evaluate key issues they faced. Rest assured that good ideas will not die!

Steps for a Productive Meeting

Step 1: Identify a set of important questions. We suggest six to eight, depending on the size of the group. Good questions are tough to answer and/or elicit divergent opinions. We provide examples of some of the questions we have used in the next section.

Step 2: Invite growers and market managers to participate. Although both groups are stakeholders in the market, we view their roles in the roundtable as quite different. Because of the existence of OFMA, market managers can discuss market issues with others statewide, both in person and by e-mail. Because growers lack such a statewide organization, the roundtable gives them a unique opportunity to communicate with others. Growers are expected to both speak and listen. Managers are invited to listen and record, and given fewer opportunities to speak.

Step 3: Design your meeting according to the number of participants, goals, and time allocated. Our format works well for 27 to 36 participants and a 2.5-hour meeting, including breaks. Other group sizes can work with appropriate modifications.

We have found dividing into three discussion groups most effective. Our target attendance is 15 to 24 vendors and around 12 market managers. Broken into three groups, this puts five to eight vendors and about four managers in each, with one manager serving as group facilitator and another as recorder.

Each discussion group is assigned two questions and given an hour to discuss them. We find that, in this size of group, each participant has ample opportunity to share his or her views. Managers and other non-vendors are allowed to speak only during the last 5 minutes of discussion for each issue.

The tightly focused half-hour discussions are very productive. Because everyone understands that no decisions will be made, differences of opinion emerge without the hostility found in decision-making meetings. Participants focus on learning from each other rather than on supporting a specific position. Strict time limits keep everyone on task and moving forward.

After an hour of discussion and a break, each group has 15 minutes to report the highlights of its discussions and accept comments and questions from the broader group. While these reports sometimes elicit strong reactions, we find them quite valuable. The larger group provides not only useful feedback, but also new ideas. The total time allotted for these reports is 45 minutes.

After the meeting, a full set of notes is sent to all participants and other interested parties. Although no decisions are made or votes taken, much progress is achieved. When important topics are put on the table, good ideas flow and are subsequently adopted in many markets.

Participants left our meetings energized and excited about sharing what they had learned. They were eager to return and do it again.

Examples of Questions

Below are some of the questions discussed at our roundtables, plus sample notes on one. More information about our approach, as well as complete meeting notes, can be obtained from the authors.

1. Should there be geographical restrictions for growers permitted to sell at metro Portland markets?

• The consensus was that the geographical region should be larger than the Portland metro area, but there was no agreement on how much larger.


• Participants agreed that the geographical region should be left to each market to decide.


• Once market rules are established, they must be clearly explained and enforced.


• Local vendors should have preference.


• Markets must focus on what they are doing for their customers by adding to the product mix, availability, and quality and not focus solely on geographic origin.


• The vitality of a market depends upon the quality, quantity, and variety of products. It's more important that the market is bountiful, than to require 100% of product be grown by the vendor, especially when that product (e.g., melons or cherries) is available in eastern Oregon but not in the metro area. Better to include quality eastern Oregon growers to enhance the overall quality of the market. All vendors will prosper if the reputation for quality and abundance increases the popularity of the market.

2. Every market has a grower percentage rule. How should this be enforced? Should it be done on a weekly or seasonal basis?


3. How does the mix of full-time and part-time growers change a market's dynamics?


4. What can/should local and state governments do to better support farmers' markets? What can vendors and markets do to gain their support?


5. In Oregon, market-board membership ranges from all farmers to all community members. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each and offer suggestions on getting more participation by either growers or community members.

Developing and Using Table-Top Simulations as a Teaching Tool

Carol J. Lehtola
The University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida
cjlehtola@ifas.ufl.edu

Background

The table-top simulation is an educational tool intended to provide students/learners an opportunity to apply knowledge about preparedness and potential disaster situations through formal discussion of a described scenario. The scenario is a "fictional" (though based on actual or potential events) emergency management situation at an agricultural operation.

Table-tops are useful and effective teaching tools when hands-on training may be impractical or impossible to conduct. They are designed to stay in the classroom, making the session more manageable, even with a large number of participants. They are useful in a variety of settings. They have been used in training sessions for the Florida State Agricultural Response Team (SART) program and the Agricultural Risk Management and Law course at the University of Florida. While hands-on experience in the midst of an emergency is high stress, table-tops provide a low-stress atmosphere, which is more conducive to discussion and understanding. Participants reduce or eliminate uncertainty about an emergency before the emergency happens.

Examples of topics include: hurricanes, wildfires, contaminated meat, a stolen truck loaded with chemicals, hostage situations, and distribution of diseased tropical fish. In the Agricultural Risk Management and Law course, students develop a business and identify potential risks for that business. A table-top simulation is then developed by the instructor for those specific businesses. Even though the simulations are fictional, they are based on composites of actual situations that have occurred. One such example involved the shooting of workers in a Florida nursery. The intent is to get students thinking of possibilities for which even small businesses need to be prepared.

Table-top simulations have long been used by public health professionals for increasing awareness of public health preparedness among medical school students and residents. They have also been used successfully by emergency management and community agencies involved in working with disasters and emergencies. More recently, they have become widely used in the business community as well, particularly addressing computer security issues. Table-tops allow for a business to identify and examine their areas of vulnerability (Lehtola, Brown, & Wang, 2005).

A current trend of businesses and government is to look at their operations in terms of business continuity. Business continuity refers to ensuring the continuity or uninterrupted provision of operations and services in case of an emergency or disaster. This concept includes analysis of a business for disaster recovery, business recovery, business resumption, and contingency planning (Emery, Borron, & Cain, 2006).

School systems are using table-tops to prepare for dealing with a crisis. They are proving to be beneficial because their use does not require the major disruption that would be involved with conducting a drill (Trump & Lavarello, 2000).

A hospital-based research study indicated that there is evidence that table-top simulations help to train key decision makers in disaster response (Hsu et al., 2004). This is significant because the management of crisis events is dependent on the performance and effectiveness of the people who are in decision-making positions.

According to Alexander (2000), simulation scenarios "require a context of hazard, vulnerability, and risk." In table-top simulations where many people are involved, the participants may be assigned specific roles, such as members of the community, the CEO, emergency manager, incident commander, media, and medical personnel. The scenario is played out and discussed as it progresses. Time must also be allocated for wrapping up and debriefing.

The basic elements of a scenario are:

• The nature of the disaster and its impact (include the who, what, when, and where)


• Any constraints, rules, and/or necessary logistical factors


• The roles of the participants


• Objectives to be reached


• Complications, set-backs, and/or secondary hazards

Using Narrative and Table-top Simulations in the Classroom or in Extension Programs

When the student teams submit the business they have selected, the instructor reviews each business, finds real-life incidents that may have happened in similar businesses, develops a scenario, and then turns the scenario over to the team. However, even though some things may seem far-fetched, scenarios are developed that pose a challenge to their "it won't happen to my small business" way of thinking. The scenario includes questions that participants have to work through. The team then has to give a presentation to the entire class about what their business is, what they had to deal with and their decisions for managing the risk(s).

The scenarios are definitely eye-opening, and participants get involved as they look at real and practical situations. The use of table-top simulations in this manner gets managers thinking in terms of business continuity as a risk management strategy they will need to develop (EDEN, 2006). By working through the table-top exercises, participants learn to develop risk management strategies to meet a variety of challenges including:

• Responding to media interest (It is recommended that a company have one spokesperson to deal with the media.)


• Ensuring business continuity


• Maintaining company credibility in the community


• If a recall must be issued, regaining a good reputation and avoiding business failure


• Handling uninsured costs and their impact on company finances


• Responding to rumors (rumor control)


• Placing high priority on safety and security of employees


• Securing facilities and equipment during and after an incident


• Thinking in terms of worst-case scenarios


• Reviewing and updating crisis plans on a regular basis


• Maintaining good communications is critical for making informed decisions


• Supplementing current contact lists with active plans

Table-tops provide a "safe" mechanism for studying, working through, and debating appropriate choices and decisions rather than having to encounter them for the first time in real-life. Examples are included in Table 1.

Summary

This article has explained how table-top simulations can be developed and used. These interactive exercises allow participants to place themselves in actual or operational conditions. People can translate this critical analysis of attitude and knowledge into changed perceptions, behaviors, and work practices that can help prevent disastrous outcomes at their farm, home, or workplace.

Additional Resources

FEMA Independent Study Course IS 139: Exercise Design
http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/is139lst.asp

FEMA Independent Study Course IS 241: Decision Making and Problem Solving
http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/is241.asp

The Ready Business Course Prepared by DHS and EDEN: Includes an Instructor's Guide and a PowerPoint Presentation
http://www.eden.lsu.edu/

References

Alexander, D. (2000). Scenario methodology for teaching principles of emergency management. Disaster Prevention and Management, 9 (2), 89-97.

Emery, T., Borron, A., & Cain, S. (2006). Ready business: Preparing a disaster business plan. Retrieved August 1, 2006, from http://eden.lsu.edu/LearningOps/ReadyBusiness/default.aspx

Lehtola, C. J., Brown, C. M., & Wang, E. A. (2005). Using table-top simulations as a teaching tool. In Proceedings of the National Institute for Farm Safety Annual Conference. June 26-30, 2005, Wintergreen, Va. Columbus, Ohio: National Institute for Farm Safety.

Hsu, E. B., Jenckes, M. W., Catlett, C. L., Robinson, K. A., Feuerstein, C. J., Cosgrove, S. E., et al. (2004). Training of hospital staff to respond to a mass casualty incident. In Evidence report/technology assessment no. 95 (AHRQ Publication No. 04-E015-1). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Trump, K. S., & Lavarello, C. (2000). No safe havens. Retrieved August 8, 2006, from http://www.asbj.com/security/contents/0303trump.html

Cattle Corral Design--Learning by Doing

Stephen Boyles
Beef Specialist
Ohio State University Extension
Columbus, Ohio
boyles.4@osu.edu

Background

It is easier to show a three dimensional structure than to describe it. Many of us used toy bricks and logs to construct buildings and other structures when we were young. We could easily change and experiment with these toys designed for children. Just because many of our Extension audiences are adults, that doesn't mean such tools or toys can't still be useful in education settings.

Bruising from improper cattle handling costs the industry over $250 million annually in carcass trim at the time of processing (NCBA, 2000). Cattle are responsible for about two-thirds of all human injuries caused by farm animals. Researchers at Oklahoma State University found that one-half of those beef producers who sustained an injury while working cattle felt the primary cause of the injury event was human error (Hunkle, Hubert, & Harp, 1997). Many producers have inadequate facilities or operations completely devoid of corrals. The objective of the project described here was to support the tactic of handling and sorting cattle in a safe and humane manner.

Methods

A $12,500 grant was obtained from National Beef Check-off funds to implement the project. Miniaturized steel corral fence and squeeze chutes were built.

• Three kits of red, orange and green were constructed.


• Colors selected matched predominate colors used by companies that sell corral fences and squeeze chutes in the region.

The fence panels are 8 inches long and 6 inches high for easy use by adult hands. Each kit is placed in a suitcase (24″ x 17″ x 8″) with wheels and a retracting handle for easy transport. The kits were designed to be approximately 40 pounds in weight. The kits and suitcases are thus light enough to meet current luggage limitations of U.S. airlines for travel. It cost approximately $20 to ship a kit to another state in 2006 via regular mail delivery.

A PowerPoint^TM presentation and handbook (Boyles, Fisher, & Fike, 2002) were created to supplement the learning module for adult producers. Below is a picture of a kit being used (Figure 1). Notice the squeeze chute in the right side of the picture.

Figure 1.
View of Corral Kit Being Used at Adult Education Program

A scenario for approximately 30 participants is as follows:

1. The program is held in a local auction facility or extension office.


2. All participants see and hear a 30-minute program the basic principles of corral construction and design.


3. The participants are divided into 3 groups and go to three locations in the facility.


4. The teams use one of the "kits" to develop a corral.


5. The participants view all the corrals as a group. The teams explain their designs.


6. A cattle corral self-audit was distributed.

Seventy-three percent of the programs had more than 30 people, and the largest group had over 300 participants from the year 2003 through 2005. An alternative scenario was created for large groups.

1. The program is held in a large meeting room.


2. All participants see and hear a 30-minute program on the basic principles of corral construction and design.


3. Each participant was given small pieces of paper.


4. One corral kit was set up in one area of the room as a complete corral and participants placed paper where they detected flaws.


5. The other 2 kits were placed in two other areas of the room with alternative designs of alleyways, pen placement or crowding areas and participants placed paper on the designs they most preferred.


6. All participants gather back together and discuss what was seen.


7. A cattle corral self-audit was distributed.

The corral self-audit consisted of 47 questions relating to topics on corral location and existence of the basic parts of a corral (holding pens, alleys, crowding pen, working alley, squeeze chute, and loading area).

Results

There have been 2,304 people who have participated in these corral design and animal handling programs offered by the author. The kits have been used by the author or by others in Ohio, Nevada, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Indiana, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Vermont, and the province of Ontario. Evaluations averaged a 9.2 ± 0.58 on a 10-point scale (1=terrible idea, 10=great idea). The program was the basis for a successful youth-oriented version relating to beef quality assurance (Yost & Boyles, 2006).

Thirty-seven percent of participants returned the self-audit at the end of the program. Among the self-audit evaluations, the most common needs were with holding pens. Respondents indicated some deficiencies in the existence of basic facilities such as alleys and crowding pens (33% and 37%, respectively). Forty-two percent of respondents indicated they would prefer to have more holding pens.

Conclusions

Engineering-based education curricula can be assisted with the use of tactile methods of interactive class instruction. Participants benefit from three-dimensional tools in corral design and animal handling. Attention to shipping requirements and costs need to be addressed if the tools are to be used by other educators.

References

Boyles, S., Fisher, J., & Fike, G. (2002). Cattle handling and working facilities. OSU Extension. Bulletin 906. Available at: http://ohioline.osu.edu/b906/index.html

Huhnke, R. L., Hubert, D. J. , & Harp, S. L. (1997). Identifying injuries sustained on cow calf operations in Oklahoma. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Paper No.975010.

NCBA. (2000). National beef quality audit. Centennial, CO: National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

Yost, J., & Boyles, S. (2006). Altering adult-based beef quality assurance curriculum for youth education. Journal of Extension [On-line], 44(4) Article 4TOT4. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2006august/tt4.shtml

Steps to Bolster Your Dairy Farm's Biosecurity: An Introductory Video

Julia M. Smith
Assistant Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist
University of Vermont
Burlington, Vermont
Julie.M.Smith@uvm.edu

Introduction

Bovine viral diarrhea virus, contagious mastitis, and Johne's disease--these and other endemic, infectious diseases cost the U.S. dairy industry millions of dollars each year (Weersink, VanLeeuwen, Chi, & Keefe., 2002; Kirk, 1998; Adaska & Kirk, n.d.). In 2001, the Foot and Mouth disease outbreak in the UK cost billions of dollars and required the slaughter of 6 million animals to control (Risk Solutions, 2005) in a country not much bigger than New England.

On-farm biosecurity may not prevent a foreign animal disease like Foot and Mouth disease from gaining entry into this country, but it can help stop it in its tracks. In addition, by developing and implementing comprehensive biosecurity programs, farmers can control production-limiting diseases that are already present in this country. Extension educators, who play a critical role in providing non-biased, non-commercial information and assistance to livestock producers, now have an audio-visual tool to help convey the concepts of biosecurity to multiple audiences.

Healthy Farms--Healthy Agriculture: Protecting the Health of Animal Agriculture (Smith, 2004) is a 20-minute video that introduces the concept of biosecurity to youth and new farmers and serves as a refresher for seasoned farmers. I scripted and produced this video with the assistance of professional videographers, editors, and a narrator. While created as a supplement linked to the USDA-funded Healthy Farms--Healthy Agriculture materials (Smith, Ather, Murray, & Yandow, 2003) (available online at: http://www.uvm.edu/~ascibios), it can also be used as a stand-alone product in Extension biosecurity education programs.

"STAIRS" Spells Biosecurity

The video is organized around the acronym "STAIRS," which stands for the basic steps of biosecurity: Sanitation, Traffic control, Assessment, Isolation, Resistance, and Security. Basic principles of dairy biosecurity are discussed with reference to more in-depth materials available at the Healthy Farms--Healthy Agriculture Web site. Although Assessment ("A") is truly the place to start, the middle placement serves as a reminder that reassessments are important to monitor compliance with best management practices and make sure no steps are missing. Because it is an essential part of establishing a farm-specific biosecurity program, the assessment tool is included with the purchase of a video from Hoard's Dairyman.

• Sanitation--Illustrates basic principles of sanitation (cleaning and disinfection) to be followed by visitors as well as employees.


• Traffic control--Discusses how risks associated with different types of visitors require different precautions and how increased susceptibility of certain categories of animals should dictate work routines.


• Assessment--Outlines the process of developing, implementing, communicating, and reviewing the biosecurity plan. Assessment is the starting point for developing a farm-specific biosecurity plan.


• Isolation--Provides practical advice on collecting animal histories, taking samples, giving shots, and setting up and operating an isolation area. Some of the greatest risks to herd health involve introducing new or recently exhibited animals into the home herd.


• Resistance--Explains how vaccination programs stimulate specific resistance, while proper nutrition and comfortable housing can support non-specific disease resistance.


• Security--Describes how farm security encompasses protection from disease, intruders, and contamination. This segment focuses on disease, but also provides pointers on other aspects of farm security and who to call for help.

Healthy Farms Video User Guide

1. Pictures Worth Thousands of Words
This narrated video introduces people to biosecurity in action and where to go for additional information. The images provide a basic framework for Extension educators teaching biosecurity to new and experienced farmers, service providers, and farm visitors.

2. A Teachable Moment
In one scene, a veterinarian is seen injecting what looks like antibiotics into the rear thigh muscle of a cow. According to beef quality assurance guidelines, this is no longer recommended when facilities are adequate to allow injection in the muscles of the neck. Extension educators must make sure viewers understand this point.

3. No "One-Size-Fits-All" Answer
The video provides introductory information on biosecurity and directs viewers to a Web site with in-depth information and substantial resources to personalize a biosecurity program for individual farmers. Extension educators should note that these guidelines are general recommendations only.

4. Supplemental Information Is a "Click" Away
The Healthy Farms--Healthy Agriculture resources include an assessment and planning guide, compilation of biosecurity best management practices, resources on specific diseases and disaster planning, and resources for farms hosting school groups. In preparation for using the video, Extension educators should visit <http://www.uvm.edu/~ascibios> to explore the entire contents.

Conclusion

This 20-minute video is a useful tool for Extension educators wanting to provide audiences a better appreciation for the importance of biosecurity in relation to maintaining the health of farm operations and the security of our food supply. Consumers are becoming more concerned about the safety and security of food production, and this video serves as a ground level educational tool for farmers to improve the health of their animals through management.

Although filmed in Vermont, the video has nationwide applicability. It was a national winner in the 2005 communications competition sponsored by the National Association for County Agricultural Agents. Healthy Farms--Healthy Agriculture: Protecting the Health of Animal Agriculture-An Overview of Dairy Cattle Biosecurity is available for $10 in VHS or DVD formats through Hoard's Dairyman at <http://www.hoards.com> or by calling (920) 563-5551. Biosecurity is something everyone needs to know in order to promote healthy farms and healthy agriculture.

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to acknowledge United States Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and Senator James Jeffords for funding this project. The author is extremely grateful to Workhorse Creative, the farms, and individuals who participated in filming and video production. Finally, thanks go to the student interns, Jen Ather, Mark Murray, and Leah Yandow, who compiled print materials for the initial Healthy Farms--Healthy Agriculture project.

References

Adaska, J., & Kirk, J. (n.d.). Johne's disease in dairy cattle. UC Davis Veterinary Medicine Extension, Retrieved November 30, 2006, from: http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext/INF-DA/INF-DA_JOHNESDISEASE.HTML

Kirk, J. H. (1998, August). Contagious mastitis--Can you keep it out of the herd? (Mastitis biosecurity planning). Presented at Eleventh Annual Fall Symposium on Advances in Clinical Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA. Retrieved November 30, 2006, from: http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext/INF-DA/INF-DA_MASTITISKEEPOUT.HTML

Risk Solutions. (May, 2005). Cost benefit analysis of Foot and Mouth disease controls: A report for DEFRA. DS100/R3 Issue 3. Retrieved November 30, 2006, from: http://www.defra.gov.uk/footandmouth/pdf/costben.pdf

Smith, J. M. (Writer/Producer). (2004). Healthy farms--Healthy agriculture: Protecting the health of animal agriculture—An overview of dairy cattle biosecurity. [Educational video]. (Available from the University of Vermont, Department of Animal Science, 113 Terrill Bldg., 570 Main St., Burlington, VT 05405)

Smith, J. M., Ather, J., Murray, M., & Yandow, L. (2003). Healthy farms--Healthy agriculture. University of Vermont, Department of Animal Science.

Smith, J. M., Ather, J., Murray, M., & Yandow, L. (September, 2003; last modified August 13, 2004). Healthy farms--Healthy agriculture. Retrieved November, 2006, from: http://www.uvm.edu/~ascibios/

Weersink, A., VanLeeuwen, J. A., Chi, J., & Keefe, G. (2002) Direct production losses and treatment costs due to four dairy cattle diseases. In Proceedings of the 2002 Western Canadian Dairy Seminar, Red Deer, Alberta, Canada. Retrieved November 30, 2006, from: http://www.wcds.afns.ualberta.ca/Proceedings/2002/Chapter%2005%20Weersink.htm

Converting a SSURGO Soils Database into a Simple Soils Database for Use in Portable Computer and Web-Based GIS Applications

Jerry L. Schmierer
Agronomy Farm Advisor
Cooperative Extension
Colusa, California
jlschmierer@ucdavis.edu

Kris Lynn-Patterson
GIS Academic Coordinator
Kearney Agricultural Center
Parlier, California
krislynn@uckac.edu

James Langille
GIS Programmer/Analyst
Kearney Agricultural Center
Parlier, California
jamesl@uckac.edu

Anthony T. O'Geen
Cooperative Extension Soil Resource Specialist
Soils & Biogeochemistry Program
Davis, California
atogeen@ucdavis.edu

University of California

Introduction

The SSURGO soils database developed by the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) has a wealth of information that has been used extensively since the first paper soil survey books were printed. With the development of the digital information format, many county soil survey maps have been converted to digital shape files that can be used by computer driven geographic information systems (GIS). The many tables of data that are related to the soils maps have been placed into a complex database.

The NRCS has provided this information to the public in a compact disk (CD) format and is also available via the Internet at the NRCS Soil Web Survey site. The CD is basically a digital form of the county soil survey books with printable pages. The NRCS Soil Web Survey site is a searchable Web site for delivering all the data in the SSURGO soils database but has no capability of interacting with a GIS.

To provide the SSURGO data to GIS users, NRCS has made the county databases and related shape files available through the Soils Data Mart Web site. In order to retrieve the database information, a Microsoft Access soils database and the spatial and tabular files specific for each county must be downloaded to a local computer and decompressed. Then a data loading program must be run to associate these files to the database. The result is a county-specific database that ranges from 200 to 300 megabytes in size with over 130 tables.

These tables are woven together in a very complex web of relationships. Figure 1 partially illustrates this complex system of tables and relationships. This database provides all of the documentation for the soil survey and contains information in pre-formatted reports. It contains information for a wide variety of users, thus making it difficult to extract only specific information. It suffers the plight of "too much information." The problem with using the SSURGO database in a GIS is that it was designed as a one-size-fits-all. It is too big, complex and cumbersome and does not fit the portable or web-based GIS venues.

Figure 1.
Table Relationships from Original SSURGO Database Showing Only Some of the Tables and the Complex Relationships Between Tables

Key Tables and Relationships

Our approach to this problem was to simplify the database to the fewest possible tables with only the pertinent information for our purpose. This resulted in reducing the size of the database to a manageable level, 15 to 30 megabytes as compared to the original database at ten times the size. To do this, we prioritized the information that we wanted to retrieve and studied the schema (framework of the database) in order to understand the relationships between the tables. Only four tables were chosen to include in our abbreviated database as these tables contained the majority of the information that we needed. Figure 2 displays these four tables and the simple relationships between these tables.

Figure 2.
Extracted Tables and Relationships in the Simplified Database Showing the Four Tables

The mapunit and muaggat tables contain the soil series information and have a 1 to 1 relationship, meaning the data in the two tables can be combined. There are one to many relationships between mapunit to component tables and component to chorizon tables. This simply means that there can be many soil components to a soil series and that there can be many soil horizons to a single soil component. These relationships allow a GIS to drill down into the data to retrieve information about a specific location.

Building the New Database

The spatial shape files included in the database are usable directly by the user's GIS but can only be joined to a single table, and there are four tables of information needed. Using the ESRI GIS programs ArcInfo or ArcEditor, the selected tables were imported into a personal geodatabase, and the relationships built between the tables. ArcMap was used to join the map shape file to the soils series table (mapunit) and create a relationship class for the other tables. The result of this effort is visible when the GIS identify tool is used to display table attribute data; the multiple layers of the geodatabase are displayed (called drilling down through the data). Examples of this drill down capability are shown in Figures 3 and 4.

Specific table attribute (column) data can be re-named, calculated, or changed by exporting a table to a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for manipulation, then importing it back into the database. In our case, we combined the mapunit and muaggat tables into a single table. We also converted some of the attribute values from centimeters to inches because that would be more easily understood by the people using the GIS.

Figure 3.
View of Map and Soils Layer Drill Down from Web-Based GIS

Figure 3.
Detail View of Soils Layer Drill Down Showing Soil Series, Component, and the Top Horizon Layer Information

Using the New Database

We built these simplified soils databases for the 17 Central Valley counties of California and developed a GIS for each county. Many map layers were included: soils data, land use, water districts, political boundaries, roads, waterways, township, range, and section information along with historic topography maps and aerial imagery. Data sets were packaged on DVDs because of the large amount of data, in excess of one gigabyte per county. Tutorials and online help are also provided on the DVDs. These data sets allow users of ArcGIS or the free downloadable program ArcReader to use the GIS on a portable computer for field use. This is a powerful feature of this project, especially when the portable computer is equipped with a GPS device.

In order to reach a wider general population audience, who do not have GIS software or the training to use it, we developed a Web-based GIS that a user only needs an Internet connection and browser to use. Our Web-based GIS that incorporates the simple SSURGO database can be viewed at <http://arcims.gis.uckac.edu/SoilsToGo>.

References

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (2005). Soil survey geographic (SSURGO) database for California. Available at: http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (2006) NCSS soil Web survey. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/

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.