Tools of the Trade

Small Farm/New Farm: One Agent Meeting Other Agents' Needs for Research-Based Information Through the WWW

Background

Rural Northeast Ohio is experiencing a transition from a rural-farm to a rural-nonfarm population. In October 1998, agriculture and natural resource (ANR) agents and specialists in Northeast District Extension (Ohio) met to discuss "Farming on the Urban Fringe." Our meeting had no speaker and no agenda. We had agreed to meet because everyone was concerned with how best to provide ANR educational programming and resources in an area that was rapidly urbanizing.

The 15 agents and specialists in attendance began by sharing the most difficult problems they faced in meeting the educational needs of the people in their counties. Three hours into the sharing, it was clear that the most pressing problem of most of the ANR agents was a need for research-based information to answer the questions of a growing "small-farm/new-farm" audience. The majority of the questions coming into their offices weren't from full-time or even traditional part-time farmers, but were from homeowners and rural landowners who had bought a small acreage and wanted a "farm/rural experience." The agents' biggest frustration was finding research-based information to give them.

What Is "Research-Based" Information?

There are numerous magazines and newsletters aimed at the "small-farm/new-farm" audience, but they frequently include anecdotal information, "sales pitches," and stories about individuals who are advocating their way of doing things. It can be quite time-consuming to sort through the many "hits" of a World Wide Web (WWW) search engine and quickly find research-based information on small- farm/new-farm topics such as: agri-tourism; starting a greenhouse business; hydroponics; home laying flocks; llamas; earthworms, etc.

At subsequent meetings agents and specialists began discussing what kinds of information it was appropriate to give their clientele. How could one determine which information was "research-based" and appropriate to distribute? Was it better to give someone 10-year-old research-based information or up-to-date information posted on a company's Web-site? Was it better to give clientele anecdotal or industry-based information or nothing at all? Most concluded the information had to come from a university, government, or similar institution. But then they wondered, "Was it available?"

Searching for Research-Based Links

One agent had recently taken a class on designing a Web page and could see that if useful "research based" sites existed and could be located, it would be possible to put together a Web page for Extension agents that linked directly to pre-identified, research-based information. This agent became increasingly intrigued with the challenge and started searching the Web for information to meet his colleagues' needs.

He found that with patience, resourcefulness, organization, tenacity, and a variety of search engines, it was possible to find university and other research-based information on many of the subjects of interest to agents on the Web. He began assembling a notebook of Web addresses with ".edu" suffixes that contained useful information.

In subsequent meetings, the other agents were impressed with the agent's information and number of Web sites, but they still did not have an easy way to access the information. The agent distributed hard copies of his lists of Web sites, but also started designing a Web site to organize the information for easier access by agents and others. He modeled it after sites at the University of Missouri and British Columbia, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He applied for and received a small grant to increase the hours of a part-time assistant to help enter information, confirm links, and perform other tasks. Thus was Small Farm/New Farm http://newfarm.osu.edu born.

What Do Agents and Their Associates Need?

The constant guiding principle behind deciding what links are included on the Web site is: "What do the agents and their associates need? The agent behind the site wants to make it easier for other agents to put out their bonfires by answering their questions. The ideal is for agents and their assistants to quickly find useful information on the Web, print it out, explain it as necessary, and give it to satisfied clientele. The Web site also deals with current issues like Hoof and Mouth and, in Ohio, the West Nile Virus and Gypsy Moth.

Criteria for Including Sites

The agent uses following criteria were used to determine whether to link to a site.

1. Edu, Gov, and Org: Initially only sites that ended with ".edu" or ".gov" were included. Recently, Arkansas Extension publications started being listed under sites ending with ".org," so additional sites in that category are expected. No sites ending in ".com" are currently accessible through the site, and there are no plans to add them.
2. Best Sites, Not All Sites: No attempt is made to include all sites under a particular classification. The focus is on having the best sites in each category, with particular attention paid to information that is geographically and climatologically related to Ohio.
3. Economics and Budgets: Sites that include costs, budgets, and other seemingly useful economic information are preferred. Economic information is lacking in many publications.
4. Ohio Origin: When considering listing, Ohio sites are favored if the content is equal to or exceeds other out-of-state sites.

Site Organization

The site is continually evolving, but at this writing the "home page" of this site contained the following seven main headings and subheadings:

• Enterprise Budgets
• Agri-Tourism
• Crops

  Berries
  Flowers
  Forages
  Forestry
  Grains & Oil Seeds
  Grapes
  Greenhouse
  Hydroponics
  Nursery Crops
  Ornamentals Specialty Crops
  Tree Fruit
  Vegetables

• Livestock

  Aquatics
  Birds
  Large Animals
  Other Animals

• Management
• Value Added
• Water Resources

The site is organized for agents to quickly access information with few clicks and little download time. One click on a heading or subheading will take agents to research-based links to information about the subject. With many agents using modems, at least part of the time, pictures and graphics were kept to a minimum to help pages load more quickly. As the Web site developed, the agent got support to add a search engine to help users find some types of information more efficiently. The search engine searches only ".edu" sites.

Evaluating and adding links as well as maintenance of existing lists is ongoing. It is a continuing challenge to organize the site and know where best to list new sites. A link checker developed at Ohio State is utilized for link maintenance.

Marketing

The Northeast District Extension office prepared notebooks containing color hard copies of the Web page resources. These notebooks have been distributed to Extension offices and to district and state Extension personnel. The purpose has been to familiarize potential users with what they might find when viewing the Web site. The Extension agent has included the Web address in his e-mail signature, as well as providing links to the address on his county and the NE District Extension's Web page.

Some Unexpected Benefits for the Agent

At age 57, the Extension agent was not looking for a reward or notoriety when he began this project. He simply saw a challenge and an opportunity to provide resources for himself and some colleagues who needed it. Initially he enjoyed the challenge and reward of continually finding more useful information. As he says, "I was having too much fun and never looked back."

Now that the Web site is running and many are finding it useful, the agent is finding some additional, unexpected benefits. One, he is experiencing more collegial treatment from people at all levels in and out of the university. People at all levels in the university tend to treat him more as their equal. Two, colleagues regularly provide him with new links, tips, or additional information to improve the site. Three, his county peers are finding his Web site useful and are telling him so. Four, he has had the opportunity to share his work with colleagues at a major conference outside Ohio. Five, he has an increased knowledge of HTML programming language. Six, this project has allowed him to work closely with a water quality specialist who was looking for greater exposure of his own Web-based resources.

How Do You Measure Success?

Success will be measured by whether or not people use the site and find it useful. Or as the agent says, "When I can walk into most Extension offices in the Midwest, walk up to a computer used by an agricultural agent or assistant, and there is a little icon I can click that takes me to the Small Farm/New Farm Web site, I will know we have done our job. Until then we will just keep enhancing and improving the Web site." Efforts are also being made to more formally evaluate who is using the Web site, how they are using it, and whether it was useful and to gather suggestions for improvement.

The authors wish to thank the following individuals for their expertise and assistance: Steve Baertsche, Keith Smith, Nathan Watermeier, Cathy Weilnau, Helen Deeble, Tim Murawski, Charlene Margetiak, and Northeast District Agents.

Delivery Systems–Is the "Latest" Technology the Greatest?

Introduction

Choice of a delivery system is among the most important decisions made by Extension professionals, and it can have serious consequences for program effectiveness. Over the past few decades, advances in communications technology have changed how agents and specialists deliver programs. For example, the speed and efficiency of information transfer has generally increased, whereas face-to-face teaching and personal contact have decreased (Simeral, 2001).

Recently, high-tech approaches, such as distance-based learning and on-line resources, have proliferated, allowing Extension organizations to reach larger and wider audiences. But are these new approaches preferable to traditional delivery systems? Many homes are without a computer. For those that have one, old computers may constrain a user's ability to access information over the Internet and to download large files. In addition, high-tech approaches may intimidate certain groups of clientele (e.g., older clientele).

The key to successful delivery is to know your audience. In the study reported here, I surveyed Extension agents (agriculture and natural resources) and natural resources professionals in state agencies to determine which delivery systems were most preferred for receiving wildlife management information.

Methods

I developed a mail survey that listed various delivery methods for wildlife management information. Respondents were asked to rank (A) how they would like to receive information on wildlife-related topics and (B) how their clientele would like to receive information on wildlife-related topics.

The following delivery methods were listed:

• Printed fact sheet,
• Printed bulletin or manual,
• On-line information (e.g., Ohioline),
• Conference, workshop, or short course,
• Seminar, and
• Video.

Additional information sources for clientele-only were newsletters and news releases. A rank of 1 indicated that the method was the most preferred source of information.

In October 2000, surveys were mailed to 100 county Extension agents and district specialists dealing with agriculture and natural resources in all of Ohio's 88 counties and to 59 personnel at the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (Divisions of Forestry and Wildlife). I targeted state agency personnel who interacted directly or indirectly with private citizens concerned with wildlife management issues (e.g., service foresters, private lands biologists, wildlife specialists).

Ninety-six surveys were returned, and return rates were similar for both groups (60% for Extension and 61% for state agencies).

Results

Regardless of the respondent group, printed fact sheets and bulletins were among the most preferred sources of information for wildlife-related topics for agents, natural resource professionals (Table 1) as well as their clientele (Table 2). Respondents perceived themselves to be more willing to use on-line resources than their clientele. Overall, face-to-face teaching and videos were less preferred than other information sources for all user groups.

Delivery Method	Mean	Standard Error
Printed fact sheet	1.95	0.13
On-line information	2.42	0.15
Printed bulletin or manual	2.81	0.14
Conference, workshop, or short course	3.25	0.19
Seminar presentation	4.23	0.18
Video	4.78	0.18

Delivery Method	Mean	Standard Error
Printed fact sheet	1.68	0.14
Printed bulletin or manual	2.90	0.18
Newsletter	3.61	0.21
On-line information	3.61	0.25
News release	3.68	0.26
Conference, workshop, or short course	5.25	0.28
Seminar presentation	5.53	0.28
Video	5.98	0.27

Discussion

Despite the advances in communications technology over the past several decades, printed information sources remain the most preferred delivery systems for Extension and state agency natural resource professionals in Ohio. At first glance, this may strike some Extension educators as surprising because of the high demand for presentations and workshops. This finding also seems to contradict evidence that experiential (hands-on) opportunities are the best approaches to learning (Richardson, 1994).

Why would agents and natural resource professionals prefer delivery systems that are not ideal for learning, and why would they frequently request methods that they do not prefer? Although additional examination is needed to understand this apparent paradox, I suggest two possible explanations.

1. Because the speed of information exchange and transfer has increased dramatically within the past several decades, clientele generally demand that their concerns be addressed more quickly than agents or specialists can respond with comprehensive programs, such as workshops and conferences, that take months to develop. A fact sheet allows an agent to immediately provide credible, easily digested information to the clientele.
2. The breadth of topics that are part of Extension organizations (e.g., from food safety to agricultural methods to wildlife management to financial planning) make it difficult for Extension professionals to attain the level of expertise necessary to successfully accommodate every request for information or assistance. Fact sheets and bulletins help agents respond to a wider range of topics than if they had to personally research each request. Simply put, printed resources make the demanding jobs of agents more manageable, and they quickly satisfy most clientele.

Of particular concern is that we overestimate the receptivity of clientele to self-teaching from fact sheets and bulletins. Most agents and professionals are "self-taught" in at least some areas and, thus, may favor printed media. However, many traditional clientele groups may still learn best from an instructor. For example, "old-fashioned" workshops were valuable and effective delivery methods for woodland management programs (Decker, Lassoie, Goff, & Parrish, 1988), and these types of programs are popular in many states.

Certainly, Extension organizations should not limit the diversity of delivery systems that they use to increase program effectiveness. In fact, professionals must embrace new approaches and technology, and use them to enhance program delivery and versatility.

Multiple delivery systems are necessary to reach broad groups of clientele and to successfully teach particular topics. Rather than limit ourselves, we need to ensure that we include traditional delivery systems into our new high-tech programs.

References

Barnes, T. G. (1999). New technologies for natural resources extension programs. Proceedings, 9th National Extension Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Conference, Portland, Maine.

Decker, D. J., Lassoie, J. P., Goff, G. R., & Parrish, K. (1988). Do workshops work? Journal of Extension [On-line]. Volume 26(4). Available: http://www.joe.org/joe/1988winter/a5.html.

Richardson, J. G. (1994). Learning best through experience. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 32(2). Available: http://www.joe.org/joe/1994august/a6.html.

Simeral, K. D. (2001). Keeping a traditional program-delivery method in an 'E' world. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 39(1). Available: http://joe.org/joe/2001february/comm2.html.

How to Diagnose Soil Acidity and Alkalinity Problems in Crops: A Comparison of Soil pH Test Kits

Farmers often bring sick crop plants into county Extension offices requesting that agronomy agents provide a quick diagnosis of the problem. Sometimes, agents are able to determine from leaf symptoms whether the crop is suffering from a specific pest or fertility problem. In other cases, agents have difficulty determining the cause of poor plant health.

Extension agents usually consider soil acidity or alkalinity first because it is a common fertility problem and is easy to measure in the field with a pH test kit. Soil acidity (low pH) is common in the eastern United States. Soil alkalinity (high pH) is more common in low rainfall areas of the West. Low soil pH causes aluminum and manganese toxicity in plants and reduces the availability of soil phosphorus. High soil pH also reduces soil phosphorus availability and reduces micronutrients such as zinc and boron to plants.

Soil acidity is a major limiting factor to crop production in Southeast Missouri. Approximately 35% of the soil samples submitted to the Delta Regional Soils Testing Lab from cotton producers have a soil water pH values less than 5.5. The soil test recommendation for these soils is to apply agricultural lime to prevent yield reductions.

Cotton plant symptoms from low soil pH include crinkled leaves, stunted plants, and low boll counts. Sometimes these same symptoms can be caused by insects or diseases. To help Extension agronomists diagnose pH problems in the field, all agents in Southeast Missouri were supplied with hand-held pH meters in 1995. A study was recently conducted to answer questions concerning the accuracy of these meters compared to other soil pH test kits.

Weaknesses in pH Test Methods

Inherent weaknesses in test methods are a possible source of error with in-field pH tests. To evaluate test methods, soil pH was measured in limed and no lime cotton plots at the University of Missouri-Delta Center at Portageville, Missouri (Figure 1). In limed plots, agricultural lime was incorporated before planting in 2000. Cotton yields in limed plots averaged 155 kg lint ha^-1 more than in plots without lime.

Four pH meters, kits, and probes were purchased and used in the field on each cotton plot in 2001 (Table 1). Instructions supplied with the units were followed. For comparing in-field and laboratory results, soil samples were collected from plots and tested at the Delta Center Soil Laboratory. Samples were tested in the lab for water pH using an Accumet Bench top pH meter.

(a) pH Pro hand-held meter	Shindengen Electric Manufacturing Company, Limited, Shin-ohtemachi-Building, Ohtemachi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan
(b) Soil color test kit Model EL	LoMotte Company, Chestertown, Maryland, 21620
(c) Mini pH Rapidtest probe	Luster Leaf Products, Incorporated, 2220 Techcourt, Woodstock, IL 60098

In-field measurements with hand-held pH meters and color kits showed that lime increased pH (Table 2). Despite careful attention to moistening the soil and shining the tip of pH test probes, all four probes read 6 in limed and non-limed soils. More graduations on the color chart are needed. Color chips are only in whole pH units (4.0, 5.0, 6.0, and 8.0). Interpolations were made to the nearest 0.5 pH unit but this increases the potential for human error.

pH Measurement	No Lime Soil	Limed Soil
Soil Lab bench pH meter	5.6	6.8
Handheld pH meter	5.5	6.5
Color kit	5.8	7.0
Mini pH probe	6.0	6.0

Soil samples provided by the North American Proficiency Testing (NAPT) Program were also used to evaluate the test methods. Eighty-two labs had previously participated in testing of the soil samples.

All in-field pH test methods, except the test probe, produced satisfactory measurements of soil pH as compared to results from 82 laboratories testing the same soils (Table 3). Results from the Accumet bench top pH meter and a single hand-held pH meter were similar. Both were found to be accurate to within 2.5 X Median Absolute Deviation (MAD) for 89% of the analysis performed. Median readings from both types of meters compared favorably with the median from 82 soil labs participating in the NAPT program. When four different hand-held pH meters were used, the hand-held meter had a higher MAD than the 82 NAPT labs for eight of the nine analysis preformed. The MAD value for the labs was 0.08, while the value for the four hand-held meters was 0.11.

pH Measurement	Soil 00-103	Soil 00-107	Soil 00-113
82 other soil labs	7.9	6.3	5.6
Bench pH meter	7.8	6.5	6.0
Handheld pH meter	7.7	6.3	5.5
Color kit	8.0	6.5	5.5
pH probe	6.0	6.0	6.0

Human Error in Using Hand-Held Meter

Extension agents should learn how to calibrate and test soil samples with hand-held pH meters before going to the field. To determine how large of an error inexperience can cause, one hand-held meter and one NAPT soil were selected. Seventeen untrained personnel were given an instruction sheet, a soil sample, standard pH solutions, and distilled water. Each person measured the pH of the soil without supervision. Results were compared to results from 82 NAPT labs (Figure 2). Some persons followed the instructions and calibrated the meter with pH 4.0 and 7.0 standards. Others did not. The median pH from the group was 6.3, and the MAD value was 0.15. This is very close to the median from 82 soils labs, which was 6.34. However, the MAD value from the inexperience group was more than twice as great as the soil labs.

Conclusion

Soil test pH kits can be used by Extension agents to quickly determine whether soil acidity or alkalinity is a probable cause of poor crop health. Hand-held pH meters and pH color indicator kits were found to provide reliable in-field soil pH measurements. Personnel using a pH color kit were able to distinguished between soils with and without lime. However, interpolating between whole pH values with the color kit was difficult. A soil probe that was inserted into moist soil in plots provided poor response to soil pH and is not suitable for diagnosis of soil pH problems.

Extension agents should use soil pH test kits primarily as fast-response diagnostic tools. If a problem is found, a soil sample should be sent to a qualified soil test laboratory for recommendations on rates of material to adjust soil pH to optimum levels for the specific crop.

The Southwest Ohio Perennial Flower School–A "Perennial" Winner

Introduction

Herbaceous perennials are a group of popular ornamental plants. Unlike annuals, perennials come up each spring after dying to the ground each fall. There has been a strong demand for information on selection, garden design, and maintenance of perennials from home gardeners, Master Gardeners, garden center employees, and landscapers.

The Southwest Ohio Perennial Flower School is a comprehensive 1-day seminar conducted annually to provide information on perennials to a diverse audience. This program captivated 74 attendees in 1995; 180 in 1996; 260 in 1997; 210 in 1998; 280 in 1999; and 200 in 2000. The Perennial School has also featured local commercial exhibitors each year since 1997.

Targeted Audiences

The targeted audiences of the Perennial School has included home gardeners, Master Gardeners, flower growers, garden center employees, landscapers, garden designers, and Extension professionals. Nearly 40% of the Perennial School attendees have been home gardeners, while 20% have been Master Gardeners. Both home gardeners and Master Gardeners have come to the Perennial School to gain ideas on improving their home landscapes. Master Gardeners also receive advanced training credits for their recertification. Many garden centers, nurseries, and landscaping companies in the Greater Cincinnati Area have adopted this program as their employee-training program. A few Extension professionals have attended the program as well.

Popular Topics

Program topics are divided into the following three groups:

• Plant selection,
• Garden design, and
• Garden maintenance.

Popular topics on plant selection have included:

• New and emerging perennials,
• Perennials for sunny and shady areas, and
• Reliable perennials for problem areas.

Topics on perennial garden design have been:

• Designing a four-season perennial garden,
• Successful perennial combinations,
• Designing herb gardens with interesting themes, and
• Gardening to attract hummingbirds and butterflies.

Information on garden maintenance has included:

• Maintaining perennial beds,
• A season in the perennial garden care,
• Fertilizing perennials in the home landscape,
• Identification and control of diseases in perennials, and
• Identification and control of insects in perennials.

Helpful Handouts

Each year, the Perennial School attendees have been given a pocket folder containing helpful handouts. The handout materials have included color bulletins such as:

• "Perennial Plants for Ohio," available through the Ohio Nursery and Landscape Association;
• "Perennials For Outdoor Living," by the Perennial Plant Association; and
• Ohio State University Extension fact sheets and bulletins.

Program Evaluations

The Perennial School has received excellent evaluations each year. In 1999, more than 98% of attendees said they would improve their garden design, plant selection, and maintenance of their perennial gardens as a result of the school. All of the commercial exhibitors have indicated they have expanded their customer base as a result of their participation.

In 1999, this program was presented as a poster presentation during the Annual Meeting and Professional Improvement Conference of the National Association of County Agricultural Agents in Omaha, Nebraska. About 60 Extension Agents picked up information on this Perennial School, and more than 20 Extension Agents from 16 states requested additional information.

Summary

The Southwest Ohio Perennial Flower School has been a "perennial" winner each year since 1995. The Perennial School will continue to be offered each year and will feature new topics and informative speakers. This program serves as a great model program for other agricultural and horticultural Extension Agents.

This article is online at http://joe.org/joe/2001august/ent-tt.html.

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.