December 2006
Volume 44 Number 6

Features

How Farm Workers Learn to Use and Practice Biosecurity

Julie Delabbio
Northwestern State University
Aquaculture Research Center
Natchitoches, Louisiana
delabbioj@nsula.edu

Introduction

Biosecurity can be defined as any practices, policies, or procedures employed on a farm to prevent and/or control disease entering onto the farm or moving around the farm. Biosecurity includes simple practices related to animal husbandry such as daily cleaning of holding units, disposal of dead animals, and feeding regime. Biosecurity can also involve farm policies and procedures concerning admission of visitors, animal introductions onto the site, and equipment disinfection.

Consistent use of high-quality biosecurity is essential to the success of any type of livestock agriculture. Yet, in many sectors of agriculture, the practice of biosecurity is sporadic and of a variable nature (Gifford, 1987; Thomson, 1997; Amass & Clarke, 1999; Godkin, 1999; Sanderson, Dargatz, Garry, 2000). Traditional thinking has been that lack of knowledge about biosecurity is the major reason for poor biosecurity practice (Gillespie, 2000; Sanderson et al., 2000; O'Bryen & Lee, 2003). Extension agents, therefore, have continued to try to promote better biosecurity practice at the farm level by providing educational materials, demonstrations, workshops, etc., to farmers and their workers. However, Extension agents and farm management could be more effective in changing poor biosecurity practice by farm workers if they better understood the process and elements that influence the workers' actions.

Recent work by Delabbio et al. (2003, 2004, 2005) has shown that the frequency and type of biosecurity practiced on a farm was not driven solely by levels of awareness or knowledge about biosecurity. Different characteristics of the farm, such as species grown, staff size, and/or source of water influenced the type of biosecurity practiced on a farm. As well, the beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions of the farm manager and/or owners about biosecurity and disease affected the biosecurity practiced on a farm.

The purpose of the study reported here was to examine how farm workers learn and practice biosecurity. The participants in the study were workers (farmhands) employed at fish farms in the United States and Canada. Although the aquaculture sector of agri-business was used as the arena for this research, the findings of this study are applicable to other livestock-rearing industries. On any farm, it is the farm workers who are responsible for the daily upkeep of the animals, equipment deployment, food storage, etc., and therefore are responsible for the daily biosecurity practices embedded in these activities.

Methods

In spring 2002, tape-recorded interviews of approximately 1-hour duration were conducted with 31 individuals employed at 12 salmonid recirculation facilities in West Virginia and Maine, USA, and in New Brunswick, Canada. Interviewees were full-time farm personnel who worked directly with the animals (fish) and, therefore, had hands-on, daily opportunities to practice biosecurity. Hereafter, the interviewees are referred to as "workers." The focus of the interviews was the workers' perceptions of, and experiences with, farm biosecurity. Specifically, the interviews examined the following two questions:

1. How do farm workers learn about, use, and perceive biosecurity practices in the workplace?

2. What influences workers' practices of biosecurity?

A qualitative research methodology called "Grounded Theory" was used for data collection, organization, and analysis (Glasser & Strauss, 1967; Glasser, 1992). This research methodology was chosen because it has proven to be a useful and robust means of examining undescribed human phenomena.

Grounded Theory uses a systematic approach to establishing categories and themes, and to generate theory from a qualitative data set. In the study, the emergent theory describes how farm workers learn to use and practice biosecurity on the farm. This theory also describes the influence of elements in the work environment and characteristics of the individual worker on the practice of biosecurity. This theory is called the "Practice of Biosecurity Theory" (PBT).

Results

Practice of Biosecurity Theory

A farm worker's practice of biosecurity is an interactive, constantly dynamic process, which can be influenced by several distinct factors in the work environment (Figure 1). A farm worker learns about and practices biosecurity through a three-phase process. This process is never finite; a worker may go through the process many times during their time of employment on a farm as rearing conditions change and/or new disease concerns arise.

Figure 1.
How Phases of the Learning Process and Factors in the Workplace Interact and Influence the Practice of Biosecurity by Farm Workers

The following is a more detailed description of the three phases of the process. To give voice to the data, examples of the workers' comments are included with the description. However, it is important for the reader to note that the findings of this study were derived from an extensive data, not solely from the embedded comments found in the text.

Practicing Biosecurity: A Three-Phase Process

Phase One: Orientation

The first phase that a worker experiences in his/her efforts to use biosecurity on a farm is the orientation phase. This phase begins on the initial day of employment and incorporates the period of time during which the new worker "learns the ropes" about caring for the fish and other responsibilities related to site biosecurity. During this phase, workers usually are assigned to work with experienced personnel who act as role models/mentors and who use verbal instruction and hands-on demonstration to teach the workers about biosecurity as it relates to their job responsibilities. The length of this phase varies depending upon staffing resources and the size and complexity of the facility.

The orientation phase includes learning/using biosecurity in three categories of tasks: (1) standard husbandry activities for providing physical care for the fish, e.g., tank cleaning, fish feeding; (2) housekeeping duties, e.g., feed storage; and (3) seasonal activities, e.g., vaccination, harvesting. During this phase, workers become aware of the required time sequence of biosecurity tasks as well how to perform actual tasks.

Phase Two: Routine

Routine, the second phase, describes the period of time when workers start to work alone, or independent of constant supervision. During this phase, workers get greater experience and practice in applying their newly acquired knowledge about biosecurity to day-to-day farm activities. Workers will still continue to observe the biosecurity practices of more experienced staff, and over time, the workers may improve their own efficiency and delivery of these practices.

Workers will also modify their practice of biosecurity as they themselves learn through trial and error the impact of their actions on the fish. For instance, during the daily feeding, workers may change their own actions in feeding the fish in response to the fishes' behavior and the impact feeding has on a tank's water quality.

Workers explained that during the orientation phase, their role model would identify specific biosecurity measures and provide some explanation as to why they were used. In this phase, the worker was highly conscious of his actions. However, a common comment among workers performing these same biosecurity measures during phase two of the process was that over time, as the practice of a certain biosecurity measure became more of a habit or routine, workers no longer consciously thought of the significance of the action. One worker explained, "It [the biosecurity measure] becomes second nature," while another worker said, "You do it without even thinking about it."

Phase Three: Thoughtful Approach

The third phase of the process of learning to practice biosecurity is called "thoughtful approach." This phase commenced when workers began to develop and use biosecurity measures designed for new experiences. During this third phase, workers continued to use biosecurity measures based on the knowledge acquired during orientation and the trial-and-error exercise found in establishing a routine. However, as circumstances changed with entrance of new fish groups, new disease concerns, and the introduction of new culture methodologies, workers described how they adapted their expectations and practices of biosecurity based on the site's specific biosecurity needs and found this approach to be more effective.

In contrast to the practice of biosecurity in the previous phase (routine), the workers' practice of biosecurity was now guided by familiarity with the fishes' health needs, new information from external sources, and a more holistic understanding of biosecurity utilization. For example, one worker, reflecting on how he approached different fish life stages with different biosecurity expectations, said:

If you screw up with your fry, the fry don't start dying off in the next month or two, they can all be dead by tomorrow. So there is this different sense of urgency with these things. They are so delicate, so perishable compared to the other fish.

Not all workers in the study had processed to this third phase of learning in the use of biosecurity. Workers in this phase described an outward seeking perspective for new information on fish disease and control, and maintained a network of external information sources, a dissimilar situation to those workers who performed biosecurity as a routine and duty practice only. One worker explained:

I have been at it (aquaculture) long enough, but still things pop up that you don't expect, haven't seen before. But at least you have a sort of repertoire of people that you have association with or know or have some sort of relationship with, and you know what their specialties are and what their interests are. So although you many not have the answers, matter of fact, if you had all the answers, you'd be pretty unique. But you know where to go to get an answer.

In this phase of the process, workers emphasized overall fish care and system management as more important to biosecurity than individual biosecurity measures. For example, one worker said:

I'd rather put more importance on the system that is really, really good for growing fish and grows really healthy fish. That would probably take precedence over separating of (year) classes or anything like that. I honestly think that the host has to be weak in order to get sick… it's the whole picture, the environment and the host… its not just disease getting on your site, but the fact that if disease comes on your site, does it really have the ability to infect.

In addition, workers in the thoughtful approach phase felt that biosecurity practices needed to be discretionary, appropriate to the perceived risk, and therefore site and situation specific. Workers considered different biosecurity practices differently with respect to their level of risk reduction. For example, several workers talked about the difference in level of risk associated with different types of visitors to the fish-rearing component of the facility (office staff versus feed truck personnel versus personnel from another farm versus the general public). These workers adapted their application of biosecurity to the different levels of fish disease risk associated with the different visitors.

The Workplace Environment

Intrinsic and extrinsic conditions in the workplace environment were identified as influencing workers' practice of biosecurity. Many of these conditions were interconnected. These conditions were grouped into three categories: management's action, peer pressure, and personal characteristics of the individual worker.

Management's Actions

Workers identified management's position on biosecurity as influential to their own learning and practice of biosecurity. Workers perceived the use of biosecurity practices on a farm as a function of doing business. One worker explained, "Biosecurity is a business decision as far as I'm concerned. I mean, it has absolutely nothing to do with government [regulations] or food safety. It has everything to do with healthier stock." Another worker observed, "It [the use of biosecurity] is market-driven . . . as business gets more competitive. This group doesn't have disease and this group does. Which group of fish are you going to buy? You know as the supply increases . . . there is going to be more concern about disease." To some degree, the workers' perceived management's action towards biosecurity on the farm as indicative of management's commitment to running a successful business.

Management transmitted this message of commitment to the farm workers in a variety of ways: by giving positive and negative feedback on the worker's practice of biosecurity, supplying information on fish performance in relationship to biosecurity practices, and ensuring adequate resources for the practice of biosecurity. One worker, explaining how positive feedback influenced his practice of biosecurity, said:

If you don't invest anything in your employees and you don't build them up, build their confidence up, let them know when they're doing a good job and things like that, then they're not going to try, and that's where you get those breakdowns in biosecurity. It is that someone, wandering around, who hasn't been told they're doing a good job and [they] don't really care.

Another worker commented on the influence of positive feedback as follows:

It [encouragement] makes people conscientious when it comes to things like biosecurity, because they feel it's very important to them, and they feel like they're very worthy, and they're very important in the whole scheme of things. You know, you make them feel important and they feel that things like biosecurity are important.

However, workers also mentioned that negative feedback on the practice of biosecurity from management also influenced the level of biosecurity that they practiced. This negative feedback was described as threats, firings, meanness, fines, and creating paranoia about consequences of disease incidence. In both types of feedback situations, it was evident that workers were aware of management staff's scrutiny of their biosecurity activities.

Workers' biosecurity practice was also influenced by the amount of information that they received from management personnel on how the fish were performing, what impact certain rearing conditions had on fish performance, and what the workers' contributions were to the facility's overall success. As one worker reflected:

Well, when I first started working here, there were biosecurity measures in place, but I don't think there was a good understanding of where it was important to have it and a very good understanding as to why--why you would have it and where it is applicable.

The availability of required resources to actually perform biosecurity was also seen by workers as a strong supportive influence in their practice of biosecurity. Resources that supported the practice of biosecurity included: proper facility design; pieces of equipment and supplies to augment or perform biosecurity practices (e.g., disinfectants, hand wash stations); and sufficient time and labor allocated to perform biosecurity practices. Some workers expressed frustration that they would like to perform better biosecurity, but were unable to because of lack of resources.

Peer Pressure

Peer pressure was identified by workers as significantly influencing their practice of biosecurity. This was a separate influencing element from the pressure by management to practice biosecurity. As one worker described it:

If you see somebody else, say, two or three of you are going into a building to do a job, and the first person steps in the footbath, well, you're going to do it. You know, follow-the-leader type thing. You would be more apt not to [use the footbath] if the person in front of you didn't… it's easier to do it if everyone else is doing it.

Workers acknowledged that their sense of accountability to their peer group affected their practice of biosecurity. Some farms had methods of visible accountability to the group with respect to biosecurity use, such as posting specific biosecurity duties of different workers in common rooms/ work areas. On other farms, although responsibility of assignments was less formal, it was commonly known among the staff who was responsible and, therefore, accountable for the performance of certain biosecurity practices (e.g., changing disinfectant in foot baths).

Some workers acknowledged that to them failure to practice biosecurity was seen as failure to the group because biosecurity was linked to job security. For example, one participant said, "I feel like it is my job to do that [remind other people if they fail to use biosecurity measures] . . . because it is putting other people's jobs on the line." Because of this job-security link, workers felt that having other people monitor and check their use of biosecurity was important.

At some farms, workers spoke of formal review of their biosecurity practice by peers and comparison with other groups within the company. At one farm, workers evaluated their fellow employees' performances as part of each worker's annual job evaluation: "We have job evaluations that we do on each other, and a big part of it is biosecurity. So, if you're not practicing proper procedures, it will be on your job review from your fellow employees." Workers at another company, which owns several farms, reported having a fish health specialist who:

Goes around facility to facility and basically gives us a grade and tells us how good we're doing here, or how poor we're doing [in practicing biosecurity] . . . We want to be in line with everybody else in the rest of the company. It [biosecurity] has improved.

The link of biosecurity practice and responsibility to the group was evident in other ways. Workers spoke of breaches of biosecurity by people outside of the group (outsiders and seasonal staff) and how it concerned them. "When we have different seasons, we're busier so we hire some part-timers and it's hard to get them sometimes to do some of the things [biosecurity practices]. They're only here for a few weeks." Workers perceived that a responsibility to fellow employees to practice biosecurity had not developed among casual employees because of the limited amount of time that these persons were exposed to the group.

Characteristics of the Individual Worker

Workers felt there were four characteristics of individuals that influenced their practice of biosecurity in the workplace. These characteristics were 1) the individual's personality type, 2) the individual's experience with fish disease, 3) the individual's education level, and 4) the individual's personal beliefs about fish health, disease incidence, disease prevention, and control.

Personality Type

Workers saw an individual's practice of biosecurity as a natural extension of the person's personality type. For example, workers believed that persons who were responsible, tidy, and job-conscientious were more likely to perform required biosecurity measures.

Experience with Fish Disease

All workers interviewed either had direct experience with fish disease problems during their employment in aquaculture or had personal contact with people (family members, neighbors, or other farm personnel) who had had problems with fish disease in their stock. This experience with fish disease was viewed as an influence on the worker's practice of biosecurity measures. One worker reflected that he was practicing biosecurity now because, "I learned the hard way through disease transfer on the farm."

There was an oral tradition of workers describing to other workers their own experience with disease incidence present in the farm work environment. Workers felt that it was important for co-workers to be told about fish disease situations in which they themselves had been involved. So, during informal discussions (at lunch hour, during coffee breaks, etc.), experienced workers verbally informed new workers on staff of their own personal, past experiences with fish disease. These testimonials were viewed by the workers as an important influence on their own practice of biosecurity and that of other workers. One worker explained:

I've worked in industry for a long, long time. So I've had the experience with it [disease] and know what's involved and know what can happen. These guys don't. So it is important for us in our particular situation to fill them in on stuff like that [disease consequences]. They wouldn't know otherwise.

Education

Workers talked about drawing on the knowledge gained from their formal education to practice biosecurity in their current job. However, besides formal education, workers also talked about reading scientific and popular aquaculture publications, talking to experts, and taking short courses in fish disease to increase their knowledge about fish health and therefore favorably influence their practice of biosecurity measures.

Personal Belief System

Common to all the workers was the belief that disease prevention and control were important. However, workers felt that this was important for a number of reasons. Some workers believed preventing disease was directly tied to job security. As one worker explained, "if we don't do it [biosecurity], we lose all our fish, then you lose your job." Other workers felt that practices to prevent disease occurrence [biosecurity] were important because they were part of company policy. Other workers believed the practice of biosecurity was a way to reduce disease occurrence, but did not directly link disease incidence at their site to job security.

A common belief among workers was that more fish diseases, and therefore higher disease risks, were now present in the aquaculture industry than in the past, and they said this has influenced their practice of biosecurity. Similarly, many workers believed that the increased movement of fish that was occurring in aquaculture made the risk of fish disease transmission greater and therefore influenced their biosecurity practice. As one worker stated, "Originally, way back when, we were self-sustaining. We had everything here. We weren't too concerned about bringing something into the facility. Now I am concerned because we are bringing things in like eggs and other fish."

Discussion and Implications

The most important finding of this research is that biosecurity practice on a farm is a complex, interactive process influenced by several factors in the workplace. Getting workers to use biosecurity is not a matter of simply providing information to them about disease prevention and disease control measures.

The process of learning about biosecurity and the factors affecting its use by farm workers is a study in human behavior. In order to effectively bring about change in current biosecurity practices, Extension agents and farm managers must understand what motivates and influences workers to use biosecurity.

In this regard, both farm managers and extension workers should recognize, at the farm level, the influence of:

• Peer pressure,

• Management's actions, and

• The mentor role on the practice of biosecurity on a farm.

Although it is the workers who provide the fish care maintenance and practice biosecurity, management's commitment to biosecurity had a significant effect on the workers' practice of biosecurity. Workers' practice of biosecurity was directly affected by the type and availability of resources available to them and by positive and negative feedback by management on the worker's biosecurity-related actions.

Peer pressure can have an important positive influence on biosecurity practice on a farm. Farm work environments that stress a team or group approach to biosecurity activities may have better success in the consistent use of biosecurity measures. Alternatively, it may be inferred that farm sites with high personnel turnover will have weaker group dynamics, and this, in turn, might affect the practice of biosecurity.

The importance of the mentor role cannot be underestimated in the practice of biosecurity. It is during the orientation phase that workers first become aware of, and learn how to perform, biosecurity practices. The success of this unstructured educational process is dependent on the mentor's teaching abilities and amount of time given to him/her to instruct new employees. The future practice of biosecurity by workers on a farm may be strongly related to the assignment of the appropriate person to this mentoring role, and to the appropriation of sufficient time to perform the mentoring.

The study reported here was the first exploration of the human dimension of biosecurity practice on a farm at the worker level. It is recognized that the findings of the study are based on interviews of workers raising fish on farms. However, the study of the practice of biosecurity is a study in human behavior, and the problem of infrequency of use and inconsistency of application of biosecurity measures exists in most animal-rearing industries. Therefore, in a broad sense, the findings of this study are important to all livestock-rearing industries and would be of use to both farm managers, and Extension personnel hoping to improve the practice of biosecurity on any livestock farm.

References

Amass, S. F., & Clark, L. K. (1999). Biosecurity consideration for pork production units. Swine Health and Production, 7(5), 217-228.

Delabbio, J., Murphy, B., Johnson, G. R., & Hallerman, E. (2003). Characteristics of the recirculation sector of finfish aquaculture in the United States and Canada. International Journal of Recirculating Aquaculture, 4, 5-23.

Delabbio, J., Murphy, B., Johnson, G. R., & McMullin, S. L. (2004). An assessment of biosecurity utilization in the recirculation sector of finfish aquaculture in the United States and Canada. Aquaculture, 252, 165-179.

Delabbio, J., Johnson, G. R., Murphy, B., Hallerman, E., Woart, A., & McMullin, S. L. (2005). Fish disease and biosecurity: Attitudes, beliefs and perceptions of managers/owners of finfish recirculation facilities in the United States and Canada. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health, 17(2),153-159.

Gifford, D.H., Shane, S. M., Hugh-Jones, M., & Weigler, B. J. (1987). Evaluation of biosecurity in broiler breeders. Avian Diseases, 31(2), 339-344.

Gillespie, J. R. (2000). The underlying interrelated issues of biosecurity. Journal American Veterinary Medicine Association, 5, 662-664.

Glaser, B G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine/Atherton.

Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs. forcing. Mill Valley, California: Sociology Press.

Godkin, A., Kelton, D., Alves, D., Lissemore, K., Leslie, K., Smart, N., Church, C., & Meadows, P. (1999). Biosecurity practices to limit spread of Staphylococcus aureus on Ontario Sentinel Dairy Farms. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners (pp. 254-255).

O'Bryen, P. J., & Lee, C. S. (2003). Discussion summary on biosecurity in aquaculture production systems: exclusion of pathogens and other desirables. In C.S. Lee & J. P. O'Bryen (Eds.) Biosecurity in aquaculture production systems: Exclusion of pathogens and other desirables (pp. 275-293). Baton Rouge, Louisiana: The World Aquaculture Society.

Sanderson, M. W., Dargatz, D.A., & Garry, F.B. (2000). Biosecurity practices of beef-cow calf producers. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association, 217(2), 185-189.

Thomson, J. U. (1997). Implementing biosecurity in beef and dairy herds. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the American Bovine Practitioners (pp. 8-14).

Managing Agricultural Risk: Examining Information Sources Preferred by Limited Resource Farmers

Ingrid Nya Ngathou
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Agribusiness
ingathou@aamu.edu

James O. Bukenya
Assistant Professor of Agricultural Economics
james.bukenya@email.aamu.edu

Duncan M. Chembezi
Associate Director, Small Farms Research Center
duncan.chembezi@email.aamu.edu

Alabama A&M University
Normal, Alabama

Introduction

The most useful asset a farmer can have to help with the management of risk is good information. There are many sources of information available to farmers. However, the most appropriate place to look for information depends on the type of risk with which the farmer is concerned (Nelson, 1997; Harwood, Heifner, Coble, Perry, & Somwaru, 1999). Among the most common risk factors that farmers face are weather, crop and livestock diseases, pests, adoption of new technologies, fluctuating prices, and government programs and policies.

In an effort to help farmers mitigate risk, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other organizations like the national crop insurance service have offered a wide range of different risk management tools such as crop insurance, futures, options, basis pool and forward contracts to farmers. However, the adoption of these and other agricultural risk management tools by farmers, in general, and limited resource farmers, in particular, has been slow.

Previous research (Coble, Knight, Patrick &, Baquet, 1999; FSC, 2000; Tiller, 2000; Roe, 1998) suggests that the slow adoption of agricultural risk management tools is related to lack of knowledge and understanding about them. For instance, a survey by the Federation of Southern Cooperatives of black farmers in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas found that less than 44% of the producers had received risk management training (FSC, 2000).

The main reason given for low participation in such training programs was that many agencies, including land-grant universities, do not give adequate technical assistance to farmers on such tools as crop insurance (FSC, 2000). In a survey of producers growing major field crops in Indiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Texas, Coble, Knight, Patrick, and Baquet (1999) found that less than 34% of the producers had attended any risk management education or other training programs.

Among limited resource farmers, however, the reasons for the slow adoption of risk management tools go beyond the lack of knowledge (Dismukes, Harwood, & Bentley, 1997). This group of farmers produces products (fruits and vegetables or livestock) that are generally not covered by insurance products. Furthermore, information gathering is costly, and small and limited resource farmers may not be interested in laying out those costs if the benefits of them are comparatively small. Large farmers, on the other hand, can justify information-gathering costs because it is a public good, so economies of scale enter into the calculation.

It is important that farmers know about the various risk management tools available to them so that risk acceptance is a result of choice rather than the lack of awareness of the availability of the alternative risk management tools/sources.

There are also numerous inconsistencies with respect to the factors that influence farmers' attitudes toward specific information sources (Gloy, Akridge, & Whipker, 2000). For instance, age and experience were important characteristics in determining information preferences in studies by Ford and Babb (1989), Schnitkey, Batte, Jones, and Botomogno (1992), Gloy, Akridge, and Whipker, (2000). But they were unimportant in studies conducted by Pompelli, Morfaw, English, Bowling, Bullen, and Tegegne (1997), Foltz, Lanclos, Guenthner, Makus, and Sanchez (1996), and Ortmann, Patrick, Musser, and Doster (1993).

Measures of farm size were related to both attitudes toward, and the use of, information sources in studies by Ford and Babb (1989), Ortmann et al. (1993), and Foltz et al. (1996). Schnitkey et al. (1992) and Ortmann et al. (1993) found that the farm's use and attitudes toward different information sources varied by enterprise type. Other factors that have been found to influence attitudes toward information sources are experience with the information source (Pompelli et al., 1997), experience with technology such as computers (Schnitkey et al., 1992; Ortmann et al., 1993), and farmers' skills in different functional management areas (Ortmann et al., 1993).

In view of these inconsistencies, the study reported here sought to understand small and limited resource farmers' perceptions of the usefulness of information received from a variety of information sources and identify factors that explain the variation in farmers' attitudes toward these sources. The insights gained from the study should help improve the efficiency with which Extension and agricultural educators develop targeted outreach activities that will ensure that farmers receive adequate information in a format they can appreciate and understand.

Theoretical Approach

The traditional approach of modeling behavior under risk is through the use of the expected utility approach. Utility theory provides a means of monitoring how people perceive risk and of measuring subjective values by taking advantage of an individual's perception of risk (von Neuman & Morgenstern, 1944; Luce & Raiffa, 1957; Myerson, 1979). The application of utility-theory methods does not require that decision makers have any explicit idea of probability or make explicit mathematical calculations (Rapoport, 1966:30). They need only make decisions based on their subjective perception of probabilities. It is assumed by this method that a decision maker's preferences are complete, transitive, and continuous (von Neuman & Morgenstern, 1944; Luce & Raiffa, 1957; Myerson, 1979).

Completeness means that a decision maker can compare any alternatives under consideration. Transitivity means that a decision maker who prefers A to B and B to C will also prefer A to C. Continuity means that a decision maker's utility increases continuously such that if A is preferred to C, any option B that is ranked between A and C can be represented by a randomized combination of A and C. Provided that a decision maker's preferences meet these requirements, researchers can use utility-theory methods to monitor preferences and to model decision making.

Economists taking an explicitly deductive approach tend to rely for its validity more on the theory's axiomatic foundations than on empirical demonstrations (Perry 1998; Paris & Caputo 1993). When economists do test utility theory, it is often in experiments (Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler, 1990; Cubitt & Starmer, 1998; Bosch-Domenech & Silvestre, 1999; Butler, 2000). Some experimental economists have focused on violations of utility-theory assumptions. Many of these limitations were detailed in a seminal article by Kahneman and Tversky (1979) in which they noted common violations of utility theory such as unequal weighting of losses versus gains, overweighting of certain outcomes over probabilistic ones, and failure to consider common features of prospects relevant to the calculation of their value.

Other researchers have built upon this foundation (Tversky & Kahneman, 1992; Cubitt & Starmer, 1998; Butler, 2000; Morrison, 2000). In contrast to critical experimental studies, non-experimental studies by agricultural economists (Bar-Shira, 1992; Smith & Mandac, 1995; Elamin & Rogers, 1992; Zuhair, Taylor, & Kramer, 1992) tend to support the fit between utility theory and people's actual behavior. For instance, Bar-Shira (1992) found that, when a feasible solution to a land allocation problem for farmers exists, risk aversion coefficients can be assessed and people behave in accordance with utility-theory predictions.

Despite various limitations, utility theory appears valid when its assumptions can be met, and violations of assumptions can often be overcome with modifications to utility functions (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Tversky & Kahneman, 1992; Butler, 2000). As noted by Morrison (2000), despite the limitations of utility theory, "a clearly superior model has not yet been identified." In view of the above we use utility theory to examine the factors that are correlated with how farmers rate the usefulness of the information sources available to them.

Data

The first step of data collection involved identifying the different information sources about agricultural risk management tools that are available to farmers, in general, and limited resource farmers, in particular, and the criteria used to evaluate information sources. This was achieved by contacting Extension agents using snowball sampling (Malhotra, Shaw, & Crisp, 1996) where each agent was asked to recommend others who could help further. An extensive search of the Internet and libraries also led to the discovery of different products and sources of information available to farmers. A brief summary was written about each information source and then categorized using evaluation criteria into:

• Risk management experts,

• Printed materials,

• Computer-based,

• Marketing associations,

• Radio/TV, and

• Advice/face to face contacts.

The evaluation criteria were:

• Cost,

• Readability,

• Relevance,

• Balance view,

• Depth of content,

• Range of content,

• Presentation,

• Ease of access,

• Ease of use,

• Timeliness,

• Accuracy, and

• Feedback.

The qualitative data from the Extension agents were used extensively in the design of the survey questionnaire that used scale type questions to identify and assess farmers' evaluation and ratings of selected information sources. The survey instrument was examined for content and face validity by four research associates in the Small Farms Research Center (SFRC) at Alabama A&M University. Then, the questionnaire was administered using two methods: mail and outreach.

For the mail survey, the questionnaire was sent out to a random sample of 228 small farmers in north Alabama counties. Of these, 36 usable questionnaires were returned, and 68 questionnaires were returned as undeliverable. Thus, the mailing of the survey resulted in an adjusted usable response rate of 21%. At the two outreach conferences (organized by the SFRC and the Alabama Cooperative Extension System), participants were asked to fill out the questionnaire. Overall, a total of 83 questionnaires were collected at both conferences.

Survey responses from the mail and the two outreach conferences were statistically compared on key variables relating to demographic and farmer characteristics, and no statistical differences (p > .05) were found either between the respondents to the mailing or between the outreach conferences. The analysis combines mail and conference survey responses to yield a sample of 117 small farmers. Although combining the responses from the two different data samples makes the overall sample non-random and vulnerable to other problems such as selection bias, the initial statistical tests showed no significant differences between the samples.

Information Source Evaluation

The survey asked farmers to select the most useful source of information and rank these sources using a Likert type scale (ranging from 1 for not useful to 5 for very useful). The responses from this question are used to construct the dependent variable (USFLNS), which measures limited resource farmers' ranking of the sources of information consulted. Overall the most useful information sources (Table 1) were printed materials (magazines, newsletters, and fact sheets) followed by face-to-face advice by other farmers and risk management experts (training courses/seminars, brokers/advisers) by order of preference. Others were computer (Internet-based education modules, e-mail), books, risk management associations (marketing clubs), and radio/television programs. The findings in Table 1 are consistent with previous findings (Suvedi, Campo, & Lapinski, 1999; Roe, 1998) that media, consultants, Agfacts, and, to a lesser extent, field days are the main information sources used by farmers.

It appears from the results in Table 1 that one of the better ways to help limited resource farmers manage agricultural risk is their access to printed materials like periodic newsletters, fact sheets, and other practical material.

A snowball effect will also ensure that the more farmers are reached through initial efforts, that more other farmers will get the information, because communication with their peers seems to be one of the best sources of information at their disposal.

Econometric Approach

The empirical model examines how the ranking of the usefulness of risk management information sources are correlated with limited resource farmers' characteristics. The questionnaire asked farmers to "indicate how useful the sources of information are in helping [them] to make decisions." (The reliability coefficient, Cronbach' alpha, is estimated at .89, meaning that the data are seemingly measuring the same latent construct). In addition, the questionnaire captured personal data, including age, educational level, and ethnicity, as well as data about the farm: farm tenure, ownership structure, farm sales, and type of production (Table 2).

Because the information source rankings are qualitative and discrete in nature, an ordered probit model was estimated. The ordered probit regression produces the maximum likelihood estimates of coefficients that predict a farmer's ranking of the information sources. The underlying variable, the actual rank expressed by the farmer, is continuous and unobservable; only the values chosen as most closely representing farmers' actual ranking is observed.

The estimated model is specified as:

USEFULNESS = Constant + Own + Full-time + Ethnicity + Education + Insurance + Marketing plan + age + Sales + Production. (See Table 2 for variable definitions)

Similar studies have found that the selected factors are usually correlated with how farmers perceive or rate information sources that they receive and also on whether farmers adopt new techniques or technologies (Jones, Battle, & Schnitkey, 1989; Isengildina & Hudson, 2001; Amponsah, 1995; Batte, Jones, & Schnitkey, 1990). The equation is estimated using the ordered probit procedure in LIMDEP (Greene, 2000). While considering data limitations, the results can assist Extension and agricultural educators in identifying information sources most preferred and useful to small and limited resource farmers.

Results

The dependent variable (USEFULNESS) is constructed to take into consideration the indicated sources of information for which each farmer has provided an evaluation. The different ratings for each source are combined into one value that gives a general idea of what farmers in general think about the sources of information that they consult. The results are presented in Table 3, including the log likelihood coefficient, the Chi-square, model's prediction success, and estimated marginal effects.

The measures of goodness of fit indicate that the model fits the data fairly well. The log-likelihood, which measures the significance of probit function, was significant at p< 0.01, suggesting that a relationship exists between information source ratings and the suggested independent variables. The model correctly predicted 71% (83 out of 117) of the responses. Similarly, the estimated model assumes that there are threshold values (µ1, µ2 and µ3) above which the rating of information sources goes to the next higher level. The estimated µ values for these threshold levels are statistically significant at p< 0.01 and positive, hence validating the use of the ordered probit model.

To further understand how the dependent variable (level of usefulness) is related to the independent variables, marginal effects are estimated and reported in the last column of Table 3. These effects are evaluated by assuming that a given respondent has the mean score for every independent variable; in other words, the respondent is average in every way. This technique enables to isolate the effect of a change in one variable given that all the others remain constant.

The variables that are significant at 5% level or higher are OWN, AGE, and MARKETING PLAN, implying that these variables are the strongest correlates with how farmers rate the usefulness of the risk management information they receive. To the contrary, variables related to ethnicity, production, full-time, and sales are less instrumental in influencing the way farmers rate/perceive the different sources of information.

As we further discuss the results, it is important to note that statistical problems such as multicollinearity are a common problem in economics and econometric modeling. Even though no evidence of such problems was noted in this analysis, given the qualitative nature of most of the explanatory variables, it is possible that the significance and possibly the signs of some parameter estimates may have been affected by such problems, albeit insignificantly.

The OWN variable, which refers to farm ownership, has the strongest explanatory power in usefulness perception among farmers who responded to the survey. This result suggests that farmers who own land/farm strongly feel that the various sources of information that they consult are useful. This result implies that a farmer who owns the land would be more committed and more interested to acquire risk management information compared to a farmer who does not own the land.

The estimated marginal effect for the OWN variable shows that farmers who own land are 16.92% more likely than farmers who rent to rate the risk management information they receive as very useful. One plausible explanation could be that ownership results in a better and long-term commitment that can be related to the perception of the usefulness of the various sources of information.

The second highest explanatory power comes from the MARKETING PLAN variable, which is also significant at p< 0.05. The estimated marginal effect suggests that farmers who have marketing plans are 10.94% more likely to rate the risk management information they receive to be very useful than farmers who do not have a marketing plan.

It is plausible that having a marketing plan results in knowing the specific needs in the farm operation, giving rise to the applicability and usefulness of the various information sources available. Over the past few years many top-notch producers have gone out of business. One contributing factor has been the inability to sell at profitable prices. Having a marketing plan can improve the odds of selling farm products at prices that ensure the survival of the farm business.

The result for AGE shows that age exerts downward pressure (negative influence) on USEFULNESS, which means that as people age, they are not as satisfied about the information they receive as are younger people. AGE is also the only variable that has a negative relationship to USEFULNESS. The estimated marginal effects suggest that moving from one age category to another will lower farmers' rating of the risk information sources by 0.0489.

In support of similar findings, Schnitkey et al. (1992) argued that age is related to farming experience, and that farmers with more experience should have less demand for external information. Following the experience argument, older farmers may find the cost of information gathering less desirable than younger farmers. Thus, it is expected that age will be negatively related to the usefulness of information received, particularly from media sources. To the contrary, Kool, Meulenberg, & Broens (1997) found that input suppliers were more likely to have established relationships with older producers. If farmers value the information provided by these relationships, age should be positively related to the usefulness of information received from personal information sources.

As one anonymous reviewer noted, the expected sign for the education variable is ambiguous. However, we hypothesized higher levels of education to be positively related to the usefulness of information received from all information sources. Higher levels of education should be consistent with increased ability to process information and/or individuals that seek out information. However, the estimated results suggest that education was less instrumental in determining attitudes toward any of the information sources. This result is consistent with the findings of Foltz et al. (1996) and Pompelli et al. (1997).

In general, it appears that within the population of small and limited resource farmers, education is a relatively less important indicator of preferences toward information sources. Similarly, other factors, including PRODUCTION, SALES, ETHNICITY, INSURANCE and FULL-TIME were less instrumental in influencing the way farmers rate/perceive the different sources of information.

Conclusions

The study employed survey data collected among small and limited resource farmers in north Alabama to determine the factors that influence farmers' perception of usefulness of sources information in managing agricultural risk. Each information source provided benefits to some farmers. Some sources, such as printed materials and face-to-face advice by other farmers, had broad, appreciative audiences with few distinguishing characteristics. Others, such as risk management experts and Internet-based information, are less well received in general, but are valued by certain groups of farmers.

To examine the effect of small and limited resource farmers' characteristics on information source rating, the study used a probit model. The data used to examine information preferences came from county survey of farmers. These farmers are among the small family farming operations in Alabama. There is little consistency with respect to the factors that influence the perceived usefulness of the sources.

Factors that appeared to be positively related to the perceived usefulness of information sources include farm ownership, farmers' age, and having a marketing plan. Factors such as ethnicity, education, sales, type of production, radio, television, marketing clubs, and having insurance were infrequently, if ever, related to the usefulness of information received from the sources. Although factors such as ethnicity, type of production, and education were generally unimportant in explaining information preferences in this sample, they could be important in the general farm population. Likewise, if a farmer's characteristic differs dramatically from that of sample farmers explored here, it would be unwise to assume that these factors were entirely unimportant.

There are several managerial implications of the study reported here. When selecting methods to deliver information to farmers, Extension and other agricultural educators must consider the type of information to be delivered, the capability of the information source for delivering the information, and their target clientele's preferences for receiving information from various sources.

When selecting information sources, Extension and other agricultural educators should recognize that there are differences with respect to the factors that influence attitudes toward each source. In other words, each source should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The factors that are important in explaining attitudes toward one information source may be very different than the factors that explain attitudes toward another information source. Finally, the fundamental limitations of this study pertain to survey data. These include, but are not limited to, coverage errors, non response and distortions of measurement errors, selection bias, omitted variable problems, and possible econometric problems previously highlighted in this article.

References

Amponsah, W. A. (1995). Computer adoption and use of information services by North Carolina commercial farmers. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 37(2), 565-576.

Bar-Shira, Z. (1992). Nonparametric test of the expected utility hypothesis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74, 523-34.

Batte, M. T., Jones, E., & Schnitkey, G. D. (1990) Farm information use: An analysis of production and weather information for Midwestern cash grain farmers. Journal of Production Agriculture, 3(1), 76-83.

Bosch-Domenech, A., & Silvestre, J. (1999). Does risk aversion or attraction depend on income? An experiment. Economics Letters, 65, 265-73.

Butler, D. J. (2000). Do non-expected utility choice patterns spring from hazy preferences? An experimental study of choice errors. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 41, 277-97.

Coble, K., Knight, O., Patrick, G. F., & Baquet, A. E. (1999). Crop producer risk management survey: A preliminary summary of selected data: A report from the understanding farmer risk management decision making and educational needs research project. Information Report 99-001, Mississippi State University.

Cubitt, R. P., & Starmer, C. (1998). Dynamic choice and the common ratio effect: An experimental investigation. Economic Journal, 108, 1362-81.

Dismukes, R., Harwood, J. L., & Bentley, S. E. (1997). Characteristics and risk management needs of limited resources and socially disadvantaged farmers. Agricultural Information Bulletin No 733, 104-109.

Elamin, E. M., & Rogers, L. F. (1992). Estimation and use of risk aversion coefficient for traditional dry land agriculture in western Sudan. Agricultural Economics, 7, 155-66.

Federation of Southern Cooperative (FSC). (2000). Risk management survey of African-American farmers: Preliminary findings. Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund (FSC/LAF). A Survey Funded by the Risk Management Agency of the United States Department of Agriculture.

Foltz, J., Lanclos, K., Guenthner, J., Makus, L., & Sanchez, W. (1996). The market for information and consultants in Idaho agriculture. Agribusiness, 12, 569 ­581.

Ford, S. A., & Babb, E. M. (1989). Farmer sources and uses of information. Agribusiness, 5, 465­ 476.

Gloy, B. A., Akridge, J. T., & Whipker, L. D. (2000). Sources of information for commercial farms: Usefulness of media and personal sources. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 3, 245-260.

Greene, W. (2000). LIMDEP, Version 7.0, Econometric software, New York: Plainview.

Harwood, J., Heifner, R., Coble, K., Perry, J., & Somwaru, A. (1999). Managing risk in farming: Concepts, research and analysis. Market and Trade Economics Division, ERS, USDA. Agricultural Economics Report No. 774.

Isengildina, O., & Hudson, D. M. (2001). Factors affecting hedging decisions using evidence from the cotton industry. Paper presented at the NCR-134 conference on applied commodity price analysis, forecasting, and market risk management, April 23-24, St-Louis, Missouri.

Jones, E., Battle, M. T., & Schnitkey, G. D. (1989). The impact of economic and socioeconomic factors on the demand for information: A case study of Ohio commercial farmers. Agribusiness, 5, 557-571.

Kahneman D., & Tversky, A. (1979) Prospect Theory: An analysis of decision under risk, Econometrica,47, 263 ­ 91.

Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 1325-47.

Kool, M., Meulenberg, M. T. G., & Broens, D. F. (1997). Extensiveness of farmers' buying process. Agribusiness, 13, 310 ­318.

Luce, R. D., & Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and decisions: Introduction and critical survey. New York: John Wiley.

Malhotra, N. K., Hall, H., Shaw, M. & Crisp, M. (1996). Marketing research: An applied orientation, Prentice Hall, Sydney, Australia.

Morrison, G. C. (2000). The endowment effect and expected utility. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 47, 183-197.

Myerson, R. B. (1979). An axiomatic derivation of subjective probability, utility, and evaluation functions. Theory and Decision, 11, 339-52.

Nelson, G. A. (1997). Teaching agricultural producers to consider risk in decision-making. Faculty Paper 97-17. College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University

Ortmann, G. F., Patrick, G. F., Musser, W. N., & Doster, D. H. (1993). Use of private consultants and other sources of information by large cornbelt farmers. Agribusiness, 9, 391­ 402.

Paris, Q., & Caputo. M. R. (1993). Keeping the dream of rigorous hypothesis testing alive. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75, 25-41.

Perry, G. (1998). On training Ph.D.s in economics: What can economics programs learn from those in agricultural economics? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80, 608-15.

Pompelli, G., Morfaw, C., English, B. C., Bowling, R. G., Bullen, G. S., & Tegegne, F. (1997). Farm operators' preferences for soil conservation service information: results from three Tennessee watersheds. Journal of Production Agriculture, 10, 472­ 476.

Rapoport, A. (1966). Two-person game theory: The essential ideas. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Roe, S. (1998). Wool producers use and knowledge of price risk management instruments. Honors Dissertation, Curtin University of Technology, Muresk Institute of Agriculture, Perth.

Schnitkey, G., Batte, M., Jones, E., & Botomogno, J. (1992). Information preferences of Ohio commercial farmers: Implications for extension. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74, 486 ­ 496.

Smith, J., & Mandac, A. (1995). Subjective versus objective yield distributions as measures of production risk. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77, 152-62.

Suvedi M., Campo, S., Lapinski, M. K. (1999). Michigan farmers' information seeking behaviors and perspectives on the delivery of information. Journal of Applied Communications, 83, 33-50.

Tiller, B. M. (2000). Price risk management tools and the Western Australian grain producer. Honors Dissertation, Curtin University of Technology, Muresk Institute of Agriculture, Perth.

Tversry, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297-323.

Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. New York: John Wiley.

Zuhair, S., Daniel, M. M., Taylor, B., & Kramer, R. A. (1992). Choice of utility function form: Its effect on classification of risk preferences and the prediction of farmer decisions. Agricultural Economics, 6, 333-44.

Voluntary Environmental Improvement Programs: Teaching Them to Fish or Providing a Professional Guide

John D. Lawrence
Director, Iowa Beef Center
jdlaw@iastate.edu

Suzanne Schuknecht
Program Assistant, Iowa Beef Center
suzannes@iastate.edu

Joe Lally
Program Coordinator, Heartland Water Quality Project
lally@iastate.edu

Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa

Introduction

Many Extension programs are built upon the parable of teaching people to fish rather than giving them fish. The belief is that the impact will be longer lasting and the clients will be self sufficient if they are taught to fish. This is particularly important for changing the culture of how people care for the environment.

One such program was the Livestock Environmental Management System Pilot Project (LEMS) in western Iowa, in which producers were taught how to assess their operation, develop a plan, and implement a systematic approach to address environmental concerns and compliance. At approximately the same time, a separate voluntary environmental improvement program with similar goals was underway in western Iowa, the Iowa Livestock External Stewardship Pilot Project (WILESPP). Participants in WILESPP were assisted in developing and implementing a Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP) to the standards defined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).

This article summarizes a follow-up study with the participants conducted approximately a year after the two programs concluded and allows us to evaluate the fishing analogy. Each project took approximately a year to develop and a year to implement. The survey of participants who completed the projects was taken a year after implementation. The programs differ fundamentally in that the CNMP developed in WILESPP is a prescriptive process completed for the producer by consultants, while the EMS is an educational process in which the producer develops his or her own plan. For our fish analogy, LEMS taught them to how to fish and WILESPP provided them a professional fishing guide.

This article describes what was learned about two voluntary environmental programs for livestock farmers. It compares the farmers' accomplishments and attitudes, and role they play in protecting the environment. It also identifies lessons for Extension and suggestions for future environmental programming.

Background

Western Iowa Livestock External Stewardship Pilot Project

The WILESPP was undertaken to test whether the livestock industry, working together with state and federal agencies and producers, could design, implement, measure, and document voluntary environmental stewardship. This pilot project emphasized the need for consultation, cooperation, communication, and planning among meat processors, livestock producers, and government officials. The goal of this project was to develop and implement a CNMP, a "prescriptive" nutrient plan developed by USDA-NRCS staff and consultants for each participant to utilize manure nutrients in an environmentally sound and sustainable system.

WILESPP involved 19 volunteer producers (15 pork producers and four cattle producers from 23 operations) representing contract and independent producers. Twelve of the 15 hog producers were of regulated size and already had a nutrient management plan. The site-specific CNMP for each participant was supported by meat processors, field staff, and Iowa NRCS. Each producer and the support staff began a process that included analyzing soil and manure, mapping application fields with GPS/GIS, updating their NRCS Conservation Plan, competing an On-Farm Assessment and Environmental Report, developing the CNMP, and annually updating the plan with crop yields and manure and commercial fertilizer applications. The pilot project was wrapped up after the 2-year trial with a complete summary published in October of 2004.

Livestock Environmental Management System

Iowa was one of 10 states involved in LEMS where producers were led through the development of an Environmental Management System (EMS) for their operation. This Extension education program involved four 2-hour workshops, a producer guidebook, and an on-site visit by the project coordinator. Thirty-eight producers representing 35 operations with 200-8000 head of cattle feedlot capacity attended the first of four 2-hour workshops in March and April 2003. None of these operations was regulated at the time of the workshop.

Producers received an EMS Guidebook developed by the University of Nebraska. The first day of the program introduced producers to the essential components of EMS and to changes in environmental regulations impacting feedlots. The producers also used worksheets to identify significant environmental aspects of their operation and their own stewardship goals. Before the second day of the workshop, producers had completed an environmental policy statement and a third-party on-site feedlot assessment.

Producers used their policy statement and assessment to identify priorities issues on their farm, and they shared these at the second workshop. They then developed action plans to address their priorities with timelines, measurable objectives, and documentation requirements. Producers also established standard operating procedures and emergency action plans with responsibilities assigned according to priorities identified during the assessment.

The Project Coordinator and Extension Field Staff visited each farm once to discuss and observe progress on the EMS with the producer. The third workshop was held on one of the participant farms 6 months into the program to share ideas between farmers on how they were using their EMS to address priority issues in their operation. A final meeting was held 1 year into the program to discuss progress to date and plans for the future.

Methods

In March 2005, approximately a year after the completion of the two pilot projects, a letter and a questionnaire were mailed to participants. All 19 of the WILESPP participants and 19 of the original 35 operations that completed the LEMS were surveyed. The questionnaire asked them to evaluate their experience with the LEMS or WILESPP programs. There was a 48% return rate.

Findings

With few exceptions, there was little difference in the response between the two groups. Unless noted otherwise, the following results were comparable to the questions below.

Current Use of EMS/CNMP

All of the respondents were currently using their EMS or CNMP. Eighty-four percent had referred to the plan in the last 3 months, but only 28% had updated their original plan. All of the participants intended to continue using the plans they developed in these projects.

When asked how they recorded the amount of manure applied to each field, 100% of the LEMS participants counted loads, while 67% of WILESPP participants counted loads, 22% weighed the spreader/tank, and 11% used a flow meter. One hundred percent of WILESPP participants sampled manure annually for nutrient content, while only 18% of LEMS participants did.

Sixty-four percent of LEMS participants have implemented new or expanded manure management practices or structures because of this project, while only 29% of WILESPP participants did. However, all of the hog producers in the WILESPP project were using a manure management plan prior to the start of the pilot project. LEMS participants spent an average of $31,000 and WILESPP participants spent an average of $750 for new construction, mostly concrete settling basins. The LEMS participants were open beef feedlot that needed to upgrade manure-handling facilities, while the hog producers in the WILESPP project already had structures in place.

Environment

All the participants believed that because of the programs they had a better understanding of environmental regulations and were better complying with these rules and regulations. Ninety-five percent of the participants believed that they practice better stewardship because of the programs.

Forty-six percent had seen improved crop yield or performance since using their plans, while 45% had seen improvement in soil conservation through less erosion and runoff. Half of the LEMS participants saw an improvement in animal performance, while only 20% of WILESPP participants saw an improvement likely reflecting the hog versus cattle facilities.

When the participants were asked to define environmental stewardship, both groups gave similar definitions along the lines of "protecting the environment while running a profitable operation." The participants were also asked to give indications that a farmer is a good steward. They said that good practices indicate good stewardship. For example, good practices would be an active environmental plan, proper manure application, clean pens, neat farmstead, no-till, and improvement of their operation.

Fifty-five percent of the LEMS participants stated that there were additional changes they were planning to implement in regard to their plan, 29% of WILESPP participants planned on doing additional work. Overall, the WILESPP participants were more concerned about the operation in relation to the environment (Table 1). Both groups believed that the producer was the person most responsible for environmental protection, followed by the DNR, NRCS, and then commodity groups.

Information/Communication

When asked where they get information or advice on different topics, the WILESPP participants stated that they obtained information from NRCS for every topic except environmental regulations. That information was acquired from producer organizations (Table 2). LEMS participants stayed updated on environmental changes most frequently with meetings, while WILESPP farmers got their information through print media. The least frequent way to get information was through word of mouth (LEMS) and the Internet (WILESPP). LEMS participants found the Extension service most helpful (73%), and the WILESPP participants found federal or state conservation agencies most helpful (50%).

Programs

When the participants were asked if they were satisfied with different aspects of the pilot programs that they participated in, a vast majority agreed with each of the comments. The one statement that participants of the WILESPP program did not agree with was that the information they were presented gave them a new awareness about the environmental impact of their operation. Sixty-seven percent disagreed with this statement (Table 3); again, many of these participants were hog producers that have had tougher environmental requirements for a number of years, and this program did little to improve their awareness.

The participants were asked what improvements could be made to the individual programs to improve participation understanding and results. A majority of the LEMS participants believed that the presentation of the information was helpful and presented well, but thought there was too much paperwork and the program should "get to the basics." The participants believed that in order to achieve better results, there needed to be more hands-on activity. Examples included tours of feedlots that had already been through the process, pictures of other operations, continued contact and support, and yearly updates of new rules/regulations and progress of other participants.

There was little response to this question from the WILESPP participants. The responses that were received stated that there was too much material and the program developers needed to work closely with the DNR to make sure there is one system that fulfills requirements for all organizations.

The majority of the participants from both groups participated in the projects because they wanted to learn more about the rules and regulations and be compliant with them. Other reasons were because they respected the presenter, interest in additional education, and importance of environmental stewardship. All the participants believed that the programs had value and that their individual goals were met by participating. The majority indicated they would participate again, and all the participants indicated they would recommend this program to another producer.

Each of the participants stated that they valued the 3rd-party assistance, and 56% of the LEMS participants and 25% of WILESPP participants said that they would pay over $1000 for this assistance. The LEMS 3rd party involved a site visit to help in the assessment and coaching the producer to complete the program. The WILESPP 3rd party was the professional guides that did the planning, soil sampling, and plan development. Clearly the 3rd-party time and detail provided was greater in the WILESPP than in the LEMS, yet it was not valued as highly. Around 50% of all participants stated that there was a similar service available in their area, and the majority of participants in both groups (57% of LEMS and 67% of WILESPP) would pay less than $500 for the assistance (Table 4).

The participants of the WILESPP program plan to continue following their CNMP as it is or update it as needed. The majority of LEMS participants that responded plan to continue improving their EMS plans and their operations. Continuous improvement is a tenant of EMS and these producers appear to be following it.

Conclusions

The two pilot projects to assist livestock producers to voluntarily improve environmental performance produced similar responses to the survey questions. Participants in each program thought there was too much paperwork, but would participate again, recommend it to a neighbor, and would be willing to pay for the service. The differences in the two programs were influenced by the type of participants. The entire LEMS group had open beef feedlots that have not had as much regulatory pressure as the pork industry. These beef producers needed to make basic changes quickly. Fifteen of the 19 WILESPP group were pork producers and had manure management plans and manure storage structures in place before the project.

Although prescriptive and more consultant driven, at the end each WILESPP participant had a CNMP developed by a professional and was implementing it on land receiving manure. The LEMS participants working largely on their own after learning the process, identified their priorities, continued to make changes, and had plans for future improvements, but few had a nutrient management plan. For most of them it was not required.

The results of the survey indicate that both programs were successful in moving producers toward improved stewardship and practices that will better protect water quality. While there are no statistics to quantify the differences, the authors offer the following observations.

• All of the participants responding to this survey were continuing to use the plans set up in their respective projects.

• Requiring the target improves conformity. All of the WILESPP participants had a nutrient plan and did soil and manure analysis because that was the requirement and in the pilot it was done for them. While all the LEMS participants counted loads of manure, only a few weighed the spreader, and less than a fifth did manure analysis. Nutrient management was not required, nor is it a priority for many of the LEMS group.

• The LEMS project represented a journey of continuous improvement towards environmental stewardship, while the WILESPP project represented a destination of completing a CNMP document and implementing the plan. WILESPP participants had few plans for future improvements other than to implement the current CNMP. LEMS participants were continuing to identify new objectives and changes to implement.

• Activities that involve agencies and organizations with common goals and/or that allow producers to learn together and from each other are still effective methods of achieving behavior change.

Lessons for Extension

It is difficult to say who has the most fish in the end. Both programs elevated the stewardship and regulatory awareness and action of participants. The WILESPP farmers were further along the comprehensive nutrient management plan path with practices recognized to improve water quality. While WILESPP farmers utilized professional help, any farmer can use NRCS staff and the private industry to develop and implement environmental stewardship plans. CNMP development often comes with financial assistance and incentives from NRCS.

The LEMS farmers learned a valuable management model of plan-do-check-act and continuous improvement that will move them forward in a changing world. They could have hired a consultant, but valued the coaching provided by Extension in the LEMS program. It was still their plan rather than the consultant's.

A third alterative based on the strengths of each program may offer the best of both worlds. The CNMP program is technically sound, and resources are readily available to assist in implementation. The LEMS instills ownership by the farmer and strives for continuous improvement.

The logical hybrid is to have greater farmer ownership of the process and hire or outsource the technical expertise where needed. This process starts with the farmer developing his or her own environmental policy statement, being engaged in the assessment, and prioritizing the environmental aspects on the farm. The CNMP provides a method to implement the farmer's priorities. Then the farm identifies a set of key measures to monitor, reassess, and reprioritize each year.

In simple terms this is a farmer-led CNMP with a feedback loop. It incorporates the technical detail and resources of a CNMP and the ownership and plan-do-check-act continuous improvement process of LEMS into a dynamic plan for managing the farm and protecting the environment.

Perhaps the role for Extension is in teaching and coaching the farmers to use proven management models and to train the professionals in technical skills that they in turn provide to the farmer. Stewardship principles and pride of ownership cannot be outsourced. They are inherent and engrained in the farmer. However, they are expressed through effective planning and implementation of practices that protect natural resources.

References

Environmental Protection Agency. (2004). Western Iowa Livestock External Stewardship Pilot Project: Laying the groundwork for a future of effective nutrient management [On-line]. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/sectors/agribusiness/wilespp.pdf

Lawrence, J. D. (2004). Partnerships for Livestock Environmental Management Systems [On-line]. Available at: http://www.uwex.edu/AgEMS/livestock/pdf/IA2Pager.pdf

Attitudes of Extension Professionals Toward Involvement of Special Needs Youth in 4-H Programs

Deborah A. Boone
Assistant Professor, Agricultural and Environmental Education
West Virginia University
Morgantown, West Virginia
Debby.Boone@mail.wvu.edu

Harry N. Boone, Jr.
Assistant Professor, Agricultural and Environmental Education
West Virginia University
Morgantown, West Virginia
hnboone@wvu.edu

Christina Reed
Public Affairs Outreach Specialist
Ohio Farm Service Agency
Columbus, Ohio
Christina.Reed@oh.usda.gov

Jean M. Woloshuk
Extension Specialist and Extension Professor
West Virginia University
Morgantown, West Virginia
jwoloshu@wvu.edu

Stacy A. Gartin
Professor, Agricultural and Environmental Education
West Virginia University
Morgantown, West Virginia
sgartin@wvu.edu

With the signing into law of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) on July 26, 1990 (United States Congress, (1990),the question "Should we accommodate children with disabilities?" became "How are we going to accommodate children with disabilities in 4-H programs?" This act clearly states that discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, transportation, public accommodation, and programs funded by state and local government is prohibited. Are today's Extension professionals prepared to identify and provide for the needs of disabled youth in their program?

The number of children 3 to 21 years old served by federally supported programs for the disabled increased from a total 3,694,000 in 1976-1977 to 6,292,930 in 2001-2002 in the United States (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002). In other words, approximately 8% of all youth in the United States have special needs and are being served by federal programs. In West Virginia, 50,443 children (approximately 11% of all youth) were being served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Chapter 1 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act, State operated programs at the end of the 2001-2002 school year.

According to the National 4-H Youth Annual Youth Development Enrollment Report (National 4-H Headquarters, 2003, p. E2), 6,772,817 youth in the United States were enrolled in 4-H as of January 1, 2002. In West Virginia 4-H youth participants totaled 58,468 during the same period (National 4-H Headquarters, 2003, p. N1). Given the number of special needs students in public schools, one can assume that some of these students are also involved in the 4-H program.

ADA has very special implications for 4-H programs. Because the Extension service is a federally funded program, it cannot deny access to any individual and is legally obligated to provide for the needs of all youth. Does this mean that every activity must be made accessible to every individual with a disability? The answer is no, but there must be a reasonable effort demonstrated to accommodate an individual with disabilities who wants to participate.

A study by Tormoehlen and Field in 1994 concluded that with creativity, flexibility and the willingness to experiment, any project could be modified for youth with disabilities. They also concluded that non-formal educational opportunities may be perceived as not being readily available to youth with disabilities due to the lack of knowledge by 4-H professionals and volunteers about disabilities and their implications for youth involvement.

Ingram (1999) examined the attitudes of Extension professionals toward diversity. The study focused on attitudes toward diversity education in 4-H youth development programs to determine the attitudes of Extension personnel toward recruitment of youth from different backgrounds in 4-H youth development programs. The author concluded Extension professionals agreed with the importance of learning to relate effectively with physically and mentally challenged people.

If the assumption is correct that a portion of 4-H youth have special needs, there is a need to explore the attitudes of Extension agent's toward the involvement of special needs individuals in 4-H programs. While 4-H programs and activities are to be available to all persons without regard to race, color, sex, disability, religion, age, veteran status, political beliefs, sexual orientation, national origin, and marital or family status, it is important to understand Extension agents attitudes toward the involvement the special needs youth in the 4-H program because the role of the Extension agent is to plan, implement, and evaluate 4-H programs.

Purpose and Objective

The purpose of the study reported here was to determine the attitudes of Extension agents in West Virginia toward the involvement of special needs youth in 4-H programs. More specifically, this article addresses the following research questions:

1. What were the attitudes of Extension agents and program assistants toward special needs youth?

2. What types of special needs youth were Extension agents most willing to include in their 4-H programs?

3. What types of 4-H programs were provided for special needs youth?

Methodology

Population

The study was limited to the attitudes of Extension agents and program assistants in West Virginia, employed during the winter of 2003-2004, who were responsible for 4-H programs at the county level. To select the Extension professionals, the official West Virginia University Extension Service 2003-2004 Directory was used. A total of 124 Extension professionals (97 agents and 27 program assistants) were included in the accessible population.

Instrumentation and Data Collection

The instrument used for the study was a two-part questionnaire adapted from questionnaires used in previous research by Jordan (1968) and Larrivee and Cook (1979). Part I consisted of 20 Likert scale attitude items relating to special needs populations' involvement in the 4-H program. Part II of the instrument requested demographic information and experience in working with the special needs population. Survey design and implementation was done according to Dillman (2000), using the Tailored Design method. A panel of experts consisting of faculty members at the state land-grant university examined the questionnaire to establish content and face validity. The instrument was determined to have extensive reliability with a Cronbach's alpha of .79 (Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991).

Response Rate

Of the 124 Extension professionals, 82 responded to the survey. Four surveys were unusable, for a response rate of 62.9%. It was ascertained that the majority of the state's counties were represented by the responses received. Due to the sensitive nature of the topic, the Institutional Review Board would not allow telephone follow-up of non-respondents.

Data Analysis

The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Levels of significance were set a priori at < .05 for all statistical tests. Data analysis procedures included frequencies, percentages, and means to describe the population.

The authors compared late respondents to early respondents "to determine the extent to which respondents differ from the nonrespondents" (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2002, p. 408). No significant differences were found between responses of early and late respondents. Because differences were not found between early and late respondents, "and late respondents are believed typical of nonrespondents," therefore, the researchers assumed "the respondents were "an unbiased sample of the recipients" and thus generalized to the total group (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2002, p. 408).

Results

Respondents were asked 20 questions concerning the involvement of special needs individuals in their county 4-H programs. A five-item Likert scale consisted of the following items: 5-"Strongly Agree," 4-"Agree," 3-"Undecided," 2-"Disagree," and 1-"Strongly Disagree." Responses by Extension professionals to attitude statements about the involvement of special needs youth in 4-H programs are listed in Table 1.

Overall, Extension personnel in the target population tend to hold positive attitudes toward the involvement of special needs youth in 4-H programs and activities. Over 90% of all of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that including special needs youth as 4-H members would be a good experience for the other members; that mainstreaming of special needs youth in 4-H offers mixed group interaction, which will foster understanding and self-esteem for all; and that special needs persons can be productive members of society. There was strong agreement among respondents that the presence of special needs youth in 4-H will promote acceptance of the differences on the part of other 4-H members; the challenge of being in a regular 4-H club will promote growth of the special needs child; and other 4-H club members would interact with special needs youth.

Respondents were very vocal in their support for inclusive 4-H programs. An overwhelming majority of the respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that the behavior of special needs youth will set an undesirable example for the rest of the club members and that mentally disordered persons have difficulties in learning and therefore 4-H cannot help them. A majority of the respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that other members and leaders in the 4-H club will feel uncomfortable with a special needs person as a member of the group, that youth with special needs will be ignored by the other members of the 4-H club, and that special needs youth could best be served through special and separate clubs. They indicated that they feel youth could best be served through inclusive 4-H programming.

Although 95% of the Extension professionals strongly agreed or agreed that they would be willing to accept special needs youth as 4-H members, over two thirds of the respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that they have adequate training to work with special needs youth. An overwhelming majority strongly agreed or agreed that special training should be offered to 4-H leaders before programs for the special needs youth are started. Slightly more than half of the agents and assistants believe it is important for them to know sign language in order to communicate with the hearing impaired. Although they thought training was important, they did not want it to be mandatory.

When asked if the interest of special needs youth was being met through other special programs, and therefore they did not need 4-H, three-fourths (78%) disagreed or strongly disagreed. There was also strong disagreement (63.6%) that youth with special needs would not be able to adequately participate in most 4-H projects or activities. A majority of the respondents were in agreement that parents of special needs youth would be no greater problem than parents of non-handicapped youth.

The respondents were divided on their reaction to the statements that related to concerns about actual involvement. When asked if the involvement of special needs youth in 4-H clubs will take time away from other club members, more than a fourth (27.6%) were undecided, 18.8% agreed or strongly agreed, while 53% disagreed, or strongly disagreed with the statement. They were also divided in their response when asked if special needs youth have behavior problems that would be disruptive to 4-H programs and activities. Nearly a fourth (22.6%) agreed or strongly agreed, while slightly more than half (53.4%) disagreed or strongly disagreed. A fourth (24%) of the respondents were undecided.

Nearly 30% (29.5%) of the respondents indicated that their county had 4-H programs for special needs individuals, while 61.5 % replied they did not. Respondents who indicated 4-H programs for special needs youth were available were asked to list the types of programs that were available. Special needs programs included special lamb projects, livestock, camping activities, and community clubs. The majority of the respondents indicated that they mainstream special needs youth in their 4-H programming and provide assistance such as aides and interpreters on a case by case basis.

Over 60% (66.7%) responded that their county had special needs youth in their clubs. The respondents identified numerous types of special needs youth involved in 4-H clubs, including autistic, downs syndrome, hearing and visually impaired, and physically and mentally handicapped, as well as those with behavioral problems. Ten percent (10.3%) of the respondents indicated they did not have special needs youth in their clubs, while nearly a fourth (23.1%) did not respond.

Less than 4% (3.8%) of the respondents indicated they would be interested in becoming involved in a 4-H program for special needs youth, while 5.1% replied no. The majority (91.0%) of those surveyed did not respond to the statement assessing their interest in becoming involved in a 4-H program for special needs youth.

Over 70% (71.8%) replied they had some experience with special needs youth in 4-H programs, while nearly a fourth (23.1%) indicated they had no experience with special needs youth in 4-H programs. Four (5.1%) respondents did not respond to the question.

A third (33.9%) of the respondents had training in working with special needs youth. Less than 20% (17.9%) had a family member that is a special need individual. Nearly 60% (64.3%) had a friend or knew someone that is a special need individual. None of the respondents indicated that they were a special needs person.

When asked to indicate the areas of special needs youth they feel most comfortable working with, slightly more than half (55.1%) of the respondents indicated they would be comfortable working with the physically handicapped generally because these individuals know their limitations and more easily adapt to activities. Other types of special needs they felt comfortable working with included the learning disabled (43.6%); hearing-impaired youth (41.0%); visually impaired (35.9%): educable mentally retarded youth (25.6%); emotionally handicapped (21.8%); and the trainable mentally retarded (21.8%).

Summary

Although it has been 20 years since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, it is evident from the study results that Extension professionals still feel they are not adequately trained to work with special needs youth. Even so, a majority of Extension agents and program assistants have special needs youth in their 4-H programs. Even with special needs youth present in 4-H programs, only a small percentage of Extension agents and program assistants would be interested in becoming involved in a 4-H program designed specifically for the special needs youth. Respondents indicated that they believed all youth could grow and develop from involvement with special needs youth in traditional 4-H venues instead of separate groups.

A majority of the Extension agents and program assistants have experience with special needs youth in 4-H programs. Slightly less than half have heard or read about the special needs of youth, while one-third have training in working with the special needs youth. Nearly half of the agents and program assistants have first hand knowledge of someone with special needs.

A substantial majority of agents and program assistants agree that training should be offered to 4-H leaders about special needs youth prior to starting programs. While slightly more than half of the agents and assistants believe it is important for them to know sign language in order to communicate with the hearing impaired, they do not want training required.

A majority of Extension agents and program assistants would be willing to accept special needs youth as 4-H members. Some types of special needs youth that were identified as being involved in 4-H programs were attention deficit hyper disorder autistic, attention deficit disorder hearing impaired, physically impaired, cerebral palsy visually impaired, behavior disorder, multiple sclerosis, downs syndrome, and educable mentally retarded. This differs from Coleman's (1982) study that found leaders expressed concern about the responsibility of having handicapped youth as club members when indicating their willingness to accept them.

Some counties offered programs for special needs youth. Programs for the special needs youth include special lamb project as part of the livestock program. They are included in all 4-H activities, camp, community clubs, and special interest projects. Other 4-H clubs mainstream and integrate everyone into regular 4-H programs and activities.

Recommendations

While Extension agents and program assistants in West Virginia were clearly supportive of the involvement of special needs populations in 4-H programs, the concerns expressed suggest there was room for continued training and support. The following recommendations are made. The Cooperative Extension system should:

1. Provide in-service educational opportunities for Extension personnel to improve their competency and knowledge in assisting special needs individuals;

2. Provide in-service opportunities to assist Extension personnel in adapting current 4-H programs and projects to include special needs youth;

3. Provide more disability awareness programs to increase individuals' understanding and acceptance of those with disabilities, and

4. Provide opportunities to showcase 4-H programs that have successfully involved youth with special needs.

References

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C. & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education (6^th Ed.).Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thompson Learning.

Coleman, B.M. (1982). The attitudes of volunteer leaders in Cecil, Harford, and Kent counties in Maryland toward involvement of handicapped in 4-H Programs. Master's thesis, University of Maryland, College Park.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys--The tailored design method. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.

Ingram, P. (1999). Attitudes of Extension professionals toward diversity education in 4-H programs. Journal of Extension [On-line], 37(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999february/a3.html

Jordan, J. E. (1968). Attitudes toward education and physically disabled persons in eleven nations. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University.

Larrivee, B., & Cook, L. (1979). Mainstreaming: A study of the variables affecting teacher attitude. Journal of Special Education. 13 Article 8.

National 4-H Headquarters (2003). Annual 4-H Youth Development Enrollment: 2002 Report. Retrieved January 20, 2004, from http://www.national4-hheadquarters.gov/library/2002-es237.pdf

National Center for Education Statistics (2002, March). Digest of education statistics from 1976-2001. Retrieved January 20, 2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/getpubcats.asp?sid=091#061

Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Criteria for scale selection and evaluation. In J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver, & L.S. Wrightsman (Eds.). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. New York: Academic Press.

Tormoehlen, R., & Field, W. E. (1994). A perfect fit: Involving youth with disabilities in 4-H. Journal of Extension [On-line], 32(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1994june/a4.html

United States Congress. (1990). Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Public Law 101-336. Washington, DC: 101^st Congress.

Opening Doors: A Qualitative Evaluation of the Waterbury Youth Leadership Project

Matthew S. Mutchler
Evaluation Coordinator
Center for Applied Research
University of Connecticut
Storrs, Connecticut
matthew.mutchler@uconn.edu

Stephen A. Anderson
Professor
School of Family Studies
University of Connecticut
Storrs, Connecticut
stephen.anderson@uconn.edu

Margaret Grillo
Extension 4-H Educator; Waterbury Project Director
University of Connecticut Department of Extension
New Haven, Connecticut
margaret.grillo@uconn.edu

Harry Mangle
Statewide Project Director
University of Connecticut Department of Extension
West Hartford, Connecticut
harry.mangle@