|
December 2006
|
       |
Contents
Editor's PageJOE Is a Journal with a Web SiteJOE is a journal and quite a good one, too, as the next section indicates. It's a journal with a Web site, and it's the JOE Web site that I want to talk about here. If you go to <http://www.joe.org>, you'll find a lot more than a link to the current issue of JOE. You'll find a link to all of the back issues, from 1963 to the present. You'll find a link that will enable you to add your address to our subscriber's list and be notified of new issues. You'll find a link to the excellent JOE search site. And you'll find links to two pages that connect you to a wealth of information about JOE and a wealth of help for those of you thinking about submitting an article. About JOE contains the informative JOE FAQs, which answer questions about JOE's acceptance rate, how to become a reviewer, JOE's copyright policy, and more. Want to know about JOE page views and visitors? Interested in the top 50 most read articles? JOE Usage Statistics will satisfy your information cravings. And, if you're considering submitting an article to JOE, For Authors is a must-visit site. There'll you find a link to the all-important JOE Submission Guidelines, information about review procedures, and the aptly named Help for JOE Authors, with helpful handouts, information about how JOE articles should be cited in JOE, and links to more than a dozen Editor's Pages in which I discuss things JOE authors should know. I get lots of questions we've already answered, and we're adding more to the JOE site all the time. Check it out. December JOEYet another good issue. The Commentary, "Extension's Role in Homeland Security: A Case Study of Washington County, Utah," and the first Feature, "How Farm Workers Learn to Use and Practice Biosecurity," deal, in different ways with the increasingly important issue of security. I'd also like to call your particular attention to the first three Tools of the Trade articles, "Developing Culturally Appropriate Evaluation Instruments for Hispanics with Diabetes," "Evaluation Tool for Community Development Coalitions," and "Enumeration and Valuation of Horses: Methodological Innovations and Results from a Connecticut Study." All three offer useful information about evaluation and/or methodology. They and their fellows are prime examples of what makes Tools of the Trade such a popular section. And you'll are also find articles about leadership, relationship marketing, 4-H, the Farmer-To-Farmer program, nutrition, potato disease, and a whole lot more. 2006 is ending on an awfully good note. Laura Hoelscher, Editor joe-ed@joe.org
Extension's Role in Homeland Security: A Case Study of Washington County, UtahCarolyn Washburn IntroductionFor more than 100 years, Extension has been an organization to help people solve problems. As we enter the 21st Century, Americans are facing critical issues that are requiring better emergency preparedness skills and self-reliance. The need for Extension to become a stakeholder in American homeland security is evident. Extension's accurate knowledge and skills can assist communities in reducing loss in the event of a natural or manmade disaster. Knowing which hazards will be the most likely threat to your locality will help in determining what information you provide. FEMA lists the most common and widespread natural disaster in the United States as flooding. Your Local Emergency Preparedness Committee will be able to provide your Extension office with the hazards they feel pose the greatest risk to your particular location. The disasters of Rita and Katrina are ample proof that communities and individual families should be prepared. In a time when government services are being reduced, local communities cannot and should not depend on the government to provide services to meet all needs should a crisis strike. Washington County, Utah, has provided an example of how agencies do respond and how Extension will prepare to become a much needed information resource. BackgroundJanuary 10, 2005, St. George, Utah, a typical county with too little water for the needs of the residents, was experiencing the second week of significant rains. The previous 7 years had been so dry that the area residents were now rejoicing and grateful for the moisture. As the snow continued in the mountains, the warm rains fell on the wildfire-damaged land of the previous two summers. These welcomed waters became part of a disaster that caught the county unprepared. The riverbeds of the Santa Clara and the Virgin were seldom filled with more than a trickle. True, these rivers had flooded over 100 years earlier, but no one believed that it could possibly happen again. As the rivers began to swell, they undercut the banks, swallowing up homes, farmlands, roadways, and a major source of the community revenues: golf courses. Over 50 families watched as their homes were destroyed or damaged by the raging rivers. One community became totally isolated from the county, with no power, water, or cell phone tower. The county had an emergency preparedness plan in place, earthquakes being their number one concern for the community. No one had any idea that flooding of this magnitude could occur. Volunteers began sandbagging, and in some areas this saved many homes from water damage. Yet in other areas, the sandbags could not save homes or precious farmlands from being washed away. Extension and Natural DisastersHow can Extension become more of a disaster prevention stakeholder? As the crisis unfolded, what was the role of Extension? We watched as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) set up "camp" in our office building, emergency personnel were on call, and all county resources were stretched. We were unaware of what our role should be and how to best assist the county. The National Research Council has indicated that communities can mitigate the loss to those they serve by compiling a database of information and cost-effective strategies that organizations, businesses, and communities can use to help in preparedness (National Research Council, 1999). Method, Sample, and ResultsIn an attempt to better understand the role that Extension should have played, a post survey was administered. The survey was given to all community victims through local relief organizations. The surveys were voluntary and kept anonymous. The option to participate in this study was presented to all families involved in major flooding with loss of homes and property. Of these families, 48% of the flood victims completed and returned the survey, and 11% declined to participate. The results do not always equal 100%. Figures 1-3 below depict the results of the tallied surveys, showing which organzaions provided services and information to vicitms. The American Red Cross was perceived to be the organization of greatest help (Figure 1). In the early weeks following the flood disaster, they were not perceived by the community as an organization that had been helpful. Many individuals had donated money to the Red Cross Organization, thinking that the donations would immediately go to the flood victims. This did not happen quickly. Money donated to the Red Cross is used at the discretion of the organization. Figure 1.
The next organizations of help were the local churches. Church organizations seemed to have the ability to organize resources and provide food, housing, and emotional support. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) came into the county, setting up their office in our building. They began assessing damage, checking bacteria levels, sewage issues, and additional safety factors. They initiated news coverage for television and radio, and provided support in applying and receiving federal dollars for our area. The LEPC (Local Emergency Preparedness Committee) is responsible for all emergency operations within the county. This team was on call and actively involved; however, victims did not realize who they were. This team consisted of city and county police, search and rescue members, fire fighters, and other emergency support personnel who provided assistance in numerous ways. USU Extension agents served as a resource to state and federal agencies, sharing information on agricultural concerns and on restoration of damaged lands and riverbeds. Information was gathered on rebuilding of pipelines and fences, and removal of sediment deposits. This information had to be on file and ready for immediate use. Sediment deposit areas, riverbed, and land restoration fact sheets had to be made available for the county residents. As flooding subsided and the victims were left to clean up and rebuild, the perception that no one was offering information or support is evident (Figure 2). Over one half of the victims felt they were not given information on disaster cleanup, mold removal, sanitation issues, or disposal of flood ruins. Figure 2.
Figure 3 shows the need for information about local services, cleanup, and better preparedness. Over 70% of the surveys indicated that respondents needed better knowledge and preparedness skills. Victims and community members living in flood zones were very concerned about insurance policies and premiums. One affected housing development had dropped its flood insurance a month prior to the disaster. Extension could take this knowledge and begin to build a database available to the community about the insurance and financial needs that county residents may wish to consider, a critical component for financial preparedness workshops. Figure 3.
In the dissemination of information, Extension is a master. Our experience with research has provided valuable knowledge that is critical for disasters. We have access to EDEN, the Extension Disaster Education Network. This Web database has information on preparedness, services needed, and cleanup resources. One Extension office in Breathitt County, Kentucky, was recently given recognition for StormReady Support. Their county Extension professionals are working to improve their ability to be prepared for and respond to emergencies. The message is that, that when we learn to help ourselves first, we will be more ready to help our clients--the people who depend on us for information. Breathitt County is the first in the state, but hopefully all Kentucky counties will want to follow suite (Kentucky County Extension's First StormReady Supporter, 2005). ConclusionsFrom the survey material gathered and compiled, several conclusions can be drawn.
These conclusions provide direction to Extension for offering future support and information to the community. More effective ways to share disaster information are needed. Information is the key element. The vulnerability of communities can be reduced with effective preparedness. Extension can become more assertive in disseminating information on preparedness and survival. One of the goals of Extension must be to share educational resources to reduce the impact of natural and manmade disasters, to provide support and assistance when the resources of individuals and families are overwhelmed and exhausted. If your community were to experience a disaster, how prepared is your county Extension office to provide help, support, and information? Is your information accurate and current? Are news releases ready to provide critical information on water safety, and sanitation needs? Are fact sheets available on the restoration of lands in your area? If not, begin today. Become a member of your local emergency preparedness team (LEPC) and/or your community emergency preparedness team (CERT). Most communities have LEPC that is continually assessing the emergency needs of a community. CERT programs are staffed by volunteers and sponsored by The American Citizen Corp Council. Both programs are valuable resources Extension offices should network with. Become a team member; help with 4-H youth CERT programs. When adequately trained, youth are a valuable resource in times of disaster; they are strong and full of energy At a time of a natural or manmade disaster, citizens need to be prepared to self sustain for at least 72 hours. Extension can help mitigate the loss to their local communities by becoming an avenue of knowledge and information for the homeland security team. ReferencesExtension Disaster Education Network (EDEN). Available at: http://www.eden.lsu.edu National Research Council (1999). The impacts of natural disasters: A framework for loss estimation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. US Department of Homeland Security--FEMA (2004). Are you ready? Maryland, IS-FEMA IS-22. Pridday, T. (2005, November 18). Kentucky County Extension's first StormReady Supporter. Available at: http://www.eden.lsu.edu/news/Default.aspx View reader comments for this Commentary in the JOE Discussion Forum. (This forum is no longer accepting new entries.)
How Farm Workers Learn to Use and Practice BiosecurityJulie Delabbio IntroductionBiosecurity 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. MethodsIn 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:
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). ResultsPractice of Biosecurity TheoryA 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.
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 ProcessPhase One: OrientationThe 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: RoutineRoutine, 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 ApproachThe 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:
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:
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:
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 EnvironmentIntrinsic 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 ActionsWorkers 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:
Another worker commented on the influence of positive feedback as follows:
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:
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 PressurePeer 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:
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:
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 WorkerWorkers 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 TypeWorkers 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 DiseaseAll 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:
EducationWorkers 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 SystemCommon 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 ImplicationsThe 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:
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. ReferencesAmass, 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 FarmersIngrid Nya Ngathou James O. Bukenya Duncan M. Chembezi Alabama A&M University IntroductionThe 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 ApproachThe 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. DataThe 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:
The evaluation criteria were:
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 EvaluationThe 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 ApproachThe 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. ResultsThe 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. ConclusionsThe 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. ReferencesAmponsah, 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 GuideJohn D. Lawrence Suzanne Schuknecht Joe Lally Iowa State University IntroductionMany 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. BackgroundWestern Iowa Livestock External Stewardship Pilot ProjectThe 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 SystemIowa 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. MethodsIn 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. FindingsWith 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/CNMPAll 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. EnvironmentAll 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/CommunicationWhen 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%).
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
