|
|
       |
Tools of the TradeStrategies for Generalizing Findings in Survey Research
Rama Radhakrishna
Prosper Doamekpor
The Pennsylvania State University BackgroundExtension professionals and survey researchers are concerned about generalizing findings because of low response rate obtained in surveys. Several researches have examined the issue of low response rates in surveys and its impact on generalizing findings. According to Wiseman (2003), findings obtained in surveys that have low response are questionable because little is know about whether non-respondents differ from respondents (p.1). Lindner and Wingenbach (2002), in their review of Research in Brief articles published in the Journal of Extension from 1995 through 1999, found that non-response error was a threat to external validity in 82% of the articles. Further, they also found that in 80% of the articles, no attempts to control for non-response were mentioned. Shinn, Baker, and Briers (2007) studied response patterns in E-mail surveys and concluded that response rate issues in survey research are complex and multifaceted (p.8) and are likely to be influenced by a variety of factors. What do you do to enhance the external validity (to whom your findings/results apply) of your study? And to whom can you generalize the findings of the study? Can we generalize to the population, the sample, the subjects who responded and/or provided complete data, or should we generalize the findings at all? These are the frequent questions faced by Extension professionals, faculty, graduate students, and researchers engaged in survey research. However, if you follow certain procedures in handling the data, you can enhance the external validity of your study. Here are some key points to consider about generalizing the findings in survey research:
Population or SampleDetermine how the subjects for the study were selected. Is it a census or a sample? What type of sample was used: random (probability) or non random (non-probability)? Knowing how the subjects were selected will help determine whether or not we can generalize the findings. Response RateThe next step is to know how many subjects responded to the survey. Calculate the response rate of the survey. Suppose you get 100% response, the question of generalizing the findings does not arise because everyone responded. But if it is a sample, you may have to generalize to a population. That is not always the case. You rarely get 100% response. If you get 68% response, you should question why the other 32% did not respond to the survey. Are the data valid only for 68% of the subjects who responded, or are there procedures that you can use a 68% return rate for generalizing the findings to the remaining 32%? Miller and Smith (1983) and recently Lindner, Murphy, and Briers (2001) provide answers to this dilemma. Comparing Early, Late, and Non-RespondentsIdentify subjects who responded to the first mailing within the deadline date, and label them as early. Similarly, identify all other subjects who responded to subsequent mailings, and label them as late. After the data collection is complete, identify and label the non-respondents. According to Miller and Smith (1983), non-respondents tend to be similar to late respondents in responding to surveys. Therefore, compare the early and late respondent groups on key variables (Figure 1). If you find no significant differences between early and late respondents, you can statistically conclude that non-respondents are perhaps similar to late respondents and thus generalize the findings to the population. The other accepted procedure is to follow-up with a telephone call to 15-20% of the non-respondents, and collect data from them on key variables. Then do a comparison between early and late, early and non-respondents, and late and non-respondents. Figure 1. If the comparison indicates no differences between these three groups of respondents, then you can generalize the findings to the population. On the other hand, if you find significant differences, you cannot generalize the findings to the population. Therefore, use your judgment as to whether or not to include the differed variables for final analysis. Normally, the differed variables are eliminated from further analysis. Explain why the subjects differed on the key variables. Otherwise, provide justification for including the differed variables in the final analysis. Use independent t-test to compare early and late respondents; early and non-respondents; and late and non-respondents. Use ANOVA if you want to compare all three (early, late, and non respondents) response types and conduct a post-hoc analysis to determine group (early, late, and non respondents) differences. Lindner, Murphy, and Briers (2001) suggested using "days to respond" as a regression variable for handling non-response error. In the SPSS program, create a variable for "days to respond," and code them as a continuous variable (for example, 5, 20, 32 days, etc.). Use the "days to respond" in the regression equation in which primary variables of interest are regressed on the "days to respond" variable. "If the regression model is not significant, then it can be assumed that non-respondents do not differ from respondents" (Lindner, Murphy, & Briers, 2001, p.6). Table 1 summarizes the strategies for generalizing findings in survey research.
Conclusions and ImplicationsFollowing certain accepted procedures, making logical choices, and providing appropriate explanations and justifications for following non-respondents would help describe the data accurately and thus enhance the external validity of the study. Extension professionals, survey researchers, and graduate students would benefit from following sound research methods and procedures. Using strategies suggested in this article and describing procedures used to handle non-response error will not only enhance the external validity of the study, but also improve the criteria, standards, and level of rigor in research carried out by Extension professionals. The decision to generalize research findings to the accessible population or general population needs to be clarified in research articles so that readers could interpret results with caution and for the purpose of replicating these studies in similar and/or other settings. ReferencesLindner, J. R., & Wingenbach, G. J. (2002). Communicating the handling of nonresponse error in Journal of Extension Research in Brief Articles. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002december/rb1.shtml Lindner, J. R, Murphy, T. H., & Briers, G. E. (2001). Handling non-response in social science research. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(4), 43-53. Miller L. E., & Smith, K. (1983). Handling non-response issues. Journal of Extension On-line, 21(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1983september/83-5-a7.pdf Shinn, G., Baker, M., & Briers, G. (2007). Response patterns: Effect of day of receipt of an E-mailed survey instrument on response rate, response time, and response quality. Journal of Extension [On-line], 45(2) Article 2RIB4. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2007april/rb4.shtml Wiseman, F. (2003). On the reporting of response rates in Extension Research. Journal of Extension On-line 41(3), Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2003june/comm1.shtml
Creating Quick and Easy Displays for Extension Events
Karen M. Ensle Educational displays have been used successfully to disseminate information to the public. Recently, displays were used as part of a North Carolina community-based BEAUTY and Health pilot project. Displays were used to reinforce targeted health messages toward women given by beauty salon stylists over a 7-week period. After one year, 81% of customers had read the displays in the salons. and 55% made changes in their health habits because of conversations with the stylists and the displays (Linnan, 2007). Displays increase awareness of nutrition information, as was demonstrated through a 5-A-Day Roadside Market project in Ohio. Extension agents found that laminated posters, along with fact sheets, increased awareness of the 5-A-Day concept among their customers (Mader, 1998). Why choose an exhibit or display to communicate the importance of a particular subject? Obahayujie and Hillison ranked exhibits 15th of the 55 educational methods they tested on the dissemination methods used most by Extension. They concluded that the clientele is best served when its unique characteristics are considered. When Cornell Extension educators needed to develop a pesticide safety program, a questionnaire was mailed to 57 county Extension offices in New York State. Forty-five responses indicated that the most useful information forms were fact sheets (89% of respondents), newspaper and magazine articles (62%), and portable displays (42%). Because fact sheets and articles were already part of the project, they chose to develop a portable exhibit (Coffman & Watkins, 1991). Creating effective displays is a challenge for the educator. Typically, they include tabletop or floor models with fact sheets and brochures. They create awareness and provide reinforcement of information to be learned. For this article, the terms "display" and "exhibit" are used interchangeably. Creating a DisplayBefore developing a display, the need for it should be documented. Conducting a needs assessment, sending out a questionnaire, facilitating focus groups, or conducting a survey can identify the topic for the display. Surveys can be mailed, e-mailed, or completed by phone. The topic for the display must be researched for the latest information, and then an outline needs to be developed. Pick a message that can be easily demonstrated or illustrated, and outline the key points. Keep messages brief so that viewers can digest the main messages in just a few seconds. Decide what kind of display board material to use (expensive professional display board or simple, inexpensive foam board). Next, decide whether you will use computer-generated wording and pictures on PowerPoint™ slides or have a professional printer create the display. University print shops or commercial ones can produce the display on large, heavy paper, or on laminated smaller pieces. Sketch the idea on paper for a rough idea of size, materials, and layout. Then decide whether any other media (e.g., video projectors, computers, tape players) will be added to convey the educational message(s). Final Display Set-UpAn electrical wall outlet needs to be available if computers or other media is part of the display. The display should include a title, your name, Extension address, and University logo along with bulleted statements or lists that convey the main messages. Make sure the display reads from top to bottom and left to right, like the pages of a book. Illustrations should be big and bold, with easy-to-read lettering. Fact sheets and brochures should reinforce display information. A Rutgers Cooperative Extension Which Fish Are Safe to Eat? display (Figure 1) was part of an outreach project targeted at pregnant women and small children. The purpose was to warn women of the hazards of consuming recreationally caught fish from the Newark Bay area in New Jersey. These waters are known to have high levels of contaminants. The Rutgers Center for Environmental Communications (RCEC) received a grant to hold focus groups in three cities (Elizabeth, Westfield and Perth Amboy, NJ.) to find out the most effective educational methods to reach pregnant women and their small children. Figure 1. The Rutgers Cooperative Extension FCHS Educator, an RCEC consultant, and FDA Public Affairs Specialist worked together to develop the project. Focus groups results directed the collaborators to develop a simple lesson plan that could be taught through WIC or FSNEP/EFNEP Extension classes. See the lesson plan and brochure: Your Baby Eats the Fish You Eat available on-line in English and Spanish <http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/lessonplan.htm>. The focus groups also recommended developing a display in both languages for use at health fairs, schools, local libraries, and WIC offices. A simple, easy to transport, display with one-page handout in both languages was developed (Figure 2). Figure 2. Constructing Which Fish Are Safe to Eat? DisplayThe display was developed using foam board, which is light-weight and inexpensive to use. Key concepts were translated into nine simple statements that were formatted as bulleted lists on nine PowerPoint™ slides. The foam board was purchased as a three-panel display and allows just enough room for nine 8 ½ X 11inch slides. Pertinent clip art helps to convey the main points and make each slide attractive. Simple, bold fonts and a catchy title add interest. The one-page handout was developed in Publisher as a colorful take-home information sheet. ResultsCreating this inexpensive and timely display for Extension and WIC audiences has helped to educate several thousand women about eating recreationally caught fish in local waters with high mercury and other contaminants that may not be healthful. Follow-up surveys have indicated that pregnant women with small children have reduced their consumption of recreationally caught fish from the Newark Bay area. ReferencesCoffman, C., & Watkins, S. (1991). Getting the right stuff into the right hands. Journal of Extension. [On-Line] 29 (1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1991spring/a5.html Linnan, L. A. (2005). Using community-based participatory research methods to reach women with health messages: Results from the North Carolina BEAUTY and health pilot project. Health Promotion Practice. 6 (2). ISSN 1524-8399, pp. 164-173. Mader, S. (1998). 5-a-day roadside market project. Journal of Extension.[On-Line] 36 (6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1998december/iw5.html NJDEP. Division of Science, Research and Technology, Your baby eats the fish you eat. Retrieved June 21, 2007 from: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/lessonplan.htm Obahayujie, J., & Hillison, J. (1988). Now hear this! Journal of Extension [On-Line] 6 (1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1988spring/a6.html
The Demonstration Rain Garden
Christopher C. Obropta
Madeline Flahive DiNardo
Gregory M. Rusciano Rutgers Cooperative Extension IntroductionWould you buy a car without driving it, or would you purchase land without first seeing it? The answers to these questions are "no," so why should someone expect you to invest in a rain garden without seeing one? A rain garden is a shallow landscaped depression that is designed to capture, treat, and infiltrate stormwater runoff. The plants in a rain garden are native to the region and help retain pollutants. The Demonstration Rain Garden is a useful tool for educating homeowners, landscapers, developers, and politicians on the ease of taking responsibility for the stormwater runoff generated on personal property. The construction of the garden is an opportunity to provide "hands-on" training for residential property owners. Once the garden is constructed, it provides other educational opportunities such as guided and self-guided tours. These demonstration stormwater management systems can be shown to have measurable impacts, such as the amount of runoff from impervious surfaces treated. The ToolA rain garden is a simple system to design, build, and maintain. It is typically placed a minimum of 10 feet from the foundation of the building and is 6 to 18 inches deep. Although it is usually located to receive stormwater runoff from a rooftop, driveway, or other impervious surface, it can be used to intercept runoff from lawns or agricultural fields. A rain garden is designed to capture runoff from small storms, which, due to their frequency, are responsible for contributing a large amount of nonpoint source pollution (Leopold, 1968; May, Horner, Karr, Mar, & Welsh, 1997). Clayton and Schueler (1996) recognized that 90% of the rainfall events in the mid-Atlantic region come in storms of less than one-inch of rainfall. Therefore, NJ regulators have defined the "water quality design storm" as 1.25 inches of rain over 2 hours and recommends that stormwater systems be designed to maximize pollutant removal for this type of storm. This system allows for the maximum treatment of 90% of the rainfall events in the state. A rain garden is designed to infiltrate stormwater runoff and should not be constructed in a wet area. Soil percolation tests are performed to determine if captured stormwater will drain within 48 hours, a specification that prevents mosquito breeding. Generally, existing soils need to be amended with sand aggregate to obtain the desired level of infiltration. The best planting media will promote both infiltration and native plant growth. Thus, soil tests should be taken to determine to amendments for nutrient and pH levels. Future fertilization is not recommended. At times, the existing soil needs to be completely replaced with a more desirable soil mix. A rain garden typically has a layer of hardwood mulch around its native plants, shrubs, and small trees. Plant selection is based on light requirements and drainage preferences. Siting a Demonstration Rain GardenThe demonstration rain garden should be constructed in a highly visible place such as a public library, town hall, or school. It is also desirable to select a location where public education programs can be easily held, allowing for maximum use of the rain garden. Rutgers Cooperative Extension (RCE) has built eight demonstration rain gardens throughout NJ, five of which are in the same watershed. The close proximity allows for half-day tours of all five rain gardens. Locations for the rain gardens include a health department, a local watershed association office, a public elementary school, a public library, and a municipal park. Other demonstration rain gardens in NJ are located at county Extension offices, which allows staff to easily maintain and monitor them. Installation and MaintenanceThe funding of the materials for the demonstration rain gardens was provided by a New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Section 319(h) Grant. Labor was provided by the Master Gardeners of Union County, RCE personnel, and local stakeholders. Master Gardeners participated in a stormwater management course as training for the project. In return for the training, they installed and maintain the gardens. Municipal public works departments and other cooperating stakeholders provided in kind assistance. Using the ToolThe new demonstration rain gardens became the tools that facilitated RCE's training of Master Gardeners and other community stakeholders in stormwater management. RCE of Union County received a grant from the United States Department of Agriculture-Cooperative State Research Education and Extension-Regional Water Quality Coordination Program to hire a student intern to assist with creating and delivering educational programs. Over a summer, two education programs, targeted for adults and children, were developed. All programs were at the demonstration rain gardens. The demonstration rain gardens served as a powerful visual aid. People attending the program walked around the demonstration rain garden and learned about the native plants. They spoke with Master Gardeners who installed and maintain the gardens. Thirty adults participated in two evening programs that included a PowerPoint™ presentation describing rain garden site selection, design, installation, and maintenance. Evaluative pre-post test scores improved by 13%; questions that the participants improved their scores on were: rain garden depth, care of native grasses, and limited use of fertilizers. A children's program at the school and library rain garden sites featured a demonstration of non-point source pollution using an Enviro-Scape™ Model and a tour of the garden. Pre-Post tests results of the Clean-Up Messy Town lesson revealed that students could list 50% more actions to prevent ground water contamination, including planting rain gardens, than they could at the beginning of the lesson. ConclusionA "tool of the trade" is usually thought of as an educational pamphlet, curriculum, or informational CD or DVD. Here a living tool has been presented--the Demonstration Rain Garden. Not only does this in-the-ground tool provide Extension an opportunity to train people during construction, but it also continues to grow and thrive as an educational tool for the local community. An additional benefit is that the Demonstration Rain Garden is completely functional. The eight demonstration rain gardens designed and built by RCE capture treat and recharge approximately 200,000 gallons of stormwater runoff per year. Now that's an impact! Acknowledgements Additional grant funding was provided by the United States Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Regional Water Coordination Program for New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. ReferencesClayton, R., & Schueler, T. (1996). Design of stormwater filtering systems. Ellicott City, MD. Center for Watershed Protection. Leopold, L. B., (1968). Hydrology for urban land planning--A guidebook on the hydrologic effects of urban land use. U.S. Geologic Survey Circular 554, Washington D.C. May, C. E., Horner, R. R., Karr, J. R., Mar, B. W., & Welch, E. B. (1997). Effects of urbanization on small streams in the Puget Sound Ecoregion. Watershed Protection Techniques. 2(4): 483-494.
Internet Protocol (IP) Videoconferencing for Networking During a Crisis
C. Dale Monks
W. Robert Goodman
William N. Presley
Charles H. Burmester
William C. Birdsong
Auburn University and the Alabama Cooperative Extension System (ACES) IntroductionBudgetary restraints limit travel and staffing within many Extension systems and increase the need for more efficient delivery and training methods (Pinkerton & Glazier, 1993). Technology can reduce travel time and expense and link educators, students, researchers, and administrators across the United States and around the world (Kelsey & Mincemoyer, 2001; Vergot, 2004). "E-conferencing" (Futris, Adler-Baeder, & Dean, 2004) has been shown to be effective in information delivery and training (Hanson & Parsons, 2000; Lippert, Plank, Camberato, & Chastain, 1998), and adult education (Nudell, Roth, & Saxowsky, 2005). Non-interactive satellite videoconferencing has been used successfully to deliver information across Alabama (Streumpler, Jelinek, Brown, & Sanders, 1997). Interactive videoconferencing over Internet Protocol (IP) is now available with 30 off-campus sites, 1 Alabama A&M University site, and 11 Auburn University on-campus sites. While programming can be delivered through distance technology (Heil & Herrington, 1997), the challenge is in its utilization to bring together Extension educators, state agricultural leaders, private industry, and elected officials during times of crisis. MethodsThe ACES Agronomic Crops Program Priority Team (PPT) responded in 2006 to requests from row crop producers concerning: 1) how to manage field crops during a severe drought and 2) how to best express producer concerns to policy makers at the state and federal levels. As others have shown to be effective (Bosch, 2004), traditional methods were utilized in delivering information suited to clientele needs. As was predicted by Ezell (1989), videoconferencing was also utilized due to the level of urgency coupled with the need for interaction and information. The pending economic disaster caused by the drought called for rapid information flow from producers to policy makers. As a result of personnel redirection and infrastructure enhancement across the state, IP videoconferencing was deemed the most effective method available. Real-time interactive format and procedures were developed to allow participants to have an effective discussion (Pankow, Porter, & Schuchardt, 2006). Seven sites within the state were chosen based on proximity to the primary crop production areas. One site in Washington, D.C., Senator Jeff Sessions' office, was selected to allow interaction with elected officials. Rules developed for the videoconference were as follows:
ResultsEnhanced response time through IP videoconferencing allowed clientele needs to be met quickly. Procedures were developed by a committee comprised of an agricultural economist (chair), agronomist, regional Extension agent, information technology specialist, and the assistant Extension director for Agriculture and Natural Resources. Through a teleconference held 3 days prior to the videoconference, on-site moderators were designated to have one to two producers represent each location. Political representatives or aides were primarily contacted through cooperation with Extension and agricultural industry leaders within the state. The videoconference was well attended, and producers were positive in feed back given to agents on a local level (Table 1). The videoconference was successful in that it allowed clientele to interact directly and in real-time with policy makers at the state and federal levels. Regional and county agents and specialists provided basic situational information, after which producers were allowed to describe their plight and suggestions for possible solutions. It was our experience that time and topical management were best left to the moderator at each site. With proper planning prior to the conference, problems were minimized.
The success of the 2006 videoconference led producers to request another similar event due to the severe drought in 2007 (Table 2). Overall participation in the event increased from 69 in 2006 to 107 in 2007. Participation for each personnel category increased 54%, 40%, 14%, and 260% for producers, congressional representatives, Extension professionals, and other participants, respectively. It was our experience again in 2007 that on-site moderators were best suited to manage time and keep discussion focused. The practical nature of this technology can be used to increase time and funding efficiencies (Vergot, 2004); however, our intent is to develop techniques and the infrastructure to better respond to the critical time-sensitive needs of our clientele.
ConclusionsThe use of IP videoconferencing allowed the Agronomic Crops PPT to respond quickly to clientele's needs during times of crisis. One of the advantages of utilizing interactive technology is in the shorter length of time required for organizing and conducting the conference. In both instances, the total time required from conception to the meeting was approximately 2 weeks. This was a winning scenario because time and travel funds were spared for all participants involved. Overall reaction of the ACES administration to the IP videoconferences was also extremely positive. The Agronomic Crops PPT has been encouraged to find additional uses for the technology in the areas of training, team building, and clientele response. ReferencesBosch, K. R. (2004). Cooperative Extension responding to family needs in time of drought and water shortage. Journal of Extension [On-line], 42(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004august/a3.shtml Ezell, M. P. (1989). Communication-Age trends affecting Extension. Journal of Extension [On-line], 27(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1989fall/a8.html Futris, T. G., Adler-Baeder, F., & Dean, K. J. (2004). Using technology to link researchers and educators: Evaluation of electronic conferencing. Journal of Extension [On-line], 42(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004february/rb1.shtml Hanson, G. D., & Parsons, R. L. (2000). Satellite uplink vs. videotape in borrower training. Journal of Extension [On-line], 38(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2000june/a1.html Hiel, E. R., & Herrington, D. (1997). Plausible uses and limitations of videoconferencing as a tool for achieving technology transfer. Journal of Extension [On-line], 35(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1997august/rb1.html Kelsey, T. W., & Mincemoyer, C. C. (2001). Exploring the potential of in-service training through distance education. Journal of Extension [On-line], 39(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001april/rb7.html Lippert, R. M., Plank, O., Camberato, J., & Chastain, J. (1998). Regional Extension in-service training via the Internet. Journal of Extension [On-line], 36(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1998february/a3.html Nudell, D., Roth, B., & Saxowsky, D. (2005). Non-Traditional Extension education using videoconferencing. Journal of Extension [On-line], 43(1) Article 1TOT3. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2005february/tt3.shtml Pankow, D. L., Porter, N. M., & Schuchardt, J. (2006). Training educators and community collaborators using a satellite videoconference format. Journal of Extension [On-Line], 44(1) Article 1TOT6. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2006february/tt6.shtml Pinkerton, J. R., & Glazier, J. D. (1993). Extending information resources in rural areas. Journal of Extension [On-line], 31(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1993summer/a3.html Struempler, B., Jelinek, S. M., Brown, A. H., & Sanders, L. G. (1997). Using distance education to teach the new food label to Extension educators. Journal of Extension [On-line], 35(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1997april/rb1.html Vergot III, P. (2004). Using Web-based interactive video to enhance University of Florida IFAS Extension. Journal of Extension [On-line], 42(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004june/tt2.shtml
Providing Quality Continuing Educational Opportunities for Certified and Licensed Pesticide Applicators
Fred Fishel Licensed Pesticide Applicators in FloridaFederal and Florida law require that applicators of pesticides classified as "restricted" be certified and licensed. During the mid-1970's, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (USEPA, FIFRA, 2005) was amended to authorize each state to enact a certification/licensing program for applicators of restricted use pesticides. The regulating agency for this program in Florida is the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS, 2007). Restricted use pesticides are those that are classified as such by the EPA because they pose a significant risk to humans or to the environment. For a person to become certified to purchase and handle restricted use pesticides, they must meet competency standards as demonstrated by passing (70%) mandated examinations. In Florida, aspiring applicators are required to pass the General Standards exam along with at least one category exam. The category exam is based upon the type of work that they are engaged. Many applicators hold certification/licensing in more than one category. Exams are administered through Cooperative Extension offices throughout the state by Extension agents. Currently in Florida, there are approximately 12,000 certified and licensed applicators of restricted use pesticides. Some uses of pesticides require certification and licensing regardless of restricted classification. License types and categories vary in Florida, but are summarized (Table 1).
Keeping the Certification and License Valid in FloridaTo maintain the validity of restricted use pesticide applicator certification and licensing, recertification is required. There are two options for meeting recertification requirements: retaking and passing the exams or accumulation of continuing education units (CEUs). The recertification system used by the majority of applicators in Florida is accumulation of CEUs. Depending upon license type and category, the time period required to meet recertification requirements ranges from 1 to 4 years. The number of CEUs that must be obtained also varies, but ranges from two to 16 per recertification cycle. The system is based upon two fundamental principles: review of current knowledge and learning new technology. The justification for such a system is that applicators of restricted use pesticide must continuously demonstrate a competency for handling potentially hazardous materials. Because of emerging pest development, emerging application technologies, and new pesticide products, such a system allows for the applicator to be exposed to educational opportunities. Certified and licensed pesticide applicators in Florida have educational program opportunities offered in varying venues for earning CEUs. Private industry, trade/commodity associations, governmental agencies, and Cooperative Extension of the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) are the major providers of programs. Regardless of venue, each program must be approved for credit by FDACS. FDACS determines the number of CEUs that may be granted based upon the program sponsor submitting an agenda with speaker information prior to the event. FDACS then provides the program sponsor with attendance verification forms. Upon completion of a program, the sponsor provides each attendee the attendance form to submit to FDACS when their appropriate number of CEUs has been earned as they near the completion of their cycle. Until recent years, programs consisted of traditional classroom/seminar venues. In Florida, several annual events have historically attracted large numbers of applicators. For example, the 2007 UF/IFAS Aquatic Weed Management Conference drew 482 attendees. Similar types of group format activities often approved for credit include field day/workshop events, often hosted by UF/IFAS facilities. Although these types of classroom/seminar events are still very common and encouraged, many applicators are earning CEUs through opportunities made possible with more recent distance technology. Some trade journal publications will host an article submitted by a UF/IFAS Extension educator. An applicator who reads the article may contact the Extension educator for a set of questions, and upon returning the correct answers to the question set, the Extension agent will issue an attendance verification form. Another available option is for an applicator to purchase a CD-ROM containing a tutorial that the applicator works through in order to correctly answer the accompanying set of questions. The most recent means for obtaining CEUs is through Web-based venues. Private industry hosts were the first in Florida to use this technology. Beginning in 2006, UF/IFAS launched its Web-based recertification program (Ferrell & Fishel, in press). ImplicationsBecause certification and licensing of pesticide applicators is mandated by law, opportunities will always exist to provide educational opportunities. Certified and licensed applicators in Florida are fortunate that FDACS is very flexible in approving the various venues of today’s programs. Each state is somewhat unique in its requirements, but some states have very strict standards, such as approving traditional classroom-type venues only. Applicators in Florida are appreciative of this flexibility because such venues allow them to meet recertification, often without missing time from work. Future programs in Florida will likely continue to take advantage of the distance technology readily available for meeting this purpose. ReferencesFerrell, J. A., & Fishel, F. M. (in press). Pesticide applicator CEU opportunities via the UF/IFAS Pesticide Information Office's on-line interactive tutorials. Journal of Extension. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (2007). Florida Pesticide Law Retrieved April 17, 2008 from: http://www.flaes.org/statutesandrules.html U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005). Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Retrieved July 17, 2008 from: http://www.epa.gov/region5/defs/html/fifra.htm
Rating Current Vermont Equine Industry Issues and Determining if Motivation for Participation in Change Efforts Exists
Ariana Monti
Elizabeth A. Greene
University of Vermont IntroductionIn 1999, the University of Vermont (UVM) and the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets (VT-AG) organized the first ever Vermont Equine Industry Summit in order to identify common, critical issues affecting the Vermont horse industry statewide. The feedback from this meeting gave direction for the UVM equine Extension program, which resulted in the creation of safety and biosecurity materials (Greene & Trott, 2004; Ather & Greene, 2005), as well as the "VT Horses Count: Equine Survey" in collaboration with VT-AG. (Greene, Ather, & King, 2003). In order to keep current with the needs of the growing industry, UVM Extension conducted an online survey to rate the issues that concern today's equine industry. In addition, we wanted to ascertain the level of motivation of participants to work with the Vermont Equine Industry Committee (VEIC), a volunteer committee formed to assist with issues affecting equine businesses in Vermont. The survey goals were: 1. to determine key issues affecting the equine industry, 2. to identify motivation of industry members to address key issues, and 3. to collect contact information from motivated industry members. Materials and MethodsSurvey DevelopmentThe online survey (Perseus Survey Solutions®) collected feedback from business owners, consumers, and other participants involved in the equine industry. Several academic and business professionals completed a pretest, and suggestions were incorporated. The first (confidential) section rated issues important to respondents, their associated motivation levels to work on change, and business-specific data collection. The second section collected contact information for follow-up. Respondents rated thirteen known issues (listed in alphabetical order) related to the equine industry, and they could identify "other" issues. A Likert Scale including "extremely important," "somewhat important," "not at all important," and "not familiar with issue" was provided. The questions were open ended, to avoid leading the survey taker, and if "extremely important" was chosen, respondents could provide qualitative comments. The list of the topics included the following.
Respondents also were asked to identify their levels of motivation to change or affect the identified issues and how this motivation might translate to hours of volunteer work per month. ParticipantsThe survey was distributed to an existing UVM Extension email database of past participants in equine Extension events and to email addresses from VT equine-related Web sites. ResultsThe survey was distributed to 1,372 email addresses, of which 1,012 were successfully delivered. One hundred and forty responses were received, and 52 (37.7%) indicated that they own or operate a business that is in, or serves the equine industry. A total of 620 "extremely important" responses were counted, suggesting that an average respondent made 4.4 "extremely important" ratings out of the 14 possibilities. The key issues prioritized by survey respondents are provided in Table 1.
When asked how motivated respondents were to participate in efforts to change, 11.6% were highly motivated, while 39.4% and 40.9% were motivated and slightly motivated, respectively. The amount of hours that respondents were willing to spend included more than 6 hours/month (6.3%), 6 hours/month (21.4%), 2 hours/month (57.1%), and 0 hours/month (15.1%). DiscussionWhen evaluating the top five issues, in the case of Insurance and Liability, the seven respondents not selecting this as an important issue selected the "unfamiliar" response option. In equine-related activities, insurance and liability concerns appear at all levels of farm or sports management. Respondents wrote about the high cost and the limited availability of appropriate coverage for liability and general insurance. The Horse Park/Show Facility issue revolves around the lack of a large, permanent, year-round show facility available in Vermont. In most cases, the respondents tied their support of an in-state facility to the potential for additional local income due to show-related revenues as well as their own equine-related interests. Land Use Policy comments focused on the increasing development and resulting loss of farm land and safe riding trails and differing treatment of land used by dairy vs. horse farms. Comments emphasized that the definition of "agriculture" and "agricultural land" will have a significant role in the health of Vermont's equine industry. Land Use comments often overlapped with concerns regarding Act 250 and "Agricultural Use," and there are many linked issues to consider when addressing components of this issue. The final two areas, Trail Systems and Agricultural Use, have been mentioned in the previous section. Those three topics have significant areas of overlap. The feedback regarding motivation levels identifies a larger group of individuals willing to participate on a limited (2 hours per month) basis and suggests a benefit to investigating ways to energize that relatively large group (57.1%). Activating this additional industry segment to participate in less frequent efforts would be an opportunity for education, outreach or public-awareness events across the state. ImplicationFor a small state such as Vermont, energizing even a fraction of those respondents into active participation on behalf of the industry would significantly increase the development of public awareness of the statewide equine industry and of public issues that positively or negative affect industry performance. Respondents from a wide variety of equine interests were able to identify shared core concerns, and by identifying willing industry members, UVM Extension (and VEIC) can focus on uniting participants in action on these core issues. Finally, this survey method can be utilized by any Extension program to evaluate priorities and issues of, or effectiveness with, their clientele. Acknowledgements The author wishes to acknowledge Lyn Carew, Fran Kinghorn, and Marcia Purvis for editing this article. Special thanks to Marcia for setting up and managing the survey on Purseus. ReferencesGreene, E. A., & Trott, J. F. (2004) The self-guided horse facility analysis: A proactive safety education tool for equine facilities. Journal of Extension [On-line], 42(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004december/tt5.shtml Ather, J., & Greene, E. A. (2005). Promoting biosecurity in the equine community: A new resource for Extension educators and the equine industry. Journal of Extension [On-line], 43(1) Article ITOT4. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2005february/tt4.shtml Greene, B., Ather, J., & King, L. (2003). "Vermont Horses Count" 2002 Vermont Equine Survey Report. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont.
Developing and Utilizing Visual Tools to Assist Pork Producers in Employee Training in the Evaluation of Sow Body Condition
Robert Fitzgerald
Kenneth Stalder
Locke Karriker
Colin Johnson
Lori Layman
Anna Johnson
Iowa State University IntroductionBody condition scoring (BCS) is utilized on commercial sow operations to evaluate a combination of weight, backfat, and muscle on individual sows. Body condition is most commonly evaluated after sows have completed lactation and is done using a 5-point scoring system (Patience & Thacker, 1995) or a similar system. Scoring allows producers to classify sows' body condition and increase or decrease the amount of feed for thin or excessively conditioned sows, respectively, in order to maintain optimal sow performance. The goal is to increase body condition to the ideal BCS of 3 before the sow farrows her next litter (Coffey, Parker, & Laurent, 1999; Patience & Thacker, 1995). During lactation, metabolic demands may require a sow to utilize fat and muscle body reserves to maintain energy and protein levels associated with peak milk production. When a great deal of fat and muscle are utilized as is the case when sows do not consume enough feed to meet lactation demands, sows become thin, or attain poor body condition. Visual body condition scoring is a rapid and inexpensive methodology to determine the amount of body fat and muscle reserves each sow possesses. Determining body reserves allows producers to adjust individual sow feed allotment accordingly so that thin or poorly conditioned sows will receive more feed and overly conditioned sows will receive less feed. Adjusting feed intake according to body condition will help producers attain a more profitable operation. Visual scoring systems have been discounted due to their subjectivity and perceived inaccuracy of scores compared to directly measuring sow backfat (Maes, Janssens, Delputte, Lammertyn, & de Kruif, 2004) or using objective flank-to-flank and heart girth measurements. It has been hypothesized that these inaccuracies may be related to a lack of evaluator training and availability of a consistent standard for body condition. MethodologyThe objective of the project described here was to develop a new visual guide that assists pig producers in accurately assessing body condition within their sow herds. To conduct this project, 29 sows with visual body condition scores of 1 or 2 and healthy in appearance were purchased from a Midwestern U.S. sow integrator. The sows were transported to an unused sow facility near Ames, Iowa, and housed in farrowing stalls (N = 17) or pens (N = 12). Sows were fed a commercially available gestation ration twice per day. The trial lasted for 96 days, and body weight, tenth and last rib backfat, loin eye area, flank-to-flank girth, and heart girth were measured every 14 days. Sows were objectively assigned a body condition score based on millimeters of last rib backfat using the table published in the Tri-State Swine Nutrition Guide (Hill, Rozeboom, Trottier, Mahan, Adeoli, Cline, Forsyth, & Richert, 1998). Poster DevelopmentThe original project to evaluate body condition of sows was sponsored by the National Pork Board, the U.S. pork commodity group. During this project, sows were photographed at the initiation of the trial and at each subsequent increase in BCS to visually record changes in body condition. Sows were photographed from five viewpoints (1. Front view eye level with sow, 2. Side view front from 45 degrees off sow midline, 3. Rear view at eye level of sow, 4. Rear view approximately 0.5 m above sow topline, 5. Side view rear from 45 degrees off sow midline) that illustrated the best anatomical locations to observe fat deposits, muscle shape, or lack thereof. The formation of the BCS guide required sows to reach a BCS of 5 (five sows did not complete the trial due to health related issues that originated on the farm). Each sow was photographed at each BCS of 1 through 5. At the end of the project, the National Hog Farmer Magazine cooperated with Iowa State University Extension personnel in the development and distribution of the sow body condition poster. Two sows were selected for the poster due to their photographs best represented each BCS. Photographs of the incremental changes in BCSs were electronically arranged in photo management software, and captions beneath each score were used to describe anatomical locations of interest to accurately evaluate sow body condition. The size of the poster equaled 71.1 cm tall x 50.8 cm wide. Industry sponsorship was attained to defer some of the poster publication costs. English captions were translated to Spanish and added to the poster in order to enhance the poster's use by the large Hispanic population working in U.S. swine production facilities. The poster was designed to be placed in gestation and farrowing barns for easy reference by employees. Additionally, handheld versions of the poster were produced for real-time comparison during body condition scoring. The National Swine Improvement Federation and the American Association of Swine Veterinarians have endorsed the poster. ConclusionThe BCS poster was published in a swine trade magazine and was distributed to over 26,000 subscribers who are primarily swine producers and managers, allied industry members, Extension specialists and agents, and other industry supporters. The BCS poster provides a clear and easy avenue to communicate economically important principles or tasks to employees, especially those experiencing a language barrier. Furthermore, the project demonstrates a new way of cooperatively delivering educational materials to a vast audience. Cooperation between the pork commodity group, industry sponsorship, a popular press magazine, and a state Extension service came together to deliver an educational tool that has been widely adopted and utilized at the farm level. The poster's acceptance has now gone international. The BCS poster will appear in the Chinese and Finnish pork production sectors in late 2007 or early 2008. Similar posters can be developed by Extension workers producers on a wide variety of topics depending on clientele need. Support for future posters can be garnered from a variety of sources. ReferencesMaes, D., Janssens, G., Delputte, P., Lammertyn, A., & de Kruif, A. (2004). Back fat measurements in sows from three commercial pig herds: relationship with reproductive efficiency and correlation with visual body condition scores. Livestock Production Science, 91, 57-67. Hill, G., Rozeboom, D., Trottier, N., Mahan, D., Adeoli, L., Cline, T., Forsyth, D., & Richert, B. (1998). Tri-State swine nutrition guide. Retrieved April 17, 2008 from: http://ohioline.osu.edu/b869/index.html Patience, J., Thacker, P., & de Lange, C. (1995). Swine nutrition guide. pp. 144-146. Saskatoon, Canada: Prairie Swine Centre. Coffey, R., Parker, G., & Laurent, K. (1999). Assessing sow body condition. ASC-158. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service. Copyright © by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. Articles appearing in the Journal become the property of the Journal. Single copies of articles may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use in educational or training activities. Inclusion of articles in other publications, electronic sources, or systematic large-scale distribution may be done only with prior electronic or written permission of the Journal Editorial Office, joe-ed@joe.org. If you have difficulties viewing or printing this page, please contact JOE Technical Support. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
