Impact Assessment and Participant Profiles of Extension's Education Programs for Agricultural Chemical/Seed Retailers and Crop Advisors

Traditionally, agricultural (ag) education programming by University Extension personnel has been targeted at crop producers. Both Brown (1981) and Hildreth and Armbruster (1981) provide classic representations of Extension programming for the rural agricultural setting. They clearly imply that educational materials, including bulletins, folders, newsletters, and guidebooks, have been developed specifically for farmer-producer audiences.

Recent data have shown that crop and livestock producers also look to their agricultural product retailers and service providers for information and recommendations. Alston and Reding (1998) state that grain producers obtain information from ag chemical dealers almost as frequently as from Extension. King and Rollins (1995) conclude that fertilizer dealers are the primary source for locally relevant information. Likewise, a survey by Roseler et al. (1994) reveals that farmers name industry specialists three times more often than Extension personnel as their source for dairy nutrition information.

In the past decade, many chemical and/or seed companies and ag products supply cooperatives have increased their emphasis on education/information transfer. Developing and maintaining ag education programs for agricultural products retailers and service providers can be an important niche for university outreach programs, because university research is an important factor in decision-making. Schmitt (1988a) concludes that University education programs and resources rate similarly in terms of quality and demand to in-house, technical education resources among ag retail dealers. Roseler et al. (1994) report equivalent ratings for company specialists and Extension specialists among dairy nutrition professionals.

It is critical that education programming for ag professional audiences includes interaction with private industry. Davison (1983) states that involving the private sector leads to wider and more rapid dissemination of information compared to working exclusively with producers, whereas Brown (1981) concludes that partnering with private industry allows for sufficient resources to enhance program impact. Spandl et al. (1998) outline some of the issues related to the development and implementation of joint Extension-industry programs outline.

Objectives and Methods

The University of Minnesota Extension Service (UM Extension) has been conducting crop production education programming for ag professionals, which include retail dealers, crop consultants, sales personnel, and county Extension staff, for the past 12 years. These ag programs are multi-discipline and have been developed, organized, and primarily taught by state Extension faculty. The programs have increased in demand and attendance over the years due to quality programming as well as the widespread popularity of the Certified Crop Advisor program, which requires annual continuing education credits.

To evaluate the effectiveness of these specialized programs and better identify this audience and its preferences, the authors surveyed Minnesota ag professionals. The survey asked questions that profiled respondents about their educational attainment and perceived knowledge levels and then addressed the impact and comparative evaluation of the university's education programs.

A six-page survey was mailed to 1,640 ag professionals on July 20, 1998. Because no comprehensive list of ag professionals exists, the most recent rosters of three programs targeted at Minnesota ag professionals (Ag Professionals' Field School, approximately 250 individuals; Ag Professionals' Winter Update, approximately 500 individuals; and the Minnesota Crop Producers Retailers Association's Annual Conference, approximately 1200 individuals) were used to represent the population.

Duplicate entries were identified and excluded. A cover letter was included, along with a self-addressed, postage-paid return envelope. On August 17, a follow-up postcard was sent to everyone. Six hundred and ninety-eight (n=698) usable surveys were completed and returned, for a response rate of 43%.

The survey asked factual (job title, educational emphasis and attainment, program attendance, etc.) and perceptual (subject knowledge, program quality and impacts, etc.) questions. Of particular interest was the effect of educational attainment on responses. Two categories were selected to be used, those with bachelor's degrees and those without. Cross tabulation was conducted to delineate and organize the data into cells for each of the reported responses such that chi-square test analysis at the 10% level could be used (Freedman et al., 1978). This test is based on differences between actual cell frequency data to determine the significance of the education categories. A 10% significance level was used.

Results and Discussion

Respondents' Education and Knowledge

The job titles listed by the respondents were extremely varied and, thus, provided a good mix of perspectives for other questions. Manager was the primary title, listed by 30% of respondents, although many different adjectives (e.g., sales, general, farm, business, branch, area, department, assistant) were added. Agronomist was the second largest category (14%), while 11% listed consultant. Other categories included sales (9%), applicator (9%), owner/president (7%), and specialist (6%).

Respondents were also asked to list their formal educational experience. Sixty percent had obtained a bachelor's degree. Thirteen percent listed a high school diploma as their highest level of educational attainment, whereas 27% cited some post high school education (junior college, technical school, college/university). In comparing these results with a similar survey conducted in 1987 (Schmitt, 1988b), there is a strong, positive trend that more ag professionals, especially those working in the ag retail market, have bachelor's degrees (60%) now than a decade ago (29%).

Among respondents with a bachelor's degree, the area of specialization, or curriculum major, was diverse. One of the most common categories was agronomy, which included crop science, plant systems, soils, and other similar listings. This category included one third of respondents with bachelor's degrees. Another one-third listed degrees in business/marketing. Education degrees were cited by 9%, while general agriculture majors or derivations thereof accounted for 8%. Numerous other majors were listed, ranging from journalism to animal science to natural resources.

All respondents were asked to evaluate their perceived knowledge of several technical areas. Respondents said they had the greatest perceived knowledge about crop production, followed by weed management, fertilizer management, tillage, crop economics, seed selection, insect management, and disease management (Table 1). The subjects that ag professionals deal with almost daily (weed management, fertilizer management, crop production) were those that respondents believed they were most knowledgeable about. In contrast, topics such as disease and insect management--issues that are dealt with less frequently--were those that respondents considered themselves to be less knowledgeable about.

Delineating respondents' perceived knowledge by formal educational attainment, perceived knowledge was significantly greater among college graduates for the subjects of weed, insect, and disease management and crop production (Table 1). Knowledge of crop economics, fertilizer management, and tillage was not perceived differently based on educational attainment. Only seed selection had lower knowledge ratings from respondents with a bachelor's degree. In our experience with ag professionals, we have observed that information and recommendations about pesticides and their use requires a greater knowledge base about weed, insect, and disease management subjects from the ag professional, with little room for error. However, tillage, crop economics, fertilizer management, and seed selection require important, but less exacting, recommendations and information. Thus the comfort level for making recommendations for these subjects may be less dependent on educational attainment.

Programs' Evaluation and Impact

Respondents rated several issues pertaining to the UM Extension education programs compared to other education programs. For usefulness of information, UM Extension's programs were rated much better or somewhat better by 49% of the respondents, while 51% rated UM Extension programs as no different or inferior to other programs. On a scale of +2 (UM Extension programs much better) to -2 (other programs much better), with 0 representing no difference, the average score was 0.4. Ratings were also obtained for other program issues (Table 2). For one issue, up-to-date with agricultural technology, only 30% of the respondents rated UM Extension programs as much better or somewhat better and the overall average score for this issue was 0.0.

Extension programs rated highest for the issues of professionalism and return for cost investment. The university's resources, faculty, and applied research programs may have contributed to the favorable professionalism rating. The cost investment rating could have referred to the value of the learned information, or, less positively, it could have referred to the relatively low fees charged for UM Extension programs. The cost issue is the only issue that had a significant statistical interaction with education attainment of the respondents. Those respondents with college degrees rated the return for cost significantly higher than did those without degrees.

Extension's program issues receiving the lowest rating were up-to-date with ag issues and up-to-date with ag technology. Drawing from comments written on the individual surveys, it appears that some of the respondents may have intertwined these two issues to imply up-to-date with ag technology issues. Numerous comments regarding UM Extension's lack of overall endorsement of current technology issues were listed on surveys.

The survey asked respondents to list education programs they had attended recently. The most prevalent sponsors of these education program were regional supply cooperatives (e.g., Cenex/Land O'Lakes, Farmland Industries). Next were programs offered by Land Grant institutions in the neighboring states of Iowa, Wisconsin, and North Dakota. Other frequently mentioned sponsors of ag professional education programs were chemical/seed companies, private research/education organizations, and state commodity organizations.

The sponsorship issue for education programs is often overrated, according to our survey. From a list of six factors that ag professionals may consider when deciding whether to attend an education program, sponsor was rated the lowest (Table 3). The most important programming factor was the topics to be presented. In addition, compared to the average, respondents with college degrees rated the factors of topics and speakers as more important and the factors of sponsor and cost as less important, thus creating a stronger disparity among factors. This ranking of factors mirrors the results of Schmitt (1988b), indicating consistency in ag professionals' opinions.

Assessments of the impact of UM Extension's educational programs were varied. Seventy percent of the respondents said they had provided improved service to their customers as a result of Extension programs. Examples of improved service included enhanced knowledge and credibility as well as improved pest and fertilizer recommendations. There was also a significant interaction with education; respondents with bachelor's degrees more frequently cited a positive impact on service (Table 4). In addition, 71% of respondents reported they had adopted or recommended practices that better protect the environment. There was no significant interaction with this type of service improvement based on education background.

In contrast, only one-third of the respondents stated that their business was more profitable as a result of UM Extension programs (Table 4). One interpretation might be that the improved services/recommendations and practices protecting the environment could have been reducing the sales of products.

Summary and Conclusion

According to ag professionals, the UM Extension education programming offered to them is not necessarily better than other education programs, especially as it relates to current technology issues. However, participants clearly stated that Extension's programs are positively affecting their service and recommendations to customers, both agronomically and environmentally, although not necessarily improving their business profitability. In most instances, ag professionals with college degrees responded more positively to university education programming issues. Future programming will need to focus on relevant topics as well as offer excellent speakers. The specific sponsor and, in general, cost of the program are the least important factors to those attending educational program.

The implications of this survey research to the broad picture of Extension are critical. Extension will have greater impact on agriculture when it directly reaches key information disseminators. Roseler et al. (1994) conclude that, for dairy production, the university's impact and value are in developing and maintaining programs/relationships with the industry. Our survey results reinforce that conclusion for crop production.

Extension education programs should recognize that a very critical target audience for crop production information has shifted from farmers to ag professionals. Agricultural professionals then transfer and/or repackage this information, often in association with product sales to crop producers on a local basis. This information delivery system could potentially exclude county Extension personnel. Extension programming, especially by state Extension faculty, can have its greatest educational impact when its creators partner with companies, associations, and agencies that also sponsor education programs for their employees. These partnerships will enable Extension to target information to those who will be able to best use or transfer the information.

References

Alston, D.G., & Reding, M.E. (1998). Factors influencing adoption and educational outreach of integrated pest management, Journal of Extension [On-line]. 36(3). Available: http://www.joe.org/joe/1998june/a3.html

Brown, T.G. (1981). Changing delivery systems for agricultural extension: The extension teacher changing roles and competencies. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63: 859-862.

Davison, A.D., (1983), Cooperative extension: Its role in education and technology transfer. Plant Disease, 67(5): 468.

Freedman, D., Pisani, R., & Purves, R. (1978). Statistics, 1st Ed. New York, N.Y.; W.W. Norton & Co.

Hildreth, R.F., & Armbruster, W.J. (1981). Extension program delivery past, present, and future: An overview. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63: 853-858.

King, R.N., & Rollins, T.J. (1995). Factors influencing the adoption of a nitrogen testing program. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 33(4). Available: http://www.joe.org/joe/1995august/rb2.html

Roseler, D.K., Chase, L.E. & McLaughlin, E.W. (1994). Information dissemination in dairy nutrition. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 32(1). Available: http://www.joe.org/joe/1994june/rb3.html

Schmitt, M.A. (1988a). A survey of fertilizer dealers: I. Sources of agronomic training. Journal of Agronomic Education, 17: 17-20.

Schmitt, M.A, (1988b). A survey of fertilizer dealers: II. Sources of agronomic information. Journal of Agronomic Education, 17: 21-24.

Spandl, E., Schmitt, M.A., & Durgan, B.R. (1998). The development process and multiyear program assessment of a field school for agricultural professionals. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Science Education, 27: 131-133.