Decreased visibility and awareness of what Washington State University (WSU) was doing for the beef industry was a critical issue raised by beef industry leaders and WSU faculty. Statewide conferences have been used to distribute information to beef producers. However, these conferences require large commitments of labor, time, and financial resources, and it was not known whether they are effective given that so much information is easily obtained electronically. Therefore, we surveyed beef producers at WSU Beef Production Conferences in 2014 and 2016. Recommendations for improving translation of information include maintaining beef conferences, publishing more articles in beef trade magazines, and increasing information on WSU Internet sites. Applying similar activities elsewhere and with other agricultural producer audiences may prove useful

Llewellyn, Donald

Nelson, Mark L.

English

Clemson University: TigerPrints

Journal of Extension Volume 56 Number 3 Article 6 6-1-2018 Do Beef Production Conferences Affect Beef Producers' Perceptions of Applied Research and Extension Programs? Mark L. Nelson Washington State University Donald Llewellyn Washington State University Recommended Citation Nelson, M. L., & Llewellyn, D. (2018). Do Beef Production Conferences Affect Beef Producers' Perceptions of Applied Research and Extension Programs?. Journal of Extension, 56(3). Retrieved from https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol56/iss3/6 This Research in Brief is brought to you for free and open access by TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Extension by an authorized editor of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact kokeefe@clemson.edu. June 2018Volume 56Number 3Article # 3RIB2Research In BriefDo Beef Production Conferences Affect Beef Producers'Perceptions of Applied Research and Extension Programs?AbstractDecreased visibility and awareness of what Washington State University (WSU) was doing for the beef industry wasa critical issue raised by beef industry leaders and WSU faculty. Statewide conferences have been used to distributeinformation to beef producers. However, these conferences require large commitments of labor, time, and financialresources, and it was not known whether they are effective given that so much information is easily obtainedelectronically. Therefore, we surveyed beef producers at WSU Beef Production Conferences in 2014 and 2016.Recommendations for improving translation of information include maintaining beef conferences, publishing morearticles in beef trade magazines, and increasing information on WSU Internet sites. Applying similar activitieselsewhere and with other agricultural producer audiences may prove useful.Keywords: beef producers, perception of research, perception of Extension IntroductionThrough the 1980s, Washington State University (WSU) conducted annual Beef Information Days on the WSUcampus as a major outreach and education effort to serve the state's beef producers. At these events, many beefindustry leaders received the results of WSU Department of Animal Science beef research. In the 1990s, whenthe event was conducted off campus at various locations, attendance began to decline, and the event wasdiscontinued after 2005. Similarly, according to Warner, Christenson, Dillman, & Salant (1996), use of Extensiondeclined from 1982 to 1995 for most program areas. Additionally, Schafer (2006) assessed perceptions ofUniversity of Wyoming Extension Service livestock programming by livestock producers and concluded that 42%of participating producers had not used the University of Wyoming Extension Service livestock program. Twoanecdotal reasons for the reduction in attendance at WSU Beef events were that producers felt the location (WSUcampus) was not convenient and that the information presented was less and less relevant to the state's beefproducers.In the 2010s, WSU Extension went through a reorganization from a geographical district-based structure to aprogrammatic/disciplinary-based one. Because of the change in structure, there has been greater communicationMark L. NelsonExtension AnimalScientistWashington StateUniversityPullman, WashingtonNelsonm@wsu.eduDonald LlewellynRegional LivestockSpecialistWashington StateUniversityKennewick,Washingtondon.llewellyn@wsu.eduand collaboration among the WSU research and Extension faculty working on livestock-related programs. Thisinteraction revealed a shared concern that decreased awareness among members of the state's beef industryregarding WSU's efforts for the industry was a critical issue. A return to hosting statewide conferences occurredduring this time. However, major statewide conferences involve large commitments of labor, time, and financialresources. If such programs are to continue, they need to be relevant in a world in which so much information iseasily obtained electronically. Although technology may have increased importance in the future (Mirando et al.,2012), Dahlen, Hadrich, and Lardy concluded in 2014 that the use of traditional methods are needed to satisfyexisting Extension clientele. Since the development of an instrument to measure quality of Extension output byYoung and Cunningham (1977), many clientele perception studies have occurred (e.g., Decker & Yerka, 1990;Radhakrishna, 2002); however, WSU had not conducted any such studies. Therefore, at major beef productionconferences WSU held in 2014 and 2016, we conducted pre- and postconference surveys to explore producers'awareness of the WSU beef cattle research and Extension programs and their preferences related to obtainingbeef production information.MethodsThe June 2014 WSU Beef Production Conference was held at Yakima, Washington, consisted of 18 sessionsconducted as concurrent sessions on a Friday and Saturday, and was titled "Tools and Techniques for the Future."In addition to the educational programs, the conference featured a major beef industry trade show with 36vendor booths set up by private companies and various other organizations serving the Washington beefindustry. Total attendance at the conference was 179, with 102 attendees identifying themselves as beefproducers. The April 2016 WSU Beef Production Conference was held at Pasco, Washington, and involved a Fridayevening session (four presentations) titled "Post Fire Techniques, Tools and Strategies for Beef Producers" and aSaturday session (10 presentations) titled "Tools and Techniques for Beef Production." At the 2016 conference,there was not a trade show, total attendance was 88, and 60 attendees identified themselves as beef producers.Other attendees each year identified themselves as university faculty or employees of allied industries or otherorganizations (30% in 2014, 39% in 2016) and students (13% in 2014, 5% in 2016). Each year, we conductedpre- and postconference surveys of beef producers in attendance, using Turning Point software (TurningTechnologies, Youngstown, OH), to identify their perceptions of the WSU beef cattle research and Extensionprograms, preferred methods for obtaining information about beef production, and preferred sources ofinformation to use for decision making.Results and DiscussionInterestingly, different beef producers attended the two conferences. Across the conferences, distributions of beefproducers who answered the question of how many years they had raised cattle were bimodal. Proportions ofproducers in business less than 10 years and over 20 years each averaged 40% (data not shown). In response tothe preconference surveys at both the 2014 and 2016 events, large percentages of attending beef producerscould not rate the quality of WSU's research programs (54% and 43%, respectively) or Extension programs (37%and 36%, respectively) (Table 1); these results are similar to findings by Schafer (2006).Table 1.Beef Producers' Preconference Perceptions of Washington StateUniversity (WSU) Beef Cattle Research and Extension Programs at2014 and 2016 WSU Beef Production ConferencesResearch In Brief Do Beef Production Conferences Affect Beef Producers' Perceptions of Applied Research and Extension Programs? JOE 56(3)©2018 Extension Journal Inc 12014 2016Quality rating Research Extension Research ExtensionExcellent 8% 15% 14% 15%Good 23% 35% 31% 30%Fair 12% 8% 10% 15%Poor 3% 5% 2% 4%Don't know 54% 37% 43% 36%Preferred methods for receiving information about beef production were almost the same across the two surveyyears (Figure 1), with the most important methods being reading magazines and journals, conducting Internetsearches, and attending conferences. Schafer (2006) suggested that younger beef producers were morecomfortable with Internet searches and that older producers preferred Extension's traditional methods of deliveryof conferences and printed material. It appears that the demographics of our audiences may explain the almostequal scores for conducting Internet searches and attending conferences. In contrast, studies in Florida (Vergot,Israel, & Mayo, 2005) and North Dakota (Dahlen et al., 2014) identified newsletters and bulletins as the preferredmethod of information retrieval and Internet searches as the least preferred method. With regard to sources ofinformation used for decision making by the beef producers we studied, the top three preferred sources wereother producers, beef industry organizations, and veterinarians (Figure 2).Figure 1.Methods for Obtaining Information Preferred by Beef Producers Surveyed at Washington State University BeefProduction ConferencesFigure 2.Sources of Information Used for Decision Making Preferred by Beef Producers Surveyed at Washington StateUniversity (WSU) Beef Production ConferencesResearch In Brief Do Beef Production Conferences Affect Beef Producers' Perceptions of Applied Research and Extension Programs? JOE 56(3)©2018 Extension Journal Inc 2Postconference surveys showed large improvements in producers' perceptions of the quality of WSU beef cattleresearch and Extension programs (Table 2). Unlike with the preconference survey both years, only smallpercentages of attendees reported not knowing about the programs. Additionally, the percentages of respondentswho reported that the research and Extension programs were good or excellent increased to between 73% and90%, indicating that these face-to-face conferences were successful in improving perceptions of WSU beef cattleresearch and Extension programs. Finally, at least 75% of beef producers were very likely or without a doubtgoing to apply information learned at the conferences to their operations (Figure 3).Table 2.Beef Producers' Postconference Perceptions of Washington StateUniversity (WSU) Beef Cattle Research and Extension Programs at2014 and 2016 WSU Beef Production Conferences2014 2016Quality rating Research Extension Research ExtensionExcellent 31% 33% 28% 25%Good 49% 40% 62% 53%Fair 11% 19% 10% 12%Poor 6% 3% 0% 2%Don't know 3% 5% 0% 8%Figure 3.Beef Producers' Likelihood of Applying Information from the 2014 and 2016 Washington State University BeefProduction ConferencesResearch In Brief Do Beef Production Conferences Affect Beef Producers' Perceptions of Applied Research and Extension Programs? JOE 56(3)©2018 Extension Journal Inc 3Conclusions and Recommendations for Extension ProgrammingBased on the results of our surveys, WSU should maintain beef production conferences. They meet needs acrossthe distribution of beef producers. Further, WSU should increase publication of articles on translational researchin beef trade magazines and journals to serve the educational needs of younger beef producers. Finally, Internetsites at WSU should contain more translational research information.These recommendations may be applicable to other locations and agricultural producers as well. For example,other states may have higher numbers of beginning farmers than Washington State (ranked eighth) or havehigher numbers of second and third operators who have fewer years in production agriculture (U.S. Departmentof Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2012). These demographics could result in a bimodaldistribution of years in production agriculture resulting in equal need for conferences and the Internet aspreferred methods for producers to obtain educational materials.ReferencesDahlen, C. R., Hadrich, J. C., & Lardy, G. P. (2014) The North Dakota Beef Industry Survey: Implications forExtension. Journal of Extension, 52(6), Article 6RIB7. Available at:http://www.joe.org/joe/2014december/rb7.phpDecker, D., & Yerka, B. (1990). Organizational philosophy for program evaluation. Journal of Extension, 28(2),Article 2FRM1. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1990summer/f1.htmlMirando, M. A., Bewley, J. M., Blue, J., Amaral-Phillips, D. M., Corriher, V. A., Whitter, K. M., . . . Patterson, D. J.(2012). Extension education symposium: Reinventing Extension as a resource—What does the future hold?Journal of Animal Science , 90(10), 3677–3692.Radhakrishna, R. (2002). Measuring and benchmarking customer satisfaction: Implications for organizational andstakeholder accountability. Journal of Extension, 40(1), Article 1RIB2. Available at:http://www.joe.org/joe/2002february/rb2.htmlSchafer, S. R. (2006). Clientele perceptions of the University of Wyoming Cooperative Extension Service livestockprogram. Journal of Extension, 44(2), Article 2RIB6. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2006april/rb6.phpResearch In Brief Do Beef Production Conferences Affect Beef Producers' Perceptions of Applied Research and Extension Programs? JOE 56(3)©2018 Extension Journal Inc 4U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2012). Retrieved fromhttps://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Vergot, P., Israel, G., & Mayo, D. E. (2005). Sources and channels of information used by beef cattle producers in12 counties of the northwest Florida Extension district. Journal of Extension, 43(2), Article 2RIB6. Available at:http://www.joe.org/joe/2005april/rb6.phpWarner, P. D., Christenson, J. A., Dillman, D. A., & Salant, P. (1996). Public perception of Extension. Journal ofExtension, 34(4), Article 4FEA1. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1996august/a1.phpYoung, R. E., & Cunningham, C. J. (1977). Extension output measures as identified by Extension clientele.Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED152982.pdfCopyright © by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. Articles appearing in the Journal become the property ofthe Journal. Single copies of articles may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use in educational ortraining activities. Inclusion of articles in other publications, electronic sources, or systematic large-scaledistribution 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 SupportResearch In Brief Do Beef Production Conferences Affect Beef Producers' Perceptions of Applied Research and Extension Programs? JOE 56(3)©2018 Extension Journal Inc 5

Do Beef Production Conferences Affect Beef Producers\u27 Perceptions of Applied Research and Extension Programs?

https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1607&context=joe

Do Beef Production Conferences Affect Beef Producers\u27 Perceptions of Applied Research and Extension Programs?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Clemson University: TigerPrints