LIBRARY
f‘“""f"". State
I University

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

2007 EVALUATION OF THE MICHIGAN STATE
UNIVERSITY EXTENSION SUGARBEET ADVANCEMENT
PROGRAM: A DESCRIPTIVE CASE STUDY

presented by

MARY ELIZABETH ZUMBRUNNEN

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Master of degree in Community, Agriculture,
Science Recreation and Resource
Studies

 

 

Major Professor’s Signature

W51‘ 28’ 24297

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 IUProj/Aoc&Pres/ClRC/DateDue.indd

2007 EVALUATION OF THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION
SUGARBEET ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM: A DESCRIPTIVE CASE STUDY

By
Mary Elizabeth ZumBrunnen

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTERS OF SCIENCE
Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies

2009

ABSTRACT

2007 EVALUATION OF THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION
SUGARBEET ADVANCEMNT PROGRAM: A DESCRIPTIVE CASE STUDY

By
Mary Elizabeth ZumBrunnen

The Michigan Sugarbeet Advancement (SBA) program was initiated in 1997 to
help sugar beet farmers adapt to economic and environmental changes through research
and dissemination. In 2006 an evaluative study was conducted to understand SBA’s
impacts on Michigan’s sugar beet industry. It attempted to understand (a) the credibility
of SBA in beet research and educational information; (b) SBA’s dissemination of
research-based information to growers; (c) changes in sugar beet production practices by
the growers due to this information. The study also attempted to learn about sugar beet
grower concerns and specific suggestions from growers for educational program

offerings.

After a careful review of SBA activities during the past ten years and discussion
with SBA Michigan State University Extension Educator and affiliated growers, a survey
instrument utilizing traditional mailing methods, was developed and delivered to MI
sugar beet farmers. The population included 1,342 sugar beet growers across Michigan.
The survey was administered during January — March 2007. The survey had a response

rate of 23.4 percent.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................... iv
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................... v
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
The study ..................................................................................... 3
Importance of the Study .................................................................... 5
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Michigan Sugar Beets ....................................................................... 6
Michigan State University Extension ..................................................... 7
Program Evaluation ........................................................................ 12

CHAPTER HI. METHODOLOGY

The Design .................................................................................. 21
Study Population ........................................................................... 23
Data Analysis ............................................................................... 24
CHAPTER IV. FINDINGS
Research Objective 1: Socio-economic data ............................................ 25
Research Objective 2: Preferred sources of education and research
Information ......................................................................... 32
Research Objective 3: Grower participation in Sugarbeet Advancement
programs. .................................................................................................. 35
Research Objective 4: Sugar beet grower perceptions of the Sugarbeet
Advancement program ............................................................ 37
Research Objective 5: Changes in production practice .............................. 41
Research Objective 6: Changes in sugar beet yield .................................... 72
Research Objective 7: Areas of concern ................................................ 74

Research Objective 8: Suggestions for Sugarbeet Advancement improvement. . .76

CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary .................................................................................... 78
Conclusion ................................................................................. 83
Recommendations for Future Research ................................................ 84
APPENDICES
Appendix A. 2006 Producer Cover Letter .............................................. 87
Appendix B. 2006 Producer Survey ..................................................... 88
Appendix C. 2001 Producer Survey ..................................................... 94
Appendix D. 2006 Telephone Interview ................................................ 96
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................. 100

LIST TABLES

Table l: Socio-economic characteristics of sugar beet farmers ............................... 28
Table 2: Sugar beet farmers computer/internet access ......................................... 31
Table 3: Use of computer/internet and e-mail account ......................................... 32

Table 4: Farmer participation in Sugarbeet Advancement programs and activities. . . . . ...36

Table 5: Educational and research program ratings by farmers .............................. 38
Table 6: Perceptions of the Sugarbeet Advancement program ............................... 40
Table 7: Conservation tillage ...................................................................... 61
Table 8: Sugar beet production yield ............................................................. 73

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Type of farmer ........................................................................... 25
Figure 2: Type of farm operated .................................................................. 26
Figure 3: Level of education ....................................................................... 27
Figure 4: Farm passed down from family member to family member ....................... 29
Figure 5: Intent to pass down to family member in future .................................... 29
Figure 6: Farmer intention after retirement if not passing farm down ....................... 30
Figure 7: Source of preferred information ....................................................... 33
Figure 8: Preferred lead educational programming source for sugar beet industry. . . . . ....33
Figure 9: Most heavily relied on source of information for current research

information .................................................................................. 34
Figure 10: Most influential source of information when selecting beet varieties ........... 43
Figure 11: Use of primed seed ..................................................................... 44
Figure 12: Year farmer began using primed seed ............................................... 45
Figure 13: Most influential information source for use of primed seed ..................... 46
Figure 14: Most influential information source for changes in planting date. . . . . . . . . . . .....48
Figure 15: Plant population information source ................................................. 49
Figure 16: Use of BeetCast to time fungicide applications .................................... 50
Figure 17: Leafspot control improved by BeetCast ............................................ 51
Figure 18: Improved timing of fungicide application by BeetCast ........................... 51
Figure 19: Other information sources for fungicide application .............................. 52
Figure 20: Use of split rates to control weeds in 1997 ......................................... 54
Figure 21: Use of split rates to control weeds in 2006 ......................................... 54
Figure 22: Use of microrate applications in 2006 ............................................... 55

Figure 23: Most influential source of information or education for changes in weed

control information during the last ten years .................................... . ...... 56
Figure 24: Lower profit due to Rhizoctonia Crown Rot ten years ago ....................... 57
Figure 25: Better control/management of Rhizoctonia Crown Rot today ................... 58
Figure 26: Application of fungicide for Rhizoctonia Crown Rot ............................. 58

Figure 27: Most influential source of information or education for new methods of
Rhizoctonia Crown Rot applied within the last ten years ............................ 59

Figure 28: Most influential source of information for change in amount of nitrogen

applied ........................................................................................ 60
Figure 39: Most influential source of information or education for changes in tillage

system ........................................................................................ 62
Figure 30: Cultivating farmers ..................................................................... 63
Figure 3]: Farmers who reduced the number of cultivations in the last ten years ......... 64

Figure 32: Most influential source of information or education for change in cultivation

Systems ...................................................................................... 65
Figure 33: Farmers indicating sugar beet cyst nematode ...................................... 66
Figure 34: Use of oil seed radish as a nematode trap crop .................................... 67
Figure 35: Use of oil seed radish as a nematode trap crop ten years ago .................... 67
Figure 36: Observed yield advantage of nematode tolerant varieties ........................ 68

Figure 37: Most influential source of information or education for changes in the use of

oil seed radish ............................................................................... 69
Figure 38: Use of straight or curved seed tubes ................................................. 70
Figure 39: Removal of seed tube inserts ......................................................... 71
Figure 40: Removal of seed tube inserts ten years ago ......................................... 71

Figure 41: Most influential source of information or education for changes in the use of
seed tubes ................................................................................... 72

Figure 42: Sugar beet yield profit changes in the last ten years .............................. 74

vi

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION

In 1996, the Sugarbeet Advancement (SBA) Program was established as a part of
the Michigan State University Extension Field Crop Area of Expertise Team. In an effort
to identify and solve some of the critical production problems that currently face the
sugar beet industry in Michigan, the Great Lakes Sugarbeet Advancement Program was
started in 1997. It conducts on—farm applied research and increases the educational
opportunities for sugar beet producers. The committee is a partnership of sugar beet
growers, the Michigan Sugar Company, the Monitor Sugar Company, Michigan State
University and related agribusinesses. The mission of the Sugarbeet Advancement
Committee is to utilize research and education in revitalizing the Michigan sugar beet
industry through a cooperative effort involving Michigan State University, the sugar
companies and producers. The SBA program has been funded through an assessment of
fees to sugar beet producers and companies. The program also received grant dollars
from the state funded Generating Research and Extension to meet Economic and
Environmental Needs (GREEEN) initiative coordinated by the Michigan Agricultural
Experiment Station.

This evaluation utilized a mail survey for data collection. The staff of the
Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Development Department at
Michigan State University developed a mail survey instrument in collaboration with the
representatives of the Sugarbeet Advancement Program. The questionnaire consisted of
several sections (Appendix B). The first section was designed to assess the participation
of sugar beet producers in the various educational activities supported by the program.

The second part was intended to measure the adoption of new practices and/or changes in

sugar beet production practices as a result of the SBA program. Questions were asked to
assess changes in production practices and associated economic impact of the SBA
Program and the farmers’ perceptions about the most credible and/or reliable sources of
sugar beet production information. The last section consisted of demographic
characteristics and open-ended questions. Here the farmers could suggest ways to
improve the program and indicate their major concerns on which the SBA program
should concentrate its efforts.

This survey instrument was based on the 2001 SBA evaluation (see Appendix C)
conducted by the Michigan State University Center for Evaluative Studies and a series of
meetings with Extension Educator and SBA contact, Steven Poindexter and several
producers for additional information and needs. The 2001 evaluation also utilized a self-
administered mail questionnaire and was sent to a random sample of 510 sugar beet
producers drawn from an industry list of 1,600 beet growers (Suvedi, 2001). A standard
mail survey design was implemented, which included a postcard reminder and a second
survey packet to non-respondents. The 2001 evaluation’s response rate was 36 percent.
Results from the 2001 evaluation are compare throughout this study with 2006 responses

for evaluation and suggestions for improvement of the SBA program.

The Study

A part of Michigan’s sugar beet industry’s increasing stabilization has been
MSUE’s SBA program’s delivery becoming more efficient. As many growers are
unwilling to come to multiple classroom settings, comprehensive information packages
have been developed such as the On Farm Research and Demonstration Report mailings
(MAES, 2006). The SBA program is working to create more interactive and efficient
delivery packages and reporting sessions for producers. As a part of this, statewide
baseline and follow-up studies have been conducted to determine the impacts of SBA
programming since 1997 concentrating on three main impact areas: 1) credibility in
research and educational information, 2) primary ways of disseminating information and

3) future research and education needs.

The 2001 evaluation focused on: 1) assessing the participation of sugar beet
producers in the various educational activities supported by the program, 2) measuring
the adoption of new practices and/or changes in sugar beet production practices as a
result of the SBA, 3) changes in production practices, and 4) farmers’ perceptions about
the most credible and/or reliable sources of sugar beet production information (Suvedi,
2001). The 2006 evaluative study builds on this with an overall goal of determining the
impact and influence that the SBA program has had on changes in sugar beet production
practices. Specifically, the objectives of the 2006 evaluation of the Michigan SBA
program are to:

1) Determine the demographic, socio-economic characteristics of sugar beet
growers. (Variables include: age, farm size, total beet acres under production in

1996 and 2007, years of sugar beet production experience, farm size — full time or

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)
7)

8)

part time, type of ownership, whether the farm was passed from family member to
member, educational level, county where farming and access to a computer, e-
mail account and regularity of access to e-mail.)

Determine the grower participation in SBA educational programs and activities.
Identify the sources of information utilized by sugar beet growers: 1) the most
preferred Source of information, 2) the most influential source of information
when selecting beet varieties and 3) the most heavily relied on source of current
beet research information.

Document changes in production practices from 1997 to 2006.

Ascertain grower perceptions of the quality of SBA educational programs and
activities.

Solicit growers’ perspectives on their sugar beet yield and profitability.

Explore the major concerns of Michigan sugar beet growers.

Suggest how the SBA program could improve its role in helping Michigan sugar

beet growers.

Importance of the Study

Sugarbeet Advancement has worked closely with the MSC to offer many
educational programs and conduct applied projects by facilitating efforts with company
personnel to coordinate multi-partner efforts. Sugarbeet Advancement is working to
deliver research information from all relevant sources to growers both within and out of
Michigan. To continue generating research and utilizing education to enhance
productivity and profitability of the Great Lakes sugar beet industry, SBA objectives
include cooperative efforts involving MSUE, MSC, MAES, producers and agribusiness
to identify research needs, conduct educational programming and identify promotional

and financial support.

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The literature review is presented in three sections. The first section briefly
describes the sugar beet industry in Michigan. The second section presents Michigan
State University Extension efforts in support of this industry. The final section presents
an overview of program evaluation. Each of the three sections is discussed under a
separate heading in this chapter. This information follows a progression from historical
information to specific details on current practices to help the reader better understand

existing information.

1. Sugar Beets in Michigan

Michigan Sugar Beet Production History

In the early 1900’s, the production of sugar beets was essential to Michigan as its
development alleviated the burden from industrial decline brought about by exploitation
of vast timber resources on which large populations once depended for their principle
source of revenue (Economic Geography, 1927). The sugar beet industry was particularly
important to Michigan farmers because beets were a major cash crop, an asset to the dairy
industry and provided farmers with late season crops that adapted well to the “rigorous”

climate of Michigan (Economic Geography, 1927).

The sugar beet is a member of the Amaranthaceous family and the
Chenopodiaceous subfamily. Its root contains a high concentration of sucrose and it is

grown commercially for sugar.

“Encouraged by the results of much state-wide testing of sugar beet production,
initiated by Dr. Robert C. Kedzie of the Michigan Agricultural College during the 18805,
the Michigan 1897 legislature passed a law, Act 48. Upon this ‘sugar bounty’ sugar
production became wide-spread throughout Michigan. Later “the sugar beet industry in
Michigan was termed an industry at risk when profitability declined for both producers
and processing companies. This was due in part to decreasing crop prices, increases in
foreign trade and changes in technology” (Suvedi, 2001). Sugar beet yields decreased
from 20 to 19 tons per acre in the late 19803 to 16 tons per acre in 1991-1998 (Suvedi,

2001).

11. Michigan State University Extension

The Cooperative Extension Service was launched by the Michigan Agricultural
College on July 1, 1914 (McDonel et al., 1941). Its objectives were “to aid in diffusing
among the people of the United States useful and practical information on subjects
relating to agriculture and home economics and encouragingthe application of the same”
(Simons, 1962). From this time forward MSUE has been growing and pruning its
services to best support Michigan and its Great Lakes audiences through its vision of:
strong and healthy families and optimistic youth from all cultural, ethnic and economic
backgrounds; profitable, globally competitive and safe food systems in harmony with
their natural resources base; a citizenry of all ages who understand their role as stewards

of the land and; viable and caring communities capable of generating meaningful jobs

and satisfactory income levels for all its citizens (MSUE, 2006).

To achieve this, the Michigan Council of Extension Agents, an empowerment
committee, representing Extension agents and university specialists, expressed the need
to continue increasing the expertise of staff members at the county level to meet ever-
changing educational needs of their stakeholders (MSUE, 1994). Thus, the Area of
Expertise (AoE) teams were established at Michigan State University in 1994 as: “. . .a

more formalized strategy where off-campus Provost-appointed staff and campus

specialists team up to deliver programs across a wider geographic area.”

Area of Expertise teams are designed afier self-directed work teams in business
and industry. Their objective was to energize MSU’s capacity to connect to its knowledge
through various forms of scholarship and service, with priority issues identified by
Michigan citizens and other stakeholder groups (Suvedi, 2002). Specific objectives
include: 1) a desire for more integration and collaboration between campus specialists
and county staff; 2) more integrated, interdisciplinary work across agricultural related
academic departments; 3) expanded opportunities for county-based Extension agents to
specialize; 4) more relevant Extension programs; 5) quicker response to constituent
issues and concerns, and 6) more direct involvement of constituents in the development

of Extension research and education programs (Rizzo, 2001).

The Michigan State University Extension system aids in identifying successful
programs, meeting needs to communicate impacts for county, state and federal funding,
further strengthening Extension through the Automated Reporting System and providing
opportunities for local and state staff to share programming information. The MSUE

information system is web based, meets current reporting requirements, staff receive

summer through fall training, adhere to reporting guidelines, success stories are reported

on the Internet and a progress report is also maintained national wide.

Field Crop AoE

It was recommended by Habeeb, Birkenholz and Weston (1987) that agricultural
Extension workers increase their amount of direct contact with clientele groups, refocus
Extension programs, and expand delivery methods to address the needs of innovative
farmers. Lavis and Blackburn (1990) also found a positive relationship between client
satisfaction and contact with local Extension offices. They concluded that people who
use Extension more intensively rate it higher than non-users. Warner and Christenson
(1984) state that satisfaction is considerably greater among persons who are regular
rather than occasional users of the services. Auburn and Backer (1992) suggest that
communication between farmers and researchers usually has been one-sided and that

researchers have not adequately considered the research priorities of farmers.

The importance of effective delivery methods to the impact of Extension
programs has also been suggested (Israel, 1991). From 1996 and 1999 studies
conducted by Suvedi, Lapinski and Campo (2000) it was found that 1) awareness of
MSUE remains consistently high among agricultural producers; 2) participation among
full-time farmers in MSUE programs and activities is high across producer groups; 3)
The number of part-time farmers is increasing and these farmers participate less in all

MSUE programs; 4) farmers desire more one-on-one interaction with Extension agents;

5) marketing, business management and farm economics were named important issues
by more than half of participants in both 1996 and 1999. “The Field Crops AoE Team
includes county and campus-based MSU Extension staff dedicated to helping producers
improve themselves, their businesses and their environment through an educational
process that applies knowledge, demonstration and research to critical issues” (Field

Crop AoE, 2006).

The Sugarbeet Advancement Program

Through the Field Crop AoE, Michigan Sugar Company, producers and
agribusiness, the Sugarbeet Advancement Program was developed in 1997 to help sugar
beet farmers adapt to economic and environmental changes through research and
dissemination. More specifically, the SBA program introduces “new technologies into
current dry edible bean and sugar beet production systems that are profitable to the
growers of these crops. New developments in varieties include increased yield and
quality, disease resistance and grth habit that are requested by farmers and industry

representatives working in cooperation with research scientists” (MAES, 2006).

The SBA program works with the Michigan Sugar Company which is the largest
beet sugar processor east of the Mississippi River and fourth largest in the United States
(MSC, 2006). Currently there are four operating factories (Bay City, Caro, Croswell,
Sebewaing) and three warehouse terminals located in Michigan and Ohio. It generates
nearly $300 million in direct economic activity annually in the local communities in

which it operates (MSC, 2006).

10

Today, Michigan is the country’s number four producer of sugar beets (MAES, 2006).

Sugarbeet Advancement has worked closely with the MSC in many educational
programs and some research projects. The Michigan Sugar Co-operative is composed of
approximately 1,200 growers in both Michigan and Ontario. Funding for research is
obtained from the Michigan Sugar Company, Michigan State University Extension’s
Generating Research and Extension to meet Economic and Environmental Needs project,
the United States Department of Agriculture, Ontario and private industry. Each year
anywhere from 12 to 15 researchers are being fimded in projects ranging from beet

storage to seedling emergence (MAES, 2006).

Sugarbeet Advancement has worked to facilitate efforts with company personnel
to coordinate multi-partner efforts. One large impact of the SBA program in solving
industry problems has been increased efficiency and coordination in prioritizing problems
and partnering with MSU, the Michigan Sugar Company and other industry professionals
(MAES, 2006). For example, the Michigan Sugar Company’s research efforts have
always benefited the industry but its ability to educate the growers has not been as
effective, (MAES, 2006). Therefore, the SBA program is helping deliver research
information from all relevant sources to growers both within and outside of Michigan.
Due in part to this, Michigan currently enjoys the fastest improving recoverable white
sugar per acre in the nation (MAES, 2006). To continue generating research and utilizing
education to enhance productivity and profitability of the Great Lakes sugar beet industry

SBA objectives include cooperative efforts involving MSU, the Michigan Sugar

11

Company, producers and agribusiness to (MAES, 2006):

0 Identify research needs,
0 Conduct educational programming, and

0 Identify promotional and financial support

III. Program Evaluation

Evaluation is a management tool that involves measuring and reporting on the
results of programs and projects. Case, Andrews and Werner (1988) provides another
definition: “. . .to make explicit judgment about the worth of all or part of a program by
collecting evidence to determine if acceptable standards have been meet”. “Evaluation is
both an art and a science. The art of evaluation involves identifying purposes and
audiences, creating appropriate designs, and interrupting data about a program, project or
policy. The science of evaluation involves systematically gathering and analyzing
evidence about impacts” (Suvedi and Morford, 2003). Patton (1997) describes three
primary uses of evaluation: 1) to judge the merit or worth of a program, 2) to improve

programs and/or 3) to generate knowledge.

“The primary focus in making evaluation decisions should be on getting the best
possible data to adequately answer primary users’ evaluation questions given available
resources and time. The emphasis on appropriateness and credibility — measures, samples
and comparisons that are appropriate and credible to address key evaluation issues”

(Patton, 1997).

12

“Any definition of evaluation in the context of training and development should
include a number of elements: what it is, what it involves and what it leads to” (Marsden,
1991). Evaluation is an analytical process. Evaluation involves the collection of
subjective and objective data from a number of sources using a variety of techniques
about a training pro gram and the reduction of such data (Marsden, 1991). Evaluation
leads to the synthesis of the data into a report containing a summary of results and
recommendations, with validated rationales, about the program being evaluated

(Marsden, 1991).

Hewitt ( 1989) sees the purpose of evaluation as providing data demonstrating
the program's effectiveness on targeted behavior. Wigley (1988) has a broader view of
the purpose to improve the program and facilitate informed decision making. A
comprehensive view of the purpose of evaluation is given by Bushnell (1990) who
identifies four purposes: "to determine whether training programs are achieving the
right purposes... to detect the types of changes they [the trainers] should make to
improve course design, content, and delivery”. The ultimate purpose being to "balance

the cost and results of training."

Integrating evaluation with program development is critical to producing
educational programs that have demonstrable impact (Brown and Keirnan, 1998).
Scriven was the first to define two types of educational program evaluation-formative
and surmnative (1967). Recently, Patton (1994) outlined their sequential nature: first,
formative data are collected and used to prepare for the summative evaluation; then, a

summative evaluation is conducted to provide data for external accountability.

13

However, Patton and others emphasize that evaluation should be an integral
part of the program development process and, therefore, place equal or greater weight
on the first phase, formative evaluation. According to Patton (1994), a formative
evaluation should provide feedback on the original program and improve program
implementation, while a summative evaluation should determine if the desired

outcomes are achieved and can be attributed to the revised program.

Chambers (1994) argues it is not the timing, but the use of evaluation data that
distinguishes formative fiom summative. He emphasizes that formative evaluation
provides data with which to modify the initial intervention and its delivery so that the
final intervention is more effective as revealed by the summative evaluation. Scheirer
(1994) recommends using formative evaluation in a pilot situation to collect
information on the feasibility of activities and their acceptance by recipients,
suggesting qualitative methods such as interviews, focus groups, and observations to
gather these data. In sum, these researchers suggest that formative evaluation should
examine the effect of the program, the process of delivery, and the reactions of

participants in the program.

Extension professionals are increasingly being asked for more accountability
in their work by stakeholders (Altschuld & Zheng, 1995). In response, they have
turned to the processes and products of evaluation for methods in documenting
impacts of their programs. Many evaluation models have been applied with varying

degrees of success to Extension programs. Some models have followed a singular

14

structured format (Bailey & Deen, 2002; Garst & Bruce, 2003), while others have
used a variety of activities to demonstrate program outcomes (Brown & Kieman,

1998; Chapman-Novakofski et al., 2004).

The purposes of evaluation have evolved over time and are currently described
by Mark, Henry, and Julnes (2000) as a) assigning the merit and worth of a program,
b) improving the program or organization, c) oversight and compliance, and (1)
knowledge development or testing theory. The process of evaluation can occur before
and during (formative), or afier (summative) (Scriven, 1991) the program has been
implemented. Formative evaluation is designed to facilitate program improvement,
whereas, summative evaluations are designed to judge the merit and worth of a

program or to focus on oversight and compliance issues (Kelsey, et.a1 2005).

In designing a survey project it is first important to establish the goals of the
project or what an organization is interested in learning more about. Second, the sample
size or who is to be surveyed must be determined. Following this, the methodology most
efficient to analyzing the organization’s goals must to be determined. A questionnaire is
then designed containing what will be asked. Then a pre-test, if practical, is conducted on
stakeholders and evaluator experts. It is then time to conduct the actual survey, interviews
or focus groups and enter data. Following this the data is analyzed and a report produced

to inform stakeholders of study findings. (Survey Systems, 2006)

Determining the most efficient method of gathering data involves an

understanding of best modes of reaching the study population, organization constraints

15

such as financial boundaries and resource capacity. In this study a mail survey was
chosen due to a computerized tracking system connected to farmer population for
efficiency; the generation and mailing of surveys and follow-up mailings, and ease of

data entry and analysis.

Mail surveys have many advantages and disadvantages. Mail surveys are among
the least expensive. This is the only kind of survey researchers can execute with names
and addresses of the target population, but not their telephone numbers. The
questionnaire can include pictures - something that is not possible in phone surveys. Mail
surveys allow the respondent to answer at their leisure, rather than at the often
inconvenient moment they are contacted for a phone or personal interview. For this
reason, they are not considered as intrusive as other kinds of interviews. (Cancer

Research Prevention Center, 2006)

Disadvantages may include time as they can take longer to conduct than other
kinds. Researchers will need to wait several weeks after mailing out questionnaires
before they can be sure that they have gotten most of the responses. In populations of
lower educational and literacy levels, response rates to mail surveys are often too small to
be useful. This, in effect, eliminates many immigrant populations that form substantial
markets in many areas. Even in well-educated populations, response rates vary from as
low as 3 percent up to 90 percent. Typically, the best response levels are achieved from
highly-educated people and people with a particular interest in the subject (Cancer

Prevention Center, 2006)

16

2|

‘1‘ 'a__" H

One way of improving response rates to mail surveys is to mail a postcard telling
the sample to watch for a questionnaire in the next week or two. Another is to follow up a
questionnaire mailing after a couple of weeks with a card asking people to return the

questionnaire. Unfortunately, this increases mailing costs. (Survey Systems, 2006)

Another way to increase responses to mail surveys is to use an incentive. One
possibility is to send a dollar bill (or more) along with the survey (or offer to donate
the dollar to a charity specified by the respondent). Many people will consider their
time worth more than a dollar therefore it is necessary to express the dollar as
“thanks” rather than payment for their time. Another possibility is to include the
people who return completed surveys in a drawing for a prize. A third is to offer a
copy of the (non-confidential) result highlights to those who complete the
questionnaire. Any of these techniques may increase the response rates. (Survey

Systems, 2006)

In some instances, a mixed-mode strategy has been suggested such as Web
surveys, focus groups and telephone surveys, minimizing non-response (Dillman
_2__OO_O; §_ch_aefer and Dillrn_an 1998). To reliably use a mixed-mode strategy (e. g., mail
surveys and Web surveys) or to select among alternative survey modes, researchers
must understand and demonstrate the equivalency and complementarity, or relative

strengths of alternative modes (Dillman 2000). Researchers have used survey response

rates as one measure of equivalency. (Kaplowitz, et.al, 2004)

The cover letter is an essential part of the survey. To a large degree, the cover

17

___ 1'!

: L».—$ 4..“

letter will affect whether or not the respondent completes the questionnaire. It is
important to maintain a friendly tone and keep it as short as possible. The importance of
the cover letter should not be underestimated. It provides an opportunity to persuade the
respondent to complete the survey. If the questionnaire can be completed in less than five
minutes, the response rate can be increased by mentioning this in the cover letter. (Stat

Pack, 2007)

Once a method of evaluating a program is chosen, it is “conducted during the life
of a program to identify its strengths or weaknesses and enhance its quality and
effectiveness” (Suvedi and Morford, 2003). Evaluation requires that managers identify
“researchable questions” that can be answered by collecting and analyzing data about
their program. Evaluators typically try to identify cause and effect relationships between
an activity designed to induce change (such as a workshop) and a particular desired

outcome (such as increased knowledge of participants). (Suvedi and Morford 2003)

Suvedi and Morford (2003) discuss twelve steps to conducting program
evaluation. This begins with identifying the purpose of an evaluation or clearly
identifying the reason for conducting an evaluation. Next, a review of program goals
must be conducted to better understand changes program designers intended to create.
Thirdly, it is necessary to identify key evaluation stakeholders. A stakeholder is one who
has a stake in the outcome of the evaluation, not the audience targeted by the program or
project. This includes people both inside and outside the organization. (Suvedi and

Morford, 2003)

18

Fourth, it is important to contact these stakeholders. Their input is required
regarding questions they have about the program. Also, the purpose of the evaluation
should be revisited after conversations with stakeholders and the evaluator’s purpose for
conducting it. Successful evaluation relies on designers developing clear, specific and
measurable objectives at the outset of a program. Objectives should state what changes or

outcomes are expected as a result of the program or project.

At this point it may be necessary to re—write the evaluation. Sixth, it should be E
decided whether the evaluation should be conducted in-house or out. Based on the scope
of the evaluation and the nature of questions, program implementers should decide
whether it is possible to conduct the evaluation through program staff or outside

personnel. A budget is then formed based on this decision. (Suvedi and Morford, 2003)

Steps seven and eight include determining and creating the evaluation
method/design. This is based on formative or summative design, population and budget.
It may be possible to update existing evaluative instruments or instead it may be
necessary to create new ones. Afler the instrument is agreed upon and designed, it must
be tested. The evaluation tool may be administered to a group of respondents who are
willing to provide their feedback. This may include addressing questions that are not

clear, missing information and misleading writing. (Suvedi and Morford, 2003)

Step 10, as discussed by Suvedi and Morford (2003) includes collecting
evaluation data. This is followed by an in—depth analysis and lastly, preparing a report for

stakeholders (Suvedi and Morford 2003). It is important to report accurately and fairly on

19

evidence as to program strengths and weaknesses. “Ways of measuring complex
phenomena involve simplifications that are inherently somewhat arbitrary, are always
constrained by limited resources and time, inevitably involve competing and conflicting
priorities, and rest on a foundation of values preferences that are typically resolved by
pragmatic considerations, disciplinary biases and measurement traditions” (Patton, 1997).
Therefore, it is necessary to take every precaution to ensure data is accurately represented

in a sensitive way while addressing areas for improvement.

Increased competition, fewer dollars, greater need, greater efficiency expectation,
increased scrutiny, need for collaboration and increased accountability require that
programs are able to document their improvement, growth and success. The Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 states that “The law. . .requires that we chart a new
course for every endeavor. . .see how well we are progressing, tell the public how we are

doing, stop things that don’t work and never stop improving...” (Clinton, 1993).

In this light, this formative evaluation is designed to help program managers
determine if adjustments are needed. Reporting is necessary for accountability, program
monitoring, evaluation, improvement and sharing lessons learned with others. Therefore,
needs are identified, productivity assessed, resource utilization acknowledged and
decisions regarding future support can be better informed. Documenting such impact, or
clear description of the value of a program to people can be found in increased
knowledge and skills, modified behavior, financial gains, production efficiencies,

conservation or environmental resources and improved conditions.

20

_ fl

CHAPTER H. METHODOLOGY

The Design

The population for this study included sugar beet farmers across Michigan. The
mailing list of the SBA program served as the sampling frame, totaling 1,342. This study
followed a descriptive case study research design, utilizing a mail survey for data
collection and analysis. A mail survey was chosen because of its low cost and
advantageous uniform access to dispersed populations without interviewer bias (Dillman,

2006)

The survey instrument was developed after a careful review of the SBA program.
Results from the 2001 study were utilized to facilitate development of new survey
questions. The draft instrument was examined by the Center for Evaluative Studies,
MSUE SBA program Educator and several SBA affiliated growers, who provided
feedback upon which the instrument was revised. A six page survey instrument was
developed to assess SBA impacts, credibility, informational avenues, future research and

education using both closed and open-ended questions (Appendix A).

Respondents were asked to indicate their farming practices, information sources,
profitability, SBA program participation, computer-use and
suggestions/comments/concerns. Topics covered many farming practices concerning
primed seed, planting dates, plant population, Cercospora Leafspot control, weed control,
Rhizoctonia Crown Rot and more. Questions such as: “Do you use primed seed?”, “On

average, has your planting date changed during the last ten years?”, and “What was your

21

2006 average seed spacing” were asked.

After each farm practice question, a follow-up question was asked to help
researchers understand the most influential sources of information for current practices
and any changes made. Also, general preferred sources of research and educational
information questions were asked such as “Overall, who do you rely most heavily on for
current research information?” and “Who do you feel should take the lead in providing

educational programming for the sugar beet industry?”

Concerning profitability, respondents were first asked to indicate their average
beet yields in 1997 and 2006. Second, participants indicated whether their sugar beet
profits had increased or decreased during the last ten years. If profits had decreased, a

follow-up question requested respondents to detail reasons for this.

Participants were also asked to rate the quality of SBA program events and media
using a one to five scale with one representing “Poor” and five representing “Excellent”.
A Likert-type scale was implemented to gather information about SBAP participation and
change in practices. The scale relied on a one to five numbering system with one being
“Strongly Agree” and five being “Strongly Disagree.” Open-ended questions solicited

suggestions for SBAP improvement, grower concerns and comments.

This study also attempted to determine efficient electronic avenues for research
and education dissemination by asking whether respondents had access to computer, the

Internet, and email accounts. To understand if these means are efficient ways of

22

I'l"

communicating, questions were also asked regarding daily and weekly use. Using a one
to six scale (1 = “Never” and 6 = “Daily”) participants were asked if they regularly used a

computer, the Internet and accessed their email accounts.

The survey concluded with an open-ended question asking if respondents had any
other information to share such as ideas, concerns and suggestions. Throughout the
survey similar questions were asked such as “Please suggest how the SBA program could
improve its role in helping Michigan beet growers” and “What are your major concerns

for Michigan sugar beet growers?”

The data collection instrument was formatted using Adobe Pagemaker 7.0 and
designed to be folded and taped shut with pre-paid postage and tracking number included
on the front. The SBAP Extension Educator, representatives from the SBAP mailing list
and Center for Evaluative Studies staff reviewed the survey to ensure usability and
reliability. The survey instrument took no more than ten minutes to complete. The survey
was approved by the MSU Social Science, Behavioral and Education Institutional

Review Board in November of 2006.

Study Population

The target population included all 1,342 sugar beet farmers in Michigan. The
survey population consisted of 1,342 sugar beet farmers from the SBA producer mailing

list. Of these, about one-quarter of the surveys were returned. This totaled 305 usable

23

responses. Thirty-seven surveys were returned unusable for reasons including incorrect
address, deceased contacts and recipients’ change of employment. There was an overall

response rate of 23.4 percent.

Surveys were mailed during the first week of January, 2007. The mail-out
package consisted of the questionnaire, a cover letter and instructions for folding
responses to expose postage ensuring free return. The cover letter emphasized the
importance of the survey, guaranteed confidentiality and requested a prompt response.

Data collection was concluded March 15, 2007.

Analysis of Data

Data was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS
12.0) computer software program. Descriptive statistics such as frequencies, percentages,
medians, means and standard deviations were used to analyze the data. Qualitative
responses were analyzed through data entry, coding and theme notation in Microsoft

Word 2003.

24

CHAPTER IV. FINDINGS

Socio-economic Characteristics 0 Res ondents

The number of farms in America has been on the decline since the 1970’s
(USDA, 2006). With this in mind, the study attempted to understand current Michigan
farming demographics, such as the number of firll-time farmers, their age and what they
plan to do with their farm in the future (e.g., sell it, pass down to family members or rent

it out).

Of the 305 respondents, most (83.6%, n=255) were full-time farmers as shown in

Figure 1. This reflects 2001 results with respondents (85%) also considering themselves
full-time farmers (Suvedi, 2001). Part-time farmers consisted of about one-tenth (11.1%,
=34) of respondents. Those that considered themselves something “Other” than farmers
(5.2%, n=16) responded with, “retir ” (n=10) yet still active on the farm or as “technical

support” (n=6) such as consultants and field representatives for example.

Figure 1: Type of Farmer (N=305)

 

Other, 5.2% 1
I

Part-time farmer,
11.1%

   

Full-time farmer.
83.6%

 

 

 

25

Growers’ needs, efficient communication avenues and future farm trends vary by
age. To understand Michigan sugar beet farming population needs and avenues for
disseminating educational information, respondents were asked how old they were. Most
respondents (80.3%, n=232) ranged between 31 and 60 years old and averaged about 50
years old. This was followed by almost one-fifth (17.0%, n=49) at or beyond standard

retirement age. The minority of respondents (2.8%, n=8) were 30 years old or younger.

Survey results demonstrate that more than half (59.4%, n=174) of Michigan sugar
beet producers operate family owned farms (Figure 2). Almost one-third operate
individually owned farms (30.0%, n=88) and less than one-tenth of beet farm are
corporately owned (7.8%, n=23). “Other” farm type responses (2.7%, n=8) included
“partnership”, “technical support to beet growers” and “land privately owned, farming

under corporation”.

Figure 2: Type of farm operated (N=293)

 

 

59.4%

30%

 

10 ~ - 7.8% 270/
" . 0

Family owned individually owned Corporatcly owned Other

 

 

26

In this study respondents were asked to indicate their level of education (Figure
3). Responses will help researchers understand how best to communicate with growers
and which channels to use. About half of the respondents (50.5%, n=152) indicated their
highest level of education to be a high school diploma followed by some college (20.6%,
n=62). This was followed by about one-tenth having earned an associates degree (11.6%,

n=35) or a bachelor’s degree (10.3%, n=31).

Figure 3: Level of education (N=30l)

 

 

 

 

 

The farm size of sugar beet growers ranged between 39 and 6,900 total acres and
average about 1,325 acres (Stdv.= 1188.3). Of this, farmers plan to grow about 250 acres
(M=253.4, Stdv.= 256.5) of sugar beets in 2007 as shown in Table 1. This sugar beet
acreage ranged from nine to 1,500 acres. Average beet acreage has increased from 1996

by about 25 acres. When asked how long they have been growing beets, farmers

27

responded with a range from one to sixty years with an average of about 27 years
(M=26.7, Stdv.=12.8). Similarly, the 2001 study also found that more than half of

respondents (56 %) had grown beets for more than 20 years (Suvedi, 2001).

It was found that farmers plan to grow sugar beets on about 253.4 acres (Stdv.=
256.5) ranging between nine and 1,500 in 2007. This has increased from 1997 when
harvested acres totaled about 224.9 (Stdv.= 221.1). In 2001, the mean acreage contracted

was 223, with a minimum of 13 and a maximum of 1,200 (Suvedi, 2001).

Table l: Socio-economic characteristics of sugar beet farmers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Median Mean (Stdv.)
What was your age as of last year? (N=289) 50 50.4 (10.5)
What is your total farm size including all
crops?(N=292) 980 1324.6 (1188.3)
On how many total beet acres do you plan to grow in
2007? (N=285) 160 253.4 (256.5)
How many total harvested acres did you have under
sugar beet production in 1996? (N=260) 150 224.9 (221.1)
How many years have you been involved in growing
beets?(N=294) 29 26.7 (12.8)

 

Respondents represented 15 sugar beet producing counties in Michigan. The most
commonly sited sugar beet farming counties were Huron, Saginaw, Tuscola and Sanilac
or some combination of these and/or Arenac, Bay, Clinton, Gratiot, Isabella, Lapeer,
Midland, Montcalm, Ogemaw, St. Clair and Shiawassee. Combinations included some

such as “Midland, Gladwin and Bay” or “Sanilac and St. Clair”.

28

Farm ownership is a key factor to family economic wellbeing in the farming
community. Respondents were asked to indicate the nature of ownership of the farm they
operate and whether they inherited the land on which they grow sugar beets. Slightly
more than three-quarters (78.4%, n=229) of farmers said their farms had been passed
down from family member to family member as shown in Figure 4. In the future, also
about three out of four of (75.2%, n=203) plan on passing their farms to the next
generation (Figure 5). Of those who do not plan to pass on the farm to their family

members (24.8%, n=52) most of them plan to rent (70.3%, n=52) or sell (16.2%, n=12)

(Figure 6).

Figure 4: Farm passed down from family member to family member (N=292)

 

No, 21.6%

   

Yes, 78.4%

 

 

 

29

Figure 5: Intent to pass down farm to family in the future (N=270)

 

   

No, 24.8%

Yes, 75.2%

 

 

 

Figure 6: Farmer intention after retirement if not passing farm down (N=74)

 

Other. 13.5%

 
 

Sell. 16.2%

Rent, 70.3%

 

 

 

Computer and Internet Use

Questions regarding computer access and use were asked in an attempt to better
understand avenues for educational research and information dissemination. First,
respondents were asked if they had access to a computer, the Internet and an e-mail
account. This was followed up by asking how frequently each was used on a monthly,
weekly or daily basis. It was found that nine out of ten participants have access to a
computer (90.1%, n=274), almost nine out of ten have access to the Internet (88.1%,
n=266) and almost three-quarters (70.2%, =207) have access to an e-mail account as

shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Sugar beet farmer computer/internet access

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
Yes 274 90.1
Do you have access to a computer? (N=304) No 30 9.9
Yes 266 88.1
Do you have access to the Internet? (N=302) No 36 11.9
Yes 207 70.2
Do you have an e-mail account? (N=295) No 88 29.8

 

 

Following this, questions regarding frequency of Internet use were asked to
determine the most efficient avenues for SBA communication. Together, over half of the
respondents indicated either using the computer daily (38.4%, n=112) or two to three
times per week (17.5%, n=51) as shown in Table 3. Similar results were recorded for

Internet use with about half of the respondents indicating either daily (35.8%, n=105) or

31

two to three times per week access (16.4%, n=48). Email accounts were used less

frequently by just over a quarter of participants on a daily (27%, n=78) or two to three

times per week (13.1%, n=3 8) basis. Therefore, though many have access to the

computer, Internet and e-mail accounts, electronic means of communication may not be

as effective as traditional mail based on frequency of use findings.

Table 3: Use of computer, internet and e—mail account

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
Yes 274 90.1
Do you have access to a computer? (N=304) No 30 9.9
Yes 266 88.1
Do you have access to the Internet? (N=302) No 36 11.9
Yes 207 70.2
Do you have an e-mail account? (N=295) No 88 29.8

 

Preferred Sources of Information

One of the objectives of this evaluative study was to ascertain information sources

utilized by the sugar beet growers. It attempted to understand through three questions

who farmers rely on most for production practice information. First, respondents were

asked who they prefer to get their information from. Second, farmers were asked who

they felt should take the lead in providing educational programming for the sugar beet

industry. Third, it was asked who they relied on most heavily for current research

information.

32

 

Figure 7: Source of preferred information (N=259)

 

 

 

 

-m 39% 08% 46%
.-Ialwnw.__wtwlma.w

 

 

 

 

Figure 8: Preferred lead educational programming source for the sugar beet
industry (N=238)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

40.0% v ’1 -~
30.0% ~ ‘ ~
100% -W 08% : ;. V 04% -m 13%
0.0% M ., . ,, ,.
A a e" 6“ s 5
o 8’ .
‘9be (9°90 96°?“ $4, 0“? §
8‘9 ‘9 8") Q”go“
a.“ '8‘ V: " I
‘9 K s. «3" .
\"~9 29 Q“ i
fix“ “is? i

33

Figure 9: Most heavily relied on source of information for current research
information (N=246)

 

 

 

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

10 0% - 2.0% 4.1% 3.3% 0.4% 2.4%
A ’b" 6" \‘3" {‘2' 2 c}
¢

68 {39% «750% 06° .920 .éroo 0.19
(95 \c} bs} QQ c0
c, 0,») ,3 ‘0‘ .5}
0* we? $1, 90
{\9 9:5 ‘b
Y9” 9°

 

 

In 2001, survey respondents were asked if they had ever heard of SBA. Almost all
of the respondents (98%) responded affirmatively. In 2006, Sugar Beet Advancement
was most frequently mentioned as the preferred source of information (45.2%, n=l 17) for
Michigan sugar beet farmers also shown in Figure 7. This is followed by
Agriculturalist/MI Sugar (31.7%, n=82) and Elevator agronomist (11.6%, n=30). When
asked who should take the lead in providing educational programming for the MI sugar
beet industry two-thirds of respondents (67.6%, n=161) felt that SBA should be
responsible (Figure 8). This was followed by Agriculturist/MI Sugar (29.8%, n=71) and
“Other” (1.3%, n=3) answers included combinations of SBA and the MI Sugar Company

and “someone that doesn’t have financial interests in selling chemicals”.

When asked who respondents relied on most heavily for research based sugar beet

34

information overall, once again SBA received almost three-quarters of responses (70.7%,
n=174) as shown in Figure 9. This follows from 2001, when 66 percent of respondents
considered SBA the most credible source of sugar beet information. Similarly, this was
again followed by Agriculturalist/MI Sugar (17.1%, n=42). “Elevator agronomist” (4.1%,

n=10) and “Private consultant” (3.3%, n=8) were also acknowledged in 2006.

SBA Program Participation

The SBA program was established in 1996 to provide research and education to
Michigan beet growers. Beginning in 1997, SBA organized various kinds of educational
programs for farmers. This study attempted to determine what types of SBA programs
respondents have participated in and what SBA information they have received. SBA
activities included farm meetings/workshops, field days/research tours, Bean and Beet
Symposium, Seed Week and harvester clinics. Media and SBA information used includes
“On Farm Research and Demonstration” publication, quarterly newsletters, Cercospora
Leafspot bulletin, tip cards, contact with MSUE Educator, SBA website and mass media.
Respondents were asked to indicate if they participated in these educational programs or

benefitted from these activities. Findings are displayed in Table 4 below.

35

Table 4. Farmer participation in SBA programs/activities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. N Frequency Percent
Attended sugar beet related farm meetings/workshops 296 253 85.5
Participated in sugar beet field days/research tours 296 178 60.1
Participated/attended the Bean and Beet Symposium 297 194 65.3
Participated in Sugar Beet Seed Week 292 197 67.5
Used “On Farm Research Demonstration” SBA 295 219 74.2
publication
Used information from quarterly newsletters 297 271 91.2
Used Cercospora Leafspot bulletin information 294 259 88.1
Used production tip cards (tips for maximizing
sucrose production) 29] 208 71.5
Gained information through mass media (newspaper,
radio or TV) 288 129 4.8
Had contact with an MSU Extension Specialist 291 127 43.6
Had a local Extension Educator(s) visit my farm 285 57 20.0
Attended harvester clinics 284 104 36.6
Used the SBA website 289 101 34.9

 

 

 

Respondents indicated participating in most SBA activities and receiving direct
publications as shown in Table 4. The majority of respondents indicated receiving
information and/or participating in activities such as farm meeting and workshops
(85.5%, n=253); field days/ research tours (60.1%, n=178); Bean and beet symposium
(65.3%, 194); Seed Week (67.5%, n=197); On Farm Research and Demonstration
(74.2%, n=219); Information and newsletters (91.2%, n=271); Cercospora Leafspot
bulletin (88.1%, n=259) and; tip cards (71.5%, 208). It should be noted, however, that
information gained through mass media (44.8%, n=129); contact with MSU Specialist
(43.6%, n=127), local Extension Educator farm visit (20.0%, n=57), harvester clinics
(36.6%, n=104) and; SBA website (34.9%, n=101) were less frequently used sources of

information for sugar beet production.

36

This is approximately the same as 2001, when most respondents (92%) indicated
receiving quarterly newsletters and/or bulletins. However, also in 2001, more respondents
indicated receiving the “On-farm Research and Demonstration: Sugarbeet Advancement”
publication (89%). Four out of five (80 percent) attended sugar beet-related farm

meetings/workshops.

SBA Program Ratings

After gaining a clearer picture of what sources of information sugar beet growers
prefer, including SBA programs, this study asked participants to rate these programs.
Using a scale of one to five with one indicating “Poor” and five indicating “Excellent”,
participants were asked to rate SBA programs such as educational programs, field and

research tours, communications and services. Results are shown in Table 5.

37

Table 5: Educational research program quality ratings by farmers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very
Poor Fair Good Good Excellent Mean

N (%) (%) (%) (‘70) (%) (Sth-)
Educational
programs
such as
workshops/ 3.96
meetings 256 1.6 2.7 19.5 50.0 26.2 (.84)
Educational
field/research 3.78
tours 221 1.4 5.0 28.5 44.8 20.4 (.87)
Communicati
ons such as
newsletters,
tip cards and 3.9
bulletins 284 2.1 3.9 23.6 42.6 27.8 (.92)
Services such
as Extension
contacts and 3.07
farm visits 217 10.1 24.0 29.0 22.1 14.7 (1.21)

 

 

Combined, over three-fourths of participants rated educational programs as
“Good”, “Very Good” or “Excellent”. Educational programs were rated the most highly
with half of the respondents (50.0%, n=128) rating them as “Very Good” and over a
quarter rating them as “Excellent” (26.2%, n=67). Educational field/research tours were
rated “Good” by almost one-third of participants (28.5%, n=63) and “Very Good” by
almost half of the respondents (44.8%, n=99). Communication tip cards were also highly
rated by about two fifths (42.6%, n=121) responding that they are “Very Good” and
almost one-third (27.8%, n=79) indicating they are “Excellent”. Services such as
Extension contacts and farm visits were rated as “Good” by almost one-third of the

respondents (29.0%, n=63) and “Very Good” by almost a quarter of respondents (22.1%,

38

=48). These findings are presented in Table 5.

Percgptions of Sugarbeet Advancement

This evaluative study attempted to ascertain Michigan sugar beet growers’
perceptions of the SBA program. This information will help researchers understand SBA
strengths and weaknesses to better deliverable future improvements. It was agreed by
almost half of the participants that they gained new, research-based information that
helped them make positive farming practice changes while increasing yield and income.

Findings are demonstrated in Table 6.

39

 

so: mom 3 3 3m 3m 3: RN 3282
wage» «cos E
038 H SEQ? S
26 3322: was
2:83 Ea.“ >2

 

Amogv VNN mé We 0.: nsm WE 5mm Bamako:
£5 MO 8288.
33205 was
Born owfiozw >2

 

as: am 3. to 0.8 $4 cam m8 8:85

wage.“ >8
5 wowgno 2560a
BEE 2: 830: :

 

23:3 3 2: 93 0.? SA Rm 825830
ouoflmEoumEomE
Bo: wofiaw H

 

Gavwma «a we we we. 2: EN sausage
24285 3:38
8a couagomfi
BEBE "Hangman

 

Amod nod vd wd v.2 Dav fimm me :oumEomE
wognéoumomou
BEBE 2:meon

 

 

A599 502 02?me 8&35 85:02 oohw< ovum/x Z
bwnobm bwaobm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ear—no.5 Eon—8.525. «ooanauam 2: .8 222329— 5 «Bah.

4O

When asked if the SBA program provided research-based information, about two-
thirds “Agreed” (42.5%, n=108) or “Strongly Agreed” (32.7%, n=83) that they do. This
was followed by asking if the SBA program also provided information not readily
available anywhere. Again, about two-thirds responded either “Agree” (49.6%, n=126) or
“Strongly Agree” (18.5%, n=47) with this statement. It was also agreed (43.0%, n=11 l)
or strongly agreed (24.8%, n=64) that information or practices provided by SBA were
new by about two out of three participants (Table 6). This reflects 2001’s survey results
in that most respondents (81 percent) agreed that the program provides research-based

information.

These SBA new information/practices were determined to have made positive
changes in farming practices. About two out of three participants either “Agreed”
(44.7%, n=114) or “Strongly Agreed” (22.0%, n=56) that SBA information and practices
had helped them make positive changes. From this over half of respondents either
“Agreed” (37.7%, n=97) or “Strongly Agreed” (19.8%, n=51) that their yields have
increased due to SBA information. Though increases in yield do not necessary equate
increases in profit, it was found that about half of the respondents either “Agreed”
(32.2%, n=82) or “Strongly Agreed” (18.0%, n=46) that their farm income had increased

due these changes in their beet growing practices (Table 6).

SBA Program Impacts

Respondents were asked to provide feedback regarding their sugar beet planting

41

practices from variety selection to the use of planter seed tubes. After asking for general
information regarding practices, each topic was followed up with a question regarding
what source of information was most influential to the practice change. Specific impacts

are discussed below by sugar beet production practice.

Variety Selection

Each year SBA conducts large on-farm trials for variety selection. The Michigan
Sugar Company also conducts small plot trials for variety approval. “Variety trials
contain experimental lines to evaluate their adoption, productivity and quality in this area.
Sugar beets are evaluated for resistance to mildew, resistance to curly top, beet yield,
sucrose content, pulp nitrate and pulp conductivity (MAES, 2003) This study attempted
to understand the most influential source of information regarding sugar beet variety
selection in Michigan. Respondents were asked, “when selecting beet varieties, who
provides the most influential source of information?” Responses are reflected below in

Figure 10.

42

Figure 10: Most influential source of information when selecting beet varieties

(N=263)

 

 

 

 

 

A 0.4% 1.5% 1.5% -- 3.8% .

, x. x. s \
é‘b «be {9° {0°
0° 92'
6'0
. 4’3
<2“

 

 

 

Prior to 1997, growers had only two sources of information on variety selection:
the sugar company and the seed company (Suvedi, 2001). In 2006, about two-thirds of
the respondents (64.6%, n=170) indicated SBA as their preferred source of information
when selecting beet varieties. This was followed by Agriculturalist/MI Sugar (16.3%,
n=43) and Seed Company (11.8%, n= 31). “Other” (3.8%, n=10) responses included “My
own experience”, “Salesman” and combinations of SBA, crop consultant, seed company

and MI Sugar company.

Primed seed

Sugarbeet Advancement has been conducting research on the speed of emergence

and yield enhancement for primed seed in Michigan. Primed seed promotes early top

43

growth of sugar beet, uniformity, rate of germination and resistance to moisture
conditions during germination (Mukasa, 2002 and Or'zeszko and Podlaski, 2003). Prior
to 1997, no primed seed was planted. By 2000, 45 percent of sugar beet acreage was
grown using primed seed (Suvedi, 2001). In this study beet growers were asked to
indicate if they use primed seed, when they began using primed seed and who was the
most influential source of information regarding primed seed. Findings in Figure 11 show

that over four out of five respondents (84.8%, n=251) are using primed seed as shown.

Figure 11: Use of primed seed (N=296)

 

No, 15.2%

   

Yes, 84.8%

 

 

 

Those indicating the use of primed seed were further asked to indicate the year
they began using such seed. As shown in Figure 12, use of primed seed has become more
prevalent since 2003 (15.1%, n=32) and 2004 (21.2%, n=45). As shown in Figure 13, the

most influential source of information regarding primed seed is SBA (44.1%, n=112).

This is followed by the seed company (24%, n=61) and Agriculturalist/MI Sugar (22.8%,
n=58). A few also indicated “Other” (3.8%, n=10) as the most influential source of
information. These responses included “equipment manufactures”, “family members”

and “personal experience”.

Figure 12: Year farmers began using primed seed (N=212)

 

 

       

25 . .. .. . .
21.2%
20 ,.
15.1%
, 11.3%
“ 7.:2 9.9%
10 » ---....,.._...
S ._ , .._.., ._-.... .._.-.. -._.--.. 4r»
Jr
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

 

 

45

Figure 13: Most influential information source for use of primed seed (N=254)

 

 

 

50 j ' 44.1%
45 . ..
4o »
35 ‘ 24°/
25 . 22.8% .
zo - ,_
“5’ . _ 0.8% 2% 3.9% 2.4%
0 :_. .. ..... _ ___- firefl m .
a k K- .9 \- < Q
Q00 so"? 689 06¢ \(bo . ‘90 0‘6
06‘ “a a?» 0 9° 6’0
«(ebb ,¢.\ 69° [£30 @900 e
6’ @‘v a“)? '5‘9‘ (60‘
.613 ’50 oé Q
Yg (90"
Planting date

Planting date significantly affects sucrose and purity percentages of sugar beets as
well as root and sugar yields (El-Razek, 2005). By planting early and harvesting late,
growers may take advantage of the entire growing season allowing for above average
sugar yields (Lauer, 1997). Producers traditionally start planting around April 15th even
though there may be opportunities to plant earlier (Suvedi, 2001). It was found in the
2001 survey results that approximately 27 percent of producers will have changed
planting dates and started planting, if conditions were right, beginning April 1 in 2001

due to SBA programming.

Sugarbeet Advancement education has demonstrated the benefits of earlier

46

planting on yield and quality. In this study it was also asked if grower’s planting date had
changed in the last ten years. If they had changed their planting date, it was also asked

who the most influential source of information or education was regarding this change.

Almost three out of four participants (72.0%, n=213) indicate their average
planting dates have changed in the last ten years. For those who are planting earlier
(n=123) a range of two to 30 days earlier was recorded with an average of about 11 days
(M=10.6, Stdv.= 4.4). Those planting later (n=2) indicated a range between five and ten

days later with an average of about eight days (M=7 .5, Stdv.=3.5).

It was found that SBA is the most influential source for changes in planting date
(34.4%, n=76) as shown in Figure 14. This is followed by “Other” sources of influence
that include “Mother Nature”, “My own decision” and “As soon as the ground is ready”.
Agriculturalist/MI Sugar (14%, n=31) was the third most influential source of

information for changes in planting date.

47

Figure 14: Most influential information source for changes in planting date (N=221)

 

 

 

40 ~ 34.4% - , ,
30 .
25
i: . g 14% ' . ’ _ ' _ 138%
10
5 . 1.4% , 1.4% 2.3%
0 3 un— ‘ ..
~\ \ n ,x. k s
0 '5 Q \‘9 O ‘3’
69° so 0063’ 0°<° s§?& eggs 0‘
“O \‘X‘ 8“ 5° 0° V‘
RS} 6‘ (5% $0
<3 NV. ‘0 _4’3‘
\\° 4° 0
c) pt“ (be <2
43‘ *5"
V: 90
Plant population

Optimal row width and plant population affect weed control and sugar beet yield
quality (Armstrong eta], 2006). Higher (optimum) population of beets not only increases
tons per acre but also improves the quality of beets and the sugar content per acre
(Suvedi, 2001). Sugarbeet Advancement has been working with farmers in effort to
improve stand establishment and population particularly through high population trials in
sugar beet yield and quality. By 2000, 40 percent of growers had increased plant
populations because of Sugarbeet Advancement efforts (Suvedi, 2001). In this study, to
determine SBA impacts, farmers were asked what their seed spacing was in 1997 and

2006.

In 1997 seed spacing ranged between two and eight inches with an average of

5.06 inches (M=5.06, Stdv.=91). Plant population has increased since. In 2006,

48

respondents indicated seed spacing had decreased to about four inches (M=4.30,

Stdv.=.4) and ranged between three and one-quarter to six inches.

As shown in Figure 15, the most influential source of information regarding
changes in plant population is SBA (45.9%, n=95). This was followed by
Agriculturalist/MI Sugar (24.2%, n=50). “Other” response (11.6%, n=24) included “My

own experience”, “Change in row width” and “Seed not as good”.

Figure 15: Plant population information sources (N=207)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50 .. . . 45.9% . .. . ._ .. _. ..
35 ~ 1 ,.
30 . . 24.2%
25 1...,” ' 3 ~
20 - ~- ' f - -— hi i:
1‘; . . _ . i; 1% 14%
O I ' “I . , 1H1 .— fi
3 ’4‘ 6" c3" "’ o‘ c}
691$ {20% doc 0020‘ 3'90 - a? 0"
\
(.30 \‘90 Q}? 1&0 .49 I
o e, A 0 i
(\(J ’b& 0% Q
v9 990

 

Cercospora Leafspot Control

Sugar beets may act as host plants to Cercospora Leafspot, a devastating fungus,
resulting in withered leaves and/or black spots. In most cases, infected plants eventually
die (Harveson, 2003). However, growers may improve Leafspot control through the use

of properly timed fungicides. A Leafspot prediction model, BeetCast, was developed by

49

the MI Sugar Company and SBA to aid growers with fungicide timing MAES, 2006). In
the 2001 study it was found that an average of $83 per acre net return from improved
yields was due in part to good leaf spot control (Suvedi, 2001). In this study respondents

were asked if they used BeetCast to improve Leafspot control.

More than half of the respondents (62.4%, n=176) indicated “Yes” they do use
BeetCast as shown in Figure 16. Of those, the majority (90.3%, n=158) answered that
this helped control Leafspot (Figure 17). Almost nine out of ten farmers also indicated

that BeetCast helped them time their fungicide applications (87.4%, n=167) (Figure 18).

Figure 16: Use BeetCast to time fungicide applications (N=282)

 

   

Yes, 62.4%

 

 

 

50

Figure 17: Leafspot control improved by BeetCast (N=l75)

 

No. 9.7%

 

Yes. 90.3%

 

 

 

Figure 18: Improved timing of fungicide applications by BeetCast (N =191)

 

No, 12.6%

  

Yes. 87.4%

 

 

 

Those respondents who didn’t use BeetCast were asked whose recommendations
they followed. These findings are shown in Figure 19. Responses indicated slightly less
than one-third (31.9%, n=3 6) using an Elevator agronomist and almost another one-third
(28.3%, n=32) relying on an Agriculturalist/MI Sugar. “Other” (18.6%, n=21) included
“fungicide labels”, “family” and “personal experience”. In follow-up, respondents were
asked in an open-ended question who they relied on for the majority of their information
regarding Leafspot spray. Responses reflected those of timing recommendations

including BeetCast, agriculturalists, MI Sugar and personal/family experience.

Figure 19: Other information sources for fungicide application timing (N=ll3)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35 283% ..... - 319% .. ,.
25 -» '
20 . . Ir ..
10 ~ ;
5 09% ; ‘* 1.8%
A t s. a.
o 'b o <9
’b 9% 9* 6‘
(ESQ \\" <35“ s°°° 0
9°96 8“" 989 059% ‘3’“
o‘ 4} a- a?
3‘" ~09 97‘ Q2
{\9 ’5‘ ‘b
(a. 9,9,
WeedControl

Until sugar beet stands are established, they are very susceptible to competition

52

from weeds (Morishita, 2003). Weed control is essential to profitable sugar beet growing
(May, 2000). Weed control has changed from traditional split rates to microrate
applications in the last ten years (SBA, 2006). MSU’s Crop and Soil Sciences
Department and the MSC have conducted research enabling this while SBA has educated
growers on these practices. This survey attempted to better understand the extent to

which farmers have switched to microrates.

First, respondents were asked if they used traditional split rates ten years ago.
Findings in Figure 20 indicate that about two out of three respondents (69.7%, n=186)
used traditional split rates in 1997. Figure 21 demonstrates split rate use in 2006 (43.3%,
n=124). However, survey analysis indicates that in 2006 about two-thirds (68.8%,
n=194) of respondents switched to microrate applications (Figure 22). Those who used
microrate applications in 2006 reported spraying a range from four and 100 percent of

their acreage with microrates, averaging about 95 percent (Stdv.= 16.1 ).

53

Figure 20: Use of split rates to control weeds in 1997 (N=267)

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 21: Use of split rates to control weeds in 2006 (N=286)

 

Yes, 43.4%

 

 

 

 

54

Figure 22: Use of microrate applications in 2006 (N=282)

 

   

N0, 31.2%

F
,5: Yes. 68.8%

 

 

 

Research was conducted in 1998 on a new micro-rate weed control program for
beets. By 2000, 34 percent of the growers and 41 percent of the total beet acreage had
implemented a micro-rate program based on our educational efforts (Suvedi, 2001). In
this study, farmers were asked if their weed control information has changed in the last
ten years, who was the most influential source of information or education for this
change? Respondents indicated SBA has the most influential source of weed control
information (31.1%, n=68) followed by Agriculturalist/MI Sugar (27.6%, n=60) and
Elevator Agronomist (14.3%, n=31). “Other” includes “Beet magazine articles”,
“Combination of all” and “Our weed history”. These findings are displayed below in

Figure 23.

55

Figure 23: Most influential source of information or education for changes in weed
control information during the last ten years (N=217)

 

 

 

 

 

   

35 ~- - . . i
30 27.6%
20 - « .. .. . .3 i;
j. I o
10 ' o 7.4%,
& Q x. . \. ‘ ‘
9‘0 09? 6&0 68" «8° {9° 08%
«I g Q ‘0 0° 6°
. e 4.}. 4'8 '5 (J
‘0 \‘ 9 s .3,
0" 0 \V‘ ‘o ..{b
0 ’b \
T9 3‘ ~o°° 8“ Q‘
” 8° ,3: e

 

 

Rhizoctonia Crown Rot Control

Rhizoctonia Crown Rot is a deadly sugar beet ftmgus. A sudden and permanent
wilt to the leaves and a dark, dry rosette indicate plant exposure (Harveson, 2003).
Sugarbeet Advancement has dedicated many resources to researching Rhizoctonia Crown
Rot fungicide control. In this evaluative study, respondents were asked if Rhizoctonia
Crown Rot lowered their profit ten years ago and today, and today are they better able to
control/manage it. These questions were followed up by asking if respondents applied
fungicide for Rhizoctonia. Finally, if they had a applied a new method of Rhizoctonia
Crown Rot control within the last ten years, it was asked who was the most influential

source of information or education for this change.

56

Rhizoctonia Crown Rot is reported to have lowered profits ten years ago by
survey respondents (76.9%, n=210) as shown in Figure 24. Survey analysis shows over
three-quarters of respondents (88.4%, n=237) report being better able to control/manage
Rhizoctonia Crown Rot today (Figure 10b). This is in part due to applied fungicides as
reported by almost three-quarters (70.9%, n=190) of respondents (Figure 26) who
indicated that they have applied fungicide for Rhizoctonia on an average of about 68
percent of their acreage (M=67.87%, Stdv.=3 l .7). Fungicide application ranged from five

to 100 percent of sugar beet acreage.

Figure 24: Lower profit due to Rhizoctonia Crown Rot ten years ago (N=273)

 

   

No, 23.1%

Yes, 76.9%

 

 

 

57

Figure 25: Better control/management of Rhizoctonia Crown Rot today (N=268)

 

N0,11.6%

 

Yes, 88.4%

 

 

 

Figure 26: Application of fungicide for Rhizoctonia Crown Rot (N=268)

 

 
  
  

No, 29.1%

Yes. 70.9%

 

 

 

58

Figure 27 : Most influential source of information or education for new methods of
Rhizoctonia Crown Rot control applied within the last ten years (N=200)

 

 

 

60 - i
I
SO *- i
I
40 I
30 i
20 .1 , ...... l
10 “__ 7% 10% _ _ 7% 40/ 30/ g
M ,_ o o
I
k K. x. x. s k 1

O& \‘0 9° 00° 09° é,\% O
‘o ‘9 a? \9 .s’b '

{‘0 ’50 (be
v90 (90%

 

 

Nitrogen Rates

“Nitrogen is the most yield limiting nutrient, but nitrogen management is critical
to obtain optimum sugar beet yields” (Mortvedt et.al, 1996). Overuse of nitrogen
fertilizer can reduce the sugar content and quality of sugar beets. Sugarbeet Advancement
efforts have helped reduce over application of nitrogen fertilizer. In 2001, it was reported
that approximately 19 percent of producers have modified nitrogen applications (Suvedi,
2001). The SBA program has devoted a great deal of resources, research and education to

reducing the amount of nitrogen applied in Michigan fields.

59

In this study, Michigan sugar beet growers were asked how much nitrogen they applied
to their beets ten years ago and in 2006. It was found that ten years ago, average
application rates were about 134 pounds per acre (M=l33.6, Stdv.32.3). In 2006, an
average of 113 pounds of nitrogen per acre (M=1 12.9, Stdv.31.8) was the reported
application. This shown an average reduction of 21 pounds per acre during a period of ten

years.

In follow up, it was asked if there had been a change in the amount of nitrogen
applied, who was the most influential source of information or education for this change.
Reasons cited for change are mainly due to information or education from SBA (55.7%,
n=107) as shown in Figure 29. This is followed by Agriculturalist/Ml Sugar (20.3%,
n=39) and Elevator Agronomist (7.8%, n=15). “Other” reasons for this change include

“Change in previous crop”, “Cost” and “Experience”.

Figure 28: Most influential source of information for change in amount of Nitrogen
applied (N=192)

 

 

 

 

 

60

Conservation Tillage

Sugarbeet Advancement has been involved in educating growers about the
benefits of higher residue conservation systems (chisel plow) in relation to conventional
systems (mold board plow). Sugarbeet Advancement research and education aims to help
reduce the amount and intensity of secondary tillage due to conventional system use
(MAES, 2006). By 2000, 34 percent of producers had changed or modified tillage
practices (Suvedi, 2001). To determine SBA impacts, this study asked what type of
tillage system farmers use, either conventional or higher residue conservation systems.
Following this, it was asked what type of tillage was used ten years ago. Survey analysis
indicates that currently more farmers use a chisel plow, i.e., higher residue conservation
system (86.1%, n=217) than conventional (mold board plow) systems as shown in Table

7. However, these results overlap as many farmers use both systems on their fields.

Table 7: Conservation tillage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
Use of conventional tillage system (mold board plow) 190 73.4
(N=259)
Use of higher residue conservation system (chisel plow) 217 86.1
(N=252)
Use of the same type of plow system ten years ago (N=279) 164 58.8

 

Of those who use higher residue conservation systems, respondents plowed on
average about 66 percent (M=66.1%, Stdv.30.9) of their fields this way. Those using

higher residue plowing used this type of tillage on about 73 percent (73.4%, Stdv.28.4) of

61

their acreage. Over half of the respondents (58.8%, n=164) indicated that they are

currently using the same type of plow system as they did ten years ago.

Finally, respondents were asked if there has been a change in the type of tillage
system they apply, who was the most influential source of information or education for
this change. As show in Figure 30, if there was a change in the type of tillage system
applied “Other” sources of information (32.1%, n=50) were most influential. These
consisted of responses such as “Economics”, “Timing and weather conditions” and
“personal experience”. This was followed by SBA (28.2%, n=44) and neighbors (19.2%,

n=30)

Figure 29: Most influential source of information or education for change in tillage
system (N=156)

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

’ 32.1%
30.0 " -- - - 23.2% - , » -» -- .Fmg. .
20.0 ii _ _, .. 19.2% .. '
. '1 Fig.1!!!“
15.0 10.9% .1
5,0 . 3.2% .
0,0 . iL...l , iii—.1 i...__al
\ V . K. K S S
6° 9° \’" $0 ‘00 0
\90 $6 ¢06 (90* -\§ 0‘
at“ '80" 5° 90° V‘Q
$9 ‘94 02% $.35
\‘é eé‘ 4'5" (‘4
.0) {o ‘0‘” Q
0 ’b
V9" 8°90

 

 

62

Reduced Cultivation

In addition to conservation tillage practices that leave residue on the surface of
field crops appear to have the greatest potential for minimizing erosion problems and less
cultivation (Fomstrom and Miller, 1998). Sugarbeet Advancement research attempts to
demonstrate the need for less cultivation to increase such residue and is working to help

farmers reduce traditional three to five cultivations to zero to two (MAES, 2006).

To measure SBA impacts, this study asked growers if they cultivate and on
average, have they reduced the number of cultivations in the last ten years. It was found
that the majority of participants cultivate (92.2%, n= 271) as shown in Figure 31. The
number of cultivations in 2006 ranged between one and four and averaged about two.
Respondents indicated the number of cultivations to have decreased over the last ten
years (79.2%, n=225) (Figure 32). Reductions ranged from one-half to five times and

averaged about two times.

Figure 30: Cultivating farmers (N=294)

 

No, 7.8%

 

a
Yes, 92.2%

 

 

 

63

Figure 31: Farmers who reduced the number of cultivations in the last ten years

 

No, 20.8%

   

Yes, 79.2%

 

 

 

Following this question, it was asked if famers had made a change in their
cultivation system, who was the most influential source of information or education for
this change. As shown in Figure 33, changes in cultivation systems are mainly due to
SBA influences (51.2%, n=103). This is followed by “Other” responses (19.4%, n=39)
including “Fuel prices”, “Personal experience” and “Time” as well as Agriculturalist/MI

Sugar (11.9%, n=24).

64

Figure 32: Most influential source of information or education for change in
cultivation system (N=201)

 

 

50.0 . . 51.2%

45.0 -—

40.0 51.2%

35.0 ---------

30.0

25.0

20.0 o ‘

15.0 11.9 A) g .

10.0 I , 3.5%
5.0 , - ~ ,,
0.0 .

a 6» -«.~
AV} $00 93°
\‘5 3‘ k,“ '9
’b V O
0 V 'V -4
\Ig, Q/Q’ O40 Q‘\
‘0‘? a“ ‘<>
Y9” 90%

 

 

Oil Seed Radish as a Nematode Trap Crop

Nematodes are a major parasite for sugar beets (Gray et.al, 2007). Entire fields
may be infested or localized areas may result in circular or oval areas where stands are
poor (Gray et.al, 2007). “Continued use of nematicides threatens the sustained production
of sugar beets because of their high cost and environmental risks” (Krall et.al, 1996).
Therefore, SBA has promoted the use of oil seed radish as a nematode trap crop and

attempted to demonstrate yield advantages of nematode tolerant varieties.

In this study it was asked if 1) farmers had sugar beet cyst nematodes in their
fields; 2) do they use oil seed radish as a nematode trap crop; 3) have they observed yield
advantages of nematode tolerant varieties and; 4) did they use oil seed radish as a

nematode trap crop ten years ago? Almost half of respondents (49.3%, n=144) did not

65

know if they have sugar beet cyst nematodes (Figure 34). It was found that about 15

percent of respondents (15.1%, n=44) have sugar beet cyst nematodes. It follows that

about one-third (35.6%, n=104) reported that they do not have cyst nematodes.

Figure 33: Farmers indicating sugar beet cyst nematode in fields (N=292)

 

Yes, 15.1%

  

No. 35.6%

 

 

 

Today, the majority (92.6%, n=250) of farmers stated that they do not use oil seed
radish as a nematode trap crop (Figure 35). Almost all respondents (99.2%, n=250) did
not use oil seed radish as a nematode trap crop ten years ago (Figure 36). Respondents
(73.3%, n=165) also indicated that they have not observed yield advantages of nematode

tolerant varieties (Figure 37).

66

Figure 34: Use of oil seed radish as a nematode trap crop (N=270)

 

Yes, 7.4%

 

No. 92.8%

 

 

 

Figure 35: Use of oil seed radish as a nematode trap crop ten years ago (N=252)

 

Yes. 0.8%

 

No, 99.2%

 

 

 

Figure 36: Observed yield advantages of nematode tolerant varieties (N=225)

 

   

No, 26. 7%

No, 73.3%

 

 

 

Lastly, regarding oil seed radish as a nematode trap crop, respondents were asked
if there had been a change in the use of oil seed radish on their farm, who was the most
influential source of information or education for this change. For those who made
changes in the use of oil seed radish, SBA is the most influential source of change
(47.3%, n=26) as shown in Figure 38. This was followed by Agriculturalist/MI Sugar

(14.5%, n= 8) and Neighbor (12.7%, n=7). “Other” responses include “MSU”, “Me” and

“Agriculturalist from Idaho”.

68

Figure 39: Most influential source of information or education for changes in the
use of oil seed radish (N=55)

 

'7 12.7% n 10.9%

Vin-1|), _ .
Erma" ._ " ,

 

 

 

 

 

Planter Seed Tubes

With use, planter seed tubes can show signs of wear, resulting in a roughening of
the inner tube area. This rough surface may cause seeds to take different paths through
the tube resulting in inaccurate seed spacing within the beet row (Smith, 2004). Sugarbeet
Advancement research and education has studied the removal of seed tube inserts and
correlating positive impacts on plant/seed spacing. Improved spacing makes topping of
beets easier and results in higher quality beets and less within-row plant competition
(Suvedi, 2001). This evaluative study attempted to understand how many farmers still use

seed tube inserts and what type.

First, farmers were asked what type of seed tube they use for planting. Second,

69

they were asked whether they remove seed tube inserts. In follow up, respondents were
asked if they removed seed tube inserts ten years ago. Survey analysis shows that curved
seed tubes for sugar beet planting are preferred by slightly more than half of the
respondents (53.6%, n=141) as opposed to straight seed tubes (46.6%, n=123) as shown
in Figure 39. Also, slightly more than half (56.3%, n=142) do not remove seed tube
inserts (Figure 40). Ten years ago, this number was higher with over three-quarters of
respondents (78.9%, n=191) reporting that they did not remove seed tube inserts (Figure

41).

Figure 38: Use of straight or curved seed tubes (N=264)

 

Straight seed
tubes. 46.6% Cuned seed

tubes, 53.4%

  
 

 

 

 

70

Figure 39: Removal of seed tube inserts (N=252)

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 40: Removal of seed tube inserts ten years ago (N=242)

 

Yes. 21.1%

   

No. 78.9%

 

 

 

Following these questions, researchers asked who the most influential source of

information or education for changes in planter seed tube practice has been. It was

71

indicated that SBA (44.5%, n=57) was the most influential source as shown in Figure 42.
This is followed by “Other” responses (18.0%, n=23) identifying “Different planters”,

“Personal experience” and “Equipment dealers” and “Neighbor” (15.6%, n=20).

Figure 41: Most influential source of information or education for change in the use
of seed tubes (N=128)

 

50.0 44.5%

20" 7 10.9%

10.0 o -
5.0 0.8%: I

 

 

 

Sugar Beet Yields

Many factors play a role in determining sugar beet yield. “Crops are integrators of
stresses present during the growth season (Gat et.al, 2000). If stresses occur, yield may
suffer. In 2001, when asked “How much would you estimate your 2000 beet yield has
increased due to the Advancement efforts?” about one-fifth (17 percent) of the
respondents indicated their sugar beet yields had increased. This evaluative study

attempted to further examine this by measuring changes in beet yield over the last ten

72

years. It was asked, what was your average beet yield ten years ago and in 2006? This
was followed by a question asking farmers to estimate their average beet yield in the last

three years.

In 1997, Michigan sugar beet farmers report having an average beet yield of about
19 tons/acre (Stdv. = 2.4) as shown in Table 8. This ranged from 14 and 28 tons. In 2001
it was reported (Suvedi, 2001) that among those who indicated an increase, the average
yield increase was 2 tons/acre, with a minimum of 0.5 ton/acre and a maximum of 6
tons/acre. In 2006, average yields have increased to about 24 tons (M=23.8, Stdv.=4.0),
ranging between nine and 35 as indicated by the respondents. When asked to estimate
average beet yield in the last three years answers ranged from 15 to 32 tons with an

average of 22 tons (M =21.9 tons, Stdv.=2.7) (Table 8).

Table 8: Sugar beet production yield

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Stdv.
What was your average beet yield in 1997? (N=268) 18.8 2.4
What was your average beet Eld in 2006? (N=287L 23.8 4.0
Please estimate your average beet yield in the last three years. 21.9 2.7
(N=267)

 

 

 

In 2001, when asked, “How much do you estimate the saving in beet production
cost due to Advancement efforts in 2000?” only 10 percent of the respondents indicated
savings in beet production costs due to SBA programming. Since, though yield has

increased, only about one in three respondents indicated an increase in profit (28.7%,

73

n=80) and two out of ten (22.9%, n=64) indicated there was no change as shown in
Figure 43. Almost half of respondents (48.4%, n=135) report that their sugar beet profits
have decreased. These decreases were explained through open ended responses citing
increase in input prices, including fertilizer and pesticides, and decreases in the price of

beets.

Figure 42: Sugar beet profit change in the last ten years (N=279)

 

60
50 . . . .. . 48.4%
2 .7°
22.9%
10 .. . . ... .... . ...... ...“... ......_.... . ......n........
Increased Nochange or remained Decreased
the same

 

 

Grower concerns

The 2001 survey asked respondents to provide feedback on areas they were most
concerned about. Diseases ranked first as the main cause of reduced plant vigor and yield

reduction. For this reason, most respondents indicated that the program should

74

concentrate its efforts in insect and disease control. Likewise, sugar beet growers are
interested in testing seed of varieties that have good standability, high sugar and high

tonnage. (Suvedi, 2001)

In 2006, when asked what sugar beet growers felt were their major concerns, they
simalarily listed four main categories: profit, disease control, industry stability and MSC
stability. For example, “Getting paid”, “Getting price up” and “Income not keeping up
with increased cost” were echoed in different forms throughout the survey. Similar
opinions were also detailed as explanation for increases in yield while profitability

declined due to increase in input prices and decreases in the price of sugar.

New diseases, Rhizoctonia Crown Rot and disease management were key themes
as well. These were voiced as “Beet plant health, nematode, leafspot” and “Control

weeds, diseases”. More research and education were requested in these areas.

Concerns about industry stability were also voiced statements such as “Keep
foreign sugar from lowering prices”, “Government regulations” and “Keep the beet
industry alive!” Particularly, growers were concerned about “getting paid”. This was
recorded in multiple ways from “Getting return on money spent” and “Getting a good

return per acre for our beets”.

There were also MI Sugar Company concerns closely related to industry stability
fears. These included “Keeping Co-op successful”, “Viability of MI Sugar”. Co-op
management concern was also voiced in ways such as “Proper management of Co-op to

keep price per ton up”.

75

Suggestionsfor Improvement

In 2001, producers’ were asked how the Sugarbeet Advancement Program could
improve its role in helping Michigan beet growers. The first area for improvement
concerned costs «respondents felt that programming should be more involved in
reducing the cost of production. The second issue dealt with information updates.
Respondents wanted weekly updates during the growing season, early information at
planting time, and advice in advance of possible diseases or specific problems. Likewise,
several respondents expressed concerns about field trials. Finally, the respondents
suggested continuing the field trials in areas of emergence, varieties, rotation and tillage,

and getting information out to the producers. (Suvedi, 2001)

In 2006, suggestions for improvement concerned profit, MSC management and
SBA performance. Specific comments included: “2007 will be a draft with beets — labor
and money intensive. Corn is a smarter choice”, and “Company overspending — what is
the company going to do if farmers decide to get out of beets”. It was suggested that SBA
determine “the best beet variety for early harvest compared to late harvest” and “check

seed varieties more accurately”.

There were positive comments recorded as well when soliciting for suggestions
for improvement such as, “I believe SBA has a very positive impact on my operation”.
When asked how SBA could improve its programming, responses can generally be
summarized in 1) field testing, such as testing Round-up Ready beets or improved trials;

2) continuing research such as “Continue to help growers stay ahead” and “Keep up

76

research”; 3) areas for improvement such as “Keep us more up to date on the sales of
sugar” and “more research information” and; 4) praise such as “Keep up the good work”

and “In my opinion SBA does a tremendous job by covering all areas in beet production”.

While soliciting for grower concerns, some suggestions for improvement were
recorded in farmer comments. These ranged from general to specific comments. For
example, “Have a good stand” and “Keeping a check and balance system of information
growers” to “We need to work more at matching our production to our processing
capabilities”. Positive feedback recorded includes “Keep up the good job”, “Good

survey” and “I believe SBA has had a very positive impact on my operation”.

 

77

CHAPTER VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

The average sugar beet farmer is about 50 years old and cultivates about 1,300
acres on a family owned farm as a full time job. Typically, about 250 acres of this is
devoted to sugar beet production in the common growing counties of Huron, Saginaw,
Tuscola and Sanilac. About three—quarters of survey respondents plan to pass their farm

on to family members when they retire.

Over three-quarters of respondents have access to a computer, the Internet and e-
mail. About half the respondents indicated using the computer, Internet and e—mail on a
two to three times per week basis or daily. It was also found that SBA was their preferred
informational source similarly to 2001 when two-thirds of the respondents also indicated
that SBA as the most credible source of information for production information. Both
reports were also very positive with half the respondents indicating in 2001 that
Extension services had improved as a result of SBA programming and in 2006
respondents indicated that SBA should take the lead in educational programming.
Sugarbeet Advancement was rated overall as the most heavily relied on source for

research information also.

Over two-thirds of participants participated in, attended or used SBA’s farm
meeting/workshops, the Bean and Beet Symposium, Sugar Beet Seed Week, “On Farm
Research Demonstration” SBA publication, information from quarterly newsletters,

Cercospora Leafspot bulletin and production tip cards (tips for maximizing sucrose

78

production). This is similar to 2001’s evaluation where out of 1,600 surveys with a 36
percent response rate, about 90 percent indicated receiving quarterly newsletter and/or
bulletins and On-farm Research and Demonstration publications and 80 percent of 2001 ’s

respondents attended sugar beet-related farm meetings/workshops (Suvedi, 2001)

At the same time, in 2006 two-thirds or more of respondents also responded that
they had not attended harvester clinics, used the SBA website or had a local Extension
Educator visit their farm. Programs were rated by over two-thirds of participants as either
“Good”, “Very Good” or “Excellent”. The information provided by the SBA programs
was deemed to have helped farmers make positive changes in their practices by about
two-thirds of participants. Also, two-thirds of respondents determined that SBA

information had helped increase their income due to changes in production practice.

From information on variety selection to planter seed tubes, SBA was rated as
either the first or second most influential source of information. Over four-fifths of
respondents use primed seed and plant about ten days earlier than they did ten years ago.
Sugar beet seed spacing has decreased by almost an inch as well. Ahnost two-thirds of
respondents use BeetCast to help them time their fungicide applications. Of these, nine
out of ten reported that BeetCast helps them control leafspot. This is slightly up from
2001 results when practices related to leafspot control modifications suggested by SBA
were adopted by more than two-thirds of respondents and more than half changed to the

variety recommended by SBA (Suvedi, 2001).

Over two-thirds of participants use microrate applications today. These Michigan

79

farmers are better able to manage Rhizoctonia Crown Rot today than they were ten years
ago. It was found that nitrogen application rates have also decreased by about 20 pounds
per acre in the last ten years. Two types of tillage systems are used on many farms. Some

farmers use both mold board and chisel plow on sections of their acreage.

The majority of farmers also cultivate and report a reduction in the number of
times by about two. Almost half of the respondents reported not knowing if they have
sugar beet cyst nematodes in their fields and about ninety percent of farmers don’t use oil
seed radish as a nematode trap crop. Currently, both straight seed tubes and curved seed
tubes are used almost equally by respondents while about half of respondents remove

inserts.

Though yields have increased to about 24 tons from 2001, unfortunately, profit
has decreased. This is due to increased input prices and decreases in the price of beets.
Major grower concerns can be grouped into four categories of: 1) profit, 2) disease

control, 3) industry stability and 4) MI Sugar Company stability.

General Feedback

General feedback was requested at the end of the survey. These ranged very
broadly from specific requests and positive feedback to general industry wide comments.

Comments were both positive and negative.

A few comments were about information avenues, for example “I like my

80

 

information to come by e-mail instead of snail mail because it is much quicker and
current”. Other comments included suggestions for improvement such as, “They should

do a feasibility study to close the factory and cut our loses”.

Positive feedback included “Overall, I’ve been pleased with what you’ve done.
Keep doing it.” and, “Keep up the good work”. Industry wide feed back included “We
need to promote sugar beet stock ownership”, “Small farmers can’t buy new equipment”
and “It’s important to the industry that MI Sugar agronomists and SBA give growers the

same recommendations. It is equally important for SBA to maintain its independence

from MI Sugar”.

To summarize:

0 Respondents came from various Michigan counties with the majority farming in
Huron, Saginaw, Tuscola and Sanilac.

o The average sugar beet farmer cultivates about 1,300 acres of which about 250
acres of this is devoted to sugar beet production.

0 Farmers averaged about 50 years old and worked on family-owned farms full-
time.

0 About three-quarters of survey respondents plan to pass their farm on to family
members when they retire.

0 Over three-quarters of respondents have access to a computer, the Internet and e-
mail.

0 The majority of growers indicated that SBA is their preferred source of

information.

81

 

Respondents indicated that SBA should take the lead in educational programming
and rated SBA overall as the most heavily relied on source for research-based
information.

Over two-thirds of participants participated in, attended or used SBA’S farm
meeting/workshops, the Bean and Beet Symposium, Sugar Beet Seed Week, “On
Farm Research Demonstration” SBA publication, information from quarterly
newsletters, Cercospora Leafspot bulletin. and production tip cards (tips for
maximizing sucrose production).

The information provided by the SBA programs was deemed to have helped
farmers make positive changes in their practices by about two-thirds of
participants.

Also, two-thirds of respondents indicated that SBA information had helped
increase their income due to changes in production practice.

Overall yields have increased from 18 tons per acre in 1997 to about 24 tons in
2006.

Major grower concerns can be grouped into four categories of: 1) profit, 2)
disease control, 3) industry stability and 4) MI Sugar Company stability.
Selected suggestions for Sugarbeet Advancement improvement include:

0 “A number to call to alter up coming field problems.”
0 “Continue to identify ‘best hybrid.’”
° “Cooperate with Co-op research/production staff.”

0 “Keep us more up to date on sales of sugar and price.”

82

° “More research on nematodes.”

0 “Look into soil types, rotations, cover crops, row spacing, in general other

ways.”

Conclusion

Overall the survey analysis suggests the SBA program is doing well at meeting
growers’ research and educational needs. Since its establishment in 1997, SBA has had
positive measurable impact and influences on changes in beet production practices.
Sugarbeet Advancement is viewed as a very credible and either the most influential

source of information or one of the top sources of information for growers.

Sugarbeet Advancement’s most effective ways of communicating with growers
include research tours, workshops, Bean and Beet Symposium, Seed Week, quarterly
newsletters and bulletins. Sugarbeet Advancement may put more emphasis on disease
oriented research and increase farm visits. In particular, most farmers were unaware if
their acreage did or did not have sugar beet cyst nematodes. Nematode trap crops were
also reported to have the least improvement and/or change out of production practices

measured.

Overall, SBA was found to be the most credible source of information in eleven
out of twelve production practices measured. Also, two out of three participants agree or
strongly agree that the SBA program provided new information not readily available
elsewhere that has helped farmers make changes in their farming practices. This in turn

has increased their yield and positively effected their profits.

83

Recommendations

In the future, farmers request that SBA research concentrate on disease
management, weed control and profitability. It is requested that SBA work with the Sugar
Cooperative so as to not duplicate research. In providing fiiture research and education to
sugar beet farmers, it was found that e-mail correspondence will most likely reach less
than half of respondents regularly. Therefore, production tip cards and educational
workshops may be more appropriate means of communication. It seems these low-cost

delivery methods are the most preferred.

Sugarbeet Advancement also has the opportunity to follow-up with further
questions regarding sustainability and environmental awareness/interest for future
programming. As open-ended questions provided feedback about preferred information
avenues that were “unbiased” and that “don’t have an interest in selling chemicals”, and
farmers are interested in the use of nematode trap craps and reducing nitrogen rates, a
follow-up sustainable programming telephone interview was created. Please see

Appendix D.

This interview was created to further understand farmer demographics, needs and
concerns. It attempts to understand male and female head of household responses
regarding: 1) future plans for growing sugar beets, 2) what farmers see as opportunities
for sugar beets in the future such as farmer/organic markets, 3) what the farmers’ sense of
environmental issues are, such as greater sensitivity to runoff from livestock and
pesticides, 4) Changes they’ve noticed in their community due to these concerns, 5) How

their household is adapting to such issues, 6) What services could MSU Extension

84

provide that would be helpful to them and the community in these concern areas or
others, 6) What they consider the most important aspects of their farm work? 7) Other
sources of income, 8) What are the farming roles played by different people in their

household, and 9) How do you feel about this division of labor.

85

APPENDICES

Appendix A. 2006 Producer Cover Letter

Appendix B. 2006 Producer Survey

Appendix C. 2001 Producer Survey

Appendix D. 2006 Telephone Interview

86

Partnership

of: Sugar Beet Growers

Sugarbeet;
Advancement

 

Michigan Sugar Company

Michigan State University

Dear Sugar Beet Producer:

It is hard to believe it has been almost ten years since the SugarbeetAdI/ancement
program was created in 1997 to identify and solve critical industry production problems.
These production issues were threatening the mere survival of the industry.
Remember average yields plummeted to an unprofitable 15 tons per acre in 1995-
1996?

Their have been major efforts in conducting research and increasing educational
opportunities for sugar beet producers from a variety of resources in the last several
years. Michigan State University Extension is currently conducting a survey to determine
where producers get their production information, perception of the Sugarbeet
Advancement program and to measure the change in practices of the last ten years.
The information received from this survey will be used to assist MSU Extension /
SugarbeetAdvancementand the Michigan Sugar Company in better serving the Great

Lakes sugar beet producers. Make no mistake on underestimating the immrtance of

this survey. Every individual response increases the reliability of the survey.

777e following survey should take no more than ten minutes to complete. Please be sure
to answer each question as accurately as you can. Be candid, this is your opportunity to
voice your opinion. Responses will be kept confidential. Only one survey per fann
should be filled out. When the survey is completed, simply fold in half with address on
the outside and staple or tape together. Postage is paid, so just drop it into the mail!
PLEASE COMPLETE THE SURVEY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. You indicate your
voluntary agreement to partake in this research project by completing and returning this
questionnaire. Please don’t hesitate to contact the Peter Vasilenko, Director of the
Michigan State University Human Research Protection Program at (517) 355-2180
should you have any concerns regarding completion of this survey. Also, feel free not to
answer any question you don’t feel comfortable responding to.

Thank you in advance for filling out the survey. Should you need to contact me for any
sugar beet production concerns or other comments, my office number is 989-758-2500.

Sincerely,

seamen

87

2006 Evaluation of the
Michigan Sugarbeet Advancement Program

We are interested in learning your thoughts about sugar beet fanning and practices. We
need your opinions, suggestions and concerns to improve future programs and research.
Please take ten minutes to share your views.

1. Are you a: _ Full-time farmer Part—time farmer
i. What was your age as of last year?

2. What is your total farm size including all crops: acres

3. What county are you currently farming in?

 

4. What type of farm do you operate?

 

_Family owned _lndividually owned _Corporately owned

_Other (please specify)

5. Who do you prefer to get your information from (please check only one):
_ Seed Company _ Agriculturalist/Ml Sugar

_ Sugarbeet Advancement _ Elevator Agronomist

_ Private Consultant _ Neighbor

_ Other (please specify)

 

6. Variety Selection
3. In selecting of beet varieties, who provides the most influential source of information?

_ Seed Company _ Agriculturalisthl Sugar
__ Sugarbeet Advancement
_ Elevator Agronomist _ Private Consultant

Neighbor _ Other (please specify)

 

7. Primed Seed (pm-germinated)
a. Do you use primed seed? Yes_ No_

i. If yes, what year did you start planting primed seed?
6. Who was the most influential information source?

__ Seed Company _ Agriculturalisthl Sugar
_ Sugarbeet Advancement _ Elevator Agronomist
_ Private Consultant _ Neighbor

_ Other (please specify) -

 

8. Planting Date .
a. On average, have your planting dates changed during the last 10 years? Yes—No—
i. On average, how many days earlier/ later are you planting than 10 years ago?
eariier later
b. If you have made a change in your planting date, who was the most influential source of

information:

_ Seed Company _ Agriculturalist/MI Sugar

_ Sugarbeet Advancement

_ Elevator Agronomist __ Private Consultant
__ Neighbor __ Other (please specify)

88

9. Plant Population

3. What was your 2006 average seed spacing?
b. What was your seed spacing ten years ago?
c. If your plant population has changed In the last 10 years, who was the most influential
source of information or education for this change:

 

 

_ Seed Company _ Agriculturalist/Ml Sugar
_ SugaIbeet Advancement
_ Elevator Agronomist _ Private Consultant

Neighbor _ Other (please specify)

 

10. Cercospora Leafspot Control
a. Do you use BEETCAST to time your fungicide applications? (if no please continue to part
b. ) Yes_ No_

i. If yes, has this helped control the leafspot? Yes_ No_
ii. Do you feel BEETCAST has improved your timing _of fungicid_e applications? Yes_
No
b. If no, whose recommendations for timing do you use?
_ Seed Company _ Agriculturalist/MI Sugar _ Sugarbeet
Advancement
_ Elevator Agronomist _ Pn'vate Consultant _ Neighbor _
Other (please specify)

 

i. Who do you rely on for the majority of information about leafspot spray?

 

1 1. Weed Control

a. Did you use traditional split rates in 2006? Yes_ No___
i. Did you use split rates to control weeds 10 years ago? Yes_
No_
b. Did you use microrate applications in 2006? Yes_ No

i. If yes, on average what percent of your acres are sprayed Wmicrorates?
%
c. If your weed control practice has changed in the last 10 years, who was the most
influential source of information or education for this change?

_ MSU Extension Specialist __ Agriculturalist/Ml Sugar
_ Sugarbeet Advancement
_ Elevator Agronomist _ Private Consultant

Neighbor __ Other (please specify)

 

12. Rhizoctonia Crown Rot Control

3. Did Rhizoctonia Crown Rot lower your profit 10 year ago? Yes_
i. Tohdgyfare you better able to control I manage Rhizoctonia? Yes_
D. Havehygu—applied any fungicide for Rhizoctonia control? Yes_
i. If $223. what percent of your acreage was it applied % of acres

 

c. If you applied a new method for Rhizoctonia Crown Rot control within the last 10 years,
who was the most influential source of information or education for this change?

_ Seed Company _ Agriculturalisthl Sugar
__ Sugarbeet Advancement _ Elevator Agronomist
_ Private Consultant _ Neighbor

_ Other (please specify)

 

89

13. Nitrogen Rates

 

 

a. How much nitrogen do you currently apply to your beets? /
acre

i. Approximately how much nitrogen did you apply 10 years ago? I
acre

b. If there has been a change in the amount of nitrogen you apply please indicate who was
the most influential source of information or education for this change?

_ Seed Company __ Ainculturalist/Ml Sugar
_ Sugarbeet Advancement

_ Elevator Agronomist _ Private Consultant

_ Neighbor _ Other (please specify)

 

14. Conservation Tillage
a. What type of tillage system do you use?
i. Conventional (mold board plow)
Yes _(% of acreage ) No____
ii. Higher residue conservation system (chisel plow)
Yes_(% of acreage ) No_
b. Did you use the same type of plow system 10 years ago? Yes_
No
c. If there has been a change in the type of tillage system you use, who was the most
influential source of infonnation or education for this change?

_ Seed Company _ Agriculturalisthl Sugar
_ Sugarbeet Advancement
_ Elevator Agronomist _ Private Consultant

Neighbor __ Other (please specify)

 

15. Reduced Cultivation
a. Do you cultivate? Yes
No_

i. On average, how many times do you cultivate?

b. On average, have you reduced the number of cultivations in the last 10 years? Yes_
No_

i. If yes, on average, I have reduced cultivations by
c. If there has been a change' In the cultivation system, who was the most influential source
of information or education for this change?

 

 

 

_ Seed Company _ Agriculturalist/Ml Sugar _ SugaIbeet

Advancement
_ Elevator Agronomist _ Private Consultant __ Neighbor
_ Other (please specify)

16. Oil Seed Radish as a Nematode Trap Crop

a. Do your fields have sugar beet cyst nematode? Yes_ No_ I don’t

know _

b. Do you use oil seed radish as a nematode trap crop? Yes_
No_

0. Have you observed yield advantages of nematode tolerant varieties? Yes_
No_

d. Did you use oil seed radish as a nematode trap crop 10 years ago? Yes_
No

e. If there has been a change in the use of oil seed radish on your farm, who was the most
influential source of information or education for this change?

_ Seed Company _ Agriculturalisthl Sugar

_ SugaI'oeet Advancement

90

_ Elevator Agronomist _ PIivate Consultant
_ Neighbor _ Other (please specify)

 

17. Planter Seed Tubes
3. For sugarbeet planting do you use straight _ or curved _

seed tubes?
b. Do you remove seed tube inserts? Yes_ No_
0. Did you remove seed tube inserts 10 years ago?

Yes_ No_

d. If there has been a change in the use of seed tube inserts on your farm, who was the
most influential source of information or education for this change?

_ Seed Company _ Agriculturalist/Ml Sugar
__ Sugarbeet Advancement

_ Elevator Agronomist _ Private Consultant

_ Neighbor _ Other (please specify)

 

18. What are your major concerns of Michigan sugarbeet growers?

9’

 

P'

 

S7

 

19. Profitability of Sugar Beet Production

a. What was your average beet yield?
i. 10 years ago? tons/acre ii. In 2006? tons/acre
ii. Please estimate your average beet yield in the last three years.

 

b. Overall, would you say your sugar beet profits have increased or decreased in the last 10
years?

Increased _

No Change or Remained the Same __

Decreased __
c. If profits have decreased, please explain why:

 

20. Who do you feel should take the lead in providing educational programming for
the sugar beet industry?

_ Seed Company _ Agriculturalisthl Sugar
__ Sugarbeet Advancement
_ Elevator Agronomist _ Private Consultant

Neighbor _ Other (please specify)

 

21. Overall, who do you rely most heavily on for the most current research
inforrnatlon?

_ Seed Company __ Agriculturalist/Ml Sugar
_ SugaIbeet Advancement

_ Elevator Agronomist __ Private Consultant

_ Neighbor _ Other (please specify)

 

91

22. Have you been a participant in the following Sugarbeet Advancement activities or
used information from the Sugarbeet Advancement Program in any of these ways?

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. Attended sugar beet related farm meetings/workshops Yes __
b. Participated i'nksugar beet field days/research tours Yes __
c. Participated mm Beet Symposium Yes __
d. Participated i'doS-IJg—anTEet Seed Week Yes __
e. Used “On Fahd: Mon and Demonstration:

Sugarbeet Advancement” publication Yes __
f. Used infomeilcthuaderly newsletters Yes __
9. Used Cercosblngpot Bulletin information Yes __
h. Used produciign tip cards (tips for maximizing sucrose production) Yes __
i. Gained infonnhalgon through mass media (newspaper, radio or TV) Yes __
j. Had contact with an MSU Extension specialist Yes __
k. Had a local EttZr-IQo—na—genus) visit my farm Yes __
I. Attended harvggter clinics . Yes _—
m. Used the Suggrbeet Advancement website Yes __

o

23. Please reflect on the various Sugar Beet Advancement programs listed above in
which you have participated. How would you rate the quality of these
educational/research programs using the five-point scale below?

Poor Fair Good Very Excellent

Good

a. Educational programs 1 2 3 4 5

such as workshops/meetings
b. Educational Field/Research Tours 1 2 3 4 5
c. Communications such as
newsletters, tips cards

and bulletins 1 2 3 4 5
d. Services such as Extension contacts

and farm visits 1 2 3 4 5

24. Please reflect on the various Sugarbeet Advancement programs listed in Q. 22 in
which you have participated. Please indlcate whether you agree or disagree with the
statements below using the five-point scale.
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

3. Programs provided research-based
information 1 2 3 4 5
92

b. Program provided information not readily 1 2 3 4 5
available elsewhere
c. I gained new information/ practices about
beets 1 2 3 4 5
d. It helped me make positive changes in my
farming practices
e. My average yield has increased because

of this information 1 2 3 4 5
f. My farm income has increased due to
changes I made in beet growing practices 1 2 3 4 5

25. Please suggest how the Sugarbeet Advancement Program could improve its role
in helping Michigan beet growers. List specific suggestions:
3.

 

b.

 

C.

 

26. On how many total acres do you plan to grow in 2007?

 

27. How many total harvested acres did you have under sugarbeet production In
1996?

 

28. How many years have you been involved in growing beets? years

29. Has your farm been passed down from family member to member?

 

Yes_ No_

I. Do you intend to pass your farm on to other family members in the future?
Yes_ No_

ii. If no, what would you like to do with your farm when you retire?
Sell_ Rent
Other

30. Please indicate your education level: _high school diploma _ GED

_some college _associate’s degree _ technical/vocational training
_bachelor‘s degree _ graduate degree

31. Computer/Internet access

a. Do you have access to a computer? Yes_ No_

b. Do you regularly use a computer?
_Never _1 time per month __2 times per month
_once per week _2-3 times per week _daily

c. Do you have access to the lntemet? Yes_ No_

d. Do you regulaIly use the lntemet?
_Never _1 time per month _2 times per month
_once per week _2-3 times per week _daily

e. Do you have an email account? Yes_ No_

f. Do you regularly access your email account?
_Never _1 time per month _2 times per month
_once per week _2-3 times per week _daily

Is there anything else you would like to share with us? Ideas? Concerns?
Suggestions?

93

Evaluation of
Michigan Sugarbeet Advancement Program

We are interested in what you think about the impact of Sugarbeet Advancement
Program to you and other beet growers in Michigan. Here is your chance to provide
feedback. We need it to plan and improve future programs and events. Please take
five minutes to share your views with us.

1. Have you heard of Michigan Sugarbeet Advancement Program? _ YES _ NO
(Skip to Q. 8)

2. If you answered to “YES” to Question #1, have you been a participant in the
following Sugarbeet Advancement activities or received information from Sugarbeet
Advancement Program in any of these ways during the past three years? (Check
each item that apply)
Yes No
a) Attended sugarbeet related farm meetings/workshops
b) Participated in sugarbeet field days/demonstrations
c) Participated in Bean and Beet Symposium and research tours
d) Received “On Farm Research and Demonstration:
Sugarbeet Advancement” publication
e) Received quarterly newsletters and/or bulletin
f) Gained information through mass media (newspaper,
radio or television)
g) Had contact with an MSU Extension specialist
h) Had a local Extension agent(s) visit my farm
i) Phoned Beet and Beat production hot line

3. Please reflect on various Sugarbeet Advancement Extension programs listed
above in which youhave participated. How would you rate the quality of these
educational programs offered?

a) Program provided research-based information. Agree Undecided Disagree
b) Program provided information not readily

available elsewhere Agree Undecided Disagree
c) I gained new information and skills on beet. Agree Undecided Disagree
(1) It helped me make positive changes in my
farming practices Agree Undecided Disagree
e) My farm income has increased due to changes

I made in beet growing practices. Agree Undecided Disagree

4. What production practices have you changed/modified/ and or adopted
because of
Sugarbeet Advancement information. Check all that apply:

_ (a) Variety recommendation _ (b) Herbicide use

_ (c) Leaf spot control __ (d) Tillage practices
_ (e) Pelleted seed __ (f) Planter modification
_ (g) Date of planting _ (h) Plant population

94

_ (i) Fertilization practices
__ (1) Others (please list)

 

5. Michigan Sugarbeet Advancement on-farm research and educational efforts
began in 1997.
(a) How much would you estimate your 2000 beet yields have increased due to
the Advancement efforts?

tons/acre No increase in yield Can’t Estimate
(b) How much would you estimate the savings in beet production cost due to the
Advancement efforts? $ (estimated cost savings in yr. 2000).

 

6. Which one source would you consider the most credible and/or reliable for
sugar beet production information?

_ Seed Company _ Processing Company

__ Sugarbeet Advancement _ Elevator Agronomist

_ Private Consultant _ Neighbor

__ Other (please specify)

 

7. Have you noticed any change in the quality of Extension programs as a result
of Michigan Sugarbeet Advancement Program?

Definitely Deteriorated No change Improved Definitely
Deteriorated Improved

8. Please suggest how the Sugarbeet Advancement Program could improve its
role in helping Michigan beet growers. List specific suggestions:

a.
b.

 

 

9. What do you consider the major production concerns that you would like
Sugarbeet Advancement Program to concentrate research/demonstration efforts
on?

a.

b.

c.

 

 

 

10. How many total acres did you have in production this year?
Contracted Acres Harvested Acres

11. How many years have you been involved in growing beet? Years

12. Do you consider yourself:
_ Full-time farmer _ Part-time farmer

Is there anything else you would like to share with us? Ideas? Concerns?
Suggestions?

 

95

Telephone interview to accompany

2006 survey evaluation of the MSUE Sugarbeet Advancement program
Introduction:

Hello, I’m (insert name) from Michigan State University calling in follow—up to the
January Sugarbeet Advancement survey. We’re trying to further understand farming needs and
concerns. To do this, we’re trying to gather both male and female opinions about beet
production. If it’ 5 possible may I speak to the female/male head of household?

If no:
Thank you. Good bye.

If yes:

Hello! My name is (insert name) and I’m a graduate student calling from Michigan State
University to follow-up on the Sugarbeet Advancement survey you completed and returned to
us in January. First, thank you very much for your participation. It was greatly appreciated.

Out of the approximately 1200 surveys we sent out we received 305 responses. To get a
better understanding of your needs, we have developed a short interview. I hope you will help
me by spending about 8-10 minutes answering my questions related to Michigan State
University Extension services and your needs. Would you be able to take the interview now, or is
there a better time I could call back?

Ifno: Thank you for your time. Good bye.

lf rescheduled: Day Time

If yes:

Thank you. Before we begin I have to read you a short statement required by MSU. By
answering the questions I’m about to ask you, you’re indicating your agreement to participate in
this research project. If you have questions about this study, I will do my best to answer them or
you may contact Dr. Murari Suvedi at (517) 432-0265. In case you have questions or concerns
about your rights as a research participant, please feel free to contact Peter Vasilenko, Michigan
State University’ 5 director of Human Research Protection Programs, by phone: (517) 355-2180.
Also, please feel free not to answer any question you don’t feel comfortable responding to.

Again, let me repeat, our aim is to evaluate the Sugarbeet Advancement program in order to
improve it and better meet your needs.

Do you have any questions?

96

When you are ready I will begin the interview.
Interview Questions

1) Do you plan to continue to grow sugar beets?

 

In your opinion, what will be some opportunities for sugar beets in the future such as farmers
markets, the organic market, etc.

 

 

 

2) Today we’re seeing greater sensitivity to runoff from livestock and pesticides, what is your
sense of some of these issues with sugar beet farming?

 

 

 

3) Have you noticed any changes in your community due to these (discussed above) issues?
[Probes] For example, a greater awareness of phosphorus use or decreased health concerns
from stress or pesticides?

 

 

 

4) How is your household adapting to these new issues or concerns?

 

 

 

5) What are some services that could be agriculturally related or not, that you feel MSU
Extension could provide that would be helpful to you and others in your community?

 

 

6) What would you consider the most important aspect of your farm work?

 

 

7) Other than farming, does your household have other source of income? If yes, please
describe:

 

 

8) What are the farming roles played by different people in your household? For example, is
there one primary member of the family who does most of the physical work or another who
does book keeping, etc.? If split, please describe.

 

97

 

 

9) How do you feel about the division of labor that you just described?

 

 

What are some ways SBA could help make your role easier?

 

 

 

Well that wraps up my questions. Are there any questions you have? Let me give you my
number in case you have any concerns later or think of anything you’d like to add. You can reach
me at (telephone) or my office phone number is (telephone). I greatly appreciate your time and
thoughts. As I am processing interview responses I'll be sharing data back with SBA and a formal
report will be made to both SBA and the University once I’ve received them all. Thank you. As I
said, please feel free to contact me regarding this interview if there’s anything else you'd like to
share. Have a good day. Goodbye.

98

BIBLIOGRAPHY

99

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Altschuld, J. W., & Zheng, H. Y. (1995). Assessing the effectiveness of research
organizations: An examination of multiple approaches. Evaluation Review, 19(2),
197-216.

Armstrong, Joe, Sprague, Christy, and Powell, Gary. 2006. Michigan Agricultural
Experiment Station. Effect of Row Spacing and Plant Population in Roundup
Ready Sugar Beets. Retrieved on August 27, 2007 from
http://www.maes.msu.edu/ressta/saginawvalley/res_reportO6/rowspacing_2006.pd
f

Auburn, J .S., & Baker, B. P. (1992). Re-integrating agricultural research. American
Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 7, 105-110.

Bailey, S. J ., & Deen, M. Y. (2002). A framework for introducing program evaluation to
Extension faculty and staff. Journal of Extension, [On-line], 40(2), Available at:
http://www. j oe.org/j oe/2002april/iw1 .htrnl

Brown, J. L., & Kieman, N. E. (1998). A model for integrating program development
and evaluation. Journal of Extension. 36(3).

Bushnell, D. S. (1990). Input, process, output: A model for evaluating training.
Training and Development Journal, March, 41 -43.

The Cancer Research Prevention Center. Mail Survey and Expert System Processing
Unit. Retrieved on November 15, 2007 from
http://www.uri.edu/research/cprc/SurveyCenter/Processing.htm

Cass R; M. Andrews; and W. Werner. 1988. How can we do it? An evaluation training

package for development educators. Research and Development in Global
Studies, BC.

Chambers, F. (1994). Removing confusion about formative and summative evaluation:
Purpose versus time. Evaluation and Program Planning 17(1), 9 - 12.

Chapman-Novakofski, K., DeBruine, V., Derrick, B., Karduck, J ., Todd, J ., & Todd, S.
(2004). Using evaluation to guide program content: Diabetes education. Journal
of Extension, [On-line], 42(3), Available at:
http://www.joe.org/joe/2004june/iw1.shtrnl

100

Clinton, William (1993). Government Performance and Results Act. Office of
Management and Budget. Retrieved on November 16, 2007 from:
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/mgmt-gpra/gplaw2m.html

Dillman, Don A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New
York: Wiley.

Dillman, Don A. 2006. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method Second
Edition. Toronto: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

El-Razek, Abd. Sugar Crops Res. Inst. ARC, Egypt. Response of Sugar Beet to Planting
Date and Number of Days to Harvest Under North Sinai Conditions. Egypt. J.
Agric. Res., 84 (3), 2006.

F. A. Stilgenbauer. Michigan Sugar Beet Industry. Economic Geography, Vol. 3, No. 4.
(Oct., 1927), pp. 486-506. Retrieved on November 15, 2006 from
http://links. j stor.org/ sici?sici=001 3-
OO95%28192710%293%3A4%3C486%3ATMSBI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J.

Fomstrom, James and Miller, Steven. 1998. Cover Crops for Wind Erosion Protection of
Sugar Beets. University of Wyoming Cooperative Extension Service. B-1052.
Retrieved on August 27, 2007 from http/lces.uwyo.edu/PUBS/B1052.pdf

Garst, B. A., & Bruce, F. A. (2003). Identifying 4-H camping outcomes using a
standardized evaluation process across multiple 4-H educational centers. Journal
of Extension, [On-line], 41(3), Available at:
http://www.joe.org/joe/2003june/rb2.shtml

Gat, Nahum, Erives, Hector, Fitzgerald, Glen J, Kafflca, Steve R, and Maas, Stephan J.
Estimating Sugar Beet Yield Using Aviris-derived Indices. Retrieved on August
27, 2007 from http://www.techexpo.com/WWW/opto-knowledge/Sugar-beets-
AVIRISZOOOpdf

Gray, F.A., Franc], OD. and Kerr2 F -D. Sugar Beet Nematode. Retrieved on August 27,
2007 from http://nematode.unl.edu/extpubs/wyosbn.htm

Habeeb, M., Birkenholz, R.J. & Weston, CR. (1987). Clientele group and Extension
council officer perceptions of the Cooperative Agricultural Extension Service.

Journal of American Association of Teach Educators in Agriculture, 28 (4), 15-
20. '

Harveson, Bob. 2003. Plant Disease Central. Rhizoctonia Root/Crown Rot. Retrieved on
August 27, 2007 from
http://www.pdc.unl.edu/sugarbeet/RhizoctoniaRootAndCrownRot/text.htrn

101

Hewitt, B. (1989). Evaluation 3 personal perspective. Training and Development in
Australia, 16(3), 23-24.

Kaplowitz, D.M, Hadlock, TD. and Levine, Ralph. Public Opinion Quarterly, A
Comparison of Web and Mail Survey Response Rates. 2004 68(1):94-101;
doi:10.1093/poq/nfh006.

Kelsey, Kathleen D., Schnelle, Mike and Bolin, Patricia. (2005). Increasing Educational
Impact: A Multi-Method Model for Evaluating Extension Workshops. Journal of
Extension. June, 43 (3).

Krall, J .M., Koch, D.W., Gray, F .A., and Yun, L.M. 1996. Potential of Sugar Beet
Nematode-resistant Radishes and Mustard for Use in Sugar Beet Rotations. P.
619-622. In: J. J anick (ed.) Progress in new Crops. ASHS Press, Arlington, VA.

Israel, G. (1991). Reaching Extension's clientele: Exploring patterns of preferred
information channels among small farm operators. Southern Rural Sociology, 8,
15-32.

Lavis, KR. & Blackburn, DJ. (1990). Extension clientele satisfaction. Journal of
Extension, 28, 36.

Lauer, Joseph G. 1995. Agronomy Journal. Plant Density and Nitrogen Rate Effects on
Sugar Beet Yield on Quality Early in Harvest. 87:586-591.

Mark, M. M., Henry, G. T., & Julnes, G. (2000). Evaluation: An integrated framework
for understanding, guiding, and improving policies and programs. San Francisco:
J ossey—Bass.

Marsden, Jane M.(199l) Evaluation: Towards a definition and statement of purpose.
Australian Journal of Educational Technology. 1991 , 7(1), 31-38.

May, Mike. 2000. Weed Control in Sugar Beet. E.I. Due Pont de Nemours and Company.
Retrieved on August 27, 2007 from
http://www.gbr.ag.dupont.com/dupont/pages/page.jhml?page_id=Debut

McDonel, K.H. et al. 1941. History of Cooperative Extension Work in Michigan, 1941-
1939. Extension Bulletin 229. East Lansing: Michigan State University.

Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station (2006). Michigan State University Extension
(2006). Saginaw Valley Dry Bean & Sugar Beet Research Farm. Retrieved on
September 28, 2006 from http://www.maes.msu.edu/ressta/saginawvalley.

102

Michigan Sugar Company. 2006. Michigan Sugar Company: A Grower Owned
Cooperative. Retrieved on November 16, 2006 from
http://www.michigansugar.com.

Michigan State University Extension. 1994. Update on Implementation of Area of
Expertise and Core Competency. East Lansing: Michigan State University.

Michigan State University Extension. 2006. Mission Statement. Retrieved on August 11,
2007 from: www.msue.edu.

Malheur Experiment Station. Sugar Beet Production and Management. Retrieved on
August 27, 2007 from http://www.cropinfo.net/crops/sugarbeetshtm

Morishita, Don. 2003. Pacific Northwest Weed Management Handbook. Extension
Services of University of Idaho, Oregon State University, and Washington State
University (Corvallis: Oregon State University).

Mortvedt, J.J., Westfall, D.G., and Croissant, R.L. (1996). Colorado State University
Cooperative Extension. Crop Series: Soil. Fertilizing Sugar Beets. No. 0.542.3/96.

Mukasa, Yuji. Science Links Japan. Seed Priming Treatment Promoting Early Growth
and Resulting in Uniform Plant Weight in Sugar Beet. No. 43. 108-115. (2002).

Orzeszko-Rywka, A. and Podlaski, S. Plant, Soil, Environment. The Effect of Sugar Beet
Seed Treatments on their Vi gour. 49, 2003 (6): 249-254.

Patton, Michael Q. (1997). Utilization-Focused Evaluation: The New Century Text. Sage
Publications: International Educational and Professional Publisher. Thousand
Oaks, London, New Delhi.

Patton, M. Q. (1994). Developmental evaluation. Evaluation Practice 15(3), 311 - 319.

Schaefer, David R., and Don A. Dilhnan. 1998. "Development of a Standard E-Mail
Methodology." Public Opinion Quarterly 62:378—97.

Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, and
M. Scriven (Eds), Perspectives in Curriculum Evaluation (pp. 39-83). Chicago:
Rand McNally.

Scheirer, M. A. (1994). Designing and using process evaluation. In J. S. Wholey, H.

Hatry and K. Newcomer (Eds), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation (pp.
40-68). San Francisco : Josey Bass.

103

Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus. (4 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Simmons, LR. 1962. Early Development of Cooperative extension Work in Agriculture
and Home Economics in the United States. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cooperative Extension
Service, Cornell University.

Smith, John A. 2004. Sugar Publication. Check for Wear Inside Planter Seed Tubes.
Retrieved on August 27, 2007 from http://ww.sugarpub.com/Jan04_art1.htrn

Stat Pack. Mail Survey Cover Letters. Retrieved on November 15, 2007 from
http://www.statpac.com/surveys/cover-letters.htm.

The Survey System. Creative Research Systems. Retrieved on November 15, 2007
from: httpzllwww.surveysystem.com/sdesign.htm

Suvedi, Murari. 2001. Evaluation of Michigan Sugarbeet Advancement Program. Center
for Evaluative Studies. Department of Community, Agriculture and Natural
Resource Studies. Michigan State University Extension, Michigan State
University.

Suvedi, Murari. (2002). Evaluation of Area of Expertise (AOE) Team Approach to
Applied Research and Extension in Michigan.

Suvedi, M., Lapinski, M.K., and Campo, S. (2000). F armers’ Perspectives of Michigan
State University Extension: Rends and Lessons from 1996 and 1999. Journal of
Extension, 38, 1.

Suvedi, M. and Morford, S. (2003). Conductin Program and Project Evaluations: A
Primer for Natural Resource Program Managers in British Columbia.

United States Department of Agriculture. National Agriculture Statistic Services.
Retrieved on May 31, 2007 from:
http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/censusOZ/volume l /us/st99_1_OOl_OOl .pdf

Warner, P., & Christenson, J. (1984). The Cooperative Extension Service--A national
assessment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Wigley, J. (1988). Evaluating training: Critical issues. Training and Development in
Australia, 15(3), 21-24.

104

Y LIB

RARIES

Mlclmlolllllslllll llmllvllllllllll
3 1293 03063 3

550