. .. .... . .. . ‘ . . V. . ‘y . . ‘ . ‘ ., .. In
.. , ‘ ... . . ...., ‘. .... . . .9, y.‘ 1 .. . . ,. . ., . . .1 V .1 ‘, . .1. .
. _ .
. .
,A , .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . 2.! 3.. i ..,

  
  

{II-I

 

llllHill\Illlllllllllll Ill llllll’olllllllll Ill

3 1293

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
Characteristics, Technical Educational Needs

and Preferred Educational Delivery Methods
of Alaskan Agricultural Producers

presented by

Carolyn L. Pennington

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M . S . degree in Agriculture and
Extension Education

aJor professor

 

 

Date % .@ /¢’£

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

 

LlBRARY
1 Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

0 no
,6 f I ? 'u4
Lg .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunlty Institution
cMMma-M

 

CHARACTERISTICS, TECHNICAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS
AND PREFERRED EDUCATIONAL DELIVERY METHODS
OF ALASKAN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS

BY

Carolyn L. Pennington

A THESIS

Submitted to

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

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Agricultural and Extension Education

1992

9 L)

/

(/7:-

ABSTRACT
CHARACTERISTICS, TECHNICAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS AND

PREFERRED EDUCATIONAL DELIVERY METHODS OF
ALASKAN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS

BY
Carolyn L. Pennington

Productive agricultural enterprises are often the result of hard
work, information, education and luck. With the recent development of
agriculture in Alaska, pertinent information and education for subarctic
production conditions are vital.

A general needs assessment of Alaskan agricultural producers was
used to identify demographic characteristics, identify sources of
agricultural information preferred and utilized, and identify existing
and preferred educational delivery systems and programs.

The mail survey consisted of 46 questions divided into four
sections: agricultural experience and education, information sources,
educational programs, and demographic information.

Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, frequencies, and
correlations. There were several strong positive correlations between
commodity produced, preferred information method and importance of
educational programs.

Data revealed respondents were an average age of 52 years, having
at least a high school education and 31 years of general agricultural
experience. Information sources used most included magazines and
Cooperative Extension Service (CBS). The information source most
preferred was person to person. Participation in CBS and local
organizations was most frequently listed by respondents. Top programs

of importance included University and CBS.

Copyright by
CAROLYN LEE PENNINGTON

1992

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This document is a reflection of the dedication of many, hence I
would like to express my sincere appreciation to a few of the many who

made the dream a reality."

Thank you to Dr. Kirk Heinze, who served as my major professor
during the final lap; your encouragement and input kept me moving.
Thank you also to Dr. deie Moore for getting me on the right track in

the beginning.

Sincere appreciation to my committee members, Dr. Jack Blliot, Dr.
Joe Levine, and Dr. Howard Person. Your varied insights gave me food

for thought.

Special thanks to the supportive ABB crew of professors,

secretaries, and fellow students - - one and all.

Also many thanks to DeLon Brown, Alaska Agricultural Statistical
Service, for your suggestions and assistance in reaching the Alaskan
farmers. Many thanks to Alan Tonne for your assistance in data
collection and moral support, and to Steven Lay for your invaluable time

and information.

Most important appreciation to Dr. Carla Kirts as mentor,
philosopher and friend. You may have been miles away, but you were

always there.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
LIST OF FIGURES . C O O O O O O O O O O O 0
CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . .

Background of the Study . . . . . .
Significance and Statement of Problem
Purpose and Objectives . .
Definition of Terms . . . .
Limitations of the Study . .
Basic Assumptions . . . . .

O O O O O O
O O O O O 0

CHAPTER II - REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . .
IntrOdnct ion 0 O O O O O O 0

Alaskan Agricultural Development . . . .
Alaskan Bducational thension Programs.

Relevant Studies and Instrument Development Review

SW 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
CHAPTER III - METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . .

Research Design . . . . . . .
Subject Selection . . .

Procedures for Data Collection
Outcome Measures . . . . . . .
Data Analysis . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER IV - STUDY FINDINGS e e e e e e e e e e

Section I - Demographic Characteristics of

O O O O O O
O O O O O O
O O O O O O
O O O O O O
O O O O O 0

Respondents

Section II - Preference and Use of Agricultural

Information Sources by Respondents .

Section III - Preferences and Use of Agricultural
Bducational Delivery Systems and Programs by

Respondents . . . . . . . .
Section IV - Summary of Correlations . . .

CHAPTER V - DISCUSSION OP RESULTS . . . . . . .

CHAPTER VI - CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS .

APPENDIX A - QUESTIONNAIRE AND SURVEY MATERIALS

APPENDIX B - UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING

HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL LETTER . . . . . .
APPENDIX C - SUMMARY OF CORRELATIONS . . . . . .
APPENDIX D - LISTING OP RESPONDENT COMMENTS . .

LI ST or unuums O O O O O O O O I O I O O O O

Page
vii

00 Q QUIU'IONH

36

4O
42
44

SO
51
54
68

Table

2.
3.
4.

10.
11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

LIST OF TABLES

Alaskan Agricultural Producer Response to the Survey . . .
Alaskan Agricultural Producer Response by Age Group . . .
Years of Agricultural Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Years of Alaskan Agricultural Experience . . . . . . . . .
Rating of Agricultural Experience and Bducation Levels of
Importance from Various Sources by Alaskan
Agricultural Producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Alaskan Agricultural Producers Highest Level of Bducation

Percentage of Income from Agricultural Production . . . .

Percentage of Alaskan Agricultural Producers
Raising Selected Commodities . . . . . . . . . . . .

Comparison of Selected Commodities and
Agricultural Income Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number of People in Household at Agricultural Site . . . .

Percentages of Alaskan Agricultural Producers
Using Selected Agricultural Information Sources . .

Rating of Preferred Agricultural Information
Sources by Alaskan Agricultural Producers . . . . .

Percentage of Respondents Participating in
Bducational Programs on Agriculture During 1991 . .

Rating of Importance of Bducational Programs on
Agricultural Sources During 1991 by Alaskan
Agricultural Producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Preferred Times for Bducational Programs on Agriculture
by Alaskan Agricultural Producers . . . . . . . . .

vi

Page

25
26
27
27

28
29
29

3O

31
32

33

34

35

36

37

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1. Map of Alaskan Agricultural Regions . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Map of Alaskan Agricultural State Projects . . . . . 6
3. Conceptual Framework for Study . . . . . . . . . . . 20

vii

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

8 o d o e tud

Barly pioneer farmers in America learned agricultural skills from
family operations, apprenticeship work, and neighbors. Formal or
structured education to develop agricultural skills was limited or non-
existent in most cases. New innovations spread slowly as skeptical
farmers had to rely on observations of other community members who were
daring enough to attempt changes in traditional farming practices.

With the establishment of Land Grant Colleges in 1862, formal
educational opportunities to study agriculture developed. Farmers in
production were faced with potential problems of distance, limited time
to attend classes and pressures associated with limited previous
educational experience. The 1887 establishment of agricultural research
stations provided a more direct route for information useful to farmers,
yet dissemination of the information was still limited. The extension
of the research information provided by the land grant institutions to
the farmers off campus became a reality with the introduction of the
Cooperative Extension Service in 1914. Farmers were able to gain
relevant information in local areas and had access to knowledgeable
extension specialists within a short distance of the farm.

Alaskan agricultural producers received information in much the
same way as the previously mentioned farmers. Additionally, the early
northern farmers were influenced by Russian agricultural practices.
Russians settled in Alaska in search of furs in the early 1700's, and
many brought foodstuffs to support the growing communities. 0n Kodiak
Island in 1784, Grigori Shelikof founded a settlement at Three Saints

Day and brought livestock with him (Snodgrass, 1982).

2

Later settlers from Russia brought chickens, cows and grain which
expanded the agricultural base (Snodgrass, 1982). When the Russian
occupation ended, many of the agricultural practices remained in effect
in the native villages, but only for a short time.

Agricultural regions were surveyed in the early 1900's by 0.8.
Department of Agriculture for potential development (Pig. 1). In the
mid 1930's, the federal government brought approximately 250 unsettled
farmers from Wisconsin, North Dakota, Michigan and other midwest states
to relocate in Alaska and develop agriculture in the Matanuska Valley.
These farmers established holdings and began producing milk, hay, small
grains, and potatoes. Most of the feed concentrates were shipped in by
barge for the dairy cattle, while the hay and silage was harvested
locally (Restad, 1986). These early Alaskan farmers brought with them

agricultural knowledge attained from hands-on, midwest experiences.

5 c d at t 0 ob em

As the Alaskan population has expanded, the state government has
initiated programs to encourage agricultural development. Imports of
meat, milk, fruit, vegetables, grain products and livestock feedstuffs
still outweigh the contributions by local producers. While Alaska may
provide challenges for farmers, e.g. subarctic climate, shorter growing
season for crops, and underdeveloped transportation/ marketing networks,
the problem of limited educational and technical assistance is one which
may be addressed with hopes of potential solutions. y

While state projects have provided great incentive and opportunity
for new agricultural development, few programs have guidelines regarding
the experience required by the participants or the technical assistance
available. New farmers with limited experience can find themselves in
situations where they are unable to assess and implement needed actions

necessary for success.

  

‘11. I. 1.9...- t-35u3s. euiel. a...

 

   

1.. .... .I.

 

[Iii .

~an 5 8.32 B 2352.5 2: o. 3:222.
995 SE; .2355: ecu 2.523... 5 9s. aooxo =~
83.0 33353 ecu .99 new no? c323 8394..
c. 396; Engage 35.325: :33 note... :56
.5969 .808“. of. .89 5 333m coizomcoo :8
(cm: on. 3 3.305 mm; ecu :03 £5 .o .63 on.
5 Banana cuE; ._m=co_oa 3.23355 5.; 3.0... 8.32
B one 9: co E35 39: 2 32:; 9a .38 25
co 2:236 8.32 .0 32... 35.325". can. one 0.0
6.29::me 62:0 9555 E25530 9: 3 99
E 902352. .29 .2955 39.53me ES::9&<
3mm? 2: do toast 5 neaoaam 3.3.95 a9: 9.:

                

 

.. r... I

 

 

Re: i Q,
WM f... xt \a‘hh

 

_,
bus). or“. lu‘k ht: «Malian—m
CO mwoamz

 

 

HIRED“ L {\dq‘Kfih.‘ «3|: ISMFIEK I

ztke «\QS «ADAMA 2r? ,/ ,,
LW ,

L .
\<ka Vtx< ~\ innv

 

/

.
5......5... 1

v
f
4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1.

 

 

ei t...

‘3‘ 1.. Lil...)

Map of Alaskan Agricultural Regions

(Rested & McNickolas, 1983)

4

Current state agricultural projects provide land and low interest,
long term loans for those interested in Alaskan farming. The investment
made by the state to increase the agricultural base is one worth
protecting, hence agricultural education and technical assistance could
reduce the unnecessary risk farmers are faced with and could provide a
higher success rate for farmers currently struggling.

Because recent state funding and support in Alaska have not
increased to maintain needed levels for the farming communities, it is
vital to determine what the remaining agricultural producers need in
terms of technical educational assistance from existing programs. By
identifying and providing educational assistance, state and local
agencies can help farmers maintain current levels of production, and
perhaps expand in some areas. This production, in turn, provides
agricultural products that would otherwise be imported from overseas and

other states at higher costs and lower quality to the Alaskan consumer.

W
The purpose of this study was to determine the educational
background, current educational needs and preferred educational delivery
systems of Alaskan agricultural producers. The specific objectives
included:
1. Identify demographic characteristics of current Alaskan
agricultural producers,
2. Identify sources of agricultural information preferred and
currently utilized by Alaskan agricultural producers,
3. Identify existing and preferred educational delivery systems

and programs utilized by Alaskan agricultural producers,

W

Agricultural education experiences - formal and non-formal education
opportunities provided by the University of Alaska, Community
College branches, agricultural cooperatives, Cooperative Extension
Service, and local, regional, and state agricultural organizations

Alaskan Agricultural Projects - state sponsored agricultural enterprise
developments in various locations around the state (Fig. 2.)

Alaskan agricultural producers - those farmers and ranchers in Alaska
reporting an annual sale of $1,000 or more of agricultural
products in 1990 (Alaska Division of Agriculture, 1991, p.8)

Crops - includes, but not limited to, small grains (barley, oats,
canola/rapeseed, rye and wheat), turf/lawn seed, hay, and potatoes

Bducational delivery systems - those methods used to disseminate
information to producers, including but not limited to
interpersonal, small group, seminar, lecture, mass media, non-
formal and formal education

Livestock - includes cattle (dairy and beef), swine, sheep, goats,

poultry, and reindeer

W
The 1990 Alaska Division of Agriculture State Report listed 580

farms currently producing one or more agricultural commodities. A
follow up telephone call to the State Statistical Office on March 12,
1992, confirmed only 324 farms in production of small grains, hay,
potatoes, and/or livestock.

This study focused on those farmers in small grains, hay,
potatoes, and/or livestock production. Horticulture, greenhouse
production, and vegetable production have been previously studied, and
while found to have the highest percentage of agricultural income, these

enterprises are primarily privately funded (Brown, 1986, p. 39).

AGRICULTURE LAND DISPOSALS
1978—4983

NORYHCCNIRAL SALES

‘

lanana Loop
lluttalo

Su Creeks
Mrren

F0ur Mite Hm
Della I

Della Il

  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
    

Satcha

M

U

LUCISOO

23 Mac SIOugn /

Two Revers
Ros-e Creek

A

U‘

Two Mule Lacie
Browns C0un

SOUI HCENTRAL SALE 3

6 Homer

N

Game" Hans
Yalkccma North

0

Scouy Lake
Moose Creek

0

Lane Susana
Nancv L ate

Goo-.4: Creek.
Delta IsIsnds

'4) 0mm MncKcnzne

II Count-r Comer

Figure 2.

Map of Alaskan Agricultural State Projects

(Rostad & McNicholns, 1983)

7

This study examined demographics of the farmers, as well as
limited topics related to general farm production, educational
background, current educational participation, and desired future

educational experience offerings.

as ssum t'ons

For this study, it was assumed that the farmers surveyed have an
annual agricultural based income of $1,000 or more. It was further
assumed that the farmers have some knowledge of agricultural practices
and that the knowledge was gained through non-formal or formal
educational experiences.

The survey data were dependent upon the self reporting of the
questionnaire by the farmers; therefore, it was assumed the answers are

honest.

CHAPTER II - REVIEW OF LITERATURE
mm

In 1915, the National University Extension Association (NUBA) was
organized with the purpose of:

maintaining an official and authorized organization through

which colleges and universities engaged in educational

extension work may confer for the development and the

promotion of the best ideals, methods, and standards. (NUBA

Proceedings, 1940, p. ii)

By 1940, over 50 colleges and universities had membership in the
National University Extension Association, promoting the importance of
extension education. Topics discussed at the annual conventions
included the implications of population growth and distribution on
education, arising adult education problems, state-wide educational
radio programs, use of visual educational aides, and vocational guidance
(NUBA Proceedings, 1937). While many of these topics did not directly
address agricultural extension education, the principles discussed were
relevant and could have been used by the agricultural extension sector.

The agricultural extension sector provides technical educational
assistance while acting as a personal link between farmers who need
information and agencies who are potential information sources (Sieber
et al., 1972). Current extension programs take many forms, both formal
and non-formal, including universities, community colleges, agricultural
organizations, and Cooperative thension Service programs.

Traditional extension programs have been used in Alaska with mixed
results. While many of the Alaskan farmers integrate practices
previously learned in other states, those practices occasionally must be
modified to meet the unique situations caused by climatic and
environmental differences. The production of small grains can be a
relatively straightforward process until farmers are confronted with the
reality of permafrost and slow organic cycling soils. Alaskan
agricultural extension programs, while integrating traditional
agricultural skills, must address specific situational factors to

provide effective information.

a v o

Barly 1900's farming in the Tanana Valley was a result of the
mining impacts in the area. Increases in population created a greater
demand for food products. Local gardens provided vegetable produce,
while hay and grain were also raised (Lewis and Thomas, 1982, p. 3).
The amended Homestead Act of 1903 provided 320 acres to homesteaders,
many of whom raised their own produce and limited livestock (Johnson and
Stanton, 1955, p. 18). Lewis and Thomas (1982) stated:

In 1935, a federal program moved 250 impoverished

farm families from midwestern United States to the

Matanuska Valley in central Alaska. The families were

supported in various agricultural endeavors. The primary

purpose was to help them supply themselves with food, not to

provide a catalyst for development. (p.3)
Other sources (Burton, 1975) outline the original purposes of the
Matanuska Valley Colony Settlement:

1. To get and keep families off relief,

2. To determine whether or not Alaska could absorb further
population,

3. To aid the economy of Alaska by producing more food

locally and hence lessening dependence on expensive
and unreliable transportation. (p. 6)

These early agricultural sites provided the basis of knowledge for
dealing with the subarctic conditions unique to Alaska. The Matanuska
colonists had a working knowledge of farming practices prior to arrival
in Alaska, and had to adapt to the conditions.

Soil surveys done during the colonization times provided
information on suitable lands throughout the state. Approximately 20
million acres, about 5% of Alaska's total acreage, of virgin soil was
identified as capable of producing crops (Amstrup, 1982, p. 27). Of
that, recent studies identify approximately 3 million acres of potential
agricultural lands located near viable transportation - - existing roads
and railroad lines (Drew, 1989, p. 2). With less than 1% of the land in
private ownership, development of state programs for production

expansion becomes the key. Thomas and Lewis (1981) state that

historical production records indicate that ”no more than 20,000 acres

9

10

of privately held land ever was in crop production in Alaska" (p. 366).

Because of the limited acreage in production, food imports to
Alaska are extremely high. The state obtains 95$ of its food supplies
from outside sources (Amstrup, 1982, p. 27; Lewis and Thomas, 1982, p.
1). Alaska farmers produce less than 30‘ of the fresh milk needed in
the state, 2% of the red meat, 15‘ of cool season vegetables, and 17‘ of
the feed grain for the livestock and poultry produced in Alaska (Thomas
and Lewis, 1981, p. 370; Amstrup, 1982, p. 29).

Agricultural programs to expand production in Alaska were boosted
by the oil development in the early 1970's. In 1979, the Alaska State
Legislature created the Alaska Agricultural Action Council (AAAC) to
oversee the planning and management of agricultural development projects
in the state (Alaska Agricultural Action Council, 1980, p. 2; Lewis and
Thomas, 1982, p. 4-6). The S-member council was appointed by and
answered to the governor rather than directly to the State Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Agriculture (Lewis and Thomas, 1982, p.
6; Bngelbrecht and Thomas, 1987, p. 78).

The Council was responsible for proposing specific agricultural
projects to the legislature for approval, selecting lands for
agricultural projects, conducting pilot marketing programs needed for
the projects, and providing statewide management for agricultural
development (Alaska Agricultural Action Council, 1980, p. 2; Lewis and
Thomas, 1982, p. 6). Several agricultural projects were proposed by the
Alaska Agricultural Action Council.

One of the most extensive was the Delta Agricultural Project.
Promoted to attract small grain farmers to Alaska's Interior, the Delta
project provided 60,000 acres of undeveloped land to be sold by lottery
in tracts of 2,000 to 3,600 acres (Alaska Agricultural Action Council,
1980, p. 3; Thomas and Lewis, 1981, p. 366; Bngelbrecht and Thomas,
1987). Applicants for the land lottery had three primary qualifications

to meet:

11

l. 30-day residency or voter registration

2. $35,000 in personal investment capital available

3. Submit a qualification statement listing experience
in similar farming, financial statement, and
academic or vocational education. (Lewis and
Thomas, 1982, p. 6; Thomas and Lewis, 1981, p.
367)

While the qualifications were well intended for promoting success
of the farmers, several sources pointed out potential problems, best
summed up by Thomas and Lewis (1981, p. 360):

The kinds of agriculture to be included in the planning

process was a second major issue . . . planning for a

diversified series of farm enterprises in the initial

project [Delta] development phase could increase the chance

of failure. This position was based on the following

assumptions:

1) the new land area in the Delta-Clearwater had never
been farmed,

2) a large portion of the infrastructure necessary for
large farm development was missing and

3) many of the new farmers would have little
experience in a diversified line of farm
enterprises, particularly in a new lands
situation.
Lewis and Thomas (1982, p. 9) addressed this, ”because there has been
little agricultural activity in Alaska in the past, many farmers have
come from the industrial labor force. . . many are both inexperienced
and not totally dependent on income from farm production.”
The amended 1959 Alaska Land Statute outlines guidelines for the
Delta land lottery. Land prices were set at the appraised value by the
Director of the Alaska Division of Lands. The statute allows for the
title to be transferred for the agricultural rights only, as all
subsurface and other developmental rights are retained in perpetuity by
the state (Thomas and Lewis, 1981, p. 366). The fee simple title
required that the land be used only for agricultural purposes, and
excluded future subdivision and development.
The lottery was held in 1978, and farmers were expected to have
the land cleared and ready for planting by spring of 1982. Those

selected from the lottery were required to put up an initial payment

12

equal to 5‘ of the value of the parcel, and conservation and development
plans were to be completed and approved prior to development (Thomas and
Lewis, 1981, p. 367). Average land costs for the first Delta Project
were $51 an acre (Lewis and Thomas, 1982, p. 6).

By 1979, 80‘ of the tract acreage had trees cut, and 25‘ was
cleared and ready for spring planting (Alaska Agricultural Action
Council, 1980, p. 3). By the end of the same year, the State of Alaska
had invested $13 million in the project. Eighty-five percent of this
amount was government loans which borrowers were to repay to the state
(Thomas and Lewis, 1981, p. 366). At that time, it was estimated that
only $500,000 of private funds were invested.

To meet the growing financial needs of the developing agricultural
producers, the State Agricultural Revolving Loan Fund limit was raised
to $250,000 per farm in 1980, and two new financial institutions opened
their doors for agricultural loan business. The Commercial Fisheries
and Agriculture Bank (CFAB) and the Alaska Renewable Resources
Corporation both provided agricultural loans, but at a higher lending
rate than the 6‘ annual interest charged by the State Revolving Loan
Fund (Lewis and Thomas, 1982, p. 9).

The support from these three sources was vital to the producers.
Lewis and Thomas (1982) reported:

. . .discussions with commercial banks, the federal

farm credit system and the Farmers Home Administration

indicated that the high risk involved in securing loans in

an undeveloped agricultural area for loans with a restricted

title would limit other than state financial participation

until more data were available concerning production

capability of the land. (p. 6)

With development underway, the Alaska Agricultural Action Council
1980 report projected 500,000 acres in cultivation by 1990. (p. 7)
Within this same time frame, the state government projected a commitment
of $80 million by 1992, of which, 73‘ would be repaid through loans
(Bngelbrecht and Thomas, 1987, p. 76). This financial commitment

encompassed the first Delta Project, as well as two other agricultural

projects (Delta II and Point Mackenzie).

13

Near the Delta Projects, state land was auctioned off to encourage
diversified farming enterprises in 1978. Five thousand acres were sold
in smaller tracts of 20 to 325 acres and at higher prices than the
original Delta Project ($185 to $775 per acre) (Alaska Agricultural
Action Council, 1980, p. 3; Thomas and Lewis, 1981, p. 367).<

Development near Anchorage at the Point Macxenzie Project was
established to encourage dairy production. The second Delta Project,
adjacent to the first, was to encourage small grains and diversified
crops. All of the development was directed at Alaska's ten-year goal of
being more self-sufficient. There were projected production levels for
60‘ of the fluid milk consumed in the state, for increases in pork
production from the then current levels of 2 - 3‘ to 33‘ of the state's
needs and for production of 30‘ of the beef consumed in state by 1992
(Amstrup, 1982, p. 29).

The Alaska Agricultural Action Council had high hopes for the year
2000 as well for in-state production: ”Alaska should be self -
sufficient in fluid milk and pork production, and probably more than 50‘
self - sufficient in beef production“ (Amstrup, 1982, p. 29).

Agricultural development under the Alaska Agricultural Action
Council was short lived. With the 1983 election of a new governor,
policies and priorities changed. The state financed grain terminal
construction was halted, as the executive office felt in-state markets,
rather than exports, should be developed first (Bngelbrecht and Thomas,
1987, p. 88). The Council appointments were not renewed, and the state
agricultural development responsibilities were returned to the
Department of Natural Resources.

The Department of Natural Resources, Division of Agriculture,
reported 1,000,000 acres of farm land and 580 farmers in 1990 (1991, p.
8). These numbers are down from previous years, according to the same
source. This decline could cause several problems including increasing
food costs, especially in rural areas, due to prohibitive transportation

costs, and fluctuating job markets based upon non-renewable resources.

14

The Alaska Agricultural Action Council, in its first report to the

state legislature addressed these potential problems:

Increased Alaska food production should have a stabilizing
effect on Alaska food prices . . . in rural Alaska local
food production may be the only reasonable alternative to
higher imported-food costs, scarcity of subsistence foods,
and increasing dietary health problems . . . many rural
families in Alaska spend about 66‘ of their income to meet
less than 50‘ of their food needs (subsistence foods make
the rest) . . . the average American family [lower 48
states] spends less than 17‘ of its income on food (1982, p.
38-39).

Carl Amstrup, then Executive Director of the Alaska Agricultural
Action Council, gave a speech at the 1982 Alaska Agricultural Symposium
and stated:

Another benefit from developing an agricultural industry is
that it would help stabilize Alaska's economy. This would
be done by supplying a substantial number of jobs in an
industry that provides income on a steady year-to-year
basis, thus avoiding the sharp ups and downs of an economy
that depends principally on nonrenewable resources. (p. 32)

Burton, in 1975, mentioned:

The agricultural industry appears to have definite
possibilities for expanding from the present 600 workers,
and a farm product value of $5.5 million to more than 55,000
workers and a farm product value in excess of $4.0 billion
per year, if serious attention is directed to its
development. (p. 2)

Barker (1982) examined the economics of Alaska's agricultural industry
and concluded:

. . .expansion must be premised on adding units of
production compatible with the use of the most efficient
technology available . . . such an approach, however,
carries a concurrent challenge to simultaneously develop the
infrastructure complementary to such production units.

That is to say, transportation systems, intermediate and
final marketing systems for agricultural inputs and
products, processing, credit services, technical assistance,
research and extension . . . are essential as integrated
components of an agricultural develOpment program based upon
creating a competitive and therefore viable agricultural
industry. (p. 2)

s t tens o s
The beginning of organized agriculture extension in Alaska came
with the establishment of the Experimental Stations around the state.
While no formal colleges of agriculture had yet been built, the stations

provided information and aid to local communities attempting to support

15

themselves. The Sitka station operated from 1898 to 1932, Kodiak
station from 1898 to 1931, Renai from 1899 to 1908, Rampart station from
1900 to 1925, and Copper Center from 1903 to 1908 (Gasser, 1951, p. 5-7;
Burton, 1975, p. 2). Only the Fairbanks station, established in 1906,
and the Matanuska station, established in 1915, are still in operation
(Lewis and Thomas, 1982, p. 3).

In 1917, the Alaska Agricultural College and School of Mines began
to take shape, opening its doors as a federally supported land-grant
institute in 1921 (Lewis and Thomas, 1982, p. 3). The College
officially became the University of Alaska in 1935, and the Experiment
Stations and the Extension Service were combined under a single director
in 1937 (Burton, 1975, p. 6).

A special report to the governor from the Alaska Division of
Agriculture (1983) suggested:

Organize agricultural research, teaching and extension in a

single administrative unit within the University of Alaska

[the benefit of] closer coordination of agricultural

research and teaching in the School of Agriculture and Land

Resources Management with agricultural extension in the

Cooperative Extension Service will strengthen the transfer

of new technology to the agricultural community. (p. 19)

Alaska State Senator Pappy Moss, speaking at the Alaska
Agricultural Symposium stated, "The research and extension levels of the
University Experimental Stations, although of quality, are not
sufficient for the magnitude of the development project that we have
undertaken." (1983, p. 6)

The 1981 annual report by the Alaska Agricultural Action Council
stated:

Much of the agricultural research and extension in Alaska

will need to be done in the public sector. Researchers in

the private sector rely on the Experimental Station to

provide primary information for Alaskan agriculture.

Investment through the public sector for agricultural

research and extension will pay off in the formation of a

successful and competitive agricultural industry in Alaska.
(p. 17)

A good deal of the research and extension reflects basic
agricultural needs and information. Specialized grain, potato and

horticultural varieties have been developed to meet the environmental

16

constraints of Alaskan production (Husby and Rrieg, 1987, p. 4; Carling
and Westphale, 1990). Test plots and demonstrations for increasing crop
yields are common around the state, and findings are released to help
benefit local producers (Klebesadel, 1983; Cooperative Extension
Service, 1987: Agricultural Experimental Station, 1983).

According to Vandre (1991), there are several specialized
educational Cooperative Extension Service programs offered:

1. Cooperative Extension Service Pest Scout Program

2. Alaska Annual Agricultural Symposium

3. Potato Growers Conference

4. Vegetable Growers Conference

5. Numerous workshops covering topics from crop

fertility to animal husbandry to pesticide
applicator training

6. Annual Farm Tours in Fairbanks and Delta Junction

7. Annual Farm Forum updates on various topics
In addition, there are local, state and national organizations which
also provide agricultural information to producers including:

-Soil Conservation Service

-Farmers Home Administration

-Alaska Agricultural Statistical Service

-A1aska Farmers and Stockgrowers Association

-Alaska Governor's Office of International Trade
and Development '

-Alaska Agricultural and Forestry Experimental Stations
-Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
-Alaska Department of Natural Resources

-Agricultural Revolving Loan Fund

-Alaska Plant Materials Center

-University of Alaska state-wide system (including
community colleges)

-Native Corporation regional specialists

Programs provided attempt to meet specific needs of the agricultural

clientele. With this in mind, review of relevant studies on

17

agricultural education and information provided a basis for development

of this study.

v v n v w

Agricultural education opportunities and information can be
provided from a multitude of sources. Recent studies, most from the
Cooperative Extension Service (CBS) standpoint, have tried to address
information and educational needs.

Beiler (1987, Spring) sent out a four-page questionnaire to 80
farmers "to find out how much [those] farmers learned about grain
marketing techniques in programs sponsored by Ohio CBS [that they had
attended].' (p. 19) After follow-up questionnaires and telephone calls,
75‘ of the questionnaires were returned and usable. Approximately 28‘
of the nonrespondents were randomly resampled using Miller and Smith's
(1983) double-dipping procedures to address the nonrespondent issue
(Beiler, 1987, p. 19). No significant differences between the
respondents and nonrespondents were found by Beiler.

The primary objective of Beiler's study was to determine the
amount understood and adopted by the local farmers from the grain
marketing programs (1987, p. 19) Other objectives included the
determination of the level of future training desired by the clientele
(p. 20). Results from Beiler's study found farmers who participated in
the program learned the basic skills but lacked understanding of the
more advanced ideas, possibly due to lack of applicable situations for
the farmers to use training (1987, p. 21). In this case, useful,
applied knowledge may have improved the farmers' understanding.

Applicable situations, while encompassing true-to-life examples,
should also be reflective of learner characteristics. Obahayujie and
Hillison (1988, Spring) stated:

The clientele served and its unique characteristics must be

kept in mind. The methods used must coincide with maturity,

educational level, background, and objectives of the
audience being served (p. 21).

18

For their study, Obahayujie and Hillison sent out a mail questionnaire
to 1,202 Virginia beef farmers, and received a 67‘ usable response rate.
Comparison of nonrespondents (telephone follow-up) with the respondents
indicated no statistical differences between the two groups (1988, p.
21). Comparisons between full-time and part-time cattle farmers (less
than 50‘ of income from beef cattle sales) were made to assess potential
differences between preferred information methods (p. 21). Results
showed part-time farmers felt on-farm demonstrations were more
effective, while full-time farmers preferred newsletters] publications
and visits to experimental stations (all three methods ranked a mean of
3.29 on a scale of 1 to 4 with 4 being perceived as most effected)
(Obahayujie and Hillison, 1988, p. 21). The researchers concluded
(1988):

Part-time and full-time beef farmers should be reached by

different methods. Part-time . . . preferred more

individual contact methods . . . but full-time farmers

preferred mass contact methods. . . overall, both groups

were more pleased than displeased with the dissemination

methods used (p. 22).

In 1983, Steinfelt and Iams sent out a mail survey (58‘ usable
rate) to a random sample of the general population of Yuma, Arizona to
examine the most and least preferred education methods of teaching
household financial management CBS program (1985, p. 15). The
researchers also attempted to address where families usually for needed
information, and if the families are not using CBS for specific
information, why not (p. 15). Results showed educational methods most
preferred to be individualized learning experience, and least preferred
were group meetings and radio programs (Steinfelt and Iams, 1985, p.
15). The questionnaires returned revealed participants who did not
contact Yuma County Extension for information “didn't know to ask for
such service (p. 16).“

“Knowing where people look for information is only half the battle
for extension communicators. Knowing where people find information is

the other half (Pounds, 1985, p. 20).“ An Iowa study (Pounds, 1985)

examined where people go for information, and where they actually find

19

the information. Mail surveys were sent out to 600 randomly chosen Iowa
residents, with a 57‘ usable return rate (Pounds, 1985, p. 21). Results
showed preference toward ”professionals or businesses" as sources where
people would seek information. Where the participants actually found
information appeared to be newspapers, with a high reported finding of
information in magazines and on television as well (Pounds, 1985, p. 21)
Implications cited by Pounds were (1985):

Results show people do pick up considerable amounts of

information . . . from newspapers, magazines, radio,

television, newsletters and leaflets. People are accustomed

to finding information in these media. That makes these

media valuable outlets for Extension information. (p. 23)

These preferences in delivery methods were also studied by Bielema
and Sofranko (1983). A mail questionnaire was sent to 260 single
parents with school-age children in a rural Illinois county to address
the following objectives:

1. To identify educational needs of single parents.

2. To determine their preferences for program delivery.

3. To identify single parents who would participate in a
program, as well as in program planning.

The study defined program delivery as understanding:

1. use of various information channels to publicize an
educational program

2. preferences for particular instructional modes, and

3. preferences on program format (location, time, length)
(Bielema and Sofranko, 1983, p. 4) .

Results of delivery preferences outlined “the best means of
disseminating information about forthcoming programs was through '1ocal
newspapers' (Bielema and Sofranko, 1983, p. 6).” Preferred
instructional modes favored receiving educational information through a
monthly newsletter and small group discussion (p. 6). Respondents

preferred one hour, weekly evening group meetings or discussion format

(p. 7).

Summer!

Previous studies have attempted to address information and
educational needs of various user groups. Identifying specific areas of
need and effective delivery systems for Alaskan agricultural producers
may provide insight for future information and program development.

Figure 3 shows the factors impacting the information/educational system.

 

-Previous education Demographic
and experience characteristics
agricultural
producers
J: J 7 J J
Agricultural Agricultural AgriculturalH Agricultural
information 49;. information program program
source source participationH importance

“a. “\\:::::::nc. “,r”r/¢////’7

Future information and
program development

Figure 3.

Conceptual framework for study

Correlations between use and/or preference for educational
agricultural programs, information sources, and demographic information
could help to target key producers in need of technical educational
assistance. Identification of the importance of and participation in
current programs by producers could promote further development of
effective programs while encouraging changes in programs less effective
or efficient in meeting clientele needs. Interactions between
information sources and programs could assist in reaching clientele

effectively through future development.

21
A survey of the Alaskan agricultural producers addressing the
specific areas of agricultural information use and preference, program
importance and participation, previous experience/education and
demographic characteristics could be a first step to meeting specific

information and educational needs.

CHAPTER III - METHODOLOGY
mm

To determine the demographic characteristics, technical education
needs and desired educational delivery methods of Alaskan farmers, a
mail survey was developed, distributed and analyzed. The development
and distribution was based upon guidelines and practices of Donald A.
Dillman (1978) and suggestions from DeLon Brown, Alaska State
Statistician (1992). This survey should have been perceived as non-
confrontational or invasive because participation was purely voluntary.

The survey was composed of four parts: previous agricultural
education and experience, preferred agricultural information sources,
participation in and importance of current programs, and demographic
information (see Appendix A). Questions dealing with previous
agricultural education/experience and importance of educational
agricultural programs were based upon a 1 to 5 Likert scale: 1 - not
applicable, 2 - not important, 3 - neutral importance, 4 - important,
and 5 - very important. The Likert scale for the questions on
information source preference was also a 1 to 5: l 3 strongly dislike, 2
- dislike, 3 - undecided, 4 - like and 5 8 strongly like. The data from
this survey aided in addressing the research objectives by providing
information relevant to those objectives stated earlier.

Because selection included greenhouse producers, horticulturalists
and produce farmers, the survey contained a screening question to help
identify the agricultural commodity produced by the survey participant.
Wise

All 324 farmers listed with the Alaska State Division of
Agriculture Statistics Office at the time of mailing were included in
the study. Because of State and Federal Privacy Acts, the mailing list
was not available to the project investigator: however, written
instructions for mailing procedures were provided to the Division of

Agriculture agent assigned to the mailing of the survey.

22

23

W

To help ensure anonymity of the subjects, names and addresses were
attached only to the outside envelope, and not listed on the survey or
reply forms. Pro-addressed, stamped reply forms were included with the
survey to prevent subjects from inadvertently using personal stationery
or return labels. Instructions for the subjects specifically stated not
to put name, address or signature on the survey or reply forms.

Follow-up reminder/thank you cards for survey return were
addressed at the same time as the surveys. These cards were mailed 7
days after the surveys were sent out to encourage return of the
instrument, and to thank those who may have already replied. The
follow-up cards were to help identify early and late respondents to the
survey. Because the investigator did not have access to the mailing
list, it was not possible to further contact the non-respondents after
the follow-up card mailing. The non-respondents were treated as similar

to the late respondents (Miller and Smith, 1983, p. 48).

Qutssms_nsa§ursa
Instrument validity was established through the review of the

survey by a panel of experts from Michigan State University, Department
of Agricultural and Extension Education, and University of Alaska
Fairbanks, School of Agriculture and Land Resources Management.

Because the survey was based upon a census of the total listing of
Alaskan agricultural producers, no pilot test could occur. Reliability
and suitability were determined through review from the panel of experts
and peers. Also, a Statistical Package for Social Sciences reliability
check was implemented, and desired alpha levels of .60 for reliability
were used for developing the final survey. Necessary changes were made
to the survey to help insure the validity, reliability, and suitability

of the instrument used in this project.

24
Miami!

The data analysis was based upon responses to Likert-type
questions focusing on importance of previous and current agricultural
experience and education, preferences for information sources, and the
importance of current educational programs on agriculture.

Final analysis of Likert-type questions on importance of current
educational programs required adjustment to include only those
respondents who participated in the programs. The scale then reflected
a 1 to 4 scale of importance, with 1 s not important, 2 - neutral
importance, 3 - important, and 4 - very important.

Further analysis was based upon responses to dichotomous questions
on use of agricultural information sources, participation in current
educational programs, and preferred times for educational programs.

The responses to the Likert-type questions were analyzed using
descriptive statistics (frequencies, means, standard deviations and
percentages). Correlational statistics were used to determine if there
were any statistically significant relationships between and within
groups. Responses to the dichotomous questions were analyzed using
frequencies and percentages, and were in selected correlations.

To identify demographic characteristics of current Alaskan
agricultural producers, frequencies were examined for trends in age,
education, commodity produced, agricultural experience and agricultural
income. Correlations using Kendall Tau-C were run between previous
agricultural education, age, experience and agricultural income.
Kendall Tau-C was utilized due to the ordinal nature of the variables
and the need for a rectangular cross comparison.

Descriptive statistics and frequencies were used to identify
sources of agricultural information use and preference. Correlations
using Person Product Coefficient were run for comparison of current and

preferred agricultural information sources.

25

Analysis of existing and preferred educational delivery systems
and programs was done using descriptive statistics, frequencies, and
Person Product Coefficient correlations. Descriptive statistics were
utilized to determine the importance of current educational programs.
Frequencies were used to determine participation in current programs,
and preferences for future programs. Correlations were ran between

current and preferred educational delivery systems and programs.

CRAPTBR IV - STUDY FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to determine the educational and
experience background, current educational needs and educational
delivery systems preferences of Alaskan agricultural producers. The
specific objectives included:

1. Identify demographic characteristics of current Alaskan
producers,

2. Identify sources of agricultural information preferred
and currently used by Alaskan producers,

3. Identify existing and preferred educational delivery
systems and programs used by Alaskan producers.
The results of the study are presented in four sections: three
sections addressing each specific research objective, and the final

section summarizing correlational results.

MW
In order to address potential correlations and trends, nine
questions focusing on demographic characteristics were included in the
survey. Table 1 shows the total response rate and breakdown by gender.
Table 1

Alaskan Agricultural Producer Response to the Survey

 

 

 

 

N Percent
Alaskan Agricultural Producer
Respondents 131 40.43
Nonrespondents 193 59.57
TOTAL 324 100.00
Male 110 85.3
Female 419 14.7
TOTAL 129 100.0

 

26

27

Age classification were grouped all respondents (Table 2). Of
the producers still in production, 69.5‘ are 46 years old or older.
With the mean age reported at 52 years old, programs and information
sources need to integrate traditional agricultural methods as needed to
accommodate the older, traditional producers.

Table 2

Alaskan Agricultural Producer Response by Age Group

 

 

 

 

Age N Percent
25 thru 35 years 12 9.4
36 thru 45 years 27 21.1
46 thru 55 years 38 29.7
56 thru 65 years 32 25.0
66 thru 85 years 19 14.8
TOTAL 128 100.0
Mean - 52.32 years Std Dev - 12.10 Min - 25 Max - 80 n-128

 

Table 3 shows the years of general agricultural experience of the
respondents. The largest classification for years of general
agricultural experience was 11 thru 20 years of experience (24.8%).
Overall, more than half of the respondents had 0 to 30 years of

experience (55.2‘).

28

Table 3

Years of Agricultural Experience

 

 

 

 

Years N Percent
0 thru 10 years 13 10.4
11 thru 20 years 31 24.8
21 thru 30 years 25 20.0
31 thru 40 years 21 16.8-
41 thru 50 years 23 18.4
51 + years .12 9:5
TOTAL 125 100.0
Mean - 30.69 Std Dev - 16.18 Min - 0 Max - 76 N - 125

 

Table 4 summarizes the results from the question asking for number
of years of Alaskan agricultural experience. The largest response for
years of Alaskan agricultural experience was for those with 11 thru 20
years of experience (35.4‘), comparative with responses for years of
general agricultural experience in Table 3. More than fifty percent of
the respondents indicated a level of Alaskan agricultural experience
between 0 and 20 years (63.0%).

Table 4

Years of Alaskan Agricultural Experience

 

 

 

Years N Percent
0 thru 10 years 35 27.6
11 thru 20 years 45 35.4
21 thru 30 years 26 20.5
31 thru 40 years 13 10.2
41 thru 50 years 7 5.5
51 + years 1, .8
TOTAL 127 9 100.0

 

fiiifi'='I§.47 *:§tadfiov -‘12.02 Min - 0 Max - 60 *fi-127

29

Table 5 ranks the levels of importance of various experience and
educational sources. The mean was calculated on a Likert scale of 1 to
5, with 1 - not applicable to 5 - very important. Alaskan agricultural
producers responding to the survey rated their own farm experience and
education at a high level of importance (4.49). Formal educational
sources such as four year college/ university (2.20), community college
(2.17) and vocational/ technical school (1.90) were rated as the least
important sources of experience and education.

Comments on the surveys revealed experience from a variety of
sources, including respondent's own farm, on the job training, parents'
farm, hands on experience, and specific programs (see Appendix D,

question 17 - What was your most important agricultural learning

experience?).

Table 5

Rating of Agricultural Experience and Education Level of
Importance from Various Sources by Alaskan Agricultural Producers

 

 

Source Rank Mean Std. Dev.
Own Farm 1 4.49 1.09
Cooperative Extension 2 3.80 1.07
Local Agricultural Organization 3 3.28 1.24
State Agricultural Organization 4 3.17 1.30
Parent's Farm 5 3.13 1.77
Neighbor's Farm 6 3.02 1.43
National Agricultural Organization 7 2.83 1.28
High School 8 2.78 1.50
Relative's Farm 9 2.61 1.58
Four Year College/University 10 2.20 1.45
Community College 11 2.17 1.51
Vocational/Technical School 12 1.90 1.29

 

30
Table 6 shows all respondents indicated at least some level of
high school education or higher. Nearly half of the Alaskan
agricultural producers responding have attended college (48.9%). Areas
studied varied, with few being directly related to agriculture (see
Appendix D).

Table 6

Alaskan Agricultural Producers Highest Level of Education

 

 

 

N Percent
High School 39 29.8
Vocational/Technical School 14 10.7
College (Community or 4 year) 64 48.9
Graduate School 14 10.7
TOTAL 131 100.0

 

Approximately two-thirds (66.15) of the respondents indicated that
they had 0 to 248 of their annual income based upon sales of
agricultural commodities (see Table 7). Supplemental, non-agricultural
income from one or more persons in the household appeared to account for

the large majority of the disposable income of Alaskan agricultural

 

 

producers.
Table 7
Percentage of Income From Agricultural Production

N Percent
0 to 24‘ 82 66.1
25 to 498 18 14.5
50 to 74$ 6 4.8
75 to 1004 18 14.5

 

TOTAL 124 100.0

 

31
Table 8 lists frequencies and percentages of commodities raised by
respondents (more than one commodity could be selected). Alaskan
agricultural producers responding reported a substantial number of
multi-commodity operations. Hay operation (79.2%) was reported both as
a single commodity being produced, and, more frequently, as one of two

or more commodities, along with other crops or livestock.

Table 8

Percentages of Alaskan Agricultural Producers Raising
Selected Commodities

 

 

Commodity N Percent
1. Hay 103 79.2
2. vegetables 60 46.2
3. Potatoes 54 41.5
4. Beef cattle 49 37.7
5. Grain 47 36.2
6. Poultry 43 33.1
7. Swine 32 24.6
8. Dairy cattle 21 16.2
9. Sheep 18 13.8

10. Goats 13 10.0

 

32

Table 9 outlines the comparisons between commodities and
agricultural income levels. Those respondents receiving 75 to 100% of
their income from agricultural sources were predominately producers of

hay, potatoes, vegetables, and grain.

Table 9

Comparison of Selected Commodities
and Agricultural Income Levels

 

Number of Respondents

Commodity 0 - 24% 25 - 49% 50 - 74% 75 - 100%
(% Income from Agricultural Sources)

 

Hay 66 14 5 13
Vegetables 41 7 1 9
Potatoes 34 6 2 10
Beef cattle 27 12 4 5
Grain 25 9 2 8
Poultry 31 7 2 2
Swine 23 4 2 2
Dairy cattle 7 4 1 7
Sheep 12 3 1 2
Goats 10 2 0 1

 

33
Alaskan agricultural producers responding reported more than
half of the households on the agricultural sites had 3 or less people
present (63.0%), with the largest group having only 2 persons (37.8%)
(Table 10). Comments reflected household members to include children,

parents, siblings, in-laws, and non-related workers.

Table 10

Number of People in Household at Agricultural Site

 

 

Number of persons N Percent
0 1 .8
l 14 11.0
2 48 37.8
3 17 13.4
4 25 19.7
5 13 10.2
More than 5 9 7.2

 

TOTAL 127 100.0

 

n - c a d Us cult rmat o c 3
W

The survey contained several questions asking for current
information sources used and those preferred by Alaskan agricultural
producers. Dichotomous questions (yes/no) were analyzed using
frequencies of those who stated they did use specific information
sources. Results are listed in Table 11. Respondents were able to
choose more than one source for this section of the survey.

Printed materials (magazines [79.2%] and books (69.2%)) were
reported as highly utilized as informational sources by respondents.
Information from the Cooperative Extension Service was also rated highly
(77.7), but it was not determined if CES information was from person to

person contact or printed materials for each individual case.

Table 11

Percentages of Alaskan Agricultural Producers Using
Selected Agricultural Information Sources

 

 

Source N Percent
1. Magazines 103 79.2
2. Cooperative Extension Service 101 77.7
3. Books 90 69.2
4. Neighbors 80 61.5
5. University Agricultural

Experimental Stations 63 48.5
6. Alaska State Division of Agriculture 51 39.2
7. U.S. Department of Agriculture 46 35.7
8. Feedstores 43 33.1
9. State Organizations) 26 20.0
10. Local Organizations 25 19.2
11. National Organizations 22 17.0
12. University or Community College Teachers 18 . 13.8

 

.33.

35

For questions regarding preferences toward information sources, a
1 to 5 Likert scale was used for analysis, with 1 8 strongly dislike, 2
- dislike, 3 I undecided, 4 - like and 5 - strongly like.

Alaskan agricultural producers responding to the survey indicated
a strong preference for person to person (4.45) and mail (4.28) as
information sources (Table 12). There may be overlap because the
specific source (person to person from CES or USDA mail, etc) was not
indicated.

Low responses and preferences for telephone (2.90), radio (3.24)
and television (3.50) may be a result of the undeveloped rural nature of
some agricultural areas. Few respondents indicated that they did not
have television or telephone service. Others stated they were too busy

to listen to radio or watch television.

Table 12

Rating of Preferred Agricultural Information Sources
by Alaskan Agricultural Producers

 

Information Source Rank Mean Std. Dev.

 

Person to person 1 4.45 .60
Mail 2 4.28 .70
Cooperative Extension Service 3 4.14 .79
Informal Workshops 4 4.06 .81
Conferences and Symposiums 5 3.71 1.01
College or University 6 3.64 .90
Television 7 3.50 1.09
Radio 8 3.24 .98
Telephone 9 2.90 1.09

 

W
W

Alaskan agricultural producers responding to the survey indicated
they participated primarily in Cooperative Extension Service programs
(45.7%) and listed Farm Forum, pesticide application, and Farm Tour
programs sponsored by CES. State and local organizations also had a
fair percentage of respondents listing program participation (state
organizations at 25.8% and local organizations at 29.5%).

Specific programs cited include Alaska Farmers and Stockgrowers
Association, Alaska Sheep and Wool Association, Vegetable Growers,
Potato Growers, Grange, and others. Table 13 lists the number and
percentages of respondents participating in educational programs on
agriculture during 1991. More than one program could be chosen.

Table 13

Percentage of Respondents Participating in
Educational Programs on Agriculture During 1991

 

 

Program Sponsor N Percent
Cooperative Extension Service 59 45.7
Local Organizations 36 29.5
State Organizations 32 25.8
University 25 19.8
National Organization 20 16.3
Government Program 20 16.7
Community College 9 7.3

 

Questions dealing with the importance of various educational
programs on agriculture were analyzed using a Likert scale of 1 to 4
with 1 I not important, 2 I neutral importance, 3 I important, and 4 I
very important. Only those cases which had participated in a program in
1991 were used determining levels of importance. There were cases,
however, which listed a level of importance and yet were not

participants in the program. This may indicate previous participation.

éé

 

37

Alaskan agricultural producers responding to the survey ranked
University (3.54) and Cooperative Extension Service (3.46) educational
programs on agriculture as those most important (Table 14).

The open ended question, ”What type of educational programs on
agriculture would you like to see provided in the future?,' revealed a
wide variety of desired programs. Some included wild game ranching,
home gardening, crops and livestock. See Appendix D for the summary of

all responses to this question.

Table 14

Rating of Importance of Educational Programs on Agriculture Sources
During 1991 by Alaskan Agricultural Producers

 

 

Program Source Rank Mean Std. Dev.
University 1 3.54 .59
Cooperative Extension Service 2 3.46 .64
National Organization 3 3.26 .56
Government 4 3.24 .75
State Organization 5 3.23 .73
Community College 6 3.22 .67
Local Organization 7 3.06 .79

 

38

The survey included a question to determine the preferred times
for programs on agriculture. More than one response was possible, and
Table 15 shows the results. Single evening session was most preferred
by respondents (49.6%) which may be due to the demanding and

inconsistent nature of agricultural production.

Table 15

Preferred Times for Educational Programs on Agriculture
Hy Alaskan Agricultural Producers

 

 

N Percent

Single Evening Session 62 49.6
Single Evening Session Every Week for

Several Weeks 46 36.8

One Day Session ‘ 45 36.0

Self Paced 29 23.4

Two Day Session 26 20.8

Several Evenings During One Week 23 18.4

Three Day Session 8 6.4

Week Long Session .6 4.8

 

V - Summa
Correlations were found between many variables. Coefficient

relationships of .50 to .69 can be found in Appendix C. Correlational
reviews resulted in the following very strong (.70 or higher)
coefficient relationships:
1. Experience and education from local agricultural organization
programs and from state agricultural organization programs I
.7474
2. Experience and education from local agricultural organization
programs and from national agricultural organization
programs I .8431
3. Experience and education from state agricultural organization
programs and from national agricultural organization
programs I .8364
4. Experience and education from its programs and preference for
information from CES I .8012
5. Preference for information from radio and television I .7369
6. Use of information from national agricultural organizations and
from local agricultural organizations I .7055
7. Participation in community college programs and in national
agricultural organization programs I .7188
8. Participation in state agricultural organization programs and
in national agricultural organization programs I .7510
9. Importance of community college programs and of national
agricultural organization programs I .7442
10. Importance of community college programs and of government
programs I .7775
11. Importance of local agricultural organization programs and of
national agricultural organization programs I .7294
12. Importance of state agricultural organization programs and of

national agricultural organization programs I .8957

Iflrrfififi

CHAPTER V - DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Agricultural production is a multi-faceted enterprise, with many
influencing factors. Survey results from Alaskan agricultural producers
have shed some light on potential factors of agricultural education,
experience, information and programs. Responses to the survey have also
aided in providing a general demographic picture of Alaskan agricultural
producers.

Results indicate producers are primarily male, 45+ years of age,
having at least a high school education, and raise several agricultural
commodities for less than 50% of their income. Low levels of
agricultural production income may be a result of older producers
lacking family members to assist them. With the highest percentage of
households having only 2 members, it is likely the adult children have
moved, and intensive agricultural production may no longer be viable.

With a majority of the producers raising crops rather than
livestock, agricultural income may also be indicative of the seasonal
dependency of crops, and the lack of transportation and marketing
networks. The three months of summer may contribute to respondents
having and/or needing non-agricultural income sources. Transportation
and marketing constraints can limit operation size, and thereby impact
revenues from the operation. With these constraints, specific programs
addressing networking for marketing and transportation are vital.

Correlations between program sources indicate current ties and the
need for increased networking between sources state-wide, and at all
levels. Cooperation and coordination between these sources could reduce
program overlap, promote efficient and effective use of funding, and
encourage appropriate program development for local application. Varied
climatic conditions due to the size of Alaska, can make generalized

program planning ineffective or nonapplicable.

4O

*Faw ~... .

Responses indicate an awareness of potential information and
educational sources by producers. The preference for person to person
and informal sources may be a result of isolation (remote rural areas,
small household size) and the generally relaxed lifestyle typical of
Alaska. A desire to discuss local applicability may also be a
contributing factor. Lack of preference for mass media may be due to
unfamiliarity or unavailability of these sources.

Respondents reported highest levels of importance related to
agricultural experience and education from efforts and exposure on their
own farms. With trial, error, and personal judgement as primary inputs,
producers may be highly reliant upon alternative information and
education sources/programs for guidance. Low levels of participation in
informational and educational programs could be a result of several
factors including availability, timing, location, topic and perceived

needs.

41

CHAPTER VI - CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Studies to further address the needs of Alaskan agricultural
producers are many. While a few programs and sources successful in the
contiguous states may be of benefit to Alaskan agricultural producers,
the uniqueness of the producers, climatic conditions, transportation and
marketing structures, and need for applicable, localized programs and
information sources requires that new ground be covered and old ground
adapted. h_

Expansion of renewable resources such as agriculture is needed to I

counterbalance and stabilize Alaska's current non-renewable resource

 

based economy. Agricultural expansion can provide needed commodities
for the state's population, as well as promote additional employment
opportunities.

Further studies may indicate if there are producers who have had
higher agricultural incomes in the past but have cut back on production.
This cut back could be attributed to personal choice or due to
situational circumstances. Once identified, cut backs not a result of
personal choice might be addressed, and programs developed to meet
individual needs in order to increase production levels on existing
sites. With only 14.5% of the respondents indicating 75 to 100% of
their incomes based upon agricultural sales, the remaining respondents
may be in production for subsistence or supplemental income reasons
only.

With the expressed interest by many respondents, viable non-
traditional livestock production such as wild game farming, fur farming,
and beefalo production could increase not only the number of producers
more highly dependent on agricultural income, but also the demand for
local grains, hence expanding both meat/fur and grain markets on local

levels with minimal transportation concerns.

42

43

Studies and development of alternative information and educational
sources/programs to effectively reach producers could address unique
communications and production concerns, including transportation and
marketing. With a limited number of staff personnel and large regions
to serve, person to person via direct contact may not always be an
alternative Development of video demonstration for producers with
access to proper equipment may be a possibility for some topics.

Further studies on regional/local information and educational fir

program needs may reveal target areas for program development.

Research tracking information availability and applicability in relation
to previous education and experience in successful and non-successful
agricultural production operations may identify key elements promoting
successful production practices.

These key elements could be utilized in promoting successful
practices at current and potential state agricultural development sites.
Successful or economically stable production protects the state's
investment of time, money and land resources. This, in the long run,
may attract and encourage expansion and development of agricultural
production in Alaska.

From and educational standpoint, several specific recommendations
are made based upon the findings of this study:

1. Future programs, regardless of sponsor, should attempt to provide
educational opportunities on a person to person or informal basis
when possible.

2. Educational programs on agriculture should be developed at the local
level, reflective of local conditions and local needs.

3. Various agricultural commodity groups should be targeted for
educational programs utilizing their preferred information sources
in order to maximize input and coordination with the producers.

4. Informational and educational networking should be increased
throughout the local, state and government agricultural
organizations to better meet the needs of Alaskan agricultural
producers.

APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRE AND SURVEY MATERIALS

 

UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS &

 

 

School of Agriculture and Land Resources Management
Fairbanks. Alaska 0 99775-0100 0 (907) 474-5550

Inl-

March 25, 1992

Dear Alaskan Agricultural Producer,

rec! in . -
-' 7.- a.-.

Farming in Alaska provides many challenges including unique transportation and
marketing challenges, environmental factors and developing support resources.
As a long-time Alaskan interested in agriculture and extension education, I am
attempting to identify current agricultural education and technical
information needs of Alaskan agricultural producers.

Your household is one of a select group of producers who were chosen and are
being asked to give their opinions on agricultural education and technical
information. The following questions should take approximately 15 minutes of
your time to complete. Participation is voluntary - you may choose to answer
all, part or none of the questions. You indicate your voluntary agreement to
participate by completing and returning the survey.

In order that the results will truly represent the thinking of Alaskan
producers, it is important that each survey be completed and returned by
April 20, 1992. It is requested that you do not sign or in any other way
personally identify yourself on the survey - all individual results will be
treated with strict confidence and you will remain anonymous. The prefolded,
stamped survey requires only that you refold the survey, with the return
address on the outside and secure the lower edge with tape.

You may receive a summary of results by sending a request to the address
below. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study, please
feel free to contact me at (517) 355-3059 or at P.O. Box 81026, Fairbanks,
Alaska 99708. Dr. Kirts can be contacted at the University of Alaska,
(907) 474-7471.

I hope the information from this survey will provide direction for developing
future agricultural educational opportunities in Alaska. Your participation
is greatly appreciated!!

Sincerely,
/ ./. a; I.“
' K , _ ’ . .'/ /‘ '/' ’7’:
Carolyn L. Pennington and Carla A. Kirts, Ph.D.
Graduate Researcher Associate Professor

University of Alaska Fairbanks

44

45

AGRICULTURAL INFORMATION, EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE
Directions

Answer each question as accurately as you can. Many questions can be answered by circling
the item that best describes your opinion or situation. Other questions will require a
written response. All answers will be kept completely confidential.

SECTION I

Please indicate the level of importance concerning the agricultural experience and
education you may have received from the following areas: (Circle one response per
question)

2. Your relatives' farm. NA NI ? I VI Response » I 'Key
3. Your neighbors' farm. NA NI ? I VI Not applicable m
4 Your own farm NA NI 9 I VI NOt important ' NI
' ' ‘ Neutral importance. ?

5. High school. NA NI 2 I VI Important ‘ I ,

Very Important VT
6. Community college NA NI ? I VI

IIIIIIIII-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-

7. Vocational/Technical school NA NI ? I VI
8. Four year college or university. NA NI ? I VI
9. Cooperative Extension Service programs NA NI ? I VI
10. Local agricultural organization programs. NA NI ? I VI

11. State agricultural organization programs. NA NI ? I VI

 

 

12. National agricultural programs. NA NI ? I VI
13. Other (specify ) NA NI ? I VI
14. Other (specify ) NA NI ? I VI
15. Other (specify ) NA NI ? I VI

 

16. What is the highest level of education you have completed? (circle one letter and
fill blanks if applicable)

A. NO FORMAL EDUCATION
8. GRADE SCHOOL GRADE
C. HIGH SCHOOL GRADE
D. VOCATIONAL/TECHNICAL SCHOOL YEARS,
(STUDIED? )
E. COLLEGE YEARS, (STUDIED? )
F. GRADUATE SCHOOL (DEGREE? )

 

 

 

 

17. What was your most important agricultural learning experience?

46

SECTION II

The following are sources of information about agricultural products and methods. Please
indicate your preference to getting information from these sources. (Circle your

 

response)
18. Mail SD
19. Radio SD
20. Television SD
21. Telephone SD
22. Person to person SD
23. Informal workshops SD
24. College or university ' SD
25. Cooperative Extension Service SD
26. Conferences and symposiums SD
27. Other (specify ) SD
Please continue with
28.

D ? L SL
D ? L SL
D ? L SL
D ? L SL
D ? L SL
D ? L SL
D ? L SL
D ? L SL
D ? L SL
D ? L SL

Response Key
Strongly dislike S)
Dislike D
Undecided ?
Like L

SL

Strongly-like,

question 28 on the top of page 2.

Where do you usually get agricultural information?
(Circle all letters that apply)

A.
B.

C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.

BOOKS
MAGAZINES (specify

 

 

NEIGHBORS
FEEDSTORES

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
UNIVERSITY OR COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHERS
UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENTAL STATIONS
STATE DIVISION OF AGRICULTURE
US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
LOCAL ORGANIZATION (specify

STATE ORGANIZATION (Specify
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION (Specify

OTHER (specify

 

 

 

Vvvv

 

SECTION III

The following are sources of educational programs on agriculture. For each source, please
indicate whether or not you participated in a program (specify type) in the past year, and

the importance level of the program source to you.

(Circle your responses)

Response

Not applicable
Not important
Neutral importance

Important

Very important

Key

sH'OE;

29. University programs (specify)

Participated? Importance?

No Yes NA NI ? I VI

47

30. Cooperative Extension Service programs (specify) NO Yes NA NI ? I VI
31. Community College programs (specify) No Yes NA NI ? I VI
32. Local organization programs (specify) No Yes NA NI ? I VI
33. State organization programs (specify) No Yes NA NI ? I VI
34. National organization programs (specify) No Yes NA NI ? I VI
35. Government programs (specify) No Yes NA NI ? I VI
36. Other (specify) No Yes NA NI ? I VI

37. What time or times for an educational program would be most effective for you?
(check all that apply)

Single evening session

Single evening every week for several weeks
Several evenings during one week

One day session

Two day session

Three day session

Week long session

Self paced

Other (specify )

2

38. What type of educational programs on agriculture would you like to see provided in the
future?

SECTION IV
The following are general information questions, please Circle, or fill in the blanks as
indicated for each question.
39. What gender are you? (Circle a letter)

A. MALE
B. FEMALE

40. What is your age? YEARS

48

41. What is your total number of years of agricultural experience? YEARS

42. What is your total number of years of agricultural experience in Alaska? YEARS

43. What type of agriculture products do you raise?
(circle all letters that apply)

A.
8.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.

GRAIN

HAY

POTATOES
BEEF CATTLE
DAIRY CATTLE
SHEEP

SWINE

GOATs
POULTRY
VEGETABLES
GREENHOUSE
OTHER (SPECIFY )

 

44. What percentage of your gross 1991 income came from selling agricultural products?
(circle one letter)

A.
B.
C.
D.

45. Please

0 TO 24%

25 TO 49%
50 TO 74%
75 TO 100%

indicate the number of people working on your agricultural operation in 1991

for each category.

 

SELF

SPOUSE

YOUR CHILDREN, UNDER 18 YEARS OLD

YOUR CHILDREN, 18 YEARS AND OLDER

OTHER RELATIVES (SPECIFY )
NON-RELATIVES

NOT IN PRODUCTION IN 1991

 

46. How many people are in your household?

If you have any additional comments, please feel free to use the space below.

If you have any questions concerning the study or this survey form, please contact
C. Pennington at (517) 355-3059, P.O. Box 81026 Fairbanks, Alaska 99708.

THANK YOU FOR TAKING TIME TO COMPLETE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE11

49

Dear Alaskan Producer,

A few days ago, you should have received
a survey asking for your input on
agricultural education, experience and
information. If you have already returned
your survey, I’d like to take this time to
thank you. If you have not, please take a
few minutes to fill out and return it. If
you need a replacement survey, please contact
me at the address below. Thank you for your
time and assistance.

Carolyn Pennington,

P.O. BOX 81026

Fairbanks, Alaska 99708

APPENDIX 3

UNIVERSITY CONNITTEE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING
EUNAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL LETTER

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

(”IN I- ()l \'l(l I'RISIIDINI IUR RISIARHI l \\'l I.-\N\l\(. - \III Ill(.;\.\' 0 um}: um.

AND “IAN ()I III! (.RAIN'A'II S( IIUUI

March 6, 1992

Ms. Carolyn L. Pennington
1546-H Spartan Village
East Lansing, HI 48823

RE: CHARACTERISTICS, TECHNICAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS IOU) PREFERRED EDUCATIONAL
DELIVERY METHODS OF ALASKAN FARMERS, IRB #92-069

Dear Ms. Pennington:

The above project is exempt from full UCRIHS review. 'The proposed research
protocol has been reviewed by another committee member. The rights and welfare
of human subjects appear to be protected and you have approval to conduct the
research.

You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. If you
plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions for
obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval one month prior to February 26, 1993.

Any changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by UCRIHS
prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notifed promptly of any
problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects
during the course of the work.

Thank you for bringing this project to my attention. If I can be of any future
help. please do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,

     

Chair
Research Involving

David E. Wright, h.D.
University Commit
Human Subjects (UCRIHS)
DEW/deo

cc: Dr. Eddie Moore

INN/n an Allumaluw' A. (um/I‘quul (I,n,norlufltl\ I'I\IOINIHI'I

50

APPENDIX C

STUDY CORRELATIONS

STUDY CORRELRTIONS

Correlational reviews resulted in the following substantial (.50
to .69) co-efficient relationships:

West-m

Dairy and sheep production - .5431
Greenhouse and swine production - .6218
Poultry and vegetable production 8 .6193
Poultry and swine production - .6778

Bay production and importance of experience/education from neighbor's
farm - .5055

Sheep production and importance of experience/education from state
agricultural organizations - .5164

Dairy production and importance of experience/education from own farm a
.5104

Greenhouse production and importance of experience/education from
community college - .6348

Bay production and neighbors as utilized source of information 8 .5518

Swine production and conferences/symposiums as a preferred source
of information - .5831

Beef production and total years of agricultural experience - .5021

Beef production and years of Alaskan agricultural experience - .5021

Ex ce and Educatio
Experience and education from relatives and from neighbors' farm - .5068

Experience and education from own farm and utilization of information
from CES = .5104

Experience and education from own farm and utilization of information
from magazines 8 .5289

Experience and education from CES and local agricultural organization
programs - .5875

Experience and education from CES and state agricultural organization
programs - .5249

Experience and education from CES and utilization of information from
CES - .6095

Experience and education from CES and importance of CES programs - .6442

Experience and education from CES and utilization of information from
University Agricultural Experimental stations - .6183

Experience and education from four year college/university and from
state agricultural organization programs - .5377

51

Experience and education from community college and vocational technical
school - .5496

Experience and education from community college and four year
college/university - .5356

Experience and education from community collage and utilization of
information from state agricultural organizations - .6348

Experience and education from community college and participation in
community college programs 8 .5979

Experience and education from community college and importance of
government programs a .6835

Experience and education from four year college/university and
utilization of information from state agricultural organization programs
- .6731

Experience and education from four year college/university and
percentage of income from agricultural production = .5451

Ipfogmatiog Source Preferences

Preference for information from college/university and experience and
education from local agricultural organization programs = .5590

Preference for information from college/university and preference for
information from CES s .6634

Preference for information from college/university and preference for
information conference/symposiums 8 .6231

Preference for information from college/university and participation in
university programs 8 .5776

Preference for information from college/university and importance of
university programs 8 .5911

Preference for information from informal workshops and importance of CES
programs - .5110

Preference for information from feedstores and importance of government
programs a .6087

Preference for information from CES and importance of CES programs =
.5173

Preference for information from CES and utilization of information from
CES = .6782

Preference for information from CES and preference for information from
conferences and symposiums = .5935

Preference for information from CES and experience and education from
local agricultural organization programs - .6283

Preference for information from conferences and symposiums and

experience and education from local agricultural organization programs =
.6359

52

S3

Preference for information from conferences and symposiums and
experience and education from state agricultural organization programs 8
.5055

Preference for information from conferences and symposiums and

experience and education from national agricultural organization
programs 8 .5841

ggfggmggign Utilization

Utilization of information from CES and utilization of information from
Alaska State Division of Agriculture 8 .6218

Utilization of information from Alaska State Division of Agriculture and
utilization of information from state agricultural organizations 8 .5353

Utilization of information from Alaska State Division of Agriculture and
importance of CES programs 8 .5111

Utilization of information from USDA and utilization of information from
state agricultural organizations 8 .5353

Utilization of information from state agricultural organizations and
importance of government programs 8 .5632
am rt c tio

Participation in national agricultural programs and preference for
information from national agricultural programs 8 .5188

Participation in national agricultural programs and importance of state
agricultural organization programs 8 .5092

Participation in national agricultural programs and importance of
national agricultural programs 8 .5660

Participation in university programs and participation in CES programs 8
.6176

Participation in university programs and participation in community
college programs 8 .5408

Participation in university programs and participation in national
agricultural programs 8 .5078

Participation in CES programs and importance of CES programs 8 .5755

Participation in community college programs and participation in state
agricultural organization programs 8 .5683

Participation in community college programs and participation in
government programs 8 .6517

Participation in local agricultural organization programs and importance
of local agricultural organization programs 8 .5263

Participation in local agricultural organization programs and
participation in state agricultural organization programs 8 .6311

Participation in local agricultural organization programs and
participation in national agricultural organization programs 8 .6001

Impggtagge of Programs

Importance of university programs

Importance of university programs
programs 8 .5556

Importance of university programs
organization programs 8 .6192

Importance of university programs
organization programs 8 .5593

Importance of university programs

and importance

and importance

and importance

and importance

and importance

agricultural organization programs 8 .6097

Importance of university programs and participation

programs 8 .6277

of
of

of

of

of

CES programs 8 .6386

community college

local agricultural

state agricultural

national

in university

Importance of state agricultural organization programs and experience
and education from national agricultural organization programs 8 .5248

Importance of community college and importance of local agricultural

organization programs 8 .5764

Importance of community college and importance of state agricultural

organization programs 8 .6757

Importance of local agricultural organization programs and importance of
state agricultural organization programs 8 .6572

Importance of local agricultural organization programs and importance of

government programs 8 .5092

Importance of national agricultural organization programs and importance

of government programs 8 .5553

APPENDIX D

LISTING OP RESPONDENTS' COMMENTS

LISTING 0P RESPONDENTS' CONNENTS

WM
Agricultural related subjects

Agriculture (5 responses)

Master of Agriculture
Agriculture science

Agriculture. engineering
Agricultural business

Animal husbandry/science (3)
Architecture and agriculture
Communications and farm management
Culinary arts, biology, agriculture
Perm mechanics

Herd health, AI, computing
Horticulture

Chemistry 5 Civil Engineering (2)
Civil engineering

3.8. Mechanical engineering (2)
Pre Engineering

Applied science

Physical Science, 8.8

M.S. Biology

Biology, fire science

Biology, natural resources
Forestry

8.8. Game management

Geology

Mining

Soils

54 3

Psychology, Japanese
Psychology, history

History and journalism
Theology. linguistics

B.A. Journalism/broadcasting
English, botany

B.A. English

B.A. Education (7)

Masters in Education, Phy. Ed
Masters in Education
Vocation Education

Liberal arts (2)

History

Business Law

Business management classes
Masters in Administration
Health sciences

Nursing, RN diploma program
Medical

Wood tech., industrial arts
Electrical welding
Mechanics/electronics
Electronics (2)

Electronics, Instrumentation
Electric.radio/tv/refrigerator
Architecture/industrial engin.

Heavy equipment operations

55
Aircraft mechanic
Mechanics, math
Various courses, no ag. (3)
B.A. (did not specify area)
B.E.A. (did not specify area)
L.A. (did not specify area)
B.A. (did not specify area)
8.8. (did not specify area - 2)
M.S. (did not specify area - 3)
Ph.D. (did not specify area - 2)

LISTING OF RESPONDENTS' COMMENTS

11, fine; Egg yogr mogr impgrtggt agrrcgltural lerrnrgg grpgrience?

The most important experience was starting my own farm.

Having my own little farm, a life long dream, raising my own animals and
have and enjoying each task and new experience.

Plowing with a 1 bottom sulky plow, pulled by 3 horses.
My father's farm and surrounding neighbor's farms.

Working on the farm, . . . also good vet . . . very willing to teach
farmer about animal health.

How to pay taxes on farm land.

. . . We learned on our own farm just by doing it! We asked people
questions. We read books.

Farming in Alaska is a marginal business and requires raising and
marketing the right produce.

Animal science and animal surgery - UAF, hands-on experience - clearing,
planting, harvesting, mechanical.

Actual work on farms.

Dairy farming and sheep farming.
Starting a farm from scratch.
Growing up on a farmstead in Alaska.

Realizing that . . . the Univ., regardless of its status as an
agricultural land-grant U was totally out of touch with real-life
farming . . . Children need to learn about the secret life of plants
beginning at a tender ("children's garden") age.

I have actively participated in farming for 30 years. Keeping track of
crop results & fertilizer amounts, rainfall, seed types, a temp. on my
own as well as reading everything I could find on forage crops & animal
nutritional requirements.

If you mean negative learning experience, then Alaska farming qualifies.
My most positive learning was growing up on my Dad's farm and doing
things the way he told me to. We had a ready commercial market there
for anything you grew. That's lacking here. A lot of things will grow
here, and yield better than where I grew up, but if you have to peddle
it out or can't sell it at all, then you cannot afford to do it. A
select few have a market for potatoes - a few are making a go with hogs,
cattle, veg.

0n the job training, CES.
How bureaucrats can screw things up. Having a basic knowledge on farming

and set ideas on how we wanted to clear and farm. The State and Borough
said it wouldn't work and we have proven it does.

56

Work experience.
Family farm + 4-H leader, member 40yrs.
Experience in Alaskan Ag.

On the home farm in the Midwest where 858 of the population were farmers
as I grew up 1937 - 1960.

Being raised on a farm.

Gradually developing what we have now, vegetable garden, chickens,
turkeys. We used to have pigs and geese. We learned from our mistakes.
Our goal was to avoid food containing herbicides, pesticides & any other
contaminants. We fill our freezer each year with our own meat,
vegetables & fruits. We use our root cellar, and I can fruits and
vegetables also.

When I had the 1st opportunity to handle reindeer.

Parent's farm.

Working on farms from boyhood to now when I will retire.

Personal involvement in farming.

Not be able to farm in home state, makes me want to farm harder.
Producing your own food as an only source in the 1930's

Raising fur bearers mink and fox.

Parent's farm.

Own farm, university, and work as farm laborer.

Growing up on my parents farm and the vocational agricultural program in
high school.

The Pt. Mackenzie how not to do it school of hard knocks.
Not to trust bureaucrats.

Learning by experience over the years I have been involved in
agriculture.

High school PEA.

Personal experience.

I cannot single out the most important learning experience. Agriculture
is such a changing science, when you learn something, it soon becomes
obsolete and replaced by new practices.

Alaska farming.

“School of hard knocks” is hands on general experience. Each year our
methods and storage improve. Our biggest problem was learning how to
control mold in the hay bales. Transportation and storage are other
problem areas.

57

58

Growing up on the farm and working with subsistence farmers around the
world.

Developing our own farm here in Alaska, with the help of all the fine
people at the University and Extension Service organization. We
accomplished our goal. Had the State of Alaska fulfilled its obligation
and the infrastructure to provide a market been completed the program as
designed would have been very successful.

Working our farm.

Getting out there and doing it.

Most important was being able to work on the farm during the summer
while in grade school and high school. Forage crops and grains have
been the main emphasis of the farm.

Grain farming and truck farming as a young boy.

Dr. Husby was a great help with this. Light wt. 36-38 barley test are
deceitful in that while protein may be high, energy is low enough to
lock calcium. In dairy, that is a disaster. Heat detection in a stall
barn in Alaska is tough.

Helping with day to day chores on a friend's farm as a child.

You are never your own boss (county, state, etc.)

Doing your own vet work in Alaska.

1991.

New born livestock. How other farmers seldom help or mingle with each
other - few exchange knowledge. They seldom join together for common
goal - always the synopsis of Big ag vs. Little ag.

Growing up on a small farm.

Going through the past winter raising hogs.

Farming for myself and not as an employee.

Two short summer experiences grade school a high school level.
Observing what happens with water management, weeds and soil fertility
by doing it, as well as timing here in Alaska.

Raising 10 head beef cattle.

Coping with farming on the family farm during the dust bowl and
depression years 1930 - 1945.

Planning, starting and operating my own small farm. Also early years in
4-H, Father an EPA teacher.

Learning never to trust the State of Alaska in the state's agricultural
plans.

Hands on experience D the feeling of accomplishment.

The difference of farming in Alaska from farming in the South 48, and
still learning.

59

Personally going through the farming cycle.
Senior thesis (college) on pigs. Hands-on experience w/ animals.
Working as a child with my father.

My mother's example, and the actual experience of growing high quality
organic vegetables in Alaska.

Learning at own farm.
Growing up on my Dad's farm - he was very progressive for his time.

My parents owned and operated a small business for approx. 10 years -
while I helped from age 12 to 20.

Developing our own farm.

Cooperative Extension Service.

Raising cattle in Alaska.

Growing on a farm surrounded by farms.

On the job training.

Having been raised on a farm.

Working on farms and ranches.

Growing up 8 working on grandparent's farm.

Failure is a great learning experience as long as you keep it in
moderation.

Parent's farm and 4-H.
Hands-on projects.

Agriculture college, foreign exchange student, worked on many different
farms, trial and error on our own farm.

I am 76 years old, have been involved in agriculture all my life, have
lived in Alaska 43 years. I cannot point to one project on Kodiak as a
success story as the results of the Agriculture Dept. What we need is
applied science on the land. We have spent all our money & time on
research and not the land.

7 years dairy in Alaska - 1960-1967.

Reading early day (1906-1920) reports of Ag. Exp. Stations at Rampart &
Fairbanks, and actual hands on trial a error on our farm, with cover
crops, rotations, and tillage methods.

High school nine thru twelfth.

Being born and raised on a cattle ranch and farm, I feel that my 45
years experience in the agricultural field far surpassed that of a
college graduate.

Farm work throughout high school a college provided me with my basis.

60

On the job.
Raising livestock, sheep in particular.

Working on my parent's farm while growing up.

I learned that if I had my life to live over again, I would never farm

in Alaska. In fact, I would never even consider being a farmer. I
would rather be a Govt. employee and regulate other people because it
seems to be a policy that people are too dumb to be able to think for
themselves.

Being raised where I was and when I was. . . Although it was a period
much change (not for the better) I experienced much of an era when
quality of life was much better than now, and the equipment much more
suitable for attaining that life. I now buy older sales literature
about that equipment since I fee that it was pinnacle of American
progress. I can't cite any one factor, but something in my childhood
set me on the agricultural path.

Homesteading & trying to keep from going broke farming.
High school voc. ag. classes, FFA.

Dealing with day to day actualities of agricultural enterprises tried
various degrees at various times since age 7.

of

in

61

d a ams o a ricul ure wou d u 1i to
see ovid d th future?

Focusing on children and gardening, stimulating their desire and
interest in raising food for the family.

Educating the public to fact that farmers have to make a profit on their
products as well as all the middlemen.

All kinds of programs - mostly on raising hay and the marketability of
livestock in Alaska.

Animal health, crop rotation, renewable agriculture, silage crops,
Alaskan farm buildings, marketing, new crops, farm accounting.

We want to see wild game ranching started in Alaska. We think that
Alaskans will have to use our natural resources to farm instead of
traditional stock and crops.

Home study programs.

Animal nutrition, practical methods.
More state funded symposiums.

A CPR course for housewives or husbands.

Hydroponics, wild game ranching, vegetable growing, greenhouse
production, forage/grain production, fish farming, anything that
pertains to agricultural production that would really work in Alaska.

Agricultural know-how as an integral part of all elementary education,
including (but not limited to) extensive summer practicums utilizing
existing campuses retrofitted with sunspaces, aquatanks, raised beds &
sunken oasis, multi level plots, and processing, storage & marketing
facilities.

I would like to see programs that would be helpful for local forage
farmers - including field preparation, seeding, fertilizer quantity &
application, harvesting, storage - silage - hay - grains - how to
measure moisture content for hay to be baled.

Marketing - local 8 international, transportation - rural Ak to other
markets, land development/preparation.

Genetics - hybrid plant and animal.
Night school on dairy, crops and feed.

Effect of using urea in the fall (vs. spring) for your next spring -
summer hay crop (timothy) and also the effect of smaller applications of
urea during the growing season.

Need more programs for our youth - encourage ag courses in H.s. While
4-H is good, we need more programs.

In the public school, I'd like to see use of a greenhouse along with a
class for high school students 5 possibly junior high on gardening,
raising animals 5 a 4-H club with a knowledgeable director. Young
people have very few models here and no way to learn the benefits of
growing ones own food.

62

How to get State and National Government out of agriculture.
Winter grains, fertilizers, weed control, grasshopper control.
Anything on fur bearers.

New equipment methods.

Programs geared to marketing, profitability, how to fill out state paper
work, and farm planning out of ruins.

Any that apply.

Community College support and strength. That's about a laugh with this
administration at UAA & UAF.

How to make money in farming.
Livestock nutrition and ration balancing for Alaskan grown products.

Marketing, tax info., bookkeeping, how to fill out ARLF loan
applications.

Organic vegetable production, beef production, education on how to keep
politics and government out of agriculture.

Farm tax information.

Too many people farming have not understood a return of investment,
return on asset, influence on taxes, net worth. . . that is the business
side. Most failures I have seen have come from the business management
side of farming.

Marketing and market availability.

Stock raising and game animal production.

Some 30-day courses in different aspects of dairying, breeding, record
keeping, herd health, milking techniques, forage mgmt., all phases so we
can send our employees and kids.

Livestock feeds, hay & feed grains, game ranching, greenhouse
applications.

UAF provide classes that local farmer can attend & receive credit toward
degree.

The CES has offered good classes in our area but not at convenient times
- more info directly related to our area, especially pertaining to
grasses for fall pasture and hay.

Possibly something of KUAC about training, not just documentary. Swine
judging class mostly for the purpose of being able to choose good
quality animals for replacement stock. ‘

Marketing, marketing, marketing, marketing“

Commercial methods of vegetable growing.

Interested in berries at this time.

U.S. government programs.

63

Farm planning and layout, animal husbandry.
Land, feed, beef cattle, latest tech, and markets.

Information on new grains, grasses, animal mineral shortages including
pigs, cows, and game such as elk buffalo and musk oxen.

Open house tours of other's facilities, on-site consultation, animal
rights updates, marketing info.

Choosing crop varieties, tillage techniques (mechanical and chemical
weed control), quality control in harvest and storage.

The future of ag. will rely on sustainable methods using locally
produced inputs. ”Ag in the Classroom,“ FFA, Ag Symposium need to zero
in on this “soil based" type agriculture, and raise up a new generation
of young farmers.

Extension specialists working on farm research with ag student as
helpers. Hands on small scale low budget stuff.

Soil testing info. Plant development for specific areas.
Marketing procedures.

Keep the CES like it is in Delta, Don can do us more good than all the
rest.

Better in the school for kids wanting to learn about agriculture.

How to workshops - test your scil & tell what it needs, vet skills in
livestock.

How to keep out government intervention, how to make a profit in spite
of these intrusions & regulations.

Crop science for Alaskan conditions, production orientated, scientific
but applicable.

Put into action what we already know from year to year on the soil.
There was much more done in ag. 100 yrs ago than there is today. This
is where agriculture started in Alaska in the 1800 B.C.

General home garden.

Specific research on maintaining soil fertility on interior soils,
slopes and flat land.

From what I have observed, most of the past programs have not served the
participating farmers with much help except to foul them up. Especially
State programs.

Raising profitable beef, hogs, hay in AK.

Publications on new products and ideas concerning Alaska and Alaskans.
Moose farming, alfalfa that will grow here, etc.

Job training to help get people off the farm and into an occupation were
we can make a good living, do nothing, and have a good retirement, and
medical. Read: Work for the Government.

Mot totally sure, but other than big-time commercial ventures.

64

Cost effectiveness. How to determine ahead of time if a crop or program
or new piece of machinery has a chance of breaking even.

Short courses with more content than one evening from 7 to 9 (numb out
time for busy farmers).

 

 

0 have an additio comments lease feel free to use the space
below.

I do not farm.

I would like to know how you could close the exp. farm (test plots) at
Pt. Mackenzie, when we needed so much help to try to make our ag parcels
productive. At the time we were told it was because of budget cuts, but
I didn't notice any less personnel, just less help for the farmers.

I believe a sustaining agricultural base in Alaska is feasible if the
State would stay out of it and let free enterprise take its course.
Although I believe that in order for this to succeed Alaska should make
small loans available to farmers not to exceed ($50,000) for maintenance
or the purchase of small farms on conditions that money will be used for
farming. That way a farming base would be established and in time would
roller coaster.

I have a few head of cows and calves - bucking bulls -roping steers. We
have to buy all our feed from local farmers. We put on about ten rodeos
in summer time - makes no money.

I work in Valdez to build the farm or I would be more active.

Help those who are already farming in Alaska by a tax incentive on real
and personal property (farm equipment) that does not have a penalty
clause. (ie having to pay full tax on property plus 8‘ interest if
property is taken out of agriculture).

I will enclose a Letter to the Editor that explains more how we feel
about raising moose and other wild game.

Local clubs or groups with a common interest in agriculture are good for
informing and educating anyone who is interested in farming.

Farming in Alaska is a long term investment for the next generation.

Encourage the State of Ak to reclaim ag. parcels i.e. 1,000 acres or
more be broke down into 100 acre farmsteads - example a farm with 4
members and 4 hired hands to run 1,000 or more acre farm. 10 -100 acre
farmsteads based on 4 member family 8 40 on the same acreage - would out
produce the bigger farm and develop the farms for better resale for
those who continue to farm.

We feel that the University and CES are important to agriculture in
Alaska.

I am very disheartened by what I have seen in our State. I genuinely
feel that Alaska could have a great agricultural future. I keep trying
to improve my fields and increase my production 5 to produce quality
crops. My own animals have been an ongoing experiment - I adjust D
adapt my farming methods as I see what works well for us. I do not feel
that the “powers that be“ want agriculture to succeed in the state - I
feel that farmers have had to proceed on their own with no real
beneficial support from the State. In projects, the State seems to have
tied their hands a not only has not aided the farmer - but has hindered

65

them severely. I love to see things grow. I feel that agriculture has
always been (8 should be in the future) the backbone of this nation. I
do not believe in paying people to not produce. We need to encourage
production on the farm. Farming is expensive - the equipment is high -
the fertilizers and seeds are high. (even fertilizers that are produced
in the state - fish meal & urea can be purchased cheaper in Seattle)
Can't be freight costs - can it? We have a horrendous national debt -
we pay farmers not to grow - we see people starving all over the world.
I am appalled - why don't we produce & use our excess agricultural
products for foreign aide to the countries that need it. Foreign aide
funding could go down - our government could buy the excess from the
farmers for foreign aide - the farmers could produce something for the s
that's being paid them to not produce - the price of products would stay
unaffected because the excess would not be released on the public
market. Hungry people could eat. Why not? Our state could produce very
high quality hay & grain crops if we could have a market that was
dependable. We need to go about things a little differently because of
our short growing season a cool falls - but I feel it could be done.

We have wonderful soils - long summer days - moisture - lots of +'s too.
It's just expensive. I would love to be able to earn a living farming -
instead of having to work at an outside job while I'm trying to get set
up a have the equipment etc to make the farming pay like it should.

We need local small slaughter house facilities.

The politicians had more to do with the failure of agriculture in Alaska
than the farmers did. The so called agricultural rights should never
been. The five acre homesite on the land never did make sense. The
land should have been left for Alaskan residents to homestead if he
would farm it. The big farms in Delta were too big for the markets that
are here. The State should not hold on to this land until it grows up
again in trees. It should get back to people at an affordable price.
Agriculture can succeed in Alaska, but as small farms, small farms are
all that are hanging in there now. This state's farms have to grow as
the lower 48 states' grew - they all started as small farms over 150
years ago. I could almost write a book about this subject.

Good luck - Ramona Barnes 5 Steve McAlpine and others killed the barley
project by stopping construction of the terminal. Several million
dollars of equipment was sold to Seward for $16,000 - they sold it to
Korea. Pt. MacKenzie was rushed into production to coincide with a
Lower 48 surplus. Inexperienced operators didn't have a chance. Alaska
is so few consumers politically & strategically between the two largest
food exporters in the world. We benefit but also have to compete with
them. Its no match.

More education from Extension Service and University.

I do a lot of composting and barn litter goes on the garden each spring.
My husband cultivates with a rototiller. I've tried to raise fruit
trees but the hazards are numerous. The moose eat the tops, the snow
breaks down the branches and the mice eat the bark under the snow. Had
good luck with raspberries & strawberries when I can keep the porcupines
a bears out and the weather provides enough sun. Garden pests are
slugs if the are long wet spells. Root maggots get the cold crops but I
just plant enough to share with them.

There is a world of information needed on crops here.

The State of Alaska needs to put good ag people in right offices. Too
many people who don't know ag.

66

Each farm is as individual and unique in their location, field
structure, water table, and actual usable acreage. "I would like to see
a direct interest taken to address these needs and get ag. rolling again
in the state. We need an end to politics and get to farming before
nature reclaims the land we worked so hard to put in production.

More documentation of successes and failures of farming in Alaska in the
past. Disregard the State involvement which has been failures not due
to Alaskan conditions.

Agriculture is a continuing scientific study. The day we say "I know
how to farm,“ is the day that we have definitely lost interest.
Universities working hand in hand with real producing farmers, can
enhance the learning process many times over. Through such
experimentation the successes and failures can be documented for
educating future generations, allowing them to escape making the same
mistakes over and over.

There is a wealth of common sense knowledge from experience of those who
farmed prior to the projects that is going into graves. It would be
good to document what went on in the 40's, 50's & 60's.

Thanks. Nice to see your interest in promoting agriculture. The big
problem has been marketing. We're sitting with 500 tons of barley and
can't sell it right now.

I would like to recommend that the U of A have 3-4 ag. specialists in
different fields that could go from farm to farm as requested & offer 2
day a week of help maybe in bookkeeping, herd mgmt., crop production.

If you approach State Div. of Ag. with a problem, immediately you are
viewed as incompetent. There are retired Ak farmers with a lot of
knowledge. The state has been spinning its wheels for years, maybe U of
A could fill the gap or we may all loose. Some farmers could use help
getting grants - there are projects where maybe the U of A could help
with research feasibility, data, and writing.

The U of Alaska Experimental farms in all areas must stay open to
provide info for local farmers. Agriculture in Alaska can be profitable
E is shown to be when govt stays out of it & the land grant university
is there as support.

Farming is a hobby for our family at this time. Especially good for the
kids. ‘

I am concerned from what I hear about the cutbacks in UAF & the changes
being considered about shifting the agricultural school to tie it in
with another school that might curtail the freedom and opportunity for
UAF faculty to come & do hands on type of instruction or guidance.

Dr. Husby & Ken Krieg have been extremely helpful to us a it is vital
that they be allowed to continue that help to us a many others as well
as to the future of Ak agriculture.

It is too late for me to improve, expand, or increase efficiency - years
of primitive ag. bucking bales, pitching manure, making loose hay,
heaving logs, digging garden has lead to severe arthritis and my level
of farming will be cut back. What happens to my fields, I don't know. I
will be selling off the beef stock. I seem to have 18 of the chickens
in the state What a sad commentary! I have 35 birds. But I think
reporting is off, that less than 1‘ of the flocks the size of mine are
reported, and people who have them think it's none of the government's
business.

67

Raising berries - gooseberries, raspberries, strawberries for grandkids
education and their spending money.

I am thankful and satisfied with the programs sponsored by the U.S.
government in Alaskan and it has been a help to me. I am not happy with
the way the state is running things in regards to farming in Alaska.
Their programs only discourage the development of farming in Alaskan.

Do more input on the plus side of ag. in the state and less on the
negative. Bad press on state projects, all ag. taking the flack.

I would like to see agriculture move along a little faster but at the
present date it seems to be going back instead of forward and I am
rather disappointed.

I like to learn (and learn faster) from people. My spouse gets more out
of printed materials. Regional data is always appreciated.

Agriculture in the 20th century has gradually become up to 90‘ petro-
chemical based. While seemingly miraculous results have been.gained, it
has been at great expense to the environment. Consequently, radical
environmental groups - both private and govt sponsored - have emerged to
control and limit agriculture. Sustainable - soil based agriculture
seeks to replace chemicals with true renewable resource inputs. In Ak
these inputs being — fish waste, sea weed, glacial silts, forest and
right of way thinnings, composted sewage sludge, unbleached waste paper
and land fill components, etc. Intelligent integration of these inputs
into agri. will lessen the need and "cause" of radical environmental
groups, while at the same time show the true, viable environmentalists
to be farmers! Alaska needs to set a course toward developing its
renewable, sustainable agri, inputs and it will take an across the board
resolve at the University , CES and Div. of A9 to accomplish this.

I am greatly pleased to see a survey like this. I hope we as an
agricultural community can move toward practices that will be
environmentally wholesome and financially profitable.

My farm is not more than 50% complete - it may take me another 10 years
to develop a comfortable farm operation for me.

Cooperative Extension Service is important to us - because of "user-
friendly” source of information!

Don Quarberg gets us more good info. than all the other programs. He
can do small experiments on various farms that really help us.

My biggest disappointment in our ag endeavors has been the lack of
cooperation of the U of A reindeer research people. We have had
reindeer since early 1987 and summer of 1991 was the 1st time anyone
from there came to my property to see the operation and offer
information. My staff and I need training on health aide skills -
giving shots, assisting cows having trouble in labor, etc. Would love
to have a video, but am sure that eve if there was one, it wouldn't be
available to me. So we attended the CES lambing workshop as the next
best thing.

We fertilized and repaired equipment in 1991, but did nothing more. The
hay didn't grow.

I hope your definition of “agriculture” is broad and not just farm
related. Urban horticulture/agriculture is a very large portion of
Alaskan ag's industry.

68

If you are going to teach me something, you better do it quick before I
kick the bucket.

All these years we spent too much money and time and research in the
classroom watching the dairy, cattle, agri business die under our nose,
when we should have worked on markets and transportation. It is easy to
tell a farmer how he should make a success when you are supported by a
gov. budget, but it is another story to be successful off the land
without gov. support. We need to move out of our offices and put to
practice what we know on the land then maybe we would have some success
stories.

It appears on our farm that continuous cropping does not work. We
believe that more research be directed at soil fertility and crop
rotations. For example, data about growing potatoes in Europe indicate
a field produces potatoes one in every 5 to 7 years. The other years
are used to build soil fertility and a natural resistance to pests and
diseases.

The last four years I have pretty much given up everything in the
agricultural line except raising gardens and potatoes enough for several
of our children's families. I have a good root cellar so can store my
potatoes and carrots.

I personally do not have time to leave the farm to attend classes,
symposiums and what not that may or may not be of value to me. I do
however take time to read any and all publications concerning
agriculture. We need a real and viable experimental program in Alaska
to develop usable and viable products. If not, we need the government
to step aside so we can do it ourselves.

I feel the State should open up more land that is suitable for
agriculture, to the public. Too much good agricultural land is tied up
in parks and recreational areas.

When the greenies get into power, it will be impossible to farm
profitable. We then will have a choice to import most of our food or
collectivize all the farms, and then import all our food. Federal and
some state policy has made land in Alaska almost worthless, and that
gives a person less and less incentive to even pay the taxes on
property, even if one is able. When a person sees many years of hard
work and frugal living go down the tubes, it sure is kind of hard to be
an optimist in a State that is almost bankrupt, both morally and
financially.

As you have probably concluded, I am not a ”government approved" farmer.
Since almost all government loans, land-tax assessment, etc have to do
with income or percentage of income, I don't quality. The thing that
bothers me is seeing others who do qualify and knowing how they did it
with clever (or crooked) paperwork. Many of these who can claim getting
a high percentage of their income from farming are only able to do so
because of governmental loans (which are their real source of income).
They weren't farming on their own before the loan, and they stop farming
when the loans stop. I don't consider these people as farmers and
indeed consider them to be one of the best examples of what is wrong
with this country.

My farming now is limited to leasing hay land for percentage of crop
(15‘) and trying to keep weeds and brush from taking over the rest.

LI ST 0!" “MOSS

LIST OF REFERENCES

Agricultural Experimental Station. (1983). Agricultural

Research Near pelte ggnctiop. Fairbanks, Alaska:
University of Alaska - Fairbanks Agricultural

Experimental Station. Publication 83-2.

Alaska Agricultural Action Council. (1980). Expanding
Aieeke'e Agricuiture - A Eoeirive Qommitmept. Juneau,

Alaska: Office of the Governor.

Alaska Agricultural Action Council. (1982). "First Report
to the Legislature on the Development of a Plan for
Alaska Agricultural Development." Juneau, Alaska:
Office of the Governor.

Alaska Division of Agriculture. (1983). Agricuitpre ip

Aieska; A Eiep ggr rhe Future. A special report to the
Governor. Palmer, Alaska: Department of Natural
Resources.

Alaska Division of Agriculture. (1987). Depopetrerion egg
Aeeeeren Report. Fairbanks, Alaska: Cooperative
Extension Service.

Alaska Division of Agriculture. (1990). Alaska Agriculture
Sterietics igg . Palmer, Alaska: Cooperative Extension
Service.

Alaska Division of Agriculture. (1991). Alaska Agriculture
Stetietics 1221. Palmer, Alaska: Cooperative Extension
Service.

Amstrup, Carl. (1982). "Alaskan Agricultural Development
Plans and the Influence of Risk and Uncertainty."
Speech delivered at Alaska's Fourth Annual Agricultural
Symposium. Anchorage, Alaska.

Beiler. E. Joseph. (1987, Spring). "Measuring Program

Effectiveness." J n o t sion. Madison
Wisconsin: Extension Journal, Inc.

70

71

Bielema, Cheryl and Sofranko, Andrew. (1983,
January/February). ”Determining Needs of a Hard-to-

Reach Audience.” anrnal 0; Extension. Madison

Wisconsin: Extension Journal, Inc.

Brown, Deborah, & Holloway, Patricia, & Kirts, Carla.
(1986). rve the Alas a Gree house I dust and
Reiated Enterprises. Fairbanks, Alaska: University
of Alaska - Fairbanks Agricultural and Forestry
Experiment Station. Circular 57.

Brown, DeLon. (March 12, 1992). Personal telephone call to
Alaska Agricultural Statistics Office. Palmer, Alaska.

Burton, Wayne E. (1975). "Creating a Northern Agriculture:
II. Historical Perspectives in Alaskan Agriculture”.
Fairbanks, Alaska: Institute of Agricultural Sciences.
Bulletin No. 43.

Burton, Wayne E. (1975). "Creating a Northern Agriculture:
III. Defining Parameters of Agricultural Potential in
Alaska”. Fairbanks, Alaska: Institute of Agricultural
Sciences. Bulletin No. 44.

Carling, D.E. and Westphale, P.C. (1990). Eeterg Variery
e £0 a c as a 8 . Fairbanks, Alaska: University
of Alaska - Fairbanks Agricultural and Forestry
Experiment Station. Circular 77.

Davis. (1971). eme ta Surve na sis. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Drew, James V. (1989). ”Potential Products From Alaska's
Agriculture and Forestry.” Speech delivered at
Conference on Resources and the Environment. National
Cheng Kung University, Tainan Taiwan.

Dillman, Donald A. (1978). ° n e e one 8 e s.
New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Bngelbrecht, C. R. and Thomas, W. C. (1987). "Agricultural
Policy Implementation in Alaska." Agriculrurai

W England: Elsevier
Applied Science Publishers Ltd. Vol. 26, no. 9.

Gasser, G. W. (1951). "A Brief History of Agriculture in
Alaska." Unpublished paper.

72

Harker, J. Michael. (1982). "Economic Interrelationships
Within Alaska's Developing Agricultural Industry."
aska Co ercia iculture v 0 me t Se ’ .
Fairbanks, Alaska: University of Alaska - Fairbanks
Cooperative Extension Service. Publication fP-l48.

Husby, Fred and Krieg, Ken. (1987). Alaska's Eeeds for
Alaska's Livestock. Fairbanks, Alaska: University of
Alaska - Fairbanks Agricultural and Forestry Experiment
Station. Circular 63.

Johnson, Hugh A. and Stanton, Keith L. (1955). Aatanuske
Valley Aenoir. 'Palmer, Alaska: Mapmakers Printing.

Klebesadel L J- (1983) forage_sreea_in_Ala§ka
Fairbanks, Alaska: University of Alaska - Fairbanks

Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station. Bulletin
63.

Lewis, Carol E., & Arobio, Edward L., & Birklid, Cathy A.

(1987). The Economics of Barley graduation in the

Delta Jnnction Area of Interior Aiaska. Fairbanks,
Alaska: University of Alaska - Fairbanks Agricultural

and Forestry Experiment Station. Bulletin 77.

Lewis, Carol E. and Thomas, Wayne C. (1982). ”Expanding
Subarctic Agriculture: Social, Political and Economic

Aspects in Alaska." Internisciplinary Scienee Reviews.
England: Wiley Heyden Ltd. Vol. 7, no. 3.

Logsdon, Charles L., & Casavant, Kenneth L., & Thomas, Wayne

C. (1977). Input - Ourput Tables for Alaska's

Economy: A First Lpok. Fairbanks, Alaska: University
of Alaska - Fairbanks Agricultural and Forestry

Experiment Station. Bulletin 48.

Miller, Larry E. and Smith, Keith L. (1983, September]
October). "Handling Nonresponse Issues." Jgurnai g:
Errension. Madison, Wisconsin: Extension Journal, Inc.

Moss, Pappy. (1983). Speech delivered at Alaska's Sixth
Annual Agricultural Symposium. Fairbanks, Alaska.

The National University Extension Association. (1937).
t - econd nu o tio .
Spencer, Indiana: Samuel R. Guard & Co., Inc.

The National University Extension Association. (1940).
n - ' t a o v ' .
Spencer, Indiana: Samuel R. Guard 8 Co., Inc.

73

Obahayjie, Julius and Hillison, John. (1988, Spring). "Now
Hear This: Delivery Methods for Farmers." Journal of
greeneign. Madison, Wisconsin: Extension Journal, Inc.

Pounds, Diana. (1985, Winter). "Putting Extension
Information Where People Will Find It." Journal of
Expansion. Madison, Wisconsin: Extension Journal, Inc.

Restad, Sigmund. (1986). Telephone interview. Palmer,
Alaska.

Restad, Sigmund H. and McNicholas, Helen L., ed. (1983).
Aieska's Agrieniture and Fgrestry. Fairbanks, Alaska:
Cooperative Extension Service, University of Alaska and
US Department of Agriculture.

Richardson, John G. and Mustian, R. David. (1988,-
February). "Perceived Capacity of the North Carolina
Agricultural Service to Deliver Technological
Information: Reactions of Agricultural Producers Who
Use Extension Information." Paper presented to the
Southern Rural Sociological Association at the Annual
Meeting of the Southern Association of Agricultural
Scientists. New Orleans, Louisiana.

Richardson, John G. and Mustian, R. David. (1988,
February). ”Preferred Methods for Delivery of
Technological Information by the North Carolina
Agricultural Extension Service: Opinions of
Agricultural Producers Who Use Extension Information."
Paper presented to the Southern Rural Sociological
Association at the Annual Meeting of the Southern
Association of Agricultural Scientists. New Orleans,
Louisiana.

Sieber, Sam D., et a1. (1972). Tne Use or Educationai
Knowledge. New York: Columbia University.

Snodgrass, Roland. (1982). Aiesken Agricnitnre, An

Overview. Juneau: Legislative Services.

Steinfelt, Victoria E. and Iams, Donna R. (1985, Winter).
"So You're Planning a Money Management Program!"

Jenrnel_e£_firren§ien. Madison, Wisconsin: Extension

Journal, Inc.

Thomas, Wayne. (1982). ”The Role of Agriculture in
Alaska's Rural Development." Alaska's Aura;
eve . Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

74

Thomas, W. C. and Lewis, C. E. (1980- 81). "Alaska's Delta
Agricultural Project: A Review and Analysis."

Agrienirnr rei Adninisrrari n. England: Applied Science
Publishers Ltd. Vol. 8.

Uko, Okon E. and Miller, Larry E. (1987). "Perceived Farm
Management Educational Needs of Part—Time and Small
Scale Farmers in Selected Ohio Counties." Columbus,
Ohio: Ohio State University, Department of Agricultural
Education.

Vandre, Wayne. (1991, December). Letter regarding

Cooperative Extension Service programs offered in
Alaska.

Warmann, G.W. and Rice, Patricia. (1988, February). "The
Market for Extension Information in Virginia."- Paper
presented to the Southern Rural Sociological
Association at the Annual Meeting of the Southern
Association of Agricultural Scientists. New Orleans,
Louisiana.

   

"llllllllll'llll'lflllll“