Background

Pasture-based forage livestock systems are an integral component of agricultural ecosystems throughout the North central region. Many traditional systems have proven to be low in profit potential and environmental sustainability. Several new concepts in management and technological tools have been developed over the past two decades. Many livestock producers are hesitant to try a system that is so totally different from their "traditional" livestock systems. In addition there are few extension agents and specialists from Land grant Universities with an understanding of the practical concepts of Management Intensive Grazing (MIG). Thus, many extension agents and other farm agency personnel either lack confidence, are skeptical or hesitant about teaching or recommending MIG as an alternative livestock management system.

Therefore, this project attempts to provide educational training and tools for field level USDA personnel (Extension, NRCS, and SWCD) and other interested agency personnel (farm lenders, environmental organizations and high school Ag-Science teachers) to carry out educational programs in MIG systems.

Objectives

The objectives of the Management Intensive Grazing Project are as follows:

1. To develop educational grazing resources into an in-depth and well designed teaching curriculum for USDA field staff, Ag-Science teachers, farmers and related agencies in order that they may teach the principles of MIG.

2. Produce a set of nine (9) video tapes which will cover key topics forage/grazing/livestock management.

3. To organize a series of in-depth workshops (minimum six workshops lasting three days each) for North Central USDA field personnel to present teaching materials on MIG systems.

4. To develop a cadre of USDA field staff, Ag-Science teachers, farmers and personnel from related agencies with MIG grazing expertise who can organize and conduct grazing schools for livestock producers throughout the Midwest.

5. Evaluate the effectiveness of the teaching materials and schools with the intended audiences.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The intent of this first year, evaluative report will focus on the participants' perceptions regarding content, relevance of materials, and improvement of future grazing schools. In order to begin to meet the objectives, the MIG Project implemented five (5), three day, regional workshops.
 
 
 
 

At the conclusion of the workshop, participants were asked to complete a three-page evaluation in order to access the perceptions of participants, impact of the workshop and to secure suggestions to improve future MIG training opportunities.

Methodology

At the end of each three day workshop, participants were asked to complete an anonymous, three-page evaluation to be returned to facilitator. The evaluation instrument was designed to measure participants' perceptions regarding the usefulness of the workshop and materials, how new knowledge may be utilized and collection of suggestions to improve future MIG programs. The evaluation instrument was reviewed by each workshop facilitator for content validity and the structure of the questions. Modifications were made upon suggestion and review with MSU evaluation specialist.

This post-activity evaluation has limitations. The data were collected utilizing a post-training measurement questionnaire that focused on immediate participant perceptions about the workshop. Evaluations may be hastily completed, participants may be exhausted from their three-day workshop and the rush to return home is present. Nevertheless, the post-activity survey is an effective, inexpensive method of gathering feedback and participant recommendations to improve future programs.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Data Analysis

One hundred ten (n=110) participants completed and returned the Management Intensive Grazing Workshop evaluation form. Missing or unledgable responses were not recorded. Each workshop facilitator received a "preliminary report" demonstrating frequencies of responses along with recorded statements to open-ended questions several weeks after completion of their specific workshop. One evaluation form was not completed but for a "written comment."

The data were analyzed by using the Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS) computer software. Descriptive statistics--such as percentages, means and standard deviations-- were used to summarize data. Responses to open-ended questions were entered into the Word Perfect 6.1 program and analyzed using qualitative techniques. The data from the evaluation can be effectively divided into four categories: content of workshop, impact of participation, logistics/environment, and demographic information.

Similar workshops were conducted in five locations, with slight variations in topics presented, and the data will be presented accordingly, i.e., Ohio, Michigan 1, Indiana, Michigan 2, and Illinois. An overall score for the 1996 MIG workshops is also provided when appropriate.

a) Demographic information:

Participants were asked to complete the following information: age, gender, organizational affiliation, number of years providing agriculture education and selection of class(es) of livestock which the individual currently provides educational support.

Respondents demonstrated a large range in each respective category, age, ranged from 22 to 64 years and experience in providing agriculture education, ranged from 0 to 40 plus years. This may suggest a need for a "progressive" experienced-based type of workshop regarding Management Intensive Grazing in order to meet the needs of professionals at various times in their careers.

A participant from Ohio stated, "I had little or no knowledge & didn't really get the basics I feel I needed. What's a pasture management plan? Example??" , while another suggested, "...advertise next time as a moderate to advanced course, did not seem basic introduction for me..."
 
 
 
 
 
 

A variety of field staff from various organizations participated in the MIG Project workshops. Chart 1, provides a view of the diversity by organizational affiliation. Several comments were also made, such as, "Great workshop- need more w/CES & NRCS," while others are interested in meeting their specific organizational needs, "Should be geared more toward helping NRCS and SWCD personnel write conservation plans incorporating grazing as a conservation practice."

Workshop participants were also asked to select the class(es) of livestock to which educational support is provided.

Table 3, also suggests the diversity among participants as demonstrated by their selected responses concerning their educational support role.

b) Content of Workshop

This segment of the evaluation asked the participants to rate the quality of various aspects of the Management Intensive Grazing Workshop. Table 4 is utilized in order for the stakeholders to view their mean scores and compare to other sites. An overall mean is provided for convenience.

Findings shown in Table 4 demonstrate that participants perceived the content materials to be "quite relevant". The two lowest scored statements, "quality of teaching materials" and "activities/group presentations" received several suggestions to improve, while still receiving a rating of above "4-quite relevant". A participant from the Indiana Workshop stated, "Would liked to have more of the teaching materials used made available to us to use in our educational efforts," and a Michigan participant suggested, "Organize pasture walks more. Have each session tell the group what we are going to learn. Maybe have only one pasture walk but have an evening session on the case study."

The "Topic" section of the evaluation asked the participants to rate the topics based on usefulness to their perceived teaching and learning needs. The scale used the following rating structure, 0-not applicable/did not attend session, 1-low usefulness, 3-moderate usefulness and 5-high usefulness.

The five regional MIG Workshops utilized most of the same topics with various additions and deletions as designed by each regional facilitator/team. Table 5 represents the mean scores by topic, reported by site. A (-) demonstrates the specific topic was not included on evaluation instrument for that site.

Effort was taken not to group similar topics, but list "all" topics as stated on each site's workshop agenda. This also enables various site facilitators the opportunity to explore other sites' participant perceptions regarding topics not offered at their respective site. There is not an "overall" mean score due to the variety of topics offered. Upon qualitative review of comments regarding areas to improve workshops, most suggestions were of a positive nature, i.e.,:

Indiana: "More interaction with animal scientists, nutritionists. Producer information is great, but lots of people are having success with different techniques. What is the basis? Why does it work? ..other approaches?"

"Would like to see more economics, costs and $ returns involved in all of the presentations and talks. Really liked producer presentations and the information and experiences shared by the out-of-state speakers."

Michigan: "Diet changes from winter/summer in areas where they cannot be outside. More background on case study, perhaps visited the site."

Economics only involved dairy-need less lecture, more time for questions and practicality stuff." "Have a veterinarian teach on disease, etc." "Have moderator for panel to avoid using the time for just one or two topics.." "All need to be much more practical level, less classroom agronomy and nutrition lecturing style. Disappointing: economics drives everything!! We need some in-depth analysis here..."

Ohio: "For field trips more intensive grazing would help." "Should example pasture mgt. Plan. Evaluate student's knowledge level." "More plant id practice & estimating forage dry matter." "Grazier panel was helpful."

Illinois: "Binder real good...Need soil survey and soil survey book of area and animal use tables from it." "Field evaluation of pasture forage condition (in season) would help."

c) Objectives, Procedures and Impacts of the Workshop

This section of the evaluation measured the participants' overall perception of the workshop: the objectives, content/topics, teaching methods, length of workshop and how will the new knowledge be used. Specific attention was given to find if learner needs were met.
 
 

Table 6: Objectives and Procedures of MIG Workshop (mean)

Statements	Ohio  n=20	Mich 1  n=11	Indiana  n=29	Mich 2  n=26	Illinois  n=24	Overall  n=110
Workshops objectives clear	4.1	4.0	4.3	4.2	4.2	4.2
Contents/topics relevant	4.4	4.1	4.6	4.3	4.3	4.4
Technical content understandable	4.4	4.0	4.4	4.2	4.3	4.3
Teaching methods appropriate	4.4	4.1	4.5	4.2	4.2	4.4
Length of workshop	4.1	4.0	4.3	4.0	3.9	4.1

Scale: Strongly Agree-5, Agree-4, Neither agree/disagree-3, Disagree-2,

Table 6 suggests procedures and methods of the MIG Workshops to be positively viewed by participants, as demonstrated by the overall mean selections of above "4-Agree". All statements, excluding "Illinois- length of workshop", were rated at or above the "agreed-4" selection. This can be interpreted as an accepted, "overall" positive perception concerning workshop design. The lowest scores, still above average, "length of workshop" and "workshop objectives were clearly stated", may need to be reviewed by MIG Project administrative team. Upon qualitative review of written comments, several individuals provided suggestions, i.e.,

-Indiana participant stated, "... Hank Bartholomew-commented on train the trainer. I missed the concept & did not realize that was an objective",

-Ohio, "Extend to a full week,",

-Michigan, "We might need a follow-up training for trainers to work on teaching methods and concepts,",and "Tight program-excellent-however some sessions (many) needed more time-perhaps delete effective teacher program- (it was good-but time constraints perhaps leave off)".

-"Have training session in May and October with case study..."

-"Include more situations for the far North & shallow soils..."
 
 
 
 

Effort was put forth to design the evaluative instrument to collect data on the perceptions of the participants regarding the impact of their participation and were their specific objectives met. Participants were asked to select their "assessment" of impact of the workshop on: "your knowledge of MIG concepts/principles", "your interest in MIG", "your confidence in teaching concepts of MIG", "how will you utilize the new knowledge gained", "were personal objectives met" and "would you recommend the workshop to a colleague".
 
 
 
 
 
 

Scale: Greatly improved-5; Somewhat improved-3; No change-1
 
 
 
 

Assuming that a ranking of "3" is average, then the impact of the workshop upon participants ranked above average in all areas. Several comments were made regarding time of year workshops were held, i.e., "Field evaluation of pasture forage condition (in season) would help"-Illinois and "more on grotcytile & cool season grass for wet soils eg. Garrison grass-visits". The lowest mean score was "confidence in teaching MIG", a major objective of this project. As previously mentioned, participants are at various levels of understanding of MIG concepts and principles, therefore, this also may suggest the need to develop "introduction", "intermediate/advanced" levels for participants to become both knowledgeable and comfortable with sharing the concepts and principles of MIG in a positive manner. Varying needs of learners exist, as stated in comments.
 
 

Other data to support this suggestion of varying needs, are Charts 2 and 3, respectively, which follow. The diverse levels of understanding, knowledge base and learning styles are also complicated by a previously mentioned phenomena of participants' varied organizational affiliations, roles and mission. Ultimately, agency staff needs "may" vary by local needs and organizational affiliation. Participants were asked if "personal objectives for attending this workshop were met." The selections were 1-not met, 3-satisfactorily met and 5-extremely met.
 
 

Therefore, a Chi-square test was performed and findings demonstrate no significant differences exist between the ratings of participants for objectives met by organizational affiliation and their level of personal objectives met.
 
 

Ninety-percent of participants who responded (99) would recommend this educational experience to a colleague, there were eleven missing responses and no negative responses, which suggests a useful, educational experience as perceived by the learners.

Table 8 demonstrates how the participants plan to utilize their knowledge gained from the MIG workshop. The cumulative percentages of perceived use are: workshops-57.2%, advise farmers-87.8%, professional improvement-79.3% and share with colleagues-77%.

d) Logistics

The section on logistics collected data regarding the learning environment, i.e., meals, rooms and open-ended requests. The participants were asked to rate their "feelings" in regard to meeting rooms and meals/coffee breaks on a scale from 5-excellent to 1-poor.

Findings in Table 9 show participants were very satisfied with arrangements relating to meals and coffee breaks. Some participants wrote:

"Great food-too much !!"

"...would like an exercise time, area, etc."

"Lots of good food to eat-thanks!!".

For the most part, participants were satisfied with the rooms and facilities as indicated by the ranking of above "very good-4" mean score. Some statements included:

"Way too hot!!"

"Great food and great information!!"

"A little more centralized would be nice. A long trip down here. .. The first classroom was horrible. The 2 deadbolt bathrooms in our room & 1 shower for 4 people was not a positive experience. Thanks for all the information [signed]."

"Dorms were very hot-a fan would be welcome (or at least a warning, so participants can bring one."