Jim Nesseth Researching Relevant Professional Development Learning Task #1

The 1999 Soybean Production Conference was an attempt to collaborate with the Minnesota Soybeans Growers Association, University of Minnesota Extension Service, University of Minnesota College of Ag and Environmental Sciences, soybean producers, and ag professionals together for an educational program. This program was offered at six different locations around the state. The program was designed to target production practices that effect profitability for soybean farmers. It would include components of technology transfer, market outlooks, weather outlooks, biotechnology and other production issues like weed control, disease management, etc. Soybean Farmers, crop production specialists, Extension staff, and soybean industry leaders made up this conference.

This was the first attempt to form a collaborative in delivering educational programs which include a commodity organization programs, land grant institution, and ag professionals with industry related jobs.

What made this conference somewhat unique was the absence of private industry on the agenda, even though agri-business representatives attended the meeting.

This conference was a new endeavor in programming with the Minnesota Soybean Growers Association. Past history between these organizations has been good with partnerships developed in research and publications used for outreach. However this attempt was a first in program delivery with hopes of avoiding delivery and duplication of high quality information.

The program format was traditional with presentation by speakers who were a heavy mix of University of Minnesota staff and ag professionals. Ten topics were covered centered on production issues through breakout sessions and each subject was repeated once. The ten topics included 1) Management Strategies to Minimize White Mold, 2) Living with the Soybean Cyst Nematode, 3) Production Practices for Profitability, 4) Weed Management, 5) Does Roundup Ready Pencil Out?, 6) Marketing Outlook and Opportunities, 7) Selecting Varieties for your Farm, 8) Nutrient Management for Soybeans, 9) Controlling Production Costs, 10) The La Nina Weather Outlook.

I attended all the sessions. My motivation was to obtain material and knowledge I could utilize in programming efforts in my county and cluster. I interviewed three participants who attended the conference. I selected these individuals by their professional background. First was a colleague and friend, Art Frame, Extension Educator in Nobles County with Crops System Specialization; second was Mark Pietz, Jackson County Soybean Farmer and third was Jeff Dean, Crop Production Specialist for Cenex/Land O'Lakes.

I asked the following six questions: 1) What is your occupation? 2) How did you learn about this conference? 3) Was the information cutting edge and practical for your profession? 4) Is this collaborative effective in developing and delivering programs? 5) What type of outcomes would you expect from attending this conference? 6) How could we improve the conference?

Art Frame, with Extension background, had similar expectations as I did. He was aware of the program because Extension had a big part in the planning and delivery and thought avoiding duplication was high on his list for possible outcomes. Often, the different organizations and ag businesses target the same audiences and attendance is average to poor.

Mark Pietz, a soybean farmer, felt this was an excellent program that was unbiased and research based. He became aware of the program through direct mailing from the Soybean Growers Association. Time is always a factor for him so forming this collaborative and developing a high quality program is positive. He hopes to adapt some of the management strategies to increase profitability. He felt some sessions were too short when discussion was still going on.

Jeff Dean, Crop Production Specialist for Cenex/Land O-Lakes, became aware of the program through an ad on the radio. He felt the information was "top notch" and he wanted to use it to help producers become more profitable and also to gain confidence and trust in his recommendations. He felt some of the speakers could involve the audience more for improvement.

This conference was one I was involved in from planning and facilitating. I was pleased by the content, attitude of participants, and the effort to form partnerships in delivering programs. You always feel there could be more people there when a program is high quality and effective.

The three individuals I interviewed had similar thoughts. Program content was cutting edge, informative, and presented well. Everyone felt avoiding duplication and receiving unbiased information were good reasons to continue the program.

The format was good in their opinion and they liked the opportunity to choose sessions.

I believe the conference met many of the goals we set out to do. Some speakers were better than others in terms of audience participation. The style of learning centered around technical and subject oriented material. It was very traditional in its approach. I do believe some speakers could have asked more questions to their audience. I believe they assumed the audience was at a certain level of intelligence. The ones who asked questions and created dialogue seemed to be the most effective.

--James B. Nesseth (jnesseth@extension.umn.edu), October 21, 1999

-- Anonymous, October 21, 1999