Author
Abstract
The Rural Prosperity Risk Management Initiative was designed to deliver timely and relevant risk management information. Participants included producers, Extension educators, and agricultural community influencers consisting of lenders, input dealers, and agricultural commodity processors. The program was designed and delivered so producers could make sound risk management decisions; Extension educators and Ag. Influencers could help clients make good business decisions; and extremely limited Extension program delivery resources could be highly leveraged. Changing commodity fundamentals, large speculative influences, and higher input costs have producers, Extension educators and agricultural community influencers scrambling for ways to increase agricultural prosperity and sustainability. The project utilized D. Merrill Ewert’s matrix of approaches to Extension work as a catalyst for change. The underlying theory is that Extension programs are most successful when they combine process (in this case Polycom technology and the Internet) and content (risk management education) instead of strictly one or the other. Beginning in 2006, this project utilized the Internet and other interactive communication tools to bring risk management education to over 275,000 participants consisting mostly of producers. Remote and on-site presentations were made in real time by agricultural economists and experts from many U.S. states and foreign countries. All remote presentations were live and completely interactive. Extension specialists from U.S. land grant universities, U.S. and foreign government agencies, and industry made presentations. Remote presentations originated from areas across the United States, South America and France. In addition to reaching more than 275,000 participants of which most were producers, the project saved over $281,000.00 in direct meeting costs, and increased net-farm profits by $5,166,099.31 as of December 2009. Evaluations via survey, focus groups, and personal contact show that the majority of participants are very accepting of this type of extension program delivery method and even preferred this type of Extension outreach experience over traditional methods.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ifma11:345634. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifmaaea.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.