In-Depth Organic Training for Agricultural Professionals

Recruitment: Our training targeted experienced agricultural professionals with an interest in organics and at least an introductory-level knowledge of the techniques. This enabled us to focus content on a more advanced level, without spending time debating the merits of organics or introducing brand new concepts. The application made clear that we were interested in early career professionals with 5 to 10 years of experience. In addition, participants had to commit to attend all three sessions, to do preparatory work for each session and to participate in online discussions.

A request for applications was publicized through the SARE PDP state coordinator network and statewide Extension, NRCS and other agricultural service provider e-mail lists, organizations, and publications. Of the 40 applications received, five were deemed ineligible since the applicants were from outside the Northeast. In December 2004, four members from the planning team selected 22 applicants for the program, based upon applicant experience, location, and potential for impact with both farmer and institutional audiences. Recruits represented eight states in the Northeast. All participants’ supervisors signed a form acknowledging the time commitment required of participants. Two participants could not complete the training, but were replaced by two others from within their organizations after the first session.

While trainees were expected to enter with an introductory knowledge of organics, their actual experience varied widely from entry-level to high level of expertise in one or two aspects of organics. This varying level expertise was not evident in the information on the application forms, but made more obvious during informal discussions during the sessions. This did not, however, hinder the progress of the sessions. The facilitators of each session continuously emphasized that the focus was in-depth. Additional resources were provided to participants needing additional background information.

The Planning and Training Team: The core planning team for this training consisted of twelve people, including representatives from Cornell University, University of Vermont Extension, the Northeast Organic Farming Association (NOFA) of NY and NJ, Penn State University, University of Massachusetts Extension, University of Maine, NYS Integrated Pest Management Program, the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA), and the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station.
Ten of the planning team members were also trainers. These specialists had expertise in organic farming systems, Integrated Pest Management, plant pathology and organic disease management, weed ecology, crop production or soil quality. These specialized experts attended all three training sessions, generally making formal presentations at one or two of the sessions, and sharing their knowledge informally at the other sessions. This helped cultivate interdisciplinary discussions and debate on organic agriculture issues.

A project coordinator was hired (0.50 FTE) to manage the day to day planning and communications for the training. This coordinator worked with the individual session teams, to assure continuity in format, structure and teaching strategies. She also helped plan logistics for the trainings, including travel and lodging for participants and speakers. She maintained regular contact with the participants and kept the project website updated and administered the listserve (described below). The project would not have been possible without this important staff assistance. A minimum of 0.50 FTE is recommended to any others who provide a similar multi-day, regional, education event.

The Training Format: Three 4-day sessions were organized over the course of a year--one each in February, June, and September 2005--to cultivate a holistic, integrative view of organic management techniques. A half day of travel was included at the start and end of each session, assuming that most participants would drive to the location by noon on the first day. This allowed 24 to 28 content hours per training. During the first session, we had an evening session on the first day (noon start time). The participants, however, found that this was too long, given most had also had to drive in the morning. For the other sessions, we used evenings for optional discussions or slide presentations or social events. The planning team had considered a shorter training of 3 total days (2 days contact time, 1 day travel) but concluded that this would be inadequate if we wanted to use both lecture and field tours. We also felt that a 2-day training would not provide enough time for educators to step away ‘mentally’ from their job responsibilities and immerse themselves in the subject matter.

Sessions took place in NY, Pennsylvania, and Maine, and planners relied heavily on the assistance and expertise of farmers and organizers in each state. The shifting location allowed trainees to visit different organic farms, experience diverse farm management techniques and meet organic farming experts from three different regions of the Northeast. It also helped distribute the travel distances for participants coming from eight states more equitably. A fourth and final 3-day session was held in Ithaca, NY, in July 2006, to allow participants to reconnect and share their successes and challenges since the September 2005 training.

Sessions were intentionally set four months apart to allow participants time to assimilate and apply material learned. Planners hoped the participants would return to their regions and share information with colleagues as well as to have the opportunity to work with local organic growers. To encourage this, homework assignments required participants to talk to organic farmers in their region to develop deeper understanding of local organic issues. All of the participants did engage organic farmers in either educational workshops or field days by the end of the project.

The planning team decided not to offer academic credit, unlike another organic training offered by North Carolina State University in 2000 for graduate level credits. The participating educators in the NE training were all compensated differently and had varying titles and tenure status depending on their home state and institution. Graduate credit would have been complicated to offer and not an incentive for many of them. In an effort to reward the participants' commitment beyond the new knowledge they would receive, the planning team did offer Certified Crop Advisor (CCA) credits. The project leaders also sent letters to supervisors, legislators and local organic agriculture organizations which shared the names of the participants and highlighted their availability as a new cadre of educators prepared to support organic producers in the region.

Training Content: In an organic system, every element is interrelated, so that soil fertility cannot be discussed without integrating cover crops, pest management strategies, crop rotations, and nutrient balances into the dialogue. The training curriculum was designed to continually emphasize this point. Though each session had a particular focus—1) Certification, Marketing, & Business Management; 2) Pest and Disease Management; and 3) Soil Quality—all topics were integrated in each session (Table 1). These three session topics, which represent the most encompassing, crucial aspects of organic systems, were chosen early on by the planning team. Presentations can be found at the following website: www.neon.cornell.edu/training

This training focused primarily on organic vegetable production systems, with some reference to organic grains. The planning team felt that in order to provide an in-depth training, the breadth of crops had to be limited if we were to stay within the agreed upon time commitment and budget. Restricting the content of each session proved difficult. Each session was planned by a subgroup of the project team, usually based upon primary expertise and interest. One of the project PIs or the project coordinator was involved with each planning group, to help build upon previous trainings or lessons learned and avoid overlap or repetition. Despite these efforts, some of the participants reported feeling ‘overload’ from the amount of material and insights that they received through the training.

For each session, a set of learning outcomes and strategies was designed by the planning team, to help guide participant learning and evaluation (Table 2). A variety of instructional methods were used to accommodate a variety of learning styles. Lectures highlighted key concepts and complexity of organic management. The “Expert” presenters—generally farmers, scientists, or Extension educators-- also were available for informal discussion during each session. Multiple farm tours in each state provided on-the-ground connection to the learning outcomes each day. These experiential learning opportunities were the highlight of the training, particularly for the second and third sessions which took place during the growing season. Discussions both on- and off-farm provided an important opportunity for participants to compare different management strategies and challenges. Several of the participants already had a high level of expertise in a specific topic, enhancing peer-to-peer learning and network building. The books and resources were provided each session to help individual study and create an ‘organic production library’ for their institution. Small group discussions focused on case studies or brainstorming provided a forum peer to peer learning, questioning and debate, enhancing camaraderie in the group.

Three types of case studies were used. The first were Northeast Organic Network (NEON) case studies. These extensive reports detailed history, cropping patterns, markets, labor requirements, obstacles, and other management details of successful Northeast organic farms. These homework assignments served as focal points for classroom discussions and field trips. The second type of case study used was farm visits. These generated lively discussion and debate as the group wrestled with complex management issues and interactions on organic farms.

A third type of case study was used at the third session to test how well participants had integrated material they had learned. These were decision case studies, designed by the instructors. These cases consisted of a very brief description of a scenario followed by a request for help, much like a phone call an Extension agent might receive. While not difficult cases, these forced participants to consider important additional information needed prior to advising a client, the interactions of multiple factors in organic farm management and potential strategies for response. These case studies served as a final step in preparing educators to provide better support for organic producers upon completion of the training. As a capstone event, these cases were highly rated by the trainees.