|
Practices Observed at Youth Livestock Exhibitions Ohio
Secondary Agricultural Educators, Janice
E. Dever and James J. Connors, The
Ohio State University, Department of Human and Community Resource
Development Abstract Introduction Throughout the United States, two well-known youth development organizations, 4-H and FFA have provided youth with an avenue into the livestock show arena. Youth can participate in livestock programs, either as a 4-H project or as a supervised agriculture experience (SAE) program, while they are members of the youth development organizations. During these experiences, youth “attain an education in animal husbandry that includes selection, genetics, nutrition, health, fitting, showing, economics and marketing, they are also developing such life skills as communication, leadership, cooperation, discipline, responsibility, and financial management, that the future leaders of agriculture need to keep our industry competitive into the next century” (Allison, 1995, p. 1). Participation in 4-H and FFA was shown to influence the outcome of achievement and life skill development (Ball, Garton, & Dyer, 2001; Seevers & Dormody, 1994). As one can see, these youth development organizations are very important to the development of America’s youth. Adult and parent involvement is essential during 4-H projects and FFA SAEs, however, the involvement needs to be positive not negative. Allison (1995) believed that education starts at home with the parents and that children respond to what they are taught. If adults/parents show or teach the children to cheat or bend the rules and regulations, then they will respond accordingly. Goodwin (1995b, p. 1) stated that, “Adults are where the problems with the [junior livestock] program arise.” During the past several years, numerous youth in the state of Ohio have been observed participating in unethical behavior. “Some refer to 1994 as a year of wake-up calls...” (Goodwin, 2001, p. 1393). During the 1994 exhibition season, seven of the top 10 steers, and the grand champion lamb at the Ohio State Fair tested positive for clenbuterol and/or vegetable oil. The purpose of vegetable oil injected under the skin is to give a fuller and smoother look for the animal. The use of vegetable oil is not detectable until the animal is butchered. Another concern of unethical practices would include the use of illegal drugs on livestock. Clenbuterol is a B-agonist drug that affects lung and heart function (Goodwin, 2001). In the United States, clenbuterol is banned for use on livestock. When clenbuterol is present in an animal’s system, the weight gain becomes muscle instead of fat, hence, producing a muscular animal (Stokka, 2003). After the 1994 exhibition season in Ohio, the ethical awareness of youth exhibitors became a state concern. Chief of the Ohio Department of Agriculture Enforcement Division, Larry Pontious, reported that vegetable oil was discovered in the muscle tissue and lymph nodes of the 1995 reserve grand champion steer of the Clark County Fair during butchering (Baird & Woods, 1995). At the Pickaway County Fair, a urine test revealed that the grand champion and the reserve grand champion steers had been treated with thoraxine, an oral tranquilizer. This tranquilizer is used to make animals more docile and easier to control when showing. Unlike vegetable oil, the usage of drugs can be detected through a urine test. Vegetable oil and drugs are not the only unethical methods that have been observed during youth livestock shows. Youth and their parents need to understand all of the responsibilities of having an animal and competing at livestock events. One responsibility is to exhibit your animal in an ethical manner and to accept the penalties of unethical behavior. If an individual participates in unethical behavior, then the results could range from being banned from the event for life, to being prosecuted for federal food and drug administration violations. One example would be Jessica McEldowney, she was banned from the Ohio State Fair for life when her steer was one of the five champion animals that tested positive for clenbuterol at the 1994 state fair. Scott McEldowney, Jessica’s father, was quoted as saying “I only wanted to give her an equal playing ground” (Tyson, 1995, p. 2). According to Fred Dailey, Ohio Department of Agriculture, “youth need to be encouraged to develop livestock production skills that do not require short cuts or crutches to be competitive” (Dailey, 1996, p. 1). According to Goodwin (1995b), parents need to take a personal responsibility not to engaged in unethical behavior, get a grip on the adult ego, and not jump to conclusions. At the same time, extension agents, agriculture teachers, and 4-H leaders need to communicate the rules, be square and honest, and not look the other way. For adults to make positive contributions to youth livestock programs, they need to respond to situations following the latter guidelines set by Goodwin. The adults that are involved in the education of youth hold the fate of the livestock exhibiting events. The adults must educate the youth about the importance of ethical and moral decisions while exhibiting their animal. Therefore, the adults themselves must also be educated correctly. Theoretical
Framework
These practices all rated above a mean of 3.0 on a 4.0 scale (1-never observed; 2-very seldom observed; 3-occasionally observed; 4-frequently observed). However, the next six practices that the population considered to be unethical were more concerned with animals and treatment to animals. The fourth practice was concerned with youth not knowing a lot about the animal they are taking into the show ring. The fifth practice to be observed by the population was the alteration of the hair, hooves or skin by the use of paint, oils, powder, hair dye coloring, etc. Paying extreme prices for a feeder pig or calf just to win was the sixth practice. The grooming of show animals by professionals rather than youth was the seventh practice. The eighth practice was having animals drink a great deal of water before weight-in while withholding feed and water from animals to lower weight and make animal appear trim was the ninth practice. The other 49 practices address a mixture of concerns with youth livestock exhibitions. Nestor concluded that there were unethical practices in West Virginia; however, the practices with a high rate of occurrence were the ones concerning adults and parents. The results also showed that females and extension agents observed unethical practices more frequently than males and agriculture teachers.
Murphy, Norwood and Dubes (1992) completed a study in the state of Texas concerning the unethical fitting and showing practices in junior livestock shows. The population for the study consisted of the junior exhibitors of the 1990 Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo, agriculture teachers and extension agents. A total of 1,945 questionnaires were mailed out with only 797 responses, for a 41% response rate. The findings of the study disclosed that: About 25% of the individuals surveyed had knowingly used illegal drugs in preparing market animals for show ring competition while approximately 47% had either registered crossbred animals or knew someone that did, and 37.5% were aware of falsification of data other than parentage on registration certificates (p. 99). Research on the impact of exhibiting 4-H animals projects as perceived by selected participants, parents, and extension agents in Mississippi was completed by Baker (1991). The population for the study was 4-H members enrolled in one animal-related 4-H project along with their parents and extension agents. The 4-H members were limited to senior 4-H members that showed at the 1990 Dixie National Mississippi Junior Round-up Livestock Show. Senior 4-H members totaled 247 individuals. A random sample of 182 individuals was drawn. The 247 senior 4-H members came from 217 different families. Of the 217 families, 170 parents were randomly selected. All 45 agents with 4-H members that exhibited beef, sheep or swine were surveyed. The survey design was a five-point Likert-type scale (nothing, little, some, quite a bit and a lot). According to Baker (1991, p. 108-109), 66.6% of the parents and 63.3% of the 4-H members stated that they had learned “a lot” about treating animals properly. The 35.6% of extension agents stated they had learned “quite a bit” while 31.1% stated that they had learned “some” about treating animals properly (Baker, 1991, p. 110). The findings of the study show that 59.9% of the 4-H members, 43.9% of the parents, and 48.9% of the extension agents stated that they had learned “a lot” about the importance of rules (Baker, 1991, p. 112-114). The difference in the percentages may be due to prior experience of the adults, parents, and extension agents. The next item of concern was the emphasis on winning, which 32.7% of 4-H members rated as “not at all” a problem (Baker, 1991, p. 123). However, the majority of the parents, 27.3%, and the extension agents, 35.6%, rated emphasis on winning “a little” of the problem (Baker, 1991, p. 124-125). In 1997, Rus completed research on the evaluation of ethics perceptions of FFA members. However, Rus stated (1997, p. 13), the “validity of this instrument was not determined and should be a consideration before further use; furthermore, reliability was not tested.” Therefore, this study should be viewed cautiously. The study’s population was 196 FFA members from seven secondary schools. According to Rus (1997, p. 11), the questionnaire utilized a case-study format consisting of 20 case-study questions. The respondents responded to each case-study question on a five point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 agree to 5 disagree. The study was also designed with control and treatment groups. The treatment group viewed Goodwin’s video, “The Line in the Sand,” as the educational component of the study. According to Rus, (1997, p. 17), the treatment group had an overall mean of 3.84 on a 5 point Likert-type scale, while the control group had an overall mean of 3.44. Rus (1997, p. 18) also performed a t-test on the gender results of the study, with females having an overall mean of 3.76 and males having 3.55. There was a significance difference between the female and the males in the study. The results of the study allowed Rus (1997, p.20) to indicate that youth were aware of the ethical issues surrounding the junior livestock shows. Rus (1997, p. 20) stated, “From the results, it should be understood that the education provided by agriculture instructors and Cooperative Extension is having a positive impact.”
Purpose
and Objectives 1. To identify the unethical practices perceived by secondary agricultural educators at Ohio youth livestock exhibitions. 2. To rate the unethical practices according to their perceived frequency. 3. To compare differences in the perceived seriousness of unethical practices by gender, Ohio agricultural educational districts and years of teaching experience with youth livestock exhibitions. Methods The researcher perceived that the program areas of agriscience and production were most likely related to livestock supervised agriculture experiences and youth livestock exhibitions. The population of the qualified secondary agricultural educators consisted of 246 individuals. All 246 secondary agricultural educators were sent questionnaires. Using the 2002 – 2003 Ohio Agriculture Teacher Directory limited the coverage error of the population. The directory was reviewed to delete any secondary agricultural educators that had retired, or moved into different academic positions or non-agriculture positions. The questionnaire consisted of 45 practices addressing unethical practices that may or may not have been observed by the secondary agricultural educators in Ohio, between the years of 1998 –2002 using a five point Likert-type scale (1=no opportunity to observe, 2=never observed, 3=rarely observed, 4=occasionally observed, 5=regularly). The respondents were also asked four additional questions regarding educational programs and the problem of unethical behavior as a whole. The first two questions asked if they (secondary agricultural educators) or the youth they advised had participated in any educational programs on ethical practices in youth livestock exhibitions. The last two questions related to the secondary agricultural educators’ opinions on the effect of educational programs and if the problem of unethical practices was getting worse, staying the same, or getting better. The respondents were asked to identify their gender, age, Ohio Agricultural Education District, and years of experience with youth livestock exhibitions including 2002-2003. The secondary agricultural educator could also add any additional comments/suggests in a designated area. A
panel of experts, consisting of Dr. J. Goodwin, University of Idaho, and
Dr. M. Eastridge, The Ohio State University, examined the questionnaire
for content and face validity. A
mixture of 20 secondary agricultural educators and extension
professionals in the state of West Virginia completed the pilot test for
reliability. Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient of internal consistency reliability for the 45 Likert-type
scale items was .95. The
Office of Research Risks Protection (ORRP) reviewed and approved the
study to ensure the welfare of the human subjects involved in the
research. The data collection process was completed through the web services of Zoomerang and two traditional hard copy mailings. A link to the questionnaire located at the Zoomerang website was provided in the email cover letter. The Zoomerang questionnaire and cover letter were emailed to 227 secondary agricultural educators. Two and three weeks after the first mailing the non-respondents received a replacement questionnaire via email. Nineteen secondary agricultural educators did not have a valid email address or Internet access and, therefore, received the questionnaire via traditional mailing. After four weeks, a replacement questionnaire via traditional hard copy mailing was sent on to the 157 secondary agricultural educators who had not responded to either of the initial questionnaires. Non-response error was controlled by comparing early to late respondents. “Research has shown that late respondents are often similar to non-respondents” (Miller & Smith, 1983, p. 45). The early respondents were the secondary agricultural educators who responded to the web-based survey and the first traditional hard copy mailing. The late respondents were the secondary agricultural educators who responded to the second traditional hard copy mailing. No significant difference between the two groups when comparing the practices on the questionnaire was found. However, differences were found between the early and late groups in age and years of experience. The early group had a mean age of 38.00, while the late group had a mean age of 44.35. The means for the years of experience was 15.60 years for the early group and 21.43 for the late group. This difference may have been due to the method of communication, computer based verses traditional mailing. Younger teachers, with less years of experience tended to respond earlier to the web-based instrument, while the more experienced teachers tended to respond later to the traditional mailing. However, the secondary agricultural educators had no differences in how they responded to the questions. Therefore, the results can be generalized to the target population. Results Coffey and Goodwin (1995) indicated four major areas regarding unethical behavior. Those four areas were false ownership/identification, illegal drugs, physical alteration including physical abuse, and professional fitters. Following this outline, the 45 practices identified in the questionnaire were categorized into six subgroups: adult involvement, altering animals, animal health, animal management, ethics and fraudulent practices. The six subgroups were checked for internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of reliability. One item in the altering subgroup was deleted due to low reliability. Final reliability coefficients for the six subgroups ranged from .52 to .83. The results for the altering subgroup should be view with caution due to its .52 Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of internal consistency reliability. The means of the six subgroups revealed that the adult involvement subgroup’s items were perceived to be observed more frequently than the other five subgroups. As Table 1 shows, the top two subgroups, adult involvement, and ethics are related to people and their actions and/or behaviors. The third and fourth subgroups are related more to general livestock practices. The last two subgroups related to more overt practices of altering animals or deceptive actions. Table 1 Descriptive
parameters of subgroups
Male respondents had higher means in four of the six subgroups, animal health, animal management, adult involvement, and altering animals. Female respondents had higher means in the ethics and fraudulent practices subgroups. Table 2 contains the data for male and female respondents. Table 2 Comparison
of male and female respondents by subgroups
Respondents from district nine had the highest mean scores in the animal management, animal health, and altering animals subgroups. District five secondary agricultural educators had the lowest mean scores in the adult involvement, ethics, animal management, animal health and fraudulent practices subgroups. The third demographic question concerned the years of experience of the respondents. The years were categorized into 10 years or less, 11-20 years, 21-30 years, and 31 years or more. Respondents with 31 years or more experience had the lowest means scores in five of the six subgroups: adult involvement, ethics, animal management, animal health, and fraudulent practices. Respondents with 10 years or less had the highest mean scores with three of the subgroups: adult involvement, ethics, and fraudulent practices. Table 3 contains the data for years of experience comparisons. Table 3 Descriptive parameters for years of experience
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||