Thesis (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1974. / eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1969. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin, 1963. / Extension Repository Collection. Typescript (carbon copy). Autobiographical sketch. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 219-245).

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1966. / eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

More than two years ago the cooperative training program between the United States Department of State and the Extension Service of the United States Department of Agriculture for Latin-American students on Extension work aroused the interest of Dr. P.W. Tsou, Resident Representative in the United States of the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Upon the request of Dr. Tsou, Director M. L. Wilson of the United States Extension Service extended this cooperative training program to Chinese students. It was agreed that Dr. Tsou should select a small group of Chinese students whose expenses were to be paid either by the State Department of the United States or by the Chinese Government. The Division of the Field Studies and Training of the Extension Service of the United States Department of Agriculture was to be responsible for working out the training program with the trainees. The Chinese students selected were those who had come to the United States before December 8, 1941, who had some practical experience connected with rural life in China, were interested in rural living and planned to return to China to work with rural people. The author was chosen as one of the trainees, her financial support being supplied by the United States Department of State from the President's emergency fund during the war period. The training program on Extension work for foreign students was under the auspices of the Division of Field Studies and Training in the United States Department of Agriculture. It consisted of three parts. The preliminary training was in the Federal Extension Office at Washington, D.C. Before beginning the fieldwork the author, with other foreign students, was given two months of general training in the Federal Extension Office under the supervision of Dr. Fred P. Frutchey, in charge of the Foreign Student Program. During this two month period the author spent about one fourth of the time in classes in which general information on Extension organization, the policy and administration of Extension Service, the methods of teaching, and the general set-up of the Federal Extension System were discussed. The second fourth of the time was spent in conferences with subject-matter specialists of the Federal Extension Staff on methods and plans of work, and materials for the teaching of the various subject-matter fields. The rest of the time was spent with the Parent Education Specialist discussing and studying the programs and plans for Parent Education work in the United States, and becoming acquainted with the history and development of the Extension System in the United States, as well as in reading the reports of state and county Extension workers. A period of seven months was spent in six states divided as follows: two months each in Alabama, Iowa and New York, and one month in the three states Illinois, Ohio, and Vermont. In each of these six states the investigator was under the guidance of either the State Home Demonstration Leader or the District supervisors. The activities at the State Extension Office were planned: 1. To acquaint the investigator with Extension personnel at the State Office and the extension program in the State, its development and history. Special attention was given to the home demonstration work and the training of workers for this field. 2. To arrange conferences with the district supervisors, State 4-H Club Leaders, subject-matter specialists, and the Extension editor or publicity personnel. 3. To arrange field trips with district supervisors and subject-matter specialists, especially those dealing with "Family Life Education" as well as "Foods and Nutrition." Opportunities to observe their work with the county home agents and the local leaders were provided. 4. To arrange visits to the Home Economics Department of the Land-Grant College in the respective states in order to learn its relationship with the Extension Service in training home agents and rendering special types of service. 5. To acquaint the investigator with the work of the Experiment Station and its relationship to the Extension Service. 6. To provide opportunities to read the Extension bulletins and reports of agents and specialists. In each state certain counties were selected for special study. All counties selected had outstanding extension programs directed by experienced county agents. In each county the activities of the investigator were varied, but on the whole she: 1. Studied the daily activities of the county agents and observed their methods of working and teaching among rural people, and their relationships with both farm people and their co-workers in the office. 2. Discussed with county agents the organization, functions, and history of county Extension work, agricultural situations of the county, their methods of working with rural people, 4-H Club and older youth programs in the county, methods of developing and using volunteer leaders, development of their particular county Extension programs and plans of work, ways and means of office management, their relationships with other agencies in the county, their problems and the solutions for them, methods of training new agents and local leaders, and their objectives of Extension work. 3. Attended all the meetings held and observed the agents in their work. 4. Visited result demonstrations, 4-H Club projects, farms and homes, as well as meetings held by local leaders and other agencies in the counties. 5. Read and studied the circular letters, news stories, radio talks, reports and records written by county agents. The fourth part of this training program was the taking of a two months' short course in Extension Education in the Federal Extension Office at Washington, D.C. The methods used for study were listening, observing, asking questions, reading, discussing, and "learning by doing" under the instruction of subject-matter specialists and other members of the Extension Staff. / Master of Science

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Ohio State University, 2007. / Title from first page of PDF file. Includes bibliographical references (p. 204-209).

This dissertation explores determinants and perceptions to participation in beekeeping by households’ as well as its contribution to household income. This is in a context that smallholder farmers’ participation is reported to be very low, despite several claimed benefits of beekeeping. Moreover, despite receiving substantial endorsements as a resilient climate-smart rural livelihood, off-farm, forest, non-timber diversification strategy; the uptake of beekeeping by smallholder farmers in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa still remains very low. Against this background, this study used cross-sectional survey data to gauge smallholder farmers’ perceptions and factors that influence their participation in beekeeping using a binary regression model; further, it measured the contribution of beekeeping to rural household income using a linear regression model. Descriptive statistics revealed that majority of the people from the study area have positive perceptions regarding beekeeping. Regression estimates further indicate that beekeeping is mostly conditioned by shared perceptions, institutional and socio-economic factors that are worth targeting to promote the uptake of beekeeping as a livelihood. Public policies that influence the institutional framework (extension, credit and market) in favour of beekeeping are more likely to promote participation in beekeeping activities. Also, more research on the documentation and benefits of beekeeping supported by investments targeting educational campaigns towards promoting positive attitudes and dispelling fears and myths surrounding beekeeping as an enterprise, will also promote the participation of smallholder farmers in beekeeping. Regression estimates for determinants of household income revealed a significant positive contribution of beekeeping to household income, education, gender and age. Promotion of beekeeping may therefore address household income that is worth targeting to address rural poverty. The study therefore concludes that to fully unlock the income potential of beekeeping for smallholder farmers, development agencies need to address several negative perceptions and institutional factors that affect beekeeping participation, while more research is required to quantify the claimed benefits of beekeeping, given their positive potential to promote farmers’ interests in beekeeping.