<%BANNER%>

Educational Needs and Preferences of Hispanic Farmworkers Related to Pesticide Worker Protection Standard (WPS)

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101204_AAAAFF INGEST_TIME 2010-12-05T04:25:45Z PACKAGE UFE0017928_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 6581 DFID F20101204_AADGMD ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH toro_d_Page_049thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
0f2e01f6d5944ea495b84f2a960f8740
SHA-1
cc77123e4fb5e961ff905172bb1d667f0edc6153
1964 F20101204_AADGLP toro_d_Page_024.txt
bb6ca6d88ea8f824dcc45d8f94aca356
c8622df65baf07b0cdca9e315dd8cbfe9c1e210f
2030 F20101204_AADGME toro_d_Page_034.txt
3f0216add0cfac04a40b01e332e07856
90d3a15ea27a7a1cbb654697533fcfa63f7b35d3
94453 F20101204_AADGLQ toro_d_Page_074.jp2
86a87a416346910716c762339b1ee55a
7840ff23727d37b70e9eedc9aaddc9227e140022
10117 F20101204_AADGMF toro_d_Page_108.QC.jpg
e21b0a816e820f664f307ac79ab6ed8c
36f33f6f96cec8b4cc9c05b8a86689322f65d003
23430 F20101204_AADGMG toro_d_Page_040.QC.jpg
9e94d708ff2901bf86a6f4810fa535c0
3fa5496dd20918d19295dee92fdd11acf6f3ed48
89305 F20101204_AADGLR toro_d_Page_077.jp2
078bbabfe9a27abbe62705f0aaf88a5c
c3bca34a2064e5fbbe21f96bf1002c2f3b7715d5
479 F20101204_AADGMH toro_d_Page_001.txt
0a19f4862be6456ca19e6f38d8339b82
2f74e8e5dbbaffd1bb1cf369f1aaaf0e92e0d2f1
18694 F20101204_AADGLS toro_d_Page_057.QC.jpg
c0f04f9487ec2856abffb8ac80f6dd75
7e0fe203e35c1b176da9267940f27c2d6ddfdada
19224 F20101204_AADGMI toro_d_Page_106.pro
fe925a756d3d081b7e60ae903af6fcb4
e965e59d3f6b34149b454fa818638f7f45a22e78
6019 F20101204_AADGLT toro_d_Page_080thm.jpg
0748ff67ee18e6123e1587d9f89bf56c
91f012a655b7d2262bb7b0380094889f5265ef77
2016 F20101204_AADGMJ toro_d_Page_049.txt
751f6fa5666a5484a9f4d1403dd1d53e
20b26180777b8b6a1566eda66735daf0263301d0
49990 F20101204_AADGLU toro_d_Page_065.pro
66326414c3d3916ef2dcc3402172fd5e
f588382dc28d508188774b4ea9bed78f45e3a9da
1620 F20101204_AADGMK toro_d_Page_020.txt
464fa69e5f4f6cf3a7ff7592d08382a0
64ac0ed5da1606254e39e8404870cf89f8a2a086
1053954 F20101204_AADGLV toro_d_Page_069.tif
79ae7572f8af595108c5b02e024d8a59
97340e933566de71f23dee733396dc690839f29c
6649 F20101204_AADGML toro_d_Page_058thm.jpg
81ed82e9b0bb48063dbe761744290a71
b20fc22ad15ecaab4aacd2214d8a262f76693001
1975 F20101204_AADGLW toro_d_Page_010thm.jpg
08cc97a1c06ddb58248140d9b158b24d
fc35a49a64873a771f99ffe533346f1036c46ac8
49978 F20101204_AADGMM toro_d_Page_025.pro
82d9dbef54a8f8048cd57f3830a98a35
43e7dbd1cfdcd7452363079f13c8a9ae4e715063
23711 F20101204_AADGLX toro_d_Page_128.jpg
0b305644545caa683510fda7cc216928
434d473d5a5ecfc45baf433f4011eb1817bc1ad3
21826 F20101204_AADGNA toro_d_Page_015.QC.jpg
3685aa4b36f4fcff218143c44ed28fee
0eaf87c2856b96048eaf7386e81c581c26ab9aec
6336 F20101204_AADGMN toro_d_Page_014thm.jpg
87757d2ca498915487b84e6af9d5560b
23797f1bfa72b137b36a4cac936eaefeb6b25c00
45353 F20101204_AADGLY toro_d_Page_080.pro
ba0bf84895611d7ce5ac848eb4619e0c
b2c7516b575895aae10e00ba044ab3f6f3161016
16495 F20101204_AADGNB toro_d_Page_119.jpg
79f7f8117c30f2da84bb90b284c2734d
6bcdb6b4c4f27d6aef72241e930adb696cd82871
86979 F20101204_AADGMO toro_d_Page_078.jp2
4629d743a2b2bde69d1815db0f339fba
d132e2bef57c7da2af630df62e6f5572d1bc6b19
58781 F20101204_AADGLZ toro_d_Page_085.jpg
5319decee3cd4a68c7cdd04f4d378423
de673c4e9575c8e652fe5d2feeae69ceb4ded772
26485 F20101204_AADGNC toro_d_Page_001.jp2
73748c4aa01db1eab9a8a914b164f37d
72f2abfe1b4ebfb11d1f8532bdb52c6b1ccbf844
66059 F20101204_AADGMP toro_d_Page_080.jpg
123c6114f80b76492f929fd71fbe8a28
ed64e70b1ff2ee334519c7992807a6c0ec35eb33
1404 F20101204_AADGND toro_d_Page_002.pro
192baecf740ad5572ae480eab8147ae2
ff51ccaaec6acbfc10adcf0439883f9a10f1f7bc
16961 F20101204_AADGMQ toro_d_Page_006.QC.jpg
0761f71d9ee4a7102b1c4ff9fef94983
6f55df78c98fa5e5e8f2e784b46bc0ce23d2e987
11671 F20101204_AADGNE toro_d_Page_117.QC.jpg
0ff3f39fcd3a977058a7117e3d63ccc3
bfcd7f07a851ceee332e36aa9eff11247b89896a
65875 F20101204_AADGMR toro_d_Page_083.jpg
5ce9b4e0649dac849b47a960e6d22e8c
e2da042276bf5a43f6bdc29770b5d23311b60cfb
2482 F20101204_AADGNF toro_d_Page_122.txt
4c329b9a50708f76dc21ba5fa45467dd
cfa383b40fb5cbe23d364c74aac39440d8867265
3791 F20101204_AADGNG toro_d_Page_109thm.jpg
39232d2d60fafb81a3d325a96713dc4d
6e31160f13d3a0ec2fc80a3e21db378ae4fe2bc6
50822 F20101204_AADGMS toro_d_Page_040.pro
9d5d70c36591f239b5c0ca357871eef0
7b9193f429f7d9ad0eb42e8479bf317e1b0c79e1
60820 F20101204_AADGNH toro_d_Page_077.jpg
c7d3224a6a10ebdee09946e9a13f0288
feff35f479bb69b1e77e3de4496cf1939b1c46af
1840 F20101204_AADGMT toro_d_Page_061.txt
fab181a86c8ca2db73a3a07b13bb7703
94f20cb2811889b8e9431c4a6b232e0150a1eba4
1938 F20101204_AADGNI toro_d_Page_069.txt
b18979cde994cf7a28e376a0b8821f76
8b102d14a9843a603cc3499d1ca89013a5d7f6be
5772 F20101204_AADGMU toro_d_Page_087thm.jpg
c9b0d16120e91c58f14a349eca2c6d4b
884305ee08cbec9d2c8aba1b02af1020cf31b82c
6576 F20101204_AADGNJ toro_d_Page_012thm.jpg
472e6c606e943470208531637ca48f62
75f7b569b2c785d22c21e8d6ab616cf47b43c27e
2497 F20101204_AADGMV toro_d_Page_006.txt
bd8874639aa97b5ea383b47dbfba182b
2c0c22894ad5fa88e3971f422771316c316e8254
1851 F20101204_AADGNK toro_d_Page_013.txt
bfc9b38e0c2388d82015ca778966711a
d0dffa6e7f5406b87395752e0fcf6ce6a6e49506
68055 F20101204_AADGMW toro_d_Page_013.jpg
094c4e1d6c47f3315cad4e7fa6558875
a0020fb3491b459effc4be1266f83e9f0e79e353
9604 F20101204_AADGNL toro_d_Page_128.pro
b3c45dd52e709dfdd242616f0fba6b71
06e5572d20080d8682d500e80e6b51811e7a7c48
112593 F20101204_AADGMX toro_d_Page_044.jp2
51c9537a50057519f3b4d03fdde6a2c6
9981a6729fbd9a2575cec2b0b2ea90c156f3661b
5105 F20101204_AADGOA toro_d_Page_020thm.jpg
5fb76627fb6794a641a8e123d58f635a
3fab614fcb92185c13437b44011c011de659c5e4
6529 F20101204_AADGNM toro_d_Page_031thm.jpg
1cc50a278f0fa94de86b8eae0b63d090
4c38647c3cd880080d8f1346a78f0fea117fde6d
F20101204_AADGMY toro_d_Page_030.tif
073379802a735e35f4cf8edd660c3fca
e5b01a5be9ed64980cba48d66dd1d27d0dd35d4c
1014 F20101204_AADGOB toro_d_Page_112.txt
2b5bfd6c74eaf3c76113f9002433587d
95e6498da58529c5ead06665ef1e0008eb568d5a
F20101204_AADGNN toro_d_Page_002.tif
2cbdade6a5d4b71cadd6e2086ab47e72
19193a052d4760b9bee4947240346339bd3e6473
45050 F20101204_AADGMZ toro_d_Page_101.pro
ff914fbcc38b35f82b9b757d75612a41
b2f1d9421b920cfa91aac0ac607af9c1572d97f8
F20101204_AADGOC toro_d_Page_045.tif
12d78f9c0900e50304535ff22590fd20
0561256772c1eaf62eb06e006ad9ac43e56cbf3a
24953 F20101204_AADGNO toro_d_Page_001.jpg
01d93d95de9b910932a38c653e915825
2ca62b2007a4ab58a645009f8cba186a6ef95e9b
1159 F20101204_AADGOD toro_d_Page_118.txt
2573cc477808258103b70d03bdbb7205
558393e2dcb49350058b775f86047626fac60102
84205 F20101204_AADGNP toro_d_Page_020.jp2
572a02cf70c8a89122a22617e7b87895
215abcca12bb5318a4bb71b677e71c7ffd074a94
2033 F20101204_AADGOE toro_d_Page_093.txt
93848df96d761e05b67cd315559545fc
95a3669fd975423efbb7fceb4861864e5237586d
F20101204_AADGNQ toro_d_Page_036.tif
1ef4b9a76746421a80fc965d63c1093f
d6b2a92f394b77968f51a216c5f401e848132938
1836 F20101204_AADGOF toro_d_Page_080.txt
94ea1cb843af8ba2de1ce277f5df8ee8
9d33347156a28c0ef421f43bda93c3f3ef5a02c8
48071 F20101204_AADGNR toro_d_Page_068.pro
0fe0ccc4aa8d95aeeaef1312df018153
731686262e842cf5959c49dd1992b43c01cecb19
F20101204_AADGOG toro_d_Page_032.tif
47d22edf1ed7d149645a5f6af53ef1df
5b5fa2661c9be5e96dacd68a1d9f36daae0cdafc
106320 F20101204_AADGNS toro_d_Page_047.jp2
f055b13285601c80d6f8291c9e3045d4
79214c3d6915d4841e0258a2378c5882690ef5dc
42616 F20101204_AADGOH toro_d_Page_011.pro
e385e74367be8ccf7c6fe5d3783e0be6
e6c1ee773f60ea782c882a092825ffe7f81e66db
25271604 F20101204_AADGOI toro_d_Page_124.tif
b540ab958ffe7ec1e3a8dbbcec14358b
49684486bdb90f51e6ca7cb1cc6dec175f48a133
131372 F20101204_AADGNT toro_d_Page_016.jp2
e83fd9733302eb2dc710c9d577b4507d
b529eb268043844f0f3e8f44a300122017f4afa0
66195 F20101204_AADGOJ toro_d_Page_101.jpg
fe07213f03fb701fe835cb3760531ecb
304e76ff67d6e20686f52abe0c25d19a4ba4c819
58842 F20101204_AADGNU toro_d_Page_071.jp2
9b94b767dc11ac46fd9392c6a2a3eada
6f0bc05ad060a53f7e9ccf79f9782c2ccd7168a3
1732 F20101204_AADGOK toro_d_Page_070.txt
97dbbcc64e0625d114fae454a0a36dea
2b76a89941d1c523ccb3c5c0668d62b71e2995f6
16010 F20101204_AADGNV toro_d_Page_007.QC.jpg
586f5dd2c16fbd5bf59fe1abc87f4f21
7e595d92276d20a8c62e15c60f688f9da23a6257
6771 F20101204_AADGOL toro_d_Page_098thm.jpg
71e8f074f112ba3e87c3e63d420c8712
5c742422beb8d457f20004e9bf8e499aab3aca27
23263 F20101204_AADGNW toro_d_Page_012.QC.jpg
76b7df78730db616720a9ab55bb1603f
8d3fc87255e0f54763ec638b4939aead96cc7c85
112742 F20101204_AADGPA toro_d_Page_028.jp2
e663e944fe18bacc6012fbfb4d47c302
a94cfb58b7e0c72a13f98745effaab840ce094df
24113 F20101204_AADGOM toro_d_Page_049.QC.jpg
6f10b5d6a9b08c36901f8cbd10709168
a2d46e5bc5f2ceaf0d1b41596e96be091c1111d0
2476 F20101204_AADGNX toro_d_Page_124.txt
142ed306d1d52750d40dfec5e1fbbe9b
69091ede8f54d12480973f461ef93ff110c621e3
F20101204_AADGPB toro_d_Page_103.tif
dd1007c6a607e2a728fdfe7f113d5d82
ce1e301a56db9eb158455cd628c7870a1c0b864a
2043 F20101204_AADGON toro_d_Page_067.txt
59aba3ad65bf96a7a178fced283dbb9f
27c16aec277909f5cbf2c8db65c18aa3e2a85070
1051986 F20101204_AADGNY toro_d_Page_123.jp2
ead460767c0d39951f38c8e04fa4e564
c15b4b21c7c2d6088da1d5ba45e6f15454d9dd08
F20101204_AADFMA toro_d_Page_110.tif
602ad4dfb0ecc41fa5e6e36fa33be591
c6b23cb851a134108e06dd11b21252a64dfd5f8f
1348 F20101204_AADGPC toro_d_Page_003thm.jpg
c9e336a0838e98de7cdfd4a47a54db3b
7fbae52f6bbcf7e48a1b4bf98e1be992a5a8ee75
6756 F20101204_AADGOO toro_d_Page_128.QC.jpg
16a81fc5664265eec565169e790c9e1c
ee38f8ac5546f285cb330bbad9b05435d16795d5
105623 F20101204_AADGNZ toro_d_Page_069.jp2
5574c90bca4d1f4abbfa6efa5a9fb47e
37583cb8903375c44ccfae00c071a23fb1437b26
5808 F20101204_AADFMB toro_d_Page_110.pro
e2e01ca78d16bb9663a886a67ae0cdfa
399b5f5c23904357f7da4988b08a26b51d2a47ef
73886 F20101204_AADGPD toro_d_Page_030.jpg
0d5bca68b2c1d36dd1c074765dcb74f5
aa645737711e67b3c20b85bc2cf1b61b127e81aa
F20101204_AADGOP toro_d_Page_106.tif
a60bef9f62d3243cd7ab0d55f704a5f2
dcfc4b540cc6b4bd37b280a2b3f2c303d6ceff23
6600 F20101204_AADFMC toro_d_Page_065thm.jpg
ffcbd9dbb886a696a218bbdd18c6df88
2a3f5d2d5810926f88891d5141391d42da15a90c
25823 F20101204_AADGPE toro_d_Page_018.QC.jpg
71aafd7ee119b95286e07697ef077991
abf69c678fc2365efd4e4f7def635b219920bd6f
61044 F20101204_AADGOQ toro_d_Page_078.jpg
dfd996b57c00bb3295a3d29dad4884bf
b17b33c773fb357e893d2e173ec8857f90d63ff9
63693 F20101204_AADFMD toro_d_Page_086.jpg
85c8edd03641ae6ce9d38b36630a7429
2bf07e9e167c59418692c2a427e43e56f260397f
681 F20101204_AADGPF toro_d_Page_108.txt
98cc347c2d04cb40efc03b3958d778a4
eb46fbd85cc9793a307a682aba0368b53ba76cc6
24160 F20101204_AADGOR toro_d_Page_102.pro
b34d2a916b29a150477d93ce43efa2d3
580f013036b4d00a0a4df15046f3608717007eac
6481 F20101204_AADFME toro_d_Page_045thm.jpg
c508b923aff2dc4c65e8399154dbf6d0
18d2f697cc5b3061afe942af60b46eb454576c56
37793 F20101204_AADGPG toro_d_Page_109.jpg
a01b65fb2d7b62927ae4fd3941b58733
01db2d549acb5d301df6930f2459bd615687d14c
11923 F20101204_AADGOS toro_d_Page_103.QC.jpg
eb361043a7194e3fd299258e866717e2
8d4806b9776c32e3c620c5faf9316947bf827fa0
13971 F20101204_AADFMF toro_d_Page_108.pro
b0bfcb6a06313466e354b18cf8fac616
15c8aba6e74c62419e245bcb465b149b5f592ec7
42306 F20101204_AADGPH toro_d_Page_106.jp2
c3c3d244d35ef6d7def0b06f230088a9
5dacb2a0112e337be98d5d5cb38ab19bfeefbfdc
3965 F20101204_AADGOT toro_d_Page_112thm.jpg
8f7e939b91df5b931be3896242ab37ca
33a31fbb60769d0ff6df9a413bca59b15cb2f231
43023 F20101204_AADGPI toro_d_Page_081.pro
87e65c6ae92bf448e5c1079ea91aee7e
87a4404a6b6226a56d5fcac07f5d6b23ffcd7106
6000 F20101204_AADFMG toro_d_Page_062thm.jpg
0970abcbea5e6dcb40cd967b738399b9
7fa4da9bc9a15aafc765b2d902d21c9829f8ccf8
1783 F20101204_AADGPJ toro_d_Page_081.txt
0e7b820c5ebbb6a8cc325749ab633a27
aac58f6381591bc3ac3458b3e101e40fcae41e9f
6300 F20101204_AADGOU toro_d_Page_053thm.jpg
42105e732d4fad0d5de13d160d0a7e92
f9db9d86bff6a5237ee635365dc91dc997fbb975
73810 F20101204_AADFMH toro_d_Page_017.jpg
a8f8a5a141fcdb6b935c036848587f31
202088204c6deaea42dc78002b1b74e495159391
15984 F20101204_AADGPK toro_d_Page_110.jp2
3fc2fe6c7cc41228de1f947f08d4da24
0549b54214b1144afd1a8c29008f6af7b9cc3ef7
6017 F20101204_AADGOV toro_d_Page_015thm.jpg
b2ee4866c7f5141cbb51799d6877fcdf
e69c84d8a6d7b6e2376805e9d345f1d1340278e5
6356 F20101204_AADFMI toro_d_Page_032thm.jpg
e1762fe308969e8219d7bf48dcc0d403
4a4ba010345d429548878712168d908ab211987b
1275 F20101204_AADGPL toro_d_Page_114.txt
f569204206795e98fb9c5cfea952f088
90c85a9076089d5a306b60d2d042d1f9d51031fd
F20101204_AADGOW toro_d_Page_090.tif
21c9504102ee330f8101ee2a6d7c2988
f8d58d5e224c10c618e0e94e19001467394818f2
48925 F20101204_AADFMJ toro_d_Page_031.pro
8f1c7cd020b60a5d0f88c48bdb62424d
7e7aba495f5b1e0f14cf2c08c08118f2a8eafd14
F20101204_AADGPM toro_d_Page_048.tif
c8f43d3df26ed3a4f390cfab5ba2d94a
768af27b298e95bb53d06e44415a23f44a217b4b
50550 F20101204_AADFLV toro_d_Page_091.pro
3cae258177ea1415a3c975e342ca7fe8
3320716939ef0a3476c40c3973ef4b17c170f35e
1749 F20101204_AADGOX toro_d_Page_082.txt
47b9fdcb811831b500bf076ab5d28479
d05016688a462f0113959fe235369706ab8afe11
73392 F20101204_AADGQA toro_d_Page_055.jpg
312ee6b8cb62a3f39ed418dae42f15e4
12efb3f1c85361894380ce38e3c514d322d42e8a
2046 F20101204_AADFMK toro_d_Page_098.txt
f0b4aabbbdddad83f59f144a462a96bd
9dd020ca6daca00438c1c446f1c41fdc58271916
72637 F20101204_AADGQB toro_d_Page_067.jpg
f1a7213bed2ce814eb180e5ed315d4eb
663629cf332c9d2a973b76546f11421d779ef5f3
148076 F20101204_AADGPN UFE0017928_00001.mets FULL
5d96aa2672e7a27e6b07a81541ffbc26
7098f687dc54da752e19de2db0b8ae05c77d58e6
100600 F20101204_AADFLW toro_d_Page_073.jp2
bd0add1efd0726447e2bd6746c87164e
b8a573b792eb113eaedaf2e9c2a7705d18588d96
43044 F20101204_AADGOY toro_d_Page_115.jp2
87f38200f140c169f0fc8786ef388b23
779b2f2facf8965f923f5a5624c66ce98c319b04
23042 F20101204_AADFML toro_d_Page_105.pro
9d777b1e1ef3e4742d4780cc1e0734e9
9285553bf2403501a2b717abf8c787c43eeb9637
67778 F20101204_AADGQC toro_d_Page_069.jpg
b36515db4060fdb8624b67a6a24c4553
57aeb4a21985c9fdb96c1c3a1698f38ab362b8ab
21807 F20101204_AADFLX toro_d_Page_096.QC.jpg
fbbc5101ef97c4edaef53053e26ff210
ceda8cb81ef77e9a385d2094787c43491b9938c2
103009 F20101204_AADGOZ toro_d_Page_021.jp2
3929bd7523a29fcb17bf54f95fdbcaf1
4d2bb9f2b28745b660b23bc0cf8481e50d4d5f5f
75235 F20101204_AADFNA toro_d_Page_093.jpg
c8e532f97631e08664a0034a4428d6b2
7eb8021a0bc1b270e71527d55061841be7a62a20
1962 F20101204_AADFMM toro_d_Page_025.txt
267d74f5b0a9e3609f058407d0daf3f9
2e923feebb313743927e3fb743a51705033ba395
41753 F20101204_AADGQD toro_d_Page_071.jpg
ce25307b2e32a96dcb5d11ac831af22a
fe992b198ba31b9735fd622f3ba9b8a2781d0438
109212 F20101204_AADFLY toro_d_Page_042.jp2
175088c98c4add0046ef43ae9d18480b
d88736bd5a21fb3897dd3e7e9c5ead721fae247f
24680 F20101204_AADFNB toro_d_Page_037.QC.jpg
aa5de74b0cdd7c32e4e39d8b3c9c36ff
4a751f5c93cb9b0fcdb26a06d939f7009b859238
63816 F20101204_AADFMN toro_d_Page_056.jpg
ebfb0e2ac06e1b61c715a93735049cff
f7628a05fb2121606f512dfa900e98cb26920b03
74242 F20101204_AADGQE toro_d_Page_090.jpg
b08308feebbd899b020184ee53dec8ac
f86de226586cc38f79ea3e4074302d64d58ee7aa
10426 F20101204_AADGPQ toro_d_Page_003.jpg
26a7b068afe0c1aa94974974742fa41f
17c90319e20a93635f3bc9841cf72e61a7bc2194
112111 F20101204_AADFLZ toro_d_Page_058.jp2
f7940e11866d64cb0fc031fa297f6b73
1b8680a0fa85d2a4024eab9fce7d88e2e55aeb6c
6814 F20101204_AADFNC toro_d_Page_030thm.jpg
7643228c000c347961307dcb775dcba3
1d497bfabee36f83ddcd4b15baca97a3e4ad23af
71632 F20101204_AADFMO toro_d_Page_052.jpg
72a9a7cbc92aa2888917abc94ded61e7
00e555622d52c2f6108ffd2bfd67417c30dac58d
73506 F20101204_AADGQF toro_d_Page_091.jpg
e78316b00b93b8f559309d0bdb59fc3d
c9a6b5c27e89d4af52ee3a537a247f6f162de631
65097 F20101204_AADFND toro_d_Page_076.jpg
10e7d0bdeba8e0608ed1073e784e61a2
3cbcef881faa555eb57e62cea76dbdf582e39076
F20101204_AADFMP toro_d_Page_127.tif
e73a824d80a378b0b6aca673ac32527e
6dd76a72b51a013be36fd8f67884b80e28c7d3f7
70873 F20101204_AADGPR toro_d_Page_014.jpg
286136703d52da89ce7f011d830d2b9c
ffffc820f3613963785a2681743fb73ccaa439d6
37130 F20101204_AADGQG toro_d_Page_102.jpg
259114bffb39fbd2f4ec3d5df11e6c3e
52b8e4c1a11a34f7b8c584cb3d81c52cbb324cb6
F20101204_AADFNE toro_d_Page_126.tif
47cef8678797c8e33f225619712ffa99
9567ec432a9b7adb387dc6c12770332025a3ed03
F20101204_AADFMQ toro_d_Page_027.tif
526444b9da46a129e11c5200bfd9c485
a2e2609fe549d0f438dc5e3134f83f93a31285a5
77246 F20101204_AADGPS toro_d_Page_019.jpg
999ab24ac8ca298221df47c0e1c12e2f
9074986c3ce2ebcddf508e1579ca5fb6ee08c639
98651 F20101204_AADGQH toro_d_Page_122.jpg
99ad8ea38761be2c92571045fd449c62
9c22f442718f3536e8ead1236bae2dfbe87dbe18
75799 F20101204_AADFNF toro_d_Page_037.jpg
58943105268812cb7f393ede312dbc60
19fddcccb8e8f57d46696d6d5d015a06fa42f4ad
F20101204_AADFMR toro_d_Page_128.tif
6a1399701fa79b8a647ecc945d91dc63
fb5bd0d2d02ea88e2f000024358fbd44d9fd23e5
73193 F20101204_AADGPT toro_d_Page_022.jpg
2efdaf5f98b2b0d0615c588ec005e0c7
6add1408ebd285e4c4d0aa7d3906a7cdbc60e0d4
98226 F20101204_AADGQI toro_d_Page_124.jpg
94414873c2e61aa59fb5953759f239b1
83fb1761c61826349155db72ed1ef8a842d2dcb6
42358 F20101204_AADFNG toro_d_Page_111.jpg
8bd8e793172630034b2c5c416790efd1
e18ac135a12d55c43f015d18e82e8e145e9256ab
69978 F20101204_AADFMS toro_d_Page_029.jpg
7643f241134bd0d04467a623c5a36901
6990352ce9c7a89d3aec435ea107435ab31c71a9
72685 F20101204_AADGPU toro_d_Page_025.jpg
1d1a63b266cabdc97e7df84c3026552e
5a5264d4fb5387888f2cf6c409d4e29d82f595f5
1051980 F20101204_AADGQJ toro_d_Page_006.jp2
38bfbbdbe94555a25dee3cfde855e98a
7c5edf18fad06bf1ce4f15a5844499cd087ee65c
66729 F20101204_AADFNH toro_d_Page_121.pro
ac45e6e7a606684fcf1ec54428160692
9f313e84de98120b961485826d58ba8b73e026d7
100690 F20101204_AADGQK toro_d_Page_033.jp2
42e1d2018eeb13c93b4395bff6514375
0e2f07e7d180c6f48636b85c5bdc07732563aecd
49881 F20101204_AADFNI toro_d_Page_045.pro
536c36c79dfa52fa2e910a23c3c63671
87f2b153ab81aa522b1d8d171606d281c43ebf24
251 F20101204_AADFMT toro_d_Page_110.txt
4b7861fb8d4bb59da5dd3685c312b144
861ced48cc10394dd941d839874a6df8fdb7ff88
73880 F20101204_AADGPV toro_d_Page_038.jpg
bed3118497ae3cf7ae75ec7b8e5778d9
74c925bfddadeb6e82cb6f53cb58d3a45a84b623
109850 F20101204_AADGQL toro_d_Page_036.jp2
a134ed91c71f73c8379198d9c9d1f8bd
4c3dab2e48437c62444572cf9fa41e3e9644c96f
64517 F20101204_AADFNJ toro_d_Page_074.jpg
b30279e713f2ff9b6ea7866f780619f2
25e935c0a24da025e23521edb43c76cd2cda5f57
F20101204_AADFMU toro_d_Page_116.tif
83848fd62eccf22e0fffb0a980de2b89
4749fb7516ad4f87914a2bdb5610b0ccb16bfad6
71538 F20101204_AADGPW toro_d_Page_039.jpg
a7dbb3af2f69280d1d73c81ef3253b31
97bb4505b12150051799ea177893958f1a700baa
F20101204_AADGRA toro_d_Page_009.tif
9a6401a10dcc901ab7ce571147ad64d7
f4d8e8b9dbe40304460333c570747b22ddd4cc31
109580 F20101204_AADGQM toro_d_Page_045.jp2
2281b0395150ef324d56287d307c27ed
2a7dcdc522b5b9a6a6ba742a23dfd1cf3ba4df1f
2063 F20101204_AADFNK toro_d_Page_044.txt
8a9b0e1187ddd1182ce01c99e69fac75
b4ce39e3716687ba2261c61305f59de48f0d8b4c
111426 F20101204_AADFMV toro_d_Page_024.jp2
c96d6903dcab3429de66cb1189a4e999
a0432ecce616dd198e2bbb32ae5b877701538ffd
72964 F20101204_AADGPX toro_d_Page_041.jpg
6519c53851e4f8ef209e16843ef07e9e
d898aed6b8b0dc0c242f612c74757e090eb0786d
F20101204_AADGRB toro_d_Page_017.tif
c7a9bdba57867fa70781302b680321f8
d94d2497463483892b8e3c6343d087390e38b334
89416 F20101204_AADGQN toro_d_Page_057.jp2
1f76d61a007da7d67fda34666b5322ad
1eb1864bf93f69a08eac40043d9ca33508b5e92b
34403 F20101204_AADFNL toro_d_Page_108.jp2
1de337364d1eb06d139789592ea07ee3
571eba3f79ee50d392eed5aa6ded658cc73fd91d
21252 F20101204_AADFMW toro_d_Page_076.QC.jpg
b9dc4a0679284c3a27f345ff486464c0
d62758a4b8cc45529b2787c983e99af790429b10
74182 F20101204_AADGPY toro_d_Page_046.jpg
bbcdf1e738c9f6ea499990fab1848ca9
143ac8217aaa9077a74a84fd770256335dce38f4
F20101204_AADGRC toro_d_Page_018.tif
f8de7aa380c0a29c367096cc246befab
21415c6946b965bf3c0f9db46a367caba6a19ff7
101363 F20101204_AADGQO toro_d_Page_060.jp2
6500f1080cb9f5ef7f3aa96f92700de5
2fafaf4754a904ad1c3c8d1903ab707b3bb783c1
1635 F20101204_AADFOA toro_d_Page_077.txt
77c8e9c952b7cfa1e8c1be53476d5327
d4fdc14601c21dc5a947f6079daa0e6a081b8a1a
23609 F20101204_AADFNM toro_d_Page_054.QC.jpg
b4fd9a61d6e0f8d5de39c7a348012b3f
0b3658075156867adb98b2a23bf3f3e2e07153ee
93585 F20101204_AADFMX toro_d_Page_081.jp2
c9e45e58043ae83ae39be5b432c56e85
741faa5caf49620b84df498d68f3249e8c18f9e0
68114 F20101204_AADGPZ toro_d_Page_048.jpg
7702836ad9d54959d4f803086158ecc1
cab1982eb56c1c8d6f9544039ca06bf1271f9f43
F20101204_AADGRD toro_d_Page_022.tif
944a3d1c54900f8b851e65837eb8d3f7
66c941d3fe6f70f08eb61596ee1c724747746865
100487 F20101204_AADGQP toro_d_Page_062.jp2
5c2322121e5f8db73b4bba524664c09f
0637f709aea51aac9ffc25244510f0553230b57d
39825 F20101204_AADFOB toro_d_Page_077.pro
21e16195df796b5eaaf70b320088cd7a
5c3aa7a29edd71c52847e73b185cb93998a41046
13060 F20101204_AADFNN toro_d_Page_071.QC.jpg
5da6914980349361573f3b6e47b15f3d
0a8deb553ddcc0e462974d8473562d3a3b85c8a7
F20101204_AADFMY toro_d_Page_061.tif
12f9bc1562b66747f7904d52fc5b9fa4
53e1123d8188d95ec3fd33f2faacb51f43597b20
F20101204_AADGRE toro_d_Page_050.tif
e029e54968bb99c61b4f7204d686f27f
c77407de17f2f61a88d174c9128eff6e7b62d780
105802 F20101204_AADGQQ toro_d_Page_068.jp2
c02fccd99148a3becf6e55f05df3f85e
814360b84b809ed90c4a9928e1b44ccddf1988c3
1972 F20101204_AADFOC toro_d_Page_014.txt
8948ab2d8174de877accb5ac4593b1cc
8d2f2f43b2c312b0ab355780c4bce371d6a29032
1931 F20101204_AADFNO toro_d_Page_031.txt
6825b4cdb8058e35687142c5b0d174d0
65da560ac8e2a84213de7b282dede49b1182410f
6538 F20101204_AADFMZ toro_d_Page_046thm.jpg
514e2887dda77fd609f74c8315d3e796
19b9406bcd828c94690c52a0b0c6a511dbb0d446
F20101204_AADGRF toro_d_Page_051.tif
ee633a24235a3622c5d08e83fe2480c3
233d96aff2d4c28a1ee635e0d11ef6977642b240
96064 F20101204_AADGQR toro_d_Page_076.jp2
1554162b63226e407da68563b4689418
626704d5ac472ea883626ee122d5e320106ecf1a
61544 F20101204_AADFOD toro_d_Page_087.jpg
83f01738df3bbd6820d6f1253bf10bc0
55b28c901c3b918679728d89e52142ecd554e4da
6638 F20101204_AADFNP toro_d_Page_119.pro
d76ac9b09cbad4f052757eb8f5d97eab
b787547f571780d65cc85cb3e5ddfec082ccb087
F20101204_AADGRG toro_d_Page_056.tif
ea2a769220ed1af62dd9c76d32c841fa
4570ca430cab9e8a7227ab4088b547029ae65b7b
97855 F20101204_AADGQS toro_d_Page_080.jp2
8085d2ba16c1968e7ccab975eccaf9ff
0fb452093b81fcb31cbd6eaaf03efa1ff3020270
1934 F20101204_AADFOE toro_d_Page_012.txt
871cde7a01e3d8f3b45952ff6cc54740
f2c97c77415f45315fca222c14967171b28d6924
3655 F20101204_AADFNQ toro_d_Page_129thm.jpg
6eee830097170e41fd5213cb1461b731
a90bc25c1834425b99264b7668aee80d5060aed7
F20101204_AADGRH toro_d_Page_059.tif
7b06ff7218c851c083f63a9c64fd1c8a
2dedbeca26231e08b4c905ca73c646259edb044a
91020 F20101204_AADGQT toro_d_Page_087.jp2
0ee113940dac0c1f146089bdf0d6ddf6
8ef2a314f11f52e6c821bc4632a41b737cab5d22
61057 F20101204_AADFOF toro_d_Page_122.pro
b6aa2d76d92ad0cb343b879d0f0d06d2
3b5bf583fd3b83dcc476f1e34ca51c6fdaf3bfb4
71914 F20101204_AADFNR toro_d_Page_054.jpg
482d13008e9068b35d56ee30b8987fb4
b861274577cd56da0ea0c9a9882ed8aa043ab1cf
F20101204_AADGRI toro_d_Page_064.tif
e64392518b1c2a114ae3293ad5a2f28a
0efbeef0d27ae67544dbcfe00118f42269587204
114111 F20101204_AADGQU toro_d_Page_088.jp2
a4a5603cd2dc5b84bcbfdf3edfbdb1d1
0e441668ca2fe99ac042b5eaeb101c3b8ba27962
107506 F20101204_AADFOG toro_d_Page_089.jp2
c9ea5a0829826480704caf4a11459436
730e41825917960ae6b162e452799b78901d070f
6627 F20101204_AADFNS toro_d_Page_018thm.jpg
41dc0dbd2b80f47e7c43cdce81247885
da8344ac16e5ab177e3cacb51ad7a742627a8a20
F20101204_AADGRJ toro_d_Page_065.tif
e883283035e0af13e486a0849cb6d79c
3269a3df3e288362e649d2d7f09cab45812f9d74
102275 F20101204_AADGQV toro_d_Page_096.jp2
c5a5b2594dfcf791e6bfbfedf2400e65
3fddda2ebd29331609347c634fff94712fd350b3
58094 F20101204_AADFOH toro_d_Page_006.pro
1173bd55e0b77a20f7e5d63472d3e25f
89b673ae976074443202f0b241c3caaf6846cc0a
F20101204_AADFNT toro_d_Page_105.tif
6759c21f1a335923f2a6621810106a32
15457bafe53b14058fd10294f3d02caa51f7b5d0
F20101204_AADGRK toro_d_Page_074.tif
f72d1f89baafc3b166dc50ab26cfe07b
314c678438753b5d9b597bd46d03b1b477c6b583
91521 F20101204_AADFOI toro_d_Page_075.jp2
a0591e5beb527429e54d8c10397119b1
021403add7271b5c90cdc5c0224eb10122bd05d7
F20101204_AADGRL toro_d_Page_078.tif
a7ca322586979b658316abe879396aca
44cc58e27e78a092ad9beb4fd7df0b855f159b91
47878 F20101204_AADGQW toro_d_Page_103.jp2
4865f74cf7d4e5f7ae366086b085a850
46118df4ee085fcbd428acd034dc2bcae7de1901
41380 F20101204_AADFOJ toro_d_Page_083.pro
378e4e852cac095f8489ff56971664dc
c2218849f5dca2eaad943243fe0528ab94c2892e
103308 F20101204_AADFNU toro_d_Page_015.jp2
c9105760589e54195739ed0b86f5070b
d4829b340b9e1757ab7512226e4d130b790461de
48393 F20101204_AADGSA toro_d_Page_029.pro
1f273f79027cb46adc508d83fd945a1e
af6e8825d61f8dbd51c0e99063cee1cd2e26a848
F20101204_AADGRM toro_d_Page_087.tif
fde0d35a91e508fe19b6256edd668d85
c7376c50a15c860789c439fc18a3c9563b1fa954
50145 F20101204_AADGQX toro_d_Page_105.jp2
82f9b895402a20854a04afcb554b2a23
d15f3f727afd1df1e5f0aca5b0bd08e4de004b94
108657 F20101204_AADFOK toro_d_Page_099.jp2
bbfa7b055b2a10955f7f9778144d6bf5
b72c3109ffb490155e17122e2ca641aeab5424e3
72218 F20101204_AADFNV toro_d_Page_045.jpg
e417cac72921b19341d5d58a1cb5ad50
7763ecc0ba01874fa7c90461a26620027017e907
50687 F20101204_AADGSB toro_d_Page_035.pro
1cb223d2e2fc110a2b56baf3741fafe5
2ffa4e567fb857a16953d032e4eab4320a09f506
F20101204_AADGRN toro_d_Page_089.tif
aa6c7fd1946bcba4044c0879cfb8f344
22a80b9d30d4604f1743cb14ebcbc45ed45aa2c1
F20101204_AADGQY toro_d_Page_126.jp2
132890ccf8259a9b9fed4d6ac37f8865
e3cb90a2fb5101c02d0c8fb2557dbde760a2b40d
F20101204_AADFOL toro_d_Page_012.tif
42957fb9c257e9a7e34a5e98188fc179
c1200f809ce638ac68a8b07fd5b7feb0d86b7244
6839 F20101204_AADFNW toro_d_Page_125thm.jpg
910d7aeeb48ebf80a55e4a3fe7fa7d90
834ef0a04314581d02465da3c4c80ca31997c145
49582 F20101204_AADGSC toro_d_Page_050.pro
3185573bf6d98532f86aa48e5121e823
53a9843bac2bbc816035e81616607a452508c5e7
F20101204_AADGRO toro_d_Page_093.tif
0354c3daa7d3bd0a141853502b1b3874
f1db614710c432332cef03e2b70991f14610b158
F20101204_AADGQZ toro_d_Page_003.tif
a04ec740c780a1a3f7c1e8bfabcc6911
c2600a2d07cfe526194cc9ea81c8166d8d7c57bb
F20101204_AADFOM toro_d_Page_071.tif
ac8818cf8cb8c2ce1090b2dde5490d9e
70ca8a33448c8eed4de47835e68d2bc29923e1ed
23155 F20101204_AADFNX toro_d_Page_027.QC.jpg
0719a5161d39a84feee5631aca4262f2
f8d02b3a4c813fe5285c31600a4b33eaf9428961
5712 F20101204_AADFPA toro_d_Page_101thm.jpg
5002602b1b307d934ab5e41397e5dfbb
62bb38f7a3f13c2aeb63aa31f49fcce5c0300197
48928 F20101204_AADGSD toro_d_Page_052.pro
af0be9887a237acaa205c75880d66d90
fb55561caaa4eeae791c2a73cd1b5a4220f6a8f5
F20101204_AADGRP toro_d_Page_108.tif
a99e2aa48810e7500b89fee6af35a12c
f5a61ec130b51287a2ef027f873d254db64f2e4c
23586 F20101204_AADFON toro_d_Page_064.QC.jpg
c2b169fe20f20740ea1e2cc5121af639
04b423e0561f8b5eef3c6e5cfcff03f040a54770
19647 F20101204_AADFNY toro_d_Page_117.pro
b2f6439d54642c6a43371884b61a0bb3
604aa6204f8739548ee61a2b006e7c5c6b6bf6e5
66683 F20101204_AADFPB toro_d_Page_062.jpg
307d076a783e25b78b18d2efa1064fc7
5b62b1a2995b448463911a635461b357ae47776d
48623 F20101204_AADGSE toro_d_Page_053.pro
288783dbf7e98ca09ed91213a13f8c5a
d5d525e31f31c6660497e80c0648827738eea453
F20101204_AADGRQ toro_d_Page_113.tif
48b1932327924e13648f3262c4c0e03a
58f20fdc22d76fab12cd7774176d5cbdc11f3756
55806 F20101204_AADFOO toro_d_Page_104.jp2
9e9ff6b5a7a5b9d43b0bdcc1568f85e9
a5499591f352d90436dfcd3b499ded9b3bc44b76
108 F20101204_AADFNZ toro_d_Page_003.txt
983856948861308c4556ce489af31d4e
fcf0d3d804f2a501ab5469b660f3ec0a4fb3c0de
F20101204_AADFPC toro_d_Page_024.tif
63c9ee33538cce5164d6c6398b6a9b53
e3b2d2664c3e086f9e39361c41b1fc474d688fcd
44433 F20101204_AADGSF toro_d_Page_056.pro
00a616f06d989a333e095a6f56eee234
400710b9df3af9a4b2b06e52ba2d2b3606d04d40
F20101204_AADGRR toro_d_Page_115.tif
060517f0fbe64519bf1cfc1bf1880971
ab40142e3ca1446db1b975e9c5a0c450363e159a
39310 F20101204_AADFOP toro_d_Page_078.pro
4f6faed0ef3773aa2f41bc88a48cfc9f
3071d1c8fadfed7eb5e18df2864ca661d4265234
15105 F20101204_AADFPD toro_d_Page_008.jpg
2dced253ca2f9a08d3e3f55f0d4e72ab
02f505fd113438e8c56f9ef59d8f8d96d503c42d
50634 F20101204_AADGSG toro_d_Page_058.pro
318c3896fccc82557974922219766afa
0cff17c1bc2275c7da570e4d4f63e6696c7dc4f6
45473 F20101204_AADGRS toro_d_Page_009.pro
db92693138370d9a9514621ef11cdfd4
bee52056ffcc84df1bd98bd261d91061907ca053
39164 F20101204_AADFOQ toro_d_Page_116.jpg
4ce01b755b8969cac209d3e88a624b75
bfedd094e85a4c2a2d6f360bcafe06847e75df58
13792 F20101204_AADFPE toro_d_Page_104.QC.jpg
d6d8e22acba02ece6f59ab36c881ae4d
8e07f066a1c19d6ea2024c50b397634c4add4891
51049 F20101204_AADGSH toro_d_Page_066.pro
52eeade175f4137be7dc5a554e193aac
f2914c60e083baa82a4a78fc0ec1625fd200d1a4
6448 F20101204_AADGRT toro_d_Page_010.pro
ca76756237d78cd339b0fce3242d8608
901aa762f043314ec96c5197f00f3e395edd3b10
26042 F20101204_AADFOR toro_d_Page_118.pro
bf0a2d1a66d25d1c35e3696060e0305f
b43d4cdfdabf7368d4d80309160634a07f2b2a50
1197 F20101204_AADFPF toro_d_Page_071.txt
936699a5d2f291e64a4cfb752daf34c8
d6aefa3e1a4401c7f0f021483d4eb1579fb41c78
42312 F20101204_AADGSI toro_d_Page_082.pro
88ff877339a950357dad4a3d7168c70e
f9bfd684ab136c654b589649dfb08a50a39d56dc
49151 F20101204_AADGRU toro_d_Page_014.pro
a56285da7be3795d20f09ede6c364b11
ebbe61d90e63200217279b6bc9d25573c684155f
F20101204_AADFOS toro_d_Page_015.tif
281af7b3e6bcb943a0bdb62ce3a1aaba
8b79ec0de18a3b9a545b1a9d605843d42247119f
6604 F20101204_AADFPG toro_d_Page_008.pro
07260fe58a3988a127bb87ed4f8bb747
477b3edbcb04f706f93dd2a16a0b319960231ff8
51319 F20101204_AADGSJ toro_d_Page_090.pro
bb26164a48ceae9fc9c3eefe3c2d643a
88751e6c594167123a6cb15e4b784e3fb812e74b
46676 F20101204_AADGRV toro_d_Page_015.pro
53a290a4bf995f891367f0a3bfa2cfdc
13bad624e014ff02a801dce677c355f34f47b96a
56875 F20101204_AADFOT toro_d_Page_019.pro
d35892370bfa216e2f5f05c7dac938c5
8513c9b1db0c8f9752c293ac6699d3dde75511b0
108715 F20101204_AADFPH toro_d_Page_029.jp2
ffea18f31b2cd2da0177d38543910ec1
5dd9ebbbf133bfcc142c3a07e3bc0190c42550ec
51695 F20101204_AADGSK toro_d_Page_093.pro
e0b70bf6bdeb48a3fff218279e26827a
0b146948f570b0d0494e10d5621f2d59e03a05c0
63374 F20101204_AADGRW toro_d_Page_016.pro
c6f9522ff8978ac368ebb5d358854b90
dff4f7cbcb79f54e9925a3104c9a1514805eea5e
12192 F20101204_AADFOU toro_d_Page_129.QC.jpg
796836f2ab6f5105ee45e5e74e314e3f
7332185cb257284984be62e457f228861ccc3425
345 F20101204_AADFPI toro_d_Page_119.txt
6a6a0f799d9adec18755258561c4edb5
1bb22255684f2cff0a24926a2ef4b8a688a77a0d
49267 F20101204_AADGSL toro_d_Page_095.pro
4741aaac5e136967adb2e16f149fa2de
793cf7716dc96b79d435b0364ad0a6a14b2c26c5
50596 F20101204_AADFPJ toro_d_Page_059.pro
c80e8893eef449add7da4d304233d780
f713f04c49b90ac0d57fe2249853c6bcc2cdb19b
2023 F20101204_AADGTA toro_d_Page_079.txt
59e1aa99bd3fb8c849466b482699c775
96546c129629bdedc527933df621af251aa49fb7
50363 F20101204_AADGSM toro_d_Page_097.pro
b0750812139849be22ddda8ccd5d9aec
3dcd50217de8dae7f1e4c5777539771258e2cb36
51218 F20101204_AADGRX toro_d_Page_017.pro
e890498dfb0abad776fe2c1251300da3
a18bcbcec4fd213cb9cc0dc2c9b36b603e48615f
22818 F20101204_AADFOV toro_d_Page_099.QC.jpg
f79b748bac9dcec4fe5c13202d4ab458
48bddee0c033e4a7f0e401c19bc5c00fa0360ef6
6114 F20101204_AADFPK toro_d_Page_076thm.jpg
f099eb632e5e60cfd9df19c26e397417
df333217894620be7f0583ace92ffb75f7f8bdb7
1623 F20101204_AADGTB toro_d_Page_084.txt
f0ead1f7512d92bd99f5aec85f5c1866
1d76928352594129b5a7576287efc3c7e47d6cc5
51547 F20101204_AADGSN toro_d_Page_098.pro
0e04ad0a2393f9b71335e55fe4f36dae
1ab0ec4933cc6cff0c69d11b77e3383d75202cd6
49940 F20101204_AADGRY toro_d_Page_024.pro
2ddd562b415f722272e1a2aedf16a332
ac75b61778dfd35ba8e2c2afc8785be5220ca550
72782 F20101204_AADFOW toro_d_Page_036.jpg
3e7b1be1461069a79a0f05b4f05284cd
c068c66d687c67a124934a3dc9be3c894acbf737
51740 F20101204_AADFPL toro_d_Page_041.pro
df53303ea9458f961414ffdcdfeec143
0a928fdadcf749cf82d993699acba22011859e84
1609 F20101204_AADGTC toro_d_Page_085.txt
73c7366ed49ade3d1e6507b3a178a44b
962036b0565e835c99c2fcb274481d297c6ad162
68233 F20101204_AADGSO toro_d_Page_100.pro
147db146289c4d6d715668585eaa93a8
92c17d41369da15982ea62d1b21774538b8e54c4
50208 F20101204_AADGRZ toro_d_Page_026.pro
b7242306056dac24523da1f68f9e5e70
2864c9cbf822553f2f3ec7f7c0fc036579c7ec5e
49315 F20101204_AADFOX toro_d_Page_129.jp2
fceabee295e462291c49efcde037740f
a9bfb3ea0fec763574189f1ecc897c475ab03fd8
108910 F20101204_AADFQA toro_d_Page_023.jp2
3ae37d4e42b8c12e2225b52548aa4d8d
ca87aa6e98ec030f81358aa5774d0ffa4b70861a
24233 F20101204_AADFPM toro_d_Page_090.QC.jpg
815bccba75eba12e86019949ca3b76f9
a06bea6dc45616eb22b969e6f91206b0284d8a58
1986 F20101204_AADGTD toro_d_Page_097.txt
a9637832055ec8468857af354842fcc5
006fa05db78e685fe2e858a9f090209f0a3c20ab
21739 F20101204_AADGSP toro_d_Page_103.pro
33b27bb579ff1e1149e7978396e23303
89d8c7242fabb7e203a06e16c5360fe2a19a8802
F20101204_AADFOY toro_d_Page_062.tif
f8123de6924d7d134afcd1c5d397f51e
faaceded5cbb5603396e2604ad4940dba496c735
24098 F20101204_AADFQB toro_d_Page_046.QC.jpg
de06d6141c18f0c49ff5531ebcca9ad3
0b846baa6f3758f2ead137446623ae8f7d9912e1
105483 F20101204_AADFPN toro_d_Page_043.jp2
20576cd7fea4f6e0ca742045e3e086f4
262e56ea05c5c5f0f4986ee1fd36621654fbdf9b
2798 F20101204_AADGTE toro_d_Page_100.txt
503f59000d54e4247531fb590f275565
3f2f9bd9879bb637e9f5db84eb981dacd01b0d3c
29468 F20101204_AADGSQ toro_d_Page_113.pro
116a05e3d673fde1f417e94466704fe3
dd05b2ae263673f1c6da4f5da9fa2bd46ea3fc74
46367 F20101204_AADFOZ toro_d_Page_062.pro
bba197ddbae1cef98cf86a59ce83cb7d
623dc69867515cfc16030f3d3f7b1df9c238b644
112606 F20101204_AADFQC toro_d_Page_098.jp2
2049ca3d30b32abbbca787abf3edc99c
88ad73115c8034dc5372aa472aec14c21215a15d
53068 F20101204_AADFPO toro_d_Page_030.pro
4a3737bd451116d96ce7a2740bb64672
31e71f16f9364595b38eda2ff600817575917dc6
1853 F20101204_AADGTF toro_d_Page_101.txt
5d6ec0fb46462791574a70e4f33f7e16
503e3fe1e9461fd37a6ebb528a1fa8151195ae0d
25292 F20101204_AADGSR toro_d_Page_116.pro
7fc682ef25f84486dcc3b0fa96ccd97e
05e8e916fcd033ebda8c2284cf97e21b8c4d8e4d
48132 F20101204_AADFQD toro_d_Page_089.pro
fa89a89d06770c0972fb8a6eaeb215ff
aa5ad7443f2be532dc3f4df6dbfba3657d190e21
71928 F20101204_AADFPP toro_d_Page_066.jpg
d1fc2ada255e81f281069ed47de65b45
1e1a4b2f57abef3811212945dbd83a60f5f17fcd
2560 F20101204_AADGTG toro_d_Page_123.txt
fa89199f6aa5191d2b34eb8380646e33
17e13e981c8a5b70814f2b3a90b2448194e43cd7
127 F20101204_AADGSS toro_d_Page_002.txt
e76035e344b871f4f647bc64bcb6241e
6155d599cae25c3e9a9000584a96588c1361f9d0
40233 F20101204_AADFQE toro_d_Page_114.jpg
4d5cd30d019c4a405015310416d9b4bd
ca389ec9690a678f7914d48d90de2ab768f44d5c
106035 F20101204_AADFPQ toro_d_Page_031.jp2
a8683133efa3a2605531dc4f525e78cf
6757d5f0c347ac5a9e3c45a587635c8f030354d6
6628 F20101204_AADGTH toro_d_Page_027thm.jpg
d519b745a9f9e9110cb3b627f5e853c8
5946ec49ead0e11de2c099a9171262664c521d96
2597 F20101204_AADGST toro_d_Page_018.txt
670a8f589bdb7d4d9539b3f62353684e
e44babfb04489bc5defa058a674ce50a1c26e345
F20101204_AADFQF toro_d_Page_083.tif
4e59d29ef831f59d13ca768cb59517ef
8d1815519a4e0e9109b7cf6867bb8cb3bb727b65
21400 F20101204_AADFPR toro_d_Page_062.QC.jpg
dcf304d3cfa3a0c0d5911008712da128
d2ffba601be4a3a830c7fdab5422d363bee64cc2
4340 F20101204_AADGTI toro_d_Page_113thm.jpg
283b2e8fa7505ba91b604e0449b5b714
cf812510c17ca1514c5e0e4f8caccadcc6473eed
2041 F20101204_AADGSU toro_d_Page_028.txt
5bf8ec919272cb2f2f55a766686f810d
05685409b5945ae385fcd6428da51aea98eaa900
51552 F20101204_AADFQG toro_d_Page_036.pro
22a23686e1f2488acf08c8014399e131
9e327cc2273065713dcd58a4e72e2ed7adf70d1c
1023 F20101204_AADFPS toro_d_Page_102.txt
4e91b5b3301e66b0aa9ecb1a7690217e
080500c7c8d91c98a7f93d446ea72b1099807e4c
1395 F20101204_AADGTJ toro_d_Page_002thm.jpg
876a1d9193a58d24195325a7f1ff6ace
b23f2df5c2b5f645d62d87cb45b9b754f504f66a
1993 F20101204_AADGSV toro_d_Page_059.txt
cc9da5da1c7421955247f144e764186b
f34ff91e5a573580b35b9db50f8c8e6806cc44b5
1982 F20101204_AADFQH toro_d_Page_026.txt
8aa3e758bd0bbf88151d10ad1c3486e1
d21012bc3ad0efedc8ebee4ec62d45e47e8ad72a
F20101204_AADFPT toro_d_Page_058.tif
08216b64382998541ca7462dfcbd187d
d59a1298fdbcc12506d706f4d67d1d1620cbd642
3746 F20101204_AADGTK toro_d_Page_103thm.jpg
813f6a3884aaf606a369a83a0171d7df
d2262eae777ed95d796bebb981315ad7af4f1712
1941 F20101204_AADGSW toro_d_Page_068.txt
af101f34786f0ae141fc9ecf1a238c41
659824b651a4fc1a0e8633c2763ee0b3c3f87e46
23981 F20101204_AADFQI toro_d_Page_063.QC.jpg
6cffd4b6005a9e2878134485f8e4abe5
ac5e752962974c2647eb27cc4a820028a43d93de
22908 F20101204_AADFPU toro_d_Page_065.QC.jpg
bbf3743b4ea8ab1930535e8915b22206
6005ee52b9c27b182b6821c732dec63cec7c4417
6348 F20101204_AADGTL toro_d_Page_021thm.jpg
6d9b2506e8f393f838fb510678d429b3
385ba15809df4a4a85217f97ffb31b8d6351c05b
1756 F20101204_AADGSX toro_d_Page_072.txt
bb3de88df02b59dd7a7a449d24fb413e
aee73f1f89bad14df741add3aa18600639ec9ee8
6617 F20101204_AADFQJ toro_d_Page_067thm.jpg
7115fff4bf1a0dc3fa9c943168989ded
f02d502be124f20bee709f34c3838d2d1d1f7c7a
5634 F20101204_AADFPV toro_d_Page_078thm.jpg
b327bfa2ec3492bff031e17f82e27f1e
bdbd758575848a9b3e98a002fd2589858b6bdb0a
6280 F20101204_AADGUA toro_d_Page_061thm.jpg
98081c5e8fc85157b40a2fb4f7307a59
fe5d904776f423457a01034be60445661d013d5c
6438 F20101204_AADGTM toro_d_Page_097thm.jpg
6c7124a55d4ee09f0dfe3b2fdf03896f
07d89b9db472df85fbe6a241b9c9cbfd0d2823a2
66841 F20101204_AADFQK toro_d_Page_061.jpg
6e0b9d847edd77200f23ddaaf0372f9e
c68634f202923d05d32e5c1a8f79d5f7a1de5b48
20326 F20101204_AADGUB toro_d_Page_083.QC.jpg
1979d41f3ba630d91c148889a9e5b76b
53dc89fe7d86fdf558d9b8bea4e689b2a53e7a23
23289 F20101204_AADGTN toro_d_Page_079.QC.jpg
098dc7e7393b641a3c0cb0bc734d4223
9c3f0a055cdfe633d0531a2dc531071158c9436d
2086 F20101204_AADGSY toro_d_Page_073.txt
bdd1c79be5943742961237391b191969
90b31103d8737a3218a7ddf29ea23ca928e0cbd8
23778 F20101204_AADFQL toro_d_Page_112.pro
ba964ec038f9e0b08ec21a980ccd5d7c
2279e92c881e3798f9ef928f9325d62dd1f3f22e
23685 F20101204_AADFPW toro_d_Page_034.QC.jpg
6e8ec71adc109003dd8288606a754134
c0f9090d30215614824765a936a777103531f439
20151 F20101204_AADGUC toro_d_Page_086.QC.jpg
6390a48da1e38f7506977edd6cf220e3
5aa47d7691509f2b1c6c8cdfacb2274bf4dbb30e
191561 F20101204_AADGTO UFE0017928_00001.xml
565ed8193a2f382f32e40c4dfcdf18a1
03fb2e50a5f6e863c743f5f796e4ed9142329c52
1710 F20101204_AADGSZ toro_d_Page_078.txt
7181d3764ab8eb8845f6f0805315fe8d
dafceeb7ecc2d8d150b0ace71e9b9d8e5e20384f
12794 F20101204_AADFRA toro_d_Page_102.QC.jpg
8d1338613320ac0c43d774303e2f7d45
1db5f063a79ad453f9a1b2488f73d567b127c3fb
73509 F20101204_AADFQM toro_d_Page_079.jpg
b376691c1e93f90a7ff7d390c99265a9
fdd62220957a6717cf585ba3255d6191de7cce60
23942 F20101204_AADFPX toro_d_Page_041.QC.jpg
59c931e4d4ac72cc7afc3b825c4148fd
11696f79c701643fa8e27d5f9c3f4466564f8cb0
24337 F20101204_AADGUD toro_d_Page_088.QC.jpg
ebc169aa56aa5b7a2863e1805cbe942d
22c779c8bdbed33c09485447c99d81338f1e5e3f
4371 F20101204_AADGTP toro_d_Page_006thm.jpg
7fa7a529d5c1d5e6bb37626f33e8cdcd
7a72ceb77dc0fd5504fb2288ec633a1d51f69354
1525 F20101204_AADFRB toro_d_Page_004.txt
83037dd22f08b080807d48e8c3083292
c61b914487837796ecbc48391f6e00a90d5164e5
5852 F20101204_AADFQN toro_d_Page_084thm.jpg
99896c731f7e7ad4a960f0d561193ba1
5b174182db8d484840661aa550ca6c38e987e4ba
6540 F20101204_AADFPY toro_d_Page_024thm.jpg
50cc7edda4b67a6f5589396c79610ff7
15103a0f48130f951618d14ed8a5aad16dd6ce3c
F20101204_AADGUE toro_d_Page_088thm.jpg
3ccb2131ceea7f777b75bae14609aad5
12709155bc90957735836b2da639ab41b046e067
1674 F20101204_AADGTQ toro_d_Page_008thm.jpg
3e9338028454f1afd1e88f42ecf4d5a7
7d671ff52514317047d9e3d3a734ed3a8f637f42
47120 F20101204_AADFRC toro_d_Page_048.pro
29c046b53fd7d239c2adf1c1e12ed268
6e1c8b326be4b4a94a184f026f0d122655f8c1cc
F20101204_AADFQO toro_d_Page_118.tif
b1e9856d5c0535443808a69ba6593bcd
6580fa54ca61a16bf483b211740c12da01c4df98
45638 F20101204_AADFPZ toro_d_Page_061.pro
1f0107f76c0c698f1e6d256e212464e3
a8b62ad4acf15b581e760d7bc7b0163051e63f37
24049 F20101204_AADGUF toro_d_Page_091.QC.jpg
a15ebeaf0ece64c78846a22f2ef2d165
3eb86970399dddf6df7f743d9820ab9a7ba9deb9
22677 F20101204_AADGTR toro_d_Page_017.QC.jpg
bb9fbd3e5bcfaf1ecaf9259392f3f390
6573a5cbae099d0b3000c75ab7af61342454115f
45936 F20101204_AADFQP toro_d_Page_096.pro
7aa62abf992a37622bd02180c3380aaf
faaa544547c647f6185e4f4c11d61a199e519c39
1994 F20101204_AADFRD toro_d_Page_063.txt
8a503bd0dd143ee500c783e7f9c0c751
0868dc693f89fe6bd7583b3bab27cf2faa1df0b6
6647 F20101204_AADGUG toro_d_Page_092thm.jpg
7af306c33cab6689a7f5f625d809e05d
3321ed348870412afd912a31540bd88d212d461d
23988 F20101204_AADGTS toro_d_Page_022.QC.jpg
b55c5b71a22c96c414cb566584ee413c
1c06efe0c6f4b86bea19b71be3cc0afd5e7f8aad
19709 F20101204_AADFQQ toro_d_Page_070.QC.jpg
ccc47496c9a4fbafb9f5a21094c3d04a
1111533c9168afee6f663b907f01a93b177780c9
888 F20101204_AADFRE toro_d_Page_129.txt
24975c332291bcebec56e297ca730137
68ffdb27224de525fcfae4c14c517e551f6be613
6643 F20101204_AADGUH toro_d_Page_094thm.jpg
f75d6811dea2ebff8114eef584dda15b
8b294c33fcff73545a1409a1700bcd3ebbeee4de
22646 F20101204_AADGTT toro_d_Page_032.QC.jpg
671cbb84db66f845c07f99d02f29f293
150dc5c4c06416edc32c51d7c02dcb3c5745542a
F20101204_AADFQR toro_d_Page_043.tif
b4b3abc8db04a7b779295d746c13521c
c98ec74952b78dd581b1b3c1f17b216fe2a4b4d9
49530 F20101204_AADFRF toro_d_Page_023.pro
0ec8d5a85ed06b7479b7bded62cae180
69b3dce4fce5408e23eab53bcdda8c8945ae3669
6537 F20101204_AADGUI toro_d_Page_095thm.jpg
1a06abf448918d33f4278d0f05be092a
2f320484419e21c7a8ee174c353c594c9f438b9c
23132 F20101204_AADGTU toro_d_Page_039.QC.jpg
d2b65f895bf92112751e86f353486e0b
dc6b8cd3745cb0cb2da69f5299f9f01c343c1b8b
F20101204_AADFQS toro_d_Page_039.txt
28bc17d734522aa3ff1bf295dcc5c623
b08e7360c6bea805c9a8fa336b044e01cedea6fd
49688 F20101204_AADFRG toro_d_Page_032.pro
1cff2c313c4b91f15897a3525cb02488
533edfc7c11604e836004f066ca7122c16cb2942
11895 F20101204_AADGUJ toro_d_Page_105.QC.jpg
1545c5ff05eaba4a2977ac192e7953b2
399c70ab2eaa888850507597b6eaf0b315d23fe7
22386 F20101204_AADGTV toro_d_Page_043.QC.jpg
e6634e2179e52659d801d97b6afaa982
aa3a385d962074090a5bd530fb522a191e6ff483
6934 F20101204_AADFQT toro_d_Page_126thm.jpg
0be15e1aa70e884d69a767cf20df761a
7e5aa7ca712a99ba53ac216c0177f070e6e51bbf
1051985 F20101204_AADFRH toro_d_Page_122.jp2
56c80b9e30af04bf89f3f693b10a61d9
cd0b63ffd08511819b9c66fefbdde7a63f74e485
3450 F20101204_AADGUK toro_d_Page_106thm.jpg
159370cc4485839f446ab9e1352436e9
acc0dff7fedcfcc9e8e6acaca9b0c22479464467
22042 F20101204_AADGTW toro_d_Page_048.QC.jpg
995eac6bbcf83f4e39a399ab7bfc109e
a46e2a25acbbd50ad4b3ef79e2baa631a5aa1f10
25890 F20101204_AADFQU toro_d_Page_071.pro
9bdf14670708e77b71bb6f5e8c557864
e36a8cee38c7f02ae80ad7523e61c8275363362a
5649 F20101204_AADFRI toro_d_Page_081thm.jpg
6421a7b8b45d417a2a09837eac4e14d9
6b1c0715c9ccd840ce030c440a8b8d078da0131f
5385 F20101204_AADGUL toro_d_Page_110.QC.jpg
b0cf31c9e47deff2dafb52b0ee9c1040
61b2f9b0815648af7c4ae00e30ecb8df3fb99772
6582 F20101204_AADGTX toro_d_Page_051thm.jpg
a478ede693e1d6deef1e1b796e207096
1c9866f71cd555f130e03dfe87a519f87814b7ca
6593 F20101204_AADFQV toro_d_Page_028thm.jpg
c45766befa8c6a132c9c69ca36148368
37bf83601bd6403b7f954e03f361d2e81645f1e6
2515 F20101204_AADFRJ toro_d_Page_127.txt
e88ca2f1ef604ed8b3b86f5004a0a515
defe7a3ec590c53639b16151df143f56f35224ea
11969 F20101204_AADGUM toro_d_Page_112.QC.jpg
80428107ed5475ad7a2dba4284ba8ccc
dff34e1f1bef09f8f70dcb5735110c1ac7b7a99f
6660 F20101204_AADGTY toro_d_Page_054thm.jpg
d7f3f181d43e6cf6130530efe18a9714
35fae71225442f4c072c622f7c1ab04177d8ef0e
6403 F20101204_AADFQW toro_d_Page_060thm.jpg
734b3e566eee15df15582cdab2bc4b30
d0e1293b2e52fd5a3239ac15df64309b53d419b3
6269 F20101204_AADFRK toro_d_Page_089thm.jpg
e52cc6a0f2e3a3bc19dbd2d490b8b95e
e58b0787af26d5ed5cf84da082c12ab283eadbfb
12556 F20101204_AADGUN toro_d_Page_114.QC.jpg
6aececccd4b32ab657ccbd5f8224600e
5d79712a9abf1c4190c7c0acc0bfc1719fb808c6
42335 F20101204_AADFRL toro_d_Page_074.pro
8fd533b5086c0081f2dbcaf3b2d0a7c7
c6cdb74c0fdd6eb7e50febebee9a613ade10fbc7
3810 F20101204_AADGUO toro_d_Page_117thm.jpg
8eb4a89f1cdf1a98f5e552aba742a380
a267fa9ed94e46ffb3d94ac97cfc28d3a09ea9df
5752 F20101204_AADGTZ toro_d_Page_057thm.jpg
6c58aea59724e4c5abc2d0dec483f8e3
a8cbc026b5596c6cb9a5025d5fcf363e9b96b9ed
20182 F20101204_AADFQX toro_d_Page_073.QC.jpg
b09b00afe7bae85ff22510184d21b6d8
c6847da05b6cd243d276085c4fe1dbe70b8d7c39
56514 F20101204_AADFSA toro_d_Page_114.jp2
74f60f03ed8708442df41839c276132e
23d3989ec0b798f4eed556525d97a73593a5f8ff
141241 F20101204_AADFRM toro_d_Page_100.jp2
6776978efaeb617debd3a1d3cab616ec
b6a014b23a0692b51e38338bb25236b8d8b140eb
23680 F20101204_AADGUP toro_d_Page_120.QC.jpg
2d20c618b18d97316c0a5d29c1771da9
f53a1f1135775e8194be9431446b55968558fafe
2615 F20101204_AADFQY toro_d_Page_001thm.jpg
e47eb3844e076525ec9edfa0dee1a578
4d9361d7fc2bfcad3288bc51dac92284c1361713
23784 F20101204_AADFSB toro_d_Page_107.pro
e4c125f94e3ce8bb871aff6f9984b88e
5cf0a21ea06da3c09338bbd673d80b8669ed7c47
5678 F20101204_AADFRN toro_d_Page_070thm.jpg
28fc9f0e05fd48778619d5b5301b73ef
8c10adce8c69b9d0388f9fa07acdec7864ad79dd
28629 F20101204_AADGUQ toro_d_Page_121.QC.jpg
39bea1bed75d9b645299f32a3e1e4117
837a9a707adf9ec7a4606c2b0e4603c04e1752ec
88867 F20101204_AADFQZ toro_d_Page_016.jpg
b31f55376d217be68e239d80a90c9764
b1408ac50d83353019031d1eceda55fcf5a1c2cc
22849 F20101204_AADFSC toro_d_Page_068.QC.jpg
3a1123b572989d78d3345a80ea69fa19
4aff36a571e57bb2e7dc291e401b6df04d510c57
1766 F20101204_AADFRO toro_d_Page_011.txt
6ad828000447d9269dcf14efbb1bbba6
e3105c285cccaa8b78648e491e51951e975c225e
27050 F20101204_AADGUR toro_d_Page_122.QC.jpg
5afc969097d4331d375075103a9e7ec4
08070721401ea86e2a926bf20b04560d3defa429
1828 F20101204_AADFSD toro_d_Page_083.txt
427bfdc11ac9ae597999ba20b7f7d3c2
158f1a00935a1ed6c8b73356dc901b878abf1984
100845 F20101204_AADFRP toro_d_Page_009.jp2
d1d0cea435ed4a4a73248d1995369065
215736ea3c12862d16e19ec3d912383f7590ffd5
25745 F20101204_AADGUS toro_d_Page_125.QC.jpg
9232461eb888c3756b73aed955f29eb4
76e16e1e89f4c450faca6e5e2df960028c2476ae
24015 F20101204_AADFSE toro_d_Page_092.QC.jpg
661d77a47adb5ab14840be767b099f0c
9e317a74ffd40bfd62e1868a527b38507cd8e835
113447 F20101204_AADFRQ toro_d_Page_091.jp2
f6c3d9278a6585543b7248c0dcb368b1
a78a0ecebc6ee6fcf60d2ab4095f7623e0b0a201
1918 F20101204_AADFSF toro_d_Page_053.txt
20c969adac928fd893a019fb24cd0359
8bd1d0cbdc52dd454d1d68ccf2fc77cb69787f1c
3168 F20101204_AADFRR toro_d_Page_003.QC.jpg
7dac4907d91497a70462cdf95cd2608c
b9237778a48ccfc5d8c5cfd8f375a2037f2c65c0
F20101204_AADFSG toro_d_Page_082.tif
83ad2c8efc08b60610665de142c77485
48e6ca54abe57e921dc8fa8968c3ab55866ded65
F20101204_AADFRS toro_d_Page_046.tif
7f21c6dee99fd892cda9760b4d1c4b35
924d744efbd952ebe6c3198e1dd310cd1668a7bd
16789 F20101204_AADFSH toro_d_Page_119.jp2
7ec547d31609d73915ca5a6d39fc4769
3617cac100f83987187758d324510c2318f6925b
70556 F20101204_AADFRT toro_d_Page_031.jpg
6193d310c88f8c10882273d754ed62ed
47c51cf054786268f318020fcb883f110d9cd9e5
73955 F20101204_AADFSI toro_d_Page_044.jpg
5055ab999ec6fc81059f55aeec0c27c2
9111ce88d2a29660d8cb275e67c35fed4d143c3d
24412 F20101204_AADFRU toro_d_Page_051.QC.jpg
65c9527ad10318f36c8fad9e05661dcd
1abc133c369ebf3cc463f805a1bccc252dd0346e
110122 F20101204_AADFSJ toro_d_Page_095.jp2
fd48d218fe44685f142b5ed67686fc0a
9ae8b7b67e808ef6be95b83ae46088bc7f2be538
F20101204_AADFRV toro_d_Page_086.tif
d827bcd94c45a89ed3991d7ffabae2ca
1f4109572fa7d22e15ea5d842424f67e71da44b0
14224 F20101204_AADFSK toro_d_Page_113.QC.jpg
a6d583fd420e4bafa925466f6470f5df
760e1dc167ef4a21352fb853880c1c51a6725f48
5897 F20101204_AADFRW toro_d_Page_074thm.jpg
7aeba8c3a41822d8d0e12c659b7a3148
c8a9088baa9daea7d77a24af1f09169ead1f12af
111492 F20101204_AADFSL toro_d_Page_034.jp2
a26235e68b3715b95564c5a4e72205eb
4b565c99c8a75868c3f9aa118736ab649aafe36b
26853 F20101204_AADFRX toro_d_Page_123.QC.jpg
1293bf64ad97b7f3486607d51bc504b2
ad2143b7a5656a77bb3ecdc493f33520becda468
6560 F20101204_AADFTA toro_d_Page_040thm.jpg
030348383408e302920ed2fd7ddce605
635c5819e062c770a4a55121ef74725cc37d725d
102789 F20101204_AADFSM toro_d_Page_061.jp2
faf5ea99d076e023e0209fe46c50d9b5
41ab4af0ae6d46a17a82759ffe48a8d37d4a110a
2114 F20101204_AADFTB toro_d_Page_037.txt
47e03100767c0723cdb980fcb6882e72
62e5c13f9f5e6b6a49b36c64af32ca1025aa7d14
110896 F20101204_AADFSN toro_d_Page_025.jp2
8cb7f80e6a1a1efc2f2a923c5c024228
fafe9fa69ac0691bd1997510228dbc263bdf1b37
5827 F20101204_AADFRY toro_d_Page_086thm.jpg
813331ca6122e2744486aec7ef05c80e
3cc4381fa7ac97457fb9d60471924a887a47e1a5
259 F20101204_AADFTC toro_d_Page_010.txt
2e14a8957b39a051cc4c2de72ddab5ae
e8b32b87f1d338944c61c89b80d6ecb024fb2849
111153 F20101204_AADFSO toro_d_Page_035.jp2
51d45cfda97fda2e22f632a9421cae1d
9b41300881999bfbb026040e47ef2f15601d1c67
4281 F20101204_AADFRZ toro_d_Page_111thm.jpg
9437da674499bd4e54eb033059efbe10
c569c2616bce6d19c2c64182dee2e2a42095bd5a
7522 F20101204_AADFTD toro_d_Page_121thm.jpg
aab0863ba561f5ca8f8a3172fb098b01
46cc7dc3c65aea53444cb2190266a28991a2a6b0
6455 F20101204_AADFSP toro_d_Page_035thm.jpg
b852a481aa3a8d1534b7e6863258f1e4
a6bbdf6b8bd0656670aec335bab06d145a3674d0
F20101204_AADFTE toro_d_Page_038.tif
627a0c50075ff1e73c0abe800219afc2
685631c4b12da3f1d4a391842321a86cd61ad4e8
23491 F20101204_AADFSQ toro_d_Page_042.QC.jpg
21b39a68130fdfa056976a5a2a0a2745
38639cc06aa908966443a0f2eea5f109d4a3f459
F20101204_AADFTF toro_d_Page_058.txt
521d765ec6cc2f032d65e8500513d6fb
055912a4bf1c5864a4ace664ea8fee477e178d0d
2708 F20101204_AADFSR toro_d_Page_121.txt
e6d241d44d02e5ee9a61341727eb9e4c
d2a302a4833d296872f7b82596ba21cf861cb0de
20331 F20101204_AADFTG toro_d_Page_082.QC.jpg
6132f3e05bdad90b8383f02d386c5fa9
73898e5c82c5a3b04a6231db12d7bea505205d1e
F20101204_AADFSS toro_d_Page_050thm.jpg
b66ab261ebf47bd22b5e5fb5ce7a7fb0
e0ae5ed4e527648b0cc96568104104dbfd85942b
F20101204_AADFTH toro_d_Page_085.tif
af5fce28b77ba8ebc04ce7438f586c6a
29b3e4d3013905b8c65c15e483911584963a67a3
6391 F20101204_AADFST toro_d_Page_048thm.jpg
35ccd2367082a88331605c9235453a87
9acbacaae293ec3a923f36407cf9fde21597b80b
26057 F20101204_AADFTI toro_d_Page_100.QC.jpg
6efc18f7ad3aa8c48c2fd5db64da6094
bdd84dcc229dffa3b5cb9ff4e7dc6e50f3c83587
902 F20101204_AADFSU toro_d_Page_106.txt
48a6bf25bfe16edafe7dc38f2beb9b87
d416bfdfb9848d8a5a7fa99e40a3407670ade5e6
4350 F20101204_AADFTJ toro_d_Page_104thm.jpg
c5a3a35180933c69fa973bb1a0fe7818
aff51d15f1a108ee9276c0e788975c0ba107eb93
1767 F20101204_AADFSV toro_d_Page_076.txt
6195daede5d7962a6b2142173d4ec34b
c6cd3d62a28fa3876f67c8c072fefe7026828ce6
73159 F20101204_AADFTK toro_d_Page_058.jpg
27300a3e725d681458795e5a1b328cc3
7a87e7a01b3b7ad2451df4a5cee6ca449ad163ab
F20101204_AADFSW toro_d_Page_120.tif
57cb1e143baff188f7ab7e196198b6e3
534d8f0e459b6d3a23ab0cda7dd96c73d6b011ca
21995 F20101204_AADFTL toro_d_Page_013.QC.jpg
e5517c3b4a7f4ad51da8b9308414f847
de769eba16f00e9cc6f5b3cfd13b58550f87453a
1942 F20101204_AADFSX toro_d_Page_119thm.jpg
bcd7fc2f392305c31246b05d61810cbc
a4aea6ffa830e298975aca75542b51ef4c00e9df
3853 F20101204_AADFTM toro_d_Page_107thm.jpg
8291d86483cb04d473fbd347cbc5e96d
89d497800336383afd4fb35db512ef31fb9a7911
5648 F20101204_AADFSY toro_d_Page_082thm.jpg
19af53bd1aa19b185903f2d158f2c2de
6cdd2f8c22f15f881fc7d4847d4a0661b98e3416
F20101204_AADFUA toro_d_Page_079.tif
7d94e514317c0ff81c4cf0b431382e8d
b8a7f654197b9e7fe17ded6a86250183f7858f23
F20101204_AADFTN toro_d_Page_013.tif
895bf95645d3f50e9ce6ccbb94b1c6f5
00940106710a6e5f899df710c3b66588daf84314
29720 F20101204_AADFUB toro_d_Page_108.jpg
6f9f8ae854659b098bf20a24bc8f9495
d70fcb44b0b0e99fdff0628b17ab33519e097372
281769 F20101204_AADFTO toro_d_Page_128.jp2
26da97f45a723619c35fdcdf6f496885
91c4f09443487539dff380c9c32567a067d507fd
36205 F20101204_AADFSZ toro_d_Page_117.jpg
d76c223f5e373c227af75a99074d79d6
fb769ce303315fad540dba672a5570668de6bd17
48137 F20101204_AADFUC toro_d_Page_069.pro
06ac87011cdbeaae6c8d2a1fe174fa09
7db16b056c824c2322c8d7e1033b9e7431856b2a
41062 F20101204_AADFTP toro_d_Page_087.pro
03197ad15829dab441205457ca28298b
47201c2b78d693298404b13e59f81fdda31f68a7
24088 F20101204_AADFUD toro_d_Page_024.QC.jpg
242df3bba08ad2a5bfc31d496e654584
edc3c40c5b72632794bf608853b5cf6bbf10b5e6
7185 F20101204_AADFTQ toro_d_Page_124thm.jpg
ea3a1e982a3d2ca9c3453dc4116d3388
8a74bc9912002848f1255b14244ed97545c80c6b
F20101204_AADFUE toro_d_Page_031.tif
55b5a2a1054583c5e58e1b6f9b45832c
7a0349eb1e3e35001d1798778a05202f70a4a9c5
F20101204_AADFTR toro_d_Page_081.tif
45db7a2f6009a1d68f58e691e8ae9202
05d73270a4a425b20957bf777b4fe47d9465c762
1355 F20101204_AADGAA toro_d_Page_113.txt
24b05cd92f2d3d09c2ba032460e70cb6
d8826bdc320923b26d72b2893f18cf8a3d894ac0
F20101204_AADFUF toro_d_Page_097.tif
5b5b024d6ad85d49df0725e6ac049f7a
0ed2ea7719aeef868dbfe489c1d5539e6838c0e3
2581 F20101204_AADFTS toro_d_Page_016.txt
b3347e51480f5f1bebafbdcb7f07b98a
df6b37874cdbef9a0894f1059751374c05e7197d
983 F20101204_AADGAB toro_d_Page_115.txt
da727239c67f88f85f773a0e47710d1c
613f4c18ae3c93454e45329728b02ed4bded05d0
F20101204_AADFUG toro_d_Page_094.tif
91725ac0f3c79a93a5cb7ccd66d989ed
91bd2cd0c44be25a1c3ce160149cac212e58d532
24037 F20101204_AADFTT toro_d_Page_058.QC.jpg
928b5bb8e9510e2d2abc55a12da1fc1e
f893a97190ede8f13c6ffbea5bd538e29f0104ec
37351 F20101204_AADGAC toro_d_Page_105.jpg
34f2b5b17cf430bfe860fae75b2a54b8
c6e8e00417c8b107f09f2456353f1145779e5db7
6526 F20101204_AADFUH toro_d_Page_063thm.jpg
e5895760b3b8f00340588cc7032c7d1c
118f76c570309183833491f7fe34d8ce6713d2e3
62785 F20101204_AADFTU toro_d_Page_011.jpg
24f0021b9ed54910058620e678238b8a
ec80a3cb5bad25e0e5ed091fd2bcbca6d1c9bd80
1953 F20101204_AADGAD toro_d_Page_009.txt
5e1872602edf1528c2022f431787428b
59388787529058511789ce958c4dfc87af651733
68124 F20101204_AADFUI toro_d_Page_096.jpg
73f571bc08f813d14bfc4080fb680587
0bf9135d7193d84c259e346059994ea80a1cee46
F20101204_AADFTV toro_d_Page_042.tif
f3ccd5f82a730ffbdecca306547093b4
7c61994aa81f06407ea4436de9e51a3d8400fe1a
112947 F20101204_AADGAE toro_d_Page_049.jp2
2d67bf87b5ddce07876b8a1e63c56c80
913c19ffe1b726a8c98e82b5c4bb29032765d555
93049 F20101204_AADFUJ toro_d_Page_082.jp2
0c9f3fde0dde9a6039a065b9c6022477
9f29db12b110759c6b792890c600d6459dba75c7
24270 F20101204_AADFTW toro_d_Page_038.QC.jpg
c38a97324e411c484ef6b8264477a3d6
8e252f6cd409ad64144b8195622e553e8d240916
F20101204_AADGAF toro_d_Page_043.pro
56c2d7ec520e73c98e5d20234b08ad1a
97d4c1b4ddceb69143b8f69afcfbaab98d7a528e
43683 F20101204_AADFUK toro_d_Page_076.pro
5e34fccf6a12f6dbd953f19285f65a0b
c3de22bd25bab24a4312ed36dcf0f24709223793
51934 F20101204_AADFTX toro_d_Page_112.jp2
f00680862a8854e44d403d5ae17c89e7
324ef4fd504cf74cf835a47031fdd391c28834dd
F20101204_AADFUL toro_d_Page_016.tif
4d49033485f55f7e11e51aaad673a681
2aba74909371e7f64980d47f5a0acb3274e068e7
20756 F20101204_AADFTY toro_d_Page_011.QC.jpg
673f2e7c65b9dc8acf01b35799ab2bf1
0b3a2d7e06690f7cadf56b19d979424e605431c7
7892 F20101204_AADGAG toro_d_Page_001.QC.jpg
4dc9e42ca09809d0d22805b3847a6d80
47ae18f13700b9a7095ffb956d01bd0eca52e657
50458 F20101204_AADFVA toro_d_Page_073.pro
b854c6e601a07bb32eb92de36407d8d1
9f89b537bb961002f8fbf11168e466ad8c2984fb
57231 F20101204_AADFUM toro_d_Page_118.jp2
7cee038399382e1f040106b1696b2ff5
4dee1f620f40557da1c55f522fbf6ac9b4043fa1
F20101204_AADFTZ toro_d_Page_019.tif
da36bbbdba1c6bc534519714953bd4a4
842780bf7acc6a79c10402ce9b49dcac6989c0a0
22215 F20101204_AADGAH toro_d_Page_060.QC.jpg
105489ea9e1483a529f40d1dc6e50ded
7a6a15a0602af10773caca3dfeb049e2ec39ddd3
6710 F20101204_AADFVB toro_d_Page_052thm.jpg
97c46e8dcfd495455144ac2f57cdde0f
4efb76e956e45ee744a1f63e1ef444b8f1164e6f
54628 F20101204_AADFUN toro_d_Page_007.jpg
cf01ce47774aef4a6051a40ebae86dce
928668f4e4243663c5730caf59d2b36a242edbb7
26669 F20101204_AADGAI toro_d_Page_126.QC.jpg
9611ad989a7938262a6a203a2a0447b9
13d8fe8103783f65732290dcd4adcf5c60e09fa6
6512 F20101204_AADFVC toro_d_Page_079thm.jpg
8b5307d422b87ad44aa5b56c58ad31fe
1036eda244190997a8a15db0d00b6780e0b45fa2
F20101204_AADFUO toro_d_Page_080.tif
b75b277c868233c9a1df9793bb5ae460
a1759303263255d8571cb306d6f80cc19552c350
95835 F20101204_AADGAJ toro_d_Page_127.jpg
617c4bc2568bd720d11b36cc9ca5b752
891b5eec292ef079b434161c7dcc179fbdc5179f
6544 F20101204_AADFVD toro_d_Page_064thm.jpg
0c894fb3f7b673bf2bbc82b0e068d331
f3fe3cfd9ac43be588bebae73c92a86928d2ab27
F20101204_AADFUP toro_d_Page_067.tif
4b121b5414a0bd0c7d5b5729000cfded
b192cd77d622ca02db1a6727a40b1750c1965bea
6598 F20101204_AADGAK toro_d_Page_055thm.jpg
4d02cf61bb5a8da8f1d06944eb4f7c94
9ee68c5fd50280331ebe42451c1d4f4bdc67a016
106931 F20101204_AADFVE toro_d_Page_032.jp2
8f5284327505344f80de5bf7d9ce6272
72351527531aae662c3cd3cb12acf5726a14c392
1296 F20101204_AADFUQ toro_d_Page_003.pro
32e7bd3961b31e7f5cfcf2fe742c9a1a
6c45fe0ea6eb255252931574fb6980b51ea4b9a1
1955 F20101204_AADGAL toro_d_Page_023.txt
23d72eef892b9a2be00ebad40cf708a9
054900711b44ce9baeca34d8877aa42db1854e04
60773 F20101204_AADFVF toro_d_Page_070.jpg
33d291eeca15a070669f1fb566242ac0
635664ef26db7311307bbf3cf42878e927afd342
F20101204_AADFUR toro_d_Page_027.txt
4881960f6ffa8647b219645adf4dd0f6
629bb0ac94aebdf7e72f14ed17547dd1caee89c2
61613 F20101204_AADGBA toro_d_Page_082.jpg
c8f9127deb9985654e053e3dd142c1e4
7b3fd9a6023d4dd8f6a0d57e2220fcc60207ff4b
11834 F20101204_AADGAM toro_d_Page_106.QC.jpg
44b75ec0133f3a406c13e4eebc312a5c
e29ea252bfcb6dad95d6628f677d2f9797984957
F20101204_AADFVG toro_d_Page_095.tif
4fb61a96e4c7cd8e12e4aaf70fcd7f8d
b65f208f7223c80b2ddd4794f173aae887f3795b
63059 F20101204_AADFUS toro_d_Page_123.pro
2e8cf48f8e89433b22e8ce4a534ea36d
e37d2489cf070a682797ca3d8161c84468becdd0
50850 F20101204_AADGBB toro_d_Page_094.pro
f47f8dfe79de87ee1a96fedc07e575db
a9c86a4c4d760184359183d482a2084ba06be4c6
103895 F20101204_AADGAN toro_d_Page_048.jp2
19a818aba2c181cc2ee8e9b1331613e0
4056f5d6e9bfcf064a6c17016248f4c646322028
23392 F20101204_AADFVH toro_d_Page_045.QC.jpg
a52111b6af73cb95d71c7ae1f46c18d7
9176e6a16deb7e0500bab89abcb71d0eaebd7c27
92330 F20101204_AADFUT toro_d_Page_125.jpg
d7984e8e5f341fb2172228c0cfe4bfa4
246d277b667b1c6c13f4e2369dc0a9d45c0fabe0
50623 F20101204_AADGBC toro_d_Page_039.pro
eaf3eac0340a81ddc6c83410c0977114
8a732d2ce6cd29a10e8cac89319c6c538e8596f4
F20101204_AADGAO toro_d_Page_099.tif
cf4bd73cf0219fa5f54e1a78ff86226e
6cfa89c7855c2d5f8bc9b26d56067957f5eb362b
103675 F20101204_AADFVI toro_d_Page_013.jp2
f4c0c67ffa6c0fa42fe9e8330361ae48
12ca05f9513eb387ef18cd9f7ad6e90e72179615
15917 F20101204_AADFUU toro_d_Page_110.jpg
99ea28ada6f543d6ec0703b1a406adcf
27ed5dbcee10b8f3c23c3ae4914c29a85c569c52
F20101204_AADGBD toro_d_Page_021.tif
e96062550a8aaf3b9f4fbf151dcef283
b48ecd09bee01ee9cfffb5e342dc4cb7af7c4a20
1954 F20101204_AADGAP toro_d_Page_050.txt
bb17a0bfadc409e248229ab0476aa09b
e7604faa08f17192c4c36942c99828d59bb1b130
73084 F20101204_AADFVJ toro_d_Page_026.jpg
1340209c69e9bee750abd74230ae0433
5a702adc2c3f5887586b2b4e1549332428d0cd29
56585 F20101204_AADFUV toro_d_Page_004.jpg
a306d12b0a4080da41df8515758fc632
69e07a62d1491c4fb5353868c52db8b9668ed684
F20101204_AADGBE toro_d_Page_035.tif
3295985968622940777cdc9e105569b7
8af81739e15df2ff4e2ec49a0732f8fa52b5da98
21102 F20101204_AADGAQ toro_d_Page_129.pro
088ae279ad7eae95a5ca9a794599f0d1
cd03d5ccab998ed2e0a08d770c22de7108392417
65867 F20101204_AADFVK toro_d_Page_033.jpg
d912988026247097a7afef12b05339be
97d7a93fdc983ab642220b9fbaff95e51deef481
1157 F20101204_AADFUW toro_d_Page_105.txt
2cc076219b61d38535de8c67e19afd93
587cd43281c1198c729a9c5b98640b6bf748cfb0
23937 F20101204_AADGBF toro_d_Page_026.QC.jpg
3b7c401a357097495ee6babea5dcbc7d
e929aaf5122882f772d78ff89c65cd8f8da1e2a9
933 F20101204_AADGAR toro_d_Page_103.txt
30ddd78dafcdf73bc8161f574a01c8c1
3d107ed8936968a00390d0c5c81fb7b72c43e520
6546 F20101204_AADFVL toro_d_Page_041thm.jpg
ea38308b6d408ee914d90a7d6b86ce89
4abc2ac658b4dbf6344ee0e4c20a3a9089d603d8
2000 F20101204_AADFUX toro_d_Page_040.txt
93e2525492af32778fa9abc6a9e05248
08df24baf2e8df8b2726963aae6ffaea7631ed23
38776 F20101204_AADGBG toro_d_Page_112.jpg
1370ed253882b3f55df9aa119f8d1416
983221fd111aa4f7d9902de02ed51df32afcb9db
7153 F20101204_AADGAS toro_d_Page_122thm.jpg
f0649a47b77bd171c0c72d084c2cecd0
2f565a38974775b5083ec33a0c999f08f7d9e06d
67652 F20101204_AADFVM toro_d_Page_021.jpg
7790ba03e8db1330e45be40994e5a258
cef3484ffe858e0cbda4b96c6efcf1894b9bfd81
2065 F20101204_AADFUY toro_d_Page_051.txt
c62d283d0f46b9741a99e0c26a8c135a
a60c4e3570e508ce8c5784abe44b4511b90e5257
113127 F20101204_AADFWA toro_d_Page_094.jp2
de11461e97263449497cc4dc060d30a6
d2ebe0a1a77babdbbae67fa24e281cdc0caf5347
110246 F20101204_AADGAT toro_d_Page_040.jp2
3063719f6749181a7655436cfd7a60b5
837421972c38f916b7673da0d4db28cd52ab6bbf
6225 F20101204_AADFVN toro_d_Page_013thm.jpg
50ff88b64845252d7f864263e0a2f5ac
1de3a79d75cd418bf078835d7ed91da137fd3ac2
2358 F20101204_AADFUZ toro_d_Page_019.txt
e105e07087c18f57e776314bc2dd6a9a
f1d45ed9abd394ca552223344ab64ac99e7acfaa
6705 F20101204_AADGBH toro_d_Page_022thm.jpg
a54157247cac3ac1d5f7c8500f0eb69e
77ff3f99344ec5676288555b646cdfac151b0dab
107942 F20101204_AADFWB toro_d_Page_053.jp2
67fcd254dd7b748a878027673f5f31a8
db4b731e6bfe2b2fcd52c999bea665472e8e46bc
49757 F20101204_AADGAU toro_d_Page_054.pro
930ea1bdd58d056896fbbd6710e8f09a
b0bb4b953fe9d798d35468ac1f824d4ecb00b008
13279 F20101204_AADFVO toro_d_Page_111.QC.jpg
cccca595fd8fb7b9ce381ce79b57e4d8
bd82d9cc1917b763339cb85a1bcdbf6f68342876
51940 F20101204_AADGBI toro_d_Page_067.pro
77b5750b14aa63c4102f77db9f88eaee
adf4a3434263fbaf37ca12cd5f23987e038ffd3b
64483 F20101204_AADFWC toro_d_Page_005.jpg
ae7fb897870885968652cd1ce6d31e98
ed26fc67be9efaa86234779b5fb02ab90437b4b0
12571 F20101204_AADGAV toro_d_Page_107.QC.jpg
c1cf1a415e0663ffdf941fbf8a1e6844
2406b9f34cbae9c81a969b25e680e2db0e0cf8d6
6549 F20101204_AADFVP toro_d_Page_044thm.jpg
b95c8a1f3f96f769bf10cabf5929a0ed
e23e0a0d3fc9b28439127eb7fb5f81f15703be75
45265 F20101204_AADGBJ toro_d_Page_117.jp2
1a7e521f6f78dc2ef143de7afc82ad7c
6cc5ac80c8a2262b23557056a5d5d72e9a6ec33d
F20101204_AADFWD toro_d_Page_053.tif
4098adc6ccdfec0ac7f4278db10d3bd0
68e07b7507ca0fa5864ca48e9ab61fbc6cf54c56
49609 F20101204_AADGAW toro_d_Page_092.pro
f2fa8a05e84436f6af75d9a91d824fca
58b700c92d8c01c5eb8794b787a0c4d18623b0e5
F20101204_AADFVQ toro_d_Page_026.tif
1e40cfa74cc22d9d4e3f7cd41ff57638
67b1f5d9c427e189f009ee9240ca5028ee2ecf9f
24345 F20101204_AADGBK toro_d_Page_109.pro
b3e30bb7ec4448c2088870f14adbb396
891f90623f0da051d54f48285e8ae86c60160797
2433 F20101204_AADFWE toro_d_Page_125.txt
da6c5a27a1ee8ce5d1519144e2adcde5
48ca915fdcf28c8efe41eb70352d260313c768ea
F20101204_AADGAX toro_d_Page_045.txt
84a9fa678b65d399a9810bf11935717a
28aa4dc808ebf95a3e1e9f6d1f02fecb083dc579
1845 F20101204_AADFVR toro_d_Page_060.txt
9da06143791ea8203a753835b9d701b0
3597f94963d61cd172f7cbaf6d811f6af6d8203e
110168 F20101204_AADGCA toro_d_Page_026.jp2
1a7ee08cc59567cafd2393b0bb202955
cff16b08a853551b9636f57a12715befdb621798
73298 F20101204_AADGBL toro_d_Page_063.jpg
cb8439f1f2da553a4f543a179d269596
4b0ab872cf86b78f38142405474440278b440078
70913 F20101204_AADFWF toro_d_Page_012.jpg
f4eace1639182fad3c52a67e8153ad4d
f263f9b114e3726ba2bbf4a71a6e979e7d4d4215
10631 F20101204_AADGAY toro_d_Page_002.jpg
fc4369919e6bdf996d5170f896e540e3
df15b633c74ae96aaf28076013dd717d1d35b875
1180 F20101204_AADFVS toro_d_Page_104.txt
59223e055d5e552d000172c3241e6444
a91212ff5c07ec2564a1e61bee20b20ed501e2a9
71894 F20101204_AADGCB toro_d_Page_097.jpg
43bd31e476e5945e01d340e21b729ad1
732de4f3d6f8083b053885e305970977b5760410
70974 F20101204_AADGBM toro_d_Page_095.jpg
7aab05d986dbdb1e2cb7530658cc393a
53131aec746401557e4039f26e37a1fea570e633
6395 F20101204_AADFWG toro_d_Page_017thm.jpg
9abbb5b40ed3f224208f0265b93d7079
20e84cb11f9282245f9e8506ffd5743a0babd425
6099 F20101204_AADFVT toro_d_Page_033thm.jpg
df4d29ae9a7d936a78c18777a304ef7e
2d86ba8b4e0d9b66b8d886ed4c8b3abc57e34166
1102 F20101204_AADGCC toro_d_Page_109.txt
b3e058a2530eb16c0af367a043d53c2d
4f50dc97d51599ac5d8788bd6cca674dec94cf97
F20101204_AADGBN toro_d_Page_020.tif
6010346336128cebd9b81da88ff70e27
9e8cca7d1d673f013f5096766c2cf22d30031b2d
116202 F20101204_AADFWH toro_d_Page_037.jp2
3e5bea89759c05e96bbfabff14eb86e1
9814ed971a58cc7d8c2aae43b2199508905f763e
53943 F20101204_AADGAZ toro_d_Page_037.pro
1cc261ea01149810c8192f7826949806
2c52e5835fb062775721e4f5f88e5e43acf9ed9a
22605 F20101204_AADFVU toro_d_Page_029.QC.jpg
af17f1df2783a65d74a9673bd0314b33
76658f3cb9294246197f7355fddcded0c06b137e
16417 F20101204_AADGCD toro_d_Page_010.jpg
7c9d29be7e53704044615eeee563ea78
c452122e08f868ab901e38658821d4a569651d9f
71811 F20101204_AADGBO toro_d_Page_023.jpg
61c3d71e06962bcf27522a48f7696e97
d5728573fa24162ffdb8834c2d1cfd4d549c52b2
108574 F20101204_AADFWI toro_d_Page_052.jp2
99bf1093c2cb03be9b593a33e26e26db
e6a4b80869450e1249d85668f4f57fb584459281
6592 F20101204_AADFVV toro_d_Page_016thm.jpg
6d50ba187916b2e101cde0ff842a9973
55cfa1ffaa7e05c82b682c8a1a9ec4ef9e9089ef
71864 F20101204_AADGCE toro_d_Page_042.jpg
18f562aec5d141d1df942061f6d59535
1b2a92937ddf4163371b1f814aa6a7d48b338436
1799 F20101204_AADGBP toro_d_Page_056.txt
c362f0a0a69189937a253eabb52aeeeb
da6db2eab4c565232fc72be607ae12dd12547eb8
2118 F20101204_AADFWJ toro_d_Page_030.txt
70d6fc8efc6f145b004f420b02dc1e90
2fd6bde85897fed017e4b7a7618b53e59a236dc7
112046 F20101204_AADFVW toro_d_Page_041.jp2
4d7db29ec9dcee6c1ccbe062fd01e218
40cc96385f23f00e5341e14a03c736b0a2b77b60
6671 F20101204_AADGCF toro_d_Page_091thm.jpg
8141bd9ee29fa257e8a7be1629268839
bc41570c7d07daf03d203e72c17b331e57d7293f
F20101204_AADGBQ toro_d_Page_004.tif
5fa7f8a5dd7110e8885cde3f7a2914db
6b6006f8ba63f903c2e669368e1eae0e551cb0d2
F20101204_AADFWK toro_d_Page_041.tif
ed6686784190e8676440da88f49b2499
27e3335eec5f997837d37a80aaed95b27bf7bd56
F20101204_AADFVX toro_d_Page_047.tif
2f740c8b431a3ae4c0cd10c344c91f60
8acc45de62a2d77230612db9f8cd42c04b676293
23219 F20101204_AADGCG toro_d_Page_035.QC.jpg
72dc3455f3edd2e4f0b89ee34e1c789f
1db8aec3bc59c77e5b270a9d0717d9e807e93dfb
81008 F20101204_AADGBR toro_d_Page_004.jp2
023014268251e528d2cac4cef62f0f03
9486b55b2387e1b1e30d1c2a920186cbc8b3e48f
F20101204_AADFWL toro_d_Page_068.tif
0f14556ad9fcccdb756c9082fa756d83
d5550eddc40edcf4054afa76c71bdd4eb22e0966
F20101204_AADFVY toro_d_Page_033.tif
bc882186fa0a695d7e46e0fb01929fc9
3bdb6a2187a8091e942a2c3a6b724174c9f9f609
109949 F20101204_AADGCH toro_d_Page_059.jp2
9f2e547fa0db9699c6eaf922fc7ca177
6cd022a447fd7eef8c8e1254f3815eb6bb2d1eeb
110765 F20101204_AADFXA toro_d_Page_017.jp2
d1547c03096bd48d3885fe1259aee27c
1b0ce3fa93b837c1c100cabd5652b3018b523fbd
3349 F20101204_AADGBS toro_d_Page_108thm.jpg
c41066cdaab1fe902b1e4e3c9da53cd0
44839fb4cfc57e9dd96baea140a8bbac57381da8
72338 F20101204_AADFWM toro_d_Page_092.jpg
0d7085e8345b37441342c749236f7958
188457e0aa667438acb6099da73b7204d43ef128
F20101204_AADFVZ toro_d_Page_102.tif
41808654dacf3a3487ab3ca5ef4bd326
905c0007ca954c880a6d1640165f52b775d505c7
19325 F20101204_AADFXB toro_d_Page_115.pro
5c1393db6520daa64a8d10008b3476cf
02004cc7b92377cfbf6624d12fbed4a8bd917381
73739 F20101204_AADGBT toro_d_Page_094.jpg
f4ea39a7f891b44e40364f667351fe38
51d4d7e7695c04ed1a0a60f24d80ef8463d8e039
F20101204_AADFWN toro_d_Page_092.txt
d2257db36b4f8efc4a28fb76e18b68af
f7e7c4eb614445924dcf29a96d7a5d0fc6092348
F20101204_AADGCI toro_d_Page_066.tif
13306b599dad3f7f07f26523c6c8c430
3887841e9c16bedf123bf45fb1fde1ecdc45dcaf
40267 F20101204_AADFXC toro_d_Page_057.pro
50d1625cb03516c554365167e93f7185
c1eda184078ed5ff252df991dcaf798f4ec8b9ba
F20101204_AADGBU toro_d_Page_094.txt
35f7b588a5f62fa23a76a5187d1a53f2
72b2bba2ada9535ab5bcf59906ac2faec11e61cb
12469 F20101204_AADFWO toro_d_Page_116.QC.jpg
6f6edb382028d4a1291f6a8224610f1b
5c940df693bf4f5c7e6ec9362482b83a5db8873e
22399 F20101204_AADGCJ toro_d_Page_014.QC.jpg
a9524c54d85026d1cc1c0abfa511f6b9
ac6bb4098a87a58286dd854411d826d788613c43
51637 F20101204_AADFXD toro_d_Page_044.pro
f10f88e348187cc2a0c3b00ce0703383
0b3119c00619ab2b6011ad82a8b832f028dc2b3f
93028 F20101204_AADGBV toro_d_Page_100.jpg
64d947fb0e9238d5b05f7cdf9dcf381e
c08ac12ced0830b776f28f7c324577ebbd73c6be
1858 F20101204_AADFWP toro_d_Page_096.txt
ac674c3ed1269fd3929a543ec953cd3f
492f88fe3a8b3bb1bb9be33a76a773597346f526
1051970 F20101204_AADGCK toro_d_Page_127.jp2
edf9bd7c4e580d04cbcdb05c19b41a7a
bd8b0f73721259cb244547182c1368c50a5e99e3
23501 F20101204_AADFXE toro_d_Page_095.QC.jpg
c109141c2c9679ec34ebee020d427abe
b6a66f90dd63088ec874559e8d26dde8d510450d
1952 F20101204_AADGBW toro_d_Page_022.txt
d8c67be4a81db5d1e67074f48a1a5c58
cb9bf2ff1d399af1d77c7b614ed36397cc9a65d2
6353 F20101204_AADFWQ toro_d_Page_039thm.jpg
30c0d3dd8f810408f6a30a13f48c3f56
8c7cd29d7fca43b552e0795b8b5bdeeb2b031512
22637 F20101204_AADGCL toro_d_Page_021.QC.jpg
9cfd0dbfe2e4125969777648c3440bdb
9f35ff56c30cc4d427bf3d66967d7839c560bed7
5513 F20101204_AADFXF toro_d_Page_085thm.jpg
5b83376d1c013b701fc05fdb353e8666
3441e89b478f65f4799d0bd3057e3ff1868e62a0
52601 F20101204_AADGBX toro_d_Page_051.pro
58742d32242c174ef41f79332fbb7a3e
92a65755935bfa011a35d394ef9bbd1010acfe18
28622 F20101204_AADFWR toro_d_Page_111.pro
70b1490952efccab20020df278fced8c
7dfdeccef4241e78f62c9e9050277a4389389512
27150 F20101204_AADGDA toro_d_Page_114.pro
3638edafad049401147a99b99e03d584
9cee9b2bd66c432a466581c7487c83c23c8dfc55
F20101204_AADGCM toro_d_Page_112.tif
af9f9dd8605ed16f1996991a35fc9b70
3c38ad90648de9766d79fcefe217524707b23e12
2050 F20101204_AADFXG toro_d_Page_017.txt
a09b655d0d19fced005b4d75aba3f129
37c939c5ce3437b5f7e2a397c265b0e12628a88a
109618 F20101204_AADGBY toro_d_Page_027.jp2
5b9c364ee19a1a6a44e2342bc8f4b269
49b3097925f3424ab159ebc5a159e645f64a21ff
74925 F20101204_AADFWS toro_d_Page_088.jpg
445ed759a7d3889ab2c692b3a2e8b210
e2d4b3d8f2bb0b136ff011e41fb5274f24dfbcf5
51540 F20101204_AADGDB toro_d_Page_107.jp2
02c464778a74aafd83d7a68590e747ec
afb62aba41ac17c0f90ca6daaccb0d61b0148db8
43114 F20101204_AADGCN toro_d_Page_086.pro
501cd9e50051aea99f8d81bc5fc76483
bcd56a7414fb67530249dd6314d5c8f6fe6850ae
1051974 F20101204_AADFXH toro_d_Page_121.jp2
2a7e9127d605322a0045fb3aee887617
8884a341d3b9760b5bee570b11eaa4b07a1b384a
109431 F20101204_AADGBZ toro_d_Page_050.jp2
7ba57ce39640fc07d7e0196f949cda00
533e9758411c46ac907667bbd6c9c9d931b00d7a
469 F20101204_AADFWT toro_d_Page_008.txt
114b92535cdbb4bafd61de8e0aa5d29e
c6a9db0614712206f03102bd488b8338d29f5626
6472 F20101204_AADGDC toro_d_Page_047thm.jpg
9284cce0df2e2d12f6e7da8ddd3bb40f
217549cd08dbcc3e708e1f57d7e68b9b410a1b8c
74579 F20101204_AADGCO toro_d_Page_051.jpg
23c4cb941a3c47f035024fa6dd6299ae
9ba00feff4633a950cd634797809a80c8ea0c608
1833 F20101204_AADFXI toro_d_Page_033.txt
8141b3997e2f73ee0332e56f9a7dd3cf
4a1c5eb16bab78b5a8921a2b75c858462387086f
1816 F20101204_AADFWU toro_d_Page_086.txt
08954677ce4353afca24f6ab12c45050
3b0094abf9ebd1bc11c12476af3cf47a4ea25fa0
22561 F20101204_AADGDD toro_d_Page_019.QC.jpg
8062f60c6de4070fb2972c69fea20f9f
5cca5011c174d5afaabdf4089981fe5fb7874ee0
21055 F20101204_AADGCP toro_d_Page_080.QC.jpg
403c37c05e9d2a2928ef435a751eae0c
4eb92b9c4c9ff73939e331253ca14bdfde8e228c
1051937 F20101204_AADFXJ toro_d_Page_120.jp2
4cdd9642b10a2a2d86b5693bc7fe5ffe
a77272f680d72ce0d7482e02d8b7932cea60e14a
23290 F20101204_AADFWV toro_d_Page_050.QC.jpg
428211ab96d9bc87fa24a4805d1a7924
97dc60e7ccb8487f177b8d84d3ca46221eb3275c
3944 F20101204_AADGDE toro_d_Page_114thm.jpg
458c6d2ed021feb5674611772a78a859
62a70733516b99ded57d63285fb24ea8c40e9c48
61063 F20101204_AADGCQ toro_d_Page_084.jpg
9f18cde33c1a56d2ea7934b936050f90
e3cd527ba1d3a8cbae4c38796baa12f25ec6cf51
F20101204_AADFXK toro_d_Page_090thm.jpg
c2abe537e6ea62c544dd37dff35aff44
95a371637fedaaa50091b2c7ff18f1a9f8061f3a
48865 F20101204_AADFWW toro_d_Page_012.pro
8c7845cef9a5fc7d92db21a1ac3acba8
b4498f1e43c262d47cfadeb1ce99f599e555df62
5750 F20101204_AADGDF toro_d_Page_075thm.jpg
437a178fa411233ffc8948943ecfc036
55efe8d4a18b0f08b8bd1ca05dee364ce5c08a9f
F20101204_AADGCR toro_d_Page_063.tif
ec946130f80754f82031b1a472a8eda7
964abf37983f46230bd49352a6ef733506f6672c
24153 F20101204_AADFXL toro_d_Page_094.QC.jpg
ce3fa70e470997913a8741e38aeac390
12892083130cd2e9c6f38a7fcfa103b387ee9b75
1949 F20101204_AADFWX toro_d_Page_099.txt
e174594c88d1f3d323fe84b6326d2a6a
1c10c366fdd6c5413de0f4d2a8c80f8d59bf0dc4
70297 F20101204_AADGDG toro_d_Page_065.jpg
b14e685049bd09ab0e70c2fae82533f7
5aa0a38f9374ee322881512089c24f2e1b5880cb
F20101204_AADFYA toro_d_Page_044.tif
d614ca66c04b462d0765051aafd9af78
5eb82e17029d5d295ceadd500e923569b2d3f7d8
2009 F20101204_AADGCS toro_d_Page_065.txt
e1c08d457aa336e869f0cc17fb5e14c4
d09feebcc2e99febafd611ca4c60e2d48507106b
F20101204_AADFXM toro_d_Page_070.tif
36f930559ba985ea4f88094621ae2c06
ead29e5f1852b049abdff725c454d9d19792c106
99226 F20101204_AADFWY toro_d_Page_126.jpg
5210f6055a8afb93f7dc00f6129a7d51
3241bc3a1e1e22067ddf8ee6a6ebc3854c699be1
19086 F20101204_AADGDH toro_d_Page_085.QC.jpg
41e68a3957108b3e18071d4b32bcce8c
326e1deb2bc57f799bfca2c14055671d1ed551d0
97088 F20101204_AADFYB toro_d_Page_123.jpg
fcb1568fd42b571ee501518d704582cf
b4dcc81f2efd778dac773a647f5dd1efb8b3b5f0
18600 F20101204_AADGCT toro_d_Page_004.QC.jpg
5a76280939537b310a8b3779135cc5fc
02c79f53b7bf0ced3d09c11b61b404a120a4858e
F20101204_AADFXN toro_d_Page_054.tif
15d017e67aec9fdf5b93e42c4ff5b1ba
df2edc40efb899885c282c0c494fb7ffccd72326
F20101204_AADFWZ toro_d_Page_052.tif
f2928c4bd56f4c492edc0bcf123e18c3
efa5cc858ac59a3b4b1a17fb59441b7e35267f5a
74298 F20101204_AADGDI toro_d_Page_028.jpg
8664ba44e38268f49c1237dc818b1494
511785715eacb2a832a8fec6579f9fb4ef08e349
26397 F20101204_AADFYC toro_d_Page_127.QC.jpg
2e77a5663be339a25a7189fcded9d6a5
dc690ba796b3098d5f717889bd8fed2bb8070d69
23811 F20101204_AADGCU toro_d_Page_067.QC.jpg
804dcd206b6e31f32894aec174dc0d31
dbbbcdd5f64cefd11de3618c7a48589814e9413b
6483 F20101204_AADFXO toro_d_Page_042thm.jpg
cad17771300da880412c3f18f57147d2
0feab7122176120bb0673d454349df65bce06bf7
F20101204_AADFYD toro_d_Page_087.txt
102b4b39cde046d3c7f84041d077c647
1160975cded3d16fce16b94c388bf62e8dd8fc2f
113848 F20101204_AADGCV toro_d_Page_090.jp2
84e23aa87576094f9697860a3e919c24
39b7aff384d0d5b0c5692c259ecb10422ff918d4
F20101204_AADFXP toro_d_Page_006.tif
6bb1345facdd3b464a3f703769632a66
ead6c0731d906ed0eac313239ef4949704f4566e
5977 F20101204_AADGDJ toro_d_Page_073thm.jpg
7dd14c1e8604865dffd9dce920dc33cd
b8fce9e0368cac8969400c4f5c7198c10cffd474
43678 F20101204_AADFYE toro_d_Page_072.pro
61b9590dc9937862844ead835f18d371
6360b54c15cef7820c248e702739790d1cdcded6
431 F20101204_AADGCW toro_d_Page_128.txt
6646f1fe4e49039caaf83d42cc5b7090
0851c872aabcf0f191c2e3adc0ec9848ee64d02d
914 F20101204_AADFXQ toro_d_Page_117.txt
854ef6f0f7d347205253817bc620beaf
24b1a3b98aef83336199bc0faf3acb7648d55d63
25515 F20101204_AADGDK toro_d_Page_016.QC.jpg
7538b1df192ab571cbdc7c01f94e9f9e
ef114084dbc2a6f0d1ba40908313addd6445c832
63942 F20101204_AADFYF toro_d_Page_018.pro
0f9b2c8f5ab1b08af4cae37f5637be2e
9202b41bee403ff0dc336a33b88313c07cdfc4a4
6442 F20101204_AADGCX toro_d_Page_099thm.jpg
f65a494d18eb3a94c5c9f3987152049a
1c34429734e0692d29d050d97f3e5c2e7c5890d2
49436 F20101204_AADFXR toro_d_Page_022.pro
92c70ff78244a06b037e7642394a46d7
d74f2a6c67f3e426bc5cb07a84ab5167e2c5ab75
5533 F20101204_AADGEA toro_d_Page_119.QC.jpg
b0b8ef5e1ca90083d7150f052bf6fd47
b8b6a17b191aaec8347db0dfee2de87e8526e5be
F20101204_AADGDL toro_d_Page_111.tif
d2cf32cf68a1ddbc2b3344451cd3355c
e4db89c2156f2e865512635fd0ad69f1ee65ea7a
24246 F20101204_AADFYG toro_d_Page_028.QC.jpg
e4233fd2672c633221c9a775374d4a1b
03069cfc837230faf330deb413e5476597b8c440
F20101204_AADGCY toro_d_Page_091.tif
44efd66bbab5da043dcb919a10a1550b
deaec1f93cd3bac37e622062b83e19f4849f1ff0
2029 F20101204_AADFXS toro_d_Page_036.txt
f2c55b040af67dc381b60d61bae15c3a
cc867ca98b084e1fad1ba2631f12be7d9401b5e8
F20101204_AADGEB toro_d_Page_025.tif
a4c61227c39c7d6e41c9161131bc6d5f
213e3fda2612763b726f542f49dee2d6e8d34811
109329 F20101204_AADGDM toro_d_Page_012.jp2
ede319f14335ac661d081b6b1283f46d
b559e6ac658fdf75f04690b681efc8f93064bbc3
41001 F20101204_AADFYH toro_d_Page_070.pro
60df863ace9eb1ecd73fc429bc73afad
ccfaa54725bd21bdf8cedeef41889b5aa8c26584
70053 F20101204_AADGCZ toro_d_Page_047.jpg
095949662eec6eb2f7abba393ef65e82
362e147301c0701f7069697f7247e6a4aeb2768c
2039 F20101204_AADFXT toro_d_Page_041.txt
ca6d54b8ad8b633d9bc8934bbf4ff998
44eee5b548c206d8dfc809f340737b7ce278f5e0
5725 F20101204_AADGEC toro_d_Page_083thm.jpg
d8cf1596dd20d1134b54b35ac58d6d92
6aa3e7d0408145d713a2145e375a3324389f364f
2013 F20101204_AADGDN toro_d_Page_088.txt
5060116b9535694d95a1af517c8a7dc7
6cf8c642ad0bd971cd3e1abcafbf566f74539e9e
17742 F20101204_AADFYI toro_d_Page_010.jp2
db26459a06b620071e5070ffe68ee2d2
b444ee70939b4964f70fb1d388e3d045b21f14f2
58977 F20101204_AADFXU toro_d_Page_005.pro
ee8b6e74c09b99acdcca4c330aada75e
5775cc514fa2ffc8828e3da67fb644ef1077908e
70782 F20101204_AADGED toro_d_Page_099.jpg
c5a1d696a15713ad679baa581feabfce
295fc9b73839c1d1e60bd0681ea776d6297f052c
6434 F20101204_AADGDO toro_d_Page_096thm.jpg
2be19ef8dedd7480800b9264ba0a1d94
1990e09f1ad7205b1a9e7837fbcb39e861569141
19855 F20101204_AADFYJ toro_d_Page_087.QC.jpg
bcf877f743930643c0c5b16ce5cff731
e40ca9429ee52ce93c3d693bb37797c72a7e09df
118283 F20101204_AADFXV toro_d_Page_019.jp2
348fa8c1c07d1cdccfbe6ca2513ccde3
a116d2cdf50ad25cb358f60051fd2453c8c62019
3595 F20101204_AADGEE toro_d_Page_115thm.jpg
5da8226d1e8edf5d7de82627f4fa9399
8e43533120d6c52be8b28667b9d0166fafce37f8
51970 F20101204_AADGDP toro_d_Page_028.pro
fa4f7d1440f2c02e1cf083b361596cc4
8afe8616d4a049bb66bdb5bc06dfbd1fe7b131db
2038 F20101204_AADFYK toro_d_Page_046.txt
0c68d0d8078fdd266054e3c34ff983e9
88636333afbb553854000a84bb5e0bcfc387c536
44901 F20101204_AADFXW toro_d_Page_113.jpg
f4b9d6ed250f572931c7061c08c85b11
4863d5add3a3539d2ba9e4bcaafca6b8cf1442e7
39150 F20101204_AADGEF toro_d_Page_085.pro
f4fc81acd75752eac402f0f05240ddb4
6d4d5657eea92c315aa1ba9d387a8f01576d93ba
72753 F20101204_AADGDQ toro_d_Page_059.jpg
f420edf48d1544439eded339c1a72c98
2fd4e229d8249b53fd2d5e23b300fc3bad531de1
23677 F20101204_AADFYL toro_d_Page_052.QC.jpg
430c45b63b4eee462b4bdf0188d9661b
40d9a45903552d18eb9e690144b6c8ff765bceaf
50073 F20101204_AADFXX toro_d_Page_027.pro
aa2286a1bd6b2a8bcc7b4c2c67defc08
40a69e0647f75141e478f9fda2fb3ee273f0e39a
113659 F20101204_AADGEG toro_d_Page_038.jp2
df2a3a08250d6c189455ed9d92fc4db8
7b01656bfaeeb1018f134a7a2558f1dedccad4a1
F20101204_AADGDR toro_d_Page_028.tif
bedeaa1c7a15515a40a35eb6867f57ae
48b9d7513cf40e001f4f2c67d17a41076df6505b
50473 F20101204_AADFYM toro_d_Page_063.pro
f4e5db5623e3d51f0b06174f26454551
5b42f1d2beb086367a0e8252ceca1f51e4b460f4
23855 F20101204_AADFXY toro_d_Page_055.QC.jpg
918ac0c0a396041629e501814838b6e5
807099a549361fa2dd67cce59d1ff20a7c9cd77d
110282 F20101204_AADGEH toro_d_Page_067.jp2
855bdb1be730f9d55b811bad788ad577
d0f2c42de0ac862174cab6a8e6e450a145d7a7c5
20050 F20101204_AADFZA toro_d_Page_081.QC.jpg
ec4bddd9664918f123e63c6be2ada7e1
685efc48746f8b7f5d7c8a4ed93e0c8d22b6e681
1097 F20101204_AADGDS toro_d_Page_107.txt
ab943fad83c2d413d2c0feb280bfadf7
06d47d51adaca8a23eda51ccedff67531b656eee
F20101204_AADFYN toro_d_Page_122.tif
69f4e088f87c66d9bd3cd8fa57514b58
05109a6477b1e16530efd4c508c50afa81918563
23049 F20101204_AADFXZ toro_d_Page_089.QC.jpg
4f67c67b01da52a49f63b81eb43aa6ec
5dfe2e3ba9cab0d4fd286af369af734902a98495
71598 F20101204_AADGEI toro_d_Page_064.jpg
5fe5fa2c6d0d6c77e223c903b52737c6
be54ad68c118c401eb0df86add5a9f5bc933ee7b
21343 F20101204_AADFZB toro_d_Page_033.QC.jpg
5aed434e69b471de346e76394977e4c4
cea4d4ff84f32b2572cdab91af9a6940cc903e3b
24410 F20101204_AADGDT toro_d_Page_098.QC.jpg
3a91d29ae66b0dbc8ae816cfd0164fca
fd6d141180874c4ff674bc9504ab122ca09eb16f
1924 F20101204_AADFYO toro_d_Page_043.txt
7b5bff46b0432e409b1d83d77a3f7662
e893917316e8532f4ee8283d24043ff133f54ac9
8887 F20101204_AADGEJ toro_d_Page_001.pro
3db69f3ecc97e8c29b8eaf0e2e98f1d5
420f4e734a7c70b05f21862cb42333aa13d8c100
368531 F20101204_AADFZC toro_d.pdf
fe5cefd6a4e20f23c3c77d07ebd17dc1
aaae96ab41d4cf87bca5df423941d7f376a41c07
19926 F20101204_AADGDU toro_d_Page_084.QC.jpg
d3413f40dfb0f6f6fcb96d4df0718549
20cfefc024c99952c73ef0839e29e43e7490e26f
109876 F20101204_AADFYP toro_d_Page_066.jp2
4506b0929472cf73b9562729b7e6ca3b
50078d20cf613b143ffc5b3beea4075e8e8a9745
67832 F20101204_AADFZD toro_d_Page_015.jpg
a0c28b941b04bdba4be182c69e403c29
f5d01e4ce810e39a0e917d0a6498fa5175079e73
71489 F20101204_AADGDV toro_d_Page_040.jpg
196def4fef52d2073891bbcabe6b8b12
9a5222fb9d051625a4bbb528d815e1b0d19e58e3
F20101204_AADFYQ toro_d_Page_029.tif
8908f372db7ee2e7cbc46f66e9352ba1
49b27015b8d5b834340b4c4799e96c2e87187ab3
21214 F20101204_AADGEK toro_d_Page_072.QC.jpg
9efcc4b5fe117eb10fa551faae9b1a6c
ada5e7db6d0d3c5b77b01f0f4f7850b5f927f249
1936 F20101204_AADFZE toro_d_Page_047.txt
724ece4c4cf5a17f691539b64d417339
d5a5f23d788faef1f9ece4b0eaeac20e333d84aa
F20101204_AADGDW toro_d_Page_104.tif
391420218a524e5cc2ff7b9a8cd6ab67
7d52ae43505b815729373aa4b1a054fcdf5aaf17
6516 F20101204_AADFYR toro_d_Page_066thm.jpg
da23f2e2c6731956c564b45509851ace
75fc752b57e608cdc06ecacc6700861df5b0731a
2020 F20101204_AADGFA toro_d_Page_090.txt
03db24786f4d9522f3cea82589bb41c4
c79a2808fd6440b4bc5f18be0f404b07b697a4ad
F20101204_AADGEL toro_d_Page_119.tif
337626860ca8855af5988b4d399648e8
7501a9da4c08ddef6d5c84ffc3c9bd4af59da8f7
60616 F20101204_AADFZF toro_d_Page_111.jp2
cffe43a59e3e5aab93c8479b758d2cba
875455e496778a6f859ae2ec02af47de0b6e37e8
109760 F20101204_AADGDX toro_d_Page_054.jp2
d02ebadaaad57482127e53e989bdd71c
095240c38a798f2a2a54423242a5867ffbaac324
1943 F20101204_AADFYS toro_d_Page_095.txt
a93541929fc569147ba28fe710616a37
de4bef909604834c9427d1ebbfc82a4a98bbb58a
F20101204_AADGFB toro_d_Page_001.tif
0a195b85dfec5903f1c68ce547b2feb9
7392001e2eb1b985a6c8ed9a4e81f8106394b07b
6446 F20101204_AADGEM toro_d_Page_069thm.jpg
95053ca3076c75e087d5380395b35b2b
9ae65c1684b01ea313c85d0750acaca5f779b83a
82788 F20101204_AADFZG toro_d_Page_120.jpg
c262cb4781b1d2655ee4aa3214a729e5
9fd26fd3e16b959eb2aaf0286484f40fba60aa7e
2170 F20101204_AADGDY toro_d_Page_120.txt
dd22cc067adba32078defb987d8a1947
7bd2a1d2e5497bd1e137d309ab50f1920ef2bcc6
69206 F20101204_AADFYT toro_d_Page_043.jpg
d85ac24da37a9cdacd765cad1c8f4ceb
518d345e05a2a68d2adcb390ec0069d2a4d15792
4855 F20101204_AADGFC toro_d_Page_007thm.jpg
aa08ebdb1f28035f7b7ad7bcc0623e6a
622b01b32973c4984c0724afc32762bcb3521b5e
F20101204_AADGEN toro_d_Page_123.tif
02e388775417cde386d3b017ece87958
88abd5414ae494ad97a3b7bd8add7810079ddda5
93704 F20101204_AADFZH toro_d_Page_086.jp2
ac58b17ce1620fde94d256b3ede60fa3
7029c1bb4d72c14e7c491643c98443dbf63b4e90
16154 F20101204_AADGDZ toro_d_Page_005.QC.jpg
3ec5c2f4e1f780827a87d6405ca730e8
cf06a1fa88fe9110470bdecf3c8799ad7771625a
6644 F20101204_AADFYU toro_d_Page_025thm.jpg
e4b38b49a83d1cedb91766371c146281
d966915778f5c754e0235dbcc3dbe4f4b53e1cca
23311 F20101204_AADGFD toro_d_Page_023.QC.jpg
0d09da6b34573ca91b409f63c4700616
90f974aa5eb881a9b387170efb39d7eb0ac45cc4
42397 F20101204_AADGEO toro_d_Page_118.jpg
73bd842924622ccbe0c91a7b139850e9
1fbe3c38f2d19ac0910f6c0d4af4fefd87856e1b
5598 F20101204_AADFZI toro_d_Page_010.QC.jpg
9555be6848d26500b7bc6e577279a65e
73f1f3ee989ba54247d3708b990280d26eac08d2
5930 F20101204_AADFYV toro_d_Page_072thm.jpg
0f9298da9c7e50e0d3dd272cb11af5ed
ccfa9091a4c32b4a1d0e18eddd6bcd25337e252f
107701 F20101204_AADGFE toro_d_Page_022.jp2
b1847d257a5f12e8591351066b9fd80b
2c82a264d98eb9b833462a803a4ee883a42cea15
F20101204_AADGEP toro_d_Page_088.tif
5f5bc77e18e6f2959f22f56f813328a7
47fe19ee6053277d03352a1729427bd840a2748f
59650 F20101204_AADFZJ toro_d_Page_125.pro
024713d77c7087c7aab79f8c83448d31
ed18b86f6a38a7a717da13616b50b1833e52b5a4
53130 F20101204_AADFYW toro_d_Page_120.pro
2d0d124866d6e9f78666b6601213485e
8ccde822a8779f2e10408208f6bfaa95111732b7
20781 F20101204_AADGFF toro_d_Page_074.QC.jpg
999155b886034ffbbc57d08e909c1f29
3448988df9319e55adfb43f5cf57ed4685fd9ea7
1051978 F20101204_AADGEQ toro_d_Page_005.jp2
da60ecd0a12e923716e4dcdb8cffa76e
6b323162d3d70e60776304920971b5ca3f7e53c3
22835 F20101204_AADFZK toro_d_Page_047.QC.jpg
2a36e3418bf1ccbd8868634a1274acb0
10de09b931118c9c761cd4ce0826ee2867f6cb18
98622 F20101204_AADFYX toro_d_Page_056.jp2
069aa75582076cd2c06a40e119849497
93e91d1bc023b7c5bb84399ecde454f394fd0003
69690 F20101204_AADGFG toro_d_Page_068.jpg
df9f822d4b81b68972057a16b6effb7b
d5858c800fed77c5c90480e87bd397a3e2b1dca8
70291 F20101204_AADGER toro_d_Page_032.jpg
4439e79a20453e68663b33b22f3d1ad5
8f156115b5fe31448f8848227dbd604c93155ec7
F20101204_AADFZL toro_d_Page_084.tif
b5df3f4d768b0d950da4b42837443bdf
d181649239e80f432a87ec0395a30d146a34d158
6466 F20101204_AADFYY toro_d_Page_026thm.jpg
ec6f4c87befdedfd71ddd9b835d9e066
232e3282355de7142e59ccefdfae39c613e318e3
1785 F20101204_AADGFH toro_d_Page_075.txt
29db946aef592ba2b25bfe1e02a38b3a
37fa98c5fdc8f06e32fef0cae8f79c21834e1aed
72043 F20101204_AADGES toro_d_Page_027.jpg
a6ed65b88924e224c4e8c08f428e7ece
e677a8ad7a8a5249cbf63b596d69b543d442c7f8
24551 F20101204_AADFZM toro_d_Page_030.QC.jpg
9a3046ed20122138651b07a9f4b75f02
b1204f1aacbe98bbe1a3a8629c66d78f649517b7
46307 F20101204_AADGFI toro_d_Page_033.pro
c8b7eb16b982d9378f0725f890339c71
a9668d5ebb50f20bcb4c8cab5f854ded4979b503
5379 F20101204_AADGET toro_d_Page_004thm.jpg
9f494cd34bf9c466dcf1abfb1a368fc7
3c6a9dc001a657f3482a9c9091c6ccfc258f0e10
37662 F20101204_AADFZN toro_d_Page_107.jpg
a35121805ef767eba916ed6a7779c608
9dc363401485986c1972af1e7b8c628bcff79398
70513 F20101204_AADFYZ toro_d_Page_053.jpg
817dc14dba39462c047ff07cd7490aa4
ee2a10b97e9eda6d1045cda18a9d6b9b2f0a4416
6688 F20101204_AADGFJ toro_d_Page_093thm.jpg
13349f9c479cd2f646c400f9ec54c689
d2e6b36a6a807f982f695e4b4368e3284e3787f7
73261 F20101204_AADGEU toro_d_Page_034.jpg
fe2e736488ff95dd98f617b0274d88f9
f6c9bec004b6a366b8f6ff3f386dcb8a421fe55a
F20101204_AADFZO toro_d_Page_114.tif
1def8093c4e7af5b09366626ceaa3d70
30306355fa6d0b99330f14252c4f4889b1994d3e
24258 F20101204_AADGFK toro_d_Page_044.QC.jpg
581a5bc953cbe081a2e14859021458b5
32f14af29c4ac521826eb7a4c7d9230211ee76de
51207 F20101204_AADGEV toro_d_Page_049.pro
6b84ddb0bda576eeee66098bda2db83d
57dda7203f50c33b1ceb2451b7f7bb595103dcb1
F20101204_AADFZP toro_d_Page_008.tif
465a6c2267e45e552d4c9fc093acfac0
0312a1c5e0547849bed69ecf7ba73a4284be6e96
20868 F20101204_AADGEW toro_d_Page_101.QC.jpg
2ffc4b272a6a91d00e92359581f602e6
866f6d9b99ee920c52d9b42aa75ee68126f2a9b7
F20101204_AADFZQ toro_d_Page_092.tif
b199dd43a1711b34811f39938208f664
a005df4276a66bae154ced562e2a28849d1e3f18
51859 F20101204_AADGFL toro_d_Page_102.jp2
b775d8f6ee9defd380217b4fa1f365fb
a7a241512b8cf7e368293215780669ee282b487f
115257 F20101204_AADGEX toro_d_Page_093.jp2
9633807cb5e18d1e86755c92807866f5
2350553905c820ff3a58161ae45f2c8e16ca2e85
F20101204_AADFZR toro_d_Page_075.tif
1b9c13b435616c07d41472c24e36e4b4
2be2a0a133a87bb6f55861b8fff8ec5ee1b8a1de
39781 F20101204_AADGGA toro_d_Page_104.jpg
ec36374c9b4a46b9bb4e255e3836fbe5
97a2cce8211aea44dcdf0a6662be93dc82d445e3
1935 F20101204_AADGFM toro_d_Page_015.txt
e2811cd699f7c80f89b243765b1c6462
64b0c781be175e9771d8f0bc54e2d247a7378927
47054 F20101204_AADGEY toro_d_Page_021.pro
abebf67507cbda45ba41c24f8765d928
e387adc44c5d23a5fb4ab0ad006d681d02e6ca63
1169 F20101204_AADFZS toro_d_Page_116.txt
4e43d532761fe0e5a96f6ca3c5ba5fb5
d79789c6dd703de38547f68685db1e29768d965a
1282 F20101204_AADGGB toro_d_Page_111.txt
87a1b8892a8aeaee179dc47a0e6f30e5
760b5168a3c3b56aab7459c4e58fee506c69c0f9
F20101204_AADGFN toro_d_Page_007.jp2
93d6bd58db301750116530c3f8c68e09
bf6e8733f7e7da71f844c8b1730da0ac261f2108
99246 F20101204_AADGEZ toro_d_Page_101.jp2
3c70efb7f64e8390981ce93638783a86
e63f240b750d29cc0381dfe7ee59cea340de3c19
F20101204_AADFZT toro_d_Page_057.tif
f30ca1ab218c3f270412593889bd3559
cc9fd91486b13cb759b7db71c60788c2e0ec9b7a
73019 F20101204_AADGGC toro_d_Page_024.jpg
ec4206f270271dbd5271c148bf0ed85f
10efe7f6cc54e029b6f840c2c557367b332fcd40
6675 F20101204_AADGFO toro_d_Page_038thm.jpg
0394345f5cf4eebf4c41b17a14754867
7a0106333869d0bf0f99f2081dc44ef6fc17b715
93643 F20101204_AADFZU toro_d_Page_011.jp2
85224c0dd2c796796781dae88c7c562e
3c11f5e79d2af3d7f42073c71936e67f2f85a669
46596 F20101204_AADGGD toro_d_Page_013.pro
0b1478103a72b5b0bf094a7b0e685725
c4d6bbc004b78f26a4fe5a4662ae3b213f34f6b7
4243 F20101204_AADGFP toro_d_Page_071thm.jpg
cbf2182e1e3f623b1b46886243d9e721
b7e4a44350b0fd6bcec192c129b559ade399b270
3761 F20101204_AADFZV toro_d_Page_118thm.jpg
2921080264ba597444217d917ae94c6a
1beda4fa6db062d19371e14fb3a8fcf11fd21838
26810 F20101204_AADGGE toro_d_Page_104.pro
334ec79d826feb337e8d260c843dd3e5
877ed045adc0d20e066417f3fa094c320d6ed8c0
74649 F20101204_AADGFQ toro_d_Page_098.jpg
80eb4b6c8b97de16c663c501db91d55e
ba172acf1c2ee94e24b510895bca5639cfc38025
67705 F20101204_AADFZW toro_d_Page_073.jpg
7853b5fed39e018e60ae64989e028b31
2a35a9dde36be0e02c87de9eaf629bad54c837f7
109214 F20101204_AADGGF toro_d_Page_097.jp2
ed9eeade0e50693f24f76caf163fc943
29c835a84882ae097adbee940607970bdfe0f321
F20101204_AADGFR toro_d_Page_005.tif
9c2f0ce5745dc56a7c24d6ab5ee99419
8ab21a4b70939d494adadbe5451735ca81f59c04
48550 F20101204_AADFZX toro_d_Page_047.pro
115ca04dc3f52dc5965e6e4bd807bb75
a7ae431b4bb06d039a060a19fc2454b791fcbb6f
51307 F20101204_AADGGG toro_d_Page_088.pro
012944ade7fd40a9ad0b776faabd69e9
3ee46afcaa2ad710b677bec7eb6abf38829d9ffa
66955 F20101204_AADGFS toro_d_Page_072.jpg
1027d2f8d8663daa5016ce2022f4343c
67672388847c998f6d98e65244fb5f72f2727605
54584 F20101204_AADFZY toro_d_Page_116.jp2
6c0c22e18fe679292db83ab80f967685
a09ace8432dbfc6cbc45259f20863a1d45251255
F20101204_AADGGH toro_d_Page_129.tif
f03af8428aeaefefb4548113f95025b6
0202bd4d2126f978c5693d2cf1fb78160c573297
110733 F20101204_AADGFT toro_d_Page_039.jp2
ddbdfdb697cc9b6678c307ef5390eb41
8f8e1c042bb140d1f3e726dec6ee0f374354d614
1912 F20101204_AADFZZ toro_d_Page_110thm.jpg
766ee78ae1fee40ca57416da39803246
05f05994b7eeeccfc52a4d47e4680868df947c30
F20101204_AADGGI toro_d_Page_101.tif
d9faf595401c783cbac8a0f6393834ff
824eba9a20aee755a96ae5f8744e9f34e14f7025
12418 F20101204_AADGFU toro_d_Page_109.QC.jpg
3ba52ffa0e8f4aa5e0d65ae920bcbbba
b120086b8f3d0af1af835b999a7a613b8886fd5b
62588 F20101204_AADGGJ toro_d_Page_081.jpg
77e95a6e2fba6e0b1d135c5a9c2d42f6
d9fb9d59ebf7a4cb1b7f68b091a963a4877a4e01
67426 F20101204_AADGFV toro_d_Page_060.jpg
76d42acefe55255333b3281e29bee79a
f4ee2e02c499f9122edeb5810a637fa251de513a
1896 F20101204_AADGGK toro_d_Page_089.txt
cef51158d010cda333c5f1875ba7eb36
a7182360809ed9c9dc7f9bb10a590acb79fa892e
72545 F20101204_AADGGL toro_d_Page_035.jpg
204d1d9cc04f67cade94bee88cde36e5
102f2c770f0bd461b7627d50e70b32c5464db0bf
6541 F20101204_AADGFW toro_d_Page_023thm.jpg
a983f197ef233c49a6f406dee38f70e0
9b6a156c3c78f7e8da36e55d41c5f387fc6b7990
61968 F20101204_AADGHA toro_d_Page_113.jp2
06b716e3bef12ba5ade7c1a908d802c8
77ff66b86e82d318e0fe1fa3f0997e6d5a6ddbf6
51631 F20101204_AADGFX toro_d_Page_046.pro
50d1badf9e6d778489bc2d6dec81b015
c6f455975cf5128489290ff4e5deb36edccb6b3a
F20101204_AADGHB toro_d_Page_011.tif
2bf5c5fc7b2a78b8a2e94d5913c396f4
7d006d500e20498ec376274c9e1d822aee34fffa
107740 F20101204_AADGGM toro_d_Page_014.jp2
b9f989fc881c90c713bedbe6bcb260c5
518c2205f554ea6e309415b88fe9e214a4d3fb9a
F20101204_AADGFY toro_d_Page_014.tif
84c5a49ff86884bfceee2a2d65d9603d
4a3c67a2d5ce0eb35d03272d2797e906a82c9570
F20101204_AADGHC toro_d_Page_096.tif
a304d83015f913a5e53c54676ffbbd91
413e0844bd02ac6e966b23002e30152f759beeb6
7085 F20101204_AADGGN toro_d_Page_127thm.jpg
87802b1a6e9ae753a4a6271bdbbf1461
338cbc085bd782a25c4aa555cdf88024036b171a
99554 F20101204_AADGFZ toro_d_Page_072.jp2
90f1f32d57cad507a2a81443cf12d983
acdf7ae444b9b985ea4b67d4aabfdf1118ee5ce7
2007 F20101204_AADGHD toro_d_Page_055.txt
7fe6879b0c39741a23fe45f170e9863a
bdb91fd70703e987bda74a83cfaf1ce582a819fe
56536 F20101204_AADGGO toro_d_Page_020.jpg
3a82b49c6b16c06b8b2c8297a19f793f
136783394f7a1f178b93fa3a7beb68b8eb4a0fe7
23553 F20101204_AADGHE toro_d_Page_031.QC.jpg
9a705f60257054bd144cadf3ca6cfc27
8b16245b0507a1cbf831bcc68b667fed31b31f26
23760 F20101204_AADGGP toro_d_Page_059.QC.jpg
7b80d61d7e5430f01ac82da2b44f70dc
5ac8d161f1a6d1698ccbfc5310626a49c27c7e2c
1876 F20101204_AADGHF toro_d_Page_048.txt
d4744ec97454e9d2e0744249e2ab0e47
4a418e5a65e037df77c5493f8e147c0fcb3d579b
37738 F20101204_AADGGQ toro_d_Page_103.jpg
cfdc6fcdd2e604c92f4522bb1bd604b0
fc07b0fe3a0e9101ba177fca77fdd24b92ff7901
46587 F20101204_AADGHG toro_d_Page_060.pro
9e9a442cd0343801b473c94ff25b6373
ab555a5e2192e5fbf842f7630314fd4c6b9511c1
69951 F20101204_AADGGR toro_d_Page_089.jpg
bb79955be5e5966f3bd6b9361c391769
36702391d401c3dfa93bc7be6b14a5bf233eb831
6694 F20101204_AADGHH toro_d_Page_034thm.jpg
fe511555e797987af560cf8649415645
6511b07e02aa0c3bc60fb628a091c100886d9350
1841 F20101204_AADGGS toro_d_Page_062.txt
9c8f0251bedf1af33347e0f122fb766e
e58b6d922de1c8d88d3a3593989b7ad499b6f344
22192 F20101204_AADGHI toro_d_Page_061.QC.jpg
ca03a1a10277a285a900a27174af4418
2f72b3f88a54b1b48febf085f3ba113e25679837
4397 F20101204_AADGGT toro_d_Page_005thm.jpg
73a47e0440013c784cd8215ee9af2e4a
4b9939fe5c4a76f4e1dd289a0b473a134c14ac19
50874 F20101204_AADGHJ toro_d_Page_055.pro
325e90958b9c6815cbe744e686c91785
8fb9749dd582fc854a637bfb91fb7842db6c11dc
19697 F20101204_AADGGU toro_d_Page_077.QC.jpg
61d620534f3ce202957f063c3db047c6
22d18a9dbf6c581e13e8236e584673f2b278166d
112303 F20101204_AADGHK toro_d_Page_030.jp2
c76195db42a8f13750ea28b95bb9749a
9ce88b3fffb9c20892892ff7aa58e90b6f0ef412
F20101204_AADGGV toro_d_Page_023.tif
ab2dc9d46b7dd345aa77fdfd1264009e
8c274a507d00b90888de165050383a3f640d2071
109835 F20101204_AADGHL toro_d_Page_092.jp2
1e5cf32a0b26662e4e746b16158d972f
3a517025fe8f16bd3203d50f142f06fa554f3c3f
4418 F20101204_AADGGW toro_d_Page_008.QC.jpg
b6f199d083651664c3469f57ed2380a3
e1d8e694e8af7c6fba9cda0bd9403f5d0fd4d282
F20101204_AADGHM toro_d_Page_037.tif
2c5df7925316ca344606c476fec610b7
bb0d5a1f6e8e5b9aef35fd15432c1519cfbb02ab
50351 F20101204_AADGGX toro_d_Page_064.pro
c0d6f472ac49082aae375280f67e0c72
6ae1712aa70545599ba956995d048a954df11c4f
108160 F20101204_AADGIA toro_d_Page_065.jp2
65eac8b9d8e31654840721cecf88bced
a9d8a961bfaaab01c11ab7811aab8f902c054e3c
F20101204_AADGGY toro_d_Page_052.txt
a0c81b67b69d9b6fed75b7a9ea50f59d
77d2159b8fbcd49e9b1f32a27189138fcda46485
63749 F20101204_AADGIB toro_d_Page_075.jpg
bbca4881a92130f9fb96be7423c9dfc3
19c71a9e6e7f96e85ab9b1adb1b37689ac918159
F20101204_AADGHN toro_d_Page_040.tif
99f1918a4a534fa0f7b9c17b16ac97d0
196f354ccca314eec44accf3a3e3d615cdf270cd
1966 F20101204_AADGGZ toro_d_Page_032.txt
9fa5b7f895c210e8b12f76c45467a1a1
7a55c59b0fce50660a4f12875e40600a46efccbd
5905 F20101204_AADGIC toro_d_Page_009thm.jpg
d674504cada50307e1b243b054923649
99d2655bd03c719c5eac93abe6e9cac4985c3e07
5787 F20101204_AADGHO toro_d_Page_003.jp2
4657e1755e92f3a638e7a552b3f49afb
20e80aabc74d7cc79a4d0f09253f6321be008a8c
1991 F20101204_AADGID toro_d_Page_091.txt
a35f5bca95b7d652e3313d1e2cb6b421
9e7171be8a0f669a592883bf3f3fe0ecff2e9820
1720 F20101204_AADGHP toro_d_Page_057.txt
9cdbb976581048b6f46d29139268d52b
10b3b160a891f9e4aaa65fdcc46dd744a874f6a6
68764 F20101204_AADGIE toro_d_Page_009.jpg
c013f8511b0019bfef8e134e59dddc23
99c6e8f69c808c6c9fca664f3365ac86efb3e9a8
19197 F20101204_AADGHQ toro_d_Page_078.QC.jpg
6dd31479f7c348fe4cf894baae722bea
3c944f5656285020554d3ebfc1b4112161189961
6459 F20101204_AADGIF toro_d_Page_029thm.jpg
ef755a0e1c8eb2018ae2eb6a38580675
38b2936c6363a5794be3acb11b04400def7bce53
112807 F20101204_AADGHR toro_d_Page_046.jp2
f88a0f289ddb38bf849bf573ef860caa
a27208e8789cde16f8b428ff4bfd30a3bf04fa84
87746 F20101204_AADGIG toro_d_Page_018.jpg
597c8d23221f6f4b06e7027bdb19d2ee
e7a01b52afe7dc410a90e68d9fd26a7432d3853b
3902 F20101204_AADGHS toro_d_Page_116thm.jpg
b044528481fb5073e286d8b8bcbdfff3
a9c00f9d54fd19f30dfcc26817e514daa262b3ef
111472 F20101204_AADGIH toro_d_Page_055.jp2
9d4cb5e68a819cf7ef0261bee14688ac
695f4f3b9a67ffedf0c95150bbd9ab92e817297a
59835 F20101204_AADGHT toro_d_Page_057.jpg
2e43eeea7f4b3668325a248da989f21f
19226ef797eec4818602290147f14154bb8ea0d0
18625 F20101204_AADGII toro_d_Page_020.QC.jpg
c96cf9723b4753820d711c23796528f9
7ab1670706a08b44bb7e95d8d8151576567c8152
91669 F20101204_AADGHU toro_d_Page_070.jp2
cba8711111cf31cc7b106eb74200cf2c
7fec72f47be320ba1b74d196a9ecf8a50238cefa
22834 F20101204_AADGIJ toro_d_Page_053.QC.jpg
adf9439a48e34ff578018f3db63373c2
bd1cd3d71dffcdd0341774eaac683bbb8ecdb2da
F20101204_AADGHV toro_d_Page_049.tif
0a6f603e11bc8ad57257ba9a0d4c03b9
455b532fd738cc1ccb38b3838e79a765a47ddff7
108848 F20101204_AADGIK toro_d_Page_079.jp2
71687a736906f2db079184c1c0ecdebf
8e3c121b6bcea88593ddaa5141cd88d7b5a18cbb
5759 F20101204_AADGHW toro_d_Page_011thm.jpg
6bf7e3666a4c5c8f4e481c8ce8df34f1
a4f9263d02c76b233e1122627288d603622b459a
88387 F20101204_AADGIL toro_d_Page_084.jp2
608bb1eebeb7f7adf15629f3cfb522cd
33005bb207c987a1f73360ce35b75e86bfd98d70
F20101204_AADGHX toro_d_Page_076.tif
fd176ceb1f019ced26f26027bf32ed19
570820bcbf26ad0f77e7536c0a9a3bfa8b378185
4036 F20101204_AADGJA toro_d_Page_102thm.jpg
327e99cfa76c9325244577656608ceee
6fc6c3e61402aea1716fe174bcb2f3e7b809faed
F20101204_AADGIM toro_d_Page_072.tif
cb49b003b47cb84a1e7ea6771d31aaf4
4ff2bd160f3f47666069434616512bd0530c16ba
51763 F20101204_AADGHY toro_d_Page_038.pro
c27566b6e7a10d338b2bc6ce416e5c19
162c0391d1f7ce5ce448aec40dfc1b0525c6d2f5
60291 F20101204_AADGJB toro_d_Page_126.pro
11d2bc26abd16ca24f951e0e4ff8bdf5
e2a88a22f6425d154e597e04c7873762478f365d
73563 F20101204_AADGIN toro_d_Page_049.jpg
d619b56d518e6f1623dc8e413d4e9d28
416a404da5a1198c9a1edb22b905ac6214045e01
2045 F20101204_AADGHZ toro_d_Page_007.txt
5b12d2c57bee55872741e75616024339
21f57cb9dab877893e98b71aebc90cc34442c47a
130885 F20101204_AADGJC toro_d_Page_018.jp2
0c471927e8a2ea31def034d66315f8a0
32716485245ab666bc5f4d6a80ecc04a838052b2
6013 F20101204_AADGJD toro_d_Page_056thm.jpg
aee050a6c9dd8dfb22f3f43002f5da26
9d6effa16eb8d64b42bbf0da9d0de7f744b5f33c
F20101204_AADGIO toro_d_Page_117.tif
8982be0928098e4d2469f14264d85faf
87c0d39be04672148aab46a9cfdb9e53e90effff
2462 F20101204_AADGJE toro_d_Page_126.txt
427478c46ffe81a0a827a2d1335aafb8
787c73cc55a20630579c25883fe01119e6bd0764
103270 F20101204_AADGIP toro_d_Page_121.jpg
e5b6c1ebfdedcc2acbb45ebb5b75e451
26d09cba7575515815fbd7f6850cd5cfa97cbf7e
6405 F20101204_AADGJF toro_d_Page_043thm.jpg
6aac6d0b92b33cf2b1cf6815d558e210
75cc740e563f836ee9e91a0b802e87f509b9fbbf
F20101204_AADGIQ toro_d_Page_073.tif
6ccbec22e3b42c4f52ec9ef457b31d65
df1f3ca674afc409e35aad75a5adc166eadfd4ab
F20101204_AADGJG toro_d_Page_010.tif
a059fa2079238e737984f84ad712a531
daee466cf224dead636640e25d9aed0d7a16835b
109176 F20101204_AADGIR toro_d_Page_064.jp2
b840e6220a50aec6a0b9ed2d3baeaa19
4efdacd0643cb5dd163eca0809a9e7a1e90598ec
6096 F20101204_AADGJH toro_d_Page_002.jp2
cb9667b2a970d61797df342243be51e5
8c5d32101da7c6c808bb7b5abcef60a764bb1ba8
F20101204_AADGIS toro_d_Page_124.jp2
22c533ad7d4c634d73059b0f7a22a741
4fbb47ac6ba9ea715b7b29c0c94f8a013dfb2371
1959 F20101204_AADGJI toro_d_Page_054.txt
8084a245826b0a8fe2e76e40eaa052c6
70d422d7061822a602a4327242976f79584aedff
F20101204_AADGIT toro_d_Page_109.tif
75ecabe9b767891555eee69c07536169
fb82b129983653b7e216520fba88c9f035d501ac
49480 F20101204_AADGJJ toro_d_Page_099.pro
1a8ea82c81c2a8e352dd4e80a9a21e23
5fc8fcc937b209ce24f71b36a83b3c033343a9bf
6140 F20101204_AADGIU toro_d_Page_120thm.jpg
0c19d6abbf33c08ba2373b54cc5afa34
c0f3bb797c4fed195017b3cac72ca34a7c7a7656
F20101204_AADGJK toro_d_Page_098.tif
771c7c3e6a7232cc4fcc667e5e958d6a
0c50aab598d5d180eff31b7c897bd9865fc51f8c
F20101204_AADGIV toro_d_Page_042.txt
f397638301bb5aa90cb58af26643445a
14969532fc3fb1c31a81519b0951a37ea0f2ba86
11244 F20101204_AADGJL toro_d_Page_115.QC.jpg
5c0b0fbc98df07e06a69c9c52c06a701
80f02106ef0b6454f763cba20fe8bd17bee1bb0f
52503 F20101204_AADGIW toro_d_Page_109.jp2
2eb0d24217cc0e351c236d0c85f2aea4
6f68c7978a5ecc756accaa5a9f1391f780ac1731
60521 F20101204_AADGKA toro_d_Page_124.pro
4ed2a6864937af9aad1201ac5a75b468
0cc5a8cb8137f522af5c9982097cf6863e56d741
3817 F20101204_AADGJM toro_d_Page_105thm.jpg
1973d89c11e08f0f9d895631a8385878
a29c4071039c43e4c246ae51c8c694a5f7fceffc
39162 F20101204_AADGIX toro_d_Page_084.pro
45a2df087a796435d5d88ec0207336f0
854cd7f22dd95e9215794c8df81d08138347a9d7
6733 F20101204_AADGKB toro_d_Page_037thm.jpg
8c213137411842c11e694f09dbbf0bc5
3836babb31ac51b252e184a7d63512c471acaae8
F20101204_AADGJN toro_d_Page_100.tif
7cbddf804085f2c9a8dc186a284947e4
06212ebcd4ed2649ed4d9c804b4bd93c935ebc10
2218 F20101204_AADGIY toro_d_Page_128thm.jpg
4af1b4cfe8a7f327662480479480306e
507a8a595c96c27e0d6940e29539bfde7dcb67dd
88523 F20101204_AADGKC toro_d_Page_085.jp2
fa60cb6b1a2aa81c7c6f47c1c75ee0bd
6c1b659b5af720fdfc2263d60b5b1ed9508ebf71
37209 F20101204_AADGJO toro_d_Page_004.pro
32e40e50d5eef0c3a36a23d365b93a9e
354fe550ec5ebdc7e08d9fa002a261cd5351f876
F20101204_AADGIZ toro_d_Page_066.txt
3e37c612b4bcd9707202d85d0bd6a9de
dee733ae2b4dafe120db15f93685f45ae9a19dfd
24312 F20101204_AADGKD toro_d_Page_093.QC.jpg
0b69a78c61f6391f9d5597a2f3080e73
70db1fc64442c21d83b4d359bfb288cdb064365e
49861 F20101204_AADGKE toro_d_Page_042.pro
900f11a8dd7d0e10661d5ea00f7aab64
c960c13b1fda6af08052995fd9d059cce0ef4e3a
5643 F20101204_AADGJP toro_d_Page_077thm.jpg
21b89fe3de268cf274371a826e5941af
b1318d53b412eca0cfc17e930620a2164d9bae6f
37846 F20101204_AADGKF toro_d_Page_020.pro
3e7073d42577e5681b44dfdaa13422a8
debb3c18f987759c00df9f1c9bafe25c8967365f
23406 F20101204_AADGJQ toro_d_Page_097.QC.jpg
488ec449f953005b490e5d98e90c71ac
dff56da4a88adca41eb8ac0cc8079c1070e4ef7f
45792 F20101204_AADGKG toro_d_Page_007.pro
4c11ed601b6155cd80382d004f15bea5
c3839dea8fd9aeb2de4f33ca3ebcac1bf53d9f6a
2037 F20101204_AADGJR toro_d_Page_038.txt
acbc7615eb77505c99996e26a87dc2a1
124990152a4668ab7a347f1c758bf71764dcd145
24078 F20101204_AADGKH toro_d_Page_025.QC.jpg
aae0118ec9b163f5796281d6e012936d
b2ace6f7352df073c423f003626fbfbcae0b59bc
F20101204_AADGJS toro_d_Page_077.tif
832833ee09a6e9ebff828dbd7b33370a
64b124b8a89052d1f7353483d6c4b0a591e43214
6479 F20101204_AADGKI toro_d_Page_059thm.jpg
a1dee385b2d53dbcf512b36610f6ad83
94925ca889df5b39208c4f35be88004f13cb959c
1984 F20101204_AADGJT toro_d_Page_064.txt
68d22ed16423b58da97b331ec46a8eae
36296035067f5a6724c89d19156f58cfdda0ebc2
F20101204_AADGKJ toro_d_Page_039.tif
e5cb5362a26071ab970c7ed810885609
07141e8eb168bd78fb55efc5ae019b679062b3e5
23273 F20101204_AADGJU toro_d_Page_066.QC.jpg
a3ff7dbf502262ed55afaedc71f66735
dd1fb65369586a9af77ff33f3f442ba07a745db1
6561 F20101204_AADGKK toro_d_Page_100thm.jpg
58faf41b6b10fd7bec5c86cec5dddfa5
26671e1a3662da2f991616f27186a874bbfc2591
20584 F20101204_AADGJV toro_d_Page_056.QC.jpg
3b6fae3e67a862f043689fb24330d384
97e6aab9bd456c48579d42ba2bebf6c5c7ff7983
19867 F20101204_AADGKL toro_d_Page_075.QC.jpg
9ec2a4548d41417c8ff3f546cc50dea5
f4829bd78688e5fd8887b75b3a4fce2e5c3d2b39
36186 F20101204_AADGJW toro_d_Page_106.jpg
f36eb9d77104e910e90bbf26205077b7
d404a4e766c06606722aa15bfa34423e74752e40
F20101204_AADGKM toro_d_Page_060.tif
2c3d15f9d7d3945b4c3ed237f55d64c4
9b0ab17286010d28f96c7882d437eb6d51fa245a
22468 F20101204_AADGJX toro_d_Page_069.QC.jpg
709c24be08800fe273e633660bcc3fe8
b0f9735e30a01d4b908d838c25d994b3e4f895c7
110437 F20101204_AADGLA toro_d_Page_063.jp2
a03e4d1a77e8626b60fd8625b3a12161
3859e6639f81d8e0362e7e93619683075580356c
91217 F20101204_AADGKN toro_d_Page_083.jp2
1d0b266e9b08bca4c19429383ad4f7cf
b53a265f0fcf4446e59471835d6ac52fd34934b0
13320 F20101204_AADGJY toro_d_Page_118.QC.jpg
bee5a0acf536a022393867dcabfb5919
91ce5be89570a1de75373dd7428842a8abb8e5b8
50042 F20101204_AADGLB toro_d_Page_079.pro
35407d5d79c6a7931a596a7a0291f7b8
f90880b26e9a2896bd7f9ceca252602f5a7fc7ed
F20101204_AADGKO toro_d_Page_121.tif
2273107b49ee8f5a677a26c3e1c2a6d8
fab841862d42a8732cbed5b5fbbdc25f49e4020a
F20101204_AADGJZ toro_d_Page_034.tif
fd4a3212ad116095bd658b0a53132973
d00b25db0e63c14fb87a83a6fe99ff5f7a6a7f34
F20101204_AADGLC toro_d_Page_055.tif
167d9aa3f9856697557840ad64714109
39fc60ad1467d4b08a5c46e989888743aa59029a
208772 F20101204_AADGKP toro_d_Page_008.jp2
f63ac1a985b98a4e700242b99790e3ae
acebd840bcee4288153ce38142fa25048a820a1d
6250 F20101204_AADGLD toro_d_Page_019thm.jpg
8a08d54da1a6b2d7ada039000b8fbb60
10d80d471d73ada26988723d3c03cc3a33ed4703
67550 F20101204_AADGLE toro_d_Page_006.jpg
1850642b1413096b5ad4ce37332f4018
7a8b35a110a9c7ce228c17cf4f6ed69dcaba0f40
23871 F20101204_AADGKQ toro_d_Page_036.QC.jpg
df5edbb6015f06544e3097f61da445af
327b131068994cc48e3ddcd7b914693a33f750d3
1865 F20101204_AADGLF toro_d_Page_021.txt
9b5514d42c89c0dae8f916acc1be0964
ef76b665f33249dd5f112aa7b3fb8b36975db827
42699 F20101204_AADGKR toro_d_Page_075.pro
6b3d60614a4dab4b0aa9fe17f986c2b0
aa7604576e712ef65d0056eebfef9b2833c4d52c
6345 F20101204_AADGLG toro_d_Page_068thm.jpg
c2c425ca6bfa731bdeb287c2dd555afe
0e62d452aa28591e8ca4a880caad2b60a0bf8989
F20101204_AADGKS toro_d_Page_035.txt
93d606b83f609812086a9be51ede6590
586a3da47f726c2dcbe79cc9246adaed90b74714
F20101204_AADGLH toro_d_Page_007.tif
73c0df8f32749dac5f4fd6db4f7192b7
0faf3aab5bf7943ac0720342f9439e837217ffb4
51579 F20101204_AADGLI toro_d_Page_034.pro
c3323d2afa1d3154a824c173bad4cde0
3198c0432c8e82a07e91250743102fc612801131
21515 F20101204_AADGKT toro_d_Page_009.QC.jpg
6aa16a8a4a30b67ca174612f0a31048e
b67fbbbda95222672ebed562d6f6daae03eb1b69
71947 F20101204_AADGLJ toro_d_Page_050.jpg
eb6b03147a041d27ca42bfa497a13745
48425a9a6fe902268e25f11b91e7252c7243aa09
2568 F20101204_AADGKU toro_d_Page_005.txt
08be6fefa17d19a9e50fbc91e4ee213f
1503dc5f514acfd707c77960ff09f213ddecdb7b
61828 F20101204_AADGLK toro_d_Page_127.pro
d65bb6a6b47bd5e77c9f07dd0d8cfe75
8d7151c48c50df90a4816bc43d83faba7ca1cdcd
1709 F20101204_AADGKV toro_d_Page_074.txt
1c3795dae1877e017040160e1085ad91
049ef58642f4fb4029f8568db6fcf3893c7c901f
6491 F20101204_AADGLL toro_d_Page_036thm.jpg
fd27d2b79d58dc832fec1d6f49c7191e
717dca2712e15461deafa3fa203e3a5d5fe84432
3389 F20101204_AADGKW toro_d_Page_002.QC.jpg
e59ddb905256abc9febfc405fb24d472
ab19dfb043dc41d9592b89486938aae9a51e83a6
7114 F20101204_AADGMA toro_d_Page_123thm.jpg
10e43a12b3f72f8923b7f2530d4bde46
f64ee8ae8e4f096f374f1cc705a63c9f31c85a28
1051951 F20101204_AADGLM toro_d_Page_125.jp2
bd1151f93a171a7426617fb9f7510964
e63c0bd8e032c6e41ef4c30f0a26343e773623e0
36429 F20101204_AADGKX toro_d_Page_115.jpg
f39b66b5e3deb6d7cd7836711207051b
150549ea6523a83423fb7ec161bf128339b7cae3
114036 F20101204_AADGMB toro_d_Page_051.jp2
360dfd6d2acb55513d964a65cbd5d362
661a4606e02e5f01fa0924b54445e859f71c6c34
F20101204_AADGLN toro_d_Page_107.tif
a5966463d68096558fda8b752b6e7046
7e8e4639e6265467b7d13e444b3dba3faf29858a
36583 F20101204_AADGKY toro_d_Page_129.jpg
52b534c7781b0bcade6f3cda79e80ea1
5bf68cc04c3306a8ed10c0e6ced440169eef9064
F20101204_AADGMC toro_d_Page_125.tif
997377b9cc29155aff67afe66aef6818
7f8b368fcccb8871407021d9344b9df7a182626f
F20101204_AADGLO toro_d_Page_029.txt
1d1c8515a86e3a38cee6a5b7ba8ea5d8
3af0bbb97b1fe633601567b6f6c9106d5927cda6
26491 F20101204_AADGKZ toro_d_Page_124.QC.jpg
ecd4309a1cb5e3fae358b4a02ccbf239
c66193b52fe64f9e9d5a9f56defee3e5dfb8ee50



PAGE 1

EDUCATIONAL NEEDS AND PREFEREN CES OF HISPANIC FARMWORKERS RELATED TO PESTICIDE WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD (WPS) By DILCIA ELISA TORO ALFARO A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Dilcia Elisa Toro Alfaro

PAGE 3

To my parents, Eduardo and Dilcia Toro.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are many people who have supported me during this research. First, I thank God for his amazing grace and love. One thi ng is unquestionable: His faithfulness. Second, I want to thank my pare nts, my sisters, and all of my family for their care and love. Next, I want to thank my supervisory committee members for their help and support. I thank Dr. Nick Place for his pati ence, kindness, and all his support throughout this process. I also thank Dr Fred Fishel, Dr. William Sta ll, and Dr. Tracy Irani for all their advice and suggestions. In addition, I want to thank Extension Agent Cesar Asuaje for his willingness to cooperate with this study. His experience a nd knowledge played an essential role in the development of this st udy. I also want to thank Gloria Lopez for collaborating and providing feedback for this study. I am also indebted to Dr. Ed Osborne and the faculty in the Department of Agricultural Edu cation and Communication for funding my graduate studies through diffe rent grants, and for all their support and encouragement. Especially I want to tha nk, Dr. Nick Place, Dr. Marta Hartmann, and Dr. Glenn Israel. Furthermore, I thank Redland Migrant Christian Association (RMCA) for its cooperation in granting me access to conduct th is study. Finally, I want to acknowledge the Interdisciplinary Field Research Grant for providing funding for this study.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vii ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Problem Statement........................................................................................................4 Purpose and Objective..................................................................................................5 Operational Definitions................................................................................................5 Theoretical Framework.................................................................................................7 Limitations of the Study...............................................................................................8 Summary.......................................................................................................................9 2 LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................................10 Hispanics.....................................................................................................................10 Demographic Profile of Hispanics......................................................................10 Current Situation.................................................................................................11 Farmworkers........................................................................................................14 Adult Education..........................................................................................................20 Definition.............................................................................................................21 Learning Orientations..........................................................................................23 Nonformal Education..........................................................................................28 The Cooperative Extension System............................................................................34 Worker Protection Standard (WPS)............................................................................37 History.................................................................................................................38 Pesticide Training................................................................................................38 Complying with WPS..........................................................................................44 Summary.....................................................................................................................46 3 METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................47 Research Design.........................................................................................................47 Population and Sample...............................................................................................48

PAGE 6

vi Instrumentation...........................................................................................................51 Expert Panel, Pilot Study, Inst itutional Review Board (IRB).............................53 Credibility, Transferability and Dependability....................................................54 Data Collection...........................................................................................................55 Data Analysis..............................................................................................................58 Summary.....................................................................................................................59 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................60 Results of the Interviews............................................................................................60 Demographic Profile...........................................................................................60 Pesticide Exposure...............................................................................................62 Previous Training Experience.............................................................................68 Preferred Delivery Methods of Pesticide Education...........................................71 Summary.....................................................................................................................76 5 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................77 Results........................................................................................................................ .77 Demographic Profile...........................................................................................77 Pesticide Exposure...............................................................................................79 Previous Training Experience.............................................................................82 Preferred Delivery Methods of Pesticide Education...........................................84 Recommendations.......................................................................................................86 Implications of the results for UF IFAS Extension....................................................88 Directions for Future Research...................................................................................90 Summary.....................................................................................................................91 APPENDIX A INTERVIEW GUIDE: ENGLISH VERSION...........................................................92 B INTERVIEW GUIDE: SPANISH VERSION..........................................................101 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................110 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................119

PAGE 7

vii LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Demographic profile................................................................................................61 4-2 Perceptions of pesticide exposure............................................................................62 4-3 Pesticide poisoning...................................................................................................63 4-4 Description of pesticide poisoning...........................................................................63 4-5 Pesticide exposure mode..........................................................................................64 4-6 Pesticide exposure in the fields................................................................................65 4-7 Use of protective body wear.....................................................................................65 4-8 Health Impact...........................................................................................................66 4-9 Hand washing and restroom facilities......................................................................67 4-10 Pesticide exposure at home......................................................................................68 4-11 Previous training experience....................................................................................68 4-12 Pesticide training provider.......................................................................................68 4-13 Approach used to deliver pesticide information......................................................69 4-14 Reason for lack of previous training........................................................................70 4-15 Preferred provider....................................................................................................71 4-16 Preferred sites...........................................................................................................72 4-17 Preferred method......................................................................................................73 4-18 Preferred language....................................................................................................73 4-19 Preferred frequency..................................................................................................73 4-20 Preferred day............................................................................................................74

PAGE 8

viii 4-21 Preferred timing........................................................................................................74 4-22 Preferred hours.........................................................................................................75 4-23 Preferred topics........................................................................................................76

PAGE 9

ix Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science EDUCATIONAL NEEDS AND PREFEREN CES OF HISPANIC FARMWORKERS RELATED TO PESTICIDE WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD (WPS) By Dilcia Elisa Toro Alfaro December 2006 Chair: Nick Place Major Department: Agricultur al Education and Communication Hispanic farmworkers play a critical role in Floridas agri culture through their participation in the agricultural workforce in the state. Thei r job responsibilities generally include working in areas that have previously been treated with pesticides, thereby placing farmworkers at risk of pesticide exposure. The Cooperative Extension Service is one organization that can provide pesticide educational programs specific to Hispanic farmworker needs. Fifty-one Hisp anic farmworkers participated in individual interviews addressing their pe rceptions of pesticide traini ng needs related to Worker Protection Standard (WPS) in South Florida. Specific objectives of the study were to explore perceptions of pesticide exposure, to describe previous pesticide training experience and to determine the preferred delivery methods of pesticide training for Hispanic farmworkers. Overall, results showed that farmworkers ha ve a high risk of e xposure to pesticides in the field mainly through indirect methods. Many farmworkers percei ve that they have been exposed to pesticides at work. Alt hough no clear pattern was established in this study, dermal, ocular and respiratory were all mentioned as routes of exposure. Also, several workers have never e xperienced pesticide training. Results indicate the need to

PAGE 10

x develop and implement adequate pestic ide educational programs for Hispanic farmworkers. Further research is needed to test different learning methods and materials, to determine which is more effective in reaching Hispanics farmworkers.

PAGE 11

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The State of Florida has a large agricultura l sector that produces a wide array of food, fiber, and associated services. Its subtropical climate provides a comparative advantage for production of high-valued cr ops (Hodges & Mulkey, 2000). According to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services [FDACS] (2005), Florida leads the nation in production of citrus, sugarcane, foliage pl ants, cut floral greens, and tropical fish; and ranks second in the production of fresh market vegetables. In general, agricultural production is labor intensive. According to the U.S. Department of Labor (2005a) in 2004, 58% of the employed workers in the U.S. held jobs as agricultural workers; 83 % of these jobs were as farmworkers. Much of the U.S. farm workforce is made up of migrant a nd seasonal workers, many of them recent immigrants from Latin America, or aliens working under work permits. A number of attempts have been made to enumerate the farmworker population. According to Roka and Cook (1998), the rate of worker turnover and the transient nature of seasonal farmworkers have made it diffi cult to develop accurate and consistent estimates of farmworker numbers. Although there are no current re liable statistics for their actual number, it is estimated that there are between 2.5 million and 4.2 million farmworkers in the United States (Nationa l Latina Institute for Reproductive Health [NLIRH], 2005; Arcury, Quant & Russell, 2002; U.S. General Accounting Office [U.S. GAO], 2000). Of these, nearly 200,000 ar e in the state of Florida (Larson, 2000).

PAGE 12

2 Hispanic farmworkers are the majority a nd typically represent 70% to 94% of the population of farmworkers. They play a critic al role in Floridas agriculture through their participation in the agricultural workfor ce in the State (Roka & Cook, 1998). Activities performed by farmworkers in the field can include occupations that require handling pesticides or other tasks such as plan ting, growing and harvesting in areas where pesticides have been applied (Weber, Kinr o, Snedeker, & Swift, 2004). According to Ward, Prince, Stewart, and Za hm, (2001) working in areas which have previously been treated with pesticides places farmworkers at risk of pesticide exposure. The actual number of Florida farmworkers exposed to pesticides is not known because of insufficient documentation (G alloni, 2004; Frisk, 2000). Farmworkers are exposed to pesticides in numerous ways: dermal absorption, inhalation, and ingestion, and exposure can cause many acute and long-term effects. Acute effects include headaches, dizziness, vomiting, skin and eye problems, while longterm effects include neurological disorders, reproductive problems, birth defects, and certain types of cancer among others (Salaz ar, Napolitano, Scherer, & McCauley 2004; Elmore & Arcury, 2001). However, exposure is relatively minimal if safety procedures are followed. In order to diminish agricultural pest icide exposure, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] (2005) implemented a federal regulation called the Worker Protection Standard (WPS). This set of regul ations requires employers of farmworkers to provide information about exposure to pest icides, protection ag ainst exposures to pesticides, and ways to mitigate exposures to pesticides. However, according to Galloni (2004) commonly documented pesticide safety violations by the Florida Department of

PAGE 13

3 Agricultural and Consumer Services include failure to train farmworkers in pesticide safety and failure to post required pesticide application information in a central location. According to Vela Acosta, Chapman, Bigelow, Kennedy, and Buchan (2005) farmworker perceived pesticide risk has been correlated with pesticide information and adoption of safety related behaviors wh ich makes provision of proper training to farmworkers crucial. Moreover efforts to pr ovide safety training for farmworkers have not been fully evaluated and there are sti ll important questions about the cultural and educational appropriateness of the regulations and the materials developed to implement them (Arcury, Quandt, & Russell, 2002). The Cooperative Extension system is a ke y organization that helps to address pesticide training to farmworkers. According to Israel (1991) effective delivery methods are important to the impact of extension progr ams. Effective delivery requires taking into account the audience of a program and matchi ng the information channel preferred by them to those used by extension. Informati on channel refers to the use of mass media, printed material, meetings, workshops, and demonstrations. According to Coldevin (2003) an important element of these educat ional programs is the use of participatory audience involvement in both information di ssemination and motivation in the areas of education and training. According to Martinez-Espinoza, Fonseca and Chance (2003) one of the current recipients and potential audiences of pe sticide training programs delivered by the Cooperative Extension Service are Hispanic fa rmworkers, and they generally have a low education level. Limited literacy and la nguage skills are a weakness in connecting

PAGE 14

4 farmworkers with appropriate information mate rials, services, or resources available to effectively accomplish their jobs. According to Sork & Newman (2004) one important activity of educators and trainers in program development is responding to the needs and inte rests or demands of potential learners. In doing so, it is important to understa nd that program development takes place within a context that requires the educator to adju st, and react to the potential audience. This context can be political, economic, social, organizational, aesthetic, moral, spiritual and/or historical. One wa y to understand potential learners is by means of openness and questioning, as well as effort s to express experience and values from different perspectives. Problem Statement Farmwork is listed as the second most da ngerous occupation in the United States behind mining. This is due in part to a co mbination of poverty, limited access to health care and education, language barriers and hazardous working conditions (Migrant Clinicians Network, 2006). Farmworkers ar e predominantly Hispanic, accounting for approximately 83% of all farmworkers accord ing to findings from Carroll, Samardick, Bernard, Gabbard, and Hernandez, (2005) fr om the National Agricultural Workers Survey in 2001-2002 and the fastest growing group. Due to their high risk of being exposed to pesticides while conducting job tasks, pesticide safety training is recognized as one of the priorities for th is occupational group. According to Spitzer, Whitford, and Frick (1994 ), the mandated pesticide safety training included in the WPS has received minimal a ttention and has failed to provide the means to educate the Hispanic population. De veloping training programs and providing adequate educational content and delivery met hods of pesticide safety training has been

PAGE 15

5 recognized as a need by previous studies to Hispanic audiences (Weber et al. 2004; Martinez-Espinoza, Fonseca & Chance, 2003; Murphy, 1997). According to Spitzer, Whitford and Frick ( 1994) there is lack of attention to the informational needs and delivery mechanisms needed to effectively communicate with this type of diverse population. This fa ilure to communicate pr operly between experts and farmworkers could reduce pesticide safety training to grower co mpliance rather than encourage education that actually preven ts workers exposu re to pesticides. Furthermore, the demand for extension progr ams that seek to implement effective, farm-level safety and pesticide certificat ion classes and training programs to small farmers and agricultural workers in South Fl orida has increased for both the private and public sectors in the last decad e according to Lockette (2004). Purpose and Objective The purpose of this study will be to explore farm workers perceptions of pesticide education training needs. The speci fic objectives of the study are: Explore Hispanic farmworkers perc eptions of pesticide exposure. Describe Hispanic farmworkers prev ious pesticide training experiences. Determine the preferred delivery methods a nd strategies for pesticide WPS training among Hispanic farmworkers. This study will benefit people who work w ith pesticide training with Hispanic farmworkers including UF IFAS Extension. It will uncover the e ducational needs and preferred delivery methods and strategies for pesticide trainings that will allow them to be more effective in re aching Hispanic audience. Operational Definitions Adult education: the provision of planned learning opportunities for those persons who society deems to be adults (Rogers, 1996).

PAGE 16

6 Acute effect: An adverse effect on any living organism in which severe symptoms develop rapidly and often subside after the exposure stops. Exposure: The condition of being exposed with out protection to the effects of something (Costelo et al., 1992). When refe rring to pesticides there are four ways in which chemicals can be taken into th e body which can place an individual at health risk. They are: oral, dermal, i nhalation and ocular exposures (The Ohio State University, n.d.). Extension : In this study, extension refers to a nonformal, problem-solving LandGrant University-based educational deliver y system that links people to knowledge. Farmworker: An individual whose main occupati on is in horticultural field-based agriculture (including nurs ery operations and greenhous e activities). This was specifically developed by the re searcher for the current study. High-valued crop s: crops other than traditional crops which include, but are not limited to: coffee and cacao, fruit crops, root crops, vegetable crops, legumes, spices and condiments, and cutflowe r and ornamental foliage plants. Hispanic: A person from Mexican, Puerto Ri can, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or or igin regardless of race (Ramirez, 2004). Migrant Farmworker: An individual whose prin cipal employment is in agriculture on a seasonal ba sis and who establishes a temporary residence for such employment (NLIRH, 2005). Nonformal education: any organized, systematic educational activity carried on outside the framework of the formal system to provide selected types of learning to particular subgroups in th e population (Coldevin, 2003). Pesticide: Substances used to prevent, destroy, repel or mitigate any pest ranging from insects, animals and weeds to microor ganisms such as fungi, molds, bacteria and viruses (EPA, 2006) Seasonal Farmworker: According to the migrant health program (as in Larson, 2000), an individual whose principal employme nt is mainly in agriculture (51% of time), who has been so employed with in the last twenty-four months. Worker Protection Standard (WPS): a federal regulation designed to protect agricultural workers (people involved in th e production of agricultural plants) and pesticide handlers (people mixing, loading, or applying pesticides or doing other tasks involving direct contact with pesticides) (EPA, 2005).

PAGE 17

7 Theoretical Framework The theoretical framework of this study is based on the Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction for planning an educational program published in 1949 by Ralph Tyler (as cited in Sork & Newman, 2004) The four stages of Tylers model are: 1. Deciding on educational purposes; 2. Selecting learning experiences to achieve those purposes; 3. Organizing the learning experiences for effective instruction; and 4. Evaluating the effectiveness of the learning experiences. Tyler argues that educators should take account for people, society and the intellectual climate, as well as the experts in the subject, in deci ding educational purposes and setting course objectives (Sork & Newm an, 2004). Therefore, the educational purposes of a pesticide education program s hould be based on the objectives set by the Worker Protection Standards and the perceive d WPS training needs, and the demographic information of Hispanic farmworkers that were gathered in this study. In addition, this model suggests that in sel ecting learning experiences to achieve those purposes, the experience the learner goes through is very important. The trainer may provide information, instruction and exercises but if that environment is not proper for the participant then learning does not occur. The study will help uncover previous pesticide learning experiences of a group of Hispanic farmworkers. In addition, it will also determine preferred delivery methods for effective instruction. In order for effective instruction to ta ke place, education providers must offer programs that meet the educational needs of the intended audience, attract the proper clientele, and produce the desired changes in the participants (Hanson, 1991). Therefore, programs should be designed to accomplish thes e goals. Tyler suggests several ways of structuring a program that can lead to e ffective instruction. These include using

PAGE 18

8 chronological order, the incr easing application of a proce ss or principle, expanding the breadth and range of an activ ity, starting with description followed by analysis, providing information followed by intellectual principles, and presenting a unifi ed world view. In regards to these, he identifies three crite ria that should be met: (1) continuity, (2) sequence, and (3) integration. Continuity is about recurren ce of major elements in the curriculum, while sequence is about experience leading to hi gher levels of understanding and integration about incorporation of the lear ning that has taken place into the behavior of a participant. Finally Tyle r proposes that because the purpo se of education is to bring about a change in the behaviors of particip ants then an evaluation of their behaviors needs to be done at an early point in the trai ning, at a later point, and some time after the training has been completed. The evaluation of the effectiveness of these learning experiences will not be part of this study. Limitations of the Study The real number of Hispanic farmworkers in the State of Florida has only been estimated. The best data available at the current time about farmworkers comes from the Migrant and Seasonal Farmwo rker Enumeration Profiles Study (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Deve lopment, 2006). The reason for lacking accurate information about the actual numbers of farmworkers is due to the fact that most are part of a migrant popula tion which makes it is difficult to study a representative sample of the population. A common misconception is that all farm workers are Hispanics. Although a majority of Floridas farmworkers are or iginally from count ries in South and Central America, and the majority of these from Mexico; there is a sizable subpopulation of other ethnicities as well. In some parts of Florida, upwards of 35% of farmworkers are from Haiti and the Caribbean (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2006). Many of the literature available and research studies do not cons ider this variability when referring to the term farmworkers. Even though Hispanic farmworkers come fr om countries that extend from Mexico to Argentina in South America and although all have Spanish as a common language they have significant cultural differences that may affect how workers respond to communication and educational processes.

PAGE 19

9 Another limitation of this st udy is the availability of wo rkers to participate in the study. Previous studies have reported di fficulty with obtaining subjects for the study. This is due to some farmworkers re fusing to participate in studies because they do not want to be di sturbed from their daily remunerated job activities and some do not feel comfortable because they fear providing information that can lead to their deportation to their countries of origin because many are on an illegal migratory status. Also studies have reported that farm owne rs can sometimes refuse to collaborate in providing access to the researcher to the workers (Murphy-Greene & Leip, 2002). Therefore, the study was conducted at a collaborating institu tion which granted access to some Hispanic farmworkers to th e researcher. As a result the sample studied might not be repres entative of all Hispanic farmworkers since it was a convenience sample rather than randomly selected. Self selection bias is a limitation in this study. Self selection can be a result of using non-randomly selected samples. In this study the procedure used for selecting subjects (participants) was base d on their willingness to participate as volunteers. This means that the end resu lt of this study could be different if non participants would have volunteered. Summary This chapter justified the need and pr ovided background for the research study. Due to their high risk of being exposed to pe sticides while conducting job tasks, there is a widely recognized need to de velop and implement adequate pesticide educational training programs for Hispanic farmworkers. Provi ding proper educational training for these types of audiences requires not only focusing on the content of the information delivered but also on the clientele and on providing the proper environment in order for learning to take place. The importance a nd relevancy of the research were described. The chapter briefly described the situa tion of farmworkers in Unite d States, illustrating the opportunity and necessity of effective pestic ide training and for extension services to reach this occupational group.

PAGE 20

10 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter reports a basis of literatur e regarding the Hispanic and farmworker population and the need of adequate pestic ide education for this population. Also a description of the Worker Prot ection Standard and some of the efforts that have been done to reduce pesticide exposure for this gr oup is included. In addition, this chapter explores current constraints and challenges th at farmworkers face in the United States concerning their employment and legal status socioeconomic characteristics, education and health issues. Hispanics Hispanics in the United States represen t a diverse group of people, accounting for nearly 12.5% of the total popula tion (Ramirez, 2004). The term Hispanic is used to refer to individuals whose social origin is outs ide the United States but from a variety of Spanish-speaking countries, including Puer to Rico, Mexico, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Central and South America (Jeria, 1999). Demographic Profile of Hispanics Hispanics are the fastest-growing segm ent of the U.S. population. This group experienced a 61% increase in population between 1990 and 2000. In 1990 the Hispanic population stood at 21.9 million (Ramirez, 2004). Estimates are that in the year 2010, Hispanics will make up more than 15.5% of the U.S. population, accounting for about 48 million people. This trend is expected to continue so that by the year 2050, Hispanics

PAGE 21

11 will make up about one quarter of the popul ation or 102.6 million people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). According to Ramirez (2004) in 2000 nearly 60% of the total numbers of Hispanics were Mexican in origin. The other 40% we re categorized as Other Hispanics (16%), Puerto Ricans (9.7%), Central Americans (5.1%), South Ameri cans (4.0%), Cubans (3.5%) and Dominicans (2.3%). In addition, 40 % of the total numbers of Hispanics were foreign born. Furthermore, about 7 out of ev ery 10 Hispanics are either: (1) born in the U.S. and have parents who were born in a La tin American country, or (2) have become naturalized citizens meaning that they have acquired permanent residency or citizenship by legal means. In regards to their distribution, 90% of Hispanics reside in metropolitan areas (Kandel & Newman, 2004). Moreover, Hispanic s tend to remain heavily concentrated in certain regions of the United States, notably the Southwest, the Northeast and South Florida (Department of Health and Human Se rvices, 2000). In 2000, the five states with the largest Hispanic populations were Calif ornia (11 million), Texas, (6.7 million), New York (2.9 million), Florida (2.7 million) and Illinois (1.5 million) (Grieco, 2003). Current Situation Hispanics are the largest minority and fast est growing group in the United States. According to Bergman (2004) it is expected that between 2000 and 2050 Hispanics and Asian Populations triple their numbers. Hispanics are projected to grow from 35.6 million to 102.6 million and Asians from 10.7 million to 33.4 million. Another group that is expected to grow is the black p opulation from 35.8 million to 61.4 million. On the other hand, non-Hispanic whites are expected to represent about one -half of the total population.

PAGE 22

12 The Hispanic labor force The rapid increase in the Hispanic population has made it the second-largest ethnic or racial group in the labor force behind the whites. Hispanics now make up 13% of the U.S. labor force, but they are expected to account for about one half of the growth in the labor force be tween now and 2020 (Pew Research Center, 2005). Most Hispanics come to the U.S. seeking better economic opportunities than in their countries of origin. However, many of them lack the skills and preparation needed to acquire high-paying positions. Another situ ation that some Hispanics face is their illegal immigration status in the country, mean ing that they lack authorization to work, therefore, many end up acquiring agricultural jobs or low-paying manual labor jobs. Although they support public education, many of them have little formal education, which includes high rates of adult illiteracy and limited English proficiency. Low educational attainment is a major factor limiting job access (Jeria, 1999). Socioeconomic factors. Socioeconomic factors affect this population in important ways. According to Sparks (as of Huerta-Mac ias, 2002) given their low income levels, it is very difficult for Hispanics to move out of poverty and join the middle class. According to Ramirez (2004) in 1999, the median family income for Hispanics was $34,400, which is lower than the median family income of $50,000 for all families. In addition, the poverty rate among all Hispanic s was 22.6%, compared with the national average of 12.4%. Wealth accumulation for Hispan ics is also low; in part this is due to the strong economic ties of Hispanic immigrants to their countries of origin. Many of them regularly send money home, reducing th e amount of money that is available for them to live decently. According to the Inter-American Development Bank (as of Pew

PAGE 23

13 Research Center, 2005), more than $30 billion was remitted to Latin American and Caribbean countries in 2003. Education. An issue that Hispanics face is that they typically have a low education level. According to Llagas and Snyder (2003) young Hispanic adults are less likely than any other group to complete a secondary degr ee in this country. Their findings as of 2000, indicate that 64% of Hispanic 18to 24-year-olds had completed secondary schooling, compared to 92% of Whites and 84% of Blacks. In addition, only 22% of similar aged Hispanic population was enrolled in colleges and Universities. Finally, in regards to adult education, the participation of Hispanics 17 years old and over is 44%, as compared to 53% of Whites, 54% of Blacks, 53% of Asian/Pacific Islanders and 53% of American Indians/Alaska Natives, placing them in a disadvantageous educational situation in comparison to othe r groups. According to the Pew Research Center (2005) differences in early learning set the stage fo r later problems. Only 40% of Hispanic children attend preschool as compared to 60% of other childre n. In addition, many parents lack proper English language skills to communicate; therefor e they are unable to guide their childrens educational progress li miting their childrens exposure to English, the primary cause of lower achievement for Hispanic students (Brown, 2004). According to the Pew Research Center ( 2005) other factors that contribute to this low educational attainment are a less demanding curriculum at high school level than that of their white classmates and the need of Hispanic college students to work full time in order to afford their fees and pay their tuition. Immigration status. Another issue that Hispanics have to deal with is that a great majority of them are not legal citizens of th e United States. Immigration to the United

PAGE 24

14 States has been greatest among Mexicans a nd among Central Americans fleeing political and economic events in their countries of origin (Ortiz, 1995). Although precise numbers are not known, demographers w ho specialize in immigration estimate according to Passel (2005) as of March 2005, that the undocumented population which continues to grow each year has reached nearly 11 million including more than 6 million Mexicans. The distribution of these illegal citizens consists of the follo wing: 68% of the undocumented population live in just eight states: Califor nia (24%), Texas (14 %), Florida (9%), New York (7%), Arizona (5%), Illinois (4%), New Jersey (4%), and North Carolina (3%). According to Pew Research Center (2005), the rest of this po pulation has begun to disperse across the country, with very fast gr owth rates in states that previously had relatively small foreign-born populations such as Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Georgia, Virginia and Massachusetts. Farmworkers According to Roka and Cook (1998) Hisp anics represent the majority of the population of farmworkers. It is estimate d that there are between 2.5 million and 4.2 million farmworkers in the United States (N LIRH, 2005; Arcury, Quant & Russell, 2002; U.S. GAO, 2000) of these, 70% to 94% are Hispanic. To this date, the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS), a nationwide random survey, is the only national informa tion source on the demogr aphic, employment, and health characteristics of this population. The NAWS began surveying farmworkers in 1988 and it has collected information fr om nearly 43,000 workers. The survey samples all crop farmworkers in three cycles ea ch year in order to capture the seasonality of the work. The NAWS locates and samples wo rkers at their work s ites. Face-to-face interviews are conducted with respondents at home or at another convenient location.

PAGE 25

15 The information that the NAWS collects includes: household and family composition, additional demographics, employ ment history; wages, benefi ts and working conditions; health, safety and housing; income and assets social services a nd legal status (U.S. Department of Labor, 2005b). Origin. In 2001-2002, the NAWS was conducte d with a total number of 6,472 farmworkers and results showed that just 23% of all hired crop farm workers were born in the United States; 75% were born in Mexi co, 2% in Central American countries, and 1% of the crop workers were born in other coun tries (Carroll et al., 2005). Migration of farmworkers to the U.S. can be traced to laws and programs that were designed to overcome labor shortages in this country. According to Ahn, Moore and Parker (2004), in 1917 the U.S. Department of Labor allowe d farmers to recruit Mexican farmworkers into the U.S. Also, in 1942, the Mexico Bracero Program was created. According to Rosenberg (1993) (as of Ahn, Moore & Parker, 2004), this program provided contracts to farmworkers from one to six months, and em ployers were required to provide food and housing, pay local wage rates, cover medical expenses, and provide transportation between Mexico and the farm. However, in 1964 the program was terminated due to a lack of consistency from employers in followi ng the guidelines that favored farmworkers. Another event that prompted migration to the U.S. was the creation of the H-2 visa category for other temporary workers, under the 1952 Immigrati on and Nationality Act. This type of visa allows U.S. em ployers to employ foreign workers by signing a contract with their governments. A recent event that might trigger migration from Mexico to the U.S. is The North Americ an Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) along with other economic liberalization policies which have transfor med rural Mexico, pushing 1.7

PAGE 26

16 million subsistence farmers from their land to migrate to work in export factories, maquiladoras, or to fields and cities in the U.S. (Ahn, Moore & Parker, 2004). Moreover, according to Alarcon and Mines (2001), the hi gh percentage of Mexican workers in the fields is due in part to poor working conditions on farms that fail to keep veteran U.S. and foreign-born workers in agriculture. Also, it can be explained by the availability of alternative low-wage jobs in the boom ing non-agricultural U.S. economy for more experienced workers leaving agricultural pos itions open for recently arrived Mexicans. Legal status. Persons who are working in the U.S. without recognition by the immigration authorities are sometimes referr ed to as illegal immigrants or undocumented workers. Findings from NAWS showed that at least half (53%) of farmworkers lacked authorization to work in the United States Another 25% of th e crop workers in 20012002 were U.S. citizens, 21% were legal perm anent residents, and 1% were employmenteligible on some other basis (Carroll et al., 2005). Employment characteristics. In 2001-2002, nine out of ten of all crop workers reported having worked for one or two U.S. fa rm employers in the previous 12 months. Excluding foreign-born newcomers, who have le ss than 12 months of work history in the United States, workers averaged 34 and a half weeks of farm work and five weeks of non-farm work in the previous year. NAWS respondents worked an average of 42 hours per week and had average hourly earn ings of $7.25 (Carroll et al., 2005). Socioeconomic chacteristics. Based on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 2001-2002, 30 percent of all farmworkers interviewed had family incomes below the federal poverty guidelines The average individual income range from all sources, as well as from farm work only, was $10,000 $12,499. The average

PAGE 27

17 total family income range was $15,000 $17,499 (Carroll et al., 2005). On the other hand, the annual income of farmwork is around $7,000 for a single worker and about $10,000 for a family. These numbers encourage workers to leave the fields and move into other vocations. In Florida, many work ers remain in the agricultural field, but will find year-round, full-time employment in nur series. Many others will move into landscaping, construction labor, auto mechanics, etc. (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2006). Relatively few hired farmworkers (22%) utilize any government provided, need-based services such as food stamps (8%), Women Infants and Children (WIC) (11%), and Medicaid (15%) a nd less than one percen t reported receiving general assistance welfare or temporary assistance to needy families (TANF) (Carroll et al., 2005). Education. The majority (81%) of all crop workers reported that Spanish was their native language. Forty-four percent reported that they could not speak English at all. In addition, on average, the highest grade comple ted was seventh grade. While 56% of the U.S.-born had completed the 12th grade, only 6% of the foreign-born had done so. In addition, 20% of all crop workers reported that they had taken at le ast one kind of adult education class in the United States in thei r lifetime. The most popular of these were English (10%) and high school equivalency (G ED) classes (5%). Tw o percent reported having taken job training or citizensh ip classes (Carroll et al., 2005). Health issues. Migrant and seasonal farmworkers and their families face health care issues. According to Rosembaum and Shin (2005) often they are in poor health and they are at elevated risk for an enormous ra nge of injuries and illnesses due to the nature of their jobs. In fact, according to Villarejo (2003 ), they have been designated as a

PAGE 28

18 special population due to the unusual combination of higher than average occupational risk exposures as well as poorer than average health status. This situation is worst for this group because most of them lack health insurance. As of 2000, 85% of migrant and seasonal farmworkers were uninsured (Rosembaum & Shin, 2005). This lack of insurance can be attributed to the fact that so many are undocumented immigrants. In an effort to outreach migrant farmwo rkers, the Migrant Health Program [MHP] was initiated by the federal government in 1962 by providing grants to family health clinics. The program was modified in 1970 to include seasonal farmworkers as well. The central notions of the MHP were that migratory families should be able to access health services that are usually available to other families in American society, and that preventive services such as immunizations and health education would serve to remedy some of the most egregious conditions (V illarejo, 2003). The MHP currently provides grants to 134 public and nonprofit organiza tions that support the development and operation of over 400 migrant clin ic sites throughout the United States and Puerto Rico. In 2004, Migrant Health Centers served over 675,000 migrant and seasonal farmworkers. Over 90% of users of these health centers ar e people of color, most of whom are of Hispanic origin (U.S. Department of H ealth and Human Services, 2006). The MHP supports the delivery of migrant health serv ices including primary and preventive health care, transportation, outreach, dental care, pharmaceuticals, occupational health and safety, and environmental health. The agencies that provide such services use culturallysensitive clinical protocols and bilingual/b icultural health personnel and lay outreach workers. They also provide prevention-or iented and pediatric services such as immunizations, well baby care, and developmen tal screening (U.S. De partment of Health

PAGE 29

19 and Human Services, 2006). The two most si gnificant reported barriers to care among migrant and seasonal farmworkers are its high cost and language barriers. Classification. Although discrepancies exist among different classifications and definitions of farmworkers, in a broad sense, farmworkers are classified as seasonal and migrant. According to th e Migrant Health Program (as of Larson, 2000) a seasonal farmworker is: An individual whose principal employme nt [greater than 51% of time] is in agriculture on a seasonal basis, who has been so employed within the last twenty-four months Seasonal farmworkers live in one pl ace year-round, they are employed in farm work but they may also have other sources of employment (i.e. construction or factory shift work) during the "off-season" (Far mworker Health Serv ices, 2006; Migrant Clinicians Network, 2006). On the other hand, a migrant farmworker according to the U.S. Code Public Health Services Act (as of Larson, 2000) meets the same definition but establishes for the purposes of such employment a temporary abode This means that this type of farmworker moves from one state to another (s ometimes within the same state) in order to stay employed in farm work, following the harvest season (Farmworker Health Services, 2006). Forty two percent of th e crop workers in 2001-2002 were migrants, defined as having traveled at least 75 miles with in the previous year to obtain a farm job. Among the migrants, 26% traveled only within the United States and 35% migrated backand-forth from a foreign country (primarily Mexico). Thirty ei ght percent of these migrant farmworkers had been in the count ry less than a year when they were interviewed. Nearly all (99%) of the fore ign-born newcomers were unauthorized to work in the country (Carroll et al., 2005).

PAGE 30

20 Farmworkers can also be subdivided accordi ng to their migration patterns. There are three generally accepted migrant streams, starting from each of the sending states meaning the states that most migrants claim as their home. One starts in Florida, another one in Texas and another one in Californi a (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2006). Farmworkers following th ese streams return to their homes after the harvesting season ends to await the start of the next season. According to Larson (2000) in the case of Florida, the state produces a great deal of agriculture that both provides work for state residents and attracts out-of-state migrants. In the state there are home-based interstate migrants who travel ou t of the state and some intrastate migrants who travel only within the state. Some s easonal workers continue to live at home and work in agriculture. On the other hand, thousan ds of individuals migrate into Florida for work during the winter months when there are few seasonal agricu ltural opportunities in other parts of the country. There are also a small group of individuals who perform no agricultural work in Florida but leave to wo rk as migrants in other states. These are defined by the term resident migrants (Larson, 2000). Adult Education Given the low level of educational attainment of Hispanic farmworkers and their low participation level in adu lt education, adult education is an important issue that must be considered for this group. According to Birkenholz (1999), education and training have been identified as primary factors that influence the standard of living enjoyed by adults and their families. According to Farn er, Rhoads, Cutz and Farner (2005) there are several barriers to effective adult education in this population. Th e first is the language barrier. Agencies lacking b ilingual and bicultural sta ff are limited in reaching the Hispanic population. Another one is the low level of formal education of Hispanics and

PAGE 31

21 finally, their busy schedules make it difficult to provide adult edu cation opportunities to this population. Relatively little attention has been paid to Hispanics as a group in adult education. There are however a number of adult educ ation programs that are currently offered to Hispanics. Some of these programs ar e funded by the federal government or by the state and include basic levels of reading, writing, and mathematics. These programs are known as Adult Basic Education (ABE). Ex amples of these programs include Englishas-a-Second Language (ESL), vocational e ducation, General Educational Development (GED), and citizenship classes (Huerta-Macias, 2002). Howeve r, most of these programs fail in retaining individuals w ho are enrolled in them and in attracting new individuals and can sometimes result in unattained objectives Many times this can be due to lack of professionalization of instructors and implem entations of non appropriate methods of instruction that will meet the needs and inte rests of learners. Lo w levels of formal education and training as well as lack of programs that effectively attain desired objectives are indicators of the need to fo cus on serving Hispanics thru adult education. Definition Defining the term adult education is of considerable difficulty because it means different things to different people. Acco rding to Merriam and Brockett (1997) adult education depends on where it takes place, and on how each individual experiences the phenomenon. The timing in life or age of an individual also plays an important role in defining adult education. Some examples of adult education are teach ing a literacy or a nutrition class several mornings a week at a community center or a job-skills training program at a company. What distinguishes thes e types of experiences from others is that

PAGE 32

22 adult education is about working with adu lts in some organized, educational activity (Merriam & Brockett, 1997). Despite the fact that the practice of a dult and continuing e ducation is becoming increasingly important in the public eye, a good deal of uncertainty exists as to what it really is (Rogers, 1996). According to Me rriam (2001), adult education is organized activities involving educat ors and adult learners designed to enhance th eir quality of life and the betterment of the community at large. A definition indicat ed by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (O ECD) (as cited in Rogers, 1996) is that adult education refers to a ny learning activity or program deliberately designed by a providing agent to satisfy any training need or interest. This need or interest may be experienced at any stage in his or her life by a person that is over the statutory sc hool leaving age and whose pr incipal activity is no longer education. School leaving age refers to th e age until which a child must remain in education by law. In the U.S. schooling ends by law at age 16 in 30 states, at age 17 in nine states, and at age 18 in 11 states plus the District of Columbia. Students may dropout of school if they have reached the age se t in their state's law for the end of schooling, but dropouts are not considered to have completed school and no certificate or award is issued at this stage (U.S. Department of Education, 2006). Unde r this context adult education covers non-vocational, vocational, general, form al and nonformal studies as well as education with a collective social purpose. Another definition according to Rose (1990) is that adult educa tion is a practical field which focuses on the improvement of practice. Roses definition includes in addition to providers of traditional academ ic disciplines, providers of public adult

PAGE 33

23 education programs, university extension, and urban evening colleges. Another way to describe the field of adult education is as the culmination of organized training and education opportunities for men and wo men within a society (Cookson, 1998). A definition of adult education, then, usually incl udes some reference (1 ) to the adult status of students, and (2) to the no tion of the activity being purpos eful or planned (Merriam & Brockett, 1997). Learning Orientations Our knowledge about adult education is co mposed of many theories, models, sets of principles, and explanations (Merriam, 2001). All of these can be encompassed under five major learning orientations in adult educ ation. These perspectives help increase the understanding of adult educati on and allow educators to see how learning can occur in different ways. By using thes e five orientations together, an adult educator can enhance the learning process for the participants by iden tifying which of these seems to fit better with the type of audience he is working with. Behaviorist orientation. The behaviorist orientation vi ews learning as a change in observable behavior. It is also founded on the belief that le arning is a direct result of the connection between a stimulus and a response. Another belief of this theory is that all behavior is learned and theref ore all behavior can be modifi ed or changed through further learning (Birkenholz, 1999). What this means is that behavior is externally controlled and occasioned by an antecedent stimulus a nd not by the individual learner. One example of this orientation in a computer-assi sted instruction program is if a participant pushes the enter key on the computer and not hing happens, pretty soon he will stop doing it.

PAGE 34

24 Adult vocational and skills training in which the lear ning task is broken into segments or tasks in particular draws from behaviorism, as does technical and skills training within human resource developmen t (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999). Some approaches and methods that can be utilized by educators include (1) reinforcement and incentives, which uses positive reinforcemen t/rewards and incentives during instruction for a desired behavior to occu r; (2) instructional feedback, which utilizes giving feedback frequently and immediately after a behavior occurs; (3) programmed instruction, in which instructional materials are de veloped based on behavioral assumptions about learning; and (4) games and stimulation, which allows l earners to practice new behaviors and helps to teach personal skills (Deshler & Kiely, 1995). Humanist orientation. The humanist orientation was founded by Abraham Maslow and is founded on the beli ef that learning is directed by an intrinsic desire or motivation to achieve ones fullest potentia l (Birkenholz, 1999). Learning according to Maslow is obtained as each individual seek s to fulfill each level in the Hierarchy of Human Needs. Therefore, learning is seen as a process which is centered on the learner and not on the content. The role of educat ors in the learning process is to act as facilitators of learning. An educator can utilize the follo wing methods for the humanist orientation: (1) needs-based programming, in which an educator plans programs based on the needs of the student involved; (2) group discussion and study, in which students share ideas with others regarding a topic of in terest; (3) self-directed learning, in which facilitators and learners ne gotiate and agree upon goals, me thods, time tables, evaluation methods and other details; (4) interpers onal interaction and encounter, based on encounter groups and on specific support groups that deal with emotions by encouraging

PAGE 35

25 honesty, openness, and expression; and 5) experiential learning based on learning by doing (Deshler & Kiely, 1995). Cognitive orientation. The cognitive theory suggests that learning is a result of individually centered mental functions. Cognitive theorists believe that individuals control their learning through their own mental processes (Birkenholz, 1999). Learning focuses on thinking processes and unobservable constructs and occurs in an attempt to make sense of the world and give meaning to experiences. The role of educators is to facilitate the acquisition of knowledge by provi ding organization that allows the learner to incorporate new information into their existing knowledge base and to provide the environment, materials, and feedback that will allow discovery of knowledge. The role of learners is to be active and proactive and to be constantly trying to incorporate experiences into previous knowledge and to seek out information to solve problems. Some of the approaches and methods that ca n be used by the educator with the learner include: 1) an advance organizer (AO), which is a bridging/connecti ng strategy that links what is to be learned and what learners already know through literal language; (2) metaphor, analogy and simile (MAS), which allo ws learners to learn similarities between what is known and what they will lear n through figurative la nguage; (3) chunking or organizing strategies, which he lps to order, classify, and arrange information into new/existing categories, an example is creati ng floor plans; (4) framing, which provides structures that help pieces of information to be better understood in relation to a whole, some examples are charts, matrices and displays; and (5) concept maps, which are spatially constructed representations of rela tionships among concepts, some examples are hierarchy maps, chain maps and cl uster maps (Deshler & Kiely, 1995).

PAGE 36

26 Social learning orientation. The social learning orient ation suggests that adults learn through observation, and upon reflection, w ill imitate or modify their own behavior accordingly (Birkenholz, 1999). This orie ntation combines elements from both behaviorist and cognitive orient ations. It integrates the concepts of reinforcement and environmental influence of the behaviorist orientation and the c oncept of internal structures and processes of the cognitive orientation. The role of the educator is to act as a facilitator of social interactions and to be a model that the learner will seek to imitate. On the other hand, the learner acts as an obs erver, decision maker, and processor of information. Methods and approaches that can be used by this orientation include: (1) demonstrations and trials, in which learners watch someone doing something new; (2) behavioral modeling, which is used in inte rpersonal relationships by identifying people who perform well in certain situations that will improve a relationship; (3) apprenticeships and mentoring, based on observation of demonstrations where individuals are coached to do a jo b; 4) tutorials, where tutors are seen as the experts and it has to do with one-on-one learning; (5) peer partnerships, based on friends teaching friends; and (6) on-the-job trainings based on providing de monstrations, coaching, and monitoring achievement (Deshler & Kiely, 1995). Critical reflection. In general, critical reflection involves the learne r in identifying and evaluating the assumptions, beliefs and values that underlie his or her thoughts, feelings or actions. This l eads to a transformation in how people see themselves and their world. Critical reflection allows the learne r and educator to learn from successful, satisfying experiences and forces them to clarify assumptions and beliefs. This orientation is helpful in developing a w orking philosophy, when individuals engage

PAGE 37

27 socially in talk and activity about shared problems or tasks (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999). Some of the methods used by educators while using this approach include: (1) critical incidents, which are brief descriptions of significant events written by learners; (2) critical debate, a group-lear ning exploration where group me mbers are assigned position on an issue regardless of each persons pers onal position and which ends up with the declaration of a winner or looser; (3) act ion learning, which comb ines action through project work on real-life probl ems with reflection seminars where participants draw out the lessons learned from their project work; (4) participator y action research, an inquiry that is initiated, focused, planned, implemen ted, analyzed and interpreted by a group of learners themselves, usually with the assistance of a researcher or e ducator; (5) reflective judgment, a process of identifying underl ying assumptions in differing accounts of events, narrations, videotapes, minutes of m eetings and other public activities; and (6) scenario building, where scenarios with detailed descriptions of future nature and scope of unfolding potential events, objects and pro cesses are created (Deshler & Kiely, 1995). Understanding how adults lear n through the five learning or ientations that Merriam and Caffarella described above is important for extension educators. According to Deshler and Kiely (1995) it helps educators lear n more about the reasons that guide their actions and can help educators to identify th eir own assumptions and orientations towards the fundamental aspects of th eir own practice, including: learning, learners, teachers, adults, and the purposes of education. It al so helps educators trace the origins of their assumptions in the influences of their e ducational backgrounds. Moreover it expands the professional possibilities by providing them w ith new choices and options for approaches we they can experiment with in their practi ce. Finally being familiar with the different

PAGE 38

28 orientations causes educators to reevalua te their own objectives, their own value commitments, and the larger purposes of thei r own educational practice. Being able to identify which approach is needed for the targeted audience they are addressing will increase effectiveness of the educational experience. Nonformal Education Most adult learning for Hispanic farmwo rkers falls under the category of nonformal education. This can be defined as any orga nized, systematic educational activity carried on outside the framework of a formal educati onal system to provide selected types of learning to particular targeted groups in th e population. While formal systems are highly organized and structured, with a fixed curric ula, nonformal systems ar e flexible, open to anyone, with content dedicated to concrete i ssues for application in day-to-day life (Coldevin, 2003). As such, it is based on part icipatory and interactive approaches. The emphasis is placed on sharing knowledge between technical experts such as researchers, communicators, extensionists, educators and farmer s. The role of the educator is to serve as a facilitator of learning who seeks to eff ectively engage the learners in the experience rather than someone who imposes what the learner must know. On the other hand the role of the learner is to be proactive by seeking educationa l opportunities that are offered to them and participate in them. According to Seevers, Graham, Gamon and Conklin (1997) this indicates that some exchange must occur between the educator and the learner who must be constantly in the process of communication. According to Merriam and Caffarella (1999) two types of learning opportunities are generally distinguished in describing nonf ormal education: community-based adult learning programs and indigenous learning. Community-based adult learning programs are those that address a problem or issue im portant to a community. Examples of such

PAGE 39

29 issues can be ensuring adequate housing and sanitary living conditi ons. Generally these programs are social in scope and focus on improving some part of the community. Educators who work with these programs be lieve that education and training can be a powerful tool in assisting learners to take control over their own lives. Usually these programs are delivered by community-based or ganizations who obtain resources for these programs thru developing funding proposals. On the other hand indigenous learning is learning linked wi th a culture and it includes oral traditions and art forms such as storytelling, and traditional dance and music. According to Brennan (1997) (as of Merriam & Caffarella, 1999) indigenous knowledge is generally ignored and in order to recognize it a four stag e process must take place. This process consists of: (1) identif ying approaches and techniques that may be relevant to indigenous learners such as storytelling; (2) cl assifying these approaches and techniques into a system that educators can relate too in a more formal setting; (3) advocacy for the exploration of a broader indigenous learning system; and (4) development of more detailed a nd comprehensive learning systems. Other learning activities that fall into this category are the preservice/in-service training activities of both government a nd corporate bodies and those provided by extension services. Preservice training refers to certain educational requirements that an employee must complete when they are hi red. According to Se evers et al. (1997), extension professionals in some states ar e required to go through staff orientation. Professionals who are hired might also be requi red to begin their career by developing a professional development plan which refers to personal and professional development through in-service training and involvement in professional organizations. In-service

PAGE 40

30 training programs, usually coordinated at th e state level, provid e the opportunity for employees to receive training in the most current issues and methods without taking a leave from their job (S eevers et al., 1997). Programs. According to Merriam and Brockett (1997) a program implies a range of activities related to and characteristic of an adult education program. A program can be developed from different means; among these is a particular idea, interest or skill, local issues or even the nature or mission of a centre or or ganization. What distinguishes a program from other events in which learning occurs is that this type of learning is consciously organized (Sork & Newman, 2004). According to Sork (1991) many factors can contribute to the success or failure of a program. Educational programs are planned to achieve learning objectives which involve a desired change in human capability. However, educational and training programs for adults do not always attain the expected objectives which can be due to diverse problem s in the design and planning process such as setting unclear objectives, miscommunication of objectives unrealistic objectives and ineffective instruction. Therefore organiza tion of educational act ivities is important because it allows both the learner and th e educator to mutually acknowledge the educational purpose of the activity. There are different types of programs. According to Knox (1987) (as of Cookson, 1998), programs can be classified as: (1) litera cy, which are programs of practical literacy and basic education for adults ; (2) agriculture, which are ex tension programs that help farmers and farmworkers to improve their pr oductivity and the quality of rural life; (3) workers, which are educational programs to increase productivity and changes in the jobs of the workers in every kind of business or industry; (4) profe ssional-technical, which

PAGE 41

31 refer to every kind of professional devel opment and in-service training program for scientific and technical occupations; (5) professional-other s, which refer to the activities with the purpose of continui ng professional education in other kinds of occupations which tend to be influenced by new results of scientific research ; (6) secondary, which has to do with programs to complete seconda ry school via part-time participation; (7) advanced, which are programs to complete uni versity studies via part -time for adults who work; (8) health, these are progr ams for curative and preventive health for adults in rural and urban areas; (9) family, these types of pr ograms have to do with education in family life and home economics; (10) personal, in refe rence to every kind of educational activity related to recreation, entertai nment, arts, cultural activitie s, personal enrichment, and general education; and (11) citizenship, which are educat ional activities related to forming community organizational leaders, solving problems, and enabling the adult population to become better informed and actively participating citizens. There are different program planning models that are used. Most models are built upon Tylers Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction and present program planning as a linear process of assessing n eeds, setting objective s, organizing learning experiences to meet the objectives, impleme nting the program, and evaluating results (Merriam & Brockett, 1997). In practice how ever, these steps are not always followed. According to Sork and Caffarella (1989) (as of Merriam & Brockett, 1997) practitioners take shortcuts in planning in order to get the job done and/or fact ors that are unique to each situation shaping the planning process. According to Jeria (1999) the problem with adult edu cators in developing programs for Hispanics is that educators usually em ploy top-down, authoritarian, assimilationist

PAGE 42

32 models of education. Assimilation is the process by which immigrants and their offspring adopt some values, beliefs and behavi ors more characteristic of the U.S. culture than the culture of the countries from whic h they or their ancestors originate (Pew Research Center, 2005). Often, they fail to include Hispanic soci ocultural factors and other characteristics of this group such as their low educa tional attainment, significant linguistic differences that exist among vari ous Spanish-speaking groups, and different work experiences on thei r countries of origin. Materials. Both Spanish and English-language literacy levels of Hispanics are likely to be relatively low, on average, given the relatively low level of average education. The ability of NAWS respondent s interviewed in 2001-2002, to read English was the following: 53% could not read English at all, 20% c ould read English a little, 6% could read some, and only 22% said that they could read English well (Carroll et al., 2005). This suggests that a high premium must be place d on developing low-literacy materials. The low-literacy level also suggest s that approaches other than, or in addition to, written materials must be an essential el ement of a strategy to reach Spanish-speaking workers (OConnor, 2003). Because Hispanics in the U.S. are su rrounded by the English language, English words and grammar often seep into their daily language use (Mar in & VanOss Marin, 1991). Often, they mix Spanish and English words in the same sentence and borrow English words to develop their own words. In addition, Hispanics represent different nationalities and countries of origin, and although they all speak Spanish there are differences in vocabulary among them. Due to these variations in the Spanish language development of materials that adequately a ddress language differences is needed. Also

PAGE 43

33 English in itself is difficult to translate to Spanish due to its linguistic characteristics therefore; materials should not be literally translated but adapted for use by a Spanish speaking audience. Methods of delivery. Well-developed educational ma terial is important in any program, but by itself it does not assure th at the intended audience will be reached (National Research Council, 2003). Because learning is more e ffective in the learners native language, programs for Hi spanics should be delivered in Spanish (Bairstow, Berry, & Minar Driscoll, 2002). Delivery of edu cational programs which typically involves a variety of people and methods is also crucia l. Methods can include workshops, meetings, slides, film-strips, audio-cassettes, flip-c harts, video, comic books, television and radio programming. According to Coldevin (2003) of all th e group media, however, video has emerged as the lead medium of choice for supporting participatory training. One of the many advantages of using video is that it allo ws the educator to co mmunicate his message quickly and effectively, while holding his viewers interest. Videos are also convenient since they can be watched at different plac es and times and are also cost-effective. Moreover, videos allow control over the messa ge. Viewers are pres ented with only the information that the educator wants them to receive, in the exact order that educators want them to receive it (American Production Services, 2006). Educational materials are best delivered through a trusted and trained facilitator who can properly relate to the situation of th e intended audience. Perhaps the key to the application of learning reside s in the learners percepti on of how important the new learning is to his or her abil ity to work effectively in the setting where the application

PAGE 44

34 must take place. Effective educators understa nd this, and they design programs that show how learning can be applied, or transferred, from an unnatural classroom setting or training session to the ac tual setting where the le arner works (Kemerer, 1991). In discussions of effective outreach progr ams to Hispanics in the United States a frequently recurring theme is the importa nce of trustthat th e only way to reach Hispanics effectively is by first establishing a relationship of trust. Trust is important because it allows to break down any barriers of communication between the educator and the trainer and relaxes the group so that th e group can share with the educator any suggestions and questions about the subject covered in the prog ram. This suggests that it would be more effective to reach them thr ough intermediary agencies that they trust. Some examples would be local Hispanic community centers, churches, immigrant advocacy organizations, non-profit worker advo cates such as COSH groups (committees on occupational safety and hea lth), and unions (OConnor, 2003). According to Farner et al. (2005) despite knowing that adult edu cation is crucial for the Hispanic audience many inst itutions do not yet know how best to deliver programs to this group. Therefore, many programs fail in ac hieving the learning ob jectives that they aim to accomplish. As the largest adult education organization ever created, the Cooperative Extension Service (CES) is concer ned in being able to effectively develop and deliver educational pr ograms (Birkenholz, 1999). The Cooperative Extension System The Cooperative Extension System is a nati onwide educational network that brings higher education into the lives of all segmen ts of diverse populations. The Cooperative Extension Service (CES) uses the term extens ion to refer to activities that extend beyond the daytime programs serving students of traditional college age. According to

PAGE 45

35 Blackburn and Forest, CES offers information and educational programs to all residents on topics such as homemaking, agriculture youth, the environmen t, public policy, and others (as cited in Me rriam & Brockett, 1997). The Cooperative Extension System is a uni que achievement in American education (Rasmussen, 2002). In the broadest interp retation, agricultural extension provides nonformalagriculturally related continuing adult educationfor multiple audiences: farmers, spouses, youth, community, urban horticulturalists (continuing agricultural education and community development) and fo r various purposes (i ncluding agricultural development, community resource devel opment, group promotion and cooperative organizational development) (Riv era, Qamar & Crowder, 2001). No other educational system involves so many levels that are interrelated, yet autonomous. The Cooperative Extension Syst em was established th rough legislation by the Smith-Lever Act (1914) and designed as a partnership of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and th e Land-Grant universities (Seevers et al., 1997). This partnership represen ts public and private intere sts working cooperatively at local, state, and national levels (McKeena, 1987). According to Seevers et al. (1997) funding for extension programs is made possi ble by contributions from the federal, represented by USDA; state, represented by land-grant universities; and local governments, represented by the county or pa rrish offices. In addition, these three partners have input in program decisions. USDA establishes guidelines for programs, determines issues or initiatives of nationa l scope, and provides program support. State specialists and administrators at land-grant institutions assist in determining statewide issues and initiatives, providing training fo r county professionals, and conducting and

PAGE 46

36 disseminating relevant research. Finally th e local city/county unit plans, implements and evaluates programs based on the needs of the local clientele (Seevers et al., 1997). Research, teaching and extension are linke d together by the Land Grant University system (Brewer, 2003). Extension accomplishes this in part by cooperating with agencies and institutions of federal, state and local governments and the private sector in developing and conducting nonformal educati on programs (McKenna, 1987). The aim of the Cooperative Extension System is to he lp people improve their lives through an educational process which uses scientific know ledge focused on local issues and needs. The university-based system develops programs using nonformal education through group needs assessment at the local level (B rewer, 2003). Its educational programs are voluntary and available to anyone who wishes to participate (Rasmussen, 2002). As a nonformal educational delivery system that can serve as the link between people and knowledge, extensions main objective is to improve the livelihood of people by helping them solve their own problems (Brewer, 2003). Effective delivery methods are important to the impact of extension programs (Israel, 1991). According to Deshler and Kiel y (1995) the success of extension programs depends not only on the quality of the content that is offere d, but also on the ability of extension educators to effectiv ely facilitate adult learning. According to Israel (1991) in order to be effective in reaching extensions cl ientele educators have to consider that they are likely to acquire a greater benefit when information is relevant to the needs of the audience and when detailed or individualized information is delivered appropriately. According to Warner, Christenson, Dillman, and Salant (1996) programs to address specialized needs and targeted toward specifi c audiences such as minorities, including the

PAGE 47

37 Hispanic population, are just recently being designed by extension. This has to do with the realization that the Hispan ic population keeps increasing in size each year and that this trend is expected to continue. In addition, programs designed for this population have to do with an understanding of the role th at Hispanics play in the labor force of the U.S. Furthermore, because of low educational attainment, they are in need of educational opportunities. However, there is little docum entation that these types of programs have been evaluated and are successful in servi ng the population they target (Farner et al., 2005). Worker Protection Standard (WPS) Pesticide exposure is a problem that has been identified as a constant risk for farm workers, as well as anyone else who wo rks on a farm (Arcury, Quandt, & McCauley, 2000). Different laws and regulations have been passed in the United States throughout the years in relation to pesticide-related occupational safety and health of workers performing hand labor operations in fields during and after app lication of pesticides. The first one of these laws was the Federal In secticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) passed by the federal government in 1972. This law has been amended since then and it has to do with requiring pesticides to be labeled. This law also created a Restricted-Use-Pesticide (RUP) category for t hose pesticides posing an elevated risk to humans and the environment (Weber et al., 2004). The most recent regulation that has been created is the Worker Protection Sta ndards (WPS) of 1992. Th e regulations covered by the WPS are focused primarily on the tec hnical components: appl ication no tification, entry restrictions, personal protective equipment, decontam ination sites, and emergency assistance (Spitzer, Whitford, & Frick 1994).

PAGE 48

38 History The Worker Protection Standards were first issued in 1974 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In August 21, 1992 the standard was revised to cover all agricultural em ployers whose workers perform hand labor operations in fields, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses treated with pesticides, and handle pesticides in these locations (Runyan, 1993). It required all agricultural employers to be in full compliance with this regulation on or be fore April 15, 1994. Additionally, owners, operators, and their immediate family memb ers were required to comply with the provisions of this standard (Runyan, 1992). Employees of agricultural operations can be classified into two categories: handlers or workers. According to EPA (2005), an agricultural handler is anyone who mixes, loads, applies, or performs other tasks that br ing them into direct contact with pesticides. An agricultural worker is one who performs tasks on plants (other than handler tasks) related to the production of agricultural plants. Under the WPS, employers must follow certa in guidelines, these include: (1) to reduce overall exposure of workers to pest icides by prohibiting handlers from exposing workers during pesticide application, (2) to mitigate exposure by requiring decontamination supplies and emergency assist ance available, and (3 ) to inform workers about pesticide hazards by requiring safety training (workers and handlers), safety posters, access to labeling information, and access to specific info rmation (listing of treated areas on the establishment) (Runyan, 1992). Pesticide Training According to Weber et al. (2004) under FIFR A, U.S. individual states can establish their own pesticides programs under the superv ision of EPA. One agency in each state

PAGE 49

39 assumes the responsibility of pesticide programs and is known as the state lead agency (SLA). The SLA works in partnerships with the state land-grant universities in order to deliver pesticide safety educa tion programs (PSEPs) that tr ain applicators on how to use RUPs. These trainings can allow pesticide applicators to become certified after they have demonstrated competency in the following areas: pest identification, pesticide regulations, pesticide labels, pesticide safety, and environm ental protection. Competency in use of RUPs is assessed thru an Eng lish language pesticide applicator exam that participants must take upon completing the PSEPs. On the other hand, when the WPS was create d it established that an agricultural employer should provide pesticide safety traini ng to both handlers and workers within 30 days of entering a trea ted area. This regulation was furthe r amended in 1996 to maintain a five-year pesticide-retraining interval for fa rmworkers and handlers, but created a fiveday grace period for the training of new worker s. The WPS focuses on providing training to non-certified employees who apply pestic ides and those who work in areas where pesticides have been applied. Therefore, many states also include the mandated WPS farmworker training in their pesticide safety programs (W eber et al., 2004). Materials and delivery. The WPS trainings must be carried out by a certified trainer which can include: growers, employe rs, crew chiefs, commercial applicators, worker advocates, extension workers and the Department of Agriculture staff (Frisk, 2000). To address adequate training EPA ha s prepared manuals, slide sets, videos, and other materials designed to assist employers or trainers in comply ing with WPS (Runyan, 1993). Many of these materials are availabl e through state and c ounty offices of the Cooperative Extension Service (Runyan, 1993). In order to be effective, the WPS

PAGE 50

40 training must be presented orally in a langua ge that handlers and workers can understand, and must incorporate the use of appropriate vi sual aids, and the trai ner must be available to answer questions (Brown, 1995). However, a study conduct ed by Weber et al. (2004), indicated the need among most U.S. states for Spanish langua ge pesticide safety training materials. Suggestions recommended by Brown ( 1994) when preparing a WPS training include: (1) knowing the WPS; (2) determining whether the audience will be worker or handlers since the WPS differ for each of these groups; (3) selecting the training aids that will be used; (4) becoming familiar with the la nguage and literacy skills of the audience; and (5) selecting a convenient time and comf ortable location for the audience. Brown also recommends that when conducting the se ssion: (1) the objectiv es of the program must be clearly stated; (2) that the educator must be sensitive to individuals who can not read; and (3) trying to stimulate discussion between trainees and educators. Finally Brown suggests that the follow-up must incl ude: (1) questioning the audience about those things that had helped them understand th e information presented to them; and (2) identifying methods that worked well and those that fell short. Addressing training needs. In response to the WPS mandate, extension has created specialized programs to address Hi spanic farmworker training needs. The University of FloridaInstitute of Food and Agricultural Scien ces (IFAS) in December 2000 initiated a new extension farm safety education program in 11 Florida Counties: Broward, Collier, Hendry, Hillsborough, Manate e, Martin, Miami-Dade, Orange, Palm Beach, Pinellas and St. Lucie. About 500 people have completed the pesticide certification classes and small farm workshops offered by one specia lized extension agent

PAGE 51

41 (Lockette, 2004). According to Lockette ( 2005) instruction for the pesticide certification classes is offered in both English and Sp anish. Spanish helps learners understand the concepts better and feel comfor table, but since the test for pesticide certification classes must be given in English, part icipants are also given instru ction in English. Moreover, the specialized program to address Hispanic farmworker training needs offers basic worker safety training to farmworkers upon request of an employee, a group of farmworkers, a community center or any othe r group that is concerned with the provision of pesticide training to farmworkers. Up -to-date, about 1,500 workers have gone through the basic worker safety training classes. Inst ruction for these classes is offered in Spanish and it is generally comprised of a one-day, on the job training course. The success of these classes is difficult to quantify since th e program is fairly ne w although the classes are growing in popularity with agricultural pr oducers who want to provide training to workers in their native la nguage (Lockette, 2005). In addition, in Florida in 1997, the Pesticid e Surveillance Program was established. The objective of the program is to effectivel y monitor and prevent pesticide poisoning. The program has two main prevention and edu cation initiatives underway. One initiative targets farmworkers and the other one heal th care professionals. The farmworker education initiative targets female farmworker s and is intended to provide information on peticide safety and good prenatal care practice. The outreach t ool is a radio soap opera in Spanish, Haitian Creole, and Qanjobal (a dialect spoken by indigenous Guatemalan people). The aim of the initiative targeting he alth care professionals is to raise awareness regarding pesticide poisoning prevention, r ecognition, management, and reporting (The Florida Department of Health, 2004). An im portant outcome of th e Pesticide Poisoning

PAGE 52

42 Surveillance Program was a centralized reporti ng site of pesticide related illnesses from multiple sources, including the County Health Departments, Florida Poison Information Network, Department of Agriculture and Cons umer Services, and farmworker advocacy groups (The Florida Depart ment of Health, 2004). In the Rocky Mountain Region, the Hi gh Plains Intermountain Center for Agricultural Health and Safety (HI-CAHS) a National Institute for Occupational Health (NIOSH) initiated a pesticide risk reduction program developed in a bilingual format to reach migrant and seasonal farmworkers. An evaluation about the effectiveness of a 60 minute pesticide training program in Span ish with 152 farmworkers in Colorado was performed in 1998. The four components that we re used to evaluate the effectiveness of the pesticide program were the following: pesticide knowledge, safe ty risk perception (SRP), the Health Locus of Control (HLC) model which pred icts that those individuals taking responsibility for their own health a dopt healthy habits and the Transtheoretical model (TTM) which offers a comprehensiv e tool to measure progress towards the adoption of health behaviors. These were al l measured thru a pre-test and post-test. Results from this study demonstrated that the pesticide program improved farmworkers pesticide safety knowledge and enhanced their perception of pesticide-related risks. It also showed that the attitudes, beliefs, a nd knowledge of a farmworker influence his/her safety-related behaviors in a work environm ent. Overall, the study demonstrated the effectiveness of using long-te rm sustained bilingual interv ention programs (Vela Acosta, et al., 2005). Similarly, in Washington St ate, the Washington State De partment of Agriculture began the Farmworker Education Program. The program focuses on providing Spanish

PAGE 53

43 language prelicense and worker training. The prelicense training is aimed at Hispanic foremen and consists of six days of intensive coursework followed by a Private Applicator exam session. The worker trai ning courses are two-hours long and provide general pesticide safety information. Th e worker training courses are attended by farmworkers and their families (Washington State Department of Agriculture [WSDA], 2006). In California some efforts have been done to reduce pesticide exposure among Hispanic farmworkers. In 1994 The University of California (UC) began an Integrated Pesticide Management (IPM) Pesticide Educa tion Program to qualify instructors to train pesticide handlers and agricultural fieldwor kers under the provisions of the Federal Worker Protection Standard. The Pestic ide Education Progra m conducted train-thetrainer programs during 1995 in Spanish language. Thirty nine of the programs were 4hour sessions to prepare trainers of fieldw orkers. Twenty of these were conducted in Spanish. Handler and fieldworker programs we re held in Bakersfield, Fresno, Lakeport, Pismo Beach, Salinas, Yuba City, Rohnert Par k, El Centro, and Irvine. The outcome of this program was the training of 605 instructors during the first five months of 1995 who reported that they would be training a tota l of 242,347 during the same year (The Regents of the University of California, 2003). Another program that has been implemente d in California to assist the Hispanic farmworker population is the Migrant Farmwo rker 'Consejeras' Training Program. This program trains lay health advisers (conse jeras) from migrant farmworker camps to educate farmworkers about environmental health issues of concern to them at work and at home including pesticide safety and pesticide illness recognition thru different workshops

PAGE 54

44 and distribution of educationa l material. The program operates in 6 migrant farmworker camps in Northern California, in partners hip with Community Me dical Centers, Inc. (formerly the Agricultural Worker s' Health Clinics), the primary source of health care for many farmworkers in th is area (Boucher, 2003). In Michigan there is also a study that was done in 1995 in an effort to explore pesticide safety knowledge among farmwork ers. The study was conducted with 188 farmworkers, most of them of Hispanic or igin (99.5%), at 17 labor camps. General knowledge was assessed in relation to the amount of training workers had been given. Findings of the study indicate that current trai ning programs, especially the training of pesticide handlers, are effective in informi ng workers of pesticide safety. Also, those farmworkers who had been exposed to pest icides had greater ge neral knowledge of pesticide safety, and finally, those farmworker s who had received some kind of training knew more about pesticide safety than thos e who were not trained (Millard, Flores, Ojeda-Macias, Medina, Olsen, & Perry, 2004). Complying with WPS In order to assure compliance with WPS, in the state of Florida, the agency responsible for enforcement and compliance for pesticide-related laws is the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services oversees the Divisi on of Agricultural Environmen tal Services which includes the Bureau of Pesticides. The Bureau of Pesticides is primarily responsible for monitoring pesticide use in Florida, and the Agriculture and Consumer Services Department is primarily responsible for the enforcement of the state statutes (MurphyGreene & Leip, 2002). As part of its re sponsibility of assuring compliance with pesticide-related laws, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services must

PAGE 55

45 inspect workplaces to assure that recommenda tions that focus on diminishing farmworker exposure to pesticides listed in the WPS such as delivery of trainings and use of pesticide protective equipment (PPE) ar e being followed. In additi on, under Florida law, F.S. 487.159(2), physicians have an obligation to report all cases of illness or injury as a result from exposure to pesticides to the local c ounty Public Health Department within 48 hours. Failure in reporting these cases can result in a fine of $10,000 under Florida law, F.S. 487.175(1e) (MurphyGreene & Leip, 2002). According to the WPS Activity Summari es for 2003 and 2004 (as of Galloni, 2004) the state Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services has repeatedly found pesticide safety violations in roughly 1 out of every 3 workplaces inspected. The most commonly documented violations are failure to train farmworkers in pesticide safety and failure to post required pesticide applicat ion information in a central location. Other violations that can impact worker safety in clude applying pesticides at rates higher than what is permitted by the label, not providing adequate protective equipment, and allowing workers to enter pesticide-treated areas before it is safe. In addition, the low number of farmworker pesticide exposure cases reporte d per year (18) from 1999 to 2002 thru the Pesticide Surveillance Program in comparison to the ones reported in California (475) support the belief of advocates that only a fr action of farmworker pe sticide exposures are reported. Many farmworkers are reluctant to re port pesticide exposures for fear of losing their jobs. Others do not report exposures because they do not know where to go or how to make the reports (Galloni, 2004). According to Galloni (2004) the low numb er of farmworker pesticide exposure cases reported contradicts previous research conducted in Palm B each, Indian River and

PAGE 56

46 Collier counties. In these counties interv iews were conducted with farmworkers and results showed that 10 percent of them had b een directly sprayed with pesticides while working in the fields and that 64 percent of them were working while pesticides were being applied aerially or by tr actor in the adjacent fields. Moreover, nearly half (45 percent) responded they had not received pe sticide safety training (Murphey-Greene & Leip, 2002). Due to the apparent contra diction of complying with WPS, South Florida provides a unique context from which to explore the issue of farmworker pesticide exposure and training. Summary A number of factors shape the relatio nship between adult education and the Hispanic population. Such demographic char acteristics as location, education, country of origin, and language spoken at home are va luable tools in developing materials and public health interventions to serve at-ris k populations more effectively. In addition, delivering educational programs to those of different cultures can be a challenge. Overall, a successfully designed learning experience increases th e learners ability to gain more knowledge of the issues that surround the learner. One of the issues facing Hispanic farmworkers which must be addresse d consists of pesticid e exposure and lack of proper training. This chap ter has described what has be en done as well as further needs in the area of pesticide training to be st serve the Hispanic farmworker population. Certainly, adult education is an important co mponent that extension and other agencies need to use in order to effectively design and deliver educational services for this underserved group.

PAGE 57

47 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY This Chapter describes the research design, population, sample, instrumentation and all the procedures that were followed to collect data for this study. Additionally it also describes the process used to analyze the data that was obtained in this study. Research Design This is a descriptive study that served to provide a systematic description of data collected about the farmworkers experiences and perspectives about pesticide exposure and training. Descriptive data is analyzed thru statistical calculations such as determining the average number of occurrences or central tendencies of an event. One of its major limitations is that it cannot help determine wh at causes a specific behavior, motivation or occurrence. In a broad sense this study used a qual itative design; howev er it included some aspects of a quantitative study since it gath ered limited numerical data. It can be primarily considered qu alitative since this study aims to explore and describe the issues concerning Hispanic farmworker pesticide education training needs. This was accomplished by exploring the perceptions of pesticide exposure, previous pesticide training experience and preferred delivery me thods and strategies for pesticide WPS training. The researcher designed a structured interview guide that was administered to Hispanic farmworkers in South Florida that contained questions addressing pesticide exposure and training. Pesticide exposure wa s assessed by taking into account health

PAGE 58

48 problems and laws and legal rights. Previous pesticide training experience was assessed by asking the participants about any pesticide training they received. Similarly preferred delivery methods was assessed by asking particip ants information about their desired way of obtaining pesticide education. Additio nally, a description of the demographic background of the target group was performed. Population and Sample The population for the current study was Hispanic farmworkers in two South Florida counties. The counties selected for this study were Miami-Dade and Palm Beach. The farmworker population belonging to th e Redland Migrant Christian Association (RMCA) centers included in this study is estimated to be (n=1,040) and (n=750) respectively (C. Asuaje, personal communica tion, November 2, 2006). These estimates were developed based on the interaction between a specialized extension agent in pesticide education and the RMCA centers. Miami-Dade County was selected for this study because it has a stable population of migran t and seasonal farmworkers as well as a large concentration of Hispanic population. Palm Beach was selected for this study because it is the county with the largest number of agricult ural workers in Florida. For this study, a farmworker is describe d as an individual whose main occupation is in horticultural field-based agriculture (including nursery operations and greenhouse activities). The sample for this study consis ts of Hispanic farmworkers (n=51) belonging to six RMCA centers (South Dade center, Ev erglade I, Everglade II and Chappy Pro in Miami-Dade County and OBrien and Delray Beach in Palm Beach County). RMCA centers were chosen for this study since RMCA is one of the largest community-based organizations serving the farmworker community in Florida. Its purpose is to promote the welfare of migran t and seasonal farmworkers, the rural poor,

PAGE 59

49 and their families in 20 Florida counties. It is the largest non-profit child-care provider in the state. Therefore, RMCA centers have access to the farmworker population yearround which is an important component that ha s been recognized by di fferent studies as a critical factor that must be taken into account when doing research with this population (Villarejo, 2003; Murphy-Green & Lei p, 2002; Marin & VanOss Marin, 1991). Doing research with the Hispanic populat ion is more difficult than when dealing with other ethnic or racial groups for a variety of reasons Demographic information about Hispanics in general and, in particular, about the communities in which they live at times is not available or is outdated. Another reason is the concern that providing personal information may place some individuals at risk, particularly when the issues are perceived as sensitive or hi ghly personal (for example some fear that releasing immigration information could be used agai nst an undocumented individual and/or his employers by the Immigration and Naturaliz ation Service) (Marin & VanOss Marin, 1991). Another reason for the difficulty of doi ng research with this population is the busy schedules of Hispanic farmworkers. Because of their generally low socioeconomic status, many minority individuals may work more hours than nonminority persons, work two jobs, or have more difficult home situa tions which limits thei r availability for participating in research projects. Other than accessing the farmworker populati on, another factor that influenced the decision of working with RMCA centers for th is research was the connections that the Extension Agent who collaborated with this research had with the organization by having previously worked successfully with RMCA on different projects. It has been acknowledged that cooperation in research efforts can be obtained more easily when a

PAGE 60

50 study has the sponsorship of individuals or in stitutions that in the past have shown concern for the welfare of the members of the community (Marin & VanOss Marin, 1991). The decision of selecting to work with RMCA centers in order to access the Hispanic farmworker population influenced the sampling technique that was used for this research which was accidental sampling. A ccidental sampling is a technique that involves using available cases for a study wh en the enumeration of the population is difficult such as interviewing volunteers in su rvey research (Ary, Jacobs & Razavieh, 2002). Participants were selected with the help of three RMCA centers where the interviews were conducted. The selection of the farmworkers was based on the following characteristics that were elected by the researcher and the extension agent who collaborated in the study: (1) Hispanic, (2) ma le or female that had been employed in agriculture within the past 12 months, (3) who was 18 years of age or older, and (4) who was not a member of a family that was already participating in the study. Volunteers for this study were recruited by as king farmworkers to take part in this study. They were contacted by personnel from the RMCA centers who had been provided with a list of the requirements that th e researcher was seeki ng that the potential participants needed to have in order to take part in the study. Personnel from RMCA contacted volunteers through either word of mouth or a written notice. Those farmworkers who could not read were asked orally if they were willing to take part in this study and if they could actually do it. Th e same was true for those farmworkers who could read except that they were given a written notice. The interview guide

PAGE 61

51 administration sites were located in Homest ead in Miami-Dade County (n=27) and in Belle Glade and Delray in Palm Beach Count y (n=24). Fifty one Hispanic farmworkers participated in this study. Instrumentation A structured interview guide was used to record the information that was collected. The interview questions were designed to address preferred delivery methods of the information, demographics, education and r ecommendations for pesticide trainings. The questionnaire was designed based on an instrument used by a previous study on environmental justice conducted with farmwo rkers in Palm Beach and Indian River Counties in Florida by Murphy (1997). The interview guide consisted of four sect ions (See Appendix A). The first section was designed to collect data about pesticide ex posure. In this section farmworkers were asked to provide information regarding prev ious and present experiences with exposure while taking into account laws and regulations that deal with this issue. This section was comprised of eighteen different questions. The first two questions were designed to gather information about the farms and types of crops where farmworkers were employed. Questions three to eleven were designed to assess the perceptions of farmworkers regarding pesticide exposure a nd their views regardi ng the ways in which they could have been exposed to pesticid es and possible consequences of pesticide exposure. Questions twelve to sixteen were designed to co llect information regarding use of preventive measures in order to reduce th e risk of pesticide exposure. Questions seventeen and eighteen were designed to ga ther information rega rding the views of farmworkers about pesticide exposure at home.

PAGE 62

52 The second section of the interview guide contained four questions pertaining to previous pesticide training experience. This set of questions were utilized to gather information about training needs for this popul ation and the perceived value of pesticide trainings. This section included one questi on that distinguished individuals that had taken previous pesticide trai ning from those who had not in order to uncover training needs. The next question in this section was designed for those farmworkers who had taken pesticide training. This was focuse d on gathering inform ation regarding the methods that were used and their perceived va lue to deliver the educ ational content of the training. The third question in this section was for those farmworkers who had not taken pesticide training with an inte ntion to collect information a bout the reasons for this lack of pesticide training. The last question of this section was designed to obtain information about the views from all farmworkers about th e importance of participating in pesticide trainings. The third set of questions seeked to ga ther information abou t preferred delivery methods of pesticide traini ng. This was done by asking farmworkers nine questions about specific things that could make them feel comfortable when receiving pesticide trainings in order to increase their participa tion and that can allow pesticide educators to design better targeted programs. The last set of questions was designed to collect information regarding the demographics of the population. In this se ction farmworkers were asked to provide information regarding their orig in, their involvement in agri cultural related activities in the U.S., their age, their educat ion level and language spoken.

PAGE 63

53 Expert Panel, Pilot Study, Inst itutional Review Board (IRB) Prior to conducting the pilot study, the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of University of Florida reviewed and approved the instrument used in this study on April 10, 2006 under the protocol number (2006-U-232) The interview guide was later modified by the researcher in response to the findings from the pilot study. The instrument was sent once again to IRB fo r approval and it was reapproved on May 24, 2006. A panel of four people examined and appr oved the final questionnaire. The panel was composed of two people who deliver pest icide trainings, one person who is an adult educator and one researcher. Additionally, the instrument was translated and adapted into Spanish (Appendix B) which was revised by an expert in the subject. In order to identify any flaws and misunderstanding in wo rding of the questions the interview guide was field tested. This was achieved by conduc ting a pilot study at one north Florida farm with eight Hispanic farmworkers. Participants were interviewed using the instrument which had twenty four closedand seven ope n-ended questions that addressed pesticide exposure, previous pesticide training experi ence, preferred delivery methods of pesticide education and demographic information. Additio nally participants were asked to provide feedback about the instrument Their feedback and suggestions were used to improve and make additional revisions to the final questionnaire. In this study both having a panel ex amine the questionnaire prior to its implementation and pre-testing the instrument were designed to address face validity. According to Ary, Jacobs and Razavieh (2002) fa ce validity is concerned with the extent to which the contents of a questionnaire l ook like they are measur ing what they are supposed to measure. One way of dealing with face validity is by having competent

PAGE 64

54 colleagues who are familiar w ith the purpose of the questionnaire examine the items to judge whether they are appropriate for measur ing what they are supposed to measure and whether they are a representativ e sample of the behavior domain under investigation. In this study this step was performed. In additi on, two important variables that influence the validity of a questionnaire are the importance of the t opic to the respondents and protecting the anonymity of the respondent. These two variab les were also addressed in this study by asking participants to expre ss their perceptions a bout the topic in the interview process and by informing them that their responses will remain anonymous. Credibility, Transferability and Dependability Three major aspects that must be consid ered in assessing the trustworthiness of qualitative research are credibility, transferab ility and dependability. Credibility is the term used to refer to the accuracy or tr uthfulness of the findi ngs (Ary, Jacobs and Razavieh, 2002). The strategy used in this study to enhance credibility was peer/colleague examination. This strategy was performed by asking peers or colleagues to examine the data and to comment on th e plausibility of the emerging findings (Merriam, 1995). In this study emerging fi ndings were examined by two pesticide extension educators who work with Hispanics in Florida. The second aspect that was considered in this study was transferability. Transferability refers to the degree to whic h the findings of a qualitative study can be applied or generalized to other contexts or to other groups (Ar y, Jacobs and Razavieh, 2002). A method to address transferability is by providing as much detail as possible about the background of the sample that was st udied. This can allow the findings of the study to be applied to similar people, settings and times. The resear cher dealt with this

PAGE 65

55 aspect by collecting information on the dem ographics of the farmworkers that were studied. The last aspect that was c onsidered in this study was dependability. According to Lincoln and Guba (1985) (as cited by Merriam, 1995) dependability refers to whether the results of a study are consistent with the da ta collected. The logi c used for selecting people and events to observe, interview, and include in the study should be clearly presented. The more consistent the researcher has been in this research process, the more dependable are the results. A major technique for assessing dependability is audit trail where an independent auditor reviews the activities of the researcher through the use of written or recorded documentation. Another aspect to consider in order to in crease the transferability and dependability of a study is the ethnicity of the interviewe r/researcher. According to Marin and VanOss Marin (1991) various researchers suggest that interviewers or researchers should be of the same ethnicity as the respondents in order to enhance rapport and willingness to disclose information. In this study both the res earcher and collaborators where Hispanic. Data Collection The qualitative approach selected fo r data collection for this study was interviewing. Interviewing is one of the most common and powerful ways in which we try to understand other human beings (Fontan a & Frey, 2000). Interv iewing was selected in this study since the populat ion studied were Hispanic farm workers who are likely to be poorly educated. Poorly educat ed individuals may find it diff icult to deal with written materials, especially complex response scales or multiple-choice questions (Marin & VanOss Marin, 1991). Three forms of qualitative, open-ended interviewing according to Patton (1991) (as cited by Rubi n and Babbie, 1997) are: (1) the informal conversational

PAGE 66

56 interview, (2) the general interview guide a pproach, and (3) the st andardized open-ended interview. In this research the interview guide approach was selected as the means of conducting field observations in order to simplify the collection and analysis of information due to the sample size selected (n=51). This method includes the use of interviews that are planned in advance, and are therefore more structured than informal conversational interviews (Rubin and Babbie, 1997). The instrument used to collect the data can be structured in di fferent ways. When designing the instrument, the re searcher must consider how much information he/she is able to anticipate that will emerge during the interview process a bout the subject matter under consideration. Greater structure attempts to ensure the comparability of data across individuals, times, settings, and researcher s (Maxwell, 2005). According to Fontana & Frey (2000) structured interv iewing consists of a preestabl ished set of questions with limited response categories, which reduces va riation among these. Therefore, highly structured interviews are helpful in simplif ying the organization and analysis of data. According to Rubin and Babbie (1997) the prob lem with using this approach is that it interferes with the natural fl ow of the conversation and re duces the flexibility of the interviewer to follow-up on unanticipated responses. Although structured interviews seek to reduce variability among responses, nonsampling errors can still o ccur in the administration proc ess. Denzin and Lincoln (2000) have identified three sources of error that can lead to nons ampling error. These are the respondent behavior, th e nature of the task and the interviewer. The respondent behavior refers to the kind of error that ar ises from the provision of socially desirable responses or from a faulty memory. For example, some individuals may be more willing

PAGE 67

57 to report that they carry out socially desi rable actions such as reading books but may avoid reporting less desirable attitudes or be haviors such as drinki ng alcoholic beverages in excess. In the study, the in terviewer addressed this source of error by including openended questions that served to probe other answ ers. The nature of th e task refers to the type of error that can happen as a result of the method of questionnaire administration or the sequence or wording of the questions. An example of the nature of the task is a change that the researcher can make in the order of questions during the interview. The researcher tried to diminish this source of error by following the sequence of the interview guide and reading the options listed as answers in the same order to all participants. Finally the last type of error has to do with the charac teristics or questioning techniques used by the interv iewer. This source of error was also addressed by the researcher by following the sequence of the in terview guide and reading the options listed as answers in the same or der to all participants. In this study all participants were inte rviewed during the months of May and June, 2006 via a researcher-developed structured interview guide. Th e interviews were scheduled and coordinated with the help of the specialized ex tension agent in charge of Hispanic pesticide training in Sout h Florida with the RMCA centers. Prior to conducting the interview, the investigator briefly discussed with each farmworker the informed consent that was provi ded to each participant. The main points of this consent form were the purpose of the study, the topics that would be covered, the length of time the interview would take, the protection of the participants anonymity and confidentiality. In addition, the investigator responded to any questions asked by the potential participant. Provi ding sufficient information to the participants about the

PAGE 68

58 characteristics of the study, its sponsorship, the usefulness of data and other pertinent details facilitate the collaborat ion of individuals. Later, th e investigator discussed with the participant the criteria used to select pa rticipants to assure th at the targ et population was included in the sample. A copy of th e Informed Consent was handed out to all participants. Interviews were administered in Spanish, and they lasted between 15 to 20 minutes. When a participant was unable to answer a question because of language differences, or misunderstandings, the question wa s read once again and rephrased in order to clarify it. During the interviews, all responses plus any additional information provided by the participant were recorded manually on the interview guide. No interviews were recorded by tape since the structure interview guide was seen as good method of collecting the data needed. Data Analysis The analysis used qualitative data collect ed through interviews to explore and describe farm workers perceptions of pestic ide education training needs. The process used to analyze the data collected was descript ive statistics and codi ng. The data that was gathered was compiled using Microsoft Excel 2003. Different responses given for both closed-ended and short-answer questions were classified and categorized. Each response was given a number which was then entered in the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. This spreadsheet was then exported into SPSS for Windows, version 12 which was the program used to perform descrip tive statistics. The result of this analysis was frequencies and central-tendency measurements. On the other hand, responses to open-ended questions were analyzed with the use of coding. Coding is the process of combi ng the data for themes, ideas and categories

PAGE 69

59 and then marking similar passages of text with a code label so that they can easily be retrieved at a later stage for further comp arison and analysis. C oding the data makes it easier to search the data, to make comparisons and to identify any pa tterns that require further investigation (Gibbs & Taylor, 2005). The first step that was followed was the translation of all open-ended questions from Spanish to English. Responses were then organized into different categor ies in an Excel spreadsheet according to the similarities of the answers that were given by the farmworker s. This classification was possible with the help of the Pawing Technique which c onsists of marking the text (by circling, underlining, highlighting words or running colored lines down the margins) and eyeballing or scanning the text to look for patterns and significances (Gibbs & Taylor, 2005). In this study similar responses were highlighted with a certain color which represents a certain code. The last step th at was followed in the analysis of open-ended questions was being able to relate each c ode with the preceding question. Open-ended questions primarily made reference to a respons e that was selected in a previous question. Summary This chapter has provided informati on about the research design, population, sample, instrumentation, data collection and analysis used in this study. This is a descriptive study that seeks to gather informa tion of pesticide training needs and effective ways to deliver that information to Hisp anic farmworkers. This objective was accomplished by means of interviewing 51 Hispanic farmworkers through the use of a structured interview guide in three RMCA locations in Homestead and Palm Beach counties. The data collected in the study wa s analyzed using descri ptive statistics and coding.

PAGE 70

60 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS This chapter reports the results from 51 i ndividual interviews. The interview guide used was designed to collect information fr om Hispanic farmworkers regarding their perceptions of pesticide expos ure, previous training expe rience and pref erred delivery methods of pesticide educati on. The interview guide was st ructured in four different sections. The first section was about pesticide exposure a nd it consisted of questions regarding previous and present experiences with pesticide exposur e while taking into account laws and regulations that deal with this issue. The second section was about previous pesticide training experience and it seeked to explore the training needs for this population. The third section was about pr eferred delivery methods of pesticide education in order to allow educators to desi gn better targeted program s. The last section of the interview guide was designed to collect information regarding the demographics of the population. Results of the Interviews Demographic Profile Background information of the participants was gathered (Table 4-1). More than half of the farmworkers were female (54.9%), 45.1% were male. Most of the participants (58.8%) have been working in agricultural re lated activities in U. S. for more than 10 years and most of them were from Mexico (58.8%). In add ition, the majority of farmworkers were between 31 and 40 years of age (47.1%) and between 20 and 30 years of age (35.3%). The highest level of education that was acquired by some participants

PAGE 71

61 was middle school (31.4%). A considerable number of farmworkers mentioned having no formal education (15.7%). Finally participants were asked about the language that they speak more frequently at home, and 84.3% of the workers said Spanish. In addition, 9.8% mentioned speaking Qanjobal (a dialect of Guatemala) as their main language. Table 4-1. Demographic profile Variables n % Gender 51 Female 28 54.9 Male 23 45.1 Number of years working in agricultu ral related activities in U.S. 51 > 10 30 58.8 > 5 to 10 11 21.6 >2 to 5 9 17.6 1 to 2 1 2.0 Country of Origin 51 Mexico 30 58.8 El Salvador 10 19.6 Guatemala 8 15.7 Honduras 1 2.0 Nicaragua 1 2.0 United States 1 2.0 Age 51 > 50 3 5.9 41 to 50 5 9.8 31 to 40 24 47.1 21 to 30 18 35.3 < 20 1 2.0 Education 51 No schooling 8 15.7 1st grade-2nd grade 6 11.8 3rd grade-4th grade 10 19.6 Middle school 16 31.4 High school 11 21.6 Language spoken at home 51 Spanish 43 84.3 English 2 3.9 Both 1 2.0 Qanjobal 5 9.8

PAGE 72

62 Pesticide Exposure Hispanic farmworkers were first questione d about their perceptions about pesticide exposure within the previous year (Table 4-2). Approximately 94% of farmworkers reported the use of pesticides at their wo rk places. Only a small percentage (5.9%) reported that pesticides were not used in the crops they worked with. Over half of the farmworkers (52.9%) perceived that they had been exposed to pesticides and 41.2% said they had not been exposed to pesticides. A nother 5.9% were not aware if they had been exposed to pesticides. Table 4-2. Perceptions of pesticide exposure Variables n % Do you know if pesticides were used on th e crops you worked with in FL? 51 Yes 48 94.1 No 3 5.9 In the last year, in your opinion, were you exposed to pesticides in FL? 51 Yes 27 52.9 No 21 41.2 Dont Know 3 5.9 In addition farmworkers were questioned a bout pesticide poisoni ng within the last year (Table 4-3). Almost 18% reported that they had been poisone d and 76.5% said they had not been poisoned. Another 5.9% were not aware if they were poisoned by pesticides. More than forty percent of th ese farmworkers (44.4%) expressed that they had been poisoned once or twice while 22.2% of them reported being exposed six times, 22.2% every time they applied pesticides a nd 22.2% almost every week. The crops farmworkers were working in while being poiso ned included nursery operations (55.6%), vegetables (33.3%) and row crops (11.1%). Two-thirds of the times (66.7%), these poisonings affected other workers while 33.3% th ey did not affect others. Only 11.1% of the workers reported that they had received medical assistance.

PAGE 73

63 Table 4-3. Pesticide poisoning Variables n % In the last year, do you think that you were poisoned by pesticides in FL? 51 Yes 9 17.6 No 39 76.5 Dont Know 3 5.9 In the last year, how many times were you poisoned by pesticides in FL? 9 1-2 4 44.4 6 2 22.2 Every time they apply pesticides 2 22.2 Almost every week 2 22.2 What crop were you working with when you were poisoned? 9 Vegetables (tomato, celery, squash) 3 33.3 Nursery/green house 5 55.6 Row crop 1 11.1 Were other members of your group affected by pesticides? 9 Yes 6 66.7 No 3 33.3 Did you seek medical attention 9 Yes 1 11.1 No 8 88.9 Where did you seek medical attention? 1 Hospital emergency room 1 100.0 Descriptions of the poisoning experiences th at were reported by farmworkers were mainly focused on symptoms (Table 4-4). Most workers reported suffering from a headache, vomiting and feeling dizzy. Othe rs said they had suffered eye and mouth irritation, or difficulty breat hing, and one case was reported where an individual lost consciousness. Table 4-4. Description of pesticide poisoning Response A drop fell into my mouth, I felt dizzy and vomited I suffer from headaches frequently and in some cases I have even vomited I suffered all the symptoms, I vomited, and I had a headache I felt dizzy, it was the first time I was working in the fields and I was not accustomed to them Eye and mouth irritation Pain in my eyes, head and dizziness When pesticides are applied in the row before they plant, its smell makes my headache I usually weed after applications have been made, so I get nasal congestion and headaches I passed out, I couldn't see, I couldn't hear. Around 20 minutes after I fainted, I started hearing and seeing again, my hands were cold and I vomited. Wh en I felt better, I put the hoses away, I left from the area, I took a shower and went back home

PAGE 74

64 In reference to ways in which someone can be exposed to pesticides (Table 4-5), nearly 6% of the workers reported that they ha d been directly spraye d with pesticides and 94.1% reported that they had never been direct ly sprayed with pesticides. Another way of being exposed to pesticides is indirectly thru pesticide drift from neighboring fields; 72.5% of the workers reported neighboring fiel ds were being sprayed with pesticides while they were working. Table 4-5. Pesticide exposure mode Variables n % In the last year, have you ever been sp rayed directly with pesticides in FL? 51 Yes 3 5.9 No 48 94.1 In the last year, were you in the fields in FL while pesticides were being sprayed on a nearby field? 51 Yes 37 72.5 No 14 27.5 The frequency of pesticide applications in neighboring fields (Table 4-6) while working was of 1-4 times per month 21.6% of the time and more than 5 times per month 54.1% of the time. Also, workers reporte d that applications were performed on neighboring fields while they were present be tween one to three times during a year 5.4% of the time and between four to six times dur ing a year 8.1% of the time. Another 10.8% of the workers reported not being aware of the number of times during the year when applications had taken place in neighboring fields. More than half of the farmworkers (52.8 %) reported knowing when an application had taken place on a field they had to enter to perform work tasks. Forty four percent of the farmworkers reported not knowing when a field was sprayed and 2.8% reported that sometimes they knew when a field was sprayed.

PAGE 75

65 Table 4-6. Pesticide ex posure in the fields Variables n % In the last year, how frequently have pesticides been applied in a nearby field while you were working? 37 1-4 times per month 8 21.6 > 5 times per month 20 54.1 1-3 times per year 2 5.4 4-6 times per year 3 8.1 Doesnt know 4 10.8 In the last year, did you know upon entering a field for a work task when they were last sprayed with pesticides? 37 Yes 20 54.1 No 16 43.2 Sometimes 1 2.7 Use of personal protection implements to c over their heads, bodi es and feet from pesticide exposure (Table 4-7) while a nearby field was being applie d was also reported by farmworkers. Almost 60% of the wo rkers mentioned using a hat or cap, 10.8% mentioned wearing something else to cover their heads. In addition, 29.7% mentioned not wearing anything to cove r their heads. Regarding body wear, 86.5% of the workers mentioned wearing long pants and a long sl eeve shirt, 5.4% men tioned wearing long pants and a short sleeve shirt and 8.1% menti oned wearing a coverall. More than fifty percent (57.1%) of the respondents repor ted wearing boots, 31.4% shoes and 11.4% tennis shoes. Table 4-7. Use of protective body wear Variables n % In the last year, while working on FL, what did you wear on your head? 37 Hat or cap 21 56.8 Other 5 13.5 Nothing 11 29.7 In the last year, while working on FL, what did you wear on your body? 37 Long pant & long sleeve shirt 32 86.5 Long pant & short sleeve shirt 2 5.4 Coverall 3 8.1 In the last year, while working on FL, what did you wear on your feet? 35 Boots 20 57.1 Shoes 11 31.4 Tennis shoes 4 11.4

PAGE 76

66 With respect to the impact of pesticid e exposure over their health (Table 4-8), 31.4% of the workers believed that pesticide ex posure had affected their health. Almost 67% percent reported that pesticide exposur e had not impacted their health and two percent reported not knowing if it had impacted their health. Table 4-8. Health Impact In the last year, while working in FL, do you think pesticide exposure has impacted your health? 51 % Yes 16 31.4 No 34 66.7 Dont know 1 2.0 Next farmworkers who believed that pest icide exposure had b een detrimental to their health were asked to describe their beliefs regarding how pesticide exposure had impacted their health. Descriptions that workers provided were focused on illnesses that they and others have experienced without an apparent cause including allergies and babies that were born with de fects; on poisoning symptoms that they have experienced including headaches and dizziness; and some mentioned consequences that they will be able to see in the future. In addition, some farmworkers mentioned the smell of pesticides in association to ne gative effects that they can cause and others mentioned the ways how pesticides can ente r the body. Some of the statements that farmworkers mentioned are the following: you can smell pesticides, they penetrat e through your skin, and your eyes, then you get sick sometimes and you don't know why Now I am alergic, before I wasn't, I sn eezee, so I need to use a nasal spray and drops you vomit, it affects your eyes and you get skin problems the son of a farmworker was born "crosseyed," and I have gotten sick sometimes too

PAGE 77

67 I left my job because my daughter was bor n with cleft palate and I still think that it is possible that this (pesticide exposure) was the reason you can smell pesticides, I believe that as time goes by I will see its impact, not now Its smell is bad, I get headaches constantly and I fainted once Regarding a hand washing facility (Table 4-9) 84.3% of the workers reported having access to one, 3.9% said sometimes a nd 11.8% said no. Farmworkers were also asked if they were provided with time to us e those facilities: 86.4% answered yes, 9.1% sometimes and 4.5% said no. Almost all (98 %) of the farmworkers interviewed reported having access to restroom facilities. Table 4-9. Hand washing and restroom facilities Variables n % Access to hand washing facilities 51 Yes 43 84.3 No 6 11.8 Sometimes 2 3.9 Time to use hand washing facilities 44 Yes 38 86.4 No 2 4.5 Sometimes 4 9.1 Access to restroom facilities 51 Yes 50 98.0 No 1 2.0 Farmworkers were also questioned about pe sticide exposure at home (Table 4-10). First they were asked about the way in which they wash their worki ng clothes. Most of them (94.1%) reported washing their work ing clothes separate from the family nonworking clothes. Only 5.9% reported washin g their working clothes together with the family nonworking clothes. Those workers who had children were also questioned if they were worried about pesticide exposure affecting their children at home and 84% answered yes, 14% no and 2% were not sure.

PAGE 78

68 Table 4-10. Pesticide exposure at home Variables n % In the last year, while working in FL, how did you wash your clothes? 51 Together with family nonworking clothes 3 5.9 Separate from family nonworking clothes 48 94.1 Are you worried about pesticide exposure affecting your children at home? 50 Yes 42 84.0 No 7 14.0 Not sure 1 2.0 Previous Training Experience Hispanic farmworkers were questioned a bout their previous training experience (Table 4-11). Nearly 70% of them reported having ever received tr aining regarding the safe use of pesticides. Table 4-11. Previous training experience Have you ever received training regarding the safe use of pesticides? 51 % Yes 35 68.6 No 16 31.4 Those farmworkers who reported receiving pe sticide training were asked about the person who provided it (Table 4-12). In mo st cases (37.8%) the farm owner or manager provided the training, followed by the crew leader (16.2%), the ex tension agent (10.8%) and 3 persons (8.1%) reported th at they had received traini ng by both the crew leader and an extension agent. Table 4-12. Pesticid e training provider Person who provided training 37 % Extension agent 4 10.8 Farm owner or manager 14 37.8 Crew leader 6 16.2 Sales person 1 2.7 Community center personnel 2 5.4 Private contractor 1 2.7 OSHA personnel 1 2.7 Farm owner or manager & community center personnel 2 5.4 Farm owner or manager & extension agent 1 2.7 Extension agent & crew leader 3 8.1 Doesnt remember 2 5.4

PAGE 79

69 Next farmworkers who had received traini ng were asked about how the information was provided to them (Table 4-13). In almost half (48.6%) of the cases, pesticide training was delivered by using a combin ation of an oral intervention and a video/DVD/slide show presentation. In 24.3% of the cases the information was provided only by a video/DVD/slide show presentation an d in 10.8% of the cases both orally and written and by a video/DVD/slide show presentation. Table 4-13. Approach used to deliver pesticide information How was the information provided to you? 37 % Orally 2 5.4 Written information 1 2.7 Video/DVD/slide show 9 24.3 Orally & video/DVD/slide show 18 48.6 Orally, written information & video/DVD/slide show 4 10.8 Written information & video/DVD/slide show 1 2.7 Orally & demonstration 1 2.7 Orally, picture based & video/DVD/slide show 1 2.7 Respondents were asked to pr ovide information regardi ng their beliefs about the method of presenting the information as be ing useful in helping them understand the information. Those that had received the information orally said the method was o.k. The person who had received the information in a written format said that the method was useful in helping him understand the info rmation and that through it he/she was able to see what could happen, and then they explained what I need to do to prevent accidents. Most farmworkers who had rece ived the information in a video/DVD/slide show format said that it was a good method; however some mentioned that using another method would probably be better. Those th at had received a video/slide show/DVD presentation plus an oral presentation e xplained that it was a good method, that the video was useful in helping them see demonstrations of practices that they should be doing and what they should not do and the consequences of such practices. In addition, most

PAGE 80

70 mentioned that the oral component was helpful because if someone is able to explain to you then you can understand better because a video by itself is not able to answer any questions. Similarly, those who received in formation in other ways mentioned that the method used was good in helping them understand the information that was presented to them. Those farmworkers who had not received pe sticide training (Table 4-14) reported that they had not received one mainly because they had never had the opportunity (42.9%). Four of them (28.6%) said that they had not receiv ed pesticide training because they do not work directly with pesticides, and the rest of them said it was due to other reasons. The reasons they mentioned were not knowing about the trainings, not using strong pesticides, lack of time, and feeling that they did not need one. Table 4-14. Reason for lack of previous training Why havent you received training? 37 % Never had the opportunity 6 42.9 Does not work with pesticides 4 28.6 Did not know about them 1 7.1 Does not use strong pesticide 1 7.1 Lack of time 1 7.1 Lack of time & feeling no need for it 1 7.1 Finally all participants we re questioned about their vi ews regarding the importance of pesticide training. All 51 farmworkers responded that pesticide trainings were important. The main reason that they menti oned as to why trainings were important was acquiring knowledge, mainly about the relation between pesticides and health. Some of the statements that farmworkers said about this were the following: It helps you be healthier, and you can learn about how pesticides can make you sick, and harm your eyes and mind. To learn how to protect your health.

PAGE 81

71 Because people don't know and they can ge t sick, so that they are careful. To know what type of pesticide is hazar dous, and be able to know if its going to produce allergy. You are oriented about what pesticid es harm your health. You learn. Another reason that was mentioned by fa rmworkers as to why trainings are important was prevention of accidents. Also acquiring knowledge in order to know about the consequences of using pesticides, prevention of pesticide exposure, being able to help others, learning about the safe use of pesticides, and as a reminder of the information were also mentioned. Preferred Delivery Methods of Pesticide Education Farmworkers were questioned about thei r preferences for receiving pesticide training. First they were as ked about the person whom they would like to provide the training (Table 4-15). More than 30% said it should not matter who the person is as long as he/she is knowledgeable a bout the subject. Almost 20% responded that they would like an extension agent to provide trai nings, 13.7% mentioned the farm owner or manager, and 9.8% mentioned the state (EPA ) personnel as the ones that should do it. Table 4-15. Preferred provider Person who should provide training 51 % Extension agent 10 19.6 Farm owner or manager 7 13.7 Crew leader 2 3.9 Sales person 3 5.9 Community center personnel 1 2 State (EPA) personnel 5 9.8 Educator 1 2.0 Anyone who knows 16 31.4 Mixer 1 2.0 Farm owner/manager or crew leader 1 2.0 Farm owner or manager & extension agent 2 3.9 Sales person or state (EPA) personnel 1 2.0 Extension agent or state (EPA) personnel 1 2.0

PAGE 82

72 Second farmworkers were asked about the site were they w ould like pesticide training to be held (Table 4-16). More than 30% of them me ntioned the community center, more than 20% mentioned the farm, a nd 11.8% mentioned a farm office or indoor facility as a good option among others. Ho wever 17.6% said they did not have any preference for a place where trainings could be held. A small percentage (2%) was not able to provide a response. The other 6% wa s represented by other sites or a combination of them. Table 4-16. Preferred sites Site where pesticides trainings can be held 51 % Extension office 2 3.9 Farm (field) 11 21.6 Farm office or indoor facility 6 11.8 Community center 16 31.4 School 2 3.9 Church 1 2.0 Any place 9 17.6 Store 1 2.0 Doesnt know 1 2.0 Farm office or community center or school 1 2.0 Extension office or community center 1 2.0 Third farmworkers were asked about thei r preferred method of receiving pesticide information (Table 4-17). More than 30% of the workers reported th at they would prefer the information to be delivered in an oral way and by a video/DVD/slide show. Fourteen percent responded that orally would be fi ne and 9.8% mentioned orally, written and video/DVD/slide show as a good option. Other responses included or ally and pictured based (3.9%), written information (2%), picture based (2%), written information and video/DVD/slide show (2%); orally, written information, picture based and video/DVD/slide show (2%); orally, video/DVD/slide s how and demonstration (2%); picture based and video/DVD/slide show (2%), and all methods (2%).

PAGE 83

73 Table 4-17. Preferred method Method used to deliver information 51 % Orally & video/DVD/slide show 16 31.4 Orally 14 27.5 Video/DVD/slide show 7 13.7 Orally, written information & video/DVD/slide show 5 9.8 Orally & picture based 2 3.9 Written information 1 2.0 Picture based 1 2.0 Written information & video/DVD/slide show 1 2.0 Orally, written information, picture based & video/DVD/slide show 1 2.0 Orally, video/DVD/slide show & demonstration 1 2.0 Picture based & video/DVD/slide show 1 2.0 All 1 2.0 Workers were asked about the language in which they would prefer the training to be delivered to them (Table 4-18). Almo st 80% responded Spanish, 3.9% said English and 17.6% mentioned both languages as an option. Table 4-18. Preferred language Language 51 % Spanish 40 78.4 English 2 3.9 Both 9 17.6 Workers were asked about the frequency in which they would prefer the training to be delivered to them (Table 4-19). Over 60% (66.7%) of the workers prefer multiple sessions, while 23.5% prefer one single tr aining and 7.8% mentioned no preference. Table 4-19. Preferred frequency Frequency of training 51 % One single training 12 23.5 Multiple sessions (Once a week for one month) 11 21.6 Multiple sessions (Once every two weeks for one month) 8 15.7 Multiple sessions (Once every month) 8 15.7 Multiple sessions (other) 7 13.7 Doesnt matter 4 7.8 Doesnt know 1 2.0 Farmworkers were also asked about the days when they preferred trainings to be held (Table 4-20). Almost 30% responded th at any day would be fine, 25.5% mentioned

PAGE 84

74 Saturday and 23.5% mentioned Monday as a go od option. Saturday was selected as a good option because most workers have that day off and therefore they have more time to receive training. Those that chose Monday said their selection was because it is the first day of the week although they provided no specific reason as to why it is more convenient. Table 4-20. Preferred day Day of the week 51 % Monday 12 23.5 Tuesday 2 3.9 Wednesday 1 2.0 Thursday 1 2.0 Friday 1 2.0 Saturday 13 25.5 Sunday 3 5.9 Any day 15 29.4 Any day except weekends 2 3.9 Weekends 1 2.0 Next, farmworkers were aske d about the timing where they would prefer trainings to be delivered to them (Table 4-21). More than half (54.9%) mentioned after work hours as a good option in comparison to 39.2% who selected during work hours and 3.9% selected doesnt matter and 2.0% were not able to provide an answer. Table 4-21. Preferred timing Work timing 51 % During work hours 20 39.2 After work hours 28 54.9 Doesnt matter 2 3.9 Doesnt know 1 2.0 In order to obtain more detail regardi ng preferred timing, workers were asked about the specific hours of the day in which they would like pesticid e trainings to be delivered to them (Table 4-22). Some workers (5.9%) selected 6:00 a.m. as a good hour to receive trainings. Their selection was based on the be lief that you are starting your work day and that at that time you are more prepared to hear. More than 20% of the workers

PAGE 85

75 selected 9:00 a.m. as the best choice ma inly because You are awake. Two workers (3.9%) selected 12:00 noon and three (5.9%) se lected 3:00 p.m. as a good option. Those that selected 3:00 p.m. mentione d almost being done with their work day as the reason of their selection. Several (13.7%) selected 6: 00 p.m. as a good hour to receive trainings; their preference was based on their own conveni ence. Other options were also mentioned by workers in the morning (7.8%), in the af ternoon (23.5%) and in the evening (2.0%). Some workers also mentioned any time as an option (9.8%) and others were not able to provide a specific hour. Table 4-22. Preferred hours Hour 51 % 6:00 a.m. 3 5.9 9:00 a.m. 12 23.5 12:00 noon 2 3.9 3:00 p.m. 3 5.9 6:00 p.m. 7 13.7 Other (morning) 4 7.8 Other (afternoon) 12 23.5 Other (evening) 1 2.0 Any time 5 9.8 Does not know 2 3.9 Finally, farmworkers were asked to select th ree important topics of information that they would prefer to be presented to them in training (Table 4-23). A total of 126 responses were given by the workers. Th e highest number of responses corresponded to personal protection from pesticides (20.6%) and steps to follow during an emergency situation related to pesticides (19.8%). These responses were followed by signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning (14.3%), types of pesticides and how they work (11.9%), pesticide exposure at work (11.1%), pesticide e xposure at home (8.7%) and all of the above (8.7%).

PAGE 86

76 Table 4-23. Preferred topics Topics 126 % Types of pesticides and how they work 15 11.9 How you can be exposed to pesticides at work 14 11.1 How to protect yourself from pesticides 26 20.6 Signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning 18 14.3 What to do in an emergency situation 25 19.8 Pesticide exposure at home 11 8.7 Safe use of pesticides 3 2.4 Restricted Entry Interval 1 0.8 Formulation of pesticides 1 0.8 All of the above 11 8.7 Does not know 1 0.8 Summary Overall, the results indicate that more than half of the participants believe that they are being exposed to pesticides at work mainly thru indirect exposure. Many farmworkers are aware that pesticides can harm their health and some are able to describe unpleasant experiences that they have encounter ed with pesticides while working in the fields in Florida. Althou gh many workers take measures to prevent pesticide exposure such as wearing appropriate clothing, there ar e still a considerable amount of workers that are at risk of being exposed because so me farmworkers do not follow appropriate procedures to prevent it. Most farmworker s have received pesticide training, however, there is still a considerable number of farm workers who have not ye t received pesticide training mainly due to lack of opportunities to do so. The preferred delivery methods of pesticide education generally included some type of oral and/or Video/DVD/slideshow. Farmworkers also selected de livery of trainings by someone who is knowledgeable about pesticides. Finally, farmworkers favored mu ltiple session trainings in Spanish language in a site that they are familiar with.

PAGE 87

77 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Hispanic farmworkers have experienced pesticide exposure and pesticide training in different ways. Their pr evious experiences and their current situation may have influenced their perceptions and points of vi ew about the need of pesticide training and about how these trainings should be delivered to them. In addition it is important to recognize that self selection might have play ed a role in the re sults of this study. However, the extent of self selection bias is unknown in this study. The primary goal of this study was to explore farmworkers percepti on of pesticide educat ion training needs. The focus of this study was in the follow ing objectives: (1) to explore Hispanic farmworkers perception of pesticide exposure, (2) to describe Hispanic farmworkers previous pesticide training experiences, and, (3) to determine the preferred delivery methods and strategies for pesticide W PS training among Hispanic farmworkers. This chapter will first address significant results from the interviews conducted. Next, based on the results of th e study, recommendations will be offered to extension and other organizations that provide educational services to Hispanics and to employers of Hispanic farmworkers. Then, implications of the results for IFAS Extension will be discussed. Finally, suggestions for future research will be given. Results Demographic Profile Demographic information provided the prof ile of those Hispanic farmworkers who have connections to RMCA centers in Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties. As

PAGE 88

78 mentioned by other authors, the majority of farmworkers were born in Mexico (Carroll et al., 2005; Vela Acosta et al., 2005; A hn, Moore & Parker, 2004; Villarejo, 2003, Murphy-Greene & Leip, 2002) followed by wo rkers born in Central America and the United States. Most farmworkers have been working in agricultural related activities in the U.S. more than ten years. Contrary to th e findings of Carroll et al. (2005) that only 21% of the crop workers are female, in this study most participants were women (54.9%). This was due in part to the sites where th e interviews where held which were daycare facilities. Because women tend to care mo re about the educational aspect of their children, more women than men tend to visit RMCA facilities and were therefore recruited. In addition self se lection of participan ts may have influenced greater female contribution in this study. Most farmwo rkers were relatively young (82.4%) between 21 and 40 years of age. This is similar to the findings of Murphy-Greene and Leip (2002) where 77% of farmworkers were between 21 a nd 40 years of age. Carroll et al. (2005) found that the averag e age of farmworkers was 33 years. Regarding education, farmworkers interviewe d varied in their levels of education between 1st grade to high school. A considerab le number of workers (15.7%) had no schooling which is higher than the percentage of never attended school category reported by NAWS (3%) (Carroll et al., 2005). Also high school completition was higher than the percentage reported by NAWS by nearly 4%. However, none of the participants reported completing formal education beyond high school which was reported to be of 5% by NAWS (Carroll et al., 2005). Also, most workers (84.3%) reported speaking Spanish at home which is similar to the findings of Ca rroll et al. (2005) where Spanish was reported to be the predominant native language of 81% of the farmworkers. According to Weber

PAGE 89

79 et al. (2004) understanding the educa tional background and language spoken by farmworkers is important since it can make pe sticide educators aware that many of them are unable to read and comprehend complex pesticide information. Therefore it can assist pesticide educators in designing effective methods and tools through which they can provide simple and clear pesticide safety information. However, additional research on literacy issues is needed. Pesticide Exposure Farmworkers differed in their perceptions and ways on how they were exposed to pesticides in the fields. While more than half (52.9%) believed that they had been exposed to pesticides in Florid a, 72.5% of farmworkers reported being at risk of indirect exposure thru pesticide drift from neighbor ing fields. In the study by Murphy-Greene and Leip (2002), they found that pesticide dr ift from neighboring fiel ds had affected 64% of farmworkers in Florida. In addition, farm workers may also be at risk of indirect exposure due to lack of knowledge upon entering a field that was recently sprayed with pesticides. Many farmworkers (43.2%) men tioned not being informed upon entering a field for a work task when it was last spra yed with pesticides. Murphy-Greene and Leip (2002) found that 82% of farmworkers did not know when the fields were last sprayed with pesticides before they reentered the fields in Florida. This drop in percentage might reveal that more agricultural employers involved with this study are now informing their workers about when a restricted entry interval (REI) has been in effect in an area. Few workers (5.9%) reported being e xposed to pesticides directly. This percentage was lower than the one reported by Murphy-Greene a nd Leip (2002) where 10% of farmworkers mentioned being directly sprayed with pesticides.

PAGE 90

80 When questioned about pesticide poisoning, all workers who reported that they had experienced pesticide poisoning (17.6%), expr essed suffering diverse symptoms such as feeling dizzy, vomiting and havi ng headaches. However, few were able to express how this poisoning occurred. One mentioned pe sticide ingestion and another mentioned pesticide residue as the source of their poisoning. Not being able to express how poisoning occurred may indicate that some farmworkers do not know what pesticide poisoning is, or that they ma y have suffered from a pre-ex isting condition. Someone with a pre-existing condition can manifest symptoms at a lower pesticide dose compared to a young healthy individual. However, the signs and symptoms that are present should be consistent with poisoning from the pest icide in question (Barnett & Calvert, 2006). Workers who believed that they had been poisoned differed in the number of times when these episodes took place and most (66.7%) reported that other workers were affected too. Only one worker (11.1%) of those who believed that had been poisoned mentioned seeking medical attention. Sim ilarly, Vela Acosta et al. (2005) found that only a small percentage (3.3%) of farm workers sought medical attention when experiencing pesticide exposure symptoms. Other authors have also mentioned that despite knowing that they should notify their boss and seek medical attention, farmworkers would rather take some other ac tion such as resting, ba thing, or taking overthe-counter medicine (Elmore & Arcury, 2001) According to Villa rejo (2003), a study undertaken in California, found that farmwork ers appear to access healthcare services only when absolutely necessary, which might be due to lack of health insurance protection. The downside of a farmworker that claims that he has been poisoned and who does not seek medical attention is that his case is left undocumented and he cannot assure

PAGE 91

81 that he was really poisoned. A licensed h ealth care professional can document based on objective findings (signs) that can be observe d and described through a physical exam or the physical findings section of a medical record, or acute poisoning reporting form how was an individual affected by pestic ide exposure (Barne tt & Calvert, 2006). Most workers (66.7%) believed that pest icide exposure had not impacted their health. However, those who believed that pe sticides had affected their health (31.4%) mentioned suffering acute effects such as skin, eye, nose and mouth irritation, and allergies. Others mentioned suffering from unexplained illnesses although none of them provided a name or description of these. Two farmworkers mentioned long-term effects they had observed on babies born with defects. Dermal and ocular routes of exposure were also mentioned and some associated th e odor (smell) of pesticides with adverse health effects. Odor association with harmful effects of pesticides has also been reported by other studies (Elmore & Arcury, 2001). Others could not express how pesticide exposure had affected their he alth but believed that in the future they will see its consequences. Possible pesticide health e ffects later on were al so reported by other studies (Elmore & Arcury, 2001) Regarding measures taken to prevent pe sticide exposure at work, most workers were aware of the use of a ppropriate clothing such as w earing long pants and long sleeve shirts (86.5%) or a coverall (8.1%), boots or shoes (88.5%) a nd something to cover their heads (70.3%) to prevent dermal exposure. The findings of Murphy-Greene and Leip (2002) were lower regarding the use of l ong pants and long sleeve shirts (36%) and higher regarding use of a protective headgear (8 2%). Vela Acosta et al. (2005) found that some behaviors recommended by WPS, such as wearing long pants and long sleeve shirts

PAGE 92

82 were readily adopted by farmworkers. The increase on pesticide trainings from those reported by Murphy-Greene and Leip (2002) might help explain the increase regarding use of adequate clothing. Most workers also reported having access to hand washing (84.3%) and restroom facilities (98.0%). Murphy-Greene and Leip (2002) f ound that these percentages were close to 72% and 88% respectivel y. This shift in numbers is able to show that more employers have implemented these requirements. In order to prevent pesticide exposure at home, most workers (94.1%) knew that it wa s important to wash their working clothes separate from the familys nonworking clothes. This result is higher than the one found by Spitzer, Whitford and Frick (1994) were workers generally knew very little pesticide information (25% to 50% of th e time) regarding washing work clothes separately from other clothing. In general most workers who had children (84.0%) were worried that pesticide exposure coul d affect their children at home. Overall, the results of this study show that farmworkers perceive to be at high risk of exposure to pesticides in the fields. Howe ver, it is important to recognize that the high number of farmworkers who reported being at ri sk of exposure might be due to their lack of knowledge upon what pesticide exposure is and suffering from pre-existing conditions. Results show that workers are exposed to pe sticides mainly through indirect methods. Although no clear pattern was established in this study, dermal, ocular and respiratory were all mentioned as routes of exposure. Previous Training Experience Knowing what Hispanic farmworkers de sire and prefer from a WPS training experience is important. Being ab le to provide an experience th at is similar to what they want could attract a greater number of farmwo rkers to participate in WPS training. Many

PAGE 93

83 farmworkers (68.6%) reported having partic ipated in pesticide trainings however a considerable number (31.4%) had never recei ved any training. Murphy-Greene and Leip (2002) found that between 1997 and 1999 th ese percentages were 53% and 45% respectively in Florida. This shift in nu mber of those who have received pesticide trainings shows that some progress has been ma de in reaching farmworkers. However, it supports the findings of the Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services (as of Galloni, 2004) in which failure to trai n the workers and failu re to post pesticide safety information in a central location have been reported as top violations of the WPS. Those who had participated in pesticide tr ainings mentioned that most of the time (54.0%) these trainings were delivered by the boss (farm owner, manager or crew leader) and they involved some sort of video/DVD/ slide show presentation (83.7%). MurphyGreene and Leip (2002) also found that the mo st widely used of training was the video (36%). Use of video was expected to be one of the main responses since other authors had mentioned that of all group media, video is one of the leading mediums of choice to support trainings due to its many advantages such as convenience to be watched at different places (American Production Se rvices, 2006; Coldevin, 2003). Extension agents (10.8%) had also played an important role in the delive ry of pesticides trainings. Lack of previous training places farm workers at risk of suffering from the consequences of working around pesticides due to the fact that th ey lack the knowledge to take preventive measures to reduce pestic ide exposure. Main reasons mentioned for lack of previous training was never havi ng an opportunity to do so (42.9%) and not working around pesticides (28.6%). Despite that a considerable number of workers had never received pesticide training, all farmworker s believed that participating in training

PAGE 94

84 was very important. They believe that trai nings can help them ac quire knowledge about the health effects that pesticides can produce. Therefore trainings will also provide them knowledge about preventive measures that they need to take in order to prevent pesticide exposure. The knowledge acquired by workers through pesticide trainings will allow them to share the information with others. Word of mouth or informal oral exchange among co-workers has been regarded by other au thors as one of the methods of educating farmworkers about health and safety relate d information (National Research Council, 2003). Preferred Delivery Methods of Pesticide Education Many farmworkers (31.4%) mentioned not having preferences about the provider of pesticide trainings as long as the tr ainer was someone qualified to do the job. Extension agents (19.6%) and the farm owne r or manager (13.7%) were also seen as appropriate people to deliver pe sticide trainings. These pref erences probably have to do with the need of establishing a relationship of trust or rapport between the provider of a program and the learner. Regarding preferre d sites to receive trainings, top responses included community centers (31.4%), or the worksite (33.4%). Some even mentioned that anyplace (17.6%) would be appropriate. This shows that as long as farmworkers are familiar with the place were a training is held they will feel comfortable. Video/DVD/slide shows (13.7%) and oral pr esentations (27.5%) were mentioned separately and in combination (31.4%) as the main mediums of choice to receive pesticide education. These results were similar to those found by Fritz, Whitford and Frick (1994) where videos, publications, and oral communication were identified by the workers as the best ways to teach them. The preferred language of pesticide education was Spanish (78.4%), and this is higher than the percentage (50%) found by Fritz,

PAGE 95

85 Whitford and Frick (1994). However, it is not unusual that Spanish language was chosen since most Hispanic workers can speak onl y Spanish. A study that was conducted in Florida even found that agricu ltural workers expressed a desire for specific Spanish dialect pesticide safety res ources (Weber et al., 2004). However providing information and training to Hispanic farmworkers in thei r first language in an accurate and culturally sensitive manner is only part of the soluti on (Brown, 2003). It is important to understand that there are preventive meas ures that need to be take n to avoid pesticide exposure which need to be provided by the employe r such as providing personal protective equipment and hand washing facilities. Regarding the frequency of pesticide trainings most farmworkers expressed multiple sessions (66.7%) rather than a si ngle training (23.5%) as their preference although the distribution of th ese varied. Farmworkers differed in their preferences regarding timing of pesticide trainings. Wh ile a majority (54.9%) mentioned that they prefer to participate in pest icide trainings that are held after work hours, many (39.2%) also mentioned during work hours. Many wo rkers (29.4%) also expressed not having a preferred day where the trainings could be held and others mentioned Mondays (23.5%) and Saturdays (25.5%). Timing during the day also varied greatly between 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Many workers mentioned 9:00 a.m. (23.5%), an equal percentage of workers mentioned afternoons (other than 12: 00 noon, 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.) and 13.6% mentioned 6:00 p.m. These responses were ba sed on the day of the week when they can have time to participate in a training. Finally, farmworkers were questioned about topics that should be covered during pesticide trainings. Workers mentioned some of the information that the WPS states that

PAGE 96

86 must be covered in a training designed for ag ricultural workers. Responses included (1) an explanation of the WPS requirements designe d to protect workers, (2) emergency first aid for pesticide injuries, (3) signs and symptoms of common types of pesticide poisoning, (4) where and in what form pes ticides may be encountered during work activities, and, (5) pes ticide exposure at home. Topics selected by the farmworkers show that they are mainly concer ned about protecting themselves from pesticide exposure at work and identifying and learning about wh at should be done in case of pesticide poisoning. Farmworkers are also concerned ab out learning more about pesticides that can be found at work and protecting their families and themselves from pesticide exposure at home. Recommendations The following set of recommendations is targeted to extension and other organizations that provide educational serv ices to Hispanics and to employers of Hispanic farmworkers. Have bilingual staff (educators) wi th pesticide responsibilities. Having trained bilingual staff could be very effective in or der to communicate pest icide information to Hispanic audiences. Bilingual staff could ai d in introducing English words and concepts that will allow farmworkers to understand wh at others (who may not speak Spanish) mean or what a warning sign stands for re garding pesticide safety issues. Having bilingual staff could also help farmworkers to be able to express their concerns and provide feedback about pesticide educa tion issues knowing that they are being understood. Make sure that pesticide educators are well trained and have experience. Pesticide educators should not only be trai ned in technical asp ects of WPS but should

PAGE 97

87 have enough knowledge and/or experience in reaching Hispanic audiences. Someone who is knowledgeable about adul t education, who is able to consider learning preferences and social issues of the Hispanic farmworker population is needed to be able to promote effective communication. The instructor must be able to actively involve the participants in discussion and in providing feedback which will help create a meaningful experience. It is also important that the instructor is able to establish rapp ort with his audience. Employers should make sure that new employees are trained. Providing proper pesticide education while taking into consid eration the use of a variety of learning activities will assure that a fa rmworker is well trained. A training program may require using several methods to deliver the info rmation depending on the environment where learning is to take place, how ever a video/DVD/slideshow along with an oral presentation is suggested. Because many farmworkers move from one job to another constantly it could be difficult for an employer to assure that the worker is well trained. In such cases, it is suggested that crew leaders or supe rvisors can briefly mention to the workers measures to be taken by them to avoid pestic ide exposure before starting their job task. In addition, having someone who can be alwa ys available to answer any questions regarding pesticides and their use in the company will be beneficial. However that person must be someone who can relate to the work performed by farmworkers and whom workers can trust. Employers must assure that thei r crew leaders are trained. Crew leaders are in constant contact with other farmworkers due to the nature of their work. Therefore if a crew leader has received proper training he/she can a dvice farmworkers who are not following appropriate procedures to prot ect themselves. Following appropriate

PAGE 98

88 procedures are helpful in diminishing pesticid e exposure. Train-the-trainer program is an option that can ensure that crew leaders acquire the knowle dge needed regarding WPS. Through this program they could also be certif ied to provide training verification cards to the agricultural workers (FDACS, 2006). Employers should keep records of th e training of their employees. Having records to verify the last time a farmworker participated in WPS pesticide training would be helpful. Records could aid in assuring that the retraining interval suggested by WPS of five years is followed. In most cases de veloping a system to keep track of training received by farmworkers can be considered. However due to the transitient nature of farmworkers in some cases this would be very difficult if not impossible. Therefore, in many cases this option will not be feasible. Implications of the results for UF IFAS Extension The fact that extension agents (10.8%) we re mentioned as previous providers of pesticide trainings shows that the role that UF IFAS Extension has played in delivering pesticides trainings to Hispanic farmworker s is important. The increase in number of farmworkers (8.8%) who stated that they would prefer pesticide traini ngs to be delivered by an extension agent also shows that some farmworkers are also aware of the presence of the extension agent although this study di d not address whethe r farmworkers were knowledgeable of UF IFAS Extension services. Other studies have found that in general only 45% of adults are aware of extension (W arner et al., 1996). Extension agents were ranked second in preference to deliver trai nings following anyone who is qualified to provide pesticide education. This confirms that despite the large number of Hispanic farmworkers in South Florida, the speciali zed extension agent who delivers pesticide education has been reaching th is audience. Furthermore, the challenge for UF IFAS

PAGE 99

89 Extension in the future to reach farmworkers will be greater since the number of Hispanic farmworkers is growing each day. One option to increase the number of Hi spanic farmworkers reached by UF IFAS Extension is to consider hiring more bili ngual county agents in those counties where Hispanic farmworker population is high. Count y agents with appropr iate training could aid in the delivery of WPS pesticide traini ngs. Another option would be to hold more programs in conjunction with community cen ters and to make agricultural producing companies aware of pesticide education as a service that UF IFAS Extension can provide to them in case of a lack of qualified pers on to deliver WPS trainings in the Company. This could include simple adve rtising techniques such as se nding flyers and newsletters to companies and community centers. Community centers can aid tremendously in reaching out farmworkers in their communities and effectively distribute information about the importance of partic ipating in pesticide trainings On the other hand, programs offered at a company also have the advantag e that farmworkers are required to attend training assuring a good turnout. As far as program delivery, video/DVD/slid e shows and an oral presentation were seen as appropriate by the Hispanic farmwork ers who participated in this study. On the other hand, no clear tendency was uncovered by this study in regards to pesticide training program content, format, location, and timing. Therefore, it is suggested that the instructor never assumes that he/she is know ledgeable of these options when designing a training program. In order to address thes e points the educator must seek to obtain feedback from farmworkers who have participat ed in training programs. Evaluations of training programs, hosting focus groups or ju st face to face communication could aid in

PAGE 100

90 assessing the appropriateness of a program. Ho wever, the objectives of a program should always be considered in order to keep th e program relevant. Wh en providing a training program at a company or worksite, gathering additional information about the background and knowledge base of the workers w ould be helpful. Observations made by the farm manager, owner and/or crew leader about the farmworkers could help the trainer understand areas or topics in which he/she needs to focus on when delivering a program. Directions for Future Research More research needs to be done in rega rds to pesticide exposure and training. Future research could consist of the following: Implementation of a community-based research design called diagnostic evaluation. According to Arcury, Qua ndt and McCauley (2000) diagnostic evaluation is an approach that has been modified by the Farmworker Health and Safety Institute, Glassboro, New York. This approach collects information through observation in addition to structured in-depth interviews with the help of current or former farmworkers who act as research ers of the study. Researchers record employer compliance of the WPS, thereby documenting farmworkers risk for pesticide exposure. The unit of analysis is the site or farm rather than the individual farmworker. Therefore, multip le visits are made to each site. In building relationships over se veral visits, the researcher is able to look for changes or inconsistencies in the data collected fr om the site. In this way, the researcher can confront respondents when interview a nd other data are in conflict, and thus collect more accurate data (Arcury, Quandt & McCauley, 2000). Data from this study represents RMCA Hi spanic farmworkers in Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties. This group of indi viduals is only a small segment of all Hispanic farmworkers. Information a bout perceptions of pesticide exposure, pesticide training experience and preferre d delivery methods for pesticide WPS training by a larger sample of Hispanic fa rmworkers would be helpful. A larger sample would provide a more thorough re presentation of the needs of pesticide WPS training. Doing similar studies like this one in future instances where the perceptions of farmworkers about pesticide exposure and of training needs are considered could be helpful. Studies such as this one c ould aid in making pesticide educators aware of the needs of the Hispanic farmworker clientele and to get an idea if some progress has been made or not on edu cating this group on pesticide safety education.

PAGE 101

91 Regarding pesticide training further research needs to be done as far as testing different learning methods and materials to determine which is more effective in reaching Hispanic farmworkers. Testing different learning methods and materials must be accompanied by research on liter acy issues to better understand the extent until which farmworkers can read and comprehend pesticide safety information. Summary Results of the study indicate that farmwo rkers continue to have a high risk of exposure to pesticides in the fields ma inly thru indirect methods. Also, many farmworkers have not participated in pestic ide trainings, however they feel pesticide training is important. As far as preferred methods of delivery of pesticide training, in general there was no clear pattern establishe d as far as content, format, location and timing. Moreover, recommendations were offe red to extension and other organizations that provide educational services to Hispanics and to employers of Hispanic farmworkers. Recommendations included ha ving well-trained, experienced bilingual educators and providing adequate training to new farmworkers and crew lead ers. Then, implications of the results for UF IFAS Extension were disc ussed. These implicati ons involved: (1) the role of extension agents in delivering pest icide trainings, (2) how to increase the number of Hispanic farmworkers reached by UF IFAS Extension, and (3) how to deliver appropriate WPS pesticide trai ning programs. Finally, suggestions for future research were provided. Suggestions included conductin g the following: (1) l ongitudinal studies, (2) community-based research, and (3) testi ng the effectiveness of different learning methods and materials.

PAGE 102

92 APPENDIX A INTERVIEW GUIDE: ENGLISH VERSION Interview Guide County: Gender: RMCA center: I. Pesticide Exposure 1. In the last year, estimate how many different farms have you worked for in Florida? 2. In the last year, what crops were harvested on those farms in Florida? Celery Tomatoes Citrus Other. Specify: 3. In the last year, do you know if there were pesticides used on the crops you worked with in Florida? 4. In the last year, in your opinion, were you exposed to pesticides in Florida? 5. In the last year, do you think that you were poisoned by pesticides in Florida? 6. If Yes to question 5 a. In the last year, how many times were you poisoned by pesticides in Florida? b. What crop were you working with when you were poisoned? Yes No Dont know Yes No Dont know Yes (Go to question 6) No (Go to question 7) Dont know (Go to question 7)

PAGE 103

93 c. Were other members of your work group affected by pesticides? Please describe what happened? d. Did you seek medical attention? e. Where did you seek medical attention? 7. In the last year, have you ever been spra yed directly with pesticides in Florida? 8. In the last year, were you in the fields in Florida while pesticides were being sprayed on a nearby field? 9. If Yes to question 8 a. In the last year, how frequently have pes ticides been applied to a nearby field while you were working in the fields in Florida? b. In the last year, did you know upon entering a field for a work task when they were last sprayed with pesticides? Yes No Yes No Hospital emergency room Medical clinic Private doctor Other. S p ecif y : Yes. How frequently? No Yes (Go to question 9) No (Go to question 10) Yes No

PAGE 104

94 c. In the last year, while working in Florida, what did you wear on your head? d. In the last year, while working in Florida, what did you wear on your body? e. In the last year, while working in Florida, what did you wear on your feet? 10. In the last year, while working in Florida, do you think pesticide exposure has impacted your health? 11. If Yes to question 10, a. How do you think pesticide exposure has impacted your health? 12. In the last year in Florida, was there a place for you to wash your hands at work? 13. In the last year in Florida, how near to wh ere you worked was there a place for you to wash your hands? 14. In the last year, while working in Florida, did you get breaks to use the hand washing facilities? 15. In the last year, while working in Florida, was there a restroom facility available for you to use while you were at work? Yes (Go to question 11) No (Go to question 12) Dont know (Go to question 12) Yes No Sometimes Yes No Sometimes Yes No Sometimes

PAGE 105

95 16. In the last year, while working in Florida, how did you wash your clothes? Together with family nonworking clothes Separate from family nonworking clothes Other. Specify: 17. Do you have children? 18. If Yes to question 17 a. Are you worried about pesticide exposure affecting your children at home? Yes No Not Sure II. Previous Training Experience 19. Have you ever received training regarding the safe use of pesticides? Yes (Go to question 20) No (Go to question 21) 20. If Yes to question 20 a. Who provided it? Extension agent Farm owner or manager Crew leader Sales person Community Center personnel State (EPA) personnel Other. S p ecif y : b. How was the information provided to you? Orally Written information (Newsletter) Picture based (Drawings) Radio Programs Video/DVD/TV/slide show Other. Specify: Yes No

PAGE 106

96 c. In your opinion was the method to provide you the information useful for your understanding or do you consider that a nother method would work better? Explain. Continue question 22 21. If No to question 19 a. Why not? Did not know about them Not interested Have never had the opportunity Less than 5 days in the job Other. S p ecif y : 22. Do you think it is important to participate in pesticide trainings? a. Why or why not? III. Preferences for Training 23. If you were to receive pesticide training, who would you like to provide it to you? Extension agent Farm owner or manager Crew leader Sales person Community Center personnel State (EPA) personnel Other. Specify: Yes No Neutral

PAGE 107

97 24. If you were to receive pesticide training, in which site would you like to receive it? Extension office Farm (field)Outdoors Farm office or indoor facility Community Center School Church Other. S p ecif y : 25. If you were to receive pesticide training, how would you prefer the information to be provided to you? Orally Written information (Newsletter) Picture based (Drawings) Radio programs Demonstration Hands-on Activities Video/DVD/TV/slide show Other. Specify: 26. If you were to receive pesticide training, what language would you prefer the information to be presented in? Spanish English Both (Spanish + English) Either 27. How frequent would you prefer the trainings to be delivered to you? All at once in one single training (one day) Multiple sessions (once a week for one month) Multiple sessions (once every two weeks for one month) Other. Specify:

PAGE 108

98 28. What day of the week would you prefer the trai nings to be delivered to you? (mark all that apply) Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Any day a. Why did you select this day(s)? 29. What time of the day would you prefer the trainings to be delivered to you? During work hours After work hours 30. What hours of the day would you prefer the trainings to be delivered to you? 6:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. 12:00 noon 3:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. Other. Specify: a. Why did you select this hour(s)?

PAGE 109

99 31. Regarding pesticide training, what type of in formation would you prefer to be presented to you? (Please tell me top 3 priorities) Types of pesticides and how they work How you can be exposed to pesticides at work How to protect yourself from pesticides Signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning What to do in an emergency situation Pesticide exposure at home Other. Specify: IV. Demographic Information 32. How long have you worked in agricultu ral related activities in the U.S.A.? More than 10 years More than 5 years More than 2 years One year or less 3 months or less 33. Where were you born? Mexico United States Central America. S p ecif y : Other. S p ecif y : 34. What is your age? < 20 21-30 31-40 41-50 > 51 35. What grade of school did you complete? (please circle the correct number of years below or check grade level) 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18+years

PAGE 110

100 No schooling Elementary Middle School High school Some college or more 36. Which language do you speak more fluently? Spanish English Both (Spanish + English) Thank you for your participation!

PAGE 111

101 APPENDIX B INTERVIEW GUIDE: SPANISH VERSION Guia de Entrevista Condado: Sexo: Centro RMCA: I. Exposicin a Pesticidas 1. En el ao pasado mientras trabajaba en la Fl orida, en cuntas fincas diferentes trabaj? 2. En el ao pasado mientras trabajaba en la Florida, en que cultivos trabaj? Apio Tomates Naranjas u otro ctrico (toronja, mandarinas, etc.) Otro. Es p ecifi q ue: 3. En el ao pasado mientras trabajaba en la Fl orida, sabe si usaron pesticidas mientras usted trabajaba? 4. En el ao pasado mientras trabajaba en la Flor ida, sabe si usted fue expuesto a pesticidas en los campos en que trabaj? 5. En el ao pasado mientras trabajaba en la Florida, sufri usted alguna intoxicacin a causa de pesticidas? 6. Si la respuesta a la pregunta # 5 es s, por favor responda a las siguientes preguntas a. En el ao pasado mientras trabajaba en la Florida, cuntas veces usted sufri intoxicacin a causa de un pesticida? S No No s S No S (Siga a la pregunta 6) No (Siga a la pregunta 7) No s (Siga a la pregunta 7)

PAGE 112

102 b. En qu clase de cultivo estaba trabajando cuando sufri la intoxicacin a causa del pesticida? c. El pesticida que lo afect a usted, afect tambin a otros trabajadores en su trabajo? d. Por favor describa lo que pas e. Obtuvo usted asistencia mdica? f. Dnde fue a recibir asistencia mdica? 7. En el ao pasado mientras trabajaba en la Flor ida, fue rociado directamente con pesticidas? 8. En el ao pasado estuvo alguna vez trabajando mientras regaban con pesticidas otros campos cerca del suyo? 9. Si la respuesta a la pregunta # 8 es s, por favor responda las siguientes preguntas a. En el ao pasado mientras trabajaba en la Florida, con qu frecuencia fueron rociados con pesticidas lo s campos cerca del suyo? S No S No Hospital Clnica mdica Doctor privado Otro. Es p ecifi q ue: S No S (Siga con la pregunta 9) No (Siga con la pregunta 10)

PAGE 113

103 b. En el ao pasado, saba usted cua ndo fue la ltima vez que rociaron con pesticidas el campo en que usted trabajaba? c. El ao pasado mientras trabajaba en la Florida, con qu se cubra la cabeza? d. El ao pasado mientras trabajaba en la Florida, Qu tipo de ropa us? e. El ao pasado mientras trabajaba en la Florida, Cmo se cubra los pies? 10. En el ao pasado de su trabajo en la Florida, usted cree que los pesticidas le impactaron su salud? 11. Si la respuesta a la pregunta #10 es s, por favor conteste la siguiente pregunta a. Cmo cree usted que el estar expuesto a pesticidas le impact su salud? 12. En el ao pasado mientras trabajaba en la Flor ida, haba un lugar para que usted se lave las manos? 13. En el ao pasado mientras trabajaba en la Fl orida, Qu tan cerca de donde usted trabajaba estaba el lugar para lavarse las manos? 14. En el ao pasado mientras trabajaba en la Florida, tuvo tiempos libres para lavarse las manos? S No S (Siga a la pregunta 11) No (Siga a la pregunta 12) No s (Siga a la pregunta 12) S No A veces S No A veces

PAGE 114

104 15. En el ao pasado mientras trabajaba en la Fl orida, haba un bao o servicio sanitario que usted poda usar en el campo? 16. El ao pasado mientras trabajaba en la Florida, Cmo lavaba su ropa? 17. Tiene usted hijos? 18. Si la respuesta a la pregunta # 17 es s, por favor conteste la siguiente pregunta b. Le preocupa que a sus hijos les af ecte la exposicin a los pesticidas? S No II. Experiencia Previa de Entrenamiento de Pesticidas 19. Alguna vez ha recibido alguna clase de entrenamiento acerca de pesticidas? S (Siga a la pregunta 20) No (Siga a la pregunta 21) 20. Si su respuesta a la pregunta # 20 es s, c. Quin le dio el entrenamiento? Agente de extensin Su patrn o dueo de la finca Jefe de la cuadrilla de trabajo Vendedor Alguien del centro de la comunidad Alguien del gobierno (EPA) Otro. Especifique: S No A veces Junto a la ropa de la familia que no trabaja en el campo Separada de la ropa de la fa milia que no trabaja en el campo Otro. Es p ecifi q ue: S No

PAGE 115

105 d. Cmo le dio la informacin? Verbalmente o hablando Escrita (publicacin o libro) Dibujos (Caricaturas o revista) Programas de Radio Video/DVD/Televisin Otro. Especifique: e. Cree usted que la forma en que se le di o la informacin le ayudo a entender y a aprender sobre los pesticidas o cree usted que otra forma sera mejor? Explique. Contine a la pregunta 22 21. Si su respuesta a la pregunta # 19 fue no, a. Por qu no ha recibido entrenamiento? No saba que existan No esta interesado Nunca ha tenido la oportunidad Tiene menos de 5 das en el trabajo Otro. Es p ecifi q ue: 22. Cree usted que es importante participar en los entrenamientos de pesticidas? b. Porqu si o porqu no? S No Neutral

PAGE 116

106 III. Preferencias 23. S usted recibiera un entrenamiento de pesticid as, que persona le gustara a usted que lo diera? Agente de extensin Patrn o dueo de la finca Jefe de su cuadrilla de trabajo Vendedor Alguien del centro de la comunidad Alguien del estado (EPA) Otro. Especifique: 24. S usted recibiera un entrenamiento de pesticidas, en que lugar le gustara que se le diera? Oficina de extensin Finca (Campo) Oficina de la finca o en lugar cerrado Centro comunal Escuela Iglesia Otro. Especifique: 25. S usted recibiera un entrenamiento de pestic idas, como le gustara que se le diera la informacin? Verbalmente o hablada Escrita (publicacin o libro) Dibujos (caricaturas o revistas) Radio Video/DVD/Televisin Otro. Es p ecifi q ue: 26. S usted recibiera un entrenamiento de pesticid as en que lenguaje le gustara que se le diera la informacin? Espaol Ingles Ambos (Espaol e Ingles) Cualquiera

PAGE 117

107 27. Cmo le gustara recibir los entrenamientos? De una sola vez en un solo entrenamiento de un da Varias sesiones (una vez a la semana por un mes) Varias sesiones (una vez a la semana cada dos semanas por un mes) Otro. Es p ecifi q ue: 28. Qu da de la semana le gustara recibir los entrenamientos? (marque todas las que apliquen) Lunes Martes Mircoles Jueves Viernes Sbado Domingo Cualquiera b. Por qu ese da(s)? 29. Cundo le gustara recibir los entrenamientos? En horas de trabajo Cuando no trabaja 30. A que horas del da le gustara recibir los en trenamientos? (marque todas las que apliquen) 6:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. 12:00 meridiano 3:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. Otra. Es p ecifi q ue: b. Por qu esa hora(s)?

PAGE 118

108 31. En cuanto al entrenamiento, que tipo de info rmacin le gustara que se le diera? De la siguiente lista cuales tres considera que son ms importantes. (marque las tres primeras opciones) Tipos de pesticidas y como funcionan Cmo puede estar expuesto a pesticidas en su trabajo Cmo protegerse de los pesticidas en su trabajo Como saber cuando est envenenado Que puede hacer cuando est envenado en una emergencia Cmo protegerse de los pesticidas en su casa Otro. Especifique: IV. Informacin Demogrfica 32. Cunto tiempo ha trabajado en trabajos de agricultura en Estados Unidos? Ms de 10 aos Ms de 5 aos Ms de 2 aos Menos de un ao Menos de 3 meses 33. Dnde naci? Mxico Estados Unidos Centro Amrica. Especifique: Otro. Es p ecifi q ue: 34. Cuantos aos tiene? < 20 20-30 30-40 40-50 > 50 35. Hasta que grado de estudi? (Favor circul ar el nmero correcto de aos o etapa)? 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11 -12-13-14-15-16-17-18+aos

PAGE 119

109 No fue a la escuela Escuela Primaria Educacin Media o Bsica Secundaria o bachillerato Carrera tcnica o universitaria 36. Qu idioma habla mejor? Es p aol In g les Ambos (Espaol e ingles) Gracias por su participacion!!!

PAGE 120

110 LIST OF REFERENCES Ahn, C., Moore, M., & Parker, N. (2004, Sp ring). Migrant Farmworkers: Americas New Plantation Workers. Backgrounder 10(2). Oakland, CA: Institute for Food and Development Policy. Alarcon, R., & Mines, R. (2001). Options for U.S. labor intensive agriculture: perpetuation of the status quo or transiti on to a new labor market? In Amber, L (Ed.), Forum for transnational employment Davis, CA: California Institute for Rural Studies. American Production Services. (2006). Advantages of videos: Seventeen and a half (17 ) advantages of using video Retrieved September 16, 2006, from, http://www.apsvideo.com/advantage.html Arcury, T.A., Quandt, S.A., & McCauley, L. (2000). Farmworkers and pesticides: Community-based research. Environmental Health Perspectives 108(8), 787-791. Arcury, T.A., Quandt, S.A., & Russell, G.B. (2002). Pesticide safety among farmworkers: Perceived risk and perc eived control as factors reflecting environmental justice. Environmental Health Perspectives 110(2), 233-240. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Bairstow, R., Berry, H., & Minar Driscoll, D. (2002). Tips for teaching non-traditional audiences. Journal of Extension 40(6). Barnett, M., Calvert, G. M. (2006). Appendix D: Case definition for acute pesticiderelated illnesses and injury reportable to the nationa l public health surveillance system. In Pesticide-related illnesses and injury surveillance: A how-to guide for state-based programs (Publication No. 2006-102). Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH Publications Dissemination. Bergman, M. (2004, March 18). Mo re diversity, slower growth. U.S. Census Bureau news (CB04-44). Retrieved January 20, 2005, from http://www.census.gov/PressRelease/www/releases/arc hives/population/001720.html Birkenholz, R. J. (1999). Effective adult learning Danville, IL: Interstate Publishers, Inc.

PAGE 121

111 Boucher, F. (2003). Migrant farmworker 'consejeras' training program Retrieved September 17, 2006, from http://www.envtox.ucdavis.edu/CEHS/outreach/migrant.htm Brewer, F. (2003). An overview of extens ion systems throughout the world: Public, non governmental systems, private and parast atal extension. In Brewer, F. (Ed.), Agricultural extension systems: An international perspective (pp. 4-21). Ann Arbor, Michigan: XanEdu Original Works. Brown, A. E. (1994). Worker protection standard (WPS); a checklist for trainers Retrieved June 16, 2006, from http://are.berkeley.edu/APMP/discuss/wps/archieve/ab-tips Brown, A. E. (1995). Educational materials for th e worker protection standard (Pesticide information leaflet No. 5). Retrieved October 20, 2006, from http://www.entmclasses.um d.edu/peap/leaflets/pil5.pdf Brown, M. P. (2003). Appendix E: An exam ination of occupational safety and health materials currently available in Spanis h for workers as of 1999. In National Academy of Sciences Safety is seguridad: A workshop summary Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Brown, S. E. (2004, Fall). Confronting Myths About Hispanics. Connections 11(1), 12. Retrieved March 4, 2005, from the Public Education Network Web site: http://www.publiceducation.org/ connections/fall04/brown.asp Carroll, D., Samardick, R. M., Bernard, S., Gabbard, S., & Hernandez, T. (2005). A demographic and employment profile of United States farmworkers. Findings from The national agricultural workers survey (NAWS) 2001-2002 (Research report No. 9). Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Labor. Coldevin, G. (2003). Participatory communication: A key to rural learning systems (Publication No. Y4774/E). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Cookson, P. S. (1998). A conceptual contex t for program planning. In Cookson, P. S. (Ed.), Program planning for the training and continuing education of adults Malabar: Krieger Publishing Company. Costelo, R. B., Braham, C. G., Goldstein, S., Grumet, J. S., Crary Hauck, L., Margolin, P. R. et al. (Ed.). (1992). Websters college dictionary New York: Random House. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of Qualitative Research Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Hispanics in the United States: An insight into group characteristics Retrieved September, 17, 2004, from http://www.omhrc.gov/h aa/HAA2pg/AboutHAA1a.htm

PAGE 122

112 Deshler, J. D., & Kiely, E. (1995) Adu lt learning and the extension educator. In Facilitating adult learning sourcebook Ithaca: Cornell University. Elmore, R. C., & Arcury, T. A. (2001). Pesticide exposure beliefs among latino farmworkers in North Carolinas Christmas tree industry. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 40, 153-160. Farmworker Health Services. (2006). About migrant and seasonal farmworkers Retrieved August 24, 2006, from http://www.farmworkerhealth.org/migrant.jsp#link1 Farner, S., Rhoads, M. E., Cutz, G., Farner, B. (2005). Assessing the educational needs and interests of the Hispanic popul ation: The role of extension. Journal of Extension 43(4). Florida Department of Agriculture an d Consumer Services (FDACS). (2005). 2004-2005 Overview of activities Retrieved May 30, 2006, from http://www.floridaagriculture.com/fass_activities.htm Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. (2006). Bureau of Compliance: Monitoring worker safety Retrieved November 27, 2006, from http://www.flaes.org/complimonito ring/workersafety/index.html The Florida Department of Health. (2004). About the program Retrieved June 23, 2006, from http://doh.state.fl.us/Environmen t/community/pesticide/FPESP_1.html Fontana, A. & Frey, J. H. (2000). The interv iew: from structured questions to negotiated text. In Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2nd Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Frisk, M. (2000, September). Farmworker pesticide safety training resources: An annotated bibliography of bi lingual (English/Spanish) resources for trainers of farmworkers under the worker protection standard. Available from the Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy Web site, http://www.iatp.org Galloni, T. (2004, July). Pesticide and farmworker health in Florida: Brief overview for medical professionals Retrieved September 25, 2005, from http://www.fachc.org/Pesticide%20Expos ure%20Overview%20for%20Professiona ls.pdf Gibbs, G. R. & Taylor, C. (2005). How and what to code Retrieved September 26, 2005, from http://onlineqda.hud.ac.uk Grieco, E. (2003). Foreign-born Hi spanics in the United States. Migration information source Retrieved October 18, 2005 from http://migrationinformation.org

PAGE 123

113 Hanson, A. L. (1991). Understanding particip ation in programs. In Sork, T. (Ed.), Mistakes made and lessons learned: over coming obstacles to successful program planning New Directions for Adult and Con tinuing Education, 49. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hodges, A.W. & Mulkey, W. D. (2000, October). The role of Floridas Agriculture and natural resource-based industries Paper presented at the meeting of the Implan Users Conference, Ft. Collins, CO. Huerta-Macias, A. G. (2002). Workforce education for Latin os: Politics, programs, and practice s. Westport, Connecticut: Bergin & Garvey. Israel, G. (1991). Reaching extensions cl ientele: exploring patterns of preferred information channels among small farm operators. Southern Rural Sociology 8, 15-32. Jeria, J. (1999). The quest for visibility in adult education: The Hisp anic experience. In New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kandel, W & Newman, C. (June, 2004). Rura l Hispanics: Employment and residential trends. Amber Waves 2(3). Retrieved June 6, 2006, from the Economic Research Service/USDA Web site: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Amberwaves/ June04/pdf/features_hispanic.pdf Kemerer, R. W. (1991). Understanding the application of learning. In Sork, T. (Ed.), Mistakes made and lessons learned: Overcoming obstacles to successful program planning New Directions for Adult and Con tinuing Education, 49. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Larson, A. C. (2000). Migrant and seasonal farmworker enumeration profiles study: Florida Report prepared for the Migrant Health Program, Bureau of Primary Health Care, HRSA. Washington, D.C. : Health Resources and Services Administration. Llagas, C., Snyder, T. D. (2003). Status and trends in th e education of Hispanics (Report No. NCES 2003). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Lockette, T. (2005). Extension agent profile : Cesar Asuaje. In Powell, L., Asuaje, C., Parmenter, D., & Dodd, A., Palm Beach County Agriculture Newsletter Palm Beach, FL.: Institute of Food and Agricultu ral Sciences, University of Florida. Lockette, T. (2004). Safety first. Impact 20(2), 32-34. Marin, G., & VanOss Marin, B. (1991). Re search with Hispanic populations. In Applied Research Methods Series (No. 23). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

PAGE 124

114 Martinez-Espinoza, A. D., Fonseca, M., Ch ance, W. (2003). Reaching the Hispanic green industry workforce: experien ces and practical tools for extension professionals. Journal of Extension 41,6. Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. McKenna, C. (1987). Cooperative extension sy stem: A case in point. In Rivera, W. M. (Ed.), Planning adult learning: Issu es, practices and directions Kent: Croom Helm. Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-d irected learning: pillar s of adult learning theory. In New Directions for adult and continuing education San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Merriam, S. B. (1995). What can you tell fr om an N of 1?: Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning 4. Merriam, S. B., & Brockett, R. G. (1997). The profession and practice of adult education: An introduction San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: a comprehensive guide San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Migrant Clinicians Network. (2006). The migrant/seasonal farmworker Retrieved July 24, 2006, from http://www.migrantclinician.o rg/migrant_info/migrant.php Millard, A. V., Flores, I., Oj eda-Macias, N., Medina., L., Olsen, L.& Perry, D. (2004). Pesticide safety knowledge among Michigan migrant farmworkers. JSRI Working Paper 55. East Lansing, Michingan: The Ju lian Samora Research Institute, Michigan State University. Murphy, M. (1997). An empirical study of farm workers in South Florida: Environmental injustice in the fields? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida Atlantic University, Florida. Murphy-Greene, C.,& Leip, L. (2002). A ssessing the effectiveness of executive order 12898: Environmental justice for all?. Public Administration Review 62,6. Retrieved September 02, 2005 from http://utsa.edu National Latina Institute for Reproduc tive Health (NLIRH). (2005, December). The reproductive health of migrant and seasonal farm worker women [Fact Sheet]. Retrieved June 1, 2006, from http://www.latinainstitute.org/pdf/MgrntFrmwkrs4.pdf National Academy of Sciences. (2003). Safety is seguridad: A workshops summary Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

PAGE 125

115 Ortiz, V. (1995). The Diversity of Latino Families. In Zambrana, R. E. (Ed.), Understanding Latino Families (pp.18-39). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. OConnor, T. (2003). Appendix F: Reachi ng spanish-speaking workers and employers with occupational safety and health info rmation. In National Academy of Sciences Safety is seguridad: A workshop summary Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. The Ohio State University. (n.d.). Agricultural tailgate safety training Retrieved September 6, 2006, from http://ohioline.osu.edu/atts/PDF-English/PesticideExposure.pdf Passel, J. S. (2005). Estimates of the size and charac teristics of the undocumented population Washington, D.C.: Pew Hispanic Center. Pew Research Center. (2005). Hi spanics: A people in motion. In Trends 2005 Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center Ramirez, R. R. (December 2004). We the people: Hispanics in the United States. Census 2000 Special Reports (Report No. CENSR-18). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce. Rasmussen, W. D. (2002). Taking the university to the people: Seventy-five years of cooperative extension Purdue University Press. The Regents of the University of California. (2003). Pesticide handler and farmworker instructor trainer. In 1995-Pesticide education program (Annual Report) Statewide IPM Program, Agriculture a nd Natural Resources, University of California. Rivera,W. M., Qamar, M. K., & Crowder, L. V. (2001). Agricultural and rural extension worldwide: Options for instituti onal reform in the developing countries Rome: Food and Agriculture Orga nization of the United Nations. Rogers, A. (1996). Teaching adults (2nd ed.). London: Open University Press. Roka, F., & Cook, D. (1998, September 30). Farmers in southwest Florida Retrieved June 14, 2005, from the University of Florida Southwest Florida Research and Education Center Web site: http://swfrec.ifas.ufl.e du/economics/labor/final98.pdf Rose, A. (1990). Challenging the system: The adult education movement and the educational bureaucracy of the 1920s. In Rohfeld, R. W. & Quinlan, I. (Eds.), Breaking new ground: The development of adult and workers education in North America Syracuse: Syracuse University.

PAGE 126

116 Rosembaum, S., Shin, P. (2005). Migrant and seasonal farmworkers: Health insurance coverage and access to care (Report No. 7314). Washington, D.C.: The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. R. (1997). Research Methods for. Social Work (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Runyan, J. L. (1993, December). Summary of the worker protection standard for agricultural pesticides (Bulletin No. AIB-680). Wash ington, D.C.: Agriculture and Rural Economy Division, Economic Resear ch Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Runyan, J. L. (1992, August). A summary of federal laws and regulations affecting agricultural employers, 1992 (Bulletin No. AIB-652). Washington, D.C.: Agriculture and Rural Economy Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Salazar, M. K, Napolitano, M, Scherer, J. A., & McCauley L. A. (2004). Hispanic adolescent farmworkers perceptions a ssociated with pesticide exposure. Western Journal of Nursing Research 26(2), 146-166. Seevers, B., Graham, D., Gamon., J., & Conklin, N. (1997). Education through cooperative extension Delmar Publishers. Sork, T. (1991). Learning about planning from success and failure. In Sork, T. (Ed.), Mistakes made and lessons learned: over coming obstacles to successful program planning New Directions for Adult and Con tinuing Education, 49. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sork, T., & Newman, M. (2004). Program de velopment in adult education and training. In Foley, G. (Ed.), Dimensions of adult learning: Adult education and training in a global era (ed., pp. 96-117). Allen & Unwin. Spitzer, M., Whitford, F., Frick, M. (1994). Migrant farmworker training needs and the pesticide worker protection standards. Journal of Extension Education 32,3. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). Projected Population of the United States, by Race and Hispanic Origin: 2000 to 2050 [Data file]. Available from U.S. Census Bureau Web site, http://www.census.gov U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). U.S. Summary: 2000 (No.C2KPROF/00-US). Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Commerce.

PAGE 127

117 U.S. Department of Education. (2006). U.S. network for education information Retrieved august 22, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/in ternational/usnei/us/edlite-strucgeninfo.html U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2006). Bureau of primary health care: Migrant health program Retrieved June 20, 2006, from http://bphc.hrsa.gov/ migrant/Default.htm U.S. Department of Housing a nd Urban Development. (2006). Common questions about migrant/farmworkers Retrieved September 7, 2006, from http://www.hud.gov/local/fl/working/f armworker/commonquestions.cfm U.S. Department of Labor. (2005a). Agricultural workers: Occupational outlook handbook, 2006-07 edition (Bulletin No. 2600). Retrieved May 30, 2006, from http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos285.htm U.S. Department of Labor. (2005b). The national agricultural workers survey Retrieved February 23, 2006, from http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/agworker/naws.htm U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2006). Pesticides Retrieved June 1, 2006, from http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/pesticides.html U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005). How to comply with the worker protection standards: What employers need to know (Manual No.735-B-05-002). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. General Accounting Office. (2000, March). Pesticides: Improvements needed to ensure the safety of farmworkers and their children (Publication No. GAO/RCED00-40). Retrieved May 30, 2006, from Gene ral Accounting Office Reports Online: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/rc00040.pdf Vela Acosta, M. S., Chapman, P., Bigelow, P. L., Kennedy, C., & Buchan, R. M. (2005). Measuring success in a pesticide ri sk reduction program among migrant farmworkers in Colorado. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 47, 237-245. Villarejo, D. (2003). The health of U.S. hired farm workers. Annual Reviews of Public Health 24, 175-193. Ward, M. H., Prince, J. R., Stewart, P.A, & Zahm, S. H. (2001). Determining the probability of pesticide exposures among migrant farmworkers: Results from a feasibility study. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 40, 538-553. Warner, P. D., Christenson, J. A., Dillman, D. A., Salant, P. (1996). Public perception of extension. Journal of Extension Education 34, 4.

PAGE 128

118 Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA). (2006). Farmworker education Retrieved August 24, 2006, from http://agr.wa.gov/PestFert/Licen singEd/FarmworkerEducation.htm Weber, J., Kinro, G., Snedeker, S., & Swift, S. F. (2004). Non-english language needs for pesticide safety education. Journal of Pesticide Safety Education 6, 24-33.

PAGE 129

119 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Dilcia Elisa Toro Alfaro was born in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, on October, 1978. Between 1997 and 2000, she attended Zamorano, Panamerican School of Agriculture where she earned the degrees of Agrnomo and Ingeniera Agrnoma with an orientation in animal science. After graduating college she spent 1 year at Reinhardts Dairy in Jasper, Florida, on the UF International Dairy Farm Fellows Program. After returning to Honduras, she spent 2 years working for Chiquita Brands on its banana plantations, in the departments of Quality Control and Technica l Services. In 2005, she decided to move back to Florida to pursue the masters pr ogram in the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication at the University of Florid a, with an emphasis in international extension.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0017928/00001

Material Information

Title: Educational Needs and Preferences of Hispanic Farmworkers Related to Pesticide Worker Protection Standard (WPS)
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0017928:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0017928/00001

Material Information

Title: Educational Needs and Preferences of Hispanic Farmworkers Related to Pesticide Worker Protection Standard (WPS)
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0017928:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











EDUCATIONAL NEEDS AND PREFERENCES OF HISPANIC FARMWORKERS
RELATED TO PESTICIDE WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD (WPS)














By

DILCIA ELISA TORO ALFARO


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006

































Copyright 2006

by

Dilcia Elisa Toro Alfaro



































To my parents, Eduardo and Dilcia Toro.
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are many people who have supported me during this research. First, I thank

God for his amazing grace and love. One thing is unquestionable: His faithfulness.

Second, I want to thank my parents, my sisters, and all of my family for their care and

love.

Next, I want to thank my supervisory committee members for their help and

support. I thank Dr. Nick Place for his patience, kindness, and all his support throughout

this process. I also thank Dr. Fred Fishel, Dr. William Stall, and Dr. Tracy Irani for all

their advice and suggestions. In addition, I want to thank Extension Agent Cesar Asuaj e

for his willingness to cooperate with this study. His experience and knowledge played an

essential role in the development of this study. I also want to thank Gloria Lopez for

collaborating and providing feedback for this study. I am also indebted to Dr. Ed

Osborne and the faculty in the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication

for funding my graduate studies through different grants, and for all their support and

encouragement. Especially I want to thank, Dr. Nick Place, Dr. Marta Hartmann, and Dr.

Glenn Israel.

Furthermore, I thank Redland Migrant Christian Association (RMCA) for its

cooperation in granting me access to conduct this study. Finally, I want to acknowledge

the Interdisciplinary Field Research Grant for providing funding for this study.





















TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGMENT S .............. .................... iv


LIST OF TABLES ................ ..............vii .......... ....


AB STRAC T ................ .............. ix


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............1.......... ......


Probl em Statement ................. ...............4.................

Purpose and Obj ective ................. ...............5.......... .....
Operational Definitions .............. ...............5.....
Theoretical Framework............... ...............7
Limitations of the Study .............. ...............8.....
Summary ................. ...............9.................


2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................. ...............10................


H i spani c s................... ....... ....... ...............10....
Demographic Profile of Hispanics ................. ...............10................
Current Situation ................. ...............11.......... .....
Farmworkers ................. ...............14.................
Adult Education ................. ...............20.................
Definition............... ...............2
Learning Orientations ................. ...............23.................
Nonformal Education .............. ...............28....
The Cooperative Extension System ................. ...............34................
Worker Protection Standard (WPS)............... ...............37.
H i story .............. ...............3 8....
Pesticide Training ................. ...............38.................
Complying with WP S............... ...............44..
Sum m ary ................. ...............46.......... ......


3 IVETHODOLOGY .............. ...............47....


Research Design .............. ...............47....
Population and Sample .............. ...............48....












Instrum entation ............. ....... .........._ .. ..... ... .. ................51

Expert Panel, Pilot Study, Institutional Review Board (IRB) ................... ..........53
Credibility, Transferability and Dependability............... .............5
Data Collection .............. ...............55....
Data Analysis............... ...............58
Sum m ary ................. ...............59.......... ......


4 RE SULT S .............. ...............60....


Results of the Interviews .............. ...............60....

Demographic Profile .............. ...............60....
Pesticide Exposure............... ...............62
Previous Training Experience ................ ..... ..... .............6
Preferred Delivery Methods of Pesticide Education ................. ............... .....71
Sum m ary ................. ...............76.......... ......


5 DI SCUS SSION ................. ...............77................


Re sults ................ .............. ...............77.......

Demographic Prof 11e .............. ...............77....
Pesticide Exposure............... ...............79
Previous Training Experience ................ ..... ..... .............8
Preferred Delivery Methods of Pesticide Education ................. ............... .....84
Recommendations............. ............ ...............8

Implications of the results for UF IFAS Extension ................ ............... ...._...88
Directions for Future Research ................. ...............90................
Sum m ary ................. ...............9.. 1..............


APPENDIX


A INTERVIEW GUIDE: ENGLISH VERSION ................ .............................92


B INTERVIEW GUIDE: SPANISH VERSION ................. ............................101


LIST OF REFERENCES ................. ...............110................


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................. ...............119......... ......



















LIST OF TABLES


Table pg



4-1 Demographic profile .............. ...............61....

4-2 Perceptions of pesticide exposure ......_..........._... ........._... ...._. ....62

4-3 Pesticide poisoning............... ...............6

4-4 Description of pesticide poisoning ...._.._.._ ..... .._._. ...._.._ ...........6

4-5 Pesticide exposure mode .............. ...............64....

4-6 Pesticide exposure in the fields .............. ...............65....

4-7 Use of protective body wear. ........._.._.._ ...._.._....._. ...... .....6

4-8 Health Impact ........._.._.. ...._... ...............66....

4-9 Hand washing and restroom facilities .............. ...............67....

4-10 Pesticide exposure at home .............. ...............68....

4-11 Previous training experience .............. ...............68....

4-12 Pesticide training provider .............. ...............68....

4-13 Approach used to deliver pesticide information .............. ..... ............... 6

4-14 Reason for lack of previous training ........._..... ....__. ...._.._ ........._.....70

4-15 Preferred provider .............. ...............71....

4-16 Preferred sites ............... ...............72....

4-17 Preferred method .............. ...............73....


4-18 Preferred language............... ...............73

4-19 Preferred frequency .............. ...............73....

4-20 Preferred day .............. ...............74....












4-21 Preferred timing............... ...............74.


4-22 Preferred hours .............. ...............75....


4-23 Preferred topics .............. ...............76....






































































V111









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

EDUCATIONAL NEEDS AND PREFERENCES OF HISPANIC FARMWORKERS
RELATED TO PESTICIDE WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD (WPS)

By

Dilcia Elisa Toro Alfaro

December 2006

Chair: Nick Place
Major Department: Agricultural Education and Communication

Hispanic farmworkers play a critical role in Florida' s agriculture through their

participation in the agricultural workforce in the state. Their job responsibilities

generally include working in areas that have previously been treated with pesticides,

thereby placing farmworkers at risk of pesticide exposure. The Cooperative Extension

Service is one organization that can provide pesticide educational programs specific to

Hispanic farmworker needs. Fifty-one Hispanic farmworkers participated in individual

interviews addressing their perceptions of pesticide training needs related to Worker

Protection Standard (WPS) in South Florida. Specific obj ectives of the study were to

explore perceptions of pesticide exposure, to describe previous pesticide training

experience and to determine the preferred delivery methods of pesticide training for

Hispanic farmworkers.

Overall, results showed that farmworkers have a high risk of exposure to pesticides

in the Hield mainly through indirect methods. Many farmworkers perceive that they have

been exposed to pesticides at work. Although no clear pattern was established in this

study, dermal, ocular and respiratory were all mentioned as routes of exposure. Also,

several workers have never experienced pesticide training. Results indicate the need to









develop and implement adequate pesticide educational programs for Hispanic

farmworkers. Further research is needed to test different learning methods and materials,

to determine which is more effective in reaching Hispanics farmworkers.















CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

The State of Florida has a large agricultural sector that produces a wide array of

food, fiber, and associated services. Its subtropical climate provides a comparative

advantage for production of high-valued crops (Hodges & Mulkey, 2000). According to

the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services [FDACS] (2005), Florida

leads the nation in production of citrus, sugarcane, foliage plants, cut floral greens, and

tropical fish; and ranks second in the production of fresh market vegetables.

In general, agricultural production is labor intensive. According to the U.S.

Department of Labor (2005a) in 2004, 58% of the employed workers in the U. S. held

jobs as agricultural workers; 83% of these jobs were as farmworkers. Much of the U.S.

farm workforce is made up of migrant and seasonal workers, many of them recent

immigrants from Latin America, or aliens working under work permits.

A number of attempts have been made to enumerate the farmworker population.

According to Roka and Cook (1998), the rate of worker turnover and the transient nature

of seasonal farmworkers have made it difficult to develop accurate and consistent

estimates of farmworker numbers. Although there are no current reliable statistics for

their actual number, it is estimated that there are between 2.5 million and 4.2 million

farmworkers in the United States (National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health

[NLIRH], 2005; Arcury, Quant & Russell, 2002; U.S. General Accounting Office [U.S.

GAO], 2000). Of these, nearly 200,000 are in the state of Florida (Larson, 2000).










Hispanic farmworkers are the majority and typically represent 70% to 94% of the

population of farmworkers. They play a critical role in Florida's agriculture through their

participation in the agricultural workforce in the State (Roka & Cook, 1998). Activities

performed by farmworkers in the field can include occupations that require handling

pesticides or other tasks such as planting, growing and harvesting in areas where

pesticides have been applied (Weber, Kinro, Snedeker, & Swift, 2004). According to

Ward, Prince, Stewart, and Zahm, (2001) working in areas which have previously been

treated with pesticides places farmworkers at risk of pesticide exposure. The actual

number of Florida farmworkers exposed to pesticides is not known because of

insufficient documentation (Galloni, 2004; Frisk, 2000).

Farmworkers are exposed to pesticides in numerous ways: dermal absorption,

inhalation, and ingestion, and exposure can cause many acute and long-term effects.

Acute effects include headaches, dizziness, vomiting, skin and eye problems, while long-

term effects include neurological disorders, reproductive problems, birth defects, and

certain types of cancer among others (Salazar, Napolitano, Scherer, & McCauley 2004;

Elmore & Arcury, 2001). However, exposure is relatively minimal if safety procedures

are followed.

In order to diminish agricultural pesticide exposure, the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency [EPA] (2005) implemented a federal regulation called the Worker

Protection Standard (WPS). This set of regulations requires employers of farmworkers to

provide information about exposure to pesticides, protection against exposures to

pesticides, and ways to mitigate exposures to pesticides. However, according to Galloni

(2004) commonly documented pesticide safety violations by the Florida Department of










Agricultural and Consumer Services include failure to train farmworkers in pesticide

safety and failure to post required pesticide application information in a central location.

According to Vela Acosta, Chapman, Bigelow, Kennedy, and Buchan (2005)

farmworker perceived pesticide risk has been correlated with pesticide information and

adoption of safety related behaviors which makes provision of proper training to

farmworkers crucial. Moreover efforts to provide safety training for farmworkers have

not been fully evaluated and there are still important questions about the cultural and

educational appropriateness of the regulations and the materials developed to implement

them (Arcury, Quandt, & Russell, 2002).

The Cooperative Extension system is a key organization that helps to address

pesticide training to farmworkers. According to Israel (1991) effective delivery methods

are important to the impact of extension programs. Effective delivery requires taking into

account the audience of a program and matching the information channel preferred by

them to those used by extension. Information channel refers to the use of mass media,

printed material, meetings, workshops, and demonstrations. According to Coldevin

(2003) an important element of these educational programs is the use of participatory

audience involvement in both information dissemination and motivation in the areas of

education and training.

According to Martinez-Espinoza, Fonseca and Chance (2003) one of the current

recipients and potential audiences of pesticide training programs delivered by the

Cooperative Extension Service are Hispanic farmworkers, and they generally have a low

education level. Limited literacy and language skills are a weakness in connecting









farmworkers with appropriate information materials, services, or resources available to

effectively accompli sh their j ob s.

According to Sork & Newman (2004) one important activity of educators and

trainers in program development is responding to the needs and interests or demands of

potential learners. In doing so, it is important to understand that program development

takes place within a context that requires the educator to adjust, and react to the potential

audience. This context can be political, economic, social, organizational, aesthetic,

moral, spiritual and/or historical. One way to understand potential learners is by means

of openness and questioning, as well as efforts to express experience and values from

different perspectives.

Problem Statement

Farmwork is listed as the second most dangerous occupation in the United States

behind mining. This is due in part to a combination of poverty, limited access to health

care and education, language barriers and hazardous working conditions (Migrant

Clinicians Network, 2006). Farmworkers are predominantly Hispanic, accounting for

approximately 83% of all farmworkers according to findings from Carroll, Samardick,

Bernard, Gabbard, and Hernandez, (2005) from the National Agricultural Workers

Survey in 2001-2002 and the fastest growing group.

Due to their high risk of being exposed to pesticides while conducting j ob tasks,

pesticide safety training is recognized as one of the priorities for this occupational group.

According to Spitzer, Whitford, and Frick (1994), the mandated pesticide safety training

included in the WPS has received minimal attention and has failed to provide the means

to educate the Hispanic population. Developing training programs and providing

adequate educational content and delivery methods of pesticide safety training has been










recognized as a need by previous studies to Hispanic audiences (Weber et al. 2004;

Martinez-Espinoza, Fonseca & Chance, 2003; Murphy, 1997).

According to Spitzer, Whitford and Frick (1994) there is lack of attention to the

informational needs and delivery mechanisms needed to effectively communicate with

this type of diverse population. This failure to communicate properly between experts

and farmworkers could reduce pesticide safety training to grower compliance rather than

encourage education that actually prevents worker' s exposure to pesticides.

Furthermore, the demand for extension programs that seek to implement effective,

farm-level safety and pesticide certification classes and training programs to small

farmers and agricultural workers in South Florida has increased for both the private and

public sectors in the last decade according to Lockette (2004).

Purpose and Objective

The purpose of this study will be to explore farm workers perceptions of pesticide

education training needs. The specific objectives of the study are:

* Explore Hispanic farmworkers perceptions of pesticide exposure.
* Describe Hispanic farmworkers previous pesticide training experiences.
* Determine the preferred delivery methods and strategies for pesticide WPS training
among Hispanic farmworkers.

This study will benefit people who work with pesticide training with Hispanic

farmworkers including UF IFAS Extension. It will uncover the educational needs and

preferred delivery methods and strategies for pesticide training that will allow them to

be more effective in reaching Hispanic audience.

Operational Definitions

* Adult education: the provision of planned learning opportunities for those persons
who society deems to be adults (Rogers, 1996).










* Acute effect: An adverse effect on any living organism in which severe symptoms
develop rapidly and often subside after the exposure stops.

* Exposure: The condition of being exposed without protection to the effects of
something (Costelo et al., 1992). When referring to pesticides there are four ways
in which chemicals can be taken into the body which can place an individual at
health risk. They are: oral, dermal, inhalation and ocular exposures (The Ohio
State University, n.d.).

* Extension: In this study, extension refers to a nonformal, problem-solving Land-
Grant University-based educational delivery system that links people to knowledge.

* Farmworker: An individual whose main occupation is in horticultural field-based
agriculture (including nursery operations and greenhouse activities). This was
specifically developed by the researcher for the current study.

* High-valued crops: crops other than traditional crops which include, but are not
limited to: coffee and cacao, fruit crops, root crops, vegetable crops, legumes,
spices and condiments, and cutflower and ornamental foliage plants.

* Hispanic: A person from Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central
American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race (Ramirez, 2004).

* Migrant Farmworker: An individual whose principal employment is in
agriculture on a seasonal basis and who establishes a temporary residence for such
employment (NLIRH, 2005).

* Nonformal education: any organized, systematic educational activity carried on
outside the framework of the formal system to provide selected types of learning to
particular subgroups in the population (Coldevin, 2003).

* Pesticide: Substances used to prevent, destroy, repel or mitigate any pest ranging
from insects, animals and weeds to microorganisms such as fungi, molds, bacteria
and viruses (EPA, 2006)

* Seasonal Farmworker: According to the migrant health program (as in Larson,
2000), an individual whose principal employment is mainly in agriculture (51% of
time), who has been so employed within the last twenty-four months.

* Worker Protection Standard (WPS): a federal regulation designed to protect
agricultural workers (people involved in the production of agricultural plants) and
pesticide handlers (people mixing, loading, or applying pesticides or doing other
tasks involving direct contact with pesticides) (EPA, 2005).









Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework of this study is based on the Ba~sic Principles of

Curriculum andlnstruction for planning an educational program published in 1949 by

Ralph Tyler (as cited in Sork & Newman, 2004). The four stages of Tyler' s model are:

1. Deciding on educational purposes;
2. Selecting learning experiences to achieve those purposes;
3. Organizing the learning experiences for effective instruction; and
4. Evaluating the effectiveness of the learning experiences.

Tyler argues that educators should take account for people, society and the

intellectual climate, as well as the experts in the subj ect, in deciding educational purposes

and setting course objectives (Sork & Newman, 2004). Therefore, the educational

purposes of a pesticide education program should be based on the obj ectives set by the

Worker Protection Standards and the perceived WPS training needs, and the demographic

information of Hispanic farmworkers that were gathered in this study. In addition, this

model suggests that in selecting learning experiences to achieve those purposes, the

experience the learner goes through is very important. The trainer may provide

information, instruction and exercises but if that environment is not proper for the

participant then learning does not occur. The study will help uncover previous pesticide

learning experiences of a group of Hispanic farmworkers. In addition, it will also

determine preferred delivery methods for effective instruction.

In order for effective instruction to take place, education providers must offer

programs that meet the educational needs of the intended audience, attract the proper

clientele, and produce the desired changes in the participants (Hanson, 1991). Therefore,

programs should be designed to accomplish these goals. Tyler suggests several ways of

structuring a program that can lead to effective instruction. These include using









chronological order, the increasing application of a process or principle, expanding the

breadth and range of an activity, starting with description followed by analysis, providing

information followed by intellectual principles, and presenting a unified world view. In

regards to these, he identifies three criteria that should be met: (1) continuity, (2)

sequence, and (3) integration. Continuity is about recurrence of maj or elements in the

curriculum, while sequence is about experience leading to higher levels of understanding

and integration about incorporation of the learning that has taken place into the behavior

of a participant. Finally Tyler proposes that because the purpose of education is to bring

about a change in the behaviors of participants then an evaluation of their behaviors

needs to be done at an early point in the training, at a later point, and some time after the

training has been completed. The evaluation of the effectiveness of these learning

experiences will not be part of this study.

Limitations of the Study

* The real number of Hispanic farmworkers in the State of Florida has only been
estimated. The best data available at the current time about farmworkers comes
from the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Enumeration Profiles Study (U. S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2006). The reason for lacking
accurate information about the actual numbers of farmworkers is due to the fact
that most are part of a migrant population which makes it is difficult to study a
representative sample of the population.

* A common misconception is that all farmworkers are Hispanics. Although a
maj ority of Florida' s farmworkers are originally from countries in South and
Central America, and the maj ority of these from Mexico; there is a sizable
subpopulation of other ethnicities as well. In some parts of Florida, upwards of
3 5% of farmworkers are from Haiti and the Caribbean (U. S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, 2006). Many of the literature available and
research studies do not consider this variability when referring to the term
farmworkers .

* Even though Hispanic farmworkers come from countries that extend from Mexico
to Argentina in South America and although all have Spanish as a common
language they have significant cultural differences that may affect how workers
respond to communication and educational processes.










* Another limitation of this study is the availability of workers to participate in the
study. Previous studies have reported difficulty with obtaining subjects for the
study. This is due to some farmworkers refusing to participate in studies because
they do not want to be disturbed from their daily remunerated job activities and
some do not feel comfortable because they fear providing information that can lead
to their deportation to their countries of origin because many are on an illegal
migratory status.

* Also studies have reported that farm owners can sometimes refuse to collaborate in
providing access to the researcher to the workers (Murphy-Greene & Leip, 2002).
Therefore, the study was conducted at a collaborating institution which granted
access to some Hispanic farmworkers to the researcher. As a result the sample
studied might not be representative of all Hispanic farmworkers since it was a
convenience sample rather than randomly selected.

* Self selection bias is a limitation in this study. Self selection can be a result of
using non-randomly selected samples. In this study the procedure used for
selecting subj ects (participants) was based on their willingness to participate as
volunteers. This means that the end result of this study could be different if non
participants would have volunteered.

Summary

This chapter justified the need and provided background for the research study.

Due to their high risk of being exposed to pesticides while conducting job tasks, there is a

widely recognized need to develop and implement adequate pesticide educational training

programs for Hispanic farmworkers. Providing proper educational training for these

types of audiences requires not only focusing on the content of the information delivered

but also on the clientele and on providing the proper environment in order for learning to

take place. The importance and relevancy of the research were described. The chapter

briefly described the situation of farmworkers in United States, illustrating the

opportunity and necessity of effective pesticide training and for extension services to


reach this occupational group.















CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter reports a basis of literature regarding the Hispanic and farmworker

population and the need of adequate pesticide education for this population. Also a

description of the Worker Protection Standard and some of the efforts that have been

done to reduce pesticide exposure for this group is included. In addition, this chapter

explores current constraints and challenges that farmworkers face in the United States

concerning their employment and legal status, socioeconomic characteristics, education

and health issues.

Hispanics

Hispanics in the United States represent a diverse group of people, accounting for

nearly 12.5% of the total population (Ramirez, 2004). The term Hispanic is used to refer

to individuals whose social origin is outside the United States but from a variety of

Spanish-speaking countries, including Puerto Rico, Mexico, Cuba, the Dominican

Republic, Central and South America (Jeria, 1999).

Demographic Profile of Hispanics

Hispanics are the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. population. This group

experienced a 61% increase in population between 1990 and 2000. In 1990 the Hispanic

population stood at 21.9 million (Ramirez, 2004). Estimates are that in the year 2010,

Hispanics will make up more than 15.5% of the U. S. population, accounting for about 48

million people. This trend is expected to continue so that by the year 2050, Hispanics









will make up about one quarter of the population or 102.6 million people (U. S. Census

Bureau, 2004).

According to Ramirez (2004) in 2000 nearly 60% of the total numbers of Hispanics

were Mexican in origin. The other 40% were categorized as Other Hispanics (16%),

Puerto Ricans (9.7%), Central Americans (5.1%), South Americans (4.0%), Cubans

(3.5%) and Dominicans (2.3%). In addition, 40% of the total numbers of Hispanics were

foreign born. Furthermore, about 7 out of every 10 Hispanics are either: (1) born in the

U.S. and have parents who were born in a Latin American country, or (2) have become

"naturalized" citizens meaning that they have acquired permanent residency or

citizenship by legal means.

In regards to their distribution, 90% of Hispanics reside in metropolitan areas

(Kandel & Newman, 2004). Moreover, Hispanics tend to remain heavily concentrated in

certain regions of the United States, notably the Southwest, the Northeast and South

Florida (Department of Health and Human Services, 2000). In 2000, the five states with

the largest Hispanic populations were California (11 million), Texas, (6.7 million), New

York (2.9 million), Florida (2.7 million), and Illinois (1.5 million) (Grieco, 2003).

Current Situation

Hispanics are the largest minority and fastest growing group in the United States.

According to Bergman (2004) it is expected that between 2000 and 2050 Hispanics and

Asian Populations triple their numbers. Hispanics are proj ected to grow from 3 5.6

million to 102.6 million and Asians from 10.7 million to 33.4 million. Another group

that is expected to grow is the black population from 35.8 million to 61.4 million. On the

other hand, non-Hispanic whites are expected to represent about one-half of the total

population.









The Hispanic labor force The rapid increase in the Hispanic population has made

it the second-largest ethnic or racial group in the labor force behind the whites. Hispanics

now make up 13% of the U. S. labor force, but they are expected to account for about one

half of the growth in the labor force between now and 2020 (Pew Research Center,

2005). Most Hispanics come to the U.S. seeking better economic opportunities than in

their countries of origin. However, many of them lack the skills and preparation needed

to acquire high-paying positions. Another situation that some Hispanics face is their

illegal immigration status in the country, meaning that they lack authorization to work,

therefore, many end up acquiring agricultural jobs or low-paying manual labor jobs.

Although they support public education, many of them have little formal education,

which includes high rates of adult illiteracy and limited English proficiency. Low

educational attainment is a maj or factor limiting j ob access (Jeria, 1999).

Socioeconomic factors. Socioeconomic factors affect this population in important

ways. According to Sparks (as of Huerta-Macias, 2002) given their low income levels, it

is very difficult for Hispanics to move out of poverty and join the middle class.

According to Ramirez (2004) in 1999, the median family income for Hispanics was

$34,400, which is lower than the median family income of $50,000 for all families. In

addition, the poverty rate among all Hispanics was 22.6%, compared with the national

average of 12.4%. Wealth accumulation for Hispanics is also low; in part this is due to

the strong economic ties of Hispanic immigrants to their countries of origin. Many of

them regularly send money home, reducing the amount of money that is available for

them to live decently. According to the Inter-American Development Bank (as of Pew









Research Center, 2005), more than $30 billion was remitted to Latin American and

Caribbean countries in 2003.

Education. An issue that Hispanics face is that they typically have a low education

level. According to Llagas and Snyder (2003) young Hispanic adults are less likely than

any other group to complete a secondary degree in this country. Their findings as of

2000, indicate that 64% of Hispanic 18- to 24-year-olds had completed secondary

schooling, compared to 92% of Whites and 84% of Blacks. In addition, only 22% of

similar aged Hispanic population was enrolled in colleges and Universities. Finally, in

regards to adult education, the participation of Hispanics 17 years old and over is 44%, as

compared to 53% of Whites, 54% of Blacks, 53% of Asian/Pacific Islanders and 53% of

American Indians/Alaska Natives, placing them in a disadvantageous educational

situation in comparison to other groups. According to the Pew Research Center (2005)

differences in early learning set the stage for later problems. Only 40% of Hispanic

children attend preschool as compared to 60% of other children. In addition, many

parents lack proper English language skills to communicate; therefore they are unable to

guide their children's educational progress limiting their children's exposure to English,

the primary cause of lower achievement for Hispanic students (Brown, 2004). According

to the Pew Research Center (2005) other factors that contribute to this low educational

attainment are a less demanding curriculum at high school level than that of their white

classmates and the need of Hispanic college students to work full time in order to afford

their fees and pay their tuition.

Immigration status. Another issue that Hispanics have to deal with is that a great

majority of them are not legal citizens of the United States. Immigration to the United









States has been greatest among Mexicans and among Central Americans fleeing political

and economic events in their countries of origin (Ortiz, 1995). Although precise numbers

are not known, demographers who specialize in immigration estimate according to Passel

(2005) as of March 2005, that the undocumented population which continues to grow

each year has reached nearly 11 million including more than 6 million Mexicans. The

distribution of these illegal citizens consists of the following: 68% of the undocumented

population live in just eight states: California (24%), Texas (14%), Florida (9%), New

York (7%), Arizona (5%), Illinois (4%), New Jersey (4%), and North Carolina (3%).

According to Pew Research Center (2005), the rest of this population has begun to

disperse across the country, with very fast growth rates in states that previously had

relatively small foreign-born populations such as Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Georgia,

Virginia and Massachusetts.

Farmworkers

According to Roka and Cook (1998) Hispanics represent the maj ority of the

population of farmworkers. It is estimated that there are between 2.5 million and 4.2

million farmworkers in the United States (NLIRH, 2005; Arcury, Quant & Russell, 2002;

U.S. GAO, 2000) of these, 70% to 94% are Hispanic.

To this date, the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS), a nationwide

random survey, is the only national information source on the demographic, employment,

and health characteristics of this population. The NAWS began surveying farmworkers

in 1988 and it has collected information from nearly 43,000 workers. The survey

samples all crop farmworkers in three cycles each year in order to capture the seasonality

of the work. The NAWS locates and samples workers at their work sites. Face-to-face

interviews are conducted with respondents at home or at another convenient location.









The information that the NAWS collects includes: household and family composition,

additional demographics, employment history; wages, benefits and working conditions;

health, safety and housing; income and assets, social services and legal status (U.S.

Department of Labor, 2005b).

Origin. In 2001-2002, the NAWS was conducted with a total number of 6,472

farmworkers and results showed that just 23% of all hired crop farm workers were bomn

in the United States; 75% were born in Mexico, 2% in Central American countries, and

1% of the crop workers were bomn in other countries (Carroll et al., 2005). Migration of

farmworkers to the U.S. can be traced to laws and programs that were designed to

overcome labor shortages in this country. According to Ahn, Moore and Parker (2004),

in 1917 the U.S. Department of Labor allowed farmers to recruit Mexican farmworkers

into the U.S. Also, in 1942, the Mexico Bracero Program was created. According to

Rosenberg (1993) (as of Ahn, Moore & Parker, 2004), this program provided contracts to

farmworkers from one to six months, and employers were required to provide food and

housing, pay local wage rates, cover medical expenses, and provide transportation

between Mexico and the farm. However, in 1964 the program was terminated due to a

lack of consistency from employers in following the guidelines that favored farmworkers.

Another event that prompted migration to the U. S. was the creation of the H-2 visa

category for "other temporary workers," under the 1952 Immigration and Nationality

Act. This type of visa allows U.S. employers to employ foreign workers by signing a

contract with their governments. A recent event that might trigger migration from

Mexico to the U.S. is The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) along with

other economic liberalization policies which have transformed rural Mexico, pushing 1.7









million subsistence farmers from their land to migrate to work in export factories,

maquiladoras, or to fields and cities in the U.S. (Ahn, Moore & Parker, 2004). Moreover,

according to Alarcon and Mines (2001), the high percentage of Mexican workers in the

fields is due in part to poor working conditions on farms that fail to keep veteran U.S. and

foreign-born workers in agriculture. Also, it can be explained by the availability of

alternative low-wage jobs in the booming non-agricultural U. S. economy for more

experienced workers leaving agricultural positions open for recently arrived Mexicans.

Legal status. Persons who are working in the U.S. without recognition by the

immigration authorities are sometimes referred to as illegal immigrants or undocumented

workers. Findings from NAWS showed that at least half (53%) of farmworkers lacked

authorization to work in the United States. Another 25% of the crop workers in 2001-

2002 were U.S. citizens, 21% were legal permanent residents, and 1% were employment-

eligible on some other basis (Carroll et al., 2005).

Employment characteristics. In 2001-2002, nine out of ten of all crop workers

reported having worked for one or two U.S. farm employers in the previous 12 months.

Excluding foreign-born newcomers, who have less than 12 months of work history in the

United States, workers averaged 34 and a half weeks of farm work and five weeks of

non-farm work in the previous year. NAWS respondents worked an average of 42 hours

per week and had average hourly earnings of $7.25 (Carroll et al., 2005).

Socioeconomic chacteristics. Based on the U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services in 2001-2002, 30 percent of all farmworkers interviewed had family

incomes below the federal poverty guidelines. The average individual income range

from all sources, as well as from farm work only, was $10,000 $12,499. The average









total family income range was $15,000 $17,499 (Carroll et al., 2005). On the other

hand, the annual income of farmwork is around $7,000 for a single worker and about

$10,000 for a family. These numbers encourage workers to leave the fields and move

into other vocations. In Florida, many workers remain in the agricultural field, but will

find year-round, full-time employment in nurseries. Many others will move into

landscaping, construction labor, auto mechanics, etc. (U. S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development, 2006). Relatively few hired farmworkers (22%) utilize any

government provided, need-based services such as food stamps (8%), Women Infants and

Children (WIC) (11%), and Medicaid (15%) and less than one percent reported receiving

general assistance welfare or temporary assistance to needy families (TANF) (Carroll et

al., 2005).

Education. The maj ority (81%) of all crop workers reported that Spanish was their

native language. Forty-four percent reported that they could not speak English "at all." In

addition, on average, the highest grade completed was seventh grade. While 56% of the

U.S.-born had completed the 12th grade, only 6% of the foreign-born had done so. In

addition, 20% of all crop workers reported that they had taken at least one kind of adult

education class in the United States in their lifetime. The most popular of these were

English (10%) and high school equivalency (GED) classes (5%). Two percent reported

having taken j ob training or citizenship classes (Carroll et al., 2005).

Health issues. Migrant and seasonal farmworkers and their families face health

care issues. According to Rosembaum and Shin (2005) often they are in poor health and

they are at elevated risk for an enormous range of injuries and illnesses due to the nature

of their jobs. In fact, according to Villarejo (2003 ), they have been designated as a










"special population" due to the unusual combination of higher than average occupational

risk exposures as well as poorer than average health status. This situation is worst for

this group because most of them lack health insurance. As of 2000, 85% of migrant and

seasonal farmworkers were uninsured (Rosembaum & Shin, 2005). This lack of

insurance can be attributed to the fact that so many are undocumented immigrants.

In an effort to outreach migrant farmworkers, the Migrant Health Program [MHP]

was initiated by the federal government in 1962 by providing grants to "family health

clinics." The program was modified in 1970 to include seasonal farmworkers as well.

The central notions of the MHP were that migratory families should be able to access

health services that are usually available to other families in American society, and that

preventive services such as immunizations and health education would serve to remedy

some of the most egregious conditions (Villarej o, 2003). The MHP currently provides

grants to 134 public and nonprofit organizations that support the development and

operation of over 400 migrant clinic sites throughout the United States and Puerto Rico.

In 2004, Migrant Health Centers served over 675,000 migrant and seasonal farmworkers.

Over 90% of users of these health centers are people of color, most of whom are of

Hispanic origin (U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006). The MHP

supports the delivery of migrant health services including primary and preventive health

care, transportation, outreach, dental care, pharmaceuticals, occupational health and

safety, and environmental health. The agencies that provide such services use culturally-

sensitive clinical protocols and bilingual/bicultural health personnel and lay outreach

workers. They also provide prevention-oriented and pediatric services such as

immunizations, well baby care, and developmental screening (U.S. Department of Health









and Human Services, 2006). The two most significant reported barriers to care among

migrant and seasonal farmworkers are its high cost and language barriers.

Classification. Although discrepancies exist among different classifications and

definitions of farmworkers, in a broad sense, farmworkers are classified as seasonal and

migrant. According to the Migrant Health Program (as of Larson, 2000) a seasonal

farmworker is: An individual whose principal employment (greater than 51% oftime/ is

in agriculture on a seasonal basis, who has been so employed aI ithrin the last twenty-four

nauthsrlr. Seasonal farmworkers live in one place year-round, they are employed in farm

work but they may also have other sources of employment (i.e. construction or factory

shift work) during the "off-season" (Farmworker Health Services, 2006; Migrant

Clinicians Network, 2006).

On the other hand, a migrant farmworker according to the U.S. Code, Public Health

Services Act (as of Larson, 2000) meets the same definition but establishes for the

purposes of such employment a temporary abode. This means that this type of

farmworker moves from one state to another (sometimes within the same state) in order

to stay employed in farm work, following the harvest season (Farmworker Health

Services, 2006). Forty two percent of the crop workers in 2001-2002 were migrants,

defined as having traveled at least 75 miles within the previous year to obtain a farm job.

Among the migrants, 26% traveled only within the United States and 35% migrated back-

and-forth from a foreign country (primarily Mexico). Thirty eight percent of these

migrant farmworkers had been in the country less than a year when they were

interviewed. Nearly all (99%) of the foreign-born newcomers were unauthorized to work

in the country (Carroll et al., 2005).









Farmworkers can also be subdivided according to their migration patterns. There

are three generally accepted "migrant streams," starting from each of the sending states

meaning the states that most migrants claim as their home. One starts in Florida, another

one in Texas and another one in California (U. S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development, 2006). Farmworkers following these streams return to their homes after

the harvesting season ends to await the start of the next season. According to Larson

(2000) in the case of Florida, the state produces a great deal of agriculture that both

provides work for state residents and attracts out-of-state migrants. In the state there are

home-based interstate migrants who travel out of the state and some intrastate migrants

who travel only within the state. Some seasonal workers continue to live at home and

work in agriculture. On the other hand, thousands of individuals migrate into Florida for

work during the winter months when there are few seasonal agricultural opportunities in

other parts of the country. There are also a small group of individuals who perform no

agricultural work in Florida but leave to work as migrants in other states. These are

defined by the term "resident migrants" (Larson, 2000).

Adult Education

Given the low level of educational attainment of Hispanic farmworkers and their

low participation level in adult education, adult education is an important issue that must

be considered for this group. According to Birkenholz (1999), education and training

have been identified as primary factors that influence the standard of living enjoyed by

adults and their families. According to Famner, Rhoads, Cutz and Famner (2005) there are

several barriers to effective adult education in this population. The first is the language

barrier. Agencies lacking bilingual and bicultural staff are limited in reaching the

Hispanic population. Another one is the low level of formal education of Hispanics and










Einally, their busy schedules make it difficult to provide adult education opportunities to

this population. Relatively little attention has been paid to Hispanics as a group in adult

education.

There are however a number of adult education programs that are currently offered

to Hispanics. Some of these programs are funded by the federal government or by the

state and include basic levels of reading, writing, and mathematics. These programs are

known as Adult Basic Education (ABE). Examples of these programs include English-

as-a-Second Language (ESL), vocational education, General Educational Development

(GED), and citizenship classes (Huerta-Macias, 2002). However, most of these programs

fail in retaining individuals who are enrolled in them and in attracting new individuals

and can sometimes result in unattained obj ectives. Many times this can be due to lack of

professionalization of instructors and implementations of non appropriate methods of

instruction that will meet the needs and interests of learners. Low levels of formal

education and training as well as lack of programs that effectively attain desired

obj ectives are indicators of the need to focus on serving Hispanics thru adult education.

Definition

Defining the term adult education is of considerable difficulty because it means

different things to different people. According to Merriam and Brockett (1997) adult

education depends on where it takes place, and on how each individual experiences the

phenomenon. The timing in life or age of an individual also plays an important role in

defining adult education. Some examples of adult education are teaching a literacy or a

nutrition class several mornings a week at a community center or a job-skills training

program at a company. What distinguishes these types of experiences from others is that









adult education is about working with adults in some organized, educational activity

(Merriam & Brockett, 1997).

Despite the fact that the practice of adult and continuing education is becoming

increasingly important in the public eye, a good deal of uncertainty exists as to what it

really is (Rogers, 1996). According to Merriam (2001), adult education is organized

activities involving educators and adult learners designed to enhance their quality of life

and the betterment of the community at large. A definition indicated by the Organization

for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (as cited in Rogers, 1996) is that

adult education refers to any learning activity or program deliberately designed by a

providing agent to satisfy any training need or interest.

This need or interest may be experienced at any stage in his or her life by a person

that is over the statutory school leaving age and whose principal activity is no longer

education. School leaving age refers to the age until which a child must remain in

education by law. In the U.S. schooling ends by law at age 16 in 30 states, at age 17 in

nine states, and at age 18 in 11 states plus the District of Columbia. Students may drop-

out of school if they have reached the age set in their state's law for the end of schooling,

but dropouts are not considered to have completed school and no certificate or award is

issued at this stage (U.S. Department of Education, 2006). Under this context adult

education covers non-vocational, vocational, general, formal and nonformal studies as

well as education with a collective social purpose.

Another definition according to Rose (1990) is that adult education is a practical

field which focuses on the improvement of practice. Rose's definition includes in

addition to providers of traditional academic disciplines, providers of public adult









education programs, university extension, and urban evening colleges. Another way to

describe the field of adult education is as the culmination of organized training and

education opportunities for men and women within a society (Cookson, 1998). A

definition of adult education, then, usually includes some reference (1) to the adult status

of students, and (2) to the notion of the activity being purposeful or planned (Merriam &

Brockett, 1997).

Learning Orientations

Our knowledge about adult education is composed of many theories, models, sets

of principles, and explanations (Merriam, 2001). All of these can be encompassed under

Hyve major learning orientations in adult education. These perspectives help increase the

understanding of adult education and allow educators to see how learning can occur in

different ways. By using these Hyve orientations together, an adult educator can enhance

the learning process for the participants by identifying which of these seems to fit better

with the type of audience he is working with.

Behaviorist orientation. The behaviorist orientation views learning as a change in

observable behavior. It is also founded on the belief that learning is a direct result of the

connection between a stimulus and a response. Another belief of this theory is that all

behavior is learned and therefore all behavior can be modified or changed through further

learning (Birkenholz, 1999). What this means is that behavior is externally controlled

and occasioned by an antecedent stimulus and not by the individual learner. One

example of this orientation in a computer-assisted instruction program is if a participant

pushes the enter key on the computer and nothing happens, pretty soon he will stop doing









Adult vocational and skills training in which the learning task is broken into

segments or tasks in particular draws from behaviorism, as does technical and skills

training within human resource development (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999). Some

approaches and methods that can be utilized by educators include (1) reinforcement and

incentives, which uses positive reinforcement/rewards and incentives during instruction

for a desired behavior to occur; (2) instructional feedback, which utilizes giving feedback

frequently and immediately after a behavior occurs; (3) programmed instruction, in which

instructional materials are developed based on behavioral assumptions about learning;

and (4) games and stimulation, which allows learners to practice new behaviors and helps

to teach personal skills (Deshler & Kiely, 1995).

Humanist orientation. The humanist orientation was founded by Abraham

Maslow and is founded on the belief that learning is directed by an intrinsic desire or

motivation to achieve one's fullest potential (Birkenholz, 1999). Learning according to

Maslow is obtained as each individual seeks to fulfill each level in the Hierarchy of

Human Needs. Therefore, learning is seen as a process which is centered on the learner

and not on the content. The role of educators in the learning process is to act as

facilitators of leaming. An educator can utilize the following methods for the humanist

orientation: (1) needs-based programming, in which an educator plans programs based on

the needs of the student involved; (2) group discussion and study, in which students share

ideas with others regarding a topic of interest; (3) self-directed learning, in which

facilitators and learners negotiate and agree upon goals, methods, time tables, evaluation

methods and other details; (4) interpersonal interaction and encounter, based on

encounter groups and on specific support groups that deal with emotions by encouraging









honesty, openness, and expression; and 5) experiential learning based on learning by

doing (Deshler & Kiely, 1995).

Cognitive orientation. The cognitive theory suggests that learning is a result of

individually centered mental functions. Cognitive theorists believe that individuals

control their learning through their own mental processes (Birkenholz, 1999). Learning

focuses on thinking processes and unobservable constructs and occurs in an attempt to

make sense of the world and give meaning to experiences. The role of educators is to

facilitate the acquisition of knowledge by providing organization that allows the learner

to incorporate new information into their existing knowledge base and to provide the

environment, materials, and feedback that will allow discovery of knowledge. The role

of learners is to be active and proactive and to be constantly trying to incorporate

experiences into previous knowledge and to seek out information to solve problems.

Some of the approaches and methods that can be used by the educator with the learner

include: 1) an advance organizer (AO), which is a bridging/connecting strategy that links

what is to be learned and what learners already know through literal language; (2)

metaphor, analogy and simile (MAS), which allows learners to learn similarities between

what is known and what they will learn through figurative language; (3) chunking or

organizing strategies, which helps to order, classify, and arrange information into

new/existing categories, an example is creating floor plans; (4) framing, which provides

structures that help pieces of information to be better understood in relation to a whole,

some examples are charts, matrices and displays; and (5) concept maps, which are

spatially constructed representations of relationships among concepts, some examples are

hierarchy maps, chain maps and cluster maps (Deshler & Kiely, 1995).









Social learning orientation. The social learning orientation suggests that adults

learn through observation, and upon reflection, will imitate or modify their own behavior

accordingly (Birkenholz, 1999). This orientation combines elements from both

behaviorist and cognitive orientations. It integrates the concepts of reinforcement and

environmental influence of the behaviorist orientation and the concept of internal

structures and processes of the cognitive orientation. The role of the educator is to act as

a facilitator of social interactions and to be a model that the learner will seek to imitate.

On the other hand, the learner acts as an observer, decision maker, and processor of

information. Methods and approaches that can be used by this orientation include: (1)

demonstrations and trials, in which learners watch someone doing something new; (2)

behavioral modeling, which is used in interpersonal relationships by identifying people

who perform well in certain situations that will improve a relationship; (3)

apprenticeships and mentoring, based on observation of demonstrations where

individuals are coached to do a job; 4) tutorials, where tutors are seen as the experts and it

has to do with one-on-one learning; (5) peer partnerships, based on "friends teaching

friends;" and (6) on-the-job training based on providing demonstrations, coaching, and

monitoring achievement (Deshler & Kiely, 1995).

Critical reflection. In general, critical reflection involves the learner in identifying

and evaluating the assumptions, beliefs and values that underlie his or her thoughts,

feelings or actions. This leads to a transformation in how people see themselves and their

world. Critical reflection allows the learner and educator to leamn from successful,

satisfying experiences and forces them to clarify assumptions and beliefs. This

orientation is helpful in developing a "working philosophy," when individuals engage









socially in talk and activity about shared problems or tasks (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999).

Some of the methods used by educators while using this approach include: (1) critical

incidents, which are brief descriptions of significant events written by learners; (2)

critical debate, a group-leamning exploration where group members are assigned position

on an issue regardless of each person's personal position and which ends up with the

declaration of a winner or looser; (3) action learning, which combines action through

proj ect work on real-life problems with reflection seminars where participants draw out

the lessons learned from their proj ect work; (4) participatory action research, an inquiry

that is initiated, focused, planned, implemented, analyzed and interpreted by a group of

learners themselves, usually with the assistance of a researcher or educator; (5) reflective

judgment, a process of identifying underlying assumptions in differing accounts of

events, narrations, videotapes, minutes of meetings and other public activities; and (6)

scenario building, where scenarios with detailed descriptions of future nature and scope

of unfolding potential events, objects and processes are created (Deshler & Kiely, 1995).

Understanding how adults learn through the five learning orientations that Merriam

and Caffarella described above is important for extension educators. According to

Deshler and Kiely (1995) it helps educators learn more about the reasons that guide their

actions and can help educators to identify their own assumptions and orientations towards

the fundamental aspects of their own practice, including: learning, learners, teachers,

adults, and the purposes of education. It also helps educators trace the origins of their

assumptions in the influences of their educational backgrounds. Moreover it expands the

professional possibilities by providing them with new choices and options for approaches

we they can experiment with in their practice. Finally being familiar with the different









orientations causes educators to reevaluate their own obj ectives, their own value

commitments, and the larger purposes of their own educational practice. Being able to

identify which approach is needed for the targeted audience they are addressing will

increase effectiveness of the educational experience.

Nonformal Education

Most adult learning for Hispanic farmworkers falls under the category of nonformal

education. This can be defined as any organized, systematic educational activity carried

on outside the framework of a formal educational system to provide selected types of

learning to particular targeted groups in the population. While formal systems are highly

organized and structured, with a fixed curricula, nonformal systems are flexible, open to

anyone, with content dedicated to concrete issues for application in day-to-day life

(Coldevin, 2003). As such, it is based on participatory and interactive approaches. The

emphasis is placed on sharing knowledge between technical experts such as researchers,

communicators, extensionists, educators and farmers. The role of the educator is to serve

as a facilitator of learning who seeks to effectively engage the learners in the experience

rather than someone who imposes what the learner must know. On the other hand the

role of the learner is to be proactive by seeking educational opportunities that are offered

to them and participate in them. According to Seevers, Graham, Gamon and Conklin

(1997) this indicates that some exchange must occur between the educator and the learner

who must be constantly in the process of communication.

According to Merriam and Caffarella (1999) two types of learning opportunities are

generally distinguished in describing nonformal education: community-based adult

learning programs and indigenous learning. Community-based adult learning programs

are those that address a problem or issue important to a community. Examples of such









issues can be ensuring adequate housing and sanitary living conditions. Generally these

programs are social in scope and focus on improving some part of the community.

Educators who work with these programs believe that education and training can be a

powerful tool in assisting learners to take control over their own lives. Usually these

programs are delivered by community-based organizations who obtain resources for these

programs thru developing funding proposals.

On the other hand indigenous learning is learning linked with a culture and it

includes oral traditions and art forms such as storytelling, and traditional dance and

music. According to Brennan (1997) (as of Merriam & Caffarella, 1999) indigenous

knowledge is generally ignored and in order to recognize it a four stage process must take

place. This process consists of: (1) identifying approaches and techniques that may be

relevant to indigenous learners such as storytelling; (2) classifying these approaches and

techniques into a system that educators can relate too in a more formal setting; (3)

"advocacy for the exploration of a broader indigenous learning system;" and (4)

development of more detailed and comprehensive learning systems.

Other learning activities that fall into this category are the preservice/in-service

training activities of both government and corporate bodies and those provided by

extension services. Preservice training refers to certain educational requirements that an

employee must complete when they are hired. According to Seevers et al. (1997),

extension professionals in some states are required to go through staff orientation.

Professionals who are hired might also be required to begin their career by developing a

professional development plan which refers to personal and professional development

through in-service training and involvement in professional organizations. In-service









training programs, usually coordinated at the state level, provide the opportunity for

employees to receive training in the most current issues and methods without taking a

leave from their job (Seevers et al., 1997).

Programs. According to Merriam and Brockett (1997) a program implies a range

of activities related to and characteristic of an adult education program. A program can

be developed from different means; among these is a particular idea, interest or skill,

local issues or even the nature or mission of a centre or organization. What distinguishes

a program from other events in which learning occurs is that this type of learning is

consciously organized (Sork & Newman, 2004). According to Sork (1991) many factors

can contribute to the success or failure of a program. Educational programs are planned

to achieve learning obj ectives which involve a desired change in human capability.

However, educational and training programs for adults do not always attain the expected

obj ectives which can be due to diverse problems in the design and planning process such

as setting unclear obj ectives, miscommunication of obj ectives, unrealistic obj ectives and

ineffective instruction. Therefore organization of educational activities is important

because it allows both the learner and the educator to mutually acknowledge the

educational purpose of the activity.

There are different types of programs. According to Knox (1987) (as of Cookson,

1998), programs can be classified as: (1) literacy, which are programs of practical literacy

and basic education for adults; (2) agriculture, which are extension programs that help

farmers and farmworkers to improve their productivity and the quality of rural life; (3)

workers, which are educational programs to increase productivity and changes in the j obs

of the workers in every kind of business or industry; (4) professional-technical, which









refer to every kind of professional development and in-service training program for

scientific and technical occupations; (5) professional-others, which refer to the activities

with the purpose of continuing professional education in other kinds of occupations

which tend to be influenced by new results of scientific research; (6) secondary, which

has to do with programs to complete secondary school via part-time participation; (7)

advanced, which are programs to complete university studies via part-time for adults who

work; (8) health, these are programs for curative and preventive health for adults in rural

and urban areas; (9) family, these types of programs have to do with education in family

life and home economics; (10) personal, in reference to every kind of educational activity

related to recreation, entertainment, arts, cultural activities, personal enrichment, and

general education; and (11) citizenship, which are educational activities related to

forming community organizational leaders, solving problems, and enabling the adult

population to become better informed and actively participating citizens.

There are different program planning models that are used. Most models are built

upon Tyler 's Ba~sic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction and present program

planning as a linear process of assessing needs, setting obj ectives, organizing learning

experiences to meet the obj ectives, implementing the program, and evaluating results

(Merriam & Brockett, 1997). In practice however, these steps are not always followed.

According to Sork and Caffarella (1989) (as of Merriam & Brockett, 1997) practitioners

take shortcuts in planning in order to get the job done and/or factors that are unique to

each situation shaping the planning process.

According to Jeria (1999) the problem with adult educators in developing programs

for Hispanics is that educators usually employ top-down, authoritarian, assimilationist









models of education. Assimilation is the process by which immigrants and their

offspring adopt some values, beliefs and behaviors more characteristic of the U. S. culture

than the culture of the countries from which they or their ancestors originate (Pew

Research Center, 2005). Often, they fail to include Hispanic sociocultural factors and

other characteristics of this group such as their low educational attainment, significant

linguistic differences that exist among various Spanish-speaking groups, and different

work experiences on their countries of origin.

Materials. Both Spanish and English-language literacy levels of Hispanics are

likely to be relatively low, on average, given the relatively low level of average

education. The ability of NAWS respondents interviewed in 2001-2002, to read English

was the following: 53% could not read English "at all," 20% could read English "a little,"

6% could read "some," and only 22% said that they could read English "well" (Carroll et

al., 2005). This suggests that a high premium must be placed on developing low-literacy

materials. The low-literacy level also suggests that approaches other than, or in addition

to, written materials must be an essential element of a strategy to reach Spanish-speaking

workers (O'Connor, 2003).

Because Hispanics in the U.S. are surrounded by the English language, English

words and grammar often seep into their daily language use (Marin & VanOss Marin,

1991). Often, they mix Spanish and English words in the same sentence and borrow

English words to develop their own words. In addition, Hispanics represent different

nationalities and countries of origin, and although they all speak Spanish there are

differences in vocabulary among them. Due to these variations in the Spanish language

development of materials that adequately address language differences is needed. Also










English in itself is difficult to translate to Spanish due to its linguistic characteristics

therefore; materials should not be literally translated but adapted for use by a Spanish

speaking audience.

Methods of delivery. Well-developed educational material is important in any

program, but by itself it does not assure that the intended audience will be reached

(National Research Council, 2003). Because learning is more effective in the learner's

native language, programs for Hispanics should be delivered in Spanish (Bairstow, Berry,

& Minar Driscoll, 2002). Delivery of educational programs which typically involves a

variety of people and methods is also crucial. Methods can include workshops, meetings,

slides, film-strips, audio-cassettes, flip-charts, video, comic books, television and radio

programming.

According to Coldevin (2003) of all the group media, however, video has emerged

as the lead medium of choice for supporting participatory training. One of the many

advantages of using video is that it allows the educator to communicate his message

quickly and effectively, while holding his viewers interest. Videos are also convenient

since they can be watched at different places and times and are also cost-effective.

Moreover, videos allow control over the message. Viewers are presented with only the

information that the educator wants them to receive, in the exact order that educators

want them to receive it (American Production Services, 2006).

Educational materials are best delivered through a trusted and trained facilitator

who can properly relate to the situation of the intended audience. Perhaps the key to the

application of learning resides in the learner' s perception of how important the new

learning is to his or her ability to work effectively in the setting where the application









must take place. Effective educators understand this, and they design programs that show

how learning can be applied, or transferred, from an "unnatural" classroom setting or

training session to the actual setting where the learner works (Kemerer, 1991).

In discussions of effective outreach programs to Hispanics in the United States a

frequently recurring theme is the importance of trust-that the only way to reach

Hispanics effectively is by first establishing a relationship of trust. Trust is important

because it allows to break down any barriers of communication between the educator and

the trainer and relaxes the group so that the group can share with the educator any

suggestions and questions about the subject covered in the program. This suggests that it

would be more effective to reach them through intermediary agencies that they trust.

Some examples would be local Hispanic community centers, churches, immigrant

advocacy organizations, non-profit worker advocates such as COSH groups (committees

on occupational safety and health), and unions (O'Connor, 2003).

According to Farner et al. (2005) despite knowing that adult education is crucial for

the Hispanic audience many institutions do not yet know how best to deliver programs to

this group. Therefore, many programs fail in achieving the learning objectives that they

aim to accomplish. As the largest adult education organization ever created, the

Cooperative Extension Service (CES) is concerned in being able to effectively develop

and deliver educational programs (Birkenholz, 1999).

The Cooperative Extension System

The Cooperative Extension System is a nationwide educational network that brings

higher education into the lives of all segments of diverse populations. The Cooperative

Extension Service (CES) uses the term extension to refer to activities that extend beyond

the daytime programs serving students of traditional college age. According to









Blackburn and Forest, CES offers information and educational programs to all residents

on topics such as homemaking, agriculture, youth, the environment, public policy, and

others (as cited in Merriam & Brockett, 1997).

The Cooperative Extension System is a unique achievement in American education

(Rasmussen, 2002). In the broadest interpretation, agricultural extension provides

nonformal- agriculturally related continuing adult education- for multiple audiences:

farmers, spouses, youth, community, urban horticulturalists (continuing agricultural

education and community development) and for various purposes (including agricultural

development, community resource development, group promotion and cooperative

organizational development) (Rivera, Qamar & Crowder, 2001).

No other educational system involves so many levels that are interrelated, yet

autonomous. The Cooperative Extension System was established through legislation by

the Smith-Lever Act (1914) and designed as a partnership of the United States

Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Land-Grant universities (Seevers et al.,

1997). This partnership represents public and private interests working cooperatively at

local, state, and national levels (McKeena, 1987). According to Seevers et al. (1997)

funding for extension programs is made possible by contributions from the federal,

represented by USDA; state, represented by land-grant universities; and local

governments, represented by the county or parrish offices. In addition, these three

partners have input in program decisions. USDA establishes guidelines for programs,

determines issues or initiatives of national scope, and provides program support. State

specialists and administrators at land-grant institutions assist in determining statewide

issues and initiatives, providing training for county professionals, and conducting and









disseminating relevant research. Finally the local city/county unit plans, implements and

evaluates programs based on the needs of the local clientele (Seevers et al., 1997).

Research, teaching and extension are linked together by the Land Grant University

system (Brewer, 2003). Extension accomplishes this in part by cooperating with agencies

and institutions of federal, state and local governments and the private sector in

developing and conducting nonformal education programs (McKenna, 1987). The aim of

the Cooperative Extension System is to help people improve their lives through an

educational process which uses scientific knowledge focused on local issues and needs.

The university-based system develops programs using nonformal education through

group needs assessment at the local level (Brewer, 2003). Its educational programs are

voluntary and available to anyone who wishes to participate (Rasmussen, 2002). As a

nonformal educational delivery system that can serve as the link between people and

knowledge, extension' s main obj ective is to improve the livelihood of people by helping

them solve their own problems (Brewer, 2003).

Effective delivery methods are important to the impact of extension programs

(Israel, 1991). According to Deshler and Kiely (1995) the success of extension programs

depends not only on the quality of the content that is offered, but also on the ability of

extension educators to effectively facilitate adult learning. According to Israel (1991) in

order to be effective in reaching extension's clientele educators have to consider that they

are likely to acquire a greater benefit when information is relevant to the needs of the

audience and when detailed or individualized information is delivered appropriately.

According to Warner, Christenson, Dillman, and Salant (1996) programs to address

specialized needs and targeted toward specific audiences such as minorities, including the









Hispanic population, are just recently being designed by extension. This has to do with

the realization that the Hispanic population keeps increasing in size each year and that

this trend is expected to continue. In addition, programs designed for this population

have to do with an understanding of the role that Hispanics play in the labor force of the

U.S. Furthermore, because of low educational attainment, they are in need of educational

opportunities. However, there is little documentation that these types of programs have

been evaluated and are successful in serving the population they target (Farner et al.,

2005).

Worker Protection Standard (WPS)

Pesticide exposure is a problem that has been identified as a constant risk for farm

workers, as well as anyone else who works on a farm (Arcury, Quandt, & McCauley,

2000). Different laws and regulations have been passed in the United States throughout

the years in relation to pesticide-related occupational safety and health of workers

performing hand labor operations in fields during and after application of pesticides. The

first one of these laws was the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

(FIFRA) passed by the federal government in 1972. This law has been amended since

then and it has to do with requiring pesticides to be labeled. This law also created a

Restricted-Use-Pesticide (RUP) category for those pesticides posing an elevated risk to

humans and the environment (Weber et al., 2004). The most recent regulation that has

been created is the Worker Protection Standards (WPS) of 1992. The regulations covered

by the WPS are focused primarily on the technical components: application notification,

entry restrictions, personal protective equipment, decontamination sites, and emergency

assistance (Spitzer, Whitford, & Frick 1994).









History

The Worker Protection Standards were first issued in 1974 by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In August 21, 1992 the standard was revised

to cover "all agricultural employers whose workers perform hand labor operations in

fields, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses treated with pesticides, and handle pesticides in

these locations" (Runyan, 1993). It required all agricultural employers to be in full

compliance with this regulation on or before April 15, 1994. Additionally, owners,

operators, and their immediate family members were required to comply with the

provisions of this standard (Runyan, 1992).

Employees of agricultural operations can be classified into two categories: handlers

or workers. According to EPA (2005), an agricultural handler is anyone who mixes,

loads, applies, or performs other tasks that bring them into direct contact with pesticides.

An agricultural worker is one who performs tasks on plants (other than handler tasks)

related to the production of agricultural plants.

Under the WPS, employers must follow certain guidelines, these include: (1) to

reduce overall exposure of workers to pesticides by prohibiting handlers from exposing

workers during pesticide application, (2) to mitigate exposure by requiring

decontamination supplies and emergency assistance available, and (3) to inform workers

about pesticide hazards by requiring safety training (workers and handlers), safety

posters, access to labeling information, and access to specific information (listing of

treated areas on the establishment) (Runyan, 1992).

Pesticide Training

According to Weber et al. (2004) under FIFRA, U.S. individual states can establish

their own pesticides programs under the supervision of EPA. One agency in each state









assumes the responsibility of pesticide programs and is known as the "state lead agency"

(SLA). The SLA works in partnerships with the state land-grant universities in order to

deliver pesticide safety education programs (PSEPs) that train applicators on how to use

RUP's. These training can allow pesticide applicators to become certified after they

have demonstrated competency in the following areas: pest identification, pesticide

regulations, pesticide labels, pesticide safety, and environmental protection. Competency

in use of RUP's is assessed thru an English language pesticide applicator exam that

participants must take upon completing the PSEPs.

On the other hand, when the WPS was created it established that an agricultural

employer should provide pesticide safety training to both handlers and workers within 30

days of entering a treated area. This regulation was further amended in 1996 to maintain a

five-year pesticide-retraining interval for farmworkers and handlers, but created a five-

day grace period for the training of new workers. The WPS focuses on providing training

to non-certified employees who apply pesticides and those who work in areas where

pesticides have been applied. Therefore, many states also include the mandated WPS

farmworker training in their pesticide safety programs (Weber et al., 2004).

Materials and delivery. The WPS training must be carried out by a certified

trainer which can include: growers, employers, crew chiefs, commercial applicators,

worker advocates, extension workers and the Department of Agriculture staff (Frisk,

2000). To address adequate training EPA has prepared manuals, slide sets, videos, and

other materials designed to assist employers or trainers in complying with WPS (Runyan,

1993). Many of these materials are available through state and county offices of the

Cooperative Extension Service (Runyan, 1993). In order to be effective, the WPS









training must be presented orally in a language that handlers and workers can understand,

and must incorporate the use of appropriate visual aids, and the trainer must be available

to answer questions (Brown, 1995). However, a study conducted by Weber et al. (2004),

indicated the need among most U.S. states for Spanish language pesticide safety training

materials.

Suggestions recommended by Brown (1994) when preparing a WPS training

include: (1) knowing the WPS; (2) determining whether the audience will be worker or

handlers since the WPS differ for each of these groups; (3) selecting the training aids that

will be used; (4) becoming familiar with the language and literacy skills of the audience;

and (5) selecting a convenient time and comfortable location for the audience. Brown

also recommends that when conducting the session: (1) the obj ectives of the program

must be clearly stated; (2) that the educator must be sensitive to individuals who can not

read; and (3) trying to stimulate discussion between trainees and educators. Finally

Brown suggests that the follow-up must include: (1) questioning the audience about those

things that had helped them understand the information presented to them; and (2)

identifying methods that worked well and those that fell short.

Addressing training needs. In response to the WPS mandate, extension has

created specialized programs to address Hispanic farmworker training needs. The

University of Florida- Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) in December

2000 initiated a new extension farm safety education program in 11 Florida Counties:

Broward, Collier, Hendry, Hillsborough, Manatee, Martin, Miami-Dade, Orange, Palm

Beach, Pinellas and St. Lucie. About 500 people have completed the pesticide

certification classes and small farm workshops offered by one specialized extension agent










(Lockette, 2004). According to Lockette (2005) instruction for the pesticide certification

classes is offered in both English and Spanish. Spanish helps learners understand the

concepts better and feel comfortable, but since the test for pesticide certification classes

must be given in English, participants are also given instruction in English. Moreover,

the specialized program to address Hispanic farmworker training needs offers basic

worker safety training to farmworkers upon request of an employee, a group of

farmworkers, a community center or any other group that is concerned with the provision

of pesticide training to farmworkers. Up-to-date, about 1,500 workers have gone through

the basic worker safety training classes. Instruction for these classes is offered in Spanish

and it is generally comprised of a one-day, on the job training course. The success of

these classes is difficult to quantify since the program is fairly new although the classes

are growing in popularity with agricultural producers who want to provide training to

workers in their native language (Lockette, 2005).

In addition, in Florida in 1997, the Pesticide Surveillance Program was established.

The obj ective of the program is to effectively monitor and prevent pesticide poisoning.

The program has two main prevention and education initiatives underway. One initiative

targets farmworkers and the other one health care professionals. The farmworker

education initiative targets female farmworkers and is intended to provide information on

peticide safety and good prenatal care practice. The outreach tool is a radio soap opera in

Spanish, Haitian Creole, and Q'anj obal (a dialect spoken by indigenous Guatemalan

people). The aim of the initiative targeting health care professionals is to raise awareness

regarding pesticide poisoning prevention, recognition, management, and reporting (The

Florida Department of Health, 2004). An important outcome of the Pesticide Poisoning









Surveillance Program was a centralized reporting site of pesticide related illnesses from

multiple sources, including the County Health Departments, Florida Poison Information

Network, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and farmworker advocacy

groups (The Florida Department of Health, 2004).

In the Rocky Mountain Region, the High Plains Intermountain Center for

Agricultural Health and Safety (HI-CAHS) a National Institute for Occupational Health

(NIOSH) initiated a pesticide risk reduction program developed in a bilingual format to

reach migrant and seasonal farmworkers. An evaluation about the effectiveness of a 60

minute pesticide training program in Spanish with 152 farmworkers in Colorado was

performed in 1998. The four components that were used to evaluate the effectiveness of

the pesticide program were the following: pesticide knowledge, safety risk perception

(SRP), the Health Locus of Control (HLC) model which predicts that those individuals

taking responsibility for their own health adopt healthy habits and the Transtheoretical

model (TTM) which offers a comprehensive tool to measure progress towards the

adoption of health behaviors. These were all measured thru a pre-test and post-test.

Results from this study demonstrated that the pesticide program improved farmworkers

pesticide safety knowledge and enhanced their perception of pesticide-related risks. It

also showed that the attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge of a farmworker influence his/her

safety-related behaviors in a work environment. Overall, the study demonstrated the

effectiveness of using long-term sustained bilingual intervention programs (Vela Acosta,

et al., 2005).

Similarly, in Washington State, the Washington State Department of Agriculture

began the Farmworker Education Program. The program focuses on providing Spanish










language prelicense and worker training. The prelicense training is aimed at Hispanic

foremen and consists of six days of intensive coursework followed by a Private

Applicator exam session. The worker training courses are two-hours long and provide

general pesticide safety information. The worker training courses are attended by

farmworkers and their families (Washington State Department of Agriculture [WSDA],

2006).

In California some efforts have been done to reduce pesticide exposure among

Hispanic farmworkers. In 1994 The University of Califomnia (UC) began an Integrated

Pesticide Management (IPM) Pesticide Education Program to qualify instructors to train

pesticide handlers and agricultural fieldworkers under the provisions of the Federal

Worker Protection Standard. The Pesticide Education Program conducted train-the-

trainer programs during 1995 in Spanish language. Thirty nine of the programs were 4-

hour sessions to prepare trainers of fieldworkers. Twenty of these were conducted in

Spanish. Handler and fieldworker programs were held in Bakersfield, Fresno, Lakeport,

Pismo Beach, Salinas, Yuba City, Rohnert Park, El Centro, and Irvine. The outcome of

this program was the training of 605 instructors during the first five months of 1995 who

reported that they would be training a total of 242,347 during the same year (The Regents

of the University of Califomnia, 2003).

Another program that has been implemented in California to assist the Hispanic

farmworker population is the Migrant Farmworker 'Consej eras' Training Program. This

program trains lay health advisers (consej eras) from migrant farmworker camps to

educate farmworkers about environmental health issues of concern to them at work and at

home including pesticide safety and pesticide illness recognition thru different workshops









and distribution of educational material. The program operates in 6 migrant farmworker

camps in Northern California, in partnership with Community Medical Centers, Inc.

(formerly the Agricultural Workers' Health Clinics), the primary source of health care for

many farmworkers in this area (Boucher, 2003).

In Michigan there is also a study that was done in 1995 in an effort to explore

pesticide safety knowledge among farmworkers. The study was conducted with 188

farmworkers, most of them of Hispanic origin (99.5%), at 17 labor camps. General

knowledge was assessed in relation to the amount of training workers had been given.

Findings of the study indicate that current training programs, especially the training of

pesticide handlers, are effective in informing workers of pesticide safety. Also, those

farmworkers who had been exposed to pesticides had greater general knowledge of

pesticide safety, and finally, those farmworkers who had received some kind of training

knew more about pesticide safety than those who were not trained (Millard, Flores,

Ojeda-Macias, Medina, Olsen, & Perry, 2004).

Complying with WPS

In order to assure compliance with WPS, in the state of Florida, the agency

responsible for enforcement and compliance for pesticide-related laws is the Department

of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer

Services oversees the Division of Agricultural Environmental Services which includes

the Bureau of Pesticides. The Bureau of Pesticides is primarily responsible for

monitoring pesticide use in Florida, and the Agriculture and Consumer Services

Department is primarily responsible for the enforcement of the state statutes (Murphy-

Greene & Leip, 2002). As part of its responsibility of assuring compliance with

pesticide-related laws, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services must









inspect workplaces to assure that recommendations that focus on diminishing farmworker

exposure to pesticides listed in the WPS such as delivery of training and use of pesticide

protective equipment (PPE) are being followed. In addition, under Florida law, F.S.

487. 159(2), physicians have an obligation to report all cases of illness or injury as a result

from exposure to pesticides to the local county Public Health Department within 48

hours. Failure in reporting these cases can result in a fine of $10,000 under Florida law,

F.S. 487.175(le) (Murphy-Greene & Leip, 2002).

According to the WPS Activity Summaries for 2003 and 2004 (as of Galloni, 2004)

the state Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services has repeatedly found

pesticide safety violations in roughly 1 out of every 3 workplaces inspected. The most

commonly documented violations are failure to train farmworkers in pesticide safety and

failure to post required pesticide application information in a central location. Other

violations that can impact worker safety include applying pesticides at rates higher than

what is permitted by the label, not providing adequate protective equipment, and allowing

workers to enter pesticide-treated areas before it is safe. In addition, the low number of

farmworker pesticide exposure cases reported per year (18) from 1999 to 2002 thru the

Pesticide Surveillance Program in comparison to the ones reported in California (475)

support the belief of advocates that only a fraction of farmworker pesticide exposures are

reported. Many farmworkers are reluctant to report pesticide exposures for fear of losing

their j obs. Others do not report exposures because they do not know where to go or how

to make the reports (Galloni, 2004).

According to Galloni (2004) the low number of farmworker pesticide exposure

cases reported contradicts previous research conducted in Palm Beach, Indian River and









Collier counties. In these counties interviews were conducted with farmworkers and

results showed that 10 percent of them had been directly sprayed with pesticides while

working in the fields and that 64 percent of them were working while pesticides were

being applied aerially or by tractor in the adj acent fields. Moreover, nearly half (45

percent) responded they had not received pesticide safety training (Murphey-Greene &

Leip, 2002).

Due to the apparent contradiction of complying with WPS, South Florida provides

a unique context from which to explore the issue of farmworker pesticide exposure and

training.

Summary

A number of factors shape the relationship between adult education and the

Hispanic population. Such demographic characteristics as location, education, country of

origin, and language spoken at home are valuable tools in developing materials and

public health interventions to serve at-risk populations more effectively. In addition,

delivering educational programs to those of different cultures can be a challenge.

Overall, a successfully designed learning experience increases the learner's ability to gain

more knowledge of the issues that surround the learner. One of the issues facing

Hispanic farmworkers which must be addressed consists of pesticide exposure and lack

of proper training. This chapter has described what has been done as well as further

needs in the area of pesticide training to best serve the Hispanic farmworker population.

Certainly, adult education is an important component that extension and other agencies

need to use in order to effectively design and deliver educational services for this

underserved group.















CHAPTER 3
IVETHODOLOGY

This Chapter describes the research design, population, sample, instrumentation

and all the procedures that were followed to collect data for this study. Additionally it

also describes the process used to analyze the data that was obtained in this study.

Research Design

This is a descriptive study that served to provide a systematic description of data

collected about the farmworkers experiences and perspectives about pesticide exposure

and training. Descriptive data is analyzed thru statistical calculations such as determining

the average number of occurrences or central tendencies of an event. One of its maj or

limitations is that it cannot help determine what causes a specific behavior, motivation or

occurrence .

In a broad sense this study used a qualitative design; however it included some

aspects of a quantitative study since it gathered limited numerical data. It can be

primarily considered qualitative since this study aims to explore and describe the issues

concerning Hispanic farmworker pesticide education training needs. This was

accomplished by exploring the perceptions of pesticide exposure, previous pesticide

training experience and preferred delivery methods and strategies for pesticide WPS

training.

The researcher designed a structured interview guide that was administered to

Hispanic farmworkers in South Florida that contained questions addressing pesticide

exposure and training. Pesticide exposure was assessed by taking into account health









problems and laws and legal rights. Previous pesticide training experience was assessed

by asking the participants about any pesticide training they received. Similarly preferred

delivery methods was assessed by asking participants information about their desired way

of obtaining pesticide education. Additionally, a description of the demographic

background of the target group was performed.

Population and Sample

The population for the current study was Hispanic farmworkers in two South

Florida counties. The counties selected for this study were Miami-Dade and Palm Beach.

The farmworker population belonging to the Redland Migrant Christian Association

(RMCA) centers included in this study is estimated to be (n=1,040) and (n=750)

respectively (C. Asuaje, personal communication, November 2, 2006). These estimates

were developed based on the interaction between a specialized extension agent in

pesticide education and the RMCA centers. Miami-Dade County was selected for this

study because it has a stable population of migrant and seasonal farmworkers as well as a

large concentration of Hispanic population. Palm Beach was selected for this study

because it is the county with the largest number of agricultural workers in Florida.

For this study, a farmworker is described as an individual whose main occupation

is in horticultural field-based agriculture (including nursery operations and greenhouse

activities). The sample for this study consists of Hispanic farmworkers (n=5 1) belonging

to six RMCA centers (South Dade center, Everglade I, Everglade II and Chappy Pro in

Miami-Dade County and O'Brien and Delray Beach in Palm Beach County).

RMCA centers were chosen for this study since RMCA is one of the largest

community-based organizations serving the farmworker community in Florida. Its

purpose is to promote the welfare of migrant and seasonal farmworkers, the rural poor,









and their families in 20 Florida counties. It is the largest non-profit child-care provider in

the state. Therefore, RMCA centers have access to the farmworker population year-

round which is an important component that has been recognized by different studies as a

critical factor that must be taken into account when doing research with this population

(Villarejo, 2003; Murphy-Green & Leip, 2002; Marin & VanOss Marin, 1991).

Doing research with the Hispanic population is more difficult than when dealing

with other ethnic or racial groups for a variety of reasons. Demographic information

about Hispanics in general and, in particular, about the communities in which they live at

times is not available or is outdated. Another reason is the concern that providing

personal information may place some individuals at risk, particularly when the issues are

perceived as sensitive or highly personal (for example some fear that releasing

immigration information could be used against an undocumented individual and/or his

employers by the Immigration and Naturalization Service) (Marin & VanOss Marin,

1991). Another reason for the difficulty of doing research with this population is the

busy schedules of Hispanic farmworkers. Because of their generally low socioeconomic

status, many minority individuals may work more hours than nonminority persons, work

two jobs, or have more difficult home situations which limits their availability for

participating in research proj ects.

Other than accessing the farmworker population, another factor that influenced the

decision of working with RMCA centers for this research was the connections that the

Extension Agent who collaborated with this research had with the organization by having

previously worked successfully with RMCA on different projects. It has been

acknowledged that cooperation in research efforts can be obtained more easily when a









study has the sponsorship of individuals or institutions that in the past have shown

concern for the welfare of the members of the community (Marin & VanOss Marin,

1991).

The decision of selecting to work with RMCA centers in order to access the

Hispanic farmworker population influenced the sampling technique that was used for this

research which was accidental sampling. Accidental sampling is a technique that

involves using available cases for a study when the enumeration of the population is

difficult such as interviewing volunteers in survey research (Ary, Jacobs & Razavieh,

2002).

Participants were selected with the help of three RMCA centers where the

interviews were conducted. The selection of the farmworkers was based on the following

characteristics that were elected by the researcher and the extension agent who

collaborated in the study: (1) Hispanic, (2) male or female that had been employed in

agriculture within the past 12 months, (3) who was 18 years of age or older, and (4) who

was not a member of a family that was already participating in the study.

Volunteers for this study were recruited by asking farmworkers to take part in this

study. They were contacted by personnel from the RMCA centers who had been

provided with a list of the requirements that the researcher was seeking that the potential

participants needed to have in order to take part in the study. Personnel from RMCA

contacted volunteers through either word of mouth or a written notice. Those

farmworkers who could not read were asked orally if they were willing to take part in this

study and if they could actually do it. The same was true for those farmworkers who

could read except that they were given a written notice. The interview guide









administration sites were located in Homestead in Miami-Dade County (n=27) and in

Belle Glade and Delray in Palm Beach County (n=24). Fifty one Hispanic farmworkers

participated in this study.

Instrumentation

A structured interview guide was used to record the information that was collected.

The interview questions were designed to address preferred delivery methods of the

information, demographics, education and recommendations for pesticide training. The

questionnaire was designed based on an instrument used by a previous study on

environmental justice conducted with farmworkers in Palm Beach and Indian River

Counties in Florida by Murphy (1997).

The interview guide consisted of four sections (See Appendix A). The first section

was designed to collect data about pesticide exposure. In this section farmworkers were

asked to provide information regarding previous and present experiences with exposure

while taking into account laws and regulations that deal with this issue. This section was

comprised of eighteen different questions. The first two questions were designed to

gather information about the farms and types of crops where farmworkers were

employed. Questions three to eleven were designed to assess the perceptions of

farmworkers regarding pesticide exposure and their views regarding the ways in which

they could have been exposed to pesticides and possible consequences of pesticide

exposure. Questions twelve to sixteen were designed to collect information regarding use

of preventive measures in order to reduce the risk of pesticide exposure. Questions

seventeen and eighteen were designed to gather information regarding the views of

farmworkers about pesticide exposure at home.









The second section of the interview guide contained four questions pertaining to

previous pesticide training experience. This set of questions were utilized to gather

information about training needs for this population and the perceived value of pesticide

training. This section included one question that distinguished individuals that had

taken previous pesticide training from those who had not in order to uncover training

needs. The next question in this section was designed for those farmworkers who had

taken pesticide training. This was focused on gathering information regarding the

methods that were used and their perceived value to deliver the educational content of the

training. The third question in this section was for those farmworkers who had not taken

pesticide training with an intention to collect information about the reasons for this lack

of pesticide training. The last question of this section was designed to obtain information

about the views from all farmworkers about the importance of participating in pesticide

traimings.

The third set of questions seeked to gather information about preferred delivery

methods of pesticide training. This was done by asking farmworkers nine questions

about specific things that could make them feel comfortable when receiving pesticide

training in order to increase their participation and that can allow pesticide educators to

design better targeted programs.

The last set of questions was designed to collect information regarding the

demographics of the population. In this section farmworkers were asked to provide

information regarding their origin, their involvement in agricultural related activities in

the U.S., their age, their education level and language spoken.










Expert Panel, Pilot Study, Institutional Review Board (IRB)

Prior to conducting the pilot study, the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of

University of Florida reviewed and approved the instrument used in this study on April

10, 2006 under the protocol number (2006-U-232). The interview guide was later

modified by the researcher in response to the Eindings from the pilot study. The

instrument was sent once again to IRB for approval and it was reapproved on May 24,

2006.

A panel of four people examined and approved the Einal questionnaire. The panel

was composed of two people who deliver pesticide training, one person who is an adult

educator and one researcher. Additionally, the instrument was translated and adapted

into Spanish (Appendix B) which was revised by an expert in the subject. In order to

identify any flaws and misunderstanding in wording of the questions the interview guide

was Hield tested. This was achieved by conducting a pilot study at one north Florida farm

with eight Hispanic farmworkers. Participants were interviewed using the instrument

which had twenty four closed- and seven open-ended questions that addressed pesticide

exposure, previous pesticide training experience, preferred delivery methods of pesticide

education and demographic information. Additionally participants were asked to provide

feedback about the instrument. Their feedback and suggestions were used to improve

and make additional revisions to the Einal questionnaire.

In this study both having a panel examine the questionnaire prior to its

implementation and pre-testing the instrument were designed to address face validity.

According to Ary, Jacobs and Razavieh (2002) face validity is concerned with the extent

to which the contents of a questionnaire look like they are measuring what they are

supposed to measure. One way of dealing with face validity is by having competent









colleagues who are familiar with the purpose of the questionnaire examine the items to

judge whether they are appropriate for measuring what they are supposed to measure and

whether they are a representative sample of the behavior domain under investigation. In

this study this step was performed. In addition, two important variables that influence the

validity of a questionnaire are the importance of the topic to the respondents and

protecting the anonymity of the respondent. These two variables were also addressed in

this study by asking participants to express their perceptions about the topic in the

interview process and by informing them that their responses will remain anonymous.

Credibility, Transferability and Dependability

Three maj or aspects that must be considered in assessing the trustworthiness of

qualitative research are credibility, transferability and dependability. Credibility is the

term used to refer to the accuracy or truthfulness of the findings (Ary, Jacobs and

Razavieh, 2002). The strategy used in this study to enhance credibility was

peer/colleague examination. This strategy was performed by asking peers or colleagues

to examine the data and to comment on the plausibility of the emerging findings

(Merriam, 1995). In this study emerging findings were examined by two pesticide

extension educators who work with Hispanics in Florida.

The second aspect that was considered in this study was transferability.

Transferability refers to the degree to which the findings of a qualitative study can be

applied or generalized to other contexts or to other groups (Ary, Jacobs and Razavieh,

2002). A method to address transferability is by providing as much detail as possible

about the background of the sample that was studied. This can allow the findings of the

study to be applied to similar people, settings, and times. The researcher dealt with this










aspect by collecting information on the demographics of the farmworkers that were

studied.

The last aspect that was considered in this study was dependability. According to

Lincoln and Guba (1985) (as cited by Merriam, 1995) dependability refers to whether the

results of a study are consistent with the data collected. The logic used for selecting

people and events to observe, interview, and include in the study should be clearly

presented. The more consistent the researcher has been in this research process, the more

dependable are the results. A maj or technique for assessing dependability is audit trail

where an independent auditor reviews the activities of the researcher through the use of

written or recorded documentation.

Another aspect to consider in order to increase the transferability and dependability

of a study is the ethnicity of the interviewer/researcher. According to Marin and VanOss

Marin (1991) various researchers suggest that interviewers or researchers should be of the

same ethnicity as the respondents in order to enhance rapport and willingness to disclose

information. In this study both the researcher and collaborators where Hispanic.

Data Collection

The qualitative approach selected for data collection for this study was

interviewing. Interviewing is one of the most common and powerful ways in which we

try to understand other human beings (Fontana & Frey, 2000). Interviewing was selected

in this study since the population studied were Hispanic farmworkers who are likely to be

poorly educated. Poorly educated individuals may find it difficult to deal with written

materials, especially complex response scales or multiple-choice questions (Marin &

VanOss Marin, 1991). Three forms of qualitative, open-ended interviewing according to

Patton (1991) (as cited by Rubin and Babbie, 1997) are: (1) the informal conversational









interview, (2) the general interview guide approach, and (3) the standardized open-ended

interview. In this research the interview guide approach was selected as the means of

conducting field observations in order to simplify the collection and analysis of

information due to the sample size selected (n=51). This method includes the use of

interviews that are planned in advance, and are therefore more structured than informal

conversational interviews (Rubin and Babbie, 1997).

The instrument used to collect the data can be structured in different ways. When

designing the instrument, the researcher must consider how much information he/she is

able to anticipate that will emerge during the interview process about the subj ect matter

under consideration. Greater structure attempts to ensure the comparability of data across

individuals, times, settings, and researchers (Maxwell, 2005). According to Fontana &

Frey (2000) structured interviewing consists of a preestablished set of questions with

limited response categories, which reduces variation among these. Therefore, highly

structured interviews are helpful in simplifying the organization and analysis of data.

According to Rubin and Babbie (1997) the problem with using this approach is that it

interferes with the natural flow of the conversation and reduces the flexibility of the

interviewer to follow-up on unanticipated responses.

Although structured interviews seek to reduce variability among responses,

nonsampling errors can still occur in the administration process. Denzin and Lincoln

(2000) have identified three sources of error that can lead to nonsampling error. These

are the respondent behavior, the nature of the task and the interviewer. The respondent

behavior refers to the kind of error that arises from the provision of "socially desirable"

responses or from a faulty memory. For example, some individuals may be more willing









to report that they carry out "socially desirable" actions such as reading books but may

avoid reporting less desirable attitudes or behaviors such as drinking alcoholic beverages

in excess. In the study, the interviewer addressed this source of error by including open-

ended questions that served to probe other answers. The nature of the task refers to the

type of error that can happen as a result of the method of questionnaire administration or

the sequence or wording of the questions. An example of the nature of the task is a

change that the researcher can make in the order of questions during the interview. The

researcher tried to diminish this source of error by following the sequence of the

interview guide and reading the options listed as answers in the same order to all

participants. Finally the last type of error has to do with the characteristics or questioning

techniques used by the interviewer. This source of error was also addressed by the

researcher by following the sequence of the interview guide and reading the options listed

as answers in the same order to all participants.

In this study all participants were interviewed during the months of May and June,

2006 via a researcher-developed structured interview guide. The interviews were

scheduled and coordinated with the help of the specialized extension agent in charge of

Hispanic pesticide training in South Florida with the RMCA centers.

Prior to conducting the interview, the investigator briefly discussed with each

farmworker the informed consent that was provided to each participant. The main points

of this consent form were the purpose of the study, the topics that would be covered, the

length of time the interview would take, the protection of the participant' s anonymity and

confidentiality. In addition, the investigator responded to any questions asked by the

potential participant. Providing sufficient information to the participants about the










characteristics of the study, its sponsorship, the usefulness of data, and other pertinent

details facilitate the collaboration of individuals. Later, the investigator discussed with

the participant the criteria used to select participants to assure that the target population

was included in the sample. A copy of the Informed Consent was handed out to all

parti cipants.

Interviews were administered in Spanish, and they lasted between 15 to 20 minutes.

When a participant was unable to answer a question because of language differences, or

misunderstandings, the question was read once again and rephrased in order to clarify it.

During the interviews, all responses plus any additional information provided by the

participant were recorded manually on the interview guide. No interviews were recorded

by tape since the structure interview guide was seen as good method of collecting the

data needed.

Data Analysis

The analysis used qualitative data collected through interviews to explore and

describe farm workers perceptions of pesticide education training needs. The process

used to analyze the data collected was descriptive statistics and coding. The data that was

gathered was compiled using Microsoft Excel 2003. Different responses given for both

closed-ended and short-answer questions were classified and categorized. Each response

was given a number which was then entered in the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. This

spreadsheet was then exported into SPSS for Windows, version 12 which was the

program used to perform descriptive statistics. The result of this analysis was frequencies

and central-tendency measurements.

On the other hand, responses to open-ended questions were analyzed with the use

of coding. Coding is the process of combing the data for themes, ideas and categories









and then marking similar passages of text with a code label so that they can easily be

retrieved at a later stage for further comparison and analysis. Coding the data makes it

easier to search the data, to make comparisons and to identify any patterns that require

further investigation (Gibbs & Taylor, 2005). The first step that was followed was the

translation of all open-ended questions from Spanish to English. Responses were then

organized into different categories in an Excel spreadsheet according to the similarities of

the answers that were given by the farmworkers. This classification was possible with

the help of the "Pawing Technique" which consists of marking the text (by circling,

underlining, highlighting words or running colored lines down the margins) and

eyeballing or scanning the text to look for patterns and significance (Gibbs & Taylor,

2005). In this study similar responses were highlighted with a certain color which

represents a certain code. The last step that was followed in the analysis of open-ended

questions was being able to relate each code with the preceding question. Open-ended

questions primarily made reference to a response that was selected in a previous question.

Summary

This chapter has provided information about the research design, population,

sample, instrumentation, data collection and analysis used in this study. This is a

descriptive study that seeks to gather information of pesticide training needs and effective

ways to deliver that information to Hispanic farmworkers. This obj ective was

accomplished by means of interviewing 51 Hispanic farmworkers through the use of a

structured interview guide in three RMCA locations in Homestead and Palm Beach

counties. The data collected in the study was analyzed using descriptive statistics and

coding.















CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

This chapter reports the results from 51 individual interviews. The interview guide

used was designed to collect information from Hispanic farmworkers regarding their

perceptions of pesticide exposure, previous training experience and preferred delivery

methods of pesticide education. The interview guide was structured in four different

sections. The first section was about pesticide exposure and it consisted of questions

regarding previous and present experiences with pesticide exposure while taking into

account laws and regulations that deal with this issue. The second section was about

previous pesticide training experience and it seeked to explore the training needs for this

population. The third section was about preferred delivery methods of pesticide

education in order to allow educators to design better targeted programs. The last section

of the interview guide was designed to collect information regarding the demographics of

the population.

Results of the Interviews

Demographic Profile

Background information of the participants was gathered (Table 4-1). More than

half of the farmworkers were female (54.9%), 45.1% were male. Most of the participants

(58.8%) have been working in agricultural related activities in U.S. for more than 10

years and most of them were from Mexico (58.8%). In addition, the majority of

farmworkers were between 31 and 40 years of age (47. 1%) and between 20 and 30 years

of age (35.3%). The highest level of education that was acquired by some participants










was middle school (3 1.4%). A considerable number of farmworkers mentioned having

no formal education (15.7%). Finally participants were asked about the language that

they speak more frequently at home, and 84.3% of the workers said Spanish. In addition,

9.8% mentioned speaking Q'anj obal (a dialect of Guatemala) as their main language.

Table 4-1. Demographic profile
Variables n %
Gender 51
Female 28 54.9
Male 23 45.1
Number of years working in agricultural related activities in U.S. 51
> 10 30 58.8
> 5 to 10 11 21.6
>2 to 5 9 17.6
1 to 2 1 2.0
Country of Origin 51
Mexico 30 58.8
El Salvador 10 19.6
Guatemala 8 15.7
Honduras 1 2.0
Nicaragua 1 2.0
United States 1 2.0
Age 51
> 50 3 5.9
41 to 50 5 9.8
31 to 40 24 47.1
21 to 30 18 35.3
< 20 1 2.0
Education 51
No schooling 8 15.7
1st grade-2nd grade 6 11.8
3rd gralde-4th grade 10 19.6
Middle school 16 31.4
High school 11 21.6
Language spoken at home 51
Spanish 43 84.3
English 2 3.9
Both 1 2.0
Q'aniobal 5 9.8










Pesticide Exposure

Hispanic farmworkers were first questioned about their perceptions about pesticide

exposure within the previous year (Table 4-2). Approximately 94% of farmworkers

reported the use of pesticides at their work places. Only a small percentage (5.9%)

reported that pesticides were not used in the crops they worked with. Over half of the

farmworkers (52.9%) perceived that they had been exposed to pesticides and 41.2% said

they had not been exposed to pesticides. Another 5.9% were not aware if they had been

exposed to pesticides.

Table 4-2. Perceptions of pesticide exposure
Variables n %
Do you know if pesticides were used on the crops you worked with in FL? 51
Yes 48 94.1
No 3 5.9
In the last year, in your opinion, were you exposed to pesticides in FL? 51
Yes 27 52.9
No 21 41.2
Don't Know 3 5.9

In addition farmworkers were questioned about pesticide poisoning within the last

year (Table 4-3). Almost 18% reported that they had been poisoned and 76.5% said they

had not been poisoned. Another 5.9% were not aware if they were poisoned by

pesticides. More than forty percent of these farmworkers (44.4%) expressed that they

had been poisoned once or twice while 22.2% of them reported being exposed six times,

22.2% every time they applied pesticides and 22.2% almost every week. The crops

farmworkers were working in while being poisoned included nursery operations (55.6%),

vegetables (33.3%) and row crops (1 1.1%). Two-thirds of the times (66.7%), these

poisonings affected other workers while 33.3% they did not affect others. Only 11.1% of

the workers reported that they had received medical assistance.







63


Table 4-3. Pesticide poisoning
Variables n %
In the last year, do you think that you were poisoned by pesticides in FL? 51
Yes 9 17.6
No 39 76.5
Don't Know 3 5.9
In the last year, how many times were you poisoned by pesticides in FL? 9
1-2 4 44.4
6 2 22.2
Every time they apply pesticides 2 22.2
Almost every week 2 22.2
What crop were you working with when you were poisoned? 9
Vegetables (tomato, celery, squash) 3 33.3
Nursery/green house 5 55.6
Row crop 1 11.1
Were other members of your group affected by pesticides? 9
Yes 6 66.7
No 3 33.3
Did you seek medical attention 9
Yes 1 11.1
No 8 88.9
Where did you seek medical attention?1
Hospital emergency room 1 100.0

Descriptions of the poisoning experiences that were reported by farmworkers were

mainly focused on symptoms (Table 4-4). Most workers reported suffering from a

headache, vomiting and feeling dizzy. Others said they had suffered eye and mouth

irritation, or difficulty breathing, and one case was reported where an individual lost

consciousness.

Table 4-4. Description of pesticide poisoning
Response
"A drop fell into my mouth, I felt dizzy and vomited"
"I suffer from headaches frequently and in some cases I have even vomited"
"I suffered all the symptoms, I vomited, and I had a headache"
"I felt dizzy, it was the first time I was working in the fields and I was not accustomed to them"
"Eye and mouth irritation"
"Pain in my eyes, head and dizziness"
"WYhen pesticides are applied in the row before they plant, its smell makes my headache"
"I usually weed after applications have been made, so I get nasal congestion and headaches"
"I passed out, I couldn't see, I couldn't hear. Around 20 minutes after I fainted, I started hearing and
seeing again, my hands were cold and I vomited. When I felt better, I put the hoses away, I left from
the area, I took a shower and went back home"










In reference to ways in which someone can be exposed to pesticides (Table 4-5),

nearly 6% of the workers reported that they had been directly sprayed with pesticides and

94.1% reported that they had never been directly sprayed with pesticides. Another way

of being exposed to pesticides is indirectly thru pesticide drift from neighboring Hields;

72.5% of the workers reported neighboring Hields were being sprayed with pesticides

while they were working.

Table 4-5. Pesticide exposure mode
Variables n %
In the last year, have you ever been sprayed directly with pesticides in FL? 51
Yes 3 5.9
No 48 94.1
In the last year, were you in the fields in FL while pesticides were being 51
sprayed on a nearby field?
Yes 37 72.5
No 14 27.5

The frequency of pesticide applications in neighboring fields (Table 4-6) while

working was of 1-4 times per month 21.6% of the time and more than 5 times per month

54.1% of the time. Also, workers reported that applications were performed on

neighboring Hields while they were present between one to three times during a year 5.4%

of the time and between four to six times during a year 8.1% of the time. Another 10.8%

of the workers reported not being aware of the number of times during the year when

applications had taken place in neighboring Hields.

More than half of the farmworkers (52.8%) reported knowing when an application

had taken place on a field they had to enter to perform work tasks. Forty four percent of

the farmworkers reported not knowing when a field was sprayed and 2.8% reported that

sometimes they knew when a field was sprayed.










Table 4-6. Pesticide exposure in the fields
Variables n %
In the last year, how frequently have pesticides been applied in a nearby 37
field while you were working?
1-4 times per month 8 21.6
> 5 times per month 20 54.1
1-3 times per year 2 5.4
4-6 times per year 3 8.1
Doesn't know 4 10.8
In the last year, did you know upon entering a field for a work task when 37
they were last sprayed with pesticides?
Yes 20 54.1
No 16 43.2
Sometimes 1 2.7

Use of personal protection implements to cover their heads, bodies and feet from

pesticide exposure (Table 4-7) while a nearby field was being applied was also reported

by farmworkers. Almost 60% of the workers mentioned using a hat or cap, 10.8%

mentioned wearing something else to cover their heads. In addition, 29.7% mentioned

not wearing anything to cover their heads. Regarding body wear, 86.5% of the workers

mentioned wearing long pants and a long sleeve shirt, 5.4% mentioned wearing long

pants and a short sleeve shirt and 8.1% mentioned wearing a coverall. More than fifty

percent (57. 1%) of the respondents reported wearing boots, 3 1.4% shoes and 1 1.4%

tennis shoes.

Table 4-7. Use of protective body wear
Variables n %
In the last year, while working on FL, what did you wear on your head? 37
Hat or cap 21 56.8
Other 5 13.5
Nothing 11 29.7
In the last year, while working on FL, what did you wear on your body? 37
Long pant & long sleeve shirt 32 86.5
Long pant & short sleeve shirt 2 5.4
Coverall 3 8.1
In the last year, while working on FL, what did you wear on your feet? 35
Boots 20 57.1
Shoes 11 31.4
Tennis shoes 4 11.4










With respect to the impact of pesticide exposure over their health (Table 4-8),

3 1.4% of the workers believed that pesticide exposure had affected their health. Almost

67% percent reported that pesticide exposure had not impacted their health and two

percent reported not knowing if it had impacted their health.

Table 4-8. Health Impact
In the last year, while working in FL, do you think pesticide exposure has 51 %
impacted your health?
Yes 16 31.4
No 34 66.7
Don't know 1 2.0

Next farmworkers who believed that pesticide exposure had been detrimental to

their health were asked to describe their beliefs regarding how pesticide exposure had

impacted their health. Descriptions that workers provided were focused on illnesses that

they and others have experienced without an apparent cause including allergies and

babies that were born with defects; on poisoning symptoms that they have experienced

including headaches and dizziness; and some mentioned consequences that they will be

able to see in the future. In addition, some farmworkers mentioned the smell of

pesticides in association to negative effects that they can cause and others mentioned the

ways how pesticides can enter the body. Some of the statements that farmworkers

mentioned are the following:

* "you can smell pesticides, they penetrate through your skin, and your eyes, then
you get sick sometimes and you don't know why"

* "Now I am alergic, before I wasn't, I sneezee, so I need to use a nasal spray and
drops"

* "you vomit, it affects your eyes, and you get skin problems"

* "the son of a farmworker was born "cross-eyed," and I have gotten sick sometimes
too"










* "I left my job because my daughter was born with cleft palate and I still think that
it is possible that this (pesticide exposure) was the reason"

* "you can smell pesticides, I believe that as time goes by I will see its impact, not
now"

* "Its smell is bad, I get headaches constantly and I fainted once"

Regarding a hand washing facility (Table 4-9) 84.3% of the workers reported

having access to one, 3.9% said sometimes and 11.8% said no. Farmworkers were also

asked if they were provided with time to use those facilities: 86.4% answered yes, 9. 1%

sometimes and 4.5% said no. Almost all (98%) of the farmworkers interviewed reported

having access to restroom facilities.

Table 4-9. Hand washing and restroom facilities
Variables n %
Access to hand washing facilities 51
Yes 43 84.3
No 6 11.8
Sometimes 2 3.9
Time to use hand washing facilities 44
Yes 38 86.4
No 2 4.5
Sometimes 4 9.1
Access to restroom facilities 51
Yes 50 98.0
No 1 2.0

Farmworkers were also questioned about pesticide exposure at home (Table 4-10).

First they were asked about the way in which they wash their working clothes. Most of

them (94.1%) reported washing their working clothes separate from the family

nonworking clothes. Only 5.9% reported washing their working clothes together with the

family nonworking clothes. Those workers who had children were also questioned if

they were worried about pesticide exposure affecting their children at home and 84%

answered yes, 14% no and 2% were not sure.







68


Table 4-10. Pesticide exposure at home
Variables n %
In the last year, while working in FL, how did you wash your clothes? 51
Together with family nonworking clothes 3 5.9
Separate from family nonworking clothes 48 94.1
Are you worried about pesticide exposure affecting your children at home? 50
Yes 42 84.0
No 7 14.0
Not sure 1 2.0

Previous Training Experience

Hispanic farmworkers were questioned about their previous training experience

(Table 4-11). Nearly 70% of them reported having ever received training regarding the

safe use of pesticides.

Table 4-11. Previous training experience
Have you ever received training regarding the safe use of pesticides? 51 %
Yes 35 68.6
No 16 31.4

Those farmworkers who reported receiving pesticide training were asked about the

person who provided it (Table 4-12). In most cases (37.8%) the farm owner or manager

provided the training, followed by the crew leader (16.2%), the extension agent (10.8%)

and 3 persons (8.1%) reported that they had received training by both the crew leader and

an extension agent.

Table 4-12. Pesticide training provider
Person who provided training 37 %
Extension agent 4 10.8
Farm owner or manager 14 37.8
Crew leader 6 16.2
Sales person 1 2.7
Community center personnel 2 5.4
Private contractor 1 2.7
OSHA personnel 1 2.7
Farm owner or manager & community center personnel 2 5.4
Farm owner or manager & extension agent 1 2.7
Extension agent & crew leader 3 8.1
Doesn't remember 2 5.4










Next farmworkers who had received training were asked about how the information

was provided to them (Table 4-13). In almost half (48.6%) of the cases, pesticide

training was delivered by using a combination of an oral intervention and a

video/DVD/slide show presentation. In 24.3% of the cases the information was provided

only by a video/DVD/slide show presentation and in 10.8% of the cases both orally and

written and by a video/DVD/slide show presentation.

Table 4-13. Approach used to deliver pesticide information
How was the information provided to you? 37 %
Orally 2 5.4
Written information 1 2.7
Video/DVD/slide show 9 24.3
Orally & video/DVD/slide show 18 48.6
Orally, written information & video/DVD/slide show 4 10.8
Written information & video/DVD/slide show 1 2.7
Orally & demonstration 1 2.7
Orally, picture based & video/DVD/slide show 1 2.7

Respondents were asked to provide information regarding their beliefs about the

method of presenting the information as being useful in helping them understand the

information. Those that had received the information orally said the method was o.k.

The person who had received the information in a written format said that the method

was useful in helping him understand the information and that through it he/she was able

to "see what could happen, and then they explained what I need to do to prevent

accidents." Most farmworkers who had received the information in a video/DVD/slide

show format said that it was a good method; however some mentioned that using another

method would probably be better. Those that had received a video/slide show/DVD

presentation plus an oral presentation explained that it was a good method, that the video

was useful in helping them see demonstrations of practices that they should be doing and

what they should not do and the consequences of such practices. In addition, most










mentioned that the oral component was helpful because "if someone is able to explain to

you then you can understand better because a video by itself is not able to answer any

questions." Similarly, those who received information in other ways mentioned that the

method used was good in helping them understand the information that was presented to

them .

Those farmworkers who had not received pesticide training (Table 4-14) reported

that they had not received one mainly because they had never had the opportunity

(42.9%). Four of them (28.6%) said that they had not received pesticide training because

they do not work directly with pesticides, and the rest of them said it was due to other

reasons. The reasons they mentioned were not knowing about the training, not using

strong pesticides, lack of time, and feeling that they did not need one.

Table 4-14. Reason for lack of previous training
Why haven't you received training? 37 %
Never had the opportunity 6 42.9
Does not work with pesticides 4 28.6
Did not know about them 1 7.1
Does not use strong pesticide 1 7.1
Lack of time 1 7.1
Lack of time & feeling no need for it 1 7. 1

Finally all participants were questioned about their views regarding the importance

of pesticide training. All 51 farmworkers responded that pesticide training were

important. The main reason that they mentioned as to why training were important was

acquiring knowledge, mainly about the relation between pesticides and health. Some of

the statements that farmworkers said about this were the following:

* "It helps you be healthier, and you can learn about how pesticides can make you
sick, and harm your eyes and mind."

* "To learn how to protect your health."










* "Because people don't know and they can get sick, so that they are careful."

* "To know what type of pesticide is hazardous, and be able to know if its going to
produce allergy."

* "You are oriented about what pesticides harm your health. You learn."

Another reason that was mentioned by farmworkers as to why training are

important was prevention of accidents. Also acquiring knowledge in order to know about

the consequences of using pesticides, prevention of pesticide exposure, being able to help

others, learning about the safe use of pesticides, and as a reminder of the information

were also mentioned.

Preferred Delivery Methods of Pesticide Education

Farmworkers were questioned about their preferences for receiving pesticide

training. First they were asked about the person whom they would like to provide the

training (Table 4-15). More than 30% said it should not matter who the person is as long

as he/she is knowledgeable about the subj ect. Almost 20% responded that they would

like an extension agent to provide training, 13.7% mentioned the farm owner or

manager, and 9.8% mentioned the state (EPA) personnel as the ones that should do it.

Table 4-15. Preferred provider
Person who should provide training 51 %
Extension agent 10 19.6
Farm owner or manager 7 13.7
Crew leader 2 3.9
Sales person 3 5.9
Community center personnel 1 2
State (EPA) personnel 5 9.8
Educator 1 2.0
Anyone who knows 16 31.4
Mixer 1 2.0
Farm owner/manager or crew leader 1 2.0
Farm owner or manager & extension agent 2 3.9
Sales person or state (EPA) personnel 1 2.0
Extension agent or state (EPA) personnel 1 2.0










Second farmworkers were asked about the site were they would like pesticide

training to be held (Table 4-16). More than 30% of them mentioned the community

center, more than 20% mentioned the farm, and 11.8% mentioned a farm office or indoor

facility as a good option among others. However 17.6% said they did not have any

preference for a place where training could be held. A small percentage (2%) was not

able to provide a response. The other 6% was represented by other sites or a combination

of them.

Table 4-16. Preferred sites
Site where pesticides training can be held 51 %
Extension office 2 3.9
Farm (field) 11 21.6
Farm office or indoor facility 6 11.8
Community center 16 31.4
School 2 3.9
Church 1 2.0
Any place 9 17.6
Store 1 2.0
Doesn't know 1 2.0
Farm office or community center or school 1 2.0
Extension office or community center 1 2.0

Third farmworkers were asked about their preferred method of receiving pesticide

information (Table 4-17). More than 30% of the workers reported that they would prefer

the information to be delivered in an oral way and by a video/DVD/slide show. Fourteen

percent responded that orally would be fine and 9.8% mentioned orally, written and

video/DVD/slide show as a good option. Other responses included orally and pictured

based (3.9%), written information (2%), picture based (2%), written information and

video/DVD/slide show (2%); orally, written information, picture based and video/DVD/slide

show (2%); orally, video/DVD/slide show and demonstration (2%); picture based and

video/DVD/slide show (2%), and all methods (2%).







73


Table 4-17. Preferred method
Method used to deliver information 51 %
Orally & video/DVD/slide show 16 31.4
Orally 14 27.5
Video/DVD/slide show 7 13.7
Orally, written information & video/DVD/slide show 5 9.8
Orally & picture based 2 3.9
Written information 1 2.0
Picture based 1 2.0
Written information & video/DVD/slide show 1 2.0
Orally, written information, picture based & video/DVD/slide show 1 2.0
Orally, video/DVD/slide show & demonstration 1 2.0
Picture based & video/DVD/slide show 1 2.0
All 1 2.0

Workers were asked about the language in which they would prefer the training to

be delivered to them (Table 4-18). Almost 80% responded Spanish, 3.9% said English

and 17.6% mentioned both languages as an option.

Table 4-18. Preferred language
Language 51 %
Spanish 40 78.4
English 2 3.9
Both 9 17.6

Workers were asked about the frequency in which they would prefer the training to

be delivered to them (Table 4-19). Over 60% (66.7%) of the workers prefer multiple

sessions, while 23.5% prefer one single training and 7.8% mentioned no preference.

Table 4-19. Preferred frequency
Frequency of training 51 %
One single training 12 23.5
Multiple sessions (Once a week for one month) 11 21.6
Multiple sessions (Once every two weeks for one month) 8 15.7
Multiple sessions (Once every month) 8 15.7
Multiple sessions (other) 7 13.7
Doesn't matter 4 7.8
Doesn't know 1 2.0

Farmworkers were also asked about the days when they preferred training to be

held (Table 4-20). Almost 30% responded that any day would be fine, 25.5% mentioned










Saturday and 23.5% mentioned Monday as a good option. Saturday was selected as a

good option because most workers have that day off and therefore they have more time to

receive training. Those that chose Monday said their selection was because it is the first

day of the week although they provided no specific reason as to why it is more

convenient.

Table 4-20. Preferred day
Day of the week 51 %
Monday 12 23.5
Tuesday 2 3.9
Wednesday 1 2.0
Thursday 1 2.0
Friday 1 2.0
Saturday 13 25.5
Sunday 3 5.9
Any day 15 29.4
Any day except weekends 2 3.9
Weekends 1 2.0

Next, farmworkers were asked about the timing where they would prefer training

to be delivered to them (Table 4-21). More than half (54.9%) mentioned after work

hours as a good option in comparison to 39.2% who selected during work hours and 3.9%

selected doesn't matter and 2.0% were not able to provide an answer.

Table 4-21. Preferred timing
Work timing 51 %
During work hours 20 39.2
After work hours 28 54.9
Doesn't matter 2 3.9
Doesn't know 1 2.0

In order to obtain more detail regarding preferred timing, workers were asked about

the specific hours of the day in which they would like pesticide training to be delivered

to them (Table 4-22). Some workers (5.9%) selected 6:00 a.m. as a good hour to receive

training. Their selection was based on the belief that "you are starting your work day"

and that at that time "you are more prepared to hear." More than 20% of the workers










selected 9:00 a.m. as the best choice mainly because "You are awake." Two workers

(3.9%) selected 12:00 noon and three (5.9%) selected 3:00 p.m. as a good option. Those

that selected 3:00 p.m. mentioned almost being done with their work day as the reason of

their selection. Several (13.7%) selected 6:00 p.m. as a good hour to receive training;

their preference was based on their own convenience. Other options were also mentioned

by workers in the morning (7.8%), in the afternoon (23.5%) and in the evening (2.0%).

Some workers also mentioned any time as an option (9.8%) and others were not able to

provide a specific hour.

Table 4-22. Preferred hours
flour 51 Vo
6:00 a.m. 3 5.9
9:00 a.m. 12 23.5
12:00 noon 2 3.9
3:00 p.m. 3 5.9
6:00 p.m. 7 13.7
Other (morning) 4 7.8
Other (afternoon) 12 23.5
Other (evening) 1 2.0
Any time 5 9.8
Does not know 2 3.9

Finally, farmworkers were asked to select three important topics of information that

they would prefer to be presented to them in training (Table 4-23). A total of 126

responses were given by the workers. The highest number of responses corresponded to

personal protection from pesticides (20.6%) and steps to follow during an emergency

situation related to pesticides (19.8%). These responses were followed by signs and

symptoms of pesticide poisoning (14.3%), types of pesticides and how they work

(11.9%), pesticide exposure at work (11.1%), pesticide exposure at home (8.7%) and all

of the above (8.7%).










Table 4-23. Preferred topics
Topics 126 %
Types of pesticides and how they work 15 11.9
How you can be exposed to pesticides at work 14 11.1
How to protect yourself from pesticides 26 20.6
Signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning 18 14.3
What to do in an emergency situation 25 19.8
Pesticide exposure at home 11 8.7
Safe use of pesticides 3 2.4
Restricted Entry Interval 1 0.8
Formulation of pesticides 1 0.8
All of the above 11 8.7
Does not know 1 0.8

Summary

Overall, the results indicate that more than half of the participants believe that they

are being exposed to pesticides at work mainly thru indirect exposure. Many

farmworkers are aware that pesticides can harm their health and some are able to describe

unpleasant experiences that they have encountered with pesticides while working in the

fields in Florida. Although many workers take measures to prevent pesticide exposure

such as wearing appropriate clothing, there are still a considerable amount of workers that

are at risk of being exposed because some farmworkers do not follow appropriate

procedures to prevent it. Most farmworkers have received pesticide training, however,

there is still a considerable number of farmworkers who have not yet received pesticide

training mainly due to lack of opportunities to do so. The preferred delivery methods of

pesticide education generally included some type of oral and/or Video/DVD/slideshow.

Farmworkers also selected delivery of training by someone who is knowledgeable about

pesticides. Finally, farmworkers favored multiple session training in Spanish language

in a site that they are familiar with.















CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

Hispanic farmworkers have experienced pesticide exposure and pesticide training

in different ways. Their previous experiences and their current situation may have

influenced their perceptions and points of view about the need of pesticide training and

about how these training should be delivered to them. In addition it is important to

recognize that self selection might have played a role in the results of this study.

However, the extent of self selection bias is unknown in this study. The primary goal of

this study was to explore farmworkers perception of pesticide education training needs.

The focus of this study was in the following obj ectives: (1) to explore Hispanic

farmworkers perception of pesticide exposure, (2) to describe Hispanic farmworkers

previous pesticide training experiences, and, (3) to determine the preferred delivery

methods and strategies for pesticide WPS training among Hispanic farmworkers.

This chapter will first address significant results from the interviews conducted.

Next, based on the results of the study, recommendations will be offered to extension and

other organizations that provide educational services to Hispanics and to employers of

Hispanic farmworkers. Then, implications of the results for IFAS Extension will be

discussed. Finally, suggestions for future research will be given.

Results

Demographic Profile

Demographic information provided the profile of those Hispanic farmworkers who

have connections to RMCA centers in Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties. As









mentioned by other authors, the maj ority of farmworkers were born in Mexico (Carroll et

al., 2005; Vela Acosta et al., 2005; Ahn, Moore & Parker, 2004; Villarejo, 2003,

Murphy-Greene & Leip, 2002) followed by workers born in Central America and the

United States. Most farmworkers have been working in agricultural related activities in

the U.S. more than ten years. Contrary to the findings of Carroll et al. (2005) that only

21% of the crop workers are female, in this study most participants were women (54.9%).

This was due in part to the sites where the interviews where held which were daycare

facilities. Because women tend to care more about the educational aspect of their

children, more women than men tend to visit RMCA facilities and were therefore

recruited. In addition self selection of participants may have influenced greater female

contribution in this study. Most farmworkers were relatively young (82.4%) between 21

and 40 years of age. This is similar to the findings of Murphy-Greene and Leip (2002)

where 77% of farmworkers were between 21 and 40 years of age. Carroll et al. (2005)

found that the average age of farmworkers was 33 years.

Regarding education, farmworkers interviewed varied in their levels of education

between 1st grade to high school. A considerable number of workers (15.7%) had no

schooling which is higher than the percentage of never attended school category reported

by NAWS (3%) (Carroll et al., 2005). Also high school competition was higher than the

percentage reported by NAWS by nearly 4%. However, none of the participants reported

completing formal education beyond high school which was reported to be of 5% by

NAWS (Carroll et al., 2005). Also, most workers (84.3%) reported speaking Spanish at

home which is similar to the findings of Carroll et al. (2005) where Spanish was reported

to be the predominant native language of 81% of the farmworkers. According to Weber









et al. (2004) understanding the educational background and language spoken by

farmworkers is important since it can make pesticide educators aware that many of them

are unable to read and comprehend complex pesticide information. Therefore it can

assist pesticide educators in designing effective methods and tools through which they

can provide simple and clear pesticide safety information. However, additional research

on literacy issues is needed.

Pesticide Exposure

Farmworkers differed in their perceptions and ways on how they were exposed to

pesticides in the Hields. While more than half (52.9%) believed that they had been

exposed to pesticides in Florida, 72.5% of farmworkers reported being at risk of indirect

exposure thru pesticide drift from neighboring fields. In the study by Murphy-Greene

and Leip (2002), they found that pesticide drift from neighboring Hields had affected 64%

of farmworkers in Florida. In addition, farmworkers may also be at risk of indirect

exposure due to lack of knowledge upon entering a Hield that was recently sprayed with

pesticides. Many farmworkers (43.2%) mentioned not being informed upon entering a

Hield for a work task when it was last sprayed with pesticides. Murphy-Greene and Leip

(2002) found that 82% of farmworkers did not know when the fields were last sprayed

with pesticides before they reentered the fields in Florida. This drop in percentage might

reveal that more agricultural employers involved with this study are now informing their

workers about when a restricted entry interval (REI) has been in effect in an area. Few

workers (5.9%) reported being exposed to pesticides directly. This percentage was lower

than the one reported by Murphy-Greene and Leip (2002) where 10% of farmworkers

mentioned being directly sprayed with pesticides.









When questioned about pesticide poisoning, all workers who reported that they had

experienced pesticide poisoning (17.6%), expressed suffering diverse symptoms such as

feeling dizzy, vomiting and having headaches. However, few were able to express how

this poisoning occurred. One mentioned pesticide ingestion and another mentioned

pesticide residue as the source of their poisoning. Not being able to express how

poisoning occurred may indicate that some farmworkers do not know what pesticide

poisoning is, or that they may have suffered from a pre-existing condition. Someone with

a pre-existing condition can manifest symptoms at a lower pesticide dose compared to a

young healthy individual. However, the signs and symptoms that are present should be

consistent with poisoning from the pesticide in question (Barnett & Calvert, 2006).

Workers who believed that they had been poisoned differed in the number of times

when these episodes took place and most (66.7%) reported that other workers were

affected too. Only one worker (1 1.1%) of those who believed that had been poisoned

mentioned seeking medical attention. Similarly, Vela Acosta et al. (2005) found that

only a small percentage (3.3%) of farmworkers sought medical attention when

experiencing pesticide exposure symptoms. Other authors have also mentioned that

despite knowing that they should notify their boss and seek medical attention,

farmworkers would rather take some other action such as resting, bathing, or taking over-

the-counter medicine (Elmore & Arcury, 2001). According to Villarejo (2003), a study

undertaken in California, found that farmworkers appear to access healthcare services

only when absolutely necessary, which might be due to lack of health insurance

protection. The downside of a farmworker that claims that he has been poisoned and who

does not seek medical attention is that his case is left undocumented and he cannot assure









that he was really poisoned. A licensed health care professional can document based on

obj ective findings (signs) that can be observed and described through a physical exam or

the physical findings section of a medical record, or acute poisoning reporting form how

was an individual affected by pesticide exposure (Barnett & Calvert, 2006).

Most workers (66.7%) believed that pesticide exposure had not impacted their

health. However, those who believed that pesticides had affected their health (31.4%)

mentioned suffering acute effects such as skin, eye, nose and mouth irritation, and

allergies. Others mentioned suffering from unexplained illnesses although none of them

provided a name or description of these. Two farmworkers mentioned long-term effects

they had observed on babies born with defects. Dermal and ocular routes of exposure

were also mentioned and some associated the odor (smell) of pesticides with adverse

health effects. Odor association with harmful effects of pesticides has also been reported

by other studies (Elmore & Arcury, 2001). Others could not express how pesticide

exposure had affected their health but believed that in the future they will see its

consequences. Possible pesticide health effects later on were also reported by other

studies (Elmore & Arcury, 2001)

Regarding measures taken to prevent pesticide exposure at work, most workers

were aware of the use of appropriate clothing such as wearing long pants and long sleeve

shirts (86.5%) or a coverall (8.1%), boots or shoes (88.5%) and something to cover their

heads (70.3%) to prevent dermal exposure. The findings of Murphy-Greene and Leip

(2002) were lower regarding the use of long pants and long sleeve shirts (36%) and

higher regarding use of a protective headgear (82%). Vela Acosta et al. (2005) found that

some behaviors recommended by WPS, such as wearing long pants and long sleeve shirts









were readily adopted by farmworkers. The increase on pesticide training from those

reported by Murphy-Greene and Leip (2002) might help explain the increase regarding

use of adequate clothing.

Most workers also reported having access to hand washing (84.3%) and restroom

facilities (98.0%). Murphy-Greene and Leip (2002) found that these percentages were

close to 72% and 88% respectively. This shift in numbers is able to show that more

employers have implemented these requirements. In order to prevent pesticide exposure

at home, most workers (94.1%) knew that it was important to wash their working clothes

separate from the family's nonworking clothes. This result is higher than the one found

by Spitzer, Whitford and Frick (1994) were workers generally knew "very little"

pesticide information (25% to 50% of the time) regarding washing work clothes

separately from other clothing. In general most workers who had children (84.0%) were

worried that pesticide exposure could affect their children at home.

Overall, the results of this study show that farmworkers perceive to be at high risk

of exposure to pesticides in the fields. However, it is important to recognize that the high

number of farmworkers who reported being at risk of exposure might be due to their lack

of knowledge upon what pesticide exposure is and suffering from pre-existing conditions.

Results show that workers are exposed to pesticides mainly through indirect methods.

Although no clear pattern was established in this study, dermal, ocular and respiratory

were all mentioned as routes of exposure.

Previous Training Experience

Knowing what Hispanic farmworkers desire and prefer from a WPS training

experience is important. Being able to provide an experience that is similar to what they

want could attract a greater number of farmworkers to participate in WPS training. Many









farmworkers (68.6%) reported having participated in pesticide training however a

considerable number (31.4%) had never received any training. Murphy-Greene and Leip

(2002) found that between 1997 and 1999 these percentages were 53% and 45%

respectively in Florida. This shift in number of those who have received pesticide

training shows that some progress has been made in reaching farmworkers. However, it

supports the findings of the Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services

(as of Galloni, 2004) in which failure to train the workers and failure to post pesticide

safety information in a central location have been reported as top violations of the WPS.

Those who had participated in pesticide training mentioned that most of the time

(54.0%) these training were delivered by the boss (farm owner, manager or crew leader)

and they involved some sort of video/DVD/slide show presentation (83.7%). Murphy-

Greene and Leip (2002) also found that the most widely used of training was the video

(36%). Use of video was expected to be one of the main responses since other authors

had mentioned that of all group media, video is one of the leading mediums of choice to

support training due to its many advantages such as convenience to be watched at

different places (American Production Services, 2006; Coldevin, 2003). Extension

agents (10.8%) had also played an important role in the delivery of pesticides training.

Lack of previous training places farmworkers at risk of suffering from the

consequences of working around pesticides due to the fact that they lack the knowledge

to take preventive measures to reduce pesticide exposure. Main reasons mentioned for

lack of previous training was never having an opportunity to do so (42.9%) and not

working around pesticides (28.6%). Despite that a considerable number of workers had

never received pesticide training, all farmworkers believed that participating in training









was very important. They believe that training can help them acquire knowledge about

the health effects that pesticides can produce. Therefore training will also provide them

knowledge about preventive measures that they need to take in order to prevent pesticide

exposure. The knowledge acquired by workers through pesticide training will allow

them to share the information with others. Word of mouth or informal oral exchange

among co-workers has been regarded by other authors as one of the methods of educating

farmworkers about health and safety related information (National Research Council,

2003).

Preferred Delivery Methods of Pesticide Education

Many farmworkers (31.4%) mentioned not having preferences about the provider

of pesticide training as long as the trainer was someone qualified to do the j ob.

Extension agents (19.6%) and the farm owner or manager (13.7%) were also seen as

appropriate people to deliver pesticide training. These preferences probably have to do

with the need of establishing a relationship of trust or rapport between the provider of a

program and the learner. Regarding preferred sites to receive training, top responses

included community centers (31.4%), or the worksite (33.4%). Some even mentioned

that anyplace (17.6%) would be appropriate. This shows that as long as farmworkers are

familiar with the place were a training is held they will feel comfortable.

Video/DVD/slide shows (13.7%) and oral presentations (27.5%) were mentioned

separately and in combination (31.4%) as the main mediums of choice to receive

pesticide education. These results were similar to those found by Fritz, Whitford and

Frick (1994) where videos, publications, and oral communication were identified by the

workers as the best ways to teach them. The preferred language of pesticide education

was Spanish (78.4%), and this is higher than the percentage (50%) found by Fritz,









Whitford and Frick (1994). However, it is not unusual that Spanish language was chosen

since most Hispanic workers can speak only Spanish. A study that was conducted in

Florida even found that agricultural workers expressed a desire for specific Spanish

dialect pesticide safety resources (Weber et al., 2004). However providing information

and training to Hispanic farmworkers in their first language in an accurate and culturally

sensitive manner is only part of the solution (Brown, 2003). It is important to understand

that there are preventive measures that need to be taken to avoid pesticide exposure

which need to be provided by the employer such as providing personal protective

equipment and hand washing facilities.

Regarding the frequency of pesticide training most farmworkers expressed

multiple sessions (66.7%) rather than a single training (23.5%) as their preference

although the distribution of these varied. Farmworkers differed in their preferences

regarding timing of pesticide training. While a maj ority (54.9%) mentioned that they

prefer to participate in pesticide training that are held after work hours, many (39.2%)

also mentioned during work hours. Many workers (29.4%) also expressed not having a

preferred day where the training could be held and others mentioned Mondays (23.5%)

and Saturdays (25.5%). Timing during the day also varied greatly between 9:00 a.m. to

6:00 p.m. Many workers mentioned 9:00 a.m. (23.5%), an equal percentage of workers

mentioned afternoons (other than 12:00 noon, 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.) and 13.6%

mentioned 6:00 p.m. These responses were based on the day of the week when they can

have time to participate in a training.

Finally, farmworkers were questioned about topics that should be covered during

pesticide training. Workers mentioned some of the information that the WPS states that










must be covered in a training designed for agricultural workers. Responses included (1)

an explanation of the WPS requirements designed to protect workers, (2) emergency first

aid for pesticide injuries, (3) signs and symptoms of common types of pesticide

poisoning, (4) where and in what form pesticides may be encountered during work

activities, and, (5) pesticide exposure at home. Topics selected by the farmworkers show

that they are mainly concerned about protecting themselves from pesticide exposure at

work and identifying and learning about what should be done in case of pesticide

poisoning. Farmworkers are also concerned about learning more about pesticides that

can be found at work and protecting their families and themselves from pesticide

exposure at home.

Recommendations

The following set of recommendations is targeted to extension and other

organizations that provide educational services to Hispanics and to employers of

Hispanic farmworkers.

Have bilingual staff (educators) with pesticide responsibilities. Having trained

bilingual staff could be very effective in order to communicate pesticide information to

Hispanic audiences. Bilingual staff could aid in introducing English words and concepts

that will allow farmworkers to understand what others (who may not speak Spanish)

mean or what a warning sign stands for regarding pesticide safety issues. Having

bilingual staff could also help farmworkers to be able to express their concerns and

provide feedback about pesticide education issues knowing that they are being

understood.

Make sure that pesticide educators are well trained and have experience.

Pesticide educators should not only be trained in technical aspects of WPS but should










have enough knowledge and/or experience in reaching Hispanic audiences. Someone

who is knowledgeable about adult education, who is able to consider learning preferences

and social issues of the Hispanic farmworker population is needed to be able to promote

effective communication. The instructor must be able to actively involve the participants

in discussion and in providing feedback which will help create a meaningful experience.

It is also important that the instructor is able to establish rapport with his audience.

Employers should make sure that new employees are trained. Providing proper

pesticide education while taking into consideration the use of a variety of learning

activities will assure that a farmworker is well trained. A training program may require

using several methods to deliver the information depending on the environment where

learning is to take place, however a video/DVD/slideshow along with an oral presentation

is suggested. Because many farmworkers move from one job to another constantly it

could be difficult for an employer to assure that the worker is well trained. In such cases,

it is suggested that crew leaders or supervisors can briefly mention to the workers

measures to be taken by them to avoid pesticide exposure before starting their j ob task.

In addition, having someone who can be always available to answer any questions

regarding pesticides and their use in the company will be beneficial. However that

person must be someone who can relate to the work performed by farmworkers and

whom workers can trust.

Employers must assure that their crew leaders are trained. Crew leaders are in

constant contact with other farmworkers due to the nature of their work. Therefore if a

crew leader has received proper training he/she can advice farmworkers who are not

following appropriate procedures to protect themselves. Following appropriate










procedures are helpful in diminishing pesticide exposure. Train-the-trainer program is an

option that can ensure that crew leaders acquire the knowledge needed regarding WPS.

Through this program they could also be certified to provide training verification cards to

the agricultural workers (FDACS, 2006).

Employers should keep records of the training of their employees. Having

records to verify the last time a farmworker participated in WPS pesticide training would

be helpful. Records could aid in assuring that the retraining interval suggested by WPS

of Hyve years is followed. In most cases developing a system to keep track of training

received by farmworkers can be considered. However due to the transitient nature of

farmworkers in some cases this would be very difficult if not impossible. Therefore, in

many cases this option will not be feasible.

Implications of the results for UF IFAS Extension

The fact that extension agents (10.8%) were mentioned as previous providers of

pesticide training shows that the role that UF IFAS Extension has played in delivering

pesticides training to Hispanic farmworkers is important. The increase in number of

farmworkers (8.8%) who stated that they would prefer pesticide training to be delivered

by an extension agent also shows that some farmworkers are also aware of the presence

of the extension agent although this study did not address whether farmworkers were

knowledgeable of UF IFAS Extension services. Other studies have found that in general

only 45% of adults are aware of extension (Warner et al., 1996). Extension agents were

ranked second in preference to deliver training following anyone who is qualified to

provide pesticide education. This confirms that despite the large number of Hispanic

farmworkers in South Florida, the specialized extension agent who delivers pesticide

education has been reaching this audience. Furthermore, the challenge for UF IFAS









Extension in the future to reach farmworkers will be greater since the number of Hispanic

farmworkers is growing each day.

One option to increase the number of Hispanic farmworkers reached by UF IFAS

Extension is to consider hiring more bilingual county agents in those counties where

Hispanic farmworker population is high. County agents with appropriate training could

aid in the delivery of WPS pesticide training. Another option would be to hold more

programs in conjunction with community centers and to make agricultural producing

companies aware of pesticide education as a service that UF IFAS Extension can provide

to them in case of a lack of qualified person to deliver WPS training in the Company.

This could include simple advertising techniques such as sending flyers and newsletters

to companies and community centers. Community centers can aid tremendously in

reaching out farmworkers in their communities and effectively distribute information

about the importance of participating in pesticide training. On the other hand, programs

offered at a company also have the advantage that farmworkers are required to attend

training assuring a good turnout.

As far as program delivery, video/DVD/slide shows and an oral presentation were

seen as appropriate by the Hispanic farmworkers who participated in this study. On the

other hand, no clear tendency was uncovered by this study in regards to pesticide training

program content, format, location, and timing. Therefore, it is suggested that the

instructor never assumes that he/she is knowledgeable of these options when designing a

training program. In order to address these points the educator must seek to obtain

feedback from farmworkers who have participated in training programs. Evaluations of

training programs, hosting focus groups or just face to face communication could aid in









assessing the appropriateness of a program. However, the obj ectives of a program should

always be considered in order to keep the program relevant. When providing a training

program at a company or worksite, gathering additional information about the

background and knowledge base of the workers would be helpful. Observations made by

the farm manager, owner and/or crew leader about the farmworkers could help the trainer

understand areas or topics in which he/she needs to focus on when delivering a program.

Directions for Future Research

More research needs to be done in regards to pesticide exposure and training.

Future research could consist of the following:

* Implementation of a community-based research design called diagnostic
evaluation. According to Arcury, Quandt and McCauley (2000) diagnostic
evaluation is an approach that has been modified by the Farmworker Health and
Safety Institute, Glassboro, New York. This approach collects information through
observation in addition to structured in-depth interviews with the help of current or
former farmworkers who act as researchers of the study. Researchers record
employer compliance of the WPS, thereby documenting farmworkers' risk for
pesticide exposure. The unit of analysis is the site or farm rather than the
individual farmworker. Therefore, multiple visits are made to each site. In
building relationships over several visits, the researcher is able to look for changes
or inconsistencies in the data collected from the site. In this way, the researcher
can confront respondents when interview and other data are in conflict, and thus
collect more accurate data (Arcury, Quandt & McCauley, 2000).

* Data from this study represents RMCA Hispanic farmworkers in Miami-Dade and
Palm Beach counties. This group of individuals is only a small segment of all
Hispanic farmworkers. Information about perceptions of pesticide exposure,
pesticide training experience and preferred delivery methods for pesticide WPS
training by a larger sample of Hispanic farmworkers would be helpful. A larger
sample would provide a more thorough representation of the needs of pesticide
WPS training.

* Doing similar studies like this one in future instances where the perceptions of
farmworkers about pesticide exposure and of training needs are considered could
be helpful. Studies such as this one could aid in making pesticide educators aware
of the needs of the Hispanic farmworker clientele and to get an idea if some
progress has been made or not on educating this group on pesticide safety
education.