AGRICULTURAL INFORMATION PREFERENCES OF NORTH CAROLINA FARMERS

A Paper Presented to the Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists

Agricultural Communications Section

Mobile, Alabama

February, 2003

Sandra J. Maddox
NC Department of Agriculture

R. David Mustian
NC Cooperative Extension

David M. Jenkins
NC Cooperative Extension

Background

Over the last 150 years, the United States has emerged from the agricultural era to the industrial age and most recently into the information age. As each entity has moved aside to be surpassed in importance to society by the other (farmers for machines for information), each entity has remained a viable part of the "new age" being entered into. Agriculture, while no longer the driving force of society, still plays a monumental role in the economy and overall prosperity of the American people. No other county in the world rivals the bountiful production of agricultural products at the nominal price and guaranteed safety for consumption that the American public enjoys. Yet the value and importance of this industry is not readily recognized by the demographically diverse society existing in the United States and North Carolina today. Numerous obstacles exist which must be overcome to enable producers to remain viable and productive. In order for this to occur, producers must remain on the cutting edge of production technology and information accessibility.

Not only has agricultural support within the legislature and society as well as subsequent budgetary support has been reduced over the last decade, but the agricultural community itself has experienced change as well. Over the last century, traditionally a three-tiered structure of agriculture has existed in the state and the United States. The tiers were comprised of the small or part-time farmer, the middle-income farmer, and the full-time farmer. Whether family income came exclusively from the farm or was supplemented by off-farm sources as well as the value of sales of the agricultural enterprise determined much of this delineation. Contract farms or integrators have emerged in the state and country primarily in the livestock enterprises, but not exclusively with contract tobacco production on the horizon. This movement to contract farming and the growth of the local market driven diversified agricultural enterprises has resulted in a bi-polarization of the agricultural structure. There appears to be a marked reduction in the middle-income farmer, the traditional audience for information delivery methods employed by public agricultural organizations. This bi-polarization has been noted (Wolf, 1998) to have possibly affected the efficiency and the effectiveness of these organizations to provide the timely and specific information needed by growers in these categories.

The contract growers tend to rely on information received through the vertical integration of the corporate entities. On the other end of the scale the part-time or small diversified local market driven by agricultural entities are involved in alternative production opportunities which may fill small and site or consumer specific markets. These growers present a challenge as crop specific production practices may be yet un-investigated or the expertise necessary to answer pertinent questions may not exist within the information providing institution. This actually may be the result of organizations' past hesitancy to entertain the needs of less traditional agricultural clientele audiences.

Another emerging issue that has the potential to impact funded agricultural information organizations is the increasing value of information and the increasing interest in involvement in its delivery. The value-added nature of information has been recognized and utilized by traditionally service oriented agricultural entities. This utilization has enabled not only agricultural supply dealerships to supply the needed agricultural products to producers, but the information necessary to assist growers in the use of these materials. The one-stop shopping for product and information enables growers to receive the necessary information in an interpersonal and time conservative manner. This same principle of value-added information has resulted in an enormous expansion of independent and privately funded crop consultants. Growers in the bipolar agricultural structure have favorably received the interpersonal contact and concurrent site-specific information provide on issues or production-specific questions by crop consultants.

Many factors have and will continue to result in changes in both agricultural communications and agricultural organizations. The importance of determining the preferences of the clientele to be served is paramount in these changing and competitive times. The organizations that work the most diligently to determine the needs and preferences of the intended audiences and most importantly direct resources to meet these expressed needs and preferences will survive and excel.

The primary purpose of this study was to obtain information that would assist the NC Department of Agriculture and other publicly funded agricultural information agencies in acquiring additional insight into the preferences of NC agricultural producers for the delivery of pertinent, timely, and crucial managerial information. The information obtained will enable these agencies to more successfully allocate limited resources to the delivery channels that are most utilized and preferred by the state's agricultural community.

METHODS

The research design was a mailed multi-section questionnaire. The population sampled in the study consisted of all agricultural producers in North Carolina recognized within the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and USDA. The data base consists of producers defined as individuals who have reported income levels of at least $1000 annually from the sale of farm products or animals. Data were obtained from a randomized stratified sample of the population. A telephone call was used to follow up non-responders and those with missing data. Type of farm was conceptualized in 18 groups and subsequently each group was divided into two parts. Type of farm ranged from grains, tobacco, cotton, vegetables, beef cattle, hogs, poultry to aqua-culture. Each group was dichotomized into small and large depending number of acres, animals, or value of product sold. Fifty producers were randomly selected from each of the 36 groups. The total sample size was 1823. Of the total of 1823, only 1646 were potential as 177 producers had gone out of business; 631 potential respondents could not be reached with two mailings and four telephone follow-ups; 308 producers declined to participate; thus there were 707 useable returns for a 43.5 percent response rate. Thus far, only descriptive statistics have been used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Characteristics of Farmers

The mean age of survey respondents was 57 years of age with a majority of respondents (89.6%) 40 years of age and over. Eighty-four percent of respondents had achieved a high school degree, GED, or higher educational level. Survey respondents were predominantly white (94.6%) and predominantly male (91.6%). Approximately 5/6 (83.9%) reported that they were operators of the agricultural operation (Table 1). Respondents were asked to identify the type of enterprise that accounted for the majority of their income. About 1 in 5 (17.8%) identified beef cattle as their major source of income; 12.4 percent reported tobacco as dominant income source; 11.0 percent indicated that small grains was their major commodity; and finally 9.5 percent reported other row crops as their chief source of income. Of note is the fact that less than five percent of respondents reported that hogs, cotton, or turkeys were main enterprises. Six and a half percent of the respondents indicated that poultry was a major source of income.

The major types of information currently used by respondents included: production practices (50%); pest problems (49%); marketing (43%); regulatory (42%); and sample analysis (42%) (Table 2). The top five types of information that the respondents reported that they preferred to use were identical to what they were using but the rates ranged from 12 to 17 percent.

In examining what information sources were utilized by the respondents, it is not unusual that the farmers reported the most used source was the NC Department of Agriculture (79.3%). NC Cooperative Extension and Extension Agents were the next most utilized sources of information (76.5 and 76.1 percent respectfully). "Other farmers" were cited as a major source by 75.7 percent of the respondents. Sources of information among the farmers that were never used included: certified crop consultants (66.4%); regional agronomists (66.1%); and commodity groups (62.7%) (Table 3).

Respondents reported that the most important information channels for them were: magazine articles (83.8%); family, friends, and neighbors (83.0%); organizational newsletters (79.1%); bulletins and fact sheets (74.8%); on-farm visits (69.9%); and meetings (69.9%) (Table 4).

In considering the communication channels that were never used by respondents, findings include: video conferences (77.7%); computer software (68.3%); tours (57.0%); radio (52.4%); and computers for use with web/internet (52.3%) Table 5).

A similar pattern was discovered when respondents reported the information delivery channels that they preferred to use. The top five channels included: newsletters (60%); magazine articles (46%); bulletins/fact sheets (45%); family and friends (42%); and on-farm visits (36%)(Table 6).

Delivery channels were summed to arrive at major dimensions: personal, printed materials, groups/organizations, computer-based channels, and electronic channels. The most preferred delivery channel when the farmer wanted information about new farm management practices were personal channels (55%). Printed materials was the second most preferred (29%) for learning about new farm management practices (Table 7). The preferred channel of farmers for making day-to-day decisions was similar: personal (60%), and printed materials (28%) (Table 8). And the pattern was consistent when farmers identified that the most preferred channels for adopting new farm management practices were personal (62%) and printed materials (23%) (Table 9).

Summary and Discussion

This study investigated the viability of the utility of various communication channels and\sources for the delivery of traditional and practical agricultural information. While technological advances have emerged as the information delivery channels of the 21^st century, it is apparent that this may not be the preferred method of information access by all users. Communication channel preferences reported by those seeking agricultural information were in the form of personal and printed methodologies. This study implies that while the assumptive position is that communication and information transfer is best accomplished through "high tech" channels of delivery, research results indicate that "high touch" is the more effective means of information transfer. Most importantly revealed by this study is the need for organizational entities providing information to agricultural producers to understand the implications of this information. To ignore the obvious is to ensure continued inability to satisfy the needs and preferences of potential users and to ineffectively utilize monetary and human resources.

Selected Bibliography

Amponsah, W.A. (1995) Computer adoption and use of information services by North Carolina commercial farmers. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics. 27:565-576.

Caldwell, A.E. and J.G. Richardson (1995) Preferences of a traditional extension audience for self-directed delivery methods. Journal of Applied Communications 79:31-40.

Iddings, R.K. and J.W. Apps (1992). Learning preferences and farm computer use: implications for extension programming. Journal of Extension. 30:16-17.

Maddox, S.J. (2001)Determining effective communication strategies for agricultural organizations to provide agricultural producers the knowledge necessary to promote change and adoption in the 21^st century. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. NC State University, Raleigh, NC

National Agricultural Statistics, USDA (1999) Farm computer usage and ownership.Washington, DC. Agricultural Statistics Board.

Richardson, J.G. (1989). Extension information delivery methods: detecting trends among users. ACE Quarterly. 72:23-27.

Richardson, J.G., D.M. Clement, and R.D. Mustian. (1997) Reaching traditional and nontraditional extension audiences. Journal of Applied Communication 81:13-23.

Rzewnicki, P. (1991) Farmers' perceptions of Experiment Station Research, Demonstrations, and On-farm research in agronomy. Journal of Agronomic Education. 20:1.

Suvedi, M., S. Campo, and M.K. Lapinski (1999) Trends in Michigan farmers' information seeking behaviors and perspectives on the delivery of information. Journal of Applied Communication. 83:33-50.

Tavernier, E.M., A.O. Adelaja, M.P. Hartley, and B. Schilling (1996) Information technologies and the delivery of extension programs. Journal of Agricultural and Food Information. 3:75-85.

Trede, L.D. and S. Whitaker (1998) Perceptions of Iowa beginning farmers toward the delivery of education. Journal of Applied Communication. 82:22-33.

Wolf, S.A. (1998) Privatization of crop production information service markets. In S.A. Wolf (Ed.) Privatization of Information and Agricultural Industrialization. Boca Raton: CRC Press.