Title: Impact study for the small farm program in Florida
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00095072/00001
 Material Information
Title: Impact study for the small farm program in Florida
Physical Description: 27 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Smith, M. F.
University of Florida -- Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Donor: unknown ( endowment ) ( endowment )
Publisher: Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 1984
Copyright Date: 1984
Subject: Farms, Small -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Agricultural extension work -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Spatial Coverage: United States of America -- Florida
Statement of Responsibility: prepared by M.F. Smith.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00095072
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 226317054

Full Text

-1 --.-7- i/X,,


The primary purpose of this evaluation is to determine if small farmers in

Suwannee, Columbia, Gadsden, and Jackson counties are implementing appropriate

technologies emanating from the Farming Systems Research and Extension program at

the University of Florida (UF) and the Agricultural and Natural Resources Program at

Florida A & M University (FAMU). Where implementation has occurred, assessments

will be made of the impact on the small farm operations.

Data/collection is planned to satisfy the accountability and programming needs of

the Cooperative Extension Service (CES) system. Accountability reporting will be

primarily for the Dean of Extension at UF and Administrator of the 1890 Program at

FAMU. Program process reporting will be for program deans, specialists, agents, and

aides working in the two programs at the two universities.

Evaluation Plan

The program for small farmers is different in content and in methodology at the
two universities, which means that the evaluation design for the two programs must be

different. However, the two programs have audiences that are somewhat similar and

the ultimate expected outcome for these farm families is the same, i.e., that farm

families will make changes in their use of technologies which will improve their farming

situations in ways the farmers consider meaningful. The FSRE and- FAMU program

goals are to assess needs, develop/test/demonstrate and disseminate technologies

appropriate to these needs. The goal of this evaluation is to determine the rate of

farmer adoption of selected technologies and farmer assessments of the effects

(economic, social) of the adoption.

*Impact study plan prepared by Z, Evaluation Specialist, University of
Florida, on the basis of interacionsitwh Mickey Swisher, Farming Systems area
agent, University of Florida; Jim Edwards and Claude McGowan, Extension Specialists,
Florida A&M University; and other Impact Study committee members. 1984.

Farmers targeted for the Farming Systems programs have higher incomes and more

acreage in production than do the FAMU targeted farmers. However, their recep-

tiveness to information on farming technology is similar, based on the same type infor-

mation needs, i.e.,

I Limited time for information input due to work time off the farm and/or not

enough farm help.

IL Educational and interest levels at variance with most printed information on

farming technology.

II. Most technological recommendations geared to larger and more commercially

oriented operations than the small farmer.

IV. Slow to make changes without direct, specific evidence of worth of informa-


V. Unaware that helpful information exists.

VI. Unaware of IFAS organization, what it stands for, and its record of achieve-


Other types of needs, e.g., technological, are discussed along with the separate

program descriptions and evaluation designs for FSRE, presented first, and FAMU.

North lorida Farming Systems Research and Extension

As its name implies, the Farming Systems project involves both research and Exten-

sion. It is an integrated circular model reiterating five steps: (1) specific problems are

identified within specific farming systems, (2) solutions are generated to the prob-

lems, (3) promising solutions are tested under conditions similar to the intended

audience, (4) acceptability of the solutions are evaluated, and (5) those solutions found

acceptable are delivered to the intended audience. At any one of steps 2-5, the process

may revert to an earlier step, i.e., new data acquired on needs and/or solutions found


This impact study will focus on the effectiveness of this model in generating

acceptable solutions to problems of small farmers in Suwannee and Columbia counties.

If the solutions are appropriate and are delivered in ways acceptable to the farmers,

they will be implemented and will improve the efficiency and/or effectiveness of

farmer use of resources.

The North Florida FSRE project has been in operation since 1981. Its farming

systems approach is based upon similar approaches tested with small-scale producers in

developing countries since the early 1970's. The North Florida project is a pilot test of

the appropriateness of the methodology in the U.S. Initial funding came from USDA,

which has strong interests in farming systems activities, and the Florida legislature,

which in 1980 began to seriously investigate the "problems of Florida's family farmers."

The regional hub of the FSRE project is located at the AREC in Live Oak. A

Cooperative Extension Agent, located at the AREC, and an agronomist, located at the

University of Florida campus in Gainesville, have full-time responsibility to the

project. Thirteen other persons are assigned from 0.05 to 0.20 FTE to the program.

These include research scientists in nematology, entomology, swine, soils, agronomy,

economics, and plant pathology; extension agents and specialists in agriculture; and

research and extension administrators.

Intended Audience (FSRE)

Any farmer living in Suwannee or Columbia county with all the following character-

istics is a potential recipient of FSRE technology:

Less than 400 acres in production, and

Less than 10 acres in tobacco, and

No (or very limited) use of irrigation.

Less than 3 chicken houses

The exact number who fit these categories is not known but best estimates are 500 to

600. A sample* will be selected (for expected precision rate of 10%) of farm families

to be interviewed to determine characteristics, expressed needs, and number presently

implementing practices in question in this impact study.

The following characteristics were identified in a 1981 informal survey of 66 farm

families in Suwannee and Columbia Counties:


Social kine ties
Old (with social kine ties)
New (no social kine ties)


Type of Enterprise
Livestock centered
Crop centered
Mixed livestock and crop

N (%)



Average Acreage



16 (24.2%)
35 (53.3%)
15 (22.7%)

*A proportional sample from each county using data from the two tax assessor's offices.

New white farmers had slightly more acreage than old white-230 vs 219-while the new

blacks had less acreage than the old blacks-134 vs 143. Other distinguishing character-

istics of the old and new farmers and the black and white farms are described in

Exhibits 1 and 2.

Problem/Need Definition (FSRE)

General information type needs were discussed earlier on page 2. Technological

needs of the small farmer in Suwannee and Columbia Counties are presented below.

The informal survey in 1981 (French etal) provided evidence of a number of

problems/needs* facing the Suwannee and Columbia County farmer. These problems/

needs may be classified four ways: biophysical, e.g., low soil fertility, drought intol-

erant crops; infrastructural e.g., reduced profit margin, high cost of credit, limited

utility of research technologies; managerial, e.g., little or no record maintenance and

use, poor resource allocation practices; and personal, e.g., farming is viewed as a

lifestyle rather than a business.

Certain of these problems were selected for amelioration while others were

excluded. Selections were made on the basis of availability of qualified resources to

deal with a problem area, expectation of results within a reasonable amount of time,

and closeness of fit of new or improved technology with existing farmer practices. For

example', vegetable production technologies were excluded because the FSRE team

vegetable specialist left the project, local vegetable markets were presently filled to

capacity, and there was inadequate volume to justify forward contracting. The

problems/needs selected for study were as follows:

(1) Money to cover living expenses and to invest in the farming enterprise is a

limiting factor for many of these farmers. Because of their limited cash, a high propor-

tion work off the farm either permanently or part time. This off-farm work leaves

*A problem is defined as any condition for which an alternative is desired or a
parameter which needs to be identified.

Selected Characteristics of Recently Established and Old Line Farmers
(1981 Survey).

Recently Established Farmers

-High capital investment

-Less land

Old Line Farmers

-Lower capital investment

-More Land

-Weaker social/kinship ties

-High risk takers

-High indebtedness

-High cash flow

-Strong social/kinship ties

-Low risk takers

-Lower indebtedness

-Lower cash flow

Exhibit 2. Selected Characteristics of Black and White Farms (1981 Survey).

Black Farms
-Predominantly crop centered
-Less land
-Less capital availability
-Great labor availability (sharing)
-High frequency of tobacco-centered
systems with small allotments
-High frequency of vegetable
-Less irrigation
-Less specialized machinery
-Skewed geographic distribution

White Farms
-Predominantly livestock centered
-More land
-More capital availability
-Labor limiting
-Larger tobacco allotments
-High frequency of peanut-
centered systems
-More irrigation
-More specialized machinery
-Generalized geographic distribution

Exhibit 1.

little time for record keeping and other management chores. Thus, it is not surprising

that an overriding need expressed by the 66 families surveyed was for lower cost crop

and livestock production which can be managed with a minimum of time and effort.

(2) The need for reliable grain alternatives to spring corn was identified. For those

who sell corn, the steadily increasing production costs, fluctuating market prices, and

crop losses have made it more and more difficult to compete with midwestern corn

growers. These problems have directly affected those who use corn to feed their live-

stock, and have resulted in a reduction in herd numbers and/or termination of enter-

prises. Crop failure is a double cost since what was originally invested is lost plus

further cash outlays are required to buy animal feed.

(3) The third general need expressed was for lower cost and better quality forages.

A second survey will be conducted in 1984 as baseline data for this impact study and

to secure data on problems/needs for future FSRE work.

Expected Results (FSRE)

The expectation is that families will implement technologies appropriate to their

farming operations. For that to happen, technologies must be developed or introduced

to meet their technological needs and strategies used to overcome their informationally

related problems/needs. Several technologies have been developed and are ready (or

soon will be) for dissemination. These are listed below followed by specific

expectations for each.

Small Winter Grains (wheat, oats, triticale, rye). (1) In FY84, FY85, and FY86, five

farmers (5 different each year) will have demonstration/research plots of 3 of the 4

winter grains (wheat, oats, tricticale, and/or rye). In FY87 it is expected* that 3 of

*Throughout this document the confidence level associated with each statement of
expectation is 0.90 or greater unless otherwise noted. Low response rate of small
farmers to evaluative procedures and other factors lead to small numbers for analysis
purposes. The evaluation team is willing to live with the potential of erroneous
conclusions arising 1 out of 10 times.

each of these 5 will be growing at least one of the grains included on their

demonstration plots with a greater number* of total acreage.

(2) Whatever the baseline found in the 1984 survey, the expectations for FY87 are

that 25% more producers will be producing winter grains and overall, 25% more acres

will be in winter grains.

(3) For winter wheat, an increase is expected between FY84 and FY87 in (a) num-

ber of producers who plant each year prior to December 15, (b) number who apply

sulfur at 20 lb/ac, and (c) number who graze their wheat for 6 weeks in the winter


Perennial Peanut (Archis glabrata Benth). Fifty percent of the farmers who have

perennial peanuts planted in FY84 will still have the crop in FY87 and will report

positive use of the crop.

Record-Keeping System. Ready in December, 1984. Twenty farm families will be

using the system in FY87.

Fertilization for wheat and/or soybeans in a one-year period. Recommendations for

type, rate and time of application of fertilizer will be available for soybeans in the

summer of 1984, for wheat in June, 1985, and for double cropping in June, 1985. An

increase is expected by FY87 in the number of producers having soil tests done and 80%

or more of those having soil tests done will follow the recommended applications.

Tropical Corn. Ready in summer, 1985. (1) Farmers who cooperate in testing

tropical corn will increase their acreage in tropical corn to 30% or more of their total

corn crop. (2) Twenty percent of all corn producers will be growing tropical corn as

15% or more of their total corn crop.

Several strategies, geared specifically to the informationally-related problems/

needs listed on page 2, will be used to disseminate the technologies described above. If

the strategies are effective and the technologies appropriate, farmers will implement

the recommendations. A description of the dissemination strategies and the minimum

expectations, discounting actual implementation, follows:

To overcome needs one (limited time) and five (unaware of information), the

following strategies will be used:

A. Develop one summary document will all critical information on a particular

crop or animal enterprise with separate, detailed documents for specific parts of the

overall document, e.g., one on fertilization, one on weed control, etc.

Overall documents and separate supporting specific ones will be developed on wheat

by October, 1984, on soil testing by January, 1985, and on soybeans by June, 1985. The

expectation is that 20% of the recipients of the specific documents will report that

they read them; and 90% or more of the readers will report that the documents helped

them learn about and/or implement a new practice.

B. A farm newsletter will be developed to incorporate information that previously

has come from several sources such that any single farmer will receive one rather than

several newsletters.

The first issue of the newsletter will be out by June, 1984. The expectation is that

40% or more of persons on mailing list will report reading 20% or more of each news-

letter and finding the newsletter helpful.

C. Information will be available at places the farmer regularly attends, e.g., feed

and seed stores, post office, churches, county fair, and at high schools (the latter to Vo-

Ag students).

In FY85, these sites will have stimulated 30 or more persons to request to be placed

on the newsletter mailing list. An average of 20 copies of any one item must be picked

up the first year of the item for the site to continue to be used.

D. Information will be placed in popular sources to which farmers regularly sub-


BULLETIN, local newspapers, local radio and TV stations.

A magazine or newspaper article will be considered successful if it is read by 20 or

more Suwannee or Columbia County subscribers (from a random sample (to equal

accuracy rate 10%) of these county subscribers).

E. Demonstration plots will have signs placed on them that can be seen by persons

driving past in vehicles. With signs will be information sheets describing the demon-

strations and names, addresses, telephone numbers of persons to contact for informa-


In FY85, 15 demonstration plots will be in operation. The first year an average of

25 information sheets per site will be picked up by visitors.

F. Grower meetings and field tours will be held on Saturdays. These will be con-

sidered successful if they are attended by an average of 4-6 part-time producers (who

cannot attend on week (work) days).

G. More activities will be planned for families, e.g., husband and wife teams on

advisory committees, workshops for parents and older children, etc.

In FY85, at least 80% of advisory committee members will be husband/wife teams

who will attend an average of 80% of committee meetings. An average of 2 spouses

and/or older children will participate with farmers in field tours and grower meetings.

To help overcome problem/need two (education and interest level variance) and

three (focus of recommendations), the following steps will be taken:

H. Old documents will be revised and new ones written with new recommendations

geared to the small farm enterprise and written at appropriate reading and interest


See A, above, for expectations.

L Develop slide tape cassettes for critical recommendations on major enterprises.

A cassette on grazing wheat and one on wheat production practices will be com-

pleted by summer 1984. Each will be used at a minimum of two fall grower meetings,

for 10 home visits and at the annual county fair. Ninety percent of the farmers who see

the cassettes on home visits will report that the cassettes helped them learn about

and/or implement a new practice.

J. Put in demonstration-research plots showing differing levels and/or types of pro-

duction technologies in the different areas of the counties and work intensively with the

demonstration farmers.

See individual technologies for expectations on implementation. In addition, on the

post survey in FY87, 25% of those who have implemented practices demonstrated on

the plots will report that the plots were significant factors in them choosing to imple-


K. Put the same information in a variety of places.

See C, above for expectations for sites.

L. Make home visits.

Approximately 20 home visits will be made per month. More of the persons who

were visited will implement practices demonstrated/explained on visits than the

farmers in a random sample who were not visited; more will know what IFAS stands for

(what letters mean and/or can explain research/extension tie); and more will report two

or more voluntary contacts with IFAS.

M. Make sure the IFAS emblem is visible for all work and make specific effort to

explain what IFAS is and where Extension fits in the overall IFAS scheme.

More on the post survey in FY87 (as compared to the pre survey in FY84) will know

what IPAS stands for (what letters mean and/or can explain research/extension tie); and

will report having had one or more contacts with IFAS.

Evaluation Design (FSRE)

Several designs will be necessary to evaluate (1) rate of implementation of

technologies and (2) effectiveness of dissemination strategies.

Technology Implementation

(1) A pretest, posttest design with two independent samples using data from per-

sonal interviews of random samples of farmers (sufficient number for 10% accuracy

with 0.95 confidence). Comparisons will be made between a random sample of farmers

interviewed in 1984 and another different sample in May, 1987.

(2) A one-group only pretest-posttest design comparing data (a) on any persons in

post interviews who were interviewed on pre surveys or who filled out the newsletter

survey form, and (b) on persons interviewed on presurvey who were not selected for the

post interviews with post data generated by a mail questionnaire.

Expected differences, pre vs post, on the above designs are described by individual

technology listed on pages 7 and 8.

(3) A two-group posttest only design comparing farmers who had no contact with

Extension and those who did, e.g., those who received production documents or the

newsletter, who attended meetings/tours, and who were visited on their farms by FSRE

agent. The expectation is that more of the latter group will implement the technol-


Dissemination Strategies

On the postsurvey, farmers will be asked to rate each of the dissemination strat-

egies, e.g., how they had experience with each one and which they consider to have

provided the most useful information. Individual strategies will be further evaluated as


A. Production Documents. A list will be made of names and addresses of recipients

of production documents. Thirty days after receipt, a return-type card will be mailed

to recipients asking if they read it, appropriateness of focus of recommendations and of

the reading or technical difficulty level, and if it influenced their farming practices.

Evaluative followup will take place for 18 months after a document is available or until

50 responses have been attained-whichever comes first.

B. Farm Newsletter. Persons requesting to be placed on the newsletter mailing list

will be sent a questionnaire to determine production practices. None of these question-

naires will be mailed until after the presurvey is completed (summer, 1984) to avoid

duplication. Data from the surveys will be used to interpret responses to evaluations of

the newsletter and to add to the base of knowledge about small farmers in the two


One month after the sixth issue of the newsletter has been mailed, a random sample

of persons on the mailing list (number sufficient for 10% accuracy, 0.95 confidence)

will be mailed a return-type post card asking what parts of the newsletter they have

read and for suggestions for changes in newsletter content or format.

One year after the first issue, a random sample of subscribers will be queried as to

what parts they read, how the newsletter affected their practices, and suggestions for

changes in newsletter content or format.

C. Materials Left at Several Sites. Counts will be made of number of remaining

copies of information sheets, newsletters, etc., at each site at the time new copies are

disseminated to determine if the minimum number has been picked up.

Mail-in cards requesting subscriptions will be placed on newsletters placed at

sites. These will be color coded to identify sites. Records will be kept of number of

requests per site.

D. Published Information in Mass Media. One month after selected articles or


GROWER (both are monthly publications), and the newspaper, a random sample of

Suwannee and Columbia County subscribers (to realize 10% accuracy with 0.90

confidence) will be asked if they read the articles and what, if any of their practices

were influenced by the articles. The follow up time for THE NEW FARMER will be one

week, since it is a weekly publication. One or two articles in each source will be

evaluated during FY84-87.

E. Information at Demonstration Plots. Monthly counts will be made of information

sheets picked up at the demonstration sites. Also, persons whose names are listed on

the information sheets will ask callers who request information about the plots if they

visited the sites and if the plots were helpful.

F. Saturday Meetings and Tours and G. Family Type Activities. Names and

addresses will be kept of persons attending meetings/tours. Counts will be added

annually to determine if the average of 4-6 part-time producers and 2 spouses and/or

older children per meeting/tour has been met.

Records will be kept of husband-wife advisory committee membership and meeting

attendance to determine if the 80% level is attained by the end of FY85.

H. Documents Written at Appropriate Levels and With Appropriate

Recommendations. See A. above.

I. Slide-Tape Cassettes. Thirty days after the visit, a telephone call will be made

to those who saw the cassettes at home asking if the technical or difficulty level of the

material was appropriate, if the focus of the recommendation was appropriate for that

farmer's situation, and if seeing the cassette influenced their farming practices.

FAMU Agricultual and Natural Resources Program

The Agricultural and Natural Resources Program (ANR) at FAMU is a part of an

integrated rural and community development program. Families in the Sawdust

community in Gadsden County and the Jacobs Community in Jackson County will be the

focus of effort in the areas of Community Resource Development, Home Economics,

and 4-H, in addition to the ANR work. Only the ANR effort will be evaluated in this

impact study and only the impact of the demonstration projects. However, the level of

success in the other three areas of effort should influence success in ANR and vice


The programs for Sawdust and Jacobs began in late 1983. The personnel and time

specific to these projects include two agents (ca. 0.9 FTE each) and five program assis-

tants (1.0 FTE each) located in the counties, and an animal specialist (0.5 FTE) and

rural development specialist (0.5 FTE) located on FAMU campus.

Other inputs to the program are listed by project beginning on page 17.

Indended Audience (FAMU)

Characteristics of farmers in Sawdust and Jacob communities are being

documented with a general program survey and a follow-up indepth agricultural

survey. The general survey is complete in Sawdust and the follow-up will be completed

in both communities by the end of November, 1984.

Problem/Need Definition (FAMU)

Specific needs of agricultural producers in Sawdust and Jacob communities are in

process of being documented. The following discussion is based on informal observation

in these two communities and on other similar audiences.

A great majority of limited resource, small and part-time farmers enter into or

expand their operation with no previous knowledge of its production cost; of appropriate

buying and selling, marketing, management, and production techniques; nor the avail-

able services from USDA agencies. This situation is further aggravated by instability of

prices, high energy costs, and high levels of risk and uncertainty.

The consequences of this lack of knowledge have resulted in low production levels

in both quantity and quality of produce, heavy financial losses, and high levels of risk

and uncertainty.

Previous work with audiences of this type has revealed such problems/needs as


(1) A high proportion of the farmers work off the farm either permanently or part

time. This off-farm work contributes to a minimal amount of time available for seek-

ing information and for record keeping and other management chores.

(2) Cash to invest in the farming enterprise is limited. This is a result of not

making a profit from the farm and from being unable to obtain credit. They are not

making a profit because of

a. previous poor management,

b. inability to get custom equipment operators in a timely fashion,

c. decreasing profit margin,

d. outstanding loans,

e. loss of cash crops (such as tobacco in Gadsden County),

f. successive crop failures,

g. cyclic price variances, and

h. dependence on purchased facilities and equipment rather than creative

use of low cost or presently owned materials.

Inability to obtain credit has resulted from

a. lack of knowledge of lending agencies and how to acquire loans,

b. refusal to give land and/or homes as collateral for loans,

c. poor credit records,

d. inadequate records of farm operations,

e. insufficient collateral for level of credit needed,

f. perceived discrimination by some lending agencies.

(3) Farmers do not keep adequate records. For example, some are allowing seed

dealers or others to keep minimal records for them or they are storing miscellaneous

records haphazardly in a box or on a nail. The lack of adequate records is partly a

result of the complexity of present record keeping systems. In addition, farm families

do not understand how records can help them make better decisions nor do they know

what records to keep or how to use them to make decisions. This means that most do

not know their level of profit or loss either from a single crop or animal enterprise or

from their total farming operation. It also contributes to inability to obtain credit.

(4) Most are content to produce the same type animals and/or crops over and over

even when they are not making profit. Part of this tendency is from not knowing what

the actual profit is (see 3, above) and from feeling secure doing what they know how to

do. Other contributions to the tendency is their unwillingness or inability to take risks

and to seek information on new technology.

Expected Results (FAMU)

In FY84, the establishment of method and result demonstration projects will be the

primary method for meeting the problems/needs identified above. These projects will

be implemented using field days, workshops, group meetings, dissemination of written

publications, and newspaper articles.

Projects to be established in each community include:


3 swine

1 goat

2 rabbits

2 forage

3 small fruits (2 blueberry and 1 blackberry)

3 vegetables

Jacob Community:

1 swine

2 goats

3 rabbits

1 forage

1 vegetable

The expected results from these projects are different for the project farmers than

for the other farmers in the two communities. Both are listed by project.

Swine Project. Three farmers in Sawdust and one in Jacob Community received

breeder animals (5 gilts and 1 boar approximate value of $1,250) in April, 1984, plus

$150 to plant 1 1/4 acres in grain in summer and grass and clover in winter to support

the swine. In the spring of 1987, one year following the two-year contractual period,

swine demonstration farmers will

1. have a minimum of one boar and 8 sows,

2. report an average of 8 pigs weaned per litter and two litters per year,

3. report sales of 50% number one breeder pigs and 50% number twos,

4. report purchase of no more than 7/10 ton grain/hog/year, if no crop

failure from natural catastrophe, and

5. have forage area (1.25 ac) fenced to hold swine.

A requirement of the swine project farmers is that within two farrowing cycles (one

year) that they return dollars to FAMU from the sale of 12 feeder pigs to be used

toward the purchase of breed stock for another project farmer. Each project will

return approximately 1/2 the dollars to initiate another swine project. Thus by 1987,

there should be 5 swine producers in Sawdust and 1 or 2 in Jacobs Community who were

given animals initially and served as demonstration farmers. If additional grants are

made available to initiate more swine projects, the number of producers could triple

within a few years (Exhibit II).

Exhibit m.

Progression of Potential Number of Swine Projects in Sawdust
Community, 1984-87.

1984 1985 1986 1987

Grant from Heifer --- 3 continue -- 3 continue 3 continue
Project initiated
3 swine projects
Provide $$$ for 1 continue 1 continue
1 more project
+4 1 /9 tnrUdR


Second grant fror
Heifer Project
initiates 3 more

Provide $$$ for
1 more project --- 1 continue

9 Provide 0.5 $$$
toward another

S-- 3 continue -- 3 continue

" Provide $$$ for
1 more project + -- 1 continue
1/2 toward another

Provides $$$ for
1 more project

Etc -


In 1987, other farmers in the two communities (9 in Sawdust and 3 in Jacobs) will

have swine projects that they started on their own with a minimum of one boar and 3

sows. Also, in the two communities among non demonstration swine producers:

1. there will be an increase in the number who initiate the following practices:

a. Worm pigs

b. Castrate pigs

c. Give pigs iron shots

d. Clip needle teeth

e. Creep feed pigs

f. Treat sows for lice

g. Add vitamins or minerals to feed

h. Plant forages for feed supplement

i. Farrow pigs in farrowing house

j. Keep records on swine operation:

-litter size on each sow

-number of litters per year per sow

2. An increase will be found in

a. the average number of pigs weaned per litter,

b. the number of litters per year,

c. the number and market grade of animals sold, and

d. number of swine used for family consumption.

Goat Projects. Two producers in Jacob Community and one in Sawdust will be

given breeder goats (3 does and one buck, approximate value of $650) in August, 1984,

plus $150 for growing forage and $400 for fences. In 1987, one year following the two-

year contractual period, goat demonstration farmers will

1. have a minimum of 6 does and one buck,

2. report an average of 2 kids weaned per kidding and two kidding per year,

3. report sales of an average of $45 per kid sold,

4. report purchase of no more than 375 lb grain/goat/year, if no crop failure,


5. have forage area fenced to hold goats.

Within a one year period, goat project farmers must return one weaning kid for each

animal received-a total of four weaning kids-as breed stock for another project

farmer. These three projects, alone, should result in 12 goat projects by 1987-all of

which will be farmers who have received animals to get them started. (See Exhibit IV

for progression in Jacob Community.)

In 1987, other farmers in the two communities (6 in Sawdust and 2 in Jacob

Community) will have goat projects which they started on their own with a minimum of

one buck and 2 does. Also, in the communities:

1. Goat producers will be able to tell the times when Quincey and Marianna live-

stock markets sell goats and where to get goats slaughtered. (At the present time, the

markets do not handle goats. The FAMU animal specialist will work with the markets

in getting times set for goats.)

2. An increase will be found in goat producers who initiate the following practices

a. keep records on goat operation

-number of kidding per doe

-number of kids per kidding

b. treat animals for parasites

c. castrate male kids

d. creep feed kids

e. feed grain to goats

3. An increase will be found in the number who

a. wean two kids per kidding

b. get two kidding per year

Exhibit IV.

Progression of Potential Number of Goat Projects in Jacob Community,

1984 1985 1986 1987

Grant from Heifer
Project initiated 2 --- 2 continue 2 continue -- 2 continue
goat projects

Provide animals
to initiate 2 -- 2 continue 2 continue
more projects ]

Provide animals
to initiate 2 -- 2 continue
more projects

Provide animals
to initiate 2
more projects

Second grant from
Heifer Project 2 continue -- 2 continue
initiates 2 more
Provide animals
to initiate 2 2 continue
more projects

Provide animals
to initiate 2
more projects


c. keep goats in fenced areas

d. plant forages for feed supplement

4. An increase will be found in the number and market value of kids sold, and in the

number of goats used for home consumption.

Rabbit Projects. Two farm families in Jacob Community and two in Sawdust will

receive breeder rabbits (4 does and 1 buck, approximate value of $75) in August, 1984.

In late 1987, one year following the two-year contractual period, rabbit demonstration

farmers will

1. have a minimum of one buck and 4 does, and

2. report an average of 6 bunnies weaned per litter and 6 litters per year,


3. report using 50% of the bunnies weaned (approximately 18) for home food

and the other 50% (18) sold at an average of $3 per bunny.

The rabbit demonstrators will return four does and one buck at least two months old to

FAMU for breeder stock for other rabbit demonstration farmers. These initial 4 rabbit

projects could result in as many 16 families growing rabbits for the first time by 1987.

By 1987, other farmers in the two communities (4 in Sawdust and 4 in Jacob) will

have rabbit projects which they started on their own with a minimum of one buck and 2


Among rabbit producers, an increase will be found in the number of

a. bunnies sold and their dollar value

b. bunnies weaned per litter

c. litters per year

d. producers feeding pellets to rabbits

e. producers keeping records on:

-litter size per doe

-number of litters per doe

f. rabbits used for family consumption

Small Fruits Project. In March, 1984, two farmers in Sawdust received 75 blueberry

plants (four different varieties of plants, approximate value of $150) to plant 1/8 acre

plus $150 for peat moss, fertilizer and other demonstration plot materials. One farmer

in Sawdust received 205 blackberry plants for 1/8 acre and $150 for demonstration

materials. In FY87, the two blueberry farmers should

a. produce their first crop with an average yield of 8 lb/plant,

b. report sales of 500 or more pounds at an average of $0.60/lb

c. have 75 or more plants in cultivation.

The two blackberry farmers should

a. produce their second crop with a yield of approximately 1000/lb.

b. report sales of 900 or more pounds at an average of $0.50 pound.

c. have 1/8 acre or more in blackberries.

In 1987, other farmers in the communities (2 in blueberries and 2 in blackberries)

will have started fruit projects on their own with 1/8 acre orchards. The two blueberry

farmers will

a. pluck blooms the first two years after plants set,

b. set up a system for irrigation, e.g., drip

c. mulch the plants,

d. fertilize plants with ammonia sulfate,

e. control weeds, e.g., by hoeing and mowing

f. keep records on plants

The two blackberry farmers will

a. prune by mowing crop after harvest

b. set up system for irrigation, e.g., drip

c. fertilize plants, e.g., with 8-8-8 or 10-10-10 mixes

d. control weeds by hoeing

e. control insects and/or diseases with spray or dust

f. keep records on plants

Vegetable Projects. Three community gardens (approximately 1/2 acre each) were

installed in Sawdust in April, 1984, and one in Jacob Community. Each community

garden received $100 to purchase seeds, fertilizer, and other materials needed for the


By 1987, 160 families in Sawdust and 48 in Jacob Community will plant home

gardens. There will also be a significant number who report that

a. they save money on groceries as a result of their gardens, and

b. all family members participated in the gardens, e.g., youth and aduts

Evaluation Design (FAMU)

A one-group post-test only design will be used to determine impact of

demonstration projects on project farmers. Impact on other farmers will be determined

by a one-group only pretest-posttest design.

In Sawdust, farmers identified in 1984 through a general program survey are being

reinterviewed indepth about their present agricultural practices. Comparisons will be

made with post survey data in 1987. Newly identified farmers will be presurveyed up

until the spring of 1986 for comparison with 1987 data.

In Jacob, the general program survey was not conducted. Farmers interviewed in

1984 are those known to the Jackson County 1890's agent. Others will be gueried, as in

Sawdust, and all compared to 1987 data for impact assessment.

The timings of data-gathering are as follows

a. Demonstration Project Farmers

Post-test in spring 1987

b. Known Farmers in Sawdust

1. General program survey in spring 1984

2. Indepth agricultural survey in fall 1984 up to spring 1986

3. Posttest indepth agricultural survey in spring 1987

c. Known Farmers In Jabob Community

Same as Sawdust

d. Any farmers identified for the first time on post-test general program

survey will be post-tested with indepth agricultural survey in spring 1987.

Expected differences, pre vs post, are described by individual demonstration


Barriers to Achieving FAMU and FSRE Goals

All the problems/needs identified as informationally-related are potential barriers

to the farmers implementing the technologies, unless the strategies to overcome them

are successful. Other barriers include:

1. The technologies may be inappropriate.

2. Farmers may inappropriately implement technologies as a result of too little

or the wrong information.

3. Extreme weather conditions may result in crop failure.

4. Measuring devices may not record change which does in fact occur.

Other Reasons (besides Extension) Expected Results Might Occur

Farmers may make changes in their farming operations that affect their overall net

worth as a result of acquiring information from a source other than IFAS and/or they

may be unaware that IFAS was the source. They may also report changes that did not

occur, in order to not appear inadequate in some way.

Impementatio/Management Plan

An implementation plan follows which defines the specific evaluation tasks to be

accomplished, specifies personnel to accomplish specific tasks, sets dates for

accomplishment, and identifies additional resource requirements.

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs