|
Agricultural Economics
Staff Paper 79-44
File: 17.27
INFORMATION DISSEMINATION
TO SMALL FARM OPERATORS
Ralph E. Hepp
Extension Economists
Department of Agricultural Economics
Michigan State University
Small farm operations are significant contributors to agricultural
production in Michigan. Small farm operators cultivate almost two-thirds of
the agricultural land and harvest over sixty percent of the hay, soybeans
and wheat crops; one half of the corn; and one-third of the fruits and
vegetables. Small farms are significant contributors to animal production
especially beef, sheep and lambs. Over one-third of the dairy cows and hogs
and pigs are on small farms and ten percent of the laying hens.
Michigan continues to have a large number of small farms. The 1974
Census of Agriculture defines a farm as any operation grossing over $1,000
in sales of agricultural products. In 1974, 85 percent or 54,437 farms were
small while 6,848 or 11 percent were medium and 4 percent or 2,809 were large.
Farm size is based upon sales with small farms defined as those farms grossing
under $40,000, medium farms defined as those grossing between $40,000 and
$100,000, and large farms defined as those grossing over $100,000.
Small farm operators are farm owners, operate on a small scale, are
usually debt free and depend less upon the farm for their livelihood. The
objectives for the farm are more diverse than larger farmers since most
medium and large farm operators are farming full-time and obtain the majority
of the family income from the farm. Interviews with small farm operators
in Michigan resulted in categorizing operators to better understand the
2
motivation for the small farm.1 Three groups were identified: 1) part-time
farmers, 2) part-retired farmers, and 3) full-time small farm operators.
Forty-eight percent of the small farm operators are part-time farmers,
nineteen percent are part-retired farmers, and thirty-three percent are
small full-time farm operators.
The introduction of new technology has resulted in a trend toward
fewer and larger farms and a concern for the economic and social viability of
the small farm and rural communities. For years, the migration of people from
farms to urban centers was seen as a natural consequence of the competitive
system with the benefits accrued to individuals through higher living standards
in urban areas and to society by increased productivity of food and fiber at
lower cost. As a result of this structural change, many public and private
groups assumed that all small farm operators were going out of business and
little attention was given to the plight of the small farm operator.
Small farm operations are significant contributors to agricultural pro-
duction. But the problems of lower land and livestock productivity on the small
farm, low net family income especially for full-time small farm operators and
the application and adoption of technical practices on small farms are
important to the small farm operators.
All farmers regardless of size or objectives for the farm can be reached
with information. The family can be assisted to achieve income or other
goals that have been defined by the family. Change agents must specify its
audience by problems, farm goals and production enterprises to meet small
farm operator's needs. This paper discusses the use of information in decision
making and the implication for information dissemination to small farm operators.
1Description and Analysis of Michigan Small Farms, Research Report 296,
Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University.
Use of Information in Farm Decision Making
Farmers have many needs for information in the management of their farm
and home. The problem solving or management process assumes that information
is gathered to further define the problem and develop alternative solutions to
problems. The type of information being searched by a farmer depends upon the
problem or problems being considered. It follows that the importance that a
farmer attaches to certain types of information also depends upon the importance
he attaches to the problem for which the information is needed. Thus, by look-
ing at the perceived importance of various types of problems, inferences can
be made regarding the perceived importance of various types of information.
Farm management research has revealed three broad areas of information:
technical, institutional and human. All types of information are relevant to
farm and home management. While it is true that real world problems typically
require all types of information, certain problems seem to require more of one
type of information than other types of information. A study was completed by
the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station to examine the information
gathering process by farmers and how educational programs could be delivered
for all farmers, but with special emphasis on small farm operators.2 Forty-
four common farm and family problems were developed as a base of reference to
ascertain the importance of information and source of information to help solve
those problems.3
2Thomas M. Olson, "Nonformal Educational Delivery Systems to Reach Limited
Resource Farmers in Michigan," Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State Univer-
sity.
3The classification of the questions used are given in Appendix B. Ten
questions could not be classified into a category.
The aggregate responses to the technical questions shows large farm opera-
tors tend to perceive of technical information as being very important more
frequently than small farm operators (Table 1 ). Likewise, small farm operators
tended to respond that technical problems are "not important at all" more fre-
quently than large farm operators. The same relationship holds for institutional
information. Statistical tests again indicate that a relationship exists at the
one percent level of significance (Table 2 ). Small farmer operations tended to
check "not important at all" more frequently than the other farm groups and
their cumulative percentage for items 3, 4 and 5 (very important) was smaller
than that of the large and medium farmer operators. ,
While differences among farm size groups was shown for the importance of
technical and institutional information, no significant relationship is shown
among farm size groups for human problems. The percentages in Table 3 show a
great deal of polarity in responses of not important and very important in
human information, but farm size groups were similar in their responses.
The respondents were asked to name sources of information used in relation
to the forty-four problems. The responses were aggregated by size of farm and
sources cited and the data presented in Table 4. A statistical test of
independence of classification indicates that there is a relationship between
size of farm and sources of information (significant at the one percent level
of confidence). The largest difference between the large and small farm opera-
tors concerned item "never had this problem." Small farm operators tended to
respond with this answer more frequently than others. This indicates that
larger farm operators tend to recognize problems more readily than small farm
operators.
The operators on large farms tend to seek information more frequently from
dealers, salesmen or buyers than do operators on small farms. The same is true
with regard to lending institutions, government agencies and the Cooperative
Extension Service. Small farm operators tend to seek information more fre-
quently from neighbors, friends or relatives and mass media sources. It should
be noted that the percentage distribution for all categories does not vary by
more than a few percentage points between sizes of farms. This indicates that
all farmers use a wide variety of sources for information.
Contact With the Cooperative Extension Service
The information survey of Michigan farmers asked specific questions about
farmers' contact with the Cooperative Extension Service. Since there are a
number of ways contact may be made between a county agent or the extension
staff and the farm clientele, an index was adopted which combined information
4
about various types of contacts into a single measure.
Farmers with gross income of $20,000 to $39,999 had the greatest amount of
contact with Extension, followed by the medium size farms and the large farms,
respectively (Table 5). Further analysis of various control variables shows
that 16 of the 21 farmers in the $20,000 to $39,999 category were full-time
farmers and twelve of these had more than 25 years of experience in farming.
Nine were in the fifty to fifty-nine age group.
Farmers in the $10,000 to $19,000 category have the least contact with
Cooperative Extension. Again, further analysis of the control variables showed
that for this group only eight of the eighteen were full-time farmers. The two
high-contact farmers were full-time, but there was no trend regarding age or
years of experience in farming.
There is a marked difference between part-retired and farmers less than 65
years of age in their contact with Extension. Seventy percent of the part-
retired farmers had no or low contact with Extension while only 22 percent of
the farmers who were not retired had low or no contact. On the other hand,
4The index is presented in Appendix C.
nearly 40 percent of the farmers who were not retired had high contact with
Extension and only 20 percent of the part-retired farmers had high contact with
Extension. Cooperative Extension is not reaching the part-retired farmers as
effectively as others. These older farmers may have some tried and true produc-
tion methods which could be useful to other small farmers, but which are not
being communicated for various reasons.
When the small farm operators are divided by occupation, full-time or
part-time, a higher percentage of full-time than part-time farmers have high
contact with Extension. Likewise, a much greater percentage of part-time than
full-time farmers have no or low contact with Extension. Since the part-time
farmers have other jobs, they may not be able to attend meetings or go to other
Extension activities as often as the full-time farmers. This suggests that other
alternatives may need to be tried in order to reach this farmer.
County agents were interviewed to determine their general conclusion re-
garding the various farm size operators and their needs for information. Large
farm operators generally ask more complex, complicated questions while small
farm operators looked for a single recommendation or answer to their question.
Although they felt the informational needs of the various farm categories would
be the same, they indicated that the level would be different. They also
indicated that large farm operators were more likely to involve the Extension
Service from the beginning of the decision-making process while small farm
operators tend to wait until later in the process. Often this leads to problems
which could have been avoided. Agents felt that small farm operators have more
trouble with the goal or objective setting function of farm management than
larger farm operators.
The research showed a demand for information by small farm operators and
an expressed willingness to attend meetings or educational programs related to
important farm or home decisions. Small farmers use a wide variety of sources
for information and suggested a number of specific and general topics which
they would like to have discussed at a meeting or school. Generally, small
farm operators suggested "how to" topics, such as fertilizer use, sheep shear-
ing or dehorning livestock as their greatest need.
Implications for Information Dissemination to Small Farm Operators
Farmers use a wide variety of information sources in the management of their
farming operations. Likewise, a number of private firms and public agencies have
a desire and responsibility to reach small farm operators with information,
products and services. Although many similarities in information needs exist
between producers by size, there are significant differences which must be recog-
nized when designing programs for operators on small farms. These differences
are summarized in the following points.
1. The large number of small farms in comparison to larger farms results
in many more independent decision makers to be reached on the small farm with
information, products or services. Volume of business transacted with each
producer is small.
2. Total agricultural sales from the small farm in the midwestern states
varies from 20 to 40 percent of the total sales. One-third or more of Michigan's
production of major crops and livestock originates on the small farm.
Small farm operators are important markets for production inputs, suppliers of
agricultural products and markets for agricultural services.
3. The small farm operators use local input suppliers and market outlets,
while larger farm operators use regional distribution centers. Small farm
operators are more dependent upon the local country elevators for products and
services, the local livestock auctions or buying station for their livestock,
etc. They are more dependent upon traditional local sources of information on
prices, new products, and other information than larger producers.
4. Larger farm operators are more likely to purchase information or obtain
information directly from company sales representatives. They are more dollar
conscious with their business transactions. While small farm operators are
also cost conscious, they require more information at the point of purchase
or market.
5. Small farm operators are more heterogeneous in experiences, ages and
farm objectives. The dependence on farm income for the family, the time devoted
to farming, and the recognition of problems varies greatly. Larger farm opera-
tors are more homogeneous with respect to these points. If information is to
reach the small farm operator, the content of the message must be targeted
toward the needs of the specific group.
6. Small farm operators place less importance on technical and institutional
types of information and consequently on the problems which demand this informa-
tion. This requires that more emphasis be placed on problem recognition, the
role of technical and institutional information and the use of this information
in problem solution.
7. Small farms have lower crop and livestock productivity. Fewer produc-
tion inputs are used per crop and livestock unit. It appears that demand is
present, but can it be translated into effective demand?
8. If the U.S. and other countries need additional outputs of food products,
a greater potential is present to obtain the output from small farms rather than
large farms because there is a wider gap between actual and potential production
from crops and livestock (assuming the current state of technology).
9. Much of the communication methodology of the change agencies (i.e.:
educational institutions, mass media publications, input supply and marketing
firms) has been based on certain assumptions which rural sociologists and
communication researchers have labeled the multi-step flow model or the "trickle
down" model. In this model much of the initial attention is focused on the
early adopters. These people are generally better educated, more upwardly mobil,
more open to change and suggestions by others, have larger farms and greater
capital investments and are commercially oriented. The assumption was that the
later adopters would be more likely to adopt an innovation after opinion leaders
had adopted it and shown it to be successful. While the theory probably still
works in actual practice, the gulf between late adopters and early adopters
has widened. They have somewhat different objectives, different problems, and
different needs for information. The smaller farm operator has less to copy
from the large farm. The problems and problem solutions of the small farm opera-
tor need to be addressed directly rather than indirectly from their larger
counterparts.
10. Some of the new technology in agriculture is size specific (i.e.:
large tractors and livestock building systems) and not available for direct
application on individually owned small farms. While most of the new technology
could and should be applied to small farms as well as large farms, the process
used by the farmer to apply the new technology may be different. Individual
application on the small farm may not be possible, but collective application
to many small farms is possible through cooperative production units, joint
ownership of capital items and leasing or custom hire. Small farm operators
need to be shown how they can apply new technology on their farm and its benefit
in problem solution.
11. Small farm operators require more basic farm technical skills than
other operators. The large farm operators understand the basic production
skills and are more concerned with the process skills or integrative skills.
Rather than ask "how much fertilizer should be used on corn?" they ask "can
10
my yields be challenged by using more fertilizer?" and "what inputs are limiting
my yields?"
12. Small farm operators need to be presented with an integrated manage-
ment system to improve productivity, output and returns. Rather than talk about
the need for fertilizer, herbicides and other inputs in isolation, they need
information on an integrated program for crop production or pest control, or
obtaining maximum returns from the land.
Appendix A
Table 1. Perceived importance of technical information by farm size category
Perceived importance Farm Size
of information Small Medium Large
(Percent)
Not important at all 30.4 22.9 25.1
2 4.4 3.1 5.3
3 14.8 17.7 12.1
4 11.4 15.9 15.0
Very important 39.0 40.4 42.5
Source: 1978 Information Survey of Michigan Farmers
Table 2. Perceived importance of institutional information by farm size category
Perceived importance Farm Size
of information Small Medium Large
(Percent)
Not important at all 31.2 23.8 19.2
2 5.4 6.1 3.0
3 15.4 17.2 28.7
4 9.8 13.9 12.6
Very important 38.2 38.9 36.5
Source: 1978 Information Survey of Michigan Farmers
Table 3. Perceived importance of human information by farm size category
Perceived importance Farm Size
of information
Small Medium Large
(Percent)
Not important at all 33.6 30.0 33.5
2 4.8 6.3 6.4
3 15.5 15.0 14.9
4 8.7 11.1 7.4
Very important 37.5 37.6 37.8
Source: 1978 Information Survey of Michigan Farmers
Table 4. Sources of information for 44 common problems faced by farmers cate-
gorized by farm size
Farm Size
Source of information
Small Medium Large
(Percent)
Newspapers, magazines,
radio and TV 21.9 23.0 20.2
Cooperative Extension 20.8 20.9 22.2
Dealers, salesman and buyers 7.1 8.0 9.9
Neighbors, friends and
relatives 11.0 10.6 8.6
Lenders, government agencies
and farm organizations 5.6 7.5 6.9
Never had this problem 16.4 12.6 11.3
Did not seek information on
this problem 11.3 10.0 10.7
Other 3.2 1.6 2.2
Source: 1978 Information Survey of Michigan Farmers
Table 5. --Contact with Extension by Gross Farm Income
Category.
Gross Farm
Income
Over $100,000
$40,000 to $99,999
$20,000 to $39,999
$10,000 to $19,999
$5,000 to $9,999
$2,500 to $4,999
Under $2,500
Total
No or Low
Contact
4
(30.8%)
3
(15.8%)
3
(14.3%)
8
(44.4%)
4
(21.1%)
6
(26.1%)
11
(42.3%)
39
(28.1%)
Source: 1978 Information Survey
Medium
Contact
4
(30.8%)
6
(31.6%)
5
.(23.8%)
8
(44.4%)
9
(47.4%)
10
(43.5%)
7
(26.9%)
49
(35.3%)
High
Contact
5
(38.5%)
10
(52.6%)
13
(61.9%)
2
(11.1%)
6
(31.6%)
7
(30.4%)
8
(30.8%)
51
(36.7%)
Total
13
(100%)
19
(100%)
21
(100%)
18
(100%)
19
(100%)
23
(100%)
26
(100%)
139
(100%)
of Michigan Farmers
APPENDIX B
QUESTIONS CLASSIFIED BY TYPES OF INFORMATION
Technical Questions
Whether or not to buy a new piece of machinery.
Problems with insects or disease.
Knowing when to sell your farm products.
Figuring out how much fertilizer to use.
What crops to plant next year?
How to remodel the kitchen?
How to cut down on the heating bill?
How to set up a family budget?
Figuring costs and returns on business investment?
Keeping up-to-date with records and farm accounts.
How to compute the best feed ration for livestock.
Whether or not to expand your livestock enterprise?
Human Questions
Conflict with the neighbor.
Finding good farm employees.
Personal and family health concerns.
Planning meals for nutrition.
Planning for children's education.
Figuring out how much insurance to buy.
Planning your estate.
Marital problems.
How to raise children properly?
Which clothes to buy on a tight budget?
Whether or not to raise a garden?
Trying to understand today teenagers.
Institutional Questions
How to figure out income tax.
Finding the best place to borrow money for the farm.
Complaints that you are causing pollution (smell,
runoff, etc.)
Political Issues (school bonds, highways, etc.).
How to improve the public schools in the area?
How to get better prices for your farm products?
When to hedge in the futures market?
Inadequate medical care and facilities in the area.
How to compete with larger farms?
Where to go with consumer complaints (damaged products,
etc.
General Questions
Whether or not to buy more land?
Whether or not to continue farming?
Whether or not to look for a part-time job?
Not knowing when to change production plans.
Difficulty in being able to define family objectives.
Not knowing when you are on the "wrong track" in your
attempt to reach a desired goal.
Not being able to "put your finger" on the difficulty
when you know there is something wrong.
Not being able to keep up with all the new information
(technology) relating to farming that always comes
along.
Having trouble organizing and understanding information
made available to you so that you can use it on your
farm.
Not knowing how or when to make a decision when the
information does not lead to a clear-cut course of
action.
APPENDIX C
INDEX OF CONTACT WITH THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
The following weights were used:
Type of Contact Weight
1. An agent visited your farm or home 15
2. You or your family visited the Cooperative
Extension Office 10
3. You or-your spouse talked on the phone
with a county agent 10
4. You or your spouse attended a farm tour
sponsored by the Cooperative Exten-
sion Service 10
5. You or your spouse attended a meeting or-
ganized by the Cooperative Extension
Service 10
6. You or your family listened to a radio or
TV program sponsored by the Coopera-
tive Extension Service 2
7. You or your spouse received a circular
letter or pamphlet from the Coopera-
tive Extension Service 1
The reported frequency was multiplied by the
appropriate weight, and the results added to yield a
weighted score for each farm. Four categories of contact
with Extension were established:
1. No Contact
2. Low Contact: 1-14 (Those who had less than the
equivalent of one farm or home visit during 1977)
3. Medium Contact: 15-90 (Those who had the equivalent
of at least one farm or home visit during the
year, but not more than one every two months)
4. High Contact: over 90 (Those who had the equivalent
of a farm or home visit every second month, or more
frequently)
|
RSS
HIDE
