Farmers Adopt Microcomputers in the 1980s:
Educational Needs Surface for the 1990s

Successful Farming magazine predicted in 1983 that 80% of American farmers would be using microcomputers to assist them in farm management by 1990. And, Odell (1989) commented that microcomputer use on farms, and in agribusiness, has become an essential part of good management. In the early 1980s, agricultural operators who first attempted to use the new microcomputer technology encountered problems such as expensive hardware and little, if any, software relating to agriculture. Ten years later the situation is reversed; the cost of hardware has dropped dramatically and companies are offering an enormous selection of agricultural software. This study examines how agricultural operators' microcomputer use progressed through the 1980s. It considers demographic attributes of the agricultural operator who owns a microcomputer; it also explores the implications for Extension programming in the 1990s related to microcomputer use in agricultural operations.

Out of a random sample of 748 Nebraska agricultural operators surveyed by mail in 1989, 35% identified first if they owned a microcomputer and then (a) how they used it, (b) why they used it, (c) how they kept farm/ranch records, and (d) how they integrated the microcomputer into their marketing strategies (Sarno, 1991). In a previous random sample of 532 Nebraska agricultural operators surveyed by telephone in 1983, 70% responded about their ownership of a microcomputer (Rockwell & Goding, 1984). Using a chi-square test of significance at <.05, there were no differences found on age and educational level of the agricultural operators when compared between the 1983 and 1989 samples. Comparisons between those who owned microcomputers in 1983 and 1989 were unrealistic to calculate because the percentage of microcomputer ownership was only 3% in 1983. However, chi-square comparisons at <.05 were used to compare responses of microcomputer owners and non-owners in the 1989 survey.

Microcomputer Owners vs. Non-owners

The percentage of agricultural operators owning microcomputers increased from 3% in the early 80s to 25% in the late 80s. By 1989, about half of the non-owners felt that a microcomputer would be useful for their operation. Microcomputer owners and non-owners differed in age and education. While 52% of the microcomputer owners were under age 45, only 38% of the non-owners were. While 69% of the microcomputer owners had post-secondary schooling or training, only 37% of the non-owners did. The difference in age supports Iddings and Apps' (1990) finding that many agricultural operators felt they were too old to learn to use the microcomputer they purchased and thought the younger generation would be better able to do so. Although Morris (1987) also found age and education to influence attitudes toward computer use, he concluded that education rather than age influences the attitude because the older generation was less likely to have a formal education.

Microcomputer owners and non-owners also differed on gross income levels. While 69% of the microcomputer owners had a gross farm income above $100,000, only 38% of the non-owners did. This lends support to Yarbrough's (1990) finding that farmers making more than $200,000 annual sales perceived that microcomputer use results in a net economic gain.

Microcomputer Use in Accounting Systems in the Late 1980s

Although 57% of the agricultural operators used hand-kept records and 22% saved receipts, bills, and checks until the end of the year, microcomputers were beginning to emerge as a major aid in keeping records. By the late 1980s, 14% used microcomputers for accounting and 7% had someone else use their checks to enter items into a computer accounting system. Slightly under two-thirds (63%) of all agricultural operators felt it would be beneficial for them to keep better records than they were currently keeping. However, computer owners were more likely to indicate a need for better records (76% of computer owners vs. 60% of the non-owners). As an entire group, agricultural operators reported their reasons for not keeping better records involved not having enough time to do so (65%), outside help costing too much (39%), and just not liking recordkeeping (29%). Agricultural operators citing lack of time as a major barrier to microcomputer use parallels the findings of Taylor, Hoag, and Owen (1991).

The 14% adoption rate for using microcomputers for accounting combined with nearly two-thirds of the agricultural operators feeling it would be beneficial to keep better records supports Yarbrough's (1987) conclusion that computerization of an operation is a complex process involving drastic new ways of imagining and manipulating information. Yarbrough believes the intellectual skills the agricultural operator needs to creatively manipulate data are far more complex than the actual skills needed for operating a computer.

Among microcomputer owners, the task of making accounting entries tends to be shared about equally between males (53%) and females (46%) in all agricultural operations. However, where the record keeping system utilized a microcomputer, males were more likely to be responsible for making the accounting entries than females (67% vs. 33%).

Nearly three-fourths (73%) of the owners used the microcomputer for word processing that may or may not be related to their farming operation; 70% used them for accounting. Almost half (46%) used the microcomputer for production records and decision making; 20% used them for marketing; 10% for feed formulation.

Using Microcomputers in Marketing

For all farmers, the top four major sources for marketing information were radio (66%), television (46%), newspaper (40%), and electronic market news terminal (28%). However, the microcomputer owners were less likely than were the non-owners to use newspapers (owners, 25% to non-owners, 45%), radio (51% to 71%), and television (25% to 54%); the microcomputer owners were more likely to use electronic market news terminals (owners, 54% to non-owners, 19%).

By the late 1980s, agricultural operators were starting to make use of sales contracts, futures options, and hedging contracts. However, the microcomputer owners were more likely to regularly use (a) sales contracts for grains (owners, 38% vs. non-owners, 18%), (b) sales contracts for livestock (8% vs. 4%), (c) hedging for grains (12% vs. 3%), (d) hedging for livestock (14% vs.3%), (e) futures options for grains (13% vs. 2%), and (f) futures options for livestock (14% vs. 3%). Almost all (94%) of the microcomputer owners who regularly use sales contracts, hedging, and futures options reported gross incomes above $100,000.

These findings suggest that Extension needs to target specific groups of agricultural operators for educational programs related to microcomputer use in agricultural operations. Two specific groups include the younger farmer and the female farm operator. In addition, microcomputer owners need different programs than those who are contemplating purchasing a computer and just starting to explore its capabilities for their agricultural operations.

Agricultural operators under age 45 are integrating microcomputer technology into their operations at a faster rate than other farmers. Therefore, educational programs utilizing microcomputers should provide opportunities for youth who are interested in production agriculture as well as the young adult who has chosen farming as a career. The younger agricultural operators need community based opportunities to learn about, and apply, the microcomputer technology to their particular agricultural operations. Youth should be able to start learning how to use and apply the microcomputer technology through high school agricultural education classes or through 4-H programs.

The female partner in the agricultural operation tends to lag behind in using the microcomputer. Therefore, programs need to target young women who are partners in the agricultural operation, as well as young women in high school settings or in 4-H clubs. The programs should focus on helping women develop the skills and self-confidence necessary to use the microcomputer for accounting, as well as obtaining and analyzing marketing information.

Separate programs need to be developed for microcomputer owners and non-owners (those who are contemplating purchasing a computer or just starting to explore its capabilities for their agricultural operation). These "new" or "potential" microcomputer users need programs that will build confidence and help them feel comfortable with the technology while the owners need to further enhance their knowledge and skill.

Programs for computer owners could be further subdivided to target those experienced with marketing methods such as sales contracts, hedging, and futures options and those without such experience. Educational programs for the microcomputer users need to be sequenced so these "users" can build upon previous experience and competence. Because time was cited as a major barrier to microcomputer use, computer skills should be integrated into programs that teach agricultural operators about basic accounting and management techniques.

Successful Farming's prediction that 80% of the American farmers would use the microcomputer to assist them in managing their operations has not been realized. However, the 1980s was a period of growth for the adoption of the microcomputer in agricultural operations. The 1990s is the time to meet the challenge of providing education for agricultural operators to increase the use of microcomputers in managing their agricultural production operations. Extension needs to target both youth and young adults as well as the female partner in agricultural operations. Microcomputer educational programs need to be divided so programs address both the basic microcomputer concepts as well as more advanced concepts that further enhance the skills of those who have already started applying the technology in their specific situation.

Iddings, R. K., & Apps, J. W. (1990). What influences farmers' computer use? Journal of Extension, XXVIII(Spring), 19-20.

Morris, D. C. (1987). A survey of age and attitudes toward computers. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 17, 73-79.

Odell, K. S. (1989, February). The software sampler. Agricultural Education Magazine, pp. 11-12.

Rockwell, S. K., & Goding, M. (1984). The use of AGNET and microcomputers: A survey of Nebraska farmers and ranchers. Unpublished paper, University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension Service, Lincoln.

Sarno, E. A. (1991). Nebraska agricultural operators' ownership of microcomputers: A literature review and analysis of a Nebraska survey. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Maryland, College Park.

Taylor, M. T., Hoag, D. L., & Owen, M. B. (1991). Computer literacy and use: North Carolina's extension computer education laboratory. Journal of Extension, XXIX(Winter), 14-16.

Yarbrough, P. (1987). Emerging generalizations on the diffusion of computers: An interim report. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, College Station, TX.

Yarbrough, P. (1990). Information technology and rural economic development: Evidence from historical and contemporary research. (Project: Information Age Technology and Rural Economic Development). Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment.

This article is online at http://www.joe.org/joe/1994june/a9.html.

Copyright © by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. Articles appearing in the Journal become the property of the Journal. Single copies of articles may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use in educational or training activities. Inclusion of articles in other publications, electronic sources, or systematic large-scale distribution may be done only with prior electronic or written permission of the Journal Editorial Office, joe-ed@joe.org.