Tennessee Farm Operators' Attitudes About
Extension Service Soil Conservation Information
Greg Pompelli
Associate Professor
Internet address: gpompeli@utk.edu
Christopher Morfaw
Research Associate
Burton English
Professor
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, Tennessee
Implementation of water quality legislation often requires farm
operators to adopt new soil conservation practices. Despite their
apparent information needs, farm operators' attitudes about the
usefulness of information from specific information providers, such as
the Agricultural Extension Service, may limit the extent to which
accurate soil conservation information is utilized. If the information
source preferences of farm operators could be identified, then perhaps
more cost-effective information dissemination campaigns could be
developed.
As with any set of potential information users, farm operators'
perceptions about their needs for soil conservation information may
affect their attitudes about soil conservation information.
Nonetheless, the classification of operators by identifiable
characteristics may aid in the development of approaches designed to
reduce the cost of providing information. If a farm operator's potential
receptiveness can be foreseen with some confidence, then techniques
could be developed to address that farmer's predispositions and this, in
turn, might lead to increased success in the promotion of soil
conservation practices.
Most studies of the information source preferences of farmers in the
United States have focussed on marketing and production information
sources (Ford & Babb, 1989; Schnitkey, Batte, Jones & Botomogno, 1992;
Batte, Jones & Schnitkey, 1989; Jones, Batte & Schnitkey, 1990; Ortmann,
Patrick, Musser & Doster, 1993), but not specifically on soil
conservation information sources. Although the existing literature
provides a valuable starting point for identifying key variables, it
cannot be directly applied to the analysis of farmers' attitudes about
the usefulness of soil conservation information provided by various
sources.
Objective
The objective of this study was to examine the factors affecting
Tennessee farm operators' attitudes about the usefulness of soil
conservation information provided by the Tennessee Agricultural
Extension Service (TAES). The Soil Conservation Service (SCS), supply
store personnel, and farm magazines were included in this study as
alternative sources of information. However, only farm operators'
attitudes about TAES soil conservation information are presented.
Methods
In 1991 and 1992, data on farm and farm operator characteristics and
financial characteristics were collected from 214 farm operators through
personal, on-farm interviews in three Tennessee watersheds
(geographically identified as east, middle, and west Tennessee). Within
each watershed farm operators were randomly selected based on numbers
assigned to their farms. Farm operators who refused to participate were
replaced by other randomly selected operators. The watersheds chosen
for this study were selected because of their high potential for soil
erosion and nonpoint source water pollution.
In addition to farm and farm operator characteristic information,
respondents were asked to rate the "usefulness" of soil conservation
information from the TAES and three alternative sources. A rating scale
from 1 to 11 was used, with 1 denoting "most useful," 10 denoting "least
useful," and 11 denoting that the source was "not used." In this study
an information source was judged "useful," if it received a rating of 1,
2, or 3.
Findings and Interpretation
The average farm operator in this study was 54.5 years old with 29.4
years of experience and a high school education. About 45% of the farm
operators earned less than 25% of their income from farm sales, and 60%
had gross farm sales of less than $15,000 per year. About 44% of the
farm operators were from East Tennessee, 31% were from Middle Tennessee,
and 25% were from West Tennessee. Sixty-eight percent of the farm
operators had contact with the TAES, 67% had contact with the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS), and 25% had a conservation compliance plan.
The usefulness responses indicated that farm operators were generally
skeptical about soil conservation information from all four sources.
Twenty-seven percent of the respondents considered TAES information
useful, 32% considered SCS information useful, while 42.5% considered
information from supply store personnel useful. Soil conservation
information obtained from farm magazines was only considered useful by
19.5% of the respondents. One reason for the perception differences
across sources may be the extent to which farm operators felt each
source understood their farm operations.
A logit model was used to estimate the influence of farm and farm
operator characteristics on farm operators' perceptions about the
usefulness of TAES soil conservation information. The logit model was
considered appropriate because the results could be used to assess the
influence of characteristics on the likelihood that a farm operator
judged TAES soil conservation information as useful.
The logit model results presented in Table 1, show that the coefficients
for East, Middle, and West Tennessee, Extension contact (TAES), the
existence of a mortgage on the farm (Mort), and farm operators who earn
less than 25% of their household income from farming (Part) were
statistically significant at an alpha level of 5%. However, only the
TAES and mortgage variables positively influenced the likelihood that
farm operators considered TAES information useful (a negative
coefficient indicates a positive relationship).
Table 1
Logit Model Results
|
Parameter Variable | Wald Coefficient
| Chi-Square | P-value |
| East | 2.30 | 16.68 | 0.0001 |
| Middle | 3.26 | 18.75 | 0.0001 |
| West | 2.52 | 12.05 | 0.0005 |
| TAES | -2.25 | 15.81 | 0.0001 |
| SCS | 0.61 | 1.37 | 0.2414 |
| Mort | -1.53 | 14.88 | 0.0001 |
| Part | 0.83 | 4.05 | 0.0442 |
Note. Log-Likelihood Ratio Test Statistic = 82.81;
Critical Chi-square Value for the Likelihood; Ratio
Test = 14.45 (.95, 6 d.f.) |
The coefficient for contact by the SCS was not statistically
significant. The lack of statistical significance for the SCS contact
variable indicates that contact by SCS personnel did not affect farm
operators' perceptions of TAES information.
It is not clear why farm operators with mortgages consider TAES
information useful. If lenders pressured farm operators to use TAES
soil conservation information, it is doubtful that this would lead to
positive farm operator attitudes about TAES information.
The negative influence of the part-time farm operator variable (Part)
indicates these farm operators generally do not consider TAES
information useful. Given that part-time farm operators generally are
their farm's main source of labor, these farm operators may feel too
overloaded or pressed for time to obtain TAES soil conservation
information.
Finally, it is important to note that during the development of this
model, a number of variables were initially used that did not influence
the likelihood that farm operators would consider TAES useful and these
were not included in the final model. Variables that were not used
because they were statistically insignificant included: the percent of
farm land rented, years of education, years of experience, operator's
age, average gross sales, the presence of livestock operations, and
participation in federal commodity programs.
Summary and Implications
A comparison of this study's results reinforces the notion that factors
affecting farm operators' information source preferences are not easily
discovered. However, the overall reluctance of farm operators to
consider TAES information useful corresponds with the findings of
Ortmann et al., (1993) which revealed that large cornbelt farmers
preferred to consult their on-farm advisors rather than outside
information providers.
Perhaps the most important implication of this study is that contact by
TAES personnel has a positive effect on the likelihood that a farm
operator considers TAES soil conservation information useful. As
discussed by King and Rollins (1995), it appears that information
usefulness is positively related to the development of working
relationships between information providers and those they advise.
Unfortunately, this realization comes at a time when funding
restrictions limit opportunities to reach farm operators.
References
Batte, M., Jones, E., & Schnitkey, G. (1989). Farm information usage: An
analysis of production and weather information for midwestern cash grain
farmers. Journal of Production Agriculture, 3, 76-83.
Ford, S. A., & Babb, E. M. (1989). Farmer sources and uses of
information. Agribusiness: An International Journal, 5(4), 5.
Jones, E., Batte, M. & Schnitkey, G. (1990). A socioeconomic analysis of
marketing information usage among Ohio fruit producers. Southern Journal
of Agricultural Economics, 22(2), 99.
King, R., Rollins, N., & Rollins, T. J. (1995, August). Factors
influencing the adoption of a nitrogen testing program [7746 bytes].
Journal of Extension [On-line serial], 33(4). Available E-mail:
almanac@joe.org Message: send joe research 2 august 1995
Ortmann, G. F., Patrick, G. F., Musser, W. N., Doster, D. H. (1993). Use
of private consultants and other sources of information by large
cornbelt farmers. Agribusiness: An International Journal 9(4), 391-402.
Schnitkey, G., Batte, M., Jones, E., & Botomogno, J. (1992). Information
preferences of Ohio commercial farmers: Implications for Extension.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74, 486-496.
Author Notes
Research funding support was provided by the Soil Conservation Service
through a study entitled "Impacts on Small, Limited Resource Farmers of
Surface and Groundwater Quality Legislation." Contract Number
69-4741-0776.
This article is online at
http://www.joe.org/joe/1995december/rb2.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.
|