1997 Census of. Agriculture (AC97-A-50). 1999b, March. Washington,. DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1997 Census of.
A Two-State Comparison of Farmers' and Ranchers' Risk Management Education Needs By Robert J. Fetsch, Chris Bastian, Dennis A. Kaan, and Stephen R. Koontz
Introduction The number of farmers and ranchers across the United States is declining. Fewer than two percent of the U.S. population are farm operators. The 1.9 million farms in 1997 represent the smallest number of farms recorded for any census since 1870. This trend is expected to continue as the federal government phases out its farm price support programs by 2002. As indicated in Table 1, according to the most recent Census of Agriculture (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1997, 1999c), the number of farmers and ranchers is declining in the U.S. and in Colorado, but is increasing in Wyoming. The number of acres farmed in the U.S., Colorado, and Wyoming has fallen from 1964 to 1997 between 8.0 and 15.3%. The average age of farm operators in the U.S., Colorado, and Wyoming rose from 1964 to 1997 between 6.1% and 8.2% (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1997, 1999a, 1999b). In order to strive to stem the decline in numbers of agricultural producers, the authors designed a research study to find out what information and resources were of most interest to them. The mid-1990's changed the business environment that agricultural producers face. International trade agreements such as GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) opened up global markets for agricultural products. These agricultural policy changes translated into more opportunities for U.S. agricultural products and a market environment that is more volatile. Moreover, in 1996 the FAIR Act (Food, Agriculture Improvement Reform Act) decoupled traditional commodity program payments from traditional production
Abstract Needs assessment findings from two statewide random samples of agriculturalists in six resource areas-production, marketing, financial, legal, human, and strategic planning -- are reported. Results indicate that today's producers most want risk management information on legal, estate planning, and human relationship issues compared to more traditional agricultural economics topics.
Robert J. Fetsch is professor and Extension Specialist, Department of Human Development & Family Studies, Colorado State University; Chris Bastian is Extension Educator/Agricultural Marketing Specialist, Department of Agriculture and Applied Economics, University of Wyoming; Dennis A. Kaan is a Regional Agriculture and Business Management Specialist, Colorado State University; and Stephen R. Koontz is associate professor and Extension Economist/Commodity Marketing, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University.
Research
81
requirements and developed a system to reduce government outlays to agricultural producers. This resulted in a higher risk economic environment than agricultural families had seen since the 1930's. In response to these changes, the 1996 FAIR Act mandated that risk management education be provided to agriculturalists. For those who provide education to agricultural producers, this is often a daunting task, given limited resources and the few studies available with empirical data on agriculturalists' risk management needs. A 30-year review of Agricola, USDA's National Agricultural Library, uncovered a paucity of published research on agricultural risk management needs assessments and program evaluation. Dismukes et al. (1997) identified the characteristics and crop insurance needs of seven groups of socially disadvantaged minority operators in the U.S. (farm sales less than $100,000, agricultural sales less than $20,000, female, black, American Indian, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic farm operators). The researchers found that 80 percent or more of farms operated by females, blacks, and American Indians sold less than $25,000 in agricultural products in 1992. Their findings suggest that such farmers may be better served if crop insurance-type programs were extended to livestock and additional specialty crops. Anderson and Mapp (1996) surveyed Cooperative Extension economists and found that most Extension economists thought there was a gap between published research on risk management and risk management practices that could be used in programs. The authors stated that Extension economists' number one priority is delivering information that clientele find useful. Other research was only related in part to agricultural risk needs assessments and program evaluation. Walker and Nelson (1980) reviewed constructs of decision-making and Extension methods and materials for teaching farmers to deal with risk in
decision making. Powell (1996) investigated applications of risk communication theory to agricultural biotechnology and food safety in Canada and advocated for multi-way, iterative communication among researchers, government, industry, genetic engineers, consumers, and the public. The focus of the present study was to assess the importance of risk management education to farmers and ranchers in two western states, the desired education topics regarding risk management tools and strategies, the best months for participating in educational workshops, and preferences for length and timing of risk management education programs. Such information should be useful to farm managers, rural appraisers, and others who provide education to at-risk agricultural producers. Method, Survey Design, and Response Rate A team of Cooperative Extension educators in Colorado and Wyoming (CW Team) was interested in farmers' and ranchers' assessment of their risk resulting from increased volatility in agricultural markets due to dynamic policy and market environment changes. A list of 23,026 producers receiving U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency program payments in Wyoming and Colorado was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. All names were eliminated from the database that included "trust" or "estate" in the title along with all addresses from urban areas of Colorado (Denver and suburbs, Colorado Springs, Vail, Aspen, etc.) and Wyoming (Cheyenne, Jackson, etc.). This process narrowed the two-state population to 19,823--16,377 from Colorado and 3,446 from Wyoming. From these populations, a computergenerated random sample was drawn. The sample included 402 people per state currently receiving farm program support checks through the Farm Service Agency, since they were considered at greater risk. The CW Team had very limited funds to conduct the present
Table 1. 1997 Census of Agriculture Farm Statistics for the U.S., Colorado and Wyoming.
Farm Statistics # U.S. Farmers # U.S. Acres Average Age U.S. Farmers # Colorado Farmers # Colorado Acres
1997 1,911,859
%
1,100,000,000
931,795,255
51.2
54.3
6.10%
29,798
28,268
5.10% 14.70%
Change 39.50%
15.30%
38,258,626
32,634,221
Average Age CO Farmers
49.7
53.8
8.20%
# Wyoming Farmers
9,038
9,232
2.20%
37,052,632
34,088,692
8.00%
50.3
54.4
8.20%
# Wyoming Acres Average Age WY Farmers
82
1964 3,157,857
2001 Journal of the ASFMRA | www.asfmra.org
study. For comparison purposes, they chose to survey equal numbers of producers. To compare state results required having minimally adequate and comparably sized samples without having too many from the more populated state because all the power was not necessary. The CW Team developed Risk Survey instruments for farmers and ranchers in Colorado (Risk SurveyColorado, 1998) and Wyoming (Risk Survey-Wyoming, 1998). The CW Team's surveys assessed operators' needs in six resource areas (production, marketing, financial, legal, human, and strategic planning). Each of the six topical areas included four risk management resources that the CW Team considered important in reducing risk. The team used a modified Dillman (1978) mail-out survey method with two random samples of farmers and ranchers to obtain the responses for the present study. The initial mailings, which included cover letters, surveys, postage-paid Business-Reply-Mail (BRM) envelopes, and a $1 bill to improve the response rate, were mailed out in February
1999. Two weeks later reminder postcards were sent to all 804 study participants. Approximately six weeks after the initial mailing, second cover letters, surveys, and postage-paid BRM envelopes were mailed to those who had not yet returned their surveys. Out of 804 surveys sent out, 475 were returned which is a 59.08% return rate. Of the 475 that were returned, 396 were completed (49.25%) and 79 were returned not completed (9.83%). Of the 79 surveys that were returned not completed, more than half said "Forget it" in various ways. Some said they were retired. Others said the addressee was deceased. A few were returned "Addressee Unknown." Colorado's response rate was 55.47% (n = 223/402) counting both completed and not completed surveys returned by respondents. Wyoming's response rate was 62.94% (n = 253/402). No follow-up telephone surveys were conducted, given the relatively high response rate to the survey.
Table 2. Demographic Profiles of the Samples. Va ri a b l e
Col ora d o
W y omi n g
Under 21
0.5% (n = 1)
0.5% (n = 1)
21 – 30
3.2% (n = 6)
0.5% (n = 1)
31 – 40
17.8% (n = 33)
12.9% (n = 26)
41 – 50
26.5% (n = 49)
31.3% (n = 63)
51 – 60
21.1% (n = 39)
22.4% (n = 45)
61 – 70
13.0% (n = 24)
16.9% (n = 34)
Over 70
17.8% (n = 33)
15.4% (n = 31)
Total
100% (N = 185)
100% (N = 201)
A ge
Gen d er Female
18.9% (n = 35)
18.2% (n = 37)
Male
81.1% (n = 150)
81.8% (n = 166)
Total
100% (N = 185)
100% (N = 203)
E d u c a ti on Less than high school
4.3% (n = 8)
2.5% (n = 5)
28.1% (n = 52)
27.9% (n = 56)
Some college/technical school
30.8% (n = 57)
34.8% (n = 70)
College graduate or more
36.8% (n = 68)
34.8% (n = 70)
Total
100% (N = 185)
100% (N = 201)
Senior member operator
68.0% (n = 123)
70.1% (n=141)
Junior member operator
3.9% (n = 7)
8.0 (n=16)
Spouse of senior member operator
6.6% (n=12)
9.0% (n=18)
High school graduate/GED
W h o a r e y o u i n y o u r f a r m /r a n c h f a m i l y ?
Spouse of junior member operator
1.1% (n=2)
0.5% (n=1)
Other
20.4% (n=37)
12.4% (n=25)
Total
100% (N = 181)
100% (N=201)
Research
83
Table 3. Number Head of Livestock Owned or Managed. Col ora d o S p ec i es
W y omi n g SD
N
SD
N
287.6
121
C o w /C a l f Own
81.98
Lease
53.42
111.93
91
207.9
87.51
19
43.77
Custom Feed
61.54
155.66
13
Own
13.69
35.06
Lease
2.08
7.22
9
28.46
M
M
86.57
22
89.86
169.84
21
42
416.21
920.35
47
12
0
0
10
10
36.36
120.6
11
S h e e p ( E w e s)
Custom Feed S w i n e ( S o w s) Own
0
0
34
0.65
2.2
34
Lease
0
0
11
0
0
10
Custom Feed
0
0
9
0
0
10 49
M a r k e t L i v e st o c k Own
152.58
384.7
50
260.04
1000.14
Lease
5
17.32
12
0
0
7
458.83
1160.08
12
448.58
1157.18
12
Own
36
127.19
32
143.93
555.67
29
Lease
0
0
9
0
0
6
21.2
62.94
10
280.11
665.61
9
Custom Feed O th er
Custom Feed
Table 4. Number of Acres of Major Crops Produced Last Year. Colorado Commodity
Wyoming SD
M
N
Wheat Own
389.89 M
725.18
74
N 272.94
398.06
SD 32
Lease
881.73
1325.51
41
411.76
510.93
17
Manage
583.07
1057.14
14
150
301.39
7
Corn Own
193.41
270.09
60
138.95
254.63
38
Lease
360.57
354.18
30
75.94
76.6
17
Manage
167.5
143.9
8
2.5
6.12
6
Milo Own
0
0
6
5
15.81
10
Lease
135
179.91
4
8.33
20.41
6
Manage
2.5
5
4
0
0
4
Other Small Grains Own
86.87
112.75
31
126.67
183.44
57
Lease
292.31
539.77
13
218.35
485.06
23
119
241.72
5
357.14
610.62
7
Manage Oil Seed Crops Own
66
112.37
10
0
0
10
Lease
318
417.88
5
20
48.99
6
Manage
50
100
4
0
0
4
Alfalfa Hay Own
155.33
226.38
54
159.56
226.31
98
Lease
181.84
220.04
19
101.42
88.78
33
149
259.82
5
11.67
28.58
6
Manage Other Hay Own
86.6
164.55
25
215.54
358.45
52
Lease
118.27
102.96
15
92.16
172.72
19
5
10
4
75
175.25
8
Manage Silage Own
38
62.28
10
75
108.12
22
Lease
314.75
518.47
8
10
19.15
7
0
0
3
0
0
4
Manage Pasture Own
1034.28
2050.19
61
3433.74
5612.93
81
Lease
1127.29
1485.56
35
3255.84
5979.62
38
735
1101.92
8
3437.5
8756.38
8 36
Manage Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
84
Own
395.86
573.3
29
419.81
579.52
Lease
705
1038.43
14
220.63
283.1
8
Manage
305
424.38
4
40
89.44
5
2001 Journal of the ASFMRA | www.asfmra.org
Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents People were asked a few questions about personal characteristics. As indicated in Table 2, there were minor demographic differences in the samples of farmers and ranchers from the two states. The ages of the respondents ranged from under 21 to over 70 in both states. The Colorado sample was somewhat younger with 78 percent of survey respondents being 41 or older while 86 percent of the Wyoming sample reported being 41 or older. In Colorado 52 percent were 51 and older; in Wyoming, 55 percent were 51 and older. In both states male respondents out-numbered female respondents 4 to 1. The educational levels of respondents in both states were fairly high with two out of three respondents reporting having some college/technical school or more. More than one third of both samples were college graduates or more. Roughly two out of three respondents from both states were senior member operators. When asked, "Who are you in your farm or ranch family," roughly one out of six referred to themselves as "Other." These people called themselves owners, family members or relatives of the operator, members of a partnership or family corporation, husband-wife operation, individual farmers with no family members, lessors, or sharecroppers. Off-farm income during the previous year averaged over 40 percent of total income across both states. Colorado producers' responses ranged from 0 percent to 100 percent and averaged 43.51 percent (SD = 32.13, N = 176). (Note: SD = Standard Deviation; N = Number of people in total sample; n = number of people in sub sample; M = Mean score.) Wyoming producers' responses also ranged from 0 percent to 100 percent and averaged 42.80 percent (SD = 34.06, N = 197). Table 3 shows the number of head of livestock owned, leased, and managed by ranchers and farmers from both states. Caution is advised in drawing conclusions when few numbers of people responded to the survey as indicated by small N's. Overall, Wyoming ranchers and farmers reported owning more head of livestock than did Colorado farmers and ranchers. This
finding was consistent with the authors' previous knowledge of producers in Colorado and Wyoming. Table 4 shows the number of acres of major crops produced last year. Overall, Colorado respondents reported owning more acres of wheat and corn, while Wyoming respondents reported owning more acres in alfalfa hay and pasture.
Table 5. Colorado Knowledge Levels about Risk Management Tools and Strategies in Rank Order.
Table 6. Wyoming Knowledge Levels about Risk Management Tools and Strategies in Rank Order.
Item Financial Production Human Strategic Planning Marketing Legal
M
SD
N
5.22 5.16 4.76 4.74 4.7 4.18
2.42 2.39 2.3 2.27 2.24 2.35
177 177 169 174 177 176
Results and Assessment of Risk Management Education Preferences The Colorado and Wyoming surveys asked--How critical did producers consider the issue of risk management to be in their operation? On a Likert scale from 1 (not at all) to 9 (very critical), the average rating by Colorado respondents was 6.15 (SD = 2.23, N = 173). The average rating by Wyoming respondents was 6.40 (SD = 2.04, N = 199). These ratings were somewhat lower (M = 6.15-6.40) than those found in an earlier study of farmers' and ranchers' critical level rankings of the estate transfer issue (Colorado M = 7.77, SD = 1.60, N = 182; Kansas M = 7.37, SD = 1.83, N = 117) (Fetsch, 2000). Nevertheless, they see risk management as an issue that is critical and urgent. The surveys also asked producers--How optimistic are you regarding your future in agriculture? Both groups were somewhat pessimistic regarding their future in agriculture. On a Likert scale from 1 (very pessimistic) to 9 (very optimistic), the average rating by Colorado respondents was 4.81 (SD = 2.25, N = 178). The average rating by Wyoming respondents was 4.32 (SD = 2.10, N = 201). When asked whether they had evaluated and communicated their risk management tolerance to others with whom they work and conduct business, in Colorado 51 percent said yes (n = 90/178). In Wyoming 59 percent said yes (n = 119/202). These results suggest that Wyoming respondents see the issue of risk management as somewhat more critical than do Colorado respondents. Wyoming ranchers are also somewhat more pessimistic regarding their future in agriculture. Finally, more producers from Wyoming report that they communicated about these issues with those around them. Some respondents explained their pessimistic response, like the 72-year-old man who said,
M
SD
N
Financial
Item
5.31
2.07
200
Production
5.12
2.16
201
Marketing
4.84
2.06
200
Human
4.68
2.07
195
Strategic Planning
4.68
2.05
198
Legal
4.21
1.94
199
Research
85
Table 7. Colorado Interest Levels in Rank Order for Workshops on Risk Tools and Strategies. Item Tax management strategies
M
SD
N
5.88
2.54
173
Using wills and trusts in estate planning
5.55
2.63
173
Understanding fundamental market analysis
5.34
2.56
167
Listening to and communicating with family and professionals
5.33
2.62
169
Managing legal compliance
5.25
2.58
171
Developing and understanding contracts
5.24
2.65
172
Understanding technical market analysis
5.16
2.58
166
Implementing niche/pooled marketing or value added opportunities
5.06
2.67
165
Assessing strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities
5.04
2.58
164
Trends in rural financial markets
5.04
2.65
169
Financing major purchases (interest rate risk, feasibility)
4.94
2.67
166
Implementing decision making strategies
4.93
2.61
166
Using futures and options as marketing tools
4.91
2.7
170
Using practical planning steps in your business
4.9
2.52
165
Using alternative technology in production
4.83
2.63
171
Developing and interpreting financial statements
4.82
2.63
168
Implementing shared goal-setting strategies
4.77
2.6
164
Using financial ratios for decision making
4.6
2.47
167
Evaluating enterprise mixes and production practices
4.54
2.47
173
Understanding and using crop insurance
4.49
2.67
171
Strategies for hiring and managing labor
4.46
2.61
168
Forming and utilizing production alliances
4.36
2.53
171
Writing a shared mission statement for your operation
3.88
2.44
161
Writing a shared vision statement for your operation
3.84
2.48
161
Table 8. Wyoming Interest Levels in Rank Order for Workshops on Risk Tools and Strategies.
86
Item
M
SD
N
Tax management strategies
6.1
2.57
193
Using wills and trusts in estate planning
5.79
2.65
193
Developing and understanding contracts
5.74
2.6
192
Listening to and communicating with family and professionals
5.46
2.58
190
Assessing strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities
5.46
2.65
190
Trends in rural financial markets
5.37
2.6
191
Managing legal compliance
5.36
2.54
190
Understanding fundamental market analysis
5.3
2.54
194
Financing major purchases (interest rate risk, feasibility)
5.29
2.62
189
Using practical planning steps in your business
5.25
2.5
191
Using alternative technology in production
5.22
2.54
197
Implementing niche/pooled marketing or value added opportunities
5.22
2.65
192
Evaluating enterprise mixes and production practices
5.09
2.49
196
Understanding technical market analysis
5.07
2.55
192
Forming and utilizing production alliances
5.07
2.68
194
Using financial ratios for decision making
5.05
2.49
192
Developing and interpreting financial statements
5.04
2.53
193
Implementing decision making strategies
4.96
2.57
190
Using futures and options as marketing tools
4.96
2.75
196
Implementing shared goal-setting strategies
4.65
2.51
189
Strategies for hiring and managing labor
4.53
2.7
191
Understanding and using crop insurance
4.44
2.61
197
Writing a shared vision statement for your operation
4.41
2.46
187
Writing a shared mission statement for your operation
4.34
2.41
187
2001 Journal of the ASFMRA | www.asfmra.org
"Unless something changes, I feel sorry for young farmers." The survey also asked--What percentage of farmers' and ranchers' income last year was from farm program payments? Producers' responses are important because families with the highest percentage of income from farm program payments were considered to be most at risk as the price support program is phased out. In Colorado the modal response was 10 percent of income being from farm program payments (38%, n = 67/175). Seventeen percent of respondents (n = 29/175) reported that 20 percent of their farm income last year was from farm program payments. Sixteen percent said they received no payments. The average percentage of farm income attributable to farm program payments was 17.04% (SD = 17.90, N = 175). In Wyoming the modal response was no farm program payments (38%, n = 72/196). Twenty-nine percent (n = 57/196) reported that 10 percent of their farm income last year was from farm program payments. More than three out of four respondents (77.0 percent) reported that 10 percent or less of their income was from farm program payments. The CW Team inquired about how knowledgeable farmers and ranchers already were about risk management tools and strategies within six resource categories. Tables 5 and 6 include Mean scores, Standard Deviations, and Numbers of respondents. The tables show that in both states, ranchers and farmers reported being most knowledgeable about financial and production risk management tools and strategies and least knowledgeable about legal strategies. In Wyoming, farmers and ranchers reported knowing more about marketing while in Colorado, they reported knowing more about human risk strategies. This finding is supported by the fact that during the previous four years Colorado State University Cooperative Extension and Agricultural Experiment Station provided seven Integrated Resource Management Estate Transfer Workshops with a strong human dimension component. Wyoming has not provided such a program. These findings are an indication that agriculturists in Colorado know the least about legal, marketing, and strategic planning issues. In Wyoming they know the least about legal, strategic planning and human tools and strategies about risk management. Using a Likert scale from 1 (not interested) to 9 (very interested), participants reported how interested they were in attending workshops on 24 tools and strategies related to risk management. Four tools and strategies were listed in each of the following agricultural areas: production, marketing, financial, legal, human, and strategic planning (Risk SurveyColorado, 1998; Risk Survey-Wyoming, 1998). Table 7 lists Colorado's rank order of the 24 tools and strategies
from highest to lowest interest levels. Colorado farmers and ranchers were most interested in education on legal and estate planning issues related to risk management like tax management strategies, using wills and trusts, managing legal compliance, and developing and understanding contracts. Coloradans are also interested in learning how to understand fundamental market analysis, how to listen to and communicate with family and professionals, how to understand technical market analysis, implement niche or pooled marketing or value added opportunities, assess strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities, and identify trends in rural financial markets. They were not very interested in writing shared vision and mission statements for their operations or in learning about forming and utilizing production alliances, strategies for hiring and managing labor, or understanding and using crop insurance. Table 8 lists Wyoming's rank order of the 24 tools and strategies from highest to lowest interest levels. Wyoming ranchers and farmers were most interested in education on the same four legal and estate planning issues. High on the list of interesting workshops for them were learning to listen to and communicate with family and professionals, assessing strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities, and identifying trends in rural financial markets. Also high on the list were understanding fundamental market analysis, financing major purchases (interest rate risk, feasibility), using practical planning steps in your business, using alternative technology in production, and implementing niche or pooled marketing or value added opportunities. Wyoming ranchers and farmers were not very interested in writing shared mission and vision statements, or in workshops on understanding and using crop insurance, strategies for hiring and managing labor, or implementing shared goal-setting strategies. Farmers and ranchers reported highest interest levels in and need for legal, estate planning, and human relationship risk management information. Farmers and ranchers gave lower interest rankings to risk management information on marketing, financial, production, and strategic planning. Some of these results are not surprising given that producers reported being most knowledgeable about finances and production. Nevertheless, the detailed responses in Tables 7 and 8 show that producers have a sustained mid-level interest in marketing and business management issues. These results on topics of interest present valuable information for program development and planning to address ranchers and farmers' toppriority risk management needs. Ranchers and farmers in the present samples had clear preferences for which months were most convenient for them to participate in risk management field days and workshops. For Coloradans, the most
Research
87
preferred months were November, December, January, and February. For Wyoming ranchers and farmers, their first-choice months were December, January, and February. Their second-choice months were November and March. Table 9 provides more specific details. Farmers and ranchers in our samples also had clear preferences for the length of field days or workshops they prefer to attend that address the top issues identified by producers responding to this survey. Sixtytwo percent of Coloradans wanted one-day workshops (n = 116/187). Only 7 percent wanted one and onehalf-day workshops (n = 13/187). Twelve percent wanted two-day workshops (n = 23/187). No one wanted three-day workshops (n = 0/187). Wyoming ranchers and farmers had similar preferences. Fiftyeight percent wanted one-day workshops (n = 121/209). Only 16 percent wanted one-and-one-half day workshops (n = 34/209). Eighteen percent wanted two-day workshops (n = 38/209). Fewer than three percent wanted three-day workshops (n = 6/209). The CW Team was interested in how much farmers and ranchers were willing to pay from $0 to $125+ in $25 increments to participate in full-day programs including reference materials and refreshments. In Colorado, 83.7 percent of respondents (N = 128/153) said they were willing to pay from nothing to $50. One out of four respondents said $0. One out of three said $25. One out of four said $50. The average price Coloradans said they were willing to pay was around $35 (M = 2.42, SD = 1.28, N = 153). In Wyoming, the results were similar where 80.5 percent of respondents (n = 140/174) said they were willing to pay from nothing to $50. One out of five respondents said $0. More than one out of three said $25. Less than one out of four said $50. The average price Wyoming ranchers and farmers said they were willing to pay was around
$39 (M = 2.56, SD = 1.28, N = 174). Many respondents qualified their responses: "$75--Maybe a little more for a program of high interest to me." "$0 to $125+ depending on what is offered." "$50 depending on quality of presenters and information." The CW Team asked whether survey respondents would participate in follow-up programming. In Colorado, 58 percent of respondents said yes, they would (n = 83/144). A much higher percentage (74.7%) said yes, they would in Wyoming (n = 124/166). Again, many respondents qualified their responses: "Yes, depending on how beneficial I find the material to be." "Yes, I would participate in follow-up programs if I got something worthwhile the first time." The next area of importance was one of educational delivery--how and where producers get their educational information. The survey inquired whether they attended Cooperative Extension educational programs when offered in their area. If not, why not? In Colorado, 52 percent of respondents said yes, they do (n = 86/165). More ranchers and farmers from Wyoming reported that they attend--61 percent (N = 115/188). Perhaps this higher participation rate is due to the more rural nature of Wyoming. Another question listed 11 different sources of information and education that can be accessed. Respondents were asked to report which sources they used. The response set ranged on a Likert scale from 1 (do not use) to 9 (use). Tables 10 and 11 provide details regarding which sources of information and education Colorado and Wyoming producers use. In both Wyoming and Colorado the clearly preferred sources of information and education used by ranchers and farmers were radio and the Land Grant University or Cooperative Extension. In Colorado, farmers and
Table 9. Month Preferences by State for Risk Management Workshops. Colorado Month July
88
Wyoming
M
SD
N
M
SD
N
1.95
1.93
129
2.37
2.1
156
August
2.13
2.06
128
2.64
2.33
155
September
2.16
1.97
129
2.84
2.48
154
October
2.78
2.28
130
3.5
2.66
157
November
4.86
2.92
129
5.2
3.16
162
December
5.94
2.98
130
5.89
3.05
158
January
7.17
2.75
138
6.69
2.82
166
February
6.62
2.89
136
5.86
3.08
167
March
4.74
2.86
134
3.72
2.87
161
April
2.74
2.34
125
2.34
2.06
154
May
2
1.75
129
2.38
2.08
154
June
2
1.97
130
2.37
2.04
155
2001 Journal of the ASFMRA | www.asfmra.org
ranchers used workshops and field days much more than did Wyoming ranchers and farmers. Instead in Wyoming, ranchers and farmers used television much more as a source of information than did Colorado farmers and ranchers. This was borne out in comments survey respondents wrote in their surveys. Moderately used sources of information and education by producers in both states were fact sheets, consultants, professionals, and popular press. In both states seldom used sources were satellite or videoconferences, video or audiotapes, World Wide Web/Internet, and "Other" sources. The present findings suggest that traditional program delivery methods are still viable ways to inform and educate targeted groups of ranchers and farmers, e.g. workshops and field days, personal consultation with Cooperative Extension agents or specialists, printed fact sheets, radio, newspapers and
farm magazines, and television. New technologies may be inappropriate to deliver education to this audience at this time, e.g. the Internet and television. The sources of information preferred by Colorado farmers and ranchers in the present study were similar to the results found in a concurrent study in some respects and different in others. Knop, Laughlin, and Knop (1999) surveyed Cooperative Extension users and reported the results from 657 Colorado households. In their sample of both rural and urban people, the preferred sources of information and education that were similar to the results of the present study were newsletters mailed to me/my business (64.8%), personal consultation with Cooperative Extension member or volunteer (63.6%), printed Cooperative Extension publications (51.4%), workshops, seminars, forums, meetings, events (50.6%), newspaper (27.2%),
Table 10. Colorado Sources of Information and Education Used.
Item
M
SD
N
Radio
5.02
2.72
169
Land Grant University/Cooperative Extension
4.88
2.8
167
Workshops and Field Days
4.63
2.77
163
Consultants/Professionals
4.61
2.93
171
Fact Sheets
4.51
2.62
164
Popular Press
4.38
2.52
168
Television
4.3
2.48
168
World Wide Web/Internet
3.54
2.86
162
Other
3.37
3.16
54
Video/Audio Tapes
2.82
2.28
163
Satellite/Video Conferences
2.54
2.37
162
M
SD
N
Radio
5.4
2.54
191
Land Grant University/Cooperative Extension
4.94
2.68
190
Television
4.79
2.6
193
Table 11. Wyoming Sources of Information and Education Used.
Item
Fact Sheets
4.69
2.49
180
Consultants/Professionals
4.66
2.74
186
Popular Press
4.66
2.6
189
Workshops and Field Days
4.31
2.49
190
Other
3.6
3.12
63
World Wide Web/Internet
3.13
2.78
182
Video/Audio Tapes
2.92
2.24
178
Satellite/Video Conferences
2.74
2.4
183
Research
89
Internet, World Wide Web, e-mail (6%), video-tape (4.9%), and interactive video, satellite conferencing (4.3%). Preferred sources that were different were radio (11.4%), and television (8%). Discussion and Conclusions Based on these results, it is clear that agricultural producers desire risk management information and education. They especially want legal, estate planning, and human relationship information. That estate planning was high on their list of priorities is not surprising given previous research findings (Fetsch, 2000). Very important is the finding that respondents rated their need for non-traditional topic areas of risk management like legal, estate transfer, and human relationship tools and strategies as much higher than their needs for traditional risk management topics like marketing, finance, and production information. This probably reflects land-grant universities' historical commitment to putting more resources in traditional areas. Apparently both Colorado State University Cooperative Extension and University of Wyoming Cooperative Extension have done a good job and have met many past needs. To address farmers' and ranchers' current needs, education providers need to put more resources into providing non-traditional risk management tools and strategies (legal, estate planning, and listening-communicating). Historically the mission of Cooperative Extension has been to respond to the changing needs of clientele. Producers have identified their current needs, and Colorado and Wyoming Extension are adapting and responding with appropriate educational workshops and resources to address producers' current needs. The reasonableness of the interest in legal, estate planning, tax management, and human relationship issues is transparent given that over half the sample is over 54 years of age. Producers are interested in keeping the farm wealth in the family and in maintaining the farm tradition in a way that preserves family harmony. There will be a strong need within state Extension programs nationwide to address the needs of the aging farm population. It is not clear that many states are preparing for this demand. This is likely one of the more important findings of this study. In addition, the detailed results from survey responses show that producers have moderate interest in topics that fit within traditional outreach programming. Besides being interested in legal, estate planning, and listening-communication, producers are interested in issues related to marketing and business management. They are interested in exploring new areas of these traditional topics. For example, Colorado producers want more information to understand contracts, understand technical market analysis, and
90
implement niche/pooled marketing or value added opportunities. Producers are not interested in topics that sound like complex aspects of strategic planning. The perception of many on the CW Team is that, based on working with successful producers, few of these new interests in traditional areas can be successfully implemented without strategic planning. It is possible to conclude that producers want to learn about more familiar topics and are less interested in topics with which they are less familiar, like writing shared mission and shared vision statements. As evidence for this conclusion, two other strategic planning topics are relatively high on the priority lists for producers in both states (assessing strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities and using practical planning steps in your business). These results suggest challenges for Cooperative Extension and other educators to describe strategic planning in words with which producers are familiar. Not all of the suggested risk management resources improve income. In our work with farm and ranch families, they tell us that increased income is not their only objective. Other values of importance to our farm and ranch families include independence, freedom from bosses, working outdoors in the fresh air, family harmony, raising children in rural settings, and more. It is clear that ranchers and farmers do not want two- or three-day workshops. However, 58-75% of respondents said they would participate in follow-up programming if the material was beneficial and worthwhile to them. According to the results, based on sources of information and education currently used, it is recommended that program developers use radio, television, and popular press to heighten awareness about the issues related to risk management. To provide educational programs in ways that the information is more likely to be used, it is recommended that the Land Grant University or Cooperative Extension continue to provide printed fact sheets, workshops, and field days. Especially where the Land Grant University does not employ professionals who are knowledgeable about the issues, it is recommended that they identify credible, trustworthy professionals and include them as guest consultants. It is recommended that educators include attorneys who are knowledgeable and who relate well with farmers and ranchers to teach about tax management strategies, using wills and trusts in estate planning, developing and understanding contracts, and managing legal compliance. One of the bottom-lines from the survey results is that future risk management programs will have to balance a number of tradeoffs. On the one hand farm
2001 Journal of the ASFMRA | www.asfmra.org
managers, rural appraisers, and other preventive educators will have to provide interesting and innovative topics like tax management strategies and niche marketing to attract producers to the workshops. On the other hand they will have to prod producers to do the hard-nosed work that is characteristic of successful producers. There is the work of doing the books and taking apart their cost information as they look for ways to make money. There is additional work thinking about the future of their farm or ranch family operation, writing a detailed estate plan, talking openly with and listening to family members, writing a mission statement of what the operation does now, and writing a vision statement about what the family wants the operation to be like in three to five years. It is clear that doing all this work will require a commitment of resources to more in-depth education. It is also clear that there will be problems in making use of distance education technology and attracting audiences to multiple-day or serial programs. However, these delivery methods hold the most promise for delivering effective, behavior-changing programs. Based on the risk management needs of the participants in this study, we recommend that further research be conducted with three groups of ranchers and farmers in Colorado and Wyoming to begin to determine which risk management educational programs work best with whom under what circumstances. We propose to provide the first group with one-day preventive educational workshops with legal, estate planning, and human relationship information that is research-based. We propose to provide the second group similar legal, estate planning, and human relationship information in a format usable by Risk Management Clubs over a period of five or more two-hour meetings. We propose to provide the third group (a no-treatment control group) with no risk management information. We recommend that researchers measure all three groups afterwards to assess program impacts. Groups 1 and 2 would complete pre-test surveys at the beginning and post-test surveys approximately 4 months later at the end of the five meetings and follow-up surveys 6-10 months later to determine how long the effects of the treatment persisted. Group 3 would receive a post-test survey in the mail 4 months later at approximately the same time as Groups 1 and 2. All three groups would be asked to report their current critical level of risk management, their optimism levels regarding their future in agriculture, their knowledge levels of risk management tools and strategies, their interest levels in future risk management workshops, steps taken to reduce risk, satisfaction levels with the risk management information provided, etc. By comparing the results of the three groups, researchers can begin to determine
which educational approach works better with producers to reduce risk and increase resilience. Little research has been published previously regarding producers' preferences for risk management information and education. While the results reported herein may be region specific, the authors hope they will stimulate further research that addresses producers' needs for risk management information and education. At the very least these results point to the possibility that programming that follows a traditional agricultural economics curriculum or set of topics may not address producers' greatest current needs. These results may also indicate that relying on new technologies as the primary method of delivering risk management education may not have the desired impact when compared to more traditional delivery methods. Risk management education will continue to be an important area for years to come as U.S. agriculture adjusts to decoupled and declining farm program payments, increased variability in markets due to globalization, and more regulatory issues regarding the environment and labor. Risk management education providers, farm managers, and rural appraisers will have to continue to respond to the needs of producers and be creative regarding delivery mechanisms and meaningful educational content. Additional research regarding needs, educational outlets, and educational impacts must be conducted if this is to be accomplished successfully.
References Anderson, K. B., and H. P. Mapp. "Risk Management Programs in Extension," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Vol. 21. No. 1 (1996): 31-38. Dillman, D. A. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. 1978. New York: Wiley Dismukes, R., J. L. Harwood, and S. E. Bentley. Characteristics and Risk Management Needs of LimitedResource and Socially Disadvantaged Farmers (Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 733). 1997. Washington, DC: Commercial Agricultural Division, Economic Research Service, and Risk Management Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (Micro text Fiche A1.75.733). Fetsch, R. J. Overview and Characteristics of Successful and Unsuccessful Transfers. 2000, February. Unpublished raw data.
Research
91
Knop, S., D. Laughlin, and E. Knop. CE2000 Participant Study: Highlights and Summary Results. 1999, Summer. Fort Collins: Colorado State University.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1997 Census of Agriculture (AC97-A-6). 1999a, March. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Powell, D. A. "Applying Risk Communication Theory to the Canadian Agri-food Sector," Dissertation Abstracts International. Vol. 57-06B (1996): 3476.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1997 Census of Agriculture (AC97-A-50). 1999b, March. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Risk Survey--Colorado. 1998. (Survey is available from the first author, Department of Human Development & Family Studies, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.)
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1997 Census of Agriculture (AC97-A-51). 1999c, March. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Risk Survey--Wyoming. 1998. (Survey is available from the first author, Department of Human Development & Family Studies, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.)
Walker, O. L., and A. G. Nelson. Dealing with Risks in the Management of Agricultural Firms: An Extension/Teaching Viewpoint (4492). 1980, June. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Department of Agricultural Economics (pp. 2253).
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1997 Census of Agriculture (AC97-A-51). 1997. (Retrieved 3/20/2000 from http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/ volume1/co-6/co1_01.pdf).
92
2001 Journal of the ASFMRA | www.asfmra.org
