Educational Needs of Beginning Farmers as Perceived by Iowa Extension Professional Staff

Introduction

As farm inputs and equipment have become more sophisticated, it has become increasingly important for farmers to understand the proper applications, limitations, and management of those inputs and tools. Farmers face increased risk both economically and physically if reliable, accurate information is not available in a timely manner. The 1999 Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll Summary Report (Lasley, 1999) showed that 89% of Iowa farmers reported that risk levels had increased in the past 5 years and that 87% expected the level of risk to continue to increase over the next 5 years.

This problem is compounded by the increasing need for new farmers to succeed those wishing to retire. Lasley (1996) reported that approximately 16,000 new farmers would be needed within the next 5 years.

In response to this need, the Iowa State University Experiment Station funded research into aspects of beginning farmer education, including needs assessment, program delivery, on-site education, and the development of new models for the delivery of beginning farmer education. In a study of beginning farmers in Iowa, Trede and Whitaker (1998) identified how useful beginning farmers felt various agricultural education providers will be in the future. Because the beginning farmers identified Extension as the educational provider most likely to be useful in the future, it was recommended that both state and local Extension professionals be surveyed to identify their perceptions relative to beginning farmer education.

Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of the study reported here was to identify the educational needs of beginning farmers in Iowa as perceived by ISU Extension county directors and field and campus-based specialists who have agricultural assignments. The specific objectives of the study included the following.

• Identify and compare the perceptions of Extension professionals regarding the usefulness of selected agricultural education providers and media.
• Identify and compare the perceptions of Extension professionals regarding the design, delivery, and general content of agricultural education for beginning farmers in Iowa.
• Identify and compare the perceptions of Extension professionals regarding the current and future importance of selected agricultural topics.

Methods

Data were collected by self-administered questionnaires mailed to the ISU Extension directors for each county (98) and the ISU Extension specialists with agricultural assignments who were either based on the ISU campus (50) or in field offices throughout the state (52). Because a census survey was conducted, no extrapolation of data was necessary. A total of 152 useable surveys were returned for a return rate of 84%. Non-response error was controlled by comparing early and late respondents (Miller & Smith, 1983). No significant differences were found in any of the groups.

The survey instrument included sections adapted from the instrument used by Whitaker (1998) dealing with the current and future usefulness to beginning farmers of educational providers and media, the perceptions of providers regarding the delivery of beginning farmer education, and the current and future usefulness of selected agricultural topics. The response for each item in these sections used a Likert-type scale with five response categories. It was established a priori that ratings of 4 or above would indicate a perceived tendency to be useful, in agreement with, or important in the future. The final section of the survey dealt with demographic and background information. Prior to its use, the instrument was reviewed by experts at ISU who had experience in beginning farmer education and was found to have content and face validity.

Findings

Of the 152 usable surveys that were returned, 80 were from county Extension directors, 30 were from state specialists, and 42 were from the field specialists. The majority of all three groups were male, were raised on a farm, and had farming experience as an adult. The county directors had a wider variety of majors in college than either of the groups of specialists. A higher percentage of the state specialists had doctoral degrees. The field specialists had the most diverse professional background, with 74% of them having worked 1 year or more outside of Extension or the land grant system, compared to 60% of the county directors and 54% of the state specialists. Forty-three percent of the county directors had prior community college or k-12 teaching experience.

The field specialists spent about 15% of their time with beginning farmers, the state specialists spent 11%, and the county directors spent 7%. Almost all of the respondents indicated that activities were paid for mostly through taxes, but nearly a third of the county directors and field specialists and 45% of the state specialists indicated that farmers also pay additional tuition or fees for activities.

Usefulness of Providers and Media

As might be expected, the Extension professionals rated Cooperative Extension as the most useful among the educational providers (Table 1). The second highest rated provider was parents, siblings, and relatives. The county directors and field specialists gave their third and fourth highest ratings to ISU courses and community colleges. The state specialists gave their third highest rating to agricultural consultants, followed by ISU courses and agribusiness firms.

Table 1.
Ratings of Future Usefulness of Educational Providers and Media^a

	All Extension		County Directors		Field Specialists		State Specialists
	mean	SD	mean	SD	mean	SD	mean	SD
Providers
Cooperative Extension	4.12	.66	4.03	.71	4.21	.42	4.23	.77
Parents, siblings & relatives	3.92	.93	3.91	.93	3.90	.98	3.97	.89
ISU courses	3.77	.84	3.78	.87	3.74	.80	3.77	.86
Community colleges	3.55	.95	3.47	.91	3.55	1.02	3.73	.94
Agribusiness firms	3.45	1.08	3.46	.98	3.19	1.09	3.77	1.28
High school ag programs	3.40	1.04	3.44	1.04	3.45	1.04	3.23	1.04
Agricultural consultants	3.33	1.07	3.24	1.05	3.14	1.18	3.83	.83
Commodity organizations	3.13	1.06	3.05	1.01	3.07	1.05	3.43	1.19
Farm organizations	3.11	1.01	2.98	.99	3.00	.96	3.63	.96
Government agencies	2.95	.99	3.16	.99	2.76	1.01	2.67	.88
Media
Internet - World Wide Web	4.13	.90	4.21	.84	4.15	.84	3.90	1.09
Farm publications	3.88	.74	3.86	.76	3.81	.67	4.03	.76
Extension pamphlets	3.79	.78	3.74	.87	3.88	.63	3.80	.71
Information services	3.65	.96	3.71	.96	3.74	.94	3.37	.96
Marketing Services	3.51	.93	3.58	.98	3.50	.89	3.37	.89
Fiber optics network (ICN)	3.45	1.02	3.51	.99	3.43	1.13	3.33	.96
Radio	3.23	1.13	3.35	1.01	3.12	1.04	3.07	1.17
Television or satellite dish	3.20	1.13	3.34	1.07	2.90	1.10	3.23	1.28
Video tapes	3.01	1.06	3.02	1.06	2.88	1.09	3.13	1.04
Newspaper	2.66	.99	2.80	.99	2.52	.89	2.50	1.11
Audio tapes	2.40	.95	2.35	.84	2.36	1.06	2.60	1.07
a Scale: 1=not useful, 2=limited usefulness, 3=no opinion, 4=useful, 5=extremely useful

In the media section, the top ratings went to the Internet, farm publications, and Extension pamphlets. The county directors and field specialists also gave relatively high ratings to Information Services. Two forms of the media, audio tapes and newspaper, were given much lower usefulness ratings overall by the Extension professionals.

Design, Delivery, and General Content of Programs

The Extension professionals as a group very strongly agreed that beginning farmer education should use input from farmers when developing programs and programs should be taught using a variety of instructional methods (Table 2). They also agreed with the use of problem-solving situations involving primarily mental activity and with the development of production agriculture skills. As individual groups, the county directors supported leadership development in agriculture, the field specialists agreed that individualized instruction (site visits, etc.) should be emphasized, and the state specialists supported learning by experience in agriculture.

Table 2.
Level of Agreement with Statements About Beginning Farmer Education^a

Beginning farmer education should:	All Extension		County Directors		Field Specialists		State Specialists
	mean	SD	mean	SD	mean	SD	mean	SD
Use input from farmers when developing programs	4.60	.56	4.70	.49	4.55	.55	4.40	.67
Be taught using a variety of instructional methods	4.59	.59	4.60	.67	4.57	.50	4.57	.50
Emphasize problem-solving situations which involve primarily mental activity	4.31	.77	4.24	.80	4.45	.80	4.30	.65
Emphasize production agriculture skill development	4.06	.89	3.93	.91	3.98	.84	4.53	.73
Emphasize problem-solving situations which involve primarily physical activity	3.90	.88	3.90	.88	3.93	1.02	3.87	.67
Emphasize learning by experience in agriculture	3.88	.91	3.85	.89	3.79	.95	4.07	.91
Emphasize leadership development in agriculture	3.87	.88	4.01	.84	3.83	.91	3.57	.90
Emphasize the adoption of ag technology	3.86	.92	3.88	.91	3.76	.88	3.93	1.01
Emphasize individualized instruction (site visits, etc.)	3.85	.82	3.90	.67	4.07	.79	3.43	1.07
Be taught primarily using non-formal rather than formal educational methods	3.54	1.00	3.64	.88	3.57	1.11	3.23	1.10
Emphasize distance education as a means of delivery	3.53	.99	3.60	1.00	3.50	1.02	3.40	.93
a Scale: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=no opinion, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree

The professionals showed the least agreement with statements that beginning farmer education should emphasize distance education as a means of delivery and be taught using non-formal rather than formal educational methods. However, even the lowest rated statements had overall mean scores higher than 3.5 on the five-point scale.

Table 3 summarizes the level of agreement with statements about how beginning farmer education should be delivered. The professionals agreed strongly that beginning farmers need to consult a variety of information sources to make competent farming decisions. The next highest support was for year-round programs and on-site, face-to-face instruction. The state specialists also agreed that a series of meetings or workshops with in-depth analysis of a topic should be emphasized.

Table 3.
Level of Agreement with Statements About Beginning Farmer Education Delivery^a

Delivery of beginning farmer education	All Extension		County Directors		Field Specialists		State Specialists
	mean	SD	mean	SD	mean	SD	mean	SD
Beginning farmers need to consult a variety of information sources to make competent farming decisions	4.40	.75	4.44	.67	4.33	.82	4.40	.86
To keep up to date, farmers should participate in educational programs on a year-round basis	3.99	.89	3.96	.89	3.88	.94	4.20	.81
On-site educational instruction (face-to-face) is preferred by farmers	3.81	.83	3.74	.84	4.00	.77	3.73	.87
Series of meetings or workshops with in-depth analysis of a topic should be emphasized	3.61	.92	3.52	.94	3.48	.97	4.00	.69
Beginning farmers should consult primarily with public institutions for unbiased information	3.52	1.02	3.50	1.04	3.67	1.03	3.37	.93
If it would reduce their travel, farmers would prefer to attend activities delivered by fiber optic, satellite, etc.	3.51	.94	3.71	.87	3.36	1.06	3.20	.85
Single meetings on specific topics should be emphasized	3.39	.96	3.44	.94	3.29	1.02	3.40	.93
Beginning farmers are willing to travel up to one hour to attend educational activities	3.38	.96	3.33	.90	3.29	1.11	3.63	.89
Beginning farmers are willing to pay tuition and fees to attend beginning farmer educational activities	3.05	.94	2.95	.93	3.17	1.01	3.13	.90
a Scale: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=no opinion, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree

The three statements that received the least support suggested that single meetings on specific topics should be emphasized, beginning farmers are willing to travel up to 1 hour to attend educational activities, and beginning farmers are willing to pay tuition and fees to attend educational activities. The statement that, if it would reduce their travel, farmers would prefer to attend activities delivered by fiber optic, satellite, etc., received moderate support from both the field and state specialists, but was supported more strongly by the county directors.

Importance of Topics

The Extension professionals rated five topics as important both now and in the future (Table 4). The top three were financial management, records, budgets and analysis; farm markets, marketing strategies, and pricing; and whole farm planning, long-term decision making, and strategic planning. Crop and livestock production practices, technology, and management were also rated as important. Two additional topics were rated as important in the future: technology transfer, computer, GPS, etc., and resource conservation and sustainability. While the other topics were not rated as important overall, all of them had mean ratings higher than the midpoint.

Table 4.
Current and Future Importance Ratings of Agricultural Topics and Subject Matter^a,b (Ordered by All Extension Future Ratings; Mean Ratings Above SD)

Subject Area	All Extension		County Directors		Field Specialists		State Specialists
	current	future	current	future	current	future	current	future
Financial mgmt, records, budgets & analysis	4.70	4.79	4.65	4.78	4.81	4.85	4.70	4.77
	.53	.50	.58	.57	.45	.39	.47	.43
Farm markets, marketing strategies & pricing	4.68	4.76	4.71	4.83	4.67	4.67	4.60	4.73
	.53	.48	.51	.41	.61	.61	.50	.45
Farm planning, decision making, strategic plan	4.51	4.67	4.44	4.69	4.52	4.64	4.67	4.67
	.79	.65	.81	.65	.92	.76	.48	.48
Technology transfer, computers, GPS, etc	3.94	4.30	4.00	4.34	3.86	4.25	3.90	4.27
	.86	.80	.83	.84	.90	.64	.92	.91
Crop production, mgmt., & technology	4.27	4.18	4.21	4.18	4.26	4.01	4.43	4.43
	.60	.71	.59	.76	.54	.57	.68	.68
Resource conservation & sustainability	3.90	4.17	3.91	4.19	3.71	3.99	4.13	4.37
	.88	.92	.87	.94	.89	.98	.86	.76
Livestock production, mgmt. & technology	4.09	4.05	3.97	4.03	4.12	3.96	4.33	4.23
	.64	.78	.66	.86	.59	.65	.61	.73
Multi/inter-generational farming & estate plan	3.83	3.96	3.93	4.05	3.81	3.90	3.60	3.80
	.83	.92	.85	.95	.71	.85	.89	.92
Machine selection, sizing, acquisition, maint	3.58	3.49	3.56	3.54	3.43	3.29	3.83	3.63
	.90	.92	.84	.95	1.09	.94	.70	.76
Facility selection, sizing, acquisition, maint.	3.52	3.46	3.58	3.54	3.40	3.33	3.53	3.43
	.81	.88	.81	.86	.86	.90	.78	.94
a Scale: 1=extremely unimportant, 2=unimportant, 3=no opinion, 4=important, 5=extremely important b Top number is mean rating; bottom number is standard deviation.

Conclusions and Implications

Several conclusions can be drawn from this study that have implications for Extension, agricultural education generally, and beginning farmer education in Iowa.

Extension professionals generally have farming backgrounds, either growing up, as adults, or both. Many have professional experience outside of Extension. This background should provide a valuable resource to future educational programs.

A high percentage of Extension professionals, especially at the county level, have experience teaching at the community college or K-12 classroom prior to moving into Extension. The interagency professional familiarity should enhance the likelihood of success with partnership programs in the future. Faculty in university agricultural education teacher certification programs should also consider this long-term career preparation when developing future teacher education curricula.

None of the groups spent a high percentage of their time with beginning farmers. Respondent notes provide two possible explanations. Several respondents commented that they don't track time spent with beginning farmers separately. Another individual questioned whether needs of beginning farmers are substantially different from those of established farmers. Further research is needed in this area.

Nearly a third of the county directors and field specialists and 45% of the state specialists reported that they collect tuition or fees for programs that they offer. However, none of the groups felt that beginning farmers are willing to pay tuition and fees to attend education activities. Further research is needed to determine if charging fees substantially limits participation in educational programs offered to beginning farmers.

As might be expected, the Extension professionals had a high opinion of the usefulness of Extension as an educational resource to beginning farmers. However, other educational providers also received mean ratings above the midpoint. The generally high ratings overall suggests the importance of contributions by many providers and the opportunity for partnerships to support beginning farmers. If partner programs are to be developed, further research is needed to clarify interagency differences and strengths and determine how various providers can cooperate to improve efficiency and increase benefits to beginning farmers.

Extension professionals perceived that the Internet will be highly useful to beginning farmers in the future and gave lower ratings to radio and newspaper. This contrasts with the opinion of Iowa beginning farmers, who rated radio and newspaper highly and placed the Internet well down the list (Whitaker, 1998). The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Farm Computer Usage and Ownership (2003) report showed that fewer than 10% of Iowa farmers used the Internet to access USDA/NASS reports, conduct marketing activities, or purchase agricultural inputs.

If the Internet and other innovative media are to be utilized heavily in the future, it may be necessary to help beginning farmers become familiar with those media. Research is needed to determine how farmers can use the Internet and related delivery systems effectively to complement other educational information resources.

Even though the Internet was rated very highly, the Extension professionals gave their lowest level of agreement to the statement that distance education should be emphasized as a means of delivery. With the proliferation of enrollment in both formal and informal distance education programs worldwide, it is clear that many consumers consider it to be a viable alternative to travel and relocation when seeking continued education. Further research is needed to determine what the role of distance education programs should be in future beginning farmer programs.

There was strong support for the use of input from farmers when developing programs. This agrees with research indicating that learner participation in developing the curriculum enhances the adoption of ideas and practices presented (King & Rollins, 1999). The Extension professionals also agreed that beginning farmer education should use a variety of instructional methods and emphasize problem-solving situations. As future programs are developed, advisory committees should be utilized to prioritize instructional material and identify a variety of local problems relevant to beginning farmers.

The topics rated highest in importance both currently and in the future were in the business area of farming. This agrees with the response of Iowa beginning farmers (Trede & Whitaker, 1998). Technology and resource conservation were also deemed to be important in the future. Extension and other educators should take steps to ensure that these topics are emphasized in future research and educational programs.

Extension professionals have perceptions related to beginning farmer education that are both similar and different. Extension should continue to encourage communication between county staff and specialists to improve the mutual understanding of issues, challenges, and opportunities and should capitalize on the advantages of diverse perspectives to provide a dynamic education to beginning farmers in the future.

References

King, R. N., & Rollins, T. J. (1999). An evaluation of an agricultural innovation: Justification for participatory assistance. Journal of Extension {on-line}, 37(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999august/index.html

Lasley, P. (1999). Iowa farm and rural life poll. Ames: Iowa State University, Department of Sociology.

Lasley, P. (1996). Iowa farm and rural life poll. Ames: Iowa State University, Department of Sociology.

Miller, L., & Smith, K. (1983). Handling non-response issues. Journal of Extension [On-line], 21(5): 45-50. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1983september/index.html

National Agricultural Statistics Service (2003). Farm computer usage and ownership. National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Available at: http://jan.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/computer/fmpc0703.txt

Trede, L. D., & Whitaker, S. (1998). Beginning farmer education in Iowa: Implications to Extension. Journal of Extension [On-line], 36(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1998october/a3.html

Whitaker, S. B. (1998). Perceptions of Iowa beginning farmers toward beginning farmer education. Unpublished masters thesis. Ames: Iowa State University.