Texas Agricultural Commodity Board Members' Perceptions of the 2002 U.S. Farm Bill

Introduction

The U.S. government's role in farm policy changes every 6 years. During initial debates and policy formation processes, national commodity board members and congressional leaders create farm bill provisions that affect producers nationwide. However, agricultural organization leaders cannot assess accurately if their organization's members have truly contributed to the farm bill process. Researchers (Mark, Daniel, & Parcell, 2002) found producers' and non-producers' needs and perceptions of farm bill provisions useful to policy makers in the development of the 2002 Farm Bill. Yet questions remain about agricultural commodity groups' influence and communication of the farm bill process. What U.S. Farm Bill issues are most important to agricultural commodity group board members? Do state-level commodity group leaders communicate their organizations' farm bill interests to local members in an unbiased manner?

Mark, Daniel, and Parcell (2002) studied Kansas producers and agribusiness professionals' perceptions of the changes in agricultural policy from 1996 to 2000. The results showed producers' and non-producers' perceptions of the 1996 Farm Bill (The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act) were useful to policy makers and agricultural interest groups preparing the 2002 Farm Bill. Mark, Daniel, and Parcell noted that because farm policy is created with consideration given to producers' and agribusiness persons' perceptions, it is important to gather this information. Such information would be used by policymakers in adjusting future farm bills to better fit what producers and agribusiness people need. The authors noted that Extension personnel are often in a good position to help gather this information.

The purpose of the study described here was to assess selected Texas agricultural commodity (grain sorghum, corn, wheat, and cotton) board members' perceptions of the 2002 U.S. Farm Bill. Specific objectives guiding this study were to:

1. Determine the most important producer programs in the 2002 Farm Bill.

2. Describe organizational support of the primary issues in the 2002 Farm Bill.

3. Determine organizational influencers affecting the final outcome of the 2002 Farm Bill.

4. Describe the sources of information for understanding the 2002 Farm Bill.

5. Determine if relationships existed between respondents' perceptions and selected demographic variables.

Methods

A descriptive survey design was used in the study. The target population was all Texas agricultural commodity board members representing the Corn Producers, Cotton Growers, Grain Sorghum, and Wheat Producers Associations. The target population (N = 256) represented the major Texas agricultural commodity groups with a vested interest in the 2002 Farm Bill. The accessible population was considerably less (n = 100), due to commodity boards' privacy concerns over the release of their members' personal information.

A stratified-random sample (n = 80) was used to elicit respondents' participation in the study. Cover letters, questionnaires, and return envelopes were sent to commodity board directors in fall 2002, with instructions to distribute, collect, and return the instruments after their annual winter board meetings. Only one response was collected from the grain sorghum association, thereby eliminating or severely limiting their inclusion in this study. A 63% response rate was attained from corn, cotton, and wheat commodity board members. Despite repeated follow-up procedures to non-respondents, caution is warranted against generalizing the results of this study beyond the accessible population.

A modified version of Sulak's (2000) 1996 Farm Bill Survey was used to collect data. Producer program importance was measured using a rank order list of six major farm bill programs (Table 1). Organizational support of the primary issues was measured using an inventory (opposed, neutral, or support) on nine issues (Table 2). Organizational influencers affecting the final outcome of the 2002 Farm Bill were measured using a Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree...4 = strongly agree). The value of commodity board members' sources of information was measured using a similar Likert-type scale (1 = poor...4 = excellent). Cronbach's alpha coefficient of .63 was reported for the organizational influencers scale, and .76 for the sources of formation value scale.

Content and face validity were established by an expert panel of Texas agricultural commodity board members who did not participate in this study. The instrument was field-tested and the study was approved by the Texas A&M University Institutional Review Board (#2002-548). Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were used to analyze data.

Results

Respondents (N = 50) were male (98%), represented a cotton growers association (66%), and were 46 to 55 years old (46%). They had attended college or completed an undergraduate degree (80%), were raised on a farm or ranch (74%), and currently owned a family-operated farm or ranch (98%).

Respondents were asked to rank order the most important producer programs in the 2002 Farm Bill. Six programs were included from the literature to determine respondents' perceptions of farm bill programs affecting their respective agricultural commodity organizations (Table 1). Respondents ranked farm commodity programs, disaster assistance, and international trade as the most important 2002 Farm Bill programs. Foreign food aid, promotion/check-off, and conservation programs were ranked least important.

Organizational support for nine primary farm bill issues was measured using an inventory (opposed, neutral, or support). Respondents indicated their organization's initial position to each issue before it became a part of the farm bill (Table 2). Selected Texas agricultural commodity board members believed their organizations initially were most supportive of issues concerning target prices, marketing loans, and planting flexibility (88%, all). Least supported (10%), and most opposed (78%), was the issue of payment limitations (Table 2).

Respondents recorded their agreement levels for 12 statements measuring their perceptions of organizational influencers affecting the final outcome of the 2002 Farm Bill (Table 3). Respondents strongly agreed that their respective organizations influenced the final outcome of the 2002 Farm Bill (M = 3.52). They agreed that farm organization coalitions were essential for enacting the 2002 Farm Bill (3.49). They disagreed that their organizations' policy influence had decreased with the current farm bill more than it had compared to previous farm bills (1.84) (Table 3).

The value of commodity board members' sources of information for learning more about the 2002 Farm Bill was measured using a Likert-type scale (1 = poor...4 = excellent). Respondents rated seven sources of information (Table 4). Agricultural commodity board members rated Extension/university (M = 3.13) and Internet (2.83) as "good" information sources. Radio, television, and newspapers (2.17) and congressional reports (2.33) were rated "fair" sources of information (Table 4). No information sources achieved an overall rating of "excellent."

Respondents' perceptions of influencers affecting the final outcome of the 2002 Farm Bill and value of information sources used to learn about the 2002 Farm Bill were summated and correlated with selected demographics (commodity organization type, age, location where raised, and education) to determine if significant relationships existed (Table 5). Davis' (1971) convention was used to describe the magnitude of relationships. Relationships between multichotomous nominal and interval variables were analyzed as Cramer's V correlations (Hinkle, Wiersma, & Jurs, 1994).

A significant, moderate relationship (r = .41) existed between perceived levels of influence affecting the final outcome of the 2002 Farm Bill and cotton board membership (Table 5). Cotton board members perceived their organizations influenced the final outcome of the 2002 Farm Bill more so than did board members from other agricultural commodity organizations. A significant, moderate negative relationship (-.34) existed between perceived levels of the influencers and corn board membership. Corn board members perceived their organization's influence had less effect on the final outcome of the 2002 Farm Bill than did board members from other agricultural commodity organizations.

Conclusions, Recommendations, and Implications

Respondents were male, reared in a rural location, and operated their family-owned farms or ranches. The vast majority had attended college or held an undergraduate degree, which bodes well, when coupled with age and experience, for the leadership being provided to the corn, cotton, and wheat commodity boards. Respondents valued target prices, marketing loans, and planting flexibility issues most in the 2002 Farm Bill. Board members perceived these programs had the most impact on their organizations and probably held the greatest relevance to their livelihoods. These findings mirror an earlier study of national commodity board leaders' perceptions of the 1996 Farm Bill (Sulak, 2000).

The value Texas agricultural commodity board members placed on the Cooperative Extension Service and university as information sources has relevance in all states. Based on the findings, the following action points should be implemented in all Extension and/or university-based agricultural policy Web sites:

• Provide updated agricultural policy materials that are easily found and/or accessed from the site's initial entry page.

• Provide segmented (by commodity group interest) farm bill information to reduce search time and drill-down effects.

• Determine, through Web page hits, what types of agricultural policy materials are being accessed most and least often, by site visitors.

• Conduct research with stakeholder groups to determine agricultural policy information type, format, and delivery method most desirable for learning more about the U.S. Farm Bill in a Web-based environment.

• Conduct research with other groups to determine the information and delivery format (text only; graphics; streaming video; etc.) desired in a Web-based medium.

• Reduce efforts in producing educational resources that are radio-, television-, or newspaper-based.

Additional research will help us understand the relationships between agricultural commodity board members' perceptions of and influences on the final outcome of future farm bills. Increased efforts are needed in gathering, analyzing, and reporting agriculturists' perceptions of national agricultural policies and communication methods needed to reach policy makers and the public.

References

Davis, J. A. (1971). Elementary survey analysis. Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hinkle, D., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. (1994). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Mark, D. R., Daniel, M. S., & Parcell, J. L. (2002). Gauging perceptions of farm programs. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002august/rb2.shtml

Sulak, M. (2000). The impact of the 1996 Farm Bill on members of national commodity organizations as perceived by selected organizational leaders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station.