Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T01:00:48.242Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Farmer support for publicly funded sustainable agriculture research: The case of hoop structures for swine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Julie T. Sharp  and
C. Clare Hinrichs
Julie T. Sharp
Affiliation:
Graduate Associate, Department of Geography, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210;
C. Clare Hinrichs*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011.
*
Corresponding author is C.C. Hinrichs ([email protected]).
Get access

Abstract

Environmental and social concerns about the use of capital-intensive agricultural technologies have fueled questions about the process, impact, and future direction of the system that is largely responsible for developing these technologies; that is, publicly funded agricultural research at U.S. land-grant universities. Although social scientists have analyzed the public agricultural research system and farmers' attitudes towards various capital-intensive agricultural technologies, there has been less research on farmers' attitudes toward publicly funded research that focuses specifically on lowerinput agricultural technologies that contribute to sustainability goals. This research examines farmers' attitudes toward publicly funded research on one such low-input technology, deep-bedded hoop structures for swine production. With lower capital costs and purported environmental and management advantages, hoop structures have been promoted to and adopted by growing numbers of Midwest swine producers. The study hypotheses draw on published theories of the treadmill of technology, and of innovation adoption and diffusion. Using a 1997 mail survey of Iowa swine producers (n = 298), we examined factors associated with producers' attitudes toward publicly funded research on hoop structures and found that 40% were supportive of the research, 40% were opposed, and 20% were undecided. Of the variables examined, the producer's assessment of hoop structures' contribution to sustainability, number of external knowledge sources about hoop structures, and formal education were each significantly related to support for publicly funded hoop-structure research. Two farm structure variables, marketings and percentage of income from farming, were not significantly related in this study. Future research on farmers' attitudes toward public sector agricultural research should take account of farmers' views of potential impacts of the specific technologies being researched and developed, and the nature of farmers' ties to the land-grant university system. This study clarifies the importance of farmers' perceptions and concerns about specific agricultural technologies in directing public agricultural research planning and policy toward broader sustainability goals.

Keywords

fanners' attitudeshogsland-grant universitieslow-input agriculturelowinput technologypigsresearch supportswine housing
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , June 2001 , pp. 81 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Allen, P. (ed.). 1993. Food for the Future: Conditions and Contradictions of Sustainability. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
2.Berardi, G.M., and Geisler, C.C. (eds.). 1984. The Social Consequences and Challenges of New Agricultural Technologies. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
3.Bird, E.A.R., Bultena, G.L., and Gardner, J.C. (eds.). 1995. Planting the Future: Developing an Agriculture That Sustains Land and Community. Iowa State University Press, Ames.Google Scholar
4.Brumm, M.C., Harmon, J.D., Honeyman, M.S., and Kliebenstein, J.T.. 1997. Hoop structures for grow-finish swine. Agric. Engrs. Digest AED 41. MidWest Plan Service, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
5.Busch, L. (ed.). 1981. Science and Agricultural Development. Allanheld, Osmun, and Co. Publishers, Totowa, NJ.Google Scholar
6.Busch, L., and Lacy, W.B.. 1981. Sources of influence on problem choice in the agricultural sciences: The new Atlantis revisited. In Busch, L. (ed.). Science and Agricultural Development. Allanheld, Osmun, and Co. Publishers, Totowa, NJ. p. 113–130.Google Scholar
7.Busch, L., and Lacy, W.B.. 1983. Science, Agriculture, and the Politics of Research. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
8.Busch, L., and Lacy, W.B. (eds.). 1986. The Agricultural Scientific Enterprise: A System in Transition. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
9.Buttel, F.H., and Busch, L.. 1988. The public agricultural research system at the crossroads. Agric. History 62:303–324.Google Scholar
10.Buttel, F.H., Larson, O.F., and Gillespie, G.W. Jr., 1990. The Sociology of Agriculture. Greenwood Press, New York.Google Scholar
11.Cochrane, W. 1958. Farm Prices. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
12.Connor, M.L. 1993. Evaluation of biotech housing for feeder pigs. Manitoba Swine Update 5(3):1–2.Google Scholar
13.Coughenour, C.M., and Christenson, J.A.. 1983. Farm structure, social class, and farmers' policy perspectives. In Brewster, D.E., Rasmussen, W.D., and Youngberg, G. (eds.). Farms in Transition: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Farm Structure. Iowa State University Press, Ames. p. 67–86.Google Scholar
14.Dillman, D.A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
15.Freudenburg, W.R. 1983. The promise and peril of public participation in social impact assessment. In Daneke, G.A., Garcia, M.W., and Priscoli, J.D. (eds.). Public Involvement and Social Impact Assessment. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. p. 227–234.Google Scholar
16.Friedland, W.H., and Barton, A.. 1975. Destalking the wily tomato: A case study in social consequences in California agricultural research. Res. Monogr. No. 15. University of California, Dept. of Applied Behavioral Sciences, Davis.Google Scholar
17.Gillespie, G.W. Jr., and Buttel, F.H.. 1989. Farmer ambivalence toward agricultural research: An empirical assessment. Rural Sociol. 54:382–408.Google Scholar
18.Hadwiger, D.F. 1982. The Politics of Agricultural Research. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.Google Scholar
19.Hightower, J. 1973. Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times. Schenkman, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
20.Hinrichs, C.C., and Richard, T.L.. 2000. Socio-technical and Environmental Dimensions of Swine Manure Management Decisions. Final Research Project Report. Iowa State University, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Ames.Google Scholar
21.Honeyman, M.S. 1996. Hooped structures with deep bedding for grow-finish pigs. ASL-R1392. ISU Swine Research Report. Iowa State University Extension, Ames, p. 107–109. Web site http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Pages/ansci/swinereports/asl-1392.pdf (verified 17 January 2001).Google Scholar
22.Honeyman, M.S. 1999. Overview of swine system options. Swine System Options for Iowa: Proceedings of Conference held February 17,1999, at Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Ames. p. 13–20.Google Scholar
23.Honeyman, M.S., Brewer, C.L., Kliebenstein, J.B., Miller, D.J., Penner, A.D., Larson, M.E., and Jorgensen, C.S.. 1998. Performance and budget analysis of finishing pigs in hoop structures and confinement during the winter: First group results. ASL-R1591. ISU Swine Research Report AS-640. Iowa State University Extension, Ames. Web site http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Pages/ansci/swinereports/asl-1591.pdf (verified 17 January 2001).Google Scholar
24.Honeyman, M.S., and Kent, D.. 2001. Performance of a Swedish deep-bedded feeder pig production system in Iowa. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 16:50–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Kloppenburg, J.R. Jr., and Buttel, F.H.. 1987. Two blades of grass: The contradictions of agricultural research as state intervention. Res. Polit. Sociol. 3:111–135.Google Scholar
26.Lasley, P. 1984. The Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll, Spring 1984 Summary. PM-1178. Iowa State University Cooperative Extension Service, Ames.Google Scholar
27.Lasley, P., and Bultena, G.. 1986. Farmers' opinions about third-wave technologies. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 1:122–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Lay, D.C. Jr., Haussmann, M.F., and Daniels, M.J.. 2000. Hoop housing for feeder pigs offers a welfare-friendly environment compared to a nonbedded confinement system. J. Appl. Animal Welfare Sci. 3:33–48.Google Scholar
29.Liebhardt, W.C. (ed.). 1993. The Dairy Debate: Consequences of Bovine Growth Hormone and Rotational Grazing Technologies. University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, Davis.Google Scholar
30.Lockeretz, W., and Anderson, M.D.. 1993. Agricultural Research Alternatives. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.Google Scholar
31.Middendorf, G., and Busch, L.. 1997. Inquiry for the public good: Democratic participation in agricultural research. Agric. Human Values 14:45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32.Pampel, F. Jr., and van Es., J.C. 1977. Environmental quality and issues of adoption research. Rural Sociol. 42:57–71.Google Scholar
33.Richard, T.L., and Choi, H.L.. 1999. Eliminating waste: Strategies for sustainable manure management—Review. Asian-Aust. J. Animal Sci. 12:1162–1169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34.Richard, T.L., and Hinrichs, C.C.. 1998. Normal accidents: Risk management in manure handling systems. Paper no. MC98-103 presented at Mid-Central Conference of the American Society for Agricultural Engineering, 04 24–25, St. Joseph, Missouri.Google Scholar
35.Rogers, E.M. 1962. Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press of Glencoe, New York.Google Scholar
36.Sommer, J.E., Hoppe, R.A., Greene, R.C., and Korb, P.J.. 1998. Structural and financial characteristics of U.S. farms, 1995: 20th annual family farm report to Congress. Agric. Info. Bull. No. 746. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC. Web site http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib746/aib746.pdf (verified 17 January 2001).Google Scholar
37.USDA. 1981. A Time to Choose: Summary Report on the Structure of Agriculture. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
38.USDA. 1999. 1997 Census of Agriculture: Iowa State and County Data, Vol. 1, Geographic Area Series, Part 15. Natl. Agric. Stat. Serv. No. AC97-A-15. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Google Scholar