Student unrest and the dissatisfaction of activists with the performance of “the establishment” shook our society to its roots in the late 1960s and early 1970s, as underlying values and accepted concepts of right and wrong were criticized. Agriculture did not escape and is still widely criticized. Agro-ethics was born. Phrases sufficient to indicate the extent of the current concern about agro-ethics include: animal rights, environmental ethics, recombinant DNA, hard tomatoes/hard times, the export of our soil, energy ethics, Nestle and the multi-nationals, feeding the world's hungry, the plight of the small farm, helping the poorest of the poor, farmer-adapted technology, small is beautiful, and who controls U.S. agriculture.

It is an understatement to say that the Statistical Reporting Service is not the farmers' and ranchers' most popular USDA agency. Many agricultural producers are quick to express their concerns that SRS production reports have a negative impact on farm prices and farm incomes. There appears to be a widespread feeling among producers that release of information about their current and planned production levels results in a transfer of wealth from producers to other groups.

The focus of the typical Ph.D. program in agricultural economics is on research. Little emphasis is placed on teaching, and, in most cases, there is no emphasis on extension, thus placing the new extension specialist in a difficult starting position. Even so, the current order or priorities may be appropriate, because an extension specialist must first understand economic theory and then be a capable researcher and teacher to work effectively in an extension program (Hildreth and Armbruster, p. 857).

Exports have played an important role in the history of southern agriculture. C. E. Bishop noted more than two decades ago that “southern agriculture has a high stake in international trade.” In recent years, the effects of exports on the southern region have become even more pervasive. Rudd was recently led to observe that “the shift to a substantially greater involvement and interdependency of agriculture in international trade during the 1970s is perhaps the most far-reaching event of [that] decade.”

The dramatic surge of economic activity in the South is a relatively recent development. During the first half of the postwar period, the South, along with the Northeast and North Central region, lagged well behind the nation in population and employment growth (Table 1). It was only in the 1960s that rates of growth in the South began to exceed the national averages, and it was only in the 1970s that the South began to mount a serious challenge to the West for first place in regional growth. It also should be noted that the surge in southern growth was not uniformly distributed; most of it occurred in the region's two western subregions, the East South Central division and the energy-rich West South Central division.

It is clear, even to the most casual observer, that the era of intensive spending for rural development ended with the 1970s. The combined effects of inflation and recession, and the efforts of the Reagan administration to reduce government spending to combat these problems, signal the beginning of a new era in rural development. While there has been considerable disenchantment with the morass of unrelated federal agencies and spending programs that have constituted the actors and means in the process of rural development policy, the current milieu seems to have created considerable pessimism concerning the future of rural areas. The degree to which such a pessimistic outlook is justified is debatable, although there is certainly some reason for concern for the short-term human suffering that is already evident as programs are cut and services are reduced.

The role of the economist in agriculture has increased in significance in the 1970s and 80s. A review of the recent history of agriculture begins with the period of stability and relative certainty of agricultural input and product prices in the 1950s. But by the 1970s, the economic impacts of the oil crisis, inflation, and orientation to free market prices of agricultural products necessitated a transition in the role and importance of the agricultural economist. Economists became vital to farmers who had to make economic decisions on appropriate cropping patterns, when and how to market products, and how to invest wisely.

The agenda for marketing research in the 1980s, to a great extent, has already been set by the events of the 1970s. Agriculture is in a period of transition in which commodity surpluses are expected to be less of a problem area. International markets are expanding, and the delivery systems have become complex in both structure and in the functions performed. The dynamics of the marketplace obviously influence the research agenda.

Before looking at the changing research needs for agricultural marketing, a definition of the concept is needed. For the context of this paper, marketing research is defined to be the process of assimilation and creation of information on the economic performance of potential and existing arrangements that facilitate the assembling, distribution, and consumption of foods, fibers, and ornamentals.

Natural resource economics has long been identified as a policy science. Its chief concerns—problems attributable to “market failures” of various kinds (e.g., Castle 1965) and the special difficulties that arise in intertemporal and intergenerational resource allocation (e.g., Solow)—inherently require some kind of public solution, whether it be by reaffirmation or redefinition of property rights, regulation, taxation policy, or public enterprise.

In a time of some general disenchantment with government and selective retrenchment of public sector activity, resource economists (and many other social and economic scientists) are receiving mixed signals. Mostly we tend to work in or for the public sector, the political stock of which is not exactly booming.

During the last two decades, the feeder pig industry in Virginia has undergone significant growth in the number of pigs sold and in the value of total sales, along with improvement in marketing procedures. From 1959 to 1978, the number of feeder pigs sold in state-sponsored auctions increased from 2,195 to more than 150,000 per year (Virginia Department of Agriculture). Tele-Auction sales, conducted by the Virginia Feeder Kg Association, use a conference telephone system that allows distant buyers to bid for pigs described by lot size, grade, weight, and tail docking. Pigs from various producers are co-mingled into lots that are homogeneous with respect to these characteristics. The Tele-Auction system permits out-of-state buyers to participate easily in sales, thus increasing the demand for Virginia's feeder pigs. In 1979, the Association sponsored 128 sales at 8 locations.

In 1979, the USDA implemented a new feeder cattle grading system that is distinctly different from the old, both in concept and terminology. Under the old grading system, the traditional grade categories of Prime, Choice, Good, and so on were used. Animals were graded according to their ability to satisfy a number of qualitative characteristics. The new system is based upon a dual criterion of framesize and muscling. Cattle are graded as either having large, medium, or small framesizes and No. 1, No. 2, or No. 3 muscling (thickness).

Casual observation of the two grading systems indicates that cattle graded as Choice under the old system will in most cases be classified as Medium Frame, No. 1 Muscled cattle under the new system. Likewise, cattle previously graded as Good will in most cases likely be graded as Medium Frame, No. 2 Muscled animals.