 

a .
u. Mac»
”:1. V

o
«-
p; -.

 

Q0 )7

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

A CASE STUDY OF HISPANIC FARMERS IN FOUR
SOUTHWESTERN MICHIGAN COUNTIES

 

 

 

{13-2 presented by
>- 4‘ 2‘
< c {-13
g 83.9 BERNARDO LOPEZ ARIZA
._ """- C
.__, ED ‘3

E

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment

of the requirements for the

Ph.D. degree in AGRICULTURAL AND
EXTENSION EDUCATION

 

 

ML ego“; (gr/meccx

Major Professor’s Signature

Jaw/LL ‘/ 2""7
/

Date

MSU is an afﬁnnative-action, equal-opportunity employer

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

050272009
‘J 03 11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/07 p:/CIRC/DateDue.indd-p.1

 

A CASE STUDY OF HISPANIC FARMERS 1N FOUR
SOUTHWESTERN MICHIGAN COUNTIES
By

Bernardo Lopez Ariza

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies

2007

ABSTRACT

A CASE STUDY OF HISPANIC FARMERS IN FOUR
SOUTHWESTERN MICHIGAN COUNTIES

By

Bemardo Lopez Ariza

The purpose of this study was to create a proﬁle of Hispanic farmers in
southwestern Michigan to serve as baseline information when assisting small, minority
and disadvantaged farmers. This study used a mixed methods sequential explanatory
design consisting of two distinct phases: quantitative and qualitative. The quantitative
phase included personal interviews of 82 farmers. The qualitative phase included in-depth
interviews with 12 farmers.

Two groups of Hispanic farmers were identiﬁed in the area of study: 60
Mexican-bom and 22 U.S.-bom. The educational level of the U.S.-born Hispanic farmers
was higher in comparison to the Mexican-born farmers. Mexican-born farmers prefer to
speak Spanish, whereas U.S.-bom farmers are comfortable in both English and Spanish.
For Hispanics farmers, agricultural production provides a means to start one’s own
business, and transition ﬁ'om farm worker to farm owner. Farm ownership also provides a
means for these Hispanics to return to their rural, agricultural roots. These farms
consolidate values these people hold dear, including family identity and unity, personal
ownership, team work and responsibility. For these families, agriculture is considered the
preferred life style when raising and supporting a family.

There are ﬁve aspects of farm management that agricultural agencies and NGOS

should consider when dealing with Hispanic farmers: (1) they rely on past experience to

operate their farms, (2) these are family farms, so family members provide all the labor,
(3) most of the Hispanic farmers have 10 or fewer acres and less than 10 years’ operating
experience in their own farms, (4) one-third of the farmers consider themselves full-time
farmers, and (5) the resource most frequently used by Hispanic farmers to start and
operate their farm is their social capital.

There are two groups of challenges or barriers facing Hispanic farmers when
starting or operating their farm. The ﬁrst group consists of the Hispanic farmers’
characteristics (language, literacy, culture, and lack of familiarity with some Michigan
crops). The second group integrates the environmental barriers resulting from human or
institutional actions, including discrimination, lack of information about agricultural
agencies and the assistance they can provide, as well as the lack of economic support and
Hispanic farmer-based organizations.

Findings show that the level of interaction between Hispanic farmers and
agricultural agencies in Michigan is limited.

Because Hispanic farmers are not a homogeneous group, one extension and
education model may not be useful for all the Hispanic farmers. The education level,
primary language spoken and social network of the farmers are three variables that
agricultural agencies and non-proﬁt organizations should consider when implementing
extension programs. Educational programs focusing on farm management, state and
federal regulations, and methods to access help ﬁom farm services agencies during the
ﬁrst years of farm ownership are needed. The methods used to disseminate agricultural
information and education must be sensitive to Hispanic farmers’ characteristics, and

could include multimedia such as DVDS, CDs, or MP3 audio.

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated with love to my wife, Norma Leticia, for her
unconditional support and patience, and our three children, Luis Bernardo, Elena
Alejandra and Ana Paula, for providing me with constant inspiration, and for their many

sacriﬁces that made completion of this study possible.

This dissertation is also dedicated to my parents Jesus Lopez Trujillo and

Alejandra Ariza Medina my sister Alejandra, my brothers Oscar, Jesus, and Guillermo

who have always believed in me.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Sincere appreciation is given to Dr. Murari Suvedi, my academic advisor, who
has been my mentor and role model during my years at Michigan State University.

The members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Luke E. Reese, Dr. Eddie A.
Moore and Dr. Patrick Dickson, have generously given their time and expertise to better
my work. I thank them for their contribution and their good-natured support.

Generous ﬁnancial support made my doctoral studies possible. I would like to
thank the following Mexican institutions:

0 Universidad Autonoma Chapingo (U ACH)
0 Unidad Regional Universitaria de Zonas Aridas (URUZA)
0 Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (CONACyT)

I must thank Michigan State University Extension, especially Juan Marinez, as
well as Project GREEEN (Generating Research and Extension to meet Environmental
and Economic Needs), for providing the funding for this study.

I would also like to thank the Michigan State University High School Equivalency
Program (MSU HEP), especially Luis Garcia, for the privilege of serving as a teaching
assistant during my graduate studies at MSU.

I need to express my gratitude and deep appreciation to Dr. S. Joseph Levine and
Dr. Donald R. Isleib for their ﬁiendship and knowledge.

Finally, I thank all farmers who participated in this study and for sharing openly
and honestly their experiences with me. I have the greatest admiration and respect for

each one of them.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................. 2
The Study ..................................................................................................................... 4
Importance of the Study ............................................................................................... 6
Deﬁnition of Terms ..................................................................................................... 6
Delimitations ................................................................................................................ 8
CHAPTER H
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ........................................................................ 10
Hispanics in Agriculture ............................................................................................ 10
Hispanic Farmers ....................................................................................................... 13
Studies on Hispanic Farmers ..................................................................................... 14
CHAPTER HI
METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 22
The Design ................................................................................................................. 23
Mixed Methods Approach ......................................................................................... 26
Deﬁnition of Mixed Methods Research ............................................................. 27
Mixed Methods Designs ..................................................................................... 27
Visual Model of Mixed Methods Research ........................................................ 30
Background of Researcher ......................................................................................... 31
Study Population ........................................................................................................ 34
Research Area ............................................................................................................ 34
Quantitative Phase ..................................................................................................... 38
List Building of Hispanic Farmers ..................................................................... 40
Sample ................................................................................................................ 41
Survey Instrumentation ...................................................................................... 42
Quantitative Data Collection .............................................................................. 45
Data Analysis ...................................................................................................... 46
Qualitative Phase ....................................................................................................... 47
Sampling for Case Studies .................................................................................. 48
Selection of Case Study Participants .................................................................. 48
Qualitative Data Collection ................................................................................ 50
Data Analysrs ............... 52
Validity and Reliability of the Study ......................................................................... 55
Limitations of the Study ............................................................................................ 57

vi

CHAPTER IV

QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS ......................................................................................... 58
Research Question 1 ........................................................................................... 59
Research Question 2 ........................................................................................... 68
Research Question 3 ........................................................................................... 69
Research Question 4 ........................................................................................... 77
Research Question 5 ........................................................................................... 78

CHAPTER V

QUALITATIVE FINDINGS ............................................................................................ 82

Overview of Interviewed Participants ....................................................................... 82
Farmer’s Pseudonym - Angel ............................................................................. 83
Farmer’s Pseudonym - Blas ................................................................................ 85
Farmer’s Pseudonym - Cesar .............................................................................. 89
Farmer’s Pseudonym - Dario .............................................................................. 91
Farmer’s Pseudonym - Efren .............................................................................. 93
Farmer’s Pseudonym - Fidel .............................................................................. 95
Farmer’s Pseudonym - Hugo .............................................................................. 96
Farmer’s Pseudonym - Julio ............................................................................... 97
Farmer’s Pseudonym - Ana ................................................................................ 99
Farmer’s Pseudonym - Rosa ............................................................................. 100
Farmer’s Pseudonym - Raul ............................................................................. 101
Farmer’s Pseudonym - Max ............................................................................. 103

Analysis of Hispanic Farmers Interviews ................................................................ 103
Research Question 2 ......................................................................................... 104
Research Question 3 ......................................................................................... 110
Research Question 4 ......................................................................................... 114
Research Question 5 ......................................................................................... 119

Summary of Qualitative Findings ............................................................................ 120

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................... 122

Summary .................................................................................................................. 122

Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 135

Implications ........................................................................... 138

Recommendations for Future Research ................................................................... 142

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Human Research Protection Programs .............................................. 145

Appendix B. Consent Forms — English and Spanish ............................................... 147

Appendix C. Survey Instruments — English and Spanish ........................................ 154

Appendix D. Interview Guideline ............................................................................ 165

Appendix E. Farmer’s Interview Transcribed Notes ............................................... 168

Appendix F. Checklist Matrix Display .................................................................... 176

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 178

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Major Mixed Methods Design Types ................................................................. 29
Table 2. Description of Hispanic Farmer Participants in Case Study ............................... 49
Table 3. Hispanic Farmers by County .............................................................................. 59
Table 4. Age of Respondents ............................................................................................ 60
Table 5. Marital Status of Respondents ............................................................................ 61
Table 6. Mexican States of Origin .................................................................................... 62
Table 7. Place of Birth of Respondents Born in the US. ................................................. 63
Table 8. Level of Education and Country of Origin of Respondents ............................... 64
Table 9. Language Preference and Country of Origin of Respondents ............................ 65
Table 10. Ethnic Self-identiﬁcation................................................... ............................... 66
Table 11. Principal Income Activity and Country of Origin ............................................ 67
Table 12. Other Economic Activities and Country of Origin ........................................... 67
Table 13. Number of Acres ............................................................................................... 70
Table 14. Type of Farm .................................................................................................... 71
Table 15. Working Status and Country of Origin of Respondents ................................... 73
Table 16. Years Operating Their Own Farm and Country of Origin ................................ 74
Table 17. Farm Work in México ....................................................................................... 76
Table 18. Farm Worker Employment and Country of Origin .......................................... 77
Table 19. Farmer’s Barrier in the Farm Operation ........................................................... 78
Table 20. Knowledge of Agricultural and Natural Resources Programs .......................... 79
Table 21. Sources of Advice for Farm Management Decisions ....................................... 80
Table 22. Checklist Matrix of Hispanic Farmers’ Challenges ........................................ 177

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The Mixed Methods Sequential Explanatory Design ........................................ 25
Figure 2. Research Area .................................................................................................... 38
Figure 3. Gender of Respondents ...................................................................................... 60
Figure 4. Country of Origin .............................................................................................. 61
Figure 5. Principal Crop .................................................................................................... 71
Figure 6. Destination of the Production ............................................................................ 72
Figure 7. Ownership .......................................................................................................... 73
Figure 8. Farm Work in USA ........................................................................................... 75

ix

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The Hispanic population is the fastest growing and largest minority group in the
United States. This social phenomenon is also present in the rural communities and
farming and food systems. The US. census data show that the number of Hispanics in
non-metropolitan counties grew 70.4 percent between 1990 and 2000, whereas the
number of Whites (non-Hispanic) grew 8.6 percent (Newman, 2003).

According to the USDA’s Economic Research Service (2005), the Hispanic
population in rural and small-town America nearly doubled from 1.4 to 2.7 million
between 1980 and 2000, and is now the most rapidly growing segment of the population
in non-metropolitan counties. In 1980, Hispanics constituted just over three percent of the
non-metropolitan population, a ﬁgure that rose to 5.5 percent in 2000. Since 1980,
growth in the Hispanic population has contributed over 25 percent of the total non-
metropolitan population increase and over 50 percent of the non-metropolitan minority
population increase.

Hispanic population growth has helped to stem decades of smalltown population
decline in some states, demographically and economically revitalizing many rural
communities. In the Midwestern and Great Plains States, natural decrease and
outrnigration by young native-born adults has been reducing populations in some areas
since the 19508 or earlier (Kandel and Cromartie, 2004).

Buland and Hunt (2000) say that Hispanic farms were concentrated in a few
states. Throughout the 1980s, 80 percent of Hispanics were concentrated in the

border/coastal states from Texas to Washington, plus Colorado and Florida. However in

1

the 1990s the number of Hispanic farms outside this border region increased and the
geographic distribution of Hispanic farms transformed from a regional to a national
phenomenon.

In Michigan, the US. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported that there are
more than 1,100 farm operators of Hispanic background (U SDA-NASS, 2004). There has
been a 163 percent increase in Hispanic farm operators ﬁom 1997 to 2002. In fact,
Michigan is ranked sixth in the increase of the number of Hispanic farm operators in this
period and is 10th in the number of Hispanic farm operators (2002) in the US. (U SDA-
NASS, 2004).

The growth of the Hispanic population in farming and food systems presents new
opportunities as well as challenges for agriculture service/development agencies and rural
communities. However, a limited amount of research has attempted to explore how this
new social phenomenon is developing in the US. and, especially, in Michigan.

This study analyzed the current situation of Hispanic farm owners in southwestern
Michigan in order to understand the background of the Hispanic farmers, how they
become farmers, how they are organizing their farm operations, what barriers they face in

farming, and how Hispanic farmers are served by agricultural agencies in Michigan.
Statement of the Problem

Hispanics are the fastest growing minority group in the United States and face
unique problems concerning social, cultural, customs and/or language barriers. In spite of
their growing number, many Hispanic farmers are being bypassed by the institutions that
exist to serve farmers. Research in Michigan by Garcia and Marinez (2004) stated that

Latino immigrants and ex-migrant farrnworkers are increasingly becoming crop

2

producers in the United States. They are entering farming at a time when land
concentration is on the rise and the family farm of old is under the imminent threat of
vanishing. More than individual initiative and hard work, farm ownership among the
Latinos is made possible through social capital available in social networks. In their
article, “Exploring agricultural census undercounts among immigrant Hispanic/Latino
farmers with an alternative enumeration project,” Garcia and Marinez (2005) suspected
that Hispanic farmers do not participate in agricultural census, based on their ﬁndings.
They described some of the barriers Hispanic farmers face: missing from the USDA
mailing lists, limited or no knowledge of Agricultural Census, language and illiteracy
problems, apprehension about the USDA, immigration status, and informal farming
arrangements.

Research in California by Wells (1996) found that Mexican farmers are not only
the most physically isolated on their small farms in remote hollows of the North
Monterey Hills, they are also the most socially isolated and receive the least input into
their farming decisions. These individuals usually lack experience, ﬁnancial resources,
and integration into the farming communities.

Christensen (1997) mentions in the report “Working with Asian and Hispanic
Limited Resources Farmers and Ranchers” that Hispanics have some special
characteristics such as social, cultural, customs or language barriers, minimal awareness
of the USDA programs, and limited management skills. Their level of formal education is
low or they may be undereducated, and they are less likely to take business risks and
adopt new technology. Most Hispanic farmers have been involved in farming most of

their lives, but they may have been farm workers, or, if immigrants, they may have

experienced a completely different type of agricultural production. Helping Hispanic

farmers adopt new practices is a complex and difﬁcult process. This is due partly to their

own cultural patterns of seeking advice mainly through family channels. In addition,

Hispanics tend to express a deep mistrust of anyone ﬁ'om the govemment (Christensen,

1997)

Research-based information is lacking to answer questions such as why do

Hispanics become farm owners? What problems do they face in this process? How are

they being served now? Where do they go for help? Answers to these questions offer

valuable information for program development to help small, minority and disadvantaged

farmers. This study is, therefore, an attempt to answer the following research questions:

1.

What are the demographics and socioeconomic characteristics of Hispanic
farmers in southwestern Michigan?

How do people of Hispanic background become owner-operators of farms?
How have Hispanic farmers organized the operation of their farms?

What are the challenges that Hispanic farmers face in the operation of their
farms?

What is the level of interaction between Hispanic farmers and agricultural

agencies in Michigan?

The Study

The main purpose of this study was to create a proﬁle of Hispanic farmers to

serve as baseline information in assisting small, minority and disadvantaged farmers.

This study aimed at providing data and drawing conclusions that could contribute toward

the development of these farmers and allow a better interaction between Hispanic farmers
and the agricultural agencies serving them.

This study used a mixed methods sequential explanatory design consisting of two
distinct phases: quantitative followed by qualitative (Creswell and Plano 2007;
Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998). The rationale for mixing both kinds of data within one
study is grounded in the fact that neither quantitative nor qualitative methods are
sufﬁcient, by themselves, to understand holistically the social phenomenon of the
increase in the number of Hispanic farmers and their characteristics in southwestern
Michigan.

The quantitative phase used a survey in the form of a face-to-face interview. This
phase had two goals: (1) create a demographic and socioeconomic proﬁle of the Hispanic
farmers in southwestern Michigan, and (2) help to identify the participants for the
qualitative phase. ‘

The qualitative phase of this study included a case study approach using in-depth
interviews with select participants. The case studies were designed in a way that
incorporated the views of the Hispanic farmers on the phenomenon under study. The unit
of analysis was 12 Michigan farmers of Hispanic descent in the research area. The
context for the case study, however, included other persons and sources of information
outside of the case study. The main goal of conducting in-depth interviews in this
research was to enable the researcher to get close to the Hispanic farmers in their settings

through ﬁrsthand experience.

Importance of the Study

To design appropriate or relevant ways of helping Hispanic farmers, it is essential
to understand the conditions under which farmers are operating. Few researches have
attempted to explore how Hispanic farmers organize the operation of their farms, what
barriers they face, and what their needs are. This research was designed to create a proﬁle
of Hispanic farmers so it could serve as needs assessments for program development and
baseline information for impact assessment. It will also help to strengthen efforts of
various agencies aimed at serving small, minority and disadvantaged farmers. It is hoped
that the results of this research will further interaction between these farmers and the
agricultural agencies such as US. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Michigan

State University Extension (MSU Extension).

Deﬁnition of Terms

The researcher, for the purpose of this study, deﬁnes the following terms within
the context of the research:

Barrier: Anything that prevents a person ﬁ'om fully participating because of his or

her situation, including an informational or communications barrier (language), an

attitudinal barrier, a technological barrier, a policy or practice.

Chicano: A North American person of Mexican descent.

Culture: A way of life of a given society, passed down from one generation to the

next through learning and experience. The customary beliefs, social norms, and

material traits of a racial, religious, or social group.

Ethnicity: The Census Bureau deﬁnes ethnicity or origin as the heritage,
nationality group, lineage, or country of birth of the person or the person’s parents
or ancestors before their arrival in the United States.

Farmer or Farm Operator: The person who runs the farm, making the day-to-day
decisions.

Farm: Any place from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products (crops and
livestock) were sold or normally would have been sold during the year under
consideration.

Hispanic: A label used to group individuals living in the US. who trace their
backgrounds to Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America. They include both
the US. and foreign-born residents. “Hispanic” is used mainly by the government
and the media, not by the individuals themselves. “Hispanic” denotes an ethnic
group, not a race, since Hispanics belong to many races.

Immigrant: A foreign-born individual who has been admitted to reside
permanently in the US. as a lawful permanent resident.

Latino: A synonym of Hispanic. Both terms refers to the same group of people.
Michigan State University Extension: It is the non-formal educational program of
MSU that helps people improve their lives through an educational process that
applies knowledge to critical issues, needs and opportunities. MSU Extension
ofﬁces and staff are in all 83 counties. Extension faculty on the Michigan State
University campus conduct research and translate research results into educational

programs. They act as resource people for Extension staff members in the

counties. More than 29 academic departments and eight colleges work directly
with Extension.

Migrant: Somebody who moves from one region or country to another, often in
search of work or other economic opportunities.

Migrant farm worker: A seasonal farm worker who had to travel to do the farm
work and was unable to return to his/her permanent residence within the same
day. Someone who works primarily in agriculture or in an agriculture-related
industry, like food processing. Migrant farm workers move from “home base”
communities in patterns known as “migrant streams”.

Race: The concept of race as used by the Census Bureau reﬂects self-
identiﬁcation by people according to the race or races with which they most
closely identify. These categories are sociopolitical constructs and should not be
interpreted as being scientiﬁc or anthropological in nature. Furthermore, the race
categories include both racial and national-origin groups.

USDA: Acronym for the United States Department of Agriculture. USDA is the
federal agency responsible for food and agriculture including farm and foreign
agricultural services, food nutrition and consumer service, food safety, marketing
and regulatory programs, natural resources and environment and rural

development.

Delimitations

For the purpose of this research, Hispanic farmers were limited to those who have
their own farms in southwestern Michigan, in four adjacent counties (Allegan, Berrien,

Cass, and Van Buren).

Hispanic identiﬁcation is an ethnicity, which is independent of race. The concept
of race is separate from the concept of Hispanic origin. Percentages for the various race
categories add to 100 percent and should not be combined with the percent Hispanic.
Hispanic is a label used to group individuals living in the US. who trace their
backgrounds to Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America. They include both the US.
and foreign-born residents.

A farm is the basic unit in agriculture. It is a section of land devoted to the
production and management of food, either produce or livestock. It may be an enterprise
owned and operated by a single individual, family, or community, or it may be owned by
a corporation or company. A farm can be a holding of any size from a fraction of a
hectare to several thousand hectares. For the purpose of this research, the deﬁnition of
farm used by the USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service was selected: “Farm is
any place from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products (crops and livestock) were

sold or normally would have been sold during a year.”

CHAPTER 11

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The literature review is presented in three sections. The ﬁrst section brieﬂy
describes the history of Hispanics involved in the US. and Michigan farming. The
second section presents data from the Census of Agriculture on Hispanic farmers. The
ﬁnal section presents an overview of existing research directly addressing Hispanic or
Latino farmers in the US. Each of the three sections is discussed under a separate
heading in this chapter. The information follows a progression from historical
information to more speciﬁc details on Hispanic framers’ characteristics is to help the

reader better understand the existing information.

Hispanics in Agriculture

The primary main group of Hispanics integrated into US farming as migrant farm
workers. Samora and Vandel (1993) describe some characteristics of migrant farm

workers:

“Many of the Mexicans who enter the United States ﬁnd jobs in
seasonal agricultural work. They join an existing farm labor force
which is largely Mexican American. The largest number of migrant
Mexican Americans use the lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas as
their home base. Others, but not as many, come from California,
New Mexico, Colorado, or Arizona. These Texas rrrigrants are
people who have worked in the agricultural ﬁelds for very low
wages, who are probably the poorest of the poor, the least educated,
the least skilled for other types of jobs, and the ones who earn the
least money.

The migrants move up from the South or the Southwest early in
April to make their rounds in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, or northern
California, Washington, Oregon, and various other places. They
work through the summer planting, hoeing, thinning, and harvesting

10

crops and toward fall return home to harvest there in late season.
They come as families or as crews in a truck. They may make a
large amount of money on the particular day that they work,
especially if the whole family is working, but they work
comparatively few days of the year. The housing they are given is
generally deplorable, the health and the sanitary conditions under
which they live and travel are bad, and they seem to be caught in a
never-ending cycle of poverty.

In increasing numbers these seasonal farm workers are "dropping
off“ the migrant stream and beginning to settle down in several areas
in the Midwest and the Great Lakes states. As soon as they are able
to ﬁnd work-whether as a dishwasher, a waitress, a janitor, or
whatever-they tend to stop the migrant work in favor of the steady
job. The steady job means a number of things to them, even if it
does not pay high wages. It means that they can settle down and live
in one place the year around. It means that the children can go to
school for a full year, not just from November to April. Above all, it
means that they can stabilize their lives and have access to more
opportunities” (p. 149).

The secondary group is composed of Hispanic farmers. The USDA Farm Service

Agency (n.d.) described some of the history of Hispanic farmers and ranchers in US.

farming:

“Hispanics in American agriculture dated back to Spanish
exploration and settlement of northwestern México, now the
American Southwest. Explorers and settlers introduced horses,
cattle, and other Spanish agricultural traditions to the region, altering
indigenous farming practices. On their large land grants, Spanish
rancheros established many of the open-range western cattle
ranching practices that survived into the 19th century.

In the 20th century, Hispanics have been most visible in agriculture
as farm workers. As braceros, Mexican guest workers hired by US.
growers, or as Mexican-American migrant workers and day laborers
who follow the seasonal crop patterns on their own, Hispanic
workers have brought experienced, skilled labor to American
agriculture” (p. 1).

According to Buland and Hunt (2000), Hispanic farmers were concentrated in a

few “Gateway” states. In 1982 and into 1987, 80 percent of Hispanics were concentrated

in the border/coastal states from Texas to Washington, as well as Colorado and Florida,

11

In the 1990s however, the number of Hispanic farms outside this border region grew
much faster than other minority farms, and the geographic distribution of Hispanic farms
transformed from a regional to a national phenomenon.

Nodin (1992) detailed the Hispanics' presence in Michigan agriculture, initiated in

the beginning of the 20th century. He said:

“Mexican immigrants came here directly or by way of Texas during
the 19105 and 1920s. Almost all of them came as unskilled workers.
They were recruited for the beetroot by employers to ﬁll job
vacancies created by the economic boom of World War I. Southern
and Eastern European immigrants had done this work earlier, but
they "moved up" economically during these years of boom.

Mexicans worked both in agriculture and industry. Michigan Sugar,
Columbia Sugar, Isabella Sugar and Continental Sugar Companies
recruited a majority of them. Ford, Briggs, Saginaw Grey Iron and
other foundries, and the Michigan Central and other railroads
recruited smaller numbers.

The following generation of Hispanics in Michigan farming was in
their majority either children of the earlier Mexican immigrants, or
Mexican Americans who started coming here ﬁom Texas in the late
19308. The Tej anos originally were recruited by the sugar beet
companies as unknowing strike-breakers and union busters. Most
were children of Mexican immigrants who had themselves come to
the United States in the early years of the century. They were
recruited to a vastly expanded agriculture and, with the coming of
the war, to a wider range of urban industries.

Agriculture expanded beyond sugar beets in east central and
southeastern Michigan to include many vegetable crops and fruits
for fresh consumption and for canning. In addition to older areas,
new production occurred in southern Michigan along the Ohio and
Indiana borders, and especially along the Lake Michigan coast,
which became the fruit-growing center of the Midwest. All crops
that used hand labor hired Mexicans, and increasingly Mexican
Americans and Mexican immigrants came to dominate agricultural
labor. By the 19505, Grand Traverse County had more migrant
workers than any other county in the country, and Michigan
employed more migrants than any state outside of Texas” (p. 149).

12

Hispanic Farmers

Since 1978, the Census of Agriculture has provided statistics on Hispanic farm
operators as part of its demographic and agricultural data series. The 2002 Census of
Agriculture reported that 50,592 US. farms had a principal operator who was of Hispanic
origin (U SDA-NASS, 2004a).

According to the 2002 Census of Agriculture, farmers of Hispanic origin are a
signiﬁcant and growing part of the US. agricultural industry. The agricultural census
revealed major increases not only in the number of US. farms operated by Hispanics, but
in the value of the products produced on those farms, according to the US. Department
of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). The number of farms
with Hispanic principal operators grew 51.2 percent between 1997 and 2002, from
33,450 to 50,592 (U SDA-NASS, 2004).

Hispanic farmers are the largest group of minority farm operators in the United
States. There are at least twice as many Hispanic farmers and ranchers as any other group
of minority operators. Hispanic-operated farms comprised more than 20.8 million acres
of farmland throughout the United States in 2002, up 23.8 percent ﬁom 16.8 million
acres ﬁve years earlier. The value of agricultural products sold also grew by 39 percent,
or $1.3 billion. In 2002, Hispanic principal operators sold a total of $4.67 billion in
agricultural products, including $3.07 billion in crops and $1.6 billion in livestock,
poultry and their products (U SDA-NASS, 2004).

Of the 50,592 total Hispanic-operated farms, more than a third (17,756) were beef
cattle ranching and farming operations. The second largest type of operation was “other

crop farming” with 8,101. This category includes hay, peanuts, grass seed and operations

13

where no single commodity provided the majority of the income. Third was fruit and tree
nut farming (7,739 operations).

In 2002, Texas led the nation in the number of Hispanic farm operators and acres,
followed by California, New Mexico, Florida, Colorado, Oklahoma, Washington,
Oregon, Idaho, and Michigan. Data from the 2002 Census of Agriculture revealed some
common characteristics among Hispanic principal operators and operations: 72.4 percent
of Hispanic principal Operators were also full owners of the farms they operated, and
nearly all Hispanic principal operators (92.4 percent) owned at least part of the land they
operated. More than 90 percent of Hispanic-operated farms (45,692) are family or
individually owned, rather than partnerships or corporations. More than half of all
Hispanic principal operators were between the ages of 45 and 64 years, with 63.2 percent

having worked on their current farm for at least 10 years (U SDA-NASS, 2004).
Studies on Hispanic Farmers

Research in Michigan by Garcia and Marinez (2004) stated Hispanic/Latino
immigrants are entering farming in unprecedented numbers. Latino immigrants and ex-
migrant farm workers are increasingly becoming crop producers in the United States.
They are entering farming at a time when land concentration is on the rise and the family
farm of old is under the imminent threat of vanishing. More than individual initiative and
hard work, farm ownership among the Latinos is made possible through social capital
available in social networks. Through their research, they discovered that the Latino
farmers have accomplished much using social capital. Using their social ties, they have

managed to obtain resources to buy farms, increase their production, and stay in farming.

14

The resources of Hispanics’ social capital identiﬁed by Garcia and Marinez (2004)

included:

Information. Information about farming is important in getting
started and staying in farming. New farmers seek and receive advice
regarding pesticide and herbicide applications, plant disease threats,
caring for the blueberry bush and berries, and marketing.

Land. Some of the Mexican immigrant farmers have come up with
creative ways, such as practicing presta nombres and collaborative
production arrangements with kinsmen, for obtaining farmland.

Labor Sharing. Labor sharing is another resource within social
networks. During the harvest, when labor is scarce, members Of the
same social circle, or group, share workers.

Loans/Financial Assistance. Money, similar to land, is a scarce
resource and not made available to everyone in a social network.
Loans are seldom made outside of the immediate family. The same
is true for co-signing on a loan.

Mutual Assistance. Mutual aid consists of lending a helping hand
when needed. Network members help harvest, repair machinery, or
plant blueberry bushes (p. 6).

In their article, “Exploring agricultural census undercounts among immigrant
Hispanic/Latino farmers with an alternative enumeration project,” Garcia and Marinez
(2005) suspected that Hispanic farmers do not participate in agricultural census, based on

their ﬁndings. They described some of the barriers Hispanic farmers face:

Missing from the USDA mailing lists: The majority of the recent
Mexican immigrant farmers were not on the mailing lists of
Cooperative Extension or Farm Service Agency-—lists used by the
USDA to mail agricultural census forms.

Limited or no knowledge of agricultural census: Many of the
immigrant farmers, particularly newcomers to farming, are also not
familiar with agricultural census. They are not aware that the
censuses are held every ﬁve years and that all farmers are to
participate.

Language and illiteracy problems: Many of the immigrants are
monolingual Spanish speakers who do not comprehend the English

15

language. They also have limited or no formal education in their
native language and, as a result, may be unable to read and write in
Spanish. These language and literacy constraints may discourage
immigrants from completing English language agricultural census
forms and mailing them as instructed.

Apprehension about the USDA: Some immigrant farmers prefer not
to deal with the USDA, fearing that irregularities on the farm, such
as the improper storage of pesticides and other chemicals, will be
discovered. They also suspect that state assistance comes with
strings attached. Believing this, they keep their distance from
government agencies, irrespective of their needs.

Immigration status: Recently, as a result of the public backlash
against immigrants and the call for excluding them from federally
ﬁrnded programs, some immigrant farmers, who are not US.
citizens but legal permanent residents, are under the misconception
that they are not to participate in the agricultural census, a federal
government undertaking. Related to immigration is illegal judicial
status; that is, residing and working in the country without proper
immigration documents. These individuals live a clandestine
existence and do not divulge their identity or location to government
agencies for fear of deportation.

Presto nombres: Another possible barrier is presta nombres (lending
one's name). In this practice, family members with good credit
obtain loans on the behalf of kinsmen and good ﬁiends who are
ineligible. On paper, the loan holder appears as the farmer when in
reality it is someone else who is farming. The agricultural census
form is mailed to the loan holder as opposed to the actual farmer.

Informal farming arrangements: Similarly, informal farming
arrangements among immigrant farmers may be another Obstacle. In
these arrangements, one or two individuals appear as the sole
owners on property deeds and other documents, when, in fact, there
are others, usually kin, who are also farming on the property. They
pool their resources, but farm and market their crops as independent
producers (p. 4).

Research in Arizona by Vasquez-Leon, Thor, Wolf, Moody, and Finan (2002)
found that Hispanic farmers were typically low-technology, resource-scarce producers,
with historically lower access to land, government aid, and other system-wide

adaptations. With one exception, the Hispanic farmers they contacted were in ﬁnancial

16

trouble. Compared to other farmers in the region, Hispanic farmers own and actively
farm smaller amounts of land. Vasquez-Leon et a1. (2002) also discovered that language
and literacy issues may increase the vulnerability of Hispanic farmers, especially in times
of crisis. These issues represent a possible obstacle to averting, coping with, and
recovering ﬁ'om climatic events, speciﬁcally in terms of receiving credit and obtaining
disaster relief ftmds ﬁ'om the government. The Hispanic farmers spoke Spanish as their
ﬁrst language and had varying levels of ﬂuency in English. Computer literacy is an
important tool for accessing climate and weather information. Only one Hispanic farmer
reported using a computer to obtain forecasts.

Vasquez-Leon et al. (2002) described other important characteristics of Hispanic

farmers:

“The use of informal social networks has been an important coping
strategy that Hispanic farmers use regularly to mitigate the impacts
of climatic conditions, to improve their capacity to deal with
climatic extremes, and to optimize their economic situation. Social
networks function to reduce production costs, increase proﬁts, serve
as an insurance mechanism, and allow for the transmission of
weather and climate forecasting information.

In addition to the use of social networks to meet labor needs, several
of the Hispanic farmers also capitalize on social ties to obtain loans.
Several farmers mentioned that they prefer to rely on informal loans
provided by “friends and acquaintances” than to apply for
government loans. Social networks also are important in the market
context. They report having well-developed market ties with
Mexican growers, Mexican brokers, and both Mexican and
Mexican-American clients” (p. 69).

According to research by Vasquez-Leon et a1. (2002), one of the major
differences between Hispanic and American farmers is that most Hispanic farmers
perceive farming not only as livelihood but as a way of life, have been involved in

farming all of their lives, they worked when they were kids while American farmers

17

emphasize the economics, proﬁtability, and technological side of agriculture. Today, a
farmer has to be more of a businessman than a farmer.

Wells (1996) carried out a study of strawberry growers in the coastal areas of
California among Anglo, Japanese and Hispanic growers. Her research found that in the
mid-1970s, individuals of Mexican origin or descent had acquired management skills and
had integrated into farming networks through their experience as sharecroppers and
production cooperative members. Both institutions served as steppingstones for Mexican
farm workers to become strawberry farmers. Mexicans gained management skills, access
to land, and contacts with established growers, plant salesmen, marketing agents, farm
supply companies, and farm advisers. Findings in her study detailed Mexican farmers’

characteristics:

“Mexicans are the closest to their immigrant roots and the least
established in and familiar with the local community. Almost all of
their parents and over 90 percent of the growers themselves were
born in México. Though about half speak some (usually halting)
English, Spanish is their language of choice. Most conﬁne their
social contacts to persons of Mexican birth or descent.

Mexicans have the least experience as independent berry growers,
most their prior agricultural experience has been as peasant farmers
in México and farm laborers in the United States, and they have the
fewest years of formal education.

The parents of most Mexican growers were, or still are, subsistence
farmers in the states of Michoacan, Guanajuato, and J alisco. Almost
half also worked as strawberry pickers on the central coast, over
one-fourth were sharecroppers, and only one-sixth were independent
growers.

Mexican farmers are the least likely to seek out peers for production
advice, and they lack the natural social contexts for such exchange.
Paradoxically, although Mexican have the least experience and
training, they are the most likely to identify themselves as their
major source of information.

18

Mexicans’ community of trust is usually conﬁned to friends and
relatives, who may or may not belong to their marketing company.
These individual usually lack experience, ﬁnancial resources, and
integration into the farming community” (p. 114).

Wells (1996) further stated that Mexicans are not only the most physically
isolated on their small farms in remote hollows of the North Monterey Hills, they are also
the most socially isolated and receive the least input into their farming decisions.

As Christensen (1997) detailed in her report, “Working with Asian and Hispanic
Limited Resources Farmers and Ranchers,” in spite of their growing numbers, many
Hispanics and Southeast Asians are being bypassed by the institutions that were set up to
serve them. This is because agencies and institutions have not changed along with the
technological and societal changes that have occurred during the past half-century.
Government policies change in response to political pressure. Limited resource farmers
usually cannot bring about such pressure. She found that limited resource farmers often

do not understand the functions of and the differences between the agencies that are

supposed to serve them. She stated,

“To develop a limited resource farmer program with ethnic groups,
including Hispanic and Southeast Asian farmers requires additional
skills. All employees involved with the program need to be willing
to learn new methods, be sensitive to the cultures, practices, beliefs,
family systems and goals of various ethnic groups, be willing to
change, be able to communicate in the languages of the farmers
(with translators when necessary), be patient, and be willing to
commit their time” (Christensen, 1997, p. 12).

Cross-cultural understanding is one of the most important factors working with
Hispanic farmers. Cultural differences among people cause different perceptions and
values among them. In her report, Christensen (1997, p. 18) described in detail someone

of main Hispanic cultural values:

19

“Allocentrism or collectivism: Hispanics prefer interpersonal
relationships in groups that are nurturing, loving, supportive, and
respectful. This can be signiﬁcant when designing and implementing
a program. Unfortunately, this value can move Hispanics to provide
researchers with biased responses or socially desirable answers in
order to promote the nurturing nature of the encounter.

Simpatia: Emphasizes the need for behaviors that promote smooth
and pleasant social relationships. It moves the individual to Show a
certain level Of conformity and empathy for the feelings of other
people, and to behave with dignity and respect towards others,
striving to achieve harmony in interpersonal relations. Allocentrism
and simpatia may be responsible for greater socially desirable
responses by Hispanic respondents and for differences in how
aggressive and assertive behaviors are perceived by Hispanics.

F amilialism: This is one of the most important culture-speciﬁc
values of Hispanics. Familialism, together with a desire for a better
life and a belief in self-determination, is one of the key Hispanic
values. This value involves strong identiﬁcation with and attachment
to the nuclear and extended families and strong feelings of loyalty,
reciprocity, and solidarity among members of the same family.
Familialism also manifests itself in close relationships and
involvement with ﬁctive kin (compadres and comadres or co-
parents).

Power distance: This cultural value, a measure of interpersonal
power or inﬂuence that exists between two individuals, supports the
notion that societies have powerful individuals as a result of inherent
traits or of inherited or acquired characteristics. The maintenance of
personal respect (respeto) in interpersonal relations allows
individuals to feel that their personal power, whatever it may be, is
being acknowledged. This is particularly important in the treatment
of strangers (e.g., when to address individuals using “usted” (formal
“you”) or “tu” (familiar “you”).

Personal space: In general Hispanics prefer less physical space
when they interact with others. They are less likely to feel that their
personal space has been invaded when a stranger comes close to
them. Hispanics may ﬁnd non-Hispanics cold and distant because of
their need for more physical distance.

Gender roles: Much has been written about Hispanic males and
machismo and women being submissive. While these stereotypical
assumptions may not be valid, it is important to be aware that these
attitudes may be present, although not prevalent.

20

Time orientation: Traditionally, time is an imprecise concept in
Latin America. Hispanics tend to have a more ﬂexible attitude
toward time. This may have to do with Hispanics placing greater
value on the quality of interpersonal relationships than on the length
of time in which they take place. Being highly efﬁcient or time
conscious may be perceived as impolite or insulting to Hispanics.
Time commitments are considered desirable objectives but not
binding promises.”

21

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the methods and procedures used to collect, analyze and
interpret the situation of Hispanic farmers in southwestern Michigan. This research used
a mixed methods sequential explanatory design consisting of two phases: quantitative
followed by qualitative. The theoretical base of mixed methods research, the major types
of mixed methods designs, the methodology and procedures used for collecting and
analyzing the data in the quantitative and qualitative phases are detailed in this chapter.

The purpose of this study was to create a proﬁle of the Hispanic farmers so it
could serve as baseline information to assist in serving small, minority and disadvantaged
farmers. This study aimed at providing data and drawing conclusions that could
contribute toward the development of these farmers and allow for better interaction
between Hispanic farmers and the agricultural agencies serving them. The questions that
guided the research were:

1. What are the demographics and socioeconomic characteristics of Hispanic

farmers in southwestern Michigan?

2. How do people of Hispanic background become owner-operators of farms?

3. How have Hispanic farmers organized the Operation of their farms?

4. What are the challenges that Hispanic farmers face in the operation of their

farms?

5. What is the level of interaction between Hispanic farmers and agricultural

agencies in Michigan?

22

The Design

This study used a mixed methods sequential explanatory design consisting of two
distinct phases: quantitative followed by qualitative (Creswell and Plano 2007;
Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998). Quantitative data was collected and analyzed ﬁrst,
followed by qualitative data. The qualitative data helped explain the results of the
quantitative data collection (Ivankova, Creswell and Stick, 2006). The two phases were
connected in the intermediate stage in the study. The quantitative and qualitative results
were integrated during the discussion of the outcomes of the entire study.

The rationale for mixing both kinds of data within one study is grounded in the
fact that neither quantitative nor qualitative methods are sufﬁciently inclusive in
understanding holistically the social phenomenon of the increasing numbers of Hispanic
farmers and their characteristics in southwestern Michigan. The quantitative and
qualitative methods complemented each other and took advantage of their strengths.

The quantitative phase used personal interviews as a descriptive survey
methodology. Personal interviews are appropriate when dealing with low-income, less
educated populations, minority groups, or complex issues where there is little available
information. The quantitative phase had two goals: (1) create a proﬁle (demographic,
socioeconomics, type of farms, etc.) of the Hispanic farmers in southwestern Michigan
and (2) help identify the participants for the qualitative phase. The second phase in this
study used a qualitative case study technique (in-depth interviews) in order to describe as
accurately and completely as possible the current situation of Hispanic farmers in the
research area. The case study design incorporated the participants’ views on the

phenomenon under study. In-depth interviews of Hispanic farmers gave us ﬁrsthand

23

experience and permitted the researcher to draw on personal knowledge about the farmers
during the data analysis.

A graphical model of the mixed methods sequential explanatory design was
created (see Figure 1) in order to help the researcher to conceptualize and implement the
study (Creswell and Plano 2007; Ivankova, Creswell and Stick, 2006; Tashakkori and
Teddlie, 1998).

Figure 1 describes the model used in this study. The model depicts the sequence
of the research activities in the study, speciﬁes all the data collection and analysis
procedures, and lists the outcomes from each of the stages of the study. It also shows the
connecting points between the quantitative and qualitative phases and the related
products, as well as speciﬁes where the integration of the results of both quantitative and

qualitative phases occurs.

24

Figure 1. The Mixed Methods Sequential Explanatory Design

 

Phase

 

I
I

 
 
 
  
 
 

Quantitative

Data Collection

 

1

Quantitative
Data Analysis

 

Connecting
Quantitative
and Qualitative
phases

 

 
 
 
  
 
 

 

I

QUALITATIVE
Data Collection

 

I

 

I

 
   

QUALITATIVQ

Data Analysis

 

Results

Integration of
the Quantitative
and Qualitative

     
 
 

Procedure

0 Design of survey

 
 

Farmers list building
(n=l 32)

Personal interviews
(n=82)

Descriptive statistics

Selection of case study
participants

Design interview
guideline

Semi-structure
interviews (n=12)
Documents

Coding data
Within-case and across-
case theme development
Create displays

Interpretation and
explanation of the
quantitative and

qualitative results

Product

0 Instrument
0 Farmers list

Numeric data

Demographics
Socioeconomics
Type of farms
Crops

Farmers’ barriers

Cases (n=12)

Interview protocol

Text data (interview
transcripts)
Documents

Codes and themes

0 Visual model of

multiple case analysis

0 Conceptual matrix
0 Checklist matrix

0 Discussion
0 Implications
0 Future Research

 

25

Mixed Methods Approach

A mixed methods approach is considered by various authors as the third research
paradigm in social, behavioral and health sciences (Creswell and Plano, 2007; Morgan,
2007 ; Burke and Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998). Mixed methods
I research offers great promise to researchers who would like to see methodologists
describe and develop techniques that are closer to what researchers actually use in the
ﬁeld or in practice (Burke and Onwuegbuzie, 2004). The combination of quantitative and
qualitative approaches helps researchers understand complex phenomena in our society.
A combination of both forms of data can provide the most complete analysis of problems.
Mixed methods offers strengths that offset the weaknesses of separately applied
quantitative and qualitative research methods. Researchers can place numbers in the
contexts and words of participants, and they can frame the words of participants with
numbers, trends, and statistical results (Creswell and Plano, 2007).

Mixed methods research uses a method and philosophy that attempts to meld the
insights provided by qualitative and quantitative research into a workable solution.
Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003) linked pragmatism with mixed methods research saying
that: (a) both quantitative and qualitative research methods may be used in a single study;
(b) the research questions should be of primary importance — more important than either
the method or the philosophical worldview that underlies the method; (c) the forced-
choice dichotomy between postpositivism and constructivism should be abandoned; (d)
the use of metaphysical concepts such as “truth” and “reality” should also be abandoned;

and (e) a practical and applied research philosophy should guide methodological choices.

26

Burke and Onwuegbuzie (2004) discussed the pragmatism of mixed methods.

They articulated:

“Philosophical debates will not end as a result of pragmatism, and
certainly they should not end. Nonetheless, the authors agree with
others in the mixed methods research movement that consideration
and discussion of pragmatism by research methodologists and
empirical researchers will be productive because it offers an
immediate and useful middle position philosophically and
methodologically; it offers a practical and outcome-oriented method
Of inquiry that is based on actions and leads, iteratively, to further
action and the elimination of doubt; and it offers a method for
selecting methodological mixes that can help researchers better
answers many of their research questions” (p. 17).

Deﬁnition of Mixed Methods Research

Various scholars have discussed and debated the deﬁnition of mixed methods
research (Creswell and Plano, 2007 ; Morgan, 2007; Burke and Onwuegbuzie, 2004;
Tashakkori and Teddlie 2003; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998). However, for the purpose
of this study, the deﬁnition of mixed methods research held by Creswell and Plano

(2007) was selected:

“Mixed methods research is a research design with philosophical
assumptions as well as methods of inquiry. As a methodology, it
involves philosophical assumptions that guide the direction of the
collection and analysis of data and the mixture of qualitative and
quantitative approaches in many phases in the research process. As a
method, it focuses on collecting, analyzing, and mixing both
quantitative and qualitative data in a single study or series of studies.
Its central premise is that the use of quantitative and qualitative
approaches in combination provides a better understanding of
research problems that either approach alone” (p. 5).

Mixed Methods Designs

In the literature, there is quite variety of studies in social, behavioral, and health

sciences that are explicitly identiﬁed as mixed methods (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003;

27

Greene, Caracelli & Graham, 1989) . In these studies, the authors used qualitative and
quantitative approaches in one or more of the following ways: (a) two types of research
questions, (b) two types of sampling procedures, (c) two types of data collection, (d) two
types of data, (e) two types of data analysis, or (t) two types of conclusions.

Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003) found almost 40 different types of mixed methods
designs in the literature. In a comprehensive review of 57 empirical studies, Greene,
Caracelli & Graham (1989) identiﬁed ﬁve purposes for mixed methods designs:

triangulation, complementarity, development, initiation, and expansion.

“Triangulation seeks convergence, corroboration, correspondence
of results from different methods.

Complementarity seeks elaboration, enhancement, illustration,
clariﬁcation of results from one method with the results ﬁ'om the
other method.

Development seeks to use the results from one method to help
develop or inform the other method, where development is broadly
construed to include sampling and implementation, as well as
measurement decisions.

Initiation seeks the discovery of paradox and contradiction, new
perspective of frameworks, the recasting of questions or results from
one method with questions or results from the other method.

Expansion seeks to extend the breadth and range of inquiry by using
different methods for different inquiry components” (p. 259).

Creswell and Plano (2007) indicated that researchers should carefully consider the
challenges associated with their mixed methods design choice and plan strategies for
addressing these challenges. As part of choosing a design, decisions need to be made
about the use of concurrent or sequential timing for the two methods, whether the two

methods will have equal or unequal weighting, and how the two methods will be mixed.

28

When choosing a mixed methods design, researchers should consider the underlying

logic and other necessary practical considerations.

In literature, various scholars have discussed the major types of mixed methods

designs (Creswell and Plano, 2007; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003; Patton, 2002;

Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998). The classiﬁcation of mixed methods designs detailed in

this section was developed by Creswell and Plano (2007). The authors identiﬁed four

major types Of mixed methods designs (see Table 1): Triangulation Design, the

Embedded Design, the Explanatory Design, and the Exploratory Design.

Table 1. Major Mixed Methods Design Types

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Design Type Variants Timing Weighting Mixing
Triangulation -Convergence Concurrent: Usually Merge the data
-Data transformation quantitative equal during the.
. . and rnterpretatron or
-Valrdatrng qualitative at analysis
quantitative data the same time
-Multilevel
Embedded -Embedded Concurrent or Unequal Embed one type
experimental sequential of data within a
Embedded 13336 dﬁig"
correlational usrng 0 er type
of data
Explanatory -Follow-up Sequential: Usually Connect the data
explanations quantitative quantitative between the two
-Participant selection followed by phases
qualitative
Exploratory -Instrument Sequential: Usually Connect the data
development qualitative qualitative between the two
-T axo no my followgtlby phases
development quan l rve

 

 

Source: Creswell & Plano, 2007, p. 85

 

29

 

Visual Model of Mixed Methods Research

Visual model is a tool that increases the accessibility and comprehensibility of

mixed methods designs. Creswell and Plano (2007) said that it is a notation system and

visual diagram for describing the procedures, methods and products of mixed methods

studies. Visual models are useful tools for designing and communicating the complexity

inherent in mixed methods designs.

Ivankova, Creswell and Stick (2006) developed ten rules for drawing a visual

model for the mixed methods designs:

1.

2.

8.

9.

Give a title to the visual model.

Choose either horizontal or vertical layout for the model.

. Draw boxes for qualitative and quantitative stages of data collection, data

analysis, and interpretation of the study results.
Use capitalized or lower case letters to designate priority of quantitative and

qualitative data collection and analysis.

. Use single headed arrows to show the ﬂow of procedures in the design.

Specify procedures for each quantitative and qualitative data collection and
analysis stage.

Specify expected products or outcomes of each quantitative and qualitative
data collection and analysis procedures.

Use concise language for describing procedures and products.

Make the model simple.

10. Size the model to a one-page limit.

30

The visual model of a mixed methods design portrays the sequences of the
research activities in the study, indicates the priority of the research phases, speciﬁes all
the data collection and analysis procedures, and lists the products or outcomes from each

of the stages of the study (See Figure 1).
Background of Researcher

Prior to this study, the researcher has had the opportunity to work with farmers in
Mexican rural communities. This experience has been ongoing for the past 15 years,
contributing to the formal studies of this research and to the researcher’s professional
activity. The researcher received his agronomic engineer degree with a specialization in
arid zone agricultural systems at the Universidad Auténoma Chapingo, México, from
August, 1984 to June, 1988. He completed courses pertaining to agronomic. crop
production and animal husbandry. His thesis was “Caprine Production Systems in
Mapimi, Durango -— México”. This work consisted of implementing a survey, through
personal interviews, with more than 100 small farmers in the state of Durango, México;
the researcher visited farmers continuously, for almost two years, in their communities in
order to collect the information.

The researcher’s professional activity is in human resource training, and research
and extension relative to agronomic crop production and animal husbandry. The
researcher is a faculty member at the Universidad Auténoma Chapingo, Unidad Regional
Universitaria de Zonas Aridas; in Berrnejillo, Durango — Mexico. One of the courses
taught by the researcher was regional agriculture. In this course, students learn to
evaluate production systems. The purpose of this course is to identify the physical,

environmental, technical and socioeconomic components that deﬁne and affect

31

agronomic crop and animal production. In order to reach these goals, numerous ﬁeld
trips are organized for students, farmers are surveyed, and production processes are
described and characterized for northern Mexico. The researcher has participated in
different outreach programs in Mexican rural communities. He took part in several
training courses for extension agents and farmers in the states of Durango and Coahuila,
México.

The researcher is enrolled in a doctoral program in the College of Agriculture and
Natural Resources at Michigan State University, where he has taken four courses in
research methods and program evaluation. These courses have allowed him to develop
skills in quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis.

The researcher started working on the ﬁrst activities in the study area during the
summer of 2004, when he was invited to participate in the (proj ect “Exploring
Undercounts in the Agricultural Census: An Alternative Enumeration of Hispanic
Farmers in Southwestern Michigan.” The objective of this study was to assess Hispanic
undercounts in the agricultural census and explain why some Hispanic farmers have not
been included. The researcher was introduced to several farmers through the Michigan
State University Extension (MSU Extension) staff. Because many of the farmers are of
Mexican origin, spoke Spanish as their ﬁrst language, and whose culture is mostly
identiﬁed from their origin, this researcher was considered an asset in understanding the
social phenomenon developing in rural communities of southwestern Michigan, where
the increasing numbers of people of Hispanic background are buying and operating their

own farms.

32

Though the researcher is a Mexican national with a background in agronomy and
is bilingual and bicultural, reaching out to Hispanic farmers and attaining their
cooperation to obtain truthful and useful information for this study has been a long, slow,
and difﬁcult process. The researcher feels that this situation is a consequence Of the
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, which has created a sense of
insecurity in America and greater negatively toward minority groups, especially
Hispanics. Harsh migrant policies established by the US. government, Hispanic
roundups and deportations, constant negative information ﬂow regarding migration, and
the closing of the southern US. border have created distrust within Hispanic people, who
have became reluctant to open their door to a stranger and answer survey questions. For
more than a year, the researcher worked to develop the trust necessary to obtain truthful
and useful information from the farmers for the study objectives. This trust is achieved
only when one gets access to Hispanic social networks (family or ﬁiends), which proves
you and the objective of your visit are trustworthy. With the passing of time, the
researcher joined with several farmers in projects that could help them, one of them being
the creation of Web pages to promote U-pick service at the Hispanic farms. Also,
providing computer lessons for some of the farmer’s family members as well as useful
information (conferences and training) and, many times, participating in social activities
within the family nucleus established a genuine ﬁiendship between the researcher and
farmers, allowing them to interact with each other and share culture and values conunon

to people of the same origin.

33

Study Population

A population is deﬁned as all members of any well-deﬁned class of people, events
or objects. Two types of populations are described in research methods: the target
population and the accessible population. According to Ary et a1. (2002), the ﬁrst step in
a study is the identiﬁcation of the target population to be represented in the research.
However, because it is usually not possible to deal with the entire target population, that
portion of the population to which one can have access must be identiﬁed. This is called
the accessible population and it is from this group that the sample for the study was
taken. The nature of the accessible population is inﬂuenced by the time and resources of
the researcher. The target population for this study included all Hispanic farmers who
have their own farms in southwestern Michigan. Hispanic is a label used to group
individuals living in the US. who trace their origin to Spanish-speaking countries in
Latin America. They include both US. and foreign-born residents. In order to
appropriately respond to the stated problem and provide answers to the research
questions, the accessible population was limited to Hispanic farmers who have their own
farms in four counties in southwestern Michigan, namely Allegan, Berrien, Cass, and

Van Buren.

Research Area

The US. Department of Agriculture reported that there are more than 1,100 farm
operators of Hispanic background in Michigan (U SDA—NASS, 2004). According to the
agricultural census, Hispanic farmers are concentrated in southwestern Michigan.

Allegan and Van Buren are ranked ﬁrst and second respectively, in the number of

34

Hispanic operators by county. This research was designed in four contiguous counties
(Allegan, Berrien, Cass, and Van Buren) in southwestern Michigan because of the
number of Hispanic farmers in each and the MSUE staff’s familiarity with these counties.
The Hispanic farmer contacts in each county also factored in the selection process. Basic
information of each county is described in the following paragraphs:

Allegan County is located north of Van Buren and Kalamazoo counties and south
of Ottawa and Kent counties. In terms of area, it is the 18th largest county in the state.
The county’s total area is 4,748 km”, of which 2,143 km2 is land and 2,605 km2 is water.
According to the 2000 US. census, it has a population of 105, 665 with a population
density of 49/km2. There are eight cities, three villages, and 25 townships. The racial
and ethnic makeup of population is 93.47 percent White, 1.31 percent Black, 0.55 percent
Native American, 0.55 percent Asian, 0.03 percent Paciﬁc Islander, 2.77 percent from
other races, and 1.32 percent from two or more races. Hispanics, at 5.72 percent, are the
largest non-White ethnic group in the county (Allegan County Proﬁle, 2005).

The per capita income for the county is $19,918. About 7.30 percent of the
population and 5.00 percent of families are below the poverty line. In general, despite
recent economic trends, the county still maintains an agriculture and tourist based
economy. However, light industry and technology are making inroads into the region
(Allegan County Proﬁle, 2005).

Berrien County is located in the extreme southwestern comer of Michigan. It is
bordered by Lake Michigan to the west and the state of Indiana to the south. Van Buren
County is to the north and northeast. The total area of Berrien County is 4,096 kmz, of

which 1,479 km2 is land and 2,617 km2 water. According to the 2000 US. census, the

35

population is 162,453 with a population density of 110/km2. There are eight cities, nine
villages, and a number of townships. The racial makeup of the county’s population is
79.69 percent White, 15.93 percent Black, 0.43 percent Native American, 1.14 percent
Asian, 0.04 percent Paciﬁc Islander, 1.14 percent from other races, and 1.64 percent from
two or more races. Hispanics make up 3.01 percent of the population. Blacks are the
largest ethnic minority group in the county (Berrien County Proﬁle, 2005).

The per capita income for the county is $19,952, and 12.70 percent of the
population lives below the poverty line. In general, vast areas of this county remain
rural, and agriculture is the primary activity. In the cities, particularly St. Joseph, which
is the largest city in southwestern Michigan, the economy is mixed (Benien County
Proﬁle, 2005).

Cass County is located just north of South Bend and Elkhart, Indiana and just
southwestern of Kalamazoo. According to the US. 2000 census, the population was
51,104. The county has a total area of 1,317 km’. 1,275 km2 of it is land and 42 km2 of it
(3.20 percent) is water. There were 19,676 households, and 14,304 families residing in
the county. The population density was 40/km2. There were 23,884 housing units at an
average density of 19/km2. The racial makeup of the county was 89.19 percent White,
6.12 percent Black or African American, 0.82 percent Native American, 0.54 percent
Asian, 0.01 percent Paciﬁc Islander, 1.17 percent from other races, and 2.15 percent ﬁom
two or more races. 2.41 percent of the population was Hispanic or Latino (Cass County
Proﬁle, 2005).

The per capita income for the county was $19,474. About 6.80 percent of families

and 9.90 percent of the population live below the poverty line, including 13.60 percent of

36

those under age 18 and 8.80 percent of those age 65 or over. This county is both a rich
agricultural area as well as a popular tourist spot. It plays a major part in pork production
in Michigan as well as production of feed crOps like soybeans and com. Its largest
community is Dowagiac to the northwest, with Cassopolis, the second largest city, as the
county seat (Cass County Proﬁle, 2005).

Van Buren County is surrounded by Berrien County to the southwest, Cass
County to the south, St. Joseph County to the southeast, Kalamazoo County to the east,
and Allegan County to the north and northeast. Van Buren County has a total area of
2,824 kmz: 1,583 km2 is land and 1,241 km2 water. According to the 2000 census, the
population is 76,263 with a population density 48/lcmz. There are four cities, seven
villages, and 18 townships. The racial makeup of the county’s population is 87.92
percent White, 5.25 percent Black, 0.92 percent Native American, 0.30 percent Asian,
0.01 percent Paciﬁc Islander, 3.43 percent from other races, and 2.17 percent from two or
more races. Hispanics at 7.39 percent of the population make up the largest non-White
ethnic group in the county (Van Buren County Proﬁle, 2005).

The per capita income for the county is $17,878. In all, 11.10 percent of the
population and 7.80 percent of families live below the poverty line. Much of the county
is active farmland primarily under ﬁ'uit production. Additionally, tourism is a major
industry, given the many recreational areas near Lake Michigan. Figure 2 identiﬁes the

four counties of the research area (Van Buren County Proﬁle, 2005).

37

Figure 2. Research Area

Map of Mlchlgan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quantitative Phase

The quantitative phase used personal interviews as a descriptive survey
methodology. There were two goals for conducting the quantitative phase (survey) in this
study:

1. Create a proﬁle (demographic, socioeconomic, type of farms, etc.) of the

Hispanic farmers in southwestern Michigan.
2. Help to identify the participants for the qualitative phase.

38

Surveys are used to collect information from or about people to describe,
compare, or explain their knowledge, feelings, values, and behavior. Survey in the form
of personal interview is appropriate when dealing with low-income, less educated
populations, minority groups, or complex issues about which there is little available
information. Suvedi, Heinze, and Ruonavaara (1999) highlight ﬁve important
characteristics of the personal interview: (1) it can be used with a highly dispersed
population, (2) it is suited for populations where a representative sample cannot be
drawn, (3) it can be used where there is a low literacy rate, (4) there is a high degree of
control over who answers the survey, and (5) the interviewer can increase the willingness
of respondents to answer questions.

In the personal interviews, the researcher read the questions to the respondent in a
face-to-face setting and recorded the answers. One of the most important aspects of the
interview was its ﬂexibility. The interviewer had the opportunity to Observe the subject
and the total situation in which he or she is responding. Questions were repeated or their
meaning explained in case they were not understood. The researcher also pressed for
additional information when a response seemed incomplete or not entirely relevant. A
higher response rate was another advantage of the personal interview. The term response
rate refers to the proportion of the selected participants that agrees to be interviewed or
returns a completed questionnaire. Personal contact increases the likelihood that the

individual will participate and will provide the desired information (Ary et al., 2002).

39

List Building of Hispanic Farmers

The lack of an up-to-date, reliable list of Hispanic farmers in the research area
was a major problem. The researcher spent almost two years creating a list Of Hispanic
farmers. Generating this list consisted of ﬁve stages:

0 Stage 1. Request and verify the Hispanic farmers listed by agricultural
agencies. A list of Hispanic farmers was requested from MSUE. The MSUE
ofﬁces in ﬁve counties were selected (Allegan, Benien, Cass, Kalamazoo and
Van Buren) plus the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center. Also,
information was requested from USDA agencies. Only two extension agents
provided names of Hispanic farmers. Because of conﬁdentiality, data from
several USDA ofﬁces regarding farmers’ personal information could not be
obtained.

0 Stage 2. Visit places that offer services to the Hispanic community, such as
Mexican stores and restaurants. The researcher spoke with the owners in order
to obtain more information; the results obtained in this stage were also limited.

0 Stage 3. In Berrien, Cass, Kalamazoo and Allegan counties, the county plat
books were used to identify Hispanic farmers. Plat books show accurate land
ownership and acreage information for rural parcels of land by township at the
date of publication of each. To ensure accuracy, more than 20,000 records were
selected and scanned for Hispanic surnames, such as Rodriguez, Gonzalez,
Lépez, etc. With this information, the researcher visited the farm to verify that
these people were indeed Hispanic farmers. The veriﬁcation process found no

Hispanic farmers in Kalamazoo County.

40

0 Stage 4. Companies where farmers deliver their products. Information was
requested from six companies; only two provided a list of Hispanic farmers.
Again, to ensure accuracy, more than 1,000 records were analyzed and scanned
for Hispanic surnames. These people were visited in order to verify that they
were Hispanic farmers and farm owners.

0 Stage 5. By means of the preliminary list of farmers from the four counties, the
researcher used a snowball sampling technique. Three venues were very
important in creating the list: (1) other farmers who are family members, (2)
other farmers who are part of the ﬁiendship circle, and (3) other farmers who are
members of religious groups.

All together, 132 Hispanic farmers were identiﬁed in four counties. This list

served as the population for this study.

Sample

A sample is a portion or subset of a larger group called a population. A sample is
representative if important characteristics (e. g. age, gender, educational level) of those
within the sample are distributed similar to the way they are distributed in the larger
population (Fink, 2003). Two major types of sampling procedures are available to
researchers: probability and nonprobability sampling. Probability sampling involves
sample selection in which the elements are drawn by using a random selection procedure.
The main characteristic of probability sampling is that every member or element of the
population has a known probability of being chosen in the sample. Nonprobability
sampling includes methods of selection in which elements are not chosen by chance

procedures. There is no way of estimating the probability that each element has of being

41

included in the sample. Its success depends on the knowledge, expertise, and judgment of
the researcher (Ary et al., 2002).

The quantitative phase used nonprobability sampling in the form of snowball
sampling. This type of sampling is useful when a population list is unavailable. It is a
technique for ﬁnding research subjects, where one subject gives the researcher the name
of another subject, who in turn provides the name of a third, and so on. Snowball
sampling allows the opportunity to obtain respondents when they are few in number, or
where some degree of trust is required to initiate contact. Under these circumstances,
techniques of “chain referral” can associate the researcher with others in the group and
this can aid entry to settings where conventional approaches are unsuccessful (Rowland
and Flint, 2001). The ﬁrst source of information to start the snowball sampling was the

Hispanic farmer list created by the researcher in the study area.
Survey Instrumentation

The quantitative phase utilized the personal interview survey for data collection.
Dillman (2000) mentions that there are four sources of error that could affect the quality
Of a survey: (1) Sampling error occurs when surveying only some, and not all, elements
of the survey population, (2) Coverage error occurs when not all members of the survey
population have an equal or known nonzero chance of being sampled for participation in
the survey, (3) Measurement error occurs when questions are worded poorly or presented
in such a way that inaccurate or uninterpretable answers are obtained, and (4)
Nonresponse error occurs when people who respond to a survey are different from

sampled individuals who did not respond in a way relevant to the study. The main goal

42

for methodology in this study was to reduce all four sources of survey error to acceptable

levels.

The accuracy of the survey in this study was assessed by looking at the validity

and the reliability of the instrument. In addition, a small scale pilot test was carried out

with the questionnaire in order to test it in the ﬁeld.

According to Patten (2004), an instrument is valid to the extent that it measures

what it is designed to measure and accurately performs the function(s) it is purported to

perform. A valid survey produces accurate information. Litwin (2003) mentions several

types of validity when assessing the performance of a survey instrument:

1.

Face Validity is based on a cursory review of survey items by untrained
judges. Assessing face validity might involve simply showing the instrument
to a few untrained individuals to see whether they think the items look right to
them. Although face and content validity are similar, face validity involves a
much more casual assessment of the item appropriateness.

Content Validity is a subjective measure of how appropriate the items in the
instrument seem to reviewers who have some knowledge of the subject
matter. The assessment of content validity typically involves an organized
review of the survey’s contents to ensure that it includes everything it should
and does not include anything it should not. Content validity is not quantiﬁed
with statistics, rather, it is presented as an overall opinion of a group of trained
judges or panel of experts.

Criterion Validity is a measure of how well one instrument compares with

another instrument or predictor. It provides much more quantitative evidence

43

on the accuracy of a survey instrument than does face or content validity.
Criterion validity may be broken down into two components: concurrent
validity and predictive validity.

4. Construct Validity is the most valuable way of assessing a survey instrument.

This form of validity is often determined only after years of experience with a
survey instrument. Construct validity is often thought to comprise two other
forms of validity: convergent and divergent.

In this study, face validity of the instrument was established by professionals in
the area of agricultural and natural resource education in Michigan. The researcher
selected three bilingual agents who are working in agricultural agencies (The Michigan
Department of Agriculture and MSU Extension) in order to improve the instrument. The
questionnaire was edited and changed to reﬂect their suggested improvements. The
instrument was evaluated for content and construct validity by four experts who are
familiar with Hispanic farmers. Changes were made to improve clarity and reduce
ambiguity in the questionnaire.

Pilot testing of the survey with a small sample was one of the most important
developmental stages of the instrument. According to Litwin (2003), pilot testing: (1)
helps to identify errors in the survey, (2) allows one to learn where the survey instrument
may need redesign, (3) predicts possible problems which may be encountered in using the
instrument, and (4) can help to insure that items in the survey are culturally sensitive. The
survey instrument was pilot tested using ﬁve Hispanic farmers residing outside of the

research area.

As indicated earlier, the study used personal interviews as a survey method. A
questionnaire was developed to collect information on the current situation of Hispanic
farmers in southwestern Michigan (Appendix C). The instrument has two types of
questions: Open-ended and closed-ended. The instrument consisted of 34 questions
organized under ﬁve parts. The ﬁrst part of the questionnaire has 17 closed-end questions
covering demographic and socioeconomic information such as gender, age, educational
level, language, self-identiﬁcation, marital status, nationality, and main economic
activity. The second part of the survey was designed to identify how Hispanic people
become farmers in Michigan and their experiences in agriculture. It has one open-ended
and two closed-ended questions. The third part of the survey was designed to study how
the Hispanic farmers have organized the operation of their farms and to collect
information about the characteristics of the farms. This section consisted of eight closed-
ended questions. The fourth part had one open-ended question; here the researcher looked
for the challenges or problems that Hispanic farmers have faced in the operation of their
farms. The last part consisted of ﬁve closed-ended questions. This section was designed
to collect data on the current relationship among Hispanic farmers and federal and state

agricultural agencies.

Quantitative Data Collection

Data collection was carried out in four counties in southwestern Michigan:
Allegan, Benien, Cass, and Van Buren. The researcher went to the ﬁeld and visited all
Hispanic farmers identiﬁed in the research area in order to collect the required
information. The protocol for each interview followed these guidelines:

0 Introduce the researcher to the farmer.

45

0 Describe the goals of the research.

0 Describe why the farmer’s participation is important.

0 Read to the farmer the informed consent document.

0 Indicate to farmer that his/her participation is voluntary and that no payment
exists.

0 Describe the possible risks of his/her participation.

0 Request the farmer signature on the form.

0 Ask the farmer if there are any questions or comments before initiating the
survey.

0 Initiate the survey (Spanish or English).

Data Analysis

The quantitative data was coded and analyzed using SPSS. The data were ﬁrst
submitted to ﬁ'equency counts in order to detect coding or data entry errors. Necessary
corrections were made in the data ﬁle and any error or inconsistencies were checked. The
ﬁrst part of the analysis consisted of determining the demographic and socioeconomic
characteristics of participants. Frequencies, percentage, measures of central tendency and
dispersion were generated for demographic and socioeconomic variables. The
characteristics of the farms and how Hispanic farmers have organized their operation
were analyzed using descriptive statistics such as frequency counts, means, and percents.
A similar procedure was utilized to analysis questions on the current relationship between
Hispanic farmers and agricultural agencies and the challenges or barriers that Hispanic

farmers faced in the operation of their own farms. Finally, the open-ended question on

46

how Hispanics became farmers in southwestern Michigan was analyzed using the answer

transcriptions.
Qualitative Phase

The research used a qualitative case study technique to collect, analyze and
interpret the current situation of Hispanic farmers. The most important argument for use
of the case study in this research is to explain the causal links in real-life interventions
that are too complex for the survey strategies. The goal of the case study method is to
describe as accurately as possible the fullest, most complete description of the current

situation of Hispanic farmers in southwestern Michigan.

A case study, as Yin (2003) deﬁnes, is an empirical inquiry that investigates a
contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the boundaries between
phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of
evidence are used. The case study research method helps the researcher to understand a
complex issue; it emphasizes detailed contextual analysis of a limited number of events,

conditions, and their relationships.

In the second phase of this research, the case study was designed in a way that
incorporates the views of the Hispanic farmers on the phenomenon under study. The unit
of analysis was 12 Michigan farmers with Hispanic background in the research area. The
context for the case study, however, includes other persons and source of information
outside of the case study. Documentation review and semi-structure interviews (in-depth
interviews) were used as sources of evidence in this study. The main goal of conducting

in-depth interviews in this research was to enable the researcher to get close to the

47

Hispanic farmers personally in their environment. This permitted the researcher to draw

on personal knowledge during interpretation of research data.
Sampling for Case Studies

Case study research is not sampling research. However, selecting cases must be
done so as to maximize what can be learned in the period of time available for the study
(Tellis, 1997). Qualitative research typically focuses on relatively small samples selected
purposefully to permit inquiry into and understanding of a phenomenon in depth. The
logic and power of purposeful sampling in case studies are derived from the emphasis on
in-depth understanding about information-rich cases. Information-rich cases are those
from which one can learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of
the research, thus the term purposeful sampling (Patton, 2002).

Case studies can be single or multiple-case designs, where a multiple design must
follow a replication rather than sampling logic (T ellis, 1997). Yin (2003) indicates that
generalization of results, from either single or multiple designs, is made to theory and not
to populations. Multiple cases strengthen the results by replicating the pattem-matching,
thus increasing conﬁdence in the robustness of the theory.

The qualitative semi-structured interview used a purposeﬁrl sampling. The
researcher selected 12 Hispanic farmers in the research area. Consideration was given to

select information-rich cases for in depth study.
Selection of Case Study Participants

As was mentioned previously, this qualitative phase focused only on farmers of
Hispanic background who are operating their own farms in southwestern Michigan. The

48

case study participants were selected based on the results of a quantitative survey that

was carried out in the ﬁrst phase of this research. The quantitative results gave the

researcher an excellent frame from which to select Hispanic farmers in the research area

for the case study. The criteria for the selection of the participants were: gender, country

of origin, principal crop on the farm, and farm working status (see Table 2). Another

important criterion in the selection of participants was farmers’ availability to participate

in the semi-structure interview. During the course of the study, it was decided to limit the

semi-structured interviews to 12 participants because the researcher recognized that no

new information was forthcoming ﬁom additional participants.

Table 2. Description of Hispanic Farmer Participants in Case Study

 

 

Gender Country of Origin Principal Crop Farm Working Status
Male México Apples Full-time Farmer
Male México Grapes Full-time Farmer
Male México Blueberry Part-time Farmer
Male US Blueberry Full-time Farmer
Female US Blueberry Part-time Farmer
Male México Blueberry Part-time Farmer
Male México Blueberry Full-time Farmer
Male Mexico Blueberry Part-time Farmer
Male Mexico Blueberry Part-time Farmer
Male US Other Part-time Farmer
Female México Other Full-time Farmer
Male US Blueberry Part-time Farmer

 

49

Qualitative Data Collection

A key strength of the case study method involves using multiple sources and
techniques in the data gathering process. According to Tellis (1997), case study is known
as a triangulated research strategy. The need for triangulation arises from the need to
conﬁrm the validity of the processes. In case study, this could be done by using multiple
sources of data. Yin (2003) identiﬁed six sources of evidence in case study: (1)
documents, (2) archival records, (3) interviews, (4) direct observation, (5) participant-
observation, and (6) physical artifacts.

In this research, the case study approach basically used two sources of evidence:
documents and semi-structured interviews (in-depth interview).

Documents: The ﬁrst source of evidence was documents. Documents included
census data reports, technical reports, newspaper articles, and any document relevant to
the study. In the interest of triangulation of evidence, the documents serve to corroborate
the evidence from other sources. Documents are also useful for making inferences about
events (Tellis, 1997).

Semi-structured interviews (in-depth interview): The second source of evidence
was 12 semi-structured interviews with Hispanic farmers. Here, the researcher used an
interview guide that lists the topics to be covered or the open-ended questions to be
asked. The semi-structured interviews, although open-ended, are structured around the
research questions deﬁned at the start of study. This source of information uses open-
ended questions and yields in-depth responses about people’s experiences, perceptions,
opinions, feelings and knowledge. Data consisted of verbatim quotations with sufﬁcient

context to be interpretable. The topics and issues to be covered are speciﬁed in advance,

50

in outline form; the researcher decided sequence and wording of questions in the course
of the interview. An open-ended question allowed the farmers being interviewed the
opportunity to respond in their own words and to express their own personal perspectives.
The outline increases the comprehensiveness of the data and makes data collection
somewhat systematic for each participant (Patton, 2002).

The semi-structured interview had a number of advantages. First, a great deal of
information on very speciﬁc issues was gathered quickly because it contained
predetermined topics or questions. Second, questions were open-ended and respondents
were encouraged to explain their answers to each question. The answers are therefore
recorded as text. Another advantage was that the researcher was obliged to cover all
topics or questions in the interview guide in two or three sessions with the farmers. The
information obtained from all farmers was comparable (Chung, 2000).

The semi-structured interviews helped to collect more detailed information in
order to understand this new phenomenon in southwestern Michigan. The interviews
were done in Spanish or English, and recorded on audiotape.

For the semi-structured interviews the researcher prepared a guideline with some
open-ended questions, which were covered in totality during the interviews (Appendix
D). Usually, the semi-structured interviews required two or three interview sessions with
the Hispanic farmers in order to cover all topics or questions of the interview guide.

The basic protocol in conducting semi-structured interviews was as follows:

0 Describe the goals of the research.

0 Describe why farmer’s participation is important in this research.

0 Read to the farmer the informed consent document.

51

0 Indicate to farmer that his/her participation is voluntary.

0 Describe the possible risks of participation.

0 Request the farmer’s signature on the form.

0 Ask the farmers if the interview can be audio recorded.

0 Ask the farmer if there are any questions or comments before initiating the
interview.

0 Initiate the interview.
Data Analysis

In a qualitative approach, data analysis is the process of moving from raw data to
evidence-based interpretations. Qualitative analysis entails classifying, comparing,
weighing, and combining material from data collections to extract the meaning and
implications, to reveal patterns, or to stitch together descriptions of events into coherent
narrative (Rubin and Rubin, 2005).

The researcher examined raw data using many interpretations in order to ﬁnd
linkages between the research Obj ect and the outcomes with reference to the original
research questions. Throughout the evaluation and analysis process, the researcher
remained open to new opportunities and insights. The case study method, with its use of
multiple data collection methods and analysis techniques, provides the researcher with
Opportunities to triangulate data in order to strengthen the research ﬁndings and
conclusions. The transcriptions of semi-structured interviews and extended ﬁeld notes
served as the raw data for analysis. In order to analyze the raw data, this study used three

different procedures: coding data, reducing data, and creating displays.

52

Coding data involves reading answers of open-ended questions and expanded
ﬁeld notes, line by line, and dividing the data into meaningful analytical units. Coding is
deﬁned as marking the segments of data with symbols, descriptive words, or category
names. Whenever a meaningful segment of text in a transcript or expanded ﬁeld notes is
found, a code or category name is assigned to signify that particular segment. This
process continues until all data have been segmented and initial coding completed.

In this study, after the data collection, open-ended question answers and expanded
ﬁeld notes were read. As a result, the researcher identiﬁed important concepts and ideas
that could help to answer the research questions. Coding data was an ongoing and
iterative process because some modiﬁcations in the set of codes occurred over the course
of the study in accordance with the experience gained during the data analysis. In this
stage one table was created for the coding system. Each concept or theme was given a
name, code, deﬁnition, rule for applying it and examples of when it applies.

Reducing data is a procedure that helps the researcher to look for evidence that
answers the research questions in one data collection. The procedure consisted of several
stages: (a) the researcher read transcriptions, keeping in mind the ﬁrst research question,
then began to look for evidence that answered the ﬁrst research question. Here the
researcher used coded ﬁeld notes; (b) when the researcher found a passage that addressed
the research question, it was cut and pasted to a blank document under the header of the
research question; (c) after the researcher had gone through the entire text looking for
answers to the ﬁrst research question, the collection of passages accumulated was
reviewed; (d) a summary statement was recorded at the end of the memo. This summary

typically included some of the concepts and themes that were coded for and which

53

provided answers to the research questions; (e) the researcher continued through the text
and collected evidence for each remaining research question. The researcher ﬁnished
with a list of quotes or passages after each research question, and a set of summary
statements at the end for each question; (I) the researcher repeated this procedure for the
remaining data collections and constructed a new memo for each. This was a suitable
mechanism to identify information for the research questions, and a way of reducing the
volume of information.

Creating display is a visual format that presents information systematically, so the
researcher can draw valid conclusions and take needed action. The displays (a) show the
data and analysis in one place, (b) allow the analyst to see where ﬁrrther analyses are
needed, (c) make it easier to compare different data sets, and ((1) permit direct use of the
results in a report, improving the credibility of conclusions drawn (Miles and Huberrnan,
1994). In this study, two kinds of display were used: conceptual matrix and checklist
matrix. T

This research used conceptual matrix as a way to organize the data and to detect
concepts or themes across the data collections. Consequently these displays help to
answer the research questions. The data variables are placed in rows, and the concepts
that allow researcher to answer the research question are in columns. Within each cell,
meaningful segments of information were placed. When the display was ﬁnished, the
researcher looked across the appropriate columns for patterns in the data. Finally, for
each display, a summary was created from this analysis.

A checklist matrix is a format for analyzing ﬁeld data on a major variable or

general domain of interest. The basic principle is that the matrix includes several

54

components of a single, coherent variable, though it does not necessarily order the
components (Miles and Huberman, 1994). A checklist matrix was used in organizing the

challenges or problems identiﬁed in the data collections.
Validity and Reliability of the Study

According to Patton (2002, p. 14), validity in the quantitative phase depended on
careful instrument construction to ensure that the instrument measures what it is supposed
to measure, as was detailed in the survey instrumentation section of this chapter. The
instrument was administered in an appropriate, standardized manner according to
prescribed procedures. On the other hand, in the qualitative phase, the researcher is the
instrument. The credibility of qualitative methods, therefore, links to a great extent to the
skill, competence and rigor of the person doing ﬁeldwork. Guba (1981) describes the
criteria for trustworthiness with the qualitative paradigm as credibility in place of internal
validity and transferability in place of external validity. Lincoln and Guba (1985)
mention ﬁve techniques to establish credibility in a qualitative inquiry:

1. Activities increasing the probability that credible ﬁnding will be produced. There
are three such activities: prolonged engagement, persistent observation, and
triangulation. In this study, the researcher was working for a MSU Extension
research project collecting information in the research area during almost 30
months. Persistent observation started during the ﬁrst 12 months and continued
throughout the research time period, and triangulation was provided with

multiples sources of evidence and multiple methods of data collection.

55

2. Peer debrieﬁng. The researcher discussed the information and the data collected
with MSUE staff (Mr. Juan Marinez and Antonio Castro) to explore aspects of the
study that might otherwise remain only implicit within the researcher’s mind.

3. Negative case analysis. This is a process of continuously reﬁning a hypothesis
until it accounts for all known cases without exception. This research of Hispanic
farmers in southwestern Michigan was an exploratory study without a hypothesis
and was conducted with only ﬁve research questions. Therefore, this technique
was not used in this study.

4. Referential adequacy refers to the archiving of data for later scrutiny. This helps
to enhance credibility by making available, for those who wish to view it, the
researcher's raw data. In the qualitative phase, the semi-structured interviews (in-
depth interviews) were audio recorded. These transcriptions were very useﬁrl in
collecting more detailed information about the participants.

5. Member checks. Member checks occur when data, analytic categories,
interpretations, and conclusions are tested with members from whom the data
were originally collected. In the qualitative phase, the semi-structure interviews
consisted of two or three sections; these provide the opportunity to verify the
information and data with the participants.

Reliability is synonymous with stability, consistency, predictability and accuracy,
and usually tested by replication (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Accuracy of information
collected was insured with the multiple source of evidence or methods of data collection

such as survey, in-depth interviews, ﬁeld notes, documents, and audio recorders.

56

Limitations of the Study

This study was limited to Hispanic farmers who have their own farms in
southwestern Michigan, in four adjacent counties (Allegan, Berrien, Cass, and Van
Buren). Hispanic is a label used to group individuals living in the US. who trace their
origin to Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America. They include both US. and
foreign-bom residents. A farm is any place from which $1,000 or more of agricultural
products (crops and livestock) were sold or normally would have been sold during a year.
This study utilized two nonprobability sampling approaches: in the quantitative phase a
snowball sampling was used and in the qualitative phase a purposeful sampling was used.

This study assumed no similarity between Hispanic farmers in the research area
and those operating in other states or counties of Michigan. Therefore, precautions must

be taken not to apply the ﬁndings of this study in other settings.

57

CHAPTER IV

QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS

This study used a mixed methods sequential explanatory design consisting of two
phases: quantitative followed by qualitative. The subjects of this study were Hispanic
farmers who are Operating their own farms in southwestern Michigan. The data collected
in the quantitative phase of this study were analyzed according to the procedures
describes in Chapter HI. This chapter summarizes the information collected in the
research area. The discussion of the ﬁndings is arranged to answer the research questions
set forth in this study.

One of the basic and most difﬁcult aspects in the development of this research
was creating and verifying the listing of Hispanic farmers in the four counties of the
study area. The lack of an up-tO-date listing of Hispanic farmers, as well as the difﬁculty
of obtaining access to this minority group of farmers, had this researcher working on
ﬁnding the farmers, visiting every one of them on their farms, verifying that they were
Hispanic or Latino owners who producing at least US. $1 ,000 a year in agricultural
products. Out of more than 500 veriﬁed names in the study area, 132 farmers were
identiﬁed in 108 farms; in some cases there was more than one farmer on one farm. As
shown in Table 3, Van Buren County has 76.5 percent of the 132 identiﬁed farmers and
Allegan County has 18.9 percent. Berrien and Cass counties had 2.3 percent or three

farmers in each of them.

58

Table 3. Hispanic Farmers by County

 

 

Farmers (n=132) Farmer Surveyed (n=82)
NO. % No. %
Allegan 25 18.9 23 92.0
Berrien 3 2.3 2 66.7
Cass 3 2.3 2 66.7
Van Buren 101 76.5 55 54.5

 

As show in Table 3, the number of farmers surveyed in each of the counties is
much smaller than the number of farmers identiﬁed. This is because some of the
identiﬁed farmers in the study area refused to participate in the survey and others, after
two or three farm visits, could not be contacted because they live in Chicago, Illinois.

Thus, out of 132 identiﬁed farmers, 82 (62.12 percent) Were contacted.
Research Question 1

ﬂh_at_r_rre the demo graphics and socioeconomic chgacteristics of Hispanic farmers in
southwestern Michigan?

Personal interviews were conducted from August 2005 to July 2006, with the goal
of creating a baseline of information about Hispanic farmers to obtain a better
understanding of the target population, and create a reference setting for the qualitative
component of this study. During this period, 82 farmers were interviewed by the
researcher.

Figure 3 shows the gender of respondents. Most of the farmers surveyed (86.6

percent) were men and only 13.4 percent of the surveyed participants were women.

59

Figure 3. Gender of Respondents

Femalehh“
13% 3111:3235 -----

.........
--------
---------
.........
..........
..........
...........
nnnnnnnnnnnn
.............
----------------
-------------------
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
...................
....................
---------------------
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
.......................
......................
ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
-------------------------

 

..........................
..........................
..........................
.........................
--------------------------
.........................
.........................
.........................
........................
........................
oooooooooooooooooooooooo
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
ooooooooooooooooooooooo
-----------------------
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
.....................
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
-------------------
------------------
-----------------
................
...............
..............

Respondents were asked to indicate their ages. Findings in Table 4 show that 31.7
percent and 25.6 percent of the farmers were between the ages of 46-55 and 36-45,

respectively. Only 13.4 percent of the farmers were over 65 years old.

Table 4. Age of Respondents

 

 

Farmers (n=82) Percent
Under 25 years 2 2.4
26 - 35 years 10 12.2
36 - 45 years 21 25.6
46 - 55 years 26 31.7
56 - 65 years 12 14.6
Over 65 years 11 13.4

 

Family is one of the most important values among the Hispanic population.
Participants were asked about their marital status. As shown in Table 5, most of the

respondents (87.8 percent) were married.

60

Table 5. Marital Status of Respondents

 

 

Farrrrers (n=82) Percent
Married 72 87.8
Single 5 6. 1
Separated 2 2.4
Divorced 2 2.4
Widowed 1 1 .2

 

There are two main groups of Hispanic farmers in this study area. The ﬁrst group
consists of the people who were born in the United States, but their parents or
grandparents come from a Latin American country. The second group consists of the
people who were born in a Latin American or Caribbean country. When the participants
were asked about their country of origin, about one out of four (26.8 percent) stated they
were born in the United States; only one was born in Puerto Rico. As shown in Figure 4,
most of the respondents (73.2 percent) were born outside the United States, and the

majority of them were of Mexican origin.

Figure 4. Country of Origin

Mexico
73%

 

61

About three out of four farmers were born in México, and it was considered
important to know ﬁom which states. According to Table 6, there are farmers in
southwestern Michigan who were born in México and come from 10 different states
besides México City (D.F.). Most of the participants came from the states of Michoacan

(43.3 percent), Zacatecas (15.0 percent), and San Luis Potosi (11.7 percent).

Table 6. Mexican States of Origin

 

 

Farmers (n=60) Percent
Michoacan 26 43.3
Zacatecas 9 15.0
San Luis Potosi 7 11.7
Coahuila 4 6.7
Guanajuato 3 , 5.0
J alisco 3 5.0
Tamaulipas 3 5.0
Guerrero 2 3.3
Puebla l 1.7
Durango l 1.7
DF 1 1.7

 

Of the 22 farmers born in the United States, three out of ﬁve (61.9 percent) were
bom in Texas and about one out of four (23.8 percent) were born in Michigan. Other
states mentioned by the respondents included California, Illinois, and Arkansas. One

participant was born in Puerto Rico.

62

Table 7. Place of Birth of Respondents Born in the US.

 

 

State Farmers (n=22) Percent
Texas 13 59.3
Michigan 5 22.7
Califomia 1 4.5
Illinois 1 4.5
Arkansas 1 4.5
Puerto Rico 1 4.5

 

The growing number of Hispanic farmers who operate their own farms is a social
phenomenon, relatively new in the rural communities in southwestern Michigan and
occurring during a period of less than 10 years. It was important to ask the participants
how long they had resided in Michigan. Out of 81 people who answered this question, the
length of stay ranged from 0 — 59 years with a mean of 17.2 years and a standard
deviation of 13.8 years. Other important data are that 44.4 percent of the respondents
stated that they have been living in Michigan for less than 10 years. On the other hand,
around 20 percent of the respondents stated that they have been living in Michigan for
more than 30 years. According to interview ﬁndings, three farmers have their farms in
Michigan but they live in Chicago. These farmers spend time at their farms during
weekends and harvest period.

The farmers’ educational level is an important characteristic when developing and
implementing extension and training programs. When the participants were asked about
the highest educational level they received either in the United States or in México, 25

respondents (30.5 percent) stated that they did not attend school and 18 (22 percent) of

63

the respondents stated that they attended elementary school. Most of these farmers were

born in México (Table 8).

Table 8. Level of Education and Country of Origin of Respondents

 

 

Country of Origin
USA (n=22) México (n=60) Total (n=82)
Level of education No. % No. % No. ' %

Did not go to school - - 25 41.7 25 30.5

Elementary school 1 4.5 17 28.3 1 8 22.0

Middle school 2 9.1 9 15 .0 1 1 13.4

GED - - 1 1.7 l 1.2

High school diploma 16 72.7 6 10.0 22 26.8
Vocational or technical

school diploma - - 1 1.7 1 l 2

2-year college degree 1 4.5 1 1.7 2 2.4

Four year college degree 2 9 1 - - 2 2 4

or higher

 

According to this information, most of the respondents (52.5 percent) have
attended elementary school only. When the educational level was analyzed in reference
to place of birth, nearly half of the people born in México (41.7 percent) do not have any
formal education. However, three out of four Hispanic farmers born in the United States
stated they have at least attended high school.

Language has been one of the most important challenges for the integration of
Hispanics into American society. Due to the country of origin of respondents in this

study, it was considered important to ask about language preference. As shown in Table

64

9, almost half of the respondents (45.1 percent) prefer to speak Spanish and only 9.8
percent prefer English. When analyzing the information in reference to country of origin,
most of the respondents (61.7 percent) who were not born in the United States prefer to
speak Spanish. Only one prefers to speak English. Most of the respondents (68.2

percent) who were born in the United States stated they can speak both languages.

Table 9. Language Preference and Country of Origin of Respondents

 

 

Country of Origin
USA (n=22) México (n=60) Total (n=82)
Language Preference No. % No. % No. %
English 7 31.8 1 1.7 8 9.8
Spanish - - 37 61.7 37 45.1
Both 15 68.2 22 36.7 37 45.1

 

There is an extensive discussion on how Hispanic or Latino people self-identify in
the United States. For this reason, the participants were asked about their self
identiﬁcation. In Table 10, the majority of farmers (76.8 percent) identiﬁed themselves as
Mexicans and 14.6 percent as Mexican-Americans. It is important to mention that only
two of them were self-identiﬁed as Latinos (2.4 percent), and only one (1.2 percent) as
Chicano. Some of the respondents (22.7 percent) who were born in the United were self-

identiﬁed as Mexicans.

65

Table 10. Ethnic Self-identiﬁcation

 

 

Country of Origin
USA (n=22) México (n=60) Total (n=82)
Ethnic Self-
identiﬁcation No. % No. % No. %
Mexican 5 22.7 58 96.7 63 76.8
Mexican-American 12 54.5 - - 12 14.6
Chicano 1 4.5 - - 1 1.2
Puerto Rican 1 4.5 - - 1 1.2
Latino 1 4.5 1 1.7 2 2.4
Other 2 9.1 1 1.7 3 3.7

 

In order to obtain better information on the Hispanic farmers in the study area, it
was considered important to obtain some socioeconorrrics of this group, including their
principal income source and other activities. As shown in Table 11, less than one-third
(29.3 percent) of the respondents stated that agriculture was their principal source of
income. When analyzing the data by country of origin, it was noted that 68.2 and 71.7
percent of the farmers born in the United States and outside the United States,
respectively, did not have agriculture as their principal source of income. The majority of

the Hispanic farmers (70.7 percent) in the study area have income other than farming.

66

Table 11. Principal Income Activity and Country of Origin

 

 

Country of Origin
USA (n=22) México (n=60) Total (n=82)
Activity No. No. % No. %
Agriculture 7 31.8 17 28.3 24 29.3
Other 15 68.2 43 71.7 58 70.7

 

As shown in Table 12, among the activities mentioned by the respondents are

services (32.8 percent), farm worker (13.8 percent), and manufacturing (13.8 percent).

Table 12. Other Economic Activities and Country of Origin

 

 

Country of Origin
USA (n=15) México (n=43) Total (n=5 8)
Economic Activity No. % No. % No. %

Services 8 53.3 11 25.6 19 32.8
Farm worker - - 8 18.6 8 13.8
Manufacturing 2 13.3 6 14.0 8 13.8
Small business - - 4 9.3 4 6.9
Construction - - 3 7.0 3 5.2
Manager or foreman l 6.7 3 7.0 4 6.9
Retired 2 13.3 3 7.0 5 8.6
Food processor worker - - 2 4.7 2 3.4
Other 1 6.7 2 4.7 3 5.2
Education 1 6.7 1 2.3 2 3.4

 

67

About half of the farmers (53.3 percent) who were born in United States indicated
that services were their main source of income. Farmers not born in the United States
stated, in order of importance, services (25.6 percent), farm worker (18.6 percent) and

manufacturing (14 percent) as their main source of income.
Research Question 2

How do people of Hispanic mirround become owner-operagrrs of farms?

In the survey, an open-ended question was designed in order to discover how
people of Hispanic background become owner-operators of farms in southwestern
Michigan. This question was analyzed using the transcriptions from each farmer. The
data suggest several reasons exist that explain why Hispanic people initiate their own
farm business:

0 Some farmers (29 percent) mentioned that agriculture, specially blueberry

production, is a good activity, so consequently they started their own business.

0 For the Hispanic farmers, agriculture is part of their background (21 percent).

0 Their parents were farrnworkers. This situation gives them skills and abilities in

agriculture (17 percent).

0 Agriculture has ties to strong family values inherent from family in México (13

percent). The family members take part in the operation of the farm.

0 The farm is more than a business enterprise. It is a means for pursing a

traditional way of life. Agriculture is considered a better lifestyle (11 percent).

0 Some farmers (9 percent) started their own farms in Michigan because they

want to leave Chicago where gang activity and drug use occurs.

68

Research Question 3

Howhave Hispanic farmers organized the operation of their farms?

The farming activity developed by the Hispanic farmers is deﬁned by the type of
farm they are operating and its principal crop. It was considered important to ask the
farmers about the type of farm, the number of acres they are operating, its principal crop
and where the crop is sold.

When asked about the size of the farm, the average among the 82 respondents was
26.4 acres, with a standard deviation of 58.87 acres. The range is 478, with a minimum
of 2 acres and a maximum of 480 acres.

Table 13 shows the number of acres owned by the farmers surveyed by place of
birth. According to the data, 36.6 percent of respondents have less than 5 acres and half
of the respondents in the study area stated they have less than 10 acres. Only 3.7 percent
of the respondents have more than 100 acres, and three farmers have 160, 180 and 480
acres, respectively. Almost half of the respondents (45.0 percent) who were born outside
United States indicated they have less than 5 acres. In contrast, about half (54.5 percent)

of the respondents born in the United States have between 21 and 40 acres in production.

69

Table 13. Number of Acres

 

 

Country of Origin
USA (n=22) México (n=60) Total (n=82)
Number of Acres No. % No. % No. %

Under 5 acres 3 13.6 27 45.0 30 36.6
6- 10 acres 2 9.1 9 15.0 11 13.4
11 -20 acres 4 18.2 10 16.7 14 17.1
21 - 30 acres 5 22.7 1 1.7 6 7.3
31 -40 acres 7 31.8 2 3.3 9 11.0
41 - 50 acres - - 3 5.0 3 3.7
51 - 100 acres 1 4.5 5 8.3 6 7.3
Over 100 - - 3 5.0 3 3.7

 

Using the USDA-NASS classiﬁcation in regards to farm type, the majority of the
Hispanic farmers (75.6 percent) are Operating fruit and tree nut farms. The types of farms
operated by Hispanic farmers in southwestern Michigan are shown in Table 14.

The type of crop can be one of the most important variables in determining the
growing number of Hispanic farmers in the study area. When the participants were asked
about their principal crop, the majority of the respondents (69 percent) stated blueberry.
As the Figure 5 shows about 20 percent of the respondents mentioned other crops
considered important for the Mexican diet, such as corn, pepper, tomato and tomatillo

(Physalis ixocarpa or Physalis philadelphica).

70

Table 14. Type of Farm

 

 

 

Country of Origin
Type of farm USA (n=22) México (n=60) Total (n=82)
No. % No. % No. %
Oilseed and grain 2 9.1 l 1.7 3 3.7
Vegetable and melon - - 9 15.0 9 11.0
Fruit and tree nut 15 68.2 47 78.3 62 75.6
Greenhouse, nursery,
. - - l 1.7 l 1.2
and ﬂorrculture
Beef Cattle 1 4.5 - - 1 1.2
Cattle feedlots - - 1 1.7 1 1.2
Poul and e
try . gg 1 4.5 - - 1 1.2
production
Sheep and goat 3 13.6 1 1.7 4 4.9
Figure 5. Principal Crop
”Blueberry
69%

 

71

The destination of the farm production is another important aspect in the
Operation of the farm. For this reason, the participants were asked where their produce is
sold. According to Figure 6, three out of four (75 percent) respondents deliver their
product to fruit receivers, and one out of every ﬁve (22 percent) does retail sales on his

own farm.

Figure 6. Destination of the Production

A commodity
broker xxxt
2%

  
 

Buyer from other

state ........ :
1% 5221:2121: A fl'Ult I'OCOIWI'
. / {J
Retail sales 4 ,1 —
22% /

Over two-thirds (70.7 percent) of the Hispanic farmers in the study area stated
that their principal income is not the agriculture products ﬁom their own farm. For this
reason, the participants were asked to identify themselves in regards to the type of work
they do on their farms. As shown in Table 15, fewer than one-third (30.5 percent)
considered themselves as ﬁrll-time farmers. The percentage of full-time farmers is higher
in the group of respondents born in the United States (40.9 percent). Only 26.7 percent
of farmers not born in the United States are full-time farmers. Many of the respondents
have an off-farm income from other farm work, nurseries, and/or food processing plants

in the area.

72

Table 15. Working Status and Country of Origin of Respondents

 

 

Country of Origin
USA (n=22) México (n=60) Total (n=82)
Category No. % No. % No. %
Full-time farmer 9 40.9 16 26.7 25 30.5
Part-time farmer 13 59.1 44 73.3 57 69.5

 

As mentioned before, the group of Hispanic farmers who were considered for this
investigation was those who operate their own farms. Four out of ﬁve farmers stated they
were sole proprietors of the farm. As shown in Figure 7, only 14 farmers (17.0 percent)
are co-owners. Co-owners mentioned by respondents included family members, such as

siblings, cousins, children or spouse.

Figure 7. Ownership

Part OwnerJ/f
17% -

Full Owner
83%

 

Respondents were asked about the number of years they have been operating their
farms. Nearly 70 percent of Hispanic farmers have been operating their own farms for

less than 10 years. Slightly less than half (42.7 percent) of the farmers have been

73

operating their farms less than 5 years in the study area. A group of only eight farmers
(9.8 percent) stated that they have been operating their own farms in Michigan for more
than 25 years. Farmers born in the United States, who have been operating their farms
less than 5 years make up 22.7 percent of the respondents. Their counterparts born in
Mexico represent 50 percent of this group. On the other hand, 36.4 percent of farmers
born in the United States have been operating their own farm more than 20 years;
Mexican born farmers with more than 20 years of farm ownership represent 5 percent of

this group.

Table 16. Years Operating Their Own Farm and Country of Origin

 

 

Country of Origin

USA (n=22) México (n=60) Total (n=82)

No. % No. . % No. %
Under 5 years 5 22.7 30 50.0 35 42.7
6 - 10 years 5 22.7 15 25.0 20 24.4
11-15 years 3 13.6 7 11.7 10 12.2
16 - 20 years 1 4.5 5 8.3 6 7.3
21 - 25 years 2 9.1 1 1.7 3 3.7
Over 25 years 6 27.3 2 3.3 8 9.8

 

As shown in the Table 16, about two-thirds (67.1 percent) of participants stated
they started operating their own farms in the past 10 years. However, it is important to
know how long they have been involved in agricultural activities. Participants were

asked the number of years they have been involved in agricultural activities. Findings

74

indicated a range of 1 — 70 years, with a mean of 29.65 years and a standard deviation of
13.75 years. The average was 30 years of farming activities.

Of 82 farmers surveyed, about seven out often (73 percent) stated having worked
in the agricultural sector in the United States an average of 18.57 years. As shown in
Figure 8, more than half (56.2 percent) stated having worked only in Michigan, and about
two-ﬁfths (43.8 percent) have worked in Michigan and other states, such as Florida,

Wisconsin, Illinois, and North Carolina.

Figure 8. Farm Work in USA

Mchigan only
Mchigan and / _ / 55%
other states -' I '
44%

 

Of respondents born in México, over three-fourths (78.3 percent) stated having
some experience in Mexican agriculture; on average they had worked for 16.6 years (sd=
7.69). Among the states most ﬁequently mentioned, as shown in Table 17, were
Michoacan (44.7 percent) and Zacatecas (19.1 percent). About 20 percent of them stated
having worked in agriculture in other states, such as Guerrero, J alisco, Guanajuato, etc.
Many of the Hispanic farmers born in Mexico come from rural communities where farm
work is very common. They have been involved in agricultural activities at their family

farm since they were very young, and without a salary.

75

Table 17. Farm Work in México

 

 

Farmers (n=47) Percent
Michoacan 21 44.7
Zacatecas 9 19.1
Guerrero 2 4.3
J alisco 2 4.3
Guanajuato 1 2.1
Some states 4 8.5
Other 8 17.0

 

U.S. agriculture employs signiﬁcant numbers of Hispanic farm workers. For this
reason, it was considered important to ask participants if they were, or are now, farm
workers, how long they have been working in the US, in which states and what type of
crops.

When asked if they had ever been farm workers, the majority (73.2 percent)
answered yes. Four out of ﬁve (81.8 percent) of Hispanic farmers born in the United
States have been farm workers. As shown in Table 18 only one out of four respondents
answered that he/she has never been a farm worker. When asked how long they have

been farm workers, the average is 17.61 years with a standard deviation of 11.34 years.

76

Table 18. Farm Worker Employment and Country of Origin

 

 

Country of Origin
USA (n=22) México (n=60) Total (n=82)
No. % No. % NO. %
Yes 18 81.8 42 70.0 60 73.2
No 4 18.2 18 30.0 22 26.8

 

When the participants were asked in which states they have worked, 37.9 percent
(22 farmers) mentioned Michigan only; although 36 farmers (62.1 percent) have worked
in several states, such as Florida, Texas, Georgia, Illinois, North Carolina, Arkansas and
California. The crops most frequently mentioned are blueberry, apple, peach, strawbeny,

cucumber, grape, asparagus, tomato and other vegetables.

Research Question 4

Mare the challenges that Hispanic farmers face in the operation of their M

A Hispanic farmer starting or operating an agricultural business in the US.
involves challenges that limit his/her potential to reach an optimal production. For this
reason, it was considered important to ask participants what type of challenges they have
encountered in their agricultural business.

As shown in Table 19, the most frequently mentioned barriers were: Lack of
awareness of agricultural agencies, staff and programs (69.5 percent), lack of
loans/ﬁnancial assistance (32.9 percent), language (20.7 percent), and lack of knowledge

of crop system (20.7 percent).

77

Table 19. Farmer’s Barrier in the Farm Operation

 

Country of Origin

USA (n=22) México (n=60) Total (n=82)

 

 

 

Barrier No. % No. % No. %
Lack of awareness of
. . 11 19.3 46 80.7 57 69.5
agricultural agencies,
staff & programs
Lack of loans/ﬁnancial 8 29.6 19 70.4 27 32.9
assistance
Language - - 17 100.0 17 20.7
Lack of knowledge of crop 2 14.3 12 85.7 14 17.1
systems
Lack of Hispanic farmer 2 40.0 3 60.0 5 6.1
organizations
Discrimination 1 25.0 3 75.0 4 4.9
Marketing of products 1 33.3 2 66.7 3 3.7

Research Question 5

mm the level of interaction between Hispanic farmers anﬂgriculturalagencies in
Michigan?

Agricultural development in the United States is based on the existence of several
agencies that promote programs to preserve the environment and to improve the quality
of the farmer’s life, and increase the efﬁciency of the production process. The initiation

of new agricultural businesses supposedly is a direct consequence of the extension

78

programs implemented by USDA agencies or in Michigan by MSU Extension services.
For this reason, it was considered appropriate to ask the participants if they have ever
heard about agricultural and natural resources programs.

Almost three-ﬁfths (56.1 percent) of the surveyed farmers do not know about
programs that support agriculture or about relevant agencies. As shown in Table 20,
about one-third (36.7 percent) of farmers not born in the United States know about
agricultural programs. In contrast, almost two-thirds (63.6 percent) of Hispanic farmers

born in the United States know about agricultural programs in southwestern Michigan.

Table 20. Knowledge of Agricultural and Natural Resources Programs

 

 

Country of Origin
USA (n=22) México (n=60) Total (n=82)
No. % NO. . % No. %
Yes 14 63.6 22 36.7 36 43.9
No 8 36.4 38 63.3 46 56.1

 

Starting an agricultural business is often a consequence of experience farmers or
farm workers receive in the agricultural sector in México or the US. However, some of
the management practices of special crops like blueberries are not easily learned in other
productions systems. For this reason, it was considered appropriate to ask the
participants the main source of advice for farm management. Findings showed that two-
ﬁfths (42.7 percent) of the participants stated that a family member is the main source of
advice for farm management. The second most stated source (41.5 percent) was the

farmer’s experience.

79

Table 21. Sources of Advice for Farm Management Decisions

 

 

Country of Origin
USA (n=22) México (n=60) Total (n=82)
Sources of advice No. % No. % No. %
Family members 12 54.5 23 38.3 35 42.7
Other farmers 1 4.5 4 6.7 5 6.1
MSU Extension and Ag 1 4.5 2 3.3 3 3.7

Experiment Station

Other (Ex-Owner, Farmer

_ . 2 9 0 1 1.7 3 3 7
organrzatrons)

Friends - - 2 3.3 2 2.4

No outside source 6 27.3 28 46.7 34 41.5

 

As shown in Table 21, three farmers mentioned MSU Extension or the
Agricultural Experiment Station as a source in making farm management decisions. In
almost half (46.7 percent) of farmers not born in the United States, these decisions are
made by the farmer’s own judgment. In second place, 38.3 percent are made by family
members. Among Hispanic farmers born in the United States, the ﬁrst and second
sources of advice are 54.5 percent from family members and only 27.3 percent by the
farmer’s own judgment.

Presently, computer usage is very important for administrative management and
record keeping in farm operation. When the participants were asked if they have access
to a computer at home, almost three-ﬁfths (56.1 percent) of participants stated they did

not own a computer. Only 24 farmers (29.3 percent) have a computer with Internet

80

access at home. Children (42.9 percent) and the farmer’s spouse (25.7 percent) were the

main users of computers.

81

CHAPTER V

QUALITATIVE FINDINGS

This study used a mixed methods sequential explanatory design consisting of two
phases: quantitative, followed by qualitative. The subjects of this study were the Hispanic
farmers operating their own farm in southwestern Michigan. The data collected in the
second phase of this study were analyzed according to the procedures described in
Chapter III. The information in this chapter is organized under three sections: overview
of interviewed Hispanic farmers, the analysis of Hispanic farmers’ interviews, and
summary of qualitative ﬁndings. The discussion in the second section is arranged to

answer four of ﬁve research questions set forth in this study.
Overview of Interviewed Participants

The selection of case study participants was based on the results of a quantitative
survey carried out in the ﬁrst phase of this research. The quantitative results gave the
researcher an excellent frame from which to select Hispanic farmers in the research area
for the case study. The selection criteria of the participants were gender, country of
origin, principal crop on the farm, and farm working status. Other important criterion in
the selection process was the farmers’ availability to participate in the semi-structured
interview. The semi-structured interviews were limited to 12 participants because the
researcher realized that no new information was forthcoming from additional
participants. Interviews were conducted in Spanish, and the researcher conducted
analysis of the interview data in Spanish. The text of a typical interview was translated

into English and is included in Appendix E. Some of their stories are recorded below.

82

Farmer’s Pseudonym - Angel

The ﬁrst time I met Angel was at his orchard, in southwestern Michigan, in the
spring of 2005. He grows apples, peaches and grapes. He has worked in agriculture for
more than 37 years, the past 32 years in the United States. Angel is a 52 year old male,
married for the second time, and lives with his wife and two children. He has a third
grade education.

Angel was born in a small rural community in the state of Michoacan, México,
where he worked in the ﬁelds since he was 7 years old. His family was very poor and did
not own a farm. They worked for the rich people of the area. Due to the lack of work,
Angel went to México City, and then the state of Chiapas when he was 17, but he could

not ﬁnd a job in these places. As Angel explained:

“México did not give me opportunities to work like the United
States, even though I searched in my home town and in other places
in México.”

Angel came to the United States looking for opportunities not found in Mexico.
In September of 1973, when he was 20, Angel traveled with one of his brothers to the
United States. He traveled from Cd. Juarez, Chihuahua, México to Chicago, Illinois.

Angel said:

“We came to the United States looking for any type of work; I went
to Chicago because I had relatives there who helped me. We always
go where we have ﬁiends or family, they know the place. They help
us to ﬁnd a place to live and where to look for a job, they open
doors.”

Angel worked in Chicago from September of 1973 to May of 1974, in a
cardboard box factory. In May of 1974, Angel went to Michigan for the ﬁrst time to work

on the farm that he now owns. Angel’s brother worked on this farm and asked his boss to

83

give Angel a chance to work in the ﬁelds. Angel started working on the farm as a worker
responsible for various duties, such as cleaning the orchard, trimming trees, and
harvesting fruit in September and October. During the winter, Angel moved to other
states (Illinois, Florida, Texas, and Arkansas) looking for agricultural work, since he did
not have year-round work in Michigan.

Time passed by and Angel gained more and more responsibility on the farm.
After ﬁve or six years, his boss promoted him to foreman. Angel supervised to 10
employees. In a short time, Angel took over all the farm-related activities, except
ﬁnancial management. He was in charge of the employees, machinery, packing shed,
orchard, harvest, etc. Angel made all the decisions on the farm, only informing his boss

about needed materials. Angel stated:

“In 1995, the farm’s original owners died and the farm was divided
among four descendants, two of whom continued working in
agriculture, while the other two sold their part of the farm. In short
time, due to several problems, the other two owners decided to sell
the farm. Then my boss called me into his ofﬁce. He had bad news,
he did not want to continue working in agriculture, he wanted to sell
or rent the farm to a person who had experience and wanted to
operate the orchard. At that time, my boss gave me the opportunity
to buy part of the farm, so I said, let me think about it.”

A couple of days later Angel made a decision, as he indicated:

“I thought about it and I said to myself, well, what am I looking for?
I planted many of the trees at the orchard, I know how to operate the
farm and I have done it. I know where to sell the fruit, I know the
buyers better than my boss. My boss knows the buyers only over
the telephone, I know them personally when I have delivered fruit to
their warehouse. Also, I knew all the workers, and I communicated
with them in their native language, I could communicate with them
better than my boss. I knew about the workers’ problems. I made
the decision to accept the offer that my boss was giving me;
therefore, I did not miss this opportunity that life offered me.”

84

 

As time went by, Angel ﬁrst bought ﬁve acres of land, then the machinery, then
the reﬁ'igerated rooms, the warehouses, and, lastly, the house where he now lives with his
family. To this day, Angel operates his own lO-acre farm, with his wife’s support. Angel

said:

“My wife and I work on the farm. She has her work and I have
mine. Because of my wife’s education in México, she is in charge of
all the accounting on the farm, she controls all the paperwork. I
don’t know about accounting. I am in charge of all the work in the
ﬁelds. During the U-pick season, my wife, my children, and I
worked together, along with other temporary workers.”

Farmer’s Pseudonym - Blas

Blas is a 47 year old man, married, with two children. He has 11 siblings. Thanks
to his brothers’ and father’s work, he is actually a prosperous farmer with more than 300
acres of blueberries in southwestern Michigan. But his life has not been easy; he was
born in the state of Coahuila in México, and being a little boy of only 4 years old, his
parents came to Texas. During a one-year period, his father worked the ﬁelds in Texas,

but, as Blas mentioned:

“My dad always wanted to travel north. The idea caught my dad’s
attention because he would hear the other workers talking about how
there was a lot of work in the northern area, more Opportunities, and
altogether a better life. So my dad wanted to go north, but he would
say that if he went north, he would stay there, he did not want to be
like those families who come and go every year.”

So in 1965, when Blas was only 5 years old, his father met the Gonzalez family, a

family of agricultural workers that traveled north each year. Blas commented:

“My dad met them [the Gonzalez family], he asked them if they
could help us travel north. When we traveled for the ﬁrst time, we
ended up in Minnesota, there my dad and my older brothers got jobs
as farrnworkers. I do not remember which harvests because I was
very young, but from there we went to Michigan. The moment

85

winter came, there was not any more work in the ﬁeld, so we went
to Chicago, and in this city my father had a half-brother, who helped
him get a job in Indiana close to Chicago.”

For two years his dad worked in a metal factory in Indiana, however, he lost his

job, considering he did not speak any English. Blas said:

“My father always looked for jobs in agriculture, jobs my dad could
get, and since he could only speak Spanish, he would always look in
states where he could work in agriculture. My father thought that if
he moved to a bigger city, he would have problems getting jobs
because he did not speak English.”

When Blas was 8 years old, his family was living in Indiana, but his father would
commute to Michigan. Since he could not speak English, he could not get a job in the
Indiana factories. By 1969, the family had moved to Michigan. Though some of his
brothers had gotten married, Blas started working in the Michigan ﬁelds. He explained

how the situation was:

“I remember that we got up very early, we needed to get out of the
house where we slept, because all the services were outside, we
washed our face and off to the ﬁelds. That year, I helped my dad
with the strawberry and apple harvest. For instance, I helped my
dad pick apples, my dad picked the fruit from the tree and I needed
to pick all the fruit from the ground, this was the ﬁrst time I worked
in agriculture. I was about 8 or 9 years old.”

Blas’ father inﬂuenced him to work in the ﬁelds. He said: “My dad was a hard
worker; he taught me how to work on the ﬁelds. My mom taught us values but my dad
taught us agriculture.”

In 1972, Blas’ life changed when his parents got a divorce. Blas and his younger
brothers moved back to Indiana, and Blas’ father continued working in Michigan. By
197 3, he, his mom, and younger brothers went back to Texas, where Blas devoted his

time to school.

86

In 1976, when Blas was 16 years old, he came back to Michigan with two of his
brothers to visit their dad. At that time, his dad asked him to work again in agriculture,

Blas said:

“Our idea was to visit dad for one or two days. We did not intend to
stay with him longer. However, when we got here my dad invited
us to stay, he told us, ‘Stay in Michigan for a while. You do not
have school in Texas during the summer. Work, save your money
and then you can return to Texas.’ One of my brothers convinced
me to listen to him. We stayed in Michigan, working on a big farm
where blueberries are grown. I remember the ﬁrst day of work I
earned more than $50. It was a lot of money for me. When I used to
work in Texas, I earned about $5 or $6 per day. My brother and I
worked with dad harvesting blueberries for more than a month. In
that month, we saved about $5,000. My dad was aware of how
much we earned. I have always said that my dad was very
intelligent. He said that if we could earn that amount of money
working in an orchard that was not ours, harvesting other people’s
fruit, how much money would you earn working in our own farm? I
remember when he told me that there was a farm for sale and that he
would like us to buy it, two of my brothers, Dad and I could buy it
and create a partnership. I kept thinking about the money we earned
at work in a month, I have never seen that much money in my life.
We did not take long to say yes, we would like to buy the farm.
Before we went back to Texas, we bought the 20-acre blueberry
farm. We paid $1,250 each, since it was a $5,000 down payment.”

At that time, Blas’ father already owned a S-acre blueberry farm. Blas went back
to Texas intending to graduate ﬁom high school, but he was always thinking of coming
back to Michigan, to work in the ﬁelds, on his own farm. By 1980, Blas came back to

Michigan, but he had other ambitions. He said:

“I had plans to come back and buy more blueberry farms, but I also
wanted to be a soldier with the army. My dad convinced me not to
pursue that career, every opportunity he had, he would tell me that
many soldiers had died and if it was not mandatory for me to enroll
in the army, not to do it voluntarily. Time passed by and I
complained to my dad for not letting me take the opportunity to be
in the army, and that life as an farmer was very difﬁcult, working
every day. But now, I thank Dad, because of his guidance, I
achieved what I have now.”

87

Since 1978, when Blas’ family bought their ﬁrst farm, little by little they
purchased more properties. For instance, within six months another 20-acre farm was
offered to them, with a $6,000 down payment. Again, Blas’ dad talked to his sons and

they bought the second farm. As Blas stated:

“From 1978 to 1992, we bought seven farms. I remember that we
bought two farms in one year; we could save money for a down
payment for other farm, with the harvest money of one of our farms.
This is how we expanded, little by little ﬁom the efforts of my
father’s work, my brothers’ and mine. During this time, we worked
on our farms, but also, during the winter, we worked trimming other
orchards.”

Blas admits that a very important factor in the progress of their farms was his

father. He said:

“My dad always had thought of doing something, but he never got a
good opportunity. Life was tough for my dad, not speaking English,
not having enough money to raise 11 children, and not being able to
obtain a job in factories. I have always believed that my dad,
noticing the way we worked the ﬁrst time we visited him in
Michigan, saw the opportunity to have his own business, with his
sons’ support. My dad encouraged us; he knew that we could do
something together. For example, when we saw some neglected,
prospective farms, we tried to buy them. We knew that with my
dad’s hard work and ours, we could improve them and obtain good
blueberry production. Another skill that my dad taught us was to
save money. Some of my dad’s friends offered some farms to us.
They knew that my dad was a very honest person that he would pay
on time, and some of them knew that we had the skills to work in
the ﬁeld.”

The farm where Blas and his family worked for the ﬁrst time in Michigan, is now

theirs. When asked how they bought this property, Blas said:

“My dad’s boss has sold more than eight blueberry farms to us. He
used to have more than 1,000 acres in produce. He started selling
them because he was an elderly person who could not work in the
ﬁeld any more. He was more than 70 years old when he sold the ﬁrst

88

farm to us. Even though my dad’s boss had two sons, they did not
like to work in agriculture.”

In 2003, Blas’ dad died but he left a legacy of work and success. Considering he
did not speak English, did not know how to drive, had a big family and real ﬁnancial
problems, he created a produce association. By 2007, Blas’ family had purchased more
than 20 farms of different sizes, and had more than 500 acres of blueberry production.
Blas himself has more than 300 acres of blueberries, along with two of his brothers and
his wife.

He is growing more than 80,000 blueberry bushes yearly at his nursery. Blas is in
charge of the farms’ operations, but his brothers also participate during the harvest
season. Some of his nephews also work on the farms. Blas’ wife helps him to manage
the farm as the payroll supervisor. She also participates directly in the nursery duties
with his children. Blas has diversiﬁed his activities, buying and remodeling homes, then

reselling them as well as buying and selling land.

Farmer’s Pseudonym - Cesar

Cesar was born in a small rural community in Zacatecas, México. He is married
and has two children. During 20 years, he worked at bakeries, ﬁrst in Los Angeles and
later in Chicago. Cesar bought this farm four years ago and operates it with his family.

When Cesar was 16 years old, he came to the US. As he said,

“When I traveled to the US, I ﬁrst went to Tijuana and there a
cousin helped me to cross the border, and I was in San Diego. After
I went to Los Angeles, there my dad had ﬁiends and relatives who
helped me ﬁnd a place to live and later helped me ﬁnd work. I lived
there for 12 years. I got a job as baker. When I was 28 years, I
moved to Chicago, where I was a baker in a small business that
belonged to a Greek. At ﬁrst I was living alone in Chicago, however

89

my dad traveled to the US, together with my brothers, until all my
family moved to the US. My father, my mother and my brothers
lived with me in Chicago. My family and I we were working in the
same bakery.”

In México, Cesar’s family had a farm of 70 hectares (172.92 acres), where he was
growing beans, corn, apples, peaches and some grapes. Also on the farm he had cows,

lambs and horses. As he said:

“The farm belonged to my grandfather, and there my uncles, my dad
and my brothers were working many years. Our 70 hectares were
seasonal; we did not have an irrigation system. We had a tractor and
some farm implements or equipment to work the ﬁelds, although we
did a lot of things with our own hands. The work was very hard and
difﬁcult but I have nice memories about my farm, because there we
had many kinds of animals, and every year we were producing many
things such as tomatoes, peppers, and oats. Part of our production
was used in our home and another part was sold in a local small
market. But the best thing was when we could eat ﬂesh products that
we were producing. In my farm we did not get a lot of money but
we could live well.”

During three interviews, Cesar explained why he bought his farm. He said,

“I had three reasons for buying my farm. The principal one is my
children... I do not like the idea that my children were growing in a
big city like Chicago. I want them to make their own decisions when
they are adults, but now, if I can take them out of the danger of
living in a big city I would do so, hence the decision to buy the farm
here in southwestern Michigan. The second reason was my parents;
they are elderly. They educated me and taught me many things,
they taught me to work. I want to take care of my parents now that
they need me. The third reason was that I love agriculture and I like
living on the farm. I like to spend time working in my ﬁeld. I like to
live in a place where I could do the things that I like doing. My
parents taught me to cultivate the ground, to sow seed and to harvest
the ﬂuit of my labor. I love to care for my horses. I enjoy seeing my
children when they can get a ﬂuit off the tree eat it. I told you that I
was born and lived in one small town for 16 years. For 20 years I
worked as a baker, but always I dreamed of having my own farm.”

As Cesar mentioned, he learned many things in México about agricultural

production and he is now applying them on his farm. Cesar and his dad use many of the

90

management practices they were using in México on their farm in the US. Cesar

explained how he is managing his farm:

“The activities of my farm are done by my father, sometimes my
brothers, my wife and my children. Each of them has some things to
do, for example my wife takes charge of the payments, the ﬂuit
store or the shop, where we sell part of the products of our farm. My
daughter helps her mother in the house and shop. Sometimes my
wife helps me to harvest the ﬂuit. Also they help me to classify the
apples or the peaches.”

Cesar’s father plays the most important role in his farm because he manages the

operation of the farm. He stated:

“My dad knows with great detail what we did today and what we
need to do tomorrow. My father has the experience and he taught me
everything I know on agriculture. My dad can prune apple trees. I
learned it ﬂom him in México. I think that my dad has one of the
most important roles in my farm.”

Farmer’s Pseudonym - Dario

Dario is a 35 year old farmer in southwestern Michigan, who began working on
his farm in 2001. He considers himself as a part-time farmer because he divides his time
working on his 16-acre blueberry farm and driving a school bus in the district where he
lives with his family.

Dario’s wife died in 2006, so he takes care of his two young children, 5 and 12
years old. Dario was born in a small rural community in the state of Michoacan, Mexico.
He only went to sixth grade in his home town. When he was about 7 or 8 years old, he
started working with his father in the farnily’s farm ﬁelds, producing food for his family.
Dario has worked in agriculture for more than 13 years - four in his own farm in the

United States, and nine years in Michoacan, México. When he was 15 years old he came

91

to Chicago looking for work. He worked in several restaurants for about 15 or 16 years.

As he states:

“This work experience was the longest in my life. However, when
we came to Michigan with my wife’s relatives, there was a potential
to do something else. I thought that if we could buy a blueberry
farm, we would not have to invest a lot of money. This way, we
tried to search for our own business in agriculture. Working in
agriculture is hard work, but you lmow that if you work hard, you
can succeed. You do not have to work for another person.”

Although Dario did not have any experience in blueberry production, he listened
to relatives and friends, and found that blueberry production was a good business, or at
least one could earn enough money to make a living. According to Dario, it is better to
invest money in about 10 or 15 acres of blueberries than to start a business like a

restaurant. Dario said:

“When we bought the farm, my wife’s uncles told us that for the
past eight years, they had never had trouble selling blueberries,
unlike apple orchards, where the owners needed to leave the ﬂuit on
the tree because it did not have market value. In 2000, there were
very few Hispanic farmers who were farm owners, but now many
people ﬂom Chicago have come to Michigan. They like the area and
notice that there are good opportunities to grow blueberries. In
many cases, they are peOple who were born in México in small rural
communities, and for many years they have lived in a big city such
as Chicago; where there are many people, many cars, and also a lot
of problems. Now they see an opportunity to buy some acres of
blueberry ﬁelds in Michigan.”

Dario admits that even though many people have experience in growing corn or

beans in México, it is very different in the United States. He stated:

“In México, we grow up taking agriculture lessons ﬂom our
grandparents and parents. We think it is unique and the best way to
farm. Generally, we do not take suggestions from other people, and
we do not admit always that the way we work is wrong. Many of us
want to use the skills we had in México while we produce in the

92

United States, but we want to do it with our own hands. We need to
understand that agriculture in this country is different.”

Dario noted that Hispanic farmers need a better way of communicating among

themselves and with the agencies promoting agriculture and natural resources. He said:

“If Hispanic farmers do not develop better communication with
agricultural agencies, we will fail and lose our jobs and the money
that was invested on our farms, or in the best situation, we will be
stuck in the same position, without improving our farms. Also, if
farmers are not trained, there are many possibilities of polluting the
environment or harming people’s health if the ﬂuit is eaten after
inappropriate usage of chemicals. It could create many problems
due to ignorance or improper use of machinery.”

Dario wants to buy a sprinkler system for the farm as well as increase the number
of blueberry acres in order to work full-time on his farm. Dario hopes that his sons will
continue working on the project that they started ﬁve years ago, when their mom was

alive.
Farmer’s Pseudonym - Efren

Eﬂen is ﬂom San Luis Potosi, México, and he never went to school. As he said:

“I never liked to go to school, but I am capable to do many things
even though I am illiterate. I learned to read and write a little, but I
have many ideas, and I like to learn from other people. The third
time that I got married, my wife Licha taught me how to read.”

Eﬂen talks about the barriers that he encounters for not being able to read and

write or communicate in English, and how he overcame this situation:

“Every time I need to make a transaction or business, such as buying
a car, I ask someone I trust for help. I look for someone who can
explain everything to me. I do not sign any document until I am
informed what is all about. I can get in trouble if I sign a document
without knowing, so I have to be sure what is going on.”

93

Eﬂen was born in a small rural community, located on the Chihuahua desert. The
peOple who live there are very poor. They make use of the plants and animals that grow
in the area, and they work in agriculture and raise goats for living. This place is a big
contrast with his 80-acre farm in southwestern Michigan.

Eﬂen came to the United States for the ﬁrst time, when he was eight years old.
He has been living in the United States for more than 33 years, but he has wOrked on his

own vineyard, since 1992. He stated why he decided to get into agriculture:

“For a long time, I had the desire to have my own farm. I worked in
other people’s ﬁelds for many years, and I wanted to know whether
being a farm owner was good business or not. Oftentimes I listened
to the farmers talk about not making enough money, so I asked
myself why they kept working on their farms. Unlike serving others
being self-employed gives you the ﬂeedom to work any time you
want, do whatever you want and the way you want. This was why I
wanted to excel. I want to excel not only for myself, but now I want
to leave something for my children so they can have something for
the future and be prosperous. I want a home for my children. I had
the opportunity to buy a 10-acre grape farm and I paid,$97,000 cash
for it. While I have enough strength, I planted more grapes until I
reached about 80 acres of grapes. Now, even if someone offered me
$1,000,000, I would not sell my farm. It is the only thing I have.”

Efren is 67 years old and he has worked in agriculture for more than 50 years. In
México, he started working in ﬁelds at 13, growing cotton in Coahuila and Durango,
growing tomatoes, chili peppers, onions and cucumbers in Guanajuato, and cantaloupe in
Michoacan. In the United States, he worked as a farm laborer in Michigan, growing
blueberries, apples, strawbenies, and asparagus. Eﬂen’s goal is to have 1,000 acres of
grapes. Although he adnrits that will be difﬁcult, he hopes that his youngest son can

pursue his dream.

94

Farmer’s Pseudonym - Fidel

It is hard to describe the sensation I felt when I arrived at an Hispanic family-
owned farm, in southwestern Michigan; and watched them work as a family at the
nursery, while they were listening to Mexican music coming from a red, newer model,
extended cab truck.

Fidel, his wife and three of their children (24, 19 and 12 years old) were
transplanting blueberry bushes. While Fidel brought the plants ﬂom the nursery, his wife
and two of their daughters ﬁlled the bags with soil, for the bushes needing more space
would be placed. On the other side, his son was taking the big bags ﬁlled with blueberry
bushes to a designated area on the farm. This scenario was meaningful to Fidel because

children valued their work in agriculture. As he said:

“When I started working on my farm, none of my children wanted to
help me, little by little I have taught them that if you plant
something, even one pepper bush, some day you will harvest the
fruit. Four years ago when I started working at the nursery, my son
helped me but he was not very happy. We grew about 4,000 or
5,000 blueberry bushes, however my son said that we were wasting
our time doing this. Within ﬁve months, a person came to my farm
and offered me $1.50 per bush. Without much thinking, I sold them,
and I earned about $7,000. When my children learned about this
situation, they realized that if we work together, we could make
more money. Now, they have encouraged me to grow more
blueberry bushes; we have three nurseries now. I am very proud
that my children participate with me in the farm activities.”

On the 20-acre property, Fidel and his family have a home, a six-acre blueberry
orchard, three small nurseries and another eight-acre ﬁeld where they grow four or ﬁve
different types of peppers, corn, tomatoes, tomatillos, watermelon, cantaloupe and

zucchini. These products are sold to Mexican stores in Chicago.

95

Fidel is a 50-year old male, married with six children, native of a rural community
in the state of Michoacan, in Mexico, uneducated and he only speaks Spanish. He
considers himself as a full-time farmer who works in his 14-acre farm. His wife helps
him with some farm and nursery activities and works in a factory, processing cucumbers.

According to Fidel, working in agriculture represents several positives, as he said:

“I like to be independent, not depending on anyone to tell me what
to do. I like to earn money with my own work. When you work fOr
another person, you get paid the minimum. Besides, when you
produce your own food, you save money because you do not need to
buy these items at the market.”

Agriculture is part of F idel’s life. He said:

“I started working with my dad when I was six years Old. He took
me to work in the corn ﬁeld. We know that in México, it has always
been this way. The family members work in the ﬁelds with no
salary, we work to support our family, and it continues until you get
married or you leave your parents’ house.”

Fidel has lived in the United States for the past 10 years. He came ﬂom
Michoacan, México to Chicago, Illinois, where he Worked in several factories for about
ﬁve years. Because of his language and education barriers, he traveled to Michigan
where several of his brothers live, and started working on blueberry, apple, peach and
grape ﬁelds. The experience that he got while working on these farms and in México has
allowed him to operate his own farm, but, as he says, he has had no contact with

agricultural agencies in the United States.

Farmer’s Pseudonym - Hugo

Hugo is married, with four children, and a native of México. When we ﬁrst

interviewed him, he said that he went to school in his home town for only six months.

96

“When I went to school the only things I learned was how to write
my name, to draw circles and to write the numbers 1 and 2. I
learned to read a little with my brother when we looked at comic
books. Due to the lack of funds, my brother and I needed to work.
We became semi-orphans at a very young age, as our father died and
Mom was taking care of us, so we needed to help our family. We
left our home town looking for jobs and we went to different cities
and then to the United States. I had to work hard all my life to make
ends meet. I was eight years old when I started working in the ﬁelds,
growing corn, beans, tomatoes, and peppers. I worked in Zacatecas,
San Luis Potosi and other states. I have been working in agriculture,
growing blueberries since I came to the United States, 17 years in
Michigan and one year in North Carolina.”

When asked, Hugo said his reason for coming to the United States.

“There is no life in México. You cannot do anything because of the
lack of jobs, or if you ﬁnd a job you get paid the minimum wage. It
gets worst for people like me who do not have education, and there
is no other choice but to work in agriculture or move to the city. I
came to the United States when I was 24 years old. I remember
when a friend ﬂom my home town invited me to work in Michigan.”

In 2003, Hugo bought a 25-acre blueberry farm in southwestern Michigan. In
addition, he operates another 100 acres blueberry farm that belongs to a Polish farmer.

When we asked Hugo why he bought his own farm, he stated:

“I felt that I needed to do something, not only work for someone. I
wanted to have my own farm and I also want to buy more blueberry
farms. Now, many elderly farmers without a family or descendants
who are not interested in agriculture are selling their farms. The
problem now is that prices have tripled in the past 5 years.”

Farmer’s Pseudonym - Julio

Julio is a 48-year old male, married, with ﬁve children, and a native of the state of
Michoacan, México. Julio went to school through second grade in México. He considers
himself a part-time farmer because he only works on the farm during the harvest season

and weekends. His wife works full-time managing the farm. During the week Julio lives

97

in Chicago, Illinois, where he works in a steel factory while his family lives in
southwestern Michigan. He has owned his farm since 2004. They own 90 acres, with 32
acres of blueberry and six acres of chestnut.

When Julio was asked why he wanted to be a farmer in Michigan, he answered:

“I grew up in the countryside, and although I have worked for a long
time in Chicago, I always wanted to go back to the environment
where I grew up. I see that we are getting opportunities to buy
farms in this area because many of the farmers are elderly and
unable to work in the ﬁelds. They might not have children, or if
they do, the children are not interested in agriculture. In the short
time that I have lived here, I have noticed that the farmers’ children,
being Caucasian or African-American, are not involved in farm
activities. But I notice that many Hispanic people want to buy
farms; so the prices have increased. For example, a year ago, you
would see ads in the newspaper for a 20-acre farm that cost $40,000.
Nowadays people are asking $60,000 for the same acreage.”

Julio started working in agriculture with his father and siblings on community
land. Because of family hardships, at the age of 14 he began working for other people
near his hometown, growing cotton, sesame seed and sugar cane. At the age of 18 he
went to México City, where he lived and worked for ﬁve years. At 25, Julio lost his job
in a textile factory in the state of México and came to Chicago, where he lived with
relatives. He has worked in several factories for more than 24 years in Chicago. Julio
started working on his own farm in 2004. He had experience in agriculture but he never
grew blueberries and chestnuts. With his relatives support, he learned how to manage his
farm, which is now mainly managed by his wife. Julio is thinking of retiring ﬂom his

factory job very soon, in order to work full-time on his farm and with his horses.

98

Farmer’s Pseudonym - Ana

During this study, the researcher has had three opportunities to talk with Ana.
The ﬁrst interview reafﬁrmed the impression that the researcher has about what an
Hispanic farmer can become, regardless of his/her gender. With the support of a MSU
Extension agent, we visited Ana’s farm on a Saturday at about 6:30 PM. When we
arrived at the farm in southwestern Michigan, we saw a tractor working in the ﬁeld. It
caught my attention because a woman was operating the tractor, applying some
chemicals on the ﬁelds. Ana was driving the tractor and was returning to the barn for
more chemicals with her husband’s help.

When Ana was introduced, she shook hands and I noticed that her clothes and
hands were dirty due to the work she did that day on the farm. She is about 58 years old,
native of the state of Tamaulipas, México. Ana and her husband (who is Caucasian)
work 480 acres. They grow grapes, peaches, and different types of vegetables. They also
have a greenhouse and cattle.

When Ana was six years old, her parents came to the United States. She grew up
and studied in a community on the southern border, while her parents worked in the
ﬁelds. At the age of 16, Ana and her family came to Michigan to work as farm workers.
Later, she met her husband, who was the farm owner’s son. Ana and her husband now
own and manage the farm. Due to Ana’s experience in agriculture, she has performed all

the farm-related activities. She said:

“During harvest season, there are some days that my husband and I
sleep for only four hours. We start working at four in the morning
and we continue until 11:00 at night. While my husband is taking
the ﬂuit to the processing plant, I continue working on the farm,
supervising the employees. Besides the farm work, I also participate

99

in the vegetable harvest at our greenhouse and two or three days a
week, I tend our stand at the county farmer’s market where I sell our
farm products.”

Farmer’s Pseudonym - Rosa

Rosa is a 28-year old married female, a native of Salinas, California, with two
children. She is a high school graduate and she is presently working as an aide at a
middle school in her community. Her husband is a 28-year old farm worker, native of the
state of Michoacan. Rosa is considered a part-time farmer because her main income
comes from her work at the school. During the summer, she works with her husband and
family growing blueberries on other people’s farms. They started working on their own
two acre blueberry farm in 2002. She works with her husband on their farm during the
weekends or when they are not working on other farms.

When asked why they bought the farm, Rosa answered: “We bought the farm
because it had a home and two acres of blueberry bushes. We got lucky.” When Rosa

was asked about her experience in agriculture, she said:

“I have been in farming all my life. I have worked with my father in
several states such as Florida, California, Wisconsin, Illinois, North
Carolina, and Alabama. I remember when I was about seven or
eight years old and my dad was growing apples, oranges, blueberries
and strawberries. We stopped moving ﬂom one farm to another 14
years ago. My dad decided to stay in southwestern Michigan. You
spend a lot of money when you are a farmworker, and you move
ﬂom one place to another. If you have some money saved, even as
little as $2,000 or $3,000, you spend it. Besides, when the children
are little, it is easy to move six or seven people driving a pickup
truck, but when the family older, it is difﬁcult to move ﬂom one
place to another. I remember in some places, we could not get a
room to stay and we had to sleep all cramped in the pickup truck, in
the gas station parking lot. You suffer a lot when you are a
farmworker, so when my father was offered the opportunity to buy a
place where he could live with his family, he accepted and we
stayed in Michigan. We decided to stay in Michigan, but the ﬁrst

100

year was very hard, sometimes we had nothing to eat, so my dad
borrowed some money ﬂom his boss. As time passed, his boss was
like one of our family members. His boss died and his relatives are
in charge now, but it is not the same.”

Rosa holds much respect for her father, who has lived for more than 33 years in

the United States, and worked in agriculture. Rosa stated:

“My dad is uneducated and speaks only Spanish. He has worked
exclusively in agriculture. Usually there is a Spanish speaking
person in the ﬁelds, and this helps many of the farm workers who do
not speak English and are not able to communicate with their
supervisors. My dad works as a foreman now on a farm that
belongs to an elderly widow. Though she has relatives, my dad does
all the work. The owner’s sons come only during the harvest season
to ask if my dad needs something.”

Rosa would like to buy more acres of blueberries so that she can be a full-time
farmer. However, she realizes that she has no money and it is very hard for her to get a

loan from a bank.
Farmer’s Pseudonym - Raul

The ﬁrst time we visited Raul’s farm, we had to wait more than an hour to
interview him. We introduced ourselves and the MSU Extension agent said that he was
ﬂom Texas. Luckily, the MSU Extension agent and Raul had several ﬁiends in common.
Once Raul talked to one of these ﬁiends, and conﬁrmed the information provided by the
MSU Extension agent, he agreed to start the conversation. We really obtained useful
information during the fourth interview. We listened with interest to Raul’s points of
view, plus those of his wife and son. They showed a family commitment to succeed in
the project they started ﬁve years ago.

The interview was held at Raul’s home. Though Raul’s father was a Mexican

immigrant (native of Reynosa, Tamaulipas) the interview was conducted in English. He

101

said that his father came to the United States in 1954, harvesting tomatoes in Arkansas
and then in Texas. Raul has 15 siblings, 10 brothers and ﬁve sisters. He was born in
Texas but he has lived in Michigan for more than 35 years. He graduated ﬂom high
school in Michigan. Raul stated: “My dad came to Michigan looking for a better life,
trying to work in agriculture. My dad and brothers worked for 15 years growing
blueberries.” Presently, Raul, his wife and son own and work on their 50-acre property in
southwestern Michigan. They have 25 acres of blueberry bushes, and have recently put
in 10 more acres of bushes.

Raul bought his farm in 2002, when a local factory closed and he losthis job. He
bought the farm with his compensation money and his wife’s. When asked why he

started an agricultural business, he said:

“My family worked in the ﬁelds for many years, and now that I have
lost my job at the factory, I am back. Before we bought the farm,
my wife and I talked about what we could do. We believed that if
we work hard on the farm, we can succeed. It is happening now.
Some people are buying blueberry farms because they think that
blueberry farms are good business.”

Another important aspect is Raul’s and his wife’s desire to leave a patrimony for

his son. Raul’s wife said,

“We are now working for our son. We see the way he works with us
in the ﬁeld; and since my son has attended several training courses
through MSU Extension, we see how he helps other non English-
speaking farmers.”
Although Raul has worked for 15 years growing blueberries, he admits that it is
not easy to manage a farm and making decisions every day. Therefore, he and his family

have taken some classes at MSU Extension, such as pest and disease control. Raul, his

wife and son work on all the farm-related activities, including operating the tractor,

102

harvesting, trimming, applying chemicals or managing the orchard. His son is considered
a part-time farmer during harvest season and weekends because works in a bank, near the
farm. Most of the farm work is done by the family; only during harvest season are others

hired to help.

Farmer’s Pseudonym - Max

During our third visit to Max’s farm, in December of 2006, we found that he had
suffered a partial paralysis. This forced Max to sell his herd of 50 goats. Max came to
Michigan for the ﬁrst time in 1971 when he visited his sister who was married and living
in this area. Max worked ﬂom 1971 to 1992 in a factory in Holland. When he retired in
1992, he started working on his own farm raising cattle and forage crOps. He used to have
more than 500 acres in corn and forage crops. In 2006 he had 50 acres of forage crops
and raised goats.

Max was considered a full-time farmer. He is 69 years Old, married and born in
Texas. He is a high school graduate. Max was in the Army and went to the Vietnam
War. Max followed his parents’ footsteps by having his own farm. His parents are

natives of Nuevo Leon, México.

Analysis of Hispanic Farmers Interviews

The presentation of ﬁndings is organized around themes or concepts that were
identiﬁed to answer the research questions. To illustrate the ﬁndings, the researcher

makes use of direct quotations ﬂom the semi-structured interviews.

103

Research Question 2

How do people of Hispanic bac_k_ground become owner-(meraftors of Lama?

The data ﬂom this study suggest ﬁve themes or concepts that explain how people
of Hispanic background have become owner-operators of farms in Michigan: First, the
opportunity to initiate a business; second, the transition ﬂom farm worker to farmer;
third, the rural background of Hispanic people; fourth, the role of family values; and
ﬁnally, agriculture as a preferred lifestyle.

Six out of 12 farmers interviewed stated that agriculture provided an opportunity
to initiate their own enterprises where they could be their own boss, make their own
decisions and apply their farming skills. Derived ﬂom the semi-structured interviews, a
common phenomenon was Hispanic people (essentially Mexicans) living in Chicago for
15 or 20 years had subsequently bought their small farms in southwestern Michigan with
money they Obtained ﬂom the sale of their houses or properties in Chicago, or with loans

ﬂom friends or relatives. During the third interview, Dario said:

“In Chicago, I worked in several restaurants for about 15 or 16
years. However, when we came to Michigan with my wife’s
relatives, there was the potential to do something else. I thought that
if we could buy a blueberry farm, we would not have to invest a lot
of money. This way, we tried to search for our own business in
agriculture. Working in agriculture is hard work, but you know that
if you work hard, you can succeed. You do not have to work for
another person.”

Hispanics buying their farms in Michigan but continuing to work or live in

Chicago was another scenario. For example, Julio said:

“During the week, I live in Chicago, Illinois, where I work in a steel
factory, though my family has lived in southwestern Michigan since
2004. We are owners of a 90-acre property, with 32 acres of
blueberry and six acres of chestnut.”

104

For some of Hispanic farmers, agriculture is good business if one likes to work

hard every day. In his ﬁrst interview, Eﬂen said:

“For a long time I had the desire to have my own farm, I worked in
other people’s ﬁelds for many years, I wanted to know whether
being a farm owner was a good business or not. Often times I
listened to the farmers talk about not making enough money, so I
asked myself why they kept working on their farms. Unlike serving
other people, by being self employed you can work any time you
want, do whatever you want and the way you want it.”

A farm business can be an alternative for people who have lost their job. In the

third interview with Raul, he said:

“My family worked in the ﬁelds for many years. Now that I lost my
job at the factory, I am back. Before we bought the farm, my wife
and I talked about what we could do, and we believed that if we
work hard on the farm, we can succeed. It is happening now. Some
people are buying blueberry farms because they think they are good
business.”

The ﬁnal example comes ﬂom Max, who retired and then bought his farm.

“I worked ﬂom 1971 to 1992 in a factory in Holland, Michigan.
When I retired in 1992, I started working on my own farm, basically
to raise cattle and forage crops. As I stated, I used to have more
than 500 acres of corn ﬁelds and forage crops.”

Based on the data, some farm workers became farmers through two different
scenarios. In the ﬁrst, Hispanics came to Michigan as migrants, harvesting blueberries,
asparagus, tomatoes, apples, pears, and grapes. They are Mexican-American or Mexicans
who for many years harvested ﬂuit in several states in the US. When the family is large
or as the children grow Older, this way of live is more difﬁcult, and they make the

decision to buy a small farm in Michigan and settle down. For example, Rosa said:

“We stopped moving ﬂom one farm to another 14 years ago. My
dad decided to stay in southwestern Michigan. When the children
are little, it is easy to move six or seven people driving a pickup

105

truck, but when the family is growing, it is difﬁcult to move from
one place to another. I remember in some places, we could not get a
room to stay and we had to sleep all cramped in the pickup truck, in
the gas station parking lot. You suffer a lot when you are a farm
worker, so, when my father was offered the opportunity to buy a
place where he could live with his family, he accepted and we
stayed in Michigan.”

In the second scenario, we see farm workers, such as managers or operators who
had the opportunity to buy a farm when the owner grew older and less able to keep up
with farming activities, and their children were not interested in the family business.
These situations generated opportunities for Hispanics to buy these farms. In some cases,

the owner helped ﬁnance the Hispanic workers on their farms. Angel was one such case:

“The farm’s original owners died and the farm was divided among
four descendants. Two of them continued working in agriculture and
two of them sold their part of the farm. Due to several problems, the
other two owners decided to sell the farm. Then my boss called me
into his Ofﬁce, he had bad news, he did not want to continue
working in agriculture, he wanted to sell or rent the farm to a person
who had experience and wanted to operate the orchard. At that
time, my boss gave me the opportunity to buy part of the farm.”

The rural background of Hispanic people was another important factor. Many
Mexicans were born and raised in small rural communities in México, where local

families produced subsistence crops. Dario said:

“They are Mexican-bom ﬂom small rural communities who have
lived for many years in a big city such as Chicago where there are
many people, cars, and problems. They see an opportunity to buy '
some acres of blueberries in Michigan and they take it. That is my
situation. For more than 15 years, I grew up and lived with my
family in México.”

The rural background of those interviewed gave them knowledge, skills and
abilities in agriculture. Based on the data, 10 out of 12 Hispanic farmers interviewed were

involved in agriculture by the time they were six or seven years Old. As youngsters, they

106

were involved in many agricultural activities. They accumulated 10 or more years of

farming experience. Three farmers detailed:

Fidel: “I was born in a rural community in the state of Michoacan,
México. Let me tell you something, during the time that I lived in
Mexico, I worked 15 years at my family farm with my father. This
experience helped me to take the decision to buy my farm in the
US.”

Blas: “I remember that we got up very early. We needed to get out
of the house where we slept, because all the services were outside.
We washed our faces and off to the ﬁelds. That year, I helped my
dad with the strawberry and apple harvest. For instance, I helped
my dad pick apples. My dad picked the fruit ﬂom the tree and I
needed to pick all the ﬂuit ﬂom the ground. This was the ﬁrst time I
worked in agriculture, and I was about eight or nine years old.”

Angel: “During 37 years, I have been employed at agriculture, ﬁrst
in my hometown in México and later in the US. I like agriculture
very much; my roots are in farming. My father, in Michoacan, was
renting land, sowing with a mattock. We did not have our own plot.”
On the other hand, the Mexican-Americans born and raised in rural communities

in the US. may have harvested ﬂuit and vegetables with their families through several

states. Rosa explained:

“I have been in faming all my life. I have worked with my father in
several states such as Florida, California, Wisconsin, Illinois, North
Carolina, and Alabama. I remember when I was about seven or
eight years Old and my dad was picking apples, oranges, blueberries
and strawberries.”

Orientation toward agriculture and family values are important factors that
explain Hispanics involvement in agriculture. Four out of 12 farmers interviewed, came
to the US. intending to earn money, then return to México. They worked at restaurants,
bakeries or factories and lived in cities such as Chicago. They met someone, got married,

and had a family. They felt that big cities like Chicago were not where they wanted to

107

raise their families. These situations motivated them to buy a farm. In the second

interview, Cesar said:

“The main reason to buy a farm was for my children. I did not like
the idea that my children were growing up in a big city like Chicago.
I was born and raised in a rural community where life is easier. I
think that in a small community the problems are fewer compared
with a big city. Here on the farm life is peaceful, I feel more
comfortable here on my farm with my children and my wife.”

Another important reason to stay involved in agriculture is the family
involvement, which preserves important family values such as integration, discipline and
work. In developing countries like México, all members of the farming family contribute
in agricultural activities and to household chores. Mexicans youths help their parents
plant crops, take care of animals on the farm, and perform other work that contributes to

the economic sustenance of the household.

Fidel: “I am very proud of getting my children to participate with
me in the farm activities. When I started working on my farm, none
of my children wanted to help me. Little by little I have taught them
that if you plant something, even one pepper bush, some day you
will harvest the ﬂuit. Four years ago when I started working at the
nursery, my son helped me but he was not very happy; my son said
that we were wasting our time doing this. However, we grew about
4,000 or 5,000 blueberry bushes, and within ﬁve months, a person
came to my farm and offered me $1.50 per bush. Without much
thinking, I sold them, and I earned about $7,000. When my children
learned about this situation, they realized that if we work together,
we could make more money.”

Blas: “When we saw some neglected, prospective farms, we decided
to buy them. We knew that with my dad’s hard work and ours, we
could improve them and obtain good blueberry production. Another
skill that my dad taught us was to save money. Some of my dad’s
friends offered some farms to us, because they knew that my dad
was a very honest person and would pay on time, and they knew that
we had the skills to work in the ﬁeld.”

Cesar: “When you worked on the family farm, nobody received a
salary. When the crop was sold, the money was used to support the

108

family. The farm is patrimony of the family. When I was living in
México, every day I was working at the farm and sometimes I asked
myself, if I work every day why do I not get paid. The answer was,
you have something to eat at home, you have clothes, you have a
place to live. The farm gives us money for the family needs.
When you grew up on a farm, you learned that you must do
something to help your family.”

In the Hispanic culture, land gives family identity and social status. Land is
traditionally maintained and afﬁrmed within a family. Mexicans living in the US. want

to recover something cultural that was left in their hometown.

Cesar: “My family had a farm in México. The farm belonged to my
grandfather, and my uncles, dad and brothers worked there many
years ...... My grandfather passed his knowledge to my dad, and my
dad passed it on to me, I want to pass it on to my son.”

Eﬂen: “I want to succeed not only for me, I am older now, but I
want to leave something for my children, so they can have
something for the future and be prosperous. Even if someone offers
me $1 ,000,000, I would not sell my farm. It is the only thing I
have.” '

Another important family value identiﬁed during the interviews is the expectation
that the children, will provide support to their parents in their later years particularly
when parents are unable to care for themselves. In another part of the second interview

Cesar said:

“The second reason to buy my farm was my parents. They are older
now. They educated me and taught me many things. They taught
me to work. I thank them very much for what they taught me .... I
want to take care of my parents now that they need me. I want to
help them to be happy.”

As the data reveal, the farm is more than a business for Hispanic farmers. It is a

means of pursing a traditional way of life.

Hugo: “We have this farm because we love agriculture. Although
our farm does not give a lot of money, we enjoy working in our own
ﬁelds.”

109

Angel: “When I came to the US, I worked three winters at a factory
at Chicago, but was always looking for jobs in agriculture. When
you are working in the ﬁeld, you have the opportunity to be ﬂee and
not to be conﬁned in a factory.”

Cesar: “I love agriculture and I like living on the farm. I like to
spend my time working in my ﬁeld. I like to live in a place where I
could do the things that I like doing. I love to care for my

horses. . ...Agriculture is a very nice activity. I like life in small
communities very much. Living in a rural community with my
family was my dream.”

Research Question 3

How have Hispanic farmers organized the operation of theiiagmi?

As data show, four major themes came ﬂom the semi-structured interviews and
ﬁeld observations to help to explain how Hispanic farmers have organized the operation
of their farms. First, the organization of the farm is centered on family labor; second, Off-
farm employment is important additional income; third, Hispanic farmers manage their
farms using previous farming experience; and ﬁnally, they are using social capital.

All Hispanic farmers interviewed say they are operating a family farm. On their
farms, the family provides the majority of the labor and management decision making.
The family takes the risks, makes the decisions and receives the economic gains. The

farms work around their family nucleus. For example, in the ﬁrst interview, Cesar said:

“The activities of my farm are done by my father, sometimes my
brothers, my wife and my children. Each of them have tasks. For
example, my wife takes charge of the payments, takes charge of the
ﬂuit store or the shop where we sell products ﬂom our farm. My
daughter helps her mother in the house and shop. Sometimes my '
wife helps me to harvest the ﬂuit. They also help me to classify the
apples or the peaches. My dad manages what we did today and what
we need to do tomorrow.”

Ten out of 12 interviewed farmers stated that their relatives help them with the

operation of their farms.

110

Angel: “My wife and I work on the farm. She has her work and I
have mine. Because of my wife’s education in México, she is in
charge of all the accounting on the farm, she controls all the
paperwork. I don’t know about accounting. I am in charge of all the
work in the ﬁelds. During the U-pick season, my wife, my children,
and I worked together, along with other temporary workers.”

Ana: “During harvest season, there are some days that my husband
and I sleep only for four hours. We start working at four in the
morning and we continue until 11:00 at night. While my husband is
taking the fruit to the processing plant, I continue working on the
farm, supervising the employees. Besides the farm work, I also
participate in the vegetable harvest at our greenhouse, and two or
three days a week, I tend our stand at the county farmer’s market
where I sell our farm products.”

Off-farm employment was identiﬁed as an important source of livelihood for
seven out of 12 interviewed Hispanic farmers. They augment their income with part-time
or full-time off-farm jobs. Where opportunities for improved livelihood are perceived, a
proportion of farm households abandon their land altogether, moves into other farming
systems, or into off-farm occupations in rural or urban locations. Hispanic farmers and
some of their family members may work for local farmers, food processors, nurseries,
greenhouses, or other types of services. The data show that their farms are usually a
complement of income for the family. Farm investment decisions, choice of enterprise,
input use, and production practices tend to be inﬂuenced by off-farm employment and the
resulting income. Hispanic farmers employed Off-farm operate their own farms during
evenings or weekends. For example, Rosa is a part-time farmer; her main income comes
ﬂom her work at a middle school. During the summer, she works with her husband and
family, growing blueberries on other people’s farms, and works with her husband on their
farm during the weekends or when not working on other farms. Other examples of off-

fann employment were:

111

Julio: “I am a part-time farmer because I work on the farm during
the harvest season and weekends. My wife works full-time
managing the farm. During the week, I live in Chicago, where I
work in a steel factory.”

Dario: “I think I am a part-time farmer, because I divide my time
working on my 16 acre blueberry farm and driving a school bus in
the school district where I live.”

The data collected during the interviews show that previous experience has a
direct effect on how Mexicans and Mexican-Americans are managing their farms in
Michigan. Mexicans work on their family farms producing peppers, tomatoes, corn, etc.,
and the management practices used on their Michigan farms were similar to those used in
México. Though the characteristics of the farms in México are different ﬂom the farms
that they have in Michigan, in regards to infrastructure, rules and different regulations,
the basic practices of running the farm are the same. In the following quotations, two
Hispanic farmers describe how their previous experience affected the way that they

operate their farms in Michigan.

Fidel: “Agricultural practices are the same in México and in the
US, and many things that I learned in México with my family are
practices that I do here. The way in which you use the tractors,
pmne trees, fertilize the soil, and harvest the crops is the same in
Mexico and the US.”

Dario: “When I lived in México, I was worked for 10 years at the
family farm with my father. This experience helps me to make
decisions about managing my farm here [in Michigan].”
The data show, that the Hispanics learned farming practices within the family

nucleus. Their fathers, grandfathers, uncles, etc., taught them how to work the land. For

example, Cesar stated:

“I remember when planting time came, my grandfather and my dad
taught me, my brothers and my cousins how to put the seed in the
soil, how to know if there is enough moisture in the soil, and when

112

to fertilize. They also taught us to prune apples, peaches, and
grapes ...... I think that when I saw my grandfather working at the
farm or saw my dad working with the cows, slowly I was learning
many things related to agriculture.”

Some crops, such as blueberries, are crops that Hispanic farmers grow in
Michigan, but never saw in México. Their experience with blueberries came ﬂom their

work on Michigan blueberry farms. For example, Raul said:

“My dad came to Michigan looking for a better life, trying to ﬁnd
work in agriculture. My dad, my brothers and I have worked for 15
years growing blueberries. However, it is not easy to manage a
blueberry farm, making decisions every day.”

Data show that Hispanic farmers use their social capital as an important resource
in the operation of their own farms. The farmer’s network integrates family members or
ﬂiends to provide valuable information, ﬁnancial support, agricultural machinery and
farming supplies that some Hispanic farmers cannotusually obtain ﬂom formal

institutions or agricultural agencies.

Eﬂen: “Every time I need to make a business, I ask someone I trust
for help. I look for someone who can explain everything to me. I do
not sign any document until I know what it is all about. I can get in
trouble if I sign a document without understanding it, and I have to
be sure what is going on.”

Angel: “When one starts a farm business, it is very difﬁcult, because
we do not know the ways or the people who can help us, for ’
example, get a loan to buy or run a farm. In my case, a friend took
me by the hand to the place to request loans to support my farm. He
is a person who worked with my ex-boss, and not an extension agent
or government agent.”

113

Research Question 4

Wh_at_are the challenges that Hi§p_anic farmers face in the meration of their fangs?

In the course of this study, various challenges were identiﬁed during the
interviews. The researcher organized the major themes or concepts coming from the
Hispanic farmers interviews in two main categories: barriers resulting ﬂom farmers’
characteristics (self-related barriers) and barriers resulting ﬂom human or institutional
sources (environmental barriers). A checklist matrix (Miles and Huberman, 1994) was
used as a form of organizing the challenges or barriers identiﬁed in the data collections
(see Appendix F). The analysis which follows explains these barriers in detail.

Self-reﬁtted barriers

In this category, four challenges were mentioned during the interviews: language,
literacy, culture and lack of familiarity with some Michigan crops.

The ﬁrst self-related barrier was language. Base on the semi-structure
interviews, observations, and informal interviews, the majority of the Mexican farmers
have limited English comprehension. Some Hispanic farmers have lived in the US. for
10 or more years, but are only proﬁcient in conversational English. Even after 25 years,
some Hispanics did not have to speak English because there are many Spanish-speakers
in their environment. In some areas of employment there are co-workers or bosses who
speak Spanish. Consequently, they have never had to learn English.

Seven out of 12 farmers interviewed said that language is the main barrier in farm

management. As some farmers said:

Cesar: “The language is the principal problem for many Hispanic
farmers. I know farmers who only speak Spanish, but all the
information on farming is in English. The agricultural agencies have

114

staff who speak only English. There are no extension agents who
could speak Spanish.”

Fidel: “Although I have spent than 15 years in the US, I believe the
main problem I have is the language. When I need to do something
where I have to speak English, I ask my son to help me. For
example, if I have to buy something for my farm, usually my son
goes to the store. When I receive a document in English, normally I
throw away it; I never read this kind of information because I don’t
understand it.”

The fact that some Hispanic farmers do not understand English affects their
ability to obtain new ideas in farm management, despite the numerous opportunities for
farmers to learn new technology. Without these opportunities, Hispanic farmers will
continue to do things in the same way they learned in México, or as some ﬁiend or
relative told them.

The second self-related barrier was literacy. Five out of 12 Hispanic farmers
interviewed mentioned that they don’t have enough formal education. In some cases they
can write or read basic Spanish, consequently it is difﬁcult for them to learn another
language and they do not take classes in English literacy. Information received ﬂom

agricultural agencies cannot be read or understood. Efren said:

“I never liked to go to school, but I am capable despite being
illiterate. The third time that I got married, my wife Licha taught me
how to read. Every time I need to read something, I ﬁnd someone
who can explain everything to me.”

The third self-related barrier was culture. During the interviews, Hispanic farmers
said that American culture and Hispanic culture have different aspects that make
communication between them difﬁcult. In some cases, Hispanic farmers work and
socialize as if they were in México. Their activities revolve around their work and

families. Some Hispanic farmers were born in México and continue to have roots in

115

Mexican culture. Americans lack understanding of Hispanic culture and values. This
situation is even more difﬁcult with the language barrier. An example of this situation

was discussed by Dario:

“In México, we grow up taking agriculture lessons ﬂom our
grandparents and parents. We think it is unique and the best way to
farm. Generally, we do not take suggestions from other people, and
we may not admit that the way we do things is wrong. Many of us
want to use the skills we had in México while we produce crops in
the United States, but we want to do it with our own hands. We
need to understand that agriculture in this country is different.”

The last self-related barrier was lack of familiarity with some Michigan crops.
Although Hispanic farmers have farming skills, they were not familiar with blueberry

production. During the interviews two farmers described this situation:

Julio: “When I started my farm operation, I did not know how to
manage a blueberry farm. I have experience in agriculture but I
never grew blueberry and chestnut. I have many questions about
these ﬂuits. With my relatives’ support, I try to manage my own
farm.”

Raul: “I have worked in the ﬁelds for 15 years growing blueberries,
but I admit that it is not easy to manage a blueberry farm, and
making decisions every day. Therefore, I and my family have taken
some classes at MSU Extension, such as pest and disease control.”

Environmental barriers

Environmental barriers are the results of human or institutional actions that
Hispanic farmers face in their farming activities. In this category, four barriers were
identiﬁed: discrimination, lack of information about agricultural agencies, lack of
economic support, and lack of Hispanic farmer organizations.

The ﬁrst environmental barrier was discrimination which was mentioned in ﬁve

out of 12 interviews. They related that Americans view Hispanic farmers as simple farm

116

workers or illegal residents, not as persons who own their own farms and produce ﬂuits

or vegetables. For example, one farmer (Angel) said:

“I felt discrimination several times when I began operating my farm.
It was a real headache. For example, I had to buy something for my
farm so I went to stores, and they would not sell the things simply
because of appearance, since I was dressed in my work overall.
When I went to a shop, I said to them, I need this on credit. I have
an account here. They [storekeepers] just looked at me and asked:
‘who is your boss?’ I said: ‘I have no boss, I am the owner.’ They
[storekeepers] said, ‘No, we need someone who represents you, the
one who is your boss.’ Because of my Hispanic looks, they wanted
to know who my boss was, and in some cases they went so far as to
deny me the service. In these situations, I feel discriminated
against.”

Ana expressed a similar scenario where she felt discrimination.

“I felt discrimination when I started farming with my husband.
When I went alone to buy something in the store, the storekeeper
just looked at me and asked: ‘who is your boss?’ They think that I
am a farm worker. Because of my Hispanic looks, they wanted to
know who my boss was.”

Hispanic farmers feel discrimination in other ways as well:

Cesar: “Nobody mentioned discrimination, or the color of my skin,
hair or my origin. But one feels discrimination when you enter some
ofﬁces and you see how they look at you. Nobody said anything to
me, but their faces and their attitudes say more than many words.
That is what I call discrimination... I feel discrimination, I cannot
demonstrate it but I felt it. ...Some persons have the idea that we
(Hispanics) are ignorant, and they react to us differently in
comparison to other citizens.”

Fidel: “Some whites discriminate against me for being of color. For
example, the person who lives next to my farm, sometimes when he
is drunk, he starts insulting us. He shouts at us to go back to
México.”

The second environmental barrier was lack of information about agricultural
agencies. Six out of 12 Hispanic farmers interviewed identiﬁed the lack of information

about agricultural agencies as a major barrier in their farming practices. The farmers

117

know very little or nothing about the services that agencies can provide. There is no

interaction between the agencies and the farmers.

Rosa: “When you initiate your business in agriculture, you are
unaware of the agencies or ofﬁces that could help with both
technical and economic support for your farm.”

Julio: “I am unfamiliar with the agencies that could help us on
agricultural management. From my friends’ comments, I know that
there is help for farmers in the US, but I don’t know who I could
ask for assistance with this.”

The third environmental barrier was lack of economic support. Five out of 12
farmers interviewed stated that they don’t have access to economic support or any type of
federal loans. In the interviews, four sources of ﬁnancing were identiﬁed among the
Hispanics farmers: savings ﬂom their work, loans ﬂom friends or relatives, ﬁnancing by
previous owners, and, in a few cases, commercial loans. In comparison with American or

African-American farmers, few Hispanics have acquired farms through ﬁnancing ﬂom

governmental agencies or private banks.

Fidel: “I want to be able to plant more acres but I do not have money
for it. I do not have the opportunity to ﬁnd credit to do
improvements on my farm. In México, we usually buy all things in
cash. I realize that in the US, the situation is different, since you
need to establish a credit history to get credit.”

Hugo: “I want to be able to buy more land to cultivate more
blueberries but I do not have money. I don’t have access to loans or
economic support to buy more land or machinery.”

The last environmental barrier was lack of Hispanic farmer organizations. Four
out of 12 Hispanic farmers mentioned that another major barrier is the lack of Hispanic
farmer organizations in Michigan. As Cesar and Dario said, “There are no organizations
to help us and facilitate more communication and relationships between us and

agricultural agencies such as the USDA.”

118

Research Question 5

What is the level of interaction between Hispanic farmers and agg'cultural agencies in
Michigan?

The data ﬂom this study suggest three themes or concepts that are almost absent
and can explain the level of interaction between Hispanic farmers and agricultural
agencies in Michigan: Knowledge of agricultural agencies, use of USDA programs, and
participation in educational programs.

Based on observations, informal interviews and semi-structured interviews,
Hispanic farmers expressed lack knowledge about the USDA agencies and MSU

Extension programs available. As Angel explained:

“Many Hispanic farmers do not know how to approach these
agencies. There is not enough information in Spanish about
agricultural agencies. Occasionally, we have had the Opportunity to
talk to extension agents who have come to our farms and to give
information, as you are doing now.”

This is especially true for Mexicans farmers. As Dario said:

“If we do not develop better communications with agricultural
agencies, we will fail and lose our jobs and the money that was
invested on our farms, or, in the best situation, we will be stuck on
the same position, unable to improve our farms. Also, if farmers are
not trained, there is the possibility of polluting the environment or
harming people’s health if the ﬂuit is eaten after inappropriate usage
of chemicals. It could create many problems due to ignorance or the
inappropriate use of machinery.”

Based on the interviews, it was determined that three variables directly affect the
use of agricultural programs by Hispanic farmers: language, duration of farm ownership,
and the number of acres owned. For example, Blas is a farmer who has lived more than

25 years in the region, and he operates more than 250 acres of blueberries. He knows

119

about USDA agencies and MSU Extension, and usually participates in their programs. In
contrast, Hispanic farmers who have operated their farm less than ﬁve years and have 10
or fewer acres of blueberries do not know about agricultural agencies. At worst, they do
not realize these agencies could help them. Five out of 12 Hispanic farmers interviewed
do not have a way of establishing an interaction with these agencies, because they have
problems with the language.

Usually, Hispanic farmers have low participation rates in training workshops or

educational programs because of the language barrier. For example, Fidel explained:

“If Hispanic farmers attend a course of agricultural training, the
material is in English and the discussion is in English. The topics
may be, for example, how to use insecticides, how handle the soil,
etc. The vocabulary is technical, and I do not know these words in
Spanish, and it is more difﬁcult in English. When I face this type of
situation, I lose heart because I do not learn the things I am
interested in using on my farm, and consequently I do not go to
other courses or conferences. I think that I am wasting my time
because I did not learn anything.”

Summary of Qualitative Findings

The qualitative ﬁndings suggest ﬁve themes or concepts that explain how peOpIe
of Hispanic background have become owner-operators of farms in Michigan: (1) the
opportunity to initiate a business; (2) the transition from farm worker to farmer; (3) the
rural background of Hispanic people; (4) the role of family values; and (5) agriculture as
a preferred lifestyle.

Four major themes came ﬂom the semi-structured interviews that help to explain
how Hispanic farmers have organized the operation of their farms: (1) the organization of

the farm is around family labor; (2) off-farm employment is important additional income;

120

(3) Hispanic farmers are operating their farms using their previous farming experience;
and (4) they are using their social capital.

Different types of challenges were identiﬁed during the semi-structured
interviews. These challenges or barriers were organized in two main categories: barriers
resulting from farmers’ characteristics (self-related barriers) and barriers resulting from
human or institutional sources (environmental barriers). In the ﬁrst category (self-related
barriers), four challenges were mentioned during the interviews: language, literacy,
culture, and lack of familiarity with some Michigan crops. In the second category
(environmental barriers) four barriers were identiﬁed: discrimination, lack of information
on agricultural agencies, lack of economic support, and lack of Hispanic farmer
organizations.

Findings in the qualitative phase conﬁrm Hispanic farmers lack knowledge about
USDA agencies and MSU Extension programs. Three variables affect the direct use of
agricultural programs by Hispanic farmers: language, duration of farm ownership, and
the number of acres owned. Usually, Hispanic farmers have low participation rates in
training workshops or educational programs. The language and culture are important

barriers.

121

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

An overview of the research questions, procedures and results is presented in the
ﬁrst section of this chapter. A discussion of the major conclusions that were reached in
the study is included in the second section. The third section contains a number of
implications that were formulated based upon the ﬁndings and conclusions. The

recommendations for future research are presented in the ﬁnal section.

Summary

The increase in numbers of Hispanic farmers in southwestern Michigan presents
new opportunities as well as challenges for agriculture service/development agencies and
rural communities. The US. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported that there are
more than 1,100 farm operators of Hispanic background in Michigan. There has been a
163 percent increase in Hispanic farm operators between 1997 and 2002. Michigan is
ranked sixth in the increase of the number of Hispanic farm operators in this period, and
is 10th in the number of Hispanic farm operators (2002) in the US. (U SDA-NASS,
2004). In spite of this increase, few researchers have attempted to explorer how Hispanic
farmers manage their operations, what barriers they face, and what their needs are.

The purpose of this study was to create a proﬁle of Hispanic farmers in
southwestern Michigan to serve as a baseline of information in assisting small, minority
and disadvantaged farmers. This study aimed at providing data and drawing conclusions

that could contribute toward assisting these farmers and allow for better interaction

122

between Hispanic farmers and the agricultural agencies serving them. The questions that
guided the research were:

1. What are the demographics and socioeconomic characteristics of Hispanic

farmers in southwestern Michigan?

2. How do people of Hispanic background become owner-operators of farms?

3. How have Hispanic farmers organized the operation of their farms?

4. What are the challenges that Hispanic farmers face in the operation of their

farms?

5. What is the level of interaction between Hispanic farmers and agricultural

agencies in Michigan?

The results of this study have implications for those involved in managing
agricultural extension and outreach programs. It would be especially useful for those who
work with Hispanic farmers. ’

This study was limited to Hispanic farmers who have their own farms in four
adjacent counties (Allegan, Berrien, Cass, and Van Buren) in southwestern Michigan.
Hispanic is a label used to group individuals living in the US. who trace their origin to
Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America. They include both US. and foreign-born
residents. For the purpose of this study, a farm is any place ﬂom which $1,000 or more of
agricultural products (crops and livestock) were sold, or normally would have been sold,
during a year.

This study used a mixed methods sequential explanatory design consisting of two
distinct phases: quantitative and qualitative. The rationale for mixing both kinds of data

within one study is grounded in the fact that neither quantitative nor qualitative methods

123

are sufﬁcient, by themselves, to understand holistically the social phenomenon of the
increase in the number of Hispanic farmers and their characteristics in southwestern
Michigan.

The quantitative phase used a descriptive survey methodology in the form of a
personal interview. There were two goals for conducting the quantitative phase (survey)
in this study: (1) create a demographic and socioeconomic proﬁle of the Hispanic farmers
in southwestern Michigan and (2) help identify the participants for the qualitative phase.
The quantitative phase used nonprobability sampling in the form of snowball sample. The
quantitative data was coded and analyzed using SPSS.

The qualitative phase of this research used a case study in the form of semi-
structured interviews. The researcher selected 12 Hispanic farmers in the research area.
The criteria for the selection of the participants were gender, country of origin, principal
crop on the farm, and farm working status. Another important criterion in the selection of
participants was farmers’ availability to participate in the semi-structured interview.
During the course of the study, the researcher decided to limit the interviews to 12
participants because no new information was forthcoming ﬂom additional participants.
The transcriptions of the semi-structured interviews and extended ﬁeld notes served as
the raw data for analysis. In order to analyze the raw data, this study used three different
procedures: coding data, reducing data, and creating displays.

Validity of the quantitative survey was ascertained by constructing an instrument
to ensure that it measures what it is supposed to measure. The instrument was reviewed
by the advisor committee. It was administered in an appropriate, standardized manner

according to prescribed procedures. On the other hand, in the qualitative phase, the

124

researcher himself was the instrument. The credibility of qualitative methods, therefore,
is linked to a great extent to the skill, competence, and rigor of the person doing
ﬁeldwork.

One of the basic aspects and the most difﬁcult task in the development of this
research was creating and verifying the listing of Hispanic farmers in the four counties of
the study area. Considering the lack of an up-to—date listing of Hispanic farmers, as well
as the difﬁculty of obtaining access to this minority group of farmers, the researcher
worked on the listing of farmers, visiting every one of them in their farms, verifying that
they were Hispanic or Latino owners, and producing at least U.S. $1,000 a year in
agricultural products. Out of more than 500 veriﬁed names in the study area, 132 farmers
were identiﬁed in 108 farms; in some cases there was more than one farmer on one farm.
Out of 132 identiﬁed farmers, 82 (62.12 percent) were interviewed in the ﬁrst phase (i.e.,
Quantitative Survey) of this study: 55 in Van Buren, 23 in Allegan, three each in Benien
and Cass counties.

Most of the respondents (86.6 percent) were men and only 13.4 percent were
women. Of the respondents, 25.6 and 31.7 percent were between of 36-45 and 46-55
years old, respectively. Only 13.4 percent were over 65 years old. Most of the
respondents (87.8 percent) were married. In this study area, there are two main groups of
Hispanic farmers. The ﬁrst group (26.8 percent) consists of the people who were born in
the United States. Out of 22 farmers in this ﬁrst group, three out of ﬁve (61.9 percent)
were born in Texas and about one out of four (23.8 percent) were born in Michigan. The
second group (73.2 percent) consists of the people who were born outside the United

States, and the majority of them being of Mexican origin. The states most frequently

125

mentioned were Michoacan (43.3 percent), Zacatecas (15.0 percent), and San Luis Potosi
(11.7 percent).

The farmers’ level of education is an important factor to consider when
developing and implementing extension and training programs. Findings showed that 25
respondents (30.5 percent) stated that they did not attend school and 18 (22 percent)
attended elementary school. When educational level was analyzed in reference to place
of birth, nearly half of the people born in México (41.7 percent) did not have any formal
education. However, three out of four (72.7 percent) Hispanic farmers born in the United
States stated they had at least attended high school.

Language has been one of the most critical challenges for the integration of
Hispanics into American society. Most of the respondents not born in the US. (61.7
percent) prefer to speak Spanish; only one prefers English. Most of the respondents born
in the US. (68.2 percent) stated they can speak both languages.

The majority of the Hispanic farmers (70.7 percent) in the study area have
principal income other than farming. Outside employment came from the service (32.8
percent), farm worker (13.8 percent), and manufacturing (13.8 percent) sectors.

The second research question asked how people of Hispanic background became
farm owner-operators. Findings of the ﬁrst phase (quantitative) suggest several reasons:
Some (29 percent) mentioned that agriculture, especially blueberry production, is a
proﬁtable activity; consequently, they started their own business. For the Hispanic
farmers, agriculture has been a part of their heritage (21 percent). Their parents were farm
workers. This provides them with agricultural experiences and usable skills (17 percent).

Agriculture strongly relates with their family values of cooperation and connectedness

126

(13 percent). The farrrr is more than a business it is a means for pursuing a traditional way
of life (11 percent). Some farmers (9 percent) purchased their own farms in Michigan
because they wanted to leave the gang activity and drug use they experienced in
Chicago’s neighborhoods.

The data ﬂom the second phase (qualitative) suggest ﬁve themes or concepts that
explain how people of Hispanic descent have become owner-operators of farms in
Michigan: (1) the opportunity to initiate a business; (2) the transition ﬂom farm worker to
farmer; (3) the rural background of Hispanic people; (4) the role of family values; and (5)
agriculture as a preferred lifestyle.

Six out of 12 farmers interviewed said that agriculture provided an opportunity to
be their boss, make their own decisions and apply their farming skills. A common
situation was observed when Hispanic people (essentially Mexicans) had lived in
Chicago during 15 or 20 years and subsequently bought their small farms in southwestern
Michigan through money that they obtained selling their properties in Chicago or loans
ﬂom friends or relatives.

Some farm workers became farmers in two different ways. In the ﬁrst way,
Mexican—American or Mexicans came to Michigan to harvest ﬂuit and vegetables as
rrrigrants. During many years, they traveled harvesting fruit in several states in the US.
When the family had many members or the children grew older, they did not want to
continue moving among several states in the US. That is when most of these farmers
made the decision to buy a small farm in Michigan and settle down with their families. In
the second way, some farm workers, such as managers or farm Operators, had the

Opportunity to buy a farm with the support of the owner. Usually these owner were ready

127

to retire and their children did not have any interest in farming. These situations
generated good opportunities for Hispanics to buy their own farms.

The rural background and heritage of Hispanic people was another important
factor in deciding to become farmers in Michigan. The Mexicans interviewed were born
and raised in small rural communities in México where local families produced
subsistence crops. They learned farming skills ﬂom many generations of farmers in their
family nucleus. The Mexican-Americans were born and raised in rural communities in
the US. during the years they traveled as migrants, harvesting ﬂuit and vegetables with
their families in several states.

The family is another important factor explaining why Hispanics become farmers.
Four out of the 12 farmers interviewed came to the US. intent on earning money and
returning to their communities in México. They worked at restaurants, bakeries, or
factories, and lived in big cities such as Chicago. They met a girl, got married, and started
a family. They realized that a big city was not the best place to raise their children and
families. These situations motivated Hispanics to buy farms in rural communities.
Another factor is the family works together on the farm, which preserves important
values such as family integration, discipline and work. For Hispanic farmers, the farm is
more than a business, as the data reveal. It is a means for pursuing a traditional way of
life and creates a patrimony.

The third research question asked how Hispanic farmers have organized the
operation of their farms. The farming activity developed by the Hispanic farmers is
deﬁned by the type of farm they are operating and its principal crop. The average size of

the farms among the 82 respondents was 26.4 acres, with a standard deviation of 58.87

128

acres. The range is 478, with a minimum of 2 acres and a maximum of 480 acres. Half of
the respondents in the study area stated they have less than 10 acres. Only 3.7 percent of
the respondents have more than 100 acres, three farmers have 160, 180 and 480 acres,
respectively.

Most of the Hispanic farmers (75.6 percent) are operating ﬂuit and tree nut farms.
The majority of the respondents (69 percent) stated their principal crop is blueberry.
About 20 percent of the respondents reported growing other crops important to the
Mexican diet such as corn, pepper, tomato, and tomatillo. Three out of four (75 percent)
respondents deliver their product to ﬂuit receivers and one out of ﬁve (22 percent) do
retail sales at his/her farm. More than two-thirds (70.7 percent) of the Hispanic farmers in
the study area stated that their principal income is not in agriculture. Less than one-third
(30.5 percent) considered themselves full-time farmers. The percentage of full-time
farmers is higher in the U.S.-bom group of respondents (40.9 percent). Only 26.7 percent
of non-US. born farmers is full-time farmers. Four out of ﬁve farmers said they are sole
proprietors of the farm. Nearly 70 percent of Hispanic farmers have owned their farms
for less than 10 years. Slightly less than half (42.7 percent) of the farmers have owned
their farms less than ﬁve years in the study area. Only eight farmers (9.8 percent) stated
they have owned farms in Michigan for more than 25 years. Only 22.7 percent of
farmers born in the United States have owned their farms less than ﬁve years. Their
counterparts born in México represent 50 percent of this group. Participants were asked
about the number of years they have been involved in agricultural activities. Findings
indicated that a range of 1 — 70 years with a mean of 29.65 years and a standard deviation

of 13.75 years. Of 82 farmers surveyed, about seven out of 10 (73 percent) have worked

129

in the US. agricultural sector an average of 18.5 7 years. Three-fourths (78.3 percent) of
Mexican-bom respondents stated having some experience in Mexican agriculture. On
average they had 16.6 years (sd= 7.69) of experience. Three out of four respondents
answered that he/she has been a farm worker, on an average of 17.61 years with a
standard deviation of 11.34 years. Participants stated they had worked in the following
states: Michigan only (22 farmers, or 37.9 percent), several states such as Florida, Texas,
Georgia, Illinois, North Carolina, Arkansas and California (36 farmers, or 62.1 percent).
The crops most ﬂequently farmed are blueberry, apple, peach, strawberry, cucumber,
grape, asparagus, tomato and other vegetables.

During the qualitative phase, four major themes came ﬂom the semi-structured
interviews and ﬁeld observations that help to explain how Hispanic farmers have
operated and managed their farms. First, the organization of the farm is centered around
family labor; second, off-farm employment provides extra income; third, Hispanic
farmers are managing their farms using previous farming experience; and fourth, they are
using their social capital.

All Hispanic farmers interviewed stated they consider their farm a family farm.
On their farms, the family provides the majority of the labor and management decisions.
The family takes the risks, makes the decisions and receives the economic gains. The
organization of their farms works around their family nucleus. Ten out of 12 farmers
speciﬁcally stated that their relatives help them with the operation of their farms.

Off-farm ﬁrll-time or part-time employment was identiﬁed during the interviews
as an important source of livelihood for seven out of 12 Hispanic farmers interviewed.

Hispanic farmers and/or their family members work for local farmers, food processors,

130

nurseries, greenhouse, or other services. Hispanic Farmers employed off-farm operate
their own farms during evenings or weekends.

Findings show that the previous farming experience has a direct effect on how
both Mexicans and Mexican-Americans manage their farms in Michigan. Mexicans
worked on their family farms producing peppers, tomatoes, corn, etc., and their
experience there carried over into their current farming practices. These skills were
learned within the family nucleus with their relatives. There are some crops, such as
blueberry, that Hispanic farmers grow in Michigan, but never saw in México. They
became familiar with blueberries when working on Michigan farms.

Hispanic farmers interviewed use their social capital as an important resource in
the operation of their own farms. The farmer’s network integrates family members and/or
friends to provide valuable information, ﬁnancial support, agricultural machinery, and
farming supplies that are otherwise unavailable ﬂom formal lending institutions or
agricultural agencies.

The fourth research question attempted to discover the challenges that Hispanic
farmers face in the operation of their farms. Hispanics starting agricultural businesses or
buying farms in the United States can be challenged as a minority group, which may limit
his/her potential to reach optimal production. The most ﬂequently mentioned barriers
were: lack of awareness of agricultural agencies, staff and programs (69.5 percent), lack
of loans/ﬁnancial assistance (32.9 percent), language (20.7 percent), and lack of
familiarity with Michigan crop systems (20.7 percent).

Different challenges were identiﬁed during the semi-structured interviews. These

challenges or barriers were organized in two main categories: barriers resulting ﬂom

131

farmers’ characteristics (i.e., self-related barriers) and barriers resulting ﬂom human or
institutional sources (i.e., environmental barriers).

In the ﬁrst category (self-related barriers), four challenges were identiﬁed during
the interviews: language, literacy, culture, and lack of familiarity with some Michigan
crops. The majority of the Mexican farmers are Spanish-speakers with limited English
comprehension. Some Hispanic farmers (basically Mexican) have lived in US. for at
least 15 or more years, but only speak basic English. Even after 25 years, some of them
did not have to speak English where they have lived because many others speak Spanish.
Seven out of 12 farmers interviewed said ﬂrat language is the major barrier facing
Hispanic farmers in their faming. Because some Hispanic farmers lack English
comprehension affects their ability to adopt new ideas and technologies for their farms.
Without the opportunity to listen or to read new information, Hispanic farmers continue
doing the same things in the same manner they learned in México, or as related by a
ﬁiend or relative.

Five out of 12 Hispanic farmers interviewed said they have no formal education.
Some may be illiterate and can write or read basic Spanish; consequently they have
difﬁculty learning English, and miss opportunities offered by agricultural agencies.

Culture was another challenge identiﬁed during the interviews. Hispanic farmers
said that American culture and Hispanic culture have different characteristics and values,
and these differences limit the communication between the two cultures. Mexican
farmers may follow the same work and social activities as they did in Mexico, as their

roots are still ingrained in Mexican culture. Often Americans cannot relate to or

132

understand Mexican culture and values. This situation is exacerbated by the language
barrier.

In the second category (environmental barriers) four barriers were identiﬁed:
discrimination, lack of information on agricultural agencies, lack of economic support,
and lack of Hispanic farmer organizations.

Discrimination was mentioned in ﬁve out of 12 interviews. Americans seem to
perceive Hispanic farmers as simple farm workers or illegal residents, not as owner of
their own farms and producers of ﬂuits or vegetables. Six out of 12 Hispanic farmers
interviewed identiﬁed the lack of information about agricultural agencies as another
major barrier. They know almost nothing at all about the services that these agencies
provide and there is no interaction between the agencies and the farmers.

Five out of 12 farmers interviewed said they have no access to economic support
or federal loans. Hispanic farmers ﬁnance their business through savings from their
previous employment, loans ﬂom friends or relatives, ﬁnancing with previous owners,
and, in a few cases, commercial loans.

Four out of 12 Hispanic farmers said that the lack of Hispanic farmer
organizations in Michigan is a barrier in their business. There are no organizations that
focus on the needs of Hispanic farmers or could facilitate the relationship between them
and agricultural agencies, such as MSU Extension or the USDA.

The ﬁnal research question in the study sought to discover the level of interaction
between Hispanic farmers and agricultural agencies in Michigan. Findings show that
almost three-ﬁfths (56.1 percent) of the farmers surveyed do not know about programs

that support agriculture or about relevant agencies. Only one-third (36.7 percent) of

133

farmers not born in the United States know about agricultural programs. In contrast,
almost two-thirds (63.6 percent) of Hispanic farmers born in the United States know
about agricultural programs in southwestern Michigan. Two-ﬁfths (42.7 percent) of the
participants stated that a family member is the main source of advice for farm
management. In second place, 41.5 percent, the farmers relied on their own experience.
Only three farmers mentioned MSU Extension or the Ag Experiment Station as a support
in making decisions for farm management.

Findings in the qualitative phase conﬁrm that Hispanic farmers lack knowledge
and awareness of USDA agencies and MSU Extension programs. This is due to three
variables: difﬁculty in understanding the language, the length of time the farmer has
owned the farm, and the number of acres owned. For example, one farmer who has lived
more than 25 years in the region and operates more than 250 acres of blueberries knows
about the USDA agencies and MSU Extension and usually participates in these
programs. In contrast, Hispanic farmers who have lived less than ﬁve years in the area
and have 10 or fewer acres of blueberries do not know about these agencies. At worst,
they do not know these agencies can assist them with farm management. The majority of
the Mexican-bom farmers interviewed have few, if any, opportunities to interact with
these agencies because of their lack of English literacy. Usually, Hispanic farmers have
little participation in training workshops or educational programs because of the language

and cultural barriers.

134

Conclusions

The surveyed farmers are mostly men, married and under 55 years of age. Two
groups of Hispanic farmers were identiﬁed in the area of study: Mexican-born farmers
who come from Mexican states such as Michoacan, Zacatecas, and San Luis Potosi. The
other group consists of U.S.-born farmers whose parents or grandparents are natives of
Mexico. Among the total U.S.-born farmers group, ﬂom Texas and Michigan made up 85
percent.

Though the Hispanic farmer population has increased in Michigan in the last ﬁve
years, the Hispanics surveyed in this study have lived in the area for an average of 17
years. In other cases, they have lived for 20 years or more in the United States but
purchased their farms more recently.

U.S.-born Hispanics have attended or graduated from high school, but among
Mexican—bom Hispanic farmers 41.7 percent are uneducated, and 28.3 percent attended
elementary school. Mexican-bom farmers prefer to speak Spanish. Less than one-third
(29.3 percent) of the farmers claim their main income comes ﬂom their farms. The U.S.-
bom farmers said their main income came ﬂom services or factories, while the Mexican-
bom farmers receive more income ﬂom work on other farming activities.

There are two reasons why some Hispanics have become farmers in Michigan.
The ﬁrst reason is that agriculture provides a means to start their own businesses, where
they can be their own boss and make their own decisions. This is common among
Hispanics who have worked and lived in big cities like Chicago, and decided to buy
farms in Michigan. The second reason is the desire to transition ﬂom being a farm

worker to becoming a farm owner, with several variants.

135

The main reasons given for owning and Operating their own farms are: (1)
blueberries are considered a proﬁtable business, with a low initial investment and the
labor of the farmers; (2) desire to have a family farm where the family can work together
to make a living; (3) previous farming experience encourages them to make the decision
to own their own farm; (4) the opportunity given by their boss to buy farm land with their
boss’ support, or their own labor on the farm; (5) they consider agriculture a part of their
roots, as they were born and raised in rural communities, and desire to return to that way
of live; (6) agriculture is considered a means to consolidate family values including
ownership, family togetherness, team work and responsibility; lastly, (7) the agricultural
lifestyle is preferred to the exposure to drugs, gangs and pollution that can exist in a big
city.

Hispanic farmers manage their farms using the skills they learned while farming
in the United States and México. Some of the farmers interviewed manage their farms
based on their farming experience in México, mainly in subsistence crOp production. All
farmers interviewed operated a farm family. The family provides the labor to operate the
farm and each family member has speciﬁc duties.

Half of the Hispanic farms in the study area have less than 10 acres; only three
farmers surveyed have more than 100 acres. Less than one-third (30.5 percent) of the
participants are considered full time farmers, indicating that off-farm employment is a
very important resource to many households. Some of the farmers have a full-time or
part-time job in the area where their farm is located, or in some cases, in Chicago. They

work on their farms during weekends, aﬁemoons or harvest season.

136

One of the most important resources Hispanic farms have is social capital.
Through this network of family members and friends, Hispanic farmers can satisfy some
of their ﬁnancial, mechanical or technical support necessities of managing their farms.

Different challenges, or barriers, were identiﬁed during the interviews, and were
organized in two main categories: The ﬁrst category is self-related barriers or the barriers
resulting ﬂom farmers’ characteristics. In this category, four challenges were mentioned
most ﬂequently: language, literacy, culture, and lack of familiarity with some Michigan
crops. The second category is the combination of the environmental barriers which result
from human or institutional actions that Hispanic farmers face in their farming activities.
In this category, four barriers were identiﬁed: discrimination, lack of information and
awareness of agricultural agencies, lack of economic support, and lack of Hispanic
farmer organizations.

The level of interaction between Hispanic farmers and agricultural agencies in
Michigan is limited. Almost three-ﬁfths (56.1 percent) of the farmers surveyed do not
know about programs that support agriculture or the relevant agencies. More than one-
tlrird (36.7 percent) of Mexican-bom farmers know about such agricultural programs. In
contrast, almost two-thirds (63.6 percent) of U.S.-bom Hispanic farmers know about
agricultural programs in southwestern Michigan.

Three variables directly affect the use of agricultural programs by Hispanic
farmers: language, length of farm ownership, and the number of acres owned. Farmers
who have lived longer in the region and operate more acres of blueberries know about
USDA and MSU Extension, consequently they may have participated in educational

programs. In contrast, Hispanic farmers who have less than ﬁve years in the area with

137

their own farms, and have 10 acres or fewer of blueberries are not aware of agricultural
agencies. At worst, they are unaware that these agencies could assist them in their farm
management practices. The majority of the Mexican farmers interviewed do not have a
method of establishing interactions with these agencies, because they lack English
literacy. The main sources of farm management knowledge were family members and the
farmers’ experience. Only three farmers mentioned MSU Extension or the Agricultural

Experiment Station as a source for farm management assistance.
Implications

The results of this study have implications for institutions such as the USDA,
MDA, and MSU Extension, which play an important role in agricultural development in
Michigan, as well as non-proﬁt organizations that work with small, minority and
disadvantaged farmers.

Results show that among the Hispanic farmers surveyed, there are two groups:
Mexican-born and U.S.-born. Though this group of farmers may seem a homogeneous
group, they are not. Therefore, one extension and education model cannot be used for all
the Hispanic farmers.

The education level and primary language spoken by the farmers are two
variables that agricultural agencies and non-proﬁt organizations should consider when
implementing producer programs. The educational level of U.S.-bom Hispanic farmers
is higher in comparison to the Mexican-born farmers. In the latter, 41.7 percent had no
formal education and 28.3 percent had some elementary school, and they prefer to speak

Spanish, making any written or oral communication in English ineffective. Even if

138

educational material in Spanish is available, almost one out of two Mexican-born farmers
cannot use it because of illiteracy.

Results indicate that for two-thirds of the participants, farming is a
complementary income for the family, rather than primary.

Two reasons explain why Hispanics are becoming farmers. One, agriculture is
considered a means to start one’s own business. These farmers have some agricultural
background, but no knowledge on operating a farm in the United States or how to obtain
assistance ﬂom farm-related agencies. They may also lack familiarity about production
practices of some Michigan crops, such as blueberry. Two, some Hispanic farm workers
become farm owners. This group of farmers may have knowledge about crop
management, but they do not have enough experience to make decisions about all farm
operations, and they may lack knowledge about US. farming regulations and agricultural
agencies. Agricultural agencies need to develop methods to assist this demographic on
farm operation, regulations, and how these agencies can help support farms during the
ﬁrst years of farm ownership.

The main reasons why Hispanics want to operate their own farms has nothing to
do with business proﬁtability. Therefore, there is little sense in evaluating these farms
ﬂom the cost/beneﬁt standpoint. These farms are purchased for the family values and
desire for a complementary income. These farms also provide a means for these
Hispanics to return to their rural, agricultural roots. These farms are considered a means
to consolidate values that give a family an identity, such as ownership, family unity, team
work and responsibility. Agriculture is considered the preferred life style to raise and

support a family ﬂee of drugs, gangs and pollution that the big city might have. These

139

types of values should be considered when planning and organizing educational and
training programs for Hispanic farmers. I

According to the results of this study, there are ﬁve aspects of farm management
that agricultural agencies and NGO’s should consider when dealing with Hispanic
farmers: (1) They operate their farms using prior agricultural experience, obtained in the
ﬁelds in the United States and México. They tend to be conservative in regards to new
technology application. (2) They have family farms, so the family provides labor to
operate the farm, and each of the family members have speciﬁc duties. Training
programs should be developed that take into considerations that men usually do the
physical jobs on the farm, and the women do adnrinistrative duties such as record
keeping, and paperwork; and in some cases, light work on the farm. (3) Half of the
Hispanic farms on this study area have less than 10 acres (50 percent). About three out of
four farmers operate a blueberry farm, and about 70 percent of the participants have less
than 10 years experience operating their farm. (4) About one-third of the participants are
considered full-time farmers. This indicates that the off-farm work performed is a very
important resource to support the family. (5) The resource most ﬂequently used by
Hispanic farmers to start and operate their farm is known as social capital, rather than
agricultural agencies within Michigan.

There are two groups of challenges or barriers that Hispanic farmers have faced
when starting or operating their farm. The ﬁrst group of barriers are related to the
Hispanic farmer’s characteristics (language, literacy, culture, and lack of familiarity with
some Michigan crops). These barriers can be overcome using an extension model that is

sensitive to the Hispanic farmer’s characteristics, and is able to incorporate multimedia in

140

order to facilitate the transference of agricultural knowledge through DVDs, CDs, MP3
format audio, Web pages, etc. These media seem more appropriate considering the
literacy level and language barrier of the Hispanic farmers.

The second group is integrated by the environmental baniers which results ﬂom
human or institutional actions that Hispanic farmers face in their farming activities. In
this category, four barriers were identiﬁed: discrimination, lack of information about
agricultural agencies and their assistance, lack of economic support and lack of Hispanic
farmer organizations. Overcoming some of these barriers may require a long and difﬁcult
two-stage process. The ﬁrst stage is creating an atmosphere of acceptance and respect by
American society, so it is understood that not all Hispanics are illegal aliens or farm
workers. The second stage is institutional change, where agricultural agencies realize the
importance of the role Hispanics are taking by ﬁlling gaps left in agricultural production
by other demographic groups in the United States.

Findings show that the level of interaction between Hispanic farmers and
agricultural agencies in Michigan is limited. In spite of their growing number, Hispanic
farmers are being bypassed or under-served by the institutions that were set up to serve
farmers. Cultural barriers may be one reason for this service gap. Even though USDA
agencies, NGOS, and educational institutions desire a sustainable farming system among
Hispanic farmers, they Often lack human resource skills and/or programs to reach this
emerging demographic. Three implications are identiﬁed according to this study: (1)
cultural differences affect directly and indirectly the effectiveness of extension and
outreach programs with Hispanic farmers; (2) if extension agents understood the cultural

values and farming experience of Hispanic farmers, they could develop partnerships and

141

improve communication to increase productivity, viability and greater environmental
awareness in the US. Hispanic agricultural communities; (3) knowledge of cultural
values and customs of Hispanic farmers reduce stereotypes and facilitate the educational

process.
Recommendations for Future Research

During the development of this study, a lack of research was identiﬁed in the
area of analysis on the Hispanic farmers’ situation in the United States from social,
economical and agricultural points of view. Only four research reports on this study area
were found. The following list contains potential research that could be a continuation of
this study, or for future research:

1. Replicate the study in other areas of Michigan, and throughout the United States
in order to develop extension educational programs for minority groups,
considering language, literacy and cultural barriers.

2. Perform studies to identify variables that can determine how Hispanic farmers can
be successful with their farms, as well as the factors that would discourage
farming. To this day, there is a limited number of studies that analyze, in detail,
the increase of Hispanic farmers in the United States and their impact on rural
communities.

3. Develop educational materials in digital format, and evaluate their impact on
Hispanic farmers, who have limited reading, writing and English literacy skills.

4. Implement needs assessments about service and educational training needed by

Hispanic farmers in Michigan.

142

5. Perform a study on agricultural agencies and non-proﬁt organizations (NGO) in
Michigan, in order to discover their level of interaction with minority groups, and
types of programs appropriate for Hispanic farmers. Evaluate the efﬁciency of
extension models being implemented with Hispanic farmers.

6. Perform a study that identiﬁes strategies that extension agents can implement to
increase participation of Hispanic farmers in various extension programs aimed at

farm management, and ﬁnd ways to open communication channels.

143

APPENDICES

144

Appendix A. Human Research Protection Programs

145

m
MOM)
mm

W REVEW
BOARD (SHIRE)

nonsense
mmrmmu
marrow amen
some (are)

202 0th Hal
Eﬂm w
“824.1048

517-35621”
For: fill-4324“”

momma-eunuch
ORE mun

 

 

 

Application
August 16. 2006 Approval
To: Juan MARINEZ
27 A Kellogg Center
Re: IRB e oe-eeo Category. EXPEDITED 2.7
Renew Approval Date: Auguet 8. 2000 '
Project Expiration M: Allow 7. zoo?

Title: EXPLORING UNDERCOUNTS IN THE AGRICULTURAL CENSUS: AN ALTERNATIVE

ENUMERATION OF HISPANIC FARMERS IN SOUTHWESTERN MICHIGAN

ThelnsﬁttalonolRevlewBoardhaecompleteerevlewotyouproled. lampleeeedtoadvleeyoutl'letthe
renewelheebeenepproved.

AppmdmﬂdmbhdudeehmlnunpmhctuuemomuummendMIW.

Therevlewbythecommlttee hasfoundthatyourenewelleoonelstentwllhlhecontlwed protection ofthe
ngmmoweuareot human subjects. and machine requirementaotMSUsFederelwm Aewmceendthe
Federal Guidelinee(45 CFR46end 21 CFR Part50). Themotectlonoihuman subjects In reeeerch lea
mamuraemunmmugmmmmmmmmmmammNMow
responsibilities.

Renewals: IRB approval is valid until the expiration date listed above. It you are cominuing your project, you
must submit an Appllceaonfornenemlapplleetlon atleesl one month before explration. lithe project to
completed. please eubmlt an Application IorPennenent Clown.

Revisions: Minammmawminwmmmhwmormm. Pleeeeeubmlten
ApptkettontorRevtelontoheveyourchengeerevmed. Ifchangeearemadeetthetlmeotrenewalmleeee
Include an Application for Revision wllh the renewal application.

Problems: ltbweeshaﬂdrlududnghncmdudothemwdtewhuummapetedmuememdveme
events. oranyproblemMmeyhaeeaethensktohrehuheneubjectamoﬁfymelRBoﬂcepmpuy. Forms
are available to report these lewee.

PleeeeueethelRB numberietedebowmanytonnsaubmlttedvhldlreletetomleproject.amany
correspondence wilhthe IRB ottlce.

Good look In your research. ll‘we can be oifurther assistance. please coraect us at 517455-2180 or via email
at W. Thank you for Your cooperation

ﬂaﬂz

Peter Vasllenlro. PhD.
SIRB Chair

c: Bernardo Lopez-Arlee
1514 - L Spartan Village
East Lansing lull 48823

146

Appendix B. Consent Forms - English and Spanish

147

Revised Version (7/10/06)
A Case Study of Hispanic Farmers in Southwestern Michigan:
Challenges and Opportunities

Study Notice

I am carrying out a study on the current situation of Hispanic farmers in Southwestern
Michigan. The project will provide valuable information on how Hispanic Farmers
organize the operation of their farms, what barriers are conﬂonted by them, and what are
their Educational needs. The results of this research will increase interaction between
small, minority and disadvantaged farmers and the agricultural agencies such as US.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, and
Michigan State University Extension (MSUE). I will be asking the following general
questions:

1. How did you become an owner-operator of your farm?

2. How have you organized the operation of your farm?

3. What are the challenges that you have faced in the operation of your farm?
4. What is the level of interaction between you and agricultural agencies?

I would like you to participate in this study. You will be asked to answer questions on a
survey which should not take about 60 minutes of your time. Your participation is
entirely voluntary, and you may refuse to participate or withdraw at any time without any
consequence. I want you to know that, if you decide not to participate, your eligibility for
agricultural extension programs will not be placed in jeopardy. Also, if you ﬁnd my
questions objectionable, you reserve the right not to respond. In addition, if you would
like to share information about your business, but do not want it included in the study, let
me know. I will respect your wishes.

Before you decide whether or not you want to participate, let me inform you about the
possible risks; nonetheless, keep in mind that I do not know whether there will be risks.
However, the possibilities exist. For example, I may hear rumors about unfair labor and
questionable business practices.

Rest assured that I will take measures to minimize some of these possible risks. Your
privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Speciﬁcally, any
information gathered in the course of the interviews will not be revealed to anyone else. I
will take every precaution to record and ﬁle responses in such a manner that you will not
be identiﬁed directly. No name or address will be recorded in ﬁeld notebooks or journals;
only pseudonyms will be used. Additionally, all ﬁeld data, informal interviews, and
genealogies will be kept under lock and key in ﬁling cabinets. In regard to any tape-
recorded interviews, I will maintain the conﬁdentiality of the information you provided
my by transcribing the interviews immediately. After the transcription, the information
on the tapes will be erased. I will, of course, ask your permission to record any interview.

148

If you have any questions about this study, please contact Juan Marinez or Bernardo
Lopez, project investigators at:

Juan Marinez Bernardo Lopez-Ariza
MSU Extension, PhD Student

Assist to the Director Michigan State University
Rm 11, Agriculture Hall 1514 — L Spartan Village
voice: 5 1 7-353-97 72 East Lansing, MI. 48823
mobile: 517-881-1817 phone: 517-355-2767

fax: 517-432-1048 email: lopezari@msu.edu

 

email: marinezi@msu.edu

Additionally, If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study
participant, or are dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact -
anonymously, if you wish - Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director of Human Research
Protections, (5 17)355-21 80, fax (5 17)432-4503, e-mail irb@msu.edu, mail 202 Olds
Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824—1047.

If you are willing to participate in this study, please sign the two copies of the Voluntary
Consent Form. You will keep one, and I the other.

Most sincerely

 

 

Juan Marinez, Bernardo Lopez-Ariza
MSU Extension PhD Student - MSU

149

Voluntary Consent Form

I have read the information on the Study Notice and I consent to volunteer to be a
research subject in this study. My responses are completely conﬁdential and that I have
the right to withdraw ﬂom the study at any time. I have received a signed copy of this
informed Consent form to keep in my possession

Name (Please Print)

 

Signature

 

Date

 

Thank you. We greatly appreciate that you have agreed to be a participant in our study.
We would also like to record on audiotape the interview. However, we need your
permission to record it on audiotape. .
Do you grant us permission to record the interview with you on audiotape?

Yes No.

Please sign below. Your signature is needed to show that you give us/do not give us
permission to record interviews on audiotape.

Signature: Date:

 

If you change your mind about your decision regarding the recording of interviews on
audiotape, please let us know. You may reconsider your decision at any time during the
interview.

I certify that I have explained to the above individual the nature and purpose, the
potential beneﬁts, and possible risks associated with participating in this research study,
have answered any questions that have been raised, and have witnessed the above
signature. I have also sought permission to record all or part of the interview on
audiotape.

Researcher’s Signature Date

 

 

150

VERSION REVISADA (7/10/06)

Estudio de Caso sobre Agricultures Hispanos en el Suroeste de Michigan:
Retos y Oportunidades

Notificacibn sobre Estudio

Estoy desarrollando un estudio sobre la situacién actual de los agricultores hispanos en el
suroeste de Michigan. El proyecto proporcionara valiosa informacidn sobre como los
agricultores hispanos organizan la operacién de sus granjas, que barreras ellos enﬂentan
y cuales son sus necesidades educativas. Los resultados de esta investigacién
incrementaran la interaccién entre pequefros agricultores en desventaja pertenecientes a
grupos nrinoritarios con las agencias agricolas tales como: US. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, and Michigan State
University Extension (MSUE). Las preguntas generales en nuestra entrevista son:

1. LCOmo se hizo usted un operador-dueﬁo de su granja?

2. LCOmo ha organizado usted la operacién de su granja?

3. LCuéles son los desaﬁos qué usted ha aﬂontado en la operacién de su granj a?
4. LCual es el nivel de interaccién entre usted y las agencias agricolas?

Me gustaria que usted participe en este estudio. Le pediria pudiera contestar las preguntas
de nuestra entrevista, la cual nos tomara aproximadamente 60 minutos de su tiempo. Su
participacién es completamente voluntaria, y usted puede rechazar participar o retirarse
en cualquier momento sin cualquier consecuencia. Quiero que usted sepa que, si usted
decide no participar, su elegibilidad para programas de extensiOn agricolas no sera
afectada. También, si usted encuentra preguntas que le incomodan, usted puede reservase
el derecho de no responder. Ademas, si desea compartir la informaciOn sobre su negocio,
pero no desea que esto sea incluyera en el estudio, solo tiene que decirmelo. Respetaré
sus deseos.

Antes de que usted decida si desea participar o no en este estudio, dej arme inforrnarle
sobre los posibles riesgos; tenga presente que no sé si habra riesgos potenciales. Sin
embargo, las posibilidades existen. Por ej emplo, puedo escuchar rurnores sobre trabajo
injusto o practicas comerciales cuestionables.

Usted debe estar seguro que tomaré las medidas necesarias para minimizar alguno de los
posibles riesgos por su participacién en este estudio. Su conﬁdencialidad sera protegida
a1 grado maximo segr'rn lo establecido por la ley. Expresarnente, cualquier informacién
obtenida durante las entrevistas no sera revelada a nadie mas. Tomaré precaucién para
registrar y archivar respuestas en tal manera que usted no sera identiﬁcado directamente.
Ningt'rn nombre o direcciOn seran registrados en cuademos de campo o diarios; $610 103
seudénimos seran usados. Ademas, todos los datos de campo, las entrevistas informales,
y las genealogias seran guardados bajo llave en archiveros. En cuanto a cualquier
entrevista registrada en cinta, mantendré la conﬁdencialidad de la informaciOn que usted
me proporcione, transcribiendo las entrevistas inmediatarnente. Después de la

151

trascripcién, 1a informacién sobre las cintas sera borrada. Por supuesto, tendré que
obtener su perrniso para poder grabar la entrevista.

Si usted tiene alguna pregunta sobre este estudio, por favor pOngase en contacto con Juan
Marinez o Bernardo Lépez, responsables del proyecto:

Juan Marinez Bernardo Lopez-Ariza
MSU Extension, PhD Student

Assist to the Director Michigan State University
Rm 11, Agriculture Hall 1514 — L Spartan Village
voice: 517-353-9772 East Lansing, MI. 48823
celular: 517-881-1817 Teléfono: 517-355-2767
fax: 517-432-1048 Email: lopezari@msu.edu

Email: marinezi@msu.edu

Ademas, si usted tiene alguna pregunta o preocupaciones en cuanto a sus derechos como
participante en este estudio, 0 no esta satisfecho en cualquier momento con algr'rn aspecto
de este estudio, usted puede ponerse en contacto - andnimamente, si usted lo desea con:
Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director de “Human Research Protections”, (517)355-2180, fax
(517)432-4503, e-mail irb@msu.edu, puedes enviar por correo tus comentarios a la
direccién 202 Olds Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1047.

Si usted desea participar en este estudio, por favor ﬁrrne las dos copias de la “Forma de
Consentimiento Voluntaria”. Usted conservara una copia y nosotros otra.

 

 

Sinceramente
Juan Marinez, Bernardo Lopez-Ariza
MSU Extension PhD Student - MSU

152

Forma de Consentimiento Voluntaria

He leido la informacic’rn sobre “Notiﬁcacién sobre Estudio”, (1me mi consentimiento
para participar en este estudio. Mis respuestas son completamente conﬁdenciales y tengo
el derecho de retirarrne del estudio en cualquier momento. He recibido una copia ﬁrrnada
de la “Forrna de Consentimiento Voluntaria” para conservarla bajo mi posesién

Nombre (Por favor escriba su nombre)

 

F irma

 

Fecha

 

Muchas gracias. Apreciarnos mucho que usted de su consentimiento para participante en
nuestro estudio. Nos gustaria tarnbién grabar la entrevista en cinta. Sin embargo,
necesitamos su permiso para poder hacer esto.
LNos da permiso para grabar la entrevista en audio cinta?

Si No
Por favor ﬁrrne abajo. Su ﬁrma es necesaria para mostrar que usted dio el permiso para

grabar la entrevista.

Firma: Fecha:

 

Si usted carnbia de opinién sobre su decisién en cuanto a la grabacién de entrevistas, por
favor avisenos. Usted puede reconsiderar su decisién en cualquier momento durante la
entrevista.

Certiﬁco que he explicado a la persona antes mencionada la naturaleza y objetivo, las
ventajas potenciales, y riesgos posibles asociados con la participacién en este estudio, he
contestado cualquier pregunta que ha sido elaborada por el participante, y conﬁrmo que
es la ﬁrma del participante. También fue requerida la autorizacidn para grabar toda 0
parte de la entrevista.

La Firma del Investigador Fecha

 

 

153

Appendix C. Survey Instruments — English and Spanish

154

Michigan Hispanic Farmer Survey

1. Name:

2. Date: / /

 

Last Name

3. Address:

First Name month day Er

 

Number

4. County:

Street

5. Zip:

City

5.a. E-mail

 

 

 

6. Telephone: home ( )

Work (

 

7. Gender:

i. Male
ii. Female

8. Age:
i.

Under 25 years

ii. 26-35 years

iii. 36-45 years
iv. 46-55 years
v. 56-65 years

vi. Over 65

9. Level of education completed:

1.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.

vii.

ix.

Did not go to school _
Elementary school __
Middle school _

GED

High school diploma _

 

ii.a
iii.a

) Cell ( )

 

 

__ years
years

Vocational or technical school diploma
2-year college degree
viii. Four year college degree or higher

Other (specify)

10. How long have you lived in this County? years

11. Where were you born?

i.b. Place

 

 

ii.b. Place

 

 

i. USA i.a. State
ii. Mexico ii.a. State
iii. Puerto Rico

iv. Other (specify)

155

12. Which language do you prefer to speak in general?
i. English ii. Spanish iii. Both

13. How do you identify yourself?

i. Mexican __ vi. Puerto Rican __

ii. Chicano _ vii. Central American __
iii. Guatemalan __ viii. Latino _

iv. Cuban __ ix. Other___

v. Mexican-American

14. Marital status:
i. Single _ ii. Married _ iii. Separated __
iv. Divorced _ v. Widowed _
vi. A member of an unmarried couple _

15. Is agriculture your main economic activity?
i. Yes ii. No

15.a If no, what is the main economic activity?
i. Manager or foreman_
ii. Farm worker—
iii. Small business__
iv. Services__
v. Manufacturing—
vi. Construction—
vii. Food processor worker—
viii. Education_____
ix. Other (specify)

 

16. What type of farm do you operate?

Crop Animal
i. Oilseed and grain farming _ vi. Beef Cattle
ii. Vegetable and melon __ vii. Cattle feedlots
farming
iii. Fruit and tree nut farming _ viii. Dairy cattle and milk
production
iv. Greenhouse, nursery, and __ ix. Hog and pig
ﬂoriculture production
v. Other crop farming _ x. Poultry and egg
production

xi. Sheep and goat
xii. Aquaculture and
other animal production

156

'1

17. What are the main crops in your farm?

1. Blueberry

ii. Grapes

iii. Apples

iv. Peach __

v. Corn

vi. Wheat

vii. Tomato

viii.Other (specify)—

 

 

 

18. What is the destination of your production?

i. A commodity broker __
ii. A ﬂuit receiving __

iii. Retail sales __

iv. Buyer ﬂom other state _
v. Domestic consumption _

19. How do you consider yourself?

i. Full-time farmer
ii. Part-time farmer

20. What is your type of farm ownership?

i. Owner _

ii. Lessor _

iii. Sharecropper __
iv. Other (specify)

20.a. If you are owner, i. Full owner ii. Part owner

20.b. Who is your partner?

 

21. How many acres do you farm?

1. Own acres
ii. Rent acres
iii. Sharecrop __ acres
iv. Manager acres
v. Total acres

22. How many years have you owned this farm?

i. Under 5 years __
ii. 6 - 10 years _
iii. 11 - 15 years—
iv. 16 - 20 years __
v. 21- 25 years _
vi. Over 25 _

157

 

23. Why did you buy your farm?

 

 

24. How many years have you been involved in farming activities? years
24.a. In USA years 24.b. Where?
24.c. In Mexico years 24.d. Where?

25. Were you a seasonal farmer worker?
i. Yes ii. No

 

If yes:

25.a. In USA years 25.b. Where? 25.c. Crops?

25.d. In Mexico years 25 .e. Where? 25.f. Crops?
26. Did you participate in Agricultural census 2002?

i. Yes ii. No

If yes,

26.a. Who completed the census form?

 

26.b. Was it difﬁcult to complete the form?
i. Yes ii. No

26.c. Why?

 

If no,
26.d. Why not?

 

27. Who or what is your main sources of advice for farm management decisions?
i. Family members __
ii. Ex-Employer or Ex-Owner _
iii. MSU Extension and Ag Experiment Station __
iv. Myself _
v. Farmer organizations (Farm Bureau or commodity associations)
vi. Other farmers _
vii. Chemical / fertilizer supplier _
viii.Agricultural events, demonstrations or ﬁeld days __
ix. Friends __
x. Other (specify)

 

158

28. What is, in your opinion, the most important problem facing Hispanic farmers in
Michigan?

i. Language and cultural _

ii. Lack of knowledge on crop system—

iii. Unawareness of agricultural agencies, staff and program—

iv. Lack of loads/ﬁnancial assistance—

v. Marketing of their products—

vi. Discrimination__

vii. Lack of a Hispanic organization—

viii. Participation in USDA programs___

ix. Other (specify)

 

29. Have you heard of Extension Agricultural and Natural Resources Programs?
i .Yes __ ii. No __

30. Have you ever heard of the Michigan State University Extension?
i. Yes _ ii. NO __

31. Do you have your own computer?
i. Yes _ ii. No __

32. Who use this computer?

 

33. Do you own computer has access Internet?
i. Yes ii. No

34. Are you interested in participating in other interview where we can talk a little more
about you and your farming activities?

i. Yes ii. No

159

Encuesta para Agricultures Hispanos en Michigan

 

 

 

 

 

1. Nombre 2. Fecha: / /
Apellidos Nombre mes/ dia / ar'ro
3. Direccién
Numero Calle Ciudad
4. Condado 5. Zip: 5.3. Email
6. Teléfono Casa( ) Trabajo ( ) Celular( )

 

 

7. gCual es su sexo?
i. Masculino
ii. Femenino

8. gCual es su edad?
i. Menos de 25 aﬁos _
ii. 26-35 ailos _
iii. 36-45 aﬁos _
iv. 46-55 aﬁos __
v. 5665 afios __
vi. Mas de 65 __
9. gCual es su nivel de estudios?
i. No fui a la escuela _

ii. Escuela primaria ii.a aﬁos
iii. Escuela secundaria iii.a aflos
iv. GED

v. Diploma de escuela secundaria _

vi. Diploma de colegio técnico o profesional __
vii. Colegio de 2 ar’ios __

viii. Colegio de cuatro aﬁos o mas alto _

ix. Otro (especiﬁcar)

 

 

 

 

 

10. gCuénto tiempo has vivido en este Condado? Aflos
11. LDOnde nacié?
i. USA _ i.a. Estado i.b. Lugar
ii. México __ ii.a. Estado ii.b. Lugar
iii. Puerto Rico _
iv. Otro _

160

12. LQué idioma preﬁeres hablar?

i. Inglés ii. Espaiiol iii. Ambos

l3. LCOmo te autodenorninas?

i. Mexicano
ii. Chicano

vi. Puertorriquefio
vii. Centroamericano

iii. Guatemalteco __ viii. Latino _
iv. Cubano_ ix. Otro _
v. Mexico-Americano__
14. 1,0151 es su estado civil?
i. Soltero _ ii. Casado __ iii. Separado _ iv. Divorciado __
v. Viudo __ vi. Miembro de una pareja sin casarse _ vii. Otro

15. LEs la agricultura su principal actividad econémica?

i. Si ii. No

515a Si su respuesta fue no, cual es su principal actividad econémica?
i. Operador de una ﬁnca agricola
ii. Trabajador Agricola

iii. Un negocio _
iv. Servicios _

v. Obrero _

vi. Construccién _

vii. Trabaj ador en una fabrica procesadora de alirnentos

viii. Educacién
ix. Otra (especiﬁcar)

16. (,Qué tipo de granja operas?

Agricultura

i. Granos o semillas de aceite

ii. Verdura o legurnbres
iii. Frutas o arboles de nueces

iv. Invemadero, viveros o
ﬂoricultura
v. Otro cultivo

 

Ganaderia

vi. Ganado de Came
vii. Engorda

viii. Ganado de leche

ix. Cerdos

x. Avicultura o producciOn
de huevo
xi. Ovejas o cabras

xii. Acuacultura u otro tipo
de produceién animal

161

17. LCual son los principales productos en su granj a?
i. Blueberry
ii. Uvas
iii. Manzanas
iv. Duraznos __

v. Maiz
vi. Trigo
vii. Tomate

viii. Otro (especiﬁcar)

18. gCual es el destino de su produccién?
i. Un interrnediario __
ii. Una planta concentradora de fruta __
iii. Ventas al menudeo __
iv. Comprador de otro estado _
v. Para autoconsumo _

19. LCOmo te consideras?
i. Agricultor de tiempo completo
ii. Agricultor de tiempo parcial

20. LCual es su propiedad de la granja?
i. Duefro __
ii. Arrendador____
iii. Aparcero _

20.a. Si eres duer’lo, eres: i. Dueflo de todo

20.b. LQuién es el copropietario?

ii. Duefio parcial

 

21. éCuantos acres cultivas?

i. Propias acres
ii. Alquiler acres
iii. A medias _ acres

iv. Operas acres

v. Total acres

22. LDesde cuando eres propietario de esta granj a?
i. Menos de 5 aiios _
ii. 6-10 aﬁos _
iii. 11-15 aﬁos _
iv. 16-20 aflos __
v. 21-25 aﬁos __
vi. Mas de 25 _

162

23. LPor qué compraste esta granja?

 

 

24. gCuantos aﬁos has tenido relacién con actividades agropecuarias? __ Aﬁos
24.a. En USA __ aﬁos 24.b. LDOnde? __
24.c. En México _ aflos 24.d. LDOnde?

25. gEres o ﬁriste un trabajador agricola temporal? i. Si _ ii. NO _

Si la respuesta es si:
25.a. En USA afros 25.b. LDOnde? 25.c. LCultivos?

 

25.d. En Mexico __aflos 25.c. LDOnde? 25.f. (,Cultivos?

 

26. LParticipaste en el censo Agricola 2002?
i. Si ii. NO

Si la respuesta fue si:
26.a. LQuién lleno el formato del censo?

 

26.b. LFue diﬁcil llenar el formato? i. Si ii. No

26.c. gPor qué?

 

Si la respuesta fue no:
26.d. gPor qué no participaste?

 

27. (,Quién o cual es tu principal soporte en la toma de decisiones en la operacién de tu
granja?

i. Miembros de farnilia _

ii. Ex-patrén o Ex-dueﬁo __

iii. MSUE O MAES _

iv. Mi propio criterio _

v. Organizaciones de agricultores

vi. Otros agricultores _

vii. Proveedor de sustancias quinricas o fertilizantes _

viii. Eventos relacionados con la agricultura _

ix. Amigos __

x. Otro (especiﬁcar)

 

163

28. En tu opiniOn, gCuales son los principales problemas que enﬂentan los agricultores
hispanos en Michigan?

i. E] idioma y la cultura _

ii. Desconocimiento de algunos cultivos _

iii. Desconocimiento de agencias y programa relacionados a la agricultura—
iv. Falta de ayuda ﬁnanciera o econémica _

v. Mercadeo de sus productos __

vi. Discriminacién _

vii. La falta de una organizacién de agricultores hispanos __

viii. La no participacidn en programas del USDA __

ix. Otro (especiﬁcar)

 

29. (Has escuchado sobre algr’rn programa de ExtensiOn en agricultura o recursos
naturales?

i. Si ii. NO

30. {Has oido alguna vez de Michigan State University Extension?

i. Si ii. No

31. LTiene tu propia computadora?

i. Si ii. NO

32. gQuiénes usan tu computadora?

 

33. gPosee una computadora que tiene acceso a Internet?

i. Si ii. No
34. (,Te gustaria participar en otra entrevista donde podarnos platicar un poco mas de ti y
de tus actividades en la agricultura?

i. Si ii. NO

164

 

Appendix D. Interview Guideline

165

Semi-structured Interview Guideline

Michigan Hispanic Farmer

Section 1. Demographic and socioeconomic information

1. Please tell me about you and your family. Are you married? How many family
members live with you?

2. Where were you born? Have you resided outside of the United States?

3. Which language do you prefer to use? Can you tell me why?

4. When and how did you immigrate to Michigan?

Section [1. Transition to owner-operator of a farm

. Can you tell me about your ﬁrst farming experience?

. How did you learn to work in your farm?

1
2
3. Are/were you a seasonal farmworker? Where?
4. When and how did you take the decision to get your own farm in Michigan?
5

. What motivated you to get into the farming business here in Michigan?

Section III. Farm organization and operation

In addition to faming do you have an off-farm job?
What type of farm do you operate?
Tell me how are you operating your farm?

What is the role that your family plays here?

MPP’P?‘

Who or what is your main source of advice for farm operation decisions?

166

Section IV. Farmer’s barrier and challenges in farming

. Please tell me what challenges you faced when start your farming business.

You mentioned when started your farm business. Please can you
explain me how did you feel or live these barriers? How did you solve these

situations?

3. In this moment, what are the barriers that affect your farming activities?

Section V.

1.

In your opinion, what are the main problems that Hispanic farmers face in

their farming activities?

Farmers’ interaction with agricultural agencies

Do you know what organization in Michigan offers outreach programs in
Agriculture or Natural Resources?

Have you been involved in any agricultural extension program in the past?

3. Have you obtain any loan for your farm or when you bought it?

What do you consider as major areas of educational needs for Hispanic
farmers?

Please suggest how Agricultural agencies can improve its role in helping
Hispanic farmers.

What methods of communication do you prefer to receive information and/or

learn more about your farm?

167

Appendix E. Farmer’s Interview Transcribed Notes

168

Farmer’s pseudonym: Cesar

Setting: Third conversation with Cesar

Place: Cesar’s house, southwestern Michigan

Method: Semi-structured interview with record on audiotape
Date: October 14, 2006

Time: 5:30 PM to 6:45 PM

Question: Please can you tell me about you, your family and your farm?

My name is Cesar; I was born in a small rural community in Zacatecas, Mexico. I got
married 9 years ago; In Chicago, I met my wife, she also is ﬂom Zacatecas. Her
hometown is a community near to my town in México. I manied and currently we have
two children. For 20 years I was employed at some bakeries, ﬁrstly in Los Angeles and
later at Chicago.

My family owns this farm in southwestern Michigan. We bought this farm 4 years ago. It
is a working family farm; we consist of my wife, my daughter, my son, and my father.
The farm has 60 acres. Here, there is a variety of ﬂuits, 12 acres with apple trees, 10
acres with peach trees, 16 acres with vineyards, 2 acres with pear trees, and 2 acres with
blueberry bushes.

Question: Please can you tell me how did you immigrate to US?

My main reason for left my school, my people, my farm, my brothers, to leave everything
was because my farme needed more my father than to me. My dad had to work in the
US. to be able to support the family, we were six in my family, and the money that we
were gaining in our farms was very little for my family. The peso was devaluated, in that
moment my dad returns to my home in Zacatecas. We took a decision, I traveled to the
US, and then my father could be with my family in Mexico. In that moment I thought,
my brothers need to live and grow with my father. I would come to the US. to work and
my dad would remain in the house with my family, I wasl6 years old. The intention was
that I would work in USA, and I would send money to my family.

When I travel to the US, ﬁrst I went to Tijuana and hence a cousin helped me to cross
the border, and I was in San Diego CA. After I went to Los Angeles California, there my
dad had ﬂiends and relatives who helped me to obtain a place where I might live and
later they helped me to obtain a work. In this city I lived for 12 years. I got a job as baker.
When I was 28 years, I moved to Chicago, where I was a baker, in a small business that
belonged to a Greek.

I remember that the bakery in Chicago was located in a place where there were living a

lot of people from México; they were ﬂom Zacatecas, Michoacan, J alisco, and San Luis
Potosi. For example, where I was working there were four Mexican workers

169

At ﬁrst I was living alone, without my family in Chicago, however my dad traveled again
to USA, together with my brothers, until all my family moved to the US. My father, my
mother and my brothers lived with me in Chicago. With my family we were working in
the same bakery.

Question: Can you tell me about your first farming experience?

It was in México, my family had a farm of 70 hectares (172.92 acres), where we were
sowing beans, corn, apple, peach, and a little of grape. Also in the farm we had cows,
lambs and horses. The farm belonged to my grandfather and there my uncles, my dad and
my brothers were working many years. Our 70 hectares were seasonal; there we did not
have inigation system in our ﬁeld. We had a tractor and some farm implements or
equipment for to work the ﬁeld, although we did a lot of things with our own hands. The
work was very hard and difﬁcult but I have nice memories about my farm because there
we have many kinds of animals and every year we were sowing many things, for example
tomato, pepper, oats. Part of our production was used in our home and another part was
sold in the small market of the locality. But the best thing was when we could eat ﬂesh
products that we were producing. In my farm we did not get a lot of money but we could
live well.

You know in my family all members -men, women, and children- were taking part in the
activities of the farm but the persons who organize everything were my grandfather
together with my two uncles and my dad. They were taking all the decisions, for example
what to sow? How to sow? When to sow? When to fertilize? But my grandpa was the one
that had the last word, because he had more experience in the farm.

I remember that when we had to sow my grandfather and my dad taught me, to my
brothers and to my cousins how to put the seed in the soil, how to know if there is
moisture in the soil, or when to fertilize. Also they taught us to prune trees of apple,
peach, grapes. This is equal to as I do the things in my farm. The activities that we were
doing in my small community in Mexico are equal those that we do here in the US, but
in México we did not have so many rules, for example to apply insecticide we do not
need to get a certiﬁcation.

Many things were done by the members of the family because we learned to work and to
do different things, for example: we had to sow together, we had to harvest together, we
had to milk the cows together, and we had to feed the cows together. The whole family
was taking part in the farm in different things. We knew all about everything.

Question: How did you learn to work in your farm?
Humm.. Let me see, I started with some activities in my farm when I was six years old; I

remember that many things my grandfather and my dad taught to me. I think that when I
saw my grandfather working at the farm or saw my dad working with the cows, slowly I

170

was learning with them all the things related to agriculture. The needs that one faces, they
force you to work at the farm.

I mention to you that the experience that my grandfather had was given to my dad, and
my dad taught me about this experience, and I want to teach my son about it. Nobody
taught us how to sow corn or beans. Nobody said to us how to plant a tree of apple or
peach. We did not have money for to pay a technician who helps us about our farm. The
previous experience was saying to us that to do with our farm.

Question: Please tell me what were your responsibilities in the family farm in
México?

When I was ﬁve years old, every day my mother was getting up early and she milked the
cows, here I was helping her with some things that she needed. I load rope for to moor
the cows. After milking, I was helping to take the milk to the house and sometimes we
were doing cheeses. Other days I was going to the mill to grind the corn that my mother
was using to do tortillas. I can say that those activities were my ﬁrst help to the family.

When I was six years old, I began to accompany my dad to our ﬁeld. Usually, in the
morning I was taking him the breakfast that my mother was doing for my dad and my
grandfather. In that time, I was helping them a little in our farm. I was learning when I
saw how my dad, my grandfather or my uncles were doing the things. Since I am the
oldest of my family, I had to help my dad to sow and to cultivate; often I did not go to the
school. The most important thing in that time was that we need to sow beans or corn to
harvest and to gain money for to support the family.

When I was ten years old, I had a major responsibility in the activities of the farm, for
example to take care of the cows, to milk and feed the cows, to sow, to harvest, to
fertilize, to handle the tractor, to prune apples and grape, and so on. I could say what I
was full time worker in my family farm.

When I was 12 years old, my dad begins to travel to the US. during period of four or ﬁve
months every year because the situation in Mexican agriculture was very difﬁcult. The
prices of the corn and beans as well as of the cows were very low. The farm was not
giving enough money for support my family and the families of my uncles. Also in this
moment my family had six members.

The things every time were more difﬁcult in the farm; agriculture is no good business in
México. You work very much and you do not gain enough money for the family. Before
agriculture, one could obtain money to eat and to dress. Now is not possible to live of
agricultural activities in México. Also if you did not have the opportunity to study,
because you did not have money, the persons look for other forms to be able to support
the family. In our case the solution was to travel to the US.

The ﬁrst person who traveled to the US. was my grandpa, later my dad they
understood what they could get more money in four months in USA that working a whole

171

year in the farm In México. Agriculture 1n México rs totally different ﬂom the U. S., in
México nobody supports you to produce In your farm.

Later my dad traveled for longer periods to the US, together with my grandpa. In
consequence I was the person responsible for the farm, when I was 14 years old. My dad
remained in the US. for 2 years, my uncles also traveled to the US. with all their
families. Then my mother, my brother with 10 years old and I had to work together in the
farm. I was 14 years old but I got a lot of responsibility, I had to operate the farm to be
able to help my family.

In that moment I understood, that I can do the things in agriculture well, but we return to
the same thing, without money it is very difﬁcult to move forward.

Question: After you work in your farm, did you receive any payment?

Hurnm Bernardo you know that when you work at the family farm, nobody received a
salary, when the crop was selling the money was used to support the family. You know
the farm is the patrimony of the family. When I was living in Mexico, every day I was
working at the farm and sometimes I ask myself, if I work every day why I do not get
salary. But the response was, you have something to eat in the house, you have clothes
and you have a place where to live. The farm gives us money for the family needs.

Question: How do you take the decision to buy your farm in Michigan?

I had two reasons to buy my farm, well maybe three. But the principal one is my
children... I do not like the idea that my children were growing in a great city as Chicago.
I want that they take his own decisions when they are adults, but now, if I can take them
out of the danger of living in a great city and I did it, hence the decision to buy the farm
here in southwestern Michigan.

Let me say that I had a good job in Chicago, I was gaining a lot of money, I was working
many hours each week, you know what it is not important because you have money but
someone could kill my children or they can begin with problems such as drugs or gangs.

Here in the farm the life is peaceﬁrl, I feel more comfortable to live here in my farm with
my children and my wife. I know that here also there are problems and risks but In
my opinion and compared with the place where I was born and grew, in a rural
community the life is easier. I think that in a small community the problems are less
compared with the risks that one has in a great city.

The second reason for to buy my farm was my parents, they are adult persons. They
educated me and taught me many things, they taught me to work, I give to them thank
you very much for what they taught me .... I want to take care of my parents now that
they need of me. They are adult persons; I want to help them to live happy. They grew
and lived in a little town where they were growing the ﬁeld and his animals, they were
never happy to live in Chicago.

172

The third reason was me. I love agriculture and I like to live in the farm. I like to spend
time working in my ﬁeld. I like to live in a place where I could do the things that I like
doing. My parents taught to cultivate the ground, to sow and to harvest my fruit. I love to
care of my horses. I enjoy seeing my children when they can get a ﬂuit in the tree and
they can eat it. I said you that I was born and lived in one small town, during 16 years.
For 20 years I worked as baker, but always I dreamed of having my own farm.

Four years ago, I had the opportunity to initiate my own bakery or to buy a farm. To the
moment that I had two different options undoubtedly I took the decision together with my
family to buy the farm.

Always I had a dream, now I have my own farm. The decision was taken thinking in
what I want for my parents, my children my wife and me. Always I have said that in a
farm there are a lot of opportunities if you want to work.

There are many things that you can do in a farm; I think that I have the knowledge of
being able to work the ground, skills that I learned with my grandfather and father in
México. Many people want to start a farm business but they do not have the opportunity
that I had. Agriculture in the US. is really good; it produces money, only it is necessary
to be able to work. You must have resources to be able to produce your farm. Many
people have ﬁeld but they do not have enough money for to crop the ground. For 20
years, I was employed at a bakery, but always miss the life that I had in my hometown.
When I had the opportunity I return to Agriculture.

Question: Please tell me how are you operating your farm?

Many things that I learned in Mexico on Agriculture, I am applying them in my farm.
These are experiences and skills that now I use in my farm. My dad and I have put into

practice many things that we were doing in México and these are employed at our farm at
the US.

In the ﬁrst four years of production of our farm, we can say that we were ﬁne. Thanks to
god, we are producing well and have good product. The farm in this moment is better
than when we buy it.

The activities of my farm are done by my father, sometimes my brothers, my wife and
my children. Each of them has some things that to do, for example my wife takes charge
of the payments, takes charge of the ﬂuit store or the shop where we sell part of the
products of our farm. My daughter helps her mother in things of the house and shop.
Sometimes my wife helps me to harvest the ﬂuit. Also they help me to classify the apples
or the peaches. _

My son does simple and easy things but also he helps in the farm or in the shop. My
children start knowing that every... hummm.. that they must contribute something to
the house, I think that this is something that in the city they do not learn. Many children

173

 

in the city take few responsibilities at their house, and they realize that need to contribute
something to the family to the age of 18, 19 or 20 years. In my opinion, it is so late and
often in the city one has no time for the children. At a farm you are working with your
family every day. When you grew in a farm, you learned that you must do something to
help your family.

Question: What is the role that your family plays here?

My dad takes charge of. . .. hummm I think that my dad plays the most important role
in my farm and, I say that he is the most important because he takes charge of the
operation of the farm. I also know how we should work in the farm but my father is full
time worker in our farm, he is doing things that he likes doing.

My dad knows with major depth that we did today, that we need to do tomorrow. My
father has the experience, he taught me everything what I know on agriculture. My dad
can prune apple trees; I learned it of him in México. I think that my dad has one of the
most important roles in my farm.

My brothers are working at Chicago, when they have ﬂee time they help us a little in the
farm. Sometimes they provide money when I need to buy something for the farm.

Finally, I take charge selling and buying the things necessary for the farm. Also I help in
the activities of the farm, for example: to prune, to fertilize, to apply insecticide, etc. I
take charge carrying our product to the markets in Chicago and also I buy the things
necessary for our small shop. My wife takes charge of the shop. Always we do our
register with pencil and paper, we do not know about computers.

The decisions on the handling of the farm are taken between my dad and me. We usually
comment these decisions with my wife and my brothers. The decisions about the shop are
taken between my wife and me.

Question: You know how to run a farm in México and the U.S. Do you think that is
the same thing in both countries?

The agricultural activities are the same in México and in the U.S., many things that I
learned in Mexico with my father and my grandfather are activities that I do in the U.S.
Here in the U.S. Agriculture is easier because there are many machineries that helps you
to work the ground but the basic activities are the same. The form in which you use the
tractors, to prune the trees, to fertilize the soil, to harvest the crops is the same thing in
México and in the U.S.

However, in my opinion, there are some differences between agriculture in México and
in the U.S. The ﬁrst one is in the U.S. there are a lot of regulations that the government
imposes, for example: if you want to apply some insecticide, you must take a test for
demonstrate that you can apply and handle the product. If you do not have the
certiﬁcation, you cannot buy insecticide. They are very strong regulations and that you

174

must respect to have no problems with the law. These kinds of regulations are not in
México.

Another important difference is that in the U.S. there are many supports for the farmers.
You can loans for to buy tool or to do some activities of soil conservation. You can insure
your crops.

The last difference that I see is that agriculture in the U.S. is a good business; you can get
money to be able to support your family. In México, many persons travel to the U.S.
because agriculture does not give enough money for to live. Also there are no jobs where
we could gain some money for to maintain your family.

Question: Previous conversations, you mentioned some challenges that you faced
when your farm business started. In fact you talked a little bit about discrimination.
How did you live this situation?

Nobody said me something on discrimination, nobody mention my color of skin, hair or
which is my origin. But one feels when you enter to some ofﬁces and you see how they
look at you. It is what I am called discrimination. Other persons think that one is ignorant '
because you do not speak English very well. Nobody said anything to me, but her faces
and attitudes say more than many words. One does not have to be very intelligent to
understand it.

There is discrimination here, people who lives here see you as a stranger. It is very easy
to feel it, when you come in some place immediately the persons exhibit his/her attitude
towards you. For example I will not say name or place, I do not want to get problems
further on But you see when there are white people in the ofﬁce, they invite him to sit
down, they offer him a water glass or a coffee. When you enter to the same place, they
never offer you the same things. you know it. Their attitudes depend of your skin color.

Question: I would like to know a little bit more about the challenges that you faced
when you initiated your farm business.

When you initiate your business in agriculture, you do not know the agencies or ofﬁces
that could help with both technical and economic support for your farm. Often you'do not
have whom asking on any things that you need to do in your farm. I know on agriculture,
but for example I never worked with bluebenies.

Other huge problem that I faced is that all the information is in English. There are no
technicians who could speak Spanish. I can speak Spanish and English, but there are
many technical terms that I do not understand. Also when you attend any course about
agriculture, all the information is in English. I did see any technical bulletin where I
could read the information in Spanish.

Other important barrier is that there is no an organization of Hispanic farmers where we
could share our problems.

175

Appendix F. Checklist Matrix Display

176

 

mecca—32

 

L7>

v»

use Susi E as

 

30:33.“qu
68.3 25de mo M03

 

7

282
HO “.8995 oaonooo Co MONA

 

momoaowa Hunger?
no :ouenuomﬁ me 303

 

77

cowegtoma

 

Eur—Rm _3:oE:e.:>=H

 

 

macho mamEomz
sec... 5E benzene E as

 

77

2330

 

.3885

 

v»

7 777

v»?

7E.

oweswg

 

Euthan— Stanza—ow

 

 

N“
ammo

 

H x
080

 

A:
030

 

ammo

 

 

l\

080

 

ammo

 

V1

080

 

ammo

 

ammo

 

ammo

 

ammo

 

Emcee—Sum 9.3—Ea,”—

 

 

Smﬁaeo undead swan—ma Co E: E2025 .NN and.

177

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allegan County Proﬁle (2005). Allegan County Michigan. Retrieved October 10, 2005
ﬂom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegan_County

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education
(6th ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Berrien County Proﬁle (2005). Berrien County Michigan. Retrieved October 10, 2005
ﬂom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berrien_County%2C_Michigan

Buland, D., & Hunt, F. (2000). Hispanics in agriculture, pre and post immigration
reform. Retrieved August 21, 2005 ﬂom ﬂp:_//ftp;
fc.sc.egov.usdalgovaRIAI/technical/Qalysis/hispanics/irca6d.pdf

Burke, R., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm
whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33 ( 7), l4-26.

Cass County Proﬁle (2005). Cass County Michigan. Retrieved October 10, 2005 ﬂom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_County%2C_Michigan

Christensen, L. (1997). Working with Asian and Hispanic limited resources farmers and
ranchers. Social Sciences Institute Technical Report Release 4.1. Washington,
DC: USDA.

Chung, K. (2000). Using qualitative methods to improve data collection and analysis of
the living standards measurement surveys. In M. Grosh & P. Glewwe (Eds),
Designing and implementing the living standards measurement surveys: Lesson
form ten years of experience. Washington DC: The World Bank.

Creswell, J ., & Plano, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.)
New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Fink, A. (2003). How to sample in surveys: The survey kit (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Garcia, V., & Marinez, J. (2004). New Latino farmers in the Midwest: the case of
souwthwest mighicant. Cambio de colores. Latinos in Missouri: Gateway to a
new community. Proceedings of the 2004 annual conference. Available at:
http://www.cambiodecolores.og/2004/Papers/MarineztGarcia.htm

178

Garcia, V., & Marinez, J. (2005). Exploring Agricultural Census Undercounts Among
Immigrant Hispanic/Latino Farmers with an Alternative Enumeration Project.
Journal of Extension [On-line], 43(5). Available at:
hipd/www.ioe.org/ioe/20050ctober/a2.shtml

Greene, J ., Caracelli, V., & Graham, W. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for
mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis
11 (3), 255-274.

Guba, Egon G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic
inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29, 75-92.

Ivankora, N., Creswell, J ., & Stick, S. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential
explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 1 8 (1), February
2006 3-20. Sage Publications.

Kandel, W., & Cromartie, J. (2004). New patterns of Hispanic settlement in rural
America. Rural Development Report No. 99. Economic Research Service,
United States Department of Agriculture.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Litwin, M. (2003). How to assess and interpret survey psychometrics: The survey kit
(2"d ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In
handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Morgan, D. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological
implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of
Mixed Methods Research, 1 (I), 48-76.

Newman, C. (2003). Impacts of hispanic population growth on rural wages. Electronic
Report from the Economic Research Service. USDA Agricultural Economic
Report Number 826.

Nodin, D. (1992). Divergent roots, common destinies? Latino work and settlement in
Michigan. J SRI Occasional Paper #4, The Julian Samora Research Institute,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Patten, M. (2004). Understanding research methods: An overview of the essentials (4th
ed.) Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.

179

Rowland, A., & Flint, J. (2001). Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations:
snowball research strategies. University of Surrey Social Research Update Issue
No. 33. Retrieved December 2005, from
http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU33.htrnl

Rubin, H., & Rubin I. (2005). Qualitative interviewing. The art of hearing data.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Samora, J ., & Simon, P. V. (1993). A history of the Mexican-American people. Notre
Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame Press.

Suvedi, M., Heinze, K., & Ruonavaara, D. (1999). How to conduct evaluation of
extension programs. Retrieved August 10, 2005 from
http://www.msu.edu/~suvedi/Pages/Publications.htm#Online

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). The past and the future of mixed methods
research: From data triangulation to mixed model designs. In A. Tashakkori &
C. Teddlie (Eds), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral
research (pp. 671-701). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tellis, W. (1997). Introduction to case study. The Qualitative Report [On-line serial],
3(2). Retrieved December 2005 from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-
2/tellisl .htrnl

U.S. Department of Agriculture — Economic Research Service (2005). Rural Hispanics
at a glance. Retrieved April 15, 2006, from
http://www.ers.u_sda.ng/publications/eib8/eib8.htrn

U.S. Department of Agriculture — Farm Service Agency: Outreach and Education (n.d.).
Hispanic American Outreach Program. Retrieved May 20, 2006, from
http://www.fsa.usda. gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subiect=oued&topic=ops-h_a_

U.S. Department of Agriculture — National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2004). 2002
Census of Agriculture. Michigan State and County Data. Volume 1, Geographic
Area Series Part 22. www.usc&gov/n_as_s/

U.S. Department of Agriculture — National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2004a).
Quick facts from the 2002 Census of Agriculture. Retrieved September 20, 2005,
from
http://www.rr_ass.usda.gov/Cer;sus of Agriculture/2OOZ/QuicLFacts/hispanicqu

ickfactspdf

180

Van Buren County Proﬁle (2005). Van Buren County Michigan. Retrieved October 10,
2005 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wikiNan_Buren_County%2C_Michigan

Vasquez-Leon, M., Thor, C., Wolf, B., Moody, J ., & Finan, T. J. (2002). Vulnerability
to climate variability in the farming sector: A case study of groundwater-
dependent agricultural in southeastern Arizona. CLIMAS Report CL1-02.
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Wells, M. J. (1996). Strawberry ﬁelds: Politics, class, and work in California
agriculture. Ithca: Cornell University Press.

Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publishing

181

    

l LIB

limmljljii

9

  

1111111111

   

«mi