.l" A COMPARISON OF THE ATTITUDES OF THE MICHIGAN COOPERATIVE EXTENSION STAFF TOWARD MARKETING. AGRICULTURAL POLICY. AND FARM ORGANIZATION By (\0’0 Herbert Hf’Hadley A THESIS Submitted- to. Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Agricultural Economics 1967 ABSTRACT A COMPARISON OF THE.ATTITUDES OF THE MICHIGAN COOPERATIVE EXTENSION STAFF TOWARD MARKETING. AGRICULTURAL POLICY. AND FARM ORGANIZATION By Herbert H. Hadley The primary Objective of this study is to compare the attitudes of commercial farmers and Cooperative Extension agricultural field staff and their administrators toward mar- keting prdblems. farm organizations. and agricultural policy. Comparisons were made concerning farmers' and Extension's views of the general farm situation; the effects of govern- ment price supports on.farm prices; the existing market structure and acceptable ways of bargaining for increased farm product prices; and views of the general farm organiza- tions and how they should.be organized and run. The study is based on the mail response of l#0 Michigan Extension staff members and a sample of 331 Michigan farmers. Both the Extension staff and committed farmers said that Michigan farm income was too low and that government price supports were not effective in increasing farm income. Gener- ally. Extension.was more optimistic than farmers about the ability of the family farm to adjust through individual action. Farmers believed that the marketing system needed to be changed and favored collective. voluntary action rather than relying on government for changes in the system. Bargaining for higher prices was favored by Extension and farmers. However. a much larger membership will be needed for bargaining to be effective. Education was the preferred method expressed by farmers and Extension for influencing nonmembers to become members of a bargaining organization.‘ This presents a challenge to Extension. farm organizations. and bargaining organizations to conduct challenging. effective educational programs . While Michigan farmers believe that prices are too low, they are very reluctant to impose restricting controls. either by government or collectively. upon their freedom for indivi-l dual action. This presents a dilemma for agricultural policy. With the changing political power structure. the Exten- sion staff ~will need to identify and educate young farm leaders in the social sciences as well .as production techno-H logy. Education in pricing principles. inter-regional compe- tition. and. foreign trade is needed as evidences by the lack of understanding expressed by farmers on these subjects. Income considerations are stronger than perpetuation of the family farm. Exit from farming particularly for younger farmers either on a part-time or full-time basis is relatively easy in an industrialized state like Michigan. Although farmers express dislike to this alternative it will probably continue for some time as the way Michigan farmers will solve individual income problems. An adequate educational program to educate young people in rural communities so that they can take a significant place in society is important. Opportunity for entry in.farming will be limited due to high capitalization in farming. _A.majority will need to seek off-farm employment. Finally. the Extension Service will need to examine its structure to see if it needs to be streamlined to serve modern agriculture. It must_deal not only with a highly complex technical agriculture, but also will deal with changing comp munities if it is to be a factor in the change process of the institutions serving rural people and continue as a leader of the process rather than a follower. PREFACE This study was undertaken as part of the overall study of "Michigan Farmers in the Mid-Sixties." The author is very grateful to Dr. Dale E. Hathaway. my major professor. and Dr. L.L. Boger. Chairman of Agricultural Economics. Michigan State University. for the opportunity to do this part of the study. Although this report is by itself independent. it should be useful to also read the overall report. My special thanks go to both graduate students and pro- fessors who made my graduate studies an interesting and stimulating experience. I wish to express my appreciation to Extension Directors U.B. Wood. E.L. Kirby. and Dean and Director Roy M. Kbttman of the Ohio Cooperative Extension Service. for granting leaves of absence from my position as district supervisor. and to the Farm Foundation for financial support. A.thank- you also to Dr. Francis B. McCormick and Dr. Francis E. walker of the Ohio State University Department of Agricultural Economics for providing computer time and facilities. The counsel of members of my guidance committee. Dr. James D. Shaffer. Dr. Mason Miller. Dr. J. Allan Beegle. and Dr. Richard L. Feltner was most helpful. Finally I want to especially thank my wife. Avalon. and sons Ronald. Randy. and Ricky for their encouragement and understanding during my graduate studies. Avalon undertook the typing of this manuscript. Any errors either of commission or omission are. of course. entirely my own. Herbert H. Hadley ii Chapter II III IV VI VII TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00000000000000 Purpose Of the Stud-yesoooee’ooeoeoeaaooaoeaooa Objectives................................... Methods of Investigation..................... EXTENSION'S VIEW OF THE GENERAL FARM SITUATION.. Haaor Farm PrOblemSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Farming as a way of Life..................... Fam omerSh1POOOOO0.000000000000000000000000 Solutions for Farming in the Future.......... WOOD...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.0.00... THE GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN.AGRICULTURE............ Price Support................................ Government ProgI'aInS.......o............o..... Market Informationeeaeoaeoaooaooeoooooaoooooo WOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOCOOCOCOOOOOOOOOOCOOO... COOPERATIVE BUYING.AND SELLING ORGANIZATIONS.... SWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING INSTITUTIONS.............. HicQSOOOOOOOOO00.00.00.000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOIO need for BargaininEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI Supply contrOIOOoeaosoaoeeooeeeoooooooeoeeoaa Bargaining Actions.........o.......’.........o Methods used in Bargaining................... Collective Bargaining and Legislation........ Farm Organizations........................... Woes...eoeeeoooaeeeooooeoeoeeeoooaoeeeo THE GENERAL FARM ORGANIZATIONS.................. GrangOOOOO0.00.0.00...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Farm BureauOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NFOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Sources of Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction With Farm 0rganlzat10ns.................... GranSQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.00...0.000... Farm BureauOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.00.000.00... NFOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.000.000.00.0.00.0.0... Harm Organization Leadership................. FinanOOBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...0.... Differences in Attitudes toward Farm Problems WOOOOOOOOOOO0.000000000......0.00.0.0... IMPLICATION FOR EXTENSION EDUCATION.AND AGRIWLTUM mLICIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO BIBLIOGRAPHYOOOOO0.0‘lOOO-OOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI...O. APPENDIX AOOCOOOOOOOOOOO...00.0.0.0...000000000.0...0.. 111 120 124 122; 125 125 130 135 1 8 121 144 150 153 Table 10 11 12 LIST OF TABLES Extension staff members in Michigan responding to mail questionaire by position................ Extension staff members by tenure groups res- ponding to mail questionaire.................... Field of specialization in formal education for Extension staff............................. Age of Extension staff respondents.............. Reaction according to Extension tenure group- ings to the question. "Do you think farmers had a satisfactory income from farming?"............ Reaction by committed farmers and Extension to the statement. "On the average. farmers are faring about as well in terms of income as city workers at the present time.“................... Economic problems mentioned by farmers and Ex- tension respondents-o......o.................... ‘Attitudes or actions of farmers seen as creating problems. mentioned by farmers and Extension.... Reaction by committed farmers and Extension to the statement. "It is more important that farm people earn satisfactory incomes than it is to maintain the family farm system.”....;.......... Reaction by Extension respondents according to masters degree to the statement. "The replace- ment of family farms by large-scale farms using hired labor would have undesirable economic and social consequences for the nation."............ Reaction.by committed farmers and Extension to the statement. “The replacement of family farms by large-scale farms using hired labor would have undesirable economic and social conse- quences for the nation.”........................ Reaction.by committed farmers and Extension to the statement. "If the economic situation for farmers continues like it is now; in a few years the family farm will be replaced by large farms run'by hired labor.”...................... iv Page 11 11 16 16 20 22 2n 2“ 26 26 LIST OF TABLES -- (continued) Table 13 14 15 l6 17 18 19 20 21 Reaction by committed farmers and Extension to the statement. "Those farmers who cannot earn a satisfactory income from farming under present conditions should plan to leave twingOnOOOOOOOOOOO000......00.0.0.00000000 Reaction by committed farmers and Extension to the statement. "The ownership of farms ought to be restricted to those dependent upon farming for their income."................ Reaction.by committed farmers and Extension to the statement. "Entry into farming ought to be restricted to young men with a farm background-O” 0.0.0.000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOO Reaction.by committed farmers and Extension to the statement. "Some simple workable solu- tions to the problems of agriculture could be found if people would just think about it morOOuOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOCOOOOOCOOOOVOOOO Reaction according to Extension position to the statement. "Some simple and workable solutions to the prdblems of agriculture could be found if people would just think about it more."................................ Reaction by committed farmers and Extension to the statement."deay farmers really can't do much to determine the way things tm out for them."000000.....OOIOOOO1OOOO00...... Reaction.by committed farmers and Extension to the statement. "We shouldn't waste our time on discussion of farm problems which can't offer clear solution.“................... Reaction.by committed farmers and Extension to the statement. "What agriculture needs most. even.more than laws and political pro- grams. is devoted. tireless and courageous leaders in which farmers can put their faith.” 0....O...OOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOO Reaction by farmers and Extension to the statement. "Farmers should raise all of the crops and livestock possible as long as there are hungry people.”...................... Page 29 29 32 32 3h 35 35 37 38 '9 u v t O O O r . a e LIST OF TABLES -- (continued) Table 22 23 2# 25 26 27 28 Reaction by Extension respondents according to masters degree to the statement. "Farmers should raise all of the crops and livestock possible as long as there are hungry people.".. Response to the question according to Exten- sion position. "Suppose that all government price support programs were ended in 1966. compared with 1965. do you think that: Average net income per farm in the U.S. would be about the same. lower or higher in l967?"ooaaooeeaoooOOOQOOOCoooooeooeooeeaeso. Response by farmers and Extension to the question. "Suppose that all government price supports were ended in 1966. Compared with 1965. do you think that: Average net income per farm in the U.S. would be about the same. higher. lower in 1967?"........................ Response to the question according to Exten— sion position. "Suppose that all government price supports were ended in 1966. Compared with 1965. do you think that: Average net farm income in the U.S. in 1972 would be the same; higher. or lower7"........".......‘...'..... Response to the question according to Exten- sion position. "Suppose that all government price supports were ended in 1966. Compared with 1965. do you think that: Average net income per farm in Michigan would be about the same. lower. or higher in l96??"........... Response to the question by committed farmers and Extensions "Suppose that all government price supports were ended in 1966. Compared with 1965. do you think that: Average net income per farm in.Michigan in 1967 would be about the same. lower. or higher?".......;..... Response to the question according to Extenp sion position. "Suppose that all government price supports were ended in 1966. Compared with 1965. do you think that; Average net income per farm in Michigan in 1972 would be about the same. lower. or higher7"............. vi Page 38 50 50 52 58 LIST OF TABLES -- (continued) Table 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Response to the question by committed far- mers and Extension. "Suppose that all govern- ment price supports were ended in 1966. Com- pared with 1965. do you think that; Average net income per farm in Michigan in 1972 would be about the same. lower. or higher?".......... Response to the statement by committed far- mers and Extension. "Farmers cannot count on government assistance in solving their mar- keting and price problem." ..................... Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "The market power of farmers can.best be achieved by the use of the market price system. Under this system. supply and demand become the primary factors in deter- mining the true market level for agricultural com°d1t1°s.”00000000.0.0000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Response to the statement by committed far- mers and Extension. "Government estimates of crop production and of livestock receipts are accurate and unbiased.".................... Response to the statement by committed far- ‘mers and Extension. "Government estimates of crop production and of livestock receipts tend to strengthen the position of the buyers and weaken the position of the farmers in farmer bargaining arrangement."........;....... Response to the question by committed farmers and Extension. ”Should services and products of a farm supply cooperative be limited to members only?"................................. Response to the question.by committed farmers and Extension. "Do you believe a farm supply cooperative should sell at quantity discounts?" Response to the question by committed farmers and Extension. "We know that some items a supply coop sells are more profitable than others. If it meets competition on some items. it will acturally sell them at a loss. ShOLlld. a coop do thiS?"OOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO vii Page 58 60 60 63 63 69 69 71 LIST OF TABLES -- (continued) Table 37 38 39 40 41 b2 43 44 Response to the question by committed farmers and Extension. "If it could be shown that significant savings in total costs of farm supplies could be obtained through very large volume. would you be willing to sign a bind- ing contract agreeing to buy all supplies from the coop set up on this basis?".....;...... Response to the statement by committed far- mers and Extension. "Consumers ought to pay more for the farm products than they are now payingenoooeeeooeoeoooeeooaoeoooooooeooeoeoooeoe Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "The government should step in and protect the public interest whenever or- ganized groups get enough power to substan- tially raise prices and the cost of living.".... Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "Farm prices are largely deter- mined by large processors and retailers."....... Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "Large supermarket chains tend to use their bargaining power to hold down farm prices.”00.0.OOOOOOOOSOO.00.;0000000000000000 Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "Farmers must get together in bargaining organizations to deal effectively with processors and retailers."................. Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "Farmers should be primarily concerned with producing farm products and let someone else worry about the marketing pr°b16m80"000000:000....0000......0.000.000.0000. Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "Farmers must reduce the total amount of products going to market if they are going to receive a higher price for those pro- ductSO"OO0.0.0.-OOOOOOOO00......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. viii Page 71 78 78 80 80 83 83 iLIST OF TABLES -- (continued) Table 45 46 1+? #8 49 50 51 52 Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "Withholding products from the market in order to fix prices above the ture market level cannot achieve a lasting improve- ment in farmers' market power.".................. Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "The market power of farmers can best be achieved by the use of the market price system. Under this system. supply and demand‘become the primary factors in deter- mining the true market level for agricultural com0d1tiesou.0.‘OOOAOOOAO‘OOOOOOOOOOOAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "In order to be effective. bar- gaining associations that attempt to get higher prices for farmers must be able to control the output that individual farmers market.”.......... Response to the question.by committed farmers and Extension. "Do you think farmers in your area would accept a contract with a bargaining association if it required that they lbmit the production or sale of certain commodities?"...... Response to the question by committed farmers and Extension. "Do you think farmers can work together to solve this problem through their own orgmzation?"o.oo‘001000OOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOO Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "Buyers of farm products who sign a contract with a bargaining association should not be allowed to buy from farmers who do not belong to the bargaining association.".... Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "Farmers should use the same methods to get higher prices that make it possible for organized labor to get higher mesonoooo..ooo.ooo....o...o..........ooo....... Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "A union contract that makes it possible for a company to only hire union members are a good idea.“........................ ix Page 85 88 9O 9O 92 92 95 95 ALIST OF TABLES -- (continued) Table 53 55 56 57 58 59 60 Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "The government should do some- thing to prevent the big unions and.big com- panies from negotiating wage contracts that bring increases in consumers prices."........;.. Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "It would.be to farmer's advan- tage to gain control over one of the large re- tail fOOd Chains."00O0.0.0.0..OOO‘OOOOOOOOOOOO-OO. Response to the question by committed farmers and Extension. "Do you believe a majority of the producers of a commodity should legally bind all producers to participate in a joint effort for: A. Promotion of their products? B. Control of the quality marketed? C. Restricting the level of production or marketing?"00'00OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.0 Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "All farmers should contribute to a fund to help advertise their farm pro-} ducts." .0...COODCOOOMCOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOO0.00.0... Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "Federal marketing orders should be expanded over more Michigan products." ....... Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. “Some legal limit should be put on.the size of food processing companies. re- tail food chains and other marketing organi- zationSeueooooooooeeeOIeaseoceaoooeaeeooooooeooo Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "Large retail food chains should be prohibited.by law from owning food process- ing facilit1°SOnOOOOO0.0.0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "Farmer organizations which concentrate on.the marketing of one commodity are likely to be more effective in serving member interest than organizations which deal with several commodities."...................... Page 98 98 101 103 103 106 106 108 .LIST OF TABLES -- (continued) Table 61 62 63 6h 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. “Farmers would be better off'if. there was only one farm organization. repre- 8911151118 all farmers.".......’...............'..... Reasons for membership in the Grange given‘by. Extension respondents and current Grange membeI‘SOOOOOOO'OOOOOOO000......OOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOO Reasons for membership in the Farm Bureau given.by Extension.respondents and current Farm mean membeI‘SQOQooaooeooooeooeoooooeoeioooa Reasons for membership in NFO given.by Exten- " sion respondents and current NFO members........ Dissatisfaction with selected aspects of the Grange expressed.by Extension respondents and current Grange members.......................... Dissatisfaction with selected aspects of the Farm Bureau expressed by Extension respondents and current Farm Bureau members................. Dissatisfaction with selected aspects of the NFO expressed by Extension respondents and current NFO members............................. Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. WA farm organization should have only operating farmers as elected offi- cer80"000‘...OOOOOO-OOOOOOOOLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQOOQ Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "A farm organization should _ have well-educated experts on its staff. who are not necessarily farmers.“ ................... Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "In most general farm organiza- , tions. the policies are determined by the rank and file farmer members."....................... Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "Inumcst labor unions. the policies are determined by the rank and file members." ....................................... xi Page 108 119 121 123 126 127 129 131 131 13G 13h LLIST OF TABLES -- (continued) Table 72 73 7G 75 Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "A farm organization should have membership dues high enough so that only farmers serious about the organization.and its purpose would join."........................ Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "It is proper for farm organi- zations to use members' dues to get legisla- tion that agrees with the organization's offi- 019.1 p081t10n0.'0O;0000.00.00...0.0.0....(00000000 Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "It is proper for labor unions to use members' dues to try to get legislation that agrees with the union's official position." Response to the question by committed farmers and Extension. "Which of the following groups would you say has the most in common with the farmer with respect to economic prdblems?"...... xii Page 137 137 139 139 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Significant changes are occuring in the organization of farm production and marketing in Michigan. The number of farms in Michigan has declined from about 111.000 in 1959 to about 93.000 in 196A. This decline is expected to continue ‘with about 55.000 farms projected for 1980. At the same time. the remaining farms are larger and more highly capitalized. Farmers are experiencing and will likely continue to experience. rising costs for labor. equipment. land and other inputs. Con- currently. prices which farmers receive for their products are rising less rapidly (and in some instances holding steady or declining) than costs. Increasing numbers of farmers are turne ing to nonfarm employment to supplement their farm.incomes. Processing. wholesaling. and retailing of farm products are progressively being handled by fewer but larger firms. Farmers and their leaders are searching for new and improved ways to increase their relative strength in the market. The recent growth of the National Farmer's Organization in Michi- gan is one example of effort in this direction. An overall survey of Michigan farmer's views of marketing problems and organizations was made in 1965.1 This thesis is 1 Hathaway. Dale E.. Feltner.’ Richard L.. Shaffer. James D.. and Morrison. Danton. Michi Farmers in the Mid-Sixties Michigan State University AgriculturEI Experiment Station.‘East Lansing. Michigan. Research Report 54. August. 1966. l a part of the overall study and compares the views of a selec- ted grouping of farmers with the views of the Michigan Coopera- tive Extension Service agricultural policy. and farm organiza- tion. In addition to the overall report. "Michigan Farmers in the Mid-Sixties." a study of factors relating to farmers' in- come satisfaction has been completed by Gary Seevers and a thesis on farmers' perceptions of the competitive structure has been completed.by Frank McCalla. The farm survey was designed to be representative of the farms in Michigan in.mid-l965. and the attitudes represented are those of the decisionemaker regarding those farm operations. For purposes of analysis the respondents were divided into groups according to certain characteristics of the farm or .the farm operator. One group consisted of farmers under 65 years of age. not working off the farm.more than 20 hours of the week. This will be the comparison group used in this study and will be referred to as "committed farmers” for lack of a better term. Fifty one percent of the committed farmers were on "high volume" farms that sold over $10.000 of farm products in.1964. This group was chosen as the primary comparison group with Extension.because it constitutes the bulk of Ex- tension’s agricultural clientele for its educational program. The Extension field staff in the positions of county director. agricultural agent. and district agent along with Extension.administrators were surveyed by mail in May. 1965 3 by the Department of Agricultural Economics. Michigan State Uhiversity:2 Extension respondents were asked to respond to questions paralleling the farm study. Extension respondents were asked to respond as they thought farmers in their area would respond to certain question and in other cases. they were asked to express their own views directly. Three general types of questions were asked. One groupi of questions dealt with how the Extension respondents perceived the agricultural situation. .A second group of questions asked Extension staff members to respond to what Extension thought was the feeling of farmers. The third group provided an oppor- tunity for Extension to react by agreeing or disagreeing to a list of statements. Opportunities were also provided for open and responses to some of the questions. Purpose of the study The Michigan Extension Service is the off-campus educa- tional arm of Michigan State University. It is staffed in each of the program areas -- Agriculture. Natural Resources. Market- ing of Agricultural and Natural Resources. Family Living Educa- tion; and #-H - Youth programs.3 The process of Extension pro- gram.planning in each of the program areas is continuous".4 2 The Extension questionaire used in this study is shown in Apgendix A. Balaton. N.P.. Directory‘Cooperative Extension Service. State of Michigan; 1966 Plan.of Work. Extension Administration Projegt l. Musgrave. Bonn. Extension Pro am Planni : Or ization and Process. Master's thesis. Michigan State UniversIEy Extension Personnel Development Center. 1959. h The Extension Service provides guidance and leadership for the development and implementation of county and district programs directed toward meeting the needs of people. The process of program planning involves the collection of pertinent data. major problem identification. establishing objectives and goals as a guide to program action. and finally the implementation of programs. This study will present some of the attitudes of Extension staff members and compare them with the attitudes of farmers. The study will identify some of the problems in agri- culture in the mid-sixties. The information should be useful to Extension.administrators and the Extension field staff as they establish objectives and goals for program action. parti- cularly in marketing and public affairs education. The infor- mation.in the study should supplement the trends projected in “Project 80“. an attempt to make a long range projection of what rural Michigan and its related institutions will look like in 1980. based upon present trends and situations. Although based on Michigan's farmers and Extension staff. it is quite likely that the findings of this study could be duplicated in other North Central states. The study deals with attitudes of members of farm organizations regarding organiza- tional goals and tactics and compares these with Extension's views. .As a result of this information. the Extension Service can be better informed to understand. advise and otherwise serve Michigan agriculture. The Extension Service is a part of a university. and a university is an institution which has 5 in part. effecting and guiding change as its purpose.5 Where Extension workers agree and where they disagree with farmers on their views of the future of agriculture can.be useful in giving direction to the agricultural establishment6 to solve agriculture's problems and in planning educational programs for and with the farm and agricultural industry audiences.7 A.number of studies in Extension program planning have been ‘made. Agent performance in programming was shown by Utz to be greatly influenced by the scope of their personal environ- 'ment relative to the local society and the organization. ‘Agents rated high in programming effectiveness by their super- visor had a tendency to give more consideration to the total situation effecting people of their county than did those who ‘were rated low.'8 The attitudes of people as well as Extension agents affect their behavior. Choices for the course of action taken in program development and implementation are the result of the response to the interpretations of the agent to the forces from.the organization.and the local society. 7—.— v—w — 5 Hathaway. Dale E.. “Problems Facing Rural America." Jour of Coo erative Extension. Vbl. III. No. 3. 1965. Bonnen. James T. "Present and Prospective Policy Prob- lems of U.S. Agriculture: .As Viewed by an Economist". Journal of Farm Economics. vol. 47. No. 5. December. 1965. Sewer. Chris. "The Land Grant University Development Organization in.Transition: The Case of the Cooperative Extension Service." Directi the Coo erative Extension Service. National Agricultural Extension Center for Zfivanced SEudy. Publigation #15. September. 1962. . Utz. Alan P. An.Anal sis of Selected Factors Relative to Pro ammi Efforts of Kentuc Count Eernsion ents. . D. thesis. Universi y of Wisconsin. 9 . 6 In another study. Kimball found significant relationship for the values of recognition. religion and family life to the adoption rate of agricultural practices.9 Probably similar relationships exist for marketing practices. A.number of studies in Michigan have been made concerning the role of the county chairman in programming. role expecta- tions of agents in program planning and specific portions of county programs. Several studies have been made at the Nation- al Extension Center on the training needs of agents. Objectives The broad objectives of the study are: 1. To determine Extension's view of the general farm situationlO and to compare their views with that of committed farmers.11 2. To determine Extension' 8 perception of the effect of the Federal Government on future prices of agricul- tural products and the role of government in dealing with farm problems. and to compare this view with the one held by committed farmers. 3. To determine Extension's view of the existing market structure and acceptable ways for bargaining for increased prices for farm products. and to compare this view with the views of committed farmers. 9 Kimball. W.J. The Relationshi between Personal Values and the Ado tion of Recommended Farm and Home PracEices. Ph. D. Efiesis. University of Chicago. 1960. Extension's view in the study is confined to the agri- oultgial field staff and Extension administrators. Committed farmers as defined in the Michigan in thg Mid-Sixties. are farmers under 65 years of age. not working off the farm more than 20 hours per week. 7 h. To compare the views of the Extension staff with the views of committed farmers toward the general farm organizations. and how farm organizations are and should be organized and run. 5. To determine implications of the study for Extension's program and training needs. and to point out the imp plications for public policies relating to agriculture. Methods of Investigation The report is based primarily on the answers from a mail questionaire entitled. ”Michigan State University Marketing Survey.“ sent to the Michigan Extension staff holding the posi- tions of county director. agricultural agent. district agent. and Extension.administrator. One hundred forty Extension staff members responded to the questionaire. which represented 97 percent of the total staff in these positions as the time of the survey. The county director in Michigan is the chairman of the county Extension unit. and. as such. he has the overall leadership for Extension programming in the county. Over one- half of the respondents were in the category of county director. The district agent. representing a little over 12 percent of the sample. is more specialized in.an area of agriculture and works across county lines in marketing and/or production pro- blems. The agricultural agent. representing nearly one-fourth of the sample. works with educational programs in agriculture under the leadership of the county director. The Extension administrator category consists of the district directors or 8 supervisors. directors or associate directors of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service. Nearly eight percent of the total were in this category. Table one shows the distribution by number of positions and percent of the total in each posi- tion. The tenure of the Extension staff was considered to be a possible variable in their reaction to the questions in the survey. The largest tenure group consisted of those with six to ten years in Extension. while the smallest was that of 31 years or more. The median was in the 11 to 15 year range with the average tenure of the respondents in the sample being 12.8 years? (Table 2). Another possible relevant classifying characteristic was the major field of interest in the formal education of the Extension staff members. Baccalaureate degrees were categorized on the basis of majors in agricultural education.and Extension agricultural social sciences. technical agriculture. and other.12 All Extension staff members had the Baccalaureate degree. with the largest percentage (44.3%) receiving their degree in educa- tion.or Extension. closely followed by technical agriculture (hl.4$). 12 Respondents listed the field in which they received their degree. Fer coding. the categories were used. Included in agricultural education and Extension were agents with degrees in one or the other; agricultural social sciences included rural sociology. resource development. etc; technical agricul- ture included the production areas such as dairy. horticulture. forestry. animal science. etc: other included business adminis- tration. general agriculture. industrial arts. Journalism. etc. 9 Table 1 -- Extension staff members in Michigan responding to mail questionaire by position. _—_..— Position Number Percent of total County Director 75 53.? .Agricultural Agent 36 25.? District Agent 18 12.8 Extension Administrator 11 7.8 Total lhO 100.0 Table 2 -- Extension staff members by tenure groups respon- ding to mail questionaire. 1 v.1 Tenure groups Number Percent of total 1 yr. - less than 2 yrs. 6 h.3 2 yrs. - 5 yrs. 23 ' 16.h 6 yrs. - 10 yrs. 39 27.9 11 yrs. - 15 yrs. 22 15.7 16 yrs. - 20 yrs. 28 20.0 21 yrs. - 30 yrs. 19 13.6 31 yrs. - or more years 3 2.1 Total 1&0 100.0 10 The most frequent specialization in the Master's degree (33.6%) was in ”Education or Extension.” Nearly the same per- centage of the Extension staff had Master's degrees in "Agri- cultural Social Science" and "Technical Agriculture." Nearly one-fourth of the Extension staff did not have a Master's degree13 (Table 3). The average age of the Extension staff was 40 years. Only one staff member was over 65. none was under 25. with the largest group (37%) being in the #5 to 5“ year range (Table 4). It is interesting to note that the average Michigan farm operator was 57 years old in 1965. Committed farmers averaged #9 years. and 63.5 percent of them.were over 45 years of agelu. The average age of the Extension staff was 11 years less than that of the committed farmers. The Extension staff response to questions and statements was compared with the response of 331 committed farmers in the “Michigan in the Mid-Sixties" study. Statistical comparisons 'were made using the general two-way chi-square program (Downey- Eiler)15. Differences were examined for the 52 attitude statements for the variables of Extension position. educational field for the Master's degree. The variable of Extension tenure was examined.along with position.and educational field for the income and related items section. The variable of Extension 13 The same categories were used for the master's degree with tRe addition of the category "none". 1 Hathaway. et al. p. 2. 15 The writer grants that a more powerful test than the Chi Square might have been used. The direction would be to make the differences of a greater magnitude. 11 Table 3 -- Field of Specialization in Formal Education for Extension staff. W Baccalaureate Masters Field Number Percent Number Percent of total of total Education or Extension 62 44.3 h? 33.6 Agricultural Social Science 12 8.6 26 18.6 Technical Agriculture 58 #1.4 20 17.1 Other 8 5.7 9 6.h None N.A. N.A. 3h 24.3 Total 190 100.0 140 100.0 Table 4 -- Age of Extension Staff Respondents. ———— .— —— WV ‘Age Number Percent of total 25 - 3“ years 23 l6.h 35 - 4h “ #6 32.9 “’5 " 5n n 52 3701 .55 "' 61" II 18 1209 65 - or more years 1 .7 Total 140 100.0 .Average age - #0 years. 12 staff members' age and educational field were examined for the cooperative supply organizations. variables examined in rela- tion to bargaining associations were Extension position. tenure. and educational field. The following chapters will describe Extension's view of the general farm situation. the government's role in agricul- ture. market structure and.bargaining. farm cooperatives. and general farm organizations; and a final chapter will deal with the implications of the study for Extension. CHAPTER II EXTENSION'S VIEW OF THE GENERAL FARM SITUATION How does the Extension staff view the situation in farming today? Are they more or less optimistic about its future than the farmers for whom they provide educational programs? As Extension develops programs with and for farmers. the attitudes and beliefs of both farmers and Extension about the situation today. as well as in the future. is important. .L number of questions were asked relating to the beliefs of the Extension staff about the situation in farming today. as well as the prospects for the future of Agriculture. These questions related both to what Extension felt farmers thought individually. and what the farmers saw as the present situation and future prospects for agriculture. Answers to these ques- tions give an idea of what Extension staff members consider prdblens and some of their concerns for the future. Nearly nine-tenths of the Extension respondents (88.2%) answered “no" to the question. "Do you feel that farmers in your area had a satisfactory income from farming last year. taking into account their labor and investment?” There was 'very little difference within the Extension subgroups accord- ing to educational specialization at the B.S. or M.S. degree or according to positions. However. the 11 to 15 year tenure 13 14 group was unanimous in their belief that farm income was not adequate. In the farm study. ”the median net cash income in 196# reported by farmers was $#.477. This median was raised sub- stantially by the part-time farmers. who reported a median income of $6.547 while $3.003 was reported by farm families where the operator was a full-time farmer. In total. 15 percent of the farmers interviewed reported a net family cash incmme'before Federal taxes of less than 81.000. 19 percent had family incomes from 31.000 to $3.000 in.196# and only #5 percent had family incomes of 85.000 or 'mcre. This compares very unfavorably with the urban.incame distribution in Michigan in 1959 reported in the 1960 census of population: four percent had family incomes under 31.000. .13 percent had income; from 31.000 to 33.000. and 65 percent had.family incomes over 353000. The nonfarn figures for 1965 would.make the comparison.even less favorable since the Michi- gan nonfarm economy advanced considerably from.l959 to 1964.”1 It appears then. that the Extension staff is correct in their appraisal that farm income is lower than nonfarm income. The prime clientele for the Extension staff involved in the study is the full-time farmers. defined as those committed to agriculture. Committed farmers in the study are defined as farmers under 65 years of age and not working off the farm ‘mcre than 20 hours per week. This is the group that is the 1 Hathaway. et al. p; h. 15 ‘ncst likely to participate in the Extension program. although Extension does work with other groups. In response to the question. if they as farmers felt that they had a satisfactory income from farming last year. taking into account their labor and investment. nearly 70 percent of the committed farmers answered ”no”. There was not a signifi- cant difference between the answers of the Extension staff and committed farmers to this question. The reaction of all groups of farmers to this question.was virtually identical. regardless of gross farm income. work off the farm. or other factors; (Table 5). About one-half (“6%) of the farmers said they could.make :mcre from nonfarm work than they had made from.farming the previous year. This feeling was especially noticed among part-time farmers. 60 percent of whom.said they could make more from nonfarm work than from farming. 2 Satisfaction with income was closely related to the indi- ‘vidual's views regarding his alternatives: The higher the level of net farm income. the larger the proportion of res- pondents who were satisfied with their individual incomes. Farmers under 35 years of age are more satisfied than any other age group. while the #5-5n age category was the least satisfied. particularly with net family incomes below $3.000. Farmers who expected their incomes to increase if they quit farming entirely were significantly less satisfied than those vi *— 2 Hathaflay. op.’ Gite .6 P. 1H 16 Table 5 -- Reaction according to Extension tenure groupings to the question. "Do you think farmers had a satisfactory income from farming?" ' Extension Tenure Yes No Total number percent number percent 1 to 5 years 5 17.9 23 82.1 100 6 to 10 years 5 13.2 33 86.8 100 11 to 15 years 0 0.0 22 100.0 100 16 to 20 years 5 19.2 21 80.8 100 21 years or more 1 9.5 21 95.5 100 Distributions significantly different at the 20% level. Chi square was 6.5 with h degrees freedom. Table 6 -- Reaction.by committed farmers and Extension to the statement. "On the average. farmers are faring about as well in terms of income as city workers at the present time.“ Respondents Agree Tend to Tend to Disagree Total Completely Agree Disagree Completely Extension 2.1 7.1 37.1 53.6 100 Committed Farmers #.0 8.6 30.0 57.5 100 Net significant at the 20% level. ——.———7——— 17 who thought their earnings would remain the same or decrease. Those who had actually decided to quit farming were much less satisfied than respondents who planned to continue farming until retirement. Among respondents with net family incomes under $3.000. those farmers working 20 hours or more per week at nonfarm work were less satisfied than full-time (working less than 20 hours off-farm) farmers. Respondents in the upper income group. who expressed the view that farmers were not faring as well as city workers were significantly less satisfied than those who felt farmers and city workers were sharing equally in the productivity of the economy.3 Another way of looking at farmers' dissatisfaction with farm income is their relationship to non-farmers' income. Nearly all (90.7%) of the Extension staff disagreed with the statement that "On the average. farmers are faring about as well in terms of income as city workers at the present time." Differences according to Extension position; or educational level were not great. The general response to the question concerning compari- tive farm and city income both'by committed farmers and Ex- tension staff was nearly the same. with over one-half of both disagreeing with the statements completely. The differences ‘were not significant. A sizeable majority of both felt that farmers were not receiving income comparable to city workers (Table 6). 3 Seevers. Gary. Factors Associated with Income - Satisfaction of Mighiggn FEEEers. Research paper. fiIcfiIgan S e. 9 . 18 Therefore. we can say that committed farmers and Exten- sion workers share the belief of a disparity in income levels between farmers and city workers. Major Farm Problems Immediately following the question as to whether farm income was satisfactory or not; the question.was asked. ”what changes would.be needed in order for farm.income to be satis- factory?” Over one-half of the Extension respondents. (5“.5%) gave market action as the change most needed. Nearly one- thirdt (3#.l%) said that individual action was the change needed. About five percent (#.9%) listed government action next while less than.four percent (3.2%) listed group action by farmers. Fewer farmers and better weather were changes suggested by less than two percent (1.6%) of the Extension respondents; Hhen.asked to list the major problems facing farmers today; nearly one-half (43:6%) of the Extension.staff listed problems that could be classified as economic problems. Problems caused by or related to farmers was listed second by over one-third (36.1%) of the Extension staff. In con- trast. more than two-thirds of the farmers interviewed listed economic problems first and government or political problems second. Extension respondents listed the market system as the third problem. with 16.5 percent saying it was a problem. Government or political problems were mentioned by only three percent of the Extension.respondents. 19 The problems classified as economic were related to the low price." high-cost squeeze that has resulted in declining farm income. There were significant differences in the im- portance given to the different economic problems listed by farmers and htension.‘ Extension gave more importance to low product prices and high costs than farmers. Farmers listed high prices for non-labor inputs much more frequently than the Mansion respondents (Table 7). Government problems seen by Extension respondents were too much government intervention in operation of farms. too much government intervention in general. and loss of power by farmers. The number listing these problems was too small to test for significant differences. compared with farmers. The problems of the market system were high marketing costs and excessive middleman profits according to nearly two-thirds of the Extension staff. The other third listed the lack of bargaining power by farmers as the problem. About the same percentage of farmers (31.7%) gave lack .of bargaining power by farmers as a major problem in the market- ing systems. High marketing margins.‘ excessive middleman profits and inadequate markets were listed as major problems by over one-third (36.6%) of the farmers. The attitude or actions of farmers was seen as another source of problems. Nearly three-fourths of the Extension respondents (7#.5%) said that farmers are not good managers. they need more education. Less than ten percent (8.2%) of farmers listed inadequate management as a problem. however. 20 Table 7 -- Economic problems mentioned by farmers and Exten- sion respondents. (a) Economic problem Percent mentioning this category Farmers Extension Low prices for farm products 38.0 32.0 High prices for non-labor inputs 30.3 5.h Low product prices and high costs 9.1 37.8 Cost. availability and quality of hired labor 8.2 5.4 Low farm income 1h.h 18.9 Total 100.0 100.0 — w— wk __ (a) The number of responses in each category is presented as a percent of the total number of farmers and Extension respondents giving some economic problem as the greatest problem faced by farmers. Distributions significantly different at the 1% level. Chi square was 365.599 with 4 degrees of freedom. ————— —————— _—. 21 Much emphasis has been given by the Extension staff in.Michi- gan to an educational program in management. Apparently. the Extension.staff sees a much greater need for management imp provement than farmers. Lack of unity among farmers and their organizations was listed as a problem.by nearly eleven percent (10.6%) of the Extension.respondents.’ The large number of farmers was listed next by over eight percent (8.5%) of Extension. which was a :much higher percent than farmers (1.6%) who listed this as a problem. Table 8 compares the responses of Extension with that of farmers'. The number of responses within the categories was too small to test for significance. however. Eamnigg as a gal of life In our society. preservation of the family farm.has been an important goal of our farm policy. President Eisenhower in a.nessage to Congress in.January. 1956. said. ”In America. agriculture is more than.an industry: it is a way of life.w Throughout our history the family farm has given strength and vitality to our entire social order. we must keep it healthy and vigorous.“4 Most farm organizations have included the preservation of the family farm as one of their major objec- tives. In order to test the reaction of the Extension respondents to the value of the family farm.as a goal in our society. two a Hathaway. op. cit.. p. 6. 22 Table 8 -- Attitudes or actions of farmers seen as creating problems. mentioned by farmers and Extension. .Attitude or action Percent mentioning this category Farmers Extension — i w—— Inadequate management by farmers 8.2 74.5 Lack of unity among farmers and their organizations 42.7 10.6 Too many farmers 1.6 8.5 Independent attitudes of individual farmers 22.9 4.2 Existence of part-time or hobby farmers 11.5 2.2 Other 13.1 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 (N=6l) (N=47) 23 questions were asked. One related to income and one related to replacement of the family farm. How important is the family farm in relation to income? Over three-fourths (77.1%) of the Extension staff said that it was more important that farm people earn satisfactory in- come than it is to maintain the family farm (Table 9). A slightly larger percentage of committed farmers (33.7%) agreed completely with the statement on satisfactory income than Ex- tension (30.4%). A larger percentage of committed farmers (12.1%) disagreed completely with the statement compared with Extension (3.7%). There were not important differences in Extension groups according to position or educational specialization in reply to the question. Another way of considering farming as a way of life would be to replace the present family farm by some other type of farm structure. Over one-half of the Extension staff agreed with the statement.‘ ”The replacement of family farms by large- scale farms using hired labor would have undesirable economic and social consequences for the nation. " There were differences in the response of Extension groups according to their speciali- zation at the Master's level. Over one-half of Extension staff members with a Master's degree in technical agriculture agreed completely with the statement while only a little over eleven percent of those with degrees in either the agricultural social sciences or other fields agreed completely (Table 10). 24 Table 9 -- Reaction by committed farmers and Extension to the statement. "It is more important that farm people earn satisfactory incomes than it is to maintain the family farm system.” ———-— 7 ——_ __ Respondents Agree Agree with some Tend to Disagree Total Completely Reservations Disagree Completely percent Committed Farmers 33.7 35.0 19.3 12.1 100 Extension 30.4 46.7 19.2 3.7 100 Differences are significant at the 5% level. Chi square is 10.56 with 3 degrees freedom. ————— —_._—f — —— Table 10 -- Reaction by Extension respondents according to masters degree to the statement. "The replacement of family farms by large-scale farms using hired labor would have undesirable economic and social consequences for the nation.” w.— ———i Masters degree Agree Agree with some Tend to Disagree Total Completely Reservations Disagree Completely _—f percent Education or Extension 34.0 53.2 10.7 2.1 100 .Agricultural Social Science 11.6 69.2 19.2 0.0 100 Technical .Agriculture 54.2 25.0 20.8 0.0 100 Other 11.1 66.7 22.2 0.0 100 None 47.0 47.1 5.9 0.0 100 Differences are significant at the 5% level. Chi square was 24.97 with 12 degrees freedom. ——'— 25 There were significant differences between committed farmers and Extension in response to the replacement of family farms. More than one-half of committed farmers agreed com- pletely with the statement compared with one-fifth of the Ex- tension respondents. Nearly one-half of Extension staff seems to feel that a change in farm organization will not have un- desirable consequences (Table 11) .‘ A related statement was. ”If the economic situation for farmers continues like it is now. in a few years the family farm will be replaced by large farms run by hired labor.” The responses to this statement were more divergent. with over half of committed farmers (52.7%) agreeing completely compared with less than one-tenth (7.9%) of Extension respondents. Over one-fourth (27.4%) of the Extension staff disagreed com- pletely with the statement. while slightly over one-tenth (11.5%) of committed farmers disagreed completely (Table 12). Extension seems to be very optimistic about the survival of the family farm if it is well managed. They are. in fact. more optimistic than farmers. while both Extension and far- mers felt income was most important“. Extension did not believe that the possible replacement of the family fan by large- scale farms using hired labor is likely. Neither was Extension so concerned as farmers that this. the disappearance of the family farm. would happen in the next few years if the economic situation did not change. One of the solutions to farm income advocated by many is to move human resources out of agriculture. Fewer Americans 26 Table 11 -- Reaction by committed farmers and Extension to the statement. ”The replacement of family farms by large-scale farms using hired labor would have undesirable economic and social consequences for the nation." Respondents Agree Agree with some Tend to Disagree Total Completely Reservations Disagree Completely percent Committed Extension 19.8 35.3 39.0 5.9 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square is 56.15 with 3 degrees freedom. Table 12 -- Reaction by committed farmers and Extension to the statement. "If the economic situation for farmers continues like it is now. in a few years the family farm will be replaced by large farms run by hired labor." Respondents Agree {Agree with some Tend to Disagree Total Completely Reservations Disagree Completely percent Committed Farmers 52.7 19.9 15.9 11.5 f 100 Extension 7.9 23.7 41.0 27.4 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square is 91.21 with 3 degrees freedom. i —— w 27 are needed each year to supply the food and fiber needs due to the rapid adoption of technological advances and increasing capital investment. One report states that. ”The migration out of agricul- ture has been going on for 40 years. and at a rapid rate. Nevertheless. the movement of people from agriculture has not been fast enough to take full advantage of the opportunity that improving farm technology and increasing capital create for raising the living standards of the American people. in- cluding. of course. farms.”5 Nearly three-fourths of the Extension staff agreed with the statement. "Those farmers who cannot earn a satisfactory income from farming under present conditions should plan to leave farming.“ There were differences in the responses of Extension according to their Master's degree specialization.) Of those ‘without a Master's degree. about one-half (49%) agreed with the statement while one-fifth (20.8%) of those with a Master's degree in technical agriculture agreed. The differences accord- ing to the Bachelor's degree or position held were not great. Differences between Extension and committed farmers were significant with more than thirty percent (31.6%) farmers com- pared with less than 20 percent (17.8%) of Extension respondents agreeing completely that farmers who cannot earn a satisfactory 5 An Adaptive Profiam for fgiculture. The Committee for Economic Development. 7 F f h ve.. New York. N.I.. Oct.. 1962. 28 income should leave farming. On the other end of the scale. four percent of Extension and 13 percent of farmers disagreed completely with the statement. More than one-half of comp mitted farmers and Extension agreed with the statement (Table 13). Farm ownership The future ownership of farms is a concern of many. par- ticularly as it is related to the family farm. with larger farm units and new technology. larger amounts of capital are required. cemmercial farm units represent investments of $100,000 and more in many cases.) Investment in machinery increase as the acreage handled per farm worker increases. Entry into fanning was relatively simple when the farm unit was small and capitilisation was much less than it is now. The traditional farm unit in the midwest has been the owner- operator unit. Some people think ownership should be limited to the farmer operators. The majority (89.6%) of Extension staff respondents disa- greed with the statement. "The ownership of farms ought to be restricted to those dependent upon.farming for their income.” ‘ The differences according to position or educational subgroups were not appreciably different. 0n the other hand. over one-half (52.7%) of the committed farmers agreed with the statement to restrict farm ownership to those dependent upon farming for their income. The dif- 29 Table 13 -- Reaction by committed farmers and Extension to the statement. ”Those farmers who cannot earn a satis- factory income from farming under present condi- tions should plan to leave farming." Respondents Agree (Agree with some Tend to Disagree Total Completely Reservations Disagree Completely percent Committed Farmers 31.6 31.6 23.4 13.4 100 Extension 17.8 55.0 23.6 3.6 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square.is 20.12 with 3 degrees freedmm. Table 14 -- Reaction by committed farmers and Extension to the statement. "The ownership of farms ought to be restricted to those dependent upon farming for their income." W .— ————'_— w Ff Respondents Agree ' A Agree with some Tend to Disagree Total Completely Reservations Disagree Cbmpletely —r percent Committed Farmers 34.h 18.3 26.8 20.5 100 Extension 1.5 8.9 #2.6 #7.0 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square is 78.73 with 3 degrees freedom. — w— —— v—f 30 ferences between.the opinions of committed farmers and Exten- sion were significant (Table 1“). Possibly committed farmers felt there was enough competition for agricultural land and resources among farmers without the investments of nonfarmers so they. therefore. favored restricting ownership. Extension has many contacts with business and professional people who own farms and apparently did not feel outside ownership was a threat to agriculture. Committed farmers also feel the threat of the part-time farmer who derives his primary income from some other source than farming. He may be in.a position to bid up the price of land and thwart land consolidation by full-time farmers. The average age of committed farmers in the study was #9 years of age in 1965. About one-third of them.will be at retirement age in ten years. Some countries in the world limit entry to farming to the sons of farmers. The Extension staff overwhelmingly disagreed (92.2%) with the statement. "Entry into farming ought to be restricted to young men with a farmhackground.’I There were not large differences between Extension groups according to position or educational speciali- zation. There were. however. significant differences between the Extension staff responses and those of committed farmers. 0f the latter. over one-fourth (25.9%) agreed with the state- :ment. indicating that committed farmers place some value on young men with a farm'background entering farming. The Exten- sion respondents felt quite strongly that entry should not be 31 restricted to young men with a farm background since nearly one-half of them (49. 3%) disagreed completely with the state- ment (Table 15). From the responses to these two statements we can con- clude that some committed farmers would be willing to put restrictions on ownership and entry into farming. Extension. however. was not in favor of restricting ownership to those dependent upon farming or entry to young men with a farm back- ground. Solutions for farming in the future Fan-ere did not view their situation as hopeless although they were dissatisfied with their income and believed the present system of farming might not survive. Nearly three- fourths (79%) of committed farmers agreed that. ”Some simple and workable solutions to the problems of agriculture could be found if people would Just think about it more.“ However. either the Extension staff was less optimistic or they didn't feel solutions would be simple. Less than one-half (b0.9%) of Extension agreed with the statement. The differences be- tween Extension respondents and committed farmers were signi- ficant at the one percent level. Differences were the great- est in the ”agree completely” column (Table 16). within the Extension group there were differences accor- ding to the Extension position held. A higher percentage of district agents agreed completely with the statement on simple. 32 Table 15 -- Reaction by committed farmers and Extension to the statement. “Entry into farming ought to be re- stricted to young men with a farm.background.” Respondents (Agree .Agree with some Tend to Disagree Total Completely Reservations Disagree Completely percent Committed Farmers 15.6 10.3 38.1 35.0 100 Extension 0.0 7.8 #2.9 #9.3 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square is 27.38 with 3 degrees freedom. Table 16 -- Reaction by-committed farmers and Extension to the statement. "Some simple workable solutions to the problems of agriculture could be found if people would Just think about it more.” w w ’— ———— Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Completely To Agree Disagree completely percent ‘— committed Farmers 50.3 28.7 1h.7 6.3 100 Extension 6.1 34.8 3h.1 25.0 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 93.29 with 3 degrees freedom. 33 workable answers than any other group. Extension administra- tors had.more faith than the field agents that simple answers to the problems could be found (Table 17). Extension staff disagreed (82.1%) with the statement that farmers can't do much to determine the way things turn out for them. On the other hand. a.maJority of the committed farmers (63.4%) agreed with the statement. Perhaps Extension was thinking of the individual action of farmers rather than far- mers collectively. If so. this would.be consistent with their earlier responses regarding solutions to farm problems. Comp mitted farmers are more pessimistic about their abilities to change the situation although they felt there were simple and workable solutions to the problem.(Tab1e 18). There were not great differences between Extension groups on this question. The Extension staff also disagreed (92.0%) with the state- ment. “we shouldn't waste our time on discussions of farm pro- blems which don't offer clear solution.” A.maJority (55.2%) of Extension disagreed completely with the statement. Committed farmers. on the other hand. agreed with the statement by a.bare majority (51.6%) and only a little over 20 percent of them disagreed completely with the statement (Table 19). Apparently farmers feel they can't change things much by further discus- sion even though they believed there were some simple solutions to their problems. There were differences according to the Master's degree field of specialization. Greatest disagreement with the state- 34 Table 17 -- Reaction according to Extension position to the statement. ”Some simple and workable solutions to the problems of agriculture could be found if people would Just think about it more." Position. Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Completely To Agree Disagree Completely percent County Director 5.3 22.7 42.7 29.3 100 Agricultural Agent 8.6 17.1 42.9 31.4 100 Extension District ' Agent 22.2 22.2 44.5 11.1 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 14.85 with 9 degrees freedom. 35 Table 18 -- Reaction by committed farmers and Extension to the statement. "Today farmers really can't do much to determine the way things turn out for them.” —_ —— Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Completely To Agree Disagree Completely percent v.7 Committed Farmers 42.3 21.1 25.6 11.0 100 Extension 3.6 14.3 46.4 35.7 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 95.25 with 3 degrees freedom. -—— —— Table 19 -- Reaction.by committed farmers and Extension to the statement. "we shouldn't waste our time on dis- cussion of farm problems which don't offer clear solutions.“ Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Completely To Agree Disagree Completely percent committed Farmers 31.0 20.6 27.1 21.3 100 Extension 0.? 7.3 36.8 55.2 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 87.01 with 3 degrees freedom. __7 fi—i 36 ment came from the groups who had their degree in the agri- cultural social sciences. Agents without a Master's degree were below the average level of disagreement for all agents. Committed farmers seemed to be more willing than the Extension staff to lock for charismatic leadership. Sixty percent of the committed farmers. compared to 30 percent of Extension respondents agreed completely with the statement. ”What agriculture needs most. even more than laws and politi- cal programs. is devoted. tireless and courageous leaders in which farmers can put their faith." Agreement with the state- ment was 87 percent for farmers and 73 percent for Extension (Table 20). Leadership seems to be an important factor in the solution of farm problems. Committed farmers and Extension differed on their views in response to the statement. "Farmers should raise all of the crops and livestock possible as long as there are hungry people.” with 74 percent of committed farmers agreeing with the statement while only 25 percent of Extension agreed (Table 21)." It would seem that Extension is more conscious than farmers of the problem of market demand. Within htension there were differences at the Master's level. A majority of Extension respondents with a degree in education and Extension agreed with the statement. while all others disagreed. Disagreement with the statement was ex- pressed by the largest percentage by Extension staff with a degree in technical agriculture (Table 22). 37 Table 20 -- Reaction by committed farmers and Extension to the statement. "What agriculture needs most. even more than laws and political programs. is devoted. tireless and courageous leaders in which farmers can put their faith.“ -—r ____ —— Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Completely To Agree Disagree Completely percent Committed Farmers 60.1 27.0 8.1 4.8 100 Extension 26.9 46.9 22.1 3.1 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 46.91 with 3 degrees freedom. 38 Table 21 -- Reaction by farmers and Extension to the state- ment. "Farmers should raise all of the crops and livestock possible as long as there are hungry people." Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Completely To Agree Disagree Completely percent Committed Farmers 41.7 32.5 18.2 7.6 100 Extension 8.9 28.1 45.9 17.1 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 67.96 with 3 degrees freedom. Table 22 -- Reaction by Extension respondents according to masters degree to the statement. ”Farmers should raise all of the crops and livestock possible as long as there are hungry people.“ —— Masters degree Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Completely To Agree Disagree Completely ——percent Education and Extension 11.9 57.2 21.4 9.5 100 Agricultural Social Science 0.0 44.0 36.0 20.0 100 Technical Agriculture 8.? 13.1 56.5 21.7 100 Other 11.1 22.2 55.6 11.1 100 None 2.9 44.1 47.1 5.9 100 Differences are significant at the 5% level. Chi square was 22.81 with 12 degrees freedom. v— ,_f fit __ 39 §EEE§£Z The Extension staff thought that income from farming was not satisfactory and that farmers' income was less than nonp farm.income. Extension's view was shared by committed farmers. The evidence supports their viewpoint. Extension differed with farmers on the causes of the in- come problems and needed action to change the situation. Economic problems for farmers. both agreed. resulted from low prices for farm.products.' Farmers also blamed the high prices for nonplabor inputs while Extension thought the combination of low product prices and high costs or the "cost-price squeeze” was another cause. More farmers than Extension believed the cost. availability. and quality of hired labor was a cause. Both believed low farm income was an economic problem. Extension and farmers differed greatly on the ability of the individual manager to alter the situation. Nearly three- fourths of Extension compared to less than one-tenth of farmers saw inadequate management as a problem. Farmers believed that the whole system needed to be changed rather than individual action. Sixty-five percent of farmers. compared to 15 percent of Extension.workers. saw lack of unity and independent atti- tudes of farmers and their organizations as an attitude crea- ting the prdblem. While Extension thought a part of the pro- blem was too many farmers. farmers did not agree: Farmers also thought that part-time farmers were a problem.but Ex- tension.did not share this view. 4O Satisfactory income for farm people was more important than maintaining the family farm was a belief held by Exten- sion and farmers. although Extension was slightly more income- oriented than farmers . Farmers thought the present system of farming was threatened and although they thought income was important; they thought the family farm was an important social and economic institution. Extension was more optimistic than farmers that the family farm will be maintained. They did not think the family farm would be replaced by some other form of operation such as large farms run by hired labor. Extension thought that the present system would and could survive. They thought farmers who couldn't earn a satisfactory income should leave farming. a belief shared by committed farmers to a lesser degree. Extension believed farm ownership and entry should not be restricted. Committed farmers favored restriction of ownership to those dependent on farming and entry to young men with a farm background.‘ Farmers believed their farm production should not be limited. but Extension disagreed with this viewpoint. Although committed farmers believed that there were simple solutions to the farm problem they also said they didn't want to waste their time on discussions of farm problems that didn't offer solutions. They looked to their leadership to provide solutions to the problems rather than to government .‘ Extension. however.‘ believed strongly that time should be spent on discussion of farm problems. that there weren't 41 simple solutions. and farmers could do something about how things turned out for them. They believed there was a need for dedicated leaders but didn't rate them as highly as farmers did. Perhaps Extension was less directly involved so they look at it differently: or as leaders themselves. put more faith in government action and the individual actions of farmers themselves. CHAPTER III THE GOVERNMENTS ROLE IN AGRICULTURE ’ Parity or equality in income for farmers compared with non-farmers is generally associated with the New Deal of the thirties. Actually. there were many efforts of government » prior to that time to improve the economic situation of far- mers. The establishment of Land Grant Colleges as a result of the Merrill Act in 1962. the subsequent Hatch Act establish- ing agricultural research. and the establishment of the Agri- . cultural Extension Service through the Smith-Lever Act contri- buted to providing educational services and opportunities for farm people. The Extension Service had the immediate task of increasing agricultural production to meet the increased de- mands of World War 1. Following the war and through the thir- ties. v the Extension Service was heavily involved in the many U.S.D.A. emergency farm programs to bring economic relief to farmers. As the educational arm of the U.S.D.A.. the Extension Service has had responsibility for the educational program to explain various Federal farm programs for farmers. In 1958. the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy appointed nine task forces of Extension administrators and specialists to delineate the scope and responsibility of the Cooperative Extension Service. The report commonly 42 43 referred to as ”The Scope Report”.1 outlined for nine program areas. a statement on subject matter. clientele. Extension responsibilities and objectives. how these are to be accoms plished. and requirements if Extension is to accomplish them. One of the nine areas was public affairs. In 1954. Congress appropriated funds to expand Extension work and specified public affairs education as one of three areas where work was to be expanded. Congressional hearings stressed the need for helping people understand the economic background so important to an intelligent approach to many public issues.2 .Asst. Secretary Peterson said. ”Extension.work in public affairs requires more than.ob3ective fact presentations. This must be more than a cafeteria line of facts from.which people can select only those they want. The people must be given all the facts and they must be stimulated to analyze these facts and apply them to their particular problems. Then the people can act in.1ine with the decisions they have reached. It is through concerted public opinion that public policy is esta- blished."'3 One of the areas of a public affairs educational program is dealing with agricultural policy particularly as it relates 1 ‘A Guide to Extension Pro ams for the Future. July. 1959. PubIIshed 5y.AgricEItE§EI Eitension Se§;Ice. N.C. State 6011050 e Sco e Re rt. p. 45. 3 e erson. E.L. Extension Service Review. U.S.D.A.. Federal Extension Service. Dec.. 1959. p. 553. 44 to government action. The impact of this policy is much greater than on farmers alone. The related business of agri- culture. the non-farmers in the community. and consumers all are affected. This is a broad educational program transcend- ing the mere dissemination of information of agricultural pro- duction.and homemaking. Utz found in his research that. “Agents who think of themselves as technologists and who merely impose preconceived solutions to problems limit the scope of their programs. The most effective agents seem to be those who view their job as that of contributing to the objectives of the Service by dealing with complex. interdisciplinary problem.“u His findings help substantiate the need for Ex- tension programming in areas such as public affairs. The Extension specialist is in a leadership position as educational programs are developed and presented. He has the responsibility of not only knowing the latest research. but to be able to present it to people in understandable terms. The Administrator of the Federal Extension Service sees the role of Extension as.“-- strictly one of education - to pro- vide people with reliable information about the problem and the policy alternatives. together with a framework of prin- ciples within which to analyze this information:_to motivate them to analyze the problem and the alternatives and reach their own conclusions within the framework of their own *— ~———_—r 4 Utz. Alan P. 1Agent Performance in Programming. Journal of Cooperative Extension. Vb ume 111. Number 3. F811. 19650 45 value system and goals; and to encourage them to participate in the decisionemaking process on the basis of their evalua- tions. Our role is strictly objective. helping people under- stand all facets of the problem and the alternatives.”5 Anoth- er aspect of the agricultural policy educators' responsibility was pointed out by Dale Hathaway at a workshop held in 1960 for Extension educators in agricultural policy. when.he stated. "With completely different statements of fact regarding crucial elements in the structure of the agricultural industry. we shall probably continue to get highly differing solutions to the farm problem. However. policy specialists like yourselves. would not seem to be doing your job. unless you speak out to correct irresponsible. irrelevant errors of fact. upon which competent economists agree."6 In his discussion. he points out the need to work vigor- ously to improve our understanding of the basic structure of the agricultural economy and the changes and pressures that are likely to arise in it in the decades ahead. The basic structure of our agricultural economy has been undergoing change. .At the annual meeting of the American Farm Economic Association in.August. 1965. James T. Bonnen discussed ”Present and Prospective Policy Problems of U.S. —— _—_. 5 Davis. Lloyd H. Farm Polio Extension work. Increas- ing Understanding of Public Probiems as: PoTicies. Farm Founda- tion. Chicago.'I11.. 1962. 5 Hathaway“. Dale E. agricultural Policy: The 1950's in.Retros ect. Increasing U ers ng of b c o ems and Po cies. Farm Foundation. 1960. 46 Agriculture: (As Viewed by an Economist.“ He states. "Clearly we are at another node in agricultural policy. Over the decade ending in 1963. two alternative approaches to the farm problem were attempted. Both failed for lack of political acceptance. During the Eisenhower years. Secretary Benson made a valiant attempt. as he would put it. to return the farmer to the free market. Following that. the Kennedy Administration.attempted to implement a system of government-run supply management con- trols. Both of these approaches are now denied us. What is left?” He discusses the changing structure of our political. economic. and social institutions. He points out that the price-support payment and the diversion payment techniques tend to separate the income-support operation from the pricing mechanism. He further states that. ”This gives one a fighting chance to maintain farm income while cutting surplus stocks and letting prices move toward a level that reduces the incenp tive for overproduction and allows the farmer to compete in world markets without export subsidies.” He suggests the entire web of rural institutions have broken.down and become disfunctional and that this is parti- cularly critical in commercial agriculture. Another economist. Murray Thompson. in an article ens titled. ”The Search for Parity.“ says in part. ”Farm programs are supporting farm income. but more consideration should be given to the causal factors of the farm problem. Programs 7 Bonnen. James T. Journal of Farm Economics. vol. 47. No. 5. Dec.. 1965. p. 1116. 47 should be of a type easily altered to permit rapid adjustments of supply to meet changing conditions and to prevent accumula- tion of stocks greatly in access of needed reserves. - - Opera- tors of efficient family farms should be assured the opportunity of achieving parity of income without exploiting either the taxpayer or the consumer."8 Thompson says in his concluding paragraph that the search for parity has not been achieved. but it must go on. John A. Schnittker. Under Secretary of Agriculture. at the American Farm.Economics Association meeting spelled out today's farm policy as follows:9 ”1. It is geared to commercial agriculture - to farmers who depend on farming for most of their incomes. and who have enough resources to earn a good living by farming. It also helps small farmers. but being geared to bushels and acres and products. it can't help them enough. 2. It is a market-oriented policy. consciously designed to reduce the role of the Commodity credit Corpora- tion in market operations. 3. It contributes to achievement of the broader objec- tives of economic policy. 4. It is adapted to the growing importance and the ex- ploding opportunities in commercial world trade in U.S. farm products. 5. It is an integral part of our food.assistanoe program. 6. It is a potential major force in world affairs in the next decade.” 8 Thompson. Murray. The Search for Parit . Yearbook of Agriculture. U.S.D.A.. 1962. p. 356. 9 Schnittker. John A. Farm Polio -Toda 's Direction. Journal of Farm.Economics. vol. 43. No. 5. 530.. I§33. p. 1092. 48 Dr. Hathaway in his book. Government and Agpiculture. talks about ”The Gap between Desires and Reality.” This is the difference between aspirations or values and reality or 'what is'. In this chapter an attempt will be made to des- cribe some of the beliefs of both the Extension staff and the committed farmers. This can.be useful to the Extension Service as it develops its goals and objectives for an edu- cational program in public affairs and agricultural policy in particular. The effect of various types of government programs on farm operations are an important factor in.management deci- sions. What would happen if price supports were removed? How favorable are the Extension staff and committed farmers to various government programs? Price Support Low prices for farm products was one of the economic prdblems listed by over one-third of both committed farmers and Extension. Price support programs are the largest single item in terms of government expenditures for agriculture. Price support and land retirement have been credited by many as major factors in supporting farm level prices and income in the U.S. Questions were asked regarding‘both the immediate effect and the longer run effect on farm net income if support prices by the government were removed. 49 The first question asked was "Suppose that all government price support programs were ended in 1966. Compared with 1965. do you think that average net income per farm in the U.S. could be about the same. lower. or higher in 1967?" Income would be lower. according to over four-fifths (83.2%) of the Extension respondents. Only two percent thought it would be higher. Differences were not great in the subgroups according to Masters' degree. but there were differences by tenure groups. Ninety three percent of the group with less than five years of tenure thought income would be lower. Sixty seven percent of those in the 21 or more years of tenure group thought income would be lower. Eighty two and 85 percent of the other tenure groupings thought income would be lower. Differences according to the Extension position held. were noticeable. Eighty nine percent of district agents thought income would be lower. and 81 percent of county directors thought it would be lower. A.higher percentage of county directors (17.6%). compared to all Extension staff (14.5%) thought income would be the same in 1967 compared to 1965. if the price support program was ended in 1966. Nearly six per- cent of agricultural agents and one percent of county directors thought income might be higher (Table 23). There were significant differences between committed farmers and Extension in their answers to the effects of price support removal on future income. Nearly 60 percent of the committed farmers thought income would be lower compared with 50 Table 23 -- Response to the question according to Extension position. "Suppose that all government price support programs were ended in 1966. Compared with 1965. do you think that; Average net in- come per farm in the U.S. would be about the same. lower or higher in 1967?" Position Same Higher Lower Total Percent County Director 17.6 1.3 81.1 100 Agricultural Agent 11.4 5.7 82.9 100 Extension Administrator 9.1 0.0 81.9 100 District Agent 11.1 0.0 88.9 100 Differences are significant at the 5% level. Chi square was 15.61 with 6 degrees freedom. —— ____— Table 24 -- Response by farmers and Extension to the question. "Suppose that all government price supports were ended in 1966. Compared with 1965. do you think that; Average net income per farm in the U.S. would be about the same. higher. lower in 1967?" Respondents Same Higher Lower Total Percent Committed Farmers 29.6 11.3 59.1 100 Extension 14.6 2.2 83.2 100 Differences are significant at the 5% level. Chi square was 25.4 with 2 degrees freedom. 51 over 80 percent of the Extension workers who thought it would be lower. While only two percent of Extension respondents thought income would be higher. 11 percent of the committed farmers thought it would be higher. as seen in Table 24. Extension respondents seemed to feel that price supports have a greater short-run effect on average net farm income in the U.S. than committed farmers do. However. a majority of both committed farmers and Extension thought that farm.income would be lower the first year after price supports were ended. Another set of questions asked Extension respondents what they thought would be the situation five years after price supports were ended. The question was “Suppose that all govern- ment price support programs were ended in.1966. Compared with 1965. do you think that average net income per farm in the U.S. in 1972 would be the same. higher. or lower?” Extension res- ponded much differently to this question. Over 60 percent (62.5%) thought income in 1972 would be higher. about one-fifth (21.3%) thought it would be about the same. while 16 percent thought it would be lower. There were differences among Ex- tension groups according to Extension position held. Seventy percent of county Extension directors thought income would be higher in 1972. Extension administrators were divided on.the question. with 45 percent saying income would be higher. while an equal percent said it would be lower. Forty one percent of the district agents thought income would be the same (Table 25). However. the majority of both committed farmers (56.5%) 52 Table 25 -- Response to the question according to Extension position. "Suppose that all government price supports were ended in 1966. Compared with.. 1965. do you think that; Average net farm in- come in the U.S. in 1972 would be the same. higher. or lower?" Position. Same Higher Lower Total percent '- County Director 20.3 70.3 9.4 100 Agricultural Agent 17.6 55.9 26.5 100 Extension Administrator 9.0 45.5 45.5 100 District Agent 41.2 52.9 5.9 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 17.12 with 6 degrees freedom. S3 and Extension (62.5%) thought income would be higher in five years with the removal of price supports. The differences were not significant at the 20 percent level. A little more than one-fourth (28.6%) of committed farmers and less than one-fourth (21.3%) of Extension respondents thought income would be the same in 1972. Around 15 percent (14.9% of com- mitted farmers and 16.2% of Extension) thought income would be lower in 1972. Apparently both Extension respondents and farmers think that net farm income in the U.S. will be re- duced considerably in the short run. but given a longer run. net farm income will increase after the removal of government price supports. Average farm income on Michigan farms in 1967 would be lower with the removal of price supports in the opinion of nearly 64 percent (63.8%) of the Extension respondents. About one-fourth of the Extension staff (23.9%) thought Michigan farm.income would be the same. while the remainder (11.6%) said it would be higher. Ninety percent of Extension adminis- trators thought farm income in Michigan.would.be lower compared to 57 percent of agricultural agents who thought it would be lower. One-third of district agents thought income would be the same (Table 26). .A statement released in March. 1967 by the United States Department of Agriculture. concerning farm program needs for 1968 to 1970 states: 54 Table 26 -- Response to the question according to Extension position. ”Suppose that all government price supports were ended in 1966. Compared with 1965. do you think that: Average net income per farm in Michigan would be about the same. lower. or higher in 1967?" Position Same Higher Lower Total percent .. County Director 23.0 10.8 66.2 100 Agricultural Agent 25.? 17.1 57.2 100 Extension Administrator 0.0 10.0 90.0 100 District Agent 33.3 11.1 55.6 100 Differences are significant at the 5% level. Chi square was 16.97 with 6 degrees freedom. Table 27 -- Response to the question by committed farmers and Extension. "Suppose that all government price supports were ended in 1966. Compared with 1965. do you think that; Average net in- come per farm in Michigan in 1967 would be about the same. lower. or higher?" Respondents Same Higher Lower Total percent Committed Farmers 56.9 16.0 27.1 100 Extension 24.1 11.7 64.2 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 55.60 with 3 degrees freedom. EU I ...W.,U.l|r ,t .. . vua‘t .1] sud..- .l Il'fl'n’ln. -'V’IIO-I., .DIII . . .1 e . .. r . .. a .ZIIHH ‘ I ' DI r o o c e e a o o e o 9 I I 55 "American farm products today are in a much better supply-demand balance than at any time in the past 12 years. Except for cotton. the burdensome surpluses of all crops accumulated in earlier years have been liqui- dated and domestic and export demand for farm products now is at record levels. This does not mean. however. that the commodity price support and adjustment programs can safely be dis- continued. In the absence of such programs for feed grains and cotton. production of these crops could ex- ceed available market outlets. at prices near current levels. by as much as 25 million tons of feed grains and 4 million bales of cotton. Within a few years wheat production might again exceed desirable levels. depen- ding on weather conditions here and elsewhere in the wor d. Oversupplying markets with this unneeded produc- tion could cause corn prices to fall to around 70 cents a bushel. cotton prices to between 18 and 20 cents a Eiund. soybeans to about $2.00. and wheat to around .00 a bushel. Within a year or two. livestock sup- plies would increase and livestock prices would fall. Despite larger output. farmers' cash receipts from marketings would decline. Net farm income could drop about one-third below the 1966 level. Government pay- ments also would be lower. but the drop in net farm income might well be nearly twice as much as the reduc- tion in government costs. If. however. weather conditions should be unfavor- able. resulting in a short harvest. or if exports in- creased more than expected. the acreage adjustment pro- grams could be modified as necessary to assure continued ample supplies for all domestic and export needs.“ The report prepared by analysts in the Department bene- fitted from the advice and counsel of nationally recognized agricultural economists at nine universities. The report continues: "During the period 1968 through 1970. an imbalance is expected to continue between the production capacity of our farm plant and market outlets at stable farm prices. Most of this excess in production capacity exists in.feed grains and cotton. Conditions Makipg Adjustment Progpgps Unnecesggpz . . . If market requirements were greater. or because of unfavorable weather crop yields were lower than estimated in this analysis -- or if a combination of these two should occur -- then acreage diversion programs might not be needed. a... 56 Conclusion . . . Agriculture's surplus problem.has been significantly diminished. as a result of the elimination of the surplus carryover stocks. .According to earlier studies. if farm programs -- both annual and long-term diversion -- had been terminated in earlier years while these large sur- plus carryover stocks were hanging over the market. net realized farm income would have been reduced about 50 percent. This analysis indicates that with the elimina- tion of surplus grain stocks. if the annual programs were now terminated (while continuing the long-term cropland diversion programs). realized net farm income would.be reduced by over 30 percent. Net farm income would fall by more than 85 billion from the 1966 level. But government costs of the farm programs would.be reduced by only $3 billion. Thus the decline in.farm income would be substantially greater than the reduction in government costs. Such a decline in net income obviously would.have an.adverse effect on farm land values. Farmers' net worth probably would decline much.more than the reduction in net income.“ Farmers and Extension staff were more optimistic than the experts who predicted a decline of 32 percent by 1968-70 in realized net income without government programs. By 1972. both Extension and farmers thought that income would be improved over present levels if price supports were removed. Over one-half of committed farmers in Michigan thought their income in 1967. if price supports were removed. would be the same and about one-fourth (27.1%) thought it would be lower. It seems quite unrealistic to think that there would be such a difference in the effect on Michigan farm income compared to U.S. farm income. Nearly 60 percent of committed farmers thought U.S. farm.income would be lower compared to the 27 percent who thought Michigan farm income would be lower in 1967 if price supports were removed. Differences between the responses of 57 Extension and committed farmers were significant. While 27 percent of committed farmers thought income in Michigan in 1967 would be lower. 64 percent of Extension thought this would happen. A majority of committed farmers thought income would be the same and only one-fourth of Extension respondents thought so (Table 27). About two-thirds (66.7%) of the Extension staff thought the average net income of Michigan farms would be higher five years after the removal of price support. This was about the same response as was given to the question on U.S. farm income for the same time period. Seventeen percent thought farm in. come in Michigan.wou1d be the same and 16 percent thought it would be lower. There were differences in response to the question.according to Extension position. Differences accor- ding to grouping on the basis of Masters' specialization were not as great. Three-fourths of the county directors thought Michigan net farm income would be higher in 1972. and only ten percent of than thought income would be lower. Forty five percent of Extension.administrators thought income would be higher while an equal percentage thought it would be lower (Table 28). Extension respondents differed appreciably with committed farmers on this question. While two-thirds of Extension.res- pondents thought Michigan farm income would be higher in 1972. slightly less than a majority of committed farmers agreed. Forty percent of committed farmers thought income would be the 58 Table 28 -- Response to the question according to Extension position. "Suppose that all government price supports were ended in 1966. Compared with 1965. do you think that: Average net income per farm-in Michigan in 1972 would be about the same. lower. or higher?" Respondents Same Higher Lower Total .-‘ percent County Director 14.9 74.3 10.8 100 Agricultural Agent 15.1 66.7 18.2 100 Extension Administrator 9.0 45.5 45.5 100 District Agent 35.3 47.1 17.6 100 .___ Differences are significant at the 5% level. Chi square was 13.57 with 6 degrees freedom. Table 29 -- Response to the question by committed farmers and Extension. "Suppose that all government price supports were ended in 1966. Compared with 1965. do you think that; Average net in- come per farm in Michigan in 1972 would be about the same. lower. or higher?" Respondents Same Higher Lower Total percent Committed Farmers 40.7 49.6 9.7 100 Extension 17.0 66.7 16.3 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 23.3 with 3 degrees freedom. 59 same compared with 17 percent of Extension respondents (Table 29). Both in the short and long run. committed farmers seem to feel the effect on Michigan farm prices would be different than on U.S. farm prices. Michigan does not have a monopoly on the production of any farm product. An educational program on trade and the interrelationship of markets would seem to be appropriate. Extension in the short run was more pessimistic than farmers. but in the long run was more optimistic. The views of Extension administration followed more closely the view held by the experts regarding the effects of price supports. Government progpams It was reported in the previous chapter. Extension respon- dents felt there were no simple and workable solutions to the problems of agriculture to be easily found. Over two-thirds (70.9%) of them agreed with the statement. “Farmers cannot count on government assistance in solving their marketing and price problems.” Committed farmers also agreed with the state- ment. However. there were significant differences in their responses. While 45 percent of committed farmers agreed com- pletely with the statement. only nine percent of Extension respondents agreed completely (Table 30). Further evidence of farmers' lack of faith in government support prices as a means of income improvement was shown by the recent wheat re- ferendum in which Michigan farmers defeated soundly extending government control of wheat acreages. 60 Table 30 -- Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension . "Farmers cannot count on government assistance in solving their market- ing and price problem." '— w Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Completely To Agree Disagree Completely percent Committed Farmers 45.1 30.2 l#.9 9.8 100 Extension 9.3 63.6 19.3 7.8 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 6#.33 with 3 degrees freedom. *1 ’— Table 31 -- Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. ”The market power of farmers can best be achieved by the use of the market price system. Under this system. supply and demand become the primary factors in deter- mining the true market level for agricultural commodities." Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Completely To Agree Disagree Completely percent Committed Farmers 57.6 29.6 9.7 8.1 100 Extension 20.? #3.0 30.4 5.9 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 47.89 with 3 degrees freedom. 61 Extension is the educational arm for the United States Department of Agriculture. In this role they are expected to explain government programs of the U.S.D.A. to farmers. It would seem that Extension does not expect government assis- tance to solve marketing and price problems of farmers. There were some differences within Extension according to the field of specialization at the Baccelaureate level. but not according to the Masters' level. Those respondents holding a degree in technical agriculture had the smallest percentage agreeing with the statement. Agricultural social science majors had the largest percentage agreeing. Part of the reason for the response to the statement on government assistance may be related to the following statement. “The marketing power of farmers can best be achieved by the use of the market price system. Under this system. supply and demand become the primary factors in determining the true market value for agricultural commodities.” Nearly 6“ percent of Extension respondents agreed with the statement. This would indicate that the Extension staff felt that the market system itself should operate to set prices without government inter- ference. However. there was some disbelief on how well the market system was operating since only one-fifth (20.7%) of the respondents agreed completely with the statement (Table 31). Inna later chapter more attention will be given.to the market- ing system. 62 Within Extension in response to the statement. differences were not great according to position or 3.8. degree major. However. there were differences within the masters' degree level of specialization. The largest percentage (72) agreeing with the statement had their master's degree in the agricultural social science field. The smallest percentage agreeing (37.5) had their degree in the "other" fields category. Differences between Extension and committed farmers were significant. A.majority (52.6%) of committed farmers agreed completely with the statement compared with one-fifth (20.7%) of Extension respondents. Therefore. committed farmers have more faith than Extension in the market price system and less in government assistance. Market information One of the tenets of pure competition is adequate knowledge by both buyers and sellers. {A function of government has been to provide crop estimates at prescribed dates. .A very careful procedure is worked out in the release of this information. A.majority (61%) of the Extension respondents agreed with the statement. ”Government estimates of crop production and of livestock receipts are accurate and unbiased." Differences 'within the sub-groups of Extension were not great. A.majority (60.5%) of committed farmers. however. disagreed with the statement. although a larger percentage (12.9%) of committed farmers agreed completely with the statement than did Extension respondents (6.6%). (Table 32). 63 Table 32 -- Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "Government estimates of crop production and of livestock receipts are accurate and unbiased." —— Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Completely To Agree Disagree Completely percent Committed Farmers 12.9 26.6 38.h 22.1 100 Extension 6.6 54.# 34.5 u.u 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 40.25 with 3 degrees freedom. Table 33 -- Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "Government estimates of crop production and of livestock receipts tend to strengthen the position of the buyers and weaken the position of the farmers in farmer bargaining arrangement." Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Completely To Agree Disagree Completely percent Committed Farmers 36.5 36.2 22.7 4.6 100 Extension h.8 33.3 50.8 11.1 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 59.29 with 3 degrees freedom. 64 The direction of the bias was indicated by the statement. “Government estimates of crop production and of livestock receipts tend to strengthen the position of the buyers and weaken the position of the farmers in farmer bargaining arrange- ments.” In response to the statement. a majority (60.9%) of Extension respondents disagreed with the statement while a majority of committed farmers (73.6%) agreed with the state- ment. This response was consistent with the response to the previous statement; that is. Extension thought the estimates were unbiased while farmers did not (Table 33). From the two statements regarding government estimates it would seem that while Extension staff members feel the re- ports are accurate and unbiased. committed farmers feel the reports weaken their position in bargaining. In the absence of government reports. it would seem likely that many of the larger buyers would have their own information system. whereas farmers would not. Therefore. government estimates should tend to even out the differences between buyers and sellers. which could be to the advantage of the seller of agricultural products. Summary Extension believed that if government price supports were removed in the short run.net farm income would be lower. but had faith that farmers could.make rapid adjustments and that net farm income in five years would be higher. Committed farmers believed also that net farm income would be lower in 65 1967 if government price supports were removed. but a smaller percentage shared this belief compared to Extension. Nearly twice as many farmers. percentage-wise. as Extension believed income would be the same in the short run. More farmers than Extension believed income would be higher in 1967. The effec- tiveness of government assistance through price support was seriously questioned. The beliefs of what the income situation would be. five years after the removal of price supports. for U.S. farms held by committed farmers and Extension were similar. A majority of both believed income would be higher with Extension a little more optimistic than farmers. About one-fourth of farmers and Extension believed that income would be about the same. The situation for Michigan farmers was much different. Two-thirds of Extension believed that Michigan farm income in 1972 would be higher while slightly less than a majority of Michigan committed farmers shared this view assuming price support removal in 1966. County Extension directors were more optimistic that income would be higher in 1972 for both U.S. and Michigan farms if government supports prices were removed than agricul- tural agents. district (agents. or Extension administrators: The county directors were more optimistic. however. that this would happen on U.S. farms than on Michigan farms. The same percentage of Extension administrators believed that income would be higher that believed it would be lower. 66 Experts in the U.S.D.A. believed that income would be lower by 1968-1970 without the government programs. It seems that the Extension staff are more optimistic about the farm adjustments that might take place by 1972 than the experts. The Extension staff. compared to farmers. placed greater reliance on government crop and livestock reports. Committed farmers believed strongly that the government could not solve their marketing and price problems. Extension agreed. but by a lesser degree. Committed farmers compared to Extension. believed more strongly that the answer to their problems was in the market price system.rather than by government action 'while Extension leaned more heavily on government action. CHAPTER IV COOPERATIVE BUYING AND SELLING ORGANIZATIONS One of the institutions created in an earlier period to provide a more favorable economic situation for the farmer was the Cooperative. Michigan farmers have an opportunity to deal with 247 farmer cooperatives doing a volume of approxi- mately one-half billion dollars.1 These include supply co- operatives as well as marketing cooperatives. The cost-price squeeze was mentioned by Extension staff as one of the major farm problems. This is a combination of a high cost for farm inputs and a low price for farm products. A,majority of farmers interviewed felt that high prices for nonplabor inputs was a major problem for them. Over 75 percent of the Extension staff felt that either low product prices or high cost were the greatest economic problems of farmers. High prices for non-labor inputs purchased was listed as a problem. What. then. is the attitude of the Extension staff toward farm supply cooperatives? Most cooperatives are organized to serve both members and nonpmembers. Patrons in some cooperatives become members whenever they make purchases from the cooperative. The question was asked. “Do you think that the services and 1 Feltner. Richard L. Michigan Farmers in the Mid- Sixties. p. 30. 6? 68 products of a farm supply should be limited to members only?" Thirty one percent of the Extension respondents answered affirmatively. and 56 percent answered in the negative. with the remaining answering they didn't know. .A little less than one-third of the Extension staff. therefore. felt that the present framework of supply cooperatives should be altered. Committed farmers also said that cooperatives should not be limited to members only. The difference between Extension and committed farmers was significant. with more farmers favoring unlimited cooperatives (Table 34). Over one-third of the Extension staff felt that farm cooperatives should expand the items and services offered to farmers that they are not now providing. Marketing. storage. and handling of products was mentioned the most frequently as an additional service. Others mentioned were insurance and credit services. farm machinery. bargaining for farmers. feeds and livestock supplies and services. and consumer goods such as groceries and appliances. One of the basic principles of Cooperatives has been equal treatment for all members. Many private business firms offer discounts for large quantities of a product. The ques- tion was posed. "Do you believe a farm supply cooperative should sell at quantity discounts? That is. as a member. would you favor a pricing policy for your cooperative which resulted in lower prices for larger purchases?" The response to this question. by the Extension staff was yes. 82 percent. 69 Table 34 -- Response to the question.by committed farmers and Extension. "Should services and products of a farm supply cooperative be limited to members only?“ Respondents Yes No Don't know Total percent Committed Farmers 13.8 76.8 9.3 100 Extension 31.4 55.7 12.8 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 23.33 with 3 degrees freedom. Table 35 -- Response to the question by committed farmers and Extension. "Do you believe a farm supply cooperative should sell at quantity discounts?" Respondents Yes No Don't know Total *7 percent Committed Farmers 73.5 22.5 4.0 100 Extension 82.1 13.6 5.3 100 Differences are significant at the 10% level. Chi square was 4.92 with 3 degrees freedom. __._— 70 and no. 14 percent with 'don't know'. four percent. Seventy three percent of the committed farmers interviewed also said yes to this question (Table 35). Both farmers and Extension staff favored quantity dis- counts. The chief reasons given by Extension staff who answered yes to the question were: Large buyers deserve to have savings passed on to them that are due to low handling costs. This is a customary business practice necessary for cooperatives to compete. Extension staff answering no to the question felt that this practice would not be fair to small buyers: everyone should pay the same price. Another question dealt with cooperatives selling some items at a loss. Nearly 54 percent of the Extension staff answered yes to the question. "We know that some items a supply cooperative sells are more profitable than others. If it meets competition on some items. it will actually sell them at a loss. Should the cooperative do this?“ Only about one- fourth of the farmers favored such a policy. The majority of the Extension staff favoring this policy did so because they felt the cooperative must do it to meet competition or to stay in‘business. Some looked upon it as a method to attract far- mers by using loss-leaders. Others favored the policy as long as it contributes to or maintains profits overall. The chief reasons given by the 33 percent of the Extension staff answer- ing no to this question. were that such a policy is not necess- ary or desirable for a cooperative. and nothing should be sold for a loss that this is unsound.business (Table 36). 71 Table 36 -- Response to the question by committed farmers and Extension. "We know that some items a supply coop sells are more profitable than others. If it meets competition on some items. it will actually sell them at a loss. Should a coop do this?" v—w—v Respondents Yes No Don't know Total percent Committed Farmers 25.7 64.0 10.3 100 Extension 53.6 33.3 13.1 100 Differencesfiare significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 39.49 with 2 degrees freedom. ‘— F— F— v— ————f v—vw— Table 37 -- Response to the question by committed farmers and Extension. "If it could be shown that significant savings in total costs of farm supplies could.be obtained through very large volume. would you be willing to sign a‘bind- ing contract agreeing to buy all supplies from the coop set up on this basis?n ‘——— v—v—__ Respondents Yes No Don't know' Total WV —f—V percent? Committed Farmers 39.7 55.8 4.6 100 Extension 48.5 37.7 13.8 100 Differences—are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 19.50 with 2 degrees freedom. — ———— 72 Nearly one-half of the Extension staff favored a binding contract agreement for purchase of all supplies from the cooperative. The statement and question was. "If it could be shown that significant savings in total costs of farm supplies could be obtained through very large volume. would you advise farmers to sign a binding contract agreeing to buy all supplies from the cooperative set up on this basis?" About 38 percent of all farmers and 49 percent of the Extension staff said yes to the question. There were significant differences between Extension and committed farmers (Table 37). The primary reason given by Extension respondents for favoring this proposal was that they felt it would help far- mers. The Extension staff answering no (38%) said that they felt farmers preferred independence. liked to be able to shop around and were not willing to sign binding contracts. Some also mentioned they felt this proposal destroyed the free enterprise system or they felt quality of the products or services might be inferior. Differences within Extension groupings were not great. The possibilities of such a proposal. contracting total farm inputs. should be of interest to cooperatives. either through their existing organization or through the creation of an organization to handle a full line of supply items and services on a contractural arrangement. Nearly one-fourth of the Extension staff felt that the net cost of most items sold by farm cooperatives was less than those of other stores or companies. The percentage of 73 committed farmers answering yes to the following question. “Do you think the net cost (including dividends) of most items sold by farm supply cooperatives in your area is lower than the prices of the same items sold by other stores or companies?” was nineteen percent. A.majority of both Exten- sion (61.8%) and committed farmers (61.6%) did not feel that the net cost of most items was lower in supply cooperatives than in other stores in the community. However. another question was asked. ”Do you feel that the prices of many items in the other stores in your area are probably lower than they would be if there were no farm supply cooperatives to provide competition?" A majority of both Ex- tension staff (53.2%) and committed farmers (52.6%) answered yes. They felt that cooperatives effected price even though they didn't necessarily have the lowest price. Around one- third of committed farmers (34.1%) and Extension (28.1%) ans- wered no to the question. On the basis of age groups in Extension. the highest per- centage (63.2%) saying yes was in.the 55-64 age group while the lowest percentage (34.8%) was in the 25-34 age group. This may indicate that cooperatives are more highly regarded by older Extension workers. whereas younger workers are less con- vinced that cooperatives play a significant role in reducing farm cost. 74 Summary A primary aim of farm supply cooperatives has been to provide needed supplies and services to farmers at lower net costs than.available elsewhere. In accomplishing this. the cooperatives hope to increase the competitive climate for all supply firms in the area. Both Extension staff members and farmers expressed agreement that cooperatives were more nearly achieving the second objective than the first. Coop- eratives through competition. were thought to cause prices to be lower but were not necessarily the lowest themselves. Extension staff and farmers felt that cooperatives should deal with both members and nonpmembers. Extension staff felt that if a cooperative was to be competitive. some items might have to be handled at a loss. This may be an educational need for cooperatives and Extension to consider to help members and directors of cooperatives understand the pricing of farm supplies. The possibility of contractural agreements for the pur- chase of farm supplies is an area that could hold great pro- mdse for potential savings for farmers. thereby effecting the cost-price squeeze. Pricing based on volume purchased was favored.more by Extension than by farmers. CHAPTER V COLLECTIVE BABGAINING INSTITUTIONS Lack of bargaining power by farmers was listed by the Extension staff as one of the problems in the market system. various attempts have been made by groups within the American economy to increase their power by collective bargaining. Collective action for workers to bargain with employers has been mentioned by Federal legislation such as the wagner and Taft-Hartley Acts. Farmers are permitted to join together in cooperatives and bargain for price under provisions of the Capper-Vblstead‘Act. Collective bargaining by farmers presents an alternative to government action to increase farm income. One of the early attempts to effect the price of grain was the Farm Board of 1929. Although this particular effort was not very success- ful. the argument remains that farmers can get increased income through the market place by cooperative. voluntary action. rather than through government payments. Such a program.might be more efficient. thereby returning more money to the community and enhancing the farmers income position. Many people argue also that with large scale organizations in labor and business. farmers also need to band together in large scale organizations. It would appear logical that if farmers are to capture any of the benefits from their increased 75 76 productivity. they must either rely on government programs or they must effectively organize to bargain collectively. Many differences exist between the problems of obtaining labor or business.1 One of the important factors is the atti- tude of the farmers involved toward bargaining collectively. Questions concerning attitudes. tactics. legislation. etc.. will be covered in this chapter. Similar questions or state- ments were asked of Extension staff and farmers regarding methods and tactics employed by a bargaining group. In answer to the question. "Have you ever been a member of a labor union?". a little over one-fifth (21.4%) of the Extension staff answered yes. while about one-third (33.2%) of the committed farmers had been union members. Within Extension. according to posi- tion held. there were differences with a larger percentage of county directors having been members. About two-thirds of all Michigan farmers have had exper- ience as members of a collective bargaining group. the chief one being the Michigan Milk Producer's.Assn.. and the National Farmer's Organization. Forty seven percent of all farmers re- ported they have been or were members of a labor union. while 11 percent have been members of both an agricultural bargaining association and a labor union during the past five years. Interest in bargaining power for farmers. according to a group of Purdue economists.2 is due to the continuing and 1 Shaffer. James D. Michigan Farmers in the Mid-Sixties. Po 1? é Kohls. R.L.. Chairman. Bottum. J.C.. Farris. P.L.. Farris. W.S.. French. C.E.. Hardin. L.S.. Wilson. R.B.. Moore. R.L.. Mimeo EC 214. Purdue University. Agricultural Extension Service. Lafayette. Indiana. 7? growing disparity of income between the farm and non-farm sectors. They list the following changes in the marketing of farm and farm food products which are focusing attention on the farmer's relative market position: "1. The increase of selling by farmers direct to pro- duction area buyers and the resulting deterioration of the importance of the terminal or central market. 2. The growing 'bigness' in agricultural marketing. 3. The increasing use of contracts and integration arrangements for the selling of farm products. 4. The increasing pace of changes and innovations with the resulting problems of how the costs and benefits will be shared.“ Prices The distribution of the costs and benefits as a result of innovations is related to farmer's beliefs about the fair- ness of farm prices. This in turn would influence their attitude toward bargaining. For example. if they believed that consumers should pay more for farm products. they are likely to be more willing to bargain for an increased price. A majority of both committed farmers (66.8%) and Exten- sion (73.2%) agreed with the statement. ”Consumers ought to pay more for the farm products than they are now paying.” .Although a larger percentage of Extension agreed with the statement than farmers. a larger percentage of committed farmers (44.2%) agreed completely with the statement (Table 38). Over one-fourth (26.8%) of Extension respondents agreed.com- pletely with the statement. There were no great differ- 78 Table 38 -- Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "Consumers ought to pay more for the farm products than they are now pay- ing." Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Completely To Agree Disagree Completely percent Committed Farmers 44.2 22.3 21.6 12.0 100 Extension 26.8 46.4 18.8 8.0 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 28.21 with 3 degrees freedom. Table 39 -- Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "The government should step in and protect the public interest whenever or- ganized groups get enough power to substan- tially raise prices and the cost of living.” Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Completely To Agree Disagree Completely percent Committed Farmers 23.7 32.0 27.8 16.5 100 Extension 6.8 41.3 39.1 12.8 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 21.06 with 3 degrees freedom. 79 ences within Extension in response to the statement. Extension respondents did not agree with the statement. "The government should step in and protect the public interest whenever organized groups get enough power to substantially raise prices and the cost of living.” A majority of farmers (55.7%) did agree with the statement. This would seem to pose problems with bargaining. Although farmers felt consumer prices should be increased. they supported government action if an organized group was able to effect higher prices (Table 39). Who determines prices is a question often discussed by farmers. Both farmers and Extension respondents agreed that. ”Farm prices are largely determined by large processors and retailers." A.majority of committed farmers (52.4%) agreed completely with the statement while only eight percent of Extension staff agreed completely with the statement (Table 40). It would seem then. that bargaining efforts employed by far- mers would be largely directed toward large processors and retailers. There were not great differences within Extension in response to the statement. However. although a majority of both Extension and farmers agreed with the statement. there were significant differences between them with Extension respondents agreeing by a bare majority (51.1%) and a larger percentage (83.2%) of committed farmers agreeing. thus farmers believed more strongly that the large processor and retailer was the determiner of farm prices. Both Extension and farmers agreed also with the state- ment. "Large supermarket chains tend to use their bargaining 80 Table 40 -- Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "Farm prices are largely deter- mined by large processors and retailers." w? Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Respondents Completely To Agree Disagree Completely percent Committed Farmers 52.4 30.8 12.9 3.9 100 Extension 8.1 43.0 34.8 14.1 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 88.24 with 3 degrees freedom. Table 41 -- Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "Large supermarket chains tend to use their bargaining power to hold down farm prices.” Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Completely To Agree Disagree Completely percent Committed Farmers 53.6 27.7 14.9 3.8 100 Extension 23.9 51.5 22.4 2.2 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 36.74 with 3 degrees freedom. 81 power to hold down farm prices.” A majority of committed farmers (53.6%) agreed completely with the statement compared to less than one-fourth of Extension respondents (23.9%) in this category. Overall agreement was 81.3 percent for farmers and 75.4 percent for Extension (Table 41). Both Extension respondents and committed farmers seemed to believe that farm prices do not adequately reward farmers. They further believed that consumers should pay more for food. Also. they believed the bargaining power of processors and retailers not only determines prices. but also holds down farm prices. These beliefs about prices provide a strong motivation for bargaining e Need for bargaining The Extension respondents felt that farmers need to act collectively since nearly all (97.7%) agreed with the state- ment. "Farmers must get together in.bargaining organizations to deal effectively with processors and retailers." There were some differences according to the position held by the Extension respondent. A.1arger percentage of district and agricultural agents agreed with the statement than Extension administrators. Ninety percent (91.4%) of committed farmers also agreed on the need for bargaining associations. However. more of them (63.4%) than Extension (42.7%) agreed completely with the statement. Although there are differences. it seems important that there is consensus on the need for bargaining 82 organizations to deal with processors and retailers (Table 42). The Extension Service has been criticized for devoting its major effort toward production practices and giving little attention to marketing. However. eighty five percent of the Extension staff disagreed with the statement. "Farmers should be primarily concerned with producing farm products and let someone else worry about the marketing problems.” The Exten- sion staff is. therefore. concerned about the marketing pro- blems of farmers. Differences in the response according to Extension positions held varied with 84 percent of agricul- tural agents. eighty two percent of district agents. seventy eight percent of county directors. and seventy one percent of Extension administrators disagreeing with the statement. All groups in other words. felt marketing problems were their concern. Committed farmers also disagreed with the statement. Nearly forty two percent of them disagreed completely with the statement that farmers should be primarily concerned with producing farm products and let someone else worry about the marketing prdblems. A larger percentage (65.7%) of Ex- tension respondents than.committed farmers disagreed completely ‘with the statement. Less than one percent of Extension agreed completely with the statement compared to nearly eight percent of committed farmers. Nearly two-thirds of Extension respon- dents disagreed completely with the statement (Table 43). They feel. therefore. quite strongly that farmers need to be OOH! cerned about marketing their farm products. 83 Table 42 -- Response to the-statement by committed farmers and Extension. "Farmers must get together in bargaining organizations to deal effectively with processors and retailers." Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Completely To Agree Disagree Completely percent Committed Farmers 63.4 28.0 7.0 1.6 100 Extension 42.7 55.1 1.5 0.7 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 32.39 with 3 degrees freedom. Table 43 -- Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. “Farmers should be primarily concerned with producing farm products and let someone else worry about the marketing problems." Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Completely To Agree Disagree Completely II percent Committed Farmers 7.9 8.3 41.5 41.8 100 Extension 0.7 4.3 29.3 65.7 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 26.56 with 3 degrees freedom. 84 Sunnly control One of the minimum conditions for bargaining is to have some way of controlling the supply of the product. Farmers and Extension recognized this condition. In response to the statement. "Farmers must reduce the total amount of products going to market if they are going to receive a higher price for those products." over two-thirds (68.6%) agreed with the statement. There was no appreciable difference within Extension according to educational speciali- zation or position. A About the same percentage of committed farmers as Exten- sion agreed with the statement that total product going to market must be limited. The number of committed farmers_agree- ing completely with the statement. however. was higher (33.3%) than for Extension (14.6%). Although there were differences in responses. both Extension and farmers felt that it was im- portant to reduce supply to receive a higher price (Table 44). The importance of a means of cutting off the supply of product for bargaining was asked through another statement. Again about two-thirds of Extension (66.1%) agreed that ”The producers cannot make their bargaining power felt and will always be forced to yield. unless they can and do out off the available supply to the processor." Differences with Exten- sion were not great. A larger percentage of committed farmers (39.2%) compared with Extension (10.9%) agreed completely with the statement giving further support to their belief that supply control is necessary. 85 Table 44 -- Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "Farmers must reduce the total amount of products going to market if they are going to receive a higher price for those pro- ducts." Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Completely To Agree Disagree Completely percent —f Committed Farmers 33.3 33.3 23.8 9.6 100 Extension 14.6 54.0 27.0 4.4 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 25.99 with 3 degrees freedom. Table 45 -- Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "Withholding products from the market in order to fix prices above the true market level cannot achieve a lasting improve- ment in farmers' market power.“ Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Completely To Agree Disagree Completely percent Commdtted Farmers 45.6 26.4 21.9 6.1 100 Extension 35.3 41.2 16.2 7.3 100 Differences are significant at the 5% level. Chi square was 10.72 with 3 degrees freedom. 86 One of the proposed means for increasing price has been to set a holding time during which the product is not marketed. Extension respondents agreed (76.5%) with the statement. ”Withholding products from the market in order to fix prices above the true market level cannot achieve a lasting improve- ment in.farmers' market power.” .A slightly lower percentage of committed farmers (72.0%) agreed with the statement. There were. however. differences between Extension.and committed farmers with a higher percentage of the latter agreeing com. pletely with the statement (Table 45). Findings of the study by Helmberger and Hoos support the belief of farmers and Extension. They state. ”The distribu- tion of the benefit and costs of the associations' short-run operations between nonmembers and members is basic to our comp clusion that cooperative bargaining cannot in.the long-run enhance grower price above the long-run purely competitive equilibrium level. "“ Nearly 64 percent of the Extension staff respondents agreed with the statement. "The marketing power of farmers can best be achieved by the use of the market price system. Under this system. supply and demand become the primary fac- tors in.determining the true market value for agricultural commodities." This would indicate that the Extension staff felt that the market system itself should operate to set prices without government interference. However. there was 4 Helmberger. Peter G.. and Hoes. Sidney; Coo rative Bargninnng in Agnicnlture; University of California. I965. 87 some disagreement on how well the market system was operating since only one-fifth (20.7%) of the respondents agreed com- pletely with the statement (Table 46). Within Extension. there were differences within the Masters degree level of specialization. The largest percentage (72%) agreeing with the statement had their masters deuce in the agricultural social science field. The smallest percentage (37.5%) had their degree in the "other” category. Differences between Extension and committed farmers were significant. A majority (52.6%) of committed farmers agreed completely with the statement compared with one-fifth (20.7%) of Extension respondents. A majority of Extension respondents believed that the supply must be reduced and also believed that the market price system should operate. They may believe that at present the farmer is not getting a fair return and. thus. they favor in- fluencing supply and demand in order to produce fair market prices. ‘mey may believe that it is possible to use supply control measures to arrive at a fair but not an unreasonable price. Bargining notions How can supply control be achieved? One method would be to limit by contract the amount produced or sold. Eighty seven percent of Extension respondents and 80 per- cent cf committed farmers agreed with the statement. ”In order to be effective. bargaining associations that attempt to get 88 Table 46 -- Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "The market power of farmers can.best be achieved by the use of the market price system. Under this system. supply and demand become the primary factors in determin- ing the true market level for agricultural commodities.” Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Completely To Agree Disagree completely p;rcent Committed Farmers 57.6 29.6 9.7 8.1 A 100 Extension 20.? 43.0 30.4 5.9 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 47.89 with 3 degrees freedom. 89 higher prices for farmers must be able to control the output that individual farmers market.” They agree that output must be controlled but apparently are not ready to favor a con- tractual arrangement to do it (Table 47). Less than one-fourth (21.3%) of Extension and (22.4%) of committed farmers answered I'yes" to the question. ”Do you think farmers in your area would accept a contract with a bargaining association if it required that they limit the pro- duction or sale of certain commodities?” .A sizeable percent- age of both farmers and Extension answered they 1"didn't know‘ or depends'I to the question. with a larger percentage of far- mers in this category. It would seem that it might be diffi- cult to get a sizeable number of farmers under contract with a bargaining association. The major difference between.Ex- tension.and farmers is in the ”don't know” category. The out- come for limiting production by contract is very uncertain with two-thirds of farmers in the I'don't know" category. (Table 48). Less than.a.majority of farmers (48.8%) and Extension (43.1%) answered ”yes" to the question. “Do you think farmers can work together to solve this problem (referring to price and income problems) through their own organization?“ The chief difference was in the “don't know" category with nearly 20 percent of Extension and seven percent of farmers in this category. Effective bargaining depends upon a large share of the producers participating. Unless a number of the “no” and 90 Table 47 -- Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. ”In order to be effective. bar- gaining associations that attempt tc get higher prices for farmers must be able to control the output that individual farmers market.” .——7 Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total completely To Agree Disagree Completely percent committed Farmers 36.5 33.8 23.1 6.5 100 Extension 26.5 61.0 10.3 2.2 100 Differences are significant at the 1% 1.;31. Chi square was 30.36 with 3 degrees freedom. Table 48 -- Response to the question by committed farmers and Extension. ”Do you think farmers in your area would accept a contract with a bargainp ing association if it required that they limit the production.cr sale of certain commodities?“ T— __._ Respondents Yes No Don't know Total I?» percent committed Farmers 22.4 11.2 66.4 100 Extension 21.3 36.8 41.9 100 Differences are significant at the 1% lev;l. Chi square was 22.15 with 2 degrees freedom. 91 "don't now” respondents favor working together voluntarily. collective bargaining cannot be effective (Table 49). Methods used in bargnining How can nonmembers of bargaining associations be influen- ced to become members? Influencing nonmembers to become mem- bers of the bargaining organization is necessary if the organi- zation is to have an effective proportion of the commodity under its control. Extension members were asked. ”Please indi- cate whether or not you believe the following are acceptable ways of influencing other farmers to join a bargaining associa- tion.” file responses may be summarized as follows: 100.0 percent - Accepted efforts to educate 97.8 percent - Accepted advertising 40.0 percent - Accepted pressure by neighbors 37.0 percent - Accepted refusal to deal with firms which deal with nonmembers 16.2 percent - Accepted picketing 2.2 percent - Accepted road blocks. and 0.7 percent - Accepted threats of property damage It is apparent that most of the Extension staff do not accept coercive means for obtaining members for bargaining associations. Farmers responded in much the same way with acceptance of advertising. 95 percent. and acceptance of efforts to educate. 94 percent. Coercive methods listed ranged from acceptance of refusal to deal with firms which deal with nonmembers. 28 percent. to acceptance of threat of 92 Table 49 -- Response to the question by committed farmers and Extension. "Do you think farmers can work together to solve this problem through their own organization?" Respondents Yes No Don't know' Total percent Committed Farmers 48.8 44.5 6.7 100 Extension 43.1 37.2 19.7 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 17.38 with 3 degrees freedom. 7 ___ ‘— _______. Table 50 -- Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "Buyers of farm products who sign a contract with a bargaining association should not be allowed to buy from.farmers who do not belong to the bargaining association." Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Completely To Agree Disagree Completely __, percent ‘wW—F *— Committed Farmsrs 25.2 23.7 35.6 15.5 100 Extension, 14.2 39.4 33.1 13.3 100 Differgnces are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 12.71 with 3 degrees freedom. wh— FW‘ ——__ __ iw—iv—fi 93 property damage. four-tenths of one percent. Picketing was accepted by 12 percent of farmers.5 Committed farmers did not differ from all farmers. Picketing was an acceptable practice to 15 percent of the farmers who were members or would join a bargaining group. but to only seven percent of those who would not join. A majority of Extension respondents (53.5%) agreed with the statement. "Buyers of farm products who sign a contract with a bargaining association should not be allowed to buy farm products from farmers who do not belong to the bargain- ing association.” Differences existed between Extension positions. with the district agents having the largest percen- tage in favor and Extension administrators the smallest.6 Around one-fourth (25.2%) of committed famers agreed complete- ly with the statement while a lesser percentage (14.2%) of Extension agreed completely. A majority of committed farmers agreed with the statement. Although there were differences between Extension and farmers. both favored negotiations of exclusive contracts with processors. This may be one of the most effective means of recruiting members for a bargaining organization. If the bargaining organization had sufficient control of supplies to obtain exclusive contracts . then member- ship in the association would offer access to an otherwise restricted market. This might make membership more attractive (Table 50). __.— —.— 5 Hathaway on. cit.‘ p. 28. 6 Differences were significant at the 5% level. Chi square was 17.82 with 9 degrees freedom. 91;. Some differences between the attitude of farmers and Extension agents toward bargaining might be attributed to their past experience in bargaining in other organizations. Forty one percent of the Extension staff and 53 percent of committed farmers speed with the statement". "Farmers should use the same methods to get higher prices that make it pos- sible for organized labor to get higher prices." while nearly one-fourth of committed farmers (2h.0%) agreed completely with the statement and only about four percent (3.7%) of Extension agreed completely (Table 51). Extension did not favor union methods and tactics as a means for farmer bargaining. whereas a majority of farmers did. Some economists believe that the organizational poten- tials of laborers and farm operators are different. therefore farmers can't use "labor styleu bargaining.7 The exclusive contract is similar to the union shop. whereby persons employed in a factory with a union shop con- tract must join the union. The union shop has been an impor- tant means of maintaining union membership. Extension respon- dents. when asked to respond to the statement“. "Union contracts that make it possible for a company to only hire union mmbers are a good idea." disagreed with it by a four-fifths (82.4%) majority. Over one-third of the Extension staff disagreed com- pletely with the statement. with no great differences according to Extension position or educational specialization. In contrast. ‘—‘_—— ——— vi 7 Cravens. M.E. Barginigg. Better Farming Methods. June". 95 Table 51 -- Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension; "Farmers should use the same methods to get higher prices that make it possible for organized labor to get higher wages." Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Completely To Agree Disagree Completely “fl percent» Committed Farmers 24.0 29.3 29.6 17.1 100 Extension 3.? 37.0 40.8 18.5 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. ._7 Chi square was 27.10 with 3 degrees freedom. Table 52 -- Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "A.union.contract that makes it possible for a company to only hire union members are a good idea." W Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Completely To Agree Disagree Completely percent Committed Farmers 16.4 17.5 33.2 32.9 100 Extension 3.8 13.7 48.1 34.4 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 17.41 with 3 degrees freedom. 96 one-third of the comitted farmers agreed with the statement. Extension's lack of experience in.unions may have had an effect on their reactions. However. nearly one-third of committed farmers (32.9%) disagreed completely with the statement. Ex- tension staff were unwilling to accept union tactics or the closed shop idea. Differences between the attitudes of farmers and Extension were significant. with farmers more willing to accept the closed shop idea. although less than a majority favored it (Table 52). Another aspect of union tactics is the idea that some strikes. particularly where perishable food products may be involved. are not in the public interest. A small majority (52.9%) of the Extension respondents agreed with the statement. ”It should be illegal to strike where the strike conflicts with the public interest.” There were differences within the Extension staff accord- ing to the field of specialization for a.master's degree. Those with a master's degree in the agricultural social sciences had the lowest percentage agreeing with the state- ment. The highest percentage of staff agreeing were those with no masters degree and those with a degree in the "other” category. Nearly three-fourths (71.4%) of committed farmers agreed with the statement concerning the legality of strikes that conflict with the public interest with almost half (46.1%) of them agreeing completely. compared with 16 percent of Extension. 97 Should government intercede in bargaining? Extension respondents and farmers varied greatly on their views of whether or not the government should do something to prevent the big unions and big companies from negotiating wage con- tracts that bring increases in consumers' prices. Nearly 70 percent of committed farmers agreed that the government should do something while only 25 percent of Extension.agreed. In fact. 23 percent of Extension disagreed completely with the statement. There were no great differences within Ex- tension in reply to the statement (Table 53). One of the proposals by a farm organization is the pur- chase of a major food chain. Such a project would call for considerable financing. The Extension respondents disagreed with the statement. "It would be to the farmer's advantage to gain control over one of the large retail food chains.” A.majority of committed farmers also disagreed with the state- ment. However. the percentage of farmers disagreeing was less than for Extension. Farmers seem to feel that the retail food chain.has an effect on prices. but they do not seem to be will- ing to use this method. purchase of a chain store. for bargain- ing (Table 54) .' Collective bargainigg and legislation Both Extension staff and farmers indicated they did not like to limit the production of agricultural products although they agreed that they must.'if farmers are to receive higher prices for their products. The bargaining organization.must 98 Table 53 -- Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. ”The government should do some- thing to prevent the big unions and big com- panies from.negotiating wage contracts that bring increases in consumers prices." Disagree Total 11.8 100 Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Completely To Agree Disagree Completely percent Committed Farmers 35.7 33.6 18.9 Extension 3.1 21.9 51.6 23.4 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 80.42 with 3 degrees freedom. Table 54 -- Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension, "It would be to farmer's ad- vantage to gain control over one of the large retail food chains." Disagree Total 27.4 100 Respondents .Agree Tend. Tend.to Completely To Agree Disagree Completely —' percent Committed Farmers 16.9 26.8 28.9 Extension 4.9 32.5 40.6 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 15.03 with 3 degrees freedom. 22.0 100 99 control a large quantity of the product to be effective so it strives for a large membership. The nonmember receives the same benefits of an increase in price without paying for any of the organizational costs. This so called "free rider“ plagues the bargaining organization. marketing orders are an attempt to solve this problem. Set up by law. the marketing order provides enabling legis- lation whereby a specified group of growers (and processors) may vote to require all members of the group to participate in and contribute to a set of activities under the general supervision of a government agency. Although a great variety of provisions are possible under a marketing order. the usual ones are to provide for collective action for promotion. quality control. and sometimes supply management. Extension respondents were asked. ”Do you believe that a vote of a majority of the producers should legally bind all producers to participate in a joint effort to restrict the level of production or marketings?" Fifty six percent said "yes“. 34 percent said ”no". and ten percent said "don't know. or depends.” According to the position held by the Extension worker. the largest percentage saying "yes" were district agents while agricultural agents had the lowest percentage. There were no great differences according to specialization at the baccalaureate or master's degrees levels. while a majority of Extension staff favored the proposal. this was not the case for committed farmers. Forty six of them said "yes“. 44 percent said "no”. and ten percent said "don't know. or depends.” 100 Therefore. if enabling legislation were to be passed by a vote of committed farmers (differences between all farmers and com- mitted farmers were not appreciably different) for a marketing order including supply management provision a part of the ten percent uncommitted vote would be needed. The differences be- tween the answers of Extension and committed farmers were sig- nificant (Table 55). A much larger percentage (80%) of Extension respondents favored a vote of the majority of producers to legally bind all producers in a joint effort: "To control quality marketed?" There were not significant differences within Extension accor- ding to position or educational specialization. Although com- mitted farmers also favored the proposals. the percentage was less (70%). Apparently both Extension and committed farmers were more in favor of quality control than restricting the quantity of product marketed. In answer to a third question. "Do you believe that a vote of the majority of producers of a commodity should legally bind all producers to participate in a joint effort for promo- tion of their products”. 69 percent of the Extension staff said “yes". 23 percent said "no". and eight percent said ”don't know. or depends.” There were no great differences within Ex- tension groupings according to position or educational degrees. A bare majority of committed farmers (50%) favored the promotion of their products with 42 percent saying I'no" and eight percent saying "don't know". Further evidence of interest 101 Table 55 -- Response to the question.by committed farmers and Extension. ”Do you believe a majority of the producers of a commodity should legally bind all producers to participate in a joint effort for: A. Promotion of their products? Respondents Yes No Don't know Total “2 percent 1* Committed Farmers 50.6 41.6 7.8 100 Extension 68.6 22.9 8.6 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 65.38 with 2 degrees freedom. B. Control of the quality marketed? Respondents Yes No Don't know Total percent 1* Committed Farmers 70.1 22.6 7.2 100 Extension 80.0 15.0 5.0 100“ Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 65.36 with 3 degrees freedom. C. Restricting the level of production or marketings? Respondents Yes No Don't kncw’ Total percent Committed Farmers 45.6 44.1 10.3 100 Extension 56.4 33.6 10.0 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 68.36 with 2 degrees freedom. 102 in the promotion of farm products comes from a favorable answer to the question. "All farmers should contribute to a fund to help advertise their farm products." Eighty four percent of committed farmers and 81 percent of the Extension staff agreed with the statement. Fifty eight percent of farmers agree com- pletely with the statement. while a lesser percentage (31%) of Extension agreed completely. Although there was a sizeable majority of both Extension and farmers in favor. there were significant differences between them (Table 56). The answers of committed farmers to the question on adver- tising would seem to indicate they were interested in all far- mers contributing to a fund for advertising. but may be less in favor of the legally binding action. When asked. "Would you favor state or federal legislation- which would authorize and enforce such joint efforts (promotion. quality control“. and restriction of quantity marketed) if voted into effect by a majority of the growers”. a slight majority (52.5%) of Extension respondents said "yes". 20 per- cent said "no". and 18 percent said ”don't know. or depends.” Differences within Extension were not great. However. less than a majority (45%) of committed farmers said “yes“; 47 per- cent said ll'no". and eight percent said "don't know. or depends". The differences between Extension and farmers were not signi- ficant. The eight percent of farmers in the “don't know. or depends“ category represent the votes to pass or defeat the issue should it come to a vote. Extension had 18 percent un- committed on the question. 103 Table 56 -- Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "All farmers should contribute to a fund to help advertise their farm pro- dllctse I! Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Completely To Agree Disagree Completely —7 ti percent Committed Farmers 58.1 25.9 10.0 6.0 100 Extension 31.1 49.6 14.8 4.5 100 Differences are—significant at—the l%_level. Chi square was 32.31 with 3 degrees freedom. Table 57 -- Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. ”Federal marketing orders should be expanded over more Michigan pro- ducts." Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Completely To Agree Disagree Completely —_ percent Committed Farmers 30.4 21.1 20.8 27.8 100 Extension 14.6 40.6 35.8 8.9 100 Differences are significant at the 1%:level. Chi square was 40.64 with 3 degrees freedom. ——7 .o,e 104 Federal market orders can include provisions for collec- tive effort for promotion. quality control. and within limits. supply management. Probably. due to milk marketing orders. Extension respondents were somewhat familiar with Federal marketing orders. When.asked to reply to the statement. "Fed- eral marketing orders should be expanded to cover more Michigan products." a.majority (55.2%) of Extension respondents agreed. There were differences in their responses according to Exten- sion position held with a majority of committed farmers (51.5%) also agreed with the statement. Differences were significant in the degree of approval with nearly twice the percentage (30.4%) of committed farmers agreeing completely with the statement compared with 15 percent of Extension respondents (table 57). It would seem that the expansion of Federal marketing orders to cover more Michigan products would be questionable if a vote of producers were held to put it in effect. Whether this indicates dissatisfaction with present marketing orders or lack of knowledge as to how the orders would apply to other commodities is hard to ascertain. Extension respondents did not believe that the government should limit the size of food processing. They did not agree with the statement. "Some legal limit should.be put on the size of food processing companies. retail food chains and other marketing organziations." They also did not agree with the statement. "Large retail food chains should be prohibited 105 by law from.owning food processing facilities." committed farmers agreed with the statement limiting the size of marketing firms but did not agree with prohibiting the ownership of food facilities (Tables 58 and 59). The National Food Commission stated. "Controlling COD! centration.in the various branches of the food industry is essential to maintaining a competitive environment favoring an.acceptable distribution of market power and a socially useful employment of resources."8 Extension's viewpoint is supported by some who say. “The purpose of competition is not furthered by small. inefficient firms but rather by large. efficient firms. - - - Regulations should be for the sole purpose of preventing practices which are known to react to the detriment of consumers."9 Farm orggggzations Farm.organizations are faced with a dilemna in developing bargaining programs. Most of the general farm organizations were organized when the majority of their farmer members were general farmers.’ As farms have become more specialized. organp izations representing a type of farming have developed. From a bargaining standpoint. there is merit in,a single organiza- tion representing all farmers. However. there are at times —_— ———— 8 Gibson. Phil 8. Food from Farmer to Consumer. Report of the Rational Commission on Food Marketing. June. 1966. p. 102. Sherman. R.W. Amount of Food Regglations needed is Controversial. Economic Information for Agriculture. Dept. of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology and Ohio Cooperative Extension Service. Columbus. Ohio. April. 1967. 106 Table 58 -- Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "Some legal limit should be put on the size of food processing companies. re- tail food chains and other marketing organiza- tions." Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Completely To Agree Disagree Completely percent ___1_» Committed Farmers 38.4 23.6 20.8 17.2 100 Extension 6.6 25.4 42.6 25.4 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 47.89 with 3 degrees freedom. w—v—f iwfw— Table 59 -- Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "Large retail food.chains should be prohibited by law from owning food process- ing facilities.“ Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Completely To Agree Disagree Completely —fi percent Committed Farmers 21.8 17.7 41.7 18.8 100 Extension 2.3 12.3 45.4 40.0 100 Differences are significant—at the 1% level. Chi square was 38.77 with 3 degrees freedom. 10? conflicts of interest among farmers producing different com- modities. For example. hog farmers want to advertise pork while beef farmers want to advertise beef. Extension respondents (81.3%) agreed with the statement. "Farmer organizations which concentrate on the marketing of one commodity are likely to be more effective in serving mem- ber interest than organizations which deal with several comp modities." They disagreed (60.3%) however. with the statement. "Farmers would be better off if there was only one farm organi- zation representing all farmers.“ This would lead to the con. clusion that the Extension staff favored the commodity organi- zational approach (Tables 60 and 61). Committed farmers on the other hand saw a need for both types of organizations since a majority of them.agreed with both statements. Apparently farmers see different purposes for a general farm organization and a bargaining organization. A.1arger percentage of farmers than Extension agreed comp pletely with the idea of the commodity approach. 0n the other hand. fewer Extension.respondents than farmers disagreed com- pletely. The following chapter will deal with some of the problems of the farm organizations and their relationship to the Ex- tension service. 108 Table 60 -- Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "Farmer organizations which concentrate on the marketing of one commodity are likely to be more effective in serving member interest than organizations which deal with several commodities.” Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Cbmpletely To Agree Disagree Completely r“. percent ‘i Cbmmitted Farmers no.u 2h.5 22.7 12.“ 100 Extension 29.2 52.1 16.1 1.5 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 32.39 with 3 degrees freedom. Table 61 -- Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "Farmers would be better off if there was only one farm organization. represenu ting all farmers.” Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Completely To Agree Disagree Completely v—— percent ‘w Committed Farmers 36.2 18.1 26.0 19.7 100 Extension 15.3 2h.“ #4.3 16.0 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 25.6“ with 3 degrees freedom. 109 Summary Nine out of ten committed farmers and Extension respond- ents believed that farmers must get together in bargaining associations to deal effectively with processors and retailers. Committed farmers compared with Extension were in complete agreement that bargaining should occur. A slightly higher percentage of Extension compared with farmers believed that farmers needed to be concerned with marketing as well as production of the products. Dissatisfaction with farm compared to nonfarm income provided motivation for bargaining. Two out of three committed farmers as well as Extension believed that consumers should pay more for the farm products than they are now paying. Again. more farmers than Extension were in com- plete agreement on this belief. However. committed farmers believed that there were limits to the prices of farm products. and that the government should step in if the prices and cost of living was raised substantially. Extension differed with committed farmers on this point and Extension disagreed by a small majority. Chain stores tend to hold farm prices down and the pro- cessors and retailers largely determine farm prices was the belief of committed farmers. Extension shared this belief but was not as completely in agreement with it as farmers. Both agree that the price that consumers pay for farm products is increased. farmers will need to be organized to bargain with the processors and chain stores for a share of the increase. 110 Some control of the supply of farm products is necessary if a higher price is to be achieved and this must occur on the individual farm. was agreed to by Extension and committed farmers with farmers being in.more complete agreement. They believed a temporary withholding action would not have a last- ing effect. Whether or not farmers would accept a contract with a bargaining association is indeterminate due to the large number who were undecided. About one-fifth of farmers and an equal number of Extension staff felt that such a contract was a good idea. Over one-third of Extension compared with about one-tenth of committed farmers said ”no" to such a contract. Nearly a majority of committed farmers and Extension believed that farmers can work together through their own organization. However. nearly one-fifth of the Extension staff were undecided. Extension differed with committed farmers on the use of organized labor's methods to achieve increased prices for farm products. Both favored education and advertising to influence nonmembers to become members of the bargaining organization. Extension favored contact by neighbors to a greater extent than farmers. Neither favored coercive measures to influence nonmembers. Only 12 percent of committed farmers and 16 per- cent of Extension accepted picketing. The recruitment and maintenance of members is a.major problem for any bargaining group. The use of an exclusive contract was favored.more by Extension than farmers as a way to deal with the “free rider'. 111 Extension favored the promotion. control of quality. and restriction of marketing through a legal means such as a mar- keting order while committed farmers favored promotion. quality control but not restriction of production or marketings. In all cases the percent who favored the idea was higher for Ex- tension than farmers. A.majority of committed farmers as well as Extension believed that Federal marketing orders should be expanded to cover more products in.Michigan. While committed farmers favored both single farm organi- zation representing all farmers and a single commodity organi- zation. Extension believed more strongly in a commodity market- ing approach and rejected the single farm organization idea. CHAPTER VI THE GENERAL FARM ORGANIZATIONS The general farm organizations and the Agricultural Ex- tension Services have been closely identified over the years. One of them. the farm bureaus. was the sponsoring group for Extension. The organizations form an important communication link for an educational service such as the Extension Service. One study conducted with rural leaders demonstrated that far- mer's organizations are mentioned more frequently than other category as a channel for adult educational programs.1 Four functions performed by the farmer's organizations seem important. One is economic since the organizations grew up in response to the farmer's efforts to adjust price and related problems. This remains one of the most important functions. A second is the legislative function. Farm organi- zations constitute a pressure group of interested farmers. In this function it is hard to separate this from the economic function. Other functions are social and educational.2 In their function as pressure groups. farmer's organi- zations have been instrumental in securing appropriated funds for the operation of the Extension Service at the local. state. and national levels. 1 Loomis. Charles P.. Beegle. J. Allan. Rural Sociology. Prentice-Hall. 1957. p. 297. ibid. p. 306. 112 113 .A summary of the power structure in agriculture is des- cribed by Sower and Miller. . . "Organized agricultural power has formed at four levels of American society - - the national government. the major regions of the United States. the states (the state legislatures in particular). and the local units of communities and counties. At each of these levels three major types of organizations were perfected - agricultural administrative agencies. general farm or- ganizations (especially the Farm Bureau). and legisla- tive bodies. The elements of power were distributed with reference to these organizational types. The technical expertise was possessed by the administrative agencies - the organizational complex represented by the land-grant colleges. the Extension Service. and the USDA. The appropriation process was institutionalized in the legislative bodies. and the general farm organi- zations - the Farm Bureau. the Grange. and the Farmer's Union -- which possessed the element of access and the ability to influence large numbers of communities and voters by invoking the grass-roots ideology. Moreover. farm bureaus. state farm bureaus. and the American Farm Bureau Federation; the National Grange and the National Farmers Union and their state and local chapters: state legislatures. local county governing boards. and the Congress; and. by reason of formally constituted mem- oranda of agreement. the land-grant colleges. the Ex- tension services. and the USDA. This deployment of the elements of power provided for coalition-formation at each of the levels between members of the three types of organizations; between the Extension Service and the Farm Bureau; between the farm organizations and the rural component of state legislatures; between the farm organizations and the rural component of the Congress. notably the House of Representatives: and between the regions of t e United States as embodied in the earlier farm bloc.” Political power in agriculture is changing. The in- creasing importance of the executive branch of the federal government particularly through the Bureau of the Budget and Council of Economic Advisors is one factor in determining policy. 3 Sower. Christopher. Miller. Paul A. "Changing Power Structure in Agriculture." Our Ehgggigg Rural Society. Ames: Iowa State University Press. 9 . 11“ another is the shifts in power within the legislative branch with re-apportionment and the make-up of the agricultural committee with more "city" legislators. The success of the general farm organizations as political pressure groups has been documented.“ Can present farm organizations maintain their effectiveness as new ones appear on the scene? Public support for agriculture has been favorable because of the abundance of relatively cheap food. This has been related to agricultural fundamentalism. (As generations become further removed from.the farm this will undoubtably wane. Rogers lists the following criteria for evaluating the relative effectiveness of a farm organization: leadership. membership. legislative tactics. and ability to resolve inter- nal conflicts by natural and material resources.5 The leader- ship must be able to represent their followers fairly and honestly. speak effectively. be expert at working with people. be able to make wise decisions that will effect the membership of their organizations. The most effective pressure group is one that has a high and stable membership. The characteristics of the people who are members of the pressure group. may also be important. The method that is utilized to apply the pressure may have as much to do with the relative success of the pressure group as we look at legislative tactics. .A pressure group u Smith. Robert F.. The New Kerk Farm and the Legislative Processes; A Stugy in.A§gicultural Politics. Journal of Farm Econo cs. vol. . No. . 19 . p. 1. Rogers. Everett. Social Change in Rural Society. Apple- ton.- Century - Crofts. Inc.. N.Y.. 19 0 p. 2 0. 115 position becomes influential only when legislatures become convinced that a substantial part of their constituency are in favor of it. Therefore. it is essential that the member- ship be together and not segmented. It takes time and.money to operate a successful pressure group. therefore the financial resources of a farm organization become rather important. The Farm Bureau developed from the local organizations that originally sponsored the Extension Service in each county. To this extent the Farm Bureau was unlike the other major farm organizations which were founded to protest unfavorable econo- mic conditions. The relationship of the Extension Service to general farm organizations were studied in regard to participation by Ex- tension in the organizations and what Extension believed were farmer's reasons for joining farm organizations. They were also asked what they thought were some dissatisfactions of farmers with their farm organizations. Leadership. financing. and policy formation questions or statements were other items considered. When asked. "Are you currently a dues-paying member of one of the four major Michigan general farm organizations: Farm Bureau. Grange. The National Farmers' Organization (NFO). and Farmers' Union?“. #9 percent of the Extension respondents were Farm Bureau members. two percent were Grange members and none were members of NFO or Farmers' Union. About one-half of the farm operators in the sample reported that they current- ly held membership in one or more of the four Michigan general 116 farm organizations.6 The Farm Bureau is by far the largest general farm organization. with 43 percent of the farm opera- tors interviewed reporting membership. In second place with six percent of the farmers in the sample. was NFO. followed by Grange with four percent of the sample. Less than one per- cent of the sample reported membership in the Farmers' Union. All of the general farm organizations have more members than are indicated by the procedures used in the study.7 Of Extension respondents who were not currently members of one of the farm organizations. 31 percent were former Farm Bureau members. 23 percent were formerly Grange members. and three percent had been.members of the Farmers' Union. None had been NFO members. It should be pointed out that special provisions are made for Extension workers to be associate Farm Bureau members. Also. they are eligible for membership in the Grange. The Extension staff members are not eligible for NFO membership by virtue of their official capacity. Farm.Bureau participation by Extension staff exceeded the other organizations. When asked. "Have you ever attended a meeting of Farm Bureau?". 94 percent of Extension respondents answered "yes“. Grange attendance by Extension respondents was 75 percent. attendance at a NFO meeting was 37 percent. and 31 percent had attended a Farmers' Union meeting. Therefore. 6 Hathaway. et a1. op. cit.. p. 40. #07 Morrison. Denton. Michigan Farmers in the Mid-Sixties. p. . 117 the Extension staff has some acquaintance with farm organiza- tions. Initially farmers may join an organization for one reason and over time maintain membership for another reason. Extension respondents were asked to list the importance of each of twelve items as a reason why farmers in their area are members of each of the four general farm organizations. The Extension respon- dents were asked to list whether the statement was of major im- portance. some importance. little importance. and no importance are combined. Comparisons of Extension views with farmer mem- bers of the Grange. Farm Bureau. and NFO were made. 9:21.259. The first three ranked items listed as reasons for Grange membership by farmers as perceived by Extension respondents. were first. "sociability and fellowship" with 97 percent rating this is important. The second ranked items were ”habit" and “support organization's philosophy" with an 84 percent rating. Ranked third was "expression and leadership opportunities" with 74 percent indicating its importance. Farmers agreed on the first ranked item. "sociability and fellowship". However. the items of "support organization's philosophy" and ”habit” ranked second by Extension were ranked fourth and seventh by farmers. The item ranked third by Ex- tension. "expression and leadership opportunities" was also ranked third by farmers. 118 Farm members gave much greater importance to the "infor- mation. education" reasons for membership in the Grange than Extension. Farm price improvement and selling advantages were ranked low among the reason for membership in the Grange by both farmer members and Extension (Table 62). Apparently the economic function of the Grange was not perceived as being important by either farmer-members or Ex- tension. The social function rated very high by both groups of respondents. The legislative function ranked fairly high by both. Farmer members rated information and education very high while Extension respondents felt it was less important. Farm Bureau "Support for legislative programs" was ranked as the most important reason for farmer's membership in the Farm Bureau by Extension respondents. Second in ranking was "pro- mote opinions" and "information. education". and third was ”expression and leadership opportunities". Farm members. on the other hand. ranked "promote opinions" and “buying advan- tages” first. "support legislative program" and ”expression and leadership opportunities" second. and "support leaders" third. The item I'promote opinions" ranked second by Extension was ranked fourth by farm.members. Farm Bureau was perceived by both members and Extension as a legislative. informational organization. Buying advantage ranked at the top by farmers referred mainly to advantages in 119 Table 62 -- Reasons for membership in the Grange given by Extension respondents1 and current Grange members. Reason for membership Extension r spondents Grange members Percent(3? Rank Percent Rank Sociability membership 97 l 97 1 Support organization's philosophy 84 2 84 4 Habit 84 2 63 Expression. leadership opportunities 74 3 89 3 Support legislative programs 70 4 76 6 Promote opinions 65 5 84 4 Support leaders 62 6 82 5 Information. education 60 7 92 2 Buying advantages 45 8 47 8 Community expectation 34 9 34 9 Farm.price improvement 14 10 43 8 Selling advantages 4 ll 13 10 (a) Percent of respondents rating the reason of some impor- tance or major importance. 1 Extension respondents were asked the importance of the reasons which cause farmers to be members of the Grange. 120 buying insurance.8 “Habit”. as a reason for membership was at the lower end of the ranking. "Selling“ advantages and “farm price improvement" were ranked eleventh and tenth. respectively. by Extension respondents. .Apparently they did not believe these were major reasons for membership in the Farm Bureau. Economic and legislative functions were ranked high by both farmer members and Extension. Education was again ranked higher by members than.by Extension. Sociability was less important relatively for Farm Bureau members than other func- tions (Tahle 63). _1\_I_F_9_ Extension respondents ranked "promote opinions" in.first place as a reason for membership by farmers. "Farm price im- provement" was ranked second by Extension as well as farm.mem- bers who also ranked ”support leaders" in second place. This reason was ranked fourth by Extension. “Expression. leadership opportunities” was ranked third by Extension.and fourth by farmers. Ranked last by farmer members and next to last by Extension staff was "habit“. This is to be expected with a relatively new organization. NFO members. and Extension's perception of them. were clearly distinctive from.nembers of other organizations in the much greater importance they assigned to obtaining improved farm prices and advantages in selling farm products as reasons 8 Howison. OB: Cite. Po Me 121 Table 63 -- Reasons for membership in the Farm Bureau given by Extension respondents1 and current Farm Bureau members. Reason for membership Extension respondents Farm Bureau Members Percent(a) Rank Percent Rank p Support legislative programs ; 98 l 86 2 Promote opinions 96 2 84 4 Information. education 92 3 87 1 Expression. leadership opportunities 92 3 86 2 Sociability fellowship 91 4 75 6 Buying advantages 85 5 87 1 Support leaders 84 6 85 3 Support organizations philosophy 79 7 77 5 Habit 74 8 30 10 Community expectation 64 9 31 9 Farm price improvement 54 10 57 7 Selling advantages 44 ll 32 8 (a) Percent of respondents rating the reason of some impor- tance or major importance. 1 Extension respondents were asked the importance of the reasons which cause farmers to be members of Farm Bureau. 122 for membership. Education. ranked third by farm.members. was ranked seventh by Extension. Extension did not relate closely to this newest of the general farm organizations. nor did they see the role of the organization in an educational function. Sociability was much less important than the legislative and economic functions. The leadership support by members was rated much higher by farmer members than Extension. NFO's plan of action necessitates support for their leaders9 (table 64). When looking at the three organizations. it is interest- ing to note that ”information. education" was ranked first. second and third by members of their respective organization. but no higher than third for Farm Bureau and seventh for Grange and NFO by Extension workers. Extension's primary purpose is to provide information and education to its aud- iences so many Extension respondents may have felt that this was not of as great importance for members as other reasons. Extension and Farm Bureau's cooperation over the years might account for Extension ranking this reason. "information. edu- cation“ much higher for Farm Bureau than for Grange or NFO. Also Extension and Farm Bureau members may tend to hold similar points of view. so that Extension views Farm Bureau information as education. 9 Brandsberg. George. The Two Sides in NFO's Battle. Iowa State Univ. Press. Ames. Iowa. 9 . p. . 123 Table 64 -- Reasons for membership in NFO given by Extension respondents1 and current NFO members. Reason for membership Extension respondents NFO members Percent‘a Rank Percent Rank Promote opinions 87 l 97 1 Farm price improvement 85 2 96 2 Expression. leadership opportunities 77 3 87 4 Support leaders 69 4 96 2 Support legislative programs 53 5 74 7 Selling advantages 4? 6 80 5 Information. education 45 7 92 3 Support organization's philosophy 32 8 79 5 Sociability. fellowship 31 9 44 8 Community expectations 30 10 35 10 Habit 9 11 4 11 Buying advantages 5 12 25 9 (a) Percent of respondents rating the reason of some impor- tance or major importance. 1 Extension respondents were asked the importance of the reasons which cause farmers to be members of NFO. ‘ ~ » . « . A . . .lc . . - ._ a. . v n -- ' . . . - e a ‘ ' ' e .., -» a 124 Sources of satisfaction and Dissatisfaction with farm organizations Extension respondents were asked to respond to some things about belonging to an organization that do not satisfy every member. These may be. in fact. the same things that keep some farmers from joining an organization. For each of the general farm organizations. respondents were asked to check whether farmers were completely satisfied. generally satisfied. some- what dissatisfied. or very dissatisfied with each of eleven statements. In the following discussion. responses of "com- pletely satisfied" and "generally satisfied“ are combined when reference is to "satisfaction". while "somewhat dissatisfied" and "very dissatisfied" are combined and designate "dissatis- faction.” mass. In general. Extension respondents felt that farmers in the area were fairly well satisfied with the Grange. All of the eleven items were listed as being satisfactory. Dissatis- faction was the largest in response to the statement regarding the number of other farmers in the community who belong to the Grange. for Extension respondents and Grange members. Second in dissatisfaction was the program or "What the Grange is try- ing to do for farmers". Satisfaction was very high. on the other hand for "The cost of membership”. ”The way the Grange goes about getting people to join”. "The way the Grange spends their members’ money". and ”What the Grange stands for politi- 125 cally". Members satisfaction was highest for recruitment practices. membership composition. leaders. and organization's policies10 (Table 65). Farm Bureau A.majority of Extension respondents thought farmers were satisfied with all the aspects of Farm Bureau. Highest per- centage of satisfaction was expressed for "the way their family feels about Farm Bureau". The highest percentage of dissatis- faction was for "What Farm Bureau is trying to do for farmers“. with one-third of Extension and 23 percent of members express- ing dissatisfaction with this aspect. The "organization's methods" was second in dissatisfaction by Extension and fourth by members and "membership size" ranked third in dissatisfac- tion for Extension and second for members. In general. a good sized majority of members. supported by Extension's perception of farmers' feelings. felt that all of the aspects listed were being performed at a satisfactory level (Table 66). N29 Extension respondents thought farmers were dissatisfied with NFO "membership size". "organization's methods”. "recruit- ‘ment practices" and "membership composition". On the satis- faction side. "the time required to go to NFO meetings" ranked highest. followed by "what the organization is trying to do for farmers”. Members satisfaction ranking was for the program of their organization first. followed by cost of membership. 1° Morrison. on. cit.. D. 46 126 Table 65 -- Dissatisfaction with selected aspects of the Grange expressed by Extension respondents1 and current Grange members. Organizational aspect Extension :espondents Farmer members Percent( Rank Percent Rank Membership size 41 l 32 1 Programs 31 2 22 2 Leaders 21 3 8 7 Organization's methods 19 4 22 2 Membership composition 17 5 5 8 Opinion of member's families 12 6 9 6 Time taken for meetings 11 7 l4 4 Organization's policies 10 8 8 7 Recruitment practices 9 9 5 8 Spending practices 6 10 18 3 Cost of membership 1 11 ll 5 (a) Percent of respondents expressing dissatisfaction with the various aspects of the organization. 1 Extension respondents were asked to rate the degree of satisfaction or dissatisfaction they believed farmers in their area had toward organizational aspects of the Grange. 127 Table 66 -- Dissatisfaction with selected aspects of the Farm Bureau expressed by Extension respondents1 and current Farm Bureau members. Organizational aspect Extension respondents Farmer members Percent(a Rank Percent Rank Programs 33 1 23 1 Organization's methods 29 2 l7 4 Membership size 26 3 22 2 Organization's policies 23 4 15 5 Leaders 22 5 15 5 Thme taken for meetings 20 6 10 7 Membership composition 15 7 ll 6 Spending practices l4 8 18 3 Cost of membership l3 9 8 9 Recruitment practices 12 10 9 8 Opinion of member's families 5 11 9 8 (a) Percent of respondents expressing dissatisfaction with the various aspects of the organization. 1 Extension respondents were asked to rate the degree of satisfaction or dissatisfaction they believed farmers in their area had toward organizational aspects of the Farm Bureau. 128 spending practices. and membership composition. Members ex- pressed the most dissatisfaction with membership's size (60%) followed by organizational methods which was identical with the ranking of Extension. A.much larger percentage of Exten- sion expressed dissatisfaction on all aspects. however. compared to farmer members. In fact. only five of the organizational aspects of NFO were given a satisfactory rating by a majority of Extension respondents while all but one were rated satis- factory by a majority of members (Table 67). The differences between Extension's perception of farmers' opinions of NFO and NFO members own views may be largely due to limited contact with NFO members by Extension. It is quite important that NFO membership be large for its methods to be effective. The policy of NFO is not to release membership figures. Therefore. the total members in the state are not known. Probably the contacts of Extension over Michigan dir- ectly with NFO members is limited. although 37 percent of the Extension workers had attended an NFO meeting. The Extension's responses are more nearly similar to non-NFC members than to NFO members.11 A.majority of RFC nonmembers have a positive regard for its program and negative opinion of its organiza- tional methods. Extension's perception of why farmers are members is in- consistent with the reasons given by farmer members. This could hold serious consequences for Extension. The average 11 1d... Do #60 129 Table 67 -- Dissatisfaction with selected aspects of the NFO expressed by Extension respondents1 and current NFO members. Organizational aspect Extension respondents NFO members Percent‘a Rank Percent Rank Membership size 78 l 60 l Organization's methods 69 2 21 2 Recruitment practices 68.5 3 8 6 Membership composition 68.5 3 2 8 Leaders 60 4 9 5 Cost of membership 52 5 2 8 Organization's policies 49 6 12 3 Opinion of member's families 40 7 10 4 Spending practices 34 8 2 8 Programs 32 9 0 9 Time taken for meetings 17 10 6 7 (a) Percent of respondents expressing dissatisfaction with various aspects of the organization. 1 Extension.respondents were asked to rate the degree of satisfaction or dissatisfaction they believed farmers in their area had towards organizational aspects of the NFO. 130 NFO member started managing a farm in 1946. He is younger. on the average. than Farm Bureau members and considerably younger than Grange members. These are the future commercial farm operators and potential rural leaders in many cases. Comparing all three farm organization. Extension thought farmers were the most dissatisfied with membership size. pro- grams. and organization's methods. The east dissatisfaction of Grange and Farm Bureau was with the cost of membership and with time taken for meetings for NFO members. There was little dissatisfaction with the recruitment methods used by the Brange and Farm Bureau. but there was a high degree of dissatisfaction posed by Extension of NFO recruitment methods. Farm organization leadership The percentage of dissatisfaction with the leaders of the three farm organizations range from third to fifth place in ranking by Extension. What kind of leaders should they be? That is. should they be operating farmers or professionals? When asked to respond to the statement. FA farm organization should have only operating farmers as elected officers.” a majority (64.2%) of Extension respondents agreed. There were no significant differences within Extension according to edu- cational specialization or position. However. there were differences between the response of Extension and committed farmers. Nearly three-fourths of committed farmers agreed completely with the statement (Table 68). Apparently farmers 131 Table 68 -- Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "A farm organization should have only operating farmers as elected offi- cers." Respondents .Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Tetal Completely To Agree Disagree Completely percent Committed Farmers 72.7 14.3 11.1 1.9 100 Extension 27.5 37.0 29.0 6.5 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 81.17 with 3 degrees freedom. Table 69 -- Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "A farm organization should have well-educated experts on its staff. who are not necessarily farmers." Respondents .Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Completely To.Agree Disagree Completely percent Committed Farmers 31.2 34.4 18.8 15.6 100 Extension 46.4 47.9 4.3 1.4 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 42.35 with 3 degrees freedom. 132 feel more strongly that they should be represented by operating farmers than does Extension. The highest percent of farmers agreeing with the statement were NFO members who had 98 percent in agreement. Farm Bureau had 86 percent in agreement. while both Grange and nonmembers had 85 percent agreeing. It seems quite obvious. then. to conclude that farmers want to be repre- sented in their general farm organization by farmers. In the previous section. support of leaders was consistently ranked higher by farmer members than Extension. This gives further emphasis to the importance of farm leadership. One of the problems raised by some observers has been the educational level of farm leaders. In the study. only three percent of all farmers had completed four or more years of college. Withethe strong feeling for farm operators as officers. how can well-trained leaders be selected? This poses a challenge for the Extension Service to provide adequate educational oppor- tunities for farm leaders. One way to supplement the educational level of the elected farm officers is to hire staff people to assist them in conduc- ting the business of the organization. Over 90 percent of the Extension staff agreed with the statement. “A farm organization should have well-educated experts on its staff. who are not necessarily farmers.” There were differences within Extension respondents. the largest percentage agreeing with the statement did not have a master's degree. in the other field category. Differences according to position held were not great. 133 Two-thirds of committed farmers (65.6%) agreed with the statement on a professional farm organization staff and com- mitted farmers favored the idea of an expert staff more than all farmers. Slightly less than a majority of all farmers agreed with the idea. Although both committed farmers and Extension respondents agreed with the idea. there were signi- ficant differences between them. Forty six percent of Exten- sion agreed completely with the idea compared to 31 percent of committed farmers. Fifteen percent of committed farmers disa- greed completely with the statement while less than two percent of Extension disagreed completely (Table 69). Another item of interest is who determines the policy of the farm organization. A majority of the Extension respondents disagreed with the statement. "In.most general farm organiza- tions the policies are determined by the rank and file farmer members.” Only one-third (31%) of Extension respondents agreed with the statement. A.majority of committed farmers (65.6%). however. agreed with the statement with 28 percent agreeing completely. Committed farmers believed their leaders were in touch with the "grass roots” while Extension did not. Differ- ences between Extension and farmers were significant. Sixty eight percent of the Extension staff expressed the belief that policies were not set by the rank and file members (Table 70). While farmers felt that policy was determined by the rank and file in farm organizations. they did not feel this was true in labor unions. A majority of both committed farmers and Ex- 134 Table 70 -- Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "In most general farm organiza- tions. the policies are determined by the rank and file farmer members." Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Completely To Agree Disagree Completely percent Committed Farmers 27.9 37.7 23.5 10.9 100 Extension 3.0 28.4 52.2 16.4 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 55.34 with 3 degrees freedom. Table 71 -- Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. 'In.most labor unions. the po- licies are determined by the rank and file members." Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Completely To Agree Disagree Completely percent Committed Farmers 18.4 21.1 33.2 27.3 100 Extension 0.0 6.1 53.8 40.1 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 49.18 with 3 degrees freedom. 135 tension disagreed with the statement. "In most labor unions the policies are determined by the rank and file members." Forty percent of Extension respondents disagreed completely with the statement. compared to 27 percent of committed farmers (Table 71). On the basis of Extension position held. the largest percentage disagreeing with the forming of labor policy by the membership was by district agents. The smallest percentage in disagreement were the county directors. It is quite apparent that the Extension staff does not feel labor union policy is determined by the rank and file members. Eighteen percent of committed farmers agreed completely that union policy was set by the rank and file members while no Extension respondents agreed completely with the statement. Finances Extension workers believed there was very little dissatis- faction with the present cost of membership of general farm organization. Some people think that a farm organization should be limited in its membership. In response to the state- ment. “A farm organization should have dues high enough that only farmers serious about the organization will join it.” about 46 percent of Extension respondents agreed. Nearly the same percentage of committed farmers agreed with the proposal. Although nearly the same percentage of farmers and Extension agreed with the statement. there were significant differences between Extension respondents and committed farmers. The per- 136 centage of farmers agreeing completely with the statement was larger than the percentage of Extension respondents. On the other end of the scale. a larger percentage of farmers (29.0%) than Extension (10.5%) disagreed completely with the statement. There does not seem to be clear-out agreement or disagreement for limiting membership of farm organizations through high membership dues (Table 72). Support of legislative programs ranked high as a reason for membership in general farm organizations. The legislative activity in relation to its cost was referred to by the follow- ing statement. "It is proper for farm organizations to use members' dues to try to get legislation that agrees with the organization's official position." Nearly four-fifths of both Extension (85.2%) and committed farmers (78.5%) agreed with the statement. The percentage of Extension respondents agree- ing completely was less than that of farmers. however. Thus. they believe it is a legitimate and an apparently well-accepted use of funds since there was very little dissatisfaction with the spending practices of the general farm organizations. Differences did exist between Extension and committed farmers. but they were not great (Table 73). When asked to react to a similar statement regarding labor unions. ”It is proper for labor unions to use members' dues to try to get legislation that agrees with the union's official position." the percentage of Extension respondents agreeing was 73 percent while a bare majority (53%) of committed farmers 137 Table 72 -- Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. “A farm organization should have membership dues high enough so that only farmers serious about the organization and its purpose would join.” Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Completely To Agree Disagree Completely percent Committed Farmers 20.7 24.5 25.8 29.0 100 Extension 14.3 31.6 43.6 10.5 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 26.80 with 3 degrees freedom. ‘v—v vi Table 73 -- Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. ”It is proper for farm organi- zations to use members' dues to get legisla- tion that agrees with the organization's offi- cial position." Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total Completely To Agree Disagree Completely *— percent Committed Farmers 44.0 34.5 15.0 6.5 100 Extension 32.3 52.9 8.8 6.0 100 Differencegfiare significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 13.78 with 3 degrees freedom. 138 agreed (Table 74). In both groups the percentage was less than that expressed for farm organizations. This is consistent perhaps with the feeling that the rank and file of membership does not participate in policy formation. Differences existed between Extension and committed farmers in reply to the state- ment. Nearly the same percentage of farmers and Extension were in the "agree completely" column. However. a larger number of Extension respondents appeared in the "tend to agree" cate- gory. Abbut one-fourth of farmers compared to one-tenth of Extension respondents disagreed completely with the statement. While both Extension and farmers favored the use of union funds for legislative activities. they were not as much in favor of this practice as they were for farm organizations. Differences in attitudes toward farm problems There was a significant difference between Extension res- pondents and committed farmers in answer to the question. ”Do you think any of the present farm organizations have programs 7"12 "Yes" answers that will effectively deal with the problem were given by 39 percent of committed farmers and 19 percent of Extension. However. the "don't know" answers of both were substantial enough to effect the outcome with 17 percent of farmers and 22 percent of Extension in this category. This would indicate some changes in program are needed if farm or— ganizations are to deal effectively with what farmers see as their major problems. __ 12 Differences were significant at the 1% level. cm square was 16.34 with 2 degrees freedom. 139 Table 74 -- Response to the statement by committed farmers and Extension. "It is proper for labor unions to use members' dues to try to get legislation that agrees with the union's official position." Respondents Agree Tend Tend to Disagree Total completely To Agree Disagree Completely pergent Committed Farmers 21.9 31.4 21.5 25.2 100 Extension 20.6 52.2 17.6 9.6 100 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 21.28 with 3 degrees freedom. — f i i Table 75 -- Response to the question.by committed farmers and Extension. "Which of the following groups would you say has the most in common.with the farmer with respect to economic problems?" Group Committed Farmers Extension percent Organized labor 5.7 0.7 Unorganized labor 7.0 7.3 Big businessmen 7.3 6.6 Small businessmen 80.0 85,4 Total 100.0 100.0 Differences are significant at the 1% level. Chi square was 14.21 with 6 degrees freedom. -h. 140 There was a very high consensus among farmers as well as Extension respondents that farmers have the most in common with small businessmen with respect to economic problems. Farm Bureau members had a higher percentage feeling this way than Grange. NFO. or nonmembers. Eighty five percent of Ex- tension and 84 percent of Farm Bureau members agreed on this point. The primary difference between Extension and farmers was in regard to their views of similarity between organized labor and farmers in relation to economic problems with less than one percent of Extension and nearly six percent of farmers expressing this belief (Table 75). Taylor and Jones in a recent book point out that the re- lationship of farmers to major farm research and regulatory directives are centered in the Federal government. Therefore. farm business men. in spite of their idealogy. are less free in their total occupational situation than are many non-agri- cultural businessmen. They postulate that "Many types of farmers are beginning to develop occupational identifications and images similar to those found in other areas of agri- business."13 13 Taylor. Lee. and Jones. Arthur R.. jr. Rural Life and Urbanized Society. Oxford University Press. N.Y.. 1964. P0 920 141 Summary Extension respondents and farm organization members were in agreement that agriculture's problems demand production and market system changes. not Just individual farmer changes. They further agreed that government assistance alone will not solve farmer's economic problems. Therefore. the solutions must be found in some sort of group action. It is important. therefore. to analyze the organizational aspects of the major farm organizations. the Michigan Farm Bureau. the Grange. and the NFC. as well as the reasons members Join them. The pro- gram of their organizations were rated higher in terms of satisfaction by members of the organizations than by Extension in all cases. NFO members appeared to be more satisfied with the NFO program than were members of Farm Bureau and Grange with their programs. Extension did not agree with NFO members about the or- ganizational aspects of NFO. although the beliefs held by both on food prices. need for marketing as well as production con- cern. government assistance in solution of the problem. and changes needed in the marketing system were similar. Extension did not agree with NFO members on the reasons for membership generally. although they did agree that the promotion of Opinions and farm price improvement were satisfactory organi- zational aspects. Due to the make-up of the NFO. essentially young commercial farmers. it would seem that Extension should make a greater effort to work more closely with the leadership 142 of NFO to develop an understanding of the organizational objectives. Extension and Farm Bureau members were closer together in their ratings on reasons for membership and satisfactions with the organization. Farm Bureau members rated the education- al function higher than Extension. a fact Extension should be aware of in their conduct of programs. Farm Bureau members beliefs were more toward the market price system and less to- ward government help than Extension. Farm Bureau members generally had larger farms than Grange and nonmembers of farm organizations. and used more technologically advanced farming operations. They. therefore. probably had more contacts with Extension. A majority of Farm Bureau members shared the belief of Extension that single commodity bargaining associations are more effective than multiple. Both agreed that farmers should not use labor union methods and that educational efforts should be used to influence others to Join the association. They disagreed on the effectiveness of the present program. While economic reasons came to the forefront for NFO and Farm Bureau. the sociability reason was foremost for the Grange by both members and Extension. Grange members were generally older farmers than Farm Bureau and NFO. Farm price improvement as a reason for membership. was ranked low by both Grange mem- bers and Extension. The Grange. the oldest of the farm organi- zations does not seem to be shifting its program in the direc- tion of bargaining. 143 A considerably higher percentage of members of farm organi- zations compared with Extension believed their officers should be operating farmers and they were less in favor of having experts on the farm organization staff. If Extension is to help effect change in the institutions of agriculture. it needs to look at its own structure to see if it can alter some of its beliefs concerning bargaining to work effectively with the leadership of farm organizations. Extension could serve as the catalyst in the change process. Moreover. as educational specialists. Extension workers have a major task in pointing out the positive role that experts may play in making the programs of farm organizations more effective. CHAPTER VII IMPLICATION FOR EXTENSION EDUCATION AND AGRICULTURAL POLICY The comparison of the attitudes and beliefs of the Ex- tension staff and committed farmers of Michigan would appear to have implications for Extension' 8 pragram and staff train- ing. There are also implications for public policies in agri- culture and for the policies of the organizations serving agriculture. There was agreement by both Extension and committed far- mers that average farm income in Michigan was too low and that the prices of the items used in production were too high. Both felt that the government support price was ineffective in bringing about increased farm income. Extension was more optimistic than farmers that prices would be higher in five years if support prices were removed. In general. Extension was more optimistic about the ability of the family farm to adjust through individual action. Farmers on the other hand tended to be pessimistic about the future of the family farm and felt more strongly than Extension that the whole system of marketing was unsatisfactory and that large processors and retailers were using their buying power to hold prices below a true market level. 141!- 145 It would seem that Extension has not fully recognized the amount of unrest of committed farmers. particularly members of the NFO. There is evidence of a need for education concerning the collective action of farmers for bargaining to achieve higher incomes for farmers. Both committed farmers and Extension agreed almost unanimously that education was the preferred method of influencing nondmembers to become members of a bargaining organization. Approximately one- third of the Michigan Farmers interviewed were members of an agricultural bargaining group. another third were not members but said they would join and the remaining third responded that they would prefer not to join. If agriculture bargaining is to be effective. a concerted educational effort is needed to motivate nonpmembers to become members of bargaining associations. Furthermore. many of the present members of bargaining associations lacked complete understanding of the provisions of their contracts with the bargaining association. Whether the Extension staff is knowledgeable enough to conduct an educational program on the principles involved and the strategies needed for bargaining is questionable. Probably more training of staff is needed. There is some indication that staff members with a masters degree in the agriculture social sciences and Extension education are better equipped to do the job. but further study is needed in this area. 146 Another problem mentioned by farmers was the high cost of farm inputs. There would seem.to be possibilities for some savings either through more shopping or through contractual arrangements. This could be another educational area. working both with farmers and with the agri-business complex on con- tracting agricultural inputs. Cooperatives were recognized as having a competitive influence on the pricing of inputs but no expansion of services were indicated by farmers. ‘A considerable credibility gap exists on the part of far- mers toward government estimates of crop production.and live- stock receipts. At present. farmers believe such reports are advantageous to the buyer of farm products. Information on the supply of the product is essential for bargaining. Further study and dissemination of studies is needed to increase the reliability and confidence level of crop and livestock esti- mates in the minds of farmers. Whether such reports should be continued by the government or conducted in some other way is a policy question that bargaining associations need to study. There apparently is still considerable isolationism in farmer's beliefs that the prices for Michigan farmers are dif- ferent than for U.S. farmers. It would seem.that educational programs in foreign trade. inter-regional competition. absolute and comparative advantage as well as basic economic pricing principles are needed. The Extension Service might well con- sider a cooperative educational program.with farm organizations on.such matters since members of farm organizations hold the 14? educational aspect of their organization in high regard. .A realistic approach to farm product price levels needs to be taken by bargaining associations with respect to substitute products that are or might become available to compete with their products. The farmers of Michigan and the Extension Service needs to be aware of the changing political power structure. iAs farmers become fewer in.mumber. and their representatives are more urban. their mode of operation as a minority group needs to be directed toward the executive branches of government. An educational program designed to develop understanding of the changes needed in the agricultural establishment to cope with these power shifts needs to be developed. Staff members primarily trained in production techniques will need additional training in this respect. Identification and training of agricultural leaders has and will become extremely important for the Extension Service. There is evidence that the younger farm leaders have less formal training than older leaders. Extension will need to work closely with these young leaders to teach them.more than the latest production technology. They will need to develop and promote an understanding of the social sciences of economics. political and social action pro- cesses. Farm leadership will need to become aware of the changing power structure to help restructure the institutions serving farm people. While Michigan farmers believe that farm prices are too low. they seem reluctant to impose restrictions upon themselves 148 to restrict their individual actions either by government or by collective action. While a majority feels there is a need for bargaining they are reluctant to impose strong economic or social measures on all farmers to accept binding marketing contracts. They are unwilling to use tactics that will restrict the freedom of other farmers. Although dissatisfied with their present income. they appear unwilling to give up their individual freedom of farm operations to achieve higher income either through voluntary efforts or government control. This presents a dilemna for public policy. Farmers generally held voluntary controls in higher es- teem than government efforts for income improvement. However. the present membership in bargaining associations is not large enough to be effective and they are not willing to use tactics employed by other groups such as labor to recruit new'members although they hold income aspirations similar to organized labor and a large number of Michigan farmers have been Union members. Thereby. the present ability of bargaining associa- tions to achieve increased incomes seems to be limited. Income considerations are stringent and stronger than perpetuation of the family farm. Farmers show some willingness to restrict entry into farming. Exit from.farming particularly for younger farmers either on a part-time or full-time basis is relatively easy in an industrialized state like Michigan. Although farmers express dislike to this alternative it will probably continue for some time as the way Michigan farmers will solve individual income problems. An adequate education- 149 al program to educate young people in rural communities so that they can take a significant place in society is important. Opportunity for entry in farming will be limited due to high capitalization in farming. A.majority will need to seek off- farm employment. Finally. the Extension Service will need to examine its structure to see if it needs to be streamlined to serve modern agriculture. It must deal not only with a highly complex technical agriculture but also with changing communities if it is to be a factor in the change process of the institutions serving rural people and continue as a leader of the process rather than a follower. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Baker. Gladys. The County ggen . Chicago: Chicago Press. 1933- Brandsberg. George. The Two Sides in NFO's Battle. Ames: Iowa State Press. 19 . Hathaway. Dale E. Government and gggiculture. New York: Macmillan Co.. 19 3. Helmberger. Peter G.. Hoos. Sidney. Cooperative Bargainigg in Agyiculture. Berkeley: University of California. 19 5. Loomis. Charles P.. Beegle. J. Allan. Rural Sociology. Englewood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Inc.. 1957. Rogers. Everett. Social Chan e in Rural Societ . N.Y.: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Inc.. 1950. Sanders. H.C. The Coo erative Extension Service. Englewood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Inc.. 1955. Sower. Christopher. Miller. Paul A. ”Changing Power Structure in Agriculture." Our Changing Rural Society. Ames: Iowa State University Press. 19 . Taylor. Lee. Jones. Arthur R. Jr. Rural Life and Urbanized Society. N.Y.: Oxford University Press. 19 . Thompson. Murray. "The Search for Parity." Yearbook of Aggiculture. USDA. 1962. 150 Ila. .. ...‘ 'I 151 égticles and Bulletins Bonnen. James T. "Present and Prospective Policy Problems of U.S. Agriculture.” Journal of Farm Economics. Vbl; 47. (1965) pp. 111 ~1129. Bruce. R.L. "A Look at Program Planning.” Journal of Cooperative Extension. (1964) Cravens. M.E. "Why Farmers can't Use 'Labor Style' Bargain- ing." Better Farming Methods.' June. 1964. Davis. Lloyd H. "Farm Policy Extension Work." Increasing Understandin of Public Problems and Policies. Farm Foundation. Chicago. 111.. 1932. Gibson. Phil S. ”Food from Farmer to Consumer." Re ort of the National Commission on Food Marketing. (1933; pp. 102-103. Hathaway. Dale E. ”Agricultural Policy: The 1950's in Retrospect." Increasing the Understanding of Public Problems and Policies. Farm Foundation. Chicago. 111.. 19 O. Hathaway. Dale E.. Feltner. Richard L.. Shaffer. James D.. Morrison. Denton. Michi an Farmers in the Mid- Sixties. Research Report 54. Michigan State Univer- sity. Agricultural Experiment Station. 1966. Johnson. Alton C. "Personnel Appraisal in Extension." Northeast Extension Conference on Supervision. (19305 Washington 9 De Ce Kohls. R.L. (Ch). Bottum. J.C.. Farris. P.L.. Farris. W.L.. French. C.E.. Hardin. L.S.. Wilson. R.B.. Moore. H.L.. ”Bargaining Power for Farmers." Mimeo EC 214. Purdue University. Agricultural Extension Service. Lafayette. Ind. Peterson. E.L. Extension Service Review. F.E.S.. USDA. (1959) p. 253. 152 Schnittker. John A. "Farm Policy-Today's Direction." Journal ofggarm Economics. Vol. 45. (1966) p.1092. Sherman. R.W. "Amount of Food Regulations needed is Con- troversial." Economic Information for Aggiculture. Dept. of Agricultural Economics and Ohio Cooperative Extension Service. Columbus. Ohio. April. 1967. Sower. Chris. "The Land Grant University in Transition: The Case of the Cooperative Extension Service." Publication 15. National Agricultural Extension Center for Advanced Study. Madison. wis.. 1962. Smith. Robert F. "The New York Farm Bureau and the Legis- lative Processes." Journal of Farm Economics. V01. “’8. (1966) Pp. 311-823. Utz. Alan P. "Agent Performance in Programming." Journal of Cooperativeggxtension. VOl.III. (1965) . "A Guide to Extension Programs for the Future." Scope Report. N.C.. July. 1959. . “An Adaptive Program for Agriculture." The Committee for Economic Development. New York. Oct.. 1962. Unpublished Sources McKalla. Frank K. "Farmer Characteristics and Attitudes Related to Bargaining Association Membership.” Unpublished Master's thesis. Michigan State Univer- sity. 1966. Seevers. Gary. "Factors Associated with Income Satisfaction of Michigan Farmers." Unpublished Research Paper. Michigan State University. 1966. ‘APPENDIX .A CONFIDENTIAL MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY MARKETING SURVEY INSTRUCTIONS Please respond to the questions as honestly as possible without discussing the questions or looking up references. It is not expected that you will study out answers. but that you will respond to the questions just as they strike you , when read. This will most nearly duplicate the situation of the farmer respondents when replying to the questions in.an interview. Please return the completed questionnaire in.the pre- addressed envelope enclosed. Special Note: Some questions deal with commodities. problems. organizations. or situations in your geographic location. The term area is used in these questions. For example. "your area" for an Agricultural Agent or County Director should be interpreted as "your county." For a Specialist or Extension Administrator. "your area" might mean several counties or even the entire state. The extra numbers appearing throughout the question- naire are for later use in automatic data processing. Office No. Card No. 01 0....00......O...OOCCCOOOOOOOOOOOCOOIOOOOOO'OOOOOOOI0.0.00... S ecial Information 7. Position (Circle one) 1. County Director 2. Agricultural Agent a. Specialist (Please indicate department ._ ) . Extension.Administrator 5. District Agent (Please indicate field ) 8. Approximate number of years in extension 9. In What field did you Obtain your Bachelor's degree? 153 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15a In what field did you obtain your Master's degree. if any? <__ What was your age at your last birthday? 1 2 3 4 5 6 24 or less 25-34 35—44 45-54 55-64 65 or more Have you ever been a member of a labor union? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't Know Do you feel that farmers in your area had a satisfactory income from farming last year. taking into account their labor and investment? 1. Yes 2. No and 15. What changes would be needed in order for their income to be satisfactory? l. 2. 3. Suppose that all government price support programs were ended in 1966. Compared with 1965. do you think that: 16. Average net income per farm in the United States would be about the same. lower or higher in 19 7? 1. Same 2. Higher - 3. Lower 17. About what percent change would you expect? .% 18. In 1972? 1. Same 2. Higher 3. Lower 19. About what percent change would you expect? % 20. Average net income per farm in Michi an would be about the same. lower. or higher in 1957? 1. Same 2. Higher 3. Lower 21. About what percent change wuuld you expect? % 22. In 1972? 1. Same 2. Higher 3. Lower 23. About what percent change would you expect? .% What do you think are the major problems facing farmers today? (Not more than five) :3.- mm b. c. d. 155 For Office Use Only 24. 29. 34.' 39. 44. 25- 30. 35. 40. 45. 26. 31. 36. 41. 46. 27. 32. 37. 42. 4?. 28. 33. 38. 43- Which of the above problems do you think is the gpeatest problem? For Office Use Ofify» “'80 Ll’9e 500 51o 520 530 54. 55- 56- 57- 58. 59. Do you think farmers can work together to solve this problem through their own organizations? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know Why do you feel this way?__f Do you think any of the present farm organizations have programs that will effectively deal with this problem? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know (IF YES) What programs do you have in mind? Which of the following groups would you say has most in common with the farmer with respect to economic pro- blems: organized labor. unorganized labor. large businessmen or small businessmen? 1. organized labor 2. unorganized labor 3. big businessmen 4. small businessmen 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67a 68. 69. 70. 71. 156 Do you think that the services and products of a farm supply cooperative should be limited to members only? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't Know Are there any items or services the farm coops do not now provide that you believe farmers would be likely to use if they were available from coops? 1. Yes 2. No What items or services do you have in mind? §p_ b. Do you believe a farm supply cooperative should sell at quantity discounts? That is. as a member would you favor a pricing policy for your coop which resulted in lower prices for larger purchases? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't Know Why do you feel this way? We know that some items a supply coop sells are more profitable than others. If it meets competition on some items. it will actually sell than at a loss. Should the coop do this? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't Know Why do you feel this way? If it could be shown that significant savings in total costs of farm supplies could be obtained through very large volume. would you advise farmers to sign a binding contract agreeing to buy all supplies from the coop set up on this basis? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't Know Comments 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 157 Do you think that the net cost (including dividends) of most items sold by farm supply cooperatives in your area is lower than the prices of the same items sold by other stores or companies? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't Know Do you feel that the prices of many items in the other stores in your area are probably lower than they would be if there were no farm supply coops to provide com- petition? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't Know Do you think farmers in your area would accept a contract with a bargaining association if it required that they limit the production or sale of certain commodities? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't Know or depends (Comment. if any) ‘_ Office No. Card No. ' (3.5)" Please indicate whether or not you believe the following are acceptable ways of influencing other farmers to join a bar- gaining association? 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 1. Yes 2. No Picketing? 1. Yes 2. No Efforts to educate nonmembers? 1. Yes 2. No Road blocks? 1. Yes 2. No Advertising? 1. Yes 2. No Pressure by neighbors? 1. Yes 2. No Threats of property damage? 1. Yes 2. No Refusing to deal with firms that deal with nonmembers? Others? 1. 2. 158 Do you believe that a vote of a majority of the producers of a commodity should legally bind all producers to participate in a joint effort for: 14. Promotion of their products? 1. Yes 2. NO 3. Don't Know or Depends 15. 16. Comment 17. To control quality marketed? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't Know or depends 18. 19. Comment ‘— 20. To restrict the level of production or marketings? 21. 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't Know or depends 22. Comment Would you favor state or federal legislation which would authorize and enforce such joint efforts if voted into effect by a majority of the growers? 23. 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't Know 24. ngment 25. ‘— 159 Office No. Card No. 03 Tin-6) Listed below are a number of statements about farming that one sometimes hears these days. For each statement would you please circle a number to indicate which of the positions be- low represents your feeling about the statement. 10. 11. 12. 13. l. I agree completely 2. I agree. with some reservations a. I tend to disagree . I disagree completely 5. I have no opinion 1 2 3 4 5 Farmers cannot count on government assistance in solving their marketing and price problems. 1 2 3 4 5 On the average. farmers are faring about as well in terms of income as city workers at the present time. 1 2 3 4 5 Consumers ought to pay more for the farm products than they are now paying. 1 2 3 4 5 Some simple and workable solutions to the problems of agriculture could be found if people would just think about it more. 1 2 3 4 5 If the economic situation for farmers con. tinues like it is now. in a few years the family farm will be replaced by large farms run.by hired labor. 1 2 3 4 5 Consumers ought to pay enough for food to enable farmers to have an income equal to nonfarm workers. 1 2 3 4 5’ What agriculture needs most. even more than laws and political programs. is devoted. tireless. and courageous leaders in which farmers can put their 1 faith. l4. 15e 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 230 160 l 2 3 4 5 A farm organization should have membership dues high enough so that only farmers serious about the or- ganization and its purposes will join it. 1 2 3 4 5 It would be to farmers' advantage to gain control over one of the large retail food chains. 1 2 3 4 5 It is more important that farm people earn satisfactory incomes than it is to maintain the family farm system. 1 2 3 4 5 Farmer organizations which concentrate on the marketing of one commodity are likely to be more effec- tive in serving member interest than organizations which deal with several commodities. l 2 3 4 5 Some legal limit should be put on the size of food processing companies. retail food chains. and other marketing organizations. 1 2 3 4 5 The marketing power of farmers can best be achieved by the use of the market price system. Under this system. supply and demand become the primary factors in determining the true market level for agri- cultural commodities. l 2 3 4 5 A farm organization should have only operating farmers as members. 1 2 3 4 5 A farmer should be proud if he can say he owes money to no one. 1 2 3 4 5 Federal marketing orders should be expanded to cover more Michigan products. 1 2 3 4 5 If you want to solve agriculture's problems it's the production and marketing system as a whole that needs to be changed. not just the practices of individual farmers. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33- 34. 35. 36. 161 l 2 3 4 5 Those farmers who cannot earn a satisfactory income from farming under present conditions should plan to leave farming. 1 2 3 4 5 The situation in agriculture today is so confusing that it is hard to tell what the future of farming in this country will be. 1 2 3 4 5 The ownership of farms ought to be restricted to those dependent upon farming for their income. 1 2 3 4 5 Government estimates of crop production and of livestock receipts are accurate and unbiased. l 2 3 4 5 In most labor unions the policies are deter- mined by the rank and file members. 1 2 3 4 5 The replacement of family farms by large- scale farms using hired labor would have undesirable economic and social consequences for the nation. 1 2 3 u 5 It should be illegal to strike where the strike conflicts with public interest. 1 2 3 4 5 Lawlessness and lack of respect for authority are major problems in the United States today. 1 2 3 4 5 Entry into farming ought to be restricted to young men with a farm background. 1 2 3 4 5 Today farmers can't really do much to deter- mine the way things turn out for them. 1 2 3 4 5 The producers cannot make their bargaining power felt and will always be forced to yield. unless they can and do out off the available supply to the processor. 1 2 3 4 5 A farm organization should have well-educated experts on its staff who are not necessarily farmers. l 2 3 4 5 Farmers should raise all of the crops and livestock possible as long as there are hungry people. 37. 380 39. 40. 41. 42. [4'30 44. 45. 46. 47. 162 1 2 3 4 5 The government should step in and protect the public interest whenever organized groups get enough power to substantially raise prices and the cost of living. 1 2 3 4 5 Large supermarket chains tend to use their buying power to hold down farm prices. 1 2 3 4 5 In most general farm organizations the poli- cies are determined by the rank and file farmer members. 1 2 3 4 5 When someone comes along with clear and simple ideas for solving some of agriculture's pro- blems we should try to do what he says. 1 2 3 4 5 It is a good idea to have a law that makes it illegal for dairy processors to sell any dairy pro- ducts below cost. 1 2 3 4 5 A farm organization should have only operating farmers as elected officers. 1 2 3 4 5 Farmers ought to appreciate farming as a good way of life and be less concerned about their cash income. 1 2 3 4 5 Large retail food chains should be prohibited by law from owning food processing facilities. 1 2 3 4 5 Withholding products from the market in order to fix prices above the true market level cannot achieve a lasting improvement in farmers' market power. 1 2 3 4 5 Farmers should be primarily concerned with producing farm products and let someone else worry about the marketing problems. 1 2 3 4 5 Food processors and retail chains should not be allowed to own farm production facilities such as cattle feeding lots. dairy herds. and vegetable farms. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52o 53- 54- 55. 56. 163 l 2 3 4 5 Farmers must reduce the total amount of pro- ducts going to market if they are going to receive a higher price for those products. 1 2 3 4 5 It is proper for labor unions to use members' dues to try to get legislation that agrees with the union's official position. 1 2 3 4 5 Government estimates of crop production and of livestock receipts tend to strengthen the position of the buyers and weaken the position of the farmers in farmer bargaining arrangements. 1 2 3 4 5 In order to be effective. bargaining associa- tions that attempt to get higher prices for farmers must be able to control the output that individual farmers market. 1 2 3 4 5 Farm prices are largely determined by large processors and retailers. l 2 3 4 5 Farmers should use the same methods to get higher prices that make it possible for organized labor to get higher wages. l 2 3 4 5 Farmers must get together in bargaining or- ganizations to deal effectively with processors and retailers. l 2 3 4 5 Buyers of farm products who sign a contract with a bargaining association should not be allowed to buy farm products from farmers who do not belong to the bargaining association. 1 2 3 4 5 The ownership of both processing facilities and retail chain stores by the same company gives it the power to hold farm prices below what prices would be if processing and retailing facilities were inde- pendently owned. 580 59.. 60. 61. 62. 164 l 2 3 4 5 We shouldn't waste our time on discussions of the farm problems which don't offer clear solutions. 1 2 3 4 5 The government should do something to prevent the big unions and big companies from negotiating wage contracts that bring increases in consumer prices. 1 2 3 4 5 All farmers should contribute to a fund to help advertise their farm products. 1 2 3 4 5 Farmers would be better off if there was only one farm organization representing all farmers. l 2 3 4 5 Union contracts that make it possible for a company to only hire union.members are a good idea. 1 2 3 4 5 It is proper for farm organizations to use members' dues to try to get legislation that agrees with the organization's official position. Office No. Card No. 04 I. II. 165 -uT -73-6) General Farm Orggpgzation Membership (Please circle Yes or No) Have you ever attended a meet- ing Ofe e e? Farm Grppge Bureau Orggpization gnion Yes No Yes No National Farmers' Farmers 1A. (If Yes) During the past year have you attended more than half of the local meetings of. . .? Are you current- ly a dues-pay- ing member of. . IIA. (If No) Have you ever been a dues- Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No ? Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No payingzmember of. . .? Listed below are some of the things which cause farmers to be How important do you believe each statement is as a reason why farmers in.your area are members of farm organizations. members of each of the four general farm organizations? Please indicate your answer by putting a number in the square accord- ing to the following code. 1 - Major importance 2 8 Some importance 2 a Little importance = no importance 166 Farm Farmers Membership in. . . Grgpge Bureau NFO Union A. brings a chance to meet and associate with friends and neighbors. .A. B. makes it possible to have advantages in.buying farm supplies. buying insurance. and so on. B. C. is maintained.because it has become a habit. C. D. makes it possible to sell farm products through the organization's facilities. D. E. helps improve market prices for farm products. E. F. provides farmers an oppor- tunity to organize to get their opinions heard. F. G. brings information and educational materials on subjects of interest. G. H. is something other farmers expect of them in this community. H. I. gives the opportunity to support the basis philoso- phy of rural life the organ- ization stands for. I. J. is an effective way to work for local. state. and national legislative pro- grams which are wanted or to oppose legislation which is not wanted. J. K. Sives individuals the op- portunity to express ideas and be leaders on matters which concern farmers. K. L. is a way of supporting leaders who have good ideas.L. 167 Office No. (1-4) Card No. 05 (5-57 There are some things about belonging to an organization that do not satisfy every member. In fact. these may be the same things that keep some farmers from joining an organization. For each of the general farm organizations. how satisfied do you believe farmers in your area are with the things below? Please indicate your answer by putting a number in the squares according to the following code. 1 3 Completely satisfied 2 2 Generally satisfied 2 2 Somewhat dissatisfied - Very dissatisfied A. The cost of membership in. . B. What the. . . stands for politically. C. The methods used by. . . to get their programs into effect. D. What. . . is trying to do for farmers. E. The leaders of. . . F. The way. . . spends their members' money. G. The way. . . goes about getting people to join. H. The kind of farmers who make up most of the member- 'hip 01‘. e e I. The way their family feels ‘boute e e A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. Farm Farmers Grgpge appeau NFO Union 168 Farm Farmers Grange Bureau NFO Union J. The number of other far- mers in the community who belong to. . . J. K. The time required to go to. e 0 meetings Kel T— About what percent of the farmers in your area do you think are members of the following organizations? 51. Grange Percent 52. Farm Bureau Percent 22. National Farmers' Organization Percent . Farmers Union Percent HGI FIN STRTE UNIV. LIB RR \lLllWll III”) II! "HI "I L|1|L|W1|Hlflll