Search

In 1993, a survey was mailed to elicit the opinions of active farmers about on-farm research (OFR), to determine their preferences for collaborative OFR, and their attitudes about research station‐based research. The samples were derived from three groups of farmers: those on a list kept by the Kansas Agricultural Statistics (KAS) office, members of the Kansas Farm Management Association (KFMA), and those on the mailing list of the Kansas Rural Center (KRC), an organization with an explicit commitment to sustainable agriculture. Our results found that most farmers engaged in OFR, either on their own initiative or in collaboration with outside groups. The majority of farmers expressed a desire to cooperate to a greater extent in OFR and a willingness to contribute resources and time to aid in that effort. Another notable result was the willingness of farmers to consult, and share information concerning OFR with other farmers. Differences were found between the KRC sample compared with the KAS and KFMA samples in that OFR related work was particularly important to farmers with an explicit sustainable agriculture orientation, who tended to be less convinced of the usefulness of research station‐based research and the research activities of commercial firms. Kansas Rural Center farmers wanted more say in the design and implementation of such OFR than did the KAS and KFMA farmers. Our findings support the conclusion that every effort should be made to involve farmers as partners in the research process rather than as someone for whom research is done.

The quantity of grain in storage has been exceptionally high through much of the early 1980s. As a result, the effect of insect activity on quality of grain that is stored for long periods of time has become a major concern. The purpose of this study was to analyze producer choices regarding treatments for control of insects in stored grain. A second degree stochastic dominance criterion was used to compare three treatments. In more than 80% of the comparisons, a protectant (malathion) was in the efficient set, which means that it could be selected by a risk-averse individual. In over 65% of the comparisons, a minimum treatment was in the efficient set. Treatment by fumigating was selected to remain in the efficient set in only 34% of the comparisons. Data from this study (before the implementation of the May 1988 regulations of the Federal Grain Inspection Service regarding insect infestation and insect-damaged kernels) suggest that elevator discounts were not consistent nor large enough to encourage farmers to incur large costs for controlling insects.

This study evaluates the economic competitiveness of a sample of Kansas farrow-to-finish operations by estimating relative firm efficiency using nonparametric mathematical programming techniques. Measures of technical, allocative, scale, economic, and overall efficiency are then related to farm characteristics to identify sources of efficiency. Results indicate that overall efficient farms produce a high quantity of pork per litter, produce a portion of their own feed grains, generate a large portion of their income from swine and other livestock enterprises, and have a lower debt-to-asset ratio.