Minutes for the 2000 Annual Meeting of the NE-177 Technical Committee, October 20-21, Ithaca NY.

 

Attending: Jeremy Foltz (CT), Gil Gillespie (NY), Catherine Groseclose (UT/ID), Doug Jackson-Smith (WI), Jennifer McAdam (UT/ID), Wm. Alex McIntosh (TX), Margot Rudstrom (MN), Tony Shelton (Administrative Advisor), Stewart Smith (ME), Loren Tauer (NY), Mike Tunick (ARS, PA), Chris Wolf (MI), Henry Tyrrell (USDA/CREES)

 

State Reports:

 

Utah by Jennifer McAdam: Funding was received for July 2000 through June 2001 to carry out work related to identifying, examining and assessing the effects of structural change in the dairy sector on local communities and related enterprises (Objective 2).  Sites for the study are counties representative of the range of current dairying activities in the Inter-Mountain West, which encompasses 7 Rocky Mountain States.  The study areas are Gooding and Twin Falls counties (Idaho), Cache County (Utah) and Franklin County (Idaho) and Curry and Roosevelt counties (New Mexico).  Progress:  Key informant interviews have been conducted in all three regions.  A draft survey instrument is being developed and plans are to send it in January to all dairy producers in these counties.

 

Connecticut by Jeremy Foltz: Data analysis is underway in the following areas: technology adoption (rBST), grazing data (who is grazing), analysis of land use (alternatives to dairy).  Preliminary analysis suggests alternative on-farm enterprises (e.g., honey production) are relatively small scale.  Using state level data farm exits will be examined for patterns and trends and compared to community data.

            Products from the research include fact sheets, an upcoming legislative briefing this fall, a spring conference at the College highlighting survey research results.

            One policy-related offshoot of the research is input to a community (Woodstock) forum examining the future for dairying in the Woodstock area.  Woodstock currently has 10 dairy farms and faces urban pressure.  Town meeting was attended by 600+ people and a local right to farm initiative was passed unanimously.

 

Texas by Alex Mcintosh: A mail-out survey was sent to 115 dairy farmers in the summer.  Response rate was 45.4%. Coding of responses and entering data is now underway.  A question related to trust was included in the survey as this is an issue in Erath County. A decade ago Erath County was the fastest growing dairy county in terms of dairy farm numbers.  Now it is the fastest declining county in terms of dairy farm numbers, however, in part due to a moratorium and other local policies limiting growth enacted when the county government sided with other citizens against the dairy producers.  Cow numbers remain stable suggesting that the surviving dairy farmers have used the expansion strategy of operating from more than one dairy farm.

            Plans to conduct a newspaper search to look at number of dairy-related stories is on hold, because oddly the local newspaper does not have archives of the issues during the 1990’s.

            The current plan is to develop a mail-out community survey this fall and send it out in early spring.  The goal is to stratify the sample on “type of community organization.”  Public schools, churches, agriculture support and other types of business, and city and county government would each constitute sample groups. The questionnaire will include questions about the perception of the importance of dairy to the community and community involvement and attachment.

 

Minnesota by Margot Rudstrom: At the end of January, 2000, a mail questionnaire was sent to 1076 dairy farms in Stearns county.  This single mailing yielded 230 useable surveys, for a 27% response rate.  Data has been entered and summary statistics have been run.  Mean herd size is 60 cows with a range of 20 to 750 cows. Data analysis will be the focus of the upcoming year with the focus on technology adoption and expansion strategies.

 

Michigan by Chris Wolf: Michigan lost its tuberculosis-free status as TB has been found in the deer population in one area.  It has also been found in some beef herds.  On the environmental side, EPA has been doing on-farm inspections and issuing tickets.  The farmers have not aware they can say no to an EPA request to look around their operations.  There is an influx of Dutch dairy farmers into Michigan.  One firm that helps relocate Dutch dairy farmers to MI has relocated 16 dairy farmers and has another 31 dairy farmers pending.  The migration to the US by Dutch dairy farmers is probably the result of the Netherlands ammonia standards that are due to go into effect January 2001 and is expected to reduce the Dutch dairy herd by as much as 40%.

            A statewide survey of 1500 randomly selected dairy farms was conducted in spring of 1999, for 1998 data.  There were 458 usable surveys for a 31% response rate.  Trend analyses indicate much change since 1987. In a related project, he is looking for an elegant, streamlined way to do enterprise accounting. In herds ranging from 50 to 500 cows, economies of scale in cost of production are $2 to $3 per cwt. less in the larger herds and the larger herd operators receive a volume premium of $.70 to $.85/cwt. Grain production is not profitable.

 

Maine by Stewart Smith:  Activities focused on analyzing previously collected data from the farm surveys, particularly the relationship between feeding technologies (MIRG, conventional, and rbST) and a number of causal and outcome variables.  The quality of life indicators do not seem to have much relationship with other variables, though a very small inverse relationship between quality of life and herd size (30-40 to 1200 cows) has been noted. The current work analyzes the relationship between the choice of feeding technologies and certain causal variables, including demographic characteristics, business characteristics and farm objective characteristics.  He also has been analyzing the relationship between feeding technology choices and outcome variables (e.g., hours worked and cow health).  This particular work is being conducted by a graduate student and should be completed by December.

 

Maine plan of work for 2001.

            Farm related business interviews.  Interviews with farm related businesses in the dairy community are planned.  Of particular interest are economic relationships between those businesses and dairy farms in the dairy community, other farms in the dairy community, and farms outside of the dairy community.  We also plan to inquire about perceptions, outlook and strategies of these businesses.

            Farm survey analysis.  We plan to conduct further analysis of the farm survey data and the farm related business data to describe the economic relationship between dairy farms, local communities and the regional trade area.

            Bifurcation analysis.  Resources permitting, we want to finalize the analysis of the bifurcation effect suggested in the initial correlation analysis  It appears that one cohort of farmers is expanding both the number of cows and cropping acres; they plan further facility improvements; they tend to favor the use of rbST; are disinclined to try MIRG; they have a greater debt to asset ratios; they are more apt to structure their businesses to pass them on to the next generation; and they tend to have more family members involved in their operations.  The other cohort has almost the opposite characteristics.  Its farmers do not plan substantial expansion of cow numbers, acres, or facilities; they tend to try MIRG but not rbST; they tend to involve fewer family members in their operations; and they have less debt and simple business structures.  Further analysis was delayed pending further survey responses from the study area.  Originally, we received 41 responses from 100 surveyed farms.  Twelve farms had exited dairying, leaving 29 usable responses.  We would like to get 50 usable responses before finalizing this analysis.  It is not clear whether additional responses will be obtained.  The possibility of merging Maine, New York, and Connecticut data was mentioned as a way of gathering sufficient observations for the bifurcation analysis.

            Community analysis.  Consistent with the data collected from the project’s survey of dairy community citizens, we would like to analyze the social relationship between dairy farms and local communities.

 

Wisconsin by Doug Jackson-Smith:  Updated the dairying status of the farms in the Wisconsin sample.  Did a census of known exits, likely exits, known transfers and likely transfers.  Known and likely entrants were also identified.  Of the 30 known entrants, 17 were linked to exiters.  Of the 46 likely entrants, 21 were linked to exiters.

            The impact of structure change on gender roles was studied.  It appears that structure change has not caused changes in the roles women play in the farming operation.

            From their data analysis the following item were completed: A Profile of Wisconsin’s Dairy Industry; Wisconsin Dairy Farmer Views on University of Wisconsin Research and Extension Programs; Farmer Recommendations for Improving University of Wisconsin Dairy Extension; The Use and Performance of Management Intensive Rotational Grazing Among Wisconsin Dairy Farms in the 1990’s; and The Changing Face of Wisconsin Dairy Farms: A Summary of PATS’ Research on Structural Change in the 1990’s.

 

New York by Gil Gillespie: Data from the 1998 survey of dairy farm operators in the northeastern and north-central corner of Ontario County have been cleaned and a summary report drafted. Most of the work in the past year, however, has been on Objective 2.  Interviews focusing on local dairy farms and the dairy industry were conducted in Ontario County with a variety of nonfarmers.  Interviewees included mayors, school superintendents, social service agency staff, clergy, convenience store and restaurant customers and employees, and business people in different parts of the county. The county seems to have very little dairy or other agricultural infrastructure, with most of that existing tending to be in smaller villages. In general, those interviewed had little understanding or appreciation of dairy farms and  felt very little connection or sympathy to dairy farming and farmers. Superintendents and clergy tended not to be aware of having dairy farm students or parishioners, respectively. These findings imply a disconnect between the dairy farms and the rest of the community.

            The major changes in the local communities in which the dairy farmers being studied are located have been an influx of Mennonites in the southern part of the county (mainly outside of the study area) and urban pressure in the form of residential development serving people working in the Rochester in the northwestern and north-central part of the county.  The Mennonites sometimes pay above market prices for land and non-Mennonite locals worry about the effects of the in-migration on their communities. Some of the Mennonites use steel-wheeled implements that damage roads. The greatest urban pressure is between Canandaigua and Rochester, but is moving eastward.

            A professional interviewer has been engaged to conduct the second round survey of the dairy farms when the questionnaire is developed.  Plans are also to ask respondents about entrants and exits in their vicinity.

 

Administrative Advisor Report by Tony Shelton:  The new and improved multi-state research funds (MRF) under the AREERA of 1998 was described. The rationale for this program is to foster cooperation to solve problems across states and regions. Under this program, each state will have a plan of work that focuses on national goals and objectives. These goals include promoting a highly competitive agricultural system, providing safe food, protecting environment, and enhancing economic opportunities and quality of life. Emphasis is on accountability at all levels.  Criteria for MRF projects were outlined. These include having clearly focused objectives, each participant having a clear role, being multistate and multidisciplinary, having peer reviewed proposals, being oriented toward accomplishing outcomes and impacts, having stakeholder input, and being responsive to CSREES goals. Stakeholder input is viewed as a key and proposals will need to demonstrate that stakeholders support the project though how has not yet been determined.  Renewals of existing projects will not be ‘automatic’ or routine. Proposals for revised projects must have significant changes in the scope, objectives, and outcomes. Project duration is flexible; 2-20 years. One goal for the new system is to reduce the number of multistate projects and to make more resources available to those projects. The new paperless reporting system is in place. Under this system achieving milestones will be emphasized. As a result of the work of Dave MacKenzie, a major effort is being made to move products to the Web.

            One new MRF feature is the provision for “rapid response activity” that will facilitate responses to acute crises, emergencies, or opportunities. Such proposed projects will require less review and research coordination can be informal. If such projects are to continue, however, they must be “rolled over” into a formal project within two years.

            Under this system, starting new and renewal projects will require nearly two to get a project through the system  Websites of interest: http://www/escop.msstate.edu/draftdoc.htm provides the guidelines for MRF projects.  http://www/agnr.umd.edu/users/NERA has the NERA information.  All regional research projects can be found the CRIS website.

 

USDA advisor report by Henry Tyrrell: The proposed federal budget for FY2001 has been generous as Congress has been trying to deliver what its agriculture constituents want.  Ag research funding has been maintained. IFAFS and Rural Response have received funding increases. Formula funds allocations are flat. NRI has faced a budget decrease and targeted reallocation in which 23 million is to go to food safety research and the rest to be divided equitably between plant and animal agriculture topics. Other changes include dropping the rural development topic area. Animal agriculture groups are watching closely and want to see increased accountability for research funds. How IFAFS will be handled is still being discussed. One possibility (with possibilities for efficiency) would be to fund some of the higher ranking projects from the last around. On that round of IFAFS: 1000 projects were submitted and 86 were funded. As of the time of the report, the appropriations bill was not yet of Congress and there was some prospect that the bill may not be passed this year. One potential source of contention is the election year pork contained in the bill.

            Agriculture appropriations are becoming too politicized at the federal level. This is not good because it may lead to gross instabilities and fluctuations in programs and funding levels. To avoid the danger of losing needed stability, the ag community needs to be careful about the attitude it projects. It is getting increases in the budget, but allocated funds are being redirected. As agriculture interests communicate with Congress, they need to acknowledge these funding increases and the congressional efforts to redirect funding in response to their requests.

            The new dairy expansion regions in the country are Nebraska and Kansas. NE-177 should seek participants from the states as well as California in the current project and any proposals for a revised project.

 

Objective 1:  A discussion of progress to meeting objective 1 was held.  (Determine the interrelationships among and relative importance of social, economic, technological and political environment , regional conditions, and entrepreneurial strategies affecting the restructuring of the dairy industry in different dairy localities.)  A census of states surveys and samples was conducted.  A summary is presented in Table 1.

 

State   

Survey date    

Usable samples                      

 

 

Texas  

2000   

49                   

 

Connecticut    

1999   

120                 

 

Wisconsin      

1997, 1998     

270                 

 

Minnesota       

2000   

230                 

 

New York      

1998   

48                   

 

Maine 

1999   

30                   

 

Michigan        

1999   

458                 

 

Kentucky        

Ongoing          

???                  

 

 

 

NE177 Discussion of Data Sharing and Variables

Principles: (1) naming item including question number and (2) complete code book information that includes a copy of the survey questionnaire with variable names and codes written by the question and response items. For yes and no responses, no should =0 and yes should = 1 Ideally missing data should be designated by 9s in all the columns and should be clearly distinct from possible nonmissing codes. Alternatively, if the data are otherwise clean, blanks may also be used. The data should also be checked for outliers.

 

I.                 Farm-level

 

A.              Size/Scale

1.               Number of cows milked

2.               Number of dry cows

3.               Milk production in lbs/cow/year

4.               Acreage operated

a.                By commodity

b.               By tilled acres

5.               Income from sales

a.                Dairy products (%)

b.               Other commodities

B.              Tenure

1.               Land owned and operated

2.               Ownership/business form

C.              Management

1.               Business form at enterprise level

2.               Who makes what decisions (individual level)

3.               Use of experts

4.               Use of hired labor

D.              Technology

1.               Milking system

2.               Housing type

3.               Feed reliance

4.               Enterprise specialization

5.               Use of rBGH/rbST

6.               Record-keeping methods

7.               TMR

8.               Use of computer for farm

9.               Use of Internet for farm

10.            AI

E.               Demographics

1.               Age of operator

2.               Education of operator

3.               Education of spouse

4.               Ethnicity

5.               Number of children living at home (ages?)

6.               Off-farm work by operator

7.               Off-farm work by spouse

8.               Household dependence on off-farm income

9.               Experience farming (years)

F.               Farm environment

1.               Manure management

2.               Livestock inventory

3.               Land base

4.               Animal ratios from livestock inventory and land base

5.               Environment

G.              Attitudinal

1.               Toward farm structure and policy

2.               Toward the natural environment

 

II.               Community linkages

A.              Community characteristics

1.               Variables characterizing the community

2.               Variables indicating how the community is changing

3.               Variables indicating how the changes affect dairy farming

B.              Attachment

1.               1-10 scales of attachment

2.               How long operator lived in the area

3.               Neighbor-knowing indicators

4.               How sad would you be to leave?

C.              Involvement

1.               What community do you most identify with?

2.               Local newspaper subscribe to

3.               Church membership

4.               Children’s school attendance

5.               Organizations belonged to

6.               Where groceries bought

D.              Purchasing for farm and household (separate)

1.               Where usually buy (X, Y, Z)?

2.               What % of (X, Y, Z) do you buy in:

a.                County, adjacent county, outside area

b.               Place A, place B, etc.

E.               Quality of life indicators

1.               ?

III.             Future plans

A.              How long planning to stay in dairying?

B.              Will someone else be taking over?

C.              Major investment plans?

D.              Disinvestment plans?

E.               Land-use

1.               Changes on-farm

2.               Pressures

3.               Opportunities

IV.            Experiences with expansion

A.              Past herd size

B.              Present herd size

C.              Anticipated herd size

 

Work commitments for FY 2001

 

Chris

            size/scale

            tenure

            management/business organization

 

Jeremy:            technology

 

Catherine: demographics

Doug: farm environment

 

Margot

            attitudes

            future plans

 

Alex and Gil

            community changes

            community attachment

            community involvement

            community purchasing

            quality of life

 

Activities related to data sharing:

 

Code books and entire (clean) datasets are due to Doug ASAP.

Send your survey title to Gil by November 1.

Doug will e-mail a template to be used for survey comparisons.

Matrix first draft is due back to the group by November 15th.

Comments on first draft due back to Doug by December 15th.

Final matrix completed by January 15th and data synthesis to begin.

 

 

Further data collection

 

Phone Survey

 

Purpose is to collect nondairy farm information related to citizens’ community involvement and attachment so comparisons can be made to dairy farmer community attachment and involvement.  Utah will be conducting a phone survey.  Wisconsin has completed a phone survey.  Texas plans a mail-out survey.

 

Activities:

Doug will e-mail everyone the Wisconsin survey instrument. Alex, Gil and Stewart will be a committee develop a survey instrument by December 1/00. The goal is for a 10 minute survey, stratified random sample, $10-15 per completed interview, funded by outside sources (possibilities: Fund for Rural America, Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems, Farm Foundation). An alternative would be mail surveys, N=200 per state, based on zip codes.

 

Secondary data collection

 

The 1997 project meeting minutes contains a list a secondary data sought.  State dairy stats by SIC code, 1987-1997 Census of Ag have been.  County level and zip code level Census data has yet to be summarized.

Activities:

Doug will send Census of Agriculture table numbers and data availability. E-mail Margot  counties and zipcodes by October 27th.  Ag Census information will be summarized and returned to states by January 15th.  Margot will follow the Population Census and summarize for MN.  She will then pass along relevant tables to other states. She will also watch for the release of the data from the 2000 Census. Goal to have the information for all states is March 1, 2001.

 

ANALYSIS

 

Descriptive

 

Characteristics of dairy structure and change in each community.  Information from Census of Ag as well as survey information.  Thick description of communities.

 

Characteristics of communities and community changes.  Secondary data from Population Census, county statistics.

 

Activities:

Draft of descriptions are due to Gil by February 15th.  Comparisons across regions will be completed by Gil, March 15th.

 

Farm Level (within states and across states)

 

Predictors of quality of live/satisfaction; technology adoption; community involvement and attachment;

Identifying technology/structural clusters with states and across states.

Compare performance (labor efficiency, productivity, satisfaction, future plans to project future change.

Differences in management orientation across regions.

Connect values with satisfaction: mediate by structure and technology choice and decision orientation

Link structure scale and region to environmental behavior. (animal land, manure storage & handling) to attitudinal factors and links to community to predict regulatory implications.

Liability of newness: do new farms fail more readily? Advantages of newness.  Farm versus individual newness; new to area vs new to industry.

 

Community Level

 

Relationship of size: Purchasing behavior, community involvement and attachment

Link micro and macro community effects.  Farmers vs non farmers, aggregate community character, farm structure Û level of attachment and involvement

How does the community affect farm structure: population growth/density/pressure, land prices and tax incentives, regulatory climate & political climate

What determines where large farms locate?\

 

Activities:

Farm level and community level analysis across regions is planned to begin after a common dataset is constructed by Doug.

 

Business Meeting

 

Election of Chair.  Doug  nominated Gil. Quickly seconded by Alex.  All in favor.  Motioned carried.

 

State reports for 2000 are due into Gil by November 15th.  Highlight accomplishments, itemize activities and list publications/reports/other output.

 

Next meeting: October 2001 in Utah.  Jennifer and Catherine will host. (Note: Jennifer polled participants by e-mail and set date for October 11-13, 2001.)

2002 meeting scheduled for late June in Madison WI.

 

Possibility of a symposium after 2002 highlighting NE-177 research was suggested.  Tabled for discussion at next meeting.

 

Future Project

 

It was suggested that individuals look for projects/grant money for projects that can be rolled into NE-177.  Researchable topics include infrastructure and spatial issues related to dairying, cost of production across different regions and dairy structures, regulatory climate and labor issues.

 

Tours

 

Meeting tours were of Dairy One (cooperative conducting milk and forage testing and providing other services to dairy farms and processors), Ithaca Farmers’ market (small-scale dairy processors and direct marketing), Hillcrest Dairy (small-scale dairy processor seeking to serve smaller-scale dairy farms), and sightseeing of several dairy farms (illustrating contemporary development of the dairy industry in New York).

 

End of meeting.