INTRODUCTION Mississippis number one industry
Mississippi’s number one industry is agriculture, employing approximately 29
percent of the state’s workforce either directly or indirectly, while generating 7.6
billiondollars annually (Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce, 2017).
There are approximately 42,400 farms in the state covering 11.2 million acres with an
average farm size of 236 acres (Dagher, 2014; Mississippi Department of Agriculture and
Commerce, 2015).
Table 1 shows Mississippi value of agricultural production estimates in 2017. This
table illustrates that broilers, eggs, and chickens were Mississippi's most valuable
agricultural commodity, generating 2.788 million dollars. Forestry was second,
generating 1.393 million dollars, and soybeans ranked third, generating about 1.115
million dollars of the state's total agricultural receipts.
Table 1 Estimated value of agricultural production commodities in Mississippi
2017
Commodity 2017 In
million dollars
Broilers/Eggs/Chickens 2,788
Forestry 1,393
Soybeans 1,115
Cotton 562
Corn 337
Cattle/Calves 285
Catfish 181
Sweet Potatoes 123
Hogs 117
Hay 116
Horticulture Crops 107
Peanuts 33
Milk 26
Wheat 8
Govt. Programs / Misc. 262
Grand Total $7,558
Source: MSU Extension Service and Mississippi Agricultural Statistics Service, 2017.
Nassiff (2014) said, “Mississippi harbors a high culture of industrial agribusiness.
Within the last ten years, Mississippi has seen a surge of small-scale farmers interested in
growing organically and selling locally” (p.1). In the 20th century, intensified agriculture
began to affect the environment, decreasing food quality and degrading farmers’ social
securities and community health, which led to the new concept of environmentally
friendly agriculture (Moudry, Hartl, Cudlinova, Konvalina, & Sramek, 2009).
Environmental degradation and the need to address climate change are among the
most serious problems facing the United States today (Dimitri, Kemp, Sooby, $ Sullivan
2012). U.S. agricultural sustainability may be improved by way of various innovative
approaches, one of which includes organic agriculture (Inkoom, 2017). Organic
agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances
biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity. It is also based on minimal use
of off-farm inputs and on-farm management practices that restore, maintain, and enhance
ecological harmony (Gold, 2007). Under organic cropping systems, the fundamental
components and natural processes of ecosystems, such as soil organism activities,
nutrient cycling, and species distribution and competition, are used as farm management
tools (Greene & Kremen, 2003).
Organic agriculture is a rapidly expanding economic sector and makes a
significant contribution to human health, the health of the economy, and the health of the
planet. The evidence is clear about the success of organic farming in terms of human
health, prosperity, the benefits to soil and water, birds and bees, and the ability of organic
farming to mitigate damage from global climate change (Jackson et al., 2010).
The adoption of an organic approach to producing agricultural products has been
on the rise over the past 20 years. In particular, organic agriculture has grown
substantially since emerging in the 1940s, as measured by the area of certified lands,
organic programs, and the organic farmland acreage. For instance, cropland acres devoted
to organic production methods increased from 1.3 acres to 3.7 acres between 2002 and
2014 (McBride et al., 2015). Furthermore, the consumption of organic food has risen by
double digits annually as the public demands increasing amounts of organic fruits and
vegetables from Whole Foods, Wal-Mart, and other retailers and farmers’ markets
(Haedicke, 2016). Over the past 30 years, public interest in organic agriculture has
increased in the United States. This fact is evident by the increases observed in the
consumer demand for organically produced food and the number of publicly funded
research and policy projects pertaining to organic food production (Wiegel, 2009).
Statement of the Problem
The demand for produce grown without chemicals has increased to the extent that
many Mississippi supermarkets now carry certified organic produce. Mississippi State
University Extension is working to help existing non-organic growers convert at least
some of their production to organic methods or to assist those who want to begin organic
production (Mississippi State University Extension, 2017). Knowledge and support for
organic agriculture among Extension agents is limited within the southern region of the
United States, even though Extension agents’ knowledge about organic production is
essential in moving the organic industry forward (Sanderson, 2004).
Organic agriculture is one of the fastest growing segments in food sales. Although
the amount of certified organic land is increasing, the supply of organic foods lags behind
demand in the United States (Constance & Choi, 2010). There are a lot of uncertified
organic growers in Mississippi that grow for families and friends. These individuals are
hungry for knowledge about organic agriculture. Becoming certified organic through
USDA costs approximately $1,000 per year. Mississippi still has the USDA Organic Cost
Share Program that reimburses farmers a portion of their certification costs (Riggin,
personal communication, August 9, 2017).
If Mississippi consumers and producers have questions about organic agriculture
issues, who might they contact? Mississippi State University Extension has employees in
all 82 counties that could be the best resource to provide this information. However, do
they have the background and training in organic agriculture to answer consumers’
questions? Thomas Ligiandenyi, Mississippi State University Extension Agent III, said
that the questions that typical agents receive from their clients about organic agriculture
include:
• What can I do to control pests in my organic farming operations?
• Who does organic agriculture in this county?
• My family has been doing conventional agriculture for generations, how long
will it take me without using chemicals before I can have an organic agriculture
operation?
• How will I have my farm certified as organic operations?
• Is it hard to start organic farming?
• Why does my organic vegetables not look as pretty as the ones which are not
organic?
• What is the fertilizer acceptable in organic operations? (Personal
communication, July 25, 2017).
This study is the first study about the perceived knowledge and training needs of
Extension agents in organic agriculture in Mississippi. In addition, this study is the first
study to determine the level of demand that Mississippi State University Extension agents
are receiving for information on organic agriculture, and it is the first study to identify the
perceived barriers facing the expansion of organic agriculture in Mississippi from the
point of view of Extension agents.
Around the world, Extension operates in a constantly changing environment with
new technologies and approaches appearing at an ever-quickening pace. Extension agents
need to upgrade their knowledge and skills to adapt to ever-changing socio-economic and
environmental conditions (Navarro, 2008). It is important that Extension programs
provide agents and farmers with appropriate and timely information about organic
agriculture. No study has been done on the training needs for Extension agents in the
field of organic agriculture in Mississippi, but there are very few studies about the
training needs of Mississippi State University Extension agents in general.
Because of the shortage of scientific research about the training needs of
Mississippi State University Extension agents and because there was not any study about
the training needs for Mississippi State University Extension agents in organic
agriculture, this research represents an attempt to fill a gap in the literature on training
needs for skills and knowledge of Mississippi State University Extension agnts in organic
agriculture. Mississippi State University Extension will take advantage of this study by
knowing if the agents have enough information about the organic agriculture or not.
Background
As with any other business or industry, agriculture has evolved over time,
increasing in productivity and efficiency. At the beginning of the twentieth century, 41%
of the U.S. workforce was involved in agriculture (Dimitri, Effland, & Conklin, 2005).
Mississippi has a deep history of agricultural production, and Mississippi's
residents are still heavily dependent on agricultural production, especially in the Delta
(Shoreman & Haenn, 2009). Although the sustainabile agriculture industry in Mississippi
has not grown as much as other places, sustainable agricultural methods are beginning to
appear (Guthman, 2014). The Mississippi Sustainable Agriculture Network (MSAN) has
several connections to the University of Mississippi (Ole Miss). Northern Mississippi is
widely seen as a leader in Mississippi’s local and organic agriculture movement because
it characterized by very flat land, rich soils, and abundant water (Nassiff, 2014).
Organic agriculture practices are growing in the United States because of several
benefits. Kristiansen, Taji, and Reganold (2006) states, “Organic agriculture is a holistic
production management system which promotes and enhances agro-ecosystem health,
including biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity. It emphasises the
use of management practices in preference to the use of off-farm inputs, taking into
account that regional conditions require locally adapted systems. This is accomplished by
using, where possible, agronomic, biological, and mechanical methods, as opposed to
using synthetic materials, to fulfil any specific function within the system. An organic
production system is designed to:
• Enhance biological diversity within the whole system.
• Increase soil biological activity.
• Maintain long-term soil fertility.
• Recycle wastes of plant and animal origin in order to return nutrient to the land.
• Rely on renewable resources in localy organized agricultural system.
• Promote the healthy use of soil, water and air as well as manimize all forms of
pollution that may results from agricultural practices.
• Handle agricultural products with emphases on careful processing methods in
order to maintain the organic integrity and vital qualities of all product stages. •
Become established on any existing farm throu a period of conversion, the
appropriate length of which is determined by site-specific factors such as the
history of the lands, and types of crops and livestock to be produced” (p. 155).
Stinner (2007) stated that the Law of Return advocates for a balance of the cycles
of life and death in a farming system using nature as a model. In natural ecosystems, the
cycles of growth and decay develop a balance. A plant grows, utilizing nutrients from
decaying plant and animal matter made available by microorganisms. Also, Stinner
(2007) argued the disruption of this cycle leads to depleted levels of organic matter,
which increases soil erosion, reduces soil water holding capacity, increases disease and
insect problems, and weakens plants. Howard (2009) promoted techniques to increase
humus levels in the soil by recycling organic farm and human waste products and
fostering soil biological life.
Lemaire et al, (2014) modeled organic agriculture after natural processes
observed in nature. He defined the primary characteristics of organic agriculture as
follows: integration of crops and livestock, diversity of crops, soil preservation, humus
production through recycling plant and animal waste, no waste from production, balance
between growth and decay, a consistent reservoir of fertility present in soil, attention to
water holding capacity and soil water retention, and plants and animals naturally
defending themselves against diseases. Kristiansen, Taji, and Reganold (2006) stated that
by increasing soil health, plant and human health were improved. Rodale, founder of the
Soil and Health Foundation in the United States, summarized this principle as healthy
soils, equal healthy food, and equals healthy people.
Increasing interest in organic agriculture experienced immense growth throughout
the rest of the twentieth century. During the past three decades in the US throughout
much of the world, we have witnessed remarkable innovation and growth in the field of
organic agriculture (Youngberg & DeMuth, 2013). A niche market for organic products
had come about with most items being sold through health food stores and food
cooperatives (Lillard, 2011). The growing interest and demand were most prominently
visible in California. California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF) became the first
private organic certifying organization in the United States (Guthman, 1998).
Certification, a federal legal requirement since October 2002, is administered and
enforced at the national level by the USDA National Organic Program (NOP). The NOP
and its regulatory agents established and promulgated National Organic Standards
(NOS), which guide the production, handling, and processing of products labeled and
marketed as organic (Toomey, 2014). Figure 1 shows that U.S. certified organic cropland
has increased since 2002.
Figure 1 U.S organic pasture and organic cropland, 2002- 2015.
The 2002 Farm Act allocated $3 million dollars yearly to the USDA to fund
grants associated with organic agriculture. The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) of
the USDA had several scientists conducting research on organic systems. Also, the
USDA’s Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) allocated about 19% of
its budget to organic research (Greene & Kremen, 2003).
The 2008 Farm Bill provided $22 million over five years for cost - share
assistance to farmers to offset the costs of becoming USDA certified organic (Hamilton,
2008). United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (2017) said,
“Federal support for organic production systems, including financial assistance
for farmers completing the certification process and funding for organic research, has
increased in each of the last three farm acts. The Agricultural Act of 2014:
•Expands funding to assist organic producers and handlers with the cost of organic
certification. Mandatory funding more than doubles from the 2008 Farm Act’s
mandate to $57.5 million over the lifespan of the 2014 Act.
•Continues mandatory funding to improve economic data on the organic sector at
$5 million over the lifespan of the Act; another $5 million is added to upgrade the
database and technology systems of USDA’s National Organic Program.
•Expands total mandatory organic research funding to $100 million. Authorized
funding for the National Organic Program expands to $15 million annually.
•Exempts certified organic producers from having to pay for conventional
commodity promotion programs on their organic production, and establishes the
option for an organic promotion program.
•Requires improvements in crop insurance for organic producers and strengthens
enforcement of organic regulations” (p.1).
Figure 2 shows the mandatory spending on organic agriculture for 2002, 2008,
and 2014 Farm Acts. This figure shows that federal support for organic production
systems, including financial assistance for farmers completing the certification
procedures and funding for organic research, has increased in each of the last three farm
acts.
Figure 2 U.S. mandatory spending on organic agriculture for 2002, 2008, and 2014
Acts
Organic agriculture developed as a social movement based on and involving joint
efforts by many different interests: farmers, consumers and traders, as well as scientists
and ordinary citizens (Michelsen, 2001). Although organic agriculture is now being
institutionalized as part of agricultural policies and regulated by national and
international legislation, many scholars see that organic agriculture still maintains its own
value-based, movement kind of activism (Kirschenmann, 2000).
Michelsen (2001) studied the organic movement’s desire for self-regulation and
its possibilities in the regulated context of the Europe. The activist character of organic
agriculture is reflected in the social relationships organic farmers have with extension
specialists, inspectors, researchers and consumers (Michelsen, 2001). This has important
implications for training and education. Together with institutionalization during the
1990s, significant environmental concerns have increased in organic agriculture and
changed its character, especially in the European Union (Kristiansen, Taji, & Reganold
(2006). Michelsen (2001) explained that organic agriculture advocates and practitioners
showed a strong desire to change some parts of conventional agriculture, and thus they
were considered to be critical of certain elements of mainstream agriculture. Organic
agriculture has grown from 15.8 million hectares to 37.2 million hectares worldwide in
the course of a decade (Paull, 2011). Organic agriculture is one of the fastest growing
agribusiness sectors in the world, with double-digit annual growth in land under organic
cultivation, value of organic produce and number of organic farmers (Kristiansen, Taji, &
Reganold, (2006). There are 179 countries that have data on organic agriculture, but the
10 countries with the most organic agricultural land are Australia, Argentena, United
States, Spain, China, Italy, France, Uruguy, India, and Germany (Willer & Lernoud,
2017). According to the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement, in
2014 the United States ranked fourth in the world in terms of the production of organic
products, with sales valued at 32.2 billion U.S. dollars, corresponding to about four
percent of total U.S. food sales. Figure 3 shows the 10 countries with the most organic
agriculture land 2015, and it also shows that the United States is ranked as the country
with the third largest organic crop area, and with Australia as the largest and Argentina
the second largest, resulting in these three countries combines have 73% of the world’s
organic agricultural land.
Figure 3 The top ten countries in the world with the most organic agricultural land in
2015.
Source: Willer, H., & Lernoud, J. (2016). Organic Agriculture Worldwide 2016: Current
statistics. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL).
Organic acreage has increased over 10% from 2014 to 2015 in the United States
(National Organic Coalition, 2016). Public interest in organic food and organic farming
has been increasing in the United States. The demand for the organic food has increased
dramatically over the last few years in the United States, but organic crop production is
not increasing proportionally (Liyanage & Bhavsar, 2018).
The United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (ERS-
USDA, 2017) stated that organic food sales are becoming increasingly important in the
U.S. food market. Consumer demand for organic products continues to grow at over 10
percent annually in the United States. This growth trend is an encouraging sign that
consumers recognize and appreciate the multiple benefits of organic agriculture, and are
willing to pay extra for that value (National Organic Coalition, 2016). Rapid consumer
growth trends present an opportunity as well as a challenge. The consumer demand is an
opportunity for new and transitioning U.S. farmers to take advantage of a growing
market that offers higher net returns, on average, than conventional farming (Crowder &
Reganold, 2015). The challenge is that domestic organic production is growing at a much
slower pace than demand, requiring an increasing percentage of U.S. organic food to be
imported to meet consumer needs (National Organic Coalition, 2016).
USDA Economic Research Service (2018) said,
In January 2011, the U.S. Department of Commerce added codes for selected
organic products to the U.S. trade code system. USDA's Foreign Agricultural
Service (FAS) reports monthly trade statistics on these products in the Global
Agricultural Trade System (GATS). For organic exports, the number of tracked
products expanded from 23 in 2011 to 33 in 2016. For organic imports, tracked
products increased from 16 in 2011 to 31 in 2016. Some of the tracked organic
commodities—especially imported ones—have more than one variety due to high
demand for differentiated goods, as can be seen in the following linked tables.
U.S. organic exports that are tracked—mostly fruit and vegetables—reached $548
million in 2016. Top U.S. organic exports (in value) in 2016 were apples, grapes,
and lettuce. Although the United States exported organic products to 79 countries,
Canada and Mexico accounted for 70 percent of the value of tracked U.S. organic
exports in 2016. Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea were also among the United
States' top trade partners for organic products in 2016. U.S. organic imports that
are tracked equaled $1.65 billion in 2016. Top U.S. organic imports in 2016
included bananas, coffee, and olive oil (all of which the United States does not
produce in large quantities), as well as corn and soybeans (to meet growing
demand for organic livestock feed). Turkey, Mexico, Italy, Peru, and Ecuador
supplied 43 percent of tracked U.S. organic imports. In 2016, 87 countries
supplied the tracked organic products to the United States (p. 1).
Produce (fruits and vegetables) and dairy are still the top two organic food
categories, accounting for 43 and 15 percent of total organic sales in 2012. The meat,
fish, and poultry category, which is dominated by poultry sales, gained the most over the
last decade but still represents just 3 percent of total organic sales (USDA Economic
Research Service, 2013). Recent trends have shown a significant surge in U.S. imports of
organic feed grains, most of which is used as feed for organic dairy, poultry and other
livestock operations. For example, the value of imports of organic soybeans increased by
266 percent from 2012 to 2015, and the value imports of organic field corn (yellow dent
corn) increased by 307 percent from 2013 to 2015 (Jaenicke, & Demko, 2015).
Constance and Choi (2010) found that more than 40% of Texas farmers operating
conventional farms had at least some interest in organic agriculture. They concluded that
more institutional support from land-grant universities and Extension is needed to
increase adoption of organic agriculture in Texas. Lillard and Lindner (2012) stated that
an Organic Working Group was created by the Texas AgriLife Extension Service to
address the growing needs and demands for information on organic agriculture. The
working group established four goals, with the highest priority being to assess Texas
Extension agents' needs for information on organic agriculture, and the resources they
need to meet the demand.
Lillard and Lindner (2012) said,
Texas Extension Agents indicated they had not received much formal training in
organic agriculture, but expressed an interest in training and noted traditional
information resources and Extension workshops would be the most useful. The
demand that Texas AgriLife Extension are receiving for information on organic
agriculture has increased, and resources will need to be developed to meet this
growing need. Extension in many regions of the U.S. has already developed
numerous resources on organic agriculture, but more resources relevant for
organic farmers and gardeners in the southern U.S. should be created. These
resources should take many forms as Extension agents are embracing and
utilizing many new technologies (p. 6).
Purpose and Objectives
The purpose of the study was to determine the perception and training needs of
Mississippi State University Extension agents and the level of demand that they were
receiving for information in organic agriculture. The objectives of this study were to:
1. Describe the demographic characteristics of Mississippi State University Extension
agents.
2. Determine the level of demand that Mississippi State University Extension agents
were receiving for information on organic agriculture.
3. Determine the level of confidence of Mississippi State University Extension agents in
conducting activities in organic agriculture.
4. Determine the perception of Mississippi State University Extension agents about
organic agriculture.
5. Identify the importance of organic agriculture topics, the knowledge of
Mississippi State University Extension agents in these topics, and the training needs
of agents in these topics.
6. Determine the relationships between selected demographic characteristics of
Mississippi State University Extension agents and the importance of the organic
agriculture topics, the knowledge of the agents in these topics, and the training needs
of agents in these topics.
.
7. Identify the barriers facing the expansion of organic agriculture in Mississippi from
the point of view of Mississippi State University Extension agents.
The Significance of the Study
Rising health care costs, unemployment, an economy struggling to recover from
the ongoing recession, environmental degradation, and the need to address climate
change are among the most serious problems facing the United States today. Organic
agriculture comes as our nation grapples with these urgent needs and offers some
solutions to help ease those significant problems (Dimitri et al., 2012). Furthermore,
Dimitri (2012) stated that the scientific literature shows that organic farming practices
build soil quality, maintain water quality, support biodiversity, and have potential to
mitigate global climate change. Nejadkoorki (2012) said, “Organic agriculture keeps
biodiversity and reduce environmental pollutions such as air, water, and soil (p. 139).”
The results of this study may have both an academic and practical significance.
This study will be the first that determines the perception and training needs of
Mississippi State University Extension agents in organic agriculture. The results can also
be used to develop professional development and training programs in organic
agriculture for Mississippi State University Extension agents. Mississippi State
University Extension will know the level of the agents’ knowledge and skills in this
aspect of agriculture. Planners in the Mississippi Department of Agriculture and
Commerce will use the results of this study to develop training programs for the
Extension agents, and may let the agents participate in training programs about organic
agriculture in other places to know the modern technologies and transfer these new
technologies to Mississippi.
Results of the study will add to the literature on training needs and about organic
agricultural research and may be used as a basis for additional research on organic
agriculture. This study can help agricultural Extension researchers in Mississippi conduct
other studies about the training needs of Extension agents and farmers about organic
agriculture. In addition, researchers can conduct studies about the diffusion and adoption
of organic agriculture in Mississippi. Findings obtained from this study will be useful in
the planning, implementation, and evaluation of training programs for Extension workers
in the field of organic agriculture.
Definition of Terms
This section provides definitions for the terms that were used in this research. The
following is a list of terms and their definitions from the literature:
1. Agricultural Extension: The exchange of knowledge with the aim of helping
people to develop skills needed to solve their immediate problems and improve their
lives (Seevers & Graham, 2012).
2. Extension agents: Educators employed by extension and assigned to a county or
region, and charged with the responsibility of providing science-based information to
their constituents who are primarily adults (Van den Ban & Hawkins, 1996).
3. Need: A learning or performance gap between the current condition and the
desired condition (Gupta, Sleezer, & Russ-Eft, 2007).
4. Needs assessment: A process for identifying needs and placing them in order of
priority on the basis of what it costs to meet the need versus what it costs to ignore it
(Altschuld & Lepicki, 2010).
5. Training: A planned process to modify attitude, knowledge or skill behaviour
through a learning experience to achieve effective performance in any activity or
range of activities. Its purpose, in the work situation, is to develop the abilities of the
individual and to satisfy current and future manpower needs of the organization
(Masadeh, 2012).
6. Training needs: Training needs are the knowledge, skills, and understanding
required to fill the gap between the farmer's knowledge and the extension worker's
knowledge in order to allow the extension worker to carry out his responsibilities
effectively (Raoufi, 1980).
7. Training needs assessment: A systematic study of a problem or innovation
incorporating data and opinions from varied sources, in order to make effective
decisions or recommendations about what should happen next (Rossett, 1987).
8. Organic agriculture: A system involving the use of organic sources for crop
nutrition, biological sources for pest and disease management, recycling of farm and
animal wastes in order to increase as well as sustain productivity (Yadav, Sood,
Thakur, & Choudhary, 2013).
Assumptions for the Study
1. The instrument of the study provided the necessary information to achieve the
objectives of the study.
2. Mississippi State University Extension agents understood the questions and
respond honestly and sincerely to provide accurate information.
3. Because the respondents were from different counties of Mississippi, the results
were reflective of the training needs of all the Extension agents in organic
agriculture in Mississippi.
4. Responses of agents pertaining to barriers of organic agriculture expansion were
reflective of Mississippi farmers.
Limitations of the Study
1. The study was limited to Mississippi State University Extension agents.
Therefore, the results of the study were limited to this study population and cannot
be extrapolated to all Extension agents in the United States.
2. The study did not include organic farmers because there are not enough farmers
who use organic agriculture in Mississippi.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The purpose of this chapter is to submit a comprehensive review of previous
studies and related literature relative to the training needs of extension agents in organic
agriculture. The review will be arranged by major areas to support the objectives of this
study.
This literature review addresses the following topics: (1) definition of organic
agriculture, (2) development of organic agriculture, (3) organic agriculture in Mississippi,
(4) consumer attitudes toward organic agriculture production, (5) agricultural extension,
(6) Mississippi State University Extension, (7) barriers facing the agricultural extension
work and organic agriculture, (8) needs, (9) needs assessment, (10) training, (11) training
needs, (12) training needs assessment, and (13) theoretical framework.
Organic Agriculture
Organic Agriculture Definition
Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes
and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity. It is based on
minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and
enhance ecological harmony (Reynolds, 2013). Organic agriculture is a production
system that sustains the health of the soil, ecosystems, and people. Organic animals are
allowed extensive locomotion to fields and sunlight rather than being kept indoors
(Naidoo & Ramatsetse, 2015).
In addition, organic food is produced using environmentally and animal-friendly
farming methods on organic farms (The Soil Association, 2015). According to Eloff
(2014), organic food is produced without the use of chemical fertilizers or other artificial
chemicals. Furthermore, only foods that are grown and processed according to organic
standards can be labeled organic.
The Soil Association (2015) indicated that organic farming values the link
between health and the manner in which food is produced. Organic food is produced in
accordance with rules and regulations that define how an organic product is made, and
the sales thereof are strictly regulated. Natural growth is encouraged and artificial
fertilizers are prohibited. Farmers create fertile soil by rotating crops and using compost
and manure. The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement (IFOAM)
(2014) argued that organic food depends on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles
adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of inputs with negative effects.
Bavec and Bavec (2006) said,
The concept of organic farming can be defined in many ways. One of them is the
definition developed by the Codex Alimentarius based on contribution from
experts from all over the world. According to the Codex, organic farming
involves holistic production-management systems for crops and livestock which
emphasize management practices inputs. This is accomplished by using cultural,
biological, and mechanical methods instead of synthetic materials whenever
possible (p. 2).
Organic agriculture is a system for crop, livestock, and fish farming that
emphasizes environmental protection and the use of natural farming techniques (Morgera
et al., 2012). Organic agriculture combines tradition, innovation, and science to benefit
the shared environment and promote fair relationships and a good quality of life for all
involved (Lillard, 2011). Organic farming is a system involving the use of organic
sources for crop nutrition, biological sources for pest and disease management, recycling
of farm and animal wastes in order to increase as well as sustain productivity (Yadav,
Sood, Thakur, & Choudhary, 2013).
Dimitri, Kemp, Sooby, and Sullivan (2012) said,
Organic farming is agriculture that makes healthy food, healthy soils, healthy
plants and healthy environments a priority along with crop productivity. Organic
farmers use biological fertilizer inputs and management practices such as cover
cropping and crop rotation to improve soil quality and build soil organic matter.
By increasing the amount of organic matter in the soil, as nature does on a forest
floor, organic farmers enhance the soil’s ability to absorb water, reducing the
impacts of droughts and flooding. Improving soil organic matter also helps it to
absorb and store carbon and other nutrients needed to grow healthy crops which,
in turn, are better able to resist insects and diseases” (p. 5).
The national organic standards address the methods, practices and substances
used in producing and handling crops, livestock and processed agricultural products.
USDA (2016) said that the main organic standards are:
1. Land will have no prohibited substances applied to it for at least 3 years before
the harvest of an organic crop.
2. Organic farmers are required to maintain buffer zones between organic
farmland and adjacent potential sources of water, chemical or genetic drift to
prevent their crops from being contaminated by actions taken on nearby farms.
3. Use of genetic engineering, ionizing radiation and sewage sludge is prohibited.
4. Soil fertility and crop nutrients will be managed through tillage and cultivation
practices, crop rotations, and cover crops, supplemented with animal and crop
waste materials and allowed synthetic materials. Preference will be given to the
use of organic seeds and other planting stock.
5. Crop pests, weeds, and diseases will be controlled primarily through
management practices including physical, mechanical, and biological controls.
When these practices are not sufficient, a biological, botanical, or synthetic
substance approved for use on the National List may be used.
6. The organic livestock standards, which apply to animals used for meat, milk,
eggs, and other animal products, specify: Animals for slaughter must be raised
under organic management from the last third of gestation, or no later than the
second day of life for poultry. Producers are required to give livestock
agricultural feed products that are 100 percent organic, but may also provide
allowed vitamin and mineral supplements. Organically raised animals may not
be given hormones to promote growth, or antibiotics for any reason. Preventive
management practices, including the use of vaccines, will be used to keep
animals healthy. Producers are prohibited from withholding treatment from a
sick or injured animal; however, animals treated with a prohibited medication
may not be sold as organic. All organically raised animals must have access to
the outdoors, including access to pasture for ruminants (p. 2).
The Development of Organic Agriculture
The organic movement has its roots in early 20th century Europe. Although traces
of an alternative movement in agricultural production methods reach further back into
history, the British organic movement of the 1920s-1940s is generally recognized as the
context for the first pioneers in organic agriculture (Fromartz, 2006). This was the era of
Sir Albert Howard, Lord Northbourne, and Lady Eve Balfour, early organic pioneers who
dedicated themselves to research and promotion of organic ideals. Sir Albert Howard, an
agricultural scientist who served in Great Britain’s Imperial Department of Agriculture
during the early 1900s, was widely recognized as the most influential organic
agriculturalist in the history of the organic movement (Wiegel, 2009). Balfour’s work
helped pave the way for adoption of organic production methods in Europe by providing
farmers with a comparison between organic and conventional farming methods (Conford,
& Dimbleby, 2001).
In the late 1930s in rural Pennsylvania, J.I. Rodale was keen to learn about and
practice organic agriculture. He quickly realized the importance of restoring and
protecting the natural health of the soil to preserve and improve human health (Wiegel,
2009). In 1947, Rodale founded the Soil and Health Foundation, which later become The
Rodale Institute. He was also responsible for a wide range of publications on health and
farming and gardening organically, with a central message and philosophy of healthy
soil, equals healthy food, equals healthy people (Kristiansen, Taji, & Reganold, 2006).
Organic agriculture’s roots are in traditional practices in small communities
around the world where knowledge of effective practices is passed from generation to
generation (Morgera et al., 2012). Beginning in the 1950s, as the U.S. public became
more concerned about the potential adverse environmental and public health effects of
agricultural chemicals and so-called “factory farming” methods, private research
organizations began to conduct scientific investigations into non-chemical and
nonintensive farming techniques, and a small but slowly increasing number of farmers
began to adopt organic production practices (Rawson, 2007).
Besides farmers’ increased adoption of chemical fertilizers and pesticides and
Rodale’s crusade for organic agriculture, other factors of the time deepened the rift
between organic and conventional agriculture. Spurred by Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring,
the environmental movement of the 1960s and 1970s called people’s attention to the
negative effects of excessive chemical usage in agriculture (Carson, 2002). Furthermore,
the 1960s and 1970s “back-to-the-land” movement and anti-establishment social
revolution helped to widen the divide between organic and conventional agriculture
(Conford, 2002).
Morgera, Caro, and DurOn (2012) said:
During the 1970s in United States, the first membership organizations of organic
farmers and consumers were formed at state level. As markets for organic
products expanded beyond direct sales from farmers to consumers grassroots
organizations begun to develop organic standards and certification as a tool to
build trust in the marketplace. Voluntary standards and certification were,
however, only successful to a certain point. Beginning in the 1980s, several states
put in place laws or regulations on organic production and labeling, leading to a
variety of organic standards and approaches to certification. As the organic
market grew nationally, pressure mounted for the adoption of regulatory measures
at the federal level (p.285).
The "Alar Report," published in 1989, revealed that the US domestic market was
flooded with produces fraudulently claimed to be organic. This revelation helped to
solidify political and stakeholder support for a national organic program that would
require certification to one common set of organic standards (Kallander & Rundgren,
2008).
In 1990, the United States Congress passed its first legislation regarding organic
agriculture. This legislation, known as the Federal Organic Foods Production Act
(OFPA), established national standards for governing the marketing of organically
produced products. Goals of the legislation included facilitating interstate commerce of
organic foods and creating assurance for consumers that organically produced products
met a consistent standard (Dimitri & Oberholtzer, 2005). The Farm Act of 2002 contained
several first-time research and technical assistance provisions to directly assist organic
crop and livestock producers with production and marketing (Congress, U. S., 2002). The
Farm Bill of 2008 and the Farm Bill of 2014 increased funding for organic research,
financial assistance for conservation practices, certification cost-share assistance (Greene,
2014).
Organic farming has grown rapidly in the US in recent years. Consumers are
looking for healthier lifestyles and prefer produce free from chemicals (Brown, 2010).
Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) released in
September 2017 (Willer & Lernoud, 2018). Willer and Lernoud (2018) further stated that
2016 farm-gate sales were up 23 percent from 6.5 billion US dollars reported for 2015.
During the same time, certified organic farms grew 11 to 14 percent with acreage
increasing 15 percent to reach 5 million acres.
Organic production in the US has been growing at a rate of around 20% over the
last several years (Brown, 2010). Sales of organic products are reported as being up by
$21.1 billion in 2008 from $3.6 billion in 1997. This rapid growth has caused basically a
large shift in the supporting retailers, manufacturers, and distributors of organic products.
The increased demand has created need for more research and development in this area
(Dimitri & Oberholtzer, 2009). In the United States, 53 percent of organic farms hire
labor in comparison to 22 percent for the entire sector (Demitri, 2010).
Organic farming is specifically designed to grow food without the use of chemical
materials. Exposure to chemicals used in agriculture has been linked to cancer in many
parts of the body including the brain and central nervous system, breast, colon, lungs,
ovaries, pancreas, kidneys, and stomach (Reuben, 2010). There is a large body of
literature that documents the negative impacts of synthetic pesticide exposure on
conventional farm workers and their families (Dimitri, Kemp, Sooby, & Sullivan, 2012).
Some of these problems include increased incidence of certain types of cancers by
farmworkers and their spouses, increased exposure to pesticides by children living in
agricultural areas, and increased incidence of leukemia in children living in agricultural
areas (Demitri, 2012). Proponents of organic agriculture suggest that it helps combat
climate change, fosters species diversity, prevents damage to valuable water resources,
and protects farmers and farmers’ families from exposure to harmful chemicals (Cone,
2010).
Today, Europe and the United States together represent good markets for
organiclabeled products in the world (Willer & Geier, 2005). The amount of certified
organic agricultural land and the number of organic producers in these two regions have
also increased substantially. From 1995 to 2005, the amount of certified organic land
quadrupled and the number of certified organic producers tripled in the Europe (Wiegel,
2009). United States organic land area quadrupled, and the number of organic producers
doubled from 1995 to 2005 (ERSUSDA, 2008).
Australia was the home of the first ‘organic farming’ association and produced the
first “organic” farming periodical by an organic association, and produced the first
statement of organic farming principles (Willer & Lernoud, 2016). Nevertheless, as a
general rule, the organic agriculture movement in Australia has been a ‘fast follower’ of
ideas that originated elsewhere and hat have rapidly diffused internationally (Paull,
2013).
Organic agriculture has great potential in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia for its
water saving features, better nutritional topics, and the ability to fetch premium prices in
national and international markets. People are becoming more health conscious and
majority of them are having positive attitudes toward organic farming (Alzaidi et al.,
2014).
In most countries, fruits and vegetables have consistently been the largest selling
organic product, accounting for over one-third of all retail sales (Dimitri & Oberholtzer,
2009). Organic farming contributes substantially to future agricultural production by
improving soil quality through promotion of better soil structure (aggregates stability and
organic matter supply) and soil nutrition (organic matter supply) (Underwood et al.,
2011). The production and consumption of organic food have increased considerably on a
worldwide scale for the last 40 years. A growing number of people support organic
agriculture for their health, the protection of the environment and the human treatment of
animals (Nikolova, 2013).
A study done by the Rodale Institute that compared non-organic and organic corn
and soybean crop rotations found that after the transition from non-organic to organic
farming, organic corn yields were similar to non-organic yields. The study also showed
that organically-grown crops were significantly more productive than their non-organic
counterparts during periods of drought (Pimentel et al., 2005). Both experimental trials
and empirical farm-level data have indicated that organic cropping systems in the United
States can earn more on a per acre basis than the conventional corn-soybean rotation
often used in the region (Center for Farm Financial Management, 2015; Delate et al.,
2003; Delbridge et al., 2011; Pimentel et al., 2005; Chavas, Posner, & Hedtcke, 2009).
The University of California-Davis Sustainable Agriculture Farming Systems
Project found that organic bean and safflower yields were consistently higher than
nonorganic (Poudel et al., 2002). A five-year study of apples grown in Washington State
showed that average yields from organic, non-organic, and integrated orchards did not
differ (Reganold et al., 2011). Organic and non-organic feed corn and soybean yields
were equivalent during the three-year transition period while organic yields exceeded
nonorganic yields in the fourth year (Dimitri et al., 2012).
Organic farming has spawned a vital industry. Organic food processors,
wholesalers, and retailers all benefit economically from organic foods and the sector
provides jobs for thousands of people (Haumann, 2012). Where once organic foods were
sold primarily in health food stores and at farmer’s markets, today they can be found in
major retail chains, including Wal-Mart, Costco, Kroger, and Target. Many supermarket
chains, like Safeway, carry organic foods and products and their own organic brands.
Organic products are becoming ubiquitous in the United States. A consumer study
conducted by the Hartman Group in 2010 showed that, despite the economic downturn,
75% of consumers in the United States had purchased an organic product that year
(Dimitri et al., 2012). The popularity of organic products has captured investors, who are
experts at analyzing consumer trends. The investment community is acting on the
public’s desire for foods and products that protect their health and that of their families.
This was illustrated in March, 2012, when Annie’s Inc., makers of 125 organic products
sold in more than 25,000 stores in the United States and Canada, saw its initial public
offering on Wall Street soar 89% on the first day (Cowan, 2012).
The demand for organic products has moved some of the country’s largest brands
into the green and organic market place. Several large food processors have augmented
their product lines by acquiring organic companies, including General Mills, Kellogg,
Dean Foods, Kraft, Nestlé, and Pepsi (Howard, 2009). Dimitri et al. (2012) said,
Organic farming presents great opportunity for communities to hire people,
provide jobs and deliver healthy food. The growth in the organic industry
provides our nation with a unique opportunity where demand is outpacing supply.
How we thoughtfully build infrastructure to meet consumer demand for organic
in areas of research, education and policy will shape our ability to sustain a viable
and prosperous country (p. 32).
Organic Agriculture in Mississippi
Organic agriculture is one of the fastest growing segments of agriculture in the
United States. The U.S. organic sector continues its upward trajectory, gaining new
market share and shattering records, as consumers across the United States ate and used
more organic products than ever before. Organic sales in the U.S. totaled approximately
47 billion US dollars in 2016, reflecting new sales of almost 3.7 billion US dollars from
the previous year (Willer & Lernoud, 2018). The demand for produce grown without
chemicals has increased to the extent that many Mississippi supermarkets now carry
certified organic produce. The growth of organic production in Mississippi, while slow,
has shown signs of increasing in recent years (Mississippi State University Extension,
2017).
Mississippi State University Extension has worked to assist farmers convert to
organic methods or to help those who want to begin organic production. The methods can
be used by very small growers (e.g., ½ acre) to very large growers (e.g., 1000 acres)
(Mississippi State University Extension, 2017).
About the sustainable agriculture and organic agriculture in Mississippi, Nassif
(2014) said:
The Mississippi Sustainable Agriculture Network (MSAN) supports healthy
farms and communities to develop economically and ecologically responsible
local food systems throughout Mississippi. MSAN sets four core actions for
itself. One is that it amplifies the voice of farmers by creating forums for political
advocacy, idea and know how exchanges, and equipment sharing. It also
facilitates connections between farmers by keeping a database of both farmers
and consumers in its network and locally specific agricultural knowledge.
Another goal is connecting farmers with both markets and consumers. Finally,
MSAN uses workshops, events, forums, farm tours, demos, and mentorship
programs to spur the growth of sustainable farming in Mississippi (p. 9).
Shoreman and Haenn (2009) said “environmental conditions are improving in the
Mississippi Delta where farmer-based groups, water management districts, and
conservation organizations have improved environmental quality and redefined the role
of agriculture in environmental preservation” (p. 1).
Organic production in Mississippi and other Southern states face numerous
challenges, partly because of some reasons such as a lack of adequate research
information or extension support. However, experiences of Southern organic growers
indicate that successful methods exist and that the situation improves for organic
production with time. In addition, the organic crop value is high, and it is likely that the
demand for organic produce will increase in the future (Mississippi State University
Extension, 2017).
Certified organic acreage and livestock production have been expanding in the
United States for many years, particularly for fruits, vegetables, dairy, and poultry
(Mahan & Raymond, 2016). The Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce
offers the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program for Mississippi organic
producers and handlers who are receiving certification or continuation of certification by
a USDA accredited certifying agent. Funding for the program was through fiscal year
2017. Individual organic operators were eligible for reimbursement of 75 percent of their
2017 (October 1, 2016, through September 30, 2017) certification costs up to a maximum
of $750 per category of certification. (Mississippi Department of Agriculture and
Commerce, 2017).
The National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program in Mississippi currently
recognizes some categories of certification eligible for reimbursement: crops, wild crops,
livestock, handler and State Organic Program fees. Eligible individuals must provide
proof of certification issued by a USDA accredited certifying agent and must be organic
producer and handler located in the Mississippi (Mississippi Department of Agriculture
and Commerce, 2017).
Consumers’ Attitudes toward Organic Food Products
Today, modern consumers are more preoccupied by issues related to food ethics
and sustainable consumption. This may be because of how organic agriculture is
gathered and produced, leading to question the conventional agriculture in favor of the
organic agriculture and organic products that seem to meet their needs, as health
attributes became more important (Oroian et al., 2017). Development of the world food
market has, in recent years, been marked by rapid, unexpected and complex changes. The
world food industry is operating in an explicitly dynamic environment which demands
constant adjustments and responses. These intensive processes increase the competitive
advantage of operating activities on the global market and are the result of numerous
changes in the period of new economy (Vukasovič, 2009).
Within the last three decades, there has been a dramatic change in the agri-food
marketing system. The system, which has become more organized and customer-centric,
is facilitating growth of organized food retailing (Chen et al., 2004). In this saturated
market environment, distribution channels, marketing activities, diversification strategies,
and food quality are increasingly important. In addition, consumers have become more
concerned about the nutrition, health, and quality of food they eat. Therefore, organic
products have become very popular (Gil, Gracia, & Sanchez, 2000).
In recent years, there has been a rising trend in the consumption of organic
products for several reasons. Some consumers buy organic products because they seek to
purchase environmentally-friendly products while others want to become more
healthconscious about what they eat (Vukasovič, 2009). The market for organic products
has increased considerably over the last decade due to consumer’s increasing awareness
of both health and environmental issues. This growth in demand is expected to continue
in the coming years, even though the situation differs from one country to another in term
of type and quantities of production (Vindigni, Janssen, & Jager, 2002). The future of
organic will, to a large extent, depend on consumer demand. Thus, a consumer-oriented
approach to understanding organic agriculture is important not only in its own right, but
also in terms of a response to shifting market dynamics (Bonti-Ankomah & Yiridoe,
2006). Due to increasing consumer dissatisfaction with conventional food and increasing
environmental concerns about intensive production processes in the last few years,
consumer behavior towards organic products has attracted growing research attention
(Lucas et al., 2008). The organic food sector has been growing consistently worldwide, as
172 countries were already producing organic foods in 2014, with an estimated value of
US$ 80 billion (Willer & Lernould, 2016).
Lucas et al. (2008) said:
Four main factors may have contributed to the growth of the organic food
production markets in Portugal and Germany: First, an increasing level of
consumer knowledge about organic agriculture, in parallel with increasing
dissatisfaction with conventional food and environmental concerns; second,
higher levels of consumer trust in the organic origin and in the certification labels
of the products; third, increasing demand of organic agriculture, especially due to
the recent European food crisis and scandals; and fourth, the involvement of big
food retailers in organic agriculture is another factor that can explain an
increasing proportion of organic foods in the total amount of food consumption in
both countries ( p. 3).
The organic food market developed rapidly in Europe. Consumers have raised
great interest to healthy and tasty diet with high nutritional compounds, confidence in
food safety, environmental and animal welfare concern and also sustainability
(Vukasovic, 2015). In the recent years, new food trends have emerged, among the most
popular ones of which is the organic trend. Many food companies have begun offering
organic products that have been stocked on grocery shelves (Solano, 2008).
Increasing demand for organic food occurred simultaneously with the decreasing
confidence in conventional agriculture and increasing health concerns (Saba & Messina,
2003). Crowder and Reganold (2015) stated that the organic agriculture developed
because of the limitations of conventional agriculture in terms of environmental
sustainability (greenhouse gases, soil degradation, biodiversity loss, etc.). Many authors
predict a rapid expansion of this alternative farming system. Herath and Wijekoon (2013)
found that control, attitude and social factors contributed significantly to the adoption of
organic farming. Moreover, attitude contributes greatly to the adoption of organic
farming, followed by social and control factors. Knowledge of organic farming,
environmental topics, age, education and time spent on farming contributed significantly
to attitude formation. However, knowledge was the most important factor.
Organic food production and organic farming are very relevant both for producers
and consumers, since they have the potential to aid in the solution of a range of problems
related to food production, consumer’s safety and quality concerns, environmental
sustainability, animal welfare, and rural development (Lucas et al., 2008).
Healthconscious consumers show a growing preference for organic food over the
conventionally grown food. This shift in the attitude of the modern consumers is greatly
influenced by the rising incidence of lifestyle diseases, such as heart disorders and
depression. The need to purchase organic food to improve the quality of life will have
huge implications for the retail, distribution and marketing functions of business
(Rana & Paul, 2017). Inkoom (2017) said,
Market demand increased in the North-Central states of the United States between
2002 and 2014. Kroger and Walmart, two of the top food retailers in the United
States in 2014, announced organic initiatives including to expand the number of
organic products they sell. This could further incentivize conventional farmers to
transition to organic agriculture. While profit-driven factors continue to induce
the organic industry to grow, recent years have seen an increase in the number of
health-conscious, informed, and demanding consumers, which has led to an
increase in the demand for healthy, safe and environmentally-friendly food
products. The food industry has responded to this increased demand by offering a
wider range of quality differentiated products, including organic food. The
projected increase in sales of organic products in Figure 9 reflects an increasingly
positive attitude among consumers toward the consumption of organic products in
the United States (p. 42).
The increase in sales of organic products in Figure 4 reflects an increasingly
positive attitude among consumers toward the consumption of organic products in the
United States. Consumers demand for organic food products has increased about five
times since 2000.
Figure 4 Organic food sales in the United States from 2000 to 2017.
Source: fibl.org: Media release of FiB, and IFOAM.
Consumers’ understanding of the term organic is consistent with the USDA
definition. Consumers perceived organic foods to be superior in taste, appearance, and
health effects (Renaldi, 2014). Consumer behavior plays a major role in organic food
products segment. The marketers of organic foods need to be innovative and dynamic in
order to compete with the changing purchase behavior in the organic food products
market among urban residents. As results of environmental sustainability, importance is
shifted towards organic food products rather than conventional farming. The study
brought out the fact that the people were well aware of images and availability, but not
loyal entirely to organic food products (Chandrashekar, 2014). Most of the Brazilian
consumers are concerned about health and environmental issues, are aware of risks
associated to eating food with chemical residues, and are willing to pay a premium in
order to consume organic food (Aguiar, 2016).
Agricultural Extension
Agricultural extension agents have a role to play in the uptake of organic farming
practices (Yadav et al., 2013). To advance the uptake of organic agriculture, it is
important to improve agricultural extension agents’ attitudes toward organic farming as a
sustainable agricultural system which contributes to protect the environment and to
achieve abundant food supplies and sustainable agricultural practices (Shiri, Faghiri,
Pirmoradi, & Agahi, 2014). Extension agents are the best source of information and
training for farmers’ participatory development. More frequent contact with extension
agents is also important for improving the effectiveness of extension services (Sarker &
Itohara, 2009). When farmers have more frequent contact with extension agents, then
they can get more reliable information from them, as well as extension agents becoming
more credible with farmers through regular reciprocal communication (Oladosu, 2006).
Agricultural extension is primarily a means of information delivery to farmers.
Improving agricultural production may not be achieved without an effective agricultural
extension service, which is well linked to research information relevant to farmers’ need.
(Munyua, Adams, & Thomson, 2002). Jones and Garforth (1997) said:
Agricultural extension work has a venerable, albeit largely unrecorded, history. It
is a significant social innovation, an important force in agricultural change, which
has been created and recreated, adapted and developed over the centuries. Its
evolution extends over nearly four thousand years, although its modem forms are
largely a product of the past two centuries. Today, the organizations and personnel
engaged in agricultural extension encompass a diverse range of socially
sanctioned and legitimate activities which seek to enlarge and improve the
abilities of farm people to adopt more appropriate and often new practices and to
adjust to changing conditions and societal needs (p.1).
In the United States, the Extension service was established under the Smith-Lever
Act of 1914, with the task of extending agricultural research and innovations from the
Local Government Units (LGUS) to farmers, and to transmit the needs of farmers back to
the LGUS (Rice, 2014). The dominant model guiding the Extension service for the last
half of the twentieth century has been the diffusion of innovation theory. Rural
sociologists at LGUS focused their efforts on studying characteristics of the innovation
adoption process, which aided Extension in transferring new agricultural technologies to
farmers in their counties (Buttel, 1985).
Agricultural extension is believed to be an indispensable pillar both for rural
community progress and as part of a strategy of agricultural development for improving
the sustainability of farming systems, promoting agricultural diversification, and
integrating farmers into dynamic markets (Mengal, Mirani, & Magsi, 2014). They
further stated that agricultural extension services play a multi purpose role with the
provision of need-based and demand-based knowledge with agronomic techniques in
a systematic means so as to improve production, income, rural populations' welfare and
to mitigate their problems.
Extension work is dependent upon the Extension agent, who is seen as a critical
element in the activity. If the agent cannot communicate effectively, no matter how
impressive the input supplied and the resources for an extension work, his or her impact
cannot be felt by the audience. Indeed, the effectiveness of Extension agents often
determines the success or failure of an Extension program. An Extension agent usually
works with people. He or she is an educated, professionally trained person that work with
farmers, many of who might have had little or no formal education and live in rural areas
(Ajayi, & Gunn, 2009).
Extension programs were originally conceived as a service to “extend”
researchbased knowledge to the rural sector in order to improve the lives of farmers.
Extension thus included components of technology transfer, broader rural development
goals, management skills, and nonformal education. The traditional view of Extension in
developing countries was very much focused on increasing production, improving yields,
training farmers, and transferring technology (Davis, 2009).
Extension has a vital role in ensuring that researchers are aware of problems that
farmers face. A partnership is therefore needed between the research system, which
generates technology; the extension agency, which transfers technology; and the farmers
who use the technology. Extension is most effective when relationships among the
partners encourage dynamic, open communication, and feedback. Close and regular
contact with farmers is obviously essential. Ideally, extension transmits problem-solving
information to farmers and information on farmers’ problems back to the research system
(Idowu, 2005). Davis (2009) mentioned that today’s understanding of extension goes
beyond technology transfer to facilitation, beyond training to learning, and includes
helping farmers form groups, deal with marketing issues, and partner with a broad range
of service providers and other agencies.
Mississippi State University Extension
The mission of Mississippi State University Extension is to provide information
and education and to encourage the application of educational of research based
knowledge in response to local, state and national issues affecting individuals, youth,
families, agricultural, enterprises, and communities of Mississippi. The vision of
Mississippi State University Extension is to be widely recognized and respected
organization to provide transformation education to empower people to make an
intelligent decision relating to their vocation, their families, and the environment to
improve the lives of all Mississippians (Mississippi State University Extension Plan,
2017).
Program Areas
There are four program areas of Mississippi State University, which are 4-H &
Youth Development, Agricultural and Natural Resources (ANR), Community Resource
Development, and Family and Consumer Sciences.
4-H & Youth Development
The 4-H Youth program is to improve the quality of life for Mississippi youth by
developing youth potential and by providing “hand-on” (experimental) educational
programs. Program priorities identified include leadership development, life skills
training, developing positive self-esteem, and empowering volunteers. Programs are
delivered through local county Extension offices to volunteer leaders.
Agriculture and Natural Resources (ANR)
Agriculture Natural Resources (ANR) programs deliver research-based
information and technology to landowners, farmers, and agribusiness and natural
resource managers that can be used for more efficient production, marketing and
distribution of food, fiber and fuel products as well as sustained and wise use of forestry,
wildlife, and fisheries resources.
Community Resource Development (CRD)
Community Resource Development’s mission is to strengthen the capacity of
citizens, organizations, and governments within Mississippi to understand community
change and identify opportunities to improve their social and economic well-being.
Education and technical assistance programs are tailored to specific needs of the
community, association, organization, or business.
Family and Consumer Sciences
Family and Consumer Sciences programs improve health and wellness of
Mississippi residents. Nutrition, health, and food safety education programs help
Mississippi residents acquire to knowledge, skills, and behaviors necessary to maintain
healthy lifestyles, reduce the incidence and severity of selected lifestyle related diseases,
and improve safe food practices from farm to table to reduce food-borne illness.
(Mississippi State University Extension Plan, 2017).
Implementation Process
Extension Agents
Effective January 1, 2013, all county level Extension Professional personnel with
the rank of agent were classified as Extension Agents (Levels I, II, III, and IV). In the two
agents county structure, each agent was assigned a focus program area (ANR or
FCS) and all agents were expected to do programming in 4-H and Community Resources
Development (CRD), (i.e. Extension Agent Ag/4-H or Extension Agent & FCS/4-H). In
counties with a third agent, that agent was assigned 4-H as the priority focus area, but
was expected to assist in other program areas as determined by their educational
background and needs of the county. One Extension agent was assigned the responsibility
of being County Coordinator. Although all agents were expected to have some CRD
responsibilities, MSU Extension was in a pilot program where four counties have an
Extension agent dedicated to Community Resource Development.
Assignment of County Professionals to Position
The MSU Extension Administrative team respects the ideas and opinion of
employees and others. With their input, Extension administration has the ultimate
responsibility for establishing and prioritizing organizational goals and for managing
available resources to achieve the desired results.
Professional Training and Development
Extension employees may need additional training to enhance their knowledge
and skills so they can successfully fulfill their new responsibilities. Training and
development needs for each Extension agent and area agent are assessed by Extension
administration.
Extension administration are also responsible for coordinating delivery of in-service
training, as well as Extension faculty and supporting units. A detailed staff development
plan was developed for appropriate in-service training for agents. Future training for all
agents follows the same process. All agents are expected to continue to improve their
knowledge and abilities in their program focus area and also in communication of
information technology skills (Mississippi State University Extension Plan, 2017).
Barriers Facing the Expansion of Organic Agriculture
There are several barriers facing the organic agriculture. Lillard (2011) said, “in
order to increase the amount of organic agricultural production in Texas, the number of
barriers to adopting organic agriculture needs to be addressed” (p. 4). The U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) contracted with organizations in 2014 to identify and
remove barriers to organic certification. The goal of the contracts was to make organic
certification accessible, attainable, and affordable for all operations (Damewood, 2015).
Damewood (2015) further said,
Among other projects, California Certified Organic Farmers CCOF) contract
included hosting two focus groups to learn about economic barriers to organic
agriculture transition. CCOF invited some of participants, including economic
development experts; organic, non-organic, and mixed operation farmers who
produce both organic and non-organic crops; agricultural business representatives;
agricultural policy experts; and other key stakeholders. CCOF contracted with
organic policy expert Mark Lipson to develop the agenda and discussion
questions, and facilitate the group discussions (p. 6).
One of the primary barriers to the adoption of organic agriculture has been
a lack of institutional support. Constance and Choi (2010) mentioned that
increased institutional support could facilitate organic adoption and that its absence
was detrimental to increasing the adoption of organic agriculture production
methods. Many governments in Europe provided subsidies or payments to increase
adoption of organic agriculture and financially assist farmers through the transition
period (Raviv, 2010). Moudry et al. (2009) said,
The major problems of organic agriculture in the Czech Republic were:
1. Dual character of farm size category.
2. High share of permanent grasslands, low stocking rates.
3. Insufficient earnings from bioproducts production.
4. Unsuitable crop rotations.
5. Insufficient seed grain production.
6. Lack of expert knowledge.
7. Insufficient processing capacities. 8. Low consumption of bioproducts.
9. High share of imported bioproducts.
10. Low social image of organic farmers (p. 3).
Also, Moudry et al. (2009) further said,
The major problems of organic agriculture in Australia were.
1. Decrease of legumes production.
2. Decreased sell of chicken and eggs production.
3. Low share of domestic bio-vegetables.
4. Insufficient domestic processing.
5. Low sense of the meaning “nature conservation” within organic farming (p. 5).
As a very particular agricultural system, organic farming encounters many
problems. Some of these problems are common to several countries where organic
farming is applied (Moudry et al., 2009). The barriers facing organic agriculture in
Nigeria were lack of awareness, output marketing problems, shortage of Bio-mass,
inadequate supporting infrastructure, high input costs, non-availability of farm inputs,
lack of appropriate griculture policy, lack of financial support, lack of quality standards
for Bio-manures, inability to meet the export demand, and political and social factors
(USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, 2014). Another study by Mgbenka, Onwubuya, and
Ezeano (2015) mentioned that the challengeings facing organic agriculture in Nigeria are:
Lacks of technical know-how, difficulties in use of commercial organic
fertilizer, lack of awareness of techniques, delays in acceptance of Nigeria
organic products in the world market, lack of research poor local
marketing, low level of organic certification, lack of information on of
activities, little or no polices to safeguard of activitie, lack of institutional
suppor, lack of appropriate inputst, poor private sector involvement in
organic farming, system, lack of technical assistance.
The lack of adequate research-based information and educational support for new
ransitioning farmers learning how to use organic production techniques pose strong
barriers in the transition process (Inkoom, 2017). Inkoom (2017) further stated farmers’
ability to market their product is among the most important concerns when they consider
switching to organic production systems.
Needs Assessment in Extension
Needs
Boone, Safrit, and Jones (2002) define needs as “the difference between the
present condition of the learner and an acceptable norm” (p. 143). Learning or
performance gap between the current condition and the desired condition is called a
‘need’ (Gupta et al. 2007). Need is the gap between current and desired (or required)
results, or (stated another way) the gap in results between ‘what is’ and ‘what should be’.
In its simplest form, a need is a measured discrepancy between the current state (what is)
and the desired one (what should be) (Kaufman & Valentine, 1999). Dixon (2008) stated
that needs motivate people to change their behaviors in order to close the gaps between
what exists and what is desired.
According to Maslow, Frager, & Fadiman, (1970), “needs may be arranged from
lowest and most fundamental to the highest. Maslow explains that individuals must first
acquire the most basic needs, which is physiological survival needs, before they can
attend to those of higher levels. Within this hierarchy, a higher-level need is not activated
until the individual has attained some level of satisfaction of the need (s) below it” (p.
143).
Figure 5 shows the hierarchy of needs from the lowest to the highest:
Figure 5 Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
On a whole, an individual cannot satisfy any high level need until the lower level
is met. Maslow et al. (1970) proposes three principles of operation for these needs:
1. Gratification of the needs in each level, starting with the lowest, frees a person for
higher levels of gratification,
2. Those people in whom a need has been satisfied are best equipped to deal with
deprivation of that need in the future, and
3. Healthy persons are those whose basic needs have been met so that they are
principally motivated by the need to actualize their highest potentialities. (p.
143).
Needs Assessment
A needs assessment is a concept familiar to grassroots involvement, which has
helped Extension maintain relevance with clientele for many decades. To be most
efficient at developing and implementing quality educational programs, it is imperative
that Extension partners with community leaders in the areas of Agricultural and Natural
Resources, Family and Consumer Sciences, 4-H Youth Development, and Community
and Economic Development (Cummings & Boleman, 2006). Extension professionals
work in an environment where assessment data is necessary for planning action,
communicating to external stakeholders, and training volunteers and community partners
(O’Connor & Zeldin, 2005).
Needs assessment is a process of figuring out how to close a learning or
performance gap. It involves determining what the important needs are and how to
address them (Tracey & Tews, 2005). Needs assessment is a process for identifying needs
and placing them in order of priority on the basis of what it costs to meet the need versus
what it costs to ignore it (Altschuld & Lepicki, 2010). Kaufman (1994) explained that a
needs assessment identifies gaps in capabilities, abilities, and on-the-job results
(performance), and places the identified needs in order of priority for resolution.
Need assessment can also be defined as an investigation undertaken to determine
the nature of performance problems in order to establish the underlying causes and the
way training can address them (Erasmus et al., 2000). Needs assessment is a process for
identifying gaps in results and arranging them in priority order for resolution. These gaps
are discrepancies between what should be and what the current conditions are. Needs
assessment can be used in several ways. Sometimes the gap between “what is” and “what
should be” establishes the objectives for programs. Needs assessment will also help select
the strategy a program might use (Jackson-Banks, 2009). Conducting needs assessment
provides many advantages to individuals planning collaborative efforts. A major
advantage is the generation of new ideas and alternatives for dealing with needs (Archer,
Cripe, & McCaslin, 2001).
Training
Training is a process of learning a sequence of programmed behavior. It is
application of knowledge and it attempts to improve the performance of employee on the
current job and prepares them for the intended job. Training is a short-term process
utilizing a systematic and organized procedure by which nonmanagerial personnel
acquires technical knowledge and skills for a definite purpose (Bohlander, Snell, &
Sherman, 2007). Malone (1984) stated that training is a term used to describe the
programs and activities that are conducted by the organization for the purpose of
maintaining and upgrading competencies of the staff to perform those tasks related to
their jobs which aid the organization to reach its goals within its stated missions.
Training consists of a planned program designed to improve performance at the
individual, group, and /or organizational levels. Improved performance, in turn, implies
that there have been measurable changes in knowledge, skills, attitudes, and/or social
behavior (O'Toole, & Lawler, 2007). Training has been identified as one of the most
effective vehicles for learning and will contribute to quality and improvements in the
performance of people in their jobs (Mullins, 2007).
Training Needs
A training need is a shortage of skills or abilities, which could be reduced or
eliminated by means of training, education, and development (Man, Saleh, Hassan,
Zidane, Nawi, & Umar, 2016). Borich (1980) defined "training need" as a discrepancy
between an educational goal and a trainee’s performance in relation to this goal. Raoufi
(1980) stated that training needs are the knowledge, skills, and understanding required to
fill the gap between the farmer's knowledge and the extension worker's knowledge in
order to allow the extension worker to carry out his responsibilities effectively. Saleh,
Man, & Al-Hamdany (2016) stated that Extension workers, researchers, and local farmers
should cooperate in the Extension work, especially in the planning, implementation, and
evaluation of the extension programs to develop the extension service.
McClelland (2002) listed the following as general benefits of training:
• Increased job satisfaction and morale.
• Increased motivation.
• Increased efficiencies in processes, resulting in financial gain.
• Increased capacity to adopt new technologies and methods.
• Increased innovation in strategies and products.
• Reduced employee turnover.
Training is one of information sources that can be used by extension agents or
farmers as part of solving a management or technical problem. Liepins and Campbell
(1997) considered that producers learn organic farming practices through a complex
process involving awareness triggers, technical competencies and information
networking. Producers begin with a background range of skills, interests and resources
such as educational training. These and other key awareness triggers such as organics
conferences and the development of new organic markets can make a desire to learn
more about organic production in potential and existing organic producers.
Alibaygi and Zarafshani (2008) found in their study on the training needs of
Extension agents about sustainability that the top five competencies in need by
agricultural Extension agents were agricultural waste management, participatory
technology development, water conservation, integrated crop management, and soil
erosion. Lillard (2011) found in his study that agricultural extension agents were most
interested in training on organic soil fertility, insect, weed, and disease management and
least interested in training on organic certification and transitioning to organic
agriculture. Elhamoly, Koledoye, & Kamel (2014) indicated that agricultural extension
agents in Egypt needed training regarding the appropriate amounts of bio-fertilizers, steps
in utilizing bio-fertilizers, steps in utilizing IPM, appropriate amounts of IPM,
appropriate amounts of organic fertilizers, benefits of organic fertilizers, types of
biofertilizers, and preconditions of organic farming. Alotaibi (2018 a) stated that almost
95% of agents indicated their interest in receiving future organic agriculture training.
Agents expressed the most interest in training topic areas related to organic agriculture in
general, marketing of organic produces, weed management, and transitioning to organic
agriculture.
A study in India about the training need of Extension workers in organic
agriculture by Yadav, Sood, Thakur, and Choudhary (2013) indicated,
The majority of extension workers reported medium to high training needs in
seven specific areas: biodynamic farming, homa farming, bio-rational pest
management techniques, biological methods of pest control, bio-fertilizer
technology, record keeping/certification standards, and grading/packing and
marketing of organic produce. The majority of extension workers reported low or
no training needs in the areas of composting/vermicomposting, green
manuring/green leaf manuring, and crop rotations. There was no significant
relationship between age, educational qualifications, or service experience with
identified training needs. To achieve the potential for the uptake and successful
implementation of organic farming amongst Himachal Pradesh farmers, the
training of HPSDA agricultural extension workers could concentrate on
improving their knowledge in the seven identified areas of organic farming skills
(p. 17).
Lillard (2011) stated that Texas Extension agents were interested in training on
organic agriculture. Topics receiving the most interest were soil, weed, disease, and insect
management in organic systems, while there was less interest in marketing, organic
certification, and transitioning to organic agriculture.
Hussain et al. (2010) indicated that the most prominent training needs of
agricultural Extension administrators in efficient decision making processes in Pakistan
were describe the agronomic practices of minor crops, advise about the plant protection
of minor crops, guide farmers about the seed rate of minor crops, describe the agronomic
practices of major crops, advise about the fertilizer requirement of minor crops, make
decisions based on statistical results, analyze statistical data, and interpret statistical data.
Al-Rimawi (2004) found that farm management and marketing skills were the most
important training needs in Jordan. Sahu, Sachan, Raman, and Khilendra (2011) found
the knowledge gap of farm women was 39.15%, and most of women need training in
vegetable cultivation.
Okwoche, Ejembi, and Obinne (2011) found that the main training needs of
extension agents in Nigeria are communication skills, planning demonstration, evaluation
of trials, farmers training, evaluation of extension programs, subject-matter expertise and
communication, and personal qualities. A study of training needs by Hassan, Griffith, and
Stephenson (2005) suggested that in order for any training to be purposeful and effective,
it must reflect the actual needs of participants. Training is associated with the work
performance of personnel, and performance ‘gaps’ imply that there is a shortfall in the
knowledge and/or skills required to undertake certain roles or tasks.
Training Needs Assessment
Training needs assessment involves studying the ways of designing and
developing instructional and informational programs and materials, after the performance
analysis has determined that training or informational materials are indeed appropriate
(Tracey & Tews, 2005). Training needs assessment is dominated by senior management
decisions and supervisors’ opinions. The skills inventory is the most widely applied
formal technique. Organizations tend to pay more attention to customers and work groups
when defining training needs (Mathews et al. 2001).
A training needs assessment consists of finding the problem and understanding it
sufficiently so it can be solved. For training using simulations, an assessment should be
conducted regarding the skill level of the trainees, the environment they will be operating
in, and the desired performance results. After the identification of problems or challenges,
subsequent steps will consist of designing, developing, implementing, and evaluating the
training solutions (Rosett, 1987). Furthermore, Rossett (1987) said, " A training needs
assessment identifies specific problems within an organization by using appropriate
methods of gathering information (such as surveys, interviews or observations),
determines which of the problems requires a training solution, and then uses the
information to design training interventions that solve the original problem" (p.3). A
training needs assessment is used to determine whether training is the right solution to a
workplace problem. It is an ongoing process of gathering data to determine what training
needs exist so that training can be developed to help the organization accomplish its
objectives (Tracey, 2010).
Theoretical Framework
According to Zarafshani et al. (2008), the individual or group that falls short of
the desirable standard is said to be in need. This study is inspired by a definition of
training needs proposed by Borich (1980), who indicated that a need is a discrepancy or
gap between "what is", or the present state of affairs in regard to the group and situation
of interest, and "what should be", or desired state of affairs. According to Borich (1980),
institutions engaging in any training program continually look for ways to determine
training effectiveness and improve their training techniques. The most frequent method
used to assess training needs is usually the follow-up study questionnaire to those that
have received the training or courses of study to solicit opinions about the program and
the training received or needed.
Borich (1980) proposed a model for collecting data for this type of information
that took into account a predetermined method of analyzing and interpreting data. Also,
Borich stated, “a training need can be defined as a discrepancy between an educational
goal and trainee performance in relation to this goal” (p. 39). Furthermore, a training
need is a discrepancy between the performances relating to the goal of the institution. The
Borich Needs Assessment Model combines the importance of the subject and the need for
in-service education to determine training needs. The differences between the two can
then be used as a measure of effectiveness (Barrick, Ladewig, & Hedges, 1983). The
formula of the discrepancy between the two can be calculated and ranked in descending
order. The results of the rankings of the goals can be used as a tool to develop or revise
existing training. The Borich Needs Assessment Model is based on individual judgment
and assumptions the respondents make based on their own performance and objectively
respond to their current condition. The Borich (1980) Needs Assessment Model, through
self-evaluation depends on the formulation of competency statements to be used in the
survey.
A study conducted by Barrick et al. (1983) tested the Borich Needs Assessment
Model in a program of in-service planning by not only seeking input from program
participants on what training they want, but also by incorporating variables such as
importance, knowledge, and application. The study concluded that “teachers ranked the
12 in-service topics differently on the basis of importance, knowledge, and application”
(p. 19). By utilizing the weighted and ranked training needs, Borich (1980) determines
whether to revise the program or revise the competency. Albright (2000) states that
Borich (1980) suggested that the “emphasis of the training program be modified to match
high priority competencies because a competency is highly valued but poorly performed,
the problem may derive from insufficient rather than ineffective training” (p.41). The
Barrick et al. (1983) study provided the methodological framework for this study to
determine a process to identify training needs.
The important practical characteristic of Borich Need Assessment Model is that it
relies on Extension agents' judgments about their own performances. The assumption
underlying the needs model is that the performer (Extension agents) can best judge his or
her own performance and, when explicitly asked to do so, can make an objective
judgment. This can enhance the credibility of the self-report and provide an additional
vantage point from which to judge discrepancies between program intents and
agricultural extension agents' performance (Alibaygi & Zarafshani, 2008). Some studies
have used Borich's Needs Assessment Model to identify in-service training needs of
agriculture educators such as Elhamoly et al. (2014), Duncan et al. (2005), JacksonBanks
(2009), and Layfield and Dobbins (2000).
Calculating Mean Weighted Discrepancy
Calculating the mean weighted discrepancy score for each knowledge topic listed
is a two step process. The first step determines the weighted discrepancy score of each
respondent on each knowledge topic. It is calculated by subtracting the knowledge rating
from the importance rating and multiplying the result by the importance rating for that
topic. The second step calculates the mean weighted discrepancy for each topic by
dividing the sum of the weighted discrepancy scores of each topic by the number of
respondents. This step results in the mean weighted discrepancy (Courson, 1999). This
process results the mean weighted discrepancy.
Discrepancy Score Formula:
∑[I*(I-K)]
N
where:
I = Importance rating
K = Knowledge rating
N = Number of respondents
I*(I-K) = Weighted Discrepancy Score (WDS)
Sum of WDS = Mean Weighted Discrepancy (MWD)
N
The mean weighted discrepancies for each knowledge topic are then ranked in
descending order to indicate the training need. High rated importance and low rated
knowledge topic will always be ranked higher than topic rated low for importance and
high for knowledge. Therefore, the model provides a quantitative method to determine
the lack of knowledge (Courson, 1999).
CHAPTER III
RESARCH METHODS
This chapter presents the research design, population of the study, instrumentation
procedures, data collection procedures, and data analysis that were used in this study. The
objectives of this study were to:
1. Describe the demographic characteristics of Mississippi State University
Extension agents.
2. Determine the level of demand that Mississippi State University Extension agents
were receiving for information on organic agriculture.
3. Determine the level of confidence of Mississippi State University Extension
agents in conducting activities in organic agriculture.
4. Determine the perception of Mississippi State University Extension agents about
organic agriculture.
5. Identify the importance of the organic agriculture topics, the knowledge of
Mississippi State University Extension agents in these topics, and the training needs
of agents in these topics.
6. Determine the relationships between selected demographic characteristics of
Mississippi State University Extension agents and the importance of the organic
agriculture topics, the knowledge of the agents in these topics, and the training needs
of agents in these topics.
7. Identify the barriers facing the expansion of organic agriculture in Mississippi
from the point of view of Mississippi State University Extension agents.
Research Design
This study utilized descriptive survey research design. The design of any study
provides the general framework for the acquisition and analysis of data associated with
57
the phenomenon under investigation (Bryman & Gramer, 2008). Some descriptive studies
involve primarily the administration of questionnaires, and this type of research,
sometimes called survey research, has yielded much valuable knowledge about opinions,
attitudes, and practices (Gall, Gall, Borg, 2007). Extension educators regularly conduct
needs assessment surveys to develop programs to meet their clients’ education needs
(Gilmore, Campbell, & Becker, 1989).
Quantitative research tends to rely more heavily on deductive reasoning,
beginning with certain premises (e.g., hypotheses, theories) and then drawing logical
conclusions from them (Walliman, 2011). Quantitative methods can provide an extensive
coverage of a range of situations, and they can be fast and economical with statistics
aggregated from large samples; they may be of considerable relevance to policy decisions
(Lewis, Thornhill, & Saunders, 2007). The aim of this study was to determine the training
needs of Mississippi State University Extension agents based on a weighted discrepancy
needs assessment model developed by Borich (1980).
Population of the Study
The population of this study consisted of all Mississippi State University Extension
agents in all 82 counties (N= 154) employed as of May, 2018. All Extension agents were
invited to participate in this study. The researcher gained the emails of Mississippi State
University Extension agents from Ms. Lisa Clardy, Mississippi State University
Extension Program Manager. According to Ms. Clardy, the population size of Extension
agents with the Mississippi State University Extension was 154 Extension agents in May
2018 (L. Clardy, personal communication, May, 2017).
58
Instrumentations Procedures
To obtain the data and to achieve the objectives of this study, a survey was
developed that consisted of four sections.
The first section evaluated the level of demand for information on organic
agriculture that Mississippi State University Extension agents were receiving from clients
over the past five years. This section consisted of four items. The first item asked
Extension agents to rate the change in demand for information on organic agriculture
over the past five years using the following choices: decreased greatly, decreased slightly,
stayed the same, increased slightly, increased greatly, and I do not know. The second item
asked Extension agents to report the percentage of producers wanting to grow organically
in their counties using the following choices: less than 25% of the producers in my
county, 25% - 50% of the producers in my county, 51% - 75% of the producers in my
county, more than 75% of the producers in my county, and I do not know. The third items
asked Extension agents to report how frequently they provide information on organic
agriculture using the following choices: never, once a month, two to three a month, once
a week, several times a week, and not applicable to my current role. The last item asked
Extension agents to report their primary audiences for information about organic
agriculture using the following choices: full-time livestock producers, part-time livestock
producers, full-time row crops producers, part-time row crop producers, fulltime produce
growers, part-time produce growers, home gardeners, consumers, other
Extension agents, and not applicable to my current role.
In the second section, participants were asked to indicate how confident they felt
about performing certain tasks related to organic agriculture. Extension Agents were
asked to rate their level of confidence using the following scale: 1= Not at all confident,
59
2= Not very confident, 3=Neutral, 4=Somewhat confident, and 5= Very confident.
The third section evaluated Mississippi State University Extension agents’
perceptions of organic agriculture. Agents were asked to rate their level of agreement or
disagreement to 18 statements using the following five-point Likert-type scale (1 =
Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly Agree).
The fourth section consisted of 29 organic agriculture topics that were identified
from the literature. Mississippi State University Extension agents were asked to rate the
importance of each of the 29 topics and their current level of knowledge in these topics
using a Likert-type scale. Number 1 being least important and 5 being the most
important. Also, number 1 being least knowledge and 5 being the most knowledge.
The fifth section consisted of several barriers facing organic agriculture in Mississippi
which has been obtained from scientific sources and research related to this subject.
Mississippi State University Extension agents were asked to rate the barriers using the
following Likert-type scale: 1=Not a barrier, 2=Somewhat of a barrier, 3= Moderate
barrier, 4=Extreme barrier.
The sixth section consisted of demographic characteristics of extension agents.
The demographic characteristics were age, gender, program area, highest level of
education, years of Extension experience, information sources about organic agriculture,
number of training courses in organic farming, and kinds of experience or training related
to organic agriculture.
Validity
Validity is the extent to which research findings accurately represent what is
really happening in a given situation (Collis & Hussey, 2013). Content validity is
60
determined systematically by content experts, who defined in precise terms the universe
of specific content that the test is assumed to represent, and then determined how well
that content universe is sampled by the test items (Gall et al., 2007). Validity is
undermined by research errors, such as faulty research procedures, poor samples,
inaccurate or misleading measurements and ambiguity about causal direction (Saunders,
Lewis, & Thornhill, 2012). Therefore, to meet the criteria for validity, the researcher
should develop an accurate measurement tool that better reflects understanding of the
questions included in the measurement tool; this guarantees that all respondents are
enlightened to respond to all questions.
Arkansas Extension agents and committee members of this study assessed the
content validity of the questionnaire. Mississippi State University Institutional Review
Board (IRB) approved the final instrument and the study (Appendix C). Permission was
granted by Dr. Gary Jackson, Director of the Mississippi State University Extension, to
conduct the current study (Appendix A).
Reliability
A pilot test of the instrument was conducted utilizing 18 Extension agents from
Arkansas. Data collection was accomplished through the use of an electronic survey
through Qualitrics.com. The first email was sent to the Arkansas Extension agents in
April 23, 2018. Of those 18, 6 participants responded. The second email was sent to
agents who did not respond on April 30, 2018. Only 12 participants responded by May 7,
2018, to the survey. Two statements of the barriers facing the expansion of organic
agriculture were deleted according to the comments of the agents.
61
Reliability of 5 scales used in this study was tested using Cronbach’s alpha. The
analysis resulted in the following Cronbach’s alpha levels for each scale: The level of
confidence of Extension agents in conducting activities in organic agriculture (a = .978),
the level of agents’ perception in organic agriculture (a = .765), the importance of organic
agriculture topics (a = .942), the current knowledge of Extension agents in organic
agriculture (a = .990), and the barriers facing the expansion of organic agriculture in
Mississippi (a = .939).
Data Collection Procedures
Data collection was accomplished through the use of an electronic survey through
Qualitrics.com. An electronic version of the questionnaire was sent via email using
Qualtrics.com. A written consent form was included at the beginning of the questionnaire
informing Extension agents of the study's purpose, their rights as participants, and the
researcher's and the major advisor's contact information if they had questions. In
addition, the consent form contained consent and reject radio buttons. The questionnaire
was sent to all 154 Mississippi State University Extension agents included in the
population.
The first request was sent to 154 Extension agents on May 9, 2018 with 35 agents
responding. A second request was sent to the 119 non-respondents on May 17, 2018
asking them again to participate in the survey. Thirty-six Extension agents responded to
the request. Following the second request, a third request was sent to the 83
nonrespondents on May 24, 2018. Thirteen Extension agents responded to this request.
62
Data collection ended on June 1, 2018, with 84 agents responding for a 55% response
rate.
Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using the SPSS Version 24.0 statistical software. Descriptive
statistics including percentages, frequencies, means, and standard deviations, were used
to summarize the data. Means and standard deviations were obtained for each organic
agriculture topics for the entire population and for subgroups of the population. Research
objectives one and two were addressed by ranking the frequencies and percentage of the
overall respondents. Research objective three was addressed by ranking the means and
standard deviation of the entire statements related to the confidence of Mississippi State
University Extension agents in conducting activities in organic agriculture. Research
objective four was addressed by ranking the means of the entire statements related to the
perception of Mississippi State University Extension Agents in organic agriculture.
Research objectives five was addressed by ranking the importance means, knowledge
means, and training needs (MWD) means of all organic agriculture topics. Research
objective six was addressed by comparing importance means, knowledge means, and
MWD from each subgroup using the Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test for independent
variables. The independent variables and the dependent variables in this study met the
criteria for using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted on pairs
of rankings as a post hoc test to determine which subgroups differed on the topics found
to be significantly different. Research objective seven was addressed by ranking the
means and of the entire statements related to the barriers facing the expansion of organic
agriculture from the point of view of Mississippi State University Extension agents. In
63
addition, Kruskal-Wallis H values and mean weighted discrepancies were also derived
from the data.
64
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
This chapter describes the results of the developed questionnaire and present the
findings. The purpose of the study was to determine the perception and training needs of
Mississippi State University Extension agents and the level of demand that they were
receiving for information in organic agriculture. The objectives were to:
1. Describe the demographic characteristics of Mississippi State University
Extension agents.
2. Determine the level of demand that Mississippi State University Extension agents
were receiving for information on organic agriculture.
3. Determine the level of confidence of Mississippi State University Extension
agents in conducting activities in organic agriculture.
4. Determine the perception of Mississippi State University Extension agents about
organic agriculture.
5. Identify the importance of the organic agriculture topics, the knowledge of
Mississippi State University Extension agents in these topics, and the training needs
of agents in these topics.
6. Determine the relationships between selected demographic characteristics of
Mississippi State University Extension agents and the importance of the organic
agriculture topics, the knowledge of agents in these topics, and the training needs of
the agents in these topics.
7. Identify the barriers facing the expansion of organic agriculture in Mississippi
from the point of view of Mississippi State University Extension agents.
Demographic Characteristics
The first objective was to describe the demographic characteristics of Mississippi
State University Extension agents. Demographic characteristics included age, gender,
65
percentage of assignment with Extension devoted to each program area, years of
Extension work experience, highest education level, information sources, number of
trainings attended relating to organic agriculture, and types of experiences of Extension
agents with organic agriculture.
Because there were a limited number of Extension agents, the age category 60 and
over was recoded to 50 years and over. Furthermore, bachelor’s degree plus graduate
work towards masters was recoded with bachelor’s degree, and master’s degree plus
graduate work towards doctorate was recoded to master’s degree. Moreover, 5 or more
trainings was recoded to 3 or more trainings that Extension agents attended related to
organic agriculture.
Age
Table 2 gives the age distribution of respondents. The age of respondents ranged
from less than 30 years of age to over 50 years of age. The largest percentage of the
respondents were between the ages of 40 and 49 years (35% or f = 27). Approximately
30%, (f = 23) of the respondents were between the age of 30 and 39 years. Only 7.8%,
(f = 6) of the respondents were less than 30 years old.
Table 2 Age groups of Mississippi State University Extension agents
Age Group f %
Less than 30 6 7.8
30 - 39 23 29.9
66
40 - 49 27 35.0
50 and over 19 24.7
Not reported 2 2.6
Total 77 100.0
Gender
Of the respondents, 49.3% (f = 38) were male and 48.1% (f = 37) were female.
Two respondents did not report their gender (see Table 3).
Table 3 Gender of Mississippi State University Extension agents
Gender f %
Male 38 49.3
Female 37 48.1
Not reported 2 2.6
Total 77 100
Percentage of Agents’ Assignment with Extension Areas
Percentage of assignment devoted to Agriculture and Natural Resources
Table 4 shows the percentage of the agents’ assignment with Extension devoted to
Agriculture and Natural Resources. This table reveals that 28.6% (f = 22) of the
respondents had between 26-50% of their assignment with Extension devoted to
Agriculture and Natural Resources and 18.2% (f = 22) had zero percent of their
67
assignment with Extension devoted to Agriculture and Natural Resources. Only 10.4% (f
= 8) of the respondents had between 1-25% of this assignment with Extension devoted to
Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Table 4 Percentage of assignment with Extension devoted to Agriculture and Natural
Resources
Percentage f %
0% 14 18.2
1-25% 8 10.4
26-50% 22 28.6
51-75% 13 16.9
76-100% 9 11.6
Not sure 1 1.3
Not reported 10 13.0
Total 77 100.0
Percentage of assignment devoted to Family & Consumer Sciences
Table 5 shows the percentage of the agents’ assignment with Extension devoted to
Family & Consumer Sciences. Approximately 22% (f = 17) had zero percent of their
assignment with Extension devoted to Family & Consumer Sciences and 19.4% (f = 11)
had 26-50% of this assignment with Extension devoted to Family & Consumer Sciences.
Almost 9% (f=7) had between 76-100% of their assignment with Extension devoted to
68
Family & Consumer Sciences and only 5.2% had between 51-75% of their assignment
with Extension devoted to Family & Consumer Sciences.
Table 5 Percentage of assignment with Extension devoted to Family & Consumer
Sciences
Percentage f %
0% 17 22.1
1-25% 15 19.4
26-50% 11 14.3
51-75% 4 5.2
76-100% 7 9.1
Not sure 0 0.0
Not reported 23 29.9
Total 77 100.0
Percentage of assignment devoted to 4-H & Youth Development
Table 6 shows the percentage of the agents’ assignment with Extension devoted to
4-H & Youth Development. Table 6 reveals that 36.4% (f = 28) of the respondents had
between 1-25% of their Extension assignment devoted to 4-H & Youth Development. The
same percentage of respondents had between 26-50% of their Extension assignment
devoted to 4-H & Youth Development. There were 10.3% (f = 8) of the respondents had
between 51-75% of their assignment with Extension devoted to 4-H & Youth
69
Development and 9.1% (f = 7) of the respondents had between 76-100% of this
assignment with Extension devoted to 4-H & Youth Development.
Table 6 Percentage of assignment with Extension devoted to 4-H & Youth
Development
Percentage f %
0% 0 0.0
1-25% 28 36.4
26-50% 28 36.4
51-75% 8 10.3
76-100% 7 9.1
Not sure 0 0.0
Not reported 6 7.8
Total 77 100.0
Percentage of assignment devoted to Community Resource Development
Table 7 shows the percentage of the agents’ assignment with Extension devoted to
Community Resource Development. A majority of the respondents 71.4%, (f = 55) had
between 1-25% of their Extension assignment devoted to Community Resource
Development and 6.5% (f = 5) had between 26-50% of their Extension assignment
devoted to Community Resource Development. Only one of the respondents had 51-75%
of their assignment with Extension devoted to Community Resource Development.
70
Table 7 Percentage of assignment with Extension devoted to Community Resource
Development
Percentage f %
0% 0 0.0
1-25% 55 71.4
26-50% 5 6.5
51-75% 1 1.3
76-100% 2 2.6
Not sure 2 2.6
Not reported 12 15.6
Total 77 100.0
Extension Work Experience
The results of the study indicated that 33.7% (f = 22) of the respondents had
between 6-10 years of Extension work experience in all states and 28.6% (f = 22) of the
respondents had more than 29 years of Extension work experience. Over 15% (f = 12) of
the respondent had between 11-20 years of Extension work experience. Only two
respondents did not report their years of Extension work experience (see Table 8).
Table 8 Years of Extension work experience
Years f %
<5 15 19.5
6-10 26 33.7
11-20 12 15.6
71
>20 22 28.6
Not Reported 2 2.6
Total 77 100
Highest Level of Formal Education Completed
The frequencies and percentages of the highest level of education completed by
Extension agents are presented in Table 9. Three fourth of the respondents (75.3% or
(f = 58) held a master’s degree. Only 16.9% (f = 13) held bachelor degrees, and 5.2%
(f = 4) held a doctorate.
Table 9 Highest level of formal education completed by Extension agents
Education f %
Bachelor's degree 13 16.9
Master's degree 58 75.3
Doctorate 4 5.2
Not reported 2 2.6
Total 77 100.0
Information Sources about Organic Agriculture
Respondents were asked to indicate how they received information about organic
agriculture. Table 10 shows that 54.5% (f = 42) of the respondents indicated that
Extension faculty specialists were their primary source of information about organic
agriculture. Approximately 52% (f = 40) of the respondents indicated that online sources
72
such as websites, blogs, and discussion boards were an information source. Furthermore,
45.5% (f = 35) reported that other Extension agents was an information source. Only
10.4% (f = 8) of respondents indicated that university and college courses were their
information sources. Only 1.3% (f = 1) indicated that an information source was
academic journals and the same percentage (1.3%) of respondents indicated that the
USDA was an information source about organic agriculture.
Table 10 Information source about organic agriculture
Source f %
Extension faculty specialists 42 54.5
Online sources (e.g., website, blog, discussion board) 40 51.9
Other Extension agents 35 45.5
Extension in service training (e.g., field day, workshop) 24 31.1
Local agricultural producers 21 27.3
Professional conference 16 20.8
University/ college course 8 10.4
Academic journals, ongoing research on economic of organic
agriculture
1 1.3
USDA 1 1.3
Not applicable to my current role 13 16.9
Note: Participants could select more than one choice
73
Number of Trainings Attended Related to Organic Agriculture
Table 11 presents the frequencies and percentages of the number of trainings that
Extension agents had attended related to organic agriculture. Over half of the respondents
(50.6% or f = 39) had attended zero trainings related to organic agriculture.
Approximately 25% (f = 19) of the respondents had attended 1-2 trainings about organic
agriculture. Only 6.5% (f = 4) had attended 3 or more trainings related to organic
agriculture. However, over 14% (f = 11) reported that number of trainings was not
applicable to their current role.
Table 11 Number of trainings that Extension agents had attended related to organic
agriculture
Training f %
0 39 50.6
1-2 19 24.7
3 or more 5 6.5
Not applicable to my current role 11 14.3
Not reported 3 3.9
Total 77 100.0
Experience Mississippi State University Extension agents had with Organic
Agriculture
Mississippi State University Extension agents had different types of experience
with organic agriculture. Some of them worked with a variety of organic producers
74
including vegetable, fruit, cattle, and dairy producers. Also, there were agents who
worked with producers for farmers markets. Some agents stated that they answered
questions from clients about organic agriculture. Table 12 lists the experiences that
Mississippi State University Extension agents had with organic agriculture.
Table 12 Experiences of Extension agents with organic agriculture
• Information usually requested from gardener that have had experience with cancer.
Lot of office visits about the gardeners of chemical after the client has visited internet
sites and now is scared of commercial farming practices.
• Assisting blueberry producer with the issue of low yield and plant health
• Choctaw Fresh Produce Certified Organic Vegetable Farms
• Clients asking questions about organic methods in gardens
• Couple of organic growers in county
• Education
• Farmer Market – High Tunnel production – local producers – Master gardeners
• Home gardeners
• Home vegetables gardening and organic produce of farmers’ markets
• I considered incorporating organic production practices
• I work with a variety of organic producers including vegetable, fruit, cattle, and dairy
• I work with producers for farmers markets
• It was educational an experience learning about the organic possibilities
• Mainly with home gardeners
• Price premiums that would give parity with conventional production are achievable
only in specific markets which are unreachable for most producers
• Dealing with idiots who do not understand soil-plant relationships or what organic
means and think it could actually be a viable large scale agriculture production
practice
• Most people that are raising their own vegetable gardens and those that are heavily
involved in fruit trees are those that seem to be more involved with organic
• I do not think it is difficult to offer organic products
• I buy groceries at Walmart and they have the organic section
• Work with several dairies that are organic
• Produce
• Good
• I have one cattle producer that is interested in organic, but is discovering the
difficulties and has lost cattle, but is learning more about organic products • Dairy
75
production is viable. Production of organic fruit and vegetables is not viable
economically due to the prevalence of insect, pests, and plant diseases
• From the experience that I have had, growing organic in northern Mississippi is not
practical from a production standpoint. For individual gardeners who are producing
small amounts of food for themselves it can be viable
• People could not afford to pay for large “organically” produced commodities
• Lack of available supplies, equipment, and extremely high pests’ populations make
commercial organic very unlikely
Table 12 (continued)
Experiences of Extension agents with organic agriculture
• I am not willing to pay the price
• I believe that the media is giving conventional agriculture a bad name and try to force
organic on us
• I have seen “non-gmo” labels in stores on produce that not even involved with that. I
have also seen a “vegetarian fed” label on some beef that I received. Being that all
cattle in the U.S. have vegetarian diets
• I believe that marketing is stretching its limits, but people don’t think about those
things so if it works, it works
• Typically, most organic practices are not practical and is a niche market
• Very little
• Very little interest in row crop production arena
• Watching producers struggle
• Need in service
• None
• Not much
76
Level of Demand Mississippi State University Extension Agents Receiving
for Information on Organic Agriculture
The second objective was to describe respondents’ level of demand for
information on organic agriculture in their counties. Table 13 reveals that 36.3% (f = 28)
of the respondents indicated that the demand in raising livestock organically had stayed
the same. This table also reveals that 24.7% (f = 19) of respondents reported that the
demand in raising livestock organically had increased slightly. Only one of the
respondents reported that the demand for raising livestock organically had increased
greatly. Also, only one respondent (1.3%) reported that demand for raising livestock
organically had decreased greatly and one (1.3%) reported that it had decreased slightly.
Table 13 Level of demand towards raising livestock organically
Level of demand over past 5 years f %
Decreased greatly 1 1.3
Decreased slightly 1 1.3
Stayed the same 28 36.3
Increased slightly 19 24.7
Increased greatly 1 1.3
77
I do not know 10 13.0
Not reported 17 22.1
Total 77 100
Table 14 reveals that 40.2% (f = 31) of respondents reported that the demand for
growing row crops organically had stayed the same and 10.4% (f = 8) reported that it had
increased slightly. Only 7.8% (f = 6) of the respondents indicated that the demand for
growing row crops organically had decreased slightly.
Table 14 Level of demand towards growing row crops organically
Level of demand over past 5 years f %
Decreased greatly 0 0.0
Decreased slightly 6 7.8
Stayed the same 31 40.2
Increased slightly 8 10.4
Increased greatly 2 2.6
I do not know 13 16.9
Not reported 17 22.1
Total 77 100.0
Table 15 illustrates that 40.2% (f = 31) of the respondents indicated that the
demand for growing produce organically had increased slightly and 14.3% (f = 11) of the
respondents indicated that it had increased greatly. There were only 3.9% (f = 3) of the
78
respondents indicated that the demand on growing produce organically had decreased
slightly and none of the respondents reported that it had decreased greatly.
Table 15 Level of demand towards growing produce organically
Level of demand over past 5 years f %
Decreased greatly 0 0.0
Decreased slightly 3 3.9
Stayed the same 8 10.4
Increased slightly 31 40.2
Increased greatly 11 14.3
I do not know 7 9.1
Not reported 17 22.1
Total 77 100
Table 16 provides the distribution of respondents by percentage of producers
wanting to grow organically. Over 57% (f = 44) of the respondents indicated that the
percentage of producers wanting to grow organically was less than 25%. Also, 6.5%
(f = 5) of the respondents revealed that the percentage of producers wanting to grow
organically was 25-50%. Only 1.3% (f =1) of the respondents revealed that the
percentage of producers wanting to grow organically was between 50-75%.
79
Table 16 Percentage of producers wanting to grow organically
Percentage of producers f %
None 3 3.9
Less than 25% 44 57.1
25%-50% 5 6.5
51%-75% 1 1.3
More than 75% 0 0.0
I do not know 7 9.1
Not reported 17 22.1
Total 77 100
Respondents were asked how frequently they provided information on organic
agriculture. Table 17 shows that 35.1% (f = 27) of the respondents provided information
on organic agriculture once a month and 15.6% (f = 12) provided information on organic
agriculture two to three times a month. Only 2.6% (f = 2) provided information on
organic agriculture once a week and only 1.3% (f = 1) respondent provided information
on organic agriculture several times a week.
80
Table 17 Frequency of providing information on organic agriculture (presentation,
emails, phone calls, etc.)
Frequency f %
Never 10 13.0
Once a month 27 35.1
Two to three times a month 12 15.6
Once a week 2 2.6
Several times a week 1 1.3
Not applicable to my current role 7 9.1
Not reported 18 23.3
Total 77 100
Respondents who reported that they provided information on organic agriculture
were asked who their primary audience or audiences were for this information. Table 18
presents the frequencies and percentages of audiences who received information from
Extension agents on organic agriculture. A majority (59.7% or f = 46) of the respondents
indicated that their audiences were home gardeners. More than 35% (f = 27) of the
respondents reported that part-time produce growers were another audience. Only 3.9%
(f = 3) of the respondents noted that part-time row crop producers were their audiences
for information on organic agriculture and the same percentage of respondents reported
that other Extension agents were their audiences for information on organic agriculture.
Only one respondent (1.3%) stated that people thinking to start farming was their
audiences for information on organic agriculture.
Table 18 Audiences who receive information from agents on organic agriculture
81
Audiences f %
Home gardener 46 59.7
Part-time produce growers 27 35.1
Consumers 18 23.4
Full-time produce growers 13 16.9
Part-time livestock producers 12 15.6
Full-time row crop producers 4 5.2
Part-time row crop producers 3 3.9
Other extension agents 3 3.9
People thinking to start farming 1 1.3
Not applicable to my current role 10 13.0
Note: Participants could select more than one choice
Level of Confidence Mississippi State University Extension Agents Have in
Conducting Activities in Organic Agriculture
The third objective was to determine the level of confidence Mississippi State
82
University Extension agents had in conducting activities in organic agriculture.
Respondents indicated their level of confidence with each statement using the following
five-point scale: 1 = Not at all confident, 2 = Not very confident, 3 = Neutral, 4 =
Somewhat confident, and 5 = Very confident.
The overall mean of the level of agents’ confidence in conducting activities in
organic agriculture was (3.01). The five highest rated statements by respondents were
“Educating yourself about organic agriculture” (M = 3.56, SD = 1.15), “Sharing
information about organic agriculture with other Extension agents” (M = 3.50, SD =
1.21), “Answering questions from home gardeners about organic agriculture” (M = 3.38,
SD = 1.18), “Answering questions from consumers about organic agriculture” (M = 3.31,
SD = 1.21), and “Identifying organic producers” (M = 3.15, SD = 1.10). The five lowest
rated statements by respondents were “Advising producers on where to find organic
supplies” (M= 2.78, SD = 1.25), “Including organic farm tours on field days” (M = 2.69,
SD = .99), “Answering questions from row crop producers about organic agriculture” (M
= 2.64, SD = 1.02), “Including organic farming techniques in demonstrations” (M = 2.57,
SD = 1.20), and “Producing information on about organic agriculture for media sources,
such as website, newsletter, radio, and TV” (M = 2.50, SD = 1.13). The mean and
standard deviation for each statement is displayed in Table 19.
Table 19 The level of confidence of Mississippi State University Extension agents in
conducting activities in organic agriculture (N = 177)
Statement f M SD
Educating yourself about organic agriculture 59 3.56 1.15
83
Sharing information about organic agriculture with other Extension agents 60 3.50 1.21
Answering questions from home gardeners about organic agriculture 60 3.38 1. 18
Answering questions from consumers about organic agriculture 59 3.31 1.21
Identifying organic producers 60 3.15 1.10
Visiting organic producers to help solve problems 58 3.14 1.15
Answering questions from produce growers about organic agriculture 59 3.12 1.26
Answering questions from other Extension agents about organic agriculture
60 3.08 1.21
Including organic agriculture as alternative for producers who contact you
for advice
57 2.96 1.09
Answering questions from livestock producers about organic agriculture 60 2.90 1.10
Conducting educational programs about organic agriculture 60 2.82 1.08
Advising producers on where to find organic supplies 60 2.78 1.25
Including organic farm tours on field days 59 2.69 .99
Answering questions from row crops producers about organic agriculture 58 2.64 1.02
Including organic farming techniques in demonstrations 60 2.57 1.20
Producing information about organic agriculture for media sources, such as
website, newsletter, radio, and TV
60 2.50 1.13
Overall mean 3.01
Scale: 1=Not at all confident, 2=Not very confident, 3=Neutral, 4=Somewhat confident,
5=Very confident.
Perception of Extension Agents towards Organic Agriculture
The fourth objective was to determine the perception of Mississippi State
University Extension agents towards organic agriculture. Respondents were provided a
84
list of eighteen statements to indicate their level of agreement with each statement using
the following five-point scale: 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 =
Agree, 5 = Strongly agree. The overall mean of the perception of Extension agents was
(3.29). Table 20 shows that the top five rated statements were “Mississippi State
University Extension agents should be knowledgeable about organic agriculture” (M =
3.98, SD = .50), “Mississippi State University Extension should conduct in-service
training on organic agriculture for its agents” (M = 3.90, SD = .80), “Mississippi State
University Extension should distribute publications on organic agriculture” (M = 3.85,
SD = .61), “There are numerous barriers for producers to overcome to incorporate
organic agriculture practices” (M = 3.78, SD = .94), and “I am concerned about the
economic risks my producers may encounter if they transition to organic agriculture
practices” (M = 3.77, SD = .83). The five lowest rated statements were “Mississippi State
University Extension agents should encourage their clients to use organic fertilizer, when
practical, for production purposes” (M=2.92, SD=.91), “I believe organic agriculture is a
feasible long-term production method” (M=2.87, SD=.89), “I believe organic agriculture
is a technically viable option for producers in my county” (M = 2.83, SD = .83), “I
believe organic agriculture is a financially viable option for producers in my county” (M=
2.61, SD= .95), and “Organic agriculture is an attractive option because of problems with
conventional agriculture systems” (M = 2.52, SD = 1.00).
Table 20 Perception of Extension agents towards organic agriculture (N = 177)
Statement f M SD
Mississippi State University Extension agents should be knowledgeable
about organic agriculture
60 3.98 .50
Mississippi State University Extension should conduct in-service training on
organic agriculture for its agents
60 3.90 .80
85
Mississippi State University Extension should distribute publications on
organic agriculture
60 3.85 .61
There are numerous barriers for producers to overcome to incorporate
organic agriculture practices
60 3.78 .94
I am concerned about the economic risks my producers may encounter if
they transition to organic agriculture practices
60 3.77 .83
Mississippi State University Extension should conducting training
programs on organic agriculture for its clientele
59 3.73 .69
I am interested in learning more about organic agriculture 60 3.62 .89
Community participation is key in the development of organic agriculture
within my county
60 3.45 .85
I believe organic agriculture systems can be profitable. 60 3.18 .79
The level of commitment by Mississippi State University Extension towards
organic agriculture is strong
60 3.15 .88
I believe organic agriculture markets are reliable 60 3.03 .86
Personally, I support the philosophy of organic agriculture 60 3.02 .89
Clientele in my county would greatly benefit by engaging in organic
agriculture practices
60 2.98 1.02
Mississippi State University Extension agents should encourage their
clients to use organic fertilizer, when practical, for production purposes
60 2.92 .91
I believe organic agriculture is a feasible long-term production method 60 2.87 .89
I believe organic agriculture is a technically viable option for producers in
my county
60 2.83 .83
I believe organic agriculture is a financially viable option for producers in
my county
59 2.61 .95
Organic agriculture is an attractive option because of problems with
conventional agriculture systems.
60 2.52 1.00
Overall mean 3.29
Scale: 1=Strongly disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= Neutral, 4= Agree, 5= Strongly agree.
Importance and Knowledge of Organic Agriculture Topics by Mississippi State
University Extension Agents and Their Training Needs in These Topics
86
To determine the training needs in organic agriculture of Mississippi State
University Extension agents, respondents first indicated the importance of having
knowledge about that topic then indicated their current knowledge level of that topic.
The Importance of the Organic Agriculture Topics
Respondents were asked to rate 29 topics on how importance it was to be
knowledgeable about that topic using the following Likert-type scale: 1 = Not important,
2 = Somewhat important, 3 = Important, and 4 = Very important. Respondents rated the
following five topics as the most important topics to know about organic agriculture:
“Benefits of IPM in organic agriculture” (M = 3.18, SD =.75), “What is organic
agriculture” (M = 3.16, SD = .79), “Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices used in
organic agriculture” (M = 3.12, SD = .82), “Organic agriculture standards” (M = 3.10, SD
= .83) and appropriate amounts of IPM in organic agriculture (M = 3.09, SD = .82). The
five least important topics were “Types of organic agriculture equipment” (M = 2.80, SD
= .83), “Raising livestock organically” (M = 2.63, SD = .91), “Using biofuel in organic
agriculture” (M =2.58, SD=.88), “Growing row crops organically” (M = 2.54, SD = .91),
and “Benefits of organic agriculture” (M = 2.29, SD = 78).
Current Knowledge of Mississippi State University Extension Agents on Organic
Agriculture Topics
Respondents were asked to rate their current knowledge of 29 organic agriculture
topics using the following Likert-type scale: 1 = Not knowledgeable, 2 = Somewhat
87
knowledgeable, 3 = Knowledgeable, and 4 = Very knowledgeable. Respondents reported
being most knowledgeable on the following five topics: “What is organic agriculture”
(M= 225, SD=.80), “Benefits of organic agriculture” (M = 2.18, SD =.75), “Growing
produce organically” (M = 2.02, SD = .87), “Crop rotation systems for organic
agriculture” (M = 2.00, SD = .94), and “Types of organic fertilizers used in organic
agriculture (M = 1.98, SD =.89).
Respondents reported being the least knowledgeable in “Benefits of bio-fertilizers
used in organic agriculture” (M = 1.59, SD = .88), “Post-harvest handling techniques in
organic agriculture” (M = 1.56, SD=.91), “Using biofuel in organic agriculture” (M =
1.55, SD = .90), “Types of bio-fertilizers used in organic agriculture” (M = 1.53, SD
= .86, and “Steps in utilizing bio-fertilizers in organic agriculture” (M =1.52, SD = .86).
Table 21 provides a listing of organic agriculture topics according to the importance
means and knowledge means from all respondents.
Table 21 Importance and knowledge of organic agriculture topics by agents (N
= 177)
Topics Importance Knowledge
f M SD f M SD
Benefits of IPM in organic agriculture 50 3.18 .75 50 1.82 .96
88
What is organic agriculture 50 3.16 .79 51 2.25 .80
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices
used in organic agriculture (Pheromone catches,
Wax catches, Trichogramma parasite)
50 3.12 .82 51 1.72 .94
Organic agriculture standards 48 3.10 .83 50 1.78 .93
Appropriate amounts of IPM in organic
agriculture
49 3.09 .82 51 1.68 .97
Crop rotation systems for organic agriculture 50 3.08 .80 51 2.00 .94
Types of organic fertilizers used in organic
agriculture (e.g. compost, farmyard manure,
poultry litter)
50 3.07 .77 50 1.98 .89
Weed control practices in organic agriculture 49 3.06 .78 51 1.81 .87
Appropriate amounts of organic fertilizers to use
49 3.04 .84 49 1.80 .95
Labeling of organic products 49 3.02 .80 51 1.67 .89
Organic certification 50 3.00 .86 51 1.69 .88
Post-harvest handling techniques in organic
agriculture
50 2.99 .77 50 1.56 .91
Steps of utilizing IPM in organic agriculture 50 2.98 .80 51 1.67 .95
Appropriate amounts of bio-fertilizers to use in
organic agriculture
50 2.97 .80 50 1.60 .90
Scale: Importance: 1= Not important, 2 = Somewhat important, 3 = Important, 4 = Very
important.
Knowledge: 1= Not knowledgeable, 2 = Somewhat knowledgeable, 3= Knowledgeable,
4 = Very knowledgeable.
Table 21 (continued)
Topics Importance Knowledge
f M SD f M SD
89
Benefits of organic fertilizers used in organic
agriculture
50 2.96 .88 51 1.88 .90
Types of bio-fertilizers used in organic
agriculture (Phosphorin, Potasin, Okadin,
Micropin, Nitropin, Askopin)
49 2.92 .79 51 1.53 .86
Steps in utilizing organic agriculture 50 2.91 .83 49 1.71 .94
Benefits of bio-fertilizers used in organic
agriculture
50 2.90 .76 50 1.59 .88
Steps in utilizing bio-fertilizers in organic
agriculture
50 2.89 .80 50 1.52 .86
Marketing organic produce 50 2.88 .87 51 1.90 .96
Harvesting practices in organic agriculture 50 2.87 .77 51 1.65 .91
Different types of organic agriculture production
systems
51 2.86 .81 50 1.61 .90
How to transition from traditional practices to
organic practices
50 2.82 .90 50 1.76 .96
Growing produce organically 49 2.81 .82 50 2.02 .87
Types of organic agriculture equipment 50 2.80 .83 51 1.66 .84
Raising livestock organically 49 2.63 .91 51 1.83 .87
Using biofuel in organic agriculture 50 2.58 .88 51 1.55 .90
Growing row crops organically 50 2.54 .91 51 1.75 .86
Benefits of organic agriculture 50 2.29 .78 51 2.18 .91
Scale: Importance: 1= Not important, 2= Somewhat important, 3 = Important, 4= Very
important.
Knowledge: 1= Not knowledgeable, 2= Somewhat knowledgeable, 3= Knowledgeable,
4= Very knowledgeable.
Training Needs of Extension Agents in Organic Agriculture Topics
90
Borich’s (1980) model was used to determine the priority for the training of
Mississippi State University Extension agents in organic agriculture based on a weighted
discrepancy model. The model utilizes a formula to calculate the mean weighted
discrepancy (MWD) of each of the 29 organic agriculture topics. The following formula
was used to calculate the MWD for each of the 29 topics in the study:
I = Importance rating
K = Knowledge rating
N = Number of observations
Formula: I*(I-K) = Weighted Discrepancy Score (WDS)
Sum of WDS = Mean Weighted Discrepancy (MWD)
N
Using this formula, the weighted discrepancy score (WDS) could range from +12
to -3 based on the rating scales used in the survey. Theoretically there could be negative
mean weighted discrepancy scores (MWDs) utilizing the formula; however, there were
no MWDs below zero in this study. Based on the Borich (1980) discrepancy model,
training priority is given to topics with the highest mean weighted discrepancy.
The results in Table 22 list the rank order of organic agriculture topics based on
the mean weighted discrepancy calculated using importance ratings and knowledge
ratings from all respondents. MWDs ranged from 3.64 to 5.57. The topic “Appropriate
amounts of bio-fertilizers to use in organic agriculture” had the highest mean weighted
discrepancy score (5.57). “Appropriate amounts of IPM in organic agriculture” had the
second highest MWD (5.56). “Organic certification” had the third highest MWD (5.49).
“Organic agriculture standards” had the fourth MWD (5.39). “Types of bio-fertilizers
91
used in organic agriculture” had the fifth MWD (5.36). The five topics that had the
lowest mean weighted discrepancy score (MWD) were “Growing row crops organically”
(3.84), “Raising livestock organically” (3.77), “Growing produce organically” (3.70),
“What is organic agriculture” (3.69), and “Benefits of organic agriculture” (3.64).
According to the Borich (1980) Model, topics with higher MWDs are an indication that
respondents need more training in these topics and topics with lower MWDs are an
indication that respondent need les training or they don't need training in these topics.
In using the mean weighted discrepancies for Extension agents to establish
training priorities, MWDs of five and above should be considered highest priority. Using
this criterion, the top first skills in Table 22 should be considered as training priority for
Extension agents.
Table 22 MWDs for the importance and knowledge of organic agriculture topics (N
= 177)
Topics f MWD
Appropriate amounts of bio-fertilizers to use in organic 46 5.57
92
agriculture
Appropriate amounts of IPM in organic agriculture 44 5.56
Organic certification 48 5.49
Organic agriculture standards 46 5.39
Types of bio-fertilizers used in organic agriculture 47 5.36
Post-harvest handling techniques in organic agriculture 48 5.33
Labeling of organic products 47 5.32
Steps in utilizing bio-fertilizers in organic agriculture 48 5.27
Steps of utilizing IPM in organic agriculture 47 5.15
Benefits of bio-fertilizers used in organic agriculture 48 5.14
Different types of organic agriculture production systems 47 5.13
Weed control practices in organic agriculture 47 5.11
Benefits of IPM in organic agriculture 48 5.08
Types of organic fertilizers used in organic agriculture 48 5.04
Appropriate amounts of organic fertilizers to use 48 5.02
Steps in utilizing organic fertilizers 46 5.00
Marketing organic produce 47 4.79
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices used in organic
agriculture
50 4.70
Table 22 (continued)
Topics f MWD
Harvesting practices in organic agriculture 48 4.67
Benefits of organic fertilizers used in organic agriculture 47 4.64
93
Crop rotation systems for organic agriculture 48 4.62
Types of organic agriculture equipment 46 4.45
Using biofuel in organic agriculture 46 4.39
How to transition from traditional practices to organic practices 46 3.89
Growing row crops organically 44 3.84
Raising livestock organically 45 3.77
Growing produce organically 45 3.70
What is organic agriculture 49 3.69
Benefits of organic agriculture 47 3.64
Table 23 illustrates the top 10 MWDs of the organic agriculture topics according
to the rank for importance and knowledge from all respondents. The topic “Appropriate
amounts of bio-fertilizers to use in organic agriculture” was ranked 1st according to
MWD, 14th according to the importance of topics to know, and 24th according to current
knowledge of the respondents. The topic “Appropriate amounts of IPM in organic
agriculture” was ranked 2nd according to MWD, 5th according to the importance of the
topics to know, and 18th according to the current knowledge of the respondents.
Postharvest handling techniques in organic agriculture was ranked 3rd according to
MWD, 12th according to the importance of topics to know, and 26th according to the
current knowledge of the respondents.
94
Table 23 Rank for importance and knowledge of top 10 topics by MWD from all
respondents
Topics Rank MWD Importance
Rank
Knowledge
Rank
Appropriate amounts of bio-fertilizers to use
in organic agriculture
1 5.67 14 24
Appropriate amounts of IPM in organic
agriculture
2 5.56 5 18
Organic certification 3 5.49 11 18
Organic agriculture standards 4 5.39 4 11
Types of bio-fertilizers used in organic
agriculture
5 5.36 16 28
Post-harvest handling techniques in organic
agriculture
6 5.33 12 26
Labeling of organic products 7 5.32 10 19
Steps in utilizing bio-fertilizers in organic
agriculture
8 5.27 19 28
Steps of utilizing IPM in organic agriculture 9 5.15 13 22
Benefits of bio-fertilizers used in organic
agriculture
10 5.14 17 25
Relationships between Selected Demographic Characteristics of Agents and the
Importance of the Organic Agriculture Topics, the Knowledge of the Agents in
These Topics, and the Training Needs of the Agents in Thease Topics
Kruskal-Wallis test for independent samples was used to compare the importance
ratings, knowledge ratings, and training needs ratings among selected demographic
characteristics for the 29 organic agriculture topics.
95
Relationships between selected demographic characteristics and the importance of
the organic agriculture topics.
According to the Kruskal-Wallis test for independent samples, no significant
differences were found between highest level of education completed and the importance
of the 29 organic agriculture topics. Furthermore, no significant differences were found
between number of trainings attended and the importance of the 29 organic agriculture
topics.
Significant differences were found between the ages of respondents and one topic
of the 29 organic agriculture topics where respondents rated the level of importance to
know about that topic. Table 24 displays the results of the Kruskal-Wallis test for the
topics found to be different based on age, raising livestock organically (H = 8.130, p
= .043).
Table 24 Significant differences of agricultural organic topics by importance rating
according to age
Topics
<30
Age
Mean
Rank
30- 39
Age
Mean
Rank
40-49
Age
Mean
Rank
50 and
Over Age
Mean
Rank
H p
Raising livestock
organically
20.50 21.97 31.33 18.42 8.130 .043
Separate Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted on pairs of rankings to determine
which groups were significantly different for importance rating for raising livestock
organically. A Bonferroni adjusted probability of .0167 was used to compare the resultant
probability of pairs derived from the Mann-Whitney U tests. No significant differences
were found among age groups for this topic.
96
Significant differences were found between gender and two of the topics
regarding the importance of knowing about organic agriculture topics. These topics were
what is organic agriculture (H = 5.808, p = .016) and weed control practices in organic
agriculture (H = 4.061, p = .044). Table 25 shows the results of the Kruskal-Wallis test
for two topics found to be different.
Table 25 Significant differences of agricultural organic topics by importance rating
according to gender
Topics Male
Mean
Rank
Mean
Female
Rank
H
p
What is organic agriculture 21.70 31.21 5.808 .016
Weed control practices in organic agriculture 21.88 29.75 4.061 .044
Since the demographic variable gender is a dichotomous variable, it was not
necessary to conduct a Mann-Whitney U test to determine which gender group was
significantly different. Females had higher mean ranks than males on both topics.
Significant differences were found between years of experience working in
Extension and two of the topics regarding the importance of knowing about organic
agriculture topics. These two topics were organic certification (H = 8.520, p = .036) and
labeling of organic products (H = 8.330, p = .040). Table 26 illustrates the results of
Kruskal-Wallis test for two topics found to be different.
Table 26 Significant differences of agricultural organic topics by importance rating
according to Extension experience
97
Topics
<5
Years of
Experience
Mean
Rank
6- 10
years of
Experience
Mean
Rank
11-20
Years of
Experience
Mean
Rank
>20
Years of
Experience
Mean
Rank
H
p
Organic
certification
13.43 28.23 30.19 22.38 8.520 .036
Labeling of
organic products
12.71 27.93 27.93 23.08 8.330 .040
Separate Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted on pairs of rankings to determine
which groups were significantly different for importance rating for organic certification
and labeling of organic products. A Bonferroni adjusted probability of .0167 was used to
compare the resultant probability of pairs derived from the Mann-Whitney U tests. No
significant differences were found among years of experience groups for both topics.
Relationships between selected demographic characteristics and agents’ current
knowledge in organic agriculture.
According to the results of the Kruskal-Wallis test for independent samples, no
significant differences were found between age and the current knowledge level of agents
on the 29 organic agriculture topics. Also, no significant differences were found between
years of experience working in Extension and the current knowledge level of agents on
the 29 organic agriculture topics.
Significant differences were found between gender and 23 topics about the
knowledge of the 29 organic agriculture topics. Table 27 shows the results of the Kruskal-
Wallis test for the 23 topics found to be different.
98
Table 27 Significant differences of agricultural organic topics by knowledge rating
according to gender
Topics Male
Mean
Mean
Female
H
p
What is organic agriculture 28.39 19.88 5.065 .024
Benefits of organic agriculture 21.88 29.75 4.437 .035
Crop rotation systems for organic agriculture 28.68 19.32 5.296 .021
How to transition from traditional practices to
organic agriculture
29.23 17.03 9.806 .002
Different types of organic agriculture production
systems
29.09 18.53 7.880 .005
Organic agriculture standards 27.80 18.74 4.207 .040
Weed control practices in organic agriculture 28.89 18.91 6.190 .013
Types of bio-fertilizers used in organic agriculture 29.20 18.32 8.935 .003
Benefits of bio-fertilizers used in organic
agriculture
29.73 17.29 10.971 .001
Appropriate amount of bio-fertilizers to use in
organic agriculture
29.13 17.24 19.459 .001
Steps in utilizing bio-fertilizers in organic
agriculture
28.56 18.29 8.392 .004
Types of organic fertilizers used in organic
agriculture
29.05 17.38 8.606 003
Benefits of organic fertilizers used in organic
agriculture
28.72 18.00 7.346 .007
Table 27 (continued)
Topics Male
Mean
Female
Mean
H
p
Appropriate amounts of organic fertilizers to use 28.13 17.88 6.962 .008
Steps of utilizing organic fertilizers 28.08 17.34 7.741 .005
99
Benefits of IPM in organic agriculture 28.59 18.42 6.850 .009
Appropriate amounts of IPM in organic agriculture 29.41 17.91 9.039 .003
Steps of utilizing IPM in organic agriculture 29.38 17.97 8.931 .003
Growing row crop organically 29.85 17.06 10.303 .001
Growing produce organically 27.70 19.44 4.277 .039
Organic certification 28.82 19.06 6.213 .013
Using biofuel in organic agriculture 28.32 20.03 5.340 .021
Harvesting practices in organic agriculture 28.29 20.09 4.721 .030
No Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted on pairs of rankings to determine
which group of gender were significantly different for knowledge rating because there
were only two groups (male and female). Males had higher mean than females on all
organic agriculture topics except the topic “Benefits of organic agriculture” where
females had a higher mean.
Significant differences were found between highest level of education completed
and 6 of the 29 topics about the knowledge of organic agriculture topics. Table 28 shows
the results of the Kruskal-Wallis test for the 6 topics found to be different.
Table 28 Significant differences of agricultural organic topics by knowledge rating
to highest level of education
Topics Bachelor
Mean
Rank
Master
Mean
Rank
Doctorate
Mean
Rank
H
p
What is organic agriculture 17.63 24.88 39.88 6.797 .033
100
Weed control practices in organic
agriculture
16.75 24.98 39.75 6.257 .044
Organic certification 19.38 24.57 41.38 6.944 .031
Harvesting practices in organic
agriculture
21.13 24.19 43.63 9.153 .010
Post-harvest handling techniques in
organic agriculture
17.00 23.95 43.75 12.157 .002
Labeling of organic agriculture 19.88 24.50 41.63 7.137 .028
Separate Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted on pairs of rankings to determine
which groups were significantly different for knowledge rating for the following topics:
What is organic agriculture, weed control practices in organic agriculture, organic
certification, harvesting practices in organic agriculture, post-harvest handling techniques
in organic agriculture, and labeling of organic agriculture. A Bonferroni adjusted
probability of .0167 was used to compare the resultant probability of pairs derived from
the Mann-Whitney U tests. Agents who held bachelors and doctorate degrees rated two of
these topics (harvesting practices in organic agriculture and post-harvest handling
techniques in organic agriculture) significantly higher for knowledge than agents who
held master degrees.
Significant differences were found between the number of training completed by
agents on 11 topics about the knowledge of the 29 organic agriculture topics. Table 29
shows the results of the Kruskal-Wallis test for the 11 topics found to be different.
101
Table 29 Significant differences of agricultural organic topics by knowledge rating
according to number of trainings
Topics
0
Trainings
Mean
1-2
Trainings
Mean
3 or more
Trainings
Mean
H
p
What is organic agriculture 22.37 20.61 37.70 8.669 .013
Benefits of organic agriculture 22.93 19.50 37.80 7.991 .018
How to transition from traditional
practices to organic agriculture
20.65 22.93 35.40 6.289 .043
Appropriate amount of
biofertilizers to use organic
agriculture
23.80 17.42 33.20 7.303 .026
Steps in utilizing bio-fertilizers in
organic agriculture
23.02 18.58 34.40 7.567 .023
Growing row crop organically 21.13 23.04 37.60 7.530 .023
Growing produce organically 21.46 20.62 37.50 8.294 .016
Using biofuel in organic agriculture
23.65 18.79 35.90 8.716 .013
Post-harvest handling techniques
in organic agriculture
23.70 18.75 35.70 8.243 .016
Separate Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted on pairs of rankings to determine
which groups were significantly different for knowledge rating for the following topics:
What is organic agriculture, benefits of organic agriculture, how to transition from
traditional practices to organic agriculture, appropriate amount of bio-fertilizers to use
organic agriculture, steps in utilizing bio-fertilizers in organic agriculture, growing row
crop organically, growing produce organically, using biofuel in organic agriculture, and
post-harvest handling techniques in organic agriculture. A Bonferroni adjusted
102
probability of .0167 was used to compare the resultant probability of pairs derived from
the Mann-Whitney U tests. Agents who attended zero and 3 or more trainings related to
organic agriculture rated five of these topics significantly higher for knowledge than
agents who agents who attended 1-2 trainings. The five topics are “What is organic
agriculture”, “Benefits of organic agriculture”, “How to transition from traditional
practices to organic agriculture”, “Growing row crop organically”, and “Growing
produce organically”.
Relationships between selected demographic characteristics and agents’ training
needs in organic agriculture.
Kruskal-Wallis test for independent samples was used to compare the training
needs ratings among selected demographic characteristics for the 29 organic agriculture
topics. Significant differences were found between ages in three topics about the training
needs of the agents in the 29 organic agriculture topics, which were types of organic
fertilizers used in organic agriculture (H = 8.038, P = .045), Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) practices used in organic agriculture (H = 8.652, p = .034), and appropriate
amounts of IPM in organic agriculture (H = 8.745, P = .033). Table 30 displays the results of
the Kruskal-Wallis test for the 3 topics found to be different.
Table 30 Significant differences of organic agriculture topics by training needs rating
according to age
Topics
<30
Mean
Rank
30- 39
Mean
Rank
40-49
Mean
Rank
50 and
over
Mean
Rank
H
p
Types of organic fertilizers used in
organic agriculture
35.63 24.37 27.85 16.21 8.038 .045
Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) practices used in organic
agriculture
40.50 24.30 27.76 17.63 8.652 .034
103
Appropriate amounts of IPM in
organic agriculture
7.75 24.04 26.21 16.25 8.745 .033
Separate Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted on pairs of rankings to determine
which groups were significantly different for training needs rating for the types of
organic fertilizers used in organic agriculture, Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
practices used in organic agriculture, and appropriate amounts of IPM in organic
agriculture. A Bonferroni adjusted probability of .0167 was used to compare the resultant
probability of pairs derived from the Mann-Whitney U tests. Agents who were less than
30 years old and who were over 50 years old rated all these topics significantly higher for
training needs than the other age groups.
Significant differences were found between gender in ten topics about the training
needs of the agents in the 29 organic agriculture topics. Table 31 displays the results of
the Kruskal-Wallis test for the 10 topics found to be different
Table 31 Significant differences of agricultural organic topics by training needs
rating according to gender
Topics
Male
Mean
Mean
Female
H
p
What is organic agriculture 21.18 30.56 5.199 .023
How to transition from traditional practices to
organic agriculture
9.61 28.9 5.159 .023
Weed control practices in organic agriculture 20.22 29.09 4.863 .027
Benefits of bio-fertilizers used in organic
agriculture
20.88 29.50 4.603 .032
104
Types of organic fertilizers used in organic
agriculture
21.58 29.82 3.967 .046
Benefits of organic fertilizers used in organic
agriculture
20.43 28.74 4.252 .039
Appropriate amounts of organic fertilizers to use 20.92 29.44 4.343 .037
Steps of utilizing organic fertilizers 19.73 30.56 7.060 .008
Benefits of IPM in organic agriculture 20.92 29.44 4.405 .036
Growing row crop organically 19.33 23.57 4.514 .034
No Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted on pairs of rankings to determine
which group of gender were significantly different for training needs rating because there
were only two groups (male and female). Females had higher means in all topics in Table
30 than males.
Significant differences were found between years of experience on one topic
about the training needs of the agents in the 29 organic agriculture topics, which was
organic certification (H = 9.327, p = .025). Table 32 shows the results of the
KruskalWallis test for the topic found to be different.
Table 32 Significant differences of agricultural organic topics by training needs
rating according to Extension experience
Topics
<5
Years of
Experience
Mean
Rank
6- 10
years of
Experience
Mean
Rank
11-20 years
of
Experience
Mean
Rank
>20
Years of
Experience
Mean
Rank
H
p
Organic
certification
14.86 27.68 30.79 18.12 9.327 .025
105
Separate Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted on pairs of rankings to determine
which groups were significantly different for training needs rating for organic
certification topic. A Bonferroni adjusted probability of .0167 was used to compare the
resultant probability of pairs derived from the Mann-Whitney U tests. No significant
differences were found among years of experience groups for this topic.
Significant differences were found between highest level of education in four
topics about the training needs of the agents in the 29 organic agriculture topics. These
four topics were how to transition from traditional practices to organic agriculture (H =
6.129, P = .047), benefits of bio-fertilizers used in organic agriculture (H = 8.263, p =
.016), appropriate amount of bio-fertilizers to use organic agriculture (H = 6.274 p =
.043), and benefits of organic fertilizers used in organic agriculture (H = 9.370, p = .009).
Table 33 displays the results of the Kruskal-Wallis test for the topics found to be
different.
Table 33 Significant differences of agricultural organic topics by training needs
rating according to highest level of education
Topics
Bachelor
Mean
Rank
Master
Mean
Rank
Doctorate
Mean
Rank
H
p
How to transition from traditional
practices to organic agriculture
5.30 21.00 30.25 6.129 .047
Benefits of bio-fertilizers used in
organic agriculture
39.50 22.58 16.76 8.236 .016
Appropriate amount of biofertilizers
to use in organic agriculture
36.20 21.50 18.50 6.274 .043
106
Benefits of organic fertilizers used in
organic agriculture
40.40 21.26 25.00 9.370 .009
Separate Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted on pairs of rankings to determine
which groups were significantly different for training needs rating for the following
topics: how to transition from traditional practices to organic agriculture, benefits of
biofertilizers used in organic agriculture, appropriate amount of bio-fertilizers to use
organic agriculture, and benefits of organic fertilizers used in organic agriculture. A
Bonferroni adjusted probability of .0167 was used to compare the resultant probability of
pairs derived from the Mann-Whitney U tests. Agents who held bachelors and doctorate
degrees rated benefits of bio-fertilizers used in organic agriculture significantly higher for
knowledge than agents who held master degrees.
Significant differences were found between number of trainings completed on one
topic about the training needs of the agents in the 29 organic agriculture topics, which
was raising livestock organically (H = 9.447, p = .009). Table 34 displays the results of
the Kruskal-Wallis test for the 1 topic found to be different.
Table 34 Significant differences of agricultural organic topics by training needs
rating according to number of trainings
Topics
0 training
Mean
1-2
trainings
Mean
3 or
more
trainings
Mean
H
p
Raising livestock organically
24.07
12.71
16.75
9.447
.009
107
Separate Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted on pairs of rankings to determine
which groups were significantly different for training needs rating for raising livestock
organically. A Bonferroni adjusted probability of .0167 was used to compare the resultant
probability of pairs derived from the Mann-Whitney U tests. There were no significant
differences were found between number of training groups for the raising livestock
organically topic.
The Barriers Facing the Expansion of Organic Agriculture in Mississippi from the
Point of View of Mississippi State University Extension Agents.
Respondents indicated the barriers facing the expansion of organic agriculture in
Mississippi using the following for-point scale: 1 = Not a barrier, 2 = Somewhat of a
barrier, 3 = Moderate barrier, and 4 = Extreme barrier.
Table 33 illustrates the barriers facing the expansion of organic agriculture in
Mississippi from the point of view of Mississippi State University Extension agents. The
five highest-rated statements about the barriers facing the expansion of organic
agriculture in Mississippi were “High input costs” (M = 3.32, SD = .86), “Pest-related
production issues” (M = 3.25, SD = .88), “High overall cost of production organic
products” (M = 3.25, SD = .86), “Disease-related production losses” (M = 3.22, SD
= .81), and “Weed-related production issues” (M = 3.20, SD = .83). The five lowest rated
108
statements about the barriers facing the expansion of organic agriculture in Mississippi
were “Lack of organic marketing networks” (M = 2.53, SD = .24), “Low demand for
organic products” (M = 2.53, SD = .97), “Consumer awareness of organic products” (M =
3.46, SD = .83), “Portrayal of organic products by the media” (M = 2.34, SD = 1.04), and
“Lack of support from Extension to organic producers” (M = 2.02, SD = .99).
The overall mean of the barriers facing the expansion of organic agriculture in
Mississippi was (2.8). Based on the alternative answers which placed in front of each
(29) statements, which ranged between (1- 4) numeric values, barriers were classified to
four categories according to their means: not a barrier (1-1.50), somewhat barriers (1.51-
2.50), moderate between (2.51-3.50), and extreme barriers (3.51-4). According to the
results listed in Table 35, there were no extreme barriers. However, all the barriers were
moderate barriers except two barriers that were somewhat barriers which were portrayal
of organic products by the media and lack of support from Extension to organic
producers.
Table 35 Barriers facing the expansion of organic agriculture in Mississippi from
the point view of Mississippi State University Extension agents (N = 77)
Barriers f M SD Level of
Barrier
High input costs 59 3.32 .86 Moderate
Pest-related production issues 59 3.25 .88 Moderate
High overall cost of production organic products 59 3.25 .86 Moderate
Disease-related production losses 59 3.22 .81 Moderate
Weed-related production issues 59 3.20 .83 Moderate
Availability of organic processing facilities 59 3.10 .90 Moderate
High price for organic agriculture 57 3.04 .93 Moderate
109
Lack of understanding by producers on organic
agriculture methods
59 3.02 .88 Moderate
Uncertainly in obtaining organic price premiums 59 3.02 .78 Moderate
Availability of organic inputs such as feed, fertilizers,
etc.
59 2.97 .87 Moderate
Distance to available organic markets in order to sell
products
59 2.97 .95 Moderate
Having to change equipment for organic production
practices
59 2.95 .88 Moderate
Competition with non-organic products 59 2.95 1.02 Moderate
Following established regulation to produce organic
products
59 2.93 .83 Moderate
Lack of time to engage in organic production 59 2.93 .87 Moderate
Lack of appropriate equipment to produce organic
products
59 2.92 .86 Moderate
Table 34 (continued)
Barriers N M SD Level of
Barriers
Lack of interest by producers to consider organic
production
59 2.88 .86 Moderate
Weather-related production issues 59 2.85 .87 Moderate
Instability of organic markets 59 2.83 .93 Moderate
Fertility-related production issues 59 2.81 .75 Moderate
Finding reliable markets for organic products 59 2.76 .95 Moderate
Concern about organic ‘quantity’ vs ‘quality’ 59 2.75 .84 Moderate
Lack of organic marketing network 59 2.53 .24 Moderate
Low demand for organic products 59 2.53 .97 Moderate
Consumer awareness of organic products 59 2.46 .83 Moderate
110
Portrayal of organic products by the media 59 2.34 1.04 Low
Lack of support from Extension to organic producers 59 2.02 .99 Low
Overall mean 2.8
Scale: 1 = not a barrier, 2 = somewhat barrier, 3 = moderate barrier, 4 = extreme barrier.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter is organized into three sections. The first section contains a summary
of the study’s purpose and objectives and procedure. Discussion and conclusions drawn
from the findings are provided in the second section. Implications based on the findings
of this study are offered in the third section, and recommendations for future research are
offered in the fourth section.
The Study Purpose and Objectives
The purpose of this study was to determine the perception and the training needs
of Mississippi State University Extension Agents in organic agriculture. The objectives of
the study were to:
1. Describe the demographic characteristics of Mississippi State University
Extension Agents.
2. Determine the level of demand that Mississippi State University Extension agents
were receiving for information on organic agriculture.
3. Determine the level of confidence of Mississippi State University Extension
agents in conducting activities in organic agriculture.
4. Determine the perception of Mississippi state University Extension agents about
organic agriculture.
111
5. Identify the importance of the organic agriculture topics, the knowledge of
Mississippi State University Extension agents in these topics, and the training needs
of the agents in these topics.
6. Determine the relationships between selected demographic characteristics of
Mississippi State University Extension agents and the importance of the organic
agriculture topics, the knowledge of the agents in these topics, and the training needs
of the agents in these topics.
.
7. Identify the barriers facing the expansion of organic agriculture in Mississippi
from the point of view of Mississippi State University Extension agents.
Summary of Procedures
Survey research methods were utilized to collect the data for the study. The total
population of the study was all Extension agents in all 82 counties in Mississippi in May,
2018 (N=154). Of the 154 agents invited to participate in the study, 77 (50%) responded
to the survey.
A questionnaire was developed and used to collect the study data from Extension
agents (Appendix B). Data collection took approximately one month between May, 2018
and June, 2018. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS), version 24.0. Analysis included frequencies, means, standard deviations,
percentages, Kruskal-Wallis tests for independent samples, Mann-Whitney U test, and the
calculation of mean weighted discrepancy scores.
Conclusions and Discussions
This section is divided into seven sections that describe a summary of the results
from the study and present the findings based on the purpose and objectives laid out as
part of this study.
112
Extension Agents’ Demographics
The age of Mississippi State University Extension agents ranged from less than
30 to over 50 years old. More than one-third of the agents were between 40 and 49 years
with an almost equal percentage of male and female Extension agents. This finding was
similar to the findings of Lillard (2011), where he found Extension agents in Texas to be
between 41-50 years. Furthermore, these findings were also similar to those of Alotaibi
(2018 b) where he found that male and female Extension specialists and agents with
Mississippi State University Extension were almost equal.
One third of Mississippi State University Extension agents had worked between
6-10 years with Extension, and 28.6% had worked more than 20 years with Extension.
This finding is quite similar to the finding of Alotaibi (2018 b) in that agents in his study
had work experience from less than 5 to 10 years with Mississippi State University
Extension. More than three quarters of Mississippi State University Extension agents
held a master's degree. This finding is also quite similar to the finding of Alotaibi’s (2018
b) study, where he found that the majority of specialists and Extension agents in
Mississippi had a Master’s degree.
Approximately half of the agents had attended zero trainings related to organic
agriculture and about one fourth of the agents had attended 1-2 trainings about organic
agriculture. These findings are quite similar to previous studies (Alotaibi, 2018 a;
Lillard, 2011; Yadav et al., 2013; Coffner & Kolodinsky, 1997) that found that most
Extension agents didn’t attend trainings about organic agriculture.
113
Level of Demand Mississippi State University Extension Agents Receiving for
Information on Organic Agriculture
Over one-third of agents employed with Mississippi State University Extension
noted the level of demand for information about raising livestock organically had
remained the same, and about one fourth of them indicated the level of demand towards
raising livestock organically had increased slightly over the past five years.
Approximately 40% of agents indicated the level of demand towards growing row crops
organically had remained the same, and 13% of them indicated the level of demand
towards growing row crops organically had increased over the past five years. More than
half of the agents indicated the level of demand towards growing produce organically had
increased. Lillard (2011) indicated that over 50% of agents in Texas reported that the
demand for information on organic agriculture had increased. Constance and Choi (2010)
found that 40% of the conventional farmers surveyed in Texas had at least some interest
in organic agriculture.
While over one third of respondents indicated that they provided information on
organic agriculture once a month, Alotaibi (2018 a) reported that 38% of agents provided
information on organic agriculture one time a month. Most of agents (59.7%) reported
that their audiences were home gardeners and 35.1% reported that their audiences were
part-time produce growers seeking information on organic agriculture. Alotaibi (2018 a)
indicated that consumers and full-time farmers to the targeted audiences of agents in his
study. While there may not be many organic farms or ranches in Mississippi, there is
growing interest in organic agriculture.
114
Level of Confidence Mississippi State University Extension Agents Have in
Conducting Activities in Organic Agriculture
Mississippi State University Extension agents were neutral in their level of
confidence in conducting activities in organic agriculture, which was similar to Lillard
(2011) study. He indicated that almost half of Texas agents reported to be slightly
confident in providing information on organic agriculture. Alotaibi (2018 a) further
reported that Saudi Arabian Extension agents were slightly confident in providing
information regarding organic agriculture. Sanderson (2004) stated that it is not so much
of success that increases confidence, but the process of learning and reflection.
Confidence can be gained by realizing that one can do better the next time, by watching
peers succeed, and by learning skills to enable success.
Perception of Mississippi State University Extension Agents Towards Organic
Agriculture
Mississippi State University Extension agents generally had a slightly positive
perception toward organic agriculture concepts. Previous studies on Extension agents’
perceptions have focused on sustainable agriculture and organic agriculture and found
that Extension agents did not have a clear understanding regarding these topics, they
were not well informed about organic agriculture, and they were unable to develop
extension education programs about organic agriculture (Agunga, 1995; Coffner &
Kolodinsky,
1997; Jayaratne, Martin, & DeWitt 2001).
115
While the overall perception toward organic agriculture was slightly positive,
ALSubaiee (2003) reported that the overall perception of Extension agents in Saudi
Arabia regarding sustainable agriculture was positive. Overall, the perception of
Mississippi State University Extension agents toward organic agriculture was quite
similar with
Chizari, Lindner, and Zoghie's (1999) study regarding perception of Extension agents in
Khorasan Province Iran toward sustainable agriculture practices. They found positive
perception of Extension agents towards sustainable agriculture. Furthermore, Minarovic
and Mueller (2000) found positive perception of North Carolina Cooperative Extension
Service professionals regarding sustainable agriculture. In Lillard’s (2011) study, he
found that Extension agents had a neutral perception toward organic agriculture;
however, in the present study, the results indicated that overall agents had a slightly
positive perception of organic agriculture.
Importance of the Organic Agriculture Topics, the Knowledge of Extension Agents
in These Topics, and the Training Needs of the Agents in These Topics
The three most important organic agriculture topics identified by Mississippi State
University Extension agents that they need to know about were “Benefits of IPM in
organic agriculture”, “What is organic agriculture”, and “Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) practices used in organic agriculture”. The least important topics agents reported
they needed to know about were “Using biofuel in organic agriculture”, “Growing row
crops organically”, and “Benefits of organic agriculture”. Mississippi State University
Extension agents perceived themselves to be most knowledgeable in “What is organic
agriculture”, “Benefits of organic agriculture”, and “Growing produce organically”.
116
Agents reported being the least knowledgeable in “Benefits of bio-fertilizers used in
organic agriculture”, “Post-harvest handling techniques in organic agriculture”, and
“Using biofuel in organic agriculture”. Mississippi State University Extension agents had
a relatively low knowledge in organic agriculture topics. These results are dissimilar to
Herath and Wijekoon (2013) study where they found that organic growers have relatively
higher knowledge in all ten statements in their study because they have had more
specialized training and activity and direct experience in organic farming.
The most important training needs of Mississippi State University Extension
agents were “Appropriate amounts of bio-fertilizers to use in organic agriculture”,
“Appropriate amounts of IPM in organic agriculture”, and “Organic certification”. The
findings of Alhamoly (2014) study reported that the highest-ranking in-service training
needs of Extension agents and specialists in organic agriculture in Egypt were
“Appropriate amounts of bio-fertilizers”, “Steps of utilizing bio-fertilizers” and “Steps of
utilizing IPM”. While in Alhamoly’s study, the statement “Appropriate amounts of IPM
in organic agriculture” had the fourth highest MDW, in this study the statement
“Appropriate amounts of IPM in organic agriculture” had the second highest MDW.
Mean weighted discrepancy scores (MWDs) of five were used as the benchmark
to determine high priority for training needs. Utilizing this criterion, there were 16
organic agriculture topics that had MDWs of 5 or more.
Relationships between Study Variables
There was very little difference in the importance ratings of knowing about
organic agriculture topics by age groups. The only topic found to be significantly
different among age groups for importance was “Raising livestock organically”.
117
Significant differences between gender groups and the importance ratings of knowing
about organic agriculture topics were found in only two topics. Significant differences
were found between categories of years of experience on 2 topics about the importance of
the 29 organic agriculture topics.
Male Extension agents were more knowledgeable than female Extension agents
on 23 organic agriculture topics except the topic “What is organic agriculture”.
Furthermore, Mississippi State University Extension agents who held a doctorate were
more knowledgeable than who held a master’s or a bachelor’s degree in 6 organic
agriculture topics. Additionally, Extension agents who attended 3 or more trainings on
organic agriculture topics were more knowledgeable than agents who attended less than
three trainings.
Regarding the relationship between selected demographic characteristics and the
training needs, significant differences among the four groups of ages were found in only
three topics. Significant differences among the two groups of genders were found in 10
topics. The only topic found significantly different among years of experience groups for
training needs was “organic certification”. In addition, significant differences among the
three groups of highest level of education were found in 4 topics. Moreover, significant
differences among the three groups of number of trainings were found in the topic
“Raising livestock organically.”
Mississippi State University Extension agents less than 30 years of age need more
training than other agents in “Type of organic fertilizers used in organic agriculture” and
“Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices used in organic agriculture. Female
118
Extension agents need more training than male Extension agents in 10 organic agriculture
topics, particularly in the areas of what is organic agriculture, fertilizers used in organic
agriculture, and how to transition from traditional practices to organic agriculture.
Extension agents who held bachelor’s degree need more training than agents who
have a master’s or doctoral degree in topics related to benefits and amounts of
biofertilizers to use. Those Extension agents who had earned a doctoral degree need
additional training on “How to transition from traditional practices to organic
agriculture”.
In this study, there are some similarities with previous studies. Lillard (2011)
found the gender of Texas agents to be statistically significant in explaining differences in
the perceived role of agents in organic agriculture. Sisk (1995) found significant
differences in Extension agents’ perceptions toward their role in sustainable agriculture
for age, in particular, for extension agents under 33 years of age. In addition, Sisk (1995)
also found significant differences in perceptions varying across agents’ differing farm
backgrounds, while he did not find any differences varying across differing educational
backgrounds. However, Alotaibi (2018 a) found that Extension agents’ interest for
individual items in participating in training on organic agriculture were not significantly
different for different age groups in Riyadh Region, Saudi Arabia. The findings from
previous studies and this study provide mixed findings between Extension agents’
personal demographics and their training needs.
Barriers Facing the Expansion of Organic Agriculture in Mississippi
Mississippi State University Extension agents perceived barriers to expanding
organic agriculture as either a moderate barrier or somewhat of a barrier. Overall, the
119
barriers perceived by Mississippi State University Extension agents as being the most
critical to the implementation of organic agriculture were high input cost, pest-related
production issues, high overall cost of production organic products, and disease-related
production losses.
The findings of this study about the barriers facing the expansion of organic
agriculture is quite similar to the study of Hikkaduwa (2017) who found that the highest
barriers toward the expansion of organic agriculture in Tennessee were high cost of
production, labor intensity, pest and disease problem and certification process as barriers
for organic agriculture expansion. Landicho et al. (2014) results are also quite similar to
current study. They presented the most three challenges facing the expansion of organic
agriculture in Philippines, which were lack of financial and technical capacity of the
smallholder farmers, problem on the emerging marketing arrangements with the traders,
and insufficient supply of organic inputs/fertilizers.
While the statement “Lack of Extension support” ranked the lowest barrier in this
study, in Saudi Arabia one of the highest challenges that was facing organic agriculture
was the lack of Extension support (Hartmann et al., 2012). In the US, Creamer, Baldwin,
and Louws (2000) indicated that land grant universities (LGUs) need to provide
information, conduct research, and deliver Extension programs to support organic
farmers.
Implications for Practice
Suggestions for practice drawn from the results of this study are provided as
follows:
120
1. An executive summary of this study should be provided to the Director
and Associate Director of Mississippi State University Extension to use in
guiding Extension in planning professional development opportunities in
organic agriculture.
2. The executive summary should also be provided to the Plant Science
Planning Group in Mississippi State University Extension to assist this
group in planning professional development opportunities in organic
agriculture for the agents.
3. Mississippi State University Extension should examine both formal and
non-formal professional development opportunities in organic agriculture
for agents that need training in high need areas. Formal delivery
approaches to consider should include the development of college courses
for credit and structured workshops conducted by appropriate specialists
in organic agriculture. Non-formal approaches to training agents in
organic agriculture topics should include field days, webinars, and
appropriate social media applications where information will be readily
available for them to access and use.
4. Mississippi State University Extension agents should collaborate with
organic farming networks and appropriate state organizations to establish
productive working relationships to promote greater awareness of organic
agriculture opportunities in Mississippi. Agents should also acknowledge
and utilize the local knowledge of organic farmers, thus expanding the
knowledge base on organic practices and acknowledging the adult
learners’ experiences.
Implications for Future Studies
The current research study provided baseline information regarding organic
agriculture in Mississippi. The following suggestions for further research were derived
from this study:
1. Conduct a study about farmers’ adoption of organic agriculture practices in
Mississippi.
121
2. Conduct a study on the attitudes of Mississippi farmers about organic agriculture
practices.
3. Conduct a study on the consumers’ perception towards organic agriculture
produce in Mississippi.
4. Conduct a study to determine if there is an interest in organic agriculture practices
among 4-H youth in Mississippi.
5. Determine Mississippi State University faculty perceptions of organic agriculture
practices and how it influences their involvement in teaching and conducting
research in organic agriculture.
6. Conduct a study about the comparison of the perception and knowledge of
Agriculture and Natural Resources agents and Family and Consumer Sciences
agents towards organic agriculture.
7. Determine the perceived barriers to incorporating organic agriculture into
undergraduate and graduate curriculum.
8. Assess the effectiveness of knowledge and communication systems in developing
multiple organic agricultural initiatives that contribute to sustainable rural
community development. The goal of that research would be to identify resilient
local community strategies for the production and marketing of organically grown
using organic land management practices.
9. Replicate this study with Mississippi State University Extension agents to
determine if training needs of Extension agents have changed after receiving
initial or additional training in organic agriculture.
122
123
