The purpose of this record of study was to examine the perceptions held by a targeted "grassroots" society composed of agricultural producers regarding farm policy goals, policy commodity components, and operational factors as potential barriers to successful policy. The study also examined the relationship of the government defined and "grassroots" perceived intended outcomes of current components to seek areas of needed education or research. A researcher developed questionnaire was used to collect the data from members/producers of USDA, FSA county committees in Texas. The questionnaire consisted of 37 questions divided into three sections: demographic and farm data; policy perception data; and operational issues. Ultimately, there were a total of 761 surveys returned from 175 FSA county committees of 206 (85%) representing farms and ranches from 232 of 254 counties (91% of counties) in Texas. Descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA were used to examine the data. Major findings, identified through descriptive analysis, were that the producer respondents in the study were predominately male, between the ages of 36 - 65 years of age and Caucasian. As a group, the producer respondents will be farming and ranching to provide food and fiber for a population much more diverse than itself. The perception data collected yielded that, while some general and important conclusions can be drawn from the data, the different size/types of producers had different opinions, knowledge levels, and therefore, educational needs. Overall, policy goals involving global orientation and the supply and stabilization of farm income for producers were high targets for educational needs by the respondents. Respondents also considered those policy tools providing producer control or proprietary decision making as high areas of need for education. Several operational issues noted educational needs such as individual handling of landowner/tenant issues, administrative costs/changes, and changes in commodity programs.

Agricultural policy continues to play a large role in risk reduction for agricultural producers in the United States. However, current budget deficits and growing national debt has many policy makers looking for ways to change the farm safety net. The interactions of current and new policy tools including crop insurance and representative farms were examined in a simulation model for four representative farms. Various outcomes were examined with attention primarily focused on (1) magnitude and frequency of farm program payments, (2) government costs and farmer return on insurance premiums paid, (3) coefficient of variation of farm revenue and probability of negative ending cash, and (4) Stochastic Efficiency with Respect to a Function (SERF) analysis. Results indicated that Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) and Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX) programs provide high farmer returns and positive mean payments. However, SCO, STAX, and crop insurance provided lower levels of protection when both the base and harvest price decline by the same amount. Overall, the House farm bill was preferred by all four farms for every scenario. Additionally, the results for Alternative 4, which examined different insurance coverage levels, showed that it was possible for a representative farm to lower its insurance coverage and improve its financial position. The results indicate how farm programs cover various types of potential losses faced by producer which makes the results meaningful to both producers and policy makers alike.

<p>This dissertation examines federal farm policy between 1933 and 1965 and its implementation in North and South Carolina. It argues that restricted economic democracy in the Farm State - the full array of agriculture regulations, programs, and agencies associated with the federal government - enabled policy makers to adhere strictly to the principles of progressive farming and parity in the development and implementation of farm policies. These ideals emphasized industrialized, commercial farming by ever-larger farms and excluded many smaller farms from receiving the full benefit of federal farm aid. The resulting programs, by design, contributed significantly to the contraction of the farm population and the concentration of farm assets in the Carolinas. They also steered rural economic development into the channels of agribusiness as a strategy to manage the consequences of those policies. The processes and programs that drove the smallest farms out of business in the early post-war era were beginning to threaten even larger, commercial farming enterprises by the 1960s. In this context, the economic and political interests of farmers became separate from and oppositional to those of industry or consumers and removed incentives to seek common ground. The unwavering pursuit of commercial farming and agribusiness prevented diversified rural development in the Carolinas and contributed to uneven distributions of prosperity in the region. </p><p>Using the methodologies of policy, business, and social history, this work draws upon evidence from a wide variety of sources including the papers of government farm agencies, correspondence of farmers, political office holders, and personnel of the USDA. It also consults the farm press and local press, the writings of farm policy leaders, and Congressional hearings and reports. These documents provide a multifaceted perspective on the development and implementation of farm programs in the Carolinas and offers a new look at the contested process through which farm policy was made and implemented in the post war period.</p> / Dissertation

The purpose of this study was to determine perceptions of organizational communication methods used by selected commodity-specific, general agricultural and, conservation or natural resources organizations to disseminate information about the Farm Security and Rural Investment (FSRI) Act of 2002 within their organizations. A secondary purpose was to evaluate if preferred organizational communication methods related to organization leaders?? perceptions of the FSRI Act of 2002. Previous studies have assessed organizational communication methods and members?? perceptions, but little research has been completed on the combination of these variables. The instrument used in this study was derived from modified versions of Sulak??s (2000) 1996 Farm Bill survey, a similar instrument by Catchings and Wingenbach (2003), and Franklin??s (1975) organizational communication survey. The target population (N=300) was all selected Texas organizations?? board members. The accessible population (n=160) were selected Texas organizations (commodity-specific, general agriculture, and conservation or natural resources) board members. There were 70 respondents with a response rate of 44%. iv The respondents from this study were mostly board members from a commodity-specific organization and were 46 to 55 years old. They had attended college or completed an undergraduate degree, were raised on a rural farm or ranch, and currently live on rural farm or ranch. The respondents from selected Texas organizations indicated that they had some knowledge about 17 of the 18 primary issues or programs in the 2002 Farm Bill. Selected Texas organizations board members strongly agreed that their respective organizations wanted to meet their primary objectives and information about important events or situations were shared within their organizations. The respondents strongly agreed with the statement ??farm organization coalitions were essential for enacting the 2002 Farm Bill,?? and ??farm organizations strongly influenced the 2002 Farm Bill.?? This study summated and correlated the perceptions of organizational communication methods and perceptions of influencers affecting the outcome of the 2002 Farm Bill. Through that correlation, this study can conclude there was a moderately significant and positive relationship between perceived organizational communication methods and perceived levels of influencers affecting the outcome of the 2002 Farm Bill.

The United States Farm Bill is a multi-billion-dollar federal legislation reenacted every five years to provide funding towards crop protection, nutrition, environmental protection, and other important focuses. The largest conservation program within the Farm Bill is the Conservation Reserve Program, which encompasses many conservation practices such as CP-33: habitat buffers for upland birds. Conservation implementation through the Farm Bill relies on voluntary producer enrollment in exchange for a rental fee to not farm enrolled land for a set time. I used yield data collected across six years from 36 agricultural fields in Humphreys and Holmes counties, Mississippi, USA, and a range of commodity prices to compare the change in economic and environmental opportunities available through economically targeted conservation enrollment between the 2014 Farm Bill and the 2018 Farm Bill. I found the 2014 Farm Bill was consistently higher in economic revenue and conservation opportunity compared to the 2018 Farm Bill

No description available.