Skip to main content Accessibility help

Farmer support for publicly funded sustainable agriculture research: The case of hoop structures for swine

  • Julie T. Sharp (a1) and C. Clare Hinrichs (a2)


Environmental and social concerns about the use of capital-intensive agricultural technologies have fueled questions about the process, impact, and future direction of the system that is largely responsible for developing these technologies; that is, publicly funded agricultural research at U.S. land-grant universities. Although social scientists have analyzed the public agricultural research system and farmers' attitudes towards various capital-intensive agricultural technologies, there has been less research on farmers' attitudes toward publicly funded research that focuses specifically on lowerinput agricultural technologies that contribute to sustainability goals. This research examines farmers' attitudes toward publicly funded research on one such low-input technology, deep-bedded hoop structures for swine production. With lower capital costs and purported environmental and management advantages, hoop structures have been promoted to and adopted by growing numbers of Midwest swine producers. The study hypotheses draw on published theories of the treadmill of technology, and of innovation adoption and diffusion. Using a 1997 mail survey of Iowa swine producers (n = 298), we examined factors associated with producers' attitudes toward publicly funded research on hoop structures and found that 40% were supportive of the research, 40% were opposed, and 20% were undecided. Of the variables examined, the producer's assessment of hoop structures' contribution to sustainability, number of external knowledge sources about hoop structures, and formal education were each significantly related to support for publicly funded hoop-structure research. Two farm structure variables, marketings and percentage of income from farming, were not significantly related in this study. Future research on farmers' attitudes toward public sector agricultural research should take account of farmers' views of potential impacts of the specific technologies being researched and developed, and the nature of farmers' ties to the land-grant university system. This study clarifies the importance of farmers' perceptions and concerns about specific agricultural technologies in directing public agricultural research planning and policy toward broader sustainability goals.


Corresponding author

Corresponding author is C.C. Hinrichs (


Hide All
1.Allen, P. (ed.). 1993. Food for the Future: Conditions and Contradictions of Sustainability. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
2.Berardi, G.M., and Geisler, C.C. (eds.). 1984. The Social Consequences and Challenges of New Agricultural Technologies. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
3.Bird, E.A.R., Bultena, G.L., and Gardner, J.C. (eds.). 1995. Planting the Future: Developing an Agriculture That Sustains Land and Community. Iowa State University Press, Ames.
4.Brumm, M.C., Harmon, J.D., Honeyman, M.S., and Kliebenstein, J.T.. 1997. Hoop structures for grow-finish swine. Agric. Engrs. Digest AED 41. MidWest Plan Service, Ames, IA.
5.Busch, L. (ed.). 1981. Science and Agricultural Development. Allanheld, Osmun, and Co. Publishers, Totowa, NJ.
6.Busch, L., and Lacy, W.B.. 1981. Sources of influence on problem choice in the agricultural sciences: The new Atlantis revisited. In Busch, L. (ed.). Science and Agricultural Development. Allanheld, Osmun, and Co. Publishers, Totowa, NJ. p. 113130.
7.Busch, L., and Lacy, W.B.. 1983. Science, Agriculture, and the Politics of Research. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
8.Busch, L., and Lacy, W.B. (eds.). 1986. The Agricultural Scientific Enterprise: A System in Transition. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
9.Buttel, F.H., and Busch, L.. 1988. The public agricultural research system at the crossroads. Agric. History 62:303324.
10.Buttel, F.H., Larson, O.F., and Gillespie, G.W. Jr., 1990. The Sociology of Agriculture. Greenwood Press, New York.
11.Cochrane, W. 1958. Farm Prices. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
12.Connor, M.L. 1993. Evaluation of biotech housing for feeder pigs. Manitoba Swine Update 5(3):12.
13.Coughenour, C.M., and Christenson, J.A.. 1983. Farm structure, social class, and farmers' policy perspectives. In Brewster, D.E., Rasmussen, W.D., and Youngberg, G. (eds.). Farms in Transition: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Farm Structure. Iowa State University Press, Ames. p. 6786.
14.Dillman, D.A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. Wiley and Sons, New York.
15.Freudenburg, W.R. 1983. The promise and peril of public participation in social impact assessment. In Daneke, G.A., Garcia, M.W., and Priscoli, J.D. (eds.). Public Involvement and Social Impact Assessment. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. p. 227234.
16.Friedland, W.H., and Barton, A.. 1975. Destalking the wily tomato: A case study in social consequences in California agricultural research. Res. Monogr. No. 15. University of California, Dept. of Applied Behavioral Sciences, Davis.
17.Gillespie, G.W. Jr., and Buttel, F.H.. 1989. Farmer ambivalence toward agricultural research: An empirical assessment. Rural Sociol. 54:382408.
18.Hadwiger, D.F. 1982. The Politics of Agricultural Research. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
19.Hightower, J. 1973. Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times. Schenkman, Cambridge, MA.
20.Hinrichs, C.C., and Richard, T.L.. 2000. Socio-technical and Environmental Dimensions of Swine Manure Management Decisions. Final Research Project Report. Iowa State University, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Ames.
21.Honeyman, M.S. 1996. Hooped structures with deep bedding for grow-finish pigs. ASL-R1392. ISU Swine Research Report. Iowa State University Extension, Ames, p. 107–109. Web site (verified 17 January 2001).
22.Honeyman, M.S. 1999. Overview of swine system options. Swine System Options for Iowa: Proceedings of Conference held February 17,1999, at Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Ames. p. 1320.
23.Honeyman, M.S., Brewer, C.L., Kliebenstein, J.B., Miller, D.J., Penner, A.D., Larson, M.E., and Jorgensen, C.S.. 1998. Performance and budget analysis of finishing pigs in hoop structures and confinement during the winter: First group results. ASL-R1591. ISU Swine Research Report AS-640. Iowa State University Extension, Ames. Web site (verified 17 January 2001).
24.Honeyman, M.S., and Kent, D.. 2001. Performance of a Swedish deep-bedded feeder pig production system in Iowa. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 16:5056.
25.Kloppenburg, J.R. Jr., and Buttel, F.H.. 1987. Two blades of grass: The contradictions of agricultural research as state intervention. Res. Polit. Sociol. 3:111135.
26.Lasley, P. 1984. The Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll, Spring 1984 Summary. PM-1178. Iowa State University Cooperative Extension Service, Ames.
27.Lasley, P., and Bultena, G.. 1986. Farmers' opinions about third-wave technologies. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 1:122126.
28.Lay, D.C. Jr., Haussmann, M.F., and Daniels, M.J.. 2000. Hoop housing for feeder pigs offers a welfare-friendly environment compared to a nonbedded confinement system. J. Appl. Animal Welfare Sci. 3:3348.
29.Liebhardt, W.C. (ed.). 1993. The Dairy Debate: Consequences of Bovine Growth Hormone and Rotational Grazing Technologies. University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, Davis.
30.Lockeretz, W., and Anderson, M.D.. 1993. Agricultural Research Alternatives. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
31.Middendorf, G., and Busch, L.. 1997. Inquiry for the public good: Democratic participation in agricultural research. Agric. Human Values 14:4557.
32.Pampel, F. Jr., and van Es., J.C. 1977. Environmental quality and issues of adoption research. Rural Sociol. 42:5771.
33.Richard, T.L., and Choi, H.L.. 1999. Eliminating waste: Strategies for sustainable manure management—Review. Asian-Aust. J. Animal Sci. 12:11621169.
34.Richard, T.L., and Hinrichs, C.C.. 1998. Normal accidents: Risk management in manure handling systems. Paper no. MC98-103 presented at Mid-Central Conference of the American Society for Agricultural Engineering, 04 2425, St. Joseph, Missouri.
35.Rogers, E.M. 1962. Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press of Glencoe, New York.
36.Sommer, J.E., Hoppe, R.A., Greene, R.C., and Korb, P.J.. 1998. Structural and financial characteristics of U.S. farms, 1995: 20th annual family farm report to Congress. Agric. Info. Bull. No. 746. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC. Web site (verified 17 January 2001).
37.USDA. 1981. A Time to Choose: Summary Report on the Structure of Agriculture. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
38.USDA. 1999. 1997 Census of Agriculture: Iowa State and County Data, Vol. 1, Geographic Area Series, Part 15. Natl. Agric. Stat. Serv. No. AC97-A-15. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, DC.


Farmer support for publicly funded sustainable agriculture research: The case of hoop structures for swine

  • Julie T. Sharp (a1) and C. Clare Hinrichs (a2)


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed