Sociological Working Group Major Objectives

1. Report from Sociological Working GroupRobert E. Jones, Professor University of TennesseeAnnabel Kirschner, Professor Emeritus Washington State UniversitySCRI Advisory Committee Meeting, Lubbock TX. June 1, 2011

2. Sociological Working Group Major Objectives 1. Identify the level of knowledge about HT/BDM production systems among a sample of specialty crop producers in 3 regions of the U.S. 2. Identify potential barriers and bridgesin the design, adoption and dissemination of HT/BDM production systems among a sample and potential stakeholders in the 3 regions. 3. Assess the impact of information generated by the sociological and biophysical research designed to increase understanding and support for HT/BDM production systems among a sample of specialty crop growers in 3 regions. 4. Determine the socio-demographic characteristics of the focus group participants and survey respondents to identify/understand any potential group and/or regional differences.

3. Barriers & Bridges • The biophysical, social, cultural, economic, and technical factors that may significantly help or hinder the successful design, adoption and dissemination of HT/BDM agro-systems • i.e., current norms and practices of specialty crop producers, and materials and service providers & potential benefits and risks of both high tunnel and BDM technologies.

4. Overview Year 1 & 2 Methods

5. HT/BDM Field Demonstrations • University Agricultural Research Centers • Washington State, Texas A & M, and Tennessee • Two demonstrations and two follow-up focus groups per site • Held in conjunction with larger Agricultural Extension Field Day/Tour .

6. Field Demonstration with Focus Group Participants • University of Tennessee-April 2011

7. Hail Storms, Tennessee

8. Key Public & Private Stakeholder Groups • Use or interested in HT/BDM system • Regional or Locally-Based • Key Public and Private Stakeholder Groups • Specialty Crop Growers • i.e., strawberries, watermelons, tomatoes, peppers, squash, cucumbers, lettuce • Organic---Conventional farmers • Newer and older farmers • HT & BDM users & non-users • Smaller (<20 acres) & larger farms (20 acres or more) • Public Agricultural Support Groups • Universities & Public Agencies • soil, crop, material, social and economic scientists • state & local agricultural agents • Private Agricultural Support Groups • Local Producers of Mulch, Compost, & Equipment and NGOs

9. Focus Group Meetings • Combined Growers, Public and Private Support Groups • Two meetings /Region(N = 6) • Washington State (2), Texas (2) and Tennessee (2) • 80 Invited, 61 Attended (Participation Rate = 76%) • Provided Incentives • Waived Field Day Registration Fees • Honorarium and Lunch • Mean = 10/meeting • 2 facilitators, 1 ½ Hours, Audio-Taped

10. Disposition of Participants by State * Percent of those attending

11. Barriers to Adoption of HT’s & BDM’s • Economic—Cost • Overall cost of HT: perceived set-up to be as high as $18,000 to $20,000. • Replacement of covers: • Texas: Concern that covers might not last for 5 years. • Tenn.: Hail storm pointed to need for replacement. • How expensive to replace & dispose of plastic cover? • Cost of commercial BDM’s: • Some small growers already using “natural” BDM’s, leaves, hay, newspaper (esp. TN). • In general, concerned with pay off of investment.

12. Barriers to Adoption of HT’s & BDM’s • Learning Curve • Producers • Change from extensive to intensive production. • How to put up HT’s with little assistance? • How to find providers of HT materials. • Need to learn how to control heat in HT’s • Flat land to install HT (TN) • How to lay down BDM’s—need special tractor? • Can only produce a limited number of crops intensively. • Consumers • Will they buy a product out of season? • Will BDM’s be labeled organic?

13. Barriers to Adoption of BDM’s specifically • Trust • What is biodegradable—Do they really break down by end of season? • Do they last through the season? • Impact on Soil • What is the long-term impact on soil? Is a 3-year time frame enough to assess [referring to grant]? • Do BDM’s build up or degrade the soil? • Impact on soil moisture and performance with different types of soil.

14. Bridges to Adoption of HT’s & BDM’s • More control over weather & other factors • Work in HT anytime, don’t have to wait for the rain to stop • A morale boost to work in HT’s in the winter. • More consistency and predictability in harvest. • Reduce pest infestations, --deer, rabbits. • Less damage from hail and dust. • Extended Growing Season • Deliver a good product out of season. • “If you grow a crop, you want to have a market. If you have it out of season, you’ll have a market.”

15. Bridges to Adoption of HT’s & BDM’s • Variety of Products • Grow more exotic/tropical products. • Community Building • Develop community HT’s and rent out plots or farm as group • Help schools develop HT’s for food production. • BDM’s: • If truly biodegradable, less waste, better for environment. • Used with HT’s, could reduce water usage.

16. Growers’ Pre-Post Knowledge Knowledge Item Pre-Mean Post-Mean Know HTs 4.58 5.26*** Know HT Barriers 4.16 5.19*** Know HT Bridges 4.14 5.07** Know BDMs 3.07 4.40*** Know BDMs Barriers 3.30 4.81*** Know BDMs Bridges 3.26 4.57** Know HT/BDMs 3.29 4.55** Know HT/BDM barriers 3.56 4.84*** Know HT/BDMs bridge 3.60 4.81*** * Pre-Knowledge Items- Q1, Q3 & Q5 [a, b & c]; Post-Knowledge Items-Q2, Q4, Q6 [a, b, &c] Scale- High Mean Scores (7-6); Average Mean Scores (5-3); Low Mean Scores (2-1) Paired-Samples T tests, Significant Levels ** (p < .01) *** (p < .001)

17. Coming Year • Presentations • ISSRM Madison WI June 5-9 • ISSRM Madison WI Malaysia June 12-17 • Focus Groups • Finish compiling findings from focus groups • Compare information from different states • Survey • Create list of survey recipients • Use findings from focus groups to prepare survey to send to larger audience. • Analysis of findings