COMPUTERS IN AGRICULTURE Computer Use and Satisfaction by Great Plains Producers: Ordered Logit Model Analysis

producers use computers and how (or if) new software technology will be used. Agronomists rely increasingly on computers, and more than half Agricultural producers lagged behind other businesses of all producers have access to computers. Increasing farm computer in computer ownership and use in the 1980s, but observownership has resulted in intensified efforts to transfer new software technologies to producers; however, little is known about how satisfied ers predicted that ownership would increase dramatiproducers are with computers and the extent to which computers are cally in the 1990s (Batte et al., 1990; Schmidt et al., 1994; actually used. We extended our 1996 survey of Great Plains producers Woodburn et al., 1994), and indeed it has. The most to examine producer computer use and satisfaction and discuss potenrecent USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service tial implications for agricultural software developers. Building on our (NASS) farm computer usage survey (USDA-NASS, earlier computer adoption research, we developed ordered logit mod2001) found that 55% of farms had computer access, els for user satisfaction, frequency of computer use, and number of up from 47% in 1999 and 38% in 1997. Current adoption software applications used. Despite using more robust ordered logit of computers by producers now appears to match the models that fit the data well, surprisingly few explanatory variables general population (USDA-NASS, 2001). Despite rapid were significant. Greater computer skill significantly increased user adoption of computers by agronomists and producers satisfaction and number of software applications used. Greater education also increased user satisfaction and number of software applicaalike, little is known about why farmers purchase comtions used but reduced frequency of computer use. Farming experience puters, what they use them for, and whether computers showed similar conflicting results as education, i.e., greater number are making a positive impact on farm profitability. Softof years farming resulted in significantly increased computer satisfacware development for agricultural producers is costly; tion but lower frequency of use and number of software applications therefore, it seems prudent to clearly understand how used. A few other explanatory variables (e.g., farm owner or operator producers might use computers before investing in techas the primary computer user had a significant positive influence on nologies that may not be accepted. Three key questions frequency of use) were important in one of the three ordered logit that should concern developers of producer-oriented models, but no consistent relationship between models was found. agricultural software are: Generally, greater frequency of use and computer skill increased perceived usefulness of computers by producers. Implications of these 1. Which producers are using computers, and how results for agricultural software developers are discussed in the paper. do they use them? 2. How satisfied are producers with their computer’s contribution to their agribusinesses? C use among agronomists and other agricul3. What are the trends in the preceding questions tural professionals has risen rapidly in the past and future implications for agricultural software decade. In Agronomy Journal alone, more than 40 padevelopers? pers related to agricultural software programs were pubPrevious studies have focused on explaining which prolished in the 1990s (e.g., GUICS by Acock et al., 1999; ducers adopt computers (Putler and Zilberman, 1988; Magari and Kang, 1997; Michel and Radcliffe, 1995; Willimack, 1989; Woodburn et al., 1994). A few studies NEPER-Weed by Schulthess et al., 1996; Smith et al., have examined whether producers were satisfied with 1996; HERB by Wilkerson et al., 1991). Published softtheir computers and how they used them in their busiware applications ranged from simulation models to nesses (Baker, 1992; Batte et al., 1990). Amponsah pubyield mapping analysis tools. A natural consequence of lished the last survey about the specifics of use or satisincreasing farm computer ownership is to intensify effaction, other than ours, in 1995. A multistate effort forts to transfer new software technologies to producers. was conducted by the North Central Regional Research However, as agronomists and others proceed with develCommittee, Farm Information Systems (NC-191), in the oping and transferring software technologies to the field, early 1990s in which 750 producers in each of 13 states it is important to improve our understanding of which were surveyed (Batte, 1995). Most regional studies were conducted on agricultural computer use between 1986 J.C. Ascough II and G.S. McMaster, USDA-ARS-NPA, Great Plains and 1991 (Ascough et al., 1999) and commonly found Syst. Res. Unit, 301 S. Howes St., Room 353, Fort Collins, CO 80521; that farm size (hectares), farm income (or sales), ownerand D.L. Hoag and W.M. Frasier, Dep. of Agric. and Resour. Econ., ship (tenancy), and education had positive effects on B-329 Clark Bldg., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523. Received 26 Feb. 2001. *Corresponding author ([email protected]. computer ownership and that age had a negative or supedu). Abbreviations: NASS, National Agricultural Statistics Service. Published in Agron. J. 94:1263–1269 (2002).