Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 192 Document Number: D04632
Notes:
Table of Contents and Summary, James F. Evans Collection; Cited Reference. Review of Extension Research 1946/47-1956, Extension Service Circular 506, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: D09074
Notes:
James E. Grunig Collection, Pages 72-104 in F.L. Casmir (ed.), International and intercultural communications. Washington: University Press of America. 32 pages.
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 30 Document Number: D10562
Notes:
3 pages., via blog from Janzen Ag Law - online via AgriMarketing Weekly., Since big data arrived in agriculture a few years ago, I have watched companies struggle with how to address farmers' concerns with ag data privacy, security, and control. Some companies have started with a clean sheet of paper and drafted agreements that reflect what they actually do. Others have taken a short cut by cutting and pasting agreements from other industries. The result is that contracts for ag data collection, use and sharing are inconsistent and often miss the point-to communicate the company's intentions with users.
19 pages., via online journal., Vegetable farming is the main source of livelihood for smallholder farmers in Eswatini. However, the production and marketing challenges they faced inhibits the farmers from benefiting fully, which calls for relational transactions to enhance exchange efficiency. Therefore, this study aims to determine the nature of relationship constructs between vegetable farmers selling to formal and informal channels. Data elicited from 170 farmers were analysed using factor analysis, multiple regression analysis and discriminant analysis. Results revealed that farmers derived satisfaction from the price offered and communication, while trust was derived from satisfaction, communication and duration of the relationship, and commitment was derived from trust in both channels. The discriminant analysis results revealed that there is statistical significant difference between the channels. Farmers supplying formal markets perceived levels of satisfaction, trust, and commitment better than those supplying informal markets. The results also indicated that satisfaction and trust were the best predictors of the nature of the relationships. The lack of written contracts and low produce quantity purchased by the formal markets contributes to the low-level establishment of the farmer-buyer relationships. Therefore, coordinated supply chains and supplier-development approaches are necessary to complement the logistical requirements associated with fresh produce and to create mutual benefits.
