THE SS-AAEA QUIZBOWL: SUCCESS IN AND OUT OF THE CLASSROOM A THREE YEAR STUDY

A three year study of the Quizbowl participants and advisers reveals perceptions on how beneficial preparation for and participation in the SS-AAEA Quizbowl are in successfully completing related course work in eight areas of economics at their universities and how funding impacts performance. Additionally responses indicate overall satisfaction with Quizbowl event.Teaching/Communication/Extension/Profession,

IMPACTS OF UNIVERSITY FINANCIAL AND ACADEMIC SUPPORT ON STUDENT PERFORMANCE AT THE SS-AAEA QUIZBOWL COMPETITION AND IN THE CLASSROOM

A 2001 survey of SS-AAEA Quizbowl participants suggested potential benefits of the SS-AAEA Quizbowl Competition to students' academic performance. A new survey of quizbowl advisers is used with the previous data to determine the impact of a university's academic and/or financial support of participants on students' performances at the competition.Teaching/Communication/Extension/Profession,

The roles, needs, and challenges of Arkansas women in agriculture

Participants of the 2005-2007 Arkansas Women in Agriculture conferences were surveyed for this study to identify recent changes in their roles on and off the farm, the factors important to their success, and the problems they face in their businesses. Respondents were broken into two groups—Farm (women owner-operators of farms, ranches, or agribusinesses) and Non-farm (women working in supporting agricultural industries)—for comparisons and responses were also analyzed across years. Farm women most often reported problems keeping good employees each year, while Non-farm women often reported having problems with being respected as a female business person. For Farm women, the factor most often cited as important to success in their business was being able to pass the business on to family; for Non-farm women it was being able to apply their talents and skills. These results suggest that different types of agricultural women hold different attitudes about business and face different challenges. Results across years suggest that successes and problems may change over time. This marks some of the first research on the roles, challenges, and attitudes of Arkansas’ women in agriculture. Based on the results of this research, educational efforts are underway across the state to assist Arkansas’ women in agriculture. However, given the small sample of women surveyed, further research is still needed to fully understand the roles, challenges, and attitudes of Arkansas’ women in agriculture

Water quality issues in the Illinois River watershed: A proposal for new voluntary incentives

Concerns about water quality degradation exist in Northwest Arkansas. The purpose of this study was to analyze the potential usefulness of U.S. conservation programs in addressing water quality concerns on farms in the Illinois River watershed as well as greater Washington County, Arkansas. It was hypothesized that neither the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) nor the Conservation Security Program (CSP) in their current forms effectively assists farmers in meeting water-quality management goals. That hypothesis was tested by 1) examining agricultural characteristics of the watershed, 2) actual adoption of EQIP and CSP in Washington County and Arkansas, and, 3) identifying factors that influence program adoption. Results show that based on watershed and farmer characteristics, neither program can meet water quality goals for the region. EQIP adoption is hindered by high rejection rates of applications and farmer dissatisfaction with the program. CSP adoption is unlikely because it does not consider watersheds with degraded water quality and allowable best management practices (BMPs) do not include those related to waste management – precisely the practices most often used by these watershed farmers. Suggestions are offered to modify both EQIP and CSP and use them as a two-part plan to better serve the needs of farmers and improve both adoption rates of BMPs by farmers and water quality in the region

Quizbowl: Success In and Out of the Classroom, a Five Year Study

Scores of US and Canadian universities' undergraduate students participate in the SS-AAEA Quiz-bowl competition annually. Surveys of the 2001 through 2005 competition participants suggest how beneficial competition preparation and participation are in completing related university work and indicate factors which enhance chances of success in the competition.Teaching/Communication/Extension/Profession,

An Assessment of Economic Considerations for Industrial Hemp Production

United States farm policy and programs are governed by the Farm Bill. The 2014 Farm Bill allows for the legal production and research of industrial hemp as long as it meets the standards outlined in the Farm Bill. Although it has a wide range of uses (upwards of 25,000 products use hemp), there is a lack of recent information regarding the economic feasibility of hemp production for the private agricultural sector. Through an extensive search of existing literature, information was gathered to construct an enterprise budget for industrial hemp. Data from the enterprise budget were used in a constrained linear programming model to compare how introducing industrial hemp production could change crop allocations in all 75 counties of Arkansas When industrial hemp was introduced, the total number of acres farmed increased by 2.8% to 4.4%, the statewide profit increased by 0.3% to 18.2%, and rice was the only crop that increased in acreage by 5%. While these results suggest that industrial hemp may be an economically promising crop, there are still hurdles to overcome. The lack of clearance (permitting) by the Drug Enforcement Agency and the absence of hemp processing facilities in the United States are clear roadblocks to hemp production. Once permitting hurdles are overcome, additional research will be needed to identify optimal locations for processing facilities and target markets for hemp goods

Marketing Tips for Small-scale, Local Honey Bee Keepers in Northwest Arkansas

The objective of this thesis was to gain market information for beekeepers regarding different honey bee products and to provide information about economic feasibility when produced on a small, local scale. Since cost-of-production information about operating an apiary is widely available, the focus of this work was on gaining marketing knowledge. One of the objectives of the surveys was to develop a better sense of what potential resellers of honey bee products considered locally produced. Another objective was to determine preferences for honey bee product packaging as well as bee pollination services. Using that feedback, a marketing plan for different niche markets can be developed for part-time beekeeping operations. The survey results pertaining to local retailers and end users in Northwest Arkansas in 2016 suggested a supply radius near 100 miles and a preference for small packaging in general. Least cost supply, and at least regional brand recognition were not deemed as important as ensuring locally sourced products that can be sold at a premium. Different niche markets revealed both similar and different priorities related to these marketing aspects

Willingness to Pay for Water Availability in Northwest Arkansas

Resource /Energy Economics and Policy,

PROFITABILITY OF VARIABLE RATE PHOSPHORUS IN A TWO CROP ROTATION

In the Midwest, the adoption of precision farming technologies began in the early 1990s. Research has produced profiles of early adopters, evaluated adoption trends and has identified factors that influence the adoption and profitability of precision farming. Importantly, this information is available to producers, who are interested in precision farming issues. In addition, the Midwest regional agricultural industry, strong promoters of precision farming technologies, has gained the confidence of farmers who now rely on them heavily for information on farming technologies. Precision farming in Arkansas, however, is still in its infancy. Adoption levels lag far behind those in the Midwest. Two reasons for this lag have been offered. First, some suggest that much of what is believed about the technologies in the state is based on hearsay or the results of small single farm case study analyses. Because these beliefs have not been rigorously substantiated with extensive empirical evidence it has not been possible to truly assess the status of adoption, to predict potential adoption trends, or to adequately advise farmers in a decision to include precision farming in their farm management plan. Second, others suggest that agricultural industry has not taken an active role in the promotion and sale of precision farming equipment and services. Without local availability, all the research in the world will not lead to adoption of technology in the state. The objective of this paper is to provide critical information to Arkansas agricultural producers, industry and extension with answers regarding 1) the current status of precision farming 2) the amount, source and effectiveness of precision farming promotion and 3) the potential future of precision farming in Arkansas. In the Spring of 1999, three groups, early adopters of precision farming technologies (EA), Cooperative Extension Service personnel (CES) and agricultural industry personnel (AI), were surveyed to ascertain the realities and perceptions of precision farming in Arkansas. The surveys included questions related to characteristics of early adopters, factors encouraging and hindering adoption, and the roles of CES and AI in the promotion of precision farming within Arkansas. The survey response rate was over 60 percent. To build profiles of Arkansas EA to compare responses regarding sources of precision farming information across all three groups three statistical tools were used to test hypotheses regarding factors which influence adoption. The surveys revealed that Arkansas EA are young, educated, computer using, experienced farmers controlling relatively large farms predominantly devoted to rice and soybean. These farmers currently employ yield and soil mapping, as well as VRT and GIS technologies in their operations. While many reasons (such as decreased costs, improved yields, and improved management capabilities) have been cited as factors that can encourage adoption, there are still any number of reasons why many Arkansas farmers have not yet adopted these technologies, including, technical difficulties, expense and unproven profitability. In addition, AI representatives see themselves as promoters of precision farming technologies in Arkansas while EA have cited instances of a lack of available equipment and also stated that they turn to CES rather than AI for farming information because they believe this is an unbiased source of information. The authors conclude that both reasons offered for the lag in adoption are likely and hope that these insights provide both the CES and AI representatives with information to help them focus their research and outreach activities so that more Arkansas producers can make informed decisions about precision farming.Crop Production/Industries,

Economic Contribution of Agriculture and Food to Arkansas\u27 Gross Domestic Product 2017-2022

In this report, Arkansas agriculture is presented in a historical context. These data are available for 2017 through 2022. Throughout the report, agriculture is defined in terms of agricultural sectors, North American Industry Classification Scheme (NAICS) sectors, industries, and general descriptive terms that can be applied to agriculture