MDL offers a brief AP report Tuesday saying "Farm Computer Use Stagnates." The article mentions that the percentage of SD farms with Internet access has remained unchanged at 55% over the last two years.
Worried that our farmers might be getting left on the wrong side of the digital divide (and smelling more fodder for my impending doctoral thesis on information systems and rural economic development), I head to the USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service and find the original report on which the AP report is based (pdf and zip formats also available). I discover that "stagnates" may exaggerate the downs
South Dakota was one of only two states to show a decrease in farm computer access from 2005 to 2007, from 66% to 65%. But SD still showed an increase from 2003 to 2007 and remains above the national average of 63%. In farm Internet access, SD was one of 6 states to show zero increase over the last two years; three states showed decreases. But the slightly longer term again shows positive news: between 2003 and 2005, farm Internet access jumped 10 points from 45% to 55%, which is also the current national average. Perhaps we've just been taking a statistical breather from that rapid growth.
Our farmers are behind the nation in using the Internet to purchase agricultural inputs (SD: 7%; US: 11%) but ahead of the nation in marketing online (SD: 12%; US 10%). Our farmers use the Internet at the same rate or higher rates than the national average to state and federal government information.
South Dakota farmers are also enjoying faster migration to faster Internet access than the national average: the percentage of SD farmers using pokey dialup has dropped from 68% to 38% in just the last two years, while nationwide, farm dialup usage has dropped from 69% to 47%. DSL and wireless are taking up the slack. DSL jumped on SD farms from 15% to 35% since 2005 (US: 13% in 2005, 27% in 2007). Wireless now beams into 14% of SD farms, up from 3% in 2005 (US: 3% 2005, 7% 2007). Cable Internet access remains flat at 3% of SD farms (US: 6% in 2005, 7% in 2007).
Do farmers need computers to grow food? Not necessarily. But in a global market, where there are plenty of corporate farms engaging the services of hordes of MBAs and PhDs to maximize their profit margins in every way possible, the independent small farmer (are there any left?) needs every advantage possible, including online information and marketing opportunities. Access to the Internet is as important for farmers as access to highways and Diesel fuel, and we need to make sure everyone, from Elk Point to Bison, can get it.
One non-computer number is perhaps of more significance than any of the stats on tech access. The NASS report concludes with a count of farms. South Dakota has lost 300 farms since 2003, down to 31,300. Over the same time frame, the US has lost 37,100 farms -- 2.08 million left. I suppose the good news is that South Dakota's farm loss rate is "only" 0.24% per year, less than the nationwide farm loss rate of 0.44%. Somehow, I can't get myself to cheer too hard over losing farms more slowly than the rest of the country. Fewer people farming means fewer people owning land and making their own decisions, fewer families carrying on a grand tradition, and more corporations taking over more land. Putting more computers on the farm isn't nearly as important as keeping more people on the land (and corporations aren't people).
So, although the percentage of farms using computers hasn't changed. Becaue the number of farms is actually decreasing, SD must have had new farms jumping on the technology bandwagon in that timeframe to keep the percentage the same. Which means there has been progress to some extent. It just doesn't show up in the initial numbers.
ReplyDeleteNo, I thought that at first, but that can't be the case. Consider the Internet access numbers:
ReplyDelete2003: 45% of 31,600 = 14,220 farms
2005: 55% of 31,400 = 17,270 farms
2007: 55% of 31,300 = 17,215 farms
If a percentage stays the same and the total population goes down, then the number represented by that percentage also goes down. It's quite likely some farmers who never had Internet access have added it since 2005, but they were outnumbered by farms that had Internet access in 2005 and got rid of it.
That poses an interesting (dissertation-worthy?) question: why would they get rid of that useful tool? Cost is the most likely explanation... although maybe some farmers decided their World of Warcraft addiction was keeping them from getting out to the barn to fix their tractors. :-)