































   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 6, Issue 2, 2025 
  agdevresearch.org 

1. Kimberly Kester, Extension Livestock Educator, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Lafayette County – UW Extension 700 Main 

Street, #2, Darlington, WI 53530-1396, kimberly.kester@wisc.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6453-7139 
2. John S. Rayfield, Professor, Texas Tech University, Box 42131-Lubbock, TX 79409-2131, john.rayfield@ttu.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3741-2637 
3. D. Barry Croom, Professor, University of Georgia, 2360 Rainwater Rd, Tifton, GA 31793, dbcroom@uga.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7710-5212 
4. Paula Burke, County Extension Coordinator/ANR Agent Northwest District, University of Georgia, 900 Newnan Rd, Carrollton, GA 

30117-6477, pjburke@uga.edu 
5. Zackary Williams, County Extension Coordinator, University of Georgia, 203 South Dixon Street, Ag Complex, Suite 3, Alma, GA 

31510, zackary.williams@uga.edu,  https://orcid.org/0009-0008-5580-2621 
6. Brooklyne Wassel, County Extension Coordinator/ANR Agent, University of Georgia, P.O. Box 397, Meansville, GA 30256, 

brooklyne.wassel@uga.edu 
7. Shanna Reynolds, Shanna Reynolds County Extension Coordinator, University of Georgia, 55 Oglethorpe Drive, Crawford, GA 

30630, Shanna.Reynolds@uga.edu,  
8. Joshua G. Fuder, ANR Agent Northwest District, University of Georgia, 1130 Bluffs Parkway, Canton, GA 30114, jfuder@uga.edu 
9. Robyn Stewart, County Extension Coordinator, University of Georgia, 2080 Rowland-York Drive, Lincolnton, GA 30817, 

rlstew2@uga.edu,  https://orcid.org/0009-0007-0567-5567 
 

42 

The Perceptions of Farmers Toward Fee-Based Extension 
Programs and Services 

 
K. Kester1, J. S. Rayfield2, D. B. Croom3, P. Burke4, Z. Williams5, B. Wassel6, S. Reynolds7,  

J. G. Fuder8, R. Stewart9 
 

 
Article History 
Received: November 27, 2024 
Accepted: May 1, 2025 
Published: May 14, 2025 
 
 
Keywords 
Extension; farmers; fees; 
SDG 4: Quality Education   

Abstract 
This study used a descriptive survey design to explain U.S. agricultural 
producers' perceptions of how fee-based services would limit their access 
to Extension resources. Agricultural producers in the United States use 
Extension because of the free resources, troubleshooting, and 
competitively priced and high-quality lab services. Participants perceived 
immense value in research-based information available at no cost, 
especially for those who fell into the lower gross farm income brackets. 
Participants with higher-income farms were more tolerant of paying for 
commercial consulting services, likely due to having more capital to invest 
in such services. Despite their aversion to fees, participants supported 
paying for lab services that evaluated soil, plant, water, and feed samples. 
Such fees are expected as part of a standard business transaction yielding 
a tangible product or data, as one would experience when buying other 
goods. Participants were largely unaware of free commercial plant 
disease diagnosis services, which suggests an opportunity for agricultural 
agents to promote this more thoroughly in their counties. Overall, 
Georgia agricultural producers rely on Extension for free or affordable 
information that is high-quality and readily accessible. Producers count 
on their county agent to link them to a resource system providing 
valuable information in numerous formats to meet their needs.  

 

mailto:kimberly.kester@wisc.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6453-7139
mailto:john.rayfield@ttu.edu
https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3741-2637
mailto:dbcroom@uga.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7710-5212
mailto:pjburke@uga.edu
mailto:zackary.williams@uga.edu
https://orcid.org/0009-0008-5580-2621
mailto:brooklyne.wassel@uga.edu
mailto:Shanna.Reynolds@uga.edu
mailto:jfuder@uga.edu
mailto:rlstew2@uga.edu
https://orcid.org/0009-0007-0567-5567


Kester et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.571   43 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
The mission of Cooperative Extension has broadened in recent years in response to 
technological advances in the industry, societal needs, and the needs of the U.S. and the world 
economy (United States Department of Agriculture, 2023; West et al., 2009). Cooperative 
Extension mostly meets these needs through free services to agricultural producers, funded by 
tax dollars. Despite advances in Cooperative Extension programs and services, persistent 
problems remain in meeting stakeholders' needs when conditions call for conservative budgets 
and austerity measures (Narine et al., 2019). Extension agents struggle to keep pace with 
technological advancements because of limited resources for staffing, training, and 
development (Narine et al., 2019). In addition to these challenges, Cooperative Extension has to 
cope with increased competition from private agricultural consultants who provide on-demand 
services to U.S. agricultural producers for a fee (Ortmann et al., 1993; Rivera, 1996). For this 
study, we defined a commercial agricultural consultant, or scout, as a professional who 
provides expert advice and assistance to farmers, agribusinesses, and other organizations 
involved in agriculture. 
 
However, for Cooperative Extension to mitigate the effects of its challenges and compete with 
private-sector consultants, a fee-based service delivery system may be necessary, despite 
farmers' apprehensions. A study from Washington State University Extension found that 
farmers agreed that WSU Extension was valuable to their community and was an appropriate 
use of public funding. However, when asked how much they would be willing to pay for 
Extension services in taxes, participants selected a range of answers below the actual cost of 
those services (Hoag, 2005; Lawrence & Mandal, 2016; Weiler et al., 2006).  
 
To address its challenges and compete with private-sector consultants, Cooperative Extension 
may need to implement a fee-based service delivery system despite farmers' concerns and 
unwillingness to pay the total cost of its services. Nevertheless, are farmers ready for a fee-
based delivery system? 
 

Conceptual Framework 
 
How might farmers respond to the transition to a fee-based Extension service? This new 
approach to providing Extension expertise is a significant structural change from traditional 
program delivery methods. Extension professionals utilize the diffusion of innovation theory 
(Rogers, 2003) as the vehicle for adopting new technologies in agriculture (Koutsouris, 2018). 
Suppose Cooperative Extension were to implement strategies based on the diffusion of 
innovation theory to promote the adoption of a fee-based system. Would this new approach 
help alleviate the challenges faced by local Extension professionals and enhance the level and 
quality of services provided to producers?  
 
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.571


Kester et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.571   44 
 

The Status of Extension in Georgia 
In the state where we conducted this study, farmers produced over 13 billion dollars of 
agricultural products and services in 2022 (Kane, 2023). To maintain a high level of productivity 
in the agriculture industry, that state, with local and federal partnerships, has established a 
robust Extension system. In 2023, Extension professionals contacted 482,376 people and 
conducted 42,798 on-site consultations (University of Georgia Extension, 2023).  
 
In the state where we conducted this study, agricultural producers currently do not pay for the 
advisory services they receive from agricultural Extension agents. They only pay out of pocket 
for lab services, where their local Extension office ships soil, water, plant, and feed samples to 
the University of Georgia labs, and a registration fee for organized programs or classes they 
choose to attend.  
 
However, setting the fees for Extension services depends on the market. As demand and the 
cost of inputs fluctuate, the fee would also fluctuate (Laurent et al., 2006). If Cooperative 
Extension cannot match the market fee price, an Extension fee-based system becomes 
unworkable. Furthermore, while promising to make Extension advisory services more self-
supporting, a fee-based system competes with consulting services in the agribusiness industry 
(Laurent et al., 2006). The human toll of a competitive market for advisory services is steep, 
driving qualified Extension professionals into burnout and subsequent departure from the 
profession (Feldhues & Tanner, 2017). 
 

Purpose 
 
This study described agricultural producers' perceptions of establishing fee-based services for 
extension resources in Georgia. 
 

Methods 
 
This study used a descriptive survey design to explain agricultural producers' perceptions about 
how fee-based services would limit their access to Extension resources. The study's target 
population included all agricultural producers in Georgia who had interacted with Extension 
personnel or participated in Extension programs and services. Based on 42,439 reported farms 
in Georgia (National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2019), the ideal sample size (95% confidence 
interval, 5% margin of error) was 381 respondents. The survey involved producers known by 
their county agents who attended an Extension event where a county agent shared the survey 
instrument or was on the county agent's mail/email list. According to Cypress (2017), purposive 
samples can improve the transferability of the results to the population. Extension's county-
delivery system increased the odds of collecting responses from agricultural producers familiar 
with Extension resources (Fraenkel et al., 2012).  
 
At the end of the data collection phase, 235 surveys were initiated, with 185 fully completed. 
Any respondent who completed more than two-thirds of the survey instrument was considered 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.571


Kester et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.571   45 
 

a sufficient partial respondent and remained in the dataset for analysis, bringing the total 
number of responses to 222. These partial responses provided data points that spoke directly 
to the research question about methods of access to Extension resources.  
 
Multiple choice questions asked respondents for their perceptions about the potential limited 
access to resources due to an entirely fee-based system or the cost of lab services. Using Vagias 
(2006) as our guide, we set the response anchors as not at all limited, slightly limited, 
somewhat limited, and very limited.  
 
As a follow-up to the fee-based question, participants were asked what fee they would tolerate 
for troubleshooting services and selected a range of costs. The ranges were designed to 
encompass the average cost of a scout for peanuts, blueberries, and other crops on a per-acre 
basis. This was followed by several questions about whether participants had previously used a 
private consultant to scout crops, why they prefer a private consultant or commercial scout 
over a county agent, and whether they have ever participated in a Georgia Extension on-farm 
trial. Finally, the survey gathered data about gross farm income, commodities produced, and 
county of operation to reveal farm size and type trends.  
 
Construct validity was established after the survey instrument was reviewed by three experts 
familiar with Extension agents' work. Face validity was confirmed when the survey instrument 
was piloted by 26 county agents and other practitioners working closely with Extension (School 
of Education & Human Development, 2020).  
 
Using Dillman et al. (2014) as our guide, we emailed the anonymous link to the online Qualtrics 
(Provo, UT) survey to Extension offices and county agents across Georgia. The first follow-up 
email on September 7, 2022, contained another request for county agents to share the survey 
instrument with their producers, plus a printable version and a promotional graphic with a QR 
code. We sent a second follow-up email on October 27, 2022, and a final reminder on 
December 12, 2022. This last reminder was impactful as it yielded responses from 54 late 
responders.  
 
We hand-coded open-ended responses into key themes or sentiments. Following spelling 
corrections and coding, we imported the dataset into IBM SPSS Statistics, version 29. For results 
clustered by commodity group, individual commodities were assigned to agritourism, forestry, 
fruits and nuts, livestock and aquaculture, ornamental horticulture, poultry, row and forage 
crops, or vegetables. The groupings were consistent with pre-determined groups within the 
Georgia Farm Gate Survey interface. 
 

Findings 
 
General Results & Demographics 
Most of the 222 respondents reported as White (94.59%). Three respondents indicated they 
were Hispanic or Latino (1.35%) in addition to one of the other races. The average age was 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.571


Kester et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.571   46 
 

54.34 years, compared to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) average of 58.9 
years. The NASS data showed that 71.88% of agricultural producers were male and 28.12% 
were female. At the same time, this study included respondents who were, as a group, 66.7% 
male and 33.3% female – a perfect two-thirds and one-third split. About 81.2% of participants 
reported they have reliable internet at home, allowing them to access this survey and online 
Extension resources. The sample was considered representative of the target population.  
 
Respondents indicated how long they have personally been involved in farming and how many 
generations their family has been farming. The most common answer for personal farming 
experience was 0 – 10 years (36.0%), and a good portion of respondents were 4th-generation or 
more farmers (33.3%), followed by 1st-generation (26.6%). Slightly more than one-third of the 
respondents may be entirely new to farming or are part of a family's younger generation that 
has historically farmed. Of the 23 Other responses, 18 explained that their parents' generation 
skipped farming, four listed a generation beyond the fourth instead of selecting 4th generation 
or more, and one respondent stated they do not farm but still utilize agricultural Extension 
resources for work.  
 
Additionally, respondents shared how often they utilized Extension resources over the past five 
years. Most agricultural producers used Extension resources twice or thrice a year (42.3%) or 
monthly (29.3%). However, 3.2% reported they have not used Extension  
resources within the past five years, despite the survey being delivered through county 
Extension agents and the University of Georgia employees.  
 
Fee-Based Services  
The prospect of fee-based services, or paying a fee for an on-farm troubleshooting visit by 
Extension professionals, was perceived as a limitation for agricultural producers. Over 74% of 
respondents indicated that if they were to pay for farm visits made by Extension professionals, 
paying for farm visits would make their access to Extension resources somewhat limited or very 
limited (see Table 1). In this scenario, gross farm income did appear to affect the participants' 
perceived limitations. Most participants with gross income less than $1,000,000 selected 
somewhat limited or minimal access, whereas participants with farms grossing over $1 million 
tended towards only slightly limited access due to fee-based services (see Figure 1). 
 
Table 1 
 
Frequency and Percentage of Total (N = 222) for Perceived Limitation of Access to Extension 
Resources as a Result of Fee-Based Services 
Degree of Limitation n % 
No response 9 4.1 
Not at all limited 12 5.4 
Slightly limited 36 16.2 
Somewhat limited 73 32.9 
Very limited 92 41.4 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.571


Kester et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.571   47 
 

There were slight shifts in tendency when farms were categorized by commodity group. 
However, most selections remained somewhat limited or had minimal access. Farmers who 
focused on forestry, livestock, aquaculture, poultry, and row and forage crops indicated their 
use of Extension resources would be limited, followed by somewhat limited, and slightly 
limited. Most of the participants whose operations focused on agritourism, fruits and nuts, 
ornamental horticulture, and vegetables indicated that the use of Extension resources was 
somewhat limited, followed by very limited and slightly limited..  
 
Figure 1 
 
Frequency for Perceived Limitation of Access to Extension Resources Due to Fee-Based Services, 
Clustered by Self-Reported Gross Farm Income (N = 185) 
 

 
 
Fee Tolerance 
We asked respondents to indicate their tolerance level for fee-based on-farm troubleshooting. 
An equal number of responses selected $0 (32.4%) and $1 to $25 (32.4%), while 18.0% and 
9.0% of respondents would tolerate fees of $26 to $50 and $51 to $100, respectively (see 
Figure 2) 
 
 
 
 
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.571


Kester et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.571   48 
 

Figure 2 
 
Frequency and Percentage (N = 222) for Tolerated Fee for a Troubleshooting Visit 

 
 
When clustered by gross farm income, most responses remained at $0 and $1 to $25 as a 
tolerated fee. Farms grossing less than $10,000 reported most frequently that they would 
accept a $1 to $25, followed by $0 and $26 to $50. Those in the $10,000 to $349,999 and 
$350,000 to $999,999 brackets tended more towards $0, followed by $1 to $25 and $26 to $50. 
Farms grossing over $1 million appeared more divided, with their top selections split between 
$0 and $51 to $100, followed by $26 to $50.  
 
When clustered by commodity group, the same trends toward $0 and $1 to $25 applied in most 
cases. However, vegetable growers indicated they would be more likely to tolerate a visit fee of 
over $100 than a $51 to $100 fee. Row and forage crop producers showed a distinct drop-off in 
their preferences, where $0 and $1 to $25 would mostly be tolerated, with little tolerance for 
any fee level above $25. 
 
Despite most responses showing that fees were primarily not tolerated for on-farm 
troubleshooting visits, responses suggested that lab services and testing expenses did not limit 
access to Extension resources (see Figure 3). Over 74% of participants indicated that lab service 
fees did not at all limit or only slightly limit their access. About 21.6% said that lab service fees 
charged through Extension made their access somewhat limited or very limited.  
 
 
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.571


Kester et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.571   49 
 

Figure 3 
 
Frequency and Percentage (N = 222) for Perceived Limitation of Access to Extension Resources 
Due to Lab Service Fees 

 
 
On a gross farm income basis, most responses also showed that lab services did not impact 
access to Extension resources. The only gross farm income bracket that reported their access 
would be very limited due to lab service fees, which was the less than $10,000 income bracket.  
 
Utilization of Commercial Scouts 
The questions included in the survey instrument offered valuable insight into the decision-
making and Extension utilization of agricultural producers in Georgia. Most respondents have 
never used a commercial scout (57.2%) or have never used one but were considering doing so 
(7.2%). Only 27.5% reported using a commercial scout (see Table 2). Nearly 79% said they did 
not think commercial scouts provided more accurate information than ag agents.  
 
  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.571


Kester et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.571   50 
 

Table 2 
 
Previous Use of Commercial Ag Scouts and Perceived Accuracy of Information (N = 222) 

Variable n % 
Have you ever used a commercial scout/consultant?  

No response 18 8.1 
No, but I am considering it 16 7.2 
No, never 127 57.2 
Yes, but not anymore 19 8.6 
Yes, I still do 42 18.9 

Does a commercial scout/consultant provide more accurate information?  
No response 18 8.1 
No 175 78.8 
Yes 29 13.1 

 
 
We hand-coded an open-ended question about why or why not a commercial scout provides 
more accurate information than Extension professionals into central themes. For those 
reporting that a commercial scout does provide more precise information, the most common 
reason was due to their specialized training. In contrast, they considered agents more like 
generalists (see Table 3). A handful also mentioned that scouts provide more accurate 
information because they have "more skin in the game," from the standpoint that their pay or 
ability to be hired can fluctuate based on performance. The leading answers for those who 
believe that commercial scouts do not provide more accurate information were "my ag agent is 
better" or that agricultural agents and scouts offer the same information (see Table 4). Several 
participants also suggested that commercial scouts are inherently biased towards their 
company or associated product lines and are "only in it for the money." 
 
  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.571


Kester et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.571   51 
 

Table 3 
 
Reasons Why a Commercial Scout Does or Does Not Provide More Accurate Information  
(N = 222) 
Variable n % 
Why does a scout provide more accurate information?   

No response 187 84.2 
Specialized training 23 10.3 
Available / in my fields more 7 3.2 
Skin ($) in the game 5 2.3 

Why does a scout not provide more accurate information?   
No response 142 64.0 
An agricultural Agent is better than a consultant 19 8.6 
Do not use 12 5.4 
Scout and Agent are the same 11 5.0 
Not educated enough in my commodity 9 4.1 
In it for the money 9 4.1 
Company/product bias 8 3.6 
No local connections 5 2.3 
It depends on the specific scout 4 1.8 
Spread too thin over the territory 2 0.9 
Too specialized 1 0.5 

 
'Yes or no' questions regarding profits were also posed. Most responses showed that they think 
commercial scouts do not increase their profits and that agricultural agents do increase their 
earnings (see Table 4).  
 
Table 4 
 
Indication of Whether Commercial Scouts or County Agents Increase Agricultural Producers' 
Profits (N = 222) 
Variable n % 
Does using a scout increase your profits?   

No response 18 8.1 
No 134 60.4 
Yes 70 31.5 

Does using an agent increase your profits?   
No response 20 9.0 
No 50 22.5 
Yes 152 68.5 

 
Next, we asked participants why they chose Extension resources and provided any other 
commentary not otherwise captured in the rest of the survey. We also asked why they decided 
to use a scout, the results of which closely aligned with answers about why they think a scout 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.571


Kester et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.571   52 
 

provides more accurate information than an Extension agent. Most pro-Extension responses 
cited high-quality information and services as the top reason for using Extension, besides being 
locally accessible, backed by research, and free or low-cost.  
 
Three participants indicated they do not use Extension because of various perceived 
deficiencies within Extension. One statement said, "I cannot get the Extension officer to come 
to my farm. He's always too busy and never has time for me. I've finally given up and utilized 
other community resources." Another said, "I don't use them because I'm a beekeeper, and I 
feel that the University of Georgia Apiary Department doesn't help commercial beekeepers." A 
third respondent expressed concern over the lack of available funding for county operations 
and indicated that this was why they chose not to use Extension resources. 
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Implications 
 
Our findings conclude that agricultural producers were not adamantly opposed to a fee-based 
Cooperative Extension Service delivery system. Farmers in the state where this study was 
conducted could tolerate a moderate fee to access the knowledge and skills of Extension 
agents, especially if the consulting leads to higher yields and increased profits. This is consistent 
with the findings of Anderson and Feder (2007). The agricultural producers will significantly 
limit their reliance on Extension services if the Cooperative Extension Service moves to a fully 
fee-based delivery system, especially farmers who are unable to afford such services. 
Agricultural producers have a low tolerance for any fees charged for Extension agent 
consultations above a modest amount that covers a fraction of the actual expense of the 
services. Any abrupt and significant fee increase would likely lead to dissatisfaction and reduced 
engagement with Extension services. However, producers indicate they are willing to pay a 
small fee for lab assays and services if they perceive a clear benefit or value. This implies that 
the perception of the value of Extension services is a key element in a producer's decision to 
use Extension services.  
 
Under the current funding model, agricultural producers believe that agents are a good value 
and benefit for their services. Extension agents are experts in their field and can transfer 
knowledge and skills to farmers, providing them with the information and resources they need 
to improve their practices and increase productivity. Agricultural producers who use 
commercial scouts instead of Extension agents do so because of concern about the quality of 
the service they receive from Extension. This implies that Cooperative Extension has not 
sufficiently identified and addressed these perceived quality issues. 
 
Agricultural producers who use Extension services do so because of the free resources, 
troubleshooting, and competitively priced, high-quality lab services. Producers perceived 
immense value in research-based information available at no direct cost, a primary reason 
many choose Extension over commercial scouts.  
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.571


Kester et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.571   53 
 

Recommendations 
 
Cooperative Extension should continue to provide low-cost or no-cost services to agricultural 
producers, but should experiment by offering some services at a modest fee designed to recoup 
the cost of services rendered. Participants were largely unaware of free commercial plant 
disease diagnosis services, which suggests an opportunity for agricultural agents to promote 
this more thoroughly. The Extension should also continue a tiered service model where some 
services remain free to producers and additional high-value services are offered at a reasonable 
fee. Furthermore, Extension professionals should address quality issues associated with their 
services. This can be accomplished through further research and customer feedback surveys. 
Finally, Extension should focus outreach efforts on educating producers about the benefits of 
Extension services. 
 

Acknowledgments 
 
Funding Information: This research project was self-funded.  
 
Conflicts of Interest: There are no conflicts of interest.  
 
Previous Dissemination: This article is derived from dissertation research: Post, K. (2023). 
Threats and opportunities: Describing Georgia agricultural producers’ access to Extension 
resources [Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University]. https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/items/890f7c52-
220c-410d-a3e0-46dc640dd332/full 
 
Artificial Intelligence: Artificial intelligence tools were not used in the study or the manuscript's 
preparation.  
 
Author Contributions: K. Kester and J. S. Rayfield - formal analysis, investigation, writing-
original draft; D. B. Croom - formal analysis, writing-review and editing. P. Burke, J. Fuder, S. 
Reynolds, R. Stewart, B. Wassel, and Z. Williams – investigation and manuscript review. 
 

References  
 
Anderson, J. R., & Feder, G. (2007). Agricultural Extension. In R. Evenson & P. Pingali (Eds.), 

Handbook of Agricultural Economics (Vol. 3, pp. 2343–2378). Elsevier. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0072(06)03044-1 

 
Cypress, B. S. (2017). Rigor or reliability and validity in qualitative research: Perspectives, 

strategies, reconceptualization, and recommendations. Dimensions of Critical Care 
Nursing, 36(4), 253. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCC.0000000000000253  

 
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode 

surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Wiley. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.571
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fttu-ir.tdl.org%2Fitems%2F890f7c52-220c-410d-a3e0-46dc640dd332%2Ffull&data=05%7C02%7Cgroberts%40ufl.edu%7Cce291b98c37f4cb2900508dd931007f7%7C0d4da0f84a314d76ace60a62331e1b84%7C0%7C0%7C638828419253277976%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Tuj%2FEzRvinnhmU7Ast8UI3%2BRXH%2Bh9sMUn4krlJrYVyU%3D&reserved=0
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fttu-ir.tdl.org%2Fitems%2F890f7c52-220c-410d-a3e0-46dc640dd332%2Ffull&data=05%7C02%7Cgroberts%40ufl.edu%7Cce291b98c37f4cb2900508dd931007f7%7C0d4da0f84a314d76ace60a62331e1b84%7C0%7C0%7C638828419253277976%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Tuj%2FEzRvinnhmU7Ast8UI3%2BRXH%2Bh9sMUn4krlJrYVyU%3D&reserved=0
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0072(06)03044-1
https://doi.org/10.1097/DCC.0000000000000253


Kester et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.571   54 
 

 
Feldhues, K., & Tanner, T. (2017). Show me the money: Impact of county funding on retention 

rates for extension educators. The Journal of Extension, 55(2), Article 11. 
https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.55.02.11  

 
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in 

education (Vol. 7). McGraw-Hill. 
 
Hoag, D. L. (2005). WAEA presidential address: Economic principles for saving the Cooperative 

Extension Service. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 30(3), 397–410. 
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40987284  

 
Kane, S. P. (2023). Ag snapshots 2023. University of Georgia. 

https://extension.uga.edu/publications/detail.html?number=AP129-1&title=2023-ag-
snapshots 

 
Koutsouris, A. (2018). Role of Extension in agricultural technology transfer: A critical review. In 

N. Kalaitzandonakes, E. G. Carayannis, E. Grigoroudis, & S. Rozakis (Eds.), From 
Agriscience to Agribusiness: Theories, Policies and Practices in Technology Transfer and 
Commercialization (pp. 337–359). Springer International Publishing. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67958-7_16 

 
Laurent, C., Cerf, M., & Labarthe, P. (2006). Agricultural extension services and market 

regulation: Learning from a comparison of six EU countries. The Journal of Agricultural 
Education and Extension, 12(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13892240600740787  

 
Lawrence, T., & Mandal, B. (2016). Valuing extension programming at the county level. The 

Journal of Extension, 54(1). https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.54.01.31 
 
Narine, L. K., Harder, A., & Zelaya, P. (2019). A qualitative analysis of the challenges and threats 

facing Cooperative Extension at the county level. Journal of Southern Agricultural 
Education Research, 69. http://jsaer.org/2019/01/04/a-qualitative-analysis-of-the-
challenges-and-threats-facing-cooperative-extension-at-the-county-level/  

 
National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2019). United States census of agriculture 2017 report 

for the state of Georgia. United States Department of Agriculture. 
 
Ortmann, G. F., Patrick, G. F., Musser, W. N., & Doster, H. D. (1993). Use of private consultants 

and other sources of information by large cornbelt farmers. Agribusiness, 9(4), 391-402. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6297(199307)9:4%3C391::AID-
AGR2720090409%3E3.0.CO;2-K  

 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.571
https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.55.02.11
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40987284
https://extension.uga.edu/publications/detail.html?number=AP129-1&title=2023-ag-snapshots
https://extension.uga.edu/publications/detail.html?number=AP129-1&title=2023-ag-snapshots
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67958-7_16
https://doi.org/10.1080/13892240600740787
https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.54.01.31
http://jsaer.org/2019/01/04/a-qualitative-analysis-of-the-challenges-and-threats-facing-cooperative-extension-at-the-county-level/
http://jsaer.org/2019/01/04/a-qualitative-analysis-of-the-challenges-and-threats-facing-cooperative-extension-at-the-county-level/
https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6297(199307)9:4%3C391::AID-AGR2720090409%3E3.0.CO;2-K
https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6297(199307)9:4%3C391::AID-AGR2720090409%3E3.0.CO;2-K


Kester et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.571   55 
 

Rivera, W. M. (1996). Agricultural Extension in transition worldwide: Structural, financial and 
managerial strategies for improving agricultural Extension. Public Administration and 
Development, 16(2), 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-
162X(199605)16:2<151::AID-PAD868>3.0.CO;2-S  

 
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press. 
 
School of Education & Human Development. (2020). How is reliability and validity realized in 

qualitative research? STATS-U. 
  
United States Department of Agriculture. (2023). Co-op research and extension services. Co-Op 

Research and Extension Services.  
 
University of Georgia Extension. (2023). Our impact, University of Georgia Cooperative 

Extension. University of Georgia Extension.  
 
Vagias, W. M. (2006). Likert-type scale response anchors. Clemson International Institute for 

Tourism & Research Development, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism 
Management, Clemson University. 
https://media.clemson.edu/cbshs/prtm/research/resources-for-research-page-
2/Vagias-Likert-Type-Scale-Response-Anchors.pdf  

 
Weiler, S., Hoag, D., & Fan, C. (2006). Prospecting for economic returns to research: Adding 

informational value at the market fringe. Journal of Regional Science, 46(2), 289–311. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-4146.2006.00442.x  

 
West, B. C., Drake, D., & Londo, A. (2009). Extension: A modern-day pony express? Journal of 

Extension, 47(2), 1–4. https://archives.joe.org/joe/2009april/comm1.php  
 
 
© 2025 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.571
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-162X(199605)16:2%3c151::AID-PAD868%3e3.0.CO;2-S
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-162X(199605)16:2%3c151::AID-PAD868%3e3.0.CO;2-S
https://media.clemson.edu/cbshs/prtm/research/resources-for-research-page-2/Vagias-Likert-Type-Scale-Response-Anchors.pdf
https://media.clemson.edu/cbshs/prtm/research/resources-for-research-page-2/Vagias-Likert-Type-Scale-Response-Anchors.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-4146.2006.00442.x
https://archives.joe.org/joe/2009april/comm1.php

