































   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 6, Issue 3, 2025 
  agdevresearch.org 

 

1. Zoe Turner, Undergraduate Research Assistant, University of Tennessee, 2621 Morgan Cir. 314 C Morgan Hall, Knoxville, 
TN 37996, zturner6@vols.utk.edu 

2. Margarita Velandia, Professor, University of Tennessee, 2621 Morgan Cir. 314 C Morgan Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996, 

mvelandi@utk.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5993-7461  
3. Rachel E. Rudolph, Associate Extension Professor, University of Kentucky, N-322C Ag. Science North, Lexington, KY 40546-

0091, rachel.rudolph@uky.edu,  https://orcid.org/0009-0009-8452-7080  
4. Annette L. Wszelaki, Professor, University of Tennessee, 320 Agriculture and Natural Resources Bldg., Knoxville, TN 37996, 

awszelak@utk.edu 
5. Susan Schexnayder, University of Tennessee, 238 Plant Biotechnology Bldg., Knoxville, TN 37996, schexnayder@utk.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8803-7072  
 

1 

 

Grower Preferences for High Tunnel Information Sources: 
Evidence from a Kentucky High Tunnel Vegetable Grower 

Survey 
 

Z. Turner1, M. Velandia2, R. E. Rudolph3, A. L. Wszelaki4, S. Schexnayder5 

 
 

Article History 
Received: To May 16, 2025 
Accepted: August 18, 2025 
Published: August 20, 2025 
 
 
Keywords 
controlled environment agriculture;  
Kentucky vegetable growers; sources 
of information; University Extension; 
other growers; SDG 2: Zero Hunger   

Abstract 
Despite the increase in the number of high tunnels (HTs) and education 
programs for HT growers in recent years, few studies have evaluated HT 
growers’ use of information sources. Using data from a 2024 Kentucky 
vegetable growers’ survey, we evaluated which information sources HT 
growers utilize. Survey results suggest that University Extension and 
other growers were the most used information sources. Also, 
respondents employing organic production practices were less likely to 
use Extension sources. Furthermore, survey respondents who were more 
dependent on farm income were more likely to rely on other growers as 
a source of information. It is important for University Extension to 
continue collaborating closely with HT growers in the creation and 
delivery of information to stay up-to-date and relevant. Specifically, 
University Extension collaboration with growers using organic production 
practices for HT information delivery through workshops, webinars, farm 
tours, and field days could increase the use of University Extension as a 
trustworthy information source among this segment of HT growers. 

 

mailto:zturner6@vols.utk.edu
mailto:mvelandi@utk.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5993-7461
mailto:rachel.rudolph@uky.edu
https://orcid.org/0009-0009-8452-7080
mailto:awszelak@utk.edu
mailto:schexnayder@utk.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8803-7072


Turner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.611  2 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
High tunnels (HTs) are structures covered by polyethylene films that are unheated or passively 
heated and cooled. These structures provide many benefits, such as season extension, 
increased crop quality and marketable yield, and reduced weather risk related to low 
temperatures, precipitation, and wind (Belasco et al., 2013; Carey et al., 2009; Pierre et al., 
2024).  
 
The number of HTs has increased over time due to the relatively low cost of these structures 
compared to greenhouses, the multiple benefits provided by these structures, and government-
funded cost-share programs that promote the adoption of HTs (Carey et al., 2009; Ernst et al., 
2020; Kaiser & Ernst, 2021; Pierre et al., 2024). The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) has invested over $170 million in programs 
related to HT production. As of 2021, this investment resulted in over 26,000 HTs funded using 
USDA NRCS resources (Pierre et al., 2024).  
 
Due to the increased number of HTs in the United States, the amount of HT-dedicated 
Extension programming and resources produced by universities and other organizations also 
increased (Carey et al., 2009). Despite the increase in HT-specific resources, limited information 
is available on which sources of information are used by HT growers in the United States (Ernst 
et al., 2020). Understanding HT vegetable growers’ preferences for and use of information 
sources regarding HT management could help expand the reach of HT-dedicated Extension 
programs (Bruce et al., 2019). This understanding is particularly important in Kentucky, where 
over 1,500 HTs have been funded through NRCS programs (Rudolph et al., 2023). This is the 
highest number of NRCS-funded HTs among U.S. Southern states (Pierre et al., 2024; Rudolph et 
al., 2023).  
 

Conceptual Framework 
 
The choice of information sources by HT growers is situated within the context of an 
agricultural information system. This is a system where processes of generation, 
transformation, transfer, consolidation, and reception of agricultural information work 
simultaneously to support the use of information by agricultural producers (Mahindarathne & 
Min, 2018). Due to the multiple processes involved in an agricultural information system, 
numerous actors are involved in this system, such as farmers, researchers, and University 
Extension personnel. Therefore, when exploring HT grower information seeking behavior, it is 
important to evaluate growers’ use of multiple information sources when searching for 
production and management information, including University Extension, crop consultants, and 
other growers (Edge et al., 2017; Stuart et al., 2018).    
 
We used Mahindarathne and Min (2018) conceptual framework to outline HT grower 
information-seeking behavior. The information needs of HT growers would likely be determined 
by what Mahindarathne and Min (2018) defined as activating mechanisms or motivators, which 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.611


Turner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.611  3 
 

will not only determine the information the HT growers are searching for but also how they 
search for it. In this study, we focused specifically on production and technological factors as 
mechanisms that activate the search for HT information. Additionally, the characteristics of 
information sources/channels are also activating mechanisms that define the information 
search decisions. The characteristics of different information sources in terms of risk and 
rewards obtained when using each source will define HT growers’ information-seeking 
behavior. Finally, intervening variables, which are factors that could positively or negatively 
affect the use of information sources, need to be considered when exploring HT growers’ use of 
information sources. We acknowledge that there could be personal and socio-cultural factors 
affecting the choice of information sources. In this study, however, we do not have the capacity 
to evaluate these factors because we do not have data that capture them. Similar to previous 
studies, this study focused on the characteristics of growers and their farm businesses as 
variables that may influence the choice of information sources (Beethem et al., 2023; Edge et 
al., 2017; Jenkins et al., 2011).  
 

Purpose 
 
This study aims to better understand Kentucky HT vegetable grower preferences for receiving 
HT information that could inform Extension programming. The two main objectives of this 
study were to: 
1. Identify information sources Kentucky HT growers use when gathering information about 

HTs, and their satisfaction with these sources in providing information to manage HTs. 
2. Identify differences in characteristics between Kentucky HT growers based on their use of 

specific information sources. 
 
Results from this study can be used by University Extension personnel to improve educational 
programs that better suit the needs of HT vegetable growers, help expand the reach of HT-
dedicated Extension programs, or confirm that current HT educational programming efforts are 
maximizing educational impacts. 
 

Methods 
 
Between January and June 2024, we surveyed Kentucky vegetable growers to assess production 
challenges they faced when growing vegetables in HTs and the strategies they used to 
overcome those challenges. The survey instrument was approved by the University of 
Tennessee Institutional Review Board (UTK IRB-23-07688-XM). The survey instrument is 
available from the authors upon request. The data reported in this paper are a subset of results 
from the Kentucky vegetable grower survey mentioned above. A summary of survey results is 
available at Velandia et al. (2025).  
 
We included a question in the survey to assess HT growers’ use of information sources to better 
understand grower preferences and collect ratings in terms of satisfaction with these resources 
in terms of their ability to help with HT issues and improve management. A 5-point Likert scale 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.611


Turner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.611  4 
 

was used to evaluate satisfaction with information sources, where 1 represents unsatisfied, and 
5 represents satisfied. We also gathered information about the characteristics of growers and 
farm businesses, including age, education, size of the farm business in terms of gross sales and 
acres in vegetable production, management practices used, number of HTs in the farm 
operation, and number of years using HTs. 
 
A contact list of 1,794 farm operations was built using the Kentucky Proud program, the 
Kentucky Department of Agriculture state-sponsored online producer directory to promote 
Kentucky’s farms and farm products (Kentucky Proud, n.d.). The contact list contained about 
83% of the 2,173 Kentucky vegetable farms reported by the 2022 Census of Agriculture (U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, 2024). Since a HT grower-specific contact list was not available, we 
identified vegetable growers in the contact list producing and marketing high-value crops 
commonly grown in HTs, such as tomatoes, lettuce, and other greens (Velandia et al., 2025). A 
total of 1,401 growers for whom we only had mailing addresses, and no e-mail addresses, 
received the paper version of the survey. A total of 393 vegetable growers for whom we only 
had e-mail addresses received the online version of the survey.  This mixed-mode survey 
distribution strategy was used to maximize response rates and reduce errors associated with 
coverage and nonresponse (Dillman et al., 2009). Additionally, we advertised the survey at the 
2024 Kentucky Fruit and Vegetable Conference, and through the Kentucky Vegetable Grower 
Association and the Center for Crop Diversification newsletters.  
 
Responses were received from 316 of the 1,794 growers who were contacted, which represents 
an 18% response rate. From those 316 respondents, 253 confirmed they were growing 
vegetables for sale in 2023. From those 253 respondents, 122 indicated that they produced 
vegetables for sale in HTs in 2023. The total number of HTs owned by these respondents was 
197. These HTs were spread over 60 of the 120 Kentucky counties (Velandia et al., 2025).  
 
We evaluated differences in selected grower and farm business characteristics by the 
information source used. Specifically, we compared the characteristics of those respondents 
using University Extension as a HT information source and those not using University Extension 
as an information source. We also compared the characteristics of those respondents using 
other growers as a source and those not using other growers. Differences in characteristics 
captured by continuous variables were evaluated using t-tests, while differences in 
characteristics captured by dichotomous variables were evaluated using equality proportion 
tests (StataCorp, 2023). T-tests and equality proportion tests were also used to evaluate 
differences in the percentage use of the various information sources, as well as differences in 
information source ratings. 
 
In this study, we will discuss results with p-values below 0.10. We employ this approach due to 
the exploratory nature of our study (Labovitz, 2017; Skipper et al., 1967). To our knowledge, we 
are the second study exploring the use of information sources by U.S. HT growers. We are not 
testing well-established hypotheses about the differences in characteristics between users and 
non-users of specific information sources. Rather, we are exploring hypotheses that could be 
further tested by other studies.  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.611


Turner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.611  5 
 

Findings 
 
Survey respondents used a variety of sources for information about HT production and 
management. The most used information sources among survey respondents were University 
Extension and other growers. University Extension was used by 83% of the respondents, while 
81% of the respondents indicated using other growers as an information source. The 
percentage of survey respondents who used consultants (21%) was significantly lower than the 
percentage of those respondents using University Extension and other growers (see Table 1). 
Other sources of information include content created by sources other than University 
Extension, other growers, and consultants, and found through search engines, or social media 
sites such as YouTube, Google, and Facebook. If the respondents mentioned University 
Extension websites specifically in the other source category, those responses were classified as 
University Extension. Other information sources used by a few survey respondents included 
USDA NRCS (2 respondents), or information created by other sources and delivered through 
books (5 respondents), and magazines (4 respondents). Survey respondents indicated using HTs 
for an average of nearly seven years. This could explain why USDA NRCS was mentioned as an 
information source by only two respondents. The High Tunnel NRCS initiative focuses mainly on 
providing financial assistance for the construction of HTs through NRCS Programs, but does not 
provide continued education or educational resources for growers once they have their HTs 
(U.S. Department of Agriculture – Natural Resource Conservation Service, n.d.). Therefore, 
NRCS might not be the top source of information after growers have already acquired or built a 
HT and are looking for information about managing it.  
 
Along with indicating the information source they used, respondents were asked to rate their 
satisfaction with each information source in terms of its effectiveness in providing information 
to manage HTs. Survey respondents indicated being somewhat satisfied with the information 
provided by other growers, providing an average rating of 4.09 on a scale from 1 (unsatisfied) 
to 5 (satisfied). University Extension followed closely with an average rating of 3.96. Consultants 
had the lowest rating, with an average rating of 3.88 (see Table 1). Nonetheless, ratings across 
these information sources were not significantly different (see Table 1). We did not provide 
average ratings for other sources because the variety of sources listed in this category would 
make it difficult to interpret an average rating. 
 
  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.611


Turner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.611  6 
 

Table 1 
 
Number and Percentage of Survey Respondents Using Different High Tunnel (HT) Information 
Sources and Information Source Ratings 

Information Source 

Number 
of HT 
growers Percentages* 

Ratings 1 if unsatisfied 
and 5 if satisfied with 
effectiveness in providing 
information that helped 
solve HT problems or 
improve HT management 

Extension = 1 if used University 
Extension to gather information about 
high tunnels, zero otherwise 

90 82.57a 3.96a 

Other Growers= 1 if used other growers 
to gather information about high 
tunnels, zero otherwise 

88 80.73a 4.09a 

Consultants = 1 if used consultants to 
gather information about high tunnels, 
zero otherwise 

23 21.10b 3.88a 

Other Information Sources = 1 if used 
other information sources 

52 47.71c - 

Note. *Values in the same column followed by different letters are significantly different at the 
1% level. 
 
We also evaluated the most common combinations of information sources, including University 
Extension, survey respondents used when gathering information about HTs. In Table 2, we 
show the percentage of respondents using University Extension alone or in combination with 
other sources. Only 4% of the survey respondents reported using University Extension as the 
only source of information. The most used information source combination was University 
Extension and other growers, with approximately 34% of respondents using this combination. 
Finally, not only were consultants the least used information source for HT management 
information, but one that survey respondents tended to combine with other information 
sources. Only one of the survey respondents who indicated utilizing consultants as a resource 
used this information source alone. Furthermore, those respondents using consultants as a 
source of information were more likely to complement this information with at least two more 
sources of information (e.g., other growers and University Extension). 
 
  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.611


Turner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.611  7 
 

Table 2 
 
Number of High Tunnel (HT) Growers Using Extension as an Information Source 

Information Source Combinations 
Number of 
HT Growers Percentage 

(1) Used only University Extension sources   4 4.44 
(2) Used University Extension and consultants   1 1.11 
(3) Used University Extension and other growers 31 34.44 
(4) Used University Extension and other sources 10 11.11 
(5) Used University Extension, consultants, and other growers   8 8.89 
(6) Used University Extension, consultants, and other sources   2 2.22 
(7) Used University Extension, other growers, and other sources 24 26.67 
(8) Used University Extension, consultants, other growers, and 
other sources 

10 11.11 

Total Extension users 90 100.00 
  
We explored the differences in characteristics between those using University Extension and 
those not using it. We also evaluated the differences in characteristics between those using 
other growers and those not using other growers as a source of HT information (see Table 3). 
Only one variable was shown to be significantly different between Extension and Non-Extension 
users at the 5% level (p=.05). A larger percentage of non-users of Extension followed organic 
and naturally grown production practices compared to the percentage of users of Extension 
who used these practices. This result could be explained by the variation in Extension agent 
knowledge and acceptance of organic practices and other environmentally sustainable 
production practices, which differ from conventional production practices (Crawford et al., 
2015). Some growers could have had either a good or a bad experience when searching or 
reaching out to University Extension sources or personnel about organic or naturally grown 
production practices. This variation could affect the views of growers using organic and 
naturally grown production practices regarding University Extension as an effective source of 
information in general and specifically for HT production information (Crawford et al., 2015).  
 
  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.611


Turner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.611  8 
 

Table 3 
 
Selected Survey Respondent Characteristics Means for Users of University Extension and Non-
users of Extension, and Significant Differences between Means 

Characteristics 

Users of 
University 
Extension  

Non-users of 
University 
Extension  p-values 

Average age (years) 54.01 52.33 0.63 
Education- percentage of respondents 
with a BS degree or higher (%) 

61.80 68.42 0.59 

Average acres in vegetable production 
(acres) 

  1.48   2.39 0.25 

Percentage of respondents with gross 
on-farm revenue >$25,000 (%) 

49.32 33.33 0.22 

Percentage of respondents with gross 
revenue from crops grown in HT 
>$10,000 (%) 

33.77 27.78 0.63 

Percentage of respondents with a 
percentage of taxable household income 
from farming above 25% (%) 

46.25 42.11 0.74 

Percentage of respondents that are 
certified organic, Certified Naturally 
Grown, or are using these practices (%) 

36.36 61.11 0.05 

Average number of HT  1.78   1.44 0.37 
Average years using HT  6.96   5.11 0.15 

 
In Table 4, we show the characteristics of respondents using and those not using other growers 
as a HT information source. A significantly higher percentage of growers (p=.08) who use other 
growers as an information source reported annual gross on-farm revenue greater than $25,000 
(51%) compared to only 28% of those who do not use other growers as a source reporting this 
level of gross on-farm revenue. Similarly, a significantly higher percentage of respondents 
(p=.03) using other growers as an information source reported annual gross revenue from crops 
grown in HTs above $10,000 (38%) compared to non-users of other growers (11%). Finally, a 
significantly higher percentage of growers (p=.06) who use other growers as an information 
source reported a percentage of taxable household income from farming above 25% (50%) 
compared to non-users of other growers (26%). This result could suggest that HT growers who 
are more dependent on farm revenue, might be more likely to trust their peers for HT 
information. They may perceive that other HT growers will have more understanding of HT 
management because of their practical experience. Also, they might trust information from 
other growers, who just like them, have invested time and money growing in HTs.  
 
  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.611


Turner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.611  9 
 

Table 4 
 
Survey Respondent Characteristics Means for Users of Other Growers and Non-users of Other 
Growers as an Information Source, and Significant Differences between Means 

Characteristics 

Users of 
Other 
Growers  

Non-users of 
Other 
Growers  p-values 

Average age (years) 53.24 55.71 0.45 
Education- percentage of respondents with a 
BS degree or higher (%) 

62.07 66.67 0.70 

Average acres in vegetable production (acres)   1.80   0.95 0.30 
Percentage of respondents with annual gross 
on-farm revenue >$25,000 (%)* 

50.68 27.78 0.08 

Percentage of respondents with gross revenue 
from crops grown in HT >$10,000 (%) 

 37.66 11.11 0.03 

Percentage of respondents with percentage of 
on-farm income above 25% (%) 

50.00 26.32 0.06 

Percentage of respondents that are USDA 
certified organic, Certified Naturally Grown, 
USDA certified organic exempt or following 
organic or naturally grown standards (%) 

 41.38 36.84 0.72 

Average number of HT    1.74   1.65 0.80 
Average years using HT    6.68   6.46 0.86 

 
Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 

 
Results from a 2024 survey of Kentucky vegetable growers suggest that University Extension is 
the most used source of information among survey respondents, while other growers is the 
second most used information source among survey respondents. Also, results suggest that 
survey respondents combined University Extension with other information sources when 
searching for HT management information, with the most used combination of sources being 
University Extension and other growers. Results from this study suggest that it is important for 
University Extension to continue collaborating closely with HT growers in the delivery of 
information. For example, the University of Kentucky, in collaboration with other local 
organizations, hosts the Kentucky Fruit and Vegetable Conference every year. They involve 
growers in the organization of the event, but also as speakers (Martin-Gatton College of 
Agriculture, Food, and Environment, n.d.). According to this study's results, it would be 
important to replicate this strategy in the context of HT management information delivery. 
Additionally, University Extension could collaborate with other growers to develop videos, 
publications, and other online and social media content. 
 
In contrast with previous studies evaluating the use of information sources among U.S. row 
crop growers for conservation information, nutrient management, and adoption of 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.611


Turner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.611  10 
 

technologies (Beethem et al., 2023; Borrelli et al., 2018; Edge et al., 2017), private sources of 
information such as consultants are not a commonly used source of information among HT 
vegetable growers included in the survey sample. Although the concept of crop consultants is 
not new in the context of row crop production (Borrelli et al., 2018), it may be relatively new in 
the context of HT production, which would explain the low use of crop consultants among HT 
growers. Additionally, there is likely a cost associated with accessing information through crop 
consultants, which could be a barrier to accessing HT information through this source.  
 
In the context of row crop production, it seems that the use of Extension as a source of 
information has decreased in specific production decision contexts (Beethem et al., 2023; Edge 
et al., 2017; Stuart et al., 2018) compared to private sources (e.g., crop consultants). In 
contrast, according to this survey’s results, in the context of HT vegetable production, 
University Extension plays an important role as a source of information for survey respondents.  
 
Similar to previous studies (Beethem et al., 2023; Borrelli et al., 2018), other growers are 
commonly used sources of information, regardless of the crops grown and the production 
system used. The use of other growers as a trustworthy information source could also vary 
based on the specific information growers are seeking (Borrelli et al., 2018). Results from this 
study suggest that growers with a higher financial dependence on on-farm income are likely to 
put more trust in other growers as a source of information for HT management. 
 
Finally, our survey results indicate that survey respondents using organic production practices 
may be less likely to use Extension as a source of HT information. Training Extension agents to 
become more familiar with environmentally sustainable practices in the context of HT 
production could help increase the use of University Extension as a source of HT information 
among growers using organic production practices. Furthermore, University Extension's 
collaboration with growers using organic production practices for HT information delivery could 
also increase the use of University Extension as a trustworthy information source among HT 
growers using organic production practices (Crawford et al., 2015).  
 
In the context of HT information, several land-grant universities have dedicated programs and 
resources for HT information. For example, a group of universities, including Kansas State 
University, University of Missouri, and University of Nebraska-Lincoln created a website 
intended for researchers, extension specialists, professors, growers, technicians, and students 
to share information and experiences about HTs, including construction, management, and 
marketing and economics of crops grown in HTs (HighTunnels.org, n.d.). Other examples 
include the Tri-State High Tunnel School, organized by Michigan State University, Purdue 
University, and Ohio State University (Ohio State University, n.d.). Regardless of similarities in 
the University Extension model across land-grant universities and the HT dedicated programs 
and resources developed by University Extension, information needs and access to information 
can vary by state. Therefore, it is essential for future studies to validate the findings of this 
study by examining the information-seeking behavior of HT vegetable growers in other U.S. 
states.  
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.611


Turner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.611  11 
 

Acknowledgments 
 
Funding Information: This research was funded by the Southern Sustainable Agriculture 
Research and Education (SARE) grant LS23-384. 
 
Conflict of interest: There are no conflicts of interest.  
 
Previous Dissemination: A summary of survey results associated with this article was published 
in HortTechnology and is available at https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH05593-24. This study 
focuses on only part of the survey results that have not previously been analyzed and 
published. 
 
Artificial Intelligence: Artificial intelligence tools were not used in the study or the manuscript's 
preparation.  
 
Author Contribution Statement: Z. Turner – data curation, formal analysis, and writing original 
draft; M. Velandia - conceptualization, investigation, and writing original draft; R.E. Rudolph – 
Funding acquisition and writing-review and editing; A. Wszelaki – writing-review and editing; S. 
Schexnayder – data collection and data curation. 
 

References 
 
Beethem, K., Marquart-Pyatt, S. T., Lai, J., & Guo, T. (2023). Navigating the information 

landscape: public and private information source access by midwest farmers. Agriculture 
and Human Values, 40, 1117-1135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-022-10411-5  

 
Belasco, E., Galinato, S., Marsh, T., Miles, C., & Wallace, R. (2013). High tunnels are my crop 

insurance: An assessment of risk management tools for small-scale specialty crop 
producers. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 42(2), 403-418. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1068280500004445 

 
Borrelli, K. A., Roesch-McNally, G. E., Wulfhorst, J. D., Eigenbrode, S. D., Yorgey, G. G., Kruger, C. 

E., Houston, L. L., Bernacchi, L. A., & Mahler, R. L. (2018). Farmers' trust in sources of 
production and climate information and their use of technology. The Journal of 
Extension, 56(3), 21. https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.56.03.21  

 
Bruce, A. B., Maynard, E. T., & Farmer, J. R. (2019). Farmers’ perspectives on challenges and 

opportunities associated with using high tunnels for specialty 
crops. HortTechnology, 29(3), 290-299. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH04258-18 

 
Carey, E. E., Jett, L., Lamont, W. J., Nennich, T. T., Orzolek, M. D., & Williams, K. A. (2009). 

Horticultural crop production in high tunnels in the United States: A snapshot. 
HortTechnology, 19(1), 37-43. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.19.1.37 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.611
https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH05593-24
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-022-10411-5
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1068280500004445
https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.56.03.21
https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH04258-18
https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.19.1.37


Turner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.611  12 
 

Crawford, C., Grossman, J., Warren, S. T., & Cubbage, F. (2015). Grower communication 
networks: Information sources for organic farmers. The Journal of Extension, 53(3), 31.  
https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.53.03.31 

 
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: 

The tailored design method (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons Inc. 
 
Edge, B., Velandia, M., Lambert, D. M., Roberts, R. K., Larson, J. A., English, B. C., Boyer, C., 

Rejesus, R., & Mishra, A. (2017). Changes in the use of precision farming information 
sources among cotton farmers and implications for Extension. The Journal of 
Extension, 55(2), Article 16. https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.55.02.16  

 
Ernst, M., Woods, T., Butler, A., Wolff, B., & Jacobsen, K. (2020). High tunnel production and 

marketing survey: data summary. University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service 
Bulletin. CCD-SP-17. https://ccd.uky.edu/sites/default/files/2024-11/ccd-sp-
17_htsurvey.pdf  

 
HighTunnels.org. (n.d.). About hightunnels.org. http://hightunnels.org/about/  
 
Jenkins, A., Velandia, M., Lambert, D. M., Roberts, R. K., Larson, J. A., English, B. C., & Martin, S. 

W. (2011). Factors influencing the selection of precision farming information sources by 
cotton producers. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 40(2), 307-320. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/S106828050000808X 

 
Kaiser, C., & Ernst, M. (2021). High tunnel overview. University of Kentucky Center for Crop 

Diversification CCD-SP-2. https://ccd.uky.edu/sites/default/files/2024-11/ccd-sp-
2_hightunneloverview.pdf  

 
Kentucky Proud. (n.d.). Kentucky Proud home page. https://www.kyproud.com/ 
 
Labovitz, S. (2017). Criteria for selecting a significance level: A note on the sacredness of. 05. 

In The significance test controversy (pp. 166-171). Routledge. 
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315134918-24  

 
Mahindarathne, M. G. P. P., & Min, Q. (2018). Developing a model to explore the information 

seeking behaviour of farmers. Journal of Documentation, 74(4), 781-803. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-04-2017-0065  

 
Martin-Gatton College of Agriculture, Food, and Environment. (n.d.). 2025 Kentucky fruit and 

vegetable conference. https://www.ca.uky.edu/event/kentucky-fruit-and-vegetable-
conference-2025  

 
Ohio State University. (n.d.). Tri-state high tunnel school. tiny.utk.edu/zRjVs  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.611
https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.53.03.31
https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.55.02.16
https://ccd.uky.edu/sites/default/files/2024-11/ccd-sp-17_htsurvey.pdf
https://ccd.uky.edu/sites/default/files/2024-11/ccd-sp-17_htsurvey.pdf
http://hightunnels.org/about/
https://doi.org/10.1017/S106828050000808X
https://ccd.uky.edu/sites/default/files/2024-11/ccd-sp-2_hightunneloverview.pdf
https://ccd.uky.edu/sites/default/files/2024-11/ccd-sp-2_hightunneloverview.pdf
https://www.kyproud.com/
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315134918-24
https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-04-2017-0065
https://www.ca.uky.edu/event/kentucky-fruit-and-vegetable-conference-2025
https://www.ca.uky.edu/event/kentucky-fruit-and-vegetable-conference-2025
https://tiny.utk.edu/zRjVs


Turner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i3.611  13 
 

Pierre, J. F., Jacobsen, K. L., Wszelaki, A., Butler, D., Velandia, M., Woods, T., Sideman, R., 
Grossman, J., Coolong, T., Hoskins, B., da Silva, A. L. B. R., Ginakes, P., Kleinhenz, M., 
Zhao, X., Rivard, C., & Rudolph, R. E. (2024). Sustaining soil health in high tunnels: A 
paradigm shift toward soil-centered management. HortTechnology, 34(5), 594-603. 
https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH05460-24 

 
Rudolph, R. E., Bajek, V., & Munir, M. (2023). Effects of soil solarization and grafting on tomato 

yield and southern root-knot nematode population densities. HortScience, 58(11),1443-
1449. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI17396-23 

 
Skipper, J. K., Guenther, A. L., & Nass, G. (1967). The sacredness of. 05: A note concerning the 

uses of statistical levels of significance in social science. The American Sociologist 2, 16-
18. 

 
StataCorp. (2023). Stata 18 base reference manual. Stata Press. 
 
Stuart, D., Denny, R. C., Houser, M., Reimer, A. P., & Marquart-Pyatt, S. (2018). Farmer selection 

of sources of information for nitrogen management in the US Midwest: Implications for 
environmental programs. Land Use Policy, 70, 289-297. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.047 

 
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2024). USDA-NASS Census of Agriculture. 2022 Census 

full report. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2022/. 
 
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Natural Resource Conservation Service. (n.d.). High Tunnel 

Initiative – EQIP. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs-initiatives/eqip-high-tunnel-
initiative  

 
Velandia, M., Rudolph, R. E., Wszelaki, A. L., Turner, Z. A., & Schexnayder, S. (2025). A survey of 

Kentucky high tunnel vegetable growers: Production challenges faced and strategies 
used to overcome them. HortTechnology, 35(2), 177-185. 
https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH05593-24 

 
 
© 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.v6i3.611
https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH05460-24
https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI17396-23
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.047
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2022/
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs-initiatives/eqip-high-tunnel-initiative
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs-initiatives/eqip-high-tunnel-initiative
https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH05593-24

