Table 1. Percentage Distribution of Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents Relative to

Similar Characteristics of the Population of US Farmers from the 1997 Census of Agriculture.

Total acres (owned and rented)

Gross annual farm sales

	Survey	Census
Less than 499	1	81
500 to 999	5	9
1,000 to 1,999	44	5
Over 2,000	49	5
Average Acres:	1,929	487

	Survey	Census
Less than $50,000	0	74
$50,000 to $99,999	1	8
$100,000 to $499,999	55	15
$500,000 to $999,999	26	2
Over $1,000,000	17	1
Average Dollars:	550,275	102,970

Age

US regions

	Survey	Census
Under 25	1	1
25 to 34	17	7
35 to 44	40	19
45 to 49	18	12
50 to 59	20	24
60 to 64	4	11
65 and older	2	26
Average Age:	44	54

	Survey
Midwest	52
Great Plains	30
Southeast	18

Table 2. Percentage Distribution of Production Characteristics of the Survey Respondents.

Annual crop	Over 2,000 acres	1,999-1,500 acres		1,499-1,000 acres	999-500 acres	499-300 acres		Under 300 acres	No acres		Average
	----------Percent----------										Acres
Corn	4.5	16.3		42.3	7.9	6.9		2.9	19.3		1021
Sorghum	1.1	1.5		3.0	5.1	8.3		6.6	74.5		177
Soybeans	2.9	10.9		34.2	14.4	9.9		4.6	23.1		850
Wheat	9.1	14.7		16.3	8.0	13.3		12.4	26.2		827
Cotton	2.2	3.7		4.7	1.5	0.6		0.4	87.0		193
Rice	0.4	1.3		1.8	1.1	0.8		0.1	94.6		67
Hay	5.2	3.1		5.4	7.1	14.9		21.3	42.9		404

Do you have any livestock in your operation?
Yes			56				No			44

Table 3. Percentage Distribution of Demographic Characteristics of Market Advisory Service

Users and Non-Users.

Total acres (owned and rented)

Gross annual farm sales

	Non-users	Users
Less than 499	1	1
500 to 999	6	5
1,000 to 1,999	43	45
Over 2,000	50	49
Average Acres:	1929	1936

	Non-users	Users
Less than $50,000	0	0
$50,000 to $99,999	1	1
$100,000 to $499,999	56	53
$500,000 to $999,999	27	27
Over $1,000,000	16	18
Average Dollars:	551,205	573,765

Age

US regions

	Non-users	Users
Under 25	1	1
25 to 34	20.	16
35 to 44	32	42
45 to 49	15	18
50 to 59	26	18
60 to 64	4	3
65 and older	3	2
Average Age:	44.4	43.4

	Non-users	Users
Midwest	15	85
Great Plains	22	78
Southeast	20	80

Table 4. Comparison of Risk Attitudes between Market Advisory Service Users and Non-Users.

Attitudes	Non-Users	Users	t-test	Sig. (2-tailed)

I like “playing it safe”	6.42	6.16	2.058	0.04

I am willing to take higher financial risks	6.34	6.68	-2.766	0.01
in order to realize higher average yields

I like taking big financial risks	3.32	3.67	-2.460	0.01

I am willing to take higher financial risks	5.48	5.93	-3.408	0.00
when selling my crops, in order to realize
higher average returns

I accept more risk in my farm business	4.62	4.99	-2.529	0.01
than other farmers

Note: Mean scores are based on a 1 to 9 scale with 1=Strongly disagree, and 9=Strongly agree, MAS stands for

market advisory service.

Table 5. Relevance of Various Sources of Marketing Information.

Source	Mean*	Source	Mean*

· Satellite systems	8.17	· Radio	5.73
· USDA reports	6.92	· University Extension service	5.46
· Market advisory services	6.88	· Internet	4.81
· Local elevator	6.25	· Television	4.23
· Farm magazines/newsletters	5.94	· Marketing clubs	4.21

*Based on a 1 to 9 scale with 1=do not rely on, 9=rely heavily on.

Table 6. Producers’ Use and Evaluation of Specific Market Advisory Services.

Market Advisory Service	Ever Used		Familiarity		Marketing Style		Satisfaction
	Percent^*	Rank	Mean^**	Rank	Mean^***	Rank	Mean^^**	Rank

AgLine by Doane	35	3	4.22	3	4.72	10	5.75	6
AgriVisor Services Inc.	17	8	3.15	8	5.00	9	5.14	10
Brock Associates	37	2	4.87	2	6.17	1	6.24	4
Freese-Notis Weather	20	7	3.59	5	5.76	5	5.45	8
ProFarmer	69	1	6.34	1	5.80	4	6.26	3
AgResource Company	23	6	3.50	6	6.01	2	6.58	2
Allendale Inc.	26	4	3.86	4	5.97	3	5.98	5
CommStock Investments Inc.	10	9	2.61	10	5.57	7	7.07	1
Brent Harris Elliot Wave	10	10	2.64	9	5.61	6	5.29	9
Stewart-Peterson	26	5	3.21	7	5.27	8	5.67	7
Another MAS	47
Average
Do not use MAS at all	18

^*Describes a percentage of all producers that have ever used a specific MAS.

^**Based on a 1 to 9 scale with 1=not at all familiar, 9=very familiar. Includes responses of all producers.

^***Based on a 1 to 9 scale with 1=conservative, 9=aggressive. Includes responses of all producers.

^****Based on a 1 to 9 scale with 1=very dissatisfied, 9=very satisfied. Includes responses of producers that have tried a particular MAS.

^*****Producers who have tried a particular MAS switched MAS once every listed number of years.

MAS stands for market advisory service.

Table 7. Heterogeneity in the Use of Market Advisory Services in Different Market Conditions.

	Group A	Group B	Group C	F-test	Sig.

Midwest	35%	15%	43%	5.937	0.001
Great Plains	39%	15%	30%
Southeast	54%	16%	26%

Gross Sales	$575,150	$530,425	$624,425	4.082	0.017

Risk Attitude^*	6.27	6.54	6.65	5.832	0.001
Tool for risk reduction	7.09	6.55	7.01	3.044	0.028
Tool for price enhancement	6.98	6.50	7.03	3.832	0.010
MAS is expensive	6.10	6.58	5.60	13.064	0.000
Pleased using MAS	6.15	5.82	6.36	6.413	0.000
MAS matches philosophy	6.32	5.97	6.43	3.296	0.020

Note: Group A exhibits a downward-sloping, Group B an upward-sloping, and Group C a flat use of MAS, relative to crop prices.

MAS stands for market advisory services Mean scores are based on a 1to 9 scale with 1=Strongly disagree, 9=Strongly agree.

Risk attitude is a sum of the mean scores to questions two through five listed in Table 4.

Table 8. Nature of Market Advisory Service Use.

Extent used for:

	Mean^*		Mean^*
· Marketing information (facts)	6.95	· To reduce fluctuations in prices	6.00
· Market analysis	6.88	· Make specific pricing decisions	5.97
· Keeping up with markets	6.47	· Forecasting prices	5.95
· To receive a higher than average price	6.47	· Expert opinion	5.77
· General market strategies	6.45	· Govt. program information	5.34
· To reduce price risk	6.34	· To beat the market	5.30
· To reduce income risk	6.32	· Weather forecasts	5.21
· Price information	6.17	·

Do you use the specific pricing recommendations that the market advisory services provide as background information?

Yes

56.5 %

43.5 %

Do you use the specific pricing recommendations that the market advisory services provide to compare them with other information sources?

Yes

51.2 %

48.8 %

Do you follow the specific pricing recommendations that the market advisory services provide loosely

Yes

65.6 %

34.4 %

Do you follow the specific pricing recommendations that the market advisory services provide closely?

Yes

11.0 %

89.0 %

^*Based on a 1 to 9 scale with 1=never use, 9=use extremely often.

Table 9. Extent of Impact and Implementation of Pricing Recommendations of Market Advisory Services.

		Mean^*		Mean^*
		All		Close		Means	Sig.
		Users	Rank	Followers	Rank	t-test	(2-tailed)

Impact		5.88		8.01		17.93	0.00
Implementation		--------------Pre-Harvest----------
	Cash forward contracts	5.90	2	7.34	2	7.90	0.00
	Sell futures	4.89	5	6.91	3	7.87	0.00
	Buy put options	4.88	6	6.59	6	6.43	0.00
	Buy call options	4.89	5	6.68	5	6.84	0.00
	Buy futures	4.53	9	6.50	7	6.94	0.00
		-------------Post-Harvest----------
	Sell in cash market	6.50	1	7.60	1	6.61	0.00
	Sell futures	4.92	4	6.84	4	7.47	0.00
	Buy put options	4.75	7	6.42	9	6.04	0.00
	Buy call options	4.95	3	6.68	5	6.41	0.00
	Buy futures	4.64	8	6.49	8	6.48	0.00

^*Based on a 1 to 9 scale with 1=no impact at all, 9=great impact for “Impact”, and 1=would not implement at all, 9=implement exactly for “Implementation.”

Table 10. Valuation of Specific Aspects of Marketing Advisory Services.

Process	Mean*	Method	Mean*	Tools	Mean*
Daily updates of recommendations	6.52	Use of fundamental analysis	6.36	Recommendations include futures and options	5.98
Consistent recommendations	6.35	Specialist regarding particular crops	6.15	Recommendations use only cash	4.94
Recommendations focused on your farm operation circumstances	6.05	Use of technical analysis	6.03	High frequency of use of futures and options strategies	4.82
The fact that the market advisory service tries to establish a relationship	5.83	Analysis based on group consensus	5.76	Low frequency of use of futures and options	4.78
Presentation mainly with text	5.18	Analysis based on the knowledge of one person	4.32
Presentation mainly with charts	4.98
Market advisory service is also broker	4.04

*Based on a 1 to 9 scale with 1=do not value at all, 9=value extremely.

Table 11. Percentage of Farmers Using Selected Forward-Pricing Techniques: Current Survey Versus Previous Studies.

					Futures		Options	Cash Forw.	Min. Price	Hedge-to-arrive
Study	Location	Year	N		Hedging		Contracts	Contracts	Contracts	Contracts
					Pre-Harvest
Present study	Midwest,	2000	232	Non-Users	21		17	63	9	13
	Great Plains		1053	Users	40		33	77	9	19
	Southeast		117	Close Followers	53		48	83	13	26

Coble et al.	IN, MS, NE, TX	1999	1806		35	35		n/a	71	n/a

Purdue Top	Indiana	2001	39		62		54	82	13	n/a
Farmer
Participants		1996	26		62		35	77	15	n/a


Schroeder	Kansas	1996	55		45		56	64	n/a	n/a
et al.
					Post-Harvest
Present study	Midwest,	2000	232	Non-Users	18		16	37	7	7
	Great Plains		1053	Users	28		23	53	8	11
	Southeast		117	Close Followers	40		35	54	7	11

Coble et al.	IN, MS, NE, TX	1999	1806		34			n/a	70	n/a

Table 12. Percent Distribution of Marketing Frequency for Selected Crops between Non-users, Users,

and Close Followers of Market Advisory Services Relative to Previous Studies.

		Once	2-5 times	6-10 times	11 or more	Average
		Percent				Times
Corn
Present study
	Non-Users	5.6	52.8	27.3	14.3	6.2
	Users	6.2	51.2	31.6	11.1	6.0
	Close Followers	3.2	55.8	32.6	8.4	5.5
Coble et al						5.7
Goodwin and Kastens						4.0

Soybeans
Present study
	Non-Users	8.8	58.8	23.1	9.4	4.0
	Users	5.9	60.6	27.0	6.5	5.0
	Close Followers	3.1	64.6	25.0	7.3	4.8
Coble et al						4.4
Goodwin and Kastens						3.1

Wheat
Present study
	Non-Users	23.3	57.4	14.0	5.4	3.4
	Users	19.3	63.1	13.8	3.8	3.7
	Close Followers	22.7	65.2	9.1	3.0	3.4
Goodwin and Kastens						3.8

Cotton
Present study
	Non-Users	44.4	51.9	3.7	0.0	2.6
	Users	21.8	64.4	12.6	1.1	3.5
	Close Followers	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Coble et al						2.5

Text Box: Average