*Article* **Training Sources and Preferences for Agricultural Producers and Professionals in Middle-North Mato Grosso, Brazil**

**Jordane Aparecida Vieira dos Reis <sup>1</sup> , Aaron Kinyu Hoshide 1,2,\*, John Robert Vreyens <sup>3</sup> , André Soares de Oliveira <sup>4</sup> , Vanessa Aparecida Moreira de Barros <sup>1</sup> , Wininton Mendes da Silva <sup>5</sup> , Luana Molossi <sup>1</sup> , Jessica Lima Viana <sup>1</sup> , Daniel Carneiro de Abreu 1,4 and Ronaldo Alves de Oliveira <sup>1</sup>**


**Abstract:** Brazil's midwest has rapidly expanded large-scale commodity crops such as soybeans and maize. We surveyed both agricultural producers and agricultural professionals in the middlenorth region of Mato Grosso state, Brazil. Agricultural professionals provide technical support to agricultural producers and both are served by Assistência Técnica e Extensão Rural (ATER) with nationally and internationally recognized extension outreach. Our objectives were to define and contrast agricultural producer and professional characteristics, especially source(s) relied upon for agricultural training. There were 94 agricultural producers and 89 agricultural professionals that responded to our surveys, which were summarized and contrasted using statistical software. There was a predominance of male farmers, married with a broad age range. Agricultural professionals who advise producers had a high educational level. Producers and professionals were most reliant on private sector agricultural companies and business support organizations for agricultural training, versus public institutions such as universities and state/federal agencies. In the state of Mato Grosso, extension outreach can involve joint efforts by public and private sector entities. However, more targeted efforts are needed to ensure that public sector research is more equally used by agricultural producers and professionals in the region, especially during field days and face-to-face technical lectures during the off-season.

**Keywords:** agricultural education; agricultural producers; agricultural professionals; education and learning processes; questionnaires; rural extension

### **1. Introduction**

The Cerrado–Amazon ecotone is a macro-region composed of sixteen municipalities with relief, soil, and climate conditions that are favorable to the cultivation of annual crops. According to the Instituto Mato-Grossense de Economia Agropecuária (IMEA) in 2017 [1], this is an important region for grain production and distribution in the state of Mato Grosso and for the Brazilian economy. Technological innovations in Mato Grosso have quadrupled agricultural production from 1990 to 2020, while land area used to grow grain has only increased by 68% in the same period [2]. Brazilian agribusiness development, especially in the state of Mato Grosso, has seen increased demand for qualified labor and professional skills and competencies. Brazil's federal government has stimulated agricultural development in middle-north Mato Grosso state since the 1970s and 1980s.

**Citation:** Reis, J.A.V.d.; Hoshide, A.K.; Vreyens, J.R.; Oliveira, A.S.d.; Barros, V.A.M.d.; Silva, W.M.d.; Molossi, L.; Viana, J.L.; Abreu, D.C.d.; Oliveira, R.A.d. Training Sources and Preferences for Agricultural Producers and Professionals in Middle-North Mato Grosso, Brazil. *Sustainability* **2023**, *15*, 4712. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064712

Academic Editor: Emanuele Radicetti

Received: 24 January 2023 Revised: 26 February 2023 Accepted: 3 March 2023 Published: 7 March 2023

**Copyright:** © 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

Migrants from southern Brazil (e.g., Parana state) were encouraged to occupy the Cerrado (i.e., savannah) and Amazon, expanding cattle ranching and crop production [3,4].

Mato Grosso is a state located in the midwest region of Brazil spanning 903,207 km<sup>2</sup> . In 2021, it had 3,567,234 people with a population density of 3.94 inhabitants/km<sup>2</sup> [5]. The state of Mato Grosso has the largest cattle herd in the country, with 32,424,958 heads. In 2017, Mato Grosso state had 118,679 rural properties totaling 54,922,850 hectares intended for agricultural production [6]. Mato Grosso is the largest Brazilian soybean-producing state, having 10,909,400 hectares planted producing 39,961,100 metric tons (t), with a productivity of 3.663 t/ha in 2022. For maize in the year 2022, the state of Mato Grosso had a planted area of 6,547,400 hectares producing 41,620,100 t with a productivity of 6.357 t/ha [7].

To increase productivity gains in agricultural regions, independent extension projects such as those developed by universities are very important [8]. However, despite the potential for agricultural technological innovation in the region and access to the Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso (UFMT) and its partners, there has been low participation in extension programs (innovation programs, technical lectures, and workshops) offered by these institutions. AgriSciences at UFMT is a program responsible for applied research and rural extension programming (Table 1) focused on sustainable agriculture established in 2016 [9]. Through public/private partnerships, AgriSciences develops extension actions focusing on producers, technical professionals, and rural youth. From 2019 to 2022, more than 3600 people were directly reached through extension activities (Table 1).

There are numerous challenges to establishing successful agricultural training programs even with a lot of extension agents per capita [10]. It can be difficult for rural agricultural extension to customize education to different types of producers (e.g., row crop, cattle ranchers, subsistence farming) with different socio-economic backgrounds [11]. Previous studies in developing nations suggest more limited participation in agricultural training for older, less educated farmers living further away from extension services [12,13]. Agricultural producers also have limited time and resources to devote to agricultural training. A previous study [14] surveyed 355 farmers in northern Greece where 47.6% could attend less than 2 days of Agricultural Education Programs annually. On-farm demonstrations require extensive and multi-faceted planning [15]. More modern methods of rural extension can be novelties, both for agricultural producers and professionals and institutions in Brazil [16].

While production challenges, mainly in grain production, have encouraged new investments and increased technology diffusion in agriculture [17], addressing environmental and community sustainability can remain challenging. Brazil has had challenges successfully developing agro-ecological extension approaches for agriculture at a federal level [18]. Agricultural education has been shown to be more challenging for environmental management in New Zealand [19] and for rural development policies in Italy [20]. For Peruvian dairy farmers, private agricultural advisors tend to increase farmer reliance on the external inputs these advisors are selling [21]. Acknowledging farmers' rational barriers to adopting more environmentally friendly practices [22] and engaging them in developing individualized solutions can improve sustainability [23].

Due to the middle-north region of Mato Grosso's relevance for agriculture and importance in contributing to Brazil's national and international economy, it is important to better understand farmers' and agricultural professionals' sources and preferences for agricultural training. This can reveal potential drivers of farmers' low level of interest in participating in public innovation programs. Addressing these shortfalls in program interest can meet the goal of enhancing the engagement of agricultural producers and professionals in this region in Brazil.


**Table 1.** AgriSciences program components in middle-north Mato Grosso state, Brazil.

Thus, there were three general research objectives of our study. The first objective was to develop baseline profiles of crop farmers and agricultural professionals in middle-north Mato Grosso. Our second objective was to identify the sources of and preferences for public and private agricultural knowledge and education by both agricultural producers and professionals in this region. Finally, our third research objective was to determine the extension method (e.g., field day, course, workshop, seminars, etc.) that our audience of farmers and professionals prefers in order to receive such knowledge and education. Customizing agricultural training to better meet the preferences and needs of producers and professionals can improve agricultural production practices and cropping system management in the long run.

#### **2. Materials and Methods**

#### *2.1. Study Area and Methodological Approach*

The area selected for study was the middle-north macro-region of Mato Grosso state (MT) because of its central location within this state in Brazil. The region is important for the production, marketing, and distribution of commodity crops (e.g., soybeans, maize, and cotton) in MT [1,2]. Our study used qualitative, quantitative, and descriptive data and

analyses using the participatory rural appraisal (PRA) methodological approach. PRA is a research and data collection process intended to include the perspectives of all groups of interest of a community, causing a change in the traditional surveyor/surveyed roles so that multiple stakeholders participate in determining how data collection will be conducted [24]. The method also serves as a communication channel between those who share a common problem. We solicited feedback from agricultural producers and professionals to refine our surveys (Supplementary Materials) as well as collection of survey data. north region of Mato Grosso transitions from the Cerrado to Amazon biomes moving south to north from Nova Mutum to Sinop (Figure 1). Our survey design, implementation, and analyses are summarized in Figure 2. Surveys of agricultural producers and professionals were administered both in person and online, using the Google Forms platform. Survey questions were designed to take around half an hour to complete. A team of researchers and graduate students from the Universidade Federal Mato Grosso (UFMT), Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa

conducted [24]. The method also serves as a communication channel between those who share a common problem. We solicited feedback from agricultural producers and professionals to refine our surveys (Supplementary Materials) as well as collection of

Our research team surveyed 94 medium-to-large grain producers and 89 agricultural professionals during the spring and early summer of 2019. Producers were mainly from the cities of Nova Mutum (13.82681 S, 56.07165 W), Lucas do Rio Verde (13.073898 S, 55.91885 W), Sorriso (12.54209 S, 55.72081 W), and Sinop (11.85984 S, 55.50723 W), which lie on Route 163, which is among the larger cropping areas in South America. The middle-

#### *2.2. Sampling and Survey Administration* Agropecuária (Embrapa), and the University of Minnesota revised survey questions

*2.2. Sampling and Survey Administration* 

survey data.

*Sustainability* **2023**, *15*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 22

Our research team surveyed 94 medium-to-large grain producers and 89 agricultural professionals during the spring and early summer of 2019. Producers were mainly from the cities of Nova Mutum (13.82681 S, 56.07165 W), Lucas do Rio Verde (13.073898 S, 55.91885 W), Sorriso (12.54209 S, 55.72081 W), and Sinop (11.85984 S, 55.50723 W), which lie on Route 163, which is among the larger cropping areas in South America. The middlenorth region of Mato Grosso transitions from the Cerrado to Amazon biomes moving south to north from Nova Mutum to Sinop (Figure 1). Our survey design, implementation, and analyses are summarized in Figure 2. before final administration. We used the "Needs Assessment Circuit" (NAC) [25] which estimated time needed to answer survey questions and number of target responses for each town. NAC was selected based on its use in previous studies of agricultural stakeholder involvement [26]. Surveys of agricultural producers and professionals started during the spring of 2019. Due to low initial response to our online survey after a month, we directly surveyed both agricultural producers and professionals via unions and retailers over three months from June to August 2019.

**Figure 1.** Survey city locations in the middle-north of the state of Mato Grosso, Brazil. Both maps **Figure 1.** Survey city locations in the middle-north of the state of Mato Grosso, Brazil. Both maps show the Amazon, Cerrado, and Pantanal biomes in Brazil.

show the Amazon, Cerrado, and Pantanal biomes in Brazil.

**Figure 2.** Survey flow chart for agricultural producers and agricultural professionals in middlenorth Mato Grosso state, Brazil. **Figure 2.** Survey flow chart for agricultural producers and agricultural professionals in middle-north Mato Grosso state, Brazil.

communication to our target audience of agricultural producers. Producers answered questions on paper and sometimes by phone. Support of rural trade unions helped ensure

visited all four cities (Figure 1) and coordinated with agricultural companies to forward e-questionnaires to interested agricultural professionals and their teams. Presentations about our survey were given to at least ten agricultural companies in each city. This facilitated survey data collection in person using paper surveys and, in some situations, by using the online version of the survey and quick communication applications

Our project was presented to the trade unions of each town to facilitate

(WhatsApp®).

Surveys of agricultural producers and professionals were administered both in person and online, using the Google Forms platform. Survey questions were designed to take around half an hour to complete. A team of researchers and graduate students from the Universidade Federal Mato Grosso (UFMT), Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa), and the University of Minnesota revised survey questions before final administration. We used the "Needs Assessment Circuit" (NAC) [25] which estimated time needed to answer survey questions and number of target responses for each town. NAC was selected based on its use in previous studies of agricultural stakeholder involvement [26]. Surveys of agricultural producers and professionals started during the spring of 2019. Due to low initial response to our online survey after a month, we directly surveyed both agricultural producers and professionals via unions and retailers over three months from June to August 2019.

Our project was presented to the trade unions of each town to facilitate communication to our target audience of agricultural producers. Producers answered questions on paper and sometimes by phone. Support of rural trade unions helped ensure at least two working days were available for direct contact with producers. Our team visited all four cities (Figure 1) and coordinated with agricultural companies to forward e-questionnaires to interested agricultural professionals and their teams. Presentations about our survey were given to at least ten agricultural companies in each city. This facilitated survey data collection in person using paper surveys and, in some situations, by using the online version of the survey and quick communication applications (WhatsApp®).

Our agricultural producer survey was divided into three sections. The first section included socio-demographic questions on age, gender, marital status, educational level, and residence. Additionally, respondents were asked about their length of experience or service in the agricultural sector. Agricultural producers were asked if they lived on-farm and, if not, how often they visited their farms, and who was responsible for the farm's technical decisions. The survey's second section asked questions on farm area, crop production and management, and participation in farm programs and agricultural training. Finally, questions in the third section asked producer preferences for agricultural extension topics, extension methods (e.g., field day, course, workshop, seminars, etc.), as well as general comments and suggestions.

The agricultural professional survey was also divided into three sections. The first section asked about the professionals' general background such as where they were located, education, occupation, number of farmers served, and crop area and types covered. The second survey section involved technology transfer to clients, probability of using information through current communication channels, frequency of reading specialized literature, and the amount of training carried out in a year. The final survey section asked about preferred extension methods, outreach duration and scheduling, and availability for in-person and online training. General suggestions and comments were also solicited.

#### *2.3. Data Organization and Analysis*

Survey data were entered into Microsoft® Excel 2013 to generate tables and graphs. We coded survey responses to categorical questions in order to generate summary statistics and to use for multi-variate regression analyses [27]. Both agricultural producers and professionals specified the crop systems with which they were involved. Responses to questions commonly asked to both agricultural producers and professionals were tested for statistically significant differences between these two respondent groups using the Z-test for significant differences between proportions in open-source R. These common questions included residence, education, and source(s) used for agricultural training. We arranged open-ended responses for comments and suggestions as a running text and then built a cloud of words using the Atlas.ti® software. This program identified frequently used words by both producers and professionals for visual comparison. We ran Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regressions in both open-source R and Palisade Decision Tools Suite's StatTools to

determine independent variables significantly impacting the proportion of public (versus private) training sources for both agricultural producers and professionals.

#### **3. Results**

#### *3.1. Survey Respondent and Farm Area Characteristics*

#### 3.1.1. Agricultural Producers and Their Farms

Characteristics of agricultural producers are presented in Table 2. About one-quarter of producers (24.7%) were between 56 and 65 years old, while those aged 25 to 35 years comprised 23.6% of the sample. Most producers were male (91.4%) and were married (82.6%). Based on a Brazilian agricultural and livestock censuses conducted between 2006 and 2017, the cultivation of cotton, sugarcane, seeds and seedlings, planted forests, and aquaculture had minimal participation from women. These activities employ poorly paid wage labor, are highly mechanized, and are common on patriarchal farms [28].

Most surveyed producers (61.3%) reported having ≥20 years of farming experience (Table 2). Agricultural producers had a range of educational backgrounds, where 46.7% had up to a high school degree and 27.2% had an undergraduate college degree (Table 3). Of the 40 producers specifying other higher education or an undergraduate degree, 50% were agronomists (Table 2). Advanced degrees (6.5%) and technical education (3.3%) comprised the remaining balance of educational backgrounds (Table 3). Our results are consistent with a previous study reporting that rural producers in Brazil differed with regard to schooling and how technical information is obtained [29].

Most interviewed producers (68.8%) did not live on-farm (Table 2) and were more likely to manage farms located in areas outside of the four major cities compared to the farms serviced by agricultural professionals (*p* = 0.005, Table 3). Typically, producers maintain a residence in an urban area, which allows access to a better living standard for their families (e.g., education, healthcare, entertainment, commerce, and other services). Finally, management decisions were made individually by the producer (29.2%) or were made together with some member of the family (42.7%) or with an external individual (24.7%). Thus, 96.6% of producers' agricultural property and enterprises are managed by the farmer, his wife, and children (Table 2).

Most farms managed by agricultural producers fell in the 500-to-1499-hectare (ha) size class (34.4% of producers), with 77.4% of the farms greater than or equal to 500 ha (Table 1). Most farms managed in our study were larger than observed in other regions of Brazil where only 0.9% of the farms are over 1000 hectares [30]. Mato Grosso is Brazil's largest agricultural state, producing 21.1% of the country's agricultural value [31]. Commodity crops include maize (*Zea mays* L.) or cotton (*Gossypium* sp.) grown as a second crop following soybeans (*Glycine max* L.) in the same production year [32]. Commodity crop production has historically transitioned from frontier development to greater intensification in order to reduce deforestation through collaboration of the private and public sectors with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) [33].


**Table 2.** Characteristics for crop producers from middle-north region, Mato Grosso state, Brazil in 2019.


**Table 3.** Characteristics and preferences of agricultural producers and professionals in middle-north region, MT, Brazil in 2019.

<sup>a</sup> Producers and professionals could specify multiple categories.

#### 3.1.2. Agricultural Professionals and Advisory Area

Agricultural professionals were statistically more highly educated than producers, with 52.8% being college graduates, 28.1% having a post-graduate degree, and 15.7% completing technical education beyond high school. Only 3.4% had some high school education or just a high school diploma (Table 3). Other research has highlighted the need for educated workers since they have to perform different jobs in the urban or rural agribusiness sector [34]. Table 4 summarizes responses to questions specifically

asked to agricultural professionals. Here, 43.8% of professionals provided assistance to 0 to 19 clients, 33.7% to 20 to 39 clients, and 18% to more than 60 clients. This was similar for farm area serviced with 59.1% of professionals being responsible for under 40,000 hectares (ha) and 25% for more than 60,000 ha. Large-scale soybean production is one of the most economically important crops in Brazil and crop extension plays a critical role in promoting scientific advances and new production technologies [35].


**Table 4.** Characteristics of agricultural professionals from middle-north region, Mato Grosso state, Brazil in 2019.

#### *3.2. Agricultural Systems*

Based on the responses of agricultural producers and professionals regarding the crop(s) that they work with, five annual cropping systems were defined: (1) soybeans (S) only, (2) S-maize (M), (3) S-cotton, (4) S-M-pasture, and (5) systems involving other crops/enterprises. The S-M double-cropping system had the highest involvement from both producers (59.1%) and professionals (65.9%). For producers, this was followed by other crops/enterprises, S-M-pasture, S-cotton, and just soybeans. Professionals were similar, with the exception of S-cotton being more commonly worked with than the S-Mpasture integrated system. Professional involvement with S-cotton was statistically greater (*p* ≤ 0.0001) than producers (Table 3), which may be due to the management complexity of cotton [36] requiring more agricultural professional advisory services.

Most producers plant one, two, or three annual crops in a year, typically following each other from the wet season (October to February) to dry season (March to September). Only 6.5% of producers and 1.2% of professionals are specialized in just soybeans. More common are involvement in either (1) S-cotton due to longer maturity for cotton or (2) S-M where a third sequential crop could be added, such as S-M-pasture, where the pasture is under-seeded during maize planting in February. Most producers (89.2%) and professionals (84.2%) were involved with soybeans double-cropped with maize as a second crop (*safrinha*). Fewer producers (33.3%) and professionals (21.8%) dealt with second/third crops such as bean, sorghum, and *Crotalaria juncea* (rattle pods grown as a cover crop). Furthermore, 30.1% of farmers cultivated pasture, typically as the third crop, while 18.3% of professionals worked with this type of integrated cropping system (Table 3). Third crops grown during the dry season (June to September) with no or very limited rainfall require more technology (e.g., irrigation), typically used by larger producers [37].

#### *3.3. Contrasting Use of Public versus Private Agricultural Training*

Table 3 compares surveyed agricultural producers and professionals with respect to their sources for public or private agricultural training. Public sources of agricultural training include regional extension (e.g., Fundação MT, IMA, SENAR-MT), universities (e.g., UFMT), state research (e.g., EMPAER, INDEA), and federal research (e.g., Embrapa, MAPA) entities (Table 5). Private sector training sources were companies making agricultural chemicals (e.g., Bayer, Syngenta, Pioneer), fertilizers (e.g., Mosaic, Yara), retailing agricultural inputs (e.g., Agroamazônia, Agroinsumos), independent consultants, and

other private entities (Table 4). Agricultural producers were more likely to rely on regional extension (*p* = 0.006) compared to professionals.

However, professionals were significantly more dependent on chemical and fertilizer companies (*p* ≤ 0.0001) as well as independent consultants (*p* = 0.032) for agricultural training compared to producers (Table 3). Of the 83 producers and 86 professionals that answered our question on source(s) of agricultural training, less than half of each group relied on public sources (7% to 47%). Less than half of producers relied on private sources as well (3.6% to 48.2%, Table 3). Over half of surveyed professionals relied on companies producing or retailing agricultural inputs (51.2% to 82.6%, Table 3).

These private entities had greater budgets on average compared to regional/state-level public entities. Private entities had budgets ranging from USD 15,655,000 to 1,630,600,000, while regional/state-level public sources only had budgets of USD 25,756,833 to 180,261,746 (Table 5). For the Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso (UFMT), this is the entire university system budget, where most resources are not directed to farmer outreach unlike the Serviço Nacional de Aprendizagem Rural de Mato Grosso (SENAR-MT), Empresa Mato-Grosssense de Pesquisa, Assistência e Extensão Rural (EMPAER-MT), and the Instituto de Defesa Agropecuária do Estado de Mato Grosso (INDEA). For example, the AgriSciences program at UFMT, which conducts direct outreach to area farmers, has an average annual budget of USD 169,523, of which only about USD 11,808 is directly from the UFMT university system.


**Table 5.** Public and private agricultural training entities and 2021 budgets in Brazil.


**Table 5.** *Cont.*

Our results are comparable with Carbonera et al. 2020 [47], who found that agricultural producers in Santa Rosa, Rio Grande do Sul state in southern Brazil relied upon both private and public sources for agricultural training. Here, farmers were technically assisted by agricultural input suppliers, finance and other professionals, and private cooperatives. Public entities included the Association of Technical Support and Rural Extension Enterprises in Rio Grande do Sul (Associação Riograndense de Empreendimentos de Assistência Técnica e Extensão Rural—EMATER/RS) and City Administration. Producers also used non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for training. Increased producer demand for more technical assistance was observed in some of the relationships examined.

Agricultural producers had a lower number of responses (481) compared to professionals (594) regarding preferred topics for agricultural training. Word clouds of open-response questions answered by both agricultural producers and professionals are shown in Figure 3. Agricultural producers emphasized "soil" versus "management" for professionals. The three words most often mentioned by agricultural producers were soil, field, and research (Figure 3a). Agricultural professionals most often used the words management, soil, field, and producers (Figure 3b). Greater emphasis on "management" was consistent with professionals having statistically greater preferences for preferred topics for training having to do with more technical aspects of crop management, such as plant mineral nutrition (*p* = 0.004), fertilizer management (*p* = 0.026), soil fertility assessment (*p* = 0.040), and correcting soil acidity (*p* = 0.035, Table 3).

Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression results for both agricultural producers and professionals explaining the proportion of public training used (dependent variable) are shown in Table 6. Years of education, years in agriculture, number of crops grown, and those specializing in only soybeans were not significant in explaining use of public (versus private) training sources. For producers, years spent in agriculture and being from the city of Sorriso were also not significant. Agricultural professionals who received training from private companies selling agricultural inputs (resale) did not have any significantly different proportion of public training used compared to other professionals. Like agricultural producers, years of education was also not significant. Agricultural professionals that helped producers specializing in soybeans and that received training from resale companies (i.e., distributors) were not more or less likely to use more public training sources (Table 6). All other variables surveyed from both agricultural producers (Tables 2 and 3) and agricultural professionals (Tables 3 and 4) were not significant in influencing use of public training sources.

of the relationships examined.

(**a**) Producers

training. Increased producer demand for more technical assistance was observed in some

professionals (594) regarding preferred topics for agricultural training. Word clouds of

open-response questions answered by both agricultural producers and professionals are

shown in Figure 3. Agricultural producers emphasized "soil" versus "management" for

professionals. The three words most often mentioned by agricultural producers were soil,

field, and research (Figure 3a). Agricultural professionals most often used the words

management, soil, field, and producers (Figure 3b). Greater emphasis on "management"

was consistent with professionals having statistically greater preferences for preferred

topics for training having to do with more technical aspects of crop management, such as

plant mineral nutrition (*p* = 0.004), fertilizer management (*p* = 0.026), soil fertility

Agricultural producers had a lower number of responses (481) compared to
