The extension service and the university com-
munity are an unmatched source of information
and will play a role either directly or indirectly
in providing information and data to informa-
tion delivery systems. The issue is should the
universities take a passive or aggressive role in
this area? Some would argue that the appropriate
role should only involve providing information
which will be delivered by private systems and
not be involved with the maintenance of the
actual system. This results in the question of
control and as Dr. Sporleder indicated, brings
up the problem of developing data bases from
public information and repackaging that infor-
mation for sale. This is not completely new
since a tremendous amount of our current in-
formation ends up in outlets for which pro-
ducers and consumers must pay a fee.
A university that decides to operate an infor-
mation delivery system will face many opera-
tional and policy decisions. Administrators will
have to decide if the service will be provided
free or if users will be charged. If a fee structure
is used, how much should be charged? Should
the fee cover the full cost of operation or only
a portion of the cost? The large investment cost
and manpower needs of these systems may them-
selves become an issue. Decisions will have to
be made concerning the priority of this service
relative to the other programs of the experiment
station and the extension service. Will this serv-
ice be continued at the expense of some other
activities during periods of reduced budgets and
program cutbacks?
A closely related issue concerns whether our
information is appropriate for inclusion on an
electronic information delivery system. There
is some indication that much of the extension
and research productivity has such a long life
that it is not economical or beneficial to include
these on such a system. These systems may be
desirable for the more rapidly changing infor-
mation and data and for those information items
that are rather perishable. This issue must be
addressed and decisions reached concerning the
appropriate method of delivery for our output.
The issue of whether the public sector will
meet the needs of our farm clientele in the
development of information systems will even-
tually face decisionmakers. The cost effective-
ness of most of the large computer based systems
resides in the spreading of the high fixed cost
over a large number of users. Since farm pro-
ducers are so few in number relative to the
total population and are located in areas where
linkage to communication networks will cost
more than the urban areas, private industry may
choose to service the larger urban areas and not
meet the demands of the farm producer. If this
happens, how will the land-grant system re-
spond?
The issue of collaborative arrangements for
information delivery must be explored. This
will involve arrangements between public and
private firms, universities and cooperatives, and
among universities. These arrangements could
impact the cost effectiveness of the large in-
formation systems as well as allowing the ex-
pertise of the various participants to be fully
utilized. The duplication of information and
effort could undoubtedly be reduced through
some type of collaborative arrangements.
There are several conclusions and implica-
tions which Dr. Sporleder has presented in this
paper which cause some concern on my part.
I agree that there is not a tremendous amount
of empirical research available in this area and
that some statements and implications cannot
be substantiated one way or another but theory
and work in other areas seem to shed some light
on the issues contained in this paper.
The implication that these new information
technologies can impact the structure of agri-
culture at the farm level has some very signif-
icant ramifications. I would agree that this is
possible under some rather specific assump-
tions, however, these assumptions were not
enumerated in the paper. As a result; the linkage
is not all that intuitive to me. I would argue
that the impacts are more likely to occur in the
area of conduct and efficiency of the market
than on the structure of the farm sector or the
marketing firms. This assumes that the infor-
mation stays in the public domain and that the
information systems simply deliver the infor-
mation in a more efficient and timely manner.
The statement that information technologies
have no clear relationship to vertical coordi-
nation enhancement is very hard for me to ac-
cept. It may well be that the misunderstanding
comes from differing definitions of vertical co-
ordination or information technologies. My par-
ticular view of the coordination mechanisms
would include private treaties, vertical own-
ership, cooperatives, bargaining associations,
and information systems. If the information sys-
tem influences the flow of information within
the market which affects the level of knowledge
and the level of uncertainty, then there must
have been some degree of coordination achieved
by that system. It is my contention that the new
information technologies which are available
to the agricultural sector will in fact lead to
such improvements and thus will have an im-
pact on vertical coordination.
Dr. Sporleder indicated that the development
of electronic cash markets may be compared to
“inventing a better buggy whip” since the trend
is toward non-cash transactions in agriculture.
I agree with the trend; however, only about 3θ
percent of the total farm output is under con-
tracting and vertical integration. Although the
24