Survey responses for diversification outcomes (odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals)
| Question | % Response (n=1236) | Age 10 years(a) | % Income from tobacco (1996) (20% change(b)) | Farm size 25 acre change(c) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Interested in other on-farm activities to supplement your tobacco income | 60.3 | 0.772** † (0.700–0.852) | 0.987 (0.911–1.068) | 0.997 (0.942–1.055) |
| In past year, applied for loans, grants to support efforts to supplement your tobacco income | 26.0 | 0.769** † (0.688–0.859) | 1.1001-150(1.009–1.199) | 1.145** (1.077–1.216) |
| Any “internal” barriers | ||||
| Don’t have an interest in growing or raising anything except tobacco | 35.5 | 1.221** † (1.106–1.348) | 1.039 (0.959–1.125) | 0.986 (0.931–1.045) |
| Need additional skills to grow or raise something other than tobacco | 48.8 | 1.003 (0.913–1.101) | 1.035 (0.958–1.118) | 1.043 (0.986–1.102) |
| Any “external” barriers | ||||
| No places to sell new products | 66.6 | 0.8791-150(0.795–0.972) | 1.184** † (1.085–1.292) | 1.061 (0.999–1.126) |
| Lack of capital for new business ventures | 64.2 | 0.936 (0.848–1.033) | 1.087†(1.000–1.181) | 0.964 (0.911–1.021) |
| Lack of low-interest loans, grants for new business ventures | 63.3 | 0.775** †(0.701–0.856) | 0.981 (0.903–1.065) | 1.014 (0.958–1.074) |
| Low supply of quality labour | 82.4 | 0.924 (0.814–1.048) | 1.004 (0.903–1.117) | 0.9181-150 † (0.856–0.983) |
| Lack of processing plants near farming communities | 72.2 | 0.768** †(0.690–0.856) | 1.068 (0.975–1.171) | 1.040 (0.976–1.107) |
| Lack of support from community, regional, or state leaders | 48.7 | 0.983 (0.895–1.079) | 1.036 (0.959–1.120) | 0.948 (0.897–1.003) |
| Nothing is as profitable as tobacco | 87.7 | 0.926 (0.798–1.073) | 1.012 (0.894–1.146) | 1.157** † (1.049–1.276) |
| Use any tobacco? Yes vs no(d) | Any college? Yes vs no(d) | Off-farm income? Yes vs no(d) |
|---|---|---|
| 1.077 (0.854–1.360) | 1.563** † (1.231–1.984) | 1.256 (1.000–1.578) |
| 1.179 (0.911–1.526) | 1.054 (0.812–1.368) | 1.3351-150 (1.033–1.725) |
| 1.153 (0.909–1.462) | 0.570** † (0.446–0.729) | 1.044 (0.827–1.318) |
| 1.193 (0.950–1.498) | 0.7661-150 (0.608–0.964) | 1.3011-150(1.040–1.627) |
| 1.689** † (1.320–2.160) | 0.982 (0.769–1.254) | 1.100 (0.868–1.393) |
| 1.420**(1.117–1.806) | 0.626** † (0.492–0.796) | 1.112 (0.881–1.403) |
| 1.660** † (1.305–2.111) | 0.796 (0.626–1.011) | 1.412**(1.120–1.781) |
| 1.5151-150 † (1.106–2.076) | 1.083 (0.792–1.483) | 1.111 (0.829–1.488) |
| 1.685** †(1.295–2.191) | 1.146 (0.882–1.488) | 1.412** (1.100–1.813) |
| 1.3231-150 (1.054–1.662) | 0.584** † (0.463–0.736) | 1.106 (0.885–1.383) |
| 1.319 (0.914–1.903) | 1.374 (0.944–2.000) | 1.049 (0.747–1.473) |
↵1-150 p<0.05, unadjusted logistic regression model; **p<0.01, unadjusted logistic regression model; †p<0.05, adjusted for all other factors in logistic regression model.
(a)Age was included in models as a continuous variable; odds ratios are expressed in terms of 10-year increments.
(b)% Income from tobacco was included in models as a continuous variable; odds ratios are expressed in terms of 20% increments.
(c)Farm size was included in models as a continuous variable; odds ratios are expressed in terms of 25-acre (10.1 hectare) change.
(d)Reference category = no.