‘ . £72.; "fire. THE USE OF SELECTED SOURCES OF POULTRY MARKET NEWS --A STUDY IN COMMUNICATION Thesis for the: Degree of M. A. MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE CIara Elizabeth Henning Lowe 1950 This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE USE OF SEIECTED SOURCES OF POULTRY MARIET NEWS 44- A STUDY IN COIMUNICATION presented by CLARA E. HEI‘INING LOWE has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for degree in Sociology and Anthropology #Wajor professor Date Wu.) /3./%-0 0-169 THE USE OF SEIECTED SOURCES OF POULTRY MARKET NEWS --A STUDY IN COMMUNICATION By . Clara Elizabeth Eenning Lowe A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Sociology and AnthrOpology 1950 THESIS ACKNOWLEDGI IENTS The author wishes to eXpress her appreciation to all those who have assisted in the preparation of this thesis, and especially to Dr. Edgar A. Schuler, now Chairman of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at hayne University, who directed the harkct hews Study and guided the author both in the research and writing phases of the thesis preparation. The author is also indebted to Dr. Charles P. Loomis, head of the D partnent of Sociology and Anthro- pology, and Director of the Social Research Service, for the Opportunity in participating in this research project. Dr. Duane L. Gibson, Associate Professor, Depart- ment of Sociology and AnthIOpology, was particularly helpful in the organizational and statistical phases of the study. To Dr. Henry E. Larzelere, Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics, the author is indebted for his help in the organizational phases of the study and in the interpretation of the data from the questionnaires. His explanation of poultry marketing terms with which the author was not familiar was also appreciated. The author wishes to express her thanks to Rex King, graduate assistant in the Department of Agricultural Economics, for his endeavors in the early phases of the ~ .’I v ="""" 37‘?) ‘ 4' study, and for his co-Operation in the preparation of the preliminary analysis of the study in the summer of 1948. , To lrofessor Carl G. Card, head of the Department of Poultry Husbandry, Charles C. Sheppard, Instructor, Dr. John E. hoore, Associate Erofessor, and other members of Professor Card's staff, the author expresses grateful appreciation for their helpful suggestions; aid in in- terpretation of the data; and, for supplying lists of chicken and turkey producers for the intensive interviews. The author expresses her appreciation, also, to the students of the Department of Poultry Husbandry and in the Department of Agricultural hcononics who Spent their spring vacation in 1948 interviewing the non-respondents to the egg and poultry questionnaire. The co-Operation of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics was especially appreciated. without their co- Operetion a second cross-section sahple of the poultry- men in hichigan would have been impossible. Thanks, too, to the poultrynen and dealers of nich- igan who responded to the mailed questionnaires that this study might accomplish the purpose for which it was intended. I Even greater is the author's debt to the men and women who so freely gave of their time to answer the questions from the intensive interview schedules. Chapter B. C. D. G. Chapter A. B. C. Chapter A. CONTENTS 1. Introduction to the Study Sociology and the Communication Process Origin and Scepe Objectives Importance of the Study hethods of Collecting the Data Procedure in Analyzing the Data Other Studies Dealing with an Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Price and Market Information 2. Sources of Egg and Poultry Market Information The Radio as a Channel for Price and Market Information The NewSpaper as a Channel for Price and Market Information The Federal-State Market News Service Origin and Purpose--Nature and Scepe-- Recipients of the Service-~Summary 3. harket News and the Poultryman Collection of the Data 1. The hailed Questionnaire DeveIOpment of the Questionnaire and Covering Letter-~Selection of the Sample areas--Nature and Validity of the Sample-~Sampling Procedure ‘QO‘VbNNHI—‘H ll 12 16 18 28 28 28 B. C. D. G. H. 2. The hichigan Supplement to the April, 1948 Survey of Agriculture Development of the Supplement-~Se- lection of the Sample Areas--Nature and Validity of the Sample--Inter- viewing Procedure 3. The Intensive Interviews Need for the Intensive Interviews-- DevelOpment of the Schedule--Select- ion of the Informants--Nature and Validity of the Sample-~Interview- ing Procedure The Poultry Enterprise on the Farms Studied Marketing Practices of the Poultry Farmers The Farmer's Knowledge About and Use of harket Information The Farmer‘s Attitudes and Opinions Regard- ing Market Information, and Suggestions for Improvement Testing the Suggestions for Improvement of Market Quotations Through the Intensive Interviews Interpretation and Evaluation of the Data Presented Conclusions and Recommendations Chapter 4. Market News and the Turkey Grower A. Collection of the Data 1. The Hailed Questionnaire Sample DevelOpment of the Hailed Question- naire and Covering Letters-~Selec- tion of the Sample Areas--Nature and Validity of the Sample--Sampl- ing Procedure 2. The Intensive Interviews Need for the Intensive Interviews-- DeveIOpment of the Schedule--Selec- tion of the Informants-~Nature and Validity of the Sample-~Interview— ing Procedure ii 50 51 38 47 65 69 75 81 81 81 84 C. D. G. H. Chapter A. F. The Turkey Enterprise on the Farms Studied Marketing Practices of the Turkey Growers The Turkey Grower's Knowledge About and Use of Karket Information The Turkey Grower's Attitudes and Opinions Regarding Market Information, and Suggest- ions for Improvement Testing the Suggestions for Improvement of Karket Quotations Through the Intensive Interviews Interpretation and Evaluation of the Data Presented Conclusions and Recommendations 5. Karket Hews and the Poultry Dealer Collection of the Data 1. The Mailed Questionnaire Sample DeveIOpment of the Questionnaire and Covering Letter-~Selection of the Hailing List--Nature and Validity of the Sample-~Sampling Procedure 2. The Intensive Interviews Need for the Intensive Interviews-- Development of the Schedule--Se- lection of the Informants--The Nature and Validity of the Sample-- Interviewing Procedure Type of Business of Dealers Sampled Buying Practices of Dealers The Dealer's Knowledge About and Use of Market Information The Dealer's Attitudes and Opinions Re- garding Market Information, and Suggest- ions for Improvement Testing the Suggestions for Improvement of Market Quotations Through the Inten- sive Interviews iii 85 86 97 113 115 151 133 138 141 147 150 G. Interpretation and Evaluation of the data 151 Presented H. Conclusions and Recommendations 155 Chapter 6. Summary and Conclusions 159 A. Summary of the Findings 160 B. Conclusions 161 Bibliography A. Sources Cited in the Study 163 E. Additional Sources Consulted 163 Appendices ‘ A. Discussion of Hethodology Used 165 B. Questionnaire Sent to the Radio Stations 171 and Covering Letters 0. Radio Stations in Eichigan, Ju1y 1, 1947 176 D. A List of the 55 Kichigan and 3 Chicago 178 Radio Stations Returning the Completed Questionnaires E. Egg and Poultry Questionnaire and Cover- 180 ing Letters F. Michigan Supplement to the April, 1948 189 Survey of Agriculture G. Egg and Poultry Intensive Interview 192 Schedule H. COpies of Cards Used in Intensive Inter- 206 views I. Turkey Questionnaire and Covering Letters 213 J. Turkey Intensive Interview Schedule 220 K. Dealers' Questionnaire and Covering Letter 229 L. Dealers' Intensive Interview Schedule 239 iv Chapter 1. Introduction to the Study A. Sociology and the Communication Process The sociologist is interested in the socialization process of a cultural phenomenon to see how it is pass-_ ed or transmitted from person to person and whether this phenomenon is accepted, rejected or something toward which individuals and groups are indifferent. A study of the use of selected sources of poultry market news is of interest to the sociologist for the Opportunity it provides for observing the systems of communication used in the transmission of such cultural values and the degree of acceptance or rejection of these values by individuals and groups. B. Origin and Scepe .A study of the farmer's use of and reactions to. sources of marketing information was started in the fall of 1947 to bring about a.more effective dissemination of market news. This study was made in conjunction with the Research and Marketing Act of 1946 which.was design- ed '...to improve and facilitate the marketing and dis- tribution of agricultural products".1 The marketing of poultry and poultry products was chosen since poultry is one of the enterprises most fre- quently found on Michigan farms. Fiftybeight percent of 1. H.R. 3932, Calendar No. 1881, 79th Congress, 2nd. Session, Report No. 1843. 1 2 the farmers of Michigan reported the sale of poultry and poultry products from their farms in the 1945 census of agriculture. Such.sales totaled eleven percent of the value of all farm commodities sold from Michigan farms during the previous year.1 C. Objectives The objectives of the project were to obtain and analyze data on.the use of and reactions to sources of poultry marketing information in Michigan, and to make recommendations based on these data designed to lead to mere effective dissemination of market information. An attempt was made to obtain answers to the following ques- tions regarding Michigan poultry farmers and dealers:2 1. What knowledge do they have about the avail- able scurces of market information? 2. What sources of information about market conditions do they customarily use? 3. How adequate and useful do they consider the available market information to be? 4. What suggestions do they have for improving the reporting of market conditions? D. Importance of the Study Since the origin of the elaborate system of assem- bling and disseminating price and market information by 1. State Table 3, U,S, Census of Agriculture, 1945, Vol- me 1’ part 6. 2. Poultry dealers were also questioned as a means of evaluating how well the marketing information was work- ing for rural pecple, and to test the hypothesis that the market informaticn.might actually be working bet- tor for the dealers than for the producers. '- - c 4 ‘x . .u .o t , A I v 'I . “ e. v a _ . r \ ‘ . _ . I . A \ _, ’ s . . l C v s PA I u - -u - o y..— ' Q . . ..,..—-. “no ‘ .. . r » 9 . I l . I A s L 4 \ 7 a n . . s ,) I . . ‘. s s . , k, . \. n r or on ‘ 1. ——- v - ‘ I J_ V. L' ,. in . 7 ‘ ‘ l . A", . , . J ‘ t 1 .. -» _\ -~J .rv .- s v _ . .. ‘ -- . . n \ , I i J l s .i . .— 0 O " . n... . , .2 I! ,w . . .4 1 . I . . . . .- .- o. .- . . .. v , . l. ‘ . we . .- . .y l . ‘ O A . . . ‘ . h . , l . ., - . a I ~~ -- D O ”I ' I ,n‘ - ' If U - . uv- . 5 "iv 1 ' . l - .. - 0 A _. .'. ,J. l a I . s . v ,4 - .- . . r I ., .. _ .' ta .' .. J . a , . ,A. .1 . the Federal Government very little has been done in an attempt to discover the farmer's reaction to the various types of material available; the type of farmer using the information; what kind of material is most used or desir- ed, or what problems of interpretation arise. The need for farmers to know how to obtain and in- terpret market information has been realized more and more as the problem of providing adequate agricultural commodities for the use of the consumer is faced. Unless the farmer can sell his product for a reasonable return he will turn to some other commodity or business that will give him.the compensation he thinks is necessary for the time and effort involved. If the farmer receives the highest price possible for the product he sells, the con- sumer tends to be assured of an adequate flow of the agricultural commodities he needs. Since extension workers of the Michigan State College are often confronted with the problem of interpreting market prices and information for the farmer it seemed advisable to obtain criticism and suggestions on the mar- ket information currently available. It is only when market reports are easily understood by the farmers that they are serving the purpose for which they were intended. The review of the literature, which will be present- ed a little later, shows that very little research has been made to appraise the effectiveness with which.exist- 4 ing market information is meeting the needs of the farmer. E. Methods of Collecting Data1 The data for the study were collected through mailed questionnaires to poultry and egg producers and dealers, together with one follow-up mailing and interviews. The mailing list for the poultry and egg producers was obtained from the United States Bureau of Agricultur- 2 Through this sample of Michigan farmers a1 Economics. it was expected that a wider range of types of poultry production could be reached than by using a list of those who were primarily poultry producers. After the original mailing and one follow-up letter, interviews were held with all the non-respondents to the two mailings. Some of the questions thought tohave the most bear- ing on the problem of market information were included on a two page supplement to the 1948 Survey of Agriculture. New sample segments were drawn from the same 22 counties used in the 1947 survey, so that interviews from farmers other than those on our mailing list were obtained. Since the poultry questionnaire was designed pri- marily for securing chicken and egg marketing informa- tion it could not adequately cover the turkey industry 1. Only a brief general description of the methods used in the study will be given here. As each of the sam- ples is discussed in a later cha ter a detailed de. scription of the methodology fol owed will be presented. 2. This was a list of names and addresses of farmers in 22 counties chosen by the Bureau of Agricultural Eco- nomics as representative of the agricultural areas of Michigan for the 1947 Survey of Agriculture. because of its highly seasonal nature. A special ques- tionnaire was constructed to send to the turkey growers, since it was thought necessary to include these producers in the study. ‘A list of the names of turkey growers was obtained from.the Bulletin Office of the Michigan State College. Since the buyers of poultry and poultry products also make use of the market information available it was decided that these men must be included in the study if it was to be complete. A.mailing list of the poultry-and. egg dealers was obtained from.the.American Poultry Review, ”Who's Who In The Egg And Poultry Industries”, 1947. .During a preliminary analysis of the mailed returns it was found that only a very few suggestions for improv- ing the market quotations were offered by the informants, although.many said that the quotations were not ”applica- ble to my own situation”. Questions specifically design- ed to obtain new suggestions appeared necessary if the objectives of the study were to be realized. ‘Accordingly, to supplement the data obtained, interviews were held in various counties throughout the state ofJMichigan.1 those chosen for personal interviews were selected both because they were making the poultry industry a large part of their business, and because they were thought to l. Ihe farmers interviewed were not on the mailing list referred to previously. be sufficiently well acquainted with the industry to be able to give the information desired. F. Procedure in Analyzing the Data In order to determine which groups were more and which groups were less favorable toward the use of poul- try and egg marketing information, the general procedure followed was to analyze the data in terms of the responses to various questions classified in various ways: by the size of the farmer's poultry flock; the person who markets the poultry and eggs; the type of marketing outlet used by the farmer; and, the farmer‘s conception of who set the price at which he sold his poultry products. ’ Tables are used throughout the analysis to point out the significant findings from the data.. Responses to spe- cific questions are given in percentages rather than in actual numbers to facilitate comparing the responses of different groups. The principal measure of reliability used to test the difference between sample percentages is that of the calculation of the standard error of the difference be- tween two percentages. If we divide the actual differ- ence between two given percentages by the standard error of the difference, a 'T-score' is obtained, by which the probability ratio1 is determined. The probability ratio l. The probability ratio is the percent of 100 that such a difference between the two samples would occur if successive samples of the same size were taken. of .051 or less will be considered significant in this study. The intensive interviews were used to clarify the questions raised when appraising the findings from the sealed returns and the interviews from.the 1948 Survey of Agriculture. In general they helped to develop a clearer picture of the farmer's use of and reactions to sources of poultry market information than was possible on the basis of the other data alone. G. Other Studies Dealing with.an Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Price and Market Information In making a review of the literature on similar stud- ies the Michigan State College library facilities were ex- amined exhaustively. Theses, Extension Bulletin lists, the Agricultural Experiment Station Record, indexes to the publications of the United States Department of Agricul- ture, indexes to periodicals, and books were examined for what information they might reveal on other research strictly along the lines of the present study. Only two such studies were found: (1) a thesis, entitled "Use of Price and market Information by Farmers in Calhoun County, Michigan", completed by C. D. Wilcox in par- tial fulfillment of the requirements for his Master's degree at Michigan State College in 1932. 1. The probability ratio of .05 means that 95 percentwof the thme the difference would occur in successive sam- ples, or that there are five chances in 100 that the difference is a chance difference due to sampling. £2) a study briefly mentioned by Mr. Wilcox, but which could not be located.1 Hr. Wilcox wrote: “Mr. C. J. Borum, State College of Agri- culture, Brookings, South.Dakota, mailed a questionnaire to the crOp reporters to ascertain the effectiveness of their sta- tion KFDY, and also of the South.Dakota Farm.0utlook, the papers used to secure economic information, and what addition- al information was wanted. A little ‘ over half of those who replied used the Outlook and also used many of the stand- ard papers.'2 The first study was»made '...to determine for the . area studied the number of farmers who used information, and how the use of this information was influenced by such factors as age of the farmer, time on farm, owner-V Ship or tenancy, attendance at farm.meetings, education, organizational and educational contacts of children, and the bearing of such items as the size and condition of the farms, the distance from.town and the types of roads?“ Calhoun County was selected by Mr. Wilcox since he had worked in that county and was more familiar with it than with any other county in.Michigan. -One-hundred and sixty farmers were interviewed in four townships. These townships were selected by the Calhoun County Agricultural Agent as representative town- l. Both.Mr. Borum and the State Agricultural College of South Dakota were contacted, but neither could furnish a capy of the report on the study or further informa- tion about it. 2. Use of Price and Market Information b Farmers in Calhoun County,‘Michigan, an unpublished thesis for the degree Of MsAe’ Wilcox, Cstg :MiChigan State 001- 1888’ 19320 P. 120 3. £21 0 p. 15. I. ships of the county. ‘Mr. Wilcox reported in 1932 that: "Economic information is found at present to be used mostly by farmers: (a) occupying farms of 100 acres or more (b) whose farms are best equipped and kept in best condition (c) occupying one farm more than five years and less than 25 (d) whose age ranges between 40 and 60 years (e) who have a high school education or better (f) who attend most of the extension meet- ings (g) having a member of the family in Smith- Hughes or 4-H Club work." ‘Mr. Wilcox' study differs from.the present study in that his questionnaire was primarily based on information desired on the farmer's use and attitude toward the Agrie cultural Outlook, an.agricultura1 economic paper sent_out periodically by the Michigan State College to assist the farmer in planning his production to fit a long-time mar- keting scheme. There were four questions included about the WEAR radio programs, and twelve questions were used as control items. The rest of the schedule was in tab- ular form.for checking specific farm craps or livestock, the farmer produced, what information from.the Outlook he . used for each item checked, and the remarks made about the paper. 1. 191 s p. 58. 10 Suggestions were made in the thesis for improving the price and market information to meet the farmer's needs. These suggestions made by Mr. Wilcox could only apply with confidence to Calhoun County since the sample used was only intended to represent the county. With so few studies in the field of marketing re- search of this type it becomes quite apparent why Congress felt legislation was necessary to aid and encourage such studies. Because the present study is breaking new ground it might be considered an exploratory study in which, in ad- dition to obtaining subject matter data dealing specifi- cally with poultry market news, different methods of gathering the data are tried and tested against the ob- Jectives to find out how such information can best be obtained from rural people. Chapter 2. Sources of Egg and Poultry Market Information There are various ways that a farmer may obtain poultry and egg price and market information. The U.S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics releases material for publication from.time to time. Much of this material is made applicable to each state by that state's agricultur- al college or its Department of Agriculture. This ma- terial is suitable for long-range production and market- ing planning. Together the Federal and State Departments of Agriculture furnish the Federal-State Market News re- porting service from.the terminal markets throughout the country.1 These reports are used by many radio stations and newspapers for their daily market news service to the farmer. Commercial periodicals furnish.marketing infor- mation to their customers as do, also, the c00perative marketing associations for their members. ‘As an exploratory procedure in the early stages of this study the radio stations and newSpapers of Michigan 'were investigated to see how much price and market infor- mation was available to the poultry farmer. Since many farm.homes either have a radio, or subscribe to a daily or weekly newspaper, these two media seemed the most im- portant sources of market information for the farmer. 1. Th' e"r":edera1-State Market News Service will be discuss- ed more fully later in this chapter. 11 12 A. The Radio as a Channel for Price and Market Information Questionnaires1 were sent to the 49 radio stations2 in Michigan and to three Chicago stationsz’ to find out how often these market news programs were broadcast, and their sources for market information. Thirty-eight4 of the stations returned the completed questionnaires from which the following data were obtained. A greater number of the 38 radio stations broadcast prices and market information for livestock than for any other agricultural product. Information on eggs ran a close second, and poultry, grain, and fruit or vegetables followed in importance in the order given. Table 1 lists the products for which.market information was being given by the 38 stations, and the percentage of the radio sta- tions presenting such.material for each commodity listed as of January, 1948. The United Press and the.Associated Press are the services most used by the radio stations as their sources of poultry and egg market information. However, both the United Press and the Associated Press use the Federal- State Service as one of their sources of price and market information. This probably accounts for the fact that 1. See page 171 in the Appendix. 2. See page 176 in the Appendix. 3. Chicago's three 50,000 watt stations were also sent questionnaires since many Michigan residents on the western side of the state receive their programs. 4. See page 178 in the Appendix. 15 the Federal-State Market News Service was reported by the radio stations as a source of market information only about half as often as the two press services mentioned previously. Table l. The Percentage Distributions of the Responses of 55 Michigan and Three Chicago Radio Stations to the Question: ”Do you carry any market in- formation on livestock, grain, fruit or vege- tables, eggs, poultry or other items?". Jan- nary, ,19480 ‘ Commodity “Yes” ”no" Iota; §fl=§8l - Percent Percent Percent Livestock 68.4 51.6 100.0 Eggs 65.8 54.2 100.0 Poultry 60.5 59.5 100.0 Grain 57.9 42.1 100.0 Fruit or vegetables 56.8 65.2 100.0 Other (celery, butter, cheese or lard) 7.9 92.1 100.0 Table 2 lists the sources of information, and the prOportion of stations using them, for the 25 radio sta- tions presenting egg market information to their listens ers and for the 25 stations carrying poultry information. Table 2. Percentage Distributions of Radio Stations Carrying Egg or Poultry Market Information Which Reported the Use of Specified Sources of Information. January, 1948. PEOportion’ of Stations Using Source Source of Information For: E s N=25 ultr N-25 Percent Percent Associated Press 44.0 45.5 United Press 44.0 50.4 Local Dealers 52.0 26.0 Federal-State Service 24.0 17.4 USDA-Production‘Marketing Administration 20.0 17.4 International News Service 12.0 15.0 * The prOportions total more than 100 since morethan one source was mentioned by some of the radio stations. 14 As might be eXpected, about 65 percent of the radio stations quoted prices from the Detroit market. Some of the stations included Chicago and local prices along with the Detroit market quotations. Chicago is the next most frequently quoted market, with the local and the New York markets quoted the least number of times. One station reported the presentation of an "over-all market", but did not list its sources. (See Table 5) Table 5. Percentage Distributions of Michigan and Chicago Radio Stations Quoting Egg and/or Poultry Prices from Specified Markets. January, 1948. PrOportion of Stations Quoting ~Market Prices from Specified Market: 8 I Percen Percent Detroit ' 52.0 26.0 Detroit and Chicago 16.0 17.4 Detroit and local 8.0 15.0 Detroit, Chicago and local 8.0 8.7 Chicago 16.0 17.4 Chicago and New York 4.0 4.4 Local 1200 807 ”Over-all market” 4 0 4.4 Total Percent 100.0 150.0 Twice daily was the most that any of the respondent radio stations carried egg and poultry market information. Over half of the stations carried the reports only once a day, and a few carried the informatibn only once or twice a week. Table 4 shows the frequency of egg and poultry market reports being carried by the radio stations. When the time of broadcasting of market reports was classified by hourly periods, it was found that a farmer 15 Table 4. Percentage Distributions of the Frequency with which.Egg and Poultry Market Reports were Car- ried by the Respondent Stations During Each Week. January, 1948. PrOportion of Stations Quotin Prices: Frequency Eggs (N825) Poultry Eyszs) Percent Percent Once daily 64.0 65.2 Twice daily 16.0 17.4 Once a week 8.0 15.0 Twice a week 4.0 0.0 No res onse 8.0 4 4 P Total percent IUUTU IUUfU could most expect to hear the reports over his favorite radio station between the hours of six and seven each morning, and between twelve and one o'clock each noon. Figure 1 represents the broadcast times of market news programs, including egg or poultry quotations, of 25 Michigan and three selected Chicago radio stations. Figure 1. Radio Market Quotations on Eggs and Poultry Available to Michigan Poultrymen by One-hour Periods Throughout the Day. January, 1948. No. of Broadcasts: HNuétfiQtho on- -l-|.l----l- -l ......... I ......... One-hour Period Beginning: 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 1.2 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mbrning Neon Afternoon * Saturday only. 16 On the basis of the questionnaires returned by the 58 radio stations a farmer in the lower peninsula of Mich- iganl would have a two-to-one chance that the radio station in his area would carry egg and poultry market quotations from.Detroit some time during each day. The lower peninsula farmer would have less than a fifty-fifty chance of hearing the Chicago market included in the quo- tations, and only four chances in 25 of hearing local re- ports. He could expect to hear these reports at break- fast, if he ate between six and seven o'clock, or at noon. B. The Newspaper as a Channel for Price and Market Information The Michigan newSpapers taken by the Public Relations Office of the Michigan State College were examined to see whether or not they contained egg and poultry price and market information. Fourteen.Michigan dailies and 50 Michigan weeklies were examined.2 The cities and towns in which these papers are published are spotted on the map in Figure 2. Nine of the 14, or 64.2 percent, Michigan daily 1. The primary coverage areas of the Detroit and Chicago 50,000 watt stations, do not reach into the upper pen- insula, and theiwo stations reporting egg and poultry market news in that area do not have the power to cover the entire upper peninsula. 2. The 14 dailies and 50 weekly newspapers were the total number of newspapers subscribed to by the Michigan State College Public Relations Office as of October 16, 1947 when these papers were examined. RAND MSNALLY LOOSE LEAF oumus MAP MICH'GAN Figure 2. Cities and Towns Publishing the Newspapers Examined for Egg and Poultry . Market News ‘I "" ' M ~ r ! rJ l L l 'W ' ILUCE . --L-__ ' . I-"--' I n-in 'l buses 1 Ecmnrm ' --—_.. ' I i—OGE-OOOLCMFT i_ . “ ' .DIGKI I ___ ' ''''' NJ. ‘ l .l .i‘D—un 4" Imam 1 ''''' ‘1 _| ' H ”on“ r}_'i__'. a ‘ Q '- ' ' ‘ I 'f.‘\ l l ./ s “w ' mu' I '8 J um msconsm o \ Io" V Y I a! \ . '. .. v ' “assoc: mm. Q\ l "L— —-m,-—- CHAN-“0|! mm on .. AIL-RT" Truce T-ulossucv' ' A i . !__-_ _ 'ng a?“ fifififmu— . - I ALcouA "Botswana , . . i ! I ! ! Ke "—‘Elwsm—m mama rag-I‘maNTro‘fnT— I": a I A Dailies wi . egg and - ._.| _,_!._. ._!-_-_i--_.. - i-_ Oultry news - O —| u"? l°’°‘ few“ !°"‘° "‘i m A i i i A I‘ {—1. Home Dailies ithout egg -._:_ .__ .___.___ - W " A d poultry n_ we _ . ocusA AluewmcoluecoTtA TI—suuu IMIDMNO' ' ' . . 1030ij with - Weeklie with egg and _._.l L__,i_,._j_{_,' --- I 1' ‘ Ollltry new -A . g to can |anno lucmAw‘ . ‘ ! wuufiojfifir ”i I A ' l ! __;"'""L.‘ Weekli 3 without egg ,_3 l .___._._L_._.}?tir".?r"wm‘ e_-_._. d poultr HBWB - A OTTAWA i0 ‘ mm; cuuvos ISHIAVMSSEF O ! “‘me O I ' . . ' ‘ .._i_ I‘ ‘! _!_ ‘_|_Io-.itL13'—fiwmlj_‘ ‘ ALL—ism Them Tums isms —f.wmcuov1 ' ‘T‘ . I ‘ | ! l‘ l ‘ ' I‘A ‘ . - -_- ___I__ __‘__ I _. __.-_—. III—km? cAu-Iou—u A TTAéxsou jWSime-I—Vifl‘ . . f . I M‘ i ' o ' | o ‘ CANADA '— _.-,____.|_,A | A ._,_. 0 Inc»: [snows ! emu—CH. lmmoifii 137mg;- Pounce unmmn ' . I I .._._.I. routs!sr.io:urI—"‘ECA?IAAt (dam; ' 'w’fiJ}u—.fi— F0" .. L“cl“. O 0 INDENA.WILLMHS I T d a =flé5‘" u 30 I. .0 comm & “I'LL mmhlhflubhhflxl 17 newspapers examined carried egg and/or poultry'market information. All of the nine papers carried Detroit quotations. Five of the papers included quotations from Chicago; three carried local prices, and one included the quotations from the New York market. Two-thirds of the daily newspapers used the Federal- State Market News Service as their source of information for Detroit market prices. The other one-third used the Detroit Bureau of weights and Measures'1 report as their source for the Detroit quotations. The U.S.D.A.-Production Marketing Administration and the Associated Press provided the information from the Chicago and New York markets while localciealers and local farmers' markets were used as sources for local prices. Only three weekly newspapers, or six percent of the weekly papers, carried egg and poultry quotations. They quoted only local prices being paid by local dealers at the time the paper went to press. Since it is not known to what degree the 14 daily newspapers are representative of the 52 dailies in the State or to what degree the 50 weekly newSpapers are re- presentative of the 339 weeklies published in Michigan2 1. This bureau has offices on the Detroit Public Farmers' markets. 2. There was no place found, not even the State Library of Michigan, that suscribed to all the newspapers in Michigan. 18 there is little that can be said with assurance as to what a poultry farmer might expect to find in his news- paper. However, it might be safe to say that there is very little chance that marketing information would be in his weekly newspaper and, if market prices were given, they would probably be only local prices paid by local dealers. Since all of the daily newspapers which carried egg and poultry quotations carried Detroit quotations it might be reasonable to expect that Detroit prices would be in the daily newspaper subscribed to by a poultry farm- er, if the newspaper carried egg and poultry quotations at all. If a farmer suscribed to two daily newspapers the chances are that at least one of the papers would carry egg and poultry market information. C. The Federal-State Market News Service 1. Origin and Purpose: Federal market news reports on dairy and poultry products were first issued in 1918 during the first World war. ”The purpose from the beginning has been to provide various types of information to all persons who might use it as an aid toward more intflligent pro- duction, marketing, and distribution." The information is gathered through local market report- ers in the key markets covered. Summarized market 1. The Market News Service on Dair and Poultr Products, United States Department of Agriculture, Production and Marketing Administration, washington, D. C., June, 1948. Polo ' 19 reports are sent out promptly each day by radio, telegraph, telephone, and through the newspapers and the mails. In addition to the funds provided from.Federal sources, co- Operative arrangements are made with State agencies to provide a larger budget with which to work and to allow the two agencies to work together for the good of all con- cerned. The Detroit office was set up in 1946 when several markets were added to bring about more complete coverage throughout the United States. 2. Nature and Scepe: The nature and scape of the reporting service at each office depend upon the national importance of that particular market, which commodities are of prime impor- tance, and the facilities and personnel available. The service is more complete in markets that have a nation- wide significance, since the current market information originating at these points is in demand throughout the country. 'Since it is important for local producers and handlers to have information regarding market conditions and prices applicable to their immediate outlets there has been an increasing interest in and demand for such information during recent years. The local market reports on dairy and poultry pro- ducts vary as to type of information they contain but, generally, they include market prices and comments, pri- mary and terminal market receipts, dealers' floor stocks, 20 cold-storage stocks, retail movements, and such miscel- laneous information as production reports, feed-egg ratios, and announcements regarding Government buying programs, and purchases. Information is also carried about other markets that is of local importance and interest. A.market reporter at each market is responsible for collecting and compiling information obtained from local buyers and sellers, cold-storage warehouses, transpor- tation agencies, and other such sources. Statistical in- formation is obtained partially by telephone or from mailed reports, but information on prices is generally obtained by the reporter through personal interviews with apprOpriate persons each day. This information is furnish- ed voluntarily, with the understanding that the sources will be kept confidential and the data will be used only in preparing summarized statements for the market as a whole. Any attempt to sway the market is usually easily recognized since the prices quoted during the interview will not be in line with the rest of the market. The re- porter is in contact with both the producer and the hand- ler and the information received is checked with both the producer and handler. When the market reporter is suspicious of a buyer's prices he talks to some of the producers unloading their poultry products at the buyer's place of business. If the prices of the transaction do not coincide the reporter 21 asks to see the bill of sale and thereby is able to verify the prices quoted. After the information is compiled and summarized it is made available to the public through the channels of wire, radio and press. Mimeographed reports are sent out daily to anyone requesting this service. 5. Recipients of the Service: In order to obtain some idea of the value placed on the service by the producers and handlers of the dairy and poultry products, it was decided to find out who used the service. Cepies of the Detroit and the Chicago mail- ing lists to Michigan residents were obtained and classi- fied according to the address of the persons requesting the market reports. Table 5 shows the result of this classification. Table 5. Percentage Distributions of Mailing Addresses of the Detroit and Chicago Federal-State Mar- ket News Service Daily Reports on Dairy and Poultry Products.* mailing Detroit Chicago Address N8227 N-459 Percent Percent Cities and towns 91.1 90.0 Rural addresses (RFD) 7.1 6.7 unknown as to location (no street or RFD address) 1.8 3.3 Total percent 1000 100.0 * The Detroit mailing list was secured November 8, 1917, and the Chicago list was compiled as of January 13, 1948. This table shows that close to nine-tenths of the 22 Federal-State Daily Market Reports go to pecple with urban addresses. Most of these addresses are those of wholesale buyers: packers and shippers, distributors, and so forth. Only seven percent could definitely be classified as rural. Egg and poultry handlers then are receiving most of the individual daily market reports mailed directly from the Federal-State offices. Since the daily market report of the Service is sent free to anyone upon request, it would seem logical that it would be used by those making their living from the production or the marketing of farm products. It was de- cided to find out just how much the service was being used by poultrymen. This was done when the intensive interviews were taken. At the close of the interview, if there had been no mention of using the Federal-State Market News Service, the farmer was asked if he had ever heard of the Service. If the reply was "No", or "Don't know" a cepy of a recent report was shown to him.with the question, "Does it look as though this would be useful to you, or not?". Table 6 shows the use made of the Service, and the producers' knowledge of the Federal-State Market News Service. Many of those producers who knew about the service were not receiving the daily market report. They had seen it either at their feed store or local co-Operative, had seen references to it in the newSpaper reports, or their poultry buyer had shown it to them. 23 Table 6. Percentage Distributions of the Poultry-Pro- ducers,Classified by the Use of, and the Ac- quaintance with the Federal-State.Market News Service on Dairy and Poultry Products. Mich- igan, 19480 Egg &:Chicken Turkey Classification Producer Producer N=32 N-32 Percent Percent Users of the Service 0.0 15.6 Non-users of the Service: 10 Know abOUt it o o c 34.4 40.6 2. Do not know about it 65.6 43.8 Total percent 150.0 100.0 Upon request to the interviewer, the address of the Detroit office was provided and a record was kept of those who desired the address. Eight months later the mailing list of the Federal-State Office in Detroit was checked to see how many egg and chicken producers, and turkey growers wrote to the office requesting the service. Table 7 shows the numbers in proportions of those who requested the address of the Federal-State office from the interviewer, and those who wrote to the Detroit office requesting a daily market report after asking for and receiving the address of the office from the inter- viewer. Many of the farmers interviewed had not heard of the service and could not understand why they had not been informed of such available information. "Why haven't we been told of this before?", and, "This would have been a big help to me last fall!” were characteristic comments 24 Table 7. Percentage Distributions of Producers Inter- viewed Who Asked for the Address of the Federal- State Market News Office in Detroit and the Producers Requesting the Address of the Detroit Office Who Actually Wrote for the Service. Michigan, 1948. ——»T e of Requested Wrote for Size of Epgguceg Address Service Sample Percent Percent Egg and chicken 59.5 25.0 52 Turkey 81.5 21.8 52 of those who learned about the service. Yet only 42 per- cent of the egg and chicken producers and 27 percent of the turkey growers who asked for the address of the De- troit office actually wrote for the service in the course of the eight months following the interviews. Because less than half of the informants who asked for the address, and went to thebother of noting down the address, actually wrote to request the daily market report, it was decided to examine the data to see if any characteristics could be found that might be responsible for fifteen farmers writing for the Service and the so ' others not going to the bother. The following character- istics were found for the egg and chicken producers who requested the service: 1. There were twice as many women marketing the poultry products alone, and one-third as many wives and husbands marketing together as in the group not requesting the service. 2. The average size of the chicken flock was larger: nearly 4 in 10 of the producers of this group had 800 chickens and over, as compared with less than 1 in 10 of the pro- ducers in the group not requesting the service. 25 5. Nearly twice as many of these farmers felt that they were in a position to bargain with the poultry and egg buyer, i.e. "set their own price", as in the non-reaponding group. 4. Only about half as many of these farmers listened to the market reports over the radio or read the reports in the newspaper every day as in the group who did not write for the service. No appreciable difference was found between the two groups of turkey growers, i.e. those growers who wrote in for the service and those who did not request the service, except in two instances: 1. Only two-thirds as many farmers 'felt' that they could bargain with the buyer, i.e. '"set their own price", as in the group who did not request the service. 2. Only two-thirds as many growers listened to the radio market reports or read the news- paper reports every day as in the group not requesting the Federal-State service. When the characteristics of the egg and chicken pro- ducers are compared with the turkeygrowers, we find that the only point in which they are in agreement is that of the frequency of the producers using daily newspaper or radio market reports. Those who wrote in to the Detroit office for the Market News Letter did not compare their ,prices as often with the daily newspaper and radio re- ports as did the growers not requesting the service. In both these comparisons, however, the numbers of cases involved are too few to permit us to attach.much significance to differences obtained. They may be sug- gestive of reliable relationships, but would need further checking before they could be accepted as significant. Perhaps the reason why the other farmers asked for the address of the Federal-State office was that they could see the value of such a report, but later realized that the same information was in their daily newspaper or came by radio each day and, therefore, did not bother to write for the News Letter. Another reason might be that the interviewer, unknowingly, did a good job of “selling" the service to the farmer when he did not actually feel the need for it. 4. Summary: The Federal-State Market News Service is used by the radio and press as a source of market information, there- fore, it should not be too surprising when it is discover- ed that better than nine out of every ten Market News Letters go to Detroit or to other urban addresses,l rather than to rural addresses, which would usually characterize the producer. Only those areas adjacent to Detroit are able to receive the News Letter the day it is mailed, and some areas in northern Michigan would re- ceive it as much as two days later. The radio and press, generally, carry up-to-the-minute prices and the farmer knows he can expect to read or hear them at a certain time each day, while the mails are not so speedy, and may 1. See Table 5, page 21. 27 be not quite so reliable. However, as many farmers com- mented, the News Letters are handy to refer to, or to show to a buyer when he tells them the newSpaper or radio reports are not accurate. Chapter 3. Market News and the Poultrymen A. Collection of the Data Two major samples were used in collecting the data from the egg and poultry farmers. Intensive interviews followed these two samples using a very carefully select- ed sample of poultry farmers. The collection of the data for each of these samples will be discussed separately in the succeeding paragraphs. 1. The Questionnaire: During the construction of the questionnaire each question was submitted to careful scrutiny. What pur- pose does it serve? Is it a useful control item, or will it yield information necessary to answer any of the four questions outlined in the objectives?1 Upon completion of the questionnaire2 it was pre- tested in the rural communities around East Lansing. The results of these tests showed that revisions were necessary to make the questions clearer and to eliminate misunderstandings. These revisions were then tested and, in turn, revised and tested again until the inter- views showed that the informants understood what was wanted from.each question. The covering letter:5 that accompanied the mailed 1. Chapter 1, page 2. 2. See page 180 of the Appendix. 5. See page 187 of the Appendix. 28 29 questionnaires explained why the farmer, to whom the letter was addressed, was included in the mailing list. It explained what the study heped to accomplish through the data obtained by the questionnaires, and who was cen- ducting the study. The letter also pointed out that the questionnaire was devised, in spite of its apparent length, to facilitate its being completed quickly. The covering letter1 included in the follow-up mail- ing a month later was an appeal to the farmer to do his part in helping to present a clear picture of the farm- er's use of and reaction to poultry market information. It was pointed out in this letter that even if the farm- er did not have any chickens it was desired that he note this fact on the questionnaire and return it. An offer was also made to send the farmer a cepy of the report on the study as an added appeal to enlist his cooperation. The mailing list used for the sample was obtained from the United States Bureau of Agricultural Economics. This was a list of names and addresses of farmers in the 22 counties chosen by the Bureau as representative of the agricultural areas of Michigan for the 1947 Survey of Agriculture. Through the use of this list it was thought that more types and a wider range of sizes of poultry enterprises would be included in the sample than if a specialized list of poultrymen were to be obtained. 1. See page 180 of the Appendix. 50 Each farmer on the mailing list was sent a question- naire in March, 1948. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were sent a second questionnaire a month later. Personal interviews were held with all the non-respondents to the second mailing so that each of the 549 farmers on the B.A.E. list was contacted either by a mailed questionnaire or by personal interview. These in- terviews were taken by Michigan State College students of agricultural economics and poultry husbandry during their spring vacation. 2. The Michigan Supplement to the April, 1948 Survey of Agriculture: Arrangements were made with the United States Bureau of Agricultural Economics to include a two-page supple- ment1 with the April, 1948 Survey of Agriculture schedule for Michigan. This supplement included as many of the questions from.the mailed questionnaire, thought to have the most bearing on the farmer's use of and attitude to- ward poultry market information, as the limited Space permitted. ° New sample segments were drawn for Michigan by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics to eliminate duplication of the original mailing list. During the interview the national Survey of Agricul- ture schedule was completed first, followed by the supple- 1. See page 189 of the Appendix. mentary questions. This was an unfortunate though un- avoidable circumstance, since the informant had already answered 25 pages of questions and both the interviewer and the informant might well have felt ready to quit by the time they began the supplementary questions. The tendency to hurry through these additional questions was noticeable in the records of these interviews as the in- formation was not always complete and some rather vague responses were recorded. Since the interviewers who obtained the data were not primarily interested in the market news study, it is possible that additional comments above and beyond the answers to the actual schedule questions were often ignored. However, the information supplied by the sup- plementary questions was illuminating, provided an in- valuable check on the earlier B.AJE. mailing list data, and seemed definitely worth the added expense involved. 5. The Intensive Interviews: Preliminary analysis revealed that the two cross- section samples tended to yield only vague suggestions for improving market quotations, or lacked them entirely, although criticism of the existing quotations was given. It was then decided to supplement the coverage of the questionnaire in that area by holding personal interviews with farmers throughout the state, selected because of their ability to give constructive criticism or sugges- tions on the subject. 52 In devising this "intensive interview" schedule the original questionnaire was used as far as possible. New questions were added to test the suggestions for improve- ment in the egg and poultry market quotations appearing frequently as the questionnaires and schedules were ex- amined. The order of the questions in the intensive inter- view schedule1 was changed in some instances; take, for example, the question, ”What kinds of changes would you like to see made in the egg market information available to you?". Since suggestions of other farmers were to be tested, this question could no longer appear at the close of the questionnaire, but had to be asked before the farmer's Opinions on others' suggestions were obtained, lest these new questions bias the informant's reaponses. Cards were devised to show various ways of quoting prices and presenting comments in order to draw out the poultryman on this subject. It was heped that the farmer would make his own needs and desires known when he saw these tangible examples of egg and poultry market reports formulated in different ways. Since very few farmers mentioned the use of the Federal-State Market News Service when filling out the questionnaires, a question about the farmer's knowledge of the service was introduced at the close of the schedule, 1. See page 192 of the Appendix. 55 to be asked only if the Service was not mentioned during the interview. Extension personnel of the Poultry Husbandry Depart- ment of the Michigan State College were called upon to furnish for the various major poultry producing counties lists of poultry farmers who were large producers of poultry products and/or were thought to be sufficiently well acquainted with the business to have constructive ideas on how marketing information could be improved to meet the poultryman's needs. These lists of farmers to be interviewed were not intended to be representative samples of poultry farmers, but were to be used to amplify and explain, when possible, the questions raised as a result of an analysis of the mailed questionnaires and the supplementary reaponses. The names on the lists to be interviewed were check- ed against all farmers previously contacted to eliminate duplication. The interviewing procedure used was to inquire at each farm for the person who generally handled the market- ing of poultry products, and to interview that person. The introduction was usually as follows: "Mew do you do. I'm...(name of interviewer).. from Michigan State College. we are making a study of poultry marketing in Michigan, try- ing to find out how we can make poultry mar- ket information more useful to you. I would like to ask you a few questions about your poultry marketing practices. May I talk with you a few minutes?" 54 The wording of the questions was followed just as written to keep the interviews as much alike as possible. If the information supplied by the informant was vague, time was taken to draw out just what was meant by his statement. These interviews were taken for the insight they could give to the reaponses from the questionnaires and the survey supplement. Encouragement was given to the farmer to expand upon his answers to the questions, and, as far as possible, all such infornation was record- ed on the spot. B. The Poultry Enterprise on the Farms Studied Personal and economic factors such as the age of the farm Operator, relative preportion of total farm in- come acquired from the sale of poultry products, and the size of the poultry flock are presented in an analysis of the study since it was expected that there might be a relationship between such factors and the farmer's source of market price comparison and his use of radio and print- ed market information. An analysis of the personal and economic factors found in the data will be presented here and then used later in the chapter to classify the egg and chicken producer's source of price comparison and his relative use of radio and printed market news to see if the source of market information utilized is related to the personal and economic factors of the producer. Table 8 shows the percentage distributions of the 35 size of the farmer's poultry flocks as they occured in all three samples. These figures must be considered in relation to the season;1 most of the questionnaires and schedules were completed during March and April when chicken flocks tend to be at their smallest. The April, 1948 Survey of Agriculture schedules showed that one in 10 farmers of the 209 farms studied received their principal income from poultry and/or eggs, 'and two in 10 farmers received their next largest income from poultry products.2 Table 8. Percentage Distributions of the Size of the Chicken Flocks of Farmers Who Have Sold Eggs and/or Chickens in the Past Year. Michigan, 1948. Size 1947 B.A.E. 1948 Time. fntensive of Survey Sample Survey Sample Interviews Flock _N§l§; N=209 N=52 Percent Percent Percent No data 0.8 0.0 0.0 None 4.9 104 0.0 1’24 803 1309 000 25-49 17.5 26.8 0.0 50-99 25.7 28.8 5.1 200-599 14.0 10.0 54.4 400-599 4.1 0.9 21.9 600‘799 000 005 1506 800 & over 0.8 0.5 18.7 Total percent IUUTU IUUTU IUUTU 1. The intensive interviews were taken duri ng the months of August and September 1948 and mu this statement. ’ St be excepted in 2. This question was not included in the 1947 B.A.E. Survey Sample questionnaire. 56 The size of the chicken flocks of the "principal in- come" farms and the "next largest income" farms were com- pared on the hypothesis that the size of the flock in- creases with the prOportion of the total income received Tables9. Percentage Distributions of the Size of the Chicken Flock, Classified by the Preportion of Farm Income Derived from the Sale of Poultry Products. Michigan, 1948. (1948 B.AsE. Survey Sample) Size Principal Next Largest of Income Farms Income Farms** Flock* 5925 N-45 Percent Percent 1-99 - 45.5 46.7 100-599 59.1 46.7 400 & over 17 4 6.6 Total percent 10 0.0 100.0 ;:These three size groups were used following empirical observation of the data. Within each group similar marketing practices were used. .Charles C. Sheppard of the Poultry Husbandry Department of the Michigan State College substantiated this empiricalg;rouping by stat- ing that flocks ranging in size from 1-99 chickens had “no marketing problem ten months of the year--use as many eggs as they get, except April and May"; those flocks ranging in size from 400-800 and over had "enough money tied up in the business to do a good job of it“; and, the remainder fell into a intermediate group, hence are presented by themselves. ' ** Upon rechecking the data it was found that 10 of the 45 farmers in the "next largest income" group were also represented in the ”principal income" group. This re- sulted from the 10 farmers stating that the returns from the sales of eggs represented their principal in- come and the sale of chickens represented their next largest income, or vice versa. The percentages re- calculated on the basis of N=55 would give the 1-99 flock group 45.7 percent, the 100-599 bird group 54.5 percent, with 0.0 percent for the 400 and over bird group. These 10 producers were allowed to remain in the "next largest income" group since they do receive their next largest income from the sale of poultry products. ' \ 57 from the sale of poultry products. Table 9, however, does not show any significant difference in the size of the flocks of these two groups, and further testing of the hypothesis is necessary to diSprove or substantiate such an hypothesis. Table 10 shows the percentage distribution of the age of the farm Operators1 in the 1948 B.A.E. Survey Sample reporting the sale of poultry products during the previous year. Better than 8 out of every 10 of these farmers were between the ages of 40 and 69 years. Table 10. Percentage Distribution Of the Age of the Farm Operators Reporting the Sale of Poultry Pro- ducts. Michigan, 1948. (1948 B.A.E. Survey Sample) e H.209 "‘——é£* “PeFEEnt Under 20 years 0.5 20-29 3.8 50-59 27.7 60-69 21.5 70-79 901 80-89 1.0 Total percent 100. When the age of the farm Operators was classified by the relative prOportion of the total income which was derived from the sale of poultry products, better than 7 out Of every 10 ”principal income" farmers were in 1. This information was taken from the April, 1948 Bureau of Agricultural Economics schedule since the question of the age Of the farm Operator was not included among the questions for the present study. 58 their fifties or sixties while only a little better than 5 out Of every 10 next largest income farmers were in this age group. This difference, however, is not statis- tically significant and could well be a chance occurrence since the samples are small. There is a very real dif; ference, however, at the 40-49 age level. Here only 1 in 20 farmers derives his principal income from poultry products, while nearly 5 in every 10 farmers, or 6 in 20, obtain their next largest income from the sale of poultry products. The tendency then would seem to be that up to the age of 49 years a farmer raises chickens to supple- ment his income, but as he grows Older he relies in- creasingly upon the sale Of poultry products for the major prOportion Of his income. (See Table 11) Table 11. Percentage Distributions of the Age Of the Farm Operator, Classified by the PrOportion Of Farm Income Derived from the Sale of Poultry Products. Michigan, 1948. (1948 B.AJE. Survey Sample) Principal Income Next Largest Income A83 N325 Ng45 Percent Percent 20-29 404 6.6 50-59 15.0 6.6 40-49 4.4 26.7 50-59 26.0 51.1 60-69 47.8 24.5 70-79 404 405 Total percent100.0 100.0 C. Marketing Practices of the Poultry Farmers In studying the process of the communication of radio and printed market news to the egg and chicken pro- ducer it was thought that there might be a relationship 39 between the farmer's marketing practice and his relative use or rejection of prepared market information. The following paragraphs point out the marketing practices of the egg and chicken producer. These practices will be used later in the chapter to classify the poultryman’s source of price comparison and his relative use of radio and printed market news to see if the source of infor- mation utilized is related to the marketing practice of the poultry farmer. The farmer's wife takes a large share of the re- Sponsibility for the poultry and egg marketing on the farms of Michigan. Table 12 shows the percentage dis- tribution Of various farm family members who serve as the marketing agent for poultry products on their farm. Table 12. Percentage Distributions of Family Relation- ship of the Person or Persons ReSponsible for the Marketing of Poultry Products on Michigan Farms. MiChigan, 19480 Family 1947 B.A.E. 1948 B.A4E. Intensive Relationship Survey Sample Survey Sample Interviews N=1214 N-209 ngg Percent Percent Percent Wife 45.8 55.2 51.2 Husband 25.6 50.1 45.8 Wife and husband 15.7 4.5 25.0 Daughter 0.0 2.8 0.0 Son 1.7 1.0 0.0 Others 7.4 8.1 0.0 No data 5.8 0.5 0.0 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 40 There is a greater preportion of husbands and wives doing the marketing together in the 1947 B.A.E. Survey Sample than in the 1948 B.A.E. Survey Sample. This dif- ference is large enough to be statistically significant. When the member of the farm family serving as the marketing agent is classified by the size Of the poultry flock the following consistent tendencies are Observed:1 (See Tables l5, l4, and 15.) 1. As the size of the flock increases the preportion of wives serving as the market- ing agent decreases. 2. The preportion of husbands marketing the poultry flocks tends to increase with the size of the poultry flock, except at the 50-99 bird level where there is a sharp decrease only to increase again at the next larger group and thereafter. These observations are statistically significant in Table 15, but are still within the realm Of chance in Tabl e 14 O Other practices in preparing eggs for marketing that some farmers follow and others do not are: selling on a color basis; grading; and, candling. These marketing practices are discussed in the four paragraphs that follow. 1. In the analysis that follows in this chapter data from the two cross-section samples will be treated as one when discussed, except when they differ substantially and appear to merit separate discussion. This proce- dure seems justifiable since the 1947 B.AJE. Survey Sample and the 1948 B.A.E. Survey Sample segments were drawn in the same manner and all farms in both samples were contacted. 41 Table 15. Percentage Distributions of the Marketing Agent for Poultry Products, Classified by Size of the Chicken Flock. Michigan, 1948. (1947 B.A4E. Survey Sample) Marketing 1-49 50-99 100-599 400 & over* __Ag§nt 3-5; N'5l N-46 _§36 Percent Percent Percent Percent Wife 61.2 54.8 28.5 50.0 Husband 22.6 5.2 56.9 50.0 Wife and ’ husband 5.2 25.8 21.7 0.0 son 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 0thers** 6.5 6.5 10.9 0.0 No data 6.5 5.2 2.2 0.0 Total*** 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 * Although the number of "400 and over" flock farms is‘ too small to be significant for purposes of analysis, the percentage distribution was calculated to give the reader some idea of the trends. Combining the two samples raises the number of farmers in this group only to ten. Since they are in a class by themselves, as far as marketing is concerned, they were not combined with the smaller size chicken flocks. Since more than one-half of the farm flocks in the Intensive Interview data are in this size group, they might be considered representative of the 400 and over flock group. ** There were no daughters serving as the poultry market- ing agent in this sample. *** The total number of responses is less than 121 since seven farmers either did not have chickens at the time the data was gathered, or they did not answer the ques- tion. Nearly 6 in every 10 of the 121 farmers raising chickens in the 1947 B.A~E. Survey sample sell their eggs on a color basis, while nearly 4 in 10 farmers sell their eggs in mixed colors.1 The remaining egg producers did not disclose whether or not they sorted their eggs by color. 1. This question was not included in the 1948 B.A.E. Survey supplement. 42 Table 14. Percentage Distributions of the Marketing Agent for Poultry Products, Classified by ' Size of the Chicken Flock. Michigan, 1948. (1948 B.A.E. Survey Sample) marketing 1-49 50-99 100-599 400 & over ‘__égent g-85 N-60 N-57 N-4 Percent Percent Percent Percent Wife 55.2 55.5 47.4 50.0 HUSband 29.4 2607 36.8 2500 Wife and husband 2.4 5.0 7.0 0.0 Son 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 Daughter 4.7 5.5 0.0 0.0 Others 7.1 11.7 5.5 25.0 NC data 102 000 000 000 Total* 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 * Three farmers did not have chickens on their farm at the time they were interviewed. Table 15. Percentage Distributions of the harketing .Agent for Poultry Products, Classified by Size of the Chicken Flock. Michigan, 1948. (Intensive Interviews) Marketing 50-99 100-599 400 & over Agent N-l Ngl5 N-l8 Percent Percent Percen Wife 100.0 58.5 22.2 Husband 0.0 25.0 61.2 Wife and husband 0,0 58.5 16.6 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 The farmers generally do not grade or candle their eggs. The percentage distributions of the two cross- section samples and the intensive interviews are found in Table 16. When the eggs are not sorted or graded by the pro— ducer, the buyer generally buys them "nest-run" rather than sort them himself and pay according to the way the 45 eggs grade. Nearly 8 in every 10 farmers in the 1947 B.AJE. Survey sample reported that their eggs were sold "nest-run" to the buyer. The 1948 B.A.E. Survey sample showed such a practice occuring more frequently, as better than 8 in every 10 farmers sold their eggs "nest-run". The farmers pointed out during the intensive inter- views that they quite often graded their eggs during the fall when their pullets were beginning to lay and that they continued to sort them until the eggs became more or less uniform in size. Table 16. Percentage Distributions of the Egg Candling and Grading Practices of Farmers. hichigan, 1948. marketing 1947 B.A.E. 1948 B.A.E. Intensive Practice Survey Sample Survey Sample Interviews N=l21 H.209 N=52 Percent Percent Percent Candling: "Yes" 4.1 5.5 6.2 "No" 84.5 96.7 78.2 "Part of the . time"* 0.0 0.0 9.4 "Do not sell eggs" 0.0 0.0 6.2 No data 11.6 0.0 0.0 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 Grading: "Yes" 26.4 14.4 46.9 "No" 67.8 85.6 28.2 "Part of the time"** 0.0 0.0 18.7 "Do not sell eggs" 0.0 0.0 6.2 No data 5.8 0.0 0.0 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 * The farmers sometimes candled their eggs in the fall when the pullets began laying. ** In the fall the pullet eggs were graded out, and those who sold eggs to hatcheries graded their eggs during the hatching season. 44 Wholesale buyers, retail stores and consumers are the main outlets for eggs produced on Michigan farms, while chickens are largely sold to wholesalers alone. Tables 17 and 18 show the types of egg and poultry buyers, reSpectively, and the percentage distributions of farmers reporting their most frequent poultry product outlet. Table 17. Percentage Distributions of Types of Egg Buy- ers, as Reported by the Farmers. Michigan, 1948. Type of 1947 B.A.E. 1948 B.A.E. Intensive Egg Buyer Survey Sample Survey Sample Interviews H=121 N=209 N=55* Percent Percent Percent Wholesaler 27.5 29.2 42.9 Retail store 26.4 54.4 8.6 Consumer 28.1 27.5 22.8 Huckster 4.1 4.5 0.0 Restaurant and HOSpital 205 2.4 209 Hatchery 5.0 1.9 17.1 All other 0.8 0.5 0.0 No data 5.8 0.0 0.0 Do not sell eggs 0.0 -0.0 5.7 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 * Three farmers in this group sold half of their eggs to one type of buyer and the remainder to another type of buyer, rather than having only one principal buyer. Nearly 6 in every 10 farmers have sold eggs to their present buyer for two or more years. Nearly 2 in 10 farm- ers have sold eggs to the same buyer from 12 to 25 months, and nearly 2 in 10 farmers have sold less than one year to the same buyer.l 1. Questions on poultry marketing practices were omitted. from the 1948 B.A.E. Survey supplement because of limit- ed space. 45 Table 18. Percentage Distributions of Types of Poultry Buyers, as Reported by the Farmers.* Michigan, 1948. Type of 1947 B.A.E. Intensive Buyer Survey Sample Interviews N=106** N=29*** Percent Percent Wholesaler 41.6 41.5 Retail store 9.4 6.9 Consumer 29.2 17.2 Locker plant 1.9 5.4 Restaurant and hospital 1.9 15.8 More than one type of buyer 4.7 17.2 No data 11.5 0.0 Total percent 100.0 100.0 * Questions on poultry marketing practices were omitted from.the 1948 B.A.E. Survey supplement because of limit- ed space. ** Fifteen farmers stated that they did not sell their chickens, or did not fill out the questions in the poultry section of the questionnaire. *** Three farmers did not sell their chickens. The farmers usually deliver the eggs to the buyer's home or place of business. Only about one-third of the buyers go to the farms to pick up the eggs. Those farmers who depend upon the sale of poultry products for their livelihood appear willing to take the extra time and effort that consumer sales entail to carton and distribute their products so that they might obtain the extra money usually absorbed by the middleman for these services, while the farmer whose major income is derived from some other comrodity sells his poultry products to the wholesale or the retail store buyers. (See Table 19.) 46 Table 19. Percentage Distributions of the Type of Buyers Eggs are Sold to, Classified by the PrOportion of Farm Income Derived from Poultry Products. Michigan, 1948. Type of Principal Income Next Largest Income Buyer N=25 N=45 Percent’ Percent'_—_‘—_ Wholesaler 21.7 57.8 Retail store 50.4 55.6 Huckster 4.4 8.9 Restaurant, hospital, etc. 4.4 0.0 Consumer 54.7 15.5 Hatchery 4.4 2.2 All other 0.0 2.2 Total percent 100.0 100.0 In Tables 20, 21 and 22 the type of buyer to whom poultry products were sold is classified by the size of the poultry flock. It was found that as the size of the poultry flock increases the greater the preportion of sales to the wholesaler. Farmers with flocks ranging from 50-100 chickens sell more frequently to retail stores, while the farmers raising the smallest flocks find their marketing outlets through retail stores and consumers. Table 20. Percentage Distributions of Type of Poultry Buyer, Classified by Size of the Poultry Flock. hichigan, 1948. (1948 B.A.E. Survey Sample) Type of 1-49 50-99 100-599 400 & over Buyer H-85 N-60 N857 Nt4 Percent Percent Percent Percent Wholesaler 18.8 28.5 45.5 50.0 Retail store 40.0 45.5 19.5 25.0 Huckster 2.4 5.5 8.8 0.0 Restaurant, ' hoSpital, etc. 5.5 1.7 0.0 0.0 Consumer 55.5 21.7 21.1 0.0 Hatchery 0.0 0.0 5.5 25.0 All other 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 Total percent 100.0 1 O O o O H O O o O 1...: O O o O Table 21. Percentage Distributions of Type of Poultry Buyer, Classified by Size of the Poultry Flock. Michigan, 1948. (1947 B.A.E. Survey Sample) Type of 1-49 50-99 100-599 400 & over Buyer H-Sl Ff§1 K=46 N=6 Percent Percent Percent Percent Wholesaler 19.4 16.1 41.5 16.7 Retail store 58.8 52.5 15.0 16.7 Huckster 5.2 6.5 2.2 0.0 Restaurant, ‘ hospital, etc. 5.2 5.2 2.2 0.0 Consumer 52.2 19.4 26.1 66.6 Hatchery 0.0 5.2 6.5 0.0 All other 0.0 5.2 2.2 0.0 No data 5.2 16.1 6.5 0.0 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table 22. Percentage Distributions of Type of Poultry Buyer, Classified by Size of the Poultry Flock. Michigan, 1948. (Intensive Interviews) Type of 50-99 100-599 400 & over Buyer N=1_g NE15 N=l8 Percent Percent Percent Wholesaler 100.0 46.2 44.4 Retail store 0.0 7.6 11.1 Restaurant, hOSpital, etc. 0.0 7.6 0.0 Consumer 0.0 25.2 27.8 Hatchery 0.0 15.4 5.6 Do not sell eggs 0.0 0.0 11.1 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 D. The Farmer‘s Knowledge About and Use of Market Information It was assumed that data on farmers' attitudes to- ward the selling price of their poultry products would be helpful in a study of their use of market information. The question was asked: "Do you generally set your own price, or do you take what you get?" 48 Better than 7 in every 10 farmers reported that they "took what they could get" for their eggs,1 and only a little more than 2 in every 10 farmers stated that they "set their own price". 0f the 106 chicken raisers who sold chickens better than 6 in 10 said they "took what they could get" and only 5 in every 10 "set their own price" for their chick- ens.2 Whether the majority of chicken and egg producers are actually in a situation where there is no competitive bidding for their products cannot be determined at this time. But it is significant that they £231 that they are at this type of disadvantage when marketing their poultry products. When the egg producers who said that they "set their own price" or "took what they could get" were classified by the member of the family who serves as the marketing agent it was found that there was a tendency for the hus- band to more frequently "set his own price" than any other member of the family. Husbands and wives, together, and wives, alone, showed a greater tendency to "take what they could get". However, there was not a great enough difference between the prOportions to be statistica-ly significant. H O This question, unfortunately, had to be omitted from the 1948 Survey supplement because of limited Space. Wherever percentages do not total 100 percent, the re- mainder are those who did not respond to the question. L O 49 Table 25. Percentage Distributions of Farmers' Attitudes Toward Their Selling Price, Classified by the‘ Harketing Agent for the Farm. Michigan, 1948. (1947 B.A.E. Survey Sample) Marketing Agent Attitude Wife & Toward Wife Husband Husband Son Others §e11igg Price N-51 N-51 N=17 N=2 N-8 Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent “Set own price" 21.6 52.2 17.6 0.0 25.0 ”Take what you get" 78.4 67.8 82.4 100.0 75.0 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table 24. Percentage Distributions of Farmers' Attitudes Toward Their Selling Price, Classified by the Marketing Agent for the Farm. Michigan, 1948. (Intensive Interviews) Attitude Karketing Agent Toward Wife Husband ‘Wife & Husband Selling Price N-lo N=14 N-8 Percent Percent Percent "Set own price" 50.0 55.7 50.0 "Take what you get" 40.0 57.1 50.0 "Both" 10.0 7.2 0.0 Total percent 100.0 ' 100.0 100.0 In Table 25 it is found that none of the farmers claim they set their own price when dealing with the wholesale buyer; very few set their price when selling to a retail store; but, better than two-thirds of the egg producers set their price when selling direct to the con- sumer. When the farmers were asked: "What do you compare your (egg) selling price with?", market quotations and 50 Table 25. Percentage Distributions of Farmers' Attitudes Toward Their Selling Price, Classified by Type of Buyer.* Michigan, 1948. (1947 B.A.E. Sur- vey Sample) Type of Buyer Attitude Toward Wholesaler Retail Store Consumer Selling Price N=52 N=51 =55 Percent Percent Percent "Set own price" 0.0 5.2 69.7 "Take what you get" 100.0 96.8 21.2 No data 0.0 0.0 9.1 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 * Only the three main types of buyers were used in this table. The fourth category included those who sold eggs to more than one type of buyer, or to buyers Other than wholesalers, retailers, or consumers. This group zould only include 14 farmers. Table 26. Percentage Distributions of Farmers' Attitudes Toward Their Selling Price, Classified by Type of Buyer. Michigan, 1948. (Intensive Inter- views) Attitude A Type of Buyer Toward Wholesaler Retail Store Consumer Other Selling Price N-l5 _Ms5 N-8 N=4 Percent Percent Percent Percent "Set own price" 6.6 100.0 100.0 25.0 "Take what you get" 95.4 0.0 0.0 50.0 "Both" 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 Total percent I5575 I55T5 “15575 15575 local stores were reported used more frequently for price comparison than any other source of price information by the farmers in the 1947 B.A.E. Survey sample. The farm- ers in the 1948 B.A.E. Survey sample reported comparing their prices with prices in local stores more frequently than any other market price source. Market quotations, 51 however, were used by the farmers just as often in this sample as in the aforementioned sample. The high prOpor- tion of "no reSponse" returns to this question in the mailed questionnaire returns perhaps accounts for the apparent contradiction between the two samples. (See Table 27) This question seemed to confuse some of the farmers in the mailed sample--they did not understand just what the question was asking. The interviewers ex- plained what the question was asking, when questioned, so that the prOportion of "no data" reaponses drOpped in the 1948 B.A.E. Survey sample.l Farmers quite frequently remarked that they did not compare prices when this question was asked during the intensive interviews, but later added, "Oh, I watch prices in the stores"; "I notice the signs along the road"; or, "I check with my neighbor once in a while to see what he's getting for his". This practice raises considerable doubt as to the validity of the high prOportion of "don't compare(s)" in the 1948 B.A.E. Survey sample. Unless the farmer was encouraged to think about the question, "don't compare" was his first impression of his own practice, not realizing how he off-hand checked on his prices with others, perhaps without any conscious effort on his part. 1. This question caused trouble on the pre-tests, but there seemed no clearer way to state the question. It was not omitted as it appeared vital to the study if the prOposed objectives were to be attained. 52 Table 27. Percentage Distributions of Egg Producers' Use of Various Sources of Market Price Information .c for Price Comparison. hichigan, 1948. 1947 B.A.E. 1948 B.A.E. Intensive Source Survey Sample Survey Sample Interviews N-l2l N=209 N=30* Percent Percent Percent Local stores 14.9 35.8 3.3 Other buyers 5.8 2.4 6.7 Market quotations 24.8 24.4 3.3 Neighbors 2.5 0.0 6.7 Other 0.0 5.3 10.0 Combinations of the above 5.0 0.5 36.7 Don't compare 7.4 21.5 3.3 No data 39.6 10.1 0.0 Total percent 100.0 100. 100.0 * Two of the farmers interviewed raised chickens only to sell as broilers. There were no eggs produced on these two farms. The percentage distributions of the sources of mar- ket price comparison for chicken sales closely resemble those of Table 27, except for the greater use of market quotations. (See Table 28.) Table 30 shows the farmers with flocms of less than 100 chickens comparing their selling price with local stores almost twice as often as with market quotations. Table 29 might agree if half of the reSpondents had not left the question blank. In the 100 to 399 bird group, Table 29 shows a tendency toward an increase in the use of market quota- tions and a decrease in the use of local stores for price information. This tendency, however, is not substanti- ated in Table 30. 53 Table 28. Percentage Distributions of Chicken Producers' Use of Various Sources of Larket Price Infor- mation for Price Comparison. Michigan, 1948. 1947 B.A.E. Intensive Source Survey Sample Interviews II=106 L=29 Percent Percent Local stores 16.0 3.4 Other buyers 4.7 6.9 Market quotations 32.1 41.5 Neighbors 3.8 3.4 General market conditions 1.9 0.0 Combinations of the above 3.8 27.6 Don't compare 7.5 17.2 No data 30.2 0.0 Total percent 100.0 100.0 Table 29. Percentage Distributions of Sources of Market Price Comparison, Classified by Size of the Chicken Flock. hichigan, 1948. (1947 B.A.E. Survey Sample) Source of Size of Flock Price 1-99 100-399 400 & over Comparison N-62 N-46 N86 Percent Percent Percent Local stores 17.7 13.0 16.7 Other buyers 4.8 6.5 0. 0 Karket quotations 19.4 23.9 83.3 Neighbors 1.6 4.3 0. 0 Combinations of the above 0.0 8.7 0.0 Don't compare 4.8 13.0 0.0 No data 51.7 30.6 0.0 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table 31, along with the very small samples in Tables 29 and 30, shows a primary use of market quotations, alone, or in combination with other sources of price com- parison, in the largest flock group. The tendency toward an increase in the use of combinations of sources of price ()1 IP- information is apparent as the flock size increases. (See Table 31.) This increase is not statistically sig- nificant, however. Table 30. Percentage Distributions of Sources of he rket Price Comparison, Classified by Size of the Chicken P'lock. Iichigan, 194s. (1948 3.1.1. Survey Sample) Source of Size of Plock Price 1-99 100-399 400 & over Comparison N-145 N857 Nu4 *Percent Percent Percent Local stores 40.0 28.0 0.0 Other buyers 1.4 5.3 0.0 Lark et quotations 22.8 24.6 75.0 Neighbors 0.0 0.0 0.0 Combinations of the above 0.0 1.8 0.0 Other 3.4 10.5 0.0 Don‘t compare 24.1 15.8 0.0 No data 8.3 14.0 25.0 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table 31. Percent% see Distributions of Sources of Harket Price Comparison, Classified by Size of the Chicken Flock. hichigan, 1948. (Intensive Interviews) Source of Size of Flock Price 1-99 100-399 400 &;over Comparison 1!; 5:13 N= 18 Percent Percent Percent Local stores 0.0 7.7 0.0 Other buyers 0.0 7.7 5.5 market quotations 0.0 30.8 44.5 Neighbors 100.0 0.0 0.0 Combinations of the above 000 3008 4405 Other 000 1503 505 Don‘ t compare 0.0 7.7 0.0 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 As would be expected, the farmers that obtain the c' ,1 01 major portion of their income from the sale of poultry products compare their selling prices largely with the local stores. Since they compete with the local stores for consumer trade (See Table 19) they nust be in line with the prevailing price. The "next largest" income poultry farmer compares more often with market quotations. This probably is a result of his selling largely to wholesalers and retail- ers-~market quotations furnish the prices they need for their sales. (See Table 32) Table 32. Percentage Distributions of the Sources of harket Price Comparison, Classified by the PrOportion of Farm Income Derived from the Sale of Poultry Products. hichigan, 1948. (1948 B.A.E. Survey Sample) Source of harket Principal Income Next Largest Income Price Comparison N=23 N=45 Percent Percent Local stores 52.1 22.2 Other buyers 4.4 2.2 Karket quotations 30.4 35.6 All other 0.0 6.6 Don't compare 4.4 17.8 No data 8.7 15.6 100.0 0 Total percent 100. The poultry farmers' replies to the question: "How often do ou compare our selling prices . 3:“ u l w1th other prices?" ranged from'daily" to "rarely or never" with "once a week" reported as the most common practice. Table 33 presents the percentage distributions of the three samples to this question. 01 m Table 33. Percentage Distributions of Poultry Farmers' Replies to the Question: "How often do you compare your selling prices with other prices?" Michigan, 1948. Frequency of 1947 3.1.3. 1948 B.A4§. Intensive Price Comparison Survey Sample Survey Sample Interviews N=64 N=143 N=29 Percent Percent Percent Daily 10.9 ' 14.0 17.2 Two to 3 times weekly 4.7 2.8 6.9 Once a week 45.5 3.8 48.3 Twice a month 1.5 2.8 10.3 Once a month 1.5 2.8 3.5 Occasionally 15.6 3.5 10.3 Rarely or never 4.7 1.4 3.5 Don‘t know 0.0 0.7 0.0 No data 15.6 18.2 0.0 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 Nearly 4 in every 10 egg producers stated that their selling price was the same as the price with which they compared. Better than 2 in 10 egg producers said that their selling price was lower, another 2 in 10 farmers stated that they sold their eggs at a higher selling price than the price used for comparison, and the remaining egg producers sold eggs at a price lower or higher than the price with which they compared, depending on the character of the sale. A greater preportion, nearly 5 in every 10, of the farmers selling chickens sold them at the sane price as that used for comparison. The number of farmers selling their chickens at a lower price is comparable to that of the egg producers, but there were fewer, only 1 farmer in 10, selling at a higher price than the price with which 57 they compared. This procedure is no doubt caused by farm- ers raising chickens mainly for the eggs they produce and selling them for meat only when culling the non-layers out of the flock. These culls could not be sold at a premium price, thus the acceptance of the current selling price by the chicken farmer. The farmers were asked a direct question about their use of market quotations: "How often do you refer to radio or printed egg market quotations?" Whereas about a third of the egg producers made price comparisons once a week, only a little better than 1 farmer in 10 used market quotations weekly. There was an increase in daily comparison by the farmer using market quotations, however, the number of farmers rarely or never using egg market quotations ranged from 2 in every 10 producers in the 1947 B.A.E. Survey sample to better than 5 in 10 producers in the 1948 B.A.E. Survey sample. Table 34. Percentage Distributions of the Frequency of Use of Radio or Printed Egg harket Quotations by Farmers. Michigan, 1948. Frequency of 1947 B.A.E. 1948 B.A.E. Intensive Use of harket Survey Sample Survey Sample Interviews Quotations N-12l N-209 N=30 Percent Percent Percent Daily 29.7 23.4 43.4 weekly 13.2 12.9 33.3 Occasionally 24.8 10.0 6.7 Rarely or never 22.3 52.7 16.6 No data 10.0 1.0 0.0 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 58 The farmers who sold chickens used the market quo- tations less frequently. (See Table 35.) This, probably, is largely due to the fact that many egg producers sell chickens only when they are culling their laying hens, or reducing the size of their chicken flocks. This practice would mean that market price information for chickens would only be useful on the occasions when the egg pro- ducers have chickens to market. Table 3.. Percentage Distributions of the Frequency of Use of Radio or Printed Chicken harket Quo- tations by Farmers. Michigan, 1948. Frequency of 1947 B.A.E. Intensive Use of Market Survey Sample Interviews Quotations 3-106 ,_ N=29 Percent ‘ Percent Daily 19.8 20.7 weekly 13.2 31.0 Occasionally 2..3 17.3 Rarely or never 19.8 31.0 No data 17.9 0.0 Total percent 100.0 100.0 There was no statistically significant difference between the "principal income" and the "next largest income" groups in the frequency of their use of market quotations. The size of the poultry flock tends to make a dif- ference in the farmer's use of market quotations. As the number of chickens in the flock increases there is a consistent tendency for greater use of poultry and egg market quotations, and fewer farmers rarely or never use them. (See Tables 36, 37, and 38.) Table 36. Percentage Dis tributions of the Use of Larket Quote tions, Classified by Size of the Chicken Plock. Lichigan, 1948. (194’7 3.A.L. Survey Sample) Frecuency of Size of Flock Use ”or Larket 1419* 550-99 100- 399 400 a over Quotations ’ =31 3:31 '43 i=5 A Percent’ Percent ercent Percent‘ Daily .7 25.8 39 .3 83.3 ‘u'Jeekly 18:3 90,7 33:0 000 Occasionally 19.3 25.8 30.4 0.0 Rarely or never 2.0 25.8 13.0 0.0 No data ' 9.7 12.9 4.3 16.7 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 * In these tables the srall flock group (1-99) has been divided to show the greater use of market quotations as the size of the poultry flock increases. Table 37. Percentage Distributions of the Use of Market Quotations, Cle ssified by Size of the Chicken Flock. Lichigan, 1948. (1948 B.A.E. Survey “ample) Frequency of Size of Flock Use of Market 1-49* 50-99 100-399 400 dsover Quotations N=85 N-GO N=o7 N=4 Percent Percent Percent Percent Daily 15.3 28.3 31.6 25.0 Weekly 4. 7 15.0 21.1 0. 0 Occasionally 9.4 10.0 8.8 50. 0 Barely or never 69.4 45.0 38.5 25.0 No data 1.2 1.7 0.0 0.0 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table 38. Percentage Distributions of the Use of Larket Cuotations, Clas ssified by Size of the Chicken Flock. Michigan, 1948. (Intensive Interviews) Frequency of Size of Flock Use of market 50-99 100- 399 400 & over Quotations N=l N=13 7:18 Percent Percent Percent Daily 0.0 46.1 50. 0 Weekly 0.0 30.8 3.3 Occasionally 0.0 7.7 5. 6 Barely or never 100.0 15.4 11.1 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 60 When the use of market quotations was classified by the age of the farm Operator, there was a tendency for more Operators in their sixties to use the quotations daily than in any other age group. The two extremes of the age continuum tend to use the quotations less than those farmers who are between the ages of 40 and 69 years. These differences, however, are not great enough to be statistically significant. Table 39. (See Table 59) Percentage Distributions of the Frequency of Use of Larket Quotations, Classified by the Age of the Poultry'Farm Operator. Michigan, 1948. (1948 B.A.E. Survey Sample) '7Frequency of Age of Farm Operator Use of Market 20-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-89 Quotations N537 N-48 N-58 §g45 N-2l Percent Daily 21.6 20.8 22.4 31.1 19.0 Weekly 8.1 ' 14.6 12.1 13.3 19.0 Occasionally 8.1 16.7 12.1 4.4 4.8 Rarely or never 62.2 47.9 51.7 49.0 57.2 No data 0.0 0.0 1.7 2.2 0.0 Total percent 100.0 100.0 10570 10575 100.0 Table 40. Percentage Distributions of the Frequency of Use of Market Quotations, Classified by the Larketing Agent for the Farm. (1947 B.AJE. Survey Sample) Michigan, 1948. Frequency of marketing Agent Use of market Wife Husband Wife & Husband Others Quotations =53 N=31 =19 N'll . Percent Percent Percent Percent Dally 1809 51.6 3106 2705 Weekly 17.0 6.5 10.5 0.0 occaSionally 24.5 16.1 3105 4504 Rarely or never 24.5 25.8 21.1 18.2 No data 15.1 0.0 5.3 9.1 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 61 In Tables 40 and 42 it is observed that husbands serving as the marketing agent for poultry products use daily market quotations more frequently than do wives, but this trend is not substantiated in Table 41. Table 41. Percentage Distributions of the Frequency of Use of Market Quotations, Classified by the Larketing Agent for the Farm. Michigan, 1948. (1948 B.A~E. Survey Sample) Frequency of Larketing Agent Use of market Wife Husband Wife & Husband Others Quotations N-lll. N=63 N-9 N=25 Percent Percent Percent Percent Daily 24.3 15.9 44.5 32.0 weekly 10.8 14.3 11.1 20.0 Occasionally 10.8 7.9 11.1 12.0 Rarely or never 54.1 60.3 33.3 32.0 No data 0.0 1.6 0.0 4.0 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table 42. Percentage Distributions of the Frequency of Use of Market Quotations, Classified by the Marketing Agent for the Farm. Michigan, 1948. (Intensive Interviews) Frequency of Marketing Agent Use of market Wife Husband Wife & Husband Quotations N-lo N-14 N38 Percent Percent Percent Daily 40.0 64.3 25.0 Weekly 20.0 14.3 75.0 Occasionally 0.0 14.3 0.0 Rarely or never 40.0 7.1 0.0 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 There was no statistically significant difference in the frequency of use of market quotations when classified by the producer's attitude toward his selling price; the type of buyer the farmer sells his poultry products to; or, in the source of the farm's principal income, i.e., 62 whether the principal income comes from the sale of poul- try products, livestock, grain, dairy, or some other agricultural product. The radio ranks first as the medium through which farmers obtain market quotations in the 1948 B.A.E. Sur- vey sample, but the tendency in this direction in the 1947 B.A.E. Survey sample is not large enough to be statistically significant. Daily newspapers and a com- bination of both the radio and the daily newspaper are the next most used media for obtaining market reports. (See Table 43.) Table 43. Percentage Distributions for the Media Used by Egg Producers for Obtaining Market Reports. Michigan, 1948. 1947 B.A.E. 1948 B.A.E. Intensive Kedium Survey Sample Survey Sample Interviews - N-82 N-97 N-25 Percent Percent Percent Radio 31.7 51.6 12.0 Daily newspapers 23.2 26.9 28.0 All other 1.2 5.1 0.0 Daily newspaper and the radio 24.4 15.4 44.0 Radio and other than newspaper 3.7 1.0 4.0 Newspaper.and other than radio 4.9 0.0 4.0 Radio, newSpaper and other 0.0 0.0 8.0 No data 10.9 0.0 0.0 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 Very few farmers mentioned that they used some other media than the newspaper and radio for obtaining egg and poultry market news. 63 When all the proportions are added together, where either the radio and/or the press is used alone or in combination with some other channel, the 1947 B.A.E. Survey sample totals 87.9 percent and the 1948 B.A.L. Survey sample totals 94.9 percent. In the 1947 B.A.E. Survey sample the radio was used alone or in combination with some other channel for egg market reports by 59.8 percent of the egg producers. Sixty-eight percent of the egg producers in the 1948 B.A;E. Survey sample used the radio alone or in combina- tion with some other channel, and the intensive inter- view data agreed in proportion with the latter sample. Nearly 53 percent of the farmers in the 1947 B.A.E. Survey sarple used the new paper alone or in combination with some other channel for egg market reports as com- pared with 42 percent of the producers in the 1948 B.A.D. Survey sample. The intensive interviews, however, showed nearly twice as many egg producers, or 84 percent, using the newspaper alone or in combination with some other channel for egg market reports. The producers of poultry products were asked to name ways or places where they could obtain market quotations beside the medium they were using. (See Table 44) When the "None", "Don't know", and "No data" pro- portions in Table 44 are combined in each of the samples it is found that almost one-half of the farmers in the 1947 B.A.E. Survey sample did not mention any other way 64 or place for obtaining market quotations beside the medium they were using at the time. A little over a third of the producers of poultry products in the 1948 B.A.E. Survey sample did not mention additional media. Table 44. Percentage Distributions of the Media hentioned by Poultry Farmers When Asked: "What other ways or places are there where you could get market quotations but don't?". Michigan, 1948. 1947 B.A.E. 1948 B.A.E. Intensive Media Survey Sample Survey Sample Interviews N-82 N-97 N=25 Percent Percent Percent Daily newspaper 15.4 24.8 0.0 Radio 19.6 20.5 20.0 Other buyers or the local store 9.? 5.2 4.0 Neighbors 0.0 1.0 0.0 Federal-State har- ket News Service 0.0 1.0 0.0 Combinations of ' the above 8.5 7.2 8.0 Other 0.0 2.5 8.0 None 7.3 24.8 32.0 Don't know 8.5 5.2 28.0 No data 55.0 8.2 0.0 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 It is interesting to note, too, that the prOportion of "Eo data" cases in the 1947 B.A.E. Survey'eample is greatly reduced in the 1948 B.A.E. Survey sample, but the number of cases responding "None" is more than tripled. This would seem to indicate that when no data is given in reSponse to a question on a questionnaire, in reality it means that the informant has nothing to suggest, rather than meaning just that he has skipped or over-looked the question. In an interview the informant says enough to indicate to the interviewer that he knows of no other 65 place where quotations could be found. Further investi- gation, of course, is nece sary before such a statement could be made with any degree of certainty. Convenience was rated highest by the poultrymen when they were asked to state why they preferred to use their present source of market information. Other reasons given were: "applicable to personal situation"; "quick- er"; and "reliable and accurate" in the order mentioned. 3. The Farmer's Attitudes, Opinions, and Suggestions for Improving harket Information When the reSpondents in the 1947 B.A.E. Survey sample were asked to make suggestions for improvenent of the present marketing information, 3 in every 10 of these poultrymen could not make suggestions as they did not consult radio or printed market information. Two in 10 producers used the question as an occasion to state some grievance they felt toward the farmers' place in the marketing setup as a whole, and not specifically in re- lation to the market quotations as they were available to them. Another 2 in 10 farmers did not answer the question at all, and l in 10 respondents replied "none"; "all right as is"; “hadn't considered it"; or, "little use in changing". Less than 1 farmer in 10 answered that he had "too few chickens" and less than 1 in lO poultrymen had any suggestions to ofier. Better than 5 in every 10 informants in the 1948 BOA.E. Survey sample could not make suggestions since 66 Table 45. Percentage Distributions of the Replies of Egg Producers to tie question: "hhat kinds of changes would you like to see HLde in the egg rarket information available to you?". Rich- igan, 1948. 1947 B.h.3. 1948 3.4.3. Intensive Response Survey Sample Survey Sample Interviews L-lZl 1-209 1:30 Percent Percent Percent Suggestions: "more local and district news" 2.5 2.9 0.0 "quote both whole- sale and re- tail priccs" 2.5 0.9 3.3 "differentiate more by grades" . 0.8 0.0 0.0 "weel cly bulletins" 2.5 0.0 0.0 "clarify complex standards and gra des" . . 0.0 0.0 3.3 "quote truckers' pa.y- ing price to '5'" rlTleI‘S" o 0 0.0 0.0 303 "buy and sell eg.gs bi quality and weight" . . 0.0 0.9 0.0 "don't want to see eggs sold by the pound" . . 0.0 0.9 0.0 "way market is given is confusing as to color" . . 0.0 0.5 0.0 "have it on the radio more times dur- ing the day" . 0.0 0.5 0.0 "Doesn't make any dif- ference. he take what is offered." 0.0 0.5 0.0 "Little use in chang- ing" . 1.7 0.5 0.0 "Too few chickens". 4.1 1.9 0.0 "All right as is", or "hadn't considered it". . . . 3.3 1.4 43. "None" . . 5.6 29.7 30.0 Grievance about market- ing conditions 20.7 0.5 0.0 HO data. 25.1 3.8 0.0 Do not use quote tions 32.2 55.1 16.7 Total percent 100. 0 100.0 100.0 67 they did not use radio or printed market quotations. Three in 10 of the informants replied "none", hadn't con- sidered it", or "little use in changing". Less than one farmer in 10 gave no data, or said that he had "too few eggs", and, again, less than one producer in 10 made sug- gestions for improvement in the egg and poultry market quotations. Table 45 gives the responses made to the question by the three samples. The interviewers for the 1948 B.A.E. Survey sample eliminated the use of the question to state grievances. This no doubt accounts for the greater proportion of these farmers saying that they could not think of any nece sary changes. Table 46 lists the responses of the Chicken pro- ducers to the same question. "khat are your main reasons for not using egg mar- ket quotations?" cas asked of those farmers who reported that they did not use market quotations. "Sell too few eggs to merit use" was the common answer to both the questionnaire and interview samples, with "not applicable to local situation" and "have to take what we get" offer- ed about half as often. "Trustworthy dealers" and "lack of time" were mentioned several times, along with individu- al reasons for not using the quotations, such as: "We don‘t get a daily newspaper, and our radio doesn't work", or, "The radio bothers Grandma, and the paper reports are O. CO Table 46. Percentage Distributions of the Replies of Chicken Producers to the (uestion: ”\het kinds of changes would you like to see rade in the chicken market information available to you?". Michigan, 1948. 1947 B.n.L. Intensive Response Survey Sample Interviews h=lC6 " -?9 Percent Percent Suggestions: "more local and district news" 1.9 0.0 "quote both retail and whole- sale prices" . . 2.9 5.4 "quote broker price to re- tailers" . . . 0.9 0.0 "erel’:ly bUlletinS" o o o o 1.9 000 "state whether prices are for local chickens or not" . 0.9 0.0 "more complete market quo- tations" . . . 0.9 0.0 "broadcast a good report" . . 0.9 0.0 "quote current prices more accurately"* . . 0.0 3.4 "define and standardize terns, i.e., meaning of broilers, roasters, friers, etc." . . 0.0 6. 9 Do not use quotations . . . . 37.8 31.0 No data . . . . . . . . . 24.6 C. 0 "Lone", "all right as is", or, "hadn't thought about it" . 16.1 55.3 Grievance about marketing con— ditions . . . 7.5 O. 0 "Too few chickens", or, "sell 3 rarely" . . . 3.8 O. 0 Total percent 100.0 100.0 * This farmer said that he could not get the 3rices t1e Detroit Bederal—State Larket Lews quoted when he took 1is chickens to Detroit. a day late", and so forth. It is interesting to note that none of the ese farners criticized the present market news reports on the grounds that they could not under- stand the quotations.1 1. In this and subsequent questions the absence of comment regarding the chicken producers indicates that the pro- portions are comparable and that there is no signifi- cant differences from the information given for the egg proo ucers. F. Testing the Suggestions for Improvement of harket Quotations Through the Intensive Interviews As has been stated previously the intensive inter- views were aken to test the suggestions for inprovenent in narket information offered by the poultry and egg pro- ducers in the mailed and interview sanples and to answer questions raised in the minds of those involved in making the study. The following paragraphs are taken from the data obtained by the 32 interviews held with poultry farm- ers in various counties throughout the state of Michigan. Since the informants in the intensive interviews were not selected for representiveness, it ray be well to remind the reader of some of the distinctive character- istics of these cases. (See Table 8, page 35.) They tend to involve larger flocks than the average; men are more likely to handle the marketing; there were more sales to wholesalers, but relatively few to retail stores; producers were more likely to "set their own price" tian the average; and, a tendency for quotations, alone, or in combination with some other source of market information, to be used more than any other source of market inforra— tion, with more frequent use of market quotations than found in the two representative samples for the state of Michigan. Since more local and district quotations were re- quested by farmers in the two samples, the informants in the intensive interviews were asked: "What cities are 30 these market reports for?", and then, "Would you consider one of these your local market?". Only three farmers said that the prices which were quoted were not local prices. When they were asked: "Would local quotations be helpful to you, or not?“, only one farmer said "Yes". It must be remembered that the word "local" was not de- fined to the informants. The farmers considered the prices were from a local market ("local" enough) even if the market in question was a large terminal market quo- tation, so long as the same prices arglied in their area. Seventeen towns, other than Detroit and Chicago, were mentioned from which rrices were quoted, and all but one of the farmers were satisfied that the markets retorted were local enough for them. One-third of the informants thought that information about the prices of eggs raised and sold in other states would be useful to them. Another one-third thought they would not be useful and the remainder were not sure. Three-quarters of the farmers interviewed said that egg and poultry quotations were carried by their local newsraper. Better than 8 in 10 of the informants said that their local radio station carried daily egg and poultry 1arket quotations. One in lO informants was not sure, and another 1 in every 10 said that their local station did not give daily market quotations. 71 Eight in every 10 of the froducers of youltry fro- ducts who used market cuotations listened to the radio at noon for them. Only two farmers wanted the euotations given earlier in the day than they were currently receiv- ing them. These two farners suggested: "Sefore seven o'clock" and "flight o'clock" each morning, reefectively. Practically all the farmers rerorted that they con- sidered the market quotations generally reliable. Only one farmer did not trust any of them; another farmer said: "The radio is; the newspaper isn't." The egg and chicken yroducers based their orinion of the reliability of the quotations on whether or not they could get the quoted price for their youltry pro- ducts; on whether the prices checked with those locally; or, on the integrity of those agencies rresenting the quotations. anmrles of five different ways of quoting market 1 were next shown to the prices in the market quotations producers with the question: "Which of these ways would you prefer to see the yrices quoted; or do you have something different to suggest than any of them?" Better than 5 in 10 of the producers said that they would like to have the "spread" and the "mostly" prices quoted. Two farmers in 10 wanted the "mostly" price, only, and 1. See Appendix, page 206 for a copy of the three forms presented to the resgondents at this point in the in- terview. the others had varied eginions. Those who wanted just the "mostly" price quoted thought thet then there would be no quibbling over the grice between thenselves and the buyer. They stated that the Iroducer wanted to be gaid the to; grice of the quoted sgread and the buyer wanted to gay the bottom frice. When three different ways1 for quoting the sane ‘ market frices were shown the farners, 3 informants in 10 chose exanrle "C"; nearly 5 in every 10 farmers wanted "B"; and, 2 in lO chose "A". The remainder were uncer- tain, or said that "it really doesn‘t rake any differ- ence". Interestingly enough, exangle "A” was cogied without change from a December, 1947 Daily harket herort gut out by the Federal-State harhet News Service. hhen looking at this exaugle the groducers objected to the U. S. grades being written in Iaragraph form instead of tab- ular fern like the Commercial and Wholesale grades. The tabular form used for all the quotations in ex- amrle "C" seemed to agreal to most of the informants. Some of them thought that were information was given in "C" than was gresented in exangle "A" when, in reality, both exanrles gave the same information, excegt that "C” gave the "mostly" rrice, only, and "A" greeented only the "Spread". 1° Turn to the Argendix, Page 206 for a cogy of the card used at this goint in the interview. \1 OJ Reasons given for preferring examjle "B" were that CD it was "brief" and "easy to read when busy". Thos who chose it said that it gave then all the information they needed. The five farmers who did not use rarhet quotations gave the following reasons: "have to take what we get"; "sell too few eggs to merit use"; "have trustworthy deal- er"; and, "I only change my Irice twice a year". G. Interpretation and Evaluation of the Data Presented The data have shown that the use of market quota- tions increases with the size of the poultry flock, but. that there was no significant relationship between the use of market quotations and the position in the family of the gerson, or Iersons, who serves as the farm's 1arheting agent; the tyre of market outlet use‘; or, the farmer’s conception of who sets the price at which he sells his goultry products. There was a tendency for quotations to be used more frequently by the larger flock rroducers but this tendency was not statistically significant. The increased use of market quotations by large flock owners might be exrected since the larger the flock the more important it is to the total farm income, and the incr ased necessity to make sure of obtaining the best possible prices for the yroducts. \7. h'> haking market grice comIarisons once a week was the most conron yractice of the poultry groducers. Since they generally narheted their poultry products only once a week they did not feel the necessity to check rcre fre- quently on narket grices. Women congrised nearly one-half of the persons narheting poultry products. however, the frororticn of wives serving as marketing agents tends to decrease as the flocks increase in size. This is understandable since, as the flock becomes larger, the incone increases and is more irrortant to the total farm income. Thus, when it reaches such a size that the tcultry industry becomes an imrortent, or a major, source of the farm in- come it is natural in our culture for the husband to be- come sufficiently interested to take over the narketing. The radio was the most inrortant source of rarket quotations since it could be listened to while the farner was eating or doing chores. The ncvsgapcr, too, was re- lied on, for the information it contained could be read at any time convenient to the farmer. Some yroducers preferred the newsgaper to the radio because the news- paper reforts were always available, and it was nece.sary for them or some other farily merber to be near a radio at certain hours during the day or miss the market news entirely. hany groducers used the newsgegor and radio both as sources of warket news. They used the radio for 75 up-to-the-minute quotations, and the newspaper to turn to for additional information, or to refer to if the radio reports were missed or needed to be verified-—if the an- nouncer talked too fast, or the buyer would not agree on the market price. Those farmers with flocks snall enough to need to sell eggs only during the peak laying season, naturally, made very little use of narket quotations. In such cases the flock was kept to provide poultry products for the farily. The few sales that were made during the yerr would not be inportant enough in the total farm incone to warrant tie time and effort taken to follow aarket re- ports. If the farmer hapfened to be listening to other farm market reports and heard quotations for eggs and .g1 chickens, all well and good, if not, well, it di. not \ matter, surplus eggs would go at whatever price was offer- ed for then. H. Conclusions and Recommendations The objectives of the study were to obtain and analyze data on the use of and reactions to sources of poultry marketing information in hichigan, and to rake reconnendations based on these data designed to lead to more effective dissenination of warket information. In order to carry out these objectives, four questions1 were 1. See Chapter 1, page 2 76 to be answered. Each of these questions arpear below with the information gained from the data answering it. What sources of information about market conditions do they customarily use? In answer to the question, "What do you compare your selling grice with?", the :roducers rerlied that they checked with market quotations, local stores, other buyers and neighbors rore than with any other sources. Feed stores, co-oreratives, farm ‘. .' i . ‘ t' t; ‘3’. I . O . \3‘