A COMPARISON OF PROCEDURES FOR PRE-PUBUCAT!ON TESTlNG OF BULLETIN MANUSCRIPTS ‘ Thesis. far the Dam“ of M‘ 5.: MECHEGAN STATE UNWERSITY Evan M. iappi’n 1962 , , _ __.__ v- v ..- ~~W”m.r.-.”.fi-’QII‘D“OM~ "is.” LIBRARY Michigan State University ABSTRACT A COMPARISON OF PROCEDURES FOR PRE-PUBLICATION TESTING OF BULLETIN MANUSCRIPTS by Ivan M. Lappin The primary purpose of this study is the comparison of four procedures for pre-publication testing bulletin manuscripts. The procedures are compared on the basis of their efficiency in providing information relative to the intended bulletin audience's need for and understanding of the publication. The procedures compared in the study are: panel mail; panel interview: non-panel mail: and non-panel interview. Four publication manuscripts were pre-tested during the study with all four of the test procedures. Thirty members of the intended bulletin audience were asked to respond through each procedure. The respondents using the panel procedures were asked to respond to all four of the publication tests. All respondents were asked to read their respective manuscripts, indicating any portions they felt were not needed or were difficult to understand. and to make any comments desired. Each respondent was to answer a series Ivan M. Lappin of application questions from the manuscript. and to rate the usefulness of pre-designated units of the manuscript. The criteria for the efficiency of the test procedures are: (l) the helpfulness of the responses from each procedure as rated by a committee of judges; (2) the cost of the time. milage. postage. and other expenses of obtaining the responses with each procedure; and (3) the number of days expried from the initial distribution of the manuscripts to the final response. Also compared was the similarity of the usefulness ratings from each procedure. and the scores on the appli- cation questions from each procedure. In general the respondents were not profuse in the quantity of their comments and markings. This is especially true of those who responded through the mail. The respondents seemed to make comments and markings when they were especially motivated. either positively or negatively. by the information being presented or by the way in which it was presented. There was a broad center range where the respondents were either nominally satisfied or not too dissatisfied and thus did not make any comments or markings. 0n the basis of the Judge's ratings. the pre—test responses from the interview procedures were more helpful than were the responses from the mail procedures. with the Ivan M. Lappin significance of this difference on each of the four publication tests being at least at the .01 level. There were no signi- ficant differences between the mean helpfulness ratings given to the responses from the panel and non—panel procedures on all publication tests. The judge's helpfulness ratings seem to indicate that there is a greater difference in the helpfulness of the responses from the interview and mail procedures when the publication being tested is technical in nature and more difficult to understand. or the subject matter is of high interest to the respondents. In this study interview procedures were significantly more costly than the mail procedures to at least the .01 level. The actual cost incurred during the study by each panel group was slightly but not significantly higher than the non-panel groups because of the additional expense of soliciting the panel members' participation in the study. The number of days expired from the distribution of the first manuscript to the receipt of the last response through the mail procedures was significantly higher than the number of days through the interview procedures with but one exception. The panel mail procedure tested at the .10 level over the panel interview procedure. making the difference not significant on the basis of the study design. Ivan M. Lappin There were no significant differences in the average application question scores between the four procedures. The scores from the mail procedures tended to be higher than those from the interview procedures. while the scores from the panel procedures tended to be higher than those from the non-panel procedures. There were no significant differences in the average usefulness ratings. nor were any discernable tendencies in evidence. Eighty percent of the panel members responded to at least one of the four publication tests. while fifty percent responded to all four of the pre—tests. By procedure. there was a 72.3% response through the panel interview procedure. 60.8% return through the panel mail. 59.2% with the non-panel interview. and 27.5%wwith the non-panel mail. As used in this study. the non-panel mail procedure is not recommended for pre-test studies because of the low response rate and the low helpfulness ratings given to its responses. The panel mail procedure in turn is not recommended because of the low helpfulness ratings of its responses. The non-panel interview procedures might be recommended because of its high response rate. high helpfulness ratings. and its dispatch of securing responses. The panel interview Ivan M. Lappin procedure is recommended because it boasts the advantages of the other interview procedure as well as utilizing each respondent a number of times. which the non-panel procedure does not. Although the interview procedures are significantly more expensive than the mail procedures. in this study only the interviews were able to obtain responses that seemed to be of definite help in determining the reader's opinion of the publication. A COMPARISON OF PROCEDURES FOR PRE-PUBLICATION TESTING OF BULLETIN MANUSCRIPTS By ¥ . Ivan Mi Lappin A THESIS submitted to Nfichigan State university in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE College of Agriculture 1962 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his appreciation to the Office of Information of the U. S. Department of Agriculture for sponsoring this study. and to their staff members. Lawrence Sarbaugh and Donald Childers for their direction and guidance. A considerable amount of the credit for this study goes to the author's advisors. Dr. George Axinn. now Coordinator of the university of Nigeria Program. and Dr. Jack Ferver. Leader in the Institute for Extension Personnel Development. The advice of Dr. Howard Miller was sought throughout the course of the study. Also offering advice and serving on the examination committee were: Dr. Edward Mbe. Dr. Malcolm MacLean. Dr. Russell Mawby. and Mason Miller. Special thanks is extended to Mrs. Marianne Harrington for the vast amount of secretarial work and consideration she devoted to the study. The author acknowledges the help of the farmers of Clinton County. the Clinton County Extension staff. and the county extension agents contributing to the study. as well as 'William Tedrick. Donald Murray. and Donald Gregg. who rated the helpfulness of the study responses. The author is grateful to the Administration of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service for granting a year of ii study leave. and to the Administration of the Iowa Cooperative Extension Service for the time to complete this report. Fondest appreciation is extended to the author's family and friends for their moral support and invaluable aid during the entire study. TABLE OF CONTENTS AMMEDGEWTS . O O O O O O O O O O O O C O 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF LIST OF CHAPTER I. II. III. TABLE S O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O HILUS TMTI CNS 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O INTRODWTION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Purposes of the Study Significance of the Study Hypotheses of the Study REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . Pre-Testing Printed Material Panel Audiences ' Interviewing and Mail Questionnaires m THOMOGY O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Definition of Terms The Criteria for Efficiency The Test Manuscripts Selecting the Study Location Obtaining a Representative Sample Data Collection Procedures Data Collection Instruments Pre-Testing the Procedures Data Analysis Procedures iii Page ii iii viii \lde 22 27 37 37 38 39 4O 43 44 58 63 64 CHAPTER IV 0 DATA PRE SENTATI ON C O O O C O O O O C O O C . Helpfulness of the Responses Testing the Hypothesis on Helpfulness of the Responses Cost of Obtaining Responses Testing the Hypothesis on Cost Length of Time to Collect Data Similarity of the Quiz Scores Similarity of the Opinion Ratings Comparison of Farmer and Extension Agent Responses Tenure of Panel Members ‘Willingness of Farmers to Respond Representativeness of the Respondents v . MTA MM YS I S O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . validity of the Data Comparison of the Mail Questionnaire and Interview Procedures Comparison of the Panel and Non-Panel Procedures Comparison of the Farmer Responses and Extension Agent Responses ‘VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: Summary of Procedures Summary of Study Results Conclusions Recommendations for the Conduction of Pre-Tests Recommendations for Further Study QUIZ SCORES FOR FARMER RESPONDENTS . . . DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS: RATING FORM.FOR RESPONSE HELPFULNESS . . . . TEST MANUSCRIPTS . . . . . . . . . . . . BIEIWMPHY I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 iv Page 74 74 80 82 87 88 89 92 94 102 106 114 131 131 134 147 155 157 157 166 180 188 193 195 200 201 202 TABLE 10. LIST OF TABLES Study Layout for Collecting Pre-Test Data from Four Test Manuscripts Through the Use of Four Procedures . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviation of the Helpfulness of the Responses from Each Procedure on Each Publication as Rated by a Committee of Judge 8 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Helpfulness of the Farmer Responses in Providing Information About Bulletin Eval- uation Criteria: Means of the Ratings By a Committee of Judges. Those Publication Tests Where Procedure Responses were Rated of Definite Help . . . . . . . . . . . . . Costs in Dollars Incurred by Procedure in Pre—Testing Four Publications . . . . . . . Cost Per Response by Procedure . . . . . . . . Cost Per Rating of Helpfulness of Detail . . . Length of Time in Days Required for Pre- Testing By Four Procedures with Each Publ ication O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O The Mean and Standard Deviation of the Quiz Scores From Each Procedure for Each Test Manuscript. and the Mean Rating and Its Deviation for Each Procedure from All Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Mean and Standard Deviation of the Unit Opinion Ratings from Each Procedure for Each Test Manuscript and the Mean Rating and Its Deviation for Each Procedure From All Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response Rate of Extension Agents to the Pre- Test Studies of Four Publications . . . . . Page 45 76 79 84 86 86 88 90 93 95 TABLE 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. The Mean Usefulness Ratings of Each Unit of Raising_Dairy Calves and Heifers by Farmer Respondents and Extension Agents . . The Mean Usefulness Ratings of Each Unit of Silage in the Dairy Ration by Farmer Respondents and Extension Agents . . . . . The Mean Usefulness Ratings of Each Unit of Zoning for Rural Areas by Farmer Respondents and Extension Agents . . . . . . . . . . . The Mean Usefulness Ratings of Each Unit of Mastitis Control in Michigan Herds by Farmer Respondents and Extension Agents . . Comparison of the Panel Groups as to the Types of Responses and the Membersf Responding . Calls Made on Panel and Non-Panel Members to Secure Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘Willingness of the Farmer Respondents to Serve on Pre-TeSting Panels 0 o o o o o o o o o o The Mean and Standard Deviation of Character- istics of the Groups of Farmer Respondents in the Pre-Testing Study . . . . . . . . . Number of Farmer Respondents to Silage in the Dairy Ration Who Feed Silage to Their Dairy Herd and the Type Fed . . . . . . . . Correlation of the variable of Feeding Silage or of Net Feeding Silage by the Respondents to Their Quiz Scores on Silage in_the Dairy Ration O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Correlation of the Variable of Feeding Silage or of Not Feeding Silage by the Respondents to Their Unit Opinion of Silagein the Dairy Ration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 97 99 101 101 103 112 113 116 123 124 125 TABLE Page 22. Opinion of Zoning and Self-Perceived Zoning Knowledge Change by Respondents to Zoning for Rural Areas . . . . . . . . . . 128 23. Correlation of the Respondents Self-Perceived Knowledge Change Through Reading Zoning £2; Rugal Areas to Their Scores on Each Quiz Item . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 24. Correlation of the Respondents Self-Perceived Zoning Knowledge Change Through Reading Zoning for Rural Areas to their Unit Opinion Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 APPENDIXITABLES 1. Mean Scores on Each Quiz Item for All Farmer Respondents to Raising Dairy Calves and Heifers O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 196 2. Mean Scores on Each Quiz Item for All Farmer Respondents to Silage in the Dairy Ration . 197 3. Mean Scores on Each Quiz Item for All Farmer Respondents to Zoning for Rural Ageas . . . 198 4. Mean Scores on Each Quiz Item for All Farmer Respondents to Mastitis Control in Michigan Herds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 vii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ILLUSTRATION Page 1. Tenure of Panel Members with Total Members Responding. Complete Responses. and Panel Members Dropped; by Manuscript . . . . . . . 105 2. Number and Percent of Responses From Farmer Respondents to the Publication Pre-Tests . . . . . . . . 107 3. Percent of Responses from Farmer Groups by Manuscript Tested . . . . . . . . 109 4. Percent of Responses From Farmer Groups by Procedure Used . . . . . . . . . . 110 viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Study The primary concern of this study is with the practicality of pre-publication testing of bulletins. It is a comparison of four procedures for conducting pre— testing studies in respect to their efficiency in providing: (a) information relative to the ability of the intended (b) bulletin audience to understand the material pre— sented in the publication; and information relative to the intended bulletin audience's perception of their need for the material in the publication. The four procedures used in the study for conducting pre-tests are: 1. A personal interview with a group of panel members who have agreed to read four publications. A mail questionnaire sent to a group of panel members who have agreed to read four publications. A personal interview with a group of non-panel respondents who have been asked to read one particular publication. 4. A mail questionnaire sent to a group of non-panel respondents who have been asked to read one particular publication. In the process of collecting data to attain the above purposes. additional information is gained that could prove helpful in determining future pre-testing practices. and in evaluating the four manuscripts tested. This information is included in the following statements of minor purposes: 1. Obtaining information relative to the tenure of respondents serving on panels for the purpose of pre-testing bulletin manuscripts. Gaining insight into the willingness of members of the intended bulletin audience to participate in pre-testing studies. Pre-testing four bulletin manuscripts and reporting means of improving these manuscripts before printing. Gaining some insight into the ability of county extension personnel to accurately predict the (a) ability of the bulletin audience to understand the information and (b) the bulletin audience's expression of their need for the information in the bulletin. Significance of the Study The goal of extension programs is to influence behavior change. Change comes about through the inception and learning of new ideas and information. and extension can be of particular influence in making people aware of and interested in this new information. To increase this awareness and interest. extension educators employ communi- cation channels. or Stools? that serve to more effectively present the information to their clientele. One of these tools is the bulletin. Approximately eight million dollars are expended annually by State agricultural Experiment Stations and Extension Services. and by the U. S. Department of Agriculture in the preparation and publishing of bulletins. circulars and periodicals. . . . Approximately three thousand new titles are published each year by these agencies as popular and technical bulletins.1 The utilization of these vast numbers of bulletins is described by Heward Miller. He states that a publication .. . . functions as a vehicle for a message. which may stop in the files of a library or a professional worker. or 1Byron E. Phifer. Effectiveness ofyyarious Distribution Practices and Methods oeressage Treatment of Agricultural and Heme Economics Publications in the Northeast Region. Draft of a Regional Project. Federal Extension Service and U. S. Department of Agriculture. washington. D.C.. 1958. move on in the process to farmers or housewives."2 To determine who makes the most use of bulletins we turn to Lionberger.3 who classifies farmers according to their rate of adoption as follows: Early Adoptors The Majority Late Adoptors. Because early adoptors learn about new practices sooner. they often do not have sources within their own community where they can gain their information. Thus they must rely on outside channels to do this for them. Of these channels. mass media is the prime source of awareness for agricultural information. The influence of mass media does not stop with the early adoptors. Additional insight into the reach of mass media is provided by Lazarsfeld in The People's Choice. where he says: 9. . . it may be. that influences stemming from the mass media first reach 'opinion leaders' who. in turn. pass on what they read and hear of those of their everyday 2waard L. Miller. fiProcedures for Improving the Use of Publications in the Communications Process by Professional Leaders in Agricultural Education? (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Agricultural Education. Ohio State University. 1959). 3Herbert F. Lionberger. Adoption of New Ideas and Practices (Ames: Iowa State University Press. 1960). p. 34. 5 associates for whom they are influential."4 Bulletin editors. publishers. and extension personnel have been exposed to research related to bulletin design for some time. Yet the variety of content and design of publications. and the many interests. abilities and beliefs of audiences complicate the study of usefulness of publi- cations. Bulletins are constantly being evaluated. both informally and formally. Many times findings from these evaluations may have little future use because the publi- cation will never be revised and the findings may apply only to the publication studied and the conditions under which it was used and/or studied. The development of the fpre-testing? approach to evaluation in recent years has provided a tool which can give a concrete measurement of the effectiveness of a bulletin before it is actually printed. To date. only limited research has been carried out on the pre-testing of printed material. One of the leaders in the advocation of pre-testing is Andie Knutson. of the Federal Public Health Service. He defines pre-testing as: F. . . a means of obtaining the other man's perception or interpretation 4Paul F. Lazarsfeld. Bernard Berelson. and Hazel Caudet. The Peoplefs Choice (New York: Columbia University Press. 1948). p. 151. of the message so the changes can be made to take into account his pattern of understanding and his way of life.5 By pre-testing a publication with a sample of the intended audience. some of the ways people may interpret the symbols used in the publication can be detected before it is printed. The pre-test should help determine whether the interpretations of the readers are those intended by the author and editor. Two concerns are of prime importance in the infor- mation gained through any pre-testing effort. These concerns are: (l) the validity of the responses in predicting the true interpretation of the publication by the general audience of the bulletin users; and (2) whether or not the results attained through the pre-testing studies justify the time and money required in their conduction. The adoption of manuscript pre—testing as a practice in the production of bulletins will depend on the outcome of studies dealing with these concerns. As stated earlier. the primary function of this study is the resolving of important considerations related to the second stated concern. It deals with the exploration of different procedures for conducting pre-testing 5Andie L. Knutson.}Pretesting: A Positive Approach to Evaluation.? Public Health Reports. vol. 67 (1952). studies with the goal of increased insight into factors affecting the efficiency of pre-testing. There is no assertion here that the concerns of validity and practicality can be segregated. and any conclusions on practicality must take into consideration the validity of the responses. Thus. this study is devoted to analyzing the practicality of pre-testing. with an attempt to estimate the validity of the responses obtained. Hypotheses of the Stqu The specific hypotheses of this study. in relation to the efficiency of the pre-testing procedures observed are: l. The procedures are ranked by the helpfulness of the information they provide as follows: interviewing samples of panel members > interviewing samples of non-panel subjects > sending mail questionnaires to samples of panel members > sending mail questionnaires to samples of non-panel subjects. 2. The procedures are ranked by the cost of their implementation as follows: interviewing samples of panel members > interviewing samples of non—panel subjects > sending mail questionnaires to samples of panel members > sending mail questionnaires to samples of non-panel subjects. 3. The procedures are ranked in respect to the number of days expired in their data collection as follows: sending mail questionnaires to samples of non-panel subjects > sending mail questionnaires to samples of panel members > interviewing samples of non-panel subjects > interviewing samples of panel members. 4. There are no significant differences between the procedures in respect to the information obtained of the respondents understanding of and expression of need for a bulletin: interviewing samples of panel members = inter- viewing samples of non-panel members = sending mail question- naires to samples of panel members = sending mail questionnaires to samples of non-panel members. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Pre-Testing Printed Material Pre-Tests of Health Education Material When pre-testing is discussed. the work of Andie L. Knutson is sure to enter into the conversation. Dr. Knutson began cementing his ideas on pre—testing as an approach to the evaluation of educational programs while chief of the experimental and evaluation services branch of the Division of Public Health Education. Public Health Service. As reported in a 1952 Public Health Reports article by Knutson.6 pre-testing enables the evaluation of educational programs before the structure is developed. and large expenditures are made. According to Knutson. two steps are included in the positive approach to evaluation: (a) a critical review of the planning process. and (b) an objective evaluation of requirements for achieving program goals.7 6Knutson. op. cit. 7Ibid.. p. 699. 10 He clarifies the 9critica1 review of the planning process? with these four questioning statements: Are the needs which the program is trying to satisfy identified by adequate exploratory fact finding? Are the program objectives agreed upon. clearly formu- lated. and written down? Is the method or approach the one most likely to prove successful in achieving the objectives of the program? Is the subject matter to be presented accurate. adequate. and impartial. and will it be accepted by those responsible for supporting and carrying out the program?8 His Vobjective evaluation of requirements for achieving program goals. is in essence. the process of pre-testing for the following conditions: Exposure—-Hew many persons will be reached physically? ‘Agtention and Interest-—Hew many persons reached physically will be reached psychologically? Motivation--For how many reached will the program offer a means of satisfying a want or achieving a purpose? Pattern of Behavior--For how many will the action that satisfied a want in this manner be in accord with the way people usually behave? Cogprehension--wa many will understand the words. concepts. and illustrations used? Ungerstanding of Purpose--Hew many will really under- stand the point of the message? Learning and Retention--How many will acquire and retain the information and attitudes essential for action?9 ‘ 8Ibido : pp. 699-70lo 91bid.. p. 702. 11 A pre-test should determine if each of the above conditions is being satisfied. and if they are not. then the reasons for these failures. FReasons for failure. when identified. will usually suggest means of improvement."10 Knutson summarizes his article by establishing a relationship between the two steps of positive evaluation: The critical review should be made before pre— testing is attempted. for there is little value in pretesting a program that has not been adequately planned}l In a later article on pre—testing mass communication material. Knutson further recognizes the importance of the readerfs background in the final interpretation of any information that is presented to him. When mass distribution is used. there is no twoeway communication: It is not possible. as in a face to face situation. or as in a group discussion. to draw out the reader and obtain his interpretation of what he reads . . . making sure that what he reads means to him what it means to you . . . to find out whether what you say makes sense to him in terms of his interests. wants. or patterns of behavior . . . to make sure that he knows how to carry out the action recommended.12 10Ibid.. p. 702. 11Ibid.. p. 703. 12Andie L. Knutson. FPretesting Health Education Materials.? American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 43 (Feb.. 1953). p. 193. 12 In this same article he emphasizes that pre-testing must be conducted so as to obtain results from the same types of people for whom the information is intended. He elaborates on the previously quoted conditions for meeting program objectives. suggesting approaches to use in pre-testing the attainment of these conditions by the educational material in question. He does not. however. include his final condition on retention of information and attitudes essential for action. The only valid measurement of this condition is the actual change that would occur in the reader’s behavior. Knutson recognizes that pre—tests are most helpful while programs and materials are in the formative stages. and evidently concludes that the time needed to measure consequent behavior change would delay the production of the material to an impractical point. Evidently inspired by KnutsonAS‘work. Marie Ford. a Public Health worker. co—authored two reports of pamphlet pre—tests. In the first test a copy of the pamphlet. along with a cover letter. was given to representative samples of women from two PTA groups.13 They were asked to read the pamphlet before the next PTA meeting. and rate it 13Marie Ford and Ruth Steif. VPretesting a Pamphlet for Reader Comprehension.? Journal of the American Diabetic Association. Vbl. 30 (Jan.. 1954). 13 as very interesting; interesting; mildly interesting; or dull. At the two PTA meetings there were 55 readers and 115 non—readers of the pamphlet. A multiple choice question- naire which had been pre-tested to eliminate ambiguous. leading. and biased questions. was administered to all attending the meetings. The second pretest used the following approach in planning and testing the publication: 1. Statement of purpose--gives guide for pertinent information to go into pamphlet. 2. Review of 1iterature--analyze data and subject and prepare material in light of purpose. 3. Be sure information is accurate for all localities the pamphlet will be used in. 4. Comments from Specialists. etc.. for validity and presentation. 5. Readability formula applied. 6. Questionnaire (objective type questions with comments)—-given to general public to find if pamphlet was interesting and easy to understand. and to see if they understood the purpose of the pamphlet.14 The Content Response Code Procedure An extensive pre-testing study was conducted at Stanford Universityfs Institute for Journalistic Studies by _._v 14Marie Ford and Albert B. Wilson. ”Testing a Public Health Nursing Pamphlet.? Nursing Outlook. Vol. 3 (May. 1955). l4 Chilton R. Bush and Roy E. Carter. Jr.15 Their study was conducted for the U. S. Information Agency. The two pamphlets tested were "The Negro in American Life." and "The Meaning of Korea." The former was in normal printed format. while the latter was in mimeographed form. The subjects for the study were American. Indian. and Filipino students. and the tests were conducted with groups of 20 to 40 persons. The subjects were asked to read the material at a normal rate of speed. and to indicate any negative or positive reactions to the information by making small minus or plus marks in the margin while they read. They were told to make the marks as often as they felt the desire to do so and at times they might make several marks in one paragraph. or that they might go by several paragraphs before making a mark. In defining more clearly when to make marks. the subjects were told: A plus mark. for example. may mean that you have read something that you especially like: that you feel it is true. or interesting. or fair. or honest. or important to know. or valuable. or appropriate. A plus may mean any or all of these things. YOu will make a minus when you read something which you feel is untrue. or uninteresting. or unfair. or dishonest. or unimportant. 15 . Chilton R. Bush and Roy E. Carter. Jr.. Experiments in Pre-Testing Printed Materials: A Report to the U. S. Information Agency. Institute for Journal Studies. Stanford University (Aug.. 1954). 15 or worthless. or inappropriate. A minus may mean any or all of these things.16 After the subjects responded to the pamphlets. their responses were coded by means of master copies of the material. The paragraph was found to be an adequate coding unit for most material. and the coding consisted merely of compiling the plus and minus marks for each coding unit. The subjects were not asked to underline any material for any reason due to the likelihood that this task would reduce the spontaneity of the responses. Likewise there was no overprinting of any scale or device in the margin of the material tested. After the material was initially read. the coding was completed to determine which areas of the pamphlet were to be defined as critical areas. These were units with a high number of minus marks. A similar number of units with a high number of plus marks were selected. and both these and the critical areas were reinstated to the subjects in a follow-up procedure. The ”positive? units were submitted so that the individual subject would not know which units the remainder of the group had marked minus or plus. 16Ibidol p. 6. 16 In the followaup process the subjects were brought together soon after the original meeting. usually within two to three hours. The short time span allowed them to recall why they made their original responses to the material. The validity of the responses from the procedure was tested by modifying the pamphlets according to the responses from the test subjects and then having the modified versions read under test conditions by separate. but nearly identical groups of students. Those reading the modified versions responded with higher over-all ratings. with more giving favorable comments. and more rating the material as completely true. The authors term the marking task and its analysis. the Content Code Procedure (CRC). The primary concerns in their studies were to determine the ?communicative effectiveness? of the USIA materials. The criteria for ?effectiveness? were: (a) the degree to which the materials fget across? to the subject the ideas. facts. or concepts which are regarded as important by the USIA (or analogously. are manifestly emphasized in the content): (b) the persuasive effectiveness of content which is intended to be persuasive. and (c) the general favorability of the subjects to the materia1--their appraisal of it.17 17Ibid.. p. 34. 17 The CRC was developed to deal with criteria (b) and (c). The authors felt that criteria (a) could be met adequately with existing knowledge quizzes and other procedures. The authors' conclusion is: The CRC is a procedure which is relatively free from bias introduced by the investigator himself. yet it permits a considerable amount of probing into the nature of the subject's responses and their reasons for making them.18 During the development of the CRC procedure. other .means of pre-testing were used on some of the IPS material Of particular interest is an instrument 'to be evaluated. This (yelled by the authors. The ?Playback? Questionnaire. qniestionnaire is administered immediately after subjects tread the material. They are aSked to not refer back to the Pamphlet to answer the question. The central question is: Suppose you were telling a friend or neighbor about the material you have just readé What are some of the main things you would say? The authors feel that this question provides information on w'l'lat parts of the material the subjects tended to remember. and how well the subjects remembered the material. It is 1&ess efficient as a measure of the subject's opinion. as \ 18Ibid.. p. 90. lgIbidol p. 106. 18 most responses are factual reports of what was read. They sum this up by saying: The playback question. of course. does not actually measure what the subject would tell a friend in his homeland i£_(as a member of a ?non-captive? audience) he had read the material there. But it does provide some clues as to what he might tell.20 Pze-Test of a Textbook A college instructor pre-tested his new textbook with a class of third year college students by using the manuscript for the class text.21 At the end of the school .year. a skilled interviewer conducted intensive open ended ithervie s With a random sample of the class. Students were alrso asked to volunteer to ?annotate? their texts. Meetings as: well as interviews and group discussions were conducted With staff members. The results of the interviews were Coded into: like; mixed; don't like; don’t know: and not aP-Ntzertained. Comments were recorded on reasons for students' arlswers. The annotations were grouped into favorable and unfavorable reactions. with suggestions for improvement and Passages where the annotator ran into trouble. The annotators \ ‘ 201bid.. p. 108. 2LW.‘W. Charters. Jr.. ?Pretesting a College Text ‘Book.? Educational Research Bulletin. Vol. XXIX (April 12. 1950). pp. 85-95. 19 also rated the chapters in the general groupings of: very interesting; interesting; not sure; uninteresting; and very uninteresting. The author concluded that the unstructured answers made clear cut generalizations impossible. but the pre-test was considered an invaluable aid. allowing the manuscript to be revised on the basis of the information gained. Pre-tests in the U. S. Department of .Agriculturey and State Extension Services Bulletin pre—testing has received considerable aattention in the past four years at the U. S. Department of Ikgriculture. Bulletin editors are conCerned with both the content and the presentation of the bulletins that they Lazaoduce. In their copied ?Proposal for Pretesting 4-H limisterature.? Sabrosky and Sarbaugh submit plans for measuring 1><>1:h content and presentation.22 One method of checking on C=C>Iatent starts by having subject matter specialists. State ‘4"-II Staff members. and County Extension Agents develop a J—jLsst of facts members need for a project. This list is then c'ieaxreflbped into a check list which is administered to 25-50 \ 22Laurel Sabrosky and Larry Sarbaugh. Proposal for EEEE§3esting4-H Literature. Research Proposal IP-180 Afifléishington: Office of Information. U. S. Department of Agriculture. December. 1957). 20 members in that project. Project members are asked to indicate what they already know. and what they want to know or learn from the project. Another method of checking on the content is to compile a list of questions that members aSk 4-H leaders in a number of randomly selected clubs involved with that particular project. Presentation could be measured. according to Sabrosky and Sarbaugh. with one or a combination of two or more of five plans which they list. Plan A has 25-50 club members read mimeographed copies of the manuscript. While reading. they mark words they do not understand. passages that are not clear. places where they need more information. and places where they feel there is unnecessary information. Plan B involves a knowledge test of the content of a manuscript that club members have just read. If a skill is described. then members are asked to try applying the skill. T0 pretest cover pages. Plan C calls for showing three sample cc>‘rers to club members and having them select their preference. Menlbers read a manuscript and suggest titles for it under W. HEP—E. is a long range effort in testing layout and design with a bulletin used in large enough quantities to wa1‘:I:‘ant yearly reprinting. The layout and design are varied with each reprint. and enough extra copies are printed to .' .av‘ I - ‘goni .1: .1“ 21 use in a comparative pre-testing study at the end of the three years. The pretest might include opinions. timed readings. and knowledge and application tests. In a similar paper from the Office of Information in 1958.23 six methods are briefly listed for the pre-testing of bulletins designed for adult consumption. They are: Method 1. Panel of Judges--a committee of county agents and extension specialists. or a panel of writers who have been successful in writing for the intended audience. They evaluate a manuscript and its art work and offer suggestions for its improvement. Method 2. Program Analyzer Pattern--this is a dupli— cation of the CRC procedure developed by Carter and Bush at Stanford. and reported in an earlier section of this chapter. Method 3. Audience Interviewa—a sample of the intended audience is aSked to read the manuscript and look at the art work. marking parts they don't understand. parts they think are useless. and places where they need more information. They would then be aSked what they thought was the main idea presented in selected parts of the manuscript and art work. Method 4. Knowledge Test-~A knowledge test covering the information the author wants the reader to get from the publication is administered to a sample of the intended audience. Method 5. Trial Performance--a sample of the intended audience is asked to perform a Skill described in the publication either after or as they read it. 23Office of Information. Publications Division. 3§Eiégefs on Pre-testing Publications. paper (washington: IJ- S. Department of Agriculture. October. 1958). 22 Method 6. Group Interview--a sample of 5—10 of the intended audience is asked to read the manuscript. and discuss the narration and art work in a group situation. The discussion is directed to bring out opinions about strong and weak parts of the publication and ways to improve it. In the unpublished report of an evaluation of a 4—H Garden Bulletin for beginning members. Taylor and Tedrick report attempts to test the abilities of 4th and 5th grade students to use a planting chart. and how well they under- . . . . . 24 stood a section on sterilizing $011. One hundred and eleven students attempted to answer a ten item quiz from the gxlanting chart. and underlined any words they did not under- srtand in the designated section. The authors state that the study offered findings that were simple to obtain. and yielded information which would have been valuable if known before the bulletin was printed. Panel Audiences A panel of respondents is considered desirable in stillciies where training is required before any responses can be* 11sed. or where the researcher is probing for longitudinal 13115<>rmetion. There are. however. serious problems in working \ 24Lee Taylor and William Tedrick. An Evaluation of éQ3§L_Bulletin 1971.?4-H'Vegetable Garden" (unpublished report. 142}1igan State University. Dec.. 1960). 23 with a panel. Allison and others. in a Journal of Marketing article. list these two major problems for the researcher using a panel audience: (1) Recruiting and maintaining the panel; and (2) the possibility of biased data from a panel.25 An experienced researcher with panels of commercial fanm families is C. H. Sandage. of the University of Illinois. He touches upon the bias problem in another Journal of Marketing article entitled. ?Do Panels wear Out??. His basis for the article was a questionnaire sent to 1.000 Imembers of a commercial farm panel. This same questionnaire vwas used three times over a period of years. The responses unare analyzed by tenure of the respondents on the panel. and 'tlie following statement was issued: It would seem safe to conclude from the history of the Indiana farm panel. that its members did not develop bias as a result of their membership on the panel. The overall pattern resulting from the three waves on interviews and involving substantially the same people over a span of seven years. is one of stability rather than fluctuation.26 ?When Donft Research Panels wear Out?? is the title <31? :a rebuttal of Sandage's article. written by John Ortengren. \ “ 25H. E. Allison. Charles J. Zwick. and A. Brinser. - IREaczruiting and Maintaining a Consumer Panel.? Journal of W. Vol. 22 (1958). pp. 377-90. 26 C. H. Sandage. ?Do Panels wear Out?? Journal of W. Vol. 20 (1956). pp. 397-401. 24 Mr. Ortengren answers his own question: .. . . seldom. Consumer panels do wear out. for the most part. particularly in testing products.27 He feels that in testing products. there must be a learning process that takes place through the testing of the same products. thereby resulting in stereotype answers sub- consciously tied to prior experiences with the product. Because of a lack of research reports dealing with the exact tenure of panel members and because of the experience of Dr. Sandage in working with commercial farmer panels. this .author wrote to Dr. Sandage. questioning him as to any data car generalizations he might provide concerning this problem. (Jf special concern was what might be called the ?fatigue Lleevel? of panel members due to frequent or lengthy requests for assistance. Dr. Sandage's written reply indicated that 1162 had no quantitative analysis of the ?fatigue level? Ellfciblem. In his panel. which operates with incentives to the respondents. he has found that generally more dissatisfaction 3L53 <3aused by infrequent mailings. rather than by too many. 1313‘- Sandage indicates he will receive a number of queries f3:‘<>Inpane1 members if seven or eight weeks elapse between \ ' ’ 27John Ortengren. ?When Don‘t Research Panels wear out?" Journal of Marketing. Vol. 21 (1957). p. 442. “I 25 28 . . requests. Usually he receives some unfavorable reaction if the frequency of the requests is increased during the heavy spring or fall seasons for farm work. but for these two times of the year. he would expect no adverse reaction from requests as frequent as every two weeks. In the foreward to a report on establishing a consumer panel by the Market Research Corporation of America. Earl L. Houseman. Statistician for the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. elaborates on the bias problem involved in consumer ;panels. He specifies two kinds of bias: (1) the simple loias resulting from an insufficient percentage of cooperators firom the original randomly selected list; and (2) the reporting eezrrors from the households not accurately recording their 29 purchases . In the study. the panel members were expected to record in a diary their purchases of specified food items. and ‘t<> Inail their records weekly to the research corporation. This involved from ten to thirty minutes of time each week. ar1<3 the respondents were remunerated with ?points? which could Thea eexchanged for merchandise. The residents of 1.120 \ _ 28C. H. Sandage. personal letter to Ivan M. Lappin in reply to a request for information relating to panel studies. March 15. 1961. 29U. S. Department of Agriculture. Establishing a 'BEfiaional Consumer Panel from a Probability Sample. marketing IRESearch Report No. 40. forwarded by Earl E. Heuseman VWashington. June. 1953). 26 randomly selected dwelling units were to be contacted in reference to participating on the panel. Six percent of the dwelling units were vacant. had not been called on by a deadline date. or the households were ineligible. Five per- cent were not contacted because of a limit of three not-at- home calls. Of the remaining 993 households. 58% agreed to cooperate and did send in at least one report. Forty-six percent cooperated through the two month training period. After six months. 35%»of the 993 households were reporting regularly. This figure is 31% of the 1.120 households on 'the original list. Cooperation in the study tended to be best among llouseholds where the housewife was in the younger age groups. as well as those households with more than two members. Success in obtaining initial and continuing cooperation Seemed to depend on three factors: (1) communication to the fEthnilies of the exact purposes of the study. including a53:3urance that responses would not be used in any way diee1:rimental to the families; (2) providing incentive. valeather it be monetary compensation. giving help to the field reIpresentative or company. social benefits of helping in a uSeful project. or the prestige of having been chosen; and V3) the burden imposed upon the householder. due to the 27 accuracy required in the reports. This effort did not provide a solution to the problem of getting a rate of cooperation in a randomly selected sample of households high enough to eliminate the possibility of bias due to non-response. It was concluded that in order to find ways of eliminating this non-response bias further research must be conducted on methods of contacting prospective panel members. use of incentives. and elimination of the burden of responding. However. also needed are attacks directed at the evaluation of any bias due to non—response. and possibly the development of techniques for statistically making adjustments for non- response . Interviewing and Mail Questionnaires Advantages agd Disadvantages Sharp and Feldt report. in an article relative to the University of Michigan's 1958 Detroit area study. that re turns of interviews after a 75% response are expensive. 13111: 'that more than 15-18% non—response makes the results Iirlxrzalid.3l In the study. interviewers continued to contact \ 3OIbidol P0 5. 31Harry Sharp and Allen Feldt. ?Some Factors in a Probability Sample of a Metropolitan Conununity._" Amepican r§Sflaiglogicgl Review. VOl. 24 (1959). pp. 650-61. . on] ‘3' (U ’1‘ 1 fl! L_1 1'.) (n 0-9 n no.0 id q «a. y! .nl.‘ . . w . P.7EO O'b 5d ~A . ‘\ n- 0-. .fl 1- " I l 40".»: I 1.125. ‘5‘.- to." .1. {J u F0' ‘1: j 2‘». ~." 28 the probability sample until. (1) an interview was granted; (2) a final and definite refusal resulted; (3) the respondent was judged incompetent; or (4) a satisfactory response rate was reached. The interviewers averaged three calls to each sample member. with nearly twice as many calls being made to non-respondents. This study seems to indicate that obtaining satis- factory responses in the interviewing of a probability sample is expensive. Cost. however. is not usually a problem when 11sing a mail questionnaire. Benson. in ?Meil Surveys Can Be \naluable.? lists low cost as one of the advantages of mail surveys. Other advantages cited are: (l) the ability to rweach a widely dispersed sample of respondents; (2) more :realiable answers on certain subjects where the presence of a1: interviewer might weight the responses; (3) everyone receives a lxniform stimulus. and (4) it is easier to obtain opinions of all members of a household. He lists the disadvantages of a mail survey as: (l) difficulty of obtaining returns f1?<>1n an accurate cross-section; (2) may be biasing in retlerns due to extremes in opinions; (3) only a limited number of questions may be asked; (4) on the spot informational \ 32 n 0 .. Lawrence E. Benson. ,Mail Surveys Can Be Valuable., 'P‘flblic Qpinioniguarterly. vo1. 10 (1946). pp. 234-41. .u g..— . 31" 'J-U I v-n N“: rd: 3“ 'w a" ‘1 i. EI 01 29 type answers are not valid; (5) the value of question sequence is erased; (6) no opportunity for probing; (7) can expect only a limited number of vital statistics; and (8) cannot be assured it is the individuals own response. The first two disadvantages of mail surveys as listed above (representativeness and bias) are further explored by Cahalan and Meier. in their evaluation of the classic mail survey blunder. the 1936 Presidential poll by the Literary Digest.33 They say that the first indication of the invalidity of the responses was the low 23.5% return rate <3ut of ten million ballots mailed out. The second major Inoportion of farmers. laborers. and reliefers. This evaluation shows that nearly equal numbers of people over Eisyee 45. and people under age 45 responded. while in the na'tzion. there were only 26 million people over age 45 as <=<>Inpared with 48 million people under age 45. Ninety per- <3€311t of the respondents in the survey were men. while only 60% of the voters in the election were men. The authors' \ 33Don Cahalan and Norman C. Meier. ?The Validity of Mail Ballot Polls.? The Psychological Record. Vol. 3 (1939). pp. 3-11. 30 final comments are that persons of higher income are more favorable to polls and tend more to return their questionnaires. and that the Republicans were more apt to return the ballots as the protesting party not in power. The Problem of Non—Response The non-response question is dealt with in three journal articles that are reported here. Edgerton and associates measured the differences among respondents to a nail questionnaire and state the following: The results are consistent with the findings of previous studies which have indicated that interest in the subject under investigation. or ties to the questionnaire sponsor are related to high percentage of returns.34 This. they imply. indicates that: Intensive and vigorous followup is a basic tenet in mail questionnaire research.35 In another study. Hansen and Hurwitz devised a 1Zeaczhnique for combining the convenience of the mail question- IlEi:ire. and the avoidance of non—response characteristic of 131162 interview.36 They randomly selected a sub-sample of the \ 34H. A. Edgerton. S. T. Britt. and R. D. Norman. T'CJIajective Differences Among various Types of Respondents to ‘3» Idailed Questionnaire.? American Sociological Review. Vol. 12 (1947) . pp. 435-44. 3SIbid. 36 . . . . Morris H. Hansen and Wllllam N. HurW1tz. ?The Problem of Non-Response in Sample Surveys." American Statisti- Qians Association Journal. vol. 41 (1946). pp. 517-28. 31 non-respondents. and made every effort to obtain responses from this group. The data from this group was projected to be representative of the entire non-response group. Houseman. in his article on treatment of the non- response problem. says: Non-response is not serious unless the respondents differ appreciably from the non-respondents.37 Houseman points out that if there is any indication of a difference. then an effort should be made for a high rate of return. or satisfactory means of adjusting for the non- :response bias should be employed. Doing nothing about non- :reeponse is assuming that non—respondents are the same as respondents . He adds that : Substitution is deficient as a solution to the non- response problem because the substitutes do not con- stitute. in a statistical sense. a sample of the non-respondents.38 13163 fact that they might well be more like the respondents than the non-respondents is brought out. The article goes ‘311 'to rate as advantageous the selection of substitutes by area or locality. or by matching some characteristic of the Substitutes and the non-respondents. Weighing the data \ 37Earl E. Houseman. ?Statistical Treatment of the Non—Response Problem. ? Agricultural Economics Research. V01. 5. pp. 12-19. 381bid. (I: n! .',. .. “.5 ~q.: not II -1 t): g _ ' o .‘3. ‘ovn I A. :1 U. . 5|: Hub '"7- L ~:..L ‘ .Pz‘ .04. M". iv“. (7 '1 D ‘ V I“ ~. I ‘ 4 32 is about equal to selecting substitutes in the field. There is frequently too much confidence that weighing poor data will give good results.39 The author does submit a statistical plan whereby the data is analyzed by waves as it is returned. and any differences in successive waves are projected to the non-respondents. The basis of the Houseman study is a nation-wide interviewing survey held in metropolitan areas. cities. towns. and open country. It is interesting to note the types of areas are ranked in the order stated above as to the number of calls needed to complete the interviews. as well as to -the number of refusals. In the metropolitan areas ten per- <:ent.of the interviews were obtained on the fourth call. VVILile in the open country no fourth calls were needed. Yet the number of completed interviews was highest in the open <=<>11ntry at 91 percent. The author concludes that the number (>15 call backs can be lowered by finding out from the neighbors VVTleen.the subject will be home. calling at different times j4rl the day. or making an appointment for the specific person. Three calls are all that are normally practical. unless a IECDILIth would be convenient when making other calls. \ 391bid. 'I9‘ 13" iv.‘ a (II TI. 4 l RAVI: n... V A '1‘. ‘1‘“. 33 Increasing the Response Rate Several techniques are recommended to increase the percentage of return on mail questionnaires. One of these is not requiring a signature on the questionnaire. In relation to this point Fischer states in a journal article: . . . it would appear that the use of signatures on personal questionnaires might have a relative inhibitory effect on the honesty and frankness of the people responding to them.40 In the report of a test to measure emotional stability. Olsen concluded: There is thus a high probability that more symptoms will be reported in an initial application of an instrument when names are omitted.4l These two studies are contradicted by Corey. who aadhninistered a questionnaire to students involving censure. fie: concludes that in certain instances students are as forth- 13j.§fimt in their expressions with signed as with unsigned 1. 23 (1958). pp. 186-87. 4Joseph C. Bevis. ?Economical Incentive Used for ?Nkail Questionnaires.? Public Qpinion anrterly. vol. 12 (1948) . pp. 492-93. 45‘William M. Kephart and.Marvin Bressler. ?Increasing the Responses to Mail Questionnaires: A Research Study.? lic inion arterl vol. 22 (1958). pp. 123-32. o .n v .“I u . .7 hav' a Ann .1 I'- -.q‘ 15% If, '4" I. . “JP-u '5: RA ‘ I ‘3‘, A .~\‘ ‘ Q‘s 0" N: ‘ ‘ 35 was no significant increase with l¢. 5¢. or 10¢ payments. but a 25¢ incentive resulted in a significant increase. These investigators also experimented with the use of preview letters. and followup letters. They concluded that preview letters were ineffective either alone or with a followup letter. but that followup letters were effective either alone or with a preview letter. In reference to postage stamps. they found that airmail stamps tended to result in more return than regular postage stamps. and that special delivery stamps were more effective than regular postage stamps. However. neither the 25¢ incentive nor the special delivery stamp resulted in a higher return than the follow- up letter. ?Postage Stamps Do Affect Results of YOur Mailing? is the title of a journal article by Mayer.46 With all other variables equal he concludes. the best results are obtained by using commemorate or new stamps. regardless of color. as long as they are used immediately. There is some concern over the simplicity or complexity of questions on mail questionnaires. and the 46Edward N. Mayer. Jr.. ?Postage Stamps Do Affect Results of Your Mailing.? Printers Ink (October 4. 1946). p. 91. 36 amount and validity of return to expect. Alice and Douglas Scates. while recognizing disadvantages of mail question- naires similar to those reviewed earlier from Benson's work. contend that a depth questionnaire can be developed to use in mail surveys that will obtain a comparable number of returns as simple questionnaires. provided ordinary effort and followups are used.47 The type of questionnaire they describe has essay questions and responses. gives the advantage of providing exactly the same questions to everyone. gives recorded responses. stimulates more concrete thought through writing. and lets the respondent take his time. They further claim that the essay questions will increase the likeliness of a more sound self-estimate of action or intent. and that some questions can be valuable in getting the respondent started—-to get certain attitudes ?off his chest? thus eliminating possible blocks to answering other questions. They conclude their article by professing that this type of questionnaire will give indications of potential action that are more likely to be valid than simple objective types of responses. 47Douglas E. and Alice Y. Scates. ?Developing a Depth Questionnaire to Explore Motivation and Likelihood of Action.? Educational and Ppychological Measurement. vol. 12 (1952). pp. 620-31. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Definition of Terms The following terms are defined as they are used in this study. Manuscript-—(or bulletin manuscript)--a preliminary copy of a future bulletin. distributed for the purposes of reviewing. editing. and revising before final publication. Bulletin--(or popular bulletin)--a written information piece in its final form. designed to convey factual information to those of the general public interested in the subject matter it contains. Publication--a written information piece either in the manu- script or the bulletin stage. Publicapion Test--the pre-testing of a publication through the use of the four procedures compared in this study. Helpfulness of the Responses--the rating given to the responses from the pre-test studies based on hOW'Well the returns indicate the respondents? opinion and understanding of the publication. 37 38 Similarity of Responses--the extent to which two or more pre-test procedures obtain equal opinions and equal under- standing of the same information. ‘ggnglr-a sample of the intended bulletin audience who agreed to review four publications. and report information relative to their understanding and opinion of the information con- tained therein. Non-Pane1--a sample of the intended bulletin audience who were asked to read one publication and report information relative to their understanding and opinion of the information contained therein. The Criteria for Efficiency In order to fulfill the major purposes of this study it is necessary to establish more concretely what is meant by the term ?efficiency? as it relates to pre-testing. Three criteria are used in this study to establish the efficiency of a particular pre-testing procedure. They are: l. The amount of helpfulness in the responses from each procedure. 2. The cost of getting audience reaction with each procedure. 3. The length of time in days from the initial distri- bution of the test manuscripts. to the final collection of data. 39 In this study's supplementary concern with validity of pre-test responses. another criteria that does not enter into the efficiency of obtaining responses but which effects any conclusion on pre-testing procedures. is the similarity of the opinions and responses from the various procedures for each manuscript. The Test Manuscripts There are four test manuscripts used in this study. Two of them were written at the U. S. Department of Agriculture. while the other two were written at Michigan State University. The publications were selected to be of interest to dairy farmers. The farmer bulletin manuscripts from USDA are: ‘Bgising’Dairy Calves and Heifers and Zoning for Rural Areas. The extension bulletin manuscripts from Michigan State university are: Silage in the Dairy Ration and Mastitis Control in Michigan Herds. The first three are new publi- cations. the latter was in the process of revision while the pre-test study was carried on. The manuscripts on dairy calves and on silage were mimeographed for distribution to the test samples. Any pictures or illustrations in these were sketched to give an indication of what the art work would be like. The zoning manuscript was printed in multilith form. with the art work printed as it would be in the final 40 bulletin. The mastitis publication cannot rightfully be termed a manuscript. for actual copies of the original bulletin were used for the pre-test. with the anticipation that the responses obtained would be valuable in determining what revisions to make. The three agricultural bulletins were written by the authors for dairy farmers. while the zoning bulletin was written for rural people. All four of the manuscripts were pre-tested as they were received from the author. with no attempt being made to measure the read- ability or to alter the publication in any way. The four publications were tested in the following order: first. Raising Dairy Calves and Heifers; second. .§;l§ge in the Dairpration; third. Zoning for Rural Areas; and fourth.Mastitis Control in Michigan Herds. Copies of each manuscript are located in Appendix C. Selecting the Study Location In selecting the location for the study an effort was made to insure that the subjects were representative of all of the intended audience of dairy farmers. as well as being located within a reasonable distance of the study headquarters. Ingham County. in which Michigan State University is located. was ruled out as the study location. Although it is one of the leading dairy counties in the state. the 41 nearness of the university and the possibility of the subjects having had greater than average contacts with Michigan State indicated that the data obtained from the study might not be representative of all dairy farmers in Michigan. The next area considered was Clinton County. the south boundary of which is approximately five miles north of the Michigan State campus. The county is 24 miles square. the county seat being 25 miles north-northeast of the campus. Clinton County is one of seventeen counties in Michigan with more than 15.000 milking cows. In an effort to more nearly assure the representativenss of the dairy farmers in Clinton County with those in all of Michigan. the following figures from the 1954 Agricultural Census48 were compared. MICHIGAN CLINTON 1. Number of farms 138.923 2.602 1674/county 2. Average size of farms 118.5 acres 127.5 acres 3. Value of average farm $15,508 ($20,441 4. value of average acre of farm land $131. $157. 48U. S. Bureau of the Census. U. S. Census of Agriculture: 1954 (washington: U. S. Government Printing Office). lo. 11. 12. The 42 Percent of dairy farms (those with 50% of their farm income from the sale of dairy products or dairy animals) Total farm operators working off of the farm Farm operators working less than 100 days per year off of the farm Farm operators working 100 or more days per year off of the farm Farm operators not work- ing off the farm Number of milk cows (including dry cows and heifers that have calved) Milk sold per year Pounds of milk per cow per year MICHIGAN 27.1% 54.5% 15.1% 39.4% 45.5% 9.6/farm 79.542 lbs. per farm 8.285 lbs. CLINTON 27.9% (742) 50.2% 16.3% 33.9% 49.8% 10.1/farm 84.417 lbs. per farm (1.264 farms) 8.358 lbs. similarity of the figures in item 2. and 5 through 12 above. along with the convenient location. resulted in the selection of Clinton County as the study area for contacting those to represent the intended bulletin audiences. To select the location of the county extension agents to participate in the study all counties in Michigan with 43 more than 15.000 milk cows. by the 1954 Agricultural Census. were considered as prospective areas. The County Extension Agent responsible for the dairy program in each of these counties was considered as a possible participant in the study. Obtaining a Representative Sample The intended audience for the test publications was defined as dairy farmers. (An exception to this was the zoning publication. but dairy farmers were used in its pre- test.) For the purposes of the study. a dairy farmer was defined as any person who marketed milk products from his farm through the services of a creamery. condensary. or other type of dairy products plant. To compile a list of the dairy farmers in Clinton County. all milk products plants in Clinton and surrounding counties which collected milk or cream from farms in Clinton County were visited. Farmer lists were made available by all of these business concerns. so a thorough list was made. A total of 857 names were obtained. along with addresses and location in the county. This is only 68% of the number of farms reporting selling milk products in the 1954 Agriculture Census. However. the number of such farms 44 probably decreased in the seven years since the census. and the census may have included those farms not regularly shipping milk or cream. With the use of a table of random numbers. 300 names were selected out of the compiled list of dairy farmers. All of the names. addresses. and locations of these people were recorded in preparation for contacting them during the study. Out of the seventeen county extension agents eligible for the study. five were subjectively selected to be inter- viewed on all of the test publications on the basis of their nearness to Michigan State University. Five others of the remaining twelve were randomly selected to be contacted entirely by mail for the pre-testing of the four publications. Data Collection Procedures The Study Layout To obtain information on the efficiency of the four procedures of collecting pre—test data each procedure was used in the pre-testing of each test manuscript. Table 1 illustrates the study plan and the order of the data collection. 45 TABLE 1 STUDY'LAYOUT FOR COLLECTING PRE-TEST DATA FROM FOUR TEST MANUSCRIPTS THROUGH THE USE OF FOUR PROCEDURES Panel Non— Panel Non— Agent Agent #1 Panel #2 Panel Sample Sample Manuscript # 1 Mail Interview Mail Interview Interview Mail Manuscript # 2 Interview Mail Interview Mail Interview Mail .Manuscript # 3 Mail Interview Mail Interview Interview Mail .Manuscript # 4 Interview Mail Interview Mail Interview Mail Thus. for each manuscript there is: For For -one panel group receiving mail questionnaires. -one non-panel group receiving mail questionnaires. -one panel group being interviewed. -one non-panel group being interviewed. -one agent group receiving mail questionnaires. and -one agent group being interviewed. each panel group there is: —four test manuscripts. -two mail questionnaires. and -two interviews. (When one panel is being interviewed about a manuscript. the other is receiving a mail questionnaire.) non-panel groups there is: -one test publication per each non-panel group. and -two non-panel groups per test publication. (When one non— panel group is being interviewed about a manuscript. the other is receiving a mail questionnaire.) For agent groups. one was interviewed about all four test publi- cations. while the other group received mail questionnaires of all four test publications. 46 Each of the ten dairy farmer groups (two panel groups. and eight different non-panel groups) contain thirty sub- jects. Each of the extension agent groups contain five subjects. To form the groups. each of the 300 dairy farmers in the representative sample were randomly distributed into the ten sub-samples. Each sub-sample was then randomly assigned to be one of the two panel groups. or one of the eight non-panel groups. The Type of Data Collected Understanding and Perception of Need In attempting to determine if dairy farmers under— stand the information presented in the test publications. two steps were used. 1. The respondents were asked to carefully read the manuscript and to underline any word. group of words. or sentence that they felt might not be understood. 2. After the respondents read the manuscript they were asked to answer some application type questions from the information in the manuscript. The questions were ?open bodk? on the assumption that in an actual problem situation the respondent would be able to consult the bulletin if he so desired. The questions were specifically related to the manu- script so the respondent had little possibility to accurately answer the questions from other sources. or from past experience. 47 (No attempt was made to measure the actual application of the information by the respondent to his own situation. as other factors influence the acceptance of a practice. and the time involved between exposure and acceptance is too great to be practical for the revision of the bulletin.) To determine the respondents' perception of their need for the information in the test publications. another two steps were used. 1. The respondents were asked to cross out any word. group of words. or sentence that they felt was not needed. They were to do this as they read through the manuscript. The information that they crossed out could have been either that which they thought was not needed in relation to the subject matter being covered. or information that they thought farmers already knew. 2. The manuscripts were divided into sections called ?idea units.? Each of these units encompassed a new topic or idea. and was normally from one to three pages in length. At the end of each unit was a rating device where the respondent rated the information in the unit as: very useful. quite useful. of some use. of little use. or not useful. The information was rated on the basis of its use- fulness to the respondent in his own operation. The respondents were also instructed to write comments in the margins. These might include: why they underlined or struck out some of the wrods; why they thought the information was useful or not useful; or any other comments they desired to make about the material. The extension agents were asked to project themselves into the position of the dairy farmer. and to do the following: 48 1. Read the manuscript and cross out any word. group of words. or sentence they felt was not needed by the farmers to understand the subject. or infor- mation that the farmers already knew. 2. Rate the information in each unit as to its useful- ness to the dairy farmer in his operation. 3. To underline any word. group of words. or sentence in the manuscript they felt the farmers would not understand. (Initially. the extension agents were asked to answer the application type questions. and to indicate how well they thought the dairy farmers would be able to answer these from the manuscript. This step was abandoned on the basis that it was not getting any information that would be of help in determining the agentsf ability to predict the farmers understanding or opinion of the information.) The extension agents were also asked to make any comments they ‘wished about any of the markings which they had made. or any comments about the material in the manuscript or the way in which it was presented. In an additional effort to analyze the opinions of farmers on the silage publication. the subjects were asked to indicate if they fed silage to their dairy herd. and if so. what kind. The respondents to the zoning publication were asked three additional questions to determine to what extent the information had increased their understanding. and altered their opinions of zoning. They were aSked to estimate What their opinions of zoning had been before they had read the manuscript. if reading the manuscript had 49 increased their understanding of zoning. and if their opinions of zoning had changed in any way due to reading the manu- script. If their opinions had changed. then they were asked in what way. These items were included as part of the questionnaire containing the application type questions for the particular publication. To Fulfill the Purposes of the Study Information needed to compare the criteria for efficiency was collected as follows: Cost--detailed records were kept on all costs incurred in the actual pre-testing activity. such as. paper. envelopes. postage. supplies. secretarial time. investi- gators time. milage. and telephone cells. All of these costs were carefully recorded against the method. or methods which had been responsible for them. Time and milage for the interviews were divided between the two interviewed groups for each publication test on the basis of the number of calls and the number of inter- views obtained from each group. The costs of obtaining the lists of dairy farmers and sampling and sub-dividing this list was charged l/lOth to each study group. The cost charged to each panel group was then further divided for each publication that was tested. The costs of contacting and visiting prospective panel members was totaled. and l/8th of this was charged to each panel group on each publication tested. Time. supplies. and equipment used in comparing the test groups were not included in the records. as these expenses would not be present in the normal pre-testing by any of the methods being studied. Therefore. the costs recorded for the four procedures on each publication are strictly those costs incurred in locating the test groups. contacting them. distributing the manuscripts. and collecting the data necessary to measure their understanding and opinion of the publication. 50 Length of Time--the number of days elapsed from the distribution of the first manuscript to the receipt of the last response was recorded for each procedure on each publication. Helpfulness of Response--the underlinings. cross outs. comments written in the manuscripts by the respondents. and any additional information obtained by the inter— viewer was used to determine the comparative degree of helpfulness of the responses from each procedure on each publication. Similarity of Responses--the average quiz scores. and the average opinion rating from each procedure were compared for each manuscript. Additional information relating to the minor purposes of the study. and for comparison of the groups of respondents was collected as follows: ‘Willingness of Farmers to Responde-records were kept as to the number of responses for each procedure. whether by mail or interview. The number of calls needed to complete each interview was recorded for each group as well. Also. each respondent was asked if he was willing to serve on a panel to read up to ten new bulletins in a year. and give his opinions on them. This query was made to all respondents of the first publication test administered to respondents. Tenure of the Panel Members--the number of members who dropped from each panel was recorded. as well as the number who responded to each manuscript. those who responded to all four manuscripts. and those whose responses were complete. Representativeness of Each Group--information was requested from each respondent pertaining to the following important characteristics: Age; Education. Size of Farm; Number of Milking Cows; Number of other Dairy Animals; Off-Farm Employment; Herd Production Average; and the Percent of Their Farm Income Received From the Sale of Dairy Products or Dairy Animals. Each respondent was also asked whether or not he knew that bulletins were available from the U. S. Department of Agriculture and 51 Michigan State University. and. if so. if they had used any bulletins on any subject in the past two years. (The data on herd production was not analyzed because of lack of accurate records by the respondents.) Contaqging the Sample Groups The prospective respondents were contacted initially by mail and informed of their having been selected to parti- cipate in the study. Those in the non-panel groups received a cover letter along with the manuscript that they were requested to review. The letter stated whether they would be interviewed or would receive a mail questionnaire. This was the only contact with the non-panel groups prior to the interview or the mail questionnaire.» If they were to be interviewed. the cover letter contained a handwritten post- script indicating the approximate day that the interviewer would visit their farm. There were no substitutions for any non-panel members refusing to respond. Those respondents in the panels received a letter informing them of the study. and a personal visit from the interviewer approximately a week later soliciting their help. If they agreed to review the four publications they were given the first manuscript and told when they would receive the questionnaire or when they would be called on to be interviewed. All of the panel members were also asked 52 what time of the day would be most convenient for the inter— viewer to call. If they refused to participate in the study. another dairy farmer was randomly selected from the original list from the dairy plants and called on without prior contact by letter. Whenever a panel member was interviewed on a publi- cation. he was given the next manuscript before the inter- viewer left and told when the questionnaire would be sent. If he received a mail questionnaire. the next manuscript was included in the mailing with the questionnaire and the cover letter included a handwritten postscript indicating the approximate date that the interviewer would call at the farm. Time Allowed for Reviewing the Manuscripts Under the assumption that the interviews for each manuscript would take about two weeks. the study design called for all subjects to have possession of each manuscript on the average of two weeks before they received a mail questionnaire or were interviewed. The minimum length of possession was to be one week. with a maximum of three weeks. The mail questionnairesfor non-panel members were to be sent exactly two weeks after the manuscripts were sent. The 53 interviews for the non-panel members and the panel members receiving the manuscript by mail were to begin one week after they received their manuscripts. and they were to be completed three weeks after the manuscripts had been received. The panel members who received manuscripts during the initial interviews on the previous publication test were to receive their mail questionnaires three weeks later. Those who received their manuscripts during the last interviews on the previous publication test were to receive their mail question- naires one week later. The members of the panel to be interviewed on the first publication received their manuscripts when they agreed to participate in the study. The interviews with this group were to begin two weeks after the first members reviewed their manuscripts. and were to be completed two weeks after the last members received their manuscripts. Under actual study conditions. extenuating circum— stances resulted in altering the average length of time that each manuscript was in the respondents' possession. Only ten days were required to secure the sixty panel members. and to distribute the first manuscripts. The interviews were begun two weeks after the distribution was begun. but they continued for two and one-half weeks. These occurrences 54 resulted in increasing the average length of time the respondents possessed the first manuscript. There was an 18 day delay between the interviewing for the first manuscript and the interviewing for the second manuscript. During this time all four of the groups had possession of the second manuscript. Once under way the interviews required two weeks to complete. working with some respondents who had had the manuscript for six weeks. Interviewing for the third and fourth publications began with no more than a one-day delay after the interviews for the previous publication had been completed. The inter- views were completed for each of theSe two publication tests in one week. resulting in an average possession time on the third publication test of one and one-half weeks. and for the fourth of only one week. Followaup Letters and Call Back Procedures All non—panel subjects not returning their mail questionnaires within one week from the day they should have received them were sent follow-up letters urging them to complete the review of the manuscript. Any members who had not yet responded within one week from the day they should have received the first follow-up letter were sent 55 a second such reminder urging them to respond. The second follow-up letter for the first manuscript also included another manuscript. questionnaire. and form for the personal information. in the hopes of conveying to the non—respondents the degree of interest in their responses. Since this practice was costly in terms of time. supplies. and postage. it was dropped because only one more response was received after this second followup was mailed. All panel or non-panel members to be interviewed received an initial visit and not more than two call backs in attempting to complete an interview. The actual subject or a responsible person who was of definite help in expres- sing the subjectfs progress or willingness was contacted before a stop was considered to be an initial visit or a call back. The only exception to the number of call backs was when the second call back resulted in a definite appoint- ment to conduct the interview at a later time. After the initial visit to some of the subjects on the second and fourth publications. telephone calls were used. If a telephone call resulted in a definite communi- cation about the interview. it was considered as a call back. The only time that less than three visits were made without completing an interview was when a definite refusal 56 was received from the subject or his responsible representative. Those panel members who did not return their mail questionnaires were visited in turn on the succeeding manu- script. No mention was made of the non-response on the previous publication unless the subject initiated the topic. In such a case the interviewer indicated that the immediate concern was the interview on the current publication. but that the subject could complete his review of the previous manuscript and mail it in if he so desired. This action was considered equivalent to a followeup letter. so when the delay arose prior to the interviews on the second publication. those panel members not responding to the mail questionnaire on the first publication were sent a follow-up letter at the same time that the first follow-up letter was sent to the non-panel members not responding. Likewise. the panel members not responding to the mail questionnaire on the fourth and last publication were sent one followeup letter because there was no remaining personal contact between them and the interviewer. Any panel member who was not interviewed after three visits and who had not asked to be dropped from the study. was given the succeeding manuscript. told when the mail questionnaire would be sent to him. and urged to continue 57 in the study by reading and responding to the remaining manuscripts. Once sixty panel members were obtained who agreed to read and respond to the four manuscripts no substitutions were made for any members dropping out. The data from all panel respondents on all publications was considered in the analysis of the data. This would be the normal procedure if pre-testing publications with a panel of subjects as not all subjects would respond to all publications. but all of the responses received would be used in the evaluation of the publications. The extension agents received their manuscripts and were interviewed at the same time the dairy farmers were interviewed. The only exception to this was that the third and fourth manuscripts were discussed during a single visit. either during. or shortly after the interviews on the fourth publication were being conducted with the dairy farmers. There were no follow-up letters sent to those extension agents receiving mail questionnaires. and since telephone appointments were made with those extension agents to be interviewed. no call backs were necessary. 58 Data Collection Instruments written Instruments in the study design may be found in Appendix B. Form A. Form Form Form Form Form Form Form Form Form Form Form Form D1 D2 D3 D4 The letters. questionnaires. and other forms listed These are: Introduction letter to non-panel members to be interviewed.* Introduction letter to non-panel members to receive mail questionnaires.* . . . . * Instructions for reVierng the manuscripts. Knowledge questionnaire for Raisinngairy Calves and Heifers. Knowledge questionnaire for Silageyin the Dairy Ration. Knowledge questionnaire for Zoning for Rural Areas. Knowledge questionnaire for Mastitis Control for Michigan Herds. Introduction letter to prospective panel members. Personal letter soliciting aid from the county extension agents. Letter to panel members to accompany mail questionnaire and the next manuscript.* Letter to non-panel members to accompany the mail questionnaire.* Individual letters to the extension agents with envelopes for returning the current manuscript and a copy of the following one.* First followeup letter to non-panel members not responding to the mail questionnaire.* 59 Form K. Second folloWhup letter to non—panel members not responding to the mail questionnaire.* Form P. Personal Data form for all participating subjects. Four form letters were used in the study that had not been called for in the study design. They are: l. Followup letter to panel members not responding to the mail questionnaire on the first manuscript. 2. Letter to all members of the panel and non-panel groups to be interviewed on the second manuscript. relative to the delay in the schedule. 3. Letter to all members of the panel and non-panel groups to be interviewed on the second manuscript. indicating the new schedule for the interviews. 4. Follow-up letter to panel members not responding to the mail questionnaire on the fourth manuscript. All of the letters were written in the same format. were mimeographed on letterhead from the Department of Information Services at Michigan State University. and the stencils were all signed by the Extension Editor at Information Services. They were all written for the purposes of creating interest in the study. clearly indicating the role of the respondent. and expressing appreciation for the subject's cooperation. The knowledge questionnaires consisted of application type questions. written to allow a minimal amount of correct *Indicates that slight revisions were made to the form as it was used with the different manuscripts. 60 answers from guessing. past experience. or other sources. All respondents to a manuscript. regardless of the procedure in which they were involved. were aSked to use the knowledge questionnaire and personal data form. They also read the same manuscript and were asked to rate their opinions of the information in the same way. The differences in the proce- dures were that those respondents who were interviewed were aSked all of the items on the knowledge test verbally. and the interviewer was able to probe for additional information. Procedures for Securing Panel Members ‘When contacting the prospective panel members at the beginning of the study. the interviewer upon arrival to the farm would request an audience with the subject whose name was on the list. If this person was not actively engaged in running or managing the farm. then the person doing such was asked to participate in the study instead. If the prospective subject was not available. then the person(s) on hand were given the reason for the call. and a return time was set to contact the farm operator. When the appropriate person was located the purpose of the study was explained to him and he was asked to participate in the study by reviewing the four manuscripts. If he expressed a willingness to participate he was instructed 61 in the procedures to be followed and given the first manu- script. During this visit every effort was made to convince the prospective subject of the importance of the study. and of the need for all dairy farmers to be represented. At the same time the responsibilities of the panel member were spelled out as clearly as possible to increase the likelihood of retaining cooperation once the panel members agreed to participate. Interviewing Procedures When the first interview was being conducted with each respondent. he was told that the session would consist of some questions he would be requested to answer from the manuscript. in getting his comments and feelings about various parts of the manuscript and the manuscript as a whole. and in obtaining some information about himself and the size of his farm to assure that all dairy farmers in Clinton County were represented. The interviewer read the knowledge questions to the respondent. and had a copy of the form available for reference by the farmer if he wished to follow it. The subject was asked to look up the answers in the manuscript and give them 62 to the interviewer to record. If the respondent already knew the answer he was asked to locate it in the manuscript anyway. as it was the manuscript that was being tested. There was no time limit placed on any of the questions and items were left unanswered only if the respondent indicated that he could not find the answer. or if the interviewer felt that the respondent was not making any progress after a futile search for the answer. The interviewer did not give any affirmative or negative signs or reactions when an answer was given. nor was any help consciously given to the respondent in locating answers. When going through the manuscript itself the inter- viewer would query the respondent on the exact reason for any marks he had made in it and for any comments he had written. At the same time the respondent was asked about his opinions and understanding of various charts. tables. illustrations. and passages in the manuscript. All of these remarks were recorded in the margins of the manuscript. If it was found while interviewing on the first publication test that a respondent had not cheeked his rating on the idea units. he was asked to do so at that time. Because of the length of the interviews on the second publication test neglect of this step by the respondent was 63 not mentioned. and therefore. neglect by any respondent to rate the units on the third and fourth publication tests was not mentioned. The publication in general was then discussed with the respondent and general impressions of his feelings were obtained. Such points as the usefulness of the information. the newness of the information. the helpfulness of the charts. and the ease of reading and understanding were raised. ‘When the farmer was asked for the information concerning his age. education. and size of operation. he was told that this information was needed to compare the groups helping in the study. and to compare the groups to all farmers in Clinton County. He was not told that all responses would be kept anonymous (which they were) unless he raised the point. Instances of need to explain this were rare. Pre-Testing_the Procedures The procedures were given a brief trial before the initiation of the study itself to locate any problems. Three dairy farmers in Ingham County and one undergraduate student in dairy at Michigan State University helped in this preliminary step of the study. All were mailed a copy of the first manuscript along with a set of the reviewing instructions. just as a non-panel member would receive theirs. The following 64 week all three of the farmers were interviewed. The inter- views were all tape recorded. allowing the interviewer to correct his errors in conducting interviews before the study began. The knowledge questionnaire itself received some minor changes due to difficulties experienced by farmers in interpretating some of the items. The student who responded was not interviewed in order to simulate the return of a mail questionnaire. The responses from the four trial subjects were then used to gain some insight into the problems involved in compiling the data. and for a trial statistical analysis of the data. None of the other questionnaires were pre-tested in the same manner. but they were submitted to Michigan State University and Office of Information staff members for reviewing and suggestions. Data Analysis Procedures Data Related to Understanding and Perception of Need Comments and Markings After all responses were obtained from the pre-test of a publication the returned manuscripts were sorted by the four procedures used in conducting the study. All words or 65 passages that were underlined or crossed out and the number of respondents who did such were recorded on a master manu- script for each procedure. In addition. any comments made by the respondents or added by the interviewer while talking with respondents were recorded on the appropriate master manuscript. This resulted in a concise summary of all markings. comments. and general information from each procedure for each publication. Application Type Questions All responses to each item of the quiz were scored dichotomously as either correct or incorrect. The responses were divided by pre-test procedure. and the statistical mean for each item was computed by procedural group. The statistic used for this computation was:49 3? = '3— P = no correct. To compute the score for all respondents on all quiz items. the mean and standard deviation of the item scores were computed. The computation was conducted with each procedural group using the item scores from the group. and for all respondents to a publication test using all item scores from the four procedures. The statistics for this and all remaining means and for all standard deviations in the study 49Wilfrid J. Dixon and Frank J. Massey. Jr.. Introduction to_Statistieal_Analr§i§.(New Ybfk: McGrawcHill Bodk Company. 1957). O'\ O\ ! (2x )2 } 2 2 2X 2X - 50 —- l \i l n are: x = ' "" S =\5 1'1 : E n - 1 Opinion Rating of Idea Units The rating devise with each idea unit was assigned a graduated five point value as follows: very useful - quite useful ‘ of some use - of little use not useful - I-‘anbU'l Each respondent to each unit was scored. and the mean and standard deviation of the units were computed by procedural group. The ratings for all units on a manuscript were computed by taking the mean and the standard deviation of the unit scores. This was computed by procedure using the unit scores from that group. and for all respondents to a publication test by using the unit scores from all four procedures. The Relation of Silage Feeding and Opinion of Zoning to Scores and Rating of Manuscripts The numbers of respondents to the manuscript Silage in the Dairy Ration who fed silage to their dairy animals. and the type of silage that they fed. were counted and recorded by both procedural group and for all respondents to SOIbid. 67 the publication. The actual feeding or not feeding of silage was then correlated with the scores on all of the quiz items and the unit ratings for all respondents to the manuscript. The correlation statistic used in this study is:51 52y - 2x 2y rxy = 2 2 ([ast2 - (2x) ] [821/2 - (2y) 1) 1/2 s = sample Size The numbers of respondents to the manuscript Zoning for Rural Areas were counted by procedural group in relation to their opinions of zoning before reading the manuscript and their self-perceived knowledge and opinion change through reading the manuscript. The factor of knowledge increase. or lack of knowledge increase. was correlated with the score on each item on the zoning quiz and the rating of each of the units on the zoning manuscript. Testing the Hypotheses Helpfulness of Responses The master manuscript for each procedure on each publication test was rated as to the helpfulness of the markings.underlinings.and comments by a committee of three SlN. M. Downie and R.‘W. Heath. Basic Statistical Methods (New YOrk: Harper and Brothers. 1959). 68 judges. Included on the committee were an extension bulletin editor. an extension dairy specialist who co-authored one of the Michigan State University test publications. and the 4—H program specialist responsible for 4-H publications in Nfichigan. Each master manuscript was rated by the judges on hOW'Well it indicated what the readers opinions were of certain criteria for a quality bulletin. (These criteria and the forms used by the committee of judges may be seen in Appendix B.) Each master manuscript was rated on a scale of from one to nine points for each of the criteria listed. The judges worked independently. although they received their instructions together. They did not know which master manuscript came from which procedure. The mean rating and its standard deviation from all criteria from all three judges was computed by procedure. and for all procedures from each publication test. The helpfulness rating scores for each procedure on the four publication tests were given a mean and standard deviation score. The first hypothesis states that the pre-test pro- cedures are ranked by the helpfulness of their responses as follows: panel interview > non-panel interview > panel mail > nonepanel mail. 69 This hypothesis was tested at a .05 level of significance using helpfulness ratings of each procedure from each publi- cation. and then with the mean procedural ratings used from all four publication tests. The test statistic used through- out this study is:52 2 “2" if -'X' (N1 - 1’s + (N2 - 1)s 1 2 1 42_ t ='i———-—- where SP N + N _ 2 SP 'N’ +‘E l 2 l 2 Cost of Responses The cost for each pre-test procedure within each publication test was totaled. The mean and standard deviation of the cost of each procedure on all four publication tests was computed. The second hypothesis states that the pre—test procedures are ranked by cost as follows: panel intervieW'> non-panel interview'> panel mail > non-panel mail. This hypothesis was tested at the .05 level of significance using the mean procedural costs for the four publication tests. 52Dixon and Massey. op. cit. 70 Time Expired The number of days expired from the distribution of the test manuscripts to the final receipt of responses was recorded from each pre-test procedure for each publication. The mean number of days and the standard deviation of the mean were computed for each procedure from all four publi- cation tests. The third hypothesis states that the pre-test pro— cedures are ranked according to the number of days expired in their data collection as follows: non-panel mail > panel mail > non-panel intervieW'> panel interview. The number of days expried was tested at the .05 level of significance for the mean of each procedure for the four publication tests in the study. Similarity of Responses The fourth hypothesis states that there are no significant differences between the responses from pre-test procedures used. in respect to the information Obtained on understanding of and the perception of need for a publication as follows: panel interview = non-panel interview = panel mail = non-panel mail. The mean quiz scores and the mean rating scores obtained from each procedure were computed for all four 71 publications tested. The mean quiz and unit rating scores from each procedure on all publications were then tested at the .05 level of significance. Data Related to Minor Purposes ‘Willingness of Farmers to Participate Records were kept on percentage of response from each procedure on each manuscript. Records were also kept on the number of calls made to each group to obtain the interview responses. Each pre-test procedure was compared in respect to the following: (a) percentage of response (b) number of calls per group (interviews) (c) number of calls per interview (d) cost per response (e) cost per rating of helpfulness The number of people indicating interest or lack of interest in serving on pre-testing panels was also tabulated. Tenure of Panel Members The two panel groups were compared as to: (a) the number of members dropped (b) the number of non—responses (c) the number of incomplete responses (d) the number of complete responses 72 Responses from Extension Agents All words or passages underlined or crossed out by extension agents and any comments written by them or the interviewer in their manuscripts were recorded into one master manuscript. This manuscript was visually compared for any similarities with the markings in the master manuscript from the four groups of farmer respondents. The mean unit rating score and its standard deviation for all extension agent responses was computed as with the farmer responses. This score for each publication was visually compared with the unit rating scores from the farmer groups for any hints of similarity. Records were also kept concerning the response rate from the extension agents. Data Related to the Representativeness of the Reepondents Data was collected from each respondent concerning the variables of age. education. size of farm. number of milking cows. number of other dairy animals. off farm work. percent of farm income from dairy. prior knowledge of bulletins. and prior usage of bulletins. The mean and standard deviation of each of these variables was computed for each procedural group on each publication test. 73 The variables of age. education. size of farm. off farm work. percent of farm income from dairy. number of dairy animals. prior knowledge of bulletins. and prior usage of bulletins were correlated by publication test with the responses to each item on the knowledge quiz. and with each idea unit rating. The significance of the correlation was at the .05 level. All of the means of the quiz items. the means and standard deviations of the idea unit ratings. the means and standard deviations of the personal characteristics variables. and all correlations were obtained through the utilization of the electronic computer. MESTIC. at Michigan State Univer- sity. Library program Kll-M(C) was used in the computations. with input being punched in double column form on IBM cards. The output was by computer tape with all figures carried to three decimal places. The correlations printed out into a triangular matrix. Non-response to some variables were filled in with the mean from the responses to that variable for the purpose of the correlation. CHAPTER IV DATA P RE SENTATI ON Helpfulness of the Responses The criteria of the helpfulness of the responses from the farmer respondents is based upon the markings and comments that the reader made as he read the manuscript or that the interviewer made as he talked with the respondent. In general. the respondents were not profuse in the quantity of their comments and markings. This was especially true of those who responded through the mail., Many of the comments by readers were irrelevant to their opinions or understanding of the bulletin and stated personal practices or beliefs concerning the subject at hand. The amount and value of the comments from different individuals varied greatly. Markings and comments from some individuals responding through the mail were nearly as numerous as those obtained from others through interviews. The committee of judges rated the helpfulness of the responses from each procedural group on each publication tested. The responses were rated on the basis of how well they indicated what the respondent thought of the publication's 74 75 ability to meet certain criteria for bulletin evaluation. The rating was on a l to 9 scale with a rating of 1.0 to designate that the responses gave no indication of the respondentfs opinions. 5.0 to designate that the responses gave a definite indication. and 9.0 to designate that the responses gave a complete picture of the respondentfs opinions. Table 2 shows the mean of the judges? ratings on the criteria for each procedure on each publication. The responses from the panel interview and the non—panel interview proce- dures obtained higher helpfulness ratings than the responses from the panel mail or non-panel mail procedures on all publication tests. The highest ratings are on the responses to the fourth publication test with ratings of 6.38 for the panel interview responses and 6.14 for the non-panel inter- view responses. The ratings for the interview procedures? responses on the first and second publication tests are either 5.0 or nearly up to that level while the ratings on the responses to the third publication test drop down to a low of 4.0 for the non-panel interview procedure. The responses from the two interview procedures differ only slightly in their ratings for each publication except for the third publication test in which the responses from the panel interview group on the zoning manuscript were rated .67 higher than the responses from the non-panel interview group. 76 TABLE 2 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE HELPFULNESS OF THE RESPONSES FROM EACH PROCEDURE ON EACH PUBLICATION AS RATED BY A COMMITTEE OF JUDGES Panel Panel Non-Panel Non-Panel Manuscript Mail Interview Mail Interview M # l x 3.52 4.71 3.31 4.86 s 1.97 2.19 1.74 2.52 M # 2 ii 2.55 4.86 1.71 5.00 s 1.72 2.66 1.06 2.91 M # 3 35 3.74 4.67 3.62 4.00 s 2.71 2.78 2.53 2.37 m# 43? 3.45 6.38 3.79 6.14 s 2.00 2.18 1.82 2.31 3'6 3.32 5.12 3.12 5.00 s .52 .82 .30 .88 77 The ratings of the mail procedure responses fall between 3.31 and 3.74 except for those for the second publication test. For the silage publication the rating for the responses from the panel mail procedure is down to 2.55 and the rating of the responses from the non-panel mail procedure is a low 1.71. or almost no help at all. The responses from the panel interview procedure to all publication tests have a mean rating of 5.12 followed closely by the mean rating for the responses from the non- panel interview procedure of 5.0. According to the judges' ratings. both of these procedures on the average give enough information to be of definite help in determining the readers' opinions and understanding of the publication. The ratings for the responses obtained from the panel mail group tend to be similar to the ratings for the responses from the non— panel mail group. The mean rating for the responses from the panel mail procedure on all publication tests is 3.32 with a rating of 3.12 for the mean rating of all responses from the non-panel procedure. The greatest differences in the helpfulness ratings are between those on the responses from the interview pro- cedure and those on the responses from the mail procedures. with only slight differences occurring between the panel and non-panel procedures. 78 Table 3 presents the mean ratings of the responses from all procedures for all publications by the criteria used for the judges? ratings. On the basis of the judges' ratings these data seem to indicate that the average responses from all procedures would be of definite help in determining: (1) if the language used in the publication was simple and direct; (2) if the subject was covered well. but not too long; and (3) if the subject presented met needs of the readers and presented significant facts only. Considerable information could also be gained which would be useful in determining: —-if the purpose of the publication was clear to the reader; --if the subject was presented concisely and to the point; and --if the illustrations and tables were understood by the reader. Table 3 shows that the responses from the mail procedures were rated at 5.0 or above on five of the criteria for one publication test. There were no criteria where the mail response ratings reached this level on two or more publication tests. The interview responses received helpfulness ratings of 5.0 or above on all fourteen of the criteria for at least one publication test. The interview responses were 79 TABLE 3 THE HELPFULNESS OF THE FARMER RESPONSES IN PROVIDING INFORMATION ABOUT BULLETIN EVALUATION CRITERIA: MEANS OF THE RATINGS BY.A COMMITTEE OF JUDGES. THOSE PUBLICATION TESTS WHERE PROCEDURE RESPONSES WERE RATED OF DEFINITE HELP Responses Rated of Criteria Mean Definite Help Mail Interview Introduction 1. arrests attention . ——-- M#3. M#4 2. purpose clear to reader 4.5 M#3 M#2. M#3. M#4 Body 1. language simple. direct 5.0 M#3 M#l. M#2. M#3. M#4 2. subject presented con- cisely and to the point 4.8 .M#3 M#l..M#2. M#3. M#4 3. illustrations and tables understood by the reader 4.5 M#l .M#l..M#2. M#3. M#4 4. directions simple and complete 3.6 ---- M#4 5. technical and historical matter subordinated 3.2 ---- M#2. M#4 6. subject covered but not too long 5.1 ---- .M#l. M#2. M#3. M#4 7. interest maintained 4.0 M#3 .M#3. M#4 8. material easy to locate 3.6 ---- .M#l..M#4 Subject Matter 1. meets need and presents significant facts only 5.3 ---- M#l. M#2. M#3. M#4 2. emphasizes tested and approved procedures 3.8 ---- M#l..M#2. M#4 3. information up to date . ---- ;M#2. M#4 4. conclusions justified by the text 3.4 ---- M#4 80 rated at or above this level on seven of the criteria for at least three of the publication tests. and on five of the criteria for all four publication tests. Testing the Hypothesis on Helpfulness .g;_;he Re§ponses The first hypothesis stated that the judges' rating of the helpfulness of the responses from the four procedures would be as follows: panel intervieW'> non—panel interview > panel mail > non—panel mail. For the mean helpfulness rating of the responses from each procedure on all publications. the hypothesis was tested at the .05 level of significanCe as follows: Panel intervieW'> non—panel interviewe-no significant difference. Panel interview > panel mail--significant difference at the .01 level. Panel interview > non-panel mail--significant difference at the .005 level. Non-panel interview'> panel mail--significant difference at the .01 level. Non-panel intervieW'> non-panel mail-—significant difference at the .005 level Panel mail > non-panel mail-—no significant difference. The hypothesis was tested for the responses from each procedure on each publication test as follows: 81 Manuscript # 1 (Table 2 shows the rating for the non- panel interview responses as being higher than that for the panel interview responses. Therefore this difference is tested.) Non-panel interview > panel interviewa-no significant difference. Non-panel interview > panel mail--significant difference at the .005 level. Non—panel interview > non—panel mail--significant difference at the .005 level. Panel interview > panel mail--significant difference at the .01 level. Panel interview > non-panel mail--significant difference at the .005 level. Panel mail > non-panel mail--no significant difference. Manuscript f 2 (The hypothesis is tested here as with manuscript # 1 because of the highest rating belonging to the responses from the non-panel interview procedure.) Non-panel interview > panel interview--no significant difference. Non-panel interview > panel mail--significant difference at the .005 level. Non-panel interview > non-panel mail-—significant difference at the .005 level. Panel interview > panel mail--significant difference at the .005 level. Panel intervieW'> non-panel mail--significant difference at the .005 level. Panel mail > non-panel mail--significant difference at the .005 level. 82 Manuscript # 3 Panel interview > non-panel interviewa-no significant difference. Panel interview > panel mail--no significant difference. Panel interview > non-panel mail-—significant difference at the .05 level. Non-panel interview > panel mail--no significant difference. Non-panel interview > non-panel mail--no significant difference. Panel mail > non—panel mail-—no significant difference. Manuscript fi 4 (HyPOthesis tested somewhat differently because of the lowest rating being to to the responses from the panel mail procedure.) Panel interview') non-panel interviews-no significant difference. Panel interview > non-panel mail--significant difference at the .005 level. Panel interview > panel mail--significant difference at the .005 level. Non-panel intervieW'> non—panel mail--significant difference at the .005 level. Non-panel intervieW'> panel mail--significant difference at the .005 level. Non-panel mail > panel mail--no significant difference. Cost of Obtaininngesponses The total cost of the pre-test studies with the farmer respondents was $2.300. The costs of the pre-tests varied 83 between the different publhzation tests and procedures even more than the variations in the helpfulness ratings reported in the previous sections. The costs for pre-testing by each procedure for each publication test is shown in Table 4. The cost of the pre-tests for each publication test declined over $185 between the first and second publication tests. $175 between the second and third publication tests. and over $50 between the third and fourth publication tests. With the tests of the first publication costing $816 the declines in cost resulted in the test of the fourth publi- cation costing only $400. Further examination of Table 4 shows that the costs by procedure follow a definite pattern for each publication tested. The panel interview procedure is the most expensive in each case with a high on the first publication test of $309.28. This is closely followed by the cost of the non- panel interview procedure at $303.82. There is a drop in the cost of the panel mail procedure. which at $104.37 is just over one third of the cost of either interview procedure. At $98.93 the cost of the non-panel mail procedure is just under one third of the interview procedures' costs. This same pattern exists with the tests conducted on the other three publications. 84 TABLE 4 COSTS IN DOLLARS INCURRED BY PROCEDURE IN PRE-TESTING FOUR PUBLICATIONS Manu- Panel Panel Non-Panel Non-Panel Total all script Mail Interview Mail Interview Procedures M.# 1 104.37 309.28 98.93 303.82 816.10 M.# 2 76.82 247.55 66.98 238.11 629.46 M.# 3 58.76 175.28 55.78 164.37 454.19 ML# 4 51.58 166.23 47.88 134.77 400.46 Total 291.58 898.34 269.27 841.07 2300.21 3? 72.88 224.59 67.32 210.27 575.05 3 23.61 67.16 22.29 76.01 188.11 86 TABLE 5 COST IN DOLLARS PER RESPONSE BY PROCEDURE (AVERAGE OF ALL MANUSCRIPTS) Panel Panel Non—Panel Non-Panel Mail Interview Mail Interview Average Average Cost 72.88 224.59 67.32 210.27 143.76 Average Re- sponses 18.25 21.75 8.25 17.75 16.50 Cost per Response 3.99 10.36 8.16 11.85 8.71 TABLE 6 COST IN DOLLARS PER RATING OF HELPFULNESS OF DETAIL (AVERAGE OF ALL MANUSCRIPTS) Panel Panel Non-Panel Non-Panel Mail Interview Mail Interview Average Average Cost 72.88 224.59 67.32 210.27 143.76 Average Help Rating 3.32 5.12 3.12 5.00 4.14 Cost Per Unit 21.95 43.87 21.58 42.05 34.72 85 Table 5 provides additional information concerning the cost of each procedure in relation to the number of responses it obtained. The highest cost for each response was incurred by the non-panel interview procedure. Each of its responses cost $11.85. It is followed by the panel interview procedure with $10.36 for each response. Not far behind the cost per response of the panel interview procedure is the $8.16 per response of the non-panel mail procedure. A comparatively low $3.99 per response is the cost of the panel mail procedure. provided by its lower procedural cost combined with its relatively high rate of response. Although the panel mail procedure seems to be the most efficient in providing responses in pre-testing studies. it is little different from the non-panel mail procedure when compared on the basis of the cost for each unit of help- fulness rating given its responses by the committee of judges. The data in Table 6 indicates that although the responses from the interview procedures rate higher with the judges in terms of helpfulness. the additional cost of obtaining the responses results in twice the cost for each unit of helpfulness rating as compared with the mail proce- dures. The cost of each unit of helpfulness rating for the 87 panel interview procedure is $43.87 followed closely by the non-panel interview procedure with $42.05. At just over one- half of this cost is the panel mail procedure with its cost for each unit of helpfulness being $21.95. and the non- panel procedure with a cost of $21.58 for each unit of helpfulness. Testing the Hypothesis on Cost The second hypothesis concerns the cost of the four procedures in conducting pre-testing studies and is stated as follows: panel intervieW'> non-panel interview > panel mail > non-panel mail. The hypothesis is tested at the .05 level of signi- ficance with the mean procedural cost for all four publications as follows: Panel interview*> non-panel interviewe-no significant difference. Panel interview'> panel mail--significant difference at the .005 level. Panel intervieW'> non-panel mail--significant difference at the .005 level. Non-panel interview > panel mail--significant difference at the .01 level. Non—panel intervieW'> non-panel mail--significant difference at the .01 level. Panel mail > non-panel mail--no significant difference. 88 Length of Time to Collect Data The number of calendar days expired from the distri- bution of the first manuscript for a pre-test to the collection of the last response is shown in Table 7 for each procedure on each publication. Differences are apparent in the data shown as was the case with the data concerning the helpful- ness of the responses and the cost of the responses. As with cost and helpfulness. the greatest differences seem to be between the interview procedures and the mail procedures. There is a difference of 20 days between the 48.75 days average data collection time for the mail procedures and the 28.75 days average for the interview procedures. TABLE 7 LENGTH OF TIME IN DAYS REQUIRED FOR.PRE-TESTING BY FOUR.PROCEDURES WITH EACH PUBLICATION Panel Panel Non-Panel Non-Panel Manuscript Mail Interview Mail Interview M.# l 60 34 52 32 M # 2 63 49 65 45 M.# 3 35 21 42 19 M # 4 35 15 , 38 15 x“ 48.25 29.75 49.25 27.75 s , 15.35 15.09 12.04 13.60 89 The third hypothesis states that the number of days needed to collect the data is as follows: non-panel mail > panel mail > non-panel interview > panel interview. The hypothesis was tested at the .05 level of significance as follows: Non-panel mail > panel mai1--no significant difference. Non-panel mail > non-panel interviewe-significant difference at the .05 level. Non-panel mail > panel interview--significant difference at the .05 level. Panel mail > non-panel interviewe-significant difference at the .05 level. Panel mail > panel interview--no significant difference (tested to .10 level). Non-panel interview > panel interviewa-no significant difference. Similarity of the Quiz Scores Some trends seem evident in the average quiz scores received by the respondents in the procedural groups. The data in Table 8 would seem to show that. except for the first manuscript. the scores obtained through the interview pro- cedures are lower than those obtained through the mail procedures. 'While the interviews were being conducted on the first publication the respondents were given as much time as they wanted to answer each question on the quiz. Also 90 TABLE 8 THE MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE QUIZ SCORES FROM EACH PROCEDURE FOR EACH TEST MANUSCRIPT. AND THE MEAN RATING AND ITS DEVIATION FOR EACH PROCEDURE FROM.AEL MANUSCRIPTS Panel Panel Non-Panel Non-Panel All Manuscript Mail Interview Mail Interview Procedures M # 1 5? 79.32 85.62 67.99 83.65 79.30 s 18.73 35.52 22.74 19.34 24.41 M;# 2 'E' 80.74 65.07 74.62 64.22 71.16 3 23.30 27.03 31.66 19.74 25.10 M.# 3 ‘X‘ 85.66 75.85 78.75 66.75 76.75 5 10.48 7.28 24.92 16.41 17.20 M # 4 3(- 78.41 58.86 57.50 46.88 60.41 3 10.24 11.94 24.48 19.19 20.57 3? 81.03 71.35 69.72 65.38 71.91 s 3.23 11.82 9.27 15.05 8.38 91 if the respondent asked a question to help interpret one of the quiz items the interviewer would answer him. The result was average scores of 85.62 for the panel interview respondents and 83.65 for the non-panel interview respondents. while the mail respondents received average scores of 79.32 for the panel mail respondents and 67.99 for the non-panel mail respondents. Because of the length of the interviews on the second publication. should a respondent not seem to find an answer to a quiz item the interviewer would proceed with the next question. At the same time the mail respondents were able to take as much time as they desired to answer the items on the quiz. They may have waited until receiving the quiz approximately two weeks after receiving the manuscript and answered the questions as they read. This resulted in lower quiz scores for the interviewed respondents than for the mail respondents on the last three publications. For every publication the panel interview respondents have a higher score than the non-panel interview respondents as do the panel mail respondents over the non-panel mail respondents. The data in Table 8 indicate a tendency for this difference to become greater as the third and fourth publications are tested. The hypothesis concerned with the similarity of the quiz scores of the respondents from the four procedures is: 92 panel interview = non-panel interview = panel mail = non- panel mail. The hypothesis was tested at the .05 level of significance with the use of the mean score for each pro- cedure from all publication tests. Panel interview * nonepanel interviewe-no significant difference. Panel interview - panel mail--no significant difference. Panel interview - non—panel mail—-no significant difference. Non—panel interview - panel mai1--no significant difference (tested at .10 level). Non-panel interview - non-panel mail--no significant difference. Panel mail = non-panel mail--no significant difference (tested at .10 level). Similarity of the Opinion Ratings The ratings of the units by the different procedural groups have the least variation of any statistic yet reported. The largest difference is in the ratings of the first publication as compared with those of the other three. The average ratings of the units of the first publications from all respondents is 3.8 as compared with 4.2 for the second and third publications and 4.4 for the fourth publication. There do not seem to be any discernable trends in the data given in Table 9. This point becomes clear when one 93 TABLE 9 THE MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE UNIT OPINION RATINGS FROM EACH PROCEDURE FOR EACH TEST MANUSCRIPT AND THE MEAN RATING AND ITS DEVIATION FOR EACH PROCEDURE FROM ALL MANUSCRIPTS Panel Panel Non-Panel Non-Panel All Farmer Manuscript Mail _Interview Mail IntervieW’ Responses M # 1 ii 3.48 3.99 3.93 3.83 3.81 s .25 .35 .35 .28 .36 M.# 2 'X7 4.15 4.13 4.42 4.29 4.24 s .23 .26 .28 .24 .27 M # 3 i 4.27 4.39 4.21 4.04 4.23 s .22 .17 .26 .33 .27 M.# 4 ‘X’ 4.70 4.30 4.32 4.14 4.37 s .13 .17 .19 .30 .29 SE 4.15 4.20 4.22 4.07 4.16 s .50 .18 .21 .19 .24 94 notes the procedure giving clearly the lowest ratings to the units of the first publication is the panel mail procedure which also gives clearly the highest ratings to the units of the fourth publication. The hypothesis concerning the similarity of the unit opinion ratings from the four procedures states: panel interview = non-panel interview = panel mail = non-panel mail. The hypothesis was tested at the .05 level of signi- ficance with the mean scores of the unit opinion ratings from each procedure for all publication tests. Panel interview non-panel interviewe-no significant difference. Panel interview panel mail--no significant difference (tested to .10 level). Panel interview - non-panel mail--no significant difference. Non-panel interview - panel mail-—no significant difference. Non-panel interview - non-panel mail--no significant difference. Panel mail = non-panel mail——no significant difference (tested to .10 level). Comparison of Farmer and Extension Agent Responses As indicated in Table 10. the number of extension agents involved in this study was very limited. Five agents were asked to participate by being interviewed on each 95 TABLE 10 RESPONSE RATE OF EXTENSION AGENTS TO THE PRE-TEST STUDIES OF FOUR PUBLICATIONS Mail Publication Interviews Questionnaires RaisinngairyVCalves and Heifers 5 4 _§;lage in phe Dairy p Ration 5 4 Zoningyfor Rural Areas 4 3 Mastitis Control in Michigan Herds 4 3 96 publication while another five were a8ked to respond through the mail on each publication test. While the response rate was 90% for the interviews and 70% for the mail responses. the number of different individuals involved was not enough to be able to statistically analyze any of the responses or to make any definite conclusions on the basis of these responses. The extension agents' ratings of the units in each manuscript will be visually compared with the farmer respondentsf ratings as will the general comments on both groups in relation to the quality and value of the publications. Table 11 shows that on the average the extension agents rated the units of the first publication. Raising Dairy Calves and Helpers. slightly higher than did the farmers. The ratings are not too consistent for the individual units. however. Units 6. 7. 9. 12. 16. 19. and 20 all vary at least four tenths of a point between the farmersf and the extension agents: ratings. This is one third of the units in the publication. The extension agents were more critical of the style of writing in the publication than were any of the farmers. Some of the extension agents thought of the writing as using a negative approach. Only one farmer did not like the way it was written. All of the others indicated that it was easy to understand. 97 TABLE 11 THE MEAN USEFULNESS RATINGS OF EACH UNIT OF RAISING DAIRY CALVES AND HEIFERS BY FARMER RESPONDENTS AND EXTENSION AGENTS Uhit No. ;_ 2_ g, .4 .2 Farmers 3.8 3.7 3.9 4.2 4.0 Extension Agents 3.7 3.4 4.0 4.1 4.3 Unit No. Q 1 8 2 12 Farmers 3.7 3.2 3.7 4.0 3.9 Extension Agents 4.2 3.9 4.0 4.4 4.2 Unit No- 11 1.2. 13. 1.4 1.5. Farmers 3.3 3.7 4.0 3.9 4.0 Extension Agents 3.3 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 Unit No. 15. 1.7. 13 12 2.9 Farmers 3.8 3.9 4.4 3.9 3.8 Extension Agents 4.3 4.0 4.4 4.3 3.3 Unit No. 2;_ Mean and Standard Deviation all Units Farmers 3.4 3.8 .36 Extension Agents 3.4 4.0 .35 98 The extension agents tended to say that this publi- cation served a real need and would even be valuable to the commercial farmer to brush up on his calf raising practices. The farmers indicated that they already knew almost all of the information in the publication. and that they would not read it just to brush up. The extension agents tended to think that the farmers could understand the tables better than was the case; both groups thought most of the illustrations were vague; and the extension agents suggested more items of importance that might be added to the publication. A comparison of the ratings of the units in Silage liu_phe Dairy Ration by both the farmers and extension agents is given in Table 12. Although the average of all of the unit ratings is the same for both groups. units 3. 4. 12. 13. and 14 (one-third of the total) have ratings at least bur-tenths of a point apart. In general the farmers thought that they could get what they wanted out of the publication. The extension agents were quite critical of the publication saying that it was too technical for most farmers to derive anything of importance from it. The extension agents did think that the farmers would understand more of the technical terms used in the publication than the farmers actually understood. One THE MEAN USEFULNESS RATINGS OF EACH UNIT OF SILAGE IN THE DAIRY RATION BY FARMER 99 TABLE 12 RESPONDENTS AND EXTENSION AGENTS Unit No. _l_ g 3 4 g Farmers 4.4 4.4 4.1 4.1 4.3 Extension Agents 4.1 4.2 3.7 3.6 4.1 Unit No. _6_ _7_ _8 _9_ 1_0_ Farmers 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.4 Extension Agents 4.1 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.1 Unit No- 11 12 1.3.. 14 is. Farmers 4.1 4.4 3.9 3.7 4.4 Extension Agents 4.3 4.8 4.3 4.3 4.4 Mean and Standard Deviation of All Units Farmers 4.2 .27 Extension Agents 4.2 .34 100 case in point is the term pH. referring to the acidity of the silage. The extension agents interviewed indicated that all farmers would probably know this term. Of the farmers interviewed. 25%»thought it meant acidity. 25%.thought it meant phosphorus. and 50%.didn1t have any idea of what the meaning of the term was. Both the farmers and the extension agents thought that the tables and charts were too technical. The extension agents'lower rating of Zoning for Rural ‘gpeug is shown clearly in Table 13. The average rating of the units by the extension agents is three-tenths of a point lower than the farmers. and at the same time all of the units but numbers 1. 3. and 4 are rated at least four-tenths of a point lower by the extension agents than the farmers. The extension agents thought that the publication tended to be too basic for rural people. However. there were many of the farmers interviewed who had never heard of zoning before and thought this publication did a good job of explaining what it was. Both agents and farmers thought it was written very well. although both were somewhat con- fused as to the meaning of the illustrations in the manu- script. A uniform rating throughout by both the extension agents and the farmers on Magpigis Conupol in Michigan Herds is shown in Table 14. The average rating of the units is the 101 TABLE 13 THE MEAN USEFULNESS RATINGS OF EACH UNIT OF ZONING FOR RURAL AREAS BY FARMER RESPONDENTS AND EXTENSION AGENTS Unit No. l_ g_ 3. .4 .Q Farmers 4.0 4.2 4.3 3.9 4.4 Extension Agents 3.7 3.6 4.3 4.1 4.0 Unit No. §_ .1 fii .2 Farmers 4.4 4.1 4.4 4.3 Extension Agents 4.0 3.7 4.0 3.6 Mean and Standard Deviation of All Units Farmers 4.2 .27 Extension Agents 3.9 .25 TABLE 14 THE MEAN USEFULNESS RATINGS OF EACH UNIT OF MASTITIS CONTROL IN MICHIGAN HERDS BY FARMER RESPONDENTS AND EXTENSION AGENTS Unit No. _l_ g g _4_ §_ Farmers 4.1 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.5 Extension Agents 4.1 4.6 4.6 4.3 4.6 Unit No. p, 1. Mean and Standard Deviation of all Units Farmers 4.5 4.4 4.4 .29 Extension Agents 4.3 4.6 4.4 .18 102 same for both groups. with no unit showing more than a two- tenth of a point difference. Many of the farmers liked the bulletin in the form in which it was tested. There were also a good number of farmers who knew the information in the bulletin and wanted new ideas and the results of recent research. The extension agents indicated that many farmers could make good use of the bulletin just as it was. but that the more progressive farmers would not be satisfied with it in its present form. The progressive farmers and the extension agents suggested similar changes. such as: increased infor- mation on vaccination. dry cow treatment. and milking parlor management to prevent mastitis. Tenure of Panel Mempers A total of 25 different individuals out of the 30 on each panel responded to at least one of the publication pre-tests. Fifteen of the members of each panel responded to all four publication pre-tests. It will be recalled that the members of the two panel groups agreed to partici- pate in all four publication tests. The only difference between the two groups is that when one was being interviewed the other was responding through the mail. The data in Table 15 shows that although there were identical numbers of individuals responding from each group. 103 TABLE 15 COMPARISON OF THE PANEL GROUPS AS TO THE TYPES OF RESPONSES AND THE MEMBERS RESPONDING Panel Number One Panel Number Two Complete responses Incomplete responses Total responses Different individuals giving incomplete responses to all four Different individuals responding to all four Different individuals re- sponding to at least one 61 21 82 15 25 74 4 78 12 15 25 104 the 82 total responses from panel one is slightly more than the 78 total responses from panel two. The responses from panel two were almost all complete. compared with only three fourths of the responses from panel one. (A complete response is one where all of the quiz questions were re- sponded to and where the respondent indicated his rating of the units on the manuscript. Any respondent completing only the questions or the unit ratings or parts of both were considered as incomplete responses.) Of the fifteen indi- viduals from both panel groups who responded to all four publication tests. only seven from panel one had complete responses for all four while twelve from panel two had complete responses to all four. Illustration 1 provides further information con- cerning complete and incomplete responses. number of non- responses for each publication test. and the number of panel members dropping from the study. All of the 25 responses to the first publication from panel two were complete. while eight of the 21 responses to the first publication from panel one were incomplete. The response rate was lower for the second publi- cation test from both panel groups. with only two out of 21 responses being incomplete from panel one on the interview .I( I n :14: Illl1pil ‘I 11‘! null-1:!!! I 49...! III: Ii-I. LI 3 I 88.7.. «dilfl Fol-uni: I QH‘Izfl‘n.‘ o~lfl I u-.~.I‘le.dfitin I I 201 I.I--NUS.\.-Hriuu1\ n n‘ilflun‘. coauomaaoo muma ou HoHHm VA osommwm uncomnmm uncommmm Hmcmm Scum oommoua — uoz oHn mumHmEoosH mumHmfiou HHmz 30H>u0ucH 30H>HuusH HHMS Ham: 30H>kusH 30H>umucH HANS N # chmm H # chmm N # Hmcmm H # Hmcmm N # Hmcmm H # chmm N # chmm H # Hmcmm 105 n. _ m . N a m m S o; b I O mw mw III-Id“k m” E D 1.1 m we Mu monmm smmHgon mound Housm COHumm munD mummwmm one cH Houucou mHuHunnz How wsHGON as» :H umuHHm mm>Hmu muHmQ msHmHmm BmHmUmDZ¢Z Mm «Qmmmomn mmmmzmz Hmz¢m QZ¢ mmmzommmm MBHAmZOU .OZHQZOmmmm mmmmzmz HNBOB EBHZ .mmmmzflz HHZflm m0 HMDZmB .H ZOHBfiMBmDAHH 106 and three out of fifteen responses being incomplete for panel two through the mail. Panel two had only one incomplete responSe out of nineteen responses when interviewed on the third publication test. At the same time four of the eighteen responses through the mail for panel one were incomplete. Panel one had 22 respondents to the fourth publication test while panel two had 19. Panel one had seven incomplete responses through the interview and panel two had all complete responses through the mail. Panel one had only two members asking to be dropped from the study. At the same time panel two had eight members who had asked to be dropped before the study was completed. Panel one had a total of 31 non-responses from people who had not indicated a desire to drop from the study. while there were 20 non—responses from panel two during the study. There were three members of panel one who did not respond to any of the four publication tests even though they did not request to be dropped from the study. Willingness of Farmers to Respond A detailed picture of the percentage of responses obtained from the four procedures on each publication test is presented in Illustration 2. The highest rate of return on 4‘ "l Il.l I'- I.‘ .IiIJ‘Ilfil i 3.! 1!. 2.4,. .IIA .1 CI. 2%.. V. ‘U‘ n‘n. I. ‘I‘IHO‘ ‘. n:.' .I»‘~ CZ 7h! 1 “I: o. I\.V§-.‘. \z...‘ n .9! ~ \ ‘ QR II a .. lem- u . 2 2 n... u a u j m 2 . G we 9 .dl < < m [ml momma cmoflaon mmmmmwmmmmmm CH Houusou mHuHummz Mom msHGON in. noncommmm mo Honesz an a. mu - cojmm .3le mail» a...” mmmfilm if numuHmm use nm>Hmu HHmn anHmm AsmwbnwusH HmsmmIsOZIln HHuz Husmmlsozllu mammalmmm BmHmomozez 332.35” Hmccmnnm in: Hmcmmuué are oe mezmozommmm mgfi some memzommmm mo ezmommm oze mmmzoz .m zoneamemoflH 108 each publication test was obtained from the panel interview procedure. On the first publication this procedure reached its highest response rate of 83.3%. with its lowest response rate being 63.3% on the third publication test. The panel mail procedure and the non-panel interview procedure were usually 10-20%»lower in the response rate on each publication test. The non—panel mail procedure obtained the lowest response rate on every publication test. Its hufirwas a 43.3% return on the first publication test and its lOWHWaS 13.3% on the fourth publication test. Illustration 3 shows the average response rate for each publication from all four procedures. The first publi- cation test received the highest return at 67.5%. The second. third and fourth publication tests received virtually identical response rates of 50%. 50.8%. and 51.7% respectively. The rate of return on each of these publication tests. and especially for the fourth publication test. were lowered considerably by the drop in the rate of return from the non-panel mail procedure. The average rate of return from each procedure for all publication tests is pictured in Illustration 4. The rate of return from the panel interview procedure is the highest at 72.5%. The panel mail and non-panel interview 109 ILLUSTRATION 3. PERCENT OF RESPONSES FROM FARMER GROUPS BY MANUSCRIPT TESTED (AVERAGE OF ALL PROCEDURES) ‘T"'T _. i 67.5 .0 50.0 .50-8 51.7 55 _L ?Calves? ?Silage" "Zoning" "Mastitis" Ave. all publications 110 ILLUSTRATION 4. PERCENT OF RESPONSES FROM FARMER GROUPS BY PROCEDURE USED (AVERAGE OF ALL PUBLICATIONS) i ‘ ‘— 72.5 60.8 59.2 55.0 -"'1 27.5 panel panel non-panel non-panel Ave. all mail interview mail interview procedures 111 procedure is the highest at 72.5%. The panel mail and non- panel interview procedures have similar rates of return at 60.8% and 59.2%.respectively. The rate of return from the non-panel mail procedure at 27.5% is less than one—half of that from any other procedure. The average number of calls made by the interviewer to secure an intervieW'from a panel member was 2.59 while the average number of calls required to secure an interview from a non-panel respondent was 2.99. Table 16 provides data on the number of calls per interview for each procedure on all four publication tests. The highest number of calls required per interview was on the second publication test when 2.86 calls per interview were required for the panel interview procedure and 3.50 calls per interview were re- quired for the non-panel interview procedure. This difference of .64 is the largest between the two procedures on any of the publication tests. The panel interview procedure required fewer calls per interview than the non-panel interview pro- cedure for each of the four publication tests. The lowest rate was for the panel interview procedure at 2.42 calls per response on the third publication test. All the respondents in the study were asked if they would be willing to review up to ten manuscripts a year for the purpose of pretesting them. Table 17 categorizes the 112 mm.N mm.m mm.~ mm.~ oo.m ac.~ om.m om.m mc.~ mc.~ oncommmm pom maamo as so AH mm ca ma ca Hm mm mm camcoEmmm mam mmm me am me on on oo am no moms maamo Husmm Hmsmm Hmcmm Hmcmm Hmcum Hmsmm Hmcmm Hmcmm Hmsmm Hmcmm Icoz Isoz Inez Icoz Isoz Hmuoe c.# .ccz , m # .amz m # .cm: a # .ocz m3fiH>MMBZH HMDUmm OE mmMMZHS HHZflmIZOZ QZN Hmde ZO fln¢z mflqdu 0H MAM¢H 113 .mmsommmu umHHm HHmnu suH3 omxmm mnma_>m£u cusp .mso umHHm men on osommmu Dos oHo hoop MHIIumHHUmsomE umHHm may :0 o0Xmm 0903 numnfimfi Hmong HHfla hm He or mH MH mu m flH HH OH v mH w OH h mHmuoa e 5 HH m e OH H m III III III H III III III e # .smz m s m w e m e m H III III III III III III m # .smz m m uH v H HH II m m H N III III III III N # .smz 0N mH Ne w o «H m m n m N eH a 0H s H # .smz Hmnuo 0o new “wave on no» Hague on no» Hmouo on no» Huang 0: no» Hmuoa.., 30H>umucH4 HHmz . a30H>H0usH , {HHmS omen on: Hmcmmlcoz Hmsmmlcoz Hosmm Hmsmm “mums omxmd mnmz¢m UZHBmMBflmm ZO fi>mmm OB mBZflnzommmm MHZMNm HEB m0 mmHZOZHHHHZ 5H HAMfiH 114 replies from each procedural group and indicates which publi— cation test was being conducted when the respondent gave his answer. There were 76 different respondents indicating that they would be willing to read up to ten manuscripts a year. Forty-one indicated that they would not be willing to do this. and 37 either did not make a reply or made a comment only. .For those responding to the question through the mail there were eighteen indicating yes. 24 indicating no. and twelve replying otherwise. For those responding to the question during an interview. 58 said yes. seventeen said no. and 25 indicated otherwise. For each mail procedure there were more ?no? responses than either ?yes? or ?other? responses. For each interview procedure there were less ?no? responses then either ?yes? responses or ?other? responses. Repgesentativeness of the Respondents gguparison of Respondent Charactepistics To determine if the respondents in the study were representative of all farmers in Michigan and Clinton County. characteristics from the 1954 Agricultural Census quoted on page 41 and from the personal information from the respondents are compared. The only two characteristics available for actual comparison are the size of the farms and the number 115 of milk cows per farm. The average size farm in Michigan was 118.5 acres with 127.5 acres per farm in Clinton County. The average number of acres owned and worked by each respondent in the study is 224 acres. The average number of milk cows per farm selling milk was 9.6 for Michigan and 10.1 for Clinton county. The average number of milk cows per farm for the respondents is 22.6. The extent to which the respondents from each of the procedural groups on all four publication tests are similar to the others is indicated in Table 18. The mean age of the respondents to all of the sixteen different pre-test studies was 45.5 years. There were only two groups with mean age of respondents varying more than five years from this average age. They were the non-panel interview respondents to the second publication test with 38.1 and the mean age of 51.3 years for the respondents from the non-panel mail procedure on the third publication test. The educational level of every group of respondents was either the 10th or the 11th grade with an average for the groups of nearly 11th grade education. The highest mean acreage was from the respondents in the non-panel mail procedure on the fourth publication test with 275 acres while the low mean of 194 acres was from the 116 TABLE 18 THE MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GROUPS OF FARMER RESPONDENTS IN THE PRE-TESTING STUDY Characteristic Mean Standard Deviation Age in Years 45.5 3.1 Education (Grade in School) 10.8 .45 Size of Farm in Acres 224 23 Number of Milk Cows 22.6 3.0 Number of Other Dairy Animals 21.3 3.9 Days of Off Farm ‘Work each Year 27.2 14.8 Percent of Farm Income From Dairy Operation 60.7 5.0 Percent Who Knew Bulletins‘Were Available 84.3 11.2 Percent Who Had Used Bulletins in the Past TWo Years 51.4 5.4 117 respondents in the panel interview procedures on the first publication. The average for all groups on this character- istic was 224 acres per respondent. The average number of milk cows per respondent for all groups was 22.6. the highest coming from the panel mail procedure on the first publication test with 27.4 cows per respondent. and the low figure of 18.3 cows per respondent coming from the same procedure on the second publication test. It must be remembered that the two panel groups altered the data collection procedures on each publication test. so these extreme figures were not received from members of the same panel. The same two groups provided the most variation from the average of 21.3 other dairy animals per respondent with figures of 28.8 and 17.4 respectively. The greatest variation between the groups for any one characteristic was in the average number of days worked off the farm per year. The average of 27.2 days per year for all groups is flanked by the extremes of 3 days per year for the respondents from the non-panel mail procedure on both the second and third publication tests (these were two entirely different groups of respondents) and the high rate from the panel mail procedure on the second publication test of 58 days per year. This high group is the same group 118 that reported the lowest acres per respondent. the lowest number of milk cows per respondent. and the lowest number of other dairy animals per respondent. The average percent of farm income received from dairy operations for respondents in all groups was 60.7%. The lowest figure for any group was the panel mail procedure respondents on the third publication test with 51%. This same panel group also reported the highest number of milk cows per respondent and the highest number of other dairy animals per respondent of any group. At the same time. however. they were one of the highest in the number of acres per respondent 'with 255. The highest percentage of farm income received from the dairy operation was from the respondents in the non-panel mail group for both the first and third publication tests with 68%. All of the non-panel mail respondents on the second publication test had known that bulletins were available from the USDA and Michigan State University. while only 50% of the respondents from the non-panel mail group on the fourth publication test were aware of this fact. These are quite extreme from the 84.3%.average for all groups; the remainder of which fall between 95%Iand 75%. There was very very little variation in the percent of respondents from 119 each group who had used extension or USDA bulletins during the previous two years. With an average percentage of 51.4% for all groups. the panel mail respondents to the third publication test had a figure of 44%. and 62% of the non- panel mail respondents to the third publication test had used bulletins in the previous two years. Correlation of Respondent Characteristics with Responses The correlation of the characteristics in Table 18 with the quiz scores and unit opinion ratings for the four publi- cations show that some of the characteristics correlate signi- ficantly with these items. The four publication testsf total of 112 quiz items and 52 units were correlated with each characteristic as follows. with a correlation at the .05 level of significance being at .250 or above. Aggy-There was a strong negative correlation with the quiz scores; as age went up. the quiz scores went down. There were eight positively correlated quiz items and 104 negatively correlated quiz items. Twenty- six of the negatively correlated items were significant. There was no apparent tendency in correlating with the unit opinion ratings. Twenty-one of the units wens positively correlated and 31 of the units were negatively correlated. None of the correlations neared the level of significance. The age correlations with the quiz scores and unit opinion ratings were similar for all four of the publication tests. Education--There was a very strong positive correlation with the quiz scores. As the education level rose so 120 did the quiz scores. A total of 103 of the quiz items correlated positively while only nine items correlated negatively. Forty-three of the positively correlated items were significant. There was no overall tendency for any correlation with the unit opinion ratings. Twenty-six of the units were correlated positively and twenty-six of the units were correlated negatively. There were no significant correlations with the first and second publication tests with 12 positive and 24 negative correlations. The third and fourth publication tests tended toward a positive correlation with 14 positive and two negative correlations. ‘§;ze of Farm-~There was a tendency for a positive cor- relation on the quiz scores. with 77 items positively correlated and 35 items negatively correlated. Three of the positive correlations were significant. This tendency is primarily due to the 27 positive and nine negative correlations on the second publucation test where all three of the significant correlations were incurred. and the 14 positive and no negative corre- lations on the third publication test. The first and fourth publication tests provided 36 positive and 26 negative correlations. There was some tendency for a negative correlation with the unit opinion ratings with seventeen positively correlated units and 35 negatively correlated units. One of the positive and one of the negative items were significant. The third publication test was in opposition to this tendency with seven positive and two negative correlations. The significant positive cor- relation came from this test. Number of Milk Cows--There was a tendency for a positive correlation on the quiz scores with 82 positively correlated items and 30 negatively correlated items. Three of the positive correlations were significant. The tendency was least on the first publication test with 25 positive and 17 negative correlations. and greatest on the third publication test with thirteen positive and one negative correlation. There was a slight tendency for a positive corre- lation on the unit opinion rating with 32 units posi- tively correlated and 20 units negatively correlated. Three of the positive correlations were significant. 121 This tendency is due to the 14 positive and two negative correlations on the third and fourth publi- cation tests. with all of the significant correlations coming on the third test. Number of Other Dairy Animals--There was a tendency for positive correlations with both the quiz scores and unit opinion ratings almost identical to the tendency on the number of milk cows. On the quiz scores there were 83 positive and 29 negative correlated items with four of the positive correlations being significant. For the unit opinion ratings 32 of the units were positively correlated and 20 of the units were negatively correlated with two of the positive correlations being significant. pgys Off of Farm‘ngur-There was some tendency for a positive correlation with the quiz scores with 78 posi- tively and 34 negatively correlated items. Two of the positive and one of the negative correlations were significant. There was no discernable tendency for the correlations on the unit opinion ratings. Twenty-nine of the units had positive correlations while 23 of the units had negative correlations. At the same time one of the positive and four of the negative correlations were significant. Percent of Farm Incgme From Dairy Operation--There was some tendency for a positive correlation on the quiz scores with 64 positively and 44 negatively correlated items. Three of the positive correlations were signi- ficant. There was a fairly strong positive correlation tendency on the unit opinion ratings with 44 positively and eight negatively correlated units. Five of the positive correlations were significant. Percent Who Knew Bulletins Were Available--There was a strong positive correlation on the quiz scores with 99 positively and 13 negatively correlated items. Twenty- nine of the positive correlations were significant. There was a tendency for a positive correlation on the unit opinion ratings with 29 positive and 23 negative correlations. Nine of the positive correlations were significant. The first publication test countered this tendency with three positive and eighteen negative 122 correlations. none of which were significant. The remaining three publication tests yielded 26 positive and five negative correlations. [gegcent Who Had Used Bulletins in the Previous Two Years- There was a fairly strong tendency for a positive corre- lation on the quiz scores with 95 positively and seventeen negatively correlated items. Seventeen of the positive correlations were significant. There was a tendency for a positive correlation with the unit opinion ratings with 41 units correlating positively and eleven units correlating negatively. One of the positive correlations was significant. Comparison of Respondent Interest in the Supject Matter Another consideration in the representativeness of the respondents would be in terms of those who have a parti- cular interest in the subject matter on the publication being tested. Table 19 shows the number of respondents to the second publication test who fed silage to their dairy herd and the type of silage fed. The majority of the respondents from each of the four procedures fed corn silage to their dairy herd. Of the 60 respondents to the publication test. 38 or nearly two thirds fed corn silage; fifteen. or one fourth did not feed any silage and seven fed other types of silage to their dairy herd. The effect of the respondents association with silage feeding on the quiz scores and the unit opinion ratings is shown in Tables 20 and 21. Table 20 shows the 123 TABLE 19 NUMBER OF FARMER RESPONDENTS TO SILAGE IN THE DAIRY RATIONWWHO FEED SILAGE TO THEIR DAIRY HERD AND THE TYPE Fin Panel Panel Non-Panel Non-Panel Mail Interview Mail Interview Total Corn Silage 8 l3 7 10 38 Hay Silage -- 1 1 _- 2 Hay and Corn Silage -- 2 -- 2 4 Other Types 1 —- __ __ 1 Not Feeding Silage 6 5 -— 4 15 Total . Respondents 15 21 8 16 60 124 TABLE 20 CORRELATION OF THE VARIABLE OF FEEDING SILAGE OR OF NOT FEEDING SILAGE BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THEIR QUIZ SCORES ON SILAGE IN THE DAIRY RATION l 2 .3. 2 2 6 +.096 +.198 -.021 -.108 -.076 -.076 2 2 2 19. 11 12 +.211 +.388 +.028 +.034 -.031 -.024 12 14 15>. .12 17 12 -.151 -.151 -.151 -.151 +.012 -.079 _1_9_ 20 g; 22 23 251, -.068 -.056 -.106 -.034 -.034 -.126 25. 22 21 22 22 22 -.039 -.154 +.038 +.l70 -.152 +.098 21 32 33 2.4. 25 22 -.122 -.027 +.028 +.049 +.052 -.O66 125 TABLE 21 CORRELATION OF THE VARIABLE OF FEEDING SILAGE OR OF NOT FEEDING SILAGE BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THEIR UNIT OPINION RATINGS ON SILAGE IN THE DAIRY RATION he to w I» lm +.052 -.l94 +.180 +.119 +.l64 2 2 2 2 12 +.O67 +.022 -.052 +.001 +.060 11 12 13 14 15 +.191 +.140 +.081 +.080 +.124 126 correlation of the factor of a respondent feeding or not feeding silage with the scores of each of the quiz items on the second publication test. (A correlation of .250 in these tables is considered to be significant at the .05 level.) Only the eighth item on the quiz shows any signi- ficant correlation with silage feeding. The seventh item on the quiz approaches significance in its correlation. Both of the items correlate positively. meaning that those respondents feeding silage tended to answer these items correctly. The seventh and eighth items on the quiz are: How many pounds of digestible protein are there in three tons of corn silage? ___lbs. In one ton of ordinary hay? ‘___lbs. ' Only 13 of the 36 quiz items correlated positively While 26 correlated negatively. Thus, there seems to be no definite tendencies in the correlation of the feeding of silage by the respondents with their scores on the quiz items. Table 21 shows the correlation of the factor of feeding silage by respondents with their rating of the units in the second publication. While none of the correlations approach the significance level. thirteen of them are positive and two of them are negative indicating a tendency for those respondents feeding silage to rate the units higher than those not feeding silage. 127 The respondents to the third publication test were categorized as to their opinion of zoning before reading ggningqfor Rural Areas; whether or not reading the manu- script increased their knowledge of zoning; and whether or not reading the manuscript changed their opinion of zoning in any way. Table 22 shows the categories for the answers to each question and the numbers of respondents in each category. Twenty-five were in favor and 26 had no opinion of zoning, while ten of the respondents were opposed to zoning before reading the manuscript. Fifty-seven out of the 61 respondents indicated that their knowledge of zoning had increased through reading the manuscript. Seven of those originally in favor of zoning strengthened their favor through reading the manuscript. while two respondents changed their opinions from ?opposed? to Tin favor? and eight respondents changed their opinions from ?no opinion? to ?in favor.? A final tally of the opinions of zoning of the 61 respondents after reading the manuscript would read: 35 in favor. eight opposed. and eighteen with no opinion for or against zoning. It might be said that there was a slight tendency for those respondents who indicated that they had increased their knowledge about zoning through reading the manuscript to have received lower scores on the quiz items for the 128 TABLE 22 OPINION OF ZONING AND SELF-PERCEIVED ZONING-KNOWLEDGE CHANGE BY RESPONDENTS TO ZONING FOR RURAL AREAS Non- Panel Panel Panel Non-Panel Mail Interview Mail Interview Total Opinion in favor 8 9 2 6 25 of zoning before opposed 3 1 3 3 10 reading no opinion 7 9 3 7 26 Knowledge yes l7 l9 8 13 57 of zoning increased no 1 -- -- 3 4 Zoning Strengthened 1 S -- l 7 opinion favor change due to from opposed reading to in favor e- -- 1 1 2 from no opinion to in favor l 4 1 2 8 No Response 4 l 3 l 9 No Change 12 9 3 ll 35 129 third publication test. Table 23 shows that in correlating this factor with the quiz scores, eleven of the items correlated negatively while three of the items correlated positively. None of the correlations came near to the .05 significance level. The correlation of the knowledge increase factor with the respondents' opinion ratings of the units shows some relationship between the two. The data in Table 24 shows that there was a positive correlation with the ratings of all nine of the units. Seven of the corre- lations were above the .05 level of significance. Thus, those respondents who rated their knowledge of zoning as having increased from reading the manuscript gave higher ratings to the units of the publication. 130 TABLE 23 CORRELATION OF THE RESPONDENTS SELF-PERCEIVED ZONING KNOWLEDGE CHANGE THROUGH READING ZONING FOR RURAL AREAS TO THEIR SCORES ON EACH QUIZ ITEM 1 2 2 .2 2 2 .7. +.O68 +.094 -.019 -.012 -.057 -.046 -.059 2 2 10 u 12 13 12 -.064 -.l43 -.124 -.127 -.090 +.070 d.063 TABLE 24 CORRELATION OF THE RESPONDENTS SELF-PERCEIVED ZONING KNOWLEDGE CHANGE THROUGH READING ZONING FOR RURAL AREAS TO THEIR UNIT OPINION RATINGS 1. 2 .31 2 2 +.l61 +.131 +.385 +.259 +.287 _6_ .7. £3. .9. +.274 +.300 +.312 +.294 CHAPTER V DATA ANALYSIS Validity of the Data Of the several concerns that can be expressed re- garding the validity of the data collected in this study. those questioning the meaning of the responses seem to be the most serious in nature. In order for the responses to be useful to bulletin authors and editors, they must extract accurate information from the respondents regarding their opinions and understanding of the test_publications. The items on the quiz were designed to test the ability of the publications to present information of use to a respondent in solving actual problems. A respondent’s answer to each item depended on how well his interpretation of the meaning of the item compared to that intended by the questionnairefs composer. It seemed that a respondent who was not interested or could not read well tended to spend less time inter- preting the items. There seemed to be a definite variation in the extent to which respondents were motivated to respond carefully. It is possible that a respondentfs behavior was 131 132 influenced by whether or not there was some motivation un- related to the study, such as having mastitis problems in his herd.. Also. it is possible that a respondent's behavior was influenced by whether his only motivation was that pro- vided by the enclosure letters used in the study or by the personal contact of the interviewer. A respondentfs ability to answer the items on the quiz is not an indication of whether or not he would consult the publication if said situations ever presented themselves to him. If confronted with one of these situations a respondent might consult the publication if he did not have confidence in his own resources and/or if he remembered that he had the publication available for that purpose. Thus, a correct answer to a quiz item might mean that the respondent would be able to solve the actual problems posed by the quiz ;; he would consult the publication. There seemed to be a definite tendency for the respondents to misinterpret the instructions given for rating the units of the manuscripts. The instructions given to each respondent stated: Place an x in the box at the end of each unit that best describes how useful the information in the unit is to you. Rate this as information that you think will be of use in your dairy operation. 133 As an example of this misinterpretation, the interview re- spondents on the calf raising publication remarked almost unanimously that the information presented was mostly material that they already knew and that the publication was of no particular interest to them. However, re-examination of Table 8 in Chapter IV shows that the interview respondents to this publication test rated the usefulness of the infor- mation at 3.99 and 3.83 on a scale of li>to£10,'with three indicating that the information was somewhat useful and four indicating that the information was quite useful. The only two mutual characteristics of the 1954 Agricultural Census and the data received from the respondents in the study are the size of the farms and the number of dairy cows per farm. The comparison of these two character- istics would seem to indicate that the respondents in the study were operating larger farms than the average Michigan or Clinton County farmer, and are more intensively involved in their dairy operation than the average farmer selling milk in Michigan or Clinton County. However, later census data would probably indicate smaller differences because of the generally increasing size of dairy farm operations. It cannot be said that the responses from this study are less valuable because of the difference between this studyfs respondents and the Faverage,? for it is generally accepted 134 that farmers with more than the average acreage are more apt to be bulletin readers than are operators of average sized or below average sized farms. An analysis of the characteristics of respondents does not seem to show any appreciable differences in the personal characteristics of the respondents from each pro— cedural group. The greatest variation is in the average number of days the respondents worked off of the farm each year. Further analysis of the data reveal that this characteristic shows little correlation with the quiz scores and unit opinion ratings, thus the variation in this character- istic probably has little effect on the responses. Comparison of the Mailguestionnaire and Interview Procedures Helpfulness of the Responses The hypothesis tested in Chapter IV shows that according to the judgesf ratings the pre-test responses from the interview procedures were significantly more helpful than were the responses from.the mail procedures. For combined ratings from all four publication tests the inter- view procedure. responses were more helpful than the mail procedure responses to at least the .01 level of significance. 135 The significant differences between the rating of the responses from the interview and the mail procedures indicate that on most types of publications the interview can obtain more information from the respondents that will be of use to the bulletin author and editor in evaluating the publi- cation. During the course of the study few of the respondents volunteered extensive information pertaining to their opinion and understanding of the information unless they were asked specific questions by the interviewer. A.respondent seemed to express himself when he was particularly moved to do so because he disagreed with the information; found the material especially difficult to understand; enthusiastically agreed with the information; or found that the material was especially easy to understand. For example: the first manuscript offers this passage-—?Calves can be successfully reared from 7 to 10 days of age on excellent pasture and fed only milk or milk replacer.? This passage motivated more comments, cross-outs, and underlinings than any other in the publication. These are some of the comments received-- ?Is this recommended?? PI always feed grain until calves are a year old.? ?My heifers get grain until they freshen.? ?Never put calves on pasture until they are at least nine months old.? 136 The comments on the second publication related almost entirely to the complexity of the tables and the difficulty in understanding the information. The third publication inspired comments regarding the respondentfs past experience with zoning or his opinion of it. One respondent inserted F. . . and go-cart tracks . . . .9 whenever the text was discussing the elimination of undesirable areas through zoning. Comments on the fourth publication were generally limited to answers to questions asked of each respondent concerning problems they had with mastitis that the publi- cation did not answer, and changes they would like to see made in the publication before it was reprinted. The bulletin seemed to be interesting and easy to read, and it did not motivate many general comments. On the basis of the type of comments and markings obtained before the interviews and through the mail, it seems safe to say that the respondents in the pre-test studies made comments and markings when they were especially motivated, either positively or negatively, by the information being presented. or by the way in which it was presented. There was a broad center range where the respondents were either nominally satisfied or not too dissatisfied and thus did not make any comments. 137 The use of interviewing can obtain varying degrees of helpful information from the respondent. depending largely on the type of publication being tested and the amount of time devoted to each interview. The first manuscript was not difficult to read and was on a subject common to all dairy farmers. Interviews with respondents to this publi- cation test averaged approximately 50 minutes in length, during which time a fairly complete assessment was made of respondentsf opinions and understanding. None of the inter- views with respondents to the second publication test were less than an hour in duration, with the average being approximately 75 minutes in length. EVen with this added time, the interviewer was not able to obtain respondents' opinions and understanding of all parts of the publication. The interviews on the third publication were relatively short and provided little additional information over that obtained through the mail procedures. The zoning manuscript was easily understood and included only two illustrations on which respondents could be queried. Thus only general comments pertaining to the interest and understanding of the publication were obtained. As will be recalled, in addition to regular procedures both the mail and interview respondents were asked the questions pertaining to knowledge and opinion change of zoning due to reading this manuscript. Because of 138 the lack of questionable material in the zoning manuscript to discuss during the interviews, the judges' ratings of the helpfulness of the interview responses did not test significantly higher than the ratings of the mail responses. The fourth publication was quite easy for the respondents to read and understand, and the subject of mastitis was of high interest to dairy farmers. Because of this high interest in the subject, during the interview respondents were willing to discuss the publication. The judgesf ratings of the helpfulness of the responses and the testing for statistical significance in the differences would seem to indicate that: 1. There is a greater difference in the helpfulness of the responses from the interview and mail pro- cedures When the publication being tested is technical in nature and more difficult to understand. This difference seems to hinge on the length of time that can be devoted to each interview. 2. There is a greater difference in the helpfulness of the responses from the interview and mail pro- cedures when the publication being tested is of high interest to the re3pondents. Even though the respondent does not volunteer many comments on his own, he is interested enough to discuss the topic and the publication quite thoroughly during the interview. According to the instructions given to the judges, a rating of five on the nine point scale would indicate that the responses gave a definite indication of respondents' opinions and understanding. Mail responses were not rated 139 at or above the 5.0 level on any of the fourteen criteria used by the judges on more than one of the publication tests. At the same time the judges' ratings of the helpfulness of the responses from the interview procedures was at or above the 5.0 level on at least three of the four publications on the following criteria: --purpose clear to the reader --language simple, direct --subject presented concisely and to the point --illustrations and tables understood by the reader ——subject covered but not too long --meets need and presents significant facts only ——emphasizes tested and approved procedures It must be remembered that the judges? ratings were based on the markings and comments of the respondents and the additional information added by the interviewer during the course of the interview and did not include the quiz scores or opinion ratings. Because the application questions were included for the purpose of checking respondents' ability to apply the information to his own problem situations, the scores on the quiz items would give some indication of hOW’Well the publication met two criteria: ?directions simple and complete,f and ?material-easy to locate.? The unit opinion ratings would probably provide additional 140 information to the bulletin editor and author on the respondents opinion as to whether or not the publication: ?Meets need and presents significant facts only,? and gives ?information up to date.? Because there was no rating of the helpfulness of the quiz scores and unit opinion ratings, it would be misleading to not include the previously mentioned four criteria as areas where information could be gained through the mail. Use of Responses in Bulletin Produgtion Although it is not in the design of the study to report the effects of the pre—test study on the test manu— scripts, some incidental observations have been made that might give additional insight into the helpfulness of the responses. The calf raising manuscript was published in the same form as it was tested with minor revisions being made to some of the charts. The illustrations were redrawn before printing and seemed to more clearly indicate the message the author was trying to communicate. The author of the silage manuscript decided that revisions were needed in the publication before printing. His decisions were based on the markings and comments of the respondents and the additional information provided by the 141 interviewer, even though he reviewed the quiz scores and unit opinion ratings as well. The revisions to the mastitis bulletin were nearly complete when the results of the pre-test were compiled and made available to the authors. One of the authors had the opportunity to review the responses and was extremely satisfied that the responses validated the changes that were being planned in the revision. Time Expired and Cost Another apparent advantage of pre-testing through the use of interviews as compared with the use of mail procedures is the dispatch in obtaining the responses through personal contact. The difference in the number of days expired from the distribution of the first manuscript to the receipt of the last response for the four pre-test procedures was tested for statistical significance in Chapter IV. The number of days expired through the mail procedures was significantly higher at the .05 level in three out of four of the comparisons, with the fourth com- parison testing at the .10 level and thus not showing adequate significance. The data indicate that generally the pre-test studies were completed 20 days sooner when the responses were obtained through interviews rather than through 142 the use of mail procedures. This difference is largely attributable to the extra time needed to follow-up on the non-respondents from the mail procedures. The followeup on the panel mail procedure was made as the interviewer called on a respondent to discuss the succeeding publication. This usually occurred before all of the responses were re- turned from the non-panel mail respondents, resulting in a slightly different number of days expired in the data collection. There were no mail responses received for any publication later than one week after the respondents re- ceived their second followaup letter. The differences in the number of calendar days expired for data collection between the four publicaions is due to the length of the publications and the varying lengths of time that the respondents possessed the manuscript before being contacted for the data collection. The second manu— script on silage had been distributed nearly four weeks before the data collection began, instead of the planned possession time of approximately two weeks. The smallness of the latter two publications resulted in a shorter possession time for both the mail respondents and the interview respondents. It should be pointed out that the number of days expired in data collection in this study are not necessarily 143 indicative of the exact number of days that might expire in every pre-test study conducted. This factor can vary greatly according to the number of days that the respondents are allowed possession of the manuscript before data collection; the number of interviews to be conpleted and the length of the interviews; the number of follow-up letters and inter— view call-backs; and the number of days expired between the followeup letters. There would probably still tend to be a significant difference between interview and mail procedures in the number of days expired, the exact figure depending on the methods used in the study. Despite the advantages thus far expounded for the use of interviews in pre-testing studies, there is one major limiting factor in conducting publication tests with this procedure. That factor is the financial cost involved in conducting interviews. The average cost of pre-testing a publication with a potential of thirty respondents was between $210 and $225 for interview procedures and between $67 and $73 for mail procedures. These differences are statistically significant at the .01 level or above. The major difference in the costs of the procedures is almost entirely due to the difference in two items of expense. They are the time of the interviewer and the milage cost of the interviewer. The mail procedures incurred no 144 expense from the interviewerfs time or milage. The panel groups incurred more expenses than their procedural counter- parts in the non-panel groups because of the interviewer's time and milage expense in contacting potential panel members to secure their participation in the study. There is some additional difference in cost between the panel interview procedure and the non-panel interview procedure because of more interviews obtained from the panel groups and thus more time devoted in conducting interviews. The conduction of the pre-test studies was time consuming and expensive. Since each publication was tested with four groups of respondents, in actuality sixteen pre- test studies were conducted. Because four of these studies were conducted at one time on the same publication, many costs, such as manuscript preparation, questionnaire con- struction, and much of the time and milage involved in the interviews, were divided between either two or four of the procedures. In spite of the sharing of expenses explained above, the total cost of the pre-tests was $2,300. The test of the first publication was most expensive at $816.10. The expenses declined on each of the remaining tests with $629.46 for the second, $454.19 for the third, and $400.46 for the fourth. 145 The first decline was primarily due to the lower cost in preparing the second manuscript for the study and to the increased efficiency of the interviewer due to his experience in conducting interviews on the first publication. The second decline in cost was due to the smaller size of the manuscript thus lowering preparation costs and resulting in less time devoted to each interview and less ndlage because of the fewer number of days required to complete the inter- views. The decline on the fourth publication test was mostly due to the use of the original bulletin in the study with the result that very little time and almost no materials were involved in the preparation of the copies for the test. Although the validity of the responses from the mail procedures could be questioned on the basis of the response rate, probably the most important consideration is the help- fulness ratings given to the responses by the committee of judges. The cost of each unit rating of helpfulness by the mail procedures is only one half of that from the interview procedures. At the same time the judges found that none of the mail responses gave a definite indication of respondents' opinions and understanding of the information on any of the fourteen criteria for more than one publication test. Thus the helpfulness rating is less expensive to acquire through the mail procedures, but it is probably not high enough to 146 be of real value to the bulletin author and editors. If additional helpfulness ratings were available from the mail procedures through the contacting of more potential respondents, or if the helpfulness per response could be greatly increased through improved mail procedures, then the use of mail would become advantageous because it would then be possible to Obtain more helpful responses at lower cost. Influence of Numbers of Respondents on Helpfulness Re-examination of the helpfulness ratings and the response rates presented in Chapter IV sheds light on the probability of increasing the helpfulness rating of the mail responses by increasing the number of respondents. As has been noted there is no significant difference between the helpfulness of the responses from the panel mail and non- panel mail procedures on the first publication test even though there were 21 respondents from the panel mail pro- cedure and thirteen respondents from the non-panel mail procedure. There were fifteen respondents from the panel mail procedure on the second publication test as compared to eight respondents from the non-panel mail procedure. The helpfulness rating for the responses from.the panel mail procedure is significantly the highest at the .005 level. 147 There is no significant difference in the helpfulness ratings given to the responses from the panel mail and non-panel mail procedures on the third publication test although the former had eighteen responses while the latter had only eight responses. The nineteen respondents from the panel mail procedure on the fourth publication test is nearly five times greater than the four respondents from the non-panel mail procedure. Even then, there is no significant difference in the ratings given to the helpfulness of the responses from the two groups. This information seems to indicate that increasing the number of mail respondents would probably not greatly change the helpfulness rating. Comparison of the Panel and Non-Panel Procedures Rate of Response The higher response rate from the panel groups which has been previously noted seems to be due to the panel members having agreed to participate in the study, and the personal contact with the interviewer. The influence of the personal contact is apparent when comparing the 60.8% response rate of the panel mail procedure with the 27.5%.response rate of the non-panel mail procedure. The panel members responding through the mail had been contacted prior to each mail 148 response either when they agreed to participate in the study, or when they were interviewed on the previous publication test. In contrast, the non-panel mail respondents had re- ceived no personal contact whatsoever. Thus, the thirteen percent difference in the response rates of the panel inter- view and non-panel interview procedures seems to be due to the panel members having agreed to participate in the study, while the 33%1difference in the response rates of the panel mail and the non-panel mail procedures seems to be due to a combination of the panel members having agreed to participate in the study and the non-panel respondents not having any personal contact with the interviewer during the study. Other aspects of the response rate are the number of calls needed to obtain one interview, and the cost of each response. The data in Chapter IV indicate that more calls were needed on each non-panel respondent to secure an inter- view than were needed to secure an interview from a panel member. For thirty interviews this difference would amount to 89.7 calls on the non-panel respondents and 77.7 calls on the panel members. Although statistical significance tests indicate that there is no difference between the costs of the panel and non-panel procedures in the pre—test studies, there does seem to be some difference in the cost of obtaining each 149 response. The cost of each response from the panel interview procedure was $10.36 while the cost of each response from the non-panel interview procedure was $11.85. This small dif- ference is due to the similarity of the cost of each procedure and the relatively small difference in the response rates. The similarity of the cost of the pre—tests with the panel mail procedure and the non-panel mail procedure combined with the difference in the response rates results in the costs of $3.99 for each mail response from the panel members and $8.16 for each non-panel mail response. The low response rate from the non-panel mail pro- cedure has been discussed as being important in considering the cost per response from the different groups. In this connection it is important to recall that different respondents were selected for the non-panel groups for each publication test and the normal expectation of a fall-off in responses ‘with each succeeding publication tested by the same group of respondents was not a condition which prevailed in this part of the study. It might be well to further discuss the response rate from this procedure. The first publication test yielded a response rate for the non-panel mail procedure of 43.3%. the highest of the four tests for this procedure. The response rate was 26.7% on both the second and third 150 publication tests. The four responses on the fourth publi- cation test amounted to a 13.3% response rate. The reason for the drop in response rates might be explained as follows: The first publication was on a subject common to all dairy farmers. Many of the respondents from all of the procedures voiced their own pet theories and practices concerning calf raising. These constituted the majority of the comments volunteered by the respondents. The manuscript was easy to read and more of the subjects were motivated to respond without the personal contact of the interviewer. The second publication was quite technical in nature and thus more difficult to understand. ‘Without the motivation of a personal contact, the non-panel mail subjects did not respond as highly to this test. The third manuscript was on a subject which is not necessarily interesting to some dairy farmers. Several of the subjects contacted through the interviews had never heard of zoning previous to receiving the manu- script. The non-panel mail group members were randomly selected from the same audience as the interview group members and the low response rate may have been due to either the lack of interest in zoning or the possible hostility that some people tend to have toward zoning. The instructions for reviewing the fourth publication were evidently more difficult to understand than were those for the first three tests. The publication was tested in the form in which it had been printed three years previously and the instructions were worded so as to minimize any variables introduced because of the change. Even though the subject of mastitis is highly interesting to most dairy farmers, the difficulty of understanding the instructions and purpose of the study through the instructions alone may have been responsible for the low response rate from the non- panel mail procedure. The problem of maintaining a panel group once it has been established would be an important consideration in the 151 conduction of regular pre—test studies. All of those dropping from the two panel groups had done so before the collection of data on the third publication test. There were no further drops and even an increase in the response rate on the fourth test. Nearly 50%»of the respondents in the study indicated that they would be willing to serve for a year on a pre- testing panel and to review up to ten publications during that time. The study was conducted during the fall harvest season in a year when bad weather conditions had forced delays in the normal sequence of harvesting. Because of this, some of those saying that they would participate on a panel qualified their willingness by indicating that they would participate during the winter months when they had more time. Many of the respondents, both through the mail and through the interviews, who did not state whether they would or would not be willing to participate on a pre-test panel did say that they would probably be interested in reviewing bulletin manuscripts during the winter months. The panel respondents expressed the general comment that the tests were conducted too close together, especially for that time of year, but that during the winter months this frequency would not have been a burden. Thus it would 152 seem that it would be possible to secure adequate partici- pation in a pre-testing panel if desired. Helpfulness o§_the Responses There were no significant differences between the ratings given by judges to the helpfulness of responses from the panel and non-panel procedures on any of the publication tests with the exception of the second. In this one instance the helpfulness rating given to the responses from the panel mail procedure was significantly higher at the .005 level than the rating given to the responses from the non-panel mail procedure. For the mean of the helpfulness ratings for all publication tests there was no significant difference between the panel and non-panel groups. The difference between the ratings of the responses from the panel mail and non-panel mail procedures on the second publication test could well be due to the panel group having learned what type of information was desired from being interviewed on the first publication test, and having the type of publication for the second test that motivated them to give*more comments and markings. There is no indication that the helpfulness of the responses for the last two publication tests was a result of the panel groups 153 having learned the type of responses desired. Neither the responses from the panel interview nor the panel mail pro- cedures were rated significantly higher than the responses from the non—panel interview or non-panel mail procedures respectively. This could be because the third and fourth publications were not the type to motivate the panel members to volunteer the type of responses that they may have learned to give, for there are two indications that the panel members did learn enough about the responses desired that it effected their subsequent responses. The first of these indications is the progressively widening gap between the quiz scores of the panel members and the non-panel respondents. The panel members' average scores on the quizzes were higher than those of the non- panel members by 6.66 points on the first publication test, 8.26 on the second, 8.01 on the third and 16.45 on the fourth. Although the differences did not test to be statistically significant, these data would seem to indicate the panel membersf ability to more accurately interpret the questions and to know the types of answers desired by the composer of the questionnaire after they had participated in earlier pre—tests. The second indication would be in the comparison of the number of complete and incomplete responses obtained 154 from the two panel groups as they responded to the four publication tests. The panel members being interviewed on the first publication test were checked closely as to the completeness of their responses. If a respondent had not completed his unit ratings he was asked to complete them, which resulted in all of the panel interview responses on the first publication being complete. This practice of checking the completeness of the responses was not continued on the subsequent interviews. When the same panel group that had been interviewed on the first publication test was being interviewed on the third publication test, the fourth publication was presented to the members and brief oral instructions were given on how to review this publication. The instructions were given because of the change from the use of a manuscript to the use of the actual bulletin. These two personal training efforts on the part of the interviewer resulted in more complete responses from the last three publication tests from the panel group which had received the training. The trained panel group provided 53 responses on the last three publication tests, of which only four were incomplete. The untrained panel group pro— vided 61 responses on the last three publication tests, of which thirteen were incomplete. Most significant is the 155 fact that seven of the incomplete responses from the untrained panel group were on the fourth publication test even though this group had received written instructions on how to complete the review of the bulletin. The trained panel group had no incomplete responses on the fourth publication test. Comparison of Farmer Responses and Extension Agent Responses There seemed to be both differences and similarities in the unit opinion ratings and the general comments about a publication between the farmer respondents and the extension agent respondents. Differences are evident in the responses of the first and third publication tests. Extension agents rated the calf raising manuscript higher and the zoning manuscript lower than did the farmers. The similarities are evident on the second and fourth publication tests, where the average unit opinion ratings of the extension agents and farmers are identical. The comments on the silage and mastitis manuscripts are also similar for the agents and farmers. Although the comparison of extension agent and farmer responses is too superficial to indicate any trends, and is from too limited a sample of extension agents to apply any tests of significance, it would seem that on the basis of the 156 similarity of the responses on the silage and mastitis publication tests that the possibility of pre—testing studies being conducted with extension agents should be explored further. In such explorations it would be of interest to investigate further the accuracy of agentsf perceptions of the ability of farmers to understand and benefit from publications of differing degrees of technical difficulties. Such differences as do appear in this limited study indicate agents may underestimate the abilities of farmers to deal with basic material. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary of Procedures Purpose of the Study The primary purpose of this study is to compare four procedures for conducting pre-publication tests of bulletin manuscripts. The procedures are compared in respect to their efficiency in providing: 1. Information indicating the ability of the intended bulletin audience to understand the information presented in the bulletin manuscript. 2. Information indicating the intended bulletin audience’s perception of need for the information in the bulletin manuscript. This study has the secondary purposes of: l. Obtaining information about the tenure of respondents serving on panels organized for the purpose of pre- testing bulletin manuscripts. 2. Gaining insight into the willingness of members of the intended bulletin audience to participate in pre-testing studies. 157 158 3. Pre—testing four manuscripts for popular bulletins, and reporting means of improving these manuscripts before printing. 4. Comparing the responses from a limited selection of county extension agents with the responses from the sample of the intended bulletin audience. Significance of the Study One of the communication tools used to disseminate information to the public is the popular bulletin. This printed information piece accounts for vast expenditures on the part of public agencies in their production and distri- bution. The U. S. Department of Agriculture alone in 1958 distributed some 42,335,568 bulletins. Discussing agri- culture and related subjects specifically, the State Agricultural Experiment Stations and Extension Services prepare and publish approximately 3,000 new bulletin titles each year. Many research studies indicate that as well as being a widely known and used information channel, the bulletin is an important means of influencing change in farm practices and is more utilized by those farmers often classified as Fearly adopters.? Through a pre-publication test with a sample of the intended audience, some of the ways people may interpret-the 159 symbols used in the publication can be detected before it is printed. The pre—test should help determine whether or not the interpretations of the readers are those intended by the author and editor. Two concerns of prime importance in assessing any pre-testing effort are: (1) the validity of the responses in predicting the true interpretation of the publication by the general audience of bulletin users; and (2) the extent to which the help attained through pre-testing is sufficient to justify the time and expense required in conducting the study. The adoption of pre-testing as a practice in the production of bulletins will depend on the outcome of studies dealing with these concerns. While the practicality of pre- testing is the primary concern of this study, the two concerns are not unrelated, and any conclusions must take into consid- eration the validity of the responses as well. Hypotheses The hypotheses of this study, in relation to the efficiency of the four pre—test procedures are: l. The procedures are ranked by the helpfulness of the information that they provide as follows: panel interview > non-panel interview'> panel mail > non-panel mail. 160 2. The procedures are ranked by the cost of their implementation as follows: panel interview'> non-panel interview > panel mail > non-panel mail. 3. The procedures are ranked in respect to the number of days expired from the beginning of their implementation to the receipt of the final response as follows: non-panel mail > panel mail > non-panel intervieW'> panel interview. 4. There are no differences in the information obtained on the respondentsf understanding and perception of need for the publication as follows: panel interview = non- panel interview = panel mail = non-panel mail. Methodology The four pre-test procedures examined in the study are: 1. Personal interviews with panel members who have agreed to read four bulletin manuscripts (panel interview procedure): 2. Mail questionnaires sent to panel members who have agreed to read four bulletin manuscripts (panel mail procedure); 3. Personal interviews with non-panel respondents asked to read one particular bulletin manuscript (non-panel interview procedure); and 161 4. Mail questionnaires sent to non-panel respondents asked to read one particular bulletin manuscript (non- panel mail procedure). The criteria for measuring the efficiency of the pre-test procedures are: l. The amount of helpfulness in the responses from each procedure; 2. The cost of obtaining the responses with each proce- dure; and 3. The number of days expired from the initial distri- bution of the manuscripts to the final response. The four procedures were analyzed for their efficiency in pre-testing four publications. Two of the publications are farmer bulletins from the U. S. Department of Agriculture: Raising Dairy Calves gngeifers and Zoning for Rural Areas. Theother two are extension bulletins from Michigan State University: Silage in the Dairy Ration and Mastitis Control .in Michigan Herds. All but the mastitis publication were distributed for the pre-test in either mimeograph or multi- lith print on 8 l/2 x 11 white paper. The mastitis publication was distributed in actual printed bulletin form, with the results of the pre-test to be used in revising the publication before it was reprinted. 162 The pre-tests on all four publications were con- ducted in Clinton County, Michigan, one of seventeen counties in.Michigan with more than 15,000 dairy cows. The two panel groups of thirty members each and the eight non-panel groups of thirty subjects each were randomly selected from a list of dairy farmers in Clinton County. The list was secured from the milk route lists from all plants in and surrounding Clinton County that collected milk or cream from Clinton County farms. Also, two groups of five extension agents each were selected to help in the study. They were selected from the agents responsible for the extension dairy program in the seventeen counties in Michigan with over 15,000 dairy cows. Data Collection Procedures For each panel group member-- --there were four publications read, -—two mail questionnaires were administered, and --two interviews were conducted. (When the members of one panel were being interviewed the members of the other panel were receiving mail questionnaires.) For each non-panel respondent-- --there was one publication read, and --either one interview conducted or one mail question— naire administered. (When the subjects on one non- panel group were being interviewed, the subjects in the other non-panel group received mail questionnaires.) 163 For each publication there was-- —-one panel group receiving mail questionnaries, --one non-panel group receiving mail questionnaires, --one panel group being interviewed, --one non-panel group being interviewed, --one extension agent group responding through the mail, and --one extension agent group being interviewed. For extension agent groups-- --the members of one group were interviewed on all publication tests, and --the members of the other group responded through the mail on all publication tests. Each respondent was instructed to underline any word, group of words, or sentence he felt might not be understood, to cross out any word, group of words, or sentence he felt was not needed, and to write any comments in the margin that he wished to make. Each respondent was given a questionnaire involving problem solving situations using the information in the publication, and was aSked to rate the usefulness of the several units in the publication. The extension agents were asked to project themselves into the position of the dairy farmer and to review the publication and respond as they would expect the farmers to respond, except for the completion of the questionnaire. All costs of the pre-tests, the length of time involved in the data collection, and the markings and comments were used to compare the efficiency of the procedures. The quiz scores and unit opinion ratings were used to compare the 164 similarity of the pre-test responses. The response rates, number of calls per interview, and voiced willingness to serve on future pre-test panels, were used as indications of the willingness of members of the bulletin audience to participate in pre-test studies. The response pattern of the panel members was recorded as an indication of the feasibility of using pre-testing panels composed of members of the bulletin audience. The groups of respondents involved in the study were compared on the basis of such personal characteristics as age and education, and on the type of their farming operations. Each panel member was contacted in person, and agreed to participate in the reviewing of the four bulletin manu- scripts. The non-panel subjects were contacted through the mail and asked to review one particular manuscript. Three dairy farmers located outside of the study area, and one undergraduate student at Michigan State University were asked to review the first publication as a trial of the instructions, questionnaire, and interview procedures. subsequent questionnaires were reviewed by staff members of the Office of Information Services at the U. S. Department of Agriculture and of Michigan State University. 165 Data Analysis Procedures All of the markings obtained on a publication test from the respondents from each procedure were compiled into a single ?master manuscript.* Each master manuscript was rated on a 1.0 to 9.0 scale by a committee of three judges. The responses were rated on how well they indicated what the readersf opinions were of the publications ability to meet specific criteria set up for bulletin evaluation. Responses with a rating of 5.0 or above were considered to give a definite indication of the readersf opinions. The mean rating of each procedure was used in testing the hypothesis relating to the helpfulness of the responses.. The hypothesis relating to cost was tested using the mean cost from each procedure on the four publication tests. Similarly, the hypothesis on length of time expired was tested using the mean number of days for data collection for each procedure. The hypothesis on the similarity of the responses was tested with both the mean quiz scores and the mean unit opinion ratings from each procedure. The farmer responses and extension agent responses were compared on the basis of the markings and comments from each group as well as their unit opinion ratings. 166 The mean of each personal characteristic of the respondents was compared between the groups to determine differences in the groups of respondents. The character— istics of each respondent*werecorrelated with his quiz scores and unit opinion ratings to determine any relation- ship between the characteristics and the responses. Summapy of Study Results Helpfulness of the Responses On the basis of the judgesf ratings the pre-test responses from the interview procedures were more helpful than were the responses from the mail procedures, with the significance of this difference on each of the four publi- cation tests being at least at the .01 level. There were no significant differences between the mean helpfulness ratings given to the responses from the panel and non- panel procedures on all publication tests or for any individual publication test with the exception of the second. In this one instance the helpfulness rating given to the responses from the panel mail procedure was significantly higher at the .005 level than the rating given to the responses from the non-panel mail procedure. The responses from the panel interview procedure to all publication tests have a mean rating of 5.12 followed 167 closely by the mean rating of 5.0 for the responses from the non-panel interview procedure. The mean rating for the responses from the panel mail procedure on all publication tests is 3.32 with a rating of 3.12 for the mean of all responses from the non-panel procedure. In general the respondents were not profuse in the quantity of their comments and markings. This is especially true ofthose who responded through the mail. Many of the comments were irrelevant to the reader's opinion or under- standing of the bulletin and stated personal practices or beliefs concerning the subject at hand. It seems safe to say that the respondents in the pre-test studies made comments and markings when they were especially motivated, either positively or negatively, by the information being presented or by the way in which it was presented. There was a broad center range where the respondents were either nominally satisfied or not too dissatisfied and thus did not make any comments or markings. The highest helpfulness ratings are on the responses to the fourth publication test with 6.38 for the panel inter- view and 6.14 for the non-panel interview responses. The ratings of the mail procedure responses fall between 3.31 and 3.74 except for those for the second publication test. For the silage publication the rating I 168 for the responses from the panel mail procedure is down to 2.55 and the rating of the responses from the non-panel mail procedure is a low 1.71, or almost no help at all. The judges' ratings of the helpfulness of the responses and the testing for statistical significance in the differences would seem to indicate that: 1. There is a greater difference in the helpfulness of the responses from the interview and mail pro- cedures when. the publication being tested is technical in nature and more difficult to under- stand. This seems to hinge on the length of time that can be devoted to each interview, with more technical bulletins having more material to discuss with the respondent. There is a greater difference in the helpfulness of the responses from the interview and mail procedures when the publication being tested is of high interest to the respondents. Even though the respondent does not volunteer many comments on his own, he is interested enough to discuss the topic and the publication quite thoroughly during the interview. The judges: ratings of the helpfulness of the responses from the interview procedures was at or above the 5.0 level on at least three of the four publication tests on the following criteria: --purpose clear to the reader --language simple, direct --subject presented concisely and to the point --illustrations and tables understood by the reader --subject covered but not too long 169 --meets need and presents significant facts only --emphasizes tested and approved procedures Cost of Responses In this study interview procedures were significantly more costly than the mail procedures to at least the .01 level. The actual cost incurred during the study by each panel group was slightly but not significantly higher than the non-panel groups because of the additional expense of _soliciting the panel members' participation in the study. Cost is the major limiting factor in conducting pre- test studies through the use of interviews. The average cost for a completed interview in the study was between $10 and $12. By comparison, the average cost of a mail response from a non-panel subject was $8.16 and the average cost of a mail response from a panel member was $3.99. The average cost of pre-testing a publication with a potential of thirty respondents was between $210 and $225 for the interview procedures and between $67 and $73 for the mail procedures. When the helpfulness of the responses is considered, however, the differences are not as great. Each unit of helpfulness from the interview procedures cost from $42 to $44, while each unit of helpfulness from the mail procedures cost from $21 to $22. 170 Length of Time Expired The number of days expired from the distribution of the first manuscript to the receipt of the last response through the mail procedures was significantly higher than the number of days through the interview procedures with but one exception. The panel mail procedure tested at the .10 level over the panel interview procedure, making the difference in the days devoted to their data collection not significant. The pre-tests using mail procedures averaged from 48 to 50 days in length while those pre-tests using interview procedures averaged from 27 to 30 days in length. Thus, when following procedures such as those used in this study, the use of interviews allows for the pre—testing and production of a publication approximately 20 days sooner than would be the case if the pre-tests were conducted through mail responses. Similarity of_guiz Scores and Unit Opinion Ratings There were no significant differences in the average quiz scores between the four procedures. The scores from the panel mail procedure averaged the highest at 81.03 and tested to the .10 level of significance on a two-sided test over the average quiz scores of 69.72 and 65.38 for 171 the non-panel mail and non-panel interview procedures respectively. The quiz scores obtained through the interview pro— cedures averaged lower than those from the mail procedures. This is true for all but the first publication test. The average quiz score for the panel mail procedure of 81.03 is nearly ten points higher than the panel interview proce- dure's 71.35. For every publication test the quiz scores from the panel groups are higher than the scores from the non-panel groups using the same procedure. There were no significant differences in the average unit opinion ratings between the four procedures. The mean rating from all publications was the highest at 4.22 for the non-panel mail procedure and the lowest at 4.07 for the non-panel interview procedure. There do not seem to be any discernable trends in the unit opinion ratings among the four procedures. There are some differences in the ratings of the individual publi- cations that do not show up in the average ratings of the procedure because it is counteracted by a rating in the opposite direction on another publication test. 172 Comparison of Farmer and Extension Agent Responses The number of extension agents involved in this study was very limited. The five agents interviewed responded to the first two publication tests with four continuing to respond through the last two tests. Four of the five agents to respond through the mail returned the tests on the first two publications while three of them continued to respond through the last two tests. The number of agent respondents was too limited to permit statistical analysis. The extension agents tended to rate Raising Dairy gplves and Heifers higher than did the farmer respondents. The agents tended to say that this publication served a real need and would even be valuable to the commercial farmer to brush up on his calf raising practices. The farmers indi— cated that they already knew almost all of the information in the publication, and that they would not read it just to brush up. The average unit opinion rating score of the extension agents was two tenths of a point above that of the farmers, and seven of the 21 units were rated with at least four tenths of a point difference. In general, the farmer respondents thought that they could get what information they wanted out of Silage in the Dairy Ration. The extension agents thought that the publication 173 was too technical for the farmers to derive anything of importance from it. Many of the technical terms and charts were not understood by the farmers. The average unit opinion rating for the publication was the same for the farmers and extension agents, though five of the fifteen units were rated with at least four tenths of a point difference. The extension agents thought that Zoning for Rpppi Areas tended to be too basic for rural people. However, there were several of the farmers interviewed who had never heard of zoning before and thought this publication did a good job of explaining the topic. The average rating of the units was three tenths of a point lower for the extension agents with six of the nine units rated at least four tenths of a point lower.than.the farmersf ratings. Farmers and extension agents were nearly identical in their opinions and ratings of the fourth publication, .Mgstitis Control inJMichigan Herds. The average unit opinion scores were the same, and their ratings on all seven of the units were nearly identical. Both the extension agents and the farmers regarded the information in the bulletin as important enough to retain, and suggestions for additions and improvements were similar from both groups. 174 Tenure of the Panel Members A total of 25 different individuals out of the 30 on each panel responded to at least one of the publication pre- tests. Fifteen of the members of each panel responded to all four publication pre-tests. Only seven of the fifteen from panel one responded completely to the quiz and unit opinion ratings on all four publication tests, while twelve of the fifteen from panel two responded completely. Differences in the completeness of responses correspond to differences in the methods used in working with the two panel groups: (1) While panel one was responding through the mail on the first publication test, panel two was interviewed and all answers were checked for completeness. Any incomplete answers were filled out at that time. This practice was not continued for succeeding publi- cation tests. (2) After the interviews with members of panel two onthe third publication, copies of the fourth publication were presented and oral instructions were given to the panel members on the change in the technique from the use of a mimeographed manuscript to the use of a printed bulletin. The members of panel one received written instructions for reviewing the printed bulletin. There were 82 responses from panel one, 61 of which 175 were complete. There were 78 responses from panel two, 74 of which were complete. On the last three publication tests panel one had 48 complete and thirteen incomplete responses. At the same time panel two had 49 complete and four incomplete responses. ‘Willingness of Farmers to Respond The first publication test received the highest rate of reSponses with a 67.5% return. The second, third and fourth publication tests received virtually identical response rates of 50%, 50.8% and 51.7% respectively. The average rate of return on the latter three publication tests was lowered considerably by the drop in the number of responses from the non-panel mail procedure. The rate of return from the panel interview procedure on all publication tests is the highest at 72.5%. The panel mail and non-panel interview procedures have almost identical rates of return at 60.8%.and 59.2%»respective1y. The rate of return from the non-panel mail procedure at 27.5% is less than one-half of that from any other procedure. The 264 responses out of a potential of 480 responses for the entire study constitutes a 55%»return rate for all procedures on all publication tests. 176 The average number of calls made by the interviewer to secure an interview from a panel member was 2.59 while the average number of calls required to secure an interview from a non—panel respondent was 2.99. The highest number of calls per interview was on the second publication test when 2.86 calls per interview were required for the panel interview procedure and 3.5 calls per interview were required for the non-panel interview procedure. All respondents were asked if they would be willing to review up to ten bulletins a year for the purpose of pre- testing them. There were 76 different respondents indicating that they would be willing to do so. Forty-one respondents indicated that they would not be willing to do this while 37 respondents either did not make a reply or did not make a definite commitment. Validity of the Responses There is some doubt as to whether or not a respondent's] answer to each quiz item was a definite measure of hOW‘Well he might use the information to solve an actual problem situation. Instead, his response may indicate how well his interpretation of the meaning of the question corresponds to that of the questionnaire's composer. Also, the respondent probably was not motivated through the course 177 of the study the same as he might be if facing one of the quiz problems in a real-life situation. A respondentfs ability to answer the items on the quiz was not in itself an indication of whether or not he would consult the publication if said situations ever pre- sented themselves to him. If confronted with one of these situations the respondent might consult the publication if he did not have confidence in his own resources and/or if he remembered that he had the publication available for that purpose. Thus a correct answer to a quiz item E;ggg mean that the respondent would be able to solve the actual problems posed by the question ;£_he'would consult the publication. There seemed to be a definite tendency for the respondents to misinterpret the instructions given for rating the units of the manuscripts. For instance, the interview respondents on the calf raising publication remarked almost unanamously that the information presented was mostly material that they already knew and that the publication was of no particular interest to them, but at the same time they rated this publication as being ?quite useful.? Relationships Between Characteristics of Respondents and Their Responses The only two mutual characteristics available for comparison of the farmers in Michigan and Clinton County 178 with the respondents in the study are the size of the farms and the number of milk cows per farm. Comparisons of these characteristics reveal that the respondents in this study are above average in the size of their farm operation, though later census data would tend to show smaller differences than are indicated here. The average size farm in Michigan in 1954 was 118.5 acres with 127.5 acres per farm in Clinton County. The average number of acres owned and worked by each respondent in the study is 224 acres. The average number of milk cows per farm selling milk in 1954 was 9.6 for Michigan and 10.1 for Clinton County. The average number of milk cows per farm for the respondents is 22.6. Comparisons were also made in this study of the respondents in each of the sixteen different pre-tests on characteristics involving size of farming operation, personal background and experience with bulletins. There was little variation between the groups in the age and education of respondents. The greatest variation between the groups for any one characteristic was about the average of 27.2 days worked off of the farm per year. Eighty-four percent of the respondents knew before the study that USDA and Michigan State university bulletins were available, and 54%lof the respondents in the groups had 179 used these publications during the previous two years. Personal characteristics correlated with the quiz item scores and the unit opinion ratings as follows: Age--strong negative correlation with the quiz scores. --no apparent correlation with the unit opinion ratings. Percent Who Knew Bulletins were Available--strong positive correlation with the quiz scores. --tendency for a positive correlation with the unit opinion ratings. Pgrcent‘Who Had Used Bulletins in the Previous Two Years--fair1y strong positive correlation with the quiz scores. --tendency for a positive correlation with the unit opinion ratings. fiducation—-very strong positive correlation with the quiz scores. --no overall correlation with the unit opinion ratings. Size 9f Farmr-tendency for positive correlation with quiz scores. -—some tendency for a negative correlation with unit opinion ratings. Number of Milk Cows--tendency for a positive correlation on the quiz scores. —-slight tendency for a positive correlation with the unit opinion ratings. Number ointhep Daipy Animals--tendency for a positive correlation on the quiz scores. --a slight tendency for a positive correlation with the unit opinion ratings. Days off of Farm‘Wbrk--some tendency for a positive correlation with the quiz scores. --no discernable correlation with the unit opinion ratings. Percent of Farm Income From Dairy Operation--some tendency for a positive correlation on the quiz scores. --fairly strong positive correlation on the unit opinion ratings. 180 Conclusions Efficiency of the Responses On the basis of the judges' ratings on all publi- cation tests and the significance tests applied to these ratings, the interview procedures obtain more helpful responses than do the mail procedures. For the helpfulness ratings on the individual publication tests the interview procedures are significantly more helpful in all cases except on the third publication test. The lack of significance in the differences on the third publication test seems to be due to the lack of questionable material in the publication to discuss during the interviews. The responses from the interviews tended to be more helpful than mail responses in the case of difficult publications or those of high interest. The lowest help- fulness ratings during the study were given to the responses from the mail procedures on the silage publication which was considered to be quite technical, while the interview responses on this publication received the second highest rating of the study. The greatest difference between the ratings on the interview and mail responses was for the fourth publication test where the highly interesting subject of mastitis was discussed. 181 The ratings of the mail responses for the fourteen criteria used by the judges show little signs of reaching the level of providing definite indications of the respondents' opinions of the publications. The response rates from the panel mail procedure in this study were twice as high as those from the non-panel mail procedure, but even then the helpfulness rating of the responses from all publications for the two procedures showed no significant difference. Thus it seems that the number of respondents through a mail procedure has little effect on the helpfulness of the responses. It is likely that the interviews can get responses from the majority of the publication tests that are of definite help in determining the readersf opinion in the following criteria: --purpose clear to the reader --language simple, direct --subject presented concisely and to the point --illustrations and tables understood by the reader --subject covered but not too long --meets need and presents significant facts only --emphasizes tested and approved procedures 182 There wereruasignificant differences shown in the ratings of the responses from all publication tests from the panel and non—panel procedures, thus indicating that the fact a respondent is from a panel group does not seem to increase the helpfulness of his responses. The cost of conducting a pre-test through the use of interviews is significantly higher than through the use of mail responses. The cost per actual interview is higher than each mail response but obtains responses that are more likely to be of help to the bulletin author and editor. There are no significant differences between the costs of the pre-tests by panel and non-panel groups, though there is a tendency for the panel groups to have higher costs because of the expense of establishing the panels. If more than four publications were tested by the panel groups these slight differences would decrease. Because of the lower response rates from the non-panel groups, the cost per response was slightly less from the panel members than from the non-panel subjects. The pre-tests in the study using mail responses were 20 days longer in duration than those using interview responses. This difference is statistically significant and of importance when the manuscript being tested is nearing 183 the publishing deadline. There was no significance in the slight differences between the length of time incurred by the panel and non—panel procedures. There were no significant differences in the responses for all publication tests from the different procedures in respect to their quiz scores and unit opinion ratings. There did seem to be a strong trend for the mail respondents to obtain higher quiz scores than the interview respondents, possibly reflecting the opportunity for the mail respondents to take ample time to answer. The differences between the panel and non-panel quiz scores may have been great enough on the fourth publication test to reach the significance level. Although there may have been isolated cases of significant differences on the unit opinion ratings for individual publication tests, there were no apparent trends for one procedure to rate the publications higher or lower. Extension Agent Responses Compared ‘With Farmer Responses There were some differences and some similarities in the responses from extension agents and farmer respondents. The greatest difference was in the ratings and opinions of the zoning publication. The farmers tended to rate this 184 information higher than the extension agents did. The elementary information in the calf raising manuscript was rated lower by the farmers than by the extension agents. There was a strong tendency for technical and highly interesting information to be rated similarly by the agents and farmers. The farmers could not understand technical terms, charts, and tables as well as the extension agents thought they could. Panel Tenure On the basis of the response rates from the two panel groups used in this study, it would seem that up to 25%»of the panel members in a pre-test panel will drop from the study bythe third publication test. Prdbably as the study proceeds to additional publication tests the drop-out rate will be quite low. The panel members indicated that for the time of year (fall harvest season) the publication tests were too close together at two weeks, but that during the winter season this would not be too often. There are indications that the panel members will learn the type of responses expected from them with these learned responses being in direct relation to the amount of personal contact with the interviewer. l 185 Response Rate As might be expected, indications from this study are that where the subjects are personally contacted either during an interview or immediately prior to a mailing, a much higher response rate results. No personal contact with the respondent results in less than a third of the subjects responding, while 60%.responded after personal contact. Personal contact seems to create higher interest. 'With almost half of the respondents indicating their willingness to serve on future pre-test panels, there seems to be strong interest in this type of activity on the part of these members of the intended bulletin audience. Some of this interest may be due to a feeling of obligation to Michigan State university or to fellow farmers, but on the basis of comments received, many of the farmers were interested because of the opportunity to read new information even before it was in final print. Comments from the re- spondents reveal that the interest in participating in the pre-test studies would be greater in the winter months or in other comparatively slack seasons. validity of Responses There is some question as to what the respondents' quiz scores really indicate. The scores seem to indicate 186 how well the respondents interpret the meaning of the composer of the question. This would not be the same meaning or motivation the respondents would have if confronted by one of the problem situations portrayed in the questionnaire. This method also assumes that the bulletin will be used as a reference whenever a farmer has a problem, while there is no indication from the questions as to whether or not a respondent would ever possess the bulletin or even if he would ever use it if he did have it. The questions may provide some indication of how easy the material in the publication is to locate and if directions and instructions are simple and complete. There seemed to be a tendency for a respondent to rate a publication of more use than he actually indicated during the interviews. Thus the unit opinion ratings should not be taken at face value, but on a comparative basis with the ratings of other publications or a comparison of the individual units within a single publication. Indications are that the respondents in the study are from larger farms and farms more intensively involved in dairying than the average for Michigan or Clinton County. This may not be a serious accusation, as numerous studies have indicatedihat bulletin users come from larger farms. 187 Thus the respondents in the study may be more typical of current bulletin users than the average farmer would be. The respondents to the sixteen different pre-test studies seem to have been similar in the several character- istics defined in the study. The variations in the averages of any one group were not great except for the number of days the respondents worked off of the farm each year. The correlation of the quiz scores and the unit opinion ratings showed that this characteristic did not have much relation— ship to the responses. The correlation of the respondents' personal characteristics with the quiz scores and unit opinion ratings did show some important relationships. On the basis of these correlations, it would seem that the following characteristics are related to the responses given in the study: .Agpr-in relation to quiz scores Education——in relation to the quiz scores Percent of Income From Dairye-in relation to the unit opinion ratings Percent Who Knew That Bulletins Were Available--in relation to both quiz scores and unit opinion ratings. Percent Who Had Used Bulletins During the Previous Two prppr-in relation to both quiz scores and unit opinion ratings. 188 There is also some tendency for the respondents to rate the information in a publication higher if the subject matter contained in the publication is of direct concern, i.e., the silage publication is rated higher by respondents who feed silage. Also, there is almost a direct relation— ship between what a respondent learns about the subject covered by a publication and his rating of the publication. Recommendations f9; the Conductionggngre-Tests It appears that in the conduction of pre-publication tests, the benefits derived are commensurate with the costs incurred. Little helpfulness is obtained unless expensive interview procedures are utilized. It remains a matter of judgment on the part of those producing the publication as to the amount of helpfulness they want from the responses in relation to the amount of cost and the length of time they can afford to devote. On the basis of the costs involved in pre-testing with the methods used in this study, it could not be recommended that all education publications be pre-tested with members of the intended audience. Regardless of the benefits derived, the least expensive procedure used in this study would have cost Michigan State University nearly 189 $14,000 in 1960 if all of the 204 new and revised bulletins had been pre-tested. Whether or not any educational organi- zation or institution would be able to appropriate this amount of funds for the purpose of pre—testing is an open question. On the basis of this study it could not be recommended that the non-panel mail procedure be used in the conduction of pre-tests. The validity of the responses is questionable because of the low response rate and the helpfulness of the responses is low. There is no opportunity with this pro— cedure to assume correct interpretation of the instructions by respondents. Neither can the use of the panel mail procedure be recommended for pre-tests if methods similar to those employed in this study are utilized. The response rate from this procedure is probably adequate, but the helpfulness of the responses is low. If the panel respondents were adequately trained before the pre-tests, then this procedure might be worth using. The ponepanel interview procedgpp might be recom- mended because of its adequate response rate and the adequate helpfulness of the responses. This procedure has the dis- advantages of being expensive and of using each contact only once. 190 The panel interview procedure is recommended for use in conducting pre-tests with the methods utilized in this study. Although this procedure is expensive, its responses are adequately helpful and each person is more receptive to the study by virtue of having agreed to participate. There is also opportunity for training the members for succeeding pre-tests. It is recommended that the respondents selected from the intended bulletin audience should be representative of the intended bulletin audience on the basis of: Age; Education Level; Percent of Income from the Subject Covered by the Bulletin (or some other criteria designed to gage the relationship of the subject to a respondentfs business); Percent Who were Aware of the Existence of Bulletins; and Percent Who Had Used Bulletins in the Previous Two Years. In this study only interviews were able to obtain responses that seemed to be of definite help in determining the readerfs opinion of the publication. The following suggestions are offered to help alter this situation. It is suggested that questions dealing with the application of the subject matter not be used in pre-test studies. The validity of the answers is questionable and there seems to be a lack of motivation for responding to the items. An alternative method would be to ask the respondents 191 to define specific terms, interpret sentences or passages and to locate specific items on designated tables or charts. They might also be aSked to indicate the meaning of certain illustrations. It is suggested that the five point scale for rating each unit might be replaced with specific questions to eliminate the tendency for rating the publication too high. Sample questions are: What did you learn from this unit? ‘Would you have read this unit if you had not been aSked? Because of the lack of comments on the majority of the information in the publications and the increased helpful- ness of the interview responses on the more difficult publications, it is suggested that only more difficult publications or more difficult portions of publications be pre-tested. An experienced bulletin editor could probably indicate those portions that need pre-testing--the same portions that are likely to motivate the most comments and interest. This method would save time in interviewing and might result in higher rates of response. It is suggested that the complete publication be given to the respondents even though only certain portions are being pre-tested. This suggestion is based on some of the study respondents? interest in reading new publications before printing. 192 It is suggested that a panel group be used for the purpose of pre-testing, with first publication tests being through the use of interviews to serve as a training period. This suggestion is based on the tendency for panel members to learn what response is expected. It is then possible that several pre-tests could be conducted before the panel members were revisited or dropped from the panel. However, if this approach were utilized the answers to questions might vary between the interviews and the mail responses. It is suggested that once a manuscript has been revised on the basis of pre-test results that it be pre- tested a second time with a different but comparable group of respondents to determine if the revisions have improved the publication. It is suggested that pre-tests of agricultural publications with members of the intended audience be con- ducted in the winter months or during other appropriate off- season times. During these times as many as two pre-tests could be conducted with the same respondents each month. The pre-testing of publications with respondents only casually interested in the subject presented is not suggested. For these respondents to consider a publication understandable it would need to be more elementary than the intended bulletin 193 audience would want it. The non-interested respondents would also have no basis for determining how useful the information would be. There can be no recommendations or suggestions concerning the use of extension agents for pre-test studies without the benefit of further study. The results of the exploratory effort with extension agents in this study do indicate that the approach merits further examination. Recgpmendations for Further Study The pre-publication testing of printed material in general and agricultural bulletins in particular is not yet an accepted practice because of the many problems unsolved. This study was conducted to contribute to the solution of the problems. At the same time it has served to identify other concerns involving pre-testing that merit further study. Thus controlled experiments are recommended that will: --Compare responses from extension agents and members of the intended bulletin audience on publication pre-tests. --Compare responses from members of the intended bulletin audience on a publication pre—test with the bulletin editor’s opinion of the publication. 194 --Compare the helpfulness of mail responses using appli— cation questions and unit opinion ratings with mail responses using specific questions about understanding and opinions of the information. --Measure the helpfulness and cost of responses from panel members responding through the mail on publication pre-tests after an initial training period. APPENDIX.A QUIZ SCORES FOR FARMER.RESPONDENTS APPENDIX TABLE 1 196 MEAN SCORES ON EACH QUIZ ITEM FOR ALL FARMER RESPONDENTS TO RAISING DAIRY CALVES AND HEIFERS 1 2 2 2 2 2 95.9 94.8 86.4 86.5 100.0 55.7 1 2 2 12 11 12 94.7 91.0 89.0 51.7 10.6 70.1 12 12 12 12 11 18 80.1 86.5 89.4 73.3 85.1 91.6 . 18. 22 21 22 23. 22 88.5 87.0 75.1 73.3 83.9 62.1 22 22 21 2.8. 22 22 62.1 53.4 63.2 62.0 83.2 41.0 21 22 22 22 .32 26. 96.5 82.2 94.8 97.3 91.3 95.8 21 28. 22 22 21 22 94.6 95.1 92.6 70.4 80.2 72.6 APPENDIX TABLE 2 197 MEAN SCORES ON EACH QUIZ ITEM FOR.ALL FARMER RESPONDENTS TO 311126;:L IN THE DAIRY RATION 1 2 2 2 .5. 2 88.0 93.2 87.8 86.3 84.7 67.5 1 2 _9_ 12 11 .12 62.5 61.8 78.0 37.2 22.2 88.0 12 12 15. 12 11 18. 93.2 93.2 93.2 93.2 52.3 72.7 19. 22 21 22 22 22 52.5 71.0 55.7 69.3 69.3 57.3 22 22 27. 28. .22 22 76.2 59.7 91.5 84.7 32.2 32.2 21 22 2. 22 22 22 78.6 55.7 78.0 69.5 62.3 52.3 198 APPENDIX TABLE 3 MEAN SCORES ON EACH QUIZ ITEM FOR ALL FARMER RESPONDENTS TO ZONING FOR RURAL AREAS .1. .2. .3. 2 2 Q .7. 89.8 72.0 65.7 64.6 78.5 74.7 76.5 §_ 9 10 1; 12 13 14 77.7 85.7 84.1 86.1 48.8 86.1 84.1 199 APPENDIX TABLE 4 MEAN SCORES ON EACH QUIZ ITEM.FOR.ALL FARMER RESPONDENTS TO MASTITIS CON IN.MICHIGAN HERDS 1 2 2 2 2 76.4 . 60.0 76.4 74.8 71.6 2 1 .8. .9. 12 78.1 58.1 57.7 57.7 60.6 11 12 12 12 12 47.4 47.1 42.2 79.7 59.7 12 11 .12 1.9. 22 61.3 51.3 44.5 67.7 57.2 APPENDIX B DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS RATING FORM FOR RESPONSE HELPFULNESS FORM A COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE (revised slightly for succeeding MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY - EAST LANSING publication tests) Department of Information Services AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATING July 31, 1961 Dear Dairy Farm Operator: Enclosed is a copy of some material on "Raising Dairy Calves and Heifers" that will soon be printed in bulletin form. We are now sending the material to a group of dairy farmers in Clinton County to find out if it is written in such a way as to be most helpful to dairy farmers like yourself. We will appreciate it if you will read the directions for reviewing the material (editors call this a manuscript), then read the material and follow the directions on the pages as you read. In about three weeks a representative of the Extension Service at Michigan State University will call on you at your farm and ask some questions about the manuscript and your opinions on it. Your cooperation in the study will be a valuable contribution to the improvement of bulletins put out here at Michigan State University and at the U. .3. Department of Agriculture. Thank you for your help. Sincerely yours, Ban/(L C. Wide (m Earl C. Richardson Extension Editor ECRzam .- FORM B (revised slightly for succeeding COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE Publication tests} MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ° EAST LANSING Department of Information Services AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATING July 31, 1961 Dear Dairy Farm Operator: Enclosed is a copy of some mate rial on "Raising Dairy Calves and Heifers" that will soon be printed in bulletin form. We are now sending the material to a group of dairy farmers in Clinton County to find out if it is written in such a way as to be most helpful to dairy farmers like yourself. We will appreciate it if you will read the directions for reviewing the material (editors call this a manuscript), then read the material and follow the directions on the pages as you read. In two weeks you will receive some questions in the mail about the information presented here. We would like you to answer the questions. place them and the manuscript in the return envelope that will be provided, and drop the entire thing back in the mail. Your cooperation in the study will be a valuable contribution to the improvement of bulletins put out here at Michigan State University and at the U. S. Department of Agriculture. Thank you for your help. Since rely yours, Earl C. Richardson Extension Editor ECR :am -mcmm surrommsm ‘ (revised slightly for succeeding Budget Bureau No. 40-33202 fubtliiation Approval Expires 6/30/62 68 8 INSTRUCTIONS F OR REVIEWING THE MANUSCRIPT This manuscript will be a new bulletin for dairy farmers. We would like you to help us in an attempt to be sure that the bulletin will be of use once it is printed. The Cooperative Extension Service at Michigan State University would like you to read this manuscript very carefully so that we might find out what typical dairy farmers think about the mate rial and the way it is presented. The manuscript is divided into several units marked with solid black lines like this , , etc. Each unit #1 unit #2 unit presents another idea or several similar ideas. As you read through each of the units in the manuscript, please do the following things: I. Underline any word, group of words, or sentence that you feel might not be understood. (This will help the bulletin editors to re-write any parts that might not be understood. ) 2. Cross out any word, group of words, or sentence that you feel is not needed. This may be either information that you think is not needed to do a good job of raising calves and heifers; or information that you think farmers already know. Draw heavy lines through the part you wish to cross out, as in the following example: PM 3. Place an x in the box at the end of each unit that best describes how useful the information in the unit is to you. Rate this as information that you think will be of use in your dairy Operation. (This will help the editors to decide how important each unit is, and if it should be a part of the bulletin. ) very useful quite useful of some use of little use not useful 4. In the space at the right side of the page, write any comments you wish. These may include: Why you have underlined or struck out some of the words; why you think the information is useful or not useful; any other comments you wish to make about the material presented. (This will help the editors in deciding exactly what changes should be made in each idea unit. ) By doing these 4 things as you read through this manuscript, you can give us enough information to make this bulletin more useful to dairymen across the Gates Do not worry about making too many marks. The more thoughtful and critical you are in your marking, the more helpful you will be. If you think a unit is not useful to you... then mark it as not useful. If it is very useful, then mark it as very useful. Your help is greatly appreciated. Budget Bureau No. 40¢R3202 Approval Expires 6/ 30/ 62 No QUESTIONS ON' RAISING DAIRY CALVES AND HEIFERS This questionnaire consists of actual situations that you as a dairy farmer have to face day after day. After each situation you will find one or more questions that we would like you to answer from the information in the manuscript. These questions are asked so we can see if the manuscript is written well enough. We want dairy farmers to be able to find information ingthe bulletin when they are actually raising dairy calves and heifers. (This is not a test; you are to look in the manuscript to find the answers. ) l. 3. 4. You have a calf born inside the barn on a winter afternoon. List four things you should do to the calf that same afternoon. a. ‘ ' ' c. b. d. You have just taken a calf from its mother. a. What should it be fed for the first 3 days? b. How much should it be fed at each feeding if it is a normal size holstein calf? g lbs. c. Three things in this first feed are especially important for the newborn calf. Please list them. Is ~ - . h 2s 3 e You have decided that you will feed your calves a commercial milk replacer. Your calves are normal sized healthy holstein calves. a. How old should the calves be when you start feeding the milk replacer? days b. How much milk replacer should you add to the water at each feeding to feed the calf when it is 27 days old? lbs. c. At what age should you stop feeding the calf milk replacer? days You have another calf that is small; about the size of a jersey calf. You decide to raise it on whole milk. a. How much whole milk would you feed the calf each day when it is 19 days old? lbs. b. How warm should the milk be when it is fed to the calf? ( )degrees c. Would you expect it to cost you more to raise the calf (on whole milk than on milk replacer? yes no How much more or less? 5. 7. 9. 10. ll. Your neighbor sells cream from his cows. and has skim milk to sell cheap. If you decided to feed this to your calves: a. At what age would you be able to start feeding it? days b. What vitamin might be lacking from the calf's ration? Vitamin c. What can you feed along ,with the skim milk to provide this vitamin? How much each day ? You are trying to determine how much feed you will need for your dairy herd for the next year. You have 5 newborn holstein calves. ' a. About how much hay would you expect 5 calves to eat botween now and a year from now? . lbs. b. How much grain? ’ lbs. c. How much grain would you expect to feed to each calf every day when it is 12 months old? lbs. - ‘r Because of a poor quality hay crop. you decide to {feed—a grain mixture of about l9-20% protein content. You plan to mix up a ton of concentrate. and have allofths cornandoats thatyouneed. * * a. How much corn would you use? ' lbs. b. How much oats would you use? . lbs. c. If you used only soybean ‘meal for a protein supplement. how much would you need? lbs. d. How much salt would you use ? '3' lbs. How muchubone meal? lbs. , ‘ What is the normal breeding age for a holstsin heifer? A i ' H months How much should they weight at this time? , . . 11”.. - You decide to build individual pens for your young calves. [and then put them in pen with 4 or 5 other calves when they are 6 months old. a. About what size should the individual pens be? . a. by ft. b. About how much floor space should be allowed for each calf in the larger pen square feet. _‘ In raising calves you often have to care for animals with scours. a. What are the 3 types of scours? l. i’ Z. 3. b. List 4 ways calves might contact some type of scours. _ l. _ A ‘ 2s 3. - 4. You decide to fatten some of your bull calves for veal. a. 'About how much milk would you expect to feed to a calf for it to grow from 100 pounds to 180 pounds? ______lbs. b. For best results. how often should they be fed each day? ____times c. Calves fed as much whole milk as they want can be expected to gain how much weight each day? lbs. Budget Bureau No. 40-R3202 A roval E ires 6/30/62 N5? “P FORM D2 QUESTIONS ON SILAGE IN THE DAIRY RATION This questionnaire consists of actual situations that you would have to face when feeding silage to your dairy animals. After each situation you will find one or more questions that we would like you to answer from the information in the manuscript. These questions are asked so we can see if the manuscript is written well enough. We want dairy farmers to be able to find information in the bulletin once it is printed. (This is not a test; you are to look in the manu- script to find all of the answers. ) 1. You are trying to decide whether to put up corn silage for your dairy herd. or to feed just grain and hay. a. What would be a common yield of corn silage per ac re? tons b. This silage yield is equivalent to a yield of how many bushels of shelled corn per ac re? bu. c. This yield of corn silage has the same amount of total digestible nutrients as how many tons of hay ? tons 2. You are comparing the feeding value of corn silage. and grain and hay, a. A ton of corn silage is normally equal to lbs. of No. 2 shelled corn and ____lbs. of hay. b. When feeding a high level of corn silage instead of hay as the only roughage, the amount of grain fed can be reduced by how much? c. How many pounds of digestible protein are there in three tons of corn silage? lbs. d. How many pounds of digestible protein are there in three tons of corn silage? lbs. In one ton of ordinary hay? lbs. 3. You want to be sure that adequate minerals are provided in your dairy ration. a. What minerals are lacking in corn silage? b. What is the average potassium content in corn silage? % c. A 1400 pound cow producing 50 pounds of milk each day would need how much calcium in its daily ration? grams 4. You have heard that cows can be poisoned by corn silage. a. What is this type of poisoning called? b. List four symptoms an animal might show if suffering from this type of poisoning. 5. In what way would frosted corn affect the feeding value of silage made from it? 6. You are considering various feeding programs using corn silage. alfalfa hay. and grain. . Your cows average about 1200 pounds each. and you want to feed them enough for 50-60 pounds of milk production each dav. 7. 8. 9. 10. ll. a. If you fed 40 pounds of corn silage. 20 pounds of alfalfa hay. and 10 pounds of a 10% protein grain mixture to each cow' each day. how many pounds of total digestible nutrients would be provided? lbs. How many pounds of digestible protein would be available for milk production besides what is needed for maintenance of the cow? ______lbs. The calcium provided is enough to produce how many pounds of milk be sides maintenance of the cow? lbs. The total digestible nutrients provided would be sufficient for how many pounds of milk besides maintenance of the cow? lbs. b. If you fed 100 pounds of corn silage. no alfalfa hay. and 10 pounds of grain to each cow each day. what percent protein content should the grain mixture contain? 7. How many pounds of protein are provided by this feeding program? lbs. How many pounds of total digestible nutrients are provided by this feeding program? lbs. The total digestible nutrients provided are sufficient for how much milk production besides maintenance of the cow? lbs. You have heard that young calves will normally not grow as well on corn silage as the only roughage. as compared with good quality hay as the only roughage. What seems to be the reason for this? You are considering storing high moisture corn grain in a silo. a. What is the desired moisture content? 7. b. After opening the silo. how much should be fed each day to prevent spoilage ? inches , c. About how much more of this high moisture corn. by weight. would you need to replace dry corn grain? You are planning on putting up some hayy'crop silage. a. If you harvested on June 1. approximately what percent of digestibility would the forage have? “I. b. Which forage would have the highest milk producing ability; a first cutting ' harvested June 5. or-a first cutting harvested July 15? About what percent difference would there be ? ‘7. You are comparing alfalfa. corn silage. and oat silage for roughage for your dairy heifers. . a. You would expect calves to eat more pounds of actual dry matter each day when fed which roughage? b. Which roughage would give the greatest gain in weight each day? c. Which roughage would give the least gain in weight each day? v You have l0 holstein cows. Each is eating about 15 pounds of hay and 60 pounds of silage daily. a. How‘much hay will all 10 cows eat in a1240 day period? . tons b. How much silage in the same period for all 10 cows? tons c. How much silage would all 10 cows eat if fed at this same rate for 365 days? tons ARE YOU NOW FEEDING SILAGE? 9” 19A “Frye s-s upnOfiA FORM D3 Budget Bureau No. 40-R3202 Approval Expires 6/30/62 QUESTIONS ON ZONING IN RURAL AREAS "Zoning in Rural Areas" was written to tell rural people what zoning is. and why it has become important in the past few years. It also tells how zoning affects the farmer. The following situations and questions are asked to determine how well the manuscript explains zoning to you. We want you to' look into the manuscript for the answer to each question. 1. Z. 3. 4. 5. Zoning is being discussed in your neighborhood- You want to be sure that your opinions are represented in any zoning laws that are passed. a. Who selects the zoning board? b. How can every citizen find out and express his opinions about all proposed zoning regulations in his area? A zoning board has been set up in your township. You want to know what the board will be allowed to do. a. What are the two parts of the zoning process? 1. 2. b. What four things can zoning laws regulate? 2. 3. 4. r7 Often farmers feel that zoning laws are established to hinder them and help the small homeowner. However. if zoning is wisely carried out. the farmer is protected from what three problems ? 1. Z. 3. f If your township decides to zone. when would its zoning process be most effective? Your township has just passed a complete set of zoning laws and regulations. In one district reserved for residential use. a small factory has been in operation for the past five years. a. Normally. how long can the present owner Operate this business in that location? b. If he sells the business. normally. how long can the new owner operate the business in that location? (over please) GENERAL INFORMATION Before you read this manuscript. were you opposed to zoning. in favor of zoning. or without a definite opinion for or against zoning? In favor of zoning Comments. if you wish-- Opposed to zoning Without a definite opinion I for or against zoning ' Do you feel that reading the manuscript gave you a better understanding of zoning? ' I . . Yes .. Comments. if you wish-- No Did your. opinionsabout zoning change. because of reading the manuscript? Yes ' ‘ ‘ ' ‘1 Ifyes. in what ways? No FORM D4 Budget Bureau N o. hOéR3202 Approval Expires 6/30/62 No. , . . , QUESTIONS ON MASTITIS CONTROL This questionnaire consists of.actual problems that you have to face concerning mastitis. 'We would like you to answer the questions from the information in the bulletin. These questions are asked.so we can see if the'bulletin is written well enough. we want dairy farmers to be able to find information in the bulletin once it isnre-printed. (This is not a test; you are to look in the bulletin to find all of the answers.) 1. Dairy farmers across the nation share in their concern over mastitis. You want to know more about this disease. a. What is mastitis? “ b. How does it lower milk production? c. Financial loss in the United States due to mastitis is estimated at dollars each year. 2. What are the two main types of mastitis, and what causes each type? as b. 3. There are six important principles or steps in controlling mastitis in your herd. What are they? as b. Ce d. e. f. h. 'What three things are of prime importance in the condition of milking machines for preventing mastitis? as be Cs 5. You want to be surerou know when your cows contact mastitis. a. What test can you use in the barn to determine when the cows udder has been irritated?__CI Can this test tell what type-of mastitis is involved? b. 'What is the best method of determining the exiétenco of and the type.of mastitis in a herd?. . , . 6. 'With intensive treatment how long does it take to eliminate infectious mastitis from a herd? Do you have any questions or concerns about mastitis which this bulletin does not discuss? ‘" If so, please write them down here. 'What changes would you like to see made in this bulletin? COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ° EAST LANSING Department of Information Services AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATING July 27, 1961 Dear Dairy Farm Operator: As you may know, each year Michigan State University and the U. '3. Department of Agriculture devote considerable sums of money to the production of Agricultural bulletins. We are making an effort to improve the quality of new bulletins before they are printed. We have material now that will soon be printed in bulletin form (editors call these manuscripts). We will be sending these manuscripts to a group of dairy farmers in Clinton County. We want to find out if the material is written in such a way as to be most helpful to dairy farmers like yourself. We would appreciate it if you would help us by reading the manuscripts of four new bulletins in the next two or three months. These bulletins will all be related to dairy farming. Within the next week Mr. Ivan Lappin, who is working with us on this project, will call on you at your home. He will explain the details of the program to you. If you are willing to help, he will leave with you a c0py of the first manuscript: "Raising Dairy Calves and Heifers". Your cooPeration in this study will be a valuable contribution to the improvement of bulletins put out here at Michigan State University and at the U. 13. Department of Agriculture. Sincerely yours, {fie/J. C”, ‘ Earl C. Richar‘son Extension Editor ECR:am flmcmm Urgent-mus"! ‘ _ FORM F Also sent to: Feed-Peabody (to be interviewed) Earl-Haas Harry-Wflt Clayton-Reid- August 2, 196 1 Mr.- James-Er-Nhlvany- Smarty-Extension-Agentr -Agrioul-ture - Courthouse Ween,- Michigan- Deer-Jinn Enclosed is a mimeographed capy of a new dairy bulletin being put out by the U. S. Department of Agriculture. We are in the process of conducting a study on this, and three other new dairy bulletins with 300 dairy farmers in Clinton County. We are trying to see if we can review bulletins before they are printed, in order to make any necessary changes before distribution to the general public. We are also interested in determining the most efficient methods of conducting pre-testing studies, such as this one. One possible method is by asking Extension Agents to review the new bulletin. To obtain some information about the type of re8ponses we would get from Extension Agents, we are asking you and 9 other agents from tap dairy counties in Michigan to review the bulletins for us. Besides the USDA bulletin "Raising Dairy Calves and Heifers, " which is enclosed, there will be two from MSU--"Silage in the Dairy Ration, ” and a revision of "Mastitis Control in Michigan Herds, "-- and another from USDA. Between now and the end of October, we would like you to review these four bulletins. About 2 - 3 weeks after you receive each bulletin, I will call on you at your office to talk about your suggestions and Opinions, and to ask some questions about the information given. At that time I will leave the next bulletin. Please criticize these bulletins as if'you were a dairy farmer yourself. The instructions and the questions we will ask are the same used in the farmer study. We sincerely h0pe that you will be interested in helping in this preliminary study with Extension Agents, If we do not hear any word from you in the next two weeks, we will assume that you will help with the study. Thank you for your interest and help. Since rely, Ivan M. Lappin Graduate Research Assistant ,. _.._.o—._.~_.-_.—.._ e -—v—.._—._....—.—~’7-. .- ' L- ~——.V-_._. If, 2 , z (x —o f- _ C , C ‘ h (‘\ —- .- -— _ r —. —. .- I ll .. —_ —— .— -— »< _o i‘ o" w. -‘ - "' "‘ ~ —— _. n. — ., - ,— FORM F Also sent to: Adhere-Trad; (to re8pond through mail) Harry-Were Donald-Mason Ellsworth-Morten August 2, 1961 MrrA-l'befi-Kr -Broum- Comty-Exte-nsi-on-Arg-e-n-tr «Agriculture Courthouse ------------ All-eganrMio-légan- Death-A1: Enclosed is a mimeographed copy of a new dairy bulletin being put out by the U. S. Department of Agriculture. We are in the process of conducting a study on this, and three other new dairy bulletins with 300 dairy farmers in Clinton County. We are trying to see if we can review bulletins before they are printed, in order to make any necessary changes before distribution to the general public. We are also interested in determining the most efficient methods of conducting pre-testing studies, such as this one. One possible method is by asking Extension Agents to review the new bulletin. To obtain some information about the type of responses we would get from Extension Agents, we are asking you and 9 other agents from t0p dairy counties in Michigan to review the bulletins for us. Besides the USDA bulletin "Raising Dairy Calves and Heifers, " which is enclosed, there will be two from MSU--"Si1age in the Dairy Ration, " and a revision of "Mastitis Control in Michigan Herds, "-- and another from USDA. Between now and the end of October, we would like you to review these four bulletins. About 2 - 3 weeks after you receive each bulletin, I will send to you a few questions on the information given in the manuscript. An addressed envelope will be enclosed for you to return the questions and the manuscript to us. You will also receive the next manuscript at that time. Please criticize these bulletins as if you were a dairy farmer yourself. The instructions and the questions we will ask are the same used in the farmer study. We sincerely hape that you will be interested in helping in this preliminary study with Extension Agents. If we do not hear any word from you in the next two weeks we will assume that you will help with the study. Thank you for your interest and help. Sincerely, Ivan M. Lappin Graduate Re 3 ea rch A s si stant ~y‘H—u o ~‘~,lx..—. ,...-,’._._.,-__ ~—. ' ,- w v, , .. _ I \ r ,- l r r» 0 f\ I‘\ _v u. _ _. .. .— H _.. __ e — H y- ._ . _ _,.. -— _— z ,. ._ v -- .4 _ ~— _, ‘— .... . _. V v -- a I .— —— —\ h p. s. — . . ,. l O l r- \_. r V“ I f 4 \, I . . FORM G (revised slightly for succeeding publication tests) COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ' EAST LANSING Department of Information Services AND U.S. DEPARTMENT or AGRICULTURE COOPERATING August 17, 1961 Dear Dairy Farm Operator: About two weeks ago Mr. Ivan Lappin left with you a c0py of "Raising Dairy Calves and Heifers." We hepe that you have found time to read this new bulletin, and to mark those parts that are hard to understand and those you think are not needed. We are especially interested in how useful you think each section of the manuscript is, and therefore, hope that you have checked the appr0priate square at the end of each unit. Enclosed are some questions on raising calves that we would like to have you answer. Please give only answers that you find in the manuscript, for we want to see how easy it is to find information in the manuscript. Also enclosed is a sheet asking for information about yourself and your farm, so we can be sure that we have all farmers represented. When you have completed the questions and the personal information, please do the following: 1. Put the completed questions, the personal information, and the manuscript in the enclosed stamped, return addressed envelOpe. 2. Put the sealed envelope in the mail right away. 3. Be sure to do this in the next three days. The second manuscript, "Silage in the Dairy Ration," is included he re. We hope you will read this new manuscript and thoroughly criticize it as you did with the first one. In one to three weeks, Mr. Lappin will call on you again to ask some questions on this second manuscript. Thank you for your cooperation and continued interest in the improvement of extension bulletins. Sincerely, ' smtinmmsm ‘ .1- . ic'gss s t 1 ( us I Earl C. Richardson Extension Editor FORM H (revised slightly for succeeding publication tests) COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ' EAST LANSING Department of Information Services AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATING August 17, 1961 Dear Dairy Farm Operator: About two weeks ago you received a manuscript on "Raising Dairy Calves and Heifers. " We hepe that you have found time to read this new bulletin, and to mark those parts that are hard to understand and those you think are not needed. We are especially interested in how useful yen think each section of the manu- script is, and therefore, hepe that you have checked the appropriate square at the end of each unit. Enclosed are some questions on raising calves that we would like to have you answer. Please give only answers that you find in the manuscript, for we want to see how easy it is to find information in the manuscript. Also enclosed is a sheet asking for information about yourself and your farm, so we can be sure that we have all farmers represented. When you have completed the questions and the personal information, please do the following: ' 1. Put the completed questions, the personal information, 233 the manuscript in the enclosed stamped,return addressed envelope. 2. Put the sealed envelope in the mail right away. 3. Be sure to do this in the next three days. Thank you for your cooperaticn and interest in the improvement of this bulletin. Sincerely, MGM Earl C. Richardson Extension Editor FORM I (individual letters to extension agents) About two weeks ago I sent you a capy of "Raising Dairy Calves and Heifers. " I hope you have had time to thoroughly criticize this new bulletin. Enclosed are some questions on raising calves that we are asking farmers in the study, as well as the second manuscript, ”Silage in the Dairy Ration. " Please do the following: 1. Answer the questions from the manuscript. Remember, give only answers that you find in the manuscript. 2. Put the completed questions and the manuscript in the enclosed return envelope, and mail them back to us. 3. Read the second manuscript and criticize it in the next two weeks. Thank you for your time and interest in helping with this study. Sincerely, Ivan M. Lappin Graduate Assistant FORM J (revised slightly for succeeding publication tests) COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ° EAST LANSING Department of Information Services AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATING September 7, 196 1 Dear Dairy Farm Operator: About a month ago you received a copy of a manuscript for a new bulletin "Raising Dairy Calves and Heifers. " Two weeks later we sent some questions for you to answer from the manuscript. As yet. we have not received the manuscript or the completed QUOIHOnS from you. We realize that bad weather has caused a lot of problems in Clinton County in the past month, but we are heping that now you will be able to find time to help us. Would you please: 1. Read the manuscript - checking how useful each unit would be to you in a bulletin. Make any comments that you wish also. 2. Answer the questions that were sent to you. Be sure to look in the manuscript for the answers. 3. Complete the Personal Information sheet, so we can he sure all farmers are represented. 4. Put the manuscript, the completed questions, and the completed Personal Information Sheet into the stamped, self-addressed enveIOpe sent to you before and put them in the mail right away. We sincerely appreciate your help in this study. We hepe that you can find the time in the next couple of days to complete the manuscript and return it to us. Thank you. Sincerely, ,1, . .» \L ' ,t I. . . 4.... £1 (_Avjftv’é: it...’ 1' \{ (// i {ft/LI. (£ii (/, IZ L1 Earl C. Richardson Extension Editor FORM K (revised slightly for succeeding publication tests) COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ° EAST LANSING Department of Information Services AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATING September 18, 1961 Dear Dairy Farm Operator: Some time ago you received a copy of a manuscript for a new bulletin, "Raising Dairy Calves and Heifers," and two weeks later we sent some questions for you to answer from the manuscript. As yet we have not received the manuscript and the completed questions from you. Realizing that you have undoubtedly been busy, and that you may have misplaced the material already sent, we have enclosed anothe r manuscript and set of questions for you. We still wish to receive opinions on this manuscript and hOpe that you will be able to find time to help us. We would like you to read the manuscript and rate each unit as to how useful it would be to you in a bulletin. Then look in the manu- script to find the answers for the questions. Next fill out the Personal Information sheet, and mail all three things in the enclosed stamped, return addressed envelope. Thank you very much for your cooperation in this study. Your help in the improvement of bulletins is sincerely appreciated. Sincerely, Earl C. Richardson Extension Editor -IICHIGIN sfntvummsm Budget Bureau No. 40-R3202 Approval Expires 6/30/ 62 No. PERSONAL INFORMATION ( To be filled out by person reviewing manuscript) FORM P To be sure that the dairy farmers who review this manuscript are similar to dairy farmers across Michigan, we need the following information to compare with the 1954 Agricultural Census. 1. 3. 4. 5. A. B. C. D. E. F. (Please answer each question. ) Age 24 years or less 6. Days in past year you have worked 25 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 t054 years 55 to 64 years 65 years or more Last year of school completed 50 to 99 days 100 to 149 days 150 to 199 days 200 days or more off the farm for wages. 110116 l to 49 days llll Size of your farm acres 7. Average pounds of milk per cow (include land owned or worked) per year (herd average) Number of milk cows 8. Average pounds of butterfat per (include dry cows and heifers that have calved) cow per year (herd average) 9. Approximate percentage of gross Number of other dairy animals (include calves, heifers, and bulls) dairy herd. farm income received from your (include milk, cream, other dairy products, and dairy animals sold) GENERAL INFORMATION This will help us in future studies of this kind. Had you known about U. S. Department of Agriculture or Michigan State University bulletins before you helped with this study? Yes No If your answer to "A" was yes, have you used one of these bulletins in the past 2 years? Yes No Comments Do you feel that studies like this should be carried out to insure better bulletins ? Yes No Comments Would you be willing, if asked, to review about 10 manuscripts like this in a year? Yes No Comments Do you think your neighbors would? Yes Please list any topics on which you feel bulletins need to be written: No Comments -”- _n r 9 - .. ‘- . I ‘ .. . . , "v. ' '0 l .- 1'. ' ‘I‘ ‘.( I. ' ' .L j.‘ .--_fl .. . ’_ ' - s U ‘ n '— e ‘-—‘-V .. . '1 . . ' . . . . ‘ 5 \ . -4 .W"»‘ i I i I, . l .. . . ~ I I. . i : . . p U ' i . "I 1 -. y ' . . 7". . .~. 0‘ - .7 ' . s. ‘. ‘ l u ‘ ..-.‘l‘ . A -. I ‘ '- A I . i~t .. _ r. I . I... . 'e .~ I I '1‘ n' I - ‘ v w c l I I ‘I ' ... ', I V u s '. I -- O. I; I . ‘ A. x . .-, ‘ . .' . I . V. I “\,-.._ .' . a_ . . . . ‘ .. ' . - . >- . . I.“ . . t u _. . i -.J O ' ,- . . -' .! I n _, .‘ I _, ' . . . ‘ ' s . .~ .' .." 'si . "', i - e -. . s ..5 ‘ . . _ A l C AI, ‘ ‘ ‘I . ' I i e s" m t- . I . ' I I I . . ’ ;. . D 0. v ‘ ., ‘ A . .... t ‘. U. 'l . ‘. .. '- \ .. I . . O ' - A I. . l | ."-' . FORM 1 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ° EAST LANSING Department of Information Services AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATING August 3 l, 1961 Dear Dairy Farm Operator: Recently you received a c0py of a new Michigan State University bulletin "Silage in the Dairy Ration. " We had asked you to read this manuscript so we might have the opinions of dairy farmers on how to improve it before it is printed. We still want you to read this manuscript, but Mr. Lappin will be unable to call on you at the date he originally planned. All studies of this type must receive clearance from the Federal Bureau of the Budget in Washington, and as yet we have not received approval for working with this bulletin. This means that Mr. Lappin will not call on you until about 10 days after he had planned. Please forgive us for this delay. To date we have not received the copy of "Raising Dairy Calves and Heifers" or the completed questions from you. We realize that bad weather has caused a lot of problems in Clinton County in the past month, but we are hoping that you will be able to finish this first manuscript before Mr. Lappin calls for your comments on the second one. Thank you for your interest and help in working with these new bulletins. Since rely, Earl C. Richardson Extension Editor ,nrllCHIGIN smwmmsm ‘ 3: FORM 2 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ° EAST LANSING Department of Information Services AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATING August 31, 1961 Dear Dairy Farm Operator: Last week you received a copy of a new Michigan State University bulletin ”Silage in the Dairy Ration. " We had asked you to read thin manuscript so we might have the Opinions nf dairy farmers on how to improve it before it is printed. We still want you to read this manuscript, but Mr. Lappin will be unable to call on you at the date he originally planned. All studies of this type must receive clearance from the Federal Bureau of the Budget in Washington, and as yet we have not received approval for working with this bulletin. This means that Mr. Lappin will not call on you until about 10 days after he had planned. Please forgive us for this delay. Thank you for your interest and help in working with this new bulletin. Sincerely, 2g Q/‘L/é C2 . /“3‘L‘ (.11. (1,.» lCQ/J' (“V/K/ Earl C. Richardson Extension Editor ECR :mh FORM 3 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ° EAST LANSING Department of Information Services AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATING September 21, 1961 Dear Dairy Farm Operator: Some timc ago you received a copy of a new Michigan State University bulletin, "Silage in the Dairy Ration. " We had asked you to read this manuscript so we might have the opinions of dairy farmers on how to improve it before it is printed. We had indicated that Ivan Lappin would call on you at your home within three weeks to discuss the manuscript. We then ran into a delay clearing all of the questions we wished to ask with the Federal Bureau of the Budget in Washington. We finally have received approval to complete the work with this bulletin, and Mr. Lappin is prepared to call on you. We know that it may have been some time since you read the manuscript, so could you please look it over again and Mr. Lappin will call on you September Thank you for your interest and help in working with this new bulletin. Sincerely, Wev Earl C. Richer on Extension Editor FORM 4 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ° EAST LANSING Department of Information Services AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATING November 6, 1961 Dear Dairy Farm Operator: About three weeks ago Mr. Lappin left with you a copy of'Mastitis Control in Michigan Herds, " a bulletin that is now being revised. Last week we sent some questions for you to answer from this bulletin. As yet, we have not received the bulletin or the completed questions from you. We realize that you may not be through with your field work, but we are hoping that now you will be able to find time to help us with this last bulletin. Would you please: I. Read the bulletin - checking how useful each unit would be to you in a bulletin. Make any comments that you wish also. 2. Answer the questions that were sent to you. Be sure to look in the bulletin for the answers. 3. Put the bulletin, the completed questions, and the completed Personal Information sheet into the stamped. self-addressed envelope sent to you before and put them in the mail right away. We sincerely appreciate your interest in helping review these four publications. We hope that you can find the time in the next couple of days to review this one and return it to us. Thank you. Since rely. 5M6 fies/tam Earl C. Richardson Extension Editor MNUBCRIPI' TITLE: Instructions: Review the four groups of farmer responses and rate each group on how much help the group's responses are in determining what the readers opinions are on all of the criteria listed. Give a rating to each group of one through nine. One to indicate the responses are of no help; five to indicate the responses are a definite help; and nine to indicate the responses are of great help. How much help does each group of responses give in determining what the readers opin- Introduction ion is? 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9 1. Arrests attention, srmses No. 1 _ __ __ __ __. __ .._.. _..... .— interest, creates desire. NO. 2 __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ _— No. 3______________________.__. No. it 2, purpoaeorthebulletinis No.1________________________.___.___ clear to the reader NO- 2 No. 3________________.__._..__. No.h Body 1. language simple, vivid and No. 1 direct. Ho. 2 No. 3 No. 1: 2. Subject latter presented con- No. l ciselynndtothepoint No.2::::::::__ No.3_____________________________. No.h_____________________________ 1 2 3 I: 5 6 7 8 9 3. Illustrations, graphs, and NO- 1 ____________._.___..___...._ tables easily understood by NO- 2_______________._____.._._.. thereader. NO-3_____________ .__...._._.....__ No.h_________:__________ 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9 h. Directions simple and No.1_________________ _...._....——. complete. No.2.____________:_____._.. No.3________________________..___ Ro.!+________________________ 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9 5. Technical and historical 80-1__________________._...._. mterial subordinatea. N0. 2_______________________..___. No.3 o- I').- .o- ----- »-- .,- a .. ~~¢fi.‘¢o—n~f~’-‘ ’ -4- . . . . - ' ~-r-. . ‘ ~" 'L ‘. . an.” ~ -n n _, _.' I... ‘ . - .‘, ...«‘d g.\ 1 ".- I‘a .II , .' ~4 ' u v v . V. .1 . . Ir~'r ,> . -* . ‘ - (*0 , ,' . o-.‘.- ’ La -. vt' .. . . ‘.- ..‘.A -~ D. ‘. - n o c I . , ~ — o ' 7 , ..'§' I. u ' 1. ‘ . '_ - v [0.3. . ,,‘. L . .‘ -‘A0 "i..... ~'. ~ - .»v ,. - I..- .r.-. .— .. . . - . , . .I. .. . _ . - o - ..V ' —~ . , - ‘ l- v - ,‘« . l . ‘ I. - A'1'.‘ ‘ ) . . -‘ A‘ L - ..' . ,‘ -’ ' ” .‘J’J . . .— ‘. ‘ .-u - a. . I ' '- ' . . . . . 7 , .. . . n m It 11 | ' n. t r u ‘o . l ‘l‘t. . - — .. - J ".. .... -’AIJ ‘ . . ‘ - - f . " I. "-‘ ‘v. K: ‘ , ' . VII ',¢' . . _ I l J , , a . , .4“ ' - a v .1 l' u- o . ‘ ~-a I ‘ F . ” ’ - ‘ . . , A - . r ' . ‘ . ' . . A .. v . . . _ . . , .v. .. . u ' a . . . u . I‘ ~ ' ‘w - ' ' - . ‘ . ‘ s v _ |" ’n _- . -' t . . .. 'n n . .. ‘ . ‘ -§7- .‘ .‘_ ‘ f ‘ .- .-- - . I I 1 _ .-. I . ’ n ' . I ; 1 . , ,-- I. ‘ .' " .p a : 1 . ‘ - .4 .-.--' ..--J-. 'ra,.‘--. - . .. -.. Q. . . 1 . ”-.o- my... .. - . - . I .— o ‘- u A ‘ I s . , . _ ‘_ ,.,. _ v~ {; , ._ -- -,. L}. r ., 9:: .. -. _ >. t s i a k . t . . . .- Ov~o -o a - -¢ -.. I 0.0-- 0. u .A. - --- . . ‘p-« “~- .- v, .. . ‘ .- u - - . n . ~ ....-- up -._... .—.-- n-- .. 0--..--A o A l L. . . flu- -‘ ulc~~r , - -.s - 1 —~—- --o-.o - an! . v-O...' -_ 0.. u . - . a .- v. c a- . . I , t a) ' v. V i .. - r‘ .I ' ° 1' '.'..,' . .:- f o.“ _., . . ~ . . . . . 7 . , v . ‘ - -- ‘- ‘Jva ‘ -Hc— . .o— .s -—.-. --¢ . . --... 0' r.- .9- .e- n. - a. ...\ A. ...p-- ". 4 0 \ ~ - v . l . . u - “ . . . «u V ' on 4‘.» l.‘.; .n-J . . 0. .. I. . I - o.- p. -. -I “0. an- O'“. --—-- —- .v-” -go-IQI ~- \ -0“ < . . o. - 1- - —.-ol --.~‘c-. nth—~- '“-»a e 4' ~~vho ”-0.” - l A 1; w.“- .0 v-» c O. - “—v-0 I. -.<)-.¢~ -. we. -.-—--. ”or“ -m p ’ "n " n‘ a . ‘. ‘ I ‘ . . s .g 1 -- - I r , - -v Q I a v e . ' " .,‘I 'I' '- ...""'_v'l'o. ., . a, _ I - t . - . . .1 - ~ .0 . . .u , u o) — —. .,-~-- 9.0..“ ~.-..~ no “4.— f" " .‘ .. ‘ ' ’ 5 ~ .0 ‘ I" ‘ .s — -w'a no .. u .. - out u ~n...."~-. -*.~o ’- ‘u- a. 4. 9 «tan a. , -V v . h l_' C—. ' - ‘0. an a" -4 C s .na -- ‘ v u v--." . ' ... - “-0-. s 'w ' I -l“ - h! Q-q" . --... .--.-.-. grlA-l wu--~ pv-w—vn - a...” -vb--'- _. . . .; -‘ _u‘ I . | ‘ ) - .‘ u i . ‘— . . 1 . .-.r r ,: . w . ~ ?.'\c.1 no. . , ' \ I . a . .. . ,,. , .... - » u . . Q —~ “ -~~~-‘u~ -- . - ~~~ . . nun-uh used-~u -~_o--- O~~O .Qo-‘~ . . _ l .- - "v r~ - ". ~ 1'. ‘~. 1' ;.:~. -' I -. '1 a v ' ‘ *- "J ~J -- ‘ ‘ . u.- - .L -. ‘~‘-4 0 . .. u- -u a- -o-Jn- _w.‘ Io—uQ-a. ”.‘Q- n .---c a s ‘ , a . ‘ "'0‘ y .._ - o -. —..-‘ -. O. .n“§...- to- 'd-a .--...~. f a. . . ~ ' . - ‘ 1 ‘ ‘ a ‘1--.- v-o vs vs. -.-—-a ...‘0— -~. *--~— —o.*-~ v’C-c .. . ,. -“ .' " w ,- . k _ 4- . g ‘ ’u a , . o . ‘ _' 1‘ ‘ ‘IHI.’ .,.-..,,' ' v . - ‘ - c . s . ' “.1 l- - K. o . . d..." m—- “I. 9 -~....—- ouch-u- 0"..-— ‘5. ----I ‘-.-~— ' ' ' . ” . ' . 0‘ .~ t . P o \ K I , >. p U - O ' . .‘ .. — - .—. -‘ . D - --’ m. on- o.- - . a..." -- -0- . .— ' ' .. . -; -‘. . . .. - . Inn... n .. 2 I . r». . . .- -....- m..— .o-. g - «a. I . ' ' .l ' I . l . A M: . a. a y-r..‘ . -. 1 --~-- p-vgol -u'..- . o '9 Five- ' . e u , , .- . . ‘ ..‘ ‘ I 1 _ . . , 3‘ a . ‘ ‘ t s . ~ - ' ‘ ,.' o n' ' . , .n V . ,L. I . . .I—A-‘v -— e - ‘v‘.§ .. on -.‘ ~~—.-- .. , -. -..—-—- -_ w-- ' -. . _ a i g. - .HJ .. . . -.-.. . - N u... o -. .-.¢.. .. . .. .-- .. h... _ .... ... ._ .— _. -v. c. - .— - . -- ...‘ .- ~. --...‘ - .. up“... --..- ,— u l. o. - - - - v'h‘ I D ‘- I ~ “— I-I -- -‘I 4 C'— . . .. | ; " I ‘ 5 P n‘ . - l, ' n , . q q— u , ~ ‘ l I.—' .l r "‘ r . - ' .' ' .14.. ..‘.|l . '7 4. - o-vs Ca - s - 's. .. -. ..‘q ”-.‘u O-«‘v-- . -- I . ‘d-‘D' 0 -..¢. .. .... . -. I - 0- -» .. . . .. - --~ F. --—...o as. _. .— -. ..-- 0-0- , _._.... I--. . w.‘ - ‘v‘e.’ o --. c -a ’p v7 _ ~ 3 i \ ' .- s .r A In. C . I I ' ' - . . ' .. , ...~ ,. . . gr ' - ‘ O .I ' “ ‘J ' o ‘.‘- - x a 7 ~' I. -.< :7 c‘ I"‘ ~o In. .A - . ~- . - .. .7.” --.- .u. . .4. o . . n g.- h . --.-s- “-~-.-. A.- ---—- 'I e- \ '.‘ I I0. ' -VF—I—O -‘."* CII‘J .~ -. | ‘ -I ROID“ ’ I O- - -- n- c o- — '-- on-.. - .mio —..-- -. .... . - -o. n-‘. . 4 . l L ‘0 '~ I - \ u . . _; _ , > I . . - ' - . .. (— . . g'. . 7. I I s ' - 7 . .. . u- . 4 A l v vuv-o an ”07 - .,,_,_ “1 -~ '1.-..— , - -. -- _ ‘ a . . . . 7 .“ , o 7- ‘l ‘ ° ' y o .' .- . . .' '-.. I D 0. D‘s "-w I" § “ . -- I’m " I‘, . -C -.- ' -D-fl ‘ -‘C '7.‘ -wr“ 7‘ . ‘ ' . . -- 7 . q - ' . r ‘ . ‘ ' " 7' ., I I . . J "- . . . ' - d - d .— .~ - er -|~Iv"- — ~—_ -. - ~Now. ea- .. vQA-‘a— oo~ ops ' ’7 .. I- 17 | 7 s . I. - ' ' --._-. . .. . It»-.- . .1 . u-o . p- -| . —w' ...—_-a - . ‘ . : '0: . 7 '. . ‘ a | ‘ I . I _ -7 , u 7 . . e - I ‘ ‘e.- ‘ )I— 7 " ', '_ . . , -. a . .l-I . .‘ 7-- ...~ . —---.I ,-.-.r- u- I. o.. u ...»or. _-.. . .~‘ ~ I'I- .- ‘0 ‘ I I I . . . . ,.., x ..,7 . k‘ r - ,-_ 7 . a. - - 7 , — 3'. a. 'I u ‘1 .-~ , .1 . n o» . -. .~ q- ‘4. .o- - .- . v -.~-~- .c. a ._-. can—In- fl...- . , . ~ 1 ' K.“ . " 'V'.“‘ s‘ ' ‘J: : '. -. l i - ‘.: ‘ .es . .'..;~ .7.-. ~-..»~ -. . .I,I--- fi-. .. ,. . .. ~0- - -w. ”on. I l l' .0 y. —--. o-l — .. . . .- -v .-. o w.-.“ n-v... an. .01-g -“pe . .u , (7 7 I ' I '. J ' 1 . . K ,47 ' I 9 ' 7 . r. ‘ e . _- . ‘. ._ I .7' \.' - - I .- , - .. - .. -7 -~av~. u : vv~-. u-‘D—- b-‘vO . . s. __ ., , - - u I... ..- _— s ' «fi I - *u“ I a . I .. a s a .. a -~ -- .. ”7 -. - — —-. -“ sq... --... a . ._. ‘4' . ‘ . u ‘I D -- _, a - o'- ..7. ....s- n. u- ~~.~o¢ so“. . a . ' “ I . . 7 . _ 7 I 1 ~‘ .4 I. s , . I ‘ ‘sz. 1 . . ‘.P' ‘ .' I ' v . 7 I \ .. 7‘ .a . a J ‘WI. . -- -_ ,- - 1. ..¢ I. .. V- a c ...p.- a n . ‘l O ' . ' I" I .- 0‘) ’.. 7. .al . . . .7.- ...~ ..o..v.. ..7 -~ - .. ... -s—u“. “-.-d ‘ «.- x ' I n...u. - q .. .r ._ . u. s .u '-'...- -.-,.-. fl .4. w p- . .. . s - ‘ - I . I- '"4 -‘- u - . - ~¢. - -., -.~.¢- Cs - 'V- n .u‘ n .. . *--_ ‘. s q . . . h I - 0 I , , , . 7 ‘.‘ .. . -sc... .‘7, 7‘ .s .. I ;¢,-.-~%. 7 ‘v’ I I .‘ ‘ ‘ . . , , , I - 7 - tats - a. 7 ~ ' .;_ , o ... I . _ . _ . . . 7 . I '. ' - . 7 ' ~ , '. r\ . . i .. ..' (J . . , ' - - . . . . a I .- I 4‘ s .4. .~ - 'lh °-‘ .0 -v -s ....-n --0-a ' ~ I .1 _s»...'.-.‘s n.-....-....-—~ 4....n ~‘t— .- l--" vs; 7 ‘ ..‘r..g- ‘~a--.-.- 1‘.- ~.-,. , - .l .. " M-*u--o‘ -,— ... -—.--..-...,—.“...—. _ - .o I“ o< Hon. (7 av- so. -.. . .1 -~‘ .- -r . o I- ..7 n , ..- -.-—<-‘- .J-ufl‘vf‘n i"" a. . .. 1. s ‘ -‘ ' sour- ...—. on , 0-»- o I. » 0a.. -.... . .v,-.-.—--..o.. .... ,_. - -‘\——..--.--.-. — 1--- .— ---, -. -In -7. . - .- - -—-'- -~.-- \- I -- y o I -‘ 7- A! .. uu- ' " ‘ _ . V. .,- ~ . h... a .,‘ ,_ “51...-.- c..- wu--—-—..—w- ~ ,.. w. ._ J» o v 0 ~. . . -... . *.,--.. <-o- "---o.l—-o." «nu-- -np-‘F‘Voa-l--." ~— APPENDIX.C TEST MANUSCRIPTS RAISING DAIRY CALVES AND HEIFERS Prepared by No Animal Husbandry Research Division Agricultural Research Service. CONFENTS page Care of freshening cows w_ 1 Care of the calf _ _ i 2 Early management 2 Early feeding_ 3 Feeding to 3 months of age 5 Feeding 3 to 9 months of age__ 10 Feeding the heifer 10 Concentrates 12 Forages 15 Other feeding needs 17 Normal growth of calves and heifers V 20 Breeding age , 23 Care at calving time 23 Management 23 Housing 23 Dehorning 25 Marking 26 Extra teats 27 Diseases 28 Raising dairy calves for veal_____ 33 Washington, D. c. Farmer‘s Balletin U. S. Department of Agriculture .- l- a ._...... RAISING DAIRY CALVES AND HEIFERS cements: Profitable dairy herds need good heifers as replacement animals. Twenty-five percent of the cows in an average herd need to be replaced each year because they no longer return a profit. If you allow for losses among young animals, you need 3 or it heifer calves per year for each 10 cows in the herd To have good dairy replacements, you must have good breeding stock. Each herd sire and each cow should be selected for its ability to transmit high levels of milk production. You must also provide proper feed and management for the calves so they can develop the desirable performance traits in» herited from their parents. Feeding for growth and development of the dairy calf begins before it is born. The calf's dam should be in good flesh at calvingtime. She shouldbe driedoff6t08meksbefore the expected calving date. During the dry period, feed her all the good hay or silage, (Check for unit # l) either separately or together, that she will eat plus 3 to 6 r_ very useful pounds of a concentrate mixture containing ll to 1h percent of quite useful protein. of sane use Cows fed inadequate or unbalanced rations have small or _A of little use weak calves. These calves are often difficult to raise. Strong not useful vigorous calves are easier to raise. Un1t#2 CARE OF FRESHENING COWS The gestation period for cows is about 280 days. If you knowthebreeding date, youcandrythe cowoff attheproper time and provide care for her and the calf. Several days before the calf is due, separate the cow from - 2 .. cements: the rest of the herd and place her in calving quarters. During cold weather, this should be a roomy, well-bedded box stall. Clean and disinfect the stall and put clean, dry bedding in it. In warm weather a small, well-grassed plot or pasture, free from trash or manure and close to the barn, makes a good calving place. The first indications of approaching calving are a pronounced swelling and enlarging of the vulva and a dropping away or sinking on either side of the tail setting. When these signs are noted, the cow should not be disturbed. Observe her from time to time. (Check for unit #2 *- If everything is progressing normally, she usually will very useful give birth to her calf without any assistance. Proper assistance ~ quite useful should be given to the cow or to the calf if it is required. Such P"; of sane use assistance may preVent the loss of a calf. If the cow has undue ...... i of little use difficulty in giving birth to the calf, the services ’of a :7 not useful veterinarian may be required. Tut #3 cements CARE OF THE CALF Early Management - As soonasthecalf is drapped, remove anymucusfromits mouth and nostrils. If the calf does not start breathing imme- diately, @ply articicial respiration. Rhythmically compress and release the chest walls with your hands or rhythmically slap the calf's chest. ‘ The cow will usually begin to lick the calf immediately afterbirth. 'Ihishelpsdryoffthe calfandaidsinstim- ulating breathing and circulation. In very cold weather or whenthe cowfails tolickthe calf, rub and dry it with a dry cloth or feed sack. .. 3 - cements; Paint the calf's navel with iodine or dust it with a sulfa, antibiotic, or boric acid powder. This helps prevent infection. If the cow's teats and udder are dirty, wash them thoroughly (Check unit # 3) o... with soap and water; then, dry them before the calf is allowed to Jvery useful nurse. Keep the stall clean and well bedded while the cow and ._.- quite useful calf are in it. A —---— of some use The calf should be marked and identified at this time. w. of little use Different methods of marking calves are explained on page 25. i”. not useful Unit #1». Early Feeding A normal, vigorous calf will be standing and attempt- ing to nurse within 1 hum: after birth. Help amt calves that are too weak to nurse. cements: The calf needs colostrmn - the first milk - from its mother. Colostrum contains antibodies, or substances that protect the calf from infection. It also provides protein, vitamins -- especially vitamin A, which the calf needs at this time ~- and laxative material. You can feed any extra colostrun to older calves in the herd or you can freeze and store it for several months. Colostrum can rcplace milk or milk substitutes pound for pound. ‘Ihe calf should be taken fran its mother when 12 to 18 hours old. Separating them at this time reduces the chances of the calf's overeating or acquiring infection and contamina- tion from the place of birth. It is much easier to teach the calf to drink at this age. Also, the cow will not "worry" as much after an early separation as she would later and will respond better to milking. The calf should be fed its mother's colostrum for at least 3 days. After the third day, feed whole milk. To teach itto drinkfromabucket , let the calf suck your fingers. Gradually lower its head into the bucket of warm colostrum or milk. After it has had several swallows, withdraw -5- comments: your fingers gradually. This process may have to be repeated. comments: It frequently is necessary to back the calf in a corner and straddle its neck. With extremely difficult calves, you may find it easier to skip one feeding before attempting to teach the calf to drink. Most calves need to be fed only twice a day. anall, weak calves may need three feedings for the first week. Feed 8 pounds per day to Holstein or similar-sized calves and 6 pounds per day to Jersey-sized calves. ‘ Nipple buckets can be used for young calves. However, they are difficult to keep clean, and older calves can pull the ._ " ‘p _ _ nipple from the bucket and spill the milk. \ Feeding with dirty and unwashed utensils can \ result in scours and other digestive disturbances. After each feeding, thoroughly wash and scald utensils, or rinse them with a chlorine solution. 0-6- cements: Then, place them on a rack to drain and dry. Calves grow best if fed at a regular time each day. (Check for unit # h) The milk fed should not come from cows having a very useful communicable disease such as TB, Bangs disease, or severe ”a quite useful mastitis. “of some use Keep calf pens clean, well bedded, and dry. Any hay, : of little use grain, or silage not eaten should be removed each day. ! not useful Unit F5 Feeding To 3 Months of Age cements: Careful feeding during the first 20 days is important. During this time, it is better to slightly underfeed the calf than to feed it too much. The young calf's digestive system is easily upset. After they are 20 days old, vigorous, healthy calves can be fed more than the suggestedsmounts. After the calf is 5 to 7 days old and has received a good start on colostrun and whole milk, it will grow and. develOp well on a number of different feeds if their quality is good and feeding conditions are carefully controlled. The feed you should use depends on individual experience, rate of gain desired, and costs. The most practical feeds are limited amounts of whole milk or a commercial milk rcplacer. With either of these feeds, give the calf a palatable grain mix or a commercial calf starter. Encourage it to eat this dry feed at an early age. Milk or milk replacer is usually not fed after It to 6 weeks of age. If you feed this way bucket feeding is eliminated as soon as practicable. The suggested amount of milk or re- placer to feed to young calves is given in table 1. O I Table l- -- Suggested Feeding schedule for young Holstein and Jersey calves . 7 . 188111 days - u-n-g o ------oo- .......... no u.- o to 3..._3/ h 6 1.1 21 31 ill 51 61 to 5...}3/ tolO.... to 20.... to 30.... to ho.... to 50.... to 60.... to 900000; .....n.—a-o¢~ Amos-nu- - i no" van-On. on...“ ---o- nu. D.C..-7 * 1 s I Whole milk Milk replacer /l "a... a..- 2/ a... g"... 2/ 393-995 2&8 Pounds gonads 8 5 0 O 8 5 0 0 8 6 ~9 .6 9 7 1.1 .7 8 8 1-2 1.0 6 7 .9 .9 5 3 .5 .7 2 1* .2 _5 o o o 0 Pounds Grain .—_————‘O (_5,/) .6 1.0 1.3 1.7 2.2 3.0 H . Breed size 0 O 0 0 0 O (2/) (2/) .h .2 .7 .3 1.0 .6 1.1+ .9 2.6 1.1 1/ Approximate amount of milk replacer by weight. - ~~.—-—- --- -----—-—o This should be dissolved or suspended in the proper amount of warm water and fed, starting at 6 days of ase- g/ Large breeds include Holstein, Ayrshire, and Brown Swiss; small breeds include Jerseys and Guernseys. 3] This must be colostrum. y If colostrum is available, feed it during this period. 2/ Some offered, but amount eaten is usually very small. In some areas, it is still econanical to feed fresh skinned milk, fresh or pastetrized buttermilk, or whey after the calves are 10 days old. 13 mm. main ingredients in commercial milk replacers. Today, milk byproducts are dried and combined as the The cost of whole milk when fed at the rate suggested in table 1 is $16 to $22. The cost of the replacer, fed at the am ‘Dfi'hn 'II: M +n§17 cements : These feeds are used less now than they former- (Check for unit #5andtabie1) veryuseful quiteuseful ofsemeuse of little use ---.I_ ---.-A-- fiat # 6 cements: With the Whole-Milk System If you feed thole milk, the amount fed should be about 10 percent of the calf's body weight. During its first 2 weeks, nomore thanthis mount shouldbefedto anycalf. Small and weak calves sometimes do better if fed less. After20daysofage, ifamorerapidrateofgrowthis desired, the calf can be fed at the daily rate of 12 percent of its body weight. A more rapid rate of gain will result from the heavier feeding. Calveswill growfaster iffedmore wholemilkor if they are fed at the suggested rate for a longer time than indicated in table 1. However, at l to 2 years of age they will be about the same size as calves fed the recemendp ed diet. Therefore, it usually does not pay to feed more whole milk than the mounts suggested in table 1 to calves that are gown as replacements. Feedthemilkatatempcratureof90°tolOO°F. Accurately weigh or measure the mount you give each animal. For this purpose 1 pint weighs 1 pound. Milkfor calf feeding can canefrethrdcows giving milk that has the lowest butterfat percentage. Ifacalf develops diarrhea, reduce the mountofmilk fed by one-half for one or two feeds. Replace the milk with water so that you-feed the suns amount of liquid. With the Milka-Replacer System Most calves in this country are now raised on milk replacers. Usually a purchased , premixed replacer gives the best results. Or, you can purchase the ingredients and C 9 - make a mix of your own choice. Usually these products are cements : diluted with warm water-ul part replacer to 9 or 10 parts water «Just before being fed. Manufacturers usually give the recommended levels of feeding on the container; follow these directions. Older vigorous calves can usually be fed a little more than the recanmended levels for a fast growth rate. I Some commercial replacers have 10 to 20 percent of fat added. The added fat provides energy and makes the replacer resemble more closely the composition of whole milk. The principal ingredients of milk replacers are dried milk byproducts -- 60 to 90 percent. These may be dried skinned milk, dried whey, dried whey products, or dried buttermilk. Other ingredients frequently used are: Finely ground cereal flours, about 5 percent; dried brewers' yeast, 5 percent; distiller's solubles, 5 to 10 percent; and dextrose, 5 percent. Less comon ingredients are: Blood meal, 5 to 10 percent; (Check for unit soybean flour, 19 to 30 percent; and. apple pemace, 5 to 10 percent. ”‘1‘ very ufegul v These products are low in certain vitamins and minerals. “ quite useful Vitamins A and D, trace minerals except copper, and antibiotics W H of some use should always be added. Vitamin E and either limestone or calcium of little use phosphate may sometimes be added. -——17 not useful W Unit #7 With the Skim-Milk System cements: When skim milk is readily available, it can be fed in place of whole milk after the calf is about 20 days old. The substitu- tion can be made abruptly, or over a period of 3 days. After the calf is a month old, gradually increase the amount of skim milk fed from 10 to 20 pounds a day; the quantity to use depends on the size of the calf and the amount of skim milk cements: available. You can step feeding skim milk when the calf is 2 to 6 months old. Skim milk should be fed while fresh and at a temperature of 90° to 100° F. M to have the milk at nearly the same temperature at each feeding. If purchased, pasteurize skim milk before feeding it to calves. No matter where you obtain skim milk, make sure that it is from cows free of tuberculosis. Because skim milk contains no vitamin A, calves fed it for long periods should be fed a vitmin A supplement. One or two teaspoons (no more) of cod liver oil per day, added to the milk at feeding time, will supply the needed mount. Omit the oil when the calf is eating 1 pound of good, leafy hay each day (Check for unit or is on good pasture. r—jvery £5ch When large quantities of skim milk are fed, a grain mixture in": quite useful containing 13 to 15 percent of protein is sufficient. ‘mfl of some use Fresh buttermilk or whey can be fed to calves the sme “n.“ of little use way as fresh skim milk. These products should be pasteurized. _d' not useful L___J Unit # U Feedi‘ng 3 to 9 Months of Age comments: Calves at 3 months of age are ready to eat the same feeds given to the dairy herd. However, because they grow rapidly calves need some extra concentrate feeds. With good quality forage or pasture, they will continue to gain normally. Feeding the Heifer At 9 months of age calves can be considered heifers; they are still growing rapidly. Most young heifers grow well if given all the excellent hay that they will eat. The mount of growth depends on the quality of the forage fed and how much the heifers eat. If you feed good-quality - 11 .. forage in unlimited amounts, no grain need be fed after the calf is 9 months old. The average daily feed consumption and the total annunt of feed required to raise a calf from birth to 2 years of age is shown in table 2. Cost of feeds to raise a two year old heifer can be calculated by applying local feed costs. (Check for unit _fi‘_8 and table 2) *7 i not useful very useful quite useful of some use of little use oi. 8m nomad" we. 8m zaps...» m 3 9333 .289 same as m.mw e.mm m.mm 9% 98 m.ma unanamopaqgoagoa .3. ococooooooocooooomNBMN ..... ooooooOooooommop-a coco-cocoooooooooasmfl 0.0.ooooooooooooomHBFH cocoon-cocooooooopflgmnfi oncooooooooosooooMHBM-H O .1 000000 000000 000000 0 .sssaaoeesasdgoa a main . mam :OPH . cocoon-oooooooooooooooofi as: as: «.ma W {a o& mg. as monocoooooooooooooooooofi OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOH o 00 § Oooooo £3. 0000 .N ....................... & .N .N o& o& 0% 0000 m: “\D b-Q 0‘ “ON mom mom ooooooooooooooooosoosso m4 m. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON ooooooooooooooooooooooonfi QJOOOOOOOOOO a gibmoooooooooo m C b- . sense W use, sense ad: .0 ”on. assume 533% - . nausea 3 one _ amino “amuse one Soudwmm, .Mo 784?". soon 33 one redesigns? -...m oases HI ill.“ -13.. Unit ,6? 9 Concentrates cements : Calves raised for herd replacements develop better when given concentrates in addition to milk or milk substitutes. A grain mixture or calf starter should be offered as soon as the calf can be induced to eat it, usually at 7 to lO-days of age. Often it is necessary to help the calf start eating grain by rubbing a little grain on its rose after milk feeding and at other times of the day. Or, you can place a small mount of grain in the calf's mouth or in the bucket immediately after milk feeding. Most calves prefer rolled or crushed ”.1. .1 . "” \x, f/ \ /~—-—~-\ grain to ground grain. Calves that \ “\ \" v,/-~- ‘\ eat the largest mounts of grain during A q / ,1//' the early ages usually grow at the fastest \ {it} ff; 1.x", / rates. I. \ Many kinds of grain mixtures for young calves, called calf starters, are sold. Some of these are in pellet form; some are ground meal. Because calves differ in their preference for meal or pellets, there is no advantage in either form. caments: The grain mixture should be palatable and provide energy, proteins, and minerals. Combinations of farm-grown grains and protein concentrates - oil meals, for example - make suitable feeds for the calf. The percentage of protein needed in the grain mixture depends on the other feeds in the ration. When calves are getting liberal or moderate quantities of milk with leafy, legume hay or early-cut mixed or grass hay, the grain mixture can consist entirely of farm-grown grains. Calves getting the suggested limited quantities of milk or milk replacer need a grain mixture containing 1h to 16 percent of protein. " 1h " saments: The grain mixture should contain 20 percent of protein if whey is fed or if the calves are weaned from milk replacer before they are a month old. The grain mixture should be palatable and may contain some dried skim milk. You can add 10 percent of molasses to imrease the palatability of starter feeds. The amount of starter to feed depends on the condition and rate of gain desired. A suggested level of grain or starter feeding is given in table 1. Table 3 gives three grain mixtures that can be fed with milk or milk replacer suggested in table 1. When only poor-quality hay is fed, give calves a pound or two more than suggested in the table. If it is more economical, feed a commercial starter until the calves are 2 to 3 months old. Then, substitute one of the suggested mixes or a similar mixture that is in use for other animals on the farm. (Check for unit # 9" ‘“’"' and table 3) Grain feeding can be reduced when the calf is 6 months very useful old. After they are ‘1 months old, calves need no grain if quite useful they are given all the good-quality hay or pasture they can of some use eat. If forage is limited or of low quality, the heifers of little use 1...... should continue to receive some grain. ! not useful ! ‘-—. ._.... ._.-._..--n.“ ._.- . -0... .- ._. “._. ._.--- .. . . Table 3. - grain mixtures for calves on limi_t0:d_ 1152133; milk replacer : 9 ‘ Mixture . : Ingredients 181‘]. [By 303/ - .. .. ._...-L ' . _ ._____....._ Ami... . 11...... _ 1..- ._. -. . ? Tigris : Parts Parts i ' Cracked corn or similar grain ..... ...... 28 to 1L3 ' oats, mleorcruflhed Cocoooosooooooccoocooooo. 30 g 30 22 ' Wheat bran or distillers dried solubles. . . . . . . . 30 O 22 . Soybean, linseed, or cottonseed meal. . . . . . . . . . . 10 28 11 g Salt (iodized in certain areas) .......... l l 1 " mmmuOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOO 00000000 0000.... A “l _é ‘ Tom ooooooooooooooooosooco00.000.00.000. :1m 1m 1m y Contains 15. 5 percent of protein _2/ Contains 19.6 percent of protein _3_/ Contains 15.0 percent of protein -15.. Forages Unit # 10 comments : Any variety of bright, leafy, early-cut hay is good for calves. Hay feeding should be started when the calves are l to 3 weeks old. At all ages thereafter, calves should be fed all the hay they will eat. Most calves eat little hay until they are 1L to 6 weeks old. Put ahandful. ormore ofthemostpalatablehay inarackfor them. Place the rack where the calves can easily eat the hay but where they are unable to soil it. Feed calves and heifers all the good-quality hay they can eat. Silages Grass or legume silage is good for calves. The moisture content of the material placed in the silo determines the growth rate obtained when the silage is the only forage given. . Unwilted silage -- 20 percent of dry matter -- will produce little gain. . Wilted silage -- 30 percent of dry matter -- will produce moderate gain. . Dry silage - 50 percent of dry matter -- will produce gains equal to those obtained from hay. As with hay, quality of silage differs with the maturity of the cr0p when out. Early-cut forage has the highest feeding value. Ifyoufeed calveslto 9months old30rhpounds ofgrain plus all the good, wilted silage that they will eat, they will grow as well as calves fed hay and grain. When they are older, calves fed only wilted silage grow less than those fed only hay. Supplement the silage withhpounds ofgrainperdayorfeedlpart goodhay with 3 parts silage. .. 16 .. coments : Corn silage can be fed to calves of any age. However, it is lower in protein than hay or hay silages. Therefore, protein must be supplied by the remainder of the ration. Early-weaned calves (Check for unit given 3 to h is pounds of a 20-percent-of-protein grain mix and corn “very jag silage, will gain as much as when fed hay. When little or no gain quite useful is fed with the silage, the growth will be less than when only hay of some use is fed. It is usually advisable to feed some hay along with corn of little use silage. . . i not useful ‘“ * Unit #I'fi: _ Pasture comments: Good pasture, properly managed, is an axcellent feed for growing calves. Calves can be successfully reared from 7 to 10 days of age on excellent pasture and fed only milk or milk re- placer. The quality and quantity of the pasture determine whether concentrate is needed. When pasture is excellent, calves need little or no grain. Calves of the large dairy breeds usually do better on pasture than calves of the small breeds. Pasture for calves and young heifers should be the best available and should consist of mature, rapidpgowing gasses and clovers. Such pasture is low in crude fiber and high in protein, carbohydrates, minerals, and vitamins. A special calf pasture can be developed by using rotational or strip gazing. Or, the calves can be gazed ahead of the milking herd where rotational or strip gazing is practical. Calves can be kept free of most parasites if they are gazed rotationally on clean pastures. , Approximately normal rates of growth can be obtained in calves over 9 to 10 months of age on fair to good pasture .. 17 .. comments: without feeding concentrates. When the pasture becomes poor (Check for unit or dry, feed growing heifers a supplement of hay or gain. WW Ivery useful]-l ) Water and shfi should be available when calves and heifers -—-—+ quite useful are on pasture. ---- of some use in“ of little use ! not useful Unit # T5 Other Feeding Needs m Startlproviding calves free access to water when they are 3 or it weeks old. Offer some water imediately after feeding milk. Place a tub in the calf pen, or provide an autmatic water cup. Young calves can be taught to use an automatic (Check for unit # 12) watering cup if you fill the cup by hand until they begin 1 I! very useful to use it. i ‘1 quite useful Calves may drink nearly =1.» pint of water daily at 3 weeks 2 of some use of age, 5% quarts at 8 weeks, 13% quarts at h months, and , gof little use 5"“? 19%- quarts at 6 months. ; g not useful Minerals - Unit # 13 ’ comments: Complicated mineral mixes are enmensive, and need not be fed. Calves fed adequate rations generally receive plenty of minerals, except salt. Salt should be provided as soon as the calf is old enough to eat hay or gain. Addlpoundof saltto each lOOpounds of grainmixor calf starter. . When your calves are a month old, place salt or a block in a box where they canreach it. Milk contains calcium and phosphorus; legume hays contain calcium; and protein supplements and milpryproduct feeds contain large amounts of phosphorus. Grain mixtures containing - 18 - comments: about 1.5 percent of protein supplements or mill by-products contain sufficient phosphorus for calves. If the gain mix fed young calves consists only of farm-gown grains, add 1 pound of a phosphorus supplemento-defluorinated phosphorus or stemmed bone meal. From 6 months to calving time, heifers can develOp nomally on a ration containing 0.16 percent of calcium. Legume hays contain 0.6 to 1.9 percent. Timothy and other grass hays contain only 0.12 to 0.10 percent of calcimn. Most cereal gains contain only 0.02 to 0.10 percent of calcium and 0.25 to 0.50 percent of phosphorus- Forages contain 0.15 to 0.30 percent of phosphorus. Growing heifers of this age require about 0.25 percent of phosphorus in the diet after 6 months of age. In many northern States, an iodine supplement is necessary. Feed iodized salt at the rate of 1 percent of the grain mix or feed it free choice ' in block form. Lack of iodine may cause "big neck", goiter, in newborn calves. Or they may be born weak or dead. Feeding iodized salt containing 0.007 percent of iodine during the gestation period prevents the deficiency. Symptoms of cobalt deficiency are not definite. Animals that have this deficiency are unthrifty and thin and have little appetite, a rough hair coat, and a rough appearance. Feed trace-mineralized salt that contains cobalt or add 1 ounce of cobalt sulfate to each 100 pounds of salt. Rapidly gowing calves, fed liberal amounts of milk or nonfortified milk replacer and no other feeds for periods of 2 or 3 months, may have low levels of iron and magnesium -19.. in their blood. For these deficiencies, feed salt containing (Check for unit # 13) "7 iron or magnesium. very useful Calves fed forage and gain get plenty of iron and magnaium quite useful in their ration. of some use of little use ~--- not useful Unit #3? Vitamins cements: Most of the vitamins calves need are supplied naturally by milk, good forage, or sunshine or are manufactured by the calf. Milk replacer fed to young calves should have vitamin A, D, and F. supplements. Vitamin A usually is supplied by l to 2 pounds of good alfalfa hay. Calves should be eating this much hay when weaned from milk or milk replacer. Young calves receive their first supply of vitamins A and D in colostrum. Feeding colostrum for 3 to 4 days supplies the calf with these vitamins and allows it to store any excess in its body for future needs. Vitamin A is necessary for growth, health, and resistance to infections. Additional vitamin A above the required amount does not prevent infection. Carotene--a yellow-geen pigment in geen plants and carrots-- is converted into vitamin A in the body. Usually, the geener the forage, the geater is its carotene content. Vitamin A can be supplied to young calves by giving them cod liver oil. For this purpose only 1 to 2 teaspoons per day is necessary. Concentrates of vitamin A in oil or capsule form can also be used. Either of these is often used when a home- mixed milk replacer is given to calves. Lack of vitamin D may slow growth and cause rickets or nthnv {mama-n31. 'hnna films-o1 amen-la ._- inion-l! annnnfla ail-{Wan ’m‘ when “3131118, straight pasterns, bowed legs, or arched back. Signs of rickets do not develop until calves are about 3 months of age. Calves obtain vitamin D when exposed to sunshine and when fed hay, silage, cod liver oil, or irradiated yeast. Lack of vitamin E may cause muscular weakness or slowness, inability to consume milk or feed, and inability to get up. Calves fed excessive anomts of cod liver oil or kept on milk as the principal feed for 3' months or longer may develop these symptoms. Calves receive vitamin F. from geen feeds, gains, and protein supplements. The calf's men will make the B vitamins needed. This begins by the time the calf is a few weeks old. You need not feed calves supplemental B vitamin concentrates. Using multiple vitamin capsules containing B vitamins plus vitamin A and D does not improve growth. Antibiotics Practically all comercially available milk replacers now contain an added antibiotic. Feeding an antibiotic to calves reduces scours and increases the amount of feed consumed and (Check for uni: thus increases rate of growth. Feeding a calf antibiotics after very usiftl) it is 2 to 3 months of age is not profitable. ”w quite useful Antibiotics may also be used to cure and, sometimes, to of some use prevent secure and other diseases. This use is discussed of little use under "Diseases" page 28. t“- not useful 0211???? Normal Growth of Calves and Heifers camnents: Table it shows the weight and heart girth measurements of the dairy calf or heifer at monthly intervals In) to 2 years of age. If you do not have a scale you can measure the hearth - 21 - coments: girth with a tape to determine the approximate weight. This information will help you measure the progress of your herd replacements. ‘2-- -22.. Tahle h -- Normal heart girth measurement and weight of calves n -nc—o— ‘— and heifers during the growing period l/ Age in Holstein Mrshire Guernsey Jersey . months . . 129293 P985118 £281??? Roan.“ Inches Bsands Inches Psands Birth 31 96 29-1/2 72 29 s 66 28.1/2 56 ‘ 1 33-1/2 1.18 32 98 , 31-1/2 90 29-1/2 72 g 2 37 1 161 35-1/2 132. 3h-1/2 122 32-i/2 102 3 Isl/h 2.13 38-3/h 179 1 16s 35- /2 138 z. 1.3.. /2 272 1.2.3/1. 236 1.1. /1. 217 38-1/h 181 5 in 335 h5-1/2 291 Mal/h 265 h1-1/2 228 6 50 396 ral/u 3&0 1&7 30h Mal/2 277 . 7 52-1/2 l#55 51-1/h sod l+9«3/1» 362 h7-1/s 325 . 8 51.3/u 508 53 M7 51- 3/u no 1.9.3/2. 369 9 57 3 559 55 has 53-3/h M8 51-3/h 2109 10 58-1/h 609 57 526 55 use 53-1/h M6 11 6o. /2 658 58 563 56-3/h 521 55 h81 12 62-1/2 711+ 59 583 ! 58.1/h 51.9 56-1/2 520 13 63—1/h 7&0 60-3/h 630 50-1/h 587 57- /2 5&0 1h Gila-3'!“ 77h 62 666 ‘ 60-1/2 615 58—1/2 565 15 65- /1+ 805 63 703 61- 3/h 680 59 585 16 66.1/h 8&1 6h 1 731 62.1/2 67h 59—3/h 611 17 67-i/h 87b 65. /t 758 63-1/2 696 60-1/2 635 18 68-1/2 912 1 781 65 1 727 61-1/2 660 19 69- /h 9% 66. /2 813 65.1/2 752 62.1/2 687 20 70-1/2 985 67-i/2 8A1 66- /h 780 63 712 21 71-1/2 1025 68- /2 885 67.1/2 816 6h 7ho y Body weights for Holsteins and Jerseys from USDA Technical Bulletins 1098 and 1099. Heart girth measurements for these weights taken from Research Bulletin 19h (1960) , Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station. Weights and heart girth measurements for Ayrshires and Guernseys calculated from data furnished by Professor H. P. Davis, University of Nebraska. - 23 .. Breeding Age sunsets: Heifers that are adequately fed throughout the growing period 0 can be bred at 15 to 16 months of age. They will be normal size or larger at calving time. Heifers that have been underfed before breeding will be below normal size at 2 years of age. Heifers that are markedly undersized at 15 to 16 months of age should not be bred until 18 to 19 months old. Do not delay breeding longer; if you do, cost of rearing the heifer is increased. Care at Calving Time The heifer should be growing and in good flesh at calving time. This is necessary so that she can produce milk at the. most profitable level. Place the heifer in the cow herd about 6 to 8 weeks before she is due to calve. Feed her it to 6 pounds (Check for unit ““7 #15) of gain daily and all the forage she will eat. very useful cub-.1 Before calving, let the heifer become accustomed to handling quite useful and procedures used in the milking herd. Always handle her u of some use gently and with kindness. Later milking habits of a cow are PM of little use usually determined by the way she is handled at first calving. E- 'not' useful Unit 1'} l6 MANAGMNT cements: Housing No matter what type of housing you provide, Reping calves dry and clean is the most important consideration. Any housing arrangement should provide a hay rack, a. gain box, and watering facilities. Arrange the racks so that calves can eat as much forage as they want. Place each newborn calf in an individual pen or tie stall for the first month. After calves are a month old, you can house comments: them in individual pens, tie stalls, or in groups. Each group should be made up of calves of similar ages. Individual pens should be about it by 5 feet. Make the sides of concrete, solid boards, tempered hardboard, or slatted-board panels. The floor should be concrete. If you do not want to change the bedding frequently, build a platform 2 to 1+ inches above the concrete. To make this, you can use expanded metal gatings, or slatted boards. Bed the platform heavily with straw or waste gass hay; add clean straw as necessary. Allow the litter to build up. If you do not build a false floor, wood shavings or clean straw can be used as bedding. This litter must be changed frequently and not allowed to build up. Wash and disinfect each pen when the calf is removed; allow the pen to dry. Keep each pen vacant for 2 days to a week before the -25.. next calf is placed in the pen. comments: Stalls can be used to keep calves in until they are a few months old. These stalls need to be frequently cleaned and bedded. ifferent Open- shed arrangements can be used to house young calves. A desirable method is to build individual pens within the open shed. Runways can lead out into the open from each pen. Use slatted boards or net wire for dividing the runways. The (Check for ugit floor size for each pen within a shed should contain from 25 very fisiful to 50 square feet per animal depending on its size. «.2. quite useful Calves can be kept in pen sheds for as long as 7 months in of some use cold climates. In the southern half of the United States, calves of little use need little shelter. not useful Unit 7951?: ‘— Dehorning _1/ consents: You can prevent home from developing by using caustic soda or a dehorning paste on the small horn button within a few days after the calf is born. ‘\ ". _1_./ Detailed information on dehorning and marking cattle may be obtained from your county agricultural agent or the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, 25, D.C. hie... '26- Marking 1] Mark each calf for identification before separating it from its mother. This can be done by using tatooing in the ear, eartags, neck straps, or pictures. Tatooing is permanent but it is not satisfactory with breeds having dark-colored skin. Eartags should be placed on the " upper edge of the ear about 1% inches back from the base of ' L- . ' ,2 the ear with the tag nunber on . top. 4 x" L '32.; ‘. , J; “_1 '. . -.\ . .1 45'... ,' '.. x .5? .- .. ‘. '.' ._ . -,< v . -. w, . . q .- .. . ,__ 1’ . _J_./ Detailed information on dehorning and marking cattle may be obtained from your county agricultural agent or the U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, 25, D.C. eminents: A neckstrap may be made of leather, rcpe, chain, or plastic. Straps and tags occasionally get ripped off or lost. Therefore, you should have some other way to identify calves. Breed associations may recpiire one or more specific means of marking or identification. Some herd owners use at least three of these identification methods on each calf. An information on identification should be recorded in a permanent record book. Extra Tests Many dairy calves have teats in addition to the four normally present. These extra teats are smaller and are not harmful. They do detract frcn the appearance of the developed udder. Occasional- 1y they may secrete small amounts of milk and thus become a nuisance. Remove the extra teats when the calf is young. This can be . a - done anytime between 1 and 2 months of age. Wash and disinfect (Check for unit # l7) the area around the teat. Then stretch the teat slightly and very useful out it off with clean sharp scissors. There is usually little quite useful or no bleeding. Disinfect the cut area with iodine. ._.: of some use r— ‘ of little use not useful W Unit a}? 18 , Diseases /' 7' Calves are susceptible to numerous ailments, many of which .I: can be prevented by proper care and feeding. Prevention is more ,/ l / desirable and satisfactory than treatment. The advice of a veterinarian about the most effective means of treatment is often necessary. He should always be consulted in case of severe outbreaks of disease . Scours Scours or diarrhea, occurs most freqzently during the first 3 weeks of life. Infections or digestive upsets can cause scours. Calves have infectious scours, noninfectious C $ - secure, or bloody scours. The progress of infectious scours cozmnents : is rapid and causes a high rate of mortality. The some of infection can be through the navel or the mouth. DrOppings are whitish, have an offensive odor, are soft to liquid in consistency, and are usually voluminous. The calf is listless and has little appetite. This type of scours is usually severe initsharmtothe calf. The condition is more frequent during the first 3 to 5 days of life than at later ages. Start treatment at the first signs of diarrhea. Resultant usually consists of giving a commercial medicine composed of kaolin or pectin, sulfa drugs, and an antibiotic. Reduce the calf's feed one-half and give it extra water. Care spent in cleaning and disinfecting calf quarters will help prevent recurrence of secure. In severe outbreaks it may be necessary to clean, scrub, disinfect, and vacate the premises for a short period. In herds where scours occurs frequently during the first few days of life, give calves an antibiotic imediately after birth. Then, move the calves to clean individual quarters. Noninfectious scours may be caused by feeding with dirty utensils, over-feeding, feeding milk with too high a fat content, irregular feeding, or changes in environment or weather. The symptoms and the progess are similar to infectious scours, but do not develop as severely or as rapidly. The treatment is the same. When bloody scours persists, an infection known as cocci- diosis should be suspected. Symptoms other than bloody droppings are rough hair coat, weakness, listlessness, nervousness, poor appetite, and little or no gain in weight. c- w a This condition occurs frequently when several calves run together conments: in unclean pens. Calves get the infection by licking objects contaminated by manure. Separating the calf from the accumulation of manure inter- rupts the life cycle of the protozoan and controls the disease. Moving calves to cleaned pens at weekly intervals also aids in controlling the disease. Sulfa drugs -- sulfaguanidine, and sulfathiazole -- are used in treating coccidiosis. Internal parasites also should be suspected when calves on adequate diets fail to gow and develop normally and no infectious cause can be found. These are stomach and intestinal worms. (Check for unit . Take a stool sample to your veterinarian so that he can identify -—-— verf: :12ng the parasite and recommend the correct treatment. Treatment -———. quite useful for internal parasites usually differs with each parasite. of sane use You can help prevent internal parasites by having clean i of little use cows, quarter, pens, and pastures. not useful Unit # l9 Pnemonia cments: Any ailment that causes a weakened condition in the calf may help pneumonia to develOp. Pneumonia often develops in calves that have scours, especially if they are not promptly treated. Rapid changes in temperature and drafts may lead to pneunonia in calves. Calves that have pneumonia usually breathe rapidly, cough, have a high temperature, and little or no appetite. Because pnemnonia can be infectious and. spread to other calves, new calves should not be brought into quarters where pneumonia is prevalent. Affected calves should be isolated and not allowed to n 31 I contact other calves. Sulfa drugs plus antibiotics are used for comments : treating pneumonia. Calf diphtheria Calf diphtheria is caused by a germ that locates in the mouth, throat and sometimes lungs of young calves. It causes a special. type of infection. The control of this infection is similar to that of infectious diarrhea. Symptoms of calf diphtheria. are lessened appetite, 'drooling, sluggishness, and sometimes a cough. The treatment is usually successful if the proper drug is used - certain sulfa drugs. Ringworm Ringworm is an infectious fungus growth. Animals with ringworm have circular areas on their skin that are scabby, crusty, and practically hairless. The ringlike area increases in size as the infection spreads. It appears more frequently in winter months when calves are closely housed. Treatnent of ringworm consists of scrubbing the affected area with soap and water, using a stiff brush, and then apply- ing medication. The medication can be an ointment or tincture of iodine plus salicylic acid or some other antifungus canpound. 3/ Warts Warts usually disappear naturally without treatment as animals mature. Most 2~year-old cattle are wart-free. If you want to treat animals, you can tie off warts, apply medications, or ask your veterinarian to vaccinate. Treahnent reduces skin injury that would damage the hide, but it does restore skin to top condition. _2/ Mr infirmation on warts in cattle may be obtained from your county agricultural agent or the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Animals may require treatment if -- (Check for unit # l9) - Warts em strength. very useful . Warts spread rapidly. .. “ quite useful . Stunps become infected. --—- of some use ._.—1 of little use “t not useful defies Insects and Related Pestsé/ cannents: Fleas, lice, ticks, and cattle gubs can be controlled by sprang or dusting with an insecticide. O Spraying is the best means of control. For treating a few animals, use a cylindrical air-pressure ornapsacksprayerthatholdszto3gallons. Shake such sprayers occasionally to assure a pr0perly mixed spray. Ifyouwanttouseapowersprayer, operatethesprayer at apressure of 100 to 200 pounds per square inch. A time-saving way to protect a few calves from insects is to dust them by hand. Hand dusting takes only about 1/2 minute per animal. Applyasmallhandfultoeachanimal. Dustitoverthe back and sides of the animal and rub it in lightly. lead Poisoning Lead is responsible for many deaths in calves. lead poison- (Check for unit ing should be suspected anytime a calf dies suddenly for no ' ‘ very ufefzgl). apparent reason, especially if a convulsion precedes the death. *- quite useful A careful search of the barn, pens and pasture will often expose «—-— of some use the source -- discarded storage batteries, lead paint, and lead- l____. of little use containing sprays. Any painting in or around calf-quarters - notuseful should be done with noon-load paint. 37 Further information on insects around cattle may be obtained your county agricultural agent or the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington 25, D.C. -33.. Unit # 21 RAISING CALVES FOR VEAL consents: Dairy calves are sometimes raised for veal. Veal calves are usually marketed between it and 8 weeks of age. About 10 pounds of whole milk are required to produce 1 pound of gain. Calves of the larger breeds are preferred for veal. Con- formation, finish, and size determine the price. The preferred weight is 180 to 200 pounds. Calves over or under these weights usually sell for a lower price. For example, calves under 100 pounds are classed as lightweights and sell for ho to 60 percent of the maximun veal price. Calves being fattened for veal should be confined and their exercise kept to a minim. To obtain best gowth, they should be fed3orhtimesaday. v If you have a few milking cows and no good outlet for their milk, you may find it profitable to buy 3-day-old calves and use your cows as nurse cows. Veal calves also can be successfully fed from a bucket or nipple pail. All calves raised for veal and not on a nurse cow should be fed an antibiotic to increase rate of gain and reduce diarrhea. Start feeding at the levels recommended in table 1 for gowing replacements. After 10 to 1h days of age, the amount can be gradually increased until the calves drink 20 to 25 pounds of whole milk daily. - 31+ .- comments: Give milk, whole or skimmed, free choice to veal calves over 1 month old. Calves fed milk will gain 2.0 to 2.7 pounds perdaybetween3 and60days of age. Themilk canbe fed lukewaim or cool. It should be the same temperature at each feeding and should be fed in clean utensils. Milk replacers containing fat plus other additives can be used to raise good veal calves. The amount fed should be about double the mount suggested for raising herd replacements. Veal calves can also be raised on a limited milk-grain ration. When fed limited amounts of milk, calves need about 6pounds of wholemilkperpoundof gainplus gain. Whena dry milk replacer is used in place of whole milk, feed 0.9 to 1.5 pounds plus about 1.0 pound gain for each pound of gain. Calves fed this way gain about 1 pound a day. Raising Calves for Dairy Beef Often male calves can be fed to 1 to 1% years of age and marked as dairybeef. They canbe fedandrearedusingthe same procedures as suggested for rearing herd replacements. Dairy beef calves can be marketed as grass-fat animals. (Check for unit # 21) During the last 2 to 1+ months of the feeding period they can very useful be fed some concentrates to produce a more finished carcass. quite useful The amount of concentrates to feed depends on the rate of -—--- of some use gain and degee of finish you want and the price of the “of little use concentrate. “—- not useful SILAGE IN THE DAIRY RATION OPPGITUNITIES WITH CORN SILAGE High Yield Of mtrithQIOOOOOOOO0.00000000000000.0000. Corn Silage Furnishes Both Roughage and Grain.......... Corn Silage Moves Part of Haymaking to Fall............ cm SIIAGE CAN BE mmm WWZEOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCC Limitations and Special Considerations with Corn Silage Corn Silage Requires Protein Supplement................ CORN SILAGE FEEDING PROGRAMS FOR DAIRY CATTLE............... Feeding Value of Com Silage Mineral and Carotene Content Nitrates and Nitrite Toxicity.......................... Carotene or Vitamin A Value of Corn Silage............. Other VimaoOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOCOIOOOOOOOOOOO. Sommmw wwm NHPH H O FEEDING PROGRAIB. WITH VARIOUS IEVEIS 0F CORN SILAGE......... Corn Silage for Growing Dairy Heifers.................. I: ADDIMUHEATO INCREASE PROTEIN CONTENT OF CORNSILAGE...... 16 Corn Kernels in Faces of Cattle Fed Corn Silage........ 17 nm em SMOOOOOOO0.000000000IOOOOIOOOOO‘IOOOOOOOOOO 18 HIGH 1018mm CCRN GRAIN STORED IN SIIDS.................... 20 mm mm“ 8118860....OI...OOOOQOOOOCCOOOOOOOOOCC 21 mm VAMOFHAYm81w...oooaooocaocooocccoooosoo22 m‘hmum 811““...00.0.0...OOOOOIIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO25 ”mutt“ 81188900000000.0000.00000IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 27 mmWWW“W...IOIOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOC30 mercenal Min SilageaOOOOOIOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO32 mamas SilageOQOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOO00.000.000.000... 32 mm on 81m...OOOOOOOOICOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOO 33 scram mMGOOIOOOOOOOOOOOCOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... 34 ETIMATED‘NNUALF- WW0...00000000000000.0000... 36 ”Inch ”H‘s. C. F. Huffman, Dairy Department Dayton V. Nelson, Farm Crops Robert L. Maddox, Agricultural Engineering C. R. Hoglund, Agricultural Economics MENSION BUILETIN MICHIGAN STATE mm SILAGE IN ms DAIRY RATION canments: Silage because increasingly more important to the dairy farmer as the size of the operation increases. In recent years many dairymen havedoubledtheirherdsisefromaotowcowstOItOorGOcows, and others have increased to 80 or 100 cows and beyond. This trend toward larger size herds often creates new problems in producing adequate ptantities of feed, harvesting large amounts of roughage at its opt-i am feeding value, and the physical Job of handling the feeds from harvesting through storage and feeding. For exanple, the 20 cowfarmerneeds sane 1110 tons ofhayequivalent annuallyplus mmerpasture, while the 100 cowfarmermust handle some 570 tons of hay equivalent for the milking herd not including youngstock. Even more pressing is the problem of harvesting and storing such quantities during the relatively short periods of time then the forage is at its optimal feeding value. These considerations and the demand for efficiency in removing fran storage and feeding of roughage have created the need for a cmpletely mechanized system of forage handling from field through feeding. In general, the dewlopnent of mechanized equipment for handling silage has progressed more rapidly than for handling hay. These developments cause the larger dairymen to favor geater use _of silage in the dairy ration. Most Michigan dairy farmers have a choice in the craps they produce andinthsharvesting, storage, andfeedingmcthodstbeyuse. There is noonebestcmbinationofhwandsilagetobefedonalldairyfarms. Thekindoflandavailable, thesizaofthefarm, theintensitycfthe livestock Operation, and the availability of labor, capital, buildings, and other resources onthc farmmust allbe considered inarriving at a practical decision. -1- It is the purpose of this bulletin to point out some of the Wtioa offered dairymen by using silage in the dairy ration, and the precautions and management practices in growing crops, harvesting, storing, and feeding that are necessary for making optima use of silage crepe. W fianm OPPORIUNITIEB WITH OORN SILAGE cements: Where good corn can be grown, dairymen will want to consider the possibilities of using more corn silage in the dairy ration. .High Yield of nutrients Corn silage is the highest yielding feed crop on many Michigan farms. Yields Of 15 tons of silage per acre, emivalentto 75 bushels of shelledcorn, arebecomingverycomonwile some famers are producingl8to£0tcnsofsilageperacre. Pifteentonsofcorn silage yields 6,000 pounce of total digestible nutrients. an: is equivalent to approximately six tons of hay per acre uhich is more. than double ordinary hay yields. Fern management studies of dairy Operations reveal that the prodmtionofhighyieldingandhighvalm crops goeshandinhand with successful dairy farming. Corn silage offers this Opportunity to new Michigan dairymen. ggrn Silage Furnishes Both m and Grain (me grain in corn silage is Just as valuable for dairy cattle as when picked, shelled, and fed as concentrates. Research studies have indicated that about 13% of the vet weight of corn silage can be considered V. s,- .i .e. '1 . I . . , . .. . . I I A . u a», . . . .. u e. . . a n l ‘ . . I . . l .. x . P O r . ... v» .I I . . . . O, U . . . . us It .. v .. , ... I .. l v . e ‘Dr 9|. \ ._.h \ ., .... ,. . . h .. . '- . . a r V I . . .- I u . e a . . .e . . . , . . O C 2 - as #2 (1% moisture) shelled corn.81milarly the leaves, stalks, and consents : cobs are ewivalent to about 20% Of the wet weight as 12% moisture hay. dime, a ton of corn silage contains about 260 lbs. of #2 shelled corn and II00 lbs. of hay. Because the grain part is approximately 80% digestible vhereas the roughage part is approximately 50% digestible, each contributes about the same amount of total digestible nutrients to the ration. the high energy value of corn silage generally results in considerably better feed value, and higher milk production than is obtained with ordinary quality hay. Thus, corn silage generally improves roughage Qiality in practical farm Operations. The gain supplied in corn silage can reduce the mount of gain fed as concentrates to high producingcowsbyaboutone-half‘dlenahighlevelof silage isfed. CornSilagLMovengtch Oneoftheadvantagesofusinglu'germountsofcornsilagein thedairyfeedingprogranis that itmovespartofthehaymaking Job into the fell. Inmost of Michigan,haynomallyreaches its Optinnfeedvalue duringatwoweekperiodinearlyJune. Generally, the opporizmitytoharvesthigh qualityhsyisfurtherlimiteddtn‘ing this period by frequent rains, high hunidity and poor drying conditions. are large dairy Operator finds it extremely difficult to harvest if?“ t“ ”n“ #1) adequate quantities of high quality hay. 'Ihe use of more corn __ very useful silegecansuhstantiallyreducetheamomtofhayneededtobe __ «mum harvestedinJuneandtlmsprovidestheOpportmitytOprodme __ Ofsomeuse better quality hay. ______ of little use __ not useful Unit {a __ CORN 8M CAN BE WY MECHANIZED . commute: 'nle modern dairy farm operation with increasingly larger size herdsrequirestremendousqmntitiesofroughagetobehandled anmally. the 20 cow farmer needs some 1150 tons of hay equivalent y-.. -3 .. fortthlkingherdannually, whilethelOOcowfarmermust oments : handle s0me675tonsofhayequivalentfcrthemilkingherd. Even more pressing is the problem of harvesting and storing such giantitiee during the relatively short periods of time when the roughage is at its Optimun feeding value. These considerations and the demand for efficiency in removing from storage and feeding have created the need for a completely mechanized system Of forage handling fran the field through the feeding process. Corn silage is well adapted to canplete mechanization. Weather conditions have relatively little influence on the harvesting of high quality corn silage owned/taking high quality m. Lihwise, corn silage can be harvested and stored around-the-clock, if necessary, when conditions are favorable. Limitations and Mid Considerations with Corn Silage As discussed earlier in this publication, corn silage production is Limitedto those wees-Of the state andmore specifically to those fad-ms where climate, soil characteristics, and topogrnhy are well adapted to gowing corn. However, one should not overlook the possibilities of improving corn production through adOption of up-to-dste hybrid and superior corn gowing practices. 99311 _pggesglms Protein Stalement Corn silage is relatively low in protein content and must he nipplsmented with additional protein to meet the requirement for dairy cattle. A canplete ration containing Qprozdmately 12$ protein (air-dry or hut-equivalent basis) is adeqzate for dairy cattle. Since corn silage containeabout8$protein(airdry) itreqmrea 359mof edditiomlproteinorebouteopomsocsmpmteinsuehes soybean meal to supplement a ton of corn silage. In terms of actual wet weight, the protein content would be increased from approximately 2.3% to M protein. Onetonofhaycontainsaboutthe same anountofdrymatter uh- aethreetonsofcornsilage. Therefore,threetonsofsilage cements : willreplaceoneton thay. Bowver, threetonsofcornsilage contain about 200 lbs. more nutrients (T.D.N.) than one ton of ordinary hay. The addition of 2110 lbs. of protein supplement (80 lb. per ton) adds another 192 lbs. of T. D. N. (total digestible nutrients) to the hay-equivalent value of corn silage so it now contains 1392 lbs. of T.D.N., or nearly M more nutrients than the ton of ordinary hay. In determining the net cost of supplementing corn silage one should deduct the value of extra T.D.R., other than protein, from the cost of prrs‘ein supplement. or the 192 lbs. of T.D.N. from protein supplement, 9‘? lbs. is digestible protein (105 lbs. actual protein) then 95 lbs. of otb: 7: digestible nutrients we provided. As illustrated in Table l, the corn silage plus supplement contains #00 lbs. more nutrients (other than protein) thanthe ordinaryhay. ‘nlevalue Ofthese extranutrients is approximately equal to the cost of mlementsl protein in terms of normal prices. Table 1 Digestible Nutrients in Supplemented Corn Silage Compared with Ordinary Bay (12% protein) Actual Other weight Bay Eq. D.P. Dig. Nutrients T.D.N. Corn Silage 3 T. l T. 75 1125 1200 Protein Supplement 2140 lbs. ..... _21 22 122 Totals 172 1220 1392 Ordinary Bay 1 T. l T. 51:80 820 1000 Extra Nutrients in Simplemental corn silage ”Tm "339 (Wk for Unit %) very useful quite useful of some use ._.... of little use nn-I! eta-9111 .. . . . J a . I. 1‘ . . . . 9.. D-.. . ~ ._I. - .--. ‘. I __ e . a l"" -5 - Unit7ur3 OORNSIIAGBFEBDINGPROGRAMSFORDAIMGA‘I‘I‘IE Mvum of Corn Silgge Corn silage has been fed to dairy cattle at Michigan State cmnts : University since 1881, but research in this area began with the introduction Of hybrid corn in 1910. Since then a number of experi- ments haveestahlished that corn silage is a superior feed for dairy cattle and. when prOperly supplemented can replace a large put of the hay in the ration. Digestion experiments with corn silage from eight crop years showthatalarge prOportionofthedrymatter is utilizahle as mrtrients for dairy cattle. The average proximate composition and coefficients of digestion for the various constituents are given in Table 2. Table 2 Average Proximate Chemical Composition, Coefficient of Digestion and Total Digestible Nutrients (T.D. N. for Corn Silage.) Matter Protein Ext. Fiber (D.M. ) __ L $ in 1» i 1' 1 % Comosition Wet basis 29.]. 1.16 2.71} 1.00 6.21 17.? MO 20.0 ”1% me lmeo 5.0 90h 30" 210 3 $08 --- $06 D1368‘b10n $0 8 -"- 520 8 730 7 $0 8 73a 1" 1". Coefficients The chief sOIn'ces ofproductive energyinthe cornplantare the crude fiber an! nitrogen-free-extract (WE) fractions since large quantities of each are present and because of their relatively high digestibility. The productive energy value of corn silage is actually higher than the T.D.N. content would indicate because of the corn gain present in the silage. “me silages studied varied fran 62.0 to 75.6 per cent T.D.N. and averaged 68.6 per cent on the dry basis. The average dry matter content was 29.1 per cent (71 per cent moisture) am ranged fran 25.2 to 32.8 per cent dry matter. At this moisture the v. ‘0- If s _. . e e .‘ .‘, a r . r - . .o \ a, s a sL, I , v e' ‘ ‘ .. a u . . .. 6 .- average T.D.N. value was 20.0 per cent. Because of this relatively counts : high moisture content, it is necessary to convert silage values to either "Moistln'e-free" or "huh-equivalent" for making comparisons with other crepe. When this is done, three tons of silage contain about the same mount of dry matter'as one ton of hay. The crude protein values ranged from 2.02 to 15.73 per cent (average 2.71;) or from 7.3 to 115.9 per cent (average 9.h) on the dry basis. Since milking cove require a ration containing about 12 per cent protein (air-dry) it is evident that a high silage ration should be supplemented wit-1.: protein concentrates, legume hay, or hay containing appreciable 6113.»th of legumes. See feeding program, page 12. M12. real and Carotene Content The principle minerals of turtritional importance and carotene were determinedforl? yearsef corn silage crops andare reportedinTable 3 on the "wet" basis. Average values are also given on both the wet and dry basis, as well as file values given in other standard references. the symbols given at the top of Table 3 represent the following elements: Ca, Celsius; P, phosphorus; Mg, magnesim; K, potassium; Fe, iron; Cu, copper; Mn, manganese; and Co, cobalt. Celsius and phosphorus are the only minerals sufficiently low to require consideration for dairy cattle. The calcium content of the silsges varied fran 0.052 to 0.107 per cent (average 0.075) or from 0.18 to 0.33 per cent (average 0.26) on the dry basis which is adequate when dicalciun phosphate or bonaneal is added to the gain ration. When corn silage is fed at high levels, the ration must be liberally supple- mented with protein as discussed in the previous section. Most protein concentrates, such as the oil means, are also good sources of phosphorus. This reduces the want of mineral supplement required to furnish phosphorus in the ration. - . ens '7 rable Mineral and Carotene Content of Corn Silages case r . Of , * Caro- rear Ca P Mg K Fe Cu Mn 06 tons pm 3 1 L 1» mmmmm— 191.02 2 0.052 0.065 0.065 .. .. .. 191.1 1 0.077 0.102 .. .. .. 0.11 1912 6 0.0711 0.068 0.070 he . 1 5 0.01» 1913 6 0.059 0.069 0.080 0. 33 5h 2 7 0.02 11.0 19m. 3 0.073 0.088 0.099 201 16 10 0.02 3.6 1 5 3 0.059 0.08h 0.059 0.32 11.7 2 7 0.03 5.0 14,- at 2 0.093 0.109 0.113 5h 3 8 0.03 5.0 _ .3 1 0.107 0.063 0.075 0.32 108 u 9 0.02 2.1 19118 2 0.091; 0.065 0.073 * 0.311 28 5 11 0.02 3.7 1919 3 0.080 0.052 0.058 0.21 27 2 7 0.03 3.8 1950 2 0.071 0.080 0.06h 0.32 55 ‘ 2 5 0.03 ms 1951* 2 0.086 0.061 0.083 0.26 29 2 6 0.03 10.8 1952* 8 3 0.056 0.0811 0.075 0.110 he 3 5 0.02 3.9 1953* 2 0.062 0.066 0.073 0.3!. 37 2 12 0.02 7.0 1951141 2 0.07h 0.057 0.072 0.30 112 6 9 0.03 6.8 1955* 3 0.093 0.058 '0.086 0.56 his 5 7 0.02 9.3 1956» 1 0.062 0.055 0.062 0.29 32 2 7 0.03 . . . . Average 0.075 0.071 0.077 0.31. 63 I. 8 0.03 5.3 Average1 0.26 0.21. 0.26 1.17 216 ll. 27 0.10 18.2 Merrisen(1955) 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.30 30 1 l9 12.8 Merrisenl 0.36 0.25 0.18 1.09 109 h 69 116.1. ms-mcu958) 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.29 51 7 3 13 0.02 11.6 leis-11st:1 0. 33 0.23 0.21. 1.15 200 10 1.9 0.08 115.5 impressed on moisture-free basis. *Used in digestion experiments. Prom - CZP. Huffman and C. v. Duncan, Quarterly Bulletin, Michigan Agriculture Erneriment Station. In : 261. 1060 -...o ~l‘ .IQ. ‘ I 0 . v . a V O . 1.-.! VII . C a D Q 1.5 . n . 1., . 5177.1.- .0 l I In :1! .l valvulo O I; ‘l’ 8 comments: A grain ration containing one per cent dicalciun phosphate (stead bone meal could be used) will supply adequate calcim and phosphorus. When the concentrates are increased sufficiently to supply adequate energ and protein in the ration, calciun and phosphorus allowances for iairycovethathavebeenpublishedere veryliberel. The calciun illovance is 0.8 gram per 100 lbs. of body weight per day for (Check for -.intenanceandonegrsmperpoundofmilkproduced. mphosphoms . Unit 573) illowance is 0.8 grams per 100 lbs. of boar weight per day for very useful 4 aintenanceandOJgransperpomdotmilkproduced. Inbalance‘ pquiteuseful shadimtheactualrequirementeotcowshavebeenbelowthese ‘ otsomeuse 2110* dices. 7 of little use 0 i | not useful Unit .3}? If m ttrates and Nitrite Toxicitz coments: Nitrates are notnomallytoundinthe cornplantorotherforsge ants. Occasionally, however, due to unusual circmstances that are t easily predicted plants will acctmuate nitrates in the stalks and raves. PlantshavebeenknomtocontainuptoT.O%ocrthedrymatter ,, potaeeim nitrate (K303) although 0.5 to 3.05 is more cannon. name outhoi’thecrcpdmtoseveredrought, orinJurytroInchemicalveed llers, and excessively higi rate or nitrogen fertilization has been 2... to result in accumulation of nitrates in plants. The nitrate (m3) converted into nitrite (n02) intherunenandmaybe absorbed into the nod stream as such. like nitrite oxidizes ferrous hemoglobin (Wobln) ferric hemoglobin (methanoglobin) which camot transport oxygen. The {hemoglobin m the blood brown in color. Actually death iron nitrate :soningnsybe cmpsredto asphyxiation” strangulationocr the animal. Accelerated respiration and pulse rate, diurhea, frequent urination, wressed appetite, general weakness, trembling, staggering gait, frothing m the mouth and a blue color of mucous mbranes, male, tongue and I I I .e e b . e - - . I e e9 ' . a. . 4 I. ‘ ' v ee 9 - Animals vary considerably in their ability to handle nitrate. cments : Levels of nitrate in the ration that have caused toxicity symptoms in certain experiments have not produced the toxicity in other cases. Recent experiments indicate that prolonged feeding of nitrate at low levels (0.6 - 1.0% of the ration) or some other factor unknown, under some conditions may interfere with the conversion of carotene to V'itmnin A and cause typical Vitmnin A deficiency symptoms within six to eight weeks. Feeding additional pro-famed Vitamin A appears to help alleviate the condition in these situations, although the relationship be". keen nitrate and Vitamin A has not been well established. Cases of nimte poisoning are relativelyrm inMichigan and should not be a ca. ‘2 for under concern. Carotene or Vitamin A Value of Corn Silage Cornsilagecontains approximatelythe sue wountofcaroteneas an equivalent mount of ordinary alfalfa hay. lbs carotene allowances for dairy cattle are estimated at h.0 mg. (milligram) per 100 pounds ofbodyueightperday. Anextraallovanceof 30mg. perdayis suggested duringthelaetZto 3mnths1nnaintainnomalpregnancy. ForalZOOlb. covthenaintenance allowance uouldbe l18mg. perdmCratotalcf 78 mg/day during late pregnancy. High level feeding of corn silage ' (80 to 100 lbs. per day) won1d still supply adequate carotene to meet nutritional requirements under normal feeding conditions. A carotene deficiency would not be lihely to occur except under the most misual circmstances suchasnightbe createdbyacombinationoflowcarotene silage, and extremely heavy grain feeding. Under these conditions cows mldtendtoeatwchlusofthe silageandthecarotene suppliedin the total ration 10qu approach "borderline" deficiency. Frosted corn silage is considered low in carotene (approadnately 2 ng./1h. of silage) and could conceivably fall within the "border " category. In such instances it would be advisable to include five pounds of green, leafy alfalfa hay or .4“ O. colos- .t II Vi I (Chechforvni 199+) Vitamin D is the only other vitamin that must be supplied in ____1 very useful the ration. Corn silage fmishes adequate Vitamin D for normal T___T mute useful calcim and phosphorus metabolism. The action of sunlight on ___“ of some use the animal's body even for short periods of time furnishes 1___‘ of little use oufficient Vitamin D to prevent a deficiency frun occurring. ___' not useful _ finit #5 ’" FEEDIM W8 wrm VARIGJS LEVELS OF CORN SIlAGE coments: Corn silage is a generous contributor of energy to the dairy ration bu" hike other feeds must be adeq1ately supplemented with protein, ca.’:.ci.un, and phosphors”. Four rations using ho, 60, 85, and 100 pounds of corn silage with 20, 15, Spounds, andnohsyarepresentedin‘l‘ables 1+, 5, 6, and? to illustrate the adequacy of energy ('1'.D.N.) , protein, calcium, phosphorus, and carotene when these rations are balanced with a M per cent protein supplement suchas soybeanmeal, endanineral supplement such as dicalciin phosphate. ‘l'en pounds of concentrates containing the supplements versusedforthis illustrationineacheach sincetheroughagepartof each ration provides about the some T.D.N. 'I‘hehayisassmedtobeaveragealfalfacontaininglhpercentcrude protein: and 50 per cent T.D.N. (Morrison, "All Analysis Alfalfa?) The conclusions would be considerably different if other than average alfalfa hay is used. The nutrient allowances are firm "Nutrient Requiremnts for Dairy Cattle," as published by the National Research Council for 1,200 pound cows. It is conceded that mrln‘ient allowances as used here and actual mtrient requh'enents of individual cows may be considerably different in the efficiency of cows. ness allowances are based on eagerimentation and are the best information available in spite of the recognized shortcomings. . . s . .- -. r .L I i . 4 7 s .. . .3” - ‘1 . ~ I l. s ‘1 .- A“ .0 I ll - 'lhe illustrated feeding programs are intended as guides for balancing cmnta: rations andas suchmaybeuseful. However, these donot eliminate the need fen: good Judgement in individual circumstances. sever-u observations and conclusions can be drawn from the illustration. (1) 'nieroughagepertofeachration (silage andhay) withthe ten -_;0unds of concentrates containing the supplements provides enough T.D. N. (total digestible mitrients) to maintain a 1,200 pound cow and produce 51 to 58 pounds of milk per day. (2) The protein content of the grain ration (with this limited amount of main) mist be increased substantially as more silage and less hay is use" in the ration. Note that a 101. protein grain ration meets the protein rewirermntwhenaopoundsofhayis fed, but thata2h$proteingrain ration is necessary to meet requirenents for the 58 pounds of milk than corn silage is the only roughage fed. the high silage ration (85 anleO lbs. of silage per day) could be salamedbyneteringinthefeedbtmkcmhandfeeding n.0pounds of soybean meal (or equivalent) per 100 pounds of silage fed, and feeding a l2tol3$proteingrainrationatthernteofonepoundper2.5 pomdeormkahovehoms. ofnllkperdsy. (3) Simplementing the grain ration with one per cent dicalcium phosphate (or stashed bonemeal.) provides adequate calcium and phosphorus in all rations. Althoudi the 100 per cent corn silage ration appears to be 811m low in calciun, this is not considered significant since the calciun allowances used liberally exceed actual requirements. Note the considerable mount of excess cdciun in the rations containing 15 and 20 pounds at hay. (1+) 'me carotene supply is adequate in all rations. Note that corn silage containing about the average mount of carotene supplies about twice the nutrient requirement. Even the low carotene silage (lowest of 17 years .J Ha O O 'n D . A4 - e 7 v .- ._s s s \ a . 0 I u .5 e. t. a rd .- . ,. Is at a .. 1'. v u , 1‘ f ‘ . o re .. -12- of experiments) provides maple carotene to satisfy the carotene or consents: Vitamin A requirement. Only with an extremely high level of grain and a low level of roughage would carotene be likely to be 'borderline" deficient. (5) When the mtrients supplied by the basic ration have been - vceeded by higher milk production, a grain ration containing 12 to -575 protein, fed at the rate of one pound of gain for each additional 2.5 pounds of milk, will met the requirements for protein and T.D.N. Ta} “ 1; Nutrients Supplied by Corn Silage Feeding Program in Relation to Nutrient Requirements (or allowances). —' ‘ Tarrgttem Ra‘ ‘ ,1 l Fed Dig. value of silage ”firth“ ”53?“ Pm" 2‘." 2. 3:? ‘W Corn Silage 40 8.0 0.92 .50 1h 13 lo :96 196 fall’s. hay 20 10.0 2.80 2.13 13‘! 22 170 170 170 Grain Ration, 1056 Prot.* 10 _Lj 1_.__0_g 479 __J_._6_ _2_1_ _13 __1_3 __J_.; Total Nutrients 25.5 1+. 72 3.1V! 16% 66 223 279 379 Warm“ 1919 419 22.1239. .82 .82 Available for Milk 15.5 ---- 2.77 15% 56 1153 159 259 Production Sufficient for Milk, lbs. 51 ---- 60 151+ 80 no requirement IG‘rain’l'iation composed of 92$ corn and cob meal??? isoybean meal", 1% disalciun phosphate. 4 A r a. - i - e . 7 .l ‘ . .. ‘ ~. a. .5“ ’ -‘\ 13" TableS W Carotene Ration 2 Fed Dig. value of silage Daily ‘1'.D. N. Protein Prot. Ca P Low Average___§i_gh__ lbs lbs lbs 80 8s mes Ms Corn silage 60 12.0 1.38 .73 20 20 60 1M Alfalfa ha 15 7.5 2.10 1.63 110 16 123 123 rain Ration, 1396 Prot.* 10 __'7_._5 1.39 1.12 _11 g__6 _1_3 _1_3 Total Nutrients 27.0 14.78 3. 1+8 Ill-7 62 205 280 Maintenance Requires 10.0 ---- .10 _lg _lg _89 __§_80 Ava-lable for Milk 17.0 ---- 2.78 137 52 126 200 Production Sui. :cient for Milk, lbs. 57 um 60 137 7h no requirement mg. 29h ls§|n§ ‘13” 75'? .n Ration composa of 8? corn cob meal, 16% soybean meal, 1% dicalcium phosphate—“f. i'able6 12922119 Ration 3 Fed Dig. vane of silage Daily T.D.N. Protein Prot. Ca P Low Average____H_igh___ 1b? lbs us 8s 8s mes Ms mas Corn si1age 85 17.0 1.95 1.011 29 27 85 20h 1116 Alfalfa hay average 5 2. 5 .70 . 5h 33 5 13 1&1 101 Grain Ration, 20% Prot.* 10 1.5 2.2 1.1!. _1_7__ _21 __1_3 _13 _1_._3 Total Nutrients 27.0 M85 3.32 79 59 111 258 530 Maintenance Requires 10.0 1.2 .70 19 _l_._0_ _8__9 _89 __§__80 Available for Miik 17.0 ' 3. 53 2. 62 69 1&9 31 178 1.50 Production Sufficient for Milk, lbs. 57.0 57 69 70 no requirement *ghomaphiation composed m corn and cob meal, 33% soybean meal, 1% dicelciun tee -lh- Table 7 h “ ”W “ ._.. 52:23” Ration h Fed Dig. value of silage Da‘ilg '1'.D.N‘. Protein Prgt. Ca P low Aer lbs lbs lbs 8s 80 ass Ms mg. Corn Silage 100 20.0 2.3 1.22 3h 32 100 2&0 1+90 T'vain Ration 211* 10 7.5 2.3 2.1h 12 _21 _13 _13 13 rotai Nutrients 27.5 h.7 3.36 53 59 113 >253 503 Maintenance Requires 10.0 1.} .10. 3.3 3.2 _82 __8_Q 1.1.” Available for Milk 17.5 3.1} 2.65 1&3 119 33 173 1#23 Reduction St . ’.-:ient for Milk, lbs. 58 57 #3 70 no requirement ”it: :: ulnfitionfiom wound ear corn, M?soybean meal, 1% dicalciim f I. ' 'Phates (Check for Uhit‘7f5) veryuseful quiteuseful ofsomeuse of little use [HUI mm fit a; 6 Subsequent Beltsville data indicate that supplementing of continents: the wilted silage rationwiththreetofourpoundsofgrainpcrday results in satisfactory growth of dairy heifers. commas: for W Heifershaveobtainedmrmdgrowthvdiencornsilagewasfedas theonlyroughagefrombirth. lnothertrials growthhasbeenslightly betterwhengoodqualityhayreplacedthecomsilage. 'meslowergrowth rateinaomeinstsncesseemstobeduetofailm'eofsonecalvestoeat sufficient silage. In view of the conflicting information it may be advisable to provide calves with good quality hay until four months olds, - v . o s s a o . e.‘ although there is evidence that they will make satisfactory growth on corn silage properly supplemented with protein. sixmonthsandolderwilldowelloncornsilageasthconlyroughage -15 . Heifers four to caments : menstlpplmentedwith0.hpoundofsoybeanmealforeachtenpoundsof Bilge With good quality silage no other grain is necessary because of “a large amount of grain furnished by the silage. C cont. silage and lull-1. protein supplement needed for growth and reproduction or heife rs are indicated in the following table. Estimated dailry quantities Tab - e 8 Corn Silage Feeding Programs for Dairy Heifers 2“ W "‘ Werner. As. Corn Grain* Prot. Hay Corn 0rain* suit. Silage Ration Supp. Silage Ration Supp. res. ) lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. i-6 Free Choice up to ._.... Free Choice up to ______ 3.0 lb. 3.0 1b., 7-12 Limited 25-35 --- 1 Limited 20.30 mm 1 13-18 35-50 ---- 1 or 150-10 mm 1 19-21 none 50.60 ..--- 1.5 none l10-50 --- 1.25 21-2h 50-60 --- 2 110-50 2 *Grain ration 1241+? prot'éin’. Notice that an additional protein allowance is provided during chnents: the last three months of pregnancy. If silage giality is such that heifers do not eat simficient quantities to maintain normal growth, the situation can be corrected by feeding some hay, or additional grain when heifers receive 10 pounds or more of legume hay per day no protein supplement is mceWs Where heifers of various ages are run together it may be convenient to meter, or hand feed the protein supplement. Four pounds of soybean meal (or equivalent) per 100 pounds of silage will adequately meet protein requirements. This combination is equivalent to a hay-plus-grain ration containing 12$ protein. 5'. nlé- (Check for Dry cows can be maintained on free choice feeding of corn silage“ Unit 5’,“ 6) F and one pound of M4: protein supplement or equivalent per day. ‘ . very useful Five pounds of legume hay will replace the protein supplement. ‘ . quite useful ‘ _ of sane use of little use tin—1» ____J, not useful : Tinit 35F? _“ AIDINGUREATOINCREASEPROEINCOMEM'GFCORNSEAGE cements: Urea can be added to corn silage at the time of fillin; to in- :e the crude protein content. Ui'ea is a non-protein source of nitrogen 2.2.2: .:. s comonly used in conmercial cattle swplements. It has been we... demonstrated that urea nitrogen is converted to true protein by bacteria in the ration (paunch) and is a satisfactory source of protein nitrogen for cattle. . Several enmeriments have indicated satisfactory results with dairy cattle and beef cattle when urea was added to corn silage and sorghun silage. Ihe tests indicate that cattle utilized the ma nitrogen and ' performed as well as when the silage was supplemented with soybean meal. 'Ihere is some indication that the wee-supplemented silage was slightly less palatable thenmore thanZOlbs. of ureavas usedperton of silage ormenthesilagevasdryerthannomalattimeaffilling. Palatability wasnotaproblemmereureavasaddedattherateoflOtol'llbs. perton. Urea that is "feeding grade" guaranteed by the manufacturer should be used. Tenpounds ofureaeée (h2percentni1zogen)pertonof silage vill increase the crude protein content of normal corn silage to 3.5 or h.0percentoraboutllt012percentcrudeproteinasairdryorhay equivalent basis. misnomtofm'eavillsupplyaboutone-thirdofthetotalcrude proteinofthe ration. Ifground ear corn isusedas agrainration, ma -3 -3. LL. -L- .‘ Q Q . -1. I“ 11... 4.-..\ a- 3.. o- . e o . o‘. l o F ,‘ n e a s e' a r o ' . u . k - \ ‘e r." 7 . . r . . ‘ _i . . s o. , . . - Duo . I u -c . . v u . D , c a ‘ - '7. Ln . . o . I ‘- ,. r t a I' . - n l v F. .1 .. c. l . . 4 I ~- .1 v a n.‘ a ' . . u - a u -. I J n» | s o a I; v: ‘v .'_ . . .‘ ‘ . ‘g‘ .I .~. ‘_ c- a ‘_ 1 P. .. 17 .. protein content to about 11.5 per cent and still feed the urea caments: etrpplemented corn silage. If urea.- supplemented corn silage and ear corn were the only feeds fed,the \n'ea would furnish about one- thirdof the crudeprotein. This is therecomendedmaadmmamount of urea to be used in the ration based on current knowledge. If lditional protein appears desirable, it should be in the form of A a protein such as contained in the oil meals. 'Ihe crude protein of the dry matter varies only slightly when urea is added at the same rate within the range of 60 to 70$ moisture silage. tatisfactory mildng of urea and silage has occur-ref when the measured at- ’- ofureawas evenlydistributedoverthe topof the loads. Itcan be aied by handing a calibrated ftmnel or similar metering device in position to feed into the blower or silo filler. Reasonably good mixing occurs during unloading and feeding so that relatively small areas at heavier application of urea are seldom a problem. Corn Kernels in Feces of Cattle PedfiQorn Silage “me mount of can gain that passes through cattle undigested and appearsinthefeces ismallyamallpercentageofthetotal grain contaimd in the silage. In studies involving twelve cows during three different years at Michigan State University the kernels that appeared in the feces averaged only 2.7 per cent of the visible kernels contained in the silage fed. The percentage of whole kernels in the feces varied frat 0.2 to 8.3 per cent with different cows.’ However, nine of the twelve cows passed less than two per cent of the kernels fed in the silage. Another report indicates that lull per cent of the weight of the whole kernels in silage was recovered from the feces when the corn was harvested in the glared stage (leaves appearing dry and ripe). Apparently, the drier corntendstoseparatefromtheroughageinthermenandmaynotbe regurgitated and chewed as efficiently as higher moisture corn. - 13 . Pine chopping at silage to a 1‘; inch theoretical cut helps to break cements: the coat of the corn kernel and results in more complete digestion. In studies with whole, 25 «- 35 per cent moisture shelled corn stored in silosanddryvhele shelledcernthe mountefwhole kernels (CheckferUnitf‘z) meeting in the feces ranged frail none to 26.8 per cent. :‘bviously, some grinding is necessary to improve digestion of , _ very useful celled corn. ._.... quite useful The chemical canpositien of the corn passed into the feces ’ of sane use was similar to that vhich was fed, showing that very little,1f any1 of little use d3;- t‘tion had occurred. not useful Unit #8 MATURE CORN SILAGE InsemeareasefMichiganthecernchpmaynetreachmatm-ity cements: duetotheshertnessefthegrowingseasonertheeccmenceefuntimely frost inthe fall some years. Corn silage willfrequentlypreduce ahigh yield of rwghage per acre even though the ears are not completely developed. Table 9 indicates the mount of hay that mist be harvested paracreteproducethesmnememteftetaldigestiblenutrientsas varimisyeildsofimatln‘ecernsilage. rerexamle, tentonsef imature corn silage are equivalent infeeding value to 2.62 tons of timothy hay. It is also evident from the table that corn silage provides aboutthe sane newtofproteinas average timothyhsyat equivalent ten yields per acre. Alfalfa hay supplies considerably more protein than either corn silage or timothy ha, but it may be difficult to prodmeyieldsefhaycemparahletocernsihge. - . In. . . - ' . . i .- .\ . 'o . .. . . ‘ ‘. .. - -e ~..i ‘ . . - . a. ‘.'v .— v I 7‘. I I . . . a , u ' ' . . \ n . v , , . I o - ' t ._ , a a o v D .,.f .—l-. . f\ r‘ \ w .v.. I. a I . a 3“: , P. o . J. J . I A a q I if ,‘ . l- '\ ‘. I . . .‘ . I t O \- f o - e ‘ \- . ' .- A e on 1‘ q. v‘! 'twv 1 b . ‘ e _- ‘.'. .1 .. E I ’ s a .. ..- v. I h D ,- ._ I U k " O ' . ‘ f' .> r, 0‘ . ‘ .. . 4.. . - x l‘ ' l . ‘3'? 7' v c ‘ 4"} I_, . -\ - A r'-.' ‘ . H--e. h I. s . . _ o e . . G" ' e u o L ‘ . i . A-n ' l s . . . s ‘ . i. .- '4 be. . s I.‘ . v . ‘ . . I s F . . . . . .. a. .. .v I n ._ II a o‘- \i u i . c.’ 0 9 q . '4 . o r‘ r u . d. I. 1 " , , . o.- Table 9 Yields of Dustin‘s Corn Silage and Equivalent Amounts of HayReanedtoPreducetheSameAmomrtemePerAcre A Corn Time Alfalfa Yield 13.1). N. in field '1‘. D. N. Protein Yield 12.1). N. Protein .. Ton lbs lbs Ton lbs lb s Ton lbs lbs 8 2300 282 2.3 2300 30h 2.3 2300 701+ 10 2620 352 2.62 2620 3116 2.62 2620 802 12 31M 1:22 3.11: 31m. #15 3.1h 311:0 961 11* 3668 1493 3.67 3668 W 3.67 3668 1122 we (niruatm‘e corn silage is nemally high in moismrr 1.4; "it 80 per cent me“ re) and Juices will usually run frat the silo ween ensiled green. If crop is left in the field until a. few days after the first frost, or until the corn is more mature if weather permits, excessive moistln'e will seldan be a problem. In studies at East Lansing imature silage (Eureka) was nearly as valuable in T.D.N. and milk production trials as a mature corn silage used for emparison. Although it yielded only 6.8 bushels of shelled corn per acre, the imature corn appeared to contain most of its T.D.N. and milk producing power in the stalks and leaves. This does not mean that the intestine varieties of corn are recemended for silage. In general, it has been shown that the early maturing, high-grain yielding varieties which mature before frost give the greatest return of nutrients per acre. The T.D.N. value of the imature corn silage was 13.1 per cent as fed (20.9 per cent dry matter) or 62.7 per cent '1‘.D.N. on the dry basis canpared to 68.6 T.D.N. for normal corn silage. (Check for Unit #8) veryuseful quiteuseful efsemeuse HIH ofli‘btleuse _ . . . ., _ ‘1 . _ ‘ s . ' * ' A . . .I s .. . ... - , l , I _ i _ ' . 5 s d 1 e , o , g I . 1. --—. - . or... . ‘ s . 1 , , s - . ' . - » , . _ . ' “ - - ., . ‘ .Ir ‘ . ‘ e . " . , . ' . , . . ..- . . .1 .~ . , . s . > I . s . . . .. . s O 1 i .. - , ~ .‘ .7 . . l A a I I I , . . I I‘ . ‘ \ 1 I . , . , 1 ' ,. ‘ 1 a n t a ‘ - - . 1 ; . I‘ . , . . . ' ~ s s I . ‘ V - - ~ . I ‘ I ~ , . . . s- , ‘ .‘ . . I V I . a nu- ‘ Q - i . . . ' . s , ,. , I I . l . | . . , .. , , , ,. ’ t , 7‘. . A . , .. n _. . _ . k' ‘ ‘ 1 . U , u . I / 0v '. ‘ a. i .7 . 1 . . , . ' i l ' I ' . ' , I . u , ,.. , 1 .. . - s~ ' . - r , .. . . ‘ O 0 : , . . ' ‘ - 1 r . .. ‘ . . . 1 I 1 1. .. ‘ I s e 'V I w A ‘ . -._ _ - . _- .,o . .« s n.- -20.. Unit #5 HIGH mIS‘mRE CORN GRAIN STORED IN 83108 cements: Corn to be harvested for grain can be stored in either regular concrete silos or airtight silos. Results of research work at Michigan State University, as well as elsewhere, have shown that high-moisture corn can be satisfactorily stored in conventional wright silos and that it makes good feed for dairy cows. If a farmer wishestohandlethecernerepinthismannerthenthe following 10 steps should he followed. Both corn grain and ear corn can. be stored in this manner and‘the procedure is essentially the same. 1. he desired moisture level is between 25 and 35'“. If ear corn is stored, thecerngrainshoindnetbeoveraofimoisture. Ithe moisture content can best be determined with a moisture tester available at many elevators. 2. 'me cerncropcanbeharvestedwitheitheranerdinarycern picker or a picker-sheller if the shelled corn is to be stored. 3. 'nlecorngrainerearcornsheuldbegroimdthrougheithera bmmfll erhmermillprierto storage inthe silo. 'nle fineness efgrindshouldbeabeutthesameasusedwithdryearcorn(al/ " screen in a hauler mill is satisfactory). ' h. The ground grain can either be elevated or blown into the silo, dependingupontheheightefthe silo. Ifablewer isused, sane separation of grain and cobs may occur with car corn unless either adistributorer amanin the silo is used. 5. An unused 10 or 12 feet diaeter masonry, concrete, or steel silo canbe an excellent storage structure. It is doubtful if awood stave silo canbemadetight eneughtoprevent spoilagedue to airleakage. This is important. . s l v 4 a x n e- . . s .. - '. v - s a 9 a D ,I' . r -‘ Q o. s .. . . . ' I . i . a. ’.‘ .., .| 4 ' A . .., A . 'A '0 ., .. . ._ , '. ‘ ‘ A '1.- ‘ s7 .. ». , . . ..._. - I ,. . '. ... o .a- . .. t x A .04 .. . ‘ O D' r . 5 l a .-u . . f 4': r I ~ '4‘. , d - _u I rv' . —a ' I . ' vs - .I'h ‘5. .. 21 . cements: 6. 'i'fio males the walls air tight plaster, masonry, or concrete silos, W or caulk Joints of a steel silo and cover doors with plastic film. After filling, level the surface of the corn and cover with plastic film cap. (Available at most farm supply stores.) 7. Check reinforcing by comparing size and spacing of hoops with tables available at your county extension office. In most old silos, additional hoops will be necessary. ' 8. After thedlo is opened, 15 to 2 inches of cornshould be fedper day to prevent top spoilage. At this removal rate a 12' by hO' silo will feed 25 cows for 210 days. Dining warm weather, this rate may need to be higher. 9. nigh-moisture corn can be fed to dairy cows in one of two ways. It canbe wgeredontopofthe silsgeandfedinabunkorunloadedinto a cart and fed individually to cows in the usual manner. Additional protein can be hand fed if meded. 10. Since this corn contains about 30% moisture, about 1/3 more total pomdsofgrainshofldbefedthanvhendrygrainisused. Smed Cong-far Silfagg. Corn ears, husks included, can be snapped from the stalks at the early-dent stage of maturity, chopped to l/h orl/2 inchlengths andstoredinthe silo as ameans ofpreserving a high moisture grain crap. Digestion and feeding trials at Michigan State University and elsewhere have shown the snapped emcorn silage to be 73.h percent T.D.N. compared to 80.6 per cent ‘1'.D.fl. (dry basis)for a cmparable lot of air-dry ground ear corn. The slightly lower T.D.N. value was believed to be due (3931‘ for Unit #9) to the presence of the hosts in the snapped ear-corn silage. , t “’17 useful This silage was 63.9 per cent moisture and was excellent wality. quite “53m ‘Hl The T.D.N. value on the wet basis was 26.5 per cent. 'L'ne method , 01’ some “89 can be used where weather conditions or storage space otherwise 0: 11“” “'9 limitthehsrvestingofdrycorn. notuseful ‘L—‘P CW '9‘ l s ‘a s. s ‘ e .5. a ., , l ‘ \ e ' u \ I w, " . r. -&- “‘Unit 31le FEEDING VALUE OF HAY CROP SILAGES cements; In Michigan, hay crap silages are most commonly made from alfalfa, alfalfapbrcsne, or timothy grass mixtures, and the clovers. Nearlyall ofthe camonforage crops canbemade into a satisfactory silage then preper silage-making practices are observed. In considering silage fresh hay ems it should be kept in mind that the resulting silage is not likely to be any better in feeding value than the material put into the silo although it might be more palatable. Most hay crops rapidly decrease in feeding value as the plants become more mature. Digestion trials have demonstrated that alfalfa harvested in the budpstage or early-blocs stage of maturity is generally 15 to 30 per cent more digestible and may contain 20 to 30 per cent more protein than when harvested at rial-bloom to early seed-stage of maturity. Grasses follow a similar trend in digestibility but are usually much lower in protein than the legumes at matuity. Wide ranges in the botanical (plant) composition of hay crops, stage of maturity at harvesting, moisture content when ensiled and exposin'e to weather after cutting can cause wide variations in the feeding value of ham-crop silages. Several experiment stations have determined the relationship between date of cutting and the digestibility of hay crops then fed to livestock. Figure l grqhically presents the results of three such experiments. From they-aphitcanbenotedthattheslopesofauthreelinesareverysinilar indicating that digestibility decreases with later cutting dates at about the same rate at all three locations. Ihe lines are some distance apart indicating that the digestibility of forage on any particular day was slightly different at the various locations. These differences were probably due to climatic conditions such as teaperature, moisture, and light intensity affecting the growth and matin'ity of the forages. It should be kept in mind that these lines represent the average digestibility of several samples 0‘ .23- Digestibility of Dry Matter .3 do g H. won—.933 wedges «Us demons—.6552 A5 25 are game uses CC on use can when» / gene noes H N do?” I QWWW“ as” N 3.08 / s 1 v. t ,.< L' a . I ,‘u Q..- . f . .I- I a .. . . ‘. . , . . - . fi‘ . a O .. e n X ,‘ ‘— ._-. e . . .. e u ,. . so a '0— . I . a Li» ‘1 l . ' v “ \ ‘ a "" 3'. L I -27- Table 12 Comarison of Alfalfa Hay and Wilted Silage for Growing Dairy Heifers ‘— — & 831 Bay and Silage _ 811 2583' Body Bay T.D.N. weight Hay Silage T. D. N. weight Silage ’1‘. D. N. weight lb. 1b. lb. 9mos. lit-.7 7.7 521 1.3 27.5 5.9 11511 30.2 SJ} hos 12mm. 18.8 9.7 670 1.3 35.3 7.7 55h 32.1 6.2 h86 18 mos. 23.2 11.9 901 2.2 1.1.3 9.2 782 37.5 8.2 683 21. mos. 27.2 111.7 1151 2.8 1.11.6 10.9 1039 111.2 8.3 911 W523 (Check for Unit # ll) 1 veryuseful I quiteusef‘ul otsomeuse of little use not useful IggMoistm'egilgg inthe range of no to 60per centmoisture generally has been carpal-able in acceptability and feeding value for cattle to the results obtained with barn-dried hay or good quality field-cured hey. Most of the feeding research involving low-moisture silage has been done with silage that was stored in air-tight silos. One experiment demnstrated that alfalfa wilted to 55 Per cent moisture stored in an air-tight stnlcture was cmable, in practical tens, to similar barn-dried hey but that alfalfa containing 76 per cent moisture, though stored in an air-tight mums, resulted in less dry matter constellation and lower milk production. A emery of these results is shown in Table 13. s Q“. o... ,- a. . .- ..--. ...- .'. .- ': r. . J.- n.-... . r '. —.- ‘-‘VI 0’ - ~ or V - .. . . , , s - .. 1. . l.- .v’ ‘ '. I > ..f‘ . - Ii 1 . v I‘- 1“ I > ‘. r. . e '- ~ a a- .0. o - ' : V V . » . .2... . . -...- .- _' . g . .4 . " " ’ - .g-. .- . \ . . be .. r, - . -, . . .. . . . , . ’ (I 'r ' “ \v 1'. .- . . a 1 -.-u. —- . a- . i I U _ 5 ,r a ‘ .. . . I \ . K . .. O » l ' ‘ . . > v a ‘ P . . . , ' ‘ a" O I ‘- - i . . . 1 a. O O - , 1 "‘ " ' ' ' ‘- - > -I- ,. . . V. ' -, __ . , u . g ‘ ' 1' Y b I . I -~--.~-. . . . . . . . . . ._. ., .-...-..-. V «a u . v .. -- ., -.. -. . ,. V -i. . y y .- I . ' ‘ l . 1 ’ I! " o - ., .‘ . - » . . , . e . . ‘ I. ‘1 -1 . .L - .3 .-. - . y .‘I .. a a I A I )~ . a . ' 7 . , ‘. . t _ i . .' o .I . .2 °. ,'. h A ' J ' ' r 1 . .Ua , . . ' ' ‘ ‘ 2' . . - ‘1' I 1, , _ .sl . . . . , . I 5 . -. , ' ' a '- . I K. . ’ fl 0; ,. . , . . . _ s o . , ,. . ‘ "* ' I' C . A . . - C V - .- i . . ' 7 L. g \ l o , a. I -e n 1.: ,- P... ~28- ‘ Table 13 Comparisons of High Moisture and Low Moisture Silage some in Air-Tight Silos and Dam Dried Hay. Jersey Cows. ‘ A High Low Moistm‘e Moisture Barn-dried Silage 81.1366 EL Moistm'e Content 75.9 511.5 9.1+ Dry Matter Consuned/cow/day Forage, lb. 17.8 22.2 2h.6 Grain, lb. 6.h 6.t 6.3 Total, 1b. 21+.2 28.6 30.8 Forage, D.M. /100 1b. body wt. 1.81 2.16 2.1a Milk (Fm)/cow/day 211.2. 25.9 27 1 30% wt. %[10 8515 average_ -8.75 {:8}: 7:& ab . . ecuments: Only limited research is available on low moisture silage stored in conventional concrete silos although the practice is being followed to a limited extent in sane areas. ‘Ihe evidence indicates ihat satisfactory results can be obtained men certain precautions are carefully observed. Procedures reported as necessary for harvesting, storing and using low moisture silage in conventional silos are as follows an should be strictly observed. Forages must be harvested in the early stages of growth-alfalfa inbudorprebud, andnotlater thanl/lO bloom. 'nlis seems tobe veryiuportantnotonlyfruathe standpointofhavingahighly digestible feed, but also a forage that probably packs better than more mahlre stuff. 2. The use of a hay crusher or conditioner seems desirable, especially with the coarser stunned legumes. It speeds up Ming and helps to save leaves. 3. he moisture content should be approadnately 50-551», although where filling is continuous-«some of the material at somerhat lower levels seems satisfactory. .. anw- (wmew mgr-s} inch theoretical, with knives. kept sharp and set up to shear plate. Shear date edge maintained. Air must be excluded, and with low-moisture .. . v. ' b \ l‘. . . b e . . . ' ~ ‘ . I, . . I .. O- s a. e . . . . 0‘. .1 r7. 1 u ' 1. . 1 . é . . 41 D . . sac. . . 0.7 . . . t a-. ‘ h- .. . ..o vn O a l s '1 '\ . D , a . e r n -‘ ‘ o s] . . .. , O .. ,.- .. . . a . - . . ‘ . 'r ., .1 v - a .. ' - -.. . a _ . e . or ' \ . t 9 . ‘e . e . ,. u v- D . g- u . a r- A" -. - s . ‘ , . , - s ' .‘ . g. . . , . .. e' l "l . ‘ \ . - _ld . ' I‘I . . .. I. ' I l ' . .- .. O - , .- -_. . ' o O . .0 c I H'J'O d ‘ 4a . . . . . ,A 0' v . «fl ' . .- .-~ , I . . .. , o -. .t. 3.... as ~29- forage it is difficult to do this with long-chapped material. Short chopping requires more power, but keeping. knives sharp and set up to shear plate helps to keep it as low as possible with a short cut. Silo consents : unloader will work better when chapped short. 5. A mechanical distributor in the silo is preferred. Coning-up in center, with periodic leveling, probably next best. 6. Fill reasonably fast without long delws. 13115, of course, is important even with normal moisture wilted silage. 7. Use a tight, covered wagonfor hauling the forage, to cut down on leaf loss. 8. Put the forage in a tight silo. Seal doors for best results. Be suretherearenocracksinsilowalltoadmitair. 3. Top it off carefully with high moisture material and seal with a plastic cg. Preferably do not start feeding for two to three weeks. 10. Size of silo-miners seems to be some reason to believe that the larger dimeter silos (16 feet and larger) may be better adapted to this kind of silage than smaller ones. Considerable height of material is important to help insure good compaction. 929:3 921‘ _t_h_i_s_ lgwbmoisture 22.12252 is issues 2.:- m 211.92.. 1].. Feed off at a fairly rapid rate if the silo is opened in sumer to prevent sm'face spoilage. (Check for .2. This method can pg recomended only for the careful omtor, Unit # 12) because of danger of heavy nutrient losses if directions are not very “um followed with care. quite mm of some use of little use not useful HIJH -30. Unit $13 OAT AND WWW GRAIN FORAGES cements: Cats are frecplently used as a forage cm and can be made into a satisfactory silage. Where oats are used as a cover crop for new legals seedings harvesting of the oats in the boot stage to early milk stage of utility results in more virorous seedings by reducing the competition for moisture and srnligbt. Oats that are harvested in the early stage of maturity should be “.50 ited to less than 70 per cent moisture before ensiling and can be kept in tight convential silos at 50 to 60 per cent moisture if covered with a plastic cap. Oats that are sllowd to reach the hard—dough stage of maturity before harvesting will be lower in noistmanddcnotpackaswellastheyomgeroats. Wiltingof this material to moistures much lower than 60 per cent for storage in conventional silos is questionable unless sane wetter material is put on top and then covered with a plastic cap. 'nle moisture content is less critical for storage in amtight silos. 'lhe feeding value of oat silages can vary considerably depending upon stage of maturity when harvested, the relative proportions of grain and straw and the condition of silage m storing. Although only limited research is available the data indicate that oats lose muchoftheirnilkproducingpoweruponreachingthemilkstageof maturity. Yieldsofdrynatter increaseup to themilk stage but rmin constant thereafter. The increase in digestibility and productive power of oats harvested in the boot stage to flowering stage of maturity offset the difference in dry matter yield. Digestion studies with oat silages harvested at various stage of maturity are shown in tables lb and 15. J I e ‘_. a z s v I f. .0 I s ‘ s -. ' ‘ ‘. 'g.. ‘: 00" . s .U a! I ... 1 .‘s" I. - I . .fl un- {I l v. ,ao .. . .. c . U-‘ l i o s s O s s -31.. Table 1‘: Digestibility of Cat Forage Harvested at Different Stages of Maturity. Dry basis. (Indiana) vi w—w - Dry Digestible BEL Matter C. Protein Protein '1'. D. N. Boot 21.0 11.1 6.7 67. 1 Early Milk 23.5 10.9 6. 3 60.9 shrtggpgh a? .6 M __ 5t.1 c. H. Noller_e_t_a_l_. J. Am. . 1 :"‘““I§"‘o71. 59. Table 15 Digestibility of Cat Silages Harvested at Various States of Maturity 1 (Arkansas) _’ figestible Stage D.M. C. Prot. Protein ‘1'. D. N. Carotene _ nos-ls- Vu'ie 1 Boot 18. h 13.7 9. 3 71. 3 125.7 Milk 22.]. 12. h 7,. 2 V 580 1 Hard dough 30.6 11.2 6.5 58.8 h9.h Varie 2 . Boot 20.7 11.8 7.!» 69.9 117.0 Milk 2 .0 1 . 10.6 6m; 11 .0 omen: and Wram 71““ cements: Oat silage may be unpalatable to cattle unless harvested in the early stages of maturity. Wilting to 60 per cent moisture or less before ensiling will help to improve consunption rover direct-cut silage. In milk production trials oat silage harvested in the boot to early milk stage has been superior to that harvested at later stages of maturity. Oat silage harvested in the dough stages was less satisfactory for growth of dairy heifers than either alfalfa hay or corn silage in trials at Michigan State shown in table 16. All heifers received one pound ofsoybeanmealdailyastheonly supplement. e » I ‘. l K. s I s 'e a e a. one- a. " Our-- s . s. _ . _ » a ,. . - ~ . ‘ I u. I . . I e- n ‘ 5 ' s 4 _ 'I ‘ Q ‘ ‘ ‘ v o . ' . ‘- ‘ I h V ‘ ’I - - l . . _., . l . I ‘ ' v. . . . . ‘ . - . r ' . '9 -— ~ - H - ‘ I . . I - 0!. l ‘ A. l I ' a . . . '- .. C A a I .W ‘ ’ ’ I ‘ - i 7 ' ‘ ' - . . . O ‘ . 7 . h ' . ‘ o . \ s . n 9 V .3. . ‘ ‘ . I ' . ~ .- I “ ~ ‘ . 1 a .' b. ‘ .' .7. v - — - - - ._.— ‘. . u“ -« _ ‘ . . . . ‘ ‘ ’ '4 ' e - v I. .‘ r ' . O . . ~V . Vt ~ ‘ ‘ I ' . . s 7 7 . v I - V A ‘ ‘I 7 ~ .' , . ' 4 . l , ’ ' s .. . . 1 i a - - _ ' ' It. .. . . ‘ ' I u‘ ‘7 . . .t _ A o— a ,_ .. e s . , .J . . ‘ A V u. - ~ ' ‘ I In E . ‘ I a . I _ . I ‘ . " ’ - s . . _ ' a , r - v _‘ - h . fl ' .e . g . 7 . ,_u _ i A > V ‘ I I ~ I ' .s. .J . 3 ' . , ‘ -32. Table 16 Comparison of alfalfa Hay, Corn Silage and Cat Silage on the Growth and feed consunption of dairy heifers (116-day trial) we ._vfl—flflw—s—mfi. w.“ 1_W _'-.—— ' _.__ _- W ~—-—.- Av. Av. Roughage Consumption Initial Daily Total Dry Matter Weight Gain * 71b.) 11b. [dafl Alfalfa Hay 590 0.92 111.0 12.1 Corn Silage 587 1.13 38.3 9.6 Oat Silage 583 0.52 314.6 9.2 “fiat 818. ammme has 0026 I... 0036 r193. , . sitar 33 gmm The table shows that heifers fed corn silage made significantly consents: better gains although they consumed only slightly more dry matter than those fed oat silage. Because of its higher grain content and highly digestible stalk, corn silage is normally superior to eat silage. _o_thcr Cereal Grain Silages Wheat, barley and rye all make satisfactory silage when harvested in the boot to early milk stages of maturity. The precautions mentioned above for making oat silage should be observed for other cereal grains. Sudan Grass Silggg Sudan grass can be harvested for silage and is similar in feeding value to other grass silages. It should be harvested during the time when the heads first appear to the early bloom stage of maturity althoughit will make satisfactory silage if the cr0p is not cut until the seeds are in the dough stage. Green sudan, harvested in the early bloom, is very high in moisture and should be wilted before ensiling. Wilting is not necessary when ground ear corn, other ground grains, or driedbsetpulpare addedtotheforags attherate of200t0250b1s. pertonofforage. The additional grainwill improvsthsfsedingvalus as well as the keeping quality and palatability of the silage. However, 15 to 25$ of the added grain will be lost during the fermentation process. Thetwohmdredpomdsofaddedgainpertonofforagewillrepresent ole \ v»- "\ -33- about one-third of the total dry matter contained in the silo. These coments : considerations favor wilting of the forage before ensiling. Sudan grass contains about 56 per cent total digestible nutrients (dry basis) and is cwpuable to or slightly less valuable than the sorglmms in feeding value and must be supplemented with heavier grain feeding than corn silage for emparable results. It is low in protein . (Check for and must be supplemented with additional protein similarly to corn and Unit 754 13) .srghum silages. V31? m quite useful of some use of little use not useful Inn-fig y i“. —-1 'T'nit a} ll? PEA. AND OAT SILAGE cannents: In areas of Michigan where the growing season does not permit orofitable growing of corn for silage, a pea and oat mixture may offer a suitable silage crop. Pea-oat silage and in experiments at Michigan State was equivalent in feeding value to good quality clover-timothy hay. Onebushelperacreeachofpeasandoatswereplantedandthecrop harvested for silage when the oats were in the late milk to early doughstage, andthepodsofthepeaswere three-famthsformed. The protein content of the peas-oat mixture was relatively high (15.? per cent drybasis) due to the large proportion of peas inthe silage. The protein and total digestible mtrient (rm) content of the silage areshownin'l'ablel'I. u—s- -31.. Table 17 Total Digestible Nutrient and Protein Content of Pea-Oat Silage Dry Crude Digestible * Matter Proteinfi Protein T. D. R. $ .11 Wet basis 30.0 1». 51+ 3.1 16.8 m basis 100.0 1 .7 10.7 39.“ C. I". at _a_l_. Mich. Agr. ’5. Sta. Quarterly Bulletin 3 p. . 9 consents: Milk production was satisfactorily maintained at the levels studied whenpea-oat silage replacedall orpartofthehayandtrain. towever, at high levels of silage feeding dry matter and T. D. N. corruption were lower than when hay was fed. Recent work with low- moisture silages suggest that this problm would be overcome by ting the material below 60 per cent moisture before ensiling. Soris‘nn §_il_a§ Sorghm silage is used as a forage crop in several Southhestern states where corn production is frequently limited by drought conditions. Under Michigan conditions sorghun is normally outproduced by corn and this is not considered a competitive forage crop. Digestion trials have generally shown sorghun silage to be lower in total digestible nutrients thanwellearedcornsilage. Sorghuns containaboutthe sane anountof. protein as corn silage (2.0-3.0 per cent) and must be supplemented with additional protein. The crude fiber of sorghum is generally less digestible than the . fiber of corn and a high percentage of the sorghum grain passes through 8 the animal undigested. Sane of the sterile hybrids that do not produce grainseemtoretainmoreTDNintheforageandcomparemorefavorably in digestibility with corn silage. Table 18 shows comparisons in the TDN value of corn silage and sorghun silage in several trials. 1 . i . 1 , n . , g t n , s . m 1 e 1 r a O I a t s . e‘ I i . .i v . s . . . 7 v o I e I r U . t s . . . t a V . e. v t e O a V .1 y . . K ‘O a to s . h . I . . . .0 e s . . . . .. s . . . .. 1 . . I e o ' I! 1 a e c l u _l. . sl . I p r 1 I V A s .. . a. . .. .. e‘ . . _ . . . . . 1’. l.- u I, .i I. I ‘1 ,. s . f8 ‘ O Q l — . I. s I s . V . ‘ . . . w . . . 1 . 1. . L . 1 h s . u . 4 .. . A . g . 4 . v1 1. F V . \ a I - y r I . Q s 1 . ‘4 . . . ... . u . . 1‘ . 1 1 A . fi I a. . . ‘ 1 1. v . . * A 1 . ; 1 . .o t . . 1 n d . . . .s r . 1 u \ o I ‘. l 1 v i t s . e . . . a r . . . n s . .. . s .. . _ . 1 _t w . . . .. v u . . v . . 1 , \s s v I. s l u I I . I I I In . . ,4 1 o . 1 . . .1 1T0 . . I . . ._ .... J . l . 1 1 s I .u . . . . t. a . . 1 In I . . . . . . . \n a .. u . . 1 s A s a -. v . o . . . r I i I I — 1 s V. s . . 3 av c . s - ¢ . i C C I u I 1' e i . s i 1 . e u s 1 I 1 . "I .s . 1 n s: x s v. v . . . s 1 I. s o . s . p 1*. . 1 a u a . — .I i I v _ \ \e l or . V l s v I 1 O . s I s 1 . . .. . . . . e t . . . r I s n . . - n . i a 1 . c . . — . I » 1 — . s 4 1 . . a .- . . . . . . . . e a . . . I. n e . I . Q . i y . . .. . 1 v -35- Table 18 Comparisons in the Protein and TDD Value of Corn and Sorghun Silages (Ih'y Basis). 8035“! p_ Corn A egg? Trial _‘Ige c. Prot. Prot. nan. _Type C. Prot. Prot. T.D.N. of corn Ark. Atlas 7.1 2.6 59.7 ooher 911 8.3 3.3 7m 80.1. Ark. as 301 9.3 5.0 66.8 Dixie 82 10.2 5.6 67.9 98.h Miss. m: 300 8.1 3.1 53.8 Dixie 55 7.8 3.3 60.9“ 88.5 Miss. RS 610 10.5 5.8 60.0 -- -- -- -- 98.5 .-.sc. Not given 9.6 M 57.1 Not given 9.8 h.7 66.0 86.5 Madison" Grain 7.3 3.9 58.0 wen cared 8.3 as 68.6 8h.5 a A aTEITDN values earn a wasiower than nomal due to dry weather causinglow grfl content. ‘0 Morrison, 1'. 3. Feeds and Feeding. 22nd Edition. 1956. caments: ..-'.rOIn'thetable itshouldbenotedthatthedrk. R. 8. 301 sorghum was the only one in which the digestibility of sorghtmi was as good as normal corn silage. The corn silage used in the Mississippi trialwaslower inTDNthannomaldue todrought conditions causing low grain content, therefore, it is not a valid comparison. Nomally, corn silage is about fifteen per cent more digestible than sorghum silage. Milk production trials comparing sorghun silage and corn silagehave generallyresultedinfourto tenpercentmore milkandmoregaininbodyweightfromthecorn silage. Most comparisons have been short-time trials in which silage was (Check for Unit # 1h) limitedtoabout35poundsperdayandsupplementalhayandgain‘ were fed. In the author's opinion, longer feeding periods with , , i I quite useful heavier silage feeding and less supplemental feed would tend to ‘ 111‘. make these differences more pronounced in favor of corn silage ‘ 7 of m sinceitcontainsahigherproportionofgrainendmuchofthe "__T oflittleuse t eful grain in sordnn silage passes undigested by cattle. __ no us Pl; I h a . o I“ ’ . .‘. . 4 . 1 i e r r .. O.” '4“ \ . o i -o- -.. e 1 . . a [- 8 a .7 ‘ . ,' .. ' a. , v 7 s o 0 ~36- Unit #‘15 ESTIMATED ANNUAL FEED REQJIRBIENI‘S consents: Feed requirement estimates may be useful in planning feed storage facilities. Variations in roughage glality, cow size, and appetite and the amount of gain fed all affect the quantity of feed that may , be needed. The mastities given in the following tables are believed to be reasonable estimates based on the best information available. Table 19 Estimated Annual Feed Requirements for Holstein and Brown Swiss Cows 5 Tie Period §§§%£!%§§;E§3 T.or3:§6digi2%§g T; or T. e "'T§£E' 36 -- h.2 7.3 -- 6.6 11.6 -- 3o 20 3.6 6.3 2.h 5.5 9.6 3.7 25 ho 3.0 . 5.3 h.8 h.6 8.0 8.3 15 60 1.8 3.2 7.2 2.7 h.7 11.0 10 75 1.2 2.1 9.0 1.8 3.1 13.6 5 85 .6 1.1 10.2 .9 1.6 15.0 19 100 -- -- 12.0 «- -- 16.2 -'- One ton hay equivalent to 1.75 tons hsylage at 55 per cent miniature. 2 Corn silage or 70 per cent moisture hay silage. High levels of corn silage will require less supplemental gain for a given level of production than equivalent newts of hay silage. Table 20 Estimated Annual Feed Requirements for Guernsey Cows Feedi Period Egg 2§%%z' 255 d. s §§58§§zs S lag: or e 311% .191 or Hay age 53 . T. +1p. T. T. T. T. T. 30 -- 3.6 6.3 -- 5.5 9.6 .- 20 30 2.h u.2 3.6 3.6 6.3 5.8 15 us 1.8 3.1 5.h 2.9 5.1 8.2 10 60 1.2 2.1 7.2 1.8 3.1 11.0 5 75 .6 1.0 9.0 .9 1.6 13.6 0 85 -- -- 10. 2 -- - 15. O ‘ ' - ' 1 . . . _p I 1 . ' . 1 ' o . . \ a 1‘ . .-.. r.' - . , 4 I 1 . ' 1 . ,. l . ‘ —. . , . . .1 t . I . 1 ’ ., .5 .. . . -1-. - . .1 - 1 - ... - . .. . .p-y- - c - ' ' . . . . -_ . . 1.... - -~e . . , 1 . 1 - a- - ‘ - I a |‘ - I ‘ - , ‘ . I - -- u » - v— - v - ' a o- > ' ~ ‘ >' ‘ i . . ’ . .. . '_ . . .. a . " ,.4 l . " . . . s ' . . - .L . I .e‘. ' . - a . ——. 1 - o - ' 1r- . .- 1 . . . c . . s 1 . ’. .a' I . U I. ‘ - e ¢ fi‘ ' .\ s _ r . . . i .e ,‘ ‘ ' ' " .' o ' . . - _ . .1 _ A . a , e . . . . . .. u. e 1 .. - . . 2 v E. ‘1! . . ' 0 r v‘ I. ' ' . Q 5. .9 e " ' v .v , s s . ‘ . . or- the. .s . 1 1,, . . . , . g , t . . > _ , I»... . v . -..n - s I . . . - . . . . 1 .- l s a ‘ .. . . ‘ ,. . . . .... s ‘ ' . ' _ ~ . A- H ’ a , . er 0 o ’ a e. I . ‘ . . a ‘ I 8 ‘ . . o o ‘ ~ .- s C v - ‘ s r ' I , . ' .. 1 . . r. o -" o 137. Table 21 Estimated Annual Feed Reguirement for Jerseflows ?efiinLPefiod .1_ rod 230 9131 355 <12?! 1 __ y 811$ gig or Egylg Bilge gay or Haylag Silage lb. lb. T. T. T. T. T. T. 25 6 306 302 " “'06 8T6 ”'- 20 20 2.11 11.2 2.11 3.6 6.3 3.6 15 30 1.8 3.1 3.6 2.9 5.1 5.8 10 #5 102 20]. 50" 108 301 802 5 60 .6 1.0 7.2 .9 1.6 11.0 0 75 -- -- 9.0 -- -- 13.6 Wootnotea) same as previous table. Table 22 Annual Grain Reguired for Various Levels of Production Milk Grain“- Per Cow Pounds 735m 2,200 10,200 3.000 12,700 3,800 111,700 11,700 ' 11%700 5J00 * .A. Table 2 Annual Feed negligement for Heifers ecords. 'Dcoes not include grain in corn silage. J, iolstein _ fiseg .‘ge Milk“ Grain2 Hay Equiv. 3 Hay plushE Milk‘E Grain Bay Bay plus 3!! lbs TL 5 13108. P”. lbs Eq-Te _5 m3. P880 0-1 yr. 500 600 1.2 600 1.1 0.2 1-2 we 0 0 lg 202 0 20 3.1-e.- Total 2 yrsfs'cfi 66'0" .3 "3'31; '60?) 3'8 2.5 Provide Annually5 per mature cow 392 300 1.7 300 1.9 1.3 l thewholemilk. 2 Grain fed throng: 8 months of age, none thereafter. 3 Hay Equivalent: One ton of hay equals three tons of corn silage or wilted grass silage and 1.75 tons of 50 per cent moisture silage. Bayplus'jmonthspastureasmsfiofheifersunderoneyear gndallhsifers over one yearwillbepastured. Asmne 3 of calves will be heifers. Approximately 50 lbs. of milk replacer can be substituted for [lllll '(Check for unit # 15) veryuseful quiteuseful 0fs0meuse oflittleuse notuseful —---1 “Iv 'e-I‘ § >O.--- - . 1... . . o .. o e-_ 1. .1. I , . u . . . -... . . D'- O s..- ,, b .— c’ a 2. l' e ‘1 \p' 'C .4 Q - '. \ 'l l -0II ..o . 1 ‘s'Sa . . , .‘ 3 a - "‘ I“: a . ‘. ‘7- s ’ i .1111 E: um. 111 11.1 Du INI N nu Z ZONING FOR RURAL.AREAS YOUR COMMENTS Is your rural neighborhood changing what kind of place will it be next year? in 5 years? after that? . will it develop into the lcind of coummmity you and your neighbors want? Or will it become a haphazard mixture of conflicting land uses? Such a mixture usually depresses property values and causes friction among neighbors. The principal public way available to citizens for guiding the growth of their community toward desired ends is to use the planning-zoning process. More and more, rural people are doing this through their local legislative bodies aided by conmunity l r i } FTPU PAI— AREAS planning and zoning boards. YOUR COMMENTS Planning and zoning boards are local public agencies established to serve their counties, towns, or townships. The boards are usually appointed by the elected local governing body. Public hearings at which all interested citizens may appear and be heard are required before prOposed plans and zoning reglations, or changes in them, can be officially adopted. Appeal procedures and other safeguards are provided by law. Planning and zoning are not new and untried. (Check one for Unit #1) Through long and varied experience in the United C Very Useful States acceptable principles and procedures, '— Quite sanctioned by the courts, have been developed. Useful But effective planning and zoning depend on the l ‘Of Some Use sustained interest and support of an informed . . .D Of Little Use citizenry. . . [:1 Not sass. Yum #1 STOPS HERE UNIT #2 STARTS HERE A MASTER PLAN Zoning is most successful in a community that YOUR COLT-TENTS has worked out a master plan of development. Such a plan outlines what the community wants in the future and suggests how present and future improvements and land uses should be related. The master plan should be based on a study of resources, problems, needs, and potentials of the community. Usually the master plan is set forth in a series (Check.one for Unit #2) of maps and proposals for future improvements. One Very Useful or.more of these maps indicate areas suitable for . l::::] Quite‘Useful industry, business, homes, farming, recreation, and - ' I Of'Some‘Use other‘uses. I l Of Little Use These maps can help the community locate the '—-:-m Not Useful various kinds of zones needed to carry out the master plan. UNIT #EtSTOPS HERE UNIT #3 STARTS HERE WHAT IS ZONING? Zoning is a two-part process. YOUR COMMENTS First, the community is divided by means of \V local laws called zoning ordinances into suitable kinds of districts (or zones) for different general uses. Most county ordinances establish industrial, business, residential, and agricultural zones as a mininum. Some forested counties have created only three kinds of zones-~forestry, recreational, and unrestricted. Fast-growing counties near a big city may need two or three kinds of zones each for residences, for business, and for industry, in addition to one W or more kinds of farming districts. §_e_<_:_c_>_n_d_, within each zone local laws called regulations are applied to limit one or more of the following: 1. Dimensions of buildings and other structures. Farm buildings are usually exempted. 2. Size of the building lot or tract used for nonfarm purposes and the part of the tract that can be covered by buildings. 3. Density of population, especially in residential areas. h. The broad purposes for which the building and land my be used. Most of these regulations are used in nonfarm zones. Those used in farm zones are designed to protect agriculture, not to regulate it. Although regulations vary by zones, within each zone all properties of the same kind or class must be treated alike. UNIT .755 3 STOPS HERE UNIT #h STARTS 13:11: V 1 CAN EVERY COIvII‘UNITY ZONE? A community can zone onlyr if it has been granted zoning powers by the State legislature. Usuale zoning powers are ganted to local units of government (county, town, or township) by enabling acts. These acts indicate the scope that zoning may haven-the areas that may be zoned, zoning tools that may be used, and the way in which these tools are to be used. (Check one for Unit #3) Very Useful D Quite Useful Of Some Use Of Little Use ID Not Useful YOUR COL‘HclENTS Zoning is a public regulatory power. It may be used only to safeguard or promote public health, safety, morals, or the general welfare. V More than two-thirds of the 3,000 counties in the United States (excluding Alaska and Hawaii) have (ggfikfi? 1'” been granted zoning powers by State legislatures. 3:311 In addition, in some States towns or townships are El Quite Useful authorized to zone. Most of the enabling acts D or Some Use permit the designated local unit to zone all the Of Little Use area within its boundaries except those areas that Not Useful are incorporated cities or villages. LUNIT #h STOPS HERE UNIT #5 STARTS mm: WHY ZONE RURAL AREAS? Why zone an area that is primarily agicultural? YOUR CONTENTS Mainly to protect the farmer. However, other V residents, present and future, will also benefit from zoning regulations that prevent harmful land uses. Without zoning, any neighborhood can become a dumping ground for activities that are prohibited elsewhere. A farm for the diSposal of garbage and offal . . . a junkyard . . . a rendering plant-- these are examples of some activities prohibited or strictly regulated in some rural neighborhoods. Lack of zoning also permits a widespread scattering of nonfarm residences and subdivisions all over the farm countryside. Sooner or later this unguided urban invasion (sometimes called ”urban sprawl") creates problems for both the farmer and the nonfarm resident. UNIT #5 STOPS HERE UNIT #6 STARTS HERE PROTECTION FOR THE FARMER Wise zoning can protect the farmer by preventing three main kinds of problems. I 1. Excessive taxes.--Farmers on the fringe of an urban area often have tax problems. Not only may the farmer have to pay for services he doesn't wantorneed, buthemayhave topaymore for them than his nonfarm neighbor. This inequity is the result of basing taxes on the assessed valuation of land. Often the assessed valuation of the farm ‘ goes up because the farm is assessed as a potential subdivision, not as an operating farm. A scattered popilation can raise taxes for everyone in the area by raising the cats per family of such needed public services as roads, schools, and police and fire protection. (Check one for Unit #5) ‘ Very [1 Useful r— Quite Useml 1:. Of Some Use D Of Little Use D Not Useful YOUR COBWTI‘S 2. Damage to agicnltural pperations. --0ften m COMENTS unguided urban expansion takes the best farmland; a wiser division of land resources would encourage both farming and urban growth. Other kinds of urban-caused damage include: Lowering of the underground water table by pumping of water to scattered subdivisions. Flood-ing of farmlands by rapid runoff of water from roofs and streets of subdivisions. Injury to irrigated craps caused by pollution of streams. Contamination of farmers' wells by septic tanks. Injury to crops because of air pollution. 3. Curta_i_lment of normal; farming practices.-- Nonfarm residents may object to some normal farndng operations and practices. Their objections may result in prohibition or regulation of such activities by health authorities . Examples of results of normal farming practices (Check one for Unit #6) that my be objected to: Smoke from smdgespots; ‘ ‘Very Useful dust from farming operations; noises made by * ' ‘ I Quite Useful farm animls and by tractors that Operate at night [3 Of Some Use and in the early hours of the morning; poisonous Of Little Use pesticide sprays and dusts used on tree and field "— Not Useful craps; odors from poultry and livestock. 3! UNIT #6 STOPS HERE - UNIT#7STARTSHERE PROMTION FOR OTHERS Nonfarm rural residents.--Zoning regulations YOUR COMbENTS that cut down on high costs of public services save taxes for nonfarm residents as well as farmers. Zoning can also help keep a.neighborhood a decent, safe, healthful, and pleasant place to live by protecting the area from a mixture of conflicting land uses. For example, it can keep taverns, Junkyards, and other unwanted establishments from moving onto the vacant lots across the street or around the corner. Keeping the neighborhood from deteriorating of course, protects the family's investment in a home. City business enterprizes.--Many city‘businesses—- farm supply and service firms, marketing outlets, processing plants-“depend on the farmer. Therefore, zoning that protects the farmer indirectly protects these businesses and the city dwellers who depend. on these businesses for a livelihood. Rural Areas Development Program.-- This program is bringing more and more off-farm jdbs to rural areas. The JObs are in industry, business, forestry, recreation, or other enter- prizes, the nature of the new JObs depending on the locality; Many counties and towns or townships that are participating in this program find it prudent to zone for industry the good industrial sites that are needed for expansion of the employment base (Check one for Unit #7) and the property tax base. Future traffic problems m ggym may be avoided by a wise selection and zoning of D areas for coming shopping centers. Other commnities E] Quite Useful may want to use zoning tools to restore and protect [1' :: :rtl:8:se forestry and recreational values. D Not Useful LJNIT #7 STOPS HERE UNIT #8 STARTS HERE WHEN IS THE BEST TIME TO ZONE? 6 In general, the sooner zoning is started the YGJR com/ENE 4' better. Zoning is most effective if it is used before new patterns of land use are established. Zoning cannot be used to remove objectionable uses of land that were established before zoning. Usually these "nonconforming" buildings or structures may continue. Ordinarily the owner of a nonconforming prOperty my use it as he has in the past, and anyone who buys it may carry on as before. Comon examples of nonconforming uses are factories or stores in zones set aside for homes. Waiting "until later" to zone is often a disadvantage (Check one for Unit #8) to farmers. As the population of the community grows, Very Useful the farmers may soon be outnumbered (and outvoted) '— Quite Useful by newcomers whose wants and needs for the future Of Some Use may not be the same as those of the farmer. Of Little Use D Not Useml HIT 3:58 STOPS IERE ~ UNIT #9 STARTS HERE WHAT YOU CAN DO If you want zoning for your commmity, find out YOUR COMLENTS J‘ what mist be done and who mat do it. The first place to go to for advice is your county agricultural agent. He will have informtion and suggestions, or he can direct you to someone else who can help you. Other sources of information include local planning and zoning agencies, State A ‘ ’ N‘ J. ' I. ’ ‘_ ”(3)/1‘ ,/ .6“ l 4 . .‘ agricultural experiment stations, colleges, and (Check one for universities. Some States have State planning Unit #9) boards, develOpment organizations, and similar '33:»; agencies that my be helpful. A professional [3 Quite Useful organization in the planning and zoning field is :[ 01' Some Use the American Society of Planning Officials, 1313 [:1 Of Little Use East 60th Street, Chicago 37, Ill. 2 Not Useful W #9 STOPS HERE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE MAST! T18 CONTROL In Michigan Herds MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Cooperative Extension Service . Ens! lensing ”f CONTENTS Symptoms ............................................................ Causes Infectious ........................................................ Noninfectious .................................................. Improper milking ............................................ Barnyard and pasture .................................... Physiological changes .................................... Prevention with Good Herd Management Herd health .................................................... Making necessary changes ............................ Avoiding injuries ............................................ Proper milking routine .................................. Milking machine maintenance ...................... Herd replacements ........................................ Diagnosis and Treatment Finding carrier cows ...................................... Treat only after diagnosis .............................. Disadvantages of random treatment .......... 3 4 4 5 55 6 7 7 8 ll 13 14 l5 l6 U‘ U! OI 354-463 13 14 15 16 A, _ ' -__< — . _4 .f ‘r—awqm— 4 ——-—-"‘ "fl -_....-q-.-n———__—. Wv— — 4 .i -_...-g. _ Mastitis Control in Michigan Herds By DONALD L. MURRAY, ALBERT R. DRURY, and GLEN TV. REED1 @170 fl/aifl/ Do dairy farmers in your neighborhood ha e trouble with mastitis in their herds? Mastitis causes more trouble than any other disease of dairy cattle in Michigan. Records of dairy testing groups show it to be the number one disease causing removal of cows from their herds. , Mastitis lowers milk production by destroying milk-forming tissue and replacing it with scar tissue. Production falls off slowly at times, but quite rapidly at other times. Quality decreases too. The milk may contain flakes, slugs, cells, serum, or blood. Mixing the milk with “clean” milk in cans or a bulk tank can cause some loss. High bacteria counts from infected milk can cause the entire lot to be rejected at the dairy. Mastitis shortens milking life. Herd replacement costs increase, and the dairyman must spend extra time, effort, and, money to treat infected cows. Cows with infected udders drop in value as milk cows. They even lose salvage value by selling as a lower grade of beef. Some- times they become a total loss through death. The U. S. Depart- ment of Agriculture estimates the loss in the United States to mastitis at 250 million dollars a year. If more farmers better understood the nature of this disease, they could prevent many cases and treat existing cases better. MASTITIS SYMPTOMS Mastitis is defined as any inflammation of the cow’s udder. It often causes changes, or symptoms, which we can see. Other times, these symptoms are so mild that we do not notice them. Cows with unnoticed symptoms are called chronic cases; they may be carriers or Spreaders of the disease. These chronic cases are often the most dangerous because the dairyman is not aware of them. ‘Extension specialist in dairy; assistant professor of veterinary surgery and medicine; and extension specialist in veterinary pathology, respectively. The most common symptoms show in the milk. Flakes that are often produced may be so small that the farmer needs a strip cup to detect them; or they may be large enough to interfere with milk— ing. In more severe cases, the milk may become watery, bloody, or both. The udder may swell and become painful, causing lameness as the cow moves. Changes in color of the udder may occur as the disease progresses, with red turning to blue or bluish black. The udder tends to become cold and clammy to the touch'as swelling and congestion interfere with blood circulation. The cow may finally go off feed, develop a high fever, stand with ‘ ears drooped, head down, very depressed — a very sick animal. Death may follow in 24 to 36 hours. Or the cow may recover and appear normal, only to remain a carrier of the disease. .17, . Infectious Farmers have had mastitis problems in their herds for many years. They have asked many questions about the disease. Researchers in Michigan and other states have found answers to many of their questions. One of the most important facts scientists have uncovered is that there are many kinds and many causes of mastitis, and all may pro- duce the same symptoms. Although most diseases have one specific cause, mastitis has many causes. Germs of various families of strep, staph, coli, pseudomonas, clostridia, yeasts, molds, fungi and, pos- sibly viruses may cause the disease. Cases resulting from these living organisms are called infectious mastitis. Noninfectious Another large group of causes produce noninfectious mastitis. This results from injury, chilling, accidents, or physiological or body adjust- ment. Accidents can occur in the barn, pasture, or barnyard and cause bruising or other injury to the udder. Some causes of noninfectious mastitis are outlined below. Improper milking Milkers on too long or on too soon Lack of individual attention to some quarters . Improper washing and dipping Solution too hot or too cold Flakes that are ?eds a strip cup 'rfere with milk- watery, bloody, ing lameness as 1y occur as the llSl] black. The uch as swelling ever. stand with k animal. Death Her and appear M402 for many years. Researchers in many of their wavered is that 1d all may pro- u-e one specific unilies of strep. imgi and, pos- om these living (8 mastitis. This or body adjust- ' hamyard and ?d below. . - _ , , . .,. . __.. , L 'A ' ’r - '1 ‘ ‘ ” ‘. - '- '.- "- ' - . ,. . . . \ .. .$-- . " ‘ ' '.-'. -" . ‘ *. ‘-‘1-'.» n , . , . .. . . _. . .l., .. ,. 1 ~ ‘ ‘. ' ' ~ T-' .- . , ..~ . - -.. a . . U. r a . ~ 4.. - _ .u‘ . . -.,"_ .-'._.- , . ’ V .' ‘ _ . , . . p ‘ . fie"..'_.-“ . ,.-' I . v I., . . ‘ -. .l.. . ‘.-.,. ..- ... ‘ . _ 4‘ 1‘ a 4: ~‘ '. _ '. . _- “'.-' .-1 ._ . " . , . . . . v ‘ . pr ,1 , ' . . t t ,.. 3. . ,.-. . o a . *. . . , .,- j. .- _ - _.' . ' v 0 , . 1. . - - ~ , - .- -_. - ‘ » t ‘ V . '_- . - , ., , ~' - . . .» _- ' ‘ - .-' fifi‘r" ~ . . '.--'3 - .' .01 o.0,.,- ‘ .,-‘ . - K -‘a ,- - .' . ‘ :‘n “._. “L , . . __ , .5 , - .I C A D. I .a . ,. r .v ,e n e .1... ,0. II.“ ,sv“.n. D I ‘L- . .o‘..n ‘ u n .,..5'_.__..,. .,.I o" " Fig. l. Chapped teat ends (note lighter areas) open the door to mastitis. Solution too strong Solution weak or dirty Chapping from failure to dry, etc. Incorrect machine installation and adjustments Dirty pipelines and connections Inflations fat-filled, dirty, hardened, cracked, wrong size Improper removal of milkers; vacuum not broken before removal Rough handling, irregularity of schedule, incomplete milking, dis- comfort, stress Bamyard or Pasture Causes Teats stepped on; cuts from fences, old tools, etc. Bruises from fights; being driven too fast by dogs, horses, boys, tractors Playfulness when turned out after long confinement Activity and excitement associated with heat Pressure injury on udder from small or poorly bedded stalls Sills too high, broken partitions, obstructions Too much mud and manure in yard, stables, and pastures—es- pecially in bogs and marshes Physiological Changes Physiological adjustment strains at freshening and drying up Hormonal changes and allergies (needs more study) Infectious and noninfectious mastitis may occur independently. Some specialists claim that injury must take place before infection can set in. Others believe that infection does occur without injury but does not spread rapidly. In any case, injuries aid spread. Infections find invasion easier when injuries prepare the way. Damaged or chapped teat ends and injured udders are ripe for infection. A poor job of milking adds to the possibilities of “a real mess of mastitis.” Healthy teat ends and udders may resist infection for long periods, even when germs are present in other cows in the herd. And even though damaged teat ends open the way to infec- tion, if no carriers are present or the milker is careful, the damage may heal before infection occurs. Noninfectious cases clear readily when the cause is removed. (See figure 1.) If an infection takes hold, mastitis becomes much more serious. The presence of carrier cows adds to the danger of infection. This is especially true if a farmer makes little or no effort to prevent spread between cows. . How farmers can prevent spread of mastitis is described in the following section on Management. 59%”; gaging PREVENT MASTITIS ' WITH GOOD HERD MANAGEMENT Prevention of mastitis is more important than its cure. Good dairy herd management is the key to prevention. Yet, even with the best management, dairymen may still have mastitis problems. If they do, they will get best control results by combining proper diagnosis, treatment, sanitation, and effective management. Bacteria capable of causing infectious mastitis are always present in the everyday surroundings of your cows. By preventing injury to the cows, providing proper housing, and following good milking prac- tices, you may build resistance in your herd high enough to prevent infection from taking hold. Consider the following steps in mastitis control in relation to your herd. 0 Know the health status of your herd. Have quarter milk samples taken to find out if any cows are infected and, if so, the kind of bac- teria causing the trouble. If your herd is free from trouble, you may 6 independently. afore infection without injury nvasion easier '5 are ripe for ties of “a real resist infection 3r cows in the way to infec- 11, the damage 5 clear readily 1 more serious. "ea-tion. This is prevent spread ascribed in the 2..er I‘ ire. Good dairy n with the best ms. If they do, roper diagnosis, .' always present 'enting injury to od milking prac- ough to prevent )l in relation to rter milk samples , the kind of bac- trouble, you may \ q-__- ..L__._.._ _,_ ___.._,-.‘ ....... ....... .. . .. . . V\ . . . ‘ k. ‘ .’ . . .;. .: :. . , ' ."r I- .1... .O. . r . I... no... _ . . p _ -. ..-. . . . u '0. O “. ' . .. n! ' ' . 3. ' 1p . b . ~,_ ."‘ . _ ._ . . ' I‘ . .' . . fl". .‘- » a r“ , . ' . .- ‘-‘ ‘ I . , 1‘ ‘ I 0‘. 1 ‘f 5.; __- I , .’ I . ‘ v . I I - ‘ j. . . ‘ ', ‘r _. r .1 ‘ r ‘ ' n . , .<‘ 1 ~ ,- v ' . ..‘.. ' ‘. \ .‘ ' '. I ‘l . ‘ 5 ‘ fa .— . ' _ "11‘, 5‘ - .~ 5 . , . . . c... ‘. ‘ . — .71 _+ . ;_ .p , ‘. . '1‘ . ‘ ‘ {,1 ‘ .. ‘3. _. -\. . 1;... "H, . ' p - . ' ’ ‘_ ..‘ '-.»‘~' - - _ ‘. \o ‘... s ‘ . f f ..r,. ~C\L. ., "u. ,' . .. ... . 0 ‘.'~ o.— \ ._ ’ . . . G. 9 ‘. Fig. 2. This stall is well bedded but too small to accommodate the cow comfortably and safely. ‘ _ need such an examination only once or twice a year. Have the infected cows, checked often to see what progress you are making with treatment and improved management practices. 0 Make management changes to remove the causes of infection. Once you know the situation in your herd, you can adjust cow handling and milking procedures to prevent spread of infection (as well as use treatment to wipe out existing infection). Milk heifers first, clean cows next, suspected mastitis cows third, and any cows known to be infected last. If you use several milker units for a large herd, limit one unit to infected animals. Use a strip cup at every milking and the California mastitis test weekly to get a warning before serious trouble hits your herd. (See page 13.) 0 Avoid udder and teat injury. If your cows’ teats are chapped, scratched, cut, or crushed by being stepped on, or the udder shows signs of being bumped and bruised, look for the cause. Inspect your barn— are the stalls big enough for your cows? Are the lots and fields free of wire, pieces of metal, and other junk that may cause injury? Are the fences well stretched to discourage any cows from trying-to go through or over? To avoid udder injury: 1. Provide stanchion barn stalls that are well bedded and large enough for your cows. Stalls should be big enough so cows will not stand in the gutter and udders will not hang over the edge of the platform as in Fig. 2. 2. Pave your lot near the barn where cows may be confined or travel on the way to the barn. ' , 3. Get rid of high sills or other hazards in the area traveled by the cows. ' p 4. To avoid chapping, keep bacteria-killing solutions for wash- ing teats and udders within recommended strength. If chapping or sore teats are a problem, use an udder ointment or lotion that is mild in odor and that will be absorbed before the next milking. 5. Keep yards and fields free from any debris that might cause iniury. . 0 Adopt a milking routine that W!“ prom e high milk produ tion and udder health. Proper operation of the milking machine is per- haps the greatest contributing factor to healthy udders. 1. Use a strip cup to check 2 or 3 streams of milk from each quarter. This practice indicates the presence of abnormal milk, makes ‘k1‘ 5'43. . .:.;.:.:3. ’7 ~ ', ' ._.:- ‘o .. : 1» -‘;§:A:; ( "44“ r” ‘fiui‘. Fig. 4. Gentle handlingof udders and a close watch on machines are both musts in good herd management. sure that the teat canal is open, and eliminates high-bacteria—count milk from the milk supply. 2. Wash the udder with warm, sanitizing solution (chlorine or other bactericides) 1 or 2 minutes before milking; then wipe dry. This prepares the cow for milking by stimulating milk letdown. It also provides a clean teat surface, which contributes to high-quality milk. To wash the udder, spray with a solution, then wipe with a paper towel; or wash with an individual towel which has soaked in the sanitizing solution. 3. Put the milking machine on within 1 or 2 minutes after pre- paring the cow. Train your cows to milk rapidly. Experience has shown there is less trouble with mastitis in herds where average milking time is 3 to 4 minutes per cow. Some cows take longer, but most of them will respond to shorter milking time. It is important that an operator handle no more than two ma- chines (in a stanchion barn) so that he is on hand to check his cows, manipulate the udder for machine stripping, and get the machine off in the shortest possible time. Where a pipeline milker is available, a good operator can handle three machines. Some cows milk out unevenly, so drop the teat cup off a quarter as soon as it is milked out. 9 '—————-——-—--~' Remove the machine gently by breaking the vacuum so as to pro- tect the muscle on the teat opening. 4. As soon as you remove the machine, disinfect the lower half- inch of each teat with sanitizing solution. Use a cup for individual teat dipping or a container big enough to dip all four teats at one time. Keep the solution clean and at proper strength.1 5. After milking each cow, rinse the teat cups in cold or luke- warm water to remove the milk. Then dip them in a chlorine solu- 1 Make up chlorine solutions with a maximum of 200 parts per million (p.p.m.). Fig. 5. Rinse the machine with cold or lukewarm water immediately after milking each cow. Then dip in a sanitizing solution. 10 as to Pro' tion or other approved sanitizing agent. (The pre-rinse helps maintain the strength of your chlorine solution.) For maximum benefits, the teat lower half- cups should be exposed to the solution for 1 to 2 minutes, counting from r individual when they go into the solution until they are put on the cow. eats at one Avoid air lock to make sure the solution contacts the entire inner .. surface of each teat cup inflation. )ld or luke- i - - - éfi‘wfld #5 . 0 Keep milkmg machines clean and w6rking properly. If your milk- llorine 501‘" ing machine is to remove the maximum amount of milk in the shortest possible time, it must be in good mechanical condition. Major items that need checking are: inches of vacuum, pulsation rate, and condi- tion of the inflations. If the vacuum lines were properly installed and the pulsator adjusted correctly, it is up to you to see that the equipment is properly maintained. llion ( ppm.) . Fig. 6. Checking the vacuum pressure is necessary to maintain proper milk- ing machine operation. 1. Check the vacuum pressure at several points along the line with the minimum and maximum number of units operating. Clean the vacuum line at least every 6 months and more often if you know that milk has gotten into the line. Use the following procedure: (a) Prepare a lye solution by adding a 13-ounce can of lye to a 12- to l4—quart pail of hot water. Use no more solution at one time than tank capacity on the milking machine pump. (b) Using the airhose, suck about 1 quart of the solution into immediately “m the stall cock nearest the pump. Do the same at each stall ll cock, working away from the pump. (In case the line hasn’t been cleaned for some time, this should avoid breaking loose scale that would plug the line.) If you flush the line monthly, you can draw all the solution into the last stall cock. (0) Drain the lye solution out of the pump tank. ((1) Rinse the line with hot water; use the same procedure as for lye solution. (e) Let the pump run with all stall cocks open to dry out the line. A drop or two of oil on each stall cock will prevent corrosion. 2. Take the milking machine apart and wash it thoroughly after every milking. The following procedure is suggested: (a) Rinse with cold or lukewarm water immediately after milking. (b) Brush-wash all equipment in warm water containing a good dairy cleaner. (0) Rinse in hot water and place on storage racks. (d) Rinse all equipment just before use with a bacteria-killing solu- tion of proper strength. (e) Where inspection service permits, place the teat cup assembly on a rack between milkings and soak it in a 0.5 percent lye solution. (Make up a stock solution by adding one 13-ounce can of lye to 1 gallon of water. Add 6 ounces of this stock solution to 1 gallon of water for the solution rack). (f) To prevent milkstone deposits, use an acid cleaner once a week on all equipment. 3. Keep inflations clean, elastic, and in proper shape for fast and complete milking. Milk fat weakens elasticity of rubber and en- courages bacteria growth; lye will remove this milk fat. (a) To prepare this lye solution, add one 13-ounce can of lye to each 1% to 2 gallons of water needed to cover the inflations. A steel pail with holder as shown in Fig. 7 is very satisfactory. ' (A covered container will protect children from the strong lye solution.) (b) To care for inflations properly, use two sets of inflations. While you use one set for a week, soak the other set in lye solution. Once a week, remove the rubber that has been soaking in the lye solution, rinse, brush with a good washing solution, and exchange with those that have been on the machine. 12 he line hasn’t )reaking loose line monthly, cock. icedure as for y out the line. rent corrosion. oroughly after after milking. :aining a good 'ia-killing solu- cup assembly .5 percent lye one l3—ounce ; of this stock ck). leaner once a )e for fast and ihber and en- .t. r can of lye t0 - the inflations. ’ry satisfactory. . the strong lye nflations. While in lye solution. r soaking in the g solution, and achine. Fig. 7. Covered container for storing caustic lye solution. 0 Select healthy herd replacements. The best policy is to raise your own replacements to avoid bringing disease into the herd. Man- age your calves and heifers to guard against bacteria invasion of the udder tissue. Keep young calves in individual pens or stanchioned at feeding to avoid their sucking one another. Sucking breaks the teat seal, this opening the way for mastitis germs to enter and become established in the udder. If you buy cows, be sure they have been tested for mastitis infection. Make a regular routine of these various items of herd manage- ment and milking procedures. It may seem like an overwhelming task. You will spend less time and effort with this recommended routine than if your cows become infected with mastitis and require individual attention. Then you will be concerned with diagnosis and treatment. 7 _ . _ xiv/21" (”67./flex fig DIAGNOSIS AND TREAT ENT Proper diagnosis is the first step in a mastitis control program. Until you learn the condition of all the cows in your herd, you won’t know where to begin cutting out mastitis losses. First, find and treat the “carrier cows,” or cows that are actively infected but that show no outward symptoms. Often, the cows that 13 you least suspect are the ones that quietly but surely spread mastitis through your herd. How to Find Carrier Cows Several tests will help you to spot the cows that are responsible for mastitis spread. Use a strip cup regularly so you can spot the first abnormal milk. Don’t trust a strip cup, though, for the earliest warning of mastitis. Infection has usually existed for some time before abnormal milk shows up. One barn test, the California mastitis test or CMT, indicates the amount of irritation to an udder. This irritation can lead to later infection; it warns the dairyman that he should improve his milking and management practices to prevent later infection. If you use this test, run it weekly; if many reactions are apparent, fiuther cultural or laboratory testing needs to be done. CMT does not detect infec- tions nor does it tell the difference between noninfectious and infec- tions mastitis. It should not be the only basis for an antibiotic treat- ment program. _ CMT material can be purchased from your local veterinarian. Fig. 8. Visual strip cup examina- Fig. 9. California Mastitis Test tion of milk to check for abnormalities. (CMT) showing changes in milk due to irritation in the udder. l4 . ._.-1..“ \-_r L“ —- _ None of the barn tests which the dairyman carries on are accu- rate enough to be the only basis for a mastitis control program. They don’t show all the infected quarters, they don’t tell which cases are infectious and which aren’t, and they give no clue as to the cause of infection. _ Every dairyman should periodically arrange for a careful collec- tion of milk from all quarters and send it to a laboratory for cultural or microscopic examination. Better yet, use a local veterinarian— - he’s qualified to collect and test milk to establish the status of each cow in your herd. Treat Only After Diagnosis In too many cases, dairymen treat their own cows with antibiotics without first using laboratory tests to find whether treatment is needed and what antibiotic to use. Only in emergency cases should treat— ment be made without first seeing lab results. In an emergency, call a veterinarian to take a milk sample from each quarter, then treat with the antibiotic that he feels is best. Be sure to take a sample before treatment, otherwise you can’t detect the type of infection. Normally, when dealing with acute mastitis, have your veterinarian choose the proper antibiotic according to past experience — being sure to sample before treatment. If a herd is experiencing many flare- 15 r—-—-’ ' . _s. . _. - -E. .y..----‘.,M-’-qvf‘~ ' ‘1 >- * y__.-' -~— W‘ ups, collect samples, then go ahead and treat the cows. Send the samples to a laboratory for culture and sensitivity tests. The labora- tory will grow the organism on several test plates, then put various antibiotics on the plates to find which ones control the organism. The one that works in the lab is most likely to work in the cow's udder. Make another test 7 to 10 days after treating your cows to check the success of the treatment. Continue retesting and retreatment until all animals test negative. Ridding a herd of infectious mastitis usually takes about 3 to 5 months of an intensivgprogram. Disadvantages of Random Treatment J’éfio’vfliz/fiv To be effective, antibiotic treatment for mastitis must fit the cause and conditions. To use antibiotics at random without proper diagnosis can be expensive and dangerous for several reasons. First, if the mastitis is noninfectious, antibiotics have limited value; instead, the cause of irritation must be eliminated. (See Causes of Noninfectious Mastitis, page 4.) To treat all quarters is expensive, and it causes loss of unnecessary milk, since milk from treated quarters must be discarded for 72 hours after treatment. And treating only quarters that show symptoms often results in missing 'many quarters that are harboring infectious agents. The most good is accomplished when early detection — possible before blobs show up in the strip cup — leads to treatment of infected quar- ters. This will prevent further damage to the udders. M“ i Fig. 12. Treatment of cow with infected quarters. Careless use of antibiotics can result in the establishment of resist- ant organisms and organisms not usually found in the udder. These new organisms may not respond to present antibiotics. And careless handling of injection tools or untrained treatment of abnormal condi- tions can often be a further cause of the condition that is supposedly being cured. Treatment for mastitis involves overall prevention in the herd as well as drug treatment for individual cows. Research has shown that drug treatment alone doesn’t do the job— it takes a complete man- agement program. Results in two test herds brought this out. In one herd, 24 to 36 quarters were treated monthly with drugs selected by laboratory tests. In spite of these repeated treatments, mastitis continued to pester the herd. The reinfection took place between treatments be- cause management practices weren’t changed. 17 In another herd, negative results came after 4 months of testing, treating, and improved management practices. This herd was still free of mastitis 6 months later. Right now, there are no antibiotics that can be injected into muscles that will eliminate bacterial organisms from the udder. The best use for antibiotics is infusion into the udder. However, if an animal has a systemic involvement, parenteral treatment (injection into muscles, veins, or abdominal cavity) may be of value. The fact that the obvious signs such as garget no longer exist doesn’t mean the animal is free of bacterial agents. . Dairymen often ask about vaccination for preventing mastitis. Up to now, testing programs with various vaccines indicate that they offer no cures and little protection. Vaccines may lessen the outward signs of abnormal milk problems. When accurate, reliable diagnostic service is available from your local veterinarian, his services for handling mastitis problems are valuable. Savings resulting from his service will more than equal the cost of home treatment by the dairyman. 5w/éwe e7 . :3" we: "‘0 1 18 A h—‘_w_—~ ..‘.-_§ . V § hs of testing, .erd Was still 1 into muscles The best use an animal has into muscles, at the obvious animal is free lg mastitis. Up .cate that they en the outward [able from your .5 problems are me than equal I-.“ '-_I ' Use this sheet to check how useful you think each unit would be to you in a bulletin. Unit #1 Page 3 - 4 Unit #2 Page 4 - 6 Unit #3 Page 6 - 8 Unit #4 Page 8 - ll Unit #5 Page 11 - 13 Unit #6 Page 13 - 16 Unit #7 Page 16 - 18 very useful quite useful of some use of little use not useful very useful quite useful of some use of little use not useful very useful quite useful of some use of little use not useful very useful quite useful of some use of little use not useful very useful quite useful of some use of little use not useful very useful quite useful of some use of little use not useful very useful quite useful of some use of little use not useful ‘Huu‘a w BIBLIOGRAPHY Public Documents U. S. Census Bureau, U. S. Agriculture Census: 1954. ‘Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. Books Dixon, Wilfrid J., and Massey, Frank J., Jr. Introduction to Statistical Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hall Book Co., Inc., 1957. Downie, N. M., and Heath, R.‘W. Basic Statistical Mathods. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959. Lionberger, Herbert F. Adoption ong w Ideas and Practices. Ames: The Iowa State University Press, 1960. Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Berelson, Bernard, and Caudet, Hazel. The Peoplefs Choice. New York: Columbia University Press, 1948. Articles and Periodicals Allison, H. E., Zwick, Charles J., and Brinser, A. ?Recruiting and Maintaining a Consumer Panel,? Journal of MarketingI V01. 22 (1958), pp. 377-90. Benson, Lawrence E. ?Mail Surveys Can Be Valuable,?.ggg, V010 3 (1939), pp. 3-11e Bevis, Joseph C. ?Economical Incentive Used for Mail Questionnaires,?._gg, vo1. 12 (1948), pp. 492-93. Charters,‘w.‘w., Jr. ?Pretesting a College Text Bodk,? Educational Research Bulletin, vo1. XXIX (April, 1950), pp. 85-95. 202 \ x \ ‘. 1 V ‘A \ \ \ \ l \ \ ‘ I ’ \ l \ K ’ r . \ \ l. I n K / ' \ a I . \ '\ ' \ 203 Corey, Stephen M. ?Signed Versus Unsigned Attitude 5 Questionnaires,? Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 28 (1937). PP. 144-48. Edgerton, H. A., Britt, S. T., and Norman, R. D. ?Objective Differences Among Various Types of Respondents to a Mailed Questionnaire," American Sociolggical Review, v01. 12 (1947). pp. 435-44. Fischer, Robert P. ?Signed versus Unsigned Personal Questionnaires.? Journal of Apglied Psychology, V01. 30 (1946), pp. 220-25. Ford, Marie, and Stief, Ruth. ?Pretesting a Pamphlet for Reader Comprehension,? Journal of the American Diabetic Association, vo1. 30 (1954). Ford, Marie, and‘Wilson, Albert B. ?Testing a Public Health Nursing Pamphlet,F NUrsing Outlookl Vbl. 3 (May, 1955). Frazier, George, and Bird, Kermit. PIncreasing the Response of a Mail Questionnaire.? Journal of Marketing, Hansen, Morris H., and Hnrwitz, William N. ?The Problem of Non-Response in Sample Surveys,“ American Statistical Association Jogrnal, vol. 41 (1946). PP. 517-28. Heuseman, Earl E. ?Statistical Treatment of the Non-Response Problem,9 Agricultural Economics Res, vo1. 5, pp. 12-19. Kephart, William M., and Bressler, Marvin. ?Increasing the Responses to Mail Questionnaires: A Research Study,? 399, Vol. 22 (1958). pp. 123-32. Knutson, Andie L. PPretesting Health Education Materials,9 American Journal of Public Health, vol. 43 (Feb., 1953). Mayer, Edward N. Jr. PPostage Stamps Do Affect Results of Your Mailing,? Printers Ink, October 4, 1946. Olson,‘W. C. ?The‘Waiver of Signatures in Personal Reports,9 Journal of Agglied Psychology, vo1. 20 (1936), pp. 442-50. 204 Ortengren, John. ?When Don't Research Panels Wear Out?,? Journal of Marketing, V01. 20 (1957). P. 442. Sandage, C. H. ?Do Panels Wear Out?£'Jou£nal of Marketing, v01. 20 (1956). pp. 397-401. Scates, Douglas E., and Alice Y. ?Developing a Depth Questionnaire to Explore Motivation and Likelihood of Action,?gE§gcationa1 and Psychological Measurement, V01. 12 (1952): PP. 620-31. Sharp, Harry, and Feldt, Allen. ?Some Factors in a Probability Sample of a Metropolitan Community,? American Sociological Review, V01. 24 (1959), pp. 650-61. Reports Bush, Chilton R., and Carter, Roy E., Jr. Egperiments in Pre-Testing Pripted Materials: A Report to the U. S. Information Agency, Institute for Journalistic Studies, Stanford University, August, 1954. Knutson, Andie L. FPretesting: A.Positive Approach to Evaluation,? Public Health Service Reports, V01. 67 (1952). pp. 699-703. Phifer, Byron E. Effectiveness of various Distpibution Practiges and Methods of Message Treagment of Agricultural and Home Economics Publications in the Northeast Region. Draft of a Regional Project, Federal Extension Service and U. S. Department of Agriculture, washington, D. C., 1958. U. S. Department of Agriculture. Establishing a National Consumer Panel from a Probability Sample. Marketing Research Report No. 40, forward by Earl E. H0useman, ‘Washington, D. C., June, 1953. Unpublished Material Miller, Howard L. Procedures for Improvingyphe Use of Publications in the Commgnications Process bnyro- fpssional Leaders in Agpicultural Education. unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, Department of Agricultural Education, 1959. 205 Office of Information, Publications Division, Briefs on Pretesting, paper. U. S. Department of Agriculture, washington, D. C., Oct., 1958. Sabrosky, Laurel, and Sarbaugh, Larry. Proposal for Pre- IgestingA4—H Literature. Research Proposal IP—180, Office of Information, U. S. Department of Agriculture,‘Washington, D. C., December, 1957. Taylor, Lee, and Tedrick, William. An Evaluation o§:4-H Bulletin 197Lgf4-H vegetable Gardenpf Unpublished report, Michigan State University, December, 1960. Other Sgugces Sandage, C. H., personal letter to Ivan M, Lappin in reply to a request for information relating to panel studies. March 15, 1961. ”'TITJ'I‘fifll’hLfllemuffHim]! MW!“ 03085 6276