RELATEGNSHIPS 0p saucmon. AGENT comma ma woman 05 mm pmcncss A? REmMMENDED LEVELS FOR mm mm nonmm mmmm W955: for m Deg!» of 26;. S. MECHiGAN STWYE UNWERSiW bonaia’ 3‘ Whéte W65 THESIS J LIBRAR Y Michigan State Univer51ty RQOM USE ONLY WHO RELATIONSHIPS OF EDUCATION, AGENT CONTACT AND ADOPTION OF DAIRY PRACTICES AT RECOMMENDED LEVELS FOR DHIA AND NON-DHIA DAIRYMEN By Donald J. White A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Institute for Extension Personnel Development 1965 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTIONOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOO mORYOOOOOOOCOOOOC0.000.000.0000000000000000000.0... LITERATURE REVIEWOCCOOOOOOOO0.000.000...00.00.0000... OPERATION“! HYPOTI'IESESO...O’COOOOOOOOOCOOOCOO...O...O mmODOLOGYoooooooooooooo0000000000oooooooooooooooooo Area of Study Sample Selection Questionnaire Analysis RESULTS...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0.000.000.0000..0... TEST OF HYPOTIIESESOOOOOOO0.00......O...0.0.000...O... SWOOCOOOO00.000.000.00.0....0.000000000000000... LIMITATIONSOOOOOOOOCOOOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO BIBLIOGRAPHYCOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOO... APPENDIXOOOO0.0.0.0.000...00.0.00...OOCCOOOOOOOOOOOO. iv Page 14 28 29 34 37 53 57 61 68 Table 2. 3. 7. 8. 9. 10. ll. 12. LIST OF TABLES General Farm.Characteristics of Ron-DHIA and DHIA Respondentsooooooooooacoco...coco...co Relationship of Formal Education Between Non'DHIA 6t DHIA Dairymenoooooocoooooooooooocoo. Relationship of Adaption of Dairy Herd Management Practices at Recommended Levels Between NOH'DHIA & DHIA Dairy'men.....uuu.... Relationship of Agent Contact Between Non-DHIA & DHIA DairymenOO0.0000000000000000000000.00... Relationship Between Agent Contact and Formal Education for All Dairymen..................... Relationship Between Agent Contact and Adaption of Dairy Herd Management Practices for All Daimn...00.0.0000...OO‘OOCOOOOOOO....00...... Relationship Between Formal Education and Adaption of Dairy Herd Management Practices for DHIA Dairymenoooooooooooooooooa...coo...coo Relationship Between Formal Education and Adaption of Dairy'Herd Management Practices for Non-DHIA Dairymen.....u.nun“..."no.. Relationship Between Agent Contact and DHIA Membership When Education is Controlled at Less than 12th Grade Laval-00000000000000.0000no Relationship Between Agent Contact and DHIA Membership When Education is Controlled at Level Of 12th Grade or mr.oooooooooooooooooooo Relationship between DHlA Membership and Agent Contact When Adoption is Controlled at the Low Level-cocooooooooooooooooooooo00.000000000000000 Relationship Between DHIA Membership and Agent Contact When Adoption is Controlled at the High Level...ooooooooooooooooooooooaooooooooooo V Page 36 39 39 39 4O 40 43 43 46 46 48 48 Table Page 13. Relationship Between DHIA Membership and AdoPtion When Agent Contact is Controlled at Low IieveIOOOOOCOCCOOOOOOOO00.000.000.00...O. 50 vi ABSTRACT RELATIONSHIPS OF EDUCATION, AGENT CONTACT AND ADOPTION OF DAIRY PRACTICES AT RECOMMENDED LEVELS FOR DHIA AND NON-DHIA DAIRYMEN by Donald J. White This study was undertaken to determine factors associ- ated with dairy herd management practices of dairymen in Jefferson County, New York. Specific information about formal education, personal contact with county agricultural agents and adoption of nine dairy herd management practices at recommended levels was sought for study analysis. Mail questionnaires were sent to DHIA (Dairy Herd Improvement Association) and non-DHIA dairymen. Sixty-eight DHIA and 95 non-DHIA completed questionnaires. An analysis of the data indicated that education and con- tact with county agricultural agents were not significantly associated with bringing about the adoption of the nine dairy herd management practices at the recommended levels. Education.was not significantly associated with the number of contacts with county agricultural agents. Education was, however, a differentiating characteristic of the dairymen as the DHIA dairymen had a significantly higher level of formal education than the non-DHIA dairymen. DHIA dairymen had a significantly higher level of per- sonal contact with the county agricultural agents than the Donald J. White non-DHIA dairymen. The DHIA dairymen adopted more of the practices at the recommended levels than did the non—DHIA dairymen. These findings show that for this population education, agent contact and adoption of dairy herd management practices at recommended levels are differentiating characteristics of DHIA and non-DHIA dairymen. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In the summer of 1963, the executive committee of the agricultural department, Jefferson County Extension Service, granted the author a nineémonth sabbatical leave for advanced study at Michigan State University. As a result of this much appreciated grant, it was possible to take time for the prepa- ration of this thesis project. The patience, understanding and guidance of Dr. Carl Couch, as thesis advisor, have been highly valued throughout the preparation of this thesis. Dr. Couch's assistance in the overall development of the research project has contributed toward an interest and participation in further Extension research. To Dr. Mason.Miller, academic advisor and committee member, appreciation is expressed for guidance and consultation during this study leave and for thought-provoking assistance in revising preliminary copies of the thesis. To Dr. William Kimball and Dr. Denio Caul, committee members, appreciation is expressed for their time in consulta- tion and in the course work carried out under their direction. To fellow graduate students Jack Murray and John Elliott thanks are extended for their suggestions and assistance during the preparation of this project. Thanks to graduate student James Bebermeyer for assistance in coding the questionnaire. ii Appreciation and thanks are due the staff of the agricul- tural department, Jefferson County Extension Service, for their assistance in making this project a reality. To Russell Hodnett, former county agricultural agent, for his support in the project and encouragement fOr sabbatical leave. To Charles Hewlett, associate county agricultural agent, for his assistance in gath- ering and verifying portions of the survey questionnaire. To Marie Ross and Patricia Kelly, secretaries, for their prepara- tion and handling of the questionnaires, with special thanks to Mrs. Ross for her patience and assistance in typing revisions. Appreciation is expressed to Mrs. Florence Smith for typing the final manuscript. My greatest thanks and deepest appreciation are extended to my wife, Leigh, for typing and editing many drafts of this thesis and sacrificing much along with our two boys, Scott and Leighton. Without her assistance and understanding, this project would not have been possible. iii INTRODUCTION During the past decade science, research and education have brought about significant changes in the agricultural segment of American society. Across the broad agricultural scene these changes are evidenced by declining farm numbers, increased pro- duction outputs and new processing, distributing and marketing methods. Within one segment of agriculture, that of dairy farming, the changes have been quite dramatic. New techniques in the processing of milk and milk products coupled with changes in marketing methods have had a definite effect on the producer and the consumer. Of equal importance to the producer--the dairymen --have been the technological advancements in farm machinery, forage crop production, dairy cattle housing and dairy herd management. The availability of this technology has created a more intensified need in the dairyman's managerial program-- that of making more decisions in order to remain in a competitive and profitable position with other dairymen. Basically two choices confront the dairyman: Either to adopt and implement new ideas and practices; or to remain with existing ideas and practices. The decision to adopt a new idea or practice results in change. While the decision confronting the dairymen.may relate to an entirely new practice, such as artificial breeding of dairy 1 cattle, it also may relate to the modification of a current practice; i.e. -- changing the age at which heifers freshen.1 Thus decisions are important for all dairymen. And the dairymen of Jefferson County, N.Y., are not unlike dairymen of other regions regarding the management decisions they must make. Because not all changes in the dairyman's management program relate to new practices, it seems important to look at those practices which are modified in one way or another. This study primarily considers nine dairy herd management practices as they are currently being performed on dairy farms in Jefferson County, N.Y., and the interrelationships of two variables which may influence changes in these practices. These two variables are (1) the amount of formal education of the dairyman and (2) the amount of contact that he has with the county agricultural agent. In order to determine whether these variables differed among dairymen, those in the study were dichotomized into par- ticipants in the Dairy Herd Improvement Association program (DHIA) and non-members of DHIA. While many studies dealing with adoption have considered a cross section of agricultural practices, this study relates strictly to one section -- that of dairy herd management. Other variables -- physical and financial resources, personal and _IHow Farm People Accept New Ideas, North Central Regional Publication, No. 1, Special Report No. 15, (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University, November, 1962), p. 6. family goals -- may influence herd management decisions, but these were not considered in this study due to time and financial restrictions. THEORY Whether or not a dairyman decides to adopt a certain idea or practice may well be determined by his familiarity with the idea under consideration. If the idea is entirely new to him, the dairyman.may be more cautious about its adoption, par- ticularly if it involves other changes in his business. A new idea which is a drastic deviation from his present practices may involve a longer period of time before acceptance or rejection. If, however, the idea is closely related to existing practices and the manner in‘which these are carried out, it may have quicker acceptance or adoption. Thus, there could be two types of adoption ideas con- fronting a dairyman: 1. An idea which is new to him in his management program, and 2. An idea which is not too different from his present management program. However, these two types of adoption ideas may range along a continuum. A new idea might be more specifically defined as "the adoption of a new idea or practice not previously performed." An example is a dairyman who has not been growing corn adopts the practice of growing corn. This could involve considerable time and expense, and bring about other changes in his business. A further example is the use of a hay conditioner to harvest higher quality forage. If this is a new practice to a dairyman it might involve expenses and changes in management that he is 4 not ready to make. The second type of adoption may be defined as "the adoption of an idea at the recommended level within a given practice currently being performed." For example, a dairyman is now growing corn, but he is using X variety. Recently, he has been exposed to the idea of using Y variety which may be superior in feeding value or disease resistance. To change from X to Y variety should be easier and less costly than to change to the new idea of growing corn. A second example is that of a dairyman.who now has his heifers freshen at 28 months of age, but is exposed to the idea of having them freshen at the earlier and more productive age of 20 months. Here, again, the general practice is already being performed and the adoption of earlier heifer freshening age should be easier to make. While these shifts to the adoption of an idea within a practice, which we can call intra-practice adoption (I-PA), would appear to be easier to make, they actually may take longer to materialize. With I-PA, the results may not be so visibly spectacular or so immediately evidenced as when a new idea is adopted. For the most part, dairy herd management practices, especially those in this study, are of the intra-practice adop- tion (I-PA) variety. Most dairymen were performing the dairy management practices used in this study. It may be more dif- ficult to break tradition or habit relative to the performance of present ideas and practices than it would be to adopt a new idea where these factors are not involved. This means, then, that we might not find so high an adoption rate of ideas among the dairymen in the study as we might expect if the adoption involved new ideas. Dependent Variable The dependent variable is that of adoption of nine dairy management practices at the recommended level. These practices encompass various aspects of feeding, breeding and culling. Since success in dairying depends largely upon the management of the herd, one would expect that it is to the dairyman's advantage to adopt practices that are recommended and economical. A dairy- man may be performing a management practice in a non-economical manner and if he adopted the recommended practice level it would result in increased efficiency and financial returns. In some instances, a limitation of resources might prevent the dairyman from adopting though he desires to do so. Regardless of whether the dairyman is confronted with new ideas or intra-practice ideas he probably goes through the same steps in the adoption process.2 That is, he first becomes §w§£g_ of the idea, but lacks sufficient information to adopt. This is generally followed by an interest-information stage where the dairyman becomes interested and seeks information about the idea. He then moves to the evaluation-application-decision stage during which time he mentally applies the idea to his present and future 2 Adapters of New Farm Ideas, Nbrth Central Regional Exten- sion Publication, No. 13, (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, December, 1962), p. 3. situation and decides whether or not to try it. The Egigl stage is next where the idea is used on a small scale, if possible, to validate its workability in his situation. The last stage, adoption, occurs when the dairyman uses the idea on a full scale and incorporates it into his management program. At any stage in the process, the idea may be rejected or the same procedure may be followed when an alternative is pro- posed. Also, depending on the idea, a dairyman may move through a minimum of stages -- awareness and adoption or rejection. Two important variables which may influence the adoption process at one or more stages are (a) having a source of ideas and (b) the ability to understand or comprehend them. One source of ideas is through personal contact with county agricultural agents. The extent of agent contact can be used as a measure of exposure sources of ideas. The level of formal education can be used as a measure of level of understanding of ideas. Agent Contact As a part of the Agricultural Extension program, county agricultural agents have an opportunity to provide farmers with research-supported information that will help them be more effec- tive managers of their businesses. It is the job of the county agricultural agent to know about new practices and research recommendations and to pass these along to dairymen. It would seem that high farmer-agent contact would expose the farmer to more new ideas than would low farmer-agent contact. Thus the higher contact farmers should be higher adopters. Research on personal influence3 has shown the importance of direct contact in bringing about change. Other research has shown that farmers view the role of the county agricultural agent, relative to change, as that of giving instruction on how to put new ideas into effect and of helping in decision making.4 Personal contact allows a tdeway flow of ideas and information. This helps the farmer deve10p an understanding of the idea and its implications -- which is less likely through impersonal media. One reason is that the county agricultural agent gets information fed back to him that helps him assess an idea and adapt it for the Specific farmer and his situation. It may be that several personal contacts are necessary before the farmer decides whether he will or will not adopt an idea. It would seem that the more contacts made between the farmer and the county agricultural agent, the better the Opportunity for the agent to provide sup- porting evidence in favor of a recommended idea or practice. Therefore, a relationship between adoption of dairy herd manage- ment practices at recommended levels and the number of contacts between the county agricultural agent and the dairyman could be expected. Personal knowledge of or familiarity with the county agri- cultural agent may influence the amount of contact. As a 3 Elihu Katz and Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Personal Influence, (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1955), p. 32. 4 , E. A. Wilkening, "Roles of Communication Agents in Technological Change in Agriculture," Social Forces, XXXIV, (May, 1956), p. 361. _ dairyman becomes more personally acquainted with an agent, he may be more willing to contact him for information and counsel. Conversely, through his experience with the county agricultural agent, the farmer may feel that other sources of information are preferable. Additionally, the social status of the farmer and his participation in organizations, such as Dairy Herd Improvement Association (DHIA), might well influence his contact with the county agricultural agent. New practices of a rather technical nature, such as DHIA, often necessitate a contact‘with an agent for further information, interpretation or implementation. Formal Education Formal education can be used as an index of an individual's ability to understand or comprehend new ideas. For example, a dairyman with a high level of formal education should be able to judge the merits of changes in dairy management practices both from a financial standpoint and from the standpoint of implemen- tation of an idea and its effect on the farm business. Conversely, a dairyman with a low level of formal education may have dif- ficulty grasping new ideas or changes in practices and the effect these may have on his dairy management program. It is possible that he may understand an idea and how to implement it, but may not be able to comprehend the effects or benefits to his manage- ment program so he does not adopt the practice or change. It would be expected that the more highly educated indi- vidual would have more exposure to sources of new ideas and 10 information. Therefore, the more highly educated dairyman would have a higher rate of contact with the county agricultural agents. Also the dairyman with a higher educational level is more likely to realize the connection between the agricultural agent and the state college of agriculture in making research findings avail- able to farmers. Due to a higher level of education, such individuals could be expected to do more reading of farm publications and to comprehend material communicated by them.5 This would result in a better understanding and awareness of new ideas and research information, and would help in the implementation of technical material, such as that included in DHIA programs. It is likely, therefore, that the educated individual would be more favorably directed toward the adOption of recommended levels of dairy herd management practices. Once having been initially exposed to innovation through reading the individual might seek out the county agricultural agent for additional information or for consultation about a specific practice or problem. In some instances, the highly educated dairyman might bypass the county agricultural agent and go directly to the scientist or re- searcher for the desired information. Formal education is not the only factor related to con- tacting the county agricultural agent or to adopting a certain DE. A. Wilkening, Acceptance of Improved Farm Practices in Three Coastal Plain Counties, North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 98, (Raleigh, North Carolina: May, 1952), p. 27.- 11 dairy management idea. Certainly experience has considerable merit in the evaluation of new and different ideas and practices. A dairyman with limited formal education may, because of other kinds of experience, be able to see the implications of a given idea in his business operation. He may also be able to recog- nize the benefits of contacting the county agricultural agent or of joining such organizations as DHIA. Some dairymen with limited formal education have been able to successfully Operate commercial dairy farms, while others with advanced education have not used their training in the most effective manner. In summary, it appears that contact with the county agri- cultural agent may be influenced by the amount of formal educa- tion of the dairyman and that agent contact will influence the adoption of dairy herd management practices at recommended levels. Practice adoption at recommended levels also may be influenced by the amount of formal education of the potential adopter as an indicator of his ability to comprehend information made avail- able to him. Dairy Herd Improvement Association ‘The Dairy Herd Improvement Association (DHIA) is a co- Operative state and county program designed to assist partici- pating dairymen in the management of their herds through an intensified record keeping system. The DHIA program is recom- mended by the Extension Service as a means of improving herd performance. Participation in the program is on.a voluntary basis, with the participant paying the cost of the service. 12 While participation in the DHIA program can be expressed as adoption of an idea or practice, it has not been interpreted as such in this study. DHIA has been used in this study as a means of grouping dairymen when making comparisons of the vari- ables (a) adoption of nine dairy management practices at recom- mended levels, (b) agent contact and (c) formal education. Thus the dairymen in the study were dichotomized as participants or non-participants of the DHIA program. In briefly looking at these variables and their possible relation to DHIA, it has been pointed out that dairymen with a high level of formal education would be more likely to partici- pate in such a program than dairymen with a lower level of for- mal education. The higher degree of formal education allows them to comprehend production records and their implications to the dairy management program. In this aspect, DHIA may be con- sidered as a source of information regarding dairy management. Mere highly educated individuals may be more inclined to join a DHIA program because they may see more business and social bene- fits from its membership. Because of the rather technical nature of the DHIA program, it might be expected that participants would have a higher rate of contact with the county agricultural agents in order to obtain further information on the interpretation and implication of the records. The county agricultural agent would also serve as a reference for implementation of information re- sulting from the program. 13 Since most of the DHIA management interpretations are based on applied research and are to be implemented as recom- mended practices, it would be expected that participants would adopt more of the recommended practices than would non-partici- pants. That is if a dairyman has money invested in such a program, it would seem that he would adopt the practices at the recommended levels to realize a profit from his investment. A dairyman can, however, adopt some of the same recommended prac- tices without being a DHIA member. To do so he must keep pro- duction records and be capable of analyzing the results and incorporating them into his management program. In summary, then, it would be expected that DHIA partici- pants would adopt more of the practices at recommended levels, would have a higher rate of contact with the agricultural agents and have a higher level of formal education than would non-DHIA dairymen. LITERATURE REVIEW There has been a considerable amount of research con- ducted in the area of adoption of new ideas and practices 'with- in the field of agriculture. Some research on adoption has been carried out in the fields of medicine and primary and secondary 6 Adoption research in the field of agriculture has education. dealt with many new ideas and practices in the areas of agronomy, dairy and farm business management. Total contact with the Extension Service has been a part of many studies dealing with the adoption of agricultural practices. Other studies have looked more closely at the influence of personal contact by county agricultural agents on farmers. Formal education has been given attention in some studies of the adeption of new ideas, but it has been related to a cross section of agricultural practices rather than to one segment such as dairy herd management. These three variables -- adop- tion, contact with county agricultural agents and education ~- and their possible interrelationships are reviewed in the fol- lowing section. Adoption Copp, et a1., report "Adoption is an activity of the farmer taking place over a period of time. From first awareness 6 Everett M; Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, (New Yerk: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962), pp. 39 and 45. 14 15 to regular use there must be a transformation in the orienta- tions and behavior of the farm operators. AdOption of a farm practice is a bundle of related events flowing through time, not an instantaneous metamorphosis."7 Ryan and Gross mention "The decision to adopt the prac- tice is a product not only of the operator's position in reapect to some pre-existing conditions, but also of the influences and incentives brought to bear. The intensity of the latter is affected by knowledge of previous acceptances, especially when the various accepters are competitors and the trait raises the general productivity level."8 Sizer and Porter9 mention that the degree of knowledge of the practice involved affects the adoption of a recommended practice. Of equal importance is the compatibility of a new or different practice or way of doing the practice within the present method of performance. As Fliegel and Kivlin state, "The degree to which a new practice is compatible with tradi- tional procedures was found to be associated with rate of adop- tion. As expected, the sample farm operators adopted more 7J. A. Copp, M. L. Sill, and E. J. Brown, "The Function of Information Sources in the Farm Practice Adoption Process," Rural Sociology, XXIII, (June, 1958), p. 147. 8 Bryce Ryan and Neal C. Gross, "The Diffusion of Hybrid Seed Corn in Two Iowa Communities," Rural Sociology, VIII, (1943), p. 23. . 9 Leonard M. Sizer and Ward F. Porter, The Relation of Knowledgg_to Adoption of Recommended Practices, West Virginia University Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 446, CMorgantown, West Virginia: September, 1960), p. 3. 16 rapidly those practices for which there was some precedent in the area.‘ Their data also "suggested that radical departures from traditional practices require more intensive and educa- tional programs if the farm operator is to judge them on their own merits." For some dairymen, if new ideas or new ways of performing a practice deviate from tradition, or are not compatible, or are complex, adoption of the practice might be slow and extend over time.11 Sometimes a certain practice may require more thought and attention than the farmer is capable of giving or wants to give. In some instances, it may be easier and less risky to follow traditional methods. Then again there may be certain family pressures which might dictate his decision rela- tive to recommended practices. Hoffer and Stangland point out that "Farmers who are efficient, self-reliant and progessive tend to adopt approved practices. Those who value security highly and are conservative delay or fail entirely to adopt a 12 new practice." 10Frederick C. Fliegel and Joseph E. Kivlin, "Farm Practice Attributes and Adoption Rates," Social Forces, XL, (May, 1962), p. 370. - 11 Frederick C. Fliegel and Joseph E. Kivlin, Differences AmongLImproved Farm Practices as Related to Rates of Adoption, Pennsylvania State University Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 691, (January, 1962), p. 1. 12 C. R. Hoffer and Dale Stangland, Farmers' Reaction to New Practices -- Corn Growiggzin.Michigan, Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 264, (East Lansing, Michigan: February, 1958), p. 22. 17 Adoption of Dairy Practices Wilkening, Tully and Presser state "that practice adop- tion is a function of group patterns as much or more than of differences in individuals and in farm characteristics." Further, "Practice adoption is regarded as a variable with different types of practices influenced by different social, economic, and psy- chological factors."13 Most studies dealing with adaption in agriculture have covered a multiplicity of practices; few have actually concen- trated Specifically upon the dairy aspect. Many dealing‘with dairy have been concerned mostly with the adoption of DHIA or in some cases individual dairy practices rather than adoption of a recommended level within a practice (I-PA). Thus DHIA has been considered a practice rather than a source of information. A survey of the adoption of many farm practices in Michigan, of which dairying was a part, done by Nielson and Bittner14 showed only 16 percent of the dairymen participating in the DHIA program. These researchers found that the cost and trouble involved in testing appeared to be an obstacle to the adoption of the practice. Additionally, many farmers apparently 13E. A. Wilkening, Joan Tully, and Hartley Presser, "Com- munication and Acceptance of Recommended Farm Practices Among Dairy Farmers of Northern Victoria," Rural Sociology, XXXVII, (June, 1962), pp. 117-119. . 14 J. Nielson and R. F. Bittner, Farm Practice Adoption in Michigan, Michigan State University Technical Bulletin 263, (East Lansing, Michigan: January, 1958), p. 31. 18 felt they could make satisfactory decisions on the basis of the appearance of the cows in the herd and that records were not essential. These studies, of the DHIA program, have not been intense and have only lightly touched on some of the factors associated with adoption of DHIA. Wilkening and Johnson report that many dairy herd manage- ment practices are strongly influenced by economic consider- ations. "Dairy herd management decisions pertaining to breeding and feeding also were influenced by 'profit' considerations most frequently and to a less extent by a concern for the maintenance of 'quality' animals and by the desire to 'keep up with the best farmers'."15 They also found a desire to keep "up with the best dairy farmers" was positively associated with the use of DHIA. They found that the time and trouble that it takes to partici- pate were negatively associated with the use of the DHIA program. However, the most important consideration "knowledge for feeding" appeared to be somewhat more important in obtaining continued use of the DHIA program than the other three goals tested: (1) time and trouble; (2) knowledge for culling, (3) keeping up with the best dairy farmers. It is likely that some conditions or factors related to adoption of other practices will be related to adoption of dairy herd management practices. One of these factors is contact 15 E. A. Wilkening and D. E. Johnson, Goals in Farm Decision- Making_as Related to Practice Adoption, University of Wisconsin Research Bulletin No. 225, (Madison, Wisconsin: February, 1961), p. 11. 19 with the Extension Service and the county agricultural agents. Extension Service Contact E. A. Wilkening 1n a study on the "Roles of Communication Agents in Technological Change in Agriculture" mentions that "different sources are utilized for different types of infor- mation. The particular sources utilized will depend upon the ‘way in.which they are perceived by the individual needing the information and thus upon the function performed by those sources for that individual."16 Wilkening, Tully and Presser point out that "in general, information seeking is selective by type of information sought."1 They also point out that "Although most farmers obtain more than one type of information through the same channel, most utilize multiple sources in the process of acceptance or rejection of new techniques. Furthermore, there is evidence that different sources of information are utilized for different types of prac- tices."18 Slocum, et a1., in looking at farm families in the state of washington report similar findings.19 These studies suggest that no one source is used solely to acquire information l6 Wilkening, "Roles of Communication Agents," p. 361. 17 _ Wilkening, Tully, and Presser, 0p. cit., p. 127. 18 Ibid. 19 Walter L. Slocum, Owen L. Brough, Jr., and Murray S. Straus, Extension Contacts,_Selected Characteristics, Practices, and Attitudes of Washipgton Farm Families, State College of washington Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 584, (Pullman, washington: April, 1958), p. 15. 20 about new practices. They further suggest that potential adop- ters are selective in their information sources, and that perhaps the Extension Service is considered a source of one type of information. Everett Rogers in a study on the characteristics of agri- cultural innovators and other adOpter categories asked respon- dents what their most important source of information was. "For the total sample, the most important sources (in order of importance) are farm magazines, friends, county Extension agents, and Extension Service bulletins."20 Similar findings by Wilkening,21 Beal and Rogerszzand Lionberger23 showed that the Extension Service‘was considered as a source of information by farmers. The Extension Service disseminates its information through two channels -- impersonal which encompass farm magazines, radio programs, bulletins, etc., and through personal services, agri- cultural agents working directly‘with clients. 20 Everett M. Rogers, Characteristics of_Agricu1tura1 Inng: vators and Other Adopter Categgries, Ohio Agricultural Experi- ment Station Research Bulletin 882, (Wooster, Ohio: May, 1961), p. 24. 21 E. A. Wilkening, "Sources of Information for Improved Farm Practices," Rural Sociology, XV, (March, 1950), p. 22. 22 . G. M. Beal and E. M. Rogers, The Adgption of Two Farm Practices in a Central Iowa Community, Iowa State University Agricultural and Home Economics EXperiment Station Special Report 26, (Ames, Iowa: June, 1960), p. 5. 23 . H. F. Lionberger, Information Seeking Habits and Charac- teristics of Farm Operatorg, University of Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Research Bulletin 581, (Columbia, Missouri: April, 1955). 21 Personal sources of information are more important than other sources at all stages of adoption, except the awareness stage where impersonal sources are most important.24 Other studies have shown that "Early adapters had a greater degree of both personal and impersonal contact with their county Exten- sion agent than any other adopter category. Differences as to impersonal contact tended to be less sharp among the adopter categories. Reading of printed Extension mass media seemed to 'get through' more equally to all adopter categories. This was less true of personal contacts which were more sharply concen- trated among the early adapters."25 Rogers reports that "There was a tendency for innovators and early adopters to utilize county Extension.agents more than laggards ...Also that those farmers who are relatively early to adOpt new practices have the greatest degree of contact with their county Extension.agent."26 Wilkening, in six Wisconsin counties, found that "the county agent is relied upon most for learning how to put ideas into Operation." He found that the second most important role of the educational agencies is that of helping to decide whether to try out new practices.27 24Beal and Rogers, op. cit., p. 27. 25 Rogers, op. cit., p. 27. 26 Rogers, op. cit., pp. 24, 26. 27 Wilkening, "Roles of Communication Agents," p. 365. 22 Wilkening, Tully and Presser in the North Victoria study suggest that "Contact with agricultural officials is an indi- cation of a positive interest in learning about new ideas which is not likely to be limited to the Specific practice with which they deal . . . Hence it is apparent that there is an associ- ation between adoption and the use of the District Agricultural Officer for certain types of practices including those pertain- ing to the dairy herd, irrigation, and pastures. The conclusion is that for the dairy farmers of the area studied, positive orientation toward agricultural officials results in the adop- tion of improved farm practices."28 Fliegel's study also sup- ported the fact that "Contacts for information are related to adoption."2 Couch in a study of dairy farmers in Lapeer County, Michigan, showed that contact with diffusion agents (agricul- tural agents and soil conservation representatives) was associ- ated with adoption. These studies, then, suggest that potential adopters are selective in their personal and impersonal sources of informa- tion. There is also an apparent relationship between the stage 28 Wilkening, Tully, and Presser, op. cit., pp. 167-170. 29 Frederick C. Fliegel, "A Multiple Correlation Analysis of Factors Associated with Adoption of Farm Practices," Rural Sociology, XXI, (1956), p. 289. 30 Carl Couch, Agent Contact and Community Position of Farmers Related to Practice Adoption and NFO Membership, Institute for Extehsion Personnel—Developmehf, Michigan State University, (1965). 23 of adaption and the selection of information source. They further suggest there is an association between adoption of certain practices and contact with the Extension Service, and perhaps in some instances contact with a Specific subject matter Extension agent. Formal Education and Adoption Another factor that may be related to adoption of prac- tices is formal education of the potential adopter. Lionberger states "Formal education is associated with adoption. Farmers with high school or college training gener- ally have higher incomes and adopt more new practices than those who ended their schooling at the eight grade or before. How- ever, the kind of schooling appears to be more important than the amount. People trained in vocational agriculture, for example, are seldom found in the low income ranks." Copp in his work with the adoption of recommended prac- tices among cattlemen reports "There is a substantial linear association between the adoption index and the amount of formal education. The fact that formal education was more closely re- lated than technical agricultural training suggests that the importance of education for adoption is not so much the specif- ic information, but the general outlook imparted toward tech- nology." He adds "one must also take into consideration the selectivity that operates in educational achievement before 31 H. F. Lionberger, Adoption of New Ideas and Practices, (Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State University Press, 1960), p. 17. 24 attributing the correlation between education and the adoption index to amount of education exposure."32 Anderson, et a1., had similar findings regarding the use and acceptance of fer- 33 tilizer. A North Central regional Extension publication states "The more education an individual has, the more likely he is to adopt new farm.practices. Those‘with high school training, and above, tend to adopt new practices earlier than those who have 34 . 35 36 had less formal schooling." Wilkening and Gross also have found that accepters or adopters of recommended and approved practices have generally been better educated than non-adopters. If types of adopters are considered relative to education, Rogers found "Innovators averaged 12.57 years of formal educa- tion or slightly more than a high school education. In contrast, the laggards average only slightly more than a grade school 32 James H. Copp, Personal and Social Factors Associated ‘gith the Adoption of Recommended Farm Practices Amppg_Cattlemep, Kansas State College Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 83, (Manhattan, Kansas: September, 1956), p. 14. 33M. A. Anderson, L. E. Cairns, E. O. Heady, and E. L. Baum, An Appraisal of Factors Affectipg_the Acceptance and Use of Fertilizer in Iowa,,l9§§, Iowa State College Agricultural Experiment Statisn Special Report No. 16, (Ames, Iowa: June, 1956), p. 7. 34 How Farm Pepple Accept New Ideas, op. cit., p. 8. 35 . Wilkening, "Acceptance of Improved Farm Practices," p. 44. . _ , 36 Neal Cross, "The Differential Characteristics of Accep- ters and Nunaccepters of an Approved Technological Practice," Rural Sociology, XIV, (June, 1949), p. 148. . 25 education. The relationship between Adoption-of-Farm-Practices Scores and years of formal education is significant at the one percent level."37 Similarly, "Farmers who are among the first to adopt new practices have the most formal education. They tend to have special mental abilities. For an innovator, adop- tion requires a high level of intelligence and an ability to deal with abstractions." Other researchers have reported some relationship be- tween education and adoption of farm practices but that the 39 relationship may not always be highly significant. Education and Contact Other studies report a relationship between education and 37 Everett M. Rogers, "The Adoption Process," Journal of Cooperative Extension, 1, (Summer, 1963), p. 13. 38 Adopters of New Farm Idea§,_Characteristics and Communi- cations Behaviog, North Central Regional Extension Publication No. 13, (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University), p. 6. n 39 M. L. Sill, "Personal, Situational, and Communicational Factors Associated with the Farm Practice Adoption Process", (unpublished master's dissertation, Rural Sociolo , The Pennsylvania State University, 1958). Hoffer, et a1., op. cit., p. 13. C. V. Hess and L. F. Miller, Some Persona1,_Economic, and Sociological Factors Influencinngaigymen's Actions and Success, The Pennsylvania State University Agricultural Experi- ment Station Bulletin 577, (State College, Pennsylvania: June, 1954), p. 28. 26 contact with the Extension Service.40 Coleman found in studying differential contact with Extension "that there is a direct association between education.and the extent of contact with the Extension program . . . in other words, the persons already best educated are the ones most often reached by Extension and those presumably most in need of Extension Service are least often reached.U41 Slocuma2 reports "the educational level of opera- tors was found to be associated with the level of Extension contacts."* In concluding the review of literature, there seem to be some apparent relationships between adoption, education and Ex- tension Service contact. These relationships are rather general. This study, therefore, attempts to look at some specific rela- tionships between these variables. It differs fromfthe foregoing studies because it concen- trates only on dairy practices, rather than a matrix of agricul- tural practices. The study considers personal contact with the county agricultural agent rather than total contact with the 40 Lionberger, Information Seeking Habits, op. cit., 9. U. S. Department of Agriculture, The Vermont Publications Study: A Report on Selected Extension Publicatiopg, Extension Service Circular 536, (Washington: November, 1961), p. 11. 41 Lee Coleman, "Differential Contact with Extension Work in a N. Y. Rural Community," Rural Sociology, XVI, (September, 1951), p. 213. . 42 Slocum, et a1., op. cit., p. 4. *(C ' .215, P0 (05) ) 27 entire Extension Service. An attempt is made to study the adOp- tion of a practice at a recommended level (I-PA or intra-practice adoption). As a means of studying the relationships of adoption, education and agent contact, the dairymen have been grouped as DHIA participants and non-DHIA. OPERATIONAL HYPOTHESES The foregoing theoretical discussion on adoption, county agricultural agent contact and formal education suggests the operational hypotheses listed below. Support is given to these hypotheses by previous research work covered in the review of literature. 0P : DHIA participants will tend to have a higher 1 level of formal education than will non-DHIA par ticipants . 0P : DHIA participants will tend to have higher 2 adoption scores than will non-DHIA partici- pants. OP : Farmers with a high level of formal education 3 will tend to have more contact with the county agricultural agent than will farmers with a low level of formal education. 0P : Farmers with a high adoption score will tend 4 to have more contact with the county agricul- tural agent than will farmers with a low adop- tion score. 01’ : DHIA participants with a high level of formal 5 education will tend to have a higher adoption score than will DHIA participants with a low level of formal education. OP : Non-DHIA participants with a high level of 6 formal education will tend to have a higher adoption score than will non-DHIA dairymen with a low level of formal education. 28 METHODOLOGY Area of Study Jefferson County, New Yerk, was chosen as the area of study for two reasons. One, the researcher was familiar with the county and felt that the necessary information could be obtained through the c00peration of the county Agricultural Extension Service. Two, Jefferson County is predominately a dairy area. The county is located in the northwest corner of New York State. In 1960, the 1,770 commercial dairy farms had a total farm income of $17 million -- the total agricultural income being about $22 million annually. Sample Selection In New York State, the Extension Service has a paid membership which in Jefferson County encompasses nearly all the commercial dairymen. The names and addresses of these dairymen who were members in 1963 were obtained and dichotomized into (1) those participating in the current Dairy Herd Improvement Association (DHIA) and (2) those not in the program (non-DHIA). To elicit sufficient responses, all DHIA participants, of which there were 125, were sent the questionnaire. Through the use of random numbers tables, 400 dairymen were selected from those not in the DHIA program. It was felt that this size sample was required to yield a large enough N for statistical analysis, 29 30 particularly since the questionnaire would be mailed. _Questionnaire Since the information for the study was being obtained by a mailed questionnaire, the design of the questionnaire had to be relatively simple and yet detailed enough to yield the desired data. Most questions were of the choice type. The respondent could select one of several alternatives. It was felt that this method would yield more responses than an open-ended approach which could involve considerable writing on the part of the re- spondent. The few open-ended questions used elicited information on DHIA, milk sold and frequency of contact with the county agri- cultural agents. The questionnaire was composed of four parts. (See Appendix.) The first dealt with the size of the farm in terms of the number of total and tillable acres Operated in 1963 and cows milked that year. The second part related specifically to dairy herd manage- ment practices -- the way in'which the dairyman was carrying out each practice. The nine practices selected dealt with feeding, breeding and culling -- important aspects of managing the dairy herd. While other surveys about farm practices cover a multi- plicity of topics, it'was thought that for this study a measure- ment of herd management practices would be most valuable partic- ularly in comparing the two groups of dairymen. While a dairy- man could perform the nine practices according to any one of the 31 alternatives offered, for each item one of the alternatives was the recommended procedure. Recommended practice levels were determined through consultation'with a dairy Extension special- ist at Michigan State University and the Jefferson County Exten- sion dairy agent. Part three requested information about formal education, age and number of times the reapondent personally contacted or visited with the county agricultural agents. Part four acquired an indication of the dairyman's goals. Here the nine previously covered management practices were ex- plored in the context of ”What do you aim for in.management." The potential size of operation desired was indicated by the} response to "number of cows you would like to have milking.” The questionnaire and related cover letter were mailed by the county Extension Service. Several weeks after the initial mailing a reminder follow-up card was sent to increase returns. 0f the total 525 questionnaires mailed to dairymen, 163 or 31 percent were returned. Two-thirds were returned within two'weeks from mailing. The remaining one-third was returned following the reminder card. 0f the 125 DHIA participants, 68 or 54 percent responded and of the 400 non-DHIA participants, 95 or 23 percent returned completed questionnaires. The higher proportionate return on the part of the DHIA participants might be attributed to their closer contact with the county Extension Service. 32 validitnghecks To obtain an indication of the validity of the mail returns, five DHIA and five non-DHIA dairymen were randomly selected from those who returned the questionnaires. A per- sonal contact was made and they were asked to again complete the questionnaire. For these dairymen, the validity check showed 88 percent agreement with the initial questionnaire on items that would influence the statistical analysis. The item that had the greatest difference was that of agent contact. The presence of an agent administering the validity check prob- ably influenced the response to this item. In eight of the ten cases the estimates were higher than originally stated and two were lower. There was a time difference of approximately two months between the return of the original questionnaire and the administration of the validity checks, which could further con- tribute to differences on certain items. Dairy Herd Mangggment Practices The nine practices used in this study were selected on the basis of being essential to the over-all management program of a dairy herd. ‘Most of the practices related to those already being performed by the majority of dairymen -- the only differ- ence being that not all dairymen performed them at the same level. For example, one dairyman.might have his heifers fresh- ening at a much younger or even older age than those of another dairyman. Thus for each practice the dairyman was asked to indicate the level at which he was currently performing the 33 practice. The nine practices selected and their related perfor- mance levels are shown in Part II of the questionnaire. (See Appendix.) Analysis For each of the nine dairy herd management practices being performed at the recommended level, the respondent re- ceived one point. Thus, an adoption score of nine was possible. The adoption score is used in the statistical analysis to indi- cate the degree of adoption of the nine dairy herd management practices being studied. Frequency distributions were used to establish initial cutting points. Most of the data were nominal, though some met the requirements for ordinal measurements. Chi-square analysis with the level of significance of alpha .05 was used to test the null hypotheses. To measure the degree of association, a Chi-square contingency coefficient was computed for each opera- tional hypothesis. RESULTS General Farm Characteristics Some of the general farm characteristics of the reSpon- dents for both DHIA and non-DHIA participants are as follows. Size of Farm The size of the business operation as measured by total acres operated in 1963 showed a range from 70 to 1,000 acres 'with a mean of 284.5 acres for the 94 non-DHIA dairymen comple- ting this particular question. The DHIA participants (63 farmers completing the question) had a range of 70 to 1,240 acres operated with a mean of 318.5 acres or approximately 10 percent higher than the non-DHIA. The difference in size was not statistically significant by Chi-square analysis. The number of tillable acres is a more accurate measure of the size of operation since it is from the tillable acres that the forage supply is derived. The non-DHIA group (92 farmers completing the question) had a range of tillable acres of 42 - 500, with a mean of 167 acres. The DHIA group (63 farmers completing the question) showed a tillable acre range of 40 to 800 and a mean of 180.2 or only 7 percent higher than the non-DHIA. The difference between the two groups was not significant. 35 Age The age range for non-DHIA dairymen was 25 - 69, with a mean age of 46. For the DHIA participants, the range was 23 - 78 with a mean age of 45.8. The difference was not significant. Number of Cows When considering the number of cows milked during 1963, the non-DHIA group had a range of 11 to 115 with a mean of 39. The DHIA group had slightly larger herds with a range of 17 to 150. The mean number of cows in the DHIA group was 18 percent higher or 47 cows. The difference in size was significant at the .05 level. Income Over Feed Costs Approximately 78 percent of the DHIA group (66 completed the question) reported an income over feed costs per cow of $250 or more. Of the non-DHIA group, (68 completed the question) 64 percent reported income over feed costs per cow of $250 or more. The difference between the two groups was not significant. Summary There were no significant differences between DHIA and non-DHIA dairymen'when considering the general farm character- istics of size of farm, age and income over feed costs. The only significant difference between the two groups of dairymen was in herd size. This difference should not affect the relation- ship of the variables -- adoption, education and agent contact -- for the DHIA and non-DHIA dairymen. 36 TABLE 1 GENERAL FARM.CHARACTERISTICS OF NON-DHIA AND DHIA RESPONDENTS Non-DHIA respondents DHIA reSpondents (No.) (7.) (N0.) (‘1) Total Acres 200 or less 29 31 16 24 201 - 300 27 28 22 32 301 - 1,240 38 40 25 37 No response 1 l 5 7 Total 95 100 68 100 Tillable Acres 100 or less 19 20 9 13 101 - 150 22 23 18 27 151 - 200 30 31 20 29 201 - 250 14 14 6 9 251 - 800 7 7 10 15 No reSponse 3 5 5 7 Total 95 100 68 100 Number of Milk Cows 10 - l9 3 3 2 3 20 - 29 24 25 9 13 30 - 39 22 23 21 31 40 - 49 28 30 13 19 50 - 150 18 19 22 32 No response 0 0 l 2 Total 95 100 68 100 Income Over Feed Cost Less than $250 24 25 14 21 $250 - $349 34 36 38 56 $350 - $449 7 8 14 21 $450 or more 3 3 0 0 Don't know* 22 23 l 1 No response 5 5 l 1 Total 95 100 68 100 *These respondents indicated they did not know their income over feed costs on a per cow basis, nor how to compute it. TEST OF HYPOTHESES In testing the six operational hypotheses, statistical analysis gave support for acceptance of two while four were re- jected. Other interrelated variables were examined and analyzed. The findings are described for each Operational hypothesis tested. 0P1: "DHIA participants will tend to have a higher level of formal education than‘will non-DHIA participants." Formal education for both groups was broken down into four categories: (1) those having completed eighth grade or less; (2) those com? pleting grades 9 through 11; (3) those completing 12th grade; 04) those completing thirteen or more grades. (Table 2) The association was in the direction expected, and was statistically significant. This suggests that level of formal education is not highly determinant of participation in DHIA, but that there is more than a chance relationship. 0P2: "DHIA participants will tend to have a higher adop- tion score than will non-DHIA participants." For purposes of analysis, the adoption scores were categorized as (1) five or less, (2) six, (3) seven, (4) eight or more. (Table 3) Analy- sis showed that DHIA respondents tended to adopt more of the dairy herd management practices at recommended levels than non- DHIA respondents. It is possible that dairymen in the DHIA program are able to more readily see the effects of implementing these practices than dairymen not in such a program. Or it may 37 38 be that the DHIA participants are more inclined to use recom- mended levels of the practices in general with adoption of specific practices and the DHIA program reflecting different features of a common orientation. Since level of adoption of these practices could be af- fected by contact with a county agricultural agent, it was desirable to look at the amount of contact the dairymen (for both groups) had with the county agent. Categories of level of con- tact with the agent per year were set at: No contacts; one con- tact; two contacts; three to six contacts; and seven or more contacts. (Table 4) Approximately 55 percent of the non-DHIA dairymen reported no contacts or one contact per year, while only 28 percent of the DHIA participants were in this group. The association between agent contact for DHIA and non-DHIA was sta- tistically significant. 0P3: "Farmers with a high level of formal education will tend to have more contact with the county agent than will farmers with a low level of formal education." In order to obtain a large enough N all dairymen were dichotomized into under 12 years and 12 or more years of formal education. Again the groupings of none, one, two, three to six and seven or more agent contacts per year were used (Table 5). The analysis showed that while there was some relation between education and agent con- tact (C = .204), it was not significant. ThiS‘would indicate that the degree of formal education for all dairymen in this study is not closely associated with agent contact. The same re- lationship held when the dairymen were dichotomized into DHIA 39 TABLE 2 RELATIONSHIP OF FORMAL EDUCATION BETWEEN NON-DHIA & DHIA DAIRYMEN Non-DHIA Dairymen DHIA Dairymen _fl 0 E 0 E Grade Completed 8th or less 19 16.9 10 12.1 9 - ll 30 25.1 13 17.9 12th 38 39.6 30 28.4 13th or more 8 13.4 15 9.6 Total 95 68 Chi-square = 8.26, 3df, p < .05, C = .22 TABLE 3 RELATIONSHIP OF ADOPTION OF DAIRY HERD MGT. PRACTICES AT RECOMMENDED LEVELS BETWEEN NON-DHIA & DHIA DAIRYMEN Non-DHIA Dairymen DHIA Dairymen 0 E 0 E Adoption Score 5 or less 39 30.9 14 22.1 6 28 29.1 22 20.9 7 22 24.5 20 17.5 8 or more 6 10.5 12 7.5 Total 95 68 Chi-square = 10.39, 33f, p < .02, C .25 TABLE 4 RELATIONSHIP OF AGENT CONTACT BETWEEN . NON-DHIA & DHIA DAIRYMEN Non-DHIA Dairymen DHIA Dairymen 0 E 0 E No. of Contacts per year 0 40 26.8 6 19.2 1 12 14.6 13 10.4 2 20 16.9 9 12.1 3 - 6 17 19.9 17 14.2 7 or more 6 16.9 23 12.1 Total 95 68 Chi-square = 35.81, 4df, p < .001, c = .43 40 man. u o .on.uv ethane .mn.n u ouuaus-aeo moH mm mm mm ma ca annoy 00 an as «a ma Ha ma m 0H NH ma onoa no u on m 0H HH ma m w w w «a as 0 mm m m «H m m m m n ma «N onus no m m o m o m o m o m o unoom flowumov¢ muomunoo Hmuoa onoa no u muomuaoo cum muomudoo N uomuaoo a unausoo o ZMZWMHmH mm