V V
n
.I
I
n
I
~ .I -7 . , < ,__, . . .7. . _...w ......‘-....n..‘ -<---‘

 

AN EVALUATION OF FACTORS INFLUENCING PARTICIPATION
IN THE DAIRY HERD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
IN VERMONT

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
VERLE RANDALL HOUGHABOOM

1963

  
  

L'IBRA R Y
I Michigan Scam.
University ,

     

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
AN EVALUATION OF FACTORS INFLUENCING PARTICIPATION

" IN THE DAIRY HERD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
‘ IN VERMONT

presented by

Ver 1e Randa 1 1 Houghaboom

I I has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Agricultural. Economics

 

/ \ ‘ I ")
' / /"; ’
‘ ’24,,JI11',’ // ' L {A " f» / 1'
Major professor
Date November 15, 1963
0169
__‘ V _ 7 i _ W l ‘ ‘ v *1. ‘— —. -

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

AN EVALUATION OF FACTORS INFLUENCING PARTICIPATION
IN THE DAIRY HERD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
IN VERMONT

by Verle R. Houghaboom

The dairy herd improvement program has been operating
in Vermont for over fifty years. It was established to
provide dairymen with records of the performance of in-
dividual animals in their herds. Such knowledge is essential
to farmers interested in achieving economically sound ad-
Justments in feeding and improving their herds. This in-
formation is also helpful to county agents and others in
counseling dairymen.

As early as l92h the Vermont Extension Service
assumed official responsibility for supervising dairy herd
improvement work. Extension's efforts to assist local
associations and promote participation have been time-
consuming and largely noneducational. Yet in spite of the
potential value of test and record data and the wide
publicity given to the program, participation is not great.
Fewer than one dairyman in four has enrolled in any given
-year.

This study has investigated factors influencing
participation. It is concerned with possible shortcomings
in the program as they relate to: (a) organization and
method of operation, (b) adequacy of information and services,

and (c) ability of dairymen to utilize this intonation.

 

Verle R. Houghaboom

The study has two broad objectives. First, it
investigates the historic development of the program and
critically examines the rigid organizational framework
to determine its influence on enrollment. Second, but most
important, the research analyzes and evaluates information
obtained in personal interviews with 250 dairymen. These
data concern characteristics of farms and farmers; knowledge
of feeding and management practices; and opinions as to
why dairymen participate, drOp out, or never Join. The
farmers interviewed include 1&7 participants, 53 ex-partici-
pants, and 50 nonparticipants. All were randomly selected
from each of three participation categories in areas serviced
by central testing associations.

The historic review indicates that the local associ-
ation is an antiquated organization; that the sampling
procedure embodied in the standard test is costly and
limiting to enrollment. Further, it raises serious
questions concerning the Justification of extension's
participation in the current program.

The analysis of survey data reveals that partici—
pation is associated with measurable characteristics of
farmers and their farms. For example, compared with the
other groups, participants: have more formal education;
are more likely to be community leaders; are more aware
of good production levels; keep essentially the same number

of cows but produce more milk.

 

 

Verle B. Houghaboom

Yet participants' beliefs concerning grain feeding,
coupled with inadequate knowledge of production response,
seriously inhibit their use of test and record data.

These dairymen appear to be more aware of participation
costs than of monetary returns. They use test and record
data mainly in culling although its usefulness for this
purpose is extremely limited. The desire for recognition,
status, or prestige appears to be a major reason why they
participate.

Ex-participants are younger than dairymen of the
other two groups. In most other measured characteristics,
they rank below participants but considerably above non-
participants. This is particularly true as it relates to
knowledge of feeding and management. Primary reasons for
dropping out include inability to use data; dissatisfaction
with the supervisor or service; and costs in money, time,
work, or bother.

Honparticipants are aware of the program but have
not been motivated to seek information. Their apathy is
associated with ignorance of, or indifference to, good
management practices. For meet, more accurate knowledge
of production data would have little value.

Specific recommendations, based on this study,
relate to extension's activities and responsibilities as
well as to the organization and operation of the program.
Hopefully, future adjustments, as a result of this study,

will enable more Vermont dairymen to obtain and use essential

production data.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

   

AN EVALUATION OF FACTORS INFLUENCING PARTICIPATION
IN THE DAIRY HERD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
IN VERMONT

By

Verle R; ‘Houghaboom

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State university
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Agricultural Economics

1963

  

 

* . _. *:.-n¢_- -~'J'-~—l'fl;":. _..... -7 .m* , L, 7:' , .9,,:_,

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It is not possible to name or even know all persons
who have contributed to the conclusions or points of view
expressed in this study. Yet some friends and colleagues
have provided such substantial help that the author feels
compelled to single out a few at the risk of overlooking
the many.

James Nielson, Professor of Economics, Michigan State
University, will be forever remembered for his patient and
cheerful counsel in directing the author's graduate study
program, as well as his painstaking effort in reviewing
the original draft of this manuscript and suggesting many
changes always for the betterment of the study.

Appreciation is extended to all members of the
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Vermont,
who, in a wide variety of ways, have given so generously
of their time. Special thanks are due: Dr. Robert Sinclair
and Dr. Fred Hebster, for their willingness to critically
listen and to discuss many aspects of the study; Miss Yvonne
Gratton, who bore the burden of typing and much editorial
review; Mrs. Cassie Templeton, who assisted in sorting

and tabulating the data.

11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The author is grateful to Mr. Thomas McCormick and
Miss Kathleen.webb, of the Office of Information, for their
helpfulness in the detection.cf errors and improvement of
style.

Finally, a word of thanks to Agnes Engen Houghaboom
for her encouragement and willingness to carry a heavier
than normal share of family responsibilities while the

study was in progress.

iii

 

 

 

CONTENTS

Page

ACHOWIIEDGMENTS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I I O i 1

LIST OF
LIST OF

Chapter
I;

II.

III.

IV.

TABIES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 v
FIGI’RES O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 v1

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Background

Purpose and Objectives
Theoretical Background
Hypotheses

Method and Scope of Study
Procedure for Reporting

DAIRY HERD IMPROVEMENT WORK IN VERMONT . . . 14

Initiation and Leadership

The Local Association

The Supervisor and His Job -

Participation and the Indispensable Man
Participation and Innovations in the Program
Central Testing Associations

Observations

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH PARTICIPATION . . . . 30

Characteristics of Farms and Farmers
Participation as a Source of Useful Information
Why Dairymen Participate

Why Dairymen DrOp Out

Why Dairymen Never Join

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Hypotheses Beexamined
Recommendations

BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 99

iv

Table
1.

Compariso
Proportio

 

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES

n Among Participation Groups of
n of Dairymen Suggesting Grain

Requirements Within, Above, or Below

Recommend
Productio

Compariso
Knowledge
Practices

Reasons f

ations at Given Levels of

n O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O

n Among Participation Groups of
of Own Production and Feeding

C C O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O

or Selling Cows Sold . . . . . . .

Assistance Received from Supervisor . . . .

Assistance Received from County Extension

Agent .

Opinions
Do 30 .

Opinions
Progress

Opinions
DrOp Out

Opinions
Test and

O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O

on Why Most Dairymen Who Test

on Why Dairymen.Who Make No
Continue Testing . . . . . . . . .

and Reasons Concerning Why Dairymen
of a Test and Record Program . . .

on Why Dairymen Have Not Joined a
Record Program . . . . . . . . . .

Page

#2

47
5.7
63

64
68
68

75

81

 

 

 

 

Figure
l.

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Comparison of Number of Dairy Herd

Improvement Associations and Number

of Cows on Standard Test and Owner-

Sampler Test for Given Years

1907-1958 0 e o e e e o e o e o e o a o o 22

Scores of Three Participation Groups
Denoting Community Leadership Based on
the Chapin Social Participation Scale . . 36

Scores of Three Participation Groups

Denoting Knowledge of Recommended Grain
Feeding Rates at Various Production

Level s o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O #1

vi

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background

Information concerning the performance of individual
animals in a dairy herd is essential to all dairymen in-
terested in arriving at economically sound decisions in
feeding, or in herd improvement through culling and breeding.
It is valuable to county extension agents and other ex-
tension workers in counseling with dairymen concerning farm
business problems. Participation in a dairy herd improve-
ment association is one means of acquiring such information.

Since 1924 the Vermont Extension Service has been
charged with the supervision of dairy herd improvement
associations in the state. In 1941 the Extension Service
received an increased appropriation from the state legis-
lature for dairy extension work with special emphasis on
supervision of DHIA. Yet in the fifty years that the
program has been operative in Vermont, only a minority

of dairymen have availed themselves of its service.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purpose and Objectives

This study will investigate factors influencing
participation in dairy herd improvement work. Primary
emphasis will concern an evaluation of why dairymen
participate in, drop out of, or never join associations
operating with central laboratory and office facilities.
The specific objectives of the study are as follows:

1. To determine the effect of the structure

and method of operation of local associ-
ations on participation.

2. To discover any relationships existing

between characteristics of farmers, farms,
and participation.

3. To determine the use made of test and
record data in day-to-day management
decisions as determined by factors con-
sidered in feeding, breeding, and culling.

h. To investigate farmers' opinions on

various aspects of a test and record
program.

5. To suggest improvements in organization
and method of operation of dairy herd
improvement associations.

Information obtained in this study will be of value
to the extension dairymen in charge of DHIA work, the
directors of the state and local associations, county
extension workers, and local dairy farmers. It will be
useful in making corrective adjustments in the dairy herd
improvement program; especially as these concern the structure
of the local association, the method of operation, and the

type of information and educational assistance provided.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Theoretical Background

Participation in a dairy herd improvement program
involves both benefits and costs. These may be monetary
or nonmonetary in nature. They may be realized or antici-
pated. Further, it can be argued that realized monetary
benefits or costs may be actual or imagined.

Benefits are dependent upon the participant to the
extent that he has the knowledge and ability to use infor-
mation provided; to the extent that he is motivated to do
so; and to the extent that he may realize nonmonetary
satisfactions from participation. Benefits are dependent
upon the program to the extent that it provides information
or services useful in arriving at economically sound de-
cisions; and to the extent that it offers nonmonetary
satisfactions.

Costs are dependent upon the participant to the
extent that he has alternative uses for the necessary
expenditure of time and money; and to the extent that his
subjective values cause him to realize dissatisfaction
from participation. They are dependent upon the program to
the extent that they are influenced by such factors as
efficiency of operation and cost differentials by size of
herd and type of test; and to the extent that such factors
as method of operation or personalities involved lead to

dissatisfactions.

 

 

 

Hypotheses

In any given year, fewer than one dairymen in four
has participated in a dairy herd improvement program in
Vermont. More than half of the dairymen of the state have
never participated. In view of this situation and the fact
that presumed advantages of participation have been promoted
for more than fifty years, it would seem that serious short-
comings exist in: (a) the organizational setup for con-
ducting the program, or (b) the adequacy of the information
provided, or (c) the ability of dairymen to utilize this
information, or a combination of factors in these areas.

The specific hypotheses which guide this study are as
follows:

1. The traditional local association is an
antiquated organizational structure which
places serious limitations on expansion
of enrollment in dairy herd improvement
work.

2. The traditional "standard test” is a
generally unnecessary and costly procedure
which seriously limits enrollment in dairy
herd improvement work.

3. Participation is associated with age,
education, community leadership activities,
size of business, production levels, and
other measurable characteristics of farmers
and farms. Knowledge of these character-
istics would be valuable in making corrective
adjustments to enhance enrollment.

h. Dairymen who drop out of or never join the
program consider different factors than
participants in feeding, breeding, and
culling.

 

5. Farmers hold beliefs concerning grain feeding
practices which place serious limitations on
the economic value of test and record data
and thus on the value of participation.

6. Participation is aesociated with opinions
concerning the adequacy of information and
services provided.

7. Participation is associated with the amount-
of assistance received in utilizing test
and record data in making day-to-day manage—
ment decisions. Many dairymen who drOp out
do so because they are dissatisfied with the
amount of assistance received from their
supervisor or county agent.

8. Participation is limited by the awareness
and interest of nonparticipants.

Method and Scope of Study

If dairy herd improvement work is to be expanded
in Vermont it is necessary that there be a better under-
standing of factors influencing participation. It is
recognized that an accurate identification of all the
causal factors influencing dairymen to participate in,
drop out of, or never join a test and record program is
an important though all but impossible task. Innumerable
variables associated with each farm operator, each farm
business, each supervisor, and each association preclude
a comprehensive determination. This study will investigate
the influence of the rigid organizational and operational
structure of the traditional association on enrollment.
However, primary emphasis of the study will concern an

evaluation of why dairymen participate in, drop out of,

 

 

 

 

I
I

 

 

or never join the program in areas serviced by associations

operating with central laboratory and office facilities.

The influence of the organizational and operational
structure of the local association on current enrollment
can be most readily determined by reviewing its influence
on enrollment in years past. An investigation of the
growth and development of dairy herd improvement work in
Vermont is therefore relevant to this study. This in-
vestigation will utilize reports prepared by persons
directly or indirectly responsible for the program since
its inception. It will study growth and development as
associated with the rigid framework which largely governs
the program to the present day. This will be done in
sufficient detail to determine the influence of this
framework on enrollment and to suggest corrective adjustments
to enhance participation.

Participation in central testing associations was
selected for primary emphasis because these associations
appear to offer the greatest potential for future expansion
of dairy herd improvement work. Enrollment in areas
serviced by such associations is not restricted by possible
limitations peculiar to the organization and method of
operation of traditional units. Dairymen were selected
as a source of information concerning participation since
in the final analysis, in areas serviced by central associ-
ations, the decision to participate, to drop out, or to not

join rests with the individual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ll'II lll :I

 

 

The questions asked of dairymen in the study are

designed to provide information in three broad areas.

These areas concern characteristics of farmers and farms;
factors considered in decisions related to feeding, culling,
and breeding; and opinions regarding such factors as the
adequacy of information and service and why dairymen
participate, drop out, or never join a test and record
association.

The Sagple.-The objectives of this study dictated
that the sample be drawn from areas serviced by associations
operating with central laboratory and office facilities.
There were five such areas in the state. Three areas were
serviced exclusively by central associations. Two of these
were county oriented; the third was so defined geographically
as to include only that portion of a county serviced by a
central association. The two remaining areas were serviced
by local as well as central associations. One of these
two areas was within the geographic limits of a county;
the other included portions of two counties.

The objectives of the study necessitated that the
data be obtained from dairymen and, furthermore, that the
dairymen contacted be representative of each of three
participation categories. The three categories are broadly
delineated by the farm operator's experience with dairy
herd improvement work. The first includes all dairymen
within the defined areas who had completed at least one

 

full year on test and were currently enrolled in a test

and record program operated by a central testing associ-
ation. The second includes operators of active dairy
farm businesses who were known to have dropped out of the
program. The third category includes dairymen who had
never participated in a test and record program.

Dairymen representative of each participation
category were randomly selected from lists of dairymen
in each category in each area. The lists (fifteen) were
developed in the following manner. Participants' names
were obtained from association supervisors. These names
were compiled and listed alphabetically for each associ-
ation. Dairymen who had completed less than one Year on
test were eliminated.

Ex-participants' names were more difficult to
obtain. Lists were developed from records kept at the
state office, from association records, and from the
recollections of association supervisors and county ex-
tension agents. Supervisors and agents were also helpful
in adjusting the lists by identifying dairymen who no
longer kept cows. These were dropped from the sample.
The initial sample was supplemented during the field
enumeration through contact with dairymen originally
presumed to have been nonparticipants.

Nonparticipants' names were obtained by using town

listers' reports as a point of departure. Town listers'

 

 

 

| |l.llllllllllll|4

 

 

 

 

10

reports include names of all persons who keep livestock,
together with the number of each important type of livestock
kept as of April 1 of each year. Alphabetic lists of
dairymen so obtained were first reduced by eliminating all
who kept fewer than fifteen cows or heifers two years old

or older. Names of all dairymen known to have participated
in,a dairy herd improvement program at one time or another
were similarly eliminated. This was accomplished with the
assistance of county extension.agents, association supervisors,
and state office and local association records. A number
of dairymen incorrectly identified as nonparticipants were
eliminated during the field enumeration.

_The sample was drawn to include, from each area,
thirty participants, four to sixteen ex-participants, and
ten nonparticipants. All were randomly selected with
this exception-—in four areas having fewer than fifteen
known ex-participants, records were obtained from all.

One alternate was initially selected for each participant
and two alternates for each nonparticipant. In this manner
it was possible to obtain the desired number of records.
However, three participants' records had to be eliminated
from the study because of unusual circumstances. The
completed sample, therefore, included records from 1“?
participants, 53 exaparticipants, and 50 nonparticipants.

Collection of data.-—Data for the study were

gathered by personal interview. This was done during the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11

months of June and July 1958 by three specially trained
enumerators. Methods used in the personal interviews
included open-end questions, with the respondent being
encouraged to express his personal viewpoints; and fact-
seeking questions, where the respondent was required to
give definite information. Indirect questions were also
used in an effort to determine the respondent's feelings
toward participation. The questions and the sequence in
which they were asked were designed to delay the respondent's
awareness of the fact that the survey was primarily con-
cerned with dairy herd improvement work. Three questions
naires were used——one for each participation group. A
major reason for using different schedules was to facilitate
the exact wording of certain questions, and so assure that
each enumerator stated the question in the same way to each
respondent.

All dairymen in the sample were sent a letter prior
to the survey. This informed each farm operator that he
had been selected to represent dairymen of Vermont in a
study of farm practices; that his assistance was essential;
and that his replies to all questions asked would be treated
as confidential. It was meant to assure each that many of
the questions would have no right or wrong answer-—that
they were being asked to determine things farmers consider
in reaching certain decisions. To keep the interview as

objective as possible, the respondent was never voluntarily

 

 

 

12

informed that the study bore any particular relation to
the dairy herd improvement program.

Method of analysis.-—A combination of tabulations
and the strip method of analysis was used in analyzing the
data obtained in the field survey. Averages and frequen-
cies as well as group relationships could be readily obtained
when data were handled in this manner. Statistical tests
of significance were used in all cases where applicable.1

Regardless of the methods of analysis, the inter-
pretation of data in a study of this type must be largely
subjective. This is true as it concerns the interpretation
of reports related to the influence of the organization
and method of operation of traditional associations on
participation. It is particularly true when evaluating
knowledge and opinions of dairymen. Since knowledge and
opinions do not lend themselves to quantitative analysis,
this study is a combination of quantitative description——

reviewing factors such as age, education, and size of

 

lBasic formula used to test significance of differ-
ence between sample means:

 

$3? -5! = V(az)2+(&x)2.
l 2 1 2
If the computed t = x1 XR & EL , the difference is
& -
11-x2
significant at the 5 percent level. That is, only 5 times
out of 100 could these differences have occurred by chance
alone. For reference see Croxton and Cowden, Applied General
Statistics 2d ed.; Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
. pp. 51-54.

 

 

 

13

business associated with dairymen in three participation
groups——and qualitative analysis of opinions of dairymen
who participate in, drop out of, or never join a dairy herd

improvement program.

Procedure for Reporting

The remaining parts of this study present results
of the investigation. Chapter II will deal with the
initiation and development of the dairy herd improvement
program in Vermont. It will briefly describe the organ-
izational and operational framework of the traditional
association and will relate enrollment over the years to
factors associated with this framework. Chapter III will
present the findings of a survey designed to increase our
understanding of why the dairymen who participate in a
dairy herd improvement association do so; why the dairymen
who drop out of a dairy herd improvement association do so;
and why some dairymen never participate.

The implications of the research and possible
adjustments to enhance participation will be discussed in
Chapter IV.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER II

DAIRY HERD IMPROVEMENT WORK IN VERMONT

 

 

 

CHAPTER II

DAIRY HERD IMPROVEMENT WORK IN VERMONT

Initiation and Leadership

The first 'cow testing association“ in Vermont was
organized in Morrisville in 1908. At that time there were
but six associations in the nation, the first of which was
established in Fremont, Michigan in 1905. Dairy herd im-
provement work in Vermont owes this early introduction to
the untiring and unofficial persistence of one man, Joseph
L. Hills, Dean of the College of Agriculture.

Responsibility for assistance in the organization
of subsequent associations was first assumed by the State
Board of Agriculture under the immediate direction of the
Commissioner. As early as 1912, when it became evident
that special assistance was needed for supervising associ-
ations to make their work effective, the State Experiment
Station cooperated in hiring the part-time services of
one man. \

Later, in 1917, when financial assistance was
received from the Dairy Division of the United States
Department of Agriculture, an extension dairymen was

appointed to take charge. However, the program remained

15

 

16

under the direct supervision of the State Department of
Agriculture. Since that year (1917) the extension dairymen
and county extension agents have had primary responsibility
for locating and training supervisors, purchasing supplies,
speaking at annual meetings, publicizing record information,
and enforcing all the rules of the program.

In l92h the Vermont Agricultural Extension Service
assumed official responsibility for the supervision of
the work in the state. An extensive system of monthly
and annual reports was developed and, in 1932, to enable
the dairy specialist to devote more time to educational and
promotional work, a State Dairy Herd Improvement Association
was formed. With the dues collected, an office secretary
was hired to supervise the details of record work.

However, not until June 19bl were the general
direction and supervision of DHIA in Vermont more than a
part-time responsibility of any one person. In that year
the State Legislature appropriated special funds for dairy
extension work with emphasis on supervision of DHIA. This
appropriation was made in response to repeated pleas for
financial assistance on the grounds that: (a) the number
of associations was too large to be handled by one part-
time worker, and (b) it would be easily possible to enlarge
association work with sufficient help for supervision and
promotion. The increased funds were used to secure the

services of an assistant extension dairymen to devote full

time to the program.

 

 

 

 

17

The Local Association

A traditional association—-the focus of dairy herd
improvement work in the state-—is a cooperative organization
of dairy farmers united to employ a technician to keep feed,
production, income, and breeding records on their cows. It
is bound together by a constitution and bylaws.

The formal authority for handling all its business
affairs and for directing its program of herd improvement
rests with a board of directors consisting of five active
members. The board of directors usually delegates this
responsibility to its officers——a president and a secretary-
treasurer. The latter rely heavily upon their county ex—
tension agent and the extension dairymen for counseling
and assistance in all the affairs of the association.

Members of a local association are bound to it by
an agreement which may be terminated by either party with
one month's notice. A meeting of the general membership
is held annually for the purpose of electing a board of
directors and transacting other necessary business. A
summary and analysis of the year's record work is presented
for discussion and study at this meeting. Usually the
program includes a discussion of some improved herd-
management practices.

Two points in relation to the organization and
operation of local associations are of particular interest.

First, membership has, until recent years, been limited

 

18

by the number of herds which will provide a full month's
work for one supervisor. A full membership in a traditional
association-—one whose members are all enrolled in standard
testing—-is generally limited to twenty-six dairymen.2 This
is necessary because the supervisor must be present at each
farm enrolled in standard testing at two consecutive milkings
each month.

The second point of interest in understanding the
development of dairy herd improvement work is the dependence
of an association upon one man. This one indispensable
man-the tester, later named supervisor-—is the sole employee
of the association. The quality of work, the continuity of
record data, and the association itself depend upon his
capabilities and interest and upon the availability of his

replacement in time of need.

The Supervisor and His Job
A supervisor's work with a traditional association
requires that he visit each farm on two consecutive milkings.
He must be present at night milkings as late as 9 p.m. or
later and at morning milkings as early as h a.m. or earlier.
In the evening he weighs the feed and milk of each cow and

takes a sample of the milk for testing. He records all

 

2The average number of herds on standard test per
association in Vermont each year for the years 1919-1958
ranged from sixteen to twenty-four, the most common number
being twenty.

 

19

figures in a barnbook from which he transfers them to a
herd-record book. The barnbook is his record of the work
and the herdbook the farmer's record. The following morning
the supervisor again weighs the feed and milk and takes
another sample for testing. He mixes the two samples
thoroughly and tests the composite for butterfat.

The day the test is made is considered as the
middle day of the testing period. The record of that day
is multiplied by the number of days in the period to obtain
monthly data. During the year, as each cow completes the
first 305 days of her lactation, the supervisor is expected
to report her production record, together with her breed,
date of birth, date of freshening, identification number,
and the identification numbers of her sire and dam, to the
extension dairymen in charge of dairy herd improvement work.
At the end of the testing year he is expected to summarize
the herdbooks and prepare a complete report of the year's
work, which includes feed and production data and returns
above feed costs, both individually and collectively, for
all of the cows in each herd on test.

The qualifications desired in a supervisor were
first outlined as follows: "The ability accurately to
make a Babcock test is but one of the many necessary
attributes which this employee should possess. He must
be neat, accurate, a rapid workman, must handle figures

easily and accurately, write plainly; must be obliging,

 

 

 

20

tactful, pleasant in his bearing, and well informed con-
cerning agricultural matters in general and dairy matters
in particular."3 "The number of men who are both mentally
and temperamentally fitted to undertake it (the work) is
small.'h

A statement made in 1910 describing the Job and
the financial return accurately forecast one of the major
problems which has confronted dairy herd improvement work
to the present day. ”The main difficulty, however, is
and bids fair to be the lack of adequate test operators.
The stipend does not attract the men who are best adapted
to this line of work. . . . It is a confining and an
irksome kind of work. It is sometimes difficult to keep
men at it a second year, for the chance of advancement is
not great and the routine becomes monotonous. It is not
clear Just how this difficulty may be met, and it may well
prove to be the limiting factor in the increase in the

number of these associations, both here and elsewhere.'5

Participation and the Indispensable Man
The historic dependence of an association upon its

sole employee coupled with the chronic difficulty of hiring

 

3Joseph L. Hills, ”A Year's Record of Three Vermont
Cow Testing Associations,“ Cow Testi Association Number,
Vermont Agriculture Bulletin No. 5 (Montpelier: Capital
City Press, 1910), p. 7.

“H1113, 31.

5Hills, 31.

 

 

 

21

and retaining qualified workers has resulted in a continuous
turnover in associations as well as violent fluctuations
in association numbers. The latter plummeted from the
growth peak of forty-two active units reached as early as
1916 to twelve in 1919; and from forty-three in 1941 to
twenty-three in 19h§ (Fig. 1). These two drastic declines
were in each instance closely associated with war service
demands for men, and with the prevalence of alternative Job
opportunities.

Less dramatic fluctuations, each tied closely to
the availability of supervisory workers, have occurred
throughout the history of the program. In l92h, when
association numbers had dropped to fourteen (from twenty-one
two years earlier), it was stated: "It is very difficult
to secure supervisors for cow test associations, and due
to this cause it has been necessary to discontinue some
associations."6 In 1926: “The shortage of testers of
the right type has kept down association work and discouraged
many from remaining with an association when a new untried
tester was put in charge."7 Incidentally, in 1926, 62

percent of the associations changed testers at least once;

 

6Stanley G. Judd, ”Annual Report of the Dairy
Specialist, December 1, 1922 - December 1, 1923' (unpublished
data, Vermont Agricultural Extension Service, The university
of Vermont), p. 5.

7Edward H. Loveland, “Annual Report of the Dairy
Specialist, December 1, 1925 - December 1, 1926' (unpublished
data, Vermont Agricultural Extension Service, The University
of Vermont), pp. 3-4.

 

 

—
r.
c
e -
u
'.
r

 

.mnmansoma name» .323 you peep hoanamuuaenso use use» uncommon so once uo
senses and 283303: 9:05:29: use: has". me poses: no dengue-colt" .wam

 

    

 

 

93%
who." gmH ONaH 500.."
o A u q 1 fl 1 u q u 1 [1 o
a ‘
3 u i. x . S
. ‘
o a ..
m 1. . m
0 ON I (s I ON 0.
u u
a m m
a. on .. puma campuses so msoolvmw . on u
n ..... u
u. a o
O a...» I.
n s
m. means—me awmuw n...
.. I .. .. o
s o: so 960 II! o... m
.. I ll. one» so once Haven.
on . 1 . on
Al 3033033 no hopes,—
ow ow

 

 

 

.- -_—..-
‘

 

 

one

yea

was
193‘
8th
In J
rene
find
inpr
hard
resu1

anotl

upon
ment
the u
first
This 1

Cream.

DeGemb.
Decembe

DGOSMbe

 

23

one changed five times in three months. In the following
year, 90 percent changed at least once.

Only during the depression years of the early 1930's
was there no problem in securing or retaining testers. In
1931: "There has been less shift in testers in the associ-
ations than usual, and also a larger number of applicants."8
In 1932: 'Hany of the testers are better satisfied to
remain now even at a lower price, than take the chance of
finding a new Job."9 However, as economic conditions
improved and as early as 1936, the old cry, "it is becoming
harder each year to hold good testers on the'job,"10 was
resumed. This statement has been repeated in one way or

another to the present day.

Participation and Innovations in the Program
Two developments have had significant influence

upon the expansion of participation in dairy herd improve-
ment work. Each was designed to increase efficiency in
the use of a supervisor's service. The influence of the
first innovation-—bimonthly testing-was of short duration.
This procedure, sponsored by United Farmers Cooperative
Creamery, was introduced in 1939, and discarded three years

 

Bloveland, "Annual Report . . ., December 1, 1930 -
December 1, 1931,” 13.

9Loveland, ”Annual Report . . ., December 1, 1931 -
December 1, 1932," 12.

10Loveland, "Annual Report . . ., December 1, 1935 -
December 1, 1936,” 8.

 

 

 

24

later as a result of difficulties in securing capable super-
visory help. During its brief existence, this program ex-
panded to include eight associations, each of which serviced
nearly twice the normal number of herds. The program‘
accounted for 70 percent of the increase in cows on test

in the entire state in 1939, and 73 percent of the increase
in 1940. In Just two years the share of cows on test in
the two counties most affected Jumped from less than 5
percent in each county to 10 percent in one, and 19 percent
in the other.

The second innovation-—owner-sampler testing-again
sponsored by United Farmers, was introduced in 1945. This
new program, as well as a similar one subsequently sponsored
by the Whiting Milk Company, was of short duration.

In regard to innovations in testing procedures, it
should be noted that cattle breeders have an incentive,
whether or not recognized, to perpetuate the standard test.
"by? It is required by breed associations and by common
acceptance in authenticating production records. Thus,
while the system provides unnecessary and costly objective
production data for commercial milk producers, their
participation shares or subsidizes the cost of this service
to breeders.

Owner-sampler testing has, however, assumed an im-
portant place in dairy herd improvement work. In fact,

owner-sampler testing, in conjunction with central testing

 

 

 

25

laboratories, has been responsible for most of the expansion
in participation since 1953 (Fig. 1). Over the five years
(1953-1958), the number of cows on standard test has leveled
off at about 40,000, or 15 percent of the dairy cows in

the state. During the same period, the number on owner-
sampler test has increased from approximately 5,000, or 2
percent, to 20,000, or 8 percent of the cows in the state.
In fifty years of dairy herd improvement work, the program
has thus expanded to include approximately 23 percent of

the dairy cows in Vermont.

Central Testing Associations

Five central testing associations are operative
in Vermont. The first was organized in Orleans County
in 1948. It replaced the one small local unit operating
in the area. This central association was patterned
after similar ones in Wisconsin. It was the first non-
sponsored association in Vermont to offer owner-sampler
testing and the first to provide test and record service
to all interested dairymen within a county.

The second central association, organized five
years later in Lamoille County, resulted from the merger of
two locals. The locals-each of which was in need of a
tester-united in an effort to create a single organization
strong enough to finance the hiring of one capable

supervisor.

 

 

 

 

26

Two more central associations were established
three years later-—one in Rutland County and the other in
Windsor and Windham Counties. The Rutland association
was organized from the membership of three geographically
scattered locals. Although an attempt was made to establish
this organization as a countywide unit, the three better
associations in the county chose not to unite. The Windsor-
Windham association was organized to serve dairymen in
parts of both counties. Its membership also came from three
scattered locals. It too failed in an attempt to unite
three strong locals operating within the same area.

The fifth and last central association to be
organized in Vermont was established in Franklin County
in 1957. This association was initiated through the
action of a local supervisor who, in 1956, took over the
supervision of two local units. The following year this
combined unit absorbed a third local and, with the assistance
of the county extension agent, was organized as a central
testing association. Again an attempt was made to expand
the initial membership to include participants of all
associations in the county. However, the five remaining
units chose to maintain their local status.

These five central testing associations differ from
traditional associations in several important ways, Differ-
ences can be most meaningfully defined by first listing
their common characteristics and then their points of

 

 

 

27

departure. Each performs owner-sampler testing, employs
more than a single worker, and practices some degree of
Job specialization-—all of which enables each to operate
more efficiently than a traditional association in terms
of cows and herds tested per worker. At the same time,
each central association differs from the other four as
well as from traditional associations. Obvious dissimi-
larities concern size, share of members on standard and
owner-sampler test, division and specialization of labor,

growth, and physical facilities.

Observations

The expansion of dairy herd improvement work in
Vermont has, historically, been faced with one major
deterrent-—the difficulty of hiring and retaining qualified
workers. until recent years, sampling procedure has
limited membership in a local association to the number
of herds one supervisor could visit on two consecutive
milkings each month. Participation in dairy herd im-
provement work has, accordingly, varied directly with the
number of associations functioning at any particular time.
The number of active associations has, in turn, depended
almost entirely upon the availability of men willing to
work as supervisors at the wages offered. Dairymen in
local associations have never demonstrated an interest in
raising wages to a level sufficient to attract and keep

good men. Thus, the number of associations and the number

 

28

of participants have fluctuated with the availability of
alternative job opportunities. At the same time, a large

share of the time and effort extension workers have devoted

to dairy herd improvement work has been used in locating

and training supervisors, and in other necessary organizational
and promotional activities; a comparatively small share has
been devoted to educational activities.

Owner-sampler testing-—an alternative sampling
procedure whereby each dairymen takes his own samples-
provides substantially the same test and record data as the
standard test. However, the data so obtained does not re-
ceive official recognition from the breed associations.
Consequently, it is of no value to a purebred cattle breeder
interested in establishing official records to enhance the
sales value of his stock. Yet, this procedure, by elimi-
nating the necessity for the supervisor's presence at two
consecutive milkings each month, has increased the number
of herds one man can handle.

The establishment of associations operating with
central laboratory and office facilities, in conjunction
with owner-sampler testing, has further enhanced the
efficiency of supervisory help and has thus paved the
way for increased participation among the commercial dairy
herds within an area. Such associations have the potential
to: (a) pay competitive wages without raising fees to

'participants through economies of scale, job specialization,

 

 

 

29

and wage differentials among employees; (b) remove possible
physical limitations on participation within an area through
increased flexibility of association size; (c) provide
neighboring dairymen with substantially the same data at a
differentiated cost through owner-sampler testing and
standard testing; (d) relieve uncertainty as to continuity
of service through the flexibility of a larger staff and the
stabilizing influence of competitive wages; (e) improve the
quality of service provided through the employment of quali-
fied and superior-trained workers; (f) relieve extension of
the unproportionate share of time and effort required in
locating and training supervisors and in performing other
necessary organizational work; and (g) enable the associ-
ation to adapt a more businesslike accounting system.
Unfortunately, none of the five associations is
so organized or operated as to realize all of the potential
advantages of a central testing association.11 However,
they have been successful in removing any fixed limitation
on the number of participants within the wide areas which

they service.

 

11This conclusion is supported by the author's
unpublished time-cost analysis of associations operating
with central office and laboratory facilities.

 

 

CHAPTER III

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH PARTICIPATION

 

 

 

CHAPTER III

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH PARTICIPATION

Characteristics of Farms and Farmers

Participation in a dairy herd improvement program,
in areas serviced by central testing associations, is open
to all dairymen. Yet in any given year, even in these
areas, fewer than one dairyman in four is enrolled. Do
dairymen who participate, drop out, or never join differ ,
in recognizable ways? To test the hypothesis that partici-
pation is associated with certain personal and economic
characteristics of farms and farmers, comparisons were made
of nine selected variables., These were chosen because it
was felt that they would give an informal cross section
of the interests, knowledge, and managerial ability of each
participation group. Knowledge of these characteristics
should be valuable in planning adjustments in the program
to better meet the needs of the one dairymen in four who
participates, as well as those of the three out of four
who have dropped out or have never joined.

Ag§.-Participation is associated with age to the
extent that dairymen who dropped out of the program are

31

 

 

 

 

 

 

32

significantly12 younger than dairymen who never joined.

The average age of ex-participants was forty-three years.
Nonparticipants were forty-eight years old. Ex-participants
were also younger than participants——average age forty-six
years-—but not significantly so.

The age distribution of dairymen within groups
emphasizes the comparative youth of dairymen who dropped
out. “Nearly three out of four were between thirty-one and
fifty-two years of age. Only one of two dairymen in the
other participation groups were of similar ago; more than
twice as many were older than fifty-two years.

The fact that the majority of dairymen who dropped
out did so in their most productive years has implications
as to the usefulness of test and record data to them. It
would appear, for one reason or another, that they were not
deriving potential benefits from information provided.

Education.-—Participants completed a significantly
higher level of formal education than nonparticipants.

The average level attained by dairymen varied among groups

as follows: participants, 11.2 years; ex-participants,

10.3 years; and nonparticipants, 9.1 years. Differences
between participants and ex-participants, and ex-participants
and nonparticipants were not significant.

 

12The significance of difference between sample
means was uniformily tested following the procedure outlined
in footnote 1, p. 12.

 

 

 

 

,lf‘ll’ll, l'|

 

33

The lower level of formal education attained by
nonparticipants is most apparent from the following
figures: 88 percent completed grade school as compared
with 94 percent of the other participation groups; only
20 percent completed high school as compared with 68 percent
and 43 percent respectively of participants and ex-partici-
pants; and but 2 percent completed a year or more of college
as compared with 30 percent of the participants and 11 percent
of the ex-participants.

Since level of education is associated with partici-
pation, it might be inferred that dairymen who dropped out
or never joined lacked the formal education necessary to
use test and record data. However, it seems more likely
that level of education is only incidentally associated
with participation and is not in itself a limiting factor.
This conclusion is reached in view of their average level
of formal education, the simple nature of the information
provided, and the relatively low degree of knowledge required
for practical application.

Socigl pgrticipgtion.-—An understanding of the
degree of leadership exercised by dairymen in each partici-
pation group is important to this study. It serves to
identify dairymen of each group. Of greater importance, it
has implications concerning possible limitations to en-
rollment in the program in Vermont. As discussed in

Chapter II, the organization and method of operation of

 

 

traditional associations tend to limit enrollment within an

area to the number of dairymen one supervisor can visit on
two consecutive milkings each month. Thus, to the extent
that a local association includes the leaders of an area,
the formation of successive associations would be expected
to become progressively more difficult. Each would be
confronted with an increasingly greater leadership problem.
Participation in community activities is frequently
an indication of community leadership. The Chapin Social
Participation Scale13 was used in an attempt to determine
variations in leadership exercised by dairymen of each
participation group. This scale measures the degree of
a person's or family's participation in community groups
and institutions. It repeatedly gives high degrees of
correlation between scores and community leadership
activities. Scores were developed from respondents'
replies to questions concerning membership in formal
organizations, regularity of attendance, whether or not
they made financial contributions, and if they were
currently holding an office or serving on committees.
The same questions were asked regarding the spouse. In
scoring, points were given for membership, extent of

activity, and other factors. Scores were ranked as

 

13F. Stuart Chapin, E erimental Desi s in Socio-
logical Research (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1955).

 

‘JIIIIII

 

35

follows: 0-9, inactive to slightly active; 10-19, moderately
active; 20-29, active; and 30 and up, very active.

Participants attained an average score of 12-—sig-
nificantly higher than ex-participants or nonparticipants
who scored 6 and 4 respectively. This could be interpreted
to indicate that the average participant in a dairy herd
improvement association was moderately active, and possibly
a leader, in his community. In contrast, the average
ex-participant or nonparticipant was at best but slightly
active in formally organized community groups.

The distribution of "leaders“ within and among
groups as illustrated in Fig. 2 offers a more effective
means of comparison. This shows that 56 percent of the
participants classified as inactive to slightly active,
compared with 72 percent and 84 percent of ex-participants
and nonparticipants respectively. At the other extreme,

13 percent of the participants were very active, compared
with only 2 percent of the ex-participants and no non-
participants. On a Social—Participation-Scale base,
dairymen who do not participate appear to lack the leader-
ship that is essential in organizing and operating a
dairy herd improvement association.

Concept of a ‘good' rate of production.——Production
per cow has long been recognized as an important factor
influencing the profitability of a dairy farm business.

Assuming economic rationality, dairymen can be expected to

 

 

 

 

.oamom soapauoapamm Hmdoom 5998 on» no women
mangoes: heads—goo wagons“. museum soapmaaoapama 095» «o monoculte. .3.“

H33 no somehow

 

        

  
 

   

       
          

   

OOH ow ow 0.: ON O
.oooeeeeeeeeeoeeoeeeeeoooeoeooo o... I
e e e e e e e e eeeeeeeeeeeee e e e e e e o e e co» cowowowuwnooooo e e... m 0
6 .....
3 s
O..1.4.4.-......0.0.0.... O O O
«3.4.54.4.er r... ..... 3:3 u
+o~

mummnaodvamnooz
g munmndogumanwm
% camouflaged.”

 

 

 

 

 

37

be aware of the importance of attaining good production;
and, therefore, to have some goal or standard which signifies
a good production level.

To determine whether differences existed among
participation groups in knowledge of or ability to recognize
good production standards, each dairymen was asked: "What
do you consider to be a good rate of production per cow as
a herd average?” It was explained that the inquiry was
directed towards no particular hard. This was done so that
the level reported would not be limited by what the in-
dividual felt to be the productive potential of his own herd.

Opinions as to what constitutes a “good“ rate of
production on an annual basis were not significantly differ-
ent among groups. The average ”good“ levels cited were as
follows: participants, 10,049 pounds; ex-participants,
10,268 pounds; and nonparticipants, 9,279 pounds. However,
dairymen who had never joined a test and record program
differed from participants and ex-participants in at least
three respects as related to their concept of a I‘good" level
of production. First, 14 percent of the nonparticipants,
as compared with no dairymen in the other participation
groups, were unable or unwilling to state an amount of milk
that would constitute a ”good“ level. Second, 26 percent
of those nonparticipants who had some concept of a “good”
level of production stated it in terms of a daily rate

rather than an annual. Thirteen percent of the ex-participants

 

 

I Ill-fl I fl‘l. .|

 

38

reported in this manner, and but 2 percent of the partici-
pants. Daily rates have considerably less value than
annual rates as a standard of production. One reason is
that daily rates are not likely to give sufficient recog-
nition to differences among animals in persistency of
production and in butterfat content of milk.

Honparticipants also differed from the other two
groups in that only about one-half (52 percent) of those
who cited a “good" level of production stated amounts in
excess of 8,500 pounds per cow. This compares with 84
percent and 83 percent of participants and ex-participants
respectively. These differences indicate that nonpartici-
pants are less aware than other groups of 'good' production
levels. This is undoubtedly an important factor influencing
their interest in participating in dairy herd improvement
work.

Knowledge 0; recommended feegigg standards.-—Know-
ledge of the nutritional requirements of dairy cows as
influenced by differences in milk and butterfat production
is essential in attaining maximum benefit from participation
in a dairy herd improvement program and, incidentally, in
the profitable Operation of dairy herds.

To determine whether differences existed among
participation groups in knowledge of recommended grain
feeding standards, each dairymen was requested to indicate

the amount of concentrates required under given circum-

stances. The question: "We would like to get your views

 

 

Ybr

rem
mug
libe
or r
cont
butt

 

39

as to how much grain (dairy ration) is necessary during

the barn feeding season in order to maintain milk production.
Assume these cows test the same as your herd and that they
are getting all the good quality roughage they will eat.

How much grain is required to maintain daily production

(for stated quantities of milk)?“ At this point, each
respondent was given a card which listed eight levels of
"daily milk production“ and provided space for recording
"grain required“ at each leve1.1u Suggested rates at five15
levels of production were scored using Morrison's feeding
standards as a base.16 Recommended quantities allowed for
a range in quantity and quality of roughage and for vari-

17

ations in butterfat content of milk. Scores were

 

1""Generally, the respondent studied the card and
gave verbal replies which were recorded by the enumerator
on the field questionnaire. A very few dairymen volunteered
that they would not normally determine grain feeding re-
quirements without reference to a feeding chart or table.

15The lowest level (twelve pounds) and the highest
levels (eighty-four and ninety-six pounds) were not scored;
the former because recommended amounts are so largely
dependent upon circumstances peculiar to each farm operation,
and the latter because the highest levels were believed to
be beyond the experience of most dairymen.

16?. B. Morrison, Feeds and Feedi (22d ed.; New
York: The Morrison Publishing Company, 19 6).

17Recommended requirements at each production level
represent a range, the limits of which were determined by
roughage quality (ranging from "two and a half pounds-very
liberal feeding of good roughage-—to two pounds-usual rate
of feeding good hay or good hay and silage”), and butterfat
content of milk (in categories of less than 3.8 percent
butterfat; 3.8-4.2 percent; 4.3-4.7 percent; 4.8-5.2 percent;
and 5.3 percent or more).

 

 

 

 

 

".I|I|‘ .II

 

4O

computed arbitrarily at each production level by subtracting
five points from a possible score of 100 for each pound
that the suggested amount of grain either exceeded or fell
below the recommended range. Thus, the conformity of dairy-
men's views of feed requirements with recommended amounts
is directly related to scores received.

The mean score received by participants for the
five levels of production was 75. As indicated by scores
received at each production level, participants were gener-
ally aware of recommended feeding standards at low levels
of production,18 but were very inadequately informed at
high levels (Fig. 3). Of equal significance, participants
who suggested amounts outside the recommended range more
frequently overstated requirements at low production levels
and understated requirements at high levels (Table 1).

The mean score received by ex-participants was
only slightly lower than that of participants-73 as com-
pared with 75. Furthermore, ex-participants' opinions
as to grain requirements paralleled those of participants'—-
they too were better informed at low production levels
than at high levels. A greater share overstated require-
ments at low levels and understated requirements at high

levels. Yet in one respect ex-participants demonstrated

 

18At least their opinions as to required amounts
generally coincided with recommended amounts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IE _
O n
O
0
0H
MO
U0
3
O
a
um
m:
”8 e
0
U
U9
H
O
on
m
P
“OH”
6
a
do
a:
”on
“Q 0
0
on
D.
098
NO
on
O O
O
m
|
e m
m
. chm
H
m
00
w
E

A x
H
as
no
u
use
0
9
V
s
o
d
ooze
o
.-
n
h
H
as
u
no
Ho
.-
0...-

      

                            

 

 

      

 
           

 

 

           

 

 

           
       

 

                     

 
             

                        

 

     

 
 

 

    

 

            

    

              

 

        

 

 

 

 

 

         

           

   

      

              
 

1
I4 _
m
HQ
>
0
H 0
>
an
Nu.
.‘
oooo
"an“
oooo
oooo
oeoo W
coo. M
g .
oo
m 000 3N
u.“ “Mun
oooo . .
mu. an oooo ”no.
u so so "mm mm
3.“de «0.x o ”nu. O
Q 0 fl ooo
a Q oooo
d 9h a» oooo
O eeee
H. a O ooo
D. Q z 0000..
on I oooo.”
“ N 0000. o
. e a... N
”a“
oeee
ooee
O...
O... o
9.... 3
"an".
ooeo
an".
oooo S
”as” e ..
..... w o
v...“ N
.....
as"
oo.
” cm
0
OH

 

 

 

 

 

-
o . muflOSOhHSUOL fl GEM

1:! it I GIG DTa #U mflOHumUfiOn—EOOOA IOHOQ «no Obonfl 3.2.315 . .n

t . .wfimvmowwsm moahhdwm ho dauphonoea ho unschw fledunndoduhdn 30.5w fiendknasooll H mung“

ollllj

 

 

#2

.mohos .mpdoufionmon ho was» no mean one» pompouu=m+

.Aonoe

no pfioopon n. m and .pnoonon N. mum. : .ufloonom m. dun. 3 .pnoouoa N. sum. m .pohhopnsn

unooaoo w. m can» mmoa mo moanomopoo may xaaa we advance paupopusn uno . somoaau can

has ooow no has ooow wdaooou no moon HoSmsnlmcuzon ox» ovllmwmstOA coo ho wuaooom

Hohonaa huo>llmunsoa had: a and can: song muawnouv hpaaosd owmnmsOh hp condsnopou

who: scan: mo wpaaaa on» .omndh a unomohnou mudoaondsdou counoaaooom .mpnoaogdndon
wuanHapouoc nu moon ma com: .nomdnnoz .m .m an .A. no cmmv mmaooom and mecca:

 

:m N 3 mm . N :m H m mu
:m N :H w 3 0H am : NH ow
:0 m mm m 3 mm mu H am w:
3 3 .3 S m an R m mm on
ma in m: 3H Hm no 0H mm mm :m
a a o o A o m xHaa no monsom

 

soHom o>on< gasp”; soaom u>op< manna: soHom o>op< gasp“: +nodpo=ooua hadou
Mo Hoboq

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

muqanfiofipuannoz mundQHOthonuxm upcomaodpacm

 

 

 

 

noHpozcohn mo mHo>oH no>am no uncauuonoaaoooh Radon no .o>onw .naSpdt munoaonasdoh madam
wnapmomwsm noahuado no nodpnooonm mo museum noauonaOappan macaw nomduonaoonl.a mumda

 

 

 

#3

less knowledge of grain requirements than participants.
They scored less at the twenty-four-, thirty-$11-, and
forty-eight-pound daily production levels. At the sixty-
four- and seventy-two-pound levels, where both groups were
inadequately informed, scores were more nearly equal.

Dairymen who had never Joined a test and record
program received a mean score of 61-—significantly lower
than the scores received by the other participation groups.
Although their views as to grain requirements to maintain
production at given levels generally paralleled those of
dairymen in other groups, their scores were lower at every
production level. A considerably larger share was unable
or unwilling to estimate needs at each level.

The preceding data indicate that differences exist
among groups in knowledge of nutritional requirements to
maintain production at given levels. Participants' views
coincide most closely with recommended nutritional standards.
The apparent lack of understanding of feed requirements on
the part of ex-participants and nonparticipants undoubtedly
limits their awareness of the potential usefulness of test
and record data to them. Beliefs which inhibit the appli-
cation of good feeding practices may very well be an
important factor limiting participation in the program.

Knowledge of own production and feeding practices.-—
Dairymen of each participation group were questioned to

determine their knowledge of production factors important

 

 

u.

to every dairy farm business. The question: "Without
referring to your last year's records, what is your best
estimate of: the amount of grain you fed per cow; your
average production per cow-—milk and butterfat; your
average butterfat test; your average milk-grain ratio?"
Participants' replies were evaluated for accuracy
by using test and record data as a base. Unfortunately,
equally reliable data were not available for the other
participation groups. For ex-participants and nonpartici-
pants, it was necessary to determine milk and butterfat
production per cow and grain fed per cow from total figures-
some of which were themselves estimates. Total milk pro-
duction and butterfat test of milk were obtained from sales
receipts. Total grain fed was an estimate obtained with
the assistance of an enumerator who asked: ”How often do
you buy grain?” "How much do you buy each time?'-—and
related questions to provide a calculated estimate of the
quantity purchased for cows. To obtain per cow data, these
totals (milk and grain) were divided by the average of
the estimated number of cows milking and dry at the be-
ginning and end of the year. Comparisons among groups
as to accuracy of estimates on a per-cow basis are, therefore,
open to criticism. However, the author is satisfied that
the data are sufficiently comparable for indicating possible
differences among participation groups in knowledge of

these factors.

 

 

 

45

The evaluation of replies obtained indicates two
possible areas of difference among groups. One concerns
the proportion of dairymen able to recollect or willing
to estimate these data; the other, the accuracy of the
estimate. To facilitate comparisons among groups, replies
were scored using a procedure which gave weight to the
number of specified relationships estimated or recollected,
and to the accuracy of the figures stated.19 The mean
scores received, according to this scoring procedure, were
as follows: participants, 8“; ex-participants, 68; and
nonparticipants, #6. Differences among groups are
statistically significant.

A brief review, by participation groups, of the
proportion estimating and the accuracy of their estimates,
provides a more easily recognized comparison of existing
differences. It clearly demonstrates that participants
were able to recollect, or willing to estimate, production
factors to a greater extent than dairymen who dropped
out or never Joined the program. At the same time, it

illustrates that certain production factors are more

 

19Scores represent the reciprocal of the sum of
the percentage difference in estimated and actual data
(concerning grain fed per cow, milk production per cow,
butterfat production per cow, and milk-grain ratio) divided
by the number of estimates.

 

buti
Derc

Near

entij

that
late j

 

#6

familiar than others. Of greater significance, it reveals
that even participants were generally not well informed
of data obtained from their test and record program.

Participants are generally unaware of the amount
of grain fed per cow and of their milk-grain ratio. Only
53 percent were willing to estimate, or able to recollect,
the amount of grain fed per cow; a third of these—-18
percent of the entire group-estimated within t 10 percent
of the actual quantity fed (Table 2). Eighty-eight percent
estimated their milk-grain ratio; however, only a third
of those estimating—-29 percent of the entire group-—esti-
mated within 1 10 percent.

Participants were better informed as to milk and
butterfat production per cow than grain fed or milk-feed
ratio. They were best informed as to butterfat test of
milk. Eighty-two percent estimated production per cow;

72 percent of these-—59 percent of the entire group-—esti-
mated within 1 10 percent. Seventy-two percent estimated
butterfat production per cow; 74 percent of these-53
percent of the entire group-—estimated within 1 10 percent.
Nearly nine out of ten estimated butterfat test of milk,
and 9h percent of those estimating-—81 percent of the
entire group-—estimated within the 10 percent range.

Ex-participants differed from participants in
that proportionately fewer were willing or able to esti-

mate production relationships; and with one exception,

I‘lliii sic .«o canceled: uo unschw newwmnwewuhnd wsoss sonuhsdsoonl.w mamas

‘ ¢ \
I‘l‘l ‘I',
In.

 

 

 

4?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0H 5H om :H ma an cm mm mm capes
sacswuxaaz
em ma mm ea mm mm am so om seas no
one» pmunopusm
o o ma 0H me an no as we goo soc noose
Iona umuuoousm
a m mm em mm as on we mm soc pea
coosooao xdaz
NH ma an we mm m: oH an mm :00 soc
ooh sauna
o s o o a o m
macaw madame macaw wsdpms
change Idaho madame sauce
no ewes» Ho omen»
messes co assume no messes
ndpno lance naumo
onmsm chasm chasm nanosOaumHom
usocnom 0H accused 0H punched OH
H saga“: H when“: H wanna:
wsuocsduue chasm msapcsauuo macaw waaumsfiuuo macaw
mpnmauoduhmnnoz upscaacaahsnnxm upummdoauamm

 

 

 

 

needuomna wsaooou use
sodooscoem use no owneflsosx no museum sodpcadoauama meosm somaamasooul.~ mumda

 

#8

proportionately fewer of those estimating (and fewer of the
entire group) estimated within the 10 percent range (Table 2).
Differences between participants and ex-participants were
greatest in ability to estimate milk and butterfat pro-
duction. Only 2” percent of the ex-participants, as com-
pared with 59 percent of the participants, estimated milk
production within the 10 percent range; only 10 percent,

as compared with 53 percent, estimated butterfat production
within this range.

Nonparticipants had little or no knowledge of the
production relationships cited other than the butterfat
content of their milk (Table 2). Hith this one exception,
the proportion estimating, and the proportion estimating
within the 10 percent range, was considerably smaller than
either of the other groups. Actually, no dairymen in this
group estimated butterfat production per cow within f 10
percent of the actual figure. Only h percent estimated
milk production within the 10 percent range; 10 percent
estimated milk-grain ratio within the 10 percent range;
and 12 percent estimated grain fed per cow within the
10 percent range. However, 86 percent-—more than either
other group—-estimated butterfat content of milk within
f 10 percent of the actual figure. One explanation for
their ability to correctly estimate butterfat test is the
fact that this figure appears on biweekly milk receipt
stubs and is a factor influencing the price received per

hundredweight of milk sold.

 

 

49

Size of herd.—-The mean size of herds by partici-

 

pation groups was as follows: participants, thirty-six
cows; ex-participants, thirty-six cows; and nonparticipants,
thirty-one cows.20 Differences among groups are not
statistically significant.

It would appear that herd size is not a factor in-
fluencing dairymen to drop out of the program. At the same
time, it appears that owners of small herds are less likely
to be enrolled in the program. This fact would certainly
have been more pronounced had nonparticipants keeping fewer
than fifteen cows been included in the sample.

In the areas surveyed, the availability of service
was not limited. Thus, the tendency for nonparticipants
to include a disproportionate share of small farms is un-
doubtedly associated with their interest in participating.
However, in other areas of the state where the opportunity
may be more restricted, institutional factors are likely
to contribute to this tendency. Consider these facts.

In such areas, the number of herds a supervisor can service
is generally limited; yet his wages are directly related

to the number of cows tested. Thus, the system provides

 

20The number of cows kept by participants was deter-
mined from DHIA (standard or owner—sampler) records and
represents the average number of cows on test for the
record year ending in 1958. The number of cows kept by
ex-participants and nonparticipants was determined by asking
the number of cows milking and the number dry on January 1
and December 31, 1957, and computing a simple average.

 

50

a. built-in incentive for enrolling large herd owners, even
to the extent of discouraging small ones.

Production per cow.-Participation and production
per cow are closely associated.21 The mean level of pro-
duction per cow in herds on test was 8,700 pounds. Pro-
duction in herds which were at one time on test was 6,800
pounds per cow-—nearly 2,000 pounds less than in participants'
herds. Production in nonmembers' herds was 5,700 per cow-
3,000 pounds less than in herds on test, and 1,000 pounds
less than in herds formerly enrolled in the program.
Differences between sample means among groups are
statistically significant.

Production per farm.——The quantity of milk produced
or sold is the most adequate measure of the size of a
Vermont dairy farm business. It is especially meaningful
as a measure of size when drawing comparisons among groups
arbitrarily segregated into categories having widely
differing levels of production per cow. According to this
criterion, participation is closely associated with size

of business.22

 

21Production in participants' herds represents
annual average production per cow on test for the record
year ending in 1958. Production per cow in ex-participants'
and nonparticipants' herds was determined from actual
sales for the calendar year 1957. All production figures
were converted to a 4.0 percent fat corrected basis.

22Refers to total production on participants' farms;
total sales on ex-participants' and nonparticipants' farms.

 

 

 

. _ . . . J .
s . . i . . .
4 T .
o . . ¢ .
. . i
.. __ . .
. . u
. . .
. o
.
y a 4 . .
o . .
. . .
~
.
. . a
u n «
_ .
. l
1 n .
.
r .
.
.

 

51

The mean level of production attained by partici-
zpants amounted to 309,000 pounds of ”.0 percent milk per
:farm. Ex-participants' sales amounted to 2h3,000 pounds
per farm—-about 20 percent less than participants'. Non-
participants' sales amounted to 173,000 pounds—-about #0
percent less than participants' and 30 percent less than
ex-participants'. Differences between sample means among

groups are statistically significant.

Participation as a Source of Useful Information

The primary purpose of a dairy herd improvement
association is to provide its members with useful infor-
mation. This information presumably has value to dairymen
in making decisions leading to profitable adjustments in
their operations. These adjustments commonly fall in the
areas of feeding and hard improvement through culling and
breeding.

Two approaches were taken in an attempt to evaluate
the usefulness of test and record services. First, dairy-
men were questioned to determine factors influencing their
decisions in each of four herd management areas. It was
felt that knowledge of the factors considered by each group
would demonstrate the usefulness of the data; and further,
that differences among groups would provide an insight as

to why some dairymen drop out and others never join.

 

 

 

52

Seacondly, an attempt was made to determine dairymen's
capinions as to the adequacy of test and record services.
(Questions dealt with: (a) felt needs for supplemental
information and for changes in information or services
currently provided; (b) opinions concerning the amount and
quality of assistance received from supervisors and county
agents; and (c) opinions as to how well the local association
was functioning. It was felt that dairymen's opinions, as
these suggest changes, adjustments, or educational oppor-
tunities, must ultimately be of concern to persons interested
in expanding participation.

Factors considered in feeding concentrates.-—Test
and record data could have their most general application in
determining the quantity of dairy ration to feed each animal.
Dairy nutrition specialists, production economists, and
other experts stress the importance of relating the amount
of concentrates fed to the amount of milk and butterfat
produced. Response to questions asked in the survey
indicates that nearly all dairymen of each group (99 percent)
also felt that the amount of grain fed should be related
to production.

At the same time, dairymen of each group reported
numerous other factors which weighed in their grain-feeding
decisions. They said that they considered prices, price
ratios, and the quantity and quality of roughage available
in determining total concentrates for the herd. In

 

 

 

de
0b
of
th
th¢
diw
Hot
cez
duo

the

reg

sixi
resl
reqi
give
our
matt
abou
poun
Part
Of 11

Quali
Opera

 

53

determining the ration for each animal, they considered the
sebvious physical characteristics, such as condition, stage
of lactation, and age, as well as production. Unfortunately,
the response to questions asked was not adequate to measure
,the influence of knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of in-
dividual production on the amount of concentrates fed.
However, dairymen of each participation group revealed
certain beliefs, as well as a lack of knowledge of pro-
duction response to grain feeding, which seriously inhibit
their use of production data in feeding.

Sixty-nine percent of the participants felt that,
regardless of production, a cow should never be fed above
a certain quantity of dairy ration, commonly twelve to -
sixteen pounds per day. This belief was volunteered in
response to a question concerning the amount of concentrates
required to maintain various levels of production under
given circumstances.23‘ Frequent replies were: ”None of
our cows ever get more than twelve pounds of grain no
matter how much they are producing.” “Fourteen pounds is
about all you can feed them." "Wouldn't feed over sixteen
pounds.” It is inferred that at least two of every three
participants were therefore unaware of the potential use

of individual production data in grain feeding. Knowledge

 

23Barn feeding season; unlimited roughage of good
quality; breed of cows and butterfat test similar to
operator's herd.

 

 

 

 

54

t)! individual production could not, by any standard, receive
Ian adequate weight in their grain-feeding decisions. A
common lack of understanding of production response to
grain feeding supports this inference.

Knowledge of production response was investigated
as follows: Participants were asked to estimate the daily
ration of concentrates that should be fed under certain
assumed conditionszu to maintain daily production of thirty—
six pounds of milk. They were then asked to estimate current
production assuming (a) a four-pound increase in daily
concentrate feeding and (b) a four-pound decrease in daily
concentrate feeding. Further, they were requested to assume
that these four-pound differentials from their normal
graining schedule had been maintained since freshening.

The accepted theory that milk production increases
at a decreasing rate as additional quantities of grain are
fed was used as a basis for evaluating replies. Knowledge
of production response was assumed for all dairymen whose
production estimates met this criterion, that is, those
whose estimated production curve was consistent with the
theoretical response curve. Two conditions were thus
necessary for a dairymen to be considered knowledgeable

of production response to grain feeding. First, he must

 

2“Barn feeding season, unlimited roughage of good
quality, breed of cows, and butterfat test similar to
operator's herd.

 

 

55

riave estimated an increase in production for the higher
[grain-feeding level and a decrease in production for the
lower grain-feeding level. Secondly, the added output at
the higher grain-feeding level must have been less than
the reduced output at the lower feeding level.

Fifty percent of the participants offered estimates
which met these conditions-—they, optimistically, have
some knowledge of milk response to grain feeding. Forty
percent failed to meet the criteria. Their replies
illustrate a definite lack of knowledge. Ten percent
were unwilling or unable to estimate changes in production
in response to changes in the amount of grain fed.

Ex-participants and nonparticipants faced an even
greater handicap than participants in feeding grain according
to production. First of all, many of these dairymen had
no accurate measure of production. One in five ex-partici-
pants and one in three nonparticipants felt that they
could determine production adequately by observation-—'I
look in the pail.” Although the remainder stated that they
kept their own records, it is highly doubtful that they
did so. In addition to inadequate production data, 63
percent of the ex-participants and 78 percent of the
nonparticipants were inhibited by beliefs concerning the
maximum amount to feed. Further, less than half of either
group (30 percent of the ex-participants and 44 percent
of the nonparticipants) met the conditions believed to

 

 

de
gr

re:
re:
the
dai
she
the
pla

cir
by}
old
the:

for
Ques
leer

cats;

sold

 

56

demonstrate some understanding of production response to
[grain feeding. Fifteen percent and 22 percent respectively
were unwilling or unable to estimate changes in production
in response to the amount of grain fed.

Factors considered in culligg.-Test and record data
have limited application in culling the hard. A major
reason for this is the fact that the majority of animals
removed from herds are disposed of for reasons other than
their inherent production ability. Furthermore, many
dairymen choose not to remove their poor producers even
when they are recognized as such. Possible reasons include
the lack of sufficient financial resources to purchase re-
placements and the feeling that the risk of obtaining an
unsatisfactory replacement is too great. under these
circumstances, dairymen prefer to minimize their losses
by keeping a poor producer. Simple budgeting supports the
old adage that a poor cow is likely to be more profitable
than an empty stall.

The usefulness of test and record data in culling
was determined by asking farmers to classify their reasons
for selling all cows that were sold. They were first
questioned to establish the number of cows sold during the
year. Then, they were asked the number sold for each
category of reasons as listed in Table 3.

Seven out of ten participants reported that they

sold cows because they were low producers; yet only 32

 

 

 

 

57

.Hmsaso ansOHpnma m msaaaom com mmommoa hamsdam o» whouoms

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HN n a NH w HH snowmen scope
H ma m a m 0H ooaose m.achsp on» one: hose
H m N w NH HH maoxads one: no scam one: home
3 a m mm mm mm So who: acne
HN mm Nm N: on on choosoona sea one: hose
9... mm m: i. R 8 c338» essences. .8 cascade
unnamed» amended» puma pounded» psmmaoau puma
nscgmoz Inmaawm nachoncm Inmmsoz uncmuwm Ideaphmm
msuHHom non souoom
cocoon season now cocoon season you mace *
pace nsoo mo chasm wmaHHom opossum no chasm

 

 

 

 

oHou usoo mmaaaou sou msomoomnl.n Manda

 

 

 

lev

20 1
of 1
twic

bees

peti
reco
duct
roco
1ndi

PPO'

impr
pore
herd
lent
reph
0th”

DOPCG

 

58

13ercent of the cows sold were disposed of for this reason.
The share of ex-participants selling low producers and the
share of animals sold for this reason was essentially the
same.

Nonparticipants were less concerned with production
levels in culling. A smaller share (four out of ten) sold
animals because they were low producers; furthermore, only
20 percent of the cows they sold were disposed of because
of low production. Nearly the same share (18 percent) and
twice as many as the other groups (9 percent) were sold
because they were old.

Factors considered in herd improvement.-—Partici-
pation in a test and record program is not of itself
recognized as an important factor in improving the pro-
ductive capacity of the herd. However, participants do
recognize the importance of practices which directly or
indirectly depend upon the availability of data and services
provided by the program.

When asked specifically, “What are you doing to
improve the productive capacity of your herd?” only 15
percent mentioned that they were participating in a dairy
herd improvement program. The largest share (63 percent)
mentioned artificial breeding. Thirty-one percent gave
replies classified as “better feeding and management."
Other frequently mentioned practices were culling, 28'

percent; use of good bulls, 2# percent; and selection of

 

 

 

59

calves, 22 percent. The question was not pursued to determine
the extent that participants use their records in breeding
or in selecting replacements.

Ex-participants emphasized the same practices as
participants with the exception of "participating in a
test and record program.” Nonparticipants mentioned arti-
ficial breeding less frequently and the use of good bulls
more frequently than other groups.

Adequacy of information.-—Dairymen enrolled in the
program and those who had dropped out25 were questioned to
determine whether they had ever felt a need for more in-
formation in order to make better use of test and record
figures in each of the four herd management areas. Those
who reported having felt such a need were asked what sort

of information26

would have been of most help.

Response to these questions indicates that dairymen
were generally satisfied that the information provided them
was adequate for their needs. There are a number of possible
explanations for this-—the information received fulfilled

the needs of most dairymen; dairymen failed to realize

 

25The specific questions asked of ex-participants
were worded to refer to the time when they participated in
the program.

26Respondents were free to interpret information to
mean basic data concerning herd performance; or in a broader
sense, to mean knowledge concerning production response,
prices, farm practices, and the like.

 

60

what basic data would be useful; or they were unable to
recall felt needs. At any rate, a relatively small share
of either group reported having felt the need for more
information. Furthermore, the proportion of dairymen
reporting felt needs for supplemental information differed
very little between groups-in feeding, 25 percent of the
participants and 19 percent of the ex-participants; in
deciding which cows to sell, 1“ percent and 11 percent
respectively; in improving the productive capacity of the
herd, 18 percent and 11 percent; and in other herd management
problems, 1“ percent and 15 percent.

Dairymen reporting felt needs were asked: “what
sort of information would be (would have been) of most
help to you?" Replies did not differ greatly between
participation groups. A relatively small share of the
reported needs of either group (participants, 13 percent;
ex-participants, 14 percent) actually concerned "additional
data or service“ (something new). Common needs in this
area concerned the desire for feed analyses (both con-
centrates and roughage) and more assistance in culling.

A larger share of needs (participants, 22 percent; ex-par-
ticipants, 3# percent) were for “better data or service.”
Typical needs in this category included "closer observation
by tester of cows, of the grain or hay fed, and so on, in
determining how much to feed the cow.” The largest share

of replies (participants, 41 percent; ex-participants, 35

 

perce

Istio

mm

were
you c
in or
helps
areas‘
or is]
replie
inforn
oxpree
Those
of sex
of the
dissat

Duns
flecte
of Pep
ticipa
the su
Dartic
cones

Those

 

61

percent) indicated a desire for general production infor-
mation on subjects ranging from disease control through
hay harvesting.

Association members and those who had dropped out
were asked a second and closely related questions “Have
you ever felt a need for changes or improvements in services
in order to provide figures that would help (or would have
helped) you do a better job in the four herd management
areas?" These reporting such needs were asked what changes
or improvements would have been of most help. Their
replies again indicate general satisfaction with the
information provided. However, the replies of dairymen
expressing a need for change reveal two significant facts.
These dairymen were primarily concerned with the quality
of service received rather than with the comprehensiveness
of the data. Further, ex-participants expressed greater
dissatisfaction than participants.

Fifty-three percent of the needs reported by partici-'
pants and 69 percent of those reported by ex-participants re-
flected a desire for ”better data or service.” The majority
of replies in this category-—particularly those cf ex-par-
ticipants-—were critical of the timeliness and quality of
the supervisors' work. Only 21 percent of the replies of
participants and 12 percent of those of ex-participants
concerned ”additional data or service“ (something new).

These were generally repetitious of those offered in

 

 

81]

re
coe
dsi
the
gro
s13
cal
his
few
to d
by r
of t
subj
Sups
the :

part1
Perce
Drovie
four c
Pants
their 1

or”

 

62

response to the previous question concerning the need for
supplemental information.

Assistance received and desired.——Dairymen received

 

relatively little assistance from their supervisors or
county agents in interpreting and using test and record
data. Replies to specific questions in this area indicate
that supervisors spent little time with dairymen of either
group when returning “barnsheets" or "herdbooks.” They
also indicate that if supervisors made a practice of
calling an operator's attention to particular points on
his barnsheet or herdbook, this fact was recognized by

few (Table b). If supervisors discussed subjects having
to do with the farm business, this was also recognized

by few. Eighty percent of the participants and 81 percent
of the ex-participants were unable to name any specific
subject, such as farm machinery or milk prices, that their
supervisor had discussed with them in the month prior to
the survey.

County agents also spent little time in reviewing
participants' barnsheets or herdbooks (Table 5). Only h
percent of each group reported that their county agent
provided this assistance as often as twice a year. Sixty-
four of the participants and 80 percent of the ex-partici-
pants reported that their county agent never looked over
their barnsheets or herdbook. By far the greatest share

of an agent's time and effort in the dairy herd improvement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wn mm mm Nn ho>oz

wN 5N on mN moaapoaom
“w m ma HH ma hHHoaoqoa
m m w n ohmsa<

 

p s o o a o m

 

upmoadeapnoouwm mpnmmHOHunmm cascadeduammewm mumsaaoauemm

 

 

 

xoopcmo: sH poosmmnmn so
homosdoam

 

 

added amHsoHuoea s on soapdoppe Anon» coaaeo
noma>nomsm wdauaoaos moosnem

 

 

 

homa>uoa=m seam oo>Hooom oommpmHum<|I.: wands

 

 

64

 

 

om no no>oz
m ma hobo: umosad
m :H pooh a code
a a each m coax» cocoa ad
a m o o a o m
mpnmmaoapamnnwm mpsmaaoapnem

 

 

xoononos no cocoonsnmp ao>o
ocxooa poems scammopxo hassoo

hososvenm

 

 

 

snows scamsopxo hassoo scam cobdoooa oonmpmamm<el.n Manda

 

 

 

 

 

difi
thoe

felt
impor-
More
then e
Share
Dartie

Perce

 

 

65

program is spent in locating supervisors and in organizing
and servicing local units.

Were dairymen satisfied with the amount of assistance
received? Thirty-seven percent of the participants and

38 percent of the ex-participants stated that they would
‘like more assistance from their supervisor. Forty-seven
percent and 49 percent respectively stated that they would
appreciate more assistance from their county agent. The
fact that the share desiring additional assistance did not
differ between participation groups is an indication that
those who dropped out did not feel discriminated against.
At the same time, it points out the need for greater
educational effort in teaching dairymen how to use test
and record data.

Dairymen's appraisals of the supervisors' or
agents' qualifications for assisting appear to be associated
with their desire for assistance.

More than 90 percent of each participation group
felt that their county agent was qualified to point out
important facts revealed by their test and record data.
More than 90 percent felt that he was qualified to advise
them concerning herd management problems. A smaller
share of both groups, and fewer ex-participants than
participants, felt that their supervisor was so qualified.

Sixty-eight percent of the ex-participants and 80

percent of the participants felt their supervisor was

 

 

qu
30
no
ex
the
he]
spe
to

sup
per
the
evi
rev
10m
gree
men
indl
dis:
cell
to t

Pelat
herds
ident

 

66

qualified to point out important facts from their records-—
30 percent and 10 percent respectively stated that he was
not so qualified. Furthermore, only 47 percent of the
ex—participants and 65 percent of the participants felt that
their supervisor was qualified to advise them concerning
herd management problems-—45 percent and 26 percent re-
spectively reported that their supervisor was not qualified
to do this.

The foregoing data indicate that assistance from a
supervisor, or from a county agent, in whose abilities the
participant has confidence would be effective in reducing
the number of dairymen who drop out of the program. Further
evidence of the importance of a qualified supervisor was
revealed by response to questions concerning how well the
local association was functioning. Opinions did not differ
greatly between participation groups. However, most dairy-
men who expressed satisfaction gave credit directly or
indirectly to the supervisor. The majority who expressed
dissatisfaction were critical of the supervisor. The
caliber and continuity of supervisory work, then, is basic

to the success of any DHIA program.

Why Dairymen Participate
Dairymen participate primarily to identify the
relative level of production of individual animals in their
herds. Why is this knowledge of interest? They seek to

identify poorest and best producers as a means of increasing

 

6?

the productive level of the entire hard. The major re-
cognized use of test and record data is in culling poor
producers. The identification of animals from which to
raise replacements is of lesser importance. Knowledge of
individual production as a factor in feeding concentrates
is of least importance. These are the opinions of partici-
pants and ex-participants alike. They are inferred from
response to questions asked throughout the interview.
Opinions as to why most dairymen continue testing and why
dairymen who make no progress participate support this
view.

Eighty-five percent of the ex-participants felt
that most dairymen test to "maintain or improve production”
(Table 6). Only 6 percent felt that they do so for reasons
classified as 'it's the thing to do." A minority of dairy-
men of each group expressed opinions indicating that
farmers who make no progress participate for reasons
other than to maintain or increase production (Table 7).

Of greater significance, nearly all dairymen who felt that
farmers participate to maintain or improve production gave
replies indicating that this could or should be accomplished
through culling. A few mentioned record uses in connection
with a breeding program. Almost none volunteered that
records might be used as a means of determining the
nutritional requirements of individual animals, or the

economic level of concentrates to feed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

wN mN soda u.soa
mH :H mnowmoh nonpo
m H anosmoao no xooso
HH m mshoo one mzoo on» pens poo omHm on posh
a HH oe on mean» on» m.pH
MH NH pHnmm
0: mm soHposcoaa o>ondeH no :Hmumam:
mpsmmHoHpamaexm mpsmmaoHosom
accommom
mucoosoamom mo usooaom

 

 

wsapmop oosHpsoo mmonwoaa 0: exam 0:3 moshaHmc as: so msOHsHQOII.m mum<e

68

 

N somx p.mom
w msommon cospo
e on on means on» m.sH
NH apacHHozm
mH momooom moox on he: cooo
mm soHpoooosa oboaaeH no :HmosHmz

 

mpstHOHuaoaexo no psoosom ommoamom

 

 

 

om ow omen on: moshnHmw once as: so meHmHQOII.w Mammy

 

 

 

 

What motivates dairymen to strive for an increase
in the productive level of their herds? Profit is un-
doubtedly a major incentive. However, profit is surely
not the only incentive, and perhaps not the primary one

for many farmers. Dairymen generally appear to be much

 

more aware of the costs of participation than they are of

 

monetary returns. Less than.3 percent of either partici-

pants or ex-participants mentioned profit or income when

 

expressing their views as to why dairymen participate.

On the other hand, a large preportion-as will be discussed
later-—reported that cost was a major factor influencing
dairymen to drop out or never join.

Could the failure to associate participation with
profit be related to the fact that.DHIA has traditionally
represented "returns above feed costs" as profit? The
connection is conceded to be weak but the author feels
compelled to explore this possibility. Returns above feed
costs admittedly have value in making intraherd comparisons.
To a certain extent, this calculation measures the profit-
ability of one animal within.a given herd in relation to
another. let it is grossly inadequate-—and frequently
misleading-as a basis for making farm to farm comparisons
and as a means by which a dairymen might evaluate the
influence of certain business adjustments on his not farm

earnings.

’

 

   

!
s ‘i ..
‘ - . 'e
1
.
..

Iii

 

70

Some of the more glaring shortcomings of returns
above feed costs as a profit measure have their basis in
the inadequacies and inaccuracies of measuring and evalu-
ating feed consumed-—both roughage and pasture. The
physical quantity of feed charged against an individual
animal's production based on estimates is likely to bear
little relationship to the amount actually consumed.
Furthermore, the value placed on.home-grown feed is even
less likely to reflect quality differences among farms.
Of greatest significance, the value placed on a given
quantity of a specified but really unknown quality may
bear no relation to its production cost.

To the extent that total costs of producing,
harvesting, and storing home-grown feeds differ from
assigned values, so will a farmer‘s net earnings from
dairying differ from returns above feed costs. On any
given farm, annual returns above feed costs and annual
net earnings could be far out of line, and, over time,
could even move in Opposite directions. Interfarmlcom-
parisons could be similarly erroneous and misleading.

To the extent that dairymen are aware that DHIA

'profit'-as indicated by returns above feed costs-

.fails to reflect actual net earnings, so could they be

expected to lack confidence in these figures. In the
author's opinion, many dairymen question the validity
of DHIA ”profit“ figures. This may, to an unknown but

 

 

 

71

limited extent, help account for the fact that participation
was not associated with profit.

Other common incentives for participation include
the desire for achievement, recognition, and status. There
is.a commonly accepted belief that "good farmers belong
to DHIA.” Participation.thus offers a degree of status in
the agricultural community. At the same time, it places
the participant in a competitive position with friends and
neighbors including, or in addition to, the best dairymen
of the state. Production data are publicized to association
members through monthly reports,news columns, and other
mass media. Outstanding achievement is awarded special
recognition. It is likely that this publicity coercively
motivates some dairymen to strive for increased production;
perhaps.even to the extent of making adjustments which
reduce net earnings-such as prematurely disposing of a
poor producer. However, it appears that a majority of
both participants and ex-participants value the opportunity
to measure their accomplishment in relation to friends
and neighbors.

Seventy-four percent of the participants and 79
percent of the ex-participants stated that they were
interested in seeing their neighbors' production figures.
Fifty percent of each group expressed an interest in
having their neighbors see their own production data.

Only 8 percent of the participants, but twice as many

 

 

 

82-]

not

tram
{131
in w
prod
int:
non;
prod

81‘011
in s
““38
of p

use

kind
reco

othel

drum

they
tho:

 

 

72

ex-participants (17 percent) stated that they would prefer
not to reveal their own figures.

Nonparticipants expressed considerably less interest
than the other groups in seeing their neighbors' production
figures and in revealing their own. This is not surprising,
in view of their limited knowledge of 'good levels of
production" and of their own production. Their lack of
interest lends support to the author's opinion that some
nonparticipants are not presently motivated to increase the
production level of their herds.

The Opinions expressed by the three participation
groups suggest that nonmonetary appeals might be effective
in encouraging participation. At the same time, they
suggest a need for greater effort in measuring the effect
of participation on income and in educating dairymen to

use production data.

Why Dairymen Drop Out

Participants and ex-participants gave very different
kinds of reasons as to why dairymen.drop out of a test and
record program. Participants' replies-Justifiably or
otherwise-imply their own superiority in knowledge or
managerial ability. Ex-participants' stated reasons for
dropping out tend to Justify their decision for doing so.

The most common opinion expressed by participants-
they 'don't know how to use data'-was not mentioned by
those who had dropped out. Neither was the opinion that

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

73

they are “ashamed of (their) own.production.' On the other
hand, “dissatisfied with supervisor or service'-a reason
frequently offered by ex-participants-was mentioned by
relatively few association members.

Do these conflicts and probable biases invalidate
the response of either group, or perhaps of both groups?
In the author's opinion, the response of each group is '
revealing and, furthermore, is necessary in identifying
major reasons for dropping out. The following rationale
is offered in support of this contention.

Participants were called upon to express their
opinions as to why others act as they do. Ex-participants
were asked to reveal their personal reasons for dropping
out. To the extent that those who dropped out suffered
experiences foreign to participants, their replies would
be expected to differ. Of greater significance, partici-
pants-as more or less objective observers-could be
expected to express thoughts which those who had dropped
out might hesitate to mention. This seems most likely
as it concerns reasons which tend to reflect on the
character or ability of the "dropout.“ To the extent
that participants projected their own.dissatisfactions,
these also warrant consideration even though they might

differ from those of ex-participants'.

 

_ ' 'i 2%-“... q. _._. " '_ ; - " ‘» l"— r-o 5" ..~ ;-_ '_.' "Bi. "T I Q.

 

 

 

74

Another primary reason for conflicting opinions
between groups springs from the fact that participants
differ from ex-participants in education, leadership, and
in.other recognizable ways. To this extent, the validity
of the replies expressed by each group is strengthened
by their difference.

Four major and interrelated reasons for dropout
concern the ability of dairymen to use test and record
data; the cost of the service; dissatisfaction with the
supervisor or service; and the time, work, or bother
involved. Forty-four percent of the participants expressed
opinions indicating a belief that dairymen who drop out
do so because they 'donit know how to use data“ obtained
(Table 8). Typical replies were; “They don't seem to know
what the testing is all about.“ “They don't realize how ,
to use their records.“ No ex-participants admitted dropping
out for such reasons. However, 19 percent expressed the
opinion that dairymen who never join fail to do so because
they wouldn't know how to use the data. Reasons con-
cerning the ability to use the data are, therefore, believed
to be legitimate. Furthermore, they very likely project
the personal feelings of some participants. It will be
recalled that a large number of dairymen in each group
stated that they would like more assistance in using their
records. Furthermore, 62 percent of the participants and
#0 percent of the ex-participants stated that they would

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m
we.

 

75

.pmo panache hes» hm: vexed one: mumenaoavamnnnm .aso
acme masseuse 030» has no encamaao neon» enchaxe on comes one: mommaaoapuems

 

 

m m unease» henna
m o neeawoaa use and: ceaueaemeenn
0H m hence no moon
on Ha eoa>pee no headphonse seas coammapmmeaa
o i: 53333 eo cases:
an wH heaven no .xmom .omap some 009
m we pmeaodnusa Moose caveaaem
an an hoses some can space
0 a: ence on: on so: soon ».son
mammauoaaumAIxm eummadoapamm

 

 

announcemee uo umeoaem

..||.|I.l|l.|l|l..||.l|l.|l||l..lul.._

 

.I.

 

[II-l

canoneem

 

 

 

anemone choose use

peep e no use no.8 meshed: 5:: 9250230 unease.” one mmoamaaonlé Hands

.v x "9.. 13!: ‘21.... men-L. .~ 5.:

   

.. w— - it?” sum M.

-———-r
‘q

 

 

76

like to attend a training school to learn how to use test
and record data.

Another major category of reasons for dropout
concern the cost of the service. Thirty-three percent of
the participants and 31 percent of the ex-participants
reported that testing "costs too much money.“ Host replies
in this category stated simply that the service was too
expensive. However, a few participants (5 percent) and
twice as many nonparticipants (10 percent) expressed a
drastically different point of view. They stated or
implied that any price would be too high. undoubtedly,
these dairymen were able-—for one reason or another-
to make very limited use of test and record data.

Ex-participants were frequently critical of the
quality of work performed by their supervisor. Twenty-
nine percent stated that they had dropped out for the
reason classified as “dissatisfied with supervisor or
service.‘ Typical replies were: “Their errors get under
my skin." ”Tester is not qualified." ”Supervisors change
too often.’ Only 11 percent of the participants expressed
similar opinions. However, later in the survey, 60 percent
of the participants and to percent of the ex-participants
stated that they would be willing to pay more if additional
or better service were available. In the author's opinion,
this response indicates a general belief that the service
could be improved. It is less likely to be a true '

 

I}. ’Ill
1"\

 

 

 

 

77

indication of the proportion of dairymen who would willingly
pay more for additional or better service.

A substantial number of dairymen in each group
were concerned that testing involves “too much time, work,
or bother.“ Twenty-three percent of the ex-participants
and 16 percent of the participants gave replies such as:
“Didn't want to take the time to bother with it.“ “Took
too much time.“ “Too busy.“ This is undoubtedly an
important reason for dropout, particularly by dairymen
enrolled in the owner-sampler program and also by those
least able to apply the information in their operations.

In addition to the four major categories listed
above, two reasons for dropout warrant special consideration.
One reason—-the belief that a “periodic check is sufficient'-
was mentioned by 18 percent of the participants and 8 percent
of the ex-participants. It tends to explain the high rate
of membership turnover, particularly among dairymen who
have little use for official records. By testing one
year in three or four, they are able to identify the
relative level of milk and butterfat production among the
animals of their herds. As opportunity arises, the poorest
producers may be eliminated. Since in many herds-—according
to the author‘s observation-—grain feeding tends to be
limited and not closely related to productive ability,
many dairymen have good reason to believe that a “periodic
check is sufficient.“ Knowledge of economic feeding

 

78

practices would greatly enhance the value of test and record
data for them. Participation would be expected to assume
greater value.

The opinion that dairymen drop out because they are
“ashamed of (their) own production“ was expressed by 1h
percent of the participants. This raises a serious question
as to the desirability of disclosing production figures.
While no ex-participants admitted this as a reason for
dropping out, they did express a feeling that good records
may influence participation. Nine percent stated that some
farmers never join because they are “ashamed of their
production.“ At the same time, 8 percent of the ex-partici-
pants stated that they had dropped out because they were
“dissatisfied with (their) own progress.“ This implies,
among other things, that they might prefer not to disclose
their production records.

A certain conflict exists, then, between the wishes
of those who desire recognition for their herds and those
who prefer confidential reports.27 it first glance, it
would seem that this could be easily resolved by giving
each participant an option on whether or not his figures
should be disclosed. However, this could easily be

 

27Farms are identified by code number except when
special recognition is offered for outstanding production
records. However, it is seldom difficult for neighbors
to decode farm numbers since facts pertinent to the pro-
duction data, such as bread and number of cows in the
herd, are revealed.

 

 

79

interpreted as an admission that there was something to be
ashamed of and thus might have little appeal. A more appealing
possibility would be to publicize only top records and
group averages. The author believes that this procedure
would satisfy the desires of the three out of four partici-
pants and ex-participants interested in seeing their
neighbors' figures; also of the one out of two interested
in revealing their own figures. Hopefully, it would place
greater emphasis on economic production without detracting
from the recognition which appears so important to partici-
pants. For example, it could remove a possible pressure

to dispose prematurely of a relatively poor producer as a

means of maintaining the herd average.

Why Dairymen Never Join

Awareness and intgrest of nogpgrticipants.-Hon.
participants were aware of the existence of DHIA test and
record programs. In response to direct questions, forty-
eight out of fifty stated that they had heard of DHIA;
forty-five out of fifty stated that they had heard of
owner-sampler testing. However, awareness of the program
is but a first step in the process of adoption.28 Here

nonparticipants sufficiently interested in the program to

 

28George H. Heal, Everett :4. Rogers, and Joe n.
Bohlen, “Validity of the Concept of States in the Adoption
Process,“ Rural Sociology, Vol. 22, Ho. 2 (June 1957).

 

 

 

 

80

seek general information about it? Evidence of interest,
or lack of interest, was demonstrated by inquiries concerning
participation and by knowledge of the cost of the service.

Nearly six out of ten nonparticipants had sufficient
contact with the program to name three dairymen whom they
believed had herds on test. Less than two out of every ten
said they were unable to name any farmers on test. Thus,
most dairymen were not only aware of the program but also
knew of a neighbor or neighbors whom they might contact for
further information. Yet fewer than two out of ten non-
participants (lh percent) reported that they had ever made
inquiries about joining. Furthermore, over one-half (5“
percent) remembered specifically being asked to join and
refusing the invitation.

The fact that nonparticipants were generally poorly
informed as to the cost of the service further supports
their apparent lack of interest. Only one dairymen in
twenty-five was able to estimate the cost of either standard
or owner-sampler testing within : 10 percent of the actual
costs. The majority (over 80 percent) would not attempt
to estimate cost. Yet when asked earlier why more dairymen
have not joined, the most frequently expressed reason-
mentioned by two out of five nonparticipants-—was that
testing “costs too much money“ (Table 9). Lack of interest
is, therefore, inferred to be the primary factor limiting

participation by dairymen who have never joined.

 

V ‘l- rm

 

 

 

81

a.moaposccma edema no easement on unwas upmmndoauammsom pen» cosmoEMSm enozs

 

 

ma roux ».son
:a endowmea uospo
: same on: on to: scam p.measoz
m nexus seen p.messm
om menace so .xuos .oaau some cos
on Aumoaemuauma .pmemomwd .eaesapcaov oopuoeepma sea
on some can nuuoo
uummnuoapumamod Ho puooeom omsoaeom

 

 

smaw0ha choose use use» m acumen you are: meahmaeu has no mmoaaa90|l.m Manda

 

 

82

Rgasons for apathz.-Uhy are dairymen apathetic
toward a program designed to provide them with information
essential to economically efficient production? Can it
be that the profit-motive has no appeal for them? This
seems most unlikely, at least for more than a small minority.
Consider the high level of adoption of artificial breeding.29

Do dairymen who are apathetic to the program fail
to recognize the potential value of the information provided?
Probably a majority either fail to recognize that the
information is essential to economically efficient production;
or they fail to understand how to use the data. To the
extent that either of these possibilities explains their
lack of interest, extension has failed in its efforts to
promote enrollment and education related to feeding and
management.

Promotional efforts have not ignored the profit-
motive as an appeal for enrollment. But, promotion has
been derelict in the particular recommendations offered for
achieving profits, and perhaps in the measure used to
indicate profits.

In DHIA promotional activities, profits are tra-
ditionally recognized in terms of “returns above feed

costs.“ In the author's opinion, dairymen are most

 

29Eighty percent of the dairy herds in the state
are bred artificially.

-- i- r 1 11 ul ll ‘ ‘ 1| II l- c 1 In a — 0“ hrs

 

 

 

83

concerned about the amount of money available to pay their
bills and provide for their family needs. “Returns above
feed costs“ may lack both meaning and appeal to nonparticipants.3o
An informal survey of press, magazine, and radio
releases-—in addition to a review of historical records-—
reveals that for years dairymen have been urged to join
the program as a means of increasing their income. An
overwhelming majority of promotional pieces, past and present,
advise that increased profits can be attained through the
use of test and record data in (a) culling poor producers,
generally all animals below a given level of production;
(b) raising replacements from best producers only; and
(c) feeding concentrates according to_production. Let's
briefly examine these recommendations.
Consider the usefulness of production data, given
the reality that (a) culling practices-—for reasons readily
apparent to dairymen—-are usually dictated by factors
other than inherent productive ability; (b) heifer se-
lection based on knowledge of the dam's production——though
not generally recognized so-—is relatively ineffective as

a means of improving the production level of the herd,31

 

30See page 69 for discussion of “returns above
feed costs“ as a profit measure. _

31x. H. Fohrman, Breedi E eriments With Holstein-
Friesian Cattle, Technical Eulleéin fie. l§§5 (Washington:

. . vernment Printing Office, 1960).

 

 

8#

and, furthermore, herd sires, on the few farms keeping such,
are commonly selected from outside the herd. Thus, it
would appear that the value of test and record data in
culling and breeding is severely limited on commercial
dairy farms. Moreover, it seems likely that practical
dairymen, recognizing this fact, might tend to discount
DHIA promotional efforts directed toward the use of pro-
duction data in feeding.

The use of production data in feeding has emphasized
that cows should be fed the amount of concentrates required
to meet nutritional requirements at given production levels.
Until recently, few dairymen recognized that milk output
is a function of feed input, given other production factors.
Recent educational efforts of extension, commercial fieldmen,
and the like, on the subject of “lead feeding“ have increased
the usefulness and value of production data to many dairymen.

This is not meant to imply that test and record
data have had no economic value to dairymen whose primary
interest was milk production. However, many dairymen have
not been made aware of the value of production data in
feeding. Their failure to recognize this value is a
major reason for their lack of interest in the program.

For these dairymen, test and record data have no meaning.
But there are other reasons for apathy.

When asked whether they would be more interested

in testing if they had a better hard, 62 percent said “yes“;

3n percent said “no“; 2 percent said they were already

 

 

35

interested; and 2 percent stated “it depends on the cost.“
Probably some of the dairymen who said they would participate
if they had a better herd were rationalizing their failure

to do so, particularly since many were inadequately informed
both as to their own production and as to good standards

of production. Yet it also seems likely that this group
included dairymen who were ashamed to reveal or to confirm
their present situation, as well as dairymen.who felt that
testing was for farmers with “good“ herds.

For an indeterminate but hopefully small share of
nonparticipants who most likely are not aware of good
feeding and management practices, test and record data have
no meaning because self improvement has no appeal. For
these few, the motivation to seek information, not only
about the program but about improved management practices,
has yet to be discovered.

 

 

CHAPTER IV

 

 

 

CHAPTER IV

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Hypotheses Reexamined

This study has examined the dairy herd improvement
program in Vermont and found it wanting. The findings
indicate that if participation is to be expanded, then
substantial adjustments are required. Careful evaluation
of the current program raises serious questions as to its
justification. The author will first discuss the study as
a whole in terms of the stated hypotheses and objectives,
then make some recommendations for future action. Obviously,
many of the hypotheses cannot be empirically tested. There-
fore, any acceptance or rejection must be based on the
author's subjective interpretation of the research results.

As the first two hypotheses are closely related
they will be discussed together. They concern the in-
fluence of the traditional local association and the
“standard test“ on enrollment in the program.

The local association was developed to meet the
conditions of a bygone era-horse and buggy travel, localized
interests and communication, and limited nonfarm job

opportunities. Initially, the area serviced by a local was

87

 

88

defined by the distance participants were willing and able
to transport the tester. The significance of this area
limitation is hinged to the fact that participants tend to
be local leaders. To the extent that the leaders of a
limited area were able to motivate a sufficient number of
neighbors, an association could be organized. Later, as
transportation improved, the area over which one association
could function was expanded. To the extent that a successful
association skimmed the leaders from the wider area, the
formation of successive associations logically has become
progressively more difficult.

Now consider the rigidities imposed by the “standard
test.“ The sampling procedure-—an integral part of this
test-—requires that a licensed supervisor be present at
two consecutive milkings of each herd, each month. This
limitation effectively dictates both the minimum and the
maximum number of participants in an association. The
minimum is established by the highest fee farmers are
willing to pay, and the lowest wage for which a qualified
person will perform the service. The maximum number of
participants, as many as twenty-six under most favorable
circumstances but commonly twenty, results in a shared
cost which at least approaches the prohibitive level.

At the same time, it provides a grossly inadequate wage
to supervisors and circumvents the possibility of achieving

economies of scale.

 

 

39

The required sampling procedure does provide
authenticity to production data. For this reason it
has particular value in proving bulls and in establishing
widely accepted production records. But this costly
objectivity is of questionable economic value to dairymen
whose primary interest is the production of milk.

For these reasons, and because the historic
fluctuations in association numbers are directly related
to the limitations imposed by the traditional association
and the standard test, the first two hypotheses are accepted.
It is the author's judgment that the local association is
an antiquated organizational structure; that the sampling
procedure embodied in the standard test is a generally
unnecessary and costly requirement for dairymen whose primary
interest is economically efficient production; and that
future expansion of the program, if justified, must involve
corrective adjustments in these areas.

The third hypothesis relates to the possibility
that participation is associated with measurable charac-
teristics of farmers and their farms; that knowledge of
these characteristics would be valuable in making corrective
adjustments to enhance participation. The data of the
survey reveal that, at least in areas where the opportunity
to participate is presumed to be unlimited, such differences

do exist.

 

9O

Participants are older than dairymen who dropped
out; younger than those who never joined. Comparatively,
they have the highest level of formal education. They
are much more likely to be leaders in their communities.

Participants are more aware of good production
standards. Their opinions as to the quantity of dairy ration
required under assumed conditions most closely coincide
with recommended feeding standards. Yet even participants
were very inadequately informed at high levels of pro-
duction. However, their knowledge of their own production
and feeding practices, although surprisingly sketchy, is
much superior to that of the other two groups.

Participants keep essentially the same number of
cows as the other groups. However, their production levels
are substantially higher; thus, they operate by far the
largest farms in terms of total milk output.

The difficulty of separating cause and effect-—the
practical impossibility of doing so with any degree of
certainty-—makes questionable the validity of any inter-
pretation of differences among groups. Nevertheless,
conclusions suggested by knowledge of certain characteristics
of each group are offered for consideration. These concern
both the dairymen and the program.

In the author's judgment, participants exhibit
superior managerial ability, but this is largely incidental
to the fact of participation. The demonstrated uses of DHIA

 

 

91

data underscore this conclusion. Perhaps of more importance
is the recognition factor.

Ex-participants exhibit knowledge sufficient to
use test and record data, at least to the extent that
participants do. Nonparticipants apparently have enough
natural ability to use the data but they fail to demonstrate
an interest in good management practices.

Some rather obvious but none the less debatable
conclusions concerning the program follow. It has greatest
appeal to “joiners.“ It has failed to meet the needs of
many dairymen in their years of greatest financial need-—it
seems likely that for them the cost of participation exceeds
the monetary returns.

The program has made dairymen more aware of con-
tinually increasing standards of production, and of their
own feeding and management practices. At the same time, it
has fostered the common belief that concentrates should be
fed in response to production. It has failed noticeably in
aiding dairymen to recognize output as a function of input.

The fourth hypothesis concerns the influence on
participation of factors considered in reaching certain
decisions. More specifically, it states that dairymen
who drop out or never join consider different factors
than participants in reaching decisions leading to ad-
justments in grain feeding, or hard improvement through
culling and breeding. Thus test and record data are presumed

 

92

to be less useful to them. This hypothesis must be
conditionally accepted.

Although dairymen of each group consider essentially
the same factors in reaching decisions in given areas,
the depth or accuracy of their knowledge of these factors
must often vary widely. Contrast a participant's knowledge
or possible knowledge of production to that of an average
nonparticipant who at most "looks in the pail." This suggests
that the relative weight given similar factors may also
vary widely among groups. Thus, it seems logical to con-
clude that level of production, while universally recognized
by ex—participants and nonparticipants as an adjustment
factor, actually has considerably less influence on their
decisions.

Because ex-participants and nonparticipants have
less knowledge of good management practices, an increase
in the accuracy of knowledge of a given factor can logically
be assumed to be less valuable to them. Therefore, it is
concluded that even though ex-participants and nonpartici-
pants consider essentially the same factors in certain
decision areas, the practical usefulness of more accurate
knowledge (provided by test and record data) is so limited
as to be a primary reason for dropping out or never joining.

The fifth hypothesis states that dairymen hold
beliefs concerning grain-feeding practices which place
serious limitations on the economic value of test and record

data and thus on the value of participation.

 

 

 

93

The data of the survey reveal that more than two
out of three participants (69 percent), regardless of
production, never feed above a given quantity of concentrates-
commonly twelve to sixteen pounds per day. Moreover, one of
every three of those willing or able to estimate production
response to grain feeding demonstrates a definite lack of
knowledge in this area. Thus there can be little doubt
that participants are handicapped in using production data.
Ex-participants and nonparticipants demonstrated similar
beliefs and lack of knowledge.

On this basis, the hypothesis is accepted and it is
concluded that many dairymen who participate do so for reasons
only incidentally associated with the usefulness of pro-
duction data in feeding. This in no way infers that the
participation status of those who drop out or never Join
is not influenced by an inability, for whatever reason, to
use production data. On the contrary-—and to the extent
that these dairymen recognize different goals or values——
it is quite possible that beliefs limiting the usefulness
of production data in feeding keep them out of the program.

Hypotheses six and seven will be discussed together.
The former states that participation is associated with
opinions as to the adequacy of information and services
provided. It is accepted in part. Both groups, and
ex-participants more frequently than participants, expressed

criticism of the supervisors' services, particularly of

 

9n

the timeliness and quality of his work. The seventh
hypothesis states that participation is associated with

the amount of assistance received in utilizing test and
record data in making day-to-day management decisions.

It is conditionally accepted. The amount of assistance
apparently differs little between groups. But the findings
indicate that assistance from a supervisor in whose abilities
the participant has confidence (or from a county agent)

would be effective in reducing the number of dropouts.

Participants and ex-participants alike are satisfied
that the kinds of information provided are adequate to
meet their needs. Very few were willing or able to recall
felt needs for additional data, or to suggest changes in
information or data provided.

There was no apparent discrimination between groups
in assistance received from supervisors or county extension
agents. The fact is, if dairymen of either group received
assistance in interpreting and using test and record data,
most failed to recognize it. About half expressed a desire
for additional assistance, showing partiality to the county
agents' services. Yet, none directly expressed the feeling
that "lack of assistance“ was a reason for dropping out.

Dairymen who participate, according to the data of
the survey, do so primarily as a means of attaining re-
cognition. They are more aware of costs than of possible

monetary returns. They use test and record data mainly

 

 

 

 

A—_ win

 

95

in culling, although its usefulness for this purpose is
extremely limited.

Dairymen who drop out do so for several apparent
and interrelated reasons. Inability to use data-—which
stems from beliefs, knowledge, and experience of the
operator, as well as the potential usefulness of the data-
is one major reason for dropping out. Dissatisfaction with
the supervisor or service-generally related to the con-
tinuity of service and to the quality of Job done, but
also associated with personality clashes-—is another.
Costs, in money, time, work, and bother, rank very high
as a reason for dropping out.

The eighth hypothesis states that participation is
limited by awareness and interest of nonparticipants.

This hypothesis is unconditionally accepted as it applies
to nonparticipants in the areas surveyed. These dairymen
demonstrated an awareness of dairy herd improvement work.
However, their interest was generally not sufficient to
stimulate the most cursory investigation of the program.
Their lack of interest was rationalized with the attitude
that testing costs too much money; that it involves too
much time, work, or bother; or that they are too old to
learn or to care.

Nonparticipants' apathy is associated with ignorance
of, and indifference to, good management practices. To a

lesser extent, it may be fostered by an operator's feeling

 

96

that his cows are not good enough. For a majority of
nonparticipants, test and record data have no meaning
because they lack knowledge, not only of good feeding and
management practices, but also of good production standards.
The limits of the sample preclude acceptance of
this hypothesis for nonparticipants of other areas of the
state. However, the author believes that an overwhelming
majority of dairymen from the rest of the state are aware
of the program. Further, that they fail to participate
primarily because they are unaware or unconvinced of the

possible economic benefits.

Recommendations
After thoughtfully analyzing and reviewing both
the data of the study and the implications thereof, the
author recommends that:
I. The Vermont Extension Service:

A. Give serious consideration to the establishment
of a date at which time to absolve itself of
support, direct and indirect, of the current
DHIA program.

B. Accept responsibility of leadership in a con-
certed effort to replace the current hit-or-miss,
outmoded, and inefficient program with one better
designed to bring essential production data to the
attention of the dairymen of the state—-a program
which does not exploit its employees.

II.

 

97

Absolve county extension personnel of all responsi-
bility in organizing and servicing local units

and encourage them to devote the time currently

so allocated to a program of educational assistance
in utilizing production data.

Intensify educational activities in the areas of
production economics and management, particularly
as it applies to dairy cattle feeding-this to
involve the concerted efforts of production and
management specialists.

Consider the feasibility of reintroducing the
'weigh-a-day-a-month' program in conjunction with
an intensive educational program for using pro-

duction data in feeding.

A revised program be developed which would:

A.

Replace the current hegemony of independent units
with county and larger district associations
(operating with central testing laboratories) as
units of a single statewide cooperative association.
Be so organized as to:

1. Assure its operation and continuity as the
responsibility of commercial dairymen.

2. Provide wages, benefits, and working conditions
adequate to attract and hold competent
employees.

3. Provide dairymen with necessary production data

at minimum cost in money, time, and effort.

«w.

 

 

7.

98

Provide a differentiated service in accordance
with differing needs among dairymen at prices
which equitably reflect cost differentials.
Facilitate the usefulness of data by:

a) Instructing each new participant in the
use of production data, particularly in
feeding.

b) Providing for more adequate evaluation of
quantity and quality of forage consumed.

c) Eliminating relatively meaningless and
unnecessary detail, such as roughage data,
when adequate evaluation is impossible.

d) Deemphasizing ”returns above feed costs“
as a factor for interfarm comparisons.

e) Providing for essential health records.

f) Providing for adequate summarization of
test and record data.

Promote participation as a means of increasing

net farm earnings, with emphasis on the use

of production data in feeding concentrates.

Increase the appeal of participation by recog-

nizing dairymen who have increased production

but who have not yet reached high levels.

Circumvent the fee collection problem by

adapting a procedure such as requirement of

advance payment or consignment from milk check.

 

 

M"

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

BRADFORD,.LAWRENCE A. AND JOHNSON, GLENN L. Farm Hana ement
Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1953.

CHAPIN, F. STUART. E erimental Desi s in Sociolo ical
Research. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1935.

MORRISON, F. B. Feeds and Feeding. 22nd ed. revised,
New York: The Morrison Publishing Co., 1956.

PACKARD, VANCE. The Hidden Persuaders. New York: David
McKay Co., 1957.

SPICER, EDWARD H. Human Problems in Technical Ch 9. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1952.
Bulletins and Monographs

FOHRMAN, N. H. Breeding Experiments With Holstein-Friesiag
Cattle. (Agricultural Research Service Technical

BulIetin 1220) Washington: United States Department
of Agriculture, 1960.

HESS, C. V. AND MILLER, L. F. Some Personal Economic and
Sociolo ical Factors Influencin Dair men's Action and
Success. (Ingcultural ExperIment Station Bulletin 577)
State College, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State
university, 1954.

How Farm Peo le Acce t New Ideas. (Agricultural Extension
Service SpeciaI Report No. 15) Ames, Iowa: Iowa
State College, 1955.

IWANSKA, ALICJA. Good Fortune: Second Chance Communit .
(Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 339) Pullman,

Washington: State College of Washington, 1958.

JOHNSON, G. L. Man erial Conce ts for riculturists.
(Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 319)

Lexington, Kentucky: University of Kentucky, l95h.

100

 

101

KOTTKE, MARVIN W. Economic O timum Rates of Feedi in
Milk Production. (Agricultural Experiment Station
Bulletin 359) Storrs, Connecticut: University of
Connecticut, 1960.

IEE, JOHN E., JR., AND CHASTAIN, E. C. Problem Reco ition
in Agriculture. (Agricultural Experiment Station
Bulletin 319 Auburn, Alabama: Alabama Polytechnic
Institute, 1959.

NIELSON, JAMES. The Michigan Township Extension Experiment:
The E erimental Pro ram and armers Reactions to
It. (Egricultural Experiment Station Technical

Bulletin 284) East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State
University, 1961.

. The Michigan Township Extension Experiment: The
Farm Families . . Their ttitudes Goals and Goal
Achievement (Agricultural Experiment Station Technical
Bulletin 23?) East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State
University, 1962.

AND BITTNER, R. F. Farm Practice Ado tion in
Michigan. (Agricultural Experiment Station Technical
Bulletin 263) East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State
University, 1958 .

AND.CROSSWHITE, WILLIAM. The Michigan Township
Extension Egperiment: Changes in agricultural ro-
duc on cienc and arn . gricul ural
Experiment Station Tecfiiical Sulletin 274) East Lansing,
Michigan: Michigan State University, 1959.

NORDBO, MARVIN T., SCHAFFNER, LEROY, AND STRANGEIAND, SIGURD.
Decision Maki Processes in Farm Machiner Selections.
(Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin £10) Fargo,
North Dakota: North Dakota Agricultural College, 1957.

Proceedi s of Research Conference on Risk and Uncertaint
in A iculture. (Igricultural Experiment Station
Bulletin 500) Fargo, North Dakota: North Dakota
Agricultural College, 1955.

 

REDMAN, JOHN c. AND OLSON, RUSSELL 0. Economic Prcblems in
Feedi D i Cows. (Agricultural Experiment Station
Bulletin tfit) Lexington, Kentucky: university of
Kentucky, 1956.

RIECK, ROBERT E. AND PULVER, GLEN C. An Egpirical Measure

of Decision Maki in Evaluati Farm and Home
Develo ment in Wisconsin. (Agricultural Experiment
Station and Cooperative Extension Service Research

Bulletin 238) Madison, Wisconsin: University of
Wisconsin, 1962.

(I‘lj

. .Ln.

 

 

 

 

102

SIZER, LEONARD M. AND PORTER, WARD F. The Relation of
Knowled e to Ado tion of Recommended Practices.
(Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 446)
Moggantown, West Virginia: West Virginia University,
19 O. A

THOMAS, WOODS D. AND AMICK, R. J. Information Needs in
Farm Mana ement. (Agricultural Experiment Station
Research Sulletin 705) Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue
University, 1960.

Journal Articles and Unpublished Data

BEAL, GEORGE M., ROGERS, EVERETT M., AND BOHIEN, JOE M.
”Validity of the.Concept of Stages in the Adoption
Process,” Rural Sociolo , Vol. 22, No. 2 (June, 1957).

FELLOWS, IRVING. ”The Application of Static Economic
Theory to Farm Management Problems," Journal of Farm
Economics, XXXII (1950), 1100-1112.

 

JAMES, H. B. "Limitations of Static Economic Theory in
Farm Management Analysis," Journal of Farm Economics,
XXXII (1950), 1113-1119.

NIELSON, JAMES. ”Improved Managerial Processes for Farmers,"
Journal of Farm Economics, XLIII (December, 1961),
1250-12 1.

SMITH, NICHOLAS H. ”A Study of Adapters and Non-Adapters
of Dairy Production Records." Unpublished Master's
thesis, university of Delaware, 1959.

STRAUS, MURRAY A. “Managerial Selectivity of Intensive
Extension Work," Rural Sociolo , Vol. 24, No. 2
(June, 1959).

«:41»

 

Fl

 

 

 

 

fr. “BL—film. uni—1.: .
. ,. .1 a a- v. ‘—.x.. , (fin-us)" “7 B ,r

— r . .- _.y--.—.....-.~._

Room USE ONLY

"*7. ‘3.
'5 ‘9

‘n

r i

. 7“." 5‘?-

1,2-