.3: ,‘x .
.arlvwwlx:
.4: ..rv:

‘AI 3.
y... .

r y:
. . :3. l x
8.1.. .. 37. .PJ
Yttl $.41... 71‘ T. L
yu!..nr.§.:

‘ .3. .3! 6.
luyviuzyry. ‘1‘ .2 2r

qr {hr}. . .3
\K...

ilAsl
5. .1. .v . r3 |
.v x,

a». F ‘

...i..

 

4.».
. 3.

 

in mg. any. v" S.
, I10!;t.: uuqaamrwk;

 

THESNB

A a

“ ” will

IGAN STATE

Millilllrimllillllllllllllliill ”

1293 01410 1640

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled
Sources and Channels of Information
Used By

Christmas Tree Growers in Michigan

presented by

Krishna Mohan Shrestha

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M. S. degree in Agricultural and
Extension Education

2x955“

Jajoflssor

 

 

Date jaw. 2.; H 7‘:

 

MS U is an Affirmative Action/ Equal Opportun ity Institution 0-12771

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE It RETURN BOX to roman this checkout from your mead.
TO AVOID FINES Mum on or baton data duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

UK!" 28 l .1 :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/EM Opportunity Institution
mm:

SOURCES AND CHANNELS OF INFORMATION USED BY
CHRISTMAS TREE GROWERS IN MICHIGAN

By

Krishna Mohan Shrestha

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Agricultural and Extension Education

1995

ABSTRACT

SOURCES AND CHANNELS OF INFORMATION USED BY
CHRISTMAS TREE GROWERS IN MCHIGAN

By

Krishna Mohan Shrestha

This study was conducted to identify, describe, and document the Sources and
Channels of Information used and preferred by the Christmas tree growers in Michigan.
Specific research questions guided to develop instrument for this study. A mail survey
questionnaire method was used to conduct this study. A sample size of 265 was drawn
systematically with random start. Data were analyzed by using descriptive and inferential
statistics.

Findings revealed that fiiends/neighbors/relatives, and the Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) were the most and the least consulted Sources of
Information by which respondents received information about Christmas tree farming,
respectively. The Michigan Christmas Tree Association (MCTA), pesticide companies,
and the Michigan State University Extension (MSUE) were perceived as the most USCfill
Sources of Information. The respondents used and perceived the traditional Channels -
journals, magazines, newspapers, and bulletins— as the most usefiil Channels of

Information. Mass media- radio, television, and computer--were the least used and

preferred Channels of Information. Significant differences were observed in Sources and
Channels of Information used according to farm type, income, and membership.

This study concludes that respondents prefer to receive information fi'om less
formal Sources and traditional Chamois of Information. Respondents’ inclination is more
toward the organization which directly deals with production and promotion of Christmas
trees. Membership of the MCTA is an important variable in use of Source and Channels
of Information. It is recommended that extension organizations provide Christmas tree
farming information in less formal ways. Timely publication of journals, magazines,
bulletins, and newspapers which address the practical problems of Christmas tree growers

is recommended.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many people deserve credits in one way or the other for the successful
completion of this study. The first and foremost, I would like to express my sincere
gratitude and appreciation to Dr. S. Joe Levine, my “Guru”, and major professor, for
sacrificing much of his time and bringing this study in this shape. His constant guidance
and supervision helped me finish my study within a time We set by USAID Nepal. I
am also deeply grateful to other members of my committee: Dr. Michael Gold, and Dr.
Murari Suvedi for their valuable suggestions and encouragement to have Plan A option
for the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science degree in
Extension Education. Dr. Murari Suvedi also deserves special thanks for facilitating
my admission process at the Department of Agricultural and Extension Education,
MSU. I gratefully acknowledge the Christmas tree growers who participated in this
study by sharing their experiences and perceptions on Christmas tree farming.

I express my gratitude to Dr. Melvin Koelling, Professor, Forestry Department,
MSU, and the advisor of the Michigan Christmas Tree Association, for writing cover
letter in this study and sharing insights on issues of Christmas tree farming in Michigan.

Mrs. Laurie Koelling, Executive Director of the MCTA, deserves the credit for

iv

providing list of Christmas tree growers and related journals to my study. Appreciation
is equally due to Rajagopal Sitaraman, Nursery Program Manager, Michigan
Department of Agriculture, for providing additional list of Christmas tree growers
including printed mailing labels. My gratitude is also extended to Dr. Kirk Heinze,
Professor, Dept. of ABE, MSU, for providing me the latest information related to my
study. Dr. John “Frank” Bobbitt deserves special thanks for being source of reference
for statistical analysis of this study.

I am grateful to Dr. 0. Donald Meaders, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of AEE, for
his effort on editing my paper thoroughly. The author would like to thank Mr. Tom
Stadt, former president of the MCTA, and Mr. Greg Kowalewski, Forester at Kellogg
Biological Station, MSU, for inviting me to attend 1994 MCTA Summer Meeting held
in Ludington, Michigan, which indeed was the initial conception of this study.

I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to Mr. T. B. Karki, Dean,
Institute of Forestry, Tribhuvan University, Nepal, for his dedication to the
development of faculty strength at the Institute. I am indebted to Dr. A L. Hammett,
III, the then Chief of Party, Institute of Forestry Project, USAID Nepal, and other
project staff for constantly facilitating the process of admission at MSU. My study at
MSU would be impossible, if the USAID, Nepal, had not supported me.

Finally, I appreciate patience, and moral support of my wife, Kalpana, son,

Ashish Shrestha, and my parents at home, for the successful completion of this study.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ......................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................... xi
INTRODUCTION ........................................ 1
General Background ................................... 1
Christmas Tree Industries and their Current Issues in Michigan ------- 4
Statement of the Problem ................................ 5
Purpose of the Study ................................... 5
Research Questions .................................... 5
Significance of the Study ................................. 7
Operational Definitions .................................. 7
Limitations of the Study ................................. 9
REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................. 10
Introduction ......................................... 10
Conceptual Framework ................................. 11
Extension Approaches .................................. 12
Synthesis of Relevant Research to the Proposed
Area of Study ----------------------------------- 14
METHODOLOGY ........................................ 19
Study Method ---------------------------------------- 19
Study POpulation, Sampling Method and Sample Size -------------- 19
Instrumentation of the Study .............................. 20
Handling Nonresponse Error .............................. 21
Data Analysis and Interpretation ............................ 21
FINDINGS -------------------------------------------- 24
Organization of the Findings .............................. 24
General Description of the Respondents ----------------------- 24
Use of Sources of Information ----------------------------- 30

Use of Channels of Information ---------------------------- 32

Perceptions about Usefulness of Sources of Information ------------ 34
Perceptions about Usefulness of Channels of Information ----------- 36
Preferred Sources of Information --------------------------- 38
Preferred Channels of Information -------------------------- 39
Relationship between Demographic Characteristics and

Frequency of Use of Sources of Information --------------- 41
Relationship between Demographic Characteristics and

Frequency of Use of Channels of Information -------------- 42
Variation in Use of Sources of Information and

Demographic Characteristics of Respondents -------------- 44
Variation in Use of Channels of Information and

Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents ----------- 47

Difi‘erence between Christmas tree Growers with Farm Size
Less than 15 Acres and More than 300 acres for Use of

Sources of Information ----------------------------- 50
Difi‘erence between Member and Nonmember Farmers

of the MCTA for Use of Sources of Information ------------ 52
Difference between Member and Nonmember Farmers

of the MCTA for Use of Channels of Information ----------- S3

Difi‘erence between Member and Nonmember Farmers
of the MCTA for Change in Size of Christmas Tree

Farm Operation During the Last Ten Years --------------- 55
Difference between Member and Nonmember Farmers
of the MCTA for Awareness of Michigan Snowfi'esh Program - - - 56
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ---------- 58
Summary --------------------------------------- 58
Conclusions and Recommendations -------------------------- 67
BIBLIOGRAPHY --------------------------------------- 71
APPENDICES
Appendix A Approval Letter from University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) ------------ 74
Appendix B. Survey Instrument ---------------------------- 75
Appendix C. Cover Letter ------------------------------- 80
Appendix D. Renn'nder Letter ----------------------------- 81
Appendix E. Results of ANOVA for Demographic Characteristics and
Use of Sources of Information ------------------------ 82
Appendix F. Results of AN OVA for Demographics Characteristics and
Use of Channels of Information ----------------------- 91

vii

Tables

Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.
Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.

Table l 1.

Table 12.

Table 13.

Table 14.

Table 15.

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Distribution of Respondents by Age -------------------- 24
Distribution of Respondents by Education Level ------------ 25
Distribution of Respondents by Gross Annual Income --------- 26
Distribution of Respondents by Number of Years of Christmas Tree
Farming --------------------------------------- 26
Distribution of Respondents by Type of Christmas Tree Farm - - - 29
Distribution of Respondents by Change in Size of

the Christmas Tree Farm Operation --------------------- 29
Distribution of Respondents by Type of Farm Ownership ------ 30
Use of Sources of Information ------------------------ 31

Use of Sources of Information by Number of Contacts per Year - - 32

Use of Channels of Information ----------------------- 33
Respondents’ Familiarity with Sources of Information -------- 34
Perceived Usefulness of Sources of Information ------------ 35
Respondents’ Familiarity with the Channels of Information ----- 36
Perceived Usefirlness of Channels of Information ------------ 37

Preferred Sources of Information for Difl‘erent
Aspects of Christmas Tree Farming --------------------- 39

Table 16.

Table 17.

Table 18.

Table 19.

Table 20.

Table 21.

Table 22.

Table 23.

Table 24.

Table 25.

Table 26.

Table 27.

Table 28.

Table 29.

Preferred Channels of Information for Different
Aspects of Christmas Tree Farming -------------------- 40

Relationship between Use of Sources of Information and
Age, Farm Size and Number of Years in Christmas Tree Farming - 42

Relationship between Use of Channels of Information and
Age, Farm Size and Number of Years in Christmas Tree Farming - 43

One-Way Analysis of Variance for Type of Farm and

Use of Pesticide Companies -------------------------- 44
Use of Pesticide Companies by Type of Farm -------------- 45
One-Way Analysis of Variance for Type of Farm and

Use of F n'ends/N eighbors/Relatives -------------------- 46
Use of Friends/Neighbors/Relatives by Type of Farm --------- 47

One-Way Analysis of Variance for Gross Annual Income
and Use of Meetings/Seminars/Workshops ---------------- 48

Use of Meetings/Sentinars/Workshops by
Gross Annual Income of Respondents ------------------- 48

One-Way Analysis of Variance for Gross Annual Income
and Use of Exhibitions/Demonstrations ------------------ 49

Use of Exhibitions and Demonstrations by
Gross Annual Income of Respondents ------------------- 49

Results of t-test for Difference between Christmas tree Growers with
Farm Size less than 15 acres and more than 300 acres for Use of
Sources of Information ----------- ?- ----------------- 51

Results of Host for Difference between Member and Nonmember
Farmer Use of Sources of Information ------------------- 53

Results of t-test for Difference between Member and Nonmember
Farmer Use of Channels of Information ------------------ 54

Table 30. Result of Chi-Square test for Difference between Members and
Nonmembers of the MCTA for Change in Size of Christmas Tree
Farm Operation During the Last Ten Years- --------------- 55

Table 31. Result of Chi—Square test for Difference between Members
and Nonmembers of the MCTA for Awareness of
the Michigan Snowfi'esh Program ---------------------- 56

Table 32. Cross tabulation of the Membership Status of the MCTA
by Change in Size of Christmas Tree Operation During the
Last Ten Years ---------------------------------- 57

Table 33. Cross tabulation of the Membership of the MCTA by
Awareness of the Michigan Snowfresh Program ------------ 57

LIST or FIGURES

Figures Page

Figure 1. Distribution of Respondents by Membership Status of
the Michigan Christmas Tree Association ----------------- 27

Figure 2. Distribution of Respondents by Awareness of
the Michigan Snowfresh Program ---------------------- 28

INTRODUCTION

General Background

Farmers can learn in many different ways. Because of the complex nature of
human society, every society has its own needs and problems. Within the society,
every individual has his or her own needs, interests, and constraints. Learners may
utilize various Sources and Channels of Information in their learning process.
Technological development has made a wide range of media available. Developments
in the field of electronic media especially computer technology, have brought dramatic
changes in the access to information through the information super highway. The mass
media-wradio, television, newspapers, and rrmgazines--with their capacities for instant
dissemination of information are symbolic of this mercurial era. Davis and Baran
(1981) argue that mass media have power only to reinforce, because people are
generally selective in their use of the media. They expose themselves only to types of
content that they see as consistent with what they already believe. People quickly
forget content that is inconsistent with their beliefs. These phenomena are called
selective perception and selective retention. Depending upon their needs and interests,
individuals have their own preferences on how they learn.

Based on the social, cultural, economic, physical and other demographic
characteristics of the learners, communication media that are used may assist or hinder
the learning process. Thus while attempting to communicate with individuals or
groups, selection of appropriate Channels is a most crucial task. Selection of Channels
may vary with the type of audience, the type of message, and the recipients stage in the

l

2
adoption process. No matter how important is the message, it will not get through to
the intended audience without the use of proper media. Hence, Marshal McLuhan
(1964) has advocated caution for those who say "Medium is the Message". According
to his view ”medium” should not dominate the essence of ”message" or the content.
Selection of highly sophisticated "medium” may be counterproductive because the
audience will not pay attention to the content which is definitely the goal of
communication in the process of teaching and learning. Media can best be used as an
”engine" of change if used in a planned way (McQuail, 1983).

Communication is an indispensable part of an extension education program.
Communication media are aimed at helping to bridge the knowledge gap between the
audience/clientele and various information sources such as universities, research
stations, extension offices, farmers and others.

Since the philosophy of extension education is to cause behavioral changes in
the clientele, the extension worker cannot expect to cause change until he or she is able
to communicate efi‘ectively. In order to ensure that research results, advances in
technology or even basic information may reach intended beneficiaries in a form which
they can readily understand and use, an extension system should employ many different
methods of communication-mass methods, group methods, and individual or personal
contact methods.

Mass media are extensively used as communication channels in the teaching and
learning process. In addition to mass media channels, farmers get information through

other sources such as cosmopolite interpersonal channels and localite interpersonal

3
channels. Cosmopolite interpersonal channels comprise face-to-face communication

with extra-systemic sources such as change agents, scientists, and commercial agents.
Locahte interpersonal channels refer to those face-to-face communication channels
with inns-systemic sources such as relative, fiiends, neighbors, local leaders, and others
that belong to the respondent's social system (Lingamneni, 1981). Singh (1981)
pointed out that the media efi‘ectiveness is in the way the message is acquired. The
effectiveness of channels can be optimized by making qualitative changes in content,
mode of presentation, quality and relevance of the message. This can be done only
when the change agents understand the socio-cultural context of the audience. Singh
(1981) filrther indicated that preconditions for the efi‘ective communication include
farmers’ socio-economic status, level of education, social participation, age, adoption
status, the stage at which he/she is in the adoption process, existing level of lalowledge
about the message, his/her attitude toward self, toward communicator, and toward
message, his/her change-proneness, value orientation, aspirations for future
attainments, his/her past experience with the communicators message, his/her length of

farming career and many other factors.

4

Christmas Tree Industries and their Current Issues in Michigan

The Christmas tree industry is one of the major agricultural industries in the
economy of Michigan. Michigan, a leading Christmas tree producing state in the
United States of America, produces approximately 15 percent of the national supply.
Each year more than five million trees are harvested by Michigan growers. Nearly
three fourths of the annual harvest is sold outside the Michigan market through retailers
and brokers. There is an estimated 1400 Christmas tree farms which cover 130,000
acres of plantations.

The Michigan Christmas Tree Association (MCTA) members represent 80
percent of the state's annual harvest. Operations range fi'om only few acres to five
thousand acres. Although almost all counties have Christmas tree farms, the major
concentrations are in a western portion of the lower Peninsula and some other locations
in the Upper Peninsula (Michigan Department of Agriculture, 1994).

Two current issues in the Christmas tree industry in the State of Michigan are-
high competition among growers, and changes in consumer demands for species
preference. Christmas tree growers have been facing several challenges to produce
quality plants. Some of the emerging needs of the Christmas tree growers are research
on the promotion of a natural tree market, consumer education programs, species
evaluation, standardization of fertilization methods, production of healthy plants, and

mechanized harvesting (Koelling, Hart, and Leefers, 1992).

Statement of the Problem

Various extension media have been employed by difi‘erent extension agencies
for the development and promotion of Christmas tree industries in the State of
Michigan. The way farmers perceive their problems may be different from the way
media practitioners and development and funding agencies perceive those same
problems. Information and understanding is lacking as to the ways that farmers prefer

to learn about new ideas and practices in Christmas tree farming.

Purpose of the Study

The major purpose of this study was to document the preferences that
Christmas tree growers in Michigan have for receiving information about farming
practices and to analyze the relationships between those preferences and other

variables.

Research Questions

The study was organized around a series of specific research questions that
were used to operationalize the major purpose of the study and to frame the questions
to be used for gathering data through survey instrumentation. To meet the above
research purpose the following specific research questions were set by the researcher:
Research Question # 1. To what extent have the Christmas tree growers been using

difi‘erent Sources and Channels of Information to solve their farming problems?

6

Research Question # 2. What are the perceptions of the Christmas tree growers about
the usefulness of difl‘erent Sources and Channels of Information used for their
Christmas trees production needs?

Research Question # 3. Which Source(s) and Channel(s) of information do the
Christmas tree growers prefer to use or seek out for specific farming
practices/concerns?

Research Question # 4a. Is there a relationship between Christmas tree growers’ age,
Christmas tree farming experience or farm size and the use of Sources of Information?
Research Question # 4!). Is there a relationship between Christmas tree growers’ age,
Christmas tree farming experience or farm size and the use of Channels of Information?
Research Question # 5a. Does the use of Sources of Information by Christmas tree
growers differ according to age, education, income, farm ownership, and type of farm?
Research Question # 5b. Does the use of Channels of Information by Christmas tree
growers difi‘er according to age, education, income, farm ownership, and type of farm?
Research Question # 6. Is there a difference between members and nonmembers of
the Michigan Christmas Tree Association in terms of their use of Sources of
Information, use of Channels of Information, and change in their size of Christmas tree
farm operation during the last ten years?

Research Question # 7. Is there a difi‘erence between members and nonmembers of
the Michigan Christmas Tree Association in terms of their awareness of the

Michigan Snowfi'esh Program?

Significance of the Study

This study is intended to help to fill the knowledge gap regarding the Sources
and Channels of Information used by the growers of Christmas tree in the State of
Michigan. The information could be utilized by personnel of the Michigan State
University-Extension to develop the strategies and policies in the delivery of technical
information for the promotion of Christmas tree industries in the State of Michigan.
The findings could be equally helpful to the Michigan Christmas Tree Association to
meet its objectives of producing high quality trees by providing technical information to
growers. Additionally, commercial industries, especially suppliers of pesticides and
equipment, could benefit by adopting appropriate marketing strategies for their
products. Finally, the research findings could help researchers and professionals by

giving future direction on the study of promotion of Christmas tree industries.

Operational Definitions

Sources of Information The person or institution which provides information
based on research or first-hand experience with Christmas tree production and
management practices.

[Channels of Information The method of delivery of information in the form
of written, verbal, audio, and visual and audio-visual. Channels of Information are also
interchangeably used as media in the paper.

Christmas Tree Growers To qualify as a Christmas tree grower, an operation

had to have grown at least one acre of Christmas trees for sale and should be

registered.

Farming Practices Techniques a grower uses to enhance or maintain
profitability of a farm by using a machine, concept, cultural practice, or behavior, such
as soil and seed treatments, irrigation, selective weed control, and marketing.

Change in Christmas Tree Farming This refers to the change in the size of
Christmas tree farming operation during the last ten years.

Member and Nonmember Members refer to those Christmas tree growers
who have registered their Christmas tree farm at the Michigan Christmas Tree
Association (MCTA) and hold member.

Nonmembers refer to those Christmas tree growers who do not belong to the
MCTA and are independent entrepreneurs.

Michigan Snowfresh Program This is a special project which deals with the
production and management of high quality Christmas trees which meet the standards
set by the MCTA

Cooperative Extension Service. Cooperative Extension Service refers to the
Michigan State University Extension (MSUE). For the convenience of respondents-
easy to understand- Cooperative Extension Service (CBS) is used in the instrument.

Soil Conservation Service. Soil Conservation Service has currently changed
its name into the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). For the

convenience of respondents, Soil Conservation Service is used in the instrument.

Limitations of the Study

About population: The researcher was dependent on the list of Christmas tree
growers fi'om the Michigan Christmas Tree Association and the Michigan Department
of Agriculture. There might be some active Christmas trees growers missing in the list.

About Sources and Channels of Information: This study did not attempt to
specify the efl‘ectiveness of certain Sources and Channels of information. For example,
the researcher did not ask like which magazine, or which journal is more useful for
receiving Christmas. tree farming information? Similarly, this study did not attempt to
identify the effectiveness or relevancy of content of message or information that were

broadcasted or extended through radio, television, computer, journals and magazines.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to explore the Sources and Channels of
Information and their relationship to farm and selected demographic characteristics of
the growers of Christmas tree in the State of Michigan. The review of literature gives
insights in the field of proposed study which helped to form the theoretical framework
of the study. This chapter contains a synthesis of selected research and literature that
are relevant to this study. The process was completed by searching the Current Index
of Journals in Agriculture and Extension, Communication; and Education Resources
Information Center (ERIC); and Tree Compact Discs Data Base. The literature review
found that the bulk of the published work has been done on the economical and
biological aspects of Christmas tree production and management. No research on
Christmas trees was conducted preferences of Christmas tree farmers for receiving
information but similar types of research were conducted in the field of Agricultural
Extension, Communication, and Sociology. In addition to library research, a number of
interviews with researchers and professionals involved in the field of Christmas tree
industry was conducted to identify the major issues and extension methods employed in

the Christmas tree industries.

10

ll

Conceptual Framework

Extension may be described an approach or technique of reaching the people.
In any extension program, efi’ective dissemination of information is as important as the
development of technical knowledge. Extension is education and education is the
process of bringing about desirable changes in human behavior. This is done by
attracting their attention, arousing their interest, helping them define their problems and
leading them to have successful experiences with new ways of doing things. Extension
programs are intended to cause people to adopt new ideas and practices to increase the
effectiveness in various life roles of persons—parents, workers, and citizens. The
outcomes of a program may fail to cause client change due to lack of proper
dissemination of technique or methods of information to the clients although the
program is socially acceptable, technically sound and economically feasible.

One of the issues facing extension agents is how to best get information to their
clientele. Extension is an adult education program. Farmers are adult learners and they
probably learn from a variety of resources that exist all around them. Sometimes,
unanticipated learning takes place among the learners themselves, driven by learner
needs rather than instructional objectives (Levine, 1994). Ofien, extension agents, as
adult educators may make mistakes by assuming that learning can be promoted in
mandatory ways. Levine (1987) further asserts that learning can't be promoted in
mandatory ways and the teacher is not the only resource available to the learners. An
effective communication system plays a vital role for the sustainable extension system.

The extension system could be sustainable when its programs are relevant and

12

extension agents are accountable to the clients. Relevancy is measured in terms of the
degree of practicality to serve the farmers’ felt needs (Axinn, 1994).

Axinn and Thorat (1972) presented general propositions regarding a successful
extension program. The success of extension programs in any particular locality tends
to be directly related to the extent of personal contact between the people of that
locality and staff of the extension organization and multiple use of communication
methods. They suggest that the effectiveness of communication between sender and
receiver can be increased by increasing the number of parallel channels. The more
communication channels in'parallel, the greater the chance that any particular message
sent by the communicator will be received by the receiver.

Efi‘ectiveness of communication can be increased by multiple use of methods or
channels. Research on effects of senses on learning show that there is 1% learning
through taste, 1.5 % through touch, 3.5 % through smell, 11% through hearing and
83% through sight. In terms of retention we retain, 10% of what we read, 20% of
what we hear, 30% of what we see, 50% of what we both hear and see, 70% of what

we discuss, 80% of what we experience and 95% of what we teach someone else
(Bahama, 1979).

Extension Approaches
A literature review and interviews with professionals, researchers, and leaders
in the field of Christmas tree promotion, production and management revealed that all

different Sources and Channels of Information are being employed for the promotion of

13

the Christmas tree industry in the State of Michigan. The Michigan State University
Extension (MSU-E) is an educational outreach arm of Michigan State University. Its
mission is to help people improve their lives through an educational process that applies
knowledge to critical issues, needs, and opportunities (MSU, Extension Leaflet). All
three different approaches-omass approach, group approach and personal approach of
extension- are being employed by the MSU-Extension. Researchers and subject matter
specialists in Christmas trees at the MSU. Forestry Department are involved in and
responsible for writing bulletins, articles in magazines, and conducting both regular and
special workshops in Christmas tree farming. A radio ”Call in Program" is sponsored
by WKAR radio in East Lansing each month. The television outreach communication
of university broadcasts are three-to five-minute snapshots of stories on current events
and seasonal activities on Christmas tree production and management and other
forestry issues. In addition to MSU-E, a few other agencies and professional
organizations such as the Michigan Christmas Tree Association, commercial companies
(pesticide and equipment) and private nurseries are involved in the extension and
communication process. The objectives of the MCTA are to promote the production
of Christmas trees in Michigan by providing information to growers on cultural
practices necessary for quality tree production. It has expanded its objectives to
include providing information to retailers and consumers on the use of natural
Christmas trees, and providing marketing information to purchasers of Michigan-grown
Christmas trees. The Association publishes the Michng Christmas Trg Journal (a

quarterly journal) mg, and Membeghip Dirflgry. Additionally, the

l4

association conducts two annual meetings one in winter and another in summer every
year. The MCTA also conducts educational workshops for producers each year in

cooperation with Michigan State University Extension.

Synthesis of Relevant Research to the Proposed Area of Study

A Study of Media Usage and Preference by United States Farmers (1994)
revealed that the best Source of Information for grain markets, farm livestock market,
and farm news was radio. Television is the best Source of Information for farm
weather. Television and farm magazines are equally important Sources of Information
for farm livestock markets. Farm magazines come first for special farm reports but as
the second best source for farm news followed by electronic data, ranked third. Again,
radio is the most used media source for farm grain markets, farm livestock markets,
farmnewsandspecialfarmreports. Farmmagazinesarethesecondmostusedmedia
source for farm grain markets and for farm news. Television is most used source for
farm weather and used as second most used media for farm livestock market and for
farm news. Radio is reported as the second most used media source for farm weather.

Al-Howshabi (1993) reported in his study of preferred Channels of issue-related
information during knowledge and persuasion stages of innovation adoption that
television and newspapers were ranked as the most useful information Channels.
Radio, newsrnagazine, newsletters, books/library, fiiends, relatives, neighbors,
classes/courses, and extension agents were ranked as moderately useful Channels of

Information. Videotapes, seminars, conferences, local leaders, billboards, group

 

 

 

l 5
demonstration/field days and sales persons were ranked as the least useful information

channels. The study indicated that reading newspapers, watching television, reading
newsletters, and listening to radio were the most preferred information channels in both
knowledge and persuasion stages of adoption.

Vergot (1991) concludes in his doctoral dissertation entitled "Southwest
Michigan Fruit and Vegetable Farmers' Use of Sources and Channels to Gain
Information in Regard to New Agricultural Practices" that County Cooperative
Extension Service personnel were ranked first followed by product company
representatives as second for Source of agricultural information. Vocational
agricultural teachers and Farmers Home Administration personnel were ranked lowest
for Sources of agricultural information.

Farm magazines ranked first followed by agricultural bulletins fi'om MSU as the
second most used Channel of agricultural information. The least used Channels were
television advertisements and programs. The relationship between farm size and use of
Sources of Information was significant since larger farm size holders hired private
consultants. As the farm income increased, farmers more frequently used MSU
Specialists, farm magazines, telephones and video tapes as Sources or Channels of
Information. The relationship between age of the farmers and Sources of Information
was significant. Older farmers used more traditional forms of information than their
younger counterparts. Younger farmers used a greater variety of both Sources and
Channels than older farmers. Farmers with high school diplomas, two year degrees or

four-year degree or more utilized agricultural trade shows as a Channel of Information

16

significantly more than farmers with less than a high school education. Farmers with
fewer years of experience used a greater variety of Sources and Channels than farmers
with many years of experience. Daily newspapers and agricultural educators are
utilizedbyfarmerswithmoreexperienceinfarming. Malefarrnersutilized local
salesmen, private consultants and agricultural trade shows more significantly than
female farmers. Partnership farmers have greater use of Farmers Home Administration
personnel, agricultural trade shows and telephone recordings as Sources and Channels.

Reyes (1991) reported that Extension agents were considered as extremely
useful Source of Information for pest/disease management whereas agricultural
magazines were found very useful Source of Information to the farmers of Ingharn
county for pest disease information. Newspapers and direct mail were considered as
not very useful Source of Information about pest and disease. Agricultural magazines
and other farmers were found to-be very useful for crop production.

A study conducted by Obahayujie and Hillison (1988) on the assessment of
extension methods by part-time and full-time farmers indicated that part-time beef
farmers preferred more individual contact methods such as on-farm demonstration and
farm and home visits but full-time farmers preferred mass contact methods, such as
newsletters, bulletins, radio and leaflets/pamphlets. The lowest ranked methods by
both groups were visits to universities, news stories, posters, clinics, computer
messages and cartoons. Theauthors recommended that extension methods used must
coincide with the maturity, education level, background, and objective of the audience

being served in order to increase both efficiency and effectiveness.

1 7

Mahjoory (1982) in his study of use of soil survey information by farmers in five
Michigan Counties revealed significant relationship between level of education and use
of soil survey information. His findings showed that farmers are most likely to seek
information on soil problems fiom Soil Conservation Service, Cooperative Extension
Service, other farmers, and commercial salespersons.

Smith and Kahler (1982) in their investigation found that farm magazines were
the first choice of the respondents as a Source of technical information with
commercial companies being next and radio for agriculture being third. The
respondents participated more actively (90 percent) in the commercial company
sponsored educational programs than in programs conducted by an Extension agency.
The result showed that as the educational background of the participants increased,
greater participation in extension meetings and clinics resulted. Well-established
farmers placed more value on farm magazines as a Source of Information than those of
less-established in farming. Respondents gave the highest rating to the area of short
courses followed by closed circuit television programs as a choice of teaching
approaches. Extension agents were perceived by the participants as of ”some value" as
Source of technical information.

Participants with individual farming operations, well-established farming, big
farm size, greater profit margins from their farming enterprises, more participation in
leadership put more value on instruction.

Kolrner (1972) advocates that efi‘ective extension delivery system should be

"close by and convenient”. It means involving county extension professionals who are

18

on-site salesmen for local educational programs. Their bread-and-butter-tool is a single
meeting, usually held at night, oriented to a particrrlartopic.

Tichenor, Donohue and Olien (1970) argued that persons with more formal
education would be expected to have the higher reading and comprehension abilities
necessary to acquire public affairs or science knowledge. They questioned their
respondents on the use of printed mass media. This team of researchers expresses the
view that given the nature of the mass media system that delivers information, the most
science and public afl‘airs’ news carried in print media have been more heavily used by
higher status persons.

Crawford (1969) and Stadlman (1973) pointed out that magazines, television,
newspapers, and radio were used by farmers to solve their problems but they were
inadequate in meeting the education needs of the young farmers. They suggest formal
instruction that presents latest technical information related to specific problems

farmers were attempting to solve.

METHODOLOGY

Study Method

A survey-questionnaire method was employed to carry out this study. A pre-
structured, protested and coded questionnaire was mailed to 265 Christmas tree
growers in Michigan. The first mailing was done on August 15, 1995. The survey
questionnaire form was sent along with a self addressed and prestamped return
envelope Three weeks later, a second mailing was done including survey questionnaire
form and prestamped envelope. Again, three weeks after the second mailing, a
reminder letter was sent to those respondents who didn’t return completed survey
questionnaites. Out of 265 survey questionnaires mailed, 161 were returned (60.75%),

and 153 (57.74%) were usable, eight unusable, and six nondeliverable.

Study Population, Sampling Method and Sample Size

The population for the study consisted of total 790 Christmas tree growers in
the state of Michigan. A comprehensive list of all Christmas tree farmers was obtained
from the Michigan Christmas Tree Association, Michigan Department of Agriculture,
and Michigan State University Extension. Systematic sampling method was used in this
study. The total sample size of 265 Christmas tree farmer was selected on the basis of
95 percent confidence interval and 5 percent margin of sampling error (Levine and
Suvedi, 1994). To obtain the total of 265 sample size, every fourth element of the list
was chosen systematically for inclusion in sample. To ensure against any possible
human bias in using this method, the first sample number was drawn from a random

19

20

table with a random start. Then every fourth element was picked up as a sample.

Instrumentation of the Study

The survey questionnaire was developed considering each research question to
be answered. The instrument was divided into two parts. The first part consisted of
scales of potential Sources and Channels of Information used by the Christmas tree
growers. Use of each source (organizations or agencies) was measured by the
approximate number of times that respondents used it in a year. Use of media or
Channels was rated at four-point scales as follows: 3= Always, 2= Ofien, 1= Rarely;
and 0= Never use. To determine the perception of usefulness regarding the Sources
and Channels, again a four-point scale was used as 3= Very useful, 2== Somewhat
useful, 1= Not very useful, and 0= Of no use at all. Preferred Sources and Channels of
Information for specific farming practices were measured by giving options to choose
multiple answers from the identified agencies/organizations and media. The second
part consisted of general background information regarding personal and farm
characteristics. Date of birth, years of Christmas tree farming, and farm size were
asked in ratio scale, gross annual income level was asked in interval scale ranging from
less than S 10,000.00 to S 80,000.00 and above; and education level was measured in
ordinal scale ranging from less than high school education to College or University
graduates. Questions relating to change in size of Christmas tree farm operation, farm
ownership, Christmas tree farm type, awareness of the Michigan Snowfresh program

and membership of the Michigan Christmas Tree Assdciation were asked in nominal

21

scale by giving multiple choice options (See Appendix B for copy of the instrument).

Handling Nonresponse Error

Nonresponse error was handled by comparing early respondents to late
respondents on selected demographic characteristics. Statistical comparison between
these two groups was done for demographic characteristics such as education level,
age, years of Christmas tree farming, and size of Christmas tree farm. The analysis
revealed no significant differences between early respondents and late respondents so
the findings fi'om the sample could be generalized to the population (Miller and Smith,

1983).

Data Analysis and Interpretation

As this was a descriptive research study, descriptive statistics-frequency,
percent, means, standard deviations—were used to analyze the data. Also, inferential
statistics i.e., Host, and Chi-Square tests, were employed. The data were processed
and analyzed by using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS for Windows).

To be more specific, fi'equency, meansand standard deviation by rank order
was used to analyze the data regarding the use of Sources and Channels of Information,
perception of usefirlness of Sources and Channels of Information and preferred Sources
and Channels of Information for the research questions one, two and three. Pearson
correlation coeficient was used to determine the relationship between demographic

characteristics such as age, experience in Christmas tree farming, and farm size, and

22

the use of Sources and Channels of Information for the research question 4a and 4b.
The following commonly accepted set of descriptors proposed by Davis (1971) was

used to interpret the strength of associations.

Meat W99

.70 or higher Very strong association
.50 to .69 Substantial association
.30 to .49 Moderate association
.10 to .29 Low association

.01 to .30 Negligible association

However, the data which show coefficient 0.30 (moderate association) and above were
considered as important to analyze the data. One—Way analysis of variance (AN OVA)
was run to determine the significant difference between demographic characteristics
such as education, income, farm ownership and farm type and use of Sources and
Channels of Information for research question 5a and 5b. Independent t-test was
conducted to determine the difference between age groups and use of Sources of
Information. Similarly, t-test was done to determine difference between member and
nonmember farmers for the use of Sources and Channels of Information. Chi-square
test was done to determine the difference between member and nonmember farmers in
terms of awareness and perception of change in Christmas tree farming. The alpha was
set a-priori at .05.

To allow for interpretation of the data, it was important to establish a criterion

measure. This criterion measure was used to ascertain the importance of the data when

23

it was analyzed and displayed. Such a criterion measure, though arbitrary, must have
some form of logical derivation. For this study it was decided that the concept of a
normal distribution would be the basis for deciding importance. Therefore, any data
that fall within the highest 16% of the possible range of scores, or within the lowest
16% of the possible range of scores are defined as “important”. This criterion removes

the middle 68% of the possible range of scores as not important.

FINDINGS

Organization of the Findings

This chapter presents the results obtained from the statistical analysis of the
data. The study findings are organized based on the research questions set for the
study purpose which include general description of the respondents, uses of Sources
and Channels of Information, perception about their usefulness, and preferences in
getting them. Finally, the relationships and differences between demographic
characteristics and usage pattern of different Sources and Channels of Information are

presented.

General Description of the Respondents

Age. The mean age of respondents was 54.47 years with a standard deviation
of 12.94. The range of age ranged between 17 and 84 years. For the purpose of
analysis, the respondents were firrther categorized into four groups based on standard
deviation. Table 1 shows that highest number of respondents, 54 (36.00%), were
between 42 and 55 years old.

Table 1. Distribution of Respondents by Age

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ag. N (%)
17 to 41 years old 27 (18.00)
42 to 54 years old 54 (36.00)
55 to 67 years old 43 (28.67)
68 years and above 26 (17.33)
Total ' 150 (100)

 

 

 

 

24

25

Education. The respondents were categorized into five groups ranging from
less than high school education to college or university graduates. Table 2 shows that
the highest number of respondents, 58 (39.21%), was college or university graduates
and the lowest number of respondents, 9 (5.88%), was less than high school education.

Table 2. Distribution of Respondents by Education Level

 

Less than high school 9 (5.88)
High school graduate 32 (20.92)
Some college education 41 (26.80)

 

 

 

 

 

Community/Junior college 11 (7.19)
College/University graduate 58 (39.21)

.vTr r.

 

 

 

Total ':§ff":.‘§i5"3"(1mill

 

 

 

Income. The respondents were asked to choose one of the six categories of
gross annual family income level that best describes them. The frequency analysis
showed that the mean annual income level of the respondents was between $ 40,000 to
60,000. The highest number of respondents 39 (30.23 %) also belonged to the same
income level. Thirty-four (26.36%) respondents had a gross annual income of
S 80,000.00 or more. Respondents with less than S 10,000.00 were the smallest group
with 3 (2.33%) of the total respondents. Table 3 presents the distribution of

respondents by their gross annual income.

26

Table 3. Distribution of Respondents by Gross Annual Income

 

lofIncome

Less than S 10,000.00

3 (.33)

 

3 10,000 to 3 20,000

11 (8.53) f

 

3 20,000 to 8 40,000

28 (21.70) .

 

3 40,000 to 3 60,000

39 (30.23) ,

 

3 60,000 to 3 80,000

14 (10.85) ;

 

 

Experience in Christmas Tree Farming. The experience in Christmas tree
farming ranged from 2 years to 60 years. The mean experience was 21.57 years with a
standard deviation of 12.52. The respondents were further grouped into four groups
based on standard deviation. Table 4 shows that the highest number of respondents, 72
(48%), had ten to twenty-one years of experience in Christmas tree farming.

Table 4. Distribution of Respondents by Number of Years of Experience

- ?iii:.-%112"9(100)

34 (26.36) p

in Christmas Tree Farming

 

  

lowest through 9 years

.1, Years «Experience - __

   

21 (14.00)

 

 

10 through 21

72 (48.00)

 

 

22 through 35

35 (23.33)

 

  

36 years and above
Total "

  
   

 

    

.-é.;té-.:;§§i; fri’fl‘50‘(100)‘f;f

   

22 (14.67)

 

 

27

Membership. Out of 153 respondents, ninety-seven (63.40 %) of them were
members of the Michigan Christmas Tree Association and fifty-six (36.60 %) were

nonmembers. Figure 1 shows the distribution of respondents by membership status.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mamba D Nonmember

 

 

 

Figure 1. Distribution of Respondents by Membership
Status of the Michigan Christmas Tree Association
Awareness of the Michigan Snowfresh Program. This is a special project

sponsored by the Michigan Christmas Tree Association in order to produce high quality
Christmas trees in Michigan. Members should register to participate in this program.
Christmas tree growers are provided training about management and production of
Christmas trees. The MCTA has set its own standard for the quality of Christmas trees
in terms of form (shape) and health status of plants. Figure 2 shows tlmt 126 (82.89 %)

respondents were aware of the Michigan Snowfiesh program.

28

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..
.....
a Aware Unaware

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. Distribution of Respondents by Awareness of
the Michigan Snowfresh Program

Farm Type. Christmas tree growers have specialized their farms in terms of

selling their product. Respondents were asked to check the appropriate box that best

describes their Christmas tree farm based on their product sold. Table 5 shows that 56

(37.09 %) Christmas tree growers were wholesalers only and eight (5.3%) Christmas

tree growers were retailers only. Thirty-four (22.52%) respondents had choose-and-

cut only firms.

29

Table 5. Distribution of Respondents by Type of Christmas Tree Farm

Wholesale only 56 (3 7.09)
i Choose-and-Cut only 34 (22.52)
Wholesale and Retail 21 (13.91)
Wholesale and Choose-and—Cut 15 (9.93)
Wholesale, Choose-and-Cut andRetail 15 (9.93)|
- Retail only - 8 (5 30)l i
‘ Others 2 (l 32)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

':-:;:-:_.,..... 4
Ta“ -2" ——~ — ”with pz__i>°l

Change in Size of Christmas Tree Farm Operation. In order to understand
the general trend in the size of Christmas tree operation, respondents were asked to
indicate the change in their operation during the last ten years. Table 6 shows that 63
(41.18 %) indicated a decrease in their Christmas tree firm size during the last ten
years. Sixty-one (39.87 %) farmers indicated an increase in their operation. Twenty-

nine (18.95 %) farmers responded “no change” in their Christmas tree operation.

Table 6. Distribution of Respondents by Change
in Size of Christmas Tree Farm Operation

 

 

 

 

 

30

Farm Ownership. Table 7 shows that a majority of the Christmas tree firms
129 (84.31%) were individually owned. Thirteen (8.50 %) respondents own their
Christmas tree firm as partnership and eight (5.23 %) respondents had both own and
partnership.

Table 7. Distribution of Respondents by Type of Farm Ownership

 

 

129 (84.31)

 

13 (8.50)
8 (5.23)
3 (1.96)
"’ 153(100)

 

 

  

 

 

 

Use of Sources of Information

Respondents were asked to indicate an approximate number of times each
year they turn to different Sources to seek Christmas tree farming information. Results
are presented based on frequency, means, and standard deviation for each Source of
Information. Table 8 shows that most Christmas tree growers, 112 (73.20%), use
Michigan State University Extension followed by pesticide companies, 110 (71.90%),
and the Michigan Christmas Tree Association, 104 (67.97%).
Friends/neighbors/relatives and Christmas tree equipment industries were equally used
by Christmas tree growers to receive information. The Natural Resource Conservation
Service was consulted by lowest number of respondents, 57 (37.25%). Christmas tree

growers were using other Sources of Information than the listed Sources for their

31

Christmas tree farming needs. Other organizations consulted include the Pest Alert,

and the “fisconsin Tree Association.

Table 8. Use of Sources of Information

 
   

Michigan State University Extension

112 (73.20)

 

Pesticide companies '

110 (71.90)

 

Michigan Christmas Tree Association

104 (67.97)

 

Friends/Neighbors/Relatives

95 (62.09)

 

Christmas tree equipment industries

95 (62.09)

 

~ Natural Resource Conservation
Service

 

57 (37.25)

 

The use of each Source of Information is further broken down into difi‘erent

levels of contacts per year. Table 9 shows that Christmas tree growers most fiequently

consulted fiiends/neighbors/relatives with an average contact of 5.35 times in a year.

The Michigan Christmas Tree Association was the second most frequently consulted

source, 3.72 times in a year, followed by Christmas tree equipment industries, 3.56

times in a year. Eighty-six (76.79%) of the respondents consulted the Michigan State

University Extension 1 to 3 times. Although, the highest number of respondents, 112

(73 .20%), turned to the Michigan State University Extension for Christmas tree

farming information, the average contacts per year was higher for

fiiends/neighbors/relatives. The Michigan State University Extension was contacted by

more respondents with lower number of visits per year whereas fiiends, neighbors and

relatives were consulted by less number of respondents with higher number of contacts

perm.

Table 9. Use of Sources of Information by Number of Contacts per Year

  

 

 

21

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Use of Channels of Information

 

 

43 31
(45.26) (32.63) (22.11)
57 4o 7 l
(54.80) (38.47) (6.73) }
Pesticidecompanies 110 374 73 28 9 '
(66.36) (25.46) (8.18) ;
Christmastree 95 338 69 17 9
equipment (72.63) (17.90) (9.47)
industries
've 112 320 86 21 5
ExtensionServiee (76.79) (18.75) (4.46)
Soil Conservation 57 108 51 5 1
Service (89.47) (8.78) (1.75)

 

Table 10 shows the use of Channels of Information. To interpret the data

for the use of Channels of Information, the aggregate scores of “always use” and

“often use”, and “rarely” and “never” were considered. According to the criterion

measure when the scores were equal to or more than 84% i.e. within the highest 16%

of the possible range of scores, they were considered used Channels of Information.

When the scores were equal to or less than 16% i.e. within the lowest 16% of the

33

possible range of scores, they were considered as unused Channels of Information.
Radio, television, and computer aggregate scores fell with in the lowest 16% of the
possible range of scores so they were considered as unused Channels of Information by
the growers of Christmas tree to receive the Christmas tree farming information The
combined score of rarely used and never used was 96.64% for use of radio, 98.33% for
use television, and 90.43% for use of computer. Although the other Channels of
Information were reported to have been fi'equently used, none were used to the extent

required by the test of 84% or more from the aggregate scores of “always” and “often”.

Table 10. Use of Channels of Information

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

  

 

   

 

   
 

 

  
 

 

 
 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

Channels of ~ N f Frequency Of Use (%) Till
Informatlon '- 5 ' . . . . .
- . . . j , . Always I];iOfijletl-:gw Rarely Neverggpg
Joumals/Magazines 149 33 84 26 6
Bulletins/Newspapers (22. 15) (56.38) (17.45) 4.02
Telephone 127 30 63 17 17
(23.62) (49.60) (13.39) 13.39
Meetings/Seminars 136 21 . 60 39 16
Workshops (15.44) (44.12) (28.68) 11.76
Exhibitions 126 15 49 42 20
Demonstrations (11.90) (38.90) (33.33) 15.87
Radio 119 0 4 37 78
(0.00) (3.36) (31.09) 65.55
Television 120 2 0 37 81
(1.67) (0.00) (30.83) 67.50
Computer 1 15 0 l l 14 90
(0.00) (9.57) (12.17) 78.26

 

34

Perceptions about Usefulness of Sources of Information

. Respondents were asked to indicate their familiarity with Sources of
Information by providing an option “not familiar with” along with their usefirlness
rated at four-point scale (0= Of no use, 3= Very useful). Table 11 presents the
fimiliarity of respondents with Sources of Information. As Table 11 shows, more than
90 °/. of the respondents were familiar with the Sources of Information. The number of
respondents fimiliar with the MCTA was the highest, 136 (97.84%), whereas the least
number of respondents, 122 (92.41%), was familiar with Natural Resource
Conservation Service.

Table 11. Respondents’ Familiarity with Sources of Information

    
    
   
  
  
   

 

 

Sources of N Frequency (%) l

Inf ti
omen Not fannllar
‘21¢a.irisifi{2:213:315ff74 wrth

Michigan Christmas 139 136 3
Tree Association (97.84) (2.16)

 

 

mg: 11.5.

 

Pesticide companies 139 135 4
(97.12) (2.88)

Michigan State University 142 136 6
Extension (95.78) (4.22)

Christmas tree 138 131 7
equipment industries (94.93) (5.07)

Friends/Neighbors/Relatives 132 128 4
(97.40) (2.60)

Natural Resource Conservation 132 122 10
Service (92.41) (7.59)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.35

Table 12 presents the perceived usefirlneSs of Sources of Information. Only
those respondents who indicated that they were familiar with a particular Source of
Information were included in the data for Table 12. Based on the criteria of
inrportance, respondents perceived-the Michigan Christmas Tree Association, pesticide
companies, and the Michigan State University Extension as usefirl Sources of
Information for their Christmas tree farming. The combined scores of “very usefirl”
and “somewhat usefirl” were- 85.30% for the MCTA, 88.89% for pesticide companies,
and 84.56% for the Michigan State University Extension respectively. In other words,
fewer than 16% of the respondents regarded the usefulness of each of those three
sources as not usefirl.

Table 12. Perceived Usefulness of Sources of Information

   
  

      
        

 

 

 

 

  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Rated Frequency of Usefulness (%)
* -* *::ziis512iififiiéigiirggj1 5;;-15;::;5fl;i};f};§?3; Very Somewhat Not very Ofno
_ , _ __ H *‘ usefirl ... , . ..... »
! Michigan 136 72 4.4 10 10
* Christmas (52.95) (32.35) (7.35) (7.35 )
Tree Association
Pesticide companies 135 55 65 ll 4
(40.74) (48.15) (8.15) (2.96)
Cooperative 136 58 57 16 5
Extension Service (42.65) (41.91) (11.76) (3.68)
Christmas tree 131 38 65 18 10
equipment industries (29.00) (49.62) (13.74) (7.64)
Friends/Neighbors/ 128 43 56 14 15
Relatives (33.59) (43 .75) (10.94) (1 1.72)
Soil Conservation 122 23 48 28 23
Service (18.85) (39.35) (22.95) (18.85)

 

36

Perceptions about Usefulness of Channels of Information

Table 13 shows that all ofthe respondents, 144 (100%), were familiar with
journals, magazines, bulletins and newspapers. Exhibitions and demonstrations, were
the second most familiar Channels of Information followed by
meetings/seruinars/workshops, telephone, radio, and telephone respectively. Responses
fell within the highest 16% (84% or more scores) of the possible range of scores for
familiar with all Channels of Information except computer (78.52%).

Table 13. Respondents’ Familiarity with Channels of Information

 

 

  
 
   

  
 

Channelsof ‘ rmnmtym
I'm“ nA: « Farmhar Notfamllmr
‘ ‘ I» ' . . V vait’hzi-lwrth

Journals/Magazines 144 144 0
Bulletins/Newspapers (100)

I Exhibitions 128 126 2
Demonstrations (98.44)

Meetings/Seminars 137 134 3
Workshops (97.81)

Telephone 131 126 5 H
(96.18) .

Radio 127 122 5
(96.06)

Television 127 122 5

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

(96.06)

(3 .94)

 

Computer (E-mail)

 

 

121

 

95
(78.52)

 

26
(2 l .48)

 

 

37
The perceived usefulness of Channels of Information is shown in Table 14.

One hundred thirty (90.23%) of the total respondents perceived journals, magazines,
bulletins and newspapers as useful Channels of Information. Radio and television were
perceived as not usefirl Channels of Information by 107 (87.7%) and 109 (89.34%) of
the total respondents respectively. In other words, the respondents who perceived
radio, and television as useful Channels of Information for their Christmas tree farming
practices fell within the lowest 16% of the possible scores

Table 14. Perceived Usefulness of Channels of Information

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Channels of , N T 2 Frequency of Usefirlness (%)

‘ Journals/Magazines 144 74 56 8
Bulletins/Newspapers (51.39) (38.90) (5.55)
Meetings/Seminars 134 68 40 14 12
Workshops (50.75) (29.85) (10.45) (8.95)
Exhibitions 126 48 51 15 12
Demonstrations (38.10) (40.48) (1 1.90) (9.52)
Telephone 126 60 40 9 17

(47.62) (31.75) (7.14) (13.49)
Radio 122 3 12 41 66
(2.46) (9.84) (33 .60) (54. 10)
Computer (E-mail) 95 2 15 18 60
(2.10) (15.79) (18.95) (63.16)
Television 122 4 9 37 72
(3.28) (7.38) (30.33) (59.01)

 

 

 

 

 

 

38

Preferred Sources of Information

Respondents were asked to choose among multiple responses as to their
preferences for receiving information for different aspects of Christmas tree farming.
Table 15 shows the preferred Sources of Information for difl‘erent aspects of Christmas
tree farming. For marketing information, pesticide companies, Cooperative Extensive
Service, Christmas tree equipment industries, and the Natural Resource Conservation
Service were not preferred by the respondents. Christmas tree equipment industries
and the Natural Resource Conservation Service were not preferred for weed
management and insect and disease control information. Pesticide companies and the
Natural Resource Conservation Service were not preferred for shearing information.
Christmas tree equipment industries were not preferred for fertilization information.
Christmas tree equipment industries and the Natural Resource Conservation Service

were not preferred for four out of five difl‘erent aspects of Christmas tree farming.

39

Table 15. Preferred Sources of Information for
Different Aspects of Christmas Tree Farming

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ (’Sourcesof Weed Fertrlrzatr"” "on Shearm‘ "gt

.'Information_' Mgmt. .. . j Ni

.. . . 'N<%)' [Nam N's/a)

-?.-.% i‘ I 1...! :: . ' ':' :' «177-1.

Michigan Christmas 78 69 83

Tree Association (50.98) (45.09) (54.25)

Friends/Neighbors 53 50 59 5 1 60

Relatives (34.64) (32.68) (38.56) (33.33) (39.21)

Pesticide Companies 102 46 2 108 4
(66.67) (30.06) (1.30) (70.59) (2.61)

Michigan State 73 63 32 91 19

University Extension (47.71) (41.18) (20.92) (59.48) (12.42)

Christmas tree 16 14 34 15 13

equipment industries (10.46) (9.15) (22.22) (9.80) (8.50)

Soil Conservation 18 26 2 10 1

Service (11.76) (16.99) (1.30) (6.54) (0.65)

 

 

 

Preferred Channels of Information

Table 16 shows that television, computer, and radio were not preferred to
receive information for any aspect of the Christmas tree farming. In other words, less
than 10% of the total respondents preferred these Channels of Information. None of
the respondents preferred radio to receive information for fertilization, shearing, and
insect and disease control aspects of the Christmas tree farming. Telephone was not
the preference of respondents for fertilization and shearing information of the

Christmas tree farming.

.40

Table 16. Preferred Channels of Information for
Different Aspects of Christmas Tree Farming

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Channels or ' Weed ' Fertilization ', Shearing Insect Marketing
Information “ Mgrnt. : ‘ ‘ and '
- ' NM) NM) N0») Disease -3N(%)
‘ ' ' ' ' C(mt'rbl' ' '
N (%)
Journals/Magazines 1 15 108 88 1 17 103
Bulletins/Newspapers (75.16) (70.59) (57.51) (76.47) (67.32)
Meetings/Seminars 97 94 85 99 69
Workshops (63.40) (61.44) (55.56) (64.70) (45.10)
Exhibitions 79 65 77 64 25
Demonstrations (51.63) (42.48) (50.32) (41.83) (16.33)
Telephone 29 23 15 28 44
(18.95) (15.03) (9.80) (18.30) (28.75)
Television 6 3 5 5 15
(3.92) (1.96) (3.27) (3.27) (9.80)
Computer (E-mail) 4 3 2 4 10
(2.61) (1.96) (1.30) (2.61) (6.53)
Radio 2 0 0 0 8
(1.30) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) $5.22)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

41

Relationship between Demographic characteristics and Frequency of Use of
Sources of Information

Pearson correlation coefiicients were calculated to see the relationship
between use of Sources of Information and age, farm size, and number of years of
experience in Christmas tree farming. As mentioned in the data analysis and
interpretation section of the methodology chapter, only those coefficients which had
moderate or higher relationship were considered for discussion. Table 17 shows that
the relationships between use of Sources of Information and age of the respondents
negligible to low. The relationship between use of Michigan State University
Extension and farm size was moderate (r=0.37) and significant. The relationship
between use of Christmas tree equipment industries and farm size was moderate
(r=0.46) and significant. The relationship between use of pesticide companies and farm
size was moderate (r=0.34) and significant. The relationship between use of
fiiends/neighbors/relatives was substantial (r=0. 58) and significant. In other words,
larger the Christmas tree farm size, greater the use of the MSU-E, Christmas tree
equipment industries, pesticide companies, and fiiend/neighbors/relatives to receive the
Christmas tree farming information. The relationship between use of Sources of

Information and experience in Christmas tree farming was negligible to low.

42

Table 17. Relationship between Use of Sources of Information and Age, Farm
Size and Number of Years of Experience in Christmas Tree Farming

 

  
  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources of Information Age Farm Size No. Of Years in .
Christmas Tree
, . .. .. ,. _ . .. , . ., ......... Fal‘mill
Michigan State University r= -0. 14 r= 0.37 r= .07
Extension . N=129 N=128 N=130
p= 0.13 p=0.00" p=0.44
Natural Resource Conservation r= -0. 12 r= 0.08 r= -0.05
Service N=102 N=100 N=102
p=0.22 p=0.4l p=0.63
Michigan Christmas Tree r= 0.04 - r= 0.07 F 0.04
Association N=122 N=120 N=123
p=0.63 p=0.48 p=0.68
Christmas tree equipment r= -0.06 r= 0.46 r= -0.01
industries N=120 N=117 N=1 l9
p=0.55 p=0.00* . p=0.89
Pesticide companies r= -0.07 r== 0.34 r= 0.09
N=126 N=123 N=126
p=0.42 p=0.00* p=0.30
Fr Z-..:-.’.“ '5' ' "‘ ' " w r= -0.19 r= 0.58 r= -0.05
N=111 N=107 N=110
p=0.05"‘ p=0.00* p=0.58

 

 

 

 

 

’ Significant at 0.05 a level.

Relationship between Demographic characteristics and Frequency of Use of
Channels of Information

Table 18 shows that the relationships between use of Channels of
Information and demographic characteristics such as age of the respondents, farm size,

and number of years in Christmas tree farming were negligible to low. In other words,

43
age of the respondents, farm size and experience of the respondents in the Christmas
tree farming were not strongly associated with the use of Channels of Information.

Table 18. Relationship between Use of Channels of Information and Age, Farm
Size, and Number of Years of Experience in Christmas Tree Farming

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Channels of Age Farm Size No. Of Years in '
Information Christmas Tree
7‘. ..... . . . _. ‘ . . Farming"... .
Television r= .19 r=.16 F .13
N=117 N=119 N=116

p=.04* p=.09 p=.16

Radio r=. 12 r=.01 r=.04

N=116 N=115 N=ll8 '

p=. l9 p=.9l p=.65

Telephone r=. 14 1=. 10 r=-.03
N=124 N=123 N=126

p=. 12 p=.29 p=.77

Computer (E-mail) r=. 17 r=.28 r=-.11
N=112 N=111 N=114

p=.07 p=.00‘ p=.25

Joumals/Magazines/ r=-.03 r=.07 r=.05
Bulletins/Newspapers N=146 N=143 N=147
p=.7l p=.39 p=.51

Meetings/Seminars r=.02 r=. 14 r=.08
Workshops N=133 N=132 N=l34
p=.80 p=. 10 p=.33

Exhibitions/ r=.25 r=. 12 1= .06
Demonstrations N=1 12 N=122 N=125
- p=.01‘ p=.18 p=. 18

 

 

‘ Significant at .05 a level.

44

Variation in the Use of Sources of Information According to Demographic
Characteristics (age, education, income, farm ownership, type of farm) of the
Respondents

One-way analysis of variance was conducted to determine whether nor not
there were significant difi‘erences among age groups, education, income levels, farm
ownership, and type of farm of respondents with the use of Sources of Information.
The analysis revealed no significant difference within age groups, education and income
levels, and farm ownership of the respondents in terms of using Sources of
Information. But there was significant difference between use of Sources of
Information and type of farm. The post hoc (Tukey’s B test) comparison revealed
significant difference in means between farm types—Wholesale only with a mean 3.96
(SD 4.26) and Choose-and-Cut only with a mean 1.54 (SD 1.84)-- in terms of using
information through pesticide companies.
Table 19 shows the significant difference between type of farm and use of pesticide

companies. An AN OVA results which did not appear significant are presented in
appendix.

Table 19. One-Way Analysis of Variance for Type of Farm
and Use of Pesticide Companies

 

 

 

 

 

 

45

Table 20 shows the total count, mean and standard deviation for the use of
pesticide companies by each of the farm type. As revealed by the AN OVA test, there
was significant difi‘erence in the mean between the Wholesale only farm and Choose-
and-Cut only farms for using pesticide companies to receive information about the
Christmas tree farming.

Table 20. Use of Pesticide Companies by Type of Farm

 

 

 

WTYpeofFarm 80
Wholesale only 53 . 3.96 4.26
Choose-and-Cut only 26 1.54 1.84
Wholesale and Retail 5 2.20 2.39
Wholesale and Choose-and-Cut 11 1.91 1.38
IWholesale, Choose-and-Cut and Retail 17 3.29 2.93
t 13 1.92 1.55

 

  
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 21 showed that there was variation between the groups for consulting friends,
neighbors, and relatives to receive information regarding the Christmas tree farming. A
significant difference was found between type of farm and use of fiiends, neighbors,
and relatives. The post hoc (Tukey’s B test) comparison revealed significant difi‘erence
between Wholesale only with mean 5.88 (SD 5.89) and Choose-and-Cut only with

mean 2.29 (SD 1.59) in terms of using information through fiiends/neighbors/relatives.

46

Table 21. One-Way Analysis of Variance for Type of Farm
and Use of Ffiends/Neighboriselatives

Between Groups 5 260.54
“frthin Groups 105 2159.03
rotatef:ij..;:::i;;;i;.5J.a; 2; 110 ; ,241957‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Significant at .05 or level.

Table 22 shows the total count, mean, and standard deviation of consulting
fiiends, neighbors and relatives for every farm type. As revealed by the AN OVA
analysis, the average consulting for fiiends, neighbors, and relatives difi‘er significantly
between Wholesale only farms and Choose-and-Cirt only farms to receive information
for their Christmas tree farming. In other words, Wholesale only farms used consulted

fiiends/neighbors/relatives significantly more than Choose-and-Cut only farms.

47

Table 22. Use of Friends/Neighboriselatives by Type of Farm

 

 

 

 

 

ofFarrn N Mean SD
Wholesale only 48 5.88 5.89
Choose-and-Cut only 21 2.29 1.59
Wholesale and Retail 6 2.67 1.97
Wholesale and Choose-and-Cut 8 3.25 3.33
Wholesale, Choose-and-Cut and Retail 17 5.59 3.78
Retail only 11 3.36 3.88

 

 

 

   

 

 

Variation in the Use of Channels of Information According to Demographic
Characteristics (age, education, income, farm ownership, and types of farm) of
the Respondents

One-way analysis of variance was conducted to determine whether or not
there was a significant difference between age group, education and income levels,
farm ownership, and type of farm of respondents with the use of Channels of
Information. The results of the analysis revealed no significant difl‘erence between the
age groups, education, farm ownership and type of farm in terms of use of Channels of
Information. But there were significant difi‘erences between use of Channels of
Information and gross annual income of respondents. The post hoc (T ukey’s B test)
comparison revealed significant difference in means between the respondents having
gross annual income 3 80,000.00 with a mean 2.03 (SD .84) and the respondents

having gross annual income 8 10,000 to S 20,000.00 with a mean .86 (SD .69) in terms

48

of using " ’ ' 'wurkshops to receive information. Table 23 presents the

results of ANOVA for gross annual income and use of meetings, seminars and

workshops.

Table 23. One-Way Analysis of Variance for Gross Annual Income

Sources DF‘ g of

Between Groups 5 10.54 2.11 2.64
Within Groups 108 86.09 .80
113

 

‘ Significant at .05 a level.

Table 24 presents the mean and standard deviation for each of the income group level.

 

Table 24. use or ‘I A. a. m . nv‘v'us :uisupa by
Gross Annual Income of Respondents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

" :or'ossaimn name ,1. ELgeLE
3 Less than S 10,000.00 2 2 0

S 10,000.00-S 20,000.00 7 .86 .69
S 20,000.00-S 40,000.00 25 1.56 .96
S 40,000.00-S 60,000.00 37 1.54 .99
S 60,000.00-3 80,000.00 12 1.92 .67
S 80,000.00 and above 31 2.03 .84
rats ,. . _ .7 . , M

 

 

 

 

 

The post hoc (T ukey’s B test) comparison revealed significant difference in means

between the respondents having gross annual income 3 80,000.00 with a mean 1.96

49

(SD .74) and the respondents having gross annual income 3 40,000 to S 60,000.00 with
a mean 1.31 (SD .93) in terms of using exhibitions and demonstrations to receive
information. Table 25 presents the results of ANOVA for gross annual income and use

of exhibitions and demonstrations.

Table 25. One-Way Analysis of Variance for Gross Annual Income
and Use of Exhibitions/Demonstrations

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

. ' ~ . protar : . .: :107
"' Significant at .05 alevel.

 

 

Table 26 presents the total count, mean, and standard deviation for difi‘erent income
group respondents using exhibitions and demonstrations to receive information for their
Christmas tree farming.

Table 26. Use of Exhibitions and Demonstrations by
Gross Annual Income of Respondents

GrossAnnualIncome 1N Mean SD
3 Less than 8 10,000.00 2 2 0
s 10,000.00-s 20,000.00 7 1 1.5
S 20,000.00—s 40,000.00 23 1.35 .93
I s 40,000.00-s 60,000.00 35 1.31 .93
; s 60,000.00-S 80,000.00 13 1.69 .63
s 80,000.00 and above 28 1.96 .74
0 f1" iffi”) :75 ff? : 1 ; f f 7f: -~'f:_[5:s.   108 ‘

 

 

 

 

 

   
 

 

 

 

 

   

 

  

50

Difference between Christmas tree Growers with Farm Size Less than 15 Acres

and More than 300 acres for their Use of Sources of Information

Student t-test was done to identify if there were significant differences
between Christmas tree growers with Christmas tree farm size less than 15 acres and
more than 300 acres for their use of Sources of Information. The results of t-test
revealed significant difference between those two groups for use of pesticide
companies. Christmas tree growers with more than 300 acres of Christmas tree farm
size used pesticide companies significantly more than the Christmas tree growers with
less than 15 acres of Christmas tree farm size. An average use of pesticide companies
by the Christmas tree growers with more than 300 acres of Christmas tree farm size
was 4.38 (S D. 4.42) in a year in contrast to 1.89 (S D. 2.47) times for the Christmas
tree growers with Christmas tree farm size less than 15 acres. Table 27 presents the
mean and standard deviation of use of each of the Sources of Information. There were
no significant difi‘erences between those two groups for use of other Sources of

Information.

51

Table 27. Results of t-test for Difference between Christmas tree Growers with
Farm Size less than 15 acres and more than 300 acres for Use of Sources of
Information

 

    

Michigan State University 1.70 2.95 -1.34 - .19
Extension S D = 2.06 S D = 3.60

Natural Resource .57 1.44 -1.33 .19
Conservation Service S D = .76 S D = 2.36

Michigan Christmas Tree 2.63 2.85 -.32 .75
Association SD=2.19 SD=2.03

Christmas tree equipment 2.56 3.63 -.57 .57
industries S D = 2.58 S D = 7.05

Pesticide companies 1.89 4.38 -2.12 .04"I

 

 

 

 

 

Friends/Neighbors/ 2.78 6.59 -1.82 .09
Relatives g S D = 1.83 S D = 8.43

 

 

 

 

" Significant at 0.05 a level.

52

Difference between Member and Nonmember Farmer Use of Sources of
Information

Scores of member and nonmember farmers for the use of Sources of
Information were tested for difi‘erence between these two groups. Table 28 shows the
results of t-test between member and nonmember farmers for use of Sources of
Information. The result revealed that there were significant difi‘erences between the
groups for using information through the Michigan State University Extension and the
Michigan Christmas Tree Association. Analysis showed that member farmers had
mean 2.89 (SD 3.28) for the use of the Michigan State University Extension where as
nonmembers had mean use 1.57 (SD 1.36) in a year. Similarly, the mean use ofthe
MCTA for members was 3.96 (SD 3.34) where as for nonmembers the mean was .79
(SD 1.04). Table 28 shows the mean and standard deviation for member and

nonmember farmers for using each of the Sources of Information.

53

Table 28. Results of t-test for Differences between Member and Nonmember
Farmer Use of Sources of Information

Swarm"...

i ‘ ' 5* 35Tf¥7§iiifif f’Me 7” "5:757? Nonmember w r ;,_~-:

: 31:32:?Mean :1:s:;:::;~i;;;:ii;35.... *

 

 

 

Michigan State
University Extension

2.89
SD=3.28

1.57
SD=1.36

2w
518mm“

0.00“

 

Natural Resource
Conservation Service

1.16
SD=1.72

0.81
SD=.86

0.16

 

Michigan Christmas Tree
Association

3.96
SD=3.34

0.79
SD=1.04

8.04

0.00‘

 

Christmas tree equipment
industries

3.17
SD=4.95

1.92
SD=2.84

1.46

0.15

 

Pesticide companies

3.05
SD=3.61

2.67
SD=2.58

0.60

0.55

 

Friends/Neighbors/
Relatives

 

" Significant at 0.05 a level.

 

4.90
SD=5.31

 

3.85
SD=3.08

 

1.33

0.19

 

 

Difference between Member and Nonmember Farmer Use of Channels of

Information

Table 29 shows that there were significance differences between

members and nonmembers in terms of using journals/magazines/bulletins/newspapers,

meetings/seminars/workshops and exhibitions/demonstrations. Use of other Channels

of Information between these two groups was not found to be significantly difi‘erent.

Analysis showed that member farmer had mean 2.22 (SD .60) for using

journals/magazines/bulletins and newspapers in contrast to the mean of 1.50 (SD .78)

54
for nonmembers. Similarly, members had mean use of 1.94 (SD .74) for

meetings/semimrs/workshops in contrast to the mean of 1.04 (SD .83) for
nonmembers. Members had mean use of 1.74 (SD .75) for use of exhibitions and

demonstrations in contrast to the mean of .95 (SD .94) for nonmembers.

Table 29. Results of t-test for Difference between Member and Nonmember
Farmer Use of Channels of Information

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Television .42 .24 1.77 .08 1
SD= 63 SD= 44

Radio .42 .29 1.33 .19
SD= 59 SD= 46

Telephone 1.89 1.73 .94 .35

l SD= 95 SD= 92

Computer (E-mail) .32 .31 .06 .95
SD=.64 SD= 66

Joumals/Magazines/ 2.22 1.50 5.78 .00“

Bulletins/Newspapers SD=.60 SD=.78

Meetings/Seminars/ 1.94 1.04 6.44 .00*

? Workshops SD=.74 SD=.83

Exhibitions/ 1.74 .95 5.15 .00“

Demonstrations f f ,- f_ SD=5.7 -_ SD=-.94

* Significant at 0.05 a level.

55
Difference between Member and Nonmember Farmers of Michigan Christmas
Tree Association for Change in Christmas Tree Farm Operation During the Last
Ten Years ,
The responses of members and nonmembers of the Michigan Christmas

Tree Association were tested for difference in the change in Christmas tree farm
operation during the last ten years. Table 30 shows the result of Chi-Square test. The
Chi-Square test revealed that there was no significant difference (Pearson Chi-Square =
0.30) between members and nonmembers of the MCTA for change in average size of
Christmas tree farm operation during the last ten years.

Table 30. Result of Chi-Square test for Difference between Members and

Nonmembers of the Michigan Christmas Tree Association for Change in Size of
Christmas Tree Farm Operation During the Last Ten Years

 

 

Chquuare

  

  

 

Pearson
i

Table 31 presents the cross tabulation for frequency distribution of member
and nonmember farmers’ perception about the change in their size of the Christmas tree
farm during the last ten years. Table 31 shows that 43 (28.10%) members and 18
(11.77%) nonmembers of the MCTA indicated as increase in their Christmas tree farm
size respectively. Thirty-six (23.54%) members and 27 (17.64%) indicated as decrease
in their Christmas tree farm size respectively. Eighteen (11.76%) members and 11
(7.19%) nonmembers of the MCTA indicated as no change in their Christmas tree farm
size respectively. However, it appears that members are much more likely to be

increasing their operations while nonmembers are more likely decreasing.

56

Table 31. Cross tabulation of the Membership Status of the MCTA by Change in
Size of Christmas Tree Operation During the Last Ten Years

in

Member 43 36 18

(28.10) (23.54) (11.76)

Nonmember 18 27 11
(11.77) (17.64) (7.19)

 

Difference between Member and Nonmember Farmers of the Michigan
Christmas Tree Association for Awareness of Michigan Snowfresh Program

The responses of members and nonmembers were tested to see if there was
difference in their awareness of the Michigan Snowfi'esh Program of the Michigan
Christmas Tree Association. The result of Chi-Square showed that there was
significant difi‘erence (Pearson Chi-Square=0.00) between member and nonmember
farmers for awareness of the Michigan Snowfi’esh Program. Further cross tabulation
analysis showed that 69.80 % member farmers were aware of the Michigan Snowfresh

Program in contrast to 30.20% for nonmember farmers.

57

Table 32. Result of Chi-Square test for Difference between Members and
Nonmembers of the Michigan Christmas Tree Association for Awareness
of the Michigan Snowfresh Program

 

 

* Significant at 0.05 01 level

Table 33. Cross tabulation of the Membership of the MCI‘A by
Awareness of the Michigan Snowfresh Program

 

 

11491119961110: 3 11:.AWaf'énéiS'9fihe‘Michlgan
"p * ' "I; 7‘ I 'Snowfiesh Pragrarnijgf 7’

_*-f  ?—ii

Member 88 38
(57.89) (25.00)

(593) (1 1-18) i -j_ ,f j;
97M 55 ‘

[

, 3: ‘ » (3618) ~

 

 

 

 

Table 33 shows that 88 (57.89%) members and 9 (5.93%) nonmembers were aware of
the Michigan Snowfresh Program. Thirty-eight (25%) of members and 17 (11.185)

nonmembers were unaware of the Michigan Snowfresh Program. Therefore, members
of the MCTA were significantly more aware of the Michigan Snowfiesh Program than

nonmembers of the MCTA.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

This chapter presents a brief summary of research questions, procedures
used to conduct this study and results from various statistical tests. Finally, it presents
the conclusion and recommendations based on the findings of the study.

Extension education organizations use a variety of methods for getting
various messages across to their clients. Regardless of the involvement of dozens of
organizations in extension, 8 common belief among extension personnel is that the
Michigan State University Extension is the primary Source of Information fiequently
consulted and preferred by clients looking for assistance to improve their quality of life.

Thus, agricultural educators/extension agents face a challenge of knowing their
audience and its needs for effective and efficient dissemination of farming information.
Christmas tree growers in Michigan, like other adult learners, use a variety of
educational resources to meet their farming needs.

The success of an extension program depends on delivering of practical
information that is usefirl to rural people in helping to solve their daily problems and
winning the confidence of those to be served. There was need to identify and describe
the Sources and Channels of Information that were considered useful and preferred by
the clients. Thus this study was proposed to identify, describe and document the
Sources and Channels of Information that were considered usefirl and preferred by the

Christmas tree growers to assist in their Christmas tree farming in Michigan.

58

59

Research Questions. The following research questions were formulated to guide the
study and to flame the questions to be used for gathering data through survey
instrumentation: ‘
Research Question if 1. To what extent, have the growers of Christmas
tree been using difl‘erent Sources and Channels of Information to solve their
farming problems?
Research Question # 2. What is the perception of the growers of
Christmas tree about the usefulness of different Sources and Channels of
Information used for their farming needs?
Research Question # 3. Which Source(s) and Channel(s) of information
do the growers of Christmas tree prefer to use or seek out for specific
farming practices/concerns?
Research Question # 4a. 18 there a relationship between age, Christmas
tree farming experience or farm size of the growers of Christmas tree and
the use of Sources of information?
Research Question # 4b. 18 there a relationship between age, Christmas
tree farming experience or farm size of the growers of Christmas tree and
the use of Channels of information?
Research Question # 5a. Does the use of Sources of Information by
growers of Christmas tree differ according to education, income, farm

ownership, and type of farm?

60

Research Question # 5b. Does the use of Channels of Information by
growers of Christmas tree differ according to education, income, farm
ownership, and type of farm?

Research Question # 6. Is there a difference between members and
norunernbers of the Michigan Christmas Tree Association in terms of their
use of Sources of Information, use of Channels of Information, and change
in their size of Christmas tree farm operation during the last ten years?
Research Question # 7. Is there a difi'erence between members and
nonmembers of the Michigan Christmas Tree Association in terms of their

awareness of the Michigan Snowfresh Program?

Instrumentation of the Study. This was a descriptive study. A survey questionnaire
method was used for this study. The population for this study was the growers of
Christmas tree in the state of Michigan. Systematic sampling with random start was
used to select the sample size of 265 out of the total population of 790 Christmas tree
growers. The instrument for data collection was a mail questionnaire which was
developed by considering each research question to be answered. The instrument
consisted of two parts. The first part consisted of opinions regarding the use,
usefirlness and preference of Sources and Channels of Information to assist in their
Christmas tree farming. The second part was personal and farm characteristics of the
Christmas tree growers. Variables such as use of Sources of Information were

measured in fi'equency (approximate times used per year), and 11g of Channels of

61

Information were measured with a four-point scale, (0=never use, and 3= always use).
Perceptions about usefiglneg of Sources and Channels of Information were also
measured with a four-point scale (0=of no use, and 3=Very useful). Manges about
use of Sources and Channels of Information were measured by giving multiple options
to choose. Personal and farm characteristics such as age of respondents, experience in
Christmas tree farming, and farm size were measured in ratio scale. Education, and
income were measured with interval scale. Change in size of Christmas tree farm
operation, type of farm, farm ownership, awareness of Michigan Snowfresh Program,

and membership status were measured in nominal scale.

Data Analysis. Because of the descriptive nature of the study, mostly descriptive
statistics-fiequency, percentage, means, Pearson product moment correlation
coeflicients, and standard deviations were used to analyze the data. A few inferential
statistics such as t-test, one-way analysis of variance, and Chi-Square tests were
performed to determine significant relationships and difi‘erences. Data were analyzed
by using computer software called Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS for
Windows). Alpha was set a-priori at .05.

A total of 153 (57.74%) respondents participated by providing complete
information asked in the survey questionnaire. Findings showed that the average age of
respondents was 54.47 years with a standard deviation of 12.94 years ranging from 17
years to 84 years. A greater proportion, 73.2%, of respondents had college or

university education. The average gross annual income of the respondents was

_n

 

62
between S 40, 000 to S 60, 000. and the highest proportion, 30.23 percent, of the

respondents was under the same income level. The proportion of respondents with less
than S 10,000 gross annual income was only 2.33 percent. While the average
Christmas tree grower had 21.57 years of experience in Christmas tree farming,
experience ranged fi'om 2 years to 60 years. Ninety-seven (63.40%) of the respondents
were member of the Michigan Christmas Tree Association. The rrrajority of the
respondents (82.89%) were aware of the Michigan Snowfi'esh pregram. Fifty-six
(37.09%) respondents had Wholesale only farm type followed by 34 (22.52%)
Choose-and-Cut only. There were 8 (5.30%) retailers. Respondents were asked to
indicate the change in their size of Christmas tree farm operation during the last ten
years and the response for and against was almost the same. Sixty-three (41.18%)
respondents indicated decrease in their size of operation where as sixty-one (39.87%)
indicated increase in their size of Christmas tree farm operation during the last ten
years. Twenty-nine (18.95%) respondents indicated no change. A greater proportion,
84.31%, of the respondents had individually owned Christmas tree farms.

Partnerships accounted for only 8 (5.23%) of the total respondents.

Research question one was about the use of Sources and Channels of
information. The results showed that Christmas tree growers most frequently used
fiiends/neighbors/relatives, followed by the MCTA, pesticide companies, Christmas
tree equipment industries, the MSUE and the Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS) as Source of their Christmas tree farming information. Christmas tree growers

turned to their fiiends/neighbors/relatives an average of 5.35 times in a year whereas

63
they turned 2.86 times a year to the MSUE. Although the mean use ofthe MSUE was

lower (2.86) than fiiends/neighbors/relatives (5.35), it served a higher number of
people, 112 (73.20%) than fiiends/neighborS/relatives. The reason the mean is less for
the MSUE as compared to fiiends/neighbors/relatives was that there was a lower
frequency of visits by respondents to the MSUE. Table 9 shows the frequency of
contacts to various Sources per year. Uses of information through the NRCS occurred
at least 1.90 times a year.

According to the criterion measure, respondents who indicated their use of
radio, television, and computer were within the lowest 16% of the possible range of
scores so they were not considered as used Channels of Information for Christmas tree
farming.

Research question two was directed toward the perception of Christmas
tree growers about the usefirlness of Sources and Channels of Information. Findings
revealed that more than 92.41% respondents were familiar with all identified Sources
of Information. More than 84% of the respondents (within the highest 16% of the
possible range) perceived the Michigan Christmas Tree Association, pesticide
companies, and the Michigan State University Extension as useful Sources of
Information.

More than 96.06% of the respondents were familiar with all identified
Channels of Information except the computer (78.52%). Journals, magazines,
bulletins, and newspapers were perceived as the useful Channels of Information by 130

(90.29%) respondents. Television was not perceived as a useful Channel of Information

h 64
by 109 (89.34%) of the total respondents.

Research question three sought to identify the preferences for Sources and
Channels of Information for difi‘erent aspects of Christmas tree farming. Christmas tree
equipment industries, and the Natural Resource Conservation Service were not
preferred Sources of Information for weed management information. Again, Christmas
tree equipment industries were not preferred for fertilization, insect and disease control
and marketing information. The Natural Resource Conservation Service was not
preferred for four difl‘erent aspects of Christmas tree equipment namely: weed
management, shearing, insect and disease control, and marketing. Four of the Sources
of Information were not preferred for marketing information.

None of the respondents prefer radio to receive information for fertilization,
shearing , and insect and disease control. Less than ten percent of the respondents
preferred television, radio, and computer to receive information for all different aspects
the Christmas tree farming. Telephone was not preferred for fertilization and shearing
information.

Research question 48 sought the relationship between age of respondents,
experience in Christmas tree farming, or farm size and use of Sources of Information.
The relationship between age of respondents and use of Sources of Information was
low to negligible. The relationship of farm size with the Michigan State University
Extension, the Christmas tree equipment industries, and pesticide companies was

moderate. The relationship between farm size and consulting fiiends, neighbors and

65

relatives was substantial. In other words, bigger the farm size, the more Christmas tree
growers tend to consult fiiends/neighbors/relatives. The relationship between
experience of the Christmastree growers and use of Sources of Information was low to
negligible.

Research question 4b sought the relationship between age of respondents,
experience in Christmas tree farming or farm size and use of Channels of Information.
Again, the relationship between age of respondents, farm size and years of experience
in Christmas tree farming and use of Channels of Information was low to negligible.

Research question 5a sought to identify differences in use of Sources of
Information according to age, education, income, farm ownership and type of farm.
The results of the one-way analysis of variance revealed no significant difference in use
of Sources of Information according to education, income, and farm ownership of the
respondents. Type of farm was significantly different in terms of using pesticide
companies and fiiends/neighbors/relatives. A post hoc (Tuky’s B) test identified
difference between Wholesale only and Choose-and-cut only in terms of using pesticide
companies and fiiends/neighbors/relatives. In other words, Wholesale only farms used
pesticide companies and fiiends/neighbors/relatives significantly more than Choose-
and-Cut farms.

Research question 5b sought to identify differences in use of Channels of
Information according to age, education, income, farm ownership and type of farm.
The results of the one-way analysis of variance revealed no significant difl‘erence in use

of Channels of Information according to age, education, farm ownership and type of

66
farm of the respondents. Significant difference was observed between respondents with

gross annual income ten to twenty thousands and more than eighty thousands for using
meetings, seminars and workshops. In other words, the respondents with gross annual
income with S 80,000 and above used meetings/sernmars/workshops significantly more
than the respondents having gross annual income between S 10,000 to 20,000. Again,
there was significant difi‘erence between respondents with gross annual income forty to
sixty thousands and more than eighty thousands for using exhibitions and
demonstrations. In other words, respondents who have S 80,000 and above gross
annual income used exhibitions and demonstrations significantly more than respondents
with S 40,000 to 60,000 gross annual income.

Research question six was asked to answer whether members and
nonmembers of the MCTA differ in terms of their use of Sources of Information, use
of Channels of Information, and change in size or their Christmas tree farm operation
during the last ten years. Student t-test showed significant difference in using the
MSUE and the MCTA between the two groups. In both cases, member farmers used
the MSUE and the MCTA more frequently than nonmember farmers.

Similarly, significant differences were found between members and
nonmembers of the MCTA for using Channels of Information. The test results showed
that there were difi‘erences in the use of journals/magazines/newspapers,
meetingslseminars/workshops and exhibitions/demonstrations between members and
nonmember growers. Member growers used all three categories of Channels

significantly more than nonmember growers.

67

Chi-Square test result revealed no significant difi‘erence (Pearson Chi-
Square=.30) between members and nonmembers of the MCTA for change in size of
Christmas tree farm operation during the last ten years.

Research question seven was proposed to difi‘erentiate between members
and nonmembers of the MCTA for awareness of the Michigan Snowfresh program
The Chi-Square test revealed that members and nonmembers were significantly
difi‘erent (Pearson Chi-Square=.00) for awareness of the Michigan Snowfresh program.

Member growers were significantly more aware of the program than nonmembers.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The following conclusions and recommendations were drawn based on the
analysis and findings of the study:
Conclusion it 1. Christmas tree growers prefer to receive information in less formal
ways. Since the Christmas tree growers turned to fiiends, neighbors and relatives to
receive Christmas tree farming information it seems that they feel more comfortable
sharing their concerns about Christmas tree farming with them rather than with formal
organizations and institutions like the Michigan State University Extension and the
Natural Resource Conservation Service.
Recommendation # 1. Extension organizations and agencies should search out less
formal ways to communicate with the Christmas tree growers. In other words agencies
should direct their strategies more toward using neighborhood or community resources

in a less formal approach for the dissemination of information about Christmas tree

68
farming. The role of non-formal organizations and institutions in extension should also

be further researched.

Conclusion if 2. Christmas tree growers tended to seek information concerning their
firm through more specialized professional organizations like the Michigan Christmas
Tree Association. In other words the respondents consulted the organization which
directly deals with production, management, and promotion of Christmas trees.
Recommendation 1'! 2. It is recommended that the extension organizations and
agencies extend farming information through those institutions like the Michigan
Christmas Tree Association and pesticide companies which have already established

familiarity and relationship with the Christmas tree growers.

Conclusion # 3. Christmas tree growers seemed most familiar with and preferred
traditional Channels of Information such as journals, magazines, bulletins, and
newspapers to receive information about the Christmas tree farming.
Recommendation # 3. Extension organizations and agencies should give more
emphasis on timely publication of highly informative journals, magazines and

newspapers that solve the current problems of Christmas tree growers.

Conclusion # 4. Christmas tree growers’ preference to receive information through
the Christmas tree equipment industries, and the Natural Resource Conservation
Service is very low. Christmas tree growers did not prefer to receive information from

these Sources of Information for four out of five different aspects of the Christmas tree

69
firming.
Recommendation # 4. Extension organizations should go through those organizations
which are most preferred by Christmas tree growers. For example Christmas tree

growers have a higher preference for receiving information fiom the MCT A.

Conclusion # 5. Contrary to the relative advantage of reaching many audiences at a
time, Christmas tree growers’ preference to receive information through mass media
such as television, computer, and radio is very low.

Recommendation If 5. Regarding the use of the computer, a few respondents had
indicated their interests on using Internet to get information related to their farming
problems. It is recommended that the extension organizations train their clients on how
to access information through Internet and use electronic mail. It would also be

worthwhile to study the underlying causes of low preference to these mass media.

Conclusion # 6. The findings of this research support the conclusion that Christmas
tree farming needs and problems are dealt with different ways between small firm size
and big firm size holders.

Recommendation # 6. Therefore, extension organizations could apply various
extension strategies to serve the difi‘erent clientele groups.

Conclusion # 7. Membership of the MCTA tends to be a significant factor in terms of
using Sources and Channels of Information, and awareness of the Michigan Snowfiesh

Program. Members have been using Sources and Channels of Information significantly

70

more than nonmembers of the MCTA There could be three possible reasons behind
this phenomena. The first possible reason could be that only those Christmas tree
growers who have already developed information acquisition behavior should have
joined the MCTA The second possible reason could be that Christmas tree growers
might have developed more information acquisition behavior after joining the
association. The third possible reason could be the efi‘ective extension strategies of the
MCTA for the production and promotion of Christmas tree industries in Michigan.
Recommendation #7. Extension organizations should try to find out key
characteristics that why these two groups are different. Extension strategies should be

developed to better serve the disadvantaged or weak groups.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Al-Howshabi, Mansour (1993). Preferred Channels of Issue-Related Information
Across the First Two Stages of Innovation Adoption: Case of the Kent
County Michigan State University Extension Clientele. Ph. D.
Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Axinn, G. H. (1994). Problems faced by Extension Education with Special
Reference of Nepal. Seminar Presented at Department of Agricultural and
Extension Education, Michigan State University, October 3, 1994.

Axinn, G. H. and Thorat, Sudhakar, (1972). Modernizing World Agriculture. A
comparative Study of Agricultural and Extension Education Systems.
Praeger Publishers Inc. New York, USA

Crawford, Harold R (1969). Factors Affecting the Establishment of Young Farm
Operators in Iowa and Implications for Agricultural Education. PhD.
Dissertation, Iowa State University.

Daharna, GP. (1979). Extension and Rural Welfare. Ramprasad and Sons, Agra,
India.

Davis, (1971). Elementary Survey Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ ., Prentice Hall.

Davis, Dennis K., and Baran, Stanley J., (1981). Mass Communication and
Everyday Life. A Perspective on Theory and Effects. Wadsworth
Publishing Company, Belmont, California.

Koelling, M.R., Hart, TB, and Leefers, L. (1992). Christmas Tree Production.
Status and Potential of Michigan Agriculture-Phase II. Michigan
State University Agricultural Experiment Station, Special Report No. 61.

Kolmer, Lee R. (1954). Delivery Systems for Continuing Education. American
Joumal of Agricultural Economics. 54 (1972), pp. 916-921.

71

72

Levine, S. Joseph (1987). Unavoidable Failures: Challenges of Teaching Adults.
Options. Vol. 2, No. 2., pp. 2-5.

Levine, S. Joseph (1994). Unanticipated Learning. Extension Edrtcation Extra.
Department of Agricultural and Extension Education, Michigan State
University. May 1994.

Levine, S. Joseph, and Suvedi, M. (1994). Determining Sampling Size. A Handout
' provided during Practical Research Institute, May 23 June 9, 1994.
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Lingamneni, Jaganrnohan Rao (1981). Communication Channels/Sources in the
Innovation-Decision Process: A Comparative Review of U. S. and
India Diffusion Research. In Extension Education and Rural
Development, Vol. 1, pp. 147-153. Edited by Bruce R. Crouch and
Chamala Shankariah. Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.

Magazines (1994). The National Farm Media Report. A Study of Media Usage
and Preference by United States Farmers. The National Association of
Farm Broadcasters.

Mahjoory, Said (1982). The Use Of Soil Survey Information By Farmers In Five
Michigan Counties. Ph. D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, East
Lansing.

McLuhan, Marshall, (1964): Understanding Media. The Extensions of Man.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.

McQuail, Denis. (1983). Mass Communication Theory: An Introduction. Beverly
Hills, Sage Publication, London.

Michigan Department of Agriculture (1993). Michigan Rotational Survey.
Nurseries and Christmas Trees-1993. Michigan Agricultural Statistics
Service.

Miller, Larry E. and Smith, Keith L. (1983). Handling Nonresponse Issues. Journal
of Extension. September/October, 1983.

Obahayujie, Julius, and Hillison, John (1988). Now Hear This Delivery Methods for
Farmers. Journal of Extension. Spring 1988, pp. 21-22.

73

Reyes, Yonis D. (1991). Assessment of the Comparative Importance of Selected
Agricultural Information Sources on Agricultural Production and
Marketing Decisions. The Case Study of Ingham County
Farmers.Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Singh, K. N., (1981)., The Need for a Communication Strategy for Rural
Development. In Extension and Rural Development. Edited by Crouch,
Bruce R, and Shankariah Chamala. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Smith, Keith L. and Kahler, Alan A (1982). Iowa Adult Farmers' PerceptionTeacher
Educations in Agriculture (1982),pp. 41-50.

Stadlman, Neil H. (1973). Follow-up Study of Recent Young Farm Operators in
Iowa. A Special Topic in Agricultural Education. Agricultural
Education 590 Project. Iowa State University.

Tichenor, P. J., Donohue, G.A., and Olien, C.N. (1970). Mass Media Flow and
Differential Growth in Knowledge. The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol.
XXXIV, No. 2, pp. 159-170.

Vergot 111, Pete (1991). Southwest Michigan Fruit and Vegetable Farmers' Use of
Sources and Channels to Gain Information in Regard to New
Agricultural Practices. Ph. D. Dissertation, Department of Agricultural
and Extension Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Appendix A.

 

OFFICE OF
RESEARCH
AND
IHMDUME
STUDIES

UnMnlty Commit!"
flotsam lmlvl
llamas Suhlssts
ummum

Mrcnmn State University
232 AdenISIIaIIOD Budding
East Lansing, MICI'IIQJII
MENJWU

517/355-2180
FAX'517/432~II71

The Mensa" Sm! L‘mmsw
IDEA s "5!er ”w 0 WW.
Excel/my, ,n Ara-m

M»? s I“ 4.""?'.-' at."

   
 
 
  

Approval Letter from University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects'

MICHIGAN STATE

U hII V E R SI T Y

July 26, 1995

 

TO: Krishna Mohan Shrestha
410 Agriculture Hall

RE: IRB’:
TITLE:

95-391

SOURCES AND CHANNELS OF INFORMATION USED BY
GROWERS OF CHRISTMAS TREES IN THE STATE OF
MICHIGAN, USA

REVISION REQUESTED: N/A

CATEGORY: -C

APPROVAL DATE: 07/25/95

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects'(UCRIHS)
review of this project is complete. I am pleased to adVise that the
rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately
protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate.

gerefore, the UCRIHS approved this project and any reVisions listed
a ove.

RENEWAL: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with
the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to
continue a project beyond one year must use the green renewal
form (enclosed with t e original a proval letter or when a
project is renewed) to seek ugdate certification. There is a
maXimum of four such expedite renewals ossible. Investigators
wishing to continue a project beyond the time need to submit it
again or complete reView.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human
subjects, rior to initiation of t e change. If this is done at
the time o renewal, please use the green renewal form. To
revise an approved protocol at ang other time during the year,
send your written request to the CRIHS Chair, requesting revised
approval and referencing the project's IRB I and title. Include
in your request a description of the change and any revised
instruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMS]
CHANGES: Should either of the followin
work, investigators must noti
(unexpected Side effects, comp aints, c.) inVOIVin uman

subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new

information indicating greater risk to the human sub ects than
existed when the protocol was previously reviewed an approved.

arise during the course of the
UCRIHS promptly: (1) Rroblems
e 9

If we can be of any future help, lease do not hesitate to contact us
at (517)355-2180 or FAX (517)4 2- 171.

incerel

avid E. Wright .Ph.
UCRIHS Chair

DEw:kaa/lcp

cc: 8. Joseph Levine

74

APPENDIX B

Appendix B. Survey Instrument

 

Pleaseindicateyourresponseafiercarefirlreadingofeachquestionitem Therearetwopartsin
thissurveyquestionnaire.Themainpartofthisquestionnaireasksforyouropinionsregarding
thesourcesofinformationtoassistinyourChrisunastreefarming. Therearenocorrectanswers
tothesequestims. Allresponsesarevaluable. Thesecondpartofthe questionnaireasksfor
information about the specifics of your farming operation All information collected through this
questionnaire will be kept entirely confidential. All information collected through this
quadmndmwmbepmwdmagyegamwaysandmwmptwiflbemademidenfifyspedfic
respondents. Itwilltakelessthantenminutestofilloutthe questimnaire. Foryourconvenience
a prestamped return envelope is provided You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate
bycompletingandreuuningthisquestiounaire. Yourcooperaticninccmpletingandreturningthe
questionnaire as soon as possible ishighly appreciated

Should you have any questions regarding this questionnaire, please feel free to contact Mr.
Krishna Shrestha at (517) 355-6580 or (517) 355-2782.

Part I
Approximately how many times each year do you use each of the following

agencies/organizations for information to help in your Christmas tree farming? (Please
write the number of times in the space provided for each agency/organization.)

 

Cooperative Extension Service times/year
Soil Conservation Service times/year
Michigan Christmas Tree Association times/year
Christmas tree equipment industries times/year
Pesticide companies times/year
Friends/Neighbors/Relatives times/year
Others (Please specify)

timedyear

times/year

 

How FREQUENTLY do you use each of the following media for information to help in your
Christmas tree farming? (Please check the appropriate boxes.)

 

Always Ofien Rarely Never

Television E] E] E] [El
Radio [I] [:1 CI [3
Telephone D C] E] [3
Computer (Electronic Mail) E] D E] III
Journals/Magazines/Bulletins/Newspapers Cl E] E] El
MeetingslSeminars/Workshops C] D D E]
Exhibitions/Demonstrations E] C] E] [:1
Others (Please specify)

C] Cl E] El

Cl C] E] El

 

\l
M

76

How USEFUL do you find the following agencies/organizations in providing information to help
in your Christmas tree farming? (Please check the appropriate boxes.)

 

Very Somewhat Not Very Of no Not Familiar
Useful Useful Useful Use With
Cooperative Extension Service El El El 13 [:1
Soil Conservation Service El El 13 El 121
Michigan Christmas Tree Association El 13 [:1 El E1
Christmas tree equipment industries El El 13 El El
Pesticide companies El Cl E] El 0
Friends/Neighbors/Relatives E] El E1 El D
Other! (Please Specify)
El Cl C] D
D 0 El Cl

 

How USEFUL do you find each of the following media in providing information for your
Christmas tree farming needs? (Please check the appropriate boxes.)

 

Very Somewhat Not Very Of no Not Familiar
Useful Useful Useful Use With
Television D C] _ C] Cl C]
Radio E] E] Cl C] C]
Telephone [:1 [:1 [:1 D C]
Computer (Electronic Mail) [I] C] Cl E] El
Jomnals/Magazines/Bulletins/Newspapers El E] [I] E] El
Meetings/Serninars/Workshops [Z] [I] [I] [:1 Cl
Exhibiuons/Delnarsu‘ations D C] C] E] El
Others (Please specify)
[:1 C] C] E]
E] E] C] [I]

 

Many different agencies/organizations provide information to assist in Christmas tree farming.
For each aspect of Christmas tree farming that is listed below, indicate the
AGENCY [ORGANIZATION from which you PREFER to get information. (Please check all that

apply.)

A. For WEED MANAGEMENT information B. For FERTILIZATION information
E] Cooperative Extension Service CI Cooperative Extension Service

C] Soil Conservation Service C] Soil Conservation Service

E] Michigan Christmas Tree Association E] Michigan Christmas Tree Association
Cl Christmastreeequipment industries C] Christmastreeequipmentindusuies
D Pesticide companies CI Pesticide companies

D Friends/Neighbors/Relatives Cl Friends/Neighbors/Relatives

Cl Others (please specify) Cl Others (please specify)

 

 

 

 

77

C. For SIIEARING Information
CONTROL

[3 Cooperative Extension Service

C] Soil Conservatim Service

E] Michigan Christmas Tree Association
El Christmas tree equipment industries
El Pesticide companies .

El FriendslNeighbors/Relatives

El Others (please specify)

 

 

E. For MARKETING Information

Cl Cooperative Extension Service

C] Soil Conservation Service

E] Michigan Christmas Tree Association
D Christmas tree equipment industries
El Pesticide companies

[I] Friends/Neighbors/Relatives

El Others (please specify)

 

 

D. For INSECT AND DISEASE
Information

Cl Cooperative Extension Service

C] Soil Conservation Service

Cl Michigan Christmas Tree Association
C] Christmas tree equipment industries
Cl Pesticide companies

I] Friends/Neighbors/Relatives

C] Others (please specify)

 

 

Information about Christmas tree farming is available through many different CHANNELS. For
each aspect of Christmas tree farming that is listed below, indicate the CHANNEL(S) through
which you PREFER to receive information. (Please check all that apply.)

A. For WEED MANAGEMENT Information
El Television

[3 Radio

[I] Telephone

D ComputedElectronic mail)

I] Jorn'nals/Magazines/Bulletins/Newspapers

[3 Meetings/Seminars/Workshops

E] Exhibitions/Demonstrations

D Others (Please specify)

 

 

C. For SI-IEARING Information

[I] Television

[I] Radio

El Telephone

Cl ComputerCElectronic mail)

El Journals/Magazines/Bulletins/Newspapers
l3 Meetings/Seminars/Workshops

[I] Exhibitions/Demonstrations

D Others (Please specify)

 

 

B. For FERTILIZATION Information

C] Television

El Radio

El Telephone

E] Computer(Electronic mail)

El Journals/Magazines/Bulletins/Newspapers
El Meetings/Seruinars/Workshops

El Exhibitions/Demonstrations

El Others (Please specify)

 

 

D. For INSECT AND DISEASE
CONTROL Information

El Television

[I] Radio

D Telephone

Cl Computer(Electronic mail)

El JomnalsMagazines/Bulletins/Newspapers
D Meetings/Seminars/Workshops

CI Exhibitions/Demonstrations

C] Others (Please specify)

 

 

78

E. For MARKETING Information

[3 Television

El Radio

El Telephone

E] Computer(Electronic mail)

I] JournalsMagazines/Bulletins/Newspapers
C] Meetings/Seminars/Workshops

Cl Exhibitions/Demonstrations

D Others (Please specify)

 

 

Part II
Please state your date of birth: year.

Please check the box that best describes your educational background.

Cl Less than high school graduate

C] High school graduate

El Some college education

Cl Community/Junior college graduate
C] College/University graduate

Please check the box that best describes your gross income of your family in a year?

 

E] less than S 10,000.00

C] S 10,000 to S 20,000.00

[:1 S 20,000 to S 40,000.00

Cl S 40.000 to S 60,000.00

E] S 60,000 to S 80,000.00

[:1 S 80,000 and above

How long have you been growing Christmas tree? years.
What is the size of your Christmas tree operation? acres.
How has the size of your Christmas tree farm changed during the last ten years?
CI Increased

D Decreased

E] No Change

Please check the box bythe type of your farm ownership.
El Own

[:1 Partnership

El Other (please specify) ...........

79

Please check the appropriate box that best describes your Christmas tree farm type.

Cl Wholesale
E] Choose-and-Cut
El Retail

[:1 Other (please specify) ..............
Are you aware of the Michigan Snowfresh program?

[I] Yes
[I] No

Thank you for participating in this study. Please return the completed survey questionnaire to:

Krishna Shrestha

Department of Agricultural and Extension Education
410 Agriculture Hall

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824-1039

APPENDIX C

Appendix C. Cover Letter

August 2, 1995

I am writing on behalf of Mr. Krishna Shrestha, a graduate student in the Department
of Agricultural and Extension Education at Michigan State University. Mr. Shrestha is
from Nepal and he is interested in Christmas tree farming. He wants to investigate the
difl‘erent information and media sources that Michigan Christmas tree growers consult
to solve some of their educational needs. Specifically he is interested in identifying
preferred information sources and channels through which you obtain Christmas tree
farming information. Results fi'om this study will help in identifying those information
sources and channels which best serve Michigan Christmas tree producers. On his
behalfl ask that each of you take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed survey
questionnaire and return it directly to him in the prestamped envelope. It will take less
than ten nrinutes to fill out this survey questionnaire. You have been selected at
random fi'om Michigan growers to participate in this survey, so your response is
important.

I appreciate your assistance. Your response is strictly confidential. Should you have
any questions, please call Mr. Krishna Shrestha at (517) 355-2782.

Thanks again for your assistance in responding in a timely manner.

With best regards,

Dr. Melvin R Koelling

Advisor

Michigan Christmas Tree Association
Department of Forestry

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824

80

APPENDIX D

Appendix D. Reminder Letter

October 2, 1995

Dear Christmas Trees Grower:

Three weeks ago, I sent you the second mail seeking your opinion regarding the
use of sources and channels of information to assist in your Christmas tree
farming. Your opinion is extremely important for successful completion of my
research study. To date, I have received about 55 percent response from other
Christmas tree growers. Please take a few minutes to complete the
questionnaire and return in the envelope previously provided. In the event, if
you have lost or misplaced the survey questionnaire, please feel free to call me
at (517) 355-6580 or (517) 355-2782.

I expect your response as soon as possible.

Your cooperation will be very much appreciated.
Sincerely,

Krishna Shrestha

Department of Agricultural and Extension Education
410 Agriculture Hall

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824-1039

81

APPENDIX E

Appendix E. Results of AN OVA for Demographic Characteristics and Use of

Sources of Information

One-way Analysis of Variance for Sources of Information and Age,
Education, Income, Farm Ownership, and Farm Type

A. Age of Respondents and Use of Sources of Information

Mean F F
Squares Ratio Prob.
5.88 .73 .54
8.06

1. Variable PlQlA Use of Cooperative Extension Service.
By Variable P2Q1B Age Distribution of Respondents
Analysis of Variance
Sum of
Source D.F. Squares
Between Groups 3 17.64
Within Groups 125 1007.59
Total 128 1025.22

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

F F
Ratio Prob.
.85 .47

2. Variable PlQlB Use of Soil Conservation Service.
By Variable P2Q1B Age Distribution of Respondents
Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean
Source D.F. Squares Squares
Between Groups 3 5.22 1.74
Within Groups 98 200.74 2.05
Total 101 205.96

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

Mean F F

Squares Ratio Prob.
12.67 1.20 .31
10.56

3. Variable PlQlC Use of the MCTA
By Variable P2Q1B Age Distribution of Respondents
Analysis of Variance
Sum of
Source D.F. Squares
Between Groups 3 38.02 .
Within Groups 118 1246.37
Total 121 1284.39

- No two groups are significantly difi‘erent at the .05 level

82

4. Variable

83

PlQlD Use of Christmas tree equipment industries
By Variable P2QlB Age Distribution of Respondents

Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio
Between Groups 3 37.78 12.59 .63
Within Groups 116 2313.68 19.95
Total 119 2351.47
- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level
5. Variable PlQlE Use of Pesticide companies.
By Variable P2QlB Age Distribution of Respondents
Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F

Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 3 41.62 13.87 1.28 .29
Within Groups 122 1326.09 10.87
Total 125 1367.71
- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level
6. Variable PlQlF Use of Friends/Neighbors/Relatives.
By Variable P2QlB Age Distribution of Respondents
Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio
Between Groups 3 143.03 47.68 2.24
Within Groups 107 2274.66 21.26
Total 110 2417.69
- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level
B. Education and Use of Sources of Information
1. Variable PlQlA Use of Cooperative Extension Service.
By Variable P2Q2 Participants' educational level
Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio
Between Groups 4 23.11 5.78 .71
Within Groups 125 1016.77 8.13
Total 129 1039.88

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

Prob.
.59

84

2. Variable P1Q1B Use of Soil Conservation Service.
By Variable P2Q2 Participants' educational level

Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 4 5.57 1.39 .62 .65
Within Groups 97 218.07 2.25
Total 101 223.65

- No two groups are significantly difi‘erent at the .05 level

3. Variable PlQlC Use ofthe MCTA
By Variable P2Q2 Participants' educational level

Analysis of Variance

‘ Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 4 18.26 4.57 .42 .79
Within Groups 118 1268.15 10.75
Total 122 1286.41

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

4. Variable PIQlD Use of Christmas tree equipment industries
By Variable P2Q2 Participants' educational level

Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 4 89.22 22.31 1.14 .34
Within Groups 115 2253.37 19.59
Total 119 2342.59

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

5. Variable PlQlE Use of Pesticide companies.
By Variable P2Q2 Participants' educational level

Analysis of Variance

. Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 4 10.32 2.58 .23 .92
Within Groups 121 1349.55 11.15
Total 125 1359.87

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

85

6. Variable PlQlF Use of Fnends/Neighbors/Relatives.
By Variable P2Q2 Participants' educational level

Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 4 A 39.00 9.75 .43 .78
Within Groups 105 2365.77 22.53
Total 109 _ 2404.76

- No two groups are significantly difi‘erent at the .05 level
C. Respondents Income and Use of Sources of Information
1.Variable PlQlA Use of Cooperative Extension Service.

By Variable P2Q3 Participants' gross income in a year.
Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 5 48.09 9.62 1.06 .39
Within Groups 103 933.95 9.07 ’
Total 108 982.04

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

2. Variable P1Q1B Use of Soil Conservation Service.
By Variable P2Q3 Participants' gross income in a year.
Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 5 5.36 1.07 .42 .84
Within Groups 81 208.23 2.57
Total 86 213.59

- No two groups are significantly difi‘erent at the .05 level

3. Variable P1Q1C Use of the MCTA
By Variable P2Q3 Participants' gross income in a year.
Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source ' D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 5 109.19 21.84 1.98 .09
Within Groups 101 1113.24 11.02
Total 106 1222.43

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

86

4. Variable PlQlD Use of Christmas tree equipment industries
By Variable P2Q3 Participants' gross income in a year.
Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 5 124.47 24.89 1.12 .35
Mthin Groups 98 2176.52 22.21
Total 103 2300.99

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

5. Variable PlQlE Use of Pesticide companies.
By Variable P2Q3 Participants' gross income in a year.
Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 5 94.10 18.82 1.59 .17
Within Groups 104 1232.46 ‘ 11.85
Total 109 1326.55

- No two groups are significantly difi‘erent at the .05 level

6. Variable PlQlF Use of Friends/Neighbors/Relatives.
By Variable P2Q3 Participants' gross income in a year.
Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 5 182.19 36.44 1.55 .18
Within Groups 88 2069.86 23.52
Total 93 2252.05

- No two groups are significantly difl‘erent at the .05 level
D. Farm Ownership and Use of Sources of Information

1. Variable PlQlA Use of Cooperative Extension Service.
By Variable P2Q7 _ Type of farm ownership.

Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 2 1.38 .69 .08 .92
Within Groups 126 1036.31 8.22
Total 128 1037.69

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

87

2. Variable PlQlB Use of Soil Conservation Service.
By Variable P2Q7 Type of farm ownership.

Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 2 1.24 .62 .27 .76
Within Groups 98 223.51 2.28
Total 100 224.75

- No two groups are significantly difi‘erent at the .05 level

3. Variable PlQlC Use of the MCTA
By Variable P2Q7 Type of farm ownership.

Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 2 24.90 12.45 1.18 .31
Within Groups 119 1259.43 10.58
Total 121 1284.34

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

4. Variable P1Q1D Use of Christmas tree equipment industries
By Variable P2Q7 Type of farm ownership.

Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 2 17.26 8.63 .43 .65
Within Groups 116 2327.29 20.06
Total 1 18 2344.55

- No two groups are significantly difi‘erent at the .05 level

5. Variable , P1Q1E Use of Pesticide companies.
By Variable P2Q7 Type of farm ownership.

Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 2 1.62 .81 .07 .93
Within Groups 122 1362.74 11.17
Total 124 1364.35

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

 

88

6. Variable PlQlF Use of Friends/Neighbors/Relatives.
By Variable P2Q7 Type of farm ownership.

Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 2 100.83 50.42 2.33 .10
Within Groups 106 2295.40 21.65
Total 108 2396.24

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level
E. Farm Type and Use of Sources of Information
1. Variable PlQlA Use of Cooperative Extension Service.

By Variable P2Q8 Type of Christmas tree farm.
Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 5 37.99 7.60 .93 .47
Within Groups 122 999.62 8.19
Total 127 1037.62

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

Group 1. Wholesale only

Group 2. Choose-and-Cut only

Group 3. Retail

Group 4. Wholesale and Choose-and-Cut

Group 5. Wholesale and Retail

Group 6. Wholesale, Choose-and-Cut, and Retail

2. Variable PlQlB Use of Soil Conservation Service.
By Variable P2Q8 Type of Christmas tree farm.
Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F . Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 5 16.03 3.21 1.46 .21
Within Groups 95 208.72 2.20
Total 100 224.75

- No two groups are significantly difl‘erent at the .05 level

89

3. Variable PlQlC Use of the MCTA
By Variable P2Q8 Type of Christmas tree farm.
Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 5 19.64 3.93 .36 .88
Within Groups 115 1255.53 10.92
Total 120 1275.17

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

4.Variable’ PlQlD Use of Christmas tree equipment industries
By Variable P2Q8 Type of Christmas tree farm.
Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F >
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 5 66.07 13.21 .66 .66
Within Groups 113 2274.86 20.13
Total 118 2340.92

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

5.Variable PlQlE Use of Pesticide companies.
By Variable P2Q8 Type of Christmas tree farm.
Analysis of Variance

. Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 5 136.30 27.26 2.63 .03"
Within Groups 119 1234.55 10.37
Total 124 1370.85
(‘) Indicates significant differences.

Group 1. Wholesale only“

Group 2. Choose-and-Cut only“

Group 3. Retail

Group 4. Wholesale and Choose-and-Cut

Group 5. Wholesale and Retail

Group 6. Wholesale, Choose-and-Cut, and Retail

90

6. Variable PlQlF Use of Friends/Neighbors/Relatives.
By Variable P2Q8 Type of Christmas tree farm.

Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 5 260.54 52.11 2.53 .03"
Within Groups 105 2159.03 20.56
Total 110 2419.57
(‘) Indicates significant differences.

Group 1. Wholesale only“

Group 2. Choose-and-Cut only‘

Group 3. Retail

Group 4. Wholesale and Choose-and-Cut

Group 5. Wholesale and Retail

Group 6. Wholesale, Choose-and-Cut, and Retail

APPENDIX F

Appendix F. Results of ANOVA for Demographic Characteristics and Use of

Channels of Information

One-way Analysis of Variance for Channels of Information and Age,

Education, Income, Farm Ownership, and Farm Type
A. Respondents age and Use of Channels of Information

1. Variable P1Q2A Use of television.

By Variable P2QlB Age Distribution of Respondents
Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 3 2.39 .80 2.47 .07
Within Groups 113 36.53 .32
Total 116 38.92
- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level
2. Variable P1Q2B Use of radio. _
By Variable P2QlB Age Distribution of Respondents
Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 3 1.50 .50 1.66 .18
Within Groups 112 33.81 .30
Total 1 15 3 5.31
- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level
3. Variable P1Q2C Use of telephone.
By Variable P2QlB Age Distribution of Respondents
Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 3 3.61 1.20 1.36 .26
Within Groups 120 105.83 .88
Total 123 109.44

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

91

92

4. Variable P1Q2D Use of computer (e-mail).
By Variable P2QlB Age Distribution of Respondents

Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 3 2.46 .82 2.15 .10
Within Groups 108 41.22 .38
Total 1 1 1 43 .68

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level l

5. Variable P1Q2E Use of Journals/Magazines/Bulletins/News
By Variable P20 1B Age Distribution of Respondents

 

Analysis of Variance L1
Sum of Mean F F ’

Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.

Between Groups 3 .24 .08 .13 .94

Within Groups 142 87.73 .62

Total 145 87.97

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

6. Variable P1Q2F Use of Meetings/Senrinars/Workshops.
By Variable P2QlB Age Distribution of Respondents

Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source - D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 3 .31 .10 .12 .95
Within Groups 129 109.13 .85
Total 132 109.44

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

93

7. Variable P1Q2G Use of Exhibitions/Demonstrations.
By Variable P2Q 1B Age Distribution of Respondents
Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 3 .50 .17 .20 .90
Within Groups 119 98.20 .83
Total 122 98.70

- No two groups are significantly difi‘erent at the .05 level
B. Respondents Education and Use of Channels of Information
1. Variable P1Q2A Use of television.

By Variable P2Q2 Participants' educational level
Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups . 4 1.12 .28 .83 .51
Within Groups 114 38.34 .34
Total 118 39.46

- No two groups are significantly difi‘erent at the .05 level

2. Variable P1Q2B Use of radio.
By Variable P2Q2 Participants' educational level
Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 4 1.95 .49 1.62 .17
Within Groups 113 33.89 .30
Total 117 35.84

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

3. Variable P1Q2C Use of telephone.
By Variable P2Q2 Participants' educational level
Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 4 6.25 1.56 1.80 .13
Within Groups 121 105.25 .87
Total 125 111.50

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

94

4. Variable P1Q2D Use of computer (e-mail).
By Variable P2Q2 Participants' educational level
Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 4 1.57 .39 .95 .44
Within Groups 109 45.06 .41
Total . 1 13 46.63

- No two groups are significantly difi‘erent at the .05 level

5. Variable P1Q2E Use of Joumals/Magazines/Bulletins/News
By Variable P2Q2 Participants' educational level
Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 4 1.37 .34 .56 .69
Within Groups 142 86.60 .61
Total 146 87.97

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

6. Variable P1Q2F Use of Meetings/Sentinars/Workshops.
By Variable P2Q2 Participants' educational level
Analysis of Variance

‘ Sum of‘ Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 4 5.49 1.37 1.70 .15
Within Groups 130 104.84 .81
Total 134 110.33

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

7. Variable PIQZG Use of Exhibitions/Demonstrations.
By Variable P2Q2 Participants' educational level
Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 4 6.48 1.62 2.10 .09
Within Groups 120 92.72 .77
Total 124 99.20

- No two groups are significantly difi‘erent at the .05 level

95

C. Respondents Income and Use of Channels of Information

1. Variable P1Q2A Use of television.
By Variable P2Q3 Participants' gross income in a year.
Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 5 1.79 .36 1.00 .42
“fithin Groups 96 34.29 .36
Total 101 36.09

- No two groups are significantly difl'erent at the .05 level

2. Variable P1Q2B Use of radio.
By Variable P2Q3 Participants' gross income in a year.
Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 5 1.87 .37 1.19 .32
Within Groups 95 29.83 .31
Total 100 3 1.70

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

3. Variable P1Q2C Use of telephone.
By Variable P2Q3 Participants' gross income in a year.
Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 5 5.15 1.03 1.13 .35
Within Groups 101 91.83 .91
Total 106 96.97

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

4. Variable P1Q2D Use of computer (e-mail).
By Variable P2Q3 Participants' gross income in a year.
Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 5 3.54 .71 1.61 .16
Within Groups 93 40.79 .44
Total 98 44.32

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

96

5. Variable P1Q2E Use of Journals/Magazines/Bulletins/News
By Variable P2Q3 Participants' gross income in a year.
Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 5 3.27 .66 1.10 .36
Within Groups 119 70.69 .59
Total 124 73.97

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

6. Variable P1Q2F Use of Meetings/Seminars/Workshops.
By Variable P2Q3 Participants' gross income in a year.
Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 5 10.54 2.11 2.64 .03“
Within Groups 108 86.09 .80
Total 113 96.63

(‘) Indicates significant difi‘erences which are shown in the lower triangle

7. Variable PIQZG Use of Exhibitions/Demonstrations.
By Variable P2Q3 Participants' gross income in a year.
Analysis of Variance '

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 5 10.42 2.08 2.78 .02
Within Groups 102 76.49 .75
Total 107 86.92

C“) Indicates significant differences which are shown in the lower triangle
D. Farm Ownership and Use of Channels of Information

1. Variable P1Q2A Use of televiSion.
By Variable P2Q7 Type of farm ownership.

Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 2 .99 .49 1.49 .23
Within Groups 114 37.65 .33
Total 116 38.63

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

97

2. Variable P1Q2B Use of radio.
By Variable P2Q7 Type of farm ownership.

Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 2 .04 .02 .07 .93
Within Groups 113 32.75 .29
Total 115 32.79

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

3. Variable P1Q2C Use of telephone.
By Variable P2Q7 Type of farm ownership.

Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 2 .11 .05 .06 .94
Within Groups 121 109.34 .90
Total 123 109.44

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

4. Variable P1Q2D Use of computer (e-mail).
By Variable P2Q7 Type of farm ownership.

Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 2 1.62 .81 1.97 .14
Within Groups 109 44.81 .41
Total 1 1 1 46.43

- No two groups are significantly difi‘erent at the .05 level

5. Variable P1Q2E Use of Journals/Magazines/Bulletins/News
Variable P2Q7 Type of farm ownership.

Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 2 .51 .25 .43 .65
Within Groups 143 85.38 .60
Total 145 85.89

- No two groups are significantly difi‘erent at the .05 level

98

6. Variable P1Q2F Use of Meetings/Seminars/Workshops.
By Variable P2Q7 Type of farm ownership.

Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 2 1.88 .94 1.12 .33
Within Groups 130 108.79 .84
Total 132 1 10.68

- No two groups are significantly difl‘erent at the .05 level

7. Variable P1QZG Use of Exhibitions/Demonstrations.
By Variable P207 Type of farm ownership.

Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 2 2.35 1.18 1.44 .24
Within Groups 121 98.52 .81
Total 123 100.87

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level
E. Farm Type and Use of Channels of Information

1. Variable P1Q2A Use of television.
Variable P2Q8 Type of Christmas tree farm.

Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 5 2.28 .46 1.38 .24
Within Groups 110 36.51 .33
Total 1 15 38.79

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

2. Variable PIQZB Use of radio.
By Variable P2Q8 Type of Christmas tree farm.

Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 5 1.12 .22 .77 .57
Within Groups 109 31.54 .29
Total 1 14 32.66

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

99

3. Variable P1Q2C Use of telephone.
By Variable P2Q8 Type of Christmas tree farm.

Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 5 8.95 1.79 2.11 .07
Within Groups 117 99.11 .85
Total 122 108.07

- No two groups are significantly difi‘erent at the .05 level

4. Variable P1Q2D Use of computer (e-mail).
By Variable P2Q8 Type of Christmas tree farm.

Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 5 5.71 1.14 2.98 .01
Within Groups 105 40.26 .38
Total 1 10 45.96

5. Variable P1Q2E Use of Journals/Magazines/Bulletins/News
By Variable P2Q8 Type of Christmas tree farm.

Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 5 3.48 .69 1.17 .33
Within Groups 139 82.41 .59
Total 144 85.89

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

6. Variable P1Q2F Use of Meetings/Senrinars/Workshops.
By Variable P2Q8 Type of Christmas tree farm.

Analysis of Variance

' Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 5 5.59 1.12 1.38 .24
Within Groups 126 102.38 .81
Total 131 107.97

- No two groups are significantly difl'erent at the .05 level

100

7. Variable P1QZG Use of Exhibitions/Demonstrations.
By Variable P2Q8 Type of Christmas tree farm.

Analysis of Variance

. Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 5 2.17 .43 .53 .75
Within Groups 116 94.25 .81
Total 121 96.43

- No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

   

"lllllllllllllll“