”'7‘.“ mm PRACTECE ADOPTEC’N AS RELATED TO iXTENSION PARTlClPATEON AND EMPGRTANCE OF ENTERPRESE Thais far fha Degree of M. S. z’rAiCfiEfiAN STATE UNIVERSE“! aufcrfi i“. EE‘H‘mr 1959 RETURNING MATERIALS: PIace in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES wiII be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. MSU LIBRARIES FARM PRACTICE ADOPTION AS RELATED TO EXTENSION PARTICIPATION AND IMPORTANCE OF ENTERPRISE By Ruford F. Bittner A THESIS Submitted to the College of Agriculture of Michigan.3tate University of.Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER.OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Economics 1959 \j 4‘ ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author wishes to express his gratitude to all those who helped with the completion of this study and the preparation of the manuscript. Grateful appreciation is expressed to Dr. James M. Nielsen, who as the author‘s major professor provided generous counsel, guidance and assistance as well as inspiration in bringing the study to completion. Financial assistance provided by the Kellogg Foundation and by the Agricultural Economics Department through Dr. T. K. Cowden and Dr. L. L. Boger made it possible for the author to enter graduate school and complete this study. Thanks are expressed to staff members of the Department of Agricultural Economics who have given freely of their time in counsel and advice. The author is grateful to those in Extension.Administration for their assistance and cooperation in making possible a leave for graduate study and the completion of this study. Assistance received from staff members of the production departments in the College of Agriculture was very valuable in determining the important farm practices to be used in the survey of dairymen. The author is grateful to other graduate students for their suggestions, advice and assistance. Last, but certainly not least, the author is grateful to his wife for'her constant inspiration and cooperation in the completion of this thesis. **%%%%***%%*%* ii FARM PRACTICE ADOPTION AS RELATED TO EXTENSION PARTICIPATION AND IMPORTANCE OF ENTERPRISE By Ruford F. Bittner AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the College of.Agriculture of‘Rflchigan.State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF'SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Economics Year 1959 Approved ABSTRACT Two guiding hypotheses were followed in this thesis. One is that the more closely dairy farmers associate themselves with the Cooperative Extension Service the more of the recommended farm practices they will follow. The second one was that dairy farmers follow more of the recommended practices on their major (dairy) enterprise than they do of the recommended practices of their minor livestock enterprises such as swine and poultry. To obtain representative dairy farmers that could be surveyed to obtain data, the author selected three areas in the state that were typical of Southern.Michigan dairy farms. The areas were located in Lapeer, Ionia and Calhoun counties. ‘A check type questionnaire with farm practice questions was developed. Each practice included the recommended practice and the alternatives to that practice so that the farmer could quickly indicate what he did. .Also provided in the question- naire was a place where the farmer could indicate the extent of his association with the Cooperative Extension Service. The questionnaire was pre—tested with fourteen farmers. Mailing lists in the three areas were obtained through the assist— ance of county extension offices from the county treasurerst tax roles. This was then compared with the county office of the Agricultural Stabilization Committee to insure completeness and accuracy. iv Questionnaires were mailed to farmers in the three areas. .A hh percent return was attained. The three areas were then visited to personally interview nonrespondents to obtain a random sample of 20 percent in order to study the effect of nonresponse bias. Chi square tests revealed no significant difference at the 5 percent level between respondents and nonrespondents on eight control items and 15 practice questions. .A total of lBOtfarms fell into the category of dairy farmers and were completely usable, and were considered representative of Southern Michigan dairy farms. .After considering several types of analysis, the formation of an index was selected as the most desirable since it had the flexibility necessary to best use the data. In exploring the formation of an index, examination of practices revealed that because of the vast differences in importance between practices there were influencing factors which motivated farmers in practice adoption. Four factors were accepted as being important. They were, the investment required, costs and return, magnitude of change, and length of time practice had been recommended. With the assistance of a panel of judges numerical weights were estab- lished for the four factors, totaling 100. Each practice and its alternatives was given a total.numerical value based on the four factors. .A second panel made up of extension service administrators and extension workerS'were asked to give numerical values to nine factors of a farmer‘s association with his cooperative extension service. This made it possible to give each farmer an index of association with the Cooperative Extension Service. 'Of the 180 dairy farmers, 37 said they had no association with the Cooperative Extension Service, 51 had little association, hl had considerable association, and 51 had complete association within the framework of the developed index. Indexes of practice adoption for soils and soils management, crop culture, farm management, and dairy were computed for each of the 180 dairy farms. Fiftyhfour indexes of swine practice adoption and 96 indexes of poultry practice adoption were obtained. Correlation analysis was employed to analyze the relationship between farmers' association with the Cooperative Extension Service and their farm practice adeption. The indexes of farmerst association with the COOperative Extension Service were the independent variable, denoted ast and the various indexes of practice adoption as the dependent vari— ables denoted as Yn. Indexes of soil and soil management practice was Tl; indexes of crop culture, 223 indexes of general farm management, 133 indexes of dairy practice adoption, Th3 indexes of swine practice adoption, TS and indexes of poultry practice adoption, Y6. The.X variable was correlated individually with El, Y2, Y3, Th, Y5 and Y6. Coefficients of correlation, coefficients of determination were obtained. The coefficient of correlation on farm practice adoption were as follows: soils .6255 crop culture .550; general farm management .h963 dairy .62l3 swine .228 and poultry .329. .All'were significant at the one percent level except swine practice adoption which was significant at the five percent level. In determining whether dairy farmers followed more of the recommended practices on their major enterprise than they did with their minor live- stock enterprises, correlation analysis was also used. Here the indexes of dairy practice adoption was the independent variable and the swine and poultry indexes the dependent variable. Correlating 5h indexes of swine practice adoption with the Sh indexes of dairy practice adoption resulted in a low coefficient of correlation (.12). Correlation of 96 indexes of poultry practice adoption with 96 indexes of dairy practice adoption also resulted in a very low coefficient of correlation (.19). Conclusions that can.be drawn from the analysis support the hypothe- ses stated earlier. The high correlation between the indexes of dairy farmer association with the Cooperative Extension Service and the indexes of farm practice adoption indicate that the closer a dairy farmer associates himself with his Cooperative Extension Service the more of the recommended practice he will follow. Secondly, from the low co- efficient of correlation existing between the indexes of dairy practice adoption and both the indexes of swine and poultry practice adoption it can be concluded that farmers follow less of the recommended practices on their minor livestock enterprises than.they do on their major enter- prises. About one-fifth of the farmers did not associate themselves with the Cooperative Extension Service and less than 10 percent associated themselves fully lending the thought that here is real opportunity for extension'workers. vii Implications that can be drawn from the analysis are that the Ebctension Service can be more effective in bringing about farm practice adoption. By employing their facilities and time, by using better techniques, extension workers can hasten the rate of adoption of new practices, reach people not now being directly reached, and bring about a higher total farm income. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I INTmDUCTIDNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO'OOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Statement Of the Problem............................... Purpose Of the Studyoooooocoooooooooooooooooooooooococo ObjeCtiveSooooo00000000000...on...0.0000000000000000... HypOtheSGSQ0.0000000000000000.coco...0.000000000000000. TheSiS orgaIIiZHtionoooooooo0000000000.0000000000000000. II QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT, SAMPLING AND DATA CIA-SSIFICATIW PRmJ-EWEECOCCOOCCOOOCOCC'COOOOOCOOOOO0.. Development Of Questionnaire........................... Mailing Questionnaires......."on..................... III CONSTRUCTION OF THE INDICES OF PRACTICE ADOPTION.......... FaCtOI'S Influencing PraCtiCe Adoption......o........n. InveStment Requiredooooooooooooooocacao-000000000000 COST: (current) and RetumSooooooococo-00000000000000 The PIagIIitUde Of Change Requiredoooo0000000000000... Length of Time Practice has Been Recommended........ Establishment of Numerical Value for Each Factor....... Numerical Values Placed on.Practices and.Alternatives.. Standardization of Numerical Value..................... Application of Factor Values to Questionnaire.......... CharaCteI'iStiCS Of Data......,...................... SWineooo00000000000000.coco-000.00.00.00oooooooooooo Poultr'yOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOO hand-nation Of Iridices.OOOOCCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO'OOOOOO IV WYSIS OF WTIONSI-IIPSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0...... Development of an Index of the Farmers Association with the Cooperative Extension Service.............. correlation.cacao-000000000000000000.0000...oooooooo .Analysis of the Relationship Between the Adoption of Desirable Dairy'Practices and Other Livestock Enter- prises on Selected Southern Michigan Dairy'Farms.... correlation “my-Sis...0.00.00..OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Page -\'IO\O\\J1N I—J CD PE 18 19 19 2O 20 2O 21 22 23 26 28 29 30 31 32 TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND IIJPIJICATIONSOOO0.000.000.0000...0.0.0.0... Lilfitations Of Amy-$130.00..cocoa0.0000000000000000... Data. Limitations......o.............o..........o.... StatiStiCaJ. LiJHitationS............................. ConcluSion..................o.......................... Iflrplications Of AnalysiSooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Page 50 51 S2 52 SS TABLE II III IV VII VIII XII XIII LIST OF TABLES Page Location of Farms in the Southern Michigan Dairy Farm Sample"n................................................. Length of Time Practice Recommended........................ Dali-IV PraCtice Nunlber 600.00ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Dairy Practice Number 7o.cocooooooooooooooooooooo000000.000 Frequency Distribution of Indices of Soil and Soil Manage- ment Practices on 180 Southern Michigan Dairy Farms........ Frequency Distribution of Indices of Farm Practice Adoption in Crop Culture on 180 Southern Michigan Dairy Farms....... Frequency Distribution of Indices of General Farm Manage- ment Practice Adoption on 180 Southern Michigan Dairy Farms .A Frequency Distribution of Indices of Dain'Practice Adoption on 180 Southern Michigan Dairy Farms.............. A Frequency Distribution of Indices of Swine Practice Adoption on Fiftbeour Southern Michigan.Dairy Farms....... .A Frequency Distribution of Poultry Practice Adoption Indices on Ninetthix Southern Michigan Dairy Farms........ Range,.Arithmetic, Mean, Modal Class, Median, and Standard Deviation of Indices of Practice Adoption of Recommended Farm Practices on One Hundred Eighty Southern.Michigan Dairy FarmsOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00000000000000...000.000.00.000 Frequency Distribution of Indices of Association with the Cooperative Extension Service of One Hundred Eighty Selected Southern Michigan Dairy Farms..................... Correlation Between Farmers Association.with the Coopera- tive Extension Service and His Farm Practices in Soil Management, Farm Crops, General Management, Dairy, Swine and Poultry on One Hundred Eighty Southern.Michigan Dairy Farms.OCOO...OOOOOOCOOOOOOOOCOOOOOC0.0000000000000000000000 xi 16 2h 25 26 28 28 29 29 30 3O 31 3h h3 LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE Page 11v Number of Dairy Farmers Haring Swine and/or Poultry Enterprises on One Hundred Eighty Southern Michigan Dairy FarmS...oo............o.................................... LLS XV Correlation Between.Indices of Dairy Practice.Adoption and Corresponding Indices of Swine and Poultry Practice .Adoption ReSpectively on Fiftbebur and NinetyrSix Southern MiChigan Dairy FaI'ms............u..o...................... 1.1.9 xii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Scientific agriculture as we know it today is over one hundred years old. Michigan State University was established as Michigan.Agri- cultural College in 1855 and in 1862 became a Land Grant Institution devoted to the study of agriculture and applied science. Land Grant institutions of higher learning were established by other states in the ensuing years. Shortly following the establishment of agricultural colleges, agricultural experiment stations were established in connection with these schools, usually by state inception. In 1887 the Hatch.Act was passed, which provided for the first national system of agricultural experiment stations with federal aid. One of the primary purposes has been to conduct research on methods of doing things on the farm to increase income, reduce costs and make for better rural living. Through the years that have followed, tremendous agricultural technology and know-how'has been developed and made available as the result of research work. The application of this technology by farmers has resulted in a tremendous productive ability, making it possible for 12 percent of our population to produce enough food and fiber for the remaining 88 percent. The employment of scientific production practices has been carried to such an extent that in 1955, 90 percent of all farm products were produced on hh percent of the farms. The Cooperative Agricultural Extension Service, established in l9lh through the Smith Lever Act, has, through its specialist and county agent system, carried the results of research from the experiment station to the farmer through many types of personal contacts and the various mass media. The service and assistance of the County Extension Service has been available to all farmers who desired to utilize it. Through the years, farmers have, in varying degrees, availed themselves of this service. Some have used it a great deal, some in moderation and still others have used it very little or not at all. ‘Where farmers have found their initial contacts satisfactory, they have developed real confidence in their County Extension Service and consult extension personnel whenever they have decisions of importance to be made. In the years since its inception, the Extension Service has come to be regarded as an important service by farmers. Many farmers who haven‘t felt it necessary to have any contact with their county extension agents regard it as a service that should be maintained and thereby available to them in case of an emergency or when a situation arises making it necessary for them to obtain assistance. From his experiences as a county agricultural agent the writer‘s observations are that farmers in this category would benefit materially if they would maintain a closer relationship. Statement of the Problem .A great amount of information is available to Michigan farmers on every type of farming enterprise, describing and evaluating the more desirable methods of carrying out specific farm practices. In fact it is doubtful if there is any segment of our population that has as much information available for use as do farm people. These more desirable farm practices have been determined by research workers in the experi- ment station, the United States Department of Agriculture and by farmers themselves, as the best practice under most conditions, from such stand- points as more income, the reduction of costs, making work easier or more personal satisfaction. The extent to which farmers follow these desirable practices is something about which little is known. It is known, however, that some farmers follow excellent practices while others do not seem to put forth the effort necessary or take the necessary steps to put them into operation. Since information on farm practices developed and tested by the experiment station and other unbiased media is available to farmers, it would seem they would make every effort to use it. Although there are many reasons why some farmers do not follow the more desirable farm practices, one of the important reasons is because they either do not know about the practice or because their knowledge is incomplete. In view of the fact that all farmers can obtain information on farm practices by attending meetings, demonstrations, field days or by contacting his county agricultural agent, it seems strange that this lack of knowledge should exist. Unfortunately, all farmers to not make use of their County mtension Service. It was surprising to find that 20 percent of the farmers sampled in this study said they had no direct association whatever with the Extension Service. Another 29 percent said they had only occasional contact with the Extension Service. The remaining 51 percent associated themselves frequently in one way or another with the Extension Service. Just as it is true that not all farmers cooperate or associate themselves with their Extension Service in any degree, it is generally understood that not all farmers follow all the recommended practices that they realize would be profitable. It is disturbing to an extension worker to know that even farmers who do associate themselves with him and are generally considered as a cooperator, do not all follow the better practices. It should be stated here that there are numerous local sources of information in addition to the Extension Service that are available to farmers in all areas of Michigan. Farm magazines, farm pages in news— papers, radio and television are some of the mass media through which farmers get information. More personalized other sources of farm practice information available are the Soil Conservation Service, the vocational agriculture teachers, the Farmers Home.Administration, farm supply store managers, salesmen and neighbors. It is therefore underh standable that not every farmer would find it necessary to utilize his Extension Service in order to get information on new and better prac- tices. .Also farmers frequently get certain kinds of information from one source, other types from another. In view of the low income situation that farmers sometime find themselves in, it would seem that they would search out and follow the best known practices to either increase their net income, or reduce costs or both. This would be an especially logical supposition for an observer to make in view of the cost-price squeeze that farmers A have been in since 1953 and the present high investment necessary in a farm operation. Purpose of the Study The writer, during his tenure as a County.Agricultura1 Extension Agent, was constantly aware that some farmers failed to follow practices he had made known to them and which farmers had good reason to believe, because of the research they were based on, would either increase their farm income, reduce their costs, result in a better rural life for their family or increase their personal satisfaction. He frequently wondered why this situation existed and wondered whether it was the lack of desire on the part of farmers to gain these benefits or whether it resulted from an inability of the writer to motivate them. One pur— pose of this study then, is to study farm practice adoption of Southern Michigan Dairy Farms to see if there is a relationship between the desirable farm practices they follow and their use of the Cooperative Extension Service. It was believed that this study might show a possible need for changing techniques used by extension workers. Secondly, the writer was aware of a situation that existed on many farms where a farmer would follow desirable practices on his main enterprise but gave little or no consideration to recommended practices on.his minor enterprise. For example, a dairy farmer would follow excellent practices with his dairy herd but would not follow anywhere near correspondingly desirable practices with his swine and poultry enterprises. Therefore, a further purpose of this study was to study the extent to which Southern.Michigan Dairy Farmers in a selected sample follow as good practices relatively on one livestock enterprise as they- do on another. Objectives Two definite objectives are sought in this study which can be more precisely stated by listing them as follows: .A. To determine the extent of the relationship that exists between the farm practices a dairy farmer follows and his association with the Cooperative Extension Service. I B. Tb determine the association that exists between the farm practices a dairy farmer follows with his dairy enterprise and practices he follows on other livestock enterprises. Hypotheses TWO hypotheses have been selected for testing which seem pertinent in view of the stated problem and from the standpoint of the objectives of the Cooperative Agricultural Extension Service. The first hypothesis is that the more closely dairy farmers associate themselves with the Cooperative Agricultural Extension.Service the greater will.be their tendency to follow desirable or recommended farm practices. The second to be tested is the hypothesis that dairy farmers follow more of the recommended farm practices on their major (dairy) enterprise than they do of the recommended practices of their minor livestock enterprises such as swine and poultry. Thesis Organization The research procedure is described in Chapter II. It includes the selection of the sample, the development cf the questionnaire and the gathering of the data from the selected universe. Chapter III is devoted to a description of the method of analysis. This includes the type of analysis considered, the procedure followed in the development of acceptable indices and the arrangement of practices into logical groupings. Chapter IV contains the analysis of relationship between farm practice adoption and the degree of farmer cooperation with the Extension Service, utilizing an index of farmer association of cooperation.with the Extension.Service which was developed as a part of the research. Simple correlations are used and the results are expressed statistically and graphically. Chapter IV also contains an analysis of the relation- ship that exists between practice adoption on the dairy enterprise and that on the swine and poultry enterprise. Chapter V embraces the conclusions and presents the implications of the analysis. CHAPTER II QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT, SAMPLING-AND DATA CLASSIFICATION PROCEDURE In order to have representative dairy farmers to whom question- naires could be sent to obtain farm practice information it was necessary to determine what area would be suitable for the sample. The Extension Service of Michigan State University in cooperation with the Kellogg Foundation had just embarked on an experiment that was a definite departure from anything that had been done heretofore in agricultural extension work. This was known as the township agent program whereby five successful County.Agricultura1.Agents were to be placed in selected townships in the State to do concentrated extension work for a five year period on a township basis. The attempt here was to determine to what extent farm income could be increased through an agent working closely with people in an educational way. In the selection of these areas the Michigan Extension Service Administration did intensive research on the various types of Michigan agriculture. .At the conclusion of this investigation those responsible for the final determination selected four individual townships and one group of three townships as being typical of five of the major farm types in Michigan. The main types of farming sought were Southern Michigan.Dairy, Southern Michigan Livestock, Southern Michigan General, Southern Michigan Crop, Northern Michigan Dairy and Saginaw valley Cash Crop. Townships selected to provide these types of farm operations were Newton.in Ca1houn.County, Odessa in Ionia.County, Almont in.Lapeer County, Denmark in TUScola County and the Tri-Township Area of Oliver, Boardman and Orange in Kalkaska County. . The three townships of Newton, Odessa and.Almont are located in Southern.Michigan and each had ample dairy farmers to provide an excellent universe to survey dairy farmers on farm practice adoption. Also each had adjacent to it a township with a similar agriculture providing an enlarged universe and a control area for each township extension program that could be used for additional studies. The areas selected then in which to obtain data on farm practice adoption for Southern Michigan Dairy farms were Newton township and control in Calhoun County, Odessa Township and control in Ionia County and Almont township and control in Lapeer County. These are identified in Figure 1. .After the areas were selected as representative ones in which a survey on dairy farm practice adoption could be made, it was necessary to obtain a list of farmers in the designated areas. To facilitate this the township Agricultural utension Agent was contacted and asked to provide a complete list of farmers within the area. This he did by- obtaining a list from the County'Treasurer's tax role. Further this list was then.compared with that of the County Extension office and the County Office of the Agricultural Stabilization Committee. PaelO RAND M?NALLY LOOSE LEAF OUTLINE MAP MICH GAN W t n /‘fi3E ' omouaoou I] oucmo FIGURE I °°°"'° L1____ T 1 "°" I l v I .. L.— . ..._0 l'“ ’/ ' \'.&£\. ! l .m 5 TV .\~. " , ,.J . wucowsm 4'. , T TMImn Q TLUCE T - A - ' -" — ° ' ‘ ,_',mou ‘ "l TALcea I .l TCHIPPEWA ‘ C A N A D A ' - ~ . l scI-IOOLcnm ' I ‘ J Toma u | _'- _ -_L items—'1 _____ . o g T DELTA I v' as, . T-.. l A ' none» - L ' I CC .r' ' ' /,—' s \ O I I v “:5 ' menopausal l/ \0' 1 'm. wxscowsm o “a" I . .‘ V. \ Tantsqu: "MINE"! Q .\ i a mm“ atrW' 0 mm mm» T518360. T il -_- atmpmsti‘rcod-T‘ma. W‘loo. mm! . . i I ! ! __ - _ LET— wzxrono T—IsEIIu—KEETOO F53; —' ”To-Eu“? T0335 mum I _-._I_ J... _!-_-_!- ' A30 T LAKE Tosceou Tcune ToLAowm - “WW T T T T 5—1. Hunou _ -—L _ __ I— . _- I— - .AV 0 ocqu T moT— usEosn TI—mw Tmoumo- T i T T wtc'éIl—T §I\TITLTIc - l I__ -I -_-L'I . "_' Wir— ' — o1 'Tmmm L - L Ton ATI T . -! M0:I<£0¢I_II}T£3«1 -T T ' __.__ -_.I T ._ _!—— — [TI—swan 'W‘“ -_—.. omeII , TIouIK _Tcuu10n TSHIAWASSEF T T" cuun ! i i i _. -.L_ .l..- _..._L - _‘__ .omuuo Tammi Tum“! Tums Timm- TIvazs—fovT . I I I - -__!. i I ! .| __-_L VAN was—whum'fiT' T176665 "l'wTsfit—i'aw-T—mm: I I ' T l T CANADA -— ....... I -__-P— Ims TSTJOSEPHTBBANCH THILLToit—E’Tififiw'g‘r TTIIouno: DEBBIEN' ' —T ' I l FORTE mamas... {dam-o.- m'ifiJdeir—us' Jar”, Tuck; a 0 I N D I A N A ° 0910 go so u :9 counts T "AD: I" I, S ‘ 'L:. I.-- 2- -l_. _ 0- I. n n n— -_ The final list was examined carefully and it was evident that some names would need to be eliminated and not used in the universe. This included absentee owners, widows who operated their farm with a hired manager and owners who had a tenant with the farm managed by'a professional farm management companyu Where tenants were operating the farm, their names replaced that of the owner where it could be determined. Development of Questionnaire Preliminary to the development of a questionnaire it was necessary to determine'What farm practices should be included for use in a survey of the selected universe. The head of each production department in the College of Agriculture at Michigan State University was asked either to prepare a list of farm practices recommended by his department or delegate this responsibility to a member of his staff. In some cases the department head made up a list of practices after consultation with his staff, but in most cases the department head assigned the task to the Extension Specialist Project Leader. Where this 'was done, the Extension Specialist Project Leader met with the depart- mental research personnel and other department Extension Specialists to make up the list. When completed, the lists of practices were given to the writer. After receiving the lists of recommended practices from the nine departments, the writer examined them closely. Final tabulations showed there were nearly'three hundred practices listed as recommended for 12 farmers to followy In the lists obtained from the departments it was obvious from examination that there were four factors that would enable considerable elimination and consolidation of practices in preparing a questionnaire. First, there was much duplication by as many as three departments on a single practice. Secondly, some of the practices submitted were eliminated because they were not applicable to all farmers. Thirdly, some of the practices suggested were still highly contro- versial and there was not complete agreement within the recommending department that the practice was a profitable one under all or even a large numbeI'of farm situations. Fourthly, there were far too many practices to be incorporated into a check type questionnaire to be feasibly used on a mail type. survey} Some of the suggested practices were of lesser importance, while others were extremely important from a profit return standpoint to the farmer. Those of lesser importance were eliminated from the list. In.view of the four criteria used, the list of nearly three hundred farm practices was reduced to a list of eightyheight practices for all nine departments, that were considered as having the combination of being desirable, feasible or practical and having a worth—while degree of profitability to the farmer employing them. .After the elimination of practices and the consolidation of depart- ments the eightyheight practices were placed in a tentative questionnaire 13 divided into nine sections. These were Soils, Farm Crops, General Farm Management, Agricultural Engineering, Dairy, Swine, Beef, Sheep and Poultry. The writer then went back to talk with the responsible person in each of the production departments to show him the final selected list of practices, explain what had been done and receive his approval or objections. A few minor changes such as substituting an eliminated practice for one selected by the writer or the addition of an occasional eliminated practice were suggested. The suggested changes were made in each case and the final list for each department received approval from the person or persons that submitted the original list. The approved list of desirable farm practices was then developed into a check—type questionnaire that could be easily and quickly answered by a farmer. Each practice included the desirable recommended practice and also the often numerous alternatives to that desirable practice that farmers could and do often follow. V In selecting the alternatives the writer called upon his experience in working with farmers as a county agricultural agent. The check-type questions with alternatives were again taken to the production depart— ments and discussed, with special emphasis placed on phraseology of the recommended practice and including all the alternatives to it. The completed questionnaire was then discussed with various members of the.Agricultural Economics staff to remove bias and to select the most appropriate phraseology. Numerous changes were suggested which were made. The questionnaire was then presented at a seminar with six members of the.Agricultural Economics staff who made additional sug— gestions which were incorporated also. Since the questionnaire was to be a mailed questionnaire a further safeguard against conveying a false meaning in regard to a practice was employed. This was a pretesting procedure. The writer invited fourteen farmers in the county where he had served as a County Agri- cultural Extension.Agent and whose farm practices he knew well, to meet with him. Each was naked to fill out the proposed questionnaire. Notes were made on.practice questions on which the various pre—testers did not seem to have complete understanding. Following this pretest the practice questions which had proved confusing were reworded to give more precise meaning. The questionnaire was then reproduced in quantity for use. Mailing Questionnaires Questionnaires were mailed to all farmers on the mailing lists of the selected areas described heretofore, accompanied by an.explanatory letter. Five days after the questionnaires were mailed a postcard was sent to the same farmers asking them to complete the questionnaire as soon as was reasonably possible and return them in the stamped addressed envelope which was provided with the original mailing. Three weeks later the returning questionnaires reached a point where only an occasional one was being received. Upon examination of 15 the returned questionnaires, it was found that in Spite of the pre- caution taken in correcting the original mailing list, thirty—nine questionnaires returned uncompleted because recipients had ceased farm- ing, rented their farms, sold their farms or were deceased. In addition, nineteen were returned only partially complete. The total universe of h36 yielded 192 usable questionnaires which was a‘hh percent return. The author went to the three areas of the universe and made personal interviews of the nonrespondents. {A 20 percent random sample was obtained with which to study the effect of non-response bias. Chi—square tests revealed no significant difference at the 5 percent level between respondents and the nonrespondents on eight control items and 15 practices. The questionnaire used in this mail survey was used in additional research work to survey farmers adjacent to the townships in the Kellogg Township Extension program. These farmers were surveyed for the purpose of establishing a benchmark for later research to compare progress made by farmers in the experimental areas versus those in control areas. Questionnaires obtained from farmers in the adjacent areas were added to those obtained previously via the mail survey. A total of four hundred seventyhone questionnaires were then available for possible use in the research. In preparation for analysis, the hYI available questionnaires were carefully examined in order to eliminate those that were not usable. Operators of farms with less than 30 acres were eliminated. From those 16 that remained, all farms which classified as dairy farms were selected for use in this study. To classify as a dairy farm, 50 percent or more of the gross income must have come from dairy products and dairy cattle. A total of 185 farms of the h71 were classified as dairy farms in the three areas as portrayed in Table I. TABLE I LOCATION OF FARMS IN THE 3mm maroon: DAIRY FARM SAMPLE County a Number of Farms Calhoun 52 Ionia 85 Lapeer Q8 ’ 185 The total of 185 farms fell in the Southern Michigan.Dairy Farm Category'by'virtue of the fact that they met all the qualifications set forth above. These were then used by the author to prepare for further analysis. 'Upon detailed examination, it was found that five farm questionnaires had to be eliminated because of incomplete infor- mation on dairy practice adoption. The remaining 180 were found to be completely usable in the analysis that will follow. 17 The dairy farms in the sample were considered representative of southern Michigan dairy farms. The average tillable land per farm was 1141; acres, they had an average of 17 months of labor per farm and received 70 percent of their income from their dairy enterprise. CHAPTER III CONSTRUCTION OF THE INDICES OF PRACTICE.ADOPTION Because of the nature of the data, the wide variations that existed between practices that farmers followed, and the fact that not all practices were applicable to all farmers, the type of analysis to be used required the investigation and consideration of analytical pro- cedures that might best lend itself to the nature and type of data at hand. Exploration of the types of analyses that might be used indicated a total of three that were worthy of consideration. One was the multiple factor analysis. .A second was the Guttman Technique. Both of these, after'being carefully considered, in light of the data at hand, were discarded not because they were faulty or undesirable methods of analy- sis but rather because the data at hand did not fit the techniques that these methods utilized. .A third method of analysis considered was the development of an index.that could be used to measwre farm practice adoption. In view of the nature of the data available, the formation of an index appeared to be the most desirable because it had flexibility of use, made possible the measurement of varying values, made possible the comparison of unlikes in percentage terms and permitted weighting, if necessary. 18 19 The data available from the farm questionnaires were such that they needed the statistical advantages that an index made possible. The variations in relative values between one practice and another, the varying values between a desirable farm practice and its less desirable alternatives made the formation of an index necessary to make it possible to compare unlikes percentagewise. Factors Influencing Practice.Ad0ption While exploring the formation of an index, close examination of the practices indicated that there were often vast differences in importance between practices which would influence adoption by farmers. This suggested that there were influencing factors which motivated farmers to adopt some practices and either to be slow in adopting other or not adopt them at all. Four factors were finally accepted as being important in influencing practice adoption by farmers. These were: (I) the amount of investment required; (2) the net return per acre or per animal; (3) the magnitude of change required, and (h) the length of time the practice had been recommended. These are discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs. Investment fRequvired The amount of investment required to make the changes necessary to be able to adopt a new practice was one of the factors that may have an influence on practice adoption. For example, a sizable investment is required for a dairyman to follow the practice of selling Grade A milk 20 when he needs to build a milk house and equip it while the practice of feeding grain to dry cows necessitates no investment except for the current input . The Current Cost and Returns The current costs of adopting and following a practice weighed against the possible increased returns is accepted as an influence on the practices a farmer follows. The current costs and returns are much higher to follow the practices of artificial breeding than the costs and returns of feeding grain to cows during the dry period. The Magnitude of Change Required ' The third determinant involved in the adoption of a desirable practice is the amount of change required in the habits of the farmer. The complexity of making the change is involved here also. It might also be expressed simply as "just the plain bother.“ The amount of change or the complexity of bringing about fall freshening in a dairy herd is greater than the change required in the practice of giving the dairy cow a sufficiently long dry period. length of Time flotice Has Been Recommended The final factor used as having an affect on farm practice adoption was the length of time that a practice has been recommended. Feeding grain to dairy cows according to production has been recommended as a profitable practice for fifty years while the recommended practice of so-called fast milking has been in effect for seventeen years. 21 The longer a practice has been recommended, certainly the more time a farmer has had to become exposed to it as a recommendation, and the longer he has to evaluate it or to overcome inertia. Establishment of Numerical value for Each Factor It was recognized that in the formation of an index that would be meaningful and that would reflect differences, it was necessary to account for differences in importance between the four factors. To establish a difference, numerical values needed to be placed on each factor with which to evaluate each farm practice so that an index could be formed. To accomplish this a panel of judges made up of sociologists and extension specialists and research men in farm management from the Department of Agricultural Economics were asked to study the four factors and give a numerical weight to each, the total to be 100. They were asked to establish a numerical relative importance of the investment factor, which was done purely on the basis the investment required. In establishing a numerical value on.the net return factor they were asked to consider the subfactors of increase in yield or rate. of production, reduction in labor, reduction in risk, reduction in cash cost and personal satisfaction as well as the coSt side with the sub- factors of increase in cash costs, increase in depreciation and interest on capital investment, increase in labor required and the increase in risk. On the magnitude of change or action factor they considered the subfactors of change in habit or custom, the inconvenience or just 22 plain bother and the necessity of acquiring new skills because of the complexity of the new practice. The fourth factor of length of time the practice had been recommended-was considered by the group purely on the basis of the time element. The fourteen sets of values obtained from the panel, plus that of the author were placed together for observation and study. Following are the four factors with the modal values that resulted from the fifteen sets of values: 1.InvestmentRequired......o........ 20 2. Net Return per Acre or per Animal. . . . . . . . to 3. Magnitude of Change or Action Required . . . . . 30 )4. Length of Time Practice Has Been Recommended . . __I_L_(_) ‘ Total 100 Numerical Values Placed on Practices and Alternatives The author, after reviewing the farm practices from each production department in light of the four factors to be utilized, asked research and extension project leaders in each department to do two things. First, they were asked to array the practices for their department from high to low in regard to importance. Secondly, they were asked to assign numerical values within the limits presented to each practice and its, alternatives on the basis of Investment, Current Cost and Returns, Magnitude of Change and the Length of Time the Practice had been Recommended . 23 Standardization of Numerical Value As would be expected there were wide variations in the relative values between production departments. It was felt that it was highly necessary to standardize these relative values. The published literature available from the production departments was gathered together for study. Each farm practices and its alternatives were weighed carefully from the standpoint of the published literature, the production special- ists ratings and the author‘s judgment. Each was considered from the standpoint of the farm factors of Investment, Current Cost and Returns, Magnitude of Change and the Time Factor. .AttemptS'were made to set up a scale whereby numerical values could'be placed on each practice and its alternatives. Each practice and its alternatives could then be given an investment rating from O to 20, a current cost and return value rang- ing from O to ho, a magnitude of change value from O to 30 and a time factor value ranging from O to 10. At best, after repeated efforts, only a rough scale could be devised that would serve as a guide in using good judgment. .Also, rating according to a rigid scale appeared unreal- istic when the author considered, for example, that the investment cost for one farmer to convert to the production of Grade.A milk could be much larger or smaller than that of another farmer. The time factor however, lent itself realistically to a scale which was devised and shown in Table II. 2h TABLE II LENGTH OF TIME PRACTICE RECOMMENDED Number of Numerical Value Tears Assigned O - 5 years 5 6 - 10 years 3 ll - 15 years 2 16 - 20-years 1 Over 20 years 0 Each practice was studied and given a numerical value an the basis of the investment factor, one on the basis of current cost and return factor, one for the magnitude of change factor, one on the time factor. This then permitted a total numerical value for each recommended practice and for each of its alternatives. In order to determine how valid this procedure was, a further step was taken. Before permanent values were assigned to each practice for the four factors, the practices were arrayed from high to low on the basis of values assigned to invest- ment, current costs and returns, magnitude of change, the time element and the total value. These arrays were studied carefully to see that the order appeared to be reasonable. Except for minor disparities the values established were retained as permanent. 25 A complete list of recommended practices and alternatives with their established values is given in the Appendix. Two practices thus treated are reproduced here, in Tables III and IV, for example purposes and to show contrast. TABLE III DAIRY PRACTICE NUMBER 6 ———¢ How do you test the production of your dairy herd? Investment Cost Return Change Time Total Value Value Value Value Value 0 0 O 0 0 éa) No testing __ 0 25 20 2 11,? b; D.H.I.A. __ O 25 20 2 h? (0 Owner Sampler __ o 25 20 2 h? (d) Herd Improvement __ 0 25 20 2 )4? (e) Registry or Advanced Re gistry____ o 20 15 o 35 (f) Weigh Milk from each cow monthly Here if the dairyman checked practice alternative (f) the index of practice adoption for this practice would be 35. 26 TABLE IV DAIRI PRACTICE NUMBER 7 How are your cows bred? Investment Cost Return. Change Time Total Value Value Value Value Value 0 35 30 S 70 (a) Artifically ______ 20 26 25 o 71 Eb; Proven Sire lO 18 15 O h3 c Purebred bull 5 7 ‘ 5 O l? (d) Bull from arti- fically bred cow 5 C) O 0 5 (a) Bull raised from good cow .As will be noted the practice of breeding cattle has two practically equal alternatives, that of artificial breeding and the use of a proven sire. The remaining three alternatives are much less desirable and were given low numerical values for each of the four factors and consequently a low total value. Application of Factor Values to Questionnaire With the establishment of numerical values for each of the four factors it was possible to assign a weighting to each practice studied. Each practice on the 180 questionnaires returned by dairy farmers were weighted according to the values established. .At the conclusion of weighting the practices in the questionnaires and the application of the weights, eadh practices had two values. One was the score reflecting the highest value that could be placed on 27 each practice, had the farmer employed the most desirable one and the other reflecting a score of what the farmer actually did with that practice. The two could be the same, of course, where the farmer had followed the recommended one. Applied to all his dairy practices, this resulted in a possible score and a farmer‘s actual score as shown in the sample presented: Dairy Section Example Possible . Farmers Practice Score Score 1. Time of freshening 72 72 2. Grain to milking cows h6 3O 3. Grain to dry cows 27 19 h. Herd testing h7 h7 5. How cows are bred 7O h3 6. Provide for forage (summer and fall) 52 38 7. Time required for milking 62 62 8. Class of milk sold 93 93 9. Length of dry period 31 31 10. Testing for Bangs £2 30 ' Totals 519 A65 Farmers Score é Possible Score - Index of dairy practice adoption a 85 It was possible to obtain an index of practice adoption of Soil Management and Fertilization, Crop Culture, General Farm Management and Dairy on all farms since the entire 180 farms had these farm prac- tices groups. Fiftyhfour of the 180 had a swine enterprise and 96 a poultry enterprise. 28 Characteristics of Data To describe the indices and portray them more conveniently to permit inspection, tables are presented separately that give the frequency distributions of the indices in each of the farm enterprise sections. TABLE V FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF INDICES OF SOIL AND SOIL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ON 180 SOUTHERN MICHIGAN DAIRX FARMS Indices of Soils and Number of Soil Management Practices~ Dairy Farmers 0 - 20 6 21 - no so hl - 60 82 61 - 80 38 81 - 100 2% Total 180 TABLE VI FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF INDICES OF FARM PRACTICE ADOPTION IN CROP CULTURE ON 180 SCIITHERN MICHIGAN DAIRY FARMS Indices of Crop Number of Culture Practices Farmers O - 20 5 2l - ho 36 141-60 77 61 - 80 53 81 - 100 2 Total 180 29 TABLE VII FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF INDICES OF GENERAL FARM MANAGEMENT PRACTICE.ADOPTION ON 180 SOUTHERN MICHIGAN DAIRY FARMS Indices of General Farm Number of Management Practice Adoption Farmers 0 - 2O 7 21 - he 27 Ill-60 56 61 - 80 67 81 - 100 23 Total 180 TABLE VIII A FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF INDICES OF DAIRX'PRACTICE.ADOPTION ON 180 SOUTHERN MICHIGAN DAIRY FARMS Indices of Dairy Number of Practice Adoption Farms 0-20 5 21 - to 18 Ill-6O 55 61-80 73 81 — 100 22 Total 180 Swine Of the 180 farms in the sample only 5h had a swine enterprise. The distribution of the indices is shown in Table IX. 30 TABLE IX A FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF INDICES OF SWINE PRACTICE ADOPTION ON FIFTY-FOUR.SOUTHERN MICHIGAN DAIRY FARMS Indices of Swine Number of Practice Adoption Farmers 0 - 20 8 21 - ho 5 A1 — 60 13 61 - 80 10 81 - 100 18 Total 5h Poultry' Ninetyhsix of the 180 Southern Michigan dairy farmers also had poultry as one of their enterprises. Table X shows the distribution of the indices. TABLE'X A.FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OFIPOULTRX'PRACTICE.ADOPTION'INDICES ON NINETYeSIX SOUTHERN MICHIGAN DAIRX FARMS n ' In Indices of Poultry , Number of Practice.Adoption Farms 0 - 20 ‘ - 5 2l-hO 11; hl - 60 AZ 61 - 80 29 81 - 100 6 Total 96 31 Examination of Indices Data, when grouped and examined gives some indication of its reliability. To do this the author utilized three measures of central tendency and two measures of dispersion. They are included in Table XI for all six sections which permits inSpection and simple comparisons. TABLE XI RANGE, ARITmIETIC, MEAN, MODAL CLASS, MEDIAN, AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF INDICES OF PRACTICE ADOPTION OF RECOPREHDED FARM PRACTICES ON ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY SwniERN MICHIGAN DAIRY FARD’B Measures Measures Number of Central Tendency: of Dispersion Farthractices of Arithmetic Mode Median Range Standard Indices Mean Deviation Soils and Soil Management 180 h8.l 5h D7 8-92 16.31 Crop Culture 180 53.3 60 55 13-89 16.18 General Farm Management 180- 58.6 68 61 2-100 19.8h Dairy 180 62 .2 77 65 lh-9O ‘ 17 .55 Swine ' 5h 61 .0 95 62 5-100 28 .07 Poultry 96 53.5 St St 5489 16.69 As will be noted the ranges of the indices are broad, and the standard deviations indicate that there is a wide dispersion around the arithmetic means. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF RELATIONSHIPS In the following pages will be presented an analysis of the adoption of desirable farm practices by a selected group of Michigan.Dairy Farmers. The first portion will be an analysis of the relationship that exists between the adoption of recommended farm practices by dairy farmers and their association with the Cooperative Extension Service. Development of An.Index of the Farmers Association with the Cooperative Extension Service .Along with other additional basic information obtained on the questionnaires farmers were asked to check the extent to which they associated themselves with the Cooperative Extension Service. They were asked to check the items of participation that applied to their situ- ation. In order to develop an index of a farmer‘s association with his Cooperative Extension Service it was necessary to establish numerical values for each of the indicators of association. To Obtain values for each item, ten persons closely associated with Extension work were asked to give a value from zero to ten to each of the nine association factors. The ten persons consisted of four men in Ektension.Adminis- tration, one person in charge of the Extension Training program, three County Extension Agents and the Author. 32 The values given by the ten people were averaged for each associ- ation factor and totalled. This total divided into 100 provided a multiplier for the average of each of the factors. Thus the various indicators of a farmers'association with his Cooperative Extension Service had the following values. 1. Call at the office of the County Agricultural Agent two 12 or more times a year. 2. Telephone the County Agricultural Agent two or more 15 times a year. 3. Have the County.Agricu1tural.Agent call at my farm 12 once a year or more. A. Seldom see or contact the County.Agricultural.Agent. 0 5. Never contact the County Agricultura1.Agent. O 6. Attend two or more meetings each year called by the County Agricultural.Agent where Michigan State University Specialists speak. t 7. Read an occasional new bulletin from the County'Agrir __j;_- cultural Agents office. 8. Attend Tours, Grass Days, Demonstrations, etc. _2£L__ 9. Have new or have had children in ll-H Club work. 12 Total 100 Through the use of these values it was possible to compute an index of association with the Cooperative Extension Service for each of the 180'dairy farmers. The indices of association with the Cooperative Extension Service of the 180 dairy farmers ranged from<3 to 100 with thirtyhseven farmers showing no association and sixteen showing an index of 100 or complete 3h cooperation according to the original standards set forth. A more complete picture is shown in the frequency distribution in Table XII. TABLEAXII FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF INDICES 0F.ASSOCIATION'WITH THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE OF ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY SELECTED SOJTHERN MICHIGAN DAIRY FARMS Farmers Indices Number of of Association Farmers Percentage 0 37 20.6 3h - 67 Ml 22.8 Total 180 100.0 As will be noted 79.h percent of the farmers surveyed for this study had some degree of association with the Cooperative Extension Service and of these 35.6 percent within the framework of study can.be considered complete cooperators. With the indices of the farmerS'association with the Cooperative Extension Service computed, it was then pOSSible to measure the relations ship between this and the farmers indices of farm practice adoption. This relationship for the various farm enterprises is shown graphically by the least squares regression line in the following scatter diagrams in Figures 2 through 7. tune: or and. muaccucur Pcncrrcl “0&7“! M 90 70 n 00 5". 35 FIGURE 2 REM Tim/MM a: nvaw A ssocm-nwv W/ m war . COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE AND 50:. MnMA6£M5Nr FARM PKACT'ICF ADaPr/ou oo/ I00 saurfiuu MICI/IGIMI DIG/fir FAAZMS 09. \oo'\ V : 36.]07‘h29‘4‘k A A j I J A n I n _L x '0 10 80 “0 So ‘0 ‘IO 00 90 I09 (ND!!! 0! Assocm-nou wnw Tut coortnnrwt tarry/Stow Slavic! 36 FIGURE 3 Rear/oven” strives” Assoc/army awry rat warm: txrtwamu sawed" 4ND F'flkM can: PM Peter“: 04v lea Jourdan! Manned” Omar FARMS m» 1 . ”A 0 .°_ > . . ' '5’ 2‘? p. t ‘3 A '0 2 i? V A g . U 3 't‘ k t w ' ' D o * ‘ o n. _ 314’ Y.' 42.8I9+.257Z t o 13.2 .2 is 53.42 via; 92 7a; v1 INDEX or asspcmr/o») WITH Yut'fccopturlvt, (IRA/JD” JIM/1c! u" “an“ ' ’- r [0 INIE OP SEA/(RIVA FARM MAMQQQMEMT PtacT/Cf flbol’flolv 37 F/GURE 4 A’Ewr/Msmp BETWEEN assoc”; 710M WITH THE coopcmr/ug EXTENSION JERU/CE AA/o Gem/679.91.. FARM MA/vflse’Me‘A/r FARM PRQCT/CE' ADOPT/M 0M /00 sourureu M/(J/ldnlv 00/27 FRRMS _ y : 47.032 .2847; j J I L_ l x ’0 b 30 #0 50 $0 I” St 6’ 2 IUD" 0' Assoc/arrow WIT?! TH: CGOIOIRAI’IU" EIT‘UJ’IOM JE‘V/CE 14/00 or DAIRY I’tflcrzc‘ floppy/0M FIGURE 3' Rflanavwm BUN/£5” Assoc/gnaw wxrw 7‘1"" Coop!“ urn/t [mu/slow 5:4 we E A ND .04 he Y FAR M pmwncg’ ADOPT/0N aw 180 so am 41M MICH/dAM/ .0an r Fae M5 )4, "b . (0r- Y‘ 49,440+.3/‘7ix l A L J l L L 1 L L a to 29 56 40' no ‘0 7.9 no 90 loo. 11/05:! or assoc-107m” Wyn: rm CooPERHYH/C' arMIOAI 502ch INDEX of swnw; Pacer/c: A90)? 77 OA/ 39 . F/GURE 6 29644710” 570/9 arrwttw Assoc/army nary 7w: Coopsenwve EXTENSION 35.2 was Ava :wnvs' FARM AQHCT/CE ADOPr/o/v on 54 30UTHWV mew/«u 0.9/2. Y FR! M S 50? A . A d y- J 29 ' . . d /0 - . ~ ‘ Q Y : 5/oqufofl8z 1 1 J I L l l n L 1_ n t 0 /o 20 3° 00 so 60 70 0o 90 ’00 ,A/pgx 94- pssac/Arloal WITH TH! “craggy-n! 5’73”:le sent/1c: TR Y P494; 7/; IND! 0F 90 UL CD )40 FIGURE? REMTIOIVJHIP asrwe'ew r AssocmrIOA/jIer 7w: COOPERATIVE EX TEA/510M SERVICE 4M0 POULTRY FARM PRACTICE ADOPT/0N ON 96 sourllfiw- MICHIGAIV M/RY FARM IOP' I n J J 1 n A l Io 2o Jofiuo so a 70, $.90,“ ‘x _ M100: or Associe‘rlwv erH 1w" manhunt/(.mwwov .3:qu Lu Correlation Least squares regression.was accepted as the more desirable technique for analyzing the relationship between farmers associations with the Cooperative Extension Service and their farm practice adoption. It is reCOgnized and emphasized here that the existence of a positive or negative correlation, does not show "cause and effect." However, where paired indices manifest or show a concomitant variation, it does show the degree of association between two variables. In preparation for computing correlations, an array was made of the 180 indices of farmers'association with the Cooperative Extension Service in ascending order from 0 to 100. This was done to make it possible to inSpect the data and to observe any similarity in movement in the indices being correlated. Listed with each observation in this array was the corresponding index of practice adoption for soil and soil management, Farm.Crops, General Farm Management, Dairy, Swine and Poultry. This permitted pairing the 180 indices of farmers'association with the Cooperative Extension Service with the 180 practice adoption indices. The simple linear correlation coefficients and coefficients of determination were computed of the indices of the Cooperative Extension Service separately with l) The indices of soil and soil management practice adoption, 2) Indices of farm crops practice adoption, 3) Indices of general farm management practice adoption, h) Indices of dairy practice adoption, 5) Indices of swine practice adoption, and h2 6) Indices of poultry practice adoption. The following legend was used with x denoting the independent variable and the yn the dependent variables. x - The indices of farmers association with the Cooperative Extension Service y1 Indices of Soils and Soil.anagement practice adoption yg- Indices of Farm Crops practice adoption I y3 Indices of general farm management practice adoption y4- Indices of dairy practice adoption y5- Indices of swine practice adoption ys- Indices of poultry practice adoption. The x variable was correlated individually with the yl, Y2: y3, y4, yg, and ya and a coefficient of correlation obtained. In addition a coefficient of determination, i.e. the percent of the variation that is explained by this relationship was obtained. .Also the standard error of the estimate was computed for each correlation. The results of these computations are shown in Table XIII. A test for independence between.x and yi, i - l to 6 was made. The test rejected the null hypothesis which implies that the two vari- ables x and yi are independent of each other. .As will be noted in Table XIII, yi, yg, yg, ya with 180 Observations are significant at the 1 percent level. At this probability level there is only one chance out of one hundred that an r value this high could have resulted from sampling error or from pure chance.- In swine practice adoption (y5) h3 TABLE‘XIII CORRELATION BETWEEN FARMERS‘ ASSOCIATION wI'IR TdE COOPERATIVE HTENSION SERVICE AND-HIS FARM PRACTICES IN SOIL MANAGEMENT, FARM CROPS, GENERAL MANAGEMENT, DAIRY, SWINE AND POULTRY ON ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY SGTCIIIERN MICHIGAN DAIRY FARMS Variable (n) ryx r2 r Level of Significance (Percentage) Y1 (180) .625 .391 .058 1 3’2 (180) .550 .302 .063 1 Ya ESA; .288 .083 .133 5 y 6 9 6 0.3 29 0108 0097 l with 5h observations there is significance at the 5 percent level. Poultry practice adoption, with 96 Observations was also significant at the 1 percent level. Coefficients Of determination, i.e. the amount Of variance that is explained were Obtained as will be noted as r2 in Table XIII. For example the coefficient of determination for soil practice adoption is 39.1 percent. This says that 39.1 percent of the variation in the dependent variable (soil practice adoption) is associated with changes in the independent variable (Cooperative Extension Service). Corresponding figures for remaining dependent variable are, Farm Crops practice adoption.30.2 percent; General Farm Management practice adoption 2h.6 percent; Dairy practice adoption 38.5 percent; Swine uh practice adoption 8.3 percent; and.P0ultry practice adoption 10.8 percent. Soils, Farm Crops, General Farm Management and Dairy Show an acceptably high influence that can be attributed to the independent variable. Swine and poultry are low which is somewhat difficult to explain. In the case of swine a possible explanation is that Since the farmers in the sample had dairy cattle as their major sOurce of income, their interest in their swine enterprise was less and therefore had less interest in attending Extension Meetings on swine, or contact- ing their County Agent on swine problems. The low percentage Of influence that can be attributed to the Extension Service on poultry practice adoption mey'be explained by the fact that it is usually the farm wife who attends Extension Service events on poultry and looks after the farm poultry enterprise, whereas the husband filled out the questionnaire. In.view Of the levels Of significance and the coefficient of determination the correlation between the farmerst association with the Cooperative Extension Service and farm practiCe adoption can be considered high at least within this sample and within the framework of the developed indices. Analysis of the Relationship Between the.Adoption of Desirable Dairy Practices and Other Livestock Enterprises on Selected Southern Michigan Dairy Farms TDairy.farmers Often do not confine their farm enterprise to just dairy cattle. Frequently they have other livestock on their farms to 1L5 spread their risk, further utilize their time, existing buildings and increase income. The author during his tenure as a County Agricultural Agent be- lieved, either correctly or incorrectly, that farmers tended to follow more of the recommended practices with their major livestock enterprise than they did on their less important livestock enterprise.. This portion of the analysis is designed to test the second hypothesis Of this thesis, namely, that dairy farmers do follow more of the recommended practices on their major (dairy) enterprise than they do of the recom— mended practices on their minor livestock enterprises, in this case swine and puultry. In this sample of 180 dairy farmers, none had beef or Sheep enter- prises but some had swine and/or poultry as Supplemental income producing livestock. Table XIV'presents the combinations of livestock on the farms. TABLE XIV NUMBER OF DAIRY FARMERS HAVING SWINE AND/OR POULTRY ENTERPRISES ON ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY SOUTHERN MICHIGAN DAIRY FARMS Number of Number'With Number With Number With .Farmers Swine Poultry Swine and Poultry 180 2h 66 30 V I 31'.‘|.. 114 to To present graphically the relationship between the indices of dairy practice adoption and the indices Of swine practice adoption, a scatter diagram is presented in Figure 8. Similarly presented is Figure 9 which shows the association between the indices of dairy practice adoption and the indices of poultry practice adoption. In both cases the indices Of dairy practice adoption is the independent variable where the indices Of swine practice adoption and poultry practice adoption are the dependent variables. Inspection Of the charts show a Very wide scatter exists, indicat— ing only minor relationship between the dependent and independent variables. Correlation.Analysis Simple linear correlation analysis was employed to determine the relationship existing between the major enterprise and the minor enterprise(s). The independent variable here was the indices of dairy practice adoption while the dependent Variable(s) were the indices of swine practice adoption and the indices of poultry practice adoption. Table XV shows the result Of this correlation analysis. As will be noted the correlation of the Sh indices of swine practice adoption with the Sh indices of dairy practice adoption resulted in an extremely low coefficient of correlation of .12. Likewise the correlation coefficient resulting from correlating 96 IMOIX or s was/a page 77.: E .4 can 770/ h“? FIGURE 6’ RELATIONSHIP BETWEt'N INDEX OF MIRY PRACTICE ADOPT/ON AND INDEX OF FARM SWINE PRACTICE ADOPT/0N ON 5’“ SOUTHERN MICHIGAN DAIRY FA RN15 h V. [00 > 0 o ‘10? IO ' A A J 92 47.67! 4-. 190714 IO to JO 6:0 - 1k 60 IO ‘0 '0 I00 ”V061! or 019ka PucrIcz Manna" A8 F/GURE‘? REM TIOIV$HIP aemaw was): or DHIZY MOT/c: ADOPT/01V AND INDEX OeFMM mummy men: we: ADOPTION 0M 9‘ wurw'uw MIOIII my my! Y FAIM: {a foo 1 3» magician» 37: ”2.815 + .1826 4. a3 [Ivotx gr 0 TI 149 TABLE XV CORRELATION BETWEEN INDICES OF DAIRY PRACTICE ADOPTION AND CORRESPONDING INDICES OF SWINE.AND POULTRI PRACTICE ADOPTION RESPECTIVELY'ON’FIFTYSFOUR.AND NINETY¥ SIX SOUTHERN MICHIGAN DAIRY FARMS Level Of Variable (n) ryxi r2 Significance Y1 (Sh) .12 .Olhh * Y2 (96) .19 .0361 * 1u-Not significant at the 5 percent level. indices of poultry practice adoption with the corresponding 96 indices of dairy practice Of adOption was .19, also extremely low. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS It has been previously stated that influences other than the Cooperative Extension Service have [affected the practices which farmers follow. The author reOOgnizes these many influences and their importance, however, it is not considered necessary to enumerate them at this time. The Cooperative Extension Service, historically has been recognized as having an important influence on the practices a farmer follows. Also it has been regarded by farm people as an unbiased source of infor- mation. Michigan State University through its Cooperative Extension Service has virtually deluged farmers with farm practice information through the various media and techniques. This has, through the years, been available free upon simple request. The employment of recommended practices by farmers has been regarded as resulting in increased production and/or a reduction in unit costs of production or better family life and increased satisfaction. In View of the availability of farm practice information, and in View of the usual desirable results it is Often difficult for non-farmers to under- stand why all farmers do not quickly adopt practices that have been thorougfly tested and then recommended for use. The adoption of new or better practices by a farmer, however, necessitates a number of actions on his part. Usually these include 50 51 one or more of such efforts as thought, overcoming inertia, investi- gation, planning, budgeting through economic considerations, taking the necessary action and the expenditure of additional money. Many farmers are quick to become aware Of a new practice, quick to reCOgmize possible benefits, quick to decide, and quick to put into Operation a new farm practice. Others are somewhat slower, others still slower, while still others either never adopt recommended practiCe or adopt it so late that they have lost the possible financial benefits when they finally do become adopters. This loss of potential profit is due to the fact.that So many farmers have already adopted the practice that total production has increased to a point where market price reflects the reduced cost of per'unit production. The author does not wish to categorize farmers as adopters and none adopters but rather to acknowledge that there are farmers in various stages of adoption of a specific new practice for a number of years after it is introduced. Limitations Of Analysis This thesis effort to determine the relationship that exists between dairy farmers‘ association with the COOperative Extension Service and the recommended farm practices they follow, has been made through the use of original data. iData were Obtained through direct mail questionnaires and by personal interview of farmers in a selected sample. There are limitations to the study that should be presented herewith. 52 Data,Limitations The data Obtained and used in this thesis are believed reliable and authentic, Since they were supplied by the dairymen themselves. In spite of efforts to remove bias, there undoubtably'were elements of suggestions in the questionnaire, due to the fact that alternatives to each Of the recommended practices were necessarily listed. For this reason there is question as to whether all farmers were actually follow- ing the practices they said they were following. There is no reason to suSpect deception but the possibility does exist that some of the dairymen in the sample may have inadvertently reported following a practice they knew to be recommended, while actually following a less desirable alternative. Statistical Limitations Data Obtained from the 180 farmers out of a total sample of A71 falling into category Of dairy farmers were constructed into indices. .Although the employment of an index as a method of analyzing the data was felt to be a desirable one for this thesis, other methods could have been.used. .A limitation is that the indices formed and used were the result Of numerical values developed from value judgments. These value judgments, however, were made by a number of people who were the most capable people available in their field. Therefore, within the ability of human judgments, the indices as developed and used are believed to be a useful system of quantifying farmers practice adoption patterns for the purpose of studying relationships. !_.:n ti 1» .d 53 Conclusion Certain conclusions can be made as a result Of the analysis of data in this thesis. Two conclusions reflect on the two original hypotheses. The first hypothesis, "The more closely dairy farmers associate themselves with the Cooperative Agricultural Extension Service the greater will be their tendency to follow more desirable or recommended farm practices“ was tested through the use of correlation analysis. The high correlation between the indices of farm practice adoption and the indices of dairymen’s association with the Cooperative Extension Service, suggest that this hypothesis can be accepted as true. The second hypothesis, "Dairy farmers follow a greater number Of recommended farm practices on their dairy enterprise than they do on their minor'livestock enterprises" was also tested by correlation analysis. The indices Of the dairy farmers who had swine and poultry in addition to dairy were correlated with their indices of swine and poultry practice adoption. Very low coefficients of correlation were obtained. In the case of swine practice adoption, the coefficient of correlation was .12, while in the case Of poultry it was .19. A second conclusion can be drawn from these results; namely, that within the framework of this analysis the second hypothesis is true. This says in effect that dairymen do not follow as many of the recommended practices on their minor livestock enterprises as they do on their dairy enterprise. 514 The third conclusion that can be drawn is that a rather large segment of farmers make no direct use whatever of their Cooperative Extension Service. In the sample of 180 dairymen, 20.5 percent had no direct association with this Service. They may be influenced indirectly, however, by the Extension Service as a result of their observation of 4:." . I farmers who do associate themselves. A Fourth, many dairy farmers who do use the Cooperative Extension Service to some extent would probably benefit materially if they utilized it more. Only 8.8 percent of the dairymen in the sample, associated themselves completely, within the framework of the index, with the Extension Service. Rate Of practice adoption did not Specifically enter into this analysis. However, a fifth conclusion pertaining to rate of practice adoption appears valid from the data. It is that the majority of dairy farmers are extremely slow in adopting a new practice. This has been known for a long time but it is pointedly evident in this analysis. It is understandable that a farmer would want to Observe and weigh a new recommended practice on the basis of cost and return for a year or possibly two. However, when a practice has been recommended and widely publicized for four years such as in the case of minimum tillage, amd only 2 percent of the dairymen adopt during that period, it must be realized that the adoption rate of a new practice is extremely slow. 55 Implications of Analysis In reviewing the analysis and the conclusions drawn there are numerous implications that in the opinion Of the author are important to the Cooperative Extension Service and to farmers. It is significant that farmers who associate themselves with the Cooperative Extension Service follow significantly more of the recom- mended practices. This probably justifies public monies expended for this work. However, the results of this study do have some impli- cations to both the Cooperative Extension Service and to farmers them- selves. 1. Since there is a ratherthigh coefficient of correlation between a farmers' association with the Cooperative Extension Service and the practices—the farmer follows, it indicates that the Mansion Service has the know how and techniques to increase the adoption of recommended practices. I 2. The Extension Service is in a position to increase the rate of adoption of new practices. By being more active in getting practice information to farmers through the use Of mass media and by supplying others who influence farm people such as radio and newspaper farm editors with practice information, much could be accomplished in this process. Extension concentration on method demonstration followed with a corresponding result demonstration would materially hasten the adoption of a newly mix? 56 recommended practice. Just because farm people historically have been Slow to adopt new practices does not mean.it must be necessarily so. 3. Assuming that the employment of recommended practices increases production and/or reduces cost, increases satisfaction and improves Eh: family living, a third implication is that the Extension Service needs 3% to direct more effort in the direction of the minor enterprises on farms so A | that these enterprises would make a larger cOntribution to farm income. A 1 Perhaps the Extension Service has allowed itself to become too much g of a question and answer’Service rather than a total farm Operation aid. Certainly the total farm analysis approach, conducted recently by Extension workers, could do much more to improve practice adoption on minor enter- prise. h. From this analysis there is a strong implication that there is too large a segment of farmers that the Extension Service is not reach- ing. To be sure the Service is available to them but for some reason they are not utilizing it. It would seem that Extension Service even here could well afford to concentrate on reaching these people. This can be done through the use of various techniques to attract people to meetings, demonstrations and Ektension functions. 5. There is the implication that the Extension Service needs to explore the area Of motivation of farmers in practice adoption. Possibly greater use of such techniques as success stories in local newspapers, supplying farmers with a list Of recommended practices by 57 enterprises or giving greater emphasis to the economics Of practice adoption might be effective. Pride and making money motivate people. Emphasizing practices from the standpoint of "this is what it will cost to make the change, but this is what your increase in production will be or this is what you will save" might help in motivation. 6. The strong implication is evident that the Cooperative Extension Service,effective as it has been in practice adoption with those farmers who associate themselves with it, has reason to dwell on introspection and self analysis. Land grant colleges and their experiment stations will {qr-av - x I be constantly developing new and improved practices, new techniques which will need to be disseminated. The Cooperative Extension Service has an Opportunity and an obligation to develop its teaching methods so as to first increase the rate at which farmers adopt a new practice and second to increase the total number of recommended practices a farmer follows with all his farm enterprises. Because of chronic financial limitations . on most farms it is important that some changes have priority over others. Farmers need to evaluate new practices and adopt those first which bring in the highest return on the added investment. Teaching farmers to properly allocate resources is and always will.be important in farm practice adoption. The Cooperative Extension.Service has a challenge here. APPENDIX NUMERICAL VALUES OF FACTORS OF FARM PRACTICE ADOPTION Illllill 58 38% 0 Ease A3 OH 0 o OH o munch m Amoeba AOV ma 0 0 ma 0 modem 4 582m 3v Om O m ma 9 manor». 4 mambo ammo. $5me 63 mm m 0H ma 0 «none madame emonw w goo 33d 59». on cmpmo Son «Housemm SH .m 393% ommoaev mfioflooo mo moofios .845 A3 done 23 Ho 005.30QO 93 hm A3 0 O o o 0 833 d8 agate am 3 .8 H S 3 0 83mm 2.“ ea 33 so» mass as: he“: 3 o o o o o «30.3 a :o 05.3” Dudes op pen .3 Seams; oooflooo ooh 98m 30m .N we?» Ea 33.3 m op m shoe 3 8 0 ma m o ARR N hat 3 mm N ma m o powwow has one when $52 03 o o o o 0 SEE 2e a RES 33 $52 3 o o o o 0 who?» OH 3 m roam A3 N, o m m o modem w on w FERN A3 w o m m o 939» o B m been 3 i c on” e o munch 1.. ow m Rosa A3 mm N ma . m o . EH3 .39» no macaw Son.“ nosflfifiow one med” you @339 :8 one so.» ohm: servo mom .H Odds? gem omega Mo No.8. case as Zoo 033%: ASSAQEH eOHpoeflHpaom one awesowwdnz don ZOHBmOa. MoHaogm Eh GZHoszHwEH ngodm ho 9.5.9.5? flog? u l‘ IIIWALIIIII‘QJII. I 59 a!) 1. at»? Ammo» @93me .8 be: 0.3“ nopfimv pooh zoom mmoao mom. 3v em 0 on pm 0 wcflpeeae megodnow Hash pmfifi 398 deg. A3 m: 0 ma pm 0 ~85me no\oe.m he: @5on do once was wefimmmao gov .HONHHSLOM mod H.” 39:» .0 8 mm chow .HOQ i500 MOSO Amv m: 0 O whom mom §w .. §m OS 9.. O Om mm 9 once .HOQ imocm I 30: Amy mo OH Om mm 0 Doom Hon *8: .. 130m 25 S 0 ma mm o meow .HOQ 159.. I §m AOV on o OH pm 0 when Ame imam ... §H 3v mm o m 3 o 802 A3 0 o o o o «on: 59» co noun—unpack nose Son Tops «AmmHHwn James. «mmeV am as,” 5H: Agnew «.85.? .mHfimHmmv macho omega.“ poem son e25 .m mace .Ho mH Ag 0 o o o o mesa Na 8. S 3 a o o w o mowed m on N. AOV ma 0 m .3“ 0 38H 0 3 s 3 mm m m _ ma o mean: m B o 3 S o o H 0 «Doom mom .3de 50% on was Mo momoa Somehow hams eon «Ransom dH .: 8338 as 33 fl 2 E o o o o . 0 who?» once no N. boom Amy 0 o o o c was» 55% wages to egos 25 use too 332?: pamspmmEH soapmwfiadpnoh new anmEmmoemz .flnom no..- r l,-. uphill,“ meow Hoe ado: 3 3mm ADV N: O OH mm. o moon non $63 on 3mm A3 3 0 ma mm 0 8% Se Ema 8 heme 3 mm o 3 mm o whom. .HOQ mmoa no «on mob 9” o m 5“ o 9.82 A3 0 o o o o «vows mm: anagram.“ noes eon «woman SB: 23 poops on. op pee one: one venom woman pod one: momma @5539 one has once: neon: newsman 0.de ooh seas. .m who.» Hon once .3 §m “0v 8 OH ON om 0 once non ‘53.. t afimm A3 N: 0 ma pm 0 meow non «10mm .. 13mg” on mm o OH mm o mood and wood .3 Ema A3 mm o m ma o 0:02 Amv o o o O 0 «one :9» EB noufiaflhmm node 30: «poops no: one: mooom 093me one he: EB noeodm T8630. one mpmov mcfiahm woman newsman ”*me sch «8A3 .m . F30 no homage.“ on noun “3 O o o o O . demons»? Sh”: «someone can pug AOV mm o OH 3” m Swot? SR 3398 mean we emanate teat one as S m 8 mm m .38 SERRA. teat a one 3 mm 0 OH 2 0 «so.» 36 «Hash pen...“ once 90% 586 830.3 mm: pom seamen” on new poms unevenness EARNED o: HH .N. Onopmon no he: mmofio mop 3. new: H Hmom #189 A3 0 O O o o momma once .3 m pom wands goon H son: has $93 don. hey we .0 Om On O can; enfiom owemuowo . H.309 many now Once 065ng @3333 coapeuafioh Em udeowSE: .flnom 61 onoz on O . econ monflnpuo3p_p:onw whom on mm mnoo Hams psonw whom on m: mqoo ondnvsono wdonw whom ADV. mw 98c omwfiaé 23 flu 3% 3 5 0000 m nu ma OH m om «50% oo «mwwnflwao momma Hung Hfiom 950% 90 .HH 92398“ 88E :5 m 330.? aflofia 3 mm 8:92 3558 E R mqflmmmno gov madman oz Adv o 01.00 Au 0 o 3 8 NH om a fi mm o: m o om on S 5 o o 000 nu «mnflwnw czom Ham“ mmmho.mop wqflpgm 50% oo zom_.oa whom nag $00: hobo AMV mm OH ON mm. 0 mdfimb €33 owqmnu Mo woos ofis 98 88 $33me €058.54“ nofipwnflaflwhmm and QcoEommndz HHom 62 pmnsopmom g #50 .Ho 23me .352 39 m: m. Om Om o hopfiopgmm 5 98 .Ho ongmmm A3 0 o o o O «Samoan pmoEommqos mHannm HRH .39» ma pan: .3 908mm .Hm3om may Om O OH ma m “me3 mmaflfi 228 3 mm o 8 ma o nfimpm mqflnaflo was oommndm no go hp vomm oEdmmH vonoobwom on mm 0 OH ma 0 “mafia Ea qfinw 5%: 38% 35 3% 85.29 3 o o o o o magma v.53 om: A3 3 m ON on m «up.» 36 60933 no: Baum Human 05.3 953 05 pm @263 $3 no>oHo .Ho mam? can: .m comm 23me 33385“ mofipofiom on 0H 0 m m o comm 23on 33:8an ohms: 3V Hm H OH OH Q 5.3% b: do Emmoooc cofipoafiooqfi How.“ #289 A3 0 o o o 0 «83093 zoapwagoqfi 23.me .39» m.“ p9? .N Aopmpm omwoamv 2230 CC 3 o m d” 0 8mm saga 3 3 o m H o n2 33% 93325 3 o o o o o asaoo 3 o o o o o 3mg» 59$ 3 5 N m ma o o m .2” o doom Spam anagram: bud Adv 0H .35 sen Ea fig: .83 mafia 235 so.» 2.3 :3 ma. A it E and; 55mm owqfio mo dope...“ 85 9a pmoo 832mm: pqmfimopfi 853.90 90.5 .Hoohwuno: 5: 80:9 ommm Uoom :95 9.2:. 3v 0 Umom UoHHwfimo b5 352 G3 0 63 73m 3.3053 «3:3 258% comm mo condom .39» 500. mm: pm 200:9 Has: Amv o sooan mamauonoofimv ma 200:: apnsomuono “av gm 583 fiqfibao 3 mm .Eooaplonm 39 m Ema: mun 5:933 93 :93 ENE. hang :H 03 0 who: $533 55% 9:0 nflmfim B noflqofim on .8: :5 £333 fifififiu 952 A3 m 38% $8336 :5 ES? 05m 05 3 @323 a £38 3 Hm fig: .8 uflfin 9:3 23 B 0383 a 23m 3 o :fiwgm :0 BER: 2:0 :23 who: £33 43 Hm O O OMOOO O O o O o O O o m o: o: o o O O o O :3 .N 0 fl 0000: O O ‘ op :05» 0386 59m on show .0 O OH O OH n ma 0 ma COCO .. do» 36 :58 mo monom 0H :93 93: 63:3: 59% HH .m :mfiobozofiw 30,0900 5“ mpgmom pop popfimpmom :..n #50 :0 23mm: ”3:09 on mm. m ma ON C mama 0L8: :38 fl 303 3 $3 H 8a: bus nonsofimm fl :5 .3 833: 3 mm m o: om o magma: Ed hm: Ho 9:93. bob 5H :2? 3:0 nonsouhom :H 93 no 2.33m nov Hm o m 0H o 32”; Egg owfino mo ago: o5: :3 pmoo 0:516 :98 33.3mm: £8535H 6h 0... - flamflm 30 930 «30.3 «#00: 09.03 00.0333 «0350 CV Ewan £05 £090 .003 00.20 “Foam A3 95.3 :05 wwnu «00.3 «30.3 A3 #39 005 00.3 30am on 939 080 90.8 :05. .30am 3v Ammdep .H0>0 0003 $8.3 004+ “90.350. 00.3 005390 5.“: 30.3 Adv «30.38” 00% 0.8 0mg» «0 0050s 0033 $00» pde 930 00.0 3.00 pom 030$ .39» $33003 aH .w fl 0 0H 4 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 4 S 0 0H N. S 0 0H p cm 0H ma 0H MOOOQO .30» .085 008 000.2008 “3 mm 0 0H NH 0 09.00% c op 4 E05 0000 U0HHBL00 900 A3 in O m m o Pugh 00.39 E05 p380 0000 00349900 900 on cm H OH ma 0 - 030> , 530m ownmnu m0 ages 0a: 80 £30 003000: pqmspmmfiH 0.3.350 no.5 65 51;:- ppm@ 5” an op p0: .8.“me H mmdmomn. p.320 mash—non A3 0 o O o O 9393 88m: fambam va Ewan? won mmoQ $393 Sump 9.3% we mums :9» San mm: awn»... 1; pnzoomfiv pmmmwfip 23 9% H £95 on mm J E” OH O mfipcwam 98me, pmdn pH pom om owwnopm obwn gluon A3 0 o o O 0 mm: am you $5.9m. 93 a.“ hum on mm a ma OH o and mama you .38.. 05 5” 55 39 mm 2 ma OH 0 fl 88 up» n3: 3 o o o. o o 93” ~25. 50m ow .Hmnflnflhom b5. 50% $33 .m. 83% m4 3 a o o a o commom mqgfioo 93 mo Em m5 #4 A3 0 o O o o haw a mafia mmfifi A3 mm. m CH Om o bx. a SE 3 S o m 3 o mfiufioa 0% 5 p.33 H n2? 88 3 S o N a o «HE and vmomm yoga? 3.235 $de 8% ow 530 30: 5.3% wnfifinsoo :95 .m 3395 mngom .3de 3” M85 .8me A3 0 o o o o magma m5 5 3” on: op human 9% H Hans A3 H o m o G gamma no human mafia A3 3 H ma mm o 3E? 23 .8“ 33 ea an: 5:3 3v 3 H ma mm o 82 Ba mfip p93” Ba 3 :m 0 ma 9“ o «whammy Umvom: .HoH boqflows Momgo sch ow :95 .H _ on?» 53% amaze Ho H.309 25 Ba 0.80 033mm: pqospmmEH pdmfimmg H.238 Iii]: Erin-gilt 14: r...» 66 - ..$w So i 3 mm m o node op 956:8 fumooo vamp b: oofim op com: $1.89 63 Edam pod moon ~35on op Hook .28 Son.“ 355me N3 959m pHEm op mm om flow 93 ban. 59¢ oo «cofiwadmon NS @585 hp pom 3.2.3” 05 mag? .N. mnoz Amv o o o o o Aopmpm omwmflmv 293.0 C; II II I... I I 3.36. Ed 3383 05m 3 o o o my 0 «38on 3+ 3p 9v 8” o S o o .fimomb: m: vow 03H xoon Roomy d. on On 0 ma ma 0. Moon, dwaopofinoo Hofio no bummfioo quEowE 4 and mm 0 ma mm 0 Moon ommfloo 33m HamEofi 4 3 mm m om om o goo: 59». oo «0585“ 23 3598 Mo Moog» wfidoox HQ .0 Emhmonn good pcogflobom Ho 93 onE 23:: on mm m ma ma 0 20H 03 3” $in ammo n2: 53 .83: 3m 3 mm m ma ma o mood noun: :Honw 9% .352 03 o o o o ‘0 «gunman 00E fiomgdm pqmggow mo oxwe 59». oo moo. was: .m I I II I noflmflhsoo Aopmpm mmmodc nymfio Amy 8mm oomfifia you 3698 BS E Q. a on o: o 23” .8 pgafiom .39 388 83 A3 .3 a on o: o Moopmgfl .8“ 9380 83 3 Q. a om o: o b.8202 .Sm Ego 8mm 3 E H on o: o 03”; . nuspom omnwno Ho H33 059 gm p80 332$: €330an pqosowoqmz H.238 I‘I‘J 1“ b' 67 maqoaoamgsm oooH.hnp nobmz on :Hmpopm mo oasom Hon pmogmono mag ma nmbmgofigz.msm on . .opo «owquwp gamma HHo adonhom mo zoom wqaomom E.H Moopmobaa .8 on? 23 8 338m 33 3 $5 ES 23 >45 awn: 3v eqosmammnm Hwfiohoesoo w_hsn mhmzH<.AwV o o o o o mm F ma 3 o ma o S m o o o o o o swnwong_wnfihon Raoamamngm voom usoh.nH .w 28.“ man no $2., 0.3 “on as :m o om fl o 02 3 o o o o o osamb . andpom omcmno_mo pumaowquz Hmponoc .Hmpos mafia vow pmoo mospfinmwz pnmspmohnH 68 mgoo Ago op demw oz Amv O O o o o wooHpom_hpo wnHaoo maco Mach wow 30% ohmn_zom .m Ampmpm mmmoHQv muonpo on o3 wfimp $238 “.6 any 23 3 $3.884 E om o B” E o 28m 23 28 d2 1; .o o o o o :oHposfionm xHHE op mnHonooQ< Apv w: H Om mm o 300 Mo ooqwnoomgw op wnHonooo< Adv mH o m CH Av «25... mg 3% Bow op 53w 5:: so: 830% 5% 022 Em .N noofiooom AHV nooeoboz AMV .BQBOo 5 nonEopmom AHV 3&5 3 .32. 3 ..I I. .l .I I. 0:2. E .32 3 .l I. I. I. I. 9&4 :3 5.32 3 mudsnpmh Anv hhosnmw va II. II. II. ll. II. «Roma map mo mnpqofi pumpoHMHo map nH Gmnmonm.mzoo pooh Mo home now .H 03.; . mason $58 no proe mafia find pmoo oodenwmz pqofipmthH baa ”NFL: . I. i, mu, 3- \ a II I {I If \ (1411' III. .llll'llll 69 2300a HmHsmmm A3 hog 000m on 000% 596 A5 0m0HHm 000nm 000m 13 Nam 20 .853 8.3 05.30 0028 300 ooom 0 son.“ 0032 HHdm A0v b-OOO o o mH 8 8 NH 8 mN COCO pn0HoHHmsm .39 03593 :9». oo Rom .w m o o o m :8 8.3 gfifififa 520 Sam 2: S o m N m 53 00302 3v 2. o 3 NH 3 0.30 :0bonm 3v Hp 0 mm mm 8 Napopflvé 3 2. m on mm o «00.5 mkoo .25.» 0mm mom .m space 0 028 38 £0.00 Eon.“ MHHE n30: CV mm. o mH ON O 053.93. bpmmfi Eofipuq E S N 8 mN o bpmmfi pnosmpfiofi 0.8m A3 5 N 8 N o @303 939500 9085 A3 5 w ON mm o 05”me 33.05 3 S N 8 mN o 05.98.... oz 3 o o o o o 3% on E0n go 909% :33 .4 38 .Ho 080.30%? op mnflfioood on pm m OH H o 28 be do. 3. 2:23 2.8 3V 3 o m fl o 3.3 Spam 0055 No H38 95 Ed 38 3300...: pqospmoEH 5o 1 11“.- 4. lll‘ll'l' lll'l ’Jl (|| 3 70 0000.3 m 53.... 9093A A3 mm o m 8 0 E83 N E Hm H 0H 8 o 800: N 3 Hm H 0H 8 0 £00: 0 3 Hm H 0H ON 0 Boom m 3v 0H 0 0 0H 0 0x00: 4 A3 0 O o o o «300 .30». no.“ uofiSg b5 H.032» 0H3 0H 9.35 .m . s88 3 o o o o 0 EH? b02088 $3323 HHHE m 03.5 E H o m 0H 0 HQ: 4 035 03 mm m cm 3 ON «300 8h 00 M5“: Mo 000.3 80:3 .m Awfl 0H 0.3me 9258 E0 9003 A803 0H H095 A3 0 o o o G 3303380 No 833.303 NH 8. S E m o m o 0 Co uofims a 2.. .33 .83 NH 8 mH 3 mN o 8 o m A005”? 300 90m 0.quon 3 30.3 mw on Ca 3v 5 N. Om o OH A983 mN .85 e3 mm o mN o S «wfluflfia 90m E05 mans op :9» 0039 3” 0000 wqoa 30m 3.003 0H5 wfiuqu: .99» 090 038 has to: $5: 0300 ha 0:80 050 kg a?» 0053 . N. mHHSm Eco E o o o o 0 9mm cam 3 H o m 0H 0 05.; 530m 030:0 Ho H309 2H9 03 080 0330...: 9.85.“qu ban 71 . 3’ 003 8.30 A3 0 o o o c 00.00.» m humbm Amy in o o d” 9 05303050 0030..” 3.330500 n08; Amv o o o o c 00000 0.0nobm mono Auv 00 o m 00 o .30.». .0 0000 A3 m: : OH mm G 05:9: w .395 3v 3 a CH mm o 900p 0052 G3 0 o o O O A“00000.8 0083 no.“ 090: .39» 0000 :9» on 000.00 mom .3 00d; 0.0500 00:05 mo H38 050. H5 080 003000: 000500an 50 72 9963 afiumanwflnma A3 mm m CH oN 3.503 nov 0 o o o pod 53 5” 3.95 3v 0 o o o hamHfipnm 90H 5.3 map A3 0 o o 0 «Garden .3545 23 mag 55 mmon .39» ow ohms: 1.. 090m $9.3m ommoamv mamas A3 ON 0 N 3 o mogoanugcw and ohmfimanfinn «mpg «goo may MN m m ON 0 pnmsmamgza and name «500 3v ON 0 N 3 o $8 Ea E8 3 o o o o o 23.233 903.3 Eamonm mnfiuom.“ 9.99% 3” p.95. .m. mww Ho 3603 @ Hm mam.“ Qomno “Edam A3 +2 0 m 3 0mm. no 339» a pm 9568.“ Qmmho Papa new :N o m AH 0mm. Ho 38: N pm 3.38.“ @890 phwpm 3v :m. 4 0H ma :55 away :8 2r 0.3 3 o o o 0 human 3ng :0 330.93 mflnvomm .Hdpm me. p.25 .N Ommm mwm mo mxomz NH op m mum hmfi can: E93 3.33 3,..qu A3 N N m 8 0 .3 80¢ hmnp $52.3 ma Mood hog awn: 82$ E03 39 w o N m . 0 $3 .9 E8 3 83 H d8.“ £95 3 o o o o 9 $030.95 mg?» wan Hanna .3?» n.“ 835 .H mmflmb 559mm mwfifio Ho Adobe meg. Ed pmoo 333mm: 9:953an mwom 73 ummm No .mna OOOH mxms op mamaw apfiz Hams waaamaw Noon op mooN AOV an_wwdmmam agom qN_nonga Apv wmaumam 02 Adv NN N m ma 0 ma N N ma 0 o Au 0 o ”o pmm npfidw can m30m vmnn.asoh ow nmpqaz esp qH .m mama dad 3.3 A5 on o OH ma m mmwnw sauna Amy NN 0 0H NH m 95m onawm ANV 0H 0 m o m nobbao nvosamz no mcsa Amv mm o OH ma m osawb. W1..mwwwom omqmno Ho mwom proa mafia find pmoo ovdpflnwmz pamSpmmth 7h aflmpm moflogo mmpm mam gmws vmom ADV mm m ca ON 0 sampm umpfiafia cam swag ummm “av NN 0 OH NH 0 $0on wga Much cam.“ 58». ow 30m 34 mNoH:0.msp pmsa on o o o o c 96.30 Ummmdg 55035 39 HN O m 3 a Mod? dwmao Egoduzm 63 MN m m ON 0 b5, :05 cu mxoflno b5 :9». nmé .m 4.5m 3 N o S d 9 £030 85... E a 1 u a o 3030 fig Ewfifim 3 ma 0 ma 9 0 N25, 59w. ow mxofigo gasp :9». n9? .N km: 0 w o o. o o HNNQ4 .dfi NV 0 NH 0 Noam: an o m mN o Sfinmm No N 8 mm 0 $33. No N 8 mm o nmnsmomn No N ON mm 0 $3582 0: 0 ma mN o «3350 mama. .38“ pmw son 36 N85,. .H 23; Spmm omqmno mo 5.3.38 H309 0:5 Ba p80 352%: 0.55383 '3' 'l”! 75 fimmao EU Hum £33 3003 Hmmpm .Ho .8ng E83 :85 ~80? hum 223 fig 2; 3 =85. fimmfio o. $89 «523 5.36 59m. 0U 30m .mmwm umflnom .mEom Bow mcobmmbm pmoz .NL nopmnmwfinmmm I .350 mpspwpmgsmp Soon 9mg. 08 30.39 Hooo omw soamp H08 9550me 3.” firm A3 S o S 3. mm m S o m 3 o o o Amv mm m m Auv o o o AOV o: m 0H Apv gm 0 0H Amv o o o wmdflmfimm amid mmmm .2 ma fl 0 ma 0 ma fl 0 093m SPA 06 30m .0 000 O O O OH OH O . L850 mmv II 1.... II II. Emu m $5.3. much A3 mm a . 0H ma O Emu a 854+ mmfifl. A3 mm 2 OH ma 0 53 a 83 3V 3 o m 4H 0 hmw m mono A3 0 O o o . 0 «Spam Asoka co magpww mmmm mam nmpmo 30m .m 52» a 3 o o . o o. o :me Hm comm 3 mm o 3 ma 0 msdwb . 53mm mwnmno mo binom H.309 95E. EB pmoo 35?me 990593qu 76 mpgwfla mo mm: on ex“: Auv o o o o o qun_hn.so cum Mme mpanH case on mm 0 ma :H o mpnwfla no MooHo mafia w map ADV mm m ma ma 9 mpgwfia pgwfiu Ham mmD.Amv mm 0 ma 4H .0 so» on .xooam maahma use» npfiz..m Hawk w mode .330 A3 m 0 m J O . hamsonuaenoo dado on mm m Om ma 0 menu moofipm mmo 2mg: Hang any ma 0 0H m o 36 .8me 3 o o o o 0 son ow «Mooam mzflhwa anon zpfiz .w mus> . anspmm omnwno mo bflsom Hapoe mafia and pmoo mvspwqwmz pnmspmman RGOM USE OE‘QLY r‘ 1 ‘ [3552215 E? 7’"‘*3::>:.‘. a. ; r f” '" ilk/‘5 if; n ‘J' / 3844—1131 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII mummumunnmunnuuuuuulmmmnmm