—
> — < _ ulna“: ~ -_.-, , V. ,,._- ”m . q ‘, .7

TYPES ANB SQURCES OF EHFORMATEON USED
aw FARMERS EN M£2H§5AN, WITH EMPLICANONS
FGR EXTERSEGN fls’WflMNG

Thmés fat flu Mm :5? Pin. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Russel! G. Manwa
1959

 

 

 
 

ll|3rlllllllillfllfllllljlllflllllllllfllljlll

  
  
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
    
 
  
  

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

TYPES AND SOURCES OF INFORMATION
USED BY FARMERS IN MICHIGAN,
WITH
IMPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSION PROGRAMMING

presented by;

Russel 1 G . Mawby

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

Ph.D. degree in Aoricultural Economics

We; Wxéfi
Major professor
Date :W? I

  

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

    

 

TYPES AND SOURCES OF INFORMATION

USED BY FARMERS IN MICHIGAN,
WITH

IMPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSION PROGRAMMING

by

:\

Russell GifMawby

A THESIS

Submitted to the College of Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan
State University of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Agricultural Economics

1959

.*______.v._ __ .— _. -

 

 

I. ‘ilfl It” .
l

 

 

9.;5/‘73
g/go/e'

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author wishes to express his sincere thanks to Doctors L. W.
Witt and G. L. Johnson, under whose guidance this study was completed.
Dr. Witt, serving as chairman of the writer's Guidance Committee, was
instrumental in arranging for this research project, provided continu-
ous encouragement, and assisted immeasurably in the completion of the
author's graduate program. Dr. Johnson, as thesis supervisor, per-
formed this important role with sincere personal interest, providing
inspiration, direction, invaluable counsel, and much appreciated en-
couragement. His patience and understanding were particularly appre-
ciated. To these two men the author is especially grateful.

To Dr. William Baton, statistician for the Michigan Agricultural
Experiment Station, and Mr. Earl Partenheimer, then graduate student
in the Department of Agricultural Economics, the writer extends a word

of thanks for their counsel on statistical procedures.

Appreciation is expressed to the Risk and Uncertainty Subcommittee

of the North Central Farm Management Research Committee for supplying
from their Interstate Managerial Survey the data which was used in this
study.

The writer is grateful to Dean T. K. Cowden of the College of
Agriculture; to Director N. P. Ralston and former Director P. A. Miller
of the Cooperative Extension Service; and to Dr. L. L. Boger, Head of
the Department of Agricultural Economics who encouraged the writer in
his research project and made possible the completion of this study.

Gratitude is also expressed to colleagues of the State k—H Staff for

ii

 

4* ‘

 

 

 

 

 

their understanding cooperation and generous assistance in assuming

additional responsibilities as the writer completed this undertaking.

Further, the writer acknowledges the assistance of the clerical
staff of the Department of Agricultural Economics, under the supervision
of Mrs. Arlene King; to Miss Sara Kesselring who typed the rough draft;
and to Mrs. Nina Childs who typed the final draft. Finally, the author
is grateful to his wife and family, whose understanding encouragement
through the long period in which this thesis was completed provided
essential moral support.

The author bears full responsibility for the content of this

thesis.

iii

 

 

 

all

 

TYPES AND SOURCES OF INFORMATION

USED BY FARMERS IN MICHIGAN,
WITH

IMPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSION PROGRAMMING

by

Russell G. Mawby

AN ABSTRACT

Submitted to the College of Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan
State University of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Agricultural Economics

1959

Approved M

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT g ‘.

Just as problems of farm management confront the farm operator,
problems of program management concern those responsible for the opera-
tions of the Cooperative Extension Service. In best serving the infor-
mation needs of its farmer clientele, knowledge of the patterns of in-
formation farmers consider important and information sources used by
them can be helpful.

Data used in this study are from Stratum 4 (Michigan counties
south of the Bay City-Muskegon line) of the Interstate Managerial Survey.
This survey, which included a sample of 199 Southern Michigan farms, was
conducted in the sun-er of 1954 by the Risk and Uncertainty Subcommittee
of the North Central Farm Management Research Committee.

In response to a projective, non-structured question, respondents
indicated that farmers should use different patterns of information in
each of three situations:

a— when organizing a farm, a farmer should be most concerned
with factors having long-term implications, such as produc-
tion, institutional, and human factors.

b- in operating a farm for maximum profit, farmers should use
most the types of‘information on production, prices, and new
technology, each of which has certain possibilities of short-
run flexibility in terms of the farm operation.

c- when operating a farm for the greatest family satisfaction,
information on factors with long-term implications, including

institutional, lumen, and production factors should be most used.

4" L“ a.“

 

 

 

 

In terms of relative importance for their own operation and in
light of their own experiences, respondents named production information
most important, price next most, and institutional information least
important. This pattern very nearly paralleled the pattern when “operat-
ing for profit" in the hypothetical situation, suggesting that the
respondents were profit- and operationally-oriented.

In analyzing the patterns of use of eighteen communicative sources
of information, different patterns were identified for each of five types

of information: price, production, new technology, human factors, and

 

institutional factors. In general, farmers look to a relatively small
number of communicative sources for each type of information. And each
source is looked to for more than one type of information.

Farmers in different positions relative to certain of the control
variables employed different patterns of communicative sources when secur-
ing a given type of information. While data limitations did not permit
exhaustive analysis of such relationships, reliable evidence was avail-
able for both price and production information source patterns. In
general, variations in patterns of sources employed were associated with
education, background experiences, personal situation, scale of opera-
tion, type of farm, and meeting attendance.

When farmers in different positions relative to control variables
used a given source of information, they used it for essentially the
same pattern of information.

These findings have implications for Extension programming. The

different patterns of information which farmers indicate should be used

vi

 

in organizational and operational situations should be recognized. If,

as seems to be the case, agriculture is currently undergoing major or-
ganizational adjustments, recognition of such patterns is particularly
appropriate. As a position of relative stability may be reached, a
relative shift to operational patterns may be in order.

In general, Extension programming should recognize the sources
most used by farmers for each of the types of information. Decisions
regarding channels of information employed in Extension can in part
determine the audience served. In turn, a decision regarding audience
can be implemented in part through the employment of the sources of in-
formation to which that audience looks. If, as is apparently the trend,
farm operations are becoming larger and more specialized, and farmers
are securing more formal education, a challenge to Extension is suggested
in that operators of such large specialized farms and farmers with more

education looked to the land-grant system more than did other farmers.

,QM‘? w~1 Urn-—

 

 

 

Chapter
I

II

III

IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
GENERALPROCEDUREeeeeeeeeeeeeee

The Interstate Managerial Survey. . . . .
Data Used in This A alyaiae e e e e e e e

PATTERNS OF INFORMATION FARMERS INDICATE
SHOULD BE USED 0 C O O O O I O I O C O I O O

In Organizing A Farm. . . . . . . . . . .

In Operating A Farm e e e e e e e e e

Information Patterns Related to Control
Variables e‘e e e e e e e e e e e e e e

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF TYPES OF INFORMATION
FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF FARMERS. . . . . . . .

Rankings Related to Control Variables . .

COMMUNICATIVE SOURCES OF INFORMATION USED
BY mes O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O I

Different Sources For a Given Type of
Informationte e e e e e e e e e e e e e
Sources for Price Information . . . .
Sources for Production Information. .

Different Types of Information From A
Given Source? e e.e e e e e e e e e e e

—SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSION

momeGe O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O 0

Summary Of Findings e e e e e e e e e e
Implications for Extension Programming.
Implications for Research . . . . . . .
Relevance to Dynamic Economics. . . . .

APPENDICES

Appendix I: Figure. e e e e e e e e e e
Appendix II: Tables. . . . . . . . . . .

BIBIJIOMHY I O O O O I I O O O O O O O O 0

viii

Page No.

\n\N \N

10
1O

5

SSEE 5

7O

95

 

Table

II

III

IV

VII

LIST OF TABLES

Sampling Characteristics and Interviews Taken,
Interstate Managerial Survey, 1954 . . . . . . . . . . .

Number and Percent of Mentions of Farmers Mentioning
at Least One Component of Each of Six Major Infor-
mation Categories, Michigan (Stratum 4 only) . . . . . .

Number of Farmers Assigning Different Degrees of
Relative Importance to Five Major Types of Infor-
mation When Setting-up and Operating Farms,
MiChigfin(Stratuml+0nly)eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Comparison of Respondents' Rankings of Types of
Information in Response to Different Questions
Regarding Organizing and Operating Farms,
M10h1m<str‘tumlf°n1y)eeeeeeeeeeeeeese

Communicative Sources for Five Major Types of
Information by Numbers of Farmers Reporting Use

With Designated Percentage Distributions by

Source and Type, Michigan, (Stratum 4 only). . . . . . .

Communicative Sources (Grouped Basis) for Five
Major-Types of Information, by Numbers of Farmers
Reporting Use, with Designated Percentage Dis-
tribution by Source and Type, Michigan (Stratum 4 only)

Influence of Control Variables on Sources of
Price Information Used by Farmers, Michigan
(Stratunbronly)....................

Influence of Control Viriable on Sources of
Production Information Used by Farmers, Michigan
(Stratumhonly)....................

Page

21

22

55

45

 

 

LIST OF FIGURES

l
,1

Figure Page

1 Flash Card for Explaining Information Categories

tOROIPOIldOntCeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee17

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PREFACE

This study was completed as a part of the Interstate Managerial
Survey of the Risk and Uncertainty Subcommittee of the North Central
Farm.Management Research Committee. As the Michigan Agricultural Ex-
periment Station has participated in this interstate project and as the
results reported here are appropriate for publication as an Experiment ii
Station bulletin, this thesis has been written in a style and form.mak- i
ing it readily adaptable to publication. j
While this study was addressed essentially to information patterns i A

of farmers and the sources of such information, the pertinence of these

 

findings to dynamic economics should not be overlooked. In dynamic
economic theory, the assumption of perfect knowledge is relaxed. The
manager, usually operating in situations of imperfect knowledge, must
make decisions related to organization and operation of the farm firm.
.An essential responsibility of the manager is that of learning, perform-
ing the functions of observation, analysis, and decision-making. As one
reflects on the whole process by which the entrepreneur and/or society
makes adjustments to change in situations of risk and uncertainty, one
is aware of such conceptual considerations as liquidity preferences, pro-
pensities to consume and invest, the theory of the firm, and the situa-
tions related to different degrees of knowledge. In light of these, it
is certainly appropriate to be concerned with the information patterns
of farm managers and the sources of information employed as they perform
their managerial functions. This study provides particular additional

insight into the observation and analysis phase of the managerial process.

xi

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

Just as problems of farm.management confront the farm operator,
problems of program management concern those responsible for the opera-
tions of the Cooperative Extension Service. With a responsibility for
providing to its farmer clientele information useful in solving farm
problems, the Extension Service must be concerned with the wisest utili-
zation of its limited resources to that end.

Many factors must be considered in the program.management deci-
sions of Extension. This study will concern itself essentially with
only two: the types of information considered important by farmers,
and the communicative sources of such information.

It is apparent that, to be most effective in their efforts, the
designers of Extension programs must be intimately aware of the types
of information regarded as important by the farmers they serve. Cer-
tainly, if Extension is to be as helpful as possible in assisting far-
mers in making the managerial decisions they must make, an awareness of
the types of information important to these decisions is essential.

Further, if the efforts of Extension are to be efficient, program

developers must be cognizant of the sources of information being;currently

Ilployed by farmers in securing the various types of information they

need. With such knowledge, more effective decisions may be made in the

Pllnning of Extension programs.

 

 

 

While much research has been done in the broad areas of Extension
communications, this analysis of data secured from Michigan farmers will
probe somewhat different dimensions. First, it will address itself to
an inspection of the types of information regarded as important by far-
mers in organizing farms and in operating farms for maximizing either
profit or family satisfactions. Next, the communicative sources of in-

formation used by farmers in securing information will be reviewed.

, .fis‘..:- arr-w

Then the analysis will relate both the types of information regarded

 

as important and the sources of such information to various circumstances
or characteristics of the farmers concerned, revealing whether farmers

in different positions relative to the control variables indicate sig-
nificantly different patterns and sources of information.

Finally, certain implications which the findings of this analysis
may have for an Extension program will be cited. It should not be
assumed that in and of itself the Extension Service should attempt or
aspire to be the sole or even a major source of all types of informa-
tion for farmers. Yet, in the management of their programs, Extension
personnel should find it helpful to have an insight into the types of
information regarded as important by farmers in making the decisions
they must make, and an awareness of the communicative sources utilized

by farmers in securing such information.

 

 

 

 

Chapter II

GENERAL PROCEDURE

Data used in this study are from the Interstate Managerial Sur-
vey.1 A brief review of this survey will be useful in understanding

the findings in this bulletin.

The Interstate Managerial Survey

The Interstate Managerial Survey is a cooperative, interdisci-
plinary regional study involving agricultural economists, statisticians
and sociologists from seven states - Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Michigan, North Dakota, and Ohio. The Risk and Uncertainty Subcommittee
of the North Central Farm Management Research Committee served in es-
tablishing cooperative relationships. Under this Committee's guidance,
the survey schedule was prepared and protested, interviewer schools were
conducted, the survey was completed, and analysis is being carried on.

The Interstate Managerial Survey is of considerable magnitude,
with answers to 66 different questions covering many facets of decision-
making and with 1075 schedules taken. Functionally, questions in the
survey can be classified under these headings:

1. Types of information used by farmers in organizing and

Operating farms;

2. Analytical problems and processes in the management function;

 

1For convenience, referred to as IMS.

E “if,

 

 

 

 

5. Sources and means of securing information;

4. Expectation models;
5. Strategies;

6 Knowledge situations;

7

Propensities to buy insurance and to take risks as related
to the disutility of losses and utility of gains in income
and assets; and

8. Control questions.

lF“'—a.m4~—

The sample for the study was random with respect to sample segments
in (1) the geographic area delimited within each state and (2) the entire
geographic area delimited within the seven cooperating states.

The farmers sampled were those having primary entrepreneurial
responsibilities for business units producing more than $2,500 worth of
farm products, including the value of home consumption but excluding
the rental value of farm buildings. Farmers with types of leases and
partnership arrangements restricting their performance of the managerial
functions were excluded. The sampling and other characteristics of the

study are presented in Table 1.2

 

2For more detailed information regarding the purposes and procedures
of IMS, see G. L. Johnson, Methodology for Studying Decision Making,
Journal of Farm Economics, Volume XXXIX, No. 5, December 1957; G. L.
Johnson and C. B. Raver, Agricultural Information Patterns and Deci-
sion Making, Michigan Sta e n vers y xper men a on, as
Lansing, Bulletin Manuscript, 1959; and the series of articles on
Progress and Problems in Decision Making Studies, Journal of Farm
Economics, Volume XXXVII, No. 5, pp. 1097-1125, December 1955.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1

Sampling Characteristics and Interviews Taken,
Interstate Managerial Survey, 1954

 

 

fi—

 

Stratum Estimated Estimated Number Expected __ Actual
Number Number of of Eligible Number of Sampling Number of
and State Eligible Farms Per Farmers to be Rate Farmers
Farms Sampling Unit Interviewed Interviewed
1e Ken-
tucky 1,790 3 150 1/12 124
2. Ohio 25.599 2 200 1/118 137
5. Indiana 15.769 2 200 1/79 189
4. Michi-
gun‘ 57.5#5 2 22A 1/150 199
5. MChi.
m2 594 2 30 1/15 50
6. North
Dakota 9.301 2 150 1/62 129
7. Iowa 25,6119 2 140 1/169 120
8. Kansas 6,985 2 206 1/29 1&7

 

Data used in this analnis:

This analysis utilises data both for

the total region and for farms in Michigan counties south of the Bay

City-Muskegon Line.

Since the analysis is directed to the Michigan

situation and intended to be most useful in Michigan, the Stratum 4 data

Michigan counties south of the Bay City-Muekegon Line) are used most

extensively.

 

1Countiee south of Bay Oity-Muskegon line.

2Cheboygan and Presque Isle counties.

 

 

”I
I
I
1

{u 4 .. I‘14 V._.v.1 .0 s62] . v‘wlsv

 

Further, only a portion of the total information secured in the

1M3 is utilized. Specifically, data are drawn from responses to ques-
tions in three categories:

1. Control Questions: These questions deal with tenure status,
size and type of farm, contacts with the Extension Service
and farm organizations, background, education and vocational
training, farm experience, non-farm employment, family re-
sponsibilities, employer status, income, assets, liabilities,
and net worth. Answers to these questions are used in analyz-
ing the inter-relationships between the position of a manager
with respect to these factors and the types of information
considered important and the sources of such information.5

2

Questions dealing with types of information used by farmers
for organizing and operating farms.

As reported by Johnson and Haver,4 IMS indicated that
the random sample of 1075 farmers in eight mddwestern areas
would have used proportionally different information patterns
in organizing farms than when operating them to maximize
either (a) profits or (b) satisfacticns. Further, a ranking

pattern of the importance of the various types of information

 

5For convenience, the phrase "farmers of different characteristicsI
will be used when referring to those control variables.

1"Johnson and flavor, Aggicultural Information Patterns and Decision
Making, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, East Lansing,

Bu letin Manuscript, 1959.

5.

was presented. In this study, a similar analysis is completed
for the Michigan (Stratum.4) sample, and further analysis is
made to determine if farmers of different characteristics
would indicate different patterns of information in these
situations.
Questions dealing with communicative sources of information.
Analysis of these questions will indicate whether farmers use
various communicative sources to different degrees in secur-
ing different types of information. The analysis is then
further designed to reveal whether farmers of different
characteristics:
a. utilize different communicative sources in securing a
given type of information, and/or
b. secure different types of information from a given

communicative source.

 

Chapter III

PATTERNS OF INFORMATION FARMERS INDICATE SHOULD BE USED

In their analysis of appropriate data from IMS, Johnson and
flavor5 reported that in 195%, a random sample of 1075 farmers in the
eight midwestern areas of INS would have required and used proportionally
different information patterns when orgggizing farms than when operating
them either to maximize (a) profits or (b) satisfactions.
While the types of information used by farmers had been classi-
fied into five categories (price, production, technological change,
human, and institutional) prior to IMS,6 these categpries were not sugb
gested to farmers at this point in the survey. Rather, the following
open-ended, non-structured, projective-type questions were asked:
1. "What should a farmer find out before setting up a farm in
a strange area for a strange family!”

2. “What kinds of information do you think a farmer ought to
keep up with in order to operate a going farm business....
a. "In order to get the greatest profit?"
b. IIn order to get the greatest satisfaction for his

entire family?'

 

511ml.

60. L. Johnson and C. B. Haver, Decision Making Principles in Farm
Mana nt, Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station, Lexington,

Bulletin No. 595, January 1955.

 

 

1.. . . . - . I 41.391

 

 

4

c ' x. .' ' ’- a
. ‘ 7 . ,3
-1 MEET? _~ ,
e 2 t‘ ' J, . “‘
I
1 7 E ‘ 1 ’,
f . _

 

 

In summarizing the responses to these questions, it became ap-
parent that most of the responses could be grouped into the five recog-
nized information categories: price, production, technological change,
human, and institutional. Therefore, the usefulness of these categories
is borne out.

It should be noted, however, that two additional categories be-
came apparent from the survey. Home technology was frequently mentioned
and could be suggested as a sixth category. To the extent that data
are available, this category is used in this analysis. Further, infor-
mation on how to analyze, decide, act, and bear responsibility was some-
times mentioned. However, because of the procedure employed, responses
to this effect could not be expected in all instances where such a need
might actually have been felt. Consequently, this category was only
partially coded and cannot be used extensively in the analysis.

In this analysis therefore, the following broad classifications
of the detailed component categories of information used by farm.mana-
gore are employed:7

a. 2:323 (information on prices of things bought and sold, in—

cluding past prices and price trends; current prices and
changes in prices; and price outlook).

b. Production Factors (information on existing varieties of

crops and livestock; existing methods of producing crops

and livestock; climate, soil and disease conditions).

 

7See Figure 1 of Appendix I for summary of component categories
included in broad types of information classifications.

'\__..._—- -

4

 

10

c. New Technology (information on technological change - new in-
ventions, developments and discoveries).

d. Human Factors (information about individuals you may have to

 

deal with or consider in making decisions about a farm).

e. Institutional Factors (information on political, social, and
religious factors).

f. Home Technology (information on existing and new technology

related to the home).

In orgppizing a farm:

For the hypothetical situation, when organizing a farm, produc-
tion information (yields, cropping practices, buildings, breeds, etc.)
was the type most frequently mentioned by Michigan respondents. The
next most mentioned category was institutional factors (schools, roads,
churches, taxes, acreage allotments, markets, etc.). Information on
human factors was third most mentioned, with information on prices,
home technology, and new production technology following in that order

(see Table II).

In operating a farm:
The information patterns Michigan farmers indicated should be

used when operating a farm were quite different from the pattern of in-
formation which they said should be used for organizing a farm. Further,
the pattern was different when the objective of operation was maximum
profit than when maximum family satisfaction was the goal.

When operating for profit, information on production methods was

still the most mentioned category, as it was when organizing a farm.

 

 

-
e
n
‘3 . s
e
e
e
. . , n
- . .
e
Y '-
I . . . I.
' u u . g ‘ .
' t
e
A o
e

 

11

Table II

Number and Percent of Mentions of Farmers Mentioning at Least
One Component of Each of Six Major Information
Categories, Michigan (Stratum 4 only).2

 

 

 

 

Type of
Information In Connection With
Organizing
Farms Operating Farms For
Family

Profit Satisfaction
N3: % Ramc N2; % Rank N2: % Rank

Price 12 5e7 4 107 29a} 2 20 12e2 ‘1’
Production 88 41.7 1 124 54.0 1 26 15.9 5
New Technology 2 .9 5 68 18.6 5 16 9.8 6
Human 45 20.4 5 15 4.1 5 42 25.6 2
Institutional 64 50.4 2 51 14.0 4 45 26.1 1
Home Technology __2 .2 5 __Q 0 6 _11 10.4 5
Total 211 100.0 -- 565 100.0 -- 164 100.0 --

 

1For summary of component categories by broad types of information
classifications, see Table 1 of the Appendix.

2Summarization by numbers of times components of each of the six major
types of information were mentioned by farmers gives essentially the
same patterns as reported on the basis of this classification.
v/
Chi-square . 219.54, with 25.21 required for significance at the
one percent level.
However, in operating for profit maximization, price information became
the second most mentioned category, followed by information on new pro-

duction technology and institutions. Human information and home tech-

nology ranked a poor fifth and sixth, respectively.

 

12

When operating to maximize family satisfactions, this pattern
changed significantly. Information on institutional factors became the
most mentioned category, followed by information on human factors. In-
formation on production, prices, home technology, and new production
technology followed in that order.8

From this it becomes apparent that, in general, farmers were more
concerned with short-lived types of information in connection with opera-
tion, especially when for profit, than in organization of farms. Fur-

ther, human and institutional information were emphasized more in con-

 

nection with operating for greatest family satisfaction and in connection

with farm organization.

Information Patterns Related to Control Variables:

 

While this summarization is useful and has implications for an
Extension program,9 further analysis relating responses to these ques-
tions to control variables (different characteristics of the respondents)
provides additional insight, with possible implications also for Exten-
sion. For example, one might hypothesize that farmers of different ages
or with varying degrees of formal educational experience would indicate

different information patterns in these three situations (i.e. organizing

 

gAnalysis by states indicated a significant difference between states
in the information patterns in connection with operating farms to
maximize family satisfactions. Michigan data only are presented here.

9Johnson and flavor, Agpicultural Information Patterns and Decision
Makin , Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, East Lansing,

Bulletin Manuscript, 1959.

«In
I

 

 

 

13

a farm, and operating either for maximum.profit or for maximum.family
satisfaction).

For such an analysis, the control variables included in the survey
schedule should first be reviewed.10 Questions employed to secure this
information dealt with background, education and vocational training,
farm experience, non-farm.employment, family responsibilities, size and
type of farm, employer status, tenure status, assets, liabilities, and
net worth, and contacts with the Extension Service and farm organizations.
In addition, classifications of respondents on the basis of ranking of
information considered important and on reasoning pattern was sometimes
used. For convenience, each factor is described by a brief phrase which
indicates something of the nature and situation of the respondent. In
the analysis, each of these variables was related to the responses to
the questions regarding types of information important in organizing farms
and operating them for either maximum.profit or satisfaction. The sum-
mary of this analysis is presented in Table 1 of Appendix II.

It is evident that, from this data, there is generally no rela-
tionship between the patterns of information thought important and the
control variables. However, one should not be misled in this impres-
sion. For it appears that what in fact happened was this: each of the
respondents, regardless of his situation with reference to the control
variables, projected himself into the hypothetical situation which was

created. Thus, he answered the question regarding types of information

 

10The questions from which these control factors are derived are

enumerated in Figure 2 of Appendix I, with tabulations of Michigan
respondents.

 

1 ,
1'

1

E u

is

 

 

 

 

 

 

14

important in organizing a farm from the standpoint of doing so "in a
strange area for a strange family.”

Likewise, in responding to the questions related to types of in-
formation important in operating a farm for either maximum profit or
satisfaction, the respondent "role-played" the two situations in answer-
ing, thus neutralizing any influence the circumstances or characteristics
reflected by the control variable might have had.

These findings attest to the success of the projective technique

employed in questioning. In answering the three questions, respondents

 

projected themselves into the hypothetical situation, with the result
that no relationship was evidenced between the information patterns and
the control variables. Thus, the generality of these information patterns
for the three situations is established.

Caution should be exercised in the interpretation of these find-
ings with reference to the relationships of control variables and infor-
mation patterns. If, for example, each farmer was indicating the pattern
of information he himself would employ in organizing a farm, some dif-
ference between farmers of different characteristics might be evident.

It would be erroneous to conclude from the evidence presented here that
such would not be the case.

Further, the data should not be interpreted as indicating that
respondents in different positions relative to the control variables
are alike in their motivation in farm operation. The data indicate that,
'if operating to maximize profits,“ the respondents of different charac-

teristics would desire a similar pattern of information. "If operating

 

 

 

.1,» n .m s .u'w..,..\J.shl‘ « p. I up,‘_. w uapw‘w 154

l
r... a 1....II. a...“ .

    
     

 

 

 

 

-——.—-——— ‘l Jl‘q" ._'

15

to maximize family satisfactions,” they would desire a somewhat different
pattern, but for all it would be similar. But no indication is given as
to which of these situations a given respondent would choose. Thus, no
conclusion can be reached from this data as to whether or not farmers of

different characteristics do indeed Operate with a different objective

foremost in mind.

 

 

Rather, the information patterns outlined here are those which ii; ‘

respondents indicated are generally appropriate for farmers to use when

.‘;‘-—-_A%"1‘7<; 1.3 "

organizing a farm, or Operating a farm for either profit or family

satisfactions. L;

 

 

16

Chapter IV

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF TYPES OF INFORMATION

FROM THE VIEWPOINT 0F FARMERS

To determine the relative importance attached to each of the five
types of information, each respondent was asked to rank the five types
on the basis of their importance in setting up and running his own farm
business. While the previous questions relating to types of information
important in organizing and operating a farm had created a hypothetical
situation in which the respondent could answer on the basis of 'a strange
family and a strange farm,” the question related to ranks was phrased
to be answered by the respondent for his personal circumstances.

Each respondent was introduced to the question of ranking the
types of information by the preface: I'I-Iere is a list of five types of
information which at one time or another you may have had to obtain in
order to make decisions about things which have come up in the course
of your farming career. Each type is explained in this list and if the
explanation is not completely clear, I'll try to help you with it." The
list (Figure 1) was then handed to the respondent, with a pause to allow
time for reading and asking questions.

This listing represented the first time the respondent had been
exposed to the five major information categories. Prior to this, as
pointed out, non-structured questions had been used. As also noted,
the coding of the answers to the non-structured questions revealed the

general usefulness of the five information categories - price, production,

 

. .
. r.
~ _
. '. -
- .
s ‘ h
.- ‘_._) .
- ‘ ‘ ..
. ;A» .
.
.7 g ,‘V .\’.|, -‘ V
s ‘ ' . l . . V
‘ I
I 5‘ ~ , " 4. .7 ’r. P ' u ' ' Ii
. ‘ ‘
1“.' - ' “ i I .
4 ‘n . " .' ‘ I. ‘ H ".-n
. A V
‘ .
v
a .r
. -

 

 

17

Figure 1. Flash Card for Explaining Information Categories to

Respondents.

1. PRICES: Information on prices received for farm products and prices

2.

5.

4.

5.

paid for items used in farm.production - this includes past, present,
and future prices.

Egggples:
Current market prices Feed and supply prices
Market outlook Machinery prices
Corn-hog ratio Wage rates
Dairy-feed ratio Interest rates

PRODUCTION FACTORS: Information on the effects of all accepted farm
practices and items used in production on rates of crop and livestock

production - also, information on how soils, disease, and weather
affect yields.

Exemples:
Fertilizers Storage methods
Sprays and insects Work methods
Crop varieties Tillage practices
Feeding rates Building layout

NEW DEVELOPMENTS: Information on new developments or changes in
farm practices and items used in production.

Examples:
Supplemental irrigation Meat-type hogs
Antibiotics New feed supplements
Anhydrous ammonia Self-feeding silos
Chemical weed killers Krilium

HUMAN FACTORS: Information about individuals you may have to deal
with or consider in making decisions about a farm.

Examples:
Family members Dealers and buyers
Relatives Salesmen
Neighbors or friends County'Agents
Other people Hired workers

POLITICAL, SOCIAL, RELIGIOUS FACTORS: Information on local, national

and international governments and formal and informal groups whose
actions affect a farm.

Examples:
Acreage controls Church practices
Tax rates Conservation programs
Draft Drainage districts

School districts Co-op policies

 

‘ .
I.”
v

 

 

16

new technology, human, and institutional - if they are regarded as in-
complete to the extent that they do not adequately differentiate between
production and home technology and do not provide for inclusion of in-
formation cn the managerial process itself. The use of this structured
question involving the five major information categories seems therefore
to have been reasonable.

After the respondent understood the listing of the five types of
information, the interviewer asked, 'In the light of your experience in
getting information to set up and run your farm to get the most out of
life, which of these five types of information have you found to be most
important to you?II The answer to this question was recorded as Rank 1.
The respondent was then asked, IIWhich of the remaining four has been
most important to you?“ This response was recorded as Rank 2. The re-
spondent, with the list still before him, was then asked, "Which of the
five has been least important to yout'I This was Rank 5. The attempt
to then secure Ranks 5 and 4 from the two remaining types was generally
unsuccessful, with interviewers expressing doubts as to the reliability
of these rankings. These last two were therefore not coded or tabulated.

In one-third of the schedules in states other than Iowa, and for
all Iowa schedules, the words "for profit" were substituted for the
phrase “to get the most out of life' in this question. Analysis for
the region indicated however that no significant difference in the rank-

ings resulted from these two werdings.11 Therefore, no such distinction

 

11Johnson and Haver, Aggicultural Information Patterns and Decision
Makin , Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, East Lansing,

Bulletin Manuscript, 1959.

 

 

19

is made in the analysis for Michigan. One might expect a significantly
different response to this question when phrased in terms "for profit"
versus 'to get the most out of life.“ In fact, it has already been noted
that a different ranking was indicated in response to the non-structured
questions for each of the three situations: 1) organizing a farm, 2)
operating a farm for maximum profit, and 5) operating a farm for greatest
family satisfaction.

Certain important differences in these questions should be noted.
The projective question regarding information farmers should use in or-
ganizing and operating farms was answered on the basis of I'a strange
family and a strange farsu' Each respondent was asked to respond separ-
ately to the question on operation on the basis first of profit and then
of family satisfactions. Thus, he was made conscious of this distinc-
tion and was expected to provide distinct answers for each. And the
questions were answered on the basis of information farmers should use,
with no indication of the relative importance of the various types.
Rankings were established on the basis of the numbers of farmers men-
tioning at least one component of each type of information category,
with the most mentioned category ranked first.

In the ranking question, on the other hand, each respondent was
asked to answer for himself on the basis of his own experiences and
circumstances. Thus, his answer was likely influenced by his own cir-
cumstances, personality, values, and motivations. Further, he was given
the opportunity to respond to only one question, phrased either "for
profit" or "to get the most out of life.‘I It is not unlikely that the

respondents in fact answered then on the basis of their own circumstances

 

 

 

 

 

20

and convictions, not differentiating sharply between these two theoretical
alternatives but responding in light of their own motivation. It is fur-
ther reasonable that an individual operates his business not solely
either Ifor profit” or I'to get the most out of life," but rather for

some combination of these two. Finally, the element of importance of

the types of information was specified. While the ranking in the prior
projective question reflected the frequency of use and yielded a different
ranking pattern for each of the three situations, this question established
the ranking pattern on the basis of importance of the information cate-
gories. The most used type of information is not necessarily the most
important type of information, and the ranking pattern of importance when
operating for profit was not different from the pattern when operating
for family satisfactions, though such had been the case in the rankings

on the basis of use.

Production information was most often mentioned as the most imp
portant type of information, with price information next most mentioned
(Table III). Further, production information was also most often men-
tioned as the second most important type of information, with price
second. It is obvious from this that production and price information
were generally regarded by the Michigan respondents as the most important
types.

On the other hand, information on institutional factors was most
often mentioned as the least important, with information on human fac-
tors and new technology likewise indicated as relatively unimportant.

It is interesting to compare these rankings with those presented

earlier. This ranking, on the basis of importance to the respondents

 

 

21

Table III

 

Number of Farmers Assigning Different Degrees of Relative
Importance to Five Major Types of Information When
Settingrup and Operating Farms,

Michigan (Stratum 4 only)

 

Degree of Importance by

Types of Information
Most Igportant

Prices
Production
New Technology
Human
Institutional
Second Most ortant
Prices
Production
New Technology
Human
Institutional
Least ortant
Prices
Production
New Technology
Human
Institutional

All ranked equally

Number of Respondents

68
74

22

1 1
/|‘1)

1+5

55
12/1 g I

 

 

 

22

from his own experiences for his own farm, compares most nearly with that

indicated, 'a farmer ought to keep up with in order to operate a going
farm business in order to get the greatest profit.” The three rankings

are summarized in Table IV.

Table IV

Comparison of Respondents' Rankings of Types of Information
In Response to Different Questions Regarding Organizing
and Operating Farms, Michigan (Stratum only).

 

Types of Information

Produo- New Institu-
Price tion Tech. Human tional

Question: Ranking!

1. "What should a farmer

find out before setting up a

farm in a strange area for

a strange family?"1 4 1 5 3 2

 

 

2. ”What kinds of informa-
tion do you think a farmer
ought to keep up with in
order to operate a going
farm business in order to

m...‘
a. “the greatest profit?‘ 2 1 3 5 h
b. ''the greatest satis-

faction for his
entire family1'1 h 5 5 2 1

 

5. I'In the light of your

experience in getting

information to set up

and run your farm to get

the most out of life

(alternatively, for pro-

fit), which of these

types of information

have you found to be

m.tsseen°‘t M'teees '
1...: important to you2'2 2 1 5 4 5

 

1Ranking on the basis of number of farmers mentioning at least one
component of each of the types of information categories (Rank 1 .

 

 

 

u .1 :4: , . 9 ,.\‘ a 1 -... a. . I. .

V In .1 l I 41 1; . . «Ad... 1.3%. - 1., .- .1. . ‘ .3. 03“.. V v. 1.

. 1; n I . .. . c... ., u an”. .., r-3q. . ‘n .wfl . b. .4...” a. I {vex v. e m . o 89!, In 1+- . T .11: .1 e L I .

i . . ‘l a. ‘1 . . . .. ‘ . n1 1. 1 V ‘ . IN. I. 1 .LI. 1

z . 1.. MP r Muse}. 6.1a... a; .I i .:¢.1nush §$lei , f- 1 f
. ‘ I . I 1, 1 Id!

 

 

 

 

25

Ranking! Related to Control Variables:

The rankings of the relative importance of the five types of
information were next related to the control variables. The question:
''do farmers in one position relative to a given control variable rank
the types of information in a different pattern than farmers in a dif-
ferent position relative to that variable?”

In the analysis to determine such relationships, three require-
ments were established:

a - a chi-square significant at the .05 level; ,

/

c - not more than twenty percent of the cells with expected V//

b - no cell with an expected value of zero: and

values of less than five.

While these requirements do not seem unreasonable, and in fact,
seem quite minimum to any conclusion of significance, some difficulty
was encountered because of small sample numbers. The results of this
analysis are presented in Table 2 of Appendix II. While certain chi-
squares are significant in relation to the degrees of freedom, most
were not acceptable because of the number of cells with expected values
less than five. In such cases, where appropriate on inspection, further
tests were made after regrouping. However, in final analysis, no case

of significant relationship was apparent.

 

most number of farmers mentioning).

2Ranking as a composite of the information in Table III, with Production
most mentioned as IImost important," Price next most mentioned, Insti-
tutional Factors most mentioned as I'least important,” and the rankings
for New Technology and Human Factors established by inspection.

 

 

211

It cannot be concluded from this with finality that there are
no differences in the relative importance attached to the types of
information by farmers in different positions relative to the control
variable. Rather, it can only be said that these limited data provide

no evidence of such differences.

 

 

25

Chapter V

COMMUNICATIVE SOURCES OF INFORMATION USED BY FARMERS

A variety of sources are employed by farmers in securing informa-
tion. Broadly, the many sources can be classified into two categories:
non-communicative and communicative.

The non-communicative category would include such sources as past
experience, trial and error on a whole operation, experimentation on a
limited scale, observing the experiences of others, reasoning from in-
formation known to be true, and keeping written records. Such sources
do not require that information pass from one.person to another. A far-
mer can use a source of this nature of his own volition, without the co-
operation ef others.

Communicative sources on the other hand involve the transfer of
information between people by some method and means. Eighteen such
sources were included in the IMS survey schedule, from interpersonal
contact through the mass media.

The importance of the non-communicative sources of information
farmers employ in decision-making has long been recognized in Extension.
Obvious examples of such recognition would include demonstration plots
or fields, and farm account projects. Moreover, Extension personnel
should be continuously aware of the importance of such sources and
should not underestimate the implications of such in their work. How-
ever, Extension is essentially a communicative process even as it relates

to the non-communicative sources, and this particular analysis is limited

 

A:

U
I
i
4

(J

p,

 

26

to eighteen of the communicative sources of information employed by
farmers.

It is interesting to note at this point that, in analyzing the
data on sources of information, a significant difference exists between
states as to the sources used for the various types of information.

This difference between states is particularly important when considering

i_s}

the various sources employed for a given type of information, but rela-
tively unimportant when considering the types of information secured

from a given source. An important factor in the difference appears to

1 We”
n1 : v .
‘1‘...“

be the availability of the various sources in each of the states. In
light of this situation, it is particularly appropriate that the analy-
sis here be confined largely to the state of Michigan (Stratum 4).

In securing the information regarding communicative sources of
information, the interviewer asked, "with respect to communicative
sources of information, would you please take this chart and check the
appropriate spaces for the sources you usually use to get these difh
ferent kinds of information?" The interviewer was instructed to then
explain the various headings to the interviewee. The chart used in this
procedure is presented in Figure 3 of Appendix I.

It should be noted that in particular the first eight columns

refer to sources, with the channel d'ccmmunication assumed to be con-

fx¥3////versation. These include people from farm organizations; county Exten-

sion agents, vocational agriculture teachers, and college of agriculture

~ representatives: government people, truckers, custom operators, and

route drivers; neighbors and relatives: professional farm managers:

bankers and lending agents: and dealers, salesmen and buyers. The other

 

\i\

i...

   
  

  

0
b J

    

L.

O
‘ t
/ ‘"
. #1

.l: ’1'"; '

\ 10:

2

  
   

  
      
  

4,,
’x.
.
_ \
\"'\
u... ‘_
.
N _
‘ n ‘»'> ‘
I ~ ‘
. .

9*

I.
I
. ,‘L

.g-grimaa/
: ' “*f"
A a 7 /' . i

s
.
r
C m
.

'I' .
0 _.-¢.

      

  
  

 

27

ten columns refer more nearly to channels of communication, for which
the source of information may not be known by the interviewee. These
include demonstrations, meetings, lectures: publications of experiment
stations and Extension services; farm.magazines: publications of farm
organizations: formal schools: mail advertising; newspapers, radio;
television; and auctions. In any instance, the ultimate or original
source of information and the channel(s) by which it reached the farmer
are not known. Only the sources from which the interviewee directly

received the various types of information are recorded. This lack of

 

detail through the communicative process is not a concern in this analy-
sis, however, since no attempt is made to credit or discredit the various
sources or to evaluate their effectiveness. Rather, the emphasis here

is on the identification of the sources to which farmers look for the
various types of information.

Information on the various sources used by Michigan farmers in

securing the five types of information is summarized in Table V.

From the standpoint of farmer usage, the most important communi-

cative sources are:

1 - for price information, dealers, salesmen and buyers first,
with farm magazines and radio close behind.

2 - for information on production factors, county Extension agents,
vocational agriculture teachers, and people from agricultural
colleges most used, with farm.magazines a close second:

5 - for information on new technolo , farm magazines most used,
with county agents, vo-ag teachers, and agricultural college

. representatives next:

 

 

 

able V

J

Communicative Sources for Five lviajor Types of Information By Numbers of

ions by

J.
L)

mated Percentage Distribu
(Stratum 1:- only)

an,

n
C)
{1‘
O

Source and Type, Michi

Farmers Reporting Use With Desi»

[00 Bio

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l
e 222mm 2. mmwwm m
HfifiOB 0 5311—12 1H... 11.1111 1
- T _1_
8 420120 7.. 2607.0 9 9407.0
1 2 2 s O s e O l s
mcoSoEw .4 l 87 3 O
. 8 0
. .|_
/ y / _
W 55209 fl, 34.8.0.4 14. 8.8.303
coemfieoaoe . ll 3 l 339 2 O
22 .4 0
1
6 1414922 1. 144052 14 .48017
Ofigmlonj 38. eesee e.eeeee
l 1 89811 2 78517 0
.l. l .l— 51 l O
l
5 55613 OH 9 66 6
mammummaeoz l 62 6 6 . 5 .4.7.0. 3 . .8. .14.
l 165 2 0 053 9 O
.l. 2 l 141 3 O
l
f
1M. 56413 my. 336.721.. 3 35.1.38.
Wmfimfiphobda. .3on . l3 1 1 61155 O
232 l 0
l
J / .r .
B 02000 2 05000 1. 00.000
maoonom Hgom 0 0
0 0
l 1
883822820 m... b 5 2 2 N M . 7.4.8. 5 cu 8. 5 2. 9 9. 5
2111:) 2 62.441 0
gum .wo .Oflaorfim 3 l .4 m
modamomoz Sam M. wwwfi 2 max Mew 36. 331. 3 6. 58.8. 3
. .m .1. 2.. 91310 7 2014 l 0
123 11. l 431.. l w
838m 8.52 m. .09qu 1.4 W ” 16.1.7.4. 1.... 2.1.33.1.
1... 1
12.8328 .838 5m? 5 WMWw 5 m
888.82.888.82 9 umwxb ”we 0.8.37.2. 0. 0.2.2.7.9.
.moofioapmooaom , 2 58 5 14 mix/fiWl ”0 m
muohsmcwooa 8 MEN/m3 WM 2336.1. 7“ 6.34.2.3
n l 1 O3 11 O 2 601 O
1moaom magnum 2 81 l 7.8 l w
Beams. .8583 7 uoo%9 % M 0.0083... 1. 90056.
6 0
one mnovesom 2 $3 3 9% 5D m
,, L .
mammocnz 6 45020 1. JMOMO 8. MWOMO 0
Such Hooowmmomoam 34 1 m
858.38 5 BB6 205% mm _ 1.13.2.1. 5 334. 2.8.
l 9569 9 631468 0
one muonmmfioz 14 3 l 2 31 m
macefihmopsmm 14 HOOHO %. 0.000.0 5 0.000.0
dos weepoaoo , 2 8 l 0 0 0
58.35 meoxoga 5 5 m
3 7u29a .05. 2.0.8.58 1... been...
oaaoom pcoaaoeow . l 16 3 2 .4 8 2 O
3 7 1M2 1.4 O
1
$585882 2 mmuae % 1.0.58.8. 5 0.82.2.8
omofioo .mm. one 1 .4 3 2 58 O 5.4 9 56 0
. . . 2.1. l 15 l 0
Sure 00> pmom< oo, 1
-1 1.1150 1 7.3.86.5 8. 8.8.8.22
Show. none mamoom- l
v.
w l S W l g l
n o a e o e o a
o l n we 1 n l n
fi no 0 no 0 no 0
3. mm m m E 2. mm .2
em .30 u l e .36 u 1 .30 u l
i P 08 t a c 0.6 t. a 06 t a
_ v.0 euTni t r eUTni t euTni t
TnT. Cd .5 0 8 Cd t 0 Cd .Tu O
m .mmwmwrmowmm..mwmw
a PPNHI PHNHI HPNHI

 

.60 is significant at the one percent level.

a.
8‘.

With 75 degrees of fredom 105

 

11.41.. t
1
m. .
O y) 3,
d 1W L
e 1
m %\1 ”(VI
f R181
f maimed» w
o .8 a . .m
S C mm ID
% 19.“; I IA.
. .1 1L.“
me N61 4 a
1% My) .rninv
mm EM.
8 1. i o
6 _ 1,0 co
m 1 8
9 (L M x
4.
3
3
8
. _
mA/
a
W1. AA..."
8 a)
. is... an.
.1 m glam...
% wk.
NL. T1

 

 

 

 

. z
. .
o
J
. .
J

1

~

.1

.

.

.

.

.

_

.
.
.
.
1
.
.I

 

0 u
u u
. .

r“
._
.mtlnt
1.1..... -
.. .,
..
.. ..
.
. ..
...1...
u—
. .

.....
._ .
.....
r.
_
. .
..
.....
.
.. .
_
.
_
.
. .-
r1.
.....
.
.....

-4-..

 

29

h - for information on human factors, neighbors and relatives
by far most used, with bankers and lending agents second.

5 - for institutional information, newspapers most used, with
radio, people from farm organizations and farm magazines

following.

Further useful observations can be made from this summary:

When considering the types of information:

1. the four or five most-mentioned sources accounted for about
two-thirds of the "mentions" for each type of information.
Thus, the importance of certain sources for each type of
information is emphasised.

2. certain of the eighteen sources were very unimportant for a
given type of information. This is not unexpected.

3. for no one type of information were all eighteen of these
communicative sources mentioned.

When considering the sources of information:

1. twelve of the sources were indicated as a source for each
of the five types of information.

2. only two of the sources were indicated for only one or

two types of information.

3 for each source, its relative importance as a source for
each of the five types of information is indicated.
4. certain sources (for example, formal schools and professional

farm managers) were quite unimportant for any of the types of

information.

 

 

50

From this data it is apparent that a) a different pattern of
sources is employed by farmers in securing each of the five types of
information; and h) each of these communicative sources is characterized
by a different pattern insofar as the information secured from it is
concerned. These relationships shall now be explored in further detail.

In line with our original intent to analyze the data in terms of
the relative position of respondents with reference to various control
variables, two questions present themselves at this point.

First, to secure a iven t e of information, do farmers of

different characteristics look to different sources? "

Second, from a iven source of information, do farmers of dif-

ferent characteristics secure different types of information?

Different Sources for a Given Type of Information?

It has already been shown that the different communicative sources
of information are used to differing degrees in securing the five types
of information. Now the question, "do farmers of different character-
istics (i.e. in different positions relative to the control variables)
secure a given type of information from different sources?n

To determine the answer to this question, data on the sources of
information used by Michigan (Stratum 4) farmers were analyzed with
reference to each of the control variables. The summary of this analy-
sis is presented in Table 5 of Appendix II.

The data were first tested for significance in their original
form, employing eighteen communicative sources and the subgroupings es-

tablished for each control variable. In determining the significance

 

 

 

51

of the relationship, three requirements were again established:

a. a chi-square significant at the .05 level,

b. no cell with an expected value of zero, and

c. not more than twonty percent of the cells with expected

values less than 5.

Because of the limited numbers in the Michigan sample, even though
58 of the 160 tests yielded significant chi-squares, the results were
not convincing because of the numbers of cells which were void or had
low numbers. Therefore, the data were grouped and retested.

First, the eighteen communicative sources were grouped into eight
categories, with attention given to the appropriateness of the combina-
tions. The groupings, with new designations, are as follows:

A. Farm orggnizations:

people and publications of farm magazines.

B. Land-ggant system: 555” 3
county Extension agents, vocational agriculture teachers,
and agricultural college representatives; demonstrations,
meetings, lectures; publications of experiment stations and
Extension services.

0. Commercial people: 7
truckers, custom operators, and route drivers; dealers, C7
salesmen, and buyers; auctions.

D. Professional counselors:
government people; professional farm managers; bankers and '
lending agents.

E. Neighbors and relatives.

F. Farm magazines.

 

 

 

 

 

 

52

G. Newspapers (including mail advertising).

H. Radio and TV.

The sources of information, on the grouped basis, used for the
five types of information are presented in Table VI. It should be noted
that the relative positions of the more important sources for each type
as observed in Table V have not been altered by the grouping process.

In addition to the grouping of the sources into only eight cate-
gories, where appropriate the sub-categories for the control variables
were also grouped. The relationships were again tested, using the same
conditions as already outlined. These data, too, are presented in
Table 5 of Appendix II.

It is apparent from this analysis that, to some extent, there is
a definite relationship between certain of the control variables and the
sources employed in securing a given type of information. For these
data, this relationship is most apparent in the ppigg category and to
a much lesser extent in production. No relationship was evidenced in
the information categories of new technology, human factors, and insti-
tutional factors. This lack of significance should not be regarded as
conclusive, however, for with the ungrouped data some evidence of rela-
tionship existed. Rather, the problem is one of insufficient data for

reliable analysis.
Sources for Price Information:

There is strong evidence that farmers in different positions rela.
tive to certain of the control variables do look to different sources

for price information. Specifically, a significant difference in sources

 

 

Table VI

55

 

Communicative Sources (Grouped Basis) for Five Major Types of
Information, by Numbers of Farmers Reporting Use, with Desig-

nated Percentage Distribution by Source and Type,

Michigan (Stratum 4 only).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 .4 2
«a 4) H g ID 03 0’} U) r4
p c a o a m 0 m n 6
Type of E S E 8 '3.3 3.3 8-: g S a g
Informtion 12 '8 t101:3 8 8' 3 33 f: 23 ii '3 8. o .-1
a re a a 0 m : mr4 w o m e e
m c m a. o s -H 0 a. 3 rd s
81 :1 8 2 8 2 ’1 , 8° 2 8 8
Number
Price 19 65 149 22 25 109 70 109 564
Production 6 140 16 16 55 78 51 59 559
New Technology 5 52 10 2 6 58 10 11 112
Human 7 10 28 57 5O 2 2 2 158
Institutional 47 44 5 50 26 29 66 41 286
Total 82 289 206 107 1 58 256 179 202 11159
Percentages
Price 5.4 11.2 26.4 5.9 4.1 19.5 12.4 19.5 100
Production 1.7 59.0 4.5 4.5 9.2 21.7 8.6 10.8 100
New Technology 2.7 28.6 8.9 1.8 5.4 55.9 8.9 9.8 100
Human 5.1 7.5 20.5 26.8 56.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 100
Institutional 16.4 15.4 1.1 10.5 9.1 10.1 25.1 14.5 100
Total 5.6 19.8 14.1 7.5 9.5 17.5 12.5 15.9 100
Percentages
Price 25. 2 21.8 72. 5 20.6 16.7 42.6 59.1 54.0
Production 7.5 118.11 708 1500 25e9 5005 17.5 1905
New Technology 5.7 11.1 4.8 1.8 4.4 14.8 5.6 5.4
Human 8.5 5.5 15.6 54.6 56.2 .8 1.1 1.0
Institutional 57.5 1502 1.5 28.0 18e8 1105 5609 20.5
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chi-square-652.5O with

percent level.

48.28 required for significance at the one

 

 

 

54

of price information was found for sixteen of the control variables.
For convenience in analysis, these sixteen variables are grouped
into six broad descriptive categories, as followe:
1. Education
a. Agricultural training in formal schooling
b. Last grade of school
c. Additional training related to agriculture

4 2. Backgzound
A a. 4-H or FFA member
1 b. Children in 4-H or FFA12

c. Experience out of farming

d. Length of non-farm experience
5. Personal situation

a. Age of respondent

b. Stage of family cycle

c. Number of dependents
4. Scale of operation

a. Use of hired labor

b. Average annual gross farm income

0. Net worth

d. Total acres tilled
5. Type of farm
6. Meeting attendance

 

12While the chi-square test indicated a significant relationship, no
significant difference of source relative to this variable was identi-
fiable with the t-test. Therefore, this variable is not included in
the analysis which follows.

 

 

 

 

Iv. 11'. all '1 Ill-'1- Iii

 

 

55

To determine the nature of the differences in sources of price
information indicated by farmers in different positions relative to the
above variables, detailed examination is now necessary. At this point,
it seems appropriate to review earlier evidence that the more important
sources of price information were indicated to be commercial people,
followed by farm magazines, and radio and TV (Table V). Newspapers and
the land-grant system followed about equally, with neighbors and rela-
tives, professional counselors, and farm organizations relatively un-
important sources of price information.

To determine the significance of the difference of use of a given

 

source by respondents in different positions relative to a given variable,
a t-test was then applied. This analysis which is summarized in Table
VII, is in relative terms, employing percentages of farmers in each
position relative to a control variable who used each source of infor-
nation.

The findings of this analysis may be verbalized as follows:

Education:

1. Those respondents who had agricultural training in their
formal schooling used the land-grant system and professional
counselors relatively more than those who had not had such
training.

2. Respondents with less than 12 years of school used commercial
people and radio and TV relatively more than those with 12

years or more of school.

 

 

 

.pmoe-p pesofiuficmfim mopsOHeaH*
.H seesoae< no N
enemas 2H essom on use meanness» Hospsoo omens mefiefieosm escapmsse esp no sofipeseamxo eonfisponi

m.ma u whence-ago

 

 

 

 

qwm N.©H w.HH m.mH >.m m.m n.0m m.OH >.m oz:
nwa w.wa 0.:H n.ma m.4 m.m *m.ma m.ma m.: we».
"hogaofi <mm no m:: .m
daSOHMXosm
m.ma u mandamufino
:0: fl m.om m.HH w.mH o.m m.: m.mm >.m o.m oz.
Hoa H.6H m.:H *H.mm *m.H m.m *m.mH m.:a m.: mow-
.nwo 0p dopsaoh wdficfiehp Hoseapwdd¢ .o
wa.mm n ohsdcmufimo
mos m.ma H.mH m.Hm m.n m.m 0.0m m.wH :.m egos no ma-
mam *m.Hm m.mH m.ma m.m m.m *H.mm *o.w ®.m NH :dnp mmoan
“Hoonom mo madam pde .9
My >m.ma u ohszvmufimo
wzm 0 Am w.ma >.m~ m.m m.m w.®m :.m >.m econ:
mom m.mn :.ma m.ma :.m *:.m m.mm *m.mm o.m Hoonom oesnm
h0\s Hoouom.nwan h0\w owoaaoo CH:
uwmfiaoonom Anahom ca wcficfionp Hendpa50th< .s
cofipsosem
1 momspcoohog
WM 8. N . M. O. 0
am. e mm. .m so”. .mm .mm
m. m. a mm we mm. o. ...... w...
01 M B I. 90. 89 .01 14% I.
u B d U «+0 99 To 9 2
BO 9 9 1.1 It. at. m am
J m. x s A s o o e w 1
S a In T. 1 I.
s m s m. o
p m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.Ahaco : adsdhpmv sewage“: .mhoahdm hp womb
. soapdsho H coahm mo moohdom do moansfind> Hospcoo mo ooooSHmsH

HH> magma

 

 

 

.
.
_
_
a
.
o
.
. a
. a .
.
.

I ll 1 \1'1‘111‘11

 

57

 

 

 

 

03.9 n givmnano
mam .15 92 +15 0m 0: :.mm .15 9m 98m.
rem H.Hm 0.:H m.om w.: m.m >.mm *m.w m.m oeozx
"803mm wmnmm mo own..e
soapsnomo mo oasom
omifi n 0.35.5458
mmm ES ES «.3 m.m 0.0 9%.. 6.3 m.m ones so axe.
omm *:.mm m.mH 0.0m m.m m.m m.mm :.oa a.: sac no omoz.
umpaodcomod mo nonasz .0
36m u endeaemnfiao
era >.om :.OH H.wa :.m m.m a.mm o.m :.m .mnh ma hobo cohdaano queannszx
Hom m.:a m.ma 0.:N p.: m.m m.wm o.m m.m .mhh ma nods: nondafino .dofinhsz.
m: sea min 3: o o a.» mam: mi 3338 on as? $3882.
mm *m.>m w.ma *w.mm >.H o H.ma *o >.H definndsdbw
"one? 338 3 68pm .9
No.4” u ofiedsmufino
an: o.om m.HH m.om 0.: N.: >.>m H.m n.m nodqo one munch mm-
a: fig 53 QB :3 9m mta QE w.m Been mm 3 mp.
"one common 0 ..d
soapsspfim Hdcomhom
mm.o: n onesim1Hno
9% 6.8 m4..." NIB. m.m mam mdm Ema m.m once.
i in 0.: QB m.m in ad: ad ad was...” 28 no em 8. a-
om *m.mm Tag 8.3 >6 a... $18 $6 ma mason me 3 .5.
wmdoa hon .mdfiandm no use MH .0
ma.mH n ensurmufino
3m 6.0m QS me m.m «.... mdm was m.m oz.
mam H.NH w.HH m.wH w.m *H.m *:.mm *m.m H.m no».
"mafiahsm M0 was ooqofinomnfl .p
Km“ 2 N H N .d 0 w. 0
mm m m u. n. ... m. a ... . m ,.
..c. 7. s .us I av .o e m .A.v
nu .... ...“ E .... mu .m u ...: L.
u m d u A m. 0 I to 0.3 In
.. m. p u ... ... u m. w. . .... u m u
s o. u w I a. m.
bl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AMI; u ohdzwmnfino
mom m.mm m.oH m.mm m.m m.m w.mm :.m o.H oz.
omm *m.mm m.ma *>.wa m.: e.: p.3m *a.mnx>.: 111111111111mmwn11
oocddcoppm wcfipooz
HH.mH u onesem-fiso
Hm m.:«. :.:H m.om m.m o m.wm m.m m.m nonosoe.
Hon o.mH H.ma m.:n m.m m.: s.mm A.ma m.H Assess no oapopomoe .aoso eeofiev eons.
mam o.~H w.aa *m.Hm m.m *o.m a.:m *H.HH a.: Anoopm pot to asfimmv woowmn
Show mo 09?
:o.ma . ososum-fiso
mam :.mHn m.ms m.mm :.m 0.: 0.0m m.:H P.H mosoo osos so om-
was >.ma o.mn :.Hm >.m m.: m.mm *w.o >.: monoo om cone smog.
"eoanfio moses nopoe .e
3.3 u onsdwmufigo
mom m.:a m.ma >.wa m.m s.m m.mm :.HH 0.: so>o ego ooo.omw.
mom *o.mm o.mn m.Hm o.m m.m m.mm m.m w.m ooo.omw noses.
noose: poz .o
and: u 0.335125
on :.n p.oH m.mm e.m m.m w.mm P.6H n.~ ones so ooo.maw.
on H.mH w.me m.ma m.e m.: m.mm 4.6H m.m mam.mn - oomew.
was *m.mm o.ma m.mm m.m *H.H m.Hm *m.m m.m comes noses»
"08003 Show macaw Assume owohoix .o.
"A N "d N m N .d O n1 O
9 m B O ...— O nu... O B I
w q .p. ... an. m... o m. “mm m w
.... 0 Tu o d 2 J tam. m 0 O O s . am .8
o. A a um um an uh an n.
W O W O O A 1 7...... O .... m m I m
1.. D. J I O B O O I 1.
B I ..- W T. 1. ....
w. s T. m

 

Prom

 

 

LA~

 

59

5. Respondents who had 12 or more years of schooling used the

land-grant system relatively more than those with less formal

school experience.

4. Those respondents who had had additional training related to

From the standpoint of sources:

1.

2

5

agriculture used farm magazines relatively more than those
who had not, while those who had not had such additional

training used commercial people and neighbors relatively more.

The land-grant system was used relatively more by farmers who

 

had had agricultural training in their formal schooling and
by those who had completed 12 or more years of school.
Commercial people were named as a source relatively more by
those respondents who had not completed high school and by
those who had had no additional training related to agriculture.
Professional counselors were named relatively more by those
who had had agricultural training in their formal schooling.
Neighbors and relatives were used relatively more by those
who had no additional training.

Farm magazines were named relatively more by those who had
additional training related to agriculture.

Radio and TV were used relatively more by those who had not

completed high school.

Backgzound

1.

Respondents who had not been members of either 4—H or FFA used

commercial persons as a source of price information to a greater

 

 

40

extent than did those who had been members.

2. Those respondents who had been out of farming for a period
of time used commercial persons as a source relatively more,
while persons who had not been out of farming named the land-
grant system relatively more.

5. Those who had been out of farming for 7 years or more used
commercial people relatively more than those who had not been
out or who had been out less than 7 years.

4. Those who had been out of farming 7 years or more named

newspapers and radio and TV relatively less.

 

From the standpoint of sources:

1. Commercial people were named relatively more by respondents
who had not been members of 4—H or FEA and by those who had
been out of farming for 7 years or more.

2. The land-grant system was named relatively more by persons

who had never been out of farming.

Personal situation:

1. Respondents under 55 years of age indicated relatively greater
use of the land-grant system.

2. Unmarried farmers indicated relatively greater use of farm
magazines and radio and TV.

5. Married farmers with no children indicated significantly grea-
ter use of the land-grant system as a source than did either

unmarried respondents or married respondents with children.

 

 

ON
0

 

41

Unmarried farmers and married respondents with children under
18 years of age indicated relatively greater use of farm
magazines than did married farmers without children or with
children over 18.

Married respondents with children indicated greater use of com-
mercial people as a source than either unmarried respondents

or married respondents with no children, and those with no
children under 18 used this source significantly more than
those with younger children.

Respondents with no or only one dependent used radio and TV

relatively more than those with more dependents.

From the standpoint of sources:

1.

2.

The land-grant system was used more by those under 55 and

those who were married but had no children.

Commercial people were used relatively more by those respondents
who were married and had children.

Farm magazines were used relatively more by those who were
unmarried or were married and had young children.

Radio and TV were used more by unmarried respondents and those

with no or only one dependent.

Scale of operation:

1.

Those respondents who used some hired labor during the year
used the land-grant system as a source of price information

relatively more than those who hired no labor.

 

 

 

 

42

2. Those whose gross farm income was over $4500 per year used
the land-grant system relatively more than those whose gross
farm income was less than that.

5. Farmers with a gross farm income of $15,000 per year or more
used professional counselors (especially professional farm
managers) relatively more than those with lower gross incomes.

4. Those farmers with a gross farm income less than $15,000 per
year used radio and TV relatively more than those with gross

incomes above that.
From the standpoint of sources:

1. The land-grant system was used more by farmers who used hired
labor and who had gross incomes larger than $4500 per year.

2. Professional counselors (especially professional farm managers)
were used more by farmers with a gross farm income over $15,000
per year.

5. Radio and TV was more used by those farmers with a gross in-

come under $15,000 per year.

Type of farm:

1. Specialized stock (dairy or livestock) and crop (field crops
or fruit or vegetables) farmers used the land-grant system
and professional counselors (especially government people,
and bankers and lending agents) more than did general farmers.

2. Farm magazines were a more used source of information for

 

stock and general farmers than for crop farmers.

 

 

 

 

45

Meeting attendance:

1. Those who had attended two or more Extension or farm organiza-
tion meetings during the last two years used farm organiza-
tions and the land-grant system relatively more than did those
who did not attend such meetings.

2. Those respondents who did not attend such meetings used farm

magazines and radio and TV relatively more.

Sources for Production Information:

As indicated earlier, there is evidence of a definite relation-
ship between certain of the control variables and the sources of produc-
tion information used. However, as also mentioned, while there was
evidence of such relationship for sixteen variables in the case of price
information, such a definite relationship was evidenced for only three
variables in connection with production information. Again, these re-
sults should not be regarded as entirely conclusive because of the small
sample numbers.

As a reminder, the summary of sources of production information
indicated by respondents revealed the land-grant system to be most used,
with farm magazines a strong second (Table V). Radio and TV were next,
followed by neighbors and relatives about evenly. Commercial people,
professional counselors, and farm organizations were relatively unim-
portant sources of production information.

Only three of the thirty-one control variables evidenced a definite

relationship with sources. These were:

 

 

 

 

44

1. Children in 4—H or FFA,

2. Experience out of farming, and

5. Meeting attendance

Specifically, the following observations could be made (see

Table VIII):

Backgpound
1. Respondents with children in 4-H or FFA used the land-grant

system more for production information than those who did not

have children in 4—H or FFA.

 

2. Those who did not have children in 4-H or FFA used farm
magazines and radio and TV to a greater extent.

5. Those who had been out of farming used commercial people and
neighbors and relatives more for production information than

1 those who had not been out.

Meeting attendance

1. Those respondents who had attended meetings used the land-

grant system more than did those who had not attended.

2. Those who had not attended used farm magazines and radio and

TV more than did those who attended.

When the relatively sparse information on sources of production
information is reviewed from the standpoint of the eight sources, it is
apparent that:

1. the land-gpant system was used more by those who had children

in 4—H or FFA and who attended meetings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

45

Table VIII

Influence of Control Variables on Sources of Production
Information Used by Farmers, Michigan (Stratum 4 only).

 

 

 

 

 

m e
g P. c
21 +3 .-«1 gs? “8 to
EE §8 82% 8:? E88? “'32
.22 vs 8888 as E: a .2 82
1:3 with ‘CDCHS too (dad a) -.-1 43
g) c 3 g o. g 8 -H a m 3 d E c
.3 o .. 2 8’ 2 2 as
percentages
Backgpound
Children in
4—H or FEA
Yes 2.2 46.1* 4.4 5.9 10.6 17.8* 7.2 7.8* 180
No 1.4 28.5 5.4 5.4 8.2 27.9 8.2 17.0 147
Chi-square - 17.12
Experience out
of farming
Yes 5.0 56.1 7.8* 2.8 15.5* 19.1 8.5 7.2 141
No l.8 40.1 2.7 4.5 6.5 25.0 8.6 15.0 222
Chi-square L 16.92
Meeting attendance
Yes 1.6 46.4* 4.4 4.4 8.4 18.4* 8.8 7.6* 250
No 5.9 22.2 5.6 2.8 11.1 29.6 8.5 18.5 108
Chi-square a 25.26

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1Detailed explanation of the questions providing these control
variables can be found in Figure 2 of Appendix I.

I*Indicates significant t-test.

- -- v-qu~-.‘.J!O,

 

 

46

2. commercialgpegple and neighbors and relatives were used more
by those who had been out of farming.

5. farm maggzines and radio and TV were used more by respondents
who did not have children in 4-H or FFA and who had not

attended Extension or farm organization meetings.
Different Types of Information From.A Given Source?

The question next rises: '"When considering any one of the
eighteen given communicative sources, do farmers of different character-
istics to a significant degree look to that source for different types
of information?" In other words, is a given source regarded by farmers
in one situationwith reference to a given variable (for example, age)
as a source for one type of information (for example, price) while far-
mers in another position relative to that variable (i.e., older) look
to that same source for another type of information (for example,
production)?

To answer this question, a detailed analysis of each of the
eighteen sources was completed. For each of these, chi-square tests
of significance were completed to determine the degree of relationship
between the type of information secured from a given source and each
of the control variables. The summary of this analysis is presented
in Table 4 of Appendix II.

It is apparent from this analysis that there is no significant
relationship between the types of information secured from.a given source
and the different positions of respondent relative to the control vari-

ables. Therefore, one may conclude that certain communicative sources

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

47

are used for certain types of information and that those farmers who
use that source do not use it for significantly different types of in-
formation than others who use it.

Again, caution must be used in interpretation. It would be false
to conclude from this that farmers of different characteristics do not
indeed use different sources to varying degrees. In fact, the reverse
has just been shown to be true. Rather, from this analysis it can only
be said that if a given farmer uses a certain source of communicative
information, he does not use it for significantly different types of

information than does another farmer who uses that same source. ” ’

 

 

48

Chapter VI

SUMMARY, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSION PROGRAMMING

This chapter is divided into two sections; first, a summary of
the findings of this study; and second, an exploration of some impli-
cations of these findings for Extension programming. In the latter
section, the findings of the preceding chapters will be related to the

decisions which must be made in Extension program management.

 

Summary of findings:

1. Data in IMS reveal that respondents feel farmers should use
different patterns of information in each of the three situations:
organizing a farm, operating a farm for maximum profit, and operating
a farm to maximize family satisfactions.

a. When organizing a farm, respondents indicated, a farmer
should be concerned with factors with longrterm implications.
Thus, the pattern of information which interviewees indicated
should be used emphasized production factors (soil, climate,
topography, etc.), institutional factors (roads, schools,
markets, etc.), and human factors (relatives, neighbors,
businessmen, etc.).

b. In operating a farm for maximum profit, respondents indi-
cated that farmers should use most the types of information

on production factors (soils, fertilizers, varieties, etc.),

 

 

 

 

 

 

49

prices, and new technology. Each of these has certain pos-
sibilities of short-run flexibility in terms of the farm
operation.

c. When operating a farm for the greatest family satisfaction,
information on institutional factors, human factors, and pro-
duction were indicated by respondents to be the types which
should be used most. Each of these, again, as in considera-
tions for organizing a farm, have long-term implications,

with emphasis on those things of a long-term nature having
particular bearing on family life.

2. The success of the projective technique employed in question-
ing is attested to by the fact that no relationship between the three
information patterns outlined above and the control variables was evi-
dent. Thus, apparently the respondents projected themselves from their
own familiar circumstances, providing answers which are generally ap-
plicable and not influenced by personal circumstances and biases.

5. In terms of the relative importance of each type of informa-
tion in light of their own experiences and for their own farm operations,
respondents ranked the five types of information as follows:

production information most important,
price information next most important, and
institutional information least important,

From inspection of the information in Table III, new technology
could be regarded as third most important, and human factors fourth.

4. The rankings based on importance of each of the five types of

information to the respondent for his own farm operation tended to follow

 

 

50

the pattern of information indicated for the hypothetical situation
when operating a farm for maximum profit. This suggests that the re-
spondents tended to be profit- and operationallyhoriented.

5. Different patterns of communicative sources (i.e. those sources
involving the transfer of information between people by some method and
means) were used by farmers in securing each of the five types of in-
formation. The most used communicative sources for each type of infor-
mation could be summarized as follows:

a. Price: Dealers, salesmen and buyers
Farm magazines
Radio
Newspapers
b. Production: County Extension agents, vocational
agriculture teachers, and agri-
cultural college representatives
Farm magazines
Publications of experiment
stations
Radio
Neighbors and relatives
0. New technology: Farm magazines
County Extension agents, voca-
tional agriculture teachers,
and agricultural college
representatives
Demonstrations, meetings, and lectures

Dealers, salesmen, and buyers

 

 

 

 

51

d. Human factors: Neighbors and relatives
Bankers and lending agents
Dealers, salesmen, and buyers

e. Institutional factors: Newspapers
Radio
People from farm organizations
Farm magazines
Neighbors and relatives

6. In general, farmers look to a relatively small number of com-

municative sources for each of the five types of information.

 

a. The four or five most-mentioned sources accounted for
about two-thirds of the "mentions“ for each type of infor-
mation. ‘ N
' b. Certain of the sources were very unimportant for a given
' type of information.
! c. For no one type of information were all eighteen com-
‘ municative sources mentioned.
' 7. In general, a communicative source of information is looked
to for more than one type of information.
a. Twelve of the eighteen sources were indicated as a source
» for each of the five types of information.
b. Only two of the sources were indicated for only one or
two types of information.
c. However, certain sources (for example, formal schools and
professional farm managers) were quite unimportant sources

for any of the types of information.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

52

8. Farmers in different positions relative to certain of the con-
trol variables employed different patterns of communicative sources when
securing a given type of information. Data limitations prevented ex-
haustive analysis of such relationships, but moderately reliable evi-
dence was available for both price and production information source
patterns.

9. In securing price information, the general pattern of sources
based on the number of farmers reporting use of the source was as
follows, with the most mentioned source first: commercial people,
farm magazines, radio and television, newspapers, land-grant system,
neighbors and relatives, professional counselors, and farm organiza-
tions (see page 45). However, within this general pattern, certain
variations related to the control variables were apparent.

a. Respondents who were large scale, specialized operators;
had completed 12 or more years of school; and had agricul-
tural training in their formal schooling looked more to the
land-grant system and professional counselors (especially
bankers and lending agents) for price information.

b. Respondents who had completed less than 12 years of school
and had no formal training related to agriculture looked more
to commercial people, neighbors and relatives, and radio and
TV as sources of price information.

o. Respondents who attended meetings looked more to farm
organizations and the land-grant system for price informa-
tion while those who were non-attenders looked to farm

magazines, and radio and TV relatively more.

 

 

 

 

 

55

d. Those respondents who had been out of farming for seven

or more years tended to use commercial people more as a
source of price information, while those who had not been
away from farming looked to the land-grant system, newspapers,
and radio and TV more.

10. In securing production information, the land-grant system
and farm magazines were generally the most important sources. Following
were radio and TV, neighbors and relatives, newspapers, commercial people,
professional counselors, and farm organizations in that order. The data,
which permitted only limited further analysis, revealed that:

a. respondents who had children in h-H or FFA and who at-
tended meetings looked more to the land-grant system for
production information while those who did not have children
in 4—H or FFA and did not attend meetings used farm magazines
and radio and TV relatively more; and

b. respondents who had been out of farming used commercial
people and neighbors and relatives more for production in-
formation than did those who had not been out of farming.

These findings relative to sources of production information in
general concur with the findings reported above with reference to sources
of price information.

11. When farmers with different characteristics use a given source
of information, they use it for essentially the same pattern of informa-
tion. Thus, for example, farmers look to county Extension agents, vo-
cational agriculture teachers, and agricultural college representatives

for information on production, new technology, institutional factors,

 

 

 

 

54

lunaan factors, and price, in that order. This tends to be true for all
farmers, regardless of their characteristics. This suggests that each
source is looked to as being a "good source" for certain types of in-

formation.

Igplications for Extension progzamming:

In exploring implications which these findings may hold for Ex-
tension programming it will be helpful to look first at two fundamental
questions. These questions relate to criteria in Extension programming

and to the role of Extension.

 

The first question is this, I'to what extent should the expressions
of farmers regarding the types of information farmers should use or the
relative importance of various types of information be used as a cri-
terion in Extension planning‘t'I Certainly such expressions of farmers
have both strengths and limitations as a criterion in the decision-
making process of Extension administrators.

A basic strength of this criterion relates to the function of the
Cooperative Extension Service as stated in its enabling legislation,
the Smith-Lever Act:

I'....to aid in diffusing among the people of the United States

useful and practical information on subjects relating to agri-

culture and home economics, and to encourage the application

of the same....'

An apparent intent of the agricultural and legislative leadership
in the passage of this Act was that the information needs of farm people

should be met. It follows then that some attention should be given to

 

 

 

 

55

the types of information farmers regard as important and useful in
their decisions. The criterion of farmer responses to these questions
thus becomes fundamental in Extension planning.

At the same time, it should not be assumed that tabulations
regarding types of information farmers should use and the relative ink
portance of the various types of information can be regarded as the sole
and final consideration. In the first place, such tabulations are sub-
ject to the usual sampling errors as well as to possible respondent
biases, although serious difficulties of these kinds have not been de-

tected in the data reported here.

 

Beyond this however, a more fundamental question can be posed
regarding the appropriateness of this criterion, no matter how accurately
measured. Farmers may not always be in the best position to indicate
their information needs, either present or future. Lack of awareness
or appreciation for the real value of certain types of information, per-
haps particularly those components within the five major classifications,
may give such categories relatively less importance in the responses of
farmers than would be the case if the respondents were aware and ap-
preciative of those elements. Further, a research scientist or Exten-
sion worker abreast with the latest developments in any field may be
able to foresee farmers' future needs for such information more clearly
than can farmers themselves. Certainly this is one role of both re-
search and Extension programs.

Furthermore, in a broader and deeper educational sense, educa—

tional institutions have been charged with a responsibility for

 

 

56

“liberal education." The Extension Service, as an off-campus phase of
such institutions, has this responsibility also, implying a challenge
to leadership in the development of fundamental values. It is upon
such values that patterns of wants and preferences are based and in
terms of which problems are partially defined. In such terms, it is
not altogether appropriate for an educational agency to base its pro-
gram exclusively on the stated wishes of its clientele.

In summary to this question of the appropriateness of this cri-
terion in Extension planning, it can be said that the types of informa-

tion which farmers indicate should be used and the relative importance

 

attached to the types of information by farmers should be given important
but not exclusive consideration.

The second question relates to Extension's role as a source of
useful information for its farmer clientele. Should Extension aspire
or strive to be a major source for all types of information for all
farmers? If not, what is an appropriate position or Extension in this
regard?

As the data have indicated, farmers look to many sources for
information. Different patterns of sources are used for the various
types of information. Different farmers use different sources for a
given type of information. And in fact, the land-grant system, of which
Extension is a part, has long recognized the desirability of utilizing
various media, channels, and techniques in making information available
ultimately to farmerijfiihus have developed programs with mass media
such as press, radio and television, and with groups related to agri-

culture, such as commercial people and professional counselors.

 

 

57

In this complex, it would seem unrealistic indeed for Extension
to have as its goal a position of major importance for serving as a
source for all types of information for all farmers. But this in no
way reduces Extension's responsibility or concern for the availability
of and adequacy of all types of information for all farmers. Thus,
while Extension in many instances may not be a direct source of a given
type of information for a given farmer, Extension should be aware of
specific sources of information for various farmers and, as well, may
play a part in influencing the quantity and quality of the information

supplied. It is in reflection of such a concern, really, that Extension

 

very often works with commercial people, farm organizations, representa-
tives of various media, and the like.

Thus it is seen that, though Extension may not always serve as
a source of information of certain types and may have difficulty in
reaching certain farmers, it is vitally important for Extension people
to be aware of the many sources of information utilized by various far-
mers for various types of information and to employ such knowledge in
planning. An essential problem in Extension programming is the employh
ment of limited resources in the most effective ways and combinations.
An understanding of farmers' information source patterns can contribute
to this end.

In light of these statements, the following seem to be pertinent
implications for Extension program planning which evolve from this study:

1. It is apparent that farmers feel an expressed need for dif-
ferent patterns of information in various circumstances. When consulting

with or developing programs for farmers in the process of organizing

 

 

 

 

 

58

(or, to some extent, re—organizing) a farm business, primary emphasis
should be devoted to those types of information (or components within
the broad categories) which have long-term implications. These include
particularly information on production, institutional, and human factors.
While this study reveals the general pattern of information useful for
farm organization, a further detailed study designed to reveal the kinds
of information necessary to the solution of specific reorganizational
problems would seem warranted.

Once the organizational job has been essentially completed, so

that the primary concern becomes operation of the farm business, dif-

 

ferent patterns of information should be used, according to IMS re-
spondents. When maximum profit is the goal, greatest concern should
be with relatively short-lived types of information, which have possi-
bilities of relative flexibility in the short-run. These include
information in the production, price, and new technology categories.
0n the other hand, when the goal of the farm operation is maximum
family satisfactions, longer-term considerations again become rela-
tively more important, as in organizing a farm. These include insti-
tutional and human factors, and certain types of production information.
From Extension's standpoint, it is significant that these three patterns
of information did not differ significantly for farmers in different
positions relative to the control variables.

2. These findings regarding types of information for organizing
and operating farms suggest certain possibilities for Extension programs

in the future:

 

. “..., __

59

a. If, through the years, the process of farm transfer from
generation to generation is altered and facilitated markedly

by new procedures, such as incorporation of family farm opera-
tions, the frequency of and problems of farm organization may
be quite different from today. Thus, the needs for informa-
tion with an organizational orientation may be sharply

reduced. To the extent that current Extension programs are
organizationally oriented, program adjustments may be necessary.
b. Furthermore, if, as some believe, agriculture is now going

through a major transitional period, with much reorganization

 

of farm enterprises, particular emphasis on patterns of infor-
mation helpful in farm organization may be appropriate. How-
ever, as such a transitional period may draw to a close and a
period of relatively greater stability arrive, a shift in the
relative patterns of information to those types more appro-
priate in decisions of farm operation may be in order. In
this regard, it will be recalled that IMS respondents tended
to be profit oriented, indicating a ranking of information
important for their own operations which very nearly paral-
leled that indicated which farmers should use in operating
for profit.

c. If the operations of Extension were to become more inten-
sive in terms of working more with farmers through personal
contact and relatively less through mass media, a clear ap-
preciation of the different patterns appropriate in various

circumstances would be important. The experimental program

 

 

 

 

 

60

with township Extension agents, the Farm and Home Development
emphasis, and the assignment of specialists to counties are
examples of such intensification of Extension efforts. In
general, the more personalized the contact with the farmer,
the greater is the need for precise, specific information to
meet his individual needs.

d. Evidence from the study indicates that operators of large
and specialized farms look to Extension for certain types of

information relatively more than do other farmers. If it be

 

Extension's desire to serve this commercial farming clientele, X\
recognition of specific kinds of information needed by this
group in organizing and operating their farms will be essen-
tial. Further detailed studies may be necessary to meet such
information requirements.

5. The difference in information patterns which ware indicated \Nd
farmers should use in the two operating situations, i.e. when either
maximum profits or maximum family satisfactions is the goal, suggests
certain decisions for those with Extension program responsibilities.

A value judgement in planning can be made which may result in shifts

of farmers' positions relative to the alternatives of "operating for
profit“ as compared to "operating for family satisfactions." Different
proportionate emphases on the various types of information, with appro-
priate suggestions for application, might facilitate such shifts. Two
comments in this regard seem appropriate.

First, in reference to Extension's responsibilities in “liberal

education," it is appropriate to be concerned with fundamental values.

 

 

 

 

61

Thoughtfully, those individuals who attach ultimate significance to
profits in their operation may need encouragement and guidance in de-
veloping their value structure to more adequately satisfy more appro-
priate ultimate needs and preferences of themselves and their families
by regarding profits as instrumental. Conversely, those who seem mo-
tivated by family satisfactions to an extreme may need assistance in
exploring alternatives, such as the implications increased profit in
the farm operation might ultimately have in terms of family satisfac-

tions. Thus, such matters as the postponement of current leisure to

 

the end of future comfort or satisfaction become pertinent.

Second, it would be naive to assume or to imply that Extension
is the only source of information for farmers, or that the decisions
of farmers (including those regarding fundamental values) are influ-
enced only by Extension efforts. Obviously, many other factors and
influences come to bear. Nonetheless, the significance of Extension's
influence relative to the value framework of individual farmers and
their families cannot be ignored. Indeed, it is a question of great
import to be faced by Extension personnel. Exploration of this ques-
tion, however, is not the purpose of this study.

4. The effectiveness of the projective questioning technique
employed in IMS suggests possible usefulness of this technique in
Extension's educational efforts. In securing IMS data relative to the
types of information a farmer should use in first organizing and then
Operating a farm, a hypothetical situation was created. The respondent
was asked to answer on the basis of "a strange family and a strange

farm." In thus "role playing," the respondent could give answers

 

1 1111‘ ‘iA‘1ll 1 Mllhlblvlllllll

 

 

 

1 11» AN»?
1 11 111111<A1|l||1 1 I . \
Il“1 1111‘ Allis») a.) O

 

 

62

influenced by his past experiences but not influenced by biases of his
personal situation relative to feelings of pride or embarrassment. This
technique secured somewhat different responses than when the respondents
were asked to rank the types of information on the basis of setting up
and operating their own farm on the basis of their own experience, and
no relationship between the patterns of information indicated that the
farmers position relative to the control variables was apparent. This
suggests that such a projective nrole playing" technique might be useful
to Extension personnel in either working with individual farmers or in
surveying farmers with reference to various questions in situations when
the influence of personal bias may be detrimental.

5. Different patterns of sources of information were used by
farmers in securing each of the types of information. These findings
sould suggest that, in general, Extension programming should recognize
the sources most used by farmers for each of the types of information.
Whether Extension's concern in any instance is with communicating
directly with its farmer audience, with evaluating the adequacy of in-
formation supplied, or with supplying information to or working with
sources which in turn serve farmers directly, knowledge of information
source patterns should be used.

To some extent, of course, the pattern of sources for farmers in
a given area will be determined by the availability of and quality of
information from various sources in that particular area. This is to
say, in another way, that the pattern of sources used by farmers is and

can be shaped by the efforts of the sources themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

65

6. Farmers in different positions relative to certain of the con-

trol variables used different patterns of sources in securing a given

type of information. This evidence has broad implications in Extension

programming, both in terms of sources employed and in terms of audience

reached.

a. When considering the dissemination of information, it
should be recognized that the channel selected (source to the
farmer) will in part determine the audience reached. Thus,
from this evidence, price information channeled through radio
would reach relatively more farmers with less than 12 years of
schooling since such farmers look to radio for price informa-
tion relatively more than do farmers who have completed 12 or
more years of school. If radio were selected, then, this
would be the anticipated immediate result. However, as pre-
viously mentioned, this pattern might change as more farmers
became aware of and accepted radio as a source of price
information.

b. The second implication is in terms of audience. In reach-
ing various specific audiences with certain types of infor-
mation, various sources are appropriate. It is apparent, for
example, that farmers with less than 12 years of schooling,
no additional training related to agriculture, and no 4—H or
FFA experience looked especially to commercial people for
price information. In a concern with the adequacy of price
information for this segment of the audience then, with

reference to both quantity and quality, Extension might

 

__ . A_4A)v__—.'_'A———————‘,—-_e ‘ 7

 

61:

evaluate the price information supplied by commercial people.
If a need for improvement was indicated, Extension might at-
tempt directly to gain acceptance as a source by this segment
of the audience or might work with commercial people to real-
ize the necessary improvements. Either course has advantages.
c. If, as is apparently the trend, farm operations are be-
coming larger and more highly specialized, and farmers are
securing more formal education, a challenge to Extension is
suggested in that operators of such large specialized farms
and farmers with more education looked to the land-grant sys-
tem more than did other farmers. This would suggest that Ex-
tension is in a position to meet the information needs of
commercial farming, to the extent that those farmers with
large and specialized farms are already looking to the land-
grant system to a degree for information. It would be ex-
pected of course that Extension will be regarded as a I'good
source“ only as it meets the needs of its clientele. The
earlier implications, therefore, regarding information pat-
terns in organizing and operating farms become even more
pertinent. If, as farms become larger, changes in procedures
of transfer are devised to minimize the reorganizational
problems, and if farming generally moves from a transitional
stage with many organizational problems to a relatively more
stable situation in which operating problems become paramount,
these changing circumstances must be reflected in patterns of

Extension information.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

65

d. Various alternatives confront Extension with reference to‘
its appropriate clientele. Decisions regarding channels of
information employed in Extension can in part determine the
audience served. In turn, a decision regarding audience can

be implemented in part through the employment of the sources

of information to which that audience looks.

e. In another study utilizing IMS data, Partenheimer15 reported
that farmers evidenced a high degree of awareness of economic
concepts. In studying price expectation models, he discovered
that empirical content, integration of conceptual and empiri-
cal content, and conceptual completeness of the models were
present ”to a surprising degree.I These models were associated
in part with education. If, as is apparently the trend, far-
mers are receiving more education and if farmers with increased
education have more economic maturity and at the same time look
more to the land-grant system for price information, Extension
is confronted with the challenge of supplying such farmers
with the kinds of price information necessary for their deci-
sion-making responsibilities. An awareness of the price ex-
pectation models employed by farmers, with an understanding of
the kinds of price information necessary to the development

of such models, would be necessary in designing an Extension

 

15Partenheimer, E. J., "Some Expectation Models Used by Selected Groups
of Midwestern Farmers," Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State University, 1959.

 

\’

 

 

66

prOgram to this end.

Implications for research:

 

The findings of this study have implications for the conduct of

future related research and, in addition, suggest many areas of interest

which might be explored fruitfully. Kore specifically, they would first

suggest that research studies related to communications might well
recognize the five broad types of information categories, the different
patterns of information indicated for farmers in various circumstances,
and the various communicative sources employed by different farmers in
securing information they need.

A recognition of the pattern of information which farmers indi-
cate should be used in farm organization combined with an awareness of
the current reorganizrtianal :ctivities in agriculture would suggest
further investigation if the most appropriate patterns of information
are to be supplied. As farmers confront such developments as vertical
integration, contract farming and incorporation of family farm opera-
tions, they must make decisions regarding farm organization. In mak-
ing these decisions, research results supplying pertinent information,
particularly related to production, institutional, and human factors,
would be helpful.

The different patterns necessary then in operational situations
suggest the need for further study also. Some would contend that the
program of the Extension Service gives relatively greater emphasis to

problems of "farm organization" than to those of "farm operation," with

much effort devoted to educational programs which suggest changes imply-

ing some degree of reorganization of the farm business. At the same

 

 

 

 

67

time, this study would suggest that the respondents were essentially
"operationally-oriented.'I Research evaluation of the Extension program
coupled with analysis of the major problems of farm managers would be
helpful in making Extension program decisions. Further, appropriate
research could reveal the specific operational problems of farm opera-
tors so that educational programs could be designed accordingly.
Although this study has outlined the patterns of information in
terms of broad categories, analysis in terms of components of these
categories as related to specific organizational and operational situa-
tions will be necessary. Such studies should take into consideration
the influence of the various control variables in reference to sources

of information.

Relevance to dygamic economics

While this study addressed itself essentially to the types of
information used by farmers and the sources of such information, the
relevance of the findings of this investigation to the theory of the
firm in dynamic economics should not be overlooked. In dynamic theory,
the-assumption of perfect knowledge is relaxed, and the manager has in-
complete knowledge. The management function, which has no role in
static theory, becomes necessary in the adjustments of the firm to
changes and uncertainties. The managerial problem is that of determina-
tion 0f the direction or movement toward a new equilibrium position and
of moving toward it.

In the management role, the manager performs five functions in

the process of adjusting to change or solving a problem:

 

 

 

 

 

68

(1) observation: securing all available information and facts
bearing on the situation, from all possible communicative
and non-communicative sources.

(2) analysis: appraising the observations as they apply to his
situation.

(5) decision-making: determining whether to try a given
alternative or to reject it.

(4) action-taking: following a course of action determined
through observation, analysis and decision.

(5) responsibility-bearing: accepting responsibility for
financial loss or gain, effect on self and on family, and
legal and moral responsibility to society which may result

from the action taken.

The manager performs the first three of these functions as a
learner. Since the efficiency and effectiveness of the later steps in
the learning process are determined in part by the first step, i.e. ob-
servation, it is appropriate to focus attention on various aspects of
this function. Essentially, such focus has been the intent of this
study.

As the whole process by which the entrepreneur and/or society
adjusts to changes in a situation of risk and uncertainty is viewed,
one is very much aware of the learning process and the situations per-
taining to different degrees of knowledge. The costs and values ofl
learning have pertinence in reference to the five degrees of knowledge:

the certainty, risk, learning, inaction, and forced-action situations.

 

 

 

69

Related to these are such conceptual considerations as propensities to
consume and invest, liquidity preferences, insurance and strategy
principles, and the like. Earlier reference has been made to expecta-
tion models and the implications of the findings here in that regard.

Through all of this, there is an underlying concern with the im-
perfect knowledge situation of the manager with reference to the five
broad type of information categories: price, production, new technology,
human, and institutional. For example, propensity to consume or to in-
vest is in part dependent on the estimate of the future. This estimate
in turn is a reflection of the information a person has. In the frame-
work of dynamic economics then, a study of the information pattern of
farmers and the sources to which they look for such information is both
appropriate and useful.

Through the findings of this study, there comes clearer insight
into the pattern of information which farmers find useful in various
circumstances. Further, an understanding of the various sources em-
ployed by different farmers in the observation function related to dif-
ferent types of information has been developed. And finally, some ink
plications of these findings as they relate to Extension's work with

managers in dynamic situations have been explored.

 

 

APPENDIX I

FIGURES

 

71

Figure 1

Summary of Component Categories of Information Included in

Seven Broad Types of Information Classifications

PRICE INFORMATION:

1. Prices paid by farmers
2. Prices received bx farmers

5.
1+.

5.
6.

Inputs

 

General and unspecified
Prices for crops
Prices for livestock and livestock products

Support price information
Characteristics of prices

Long range trends in prices
Relative prices

General economic outlook

Seasonal prices

Current prices and short term trends
Past prices

Cost of living and farming
Factors affecting prices

Current market conditions
Supply outlook

Demand outlook

Inflation, deflation, war
Price outlook

PRODUCTION INFORMATION:

7. Livestock production

Breeds, breeding stock, grains and roughage, feeding
rates, labor, management, insects and diseases, water
supply, general and other

 

 

I 72

8. Crop production

Vhrieties, timing, rotations, machinery andspdpment,
insects, diseases, weeds, management, labor, fertilizer
and fertilizer use, irrigation, general

9. Soils

Handling characteristics, texture, soil condition,
topography and profile, type and kind, productivity,
fertility and acidity, drainage and tiling, moisture,
history, general, adaptability, management practices,
tillage practices, erosion

10. Other

Weather, farm buildings, fencing, machinery and equip-
ment, diseases and insects, other

Outputs
11s Crop!

General, kinds, yields
12. Livestock

General, kinds

1). Other output information
14. Other production information

Farming practices of neighbors

Farming in neighborhood, community, area
Livestock (no input—output distinction)

Crops (no input-output distinction)

Mhrketing process

General history of farm

Farm composition (size, acres of crops, etc.)
Type of farming area

Kind and quality of farm

NEW TECHNOLOGICAL INFORMATION:

15. Disease, insect, and weed control
Feeds and feeding rates
Machinery, equipment, and labor saving devices/practices
Fertilizers and fertilizer rates
Crop and soil production practices
Livestock production practices
Buildings, fencing and non-land real estate

 

 

 

75

HUMAN FACTORS:

 

16. Farmer or self

General personal qualities

Education and experience

Credit rating and financial status

Work attitudes and orientation

Managerial ability

Health and age

Religion and religious practices

General and specific aspects of preference system
Other

17. Self-environment of farm
Family characteristics
Location and setting
Other

18. Other individuals

 

Landlords
Businessmen
Others

19. Nei bors as a on

Sociability
Status
Cooperativeness (work, emergency)

20. Communitz populace

Sociability
Status
Other

INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS:

 

 

21. Nei borhood

22. Community as a unit

General structure and service facilities
Customs

Activities

Status and control mechanisms

General

 

 

 

25.

24.

25.

.3

27.

28.

51.

52.

55-

74

Schools (including colleges)
Kind and quality
Distance, location, accessibility
Activities
Other and general

Churches
Kind and quality
Distance and location
Activities
Other and general

Markets
Distance and location

Kinds and quality
Other and general

SocialI entertainment, recreational facilities and
activities

Transportation syptems

Roads
Politics and political parties
Governmental financing

Taxes
All local and state ggvernment
National government

Policies and programs
Organizations specified

Private credit arrangements
Tenure arrangements

54. Labor orggpizations

55. Non-gpvernmental farm orggpizations

56. Foreigp and world news and world affairs

57. Other organizations

 

75

~ 58. Other ipfgpmation ongipgtitutiqu
‘ 59. Labor market and general labor situation
40. Egperiment stations and their work
HOME TECHNOLOGY:

41. All information on existing and new technology related
. to the home.

ANALYSIS:

42. Ways of analyzing

Relate farm activities to family satisfaction
Figure, reduce &/or carry costs

Figure, improve &/or maximize profits

Diversify &/or integrate enterprises

Relate, spread, or shave farm operating function

#5. Advice to analyze

Keep records and keep books
Statements to analyze

 

 

 

76

Figure 2
Summary of Questions Serving as Control Variables,
With Tabulations of Michigan Respondents

Description of Michigan Sample Farmer

Control questions revealed descriptive characteristics of the
respondents. Since these classifications are vital to the analysis
which followa, it is important to review briefly the control ques-
tions which were used in the IMS. For convenience in the analysis

each characteristic is described by a phrase which is underlined in

the following summary:
Number of
Michigan
Childhood on farm respondents
"Did you grow up on a farm?"
All of childhood spent on farm 170
Part of childhood spent on farm 19
None of childhood spent on farm 10
Agpicultural training in school
"What are the names of the schools you've
attended? .... Did they give you any training
in agriculture?"
College (plus high school and/or grade
school, if any) 6
High school (plus grade school, if any) 4h
Grade school only 4
None 140

 

 

 

 

 

. \ " _
1 .-. I ne't' ‘ '73.
I .34? "' EL/
. r .‘z . I g

9
s 1‘ -
“ '. A. i _' 0 4L

  

77

Last grade of school
"What was the last grade of school you attended?"
Less than 8
8
9 - 11
12
15 - 15
16 and over
Additional training_related to agriculture

"Have you had any additional training, such as
short courses or vocational training?"

No
Yes
Kind of additional training
'If yes, what was it?"
Type of direct farm training:
GI or veteran's training

Adult vocational agriculture, short courses
or regular meetings

Mechanical training relatable to agriculture
4-H or FFA Member
"Did you ever belong to: a 4—H Club? the FFA?"
Yes, to both
Yes, one or other

No, neither

 

Number of
Michigan
respondents

146
55

11

ON

24
165

 

 

78

Children in 4-H or FFA
IHave any of your children belonged to 4-H or FEAT“
Yes
No
Years farming on own

“How many years have you operated farms for
yourself?“

Up to 10 years
11-15 years
16-25 years
26-55 years
56-40 years
41 +

Experience out of farming

“Were you ever out of farmingfl If yes, have you
ever lived in a city?“

 

 

Out of farming Lived in city
Yes Yes
Yes No
Yes Not ascertainable
No Yes
No No
No Not ascertainable

Length of non-farm.experience

”If you were 'out of farming', for how long
were you out?"

Up to 2.9 years

 

Number of
Michigan
respgndents

81

109

71
2a

54
1O

1O

83

14

98

19

 

 

 

 

 

79

Lengph of non-farm apperience (continued)
Up to 5 - 6.9 years
7 - 15.9 years
16 or more years
None or not ascertainable

Kind of non-farm egperience

IIIf you were 'out of farming', what kinds of
work did you do during this time?"

Gave technical experience of value in farming
Gave managerial training
Gave personnel handling experience
Indeterminate

Work Off-farm

'Do you ordinarily work off the farm! 'If yes:
all year or part of year? Full day or part day?”

Part of year worked Lengph of work day

None

Up to 5.99 months Part
Full

4 - 7.99 months Part
Full

8 - 11.9 months Part
Full

All year Part
Full

Part of year, but portion of year or length
of work day not ascertainable

 

Number of
Michigan

respondents
12
26

12

107

27

52

J? c: c: \o :r :r C) t;

23

.a
V

 

 

Proportion of Gross Income from Farming

l'What proportion of your total gross income from
all sources came from farming last year?"

Less than 1/2
About 1/2 up to 5/4

About 5/4 to more than 5/4 (but not all)

Age of respondent

Up to 24.9 years
25 - 29.9
50 - 54.9
55 - 44.9
1:5 - 54.9
55 - 64.9

65 years and over

Stage in family cycle

"We'd appreciate knowing who also lives here,
their approximate age, and whether they're
dependent on you?”

Unmarried
Married, no children
Married, with any children under 5 years

Married, with children between 5 and 18 years
of age but none under 5

Married with children at home but none under 18

Married, with children but none at home now

 

Number of
Michigan

respondents

24
52
52

 

 

 

81

Number of dependents

"We'd appreciate knowing who also lives here, their
approximate ages, and whether they're dependent
on you? .... Are there any other persons not living
with you to whom you contribute financial support?"

Number of dependents (excluding respondent)
1
2-5
4-5
6 or more
None
Use of hired laoor
'Did you use any hired labor in running your farm
1 last year? If yes, did they work for you year
round or part time?"
None
Year round
Part time only
Average gposs farm income

“What was your average gross farm income in
the last three years?"

32500 - 4499
4500 - 8499
8500 - 12,999
15,000 or more

Number of
Michigan

respondents

64
69
41

97
15
87

67
67
55

 

82

Number of
Michigan

respondents

Not worth

"We'd like to establish an estimate of your net

worth. Could you please give me your best esti-
mates of the value of your assets at the begin-
ning of the year. We want estimates of the

actual values, not the book values for accounting
purposes. The point is, what were these items
worth to you? (Itemized estimates of land and
building; livestock; machinery and equipment: feed
and crops, cash on hand; accounts receivable; value
of stock, bonds, and other investments; and value
of other assets)"

"Now, how about your financial obligations at the
beginning of the year? (Itemized estimate of
real estate debt, short-term and other notes,
accounts payable, household and other installment
debts, and other debts)"

Difference equals net worth.

0 - 3 9.999 8
$10,000 - 14,999 24
15.000 - 19.999 21
20,000 - 24.999 26
25.000 - 29.999 19
50.000 - 59.999 38
40.000 - 49.999 14
50.000 - 69.999 25
70,000 and over 9

Total Assets (From previous question)

:5 o - 4999 or
5000 - 9999 5
109000- 149999 14

15.000- 19.999 . ,4

 

 

85

Total Assets (continued)

$20,000 - 24,999
25,000 - 29,999
50,000 - 59,999
A0,ooo - “9.999
50,000 - 69,999
70,000 - 99,999
100,000 and over
Total debts (from previous question)
None
100 - 1,999
2,000 - 4,999
5:000 - 9,999
10,000 and over
Ratio: debts to assets (from previous question)
Ratio of total debts to total assets
.001 - .19
.20 - .59
.#0 - and over

Proportion rented

'Now first of all, how many acres, all together
do you own? (How many acres) are you renting
this year?“

The proportion of total acres managed acquired
through renting equals (acres rented
acres rented plus acres owned

Number of
Michigan

We
22
12
32
20

84
11
21
14

51

 

84

mrtion rented (continued)
Proportion rented (percent)
None
.1 - 49.9
50 - 99.9
All
Total acres tilled

"How many of these acres (owned and rented) are
you actually using as crop land and rotation
pasture?‘

Acres
1 - 1+9
50 - 89
90 - 189
190 and over
Type of farm

“What do you consider to be the main crap or
livestock product on your farm? What did you
do with it last year? What other craps or
products did you market last year? What pro-
portion of your last year's total farm.income
did each of these account for?”

Type of fans

Dairy

Fat stock

Cash crop

Fruit and vegetable

General

Cash crop and dairy and/or fat stock

Number of
Michigan
respondents

121
#5
25

10

23
52
102

15

75
18

19
17

12

 

 

35

lyporttnce of Types of Information

Rank 1:

I'In the light of your own experience in getting in-
formation to set up and run your farm to get the
most out of life, which of these five types of
information have you found to be the most important
to you?‘ (“for profit” was substituted for 'to get
the most out of life” on schedule forms 0, D, E,

and F)

Rank II:

Price

Production

New technology

Human factors
Institutional factors

All ranked equally

"...Which of the remaining four do you think has
been most important to you?"

Rank V:

Price

Production

New technology

Human factors
Institutional factors

All ranked equally

"...Whioh of the five has been least important?"

Price

Production
NOV technology

 

Number of
Michigan

respondents

68
74
17
14

57

22

21

 

 

 

86

Rank V8 (continued)
Human factors
Institutional factors
All ranked equally
Sum of additional difficulties

nWe've been talking about information needs that you
may have had in making decisions about specific
problems. However, there are a number of other
difficulties involved in making decisions and ac-
quiring information that you may also find to be
problems. Here is a list of some of them. (Hand
card to respondent) I' d like you to tell me which
of these or any others not on this list have been
problems in your own experience."

1. Knowing how to change your production plans.
2. Recognizing the existence of problems.
5. Defining the objectives of your family.

4. Knowing when you are in the "wrong track"
in your attempt to reach a desired goal..

5. IIPutting your finger'1 on the difficulty when
you know a problem exists, or you know some-
thing is wrong.

6. Just keeping up with all of the new infor-
mation relating to farming that constantly
comes along.

7. Getting information organized in your own
mind so that you can see what it means to you.

8. Knowing how and when to arrive at decisions

(once you've organized the information) when
some of it leads you to one conclusion and
some to another.

9. Any others not on this list.

Number of
Michigan

respondents

116

55
12

 

Stun of '

87

Number of
Michigan

respondents
additional difficulties" equals number

of them indicated by individual respondent.

Sum of additional difficulties

1.

2.

 

None 55
1 - 2 88
5 - l1 30
5 - 9 or more 1+0

Methods of reaching conclusions

"Two methods of arriving at conclusions are illus-
trated by the examples on this card (interviewer
present card).

nIn some cases we draw conclusions from
experience. Thus, we may notice that in
certain situations certain results always
seem to follow. 0n the basis of this, we
conclude that these results always occur
in this situation. An example might occur
in fertilizing a field. Thus, if a farmer
sees that the poor, thin spots in a field
respond to fertilizers more than the rich
spots, he may conclude that poor, thin spots
always respond more than rich spots.

"In other cases, we 'reason out' conclu-
sions about new situations facing us from
facts and principles we know or assume to

be true. For instance, a farmer may know

or assume that a certain farm arrangement
will save labor and then 'figure out' how
the use of this arrangement would affect the
amount of labor which would be left over for
use elsewhere in his business.

a. "Do you use both, mainly one, only one,
or neither of these methods in arriving
at conclusions?"

Both 70
Mainly, or only, induction 24
Mainly, or only, deduction . 7

 

 

88

Number of
Michigan

respondents

as Method most natural

b. "Which of these thinking methods is
most natural for you to use?"

Both 14
Mainly or only induction 66
Mainly or only deduction 17

Meeting attendance

"In the last two years have you attended two
or more:

County agents or Extension specialists meetings?
Meetings of farm organizations like the Farm
Bureau, the Grange, and the Farmer's Union?n

County Agent and Extension Non-governmental

 

Specialist Meeting farm organizations
Meetigg
Yes Yes 56
Yes No 41
No Yes 24

No No 78

 

{C
’
—

 
 

 

 

 

1‘3!“

 

 

INTERVIEW NUMBER

PRICES

OF
THINGS
SOLD

OF
THINGS

PRODUCTION
FACTORS

NEW DEVEL—

HUMAN
FACTORS

POLITICAL,

RELIGIOUS
FACTORS

PAST PRICES AND
PRICE TRENDS

CURRENT PRICES AND
CHANGES IN PRICES

PRICE OUTLOOK

PAST PRICES AND
THEIR TRENDS

CURRENT PRICES
CHANGES IN COSTS

PRICE OUTLOOK

EXISTING VARIETIES
OF CROPS 81 LIVESTOCK
EXISTING METHODS OF
PRODUCING CROPS 81

CLIMATE, SOIL, AND
DISEASE CONDITIONS

NEW INVENTIONS,
DEVELOPMENTS, AND

PEOPLE YOU HAVE TO
DEAL WITH IN RUN-

PEOPLE WHOSE REAC“
TIONS MAY BE IMPOR'
TANT TO YOU IN RUN-

CHANCES FOR DEPRES-
SION OR PROSPERITY
81 ATTITUDES

OF LOCAL INFORMAL.
GROUPS THAT MAY

ACTIONS OF
GROUPS AFFECTING
ING FARM BUREAU,

FEDERAL, STATE, AND
LOCAL GOV'T ACTIONS

 

 

89
Chart Used in Determining Communicative Sources of Information
Used by Farmers in Securing Different Types of Information,

Figure 5.

PUBLICA-
TIONS

OF FARM
ORGANI-

ZATI ONS

PUBLICA-

TIONS OF
EXP STAT
81 EXT.

PEOPLE GOVERN-
MENT

PEOPLE

VOC. AC. NEWS_

SIONAL 8‘
FARM LENDING

AGENTS

FARM FORMAL MAIL AD- TELE—

AG- TIONSI AUCTIONS

ORGANI’
ZATIONS

VERTISING PAPERS VISION

ROUTE

“IVES DRIVERS

BUYERS

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX II

TABLES

 

 

 

91

Table 1

Relationship of Control Variables and Types of Information
Considered Important by Farmers When Organizing and Operating

Farms for Profit and Satisfaction: Summary of Chi-Square

Tests, Michigan (Stratum 4 only)

 

In Connection with
Organizing Farms

I

Operating Farms for

 

school

to ag.

Net worth

Total debts

Rank I

Family
Control Varigple Prgfit Satisfaction
df x4 df df x2
Childhood on farm 10 9.15 10 5.89 10 10.44
Agricultural training in
15 17.10 15 6.87 15 15.48
Last grade of school 25 16.22 25 12.58 25 17.10
Additional training related
5 4.149 ‘1' .98 5 2.90
Kind of additional training 6 10.78 8 1.88 10 9.15
4-H or FFA member 10 5.75 8 5.66 10 4.85
Children in 4-H or FFA 5 4.41 4 5.50 5 4.67
Years farming on own 25 16.58 20 11.46 25 22.52
Experience out of farming 20 9.19 16 5.54 20 10.29
Kind of non-farm experience 8 11.16 8 5.81 10 5.96
Off-farm work 50 17.92 211 7.98 50 211.95
Proportion of gross inc.
from farm 10 8.09 8 6.50 10 5.96
Age of respondent 50 16.45 24 8.26 50 21.25
State of family cycle 25 18.89 20 9.29 25 11.52
Number of dependents 20 10.65 16 9.78 20 11.14
Use of hired labor 10 6.46 8 4.41 10 6.01
Average gross farm income 15 10.24 12 15.52 15 15.52
110 21.29 52 16.15 110 50.55
Total assets 15 8.42 12 4.90 15 15.97
20 17.61 16 10.55 20 26.27
Ratio: debts to assets 10 16.58 8 6.95 10 6.48
Proportion rented 15 19.80 12 7.69 15 12.62
Total acres tilled 15 9.68 12 5.46 15 17.51
Type of farm 25 24.48 20 19.79 25 14.29
Imp. of types of info:
25 15.47 25 9.57 25 55-64
Methods of reaching
conclusions -- -- 8 2.25 10 11.49
Method most natural -— -- 8 4.79 10 7.48
Meeting attendance 15 8.59 12 9.57 15 17.89

 

 

92

Table 2

 

Relationship of Control Variables and Relative Importance

of Types of Information for Farmers: Summary of

Chi-Square Tests, Michigan (Stratum 4 only)

 

Control Variable

Childhood on Farm
Agricultural training in school
Last grade of school

Additional training related to Agr.

Kind .i LdL;L:ona1 training
4-H or FFA member
Children in 4-H or FFA
Years farming on own
Experience out of farming
Length of non-farm experience
Kind of non-farm experience
Work off-farm
Prop. of gross income from farm
Age of respondent
Stage in family cycle
No. of dependents
Use of hired labor
Average gross farm income
Net worth
Total assets
Total debts
Ratio: debts to assets
Proportion rented
Total acres tilled
Types of farm
Imp. of types of information
Rank I
Rank II
Rank IV
Sum of additional difficulties
Methods of reading conclusions
Method most natural
Meeting attendance

Rank 1’ Rank II’ Rank v
df chi-square
8 4.61 2.26 28.47
12 8.42 15.66 9.85
20 15.67 15.77 15.24
4 9.74 1.20 5.18
8 8.19 6.22 8.14
8 9.81 9.68 9.57
4 2.59 1.25 5.52
20 20.25 19.22 18.02
20 25.06 12.80 14.55
16 15.65 11.62 11.46
12 11.97 5.64 20.90
56 26.62 29.52 25.19
8 5.64 10.29 8.09
24 52.61 24.56 27.41
20 20.54 21.78 16.42
12 15.24 21.05 24.58
8 4.98 10.14 5.10
12 11.49 15.56 14.76
52 58.18 40.96 50.75
12 12.22 11.15 8.20
16 14.71 22.07 20.77
8 7.29 15.10 4.92
12 7.15 24.65 12.45
12 9.46 9.64 15.17
20 24.75 27.19 15.05
16 -- 106.25 54.50
16 105.15 "" AOeOB
16 54.50 46908 --
12 22.97 7.84 10.15
8 10.74 5.75 17.22
8 24.74 7.40 8.95
12 22.71 10.84 7.56

 

 

 

93

Tab 19 3

RELATIONSHIPS OF CONTROL VARIABLES AND COMMUNICATIVE SOURCES
ON BOTH UNGROUPED AND GROUPED BASIS, FOR PRICE INFORMATION
Michigan (Stratum 4 only).

 

 

Sources ungroupedl

Sources grouped2

 

 

 

New ew

Col. df Price Prod. Tech. Human Inst. df Price Prod. Tech. Human Inst.

grow up on farm 34 25.15 70.42 16.50 12.76 29.18 7 6.94 24.02 9.20 5.60 4.00
agriculture training 51 93.36 38.57 18.79 17.08 32.85 7 18.67 6.99 8.84 7.55 3.80
netgmneofsdmol &3IQ4£7 9548 5389 8243 7344 7 23J7 847 296 1092 842
additional training 17 24.50 27.99 10.77 14.72 20.80 7 18.31 13.99 5.69 7.32 11.41
kind of additional training 34 30.65 12.98 9.69 11.25 9.92 7 14.12 11.20 9.69 7.25 6.30
belong to 4.11 - FFA 34 88 .33 52 .48 13 .33 15.23 28 .32 7 12 .37 7 .79 5 .43 5 .41 6.70
children in FFA 17 39.66 35.07 10.91 23.28 10.62 7 15.73 17.12 9.49 11.19 2.83
years farming on own 85 130.97 82.98 25.57 94.85 41.09 7 6.23 7.60 3.59 10.14 8.70
out of farming 85 129.05 87.57 50.21 44.52 46.61 7 19.13 16.92 3.54 13.85 10.71
Out 1 how long 68 102.82 114.35 62.79 57.76 75.58 7 19.2 16.41 5.55 11.63 10.17
out _ what did 51 26.72 56.06 13.87 46.63 32.70 7 9.87 19.56 8.98 5.61 5.75
do work off farm 119 83.97 72.17 24.44 77.74 49.02 7 7.21 6.89 6.61 11.48 7.29
proportion of gross inc.—farm 34 40.44 41.27 12.21 22.90 21.20 7 8.65 18.04 3.76 3.57 5.01

age 102 155.72 116.53 56.99 59.60 102.21 7 14.02 2.75 3.81 4.71 11.70
stage in family cycle 85 188.90 117.97 71.57 70.31 84.43 21 96.27 36.46 15.68 30.75 24.06
no. of dependents 68 97.18 52.80 29.80 68.35 76.84 7 14.20 3.12 5.70 7.24 6.85
use hired labor 34 72 .46 3o .22 21.61 30 .42 37 .84 7 19 .46 5 .82 2 .28 11.59 6 .57
average gross income 51 135.31 89.44 27.66 30.28 30.08 14 46.59 31.10 13.22 12.14 10.94
net worth 136 178.34 132.06 105.05 133.35 117.79 7 16.01 9.32 8.87 10.34 .68
assets 48 62.15 23 34 25.83 8.12 19.1 7 7.41 6.76 1.96 4.10 5. 45
total debts 68 147.25 64.57 34.60 41.86 66.73 14 32.78 32.70 26.65 14.41 27 .49
ratio debts to assets 34 58.05 26.04 9.16 16.80 34.97 7 11.76 14.16 5.96 4.33 17.59
acres rented. 51 72 e97 1+3 .29 19 092 A’I'JI' e140 )“I'O . 18 In 33 .140 16 0711' 8 oh"? 9 053 12 e86
total acres tilled 51 130.97 82.97 25.57 94.85 41.05 12 04 8.54 3.98 7.49 6.60
type of farm 102 136.94 125.55 101.75 92.95 69.21 14 19.11 17.11 13.72 22.55 8.46
Rank 1 85 109.92 83.29 62.82 128.21 69.59 28 38.33 33.62 31.25 14.39 18.92
Rank 2 85 141.02 110 .18 50 .90 157 .94 73 .88 28 64 .5 43 .51 30.81 . 32 .78
Rank 5 85 116.76 126.45 51.93 169.90 89.69 28 48.89 42.27 28.92 32.34 31.80
sumwof addi. diff. 51 105.51 80.79 25.54 43.63 34.40 14 49.84 43.97 14.07 16.29 11.19
ind—dad. 34 23.43 41.39 11.35 13.37 22.13 7 5.69 4.14 5.32 3.14 5.90
attend organizationsameetings 51 114 .87 99. 50 34.16 54.57 37.78 7 41.31 25.26 15.64 10.19 5.19

 

lEighteen communicative sources used.

2Eighteen communicative sources grouped into eight classifications. For description, see Chapter V.

 

 

 

 

 

 

94

Table 4

Relationship of Type of Information Secured From a Given Source to Different
Characteristics of Farmer Respondents, for Eighteen Communicative
Sources of Information, Michigan, (Stratum 4 only).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 m . g
0 m p -p s
8 .5 8 8 8 m
éé .3 8 fi 5 2 .E c 8 g
"(D g 82 TC; 03% mum 5'3 U) (BI; U) .23
'01—4 (1) (DO) $1 U) +7 0) C10) 9403 (D w H -H
02? 8 8* 13.: .e '8 8 43 8 '8 .8 2 12 8 .8 2.2 8 '8 m a
g ' b’ o P h c m c n) m m 9.9 p N o c g o s 0
$451 '\°~Q :1 M6 U) Oct} (1542 $4 (00 9424 (0 H113 0 :> <1) -:-i m
CHbDIDUJ (D TD S4 7‘15: “(1) S40) 01351 (10 +700 U) rd 94 U) Q
5 “5% 8 88 8 $9 88 2? 85 ws 2 88 a 7 8 o E 3
£0 3&0 5-1 .5453 .3 (D (DH (Dm C" If) H «3 H (I! 'H G) 33
82.222 202 82 222... 282.; 2 2; 2 7 8 8 22
818281—2388 232 22 22.22.22 22 2 2.. 2 8 5 m 5 <1
Childhood on farm 30 28.99 12.44 19.94 16.26 13.52 19.57 27.95 18.57 21.21 14.56 17.03 19.58 6.01 19.77 20.49 17.34 11.29 5.78
Agricultural train. in schogi 45 37.92 28.31 71.22 23.09 41.67 27.69 33.37 54.71 26.81 60.76 31.57 35.33 22.04 73.85 27.40 36.02_%3.55 47.22
Last grade of school 75 48.10 47.60 64.72 55.79 52.69 64.95 81.90 73.22 56.84 53.09 56.85 52.61 44.76 69.89 62.17 64.64 _2.79 46.18
Additional train. related to ag. 15 7.09 6.87 10.33 18.99 11.54 9.61 6.99 10.36 6.42 8.35 7.27 9.91 7.42 18.01 7.10 2.70 11.39 5.28
Kind of additional training 30 31.11 8.66 29.20 22.59 13.43 28.28 32.19 27.61 20.60 16.42 23.69 17.80 7.37 17.40 18.43 1 .52 13. 1 10. 9
4.H or FFA member 30 34.78 32.09 21.35 35.64 19.92 42.19 14.11 31.44 12.12 17.30 12.98 23.65 27.48 37.11 22.49 21.33 31.39 37.75
Children in 442 or FFA 15 12.36 2.92 14.40 10.38 12.03 5.53 13.86 11.31 11.73 4.13 6.30 8.01 7.33 17.79 5.14 68.83 66.92 8.78
Years farmingpon own 75 64.63 36.42 58.05 59.82 62.80 70.2: 51.5; £9.33 38.12 2$-$$ 3%.23 25.32 332;; gicgg gg-ggefiglgg 56 21 33-35
Experience out Of farming 75 53 .75 39.83 76059 47.0 1+ 087 90- 3902 70 o c 60 8'6 80 0 3'10 3&46 Eg'e 2 '30
7’ '7 e 6O 46.41 .02 2.67 38.00 48.43 39.10 41.92 39.00 32.97 63.41 2 .57 3 . 3 2 .90 57.75 5 . . 7 . 5 9.
iifiitgrOioifi$éiifigiiiiiiiic 45 28.78 36.22 26.16 32.84 32.22 17.69 24.74 19.12 25.04 32.37 35.16 35.39 40.93 40.26 20.23 18.42 34122 24.53
'Work off fanin 105 70.70 69.11 85.08 62.64 73.16142.80 75.72 74.97 70.90 61.87 54.79 77.92 9.50 48.35 71.32 68.9 51. 0.7
‘Pro of 6E8 income from farm 30 17.46 13.82 25.86 19.72 14.78 16.54 25.90 22.77 19.86 17.07 19.85 16.61 7.00 12.99 25.40 25645 17.23 14.28
\ P'f ..ir...... , 90 68.60 71.27 55.54 73.64 56.92 75.44 70.65 70.61 56.78 43.53 58.34 45.67 86.53 63.19 41.99 57.79 . 55. 1
8:8 Z in igfiily‘oycle 75 53.23 72.28 95.74 68.06 52.64 33.87 71.79 50.74 62.69 72.24 54.98 58.64 20.93 71.25 1743.6218 41.16 29.52
N.;§.. of der'gaéggg 66 46.60 51.47 58.95 38.73 40.91 64.98 57.90 44.08 41.93 43.31 33.79 55.81 13.36 45.60 41.97 43.35 46.54 34.7
U f hiredpiabor 7 30 19.25 22.67 22.79 11.10 20.49 18.21 14.47 18.96 19.20 12.84 13.92 19.19 23.82 29.18 20.01 18.26 15.53 14.
\A38 ° farm income 45 22 84 38.24 46.75 59.88 23.28 38.14 33.09 45.04 34.92 25.31 16.39 4.68 16.58 28.00 15.42 38.40 25.73 21.05
verage gross 120 71.20 65.44 E314J.an83 62.01.13308 88.04 88.28 78.08 77.98 65.82 70.58 71.51 97.56 87.62 57.07 86.70 69.73
Net “orgy t 45 37'34 34.36 40.82 31.72 25.24 22.72 40.96 29.85 26.53 40.11 23.44 30.66 8.40 33.04 41.14 35.42 23.51 27.10
T°tal 33:: s 60 42:48 35.48 48.73 43.49 28.00 44.79 43.95 52.15 43.09 52.92 45.26 35.64 47.66 46.30 46.47 56.79 37.02 34.16
Tetal ce’"§t t ets 30 13 47 25.39 31.95 30.66 24.16 16.48 14.14 21.58 27.82 22.62 15.88 19.88 9.21 24.47 19.43 27.69 17.28 19.83
Rati°n'.deb S tOdéSS 45 29'14 21.88 42.74 39.50 28.75 37.54 40.51 38.41 40.00 26.48 26.78 21.66 20.96 29.28 19.30 25.04 37.25 30.15
Pr°P°rtl°n Ti? : d 15 30'52 22.95 40.75 34.82 16.11 26.79 28.86 27.89 19.06 35.48 15.81 15.79 19.53 29.80 24.82 20.79 25.20 21.00
§°tal :grgjrmll 6 9O 64'oo 76 23 67 72 59.01 64.94 58.66 61.15 74.63 77.01 88.93 42.84 65.38 25.44 67.57 59.53 96.95 79.88 3.23
37,998 ..1 . . - - . ...x ,. -'
$222_§§EEXgE§.2£_EE£23221193 75 64 15 71 79 64.77 55.21 40:93 83353 67.56 47.79 51.58 51.98 46.47 43.68 55.81 57.44 41.59 59.52 50.23 38.9:
75 47.34 52:01 64.41 59.90 38.49 67.75 81.96 53.08 46.39 60.06 53.61 51.96 44.68 54.50 57.16 35.45 51. . 6
188 8444222227222285738322222228222223224
. . ' ’ 4 , 8 44.14 26.12 29.41 45.08 35.1 3 . 21.20 . . . . . 7 g .
Sum °f addifil°ni§ diiiiziiziii. :3 32:38 21:34 38.28 20.95 10.63 20.25 15.21 16.84 13.19 31.65 13.83 13.61 10.90 22.29 19.31 23.22 25.25 13.22
MathOds 0f rea: “i 30 11 15 20.59 27.43 20.35 9.10 23.45 28.97 21.92 15.23 19.11 14.75 14.40 18.50 20.13 22.35 19.2 36. 5 .
fiétfiid m:::.::.::: 45 36'44 33 91 42 20 35.81 22.01 35.06 45.09 35.33 28.83 33.56 20.48 24.67 23.77 69.08 43.58 28. 7 3 .77 29.37
ee ng _p,1,2 ' ' '

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..u

 

Ar.
~.

 

 

 

 

q ..
.:

 

 

‘ A

 

hm
«
I
m

 

l
\

 

 

 

 

 

 

.
7..
ul
,- v
19'

 

. ‘
‘ l‘
‘4
(
' 0
...;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

96

BI BL IOGRAPHY

ART ICLES :

 

Cowing, A. G., What People Read and Why, Extension Service Review,
Vol. 22, No. 11, November 1951.

Hildebrand, P. E. and Partenheimer, E. J., Socioeconomic Character-
istics of Innovators, Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. XL,
No. 2, May 19%e

Johnson, G. 1..., Methodology for Studying Decision Making, Journal of
Farm Economics, Vol. XXIII, No. 5, December 1957.

Progress and Problems in Decision Making Studies (Interstate Managerial
Survey), Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. XXXVII, No. 5,
December 1955.

Jensen, H. R., The Nature of the Study
Haver, C. B., The Universe of Farms Studied

Smith, Joel, Some Problems of Method in the Interstate
Managerial Survey

Johnson, G. L., The Friedman-Savage Utility Hypothesis
in the Interstate Managerial Survey

Thomas, D. 31., Sociological Aspects of the Decision
Making Process

Hardin, L. 8., Possible Implications of Decision Making
Studies for Farm Management Teaching and Research

Heady, E. 0., Possible Implications of the North Central
Interstate Managerial Survey for Farm and Home
Development Problems

Smith, Joel, Michigan Farmers' Use of Radio and Newspaper Market
News, Quarterlg Bulletin, Michigan Agricultural Experiment
Station, V01. ' N00 , May 1956.

Wilkening, E. A., Sources of Information for Improved Farm Practices,
Rural Sociolgfl, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 1950.

 

 

97

BULLETINB:

Johnson, G. L., New Managerial Concepts and the Extension Service,
Kentucky Agricultural Extension Service, Lexington,
Publication 59, December 1952.

Johnson, G. L., Managerial Concepts for Agriculturalists, Kentucky
Agricultural Experiment Station, Lexington, Bulletin 619,
1951:.

Johnson, G. L., and Haver, C. B., Decision-Making Principles in Farm
Management, Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station, Lexing-
ton, Bulletin 595, 1955.

Johnson, G. L. , and Haver, C. B., Agricultural Information Patterns
and Decision-Making, Michigan Agricultural Experiment
Station, East Lansing, Bulletin Manuscript, 1959.

Lionberger, H. F., Sources and Use of Farm and Home Information by
Low-Income Farmers in Missouri, Missouri Agricultural Experi-
ment Station, Columbia, Bulletin #72, 1951.

Nielson, J. and Bittner, R. F., Farm Practice Adoption in Michigan,
Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, East Lansing,
Technical Bulletin 265, 1958.

North Central Rural Sociology Committee, How Farm People Accept New
Ideas, Agricultural Extension Service, Iowa State College,
Ames, Special Report 15, 1955.

Ross, J. E. and Bostian, L. B., Time Use Patterns and Communications
Activities of Wisconsin Farm Families in Wintertime, Depart-
ment of Agricultural Journalism, University of Wisconsin,
Madison, Bulletin 28, 1958.

Statistical Laboratory of Iowa State College, InFARMation Pleasel,
Wallaces" Farmer and Iowa Homestead, Des Moines, 1948.

Statistical Laboratory of Iowa State College, InFARMation Please!
No. 2, Wallaces" Farmer and Iowa Homestead, Des Moines, 1952.

Wilkening, E. A., Acceptance of Improved Farm Practices, North
Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Raleigh, Technical
Bulletin 98, 1952.

MANUSCRIPTS:

Johnson, G. L., Handling Problems of Risk and Uncertainty in Farm
Management Analysis, a contribution under R and MA Project
’42, Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station, Lexington.

 

 

98

King, C. E., A Study of the Sociological Research on the Diffusion
and Adoption of New Farming Practices with Concomitant Rela-
tionships to the Elements and Processes of Social Systems,
Unpublished paper, Department of Rural Sociology, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, 1955.

Moe, E. 0., Some "Principles" in the Acceptance of New Farm Practices,
Unpublished paper, Department of Rural Sociology, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, 1955.

O'Donnell, D. C., A Survey of Eight Studies Concerned with Sources
of Information on Farm and Home Practices and the Relative
Effectiveness of the Sources, Unpublished paper, Department
of Sociology, North Carolina State College, Raleigh, 1952.

Partenheimer, E. J., Some Expectation Models Used by Selected Groups
of Midwestern Farmers, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Agricultural
Economics, Michigan State University, 1959.

Special Surveys Division, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, The
Extension Service of Vermont, United States Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1947.

MISCELLANEOUS:

Emery, F. E. and Oeser, O. A., Information Decision and Action,
Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, Australia, 1958.

North Central Rural Sociology Committee, Bibliography of Research
on Social Factors in the Adoption of Farm Practices, Iowa
State College, Ames, 1956.

Proceedings of Conference on World Land Tenure Problems, Influencing
Rural People: A Report of Workshops on Information Methods,
University of Wisconsin, Madison, October 8 - November 17,
1951.

 

; i—v-mv— W

‘vji , l—eu 5 ;—. .. (fry; .z,
I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RUGM USE ONLY

HUMANITIES I

 

 

 

"I7'11TWE’LIWJIITL'IVM‘EITIIET