THE AVAILABILITY AND USE OF LIVESTOCK MARKET NEWS BY MICHIGAN FARMERS Thesis for the Degree of M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Wiiliam .Orel Champney 1953 \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\1\)\\1\\\1\\§1\\\\I\\;\\I\\§\\I L», » I ._ THE AVAILABILITY AND USE OF LIVESTOCK MARKET NEWS BY MICHIGAN FARMERS BY William Orel Champney A THESIS Submitted to the College of Agriculture Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Economics 1958 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author desires to express his appreciation to Dr. Harold Riley for his guidance and helpful suggestions in the formulation and writing of this thesis. Members of the faculty and graduate students also deserve a sincere thanks for their suggestions. Thanks are extended to Mrs. David Pratt who typed this thesis, and also the clerical staff who typed earlier drafts. A special expression of thanks to the author's wife, Bette, for her encouragement, advice, and confidence. The author assumes responsibility for any errors still present in this thesis. 11 THE AVAILABILITY AND USE OF LIVESTOCK MARKET NEWS BY MICHIGAN FARMERS BY William Orel Champney AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the College of Agriculture Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Economics Year 1958 Approved //"'4 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to appraise the adequacy of liveStock.market news dissemination in Michigan with a view towards suggesting possible improvements. This appraisal was made by comparing the quantity of news available through various media with the quantity of news farmers received. The data for this study wenaderived from.two surveys. One personal interview survey provided data from LO? Michi- gan farmers. The second survey was conducted by mail among agencies disseminating livestock market news to the farmers interviewed in the first survey. Livestock market news based on terminal market quota- tions received wide dissemination by radio and newspapers. To a lesser extent price information was available from auction markets. The survey of agencies disseminating market news showed about ninety percent of the radio stations and daily newspapers disseminated livestock market news. The primary source of the news these agencies reported originated at terminal markets, however, about half of these agencies gave prices from a local auction. Television stations and weekly newspapers disseminated livestock market news, but the percentage of these agencies iv reporting this information was considerably lower than for radio and daily newspapers. Television stations reporting gave primarily terminal market news and all but one weekly newspaper reported local auction prices. The weekly and daily newspapers were the principal source of "outlook information" for the four media sur- veyed. However, it was noted from the farm survey that about forty percent of the farmers also obtained livestock outlook information from farm.magazines. Farmers used considerably more radio and newspaper reports as a source of livestock market news than any other sources analyzed. This comparison was made with more per- sonal types of communication such as telephone and'personal interview. Eighty-one percent of the farmers said they listened to radio stations for market news. Newspapers ranked second to radio with sixty-one percent listing them as a source for market news. The Chi-square was used to test differences in pro- portions of users to non-users of radio and newspapers between geographic areas and similarly among types of farms. No significant differences were found in the proportions of readers to non-readers of daily newspapers for livestock market news between areas or among farm types. Geographic location had no effect on the proportions of farmers using radio for livestock market news between areas, but two comparisons revealed that livestock and dairy farmers used a greater percentage of radio reports for livestock market news than did part-time farmers. The time of day farmers receive market news, and the stations used, were also analyzed. Livestock and general farmers used a larger percentage of noon broadcasts, with dairy and part-time farmers using a larger percentage of early morning broadcasts. There was some evidence from this study that a diver- sified radio program providing news on all phases of the farm business would attract a larger listening audience than broadcasts limited only to market news reports or closely related information. There seemed to be reason for questioning the use- fulness of auction market news in its present form. The percentage of farmers using radio stations disseminating auction market news compared with the percentage listening to stations reporting terminal news was relatively smaller. This can also be inferred from farmers' use of auction market news from newspapers. This might indicate a more comprehensive coverage of auction markets is needed to increase the usefulness of this type of market information. Farmers were asked, "What additional livestock mar- ket information do you need?" More farmers stated a need for "outlook information" than for any other kind of infor- mation. Although the percentage of farmers answering the question was small, this request for outlook information would seem to merit consideration. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS cm 1' TLR I . IlqujRODUC TI ON 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O C 0 Development of the Market News Service . Previous Studies of Livestock Market News Purpose and Objectives of This Study . . II. SOURCE AND NATURE OF DATA . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Farm Survey . . . . . . . . . . . Survey of Agencies Disseminating Market Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. LIVESTOCK MARKET NEWS AVAILABLE TO FARMERS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Radio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Television . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Newspapers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Weekly Newspapers. . . . . . . . . . . . SLliiimaI'y o e o e e o e o o o e e o e o 0 IV. THE USE OF LIVESTOCK MARKET NEWS BY MICHIGAN EMT-BBS O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . Farmers Use of Available Sources . . . . The Time of Listening to Radio Reports . vii PAGE 10 10 10 18 22 22 22 29 30 33 36 to 40 Al 50 CHAPTER PAGE Radio Listening by Stations in Area 3 . . . . . . 53 Most Important Source of Market News for Cattle and Hogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 What Additional Information Is Needed. . . . . . 60 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 APPENDIX.A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 APPENDIX B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 viii TfiBLE I. II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. XIII. LIST OF TABLES Economic Characteristics of Geographic Areas Of MiChj-gan O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 O O O O O O The Number of Farm Schedules Taken by Areas in NIiChj-gan’ 1957 O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 The Number of Farmers by Farm Type from.Farm Survey in.Michigan, 1957 . . . . . . . . . . . The Return.on."Mail In" Survey for Disseminat- ing Agencies, Michigan, 1957 . . . . . . . . . The Number and Percent of 39 Radio Stations Reporting Livestock Market News in.Michigan, 1.957 e e o e e o e e e e e e e e e e e o e e e Broadcast Hours for Livestock Market News by Days of Week, 35 Michigan Radio Stations, 1957 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e o e e e o 0 Number of Livestock Market News Broadcasts Given by 35 Michigan Radio Stations, 1957 . . . The Percentage of 35 Radio Stations Reporting Different Markets in Michigan, 1957 . . . . . . The Percent of Daily Newspapers Printing Live- stock.Market News by Days of the Week, MIChigan, 1957 e e e e o e e e e e e e e o o 0 Percent of Weekly Newspapers that PubliShed Livestock Market News, Michigan, 1957 . . . . The Percentage of Sample Farmers that Used Various Media for Livestock:Market News, Mich igan, 1957 O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 O The Percentage of Sample Farmers Using Various Media by Areas in.Michigan, 1957 . . . . . . . The Number of Farmers by Farm Type that Listen to Radio as a Source of Market News in Michigan, 1957 e e e e e e e o o e e e e e e e e e e e 0 ix PAGE l2 l5 17 21 23 2h 25 26 30 34 #1 43 Ah TABLE XIV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XXII. XXIII. XXIV. The Number of Livestock and Part-Time Farmers Using Radio as a Source of Live- stock Market News, Michigan, 1957 . . . . . . . The Number of Dairy and Part-Time Farmers Using Radio as a Source of Livestock Market News, MiChigafl, 1957 e e e e o e e o e e e o e The lumber of Farmers Using Daily Newspapers as a Source of Livestock Market News in Areas 2 and 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Number of Farmers Reading Weekly Papers in Areas 2 and 3 of Michigan, 1957 . . . . . . The Farmers Reading Newspapers as a Source of Market News by Farm Type, Michigan, 1957 . . . The Number of Area 2 and 3 Farmers which Listened to Morning and Noon Radio Reports, MiChigafl, 1957 e e e e e e e o e e e e e e e e The Number of Livestock and Dairy Farmers Listening to Morning and Noon Reports, MiChigafl, 1957 of. o e e e e e e e o e e e o o The Number of General and Dairy Farmers Listening to Morning and Noon Reports, Michigan, 1957 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Percentage of Farmers that Listened to the Various Radio Stations Serving Area 3 in 1957 o e e e e o e e e e e e e e e o e o e o The Percentage of Farmers Listing Radio and Newspaper as the Most Important Source of Livestock Market News, Michigan, 1957 . . . . . The Number of Farmers by Farm Type Listing Radio or Newspaper Most Important as a Market News Source for Cattle, Michigan, 1957 . . . . The Percentage of Farmers by Areas that Listed Radio and Newspapers as Most.Important Market News Source for Cattle, Michigan, 1957 . . . . PAGE AS #5 #7 #8 L9 51 52 52 56 5h 57 57 TABLE XXVI. XXVII. XXVIII. PAGE The Percentage of Farmers Listing Radio or Newspapers as the Most Important Source of Market News for Hogs, Michigan, 1957 . . . . 58 The Number of Farmers by Farm Type that Listed Radio or Newspaper as the Most Impor- tant Source of Market News for Hogs, MiChigan, 1957 e e e e e e o e e e e o e e e o 59 The Percentage of Farmers Listing Radio or Newspaper the Most Important Source of Market News for Hogs by Areas, Michigan, 1957 . . . . . 59 Kinds of Additional Information Sample Farmers Indicated They Needed, Michigan, 1957 . . . . . 61 xi LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE I. The Location of Seventeen Sample Counties - and Counties Not Included in.Michigan survey, 1957 o e o e e e e o e e e o o o o e o o .13 xii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Market Information Defined "Market information is a broad term used to designate all facts and their interpretation bearing on the present or prospective market value of commodities."1 Two divisions of market information are sometimes made. One is market news which concerns current market prices and conditions affecting these prices. The other is outlook information about expected prices and the expected demand and supply'oonditions for a commodity. Need for Livestock Market News Farmers, as well as trade personnel, use market news for making decisions. Based on price! expectations, they determine which market is most advantageous. Farmers' decisions on when and how much to produce and also where livestock should be marketed are based to some extent on price information,2 Marketing agencies also use market information in their buying and selling operations. 1Frederick L. Thomsen, Agricultural marketing, (MeGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 1951), p. 281. 2G. L. Johnson and C. B. Haver, Agricultural Informa- tion Patterns and Decision.Maki , (Michigan Angcultural ExperIment StaFIEn, Department 0% Agricultural Economics, Unpublished Mimeograph material), p. 25. 2 The livestock and meat industry has inherent charac- teristics in its marketing system causing market news to be essential to operational efficiency. Some of these charac— teristics have similarities to all agricultural products marketed and others are unique to this industry. Livestock is not a homogeneous product and wide variation exists in "quality" and value within a specie. Boundaries between official grades have been generally identified; however, prices paid vary at times as much with- in a grade as between them. Wide variations also appear for prices paid from day to day or week to week. Livestock prices generally have an inverse relationship to receipts. A result of wide varia- tions in livestock receipts is a considerable fluctuation of prices that occur both from.day to day and for seasonal or cycical periods. .Market information has a necessary role in maintaining more evenly distributed receipts. The livestock industry- mnst be informed about present and expected market conditions if the magnitude of these fluctuations is to be reduced. Development of the Market News Service A need was felt for market news during the Nineteenth Century. By the mid-1800's, many private concerns such as commission cempanies were distributing to their customers bulletins or news letters that stated prices paid for livestock by the buyers in their market. Much of this news 3 was biased and unstandardized.3 The terminology used was not uniform for the same types of animals and valid compari- sons could not be made between markets. During this time newspapers were started which would cover the market, report- ing prices and numbers of head sold during the trading day. Yet there was a need for a central agency to establish a system whereby standardized market information could be assembled and disseminated to the public. In 1916, Congress passed the agricultural appropria- tion bill which provided the Secretary of Agriculture with funds to collect, compile, and disseminate data to producers and distributors of livestock, meats and by-products, to promote more effective marketing. This philosophy still guides the Federal Market News Service today. 0. V. Wells, Administrator of the Agricul- tural Marketing Service, stated its purpose at the National Marketing Workshop in 1954. He stated that, "A more effi- cient marketing system for agricultural commodities and the products derived therefrom is desirable and insofar as pos- sible the state and federal agencies which the various members of this workshop represent should carry forward various activities as a means of assisting farmers and the private trade toward this end."lI 3A. Dowell and K. Bjorka, Livestock Marketing, (McGraw— Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 19El, p. 325. TMarketing Information, (A report of the National Marketing workshop, Cornell University, 195A, U. 8. Depart- ment of Agriculture, washington, D. C.), p. 36. A Present Market News Dissemination At present the Market News Service collects informa~ tion at three collection points and 28 public markets using about 11,000 miles of leased wire services for distribution of information. Radio stations and newspapers depend on this means of distribution as a principal source of live- stock market news. Private sources of information are still available for the livestock trade. Papers such as the Corn Belt Farmers Dailies, Inc., disseminate news about current prices, economic conditions, market tone, etc. These com~ panies use both Federal News Services and their own resources for collecting market information for dissemina- tion to their subscribers. Changing Patterns Direct buying of livestock in the Corn Belt and other areas increased steadily after‘World war I; and in 1929, marketing reporters were sent to interior areas of Iowa and southern.Minnesota to cover these activities. Today these reports are being compiled at three collection points for release. Many changes in buying patterns have also evolved in other areas of the country. In the Southwest, the buying of feeder cattle direct from ranches created a need for market 5 news coverage of these transactions.5 The Arizona Experi- ment Station designed a pilot project to collect and dissemi- nate news about range sales, the prices paid, and the number of animals involved. This was found very useful to stockmen and ranchers of the area. Michigan has had an increase in the livestock numbers marketed through auctions.6 Some preliminary work is now underway to establish represen- tative coverage of these markets and to make the current quotations available to radio and newspapers. Current Market News E Michigan Michigan has one terminal market which is located at Detroit. A federal reporter covers this market and a tale- type is used to report prices to the various disseminating agencies. Radio stations and newspapers have access to this service, and to news from other terminal markets reported by the service. Some of these terminal markets are Indianapolis, Chicago, and St. Louis. News from other sources are also available to mass media in.Michigan. Such market news originates from auctions or commission firms. One producer cooperative, The Michigan 5L. Stubblefield and R. Seltzer, The Arizona Cattle Market Report, (Agricultural Experiment Station, UniversIEy of Arizona, Report No. lh8, February 1957), pp. 1-9. 6Richard Gibb and Harold Riley, "Changing market Pat- terns for Slaughter Livestock in Southern.Michigan", Reprinted from.Qparterl¥ Bulletin, (Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, 1 c gan State University, Vol. #0, No. 3, pp.446— #59, February 1958). 6 Livestock Exchange, makes current prices available for dissemination by these agencies. At the time this study was initiated, the amount of livestock market news being disseminated to farmers was not well known, neither was the extent of use by them generally understood. Previous Studies of Livestock Market News Studies have been.made in other states and in.Michigan concerning the quality and use made of livestock market news. Charles A. Wilmot at Purdue University conducted research showing some uses farmers made of market informa— tion in Indiana.7 He found there was no significant difference in choice of markets used by farmers reading or not reading livestock market news from newspapers. A study in Texas, 1955, stated:8 "Most livestock men are unfamiliar with livestock grades by the United States Department of Agriculture on which all reporting is based. They were unable to relate the grades of their own livestock to the market reports." . 7Charles A. Wilmot, Accuracy and Adequagy 23 Livestock Market News ig Indiana, (Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, Purdue University, l95hI, p. 36. 8Walther and McNeely, Texas, 1955; Stewart H. Fowler, The Marketing 9£_Livestock and.Meats, (Interstate Publishers and Printers, Inc., Dansville, Illinois, 1957). 7 The authors also had difficulty in making inter- market comparisons. Both of these studies have been primarily concerned with the quality of reporting, and not the number of farmers using various media to obtain informa- tion. One research project in Ohio analyzed the farmers' use of outlook information through disseminating agencies.9 It was determined that farmers in this study used outlook information from newspapers and magazines much more than any other sources available. J. Smith10 conducted a study which determined the use farmers made of radio and newspapers. This study related such factors as formal education to reading or listening habits. This analysis also obtained criticisms that farmers had of radio and newspaper reports. Degree of commitment to farming was found by Smith to be directly related to the amount of market news used. Johnson and Haverll found farmers' decision processes influenced by market news. Thirty-eight percent of farmers 9Fh McCormick, Ms Smith, and R. Dougan, Sources 93 Economic Information Used By Farmers, (Ohio Angcultural Experiment Station, Wooster, Research Circular No. th, May 1957). 1OJ. Smith, "Michigan Farmers Use of Newspaper and Radio Market News", Reprinted from Quarterly Bulletig, (Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, V61. 38, No. A, May 1956). 11Johnson and Haver, Agricultural Information Pat- terns and Decision.Making, (Michigan Agricultural Experiment StaEIon, Mifihi an State University, Unpublished mimeograph material, 1956 , p. 528. 8 quarried stated price information was the most important type of information in setting up and operating their farms. It was ranked second in importance by 29 percent of the sample farmers with production information being first. This is indicative of market news importance to farm operators. Purpose and Objectives of This Study The purpose of this study was to appraise the adequacy of livestock market news dissemination in.Michigan with a view towards suggesting possible improvements. ' There are four main objectives of the study: (1) To determine the amount and kind of livestock market news disseminated through mass media. (2) To determine the extent to which farmers use livestock market news obtained from.the various sources. (3) To compare geographical areas with respect to I the use of livestock market news, and to compare variations in use of livestock market news between types of farming operations. (A) To suggest improvements in dissemination by comparing current availability with use. Two Sources of Data Used Two sources of data were used to analyze the use of livestock market news. One set of questionnaires were taken 9 from.farmers in Michigan, the second set from agencies disseminating market news. These agencies were located in Michigan, and included radio, television, daily and weekly newspapers. Usefulness g; the Study The results from this study could be helpful in reallocating public or private resources in the collection and dissemination of livestock market news. The study shows the media that farmers use for market information and the markets from which the information originated. The study may be helpful in guiding decisions whether to increase the expenditures for more terminal market news or whether greater resources should be appropriated to cover a greater number of local markets. Radio and newspaper farm editors may use such information as a basis for reallocation of time and space now devoted to livestock market news. CHAPTER II SOURCE AND NATURE OF DATA Introduction Information included in this study was gathered from two sources. One survey was taken from.farmers in.Midhigan on their use of livestock market news. The other survey was conducted to determine the amounts and kinds of live- stock news various disseminating agencies reported. The farm survey obtained data concerning farmers' use of different media for obtaining livestock market news. It also obtained the kind of market information, and the time of day the news was received. The survey of the various media included radio, tele- vision and newspaper businesses. Its purpose was to deter- mine the days of the week news was reported, the time of day for radio and television programs, and the markets which were included in the reports. The Farm Survey The data for this study was obtained from the farm survey which was part of a regional livestock marketing study, "An Analysis of the Changing Patterns of Livestock ll Marketing."l It was conducted in twelve of the North Central States. The study was constructed as a two phase project with phase 1 designed to determine where, how, when and why farmers market their livestock. Section A of the farm.survey questionaire dealt with the use farmers made of livestock market news. Questions asked farmers pertained to their use of media such as radio, newspaper, telephone, personal interview and farm.magazines as a source of livestock market news. (A sample of the questionaire appears in the appendix). Sampling Procedure The sampling procedures were developed by the North Central Livestock Marketing Research Committee in consulta- tion with Dr. Virgil Anderson, Purdue University Statisti- cian. The-author did not participate in the sampling plan, nor the design of the farm.schedule. Farms to be contacted were selected by an area probability sampling procedure.2 The overall sampling rate for the survey was .005 percent. Sample segments were drawn after Michigan had been strati- fied into three major geographical areas, and counties 1Project 518 (NCM-18)An Anal sis of the Chan in Patterns of Livestock markets-Infi gan Pro 3ect Outline lfiéghigan Agricultural Experiment Station Unpublished er 2United States Department of Agriculture, FApplica- tion of Probability Areas Sampling to Farm Surveys," Agr - cul ral Handbook No. _1, The United States Government PrIn%Ing Office, Washington, D. C., may l95h. 12 within these areas grouped by the volume of livestock sales. Certain counties were omitted from the sample area due to sparseness of livestock production, or urbanization. (See Figure I). Schedules were included from the sample area farms for this study if: (1) more than $150 of products were nor- mally sold from.the farm per year, and (2) they sold at least one head of livestock during the year 1956. The three geographic areas as stratified in the sampling procedure show considerable differences in economic characteristics of agriculture. (See Table I) TABLE I ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF MICHIGAN* Percent Total Percent of Total Value of Area of Land Number Farms Selling Livestock Sold in Farms of Farms Livestock Thousand Percent - Dollars 1 12.2 8,231 68.9 R 2,090 2.2 2 35.1 25.953 66.6 13.325 lh.0 3 7ho6 10h.735 61.2 79.590 83.3 State Totals h5.l 138,922 62.6 95,005 100.0 *Source: l95h Census of Agriculture ‘Area 1 has the fewest farms, and only 12.2 percent of its total land area in farms. The largest percentage of farms sold livestock for any of the three areas, but the value of this livestock was only about two percent of that sold for the entire state. It, l 3 RAND MPNALLY LOOSE LEAF OUTLINE MAP MICHIGAN PICURB 1 . ourouacou The Location of 17 Sample Counties ' and Counties not Included in Tichigan Survey, 1057 "'°" GOOEBIC I. q. ..\|'e IWUS\Q. WIS C 0 NS I N CANADA WISCONSIN c: 1717') l e Countlc TNot in sample Area $3533 ISABELLA mouse - I I I —1 I I — J " - 1.4 1337? 6?- 'iellc‘lullw C O -'_--—‘ _ _ _| _!_ . _I;'mm‘ iulrun W {Eli-vow ISHMWASSEF MIG—.M 'Teiullw ' _L l S‘I'JOSEPH I l‘“ ' true'n'l I N D I A N A The numbe s in sample counties desicnate the number of schedules taken. 30 Q I. ”III.” no: In as... This Map is also available in size 17x22 057 03 021 1h Area 2 has somewhat greater agricultural importance than Area 1 in that thirty-five percent of its acreage is farm land. It contains three times as many farms, and sold about seven times the dollar volume of livestock as Area 1 or one-seventh the total dollar value for Michigan. Area 3 is the state's most important agricultural area. Three quarters of the land is farm land, containing over one hundred thousand farms. Its livestock sales amounted to eighty-three percent of Michigan's livestock sales. Area analysis was retained in this study to determine if any significant differences occurred between areas. There is a larger number of livestock sold in Area 33than in the northern areas, (one and two) Which may or may not be assoCiated with more news coverage of the markets in this area. More detailed geographical divisions of the data were considered impractical, in most cases, since problems appeared in analysis of the data as a result of too few observations. The largest number of schedules were taken from Area 3. The agricultural importance of Areas 1 and 2 were less than Area 3, and the number of schedules taken were ordered accordingly. (See Figure I). 3Richard Gibb and Harold Riley, "Changing Market Patterns for Slaughter Livestock in Southern Michigan", Reprinted from Quarterly Bulletin (Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station,7MfChigan State University, Vol. 40, No. 3, February 1958) pp. 40-48. 15 TABLE II THE NUMBER OF FARM SCHEDULES TAKEN BY AREAS IN MICHIGAN, 1957 Area Number of Schedules Number of Counties Entered l 13 2 2 83 6 3 311 9 Total 407 17 Of the total schedules taken, 76 percent of the completed schedules came from Area 3, 21 percent from Area 2, and 3 percent from Area 1. Survey Procedures Personal interview was the method used to acquire the information. The three enumerators interviewing the farmers were college graduates with farm background and agricultural training. The interviewing was done during the first four months of 1957 before the spring farm work had started. Questions were answered by most farmers. In some areas farmers did not answer all the questions aSked in the market news section. Enumerators were noted to give less attention to certain questions than others. Most questions, except the "open end" questions, had an adequate number of replies for analysis. The "open end" question, which asked, "What additional information is needed?" was answered none or left unanswered by a large percentage of the farmers. 16 Methods of Tabulation and Analysis Questionaires were edited and coded by the author for the market news section. Schedule information was then transferred to I.B.M. cards. Hand tabulation was used to assemble the information concerning the radio stations used by farmers. Data grouping by farm type was hand tabulated. I.B.M. sorting was used for area grouping of data. Area comparisons were made for the use of the various media. Not all comparisons between areas, however, were reliable due to lack of observations. It was hypothesized that the amount of income derived from various enterprises would affect the amount of news used by farmers. Compari- sons were then made by type of farm. These farm types were: dairy, livestock, general and part time. Farms were classi- fied according to the percentage of income from those enter- prises: Livestock farm - 30 percent or more of the 1956 gross farm income came from livestock sales, and less than 50 percent from non-farm sources. Dairy farm - less than 30 percent of the 1956 gross farm income came from livestock sales, but over 30 percent came from dairy sales, excluding dairy animals, and less than 50 percent from non-farm income. General farm - less than 30 percent of the 1956 gross income from livestock sales, but over 30 percent from crop sales, and less than 50 percent from non-farm income. 17 Part-time farm - more than 50 percent of the 1956 gross family income from.non farm sources. This classification was made regardless of income derived from the other farm enterprises. To be consistent when grouping multiple enterprise farms where income came from.all sources, livestock sales were given first priority. Dairy farms were given priority over general farms. Farms with 50 percent or more of the farm income from.non-farm sources were considered part-time farms regardless of percentage stated in other categories. TABLE III THE NUMBER OF FARMERS BY FARM TYPE FROM FARM SURVEY IN MICHIGAN, 1957 Areas Type of Farm 1 2 3 Total Livestock 0 21 82 103 Dairy 10 28 123 161 Part-time 3 26 81 110 General 0 8 25 33 Total 13 83 311 407 Dairy farmers were found to be the largest group in the survey. Part-time and livestock farmers had nearly the same number of farms found in this classification. The smallest group was the general farmers which had thirty-three farmers in the sample. 18 Survey of Agencies Disseminating Market Information Two Questionnaires Two mail questionnaires were used to obtain data from the agencies disseminating market information. One question- naire was designed for newspaper and the second for radio and television. (For samples of these questionnaires refer to appendix). Both schedules were designed for ease in answer- ing with intentions for a high return. The lists of newspapers, radio and television sta- tions were obtained from.Michigan State University Informa- tion Services. These businesses were sent the schedule in August, 1957. After each manager or editor had had two weeks to complete and return the questionnaire, a "follow up" was posted to each non-respondent. No difference: was observed in the percentage of schedules returned which did not report livestock market news in the'follow-up" than in the original questionnaire. 23111 Newspapers There are 57 daily newspapers published in.Michigan. Twenty-three papers, selected to correspond with the farm survey area, were sent questionnaires. Newspapers that served counties not having a daily newspaper located within its boundaries were also contacted. (See Figure l). Eighteen dailies responded to the survey with sixteen (89 percent) reporting dissemination of livestock market news. 19 Weekly Newspapers Three-hundred and three newspapers are published in Michigan at semi-weekly or weekly intervals. Since weekly papers existed within each of the seventeen counties involved in the survey, no weekly publications outside these counties were included. There were seventy-one weekly newspapers contacted, with sixty-eight percent responding. This portion of the "mail in" survey had the lowest return of the four kinds of agencies sent question- aires. No reason could be noted by the author for this lower percentage, but it was observed that the "follow-up" in this case did not have the effect which it had with radio, television and daily newspapers. Radio Survey The selection of radio stations to be contacted was not limited to those located within the seventeen-county farm.survey area. A number of stations outside the survey area were included, because it was known that they disseminated livestock market news over a large area of the state. In selection, consideration was given to the stations' operat- ing power.“ Forty-four radio stations located in.Michigan were included in the survey. The return was eighty-eight percent. Data from these schedules revealed that thirty- five stations have at least one broadcast of livestock hInformation about the stations surveyed was avail- able from Michigan State University Information Services, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 20 market news daily or a broadcast in which livestock market news is given as a regular daily feature. Television Survey A The survey of television stations was the smallest with only twelve stations being asked to complete a schedule. The schedule sent was the same as the one used for radio. The procedure in selecting the stations can- tacted was also the same. There were ten television stations reporting from.twelve stations contacted for a return of 83 percent. From.these stations only five were reporting livestock market news daily, while the remaining stations did not broadcast any livestock news either in conjunction with a news cast or separately as a livestock market report. Response 59 Survengg Disseminating Agencies The overall response was considered good for this type of survey. The lowest return.was sixty-eight percent for weekly newspapers. The highest return was from.radio stations (eighty-eight percent). 21 TABLE IV THE RETURN 0N "MAIL-IN" SURVEY FOR DIssmllINA'I'ING AGENCIES, MICHIGAN, 1957 Total Number Number Returning Percent Media V Contacted Schedules Returned Radio #4 39 88.6 Television 12 10 83.3 Daily Papers 23 18 78.3 Weekly Papers 71 L8 63.A Non-Response Bias No attempt was made after the "follow-up” letter to determine the non-response bias. The percentage return_ (see Table IV) was considered high. If assumed that those, papers or stations not responding did so because they do not publish livestock market news, then there would be an . upward bias in the data. If assumed that the non-respondents were like the seventy to eighty percent which did respond, but Just failed to comply, then bias is not significant. This was implicitly assumed in this study. CHAPTER III LIVESTOCK.MARKET NEWS AVAILABLE TO MICHIGAN FARMERS Introduction The results of a survey of livestock market news disseminating agencies are presented in this chapter. Schedules were obtained from 39 radio stations, 10 tele- vision stations, 18 daily newspapers, and t8 weekly news- papers. The survey procedure used to obtain these schedules was described in Chapter II. The purpose of the survey was to determine the kinds and amounts of livestock market news being disseminated by the various agencies. Radio The radio survey disclosed that of the thirty-nine radio stations that responded, thirty-five were reporting at least one livestock market news broadcast daily. Seventy-seven percent of the stations surveyed were located Within Area 3. 23 TABLE V THE NUMBER AND PERCENT OF 39 RADIO STATIONS REPORTING LIVESTOCK MARKET NEWS IN MICHIGAN, 1957 Number of Number of Percent of Area Stations Stations Reporting Stations Reporting Responding, Livestock News Livestock News l 2 2 100 2 7 5 7l.h 3 30 28 93-3 Total 39 35 90 Because there are many more radio stations in Area 3, as shown in Table V, farmers in Area 3 have more alternatives as to which station they rely on for this information. Areas 1 and 2 have fewer stations for their area size. 11193 of Broadcasts Farmers who are engaged in certain enterprises such as dairying, raising livestock, cash crop farming or those farmers working part or full time off the farm have work schedules requiring only certain hours when broadcasts will be received.1 Because of these work habits one might expect certain hours would have a larger number of farm listeners for a market news broadcast than would other times on a broadcasting schedule. The air time alloted for market 1Received, in this case, carries the meaning of listening by farmers to that broadcast. 2h reports and the time of day which news is disseminated varies between stations. The majority of these broadcasts in Michigan fall into two time periods. The morning hours from 5 a.m. to 8 a.m. and the noon hours from 12 p.m. to l p.m. TABLE VI BROADCAST HOURS FOR LIVESTOCK MARKET NEWS BY DAYS OF WEEK, 35 MICHIGAN RADIO STATIONS, 1957 Number of Stations Broadcasting Morning Hours Afternoon Hours Days of Week 5-6 6-7 7-8 11-12 12-1 1-2 5-6 Monday A 8 A 0 26 l A Tuesday A 8 5 l 28 l A Wednesday A 8 5 0 29 1 A Thursday A 7 5 0 28 l A Friday A 8 5 O 26 l A Saturday 3 6 3 0 ll 0 0 Table VI shows the number of broadcasts given at various time periods of a day, and it contains all stations which have one or more broadcasts daily. The noon hour was the most often used, with over half the daily reports broadcast between 12 p.m. and l p.m. The morning hour from 6 to 7 a.m. ranked second to the noon hour. This probably is the breakfast hour or milking time for most farmers. The other 2 hours of the ' morning period, and also the 5-6 evening hour had about the same number of broadcasts. 25 Number of Broadcasts Daily Stations surveyed gave from one to four livestock market news broadcasts daily (Table VII). TABLE VII NUMBER OF LIVESTOCK MARKET NEWS BROADCASTS GIVEN BY 35 MICHIGAN RADIO STATIONS, 1957 Number of Stations Giving Specified Number of Broadcasts Day of Week One Two Three Four Monday 18 7 5 A Tuesday ' l7 9 A 1 Wednesday 20 8 5 0 Thursday 18 8 5 0 Friday 19 7 5 0 Saturday 15 A 0 0 On any given weekday about fifty-three percent of the radio stations reporting livestock market news gave one broadcast. Two broadcasts were given by 22 percent of the radio stations on that day, and 3 reports were given by an average 1A percent of the stations. Only one station gave A reports which was on Tuesday, and no single day of the week had 100 percent of all radio stations giving at least one broadcast of livestock market news. Wednesday was the day which had the highest number of broadcasts given. Coverage of Detroit and Chicago terminal markets during week days is given in a nearly equal number of reports. Reports on one-day a-week auctions cause variation in the first two columns of Table VII. 26 Markets Covered The thirty-five radio stations which report market news to farmers were found to assemble news from two major types of markets. These two market types were terminals and auction markets. TABLE VIII THE PERCENTAGE OF 35 RADIO STATIONS REPORTING DIFFERENT MARKETS IN.MICHIGAN, 1957 Market Number of Stations Percent Detroit 21 60 Chicago 20 57 Local Auctions 18 51 Packing Plants 1 3 Other 11 31 Sixty percent of the radio stations reported quota- tions from the Detroit Market and fifty-seven percent reported the Chicago Market as compared with fifty-one percent disseminating local auction prices. Auctions were grouped under one heading because no single auction was reported by more than two stations. More than one market is reported by many of the stations which offers farmers better coverage than those stations sending only one market's prices. The category ”other" included stations which gave market news from markets such as Fort Wayne, Indiana; St. Louis, Missouri; sources such as national farm prices; and some prices from various aaoperative organizations. The co-operative most 27 often mentioned was the Michigan LivestockExchange2 in Battle Creek, Michigan. Sources 9; News Disseminated BI.B§S£2 Eighty-six percent of the stations disseminating livestock market news accumulated it by teletype. Both Detroit and Chicago public stockyards, where the United States Department of Agriculture has a reporter, are the origin for leased wire news. Teletype was the source given by stations for terminal market news, except for WJR in Detroit which receives news by telephone from the terminal market. Fifteen of the thirty-five stations also used their own arrangements for collecting livestock market news. Twelve of these fifteen stations used their own arrangements to obtain auction news. The remaining three were used for gathering livestock market news from other sources. Five stations used tape recordings of the sale in progress, and three used mailed reports from auction managers. Fourteen stations used the telephone for obtaining livestock news from auctions. Seven radio stations in the survey used their own reporters to cover local markets in addition to using teletype. 2The Michigan Livestock Exchange is a farmercuropera- tive with auctions in Battle Creek and St. Louis. This exchange also operates a commission firm.at Detroit Stock- yards, a feeder cattle yard at Adrian, and concentration yards at Homer, Portland and Schoolcraft, Michigan. 28 Farmers that do not have their local auction covered and reported by a disseminating agency can get prices only through neighbors or personal attendance at the auction. Use 2£_"Market Round Upngrograms Thirty-seven percent of the radio stations surveyed gave a resume of the happenings in the markets for the pre- ceeding week. In this study such a resume will be referred to as ”market round up." These reports are usually given Saturday at the noon broadcast. WMarket round ups" are usually broadcast by the station news editors, county agents or news reporters. One station has a telephone report with a market reporter direct from Chicago, while other stations generallyxresent a prepared release. All round up programs, but one, are broadcast in Area 3. Area 2 and Area 1 have little coverage of this type, except farmers with radio receivers powerful enough to receive transmissions from.Area 3. Anticipated Changes 2; Programs bnggggg In answer to the question, ”Are you considering any changes in livestock market news coverage?”,eighty percent of the stations reported they did not intend to change programming in the foreseeable future. The other 20 per- cent indicated they were planning to change in some way. Stations considering changes contemplated increasing the amount of time devoted to news, adding coverage of another 29 market, or inaugurating a livestock market news broadcast to their listening audience. None of the stations ana- sidering a change indicated they intended to drop a report or discontinue reporting market news from their program. However, three stations said they were undecided at the present time whether to increase or decrease market news dissemination but that a change was being considered. Television Questionnaires were sent to twelve television stations which served the area of the farm survey. Ten of these sta- tions responded. Five of the ten television stations had at least one market news report. The noon hour was given most frequently as the time of the report. Morning reports were second in frequency to the noon reports. Only one station carried market news during the evening hour. This pattern of broadcasting market news is the same as the pattern for radio. Television stations, without exception, broadcast the same markets that were covered by radio stations. Two stations used Chicago prices only, and one station used Detroit price exclusively, with the remaining two stations broadcasting both markets. One station gave Indianapolis and St. Louis quotations, but these were only the top prices, not a price range of grades. Auctions were not reported by television stations except occasionally by one station in Area 2. 30 Methods used, by television stations for collecting market news, were teletype and telephone. Only two stations reported the use of telephone. Use of their own reporters and of postal service for market coverage has not been developed because of the time alloted for this service. All stations indicated they did not plan changing their pnagramming. One Area 2 station said they might include livestock market news if they expanded morning telecasting. Newspapers Sixteen of the eighteen daily newspapers responding to the survey printed livestock market news (Table IX). This news is printed in most papers 5 days a week. The amount of news that papers printed for week end reading dropped con- siderably. Mainly, these are recaps of the market for the past week's activities. TABLE II THE PERCENT OF DAILY NEWSPAPERS PRINTING LIVESTOCK MARKET NEWS BY DAYS OF THE WEEK, MIQIIGAN, 1957 Days of the Week Number of Newspapers Percent Monday 15 83 Tuesday 16 89 Wednesday 16 89 Thursday 16 89 Frida l5 8 Saturgay 5 28 Sunday 3 l6 31 No attempt has been made here to study the quality of reporting, or the amount of space alloted to livestock market news in daily newspapers. Rather an attempt was made to determine if the area which was covered in the farmers survey had news from this media at their disposal. gpp_Markets Reported When asked what markets were reported in their publi- cation, thirteen publishers said they carried the Chicago market, and thirteen carried the Detroit market. Nine dailies carried both markets. All papers which printed livestock market news reported terminal market quotations. Four daily papers carry prices from auctions. Three of these papers are located in Area 3 and one in Area 2. The three papers in Area 3 that published local auction news were in cities of smaller populations, and not die larger highly industrialized cities of the area. These papers were located in Lenawee, Hillsdale, and Calhoun Counties. Three dailies print prices and numbers of livestock handled by the Michigan Livestock Exchange. This news appeared in dailies which have many readers near a Michigan Livestock Exchange -euc ti on. Only one newspaper published news about prices paid by a packer buyer. This "daily" was located a considerable distance from a terminal market, and this alternative market assumes greater importance in this area. 32 Sources 3; Information All newspapers in the survey received most of their market news from teletype. The three news services were listed as the source. The actual source, for this informa- tion sent over leased wire, originates from.the Market News Service of United States Department of Agriculture at various terminal markets. Telephone was listed second as a means of procure- ment of news by the dailies. Five publications used this method, these being the same dailies printing market news from local auctions, and the packer buyers. The other two dailies that gave local market news to their readers employed "mail-in" reports from.the markets. Outlook Dissemination Ten of the eighteen daily newspapers in the survey stated they printed outlook infommation. This "Outlook information" consisted of expected prices, supply of feed, numbers of head on range, etc. which affect future prices. Nine daily papers publishing outlook information were located in Area 3, and one daily in Area 2. Areas 1 and 2 farmers must then depend on other sources such as weekly newspapers, farm.magazines and outlook circulars for this type of information. 33 Sources 9: Outlook Three sources of outlook information were listed by respondents. These sources were teletype, Michigan State University Information Services, and others. The last cate- gory included sources such as county agents, farm editors, etc. Eight daily newspapers used teletype and eight used Michigan State University Information Services releases as their source. Two papers used "other" sources for outlook information besides the previous two sources. Changes ip Dissemination The daily papers in this survey indicated that they do not anticipate a change in their present pattern of dissemina- tion. Two respondents said they were uncertain whether changes would come about, and they did not know what the changes would be. They did not indicate either decreasing or increasing the amount of market news, but they were anti- cipating plans for a future change. Weekly Newspapers Weekly newspapers were surveyed to determine the hump bers reporting market news and outlook information. Many weekly papers are read as a second paper by farm families, and are an important source of local news and activities of the community it serves. Forty-eight weekly papers answered the questionnaire. This was a return of sixty—eight percent of the total 3h weekly papers in the sample area. Thirty-three percent answering the survey published livestock market news. (Tabler). TABLE X PERCENT OF WEEKLY NEWSPAPERS THAT PUBLISHED LIVESTOCK MARKET NEWS, MICHIGAN, 1957 Publishing Market News Area Number Reporting Number Percent l 1' l 100 2 7 A 57 3 A0 11 __ 28 Total A8 16 33 Seventy-one percent of the weekly newspapers that reported market news printed for release on Thursday. Other days which were listed for release were Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday. The greatest number of auctions are held on Monday, and the greatest number of weekly papers published on Thursday, therefore the prices are three days old before a reader receives them. Thus the real value of news received by farmers from weekly newspapers is compara- tive prices between auctions in the area. The market news reported by weeklies originated at auctions except two papers which reported news from commission firms. News from this source was likely to be terminal news from.Detroit and Chicago. 35 Weekly newspapers are not suited to the publication of terminal market news, except as a summary of prices quoted for the past week. Weekly newspapers vary from daily newspapers in methods used to gather livestock information. No weekly newspaper used teletype for this purpose or listed as having used it for any news gathering. Most weekly papers are concerned with local happenings, therefore, teletype is not available for livestock market news. Twenty-five percent of the weekly papers used their own reporters, while 12 percent used telephone for receiving market news for publi- cation. The remaining 63 percent listed their own arrange- ments such as "mail-in” reports and price lists from auctioneers. I From the questionnaire it was found that fourteen (31 percent) of the papers in the survey carry outlook information. In Area 3 outlook information was available in weekly newspapers through twelve of the fourteen publica- tions. Area 2 had two sources available to farmers through this media. Thus a few farmers are able to obtain outlook information through weekly newspapers. The weeklies have no disadvantage as compared with daily papers for publica- tion of outlook information on livestock. Short-term fore- casting can be as useful from papers if they are released four or five days later then when included in daily publica— tions. For this reason it was felt that weeklies could play an important role in disseminating this form of market news to producers. 36 Respondents were queried to the source of outlook infor- mation published. One hundred percent of those Which report outlook information said they used Information Services at Michigan State University while 28 percent also listed another source. The regular news service outlook informa- tion and terminal market news was not available to weekly papers through teletype. Fourteen percent of the weeklies indicated a plan for changing the coverage of livestock markets. Two papers' editors were undecided as to what plan to pursue, to increase or decrease it. Three papers indicated a desire to publiSh more information provided it was made available from some source. Only one weekly wished to add outlook to what they were presently printing. Summary Livestock market news based on terminal market quota- tions are receiving wide dissemination by radio and news- papers. To a lesser extent price information from local auctions are being made available to farmers. However, there is reason to question the usefulness of such local auction news reports. These reports are often incomplete, lacking price ranges, weights, and grades thus having less value than reports that contain these features. Radio broadcasts are available to all farmers surveyed. Even though not all stations broadcast livestock market news the percentage is high enough that most farmers 37 can receive more than one broadcast. Their choice of stations appears to be determined only by personal prefer- ences to such criteria as the announcer, the way he presents news, and station reception.3 The largest number of reports occurred at two periods of the day, 5 to 8 a.m. and 12 to 1 p.m. These seem to be the hours which have greatest potential listening audience, corresponding closely with the prevailing work patterns of farmers. The evening hour from 5 to 6 is used by some stations and may also have a large rural audience. Most stations use teletype as a method of collecting livestock market news. This method is used primarily for terminal market prices and general outlook information supplied by the Agricultural Marketing Service reporters. Radio stations reported use of tape recordings at local auctions as a means of gathering price data. Stations also reported use of "mail-in" reports as a method of market coverage. The latter two methods of collecting data could give a comprehensive coverage of a market, however, if not properly administered they are often used to report a farmers sale or top grades and prices.h 3For more information on these points see: J. Smith, ”Michigan Farmers Use of Market News," (Reprinted from Quarterly Bulletin of Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, Vol. 38, No. A, pp. 612 to 627) May 1956, p. 622. “Stanton P. Parry, "An Analysis of Michigan's Livestock Auction Industry" (Unpublished Masters Thesis, Michigan State College) 1953. p. 98. 38 Television has probably not reached its potential in dissemination of livestock market news. Many stations are in larger cities that have a low percentage of farmers as an audience. Some of the out state stations do give market news. There are 5 stations serving the farmers with live- stock market news reports. No station anticipated changing its programming to include livestock market news, and none indicated any retraction in amounts given. Television stations used teletype almost exclusively as their source of market news. One station in Area 2 did list reporting auction prices occasionally. The daily newspapers are anoflner important source of livestock market news information for farmers. Only two papers in.the study did not report livestock market news. Most of their coverage is the terminal market the same as radio and television. Auctions were quoted in four papers with three located in Area 3, close to the one auction reported. The fourth paper was located in Area 2. Most large cities do not collect and print auction.market news, however, there is no estimation of the number that would disseminate it if it were provided. No change was anticipated in the dissemination of livestock market news by the editors that responded. Percentage-wise fewer weekly newspapers publish livestock market news than do the daily newspapers. ‘Most weekly 39 papers publish auction and local market prices, and not terminal prices.5 All weekly papers use "mail-in" reports and their own reporters as methods for collecting news from.auctions. These methods differ from the other media which depend largely on teletype for market coverage. 5One weekly paper did print terminal news. CHAPTER IV THE USE or LIVESTOCK MARKET NEWS BY MICHIGAN mamas Introduction The use1 of livestock market news by farmers is presented in this chapter. The survey data were taken from farmers in seventeen Michigan Counties and was a part of a regional survey concerning livestock marketing patterns within the North Central region. The sample was described in greater detail in Chapter II. N Four major questions about livestock market news were answered from the questionnaire. These questions were: (1) What sources of market news are used by farmers? (2) What markets were reported by these sources? (3) What sources are most useful to farmers for marketing hogs, and what sources are most useful for cattle? (A) What additional information is needed? ' Geographic location could affect the use of market news. This was tested for the number of farmers that use or do not use market: ' news between the northern and southern half of Michigan. 'The time of day which farmers listen to radio reports between areas was also tested. It was 1Use as it appears in this study will mean listening to a radio broadcast or reading a news publication. Al hypothesized that if the type of enterprise did influence the use of livestock market news, then livestock farmers would use more livestock market news than would dairy, general and part-time farmers, and.dairy farmers wolld use more market reports than general and part-time farmers. The relative importance of various type markets, and the most useful source of livestock market news for cattle and hogs were analyzed. Farmers Use of Available Sources . Radio and newspaper are the two most important sourcegz of livestock market news. The percentages of farmers using these two media were found to be eighty-one percent for radio and sixty-one percent for newspapers. Farmers use of radio and newspapers were compared with the use they made of farm.magazines, personal interviews and telephone. TABLE XI TEE PERCENTAGE OF emu: FARMERS THAT USED VARIOUS MEDIA FOR LIVESTOCK MARKET NEWS, MICHIGAN. 1957 Number of Media Farmers Using Percent Radio 330 81 Newspaper 2A7 61 Telephone 39 9 Personal Interview 77 19 Farm Magazines 163 A0 2Source infers the media from which the dissemination occurred and not its origin as used in Chapter III. #2 Farm.magazines were ranked third with forty percent of the farmers obtaining information from.this source. (See Table II.) Farm magazines do not usually give current price quotations from markets. The bulk of livestock market information from.this source is outlook information or other market information. However, in a few instances, price quotations from farm.magazines were listed by farmers. Percentag§_Using Different Sources by.Area There was no significant difference in the proportion of farmers listening to radio for livestock market news in Area 2 as compared with Area 33. Similarly, the proportion of farmers listing newspapers as a source of market news was not different between these two areas. It was concluded that the proportion of farmers using radio and newspaper as a source of market news was not related to geographic location within the lower peninsula of Michigan. Farm magazines were read by a significantly higher percentage of farmers in Area 1 and 2 as compared with the percentage in Area 3. Telephone and personal interview were omitted from area comparisons due to lack of observa- tions 0 3The Chi-Square test was applied to determine if any significant difference existed between the two areas (2 and 3) for radio and newspapers. 3 I... 4m 00a ma 5m NH mm 00 wwa mm #mm Ham m mm as mm ma m 4; mm we mm. mo mm m .3 w w H o 0 mm .3 mm 3 me. a ImeOHm .oz pamonmm .oz uncono .02 .oz pcoonmm .oz mnefinmh so: .‘meaflmommfi 263.8de econ mama mum a $52 0.23m no nonSdz anew Hgomnonw R3 .zeSEHa 5 mg em «Sea 26ng efimp mega macaw so mafizaommm as HHN amass hh mammamam It was hypothesized that the type of farm operations would be related to the amount of market news used by farmers. The data were grouped into four types of farmers. These four types were the same as discussed in Chapter II. It was further hypothesized that the livestock farmers would use a greater percentage of livestock market news than any of the other three. Likewise dairy farmers would use more than general farmers, and general farmers a greater percent— age than part-time farmers. A significant difference was found in testing to determine if the proportion of farmers listening to radio for market news differs among different "types” of farms. TABLE XIII THE NUMBER OF FARMERS BY FARM TYPE THAT LISTEN TO RADIO As A SOURCE or MARKET NEWS IN MICHIGAN, 1957 Listen Don't Listen Total Livestock 89 13 102 Dairy 125 20 145 General 29 7 36 Part-time 74 33 107 X2 = 15.09 at 3 d.f. significant at .99 level 0f the four types of farms considered, livestock and dairy farmers used radio most as a source of livestock #5 market news. Both livestock (87 percent) and dairy farmers (86 percent) had a larger percentage of farmers that listen to radio for livestock market news than did general farmers (81 percent) and part-time farmers (69 percent), which ranked third and fourth respectively. A significantly higher proportion of livestock and dairy farmers were found to use radio reports as a source of livestock market news than part-time farmers. TABLE XIV THE NUMBER OF LIVESTOCK AND PART-TIME FARMERS USING RADIO AS A SOURCE OF.LIVESTOCK MARKET NEWS Listen Don't Listen Total Livestock 89 . 13 102 Part-Time 7h 33 107 Total. 163 A6 209 X2 = 10.06 at 1 d.f. significant at .99 level TABLE XV THE NUMBER OF DAIRY AND PART—TIME FARMERS USING RADIO AS A SOURCE OF LIVESTOCK MARKET NEWS Listen Don't Listen Total Dairy 125 20 lh5 Part-Time 74 33 107 Total 199 53 252 X2 = 10.78 at 1 d.f. significant at .99 level 1+6 The other four possible combinations tested were not significant. These were: Dairy and General; Dairy and Livestock; Livestock and General; Part-Time and General. The hypothesis that type of farm operations influences the use of market news can be accepted, but with reservation. When livestock and dairy farmers, the greatest users of livestock market news, were tested with the lowest users (part-time farmers) the test showed a significant difference. General farmers were nearly average for the entire group and no significant difference was noted between them and the part-time farmers. The extremes are significantly different and the ordering shows a relationship between farm types and radio listening for market information. This was con- sistant with the hypothesis. Egg 9; Newspaper by_égea Daily newspaper reading by farmers was also analyzed. Two hypotheses were tested that paralleled the ones tested for radio listening. 1. If geographic location influences the use of livestock market news between areas, then the proportion of farmers giving newspapers as a source of market news would be greater in Area 3 than in Area 2. 2. If type of farm influenced livestock market news use, then livestock farmers would read more dailies than would dairy; dairy more than general farmers; and general more than part-time farmers. #7 Due to lack of observations in Area 1 no statisti- cal tests were made comparing the percent of farmers using newspapers for market news with other areas. No significant difference was found between Areas 2 and 3 in the proportion of farmers using daily newspapers as a source for livestock market news. One area does not have a higher proportion of readers to non-readers of daily newspapers than does the other area. TABLE XVI THE NUMBER OF FARMERS USING DAILY NEWSPAPERS AS A SOURCE OF LIVESTOCK MARKET NEWS IN AREAS 2 AND 3 Read Don't Read Total Area 3 189 122 311 Area 2 L6 37 83 Total 235 159 39h X2 = .82 at l d.f. not significant There were more daily newspapers located in Area 3 than in Area 2, yet the percentage of farmers reading market news from them.was not enough greater to be signifi- cant. The first hypothesis (that location does influence reading) must be rejected and the alternative (that location does not influence reading) must be accepted. #8 The use of weekly newspaper was tested between Areas 2 and 3. Twelve percent of the Area 2 farmers read weekly newspapers, and only four percent read weeklies as a source of livestock market news in Area 3. TABLE XVII THE NUMBER OF FARMERS READING WEEKLY PAPERS IN AREAS 2 AND 3 OF MICHIGAN, 1957 Read Don't Read Total .Area 2 10 '73 33 Area 3 12 299 311_ Total 22 .372 394 '12: 8.49 at l d.f. Significant at .99 level Weekly newspapers were used to a significantly greater extent by farmers in Area 2 than Area 3. This might indi- cate the importance of auction markets in Area 2, market information that weekly papers publish. Egg 9; Newspaper by Eggg 2122 The second hypothesis, that farm type influences the amount of livestock market news used, was tested. The pattern of daily newspaper use by farm type was similar to the pattern for radio listening. Dairy farmers differed from other types of farms. Fifty-five percent of the dairy farmers read daily newspapers. Sixty-seven per- cent of the livestock farmers read daily newspapers for livestock market news which was the highest percentage of the four groups. Sixty-four percent of the part-time #9 farmers and sixty percent of the general farmers read daily papers for livestock market news. These four groups did not vary appreciably, and no significant difference was found (Table XVIII). TABLE XVIII THE FARMERS READING NEWSPAPERS AS A.SOURCE OF MARKET NEWS BY FARM TYPES, MICHIGAN, 1957 Type of Farm Read Don't Read Total Dairy 83 '68 151 Livestock 68 3h 102 General 21 1A 39 Part-Time 68 ' 39 107 Total 2&0 15h 39h I? a 3.97 at 3 d.f. not significant The hypothesis must be rejected and the alternative one (that farm type does not influence the use of newspaper as a livestock market news source) must be accepted. Egg of Radio and Newspaper Within Aggg 3 Area 3 was Michigan's most important agricultural area. This area contained the largest number of farms and had about eight-five percent of the total value of livestock sold in the state. Seventy-six percent of the schedules taken came from.Area 3 in this survey. For these reasons, it seemed necessary to analyze the use of radio and newspapers for differences among types of farms to deter- mine if inferences concluded from.the combined areas also pertained to Area 3. 50 Radio listening was tested in Area 3 for differences occurring in the proportions of users between farm types. The same two comparisons were significantly different as found in the combined areas. These show that a higher percentage of dairy farmers used radio for livestock market news than did part-time farmers. Similiarly the percentage of livestock farmers using radio reports was greater than the percentage for part-time farmers. The general farmers were not significantly different from.the part-time farmers in.the proportions using radio, which was the same results obtained for the combined areas. The differences in proportions of readers to non- readers of daily newspapers were tested in Area 3, between the four farm types. The comparisons disclosed similiar results for Area 3 as for the combined areas, that no significant differences were found between farm types. The Time of Listening to Radio Reports To any station which disseminates market news informa- tion, the time of presentation is of major concern. The knowledge of what hours farmers do listen to radio broad- casts can be helpful to those media changing programming. The noon period was found to have the largest percent- age (SL) of audience reception. The morning hours ( 5 to 8 a.m.) ranked second, and the evening dinner hour ( 5 to 6 p.m.) third. 51 Noon hour reception was the largest in Areas 1 and 2. No farmer in Area 1 reported listening to a morning or evening report. Area 2 had twelve percent of the farmers which listened to a radio report other than at noon hour. A significantly different pattern occurred in Area 3 where morning reports had the highest percentage (5A) of farmers listening during that time. TABLE XIX THE NUMBER OF AREA 2 AND 3 FARMERS WHICH LISTENED TO MORNING AND NOON RADIO REPORTS, MICHIGAN, 1957 Area 2 Area 3 Total Morning 10 137 1A7 Noon #54 119 ‘_l73 64 256 320 X2 a 28.6 at l d.f. significant at .99 level Three reasons seemed to help explain these area differences: (1) The stations serving Area 2 did little morning broadcasting of livestock market news. (2) A predominance of dairy farmers in Area 3 listened to morning broadcasts. (3) The popularity of one farm editor which broadcast the news on his early morning program. The time of day which farmers listened to radio was significantly different between farm types in Area 3. No significant differences between farm types were found in Area 2. 52 Livestock farmers and general farmers listened to a greater percentage of noon reports. These two farm types differ significantly from dairy which had a greater percent- age of farmers listening during the early morning hours. TABLE.XX THE NUMBER OF LIVESTOCK AND DAIRY FARMERS LISTENING TO MORNING AND NOON _ REPORTS, MICHIGAN, 19 57 Livestock Dairy Total Merning ' 3A 66 100 Neon 43 37 80 Total 77 103 180 ‘12 - 7.12 at l d.f. Significant at .99 level TABLE‘XXI THE NUMBER OF GENERAL AND DAIRY FARMERS LISTENING TO MORNING AND NOON REPORTS, MICHIGAN, 19 57 General Dairy Total Morning 37 66 103 Noon 13 37 22 Totalu 50 103 125 ' 12 . 4.09 at l d.f. significant at .95 level Dairy and part-time farmers listened more to morning radio broadcasts than noon broadcasts. General and livestock farmers did more listening to noon radio reports. No 53 Significant differences were found from tests between the four other possible combinations: livestock -- general, general -- part-time, dairy -- part-time, and livestock -- part-time. The working hours and characteristics of the work involved in the respective enterprises may account for these combinations. Radio Listening by Stations in Area 3 One radio station, located within Area 3 had a greater percentage of farmers that listened to that sta- tion than any other serving the area. (See Table XXII). This station was WJR in Detroit. WKAR and WKZO of East Lansing and Kalamazoo respectively were next in importance as listed by farmers. However, they were considerable below the first station in numbers listening. None of the other stations listed by farmers were listed in more than one- county, as shown by Table XXII. This sample was not drawn to estimate relative listening audiences among radio stations. However, some indication of program popularity among farmers might be inferred from.the data. Stations wishing to commence or revise livestock market news reporting might well study the programming of one of the three stations mentioned. Other factors are involved besides the livestock market news reporting. 5h .mpflMQQOHpmcsv one so pmaflm coapmpm LMHSOASLma m empmfla page hpczoc Home CH memetmw mo popes: exp Scam vm>flaon mama mommuscoaoa mmm:a* :4 mm mm Hm mm mm mm m: mHaamm CH mamEpma mo smnaaz Hmpoe mm we me am me me mm mm smaaccpmflq m Hmeoe mm mm spasm mo use w G ooosa mew? honamm scene: a com EOHB MfiCOH m 0mm “mug; mmflmcmq a m oooqa mace mppoanmao Ha Ndm oooqa mom: xmono Mprmm ma a oao.m meet Rouse mappmm NH 0mm wm<$ seeped H ooona umbgw comxoww m 0mm 3 Ha. comxomw m G oooaa cont hpflo Meagan : z oooaoa >elmama packemm ma Ham ooo.a was; canoe atom ma oco.om Aswan phoneme an o m mm oooam >9 R xx? commamamx m a HH 5 a oooqm mam: mm; m: H: mm pm 00 mm 0m 00 ooonom uwb. peoppmm encased amgzm cm> choH Coven Gaonamo nocmam mmemcmq Comxomw omaflcwm paces: ipwww mGOflpMDm zpflo moHpCSOQ Meson S coapmooq Amaa 2H m dame wzpemmm .aoaedam OHQam maonaen WEB OH QmZW9wHH Fame mxwzmdm ho Hm