f i. i « 71-11,897 KUCKER, Wendell Lee, 1943ADOPTIOL OF PRODUCTION TESTING AND ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION BY MICHIGAN DAIRY FARMERS. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1970 Agriculture, animal culture University Microfilm s, A XEROX Company , A nn Arbor, M ichigan ADOPTION OF PRODUCTION TESTING AND ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION BY MICHIGAN DAIRY FARMERS By WENDELL LEE KUCKER A THESIS submitted to Michigan S ta te U n iv e r s it y In p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f the requirements f o r the degree o f DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department o f D a iry 1970 ADOPTION OF PRODUCTION TESTING AND ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION BY MICHIGAN DAIRY FARMERS By WENDELL LEE KUCKER AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS submitted to Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f the requirements f o r the degree o f DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department o f D airy 1970 ABSTRACT Dairymen in the lower penninsula o f Michigan were studied to a s c e rta in t h e i r motives f o r adopting, disco ntin uin g or not adopting production t e s tin g and a r t i f i c i a l insem ination ( A I ) . Data were c o lle c te d by mailed q u e s tio n n a ire s , follow ed by telephone and personal in te rv ie w s w ith a sample o f the non-respondents. by the m u l t iv a r ia t e procedure o f le a s t squares. The data were analyzed Models were developed fo r p r e d ic tin g the adoption o f production t e s tin g and AI by using p a r t i a l regression c o e f f ic ie n t s o f s i g n i f i c a n t v a ria b le s stu d ie d . Method o f marketing m ilk (Grade A -v s . -m anufacturing) was the most s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r f o r p re d ic tin g a dairyman's adoption o f production te s t in g . The danger Incurred by the presence o f a mature d a ir y b u ll was the la r g e s t s in g le f a c t o r given by dairymen f o r t h e i r adoption o f A I. Discontinuers and p a r t i a l adopters resembled adopters more than non-adopters o f production te s tin g and A I . Results o f the study were used in designing d if fu s io n campaign plans f o r each o f the two in n ovatio ns. A ppropriate needs were e s ta b lis h e d , social systems i d e n t i f i e d , f a m i l i a r values and goals pointed o u t, mass media channels l i s t e d and opinion leaders c h a r a c te r iz e d , to demonstrate the usefulness o f the fin d in g s o f th is study. PLEASE NOTE: Some p a g e s h a v e s m a ll an d i n d i s t i n c t t y p e . F ilm e d as r e c e i v e d . U n iv e r s it y M ic r o film s CAVEAT I t does not f o llo w t h a t , i f q u a n t i t a t i v e methods be In d is c r im in a n t ly a p p lie d to in e x h a u s tib le q u a n t it ie s o f d a ta , s c i e n t i f i c understanding w ill n e c e s s a rily emerge! — M.E. Hubbert ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express n\y g r a t itu d e to Dr. C lin to n E. Meadows f o r his p a t ie n t guidance and encouragement during the p rep a ratio n o f th is th e s is . The va lu a b le assistan ce provided by Dr. John L. G i l l , both in and out o f the classroom, during the period o f my graduate study is also g r e a t ly a p p re c ia te d . I am also g r e a t ly a p p re c ia tiv e o f the h e lp fu l suggestions o ffe re d by Dr. E v e re tt M. Rogers and Dr. Harold D. Hafs during the p re p a ra tio n o f th is th e s is . I would a ls o l i k e to acknowledge w ith thanks the assistance o ffe re d by Karlene G. F a lk e r in typing the manuscript. A p p rec iatio n is expressed to my fa m ily f o r t h e i r constant support and encouragement; e s p e c ia lly to my w if e , Mary Louise, f o r so w i l l i n g l y assuming more than her f a i r share as a homemaker and paren t throughout ny graduate study. WLK 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ”T The Present Study --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 LITERATURE REVIEW — ----------- 4 The D iffu s io n Process ------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 Adopter Categories ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 Model f o r D iffu s io n o f In fo rm atio n ------------------------------------------- 8 Consideration o f V a ria b le s ---------------------------------------------------------- 10 Sources/Channels o f Farm In fo rm atio n ---------------------------------------- 16 PROCEDURE ................ - ........... 24 Designing the Q uestionnaire -------------------------------------------------------- 24 Sample ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25 Method o f Analysis ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...................- ............... - ................ 31 Production Testin g ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31 A rtific ia l Insem ination ---------------------------------------------------------------- 56 General D is c u s s io n ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 82 APPLICATION OF RESULTS ................... - .......................................... Productlon T esting ------------------------------------------------------------------------A r tific ia l 95 95 Insem ination ---------------------------------------------------------------- 102 SUMMARY........................................................................ - ................................................ 107 BIBLIOGRAPHY....................... - ................. - .................................- .............................. Ill APPENDIX................. 114 1v L I ST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Samples drawn ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27 2 Response summary ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27 3 Reasons 4 Type o f t e s t used 5 Reasons 6 Reasons 7 L is t in g o f v a r ia b le d e s c rip tio n and corresponding name — 8 S t a t i s t i c a l re la tio n s h ip s between adoption o f production t e s t i n g ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 40 Estimates o f parameters 1n m u lt ip le regression models f o r p r e d ic tin g adoption o f production t e s t in g --------------------------------- 42 Marketing Index score by production t e s tin g adopter c a t e g o r y --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 43 Convenience index score by production t e s t in g adopter c a t e g o r y --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44 Approximate farm s iz e by production t e s tin g adopter c a t e g o r y --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 45 Percent o f herd re g is te re d by production t e s t in g adopter c a t e g o r y --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 45 S ire s e le c tio n index score by production t e s t in g adopter c a t e g o r y --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46 9 10 11 12 13 14 c ite d f o r adoption o f production te s tin g -------------------by Michigan d a iry m e n --------------------------------------- 33 c it e d f o r d is c o n tin u tin g production te s tin g ---------------- 36 c it e d f o r never adopting production t e s t in g --------------- 38 15 Years o f farming by production t e s tin g adopter category - - 16 Average number years o f d a ir y in g by production t e s tin g adopter category ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 17 32 Approximate ages by production t e s t in g adopter category — v 39 47 48 48 Table 18 Pa5 f'*ld taff Feedback «■ Op inion -^Client 10 opinion leaders deserve the concentrated e f f o r t i t may take to win t h e i r support. Consideration o f V a riab le s P a r t i c i p a t io n in production t e s t in g programs and a r t i f i c i a l in a tio n is a v a ila b le to a l l d a ir y farm ers. insem­ Yet r e l a t i v e l y few a v a il themselves o f the o p p o rtu n itie s these innovations have to o f f e r . question then a r is e s : The do farmers who adopt, p a r t i a l l y adopt, d is co n tin u e adoption o r never adopt d i f f e r in recognizable ways? A number o f workers have in v e s tig a te d several v a ria b le s and r e la t e d them to the adoption o f various in n ovatio ns. Knowledge o f such c h a r a c t e r is t ic s should be useful in planning fu tu re promotional campaign s t r a t e g ie s f o r these in n o v atio n s . Age. Research fin d in g s have not been e n t i r e l y c o n s is te n t as to the r e la tio n s h ip between age and adoption o f new ideas. W ilkening ( 1 9 5 2 ) , fo r in s ta n c e , noted the age o f the o p e ra to r showed no c o n s is te n t r e l a ­ tionship w ith the acceptance o f improved farm p ra c tic e s w ith o u t a d ju s tin g fo r o th e r socio-economic f a c to r s . Lionberger ( 1 9 6 0 ) , on the o th e r hand, s ta te d th a t age from the standpoint o f the is im portant d if f u s i o n and use o f farm in fo rm a tio n . Young farmers seemed to be more re c e p tiv e to change than o ld e r farm ers. Older farmers may be in a b e t t e r p o s itio n f i n a n c i a l l y to make recommended changes, but are more l i k e l y to be concerned w ith s e c u r ity m atters and more r e lu c t a n t to make any s u b s ta n tia l changes. In a l a t e r (1 9 6 1 ), f u r t h e r supported Lionberger by s t a t in g t h a t o ld e r stu d y, Rogers farmers are less l i k e l y to be innovaters and more l i k e l y to be laggards. Rogers showed the n egative r e la t io n s h ip between age and a d o p tio n -o f-fa rm p ra c tic e scores was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t and in d ic a te d t h is may be caused p a r t l y by the growing conservatism o fte n associated w ith advancing age. 11 In a study o f fa c to r s associated w ith a d a iry fa n n e r's p a r t i c i ­ pation in the D airy Herd Improvement ( DHI} program in Vermont, Houghaboom (1963) found th a t p a r t i c i p a t i o n was associated w ith age to the e x te n t t h a t dairymen who dropped out o f the program were s i g n i f i c a n t l y younger than dairymen who never jo in e d . E x -p a r tic ip a n ts were also younger than p a r t ic ip a n t s but not s i g n i f i c a n t l y . Houghaboom, in his study o f 150 DHI herds, 50 e x - p a r t i c i p a n t s , and 60 n o n -p a r tic ip a n ts , noted th a t the la rg e number o f d a iry farmers who discontinued t h e i r t e s tin g program did so during t h e i r most pro­ ductive y e a rs . This has some im p lic a tio n s o f the usefulness o f pro­ duction t e s t in g in fo rm atio n to them. From another stu d y, i t appeared th a t they were not d e riv in g p o te n tia l b e n e fits from the in fo rm ation provided. A la rg e number o f o th e r references are a v a ila b le which discuss the e f f e c t o f age on adoption o f various in n o v atio n s . Despite the d if f e r e n c e s , Rogers (1968) makes the g e n e r a liz a t io n t h a t " e a r l i e r adopters are younger in age than l a t e r ad o p te rs ." He c it e d ten references which support th is g e n e r a l iz a t io n , ten o th e r research stu d ies which found no s i g n i f i ­ cant r e la t io n s h ip between age and inn o v ativ en es s, and th re e studies which found o ld e r age associated w ith Innovativeness. Workers In t h is f i e l d have g e n e r a lly concluded t h a t th ere are adequate t h e o r e t ic a l grounds f o r expecting younger in d iv id u a ls to be more in n o v a tiv e than t h e i r o ld e r contemporaries. Labor. farms." A number o f farms can s t i l l be categ o rized as " fa m ily This interdependence between fa m ily and farm is in d ic a te d by the degree to which the fa m ily provides the la b o r f o r the farm. Wllkening ( 1 9 5 3 ) , w h ile studying the adoption o f improved farm p ractices as they r e l a t e to fa m ily f a c t o r s , found t h a t farms on which 12 a la rg e percent o f the la b o r was provided by the f a m il y , adopted s i g n i ­ f i c a n t l y fewer improved farm p ra c tic e s than farms which h ired a substan­ t i a l p ro p o rtio n o f la b o r. This did not mean t h a t the use o f h ire d la b o r in i t s e l f re s u lte d in the adoption o f more changes in farm in g . More l i k e l y the use o f more h ire d lab o r r e f le c t e d a g r e a te r co m m ercializatio n o f the farm e n t e r p r is e and th e re fo r e the tendency to adopt more changes in technology. Education . While the le v e l o f formal education o f the younger and o ld e r farm operators v a rie s c o n s id e ra b ly , a number o f stu d ie s show the number o f years o f education completed is h ig h ly associated w ith the acceptance o f new ideas. W ilkening (1952) observed t h a t the education le v e l o f a farm operator was as h ig h ly p r e d ic t iv e o f the approval o f improved farm p rac tice s and the adoption o f those p ra c tic e s as any o th e r s o c io ­ economic f a c t o r . The education le v e l o f the o p e ra to r was s i g n i f i c a n t l y associated w ith the approval o f s i x , and then w ith the adoption o f each of te n , Improved farm p ra c tic e s considered s e p a ra te ly . Houghaboom (1963) also found t h a t p a r t ic ip a n t s in the DHI program in Vermont had s i g n i f i c a n t l y more education than n o n -p a r t ic ip a n ts . Since le v e l o f education is associated w ith p a r t i c i p a t i o n , i t appeared th at dairymen who dropped out o r never jo in e d lacked the formal educa­ tion necessary to use t e s t and record d a ta . However, i t seemed more l i k e l y th a t le v e l o f education was only I n c i d e n t a l l y associated w ith p a r t ic ip a t io n and was not a l i m i t i n g f a c t o r 1n i t s e l f . Lionberger (1955) repo rted th a t users o f extension se rv ic e s had completed more years o f education than non-users. However, in a l a t e r study, Lionberger (1960) argued t h a t too much schooling is useless or even d etrim en tal because i t makes a person im p r a c t ic a l. 13 In a study o f various adopter c a te g o rie s , Rogers (1961) showed th at innovaters had s i g n i f i c a n t l y more education than laggards. Innovators averaged over twelve years o f formal ed u ca tio n , w h ile laggards averaged only s l i g h t l y over e ig h t y e a rs . S iz e r and P o rte r ( I9 6 0 ) also found s i g n i f i c a n t r e la t io n s h ip s between education and the fo llo w in g fo u r v a r ia b le s : degree o f ad o p tio n , degree o f knowledge, le v e l o f l i v i n g scores and p a r t i c i p a t i o n scores. A tre n d , however, should be noted. Lee and Chastain (1959) make a d e f i n i t e p o in t by s t a t in g t h a t , in g e n e ra l, younger farmers have a higher number o f years o f formal education. Thus, age is confounded with education. The r e la t io n s h ip between an i n d i v i d u a l 's age and his innovativeness is l i k e l y to be i n d i r e c t , except where persons le a rn s p e c i f i c a l l y about new p ra c tic e s in school. U sually education merely creates a fav o rab le mental atmosphere f o r the acceptance o f new p r a c t ic e s . Since fa v o ra b le o r i e n t a t i o n may be gained outsid e o f sch oo l, the c o r r e l a ­ tion between years o f education and adoption o f farm p ra c tic e s is not always high. C le a r - c u t re la tio n s h ip s are hard to e s t a b lis h because years o f education may be r e la te d to o th e r fa c o tr s [L io n b erg e r ( I 9 6 0 ) ] . FFA o r 4-H T r a i n in g . Experience 1n 4-H and FFA appears to be r e la t e d to good fanning techn iqu e, p a r t i c u l a r l y where good farming 1s i d e n t i f i e d by the a b i l i t y o f the farmer to adopt improved farm p ra c tic e s q u ic k ly . In t h e i r study o f problem re c o g n itio n in a g r i c u l t u r e , Lee and Chastain (1959) found t h a t vocational a g r i c u l t u r e (FFA) and 4-H club work were two sources o f organized t r a in in g most fr e q u e n tly named by respondents. According to W ilkening (1952) farmers who have taken vocation al a g r ic u ltu r e 1n high school are more l i k e l y to adopt Improved farm 14 p ra c tic e s . These same in d iv id u a ls are l i k e l y to be leaders and a c tiv e members o f the community in which they l i v e . Furthermore, farmers who had sons in vocational a g r ic u lt u r e were l i k e l y to have adopted more new ideas than those who had no o th e r fa m ily member in such courses. Thus, vocational a g r i c u l t u r e had both d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t in flu e n ce s upon the farming p ra c tic e s o f the farm o p e ra to r. Olson (1959) observed t h a t farmers w ith co nsiderable 4-H experience as young men also were more prosperous, had a h ig her standard o f l i v i n g , p a r t ic ip a te d more in the a c t i v i t i e s o f the community and had a g re a te r desire to have t h e i r c h ild re n j o i n 4-H than those who had no 4-H experience. R e la tio n s h ip s between 4-H and the adoption o f improved farm p r a c t ic e s , as w ell as the predominance o f o th e r r e la tio n s h ip s in favor o f the 4-H group, in d ic a te s t h a t 4-H is a dynamic fo rc e f o r the betterment o f a g r i c u l t u r e . Farm S i z e . One p a r t i a l in d ic a t o r o f e x c e lle n c e in farming is farm s iz e , whether measured in acres farmed or s iz e o f herd. Rogers (1969) stated th a t a farmer w ith a l a r g e r o p e ra tio n is g e n e r a lly considered to be more successful by his a s s o c ia te s , although th ere are many possible reasons f o r a la rg e o p e ra tio n o th e r than farming a b i l i t y , such as in h e rita n c e o r o f f - f a r m employment. N e v e rth e le s s , farmers w ith low a b i l i t y would not be ab le to operate a la rg e u n i t s u c c e s s fu lly fo r long even i f he in h e r it e d i t . In e a r l i e r work Rogers (1961) noted th a t innovators operated co n siderably la r g e r farms than laggards. He showed th at a s i g n i f i c a n t r e la t io n s h ip e x is te d between acres operated and adoptio n -o f-fa rm -p ra c t1 c e s scores. W1lken1ng (1952) agreed w ith the two former stu d ies when he showed th at although farmers w ith small o perations were as l i k e l y to approve of the Improved p ra c tic e s as were farmers w ith la r g e r o p e ra tio n s , the 15 actual adoption o f those p ra c tic e s va rie d d i r e c t l y w ith the s iz e of the farm. Houghaboom (1963) found p a r tic ip a n t s in the DHI program had s l i g h t l y la r g e r operations than n o n -p a r tic ip a n ts , although d iffe re n c e s were not s i g n i f i c a n t . Houghaboom used number o f cows milked r a t h e r than number o f acres as the fa c t o r f o r determining s iz e o f o p e ra tio n . Owners o f small herds were less l i k e l y to be e n ro lle d in the DHI program, although herd s iz e was not a f a c t o r in flu e n c in g dairymen to drop out o f the program. S t i l l another measure o f farm s iz e is in terms o f productive man work u n its (PMWU). A PMWU is the amount o f work performed in a 10- hour day by an average worker w ith ty p ic a l methods and equipment. Rogers (1961) found a s i g n i f i c a n t r e la tio n s h ip between a d o p tio n -o ffarm -practices scores and the number o f PMWU*s. Production l e v e l . From the view point o f a g r i c u l t u r a l development, farm production is one o f the most important demonstrations o f farming excellence. Houghaboom (1963) found th a t the average production per cow in herds which p a r t ic ip a te d in the DHI program was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the average in e i t h e r the e x - p a r t i c i p a n t o r n o n -p a r tic ip a n t herd. Thus, the production lev el o f the herd is associated w ith production t e s t in g . Individuals who take a g re a te r i n t e r e s t in t h e i r herd u s u a lly adopt te s tin g . They have more In fo rm atio n about t h e i r cows and are able to get more m ilk from t h e i r herd as a r e s u l t . Years farmed. In t h e i r study o f farm ers' re ac tio n s to new p ra c tic e s , H o ffe r and Stangland (1958) found a higher percentage o f farmers who had been farming less than ten years adopted improved farm practices. However, th is observation was q u it e h ig h ly r e la t e d to the 16 same re s u lts obtained f o r age o f the farmer. Sources/Channels o f Farm In fo rm a tio n In nearly every area th ere are farmers who are in te re s te d in new developments and seek ways to apply them to t h e i r o pe ra tio n s . there are others who e x h ib i t l i t t l e Conversely, i n t e r e s t in new ideas and seem q u ite w i l l i n g to farm in accord w ith t r a d i t i o n a l methods. They are in c lin e d to accept new ideas only when tru s te d frie n d s have c l e a r l y demonstrated t h e i r m e r it. Whether a farmer used a source o f inform ation or not is one expression o f the e v a lu a tio n i t re c e iv e s . Use appears to be q u ite highly c o rr e la te d w ith the c r e d i b i l i t y the farmer associates w ith the source [Lionberger ( 1 9 5 5 ) ] . The County Agent. Inform ation may be obtained from the county extension agent in a number o f ways, such as: c a l li n g the agent on the phone, v i s i t i n g w ith him on the farm or in his o f f i c e , atte n d in g meetings, reading new sletters or b u lle t in s o r through personal correspondence. Past research fin d in g s g e n e ra lly have in d ic a te d th a t farmers who are r e l a t i v e l y e a r ly to adopt new p ra c tic e s have had the la r g e s t number of contacts w ith t h e i r county extension agent. Rogers (1961) sta ted th a t a la r g e r number o f in d iv id u a ls in th is category have more contacts with the county extension agent than those in the innovator category because innovators go d i r e c t l y to the a g r ic u lt u r a l s c i e n t i s t f o r farm info rm ation , thus circumventing the county extension agent. Rogers showed th a t the r e la tio n s h ip between extension agent co n tact scores and a d o p tio n -o f-fa rm -p ra c tic e s scores was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . Lionberger (1955) observed th a t in flu e n c e o f the extension agent was g re a te r than those who said they got Inform ation from them. Almost h a lf o f the users o f extension sources o f farm info rm ation and one- 17 s ix th o f those who said they did not use any such source attended one or more meetings where the agent was p res en t. Consequently, Lionberger contended t h a t many o f those undoubtedly got as sistan ce from the agent which they did not admit. Most o f the in d if f e r e n c e appeared to be due la r g e ly to ignorance about the d u tie s and fu nctio ns o f the agent. agents. This was e s p e c ia lly tru e among non-users o f county extension The most im portant reason f o r in d iff e r e n c e among a l l groups was th a t the se rv le e s o f the county agent were not p e rs o n a lly needed. However, a la rg e p o rtio n o f these i n d i f f e r e n t farm operators b elieved the county extension agent was a useful source o f in fo rm a tio n to those who needed him, and th e re fo r e should be re ta in e d f o r t h a t purpose. Vocational A g r ic u ltu r e Teacher. The vo catio n al a g r i c u l t u r e teacher has a number o f ways in which he can e x e r t his in flu e n c e upon the community, even though he is not p r i m a r i ly concerned w ith the education o f a d u lt farm ers. Lionberger (1955) observed t h a t through supervision o f FFA p ro je c ts and high school fu n c tio n s , the vocational a g r ic u lt u r e tea ch er has continual co n tac t w ith p a re n ts . Farmers in the immediate area would o fte n atte n d a d u lt classes d ir e c te d by the vocational a g r ic u ltu r e teacher a t the community ce n te r when they would not tr a v e l to the county seat f o r s i m i l a r types o f meetings. The vocational a g r ic u ltu r e teach er became l o c a l l y known and accepted as a member o f the community and t h e r e fo r e enjoyed many more p r iv ile g e s than the county agent. Neighbor. The average farm er has close personal contacts w ith a t le a s t f i v e o r s ix o th e r farm ers. These contacts provide an e x c e lle n t opportunity f o r the dissem inatio n o f farm in fo rm a tio n . W ilkening (1952) conducted a study to determine to what e x te n t the personal contacts among fanners serve to disseminate in fo rm a tio n about farm m a tte rs , 18 despite the many p u b lic and p r iv a t e agencies e s ta b lis h e d f o r t h a t pur­ pose. Personal contacts among farmers have several im portant ch a r­ a c t e r i s t i c s which d is tin g u is h t h is from o th e r sources o f in fo rm a tio n , such as: 1) Personal contacts are u s u a lly between farmers who know each o th e r. This f a c t o f personal acquaintance is im portant since farmers tend to d is t r u s t people they do not know. 2) Personal contacts between farmers serve o th e r fu nctio ns than the exchange o f in fo rm atio n about farm ing. mation is u s u a lly in c id e n ta l The exchange o f i n f o r ­ to these o th e r fu n c tio n s . This is im portant since the person o b ta in in g in fo rm atio n does not fe e l under pressure or o b lig a tio n to fo llo w the in fo rm a tio n . The r e c e iv e r is not put in the p o s itio n o f e i t h e r seeking in fo rm ation or o f being " ta lk e d in t o something" which u s u a lly puts him on the d efen s iv e. 3) Personal contacts as sources o f in fo rm atio n tend to be incom plete. The b e n e f ic ia l and more in t e r e s t in g aspects o f an idea are more l i k e l y to be conveyed than techniques f o r a c t u a lly p u ttin g i t in t o o p e ra tio n . This c h a r a c t e r i s t i c helps to e x p la in why those who r e l y on neighbors and o th e r farmers are seldom su ccessfu l. 4) In fo rm ation about farm m atters is in t e r p r e te d and colored by lo c al values and sentiments when tra n s m itte d from farmer to farm er. Any one farm er is not l i k e l y to present a l l the fa c ts p e rta in in g to a new p r a c tic e but is In c lin e d to p ra is e I t s good points i f he did fa v o r 1 t . In a l a t e r study, W ilkening (1953) found t h a t o th e r farmers were l is t e d second only to farm magazines as the source where in fo rm atio n was 19 o r i g i n a l l y obtained about new farm p r a c t ic e s . O ther farmers were by f a r the most used source o f f u r t h e r in fo rm atio n about a new farm p r a c t ic e . However, a la rg e percentage o f those who gave o th e r farmers as a source of most in fo rm a tio n about new things in farming were in the low adopter category. Rogers (1 9 6 8 ), r e f e r r i n g to some o f his e a r l i e r , unpublished work, said th a t farmers placed much g r e a te r c r e d i b i l i t y in neighbors than in salesmen. Ninety-seven percent o f his respondents s ta te d they would more l i k e l y be convinced o f a new farm idea i f they ta lk e d to a neighbor about i t than i f they received the same in fo rm atio n from a salesman. In his study o f in fo rm a tio n -s e e k in g h ab its and c h a r a c t e r is t ic s o f farm o p e ra to rs , Lionberger (1955) f u r t h e r supported t h is c o n te n tio n . He categ o rized farm operators In t o users and non-users o f extension sources o f in fo rm a tio n . The non-users overwelmingly regarded frie n d s and neighbors as one o f t h e i r most c r e d ib le sources o f in fo rm a tio n . Users, on the o th e r hand, were more l i k e l y to l i s t newspapers and magazines, t h e i r county a g e n t, farm meetings, and a d u lt classes as most v a lu a b le . Thus, one could conclude t h a t neighbors and o th e r farmers are important sources o f farm in fo rm a tio n , but tend to be more h e lp fu l to the l a t e r m a jo r ity o r the laggards in s o fa r as the o v e r a ll adoption p ic tu re is considered. Local D e a le r s . The lo c a l d e a le r is u s u a lly a person who 1s w ell known in the community and acquainted w ith recommendations on farm matters. Local d e a le r s , such as seed and farm supply d e a le r s , play a varied r o le depending on the in n ovatio n under c o n s id e ra tio n and the stage In the adoption process. Ryan and Gross ( 1 9 4 3 ), f o r example, found almost h a l f o f t h e i r sample o f Iowa farmers reported hybrid seed 20 salesmen to be t h e i r o r ig in a l source o f inform ation which made them aware o f hybrid seed. Copp and his co-workers (1958) supported the contention th a t local dealers were more important a t the t r i a l in the adoption process. stage than a t any o th e r stage Because farmers purchase a small amount a t the t r i a l stage, h.e tended to r e ly h e a v ily upon lo c a l dealers f o r inform a­ tion on how to use the new id e a. Rogers (1 9 6 8 ), supported by Ryan and Gross (1 9 4 3 ), states th a t local dealers are more im portant f o r e a r l i e r adopters than fo r l a t e r adopters a t the t r i a l stage. Evidence from a number o f studies show th a t most in d iv id u a ls place less c r e d i ­ b i l i t y in local dealers than in any o th e r source o f in fo rm a tio n . The d ea le r's motive was the main reason f o r the r e l a t i v e l y low c r e d i b i l i t y they place in his recommendations. The farmers b elieved th a t the dealer promoted the overadoption o f new ideas to secure higher s a le s . This concept, however, did not hold tru e f o r a l l areas. In communities where the local d e a le r was regarded as a fr ie n d ra th e r than as a salesman promoting a new product, the local d e a le r was w idely respected by the farmers and t h e i r recommendations were o fte n follow ed. Wilkening (1952) found 1n a number o f the communities he surveyed most o f the farm supply stores were operated by la rg e fanners o f th a t neighborhood. Such a person is o fte n regarded by his c l i e n t s as an associate, r a th e r than a salesman. T h e re fo re , personal In flu e n c e w ith his c lie n t s was more l i k e l y the r e s u l t in t h e i r adoption o f a new product ra th e r than anything e ls e . Rogers (1 9 6 8 ), r e f e r r i n g to his personal correspondence w ith A.W. Van den Ban o f the Netherlands, in s t a tin g t h a t 1 t was reasonable to assume th a t many respondents u n d e r-re p o rt the s ig n ific a n c e o f local dealers. In a sample o f 200 Wisconsin farmers who were asked t h e i r most 21 important source o f in fo rm atio n in 1952, only th ree percent mentioned local d e a le rs . When the same respondents were re in te rv ie w e d in 1957 over 30 percent named local d ea le rs as t h e i r most im portant source o f info rm ation . This may be due to some form o f stigma which may not make i t acceptable to admit one has been in fluen ced by sales personnel. B u lle t in s and n e w s le t t e r s . Farm b u l l e t i n s and n ew slette rs have the unique c h a r a c t e r is t ic o f pro vidin g an avenue through which in fo rm a tio r may be obtained d i r e c t l y from a c o lle g e o f a g r i c u l t u r e and the United States Department o f A g r ic u ltu r e (USDA). These b u l l e t i n s d i f f e r from o th e r i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d forms o f farm in fo rm atio n by re q u irin g the farmer to read them, r a th e r than using personal contacts as a means o f o b ta in in g e q u iv a le n t in fo rm a tio n . Although b u l l e t i n s and n ew slette rs may be obtained f r e e from any county extension o f f i c e , the s t a te c o lle g e o f a g r i c u l t u r e , o r the USDA, they seem to have an e x c lu s iv e and somewhat unique re ad ersh ip . T h e ir use requires an a c t iv e e f f o r t on the p a r t o f the farmer to seek out th is inform ation and then apply i t to his personal c o n d itio n s . In most cases the use o f these b u l l e t i n s occur when a farmer wishes to have more inform ation about a p a r t i c u l a r Idea o r th in g he alre a d y knows something about. According to Lionberger (1955) the use o f b u l l e t i n s im p lies a c e rta in degree o f independent d e c is io n and a c tio n on the p a r t o f the farmer, which may not be req u ired when personal sources are used. Thus, the more progressive and competent farm er would make g r e a te r use o f farm b u lle tin s and n e w s le tte rs . In his study, Lionberger found t h a t users o f county extension agent services als o made the h e a v ie s t use o f b u l l e t i n s and n e w s le tte rs . On the o th e r hand, none o f the non-users o f extension information sources, which comprised about 37 percent o f his sample, 22 used t h is source o f in fo rm a tio n e i t h e r . A la rg e percent o f the farmers who obtained b u l l e t i n s and n ew s le tte rs saved them f o r f u tu r e re fe re n c e . This gives some evidence o f the e v a lu a tio n farmers place on b u l l e t i n s as a source o f in fo rm a tio n . Magazines. One primary source o f in fo rm atio n a v a i l a b l e to farmers is magazines, p a r t i c u l a r l y farm magazines. The main purpose o f most farm magazines is to communicate in fo rm atio n about new id e as ; th e r e f o r e , they are most useful a t the time the innovators and e a r ly adopters decide to adopt a new farm p r a c tic e . Rogers (1961) found th a t not only do innovators read a la r g e r number o f farm magazines, but they als o read d i f f e r e n t magazines than laggards. Innovators subscribed to the g re a te s t number o f farm maga­ zines and laggards to the few est. When analyzed s t a t i s t i c a l l y , the re la tio n s h ip between a d o p tio n -o f-fa rm -p r a c tic e s scores and number o f farm magazines read was s i g n i f i c a n t . Lionberger (1955) noted th a t users o f extension sources o f farm inform ation and county extension se rv ices subscribed to and read more farm magazines than non-users o f the two above sources. In his study o f the adoption o f improved farm p ra c tic e s as r e la te d to fam ily f a c t o r s , W ilkening (1953) s ta te s t h a t farm magazines stand out as the s in g le most im portant co n tac t according to h is sample o f farm owners. Thus, the Importance placed upon farm magazines appears to be well supported by previous s tu d ie s . Magazines, l i k e o th e r forms o f inform ation sources, appear to be o f more use o f e a r l i e r adopters than to o thers. As s ta te d e a r l i e r , the Innovators and e a r l i e r adoptors make more use o f published m a te ria l than the l a t e r adopter c a te g o rie s . Other In fo rm atio n sources. There are a number o f minor sources o f 23 inform ation a v a ila b le to the farm er. Although in general terms they may be regarded as minor sources, to p a r t i c u l a r groups and in p a r t i c u l a r areas any one may be a major source and p lay a v i t a l d iffu s io n o f in fo rm a tio n . r o le in the For in s ta n c e , W ilkening (1952) found th a t 75 percent o f the farmers in his survey lis te n e d to ra d io w h ile only 56 percent said they read farm jo u r n a ls . This response d if f e r e d from a number o f o th e r stu d ies in which the p o p u la r ity o f farm jo u rn a ls exceeded a l l o th e r forms o f in fo rm a tio n sources. Various farm o rg a n iz a tio n s provide the farmer w ith v a lu a b le sources of in fo rm a tio n . Farm Bureau, Grange and lo c al cooperatives were mentioneo as having im portant in flu e n c e s In promoting liv e s to c k farm in g , s o il conservation and b e t t e r farming p ra c tic e s in g en eral. P a r t i c i p a t io n in these, and o th e r farm o r g a n iz a tio n s , was s i g n i f i c a n t l y associated w ith the acceptance o f improved farm p r a c tic e s . Farmers who p a r t i c i p a t e in farm o rg a n iza tio n s are more l i k e l y to have fa v o ra b le a t t i t u d e s toward improved farm p r a c t ic e s , w ith the leaders o f those o rg a n iz a tio n s having the most fa v o ra b le a t t i t u d e . [W ilkenin g ( 1 9 5 2 ) ] . T h e re fo re , 1n summary, exposure to various forms o f mass media, other personnel involved in a g r i c u l t u r e , along w ith p a r t i c i p a t i o n in various farmer o r g a n iz a tio n s , provide the farmer w ith many va lu a b le inform ation sources and c o n ta c ts . Through proper u t i l i z a t i o n and e x p lo ita tio n o f these c o n ta c ts , follow ed by the accurate a p p lic a t io n of the in fo rm atio n obtained to his personal o p e ra tio n , the modern farmer o f today has the o p p o rtu n ity to be more successful than ever before. PROCEDURE Designing the Q uestionnaire Because o f the design s e t f o r t h in th is survey i t was necessary to prepare the q u e stio n n aire in such a manner th a t the same form could be used fo r both mail q u e stio n n aire and f o r fo llo w -u p in te rv ie w s . Wording o f the questions and the format o f the instrum ent was im p o rtan t, so both the dairymen re c e iv in g the q u e s tio n n a ire through the m a i l, and those in terview ed l a t e r , had a minimum o f d i f f i c u l t y fo llo w in g the order o f questions or understanding them. Wording o f the questions were e s p e c ia lly im portant from the standpoint o f o b ta in in g the desired in fo rm a tio n . Instruments used in previous stu d ies were obtained from Michigan Animal Breeders, f o r a r t i f i c i a l in s em in atio n , and from Dr. Harry A in s lie a t Cornell U n iv e r s it y , f o r production t e s t in g . Through close study o f the format and question s tr u c tu r e in these ins tru m e n ts , strong points o f each were Incorporated in t o the p rev io u sly designed i n s t r u ­ ment f o r th is study. Following a p r e te s t o f 15 Michigan dairymen and leaders in the dairy f i e l d , re v is io n s were made and the f i n a l form was completed. Because o f the length o f the f i n a l form o f the in s tru m e n t, o f f - s e t type was used to reduce the previous 14 pages to fo u r . This made handling the m a ilin g and the re tu rn in g o f the form much e a s i e r . Undoubtedly 1 t also assured a higher number o f mail respondents than would have been otherwise p o s s ib le . In tro d u c to ry l e t t e r s from Dr. 25 C. E. Meadows, Michigan S ta te Extension Dairyman, accompanied each m ailing as did s e lf-a d d re s s e d stamped re tu rn envelopes. Copies o f the l e t t e r s used and the copy o f the f i n a l q u e s tio n n a ire are presented in the appendix o f t h is th e s is . The re feren ce provided by Backstorm and Hursh (1963) proved to be a va lu a b le source o f in fo rm a tio n in designing the instrum ent f o r th is study. Sample To f u l f i l l the o b je c tiv e s o f the present stu d y, data were obtained from a re p re s e n ta tiv e sample o f the 14,916 d a ir y farmers in the lower peninsula o f Michigan. Farmers in t h is area were chosen as the reference p opulation o f the study because o f the r e l a t i v e p ro x im ity to Michigan S ta te U n iv e r s it y . Those in the upper peninsula o f Michigan were excluded to conserve the time and money re q u ire d f o r sampling, and because they comprise a small m in o r ity o f the t o t a l p op ulatio n o f Michigan dairymen. Dairymen were chosen from the October 8 , 1969, B r u c e llo s is Ring Test (BRT) l i s t i n g supplied by the Animal Health D iv is io n o f the USDA. A random sample o f 513 Michigan d a ir y farmers was drawn and mailed q u e s tio n n a ire s . S e lf-a d d re s s e d , stamped envelopes were enclosed to encourage the dairymen to re tu r n the q u e s tio n n a ire . I f in d iv id u a ls were deceased or no longer farming the pop ulatio n was resampled by returning to the BRT l i s t i n g , to the p a r t i c u l a r county from which the In d iv id u a l came, and s e le c tin g another dairyman a t random from the county l i s t . Non-respondents were m ailed a second q u e s tlo n n la re approximately th re e weeks a f t e r the f i r s t m a ilin g . Dairymen who s t i l l f a i l e d to respond were m ailed a t h i r d q u e s tio n n a ire th re e weeks l a t e r . 26 February 12, 1970, was set as a c u t - o f f date f o r a l l mail ques­ tio n n a ir e s . A random sample o f a l l personal in te rv ie w s were arranged. non-respondents was then taken and Those w ith in an 80 m ile radius o f East Lansing were v i s it e d perso nally and those outside the 80 miles were contacted and interview ed by telephone. Because o f the p r i o r s p e c ific a t io n th a t those selected were to be contacted by telephone, e i t h e r to be in terview ed o r to arrange a time fo r a personal in t e r v ie w , i t was necessary th a t the in d iv id u a l have a c u rre n t telephone l i s t i n g . Those f o r whom telephone numbers were unobtainable were dropped from the sample. Table 1 shows a complete l i s t i n g by numbers o f a l l samples taken. Table 2 1s a summary ta b le o f the various responses received from the samples drawn. The major p o in t to be made from t h is ta b le is t h a t each personal and telephone in te rv ie w had been magnified f i v e times to account f o r non-respondents 1n the o r ig in a l sample. I t was assumed the non-respondents were a r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous group and th e re fo re in te rv ie w in g a random sample o f one in f i v e gave an estim ate o f the e n tir e group. The 5X f a c to r gave proper weight to the non-respondents with respect to t h e i r in flu e n c e in the t o t a l sample, because only one- f i f t h o f the non-respondents were resampled. The represen tativeness o f data obtained by t h is sampling procedure were v a lid a te d by Hoglund and McBride (1 9 7 0 ). T h e ir study o f the changing aspects o f Michigan d a iry farming u t i l i z e d in fo rm atio n from a l l Grade A dairymen 1n the s t a t e , and agreed very c lo s e ly w ith samples drawn in t h is study- For example, Hoglund and McBride found 68.1 percent o f the d a iry o peratio ns used stanchion barns, 15.1 percent used loose housing and 1 0 .2 percent used fre e s t a l l barns. Dairymen included in the present study reported 66 .6 p erc en t, 14.5 percent and 11.7 27 TABLE 1 . - - Samples drawn. Number Type 513 Mall questionnaires Resampled 65 Non-respondents ( In t e r v ie w ) 51 TABLE 2 . - - Response summary. Type Number Mail q uestionnaires 320 Telephone in te rv ie w 24 Personal in te rv ie w 18 Refusals 5 Not a t home 4 Dropped from sample (no phone) 36 Duplicates (in t e r v ie w X 5) 210 Final number o f usable questionnaires 530 percent r e s p e c tiv e ly . Hence, one can be r e l a t i v e l y c o n fid e n t t h a t the sample drawn is a re p re s e n ta tiv e sample o f Michigan d a iry farm ers. Method o f Analysis Although c o lle c t in g the data is Im p ortan t, and the most time consuming p a rt o f the stu d y, i t 1s only through accurate and appro­ p ria te analysis t h a t v a l id Inferences can be made about the r e s u l t s . A fte r thoroughly reviewing the key concepts under c o n s id e ra tio n , the 28 research method chosen should be the one th a t w i l l most a c c u ra te ly analyze the em p iric al re la tio n s h ip s among these concepts. The fa c to rs included in th is survey in d ic a te d th a t the data were e s s e n t ia lly m u l t iv a r ia t e because many o f the fa c to rs included obviously are h ig h ly i n t e r r e l a t e d , and several may covary g r e a t ly . In a number o f past studies o f t h is general type workers have attempted to apply various forms o f u n iv a r ia te a n a ly sis to m u l t iv a r ia t e data. However, j o i n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f such analyses req u ires the assumption o f independence, which is seldom v a lid f o r such d a ta . Thus, to avoid th is problem, m u lt ip le re g re s s io n , by le a s t squares, was the procedure se lec ted to analyze the data obtained from t h is survey. The procedure o f le a s t squares not only allows one to make s p e c i­ fic , independent te s ts o f s ig n ific a n c e on the d i r e c t (unconfounded) e ffe c ts o f the various f a c t o r s , but i t also permits one to attempt to a s c e rta in which combination o f v a r ia b le s , is the most reasonable p re d ic to r o f the dependent v a r ia b le under study. In th is study th ere are two dependent v a r ia b le s , namely, adoption-non-adoption o f production te s tin g and degree o f adoption o f a r t i f i c i a l equations, or models, as they w i l l in sem in atio n . P re d ic tio n be c a lle d h e r e a f t e r , bring us one step c lo s e r to being able to u t i l i z e the r e s u lts o f th is study in planning fu tu r e s t r a t e g ie s f o r the more complete adoption o f these two innovations. O bviously, the use o f such p r e d ic tio n models gives no p o s itiv e assurance o f the success o f fu tu re s t r a t e g i e s . by Herzog et. al_. (1 9 6 8 ): d ic t io n ' As s ta te d " I t should be noted t h a t the use o f 'p r e ­ is s p e c i f i c a l l y t ie d to c o r r e la tio n s and does not In v o lv e forecasts In to the f u tu r e . We 'p r e d i c t ' the value o f one v a r ia b le by knowing the value o f another v a r i a b l e , o r s e t o f v a r ia b le s . I f such 'p re d ic tio n 1s s u b s t a n t ia lly b e t t e r than untutored guesses, the 29 p re d ic tio n is u s e fu l." Two o th e r l im it a t io n s o f the a n a ly s is should be noted. F irs t, va ria b les which were overlooked and not included in the study, may have an e f f e c t on the dependent v a r ia b le . I f im portant independent va ria b les are absent from a study, estim ates o f parameters f o r v a ria b le s included may be biased and appear to be more s i g n i f i c a n t than they a c tu a lly a re . As noted by Box (1 9 6 6 ), in his discussion o f use and abuse o f re g res sio n , a h ig h ly s i g n i f i c a n t value can be obtained f o r a v a ria b le which has l i t t l e d i r e c t e f f e c t on the dependent v a r ia b le when major fa c to rs are overlooked. as "nonsense" c o r r e la t io n s . Such re s u lts o fte n are r e f e r r e d to This l i m i t a t i o n 1s p a r t i c u l a r l y severe in data c o lle c te d w ith ou t the b e n e f it o f randomization procedures a v a ila b le in c o n tro lle d experim ents, which tend to minimize such b iases. There­ fore i t behooves the researcher to be extrem ely thorough in the o rg an iza tio n o f a f i e l d study to include a l l p e r t in e n t v a ria b le s and ask the questions in such a way th a t a c c u ra te , unbiased in fo rm atio n w i l l be obtained. The second l i m i t a t i o n , which presents problems when using m u ltip le regression, is concerned w ith the v a l i d i t y o f the assumption th a t a l l independent v a ria b le s are fix e d . I f , in f a c t , these Independent variables are random r a th e r than f i x e d , estim ates o f p a r t i a l regression c o e ffic ie n t s may be biased and the usual le a s t squares v a ria n c e-co v aria n c e m atrix is improper. This leads to in c o r r e c t p r o b a b i l it y le v e ls associated w ith various te s ts o f hypotheses or I n t e r v a l es tim ate s. Means o f c e r t a in Independent v a ria b le s were c a lc u la te d and compared fo r the d i f f e r e n t "adoption" c a te g o rie s o f the dependent v a r ia b le s . The confounded nature o f the v a ria b le s make u n iv a r ia t e analyses d i f f i c u l t to i n t e r p r e t , and the r e s u lts from these may be questioned. However, where the r e s u lts from the comparisons o f means agree w ith 30 the re s u lts o f the m u l t iv a r ia t e a n a ly s is , one may be more c o n fid e n t o f the e x is t in g r e l a t io n s h ip . C ertain adoptor ca teg o ries were la b e le d as the standard, and each s p e c if ic mean was then compared in d iv id u a ls w ith i t . Therefore the o b je c tiv e o f th is a n a ly sis was to lo c a te ca teg o ries which were d i f f e r e n t from the s p e c ifie d standard. Dunnett's t - t e s t is a p p ro p ria te f o r m u ltip le comparisons w ith a standard and provides good power in d e te c tin g mean d iffe r e n c e s . In general, comparisons may be made w ith one-sided or two-sided a l t e r n a ­ tives to the hypothesis, but the nature o f the hypothesis f o r these data suggested the use o f two-sided a l t e r n a t i v e s . The most In n o v a tiv e category f o r each o f the two dependent variables under c o n sid e ra tio n was chosen as the standard. This decision was made under the guidance o f Dr. C. E. Meadows whose extensive experience w ith Michigan d a iry in g q u a l i f i e d him to make such a judgement. Those in d iv id u a ls who had adopted production t e s t in g , as one might exp ect, were se lected as the standard f o r comparing other categoires o f the production t e s t in g a re a . However, p a r t i a l adopters o f AI were chosen as the standard to compare o th e r AI categ o ries because o f the b e l i e f th a t they were more open-minded, and, although they recognized the advantages o f A I , were v i t a l l y in te re s te d in the betterment o f t h e i r herd. Many complete adopters o f AI have been lu lle d in to a f a ls e sense o f s e c u r ity by b e lie v in g AI w i l l solve a l l o f t h e ir breeding problems, w h ile non-adopters represen t the d ir e c t opposite and many have closed t h e i r minds to ever adopting a r t i f i c i a l insemination. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Production Testing The a b i l i t y o f a d a ir y e n te r p r is e to succeed by the adoption o f new ideas re s ts in the hands o f the d a iry farm o p e ra to r. In the past the dairyman has been regarded la r g e ly as a farm la b o r e r . today his r o le has s h if t e d to t h a t o f a decision-m aker. However, The rapid pace o f today's events means th a t wrong decisions can have adverse consequences very q u ic k ly . The importance o f accurate records, needed to make the necessary decisions w ith a minimum o f time and d i f f i c u l t y , is e s ta b lis h e d . records. No business can be conducted e f f i c i e n t l y w ith ou t such T h e ir value is c l e a r l y seen when i t is r e a liz e d t h a t the se lec tio n o f the herd f o r improved production is based p r im a r ily upon the records alo n e . Other fa c to rs besides m ilk and f a t production also should be considered. However, t h e i r importance is la r g e ly r e f le c t e d in the production o f the in d iv id u a l cow. There are approxim ately 16,000 d a ir y herds in M ichigan, o f which 10.500 are Grade A herds. The s u rp ris in g p a r t is th a t only 18 percent of the herds u t i l i z e production t e s t in g . 28 percent o f the cows. However, those herds co n tain The 1968 average f o r herds on t e s t was 12.500 pounds o f m ilk per cow, w h ile i t was estim ated t h a t the average cow in Michigan produced only 9700 pounds o f m ilk . [Michigan A g r i c u l ­ tural S t a t i s t i c s ( 1 9 6 8 ) , Michigan D a iry Herd Improvement Records 1968 Annual Report ( 1 9 6 9 ) ] . Dairymen look to production records f o r a number o f forms o f 31 32 Table 3 . - - Reasons c it e d f o r adoption o f production t e s t in g . Reason Number o f respondents In d iv id u a l cow production 105 C u llin g guide 94 Comparison w ith creamery t e s t 21 Feeding in s tru c tio n s 19 Breeding dates 18 A dvertising and merchandising 17 Drying o f f dates 16 P a r t ic ip a tio n 1n breed a s s o c ia tio n programs 9 S ire proving 9 inform ation to help them in t h e i r decision-making processes. Table 3 is a l i s t o f the major reasons c it e d by Michigan dairymen in t h is study. As one might exp ect, in d iv id u a l cow production and use o f the records in c u llin g the herd are by f a r the two most fr e q u e n tly mentioned reasons fo r using production t e s t in g . Over 80 percent o f the dairymen 1n the study who had adopted production t e s tin g c it e d these two as the basis f o r adoption. Approximately 15 to 20 percent looked to production records f o r in fo rm atio n on feeding i n s t r u c t i o n , breeding dates, d r y i n g - o f f d a te s , and f o r a comparison w ith the t e s t they re ce ive from the creamery. A la rg e p o rtio n o f adopters having r e g is te re d herds cited the a d v e r tis in g and merchandising o f t h e i r animals and p a r t i c i p a ­ tion in breed a s s o c ia tio n programs as a main advantage f o r being on t e s t . Production in fo rm atio n is useful in o b ta in in g estim ates o f the genetic value o f s ir e s through s i r e p ro vin g , although only o f f i c i a l records 33 Table 4 . - - Type o f t e s t used by Michigan dairymen. Type of te s t Number of respondents Percent DHIA ( o f f i c i a l ) 56 45 .90 DHIR ( o f f i c i a l ) 12 9 .8 4 Owner Sampler ( u n o f f i c i a l ) 31 25.41 5 4 .1 0 18 14.75 T ri-M o n th ly -T e s tin g ( u n o f f i c i a l ) P riv a te Test ( u n o f f i c i a l ) are used. There are f i v e types o f t e s t a v a i l a b l e to the Michigan dairyman. These, along w ith the number and percent o f respondents using each are shown in Table 4. The D a iry Herd Improvement A sso ciatio n (DHIA) record is the most widely used by Michigan dairymen. Almost 46 percent o f the dairymen on t e s t in t h is study belonged to DHIA. On a s ta te -w id e basis over 1800 herds and 80,000 cows were e n ro lle d on DHIA in 1969. DHIA is an o f f i c i a l form o f t e s t under the supervision o f the United States Department o f A g r ic u ltu r e (USDA) through s ta t e and lo c a l a s s o c ia tio n s . Under th is program each month a one-day t e s t is conducted by the supervisor on the e n t i r e h erd , r e g is te r e d cows and grades. At t h is time the supervisor m aintains I d e n t i f i c a t i o n records and keeps c u rre n t produc­ tio n on In d iv id u a l cows u p -t o - d a t e . Feed and feed costs as w ell as other items o f In fo rm a tio n are o p t io n a l. The D airy Herd Improvement R e g is try (DHIR) has 170 herds and 15,000 cows e n ro lle d in Michigan. Approximately 10 percent o f the 34 herds in t h is study were e n r o lle d on the DHIR program. e s s e n tia lly the same fu n c tio n as DHIA, however i t re g is te re d herds. DHIR has is a p p lie d only to Both the breed a s s o c ia tio n and USDA are involved in i t s s u p e rv is io n , and a l l production records made on t h is program are reported to both h eadq u a rte rs. Although DHIR is more expensive than DHIA, the breed a s s o c ia tio n s p ublish the records and make them a v a ila b le f o r o th e r promotional fu n c tio n s . The Owner-Sampler te s t in g program is an u n o f f i c i a l t e s t in which the farmer takes his own m ilk weights and samples each month. The supervisor c o lle c t s the samples and c a lc u la te s in fo rm a tio n on m ilk and f a t f o r the d a iry fa rm e r, w ith o th e r in fo rm a tio n also o p t io n a l. The program has 1300 herds and 4 0 ,0 0 0 cows e n r o lle d in Michigan. Approximately a q u a rte r o f the dairymen in t h is study were using the Owner-Sampler program. Although these reco rd s, i f c o lle c te d p r o p e r ly , can be j u s t as accurate as o f f i c i a l reco rd s, they are not regarded as such and are not included in s i r e p ro vin g , s a le catalo gs o r any o th e r place where o f f i c i a l records are found. They are p r i m a r i ly f o r the herd owner's use. Another form o f t e s t , a v a i l a b l e in Michigan and New York, 1s the T ri-M o n th ly -T e s tin g (TMT) Program. This r e l a t i v e l y new program has only 6500 cows e n r o lle d and o nly about fo u r p ercent o f th e dairymen in the study. As the name im p lie s , the u n o f f i c i a l TMT 1s designed to allow the coirmercial d a ir y fan n er to be on a t e s t in g program w ith the le a s t amount o f time and e f f o r t . M ilk samples need only be taken once every th ree months and m ilk weights once every month f o r a d a ir y farmer to be a c tiv e 1n t h is program. These reco rd s, w h ile not recognized as o f f i c i a l d a ir y reco rd s, and c e r t a i n l y not as a c c u ra te , provide the commercial dairyman w ith approximate production in fo rm atio n to a s s is t 35 him in his decision-making processes. The f i n a l P riv a te T e s t. form o f t e s t a v a i l a b l e to Michigan dairymen is the Such t e s t in g programs are conducted by various FFA chapters and Grade B processing p la n ts which provide such services fo r t h e i r patrons. in the p ast* s t i l l These t e s t in g programs* w h ile not as popular as t e s t a s iz a b le number o f cows. Approximately 15 percent o f those dairymen included in t h is study were on p r iv a t e te s t. I t was also noted t h a t these in d iv id u a ls appeared to be w ell s a t i s f i e d w ith t h e i r t e s t in g program and enjoyed the personal a t t e n t i o n they received w ith i t . Dairy farmers can be described by one o f th re e c a te g o rie s , a d o p te r, d is c o n tin u e s or n on-adopter, depending upon t h e i r p o s itio n on production te s t in g . The reasons f o r adopting production te s t in g have a lre a d y been summarized in Table 3, w h ile those c a te g o rize d as d is co n tln u e rs are summarized on Table 5. A dairyman's f a i l u r e to recognize the value o f t e s tin g caused most in d iv id u a ls to drop t e s t in g . This f a i l u r e was caused by a number o f reasons c it e d by those In te rv ie w e d p e rs o n a lly . The most common response was i n a b i l i t y to understand the computerized re su lts o f the t e s t . Dairymen e v id e n tly received r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e assistance from the su p erviso r 1n I n t e r p r e t i n g and using t e s t d a ta , thus i t was o f l i t t l e o r no use. Houghaboom (1963) observed a s i m i l a r occurence in h is study o f Vermont d a ir y farm ers. He f u r t h e r noted th a t a dairyman's a p p ra is a l o f the s u p e rv is o r's q u a l i f i c a t i o n s appeared to be c lo s e ly associated w ith t h e i r d e s ire f o r a s s is ta n c e . Thus one could hypothesize t h a t assis tan ce from a su p erviso r o r some o th e r person In whose a b i l i t i e s the d a ir y farmer has co n fid en ce, would be e f f e c t i v e 1n reducing the number o f dairymen who drop out o f the program. 36 Table 5 . - - Reasons c it e d f o r d is c o n tin u in g production t e s t in g . Reason Number o f respondents Could not r e a l i z e the value o f t e s t in g 61 Too much work 43 Too expensive 40 Poor se rv ice 36 Supervisor q u i t 12 P e rs o n a lity c o n f l i c t w ith supervisor 11 One d a ir y farm er c it e d f o r not reco g nizing the value o f t e s t i n g , concerned the use o f plus-proven AI b u l l s . This p a r t i c u l a r dairyman b elieved t h a t as long as a l l o f his fu tu re herd replacements were s ir e d by plus-proven b u lls his c a t t l e had to make the maximum g en etic improvement p o s s ib le , thus 1 t was unnecessary to t e s t his herd. Appar­ e n tly th is in d iv id u a l had been oversold on the m e rits o f AI and f a i l e d to r e a l i z e the importance o f s e le c tin g su p e rio r females as w ell as superior males. Other comments ranged form "as long as my t e s t stays above 3 .5 at the creamery I d o n 't need to t e s t " , to "my cows c u ll themselves by not breeding back and i n j u r y problems, so I d o n 't need to t e s t . " Responses f r e q u e n tly d e a lt w ith the e x tra commitment o f tim e , money and e f f o r t . Some dairymen recognized the importance o f t e s tin g t h e i r herd but did not fe e l they could a f f o r d 1 t a t the present time. Others f e l t the e x tra time and la b o r spent on te s tin g was not worthwhile. was designed. I t was p r e c is e ly f o r such In d iv id u a ls t h a t the TMT program However, 1 t 1s q uestion ab le whether these d a ir y farmers 37 would even adopt t h is program. Poor s e r v ic e , p r i m a r i ly from the lo c a l s u p e rv is o r, was c it e d as another reason f o r d is c o n tin u in g t e s t in g by a number o f dairymen. Several complaints were made concerning the s u p e rv is o r's carelessness and i n a b i l i t y to keep accurate records. Another problem o f most t e s t in g a s s o c ia tio n s is t h a t o f r e t a in in g the supervisors f o r a long period o f tim e , e s p e c ia lly the best ones. When these we 11-resp ected supervisors q u i t , a number o f t h e i r patrons also q u it r a th e r than make the t r a n s i t i o n to another supervisor who is a complete s tra n g e r. Anytime an In d iv id u a l comes in c o n tac t w ith a la rg e number o f farmers, i t is r e l a t i v e l y c e r t a in t h a t some p e r s o n a l i t i e s , h o p e fu lly a minimum w i l l c o n f l i c t . O fte n , unless the d a ir y farm er is a b le to j o i n another te s t in g a s s o c ia tio n , he w i l l d is co n tin u e h is program r a th e r than continue w ith someone he does not get along w ith . The t h ir d category comprises In d iv id u a ls who never have adopted production t e s t in g . Table 6 shows the most fre q u e n t response, as w ith the d is c o n tln u e rs , was the f a i l u r e to r e a l i z e the value o f t e s t in g . Most f e l t they had done a l r i g h t t h is f a r w ith o u t te s t in g so th e re was no need to adopt i t now. Another response fr e q u e n tly heard was t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l 's cows were not good enough to be on t e s t . need In fo rm ation about t h e i r cows. These are the dairymen who most I f t h e i r c a t t l e are not p r o f i t a b l e , they should be replaced by c a t t l e t h a t a r e . One could hypothesize t h a t some In d iv id u a ls probably do not want to know j u s t how poor t h e i r cows a c tu a lly a r e . Such in d iv id u a ls ma> a ls o have a f e a r o f being compared to t h e i r neighbors, whose herd may be s u p e rio r in an in d iv id u a l would r a t h e r not p a r t i c i p a t e a t a l l p ro d u ctio n . Thus, than be embarrassed in 38 Table 6 . - - Reasons c it e d f o r never adopting production t e s t in g . Number o f respondents Reason Could not r e a l i z e the value o f t e s tin g 148 Cows are not good enough 80 Too expensive 35 Too much work 33 Unstable t e s tin g program 18 My neighbors do not t e s t so I do not e i t h e r 9 No t e s t e r a v a ila b le 8 fro n t o f h is contemporaries. Approximately equal numbers o f non-adopters responded th a t produc­ tio n t e s tin g was too expensive o r re q u ired too much work. Thus, they believed t h e i r time and money could be b e t t e r spent elsewhere, although the v a l i d i t y o f t h a t b e l i e f 1s q u e stio n ab le. A number o f those i n t e r - ; -wed, which responded in t h is manner, were only in d a iry farming as a .d e lin e . These In d iv id u a ls held o th e r jobs in nearby c i t i e s and only looked tu d a ir y in g as a minor source o f income. C e rta in areas 1n Michigan have had tro u b le m a in ta in in g a s ta b le te s tin g program. te s tin g program In such areas d a ir y farmers are r e lu c t a n t to adopt a because o f what they have heard and seen. Production t e s t i n g , l i k e many o th e r In n o v a tio n s , w i l l not be adopted by some in d iv id u a ls u n t i l t h e i r neighbors do. F i n a l l y , some In d iv id u a ls were found who wanted to be on t e s t b u t, because o f t h e i r remote lo c a t i o n , had no t e s t e r a v a i l a b l e and th e re fo re were unable to t e s t t h e i r herd. These In d iv id u a ls were located mostly 39 Table 7 . - - L is t in g o f v a r i a b l e d e s c r ip tio n and corresponding name. V a r ia b le D e s c rip tio n V a ria b le Name Constant ( y - 1 n t e r c e p t ) value Person s e le c t in g s ir e s used in herd Cost o f A l - v s - b u l l Convenience o f A l - v s - b u l l Danger element o f having a d a i r y b u ll present E ffe c tiv e n e s s o f AI 1n combating disease Future plans o f dairyman Age o f dairyman Number o f c h ild r e n Level o f education P a r t i c i p a t i o n 1n 4-H o r FFA programs Number o f years engaged in farming Number o f y e a rs engaged in d a ir y in g Background experience in d a ir y in g Farming in Michigan S iz e o f farm 1n acres Value o f the Extension S e rv ic e T o ta l number o f magazines read Method o f m arketing m ilk used Percent o f la b o r fo rc e h ir e d D e s c rip tio n o f f a c i l i t i e s used Average m ilk pro du ction le v e l Number o f cows Percent o f herd which Is r e g is te r e d Adoption o f pro du ction t e s t in g Adoption o f a r t i f i c i a l insem ination Cons SSel Cost Conv Dan Dis Fut Age Ch Ed FFA YrFm YrDa Bkgd FMi Acre ExS Mag Mar Labor Fac MProd NCow Reg PTest AI in the n orthern p a r t o f the lower peninsula where d a i r y farms are q u it e sparse. When co n sid erin g the adoption o f p ro du ction t e s t i n g , as w e ll as a rtific ia l Insem in atio n ( A I ) , one can t h in k o f a number o f fa c to r s which should in flu e n c e the adoption o f each s e p a r a t e ly , and some which should Influen ce both. The v a r ia b le s Included In t h i s study and a b r i e f d es crip tio n o f each are l i s t e d 1n Table 7. Although a number o f the v a ria b le s appear a t f i r s t glance to be s p e c i f i c a l l y t i e d to the adoption o f A I, 1 t was b e lie v e d they could be h e lp fu l 1n e v a lu a tin g the th in k in g 40 Table 8 . - - S t a t i s t i c a l re la tio n s h ip s te s tin g and o th e r v a r ia b le s . V a ria b le 3 AI SSel Cost Conv Dan Dis Fut Age Ch Ed FFA YrFm YrDa Bkgd FMi Acre ExS Mag Mar Labor Fac MProd NCow Reg Cons Z ero -o rd er C o rr e la tio n C o e ffic ie n ts .208 .264 .063 .287 .096 .083 .113 -.1 1 2 .178 .142 .263 -.1 5 0 - .1 5 6 .008 .111 .407 .226 .398 .434 .073 -.2 5 8 .251 .284 .268 between adoption o f production P a rtia l C o rr e la tio n C o e f f ic ie n t .077 .203 .006 .248 .042 .051 .009 .206 .029 -.1 1 7 .161 -.0 7 9 -.0 6 5 .065 .134 .197 .062 .098 .231 .032 - .0 1 4 .034 .027 .190 P a rtia l Regression C o e f f ic ie n t Standardized P a rtia l Regression C o e f fic ie n ts .002 .168 .003 .143 .024 .041 .005 .023 .009 - .0 3 5 .167 - .0 1 5 -.0 1 1 .072 .299 .001 .048 .059 .222 .001 -.0 0 7 .000 .001 .005 -.3 4 1 .074 .1 6 8 ** .006 .2 1 0 * * .039 .047 .008 .3 0 0 * * .024 - .1 1 2 .1 6 6 * - .2 0 8 -.1 6 0 .058 .119* .2 1 4 * * .053 .099 .2 1 4 * * .027 - .0 1 3 .033 .028 .1 5 4 * * a For l i s t i n g o f v a r ia b le d e s c rip tio n see Table 7. * Standardized p a r t i a l regression c o e f f i c i e n t s i g n i f i c a n t a t P<.05. * * Standardized p a r t i a l regression c o e f f i c i e n t s i g n i f i c a n t a t P<.01. o f dairymen In the various c a te g o rie s o f adoption o f production t e s t in g . Therefore, they were Included 1n the study o f adoption o f production te s tin g a ls o . Zero -o rd er c o r r e l a t i o n s , p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s , p a r t i a l re g res sio n , and standardized p a r t i a l regression c o e f f i c ie n t s are l i s t e d 1n Table 8 f o r each o f the 24 Independent v a ria b le s w ith the dependent 41 v a r ia b le , adoption o f production t e s t i n g . Results f o r two o f the v a ria b le s , age and e d u ca tio n , re q u ire c l a r i f i c a t i o n . The z e ro -o rd e r (sim ple) c o r r e l a t i o n o f age w ith adoption o f production t e s t in g is n e g a t iv e ,i . e . , younger farmers are more in c lin e d to adopt production te s tin g ; however, the r e s u lts o f the regression a n a ly s is show the reverse to be tr u e . For the education v a r ia b le the r e s u l t changes from p o s it i v e , f o r the z e ro -o rd e r c o r r e l a t i o n , to n e g a tiv e , f o r the p a r t i a l re g res sio n . The r e s u lt s f o r these v a ria b le s are prime examples o f the e a r l i e r discussion concerning the inappl ic a b i 1 i ty. o f u n iv a r ia t e analyses to m u l t i v a r i a t e d ata. drawn from such r e s u l t s . In c o r r e c t conclusions can e a s i l y be Tables 17 and 21 f u r t h e r exem plify t h is by showing h ig h ly s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e s between means f o r age o r education of adopters and non-adopters on a u n iv a r ia t e b as is . However, Table 8 shows the p o s it iv e regression f o r age to be h ig h ly s i g n i f i c a n t ; th e re fo r e , the d i r e c t e f f e c t o f age is opposite t h a t in d ic a te d in the u n iv a ria te analyses. The e f f e c t o f ed u ca tio n , on the o th e r hand, w h ile also h ig h ly s i g n i f i c a n t under u n iv a r ia t e t e s t s , is not s i g n i f i c a n t in the complete model f o r m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a ly s is , although the sign o f the estimated e f f e c t is changed. Twelve m u l t ip l e regression models f o r p r e d ic tio n o f the adoption o f production t e s t in g are presented in Table 9. regression parameters are l i s t e d Estimates o f p a r t i a l in the body o f the ta b le along w ith 2 the squc;-£ o f che m u l t ip l e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t (R ) , which was used to compare e ffe c tiv e n e s s o f the models. r e l a t i v e e f f i c i e n c y o f each model tio n t e s tin g . in p These R -v a lu e s re p res en t the p r e d ic t in g the adoption o f produc­ E f f ic ie n c y is based on th e p o rtio n o f the t o t a l v a r ia tio n in adoption e x p la in a b le by v a r i a t i o n w it h in the v a ria b le s Included in each model. V a ria b le s are added to the models one a t a tim e , as long as Table 9 .-- Estimates of parameters in m ultiple regression models fo r predicting adoption of production testing. Model 1 *** 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 *** *** **★ ** * * ** * * * Cons 0.416 0.121 1.189 1.049 1.218 1.407 0.945 0.467 0.215 -0.347 -0.075 -0.236 Mar -.456b -.449 -.357 -.326 -.321 -.308 -.302 -.300 -.272 -.262 -.262 -.255 Conv Acre -.097 -.189 -.184 -.179 -.176 -.164 -.158 -.152 -.153 -.160 -.143 --------- .001 .001 .001 .001 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 Reg SSel YrFm Age FFA Mag FMi ----------- --------- -------- -------- -— ----------- -------- -------- ----------- -------- Ed AI -------- ............. ----------- -------- -------- .006 .005 .005 .006 .006 .005 .005 .005 .005 ----------- ----------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ----------- -------- -.150 -.143 -.168 -.148 -.148 -.156 -.147 -.161 ----------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ----------- -------- -.008 -.017 -.020 -.021 -.126 -.025 -.025 -------- -------- -------- -------- ----------- -------- .013 .022 .023 .027 .025 .024 -------- ------- ------- ---------- -------- .173 .165 .167 .191 .188 --------- -------- ----------- -------- .079 .071 .083 .080 -------- ----------- -------- .273 .338 .351 -------.035 -.033 ------- .002 a For description of variables see Table 7. b Regression coefficient.. c Square of m ultiple correlation c o e ffic ie n t. * Current model explains s ig n ific a n tly more of the to ta l variation than the preceeding model, P<.05. ** Current model explains s ig n ific a n tly more of the total variation than the preceeding model, P<.01. *** Current model explains s ig n ific a n tly more of the to ta l variation than the preceeding model, P<.001. 50 ro o Variables a .1881 .2642 .3384 .3758 .3990 .4107 .4238 .4407 .4526 .4621 .4700 .4741 43 Table 1 0 . - - Marketing index score by production te s t in g adopter categ o ry. Category Marketing I ndex Score Adopters 0 12 117 .1056 Discontinuers 62 145 .4276 268 268 1.0000 Non-adopters Number of Respondents Ave. Index Score tb D 2 .7 8 1 * 8 .0 6 2 ** a The manner in which the respondent marketed his m ilk caused p oints to be awarded ac co rd in g ly: Grade A * 0 points No answer « 1 p o in t (e lim in a te d from sample) . Manufacturing = 2 points Value f o r D unnett's t - t e s t . c Control Group. * S ig n if ic a n t P<.05. * * S ig n if ic a n t P<.01. they increase the R^-value s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the preceeding model. According to Draper and Smith (1966) as soon as the F - t e s t value r e la t e d to the most r e c e n tly entered v a r ia b le is found to be n o n s ig n ific a n t i t is ap p ro priate to term inate the process. Each o f the f i r s t 11 models explained s i g n i f i c a n t l y more v a r i a t i o n than the model preceeding i t . It is in t e r e s t i n g to note the f l u c t u a ­ tions o f each c o e f f i c i e n t as o th e r v a ria b le s are added to the model, and the concurrent Increases 1n R^-value. The f i r s t model (M-j), using only one v a r i a b l e , m arketing, e x p la in s almost 19 percent o f the t o t a l v a r i a t i o n . Although the c o e f f i c i e n t f o r marketing 1 s n e g a tiv e , coding o f the v a r ia b le caused t h is to occur, as shown 1n Table 10. This t a b le shows th a t a h ig h e r percentage o f adopters o f production t e s tin g are Grade A dairymen. The in fe re n c e drawn from the n egative regression c o e f f i c i e n t 1 s also t h a t a higher percentage o f the adopter category operate Grade A farms. T h e re fo re , these analyses ag re e, and the l a t t e r In d ic a te s th a t th is v a r ia b le has 44 Table 1 1 . - - Convenience index score by production t e s t in g adopter category. Ave. Index Score Category Convenience Index Score Number of Respondents Adopters 0 290 111 2.6126 D is c o n tin u e s 445 141 3.1560 3 .0 3 7 * * Non-adopters 761 233 3.2661 4 .0 1 8 * * *5 a The manner in which the respondent answered the q u e s tio n , " In terms o f conception r a te 1s AI compared to a b u l l : " caused points to be awarded a c co rd in g ly: Much more convenient « 0 points More convenient * 1 p o in t No answer * 2 points (e lim in a te d from sample) Same * 3 points Less convenient * 4 points Much less convenient ■ 5 points b Value f o r D u n nett's t - t e s t . c Control Group. * * S ig n if ic a n t P<.01. the la r g e s t d i r e c t e f f e c t (h oldin g a l l o th e r v a ria b le s co n stant) upon the adoption o f production t e s t in g . By adding the convenience v a r ia b le (AI compared to n atu ral s e rv ic e ) the second model (M2 ) 1s con stru cted . causes t h is c o e f f i c i e n t to be n e g a tiv e . Table 11 also exp lain s how coding I t also shows, using the u n i­ v a r ia te a n a ly sis approach, th a t adopters fe e l AI 1s more convenient than n atu ral s e rv ic e in terms o f conception. T h e refo re D u n nett's t - t e s t agrees w ith the n egative regression c o e f f i c i e n t . Although the ambiguity o f the convenience v a r ia b le w ith respect to production te s tin g 1 s e v id e n t, f u r th e r study suggests t h a t i t measures a general fa v o ra b le a t t i t u d e toward innovations. However, i t may als o r e f l e c t the common e f f e c t o f many v a ria b le s not included and thereby could g iv e m isleading r e s u l t s . The t h i r d model (M^) adds farm s iz e to the preceeding. Table 12 compares these farm s iz e s o f various adopter c a teg o ries using the Table 1 2 . - - Approximate farm s iz e by production t e s t in g adopter category. Acres Number o f Respondents Adopters** 271 117 Dlscontinuers 274 145 0.134 Non-adopters 191 268 4 .3 4 5 * * Category *8 j* Value f o r D un nett's t - t e s t . b Control Group. * * S i g n i f ic a n t a t P<.01 • Table 1 3 . - - Percent o f herd r e g is te r e d by production t e s t adopter category. Category Percent Registered Number o f Respondents 2 3 .9 117 Discontinuer 7 .4 145 4 .7 1 4 ** Non-adopter 4 .4 268 6 .2 5 2 * * Adopter ‘d * Value f o r D u n nett's t - t e s t . D Control Group. * * S ig n if ic a n t a t P<.01. Dunnett's t - t e s t . As shown adopters have l a r g e r farms than non-adopters. This observation agrees w ith the r e s u lt s obtained from the regression an a ly sis. As one might a n t i c i p a t e , adopters o f production t e s t in g have a higher percentage o f re g is te re d c a t t l e than non-adopters. This 1s Indicated by both the p o s it iv e regression shown In Table 9 . and the highly s i g n i f i c a n t D un nett's t - v a lu e 1n Table 13. The l a t t e r t a b le Table 1 4 . - - S ire s e le c tio n index score by production te s t in g adopter category. Category Adopters 0 S ire S e le c tio n Index Score* Number o f Respondents Average Index Score 72 115 .6261 Disconti nuers 162 141 1.1489 0.675 Non-adopters 266 250 1.0640 0.752 d b c The manner in which the respondent answered the fo llo w in g question caused points to be awarded a c co rd in g ly: "Who s e le c ts the s ir e s used in your breeding program?" M yself * 0 points No answer = 1 p o in t (e lim in a te d from sample) Another p a rty * 2 points Value f o r D unnett's t - t e s t . S p ec ified Standard. indicates th a t adopters have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h ig h e r percentage o f re g is tere d cows in t h e i r herds than e i t h e r the d is c o n tin u e r o r non-adopter c a te g o rie s . The next model (Mg) adds method o f s i r e s e le c tio n to the previous model. The n egative sign here again is o f no concern and can be explained by coding, as shown 1n Table 14. The slope o f the l i n e merely in d ic a te s th a t those In d iv id u a ls who adopt production t e s t in g are also more In c lin e d to s e le c t the s e rv ic e s ir e s to be used on h is herd, whether n a tu ra l o r A I , by h im s e lf, r a t h e r than to depend upon the judgement o f another person. This in d ic a te s t h a t these dairymen are more Independent, more In te r e s te d in t h e i r herd and are more w i l l i n g to make the necessary decisions regarding the fu tu r e o f t h e i r herds. Dunnett's t e s ts showed the mean index scores o f d is c o n t in u e s and 47 Table 1 5 . - - Years o f farming by production t e s tin g adopter category. Category Years o f Farming Number o f Respondents *8 Adopters 25 .4 117 Discontinuers 2 4 .5 145 0.5322 Non-adopters 2 8 .8 268 2.3973* a b * Value o f D u n nett's t - t e s t . Control Group. S ig n if ic a n t a t P<.05. non-adopters o f production te s t in g did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the mean o f adopters in method o f s i r e s e le c t io n . This r e s u l t c o n tra d ic ts the m u lt iv a r ia t e t e s t which showed the d i r e c t e f f e c t o f s i r e s e le c tio n is h ig hly s i g n i f i c a n t (P < .0 0 2 ). This is another i l l u s t r a t i o n o f the d i f f i c u l t y encountered 1 n making c o r r e c t Inferences from u n iv a r ia t e re su lts in non-orthogonal d ata. Based on the f i v e previous v a r ia b le s * plus years in farm in g , Model 6 (Mg) e x p la in s s l i g h t l y more than 41 percent o f the t o t a l v a r i a t i o n . As In d ic a te d by the n eg ative regression c o e f f i c i e n t and Dunnett's t value in Table 15, adopters have fanned s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer years than non-adopters. They als o have been engaged in d a iry in g a s i g n i f i c a n t l y shorter period o f tim e , according to Table 16. No s ig n ific a n c e was found by the m u lt ip le regression procedure, although the c o e f f i c i e n t obtained was n e g a tiv e . This in d ic a te s t h a t the slope o f the estim ated lin e agrees w ith the r e s u lts obtained In Table 16. Adding the age f a c t o r (M^) ra is e d R2 -v a lu e to .4238. As discussed e a r l i e r , age is one o f the fa c to r s f o r which u n iv a r ia t e and m u lt iv a r ia t e 48 Table 1 6 . - - Average number years o f d a iry in g by production te s tin g adopter category. Years of D a iryin g Number of Respondents Adopters1* 2 2 .9 117 Discontinuers 22 .3 145 0.424 Non-adopters 2 7 .0 268 2 .9 4 1 * * Category ta ZD Value f o r Dunnett's t - t e s t . Control Group. * * S ig n if ic a n t a t P<.01 j* Table 1 7 . - - Approximate ages by |p roduction t e s t in g adopter category. Category Age Number o f Respondents ta D Adopters *3 4 4 .4 117 D is c o n tin u e s 44.1 145 0 .1 5 0 Non-adopters 51 .5 268 5 .1 8 8 * * * Value f o r Dunnett's t - t e s t . Control Group. * * S ig n ific a n t a t P<.01. analyses s tro n g ly d is a g re e . U n iv a r ia te a n a ly s is in d ic a te s adopters are s i g n i f i c a n t l y younger than non-adopters (T ab le 1 7 ). However, the regression c o e f f i c i e n t obtained 1 s p o s i t i v e , In d ic a tin g the opposite to be tr u e . The d i r e c t e f f e c t o f age, holding a l l o th e r v a r ia b le s constant ( i . e . a l l fanners having the same number o f a c re s , the same number o f cows, marketing t h e i r m ilk the same, having the same le v e l o f 49 Table 1 8 . - - P a r t i c i p a t io n in 4-H and FFA Index score by production te s tin g adopter categ o ry. Category FFA-4-H Index Score 3 Number of Respondents Average Index Score Adopter 0 144 117 1.2308 Discontlnuer 178 145 1.2276 Non-adopter 124 261 .4751 * 0.027 7 .0 9 8 * * a The respondents p a r t i c i p a t i o n in 4-H o r FFA caused p o in ts to be awarded ac co rd in g ly: No p a r t i c i p a t i o n in 4-H o r FFA = 0 points No answer * 1 p o in t (e lim in a te d from sample) . P a r t i c i p a t io n in 4-H o r FFA = 2 points D Value f o r D un nett's t - t e s t . c S p e c ifie d Standard. * * S ig n if ic a n t P< .01 . education, e t c . ) and a llo w in g o nly age o f the dairyman to v a ry , 1 s p o s itiv e ly r e la t e d to adoption o f production t e s t in g . Thus, o ld e r dairymen are more in c lin e d to adopt production t e s t in g when a l l o th e r variables are co n stant. P a r t i c i p a t io n in such a g r i c u l t u r a l youth o rg a n iz a tio n s as 4-H and FFA appear to be q u ite h ig h ly associated w ith the adoption o f production t e s t in g . A p o s it iv e regression c o e f f i c i e n t was obtained in d ic a tin g t h a t adopters o f production te s tin g were more l i k e l y to have 4-H and FFA backgrounds than non-adopters. The average Index scores obtained f o r 4-H and FFA 1n Table 18 als o agree t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t l y more adopters have 4-H and FFA backgrounds. Farmers re c e iv e a g re a t deal o f In fo rm atio n about farming p ra c tic e s from farm magazines. Studies have shown t h a t the adopters o f various innovations tend to read more magazines than non-adopters* Therefo re i t 50 Table 1 9 . - - Total number o f magazines read by production t e s tin g adopter category. Category Number of Magazines Number of Respondents *5 Adopter *3 4 .0 6 117 Discontinuers 3.69 145 1 .464 Non-adopters 2.81 268 5 .5 4 4 * * j* Value f o r D u n nett's t - t e s t . b Cpntrol Group. * * S i g n i f ic a n t a t P<.01. was not s u rp ris in g t h a t a p o s it iv e regression c o e f f i c i e n t was obtained fo r the adoption o f production t e s t in g and number o f magazines read. The a d d itio n o f farm magazine readership ra is e d the percent o f the to ta l v a r ia t io n explained by (Mg) to over 45 p erc en t. The u n iv a r ia t e an alysis (T ab le 19) agreed adopters o f production t e s t in g read s i g n i f i ­ can tly more magazines than non-adopters. Adoption o f production t e s t in g als o appears to be p o s i t i v e l y re la te d to the s t a b i l i t y o f the d a ir y fa n n e r. In d iv id u a ls who have always farmed in Michigan are more l i k e l y to be on t e s t than those who moved t h e i r operations in from o u t - o f - s t a t e , as shown in (M^q ) . Although no s ig n ific a n c e was found between groups 1n Table 20, the non-adopter category in the sample d id appear to have a h ig h e r p o rtio n o f farmers who had come from o u t - o f - s t a t e . The second discrepancy between m u l t i v a r i a t e and u n iv a r ia t e an a ly s is lie s in the d if f e r e n c e found in e f f e c t o f the education v a r ia b le . Although the p o s it iv e regression f o r education was not s i g n i f i c a n t in the 51 Table 2 0 . — Farming in Michigan Index score by production t e s tin g adopter category. Farming in Michigan Index Score Category Number of Respondents Average Index Score tb D Adopters 0 230 117 1.9658 Discontinuers 286 145 1.9724 0.139 Non-adopters 502 266 1.8872 1 .852 a A respondents response to the fo llo w in g question caused p o in ts to be awarded a c c o rd in g ly : "Have you always farmed 1n Michigan?" No *= 0 points No answer = 1 p o in t (e lim in a te d from sample) Yes * 2 points b Value f o r D unnett's t - t e s t . c Control Group. complete model, i t was s i g n i f i c a n t l y n eg ative in (M ) , where i n d i r e c t 11 e ffe c ts o f l a t e n t v a ria b le s c o rr e la te d w ith education c o n trib u te to the c o e f f i c ie n t f o r the education v a r i a b l e . Table 21 shows the r e s u lt s fo r education when analyzed by a u n i v a r i a t e approach. Here I t appears that both adopters and d is c o n t i n u e s have s i g n i f i c a n t l y more education than non-adopters. However, one can understand how such fa c to r s as age, p a r t ic ip a t io n 1n 4-H and FFA, and a number o f o th e r v a ria b le s may be highly confounded w ith education and cause the u n iv a r ia t e a n a ly s is to be m isleading. When a l l o th e r v a ria b le s studied were held co n sta n t, the d ir e c t e f f e c t o f education was a c t u a l ly found to be a n eg ative regression upon the adoption o f production t e s t in g . T h e re fo re , given constancy o f o th e r v a r ia b le s , Increased ec'vcatlon 1 s in o pp ositio n to Increased adoption o f production t e s t in g . The f i n a l model (M-jg) adds the adoption o f a r t i f i c i a l Insem in atio n. 52 Table 2 1 . - - Average number years o f education by production t e s tin g adopter category. Years of Education Number of Respondents Adopters 10 .6 117 Discontinuers 10.7 145 0.1 59 9 .3 268 4 .1 9 4 * * Category Non-adopters *5 a Value f o r D un nett's t - t e s t . b Control GrouD. * * S ig n if ic a n t a t P< .01 » Table 2 2 . - - Precent adoption o f a r t i f i c i a l te s tin g adopter category. Percent AI Category insem ination by production Number o f Respondents *8 Adopters^ 75.547 117 Di scontinuers 58.931 145 3 .3 8 4 9 ** Non-adopters 55.049 268 4 .6 8 3 2 * * £ Value f o r D unnett's t - t e s t . D Control Group. * * S ig n if ic a n t a t P<.01. The a d d itio n o f t h is v a r ia b le does not increase R^ s i g n i f i c a n t l y , therefore i t is the l a s t model presented f o r p r e d ic t in g the adoption of production t e s t in g . Although the p o s it iv e regression c o e f f i c i e n t obtained is not s i g n i f i c a n t , the d ir e c t io n o f the slope agrees with the r e s u lts obtained in Table 22. This u n iv a r ia t e a n a ly s is In d ic a te s 53 Table 2 3 . — Approximate average m ilk production by production t e s t in g adopter category. Pounds of M ilk Number of Respondents Adopters^ 13,115 117 Discontinuers 12,341 145 2 .6 0 6 * Non-adopters 11,478 268 6 .1 8 4 ** Category *S a Value f o r D un nett's t - t e s t . b Control Group. * S ig n if ic a n t a t P<.05. * * S i g n i f ic a n t a t P<.01. that adopters o f production t e s t in g breed a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher percentage o f t h e i r herd a r t i f i c i a l l y than e i t h e r the d is c o n tin u e r o r non-adopter categ o ry. Other v a ria b le s are o f p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t , even though t h e i r regression c o e f f i c ie n t s were not found to be s i g n i f i c a n t and hence they were not included in any o f the models. A g re a t deal o f ca u tio n should be exercised 1n drawing Inferences from these r e s u l t s . I f one is r e l a t i v e l y c e r t a in th e re 1s no confounding o f o th e r v a ria b le s w ith the one being s tu d ie d , D u n nett's t e s t 1s v a l i d . However, i f o th e r v a r ia b le s are confounded in c o r r e c t inferences may r e s u l t . The approximate average m ilk production is summarized in Table 23. I t appears t h a t herds o f adopters produce s i g n i f i c a n t l y more m ilk than e it h e r o f the o th e r two c a te g o rie s . Previous stu d ies have shown t h a t adopters o f new ideas tend to have la r g e r operations than non-adopters. The measure o f the s iz e o f a d a iry fa n n e r's o p e ra tio n is u s u a lly 1 n terms o f the number o f cows he 54 Table 2 4 . - - Approximate number o f cows milked by production te s t in g adopter category. Number of Cows Number of Respondents Adopters *5 47.1 117 Discontlnuers 36.1 145 1 .923 Non-adopters 25.1 268 4 .9 0 8 * * Category ta D j* Value fo r Dunnett’ s t - t e s t . b Control Group. * * S i g n i f ic a n t a t P<.01. m ilks. Table 24 shows t h a t adopters m ilk s i g n i f i c a n t l y more cows than non-adopters. Although no s ig n if ic a n c e was found f o r number o f cows when analyzed by m u lt ip le re g re s s io n , the c o e f f i c i e n t obtained was p o s itiv e . T h erefo re the slope o f the sample regression l i n e in d ic a te s th a t the d i r e c t e f f e c t agrees w ith fin d in g s o f o th e rs . As s ta te d e a r l i e r , those o perations which h ire d a la rg e p o rtio n of t h e i r lab or u s u a lly adopted more in n o v a tio n s . Family o p e ra tio n s , on the o th e r hand, were u s u a lly more co n se rv ative and less l i k e l y to adopt new ideas, but seldom has fa m ily s iz e had any r e la t io n s h ip on the adoption of new ideas. U n iv a r ia t e an a ly s is o f these data agree w ith previous u n iv a ria te analyses. As presented in Table 25, adopters h ire d s i g n i ­ f i c a n t l y more o f t h e i r la b o r than both d ls co n tin u e rs and non-adopters. However, as shown In Table 2 6 , the sizes o f the f a m ilie s o f the various adopter ca teg o ries were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . A p o in t o f p a r t i c u l a r I n t e r e s t was observed throughout t h is d i s ­ cussion. Deutschmann and Havens (1965) along w ith a more re ce n t study 55 Table 2 5 . — Percent h ire d la b o r by production t e s t in g adopter c a te g o ry . Category Adopters1* Percent Hired Labor Number of Respondents taD 17.09 117 Di scon t i nuers 5.85 145 5 .2 7 2 * * Non-adopters 6.20 268 5 .7 2 9 * * ? Value f o r Dunnett' s t - t e s t . Control Group. * * S i g n i f ic a n t a t P<. 0 1 . Table 2 6 . — Number o f c h ild re n among production t e s t in g adopter category Category Number of C hildren Number of Respondents *D Adopters** 3.043 117 Disconti nuers 3.159 145 0 .3 9 9 Non-adopters 2 .9 10 268 0.511 ? Value f o r D unnett's t - t e s t . Control Group. by Jorissen (1 9 6 9 ), have found In d iv id u a ls in the d is c o n tin u e r category to be more l i k e the non-adopter than the a d o p te r. Jo rissen (1969) c ite s a number o f stu d ies besides h is own data which als o show s i m i l a r r e s u lts . true. However, data in the present study In d ic a t e the reverse to be An ex p la n a tio n f o r these r e s u lts Is t h a t the p resent study only considers the adoption o f one In n o v a tio n , and In v e s tig a te s the response 56 to i t in depth, w h ile many o f the previous studies d e a lt w ith a number o f innovations to o b ta in an o v e r a ll aco re. By only d e a lin g w ith one v a ria b le the tricotomus nature o f the a n a ly s is may have a d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t than when an index score is used f o r many such in n o v a tio n s . Ar t i f i c i a l Insem ination According to Lerner and Donald (1966) a r t i f i c i a l insem ination ( A I) has been both a r e s u l t and a cause o f the re v o lu t io n in animal breeding in recent y e a rs . AI evolved in the face o f much c r i t i c i s m , and even today 1s su b je c t to many unwarranted remarks by those who s t i l l it. oppose In the past many notions were c u ltu re d about AI lea d in g to the production o f m o n s tro s itie s , d eg e n e ra tio n , inbreeding and reduced fe r tility . Although the AI process s t i l l remains " u n n a tu ra l" , i t has proven i t s e l f so economical, e f f e c t i v e and advantageous th a t i t has become f i r m l y e s ta b lis h e d in a l l p a rts o f the world where d a ir y in g is p ra c tic e d . Several authors have prepared ex ten siv e l i s t s and have discussed in g re a t d e t a i l the advantages o f A I , [ R ic e , e t al_- ( 1 9 5 7 ) , Salisbury and VanDemark (1 9 6 1 ), Reaves and Henderson ( 1 9 6 7 ) ] . Dairy farmers 1n Michigan adopt AI f o r a v a r i e t y o f reasons as shown in Table 27. The g r e a te s t advantage o f AI is Increased usefulness o f superior s i r e s . It is u n l i k e l y , through n a tu ra l s e r v ic e , t h a t any one s ir e could have over 200 female o f fs p r in g 1n a l i f e t i m e . However through A I , the number o f o ffs p r in g o f one s i r e can exceed 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 , and the s i r e can remain in s e rv ic e years a f t e r h is death through use o f fro zen semen. The extended use o f proven s ir e s o f high c a l i b e r w i l l als o have a marked e f f e c t on the e f f i c i e n c y o f m ilk produ ction . The second most fre q u e n t response In d ic a te d t h a t dairymen were anxious to get r i d o f the b u lls because o f danger and expense. The owners o f sm a lle r herds are faced w ith many problems regarding the 57 Table 2 7 . — Reasons c ite d f o r adoption o f a r t i f i c i a l insem in atio n. Number of Respondents Reason Higher q u a l i t y s ir e s 282 Did not want to keep a b u ll around 206 Easier to keep accurate breeding records 48 More economical 29 Because rriy neighbors adopted 1 t 12 purchase and maintenance o f a s i r e . They can seldom a f f o r d the q u a l i t y o f animals a v a i l a b l e through AI and lik e w is e h e s it a t e to b u ild the kind of quarters necessary f o r s a fe ty in keeping a b u l l . I t is th e re fo r e s a fe r , cheaper, and u s u a lly f a r s u p e rio r from a breeding s ta n d p o in t, f o r the d a ir y farmer to adopt A I . A number o f dairymen fe e l AI enables them to keep more accurate breeding records. Such records help a dairyman improve re p ro d u ctive e f f ic ie n c y by lo c a t in g problem cows in h is herd. This is e s p e c ia lly true when the dairyman 1s tra in e d to do h is own insem in atin g. Operating in th is c a p a c ity he can lo c a te re p ro d u c tiv e disturbances a t an e a r l y stage and b rin g them to the a t t e n t i o n o f a q u a l i f i e d v e t e r in a r ia n f o r treatm ent. AI 1s u s u a lly more economical than n a tu ra l s e r v ic e . In most Instances the s m a lle r the herd the g r e a t e r the advantage f o r A I . This is e s p e c ia lly tru e when one considers the expenses In c u rre d in b u ild in g f a c i l i t i e s and paying f o r fe e d , and personal la b o r Involved in handling a larg e b u l 1 . 58 Table 2 8 . - - Reasons c ite d f o r d is c o n tin u in g use o f a r t i f i c i a l tio n . insemina­ Number of Respondents Reason Poor conception r a te 78 Too much work in heat d e te c tio n 31 Poor tec h n ician 29 Too expensive 23 Lost technician 8 Desired to use own b u ll 4 Poor choice o f b u lls 3 Poor calves from AI 1 Of course A I , l i k e production t e s t i n g , has a c e r t a in number o f in d iv id u a ls who adopt i t because t h e i r neighbors have. When In te rv ie w in g such in d iv id u a ls the response was heard, "everyone e ls e uses i t around here, so i t must be good." These in d iv id u a ls d id not appear to be sold on the m erits o f A I , but r a t h e r adopted i t because 1 t was "the th in g to do." Reasons c ite d f o r d is c o n tin u in g the complete use o f AI are presented in Table 28. basis. Many o f these dairymen s t i l l used AI on a p a r t i a l Of 136 respondents who discontinued the use o f AI c o m p le te ly , only 36 said they would never use AI a g a in , another 36 said they would readopt AI p ro vid in g t h e i r problems were remedied and 74 said they intended to readopt A I , but on a - l i m i t e d basis (T ab le 2 9 ) . These r e s u lt s do not agree w ith Rogers (1970) who b e lie v e d the big gest problem c o n fro n tin g 59 Table 2 9 . - - Future plans f o r re-adopt1on o f AI by those dairymen who discontinued use o f A I . Never w i l l Response Number of Respondents re-ad o p t 36 W ill re-adopt but on a l im it e d basis 64 W ill re-adopt p ro vid in g problems are remedied 36 AI was not i t s expansion but r a t h e r m a in ta in in g a fa v o ra b le Image among those who have adopted i t s s e rv ic e s . These data show th a t o f the r e l a ­ t i v e l y few in d iv id u a ls who have discontinued use o f A I , a low percen­ tage o f them are com pletely disenchanted w ith A I . The most fre q u e n t problem w ith AI was a low r a t e o f conception, which can occur f o r a number o f reasons. Most dairymen were In c lin e d to focus the blame on the in sem in ato r; however, many o th e r fa c to r s can cause a herd to have poor conception. I f the d a ir y farmer is not doing an adequate job in d e te c tin g estrus his cows w i l l the proper time and poor conception w i l l re s u lt. not be bred a t T h e re fo re , f o r an inseminator to do an e f f e c t i v e jo b , he must have the cooperation o f the d a iry farmer he serves. As shown by Table 28 , o th e r dairymen b elie ve d AI involved too much work in heat d e te c t io n , o r t h e i r te c h n ic ia n was doing a poor jo b . The e a r l i e r discussion exp lain ed how a dairyman's own inadequacy could cause him to make such a statem ent. S t i l l o th e r dairymen f e l t AI was too expensive. Expense, o f course, is dependent upon the s iz e o f herd, but e s p e c ia lly dairymen w ith small 60 herds did not consider the expense included in o b ta in in g and m a in ta in in g a b u ll. They also f a i l e d to consider the p o te n tia l d iffe r e n c e in q u a lity o f fu tu re o f f s p r in g . Another problem a ris e s in r e t a in in g q u a l i f i e d te c h n ic ia n s , espec­ i a l l y in remote area s. When a te c h n ic ia n goes out o f business i t presents a g re a t problem f o r many o f his patrons. I f they are unable to obtain another te c h n ic ia n they are l e f t w ith no choice but to re tu rn to natural s e rv ic e . R e la t iv e ly few in d iv id u a ls discontinued AI merely to go back to using t h e i r own b u l l . Likewise few d a ir y farmers f e l t AI provided a poor choice o f b u lls o r th a t they had received such poor q u a li t y calves from AI t h a t they discontinued using I t . Planning a breeding program f o r h is herd presents a number o f problems f o r the average dairyman. C r i t i c a l e v a lu a tio n o f his herd and accurate I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f s i r e summaries are two o f the biggest problems he has to fa c e . Table 30 summarizes e ig h t in fo rm ation contacts a v a ila b le to a l l Michigan d a iry farm ers. Of th e s e , the most fre q u e n tly used source o f in fo rm atio n is the AI insem inator. Ins em in ato rs, however, o fte n recommend b u lls w ith a high conception ra te s r a th e r than bulls proven f o r high production o f m ilk and f a t . men s t i l l N e ve rth e le s s , d a i r y ­ look to inseminators f o r In fo rm atio n more fre q u e n tly than to any o f the seven o th e r In d iv id u a ls l i s t e d . T h e re fo re , any time spent by AI units on educating tec h n ician s about s i r e e v a lu a tio n should be w e ll-w o rth w h ile . Because the insem inator has taken on such an im portant r o le In the o v e ra ll p ic t u r e o f d a ir y farm in g , respondents were asked to ev a lu a te the Importance o f 11 c h a r a c t e r is t ic s as shown in Table 31. C le a n li­ ness, conception r a t e obtained and a b i l i t y to choose the best s ir e s are 61 Table 3 0 . - - Importance o f various contacts in decision-making regarding the breeding o f a Michigan d a iry herd. Contact a Index Score 3 AI insem inator 2138 V e te rin a r ia n 1679 Ne1ghbor 1220 Feed d e a le r 906 DHIA supervisor 672 County agent 635 Breed fleldman 604 Vo-Ag teacher 528 The manner in which the respondent answered the q ue stio n : "How o fte n do you t a l k to the fo llo w in g about breeding your herd?" caused points to be awarded ac co rd in g ly: Often * 6 points O ccasionally ■ 4 points Refused to answer = 3 points Seldom = 2 points Never » 0 points the c r i t e r i a most valued by Michigan dairymen in e v a lu a tin g an Insemina­ to r. I f one were to ask ten dairymen how to e v a lu a te a herd o f cows, one would probably get ten d i f f e r e n t answers. Consequently, to o b ta in a standard procedure, the respondents were asked to e v a lu a te the Im­ portance o f the 13 t r a i t s l i s t e d 1n Table 32. As one might ex p ec t, the level o f m ilk production was regarded as most Im p ortan t. might also be regarded as " fu n c tio n a l type" ( I . e . legs) also seemed to r a t e high on the 1 1 s t. What udder and f e e t and These data t h e r e fo r e in d ica te th a t Michigan d a ir y farmers r e a l i z e the Importance o f 62 Table 3 1 . - - Importance o f various q u a l i t i e s f o r an insem inator based on index score. Indexa Score Quali ty Cleanliness 1280 Conception ra te 1251 Choosing the best s ir e s f o r your cows 1222 Knowledge o f s ire s 1110 Experience 1041 Friendliness 1041 Coming when convenient f o r you 1015 Being able to advise you on problem cows 1006 Able to reach him w ith o u t a long d is ta n c e c a l l 837 In te re s t in your o p e ra tio n 830 Knowledge o f the AI o r g a n iz a tio n 670 The manner in which the respondent answered the question: "How important would you say these fa c t o r s are f o r an inseminator?" caused points to be awarded a c c o rd in g ly : Extremely im p o rtan t = 3 points Im portant * 2 p o in ts Refused to answer * 1 p o in t Not im p o rtan t = 0 p o in ts s tru c tu ra l soundness as w e ll as high p roduction in t h e i r c a t t l e . Thus f a r the discussion has centered around where the d a ir y farm er gets inform ation about breeding h is herd and what he looks f o r in an inseminator and his cows. The b ig d e c is io n however, comes when the farmer must decide on which s i r e he 1s going to use 1n his herd. As Lasley (1964) p o in ts o u t, on an in d iv id u a l basis the s i r e and dam are o f equal Importance, but when one takes the e n t i r e herd in t o c o n s id e ra tio n 63 Table 3 2 .— Importance o f various c h a r a c t e r is t ic s o f the cow in Michigan d airy herds. C h a r a c t e r is t ic a Index Score 3 M1lk production 1383 Udder 1319 Fat t e s t 1186 Ease o f m ilk in g 1179 D is p o s itio n 1113 Feet and legs 1096 Body c a p a c ity 1095 D airy c h a ra c te r 979 O v e ra ll type score 852 Size 838 Top iin e 747 Head 590 Color markings 401 The manner in which the respondent answered the q uestion : "How important do you f e e l the f o llo w in g c h a r a c t e r is t ic s are 1n your herd?" caused p oints to be awarded a c c o rd in g ly : Extremely Im portant * 3 p o in ts Im portant * 2 p o in ts Refused to answer * 1 p o in t Not Im portant * 0 points the s ir e is o f more Importance from a g en etic s ta n d p o in t. reason the b u ll i s the most Im portant s in g le in d iv id u a l For t h is 1 n the breeding program* and g re a t care should be exercised 1n his s e le c t io n . Table 33 l i s t s the c r i t e r i a used f o r s i r e s e le c t io n by the Michigan dairymen Included in t h is study. A number o f p oints m e r it f u r t h e r mention. 64 Table 3 3 . - - Basis f o r s i r e s e le c t io n . Factor Number o f Respondents Dam's m ilk and f a t production 277 Type t r a i t s o f s i r e ' s daughters 125 Conception r a t e 111 USDA p re d ic te d d if f e r e n c e 95 R e p e a ta b ility f a c t o r 78 Pedigree 69 Price o f s i r e 67 MSU-Extension AI summary l i s t 30 No s ir e s e le c t io n p ra c tic e d 20 Breed a s s o c ia tio n s i r e re c o g n itio n programs 18 Pleasing c o lo r markings 14 Daughter average percent f a t t e s t 12 Daughter-darn comparison 3 a 1 Si r e - t e s t i n g procedure d iscontinued 1n 1967. The USDA P re d ic ted D iffe r e n c e c u r r e n t l y is recognized w id e ly by u n iv e rs ity personnel* AI o rg a n iz a tio n s and breed a s s o c ia tio n s as the best e s tim a to r o f the g e n e tic value o f a d a ir y s i r e . results in Table 33 show t h a t Michigan dairymen f a i l Y e t, the to recognize i t s importance, and co n sid e ra b ly more dairymen look to what the s i r e ' s dam produced r a t h e r than what his own daughters produced compared w ith t h e ir contemporaries. Twenty o f those p o lle d adm itted they used no means o f s i r e s e le c - 65 tio n a t a l l and merely were concerned about g e t t in g t h e i r cows bred regardless o f what kind o f a b u ll was used. T h e re fo re , i t is im portant th at AI u n its not only have s ir e s o f s u f f i c i e n t g en etic q u a l i t y but insure reasonable f e r t i l i t y . Another i n t e r e s t i n g p o in t was th a t one d a ir y farmer l i s t e d the daughter-darn comparison as his basis f o r s i r e s e le c tio n . This pro­ cedure was discontinued th re e years ago and is no longer published in any o f the AI s i r e d i r e c t o r i e s , or breed jo u r n a ls . Thus t h is in d iv id u a l c e r t a i n l y was not aware o f the c u rre n t trends in the in d u s try . For a r t i f i c i a l in s em in atio n , as f o r production t e s t i n g , a number of c h a r a c t e r is tic s are r e la te d to adoption o f the p r a c t ic e . S ta tis ­ t i c a l r e la tio n s h ip s between the adoption o f AI and tw e n ty -fo u r indepen­ dent v a ria b le s are presented in Table 34. C o e f f ic ie n ts associated with p a r t i c ip a t i o n in 4-H and FFA, years in d a ir y in g , farming in Michigan, acres farmed and magazines read a l l changed the sign from u n iv a ria te to m u l t iv a r ia t e a n a ly s is . This gives f u r t h e r support to the contention th a t u n iv a r ia t e analyses ap p lie d to m u l t i v a r i a t e data can give misleading r e s u l t s . These data show t h a t the independent e ffe c ts o f many v a ria b le s a c t u a l ly are opposite o f those estim ated without adjustment f o r n o n -o rth o g o n a lity (Tables 34 and 5 4 ). Table 35 presents 12 m u lt ip le regression models f o r p re ­ d ic tin g the adoption o f a r t i f i c i a l Insem in atio n. The body o f the t a b le l i s t s the a p p ro p ria te p a r t i a l regression c o e f f i c ie n t s w ith the square o f the m u ltip le c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t (R^) l i s t e d in the extreme right-hand column. These R^-values are used as a basis f o r the compari­ son o f the models, and represen t the r e l a t i v e e f f i c i e n c y o f each model fo r p re d ic tin g the adoption o f production t e s t i n g . This e f f i c i e n c y is based on the amount o f the t o t a l v a r ia t io n in adoption explained 66 Table 3 4 . - - S t a t i s t i c a l variab les. V a ria b le 3 Z e ro -o rd e r C o r r e la tio n C o e ffic ie n t SSel Cost Conv Dan Dis Fut Age Ch Ed FFA YrFm YrDa Bkgd FM1 Acre ExS Mag Mar Labor Fac MProd NCow Reg PTest Cons 0 .1 5 6 0 .3 3 0 0.3 35 0.4 94 0 .3 8 9 0 .1 2 8 0 .1 3 9 - 0 .0 2 6 - 0 .0 4 9 - 0 .0 0 3 0 .0 8 5 0 .0 7 6 - 0 .0 5 2 - 0 .0 2 6 0 .0 6 8 0 .0 8 8 0 .0 7 8 0.051 0 .0 73 - 0 .1 4 8 0.0 5 0 0 .0 6 8 0.055 0.164 r e la tio n s h ip s between adoption o f AI and o th e r P a rtia l C o r r e la tio n C o e ffic ie n t 0.168 0.062 0.145 0 .3 99 0 .2 38 0.157 0.115 - 0 .1 4 3 -0 .0 5 7 0.127 0.002 - 0 .0 1 4 -0 .0 1 8 0.034 - 0 .0 5 7 0 .0 4 3 - 0 .0 5 9 0.0 67 0.022 - 0 .0 7 9 0 .0 03 0.107 0 .0 9 8 0 .0 6 9 P a rtia l Regression C o e ff ic ie n t s 5.626 1.616 3.355 9.666 7.9 05 3.514 0.5 44 -1 .9 8 7 - 0 .7 3 9 5.373 0.0 16 - 0.102 -0 .8 8 3 3.305 - 0 .0 1 4 1 .458 -1.251 2.606 0.044 - 1 .6 6 6 0 .0 00 0.120 0.114 2.938 12.920 Standardi zed P a rtia l Regression C o e f fic ie n t s 0 .1 4 2 ** 0.061 0 .1 2 5 ** 0 .3 7 9 ** 0 . 220 * * 0 .1 3 6 ** 0 .1 7 0 * -0 .1 1 8 ** - 0 .0 5 4 0 .1 3 5 * 0.005 - 0 .0 3 2 - 0 .0 1 6 0 .0 3 0 - 0 .0 5 8 0 .0 3 6 - 0 .0 6 4 -0.0 61 0 .0 1 9 - 0 .0 7 3 0 .0 0 3 0 .1 3 4 * 0.081 0 .0 6 4 a For l i s t i n g o f v a r ia b le d e s c rip tio n see Table 7. * P a r t i a l re g res sio n c o e f f i c i e n t s i g n i f i c a n t P<.05. * * P a r t i a l re gressio n c o e f f i c i e n t s i g n i f i c a n t P<.01. by v a r ia tio n in the v a r ia b le s Included in each model. The technique proposed by Draper and Smith ( 1 9 6 6 ) . o f adding a v a r ia b le to the model only as long as the R^-value 1s Increased s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the preceedlng model, was used as a guide f o r the c o n stru c tio n o f the various models. Table 35.-- Estimates of parameters in multiple regression models for predicting adoption of a rtific ia l insemination. Variablesa Model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Cons 32.27 *** 13.81 *★* 33.54 ** 38.21 ** 20.90 *★ 14.86 * 13.68 * 9.88 * 11.79 * -0.89 * -3.14 5.24 Dan 10.64b 10.68 9.91 10.16 9.87 10.17 9.88 9.67 10.12 10.15 10.27 10.10 Ois Conv Fut Age NCow SSel ........... 9.84 8.33 7.63 7.67 7.83 7.93 8.03 7.94 8.01 8.01 7.85 ------------- -4.66 -4.79 -4.48 -4.33 -4.39 -3.85 -3.47 -3.46 -3.53 -3.66 PTest Ch FFA Reg Fac ---------- — ------------- ---------- — ------------- . . . ------------- -3.18 -4.14 -3.77 -3.64 -3.57 -3.82 -3.46 -3.41 -3.34 — — — — ----------- — — ----------- .38 .39 .35 .34 .36 .54 .55 .54 — — .10 .11 .09 .10 .09 .09 .08 — a For listing of variable description see Table 7. b Regression coefficient. 3.81 4.74 4.56 5.26 5.55 5.70 ---------- ---------- 4.54 5.16 5.05 4.13 3.75 ------------- ------------- ---------- — -------------- ------------- ---------- — ------------- ------------- ----------- — ------------- ------------- ---------- — ------------- -1.79 -1.97 -1.98 -2.03 ---------- — ------------- 4.57 4.84 4.50 — ------------- .11 .11 ------1.24 .2437 .3131 .3398 .3545 .3669 .3788 .3876 .3962 .4065 .4147 .4208 .4231 c Square of multiple correlation coefficient. * Currentmodel explains significantly more of the total variation than the preceeding model, P<.05. ** Current model explains significantly more of the total variation than the preceeding model, P<.01. *** Current model explains significantly more of the total variation than the preceeding model, P<.001. 68 Table 3 6 . - - Danger index score by AI adopter category. Danger Index Score® Category Number of Respondents Average Index Score Complete adoption 815 208 3.9183 P a r tia l adoption 0 497 166 2.9940 Non-adoption 264 117 2.2564 *5 5 .7 4 1 * * 3 .9 5 0 * * a The manner in which the respondent answered the q u e s tio n , "Some d a i r y ­ men th in k i t is not worth having a b u ll around because o f the danger. Do you:" caused p oints to be awarded acco rd in g ly: S tro n g ly d is ag re e* 0 points Disagree * 1 p o in t No answer = 2 points (e lim in a te d from sample) Remain n eu tral - 3 points Agree = 4 p oints Strongly agree * 5 points b Value f o r D unnett's t - t e s t . c Control Group. * * S ig n if ic a n t P<.01. The f i r s t model (M-|), using only the s in g le Independent v a r ia b le danger, explains almost a q u a rte r o f the t o ta l v a r i a t i o n in adoption by i t s e l f . T h e re fo re , a la rg e p o rtio n o f Michigan dairymen agree t h a t a d a iry b u ll should not be kept on the farm because o f the danger element. Hence, they adopt AI to e lim in a t e th is hazard. U n iv a r ia te analysis o f the danger mean index score shown in Tabel 36 also agrees th a t complete adopters d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from p a r t i a l ad o p te rs , which again are s i g n i f i c a n t l y more concerned than non-adopters about the danger o f the presence o f a b u ll on a d a ir y farm. The reader 1s to be reminded t h a t , as s ta te d e a r l i e r 1n the section on Method o f A n a ly s is , the p a r t i a l adopter o f AI has been designated as the standard to which o th e r c a te g o rie s are compared. Extension 69 Table 3 7 . — Disease co n tro l index score by AI adopter category. Disease Control Index Scorea Category Number of Respondents Average Index Score ^ tD 5 .3 2 7 * * Complete adoption 501 216 2.3194 P a r tia l adoption 0 277 162 1.7099 Non-adoption 125 103 1.2136 3 .5 7 8 * * a The manner in which the respondent answered the fo llo w in g question caused points to be awarded a c c o rd in g ly , "How e f f e c t i v e do you fe e l the use o f AI is in combating the spread o f disease?" Not e f f e c t i v e = 0 points No answer = 1 p o in t (e lim in a te d from sample) E f f e c t iv e = 2 points Very e f f e c t i v e = 3 points b Value f o r D unnett's t - t e s t . c Control Group. * * S ig n if ic a n t P<.0 1 . experience in d ic a te s th a t p a r t i a l adopters are g e n e r a lly the most Innovative o f the th re e groups and, w h ile they do recognize the advan­ tages o f A I , they also recognize I t s shortcomings. Therefore they are not l u l l e d in to a f a l s e sense o f s e c u r it y as the complete adopter may be, nor have they closed t h e i r minds to the o p p o rtu n itie s AI has to o f f e r as non-adopters may have. Adding the e ffe c tiv e n e s s o f AI in combating the spread o f disease (Mg) Increased the R^-value s i g n i f i c a n t l y over (M ^). The p o s it i v e regression c o e f f i c i e n t In d ic a te s t h a t adopters o f AI f e e l I t s use is very e f f e c t i v e 1n combating the spread o f disease. On the o th e r hand those t h a t d id not f e e l AI was very e f f e c t i v e werenot In c lin e d to adopt 1 t. (T ab le 37) supports t h is p o in t . Note U n iv a r ia te a n a ly s is also th is is a c o n firm a tio n o f the hypothesis t h a t the complete adopter 70 Table 3 8 . - - Convenience index score by AI adopter category. Convenience Index Score Category Number of Respondents Average index score Complete adoption 534 21 3_ 2.5493 P a r t ia l adoption 550 163 3.3742 Non-adoption 412 109 3.7798 tb D 5 .3 9 2 * * 2 .3 0 0 * a The manner in which the respondent answered the q u e s tio n , " In terms of conception r a t e would you say AI compared to ab u ll i s : " caused points to be awarded a c c o rd in g ly . Much more convenient - 0 points More convenient ■ 1 p o in t No answer = 2 p o in ts (e lim in a te d from sample) Same = 3 points Less convenient = 4 points Much less convenient = 5 points b Value f o r D unnett's t - t e s t . c Control Group. * S ig n if ic a n t P<.05. * * S ig n if ic a n t P<.01. believes a l l o f h is problems are solved by using A I . By adding the convenience v a r ia b le to the previous model, (M3 ) is constructed. The reason f o r a n eg ative regression c o e f f i c i e n t is explained in Table 38. S i g n i f i c a n t l y more complete adopters b e lie v e AI is more convenient than n a tu ra l s e rv ic e 1 n o b ta in in g a good conception ra te . Whereas s i g n i f i c a n t l y more non-adopters b elie v e d AI was much less convenient than n a tu ra l s e rv ic e . The fo u rth model (M^) adds the dairyman's f u tu r e p la n s . S ig n ifi­ can tly more adopters than non-adopters o f AI Intend to stay 1n the d a iry business. Again, the neg ative regression can be exp lain ed by the coding procedure used, as shown 1n Table 39. The u n iv a r ia t e a n a ly s is fin d s s i g n i f i c a n t l y more complete adopters than p a r t i a l adopters in te n d in g to 71 Table 3 9 . - - Future plans index score by AI adopter ca teg o ry. Category Future Plans Index Score* Average Index Score *D 2 .4 8 3 * Complete adoption 223 214 1.0421 P a rtia l adoption 0 238 166 1.4337 Non-adoption 186 116 1.6034 a b c * b Number of Respondents 0.9 20 A respondents f u tu r e plans caused p o in ts to be awarded ac co rd in g ly: Remain about the same s iz e - 0 points Increase the d a ir y herd * 1 p o in t No answer = 2 p oints (e lim in a te d from sarrple) Change to another farm e n te r p r is e = 3 points R e t ir e * 4 p oints Value f o r Dunnett's t - t e s t . Control Group. S ig n if ic a n t P< .05. Table 4 0 . - - Approximate ages by AI adopter categ o ry. Category Age Number ot Respondents Complete adoption 4 9 .9 222 P a r t ia l adoption** 4 8 .5 173 Non-adoption 4 7 .8 135 ® b Value f o r D un nett's t - t e s t . Control Group. ta 1 .106 1 .556 72 e i t h e r increase t h e i r d a ir y herds o r remain about the same s iz e . However, no s ig n if ic a n c e was found between p a r t i a l adopters and non­ adopters. Age appears to have a p o s it iv e d i r e c t e f f e c t on the adoption o f AI in (Mg). M u lt i p l e regression shows t h a t adopters o f AI are s i g n i f i ­ can tly o ld e r than those t h a t do not adopt, although age (Table 40) was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t among adopter c a te g o rie s . This discrepancy in re s u lts could occur because, in the u n iv a r ia t e a n a ly s is , the e f f e c t o f age is confounded w ith such v a r ia b le s as le v e l o f ed u ca tio n , years o f experience, p a r t i c i p a t i o n in youth a c t i v i t i e s , and o th e rs . However, complete adopters in the sample were s l i g h t l y o ld e r than dairymen o f the other two c a te g o rie s . Herd s iz e also has a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t upon the adoption o f A I. The p o s it iv e regression value obtained f o r number o f cows in (Mg) indicates those dairymen using AI tend to have l a r g e r herds than those who do not use I t . An i n t e r e s t i n g comparison is presented in Table 41. P a r tia l adopters m ilk s i g n i f i c a n t l y more cows than e i t h e r complete or non-adopters. This gives f u r t h e r support to the e a r l i e r hypothesis th a t p a r t i a l adopters were more In n o v a tiv e than the o th e r two c a te g o rie s . These re s u lts agree w ith the fin d in g s o f Rogers ( 1 9 6 1 ), in h is study o f the c h a r a c t e r is t ic s o f a g r i c u l t u r a l In n o v ato rs . A r a th e r d is tu r b in g r e s u l t occurred when the method o f s i r e s e le c ­ tio n was considered (M7 ) . The s i g n i f i c a n t p o s it iv e regression v a lu e , along w ith the r e s u lts In Table 42, show t h a t the more an in d iv id u a l uses AI the less he is In c lin e d to p e rs o n a lly choose the s ir e s used in his breeding program. The general o pinio n o f those in te rv ie w e d was th a t there is not much d iff e r e n c e among b u lls 1n AI u n its because any b u ll.h a d to be good o r he would not be th e re . Others d id not "have 73 Table 4 1 . — Approximate number o f cows m ilked by AI adopter categ o ry. Number of Respondents Number of Cows Category Complete adoption 2 7 .9 222 P a r tia l adopt1onb 4 5 .2 173 Non-adoption 24.7 135 t3 D 4 .9 0 8 * * 4 .0 6 0 * * * Value f o r Dunnett's t - t e s t . b Control Group. * * S i g n i f ic a n t a t P<.01. Table 4 2 . - - S1re k ic „ 0 0 t*. ? ? ie C 1 | i | ■s * - si| ii1 i l l » i .1i £I -. S.. ? I I f . >-l x* *"* |s It 2fft 2 4 * - r it * I | nr i iG. ft. 2 2 8 si ii *¥ - r* n w « ft>3*^ —(*• m i^nnoG Sjgdl’ I i c Q D 115 21 W hai m > l » n o l your u n M pw cent herd isregistered 7 Card I C ol LJ 13 s i-a a 2 fl n S u p p o w y o u r c o w t d rop ped n o liC H tlly in percent b u tto rfa t I H W in t w u ld y H i c o m u ll lo t M p ' CJ I . Local veterinarian 1 3 2 A n a i^ ib o t tU 3 C o u n ty A p ic u ltu r e ! E stension □ 4 D M IA supervisor □ S S la t * E at m u o n Specialiw 0 6 F aad salesman 0 7 A I Technician O 8 . C ream ery peraonnel O 9 O th e r (a p e cily l t_3 t 1 t o n P H O O U C T IO N T E S T IN G A re your c o m o n a m ile tew in g program ’ O 1 Vee 1 7 No i l no. a to queetton 731 W hich tea ■ ( p ro w a m are you enrolled in7 O O 1 OHIA O 7 O 3 O 4 O S 13 Is y o u r supervisor □ 1 V w y cooperative □ 2. M o d w e ls ly c o o p w e tiv e CJ 3 Ltnooopwative CJ 14 W o u ld y o u ba w illin g to pay e stra fo r a d d itio n al swvices fr o m th e supw visor 7 a 1Vet CJ 7 No □ 16 S ho uld e good supervisor asp ect you to gnre h im accurate data fo r all areas o f th e barn d te s l > CJ 1 Ves. alw ays CJ 7 Ves. w ith a fe w e s c e p tio n t CJ 3 No CJ D M IR O w ner te m ptor T M T (T r i M o n th ly Tewing) N ivete I eel H o w long hae y o u r hard been on teei 7 veare CJ n sees H o w m en y luperwieore have teeted your herd eince ..... p rp w v ito rs you have been o n te e tl CJ O e a -e r F or every dollar y o u ip en d on le ttin g prow em s. do you e e lim a t* you O 1 Low MM O 7 Break even 0 3 G ain M M 1 J 4 G ain S I 0 0 G em m ore th a n $1 0 0 □ aa IB 06 CJn I Rank Rank the I eaeone w h y you tael your h w d o n ly thoee that arc m o o im p o rta n t! A tisrng and m w e h s n‘d-itin g IJ I “ dvw ----------------------------------------- -----------------in d ivid ual cow prod uction U 3 D ry in a o i l d a le * CJ 4 P rtw ips CJ 6 Feeding in stru c tio n * CJ 6 C ulling guide CJ 7 P a rtic ip a tio n in breed aaan program s CJ II Breeding dales U 9 Sire proving A c o n p a r m n w ith the cream ery te w n7 IB 1310 H ow are the roughage and concentrate values reported each m o n th utoteinad* CJ 1 G i b i i by m e CJ 7 G uew ee b y th e tu p erv iw r CJ 3 C opied fro m Iasi m on th 's report CJ 4 A ccurately estim ated b y m e , 3 6 A ccurately estim ated b y the tuperviaor I J 6 N one o l th e I CJ H o w it th e m itk pricing in fo rm a tio n o b te m a d f CJ I M y actual price CJ 7 M y guess o f th e price C l 3 Supervisor's gusts o l th e price a 4 o t h w Iq ie c ify i _____ CJ 19 20 Do y o u tost id en tific e rio ii o f the « n e nd d a m are im po rtant 7 CJ f Tea CJ 7- N o When com pering p ro d u c tio n records o f several cows, w h at d o y o u uaueffy consider the most im p o rta n t 7 CJ I A ctual pro d u c tio n ( 3 7 3 0 8 -7 M-ME p ro d u c tio n CJ 3 E «tender! 7K-44C p a rt la c ta tio n p ro d u c tio n CJ 4 L ife tim e prod u c tio n <3 6 Som e o th w c n ta n a II '7 H ow soon d o you th in k your m o n th ly re p o rt should be retu rn ed a fte r your herd was test ad 7 W ith in CJ t 6 days CJ 7 lO d a y t 3 IS days [J 4 TO days CJ & 3 8 days CJ 8 I d o n o t teal n i t im p o rta n t H ow m uch lim e does th e supervisor v e n d on your te rm each teat d a y 7 CJ 1 N o t t n e u ^ i to d o an adequate jo b C 7. S u fficien t tu n a t o d o an adaqueta rob LJ 3 T o o m uch tim e , b u t does an sdsouats |Ob CJ 4 T o o m uch tim e and still doesn't do en adequate |Ob CJ CJ r e TS D o you k n o w the esact day your tupw visor w ill test your herd 7 CJ 1 V a t, always CJ 7 Most o f th e tim e CJ 3 Seldom CJ 4 Never C ard 7 a In w h at c o n d itio n does y o u r supervisor m aintain your b o o k s! CJ 1. E ecellent O 2 G o od CJ 3 A irways CJ 4 F a ir a 5 Boor CJ 6 M y supervisor does not m aintain m y books CJ H o w w ell d o you feel your supwvisor is trained to do h it jo b 7 □ I, A dequately O 2 Partially CJ 3 inadequately [J H ow w o u ld yo u evaluate your w o rk in g ratal io n Ship w ith your Supervisor 7 CJ 1. E seal lent CJ 7 G ood CJ 3 A vw age □ 4 Fa n CJ 6 . Poor CJ If testing rates w w * increased 1 B tt. w o u ld y ou CJ 1 Q u it tasting CJ 7 Conautor a chespw p r o p am LJ 3. C o n tin u e o n m y present program CJ 71 Hava you alw ays b een o n th e present fo rm o f testing7 CJ □ t Vet O 2 No Il f yes. p u p to qu estio n 281 77 W hy d id y o u change 7 CJ t T o W in m ore in fo rm a tio n CJ 7 toevtoue taw in g program was to o eepenewe CJ 3 poor supervisor CJ 4 Present Seating p r o p a m lakes lass tim e CJ 6 O th w (specify) - — (S k ip to q uestio n 281 23 74 Have y o u ever been o n tew f CJ 1 ves □ 2 No I I I no. d u p lo q u e w io n 781 W hy d id y o u discontinue your testing p ro g ra m 7 □ 1. T o o m uch work CJ 7 T« a 3 CJ 4. s u p e rv o o r q u it CJ 6 Personality c o n flic t w ith supervisor CJ 8 C o u ld n 't realise th e value o f taw in g CJ T Wes suspended b y ta w m g association CJ B O th er 'w e e d y I fSk ip to q usanon 761 C ol O CUJ CJ t 1-4 a CJ f ' a LJ i J i * is 116 D o n o t w rite Why h a w y ou never tested y o w to w i^ □ 1 Too»p#M 4vt CD 2 T o o m uch work CJ 3 Mo le tte r available r j 4 unetftbie testing p « o *e m O b M y c o w l ere not fo o d enough i l l 6 N o t convinced toy th e value o f lettin g L j 7 M y neighbors d o n 't toet to l d o n 't feel I nsed to toff either L ; a C ouldn't reel ire the value o f lo ttin g a 9 O th er Ispac'fyl Ind Card 7 n CD i eColi 7 O e n o t urrtte 27 H o w do you food you* court gram * CD 1 f ood ell c o m the t ame n 2 T ry to feed c o m according to miHi product n n hr act we load feeding according to stagt of lactation CD 4 U te e rule of thum b n S 1 feed a cow all th e worn* N o gram fad A u to m a tic te tf feede* a b O ther f g e c if y l CD3. CJ« a 7 H ow do y o u cull your h e rd > (Honk oil ihoto applicable) H I Age, oideel court ere told f t i i tD 2 Whenewar I feel e c o w isn't m ilk mg enough CD 3 Poorest looking c o m rogerdlett ol m ilk production CD 4 Stoweet m dking court CD ft For heelth end infury ree to n t {1 6 . C ull QBwrt Thet k*cfc regeedtoea ot milk production fD 7 S te rility problems III ?t ir If you wonted to m ake aura you w ere balancing the rotton w h K h you were feeding your court properly, w h o w o u ld you consul! w ith * n 1. A neighbor CD 7 C oun ty A gricultural Extension CD 3. A I Tech mcion CD 4. Veterinarian CD ft Feed com pany p i t m e n CD 6 Om vereitv pertonnef O 7 Local elevator personnel C I . S tefa E nfen**on dairym an CD 9 D H IA supervisor H I O O th e i (g w c ify l A R T IF IC IA L tN BC 4M N ATIO N Whai po rtio n of your herd ■« bred a rtific ia lly * percent H I A l has been used in the pact, b u l yo u aren't using it at th e preoani. d i p to qweation Iftl ii f A i he* never been used, f t p to question 201 How long have yo u been using A l J years Why dir! you adopt A l 7 (Chech e* ineny OS necessary) ~ I Because neighbors adopted >1 J 2 Higher q u alify ures M i Tamer to keep eccurate breeding records 4 M ore economic al I - b 1 d id not want in keep a hull on my farm Which studs are you using* CD 1 Select Sires o y o u r p re v io u s o n e t r ] CD it ir rj cd «$n 14 L) LD se-s« IS 16 ' 1 I fc Nreffent J J '. 4 A verage FMK 1 ves D o most units have about the to safari fro m * LD 1 ves qu ality of sirec 1 I ( lo n ’ r l u v m c; 2 BOV CD 3 CD 4 Lj 5 70V 80% 90% #> loov It IJ- IB fo r his fob? W hy dtd you q u it ustng A l t CJ 1 Too empentrv* LD 2 Lost techmi.ian O 3. Poor lechnm an CD 4. Poor conception rate [II ft Tuo m uch w o rk *n heut detection CJ ft. Foot choice o f bulls CD 7. I rgury tp cows fro m art if »* tel breeding m ft. O ther I g e i i l y i D o you eve* m leivf lo use A l uge*n* D 1 Ves. providing the above problem s are Adequately Fur i tally CD 2 n 3 Inadequately * )inn 14) o r g a n is a tio n !* iD t Ves U ? No Why d id you switch to I H s tu d lil you ere usmg 2 n Have you had any i i p a e n r * w ith nther A i now> Have you always had I he same inseminatur ? Cl 1 m /a t* o n 70 Ves, b u l on a lim ited best* N o, O n w h et b ai l do (tod) y ou safari your sues* □ f . V a ry a ffective □ 2. E ffective CJ 3. N o t affective □ CJ a □ a ru o ea ee TO 71 II 71 o a a a 77 re SUMMARY OUCSTKMUS 1 Whet are your fu tu re plena lo r your dairy h a rd * C3 1 R em em abou t th e —me o r e C i 7 in creew th e d airy hard □ 3 Change to another fa rm enterpriae C 4 R etire 2 What tu g g e ttio n t d o y o u have to im prove A l and prod uction ta ttin g * LJ u Thank y ou for your cooperation C lin to n E M earfnw t 118 ipER ATIVE IIG A N STATE E X T E N S IO N U N IV E R S IT Y S E R V IC E • BAST L A N S IN G * M IC H IG A N 48825 D a iry D e p a rt m enr A n th o n y H a ll U.S. D B P A E T M B N T O F A G R IC U L T U R E C O O P E R A T IN G Dear S ir : I f your mail is l i k e mine, almost d a i l y I get some kind o f l e t t e r advising that I may have alre a d y won some kind o f p r iz e and my immediate re p ly w i l l let me know i f I have won $5 0,0 00 , a t r i p fo r two to Cuba, o r something. This is not th at kind o f l e t t e r , your name has been selected but th e re w i l l not be any prizes. However, you can be very h e lp fu l i f you w i l l r e p ly . The Dairy Department o f Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity is organized to provide a formal education to your youngsters here on campus and an inform al education to those on the farm through the 4-H and FFA club a c t i v i t i e s . We als o have the re s p o n s ib ility o f solving the te c h n ic a l problems th a t are associated w ith dairying through our research. A major task f o r us is our determining what your problems are t h a t need research and when p r a c tic a l s o lu tio n s are found, get t h is in fo rm a tio n back to you. One of our graduate students is t r y in g to fin d .-the answers to t h is problem and one of his approaches w i l l be the completing o f a q u e s tio n a ir e . Both mailing and personal in te rv ie w s w i l l be used to complete the q u e s tio n a l re . The purpose o f th is l e t t e r is to inform you th a t 1n the sampling procedure your name has been s e le c te d . We would c e r t a i n l y a p p re c ia te your cooperation in the completing o f the questions. Of course, the in fo rm atio n needed concerns your personal in fo rm a tio n and opinions and w i l l be tre a te d w ith complete confidence. Our o n ly concern 1s how to *best serve the d a ir y farmers o f Michigan. The r e s u lts o f the survey w ill be most h e lp fu l to us in t r y in g to help you. S in c e re ly C lin to n E. Meadows D a iry Extension S p e c i a l i s t CEM:kgf 119 >perative IIG A N e x te n s io n STATE U N IV E R S IT Y s e rv ic e • BAST L A N S IN G * M IC H IG A N 48823 Dairy Department U.S. D E P A R T M E N T OF A G R IC U L T U R E C O O P E R A T IN G February II, 1970 Dear 5 i r : As a f o l l o w - u p t o t h e s t u d y which we have been c o n d u c t i n g on how the E x t e n s i o n s e r v i c e can be o f more h e l p t o t h e d a i r y f a r m e r in M i c h ­ igan, y o u r name has been s e l e c t e d in o u r s a m p l i n g p r o c e d u r e . One o f o u r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s , M r . Lee K u c k e r , w i l l be c o n t a c t i n g you by phone a t t h e t i m e s p e c i f i e d below In r e g a r d t o t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e enclosed. I f you would have t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e handy when he c a l l s , I t would make t h e I n t e r v i e w v e r y s i m p l e b o t h fr om y o u r s t a n d p o i n t and h i s . I hope t h e t i m e shown below Is c o n v e n i e n t f o r y o u , h o w e v e r . I f I t Is n o t , p l e a s e g i v e Lee a more a p p r o p r i a t e t i m e and he wi I I be g l a d t o return the c a l l . We r e a l i z e t h e v a l u e o f y o u r t i m e and w i l l t r y t o keep t h e I n t e r v i e w as b r i e f and t o t h e p o i n t as p o s s i b l e . I a p p reciate your c o o p e r a t i n g w i t h o u r p r o g r a m . Through i t we hope t o p e r f o r m o u r job b e t t e r and be o f more s e r v i c e t o y ou . Si ncereIy CI 1n t o n E . Meadows D a iry Extension S p e c i a l i s t CEM: kgf En c Io s ur e Time: