INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy o f a docum ent sent to us for microfilming. While the
most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this docum ent
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality o f the material
submitted.
The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or notations which m ay appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or “ target” fo r pages apparently lacking from the docum ent
photographed is “ Missing Page(s)” . If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating
adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an
indication th at the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of
m ovem ent during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete
copyrighted m aterials th at should not have been filmed, you will find a
good image o f the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­
graphed the photographer has followed a definite m ethod in “sectioning”
the material. It is custom ary to begin filming at the upper left hand com er
o f a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with
small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning
below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4. For any illustrations th at cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by
xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and
tipped into y o u r xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our
Dissertations Custom er Services Department.
5. Some pages in any docum ent may have indistinct print. In all cases we
have filmed the best available copy.

University

M icrdfilm s

International

3 0 0 N Z E E B R O A D . A N N A R B O R . Ml 4 8 1 0 6
18 B E D F O R D R O W . L O N D O N WC1 R 4 E J . E N G L A N D

7917762
OLSON. THOMAS MICHAEL
N O N F O R M A L E D U C A T I O N D E L I V E R Y S Y S T E M S TO
L I M I T E D R E S O U R C E F A R M E R S IN M I C H I G A N .
MICHIGAN

University
Microfilms
International

STATE

UNIVERSITY,

3 0 0 N Z E E B H O A D . A N N A R B O R , Ml <18106

PH.D..

1978

REACH

NONFORMAL EDUCATION DELIVERY SYSTEMS TO
REACH LIMITED RESOURCE FARMERS
IN MICHIGAN
By
Thomas M. Olson

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Agricultural Economics
1978

ABSTRACT
NONFORMAL EDUCATION DELIVERY SYSTEMS
TO REACH LIMITED RESOURCE FARMERS
IN MICHIGAN
By
Thomas M. Olson

Small farms have been basic to the structure of
American agriculture.

They represent some of the values

which this nation was founded upon.

However, technological

developments over the past several decades have resulted
in great increases in agricultural productivity which have
not been shared by Small farmers.

This has resulted in a

changing structure of agriculture to fewer,

larger and more

commercially oriented farms.
In recent years there has been an increased concern
for the future of small farms.

The 1977 Farm Bill reflec­

ted these concerns by providing for research programs on
small farm problems, and for small farm extension programs.
The primary purpose of this study was to examine the
information gathering process of small farmers in relation
to the education and information delivery systems of the
Cooperative Extension Service in Michigan.
The first objective of this research was to examine

Thomas M. Olson
the sources of information used by small farmers in
Michigan.

The second objective was to examine the import­

ance of various types of information as perceived by small
farmers and as perceived by County Extension Agents.

The

third objective was to examine alternative informational
delivery systems or nonformal educational delivery systems
that the Cooperative Extension Service could utilize in
reaching small farm operators.

The fourth objective was to

try to identify some high priority areas for resource
allocation alternatives for the Michigan Cooperative Exten­
sion Service if additional funds are made available to
operate special educational programs for small farm
operators.
Three conceptual models of the diffusion of informa­
tion were examined and used in this study.

These were the

problem-solving model, the research and development model
and the diffusion of innovations model.
A mail questionnaire was developed and mailed to
8 00 persons whose names were obtained from the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service in six Michigan
counties.

The counties were chosen by a random process,

as were the names.

In addition, each of the County

Directors for the six survey counties was interviewed.
The survey respondents closely represented the 1974
Census of Agriculture in percentage breakdown by occupa­
tion, age of the operator and farm size.

Farms were

categorized based on the gross farm income categories of

Thomas M. Olson
the 1974 Census of Agriculture.
The survey results showed that all farmers use a
wide variety of sources of information and that there is a
relationship between size of farm and the frequency of
citing particular sources.

There is a relationship between

size of farm and contact with Extension with the $20,000 to
$39,999 farm income category having the highest contact.
The results also showed a relationship between size
of farm and perceived importance of types of information.
Small farmers tended to place less importance on technical
or institutional information than did larger farmers.
In terms of informational delivery systems, one
conclusion was that small farmers need basic "how to"
types of information.

The small farm respondents expressed

a willingness to attend meetings and suggested several
topics for discussion.

These topics included several "how

to" subjects and also general areas of interest for small
farmers.
Suggestions were made concerning the use of various
channels for reaching small farmers.

Mass media channels

can be used in creating awareness and in presenting some
fundamental agricultural practices.

Interpersonal channels

can be used to involve small farmers in "how to" types of
programs.
Several high priority areas for resource allocation
were suggested.

These areas included research on small

farm subjects, development of bulletins for small farmers,

Thomas M. Olson

county level small farm programs, and regional and statelevel back-stopping and coordination activities.
addition,

In

several suggestions for further research were

prese nted.

To Poonsin and our daughter Tatana

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Practically all works we usually call our
own represent only a few scoops of originality
added on top of a mountain of knowledge received
from others.
Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen
This work would not have been possible without the
guidance and advice of many people.

Special thanks and

appreciation go to Dr. Ralph E. Hepp, my Research Super­
visor,

for his assistance,

support, and encouragement and

to Dr. Warren H. Vincent, my Guidance Committee Chairman,
for his help in this research and in seeing me through my
program of study.

One could not have better members of a

Research Committee than Drs. Harold Riley, George Axinn,
Cole Brembeck,

and George Stachwick.

Their criticisms,

comments, and suggestions were always valuable.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF T A B L E S .........................................

vii

LIST OF FIG U R E S .........................................

x

Chapter
I.

INTRODUCTION

..................................

Early Beginnings of Small Farms in
A m e r i c a .....................................
Effects of Productivity Growth on
Farm S t r u c t u r e ...........................
Responses to Changing Farm Size and
Structure ..................................
A Changing Philosophy........................
Response by Cooperative Extension
Service.....................................
Importance of Small Farms in Michigan
. .
Motivation for This R e s e a r c h ..............
....................
Purpose and Objectives
Some Hypotheses..............................
Scope and Limitations of the Study
. . .
Definition of T e r m s ........................
Organization of the R e p o r t .................
II.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .................
O v e r v i e w .....................................
. . . .
Diffusion of Innovations Models
C R U S K .........................................
The Social Interaction Model
..............
Research and Development M o d e l ..............
Problem Solving M o d e l ........................
The Interstate Managerial Study (IMS)
. .
North Carolina S t u d y ........................
Research in Agricultural Economics
and Extension..............................
Current Research Information System
( C R I S ) .....................................

iv

1
1
3
4
8
10
10
12
13
14
16
16
20
26
26
27
34
37
40
41
41
43
45
47

Chapter
III.

Page

SURVEY DESIGN AND DATA COLLECTION . . . .

53

The Questionnaire...........................
P o p u l a t i o n .................................
Sample Design ..............................
Survey Frame
..............................
M a i l i n g .....................................
Confidentiality
...........................
Response.....................................
Phone Survey of Nonrespondents . . . .
Personal Interview of County Agents.
. .
IV.

V.

VI.

VII.

53
56
56
58
58
59
59
60
60

ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A ........................

62

General Characteristics of the Survey
R e s p o n d e n t s ..............................
Farm and Home Decisions....................
Importance of Information .................
Information Sources Cited .................
Rationality of Decision Making . . . .
Contact with Extension ....................

62
66
74
79
83
90

ANALYSIS OF COUNTY AGENT INTERVIEWS

.

.

.

110

S u m m a r y .....................................

119

EXTENSION EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR SMALL
FARM OPERATORS..............................

123

Implications for Extension Education
P r o g r a m m i n g ..............................

129

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR FURTHER RESEARCH.......................

162

S u m m a r y .....................................
Conclusions.................................
Recommendations for Further Research
.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

162
167
173

.................................

177

APPENDICES
Appendix
A.

Questionnaire and Cover Letter.. .............

183

B.

Sample Design..................................

196

v

Appendix

Page

C.

Follow-Up Letters to Nonrespondents . . . .

D.

Telephone Interviews of Nonrespondents

E.

General Questions for County Agent
Interviews.................................. 208

F.

Questions Classified by Types of
I n f o r m a t i o n ............................... 210

.

.

204
.

207

LIST OF TABLES

Table

Page

1.

Major Occupations of Part-Time Farmers . . .

2.

Comparison of Research Sample with 1974
Census of Agriculture by Gross Farm
I n c o m e ....................................

3.
4.

5.

6.
7.
8.
9.

10.

11.
12.

List of Most Important Decisions About
Farm or Home by Subject (Question B-l)

65

66
.

.

68

Ranking of Ten Most Important Problems as
Perceived by Farmers of Different Size
Categories by Mean Rating...............

71

Kendall Correlation Coefficients Comparing
Categories of Farms by Perceived Impor­
tance of P r o b l e m s ......................

74

Perceived Importance of Technical Informa­
tion by Farm Size C a t e g o r y ............

77

Perceived Importance of Institutional
Information by Farm Size Category . . . .

78

Perceived Importance of Human Information
by Farm Size C a t e g o r y ...................

79

Crosstabulation of Sources of Information
Cited by Farm Size Category (Question
B— 3).......................................

81

Crosstabulation of Sources of Information
Cited by Farm Size Category (Section E
Questions)................................

82

Crosstabulation of Weighted Scores on
Rationality Test by Farm Size Category

.

.

87

Mean, Median and Range of Scores on
Rationality Test by Farm Size Category

.

.

88

vii

Table
13.

Page
Crosstabulation of Small Farm Income Cate­
gories by Scores on Rationality Test.
. . .

89

14.

Contact with Extension by Gross Farm Income
C a t e g o r y ............................................ 92

15.

Contact with Extension by Age of Operator:
Part-Retired or Not Retired........................ 94

16.

Contact with Extension by Small Farmers by
Occupation
.............................. 95

17.

Crosstabulation of Willingess to Attend a
Meeting by Farm Size C a t e g o r y .................... 96

18.

Crosstabulation of Miles Willing to Travel
to a Meeting by Farm Size Category
. . . .

97

19.

Crosstabulation of Day of Week Preferred for
Meeting by Farm Size C a t e g o r y .................... 99

20.

Crosstabulation of Time of Day Preferred for
Meetings by Farm Size Category.................... 99

21.

Topics Suggested for Meetings....................... 100

22.

Crosstabulation of Willingness to Attend a
Two-or-Three-Day School by Farm Size
Category (Question F-3)

102

23.

Crosstabulation of Willingness to Pay for a
Two-or-Three-Day School by Farm Size
C a t e g o r y ........................................... 102

24.

Topics Suggested for Two-or-Three-Day
S c h o o l s ........................................... 105

25.

Crosstabulation of Familiarity with Profes­
sional Crop and Pest Management Services
by Farm Size Category (Question F-4).
.

26.

.

Crosstabulation of Opinion Regarding Useful­
ness of Management Services by Farm Size
Category (Question F-4) .......................

.

107

107

27.

Willingness to Pay for Management Services
by Farm Size Category............................. 108

28.

Topics Suggested for Meetings by Small Farm
C a t e g o r y ........................................... 135
viii

Page

table
29.

Topics Suggested for Two-or-Three-Day Schools
by Small Farm Category............................ 137

30.

List of Most Important Decisions About Farm or
Home by Subject and by Small Farm Category .

31.

. 142

Ranking of Ten Most Important Problems as
Perceived by Small Farmers of Different
Categories by Mean Rating......................... 145

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure
1.
2.
3.

Page
Categories of Adopters on the Basis of
Relative Time ofAdoption of Innovation .

.

32

Conceptual Models of the Diffusion and
Utilization of Knowledge .....................

38

Comparison of Research Sample with 1974
Census of Agriculture by Occupation of
the Operator, Age of the Operator and
Farm Size .
..............................

68

x

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Early Beginnings of Small Farms in America
The American agricultural economy was originally
based on a structure which consisted of a large number of
small farms.

The right to own land was one of the driving

forces for millions of immigrants who came to this country
to settle vacant land and establish farms.

These farms

were nearly always small due to the realities of the haz­
ards and sacrifices of pioneer life and due to the Puritan
convictions regarding proper forms for civil and religious
governance.

Various Ordinances issued by the Continental

Congress in the 1780's established procedures for survey­
ing new territories and dividing them into lots of 320
acres, and subsequent acts provided for division into even
smaller lots until in 1832 the federal surveyor was author­
ized to lay out quarter-quarter sections, or 40 acres
tracts,

for sale.^

At the then prevailing price of $1.25

per acre,

the public lands were thus brought within the
2
price range of virtually all prospective settlers.
The societal goals and values which resulted in a
structure of small farms were articulated by Thomas

1

2 Jefferson, John Adams and other early leaders in American
history.

These values included freedom, independence,

self-reliance, ability to resist oppressors,

the right to

own property and the right to occupy and thus acquire
vacant land.

In those early days the right to own and

occupy land was also the right to a job.

"Freedom of

entry to land and thus to employment was therefore a cor­
nerstone of historic American policy toward the small or
family farm."

3

The importance of agriculture in the American economy
led to the passage of the Morrill Land-Grant Act in 1862
which set up educational institutions in each state "where
the leading object shall be, without excluding other sci­
entific and classical studies and including military tac­
tics, to teach such branches of learning as are related
to agriculture and mechanic arts in such manner as the
legislatures of the states may respectively prescribe in
order to promote the liberal and practical education of
the industrial classes in the several pursuits and pro4
fessions m life."
In 1887 the Hatch Act was passed by
Congress to provide federal assistance in setting up and
maintaining agricultural experiment stations at each of
the land-grant colleges.

By 1914 the Smith-Lever Act

was passed which provided that extension work in agricul­
ture and home economics should be carried on by the landgrant colleges in cooperation wi th the United States
Department of Agriculture.

The result of these acts was

the establishment of a land-grant system of teaching, re­
search and extension that has been unparalleled in the rest
of the world.

This system has helped to develop new tech­

nology in the form of labor-saving machines, pesticides,
and high-yielding varieties of crops.

The agricultural

workforce is now much more productive both in terms of
yield per acre and yield per worker than earlier genera­
tions.

The United States Department of Agriculture can

now boast that one farmer can feed 4 5 Americans, and that
the U.S.

is the "bread-basket" of the world.^

Effects of Productivity Growth on Farm Structure
The growth in productivity of American agriculture,
particularly in the last fifty years, has resulted in
changing the structure of the American system in terms of
the number and size of farms.

Agricultural statistics

show that the number of farms in the United States has
steadily declined since 1935, and between 1950 and 1975
they declined by 50 percent.

g

In 1975 the top 16 percent

of farms contributed 70 percent of the sales of farm pro­
ducts while the bottom 4 3 percent of the farms had gross
sales of less than $5,000 and contributed only 5 percent
7
of farm product sales.
Generally, the farms with the
least amount of farm sales have gone out of business.
Between 1960 and 1973 the number of farms in the U.S.
with gross annual sales under $20,000 decreased by about
1.8 million, or nearly fifty percent.

Although about one

third of these moved into categories with gross annual
sales over $20,000, the other two-thirds went out of busg

iness.

The trend has been toward more capital intensive,

commercially oriented types of farms while the smallest
farms have not been able to survive.
Responses to Changing Farm Size and Structure
This changing structure of American agriculture to
fewer farms of larger size has resulted in increased con­
cern for the small farmer by individuals, various groups
and by state and federal governments.

In 1967 the Exten­

sion Committee on Organization and Policy

(ECOP)

issued a

report entitled "Extension's Responsibility to Farmers
and Ranchers With Gross Farm Income Less Than $10,000."
At that time this included nearly three-fourths of the
farms in the United States. 9

The report concludes:

Extension has a very definite responsibility
to serve these farmers and their families and has
been serving many of them effectively within the
limitations of available resources.
Continued pres­
sures for use of these limited resources for other
high priority programs prevent their full utiliza­
tion in developing the concentrated programs required
to make more significant progress.10
In 1972 the publication of Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times
by Jim Hightower of the Agribusiness Accountability Pro­
ject called attention to the small farmer.

"The message

of the report is that the tax-paid, land grant complex has
come to serve an elite of private, corporate interests in
rural America, while ignoring those who have the most ur­
gent needs and the most legitimate claims for a s s i s t a n c e . ^

5
Hightower charged that the large scale commercialization
of agriculture has left a large segment of the farm popu­
lation with low incomes, has exacerbated the unequal in­
come distribution between rural and urban populations and
between small and large farmers, and has resulted in rural
to urban migration which has increased problems of urban
unemployment and unrest.
The Rural Development Act of 19 72 included an amend­
ment which would have required the establishment of a pro­
gram for small farmers who desired to "upgrade" their
12
operations through Cooperative Extension programs.
This
would have involved research on innovative approaches to
small farm management and technology,
nical assistance to small farms.

training, and tech­

Unfortunately the Admin­

istration never implemented the small farm section of The
Rural Development Act, but the substance of this section
has reemerged in later legislation which may have more of
a chance for implementation given the favorable attitude
of the new Administration.
In 197 5 the General Accounting Office made a report
to the Congress entitled Some Problems Impeding Economic
Improvement of Small-Farm Operations;
of Agriculture Could D o .

What the Department

The report was critical of the

U.S.D.A. and the land grant system for not meeting the
needs of the small farmers.

The report states:

Although some publicly supported extension and
research projects have related to the needs of
small-farm operators, USDA and the land-grant

6
colleges have not made a concerted effort to solve
problems impeding the economic improvement of small
farm operations.
USDA and the land-grant colleges
have.not, to a great extent, 1) evaluated the econ­
omic and social impacts of production-efficiency
research nor 2) determined the assistance that
small-farm operators need to plan for and adjust to
changes brought about by such research.13
The report concluded that the USDA and the land-grant
colleges are the logical developers of research and exten­
sion information for small farms and recommended that the
United States Department of Agriculture:
Identify small-farm operators in their productive
years who depend on the farm as their primary
source of income and categorize them according to
their resources, abilities, educational experiences,
and willingness to improve their operations by using
available technology and efficient management prac­
tices .
Estimate the costs and benefits of programs needed
to extend training and technical assistance to smallfarm operators having the potential for improvement
and present the information to the Congress for its
consideration.
Examine the potential for research uniquely designed
to improve the economic position of small-farm o p ­
erators and, if such potential exists, consider the
priority of such research in relation to other fed­
erally funded agricultural research.
Establish procedures for 1) evaluating the economic
and social impacts of future research that could
greatly change the productivity, structure, and/or
size of existing farms, and 2) determining the assis­
tance small-farm operators would need to plan for
and adjust to the resulting changes.14
These recommendations were quoted in full in a report
to the Senate from the Committee on Agriculture and Fores­
try.

This report recommended ammending the Rural Develop­

ment Act of 19 72 to require the Secretary of Agriculture
to carry out small farm extension, research and development

7
programs which "shall consist of extension and research
programs with respect to new approaches for small farms in
management, agricultural production techniques,

farm mach­

inery technology, new products, cooperative agricultural
marketing, and distribution suitable to the economic development of family size farm operations." 15
The 19 77 Farm Bill again dealt with the issues and
concerns of small farmers and a special section of the
bill addressed small farm research and extension programs.
This section amended the Rural Development Act of 19 72 to
read as follows:
SMALL FARM RESEARCH PROGRAMS - Small farm re­
search programs shall consist of programs of re­
search to develop new approaches for initiating and
upgrading small farmer operations through manage­
ment techniques, agricultural production techniques,
farm machinery technology, new products, new market­
ing techniques, and small farm finance, and
SMALL FARM EXTENSION PROGRAMS - Small farm ex­
tension programs shall consist of extension programs
to improve operations of small farmers using, to the
maximum extent practicable, paraprofessional person­
nel to work with small farmers on an intensive basis
to initiate and improve management techniques, agri­
cultural production techniques, farm machinery tech­
nology, marketing techniques, and small farm finance,
and to increase utilization by small farmers of e x ­
isting services offered by the United State Depart­
ment of Agriculture and other public and private
agencies and organizations.16
In order to carry out the above programs the bill
also authorized a budget "not to exceed $20,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years ending September 30, 1978 and
September 30, 1 9 7 9 . " ^
The above legislation may have been influenced in

part by a number of publications dealing with American
agriculture and small farms in general which appeared in
the mid-19 70's.

These books raised questions about the

appropriate size of farms, the food production and distri­
bution system, chemical additives, food price inflation, corporate influence in farming and many many more.

18

In

general these books have increased public awareness of
these problems which has resulted in action by various
agencies and governmental bodies at the local, state and
federal levels.

Currently the U.S. Department of Agricul­

ture and the Community Services Administration are co­
sponsoring a series of regional small farms conferences
throughout the nation designed to:
Provide small farm operators an opportunity to
identify problems that are important to their farm
operations and families.
Develop priority needs and suggest programs that
will benefit small farm operators and their families.
Identify what small farm operators need, as con­
trasted with what other farmers n e e d . 19
A Changing Philosophy
Many factors have affected the size of farms and
structure of American agriculture, but underlying these
has been a philosophy based on the principles of competi­
tion and free enterprise.

One of these principles is self­

gratification, which includes the concept that bigger is
better and more of something is more desirable than less
of that seme thing.

The emphasis is upon efficiency, and

those units which are less efficient and cannot compete,
naturally, are forced out of the business.

For years the

migration from the farms to urban centers was seen as a
natural consequence of the competitive system, and the
benefits accrued to society in terms of increased produc­
tivity of food and fiber at lower costs.

Bigness was

part of the American way of life.
Along with the increased concern for the small
farmer shown by the publications and legislation of the
past several years, however,

there is also emerging an

alternative philosophy regarding size.

This has become

increasingly popular since the publishing of Small is
Beautiful, Economics os if People Mattered by E.F. Schumaker m

19 73.

20

This philosophy can be traced back to

Ghandi and other eastern sages whose main concerns were
for quality of life and spiritual well-being, and who
had a deep respect for nature and the environment. 21
The current thinking of Schumaker and others reflect
"some deep-seated and recurring concerns about size and
scale in many of the activities undertaken in the name of
modern production systems."

22

It requires an examination

of smallness and an understanding of why we are where we
are today.

The present research will hopefully contri­

bute to the growing knowledge base concerning small farms
and, more practically, will offer suggestions to alle­
viate some of the problems of small farmers.

10
Response by Cooperative Extension Service
Flexibility and change have been major attributes
of the Cooperative Extension Service over the years.
Much of the successful achievement of the
Cooperative Extension Service in the United States
may be attributed to its willingness and ability
to change as the needs and interests of its clien­
tele change.
The goals and objectives of the entire
system have been restated almost every decade and
have shifted dramatically.23
The Cooperative Extension Service has responded in
a number of ways to the changes cited above.
tional level the U.S.D.A.

At the n a ­

and Community Services Admin­

istration are sponsoring a series of regional workshops
on the problems of small farmers, as mentioned earlier.
Various states have developed small farmer programs us­
ing paraprofessionals and program aids to work with small
farmers.

In Michigan various County Agents have, programs

for small farmers using program aids and volunteers.
Others have conducted group meetings for small farmers.
In December of 19 77 there was a workshop on programming
from small/part-time farmers for County Agents.

The

state has also begun publishing a series of bulletins
designed for use by small farmers which are being made
available through the usual channels of the Cooperative
Extension Service.
Importance of Small Farms in Michigan
Although farm numbers are still declining (after a
slight reversal in the early 1970s)

and the average size

11
of farm operation is increasing, small farms still hold
an important position in American agriculture, and par­
ticularly in Michigan.
In terms of numbers, figures cited
23
by Hepp
from the 1974 Census of Agriculture show that 85
percent of Michigan's farms are small, 11 percent are
24
medium sized and 4 percent are large.
Full-time farms
comprise 54 percent of the farm operations and over twothirds of these full-time farmers operate small farms.
Nearly 9 8 percent of the part-time farmers operate small
farms.
It is true that average farm size is increasing, but
the large farm operators farm almost two-thirds of the
agricultural land in Michigan and they rent about 44 per­
cent of the rented land.

Small farms average 12 3 acres

per farm versus 34 2 acres for medium sized farms and 6 31
for large farms.
It is in terms of gross

(and net)

come that the small farms fall short.

agricultural in­
Hepp estimates that

small farms receive only 33 percent of the gross revenue
from the sale of agricultural products while medium size
farms receive 28 percent and large farms receive 39 per­
cent.

Although small farms comprise 85 percent of the

farms by number,

they sell only one third of the agricul­

tural products.
One reason for this is low productivity.

Hepp es­

timates crop yields of corn for grain at 59 bushels per
acre for small farmers versus 62 for medium and 6 8 for

12
large farmers.

Likewise small farmers had lower yields

for wheat, soybeans and hay.

In an earlier study Thomp­

son and Hepp estimated that crop yields on small farms
are 12 percent to 30 percent lower than yields on large
farms and livestock productivity is also low compared
to large farms. 25 Also Hepp and Thompson conclude that
small farms have a higher percentage of tillable land
in low-return crops while the larger farms raise crops
which have a relatively high rate of return.

Motivation for This Research
This research is a response to many of the same
concerns which prompted the various publications and
acts of legislation described earlier, but primarily it
is a response to the changing structure of agriculture
and the questionable future of small farms in America.
It is motivated in part by the author's background which
includes being raised on a small farm, and by a concern
for change and development which was fostered during
three years in the Peace Corps.

It is also motivated

by the fact that the majority of farms in Michigan, as
well as in developing nations, are small

(although the

criteria for "small" varies tremendously between the
United States and other nations), and that small farms
contribute to the well-being of society.

This is

applied, problem solving research which hopefully will

13
benefit the small farmers in the state of Michigan and
elsewhere.

Purpose and Objectives
Given the task ahead for researchers of small
farm problems,

it seems obvious that the subject must

be narrowed down to researchable units.

The problems

are all interconnected and related, but individual prob­
lems need to be analyzed separately in hopes of gaining
further insight into the whole.

In their report, De­

scription and Analysis of Michigan Small Farms, Thomp­
son and Hepp concluded that increases in net cash in­
come on small farms are possible and emphasized the
necessity for improvements in farm management practices. 2 6 They suggested that further research was
needed in farm management relative to small farms in
Michigan.

They also suggested that the Cooperative

Extension Service could play an important role in
attacking the problems of small farms by tailoring
some of their programs to the needs of the small farm­
ers.

It is the purpose of this study to examine one

aspect of the farm management process relevant to
small farmers in relation to the education and infor­
mation distribution systems of the Cooperative Exten­
sion Service.

More specifically,

this study will

examine that part of the decision making process of

14
farm management which involves observation, or infor­
mation gathering, and the role of the Cooperative
Extension Service in distributing information, provid­
ing educational programs and initiating change among
farmers .
The first objective of this research is to exam­
ine the sources of information used by small farmers
in Michigan.
The second objective is to examine the import­
ance of various types of information as perceived by
small farmers and as perceived by County Extension
A g e n ts.
The third objective is to examine alternative
informational delivery systems or nonformal educa­
tional delivery systems that the Cooperative Exten­
sion service could utilize in reaching small farm
operators.
The fourth objective is to try to identify some
high priority areas for resource allocation alterna­
tives for the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service
if additional funds are made available to operate
special educational programs for small farm operators.
Some Hypotheses
The above stated objectives led to the development
of some specific objectives which could be tested by

15
various statistical measures.

The statistical procedures

used were the Chi Square, the Kendall Correlation Coef­
ficient and tests of binomial parameters.

The hypotheses

included:
1.

Ho:
Ha:

2.

Ho:
Ha:

3.

Ho:
Ha:

4.

Ho:
Ha:

5.

Ho:
Ha:

6.

Ho:

Ha:

There is no relationship between farm size
category and sources of information used.
There is a relationship between farm size
category and sources of information used
(i.e., small farmers use some sources more
frequently than large farmers, and vice
v ersa).
There is no relationship between farm size
category and contact with Cooperative Ex­
tension .
Larger farms have more contact with Cooper­
ative Extension than do smaller farms.
There is no relationship between farm size
category and perceived importance of var­
ious types of information.
There is a relationship between farm size
category and perceived importance of var­
ious types of information.
There is
category
problems
There is
category
problems

no relationship between farm size
and their ranking of specific
by importance.
a relationship between farm size
and their ranking of specific
by importance.

There is
farm and
measured
There is
farm and
measured

no relationship between size of
rationality of decision making as
by scores on a test instrument.
a relationship between size of
rationality of decision making as
by scores on a test instrument.

There is no relationship between size of
farm category and information gathering
activities as measured by scores on a test
instrument.
There is a relationship between size of
farm category and information gathering
activities as measured by scores on a test
instrument.

16
Scope and Limitations of the Study
This research is primarily concerned with the infor­
mational flows to small farmers in Michigan.

The function

of gathering information is just one part of the decision
making process of farm management, but as Dr. Glenn John­
son wrote with reference to the Interstate Managerial
Study,

"The vastness of management as an area of research

precluded complete coverage of all the managerial funct ions." 2 7 Mention will necessarily be made of the other
functions of management, but this research will not anal­
yze these other important areas.
Definition of Terms
So far the terms small, medium and large in reference
to farms have been used rather vaguely.
are, of course,

These adjectives

relative and there is no consensus regard­

ing the definition of a small farm.

This is due in part

to the diversity of crops and livestock in agricultural
production,

the various physical constraints on agricul­

tural land in different areas of the country and the inter­
mix of farm and off-farm employment of rural people.

The

definition also depends upon the measurement variable
that is used, which may be in physical units such as num­
ber of acres or livestock or the amount of labor employed,
production units such as bushels of apples or pounds of
milk produced, or dollar figures such as gross or net in­
come

(which may or may not include off-farm figures).

17
According to the Economic Research Service of the Uniteid
States Department of Agriculture gross farm income and
total family income are the most important factors to use
in defining a small-farm operator.

2Q

In the study cited

earlier by Thompson and Hepp a small farm was defined as
one with over ten acres of farmland which had gross agri­
cultural sales of between $50 and $20,000 at 1969 agri29
cultural price levels.
Hepp recently updated the defin­
ition using information from the 19 74 Census of Agriculture
to define small farms as those grossing under $40,000 from
agricultural products, medium farms as those grossing b e ­
tween $40,000 and $100,000 and large farms as those gross­
ing over $100,000 per year.30

The present research will

use this latest definition based on gross annual sales,
although in some analyses the small farm category will be
broken down into smaller categories in conformance with
the categories of the 19 74 Census of Agriculture.
For census purposes the minimum criteria for the
definition of a farm has been changed nine times since the
census was first taken.

The most recent change deletes

the criterion for number of acres, (previous minimum was
ten) and changes the criterion for minimum value of agri­
cultural products sold (either actually or potentially)
31
to $1,000.
For purposes of this research there was no
minimum gross farm income determined.

The respondents

were asked whether or not they operated a farm before being
asked to complete the questionnaire. 32

18
The term information as used in this research will
be defined as "The communication or reception of know­
ledge or intelligence

. . . knowledge communicated by

others or obtained from investigation,
tion." 3 3

study or instruc-

This will include all types of knowledge and

process skills relevant to agricultural production and
farm management as well as knowledge of nonagricultural
subjec areas.

It does not include information in the

statistical sense of sequential analysis or measurement
of the uncertainty of an experiment to be performed.

In­

formation theory in this sense is left to the statistic34
lans.
Also, xt does not refer to data or agricultural
facts such as those found in Michigan Agricultural Statis35
txcs.
Data are collected to measure some empirical
phenomena, but do not become information until they have
been analyzed, interpreted and put into a purposeful de36
cision-making context.
For purposes of this study the
same is true of research reports and the development of
new technology.

It is largely the role of the Coopera­

tive Extension Service to interpret the research results
of the land-grant universities and adapt them to the needs
of farmers so that they can be used to solve problems in
a decision-making process at the farm level.
Information is tied closely to education,

and both

distribution of information and education are major func­
tions of the Cooperative Extension Service.

For purposes

of this research education is equated with learning, and

. 19
thus "education is obviously a continuing process, span­
ning the years from earliest infancy through adulthood
and necessarily involving a great variety of methods and
37
sources."
Formal education is the highly institution­
alized, chronologically graded and highly structured sys­
tem which is characterized by rigidity, rules and regula­
tions, paid faculty and a set curriculum.
education, on the other hand,

Nonformal

"is any organized, systema­

tic educational activity carried on outside the frame­
work of the formal system to provide selected types of
learning to particular subgroups in the population, adults
as well as children." 3 8 The bulk of Cooperative Exten­
sion Service activity is in the nonformal education cate­
gory.
Another distinction which needs to be made is between
source of information and channel of information.

In com­

munication theory, as will be discussed in Chapter II, the
source of information is the person or institution which
developes the information or new knowledge.

In agriculture

the source of much of the agricultural information which
is available, particularly with regard to new technology,
is typically the land grant universities and agricultural
experiment stations.

The channel, on the other hand, is

the "means through which the source conveys a message to
39
the receiver."
In agriculture the means are typically
through the Cooperative Extension Service, which in turn
uses other means such as mass media, publications, or group

20
meetings to get the message to the farmers.

The present

research is concerned primarily with the channels of com­
munication of agricultural information, but since the
average layman makes no distinction between sources of
information and channels of information, and more commonly
uses the term sources of information,

the term sources

will be used interchangably with channels of information
in this report.
Organization of the Report
This introduction has presented some of the history
of American agriculture,

the role of the small farm, and

various changes in the size and structure of farms in Amer­
ica.

It has discussed some public and private concerns

for small farms which has resulted from these changes,
and also a changing philosophy toward small farms and
smallness in general.
present research.

These concerns have motivated the

The importance of small farms in Mich­

igan was discussed, as well as the purpose and objectives
of this research, its scope and limitations, and some
basic definitions.
Chapter two is devoted to reviewing the relevant
literature and explaining some of the conceptual models
used in this research.

It reviews past research on the

diffusion of information, decision making and cooperative
extension.
Chapter three explains the survey design and the

21
mechanics of data collection.
Chapter four is an analysis of the survey data.

It

includes analyses of the general representativeness of the
data, types of farm and home decisions made by farmers,
the sources most often cited, rationality of decision m a k ­
ing as measured by a test instrument, and contact with
Cooperative Extension.
Chapter five reviews and analyzes the interviews with
County Agents of the Cooperative Extension Service, looking
particularly at the types of farmer who demand the most
of their time and their assessments of the informational
needs and problem situations of small farmers.
Chapter six is a synthesis of the previous chapters,
and particularly of chapters four and five.

This chapter

pulls together the results of the mail survey and the
County Agent interviews to make suggestions for extension
educational programs for small farm operators.
Chapter seven contains the summary and conclusions,
and suggestions for further research on small farms.

22
Footnotes
"^Philip M. Raup, "Societal Goals in Farm Size," in
Size, Structure and Future of F a r m s , ed. by A. Gordon
Ball and Earl O. Heady (Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State Univer­
sity Press, 1972), p. 4.
2
Ibid., p. 4.
^Ibid. , p . 5 .
4The Morill Land-Grant Act of 1862, quoted in Edmund
deS. Brunner and E. Hsin Pao Yang, Rural America and the
Extension Service:
A History and Critique of the Coopera­
tive Agricultural and Home Economics Extension Service,
(New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, C o l ­
umbia University, 1949), pp. 4-5.
5
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research
Service, The American Farmer (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1976), p. 3.
g
U.S. General Accounting Office, Comptroller General,
Report to the Congress; Some Problems Impeding Economic
Improvement of Small-Farm Operations:
What the Department
of Agriculture Could D o , RED-76-2, August 15, 1975, p. 2.
7
U.S.D.A., E.R.S., The American F a r m e r , p. 4.
g

U.S.G.A.O., Report to the Cong r e s s , p. 2.
9

Extension Committee of Organization and Policy,
"Extension's Responsibility to Farmers and Ranchers with
Gross Farm Income Less than $10,000," Report of Project
III Committee, May 4, 1967, p. 5.

Jim Hightower, Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times, A Report
of the Agribusiness Accountability Project on the Failure
of America's Land Grant College Complex, with a Foreward
by Senator James Abourezk (Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Schenkman Publishing Company, 1972), p. xvii.
12
U.S. Congress, House, Committee on the Judiciary,
Antitrust Subcommittee, Family Farm A c t , Report, 94th
Congress, September, 1976.
13

U.S.G.A.O.,

Report to the Congress, p. 8.

14Ibid., p. 26.

23
15
.
U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Agriculture
and Forestry, Assistance to Small Farmers in Upgrading
Their Farming Operations, S. Report 9 4-1234, 94th Congress,
September, 19 76.
16

National Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Teaching Policy Act of 1977, Public Law 9 5-113, September
29, 1977, 7 USC 3101, Subtitle F — Small Farm Research and
Extension, Sec. 1404.

18

See for example A. Gordon Ball and Earl 0. Heady,
e d s ., Size, Structure and Future of Farms (Ames, Iowa:
The Iowa State University Press, 1972) ; Catherine Lerza
and Michael Jacobson, eds.. Food for People, Not for Pro­
fit, A Sourcebook on the Food Crisis with a preface by
Ralph Nader (New York: Ballatine Books, 1975); Jim High­
tower, Eat Your Heart Out, How Food Profiteers Victimize
the Consumer (New York: Vintage B o o k s , 1976); Richard
Merrill, e d . , Radical Agriculture (New York: Harper
Colophon Books, 19 76).
19 U.S. Department of Agriculture and Community Ser­
vices Administration, "Regional Small Farms Conference,
Results of Work Group Sessions August 16-17, 1978, Des
Moins, Iowa," p. 1.
20

E.F. Schumaker, Small is Beautiful, Economics as
if People Mattered (New Y o r k : Harper & Row, 1973) .
21 For a good discussion of an Indian philosopher
whose ideas addressed the problems of the rural poor and
smallness see George H. Axinn, New Strategies for Rural
Development, Chapter 1, "Introduction— An Inspiration from
the Past," (DeWitt, Michigan: Rural Life Associates, 1978),
pp. 5-10.
22
Otto C. Doering III, "Introductory Comments,"
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 60 (May 19 78) :
p. 293.
23
George H. Axinn and Sudhakar Thorat, Modernizing
World Agriculture . A Comparative Study of Agricultural Exten­
sion Systems (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1972) p. 103.
24
Definitions used in this study will be discussed
later in this chapter.
Hepp defines small farms as those
with gross agricultural sales less than $40,000, medium
farms as those between $40,000 and $100,000, and large
farms as those grossing over $100,000.
See Ralph E. Hepp,
"Characteristics of Michigan's Small. F r a m s , " Staff Paper No.
77-73, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan
State University, 1977.

24
25 Ronald L. Thompson and Ralph E. Hepp, "Description
and Analysis of Michigan Small Farms," Research Report
296, Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment
Station, East Lansing, Michigan, March, 1976, p. 19.
26 Ibid., p. 3.
27
Glenn L. Johnson, Chapter 8, "Action Taking and
Responsibility Bearing," in A Study of Managerial Pro­
cesses of Midwestern Farmers, e d . by Glenn L. Johnson,
Albert N. Halter, Harold R. Jensen and D. Woods Thomas
(Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State University Press, 19 61) ,
p. 140.
28
U.S.G.A.O., Report to the Congress, p. 4.
29

Thompson and Hepp,

"Description," p. 4.

^ H e p p , "Characteristics ," p. 1.
31

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
19 74 Census of Agriculture, Michigan State and County D a t a ,
Volume 1, Part 22, pp. IX-X.
32 Several people responded that they had "hobby
farms" or a few acres, but that they did not really
"operate a farm."
33
Websters Third New International Dictionary of the
English Language Unabridged, 1964.
34
See for example Henri Theil, Economics and Informa­
tion Theory (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company,
1967) or Abram Wald, Sequential Analysis (New York: John
Wiley and Sons, 194 7).
35 U.S. Department of Agriculture; Economics, Statis­
tics and Cooperatives Service with Michigan Department of
Agriculture, Marketing Division, Michigan Agricultural
Statistics, (Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Crop Reporting
Service, published yearly).
James T. Bonnen, "Assessment of the Current Agri­
cultural Data Base:
An Information System Approach," in
A Survey of Agricultural Economics Literature, 2 vols . , ed.
by Lee R. Martin (Minneapolis, Minnesota: The University of
Minnesota Press, 1977), 2:397.
37

Philip H. Coombs with Manzoor Ahmed, Attacking
Rural Poverty, How Nonformal Education Can Help (Baltimore:
The John Hopkins University Press, 1974), p. 8.

25

39

.
.
.
.
Everett M. Rogers xn assocxatxon wxth Lynne Svenning, Modernization Among Peasants, The Impact of Communications (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969),
p. 124.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Overview
There is a growing volume of literature related to
the problems of small farms.

Much of this concerns the

problems of rural poverty which often require special pro­
grams in unemployment, housing and health.'*'

This litera­

ture is informative and interesting, but not directly re­
lated to the present research so it will not be reviewed
formally.
The subject of dissemination of information or the
diffusion of innovations has "traditionally been the domain
2
of rural sociology or geography."
Thus, literature from
these disciplines will be reviewed for background and con­
ceptual models.

Research in farm management and agricul­

tural economics has been concerned less with the diffu­
sion of information than with the decision making process
of farmers.

This literature will be reviewed for its con­

tributions.

Some research concerning Cooperative Exten­

sion will also be reviewed.

26

27
Diffusion of Innovations Models
The diffusion of innovations is a particular type
of communication which attempts to explain the spread, or
diffusion, of innovations, new ideas or new technologies
from a relatively advanced sector of an economy to a lag­
ging or traditional sector.

One of the early studies

which has become a classic was on the diffusion of hybrid
seed corn in the 19 30's and early 1940's in the midwest.^
This study showed first a very slow rate of adoption of the
new hybrid followed by a period of very rapid adoption
which then slowed as the last few adopters made their
decisions.

In general these studies used adoption of an

innovation as the dependent variable and looked at charac­
teristics of the independent variables of early versus
late adopters,

the rate of adoption over time, perceived

attributes of innovations, opinion leadership, communica­
tion channel usage and other processes in the diffusion
of new technology.
By the early 1960's several hundred such studies
had been conducted by independent researchers at various
universities throughout the United States.

Foremost among

these were Charles Loomis, George Beal, Joe Bohlen, Eugene
Wilkening, Herbert Lionberger and Everett Rogers, to name
4
a few.
These researchers had developed variations of a
theoretical model, but it was not until Everett Rogers
published his book Diffusion of Innovations in 1962 that
these research reports were compiled and synthesized into

28
a general theoretical model with a manageable number of
generalizations.^

Rogers pulled together some 405 re­

search reports in writing this book, but by the early
1970's there were some 1,500 research reports concerning
the diffusion of innovations, many of which involved re­
search in countries other than the United States.
19 71 Rogers updated his earlier book,

In

reinforcing the

theory and assumptions, with Communication of Innovations:
A Cross Cultural A ppr o a c h .
According to the various diffusion studies of the
1950's which were summarized by Rogers there are four
crucial elements in the diffusion of new ideas.

These

are 1) the innovation, 2) which is communicated through
certain channels 3) over time 4) among the members of a
7
social system.
These elements and other main concepts
of the diffusion model will be described next.
The Innovation
The Innovation is an idea, practice or object
perceived as new by an individual.
It matters
little, so far as human behavior is concerned,
whether or not an idea is "objectively" new as
measured by the lapse of time since its first use
or discovery.8
Rogers discussed two components of an innovation, an
idea component and an object component, or physical pro­
duct of an innovation.

Most of the research reports he

analyzed consisted of material innovations such as hybrid
seed corn,

fertilizer or machinery, but innovations may

consist of an idea, skill or process.

Thus, the

29
definition of information used for the present research
conforms to the idea of an innovation in the diffusion
model.
There are several characteristics which innovations
may posses by varying degrees which have been shown to
contribute to their rate of adoption.

Briefly these are:

1.

Relative Advantage is the degree to which an
innovation is perceived as being better than
the idea it supersedes.
The degree of rela­
tive advantage is often expressed in economic
profitability, but the relative advantage
dimension may be measured in other ways.9

2.

Compatability is the degree to which an inno­
vation is perceived as consistent with existing
values, past experiences, and needs of the re­
ceivers.
An idea that is not compatible with
the salient characteristics of a social system
will not be adopted so readily as an idea that
is compatible.10

3.

Complexity is the degree to which an innovation
is perceived as relatively difficult to under­
stand and use. . . . Although the research e v i ­
dence is far from conclusive, we suggest . . .
The complexity of an innovation, as perceived
by members of a social system, is negatively
related to its rate of adoption.11

4.

Trialibility is the degree to which an innova­
tion may be experimented with on a limited b a ­
sis.
New ideas that can be tried on the
installment plan will generally be adopted more
rapidly than innovations that are not divisible.12

5.

Observability is the degree to which the results
of an innovation are visible to others.
The
easier it is for an individual to see the re­
sults of an innovation, the more likely he is
to adopt.13

There are, of course, additional characteristics of
innovations which may help to explain their adoption, and
generally the importance attributed to any characteristic

varies with the discipline in which the research is being
conducted.

Economists generally look at the relative

advantage in terms of economic variables such as profit­
ability of an innovation,

asset position of the firm or

rates of return over a period of time.

Sociologists are

generally more concerned with compatibility with existing
values of the society.
Communication
Rogers calls diffusion research a subject of commun­
ication research that is concerned with new ideas.

Prob­

ably the oldest model of communications is that of Laswell
who described all communication as dealing with "Who says
w h a t , through what channels of communication to whom with
14
what . . . results."
The model most often used in
modern communication research is the S-M-C-R-E model which
consists of 1) source, 2) message,

3) channel, 4) receiver

and 5) the effects of the communication.

15

It was noted earlier that in communications research
there is a distinction between a source of information and
a channel of information.
in the S-M-C-R-E model.

These are two distinct stages
The message is developed by a

source and is communicated through various channels.
This distinction is not commonly made by the average per­
son, however, and the terms sources and channels are used
interchangeably in this study, and particularly in the
questionnaire.
Early communication researchers divided the types of

31
communication channels into two kinds— mass media and in­
terpersonal.

The mass media channels are most effective

in simply informing an audiance about a new idea, while
interpersonal channels may be necessary to persuade an
audience or receivers to accept new ideas.
Time
Time enters into the diffusion of innovations model
in three ways:
(1)

in the innovation-decision process by which
an individual passes from first knowledge of
the innovation through its adoption or rejec­
tion,

(2)

in the innovativeness of the individual, that
is, the relative earliness-lateness with which
an individual adopts an innovation when com­
pared with other members of his social system,
and

(3)

in the innovation's rate of adoption in a so­
cial system, usually measured as the number of
members of the system that adopt the innova­
tion in a given time period.16

The innovation-decision process has been conceptu­
alized as a cumulative series of four steps by Rogers.
These are

(1) knowledge, or awareness of the innovations,

(2) persuasion, or the formation of a favorable or unfav­
orable attitude toward the innovation,

(3) decision, or

the choice to adopt or reject and (4) confirmation, which
may lead to reinforcement or rejection of the decision. 17
This model will be contrasted later with the problem solv­
ing models of Johnson and the IMS.
Much of the earlier diffusion research looked at the

32
innovativeness of individuals and the characteristics of
adopters based on the relative time of adoption.

These

researchers identified five categories of adopters:
1) innovators, 2) early adopters,

3) early majority,

4) late majority and 5) laggards.

These categories can

be shown graphically in figure 1.
These category names tend to reflect society's norm­
ative bias toward early as "good" and late or laggard as
"bad."

This would tend to bias any research on decision

making based on this model.

However,

the model has re­

sulted in describing many characteristics of the various
classes of adopters which have been useful in designing
educational programs in agricultural extension and other
change agencies.

o>

E a rly
M a jo rIty
T

1

L a ta
M a jo r l ty

E a r ly
Adopters

Laggards

.nnovatora
Time

Figure 1.

Categories of Adopters on the Basis of Rela­
tive Time of Adoption of Innovation3

aRogers, Diffusion of Innovations, p. 162.
The third way in which time enters the diffusion of
innovations is in the rate of adoption.

The rate of

33
adoption is the relative speed with which an innovation is
adopted by members of a social system, and it varies for
each innovation and social system.

Generally, if the per­

centage of adoption is plotted against time the result is
an "S" shaped curve but the exact shape of this curve
varies greatly with the actual rate of adoption.

Much of

diffusion research has been focused on the rate of adop­
tion and methods to influence
rate of adoption.

(generally increase)

the

Some characteristics of the innovation

which affect the rate of adoption were presented earlier.
Other variables include the nature of the communication
channels used, the nature of the social system and the
extent of a change agent's promotion efforts.
Social System
The last crucial element of the diffusion model is
the social system, which is defined as a collectivity of
units which are functionally differentiated and engaged
in joint problem solving with respect to a common goal.

18

The social system affects diffusion through norms, atti­
tudes, religion, group pressure and in many other ways.
One of the major assumptions of diffusion research
is that social systems are divided into two ideal types
or "polar types” which are called the modern and the tra­
ditional types.

The modern type is "innovative, progres-

sive, developed, scientific,

rational, and so on. 19

ditional social systems are less favorable to change,

Tra­

34
have lower levels of literacy, education and understanding
of the scientific method.

New ideas, naturally, originate

in the modern sector and flow towards the traditional
sector, eventually reaching the "laggards."
Much of the communication methodology of the Cooper­
ative Extension Service and other change agencies has
been based on certain assumptions which rural sociolo­
gists and communication researchers have labeled the
multi-step flow model or the "trickle-down" model. 20
In this model much of the Extension Agent's attention is
focused on the "early adopter."

These people are gener­

ally better educated, more upwardly mobile, more open to
change and suggestion by others, have larger farms and
greater capital investment and are commercially oriented.
The assumption was that the later adopters would be more
likely to adopt an innovation after opinion leaders had
adopted it and shown it to be successful.

However,

the

result seems to be that the gulf between the small farm­
ers

(the late majority and the laggards)

and the larger

farmers has widened leaving the problems of small farmers
as discussed in Chapter I.

This model was never really

addressed to the needs of the small farmer.
CRUSK
Rogers' work was considered by many to be the most
significant effort in the general area of dissemination
and utilization of knowledge of the 1960's,

21

In the late

35
1960's the United States Department of Health, Education
and Welfare made a grant to the Center for Research on
Utilization of Scientific Knowledge

(CRUSK) of the Insti­

tute for Social Research at the University of Michigan.
The objective was to do a study of the process of innova­
tion, dissemination and utilization of knowledge.

Ever­

ett Rogers was a member of the CRUSK team which included
representatives from a number of disciplines.

The study

was to be comprehensive using an interdisciplinary compar­
ative approach.
The CRUSK study was a response to the "knowledge
explosion" and to the expectation on the part of govern­
ment and business leaders that knowledge should be useful
22
to m a n .
This latter is one of the reasons for establish­
ing agricultural extension, and the failure to make know­
ledge useful to a certain segment of man, namely the small
farmer, has prompted the present research.

Unlike the

diffusion research which dealt mainly with material inno­
vations but included new ideas and processes,

the CRUSK

study dealt with knowledge in general and included the
fields of medicine,

social welfare, education and many

more.
The CRUSK study cites four levels of knowledge util­
ization which should be noted.

The first is the intra­

psychic level, or single-person level, and really forms
the basis for the other three.

This level requires some

psychological assumptions that humans experience various

36
needs
fied.

(problems, pain, arousal, etc.) which must be satis­
Knowledge is useful only in terms of these needs,

wants or aspirations.

At the intrapsychic level a person

may find solutions to a problem internally, or the person
may be forced to turn to the outside world.

If the person

turns to the outside world and seeks help from another per­
son, then knowledge utilization is at a second level,
interpersonal level.

the

This level involves communication

between senders and receivers.

If the person with the

problem must go to several other persons for information,
and these people are, in turn, dependent upon still others,
then a third level is reached and that is the social sys­
tem level.

At this level there are many things which

affect the dissemination and utilization of knowledge,
cluding norms,

in­

traditions, roles, organizational struc­

tures and institutions.

The fourth level which logically

follows the first three is the intersystem level.
level involves two or more peoples or cultures.

This
The first

level clearly belongs to another discipline for research
purposes.

The CRUSK study and the diffusion studies, as

well as the present study, examine the interpersonal or
social system levels but recognize that individual human
needs at the intrapsychic level are the basic reason for
knowledge utilization and define the usefulness of any
information.
It should be noted that there are several methods
of information gathering at the intrapsychic level which

37
this research does not deal with.

This includes past ex­

perience, limited experimentation, observing others,

rea­

soning from information known to be true and keeping
written records.

These are all valuable learning tools,

but are not the subject of this research.
Much of the CRUSK study involved an extensive review
of the literature and the concepts involved in communica­
tion.

In the course of this review three relatively dis­

tinct conceptual models of the diffusion of knowledge
were identified which formed the basis for much of the
research which had been reported.
shown graphically in figure 2.

These three models are

Within each model there

are variations, but each recognizes the existance of var­
ious stages in the adoption, dissemination or utiliza­
tion of knowledge.

They differ significantly in their

assumptions and

the perspectives taken.

in

The Social Interaction Model
The first of these conceptual models has already
been discussed since the diffusion model is its most prom­
inent member.

The CRUSK study called this type the social

interaction model because the key to adoption as viewed by
the researchers is the social interaction among members
23
of the adopting group.
Of the three conceptual models
the social interaction model is the richest with regard
to empirical data and useful generalizations.

The unit

of analysis is the indivudal receiver and it is assumed

38

Research and
Development
Model

Problem
Solving
Model

Social
Interaction
Model

Awareness

Development

Observation

+
Evaluation
Analysis

Trial
Mass Audiance

Decision

Adoption

Responsibility
Bearing

Figure 2.

Conceptual Models of the Diffusion and Util­
ization of Knowledge.a

Havelock, p. 2:40.

39
that an innovation or new idea is available to the re­
ceiver in developed form, suitable for use and readily
available.

(It has been argued that this is not the case
24
for the small farmer,
but this will be discussed later.)

This innovation is presented to the receiver by the sender,
or change agent, and in effect the receiver and the re­
ceiver's needs are defined and determined exclusively by
25
the change agent.
If the receiver reacts favorably to
the innovation a five stage decision making process fol26
lows.
The first stage is awareness, in which a passive
receiver is made aware of something by an outsider.

This

seems to violate the psychological assumption that know­
ledge utilization begins with an individual need.

In­

stead, the change agent creates a need for the innova27
tion.
The second stage is interest, which involves
information seeking and is the stage most connected with
the present research.

Third is evaluation, perhaps the

most difficult to explain or gather information about.
The fourth stage is trial, or testing on a small scale.
Finally there is adoption, although Rogers has reformula­
ted this so that it includes rejection.

Most of the dif­

fusion research has as a dependent variable the adoption
of an innovation.

Rejection can occur at any stage

(in­

cluding after adoption), and is much more difficult to
assess with empirical evidence.

40
Research and Development Model
The second general conceptual model identified by
the CRUSK study team is the research and development model
which depicts the process of change as an orderly sequence
beginning with research and progressing through stages of
development/ diffusion and adoption.

The research does

not necessarily begin with the needs of the consumers,
but rather with problems as perceived by the researchers
on the assumption that "if the knowledge is there, a use
28
will be found for it."
This assumption has provided the
basis for much of our national investment in basic re­
search in medicine and science, and has resulted in much
useful knowledge.

The emphasis, however, has been on the

research with little regard for the other three stages
except in agriculture.
The one field which appears to exemplify the
transformation process in a very clear way is that
of agriculture.
Agricultural research, development
and dissemination in the United States seems to
follow an orderly process which most clearly exem­
plifies the R, D & D model.
There is a transforma­
tion of knowledge from basic research to applied
research and development which goes on the agricul­
ture-related departments of the land-grant colleges
and universities.
This R & D process is systemat­
ically linked to the Cooperative Extension Service,
an elaborate mechanism which diffuses the developed
knowledge to the farmer.
This system taken as a
whole, thus seems to exemplify the orderly transi­
tion of knowledge from the research to development
to diffusion and finally to adoption by the cons ume r .^ ^
Even in agriculture, however, the diffusion stage
is dominated by communication theory, and particularly
by the diffusion model described by Rogers.

41
Problem Solving Model
The third conceptual model of knowledge utilization
is called the problem-solving model.

This model places

emphasis on the recipient or ultimate consumer of the
knowledge as both the starting point and ending point in
a problem-solving information-gathering process.

The

process may be initiated either by the receiver or by a
change agent, but in either case the receiver must desire
to change and must participate fully in bringing about the
change.

Once cognizant of a problem,

search for information.

the receiver will

The receiver must then analyze

the information in the context of the present problem, ex­
amine the alternatives and decide on one, proceed with the
execution or implementation of the alternative chosen and
finally accept responsibility for the action taken. 30

This

model most closely conforms to the intrapsychic level
needs mentioned earlier, but is criticized as placing too
much emphasis on the recipient.

As such it is not a dif­

fusion model, but a model of the various functions of
farm management or decision making.
The Interstate Managerial Study

(IMS)

The problem solving model was used in a rather exten­
sive and ambitious study of the entire managerial process
of farmers who deal with imperfect knowledge which pro­
vides a backdrop for the current research.

This study was

initiated in the 1950s by the North Central Farm Management

42

Research Committee by an interdisciplinary team of profes­
sionals including Glenn Johnson, Albert Halter, Harold
Jensen, D. Woods Thomas and others in hopes that "a be t ­
ter understanding of managerial processes should lead to
improved resident and extension teaching and better agricultural policy formulation.” 31 The study was conducted
among 1,0 75 farm managers in seven states, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota and Ohio.

Some

sixty-six questions were asked in seven functional cat­
egories; 1) information,
management,

2) analysis as a function of

3) expectation models, 4) strategies and in­

surance, 5) knowledge situations,

6) willingness to insure

against losses and the chances of gains and 7) characteristics of farmers interviewed. 32
After completing their study the IMS researchers
identified six interdependent managerial functions which
make up the problem-solving model.

Later Johnson added

two "data banks," one with positive and one with normative
information, along with a pragmatic interdependency loop
and interconnecting arrows which indicate an interconnec­
tedness and interdependency throughout the model.

These

additions are based upon the philosophical foundations of
the model which require that both normative and positive
information be included, and that both are necessary in
dealing with any real-life problem.
Since one of the functional categories of questions
concerned information sources,

this study is relevant to

43
the present research in three ways; in terms of the model
used,
sions.

the methodology and some of the results and conclu­
However,

the population of the IMS "consisted of

non-urban commercial farms

(census definition) with a
33
gross income of $2,500 or more."
This no doubt included

many small farms but the emphasis of the study was on
commercial farms as opposed to the emphasis on small
farms in this study.

The results will not be directly

comparable, but certain relationships will be discussed
where relevant.
North Carolina Study
A more recent study of decision-making and communi­
cation patterns was conducted in North Carolina by the
34
Department of Adult and Community College Education.
Although dealing with much different populations

(the

North Carolina study looked specifically at disadvantaged
farm families--DFF— as defined by eligibility for the North
Carolina Social Service Food Stamp Program while the p r e ­
sent study looks at small farms in general), the North
Carolina study is relevant here in that it uses the con­
ceptual problem-solving model and the communications model
of Rogers discussed earlier.
scope

It is much broader in

(having already provided material for four doctoral

dissertations)

but it addressed many of the same kinds

of questions that this research is concerned with.

The

North Carolina study specifically looked at six research

44
questions:
1.

Who are North Carolina's DFF and what are their
charac teris tics?

2.

What kinds of major farm and home decisions are
DFF making?

3.

How rational are the decision-making processes
utilized by DFF in making these decisions?

4.

What
What
ized
What
tion

5.

What is the degree of linkage between inter­
personal information sources used by DFF in
making farm and home decisions and researchbased information sources?

6.

What is the relationship between selected sociopsychological variables and the:
(a) degree of
rationality in decision-making; (b) availability,
usage, and credibility of media (i.e., interper­
sonal, mass publications) and the information
sources within those media; and (c) degree of
linkage between interpersonal information sources
used by DFF and research-based information
sources? 35

communication media are available to DFF?
are the major sources of information util­
by DFF in making farm and home decisions?
credibility do DFF assign to their informa­
sources?

In looking at communications channels three categor­
ies were identified— interpersonal, mass and publications.
The interpersonal category was the most frequently used and
perceived as the most credible while publication media was
ranked low and appeared to be an unimportant channel for
communication with the DFF.36

Some analysis was done com­

paring various communication channels within these cate­
gories, but no comparisons were made between categories.
In looking at rationality in decision making the
problem-solving model was used to define rationality.
survey instrument was developed and refined to test the

A

45
degree of conformity of the respondents to a process of
(1) orientation (problem definition), (2) observation (in­
formation gathering),

(3) analysis

(weighing alternatives),

(4) implementation and (5) feedback and adjustment.

A

scale was developed and the scores grouped into cate­
gories of low, medium and high.

The conclusion was that

the DFF respondents exhibited rationality in decision­
making and so educational programs should be designed
accordingly.

However,

the question of the validity of

the test was not resolved.

The scores were skewed to the

high end and one could assume that the instrument was not
sufficiently sensitive to distinguish variations among
the population.

The researchers contended that, because

the population studied was homogeneous,

this homogeneity

would be reflected in the lack of variation in the ration37
ality score.
Since knowledge of the rationality of the
respondents would help indicate the types of educational
programs to be developed, and since this was the first
test of rationality this researcher had seen, it was de­
cided to reproduce this test in the current study.

In

the process some disagreement arose regarding certain mat­
ters which will be discussed later.
Research in Agricultural Economics and Extension
The Interstate Managerial Study in which agricultural
economists were members of an interdisciplinary team is
probably the closest that agricultural economics has come

46
to dealing with the diffusion of technology or the infor­
mation gathering process of farmers.

"The main focus of

economists in their approach to the diffusion of technol­
ogy has been on how economic variables such as profitabil­
ity of innovation and the asset position of firms influence
38
the rate of diffusion."
In the 19 50's, however, there
was a five year experiment in extension which involved
some analysis by agricultural economists.

Experienced

extension agents worked intensively with farm families
in five Michigan townships for a period of five years.
The objectives of the experiment were 1) to increase
agricultural output,

2) to increase farm earnings,

3) to

speed up application of improved agricultural practices,
4) to bring about 'higher levels of living for farm fam»
39
ilies' and 5) improve rural communities.
Comparison
was made with a control group using 1959 bench-mark data,
a 1956 intermediate survey and a 1959 terminal survey.
Attempts were made to reach all the farmers in the town­
ships involved, but it is notable that "all of the agents
considered it their major responsibility to work with farm
operators who carried on substantial farming operations." 4 0
Thus the emphasis was not on helping the smaller farmer.
The conclusions were that the more intensive extension
efforts at the township level were effective with a bene­
fit-cost ratio of 2.5.

The agents agreed that it took one

and one-half to two years to establish the program, but
by the end of five years they had reached eighty-one percent

47
41
of the farmers in their townshxps.
More recent studies on the role of education in agri­
cultural decision making conclude among other things that
(1) an increase in the availability of information
cultural extension)
information,
formation,

(agri­

eases the gathering and processing of

(2) that scale economies exist in using in­

(3) that education and agricultural extension

are substitutes and

(4) that expenditures on state and

federal extension staff time in the U.S. are providing a
good although not spectacular socxal rate of return.

42

Petzel recently concluded that education of the decision
maker plays a major role in determining the rate of adjust43
ment to economic disequilibria.

This reinforces the con­

clusions of T.W. Schultz and others concerning investment
in human capital.
Current Research Information System (CRIS)
In an attempt to determine what relevant research
was currently being undertaken concerning small farm prob­
lems and extension programs for limited resource farms
the Current Research Information System (CRIS) was consul­
ted.

CRIS is a computerized information network search

which has a data base of approximately 24,000 research
resumes.
projects

Coverage includes active and recently completed
(terminated less than two years ago)

six State Agricultural Experiment Stations,
try Schools and six U.S.D.A.

from fifty-

thirty Fores­

research agencies.

Several

48
key words were used, including adult education, diffusion,
dissemination of information, extension programs and
others.

Ninety-eight research projects were retrieved,

of which four were of direct use.

49
Footnotes
^See for example The People Left Behind, A Report
by the President's National Advisory Commission on Rural
Poverty (Washington, D . C . : U.S. Government Printing Of f i c e ,
September, 1967); Willard W. Cochrane, The City Man*s Guide
to Farm Problems
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 1965); Jeanette Goodstein, e d . , The Rural Poor Un­
seen by Policymakers, (Phoenix, Arizona: Center for Public
Affairs, Arizona State University, March, 1977); Estelle
E. White and Edgar T. Boone, "Decision-Making and Communi­
cation Patterns of Disadvantaged Farm Families in the
North Carolina Coastal Plains Area," Technical Bulletin
No. 245, North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station,
December, 1976.
2
Willis Peterson and Yujiro Hayami, "Technical Change
in Agriculture," in Lee R. Martin, e d . , A Survey of Agri­
cultural Economics Literature, 2 vols* (Minneapolis, Minn­
esota: The University of Minnesota Press, 1977), 1:524.
3
Bryce Ryan and Neal C. Gross, "The Diffusion of
Hybrid Seed Corn in Two Iowa Communities," Rural Sociology
8 (1943) :16-24 .
4
For a good bibliography which cites these and other
researchers see W. Arden Colette and Gail Easley, Small
Farm Operations, Rural Development Bibliography Series No.
4_ (Mississippi: Southern Rural Development Center, Sept­
ember, 19 77).
5
Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations (New
York: The Free Press, 1962).
g
Everett M. Rogers, Communication of Innovations:
A
Cultural Approach (New York: The Free Press, 1971) .
^Ibid.

P- 18 .

^Ibid.

P- 19 .

^Ibid.

P- 138.

1 0 Ibid.
T, . ,

P. 145.

11_. . ,
I b i d . P- 154 .
12 T, . ,
I b i d . P- 155.
1 3t, . ,
Ibid.
P- 157.
14
Bruce L. Smith
Public Opinion (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
Press), 1946.

50
Rogers, Communication of Innovations, p. 18.
See
also D.K. Berio, The Process of Communication (New York:
Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1960) and Claude E. Shannon
and Warren Weaver, The Mathematical Theory of Communica­
tion (Urbana: The University of Illinois Press, 1949) for
some forerunners to this model.
36

Rogers, Communication of Innovations, pp. 24-25.

17

This replaces a five-step process used by Rogers
in his earlier works.
These steps were 1) awareness,
2) interest, 3) evaluation, 4) trial and 5) adoption.
A
reason given for this change was that this makes provision
for rejection as well as adoption decisions.
See Rogers,
Communication of Innovations, p. 25.
18Ibid., p. 29.
1 9 Ibid., p. 33.
20
See for example Elihu Katz and Pual Lazarsfield,
Personal Influence (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1955).
21
Ronald G. Havelock et al., "Planning for Innova­
tion Through Dissemination and Utilization of Knowledge,"
Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge,
Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, Michigan,, 19 71, p. 1:2.
22Ibid., p. 1:1.
23Ibid., p. 10:30.
24
Jim Hightower, "The Case for the Family Farmer,"
in Catherine Lerza and Michael Jackson, e d s . , Food for
People, Not For Profit, A Source Book on the Food Crisis
with a preface by Ralph Nader (New York: Ballantine Books,
1975), p. 41.
25
Havelock, Planning for Innovation, p. 10:29.
26
Rogers discusses these five stages in his earlier
works, but in Communication of Innovations he criticized
some of these stages and regrouped them into four stages
(see above, p. 29 and n. 17).
27
Havelock, Planning for Innovation, p. 10:42.
28Ibid., p. 2:41.
29Ibid., p. 2:42.

51
30 The CRUSK study was more general in discussing
this model and included as examples models which had from
three to eleven steps.
The particular steps listed here
are taken from Glenn L . Johnson, "Some Lessons from the
IMS," Staff Paper No. 76-5, Department of Agricultural
Economics, Michigan State University, April 15, 1976
(also presented at the Agricultural Development Council,
I n c . Conference on Risk and Uncertainty in Agricultural
Development, at CIMMYT, Mexico).
31

Glenn L. Johnson and Albert N. Halter, Chapter I,
"Introduction," in Glenn L. Johnson, Albert N. Halter,
Harold R. Jensen and D. Woods Thomas, eds. , A Study of
Managerial Processes of Midwestern Farmers (Ames, Iowa:
The Iowa State University Press, 1961), p. 7.
32
Interstate Managerial Project Committee, "Summary
Data from the Interstate Managerial Survey," Bulletin 669,
Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station, University of
Kentucky, June, 1959, p. 7.
33Ibid., p. 6.
34
Estelle E. White and Edgar J. Boone, "Decision
Making and Communication Patterns of Disadvantaged Farm
Families in the North Carolina Coastal Plains Area,"
Technical Bulletin No. 245, North Carolina Agricultural
Experiment Station, December, 1976.
33Ibid., p. 1.
3^ I b i d ., p . 8.
3^Ibid., p. 3.
38

Peterson and Hayami, "Technical Change," in
Martin, e d . , Agricultural Economics Literature 1:524.
39

James Nielson, "The Change Agent and the Process
of Change," Research Bulletin No. 17, Michigan State
University Agricultural Experiment Station, East Lansing,
Michigan 1967, p. 1.
^®Ibid., p. 5.
"^Ibid. , p. 64 .
42
Wallace E. Huffman, "Decision Making: The Role of
Education," American Journal of Agricultural Economics 56
(February 1974): p. 96.

52
43

Todd E. Petzel, "The Role of Education in the
Dynamics of Supply," American Journal of Agricultural
Economics 60 (August 1978): p. 451.

CHAPTER III
SURVEY DESIGN AND DATA COLLECTION

The Questionnaire
In view of the objectives of this research and the
lack of available secondary data, it was decided to de­
velop a questionnarie

(see Appendix A) and sample a portion

of farmers through a mail survey technique.

This would

be complemented with personal interviews with a number of
county Cooperative Extension Directors.

Since nonresponse

bias is a potential problem in any sample survey and par­
ticularly mail surveys, a telephone follow-up of a sub­
sample of the nonrespondents would be conducted after
three follow-up letters were mailed to nonrespondents,
allowing two to three weeks between mailings for additional
responses.
The questionnaire for the mail survey was designed
with the objectives of this research in mind.

It was di­

vided into sections by type of question and arranged so the
responses could be easily coded for keypunching.

Section

A consists of control questions for categorization purposes
and for comparisons with census data for representative­
ness.

These questions were designed to be answered with a

simple check mark in a box.

These are the easiest and
53

54
quickest questions for the respondents to answer in order
to

encourage

them to continue with the rest of the ques­

tionnaire .
Section B was perhaps the most difficult part of the
questionnaire because it asked the respondents to write
out answers to two open-ended questions.
These questions were designed to find out about the
most important decisions which the respondents felt they
had made in the past two years and the places where they
had looked for information.
The open-ended questions were necessary in section
B because they had to precede section C in order to give
focus to the questions in the latter section.
is the

rationality

Section C

of decision making test which was

borrowed with permission from the North Carolina study.
It is based on the problem-solving model and the work of
Johnson and the IMS study.

Rationality of decision making

is first defined as the degree of conformity to a process
of decision-making;

the more rational the decision making,

the more closely the steps of the problem-solving model
are followed.

The hypothesis was that small farm opera­

tors would have lower scores on this test than the larger
farmers.
Section D also consists of control questions but
was placed in the center because of the more sensitive
nature of the questions which concern gross farm income
and nonfarm income.

55
Section E consists of a series of forty-four ques­
tions designed to reveal the respondents perceived import­
ance of various problems and, by implication,

the import­

ance of the information required for these problems and
the sources where they looked for more information.

One

of the important lessons of the IMS, according to Johnson,
was that the IMS researchers had ignored the normative in­
formation necessary to define and solve problems.^*

Here

normative information, as measured by perceived importance,
is explicitly recognized to see if a difference exists
between different types of farmers.
The questions in section E were asked in terms of
specific problems which farm operators may encounter based
on responses to the IMS study,

the North Carolina study,

readings and personal experience.

The problems listed

are such that they can be classified as technical, human
or institutional so that comparisons can be made between
different categories of farmers and their perceived import­
ance of these types of problems.

Analysis can also be con­

ducted regarding the sources of information used.
The last section, F, is concerned with the amount of
contact the farmers have with Cooperative Extension.
The questionnaire was reviewed by various members
of the guidance committee and other faculty and pretested
with local farmers before being finalized.

56
Population
The population of interest consisted of small farm
operators in Michigan as defined earlier.

Because of the

lack of a frame or list of small farmers in the state, and
because some comparisons were to be made with larger cate­
gories of farms, the target population is all farm opera­
tors in Michigan.

The most complete listing of this pop­

ulation is maintained by the Agricultural Conservation and
Stabilization Service of the United States Department of
Agriculture, but only at the county level.

Special per­

mission had to be obtained at both the state and federal
levels before the county ASCS offices would release their
lists of farmers.
Sample Design
Since there was no listing on a statewide basis,
stratified two-stage random sample was chosen.

a

This meth­

od requires listing of the population only at the second
stage, or in this case, at the county level.

First the

state was stratified into six regions based on the current
supervisory regions of the Cooperative Extension Service.
This was done for several reasons.

First, a statewide

representation was desired which would include the Upper
Peninsula and parts of the northern lower peninsula.
Second,

the trend in recent years in Cooperative Extension

has been to more regional planning.

It was assumed that

some regional differences exist which would affect the

57
suggestions for Extension educational programs as the re­
sult of this research.

Third,

the Cooperative Extension

Service had taken many things into consideration when de­
limiting the regions which would be useful in assuring
representativeness,

such as types of farms, marketing

arrangements, natural geographical boundaries, etc.
though six counties were chosen for the sample,

Al­

the pur­

pose of this research was not to compare counties, nor to
compare the County Agents of the different counties, but
rather to make implications on a regional basis.

Then

the counties in each region were listed along with the total
number of farms per county and the cumulative total
Appendix B ) .

(see

The number of farms per county was based on

the 1974 Census o f Agriculture but included the smallest
farms

(less than $1000 in gross agricultural income) which

were excluded by the new census definition.

These small

farms are part of the survey population of this study.
order to insure equal probability of selection,

In

a random

number was generated for each region using a programmable
hand calculator with a range from 0 to the cumulative
total per region.

The counties whose cumulative total

corresponded to the random number was selected for inclu­
sion in the survey.

(For example, number 1752 was gener­

ated for the Upper Peninsula Supervisory Region.

This

number lies between 14 36 and 1769, and therefore corres­
ponds with Delta County.
probability of selection.)

Thus, each farm has an equal
2

58
Survey Frame
Once the counties were selected, permission was re­
quested to use the county ASCS list of farms.

A sample

size of eight hundred was decided upon based on financial
resources available and by the types of statistical tests to
be used (mainly chi squares), and an estimated return rate
of forty percent.

Also, ASCS indicated that perhaps ten

to fifteen percent of the names on their lists may be o b ­
solete or out of date.

After the lists were received each

name was numbered and the random number generator used to
determine the mailing list.

The number of farms chosen

per county was based on the percentage of farms in the
region.
Mailing
An attempt was made to try to get a high rate of
response.

The 800 questionnaires were mailed out in hand-

stamped envelopes with personalized cover letters which
were hand signed by the co-researchers

(See Appendix C ) .

Self-addressed hand-stamped return envelopes were enclosed,
along with a post card offering a copy of a summary of the
research results.

The first mailing was early enough to

precede spring planting activities
was also helpful).

(and a late spring

Three follow-ups were mailed out to

the nonrespondents and the second one included another copy
of the questionnaire.

Because postal prices had increased

since the original mailing,

additional postage was included

59
for the return mailing.
Confidentiality
In order to comply with university rules concerning
confidentiality with regard to research on human subjects
the questionnaires could not be identifiable by respondent
in any way.

However,

in order to separate the respondents

from the nonrespondents the return envelopes were coded by
county and respondent.

Thus, as the responses arrived the

questionnaires were separated from their envelopes and
placed in a box so they could no longer be associated with
a code number.

The respondent's numbers were then checked

off from the mailing list so that follow-up letters were
not sent to people who had already responded.

The ques­

tionnaires were then numbered sequentially for purposes
of analysis.
Response
Of the 800 questionnaires mailed, 468 were returned,
or 58.5%.

However 2 38 of these were from people who did

not operate a farm, had recently retired, rented out the
farm, had sold the farm or were widows or widowers.

Thus

instead of ten to fifteen percent of the names being o b ­
solete or out of date as indicated by ASCS,
were obsolete.

thirty percent

Since these were not farm operators and

not part of the target population their numbers were sub­
tracted from the original sample size for a reduced sample
size of 562

(800 less 238).

Of the remaining responses

60
twelve were not usable

(2%) and 218 were usable for a

response rate of 39 percent.
Phone Survey of Nonrespondents
In order to check for nonrespondent bias a sub-sample
of nonrespondents were contacted by phone.

A sub-sample

size of 29 was selected using the same percentages per
county as the original sample with at least one respond­
ent per county.
A questionnaire was designed for the phone survey
based on the original questionnaire

(see Appendix D ) .

It

was, of necessity, much shorter than the original and con­
sisted mainly of control questions to see if the nonrespond­
ents differed significantly from the respondents by various
classifications.
Personal Interview of County Agents
The final step in data collection was to interview
the county agents in the six counties selected earlier.
A list of questions was developed (see Appendix E) which
formed the basis of the interview, but an informality was
maintained to encourage more unstructured responses and
to allow discussion of other areas which the agents felt
were important.

61
Footnotes
^■Johnson, "Some Lessons from the IMS," p. 23.
2
Much of this chapter is based on Sir Claus Moser
and G. Kalton, Survey Methods in Social Investigation (New
York: Basic Books, Inc., 1972).

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

Here and there, some tribes come to realize, first
that knowledge gives controlling power over the e n ­
vironment (unfortunately, over others as well) and
consequently makes life easier for him who possesses
it; and second, that learning what others already
know is far more economical than acquiring this know­
ledge by one's own experience.
Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen
General Characteristics of the Survey Respondents
Several control questions were included in the ques­
tionnaire for purposes of grouping and analysis of the re­
sponses.

Figure 3 shows a comparison of the survey respond­

ents with the 1974 Census of Agriculture and indicates that
the survey closely represents the census in percentage breakdown
by occupation and age of the operator and farm size.

It is only

in the breakdown of full-time farms by size that some dis­
crepancies appear with the medium and large farms being
overrepresented.

This would tend to suggest that the larger

farmers were more likely to respond than the smaller farmers.
The breakdown by occupation was determined both in the
Census and in the survey by the percentage of work time
spent in farming or in other occupations.

If fifty percent

or more of the operator's working time was spent in farming,
that person was considered a full time farmer.

This in­

cluded fifty-six percent of the respondents . Of the remainder,
62

63

Number of Farms
Census:68,952
Sampler 218

Occupation Other Than Farming

Occupation Farming

Census:29,164(46%)
Sampler 95(44 %)

Census:34 ,4 38 (54 %)
Sample: 121(56%)

Part-Retired
Farmers c

Part-Time
Farmers

Part-Retired
Farmersc

Ful1-Time
Farmers

Census:2, 320 (8 %)
Sample: 11(12%)

Census:26,84 4(92%)
Sampler 81 (88%)

Census:8,132 (24 %)
Sample: 24 (21%)

Census:26,30 6(76%)
Sample: 91(79%)

Small

Medium

C: 26, 344 (98%)
S :77(95%)

C:415(1.5%)
S:3(3.7%)

Figure 3.

Large

Small

C:85(.5%) C :18,Oil(68%)
S : 1 (1.3%) S:49(54%)

Medium
C:5,931 (23%)
S :27(29. 7%)

Large
C:2,364(9%)
S :15 <16.5%)

Comparison of Research Sample with 1974 Census of Agriculture by Occupation
of the Operator, Age of the Operator and Farm Size3

aBased on Ralph E. Hepp, "Characteristics of Michigan's Small Farms," with data
from 1974 Census of Agriculture.
^Census did not include farms which grossed less
did not answer this question ( #A-3).

than

51000.

Two respondents

Census breaks down farmers by age groups and Hepp based retirement on age 65.
The sample
questionnaire used age 60 and receipt of social security or retirement to
define part-retired (question A-5). Nine respondents did not answer this question
(see text).

64
eighty-three respondents identified twenty-two occupational
categories, with factory work being the most common
teen respondents).

(eigh­

Twelve respondents indicated they were

retired, ten worked in s a l e s , eight worked in shops and six were
teachers.

The remaining occupations ranged from government work

(4) to truck driver (4) to university professor (l)(see table 1) .
The criteria for dividing farm operators into part-time
and full-time differed somewhat between the sample and the Census .
The Census did not identify retired farmers per se, but only by age
categories . Hepp based retirement on age sixty-five or over for
his 1977 study, ^ and the same basis was used in figure 3.

The pre­

sent survey, however, specifically asked about receipt of social
security or retirement benefits to define part-retired farm­
ers.

Even with these differences the sample closely resem­

bled the census and tests of significance for a binomial par­
ameter indicate that there was no significant difference b e ­
tween the two at a five percent confidence level.
The basis for dividing farms into large, medium or
small categories in figure 3 was gross agricultural sales.
Both the census and the survey further divided the small
farm category by income groups as reported in table 2.

Again

the survey closely represented the census in breakdown by
percentages.

The statistical test of a binomial parameter

indicated that no significant difference between the census
and the survey percentages at the five percent confidence
level

(however this test is not appropriate for the over

$100,000 category because the binomial distribution is not
approximately normal for small percentages).

65
Table 1.

Major Occupations of Part-Time Farmers

Occupation
Factory work
Retired
Sales

Number Responding
18
12
10

Shop

8

Teacher
Truck driver

6
4
4

Government
Mechanic
Construction
Maintenance

3
3
2

Insurance or reality
Carpenter

2
2

University professor

1

Production credit officer
Printer
Hospital laborabory technician

1
1
1

Pipefitter
Power plant work

1
1

Administration in auto industry
Insurance claims representative

1
1

Harness horse trainer

1
83

66
Table 2.

Comparison of Research Sample with 1974 Census of
Agriculture by Gross Farm Income

Census3

Sample*3

Number of Farms with
Gross Sales
Number
over $100, 000
40,000 to 99,000
20,000 to 39,999
10,000 to 19,999
5,000 to
2,500 to
under 2,500

9,999
4 ,999

2,809
6, 848

Percent

10,412

4%
11%
12%
15%
16%

8,420
18,360

13%
29%

64,070

100%

7,828
9, 393

Number

Percent

17
30

8%
14%
14%
12%
12%
16%

29
25
25
34
51
211

24%
100%

Does not include farms reporting sales less than
$1000 and not having the potential resources on hand to
produce $1000 or more in sales (see p. A-5, 1974 Census of
Agriculture) .
Seven respondents did not answer this question.
Farm and Home Decisions
According to the problem-solving model there is a close
connection between problem definition and the search for in­
formation.

The type of information being searched depends

upon the problem or problems being considered.

This was

recognized in the North Carolina study in which the re­
spondents were asked to list two or three important deci­
sions they had made during the past twelve months, and then
asked to choose which was the most important (they were
asked to choose the one which was the "toughest or hardest"
2

to m a k e ) .

Subsequent questions concerning rationality of

67
decision making and sources used in collecting information
were asked in reference to the most important decision
cited.

This tended to give more focus to the questions and

to tie the answers to a particular problem or decision which
the respondents themselves had named.

This same technique

was adopted for the present study in sections B and C of the
questionnaire.
Section B contains two open-ended questions, one ask­
ing about important decisions and the other asking about in­
formation sources for these decisions.

A list of the d e ­

cisions cited is presented in table 3.

Forty-one subjects

were mentioned 370 times by 165 respondents.

The subject

most commonly mentioned by all three farm categories was the
purchase or rental of machinery or equipment.

Small farmers

mentioned planting decisions next most frequently while
large farmers mentioned the purchase of land and medium
farmers mentioned livestock.

Due to the large number of

subjects mentioned and the relatively small sample size this
data did not lend itself to statistical analysis.

The

question was designed to give focus to following questions,
but the data are presented here for descriptive purposes.
The results do not tell much about the large and medium
farmers because of the limited response, but they do indi­
cate that small farmers engage in a wide variety of decision
making which requires a great deal of knowledge and informa­
tion .
While the question in section B relating to decisions

68
Table 3.

List of Most Important Decisions About Farm or
Home by Subject (Question B-l)

Number of Mentions
Subject
Large

Medium

Small

Total

6
1

13
0

36
0

55
1

2
0
0

0
0
0

26
2
1

28
2
1

1
0
2
0
0
0

0
0
4
0
0
0

6
2
36
1
1
5

7
2
42
1
1
5

11

21

37

0
1

3
0

3
1

8

11

25

0
3
4
0
1
0
0

16
9
6
4
1
1
1

16
12
10
4
2
1
1

Buildings, Machinery and
Equipment
Purchase/rent machinery or
equipment
Leasing out buildings
Repair old or build new
buildings
Sale of equipment
Building fences
Crop Management
To change crop practices
Which herbicide to use
What to plant
Soil samples
Lime
Fertilizer
Livestock Management
Livestock mix
To change from livestock
to crops
Cattle problems

0
0

Land
Purchase of land
Whether or not to rent out
land
Sale of land
Irrigation and drainage
To clear land
To rent more land
To subdivide or not
To buy or rent more land

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

69
Table 3.

Continued

Number of Mentions
Subject
Large

Medium

Small

Total

Farm Management
Whether or not to expand
Whether or not to quit
farming
Credit and finance
Storage
To reduce operations
Hired labor
Should son take over farm
Taxes
How to buy a farm
To ask help of Ag. Dept.
Partnership agreements

0

4

13

17

2
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2

0
1
1
2
1
3
0
0
0
0

14
5
6
3
2
1
2
1
1
0

16
8
8
5
4
4
2
1
1
2

1
0
0
0
0
0

2
0
0
0
0
0

9
9
3
1
1
1

12
9
3
1
1
1

Prices and Marketing

0

3

14

17

Public Act 116

1

0

0

1

33

62

275

370

Home and Family
Remodel old or build new
home
Insulating home
Off-farm employment
To sell house
To move to new area
To make a will

Total— 41 topics

70

was open ended and allowed for a variety of responses,
section E included questions about specific problems and
sources of information concerning these problems.

A list

of forty-four problems was presented and the respondents
were asked to indicate how important each particular prob­
lem had been in terms of his or her experience.

A rating

scale of from one

(very i m ­

(not important at all)

to five

portant) was used to attempt to measure the degree of im­
portance the respondent attached to the problems.
Table 4 gives a ranking of the ten most important
problems as perceived by farmers in various farm categories
based on the mean rating of the respondents.

This rating

assumes that the scale of importance is the interval type
and that there is interpersonal comparability between re­
spondents .
The problem which farmers in all groups seemed to
consider most important concerned prices of farm products.

71
Table 4.

Rank

Ranking of Ten Most Important Problems as
Perceived by Farmers of Different Size Cate­
gories by Mean Rating

Mean
Rating

Percent
Reporting

31

4 .94

94

34

4 .81

94

12

4.48

100

27

4 .24

100

1

4.18

100

4

4 .18

100

26

4 .18

100

2

4.12

100

3

3.94

100

14

3.94

100

31

4 .58

87

26

4 .20

83

27

4 .19

87

2

4 .18

93

3

4 .04

90

1

4 .00

93

4

4.00

90

10

4 .00

90

5

3.96

87

34

3.96

83

Question

Large Farms
1
2
3
4
5
5
5
8
9
9

How to get better prices
for your farm products
Keeping up-to-date with
records and farm accounts
Figuring costs and returns
on a business investment
Finding the best place to
borrow money for the farm
Whether or not to buy a new
piece of machinery
Figuring out how much fert­
ilizer to use
How to figure out income
tax
Problems with insects or
disease
Not knowing when to sell
your farm product
Finding a good farm employee

b

Medium Farms C ’
1
2
3
4
5
6
6
6
9
9

How to get better prices
for your farm products?
How to figure out income
tax
Finding the best place to
borrow money from the farm
Problems with insects and
disease
Not knowing when to sell your
farm products
Whether or not to buy a new
piece of machinery
Figuring out how much fertil­
izer to use
How to cut down on the heat­
ing bill?
What crops to plant next
year
Keeping up-to-date with the
records and farm accounts

72
Table 4.

Rank

(Continued)

~
..
Question

Question
Number

Mean
Rating

Percent
Reporting

Small Farmsc^
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

How to get better prices
for your farm products?
How to cut down on the
heating bill?
Keeping up-to-date with the
records and farm accounts
Personal or family health
concerns
Figuring out how much fert­
ilizer to use
How to figure out income
tax
Not knowing when to sell
your farm products
Problems with insects and
disease
Political issues (school
bonds, highways, etc)
How to raise children
properly?

31

4.48

83

10

4 .01

86

34

3.99

84

15

3.95

85

4

3.90

87

26

3.88

83

3

3.87

85

2

3.76

87

29

3.73

84

22

3.71

78

Ratings range from 1 (not important at all)
(very important).
Based on 100% = 17
Based on 100% = 30
Based on 100%

164

to 5

73
The rankings varied after this but six of the ten most im­
portant problems were common to each farm group.
prices,

these problems include record keeping,

Besides farm
fertilizer

use, tax, insects and disease and marketing farm products.
In order to test for a relationship between the small,
medium and large farms in their perception of the importance
of the forty-four problems listed in section E of the ques­
tionnaire Kendall rank correlation coefficients were compu­
ted.

First the problems were ranked by mean for the small,

medium and large farms
questions).

(as in fable 4, but including all 44

Then the Kendall rank correlation coefficient

was computed for various pairs of farm categories as shown
in Table 5.

The Kendall Rank Correlation Coefficient

ranges from -1 to +1.

Perfect negative correlation is in­

dicated by -1, perfect positive correlation by +1, and no
correlation, or independence, by 0.
Table 5 shows that there is a positive relationship
between the pairs of farm categories listed and that this
ranges from +.4 89 3 for small with large full-time farms to
+.8176 for small full-time with small part-time farms.
The significance level is based upon a nonparametric
statistical test to calculate the probability that the
coefficient was obtained by chance.

The null hypothesis

is that the two rankings being compared are independent
(coefficient equals zero)
is a positive relationship

and the alternative is that there
(one-tailed test).

The level of

significance indicates that in each case the null hypothesis

74
Table 5.

Kendall Correlation Coefficients Comparing
Categories of Farms by Perceived Importance
of Problems

Farm Sizes Compared

Coefficient

Significance

Small vs Large

+.4939

.001

Small vs Medium

+.6476

.001

Medium vs Large

+.6549

.001

Small Full-Time vs Small Part-Time

+.8176

.001

Small Full-Time vs Large Full-Time

+.489 3

.001

is rejected with a confidence level of .001, showing that
there is a positive relationship.
Importance of Information
One of the objectives of this study was to examine the
importance of various types of information as perceived by
small farmers and as perceived by county extension agents.
This is a rather elusive subject not only because the con­
cept of information as used in this research is very broad,
but also because measurement is very difficult.

There is

no market mechanism for most kinds of information except
for books and materials purchased through commercial ou t ­
lets or tuition or fees charged for various classes, prog­
rams or seminars.

Much of the information that farmers

use on a regular basis is available at no dollar cost
through the Cooperative Extension Service.

The only cost

to the farmer is in terms of opportunity costs of time

75
spent in phoning and travel expenses.

In terms of economic

analysis farmers would be expected to collect information
for a decision until the marginal returns

(in terms of accur­

acy of information, psychic value, dollars gained from the
result of the decision, etc.) equal the marginal costs.

3

Assuming the marginal costs of information to be very low
and equal for all farm categories

(although the opportunity

costs would presumably be higher for larger farmers and
part-time farmers with outside employment)

we wish to ex­

amine the marginal returns of various types of information
in terms of perceived importance by farm category.
As stated earlier, the type of information being
searched by a farmer depends upon the problem or problems
being considered.

It follows that the importance that a

farmer attaches to certain types of information also de­
pends upon the importance he attaches to the problem for
which the information is needed.

Thus, by looking at the

perceived importance of various types of problems,

in­

ferences can be made regarding the perceived importance of
various types of information.
The IMS researchers had originally perceived five
types of problems:

1) price, 2) production,

nology, 4) institutional and 5) human.

3) new tech­

In the course of

their research it became apparent that these were not types
4
of problems, but types of information.
Problems typically
require all types of information for any resolution.

"The

domain of each problem seems to involve a unique mix of

76
different kinds of information."^
Experience subsequent to the IMS revealed that there
are really three broad areas of information;
institutional and human.

technical,

Production information is a part

of the technical type and differs from new technology
only in the time dimension.

Prices are included in the
C

normative dimension of the other categories.

Thus these

three broad categories have both a time dimension and a
normative-positive dimension.
While it is true that real-world problems typically
require all types of information,

certain problems seem to

require more of one type of information than other types
of information.

This is true of most of the problems in

section E of the questionnaire.

These problems were

designed so that they could be classified as technical
questions,

institutional questions and human questions so

that analysis could be performed.

In addition there were

a number of problems which could not be easily classified.
Seven of these were taken from the IMS study.
of the questions by technical,

The groupings

institutional or human cate­

gories are given in appendix F.
Table 6 shows the aggregate responses to the
technical questions in terms of perceived importance by
size of farm.

In order to test for the existence of a re­

lationship the chi square test was used.

For this test to

be accurate certain conditions must be met which include
a minimum of fifty observations with the expected frequency

77

greater than five for at least 80% of the cells and greater
than one for all cells.

7

For table 6 the null hypothesis

of no relationship is rejected at the one percent level of
confidence.

This indicates that there is a relationship and

that in general large farmers tend to perceive of techni­
cal

information

as being very important more frequently

than small farmers.

Likewise,

small farmers tended to re­

spond that technical problems are "not important at all"
more frequently than large farmers.

This may reflect

differences in problem recognition between these cate­
gories of farms, or perhaps small farmers just do not think
that these problems are important.
Table 6.

Perceived Importance of Technical Information by
Farm Size Category

Not Important
at All

2

3

4

Very
Important

Total

Large
%

62
25.1

13
5.3

30
12.1

37
15 .0

105
42.5

247
100

Medium
%

89
22.9

12
3.1

69
17.7

62
15.9

157
40.4

389
100

Small
%

622
30 .4

91
4.4

302
14 .8

233
11.4

799
39 .0

2047
100

Total

773

401

332

116

X2 = 2 0.74 9
d.f. = 8
significant at .0078 level

1061

2683

78
Table 7 presents a similar breakdown for institutional
information.

Chi square tests again indicate that a rela­

tionship exists at the one percent level of significance.
Examination of table 7 shows that a considerable amount of
polarity exists for the small farmers with nearly seventy
percent of the responses divided between the extreme cate­
gories.

This is true to a lesser degree for the medium and

larger farms too.

However, small farmers tended to check

"not important at all" more frequently than the other farm
groups and their cumulative percentage for items 3, 4 and
5 (very important) was smaller than that of the large and
medium farmers.

Thus, while there is polarity regarding

institutional questions within each group of farmers, small
farmers tend to perceive of these questions as "not import­
ant at all" more frequently than the other farm groups.
Table 7.

Perceived Importance of Institutional Information
by Farm Size Category

Not Important
at All

2

3

4

Very
Important

Total

Large
%

32
19 .2

5
3.0

48
28.7

21
12 .6

61
36.5

167
100

Medium
%

58
23.8

15
6.1

42
17.2

34
13.9

95
38.9

244
100

Small
%

413
31.2

71
5.4

204
15.4

130
9.8

506
38 .2

1324
100

Total

503
29.0

91
5.2

294
16.9

185
10 .7

662
38.2

1735

= 31.737,

d.f. = 8, significant at .0001 level

79
Unlike table 6
tionship.

or

7, table 8 does not show any rela

Chi square tests did not reject the null hypoth

esis of independence.

Examination of Table 8 indicates

that again there was a great deal of polarity in responses
of not important and very important, but that there was no
difference between farm groups.
Table 8.

Perceived Importance of Human Information by
Farm Size Category

Not
Important

2

3

4

Very
Total
Important

Large
%

63
33.5

12
6.4

28
14 .9

14
7.4

71
37 .8

188
100

Medium
%

86
30.0

18
6.3

43
15.0

32
11.1

108
37.6

287
100

Small
%

5 31
33.6

76
4.8

245
15.5

137
8.7

593
37.5

1582
100

Total

680
33.1

106
5.2

316
15.4

183
8.9

772
37 .5

2057
100

X 2 = 4.84 3,

d. f . - 8, not signi ficant

Information Sources Cited
After the respondents had indicated which particular
decision was the most difficult to make in section B they
were asked to name some places where they looked for informarion.

Table 9 shows the responses by size of farm.

This

was an open-ended question but all of the responses fell
into the sixteen categories of information sources used in
section E of the questionnaire.

The responses which fell

80
into the "other" category and which were identified consis­
ted of doctors, lawyers,

tax consultants and ministers.

Table 9 does not meet the conditions for a chi square
test due to the low expected frequencies of many cells.
This is not only because there is a large number of cells,
but also the response rate was low for this section of the
questionnaire.

This was the only section which asked open

ended questions, and apparently many respondents skipped
this section for that reason.

Only 130 respondents listed

any sources of information, and less than one-half listed
two or more sources.

This precludes statistical analysis of

Table 9.
The same poor response rate held for the remainder of
section B and precludes statistical analysis of the use­
fulness, ease of obtaining or accuracy of various infor­
mation sources as perceived by the respondents.
In section E of the questionnaire the respondents
were asked to name sources of information used in relation
to forty-four particular problems.

The responses were aggre­

gated by size of farm and sources cited and the data are
presented in Table 10.
The chi square test of independence of classification
indicates that there is a relationship between size of farm
and sources of information
level of confidence).

(significant at the one percent

The largest difference between the

large and small farmers concerned item #14,
problem."

"never had this

Small farmers tended to respond with this answer

81

Table 9.

Crosstabulation of Sources of Information Cited by Farm Size Category
(Question B-3)

Large

Medium

Small

Total

Sources of Information
#

*

#

%

#

%

#

%

1

newspapers and magazines

5 18

7

14

46

18

58

18

2

radio or tv

0

2

4

2

1

4

1

3

bulletins or pamphlets

0

2

4

6

2

8

2

4

professional farm management services

0

0

5

cooperative extension— county agents

2

7

5

10

24

10

31

10

6

dealers, salesmen or buyers

4 14

8

15

36

14

48

15

7

neighbors,

7 25

10

19

61

25

78

24

8

government agencies (ASCS, FHA, etc.)

0

5

10

25

10

30

9

9

banks or lending institutions (PCA, etc.

6 21

7

13

15

6

28

9

10

truckers or custom operators

0

0

1

-

1

-

11

auctions or county fairs

0

0

1

-

1

-

12

farm organizations or cooperatives

0

0

5

2

5

2

13

public schools, universities or 1ibraries

0

2

4

2

6

2

14

never had this problem

0

0

15

did not look for information— already
knew enough to decide

2

7

3

6

16

6

21

6

2

7

1

2

8

3

11

3

16

other (please identify)

friends or relatives

28 99®
Total
aDoes not equal 100 due to rounding.

0

4

0

0

52 i o i a 250

0

99a

330 100

82

Table

10.

Crosstabulation of Sources of
(Section E Questions)

Information Cited by Fa r m Size Category

Medium

Large
Sources of

Smal 1

Total

Information
#

%

*

%

#

*

#

%

1

n ewspapers and magazines

94

13.3

209

15. 0

800

13.7

1103

13.9

2

radio or tv

49

6.9

112

8.0

478

8.2

639

8 .1

3

bulletins or pamphlets

79

11.1

147

10 .6

638

10.9

864

10 .9

4

professional

26

3.7

43

3.1

138

2.4

207

2.6

5

cooperative extension — county agents

56

7.9

93

6.7

351

6 .0

500

6 .3

6

dealers,

67

9.4

101

7. 3

360

6.2

528

6 .7

7

neighbors,

61

8.6

148

10 .6

641

11.0

850

10 .7

8

government agencies

9

1.3

28

2 .0

153

2.6

190

2.4

9

banks or lending institutions
ect. )

40

5.6

77

5 .5

17 7

3 .0

294

3.7

farm management services

salesmen or buyers
friends or relatives
(ASCS,

FIIA, etc.)
(PCA,

10

truckers or custom operators

1

.1

4

.3

19

.3

24

.3

11

auctions or county fairs

3

.4

6

.4

34

.6

43

.5

12

farm organizations or cooperatives

18

2.5

38

2 .7

100

1 .7

156

2 .0

13

public schools,
1 ibraries

23

3.2

50

3.6

229

3.9

302

3.8

14

never had this problem

80

11.3

175

12.6

959

16.4

1214

15.3

15

did not look for i n f o r m a t i o n — already
k new enough to decide

80

11.3

139

10.0

627

10.7

896

10 .7

16

oth er

23

3.2

22

1.6

129

2.2

174

2.2

7934

100

universities or

(please identify)

709

Total
X 2 = 95.33,

d.f.

= 30,

significant at

.01 level

100

1 392

100

5833

100

83
more frequently than either medium or large farmers.

This

may reflect the choice of problems in section E, or it may
indicate that larger farmers tend to recognize problems
more readily than smaller farmers.
Large farmers tend to seek information more frequently
from dealers,

salesmen or buyers than do small farmers.

The

same is true with regard to banks and lending institutions
and the Cooperative Extension Service.

Small farmers tend

to seek information more frequently from neighbors,

friends

or relatives and radio or tv than do larger farmers.

It

should be noted that the percentage distribution for all
sixteen categories in Table 8 does not vary by more than a
few percentage points between sizes of farms, the widest
gap being 5.1% for number 14.

This indicates that all

farmers use a wide variety of sources for information.
Rationality of Decision Making
Decision making is an all pervasive activity which
people take part in throughout the day either on a con­
scious or unconscious level.

It is the ability to make

rational choice that principally distinguishes man from the
g

animals.

Decision analysis is an integral part of farm

management, and in fact all of the farm management methods
from budgeting, planning,

game theory, input-output analysis,

linear programming or even systems symulations models are
designed to assist in making rational decisions.

Much has

been written concerning risk and uncertainty in decision

84
making, and highly technical probability models have been
developed to aid in decisional analysis.

9

Still,

there is

much which is not known about decision making and ration­
ality, particularly concerning the inner psychological
workings of the brain.
However, certain kinds of behavior can be observed and
measured without understanding the mental processes behind
the behavior.

The North Carolina study attempted to measure

the rationality of the decisions made by their survey sample re­
spondents . First rationality was defined as the degree of con­
formity to the problem solving m o d e l . That is, the more rational
the decision is, the more it would conform to the subpro­
cesses of

(1) orientation or problem definition,

vation or seeking information,
choosing alternatives,

(2) obser­

(3) analysis, analyzing or

(4) implementation— acting, and

(5) feedback and adjustment-reassessing the choice and
_
10
accepting the consequences.
The questions used in the survey instrument were de­
rived from an investigation of relevant literature and re­
fined by extensive field testing with some 75 respondants.
The scale was reduced to twelve items with items 1-3 test­
ing for conformity to the subprocess of orientation,

4-6 for

observation,

7-*9 for analysis and 10-12 for feedback and

adjustment.

No separate items were required to test for

implementation since all the items essentially tested for
implementation of the decision cited by the r e s p o n d e n t s . ^
The questions were designed to be answered yes or no,

85
but a third response, don't know, was included so the re­
spondents would not be forced in one direction or another.
To contend with the possibility of a response set, four of
the twelve questions were designed to be answered negatively
(#3, 6, 10 and 12).

Values were assigned as follows:

positively worded; yes = 3, don't know = 2 and no = 1;
negatively worded; no = 3, don't know = 2, yes = 1 .
tabulating,

In

the "don't know" responses were counted as "no

responses" and not included in calculating the RDM score.
The scores thus ranged from a low of 12 to a high of 36 and
were divided into three relatively equal parts, low 12-21,
medium 22-29 and high 30-36.
It was at this point that a discrepancy was noticed.
The positively worded questions seemed to require positive
responses in order to conform to the process of decision­
making as defined in the problem-solving model.

However,

two of the four questions designed to be answered negatively
(#6 and #10), and so scored, seemed actually to require
positive answers.

Various members of the research committee

were consulted who agreed with this researcher.

The research­

er at North Carolina seemed to agree also and thought per­
haps there was an editorial error in the summary report.
However,

upon checking, it was found that the summary report

agreed with the original Ph.D. dissertation.
The particular questions in dispute
#6:

were:

Did you think about any other way that you could
solve this problem?

86
#10:

Do you take full credit for making this decision?

Question #6 tests conformity to the step of observation,
or seeking information.
seek information
seem to

A rational person would supposedly

before coming to conclusions.

This would

indicate a yes answer.

Question #10 tests conformity to the subprocess of
feedback and adjustment, of reassessing the choice and
accepting the consequences.

A rational person supposedly

accepts the consequences of the
seem to

decision made.

This would

indicate a yes answer. Thus, it was decided to go

ahead with the test but to change the scoring of these two
items.
One other difference between the two tests is that the
North Carolina study used a personal interview survey while
the present used a mail questionnaire.

With the personal

interviews none of the respondents indicated "don't know,"
and therefore the lowest score possible was a 12.

However,

with the mail questionnaire many people indicated "don't
know," which, since it is scored as a no response, means the
scores could range from zero to 36.

This did not affect the

categories of low, medium or high, however, except by e n ­
larging the low category.
Table 11 shows the results of the rationality test
by size of farm.

It was hypothesized that the small farm­

ers would have lower scores but this does not seem to be the
case.

Very few of the respondants in any farm size category

had low scores.

Instead the scores were heavily skewed to

87

the high side.

Chi squred tests were not valid here because

the expected frequencies of the low score cells were less
than five.

Even with regrouping the null hypothesis of no

relationship cannot be rejected.
Table 11.

Crosstabulation of Weighted Scores on Rational­
ity Test by Farm Size Category

Scores on Rationality Test
Low
Large

(0-21)

Medium (22-29)

High

(30-36)

1
8.3

3
25.0

8
66 .7

12

%

1
4 .2

16
66 .7

7
29 .2

24

%

4
3.6

67
60.9

39
35 .5

110

%

6
4.1

86
58.0

54
37.0

146

Medium
Small

Conditions not met for X

2

test

Table 12 shows the mean, median and range of the ra­
tionality scores by various categories of farmers.

Statis­

tical tests of the differences between two means drawn from
two populations show that there is no significant difference
between farm categories.

Table 13 further divides the small

farms by Census categories.

The low and the medium scores

were grouped in order to meet the criteria of chi squared
tests for cell size, but still no significant difference

88
exists to reject the null hypothesis of no relationship.
Thus it can be concluded that on the basis of

these tests

there is no significant difference between the rationality
of decision making for farmers in various size categories.
Table 12.

Mean, Median and Range of Scores on Rationality
Test by Farm Size Category

Scores on Rationality Test
Farm Category
Mean

Median

Large

29 .833

30.500

13

Medium

27.542

27.900

12

Small

27.545

27 .900

23

Large-Full-Time

29.818

31.000

13

Small Full-Time

27.395

28.083

23

Small Part-Time

27.361

27.818

20

Large Full-Time no SS^"

29.600

30 .500

13

Small Full-Time no SS

27.333

28 .000

23

Small Full-Time with SS

27.333

28.000

8

Small Part-Time no SS

25.576

27.818

20

Small Part-Time with SS

28.164

28.000

9

Range

lSS = Social Security or reitrement benefits.
However, another conclusion could be drawn concern­
ing the sensitivity of the test.

The results of the North

Carolina study were skewed to the high end and were highly
concentrated.

This was attributed to the very homogeneous

population of the study.

In Michigan, however,

the

89
Table 13.

Crosstabulation of Small Farm Income Categories
by Scores on Rationality Test

Low or
Medium

High

Total

$20,000 to
$39,999

14
63.6%

8
36 .4%

22
100%

$10,000 to
$19,999

12
70.6%

5
29 .4%

17
100%

$5,000 to
$9,999

8
53.3%

7
46.7%

15
100%

$2,500 to
#4,999

13
54 .2%

11
45.8%

24
100%

Less than
$2,500

24
75.0%

8
25 .0%

32
100%

92
63.0%

54
37 .0%

146
100%

Small Farm Income
Categories

X 2 = 3.761, d.f. = 4, not significant
population was extremely heterogeneous.

Yet the scores

varied very little and were skewed to the high end.

This

would suggest that the instrument is not sensitive enough
to pick up differences between widely heterogeneous groups
of people.

90
Contact with Extension
The final section of the questionnaire asked
specific questions about farmers' contact with the Coopera­
tive Extension Service.

Since there are a number of ways

contact may be made between a county agent or the extension
staff and the farm clientele,

an index was adopted which

combined information about various types of contacts into
12
a single measure.
The following weights were used:
Type of Contact
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Weight

An agent visited your farm or home
You or your family visited the Cooperative
Extension Office
You or your spouse talked on the phone
with a county agent
You or your spouse attended a farm tour
sponsored by the Cooperative Exten­
sion Service
You or your spouse attended a meeting or­
ganized by the Cooperative Extension
Service
You or your family listened to a radio or
TV program sponsored by the Coopera­
tive Extension Service
You or your spouse received a circular
letter or pamphlet from the Coopera­
tive Extension Service

15
10
10
10
10
2
1

The reported frequency was multiplied by the
appropriate weight, and the results added to yield a
weighted score for each farm.

Four categories of contact

with Extension were established:
1.

No Contact

2.

Low Contact: 1-14 (Those who had less than the
equivalent of one farm or home visit during 19 77)

3.

Medium Contact: 15-90 (Those who had the equivalent
of at least one farm or home visit during the
year, but not more than one every two months)

91
4.

High Contact: over 90 (Those who had the equivalent
of a farm or home visit every second month, or more
frequently)
Table 14 shows the amount of contact with extension

broken down by gross farm income categories.

The no contact

and low contact categories were combined to conform to the
condition that the expected frequency of at least 80 percent
of the cells be greater than five.
had indicated no contact

Twenty-five respondents

(two large, one medium, and

twenty-two small) while only fourteen indicated low contact
(two large, two medium, and ten small).
Chi square tests indicate that there is a relation­
ship at the 10 percent level of significance.

However,

this relationship does not confirm the hypothesis that the
larger the farm, the greater the amount of contact with
extension.

Instead it is the $20,000 to $39,999 income

category which appears to have the greatest amount of con­
tact, followed by the medium size farms and the large
farms, respectively.

This does not concur with table 10,

but in table 10 the small farm category is not broken down
into subcategories.

Also, table 10 does not attempt to

measure the amount of contact by the various farm cate­
gories.
There is no apparent explanation for the relatively
high rate of contact for the $20,000 to $39,999 category.
Further analysis of various control variables shows that
16 of the 21 farmers in this category were full-time

92
Table 14.— Contact with Extension by Gross Farm Income
Category.
No or Low
Contact

Medium
Contact

High
Contact

Total

Over $100,000

4
(30.8%)

4
(30.8%)

5
(38.5%)

13
(100%)

$40,000 to $99,999

3
(15.8%)

6
(31.6%)

10
(52.6%)

19
(100%)

$20,000 to $39,999

3
(14.3%)

5
(23.8%)

13
(61.9%)

21
(100%)

$10,000 to $19,999

8
(44.4%)

8
(44.4%)

2
(11.1%)

18
(100%)

$5,000 to $9,999

4
(21.1%)

9
(47.4%)

6
(31.6%)

19
(100%)

$2,500 to $4,999

6
(26.1%)

10
(43.5%)

7
(30.4%)

23
(100%)

Under $2,500

11
(42.3%)

7
(26.9%)

8
(30.8%)

26
(100%)

Total

39
(28.1%)

49
(35.3%)

51
(36.7%)

139
(100%)

Gross Farm
Income

X2 = 18.348
d.f. = 12
significant at .1055 level
Three cells or 14 percent have expected frequencies
<5, no cells have expected frequencies <1.
Therefore
chi square test is valid.

93
farmers and twelve of these had more than 25 years of e x ­
perience in farming.

Nine were in the fifty to fifty-

nine age group.
Table 14 also indicates that those farmers in the
$10,000 to $19,000 category have the least contact with
Cooperative Extension.

This also does not conform to

the hypothesis that the smaller the farm, the less the
amount of contact with Cooperative Extension.

Again,

further analysis of the control variables showed that for
this group only eight of the eighteen were full-time farm­
ers.

The two high-contact farmers were full-time, but

there was no trend regarding age or years of experience
in farming.
Table 15 shows some marked differences between partretired and not retired farmers in their contact with
Extension.

Seventy percent of the part-retired farmers

had no or low contact with Extension while only 22 percent
of the farmers who were not retired had low or no contact.
On the other hand, nearly 40 percent of the farmers who
were not retired had high contact with Extension and only
twenty percent of the part-retired farmers had high con­
tact with Extension.
First,

This is important for two reasons.

it shows that Cooperative Extension is not reach­

ing the part-retired farmers as effectively as others,
and second,

it shows that the Cooperative Extension is

not being reached by the same farmers.

These older farm­

ers may have some tried and true production methods which

94
Table 15.

Contact with Extension by Age of Operator:
Part-Retired or Not Retired

No or Low
Contact

Medium
Contact

High
Contact

Part Retired

14
70 .0%

2
10 .0%

4
20 .0%

20
100%

Not Retired

27
22.3%

47
38 .8%

47
38 .8%

121
100%

41
29 .1%

49^
34 .8%

51
36 .2%

141
100%

Age

X

2

= 19,215, d.f. = 2, significant at .001 level

Expected frequency of each cell > 5.
could be useful to other small farmers, but which are not
being communicated for various reasons.

This point will

be discussed further in Chapter VI.
Table 16 further divides the small farmers by occu­
pation, either full-time or part-time farm operators, and
shows that a much greater percentage of full-time than
part-time farmers have high contact with Extension.

Like­

wise, a much greater percentage of part-time than full­
time farmers have no or low contact with Extension.
the part-time farmers have other jobs,

Since

they may not be

able to attend meetings or go to other Extension activi­
ties as often as the full-time farmers.

This suggests

that other alternatives may need to be tried in order to
reach this farmer.

95
Table 16.

Contact with Extension by Small Farmers by
Occupation

Occupation

No or Low
Contact

Medium
Contact

High
Contact

Small Full-Time

3
9 .7%

11
35.5%

17
54 .8%

31
100%

Small Part-Time

17
30 .9%

23
41. 8%

15
27.3%

55
100%

20
2 3.3%

34
39. 5%

32
37.2%

86
100%

X2 = 8.09 3, d.f. = 2, significant at .02 level
Expected frequency of each cell > 5.
The remainder of section F consists of questions re­
garding various methods the Cooperative Extension Service
uses or could use for various educational programs.
Table 17 shows the responses to question F-2 by farm
size.

This table met the conditions for a chi square test

and indicates there is no significant difference between
farm size categories in willingness to attend a meeting on
a topic concerning one of their farm or home decisions.
Sixty-one percent of the small farmers indicated they would
be willing to attend such a meeting as opposed to sixtyfive percent for medium farmers and seventy-five percent
for large farmers.

Checking "yes" on a questionnaire and

actual attendance at a meeting are two different things,
but this is an indication that possible programs could be
developed based on meetings.

It is a common complaint by

96

Table 17. — Crosstabulation of Willingness to Attend a
Meeting by Farm Size Category.
Yes,
Will Attend

No,
Will Not Attend

Total

Large

12
(75%)

4
(25%)

16
(100%)

Medium

17
(65.4%)

9
(34.6%)

26
(100%)

Small

92
(61.3%)

58
(38.7%)

150
(100%)

Total

121
(63%)

71
(37%)

192
(100%)

Farm
Category

X2 = 1.2 3
d.f. = 2
not significant

97
county agents that the small farmers do not attend meet­
ings, but perhaps there are good reasons.

The concept

of homophily in communication is one explanation.

Homo-

phily is the degree to which pairs of individuals who in­
teract are similar in certain attributes,

such as beliefs,

values, education, social status and the like.13

if a

meeting is likely to be attended by people with different
beliefs, more education, higher social status, etc., than
the small farmer,

than that small farmer is liable not to

attend.
Table 18 shows the responses to the question,
far would you be willing to travel" to a meeting.

"How

No

attempt was made to analyze this by county, but this seems
to show a willingness to travel to meetings.
Table 13.— Crosstabulation of Miles Willing to Travel to a
Meeting by Farm Size Category.
Size of Farm
Number of Miles

Total
Large

Medium

Small

Less than 10

0

5

16

21

10 to 19

4

7

33

44

20 to 29

2

5

19

26

30 to 39

1

1

9

11

40 to 49

0

0

6

6

More than 50

4

2

10

16

11

20

93

124

Total

98
Table 19 and 20 show the preference for day of the
week and time of day for meetings.

Nearly one-third of

all respondents indicated that any day would be O.K.,
while the other two-thirds stated their preferences.

Of

those, Wednesday seems to be the preferred day of the
week.

As for time of day, the evening was the overwhelm­

ing choice of those who responded.
Table 21 is a list of some fifty-three topics which
were suggested for meetings.

These are broken down and a n ­

alyzed by small farm category in Chapter VI.

It is inter­

esting to note that small farm subjects were mentioned
several times.
Table 22 indicates that the majority of any size
farm group is not willing to attend a two-or-three-day
school.

A school, of course,

requires a lot more invest­

ment in terms of both time and money so this response is
predictable.

However,

it does indicate that a greater per­

centage of medium sized farmers than either large or small
are willing to attend such a school while small farmers are
more likely not to attend.

The chi square test here is

significant at the 1 percent level.
Of the forty-seven respondents who said they would
be willing to attend a two-or-three-day school,

thirty-nine

indicated they would be willing to pay at least $25 to
attend.

This included twenty-two of the twenty-nine small

farmers who were willing to attend.
responses to this question.

Table 23 presents the

99
Table 19.- -Crosstabulation of Day of Week Preferred for
Meeting by Farm Size Category.
Size of Farm
Total

Weekday
Large

Medium

Sunday

Small
2

2

Monday

1

11

12

Tuesday

5

3

8

Wednesday

2

4

9

15

Thursday

1

1

5

7

5

5

11

11

Friday
Saturday
Any day

5

3

21

29

Total

8

14

67

89

Table 20.- -Crosstabulation of Time of Day Preferred for
Meetings by Farmi Size Category.

Time of
Day

Size of Farm
Total
Large

Medium

Small

Morning

1

2

11

14

Afternoon

2

3

15

20

Evening

5

13

59

77

Any t ime

2

0

0

2

10

18

85

113

Total

100
Table 21.

Topics Suggested for Meetings.

Tonic
p

Number of
"Mentions"

Crop Management
General
Grain varieties to grow
Reduced tillage
Fertilizer use
Insects
Pruning
Chemicals to use

6
1
1
5
4
2
5

Sprayer calibration
Correct poison to use

1
1

Livestock Management
General
Nutrition
Cattle and sheep
Castration and dehorning
Raising pigs
Techniques for beginners
Expanding hog operation
Dairy management

7
2
3
1
1
1
1
1

Retirement
Estate planning

5

Government Sponsored Programs
General
Government intervention
Imports
Cost sharing projects
Taxes
Forest protection
"Why big chemical farmers and indus­
tries are allowed to pollute our
drinking water"
Inflation

1
2
1
2
7
2
1
1

Farm Management
General
Bookkeeping

1
1

101
Table 21.

Continued.

Topic
p
Investment and returns
Financing
Farm expansion
Future of small time farming
Small farm management
Going into full-time farming

Number of
"Mentions"
1
2
1
6
1
1

Marketing
General
Better prices
When to sell
Sale of fruits and vegetables

8
5
1
1

Machinery Management
General
Selecting good used farm equipment
Knowing what implements to get for a
small farm
Return on machinery investment

2
2
1
1

Farming
General
How to survive in farming
Farm woodlands and ponds
Economics of farm tile drainage
Bees

4
1
1
1
1

Energy
Saving energy
Solar energy

2
1

Cost cutting on Household Expenses

1

Trying to Work Together to Learn More

1

Lawn and Garden Aids for the Farm Home

3

Total— 53 topics

117

102
Table 22.— Crosstabulation of Willingess to Attend a Twoor-Three-Day School by Farm Size Category
(Question F-3).

Farm Size

Yes,
Will Attend

No,
Will Not Attend

Total

Large

6
(37.5%)

10
(62.5%)

16
(100%)

Medium

12
(46.2%)

14
(53.8%)

26
(100%)

Small

29
(20.3%)

114
(79.7%)

143
(100%)

Total

47
(25.4%)

138
(74.6%)

185
(100%)

X2 = 9.124
d.f. = 2
significant at .01 level

Table 23.— Crosstabulation of Willingness to Pay for a Twoor-Three-Day School by Farm Size Category.
Size of Farm
Payment

Total
Large

Medium

0

Small
4

5

$25

1

5

11

17

$50

4

3

9

16

1

1

1

4

$75
$100

1

Other
Total

2
1

6

11

1
26

44

103
As table 24 indicates, there is a certain amount of
overlap between the topics suggested for meetings and those
suggested for a two-three day school.

Some thirty-six

topics were suggested with marketing again leading the
list.

The suggested topics for both meetings and schools

indicate a wide variety of interests and concerns and
although many of these topics have been covered in Extension
meetings throughout the state from time to time, this still
should provide some fertile ground for ideas regarding
meetings in the future.

These lists also seem to indicate

that meetings could be pitched to particular groups con­
cerned with small farm management or small and large beef
cow operations.
Table 25 indicates that more large farmers are
familiar with crop and pest management services than are
smaller farmers.

Table 2 6 shows that more large farmers

also feel that management services would be useful,
although even a greater percentage of medium farmers
indicated they felt this way.

Still nearly half the small

farm operators indicate they felt a management service
would be useful if one were available.
Of the eighty-five operators who felt that a
management service would be useful, fifty-five indicated
they would be willing to pay at least $2 per acre for the
service.

Ten small farmers indicated they would be willing

to pay $4 per acre while five checked $6 per acre.

Two

104
small farmers even indicated they would be willing to pay
$10 per acre.

Table 27 gives the breakdown.

105
Table 24.

Topics Suggested for Two-or-Three-Day Schools.

Topic

Number of
"Mentions"

Marketing
General
Cut out middle man
The Chicago Mercantile Exchange
Better prices
When to sell

7
1
1
2
1

Livestock
General
Small and large beef cow operations
Nutrition
Housing
For small farms
Shearing sheep, castration and dehorning
Artificial breeding
Dairy
Breeding hogs
Pregnancy testing

2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1

Crop Management
General
Weed and pest control
Fruit tree care
Soil testing
Grain storage and drying

4
3
1
1
1

Farm Management
General
Small farm management
Bookkeeping
Cash flow
Financing
Partnerships
Getting started in farming
New farming methods
Taxes

4
2
2
1
3
1
1
1
1

Basic Living from your Land
Repair and Maintenance

3

106
Table 24.

Continued.

_
T°P ic

Number of
"Mentions"

New Farm Topics and Problems

1

Laws and Regulations

1

What Different Things You Can Do with a
Farm and the Results Under Given
Conditions

1

Solar Energy

1

Forest Protection

1

Total— 36 topics

60

107
Table 25 .— Crosstabulation of Familiarity with Professional
Crop and Pest Management Services by Farm Size
Category (Question F - 4 ) .
Farm Size

Yes--Familiar

No— Not Familiar

Total

Large

11
(64.7%)

6
(35.3%)

17
(100%)

Medium

12
(44.4%)

15
(55.6%)

27
(100%)

Small

59
(40.1%)

88
(59.9%)

147
(100%)

Total

82
(42.9%)

109
(57.1%)

191
(100%)

X2 = 3.784
d.f. = 2
significant at .15 level
Table 26 .— Crosstabulation of Opinion Regarding Usefulness
of Management Services by Farm Size Category
(Question F - 4 ) .
Farm Size

Yes— Useful

No— Not Useful

Total

Large

9
(64.3%)

5
(35.7%)

14
(100%)

Medium

15
(71.4%)

6
(28.6%)

21
(100%)

Small

61
(49.6%)

62
(50.4%)

12 3
(100%)

Total

85
(53.8%)

73
(46.2%)

158
(100%)

X2 = 4.121
d.f. = 2
significant at .13 level

108

Table 2 7.— Willingness to Pay for Management Services by
Farm Size Category.

Payment
per Acre

Size of Farm
Total
Large

$0
$2

5

$4

1

$6

1

Medium

Small

1

4

5

7

22

34

10

11

5

7

2

2

1

$8
$10
Other
Total

1
7

10

1
43

60

109
Footnotes

^Ralph Hepp,
2

"Characteristics," p. 4.

White and Boone, "Decision Making," p. 119.

3
Except in cases of forced action in which a
decision is forced by circumstances beyond the manager's
control.
See Glenn L. Johnson, "Single Entrepreneur
Decision Theory," Staff Paper No. 77-87, Department of
Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, 1977.
4
Johnson et a l . , Managerial Processes, p. 24.
5
Glenn L. Johnson,

"Some Lessons," p. 19.

^Ibid., p. 21.
7
Thad R. Harshbarger, Introductory Statistics, A
Decision Map (New York: Macmillan Company, 1971), pi 204.
Also see Charles T. Clark and Lawrence L. Schkade,
Statistical Analysis for Administrative Decisions (Cin­
cinnati! South-Western Publishing C o . ), pi 371.
Q
Jack R. Anderson, John L. Dillon and J. Brian
Haidaker, Agricultural Decision Analysis (Ames, Iowa:
The Iowa State University Press, 1977), p. 3.
Q

See for example Frank H. Knight, Risk, Uncertainty
and Profit (Boston: Houghton Mifflin C o . , 1946); Henri
T h e i l , Economics and Information Theory (Chicago, 111. :
Rand McNally and Company, 1967); Anderson, Dillon and
Haidaker, Agricultural Decision Analysis; and various
papers by Glenn L. Johnson.
10

, .

White and Boone, "Decision Making," p. 28.

■^Ibid. , pp. 46-48.
12

This section is based upon W. L. Slocum, "Attri­
butes of Farm Families with Low Frequency of Contact with
Agricultural Extension," Rural Sociology 22 (1957): 281.
13

.
Rogers, Communication of Innovations, p. 210.

CHAPTER V
ANALYSIS OF COUNTY AGENT INTERVIEWS

For it is always easier to help those who can help
themselves than to help the helpless.
E.F. Schumacher
In order to get a better understanding of the needs
of various farm categories as perceived by Cooperative E x ­
tension, each of the County Directors for the six survey
counties was interviewed.

A list of questions^ formed the

basis of the interviews, but the actual interviews were
very relaxed and informal with many questions being an­
swered before they were asked and the conversation rang­
ing into other areas.

The County Directors were very c o ­

operative, open and honest in their replies.
In general the County Directors stated that the larg­
er farm operators demanded the most of their time.
One
2
used the term "more progressive farmer"
and another "the
commercial farmer."

One agent stated that there are only

small farms in his county and said it is not so much the
scale of farming as the individual involved in terms of
who uses the extension office.

He stated,

"within both

large and small there are those independent people who
want to make their own mistakes."

None of the agents kept

records of the frequency of visits or calls by type of

110

Ill
farmer, and they all agreed that they would help anyone who
comes to them for aid or advice, but the general concensus
was that the larger, more progressive farmer is more likely
to seek advice and information from the Cooperative Exten­
sion Service.

This is exactly what communications theory

would indicate.
With respect to the kinds of information requested by
farmers of different size there was both agreement and dis­
agreement.

There was agreement that requests from farmers

in general "cover the waterfront."

One agent said that

the Cooperative Extension Service is the "court of last re­
sort or referal service" to which farmers are referred by
other organizations and government agencies.

This includes

requests for information on everything from P.A. 116 to
partnership arrangements to very specific problems with in­
sects or disease.
There was disagreement on the kinds of information
farmers of different size request.

Two of the agents said

that the kinds of questions were the same, but the scale was dif­
ferent and the solutions would be different for different sized
farms.

Three agents responded that the questions were differ­

ent, with larger farmers asking more complex questions concern­
ing management alternatives while the smaller farmers ask
more basic "how to," production types of questions.

One

agent said that there was more of a difference between farmers
by stages of development than by size of operation in the kinds
of questions asked.

Newer farmers ask more basic questions

while more established farmers ask complicated questions.

112
Later the agents were asked what kinds of information
they thought small farmers needed to improve their farm o p ­
erations.

Four of the agents felt that the information nec­

essary for small farms was no different than that necessary
for any size farm.

One agent stated,

do the same things as large farmers.
the economics of it.

"Small farmers must
The only difference is

Five acres of strawberries need the

same care as one hundred acres."

Another said "the general

principles of growing corn are the same whether a person
grows five or one hundred acres.
ent."

The marketing is differ­

The other two agents felt that smaller farmers needed

more basic information concerning tillage and production
procedures— "how to" kinds of information.
When asked about the role of the county agents in
aiding farmers with their goals and objectives there was
agreement that this is an area where neutrality must be
maintained.

They felt their duties were to remain unbiased

but to point out the alternatives.

Most agents get quite

involved in the goal setting process and have conducted seminars
on goal setting along with other management principles .

They

agreed that it is important to know the objective of a
farmer before being able to point out the alternatives to
a certain question.

Agents, of course, vary in their tech­

nique and approach.

One agent stated that a technique he

used was to be a kind of devil's advocate.

In taking the

opposite view of a farmer on a subject he is able to see
how clearly that farmer has thought through a question.

113
One agent said that there are two types of client; 1) those
who will involve the extension service from the beginning
and 2) those who will call after their goals and objectives
are set and then ask for technical information.

He felt

that small farmers were most often in the second group.

An exam­

ple of the second type is the farmer who calls the extension
service and says,
can I market it?"

"I planted ten acres of squash.
On the other hand,

Where

there are some farm­

ers who will try to corner the agent into making decisions
for them "but they are not about to accept that decision
until they have done a lot more checking."
A major difference was seen between large and small
farmers with regard to their requests for process skills
versus the "right information."

Most of the agents felt

that the larger farmer required more complicated responses
which took them through a thinking process while the smaller
farmers were more interested in the bottom line:

"How

many pounds per acre," or "How many bales do I feed."
They pointed out that the time of year is an important
factor.

During the summer (the time of the interviews)

farmers are busy and most questions are the "brush-fire"
type.

Army worms were a problem common to each of the

counties, and the question was the same no matter what the
size of the farm.

During the winter the agents sponser

seminars and workshops which get at the process skills,
management, bookkeeping, etc.

Thus one agent said that

there was no difference between large and small farmers on

114
this issue.
The agents each had a long list of other places which
farmers go for information if they don't go to extension.
Farm magazines were often mentioned first, with one agent
indicating that he sometimes got questions about various
articles which had appeared in a farm magazine or news­
paper.

Neighbors were often mentioned.

It was noted that

specialty farms and some larger farmers went directly to
Michigan State University because they had graduated there
and still knew some professors.

At least one agent felt

that the farmers were deluged with too much information.
"This is a problem because they (the farmers)

are being

hit up by every Tom, Dick and Harry, either private or
public service people, and they don't have the time."
Another agent said that the farmers were being con­
fused with so many different agencies— Cooperative Exten­
sion Service, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service, Soil Conservation Service, etc, and it is even
more confusing if these agencies duplicate each other's efforts.
One important job of extension is as a referal service;
getting people to the right office for their needs.
When asked about their perception of the major prob­
lems facing the small farmer the county agents gave a var­
iety of responses:

the cost of capital and low net returns—

particularly for the small farmer; overinvestment or under­
investment, either of which leads to inefficiencies,
timeliness, which may be especially important for the

115
part-time farmer who has a job where he must punch a clock.
One agent felt that small farmers have trouble adapting
technology to fit their operation and need more "how-to"
types of information.

A couple of the agents mentioned

lack of managerial ability or "expertise" as a main prob­
lem of some farmers.

"Some people are just poor managers."

Along this same line another agent said "Small farmers need
to be more realistic as to what they plan to do.
can be helped.

Others must learn the hard way.

should point out what can and can't be done.

Some
Extension

For example,

a local farmer put out fifty fruit trees without consulta­
tion on spraying,

fertilizer, etc.

Now most of the trees

are dead."
Even when faced with poor farm managers, however, the
county agents agreed that they would not tell someone to
quit farming.

Instead they would point out the alterna­

tives or "try to help him see the light."

Some of the

agents said that much depends upon the goals of the farmer.
If a person really wants to farm full time "I try to work
with him over a period of years to get toward that goal.
For others who want to wear cowboy boots and have four
herefords, I just try to point out that what they are getting
into might not pay taxes, or they might go into the hole."
Along this line another agent said that some people "would
love to be millionnaires so they could afford to farm."
One agent pointed out that even if a person is a poor
farmer,

"if he has another job and wants his children to

116
have a horse, etc. he should keep the farm because the
value of real estate is rising."
With regard to any special effort to help the small
farmer the agent's responses were generally negative.

One

agent gave a flat "no" when asked if he felt there should
be a special effort to help the small farmer.

Another

said he had mixed feelings and asked "Do people really
know they are small farmers?
office can do and is doing.

We should identify what the
The information we provide

should be in the same format for all farmers."

Another

said "We like to think we are helping all groups.

We are

doing the poorest job in the area of small farmers because
they number more, are less identifiable and deal with sub­
ject matter areas that are fuzzy sometimes.

And you just

have a tough time finding out who they are and what they
wa n t ."
Commonly used methods of distributing information
varied tremendously from county to county by subject and
by time of year, but all the traditional methods were
mentioned.

The importance of the telephone was stressed

by all the agents.

In addition each agent mentioned some

special programs ranging from a spray guide radio program
every morning during season,

to newsletters or columns in

the local weekly newspapers to a cafeteria style day-long
program on a wide variety of subjects where people can
pick and choose which subjects they would like more information
on.

One agent stressed brevity in communicating by mail

117
and has developed a system of using five by seven inch
cards for information bulletins.

They are short, use as

few words as possible, have a picture or something which
catches the eye, and they do not have to be unfolded or
unstapled.

If something must be mailed in an envelope it

is stamped in red "personal" or "confidential" to make sure
the envelope is opened.
The role of Michigan State University in helping the
county agent and providing information and advice was seen
by most agents to be even more important than in the past.
One agent suggested that MSU had a role in informing the
consumers on the role of agriculture.

"Farming is a bus­

iness, not a subsidized program, and cheap food may not
always be available." A couple agents suggested that there
should be more in-dept training of extension agents, par­
ticularly in orienting new agents.

The specialists at

MSU received good grades, except when they are out of
their office for a period of time with no one to cover.
Most of the agents were not too happy about the policy of
charging for bulletins, but felt that the quality had
gone up.

At least one felt that the bulletins were the

"backbone" of the system, and that the small farmer series
was "a big help."
In reference to small farmers one agent felt that
Michigan State University should "take all the success
stories and significant accomplishments in small and parttime farmer programs throughout the state and describe them

118
and make them available" through publications or other
means to other agents in Michigan throughout the nation.
Most of the agents emphasized the importance of MSU in
providing the most recent basic research and in trying to
anticipate problems which may arise in the near future.
One subject area which came up during several of the
interviews was that of the counseling aspect of Extension.
The agents emphasized that extension is not just an answer
service.

Much of the work involves dealing with people on

a one-to-one or one-to-family basis which is much more com­
plex than merely providing an answer.
bility,

Personality, amia­

style, poise and character are all important, but

cannot be taught.

At least two of the agents emphasized

the importance of listening to their clients to find out
what the problem really is or what will make their clients
happy.

This involves gaining the respect and confidence of

the clients, and "being willing to listen."

It also in­

volves "trying not to be an all knowing authority" and try­
ing to "take time with people."

This counseling aspect of

extension is an important component in affecting change yet
formal training is not required of the county agents.
The agents recognized that there is a limit to coun­
seling due both to time and money constraints.

Also there

is a limit due to the type of person being counseled.
"Some people want to be nursed along with all steps in the
decision process, but we can't be the ultimate complete
source of information for everyone."

Another agent said,

"People are always looking for the easy way out.

If someone

119
asks,

'What can I do to keep the weeds out of

I say

'Do you have a good sharp hoe?'"

my garden?'

Summary
The County Extension Directors of the six counties
selected for sampling were interviewed.

This is not a rep­

resentative sample and the data are not subject to statis­
tical

sampling, but it does give an idea of what

ing in extension at the county level.

A list

is happen­

of questions

was used, but the actual interviews were somewhat openended and allowed subjects to come up which were not pre­
viously identified.

General conclusions follow.

The agents generally agreed that the larger farmers
demand more of county agents time than the smaller farmers,
and ask more complicated questions.
ask basic questions,

Small farmers tend to

looking for the "bottom line" of how

many bales to feed or pounds to use per acre while larger
farmers are also interested in managerial processes.

Two

of the agents felt that the questions were the same for
both small or large farms, but the scale was different, and
the solutions were different.
However, when asked what kinds of information they
felt small farmers needed,

four of the agents responded that

the information was the same regardless of the size of farm.
"The plants are the same,

the livestock is the same.

The

difference is the amount of investment in machinery, etc."
The other two agents said that the informatin needs are

120
different for smaller farmers in that they need more basic
information than larger farmers.

Thus,

the type of infor­

mation is the same, but the level is different.
All of the county agents got involved in goal setting
with their clients, but insisted that neutrality be main­
tained.

Their function is to present the alternatives.

The agents listed many different places where farmers may
look for information.
cies,

This includes other government agen­

farm organizations, magazines and newspapers and

others.

It was suggested that one role for extension is as

a referal service.
The agents listed a variety of problems which they
perceived to be the major stumbling block of small farms
but they were all economic or technical in nature.
cost of capital,

The

timeliness, adapting technology to their

operation and "how to" types of information were mentioned.
Also mentioned were the lack of managerial ability and ex­
pertise of some farmers.

Again,

the agents felt they should

only present alternatives, even the bad consequences, rather
than force a decision.
The county agents did not feel that they should make
special efforts to help small farmers.

They felt that they

should be helping all farmers without discriminating.
clearly felt that their

jobs

They

were to work with commercial

farmers since they provide the food and fiber for the nation.
The agents recognized that they were doing the poorest job
with the small farmer because of their large numbers, the

121

difficulty in identifying them and the fuzziness of their
problem areas.
All the traditional methods of communication were
mentioned by the agents, stressing the telephone, bulle­
tins and newsletters.

Each agent seemed to have his own

preferred methods.
The role of Michigan State University was seen to be
as important as ever in providing up-to-date research and
technology.

The important role of bulletins and the need

for basic research was emphasized.

Some suggestions were

made concerning MSU services to Cooperative Extension.
Finally,

the role of the agent as a counselor was dis­

cussed, along with its limitations.

122
Footnotes
^See Appendix E.
2

To maintain confidentiality none of the agents who
are quoted in this section will be identified.

CHAPTER VI
EXTENSION EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR
SMALL FARM OPERATORS

The previous two chapters have presented analyses of
the questionnaire data and of the County Agent interviews.
The purpose of this chapter is to attempt to synthesize the
two in terms of their implications for extension programming
for small farm operators.
The survey response confirms that small farms still
comprise the majority of farm operators in Michigan, and
that these small farms are scattered throughout the state.
Earlier research has established the importance of small
farms in terms of acres harvested, acres occupied, agricul­
tural sales and dominance in certain enterprises such as
beef calves,

sheep and fat cattle,

small grains.^

forages,

soybeans,

and

This research also indicated that small

farm operators reported a desire to increase income from
the small farm and that such an increase is possible if the
operators of small farms are willing to make changes in
their management practices and enterprises.

2

The present

research has attempted to look at part of the management
process to see what changes could be made to improve the

123

124
management practices of small farmers, and thus improve
their gross farm income situation.
In looking at the demand for information by small
farm operators as well as larger operators it is apparent
that small farm operators use a wide variety of sources of
information.

This was shown in tables 9 and 10 earlier as

well as in the responses of the county agents.

The fact

that larger farmers tend to seek information more frequently
from dealers,

salesmen or buyers, banks or lending institu­

tions and the Cooperative Extension Service than do small
farmers tends to support the Agents'

contention that the

larger farmers ask more complex questions which involve
managerial processes.

These are the sources one would go

to for more detailed answers to questions.

Small farmers

tend to seek information more frequently from neighbors,
friends or relatives and radio and television than do
larger farmers.

Again,

these are the sources which tend

to provide simple answers or information as opposed to a
more complex process.
Although small farmers use a wide variety of sources
of information,

they also responded that they "never had

this problem" more frequently than either medium or large
farmers.

Given the sources from which these problems were

obtained and the general applicability of the problems
listed, it may be concluded that larger farmers tend to
recognize problems more readily than do smaller farmers.
This, of course,

is the first vital step in the problem

125
solving model and if one does not recognize a situation
which is less good, or more bad than it could be with some
changes,

then those changes will probably not be brought

about.
This conclusion is also borne out in tables 6 and 7
regarding perceived importance of various types of informa­
tion.

Small farmers tended to respond that technical

problems were "not important at all" more frequently than
larger farm operators.
information.

The same was true of institutional

If a small farmer does not perceive of a

particular problem as being important,

it is very unlikely

that that small farmer will attempt to change the situation.
The above point was discussed at a Cooperative Exten­
sion Inservice Education Workshop on December 6, 1977, at
Michigan State University.

County Agents from throughout

the state indicated that they are often in positions where
they can see a "problem" but it is not recognized as a
"problem" by the farm operator.

Examples were given of

small farmers who had ten cows in a class B dairy opera3
tion.
The County Agents recognxze that this is not a
profitable enterprise in Michigan, but they cannot tell
the farmer to quit.

Instead they must try to find out the

goals and objectives of the farmer in order to offer
alternatives or to make suggestions.

This enters into the

realm of counseling.
Although the small farmers tended to perceive of
technical and institutional problems as not important more

126
frequently than larger farmers, there was still a positive
correlation between the various farm size categories in
their ranking of the importance of problems.
tion

The correla­

(table 5) was much higher for farm categories close

in size than for those much different in size.
correlation

The highest

(.8176) was between small full-time and small

part-time farm operators while the lowest correlation
(.4893) was between small full-time and large full-time
operators.
positive,

Thus, while the correlation in all cases was
it was weaker as the farm size compared increased

in difference.

This tends to confirm the County Agents'

belief that large and small farmers have the same types of
problems, but that the solutions differ according to the
scale of operation.
The County Agents named several problems which they
felt were major causes of concern for small farmers.
were mainly economic or technical in nature.

These

The problems

most frequently mentioned by the small farmers

(table 30)

were also mainly economic or technical in nature.

The

Agents mentioned the cost of capital and overinvestment or
underinvestment as major problems of small farmers while
the problems most frequently named by small farmers included
the purchase or rental of machinery or equipment and the
repair of old or purchase of new buildings.

Again,

this

tends to confirm the County Agents' assertion that the
problems of large and small farmers are quite similar, but
the solutions differ.

127
The County Agents also tended to agree that small
farmers ask more basic "how to" types of questions while
larger farmers ask more complex questions.

Other County

Agents made the same point at a Workshop in December 1977.
"After the enterprise is selected,

the small and part-time

farmer may need basic cultural practices information and/or
basic husbandry skills information— the "how to" kind of
bulletin or slide/tape.
water management,
chosen enterprise,

This may include soil testing,

the whole production process in the
the equipment and facilities needs,

costs of production,

..."

4

Many of these same "how to" kinds of questions were
suggested as topics for meetings or for two-or-three day
schools

(tables 28 and 29).

This included basic cultural

practices and basic husbandry skills information mentioned
above.

Most of the suggested topics were very specific in

nature and addressed particular problems, but the lists
also included more complex topics such as various aspects
of farm management, marketing, machinery management,
and use of chemicals.

taxes,

Thus, both the County Agents and

the small farmers recognize the need for basic information,
but there is also a need to go beyond the simple "how to"
kinds of information to the more complex subjects which
involve process skills of management.
apparently already possess the basics.
however, need to begin with the basics.
the County Agents one Agent stated,

The larger farmers
Many small farmers,
In interviewing

"Sometimes we are

128
guilty of just starting at too high a level for them

(the

small farmers) and we must be careful not to go over their
h eads."
Although small farmers may need information and
knowledge at a more basic level than larger farmers, this
does not reflect on their capacity to make decisions.
Tests of rationality indicated that there was no signifi­
cant difference between small, medium,

and large farmers

in terms of rationality of decision making.

Also,

these

tests showed no major difference between size of farms in
terms of their information gathering activities.

All of

the test scores were skewed to the high end of the total
score possible and were highly concentrated.
When the County Agents were asked about the demands
on their time by various sizes of farm operators,

the

general response was that the larger, more progressive
farmer demanded the most time.

When the questionnaire

respondents were asked about their contact with Extension,
however,

it was the $20,000 to $39,999 category which had

the greatest amount of contact

(table 14).

was followed by the medium size farmers

This category

($40,000 to

$99,999) and then by the large size farm category
$100,000).

(over

Some of the Agents suggested that many of the

larger farmers or the specialty farmers

(poultry, hogs,

etc.) seek information directly from the specialists at
Michigan State University rather than going through the
County Agent.

129
While the smaller farm size categories did tend to
have less contact with Extension, over 30 percent of each
of the three smallest groups had high contact.

High con­

tact was defined as the equivalent of a farm or home visit
by the County Agent every other month or more frequently.
This shows that the County Agents are reaching about 30 per­
cent of the small farmers through various channels which
are the equivalent of one farm or home visit every other
month, or less than one phone call per month.

Whether or

not this is enough to effect a change is beyond the scope
of this report, but this would be useful information for the
Cooperative Extension Service to know.
Implications for Extension
Education Programming
Objectives
The third objectives of this research was to examine
alternative informational delivery systems or nonformal
educational delivery systems that the Cooperative Extension
Service could utilize in reaching small farm operators.
The fourth objective was to try to identify some high
priority areas for resource allocation alternatives for
the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service if additional
funds are made available to operate special educational
programs for small farm operators.

The remainder of this

chapter will address these objectives and will offer
suggestions for Extension education programs.

130
The Communications Model:
S-M-C-R-E
In an earlier chapter the communications model,
Source-Message-Channel-Receiver-Effects, was presented and
described, and a distinction was noted between the source
and the channel.

This research has focused on the various

channels of communication through which small farmers get
their information,

and through which the Cooperative

Extension Service disseminates information.

However, the

first two elements in the communications model cannot be
ignored in discussing the implications for programming.
The Source
The sources for most of the agricultural information
which the Cooperative Extension Service uses in educa­
tional programs are the universities and agricultural
experiment stations of the land grant system, of which the
Cooperative Extension Service is a part.

However,

the land

grant system is not the only source of technological
information available to farmers.

There is also the pri­

vate sector, which not only gets information from the land
grant system, but also develops innovations and technology
for sale to private farmers.

Private machinery,

seed,

fertilizer, and chemical companies have contributed to the
technological revolution which has favored larger farms.
One needs only to page through some of the popular farm
magazines to see that much that these private companies
have to offer is aimed at the larger commercial farms.

131
Alternative Sources
What are some alternative sources for technical
information appropriate for small farms?

In the private

sector this naturally depends upon market mechanisms, but
companies do exist which produce 12 to 30 horse power
tractors

(not just garden tractors)

and implements designed

for small farms, and their advertisements seem to be
appearing more frequently.

In the public sector the major

source is the land grant system, and the need for research
on small farm subjects will be discussed in the next
section.

There is another source, however, which remains

largely untapped.

This is the small farmer himself.

Ideally the Cooperative Extension Service is a twoway street, involved both in disseminating information
through various programs and in acquiring information
about the farmers'

situations,

their problems and needs,

and also about their ideas and innovations which could be
passed on to other farmers.

Much of the technology which

has been refined at the university level originated at the
farm level.
farmer.

The technology has tended to favor the larger

However, much could be learned from small farmers

which could be shared with other small farmers.

The

Cooperative Extension Service is not benefitting from the
feedback and suggestions of the part-retired farmers
because they have very little contact with them.

This

feedback may not be important in terms of new technology
for large commercial farms, but it may be very beneficial

132
in terms of production techniques for small and part-time
farmers.

Part-retired farmers have a lifetime of experi­

ence which could be tapped for the benefit of modern small
farmers.
This idea of utilizing farmers as resource people for
other farmers was also suggested by some of the County
Agents.

Part of the problem, however, is to persuade part-

retired or other small farmers who have various skills or
knowledge which could benefit others to participate in
workshops or group discussions, or even on an individual
basis.

This involves building up their confidence and

convincing them that they have substantial contributions
to make.

It was also suggested that these reference people

could be telephone references for other farmers who have
particular problems which the reference farmers could best
handle.
Message
The universities and experiment stations of the land
grant system have produced new technologies in the form of
improved fertilizers,

seeds, irrigation techniques,

and

chemicals to control insects, weeds, and plant diseases.
It was assumed that these technologies were neutral with
regard to size of farm, and that they would be useful to
all groups of farmers.

This was also the belief of the

County Agents who were interviewed.

Thus, the messages

133
coming from these sources were assumed to be of value to
farmers regardless of size.
Content of the Message
This assumption has come under attack in recent
years,^ and the fact that many of the land grant universi­
ties are developing bulletins for small and part-time farm
operators and are sponsoring research on small farms is
tacit acknowledgement that this criticism is, at least in
part,

justified.

The content of the messages which are

conveyed to farmers is of critical importance in determining
the effect of the communication.
to small farm situations,

If it is not applicable

if it requires capital or credit

resources beyond the means of small farms, if it requires
management skills not possessed by small farmers, then
that message is likely to be ignored by small farmers.
It is apparent that high priority needs to be placed on
developing information which is of immediate benefit to
small farmers.

The channel of communication matters not

if the content of the messages being delivered is useless.
This need for the development of materials specifically
applicable to small farms was recognized in some earlier
legislation and particularly in the 1977 Farm Bill and
presents a challenge to the land grant system.
Small Farmer Series of Bulletins
Michigan State University has started a series of
bulletins designed for small farm operations.

Currently

134
there are fifteen titles in this series, with more expected
to be produced in the future.

In addition the Ottawa

County Cooperative Extension Service produces The Backyard
Farmer on a monthly basis which deals with subjects of
interest to small and part-time farmers, and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture has a fact sheet for part-time
farmers and gardeners.^

There are also publications from

other states which pertain specifically to small and parttime farms.

Hepp and Halsey identify some fifty-one such

publications which may be useful in contributing ideas to
the small farmer series in Michigan.

7

Level of the Message
Another aspect of the content of messages is the
level of the message.

The County Agents interviewed agreed

that small farmers tend to ask more basic "how to" types
of questions.

One Agent indicated that Extension programs

sometimes start at too high a level for some farmers.

The

fact that many of the topics which were suggested by
farmers for meetings or two-or-three day schools involved
these same "how to" types of questions has important
implications for Extension programming.
Tables 28 and 2 9 show that small farmers suggested
some 43 topics for meetings and 25 topics for two-or-three
day schools.

These tables are broken down into small

farm categories based on the categories of Thompson and

135
Table 28.

Topics Suggested for Meetings by Small Farm
Category.

Number of "Mentions It
Topic

Small
Full-Time

Small
Part-Time

3

2

Total

Crop Management
General
Grain varieties to grow
Reduced tillage
Fertilizer use
Insects
Pruning
Chemicals to use
Sprayer calibration
Correct poison to use

1
1
2

5
1
1

2

3
2

4
3
2

1

1

1

1

1

1

Livestock Management
General
Nutrition
Cattle and sheep
Castration and dehorning
Raising pigs
Techniques for beginners
Expanding hog operation
Dairy management
Retirement
Estate planning

2

3

5

2

2

3
1

3
1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

Government Sponsored Programs
General
Government intervention
Imports
Cost sharing projects
Taxes
Forest protection
"Why big chemical farmers
and industries are allowed
to pollute our drinking
water"

1

1

1

1

1

1
1

1

1

2

3

1

1

1

1

136
Table 28.

Continued.

Number of "Mentions II
Topic

Small
Full-Time

Small
Part-Time

Total

Farm Management
General
Bookkeeping
Investment and returns
Financing
Farm expansion
Future of small time
farming
Small farm management
Going into full-time
farming

1
1
1
1
1
2

1
1
1
1
1

4
1

6
1

1

1

4
2
1

6
4
1

Marketing
General
Better prices
When to sell
Sale of fruits and
vegetables

2
2
1

1

Machinery Management
General
Selecting good used farm
equipment
Knowing what implements
to get for a small farm
Farming in General

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

Cost Cutting on Household
Expenses
Total— 4 3 topics

1

35

2
1

1

43

78

137
Table 29.

Topics Suggested for Two-or-Three Day Schools by
Small Farm Category.

Number of "Mentions II
Topic

Small
Full-Time

Small
Part-Time

Total

2
1

3

5
1

1

1

1

2

1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1

Marketing
General
Cut out middle man
The Chicago Mercantile
Exchange
Livestock
General
Small and large beef cow
operation
Nutrition
Housing
For small farms
Shearing sheep, castration
and dehorning
Artificial breeding
Dairy

1

1
1
1

1
1
1

Crop Management
General
Weed and pest control
Fruit tree care

2

1
1

1

3
1
1

Farm Management
General
Small farm management
Bookeeping
Cash flow
Financing
Partnerships

2
2
1

1
1
1
1

2
2
2
1
1
1

Basic Living from Your Land

1

1

Repair and Maintenance

1

1

138
Table 29.

Continued.

Number of "Mentions ft
Topic

Small
Part-Time

Total

Getting Started in Farming

1

1

New Farming Methods

1

1

Taxes

1

1

20

35

Total— 25 topics

Small
Full-Time

15

139
g

Hepp.

However, none of the part-retired farmers suggested

any topics, and rural residents, or hobby farmers, were
excluded.
"How to" Topics and General
Small Farm Topics
These tables suggest a number of "How to" topics
around which Cooperative Extension could base educational
programs or meetings.

This includes fertilizer use,

castration and dehorning livestock,

sprayer calibration,

selecting good used farm equipment,

shearing sheep, arti­

ficial breeding, bookkeeping and weed and pest control.
Besides these "how to" topics, some of the other topics
pertain particularly to small farms, including livestock
techniques for beginners, the future of small time farming,
small farm management, knowing what implements to get for
small farms, small beef cow operations,

livestock for small

farms, basic living from your land and getting started in
farming.

This shows a general interest in small farm

subjects and implies that Cooperative Extension should
begin developing programs in these areas.

Tables 28 and 29

suggest that some differences exist between categories of
small farms, but both small full-time and small part-time
farmers expressed interest in crop management,

livestock,

the future of small-time farming, and marketing.

The fact

that small part-retired farmers did not respond implies
that this may be a difficult group to reach through

140
conventional means and special efforts to reach them may be
required.
Suggestions for Extension
Educational Programming
Tables 28 and 29 could be used as the basis for
planning educational meetings and programs for small
farmers.

They could be used by the universities and

research stations as guides for research in relation to
small farms.

In particular, programs could be developed

around crop management for small farms which would include
separate workshops or meetings on grain varieties, reduced
tillage,

fertilizer application, weed and pest control,

etc.; livestock management for small farms which again
could include separate meetings on nutrition, castration
and dehorning, pigs,

livestock for beginners, housing of

livestock and artificial breeding, and other subjects
listed in Tables 28 and 29.
topics would,

in turn,

These general

(and specific)

suggest other topics.

For example,

crop management would suggest a demonstration of how to
take a soil sample.

One of the County Agents who was

interviewed said that good farming is based on good
elementary practices.

"If I could just get more people to

do a decent, proper soil test instead of taking one plug
from a thirty acre field, this would be a major step."
This is a challenge to the land grant system: getting the
basics to the small farmer.

141
Table 30 is a list of the most important decisions
about the farm or home listed by small farm category.

This

list complements tables 28 and 29 in that some of the same
subjects received mention, but also some additional sub­
jects are listed.

All three tables are based on the

responses to open-ended questions, but table 30 refers to
actual decisions which the respondents had made recently
while the other two tables consist of suggested topics for
future meetings.
Partly because of the greater number of responses and
the reference to an actual decision,

table 30 is more

discriminatory in suggesting programs for different cate­
gories of small farmers.

For example, a greater percentage

of small part-time farmers listed the purchase or rental
of machinery or equipment than small full-time farmers,
and none of the small part-retired farmers listed the sub­
ject.

This would suggest development of a program on the

purchase or rental of machinery and equipment for small
part-time farmers, and table 28 would suggest that a pro­
gram related to this concerning implements for small farms
should also be developed.

Table 30 also indicates that

small part-time farmers would be interested in building
construction and repair,
renting out land.

livestock,

purchasing land or

Small full-time farmers indicated that

planting decisions are important, as well as whether or
not to expand and the purchase or rental of machinery or
equipment.

Some programs may be combined, but some of

142
Table 30.

List of Most Important Decisions About Farm or
Home by Subject and by Small Farm Category.

Number of "Mentions If
Subject

Small
FullTime

Small
PartTime

Small
Retired

Total

Buildings, Machinery and
Equipment
Purchase/rent machinery or
equipment
Repair old or build new
buildings
Sale of equipment
Building fences

13

23

9
1

16
1
1

36
1
.

26
2
1

Crop Management
To change crop practices
Which herbicide to use
What to plant
Soil samples
Lime
Fertilizer

2
1
18
1
1
3

4
1
17

7

13

2

1

3

4

7

11

3
3
3
1

11
4
3
3
1
1

2
2

16
9
6
4
1
1
1

5
7

1
2

13
14

1

2

6
2
36
1
1
5

Livestock Management
Livestock mix
To change from livestock
to crops

1

21

Land
Purchase of land
Whether or not to rent out
land
Sale of land
Irrigation and drainage
To clear land
To rent more land
To subdivide or not
To buy or rent more land

1

Farm Management
Whether or not to expand
Whether or not to quit

7
5

143
Table 30.

Continued.

Number of "Mentions II
Subject

Credit and finance
Storage
To reduce operations
Hired labor
Should son take over farm
Taxes
How to buy a farm
To ask help of Ag. Dept.

Small
FullTime

Small
PartTime

Small
Retired

Total

3

3
3

6

1

2

3

1

1

2

5
2

1

1

2

2

1

1
1

1

Home and Family
Remodel old or build new
home
Insulating home
Off-farm employment
To sell house
To move to new area
To make a will
Prices and Marketing
Total— 37 topics

2

5
3

5
3

2
1

1

9
9
3
1

1

1

1

1

7

7

114

148

14
13

275

144
these may be aimed specifically at one category
excluding the other categories)
by a certain category.

(though not

if there is more interest

Table 30 implies that Cooperative

Extension should develop programs related to the rental or
purchase of machinery, planting decisions, repair or con­
struction of buildings,

livestock mix, renting out land,

prices and marketing, whether or not to quit farming, or
whether or not to expand.

These programs should be

directly related to the small farm and should be based on
small farm research.
Table 31 shows the ranking of the ten most important
problems from a list of forty-four problems as perceived
by farmers of different small farm categories.

This list

is more restrictive because it was not based upon
responses to open-ended questions, but to a choice of
forty-four specific problems.

However,

this table rein­

forces the previous three tables in the overlap of some of
the subjects mentioned.

For example, pricing of farm

products, or more generally, marketing, was ranked as most
important by all farm categories, and was also listed as
an important decision and a suggested topic for meetings
and schools.

Fertilizer application and income tax

preparation were also common to all three tables.

This

implies that Cooperative Extension should prepare programs
on these subjects for small farmers in general, whether
full-time, part-time, or part-retired.

145
Table 31.

Rank

Ranking of Ten Most Important Problems as Per­
ceived by Small Farmers of Different Categories
by Mean Rating.

Question
Number

Question

Mean
Percent
Ratinga Reporting

Small Full-Time
1
2

3
4
5
6
7

8
9
10

How to get better prices
for your farm products

31

4. 509

78

Keeping up-to-date with
records and farm
accounts

34

4. 263

78

How to cut down on the
heating bill

10

4.167

82

Knowing when to sell
your farm products

3

4.119

81

Figuring out how much
fertilizer to use

4

4. 089

85

Personal and family
health concerns

15

4. 050

82

Political issues
(school bonds, high­
ways, e t c . )

29

4. 034

79

How to figure out income
tax

26

3. 911

77

Planning your estate

20

3. 893

77

How to improve the
public schools in
the area

30

3. 796

74

Small Part-Time0
1
2

How to get better prices
for your farm products

31

4. 449

90

How to cut down on the
heating bill

10

4.056

92

146
Table 31.

Rank

3
4
4

6
7
8

9
10

Continued.

Question

Problems with insects
and diseases

Question
Number

Mean
Rating

Percent
Reporting

2

3.890

95

Personal and family
health concerns

15

3.871

91

Keeping up-to-date with
records and farm
accounts

34

3.871

91

Planning for children's
education

17

3.868

88

How to figure out income
tax

26

3.843

91

Knowing when to sell
your farm products

3

3.803

92

Figure out how much
fertilizer to use

4

3.789

92

22

3.761

87

How to raise children
properly

Small Part-Retired*^
How to get better prices
for your farm products

31

4.429

64

2

Planning your estate

20

3.857

64

2

How to figure out income
tax

26

3. 857

64

How to raise children
properly

22

3.667

55

How to cut down on the
heating bill

10

3.571

64

Personal and family
health concerns

15

3.571

64

4
5
5

147
Table 31.

Question

Rank

7
7
7
7

Continued.

Question
Number

Planning meals for
nutrition

Mean
Rating

Percent
Reporting

16

3.286

64

Figuring out how much
fertilizer to use

4

3. 286

64

Figuring out how much
insurance to buy

18

3.286

64

Political issues
(school bonds, high­
ways, etc. )

29

3.286

64

Rating ranges from 1 (not important at all) to 5
(very important).
U

Based on

100 percent = 73

cBased on

100 percent = 77

^Based on

100 percent = 11

Table 31 also shows some differences between small
farm categories in terms of perceived importance of various
problems.

Overall, the mean ratings of the small full-time

farmers were higher than those of the small part-time
farmers which,

in turn, were higher than those of the

small part-retired farmers.

This indicates that a greater

percentage of small full-time farmers than other small farm
categories checked "very important" in reference to these
particular problems.

On the other hand, a greater percen­

tage of small part-retired farmers checked "not important
at all."

Further research may be necessary to determine

why these differences exist, but one suggestion is that
problem definition, or problem awareness,

is a factor as

was discussed earlier.
Channel
Once a source, which is familiar with the needs and
problems of small farmers, has developed messages in the
form of appropriate technology, production techniques,
marketing arrangements, e t c . , which are useful for small
farmers, then the channels of communication become very
important.

This is where Cooperative Extension comes in.

Typically farmers use a number of channels or
sources of information in the decision making process.
This was indicated by Tables 9 and 10 earlier.

Likewise,

sources which are trying to convey a message typically use
a number of channels,

and a number of different treatments

149
within each channel.

The treatment refers to the specific

design of the message,

including word choice, use of art

or music, timing, and other forms of delivery.

The treat­

ment generally involves a great deal of individual cre­
ativity and includes an infinite variety of styles,
techniques, designs, or patterns for communicating a
message to a receiver.

Suggestions for treatment are

beyond the scope of this research, but several channels of
communication will be examined for implications for Exten­
sion programming.
Communication theory divides channels into two broad
categories:

(1) mass media and

(2) interpersonal, and the

interpersonal category can be further divided into group
activities and individual activities.

Each of these cate­

gories has implications for alternative informational
delivery systems or nonforma1 educational delivery systems
for reaching small farm operators.
Mass Media Channels for
Awareness
Mass media channels are most effective in creating
an awareness about a program or an idea.

Large farmers

tend already to be aware of Cooperative Extension programs,
while small farmers sometimes do not even know the service
exists.

Small farmers tended to cite radio or television

as sources of. information more frequently than large
farmers and thus are more likely to respond to these
methods of communication.

If programs for small farmers

150
are developed the mass media could be very important in
creating an awareness of these programs among the small
farm population.

Mass media can also point out the other

services and programs which Cooperative Extension has to
offer.
Successful communication
tive effect.

Thus,

often depends upon a cumula­

one of the County Agents said that

if

he sends a notice of a meeting along with a reminder again
shortly before the meeting, he gets a much better response
than if he just sends out a notice.

Also,

if a number of

different channels are used to get across a message, the
cumulative effect has been demonstrated to be much greater
than the sum of the

individual effects.

Mass Media Channels for
Educational Programming
In addition to being used for awareness of meetings
and programs, various forms of mass media are used for more
substantive communication.

Most of the Agents interviewed

had news letters or columns in the local weekly newspapers.
These newsletters or columns could be focused particularly
on some of the subjects of interest to small farmers men­
tioned above, and perhaps a forum could be developed at
the county level for an exchange of ideas concerning small
farms.

Many of the basic fundamentals of agriculture could

be presented in very brief columns which would not only be
informative and educational to the small farmer or
beginner, but would serve to refresh the thinking of more

151
established farmers.

One Agent said that he has had

success with a newsletter dealing with insects.

Beginning

in May this newsletter described what insects had been
seen in the area, how to identiy them, and what to expect
with regard to crop damage, etc.

Now farmers are beginning

to look for worms and insects rather than waiting until
it is too late.
For more timely information Agents often use short
radio or television spots.

One Agent had a daily sprayer

guide program in which advice was given on spraying prac­
tices considering recent growing conditions, the weather
forecast, and the presence of insects or disease in the
area.
Mass media may also be useful in pointing out problem
situations to small farmers.

In analyzing their perceived

importance of various types of information this research
showed that small farmers tended to perceive of technical
and institutional information as not important more fre­
quently than larger farmers.

They also responded that they

"never had this problem" more frequently than medium or
large farmers.

This means that either the small farmers

do not recognize various problems, or that they do not
feel that these problems are important in terms of their
own goals and objectives.

If problem recognition is the

answer, then mass media can be used to point out small
farm situations which may be less good or more bad than

152

they could be with proposed changes, and mass media could
also be used to point out the changes which are recommended.
The Cooperative Extension Service currently uses
several mass media channels for their regular programs on
the assumption that the information is useful to all
farmers regardless of size.
true.

In many cases this may be

In order to reach the small farmer, however, these

programs must be specifically addressed to small farmers
and must be concerned with subjects of interest to small
farmers.

Mass media can be used to create an awareness of

small farm programs, meetings on small farm topics, or other
activities for small farmers.

Mass media can also be used

to present basic fundamentals of agriculture,
basic tillage practices,

such as some

elements of animal husbandry, or

basics of farm record keeping.

Mass media can also be used

to create an awareness of problem areas.

An example of

this was the series of newsletters concerning insects
mentioned earlier.

This created an awareness of possible

problems with insects, explained what to look for and how
to identify the harmful insects, and finally made recom­
mendations for getting rid of the pests.
Interpersonal Channels—
Group Activities
Mass media channels can be very effective in reaching
a wide audience, but often more interpersonal channels are
necessary to reach specific audiences.

One division of

interpersonal channels is group activities.

Probably the

153
most common group activity in Extension work is the meeting.
Meetings have long been used by Cooperative Extension, but
a common complaint of County Agents has been that small
farmers do not attend these meetings.

However,

this

research indicates that 61 percent of the small farmers
would be willing to attend a meeting concerning one of
their farm or home decisions.

This means that there must

be other reasons for the lack of attendance by small
farmers besides lack of interest.

One reason may be the

appropriateness of the subject matter of the group activi­
ties to small farm problems.

This was discussed earlier.

Another reason may be the concept of homophily which was
mentioned earlier.

If this concept is valid, then small

farmers would be less likely to attend meetings which may
also attract larger farmers.

On the other hand, meetings

designed especially for small farmers or part-time farmers
would likely attract more people from these groups since
it is also likely that the other people who attend will
have similar interests and problems.

Meetings designed

to teach "how to" subjects would be unlikely to attract
people who already know the subject, but would attract
people interested in learning "how to."

Since small

farmers suggested several "how to" subjects as topics for
meetings or schools,

the implication is that Cooperative

Extension should develop materials on these subjects which
are appropriate for use on small farms, and present these

154
materials at a series of meetings for small farmers in
counties throughout the state.
For example, meetings could be held on how to cas­
trate pigs.

These could be held at the farms of local

small farmers who just happen to have some pigs to be
castrated.

These may belong to small part-retired farmers

who have years of experience raising pigs and lots of
"down home" wisdom to impart.

Members of the audience

could be asked to participate by helping to hold the pigs
or by applying the antiseptic.
Other "how to" meetings or demonstrations could be
held on small farm subjects, at small farms, involving
real people, real animals, real machinery, and real small
farm problem situations.
Farm tours have been used by Cooperative Extension
to demonstrate the latest technology and give examples of
successful farmers.

These have traditionally included

only large, commercial farms.

To reach the small farmer,

however, a farm tour could be organized which included only
small farms.

This may not be a statewide tour as the

others are, but could be organized by region.

It could

include various types of small farm machinery and imple­
ments, buildings, appropriate technology for small farms,
livestock for small farms and demonstrations of some basic
fundamentals of farming.

155
Interpersonal Channels—
Individual Activities
The above group activities included meetings, work­
shops,

seminars, demonstrations,

farm tours, county fair

programs, and nearly any activity where County Agents get
together with groups of farmers for educational and social
purposes.

Individual activities involve one-to-one or

one-to-family contact.

This may be personal contact, or it

may be over the telephone.

The County Agents interviewed

agreed that the telephone was their most useful tool

(and

judging by the number of times the phone rang during the
course of the interviews they were right).

The Agents

found the phone particularly useful for putting out "brush
fires."

These are immediate,

short term problems which pop

up from time to time, particularly during the growing
season.

These can usually be taken care of with a quick

answer or a brochure in the mail the next day.

This is

also useful in alerting the agents to common problems,

such

as army worms or leaf blight, etc.
Alternative Points for
Individual Contact
At the local level some of the feed and seed dealers,
machinery dealers and elevators are important points of
personal contact for farmers.

Farmers visit these places

frequently in the course of their daily business and
although they may not consider these establishments as
important sources of information,

they nevertheless pick

156
up information at these places.

One of the County Agents

who was interviewed suggested that Extension should "try
to catch people on their normal daily paths of activity;
going to the store, to the elevator,

to work or to school

instead of trying to get them to go out of their w a y . "
In reference to dealers, he said,

"We

sion) have difficulty with elevators,
houses.

(Cooperative Exten­
feed, and fertilizer

They aren't in tune with us but they sell what

they have in stock and people will listen to them.

I

suggest that we have a feed and weed school for the
dealers and tell them that this is what we recommend and
why.

It would also be possible to put a rack of brochures

and pamphlets in the elevators, but we must maintain it."
Another County Agent made suggestions along this same line
and stated,

"I think that Michigan State University needs

to work more with agribusiness people who work with
farmers."

This may tend to favor the larger farmer, but

if meetings are held which are related specifically to
small farm technology, and agribusiness can be convinced
that there is a market for small farm implements and
technology,

then this would be another channel through

which Cooperative Extension could work.
Paraprofessionals, Volunteers,
and Program Aids
The use of paraprofessionals, volunteers, and program
aids has been tried in various states and to some extent
in some of the counties in Michigan.

In all cases the key

157
to success has been the selection and training of the
individual paraprofessionals, volunteers, or program aids.
They must be competent in their work as well as in their
ability to work with people in identifying problems and
offering alternatives.

Some of the County Agents who were

interviewed mentioned the counseling aspect of their jobs.
This included a willingness to listen, to try to learn the
farmer's goals and objectives, and to try to identify the
problem as the farmer sees it.

Paraprofessionals, volun­

teers, or anyone who is going to work on a personal basis
with small farmers will need to have these skills of
listening and counseling and working with people, and
Cooperative Extension should provide training in these
areas.
Priority Areas for Resource Allocation
The fourth objective of this research was to try to
identify some high priority areas for resource allocation
alternatives for the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service
if additional funds are made available to operate special
educational programs for small farm operators.

This was

the most elusive objective to pin down because of the
difficulty of evaluating programs which are not yet
established in Michigan and in predicting a benefit/cost
ratio when many of the benefits are noneconomic and accrue
to a wide variety of people and institutions.

Thus, the

following priority areas for resource allocation are based

158
upon the review of the literature, the County Agent inter­
views, and to a lesser degree on the survey results.
Recent legislation has established a policy towards
helping small farmers.

This research has looked at farm

management and decision making in terms of the demand for
information by small farmers and the supply by Cooperative
Extension, and one conclusion is that there is a demand
by small farmers for information which is relevant to their
sizes of operations.

Small farmers seek information from

a wide vareity of sources,

but the information available

at the land grant universities has not been particularly
useful to small farmers.

More information needs to be

developed which will directly benefit small farmers.

Thus,

one high priority area is research on small farm subjects.
Suggestions for specific subjects will be presented in the
next chapter.
The bulletin has long been one of the main methods
of distributing information of the Cooperative Extension
Service, and it is still very important.

Michigan State

University is developing a series of bulletins designed
for small farmers.
useful.

County Agents have found these very

If further research is conducted on small farm

problems, it follows that this research should be presented
to the clientele, County Agents, and other interested
persons if it is to be useful, and bulletins are one method
of presentation.

Thus, another high priority area for

159
resource allocation is to continue developing a series of
bulletins for small farms, based on small farm research.
The Cooperative Extension Service has always had a
county system of agents.

In fact, the county has long been

"the crucial unit in Extension work.

It is the counties

that adult education is carried on and where its teachings
are subjected to the acid test of workability."

9

The

County Agents have the best opportunity to develop and
adapt programs designed for small farm operators which are
relevant to the local soil, cropping, climatic, and cultural
situation.

As one County Agent said,

floor, especially with the new farmer.

"We are on the ground
But first we must

have a credible office and be credible people because they
(the farmers) will ask their neighbors first . . . "
they come to the office.

before

Thus, another high priority area

is to provide resources for programs at the county level.
This may include full-time Agents to work specifically
with small farmers, or the use of paraprofessionals or
program aids on a part-time basis to work with volunteers,
resource people, or part-retired farmers,

in addition to

working directly with small farmers.
County Agents are, of course, part of a statewide
system, and they rely on regional and state specialists
for a number of things.

Although most of the small farm

programs will be at the county level, some, such as small
farm management tours, would best be done on a regional
basis.

County Agents will continue to rely on both

regional and state specialists for backstopping and advice.
One function which could best be performed at the state
level would be to provide training in various aspects of
small farm technology and management,

in counseling and

listening techniques and in working with people.

In addi­

tion, the state level people could conduct seminars for
County Agents and other persons working with small farmers
for the exchange of ideas and to get feedback from the
county level.

The state level people could also record the

success stories and significant accomplishments of various
county small farm programs throughout the state and publish
descriptions of them so that other Agents could borrow and
exchange ideas to use in their own counties.

Thus, another

high priority area is to provide resources at the regional
and state levels for persons to coordinate seminars and
workshops for people who are working on the county level
with small farm programs, and to provide for a system of
exchange of program ideas from county to county.

161
Footnotes

^"Thompson and Hepp,
2

"Description and Analysis," p. 2.

Ibid., pp. 2 and 10.

3
Discussion by County Agents at a Cooperative Exten­
sion Service In-Service Educational Workshop entitled
"Educational Program Innovations for Small and Part-Time
Farmers," Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan,
December 6, 1977.
4
Ralph Hepp and Linda Halsey, "Programming for Small/
Part-Time Farmers," Summary of Proceedings of an Extension
In-Service Training Workshop on Educational Program Innova­
tions for Small/Part-Time Farmers and a Selected Biblio­
graphy of Materials for Small/Part-Time Farm Operators,
Staff Paper 78-26, Department of Agricultural Economics,
Michigan State University, 1978, p. 3.
5

For example see Jim Hightower, "The Case for the
Family Farm," in Food for People, ed. Lerza and Jacobson,
p. 41.
^Hepp and Halsey,
^Ibid., pp.

"Programming," p. 7.

8-14.

g

Thompson and Hepp,
9

"Description," p. 5.

Brunner and Yang, Rural America and the Extension
Service, p. 30.

CHAPTER VII
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
Summary
Small farms have been basic to the structure of
American agriculture.

The represent some of the values

which this nation was founded upon, such as freedom, indep­
endence,

self-reliance and the right to own property.

A

land-grant system was established to promote agricultural
research and education, and the Cooperative Extension
Service was established as part of this system to help
"rural families help themselves by applying science,
whether physical or social,

to the daily routines of

farming, homemaking and family and community living.
Partly because of the technology developed at the landgrant universities,

agricultural productivity has increased

greatly over the past several decades.

This has resulted

in a changing structure of agriculture to fewer,
more commercially oriented farms.

However,

larger and

small farms

still hold an important position in American agriculture,
especially in Michigan.
In response to this change, among other things,
increased concern for the future of small farms has been
162

163
demonstrated in various publications and pieces of legis­
lation.

This has led to increased research into the

problems of small farms and new funding for Cooperative
Extension programs aimed at small farmers.
The primary purpose of this study was to gain a
better understanding of the information gathering process
of small farmers in relation to the education and informat­
ion distribution systems of the Cooperative Extension
Service.

Information gathering is just one step in a

rational decision-making process, but for this study it
was isolated and looked at separately.

However, informat­

ion gathering is tied too closely to problem definition
to be completely separated so it was necessary, and help­
ful, to look first at the conceptual framework of the
problem-solving model and other knowledge utilization
models as well.
The problem-solving model rests on the assumption that
decision-making is, or at least can be, a rational process.
Economists have a specialized meaning for this term, ration­
ality, which usually involves the maximization of profits
(in production)

or utility

(in consumption).

Criticism of

the "maximization" approach has given rise to the concept
of "satisficing" —

choosing a satisfactory although not

necessarily the "best" alternative.

Among noneconomists

"rationality" usually receives a more general interpretat­
ion, meaning a choice of alternatives which conforms to
the individual's value and belief systems.

For purposes

164
of this study an operational definition of rationality was
used which attempted to measure rationality in terms of the
degree of conformity to the problem-solving model.

That

is, the degree to which a particular decision included the
steps of 1) orientation
ion

(problem definition), 2) observat­

(information gathering), 3) analysis

atives and choosing one),

(weighing altern­

4) implementation and 5) feedback

and adjustment.
The other conceptual models which were examined inclu­
ded the research and development model and the diffusion of
innovations model, or the social interaction model.

The

research and development model proved to be not very useful
for this study in terms either of explaining the diffusion
of information or knowledge or of explaining the informat­
ion gathering process.

Instead it dealt more with the

information generation process, or the development of new
knowledge through research.

In agriculture this model

shows new knowledge being developed at the land-grant
colleges and universities through basic and applied
research.

Then there is a one-way flow of this knowledge

from the university,

through the Cooperative Extension

Service, and finally to the farmers who are merely passive
recipients.

In this model the Extension Service must

create a need for the information that has been developed.
In the problem-solving model the need develops from
specific problems or desires of the farmers.
The social interaction model, of which the diffusion

165
of innovations model is the best known, is the richest in
empirical data and has provided many useful generalizations
regarding the adoption process.

The crucial elements of

the diffusion process are 1) the innovation, 2) which is
communicated through certain channels 3) over time 4) among
the members of a social system.

Various characteristics of

an innovation have been identified which contribute to
the rate of adoption,
ability

including relative advantage, compat-

(with existing norms and values), complexity

(understandability), trialability and observability.
diffusion process consists of five stages.
awareness,

2) interest,

3) evaluation,

The

These are 1)

4) trial and 5)

adoption or rejection of the innovation.

These closely

resemble the stages in the problem-solving model, but
there are some significant differences.

For one, the

problem-solving model includes execution and responsibility
bearing, and it also includes normative and positive data
banks.

For another,

the diffusion model assumes that

problem awareness is stimulated from the outside by change
agents while in the problem-solving model this problem
awareness is seen to develop from within in response to
problems, pain or another intrapsychic stimulus.
The diffusion of innovations model has been useful
in identifying various categories of adopters as well as
the characteristics associated with each category.

These

categories include the innovators, the early adopters, the
early majority,

the late majority and the laggards.

166
After a review of the literature and a discussion of
the conceptual models, a mail questionnaire was developed
to sample a portion of farmers throughout the state.
Questionnaires were mailed to 800 persons in Michigan
whose names were selected by a random process from the
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service lists
of farmers in six counties, which were also chosen by a
random process.

Responses were received from 218 farm

operators which were usable.
The survey proved to be representative of the Michigan
farm population in various comparisons made with the 1974
Census of Agriculture.

This was true in comparisons of

breakdowns by major occupation, age of operator and size
of farm in terms of gross agricultural sales.

In addition,

a phone survey was conducted of a sub-sample of 29 non­
respondents which indicated that there was no significant
difference by size of farm between the respondents and the
nonrespondents.
After the mail survey was completed the County Agents
for each of the six counties were interviewed.

These

interviews provided insights on the demand for County
Extension services, the types of informational delivery
systems currently being used, the perceptions the County
Agents have of small farm problems,

the resources available

at various County Agent's offices, and general comments
about the Cooperative Extension Service.
were very helpful, open and cooperative.

The County Agents

167
Conclusions
The first objective of this research was to examine
the sources of information used by small farmers in Mich­
igan.

This was done through a mail questionnaire and

through interviews with the County Agents.

It was concl­

uded that all farmers use a wide variety of sources for
information, but that some differences exist between
size categories of farms with regard to the frequency of
sources cited.

In terms of the first hypothesis,

there is

a relationship between farm size and sources of information
used.

In general,

large farmers tend to seek information

more frequently from dealers,

salesmen or buyers, banks

and lending institutions and the Cooperative Extension
Service than do small farmers.

Small farmers seek infor­

mation more frequently from neighbors,

friends and relat­

ives and radio or television than do larger farmers.

Small

farmers tended to respond that they "never had this
problem" more frequently than medium or large farmers.
The null hypothesis of no relationship between farm
size category and contact with Cooperative Extension was
rejected at the 10 percent level of confidence.

However,

the relationship did not confirm the alternative hypothe­
sis that the larger the farm the greater the amount of
contact with Extension.

Instead, the $20,000 to $39,999

gross farm income category had the greatest amount of
contact, followed by the medium and then the large
farmers.

168
The second objective of this research was to examine
the importance of various types of information as perceived
by small farmers and as perceived by County Agents.

Since

information is tied closely to the problem at hand, the
importance of information is tied closely to the importance
of the problem.
ular problems,

By asking about the importance of partic­
inferences could be made concerning the

importance of certain kinds of information.
There are three broad categories of information:
1) technical,

2) institutional and 3) human.

The null

hypothesis of no relationship between farm size category
and perceived importance of these categories of informat­
ion was rejected.

Analysis showed that in general small

farmers place less importance on technical information
and institutional information than do larger farmers,
while there was no significant difference between farm
size categories regrading human information.
The fact that small farm categories tended to place
less importance on technical or institutional information
could lead to one of two conclusions:

1) small farmers

differ in problem awareness or problem definition
they do not perceive the problem)

(i.e.,

or 2) small farmers

differ in goals and objectives from larger farmers and
thus problems perceived as important by larger farmers
may not be perceived as important in terms of the goals
of small farmers.

Further research may be helpful

in clarifying this issue.

169
In interviewing the County Agents the general con­
clusion regarding the various farm size categories and
their needs for information was that they all needed the
same kinds of information.

The difference was in the

solutions to their problems and in the sizes of operations
involved.

The agents felt that large farm operators

generally ask more complex, complicated questions while
small farmers looked for the "bottom line."

Although they

felt the informational needs of the various farm categories
would be the same, they indicated that the level would be
different.

They also indicated that large farmers were

more likely to involve the Extension Service from the
beginning of the decision-making process while small
farmers tend to wait until later in the process.

Often

this leads to problems which could have been avoided.
This indicates that the Agents feel that small farmers
have more trouble with the goal or objective setting
function of farm management than larger farmers.
The County Agents generally felt that they should
not make special efforts to help the small farmer.

They

felt that they were helping all farmers without regard to
size.

However, they indicated that the greatest demand

on their time was from the larger farmers and also that
their major responsibility was to help the commercial
farmers who provide the food and fiber for the state and
nation.

170
The third objective of this research was to examine
alternative informational delivery systems or nonformal
educational delivery systems that the Cooperative
Extension Service could utilize in reaching small farm
operators.

This involved going back to some of the

conceptual models which were discussed earlier.

The

problem-solving model was used to test the rationality
of decision-making of various categories of farm by
size.

The null hypothesis of no relationship between

size of farm and degree of rationality as measured by
the test instrument was not rejected.

Thus it can be

concluded that the rationality of the small farmer in
decision making should not influence the type of Extension
programs being developed.
The communications model was used because it identif­
ied the importance of the source and the message in
relation to the channels used.

If alternative information­

al delivery systems are to be investigated,

it follows

that alternative sources of information should also be
investigated.

A major source of information for farmers

has been the land-grant system.

The private sector also

provides some new technology in the form of machinery,
seeds,

fertilizer and chemicals, e t c . , but only a minor

portion of it deals with technology which is appropriate
for small farms.
A third source which should be explored is the small
farmer himself.

Small part-retired farmers could be

171
valuable resource people for other small farmers or for
people who are just getting started in farming.
The communications model also emphasizes the import­
ance of the message in the communication system.

One

criticism of the land-grant system and the private sector
is that the messages which they have developed in the form
of new.technology have not been relevant to the situations
of small farms.

No matter the veracity of this criticism,

research is needed which specifically addresses small
farm problems.

Some recommendations for further research

will follow later in this chapter.
The present research has shown that there is a demand
for information by small farmers and an expressed willing­
ness to attend meetings or educational programs related
to important farm or home decisions.

Small farmers use

a wide variety of sources for information and suggested
a number of specific and general topics which they would
like to have discussed at a meeting or school.
In relation to the content of the messages to be
delivered to small farmers, one conclusion of this
research is that small farmers need basic "how to" types
of information.

The small farmers themselves suggested

several "how to" topics,

such as fertilizer use, sheep

shearing or dehorning livestock.

In addition, several

general topics relevant to small farms were suggested.
These were presented in chapter 6.
The Cooperative Extension Service already uses a

172
wide variety of channels of communication, but to reach
the small farmer the messages must be appropriate and add­
ressed specifically to small farm situations.

Typically

a number of channels are used to achieve a cumulative
effect.
Suggestions were made concerning the use of various
channels for reaching small farmers.
effective in creating awareness.

Mass media is

News columns and news­

letters, etc., can be used to present basic fundamental
information.

Other forms of mass media can also be used

to point out problem situations which may not be recog­
nized as such by small farmers.
Interpersonal channels were divided into group and
individual activities.

Group activities can be used to

involve small farmers in "how to" types of programs and
fundamental agricultural practices.
Individual contact consists of phone calls and
personal visits.

Alternative points of personal contact

were suggested which involved catching people in their
normal daily paths of activity.
machinery dealers,

This included elevators,

feed mills and other agribusiness

people.
The fourth objective was to try to identify some
high priority areas for resource allocation.
areas included 1)
2)

These

research on small farm subjects,

continuation of the development of bulletins for

small farmers based on small farm research,

3)

county

173
level small farm programs,
back-stopping,

4) regional and state level

such as providing expertise on small

farm problems, conducting seminars for County Agents and
others who are working with small farmers, and providing
training in

counselling and listening techniques, and

providing feedback on successful small farm programs.

Recommendations for Further Research
In the course of a research project such as this,
one inevitably comes across more questions than answers.
This is both frustrating and hopeful;
the answers are not apparent,

frustrating because

and hopeful because these

at least offer guidelines for finding the answers.

The

remainder of this chapter will present some of these
research questions.
In the review of the literature it became apparent
that relatively little research in agricultural economics
has been devoted to Extension programs.

On the other

hand, there is a need for program evaluation and cost
effectiveness studies of existing and potential programs.
This will be particularly true of small farmer programs
if funding is to be established and maintained in the
future.
Along with cost effectiveness,

the various programs

and channels of information need to be examined in terms of
the effectiveness in changing the behavior of the farmers.
The change may not have economic consequences, but may

174
provide other benefits which can be identified and evalu­
ated.

This means that clear, written objectives need to be

written into the program along with the performance
criteria.
The present research identified some differences in
the effectiveness of various channels of communication in
reaching given audiences, but this area could be examined
much more thoroughly.

What gets the best response— a news­

letter or a newspaper column?

What subjects should be

covered in weekly newspaper columns to get the largest
number of readers?
Along with the channels, research could be done on
the effectiveness of various kinds of treatment of the
messages.

The size,

shape, and bulk of a publication may

affect the number of readers and the kind of reader.
One of the results of this research indicated that
small farmers perceive of technical and institutional
information as not important more frequently than larger
farmers.

One possible reason for this may be problem

awareness and definition.
research.

This is another area for

The question of how small farmers define or

recognize problems is important in terms of farm manage­
ment and decision analysis.
Another possible reason for the above finding is
that the small farmers' goals and objectives differ from
those of larger farmers.

Research on the goal setting

175
process of small farmers would be helpful in understanding
many things about their decision making process.
The land-grant universities have been criticized for
producing technology biased toward large farmers.

It may

be useful to try to determine just how much technical
information is available at Michigan State University
which would be useful to small farmers.

One approach

could be to do a content analysis of all the Cooperative
Extension publications for a period of years.
The term small farm no longer means a combination of
25 chickens,

4 cows,

6 hogs,

several other enterprises.
more specialized.

20 acres and alfalfa and
Small farms are also becoming

Research is needed, however, on which

enterprises can be the most profitable on a small scale.
In other words, where does the comparative advantage
lie for small farms in terms of crop and livestock enter­
prises?
Small farmers also face marketing problems if their
output is in small units.

Research needs to be conducted

on alternative marketing systems for various enterprises
for small farms.
roadside stands,

This may include alternatives such as
farmers markets, direct marketing,

marketing through producer cooperatives or others.
In addition to the above, many of the topics which
the small farmers suggested for meetings or two-or-three
day schools

(tables 28 and 29) can also be fertile areas

176
for research.

For example,

the economics of fertilizer

alternatives for small farms could be studied.

This may

include the use of green manure or organic waste when it
is not economical to buy small amounts of fertilizer.
Another example may be livestock for small farms.

One

County Agent mentioned the possibility of more small
farmers raising sheep or goats.

Rabbits could also be

a profitable enterprise for small farms.
ties are limited only by the imagination.

The possibili­

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, Jack R . ; Dillon, John 1.; and Haidaker, J.
Brian.
Agricultural Decision A nal ysi s. Ames, Iowa:
The Iowa State University Press, 1977.
Axinn, George H. and Thorat, Sudhakar.
Modernizing World
Agriculture, A Comparative Study of Agricultural
Extension Education Systems. New York: Praeger
Publishers, 1972.
Axinn, George H.
New Strategies For Rural Development.
DeWitt, Michigan: Rural Life Associates, 1978.
Ball, A Gordon and Heady, Earl 0., eds.
Size, Structure
and Future of F a r m s . Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State
University Press, T97 2 .
Berio, D.K.
The Process of Communication.
Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1960.

New York:

Bonnen, James T.
"Assessment of the Current Agricultural
Data Base:
An Information System Approach."
In
A Survey of Agricultural Economics Literature 2.
Edited by Lee R. Martin.
Minneapolis, Minnesota:
The University of Minnesota Press, 1977.
Brunner, Edmund deS., and Yang, E. Hsin Pao.
Rural Amer­
ica and the Extension Service: A History and Cr i­
tique of the Cooperative Agricultural and Home Economics Extension Service. New York: Bureau of Publi­
cations, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1949.
Clark, Charles T. and Schkade, Lawrence L.
Statistical
Analysis for Administrative Dec isi on. Cincinatti:
South-Western Publishing Co., 1974.
Cochrane, Willard W.
The City Man's Guide to the Farm
Problem.
Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota
Press, 196 5.
Colette, W. Arden and Easley, Gail, Small Farm Operations,
Rural Development Bibliography Series No. 4. Misslssippi: Southern Rural Development Center, Septem­
ber, 1977.
177

178
Coombs, Philip H. with Ahmed, Manzoor.
Attacking Rural
Poverty, How Nonformal Education Can H e l p . Balti­
more: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974.
Doering, Otto C. III.
"Introductory Comments."
American
Journal of Agricultural Economics 60 (May 19 78):
293-94.
Extension Committee on Organization and Policy.
"Exten­
sion's Responsibility to Farmers and Ranchers with
Gross Farm Income Less Than $10,000."
Report of
Project III Committee, May 4, 196 7.
Goodstein, Jeanette, ed.
The Rural Poor Unseen by Policy­
makers . Phoenix, Arizona: Center for Public Affairs,
Arizona State University, March, 1977.
Harshbarger, Thad R.
Introductory Statistics, A Decision
M a p . New York: Macmillan Company, 19 71.
Havelock, Ronald G. in collaboration with Guskin, Alan;
Frohman, Mark; Havelock, Mary; Hill, Marjorie; and
Huber, Janet.
"Planning for Innovation Through
Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge."
Institute
for Social Research.
The University of Michigan.
Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1971.
Hepp, Ralph E.
"Characteristics of M ich iga n’s Small
Farms."
Staff Paper No. 77-73.
Department of
Agricultural Economics.
Michigan State University,
1977.
Hepp, Ralph, and Halsey, Linda.
"Programming for Small/
Part-Time Farmers."
Summary of Proceedings of an
Extension In-Service Training Workshop or Educational
Program Innovations for Small/Part Time Farm Opera­
tors.
Staff Paper 78-26, Department of Agricultural
Economics, Michigan State University 1978.
Hightower, Jim.
Eat Your Heart Out, How Food Profiteers
Victimize the Consumer. New York: Harper Colophon
Books, 19 76.
Hightower, Jim.
Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times, A Report of
the Agribusiness Accountability Project on the Fail­
ure of America's Land Grant College Complex. For­
ward by Senator James Abourezk.
Cambridge, Mass­
achusetts: Shenkman Publishing Company, 1972.
Hightower, Jim.
"The Case for the Family Farmer."
In
Food for People, Not For Porfit, A Sourcebook on the
Food Cri sis . Preface by Ralph Nader.
New York:
Ballatine Books, 1975.

179
Huffman, Wallace E.
"Decision Making; The Role of Educa­
tion."
American Journal of Agricultrual Economics
56 (February, 1974).
Interstate Managerial Project Committee, "Summary Data
from The Interstate Managerial Survey." Bulletin
669.
Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station.
University of Kentucky, June, 1959.
Johnson, Glenn L.
Chapter 8, "Action Taking and Respon­
sibility Bearing."
In A Study of Managerial Pro­
cesses of Midwestern F ar m e r s . Edited by Johnson,
Glenn L.; Halter, Albert N . ; Jensen, Harold R.;
and Thomas, D. Woods.
Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State
University Press, 1961.
Johnson, Glenn L.
"Single Enterpreneur Decision Theory,"
Staff Paper No. 77-87.
Department of Agricultural
Economics.
Michigan State University, 19 77.
Johnson, Glenn L.
"Some Lessons from the IMS."
Staff
Paper No. 76-5.
Department of Agricultural Econ­
omics.
Michigan State University, April 15, 19 76.
Johnson, Glenn L.
"Philosophic Foundations of Agricultural
Economics Thought.
In A Survey of Agricultural Ec­
onomics Literature 3. Minneapolis, Minnesota:
The
University of Minnesota Press, forthcoming.
Johnson, Glenn L. and Halter, Albert N. Chapter I "Intro­
duction."
In A Study of Managerial Processes of
Midwestern Fa r m e r s . Edited by Johnson, Glenn L.;
Halter, Albert N.; Jensen, Harold R. ; and Thomas.,
D. Woods.
Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State University
Pr ess , 1961.
Johnson, Glenn L . , and Zerby, Lewis K. What Economists
Do About Values, Case Studies of Their Answers to
Questions They Don't Dare Ask~^ East Lansing, Mich­
igan: Department of Agricultural Economics.
Center
for Rural Manpower and Public Affairs.
Michigan
State University, 1973.
Katz, Elihu and Lazarsfield, Paul, Personal Influence.
Glencoe: The Free Press, 1955.
Knight, Frank H.
Risk, Uncertainty and Profit.
Houghton Mifflin Co., 1946.

Boston:

Lerza, Catherine and Jacobson, Michael, eds.
Food for
People, Not For Profit, A Sourcebook on the Food
Cr i s i s . Preface by Ralph Nader.
New York: Ballantine Books, 1975.

180
Martin, Lee R . , ed.
A Survey of Agricultural Economics
Literature. 2 Vols.
Minneapolis, Minnesota:
The
University of Minnesota Press, 1977 (Vol. 3 forthcom­
ing) .
Moser, Sir Claus and Kalton, G.
Survey Methods in Social
Investigation. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 19 72.
Nielson, James.
"The Change Agent and the Process of
Change."
Research Bulletin No. 17.
Michigan State
University Agricultural Experiment Station.
East
Lansing.
Michigan, 1967.
The People Left Behind, A Report by the President's N a­
tional Advisory Commission on Rural Pov erty. Wa sh­
ington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
September, 1967.
Peterson, Willis and Hayami, Yujiro.
"Technical Change
in Agriculture."
In A Survey of Agricultural Econ­
omics Literature 2. Edited by Lee R. Martin.
Minn­
eapolis, Minnesota: The University of Minnesota
Press, 1977.
Petzel, Todd E.
"The Role of Education in The Dynamics
of Supply."
American Journal of Agricultural Econ­
omics 60 (August, 1978) .
Raup, Philip M.
"Societal Goals in Farm Size."
In S i z e ,
Structure and Future of F a r m s . Edited by A. Gorden
Ball and Earl O. Heady.
Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State
University Press, 1972.
Rogers, Everett M.
Communication of Innovations: A Cross
Cultural A p p r o a c h . New York: The Free Press, 1971.
Rogers, Everett M.
Diffusion of Innovations.
The Free Press, 1962.

New York:

Rogers, Everett M. in association with Svenning, Lynne.
Modernization Among Peasants, The Impact of Commun­
ications . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
I n c ., 1969.
Ryan,

Bryce and Gross,
Neal C."The Diffusion of Hybrid
Seed Corn in Two Iowa Communities."
Rural Sociol­
ogy 8 (194 3).

Schumaker, E.F.
Small Is Beautiful, Economics as if
People M a t t e r e d . New York: Harper and Row, 19 73.
Shannon, Claude E. and
Weaver, Warren.
The Mathematical
Theory of Communication. Urbana: The University
of Illinois Press, 194 9.

181
Slocum, W.L.
"Attributes of Farm Families with Low Fre­
quency of Contact with Agricultural Extension."
Rural Sociology 22 (1957).
Small Farm Research and Extension. Sec 1404.
In National
Agricultural Research, Extension and Teaching Policy
Act of 1 9 7 7 . Public Law 95-113.
7USC 3101.
Subtitle
F. September 29, 1977.
Smith, Bruce L.; Lasswell, H.D.; and Casey, R.D.
Propoganda Communication and Public O pi n i o n . Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1946.
Theil, Henri.
Economics and Information T h e o r y . Amster­
dam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1967.
Thompson, Ronald L. and Hepp, Ralph E.
"Description and
Analysis of Michigan Small Farms." Research Report
296.
Michigan State University Agricultural Exper­
iment Station.
East Lansing, Michigan, March, 19 76.
U.S. Congress.
House.
Committee on the Judiciary.
Anti­
trust Subcommittee.
Family Farm A c t . Report.
94th
Congress, September, 19 76.
U.S. Congress.
Senate.
Committee on Agriculture and
Forestry.
Assistance to Small Farmers in Upgrading
Their Farming Operations. S. Report 94-1234, 94th
Congress, September, 19 76.
U.S. General Accounting Office, Comptroller General.
Re­
port to the Congress; Some Problems Impeding Econ­
omic Improvement of Small-Farm Operations:
What
the Department of Agriculture Could Do, RED-76-2,
August 15, 1975.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
The American F arm er. Washington, D . C . : Government
Printing Office, 1976.
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Economics, Statistics and
Cooperatives Service with Michigan Department of
Agriculture, Marketing Division.
Michigan Agricul­
tural Statistics. Lansing, Mi chi gan : Michigan Crop
Reporting Service, yearly.
U.S. Department of Agriculture and Community Services Admin­
istration.
"Regional Small Farms Conference, Re­
sults of Work Group Sessions August 16-17, 1978,
Des Moins, Iowa."
U.S. Department of Commerce.
Bureau of The Census.
1974
Census of Agriculture, Michigan State and County
Data, Vol. 1, Pt. 22.

182
Wald, Abram.
Sequential A nalysis, New York: John Wiley
and Sons, 1947.
Websters Third New International Dictionary of the English
Language Unabridged, 1964.
White, Estelle E. and Boone, Edger T.
"Decision Making
and Communication Patterns of Disadvantaged Farm
Families in the North Carolina Coastal Plains Area."
Technical Bulletin No. 24 5. North Carolina Agricul­
tural Experiment Station, December, 1976.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE AND COVER LETTER

APPENDIX A

Michigan State University
Department of Agricultural Economics
Agricultural Hall
E. Lansing, Michigan 48824
21 April, 1978
(hand-written salutation)
You have been selected to be part of a representative
sample of Michigan farmers for a research project spon­
sored by the Michigan State University Agricultural Exper­
iment Station.
Your participation should only take about
twenty-five minutes.
If the results of this survey are
to be valid and reliable your response is very important.
The purpose of this research project is to determine the
sources and types of information farmers use in their farm
and home decisions.
We want to know your needs for infor­
mation, particularly that information which you find im­
portant but difficult to obtain.
With the results from
this research survey we will try to improve the information
delivery system through the Cooperative Extension Service.
We recognize that there are many different kinds of farmers
with many different information needs so we are sending
this questionnaire to full-time, part-time, part-retired,
large, small and a variety of other types of farmers.
Thus,
for your type of farm to be represented it is important
that you respond by completing the enclosed questionnaire.
This questionnaire has been pretested and only takes about
twenty-five minutes to complete.
Nearly every question
can be answered with a check mark unless you want to write
out an answer or give your opinion.
Your responses to the questions
est confidence.
No information
be published.
The only purpose
turn envelope is so that we may
do not respond.

will be kept in the strict­
on individual farms will
of the number on the re­
follow-up the people who

If you would like a copy of the report, please complete
the attached post card and mail it to us.
We will send
you the report when it is available.
183

184
Since we are interested only in farm operators, if you or
your spouse do not operate a farm please check here [^]
and return this letter and questionnaire in the pre-stamped
envelope provided.
If you or your spouse operate a farm
we hope this project will benefit you directly.
If you have any questions concerning this project, please
do not hesitate to call collect at (517) 353-7185 or write.
Your suggestions will be appreciated.
Sincerely,

(hand signature)

(hand signature)

Thomas M. Olson
Graduate Assistant
Agricultural Economics

Ralph E . Hepp
Professor
Agricultural Economics

185

CONFIDENTIAL

F A R M

INFORMATION STUDY

A g ri c u lt u ra l Experiment Station
Michigan S t a t e University

SECTION

A

F i r s t we would l i k e to ask a few questions about your farm
o r ga ni z at io n and background.
1.

Do you or your spouse

□ 1- own a ll the land you operate?
I I 2. own p a r t and re n t p a r t o f the land you
operate?
□ 3. re n t a ll of the land you operate?

2.

What b e s t de scr ibe s your farm organization?
□

1. Individual or family (s ol e owner) excluding
partne rs hip and corpora tion.

□

2. Pa rtn er sh ip, including family pa rtn ersh ips

[~~| 3. Other (please i d e n t i f y ) __________________

3.

At what occupation did the op e ra to r, supervisor or s e n io r pa rt n e r spend
the majority (50% o r more) of h i s / h e r working time in 1977?
I | 1. Farming
□ 2. Other (please i d e n t i f y ) __________________

4.

How long has the o p e r a t o r , super vis or or seni or p a r t n e r been farming?
□ 1. Less than 5 years
□ 2. 5 to 9 years
f 1 3. 10 to 14 years

5.

□ 4. 15 to 19 years
□ 5. 20 to 24 years
| I 6. More than 25 years

How old is the o p e r a t o r , super vis or or senior pa rtner?
□ l . Less than 30 years
□ 2. 30 to 39 years
I 1 3. 40 to 49 years
50 to 59 years

□

5. Over 60, not receiving
Social Security or retirem en t

□

6. Over 60, receiving Social
Sec urity o r retirement

186

2

SECTION B
Here are some questions r e l a t i n g to various decisions you have made
in the p a s t and your sources of information.
1.

Please name two or thr e e of the most important decisions about your farm
or home t h a t you have made in the p a s t two y e a r s . .
a

. ________

______ ____________________________________

b.

c.
2.

Which one of the above de ci si ons was the most d i f f i c u l t to make?
( c i r c l e one)
a.
b»
c.

3.

In thinking about t h i s problem (question 2), where did you t ry to find
more information before you a c t u a l l y made your decision (please name three
or four sources)?
a.

;_______

b.
c.
d.
4.

Please rank these sources (from above) in terms o f providing useful
information f o r your de c is io n . ( J u s t put the l e t t e r of the source from
question #2 above in the space pro vided.)
most useful
second most useful

5.

6.

third

most useful

___ fo urt h most useful

Please rank these sources in terms of convenience or ease of obtaining
the information.
(Again, j u s t put the l e t t e r of the source from question
#2 above in the space provi de d. )
e a s i e s t to o b ta in

third

e a s i e s t to obtain

second e a s i e s t to ob ta in

fo u r th

e a s i e s t to obtain

Please rank these sources in terms o f providing the most accurate information.
(Again, j u s t put the l e t t e r o f the source from question #2 in the space
pr ov ide d.)
most a cc ura te
t h i r d most accurate
second most accura te

fo u r th most accurate

187

3

SECTION C
The following questions r e f e r to the most d i f f i c u l t decis ion which
you c i r c l e d in question #2 on the previous page. Please mark only one.
yes

don't
know

no

1. Did you know c l e a r l y what you wanted
to do before you made t h i s decision?

:

:

:

2. Did you put o f f making t h i s decision
f o r a while?

:

:

:

3. Were you forced to make th is decision
before you were ready?

:

:

:

4.

:

:

:

a t magazines or newspapers
a ds) , col le ge information
tv and radio give you ideas
to do?

:

:

:

6.

Did you think about any oth er way t h a t
you could solve t h i s problem?

:

:

:

7.

Did you take a l o t of time to decide
what to do?

:

:

:

8.

Did you feel you were taking a chance
when you made up your mind to handle
the problem t h i s way?

:

:

:

9.

Did you talk t h i s over with your spouse
and children?

____ :

:

:

10.

Do you take f u l l c r e d i t fo r making
t h i s decision?

:

:

:

11.

A fte r doing what you decided, have
you
talked to , or heard o f , oth er persons
who have made the same kind of decision?

:

:

:

12.

Would you do things d i f f e r e n t l y i f
could do i t a l l over again?

:

:

:

Did you ta lk to anyone outs ide your
family about the problem before you
a c t u a l l y made your decision?

5. Did looking
(includ ing
bulletins,
about what

you

188

4
SECTION D
Here are thr e e quick questions about your farm oper at ion .
1.

Which of the following b e s t describes your
I | 1.
i I2.
I j3.
[J4.
□ 5.
I 16.
□ 7.
8.
P 9 .
P 10.
□ 11.

P

2.

type o f farm?

cash grain (corn, soybeans, wheat, e t c . )
f i e l d crops (sugar, p o ta to e s , hay, e t c . )
vegetables
fruit
h o r t i c u l t u r e s p e c i a l i t i e s (nur sery, greenhouse, e t c . )
da iry
po u lt r y and egg
l i v e s t o c k , except dairy and poultry (includes beef, swine, e t c . )
general farm, primarily crop
general farm, primarily li v e s to c k
o th e r (please describe) ________________________________________

In which of the following categories would you put your gross a g r i c u l t u r a l
s a l e s f o r 1977?
□
0
□
0

l2.

over $100,000
$40,000 to $99,999
3. $20,000 to $39,999
4. $10,000 to $19,999

□ 5. $5,000 to $9,999
□ 6. $2,500 to $4,999
| | 7. under $2,500

3. In which o f the following categories would you put your gross nonfarm
income f o r 1977 (includ ing family off -fa rm employment, pensions, div id en ds ,
e t c .)?
1 I 1. none
□ 2. under $4,000
□ 3. $4,000 to $7,999
□ 4. $8,000 to $11,999
□ 5. over $12,000

189

5a

SECTION E
This section c o n t a i n s a list o f some com m o n
p r o b l e m s f a c e d b y f a r m e r s In t h e i r b u s i n e s s
and home decisions.
W e w o u l d l i k e to a s k
y o u two questions a b o u t each problem:
1)

2)

TI

H o w I m p o r t a n t 1s t h i s p r o b l e m I n y o u r
experience?
( A n s w e r b y c h e c k i n g the
s c a l e f r o m n o t i m p o r t a n t a t a l l to
very Important.)
If y o u h a v e fac e d this prob l e m , w h e r e
are two o r three pl a c e s y o u looked for
Information for y o u r d e c i s i o n ( f rom the
1 1 s t of s o u r c e s a t t h e r i g h t ) ?

Whether o r
machinery,

not

to b u y

a new

piece

~T.

of
a.

Information:
b. ____ c._____

Problems

with

insects

or

~T.

of
a.

Information:
b.
c.

Hot knowing when
products.

no t
important
a t al l
“1
sources

of
a.

2.

newspapers
radio or

and magazines

tv

3.

bulletins

4.

professional
services

5.

cooperative extension
county agents

6.

dealers,

or

pamphlets
farm management

salesmen

or

7.

neighbors,

friends

8.

government

agencies

9.

—

banks
(PCA,

or lending
etc.)

buyers

or

relatives

(ASCS,

FHA,

institutions

10.

truckers

or

custom

operators

11.

auctions

or

county

fairs

12.

farm organizations

13.

public schools,
1 ibrarles

14.

never had

15.

did not
already

16.

other

or

cooperatives

universities

or

____

to s e l l

your

farm

v e ry
:____ :____ :____ :____ : I m p o r t a n t
3
4
5

T

Information:
b.
c. ___

etc.)

disease.

not
very
i m p o r t a n t ___ :____ :____ :____ :____ : I m p o r t a n t
a t al l
T
2
3
4
5
sources

1.

of

not
very
i m p o r t a n t ____:____ :____ :____ :____ : I m p o r t a n t
a t all
1 2
3
4
5
sources

SOURCES OF 1HF0RMATI0N

t hi s

problem

l o o k f o r i n f o r m a t i o n -k n e w e n o u g h to d e c i d e

(please

identify)

190

5c
5b

T.

~9~.
Figuring
to use.

out bow much

How

to remodel

not

not
very
I m p o r t a n t ____:____ :____:____ :____ : I m p o r t a n t
a t all
2
5
5T

~V

1

very

important
a t a ll
~1
sources

sources

of

b.

____

c.

lo.
What crops

:____ :
:____ :____ : I m p o r t a n t
2
3
3
5~

o f Information:
a.
b.
c.

Information:

a.

5.

the kitc h e n ?

fertilizer

to p l a n t

ntKY

How

to c u t d o w n o n

the h e a t i n g

not
not
very
I m p o r t a n t ____:____ :____ :____ :____ : i m p o r t a n t
a t all
T
T
T
T
T

very

important
a t a ll
T
sources

sources

of

b.

c.

not

to b u y

11.
6.

Whether or

more

:
T

:
T

:
T

:
T

:

Important

of Information:
a.
b.
c.

Information:

a.

bill?

year?

How

to

Set

up

a

family

budget?

land?

not
not
very
i m p o r t a n t ____ :____ :____ :____ :____ : I m p o r t a n t
a t all
1
5
3
3
5~

very

i m p o r t a n t ____:____ :____:____ :____ : I m p o r t a n t

at all

T

2

~"3

3

F*

sources of information:
sources

7.

of Information:
a.
b. ____ c._____

Whether or

not
Important
a t all

not

a.

to c o n t i n u e

1

:
2

:

:
3

:
4

Figuring
business

farming?
very

: Important

not
important
a t all
H

of Information:
a.
b.
c.

13.
8.

Whether or

not

to

look

sources

of
a.

:____ :
2
3

:____ :
3

costs and returns
Investment,

on

a

very
: Important
:____ :____ :____ :
2
3“ 4 “5“

of

information:
a.
b.

c.

Confl l e t with the neighbor.

for a part-

time job?
not
Important
a t al l
“1

c.

5
sources

sources

b.

very
: Important

5~

Information:
b.
c. ____

not
important ___ :
at all
H

1

:

3

:

3

sources of information:
a.
b. ____ c.

:

5“

very
: important

191

5d

5e

TTi
Finding a good farm employee,
not
very
Important
:____:____ :____ :____ : i m p o r t a n t
a t a ll
2
3
4
5

T “

sources

of Information:
a. ____ b.
c._____

of information:
a.
b.
c.

your e s t a t e .

Planning

not
im p o r ta n t
a t all
T

very
:___ :___ :___ :___ : in p o rta n t
2
3~ 1
5~

sources o f inform ation:
a.
b.
c.

15.
Personal or family h e a l t h concerns,
not
very
i m p o r t a n t ____ :___ :____ :____ :____ : i m p o r t a n t
a t all
1 2
3
4
5
sources

20.

____

21.

____

M arital Problems.

not
in p o rta n t
a t all

:
1

:

:
3

2

very
: Important

:
4

5

sources of inform ation:
a.
b.
c.
TiT!

Planning meals

not
important
at all
sources

ITT
not

1

of
a.

very
:____ :____ :____ :____ : i m p o r t a n t
2
3
4
5

information:
b.
c.

Planning

important
a t all
sources

for nutrition,

1

of
a.

:

:
3

How

to

raise

children

:
4

education,
very
:

sources

of information:
a . ____ b.
c.

important

23.

Which clothes
budget?

not
Important

atall
sources

19.

much

3

9

N o t k n o w i n g w h e n to c h a n g e
pr o d u c t i o n plans,

at a l l

:____ :____ :

1

2

3

very
:____ : I m p o r t a n t

T" 5

sources of information:
a.
b.
c.

tight

“1

2

T

:____ :____ : I m p o r t a n t
4
5

of information:
a.
b.
c.

5"

of information:
a.
b.
c. ____

not
Important

a

very

sources

2

on

insurance

very
:____ :____ :____ : i n p o r t a n t

:

1

how

to b u y

not

a t all
out

important

5

Information:
b.
c.

Figuring
t o bu y.

very

~T~

i m p o r t a n t ___ :____ :
18.

properly?

not
I m p o r t a n t ____:____ :____ :____ :
a t all
2
3
4

for children's
:
2

22.

24.

Whether or

not
important
a t all

not

to

raise

a garden.
very

1

_:

3

4"

sources of information:
a.
b.
c.

important

192

5f
5g
25.

T r y i n g to u n d e r s t a n d
teenagers.

not
important
a t al l
sources

26.

30.
very

~T~

of
a.

How

today's

:
2

:
3

:
4

important
5

figure

out

sources

income

sources

• :

1

of

a.

:
2

:

very
: Important

:

3

4

:

1

:
2

:
3

schools

very
: important

:
4

5

of information:
a. ____b. _____ c.

____

tax .
3).

not
important
a t a ll

the public

not
important
a t all

information:
b.
c.

to

H o w to improve
in the a r e a ?

5

information:
____ b. _____

c. ___

H o w to g e t b e t t e r
farm products7

not
important
a t all
T
sources

:

:
2

prices

:
3

4

for your

very
:
: Important
T "

of information:
a. ____ b. _____

c. __

27 .

F i n d i n g th e b e s t p l a c e
m o n e y f o r the fa r m .

not
Important
a t all
sources

borrow
32.
very

:
1

of

a.

28.

to

:
2

:
3

:
4

:

Important

5

information:
b.
c.

:
1

of

a

29 .

sources

:
3

:
4

: important
5

information:
. ____b. _____ c. ____

Political
highways,

not
important
a t all

:
2

issues
etc.).

:
1

:
2

(school

of information:
a.
b.
c.

5

the

futures

:

: : : Important
5“ 4
5

information:
____ b. ____

c. ___

Inadequate
facilities

sources

medical care
in t h e a r e a .

and
very

:
T~

:
2

:
3

:
4

: important
5

of information:
a. ____
___ c.

b.

____

bonds.
very
: important

:
4

~1

1

of

not
important
a t a ll

34.
:

3

33.

in

very

:
a.

)

sources

not
important
a t all
sources

Compla i n t s that y o u are c a u s i n g
p o l lution (smell, runoff. e t c .
very

not
important
a t all

W h e n to h e d g e
market?

Keeping up-to-date
and farm accounts.

with

not
important
a t all
1
sources

:

T

:

:
3

records

very
: important

:

~T~

the

5

o f information:
a. ____ b. _____ c. ____

193

5b

35 .

How

to

40.

compete with

larger

farms?
very

not
i m p o r t a n t ___ :_______
:____ :
at all
1
2
3
4
"

N o t k n o w i n g w h e n y o u a r e o n th e
" w r o n g t r a c k " in y o u r a t t e m p t
to r e a c h a d e s i r e d goal,

not
inportant
a t all

b.

very
: important

important
sources

sources o f information:
a.

1

: ___ :___________
2
3
4
5

of
a.

information:
b.
c.

c.
41.

36.

W h e r e to g o w i t h
(danuged product,

consumer complaints
etc.)?
not
very
i m p o r t a n t ____ :____ :____ :____ :____ : i m p o r t a n t
a t all
1 2
3
4
5

N o t b e i n g a b l e to " p u t y o u r f i n g e r "
o n the d i f f i c u l t y w h e n y o u k n o w
t h e r e is s o m e t h i n g w r o n g ,
not
very
: ___:____ : i m p o r t a n t
i m p o r t a n t ___ :
a t all
1
2
'3
*4
5
sources

sources

of
a.

information:
b.
c.

42.
37.

H o w to c o m p u t e t h e b e s t
for your livestock?

feed

ration

not
very
i m p o r t a n t ___: ____ :____ :____ :____ : i m p o r t a n t
a t all
1
2 ' 3'
4
5 '
sources

38.

of information:
a.
b.
c. ____

Whether or
livestock

not
important
at

al l

sources

not

to e x p a n d

3

4

not
important
a t all

5

o f information:
a.
b.
c.

D i f f i c u l t y in b e i n g
family objectives,

of information:
a. ____ b.
c.

43.

Having trouble o r g a n i z i n g and
understanding information made
a v a i l a b l e to y o u so t h a t y o u c a n
u s e it o n y o u r f a r m ,
not
very
: important
important
: __ :____:____ :
a t all
1
2
3
4
5 “
sources

39.

very
___:____ : ___ :____ :____ : i m p o r t a n t
1 2
3
4
5

your

enterprise?

2

information:
b.
c.

N o t b e i n g a b l e to k e e p u p w i t h all
the n e w i n f o r m a t i o n ( t e c h n o l o g y )
r e l a t i n g to f a r m i n g t h a t a l w a y s
comes along,

sources

very
___ :____:____:____ :____ : i m p o r t a n t
1 "

of
a.

able

to d e f i n e

of
a.

information:
b.
c.

not
very
i m p o r t a n t ___ :____ :____ :____ :____ : i m p o r t a n t
a t a ll
1
2
3
4
5

44.

sources

not
v e ry
i m p o r t a n t ____:____ :____ :____:____ : i m p o r t a n t
a t all
1 2
3
4

of information:
a.
b.
c.

___ _

N o t k n o w i n g h o w o r w h e n to m a k e a
d e c i s i o n w h e n the i n f o r m a t i o n d o e s
n o t l e a d to a c l e a r - c u t c o u r s e o f
action.

~S~

sources of information:
a.
b.
c. ___

194

7

SECTION F
Fi n a ll y we would l i k e to ask you a few questions r e l a t i n g to your co nta ct
with the Cooperative Extension Service.
1.

In 1977 about how many times did you or your family have c on ta c t with
the Cooperative Extension Service in the following ways? ( i f none
w ri te "0")
1 .____ an agent v i s i t e d your farm or home.
2 ._____you or your family v i s i t e d the Cooperative Extension Offi ce.
3 ._____you or your spouse talked on the phone with a county agent.
4 ._____you or your spouse attended a farm tour sponsored by the
Cooperative Extension Service.
5 .____ You or your spouse attended a meeting organized by the
Cooperative Extension Service.
6 .____ You or your family l i s t e n e d to a radio or tv program sponsored
by the Cooperative Extension Service.
7.

2.

You o r your spouse received a c i r c u l a r l e t t e r or pamphlet
from the Cooperative Extension Service.

Are you w il l i n g to a t t e n d a meeting on a topic concerning one of your
farm or home decisio ns ?
□ 1. Yes
Q 2. Ho

I f yes, how f a r are you w i l l i n g to tra ve l?
□ I- less than 10 miles
f | 2. 10 to 19 miles
□ 3. 20 to 29 miles
□ 4. 30 to 39 miles
□ 5. 40 to 49 miles
□ 6. more than 50 miles
What day of the week would be best? ______________
What time of the day would be best? Q morning
□ afternoon
n eveni ng
What to p i c ( s ) would you l i k e to have"discussed?

Are you w ill in g to atte nd a two or three day school concerning a
to pi c ot farmmanagement or one of your farm concerns?
□ 1. yes
| j 2. no

I f yes, how much would you be w i l l i n g to pay fo r th is
school?
Q
□
□
0

l.
2.
3.
4 .

$25
$50
$75
$100

0 5 . $_____

What subjects would you l ik e to have covered in a 2 or 3 day school?

Are you fa m il ia r with any professional crop o r p e s t management services
in your area which provide farmers with technical crop and p e s t management
information and advice?

O

1• yes

□

2. no

Do you think such a management serv ice would be useful in your
farm business i f one were a v ai l ab le ?

O 1• yes
0 2. no
I f ye s, how much would you be w i l l i n g to pay f o r such
a service?

□ 1. $2 per acre
02. $4 per acre
□ 3. $6 per acre

D4. $8 per acre
O 5- $10 per acre
O 6- $
Per acre

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP AND COOPERATION
Please return in the envelope provided to:
Thomas Olson
Dept, o f A gric ultu ra l Economics
Michigan St a te University
East Lansing, Mi 40824

APPENDIX B
SAMPLE DESIGN

Sample Des ign
This w i l l be a s t r a t i f i e d two-stage random sample.
1.

S t r a t i f y the s t a t e o f Michigan into s ix regions based upon the c u r r e n t su per ­
vis ory regions o f the Cooperative Extension Service..

2.

Divide each region into c l u s t e r s corresponding to co unties.

3.

L i s t each county by region along with t o t a l number of farms based upon 1974
Census o f A gr ic u ltu re . The t o t a l number includes the farms which were ex­
cluded by the new Census d e f i n i t i o n but which ar e small farms ( l e s s than
$1000 gross farm s a l e s ) . (See " C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Michigan's Small Farms"
by Ralph E. Hepp, S t a f f Paper No. 77-73.)

4.

L i s t cumulative number o f farms fo r each region.

5.

Using a random number gen er ato r s e l e c t random number R f o r each region.

6.

Determine which county is s e le c te d based on R and the cumulative t o t a l .
This in s ur e s t h a t each sample u n i t has an equal p r o b a b i l i t y o f s e l e c t i o n .

7.

Go to ASCS to ge t l i s t o f each farm within each s el e c te d county.

8.

Using random number technique s e l e c t farms f o r survey based on percentage
of farms in the region ( i . e . , 3.4 Z of sample will be chosen from Upper
Peninsula - - Delta County, 8.3% will be chosen from North Region - - Alcona,
etc.)

196

Upper Peninsula Supervisory Region
Cumulate

Number o f Farms

County
All Farms

+

Excluded

=

Total

0

59

8

67

67

Ontonagon

147

12

159

226

Houghton

206

24

230

456

Keweenaw

3

—

3

459

Baraga

86

14

100

559

Iron

83

11

94

653

Marquette

80

16

96

749

Dickinson

143

20

163

912

Menominee

488

36

524

1,436

Delta

317

16

333

1 ,769

Alger

81

12

93

1,862

Schoolcraft

43

3

46

1,908

Luce

29

2

31

1,939

Mackinac

86

--

86

2,025

Chippewa

320

10

330

2,355

Gogebic

2,355
=

.034

=

1752

=

3.4%

68,952

R

=

Delta County

198

North Supervisory Region
County

Number of Farms
All Farms

+

Cumulative

Excluded

Total

Manistee

300

22

322

322

Wexford

232

20

252

574

Missaukee

358

12

370

944

Roscommon

23

4

27

971

Ogemaw

304

38

342

1,313

Iosco

225

18

243

1,556

A1 cona

254

28

282

1,838

Oscoda

87

11

98

1,936

Crawford

8

2

10

1,946

Kalkaska

63

15

78

2,024

Grand Traverse

443

53

496

2,520

Benzie

177

13

190

2,710

Leelanau

441

19

460

3,170

Antrim

250

15

265

3,435

Otsego

132

6

138

3,573

Montmorency

108

4

112

3,685

A1pena

487

24

511

4,196

Presque I s l e

388

23

411

4,607

Cheboygan

178

10

188

4,795

Charlevoix

219

14

233

5,028

Emmet

200

18

218

5,246

Arenac

436

27

463

5,709

5,709
69,952
R =

=

.083

1,710

=
=

8.3%

Alcona County

199

West Central Supervisory Region
County

Number of Farms
All Farms

+

Excluded

Cumulati'
=

Total

0

Mason

532

61

593

593

Lake

122

4

126

719

Osceola

554

50

604

1,323

Oceana

779

34

813

2,136

Newaygo

823

81

904

3,040

Mecosta

633

48

681

3,721

Muskegon

465

54

519

4,240

Ottawa

1,616

161

1,777

6,017

Kent

1,603

192

1,795

7,812

Ionia

1,380

85

1,465

9,277

Montcalm

1,310

88

1,398

10,675

sosi

c

-155 -

R = 8,598

=

,5-5S
Ionia County

200

East Central Supervisory Region
County

Number of Farms
All Farms

+

Excluded

Cumulative
=

Total

0

Clare

346

16

362

362

G1adwi n

434

38

472

834

I s a b e ll a

1,074

58

1,132

1,966

580

68

648

2,614

Bay

1,244

46

1,290

3,904

Gratiot

1,553

51

1,604

5,508

Cl inton

1,645

89

1,734

7,242

Shiawassee

1,476

81

1,557

8,799

Saginaw

2,044

70

2,114

10,913

Tuscola

1,798

89

1,887

12,800

Huron

2,088

70

2,158

14,958

Sanilac

2,300

68

2,368

17,326

Midland

R =

.250
15,366

= 25%
=

Sanilac County

201

Southwest Supervisory Region
County

Number o f Farms
All Farms

+

Excluded

Cumulative
=

Total

0

Allegan

2,044

156

2,200

2,200

Barry

1,092

95

1,187

3,387

Eaton

1,558

140

1,698

5,085

Van Buren

1,700

114

1,814

6,899

Kalamazoo

1,003

117

1,120

8,019

Calhoun

1,417

125

1,542

9,561

Berrien

1,959

156

2,115

11,676

Cass

1,107

87

1,194

12,870

St. Joseph

1,169

55

1,224

14,094

Branch

1,310

78

1,388

15,482

Hillsdale

1,719

116

1,835

17,317

5057

R =

-

'25°

11,021

■

25%

=

Berrien County

Southeast Supervisory Region
County

Number of Farms
All Farms

+

Excluded

Cumulatl'
=

Total

0

St. C l a i r

1,468

159

1,627

1,627

Lapeer

1,405

160

1,565

3,192

Genesee

1,015

119

1,134

4,326

Macomb

872

65

937

5,263

Oakland

609

157

766

6,029

Livingston

790

96

886

6,915

Ingham

1,198

146

1,344

8,259

Jackson

1,250

142

1,392

9,651

Washtenaw

1,327

144

1,471

11,122

441

68

509

11,631

Monroe

1,702

82

1,784

13,415

Lenawee

2,056

99

2,155

15,570

Wayne

s BH

■ -226 - 22-6%

R = 13,826

Lenawee

APPENDIX C
FOLLOW-UP LETTERS TO NONRESPONDENTS

203

Summary
# of farms

% o f farms

County s el e c te d

Upper Peninsula -

2,355

3.4%

Delta

(

333)

North

5,709

8.3%

Alcona

(

282)

West Central

10,675

15.5%

Ionia

(1,465)

East Central

17,326

25.0%

Sanilac (2,368)

Southwest

17,317

25.0%

Berrien (2,115)

Southeast

15,570

22.6%

Lenawee (2,155)

68,952

99.8%

(8,718",

MICHIGAN STATE U N IV E R SIT Y
W .P A H I 'M IM T O F A liH IO U L T U K A l

FA S T L A N S IN G • M IC H IG A N • 4KB24

KONOMU S

A C m C U L I lJ H F IIA L L

May 12,

1978

Dear Michigan Farmer:
A few weeks ago you received a letter and questionnaire from us
as part of a Michigan State University research project.
So far
we have not received a response from you.
This is to remind you that we still need YOUR completed question­
naire if you have not already responded.
If our letters crossed
in the mail, please accept our sincere thanks and disregard this
le t t e r .
We know that this is a busy time of the year for you, but the
questionnaire doesn't take very much time to complete.
You could
probably finish it over a cup of coffee, or on a rainy day.
Or,
your spouse could complete it with some help from you on a few
questions.
Your response is very important for the results of
this research to have significance.
If you have any questions concerning the project or the question­
naire, or if you need another copy of the questionnaire, please
don't hesitate to call collect at (517) 353-7185 or write.
Thank you for your help.
Sin c e r e l y ,

Ralph E. Hepp
Professor
Agricultural Economics

/Thomas M. Olson
Graduate Assistant
Agricultural Economics
R E H / T M O :jm

204

205

MICHIGAN STATE UN IV ER SITY
DI H A H IM I N I
A G K IC U L IU H I

o r

A O K ir.U I T IJK A I. I C O N O M K S

H A ST L A N S IN t. • M II I IK .A N • 4KX21

IIA L L

June 6, 1978

Dear Michigan Farmer:
This 1s in r e fe re nc e to the Farm Information Study que sti onn air e which was
mailed to you several weeks ago. So f a r we have not received a response
from you. For the research to have s i g n i f i c a n c e in improving the information
d e li v e ry system 1n Michigan we need as many responses as p o s s ib le . This
means we need YOUR help. Won't you ple ase complete the q ue st io nn ai re
and r e t u r n i t to us soon?
In case you have l o s t o r mislaid your qu e st io nnai re we a re enclosing another
copy and an oth er re tu rn envelope. With our f i r s t l e t t e r we gave you a 24£
stamp f o r r e t u r n postage, but since the postal r a t e s have been increased we
are e n clo s in g a 4£ stamp to cover the d i f f e r e n c e . Return postage is now
281.
I f you have already responded and our l e t t e r s crossed 1n the mail, please
accept our s in c e re thanks and disregard t h i s l e t t e r . I f you have not been
able to complete the qu est io nn air e y e t , please do so and mail 1t to us soon.
We need your help.
I f you have any q u e s ti o n s , please d o n ' t h e s i t a t e to c a ll c o l l e c t a t (517) 3537185 or w r i t e .
Thank you very much.
Since rely

Ralph E. Hepp
P ro fe ss or
A gri c u lt u ra l Economics

Thomas M. Olson
Research A s s is ta n t
Agric ult ura l Economics

206

M IC H IG A N STATE U N IV E R S IT Y
P A S T L A N S IN G • M IC H IG A N • INHM

U I .P A K I ’M L N T OK A G K K X IL I UH A L EC O N O M IC S
A G N IC U L IU K I

IIA II

28 June, 1978

Dear Michigan Farmer:
This is j u s t to remind you t h a t we have not received a response from you con­
cerning the Farm Information Study which was sent to you several weeks ago.
Our research is progressing, but i t is s t i l l very important to hear from you,
e s p e c i a l l y i f you are a farm opera tor . I f you do not oper at e a farm, we need
to know t h i s , too, so t h a t we do not include you in our a n a l y s i s .
As we mentioned in an e a r l i e r l e t t e r , we recognize t h a t th e r e a r e many d i f ­
f e r e n t kinds of farmers with many d i f f e r e n t information needs. We do not
b e li e v e th e re is a "typical farmer." Thus we sent the q u e s ti o n n a ir e to a
la rg e v a r i e t y of farmers; l a r g e , small, p a r t - t i m e , f r u i t , crop, e t c . We need
your response i f your v a r i e t y of farm i s to be represented in our study.
I f you have l o s t or mislaid the qu e st i o n n a ir e , we will g la d ly send you a new
one. J u s t c a l l c o l l e c t a t (517) 353-7185 or w rite.
Thank you very much.
S in c e re ly ,

Sincerely,

fit.
Ralph E. Hepp
Professor
A gric ultu ra l Economics
sjr

Thomas M. Olson
Research A s s i s t a n t
Agricultural Economics

APPENDIX D
TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS OF NONRESPONDENTS

APPENDIX D
TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS OF NONRESPONDENTS
Hellow.
My name is Tom Olson and I am calling from the
Department of Agricultural Economics at Michigan State
University.
We are doing a study of farm
information
systems and I would like to ask:
1.
If NO:

if you or

your spouse operate a farm?

Thank you very much.
Our survey only concerns
farm operators so we don't need to bother you
any more.
You have been very helpful.
Good­
bye .

If YES:
2.

Do you consider yourselves full or part-time
farmers?

3.

How many years has the senior operator been
farming?

4.

How

old is the senior operator?

5.

What is your "best" source of farm or home in­
formation?
Where do you look for more informa­
tion before you must make a decision concerning
your farm operation.
Where is another place
you may look for information if you have a prob­
lem concerning your farm or home?

6.

(If
not mentioned in responding to question #5)
Are you familiar with the Cooperative Extension
Service or your County Agricultural Agent?

7.

(If "yes" to question #6)
Do you ever get any
information from Extension?
Do you ever go to
Extension for information?

8.

Finally, we would like to have some idea of the
size of your operation in terms of gross farm
income.
If large is over $100,000 gross agri­
cultural income, small is less than $40,000, and
medium is between $40,000 and $100,000 gross
farm income, would you consider your operation
large, medium or small?

Thank you very much for your help and cooperation.
Your
answers will be very useful to our study.
Good-bye.
207

APPENDIX E
GENERAL QUESTIONS FOR COUNTY AGENT INTERVIEWS

APPENDIX E
GENERAL QUESTIONS FOR COUNTY AGENT INTERVIEWS
1.

What kind(s) of farmers demand the most of your time?
(By size category.)

2.

What kinds of information or advice are these people
usually looking for?

3.

Do different kinds of farmers look for different kinds
of information or advice?
(As between small, medium
or large farmers)

4.

Do the farmers who come here usually have clear objec­
tives and goals in mind when they ask their questions
or do they also ask questions regarding their goals
and objectives?

5.

Do people often ask questions regarding taxes, govern­
ment programs or other institutional types of activi­
ties?

6.

Do most of the questions pertain to farm production or
to consumption activities such as canning, insulation,
e t c .?

7.

Do most of the questions asked by people involve find­
ing the "right" information or do they also involve
various skills or processes such as figuring out depre­
ciation on machinery or determining crop combinations
or costs of production?

8.

Do you know where else the farmers may go for answers
to their questions if they do not come here?

9.

What kinds of problems seem

to be the most common?

10.

What kinds of problems seem
among the small farmer?

to be the most common

11.

What do you think are the major problems facing the
small farmers today?

12.

What kinds of information do you think the small farmer
needs to improve his farm operation and total income?

13.

Do you think any special effort should be made to help
the small farmer (or part-time or part-retired)?

14.

Do you think that small farmers should be encouraged to
seek off-farm employment to supplement their incomes?
208

209
15.

What is your most commonly used method of distribut­
ing information?

16.

What are some of your ongoing programs that have
been well-received?

17.

Do you have many programs designed for specific au­
diences such as small farmers or part-time farmers?

18.

Have you had many requests for meetings or schools
on specific subjects?

19.

What emphasis or priority do you think should be
placed on helping the small farmer?

20.

What do you think that Michigan State University can
do to help you in providing information and advice
to the farmers in your county which is not now ad­
equately being done?

21.

If you had two or three more staff members, what
kinds of people would you want and what positions
would you have them fill?

22.

What other changes would you like to see in the
Cooperative Extension Service?

APPENDIX F
QUESTIONS CLASSIFIED BY TYPES OF INFORMATION

APPENDIX F
QUESTIONS CLASSIFIED BY TYPES OF INFORMATION
Technical Questions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
9.
10.
11.
12.
34.
37.
38.

Whether or not to buy a new piece of machinery.
Problems with insects or disease.
Knowing when to sell your farm products.
Figuring out how much fertilizer to use.
What crops to plant next year?
How to remodel the kitchen?
How to cut down on the heating bill?
How to set up a family budget?
Figuring costs and returns on business investment?
Keeping up-to-date with records and farm accounts.
How to compute the best feed ration for livestock.
Whether or not to expand your livestock enterprise?

Human Questions
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.

Conflict with the neighbor.
Finding good farm employees.
Personal and family health concerns.
Planning meals for nutrition.
Planning for children's education.
Figuring out how much insurance to buy.
Planning your estate.
Marital problems.
How to raise children properly?
Which clothes to buy on a tight budget?
Whether or not to raise a garden?
Trying to understand todays teenagers.

Institutional Questions
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
35.
36.

How to figure out income tax.
Finding the best place to borrow money for the farm.
Complaints that you are causing pollution (smell,
runoff, e t c .).
Political Issues (school bonds, highways, e t c . ) .
How to improve the public schools in the area?
How to get better prices for your farm products?
When to hedge in the futures market?
Inadequate medical care and facilities in the area.
How to compete with larger farms?
Where to go with consumer complaints (damaged products,
etc.).

210