INFORMATION TO USERS
This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming.
While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce
this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the
quality of the material submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or
notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1.The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document
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 complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an
indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure,
duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For
blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If
copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in
the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed,
a definite method of “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is
customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of 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 illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic
means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted
into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the
Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best
available copy has been filmed.

University
Micrrinlms
International
300 N. Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

8308974

Mahjoory, Saiid

THE USE OF SOIL SURVEY INFORMATION BY FARMERS IN FIVE
MICHIGAN COUNTIES

Michigan State University

University
Microfilms
International

PH.D. 1982

300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106

PLEASE NOTE:

In all c a s e s this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy.
Problems encountered with this docum ent have been identified here with a check mark V

1.

Glossy photographs or p a g e s ______

2.

Colored illustrations, paper or print______

3.

Photographs with dark background______

4.

Illustrations are poor co p y ______

5.

P ages with black marks, not original copy______

6.

Print shows through as there is text on both sid e s of page______

7.

Indistinct, broken or small print on several p a g e s

8.

Print exceeds margin requirem ents______

9.

Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine______

10.

Computer printout pages with indistinct print.

11.

P ag e(s)____________ lacking when material received, and not available from school or
author.

12.

P ag e(s)____________ seem to b e missing in numbering only a s text follows.

13.

Two pages num bered___________ . Text follows.

14.

Curling and wrinkled p a g e s ______

15.

.

^

Other_______________________________________________________________________

University
Microfilms
International

THE

USE

OF

SOIL
IN

SURVEY

FIVE

INFORMATION

MICHIGAN

BY

FARMERS

COUNTIES

By

Saiid

A

in

Mahjoory

DISSERTATION

S u b m i t t e d to
Michigan State University
p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of th e r e q u i r e m e n t s
f o r t h e d e g r e e of

DOCTOR

Agriculture

OF

PHILOSOPHY

C o l l e g e of
and Nat ur al

1982

Resources

ABSTRACT

T H E US E OF S O I L S U R V E Y I N F O R M A T I O N BY
F A R M E R S IN FIVE M I C H I G A N C O U N T I E S
By
Saiid

The
of

soil

primary
survey

relationship

purpose

report

of

its

Farmer

characteristics

farmal

education

used

were
A

size

mail

persons

whose

an
the

county

quota

were
in

and

of

after

a

of

the

use

Michigan

farmers

and

the

and

farm

farming.

from

chosen
each

mailed

the

five

by

random

county.

county

questions

In

Service

were

to

selected
based

on

addition,
and

interviewed
had

500

Agriculture

in

Extension

specific

of

characteristics

and

Service

in

level

farm.

obtained

were

age,

Farm

developed

each

characteristics.

occupation,

(Cooperative

list

examine

was

names

in

to

of

farmers

Service)

was

type

were

The

directors

Conservation

to

used

Conservation

counties.

assigned

telephone

farm

by

farmers

years

names
and

study

to

questionnaire

Stabllzatlon
Michigan

of

this

information

use

and

of

Mahjoory

been

Soil
by

mailed

them.
The

major

findings

from

the

research

were:

1.

The f a r m e r s who m o s t f r e q u e n t l y r e p o r t e d they we r e aware
o f s o i l s u r v e y r e p o r t s w e r e th e f a r m e r s w h o w e r e o n the
l a r g e r f a r m s a n d t h o s e w h o h a d t h e h i g h e r l e v e l s of
schooling.

2.

A p p r o x i m a t e l y o n e - f o u r t h of the a c t i v e f a r m e r s r e p o r t e d
h a v i n g u s e d the soil s u r v e y r e p o r t i n f o r m a t i o n .
All
u s e r s of t h e r e p o r t s i n d i c a t e d t h e r e p o r t s w e r e h e l p f u l .

Saiid

Mahjoory

3*

T h e f a r m e r s w i t h the h i g h e s t l e v e l s of s c h o o l i n g
t h o s e on the l a r g e s t f a r m w e r e the o nes w h o mo s t
f r e q u e n t l y r e p o r t e d u s e of s o i l s u r v e y r e p o r t
i n f o rma t i o n .

and

4.

T h e h i g h e s t l e v e l s of i n t e r e s t in a t t e n d i n g e d u c a t i o n a l
meetings about soil survey report information were
e x p r e s s e d by (a) f a r m e r s o n l a r g e f a r m s ; (b) y o u n g e r
f a r m e r s ; a n d (c) c a s h c r o p f a r m e r s .

5.

T h e d i s t a n c e t h e f a r m e r s w e r e w i l l i n g to t r a v e l to
attend ed ucational meetings was positively related
t h e a g e of t h e f a r m e r s .

to

6.

The f a r m e r s on d a i r y farms p r e f e r r e d s h o r t e r e d u c a t i o n a l
s e s s i o n s t h a n d i d f a r m e r s o n o t h e r t y p e s of f a r m s .

7.

" O t h e r f a r m e r s " w e r e m o s t f r e q u e n t l y c i t e d as a s o u r c e
of i n f o r m a t i o n for i n d i v i d u a l s who d i s c u s s e d t h e i r soil
problems.
Recommendations

obtain

additional

use

included
of

the

recommended

procedures

the

Cooperative

Extension

about
by

soil

farmers.

survey

reports

t he

suggestions

concerning

soil

reports.

were:

meetings

Service;
to

survey

"other

and

to

be

providing

sources"

how

to

Some

of

conducted

by

information

frequently

used

TO

My wife, HOSNY,
for her constant encouragement and support throughout the many years
of my education.

TO

My son, ARASTOU, and my daughter, AMY.

TO

FREEDOM and PEACE for the world.

ii

AKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In
I

have

conducting
had

advisor,
through

the

Dr.
a

be

Donald

and

done.

dynamic

Dr.

Frank
whose

have

gained

and

Soil

their

For
study
D r.

financial

Carroll

the

very

to

and

valuable

to

the

of

thank
director

Institute

Soil

an

Science

comments

my

to

his

and

Dr.

my

Robertson,

questioning
with

I

these

experience.

Cooperative
directors

carrying
Donald
the

Extension

for

their

Dr.

and advice.

out

sharing

help

this

Meaders,

Agriculture
Delbert

Department

i ii

his

committee,

associate

for

needed

express

L.S.

and

is

and

data.

of
and

that

I

my

what

knowledge,

enlightening

County

in

Dr.

work

of

thinking

and

guidance

and

District

the

into

research.

of

experience

like

the

conferences,

been

me

help

important

concern,
to

dissertation,

tutorial

out

Bohnhorst

assistance

Wamhoff,

Education

crop

has

this

proded

is

opportunity

collection

I would

Resource
in

in

his

Service

and

what

members

Ben.

grateful

Conservation

has

approach

The

knowledge

personal

carrying

for

the

scholars

writing

He

informal

much.

also

Cooperation

in

him

Dr.

courses,

distinguished
am

me

to

Bobbitt,

from

I

guided

also

and

recognizing

imaginative

appreciation

and

Meaders,.

I thank

and

study

supervision

problem,

extraneous
to

this

who

my
and

research
advisor;
Natural

M o k m a , professor
also

provided

his

I

am

director
Mr.

also

of

William

for

the

Enslin,
me

this

Profound
Hosny,

of

express

understanding
and

to

manager
with

Dr.

Jon

Bartholic,

Agricultural
of

a

t he

Experiment

Center

graduate

for

assistant
Station

Remote

research

and

Sensing

assistanship

study.
appreciation

whose

attainment

loved

Michigan

providing

throughout

to

indebted

devotion,
my
my
of

is

patience,

doctoral

degree

infinite

love

my

cared f o r

two
me

extended

children,

during

this

iv

to

and

dear

support

wife,

made

the

I would

also

like

appreciation

for

the

possible.
and

my

Arastou
period

and

of

Amy,

time.

who

daily

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

LIST

OF

Page
T A B L E S ........................................................ix

LIST

OF

F I G U R E S ..................................

x

Chapter
I.

I N T R O D U C T I O N ...............................................
Access

to

Soil

Survey

ReportInformation.

. . .

1
2

S t u d y .............................

3

O b j e c t i v e s ...............................................

4

H y p o t h e s i s ...............................................

5

Limitations

5

Motivation

Definition

for

the

.............................................
of

Terms

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

O v e r v i e w .............

6
9

F o o t n o t e s .................................................. 11

II.

REVIEW
Soil

OF

L I T E R A T U R E ........................................ 13

Survey

Origin

and

in

the

U n i t e d S t a t e s ....................... 13

Purpose

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

13

U s e of S o i l S u r v e y R e p o r t I n f o r m a t i o n ..........
F a r m U s e s ..........................................
N o n - F a r m U s e s ...............

15
15
16

S o i l S u r v e y E d u c a t i o n a l p r o g r a m s .........
Indiana Study
...........
Kansas Study
..........
M i c h i g a n S t u d y ...................................

18
19
21
22

Farmer

E d u c a t i o n .......................................... 24

Summary

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

27

F o o t n o t e s .................................................. 30

v

Chapter
III.

Page

THE

METHOD

OF

S T U D Y ......................................... 33

P o p u l a t i o n ..................................

33

Sampling

33

Procedures

Collection

of

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

D a t a ........................................ 37

D e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e I n s t r u m e n t s ...........
Q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r F a r m e r s . ...........
Q u e s t i o n n a i r e for P r o f e s s i o n a l W o r k e r s
Mailing

....

37
37
38

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

39

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

39

Procedures

Responses
Preparation

of

Data

Confidentiality
Methods

of

for

A n a l y s i s ...................... 41.

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

Analysis

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

41
41

F o o t n o t e s ................................................43

IV.

ANALYSIS

OF

General

DATA

Farmer

Respondents

.

44
45

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

46

of

Formal

Years

in

Farming

Size

of

F a r m

Type

of

Farm.

of

of

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

Level

Use

F A R M E R S ....................... 44

Characteristics

Occupations
Age

FROM

Soil

Statistical

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

47

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

48

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

49

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

51

Survey
Tests

Education

Report
of

the

I n f o r m a t i o n ...........52
.............

53

T h e F i r s t H y p o t h e s i s ..............................
S i z e of F a r m ......................................
L e v e l of F o r m a l E d u c a t i o n ................ .

53
55
56

vi

Hypothesis

Page

Chapter
T h e S e c o n d H y p o t h e s i s .... ..........................
Y e a r s in F a r m i n g .................................
A g e ....'.........
L e v e l of F o r m a l E d u c a t i o n .....................
O c c u p a t i o n s ...........
- The Third
S i z e of
T y p e of
The

Fourth

58
58
58
60
62

H y p o t h e s i s ..............................
F a r m / A c r e ................................
Farm
................................

64
64
66

H y p o t h e s i s .... ..........................

68

T h e F i f t h H y p o t h e s i s .........
D e s i r e to A t t e n d E d u c a t i o n a l

Programs

.....

77
77

D i s t a n c e H i l l i n g s to T r a v e l to A t t e n d
Educational Programs
.........

79

S e a s o n al P r e f e r e n c e s for E d u c a t i o n a l
P r o g r a m s .........................................

80

P r e f e r r e d L e n g h t of E d u c a t i o n a l P r o g r a m s ..
S i z e of F a r m ....................................
Age
T y p e of F a r m ..........
Y e a r s of E x p e r i e n c e a n d D i s t a n c e F a r m e r s
a r e H i l l i n g to T r a v e l .....................
L e v e l of F o r m e l E d u c a t i o n a n d T i m e
o f Y e a r ........................................

81
81
82
83
84
85

S o u r c e s of C o n t a c t a b o u t F a r m e r s G e n e r a l S o i l
P r o b l e m s ................................................... 87
Soil

Management

P r o b l e m s ................................ 89

Soil

T e s t i n g ................................................ 91

F o o t n o t e s ................................................... 92

V.

A N A L Y S I S OF I N T E R V I E H S H I T H C O U N T Y E X T E N S I O N A N D
S O I L C O N S E R V A T I O N D I S T R I C T D I R E C T O R S .................. 93
Farmers

and

their

Use

of S o i l S u r v e y

Report

. .

94

Education al and Technical Help from County
O f f i c e s ................................................... 94
F a r m e r s S e ek in g I n f o r m a t i o n a b ou t Soil Survey
R e p o r t ..................................................... 95

vii

Page

Chapter
F u r t h e r P l a n f o r U s e of S o i l S u r v e y
I n f o r m a t i o n .......................
Summary

V I. S U M M A R Y ,

Report

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

CONCLUSIONS

AND

95
. . . . .

96

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S ................. 97

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

97

C o n c l u s i o n s ................................................ 99
Recommendations

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

104

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

106

C o p i e s of L e t t e r s of R e q u e s t f o r R e l e a s i n g N a m e s
a n d A d d r e s s e s of F a r m e r s in S e l e c t e d C o u n t i e s . .

Ill

C o p i e s of F i r s t a n d S e c o n d R e q u e s t C o v e r
Letters, Questionnaire, and First and Second
T h a n k Y o u / R e m i n d e r C a r d s ...........................

116

C o p i e s of C o v e r L e t t e r f o r C o u n t y D i r e c t o r s
( C E S & S C S ) a n d G e n e r a l Q u e s t i o n s ........

131

D.

Computer

P r o g r a m ...........................................

136

E.

T a b l e s S h o w i n g N u m b e r a n d P e r c e n t of R e s p o n d e n t s
b y A g e G r o u p s a n d S i z e of F a r m I n E a c h o
F i v e C o u n t i e s .........................................

138

T a b l e s w i t h N u m b e r a n d P e r c e n t of R e s p o n d e n t s
f o r E a c h T y p e of F a r m a n d U s e f u l n e s s of S o i l
S u r v e y R e p o r t s ...............

139

T a b l e s w i t h N u m b e r a n d P e r c e n t of R e s p o n d e n t s
f o r E a c h T y p e of F a r m a n d U s e f u l n e s s of
F a r m P l a n ..............................................

143

BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDICES
Appendix
A.

B.

C.

F.

G.

vl 11

LIST

OF

TABLES

Table
1.

Page

N u m b e r a n d P e r c e n t of t h e F a r m e r s In E a c h C o u n t y
C h o s e n f o r S t u d y S a m p l e ................................

34

2.

Major

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

45

3.

Number

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

47

4.

N u m b e r a n d P e r c e n t of F a r m e r s b y H i g h e s t L e v e l of
F o r m a l E d u c a t i o n A t t a i n e d .............................

48

Number and
Farming

49

5.

6.

Occupation
and

of

Percent

Part-Time
of

Farmers

Farmers
by

Age

P e r c e n t of F a r m e r s by Y e a r s E n g a g e d
.................................

In

Survey Data Compa re d w i t h Census Data for Number
a n d P e r c e n t of F a r m e r s by S i z e of F a r m ............

50

7.

Size

51

8.

N u m b e r a n d P e r c e n t of F a r m e r s R e p o r t s U s e of S o i l
S u r v e y R e p o r t I n f o r m a t i o n .............................

52

K n o w l e d g e of the F a r m e r s a b o u t P u b l i s h e d S o i l
Survey Reports
..........................................

54

S o u r c e s of F a r m e r s K n o w l e d g e a b o u t P u b l i s h e d S o i l
S u r v e y R e p o r t s ...........................................

55

F a r m e r s A w a r e of P u b l i s h e d S o i l S u r v e y
a n d S i z e of F a r m .......................

56

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

of

Farm

I n M i c h i g a n ..........

Reports

F a r m e r s L e v e l s of F o r m a l E d u c a t i o n a n d K n o w l e d g e
a b o u t P u b l i s h e d S o i l S u r v e y R e p o r t s ................

57

N u m b e r a n d P e r c e n t of F a r m e r s Using. S o i l S u r v e y
R e p o r t s by Y e a r s in F a r m i n g ..........................

59

N u m b e r a n d P e r c e n t of F a r m e r s U s i n g
R e p o r t s by A g e ...............

60

Soil

Survey

F a r m e r s L e v e l of F o r m a l E d u c a t i o n a n d U s e of Soi l
S u r v e y R e p o r t s ...........................................

ix

62

Table
16.

17.

18.

19.

Page
F u l l a n d P a r t - T i m e F a r m e r s ' U s e of S o i l S u r v e y
R e p o r t s ...........................................
A c r e a g e of F a r m s a n d F a r m
Soil Survey Reports
T y p e of F a r m
S u m m a r y of

Farmers Use
Farm Plan

21.

D e g r e e of
Service

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

a n d U s e of S o i l S u r v e y R e p o r t s w i t h
S t a t i s t i c a l T e s t s f o r S i g n i f i c a n c e ...

F a r m e r s A w a r e n e s s of S o i l C o n s e r v a t i o n S e r v i c e
F a r m P l a n ...................................................

20.

22.

O p e r a t o r s ' U s e of
............................

63

64

67

69

of S o i l C o n s e r v a t i o n S e r v i c e
..............................

U s e f u l n e s s of S o i l C o n s e r v a t i o n
F a r m P l a n a m o n g U s e r s .........................

70

N u m b e r a n d P e r c e n t of F a r m e r s by Y e a r s of F a r m i n g
a n d U s e f u l n e s s of t h e F a r m P l a n
...................

71

N u m b e r a n d P e r c e n t of F a r m e r s
by L e v e l of F o r m a l
E d u c a t i o n a n d U s e f u l n e s s of the F a r m
P l a n .........

72

N u m b e r a n d P e r c e n t of F a r m e r s
U s e f u l n e s s of t h e F a r m P l a n

73

by G r o u p of A g e a n d
.......................

N u m b e r a n d P e r c e n t of F a r m e r s
by S i z e of
(acre) and Usefulness
of t he F a r m P l a n
Number
Farm

Farm
75

a n d P e r c e n t of F a r m e r s in S u r v e y a n d U s e d
P l a n by S i z e of F a r m ( a c r e ) .....................

76

F r e q u e n c y of W i l l i n g n e s s to A t t e n d in E d u c a t i o n a l
P r o g r a m s ...................................................

77

N u m b e r a n d P e r c e n t of F a r m e r s w h o h a v e A t t e n d e d
E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m C o n c e r n i n g u s e of S o i l S u r v e y
R e p o r t s ..................................................

78

F a r m e r R e p o r t s o n U s e f u l n e s s of S o i l S u r v e y
E d u c a t i o n a l P r o g r a m s ..... ................................

79

v

30.

31.

D i s t a n c e F a r m e r s W i l l T r a v e l to A t t e n d E d u c a t i o n a l
P r o g r a m s ...................................................

80

S e a s o n a l P r e f e r e n c e s of F a r m e r s
Attended Educational Meetings
T i m e s of t he Y e a r

80

x

I n t e r e s t e d in
During Various
..................

Table
32.

3 3.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

4 0.

4 1.

42.

Page
L e n g t h of
Farmers

E d u c a t i o n a l P r o g r a m s P r e f e r r e d by
......................................................

81

F a r m e r s W i l l i n g n e s s to A t t e n d E d u c a t i o n a l
P r o g r a m s b y S i z e of F a r m ............................

82

N u m b e r a n d P e r c e n t of F a r m e r s by A g e G r o u p a n d
T h e i r W i l l i n g n e s s to A t t e n d E d u c a t i o n a l
P r o g r a m s ................................................

83

K i n d s of C r o p s a n d F a r m e r s W i l l i n g n e s s
E d u c a t i o n a l P r o g r a m s ..............

84

to

Attend

F a r m e r s ' I n t e r e s t in A t t e n d i n g E d u c a t i o n a l
P r o g r a m s by Y e a r s of F a r m i n g a n d V a r i o u s
T r a v e l D i s t a n c e ...............................

83

Seas on al P r e f e r e nc e s for E d u c a t i o n a l Programs
b y T i m e of Y e a r a n d L e v e l of F o r m a l E d u c a t i o n ...

86

D a i r y F a r m e r s P r e f e r r e d L e n g t h of E d u c a t i o n a l
P r o g r a m ....................................................

87

F a r m e r s ' C o n t a c t w i t h V a r i o u s S o u r c e s of
In fo r m a ti on about General SoilProblems

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

88

a n d P e r c e n t of F a r m e r s w h o R e p o r t e d H a v i n g
M a n a g e m e n t P r o b l e m s ..............................

89

S o u r c e s of I n f o r m a t i o n f o r F a r m e r s S e e k i n g H e l p
on Soil M a n a g e m e n t P rob le ms
.....................

90

N u m b e r a n d P e r c e n t of F a r m e r s w h o
S o i l s ...........................

91

Number
Soil

xi

Test

Their

LIST

OF

FIGURES

Figure
1.

2.

Page

S t a t u s of M o d e r n S o i l S u r v e y s I n M i c h i g a n
C o u n t i e s .....................................................

35

L o c a t i o n of t h e S e l e c t e d
A r e a ..............

36

3.

Farm

Size

4.

Percent

of

and

Use

Farmers

of
in

Soil

Counties

Survey

Survey

xli

and

in

the

Report
Used

Study

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

FarmPlan

....

65
74

CHAPTER

I

INTRODUCTION

Good

use,

considered
the

fundamental

future.

conducted
Yet
even

conservation

Toward

erosion,

In

developed

not

being

made

the

following

of

soil

of

Is

advanced

becomes

of

the

of

Food

th e

United

Nations

million

people

suffer

drastic

action

them

the

in

population.
the

hunger

in

apparent

published

is

future

as

and

more

t he
and

is

of

the

is

reported

In

farmers'

now

an

in

th e

impact

on

supply.

A

lack

of
are

rapid

300

first

(F.A.O.)
and

food.**
expected

increases
of

report

T h e n u m b e r s r e f e r to
f o o t n o t e s at th e e n d

sources
of e a c h

which are
chapter.

500

Unless
to
in

join
world

the

magnitude

step

toward

solution.

1*

use

of

and

their

between

understanding

perhaps

persist
use

Organization

millions

result

been

years.

(Michigan)

food

that

actual

has

States).

Agriculture

from

f or

optimal

determine

considering
thus,

and

75-100

study

practices,

indicates

Knowledge
problem

in

Is

problems

that

state

soil

now

soils

past

The

(United

soil

on

other

to

one

and,

taken,

and

attempt

good

production

the

suggesting

nation

agricultural
by

during

available.

one

of

production

research

compaction,

reports

importance

future,

world

research

survey

The

much

countries,

pages

agriculturally

end

t he

soil

Improvement

agricultural

this

throughout

soil

to

and

located

in

the

of
its

2

Many
of

food

years

and

tremendous
to

experience

fiber
store

increasing

agricultural
matter

of

the

in
of

the

all

parts

quantity

to

to

research

of

Information

production
need

and

the

that

and

world

can

and

improving

overcome

conserve

in

and

food

the

production

have

provided

must

be

the

applied

quality

shortages.

protect

In

arable

a

of
this

lands

is

paramount.
The

world-wide

incentive

to

leaders

agricultural
education
made

problem
in

education

should

be

available

to

of

hungry

education

and

to

and

youth

considered
all

a

people

agriculture
adults.

life-long

people

is

involved

a
to

strong
provide

Agricultural
process

in

and

be

agricultural

production.

Access

to

Agricultural
understanding
Change

in

extent

The
education

and

them

access

to

to

United
is

and
the

to

depends
to

bring

access

Improved

States'

system
on

problems

formal

and

knowledge

by

upon

which

to

a

significant

and

are

change.

reliable

available

to

researh

and

practices.
of

agricultural
principles:

publication

non-formal
people

knowledge,

beneficial

accurate

two

and

people's

about

to

adopt

Information

depends

incentives

based
of

Report

practices

farmers'

investigation
research;

action

agricultural

information

Survey

progress

and

upon

encourage

Soil

who

of

the

education
want

and

scientific
results
to

need

of

provide
it.

3

On e
is

of

t he

t hat f a r m e r s

and

t he

requirements
should

proper

parts

of

the

which

identify

surveys

United

hinder

of

can

cannot

Soil
be

it

any

thing

living
In

the

soil

map,

USDA
1901.

have

their

to

access

to

locations

and

help

advance

but

the

c a n be c o n s e r v e d
without

right

and

and

produces
of

surveying

their

more

Soil

land

and

the

seriously

of

like

it

improves

is

use,

a

best

a

but

is

it

Allegan

and

any

living
like

improving.
major

soil

County,

^

function

Service,

cooperating

delineate
in

can

These

progress

Conservation

(USDA)
to

soil

use.

improvement,

and

while

surveys

and

It

right,

and

most

conservation

economic

optimal

Agriculture
and

soils

without

it

in

problems

conservation.

treat

their

sector

management

farmers

studies

of

development,

its

Today's

Misuse

classify

began

soil,

problems.

interests

of

their

land

s c i e n t i s t s in t h e

Department
to

about

agricultural

about

improved

thing-feed

strong

information

agricultural

nation.

of

States

soils,

those

impravement

a

u s e of f e r t i l i z e r s .

contain

location

know

for

U .S.

agencies
usage.

is
The

Michigan

in

5

Motivations

The

motivation

author's

for

background

classification.

This

activities

within

programs

the

of

Agricultural

Soil

fo r

this
and

study
work

includes

th e

Study

comes

in

in

soil

several

years

scope

Conservation

Experiment

the

of

the

Service,

station

and

part

from

genesis
in

soil

cooperative
the

Michigan

other

the
and

survey
survey
State

agencies.

4

Additional

motivation

effectiveness
the

use

of

motivated

by

soil

survey

need

for

survey

improve

to

these

from

more

a

programs

reports.

comprehension

farmers
meet

educational

soil

population's
feels

of

comes

a

shelter,

can
and

be

about

training
t he

rapidly

food,

farm man ageme nt

in

Finally,

of

information

concern

the

farmers

in

researcher

is

Increasing
and

clothing

effective

agricultural

world

in

and

helping

productivity

needs.

Objec tive s

The

objectives

of

this

study

are

to

determine:

1.

T h e e x t e n t to w h i c h M i c h i g a n f a r m e r s
p u b l i s h e d soil s urvey reports;

2.

T h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of M i c h i g a n f a r m e r s / f a r m s u s i n g
s o i l s u r v e y i n f o r m a t i o n ( l e v e l of f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n ,
y e a r s in f a r m i n g , o c c u p a t i o n , a g e , s i z e of f a r m a n d
t y p e of f a r m ) ;

3.

T h e e x t e n t to w h i c h M i c h i g a n f a r m e r s b e l i e v e u s e
s o i l s u r v e y r e p o r t i n f o r m a t i o n is i m p o r t a n t in
i m p r o v i n g a g r i c u l t u r e in M i c h i g a n ;

4.

T h e e x t e n t to w h i c h M i c h i g a n f a r m e r s a r e i n t e r e s t e d
in a t t e n d i n g soil survey report e d u c a t i on al
p r o g r a m s ; and

5.

T h e e x t e n t to w h i c h M i c h i g a n f a r m e r s b e l i e v e t h e y
h a v e r e c e i v e d h e l p in u s i n g s o i l s u r v e y r e p o r t s
f ro m sever al f a r m e r - s e r v i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n s and
agencies.

are

aware

of

of

5

Hypotheses

The

review

observations

by

of
the

hypotheses

related

general,

is

between

it
t he

literature,
author,

led

to

objectives

the

believed,

use

of

farmer/farm
m o d e r n soil

as

soil

that

a

survey

to

characteristics

selected

charateristics

farmers
perceptions
Michigan;
Michigan
farmers
report educational

the

report

of
of

of

the

knowledge

Michigan
Michigan

in

of

five

study.

In

exists

and...

of

published

farmers;
farms;

improving

interest
programs;

personal

relationship

information

and

about

as

formulation

positive

characteristics
survey reports;

selected

well

agriculture

attending

soil

in

survey

Limitations

This
soil

study

survey

farmers.

It

procedures

in

will

soil
need

is

not

preparing

selected

practices

used

information

will

fromfarmers

and

o rganiza tions .

be

indentify

intended
or

to

improving
of

farmers

assistance
examined

survey

as

by

to

technical

reports,

the

not

be

in

using

help

studied,
soil

information
of

of

Michigan

organizations.

through

representatives

usefulness

illustrate

soil

farmers

will

the

perceived

farmer-serving

by

additional

to

i n f o r m a t i o n as

perceptions

from

for

designed

report

examine

receive

is

but
they

Actual
but

the

survey
received

farmer-serving

6

Definition

Soil

Survey:
field

The
and

systematic

in

the

interpretation
their

trees;
plant

Soil

behavior

of

addition
survey.
Map:

to

soils
or

of

under

for

different

soil

of

of

their

use

or

on

t he

and

treatment

f or

area

and

soil

soils

uses

or

the

grasses,

systems.

a

and

soil;

purposes;

the

t he

adaptability

crops,

based

suggested
map

of

management

publication

their

to

other

in

description

kinds

various

description

a

their

according
for

soils

their
^

survey

and

and

related

management

covered

by

the

in
soil

^
A

types

A

a

information,

map

or

showing

other
in

cultural

features

maps

relation

are

the

soil

mapping

soil

soils

under

Report:

containing

Soil

of

production

Survey

e x a m i n a t i o n of

mapping

adaptability

productivity

Terms

laboratories;

classification;

to

of

of

characteristics
to
the

recognized

reconnaissance,

distribution

the

the

surface.
U.S.:

various

included

prominent

earth's
in

of

in

physical
Five

detailed,

reconnaissance,

soil

kinds

the
and
of

detailed

generalized,

and

O

schematic.
Soil

Productivity:
environment
of

plants

for

under

The

capacity

producing
a

a

specified

of

a

soil

specified
system

of

in

plant

its
or

normal

sequence

management.

9

7

Soil

Fertility:
provide

for

growth

Soil

the

physical

soil

and
Soil

other

as

methods.

soil

specified

of

and

are

or

to

proper

when

other

temperature,

favorable.

t he

growing

fertilizers

it

in

plants,

moisture,

soil,

for

enables

amounts

light,

of

that

results
plants

and

of

by

soil

making

drainage,

amendments,

^

The

protection,

to

economic

a

processes

addition

according

highest

of

productive

Conservation:
soils

such

The

of

adequate

condition

more

irrigation,

in

growth

factors,

Improvements:
the

quality

nutrients

balance

and

The

improvement,

principles

or

social

that

will

benefits,

and

use

assure

now

and

of

their
in

the

future.
Farm

Management:
resources,
equipment.

Farm:

The

including

According

defined

defined
value

a
to

with

of

to

the

1974

criteria

and

the

decisions

and

they

an

farm

livestock,

and

to

soils.

farm

can

individual.

Census
acres

in

a

farm

and

be
^
is

minimum

agricultural

establishes

information

reaches

the

a

and

^

problems,

analyses

bears

of

element

problem,

relate

by

number

human

of

as

for

defines

accumulates

actions

of

Stabilization

Agricultural

products.

The

which

solution

Chose

crops,

principles,

operated

agricultural

production

the

labor,

(ASCS)

tract

Management:

goals,

administration

Agricultural

Service

as

According

land,

and

13

Conservation

Soil

organization

pertinent

decisions,

responsibility
^

yield

acts

for

to
on

those

8

Cooperative

Extension

with

the

passage

"Cooperative",
refers

to

joint

extension

Grant
in

people

and

Soil

university

University
local
their

Conservation
United

others
Vocational

schools

instruction

to

advance

the

in

includes

and

rules

and

curriculum.

county

the

campus.
part

of

representatives

closely

related

to

^
program
of

administered

Agriculture
and

help

provide

assist

them

for

make

and
a

which

farmers

and

farm

skill

through

local

adults

with

beginning

agriculture.
both

require

to

program

youth
to

of

(USDA)

the

18

educational

to

by

The
and

and

or

to

program
non-farm

knowledge

of

19

Education:

graded

Act.

programs'

integral

with

and

1914

Service,

and

the

an

A

business

to

Service

resources.
An

which

agriculture.
Formal

soil

state,

beyond

assistance

instruction

occupations

federal,

is

in

Extension

resources

Department

using

created

Smith-Lever

the

refers

problems.

Agriculture:

public

by

communities

technical

in

of

programs,

Service:

States

provides

Extension

program
federal

case

"Extension"

of

living

the

A

the

financing

Cooperative

Land

of

in

governments.

The

Service:

An

institutionalized,

structured

system

regulations,
2n

which

paid

is

chronologically
characterized

faculty

and

a

by
set

Non-Formal

Education:

activity

carried

system.
of

It

adult

them,

and

productivity

and

to

in

the

youth,

to

and

from

with

them

their
21

standards.
by

which

knowledge,

experience

to

patterns,

increase

process

daily

interests

helping

to

accumulates

insight

and

behavioral

living

The life l o n g

schooling

communicating

adopt

their

educational

formal

needs

activities

improve

environment.

the

participate,

skills,

acquires

the

assessing

them

Education:

attitudes
to

and

systematic,

of

out-of-school

necessary

person

outside

includes

participate

Informal

organized,

on

motivating

acquire
and

Any

every
skills,

and

exposure

22

Ove r v i e w

The
about

purpose

how

world-wide
The
known
been

the

attributed

agencies,

the

of

food
of

world.
to

in

of

the

selected

soil

is

use

to

of

add

land

to
to

th e

help

knowledge
solve

the

States

are

shortages.

the

farmers

The

high

many factors

and

objectives

work

Farmers

wise

system,research,

The

of

achieve

problems

around

service

this study

achievements

economic

the

to

of

in

the

levels
such

educational

United

of
as

production
climate,

systems,

have

soils,

agricultural

others.

of

this

Soil

are

focused

Conservation

counties

utilization

study

were

plans

Service

asked

which

on

about

have

one

part

of

in

Michigan.

the

usefulness

been

prepared

for

10

their

farms.

measured
and

and

The
analyzed

extent
by

farmers.Additional

participation
analyzed.

in

of u s e

several

of

the

farm

characteristics

information

educational

plans

meetings

of

about
will

be

will

the

be

farms
farmer

collected

and

FOOTNOTES
CHAPTER

I

* F o o d a n d A g r i c u l t u r e O r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e U n i t e d N a t i o n s
(1962).
A g r i c u l t u r e in t h e W o r l d E c o n o m y ( R o m e , I t a l y , ) p . 22
2
A U.S.
Department
of
Health
Education
and
Welfare.
(1978).
V o c a t i o n a l A g r i c u l t u r e for Young Farmers; a Plan n i n g
a n d C o n d u c t i n g a P r o g r a m of I n s t r u c t i o n in V o c a t i o n a l
A g r i c u l t u r e f or Y o u n g F a r m e r s .
(U.S.
Government
Printing
O ff ic e. ) p.A
3K e a r l
Bryant
and
Hadley
Reed.
(1967).
Agricultural
Communication Services.
(National
Project
in
Agricultural
Communications,
East Lansing, Michigan,
in C o o p e r a t i o n w i t h
t h e O f f i c e of F o o d a n d A g r i c u l t u r e , I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o o p e r a t i o n
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.)

and

Soil

^Claude Qunicy,
C .E.
Ayers,
(1936).
its C o n t r o l , ( M c G r a w - H i l l B o o k C o . , N e w
^Charles
Fisher
(1980).
Personal
C o n s e r v a t i o n Service, East Lansing,

Soil C o n s e r v a t i o n
Y o r k . ) p . 15

Communication,
Michigan.

USDA

8 S o i l C o n s e r v a t i o n S o c i e t y of A m e r i c a ( 1 9 7 6 ) .
Resource
Conservation Glassory;
(7515
Northeast
Ankeny
R d , Ankeny,
Iowa), p . 22-50
7

Ibid,

p . 49.

8

Ibid,

p . 49.

9

Ibid,

p . 50.

1 ° I b i d , p . 49.
n Ibid,

p . 49.

1 2 Ibid,

p . 49.

1 3 Ibid,

p . 22.
t

^Robert
Payne
( 1980).
Agricultural Stabilization
and
Lansing, M i c h i g a n 48823.

Personal
Conservation

Communication,
Service,
East

^ 3U . S .
Department
of
Commerce,
Bureau
of
the
1 9 7 4 C e n s u s of A g r i c u l t u r e , M i c h i g a n S t a t e a n d C o u n t y
(Volume H
p a r t 22) . p p .I X - X .

Census,
Data,

12

^L.S.
Department
University.

R o b e r t s o n ( 1975).
Soil M a n a g e m e n t - What
of
Crop
and
Soil
Sciences,
(Michigan
Coope rative Ex tension Service, 676-1).

It Is:
State

^ D a v i d K e ls e y L i n c o l n and C hi le s H e a r n e C a n n o n ( 1963).
Cooperative Extension W o r k .
(Comstock Publishing Associates.
A D i v i s i o n of C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s ,
Ithaca, New York).
p . 1.
*®USDA.
(1962).
Know Your S o i l .
(Agriculture
Information
Bulletin,
No.
267.
Soil
Conservation
Service.
U.S. G o v e r n m e n t P r i n t i n g Office, W a s h i n g t o n D.C.) p . 2-12.
1!* J o h n
F.
Bobbitt,
M i c h i g a n State University.

(1980).

Personal

Communication.

2 ®D.
Richartrd
Niehoff,
(1977).
Non-formal Education
and the R u r al P o o r .
(Program
of
Studies
in
Non-formal
Education,
I n s t i t u t e for I n t e r n a t i o n a l Studies.
C o l l e g e of
E d u c a t i o n , M i c h i g a n S t a t e u n i v e r s i t y ) , p . 212.
2 1 Ibid,

p . 212.

22Phillip
At tac king Rural
( Balt i m o r e , The

H.
Combs
Poverty, How
John Hopkins

with
Manzoor
Ahmad,
N o n - f o r m a l E d u c a t i o n Can
U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s ) , p .8.

(1974).
Help.

CHAPTER

REVIEW

Soli

There
report

is

by

not

of

of

agriculture

have

not

by

farmers

that

could

therefore,

the

by

will

first

undertaken

by

Connecticut,
assistance
provide

soil
the

New

in

means

to

help

use

and

of

of

of

soil

studies

of

the

past.

It

reports
chapter,

survey

farmer

the

improving

this

soil

have

and

survey

In

of

in

in

t he

lands

Education,

results

survey

problem,

technology

use

soil

reports

education

contributions.

and

crop

wise

useful.

and

Purpose

in

Department

Mexico,

food

use

and

surveys

U.S.

solving

and

use

of

literature.

purpose

Origin

The

the

similary

their

States

about

beneficial

examined

for

United

appropriate

origin,

reviewed

and

knowledge

prove

be

the

subjects

the

produced

unlikely

farmers

The

modern

LITERATURE

information

dominated

application

is

In

agriculture

traditionally

be

enough

farmers.

Importance

will

Survey

OF

II

Utah

the
of
in

13

States

Agriculture

in

response

production
farmers

United

to

problem.^

locate

farms

were

1899

requests
Such
in

in
for

surveys
soils

14

responsive
crops

an d

soils

on

surveys
and

to

managemnent,

management
their

is

to

and

to

practices

farms.

improve

help

are

The

t h e m to

best

f o r the

underlying

agriculture

so

as

decide

particular

purpose

to

what

produce

of

soil

more

food

fiber.^
During

advances

the

in

late

1920's soil

mapping

soils

scientists

and

made

understanding

great

of

soil

used

first

4
properties.
for
the

base

Black

maps

DSDA

knowledge
Aandalh

in

about

of

stated

that

better

job.^

of

White

mapping

th e

(1957)

selection

rate

in

and

soils

1930's.^

basic

soil

describe

soil
soils

According

soil

agricultural

were

the

Bushuell,

Research

provided

maps

mainly

to

the Soil

e f f i c i e n c y has

and

help

been

et

Smith
for

a l.

farmers

Manual

increased

and

additional

tools

Samual

Survey

1920's

uses,

as b a s i c

systems.^

mapped
to

by

photos

properties

management
were

aerial

and
the

(1956)
to

(1951)
since

do

a

the
soil

Q

surveying

began

in

Agricultural
included

the

the

United

States.

interpretations

fromsoil

surveys

have

following:

1.

Y i e l d p r e d i c t i o n s o r p o t e n t i a l s f o r m a j o r c r o p on
s o i l t y p e s at d e f i n e d l e v e l s f o r m a n a g e m e n t i n p u t .

2.

R es ou rce input r e q u i re me nt s
a g r i c u l t u r e and forestry.

3.

Probable behavior
i rrigat i o n s .

4.

Artificial

5.

E s t i m a t e of p r o b a b l e r e s p o n s e to f e r t l l l i z e r s a n d
l i m e as c o n t r o l l e d by t h e m o r e p e r m a n e n t p r o p e r t i e s
o f s o i l s , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e f e r t i l i t y of l i m e l e v e l as
r e v e a l e d by s o i l t e s t s .

of

drainage

for

different

different

soils

crops

of

under

potential.

15

Use

of

Information
by

farmers

wisely

Farm

and

soil

others

to

Report

survey

make

Information

reports

has

appropriate

long

been

used

and

plan

decisions

situations.

survey

of

soil

for

the

importance

of

social

systems,

such

be

tool

in

Priest,
with

the

evaluate

largely

that

1.

production.

and

and

living

and

(1963)

12

do

little

management,

Soil

survey

to

technology

therefore,

water

a

build

pointed

applying
can

plan

to

better
must

reports

be
can

into

except

is

(1963)

soil

used

management

utilizations.*^
still

in

areas

the

largest

where

soil

maps,

groups,

Pennock
user

to

(1967)
of

urbanization

soil
h as

agriculture.*^

to

a

Work-planning
soil

to

patterns

Heneberry

their

agriculture

information,

published

in

progress;
and

farmers

good

Riecken

farming

soil

classified

replaced

by

process.

lands

According
Survey

crop

a

reports

economic

whiteside,

soils

used

privlde

survey

better

this

farm

indicated
survey

and

increase

be

generations.*®

soil

as

may

will

Subsistence

promote

to

that

future

farming.**

used

information

farming

the

of

Survey

Uses

system

a

from

in v a r i o u s

Soil

in

Soil

report

from

Conference,

survey

reports

the

Southern

(1962)

the

Regional

agricultural

Soil
uses

are:*^

To e n a b l e a g r i c u l t u r a l e x p e r i m e n t s t a t i o n s to r e l a t e
t h e i r b a s i c r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s on r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
s o i l s , to the s o i l s b e i n g u s e d f or a g r i c u l t u r a l
purposes.

16

2.

To h e l p v o c a t i o n a l ' a g r i c u l t u r e t e a c h e r s , c o u n t y
a g r i c u l t u r e e x t e n s i o n agents, and soil c o n s e r v a t i o n
w o r k e r s in d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e i r p l a n s ( e . g .
s e l e c t i o n of s i t e s , f o r e x p e r i m e n t a l or
d e m o n s t r a t i o n farms).

3.

To h e l p e n g i n e e r s in p l a n n i n g
and pond construction.

Moka
are

(1978)

helpful

indicates

indicates

for

those

planning
maps

general

farm

updating

the m a p p i n g

Mawby

Haver

about

ranked

different

the

farm

made

after

uses."^

1930

less

drainage,

can

He

be

detailed

1940
also

useful

for

planning

by

legend.

(1961)

information

maps

land

after

and/or

unit

"soil

most

made

planning

and

that

irrigation,

discussed

production
sources,

different

used

by

by

sources

farmers.

frequency

of

of

They

use,

as

follows:

These
of

1.

farm

magazines.

2.

agricultural agents, vocational agriculture
t ea chers , and a g r i c u l t u r a l college r e pr es e nt at iv es .

3.

experiment

researchers

soil

survey
and

with

farmer

field

This

would

help

Non-Farm

Uses

Beyond
information

pertinent
days

at

more

might

them

relate
on

other

thier

use

publications.

effective

be

information

maps

own

farms.

business,

by

soil

using

in c o n j u n c t i o n

experiment

soil

of

communication

accomplished

agricultural

agricultural
are

service

management

farmers

observe

there

that

information

maps

and

extension

suggested

soil

patterns

and

to

stations.

actual

survey

organization

and

soil

report
agency

17

uses

of

areas
soil
et

this

for

various

maps

al.

information

in

4.

Building

and

3.

Location

of

6.

Evaluation

7.

P l a n n i n g l o c a t i o n a n d l a y o u t of
f a c i l i ti e s, e s p e c i a l l y parks.

surveys

to

design

that

that
were

foundation

lands

city

interpretation

of

and

tank

by

Buol

1ft

follows:

in

regional.

filter

fields.

Olson.

21

information

support

for

material.

outdoor

The

Increased

building

22

the

soil

(as
and

use

in

due

surveys

realtors,
and

urban

in

of

of

soil

suitability

engineering
of

soil

by

Morris,

determining
to

and

suitability

application

reported

useful

recreation

planning

fields),

was

of

engineers,

sanitation

was

location.

assessment.

usefulness

2n

planning

suitable

tax

discussed

filter

site

pipelines.

community

health,

tank

urban

development

planners,

fields.

of

septic

soils

of

discussed

state

septic

the

(1961)

tank

by

for

described

problems

not

underground

Bender

in

for

estate

companies

described

Information

areas

real

of

for

septic

of

of

- local,

as

suitability

construction.

(1967)

maps

Zoning

uses

Highway

for

and

non-farm

been

3.

soils

found

list

have

Suitability

insurance

been

activities

the

and

2.

development.^

and

used

Planning

soil

even

They

The

1.

Pennock
and

determining

purposes.

non-farm

(1973).

in

lack

of

has

survey
who

areas
stable

18

Soil

The

following

various
by

Formal

schools

report

and

(1957)

must

therefore,
on

the

effectiveness

educational

agents

in

be

their
had

the

that

and

understanding
not

the

programs,

use

gave

years.

Better

of

of

offered

soil

survey

suggested

that

forms

present
already

were

it

new
be

in

understood

farmers

needed

requirements
Extremely
of

poor

often

down

farmers.

a

(1960),

He

needs

problem
in

his

knowledge

soils

also

was

with

review

in

soil

to

concepts
that

different

soil

of

in

order

plant

most

and

Sorenson

about

of

found

agents

concluded

concept

the

available

ideas
th e

also

the

also

readers.

with

of

from

subsequent

county

separate

information

of

soils

information

compatible

understanding
was

of

formal

knowledge

throughout

magazine

into

that

be

best

but

contacted

soils

should

knowledge

the

education

and,

soils

increased

learning

technical

by

in

knowledge

fertilizer

acidity

Lionberger

This

formal

better

and

resulted

farm

form

found
to

new

knows

farmers

relationship

who

broken
a

He

average

avid

individual's

already

knowledge. ^

the

farmers

he
for

continued

than

among

who

complex

to

an

information

soils.

from

that

facts

schooling
of

only

it

exist

on

greatest

increased

impetus

those

based

existing

and

resulted

stresses

technological

education

measure

indiicate

Non-formal

extension

Programs

information.

learning

to

Educational

studies

and

Sorenson

based

Survey

soil

most
food

types.
PH

as

a

farmers.
research

on

the

19

adoption
often

of

agricultural

involved

All

of

these

adoption)
various

of

and

are

the

agriculture
major

teacher,

agricultural
agencies

stages

indicate

information
forms

to

Indiana

of

meet

sound

and

to

be

needs

of

where

farmers

mass

practice.
practices
vocational

specialists

turn

are

adopting
to

an

government

information.
needed

communicate

each

stage

the

t he

in

present
in

major

agencies

to

agent,

information

to

radio,

the

complex

research

prepared
of

in a d d i t i o n
evaluate

to

At

and
from

the

agricultural

may

wishing

be

stage.

Finally,

obtain

those

to

professional

farmer

sources

that

the

a

trial

it

at

the

soil
in

The
five

survey

different

stage.

Study
(1966)

soil

Indiana.^
interest

other

farmers. ^

newspapers,

agricultural

information.

should

Galloway
use

and

industry

kinds

to

particularly

practice,

or

different

of

various

stages

information

reported

individual

county

of

awareness

and

by

evaluation,

as

information,

stage,
the

sources

the

five

practices

such

were

at

of

the

trial

involved,

media

farmers

enabling

new

interest,

magazines

sources

of

discusses

acquistition

Mass

other

important

During

the

information

interest

media,

adoption

(awareness,

sources.

sources

are

the

involve

television,

of

in

practices,

area

surveys

Rapid

in u s e

described

of

in

an

educational

urban

development

urban

growth

soils

information

development.

It

was

approach

in

recent
by

years

persons

learned

that

to

t he

employed

in

had

spurred

interested
urban

in

people,

20

unlike
an

farmers,

had

appreciation

Extension

liittle

for

a

planners,

sponsoring

groups,

officials.

concern
they

The

and

soil

to

these

used

parent

selected
soils

to

and

points

became
to,

most

in

at

(1)

answer

of

problems

to

demonstrations

and

own

survey

lengthy

For

individuals
using

or
slides

help
were

problems

groups

concise

of

soil

graphic

soils

to

their

information
features

shifting

were

to

The

t he

report

from

an

being

information.

Two

facts

(2)

not

hard

that

"user

were

assistance
with
to

was

oriented"

for

of

from

the
to

soil
solve

t he

available

problems.
help

orient
are

encouraged
obtained

to

reports

understanding

used

of

were

information
where

soil

persons

and

better

of

agricultural

complicated,

and

public

phase",

were

understand,

too

other

"awareness

relating

which

as

watershed

communities.

in

are

groups

the

slides,

groups

maps

to

the

with

relate

phase

such

application

Sources

to

soil

meetings

questions

at

diagrams

their

soils

use.

interested

extension

of

action

descriptive,

simulated

block

individuals

and

information

persons

use

t he

develop

features.

associations,

colored

Indiana

difficult

effective

maps

an

the

clear:

and

highly

to

reach

departments

topography.

landcapes

awareness
trained

and

to

successful

and

to

conservation

Teaching

monoliths,

that

and

stressed

groups.

permit

out

characteristics
soil

management

material

soil

highway

descriptions,

with

developers'

program

soil

the

program

techniques

including
soil

and

teaching

community

survey

its

personnel

initiated

contact

people

maps
to

Simple
understand

21

basic

soil

drainage,

properties,
that

are

such

as

water

important

to

from

the

Indiana

soil

survey

storage

urban

and

users

soil

of

soils

i nfo rma t i o n .
Lessons
need

for

different

different
survey
for

learned

users.

report

They

is

not

inexperienced

familiar

Kansas

with

it

of
also

an

suggest

effective

individuals,
is

information

that

source

unless

the

of

aimed

standard

soils

assistance

t he
at

soil

information
from

persons

available.

Study

Bidwell
soil

forms

program confirm

and

survey

Bohannon

report

data

communication

of

soil

handing

a

soil

(1960)

in S a l i n e

survey

in

d e s c r i b i n g t he

County,

Information

use

Kansas, stress
is

more

than

of
that

simply

o d

out

effective

use

following

steps

the- u s e
was

of

a

given

community

newly

were
mass

through

feature

articles
of

the

aroused

agent,

of

survey

letters

over

t he

meetings.

properties,

land

and

teatment,

of

soils

meetings

included

interpretation

of

to

t he

most

survey report

the

was

created

newpapers;

sent

out

by

a

and

and

these

(3)

the

county

education
a

conservationist
an

in

agronomist

the

management

(2)

editorials,

meetings

management

instruction
soil

soil

get

and

and

soil

To

radio

radio;
At

°

awareness

articles

soil

relation

(1)

media,

described
use

published

used:

newspaper

report.

and
u se

soil
of

in

soil

through
interest

extension
and

news

the

form

scientist

discussed

good

discussed

the

testing.

The

soil

information.

maps

and

Follow-up

22

meetings

were

problems

in

surveys
long

to

suggested

use

of

their

range

plans

parallel

urban

for

information

and

information.
users

is

survey

also

important

reports

in

to

use

as

in

maximize

communicating

to

fit

development

experiences

of
for

soil

of

use

become
of

education

of

t he

effectiveness

of

aware,

soil

information

fo r

sources

that

the

tended

surveys

various

people

the

evident

the

and

recommendation.

need

demands

participate

It w a s

and

needs

procedures

Kansas

Indiana
th e

consider

outline

these

illustrate
meet

to

survey

from
the

farmers

needs,

adopting

in

and

to

interested

survey,

drawn

those

planning

help

particular

Conclusions
to

the

to

survey

potential
of

soil

contained

in

them.

Michigan

Study

Parsey

(1957)

Simplified
"Get

the

Soil

Most

prepared

for

Survey

from
use

farmers

interviewed
report.
to
(2)

farmers
the

the

questions:

farmers
see

farmers

in

obtained

the

use

(1)

t he

report?

"looked"

at

the

It

(Porter

et

of

from

whom

the

Will

was

report

survey
al.,

Township,

regarding

report?

Usefulness

soil

distributed

1955

later

and

The

Odessa

was

June

months

Information

answer
Can

five

report

in

"Use

07

Farmland"

farmers

in

t he

Report."

Your

by

M i c h i g a n . T h e
Township

investigated

and

194

Odessa

to

use

use

that

67

only

were

of
was

t he

What

that

was

County,

interviews,

learned
but

1 95 5 )

Ionia

their

(3)

a

report

forty-three

farmers

of

the
used

report?

values

do

percent

of

14

percent

23

of

them

meeting

"studied"

the

when

report

concluded
be

that

expected

given

to

and

to

had

looked

was

easy

what

at

to

these

some

that

the

type

person

than

they

the

that

that

17

of

extension
The

t he

study

farmers

if

it

use

said

able

might

was

43

the

simply

report,
using

th e

do

using

th e

in

farmersinterviewed

these

only

17

that

it

revealed

that

10

following

the

report

had

received

some

help.

of

a

29

said

in

out

a

about

to

investigation

farmers

possible

is

planned
found

About

two-thirds
with

report

despite
On
12

the

steps

the

had
of

the

use

the

that

in u s i n g

this

one-fifth

of the

that

material
no t

in

who

of

the

new
had

recommendations

the

farmers

more

difficult

something

county

considerably

value

farmers

general

a

the

report

learned

by

indicated

beneficial

thereport;

to

did

This

regarding

about

used

one-helf

agrtreed

highly

Findings

actually

one-third

the

assistance

assistance.

s h o w that

they

given

with

without

about

report

the

errors

familiar

report

said

about

Of

five

could

actually

but

assistance

had

one-third

report.

of

report

farmers

Detailed

information.

said

the

those

minimum

survey

and

an

report.

a

of

were

made

found

or

What

report

of

was

soil

that

at

discussed.

t he

farmers

difficulty

15

in

using

they

the

farmers

even

these

percent

use

markedly.

average,

better

or

of

been

58

whether

follow.

had

fact

agent

at

of

existed.

differed

It

had

maximum

look

situation

report

the

to

answer

report,

of

a

6

them.

In
dual

the

report,

than

report;
to

use;

from
looked

the
at

included

24

in

it w h i c h

farmers
soil

regarded

report
that

was

the

this

report

were

found

that

difficult

chemical

words

terms

relatively

as

an

large

proportion

of

document

on

authoritative

"without

farmers

use
were

were

found

be

to

build

on

report

tool

be

stimulation
and

for

which

and

this

that

closely

assistance,

provided,

carrying

out

its

Farmer

must

both

for

and

easy

concerning
tables

an

effective

be

interested

itself

possess;
make

were

Conditions

report

currently
to

use,

were

use.

report

enough

the

fertilizer

tables

to

the

in

fertilizer

farmers

(2)

farmers

(4)

be

and

and

tables

complex

Lime

soils;

and

yield

difficult

(1)

in

studied

must

crop

make

were:

knowledge

must

most
to

interested

understandable;

report

the

lime

more

contained

understand

with

Simple
the

terms

to

difficult.

necessary

communication

farmers

while

rotations

become

for

meaning."

to

considered

technical

associated

crop

or

that

management.
It

for

suggests

its

must

(3)

the

contents

explanation,

and

understanding

t he

recommendation.

Education

r

Research
farmers,
farm,
in

established

including

investment

community

participation
(1961)

has

study

educational
in

farming,

affairs
in
of

that

are

programs
young,

certain

level,
gross

of

part-time

farming

income

associated
adult

characteristics
status,

and

with

who

of

participation

enrollment

education.

farmers

size

of

were

and

Rodger's
enrolled

25

and

those

who

education,
formal

not

revealed

had

income

larger

from

in

formal

had

larger

more

courses,
there
courses
full

read

and

and

than

of

than

(1965)
adult

enrolled

received

the

higher

agricultural

more

and

farmers

found

a

had

farming

education

received

adult

their

farming

community

analysis
in

of

Arkansas

positive
the

not

that

farmers

were

younger,

gross

literature,

income,
and

were

organizations

farmers

laborers

participants
during

between

attainment
attended

and

in

1960-62,

relationship

educational

part-time

farm

in

of

than

30

(1964)

a

of

more

in

conducted

was

Well

programs

were

employment

education,

active

Flood's

records

programs

farms,

nonparticipants.

more

nonfarm

participating
more

who

investments

Similarly,

in

those

kept

enrolled.^

had

enrolled

that

education,

operations,
more

were

of

farmer

revealed

that

enrollment

farmers;

classes

persons

adult

more

employed

and

in
that

regularly

in

nonfarm

O1

agricultural
vocational

agriculture

maintaining
special

(1)

of

active

content
emphasize
on-farm

attendance

by

of

Davis

1

According

were

adult

Other
(1.961)

agricultural

problem

course,

as

a

factors
as

for

farmers

(2)

methods

in

more

contrast

integral

part

teachers

of

effective

in

courses
which

conducive

by

discussion

instruction

Flood

farmer

education

participation
the

to

significantly

in

instructors.

identified
programs

occupations.

in

been

successful

farmers

are:

determining

of
to

were

have

to

adult

than

teaching
lectures,

of

the

t he
which

and

(3)

program.

26

According

to

followed

Pearce

t he

of

of

need

beginning

New

traditional

establishment
result

(1964)

young

for

farm

io rk

farmers

agricultural

farmers

programs

of

operators

education

to a c h i e v e

longer

methods.^

T he

New

was

the

in a g r i c u l t u r e

for

in

instruction

no

York

establishment

in

farming.^
In

1969

developed
planning
program
farm

aides

Agricultural

program
(IFPP)

in

operators

a

basis

to

the

assistance

change

increasing

small

Service

Intensified
local

was

to

as

educate

provided

operators,

agricultural

Farm

farmers

Cooperative Extension effort

help

and

entitled

Extension

which utilized

educational

Improving

management

Texas

pilot

program

intensive
about

a

the

on

an

attitudes

production

and

practices.

They

researchers

concluded

that

M o r e t h a n 9 8 . 0 p e r c e n t of t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s f e l t the
I F P P w a s i m p o r t a n t a n d w a s m e e t i n g a m a j o r i t y of t h e i r
needs.
99.1
percent
of
participants
said
that
the
p r o g r a m h a d h e l p e d to i n c r e a s e t h e i r k n o w l e d g e of m o d e r n
p ro du c t i o n and manag em ent practices.
97.7 p e r c e n t said
the
training
they
received would help
them
feel more
s e c u r e in t h l e r o v e r a l l f a r m i n g ' s itu ati on.
72.0 percent
of the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n d i c a t e d the IFPP p r o g r a m was " v e r y
satisfied."
25.9
percent
indicated
the
program
was
"satisfied"
and,
in
general,
96.4
percent
felt
the
program
should
be
continued
and
expanded
to
other
counties.
35
Overall
the
literature
indicates
that
educations
has
an
Important
role
in
the
implementation
of
new
practices
in
farming
and
that
it
is
particularly
n e c e s s a r y in u n d e r s t a n d i n g c o m p l e x s o i l s u r v e y d a t a .

27

Summary

The
by

the

U.S.

purpose
help

first

of

surveys

Department
the

farmers

soil

to

information
private

soil

of

businesses

Suggestions

and

were

experiiment

was

greatest
that

of

and

soil

who

adoption

of

its
new

the

acquisition

of

a

uses

than

practice.

These

media,

INTEREST

through

other

farmers,

media,

TRIAL

professional
agricultural
may
of

be
the

called

when

specialists

upon

practice.

for

are

information

complex

practice

also

when

had

better

Research

through

elicited

and,

various

to

in

or

t he

stages

adoption

agencies

the

bu t

knowledge

through

ADOPTION

agencies

information

the

the

Extension

five

and

involve

finally,

government

research

to

agenciies

practices

was

studies

AWARENESS
from

observe

information,

a

at

maps.

level

from awareness

stages

EVALUATION

soil

Cooperative

practices

information

with

to

report

days

farmers

and

survey

survey

field

soil

the

Soil

soil

education

others.

promary

actiivities,

help

relations

magazines

agricultural
of

to

with

The

agriculture

farmer

understanding

contact

farm

using

formal

started

problems.

with

their

in

had

read

and

about

stations,

that

determinant

farmers

Service

and

found

improve

agencies.

made

were

1899.

government

agriiculture

It

in

non-farm

conjuction

patterns

to

States

in

in

soil

United

farming

useful

information

actual

was

their

also

t he

Agriculture

surveys

solve

is

in

the

mass
and
mass

help

of

of

an

industry

maximize

use

28

It
soil

was

learned

conservation

that

experts

reaching

groups

of

programs

in w h i c h

they

soil
of

description

soil

also

formation

meetings
and

others

that,

in

report
of

by

and

simple

media;

circulated
should

be

awareness

the

provided

in

Follow-up

farmers

better

problems.
county
using

lit

extension
of

soil

indicating

that

beneficial

in

Studies
better
than

educated
others

education
be
the

1969

did

a

a minimum
of

farmer

to

with

This
smaller

Extension

those

amount
type

of

have

larger

enroll

and

indicates
farm

job

of

materials
education
by

soil

suggested

to

help

to

solve

their

assistance

understanding

without

by
and

assistance,

education

is

highly

information.
indicated

farms

and

that
higher

participate
that

operators

Service's

use

meetings

given
of

survey

through

and

reports

farmers

education

farmers

with

survey

than

this

agent,s;

showed

soil

through

also

farmers

Studies
of

were

extension

help

created

community

better

even

to

use

aroused

were

that

reports

tend

Texas

found

use

of

soil

survey

classes.

employed

of

agents

the
in

form

meetings

use

was

be

be

extension

the

individual

properties.

should

slides

understanding

through

designed

In

teaching

color

Improve

effective

should

county

scientists.
make

to

problems

soil

most

monoliths,

and

success

initiating

Interested

their

t he

interest

by

soil

demonstrations

get

personnel

considerable

diagrams

basic

Service

by

topography.

understand
to

had

used

solve

information,

mass

have

block

to

order

have

Individuals

and

encouraged

Extension

other
and

in

means
the

Intensified

younger,
incomes
farmer
need

to

results

of

Farm

Planning

29

Program

seem

farmers

as

to

adopt

to

show

that

a

one-to-one

useful

in h e l p i n g

improved man ag ement

practices.

aides,

was

approach,
the

using

smaller

local

operators

30

FOOTNOTES

CHAPTER

Tech

II

* H.E.
Dregne,
(1976).
Solis
U n i v . L u b b o c k , T X . ) p . 14.
^

(U.S.

of

Soil S u r v e y M a n u a l . (1951).
6P 0, W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . ) p . 2 3 - 2 5 .

Arid

USDA

Regions.

(Texas

Handbook.

N o . 18,

^
Charles
E.
Kellogg,
(1966).
Soil
Surveys
for
Community
Planning
in
Soil Sur v ey s and Land Use P l a n n i n g .
( T h e S o i l S c i e n c e S o c i e t y of A m e r i c a a n d A m e r i c a n S o c i e t y of
A g r o n o m y : M a d i s o n , W i s c o n s i n . ) C h a p t e r 1, p p . 1-7.
^ R o g e r P e n n o c k , Jr. ( 1 9 6 7 ) .
C o m m u n i c a t i o n of
Survey
and
Related
Soil
Management
Information.
Thesis, M i c h i g a n State u n i ve r si t y , East lansing, MI.)

of S o i l
(Ph.D.
p . 8.

^
U.S.
Department
of
Agriculture.
(1963).
Kno w Your
Soil.
Agriculture
Information
Bulletin.
No.
267.
(Soil
Conservation
Service.
U.S.
Government
Printing
Office:
W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.) p . 2-12.
® G u y D. S m i t h ,
a n d A n d r e w R. A a n d a h l ,
(1957).
C l a s s i f i c a t i o n a n d S u r v e y s in S o i l Y e a r b o o k A g r . ( U . S .
Agr.
U.S.
Government
Printing
Office:
Washington,
p . 397.
^ Samuel
R. A l d r i c h ,
a n d E d o m o n d L.
Worthen,
Farm Soils, Their Ferti ll iza tl on and M a n a g e m e n t .
edition. (John W i le y and Sons, Inc., New Yo rk Ch ap ma n
1 t d ., L o n d o n . )
®

Soil

Survey

M a n u a l , (1951).

Survey

(1956).
Fifth
& Hall,

p . 23-25.

® S.W.
B o u l , F.D.
Hole,
and
R.J.
McCracken,
Soil G e n e s i s and C l a s s l f i l c a t l o n .
(The
Iowa
U n iv e rs it y, Press: Ames, Iowa.) p . 319-320.
^Soil

Soil
Dept.
D.C.)

(1973).
State

M a n u a l , p. 2 3-2 5.

**F.F.
Riecken,
(1963).
Some
Classification
in
Farming.
Soil
Sci.
96:49-61.
*^D.J.
Bradfleld,
(Food and A g r i c u l t u r a l
Italy.)
p . 7-27.

Aspects
S oc.
of

of
Soil
America,

(1966).
G u i d e to E x t e n s i o n T r a i n i n g
O r g a n i z a t i o n of U n i t e d N a t i o n s , R o m e ,

31

*^T.W.
Priest,
E.P.
Whiteside,
and
W.H.
Heneberry-,
(1963).
Use
of
Soil
Management
Groups
and
Related
I n f o r m a t i o n in E v a l u a t i o n of F a r m l a n d s a n d T h e i r U t i l i z a t i o n .
( R e p r i n t f r o m S o i l Sci. Soc. A m e r . P r o c . ) 2 7 : 3 5 5 - 3 3 9 .
^Roger

Pennock,

p. 12.

* ^Southern
Regional
Soil
Survey
Work-Planning
Conference.
(1962).
Comm.
X Mississippi
State University.
I m p r o v e m e n t of m e t h o d s of i n f o r m i n g t h e p u b l i c of u s e r s of
information
in
t he
published
soil
survey
report.
(Mimeographed, 6 Pages.)
^Delbert
L. M o k m a , ( 1 9 7 8 ) .
Soil M a n a g e m e n t Units and
Land Use P l a n n i n g .
( E x t e n s i o n Bui . E - 1 2 6 2 .
M i c h i g a n State
U n i v e r s i t y , E a s t L a n s i n g , M I . ) p . 3.
* ^ R u s s e l l G. M a w b y , a n d C e c i l B. H a v e r , ( 1 9 6 1 ) .
Types
a n d S o u r c e s of I n f o r m a t i o n U s e d b y F a r m e r s .
C h a p t e r 2 in A
S t u d y of M a n a g e r i a l P r o c e s s e s of M i d w e s t e r n F a r m e r s .
Glenn
L. J o h n s o n , A l b e e r t H. H a l t e r , H a r o l d R. J e n s e n a n d D. W o o d s
T h o m a s (Eds.) (Iowa State Univ. press, Ames, Iowa.)

Tank

18Boul,

Hole,

1Q
7R o g e r

P.

McCracken,

Pennock,

p . 311.

p . 14.

^William
h .
Bender,
Filter F i e l d s .
(USDA

(1961).
S o i l S u i t a b l e for
S o i l C o n s . Ser. B u l l . 2 4 3 . )

21G.W.
Olson,
( 1964).
Application
of
Soil
Problems
of H e a l t h ,
Sanitation,
and
Engineering.
U n i v . M i m e o . ) p . 387.

Septic

Survey
to
(Cornell

2 2 J o h n G. M o r r i s , ( 1 9 6 6 ) .
T h e U s e of S o i l s I n f o r m a t i o n
in
Urban
Planning
and
Implementation.
In S o i l S u r v e y a n d
L a n d Us e P l a n n i n g .
( S o i l Sci. Soc. Am. a n d A m e r i c a n Soc. of
A g r o . , M a d i s o n , W i s c o n s i n . C h a p t e r 5.) p . 3 7 - 4 1 .
^Douglas
Sorenson,
(1957).
k n o w l e d g e of t e c h n i c a l s o i l s c o n c e p t s b y
(Dept.
of
Agr.
Journalism.
Col.
of
Wisconsin.
B u l l . 27.)

Factors influencing
Wisconsin farmers.
Agr.
University
of

2 ^ H e r b er t L i o n b e r g e r , ( 1960).
A d o p t i o n of n e w
practices.
(The Iowa Sta t e U n i v e r s i t y Press, Ames,

ideas and
Iowa.)

25Harry
M.
Galloway,
(1966).
Soil
surveys
and urban
development--an
educational
approach.
In S o i l S u r v e y s a n d
Land Use P l a n n i n g .
( P u b l i s h e d by the S o i l S c i e n c e S o c i e t y of
America
and
Ameriican
Society
of
Agronomy,
Madison,
W i s c o n s i n . ) C h a p t e r 15,

32

2®o.W.
Bidwell,
and
R.A.
Bohannon,
(1960).
Saline
County,
Kansas,
promotes
its
soli
survey.
(Reprint
from
J o u r n a l of Soil a n d W a t e r C o n s e r v a t i o n .
V o l . 15, No. 3.)
97
John
M.
Parsey,
(1957)
Use
and
usefulness
of
a
simplified
soil
survey
report.
National
Project
in
Agricultural
Communication.
(Mimeographed,
99
pages.
M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , E a s t l a n s l n g , M i c h i g a n . ) p . 1-7.

9a
°James
Porter,
Stanley Alfred,
Eugene
Whiteside,
and
Robert Lucas,
(1955).
Get the m os t from yo u r f ar m l a n d soil
survey
summary
for
Odessa
Township
(an
interim
report).
Michigan
State
College
Cooperative
Extension
Service,
East
Lansing, Michigan.
^John
H.
Rogers,
(1961).
Participation
of O h i o
Part-Time
Farmers
in
Young
Farmer
Programs
in
Vocational
Agriculture.
(Ph.D.
Thesis.
Columbus:
The
Ohio
State
U n i v e r s i t y .)
^ W i l l i a m Well, (1965).
A C o m p a r i s o n of t h e F a r m e r s in
the
Medina,
North
Dakota
Public
School
District
Who Have
A t t e n d e d Adult and Y oung Fa rm er Courses and T hose Who Have
Not
Attended.
(Master's Thesis.
Fargo
Morth
Dakota State
U n i v e r s i t y . ) p . 50.
3 *S. F l o o d , a n d B. R i e f f o r d , ( 1 9 6 4 ) .
Factors Associated
W i t h S u c c e s s of A d u l t E d u c a t i o n i n V o c a t i o n a l A g r i c u l t u r e in
Arkansas.
(Ph.D.
Thesis,
Fayetteville:
University
of
A r k a n s a s . ) p . 233.
3 ^ P h i l i p B. D a v i s , ( 1 9 6 1 ) .
"Selected Factors Associated
with
Attendance
at
Adult
Farmer
Classes."
(A g r i c u l t u r a l
Education M a g a z i n e , 33:179-181.)
33Frank
C.
pearce,
( 1 9 6 4 ) . T he E d u c a t i o n a l N e e d s of
B e g i n n i n g F a r m O p e r a t o r s in B e c o m i n g E s t a b l i s h e d in I.’e w Y o r k .
( P h . D . T h e s i s . I t h a c a , NY, C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y . ) p . 3 7 J .
3 4 Ibid,

p . 213-218.

3 3 C e c i l L. S t r i c k l a n d , a n d M o s t a f a A. S o l i m a n ,
(1976).
N o n p r o f e s s i o n a l A i d s in A g r i c u l t u r e .
An
evaluation
of
a
program
in
Cooperative
Extension
Education
for
Small-Farm
Families.
( P r a i r i e V i e w A & W U n i v e r s i t y , T e x a s . ) p . 4-6.

CHAPTER

THE

This
sampling

chapter

Includes

procedure,

preparation

of

METHOD

the

OF

for

STUDY

information

instrument
data

III

design,

about
data

population,

collection

and

analysis.

Population

The
farm

target

operators

survey

has

and

in

been

published
county

level

1).

was

A

obtained
Service

Special
D.C.

offices

to

by

the

release

interest

counties

completed

Stabilization

Washington,

of

Michigan

(Figure

Agriculture.

ASCS

population

and

from
of

counties

chronological
regional
(Figure
reasons.

were

2).

of

These

First,

a

united

office

lists

factors

modern

reports

of

to

at

the

Conservation

obtained

enable

farmers

been

Department

be

to

all
soil

have

population

States

of

t he

of

from
county

(Appendix

A).

Procedure

chosen

the

a

Agricultural

Michigan

of

which

this

had

distribution

planning

of

permission

their

comprised

survey

the

the

Sampling

Five

for

soil

listing

is

based
the

on

the

soils,

kinds

Cooperative
affected

state-wide

33

geographical
of

crops,

Extension

selector

representation,

for
which

and
and

Service
several
would

34

include
soils

the

vary

upper

peninsula,

widely

throughout

factors

extant

assumed

that

affect

the

use

soil

of

Grand

of

survey

Traverse,

sample

to

size

optimal

available,

500

for
the

types

squares),

and

The

number

famers

an

office

was

county

contributed

Thus

each

Table

1.

a

farmer

of

the

an

chosen

the
study

equal

Number and percent
f o r- s t u d y sample:

of

was

to

population

in

fifty

of

a
to

by

(mainly
percent.
t he

ASCS

farmers

each

(table

1).

selection.*

each

Number
Sample

and

resources

used

total

of

was

determined

be

of

number

farmers

Delta,

farmers

county

probability

N u m b e r of
Farmers

County

total

best

chosen.

of

rate
per

for
of

financial

tests

return

randomly

to

had

statistical

estimated

proportion

Counties
Sanilac

of

might

permission

list

on

it w a s

which

were

population)

based

Third,

counties

Sanilac

of

different

recommended

five

ASCS

kinds

on

exist

selected,

total

study

t he

and

counties'

the

chi

of

Thus

were

of

based

formation.

programs

Ingham

(4%

Second,

differences

educational

the

state,

their

regional

reports.

desired

the

of

counties

use

of

time

Ottawa,

t he

requested

the

some

kind

Once

be

at

was

county

chosen

in
Percent

4283

175

35.12

Ottawa

County

4280

175

35.12

Ingham

County

2159

88

17.70

819

36

6.70

654

26

5.36

12195

500

100.00

Grand

Traverse

Delta

County

Total

County

35

LEGEND
IV.iW.

MODERN PUBLISHED
S O IL SURVEY

MODERN SOIL SURVEY
WITH FIELD MAPPING
C OM PLETED. T O BE
PUBLISHED

.v<V-v;:
MODERN SOIL SURVEY

tt§

mmm

IN P R O G R E S S

smmm

MAPPING AND
PUBLICATION PLAN8
INCOMPLETE

S o u r c e : S o li C o n s e r v a t i o n S e r v i c e

F i g u r e 1:

S t a t u s of M o d e r n Soi l S u r v e y s in
Michigan C o u n t i e s .

36

LEGEND
DELTA
GRAND T R A V E R S E
3

OTTAW A

4

INGHAM
SANILAC

F i g u r e 2:

L o c a t i o n of S e l e c t e d C o u n t i e s in t h e
Study Area.

37

Collection

Development

To

reach

develop

a

population

t he

objectives

questionnaire
of

farmers

Questionnaire

f or

of

the

of

to

be

through

for

that

the

questions

directly

this

study.

be

the

development

tested

procedures
1.

The

by

Ho:

were

objectives
of

the

various

chosen

Instruments

this

study,

it

administered
survey

was
to

decided
the

sample

technique.

were

the

mail

related

stated

following
statistical

frequency

survey

and

in
rull

to

the

was
the

designed

first

chapter

hypotheses

measures.
chi-square

which

3.

Ho:

T h e r e is
no r e l a t i o n s h i p
b e t w e e n t he
u s e of
soil survey report information and selected
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of M i c h i g a n f a r m s .

4.

Ho:

T h e r e is
no relationstiip
b e t w e e n the
u s e of
soil survey report infor ma ti on and farmers
p e r c e p t i o n s a b o u t i m p r o v i n g a g r i c u l t u r e in
Michigan.

5.

Ho:

T h e r e is
no r e l a t i o n s h i p
between Michiga
far mer/farm characteristics and interest
a t t e n d i n g soil survey report e d uc a ti on al
programs.
four

parts

can

of

T h e r e is
no r e l a t i o n s h i p
b e t w e e n the
u s e of
soil survey report i n fo rm a ti on and selected
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of M i c h i g a n f a r m e r s .

into

l ed

techniques.

Ho:

divided

of

Statistical

2.

was

so

objectives

T h e r e is n o r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n M i c h i g a n
farmer/farm cha racteristics and knowledge
p u b l i s h e d m o d e r n soil survey reports.

questionnaire

to

Farmers

questionnaire

to

Data

a mail

The

The

of

by

in

type

of

38

questions

(Appendix

Part

A

consisted

characteristics
their

sources
Part

B).

of

of

B

of

farms

and

was

designed

published

soil

their

use

perception

Part

and

C

encounter,
Part

Conservation
The
following

farmers'

D

was
Farm

to

their

find

of

t he

problems

for
soil

categorizing
problems

and

farmers' awareness

through

reports'
whichfarm

interest

designed

out

reports

in

to

and

its

questionnaire

was

developed

farm

advisors,

usefullness.
operators

educational

examine

Plan

may

programs.

use

of t he

Soil

usefulness.
by

the

researcher

in

the

steps:

1.

A p p r o p r i a t e r e s e a r c h l i t e r a t u r e was r e v ie w e d and
a n a l y z e d , 20 f a r m e r s a n d p r a c t i t i o n e r s in t h e f i e l d
of soil s u r v e y i n g w e r e i n t e r v i e we d .

2.

T h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e a n d its c o m p o n e n t i t e m s w a s s u b m i t t e d
to
a
jury
of e x p e r t s
in
the
Department
of
Soil
Sciences,
Soil C o ns e r v a t i o n Service,
and C o operative
ex te ns ion Service.
M e m b e r s of t h e j u r y w e r e a s k e d to
j u d g e the u s e f u l n e s s of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e a n d e v a l u a t e
i t s v a l i d i t y a n d s u i t a b i l i t y to t h e p o p u l a t i o n in t h e
s t udy area.
U p o n th e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s of the J u r y of
e x p e r t s t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e w a s r e v i e w e d by c h a i r m a n of
the guidance committee before being finalized.

Questionnaire
A

of

Conservation
of

for

l i s t of

Directors

use

farmers,

survey

concerned

and

questions

help.

about

of

control

soil

information,

Professional

questions
the

was

developed

and

Cooperative

Extension

Service

Service
survey

Workers

in e a c h

information

telephone

selected
by

interviews

county

farmers.
were

mailed
and

to
Soil

regarding

For m o r e

arranged

and

the

detailed
each

of

39

the

county

(Appendix

directors

was

interviewed

questionnaire

mailed
and

to

each

response

to

the

Director

letters

(the

you

were

cards

follow-up

in

C.E.S.

among

envelops

and

farmer

Service

person

questionnaire,
each

county

director

data

is

an

to

all

selected

(Appendix

B)

requesting

as

card

soon
was

as

period

with

return

with

Extension

to

sign
and

and

of

a

return

weeks,
The

thank

following

questionnaire
was

return

T wo

cover

influentlial

three

a new

the

stamped

farmers.

to

possible.

mailed

Cooperative

envelope

them

was

attention

important

After

sent

explanation
more

asked

enclosed.

letter

completed

the

was

of

generate

Self-addressed

non-respondents,

the

To

farmers).

were

questionnaire

letter

selected.

stamped

you

final

Procedures

cover

self-addressed,

thank

gathering

C).

Mailing

A

in

second

mailed

the

weeks

and
to

completed

later

reminder

a

second

to

return

questionnaire.

Responses

As
310

or

were
were
their
died,

mentioned
62

from

percent
people

retired,
farms,
and

4

17
15

were

earlier,
were
who

no

had
were

500

questionnaires

returned.
longer
rented

Ninety-two

operated
out

their

residential,

widowed.

Since

a

(29.7%)

farm.
farms,

8 were

this 29.7

were

mailed;
of

these

Twenty-four
16

had

inactive,
percent

sold
8 had

w e r e not

40

currantly

farm

population,
sample

of

operators,

their
500

were

not

were

usable,

leaving

usable
a

numbers

(5.5%)

response

not

were

408.

Of

but

201

rate

of

a

part

subtracted
the

from

remaining

replies
64.8

of

from

percent.

the
t he

target
original

responses,
active

17

farmers

41

Preparation

of

Data

f or

Analysis

Conf id e nt iality

In
with

order

regard

to

to

obey

research

questionnaire

could

respondents

envelopes

were

for

arrived

that

envelopes

so

number.

Respondents'
list,

were

of

confidentiality

respondents

identified

in

any

non-respondents
individual

were
no

were

follow-up

the

from

were

To

As

th e

return

with

checked

letters

the

return

t he

associated
then

to

way.

farmer.

separated

longer

numbers

that

rules

subjects,

each

they

they

so

be
from

coded

questionnaires

on human

not

separate

mailing

university

a

code

off

the

not

sent

to

identified

in

them.

Methods

Dependent
order

to

and

test

independent

the

technique

differences

between

report

was

farm/farmer

J0.05 c o n f i d e n c e

interval

The

were

tabulated
A
Social

Science
to

the

variables

and

was

were

Mainly

to

analyze

the
the

chi-square

extent

c h a r a c t e r i s t i i c s , use
other

used

identified

chi-square

statistical

according

used

information,

differences

Analysis

hypotheses.

statistical

survey

of

to
by

related

of

the

of

soil

questions.

The

determine
comparing

signifiicance.
calculated

and

) values.
method

(SPSS)

was

variables

called
used
in

the

Statistical
for

package

analyzing

study

(see

the

Appendix

for
data
D).

42

Sixty-eight
Computer
were
CYBER

data

then
750

variables
coding

punched
to

obtain

were
forms.

onto

identified
All

FORTRAN

research

data
cards

results.

and

from
and

registered
t he

coding

placed

on

forms

into

the

43

FOOTNOTES

CHAPTER

I II

^ G l e n n L. J o h n s o n , " S o m e l e s s o n s f r o m t he I M S . ”
Staff
paper
N o.
76-5.
(Department
of
Agricultural
Economics.
M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , A p r i l 15, 1 9 7 6 . )

CHAPTER

ANALYSIS
FROM

The
201

data

usable

presented

responses

in

out

questionnaire.

The

farmers

Michigan

in

of

the

In

other

three

five

total

out

of

total

was

five

to

percent

to

a

sample

whom

did

from

from

t he

to a m a i l e d

respondents

received

persons

derived

responses

sent

so

Thirty-eight
was

are

310

counties,

information

every

DATA

chapter

questionnaire

sample.

words,

a

OF

FARMERS

this

of

IV

62

not

of

5 00

percent
respond.

approximately

questionnaires

were

ma i l e d .

General

For

purposes

control

questions

questionnaire.
were

actively

percent

were

responses
in

this

Characteristics

were

Of

of

grouping
were
310

engaged

in

unusable.

and

Farmer

and

respondents,
farming.

deceased,
Only

analysis.

44

Respondents

analyzing

designed

the

ratired,

of

no

active

responses
included

201

or

64.8

Another
longer
farmers

109
in

several
in

percent
or

farming

were

t he

35.2
or

included

45

Occupations

Of

t he

subset

full-time.
more

than

remaining
other
most

half
98

of

(N*17).

Table

2

2.

shows

1.

work

are

the

hours

with

Groups/Job

employed

of

Titles

(51.2%)

factory

in

farmers

spend

farming."*
and
work

categories
each

farmed

Manager,

Officials

Clerical

and

being

and

Clerk
Mailman
Gift Store

41
the

the

category.

Farmers.

Number

22

and

Kindred

The

listed

Professiona/Technical
(6)
(3)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(1)
(1)
(1)

proprietors

Inspector
Builder
Transportation Supervisor
Superintendent
Facility manager
Auto dealer
County Commissioner
3.

armers

part-time

Teacher
Nurse
Lawyer
Civil Engineer
Dentist'
Veterinarian
Auditor/Accountant
Twp assessor
Inventor
Planner
2.

f

in

occupational

farmers

103

"full-time

part-time

Occupations

Occupational

farmers,

indicates,

categories

part-time

Major

active

their

(48.8%)

common

of

2 01

(1978)

occupational

numbers

Table

Hepp

of

11
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(1)
(1)
(1)

Workers

preparation

3
(1)
(1)
(1)

46

Table

2.

(cont'd)

Occupational

4.

Sales

Groups/Job

Titles

Number

Workers

8

Salesman
Real Estate/Agent
Insurance Agent
5.

Craftsmen,

Foremen,

and

(4)
(3)
(1)
Kindred

Mechanics, Steam fitter
Electrician, HydroCement
Carpenter, Kelvinator.
Painter, Plasterer
Maintenance
General Foreman
Lithographer
6.

Operative

and

kindred

Factory
B u s . / S c h o o l Bus
Truck Driver
Company
Sawyer
Welder
Tireman
Stockyard

Workers

19
(7)
(3)
(3)
(2)
(2)
(1)
(1)

Journeyman

Workers

35
(17)
(6)
(4)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(1)
(1)

driver

Total

98

AGE

Table
groups.
years

shows

Only
of

accounting
the

3

sample

age.
for

31

the

farmers

breakdown
or

The

largest

24.4%

(N»49)

(N»96)

were

20%

of

age
of

found

of

the

the

respondents

sample

category
t he

to

was

sample.
be

were

within

under

45-54

Almost
the

by

age
35

years,
half

45-64

of
age

47

groups

of

Appendix

Table

farmers

for

each

selected

county

are

shown

In

E.

3.

Number

and

Percent

of

Farmers

by

Age.

Farmers
Age

25

and

Number

Groupings

under

Percent

9

4.5

26-34

22

1 0. 9

35-44

47

23.4

45-54

49

24.4

55-64

47

23.4

65

and

over

26

1 2. 9

No

Response

1

.5

201

100.0

TOTAL

Level

The
of

the

highest

respondents

one-half
group.

(52.7%)
An

high

of

of

respondents

See
at

Education

of

formal

education

t he

t he
30

degree.

college,

school.

Formal

was

additional

Post-Bacheelor's
years

level

of

while
Table

each

of

high
farmer

(15%

diploma.

respondents

had

received

Twenty-one

(10.4%)

44

had

4 for
the

school

attained

(21.9%)

frequency

educational

were

a
had

failed

and

by

most

More

than

.in

this

Bachelor's
attended
to

1-2

complete

percentage

levels.

or

of

the

48

Table

4.

Number
Formal

a n d P e r c e n t of F a r m e r s
Education Attained.

by

Highest

Level

of

Farmers
Highest

Level

Less

than

High

School

1-2

High

Years

Education

School

Number

At tained

Diploma

wide

average

range

respondent

from

less

Most

reported

had

they

respondents
farming,

the

of

farmers

1

21

1 0 .4

18

9.0

12

6 .0

201

100.0

for

years

fairly

farmed
year

for

to

21

years

of

evenly

in

years,

years

of

104

or

53.8

or longer.
by

skewed

(31+),

with

percent,

When

th e
of

or

68

toward

with

the

distributed

throughout

5

shows

a

frequency

breakdown

years

by

of

years
of
t he

balance

the

other

categories.
Table

a

farming

number

35.2 p e r cent

heavily

experience

24.7

60

categories

group represented

distribution

of

Farming

the r e s p o n d e n t s ,

divided into

31+

The

number

of

in

had

than

farmed

were

respondents.
greater

52.7

Degree

experience.

in

106

Diploma

Years

The

21.9

College

TOTAL

Percen

44

Diploma

of

Bachelor's
Graduate

of

farming.

49

Table

5.

Number and
Farming.

Percent

of

Farmers

by Y e a r s

Engaged

In

Farmers
Years

of

0-

Farming

5

26

13.5

6-10

25

13.0

11-20

38

1 9. 7

21-30

36

1 8 .6

68

35.2

193

100.0

31+

TOTAL

Size

Most
farmed
for

of

from

43.3%

the

t he
50

of

When
compared

1 80

statewide

were

respondents

on

similar

the

farms

However,

study

on

in

the

farms

shown

data

on

Census

only
of

Census);

In

(68.7

15.9
less
and

than
15.4

50

of

percent

from

similarities

499

acres

the

and

of

t he

was

quite

to

67.41

compared

acres

were

farms

proportion

percent

percent

respondents

6),

to

accounted

6.

Michigan

t he
50

questionnaire

farmers

t he

of

(Table

from

the

Table

by

size

First,

data

to

These

reported

ranging

Census

percent).

responded

as

noted.

Farm

(N»87).

farms

Agricultural

differences

were

acres

of

of

who

responses

size

with

to

farmers

to

t he

t he

1978

percent

Percent

Number

farmers

in

this

(compared

to

29.6

were

on

farms

of

500

50

or

more

acres

other

words,

farms

was

on

large

Average

(compared

t he

smallest
acres.

proportion

less

than

farms

was

acreage
farm
Sizes

in

for

the

farms

(Appendix

F).

Table

Survey Data
and Percent

6.

6.4
of

the

greater

reported
of

to

percent

farmers

state

as

than

for

in
a

study

was

7 acres

and

area

Census).

study
the

state

the

selected

Compared with
of F a r m e r s by

this

the

county

each

the

whole;

five

for

in

is

on

small

proportion

as

a

whole.

299.179;

largest

county

In

are

was

t he
4130

listed

Census Data * for
S i z e of F a r m .

in

Number

Farmers
S i z e of F a r m
(Acres)

Census*

Sample

Precent
Census

1-

49

32

1369

15.9

25.15

50-

179

87

2208

43.3

40.57

180-

4 99

51

1461

25.4

26.84

500-

9 99

21

311

10.4

5.71

1000-1999

4

78

2 .0

1.43

2000

6

16

3.0

.30

201

5443

100.0

100.0

+

TOTAL

*

Number
Sample

Source:

1 9 7 8 C e n s u s of
t a b l e s of d a t a
the study.

Agriculture.
f o r t he f i v e

Data
were taken
counties Included

from
in

51

Table

7*

Size

of

Farms

In M i c h i g a n . *

Farms

Less

Size

of

than

10 a c r e s

10

to

49

50

to

179

Number

Farms

Percent

3583

acres
acres

5.20

16563

24.30

28145

41.28

180

to

499

acres

15493

22.72

500

to

999

acres

3512

5.15

747

1.09

115

.26

1000

to

1999

2000

acres

acres

and

more

TOTAL

*

Source:

68158

1978 Census
Michigan.

of

Agriculture,

Type

In

this

agricultural
were

cash

livestock,
specify
woodlot,

study

products
crops,
fruit

"other''
and

the

pine

types
found

swine,
and

types

of

of
in

and

Preliminary

Report,

Farm

farms
the

beef,

other.

trees.

100.0

those

were

specified

selected

counties.

dairy,

poultry,

Respondents

were

who

did

based

listed

on

These
general

asked

to

vegetables,

52

Use

Of
50

the

(24.9%)

farmers

of

2 01
had

did

questionnaire.
in

Conservation
Table

8

Table

8.

U s e of
Report

All

solved

Service

district

shows

the

Number
Survey

response

TOTAL

4

to
have

( 8% )
their

not

used,

while

Information.

Four

this

item

used

said

it

the
was

problems

on

the

report

were

difficult
through

to

Soil

personnel.
of

use

of

the

a n d P e r c e n t of F a r m e r s
Report Information.

Soil Survey
Information

Yes

frequency

that

had

report

respond

only

Information

( 73. 1%)

survey

farmers
it,

Report

147

Users

No

No

soil
not

using

understand.

Survey

respondents
used,

(2%)

satisfied

Soli

N u m b e r of
Respondents

report

Reporting

Relative
Frequency
%

by

Use

farmers.

of

Soil

A d jus t ed
Frequency
%

147

7 3 .1

74.6

50

24.9

25.4

4

2 .0

201

100.0

Hissing

100.0

53

Statistical

Five

hypotheses

variables.

In

accomplished

Tests

were

each

through

of

the

Hypotheses

tested

instance

use

of

The

First

in

terms

of

statistical

a chi-square

several

testing

was

analysis.

Hypothesis

T h e f i r s t h y p o t h e s i s s t a t e s t h a t t h e r e is a r e l a t i o n s h i p
b e t w e e n M i c h i g a n f a r m e r / f a r m c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a n d k n o w l e d g e of
p u b l i s h e d m o d e r n soil surv ey re ports.

Using
of

modern

this

hypothesis

soil

survey

characteristics

variables

(size

Slightly
2 01),

of

reports,
reports,
reports

the
as

Cooperative
(17.5%).

relationship
and

a

of

farm

and

more

than

o n e - h a l f , or

respondents

shown

the

in

Table
their

Soil

Extension

of

were
9.

of

Conservation
Service

54.0

who

farmer

of

the

between

education).

percent
of

the

were

Service
and

(108
soil

aware

information

(29.85%)

and

two

formal

Those

knowledge

relationship

unaware

source

farm

Only

significant
level

between

selected

examined.

evidenced

indicated
was

reports

was

crosstabulations

the

out

of

survey
of

the

about

the

(39.5%),
other

the

farmers

54

Table

9.

K n o w l e d g e of C he
Survey Reports.

Knowledge
Published

About
Report

N u m b e r of
Farmers

No

Vocational
as

a

source

of

the

of

information.

of

of

farmers

Some
soil

learned
research

Relative
Frequency
%

of

45.8

46.0

1

.5

survey
about

reports,

the

project.

reports

who

and

about

that

data

farmers

Missing

100.0

Schools

indicated

the

Adjusted
Frequency
%

92

information

These

Soil

54.0

201

Agriculture

Published

53.7

Response

TOTAL

about

108

Yes
No

Farmers

are

they

Consultant
soil

shown

notes

through

survey

used

indicated

wrote

100.0

the

in

used

least

reports.

None

bankers
Table

that
to

were

a

source

10.

they

say

as

were

they

questionnaire

unaware

had
for

first
this

55

Table

10.

S o u r c e s of F a r m e r s '
Survey Reports.

Knowledge

about

Published

Soil

Farmers
Source

Soil

of

Number

Information

Conservation

Percent

45

39.50

34

29.85

20

17.50

7

6.15

5

4.30

1

.90

Consultant

1

. 90

Other

1

.90

Cooperative
Other
News

Service

*

Extension

Service

Farmers
Media

Commercial

Salesperson

Vocational

Agriculture

School

114*

TOTAL

*The
92,

number
the

of

actual

farmers
number

farmers

Indicated

Size

Farm

more

of

There

was

aware

of

a

more

aware
of
than

tendency

soil

survey

crosstabulation

of

size

of

was

at

t he

.04

significant

indicating

a

fairly

strong

of

soil

survey

knowledgable
one

for

source

of

with

reports.

The

and

level

relationship

a

exceeds

because

s o me

Information.

larger

farms

chi-square

awareness

with

report

farmers

those

farm

100.00

of

Cramer's

(see

Table

the
V

to

for

be
the

reports
of

11).

.239

56

Table

11.

Farmers, Aware
S i z e of F a r m .

A w a r e n e s s of
Soil Survey
Report

Size

of

Soil

Farm

1-49

50-179

180-499

20
10.0

47
23.5

31
1 5. 5

9
4.5

Yes

11
5.5

40
20.0

20
10.0

Column
Total

31
15.5

87
43.5

51
25.5

No

x2 -

11.437

Cramer's
Number

Level

V

of

of

aware

of

.02

strong

-

Survey

by

(in acres )

1000-1999

500-999

2000+

Total

0
0

1
.5

108
54.0

12
6. 0

4
2.0

5
2.5

92
46.0

21
1 0. 5

4
2.0

6
3.0

20 0
100.0

significance

5

Reports

-

.04

** . 2 3 9

Formal

education
tendency

d. f.

missing

There

the

Published

was

observations

also

a

relationship

awareness

among

farmers

level

1

Education

and

the

■

reports.
with

relationship.

a

of
with
The

soil

survey

higher

Table

V

of
12

of

of

a

to

be

significant

at

indicating

details.

formal

indicating

education

proved

.23,
for

level

reports

levels

chi-square

Cramer's
S ee

between

a

fairly

57

Table

12.

F a r m e r s ' L e v e l s of F o r m a l E d u c a t i o n
Pu blished Soil Survey Reports.

Knowledge
About
Published
Report

Level
Less than
High
School

High
School

of

Formal

1-2 Y e a r s
of C o l l e g e

and

Knowledge

about

Education
Graduate
Degree

Bachelors
Degree

Total

No

25
12.5%

64
32.0%

11
5.5%

4
2 .0%

4
2 .0%

108
54.0

Yes

19
9.5%

42
2 1 .0%

9
4.5%

14
7.0%

8
4.0%

92
46.0

44
2 2 .0%

106
53.0%

20
1 0 .0%

18
9.0%

Column
Total

-

11.265

Cramer's
Number

of

V

d.f.
»

~

4

significance

.23

missing

observations

■

1

12
6. 0

»

.02

200
100.0

58

The

Second

Hypothesis

The
second
hypothesis
stated
that
there
is
a
relationship
between
the
use
of
soil
survey
report
i n f o r m a t i o n a n d s e l e c t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of M i c h i g a n f a r m e r s .

The
in

selected

farming,

Years

in
The

level

characteristics

of

formal

examined

education

and

were

years

occupation.

Farming
chi-square

suggesting
bearing

age,

farmer

on

that
the

score

years

use

13

shows

number

by

years

in

or

and

of

of

analysis

proved

experience

in

non-use

percent

of

soil

farmers

non-significant,
farming

survey

using

have

reports.

soil

survey

no

Table
report

farming.

Age
A

similar

relationship

the

reports.

age

and

use

the

t wo

variables

well

above

of

non-significant

the

significant
crosstabulation
variables.

soil

survey

resulted

.05

alpha

in

level

relationship.
and

tests

a

needed

found

between

crosstabulation

significance

Table
of

A

was

for
14

significance

level
a

of

of

. 8 05 6 ,

statistically
contains

the

for

two

these

59

Table

13.

Number and
R e p o r t s by

Y e a r s in
Farming

Number

P e r c e n t of F a r m e r s
Y e a r s In F a r m i n g .

U s e of
No
Percent*

—

—

5

18

9.5

5

6-10

26

13.7

11-20

35

21-30
30+

Column
Total

1

.5

2.6

23

1 2.6

14

7.4

40

2 1.1

1 8 .4

7

3.7

42

22.1

42

22.1

16

8 .4

58

30.5

20

10.5

6

3.2

26

13.7

1 42

77.7

48

25.3

190

10 0 . 0

♦ P ercent has
respondents.
■

4.373

Cramer's
Number

-

Survey

Survey Report
Yes
Total
Number Percent*
Number Percent*

.5

1-

Soil

Soil

1

0

Using

been

calculated

d.f.

■

5

as

a

part

significance

.15171

of m i s s i n g

of

observations

■

11

the

-

.49

total,

I. e.

190

60

Table

14*

Number
Report

and percent
by A ge *

U s e of
No
Number Percent*

Age

under

2 5 and

of

Farmers

Using

Soil

Survey

Soil

Survey Report
Yes
Total
N u m b e r P e r c e n t * N u m b e r p e r c e n t 11

5

2.6

4

2.6

9

4.5

26-34

15

7.7

6

3.1

21

10.7

35-44

34

17.3

12

6.1

46

23.5

45-54

37

1 8. 9

12

6.1

49

25.0

55-64

35

17.9

11

5 .6

46

23.5

64+

20

10.2

5

2.6

25

12.8

146

74.5

50

25.5

196

100.0

Column

Total

been

♦P er ce nt has
respondents.
x2 -

2.297

Cramerzs
Number

Level

of
A

d.f.

-

of

missing

Formal

of

formal

Table

15

shows

these

a

a

part

significance

of

-

t he

total,

i.e

.806

at
was

high

■

5

Education
relationship

education
the

.015,

and

The
and

rejected.

school

was
use

crosstabulation

variables.

significant

than

5

observations

significant

difference

-

as

. 1 08

level

for

calculated

chi

thus,
In

education

evident,
of

soil

and

other
were

words,

of

between
reports.

significance

analysis

null

more

survey

test

square
the

however,

proved

hypothesis
farmers

likely

to

of

no

with

more

use

soil

196

61

survey

reports

less.

The

While

suggests
those

percent

did

education

had

the

to

user
of

levels.

who

to
no

at

the

ratio

the

the

college

regarded

be

is

some

more

or

strong

the

educational
between
and

the
owing

among

those

level

that

the
total

use.

those

does

total

to

percent

report

group

educated

than

to

25.4

crosstabulation

among

noting

comprised

crosstabulation

74.6

the

lower

report

highly

the

graduate

suspicion,

education

fairly

the

survey

higher

worth

group

a

survey

expect

college

is

soil

soil

and

similarity

graduate

with

to

on

school

show

respondents,

ratio

smallest

ostensible

t he

resemble
It

high

throughout

bearing

crosstabulation.

this

hold

a

.25.

would

education,

non-user

comprised

We

non-user

Only

of

the

tended

not.

with

statistics

used

of

they

ratio

V

a value

percent
that

who

levels

with

those

25.4

farmers

Cramer's

relationship,

only

than

However,
with

with
t he

lower
higher

user

to

ratio

for

college

graduates

(N**12),
low

and

so

the

even

percentages

percentages

small

if

cell

must

size.

for
be

62

Table 15.

Fanners' Level of Formal Education and Use of Soil Survey
Reports.

Level of Formal
Education

Use of Soil Survey Reports
No
Yes
Total
Percent*
Percent* Number Percent* Number

Number

Less than high
school diploma

35

17.8

9

4.6

44

22.3

High school
diploma

83

42.1

20

10.2

103

52.3

1-2 years
college

11

5.6

9

4.6

20

10.2

Bachelor's
degree

9

4.6

9

1.5

18

9.1

Graduate
degree

9

4.6

3

1.5

12

6.1

147

74.6

50

25.4

197

100.0

Column Total

♦ P e r c e n t has bee n
respondents.
«

12.32

Cramer's
Number

calculated

d.f.

*

4

as

a

part

of

significance

the

■

total,

i .e .

197

.015

V =» . 2 5 0

of m i s s i n g

observations

*

4

Occupation
Responses
occupations
shown
used
of

in
the

t he

to

and

use

Table

16.

report,

farmers

questions
of

soil

Of

201

while

did

n ot

50

4

and

survey

10

report

respondents

(25.4%)

respond

to

concerring

had
this

147

used

farmers'

information

are

(74.6%)

n ot

the

had

report.

question.

Of

the

Four
147

63

(74.6%)

who

Part-time
only

in

had

and

not

had

farming.

reports,

22

occupations

whether
survey

28

Table 16.

that

and

50

(25.4%)

farmed

chi
is

is a

report,

occupations

(14.2%)

there

farming

t he

the

(11.2%)

and

report

other
Of

crosstabulation
indicate

used

72

(36.5%)

who

engaged

square

had

farmed
were

used

engaged
survey

and

had

other

in

farming.

shown

in

and

the

use

of

information.

Farmers
Full--time
Part-time
Number
Percent
Percent
Number

Total
percent
Number

No

72

36.5

75

38.1

147

74.6

Yes

28

14.2

22

11.2

50

25.4

100

50.7

97

49.3

197

100.0

Total

■

.4816

Number

of

d.f.
missing

■

1

significance

observations

«

4

-

.48

16

between

Full and Part-time Farmers' Use of Soil Survey Reports.

Use of
the report

The

Table

relationship

occupation

only

soil

only

analyses

significant

Full-time

(38.1%)

Part-time

were

no

75

soil

64

The

The
between
selected

farm

Size

significant

farms

used

acreage),

and

which
type

were

of

farm.

was

found

is a r e l a t i o n s h i p
information
and

examined

were

size

Farm/Acre

A
of

characteristics

(total

of

Hypothesis

third h y p o t h e s i s s t a t e d that there
the
use
of
soil
survey
report
c h a r a t e r i s t i c s of M i c h i g a n f a r m s .

Selected
of

Third

in

soil

Table 17.

relationship

total

survey

acrage

reports,

and
as

whether

shown

in

or

Table

between

the

not

operators

the

17 a n d

sizes

Figure

Acreage of Farms and Farm Operators' Use of Soil Survey
Reports.

Use of Soil Survey Report by Farm Operator
Size of
Farm/Acre

Number

1-

49

27

13.7(90%)

3

1.5(10%)

30

15.2

50- 179

72

36.5(83%)

15

7.6(17%)

87

44.2

180- 499

34

17.3(69.4%)

15

7.6(30.6%)

49

24.9

500- 999

11

5.6(52.4%)

10

5.1(47.6%)

21

10.7

1000:1999

1

.5(25%)

3

1.5(75%)

4

2.0

2000+

2

1.0(50%)

4

2.0(50%)

6

3.0

197

100.0

Column Total

x2 -

147

23.582

Cramer's
Number

of

V

No
Percent

74.6

d .f.
-

Yes
Number

25.4

50

-

5

significance

.345

missing

observations

Total
Number
Percent

Percent

»

4

3

.003

3.

PERCENT OF FARMERS

o
1

to
o
1.

CO
o
1

*
o
1

Ol
o
1

a>
o
1

o
1

OB
o
•

■

CD
o
1

100

Figure

WHO USED S OI L SURVEY R E P O R T

3:
Farm

1-49

Size

50-179 H

and

co
N

Use
of Soil Survey

> m
o o

180-499

co n
w >
3J

500-999-

ON
Ol

a
a n
m

CO

1 0 0 0 - 1 999H

2000

and

up

R eport.

66

As

the

crosstabulation

iindividuals
reports
smaller

at

a

of

rejection

of

of

the

of

and

chi

between
Table
farm.

18

extent

of

null

farms

higher
the

relationship

farms
1)

6)

respondent
one

The
the

categories:

than

larger

to

use

rate

of

no

■

for

survey

those

(.003)

V

is

soil

than

significance

(Cramer's

hypothesis

tendency

with

and

the

.0345)

urge

relationship.

Farm

Types

poultry;

operate

proportionately

farms.

strength

Type

who

d e m o n s t r a t e s , the

cash

general
could

category
square
type
with

of

have
to

were

broken

crop

2)

swine;

livestock;
(and

7)

was

describe

his

evidence

farm

use

summary

of

into
3)

of

no

dairy;

5)

and

8)

other.

A

statistical

have)
The

survey

tests

checked

more

crosstabulation

significant

soil

non-exclusive
4)

to

farm.

8

beef;

fruit;

likely

analyses

and

down

for

relationship
reports.
each

type

See
of

67

Table

18.

T y p e of
Summary

F a r m a n d U s e of S o i l
of S t a t i s t i c a l T e s t s

Survey Reports with
for S i g n i f i c a n c e .

Use of Soil Survey Reports
NoI
Yes
No Response
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Type of
Farm

Significance

Cash Crop

84

42.6

36

18.3

77

39.1

.09

Swine

10

5.1

6

3.0

181

91.1

.38

Beef

25

12.7

14

7.1

158

80.2

.13

Dairy

32

16.2

10

5.1

155

78.7

.94

Poultry

10

5.1

3

1.5

184

93.4

1.0

General
Livestock

12

6.1

2

1.0

183

92.9

.5

Fruit

13

6.6

2

1.0

182

92.4

.41

Other

19

9.6

4

2.0

174

88.3

.49

Note:

See A p pe n d i x
farming.

F

for

specific

tables

for

each

type

of

68

The

Fourth

Hypothesis

The
fourth
hypothesis
stated
that
there
is
a
relationship
between
the
use
of
soil
survey
report
information
and
farmers'
perceptions
about
improving
a g r i c u l t u r e in M i c h i g a n .
This

hypothesis

Service's

Farm

individual

Plan

farmers

The

level

operator
In

type

order

to

effectiveness
respondents
first.
aware

of

that,
the
18

of

(34.6%)

found

aware

program

program

was

of

program

was

not

have

a

of

was

thru

for

24

of

the

92

(45.8%)

t he

program

52

assist

years

farm,

the

program

was

very

use.

useful

Only

1

(see

Table

or

farmer

relationship
useful

results

been

of

to

this

in

age

of

the
were
t he
20

use

6

t he

subset

of

identified

farmers
further

were
shows

actually

it.

Of

useful,*

and

about

52

27

(11.5%)

indicated

used
users

(51.9%)
said

t he

that

t he

2 1) .
characteristics
t he

degree

respondent.

to
See

proved
which
Tables

to
the
22

analysis.

substituted

preserve

of

(1.9%)

with

the

opinions

(56.50%)

not

to

of

Table

did

have

to

were:

program

(42.40%)

deemed

Conservation

soil.

program,

39

useful

questionnaire

size

existence.

the* f a r m

*Synonyms
the

their

examined

plan

that

of

little

t he

of

soil

designed

respondents'

moderately

significant

program

t he

aware

shows

stated

the

None

were

while

was

education,

farm

program's

those

use

the

farm.

the

19

the

program,

of

examine

who

which

best

formal

of

Table

the

with

characteristics

of

and

concerned

Program,

in

selected

farming,

was

for

grammatical

actual

terms

used

construction.

in

69

Table

19*

Farmers' Awareness
Farm Plan.

of

No
Yes
No Response

TOTAL

20.

Farmers'

Use of Farm Plan

Use

Conservation

Service

Farmers
Number
Percent

Awareness of Farm Plan

Table

Soil

of

Soil

182

50.7

92

45.8

7

3.5

201

100.0

Conversation

Service

Farm

Farmers
Number
Percent

No

39

42.40

Yes

52

56.50

1

1.10

No Response

TOTAL

92

100.0

70

Table

21.

D e g r e e of
Farm Flan

U s e f u l n e s s of
Among Users.

Soil

Conservation

Service

Users
Degree of Usefulness

Number

Very Useful

18

34.6

Moderately Useful

27

51.9

Of Little Use

6

11.5

Not Useful

1

1.9

52

100.0

TOTAL

While

there

characteristics
plan
of

program.

program
Table

Is

and
But

no

use
by

of

relationship
t he

Soil

analyzing

between

Conservation

each

table

the

farm/farmer
Service

farm

effectiveness

obvious.
shows

that

farmers

farming

experiences,

have

used

the

(33.3%)

said

was

great

(52.9%) .

22

was

Percent

the

program

with

different

plan.

Of

useful.

51

years

of

users

17

Twenty-seven

71

Table

22.

N u m b e r a n d P e r c e n t of
a n d U s e f u l n e s s of the

Usefulness of
the Farm Plan

4
7.8%

1
2 .0%

9
17.6%

1
2 .0%

17
33.3

Medium

2
3.9%

7
13.7%

5
9.8%

9
17.6%

4
7.8%

27
52.9

Little

1
2 .0%

2
3.9%

1
2 .0%

2
3.9%

0
0

6
11.8

None

1
2 .0%

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

1
2.0

6
11.8%

12.136

program

13
25.5%

d.f . -

was

7
13.7%

12

31+

20
39.2%

5
9.8%

significance

-

51
100.0

. 4 34

1

the

program

little

was

helpful

medium
and

1

and
(2%)

6

(11.8%)

said

the

said

program

useful.
Table

level

plan

Total

2
3.9%

indicated

said

Farming

Great

Response

was

Years of Farming
21-30
11-20

of

6-10

x2 -

not

Years

0-5

Column
Total

No

Farm ers by
F arm Plan.

of

t he

great,
plan
was

23

farmers.

27

usefulness
Of

(51.9%) said

was

not

shows

littleuseful.

useful.

51

of

the

users

the

18

plan was

Only

1

plan and

education

(34.6%) said
medium and
(1.9%)

the
6

plan

(11.5%)

Indicated

the

72

Table

N u m b e r a n d P e r c e n t of F a r m e r s by L e v e l of Formi
E d u c a t l o n a n d U s e f u l n e s s of t he F a r m P l a n •

23.

Level of Formal Education
1-2 Year
Less than
High
of
High School School College Bachelors

Usefulness
of the
Farm Plan

Total

Graduate

Great

3
5.8%

9
17.3%

3
5.8%

1
1.9%

2
3.8%

18
34.6

Medium

4
7.7%

11
2 1 .2%

6
11.5%

5
9.6%

1
1.9%

27
51.9

Little

0
0

3
5.8%

0
0

1
1.9%

2
3.8%

6
11.6

None

0
0

0
0

0
0

1
1.9%

0
0

Column
Total

x2 -

7
13.5%

Table

(52.9%)

9
17.3%

12

significance

d .f. -

13.99

groups.

23
44.2%

24

Of

shows
51

usefulness

users

said

plan

had

little

effect

In

their

useful

at

all.

17

of

(33.3%)

medium

8
15.4%

t he

effect,

farming.

One

6

52
100.0

5
9.6%

■

plan

said

1
1.9

.3008

by

plan

different
was

(11.8%)

(2%)

said

age

great,

17

plan

had

was

not

said
plan

73

Table

24.

N u m b e r and
Usefulness

Usefulness of
the Farm Plan

x2 -

Age

and

55-64

Great

1
2 .0%

4
7.8%

5
9.8%

5
9.8%

2
3.9%

17
33.3

Medium

1
2 .0%

7
13.7%

7
13.7%

9
17.6%

3
5.9%

27
52.9

Little

0
0

3
5.9%

1
2 .0%

2
3.9%

0
0

6
11.8

None

1
2 .0%

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

1
2.0

Column
Total

3
5.9%

V

t he

■
-

1000-1999

in
the

acres

1000-1999

farmers

in

16
31.4%

5
9.8%

significance

12

Total

1-

51
100.0

.09

1

plan

used

13
25.5%

65+

.35101

25

illustrated

14
27.5%

d.f. -

18.851

s tatistically

with

of

Age
45-54

Table

land

Group

35-44

Response

of

by

26-34

Cramer's
No

P e r c e n t of F a r m e r s
of t h e F a r m P la n .

the

shows
by

that

the

different

s ignifleant .
Figure
Farm
used

farm
This

More

Plan

(19),

the

size
is

of

usefuli

categories

shown

Farm

farmers
while

Plan.

represented
on

levels

in

was

Table

26

V

4.

acres
study

different

that

size

with
only

50-179
t wo

However,
50
farm

farmers

the

percent
while

acres

the

t wo
of

with

farmers
all

19

of

the

farmers

74

100-1

P e r c e n t of F a r m e r s in S u r v e y

PERCENT

OF

FARMERS

P e r c e n t of F a r m e r s
Using F ar m P l an

i

o

10

Q»
Oft
*
1
O
CO

Oft
Oft
Oft
1

o
o

Uft

OB
Oft
0)
1

o
o
o
T”

a

3
■o
c
at

o
o
o

CM

SIZE OF FARMS
(ACRES)
F i g u r e 4:

P e r c e n t of F a r m e r s in S u r v e y a n d P e r c e n t
Who Us e d Farm Pl an.

75

on

50-179

the

acres

study

Table

on

25.

represented

that

Number
(acre)

Usefulness of
the Farm Plan

size

and
and

only

22

percent

P e r c e n t of
Usefulness

F a r m e r s by S i z e of
of t h e F a r m i P l a n .

Great

4
7.7%

7
13.5%

5
9.6%

1
1.9%

Medium

2
3.8%

7
13.5%

9
17.3%

Little

2
3.8%

4
7.7%

None

0
0

1
1.9%

Column
Total

8
15.4%

Cramer's
Note:

V ■

d. f.

19
36.5%

-

in

15

Farm

Size of Farm (Acres)
180-499
500-999
1000-1999

50-179

13.476

farmers

the

farm.

1-49

x2 -

of

2000+

Total

0
0

1
1.9%

18
34.6

3
5.8%

2
3.8%

4
7.7%

27
51.9

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

6
11.5

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

1
1.9

4
7.7%

2
3.8%

5
9.6%

14
26.9%

significance

■

.56

.29391

See A p p e n d i x G for s p e c i f i c
f a r m / a c r e a n d u s e f u l n e s s of

tables for type
the farm plan.

of

52
100.0

76

Table

26.

N u m b e r a n d P e r c e n t of F a r m e r s in S u r v e y
F a r m P l a n by S i ze of F a r m ( a c r e ) .

and

Farmers Responses
Size of Farm
(acres)

1-

In Survey
Number
Percent

Used Farm Plan
Number
Percent

•

49

32

15.9

8

50- 179

87

43.3

19

36.5

180- 499

51

25.4

14

26.9

500- 999

21

10.4

4

7.7

1000-1999

4

2.0

2

3.8

2000 or more

6

3.0

5

9.6

201

1 0 0 .0

52

100.0

TOTAL

15.4

Used

77

The

Fifth

Hypothesis

T h e f i f t h h y p o t h e s i s s t a t e d t a h t t h e r e is a r e l a t i o n s h i p
b e t w e e n M i c h i g a n f a r m e r / f a r m c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a n d I n t e r e s t in
attending, soil s u r v e y r e p o r t e d u c a t i o n a l p r o g r a m s .
The

respondents'

programs
attend

were
such

attend;
four

and

measured

4)

to

Attend

Overall
educational

are

Table

willing

27.

to

Yes

TOTAL

27

program.

are

a

of

not

desire
willing

Each

a

for

sake

were

about
shows

attend

1)

most

with

educational

of

to
to

these

total

of

12

total

of

48

brevity,

the

shown.

Programs

(N-107)

F r e q u e n c y of
Programs.

Willingness to Attend

No

t he

Educational

Table

of

year

variables

crosstabulations

programs

information.
who

For

53.2%

of

length

survey

variables:

time

characteristic

non-significant

four

soil

crosstabulated

crosstabulations.

Desire

3)

preferred
was

toward

using

programs;

variables

farm/farmer

feelings

interested

using
number

willingness

soil
and

educational

attending

survey

percent

of

report
farmers

programs.

to a t t e n d

Number of Respondents

in

Educational

Relative Frequency %

94

46.8

107

53.2

201

100.0

78

Farmers
programs
survey
not

which

attended,

soil

this

program

or

only

more

report

of

the

was

programs

was

"faair".

Table

they

had

attended

information
of

the

farmers

twenty-one

educational

Information.

about

the

175

(10.4%)

educational
use

or

of

about

(2.5%)

soil

(87.1%)

reported

programs
Five

any

they

the

had
h ad

use

of

did

not

respond

the

educational

question.

Six

Tables

if

A majority

while

one

survey

asked

pressented

reports.

attended

to

were

"very

28.

respondents
useful",

"useful"

Only

28 a n d

21

29

one

and

(0.5%)

show

the

No
Yes
No Response

TOTAL

while

five

said

nine

(23.8%)

found
results

Number and Percent
Education Programs
Repo r t s .

Attend in
Number of
Educational Program Farmers

(28.6%)

the
of

(42.8%)

said

the

program
these

of F a r m e r s
Concerning

said
program

"not

t he
was

useful".

analyses.

who
Use

have Attended
of S o i l S u r v e y

Relative Frequency
%

Adjusted Frequency
%

175

87.1

89.3

21

10.4

10.7

5

2.5

Missing

201

100.0

100.0

79

Table

29*

F a r m e r R e p o r t s on U s e f u l n e s s
Educational Programs.

of

Soil

Survey

Farmers
Usefulness
of Program

Adjusted Frequency
%

Relative Frequency
%

Number

Very Useful

6

3.0

28.6

Useful

9

4.5

42.9

Fair

5

2.5

23.8

Not Useful

1

.5

4.8

No Response

180

89.6

TOTAL

201

100.0

Missing

100.0

Distance Farmers are Willing to Travel to Attend Educational Programs
Of

the

preferred
of

their

miles.
3 0) .

to

subset
attend

farms,
Only

18

of

such

with

interested
educational

another

(16.8%)

were

43

farmers,
programs

(40.2%)

willing

46

within

willing

to g o

any

to

(43.0
20 m i l e s
go

further

20-40
(Table

80

Table 30.

Distance Fanners will Travel to Attend Educational Programs.

Miles Distance

Number of
Relative Frequency
Adjusted Frequency
Respondents___________%_____________________ %__________

Less than
20 miles

46

22.9

43.0

20-40 miles

43

21.3

40.2

40-60 miles

7

3.5

6.5

60-80 miles

1

.5

1.0

It does not matter

10

5.0

9.3

No Response

94

46.8

201

100.0

TOTAL

Seasonal

Preferences

Most

farmers

sessions

81

spring.

Only

(Table

wlith

(8.4%)

100.0

Educational

preferred

(75.7%)
9

for

Missing

were

the

Programs

winter

another

17

interested

for

t he

(15.9%)
in

educational
favoring

any

other

season

31).

Table 31.

Seasonal Preferences of Farmers Interested in Attending
Educational Meetings During Various Times of the Year.

Time of Year
Number of
Relative Frequency
Adjusted Frequency
_________________ Respondents___________%_____________________ %_________
Winter

81

40.3

75.7

Spring

71

8.5

15.9

Summer

4

2.0

3.7

Fall

5

2.5

4.7

94

46.8

201

100.0

No Response

TOTAL

Missing

100.0

t he

81

Preferred

Length

Most

farmers

sessions

47

sessions

Table

of

preferred

(43.9%)

(Table

32.

Educational

1/2

day

only

8

52

(48.6!?)

(7.5%)

Number of
Respondents

favoring

Educational

Programs

Relative Frequency
%

Preferred

52

25.91

48.6

1 day

47

23.4

43.9

2 day

1

.5

.9

Others

7

3.5

6.6

94

46.7

201

100.0

TOTAL

A

few

significant

crosstabulation
farm/farmer
differences

of

had

to

significant

attend

educational

of

Farm

As

might

between

size

educational

be
of

day

longer

the

be

In
due

relationship
programis

expected,
farm

and

programs;

the

100.0

arose

aforementioned

ignored

and

the
chi

some

in

the

variables

and

cases,

significant

to

small

cell

was

found

between

the

there

by

Missing

relationship

characteristics.

A

Size

1

Adjusted Frequency
%

1/2 day

No Response

or

3 2) .

L e n g t h of
Farmers.

Length of
Program

with

Program

was

following

a

results

desire

to

variables.

positive

respondent's
square

sizes.

relationship

deisre
were

to

attend

significant

82

beyond

the

.0001

level

indicating

a

Table

Farmers'
Programs

33.

Willingness
to Attend

No

*2 ■

Cramer's

relationship.

See

Size of Farm
180-499
500-999

24
11.9%

49
24.4%

16
8 .0%

4
2 .0%

8
4.0%

38
18.9%

35
17.4%

32
15.9%

87
43.3%

51
25.4%

d.f.
V -

-

5

V

Table

W i l l i n g n e s s to A t t e n d
by S i z e of F a r m .

50-179

30-”

Cramer's

the

1-49

Yes

Column
Total

strong

with

score

33

for

of

.389

details.

Educational

1000-1999

1999+

Total

0
0

1

17
8.5%

4
2 .0%

5
2.5%

107
53.2

21
10.4%

4
2 .0%

6
3.0%

201
100.0

significance

-

farmers,

t he

94
46.8%

.5%

.0001

.389

Age
the

Next,
t endency
programs.
a

to

younger
be

This

significance

score

of

.3 7 % ,

Table

34

for

the

interested

relationship
level

of

indicating

details.

in
was

less
a

soil
found

than

strong

greater

survey
to

. 0 00 1 ,
overall

be

was

educational

significant
and

the

a

with

Cramer's

relationship.

V

See

83

Table

34.

N u m b e r a n d P e r c e n t of F a r m e r s b y A g e G r o u p a n d
T h e i r W i l l i n g n e s s to A t t e n d E d u c a t i o n a l P r o g r a m s .

Age
Willingness
to Attend

25 and
under

26-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65 and
over

Total

•

No

5
2.5%

4
2 .0%

14
7.0%

20
10.0%

31
15.5%

19
9.5%

93
46.5

Yes

4
2 .0%

18
9.0%

33
16.5%

29
14.5%

16
8 .0%

7
3.5%

107
53.5

Column
Total

9
4.5

22
11.0

47
23.5

49
24.5

47
23.5

x2 -

27.836

Cramer's
Number

Type

V -

of

of

soil

farmers.
interested
cash

5

significance

■

.0001

. 37 3

missing

crop

observations

farmers

survey

in

the

53.2

»

1

at

significantly

(N-107)

only

Interest.
the

.041

59

more

than

programs

percent

programs,

expressed

significant

details.

showed

educational

Whereas

croppers

proved

-

200
100.0

Farm

Cash
the

d .f.

26
13.0

of

lnteres

other
all

percent

types

famers

(N-72)

The

corrected

level.

See

chi

Table

of

1
the

square
35

f or

84

Table

35.

K i n d s of C r o p s a n d F a r m e r ' s
Educational Programs.

Willingness

Co

Attend

Total Number of
Note-Respondents
Number Percent

Total Nuriber
of Respondents
Nuuber Percent

Kind of Qrop

Willingness to Attend
No Percent Yes Percent

Cash Qrop

50

24.9

72

35.8

122

60.7

79

39.3

.04

Swine

5

2.5

11

5.5

16

8.0

185

92.0

.19

Beef

15

7.5

26

12.9

41

20.4

160

79.6

.14

Dairy

16

8.0

26

12.9

42

20.9

159

79.1

.20

Poultry

6

3.0

7

3.5

13

6.5

188

93.5

.96

General
Livestock

6

3.0

8

4.0

14

7.0

187

93.0

.76

Fruit

5

2.5

10

5.0

15

7.5

186

92.5

.27

Willing

to

Years
of
Travel.

A

Experience

significant

distance

that

programs

and

for

those

distances
proved
V

of

Table

and

a

with

to a t t e n d

36.

indicates

was

of

more

significant
.25

relationship

farmer

years

Distance

willing

farming

at
a

to

educational

t he

.03

fairly

was
to

were

found
travel

experience.

experience
the

Farmers

be

for

willing

significance
strong

between

The

programs.

level of
Significance

educational
tendency

to
The

levels;

relationship

the

was

go

longer

chi

square

a
as

Cramer's
shown

in

85

Table

36.

Farmers'
by Y e ars

I n t e r e s t In A t t e n d i n g E d u c a t i o n a l P r o g r a m s
of F a r m i n g a n d V a r i o u s T r a v e l D i s t a n c e s .

Years in Farming
21-30
6-10
11-20

Distance to Travel

0-5

Less than 20 miles

10
9.4%

7
5.6%

12
11.3%

14
13.2%

2
1.9%

45
42.5

20-40 miles

3
2.8Z

16
15.1%

9
8.5%

11
10.4%

4
3.8%

43
40.6

40-60 miles

0
0

2
1.9%

1
0.9%

1
0.9%

3
2 .8%

7
6.6

60-80 miles

0
0

0
0

1
0.9%

0
0

0
0

1
0.9

It doesn't matter

1
0.9%

1
0.9%

4
3.8%

4
3.8%

0
0

10
9.4

. 14
13.2%

26
24.5%

27
25.5%

30
28.3%

d.f.

16

significance

Column
Total

x2 -

27.404

Cramer's
Number

Level

V

of

of

Formal

a

of

proved

Education
also

degree

Table

V

of
37

.37

for

a
to

than

significant

Cramer's
See

was

observations

schooling

greater

9
8.5%

*

106
100.0

.037

. 2 45

missing

There
levels

=

-

Total

31+

at

and

»

Time

tendency
favor
less

indicating

of

for

Year
t he

non-winter

educated

less

details.

95

than
a

farmers
education

farmers.
the

strong

with

.0001
overall

The

higher

sessions
chi

level,

to

dquare
with

a

relationship.

86

Table

37.

S e a s o n a l P r e f e r e n c e s f or E d u c a t i o n a l p r o g r a m s
T i m e of Y e a r a n d L e v e l of F o r m a l E d u c a t i o n .

by

Level of Formal Education
Time of
Year

High School

High School

1-2 years
College Bachelor

Total 1

Graduate

Winter

14
13.1%

47
43.9%

10
9.3%

8
7.5%

2
1.9%

81
75.7

Spring

3
2 .8%

9
8.4%

1
0.9%

3
2 .8%

1
0.9%

17
15.9

Summer

1
0.9%

0
0

0
0

0
0

3
2 .8%

4
3.7

Fall

0
0

2
1.9%

1
0.9%

2
1.9%

0
0

5
4.7

58
54.2%

12
11.2%

13
12.1%

Column
Total

■

18
16.8%

45.41

Cramer's
Number

V

of

d.f.
-

farmers
did

tended

than

38.

chi

square

V of

.304,

Cramer's

significance

observations

sessions
The

12

-

.0000

.376

missing

Dairy

■

107
100.0

6
5.6%

non-dairy
proved

■

to

94

prefer

farmers,
significant

indicating

a

strong

shorter
as
at

educational

Indicated
the

in

0.0178

relationship.

Table
with

a

87

Table

38.

Dairy

Farmers

Program

Length of Program

Preferred

.

Length

of

Dairy farmer
No
Yes
Number Percent
Number Percent

Educational

Total
Number Percet

1/2 day

32

29.4

20

18.3

52

47.7

1 day

41

37.5

6

5.5

47

43.1

2 day

1

.9

0

0

1

.9

Others

8

7.3

1

.9

9

8.3

82

75.2

27

24.8

109

100.0

TOTAL

x2 -

d.f.

10.095

Cramer's
Number

of

V ■

significance

23

»

.01

.304

missing

Sources

-

of

Question

observations

Contact

7 was

farmer's

had

regarding

their

frequency

of

about

designed

contact

such

contact

1.

Never

2.

Seldom

3.

Occasionally

4.

Often

92

Farmers

to

with

general

»

soil
were

General

determine

other

whether

sources

problems.

Soil

Four

established.

of

Problems

or

not

t he

Information

categories

for

88

Among

different

Farmers"

"Cooparative

Service"

and

listed

sources
soil

of

Persons"

"Vocational
"New

Information

for

individuals

Table

sources

information,
farmers

not

39

of

when

they

countryside

shows

on

"Soil

were

the

Conservation

most

the

who

amount

journals,

frequently

least

cited

dl ' s s c u s s e d

their

of

contact

Other

with

sources

questionnaire,

responded,

"Other

Instructure",

Media" were

information.

included

contact

Agriculture

and

problems.

supplier,

Sales

of

Service",

"Banker"

different

the

Extension

"Commercial

and

"Consultant",

possiblesources

but

included:

of

listed

by

fertilizer

farmjournals,

books

and

magazines.

T a b l e 3 9.

Souroe of
Infonrnrim
Other Fumeis

F a r m e r s * C o n t a c t w i t h V a r i o u s S o u r c e s of I n f o r m a t i o n
about General S o il Problems.

thamr
timber Percent

Fteqimncy of fflsnisatan
Saldcm
Occssicnnally
imbar fexoeat
timber Percent

Often
timber Percent

No Baseness
timber ifercait

9

4.5

11

5.5

■91

45.3

28

13.9

62

30.9

Cooperative
Hjctamlan Service

42

20.9

20

10.0

52

25.9

15

7.5

72

35.8

Soil Qxmervetlna
Service

44

21.9

19

9.5

54

26.9

10

5.0

74

36.8

43

21.4

16

8.0

33

16.4

21

10.4

88

43.8

Hub fe lla

73

36.3

7

3.5

10

5.0

8

4.0

103

51.3

Barter

BI

40.3

9

4.5

11

5.5

2

1.0

98

48.8

Vocational
Agriculture Ins.

SO

39*8

14

7.0

8

4.0

00

0.0

99

49.3

Others

47

23^

00

0.0

00

0.0

2

I.X

152

75.6

Nona at the Abne

36

17.9

00

OX

00

0.0

00

0.0

165

82.1

dsnsrclal

89

Soli

Soil

management

farmers.
faced

Of

with

problems.
Four

the
soil

(2.0%)

did

Soil

used

problems.
In

as

results

of

40.

and

septic

(46.8%)

not

the

did

Service
the

(3%)

least

t he
farm

have

tank

report

was

any

reported

used

and

referred

to

they

Michigan

system

problems.

sources

help
to

two

to

to

from
solve

other

named

magazines,

the

which
their

sources

abouve
and

be

of

Including

professors

at

University.

they
that

12.1
got

farmers

help

from.

were

asked

Tables

to

40

check

and

41

as
show

N u m b e r a n d P e r c e n t of F a r m e r s
Soil Management Problems.

who

Reported

Farmers

No
Yes
No Response

many
t he

analysis.

Have Soil Management Problems

TOTAL

been

question.

Information

addition

question

sources

many

compaction

laboratories,

State

In

Six

for
said

were

obtained

103

problem
(51.2%)

answer

bankers

farmer's

Michigan

Table

not

Problems

major

Conservation

and

testing

a

respondents

erosion,

Information
soil

Is

Ninety-four

The
most

201

Management

Number

Percent

94

46.8

103

51.2

4

2.0

201

100.0

having

90

Table

41.

S o u r c e s of I n f o r m a t i o n f o r
Soil M a nagem ent Problems.

Farmers

Seeking

Help

on

Farmers
Source of Information

Number

Percent

Soil Conservation Service

53

26.4

Cooperative Extension Service

46

22.8

Other Farmers

41

20.4

Commercial Salesperson

29

14.4

News Media

10

5.0

County Health Department

7

3.5

Others

6

3.0

Vocational Agriculture Instructors

5

2.5

Consultant

3

1.5

Banker

1

.5

TOTAL

201 *

100.0

♦ N u m b e r of f a r m e r s w h o a r e h a v i n g s o i l p r o b l e m s Is n o t e q u a l
t o 103, t h e a c t u a l n u m b e r of T a b l e 41 f r e q u e n c y .
The r e a s o n
f o r t h i s d i f f e r e n c e Is t h a t s o m e m a r k e d m o r e t h a n o n e s o u r c e
of i n f o r m a t i o n .

91

Soil

Of

201

samples

for

soil

respondents
soil

testing

frequency

Table

42.

of

1 49

testing.
their

breakdown

of

Number and
So i l s .

Testing

(74.10%)

Fifty-one

particular
soil

samples

Percent

of

had

taken

(24.40%)

fields.

their

had

Table

never
42

testing.

Farmers

who

Test

Their

Farmers
Number of Years

Number

Percent

Every

2- 3 years

74

36.70

Every

4- 6 years

48

23.90

Every

7-10 years

14

7.00

Every 11-15 years

13

6.50

Never

51

25.40

1

.50

201

100.00

No Response

TOTAL

soil
had

shows

92

FOOTNOTES

CHAPTER

IV

^Ralph Hepp, and Linda Halsey, (1978).
" P r o g r a m m i n g for
small,
part-time
farmers."
(Summary
of
Proceedings
of an
E x t e n s i o n I n - S e r v i c e T r a i n i n g W o r k s h o p or E d u c a t i o n a l P r o g r a m
Innovations' for S m a l l / P a r t - t i m e Far m O p e r a t o r s .
Staff paper
7 8 - 2 6 , D e p a r t m e n t of A g r i c u l t u r a l E c o n o m i c s , M i c h i g a n S t a t e
University, East Lansing).

CHAPTER

ANALYSIS
AND

In

OF

INTERVIEWS

SOIL

to

problems

and

use

Michigan,

t he

and

Conservation

Soil

counties
telephone
the

interview

directors.

Soil

of

the

and

of

understanding

farmers

t he

use

by

a

were

In

Soil

survey

Extension
of

was

Directors

week

and

assisted
t he

t wo

of

interviews.

only

o ne

unable

to

of

the

respond.

researcher

in

(Cooperative

Service)

information

t he

telephone

the

offices

Conservation

to e a c h

t he

the

in

selected

before

mailed

for

was

soil

Service

the

simplified
base

common

Information

One

cooperative

report

of

each

questions

common

of

DIRECTORS

report

telephone.

of

EXTENSION

Cooperative

procedure

roles

soil

survey

study

and

DISTRICT

Districts

list

COUNTY

understanding

t he

District
the

Service

to

of

provided

directors

part

Extension

a

an

soil

This

Conservation

This

of

interviewed

communication
All

obtain

directors

were

WITH

CONSERVATION

order

V

in

helping

accurately

and

w i s e l y .'
In

general,

compaction,
some
All

drainage,

counties
the

sought

t he

and

directors
information

directors

fertility

sources
believed
about

of

pH

concern

that

soil

and

identified

in

farmers

survey

93

as

major
all
in

reports.

erosion,
problems

in

t he

counties.

thier

districts

94

Farmers

When

and

asked

Their

whether

Use

farmers

without

additional

farmers

were

without

help, w h i l e three

of

farmers

werenot

use

Suggested
farm

visits,

report.
report
use

a b l e to

means

of

and

information

of

the

yields

per

tours,

and

of

t he

Four

indicated

individual
information,

courses.

in

and

farmer
soil

that
that

protect

to
the

Help

From

farmers

help.

meetings,
management

soil

the

survey

farmers

their

help

to
use

not

such

tell
soil

reports.

needed

should

soils

and

from

help

farmers

by

field

asked

about

this

conducting
to

information,
They

county

to

how

also

which

meetings,

the

respond

Offices

training

When

available
did

County

classes,

shows.

offered

meetings

tables

general,

understanding

believed

to

in

without

of

better

short

directors

they

how

in

helpful,

that

slide

nine

were

that

Information

that,

interpretation

order

through

educational/technical
five

help

reports

stated

report

Information

such

survey

directors

believed

the

Report

soli

survey

them

Technical

felt

offered
and

in

use

the

soil

very

Survey

acre.

directors

be

of

directors

was

Soil

could

farmers

information

The

various

to

help

Educational

could

use

providing

Information

increase

six

Individual

to

All

such

help,

able

of

offices,
question.
group,

look

and

up

how

provided

to

or

soil
use

refresher

95

Farmers

Each
of

the

this
no;

Seeking

director

was

frequency

included
all
or

advice.

more

educated

the

Cooperative

to

seek

also

about

Survey

not

by

anyone
they

more

Extension

They

or

calls

help

general,

farmers

ask

or

Soil

farmers

Soil

that

whether

to

that
and

soil

survey

report

each

listed

a

was

them

for

larger

and

advice

Conservation

younger

kept

answer

comes

believed

were

and

The

information

and

stated

who

Report

records

characteristics.

they

In

about

whether

visits

that

help

likely

of

asked

farm/farmer

stated

personnel.

Information

District

farmers

information

from

were

more

than

older

f arme r s .
The
which

directors

farmers

Cooperative
sources

may

go

Extension

mentioned

directly

to

graduates

and

Further

one

that

know

Plan

asked

that

f or

Use

what
to
his

help

the

soil

providing

those

Survey

changes
use

program

short

short

places

don't

go

Personnel.

on

to
to

Other

commercial
One

larger

of

the

farms

because

they

go
are

professors.

Soil

survey

they

magazines.

University,

farmers

current

focusing

of

the

of

if

other

neighbors,
farm

some

future

conducting

on

and

of

of

Conservation

State

some

recommended

suggested

Soil

included

Michigan

programs

felt

information,

consultants,

directors

their

or

mentioned

salespersons,

When

for

number

they

news

would

soil
was

courses
report

Report

Information

like

survey

to

soils,

on

and

mostly

information.

articles

in

information;

appropriate,
on

see

discrete

They

six
by
also

sections

96

of

t he

soil

Extension
letters

news

to

identified

by

to

show
soil

did

Soil

that

respond

to

use

of

Soil

the

newspapers.
Service

news

report.

S o me

be

how

Service

characteristics
they

can

use

characteristics.
this

conducted

Conservation

soil

and

soils,

local

demonstrations

and

scientists

in

Conservation

farmers how

their
not

use

promote

Extension

understand

directors

and

recommended

Cooperative
to

and

explain

also

personnel

r e por t for

letters,

help

directors
by

survey

the

are
report

Two

of

t he

t he

t wo

question.

Summary

In

summary,

agencies

in t h e

identified
they
to

all

felt

reports
they

currently

this

inquiry.

records

on

anyone

that

t he

older,

help

seek

less

calls

comes
more

information

tended

Six

informants

of

using

the
soil

to

survey

to

help

for

help

with

assistance

confirm

results

suggested

more
large

of

programs

not

the
to

useful
use

indicate

advice

and

larger

that

spreads.
farmer

to

keeps
they
felt

spreads

frequently

aid

the

respond

currently

all

or

farmers

without

reports.

they

be

could

all
While

Indicated

did

directors

farmers

could

Four

five

and

counties.

farmers

not.

visits,

them

or

felt

t he

of

intervlwed

their

but

of

or

directors

information

did

educated

Information

educated

in

six

three

none

the

were

report

such

Although

younger,

to

and

offer

who

of

extant

counties,

farmers'*

help

ten

counties

survey

their

without

of

problems

soil

in

out

five

soil

farmers

tended

nine

than
This

survey.

farmers

in

CHAPTER

SUMMARY,

This
the

chapter

present

future

will

study,

studies

information

CONCLUSIONS

about

AND

contain

i ts

VI

a

RECOMMENDATIONS

very

conclusions

effective

brief

and

use

description

recommendations

of

soil

survey

of
f or

report

in M i c h i g a n .

Summary

The
increased

rapid

increase

demand

been

increasing

need

to

about
of

their

the

have

have

for
at

Michigan

been

a

soil

purpose

of

survey

information.

planning

food

has

production

than

population.

and

reliable

management.

been

surveyed

survey

reports

created

Farmers

Information

More
and

has

than

t he

through

half

results
the

Soil

Service.

of

farmers

soil

have

understanding

and

rate

population

since

accurate

good

as

world

fiber

slower

counties

primary

report

the

and

to

and

published

Conservation
The

food

access

soils

in

Michigan

were

future

used

use

of

to
soil

this

farmers

study

awareness

Selected
try

to

survey

97

was

to

gain

and

use

characteristics

determine
reports.

a

better
of

of

soil
farms

information

for

98

The
the

origin,

United

States,

education,

were

According
has
in

had

to

an

their

formal

purpose

role

as

the

in

in

Previous

nonformal
their

of

a

studies,

important

in

use

well

included

farming.

farmers

as

previous

and

and

soil

of

survey

studies

also

do

decision-making

and

farmer

information
a

better

confirm

highly

that

beneficial

use

in

literature.

report

farmers

is

of

the

helping

education

reports

importance

review

soil

survey

of

j ob
both
to

Improved

practices.
In
use

the

with

mailed

a

t he

of

persons

were

randomly

were

directors

were

Conservation
Interviews

types

of

soil

soils

problems

All

in

using

data

t he
soil

received

whose

names

mailing

list

Conservation

persons

was

in

of

by

of

telephone

was

survey

the

provided

and

given

the

201

four

were
and
used

were

farmer

analysis.

from

t he

Service
t he

five

with

nine

unavailable

Information
areas,

in

for

Service.

which
and

secured

each

from

use

Extension

Interviews

survey

the

and

f or

developed

Questionnaires

characteristics

director

These

from

302

identified

conducted

(One

likely

farm

Distrcts

interview).

from

was

counties

selected

Cooperative

were

directors.

five

information

of

farmers.

Stabilization

Two

Additional

questionnaire

in

received

operators.

a

Michigan

500

characteristics

were

hand,

Agricultural

Responses
farm

at

sample

to

addresses
by

study

for

county

and

Soil

counties.
of
a

t he

ten

telephone

insights

about

to

operators,

extent

farm
to

which

the

farmers

reports.
farm

operators

were

transferred

99

to

Computer

Data

Coding

placed

into

hypothesis

about

farmer

usefullness

of

Cards,

use

of

and

soil

chi-square

Forms,
CYBER

were
750

punched

for

all

awareness,

survey

reports

statistical

Fortran

analysis.

use

were

into

and

tested

Five

perceived
through

t he

t he

test.

Conclusions

The

first

extent

to

modern

soil

objective

which

one-half
reports.

Michigan

survey

of

the

who

Service

information.

None

farmers,
first

research
One

as

a

through

found

farmers

were
was

of

their

out

determine

aware

of

the

concluded

that

aware

more

of

indicated
the

the

source
that

information.

through

size

form,

Soil

of

such

they

Some

indicated

reports

than

published

that

Indicated

comments,

published

of

that

the

had
the
they

present

questionnaire.
farm

characteristic,

awareness

on

with
t he

other

occupation

of

of

larger

education

statistically
four

to

not

such

the

associated

of

was

frequently

written

level

formal

was

farmers
of

about

were

aware,

t he

source

study

were

most

characteristic,

farmers

It

respondents

Those

bankers

this

reports.

Conservation

used

of

formal
of

farms

were

significant

and

education,

and

were

the

soil

survey

and

with

t he

most

aware

association

c h a r a c t e r 1 st is
farmer,

of

(type

years

in

of

one
found

of

the

was

found

farming)

to

reports.

higher

farm,

farmer

The

levels

of

reports.

No

between

each

age
and

be

of

farmer,

awareness

of

100

the

reports.
The

the

extent

report
of

second
to

objective

which

information.
indicated

However,
the

significant

that
the

use

soil

the

of

likelihood

the

and

of

in

of

occupation,

years

soil

report

survey

terms

of

of

the

As

operate

larger

education
higher

to

report.

rate

there
farms,

use
than

farm

characteristics.

A

level
It

goes

survey

reports
was

of

education

was

concluded

u p,

in

of

general,

increases.

found

between

farmers

farming)

farm characteristics,

and

that

of

and

use

No
each

( ag e ,
of

the

information.

was

concluded

reports

two

education

in

report

the

terms

information.

experience

survey

useful.

between

characteristics

relationship

of

found

relationship

significant
use

farmer

soil

significant

threeother

In

examined

used

if

one-fourth

survey

who

also

soil

than

soil

were

formal

use

the

determine

using

reports

was

to

less

respondents

report

of

were

that

of

four

survey

was

survey

was

level

statistically

found

all

relationship

of

as

was

soil

objective

characteristics

and

It

study

farmers

r ep o r t e d use

that

This

t he

Michigan

information.

respondents

of

found
a

between

result

is

a

and

who

of

tendency

soil

survey

those

with

a

have

smaller

the

the

at

size

analyses

for

of
it

individuals

higher

reports

statistically

level
a

of

farm
was
whor

formal

proportionately

farms

and

study was

to

less

formal

education.
The
extent

to

third

o b j e c t i v e of

which

Michigan

this

farmers

believe

use

of

examine
soil

the

survey

101

report

Information

Michigan.
with

This

the

order

to

to

assist

farmers

examine

the

of

were

the

of

the

of

the

one-half

of

those

plan,

plan

was

useful.

No

statistically

the

any

Soil

the

fourth
to

attending
part

of

soil

one-half

of

educational
about

ten

reported

the

The
distance

the

meetings,
meetings

respondents
they

preferred,
A

of

and

were

were

might

either

willing

to

were

soil

travel

relationship

of

t he
who

one-half
more

than

had

used

they

taht

was
and

to

the

found
use

examine

of

analyzed.
interest
survey

this

More

than

attending

Indicated
of

attend,

While

they

those

"very

measured
to

in

in

In

reports.

or

the

interested

programs.

"useful"

were

length

about

but

be

three-fourths

feelings

preferred

significant

was

respondents

nearly

In

indicated

study

indicated
the

soil.

plan.

farmers

on

is

than

reported

report educational

based

Itself

respondents

plan,

in

which

their

relationship

this

respondents

of

characteristics

farm

of

plan,

Less

(98.1%)

farmer

concerned

of

t he

plan

characteristics

percent

such

or

Michigan

programs

attended

of

agriculture

opinions

subset

the

Service

survey

the

use

best

identified.

of

objective

farm/farmer

the

significant

farm

which

farm

nearly all

Conservation

The
extent

users

Service

aware

aware

Among

hypothesis)

the

were

were

i t.

between

the

in

improving

respondents

pain

respondents

in

(and

Conservation

effectiveness
aware

important

objective

Soil

designed

is

had

persons

useful."

regarding
time

of

t he
year

pr<7g r a m .
was

found

between

size

of

102

farm,

age,

education
null

type
and

was

no

attend

in

farming,

educational

relationship

rejected

and

level

as

following

formal

programs.

measured

results

of

by

were

test

concluded:

2.

Y o u n g e r f a r m e r s t e n d to
educational programs.

3.

As
is
is

4.

C a s h c r o p f a r m e r s t e n d to be m o r e I n t e r e s t e d in
educa t i o n a l programs about soil survey reports
farmers with other Interprises.

be m o r e

The

the

As f a r m s i z e i n c r e a s e s t h e d e s i r e to a t t e n d
s u r v e y r e p o r t e d u c a t i o n a l p r o g r a m s t e n d s to
interested

soil
g o up.
in

y e a r s of e x p e r i e n c e in f a r m i n g i n c r e a s e s , t h e r e
a t e n d e n c y for an i n c r e a s e s the d i s t a n c e a farme r
w i l l i n g to t r a v e l to a t t e n d m e e t i n g .

than

5.

In g e n e r a l t h e r e s p o n d e n t s p r e f e r r e d t h e w i n t e r
months
for
educational
meetings.
Only
the
more
e d u c a t e d f a r m e r s t e n d e d to f a v o r m o n - w i n t e r m o n t h s
for educational programs.

6.

The most preferred length for ed uc at i on al programs
was
"l-day,"
"1/2
day".
Mostly
dairy
farmers
p r e f e r r e d t h e " 1 / 2- d a y " s e s s i o n s .
results

interest
survey

report

farmers
tours,

The
examine

this

what

received

among

confirmed
and

have

farmers

or
it

through

Extension

needed

fifth
the

study

shown

that

in o r d e r

to

there
best

is

an

use

soil

county

Soil

information.

was

Conservation

report,

of

in e d u c a t i o n

This

have

of

to

years

1.

The

field

farm,

desire

hypothesis

instrument

that

of

extent
help

last
to
in

through

shows

contains,
or

Service

training

slide

interviews

to

and

how

objective
which

using

Directors
short

explain
it

can
of

Michigan

soil

with

survey

classes,

the
be

who

revealed
meetings,

purposes

of

the

was,

to

used.

this

study

farmers
reports

believe
from

they

several

103

selected

farmer-serving

The

questionnaire

sources
general

for

Second,
was

was

sources

of

a spicific
with

t he

responses

were

in

on

the

farmers

are

most

sources:

Soil

Service,

other

The

Farmers,"

as

asked

data

of

order

frequencies).
or

"Seldom"

Aquirlture

or

Sales
The

used

instructor,"

on

by

soils

use

of

soils

a

eight

problems.
problems

listed

was

but

concluded

problems

Cooperative

t he

general

four

Extension

Persons"

soils

sources

Service,"

were

respondents

problems

were

"Soil

(listed

where

"Banker,"

from

that

salespersons.

"Often"

the

First,

management

it

about

sources

with

no.

commercial

Extension

"Commercial

or

of

sources

Service,

"Occasional"

"Cooperative

&oil

study

help

information

and

"Never"

and

yes

this

seek

farmers,

about

possible

of

in

likely

Service"
of

form

dealing

problems.

frequency

about

eight

items

soils

information

same
t he

two

about

Conservation

sources

Identified

about

question

asked

Based

contained

information

question

possible

organizations?

"Other

Conservation
in d e c r e a s i n g
identified

were

as

"Vacational

"Consultant,"

and

"News

Media."
The

four

management
"Cooperative

most

frequently

problems
Extension

S a l e s p e r s o n s ."

were

checked
"Soil

Service,"

sources

of

Conservation

"Other

Farmers,"

help

on

soil

Service,"
"Commercial

104

Recommendations

In

the

review

communications
and

in

the

Soil

relatively
survey

of

the

soil

of

study

existence

of

soil

need

to

most

likely

to

soil

survey

reports.

Small
be

acreage

targets

research

result

for

is

needed

of

cost

effectiveness

should

soils

also

To

should
problem
and

be

Service

solving,

and

alternative
information
The

to

farmer

use

soil

of

farmers

are

Various

channels

determine

become

educated

groups

would

be

program

for

unaware

which

ones

aware

farmers

information.

two

which
a

that

many

less

these

University

apparent

farmers

report

such

farmers

The

Soil

methods
from

better

of

of
are
the

should

Additional

to

determine

the

most

useful.

The

these

soil

literature

understand

several

alternative

simulated

Personnel
the

to

information,

considered.

others.

and

State

t wo

groups

considered.

reports
be

helping

personal

became

reports.

examined

among

it

and

done.

that

survey

survey

of

been

show

information

educate

survey

has

in

Michigan

regarding

holders

soil

kind

be

at

Service

research

results

literature

experts

information

communication

t he

Conservation

little

report

The

with

of

problems,

in

both

of

helping

survey
review

use

alternative
methods

soil

methods

should

include

individualized

modules,

Cooperative

Extension

the

Conservation

and

Service

farmers

should

learn

to

plan

for

use

the

reports.
indicated

that

an

Extension

105

Service

project

spreads

as

educated
it

is

should

aides

provide

neighboring

farmers

these
be

less

tool

in

that

soil

survey

Additional
Cooparative

currently
Such
which

a

e f fect i v e n e s s .

Since

it

who
is

considered.

f a r m e r s - n e i g h b o r , who

could

puthing

be

prove

soil

a

powerful

survey

research

needs

Extension

and

Soil

Conservation

use

soil

survey

might

various

and

less

spreads

information,

technique

himself,

the

success*

smaller

report

successful

to

larger

report

u s e.

helping

study

a

reports

disseminating
into

with

survey

with

education

considerable

educational
from

farmers

specific

farmers

soil

this

assistance

information

how

for

educated

had

educated

targets

One-to-one
used

were

to

recommended

has

using

farmers

include

communication

a

to

be

conducted

are

of

being

determine

personnel

report

determination

channels

to

are

information.

the
used

extent
and

to

their

106

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aldrich,

Bender,

S a m u e l R . , a n d W o r t h e n , E d m o n d L. ( 1 9 5 6 ) *
Farm
Soils, their F e r t i l i z a t i o n and M a n a g e m e n t .
Fifth
e d i t i o n , J o h n W i ley and Sons, Inc., New York.
C h a p m a n & Hall, l i m i ted , London.
W i l l i a m H. ( 1 9 6 1 ) .
Soils S u i t a b l e for
Filter Fi e l d s .
U S D A S o i l C o n s . S er .

Septic Tank
B u l l e t i n . 243.

Bldwell,

O.W., and Bohannon, R.A. (1960).
Saline County
K a n s a s , P r o m o t e s its S o i l S u r v e y .
Reprint Flow
J o u r n a l of S o i l a n d W a t e r C o n s e r v a t i o n ,
v o l . 15,
n o . 3.

Bohbltt,

J o h n F. ( 1 9 8 0 ) .
S t a t e U n i v . , E.

Boul,

Personal
Lansing.

Communication.

Michigan

S.W., Hole, F.D., and M c C r a c k e n , R.J. (1973).
S o il
Genesis and C l a s s i f i c a t i o n .
The Iowa State
u n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . , A m e s . I ow a , p . 3 1 1 - 3 2 0 .

Bradfield,

Bryant,

D.J. (1966).
G u i d e to E x t e n s i o n T r a i n i n g .
Food
a n d A g r i c u l t u r a l O r g a n i z a t i o n of U n i t e d N a t i o n s ,
Rome, Italy.
p . 7-27

Kearl and Hadley, Reed. (1957).
Agricultural
Communication Services.
N a t i o n a l p r o j e c t in
A g r i c u l t u r a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n s , E. L a n s i n g , M i c h i g a n
i n C o o p e r a t i o n w i t h t he O f f i c e of t he F o o d a n d
Agriculture, International Cooperation
Administration.
W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.

Combs,

P h i l i p H. w i t h A h m e d , M a n z o o r . ( 1 9 7 4 ) .
Attacking
Rural Poverty, How Non-formal Education can H e l p .
B a l t i m o r e : The J o h ns H o p k i n s U n i v e r s i t y Press, p . 8 .

Davis,

P h i l i p B. ( 1 9 6 1 ) .
"Selected Factors Associated with
A t t e n d a n c e at A d ult F a r m e r C l a s s e s . "
Agricultural
E d u c a t i o n m a g a z i n e . 33: 1 7 9 - 1 8 1 , F eb . 1 98 1 .

Dregne,

H.E. (1976) .
S o i l s of A r i d
U n i v . L u b b o c k , TX.
p . 14.

Fisher,

Charles. (1980).
Personal
C o n s e r v a t i o n S e r v i c e . E.

Flood,

S.,

Regions.

Texas

Tech.

C o mm un i ca ti on USDA.
Lansing, Michigan.

Soil

R i e f f o r d , B. ( 1 9 6 4 ) .
Factors Associated with
S u c c e s s of A d u l t E d u c a t i o n in V o c a t i o n a l
A g r i c u l t u r e in A r k a n s a s , P h . D . T h e s i s , F a y e
H e v i l l e : U n i v e r s i t y of A r k a n s a s , p p . 233.

107

Food

and

Galloway,

Agriculture Organization
(1962).
A g r i c u l t u r e in
I t a l y , p . 22.

o f the U n i t e d N a t i o n s .
the W o u l d E c o n o m y .
Rome,

H a r r y M. ( 1 9 6 6 ) .
Soil S u r v e y a n d U r b a n D e v e l o p m e n t
--an Educational Approach.
In S o i l S u r v e y s a n d
L a n d U se P l a n n i n g .
P u b l i s h e d by t h e S o i l S c i e n c e
S o c i e t y of A g r o m y , M a d i s o n , W i s c o n s i n .
C h a p t e r 15,
p p . 137-146.

Hepp,

R a lp h and Halsey, Linda. (1978).
" P r o g r a m m i n g for
Small/Part-time Farmers."
S u m m a r y of P r o c o o d i n g s
o f a n E x t e n s i o n I n - S e r v i c e T r a i n i n g W o r k s h o p or
E d u c a t i o n a l Program I n n o va t io ns for S m a l l / P a r t - t i m e
Farm Operators.
S t a f f P a p e r . 7 8 - 2 6 , D e p a r t m e n t of
Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University,
E. L a n s i n g .

Heep,

R a l p h E.
" C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of M i c h i g a n ; Small F a r m s " .
(1977).
St aff p a pe r No. 77-73.
D e p a r t m e n t of
Agricultural Economics Michigan State University.

Johnson,

G l e n n L. ( 1 9 7 6 ) .
Some L e s s o n s Fro m the IMS.
P a p e r N o . 7 6 - 5 . D e p a r t m e n t of A g r i c u l t u r a l
E c o n o m i c s , M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , p . 23.

Kellogg,

C h a r l e s E. ( 1 9 6 6 ) .
Soil S u r v e y for C o m m u n i t y
P l a n n i n g In S o i l S u r v e y s a n d L a n d U s e P l a n n i n g .
S o i l S c i e n c e S o c i e t y of A m e r i c a a n d A m e r i c a n
S o c i e t y of A g r o n o m y , M a d i s o n , W i s c o n s i n , C h a p t e r
p p . 1-7.

Lincoln,

Staff

1,

David Kelsey and Cannon, Chiles Hearne. (1963).
Cooporatlve Extension W o r k .
Comstock Publishing
Associates.
A D i v i s i o n of C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y ,
p r e s s , I t h a c a , New- Y o r k . p . l.

Lionberger, Herbert. (1960).
A d o p t i o n of N e w I d e a s a n d
Practices.
The Iowa S t a te U n i v e r s i t y Press, Ames.
Iowa.
M a w b y , R u s s e l l G. a n d H a v e r , C e c i l B. ( 1 9 6 1 ) .
T y p e s of
S o u r c e s ’ of I n f o r m a t i o n U s e d b y F a r m e r s .
Chapter 2
i n A S t u d y of M a n a g e r i a l P r o c e s s e s o f M i d - W e s t e r n
Farmers.
G l e n n L. J o h n s o n , A l b e r t H"I H a l t e r ,
H a r o l d R. J o h n s o n a n d D. W o o d s T h o m a s , ( E d s ) .
Iowa
S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Pre ss, Ames. Iowa.
M o k m a , D e l b e r t L. ( 1 9 7 8 ) .
Soil m a n a g e m e n t U n i t s and
Planning.
e x t e n s i o n Bui. E-1 262 , M i c h i g a n
U n i v e r s i t y , E. L a n s i n g , M i c h i g a n , p . 3.

Land Use
State

108

Morris,

J o h n G. ( 1 9 6 6 ) .
T h e U s e of S o i l I n f o r m a t i o n in U r b a n
Planning and Implementation.
In S o i l S u r v e y a n d
land Use P l a n n i n g .
S o i l S c i . S o c. A m . a n d A m e r i c a n
S o c . of A g r o .
Madison, Wisconsin.
C h a p t e r 5,
p .37-41.

Niehoff,

Olson,

Olson

D. R i c h a r d . ( 1 9 7 7 ) .
N o n - F o r m a l E d u c a t i o n and the
R u r a l P o o r P r o g r a m o f S t u d i e s in N o n - F o r m a l
E d u c a t i o n Institute for International Studies,
C o l l e g e of E d u c a t i o n .
Michigan State University,
E. L a n s i n g , M I . p . 22.

G.W. (1964).
A p p l i c a t i o n of S o i l S u r v e y to P r o g r a m
Health, Sanitation, and E n g i n e e r i n g Cornell
University.
M i m e o . 387.
M.

Payne,

of

Thomas (1978).
Non-Formal Education Delivery System
to R e a c h 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 .
Doctor's Thesis.
M i c h i g a n a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , E.
Lansing.
p . 53-65.

Robert (1980).
Personal Communication.
Agriculture
S t a b i l i z a t i o n a n d C o n s e r v a t i o n S e r v i c e , E. L a n s i n g ,
MI.

Parsey,

J o h n M. (1957).
U s e a n d u s e f u l n e s s of a s i m p l i f i e d
Soil Survey Report.
N a t i o n a l P r o j e c t in
Agricultural Communication.
M i m e o g r a p h e d 99 p a g e s .
M i c h i g a n State University, East Lansing, Michigan,
p . 1-7.

Pearce,

F r a n k C. ( 1 9 6 4 ) .
The E d u c a t i o n a l N e e d s of B e g i n n i n g
F a r m O p e r a t o r s i n B e c o m i n g E s t a b l i s h e d in N e w Y o r k .
Doctor s Thesis.
I t h a c a , N Y . Cornell University,
p p . 371.

Pennock,

R o g e r Jr. ( 1 9 6 7 ) .
C o m m u n i c a t i o n of S o i l S u r v e y a n d
R e l a t e d Soil M a n a g e m e n t I n f o r m a t i o n .
Ph.D.
Thesis.
M i c h i g a n State University, East Lansing,
MI.
p . 2-18.

Porter,

James, St an le y Alfred, Euge ne W hiteside, and Robert
L u c a s , 1 (1 955).
Get the m o s t f r o m you r f a r m l a n d .
So i l S u r v e y S u m m a r y for O d e s s a T o w n s h i p (an i n t e r i m
report).
Michigan State College Cooperative
E x t e n s i o n Service, East Lansing, Michigan.
p . 2 -2 2 .

Priest,

T.W., W h i t e s i d e , E.P., and H e n e b e r r y , W.H. (1963).
U s e of S o i l M a n a g e m e n t G r o u p s a n d R e l a t e d
I n f o r m a t i o n in E v a l u a t i o n of F a r m l a n d s a n d t h e i r
Utilization.
R e p r i n t f r o m S o i l S c i . S oc . A m e r .
Proc.
27: 3 3 5 - 3 3 9 .

109

Quincy,

C l a u d e , A y e r s , C.E. ( 1 9 3 6 ) .
i ts C o n t r o l .
McCraw-Hill

Riecken,

F. F. ( 1 9 6 3 ) .
in F a r m i n g .

Robertson,

Rogers,

Smith,

Soil

Soil
Book

C o n s e r v a t i o n and
C o. , N e w Y o r k . p . 15.

S o m e A s p e c t s of S o i l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n
S o i l S ci . S o c . of A m e r i c a 96: 4 9 - 6 1 .

L.S. (1975).
S o i l M a n a g e m e n t - W h a t it i s :
D e p a r t m e n t of C r o p a n d S o i l S c i e n c e s , M i c h i g a n
State University.
Cooperative Extension Service,
676-1.

J o h n H. ( 1 9 6 1 ) .
P a r t i c i p a t i o n of O h i o P a r t - T i m e
F a r m e r s in Y o u n g F a r m e r P r o g r a m s in V o c a t i o n a l
Agriculture.
Doctor's Thesis* Columbus: The Ohio
State University.
Guy

D ., A n a d a h l , A n d r e w R. ( 1 9 5 7 ) . S o i l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n
and Surveys.
In S o i l . Y e a r b o o k A g r . ( U . S . D e p t .
Ag r.) U.S. G o v e r n m e n t P r i n t i n g O f f i c e W a s h i n g t o n ,
D. C . p . 397.

C o n s e r v a t i o n S o c i e t y of A m e r i c a , ( 1 9 7 6 ) .
Resource
Conservation Glossary.
7515 N o r t h e a s t A n k e n y
A n k e n y , Iowa.
p p . 22-50.

Sorenson,

Southern

R d .,

Douglas. (1957).
Factors Influencing Knowledge
of T e c h n i c a l S o i l s C o n c e p t s b y W i s c o n s i n F a r m e r s .
D e p t , of A g r . J o u r n a l i s m . Col. of A g r . U n i v e r s i t y
of W i s c o n s i n .
B u l l . 27.
R e g i o n a l Soil Survey W o r k - P l a n n i n g Conference.
(1962).
Comm. X M i s s i s s i p p i St ate u n i v e r s i t y .
I m p r o v e m e n t of M e t h o d s of I n f o r m i n g t he P u b l i c of
U s e r s of I n f o r m a t i o n in t he P u b l i s h e d S o i l S u r v e y
Report.
M l m e o g r a p h e 6 pages.

S t r i c k l a n d , C e c i l , L. a n d M o s t a f a , A. S o l l m a n ( 1 9 7 6 ) .
N o n p r o f e s s i o n a l A i d e s in A g r i c u l t u r e .
An
E v a l u a t i o n of a P r o g r a m in C o o p e r a t i v e E x t e n s i o n
E d u c a t i o n f o r s m a l ‘l - f a r m f a m i l i e s .
Prairie View
A & M U n i v e r s i t y , T e x a s , p . 4 - 6.
U.S.

D e p a r t m e n t of A g r i c u l t u r e ( 1 9 6 3 ) .
Know Your S o i l .
Agriculture Information Bulletin.
N o. 2 6 7 .
Soil
Conservation Service.
U.S. G o v e r n m e n t P r i n t i n g
Of f i c e : W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.
p . 2-12.

U.S.

D e p a r t m e n t of A g r i c u l t u r e ( 1 9 5 1 ) .
Handbook.
No. 18, U . S . G P O .
p . 23-25.

Soil S u r v e y M a n u a l .
W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.

110

D e p a r t m e n t of C o m m e r c e , B u r e a n of C e n s u s .
1974 Census
of A « r l c u l t u r e , M i c h i g a n S t a t e a n d C o u n t y D a t a
V o l u m e 1, P a r t 22.
p.IX-X.
U.S.

Well

D e p a r t m e n t of H e a l t h E d u c a t i o n a n d W e l f a r e . ( 1 9 7 8 ) .
V o c a t i o n a l A g r i c u l t u r e for Young F a r m e r s .
A
Planning and Conducting a Program
of I n s t r u c t i o n
In V o c a t i o n a l
r l c u l t u r e for Y o u ng F a r m e r s .
(U.S.
Government Printing Office).
p . 4.
Wi l l i a m (1965).
A C o m p a r i s o n of t he F a r m e r s in t h e
Medina, North Dak o t a Public School District who
h ave A t t e n d e d Adu lt and Y o u ng F a r m e r C o u r ses and
those who have not Attended.
Master's Thesis.
F a r g o N o r t h D a k o t a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , p . 50.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX

COPIES
LETTERS
AND

OF

REQUEST

ADDRESSES

OF

A

OF

FOR

RELEASING

FARMERS

CO UN T IE S .

IN

NAMES

SELECTED

Ill

November 14, 1980

Agriculture S t a b i l i z a t i o n and Conservation Service
United States Department o f Agriculture
East Lansing, Michigan 48823
To Whom I t May Concern:
I am a Ph.D. candidate a t Michigan State University and working
on my d i s s e r t a t i o n . My d i s s e r t a t i o n to pic is "Study o f Farmer Opinions
about Soil Survey Reports in Michigan." For t h i s purpose I have selected
f iv e counties based on t h e i r geographical d i s t r i b u t i o n . In each county
200 farmers will be randomly s elected to receive a research question­
na ir e . Names and addresses of farmers in the following sele cted
counties are needed.
1.

Delta County

2.

Grand Traverse County

3.

Ingham County

4.

Sanilac County

5.

Ottawa County

Enclosed i s a copy o f the f in a l research que stionnai re.
cons ideration as e a r l y as po ssible will be g r e a tly appreciated.
Thank you.
Sincer ely,
///rtf/1

Saiid Mahjoory-' •'
Address
Saiid Mahjoory
1451 A Spartan Village
East Lansing, MI. 48823

Your

112

UNITED

STATES

AGRICULTURAL
P
P.. 0 . B O X 2 4 11 5S

DEPARTMENT

STABILIZATION
.
.
.

OF

AND

AGRICULTURE
CONSERVATION SERVICE
W A S H I N G T O N , 0. C.
20013

Mr. Saiid Mahjoory
1415 A Spartan Village
East Lansing, Michigan 48823
Dear Mr. Mahjoory:
t h is i s in response to your l e t t e r requesting a name and address
l is tin g o f A gricultural S ta b iliz a tio n and Conservation Service (ASCS)
program p a rtic ip a n ts in fiv e specified counties in Michigan.
Your request has been considered in accordance with 7 CFR 1,7. I t
has been determined th a t th e names and addresses should not be released.
The determ ination is based on the fact th a t personal data ( i . e . , addresses)
are exempt from mandatory d isclosure because release would c o n stitu te
a c le a rly unwarranted invasion o f personal privacy, w ithin the
meaning o f 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6).
You may appeal th is decision in w riting to the Adm inistrator, ASCS,
USDA, P.O. Box 2415, Washington, D.C. 20013, w ithin 45 days from the
date o f th is l e t t e r . You should enter "FOIA Appeal" on the envelope
and l e t t e r to assure prompt handling o f your request.
Sincerely,

u ireccor,
Management Services Division

113
M IC H IG A N STATE U N I V E R S I T Y
CUI.I Kit OF liUL'CATION

I-AM' I.AN.SING • MICHIGAN • IHH2I

D E P A R T M E N T OF SECONDARY EDI.'CATION A M ) ( I RHII l'l I'M
l-RIC.KSON HALL

December 4, 1980

Administrator of Agr iculture S t a b i l i z a t i o n and
Conservation Service
USDA P.O. Box 2415
Washington D.C. 20013
Attention FOIA:
On November 14, 1980 I have requested the names and addresses of the
fanners in c e r t a i n counties in Michigan for my research p r o je c t (Ph.D.
d i s s e r t a t i o n ) under the Department of Agr icultura l Education a t
Michigan S tat e University. I have been informed, by telephone, from
your local o f f i c e in East Lansing t h a t my request has been denied. I
am appealing t h a t decision.
An ad ditio nal copy of my research qu es tio nn aire is enclosed.
S in ce rely,
/• '

Saiid Mahjoory
1451 A Spartan Village
East Lansing, MI 48823
SM/jmr
Enclosure

114
M I C H I G A N S T A T E U N I V E R S I TY
COLLEGE OF EDUC A T I O N

EAST 1ANSINfj • MICHIGAN • iHhi

D E PA R T M E N T OF SECONDARY EDUCATION A N D CURRICULUM
ERICKSON HALL

December 4, 1980

To Whom I t May Concern:
Saiid Mahjoory is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of A gricultural
Education a t Michigan S ta te U n iv ersi ty. The to p ic of the research for
his d i s s e r t a t i o n i s Study 'of Farmers Opinions About Soil Survey Report
in Michigan. I serve as chairman of his guidance committee and am
pleased t h a t he is i n t e r e s t e d in conducting t h i s research which will
b e n e f i t both educational and a g r i c u l t u r a l programs here in Michigan.
I f additiona l information i s needed, do not h e s i t a t e to call me a t
517/355-1691.
Si n c e r e l y ,

$

tn

0. Donald Meaders, Chairman"
Guidance Committee and
Chairman, Secondary Education and Curriculum
ODM/jmr

115

UNITED

STATES

a g r i c u l t u r a l

t. 0 .

DEPARTMENT

s t a b i l i z a t i o n

BOX 2 4 1 S

.

.

.

OF

and

AGRICULTURE
c o n s e r v a t i o n

WASHI NGTON,

s e r v i c e

0 . C.

Mr. S a iid Mahjoory
1415 A Spartan V illage
East Lansing, Michigan 48823
Dear Mr. Mahjoory:
This i s in response to your appeal o f December 4, req u estin g names and
addresses o f A g ric u ltu ra l S ta b iliz a tio n and Conservation Service (ASCS)
program p a r tic ip a n ts in fiv e sp e c ifie d counties in Michigan.
I t i s our p o lic y to a s s i s t persons involved in stu d ie s under th e auspices
o f in s t i t u ti o n s o f h ig h er le a rn in g , when th e stu d ie s are supervised by th e
i n s ti t u t i o n .
We a re adv isin g our Michigan S ta te ASCS O ffice to au th o rize the County
ASCS O ffice, only in th e fiv e counties you sp e c ifie d , to make th e names
and addresses a v a ila b le to you upon your re q u e st.
We a re obliged to emphasize th a t th e names and addresses s h a ll be used
fo r th e s ta te d purpose, may not be used fo r commercial s o lic ita tio n or
p o l i t i c a l purposes, and may not be re le a se d to any o th e r person or
o rg a n iz a tio n .
S in cerely ,

A dm inistrator Weldon B. penny

T

20013

APPENDIX

COPIES
FIRST

AND

SECOND

QUESTIONNAIRE,
YOU

AND

B

OP

REQUEST
FIRST

REMINDER

COVER
AND

LETTERS,

SECOND

CARDS.

THANK

116

IE5
COOPERA
EXTENSIC
SERVICE
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE & COUNTIES COOPERATING
GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY EXTENSION OFFICE • GOVERNMENTAL CENTER
400 BOARDMAN • TRAVERSE CITY, MICHIGAN 49684 • (616)941-2256

Dear Grand Traverse County Farmer:
You have been selected In a sample of 500 Michigan farmers to help provide Informa­
tion about farmers and th e ir use of soil survey rep o rts. This research project is
sponsored by Michigan State University in cooperation with the Soil Conservation
Service.
The purpose of th is research project 1s to help improve ag ricu ltu re In Michigan
through more use of so ils Information. Therefore, the Information you provide by
completing the enclosed questionnaire 1s very Important.
Me believe the questionnaire will take about twenty minutes to complete. Since
your time Is very valuable we have trie d to make the questionnaire short and easy
to answer.
All Information 1n th is research project w ill be kept confidential and no Informa­
tion about individual farms or farmers w ill be published. Each return envelope
has a number. The purpose of the number 1s to follow-up on those who d o n 't respond.
The Cooperative Extension Service Office 1s pleased to cooperate with th is e f fo rt.
Please return the completed questionnaire 1n the self-addressed envelope to the
address shown.
Thank you fo r your cooperation.
Sincerely,

i

County Extension Director
GM/sls

Enclosure

C ooparatlva E x ta n ilo n sarvica program ! a ra o p a n to all
w ltn o u t ragard to raea, c o lo r, national origin, o r sax.

117

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE

l a n il a c c o u n t y

■

IAHILAC COUNTY W A N S » r

BXTCNIION CBNTIN
17 AUSTIN

^

C O O M A A T IN a

—

SANOUUCY. MICHIOAN 4M71
T IL IT H O N I ]1 M W -3 t1 i

Dear Sanilac County Fanner:
You have been selected In a sample o f 500 Michigan fanners to help provide Informa­
tion about fanners and th e ir use o f soil survey rep o rts. This research project 1s
sponsored by Michigan S tate University In cooperation with the Soil Conservation
Service.
The purpose of th is research p ro jec t Is to help Improve ag ric u ltu re 1n Michigan
through more use o f s o ils Information. Therefore, the Information you provide by
completing the enclosed questionnaire 1s very Important.
We believe the questionnaire w ill take about twenty minutes to complete. Since
your time Is very valuable we have trie d to make the questionnaire short and easy
to answer.
All Information 1n th is research p ro jec t w ill be kept confidential and no information
about Individual farms or farmers w ill be published. Each return envelope has a
number. The purpose of the number 1s to follow-up on those who don’t respond.
The Cooperative Extension Service Office 1s pleased to cooperate with th is e f f o r t.
Please return the completed questionnaire in the self-addressed envelope to the
address shown.
Thank you fo r your cooperation.
Sincerely,

.

^

A. Rex S ittin g ^ ^
County Extens1op^l5l re cto r
ARS/sls
Enclosure

" C O O W U T I V l (X T IN ilO N M O O K A M 1 A M O H N TO A IL WITHOUT M O A K O TO " A C * . COLON ON NATIONAL ONIOIN."

110

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
M ichigan S tate University
U. S. D epartm ent o f A griculture and
Ingham County Board of Com m issioners
Cooperating

INGHAM COUNTY
Cooperative Kxtenxion Bliljr.
127 E. M aple S t
M w n . Michigan litH.W
Tvlephont': «7<i-"t222
W ftliui SlrtH‘1 Schtml
M I 2 N VVnlniit St.
lanwiivr. Michigan
TVkphont*: 4iM-77<M

Dear Ingham County Farmer:'
You have been selected In a sample o f 500 Michigan farmers to help provide informa­
tion about farmers and th e ir use of soil survey rep o rts. This research project Is
sponsored by Michigan State University in cooperation with the Soil Conservation
Service.
The purpose of th is research project Is to help Improve ag ricu ltu re In Michigan
through more use of s o ils information. Therefore, the Information you provide by
completing the enclosed questionnaire is very Important.
We believe the questionnaire w ill take about twenty minutes to complete. Since
your time is very valuable we have trie d to make the questionnaire short and easy
to answer.
All information in th is research project w ill be kept confidential and no information
about individual farms or farmers w ill be published. Each return envelope has a
number. The purpose of the number is to follow-up on those who d o n 't respond.
The Cooperative Extension Service Office Is pleased to cooperate with th is e ffo rt.
Please return the completed questionnaire in the self-addressed envelope to the
address shown.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely

Marvin M. Preston
County Extension Director
MMP/sls

Enclosure

Cooperative Extension Service Programs are open to ail
without regard to race, color, national origin or sex.

!* Maaw'”*

119

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
Michigan S titt Univtriity
U.S. Department of Agriculture and
Ottawa County Board of Commiiiionert Cooperating

OTTAWA COUNTY
Room 101, County Building
Grand Haven, Michigan 49417
Telephone: (616) 8460250

Dear Ottawa County Farmer:
You have been se le c te d in a sample o f S00 Michigan farmers to help provide informa­
tio n about farmers and t h e i r use o f s o il survey re p o rts . This research p ro je c t is
sponsored by Michigan S ta te U niversity in cooperation with the S o il Conservation
S ervice.
The purpose o f th i s research p ro je c t is to help improve a g ric u ltu re in Michigan
through more use o f s o ils inform ation. T herefore, the inform ation you provide by
completing the enclosed q u estio n n aire is very im portant.
We b eliev e th e q u estio n n aire w ill take about twenty minutes to complete. .Since
your time is very v aluable we have t r i e d to make the q u e stio n n aire sh o rt and easy
to answer.
All inform ation in t h is research p ro je c t w ill be kept c o n fid e n tia l and no inform ation
about in d iv id u al farms or fanners w ill be published. Each re tu rn envelope has a
number. The purpose o f th e number is to follow-up on those who d o n 't respond.
The Cooperative Extension Service o f fic e is pleased to cooperate with th is e f f o r t.
Please re tu rn th e completed q u estio n n aire in the self-ad d ressed envelope to the
address shown.
Thank you fo r your cooperation.
S in cerely ,

Lawrence S tebbins
County Extension D irecto r
LS/sls

Enclosure

'Programt arc open to all without regard to race, color or national origin.

120

DELTA COUNTY

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
Michigan Stata University
U. S. Department of Agriculture
and Delta County Cooperating

r

111 N o rth 22nd S irw t
E tc a n tb t. M ichigan t t l t t
Phono 7H.3032

0

*

Dear Delta County Fanner:
You have been selected In a sample of 500 Michigan farmers to help provide in fo r­
mation about farmers and th e ir use of soil survey rep o rts. This research project
is sponsored by Michigan State University in cooperation with the Soil Conserva­
tion Service.
The purpose of th is research project is to help improve ag ricu ltu re in Michigan
through more use of so ils information. Therefore, the information you provide
by completing the enclosed questionnaire 1s very important.
We believe the questionnaire w ill take about twenty minutes to complete. Since
your time is very valuable we have trie d to make the questionnaire short and easy
to answer.
All information in th is research project w ill be kept confidential and no informa­
tio n about individual farms or farmers w ill be published. Each return envelope
has a number. The purpose of the number is to follow-up on those who d o n 't respond.
The Cooperative Extension Service Office is pleased to cooperate with th is e f fo rt.
Please return the completed questionnaire in the self-addressed envelope to the
address shown.
Thank you fo r your cooperation.
Sincerely

Don P ellegrini
Delta County Extension Director
DP/sls

Enclosure

''Cooperative Extension Service Programs are open to all without regard to Race,
Color or National Origin." County Extension Agents in: Agriculture, and Marketing,
Natural Resources and Public Policy, Family Living, 4-H Youth

121

E5
COOPERA- “

EXTENSIC
SERVICE

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY • U.S. DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE S COUNTIES COOPERATING
GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY EXTENSION OFFICE • GOVERNMENTAL CENTER
400 BOARDMAN • TRAVERSE CITY, MICHIGAN 49684 • (818)941-2290

Dear Grand Traverse County Farmer:
Several weeks ago we sent to you a questionnaire fo r our study of fanners
opinion in use of soil survey report Information. So fa r we have not received
a response from you. To be able to complete th is study we need your HELP.
In case you have lo s t or m islaid the other copy of the questionnaire we are
enclosing another copy with a return envelope. Your response will help us
have more complete s e t of information. Our recommendations w ill be b e tte r
i f we can get your opinions.
If you have already responded, please accept our sincere thanks and disregard
th is l e tte r .
Your help is greatly appreciated.

Thank you fo r your cooperation.

Sincerely,

(

County Extension Director
GM/sls
Enclosure

Cooooratlva I n te n tio n Sarvica program s ar« o p an to all
w ltftout regard to raca, c o lo r, national origin, o r ton.

122

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE

i a n .u c c o u h t v

IXrtNSIONCINTM

B

IT AUSTIN

—
m m ia c

t m i n r n w b w .s o iT m m o m M

—

— —

—

i

—
— — —
(ANOUtKV. MICHIGAN <M?l

COOM NATINO

T IK A H O N I

Dear Sanilac County Farmer:
Several weeks ago we sent to you a questionnaire fo r our study of fanners
opinion in use o f soil survey report Information. So fa r we have not received
a response from you. To be able to complete th is study we need your HELP.
In case you have lo s t or m islaid the other copy of the questionnaire we are
enclosing another copy with a return envelope. Your response w ill help us
have more complete s e t o f Information. Our recomnendations will be b e tte r
i f we can get your opinions.
I f you have already responded, please accept our sincere thanks and disregard
th is l e t t e r .
Your help is g re atly appreciated.

Thank you fo r your cooperation.

Sincerely,

A. Rex Sietlng
County Extension

i rector

ARS/sls
Enclosure

“ COOR1RATIVI KXTINtlOft PROGRAMS A R I OPGN TO A U WITHOUT

. COiOG OR NATIONAL ORIGIN.”

123

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
M ichigan S tate University
LI. S. D epartm ent of Agriculture and
Ingham C ounty B oard o f Com m issioners
C ooperating

INGHAM COUNTY
I'rH tiP 'ru tlV C

H lilir

127 h Mai tit* SI
M iw.n Mit'hitrun
T#'lti*h*»ni* t ’ H '2 2 2
Wkirmi Slr»i*i Srhietl
|i» I2 N

W iiltm i M

|<ans«fi'!. Mirhtmut

Dear Ingham County Fanner:
Several weeks ago we sent to you a questionnaire fo r our study o f fanners
opinion In use o f so il survey report Inform ation. So f a r we have not received
a response from you. To be able to complete th is study we need your HELP.
In case you have lo s t or m islaid the other copy o f the questionnaire we are
enclosing another copy with a return envelope. Your response w ill help us
have a more complete s e t of inform ation. Our recommendations w ill be b e tte r
i f we can get your opinions.
I f you have already responded, please accept our sincere thanks and
disregard th is l e t t e r .
Your help 1s g re atly appreciated.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,
y/j (wvutic yy\■

Marvin M. Preston
County Extension D irector
MMP/sls
Enclosure

Cooperative Extension Service Programs are open to all
without regard to race, color, national origin or sex.

i
me***

124

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
M ichigan

SUM U n h ra rh ty

OTTAWA COUNTY
Roam 101, County Building
Grind H m n , Michigan 48417
Telephone: 1616) 8464250

U.S. Department of Agriculture and
Ottawa County Board of Commiuionara Cooperating

Dear Ottawa County Parser:
Several weeks ago we sent to you a questionnaire fo r our study of farmers
opinion 1n use o f so il survey rep o rt Inform ation. So f a r we have not received
a response from you. To be able to complete th is study we need your HELP.
In case you have lo s t o r m islaid the other copy of the questionnaire we are
enclosing another copy with a return envelope. Your response w ill help us
have more complete s e t o f inform ation. Our recommendations w ill be b e tte r
i f we can g e t your opinions.
If you have already responded, please accept our sincere thanks and disregard
th is l e t t e r .
Your help is g re a tly appreciated.

Thank you fo r your cooperation.

Sincerely

itebbina
Lawrence stebbins
County Extension Director
LS/sls
Enclosure

'Progrwru arc opm to aft oithout regard to ract, color or notional origin.

125

OEI.TA COUNTY
111

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE

Ek i m I i

ttn l
M ic h ly a n 4 U I I

pnaita m ini

Michigan Stalo UnlvuraUy
U.S. D opartaoai oi Agriculture
u d Doit* Cauaiy Cooperating

#
0

0

•

Dear Delta County Farmer:
Several weeks ago we sent to you a questionnaire fo r our study of farmers
opinion 1n use o f soil survey report Information. So fa r we have not received
a response from you. To be able to complete th is study we need your HELP.
In case you have lo s t or m islaid the other copy of the questionnaire we are
enclosing another copy with a return envelope. Your response w ill help us
have more complete s e t of Information. Our reconnendatlons w ill be b e tte r
1f we can g et your opinions.
If you have already responded,
th is l e t t e r .

please accept our sincere thanks and disregard

Your help 1s g re atly appreciated.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Don P ellegrini
Delta County Extension D irector
DP/sls
Enclosure

"C ooperative Extension Service Program* are open to all without regard to Kacc.
Color or National O rigin.” County Extension Agents in: Agriculture, and Marketing.
Natural Resource* and Public Policy, Family Living. 4-H Youth

126

STUDY OF FARMER OPINIONS ABOUT SOIL SURVEY REPORTS IN MICHIGAN
Directions:
PART A:
1.
2.

3.

Please respond to each question as 1t is requested and check the appropriate
place for each question.
Questions about your farm, about you, and about so il problems

How many years have you farmed? _____________________________________________
How many to ta l acres did you farm during the 1979-80 farm years? _____________
2-1. Total acres owned?
.______________________________________________
2.2. Total acres rented? __________________________________________________
Type of fann (Please check any type which applies to your farm)
cash crop
swine
beef
dal ry
poultry
general livestock
f r u it
Other (please specify) _________________________________________________

4.

Are you employed 1n any other job?
No
Yes
4.1 I f yes, what 1s your Other occupation?

5.

Your educational level completed
Less than high school diploma
High school
1-2 years college diploma
Bachelor's diploma (please givefie ld of study) __________________________
Graduate degree (please give fie ld o f s tu d y )_____________________________
What 1s your age group?
25 and under
26-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 and over
Now we would lik e to know about your discussion o f soil problems with anyone
during the past five years. Please check each group and Indicate how frequently
you have discussed so il problems with each group.
Frequency o f Discussion
Groups
Never Seldom Occasionally Often

6.

7.

Cooperative Extension Service Personnel
Soil Conservation Service Personnel
Vocational Agriculture Instructor
Banker
Consultant
Commercial salesperson
Other farmers
News media (newspaper, radio or TV)
None o f the above
Others (please specify)

127
Page 2
8.

How often do you take soil samples for soil te stin g from a p a rtic u la r fie ld
every 2-3 years
every 4-6 years
every 7-10 years
every 10-15 years
never
PART B: Questions about the County Soil Survey Report
9.

10.

11.

Do you know th a t there 1s a modern so il survey report published for your county?
No
Yes
9-1. I f yes, how did you find out about the report?
Cooperative Extension Service (CES) Personnel
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Personnel
Vocational A griculture Instructor
Banker
Consultant
Commercial salesperson
Other fanners
News media (newspaper, radio, or TV)
None o f the above
Other (Please specify) ___________________________________________
Have you used Information from the modern published so il survey report?
No ( I f you check No, proceed to 10-2)
Yes
10-1.

I f yes, was i t helpful?
No
Yes

10-2.

I f no, please indicate your reason in a short statement

I f you have tr ie d to use so il survey report Information, was I t d if f ic u lt to
understand?
No
Yes
11-1. I f yes, to which organization ( e .g ., SCS or CES) or other Individuals
did you go for h e lp ? ______________________________________________

PART C.
12.

_____

Questions about your so il management problems and In te re st In educational
programs.
Have you been faced with some so il management problems such as erosion,
compaction, f e r til i z e r or septic tank system?
No
Yes
12-1* I f yes, where did you get Information and help? (Please check as many
as you got help from)
Cooperative Extension Service Personnel
Soil Conservation Service Personnel
Vocational A griculture Instructor
.
County Health Department
Banker
Consultant
Commercial Salesperson
Other Farmers
News media (newspaper, radio or TV)
Others (please specify) ________________________________________

128
Page 3
13.

I f there were an educational program 1n using modern so il survey report
Information, would you lik e to attend?
No
Yes
13-1. I f yes, how fa r would you travel to attend such a meeting?
Less than 20 miles
20-40 miles
40-60 miles
60-80 miles
I t does not matter
13-2. In Question 13, I f you marked yes, what time of year is best for you?
(Please check only one box).
December, January, February
March, A pril, May
June, Ju ly , August
September, October, November.
13-3. What length o f program would be best for you (please check only one)
i-day
1-day
2-days
Others (please specify ________________________________________

14.

Have you attended any educational programs which presented use o f so il survey
report information?
No
Yes
14-1. I f yes, how useful was it?
Very useful
Useful
Fair
Not useful
PART 0. Questions about Soil Conservation Farm Plans
15. Do you know th a t the Soil Conservation Service has a farm plan program to a s s is t
each Individual fanner 1n the best use o f h is/h e r so ils?
No ( I f you check No, proceed to comments at the end.)
15-1.

15-2.

15-3.

I f yes, have you used I t
No
Yes
I f yes, how useful was I t
Great
Medium
L ittle
None
I f yes, how did you find out about the farm plan?
Cooperative Extension Service Personnel
Soil Conservation Service Personnel
Vocational Agriculture In stru cto r
Banker
Consultant
Commercial Salesperson
Other farmer
News media (newspaper, radio or TV)
None of the above
Others (please s p e c if y )_________________ _

129
Page 4
Comments: ________________________________________________

Thank you for completing th is questionnaire.

Please use the enclosed stamped

and self-addressed envelope to return the questionnaire to:
A gricultural and Natural Resources Education
Michigan State University
Erickson Hall
East Lansing, MI. 48824

130

First Thank you/Reminder Card

We want to express our thanks for your cooperation
completing the questionnaire recently sent to you.
The
responses
from
you
and
other
farmers
will
help
strengthen use of soil survey report information in
Michigan.

Sincerely,

County Extension Director
P.S.

If you have not yet completed the questionnaire
please complete it and put it in the mail at your
earliest convenience. Thanks.

Second Thank you/Reminder Card

Your
cooperation
is
appreciated.
The
completed
questionnaires have provided valuable information for
the purpose of research and recommendations about use of
soil survey report information in Michigan.

Sincerely,

County Extension Director
P.S.

Perhaps your questionnaire is one of the few still
not received.
1 hope it is now in the mail.
Thanks.

APPENDIX

COPIES

OF

DIRECTORS

COVE R
(CES

C

LETTER
& SCS)

QUESTIONS.

F OR

COUNTY

AND G E N E R A L

131

July

Dear

County

Extension/Soil

11,

Conservation

1981

District

Director:

I w o u l d l i k e to g e t y o u r o p i n i o n s a b o u t th e u s e of s o i l
survey report i nformation by Michigan farmers in your county.
Your c o o p e r a t i o n w i l l h e l p to c o m p l e t e the c o l l e c t i o n of our
research data.
For t h i s p u r p o s e I w o u l d l i k e to g e t y o u r r e s p o n s e to
some questions about this subject matter.
Please read the
attached material.
You m a y w a n t to c o m p l e t e the response.
However, I w i l l c o n t a c t y o u by t e l e p h o n e on or a f t e r J u l y
24.
At t h a t t i m e I w o u l d l i k e to e i t h e r d i s c u s s the q u e s ­
tio n n a i r e w i t h you or arrange a def i n i t e
time for another
t e l e p h o n e call.
If y o u h a v e a n y q u e s t i o n s , p l e a s e f e e l f r e e to c o n t a c t m e
a t (5 1 7 ) 3 5 5 - 1 6 9 1 .
I am l o o k i n g f o r w a r d to my t e l e p h o n e d i s ­
c u s s i o n w i t h you.
Sincerely,

Saiid Mahjoory
Graduate Research Assistant
Michigan State University

132

A.

YOUR
YOUR
1.

IDEAS ABOUT
COUNTY.

MAJOR

SOILS

PROBLEMS

FACED

BY

FARMERS

IN

H e r e a r e s e v e r a l c a t a g o r i e s of c o m m o n s o i l s p r o b l e m s .
H o w i m p o r t a n t is e a c h o f t h e s e a s a n a r e a o f p r o b l e m s
in y o u r c o u n t r y :
not a
problem

problem for some
but not a majority

problem for many
but not all

problem
of all

1.1 Erosion
1.2 Compaction
1.3 Drainage
1.4 Fertility
1.5 pH

1.6 other

B.

INFORMATION

ABOUT THE

SOIL

SURVEY

REPORT:

N o w we w a n t to g e t i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t the f a r m e r s a n d the soil
survey report.
We h a v e s e v e r a l q u e s t i o n s w h i c h w i l l hel p us
g e t a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g a b out the value, use and u s e f u l ­
n e s s of t h e r e port.
2.0

Have
soil

any f a r m e r s e v e r
survey report?

C.

for

If y e s , a p p r o x i m a t e l y h o w m a n y
two y e a r s ?
______________|

INFORMATION

information

about

the

Y e s ______

No______
2.1

asked

ABOUT

FARMERS

AND

farmers

during

the

past

FARM:

In e a c h c o u n t r y t h e r e a r e m a n y f a r m e r s — s o m e f u l l - t i m e , s o m e
part-time, some with much formal schooling, some with little
f o r m a l s c h o o l s , s o m e y o u n g , a n d s o m e old.

133
3.0

Who are the farmers
help from you about

who most frequently seek
soil survey r e p o r t ?

Never

3.1

Full-time farmers

3.2

Part-time farmers

3.3

With high school education
or less

3.4

With more than high school
education

3.5

Age 34 and under

3.6

Age 35-60

3.7

Over age 60

3.8

On farm under 250 acres

3.9

On farm over 250-500 acres

3.10

On farm over 500 acres

4.0

Seldom

information/

Occasionally

Often

In y o u r o p i n i o n , h o w o f t e n d o f a r m e r s s e e k i n f o r m a t i o n
a b o u t the soil s u r v e y r e p o r t fro m o t h e r s o u r c e s ?
Sources

Never

E’requency of Information
Seldom
Occasionally

Cooperative Extension Service
Personnel
Soil Conservation Service
Personnel
Vocational Agriculture
Instructor
Banker
Consultant
Commercial salesperson
Other farmers
New Media (newspaper, radio,
or T . V . )
None of the above
Others (please specify)

*

Often

FARMERS
5.0

AND

THEIR

OF

SOIL

SURVEY

In y o u r o p i n i o n , c a n f a r m e r s u s e
maps without additional help?

If

REPORTS.
the

reports

on soils

Y e s ______

No
5.1

USE

they

need

kinds

additional

5.11

What

5.12

W h a t h e l p h a s y o u r o f f i c e b e e n a b l e to p r o v i d e
farmers for use of the soil survey report?

helpful

of

reports

you

to

think

they

need

How

7.0

How important, or how high a priority do you
h e l p i n g f a r m e r s to u s e s o i l s u r v e y r e p o r t s ?
low

the

do

6.0

- Very

are

problems

help...

help with

to

farmers?

priority

place

______

- Provide help only when requests
a r e r e c e i v e d _________________________________________ ______
- Have
this
plan

p l a n e d to p r o v i d e h e l p
y e a r as p a r t o f o u r o v e r a l l
______

- O t h e r __________________________________________________ ____
Comments:

the

on

135
E.

EDUCATIONAL/TECHNICAL

HELP

FROM

YOUR

OFFICE.

8.0

Now we w o u l d l i k e to k n o w m o r e a b o u t t h e w a y s in w h i c h
your, or o t h e r s f r o m y o u r o f f ice, p r o v i d e h e l p to the
f a r m e r s to u s e the soi l s u r v e y report.

9.0

W h a t c h a n g e w o u l d y o u l i k e t o s e e i n y o u r p r o g r a m of
a c t i v i t i e s in the f u t u r e to h e l p c o n v i n c e f a r m e r s
t h a t s o i l s u r v e y i n f o r m a t i o n c a n be u s e f u l to them.

APPENDIX

C OMP UT E R

D

PROGRAM

136

VOGELBACK COMPUTING CENTER
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY
S P S S - - STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
VERSION 8.0 MSU JUNE 18, 1979

RUN NAME
VARIABLE LIST
INPUT FORMAT
ACCORDING
VARIABLE
ID
C
VI
V2
V4
v5
Vb
V7
v8
V9
VI 0
VII
VI2
vn
V14
V15
Vlo
V1Z
V18
VI9
V20
V21
V22
V 23
V24
V25
V26
V27
V28
V29
V30
V31
V32
V|3
V34
V35
VJb
V38
vJo
V4l
V42
V43
V44
V45
V46
V47
V48
V49
V50
V51

05/20/82

S A N D S CROSSTABS
ID.C.Vl TO V68
F IXED (1F3-0,1F1.0,1F2.0,1F4.0.4X.66F1.0)

TO YOUR INPUT FORMAT, VARIABLES ARE TO BE READ AS FOLLOWS
FORMAT RECORD
COLUMNS
3* 00
FF 1.
F 2. 0
F 4. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
22 22
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
It
11
FI. 0
25- 25
26- 26
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
IS : ?S
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
41- 41
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
42- 42
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
it s
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
63- 63

t
:

it 11
it- u

it a
it iz
it i§

13 7

»***»»*»»»»»*»»»*»»»»»»»*

ft
ft
ft

ACCORDING TO YOUR INPUT FORMAT, VARIABLES ARE TO BE READ A! FOLLOWS
VARIABLE FORMAT RECORD
COLUMNS
Vi
F 1. 0
64- 64
V
F I. 0
65'
V
F 1. 0
V
F 1. 0
V
F 1. 0
V
F 1. 0
V
F 1. 0
V
F 1. 0
'1- 71
V__
F 1. 0
12- 72
F 1. 0
V6 1
F 1. 0
V62
[fc 2
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
F 1. 0
1
I t I*
V67
F 1. 0
V 68
F 1. 0
1§ : ll
THE INPUT FORMAT PROVIDES FOR 70 VARIABLES.
70 WILL BE READ.
IT PROVIDES FOR 1 RECORDS (*CARDS*) PER CASE
A MAXIMUM OF
80‘ *COLUMNS*
' ARE USED ON A RECORD.
N OF CASES
UNKNOWN
VAR LABELS
ID,V I .YRSF A R M / V 2 .S I Z E F R M / V 3 . 0 T H J 0 B / V 4 ,L E V E L E D / V 5 ,GRPAGE/
V 6 . P C O O P / V 7 . P S C S / V 8 , P V O / V 9 , P B N K / V 1 0 . P C O N S / V I 1.PCOM/
V 1 2 , P F R M P / V 13,PN E W S / V 14,P N O N / V 15,P O T H R / V 16,T E S T / V 17,KNO/
V I 8,FCOOP/VI 9, FSCS/V20, F V 0 / V 2 1, F BNK./V22,F C 0 N 5 / V 2 3 .FCOM/
V 24 , F F R M R / V 2 5 , F N E W S / V 2 6 , F N 0 N / V 2 7 ,F O T H R / V 2 8 ,US IMF/V29.HLP /
V30.DIFFI/V31.MGT/V32.WCOOP/V33.WSCS/V34.WVO/V35.WCHD/
V 36,W B N K / V 3 7 .W C O N S / V 3 $ ,W C 0 M / V 3 9 ,W F R M R / V 4 0 ,W N E W S / V 4 1,WOT/
V42 ,A T T E N / V L 3 , FARTR/V44.T IMYR/V*-5. LENGH/V46, PRSNT/
VL7,H0USF/V48.FRMPL/V49,USDIT/V50,USFUL/V51.PCOOP/
V 5 2 ,P 5 C S / V 5 3 . P V O / V 5 4 , P B N K / V 5 5 , P C O N S / V 5 6 ,P C O M / V 5 7 .PFRMR/
V J 8. P N E W S / V 5 9 ,P N 0 N / V 6 0 , P O T / V o I ,C A S H / V 6 2 .SWINE/V63. BEEF/
V o L ,DA IRY/V 05.P 0 U L T / V 6 6 . L I V S T K / V 67,FRUIT/V 68,OTHRS/
RECODE
V2 (1 THRU 49-1) (50 THRU 179-2) (180 THRU 499-3) (500 THRU
(1000 T H R U 1999-5) (2000 T H R U HIGHEST-6)
RECODE
VI (1 THRU 5-1) (6 T H R U
-THRU
- - 25-3)
“
(26 T H R U 40-4)
(41 T H R U HIGHEST-5)
M I SSING VALUES ALL(BLANK)
V 6 1 EO 1, KIND-1
V62 EQ ljKIND-2
V 63
KIND-3
V6:
KIND-4
V64
V 65
K IND»■5
KIND-■o
V66
V67
KIND-7
v68
KIND-8
CROSSTABS
TA B L E S - V 1 . V 4 . V 5 . V 6 BY V28
STATISTICS
CROSSTABS
T A B L E S - V 2 ,Vo I TO V68 BY V28
STATISTICS
1.2.3.6.7
CROSSTABS
TABLES - V 5 0 BY V I ,V4,V5,V6.V2
1.2 .3.6 .’
STATISTICS
TABLES-V? 0 BY V6l TO V68
CROSSTABS
STATIS T I C S
1.2 .3 .6 .
TABLES-V4 2 TO V45 BY V1,V4,V5,V 6
CROSSTABS
STATIS T I C S
1 .2 .3 .6 . 7
CROSSTABS
T ABLES-V42 TO V45 BY V2.V61 TO V68
STATISTICS
1.2 .3.6 .7
TABLES-V17 BY V1,V4,V5,V6
CROSSTABS
STATIS T I C S
1.2 .3 .6 .7
CROSSTABS
T A B L E S - V 1 7 BY V2.V61 TO V68
STATISTICS
1.2 ,3.6,7
CROSSTABS
T A B L E S - V 2 8 BY V3,V7 TO V15.V31 TO V4l
STATISTICS
1,2 ,3 •6 ,7
READ INPUT DATA
FINISH

APPENDIX

TABLES

SHOWING

RESPONDENTS
FARM

IN

BY

NUMBER
AGE

EACH

OF

E

AND

GROUPS
FIVE

PERCENT
AND

SIZE

COUNTIES.

OF
OF

i 3o

TABLE E - l .

Number and P e r c e n t o f R e s p o n d e n t s by Age Group
a nd C ou n t y.

fa s ic y

Age Gkoup

Delta
Haber fexcenc

G.T.
Haber Percent

Ingtua
Haber Bexcent

O ttaa
Haber Percent

Haber Percent

Under 25

7

2.10

6

1.25

22

2.05

39

2.50

80

4.05

25-34

45

13.50

58

11.90

136

12.75

253

16.15

266

13.50

35-44

71

21.40

100

20.50

260

24.35

374

23.85

403

20.45

45-54

80

24.10

128

26.30

277

25.95

374

23.85

494

25.10

55-64

69

20.80

109

22.40

218

20.45

332

21.15

441

22.40

65b

60

18.10

86

17.65

154

14.45

196

12.50

285

14.50

332

100.00

487

100.00

1067

100.00

1568

100.00

1969

100.00

Total.

S i z e of Fa rms by C o u n t i e s .

TABLE 2- 2 .

fa n c y

Omsitles
Size of fern

Delta
Haber Pexoenc

G.Tr
Haber Pexcsnt

InglM
Haber Percent

O ttaa
Haber Percent

Sm llic
Number Percent

1- 49

32

9.65

96

26. lb

297

27.85

630

39.70

312

15.85

50- 179

121

36.45

254

52.20

412

38.60

655

41.20

766

38.90

180- 499

131

37.45

110

22.60

266

24.90

260

16.40

694

35.25

500- 999

39

11.75

21

4.30

61

5.70

33

2.10

157

7.95

1000-1999

8

2.4CK

4

•80K

8

.50

8

.50

37

1.90

2000f

1

•3CK

—

00

10

.95

2

.10

3

487

m oo

1067

m oo

1588

100.00

1969

Total

332

100.00

.

.15
m oo

APPENDIX

TABLES

WITH

RESPONDENTS
OF

FOR

NUMBER
EACH

SOIL

F

AND

TYPE

SURVEY

PERCENT
OF

FARM

REPORT.

OF
AND

USE

139
TABLE

F-l.

N u m b e r a n d P e r c e n t of R e s p o n d e n t s by T y p e of
( C a s h C r o p ) a n d U s e of S o i l S u r v e y R e p o r t .

F

Use of Soil Survey Report

Number

No

63

32.8

14

7.1

77

39.1

Yes

84

42.6

36

18.3

120

60.9

74.6

50

25.4

197

100.0

TOTAL

x2 - 2.863

No
Percent

147

d.f. * 1

Yes
Number Percent

Total
Number Percent

Type of Farm
(cash crop)

Significance ■ .0906

Number of missing observations !
- 4

TABLE

F-2.

Number
U s e of

and Percent
Soil S u rve y

of T y p e s
Report.

of

Farm

(Swine)

an

Use of Soil Survey Report
Type of Farm
(swine)

No
Yes

TOTAL

x2 * *743

No

Yes
Number Percent

Total
Number Percent

Number

Percent

137

69.5

44

22.3

181

91.9

10

. 5.1

6

3.0

16

8.1

147

74.6

50

25.4

197

. 100.0

d.f. ■ 1

Significance = .388

Number of missing observations * 4

140

TABLE

F - 3.

N u m b e r a n d P e r c e n t of T y p e
of Soil Su rv e y Repo rts .

of

Farm

(Beef)

and

Use of Soil Survey Report
Type of Fazm
(beef)

No
Yes

TOTAL

x 2 - 2.189

Yes
Number Percent

No
Number Percent

Total
Number Percent

122

61.9

36

18.3

158

80.2

25

12.7

14

7.1

39

19.8

147

74.6

50

25.4

197

100.0

d.f. - 1

Significance - .138

Number of missing observations '
- 4

TABLE

F-4.

Number
U s e of

and Percent
Soil Survey

of T y p e s
Reports.

of

Farm

(Dairy)

an

Use of Soil Survey Report
Type of Farm
(dairy)

No
Yes

TOTAL

x 2 = .004

No
Number

Percent

Number

Yes
Percent

Number

Total
Percent

115

58.4

40

20.3

155

78.7

32

16.2

10

5.1

42

21.3

147

74.6

50

25.4

197

100.0

d.f. = 1

Significance = .949

Number of missing observations = 4

U se

141

TABLE

F -5 .

Number
U s e of

and Percent
Soil Surv ey

of T y p e of
Reports.

Farm

(Poultry)

and

Use of Soil Survey Report
No

Type of Farm
(poultry)

Number

Percent

No

137

69.5

47

23.9

10

5.1

3

1.5

147

74.6

50

25.4

Yes

TOTAL

d.f. * 1

*2 - °

Yes
Number Percent

Total
Number Percent

184
13.

197

93.4

6.6

100.0

Significance = 1

Number of missing observations ■ 4

TABLE

F-6.

Number and
Livestock)

Percent
and Use

of
of

Type
Soil

of F a r m ( G e n e r a l
Survey Reports.

Use of Soil Survey Report
Type of Farm
(G.livestock)

No
Yes

TOTAL

= .45

Number

No
Percent

Number

Yes
Percent

Total
Number Percent

135

68.5

48

24.4

183

92.9

12

6.1

2

1.0

14

7.1

147

74.6

50

25.4

197

100.0

d.f. = 1

Significance ■ .502

Number of missing observations = 4

142

TABLE

F - 7.

Number
U s e of

and Percent
Soil Survey

of T y p e of
Reports.

Farm

(Fruit)

and

Use of Soil Survey Report
Type of Farm
(fruit)

Number

Percent

No

134

68.0

48

24.4

182

92.4

13

6.6

2

1.0

15

7.6

147

74.6

50

25.4

197

100.0

Yes

TOTAL

x 2 - .6509

No

d.f. * 1

Yes
Number Percent

Total
Number Percent

Significance - .419

Number of missing observations -■ 4

TABLE

F-8.

Number
U s e of

and Percent
Soil Sur ve y

of T y p e of
Reports.

Farm

(Others)

ai

Use of Soil Survey Report
Type of Farm
(others)

No
Yes

TOTAL

x 2 ■ .465

No
Number Percent

Number

Yes
Percent

Total
Number Percent

128

65.0

46

23.4

174

88.3

19

9.6

4

2.0

23

11.7

147

74.6

50

25.4

197

100.0

d.f. = 1

Significance ■ .495

Number of missing observations * 4

APPENDIX

TABLES

WITH

RESPONDENTS

NUMBER

FOR

EACH

USEFULNESS

OF

G

AND

PERCENT

TYPE

OF

FARM

FARM

PLAN.

OF
AND

143
TABLE

G -l .

N u m b e r a n d P e r c e n t of U s e f u l n e s s
a n d T y p e of F a r m ( C a s h C r o p ) .

of

the

Farm

Plan

Type of Farm
Usefulness of
the Farm Plan
(cash crop)

No
Number

Percent

Yes
Number Percent

Total
Number Percent

Great

9

17.3

9

17.3

18

34.6

Medium

7

13.5

20

38.5

27

51.9

Little

2

3.8

4

7.7

6

11.5

None

0

0.0

1

1.9

1

1.9

18

34.6

34

65.4

52

100.0

TOTAL

X 2 ■ 3-316

d.f. - 3

Significance ~ .34

Cramer's V » ..25256

TABLE

G-2.

N u m b e r a n d P e r c e n t of U s e f u l n e s s
a n d T y p e of F a r m ( S w i n e ) •

of

the

Farm

P

Type of Farm
Usefulness of
the Farm Plan
(swine)

No
Number

Percent

Yes
Number Percent

Total
Number Percent

Great

17

32.7

1

1.9

18

34.6

Medium

26

50.0

1

1.9

27

51.9

Little

5

9.6

1

1.9

6

11.5

None

1

1.9

0

0

1

1.9

TOTAL

49

94.2

3

5.8

52

100.0

x 2 - 1.585

d.f. = 3

Cramer's V = .17460

Significance = .66

144

TABLE

G-3.

N u m b e r a n d P e r c e n t of U s e f u l n e s s
a n d T y p e of F a r m ( B e e f ) .

of

t he

Farm

Plan

Type of Farm
Usefulness of
the Farm Plan
(beef)

No
Number

Percent

Yes
Number Percent

Total
Number Percent

Great

13

25.0

5

9.6

18

34.6

Medium

24

46.2

3

5.8

27

51.9

Little

5

9.6

1

1.9

6

11.5

None

1

1.9

0

0

1

1.9

TOTAL

43

82.7

9

52

100.0

X 2 ■ 2-314

d.f. - 3

17.3

Significance =* .5

Cramer's V ■ .,21095

TABLE

G-4.

N u m b e r a n d P e r c e n t of U s e f u l n e s s
a n d T y p e of F a r m ( D a i r y ) .

of

the

Farm

P

Type of Farm
Usefulness of
the Farm Plan
(dairy)

No

Yes
Number Percent

Total
Number Percent

Number

Percent

Great

14

26.9

4

7.7

18

34.6

Medium

23

44.2

4

7.7

27

51.9

Little

6

11.5

0

0

6

11.5

None

1

1.9

0

0

1

1.9

44

84.6

8

15.4

52

100.0

TOTAL

x 2 - 1.925

d.f. = 3

Cramer's V = .19245

Significance = .58

TABLE

0-5.

N u m b e r a n d P e r c e n t of U s e f u l n e s s
a n d T y p e of F a r m ( P o u l t r y ) .

of

t he

Farm

Plan

Type of Farm
Usefulness of
the Farm Plan
(poultry)

No
Number

Percent

Yes
Number Percent

Total
Number Percent

17

32.7

1

1.9

18

34.6

Medium

25

48.1

2

3.8

27

51.9

Little

5

9.6

1

1.9

6

11.5

None

1

1.9

0

0

1

1.9

TOTAL

48

92.3

4

7.7

52

100.0

x 2 - .882

d.f. * 3

CM

Significance -

00
•

Great

Cramer's V ■ .19245

TABLE

G-6.

N u m b e r a n d P e r c e n t of U s e f u l n e s s of t he
a n d T y p e of F a r m ( G e n e r a l L i v e s t o c k ) .

«

p

£

.

Usefulness of
the Farm Plan
(G.livestock)

No
Number

Percent

Farm

of Farm
Yes
Number Percent

Total
Number Percent

Great

17

32.7

1

1.9

18

34.6

Medium

27

51.9

0

0

27

51.9

Little

6

11.5

0

0

6

11.5

None

1

1.9

0

0

1

1.9

51

98.1

1

1.9

52

100.0

TOTAL

x 2 - 1.925

d.f. = 3

Cramer's V = .19245

P

Significance - .58

146
TABLE

G-7.

N u m b e r a n d P e r c e n t of U s e f u l n e s s
a n d T y p e of F a r m ( F r u i t ) .

of

the

Farm

P

Type of Farm
Usefulness of
the Farm Flan
(fruit)

No
Number

Percent

Yes
Number Percent

Total
Number Percent

Great

14

26.9

4

7.7

18

34.6

Medium

23

44.2

4

7.7

27

51.9

Little

5

9.6

1

1.9

6

11.5

None

1

1.9

0

0

1

1.9

TOTAL

43

82.7

9

17.3

52

100.0

X2 - - « 2

d.f. a 3

Significance ■ .88

Cramer's V ■ .11025

TABLE

G-8.

N u m b e r a n d P e r c e n t of U s e f u l n e s s
a n d T y p e of F a r m ( O t h e r s ) .

of

the

Farm

P

Type of Farm
Usefulness of
the Farm Plan
(others)

No
Number

Percent

Yes
Number Percent

Total
Number Percent

Great

15

28.8

3

5.8

18

34.6

Medium

26

50.0

1

1.9

27

51.9

Little

6

11.5

0

0

6

11.5

None

1

1.9

0

0

1

1.9

TOTAL

47

90.4

5

9.6

52

100.0

x 2 - 2.565

d.f. - 3

Cramer's V = .22210

Significance » .46