xt7fbg2h8g4x https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7fbg2h8g4x/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1954 journals 022 English Lexington : Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Kentucky Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.22 text Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.22 1954 2014 true xt7fbg2h8g4x section xt7fbg2h8g4x Progress Report 22 November 1954 I
* C0mmum°caf1°0n
and {LQ   Of
Recommended Farm PTdCt7•CQS
Some Information from a Study in
Washington County,Kentucky,1950
* §°I`Z` T?>
‘ ‘ 3 iiliiir _:
°*~JZf’.,'£»»—*`°
Acnicuuunm. zxpsnrmzm sunon
umvznsnv or Kzmucxv
Lzxmcrou

 Progress Report.ZZ . l November, 1954
_ COMMUNICATION AND THE ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDED FARM PRACTICES
Some Information From A-Study in Wghington County, Kentucky, 1950 `
By C. Paul Marsh and A. Lee Coleman
Departmentpf Rural Sociology
Increasingthe efficiency ofiagriculture and raising the levels
of living of rural people are important state and national goals that
are shared by rural leaders everywhere. In the typical Kentucky
county there are several organized programs designed to `help attain
these objectives. Workers in these programs recognize that the
I practices and plans they recommend often "take" unequally through-
out the area they serve. But there is a lack of precise information
as to how great the differences in acceptance are, what characteris-
tics of the people are related to these differences in "take, " and
what some of the causes may be. How farmers get information a-
bout new farm matters would seem to be related to their acceptance
or non—acceptance of practices, but information is lacking as to how
many Kentucky farmers use each channel of communication and what
differences there are in the use of the various channels.
In a survey of 393 Washington County farmers in 1950, an
attempt was made to find some of the answers to these questions.
All farm operators in 13 neighborhoods were interviewed. The
neighborhoods were selected to represent the major areas or types
of farming conditions in the county. The study was concentrated
within a single county so that all of the farm operators would have
been "exposed" to the same agricultural agencies, programs, and
agency representives.
Acceptance gf Recommended Practices
For many of the practices recommended by the agricultural
· improvement agencies there is no definite way of determining when
a farmer has "accepted" or "adopted" the practice. For example,
with regard to the bluestone-lime treatment for tobacco beds a
farmer may have (1) never used it, (2.) used it some years but not
in other years, (3) used it consistently year after year, as recom-
mended. But if he builds terraces he is pretty much "committed"
V to farming with them for some time to come. _ _
 
Agricultural Experiment Station
University of Kentucky
Lexington

 - Z -
It is generally agreed, however, that the biggest hurdle
in gaining acceptance of new practices is getting the farmer to make ·
the first trial. Because of this reason, for a number of practices ,
the definition of "adoption" of a practice used in the study was that ·
the farmer had ever tried it. As for some other practices, though,
there seemed to be good reasons for using a stricter definition of
acceptance. The exact definitions used for each practice are listed
brlow, and the figure after each definition gives the percentage who
had met the stated definition (of those having the appropriate enter-
prises).
1. Artificial Breeding: had bred one or more cows
artificially (14 percent).
Z. Farm Records: keeps complete farm records — receipts, A
expenditures, inventory, and production (13 percent).
3. Terracing or Contouring: had any terraces or had ever
cultivated any fields on the contour (20 percent).
4. Ladino Clover: had ever planted any ladino clover (Z5
percent).
5. Kentucky 31 Fescue: had ever planted any Kentucky 31
Fescue (25 percent).
6. Calf Vaccination: had ever vaccinated for Bang's disease
(27 percent).
` 7. Chick Purchase: had purchased all chicks from a hatchery
and from one in Kentucky in the year preceding the inter—
view (57 percent).
8. All—pullet Flock; had kept all-pullet flock in the year pre-
ceding the interview (25 percent).
9. Bluestone-lime: had ever used the bluestone—lime treatment
on tobacco beds (60 percent).
10. Tobacco Fertilization: had used 1, 000 pounds or more of
mixed fertilizer per acre on tobacco in the year preceding
the interview (64 percent).
11. Soil Testingr had ever had any soil tested (23 percent)
12. Phenothiazine Drench: had drenched sheep with phenothia—
zine at least once in the year preceding the interview (60
percent).

 -3-
13. Phenothiazine with salt: had given sheep phenothiazine with A
salt at least part of the time in the year preceding the inter-
view (59 percent).
The purpose of Tables 1-6 is to show the differences among
various groupings of farmers in the extent to which they had adopted
each of the practices. For each group, the percentage of farmers
in the group who had adopted each practice is presented. In Table 1,
for example., the percentage of farmers of different educational levels
who had adopted each practice is presented. For each practice, the
percentages are based on the number of farmers having the enterprise
to which the practice applies.
Thus, 132 farmers who had completed less than 7 grades of school-
ing had dairy cows; and of these, 8 farmers (6 percent) had adopted
artificial breeding. (Table 1) This means, of course, that 124 (94 per-
cent) farmers of this educational level had not adopted this practice.
Similarly, 94 farmers who had finished more than 8 grades had dairy
cows and 28 percent of these 94 farmers had adopted artificial breeding.
(Table 1.)
The keeping of farm records is, of course, a practice that applies
to all farrriers, regardless of which enterprises they follow. As is
indicated in Table 1, however, only 3 percent of the 149 farmers with
less than 7 grades of schooling were following this practice, while 29
1 percent of the 96 farmers with more than 8 grades of schooling had
adopted it.
‘ Table 1 is designed to show the differences in the extent to which
farmers of different educational levels had adopted each of the practices.
Tables 2 to 6 are set up in a similar manner to show the differences
among other groupings of farmers.

 - 4 - I
D0 farmers of different educational levels adopt recommended prac-
Hces Bath-? sigme extent?
Table 1. Percentage of Farmers of Different Educational Levels Who
Had Adopted Certain Recommended Practices*
 
Years of Schooling Completed
Practice Less than 7- 8 More than
7 8
 
% % %
Artificial Breeding 6 13 28
Farm Records 3 13 29
Terracing or Contouring 4 17 48
Ladino Clover 13 23 47
Kentucky 31 Fescue 15 23 42
Calg Vaccination 18 27 43
Chick Purchase 51 53 76
All Pullet Flock 13 27 38
Bluestone—Lime 46 60 82
Tobacco Fertilization 50 68 81
I Soil Testing 11 19 46 .
Phenothiazine Drench 37 63 76
Phenothiazine with Salt 44 54 76
 
*F`OI` each practice, the percentages are based on the number
of farmers having the enterprise to which the practice applies. {See
pages 2-3.)
The better educated a farmer is the more likely he is to adopt
recommended practices. For each practices, the higher the educa-
tional level, the greater the percentage of farmers adopting the prac—
tice.

 Do operators of small farms adopt recommended practices to the
same extent agoperatorspf large farms? — _- i
Table 2. Percentage of Farmers Having Different Gross Sales Who
Had Adopted Certain Recommended Practices*
 
Annual Value of Crops and Products Sold
Practice Under $1, 000- $2, 500- $4, 000
$1,000 · 2,499 3,999 or More
% % % °/B
Artificial Breeding 3 7 21 33
Farm Records 1 10 17 27
 · Terracing or Contouring 2 6 41 46
Ladino Clover 9 16 36 56
Kentucky 31 Fescue 12 16 33 55
Calf Vaccination 16 20 6 38 48
Chick Purchase 42 53 64 76
Pullet Flock 11 22 42 28
Bluestone-Lime 35 56 78 76
Tobacco Fertilization 55 58 75 76
Soil Testing 9 14 35 48
Phenothiazine Drench ** 41 76 78
T Phenothiazine with Salt ** 39 71 75
*For each practice, the percentages are based on the number
of farmers having the enterprise to which the practice applies. (See
pages 2-3.) “
**Percentage not presented since practice applies to less than
35 farmers in this group.
The larger the farm operation (as indicated by value of crops
and products sold) the more likely the farm operator is to adopt rec-
ommended practices. For all practices studied, the percentage of
farmers adopting the practice increased as the value of crops and
products sold increased.

 - 6 -
Do more of the farmers who have personal contact with agri- 1
c-ultural a:&rE_y representa-Eve;-adopt practices than- farmers vihg _
dg rg; have @1 personal contact ?
Table 3. Percentage of Farmers Who Had Adopted Certain Reccom-
mended Practices, Classified According to Whether or Not
They Had Talked with an Agricultural Agency Representative ·
in the Two Years Preceding the Interview*
Contact With ·
Agricultural Agency Representatives**
Prccticc Had Not Had
TalkedeWith Talked, With
Representative
 
% %
Artificial Breeding 2 22
Farm Records 5 19
Terracing or Contouring 2 33
Ladino Clover 10 37
Kentucky 31 Fescue 14 34
Calf Vaccination 17 35
Chick Purchase 47 as
Pullet Flock 16 31
Bluestone—Lime 44 72
Tobacco Fertilization 54 72
Soil Testing 23 33
Phenothiazine Drench 45 66
Phenothiazine with Salt 40 67
 
*F`or each practice, the percentages are based on the number
of farmers having the enterprise to which the practice applies. (See
pages 2-3. )
**County Agent, Soil Conservation Service Technician, Farmer's
Home Administration Representative, or Production Credit Association
Representative.
As was expected, more of the farmers who had talked with repre-
sentatives of the agricultural agencies had adopted recommended prac-
tices than had those who had not experienced this contact. This was
true for all practices.

 - 7 -
A Are Farm Bureau members ahead in the adoption of recommended
practices? .— —_ _
Table 4. Percentage of Farmers Who Had Adopted Certain
Recommended Practices, Classified According
“ to the Extent of their Participation in the Farm
Bureau*
 
Extent of Participation C
Practice in the Farm Bureau
A Not a Member, Does Member and
Member Not Attend Attends
70 0/0 (70
Artificial Breeding 5 15 33
Farm Records 7 10 52
Terracing or Contouring 3 25 48
Ladino Clover 13 30 48
Kentucky 31 Fescue 17 27 40
Calf Vaccination 19 32 38
Chick Purchase 45 59 86
Pullet Flock 14 27 46
Bluestone Lime 41 63 88
Tobacco Fertilization 52 68 85
Soil Testing 11 25 49
Phenothiazine Drench 45 62 72
Phenothiazine with Salt 40 61 78
*For each practice the percentages are based on the number
of farmers having the enterprise to which the practice appliesn (See
pages 2-3.)
In general, the more active a farmer is in the Farm Bureau
the more likely he is to adopt recommended practices. Among the
farmers interviewed, those who were active members of the Farm
Bureau were far ahead of other farmers in the adoption of all prac-
tices.
(The Farm Bureau was the only active farm organization in
the county at the time of the interviewing).

 - 8 -
Pin more oigie younger farmers adopt recommended practices tllaii —
_o£th_e older farmers?
Table 5. Percentage of Farmers of Different Ages Who Had
Adopted Certain Recommended Practices*
 
Age
Practice Under 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 or
35 Over ` 1
% % % % %
Artificial Breeding 23 14 15 3 9
Farm Records 35 8 7 6 5
Terracing or Contouring 36 27 14 8 6
Ladino Clover 27 35 19 16 27
Kentucky 31 Fescue 27 29 20 22 25
Calf Vaccination 28 38 20 19 29
Chick Purchase 59 57 65 40 63
All Pullet Flock 36 25 29 15 12
Bluestone Lime 65 61 54 58 61
Tobacco Fertilization 72 81 53 58 46
Soil Testing 29 23 22 27 14
Phenothiazine Drench ** 71 47 ** **
Phenothiazine with Salt ** 44 53 ** **
 
*For each practice, the percentages are based on the number of
farmers having the enterprise to which the practice applies. (See pages
2-3.)
**Percentage not presented since the practice applies to fewer
than 35 farmers in this group., A
The relationship between age and adoption of recommended prac-
tices is not at all c1ear—cut. Relatively more of the younger farmers
had adopted artificial breeding, farm records, and terracing or con-
touring, but for most practices there appears to be little relationship
between adoption and age. The relatively high proportion of farmers
under 35 who were keeping complete records can be partly explained by
their participation in the Veterans On—the—farm Training Programu

 - 9 -
Do Recommended farm practices "take" at the same rate in all
areas clfma county? —_ —_ ___ -1 -3
Table 6. Percentage of Farmers Who Had Adopted Certain Rec-
ommended Practices, Classified According to the
Type of Neighborhood in which they lived*
Type of Neighborhood
Practice "Low "l\/ledium "High
Adoption" Adoption" Adoption"
Neighborhoods Neighborhoods Neighborhoods
(70 (70 (70
Artificial Breeding 3 14 31
Farm Records 7 14 20
Terracing or Contouring 1 17 53
Ladino Clover 9 25 52
Kentucky 31 Fescue 17 21 43
Calf Vaccination 13 33 43
Chick Purchase 42 68 80
Pullet Flock 12 32 35
Bluestone Lime 41 70 76
Tobacco Fertilization 51 67 80
Soil Testing 10 25 42
Phenothiazine Drench 36 68 73
Phenothiazine with Salt 34 63 76
*For each practice, the percentages are based on the number of
farmers having the enterprise to which the practice applies. (See pages
2-3. )
Extension workers have long recognized that recommendations
"take" more quickly and more completely in some communities than
in others, as is clearly the case here. Farmers in certain. neighbor-
hoods were so consistently high in adoption of practices and farmers
in other neighborhoods so consistently low that it was possible to group
the neighborhoods as "low, " "medium, " and "high" in adoption!.
The neighborhoods that were low in adoption were located in the
hill section of the county. The farms were small, the educational level

 - 11 -
Contact with Channels of Communication
Each of the farm operators interviewed was asked the ques-
tions listed below. After each question is given the percentage of
all farmers who reported contact with that channel.
1. During the past Z years, have you read any farm
papers or magazines? (77 percent)
2. Do you read any newspapers? Do you get farming informa-
tion, ideas, or help of any kind from the newspapers you
read? (Only a Hyeg," answer to the second of these questions
3 was counted as a "contact".) (67 percent)
3. During the past 2. years, have you listened to any farm
programs on the radio? (86 percent) .
4. During the past 2 years, have you attended any farm
meetings of the county agent, Soil Conservation Service,
AAA, agriculture teachers, or other agricultural agencies?
(33 percent)
5. During the past Z years, have you talked personally to
any of the representatives of the agricultural agencies
such as the county agent, Soil Conservation man, Farmers
Home (Farm Security) man, Production Credit man, etc.
about farming problems, to get their advice and suggestions?
(56 percent)
6. During the past Z years, have you read any of the letters
which the County Agent sends out from tiem to time, which
include advice and suggestions about various farming matters?
(76 percent)
7. During the past Z years, have you read or referred to any
of the farm bulletins put out by agricultural agencies, Ex-
periment Station, or federal government? (46 percent)
8. During the past 2 years, have you gotten. any farming infor-
mation, advice or suggestions from salemen, dealers,
storekeepers, bankers, businessmen or co—ops? (33 percent)
9. During the past Z years, have you gotten any farming infor-
mation, advice, or suggestions from neighbors, friends or
relatives or by watching how they farm or new things they
are trying? (88 percent)

 - 12 -
These questions were obviously designed to determine only _
if there was any contact at all with the various means of communi-
cation. Except for newspapers, "contact" refers to any contact at
all for a Z-year period——or, more accurately, any contact that
made enough of an impression to be remembered, This should be
kept in mind when interpreting Tables 7, 9, and 11, Obviously, the
frequency and type of contact varied widely among those reporting
this minimum of contact.
Tables 7, 9, andll are designed to show the differences a-
mong different groupings of farmers in the extent to which they had
obtained farming information from various channels of information.,
For example, as is shown in Table 7, 79 percent of the 149 farmers `
with less than 7 grades of schooling said they had listened to farm
programs on the radio, while 88 percent of the 96 with more than
8 grades of schooling had listened to such programs, However,
only 36 percent of the farmers with less than a seventh grade edu-
cation had talked personally with an agricultural agency represen-
tative as compared with 85 percent of those with more than 8 grades
of schooling, 4
Though little information was obtained as to how frequently
farm operators were in contact with the various channels of infor-
mation, the following question was asked in an attempt to determine
which of the media each respondent regarded as most important to
him personally; _.
"Of all the ways of getting information we have talked about--
farm papers, newspapers, radio, farm meetings, talking to
the agricultural agency people, talking to dealers, and talking
to friends, neighbors, and relatives--from what one or two
sources do you usually get the most helpful information? "
Tables 8, 10, and 12 are based on the answers to that ques-
tion. They are designed to show differences among the various group-
ings of farmers in the channels of information they consider most
helpful. Thus, as may be seen in Table 8, 41 percent of the farmers
with less than 7 grades of schooling reported radio as among the one
or two channels they found most helpful; but only 18 percent of those
with more than an eighth grade education considered radio a most
helpful channel. On the other hand, only ll percent of th.e farmers
w th less than 7 grades of schooling reported personal conversation
with agricultural agency representatives as a most helpful channel
as compared with 35 percent of those with more than 8 grades of
schooling,

 - 13 -
Do farmers of different educational levels get farming informa-
. E—p_nin&e_s;;1eways? ———-—-_`¤—¤—_¤
Table 7, Percentage of Farmers of Different Educational Levels
Reporting Use of Various Channels for Farming
Information
 
Years of Schooling Completed
Less than 7-8 More than
— Channel of Communication 7 8
(N= 149) (N :147) (N = 96)
_ % % %
Radio 79 91 88
Farm Magazines 71 86 94
Newspapers 49 73 86
Agricultural Agency Representatives 36 60 85
Farm Meetings 13 34 64
Farm Bulletins 26 43 83
Circular Letters from County Agent 63 82 88
Friends, Neighbors, or Relatives 84 89 94
Dealers and Salesmen 30 33 38
N : Number of farmers in each group.
The more education a farmer had, the more likely he had
used each of the channels of communication. A s the amount of ed-
ucation increased, the percentage of farmers who reported attend-
ing meetings, reading farm bulletins, and talking with agricultural
agency representatives increased sharply. With increased education
there was also a definite increase in the percentage of farmers read-
ing farm magazines, circular letters from the county agent, and
newspapers.
Most farmers of all educational levels got farming informa-
tion from "friends, relatives, or neighbors, " and listened to farm
programs on the radio, so that the differences between groups were
small. Relatively few reported getting information from dealers or
salesmen, and here also the differences between educational levels
were small.

 - 14 -
Do farmers of different educational levels consider the same 6
channels of information the most helpful?
Table 8.. Percentage of Farmers of Different Educational Levels
Reporting Various Channels as Among Those From
Which They Get the Most Helpful Information
 
Years of Schooling Completed
Channel of Communication Lass Than More Thah
7 7 — 8 8 1
(N = 149) (N.-: 147) (N = 96)
% % % ·‘
Radio 41 37 18
Farm Magazines 8 17 2.7
Newspapers 6 Z 5
Agricultural Agency Representatives ll 2.3 35
Farm Meetings 1 5 18
Farm Bulletins 5 5 4
Circular Letters from County Agent 1 6 13
Friends, Neighbors, or Relatives 37 27 21
Dealers and Salesmen 3 Z l
None Helpful 5 1 O
 
N :•. Number of farmers in each group.
The less education a farm operator has, the more likely he is
to consider "friends, neighbors, or relatives" and radio programs as
being the most helpful means of obtaining farm information, and the
less likely he is to report personal contact with agricultural agency
representatives, farm magazines, and meetings as channels of the
most helpful information.
The percentage of farmers regarding farm magazines, agri- l
cultural agency representatives, and farm meetings as channels of
most helpful information increased sharply as education increased
while the percentage listing "friends, iieighbors, or relatives"and
radio decreased with increasing education., Even among the better
educated farmers, however, radio and "friends, neighbors, or re-
latives" were among the channels most often listed as most helpful.
Newspapers, farm bulletins, and dealers and salesmen are reported
as being the most helpful sources of information by relatively few of
the farm operators

 - gy; -
Do operators of small farms got farming imfoxmation in this same
’ Fzgys as opomallozss of   mk Q mm ‘
4 Tabls 9., Percontago of Farmers Having Di.ff&crsmt Gross Salas Who
Reported Uso of Various Chsxmols for Fazfming
lnformation
Ao;;;.al Value of C;‘o;;»s api. Pri·;·cl.,.»its Sold
Channel of Commw1n~ Utndozs gil.,   our
ication $1, OOG   @@9 3p 999 Moro
{N=7:E7l iN =>l£>é) {N$8l) {N =é4)
""""""`i"`“"`"""°”`i""” "`""`i•7T”`""°`°”`?/5"`"w“?7(7"””"i"“"`?*i’lT"""`
Radio 84% 82 90 9l
Farm Magazirios 62; 83 9}. 9*3
Nswspaporrs 47 ol 80 88
Agric ulfuzéal Agegnoiq R~sp;;*s—v
s az n·?.a’ai.vo s 2 Y   81 8 8
Farm Mooi:.;i.mgs 9 2%%   64
Farm Bul"lo‘€;i.iv.s ¢ZG Bb lofi 'T8
Circular Lott/ars from Couzzfy
Agotoi '55   93 (Pi
Friends, Noighboxrs, or Rolo —·
tives 88 90 85 Q4;
Dcalrawcs orc Salosrmsn Z3 33 58 48
N =: Numlzexzza of   rms :1 s av. awa: li group.
Thee gwsai rnajoti‘a.3r of all lYa;·*iir1¤»:Ys; ._~w=ga.:idl.#-ss oi szze;
of operation (as 1·z:.»:l.7c;at;a:3. bv valus of crops ono. p;~·oduc‘Es  
said they go?. famsrniizig i·;¤f<>:rm2.1écm. from * t1l<%.gh”oo2sex. frric   ow
r=%la1;iv<:s" and lisi»¤:m;d ko farm programs on ’rl;¤ raclio. Fo.: olihzzr
chanmxls, Tha. larger   any oi op~rf’ic>r.·. fha largsz cl by  ul*’ur; al apr r.=ii<¢ is. lo shox?.
ag2riculi,u1··al agsnciso  m lo lss. .>·~ea